roof framing structural evaluation

ROOF FRAMING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION

DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, NEWBURGH, NY132 Grand StreetNewburgh, New York

Prepared for:Erin TobinJay DiLorenzoPreservation League of New York State44 Central AvenueAlbany, New York 12206(518) 462-5658

Prepared by:Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Engineering & Surveying, P.C.Stacey ThomasJack Healy, P.E. 257 Ushers RoadClifton Park, New York 12065(518) 406-5506

Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Project 9575-2March 3, 2017

Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Project 9575-2ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................iii

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1

OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS........................................................................................................... 4

ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................... 17

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 18

RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 20

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST......................................................................... 22

VERTICAL ACCESS REPORT.........................................................................................APPENDIX A

CONCEPT SKETCHES....................................................................................................APPENDIX B

Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Project 9575-2

Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based upon the authorization of Ms. Erin Tobin and Mr. Jay DiLorenzo of the Preservation League of New York State, Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis (RBCD) has performed an evaluation of the roof and walls of the Dutch Reformed Church. The existing structure faces south and is approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long. The exterior walls are constructed with stone and brick masonry and are faced with stucco. There are four large fluted columns at the front portico. The building has wood-framed roof and floors supported by the exterior stone and brick masonry walls and foundations. There is a wood framed gallery (mezzanine) level that wraps around the west, south, and east sides of the sanctuary floor. The purpose of this evaluation is to address structural concerns observed during our January 2012 inspection following the collapse of the plaster ceiling earlier that same month. The evaluation incudes observations of the roof framing, condition analysis, a structural analysis of the roof structure and supporting bearing walls, and developing structural repair recommendations for the roof framing and bearing walls. Based on our observations and analysis we found the following: In general, the ceiling collapse does not appear to have significantly damaged the roof framing of

the structure. However, the roof structure is in poor condition and has had a history of structural issues.

• The disrepair of the gutter system and missing cornice trim are accelerating deterioration of the structure.

• Failing parge coatings on the exterior walls create a fall hazard. • The remaining section of plaster ceiling at the north end of the sanctuary requires additional support

reinforcement or needs to be removed. • Sections of sanctuary floor framing have been damaged from the ceiling collapse and temporarily

shored. These areas require long-term repairs. • The extensive debris from the ceiling collapse prohibits a thorough inspection of the gallery. • Repairs are needed at truss bearing conditions. • Repairs that have been identified in earlier investigations by Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis have not

been performed. Scope generally includes supplemental roof purlins and reinforcement of purlin connections, installation of supplemental truss web components, repair of spliced rafters and reinforcement of the gallery connection at the perimeter walls.

Recommendations for repair are included in the report and are grouped by work type and presented in the order of anticipated sequence. The major work items include:

1. Debris removal and ceiling removal (or reinforcing). 2. Roof framing repairs and truss reinforcing. 3. Gallery repairs. 4. Gutter repairs.

Our opinion of probable cost for the above tasks is $400,000. A detailed description of the recommendations and a breakdown of the costs are provided in the Recommendations and Opinion of Probable Construction Costs sections of the report.

Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Project 9575-2Page 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDAt the request of Erin Tobin and Jay DiLorenzo, Preservation League of NYS. Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Engineering and Surveying, P.C., (Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis) has performed an evaluation of the roof and walls of the Dutch Reformed Church. Jack C. Healy, P.E., and Stacey Thomas of Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis, observed the structural framing conditions at the Dutch Reformed Church on September 29, 2016.

Our evaluation is to address structural concerns observed during our January 2012 inspection following the collapse of the plaster ceiling earlier that same month. Our current scope of work includes the following:

1. Make observations of the existing roof framing conditions. Because of the ceiling debris on the first floor, access to the roof framing was prohibited by lift. Therefore, Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis retained the services of Vertical Access LLC to document the existing roof trusses and roof framing as safe access would allow. Access to document the conditions was performed by using industrial rope techniques. The observations were performed on September 29, 2016.

2. Structural analysis of the roof framing using the loads prescribed in the current building code (2016Building Code of New York State). The purpose of the analysis was to identify reinforcing needed to upgrade the trusses to current code snow loads and new ceiling loads, and address additional structural damage that may have been caused by the ceiling collapse.

3. Structural analysis of the existing walls.4. Based upon the condition survey and the results of the structural analysis, develop a list of

concept-level structural repairs.5. Prepare an opinion of probable construction cost for the structural repairs identified.

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Description

The existing structure faces south and is approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long. The exterior walls are constructed with stone and brick masonry and are faced with stucco. There are four large fluted columns at the front portico. Photograph D1 shows the building as seen from the southwest corner.

Photograph D1


The building has wood-framed roof and floors supported by the exterior stone and brick masonry walls and foundations. There is a wood framed gallery (mezzanine) level that wraps around the west, south, and east sides of the sanctuary floor.

The roof framing consists of rafters sloped toward the east and west sides with wood-framed built-in gutters. The rafters are supported at two points along their span by purlins that span between the trusses. There are 11 timber trusses spanning in the east-west direction that bear on the exterior masonry walls.Trusses 1 through 9 are original rough-hewn timbers with mortise and tenon joinery. Trusses 10 and 11 at the north end were part of a later addition and are mechanically sawn. Truss style and member sizes differ between the original and later construction. SK-2 in Appendix B shows the roof plan from a previous 2009roof reinforcing design indicating the typical roof framing components.

The ceiling was supported by wood hangers connected to wood beams spanning between the truss bottom chords.

Background

Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis (formerly Ryan-Biggs Associates) has been involved with the building previously. Between 2001 and 2008, Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis prepared foundation stabilization and floor reinforcing designs and performed construction administration services for those projects. Also, in 2009, we designed a limited roof reinforcing project. The extent of reinforcing was limited in load capacity for construction loading only, which would allow the installation of a new roof membrane. The 2009 roof membrane and roof reinforcing project was not performed.

