Whitehaven Structural Assessment and Recommendations (2).pdf

February 9, 2024

Reference: Whitehaven Welcome Center – Building Assessment

Mr. Dwayne Brown

Division of Engineering and Contract Administration

Department for Facilities and Support Services

Finance and Administration Cabinet

Commonwealth of Kentucky

403 Wapping Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

I am writing to bring to your attention to the general condition and deterioration of the Whitehaven

Welcome Center. This report aims to provide a detailed assessment of the observed structural deficiencies, recommended scope of repairs, and a preliminary opinion of cost.

1. Background:

The building is of historical significance to the Paducah area as a Civil War era construction. The brick for this house was made on site. The structure was originally a farmhouse before extensive remodeling in the early 1900’s. The front Corinthian style porch, the majority of the classical style molding, and the grand staircase were added during this time. In general, the building is of multi-wythe brick bearing walls and rough sawn wood framing. Original foundations appear to be wider courses of brick on soil or stone.

The structure was a residence until its decline and abandonment around the late 1960’s. This led to broken windows, vandalism, doors unhinged, framing lost to rot, brick chimneys falling, and the collapse of a porch column. The property was eventually reclaimed as the I-24 Welcome Center with a large-scale restoration in the early 1980’s. This included rebuilding chimneys, replacement of rotted wood joists, and replacement of deteriorated walls.

The exterior of the building received a new paint system in the past year.

Since that major restoration the structure has begun to show visible structural issues. BFW was contacted to provide an assessment and recommendations for repair of the structure.

2. Visual Observation and Assessment:

A. Out of plumb walls (Photo 1-3 & 22): Various walls are shown to be out of plumb and “bowing out”. The wall of the most concern is the wall primarily on the south and easterly directions of the building. This is indicative of some form of loss of support either internally within the wall, or externally to framing. The area of most concern is between and immediately surrounding the windows from the first to second floor, under and above the porch on the south easterly side of the building. There is noticeable outward deflection of the wall. This wall was noted to be bearing at the second-floor level per the existing drawings, but this couldn’t be confirmed visually.

The other wall noticed to be out of plumb is the parapet on the northerly side of the building, to the west side of the tall chimney. The area was not accessible for measurements, but it appears to be at least 3” out of plumb from the top of parapet to the base of it. The wall below the parapet does not appear to be in distress or show any signs of concerning movement.

B. Cracking and separation in wall finish (Photos 9&10): The wall finish is showing signs of extreme distress in the south and easterly portion of the building. There are various areas in which the base trim has separated from the wall finish and a crack has appeared near the base.

There are areas where the wall finish has cracks in it upwards of 1” anywhere from 4’ above finished floor all the way to the second floor. These cracks have been noted in the pictures attached in this report.

C. Sagging floors (Photos 11&12): There is significant floor sag in the south and easterly portion of the building on both the first-floor level and second floor level. This was confirmed by a “marble test” in which a marble was placed on the floor to inspect floor slope and sag. The floor is also sagging on the first floor at the main front entrance area, directly next to two floor vents. It is believed that the portion not sagging is bearing directly on brick, and the sagging portion shown is where the joists below have been damaged and lost structural capacity.

D. Brick settlement: While on site in the crawl space under the south and easterly portion of the building where there was significant floor sag and wall finish cracking, the brick foundation walls were looked at and assessed. There were no apparent signs of distress due to settlement cracking in the areas observed.

E. Cut Floor Joists (Photo 5): While on site in the crawl space under the south and easterly portion of the building where there was significant floor sag and wall finish cracking, the floor joists were observed for issues. There were multiple floor joists that were cut at the approximate midspan for some HVAC ductwork at some point in time. The joists had considerable separation where cut and are deemed to have no structural capacity. There were some apparent attempts at fixing this cut (likely by those who originally cut it for the ductwork), but the attempts were not acceptable. There was noticeable deflection of the joists in those areas.

F. Crushed wood shims under floor joists (Photo 6): While on site in the crawl space under the south and easterly portion of the building where there was significant floor sag and wall finish cracking, the floor joist bearing conditions were observed for issues. At some point in time, there were floor joists that were sat on top of wooden shims as the bearing condition. This is not acceptable practice by today’s standards. The wooden shims have shown a bearing / compression style failure, and the floor joists are anywhere from ½” to 1” lower than what the original condition was. This has led to a very noticeable floor sag.

