Boise "I" Beams

Page 1 of 6  
Boise USA made 420mm wooden composite "I" beams were use in a new school in Milton Keynes, England in 2003 - Giles Brook, Tattenhoe, Milton Keynes. A batch of them failed entailing the closure of the school. Portakabin classrooms have been installed on the playing fields and the pupils are moving into these until the beams are replaced and the school building back in order. Ceilings and florrs have been ripped up. <http://www.gilesbrook.org.uk/repair_index.html
A whole school has moved after first bussing the pupils around the city to spare classrooms in other schools. Now into temporary portakabins. Serious stuff.
The problem is a manufacturers failure of the beams. Boise sent over a techie for the USA who agreed with TRADA an independent testing house specialising in timber construction and the Building Research Establishment. The failure was the laminated flange coming away from the OSB web.
The builders narrowed the failed beams to a particular day - they are date and time stamped and which team made them - the builders said all beams made on that day will be replaced. TRADA testers narrowed it down to 10 minutes. This is the 10 minutes when the two types of glue did not mix properly in the beam making process.
Within this 10 minutes about 1000 metres of beam estimate to have been made with over 700 metres going to the school in England. Now Boise have to track down where the other 300 metres of beams went - if they can. Could be to the UK, US or Canada or wherever. The date of manufacture is 31 Jan 2003. So if you have 420mm Boise beams check the day of manufacture as they will have a high risk of failure.
Who pays for the replacements and the extra cost of the temporary school will be determined by lawyers I'm sure. The council is not using wooden composite "I" beams any more in new builds. Enough is enough for them.
Doing a Google on Boise they have a poor environmental record and poor at other things too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John wrote:

There's no need to Google the fact that using wood beams in what should be a masonry/steel structure is a poor choice. There's plenty of blame to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school board as well.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In a previous post RicodJour wrote...

I agree. Schools should be made of non-combustible construction.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bob Morrison"> wrote

I've used trusses constructed of pressure treated lumber and stainless steel plates when combustion was an issue. Not to mention the code issue of sprinklers in attic/contained spaces. We all now know what *can* happen to (exposed) steel when subjected to extreme heat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. One reason why steel is in question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So instead they used wood; oh, that's rational.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Barrow wrote:

It actually can be rational. I'm not sure it applies to beams of this style as they tend to have pretty think webs, but heavy rectangular section wood beams withstand a fire MUCH better than a steel beam sized for the same load. Wood burns, but it takes a long time to burn a heavy beam enough for collapse. A steel beam heats up quickly and will yield long before the wood beam has failed.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

Your point about large section wood members having superior fire resistive properties is valid - assuming that the wood beam is of sufficient size and that the steel isn't adequately fireproofed.
The school isn't timber framed. The webs and chords of engineered joists and trusses and other small pieces of wood are commonly referred to as "kindling".
Private home, personal risk. Public building, public risk. Higher standards should be in effect.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

The point is that higher standards and material selection aren't related. You can build to higher standards with any material and you can build substandard structures with any material. Look at which structures fail most often in earthquakes. Hint: it isn't heavy timber structures.
Steel, concrete, masonry and timber all have their advantages and disadvantages. The issue with this school isn't material selection it is a quality control issue with the fabrication. This is no different than a steel building with poor welds or a concrete building with inadequate rebar.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

They are related, just not necessarily in a one to one relationship.
Look at what people build, worldwide, when they need a literally bomb-proof building. Hint: it isn't heavy timber.
Look at what people build, worldwide, when they need a fireproof, not fire resistive building. Hint: it isn't heavy timber.
Starting out with a clear picture of the objectives will help determine the best materials for any construction within the confines of the budget. That was my point from the beginning. I believe that there are better choices than engineered I-joists for schools. YMMV

Agreed. Something hidden is something hidden, but something that should have been obvious, such as the off-color glue joints the OP indicated, was not noticed due to either inexperience or faulty quality control processes in the field. That's why I said there was enough blame to go around.
I would hazard a guess that no inspection was done of the I-joists at all, other than for quantity and size. Carpentry crews don't have the necessary skills and experience to inspect I-joists for manufacturing defects. Carpenters will reject split or broken members, but a wrong color glue joint would not send up any red flags.
A steel fabrication or precast plank would undergo a more stringent inspection, and the crews installing them would most likely notice any obvious manufacturing defects.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

It depends on the requirements. Engineered I-joists are very good choices for schools or many other structures.