During our 2009 field observations, the following structural concerns related to the roof structure were noted:

Two of the trusses have significantly deflected downward.The roof truss configurations are not ideal trusses; the web and chord members are offset and donot meet at a common point. This results in increased internal stresses in the members and connections.There is evidence of past reinforcement and repairs such as wood posts under timber beams, steel angles at timber beams, and steel channels at the truss ends.

In March 2009, we created Drawing S-1 as part of a roof repair project by Mesick Cohen Wilson Baker Architects. The following recommendations were presented to provide adequate load capacity for construction loading to allow the installation of a new roof. As mentioned previously, the project was not performed.

Install new steel hangers to reinforce the connection of the purlins to the trusses. Install new LVL beams at existing damaged purlins. Install reinforcing at damaged rafters. Reinforcement or replacement of ceiling connections to the roof trusses.

At that time, we also identified conceptual repairs that would be needed to provide more significant reinforcement for longer term loading including snow and wind loading. The repairs were not performed.

Install new truss web components members. Install new tie rod to reinforce bottom truss chord. Reinforce existing truss connections.


In January 2012, the existing arched, plaster ceiling collapsed. We visited the site at that time, and the following structural concerns were noted during our site visit:

There were cracked floor framing members. This was caused by the impact of the falling ceiling.Areas of the balconies may have displaced from the impact of the ceiling debris.The existing roof trusses and supporting bearing walls may have been damaged. The truss reinforcement should consider current snow loading and supports for the future ceiling framing.


OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTSRYAN BIGGS | CLARK DAVIS OBSERVATIONS

Exterior

1. As observed by Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis over the past several years, the exterior façade continues to deteriorate, with enlarging areas of missing parge coating that expose the stone wall and mortar to the weather which accelerates deterioration. Areas of wall below disconnected or leaking gutter downspouts have experienced the most damage from concentrated water run-off (Photograph 1). The parge coat is missing and the mortar joints are significantly eroded.

Photograph 1


2. There are significant cracks on the west elevation correlating with downward displacement of the middle section of wall. The displacement is noted in the horizontal stair ledge, window heads, and window sills (Photograph 2).

3. At the south elevation of the west addition, there is significant deterioration of the mortar joints of the brick, and stone masonry is unstable.

Photograph 3

Photograph 2


4. The gutter downspout discharge at the east addition is directed toward the building foundation, accelerating deterioration of the structure.

5. The overgrowth of vines and weeds at the east elevation make it difficult to thoroughly evaluate the façade.

6. At the south end of the east (Photograph 5) and west (Photograph 6) foundation, the window openings lack a proper header, and the masonry wall above is cracked and settling.

Photograph 4


Photograph 5

Photograph 6


Cracked and loosened sections of parge coating present a fall hazard (Photograph 7).

7. Sections of cornice trim are missing, exposing the structure behind to view and to the weather.

8. Portions of the east basement portico wall have collapsed. These areas were overgrown with vines and weeds at the time of our visit.

Photograph 7

Photograph 8


Interior

9. The debris from the fallen ceiling covers the balconies. There is no obvious lateral movement at the face of the balcony or supporting columns. From the top of the east mezzanine stair,we observed a limited section of exposed balcony floor joist. The joists are notched and bearon wood blocking that is pocketed into the stone masonry exterior wall. We were unable to confirm that all joists have maintained their bearing after the ceiling collapse. Once the debris is removed, a closer inspection of the framing can be done to clearly identify damage to the structure.

10. The majority of the ceiling, with the exception of the north end, collapsed in 2012 due to failed hanger supports. The stability of the section of ceiling that remains is questionable. Vertical Access observed vertical wood members connecting roof purlins to the ceiling structure. Some failed hanger supports were noted, which result in additional stress on the hangers that remain.

Photograph 9


Basement

11. The bearing condition for a beam at the east wall (Photograph 10) is not stable and is being reinforced with a temporary column support.

12. An area of flooring and floor joists was significantly damaged as a result of the ceiling collapse (Photograph 11). Temporary shoring members were added to reinforce the floor system (Photograph 12). There is also evidence of damage at a floor joist in a nearby bay (Photograph 13). Other than these localized areas of damage, the floor framing generally appears to be in good condition.

Photograph 11

Photograph 10


VERTICAL ACCESS OBSERVATIONS - SUMMARY

13. Vertical Access documented existing conditions of the roof framing. The report provided by Vertical Access is in Appendix A.

Photograph 12

Photograph 13


14. Typically, trusses are notched and bear on the wood sill plate at the top of the masonry wall, with wood blocking added between the bottom of the truss and the top of the stone wall(Photograph VA.1).

15. Remedial repairs were performed at Trusses 4, 5, and 6. Bolted steel channels were added to reinforce their bearings, which rest on built-up cementitious material (Photograph VA.2).

Photograph VA.1

Photograph VA.2


16. In general, there were no signs of rot or decay noted at the interior sections (away from the exterior wall) of the structural wood members during the inspection. Wood decay and deterioration was observed in at a reinforced bearing location at Truss 6 (Photograph VA.3).

Photograph VA.3


17. The following damage was noted:

a. Minor checking, less than 1/8 inch, was observed in most members.

b. Larger checking, up to 1/2-inch-wide, was documented at Trusses 5 and 6 (Photographs VA.4 and VA.5).

Photograph VA.4

Photograph VA.4


c. Missing and broken mortise and tenon joinery exists at truss component connections(Photograph VA.6).

d. The connection between the central vertical web and top chord of Truss 8 is cracked and displaced (Photograph VA.7).

e. While most truss chords were relatively level, the bottom chord of Truss 8 is out of level by 1/4 inch over one foot, with the higher end at the west wall bearing point.

f. Rafters between trusses 6 and 7 are spliced, significantly reducing their capacity.

