• 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

As far as I know the code doesn't require continuous special inspections of steel while steel is still being erected. Photos show rigid frames, not trusses.
 
classicT said:
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.
Click to expand...

The structural engineer of record absolutely has to prepare the statement of special inspections for the structural materials/trades he/she designed. But the structural engineer of record does not have to act as the special inspections coordinator, or as one of the special inspectors. He/she also does not have to (and usually doesn't) act as the registered design professional in responsible charge for the overall project. That's usually the architect.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
The structural engineer of record absolutely has to prepare the statement of special inspections for the structural materials/trades he/she designed. But the structural engineer of record does not have to act as the special inspections coordinator, or as one of the special inspectors. He/she also does not have to (and usually doesn't) act as the registered design professional in responsible charge for the overall project. That's usually the architect.
Click to expand...
Ok. Yes, I agree with all of that.

In my region we do that all the same, except we do not have anyone acting in the role of SI Coordinator.
 
bill1952 said:
So if rigid frames, does that make SI not required?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything that would make a pre-engineered steel building exempt. IBC 1705.2.1 defers to AISC 360 for special inspections of steel buildings. I don't have access to AISC 360.

That said, special inspections would most likely only apply to the anchor bolt placement, embedment, and torque, and installation of permanent sway bracing. If the building went down in the middle, I suggest that it's more likely that the crane collapsed into the building. If so, that's a contractor means, methods and techniques issue, not a building code or special inspections issue.

Does anyone know if OSHA is involved? If so, it would be interesting to read their report.
 
tmurray said:
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.
Click to expand...

Translation: I may not have the power to tell stop roofload of kids shingling in the sun without safety harnesses ...but I can call the folks who do have the power.
 
ICE said:
17 mph with gusts of 20 mph should not have brought the construction down.
Click to expand...

If erection has to stop when the wind hits 20 MPH, we'd never get anything built around here. On the Beaufort scale, that's classified as a "Fresh Breeze," the wind speed at which small trees begin to sway.


From the photos it appears this was a pre-engineered steel building using a clear span, portal frame structure -- which is entirely common in hangar construction. From the photos it appears that they were at least partially finished installing the roof purlins. I'm sure the investigators will be looking at the temporary bracing procedures, and that's a logical place to start. Another avenue of inquiry may be whether the affected crane was "caught in the collapse," or if it failed and caused the collapse. It seems suspicious to me that the crane company would issue a statement so early on that "it does not believe its operators or machinery are to blame for the collapse." That's a CYA statement, and it's probably too soon for anyone to know that with any degree of certainty.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
That said, special inspections would most likely only apply to the anchor bolt placement, embedment, and torque, and installation of permanent sway bracing. If the building went down in the middle, I suggest that it's more likely that the crane collapsed into the building. If so, that's a contractor means, methods and techniques issue, not a building code or special inspections issue.
Click to expand...

I think I need to expand on the above. I still don't know what AISC 360 requires, but I expect special inspections for PEMBs to include in addition to the above the bolting on connections such as where two rigid frame sections join at the center; installation of purlins, since the purlins are generally part of the secondary structural load-resisting system; and installation of wall and roof panels (since those panels are also part of the secondary load-resisting system). Irrespective of temporary bracing during construction, the permanent 'X' bracing is usually limited to one or two structural bays (maybe three on long buildings). The purlins and the wall and roof panels are part of the wind and seismic load-resisting system so, until those have been installed and fully fastened, any permanent 'X' bracing installed is only bracing the bay in which it is installed.
 
Television station newscast has some views in their video. Another article said a hydraulic arm of one of the four cranes was "caught in the collapse," but the video shows what appears to be part of a long-span truss crane. I don't think those are hydraulically operated.

www.ktvb.com

'Share the facts': Builder of collapsed Boise hangar issues statement

Big D Builders released a statement Thursday offering sympathies, support and participation in reuniting the bodies of the deceased with their families.
www.ktvb.com www.ktvb.com

www.ktvb.com

Update: Coroner releases names of hangar collapse victims

59-year-old Craig Durrant, 24-year-old Mariano Coc Och and 32-year-old Mario Sontay Tzi all suffered from blunt force trauma.
www.ktvb.com www.ktvb.com

I took a screen grab from one of the television news report videos and isolated details of one of the frames. It looks like the permanent 'X' bracing had been installed.

1707608938110.png
 
Looking at that last picture which clearly shows a weld failure I'm sure that the welding and other fabrication procedures for the PEMB building itself will come under close scrutiny.
 
Msradell said:
Looking at that last picture which clearly shows a weld failure I'm sure that the welding and other fabrication procedures for the PEMB building itself will come under close scrutiny.
Click to expand...
1707755184423.png

Look at that again. The weld didn't fail - the baseplate ripped in half along the column web. You can see that the baseplate was full width of the column flange where a portion remains at the exterior-side flange. Looks like the bolts on the opposing face failed and snapped off at the nut (~1/2" of bolt above concrete). Not saying that the welding procedure may not need to be reviewed, because the welding process can weaken the steel within the welding zone, but to speculate that this may be an origin point of the failure is not supported. Furthermore, we do not know if this is the primary failure or secondary - this failure point is unlikely the origin point and is likely to have been the result of super-loading the span (i.e. crane collapses on the span).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top