Hope the thread title did not confuse anyone
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
catastrophic failure during erection
- Thread starter JPohling
- Start date
Hope the thread title did not confuse anyone
steveray
SAWHORSE
Maybe?
1705.2.4 Cold-Formed Steel Trusses
Where a cold-formed steel truss has an overall height of 60 inches (1,524 mm) or greater, the special inspector shall verify that the permanent individual truss member restraint/bracing is installed in accordance with the approved truss submittal package. Where a cold-formed steel truss clear span is 60 feet (18 288 mm) or greater, the special inspector shall verify that the temporary installation restraint/bracing and the permanent individual truss member restraint/bracing are installed in accordance with the approved truss submittal package.
ICE
Oh Well
Apparently it fell down. And you Sir, are the only person here that would ask such a lame question.
The building code only contemplates a completed structure. The building department is not charged with the enforcement of OSHA standards. This is a forum focused on building codes.
The building code does not guarantee that a code compliant building will not fail. The earthquake provisions in the code contemplate an earthquake of a certain magnitude. Similarly the provisions related to wind loading are based on expected wind loads. If either an earthquake or wind in excess of these expectations were to occur we would not be surprised if a code compliant building were to fail. A close reading of the commentaries of the standards referenced in the building code will support this reality.
The code provisions for temporary braces of steel trusses do not contemplate that they will prevent the building under construction from failing during a major earthquake or an extreme wind.
I understand that we are not talking about extreme earthquakes or wind here but the point is that the building code does not contemplate all eventualities.
Until we understand why the building failed it is difficult to know how the failure could have been prevented.
The building code does not guarantee that a code compliant building will not fail. The earthquake provisions in the code contemplate an earthquake of a certain magnitude. Similarly the provisions related to wind loading are based on expected wind loads. If either an earthquake or wind in excess of these expectations were to occur we would not be surprised if a code compliant building were to fail. A close reading of the commentaries of the standards referenced in the building code will support this reality.
The code provisions for temporary braces of steel trusses do not contemplate that they will prevent the building under construction from failing during a major earthquake or an extreme wind.
I understand that we are not talking about extreme earthquakes or wind here but the point is that the building code does not contemplate all eventualities.
Until we understand why the building failed it is difficult to know how the failure could have been prevented.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
They were around what she described as a crane folded in half and a building collapsed into the shape of an 'M.'
steveray
SAWHORSE
That is what I picked up on.....Crane operators used to be like airplane engineers and mechanics...Oh wait...Maybe they still are...
klarenbeek
Silver Member
"When he looked up, he saw a hangar as tall as 3 ½ to 4 stories tall collapsing in on itself and part of the crane on top."
I'm guessing the building wasn't designed to take the impact of a crane landing on it?
I'm guessing the building wasn't designed to take the impact of a crane landing on it?
ICE
Oh Well
I used to ride the headache ball to reach a perch where I could see the operator and the load. I still remember the hand signals.
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
The article says twice that the cause of the collapse has not been determined. The two most likely causes -- collapse of the crane onto the roof structure, or inadequate temporary bracing of roof trusses during construction -- are both outside the purview of the building code. So Mark was entirely correct in asking "So what is the building code issue?"
ICE
Oh Well
He is often correct when he rains on the parade. So what? That doesn’t make him any less cynical.
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
Building codes reflect a number of compromises:
There is a desire to protect the public but at the same time codes want to be sensitive to the cost of construction and thus the availability of housing
The public will only tolerate so much regulation.
Except in limited situations existing buildings are not required to comply with new building code requirements.
There is a desire to protect the public but at the same time codes want to be sensitive to the cost of construction and thus the availability of housing
The public will only tolerate so much regulation.
Except in limited situations existing buildings are not required to comply with new building code requirements.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Federal law in Canada places the responsibility for workplace safety on everyone. Where building officials are a safety focused regulator, they can be viewed to have an increased due diligence requirement to report unsafe work practices that they encounter.
Just because building inspectors are not empowered to enforce workplace health and safety requirements, does not necessarily make them immune from turning a blind eye towards these violations.
Just because building inspectors are not empowered to enforce workplace health and safety requirements, does not necessarily make them immune from turning a blind eye towards these violations.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Not necessarily....per my post#3 and:
2211.1.3.2 Trusses Spanning 60 Feet or Greater
The owner, the owner's authorized agent or the contractor shall contract with a qualified registered design professional for the design of the temporary installation restraint/bracing and the permanent individual truss member restraint/bracing for trusses with clear spans 60 feet (18 288 mm) or greater. Special inspection of trusses over 60 feet (18 288 mm) in length shall be in accordance with Section 1705.2.