Photograph VA.6

Photograph VA.7


Photograph VA.8


ANALYSIS

Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Engineering and Surveying, P.C. has performed a structural analysis of the roof framing members and bearing walls. The purpose of the analysis is to identify reinforcing work needed to address existing conditions and to upgrade the roof framing to support current code loading requirements.

The following assumptions were utilized in preparing engineering calculations:Loads were developed using the current building code (code loading), 2016 New York State Uniform Code.Wood framing members have the following allowable structural properties:

o Maximum extreme bending stress, Fb = 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi)o Maximum allowable shear stress, Fv = 135 psio Modules of Elasticity, E – 1.4x106 psi

Existing wood members are in sound condition (repairs for deteriorated components are identified as part of the observations section of the report and are addressed in the recommendations).The masonry walls are constructed with lime mortar. The net area compressive strength of the masonry is 750 psi.

Based upon our analysis:1. The sloped rafters are adequate to support code loading.2. The purlins are overstressed in bending and require reinforcement to support code loading.

The mortise and tenon connection to the truss does not meet current notch dimensional criteria and will require a framing hanger to meet current code requirements.

3. The truss top chord, bottom chord, and some of the diagonal members are overstressed when supporting code loading. Additional diagonal members are required to reinforce the truss to support code loading.

4. The existing masonry bearing walls are adequate in compression to support code loading. 5. Code wind loading results in flexural tension in the exterior bearing walls. If connected

properly, the gallery level framing (mezzanine) helps reduce the flexural tension stresses in the exterior bearing walls.


CONCLUSIONS

Our conclusions are based upon our observations made in 2016 and previous years, observations and documentation provided by Vertical Access, the structural analysis performed for the roof framing and walls, and review of the 2003 Historic Structures Report prepared by Mesick Cohen Wilson Baker Architects.

1. Overall, the roof structure of the Dutch Reformed Church is in poor condition. The building has had a history of structural issues. Shortly after construction was completed, the dome and lantern feature on the roof was removed apparently because of structural reasons which caused leaks into the worship space. The two trusses noted for significant deflection appear to be in the area which would have supported the dome and lantern.

2. In 1981, the two trusses above the portico were reinforced. The reinforcing consisted of inserting two additional trusses in the north south direction. Also, several of the sanctuary roof truss bearing connections were reinforced with steel channels.

3. The west wall has settled apparently due to drainage issues which had weakened the soil and allowed a portion of the wall to settle. The settlement has resulted in diagonal cracking of the west wall which most likely initiated water infiltration and subsequent parging bond failure. In other areas, parging failure, brick deterioration, and eroded mortar joints are caused from weathering. The extent of damage is greater near gutters and areas with increased drainage.

In the early 2000s, Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis (formally Ryan-Biggs Associates) designed repairs addressing the settlement based upon recommendations from a geotechnical engineer. Drainage improvements were also included as part of that project. The project was completed in 2008.

4. In general, the ceiling collapse does not appear to have significantly damaged the roof framing of the structure. Photographs were reviewed from before and after the ceiling collapse and no significant damage was obvious for the rafters, purlins, and trusses as a result of the ceiling collapse. However, it appears that in at least one location, the horizontal bracing component of the bottom chord may have been damaged as a result of the ceiling collapse. The bracing component does not directly support the roof load and the damage appears minor. An electronic copy of the photographs are included as part of this report for your records.

5. The ceiling that is remaining at the north end of the building is supported in a similar manneras the ceiling area that collapsed. Observations noted that some of the supporting hangers were damaged or have failed. This area of the ceiling should be removed or reinforced in place.

6. The ceiling was connected to the interior wall surface and connect to the exterior bearing walls several feet below the roof truss elevation. Although not intentional, the ceiling connection likely provided some bracing to the exterior wall. Because the ceiling is now not connected to the wall, the exterior wall span has increased from the gallery floor framing to the underside of the trusses. This additional span results in additional stresses including flexural tension if the wall is subjected to code wind loading. The brick, stone, and lime mortar construction of this wall is better suited for compressive loading than flexural tension. The long term repairs should include additional bracing at the new ceiling elevation. Additionally, the gallery framing is pocketed into the exterior wall but there is no mechanical anchorage which would assist in bracing the walls.


7. The sanctuary floor framing was reinforced in the mid-2000s. The floor was damaged by the ceiling impact in a couple of localized areas. In other areas, the floor appears to be sound with no obvious indications of damage. At one floor beam location, the masonry wall is missing at the beam bearing. This condition existing prior to the ceiling collapse.

8. The results of the structural analysis indicate that several roof members require reinforcing to support current code loading. Reinforcing is required at:

a. Purlinsb. Connection of the purlins to the trusses.c. Truss bottom chord and truss top chord.

9. Based upon observations of the existing conditions, there are several roof framing components that require repair to support current code loading. These items include the following:

a. The bearing at Truss 6 and possibly other trusses that have been reinforced at the bearing. The conditions of the bearing could not be viewed closely. Additional bearing area is likely required to support code loads within the allowable material stresses.This will need to be verified when access is available.

b. Some of the purlins are cracked or the mortise and tenon connection has failed.c. Some rafters are spliced at midspan.d. There are large cracks in some of the truss chords. Minor checks (less than ½ inch)

are not a structural concern. However, near full depth cracks can reduce capacity.e. In some locations, it appears that the truss connections have displaced.


Page 20

RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are grouped by work type and limited to the major items for the structural roof framing only. In general, the recommendations are listed in the order of proposed sequence including our opinion of anticipated access using our best judgement as a design professional. The sequence and access may be adjusted depending on a contractors approach to do the work. In all approaches, careful study for the stability of the work area must be done prior to engaging in the repair and reinforcing work.

1. Debris Removal and Ceiling Removal (or temporary support):

a. Reinforce the sanctuary level floor joists that were damaged from the ceiling debris impact. This reinforcing work can be completed from the basement.

b. Erect scaffolding at the north end of the sanctuary floor to access the remaining ceiling. The scaffolding will need to be installed and extend from wall to wall and create a working platform just under of the existing ceiling that remains.

c. Install temporary supports on the underside of the ceiling. Selectively remove the

existing ceiling that remains.

