another deck failure

[Sifu]

That number might be going up, way up.

 

[mark handler]

 

[steveray]

Those aren't I-joist....(Big sigh of relief from the eng lumber people)

 

[David Henderson]

Correction should have said 6.5 Million not 605 mil

 

[conarb]

Correction should have said 6.5 Million not 605 mil

Dave:

Have you gone by or talked to any Berkeley inspectors?

 

[David Henderson]

Not yet want to let the hype settle down, and get a better thought from them. Next week probably.

 

[conarb]

Dave:

I read that residents were complaining of water leaks all over the building, roof and walls, it appears that the stucco is an EIFS finish coat over a cement backer board. Yesterday I visited with a superintendent who is using a similar system here, what he's doing is DensGlass (fireproofing),R-Guard (waterproofing), cement backerboard, and EIFS finish coat, he has discussed it with other superintendents and they think the R-Guard waterproofing was left out, they also wonder how the DensGlass is not visible, how did they get their fire rating in downtown Berkeley? Some questions you might want to discuss with them when you do talk to them. For others here Dave's Albany is intertwined with Berkeley, hard to tell where one stops and the other starts, especially Solano Avenue.

 

[Frank]

Blowing up some of the below pics it appears that the balcony was constructed of cantilevered I Joists with waferboard webs. .

Upon later clearer pictures it is clear it is solid sawn lumber--way rotted and crumbly for that new of a building.

 

[mark handler]

Another thing missing: Joist bay ventilation.

 

[conarb]

From the first pictures I saw of the structure I said the deterioration of the joists didn't appear to be sawn lumber, I've seen lots of sawn lumber rot but have never seen it shred like this, I said I suspected PSLs, I've seen all kinds of failures with those, the most notable in the press was Seahaus in San Diego, where PSLs failed in an entire million dollar plus condo development.

I have no idea why our local paper is having the project reviewed by a Texas engineering firm, but today I read this:

Childress Engineering Services structural engineer Kevin Liu reviewed the designs and photos, and said the structural design of the wood beams and joists met building codes then in effect. He said the deck’s two major cantilever beams —1-3 ⁄ 4- inch by 11-7 ⁄ 8- inch each, at each side of the balcony — appeared to fail, “and then the rest of the joists and beams went down with it.”Based on the designs, Liu said it was a typically designed cantilever balcony with a common framing structure.

“I can’t tell from the pictures if the designs were followed through,” he said. “An on-site structural evaluation is required for a further investigation.”

A record of city inspections of the building as it went up make no direct references to balconies or weatherproofing. The city spokesman said inspections of the balcony “would have happened at various times,” such as when lathing was installed, and it would have been part of a final inspection as well, but would not necessarily be described in the record the city released.

Documents show that city inspectors were sometimes frustrated and found much that needed to be corrected as the building rose. “I tried to do (an) inspection but (found too) many corrections. I gave up and told them to do a walk-through,” an unnamed inspector wrote. Another entry says that an inspection of the building’s plumbing was “a waste of time” because “nothing passed.”

On Thursday, the city said it was still finishing its investigation into the collapse, but it had ordered the removal of the lower balcony for structural reasons as well, and experts said that structure also suffered from water infiltration based on photos. ¹

" He said the deck’s two major cantilever beams —1-3 ⁄ 4- inch by 11-7 ⁄ 8- inch each, at each side of the balcony", 1-3/4 x 11-7/8" are not sawn lumber sizes but are LSL and LVL sizes:

1.55E TimberStrand® LSL sizes:Widths: 1¾" and 3½"

Depths: 9¼", 9½", 11¼", 117⁄8", 14", and 16"

2.0E Microllam® LVL header and beam sizes:

Width: 1¾"

Depths: 5½", 7¼", 9¼", 9½", 11¼", 117⁄8", 14", 16", 18", and 20" ²

I have personally never seen LVL failures, but I've seen PSLs fail on the jobsite before they are even installed from just atmospheric moisture. I have turned down projects with those things, I refuse to even give a price if I see them telling the owners to have the engineer replaced them with real wood.

This in no way detracts from the primary problem, water intrusion, but real wood wouldn't have failed that way and the kids would be alive.

¹ http://contracostatimes.ca.newsmemory.com/?token=tGQIuNt0dBw8TKl4qtAotrk5%2brJC3h4U&siteCode=CCT&product=eEditionCCT

² http://www.woodbywy.com/trus-joist/microllam-lvl-headers/

 

[ICE]

Documents show that city inspectors were sometimes frustrated and found much that needed to be corrected as the building rose. “I tried to do (an) inspection but (found too) many corrections. I gave up and told them to do a walk-through,” an unnamed inspector wrote. Another entry says that an inspection of the building’s plumbing was “a waste of time” because “nothing passed.”

