Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLETTER Vehicle Impact Report Roof Support Repair 1640 Big Thompson Ave 2022-02-24 Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 1 of 32 Corporate Office: 7185 South Tucson Way ● Centennial, CO 80112-3987 ● p 303.925.1900 ● f 303.925.1901 Branch Offices: Colorado Springs, CO ● Fort Collins, CO ● Grand Junction, CO ● Houston, TX ● San Antonio, TX www.knottlab.com VIA EMAIL (ECROSAS@travelers.com) Elton Rosas Travelers Insurance Re: Vehicle Impact Repairs Insured Name: Rambo’s Longhorn Liquor Mart File Number: FSL6768 Date of Loss: February 24, 2022 Address: 1640 Big Thompson Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Mr. Rosas: At your request, Knott Laboratory, LLC (Knott) inspected the structure located at 1640 Big Thompson Avenue in Estes Park, Colorado. This report provides the findings and conclusions reached as a result of that investigation. Background The subject property was a single-story, wood-framed structure. The exterior walls exhibited a combination of horizontal lap siding and T1-11 plywood siding panels. The interior walls and ceiling were covered with gypsum wallboard (drywall). A review of the Larimer County Assessor’s Office online records indicated the structure was originally constructed in 1976 and was last purchased in 2020. For the purposes of the discussion provided in this report, the front of the structure was considered to face north toward Big Thompson Avenue. An aerial photograph of the property is provided in Appendix I and a photograph of the front elevation is provided in Appendix II as Image 1. Reportedly, a vehicle traveling on Big Thompson Avenue veered off the road and impacted the north side of the structure, resulting in damage to several wood porch roof columns, a portion of the north wall framing, and a door near the east portion of the north elevation. Purpose Knott was retained by Travelers Insurance to determine the extent of structural damage resulting from the vehicle impact that occurred on or about February 24, 2022 and provide repair recommendations, as appropriate. Procedure Knott’s Kyle Wieghaus, Ph.D., P.E. and Tim Maloney, M.S., P.E., inspected the subject structure on February 26, 2022 and March 2, 2022, respectively, while the owners were present. Knott documented and photographed the available information during the Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 2 of 32 inspection. The photographs depicted in Appendix II are a sample of the photographs taken by Knott, and the remaining may be presented upon request. Documents Reviewed The following documents and materials were reviewed and/or referenced as part of Knott’s investigation, and/or contain information pertinent to the discussion and conclusions presented herein: • Larimer Assessor’s Office online property records, URL: https://www.larimer.org/assessor/search#/property/. • International Building Code (IBC). International Code Council (ICC). 2015. • Local Amendments to the 2015 IBC. Town of Estes Park, Colorado. • International Existing Building Code (IEBC). International Code Council (ICC). 2015. Findings and Discussion Knott has divided this section of the report into the following subsections for clarity: Damage Investigation and Repair Recommendations. Photographs referenced in the discussion are provided in Appendix II. Damage Investigation Knott conducted its damage investigatio ns from the exterior and interior of the building. Below the north porch roof, where the reported impact occurred, two original porch roof columns were missing, and three temporary shoring columns had been installed (reportedly by the fire department) to support the affected sections of the porch roof dropped beams. The main porch roof beam was deflected and sagging at the east end , and a 4 foot by 8-foot oriented strand board (OSB) panel covered a section of the north wall (Image 2). In the vicinity of the OSB panel, brightly colored abrasions observed on a timber parking stop block, and scrape/abrasions marks on the wood front porch decking planks provided additional evidence of the approximate location of the reported vehicle impact (Images 3 and 4). The front (north) porch roof beam line was observed to consist of three separate sections. The west and central portions were dropped nominal 6x8 wood beams, and the east portion was a dropped nominal 6x10 wood beam. Two temporary shoring columns were observed supporting the east half of the central beam in the porch roof beam line, and one shoring column supported the west end of the east beam (Images 5 and 6). No temporary shoring columns were observed below the west beam. Two of the original porch roof columns below the central and east beams, respectively, were missing at the time of Knott’s investigations. The remaining portions of the beam-column connections and column base connections indicated the locations of the original columns (Images 6 through 8). Based on the configurations of the remaining portions of the connections, the east beam and central beam had both been