Alternatively, if the existing ceiling is to remain, just install temporary supports under the ceiling. The ceiling support reinforcing will be performed after the trusses are reinforced. The scaffolding will act as a temporary support for the ceiling and overhead protection during the debris removal.

d. Remove ceiling debris from the sanctuary level and gallery level.

2. Roof framing repairs and truss repairs:

a. Repair sections of the sanctuary floor that are temporarily shored.

b. Erect scaffolding throughout the interior. As part of the scaffolding, shore the

underside of the trusses. At the north section of the building, limited ceiling removals will be required to install the shoring to the underside of the trusses.

c. Remove other ceiling areas and miscellaneous loose and damaged framing.

d. Repair rafters that are spliced at midspan. See Appendix B (SK-2 and Detail 5/S-1 on

SK-3).

e. Reinforce existing purlins. This could most effectively be done by installing additional purlins. See Appendix B (SK-2 and Detail 2 & 3/S-1 on SK-3) for the proposed detail that was developed as part of the roof reinforcing project.

f. Install beam hangers at existing purlins. See Appendix B (SK-2 and Details 1 & 4/S-1

on SK-3) for the proposed detail that was developed as part of the roof reinforcing project.


Page 21

g. Inspect and repair truss bearings. Although some reinforcing has been performed in the past, it appears that the reinforcing does address the entire connection and all components. We anticipate that the existing reinforcing will be removed and new steel members on each side of the truss will be bolted through the existing wood members.

h. Install new truss web members. The new members would likely be a combination of

structural steel shapes on each side of the truss chords and through bolted. See Appendix B (SK-1) for proposed configuration of new members.

i. Install new ceiling supports for the existing ceiling to remain at the north.

j. Install new catwalk system and railings.

3. Gallery Repairs: Reinforce the connection of the gallery to the perimeter walls. See Appendix

B (SK-4) for the proposed detail that was developed as part of the roof reinforcing project.

4. Repair existing gutter system:

a. Replace down leader at north end of high roof on east elevation. b. Repair soffit, fascia and eave of east and west low roofs and install temporary gutters

and down leaders.


OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTOur opinion of probable construction cost is made on the basis of Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis' experience and best judgment as a design professional. However, since RBCD has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis cannot guarantee that proposals, bids, or the construction cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If you wish greater assurance as to the construction cost, an independent cost estimator should be employed by you.

Ceiling and debris removal $ 60,000

Roof framing, truss and catwalk repairs $200,000

Gallery repairs $ 40,000

Temporary gutter repairs $ 8,000

Insurances, permit fees, design fees, constructionadministration, and contingency $ 92,000

TOTAL $400,000

The proposed breakdown of repairs is presented to provide possible phasing options if funding is not available to perform all work in a single effort. The order generally follows the recommended sequence of events, with the exception of gutter repairs that should be a top priority. Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis will work with the Preservation League to develop an alternate phasing plan during the Design Development Phase based on available budget, if needed.

APPENDIX A

VERTICAL ACCESS REPORT

(SEE ATTACHED BINDER)

Vertical Access • PO Box 4135 • Ithaca, NY 14852 • tel 607.257.4049

Report Narrative

Report Narrative

Dutch Reformed Church Truss Investigation Newburgh, NY

Vertical Access LLC PO Box 4135, Ithaca, NY 14852 Tel: 607 257 4049 / Fax: 607 257 2129

Vertical Access LLC (VA) was retained by Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis (RBCD) to perform a close visual investigation of the timber roof trusses of the Dutch Reformed Church in Newburgh, NY. The purpose of the investigation was to document existing conditions to help the project team led by RBCD determine the cause of movement observed at the roof framing as the first step in preparing repair recommendations. As part of the truss investigation work, VA documented representative and notable conditions at the roof trusses with digital photographs hyperlinked to annotated condition drawings. VA also took direct measurements of truss members to characterize the trusses and develop sketches of existing connection details.

VA technicians Kelly Streeter, Walker Diebolt, and Evan Kopelson were on site September 29th, 2016 to perform the truss investigation. Jack Healy and Stacey Thomas of RBCD were on site during the field work to discuss the project scope and review findings of the investigation. Deirdre Glenn, Director of the City of Newburgh Department of Planning and Development, was on site at the beginning of the day to assist with site access; David Kohl, Economic Development Specialist with the Department of Planning and Development, was on site at the beginning of the day and end of the day to discuss findings. Frances Gubler of the Preservation League of New York State was on site the afternoon of September 29th to review the findings of the investigation.

Vertical Access documented checks, levels, and other notable and representative conditions in the wood roof trusses. At a typical truss above the main sanctuary of the church and a second truss above the altar of the church, VA took measurements of truss members to characterize the trusses and develop connection details.

This Report Narrative with supporting photographs, annotated AutoCAD elevation drawings, and sketches of truss connection details constitute VA’s Condition Survey Report for the Dutch Reformed Church. Vertical Access’ Guide to TPAS® Annotated Drawings is included with the report. Digital copies of the Report Narrative, drawings in AutoCAD and PDF formats, photographs, sketches, and Guide to TPAS® Annotated Drawings are provided on disc.