I disagree. There are many grades of steels for W sections, bolts, welding rod, etc. There is almost no way in the field to know that a given piece of steel is the composition specified and has the proper heat treatment for that composition. A quality control lapse at a steel factory could have exactly the same consequences as with these wood joists and be equally hard to detect.
My point is that you were pointing the finger at the material when the problem isn't the material at all. And this problem isn't material-specific, as any material could have the same problem. Rarely is every bolt and piece of steel field tested for composition and strength. Same for concrete. Some projects may sample every single batch of concrete for strength, but I don't think this is uniformly done. Just look at the Big Dig if you want to see quality control issues with steel and concrete.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

There are area limitations on the size of wood framed buildings. Loopholes are sometimes used to circumvent those code restrictions. Modeling a single building as three separate buildings to circumvent code makes me uncomfortable. How do you feel about it? How do you feel about it in regards to school buildings in particular?

I have no problems with any particular building material. I have problems with how they're employed, why they're employed and how they're detailed. I already stated my opinion on wood I-joists in school buildings, numerous times. I already wrote YMMV - you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe if you keep talking you'll convince me, but I wouldn't count on it as you've offered nothing but your opinion. That by itself shouldn't convince me, should it?

I disagree with the choice of materials. I do not solely blame the material. I thought I had made that clear. Apparently what you were misreading is what I wrote originally, "There's plenty of blame to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school board as well." I could have sworn that I referred to that in the post you are responding to. Let me check...yep.
Can you offer any references, other than those sponsored by the wood industry, that prove the superiority of light member engineered wood structures in anything other than cost? If not, you're simply saying that cost is the overriding factor. In many situations that is obviously the case. I don't work that way and I disagree that having a larger, less safe building is a wise use of the money.
I find it curious that you never addressed my other points, such as need for public shelters, etc.

That wasn't quality control, that was graft. If your quality control inspector is on the take, well, all bets are off, aren't they?
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

I'm not in favor of subverting building codes, even when they are stupid. It doesn't matter to me what type of building it is, the code should be followed.

Only if it makes sense.

No, cost isn't the overriding factor. The factors vary by region and circumstances. In areas where wood is plentiful and the local labor force is familiar with wood, it is an excellent choice. In areas where wood isn't readily available, but masons are, then masonry is often the better choice. Likewise, with steel. Steel is great for skyscrapers where its high strength to weight and size are extremely important. However, as we saw with the WTC and with other structures, fire is a big problem with steel, even fireproofed steel. Fireproofing steel is very hard to do uniformly as field tests have often demonstrated. However, in a skyscraper wood and even concrete really isn't practical so you just accept the fire danger.
When I built my lot house everyone thought I was going to pay high insurance rates because of how easily wood burns. Well, log homes actually get preferred rates in many areas (mine being one) as they are actually seldom damaged beyond repair by a fire as is the case with standard stud frame construction or steel stud construction. Unless the fire department doesn't show up at all, typically at most 1/4" of a heavy beam will be damaged and that in many cases can be sanded off, the wood refinished, and you are back in business.

I wasn't trying to address every point. How would you like that point adressed? Public shelters for what purposes and from what hazards?

It was both graft and quality control. And, yes, in cases like that all bets are off.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

It's been quite a while since you've posted pictures of your house. I'm sure there are more than a few people reading who've never seen your place.

How about simply the efficacy of combining functions in municipal buildings by having public schools serve as public shelters. Do you think that increasing the cost of the school building to have it do double duty, while eliminating the need for a dedicated shelter building makes sense?
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RicodJour"> wrote

16/12 pitch roof. Doggies. I likes me a steep roof. Saw a guy installing metal on a 12/12 roof the other day, in the rain, he walked right up it like he was on level ground. Musta had on them sucker boots or sumfink. I get terrified on my 6/12 roof, (and I'm a ex-paratrooper) specially close to the edge on the back. You fall off back there it;ll take 3 days to hit the ground..........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just to provoke the two of you:
I guess I don't have a problem with having wood hold up the school. But I do have a problem with GLUE holding up a school.
Of course with parents being parents, you'll immediately get 5 or 6 who say their kids are dying from the outgassing and 10 or 12 who say that their kids are allergic to pine/oak/balsa or whatever other type of wood is used.
As for metal, well metal is fine but metal trusses aren't terrible good in a fire. That's why NY and NY require the truss warning beside the doors if trusses are used -- even metal ones.
Out where I live, almost everything is 1 and 2 stories, so we don't go quite a high as many places. -------- Changing subjects. We had a fire in town last night during the blackout. It wasn't a mile from the fire dept and they could be their within 3 or 4 minutes of the alarm. They did a good job of saving the slab. Oh, it was a construction company's lumber storage shed. Man, that burned. But as I said, they saved the slab.
RicodJour wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat wrote:

If you want to provoke me, you'll need to do a lot better than this. :-)
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
try flickr
Matt Whiting wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Pat"> wrote

Me too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Why? Do you also have a problem w/ a weld "holding up" a school?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.