Clendenin _ Structural Assessment Report_EGI.pdf

Structural Assessment Report

KSU Clendenin Building 275 Kennesaw State University Road

Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

August 7, 2024

PREPARED FOR:

Kennesaw State University c/o Ronald Bertrand

Architectural Project Manager

Kennesaw State University

1200 Chastain Road

Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

PREPARED BY:

Bethany Jones, PE

Senior Structural Engineer

Shear Structural, LLC

3411 Pierce Drive

Chamblee, Georgia 30341 shearstructural.com

OVERVIEW

Shear Structural was contracted to perform a structural conditions assessment of a limited area of the

Kennesaw State University (KSU) Clendenin Building, located at 275 Kennesaw State University Road in

Kennesaw, Georgia. The scope of the structural assessment was limited to the support of the brick façade at the south end of the east building elevation between the third floor and roof elevation. The structural assessment was requested based on observations made by the General Contractor, FH Paschen, while performing a Building Enclosure Repairs Project. The Construction Documents for the Building Enclosure

Repairs Project were prepared by the Epsten Group, dated May 23, 2024. A portion of the exterior face brick and interior drop ceiling tiles had been removed prior to the Shear Structural site visit, exposing a limited area of the building structure supporting the brick façade in the assessment area. The purpose of the assessment was to identify and address existing structural conditions requiring remediation for the building structure supporting the brick façade in the limited assessment area. The assessment was a visual inspection of the exposed accessible structural building elements.

275 Kennesaw State University Road, Kennesaw, Georgia

KSU Clendenin Building East Elevation

Green Box Indicates Area of Shear Structural Assessment

The KSU Clendenin Building was constructed in approximately 2001 and is an approximately 36,850 square foot (3) three-story classroom building expansion to the KSU College of Science & Mathematics Building.

Construction Documents for the Building Enclosure Repairs Project, prepared by the Epsten Group, dated

May 23, 2024, were provided to Shear Structural. Original existing architectural, structural and mechanical construction documents for the KSU Clendenin Building were also provided.

The Shear Structural inspection included a visual evaluation documenting signs of structural distress, damages due to corrosion or deterioration, water infiltration or other problems potentially affecting the safety, durability, maintenance, or performance of the support for the brick facade. This condition survey was non-destructive; extensive testing is beyond the scope of this investigation. Therefore, in the development of repair programs resulting from this report, further third-party testing may be required for a complete recommendation. Shear Structural assumes no responsibility for structural items hidden from view. Compliance with any code or standard is not within the scope of this inspection. A complete in-depth review of the existing structural construction documents and existing structural building design is not included in this assessment, beyond understanding the visual conditions noted in this report.

A site visit was conducted by Bethany Jones of Shear Structural on August 2, 2024, to observe the existing support of the brick facade, note any deficiencies or concerns, and gather information on the existing framing. Ronald Bertrand of KSU, Jorge Del Angel of FH Paschen, Jacob Adams of CPS-Atlanta, and Melike

Duyaroglu of Epsten Group were also present at the site visit.

OBSERVATIONS

A detailed account of examples of the common structural deficiencies observed by Shear Structural is provided below, along with a report section entitled ‘Representative Site Visit Photographs’ documenting the observed structural deficiencies.

1. Multiple structural deficiencies were observed at the structural steel angle hangers supporting the structural steel angle lintel above the existing ribbon window (approximate window dimensions are 5’-7” high x 27’-0” long). The existing structural steel angle lintel supports approximately 7’-5” height of face brick above the ribbon window. The structural steel angle kickers, shown on the original existing structural drawings, are not present at this specific location. It appears that the kickers may have been removed to accommodate the installation of mechanical ductwork above the ceiling at this specific window location. The structural steel angle hanger and kicker spacing specified on the original existing structural building drawings is

48 inches on center maximum. The hanger locations were field measured and vary at this specific window location. However, an actual spacing between hangers was field measured to be as great as 74 inches on center. The original existing building drawings specify the structural steel angle hangers, supporting the structural steel angle lintel, to be continuously field welded on (2) sides to steel embed plates in the concrete structure. A minimum weld length was not specified; however based on the hanger angle size, the weld length shown in the detail appears to be at least 2 inches. Based on existing field conditions, this weld length varied and at (1) location the weld appeared to be less than 1 inch and the existing weld quality was poor. The structural steel angle lintel extends approximately 5 inches beyond the face of the window opening on each end and the outstanding leg of the lintel angle projects approximately 5 inches out from the face of the CFS infill stud wall around the window. These dimensions should be checked for structural adequacy. Surface rust was observed on the structural steel angle lintel.