Dutch Reformed Church 2 Vertical Access LLCTruss Investigation Report NarrativeNewburgh, NY October 7, 2016

C

Description of Deliverables

This Report Narrative includes a description of the project deliverables, the scope of work and a narrative summarizing the conditions noted during the inspection. Conditions documented by Vertical Access and described in the Report Narrative use terminology based on VA’s Conditions Glossary (http://www.vertical-access.com/glossary.html). Supporting photographs illustrating representative and notable conditions observed during the investigation are cited in the Report Narrative. The last section of the Report Narrative includes conclusions and preliminary interpretations of the survey findings. The Photographs section of the report includes images of representative and notable conditions taken during the survey. Each photograph is hyperlinked to a condition code within the AutoCAD drawing so that it can be viewed easily as a digital file. Each photograph has a four-part name including the Cartesian (x-y) coordinates corresponding to the condition’s location within the AutoCAD drawing, the identification number of the truss on which the condition is found, the type of material and condition documented, and the year in which the photograph was taken. The Cartesian grid used to name the photographs is shown on the drawings. For reference, the table below lists the x-coordinates of the elevation views for each truss:

X-Coordinate Plan or Elevation View Sheet Number 15 to 135 Roof framing plan Sheet 1, Drawing 1.1 225 to 280 Truss number 4 Sheet 1, Drawing 1.2

295 to 350 Truss number 5 Sheet 1, Drawing 1.3


435 to 490 Truss number 7 Sheet 1, Drawing 1.5 505 to 560 Truss number 8 Sheet 1, Drawing 1.6


645 to 700 Truss number 10 Sheet 1, Drawing 1.8 715 to 770 Truss number 11 Sheet 1, Drawing 1.9

Full-size 24” by 36” and reduced-scale 11” by 17” drawings are provided in the Annotated Drawings section, the third section of VA’s Condition Survey Report. The drawings document the conditions noted during the truss investigation. RBCD providedAutoCAD plans and sections showing the truss layout and typical truss elevation. VA inserted the plans and sections into a single AutoCAD drawing and copied the truss elevation in the same drawing to create an elevation view of each of the eleven trusses.

A Guide to TPAS Annotated Drawings in included with VA’s Condition Survey Report. While printed photographs and drawings are presented as part of this report, the most efficient way to analyze the survey data is by using the features available in the digital drawing files. Readers are strongly encouraged to refer to the Guide to TPAS Annotated


C

Drawings before using the report to develop recommendations. TPAS utilizes a library of previously drawn material condition symbols to annotate digital survey drawings in the field. The severity and amount of each condition are recorded within the annotations.

The Guide describes key TPAS features:

• Enabling hyperlinks and opening digital photographs directly from the AutoCAD drawing

• Viewing and editing survey data embedded within condition annotations

• Creating views within AutoCAD or within the PDF drawing to visually display information about specific conditions, by turning layers on and off

• Extracting numerical survey information contained in the AutoCAD drawing for export into a spreadsheet or database

All of the documents comprising VA’s Condition Survey Report are provided in digital format on disc. Digital files include this Report Narrative in PDF format; JPG image files of all condition photographs; annotated drawings in AutoCAD DWG and PDF formats; sketches of truss connection details in PDF format; and the Guide to TPAS Annotated Drawings in PDF format. The layers of the AutoCAD drawing are retained in the PDF files of the annotated elevations so that specific conditions can be reviewed by turning on and off layers, as further explained in the Guide to TPAS Annotated Drawings.

Scope of Work

Vertical Access’ primary scope of work for the Dutch Reformed Church was to perform close visual inspection of the roof trusses and document existing conditions. As part of the investigation, VA took detailed measurements of a typical truss to characterize the members and develop sketches of connections. Vertical Access documented representative and notable conditions observed at the trusses by means of still photographs hyperlinked to annotated AutoCAD drawings, with quantities provided for each condition.

Vertical Access gained access to the roof trusses from the stair at the south end of the church, which leads to a catwalk that runs north-south above the bottom chord of the trusses just west of the centerline. Vertical Access used fall protection on the stairs, catwalk, and along the bottom chord of truss number 4 to perform the investigation. Two-rope industrial rope access techniques utilizing a “work positioning line” with a redundant “fall protection line” as backup were used to perform portions of the close visual investigation at the representative truss.


C

Building Description

The Dutch Reformed Church in Newburgh, NY is a National Historic Landmark designed by Alexander Jackson Davis in the Greek Revival style. The cornerstone of the building was laid in 1835 and the church was dedicated two years later. Changes were made to the building during its time in use as a church included removal of the original cupola several years after completion and an addition of a transept at the north end of the building after the Civil War. The building was deconsecrated in 1967 when the Dutch Reformed Church congregation moved to a new building, leaving the historic A.J. Davis church vacant.

Measuring roughly 50 feet wide and 100 feet long, the church is situated on a bluff above the Hudson River and oriented with its four-column portico facing south toward the center of Newburgh. The entrance to the church is on the south wall, under the grand portico. Tall windows on the east and west walls help to light the open sanctuary space that fills the interior. A coffered, barrel vaulted plaster ceiling originally covered the sanctuary. In 2011, a large portion of the ceiling fell to the floor below. The exterior walls are stuccoed rubble masonry at the original portion of the church and common brick at the north transept addition.

Eleven timber trusses support the gable roof. Numbered 1 through 11 beginning at the south end of the building, truss number 1 is directly above the four columns at the portico and truss number 3 sits on the south masonry wall. The original trusses, numbers 1 through 9, consist of rough-hewn timbers with mortise and tenon joinery. Trusses 10 and 11, which were added as part of the post-Civil War expansion, are composed of mechanically-sawn timbers of different size than the original trusses. (See figure 1 below). The trusses are a version of Howe truss, with a center and intermediate vertical members between the top and bottom chords. Additional timber members run diagonally between haunches at the bottom of the verticals and the top chord. The bearings of the trusses sit on top of the exterior masonry walls.

Figure 1: Typical truss elevation

Figure 3

Figure 2 Figure 4


C

Figure 2: Central Connection Detail at Bottom Chord


C

Figure 3: Central Connection Detail at Top Chord


C

Figure 4: Intermediate Connection Detail at Bottom Chord


C

Findings of Investigation

As part of the truss investigation at Dutch Reformed Church, Vertical Access documented conditions including checks, missing dowels at mortise and tenon joinery, and other general conditions of the wood timbers. Overall, the wood itself is in good condition, with no signs of rot or decay. Measurements to determine degree of level were taken at bottom chords where accessible. A summary of the findings of the truss investigation is below.

