On a large building project, gymnasium, classroom,offices, shower, the spec’s called for borate treated lumber for all treated lumber plan notations.
The building is in the dry and insulation is in and drywallers are set to move in.
The contractor installed “treated sub-fascia” as well as “treated double plates” at the top track of the steel stud wall system. The metal fascia cover suppliers called for a barrier to be placed between their product and treated wood products.
The on-site observer called out the lack of barrier to the general contractor’s superintendent and was promptly refuted by indicating that the sub-fascia was borate treated and did not need a barrier. The superintendent was asked to remove the installed fascia covering and install the barriier (30# felt).
I was called to job site to examine the situation and found that the lumber in question appearred too dark a green to be borate treated. I was also able to collect treater labels fron the ends of installed timbers and some off-fall. All were labeled ACQ.
When I pointed this out to the super he replied that ACQ was the same as borate! I informed him of his error. Then the super had some fascia cover that was installed last week, removed and the backside paint had already blistered and corrosion had begun.
The discussion then moved to the treated double top plate of the steel stud perimeter wall system. No separation membrane there either, nor were the fasteners rated for ACQ. Those walls now carry the ends of 50′ 6/12 roof trusses with a completed roof installed with attic mechanical room, and tied into the cmu sidewall of the gym.
An interior treated window stool blocking was removed to determine if any corrosion had occurred. After being install 3-4 weeks in the dry-shell the fasteners and steel stud members showed corrosion.
Does anyone know of an injectable material that would protect the steel stud tract that is now setting against the ACQ plates?
Jacking and inserting a membrane would be a horrific task!
Any suggestions?/Comments!………………….Iron Helix
Replies
Any Suggestions?
Yes.
Be far away from the site office when the screaming begins.
Moaning, swearing, disbelief and the owners have yet to be notified!
This one will not be pretty.................Iron Helix
Any Suggestions?
grt yur check and quit...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
grt yur check and quit...
HAHAHAHAHA! I think I agree Imerc!
Hahahahah!
blueOur Skytrak is for sale. It has 500 hrs on it. We want 50k (you pay the freight) and we'll finance it. Drop me an email; it's a good buy.
it's a reality thing...
sure to be a lot fall guy hunting on this one..
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
It sounds like a small problem to me. Just get in there, rip out the offensive parts and re-install them the right way. It's nothing more than another ordinary lesson in the life of a carpenter!
blueOur Skytrak is for sale. It has 500 hrs on it. We want 50k (you pay the freight) and we'll finance it. Drop me an email; it's a good buy.
WTB there's more to it than that..
the corrosion is already under way...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
Imerc,Even more reason why he should take out the bottom pt and replace it. It wont be hard. He can just jack up a little bit and a small section and pry apart between the two sills and cut the nails with a sawzall and take the bottom piece out and put a borated piece in.It's has to come out and his dumb #### super has to fix it the Right way. There's no cheap way to fix this big screw up.Joe Carola
this is where I took my cue(s) from..
I was called to job site to examine the situation and found that the lumber in question appearred too dark a green to be borate treated. I was also able to collect treater labels fron the ends of installed timbers and some off-fall. All were labeled ACQ.
When I pointed this out to the super he replied that ACQ was the same as borate!
it's way more than just the plates in question.. that's only the tip of the iceburg..
you know as well as most of us all the hardware, connectors and just about anything that is or was in contact with the ACQ is now a change out... fasteners need to be pulled.. not cut.. to much at risk to try to "fix".. this needs a full rebuild..
the list things as a result of the ripple affect with the ACQ will be a never ending story...
another WTB that ACQ was really wet when installed... (one of the clues is the accelerated corrosion, 2-3 weeks, in a dry climate).. where did the chemicals from the ACQ leach to??? what are they working on???
consider the super's product knowledge... (or was it a comment to butter over) WTB there is more that hasn't been found yet..
who ordered the subsitute materials and how many times did it happen else where???
When ACQ 1st hit the market I was very unaware of the nature of the product.. the deck I built was a mix of CCA and ACQ...
sure learned a lot from that mistake.. haven't used a stick of ACQ since.. can't help but feel this is a diaster in the making.. lot more than changing a plate to correct the problem(s) will have to be done..
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
The General Contractor will be asked today to produce an inventory of all building structure areas that have had the ACQ lumber installed. Methods of removal and replacement will be discussed.
