Nightmare Wood Project 6

[SteelPE]

I recently completed a wood framed building that is going to be used as a retail building for a local farm. The building wasn't easy as the clients wanted large open spaces with vaulted ceilings and such (see my previous thread about scissor trusses from a few months ago). Everything was rushed during the design phase but we ended up getting the engineering completed and everyone was happy.

The other day I went out to the site to do a rough inspection of the completed framing. During my inspection I noticed a ton of that we had called out on the drawing missing. In all it seemed like the GC just used our drawings to pull a permit then decided to do whatever they wanted. Now we are in the fighting phase of the contract trying to get the items we called out on the drawings installed properly.... and running through the process of fixing their F**kups.

One particular items that is irking me has to do with the fact that we showed some 5 1/4" x 7" psl posts with an ABU base and a ECCQ cap that needed to be installed under some rather large truss girders. The GC decided to install 2 smaller posts to make the larger one (he installed the cap but not the base which is another issue). Barring other issues can you bolt together two smaller PSL posts to make a large post?

 

[NorthCivil]

Thats a shameful amount of lumber to waste, especially given the price of lumber these days.

not liking the look of that wall, a great hinge it is, can already see the collapse mechanism reported from channel 1 when they have the news helicopter recording house and barn collapses for the latest and greatest storms passing through

 

[SteelPE]

NorthCivil,

You should see the amount of lumber in the wall now. We had them let in new full height 2x5's @ 12" o.c. but they were still not fully complete as we were there today.

We are going to have them install 3 new steel wind posts (HSS5x5) and the left and right side of the window, and the middle of the window. These new columns will rest on new footings and be anchored to the roof trusses. The column will be connected to the wall and the window head. This will yield a deflection of L/400 under 10 year wind.... at least, that is the repair detail we are giving them for that wall.

 

[dik]

with the revisions undertaken, were there any other changes?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Enhineyero]

I've been in your situation and builders respond saying "is this really required mate? Its just a small roof. Its not gonna fall off. We are not building the Opera house here."

or one my favourites so far "look we have huge trusses here, we can probably land a plane on top of it, do I really have to do this additional work?"

 

[NorthCivil]

@Enhineyero

Tell the boys to follow the load path all the way to the ground!

look at what happened with the Opal towers in sydney

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/m...wer-investigation-final-report-2018-02-22.pdf

6 or 10 odd levels of beautiful load bearing walls landing down upon a poorly built "hob beam" (cast in place curb or nib)

Follow your way down the load path and see what happens to the weakest link!

 

[SwinnyGG]

Yikes. This frustrates me beyond belief. GCs that operate like this are the reason why architects/engineers/owners/financiers don't trust those of us that act in good faith and take following the rules seriously.

 

[Ron247]

Having read a lot of "sign-off" type letters when a project has problems, I offer the following if you accept a letter from anyone.
[ul]
[li]Who they are addressed to matters. It is harder for you to sue me for a letter I wrote to someone "2 degrees away" and especially if the 2 degree person is my buddy.[/li]
[li]Do not accept vague letters. "I reviewed the wall issues" versus "I reviewed the size of wall stud and horizontal joint in the wall at 9' from the floor" are 2 different sign offs. In the first one, I can claim my sign-off was for anything but what you wanted.[/li]
[li]Terminology matters. A lot of things we cite everyday do not have a set definition. For example, is there a definition of "structural issue"?[/li]
[li]How firm is the okie dokie statement? The stud size meets or exceeds the 2018 IBC building code requirements is not the same as "the stud size is satisfactory."[/li]
[li][/li]
[/ul]
I sure others have similar things to watch for.