Blacksburg gym collapse 1

[CTW]

These reports are weak and offer the county and insurance company no definitive answer to the cause of collapse.

The structural engineering states that the design snow load was 35 psf and that the snow load on the day of collapse was only "23 pounds" (I'm assuming this should be 23 psf). He also states that there have been significantly greater snow accumulations in the past that have not resulted in collapse, thus ruling out excessive loading.

The structural engineer preliminarily concludes that the failure was not a result of an overload condition and defers to the metallurgical analysis to identify the failure and building collapse.

The mechanical and materials engineer then concludes that the cause of failure was the snow event in combination with a pooly designed and manufactured main truss support.

If there have been significantly greater snow accumulations in the past, then why did the roof not fail then in combination with the poor truss support?

Something is not right. The reports are too ambiguous. I'm assuming FORCON was hired to determine the cause of collapse, which they haven't done. But then again, maybe they only provided as much detail as the insurance company allowed them to since they were hired by the insurance company.

It's not going to be a fun trial for FORCON.

 

[hokie66]

I don't know anything about FORCON, had never heard of them before this. The emphasis of the report on low strength steel and poor weld quality, even if those conclusions are correct, suggests to me that there may be financially attractive litigation targets for the insurance company, namely the steel supplier and fabricator. Am I being too cynical?

 

[JedClampett]

It appears to me that the structural report was more interested in the amount of building that could be recovered and repaired, rather than to discuss failure. Maybe that was their direction. They were hired by the insurance company to minimize the claim. And there's nothing wrong with that.
By the time the Structural Engineer got there, they building was partailly demolished.
I checked Forcon's website

http://www.forcon.com/

and they seemed to be a company that provides a) Surety consulting services and b) Forensic Engineering.

 

[Ron]

hokie66...appropriate cynicism. Those comments in the report were to set the stage for exactly what you described....spreading the joy!

 

[audeuce02]

I will agree with Hokie, that it appears to be preperation for a lawsuit after the deepest pocket that can be found. I will also agree with Jed that it appears that they were approaching the site from more of a shoring and remedial stanpoint than an investigation standpoint.


My question is given the historical issue with the strucutre which can be seen from the crack monitoring and permanent shoring. Does anyone think it would be wise to try and repair this structure or shoudl it be demolished and replaced?

 

[JedClampett]

I would tear it down and start from scratch. But the insurance company might not agree with that. It's just like totalling a car. If the repairs are 10% (or 2%) cheaper than the car value, it gets repaired.

 

[dik]

Just got into the reports... WOW!

Sure glad I didn't write them.

Even the loading and wind loading is suspect... and who was looking after the site from Feb 13 to Mar 5... and how was the site protected/secured.

Real interesting that there was an engineer on site at the time of the collapse... nothing in the report has a comment about his observations... I generally note that the report is a compendium of information received from others and note where this is consistent or inconsistent with observations made... to reiterate... sure glad I didn't write them.

Wish I had more time to do a critique. It could be a hoot.

Dik

 

[Ron]

dik...you're right. This one could be fun working on the "other" side, wherever that might be!

I assume that Forcon does this routinely, as implied by their website. Those reports are going to be an absolute nightmare for the author during deposition and trial, if it gets there. For a company that specializes in construction forensics, those reports are amateurish.

 

[dik]

I'm not sure how things work down there... after 35 years, is there a chance the insurance company would try to go after the original engineer.

Among the 'shortcomings', the report doesn't reference who prepared the 'As Built' documents or the name of the engineer that sealed the them (assuming that happened).

Was OVPR on site because they were called in to look at the collapse because they were the original engineers/architects?

Dik

 

[hokie66]

I think OVPR was the original architect, or at least the current OVPR descended from the original firm. I don't know about the structural engineer, or if the firm still exists. By the lack of emphasis on the design, I think the insurance company has ruled out the designers as big targets. The builder Fralin is still in business, and I think the fabricator and erector are still around also. Don't know who rolled the steel.

 

[dik]

Thanks Hokie...

I think if they 'go after' the builder or fabricator, they will have a much tougher nut to crack, IMHO (not so humble at times <G>). Even going after the engineer could be formidable... based on the lack of information in the reports and some discrepancies.

There is no mention of advising all parties of demolition of the structure or, with the exception of OVPR, the fabricator/erector even of the collapse.

With most collapse report I've done, I generally include informing all parties and also give them an opportunity to remedy the problem, if they consider they may be at fault (can be used as a 'hook', too). I also inform them of the intent to demolish the damage so that they can post any objection.

Dik

 

[rscassar]

I know they are requested often, but do people actually receive mill certificates to ensure the steel strength is up to specification?

 

[Ron]

kikflip...yes, though not as often as they once were.

 

[paddingtongreen]

On the mill cert thing, I once reviewed all of the mill certs on an 800MW power plant, that is a lot of steel and a lot of certs. The client actually put money into our contract to pay for that work as a listed item of work. It stuck in mind because there was one cert at 36ksi, one at about 36.5ksi and the rest were over 38ksi. The impression I had was that the bell curve peaked at about 41 or 42ksi.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[dik]

You'll also find the bell curve is skew symmeteric... the scatter of the test data having a real bearing on the statistical yield...

Dik

 

[SteveGregory]

The time limit for the statute of limitations for the builder's, the architect's and the engineer's liability is long since past. Th original drawings or as-builts could only be used to help understand the mechanism for the failure.