Likewise there will be a meeting with the owner and General to layout the scope of this problem and then discern the best possible fix.
Suggestions about jacking and removing sections at a time seem to be a appropriate. The expressed concern about remaining residues and corrosion potential is noted, but at his time I have no information of how to affect a proper fix.
Obviously the job will grind to a halt until this is resolved.
I appreciate all the input.....and the twisted humor! Not so sure i will take any of the later material to the meetings. The BT humor will keep me smiling inside as we clammer through this quagmire.
Keep your suggestions and humor flowing! Follow-up reports will be posted!
thanks...........Iron Helix
Contact Don Allen at the Steel Framing Alliance. He is an engineer who answers questions rapidly. He has a wealth of information and is a really nice guy.
Sounds like a school job, where the onsite inspectors seem like nothing more than a pain in the a##.
This however is a good example of why they are needed there.
IMO there are a lot of underqualified supers on commercial projects in my area (Ca.). Guys trying to go for the big time too early, or just getting pushed there to fill a needed position. My ears shut when suggestions of super positions come up, I like to sleep at night. ; ^ ) Mike
Trust in God, but row away from the rocks.
>> the deck I built was a mix of CCA and ACQ... sure learned a lot from that mistakeCare to share some lessons?
The ACQ ate all of the common fasteners and the EG plated hardware in about a month and the word on required methods wasn't out yet to speak of...
the deck litterly came apart...haven't used a stick of it since... I built a new deck.. 100%..
the reason for the mix was ACQ was just arriving and the CCA was leaving but still available...
I have also found now that if you scrape or damage the galvenizing on a HD fastener the ACQ causes it to become history.. bit slower than common but it corrodes them anyways..
same thing for coated ACQ rated screws...
then there is this little item of getting a splinter from it.. YEAOWWW!!!
ACQ has too many strikes against it to be consisdered safe to use IMO..
the associated corrision from the ACQ's chemical leeching was an eye opener and that was just from being near something else....
WTB those metal top plates will have to be changed now too...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
THIS ACQ IS GOING TO COME BACK AND HAUNT US IN THE FUTURE.... LAW SUIT CITY....
it already is...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
The GC has decided to put the barrier behind the metal fascia cover and continue intalling......no change in fastners! More confrontation!
The office specs for use of ACQ requires the use of S/S fasteners only! No hot dipped minimum, or 5-10 warranteed coated screws allowed even if the manufacturer lists then as acceptable.
The life of a well built structure should be 75-150 years and in that concept there is no room for fasteners that have only a 5-10 corrosion resistance.
Some of the comments from this exchange have been passed through the office and have become the source of some large smiles as well as a good basis for resolution options.
More as it happens.
Once again....thanks....................Iron Helix
@@@ ACQ has too many strikes against it to be consisdered safe to use IMO..
I'm shocked! How can you say this?
The change was For the Children!
Surely you are not Against Children!
(I always thought CCA worked just fine and any brat stupid enough to ingest enought of it get a tummy ache should be opted out of the gene pool anyway, but mine is a minority voice.)
As usual with the DoGooders, the solution is far worse than the problem. One suspects that someone making a profit was behind the whole thing.
We use PEX sleeves, BSAM washers and strips and such to try to insulate the fastener from the disease. The ToolBear
"Never met a man who couldn't teach me something." Anon.
Why do you prefer CCA over ACQ. I'd tend to avoid building with arsnic based compounds. Sure the special fastners are a little bit of a pain but there is a reason a lot of places have banned CCA. It is incredible to think that wooden play grounds are made of CCA wood and have been subjecting children to doses of arsnic.
the very destructive nature of the ACQ on metals... even the chemicals that leach out are corrisve..
also ACQ splinters are murder... got a hellave reation from them right now.. burned to beat the band too...
that doesn't happen with CCA to me..