supported Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 3 of 32 by the same column prior to the vehicle impact ; the lower-elevation east beam had been connected to the side of the column, while the east end of the central beam had been bearing atop the column. Prior to the vehicle impact, the central porch roof beam was a continuous three-span beam and the east beam was a single-span beam. The measured span lengths between the original columns are depicted in Appendix III, Figure 1. As described above, the east half of the central porch roof beam was observed and measured to be deflected and sloping downward toward the east (Image 9). The deflection began at the location of a splice in the continuous roof beam located just east of the second column from the west end of the beam (west of the front entrance, see Appendix III, Figure 1). A brightly colored, tapered horizontal split emanated from the ninety-degree notch at the beam splice. The split was observed to extend to a point approximately an inch west of the adjacent beam-column connection (Image 10). The split was consistent in nature with bending stress induced by the deflection of the portion of the beam east of the splice, and it was brightly colored, consistent with a recent occurrence. Therefore, it was caused by the recent vehicle impact. West of the split, the central beam was not deflected, fractured, or split in a manner consistent with damage resulting from the recent vehicle impact, or loss of column support. Similarly, the west beam displayed no signs of damage or displacement related to the reported vehicle impact. No brightly colored splits, fractures, or observable deflections were noted in the 6x10 east porch roof beam, however, the beam was measured to be sloping downward toward the west (Image 11). The downward deflection of the beam was consistent with the displacement of the porch column that had supported it at its west end and was therefore the result of the reported vehicle impact. The beam was also observably twisted about its longitudinal axis at its east end (Image 12). The slight twist in the beam was consistent with warping caused by drying shrinkage during acclimation to the ambient conditions, but, because it was evident (by the measure d lean in the beam, and displaced west support column) that the beam had move d as the result of the vehicle impact, it is possible that the impact contributed to the degree of twist as well. Any twist remaining after re-leveling of the beam can be attributed to warping, not the impact. None of the remaining original columns were fractured, split, displaced, or deflected. The remaining original columns supporting the west and central roof beams were measured to be within typical construction tolerances in both directions (Image 13). No fresh separations, distortions, or other signs of stress were evident at their top or base connections (Images 14 and 15). The remaining column supporting the east end of the east beam was measured to be slightly out-of-plumb in the north-south direction (89.2 degrees from horizontal toward the south) (Image 16). The direction of lean of the column was consistent with forces on the Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 4 of 32 column resulting from the twist of the beam, whether the twist was caused by warping, the vehicle impact, or both. Therefore , for the same reasons described above, it is possible that the vehicle impact contributed to the out-of-plumbness of the column. The column itself did not display signs of permanent structural damage, and its base connection remained attached and intact. The exposed porch roof rafters were measured to be 1½ inches wide by 4½ inches deep. They were spaced at approximately 24 inches on-center and spanned between the northern wall and the porch roof beam line (approximately 6 feet). The rafter overhang lengths were variable; above the west roof beam they were 16 inches, above the central beam they were 36 inches, and at the east beam they were 12 inches. Above the central roof beam, the rafters were spliced at the overhang with OSB splice plates. The rafters were in bearing at the dropped roof beams, and no straps, brackets or other uplift-resisting connections were observed during Knott’s investigations. From inside the attic, isolated rafter tails were observed where they were visible for inspection. The rafter tails were bearing on the north wall framing and were attached to the main roof truss heels above the north wall (Image 17). None of the observable rafter-truss connections in the attic exhibited splits, fractures, displacements, or separations indicative of damage related to the reported vehicle impact. None of the rafters, including those above the leaning portions of the central and east roof beams, were observably displaced or separated from the roof beam or from their interface with the north wall (Image 18). This indicated the rafter connections, on either end, had not been compromised by the vehicle impact or resultant movement of the beams. Additionally, slight deflections (bending) were observed in the