G. Rotten wood from conduit penetration (photo 4): While on site in the crawl space under the south and easterly portion of the building where there was significant floor sag and wall finish cracking, the area was observed for signs of water infiltration. There is a conduit that runs into the crawlspace from the exterior of the building. The penetration was not finished over, and the wood in the area immediately surrounding the penetration has completely rotted away. This has led to member failure and a noticeable sag.

H. Out of plumb Floor joists (Photos 7&8): Similar to point F, there are areas where the shim under joist bearing has partially failed and led to floor joists “leaning” out of plumb. These floor joists have next to no capacity for taking load and the majority of the load is being distributed to the adjacent floor joists, which leads to more issues and sag than necessary. This is a consistent issue across all areas observed, in multiple areas of the building.

I. Exterior Lintel Failure (Photos 1&2): Wood lintel failure was observed at windows around the porch on the south and easterly side of the building. The headers and sills are completely deteriorated in spots, which has led to water infiltration into the brick.

J. Water damage on second floor (Photos 13&14): While on site, BFW noticed a few areas of water damage on the second floor. There is bubbling on the wall finish, and there was one section of ceiling that was missing. While on site, BFW was informed this was because of water damage and the ceiling fell by itself.

K. Water damage at exterior, front columns (Photos 15-17): While on site, BFW noticed some deterioration at the front columns shown in photos 18 and 19. There was paint chipped off in various areas. Column 1 and column 5 were noted to have some water damage near the base.

The wood was either separated from itself, or “spongy” at the base. Note that at column 5, there was also duct tape seen so repairs had taken place in these areas before.

3. Possible Causes:

A. Poor Workmanship: The extreme issues that BFW noticed during observations were the damage done to the floor framing system during previous construction. The cutting of floor joists without proper remediation, the shimming of floor joist with improper materials, and not sealing penetrations through exterior walls seems to be the primary factor in the building issues noticed concerning floor sag.

B. Time: All structures are designed for a certain service life. Beyond that service life, members begin to decay, weaken, settle, and cause issues that are not anticipated within the normal service life. This item is evident in the wall on the south easterly side that is bowing out considerably due to wood deterioration, and the parapet on the north side of the building. This is also evident from the masonry dust accumulation that is seen in various photos. This is likely due to water infiltration and eroding the brick, then depositing it at the accumulation locations.

C. Water Infiltration: The areas of apparent water infiltration are the exposed penetration in the exterior wall for the conduit, and the window header and sills that are decayed on the south portion of the building. This water infiltration appears to have caused the wood to rot and brick to deteriorate, which BFW believes has led to the issues that were outlined in this report as noted above. There is also water infiltration in the brick deposits, as noted above.

There are signs of water infiltration on the second floor, which has led to ceiling and wall decay.

D. Settlement: While on site, BFW observed no obvious signs of structural distress due to settlement. While these were not noticed, there is a possibility that there are slight issues in the structure due to unnoticed settlement but there were no signs of distress in the wall foundations.

4. Potential Consequences:

Partial Failure / Collapse if the stated issues go unaddressed. The longer a structure is allowed to continue being in distress, the quicker the process of failure speeds up. Based on the findings of BFW, the issues will only continue to propagate elsewhere until a collapse of the first-floor framing occurs.

This could then propagate into the walls during collapse and potentially cause the collapse of a bearing wall.

The wall on the south and easterly side of the building that BFW recommends replacing could continue to bow, which will eventually lead to a collapse. The wall is noted as a load bearing wall for the second-floor framing, which will lead to a progressive collapse of the structure in that area.

5. Proposed repairs (BFW Recommendations):

A. First Floor Framing: BFW believes that if the issues with the first-floor framing are addressed.

then that will take care of the primary issues for the floor sag and cracking in the wall finishes that BFW was contacted about. Per discussion with KYTC, the plan is not to restore the structure to the original floor level but to prevent any further displacement. With this solution as the goal, BFW recommends the following:

a. For the joists that are out of plumb / tilted, provide in place blocking at the bearing ends and at the midspan of the joists to prevent any further displacement of the floor joists.

i. BFW recommends an x-bracing detail with 2x4s and brackets to each end.

b. For the joists that have the bearing plate crushed, sistering on two new, pressure treated 2x’s, each side of the joist with issues.

i. These two joists will then bear on a new pressure treated wood shims of a high strength wood material. This will allow the current joists to stay in place.

c. Removal of rotten floor joists and replacing them with new wood floor joists.

i. There is potential to sister on wood that is pressure treated to the rotten areas to replace the section loss.

ii. The subfloor might also need to be replaced in these areas, dependent upon the spread of rot. This will need to be further investigated during construction.

d. For the wood joists that were cut and sistered incorrectly, BFW recommends abandoning them in place and providing new 2x floor joists placed directly adjacent.

i. If the wall is demo’d and replaced as BFW recommends, then the 2x framing should be able to be inserted without an issue.