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
When you are working with CCA are you wearing gloves? When you cut it I'd hope you wear a respirator. The chemicals in CCA are quite bad and are carcinogens. I think wearing a good pair of gloves when working would avoid the splinter problem. The fastner issue does cost you more money and is a bit of a hassel. There should really be some kind of system for identifying g185 based fastners and hardware so that it is easily recoignizable so that mistakes are not made in installation. Copper pipe alone requires special consideration to prevent galvanic action. I am not sure how corrosive the acq leachate actually is, I think the corrosive action is a battery like action which and I am going out on a bit of a limb but I'd guess that the amount of acq deposited onto the steel would be an amount ~equal to the corrosion that could occur. I didn't spend too much time looking for references but the lemon (penny and nail) battery uses about the same weight of material on each end. http://hilaroad.com/camp/projects/lemon/lemon_battery.html Even if the leachate is highly corrosive at least in terms of residental construction what is the leachate going to corrode? Commercial construction as above steel posts yes I can see the problem occurs if you don't install the material properly but there are many complicated systems that if installed incorrectly will not work properly.It is interesting to read the MSDS on one of the brands of acq - I didn't know that normal saw dust is a carcinogen, the things you learn. ld50 is median dose require to kill half a population if you look at the bio assay data. http://www.ufpi.com/literature/acqmsds-200.pdfThanks for the discussion!
When you are working with CCA are you wearing gloves?
Generally no with CCA..
Mandatory with ACQ.
I think wearing a good pair of gloves when working would avoid the splinter problem.
But what happens to the children playing on the completed deck or the barefoot summer BBQ attendees...
A YP-CCA splinter seems to be pretty much like most any other splinter..
A splinter from ACQ DEMANDS immediate attention. They burn and are eceptionally painfull. The dust from the material caused a severe rash on me. This is my reaction to it. There must be others....
The fastner issue does cost you more money....
Not a primary issue with me. Do it right or go home.
I am not sure how corrosive the ACQ leachate actually is,
Now this is what really got my attention... This is a major issue as I see it...
That 1st deck that I did the leachate corroded the siding's EG flashing (about 10" below the deck's ACQ ledger), the flashing I installed for the deck took a beating, two SGD's aluminum pans, the main entry door's w/ lites pan, same for the utility door and all of the common fasteners.
Some of column anchors were severely trashed...
When I went back and rebuilt (100% everything replacement) the deck I found the EG bolts and lags with corrosion. Same for the brackets and hangers. The galvinized TECO nails showed corrosion too. I think that was because the galv was scraped off when they were installed...
Replacing the pans and siding flashing really did wonders for the profit margin... LOL..
The CZ (yellow) deck screws were in very bad shape also..
During demo I found so many attention getters that the alarm bells in the head began to sound off quite loudly.. UT-oh didn't quite cover it...
Before reconstruction I looked into, or at least tried to, finding answers to the causes of what I saw... All that I could gather was to use galvinized... There didn't seem to be alot of indepth information available....
But.. But... The galvinized (EG and some HD) I used wasn't faring well... Hmmmmmmm...
I built this deck to spec BTW..
Even if the leachate is highly corrosive at least in terms of residental construction what is the leachate going to corrode?
Most anything it gets on it seems.. see above..
Wonder what would happen to EMT, BX, or MC penitrations.. or any metallic penetration for that matter let alone a mounted run...
Commercial construction as above steel posts yes I can see the problem occurs if you don't install the material properly but there are many complicated systems that if installed incorrectly will not work properly.
How does the two types of construction differ in regards to methods and applications??
IMO the whole up shot is that ACQ is going to be a real finacial nightmare in the future... Many installers will be drug over the coals and keel hauled over it..
One deck (2600 SF / 140LF) was enough to make a cycnic out of me..
This deck had been in approximately a month before the HO called and said it was coming apart.. All the material was wet when installed... Mind also that ACQ was just beginning it's appearence at this time...
Once was enough for me...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
All good points. The deck I was envisioning is a patio deck and the only thing under it is the lawn so appart from the flashing issue I don't think there would be anything to corrode. In buidling a two story deck or a deck that covers doors, windows, etc I could see the corrosion issue being as bad as you describe. I'll have to watch out for that in the future. Where I live you can't buy CCA anymore not sure about boron treated wood so I don't really have an option. The deck I am planning will use composite wood as the decking, I'll only use the acq for the structural portions - maybe I'll investigate boron treated wood.If you had used g185 hardware - better than HD or EG - you wouldn't have had as many issues. Your sensitivity to the product is hardly proof that sensitivity to it is a common experience, it could be any number of things and it could very well be specific to the formulation of the acq you purchased - I don't know. I'll try your splinter test before I build my deck and see if I react to it =)A friend of mine just built his deck using acq and homedepot tried to sell him the regular galvanized hardware in fact they didn't even stock the g185 that the wood manufactorer recommends/requires so if he hadn't researched the issue he may well have faced the same problems you did. He probably still may have the leachate corrosion issues you talked about. I'll check in with him and see if he notices corrosion on flashing or the door or windows that sit below his deck. He didn't say anything about any reaction to the product after he had finished building it.Thanks for highlighting your problems with it, I didn't expect the leachate to be such a problem.
