Structural Condition Assessment

Transcription

1 108 6 th Street, Garland, Texas Engineering Report Date: September 29, 2016 RLG No. : Prepared for: Mr. Jeff D. Bulls III AIA 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1220 Dallas, TX PM: Harold F. Phillips Prepared by: RLG Consulting Engineers 5445 La Sierra, Suite 300, LB 17 Dallas, Texas P 214 / F 214 / Texas Reg. #493

2 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION Authorization Intent of Investigation 2 2 BACKGROUND 2 3 BASIS OF EVALUATION 2 4 PROJECT OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS Foundation: Masonry Walls Columns Roof Framing and Decking 3 5 CONCLUSIONS 4 6 LIMITATIONS 4 A. Photos Appendix September 29, th Street Page 1 RLG No Garland, Texas

3 1 Introduction 1.1 Authorization At the request of Mr. Jeff D. Bulla III AIA of, Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc. performed a (SCA) of the building s located at th Street in Garland, Texas. 1.2 Intent of Investigation The property includes buildings constructed in the early 1900s with additions at the rear. Various architectural schemes have been proposed which include alterations of some or all of the structures. This SCA is intended to assess the general condition of the property and note building structural systems and components that seem to exhibit less than the expected service life, or structural systems which have been poorly maintained. The building structures were assessed based on similar buildings built at the same time period and with expectation for the structures to perform in a similar fashion. This SCA is not intended to address routine maintenance items or to develop detailed remedial plans for identified problems. The assessment is qualitative in nature and does not include engineering calculation or design. This assessment is limited by time and the information provided to us. If additional information becomes available, we reserve the right to revise our conclusions accordingly. Our comments are not a guarantee or warranty of any aspect of the condition of the buildings. 2 Background Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc. understands that the original buildings at this location are being evaluated for a potential change in use. The various building additions at the rear will be removed are not included in this assessment. 3 Basis of Evaluation Our work to complete the assignment included a walkthrough inspection of the interior and around the perimeter of the buildings. In some areas, our visual observations were limited by the in place architectural finishes. 4 Project Observations, Findings and Comments Raymond L. Goodson Jr., Inc., conducted a site visit at the property on September 13, For the purpose of discussion in this report, the fronts of the buildings are assumed to face due west. The building structures consist of presumably concrete and/or masonry foundations, masonry walls, steel pipe columns, and wood roof framing. The framing and layout of the various spaces within the buildings are inconsistent. This is likely associated with modifications over the years, additions, and repairs. The building fronts include conventional glass and metal storefront. Wall openings at the sides and rear are generally limited to door openings. The following are our observations regarding the structural components: September 29, th Street Page 2 RLG No Garland, Texas

4 4.1 Foundation: The masonry walls are likely supported on masonry or concrete strip footings. Most areas exhibit what would be considered nuisance or moderate foundation movement that has resulted in cracking in the walls. In a few areas we did observe some relatively wide masonry cracks that are associated with significant foundation movement. In the areas of severe movement, improvement to the foundation should be completed in order to restore/maintain the integrity of the masonry walls. Based on our inspection, the foundation repairs are likely to be localized in lieu of a building wide issue. The buildings appear to have originally had a wood framed first floor that has now been filled in with a concrete slab on grade. The concrete slab seems to be relatively well reinforced based on its performance. We observed relatively little significant cracking (cracking associated relatively wide separations and/or faulting). The floor is noticeably uneven in some areas. At areas where the condition of the floor is unacceptable the replacement of the floor slab in the area of question is the appropriate remedy. Similar to the foundation repairs at the walls, the unacceptable floor slab conditions are associated with localized areas in lieu of a building wide issue. 4.2 Masonry Walls The walls are generally brick and CMU masonry and are in variable condition. Some areas are stucco covered. Some of the old window and door openings have been filled in or partially filled in. As discussed in Section 4.1, there is some cracking associated with foundation movement. In most areas the cracking and movement are not severe. There are areas of loss of masonry material and/or weathering. Repairs will include filling in with new brick, repointing, and large spot repairs. We would recommend that a more robust connection of the roof framing be made to the masonry walls. 4.3 Columns There are relatively few visible columns. At Suite 108 the steel column at the west end of the shored roof area leans over visibly. Most likely this is a result of the roof failure as an intact roof would be expected to brace the top of the column. In addition to replacing this damaged column, the condition of the remainder of the columns should be verified when the finishes are removed. 4.4 Roof Framing and Decking Much of the roof is supported by wood trusses which were site built. Some of these wood trusses are in poor condition at this time. We noted bowed and bucked chord members and noted separations at the framing connections. In addition to the issues related to the framing layout in the trusses, the connections are generally offset and nailed. We would anticipate that the wood trusses would not be able to sustain any additional load and are likely not sufficient if analyzed based on current loads and the building code requirements. There are several areas where severe water damage is evident at the roof decking and framing. We also noted areas where the roof decking has punched through. One roof area at Suit 108 has collapsed and a second area is shored. A small roof area at the rear of Suite 114 is currently shored. We recommend that anyone accessing the roof exercise extreme care as another localized roof failure would not be unexpected. September 29, th Street Page 3 RLG No Garland, Texas