• Minor checking is present in most of the members comprising the wood trusses. The checks are typically less than 1/8 wide and do not extend through the member. (See photograph Truss 4 243-32 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-2). Larger checks were noted at the bottom chords of some of the trusses, in particular truss numbers 5 and 6. The checks on these members are up to 1/2 wide and extend most of the length of the chord members. (See photographs Truss 10 669-37 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1, Truss 11 746-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1).

• Some of the wood dowels at mortise and tenon joinery between truss members are either missing or broken. The dowels are typically tapered wood pieces. (See photograph Truss 4 234-34 Wood_Note Photo-missing tenon 2016-2).

• Measurements to determine the degree of level of the trusses were taken at bottom chords where accessible, immediately to the west of the catwalk. In general, most of the trusses appear to be relatively level. The bottom chord of truss number 8 was determined to be out of level by 1/4 inch over one foot, with the higher end at the west bearing.

• Truss 8 is also the location of a cracked and displaced connection at the junction of the central vertical and the top chord. (See photograph Truss 8 538-44 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-1).

• Previous repairs were noted at the bearings of trusses 4, 5 and 6. The repairs consist of steel channels on both sides of the truss ends where the top chord joins the bottom chord, with the channels connected by ten through bolts. There are also smaller angle clips between the ends of the truss and the wood sill plate above the masonry wall. The bearing between the repaired truss ends and the masonry wall below has been built up with a cementitious material. The repairs appear to be sound. (See photographs Truss_ 4 225-28 Wood_Note 2016-1, Truss_ 5 309-27 Wood_Crack 2016-1, Wood_Note 2016-12, Truss_ 6 415-29 Wood_Note 2016-5).

• The ceiling is hung from the trusses by means of miscellaneous vertical wood members that are suspended from the roof purlins. (See photographs Truss 10&11 122-123 Wood_Note Photo- trusses 10 and 11 2016-6, Truss 10&11 122-123 Wood_Note Photo- trusses 10 and 11 2016-2).

• The area of the ceiling that has not fallen at the north end of the church shows evidence of failed hanger members at several locations between trusses 8 and 11. (See photographs Truss 8&9 96-123 Wood_Note Photo-trusses 8 and 9 2016-9,


C

Truss 10&11 122-123 Wood_Note Photo- trusses 10 and 11 2016-11).

• Trusses 10 and 11 were constructed after Trusses 1 through 9 and are built of mechanically-sawn lumber and the member sizes and connection details are different from those of the original trusses.

o The top chord and bottom chords are 12” x 8” with the 12” dimension measured in the vertical axis of the member.

o The central vertical is 5” x 8” and is connected to the bottom and top chords by haunched connections, similar to that in the typical trusses (see Photographs Truss 10 669-37 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1, Truss 10 677-33 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-3).

o The central diagonals are notched into the top chord. At Truss 10, there is a crack at this connection (see Photograph Truss 10 668-36 Wood_Note Photo-connection 2016-1).

o Trusses 10 and 11 bear on the perimeter masonry wall which transitions from stone to brick between trusses 9 and 10 (see Photographs Truss 11 721-31 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-2, Truss 9&10 106-121 Wood_Note Photo-trusses 9 and 10 2016-9). The bearings are observed to be in generally good condition.

Conclusions

Vertical Access performed a close visual investigation of the timber roof trusses of the Dutch Reformed Church using a combination of fall protection and industrial rope access techniques. As part of the investigation, VA technicians documented general notes and the locations of conditions of deterioration by means of annotated elevation drawings and still photographs. VA also recorded measured truss members and connections to sketch the connection details.

Vertical Access documented checks, degree of level and other notable and representative conditions observed at the trusses. In general, the individual truss members appear sound and show no signs of decay or major deterioration. There are previous repairs at some of the trusses.

Vertical Access remains available to the project team to discuss our findings and demonstrate the functionality and utility of TPAS in assessing the findings of the investigation and developing repair schemes, cost estimates and construction documents.

Respectfully submitted for Vertical Access LLC by:

Kelly Streeter, P.E. October 7, 2016

Photographs

Truss 1&2 21-121 Wood_Note Photo-trusses 1 and 2 2016-2


Dutch Reformed ChurchTruss InvestigationNewburgh, NY Page 1

Vertical Access LLCProject Number 16-1866

October 7, 2016









October 7, 2016





Truss 2&3 33-129 Wood_Note Photo- box beam 2016-1




October 7, 2016









October 7, 2016









October 7, 2016




Truss 4 63-125 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-1

Truss 4 225-28 Wood_Note Photo-channel and clip repair 2016-2




October 7, 2016

Truss 4 229-33 Wood_Note Photo-edge of purlin chaffed 2016-1



Truss 4 234-34 Wood_Note Photo-missing tenon 2016-1





October 7, 2016

Truss 4 236-28 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-1Truss 4 234-34 Wood_Note Photo-missing tenon 2016-4

Truss 4 236-28 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-2 Truss 4 236-30 Wood_Note Photo-level 2016-1

Truss 4 237-31 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-1Truss 4 236-30 Wood_Note Photo-level 2016-2



October 7, 2016

Truss 4 237-31 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-3Truss 4 237-31 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-2

Truss 4 238-37 Wood_Note Photo-mortise and tenon at purlin 2016-1

Truss 4 238-37 Wood_Note Photo-mortise and tenon at purlin 2016-2

Truss 4 240-31 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1Truss 4 238-37 Wood_Note Photo-mortise and tenon at purlin 2016-3



October 7, 2016

Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-1Truss 4 240-31 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-2

Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-2 Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-3

Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-5Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-4



October 7, 2016

Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-7Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-6

Truss 4 242-28 Wood_Note Photo-stirrup 2016-8 Truss 4 242-31 ConnectionDimension ConnDim 2016-1