Borate treated lumber is not rated for prolonged exterior use as with decks, stairs, railings, posts, beams & etc. Rain leaches away the borate with time.
No other readily available products other than ACQ for most of us.
Check out JLC this month for the cover story on a slate floored deck with glass rails. Read in one of the paragrapghs under the article photos how they wisely selected the galvanized or approved fasteners and hardware.
It would seem to me that with ACQ's unknowns concerning corrosion that a deck of that caliber deserves the use of stainless fasteners, not the minimum as called out by thraters.
Five or ten years down the line we may find an article about repairing this same deck due to corrosion of the hardware.
I recently dissassembled a CCA deck that I had built over 20 years ago in a remodel project. At that time I had used Maze hot dip 16d's. To my amazement more than 50% of the nails had corroded to the point of being readily broken when demo'ing.
The corrossiveness of ACQ is supposedly 10 times that of CCA...I don't think we will get 20 years out of the 16 hot dips with ACQ.
The ACQ rated fasteners are good for 5-10 years warranty by the manufacturer .....not very long in the life span for most structures we humans build and live in.
Stainless is the only "for-sure"way..................Iron Helix
Good point about the stainless does seem quite a waste to build a deck of that magnetude and only use mid grade fasteners. I wonder if I could get fasteners made out of copper - copper on copper would have no galvanic action. I think I have seen some fasteners made from copper, not sure how strong they are though or if I could get hangers and post brackets out of copper either. Flashing is definitely possible.I'll have to look into price of stainless versus price/availability of copper.
In buidling a two story deck or a deck that covers doors, windows, etc I could see the corrosion issue being as bad as you describe.
I think after that can of worms is opened there won't be another container large enough to put them all up in...
Where I live you can't buy CCA anymore
here either..
not sure about boron treated wood so I don't really have an option.
Fir with a strip of Vycor on top of the nailing surface.. PL for the end grain.. not so much for strength but for sealent against water penetration... that's my method now.. better looking too...
I'll only use the acq for the structural portions -
This the criticle part.. I use Fir now.. I can't rest easy using the ACQ.. keeps me up at night..
If you had used g185 hardware - better than HD or EG - you wouldn't have had as many issues.
those standards were't advertized then... It was toted as use it the same way you do CCA... needing G185 was unheard of...
then I didn't know better.. different now...
remember I used ACQ when it was just coming on the market... CCA and ACQ were used on this deck because of the sheer quanities and sizes of material... that is what the MFGR sent...
Your sensitivity to the product is hardly proof that sensitivity to it is a common experience,
didn't say it was.. but there must be others.. why risk it???
a child that is sensitve to it is running..... trips / falls and slides on it.. No thank you...
maybe there are others here that will pipe in on their reactions to it if any..
it could be any number of things and it could very well be specific to the formulation of the ACQ you purchased -
Agreed..
I don't know.
Niether do I.. I just stay clear of it now.. Remember that I said the material was very wet.. call it sodden if you like..
one of the splinters I got was huge when I slid a 2x past my thigh.. razor knief and pliers for that one.. I went deep too... swore I had a hot poker stuk in me..
I'll try your splinter test before I build my deck and see if I react to it =)
Keep yur splinter kit handy.. peroxide boils out the chemicals fairly well..
A friend of mine just built his deck using acq and homedepot tried to sell him the regular galvanized hardware in fact they didn't even stock the g185
same here still....
I'll check in with him and see if he notices corrosion on flashing or the door or windows that sit below his deck.
Good.. I'd like to know too..
Thanks for highlighting your problems with it, I didn't expect the leachate to be such a problem.
Perhaps that is because there was so much to leach...(sodden material) and the material was dropped shipped from the MFGR... Never had a chance to sit and dry.. another reason for the ACQ was I could have it in 2x8x20 and 24'ers... no CCA at those demensions was to be found..
after all was said and done.. I thought about it often in a "what if" frame of mind... thought about the second floor decks out of this stuff too..
