Forensic Engineering: Existing

Buildings, Alterations and New

Construction
Course Number SW0517
Yegal Shamash, P.E.
Jill Hrubecky, P.E.
Anthony Devito, P.E.

May 3, 2017
Credit(s) earned on completion of this course will be reported to AIA
CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA
members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This course is registered with AIA CES for continuing professional

education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed
or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any
material of construction or any method or manner of
handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.

________________________________________

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at

the conclusion of this presentation.
 COPYRIGHT MATERIALS

This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws.

Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation without
written permission of the speaker is prohibited.

© NYC Department of Buildings 2017

COURSE DESCRIPTION
 This course will discuss the complexities of the structural evaluation
and assessment of existing buildings in New York City. The intent is to
bring to light the numerous Code requirements governing existing
buildings, which set forth minimum standards for identification of safe,
unsafe and in-between conditions.

 The course will give a brief overview of how to determine the vintage of
a building, how to ascertain the relevant building codes, and why this is
important. We will also discuss issues related to un-engineered and
poorly engineered buildings, as well as temporary construction, and
how these conditions may lead to structural failure. Finally, we address
the impact such structural failures can have on public safety and the
adverse effects on adjacent properties.

 This course will include several case studies which will serve to
elaborate on the concepts described above.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:
1. Review ways to determine the vintage of a building and why this
knowledge is critical in evaluating its structure as it relates to
historic building codes.
2. Discuss un-engineered, poorly engineered, and temporary
structures and be able to identify the unique risks associated
with such structures, especially as it relates to failures.
3. Review the knowledge of the building vintage, historic codes,
and structural evaluation in order to appropriately assess and be
able to determine structurally compromised building conditions.
4. Learn how to evaluate a structurally compromised building and
assess the impact the condition may have on public safety and
the threat to adjoining properties.
FORENSIC ENGINEERING UNIT (FEU)

 Created in 2005

 Mission is to support the Agency’s incident

response at the highest level of engineering
capacity

 Secondary mission is to provide engineering

support for any emerging special need and
trend developing in the Agency

NOTE: Sweeps include bowstring; monopoles; BIB; gas station canopies

FORENSIC ENGINEERING UNIT
 Provides the Agency with engineering competence
for incidents, collapses, fires, weather events
− Site management in real time
 Enforces DOB laws, rules, bulletins, policies and
processes
 Provides industry outreach
 Responds to incidents by stabilizing and making a
property safe when owner fails to act
 Prepares engineering reports
FORENSIC ENGINEERING UNIT

NOTE: FEU with NYCEM

WHO WE WORK WITH
Other Units Outside Agencies
 ERT  FDNY  City Hall
 BEST  NYPD  ConEd
 BEI  NYCEM  DA’s Office
 OBM  HPD
 Excavation  LPC
 Special Ops  DDC
 Legal/UB  DOE
 IGA  DSNY
 BSIU  Law Dept.
WHO WE WORK WITH
(continued)
Private Sector
 Owners
 Property Managers
 Engineers
 Architects
 Expeditors
 Attorneys
INCIDENTS CAN LEAD TO INVESTIGATIONS

 Additional agency and private sector

coordination

 Court appearances

 Depositions

 FOIL requests
GENERAL APPROACH: INCIDENT/REFERRAL
1. Response
a. Incident  Immediate
b. Referral  Scheduled (Triage Jobs)
2. Research
a. Historic Can happen
(Building vintage; ownership; past violations) in reverse
b. Code order or
concurrently
3. Inspection/Assessment
4. Action
a. Emergency Orders (IED; Emergency Work Summons)
b. Summons (DOB vs OATH; Class; Cure/Remedy)
5. Follow Up
a. Audits
b. Meetings
RELEVANT CODE SECTIONS

 §28–105.4.1 − Emergency Work (by Owner)

 §28–215.1 − Emergency Work (by City)

 §28–301.1 − Owner’s Responsibilities - Safe:

Failure to Maintain

 §28–207.4 − Vacate Order

 §28–216.1 − Conditions constituting an unsafe

building or structure
CASE 1: LEANING BUILDING (EXISTING)
Bldg. B
 Referral from
BSIU

 Complaint was
for a gap
between
buildings Bldg. A
CASE 1:
LEANING BUILDING –
MAGNITUDE
CASE 1: RESPONSE