rafters east of the central roof beam splice, and in those bearing on east roof beam (Image 19). The deflections were observed to be more pronounced near the low ends of the downward-displaced beams, as would be anticipated. In general, some temporary deflection of wood members is anticipated in design and without accompanying signs of structural damage (splits, fractures, etc.) is not indicative of reduced load carrying capacity. Therefore, unless the deflection is observed to be permanent (upon re -leveling the roof beams), the deflected, but otherwise undamaged rafters, were not deemed to be structurally compromised. In addition to the observed rafter deflection s, a thin, brightly colored split was observed in the fourth rafter from the east end of the central roof beam (Image 20). The split was shallow and was similar in appearance to paint-covered checks in the wood roof framing members throughout the entire porch roof; however , it was the only one that exhibited brightly colored, unpainted wood, indicating that it occurred recently. The split emanated from a knot at the bottom edge of the rafter. While the split was shallow and similar in appearance to a check, it also extended across two faces of the rafter (not typical of a check), and its location was consistent with bending stresses at the bottom of the rafter, such as those induced by the observed deflection in the central porch roof beam. Given Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 5 of 32 this, and the bright coloration of the split, this rafter was damaged as the result of the reported vehicle impact. Based on the above observations and analysis, Knott concluded the porch roof framing components damaged by the reported recent vehicle impact included: two porch roof columns, the central and east porch roof beams, and a single porch roof rafter. Additionally, the eastmost porch roof column was slightly leaning and the rafters adjacent to the leaning portions of the central and east roof beam were deflected as a result of the vehicle impact. Appendix III, Figure 1 depicts the damaged components. During Knott’s initial inspection on February 26, 2022, the interior drywall covering the portion of the northern wall behind the exterior OSB panel patch was cracked and punctured (Image 21). The cracked/punctured drywall was encompassed in an area measured to be approximately 6 feet, 8 inches wide (between six wall studs, assuming 16-inch on-center spacing). Knott also temporarily removed the OSB patch from the exterior wall during the initial investigation , and observed several fractured nominal 2x4 wall studs, T1-11 wall siding, and fiberboard wall panels (Image 22). At the time of Knott’s follow-up inspection on March 2, 2022, the interior drywall had been removed from the 6 foot, 8-inch wide area, and new wall studs had been installed (Image 23). A total of four brightly colored studs were observed, and the darker-colored studs bracketing the area of removed drywall were not observed to be displaced, fractured, or otherwise damaged. While the top sill plate was mostly covered with insulation, the exposed portions did not display evidence of impact damage, and the exposed bottom sill was not displaced, fractured, or otherwise damaged in a manner consistent with a vehicle impact (Image 24). Additionally, no separations, bulges, or fractures were observed in the ceiling drywall adjacent to the removed wall drywall. The drywall on either side of the exposed wall cavity was measured to be within normal plumb tolerances (Image 25). Based on the observed conditions of the wall fra ming and sheathing in the area of the reported vehicle impact, Knott concluded the structural components of the north wall damaged as a result of the reported recent vehicle impact included: four (4) 2x4 wall studs and the wall sheathing covering an approximately 9-foot by 5½-foot area. While isolated surface abrasions were observed on the wood decking planks, no evidence of structural damage to the planks was observed. None of the planks were fractured , displaced, or observably deflected (Image 26). Additionally, the planks were solid underfoot and did not noticeable deflect when walk ed on. Generally, the deck surface was measured to be within typical tolerances for level throughout (Image 27). The only exception to this was at the east end of the central portion of the deck , where the deck surface was measured to slope at 0.7 degrees from horizontal from east to west Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 6 of 32 (Image 28). At the same location, where the central portion of the deck stepped down to meet the lower, east portion, limited observation of the deck framing was possible through an approximately 4-inch gap at the interface between deck levels (Image 29). None of the observable portions of the deck framing, including the nominal 4x4 deck posts and nominal 4x6 beams, exhibited signs of structural damage consistent with a vehicle impact (Image 30). It was also observed that a 4x6 deck beam was approximately aligned with the porch roof beam/column