The amount of deterioration and/or section loss due to rust for existing structural members must be less than 10% for potential reuse, which does not appear to be exceeded. However, all existing structural steel framing to be reused in this area should be cleaned and painted. Based on these structural observations, the structural steel angle lintel, hanger and kicker system requires substantial rebuild and reinforcement or replacement. If the intended structural steel lintel, hanger and kicker system is to be rebuilt and reinforced as required, redesign and relocation of the existing mechanical ductwork would be required. If the structural steel angle lintel system is entirely removed and replaced, it is recommended that a new structural steel

HSS rectangular tube section with a continuous brick support lintel be installed, spanning between the existing concrete building columns. The design of the proposed structural reinforcement or proposed new structure is beyond the scope of this assessment. See Section

3/S2.1 (below) from the original existing structural construction drawings for additional information. Reference Photographs 1 through 4.

Section 3/S2.1 from the Original Existing Structural Construction Drawings

2. Existing face brick had been removed at a 45-degree angle at the west end of the existing ribbon window, from below the corner of the window to the third floor elevation. The structural steel brick relief angle, welded to steel embed plates at the third floor concrete structure, was exposed at this limited area. The weld of the brick relief angle to the embed plate appeared to be short and the existing weld quality was poor. The brick relief angle was short in length and did not extend to the face of the existing concrete column, where the EIFS exterior wall finish system was installed instead of face brick. This condition left approximately 4 inches (one-half brick length) of unsupported brick at the third floor. It is my understanding that an investigative probe was previously performed at the second floor relief angle elevation, at an existing brick vertical control joint. It is my understanding that a brick relief angle was observed at this location. However, the required gap between the adjacent brick relief angles at this control joint location was excessive, resulting in unsupported brick at the second floor also. It is recommended that all brick relief angles and connections be exposed for further observation and evaluation. An initial recommendation would be to field weld an extension plate to the existing brick relief angle as required, prior to installation of the specified control joint sealant between the brick relief angle and the reinstalled brick below. Reference Photograph 5.

RJWells Text Box conceptual solutions to discuss:

1. need continuous lintel to carry brick not just above the window

2. introduce new structure hung from embed plates or vertical face of concrete edge beam

3. replicate as-built detail with hangers and kickers as needed, may need to move mechanical equipment

RJWells Text Box advise Shear to observe full length of shelf angle (from stucco to SE corner) to identify other possible deficiencies prior to subsequent repairs conceptual solution seems straightforward assuming no other deficiencies for this shelf angle run

1. field weld plate to extend 3rd floor shelf angle to carry brick above

3. The ribbon window is located (in plan) outside of the CFS infill stud wall surrounding the window opening. It appears that the existing window is entirely supported, including the dead load of the window and the lateral wind load over the window area, by the face brick. At the limited visually exposed areas, it appeared that the window was supported by screwed connections, comprised of (1) or (2) screws spaced at approximately 48” on center, to the face brick. This is not a preferred window support connection and may not be structurally adequate for the code required wind load over the window area. Therefore, following the site visit, it was recommended that the existing ribbon window be temporarily removed for the duration of the required repair work. It is recommended that a Window Manufacturer be consulted for the design of the new window connections to the existing building structure, prior to reinstallation of the existing window. See Partial Wall Section 1/A9 (below) from the original existing architectural construction drawings for additional information. Reference Photograph 6.

Partial Wall Section 1/A9 from the Original Existing Architectural Construction Drawings

4. The existing brick ties, connecting the existing face brick to the existing concrete structure appear to be short. Therefore, the brick ties do not extend an adequate distance into the brick mortar joints. During the site visit, it was observed that the existing brick ties were being removed by the General Contractor, as the existing face brick was being removed. New brick ties, of adequate length, should be installed when the face brick is reinstalled. Reference

Photograph 7.

conceptual solutions to discuss:

1. window to be salvaged, window manufacturer to provide window accessories to attach window back to existing structure or CFS infill wall, if deemed structurally sufficient (review stud sizes, gauge, attachments, etc.)