 FEU site visit to both buildings with Owner,

geotechnical engineers

 In-house meeting with Owners, engineers

 Extensive research into history of building

construction as well as geology of the area
CASE 1: INSPECTION

Cracked
Building A
Brick
Interior - Cellar
CASE 1: INSPECTION

Building A
Interior - Cellar Cracked
Brick
CASE 1: RESEARCH

 Construction of buildings determined from

historic tax maps
− 1852 – nothing on site
− 1857 – Building A lot has 3 story townhouse

Bldg. A
CASE 1: RESEARCH Bldg. B
2-story mercantile
 Buildings on both
lots by 1860
 Both buildings
vertically
enlarged to four
(4) stories by late
1800s
Bldg. A
 Extensions were 3-story townhouse
made on original with center courtyard
foundations
CASE 1: RESEARCH
Streams

 Research into Approximate

the geology of location of buildings
the site showed
this
CASE 1: RESEARCH/ASSESSMENT
1901
Original 4-story Bldg. A is demolished and
replaced with an 11-story building
 Added load to original foundations
 Constructed frame within building and new
foundations
 Unsuitable/compressible soils likely
overloaded
 Significant uniform settlement likely begins
CASE 1: RESEARCH/ASSESSMENT
1912
Original 4-story Bldg. B is demolished and
replaced with a 21-story building
 Excavated 30ft. deep into weathered rock for
Bldg. B foundations
 Underpinned Bldg. A north wall to bedrock
 South foundation wall of Bldg. A remains on
partially unsuitable soils
CASE 1:
ASSESSMENT
CASE 1: ACTION
 FEU issued similar Commissioner’s Orders to both
buildings
− Owners to provide property line surveys
− Determine compliance with the code (walls plumb,
straight and true)
 Additional order to Bldg. A for foundation investigation
− Test pits: material type, conditions, footing, soil
classification
− Soil borings and other testing: subsurface
conditions
− Analysis: building loads, estimate history of
settlement/differential settlement
CASE 1: FOLLOW UP
 Which building is
leaning in which Bldg. A North

direction? Bldg. A South

 Both buildings will

be required to
submit building
surveys a minimum
of once every five Bldg. A Bldg. B

(5) years to coincide

with FISP reports
 CASE 2
Bldg. A

Bldg. D: demo Bldg. B:

plans filed unoccupied;
expired demo
Bldg. E: demo permit
Bldg. C: vacated
plans filed
due to previous
fire; active demo
permit

NOTE: Buildings B thru E owned by same company; Bldg . A has different owner
CASE 2: ALTERATION
 Referral from: IGA

 Stalled demolition site

 Extensive damage/deterioration due to long term

lack of maintenance

 Fire damage from year prior

 Heavy Pedestrian traffic/bus route affected

 Response: repeated site visits with owner and

engineers
CASE 2: RESEARCH

1857-1862
CASE 2: RESEARCH

1916
CASE 2: RESEARCH

1921
CASE 2: RESEARCH

Bldg. C
CASE 2: INSPECTION

Bldg. C

Bldg. B
CASE 2: INSPECTION

Bldg. A

Bldg. B

Bldg. C
CASE 2: INSPECTION

Bldg. D

Bldg. E
CASE 2: ASSESSMENT/ACTION
Buildings B, C, D, E
 Fire and water damage
 Roofs compromised
 Wood roof and floor joists rotted and deflecting
 All buildings vacated
 DOB violations issued to effect either full or
partial demolition
 All buildings demolished to grade under permit
CASE 2: ASSESSMENT

Bldg. A

Bldg. B and Bldg. C

undergoing demolition
Bldg. D and Bldg. E
demolition complete
CASE 2: RESEARCH (1916 CODE)

Per 1916 Code

The front, rear, side and party walls shall be properly
bonded together, or anchored to each other every 6'
in their height by wrought-iron tie anchors, not less
than 1 1/2" by 3/8" in size, and not less than 24" in
length. The side anchors shall be built into the side or
party walls not less than 16", and into the front and
rear walls, so as to secure the front and rear walls to
the side, or party walls, when not built and bonded
together.
CASE 2: RESEARCH (2014 CODE)
3309.8. Adjoining walls (protection of adjoining
property)
When any construction or demolition operation
exposes or breaches an adjoining wall…the person
causing the construction or demolition operation
shall…perform the following:
1. Maintain the structural integrity of such walls and
adjoining structure, and have a registered design
professional investigate the stability and condition of
the wall and adjoining structure, and take all
necessary steps to protect such wall and structure.
CASE 2: ACTION

