Steel joist from adjacent property 4

[SleeplessEngineer]

During the demolition of the wood building to prepare for a new podium construction, the GC discovered that a steel joist from the neighboring building was encroaching into our property.
It appears the joist with bearing plate just hanging in the air. My guess is it was fabricated to a wrong length and instead of trying to go through modification, the installer just placed it and call it a day. I am not sure how it interfaced with the wood building before razing.
I think we just need to build around it; archi need to consider for water and fire proofing. But architect wants to remove it and arranging a site visit with the neighbor so we can have a look at their framing. Just looking at this picture, I know the framing over there is going to be a mess and going to be difficult support some other way to facilitate removing this. Anyone encountered like this before? Suggestions?
I'm not sure what happened. But I posted this yesterday and apparently it was taken down. I wonder why. I did describe it very briefly in 2 sentences. That was not enough? I have to a write a tech report? weird.

Edit: Pic removed. Sorry.

 

[dik]

Was the original thread deleted? My comments are as follows:
[ul]
[li]The new owner may be responsible for providing the new support for this OWSJ/truss. The condition has been existing for so long that it may not be the neighbours responsibility. Depending on the jurisdiction, a lawyer may have to be consulted. This has to be worked out with the neighbour. It's likely not a matter of simply removing it.[/li]
[li]A support for the end of the truss is necessary since it is bearing on the bottom chord and not the panel point, and is capable of supporting little load. By removing whatever support was there, the new owner may have created a dangerous condition, albeit on someone else's property. In it's current condition, the support may be unsafe.[/li]
[li]The original posting was in the Student Engineering forum. If a student engineer, you should seek assistance from a more senior engineer. The problem is a little tricky.[/li]
[/ul]

You should click the 'notification' check mark to let you know if there is a reply, in particular if you are the OP.


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SleeplessEngineer]

Thanks dik

The original posting was in the Student Engineering forum.

Oh my bad, I just saw a general discussion forum and clicked on it to write the post in a hurry before my lunch.

A support for the end of the truss is necessary since it is bearing on the bottom chord and not the panel point, and is capable of supporting little load. By removing whatever support was there, the new owner may have created a dangerous condition, albeit on someone else's property. In it's current condition, the support may be unsafe.

The way I see it (of course I will get more insight after the site visit), they likely added an additional bearing plate at the masonry wall to install it; probably filled gap between bottom and top chords(so it is not just bearing on bottom chord). It is unlikely to have any support from the razed wood structure. But it makes sense to support it regardless as you said for legal reasons.

I am trying to investigate the history of these buildings. I could not find much. The adjacent building is originally constructed in 1955 and renovated in 1974. No info the razed building. I will keep posted any updates I receive from the GC.

 

[SleeplessEngineer]

Was the original thread deleted?

I could not find it. So, I guess someone reported it????!!

 

[dik]

It's more than that... the top outside panel point has to be moved in line with the wall. This means relocating the diagonal compression element.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

Not normal, maybe accidental... there wasn't a reason to remove it. It was a valid engineering query. Unless by my commenting that it was a safety related item. That may set some flags up for liability. I don't know. Basically the same answer I gave today. The legal issues of it could be more interesting.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SleeplessEngineer]

Yes, understood. I am not saying the current condition is enough. Agreed that it needs to be supported /reinforced. But I think it has been like this for so many years, so likely not a dangerous condition (hopefully overdesigned joists). Big assumption: the contractor did not remove some steel post supporting it and did not disclose it yet.

 

[JAE]

In your photo there isn't any visible evidence of an added vertical at the wall...but I suppose there might be one further inside - just can't see anything.

Yes it's been there for years but it may have a lower end-shear/bearing capacity that just hasn't been realized in real load before - doesn't mean it's OK though - still not adequate for the public safety and welfare.

If there is an added vertical (properly connected and detailed, or you end up adding one, the protrusion could probably simply be cut off.

 

[Aesur]

How close is the new building to the existing, is there no seismic separation or setback to the adjacent building?

 

[Brad805]

If the girder tail is on your property this seems like a latent defect where the owner of that building needs to get their steel off the neighbors property. The how part of that is not your problem.