B. Second Floor Framing: The state of the second-floor joists in the south and easterly portion of the building, where there is floor sag, is unknown. BFW recommends that the joists be inspected during replacement of the exterior wall. BFW also recommends developing details for remediation of the damaged second floor joists (if there are any) during the design phase, so that there is minimal schedule impact during construction.

C. Sealing of penetrations in exterior wall: BFW recommends providing some form of architectural component around the aforementioned penetrations to divert water/moisture and seal penetration accordingly. This will need to be developed by an Architect.

D. Replace section of wall that has bowed out on first floor (Photos 2&3): BFW recommends that the section of brick wall that has bowed out significantly on the south and easterly side of the building to be replaced full height for the approximate extents as outlined in the photos in

Appendix A. This is approximately outside of window + 2’ to outside of the other window + 2’, full height of the wall. BFW Recommends replacing with an 8” CMU infill with brick façade on the outside. The original brick should be able to be salvaged for reuse to maintain aesthetics but it is no longer allowed by modern codes as a building material. Details should be developed to transition the brick façade to the structural brick and connect the new to existing walls; the brick being reused for new construction should be toothed into the existing brick to remain in place.

The existing brick being reused should also be constructed using lime mortar, to match existing.

E. Parapet on the north side of the building: BFW does not believe this to be a structural issue but was worth noting for future reference.

F. Water damage on second floor: BFW recommends consulting an architect for waterproofing details in the areas of concern that currently have water damage. Further inspection, including partial demolition, would be needed to know if the structural integrity of the area has been compromised. From initial inspection, there were no apparent signs of distress in the area that would require this.

G. Columns on front (easterly) side of building: BFW does not believe these items are structural issues. Repainting the columns and providing wood repair putty or sealant in the “spongy” areas or areas that are cracked should be sufficient.

6. Conclusion:

There are signs of major distress in the building. However, BFW believes that taking corrective action, as outlined in this report, will stabilize the structure and prevent the propagation of the current sources of deterioration.

If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely, BACON FARMER WORKMAN ENGINEERING & TESTING, INC.

Jase Baker, EIT Justin A. Holt, PE

Appendix A: Photos

Photo 1:

Photo 2:

Photo 3:

Photo 4:

Photo 5:

Photo 6:

Photo 7:

Photo 8:

Photo 9:

Photo 10:

Photo 11:

Photo 12:

Photo 13:

Photo 14:

Photo 15:

Photo 16:

Photo 17:

Photo 18:

Photo 19:

Photo 20:

Photo 21:

Photo 22:

Photo 23:

Appendix B: Preliminary Opinion of Cost

Item Amount and

Unit

Pay Rate per

Unit Total = $410,265.00

Increase for Small amount of work and confined space =25%

Contingency =10%

WALL REPLACEMENT

New CMU Wall 550 sq. ft. $40.00 / sq. ft. $22,000.00

Bond Beam 120 lin. ft. $60.00 / lin. ft. $7,200.00

Brick Façade 550 sq. ft. $75.00 / sq. ft. $41,250.00

Demo of wall and shoring 550 sq. ft. $220.00 / sq. ft. $121,000.00

Foundation work for new wall

(reinf. lumped in)

3.5 cub. yd. $900.00 / cub. yd. $3,150.00

First Floor Framing

New 2x 750 lin. ft. $40.00 / lin. ft. $30,000.00

Blocking and Brackets 250 spaces $20.00 / space $5,000.00

Arch. Finishes on space

Various Waterproofing 1000 lin. ft. $30.00 / lin. ft. $30,000.00

Paint 16 gallons $300.00 / Gallon $4,800.00

Interior refinish 1000 sq. ft. $15.00 / sq. ft. $15,000.00

Exterior Columns

Paint Stripping 3500 sq. ft. $5.00 / sq. ft. $17,500.00

Paint New 20 gallons $300.00 / Gallon $6,000.00

Minor finishing work / wood work 20 lin. ft. $50.00 / lin. ft. $1,000.00