2. window to be replaced with new window and accessories back to existing structure or CFS infill wall, if deemed structurally sufficient

3. introduce new heavy gauge steel at head and sill of window, attached back to building structure, used only to support the window (dead load and wind load connections)

RJWells Text Box conceptual solution to discuss:

1. new brick ties to be used throughout, spaced 16" o/c vertical and horizontally, spaced 8" from wall termination, need various lengths to ensure that the brick ties engage with the middle of brick

REPRESENTATIVE SITE VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1 – Structural Steel Angle Kicker Photograph 2 – Inadequate Weld Length

Not Present at Structural Steel Lintel Hanger and Poor Weld Quality at Structural Steel

(Kicker Possibly Removed for Mechanical Angle Hanger Connection to Embed Plate

Ductwork Installation)

Photograph 3 – Existing Mechanical Ductwork Photograph 4 – Existing Conditions at West

Installation in Conflict with Existing Embed End of Existing Angle Lintel Above Existing

Plate for Structural Steel Angle Kicker Ribbon Window

Installation

REPRESENTATIVE SITE VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 5 – Inadequate Weld Length Photograph 6 – Existing Conditions Below West and Poor Weld Quality at Structural Steel End of Existing Ribbon Window

Brick Relief Angle Connection to Embed Plate /

Brick Relief Angle Short in Length

Photograph 7 – Inadequate Length of Photograph 8 – Overall Existing Exterior

Existing Brick Ties Conditions at time of Shear Structural

Site Visit

SUMMARY

Shear Structural observed multiple structural deficiencies during a structural conditions assessment of the limited building structure supporting the brick façade at the south end of the east building elevation and from the third floor to the roof elevation of the KSU Clendenin Building. Based on our site visit observations and a limited structural analysis of structural framing members supporting the brick facade, recommendations have been made to repair or replace existing building structural elements to ensure the safety, durability, maintenance, or performance of the structures. It is recommended that structural repair details be developed for the repair or replacement of the deficient structural elements outlined in this report. The recommended structural repairs should be performed in conjunction with the building enclosure repairs currently being implemented. It is probable that similar structural deficiencies will be encountered at other areas of the building, as the Building Enclosure Repairs project progresses. Therefore, it is also recommended that additional investigative probes be performed around the existing building façade to facilitate inspections to develop an ongoing repair and maintenance program for the KSU Clendenin Building Enclosure System and the Structural Elements supporting the Building Enclosure System. All remedial work should be completed by a licensed contractor experienced in the renovation and construction of concrete, masonry and structural steel commercial building structures.

WARRANTY AND LIABILITY

This report is based on a visual observation of conditions as they existed at the time of the observation only. Shear Structural’s observation did not include a review of any hidden or concealed existing conditions. Although an effort has been made to identify all visible defects, in the event of an oversight, Shear Structural’s maximum liability shall be limited to the fees paid for its services. Shear Structural reserves the right to supplement or revise its opinions based upon changed conditions, further investigations, additional testing/reports by others, and/or any new findings.

Shear Structural warrants that its services are performed, within the limits prescribed by the Client, with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other warranties or representations are expressed or implied. This report, its findings, and its recommendations are intended for the exclusive use of the

Client. Shear Structural shall have no liability arising from its unauthorized use by others. Shear

Structural does not assume any responsibility whatsoever for any action that may or may not be taken as the result of the information provided during this inspection.

next steps, items to discuss

1. advise Shear to observe full length of shelf angle (from stucco to SE corner) to identify other possible deficiencies prior to subsequent repairs

2. determine structural repair approaches while considering as-built conditions (mechanical work, building structure, etc.) and associated costs (FH Pashen to provide ROM based on approaches)

3. update building enclosure repair details in conjunction with structural repair details, once the structural repair approaches have been determined and agreed, timeline for ROM?

4. EGI and Shear to issue field sketches for this particular portion of repairs, EGI's repair set to be updated at a later date in preparation for building reclad in summer 2025