5 Given the poor condition of the roof framing and decking we recommend the replacement of the roof decking and roof framing in their entirety. If for some reason historical preservations concerns are a priority, it may be possible to salvage some of the framing; however, we would anticipate that repairs and modifications to achieve a structurally appropriate result are likely to exceed the cost of replacement. 5 Conclusions In general, the buildings are in fair to poor structural condition. The existing masonry walls, columns, foundation, and the slab on grade can be spot repaired and depending on the intended use may be acceptable. The replacement of the roof framing and decking is warranted based on their poor current condition and original design. If there is architectural reason to maintain the roof framing, repairs and modifications may be able to salvage some of the existing framing however the costs are likely to exceed replacement. 6 Limitations The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on field observations and Raymond L. Goodson Jr. s experience on similar projects. It was not the intent of the Assessment to perform an exhaustive study to locate every existing defect. Walk-through observations were made by trained professionals but there may be defects at the facility which were not readily accessible, not visible, or which were inadvertently overlooked. Other problems may develop over time, which were not evident at the time of this assessment. This document is the rendering of a professional service, the essence of which is the provision of advice, judgment, opinion, or professional skill. Only visible observations were made and documented. Visual observations were limited to what could be viewed by the naked eye without dismantling finish materials or moving MEP systems. Structural materials were not tested. No representation, guarantee, or warranty as to the future performance of this structure is made, intended, or implied. September 29, th Street Page 4 RLG No Garland, Texas

6 Appendix

7 Appendix A Photos

8 1. West (front) exterior elevation 2. South exterior elevation Attachment A: Page 1 of 21

9 3. South elevation 4. North elevation Attachment A: Page 2 of 21

10 5. East (rear) exterior elevation 6. Crack in exterior stucco wall Attachment A: Page 3 of 21

11 7. Stair step crack in CMU wall 8. Vertical crack in exterior stucco wall Attachment A: Page 4 of 21

12 9. Cracking in painted masonry wall 10. View of several ceiling finishes in Suite 114 Attachment A: Page 5 of 21

13 11. North end hallway at Suite Metal shoring at the rear of suite 114 Attachment A: Page 6 of 21

14 13. Note the damage to the roof framing and ceiling finish 14. Water damage at the rear of suite 114 Attachment A: Page 7 of 21

15 15. Water damage to the wood framed floor at the rear of suite Water staining at the rear wall of suite 114 Attachment A: Page 8 of 21

16 17. Open lease space area at suite Shoring at suite 108 to support the roof framing Attachment A: Page 9 of 21

17 19. Note the steel column (painted white) leans to the left 20. The roof was reportedly removed due to collapse Attachment A: Page 10 of 21

18 21. Exposed brick masonry 22. Wood roof framing Attachment A: Page 11 of 21

19 23. Metal roof deck and light gauge metal framing 24. Note the sag in the metal roof deck Attachment A: Page 12 of 21

20 25. Note the attachment of the edge angle for the roof framing 26. Wide flanged steel lintel Attachment A: Page 13 of 21

21 27. Staining to the ceiling tile 28. Note the water staining on the floor at the rear of the lease space Attachment A: Page 14 of 21

22 29. Note the staining to the ceiling tile 30. Site built wood roof trusses Attachment A: Page 15 of 21

23 31. Note the water damage to the roof decking 32. Full height crack in south masonry wall of the suite 102 Attachment A: Page 16 of 21

24 33. South masonry wall at suite In some areas the masonry is in poor condition Attachment A: Page 17 of 21

25 35. The window completely filled in opening was not 36. Overview of infilled window with wood lintel beam still in place at south wall of suite 102 Attachment A: Page 18 of 21

26 37. Overview of typical wood roof truss system in suite Close up of masonry separation behind HVAC system in suite 102 Attachment A: Page 19 of 21

27 39. In some areas the walls are partially stucco covered 40. Close up of water damaged wood roof decking and top truss chord buckled Attachment A: Page 20 of 21

28 41. Note the separation of the nailed connection Attachment A: Page 21 of 21