This is strange. First of all is that the inspector found too many corrections and gave up. Then he put that in writing. And then they saved it for posterity. Another entry says that an inspection was a waste of time because nothing passed.

I don't know about you guys but I don't make notes on documents that will be retained and I toss out correction notices as soon as the job passes the final inspection. The inspector that gave up must be lazy. I have stopped inspections because of a lack of time but I go back the next day and pick up where I left off. "Too many corrections"?....somebody please turn me loose.

 

[Mark K]

2012 IBC Section 1704.2.4 makes it clear that special inspectors should keep a record of the failed inspections. I would expect that the building departments inspector would be expected to follow similar practices. It is these inspection records that the plaintiffs will use to show that the contractor had quality problems which will make it easier to hold them liable for any problems with the quality of the work.

 

[conarb]

Here are some architectural details of the deck attachment, I'd reall like to find the structural drawings to see if those are LVLs that shredded and snapped.

Some interesting comments from a Berkeley paper:

• 
  
  
  
  
  

[*]



Jane Hamber • 2 days ago How complicated would it have been for the management company and the Berkeley inspectors to notice that there were apparently missing flashings, (wall abutment and

fenestration flashing at the door sill, or what is called a pan) which apparently caused the wood

to rot? Seeing the many dangerous potholes and the perilous nature of many Berkeley streets, one might have a hard time trusting the competence of the city of Berkeley when it comes to safety.

[*] 1

[*]•

[*] Reply

[*]•

[*]Share ›

[*]

[*]



Abigail S • 2 days ago On the topic of Berkeley inspectors, my one experience a couple years ago was an inspection for a newly installed tankless water heater in my home. The inspector needed the instruction manual, which was fine. He spent a VERY long time reading it, scratching his head, etc., etc., and in the end required a few minor but annoying changes, such as adjusting the distance between the exhaust pipe and the ceiling by half an inch, etc. But THEN, a year later when I hired a plumber to come for something else, the tankless caught his eye and he said: "Whoa, did you know the intake and the outtake pipes on here are switched and the carbon monoxide has been going inside your house?" WHAT?!? Then I discovered that the overflow pipe had never been directed all the way outside, and instead had stopped short in a storage room where I store family art ... half of it ruined. Mea culpa for not checking, I know! I made the mistake of trusting the inspector. When I called the City to calmly explain what had happened, the supervisor just said: "Well, whaddya want me to do about it?" Ugh. Point being that after that experience I have NO faith in Berkeley's expensive inspection process. Though I hope, and assume, there are some excellent inspectors on staff. But that's a leap of faith from my standpoint, especially after this tragic incident.

[*] 2

[*]•

[*] Reply

[*]•

[*]Share ›

[*]

• 
  Sebastian Urbas Abigail S • 21 hours ago In the context to the balcony collapse I constantly read something about inspectors. I am not sure, but I think inspectors aren't that common here in Germany. At least not for the installation of a tankless water heater. A plumber with a successful completed 3 year vocational training in this field is allowed to install such a device. There is no need for an inspection by an inspector.
  
• •
  
• Reply
  
• •
  
• Share ›
  
• 
  
  Guest42 Abigail S • 2 days ago That's interesting because I had a similar "awakening" during the inspection of a tankless water heater installation. I can't remember how much the inspection cost but it was real money. More than five dollars. But the "inspector" who showed up literally spent fifteen seconds looking at the heater unit, while I stood there watching him "inspect." Then he signed off.¹
  

Looks the the fine citizens of The People's Republic of Berkeley are blaming the inspectors.

¹ http://contracostatimes.ca.newsmemory.com/?token=tGQIuNt0dBw8TKl4qtAotrk5%2brJC3h4U&siteCode=CCT&product=eEditionCCT

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Well, they are not built to the detail. The LVL's are there. They are are the perimeter cantilever. The other joists are wood. They were not supposed to penetrate the floor past the wall, in other words, they were not part of the cantilever system. That is evident from the blocking detail.

Our more astute members will notice a blatant omission. Guess what was never there?

.

.

.

The cement deck. It was never poured, at least not that I can tell. There is no stain on the bituthene.

So it leaked, then cracked and the deck folded flat against the wall. Its hanging there vertically. Then the balcony rail came loose and flopped upside down on top of the balcony below it.

I think the deck never got installed. Maybe wrong.

Brent.

 

[conarb]

What I'd like to know is the code section for ventilation in that deck, I don't know that there is one, I've always run soffit vents under decks like this but don't recall a code requirement. This was permitted under the 1998 CBC which was based upon the 1997 UBC, in the current codes are there ventilation requirements for sealed joist spaces like this? Ventilation requirements are for subfloors and attics but other sealed-up areas? I think where ventilation fell through the cracks here is that lathers have always installed it as part of their trade, this is not real stucco so there were no lathers on the project.