No thank you.. I'll pass on it ... I get myself into enough troble as it is.. I don't need any help..
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
We really have gone from the frying pan to the fire by going from CCA to ACQ. Problems with CCA, really, were in the theoretical to mythical range. ACQ deck failures will start killing people over the next few summers. When the body count gets high enough, it may even make the news.
-- J.S.
and then they'll switch back to CCA
True enough, the danger is much greater when you are talking about structures failing. Out in Vancouver we have a leaky condo legacy from a large amount of appartment complexes that were put up and were air sealed so well but didn't provide drip holes such that water penetrated between the exterior shelthing and the interior vapour barrier and over the course of 10 years proceeded to rot at twice the rate due to the water heating up within the wall and accelerating the rotting process. Since that debaucle and the home warranty program going belly up with all the claims against it, a lot more concrete construction has been going up. More people request it and for a lot of people no concrete is a deal breaker.I imagine if what you expect to happen comes to pass then a similar scenario will take place and hopefully the overall quality will go up. Perhaps everyone will use steel instead of wood for the structural elements of decking ten years from now.
I have a friend who was building a deck with ACQ .got a sliver in the eye somehow.was in the hospital for 2 weeks almost died how safe is THAT !!!!!! IT eats metals your skin is softer than steel .are children and are childrens children are going to be cleaning up our lerning process for a long time .we like to make money fast and at who's expense.We all want to build better and some think they do and they may .I am framing a house with (timber stran) lumber now the whole house rafter's studs it seeem's like a great way to build.straight strong .but what are the long term effects of the glues in the woods and cutting the stuff i am sure i will have cancer before i am 35 . well anyhow i have much more to say but another time
If you have copper touching steel you will get galvanic action. If you have copper touching your skin, your skin will not be eaten - unless you are the tin man.Sorry to hear about your friend, did the doctors say what almost killed him? Blood poisoning? Infection?The toxicity of resins in the wood should concern you. I was surprised to learn that regular saw dust is known to cause cancer.Being aware of the issues with the product is a good way to avoid them and I'd like to thank everyone for bringing them up. In my particular application - bottom plates on concrete, deck over patio - I shouldn't have too many issues. I will, however, head the stainless steel advice. I really want to build something that will be as maintance free as possible and last a very long time, maybe I'll forget acq and just go with steel I beams for the deck structure and composite for the decking - might be a little beyond my budget though.
How does someone who doesn't know the difference between ACQ treatment and Borate Treatment get to be Super?
Because his employer was low bid.
I know that there is a duty to mitigate losses, ie, to find the "best fit" solution. I would think that jacking and inserting the membrane is going to be the best bet at this stage.
Is there a way of cutting out the first plate and sliding in a borated plate doing it a small section at a time?
Sounds like a bunch of people were asleep on the job, not just the super, but the lead carpenter, and the owners oversite personnel as well. Everyone in the industry has been talking about the ACQ corrosion issues for a few years now, it's not new stuff anymore. Since this sounds like a school that may be in tornado country (possibly a potential public shelter), I don't see any reasonable fix without undoing something. Yeah, it's gonna cost someone something, that's what insurance is for. If it isn't fixed right, and very well documented, the lawyers will be circling like buzzards just waiting for the first ceiling tile to fall.
just as important, since this looks to be in tornado alley, it would be best not to play with lives. If this collapsed due this issue, people could be looking at manslaughter charges for negligence
" There'll be no living with her now" - Captain Jack Sparrow
There was a sit down on Monday PM. Owners, GC, Super, A/E.
There was the usuaul haggling over what was written and what was done and related excuses. It was nice that no one got over-heated!
Then the resolution phase began, and it was agreed that:
All metal fascia and soffit is to be removed and will be replaced using an appropriate barrier and stainless nails/screws. While the fascia/soffit is off additional stainless fasteners will be added to all treated lumber connections. Other areas where ACQ was installed will be removed and reinstalled in an appropriate manner.
The GC had submitted a list of places where ACQ was installed and what fasteners were used. So far, only one non structural set of ACQ blocks lies buried in a CMU wall and the engineer says he would leave them.
