Site Inspection for Apparent Snoe Drift Issues 2

[waytsh]

I have been asked to make an urgent trip to inspect a building about which the owner is concerned because some ceiling tiles have dropped out apparently due to snow and ice build-up. The Builder has already made an inspection and apparently the bottom flange of a PEMB roof beam is kicking out slightly (1.25" over 60').

As I make preparations for the trip I was wondering about some of the precautions others are taking when perfomring this type of service. They want me to inspect and address this issue in particular and write a letter either stating that it is not an issue or if so what corrections need to be made. My concern is that by being there and seeing the building could I be responsible for other issues which I may not see? Is it possible to to limit my responsibility to this issue in particular or am I bringing much more on myself than I realize. Obviously if I would see other issues I would bring it to the owner's attention but I would not be going with the intent of reviewing other aspects of the building.

I welcome any thoughts on this,

Thanks,

 

[civilperson]

You need to see the plans and specs of the Pre-Engineered Building in order to see if the design matches the as-built situation. The snow load and drifts are partially dependent on heated vs. not heated and installation of ice breakers. The horizontal deflection may be normal and expected for the steel frame but not used in the design of interior components, (T-bar suspended ceiling tiles with exterior edges attached to walls).

 

[waytsh]

civilperson,

Thanks for the quick response. Yes I have made the owner aware that I can only speak to the erection tolerances and any obvious distress that I see in the structure. As far was whether the structure can handle the load that is being applied to it is going to depend on what an in depth review would show. From talking to some people who know the history of this building it sounds like it has received much more load in the past during the snow storms of the early to mid 90's without incident. I belive that the out of plumbness of the roof beam has always been and that this is not something that has developed recently since none of the flange braces have buckled or thier holes elongated. Now I am just trying to determine what the allowable out of plumbness is for a roof beam, but I guess that is another thread.

The reason I was worried about being liable for other issues was because I had heard a story from an engineer that I know who got called into a deposition simply becasue he was in a building that later collapsed under snow load. Even though the reason for his visit had nothing to do with inspecting the building to be sure that it had been properly constructed. So I was just wondering what sort of premptive steps I could take to help prevent this from happening to me.

Thanks,

 

[civilperson]

If you are associated in any way with a building involved in a lawsuit, you can be asked for a deposition. This will ONLY include facts and factual observations. If they want your expert testimony and opinion, the attorneys must pay for the opinion. This is one drawback of our judicial system, facts must be produced for free: only opinions get paid for.

 

[shepherd]

I would state in the written report what I was looking at. I also would include some language like: my scope of work was .... My site visit can not be construed as a complete inspection of the structure as a whole....