Code requirements are important here as opposed to good building practices over and above code, this project was required to have mixed use and affordable housing requirements, both huge losers from an income/investment standpoint so any and all corners have to be cut than can be cut to even make the project feasible. In the court proceedings I think good building practices are going to become irrelevant and liability will be based upon strict code compliance on the parts of the architect and engineers and plan and spec compliance on the part of the contractor.

As you can see from the comments building inspectors are developing a huge image problem in the eyes of the public.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Just running a soffit vent does nothing. it has to vent somewhere, and have airflow. I have spent the past year tearing out just this sort of thing, and vent or no vent, if you can't get the air moving it makes no difference.

Brent.

 

[ICE]

As you can see from the comments building inspectors are developing a huge image problem in the eyes of the public.

When I started doing the job of building inspector.....we were treated differently than we are treated today. It's not like we were revered which is the polar opposite of what we get now. There was a time when I could trust in people to do the right thing most of the time. Now I expect them to lie, cheat and steal.

There are reasons for this.

An obvious reason for this decline is that the level of expertise on both sides of the counter has plummeted. In too many instances there's a moron insulting an idiot.

 

[conarb]

Just running a soffit vent does nothing. it has to vent somewhere, and have airflow. I have spent the past year tearing out just this sort of thing, and vent or no vent, if you can't get the air moving it makes no difference. Brent.

Much of what you are seeing is due to this irrational sealing for energy efficiency, that's not really the case here since the deck is outside the building envelope, in a building with funds available I would ring all 4 sides with soffit vents, this can get expensive when fire-dampened vents are required, when building affordable housing the architect should just leave all joists open and exposed so sealing becomes a non-issue.

 

[ICE]

2012 IBC Section 1704.2.4 makes it clear that special inspectors should keep a record of the failed inspections. I would expect that the building departments inspector would be expected to follow similar practices. It is these inspection records that the plaintiffs will use to show that the contractor had quality problems which will make it easier to hold them liable for any problems with the quality of the work.

Building departments are under no obligation to retain a record of failed inspections. As far as special inspectors are concerned, I would think that they keep a record of all inspections, not just failed inspections.

Oh and the plaintiffs, well their lawyers and experts can make anything say whatever they want. To think that an inspector's opinion means a whole lot in court is wrong.

 

[cda]

Huh???

Destroying public documents???

104.7 Department records. The building official shall keep official records of applications received, permits and certificates issued, fees collected, reports of inspections, and notices and orders issued. Such records shall be retained in the official records for the period required for retention of public records.

Does not say pass or fail?

 

[ICE]

Huh???Destroying public documents???

104.7 Department records. The building official shall keep official records of applications received, permits and certificates issued, fees collected, reports of inspections, and notices and orders issued. Such records shall be retained in the official records for the period required for retention of public records.

Does not say pass or fail?

We do not have that in our code. After ninety days we are down to a permit for residential and plans and permit for commercial. All of the inspection notices are tossed whenever the inspector decides to toss them.

We have so many properties that the logistics would get in the way of saving all that paper.

Our policy is to not make statements that characterize the work. We also refrain from making notes on permits. Stuff like "mean dog", "mean owner", "too many corrections" "the inspection was a waste of time" have no relavence and should not be on a public document.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Number of corrections or failures are no indication of quality. All that is happening is that you are meeting a standard. You can either meet it on the first try, or on the twelfth. The only thing of concern is that it was met, and the building dept. says the final product is copasetic. In the eyes of codes and standards, attempts have no bearing on quality, just the final result.

It may cost the contractor in time and reinspection fees, but that's his problem.

Brent.

 

[Mark K]

The department should have a policy on retention of records. This is not an issue that should be left to the inspectors.

Section 104.7 is in the California Building Code thus applicable to all jurisdictions in the state. In any case it is a reflection of state law that applies in any case.

The City of Berkeley obviously does not find it a burden to retain the records for the life of the building. Why would this be different for a jurisdiction in southern California?

Massdriver makes a point that few appreciate. The point is that the building code inspection are acceptance criteria which are not necessarily an indication of quality of the building. When you do not report the failed inspections it gives a false sense of the underlying quality of the construction.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

When you do not report the failed inspections it gives a false sense of the underlying quality of the construction.

Well, don't misunderstand my point What I'm saying is that once you pass inspection, legally and technically, that quality of work is equal. To take correction notices and determine quality of work is innuendo. The ONLY thing that is important is that the inspection, either immediately or eventually, has passed.

Otherwise you are quite literally setting subjective standards, and implying that eventually passing is not as good as immediately passing.

In a legal setting, if an attorney attempted to tie up a quality standard to correction notices, that would be the strategy I attacked with. The authorities have established this standard, and I complied. See, right here? that's the inspector's signature. Yessir.

Brent.