The double treated top plate was not required by prints/spec, the GC misread an adjacent x-section that happened to show treated plates at an exterior porch and extrapolated that to the whole building.
Currently the GC is consulting with the manufacturer of the steel studs for their take on the steel track in contact with the ACQ. It was pointed out that standard steel studs are an electroplated carbon steel and by AWPA treater specs electroplated products due not meet their corrossion resistent minimum standards. Likewise the AWPA clearly states that no aluminum or carbon steel shall be placed in contact with ACQ products.
Likewise the GC is looking into an injectable liquid that would create a barrier to corrossion. The GC has set his heals hard against jacking and removing the top plates and considers it an impractical fix. They felt likewise about the idea of jacking and inserting a barrier.
The GC maintains that as the building is enclosed and the ACQ dries out then there will be no more corrossion because there is no moisture.
The validity of that argument was challenged by the fact that winter building dynamics would place these top plates at the intersect of the warm humid interior conditioned space air and the cold of the attic and exteror wall, thus allowing for potential condensation/moisture to be present and the corrossion to continue.
More info when it happens......Iron Helix
I think this type of thing would make a great male "soap opera"
I can't watch the ones my wife watches but this has all the same drama only for a different gender....
well except for the fact nobody's been knocked up yet.
The steel stud mfg. replied that his product was a G60 hot galvanized stud/track and that the conditions of placement as described was not an issue of corrosion.
The office does not concur. The minimum galvanized coating called for by the AWPA (Amer. Wood treaters Assoc.) is G185 and the AWPA specifically calls out not placing carbon steel in direct contact with ACQ.
The information and opinions were presented to the owners on Friday and were asked what they wished to do.
The owner did not give an immediate answer, but indicated that the job needs to continue in order to meet deadlines for their use and that alone may decide what the decision may be.
So the saga continues, and yes it could be a soap opera as it appears that the owner is about to make a tragic mistake that will generate even more interesting episodes in the future!
.................Iron Helix
boy do i long for the good old days before ACQ... it's a major cost with no real upside
kind of like the war on terror....Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Sounds like they will take care of the unimportant, but easy (sub-fascia). But ignore the important...because "it's haaard!"
Pushing forward for the sake of the schedule is foolish
IronHelix-
Is this job bonded? I woiuld look at what type insurance the GC carries?
In my prior life I was an attorney on hundreds of construction cases, and there were policies out there that were sritten so that if a "claim" was made against the insured and the carrier was not notified, there was no longer coverage. Somebody on the owner's end that can really read policy language might want to look into the language to make sure there's coverage if it's needed down the road, especially if they are going to let corners be cut.
Good luck in your soap opera.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
Yes. it is a bonded contract!
I wonder if the office has thought of this.....Monday I will bring your comments to the architects and owners.
Thanks DonK for your point of law consideration.......Iron Helix
I second Don. This smells like a huge scandal. If it's a school, it smells like an investigation by the DA. The low-bid GC doesn't get a vote in how to cure his failures, and his profit margin isn't the owners' concern.
As for their deadlines issues, they need to seriously consider their priorities. If they don't think this problem is sufficiently serious to require it to be done properly because they are blinded by time constraints, they are contributing to the mess and will share in the responsibility. But my experience with public entities is that they tend to shy away from legal issues and prefer to find a solution that keeps the problems quiet so they don't look incompetent in their management, and pray that the construction people can find a simple solution that will allow them to get the job done on time, without much fuss, without risk to the kids, and without anyone knowing there was a real problem.
Of course, this is usually wishful thinking and why public authorities end up with scandal. Wishful thinking blinds people to reality.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
The steel stud mfg. replied that his product was a G60 hot galvanized stud/track and that the conditions of placement as described was not an issue of corrosion.
The office does not concur. The minimum galvanized coating called for by the AWPA (Amer. Wood treaters Assoc.) is G185 and the AWPA specifically calls out not placing carbon steel in direct contact with ACQ.
The minimum coating the AWPA puts out is to cover all situations and climates in which ACQ is to be used, which is a very broad brush so it makes sense to be very converative. However the steel stud mfg. has given the ok for a very specific situation. I don't see the contradiction and predict the building won't fall down anytime soon.
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
It does seem the architects could be Chicken Little crying out "The sky is falling!"
But Falling down soon is not the concern.....it's the longterm possibility of a perpetual problem from a known potential threat to the building's integrity and lifespan.