lines beneath the central portion of the deck (Image 31). Although the out-of-level section of the deck was adjacent to the location of the reported vehicle impact, no other evidence of structural damage was observed to the decking planks or observed framing elements in the immediate area of the out -of-plumb section. Without direct evidence of impact or stru ctural damage, the small out-of-plumb area was consistent with an unrelated issue, such as a minor construction imperfection, rather than the reported vehicle impact. Based on the observation of the deck Knott concluded the front (north) deck framing and planks were not structurally damaged by the recent vehicle impact. Repair Recommendations Knott reviewed the 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) currently adopted by the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. Based on Section 606.2.1 of the IEBC, “Repairs for less than substantial structural damage . For damage less than substantial structural damage, the damaged elements shall be permitted to be restored to their predamage condition.” “Substantial Structural Damage” (SSD) is defined in Section 202 of the IEBC as “a condition where any of the following apply: 1. In any story, the vertical elements of the lateral force -resisting system have suffered damage such that the lateral load-carrying capacity of the structure in any horizontal direction has been reduced by more than 33 percent from its predamage condition. 2. The capacity of any vertical gravity load-carrying component, or any group of such components, that supports more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure’s floor(s) and roof(s) has been reduced more than 20 percent from its predamage condition, and the remaining capacity of such affected elements, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location.” Based on this guidance for repairing damage to an existing structure, the damaged roof and floor/deck area was evaluated as a percentage of the total roof, floor, and deck area. Based on total building measurements taken fr om Google Earth (and verified by Knott’s field measurements) and the observed and measured areas of damage from Knott’s investigations, it was concluded that the damaged structural elements resulting from the reported vehicle impact supported less than 15% of the total roof area and none of the members supporting the deck or floor areas were damaged. Therefore, significantly less Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 7 of 32 than 30% of the total roof, floor, and deck area was compromised and it is permissible, per the applicable local codes, to restore the damaged elements to their pre-damage conditions. The damaged components do not require re-design under current design loads or building code requirements . The compromised roof areas are depicted in Appendix III, Figure 2. Similarly, the damaged portion of the north wall accounts for less than 10% of the total north wall length and could not reasonably be considered to account for 33% of the total capacity of the main wind-force resisting system (MWFRS). The locations of the damaged components and respective recommendations to restore the structure to its pre-damaged condition are shown in Appendix III, Figure 1. Conclusions Based upon Knott Laboratory’s inspection, the available information, and these engineers’ education, training, and experience, the following conclusions have been reached within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty: • The porch roof framing components damaged by the reported recent vehicle impact included: two porch roof columns, the central and east porch roof beams, and a single porch roof rafter. • Additionally, the eastmost porch roof column was slightly leaning and the rafters adjacent to the leaning portions of the central and east roof beam were deflected as a result of the vehicle impact. • The structural components of the north wall damaged as a result of the reported recent vehicle impact included: four (4) 2x4 wall studs and the wall sheathing covering an approximately 9-foot by 5½-foot area. • The front (north) deck framing and planks were not structurally damaged by the recent vehicle impact. • Knott provided repair recommendations in Appendix III, Figure 1. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 8 of 32 Closure The opinions and findings expressed in this report are based upon the information available to these writers as of the date of this report and are the result of limited non - destructive visual inspections of the exposed building components. As such, Knott Laboratory reserves the right to modify the conclusions contained herein upon receipt or discovery of additional information. Due to the limited access and the non-destructive nature of the investigation, Knott Laboratory cannot be held responsible for any hidden defects that may negatively impact the performance of the structure. This report is intended to provide an overview of the existing conditions and should not be used as an indicator of future performance; no expressed