Truss 4 243-27 Wood_Note Photo-post and bottom chord notched on north 2016-2

Truss 4 243-27 Wood_Note Photo-post and bottom chord notched on north 2016-1



October 7, 2016

Truss 4 243-32 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1Truss 4 243-27 Wood_Note Photo-post and bottom chord notched on north 2016-3

Truss 4 243-32 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-2 Truss 4 245-39 Wood_Note Photo-edge of purlin chaffed 2016-1





October 7, 2016

Truss 4 246-35 Wood_Note Photo-mortise and tenon 2016-1




Truss 4 247-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-2Truss 4 247-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1



October 7, 2016

Truss 4 248-29 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-1Truss 4 247-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-3

Truss 4 249-34 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-1 Truss 4 250-37 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-1

Truss 4 251-30 ConnectionDimension ConnDim 2016-2




October 7, 2016

Truss 4 252-33 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-2Truss 4 252-33 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-1

Truss 4 252-33 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-3 Truss 4 252-33 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-4


Truss 4 252-35 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-1



October 7, 2016



Truss 4 256-34 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-1 Truss 4 256-34 MemberDim MemberDim 2016-2

Truss 4 299-31 Wood_Note _Photo-channel approx. 12__x3__x24__, 10 bolts_ 2016-2

Truss 4 299-31 Wood_Note _Photo-channel approx. 12__x3__x24__, 10 bolts_ 2016-1



October 7, 2016









October 7, 2016









October 7, 2016



Truss 5 299-28 Wood_Note Photo-plate repair 2016-1 Truss 5 309-27 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1




October 7, 2016

Truss 5 319-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1Truss 5 316-30 Wood_Note Photo-gen 2016-1

Truss 5 319-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-2 Truss 5 319-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-3




October 7, 2016








October 7, 2016

Truss 5&6 393-27 Wood_Note note-hatch 2016-1Truss 5&6 64-121 Wood_Note Photo-trusses 5 and 6 2016-11

Truss 6 381-28 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-1 Truss 6 381-28 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-2

Truss 6 381-28 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-4Truss 6 381-28 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-3



October 7, 2016

Truss 6 415-29 Wood_Note Photo- failed connection 2016-1

Truss 6 390-36 Wood_Note Photo 2016-1







October 7, 2016

Truss 6 415-30 Wood_Note Photo-failed connection 2016-2








October 7, 2016





Truss 7 459-33 Wood_Note Photo- general 2016-2Truss 7 459-33 Wood_Note Photo- general 2016-1



October 7, 2016

Truss 7 467-36 Wood_Note Photo-connection 2016-1Truss 7 459-33 Wood_Note Photo- general 2016-3

Truss 7 467-36 Wood_Note Photo-connection 2016-2 Truss 7 467-36 Wood_Note Photo-connection 2016-3

Truss 7 478-29 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1Truss 7 467-36 Wood_Note Photo-connection 2016-4



October 7, 2016








October 7, 2016








October 7, 2016


Truss 8 528-31 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-5 Truss 8 528-33 Wood_Note Photo- general 2016-1




October 7, 2016

Truss 8 533-37 Wood_Note Photo-connection 2016-1Truss 8 528-33 Wood_Note Photo- general 2016-4

Truss 8 537-32 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-1 Truss 8 537-32 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-2

Truss 8 538-44 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-1Truss 8 537-32 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-3



October 7, 2016

Truss 8 555-28 Wood_Note Photo- bearing 2016-1Truss 8 538-44 Wood_Crack Crack 2016-2

Truss 8 555-28 Wood_Note Photo- bearing 2016-2 Truss 8 555-31 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-1

Truss 8 555-31 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-3Truss 8 555-31 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-2



October 7, 2016








October 7, 2016








October 7, 2016

Truss 9 555-30 Wood_Note Photo- bearing 2016-2Truss 9 555-30 Wood_Note Photo- bearing 2016-1

Truss 9 580-29 Wood_Note _Photo- bearing, n, w_ 2016-1

Truss 9 580-29 Wood_Note _Photo- bearing, n, w_ 2016-2




October 7, 2016






October 7, 2016


Truss 9 594-29 Wood_Note Photo- connection 2016-1 Truss 9 594-29 Wood_Note Photo- connection 2016-2




October 7, 2016








October 7, 2016




Truss 10 652-30 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-1

Truss 10 668-36 Wood_Note Photo-connection 2016-1Truss 10 664-32 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1



October 7, 2016


Truss 10 669-33 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-3 Truss 10 669-37 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1




October 7, 2016


Truss 10 677-33 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-3 Truss 10 678-31 Wood_Note Photo-general 2016-1




October 7, 2016


Truss 10 695-30 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-1 Truss 10 695-30 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-2

Truss 10&11 122-123 Wood_Note Photo- trusses 10 and 11 2016-2




October 7, 2016









October 7, 2016





Truss 11 746-36 Wood_Crack Checking 2016-1Truss 11 721-31 Wood_Note Photo-bearing 2016-3



October 7, 2016



Annotated Drawings

TPAS User’s Manual

Guide to TPAS Annotated Drawings Tablet PC Annotation System (TPAS®) Updated November 2015

Guide to TPAS® Annotated Drawings Page 1 Updated November 2015 Vertical Access, LLC

Quick Start The Tablet PC Annotation System (TPAS®) allows direct input of both visual and numerical survey data into an AutoCAD drawing during investigations of buildings and other structures. The annotated drawings are delivered in three formats: paper drawings, PDF files, and AutoCAD DWG files. Survey photographs are delivered in both hard copy and digital format. The most efficient way to view the survey photographs is to open them directly from the AutoCAD drawing; if AutoCAD is not available, it is also possible to reference printed or digital photographs from the printed or PDF drawing. Both methods are discussed below. Open digital photographs using the AutoCAD hyperlinks Survey photographs can be opened and viewed from within the AutoCAD drawing using the hyperlinks, which appear as blue asterisks. Not all observations are photographed. Before using the hyperlinks for the first time (and each time the digital files are transferred to a new computer or the file folders are renamed) you must edit the HYPERLINKBASE setting in order for AutoCAD to be able to locate the hyperlinked photographs.