In areas accessable for inspection there is already evidence of corrossion, and those areas have been remediated.
I think the owners, builders and the architects want the corrosion problem assessed, remediated as agreed by all, and accepted by the owners with a full understanding of the circumstance.
The "soon" that is pressing the issue is the tradesmen will soon cover up access to the problem in order to meet the owner's time table for occupancy.
In summation...Following the specs and calling out the deficiency in a timely manner would have avoided this situation. What risks the owner and GC jointly agree to accept is the final word. An extended warranty is a viable option.
Maybe that will come down today.
.............Iron Helix
are the studs / tracks showing corrosion...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
IMERC
In response to your question about the showing of corrosion at the track & studs?
The top track is almost buried in the construction sequences. The shingled roof is complete.
The two ACQ 2x6's are on top of the plate, with the exterior side covered by exterior grade gyp board all the way to the roof deck, plus a split faced cmu up to the bottom chord of the trusses.
On the interior there are type X gyp board baffles from the double top plate up to the roof deck. The space between gyp board is filled with f/g insulation as part of a conditioned attic. Hard pan ceiling is to follow then an insulated drop ceiling 12" below at the 1st floor offices/rooms.
The only visible portion of the double ACQ top plate is from the interior where the drywallers left the space below the bottom truss chords where the hurricaine clips have been placed.
In order to see the effect at the top plate a section of double ACQ top plates in a bay between two trusses would need to be removed...so far the GC is not willing to do the demo, nor has the owner requested same.
At the time of the "call out" for this issue the GC had completed installation of 150Ln/Ft of metal (steel) fascia at the perimeter of the building. The manufacturer spec'd a membrane between it's product and all treated lumber materials, which the GC had ignored/claimed ignorance because the lumber was boron.
The GC did remove a piece of the fascia to prove to us that the ACQ wasn't as bad as we claimed. The fascia had been installed less than two weeks and the paint coating on the back side had aleady blistered and the metal underneath had begun corrosion.
Subsequently all fascia was removed, a barrier installed and S/S fasteners were used to reinstall the fascia and soffit.
The owner is not a public institution, but a private vendor of rehab services.
(Personal speculation here on my part!) An accountant's depreciation schedule for the building and the projected flow of income from state sponsored clients may also have something to do with the need to "finish on schedule and accept 'as is' with extended warranty".
Our office's concerns and information feel pushed aside, as the owners and GC, both race headlong for the easy way out of this important issue.
Nothing was firmed up yesterday..................Iron Helix
we could inspect and find a wide range of this isn't good...
but money talks and that's why there is insurance...
the bean counters did the same thing with some of that crap the automakers put out...
profits vs recall vs law suits....
be have faith in the unknown
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
Hopefully it works out to be a win-win for everyone involved.
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
Discussions continued on Monday & Tuesday. The owner's have agreed to accept as built if there is an extended warranty. The GC had agreed at the first sit down that the extension would be a viable resolution.
Yesterday the GC backed up on that and said that his sources say there is no corrosion potential with the ACQ in the dry of the interior. Further more they consider the treater's warnings to be a broad stroke to cover their liability and do not reflect all conditions of placement.
More today! ? .............................Iron Helix
this is getting better..
who's the GC? if you can say...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
I was wondering (I wouldn't want to bet anyone's life on it and that's sort of what you'd be doing though) if they could get an automotive rustproofer to get in there and using spray equipment and wands, coat all the metal? But getting between the metal and the ACQ would be nearly impossible and no way to protect any non-stainless fasteners that are into the ACQ. (Not to mention the goop used in rustproofing is going to drip and probably is worse for health than the ACQ!)
Thursday and Friday things were finally agreed upon and the drywallers began hanging rock at the walls in question.
The ACQ will stay where it is. The wall assembly will be sealed by using adhesive to glue the poly to the perimeter of the exterior wall sections. Penetrations and electrical boxes are to be sealed.
All this is to reduce/prevent water vapor from entering the wall cavity and possibly migrating to the top plates and possibly condensing. The consensus is that the plates will be dry on the interior of the building and will not be able to corrode.?!
Additionally the areas in the soffits adjacent to the exterior gyp rock sheathing against the ACQ top plates will receive a 3 inch coating of closed cell foam to seal the area from cold air penetration at the level of the conditioned attic space. This is to prevent the plates from being cold enough to condense any moisture that might enter the wall cavity.