or implied warranties or guarantees of any kind are given. Respectfully submitted, KNOTT LABORATORY, LLC _________________________ Kyle T. Wieghaus, Ph.D., P.E. Director of Engineering _________________________ Timothy D. Maloney, M.S., P.E. Structural Engineer Appendix I: Aerial View Appendix II: Images Appendix III: Schematics and Repair Recommendations Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 9 of 32 Appendix I: Aerial View Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 10 of 32 Appendix II: Images Photographs taken during Knott Laboratory’s inspection, which have not been included in this report, have been retained on file and will be made available to you upon your request. Note the brightness and/or contrast of some photographs may have been enhanced for purposes of clarity. Some photographs may be cropped from their original sizes in order to emphasize a specific item or feature. No significant changes to any photographs were made that would a lter factual representations. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 11 of 32 Figure 1 – View of the front (north) elevation. Figure 2 – View of the sagging section of the central roof beam. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 12 of 32 Figure 3 – View of bright abrasions on a wood parking stop block. Figure 4 – View of bright abrasions on the wood deck planks. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 13 of 32 Figure 5 – View of the temporary shoring columns. Figure 6 – View of the remaining portions of the original beam-column connections at the ends of the central (right) and east (left) roof beams. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 14 of 32 Figure 7 – View of the wood deck planks at the former location of a column base. Figure 8 – View of the remaining portions of a former beam-column connection. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 15 of 32 Figure 9 – View of the slope of the east portion of the central porch roof beam. Figure 10 – View of the bright split in the central roof beam at the beam splice notch. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 16 of 32 Figure 11 – Measurement of the slope of the east porch roof beam. Figure 12 – View of the twist in the east porch roof beam. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 17 of 32 Figure 13 – Example of the typical plumb condition of the porch roof columns. Figure 14 – Example of an intact beam-column connection. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 18 of 32 Figure 15 – View of an intact column base connection. Figure 16 – View of the slight out-of -plumbness of the eastmost porch roof column. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 19 of 32 Figure 17 – View of porch roof rafter tails abutting the trusses at the north wall. Figure 18 – Example of the porch roof rafter-north wall interface. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 20 of 32 Figure 19 – Examples of slight bending in the porch roof rafters. Figure 20 – View of the bright split in a single porch roof rafter. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 21 of 32 Figure 21 – View of the fractured north wall drywall during Knott’s initial investigation. Figure 22 – View of a fractured north wall stud, siding, and fiberboard wall sheathing. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 22 of 32 Figure 23 – View of new north wall studs at the time of Knott’s second investigation. Figure 24 – View of the exposed bottom sill plate. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 23 of 32 Figure 25 – Example of typical plumb condition of the north wall framing. Figure 26 – Example of the typical condition of the north deck in the vicinity of the reported vehicle impact. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 24 of 32 Figure 27 – Example of the typical level condition of the north deck. Figure 28 – View of the slightly out-of -level deck planks at the east end of the central portion of the deck. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 25 of 32 Figure 29 – View of the gap at the intersection between the central and east portions of the deck. Figure 30 – View of the observable central deck framing. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 26 of 32 Figure 31 – View of the former location of a porch roof column aligned with a 4x4 deck post and 4x6 deck beam below. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 27 of 32 Appendix III: Schematics and Repair Recommendations 15'-9"18'12'-1"12'-91 2"21'-31 2" 3) Leaning 6x10 Porch Roof Beam 1) Damaged North Wall Framing: - (4) 2x4 Studs - 45 SF of Fiberboard & T1-11 Paneling 2) Out-of-Plumb 6x6 Porch Roof Column 4) Missing 6x6 Porch Roof Columns 5) Leaning Portion of 6x10 Porch Roof Beam 6) Deflected, Otherwise Undamaged Rafters 7) Damaged Rafter 8) Split at 6x8 Porch Roof Beam Splice FIGURE 1 - DAMAGE MAP & REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS Numbering Corresponds to Repair Recommendations Listed Below; numbering is not intended to be a sequence of repairs, and sequencing is the responsibility of the contractor performing the work. Note: All dimensions shown are approximate, field-measured dimensions. It it the contractor's responsibility to verify all dimensions prior to the onset of work. TOTAL ROOF AREA: ~4490 SF COMPROMISED PORCH ROOF AREA: ~352 SF COMPROMISED MAIN ROOF AREA: ~198 SF FIGURE 2 - PERCENTAGE OF AFFECTED ROOF AREA COMPROMISED PORCH ROOF AREA: ~352 SF RESULTANT FROM DAMAGED/ DISPLACED PORCH ROOF COLUMNS/BEAMS COMPROMISED MAIN ROOF AREA: ~198 SF RESULTANT FROM DAMAGED SECTION OF NORTH WALL FRAMING EXISTING THRU-BOLTS TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING OSB BEAM-COL. CXN PLATE; REPLACE W/ (2) SIMPSON AC6RZ POST CAPS W/ MAX. NAILING PATTERN. INSTALL (2)38" x 6" STRUCTURAL TIMBER SCREWS @ 3" O.C. OVER LENGTH OF SPLIT IN BEAM FIGURE 3 - BEAM SPLIT REPAIR DETAIL Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 31 of 32 REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. DAMAGED NORTH-WALL FRAMING: a. Remove and relace (R&R) (4) damaged 2x4 wall studs; install new studs in accordance with the 2015 IBC. b. Remove damaged fiberboard wall sheathing panel(s). c. Replace with 7/16” thick, APA-rated plywood or oriented strand board (OSB) panels with a 32/16 span-rating; attach to the framing with 2” long 8d nails @ 6” O.C. along the panel edges and at 12” O.C. in the field of the panels. 2. OUT-OF-PLUMB 6x6 PORCH ROOF COLUMN: a. Re-plumb the slightly out-of-plumb column. 3. LEANING 6x10 PORCH ROOF BEAM: a. Re-level the existing 6x10 roof beam. b. Re-attach the western end of the beam to the column once a new column has been installed. Attach to column with a Simpson Strong-Tie (Simpson) HUC610 hanger with the maximum nailing pattern, or approved equivalent. 4. MISSING 6x6 PORCH ROOF COLUMNS: a. Install new 6x6 porch roof columns at the original column locations. b. If the original column material is not known and cannot be determined, it is acceptable to use Hem-Fir No. 2 Grade wood (or better). c. The new column-beam connections should be (2) Simpson AC6RZ post caps (one on each side of the column) or (2) Simpson LCE4 post caps for the end column. The post caps should be installed with the maximum nailing patterns. d. The new columns should be attache d directly to the underlying 4x6 deck beams with Simpson CCQ46SDS2.5 brackets or ECCQ46SDS2.5 brackets for applications at the ends of the deck beams. This will require local removal of the decking planks above the deck beam. During the investigations, Kno tt observed a deck beam in-line with the porch roof beam line below the central portion of the deck , and this repair recommendation is based on that observation . The contractor performing the work should verify that the deck beams aligns with the new columns at their actual locations so that the specified connection can be implemented. If a misalignment or other discrepancy is observed to exist upon the local removal of the decking planks, contact Knott for an alternative solution. 5. DISPLACED EASTERN PORTION OF 6x8 ROOF BEAM (EAST OF BEAM SPLICE): a. Re-level the leaning portion of the beam. Coordinate with #4 above. b. Attach the beam to the newly installed columns with Simpson AC6RZ post caps as described above. 6. DEFLECTED, OTHERWISE UNDAMAGED RAFTERS: a. It is anticipated that the deflection will be mitigated upon re -leveling of the eastern and central porch roof beams. b. If the deflections are observed to remain after re-leveling of the beams, the rafters may require replacement. c. Upon re-leveling of the beams, verify that the rafters bear fully on the beams and that no gaps or displacements exist between the rafters and roof decking. 7. DAMAGED RAFTER: a. Remove and replace the single damaged rafter, the fourth rafter from the east end of the central porch roof beam. Knott Laboratory Project Number: 20008 Travelers Insurance File Number: FSL6768 March 8, 2022 Page 32 of 32 8. SPLIT 6x8 PORCH ROOF BEAM AT SPLICE: a. Re-level the eastern portion of the beyond (east of the split). b. Restore, at a minimum, the full strength of the beam prior to the split by per the detail provided in Appendix III, Figure 3. 9. ADDITIONAL NOTES: a. All new wood framing members shall match the original member material or be Hem- Fir (HF) #2 grade or better, if the original wood species/grade is unknown . b. Any material specifications, details, or fastening schedules not specified herein shall be in accordance with the 2015 IBC or IEBC with town of Estes Park amendments. c. All metal Simpson brackets for outdoor use should utilize one of Simpson’s corrosion resistant options. d. Notify engineer if additional damage is discovered during repairs. e. The Contractor shall assemble the structural elements, in the proper sequence and will be responsible for providing safe and adequate temporary bracing and shoring necessary to withstand all loads to which the structure may be subjected, including lateral loads, stockpiles of materials, and equipment. Temporary bracing shall remain in place until all structural framing and diaphragms are in place with connections completed.