1.0 OVERVIEW

UNISOL Engineering was asked to provide opinion on the structural engineering details and design for a new residence at 12 Vickery Rd, Victoria, BC. The structure is a two-story single family-type of typical timber-frame construction without concrete topping on floors and a pitched, multi-sloped, roof.

The structure is being built by the Owner who has acknowledged he is not a journeyman carpenter or otherwise certified. Construction has had some challenges where some construction required engineering revisions and instruction and, in some instances, retro-correction.

The EOR has made effort to work with the builder to upgrade or revise original details to ensure the final is substantially in agreement with specified IFC details.

Conflict has arisen where, either the owner has been unable, or unwilling, to correct where instructed or, disagrees with the EOR’s details/instructions.

2.0 REVIEW PROCESS

UNISOL carried out a general review of the drawings to determine if there is sufficient detail to carry out the proposed construction with some estimations of structural capacities. This review is not a detailed design check and any values stated are for information purposes only.

1. The structure was designed under Part 9 prescriptions utilizing the Engineering Guide for Wood Frame Construction. This design, therefore, did not, per se, require an Independent Peer Review.
2. We found the drawings were adequate for construction and details clear enough for interpretation and action by a competent Part 9 builder.
3. We carried out some sample calculations to be confident that the member sizes were adequate. We did not analyse all elements and therefore cannot guarantee every element is correct but we are satisfied that the sizes specified seem adequate.

3.0 ITEMS OF CONCERN

During our visits, the Owner went to some lengths to emphasize that he tried to carry out instructions from EOR. We respond as follows to some of the items raised.

1. Basement posts: “The basement posts are failing and checking has occurred in many of the posts since construction”. We have therefore been more accurate with our estimations of the existing (P5) post capacities. We found that provided the post material used is as specified (DFir#1), the posts specified appear adequate. If there is an issue with the posts, our analysis suggests that #2 instead of #1 may have been used. We did not, at time of reviews, support or deny the issues. That should be resolved with the EOR.
2. We were shown a string line tied to a steel spike hanging from the underside of one of the basement beams. The Owner insisted that it showed deflection in the beam/floor system. We do not believe the deflection observed could have happened in the time period described and we conclude the string, under tension, simply unwound.
3. There is evidence of construction workmanship that, in our opinion, is questionable. E.g., top plates not straight, triple instead of double top plates, some top plate splices did not seem correct, ad hoc packing to “lengthen” studs, blocking missing at plywood edges, what appeared to be water-damaged plywood for the floor, and in one location spotted the MST strap does not extend to the shear wall above.
4. We also identified that a main floor shear wall did not seem to align with structure below in the basement. The EOR has a record of that but we do not know if it was resolved/accepted.
5. Unless a post is yet to be installed, the exterior cantilevered deck joists are incorrectly installed.
6. We found that in most places solid posts were substituted with built-up 2x_ posts. Solid posts have higher capacity for similar total dimensions and there may be issues where, again, #1/#2 material was used where #1 may have been specified.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

1. We believe the engineering drawings are adequate for this structure.
2. We are satisfied that member sizes appear adequate.
3. We were generally uncomfortable with much of the observable construction and we recommend that a thorough review of the structure be carried out to identify further locations where drawing specifications have not been followed.
4. The Owner asked UNISOL to carry out a detailed (re)design to identify any omissions etc. but, because of the perceived workmanship, we declined to be further involved.
5. We understand that this Owner has had a number of engineers attend to this project and we have also been privy to another engineer’s experience of having to educate this owner, on another nearby project, in simple methods of achieving the required specifications. That is not the responsibility of the engineer and could be deemed to be “supervision”.

We trust this is satisfactory but if further comment is required, please contact this office.

Yours truly,

UNISOL Engineering Ltd.

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, Struct.Eng, FEC

ATTACHMENTS: Sample Photos

Sample Photos

Water-damaged plywood?

Strap to shear wall?

Unusual top plate assembly

“Augmented” basement posts of concern

Probably insufficient bearing length & no hangers

Shear wall (?) ply edges unblocked

Cantilevered (?) deck? Poor beam pocket detail