The extended warranty proposal of +30 years has been withdrawn as most of the principles involved will be dead or infirmed in that length of time.!?
The bonding company has been notified, but has made no contribution to the discussions/decisions at his time.
Who knows if this is a prudent choice....and in 30 years I would be 90. Maybe there might be an adjacent independent living home where i could sit and watch the demo crew crush and cart away the corroded & collapsed structure.
...................Iron Helix
PS..by twist of fate the structure would be converted to an assisted living site and I would be committed to spend my waning days there!
Out of curiosity, how do you document all of this in the event it ever ends up in court? Change orders are something that come to mind but I don't think they'd cover everything. What about the discussions?
The documentation is:
A. Daily On-Site Notes by Observers by the date, time and persons present, actions requested, actions taken or dismissed, etc.
B. All correspondence..e-mails, letters, documents of reference etc.
C. Associated documents relating to bonding and O&E underwriters.
The we seriously sit around and play CMA & CYA..."what if"conversations, alternate considerations, and lots of consternation amongst five or six of us in the office.
Then ultimately a sit down with the corporate principals to see how it is to be finally played.
It sure takes an emotional toll on the projects lead architect...breakdown time!
.....................Iron Helix
Just an idea since I have fortunately never been in this situation. I would be tempted to use a sawzall to kerf as long a a horizontal section as I could, running the blade along the top of the plates, cut right thru fasteners, insert sheet metal strips (I guess would have to be stainless), and secure with the ACQ fasteners which should have been used in the first place. It would be tedious, but maybe could do reasonably long sections without needing to jack anything.
Hope this helps. Rich.
Given the liability issues, I suggest that they are going to need to rebuild it right or get some engineer to wet-stamp a solution. At this point there is constructive knowledge that corrosion is occuring. It could lead to future failure.
Anyone involved in it better be taking careful notes of all conversations, writing memos for record, sending a lot of e-mail and faxes for a paper trail and getting photos. CYA, if you can.
If an on-site work around does not work and the roof fails, crushing XXX kiddies beneath it (Film at 11!), a lot of people are going to be fried. I don't think insurance covers gross negligence (or does it?) and the insurers will certainly claim that and duck.
(One suspects that the super does not subscribe to JLC or FH, or read them, or he would know the difference between a copper treatment with a sinister rep for eating fasteners, and a borate treatment with a rep for giving termites and such digestive failure.) The ToolBear
"Never met a man who couldn't teach me something." Anon.
Maybe I'm not quite picturing it correctly, but is it possible to apply a bit of separating force and drive in strips of stainless steel to provide separation without having to jack the whole thing up? Raising any large structure less than 1/16" would seem to have little effect.
Driving in short section of stainless sheetmetal is always easier than opening up the gap wide enough for tar paper or ice and water.
Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.
These dissimilar metals create galvanic corrosion - a battery that is doing metal plating. I see it all the time in area lighting where steel rigid conduit is run into an alum. raintight box with copper wire.
Copper wire that has 40 years on it and is in excellent shape down in the rigid underground (which is mostly rust by now) shows serious galvanic corrosion where it exits into the box.
Now we have copper soaked wood on one side, some sort of stainless in between and mild steel of some sort on the other side, joined by a fastener. Which bit will got first? That's why they speced borate-treated wood in the first place. Did not want this stuff anywhere near steel framing. The ToolBear
"Never met a man who couldn't teach me something." Anon.
Pan head a hot dipped galvanized or stainless steel right angle clip to each stud.Then screw with a suitable fastener thru the plate into the treated plate. Even if the plate corrodes the studs will be held in place.
mike
Neat idea, but once the plate is gone then the cut ends of the suds are next in fine for the corrosion.
May have to bounce this one arround, there still might be some usable concept!
Thanks.....Iron Helix
I had thought of that myself, but wouldn't the corrosion stop at the bottom of the plate?If the bottom of the stud also corrodes, I imagine it would minimal.
On second thought, the information I post on this subject is only conjecture.I do not know enough about the corrosive effects of treated lumber to be sure. At first the clip idea seemed an easy way to solve the problem.If the clip and connection are strong enough to support any load, and the corrosion is limited to the very bottom of the stud, then it may be a viable solution.
mike