1. Make sure that all of the hyperlinked photos are in a single folder in the computer.

2. Type HYPERLINKBASE at the AutoCAD command line, and hit enter.

3. Open the folder containing the hyperlinked photos and copy the folder’s file path from the Windows “Address Bar.”

4. Paste the folder’s file path into the command line, and hit enter.

In recent versions of AutoCAD, CTRL + click on the hyperlink to open the photograph. In older versions, select the link, then right-click anywhere in the drawing. Choose Hyperlink at the bottom of the drop-down menu, then choose Open “filename.jpg.”

Use x-y coordinates to match photographs to condition locations Each survey photograph is named with a unique X-Y coordinate (not necessarily the beginning of the photo name) corresponding to its location on the drawing. Photo locations are referenced by their X-Y coordinates within the report narrative. If AutoCAD is not available, use the X-Y coordinates to match annotated conditions on the drawings to the corresponding printed photographs.

Guide to TPAS™ Annotated Drawings Page 2 Updated August 2014 Vertical Access, LLC

Manage layers in the PDF drawing for selective viewing and printing

All of the TPAS annotations are grouped together on layers named for each material and condition, and these layers can be turned on and off for ease of viewing. Open the PDF drawing in Adobe Reader to access the layer management panel. Print additional copies of the drawing showing only the selected layers, if desired. The PDF drawings may be printed full-size (typically 24” x 36”) or reduced.

Guide to TPAS™ Annotated Drawings Page 3 Updated August 2014 Vertical Access, LLC

AutoCAD Features

This section addresses more advanced digital analysis of the TPAS survey data, for users familiar with basic AutoCAD features including model and paper space, layers, and blocks. Print AutoCAD drawings As-delivered printed drawings can be reproduced from the AutoCAD DWG file. All TPAS annotations are created in model space with a 9” text height, in order to plot at 3/32” in a 1/8” = 1’ drawing view. TPAS drawings are plotted, or printed, from paper space layouts. Title block information and drawing keys are present directly in paper space—no external references are used. The x-y coordinates shown on the paper drawings are model space data visible through veiwports. Manage layers in AutoCAD All of the TPAS annotations are grouped together on layers named for each material and condition, and these layers can be turned on and off for ease of viewing. Photo hyperlinks are on the same layer as the condition with which they are associated. Use the AutoCAD Layer Manager to turn layers on and off, and to freeze and thaw layers: use the LAYER command, choose Layer from the Format menu, or click the layer button on the Object Properties Toolbar.

In paper space, the “Current VP Freeze” option becomes available in the Layer Manager. This allows each viewport to have its own freeze/thaw layer settings, allowing the user to present multiple combinations of layers on a single print layout. To freeze or thaw layers in a paper space viewport:

1. Select the viewport. 2. Set the viewport to Model by clicking the

Model/Paper button at the bottom of the AutoCAD window (or by double clicking anywhere within the viewport boundaries).

3. Open the Layer Manager. 4. Use the “Current VP Freeze” column to

freeze or thaw layers within the current viewport.

View and edit conditions data recorded in block attributes All TPAS annotations consist of blocks - pre-drawn and reusable graphical symbols that represent distinct material conditions. Block attributes are text labels that add descriptive information to a block. During the investigation, quantitative data about survey conditions (e.g. crack widths or areas of soiling) are entered as block attributes. Standard TPAS blocks contain seven attributes: Condition, Code, Severity, Amount, Priority, Photo, and Time. All blocks contain the Condition, Code, Photo, and Time attributes; all others are optional. In cases of observations that are not photographed, the Photo attribute will be blank. It is possible to add custom attributes to standard blocks, or to create entire custom blocks. For clarity, typically only the Code and Severity attributes are visible in the drawing; all others are set in Invisible Mode and do not print or appear in model or paper space.

Guide to TPAS™ Annotated Drawings Page 4 Updated June 2015 Vertical Access, LLC

To view and/or edit a block’s attributes, open the Enhanced Attribute Editor command by double-clicking on a block reference containing attributes (or from the command line –EATTEDIT, from the Ribbon: Home tab>Block Panel>Edit Attributes, from the menubar: Modify>Object>Attribute> Single, or from the Modify II toolbar). The Enhanced Attribute Editor can only access and edit an individual block reference and therefore will not affect block definitions. Attributes in Invisible Mode do appear in the editor, and are available for editing.

Global changes to blocks with attributes are made with the Block Editor, which accesses and edits block definitions. Launch the Block Editor from the command line—BEDIT, from the Ribbon: Home tab>Block panel>Block Editor, from the menubar: Tools>Block Editor or from the Modify II toolbar.

The Block Editor is not available in AutoCAD 2000/2002 or 2004. In those versions, use the Block Attribute Manager, which is launched from the command line—BATTMAN, the Modify menu: Modify>Object>Attribute>Block Attribute Manager or the Modify II toolbar. Both methods are available in recent releases of AutoCAD. For in depth guidance, refer to the AutoCAD Help documentation. Extract survey data from block attributes Survey data in the form of block attributes can be exported to a spreadsheet or database application, in several file formats depending on the version of AutoCAD in which the extraction is performed. For the purposes of survey annotations, the information extracted includes block names, X-Y insertion coordinates, and block attribute values. Use the commands ATTOUT (most efficient method,) DATAEXTRACTION or ATTEXT to extract block attribute values and other information. The process of extracting data varies substantially among various AutoCAD releases. Refer to the AutoCAD Help documentation for specific capabilities and procedures.

Appendices

APPENDIX B

CONCEPT SKETCHES

roof framing structural evaluation

Documents