If it's not the crane, it's the engineers fault....
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
Not in IBC 2021. That's a state-added amendment.
Yes it is; well very similar anyways. Appears to be minor changes.
2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) | ICC DIGITAL CODES
ICC Digital Codes is the largest provider of model codes, custom codes and standards used worldwide to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures.
codes.iccsafe.org
Additionally:
- 1705.2.4 Cold-Formed Steel Trusses Spanning 60 Feet or Greater
- 1705.5.2 Metal-Plate-Connected Wood Trusses Spanning 60 Feet or Greater
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
And IF the trusses involved spanned greater than 60 feet (which they may well have, in an aircraft hanger) and were subject to special inspections, I would then be curious to see what the statement of special inspections had to say about it.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
Funny but I look at this and wonder why everyone seems to assume and rdp was hired to do this. Hopefully we'll know in time.
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
Among the biggest headaches our department has is getting special inspectors to do special inspections and to submit reports. It is UNusual for a first submission of construction documents for commercial permits to even include a statement of special inspections. Then, when we finally receive it, at least half the time it's not signed and sealed, and probably doesn't describe whether the required special inspections are to be periodic or continuous. And then, they usually omit designating who the special inspections coordinator will be -- and sometimes they don't even list any of the special inspectors.
Why even bother submitting the form if you're going to omit 75% of the required information?
I was with you right up until you started going over the "required" information.
For us, we get the statement of SI incorporated into the plan set. Appropriate tables (basically reproductions of those in 1705) that identify the required inspections and tests, periodic/continuous, etc. Those, being incorporated into the plan set, have the sheet stamped by the requisite design professional.
Where I depart from your description, is the design professional preparing the statement of SI should not include a designation of who the special inspector coordinator will be - - I am not sure who this person would be and what their role is, but the SI firm is responsible for providing reports to the AHJ and EoR. As for listing who the SI will be, again, not the responsibility of the design professional.
SI are to be contracted with the owner. Having the design professional stipulate is erroneous. Yes, SI should be approved by the BO, but take care of that at a preconstruction meeting.
@Yankee Chronicler, I forgot to include the code reference for what is required in a Statement of SI. No more, no less. This is what the code requires.
1704.3.1 Content of Statement of Special Inspections
The statement of special inspections shall identify the following:- The materials, systems, components and work required to have special inspections or tests by the building official or by the registered design professional responsible for each portion of the work.
- The type and extent of each special inspection.
- The type and extent of each test.
- Additional requirements for special inspections or tests for seismic or wind resistance as specified in Sections 1705.12, 1705.13 and 1705.14.
- For each type of special inspection, identification as to whether it will be continuous special inspection, periodic special inspection or performed in accordance with the notation used in the referenced standard where the inspections are defined.
Yankee Chronicler
Registered User
I disagree. IBC 107.1 lists the statement of special inspections as a required part of the construction documents. That has to be prepared, sealed, and signed by the applicable RDP.
IBC 107.3.4 then requires that some registered design professional be designated to act as the "registered design professional in responsible charge" of the project. This doesn't have to be the EOR and, in fact, it is more commonly the architect. In any case, this section of the IBC specifically provides that all of the design team may bow out during construction, in which case the owner must designate someone else to act as the RDPIRC. But that's still not the special inspections coordinator. To find that we have to jump into chapter 17.
Nothing I can find in chapter 17 requires the EOR to act as the special inspections coordinator. That's a different role than "structural observations," as defined by the code and as required in sections other than those pertaining to special inspections.
Our state building inspector still promulgates and recommends using the CASE Form 101 Statement of Special Inspections form. The cover page on that form includes a space for designating the special inspections coordinator. Design professionals are allowed to use other forms, but the other forms must include the same information that's called for on the CASE Form 101.
Ok, so you disagree based upon something that your state does. That makes more sense.
From my perspective, I would never approve the architect making stipulation regarding what testing and inspection is required for the structural design; hence, we require that the EoR prepare the Statement of SI.
From what you indicated, your state has established a process and role as a SI Coordinator. If that's how it works there, terrific. But that is not what the model codes require or establish.