 

[dik]

Depending on the jurisdiction, it may not be that simple. It gets more interesting if you have created a hazard on someone else's property. I've not seen anything like this, but what happens if you construct a new building that causes snow accumulation on a neighbour's building? Who's responsible for the reinforcing?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Brad805]

It will depend who built first as far as the hazard concern. This is why we have lawyers. This appears to be in a country outside North America.

 

[SleeplessEngineer]

In your photo there isn't any visible evidence

I am just assuming for the sake of staying calm.

still not adequate for the public safety

Properly poor choice of words, I meant to say it's not a dangerous condition created by our contractor. I believe it is a pre-existing dangerous condition that just got exposed.

is there no seismic separation or setback

We don't have the privilege of leaving space between buildings. This is in DC (SDC -B)

latent defect

This is interesting. Pretty sure it does not apply. But still interesting.

if you have created a hazard on someone else's property./quote] I strongly believe that is not the case. It is unlikely 2X6 wood wall has enough stiffness to provide support to shift the bearing from masonry wall.

what happens if you construct a new building that causes snow accumulation on a neighbour's building?

We checked the existing roof for snow drift based on the framing info received from a surveyor. Understood your point, we have to fix this situation for the added load.

This appears to be in a country outside North America

What made you say that? I have seen much worse construction quality. This is in fact in the capital of US. It's an old construction in a historically poor neighborhood.

 

[dik]

I strongly believe that is not the case.]

I strongly disagree. I don't know what the load capacity of the truss/joist is, but looking at the member sizes, it could be significant. Supporting the truss/joist by the bottom chord is likely inadequate. Who ever removed the support from the end of the joist as evidenced by the four holes, has created the condition. If it was done by you then you have created the condition and you have to resolve it with your neighbour (with the caveat that you may be responsible for remedy). If it was done by someone else, that's different and other than advising the neighbour of the condition, I'm not sure what your obligation is.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Brad805]

I would not have guessed this was in the US. That is terrible masonry work. We have seen similar from others posting from the Philippines.

By latent defect I mean, the neighbor built on the neighboring property illegally and it was never discovered. It seems the girder was shipped too long, and instead of fixing the problem they installed what they had. The neighbor built around it.

You need a legal surveyor and lawyer. The owner of the property you are working on is not paying to fix the problem created by the neighbor unless they are forced and surely will not let it remain on their property unless there is something in it for them. This is not yet an engineering problem for you to solve.

 

[dik]

Concur, but often the condition when you are constructing a masonry wall adjacent to an existing one.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Brad805]

Dik, yes, I agree with that.

 

[SleeplessEngineer]

Who ever removed the support from the end of the joist as evidenced by the four holes, has created the condition.

I do agree with your points. Thanks for giving me bullets to use during the meeting.
But again, I do not believe the contractor removed the support. The contractor is a well-known and highly skilled one; I was very surprised they even took this small project. Likely the client had a connection through some other project. I doubt they would be stupid enough to take out bolts and remove a steel support. Yes, I do not any evidence to support this. So, I will ask all the questions tomorrow to the GC to extract anything that is undisclosed yet and report back.

The steel trusses are 22" deep @ 18" oc spanning 37' clear span. We assumed it was metal deck with no concrete topping during snow drift analysis report. So, the neighbor gets to review this snow drfit report during the review process. We did not get any objection from the neighbor. So likely the assumption is right. Or they simply did not engage any engineer to review this.

 

[Aesur]

We don't have the privilege of leaving space between buildings. This is in DC (SDC -B)

Interesting, I practice mostly in SDC B as well and we still require separation between properties for Seismic as it's still a consideration, it's just less than that in C and D typically. Is there an exemption that I may be missing here?

 

[Celt83]

Aesur: it’s borderline a running joke here in the District when we all provide 3rd party reviews we all note that no seismic separation is provided as a comment and it’s pretty much always ignored. Space is premium down there so everyone builds right up to the property line, used to be some loop holes in the local code to classify the join as a party wall. ASCE 7 is pretty clear that it needs to be provided so try to get it in there on new builds but get a lot of push back.