Dave:David Henderson said:Correction should have said 6.5 Million not 605 mil
Upon later clearer pictures it is clear it is solid sawn lumber--way rotted and crumbly for that new of a building.Frank said:Blowing up some of the below pics it appears that the balcony was constructed of cantilevered I Joists with waferboard webs. .
" 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:\ said: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
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.\ said: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
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.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.”
Looks the the fine citizens of The People's Republic of Berkeley are blaming the inspectors.[*]
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
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.conarb said:As you can see from the comments building inspectors are developing a huge image problem in the eyes of the public.
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.MASSDRIVER said: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.
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.Mark K said: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.
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.cda said: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?
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.Mark K said:When you do not report the failed inspections it gives a false sense of the underlying quality of the construction.