 Stop Work Order on demolition of Bldg. B and

Bldg. E

 DOB Violation for stabilization

Bldg. B of Bldg A
Bldg. A and Bldg. B
Bldg. B Bldg. A
Bldg. A

Bldg. A and Bldg. B

 Work with Owners to resolve the condition

CASE 2: FOLLOW UP
CASE 2: FOLLOW UP

Chimney
Wall Supports
Bldg. A
Ties

Bldg. B
Bldg. A
(Demolished)
CASE 2: FOLLOW UP
 CASE 3 (NEW CONSTRUCTION)

 Referral from ERT

 Report of a construction
vehicle hitting the side
Excavation for
of an existing building Existing Building
new construction
causing cracks from 1st
floor to parapet
 Response: IMMEDIATE
NOTE: Reported - sound of vehicle
hitting building; what may have
actually been the sound of the
building cracking
 CASE 3: INSPECTION

Exterior:
Interior:
cracks at
cracks at
corner
corner
 CASE 3: INSPECTION

Existing Building

Underpinning
Excavation
CASE 3: RESEARCH
NB Site
 DM permit issued on 11/29/16 for demolition
of existing building
 NB Partial permit issued on 1/17/17 for
Proposed new eight (8) story and cellar,
twenty eight (28) residential unit building
Existing Building
 Built in 1939
 No open violations
CASE 3: ASSESSMENT

Area of
cracking
CASE 3: ASSESSMENT
 The underlying soil under line ‘A’ at the existing building
became unstable due to ongoing excavation at NB site
 Recent underpinning was observed supporting existing
building foundation wall
 Vertical support of this corner was not uniform and
generated additional uneven loading at this corner
 Cracks on the exterior wall and inside the apartments
were significant and affected the structural stability of
line ‘A’ apartments
CASE 3: ASSESSMENT
CASE 3: ACTIONS
Existing Building
 Partial vacate at line ‘A’ apartments only
NOTE: six (6) apartments vacated
 Three (3) DOB Violations
− Building monitoring
− Temporary stabilization (strapping)
− Permanent repairs

NB/Excavation Site
 Stop Work Order
− Partially lifted to allow for stabilization work
 14 ECB violations
CASE 4

 Referral from ERT

 6 Alarm Fire in
residential rowhouse
− 1 Fatality Bldg. C Bldg. A Bldg. B

− 17 Injuries
 Response: IMMEDIATE
CASE 4: RESEARCH
CASE 4: INSPECTION
 Roof and 5th floor partially
collapsed (approximately
70%)
 4th floor joists were charred
and structurally
compromised
 Rear of the 3rd floor
partially
collapsed (approximate
40%)
 2nd floor joists charred and
compromised
CASE 4: INSPECTIONS
 Roof framing burned and
collapsed leaving the street front
(north) wall unbraced and
unstable above the 5th floor

 East and west parapet walls and

light wells wall have partially
collapsed due to the fire

 South wall also became free

standing above the 4th floor

 Bulkhead support has sustained

excessive damage due to the
fire and the bulkhead is leaning
CASE 4: RESEARCH

Bldg. Lot ca 1891 Bldg. Lot ca 1897

CASE 4: RESEARCH
CASE 4: ACTIONS

 Vacated fire building and adjoining building

on either side
− 40 apartments total

 DOB violation to fire building to effect

emergency work

 DOB violation to each adjoining building for

failure to maintain due to fire
CASE 4: CONCERNS

 FDNY had two key objectives

1. Complete the search of the ground floor
and basement for victims
2. Sift through the soft debris as it is
generated

 Contractor coordinated demolition and debris

removal activities with FDNY
CASE 4: FOLLOW UP

 Worked with Owner’s

engineer on appropriate
means and methods of
demolition

 Adjoining party walls tied

with steel channels
SUMMARY

 FEU provides the Agency with engineering

competence for incidents, collapses, fires,
weather events
− Site management in real time

 Responds to incidents by stabilizing and making

a property safe when owner fails to act

 Generally follow the same steps for each project,

tailoring as required for any unique situations
This concludes the American Institute of
Architects Continuing Education Systems
Course.

AIA NYC Department of Buildings Contact:

Melanie Guzman
(212) 393-2163
Melaguzman@buildings.nyc.gov

© 2017 New York City Department of Buildings