Is this building OBVIOUSLY bad?

[Slimmons]

I've recently had a metal building put up, with the intent of building on the inside of it (something I'm about 30% of the way done with). The building started leaking and I had another metal builder come out yesterday (not the original creator of the building). He walked inside and basically told me I should sue the builders and immediately move out. I already have another manufacturer lined up to come give me their opinion, but I wanted some opinions here because the guy who just told me it's garbage said it would be obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with metal buildings.


Pictured below, all the metal you see is what I believe is normal 2x3 tube steel. I don't know what gauge the steel is, but the guy from yesterday said it wouldn't matter which gauge it is (of the normal gauges). The studs (running up and down), are 21 feet tall on the high side and they are 10ft on center. The guy from yesterday (not original installer) said the max they should be for that height is around 6ft on center, but he was reciting that from memory. But he was confident they couldn't go 10 ft on center.


It's a single slope roof. The ceiling joists are made by the guy who put up the building and it's spanning around 40 ft. Including the angle, they're just shy of 41ft I believe. He also said there's no way they would have ever gotten any engineering approval for this design. They are also 10ft apart. It is already sagging a bit in the middle.


I already know the original building made some really terrible mistakes. He put about half the windows in the wrong spots. There's large sections with missing screws, and a few other problems. But the original installer came back and fixed all of those.

I know that no one can be positive, and nobody is giving official legal advice. I also know that this could have been done better, but is it as bad as the guy from yesterday says, or was he overreacting a bit?

Another thing he mentioned, was how poorly the wall was supported around the windows. With there being so many windows, he said he'd be afraid the building would bend there on a large wind, and break the windows.
This is in Alabama, so the load requirements for snow and things are pretty low.

Here's before the spray foam

 

[CoogarXR]

Where are you located? I know nothing about engineering, but it looks a little scant from a snow-load perspective (if you live in an area prone to it).

 

[Slimmons]

Where are you located? I know nothing about engineering, but it looks a little scant from a snow-load perspective (if you live in an area prone to it).

Alabama. We get about an inch or two every 10 years. It's a real bummer....but good for load requirements.

 

[Rusted Nut]

Those are not studs on 10’ centers, they are posts supporting some sort of bar truss. Depending on engineering, might be fine. If it’s leaking, get the contractor who built it out there to fix it.

 

[Slimmons]

Those are not studs on 10’ centers, they are posts supporting some sort of bar truss. Depending on engineering, might be fine. If it’s leaking, get the contractor who built it out there to fix it.

Yeah, the leaking in the roof, the original contractor came out and fixed. The leaking around the windows, he has refused to fix and blames the windows. I was just tired of dealing with him (it's been several months), and hired this other guy to fix it.

 

[KenC]

It would help to see some outside pics too. And an exterior wall not covered with interior finish stuff.

 

[Slimmons]

It would help to see some outside pics too. And an exterior wall not covered with interior finish stuff.

Thanks, I added several other photos.

 

[Sweetcorn]

Was it designed and rated to have the spray foam installed?

Wondering if the weight of that is causing the sag you are seeing...

 

[Rst277]

Was the building inspected? Has the company that built it, built other buildings? Usually buildings are designed by engineers, parts are manufactured to those specifications and then put together on site by the builder. Highly unlikely he threw this together with random material he had laying around and therefore SHOULD meet the local requirements for a structure of that sort. Unless you went with the cheapest guy available, pulled no permits and had no inspections....

 

[Slimmons]

Was the building inspected? Has the company that built it, built other buildings? Usually buildings are designed by engineers, parts are manufactured to those specifications and then put together on site by the builder. Highly unlikely he threw this together with random material he had laying around and therefore SHOULD meet the local requirements for a structure of that sort. Unless you went with the cheapest guy available, pulled no permits and had no inspections....

@Sweetcorn and @Rst277 There's some ups and downs to this as far as inspections go. Where I'm at in Alabama, there are no inspections for anything but septic. It's really nice most of the time. In this case, I kind of wish it was inspected. The company that built this has done MANY buildings. They've been building for 15+ years, and do 3-4 buildings a month. They do normally do smaller buildings, but this isn't new to them. So....no permits, no inspections, but he wasn't the cheapest guy. I found tons of guys with no previous experience willing to try and weld something together. And as far as the spray foam insulation goes, I told the builder beforehand that I was doing spray foam, and he recommended that I do.

 

[Rusted Nut]

Did your builder install the windows?

 

[neverdone]

If you have structural questions, hire a structural engineer.

 

[BombShelter]

With a building that is much more different than normal I'd definately spend a few hundred bucks to have a real structural engineer go over the drawings, he'll know right away if it will withstand the elements and added weight. It is very concerning that the roof is sagging already, those ceiling joists look about 30% undersized but I'm just a dude looking at your roof.

I'm looking at a website for one of the metal building builder's down there and they offer "engineered drawings" for $650, seems like a great deal for piece of mind, I wonder if they will still sign off after the building has started. They state that approval is not needed down there, which is great but how much responsibility does it release from the contractor/designer? They also state they do 4' or 5' O/C frame systems. Most of their gallery has the siding horizontal so their not dealing with the vertical ridges around the windows, that probably got the window installers pissed off.

Otherwise, it looks like a cool project, I was looking over other building options, it's a very interesting option.

 

[Slimmons]

Did your builder install the windows?

Unfortunately they did.

 

[Rusted Nut]

Unfortunately they did.

Manufactured window units seldom leak; almost always an installation issue. Did contractor supply the windows? You need to figure exactly why the windows are leaking, and get the contractor to fix them. If contractor won’t, you may need to file a claim against the contractor.

 

[Wolley]

We just had a big wind and rain storm in Maine. Part of a barn blew into the road and broke a power pole. The barn kinda looked like your house.

 

[58Yeoman]

Sorry I can't add anything to help you out, but it is a great looking building so far. I hope you get everything sorted out. Keep us informed.

 

[Slimmons]

We just had a big wind and rain storm in Maine. Part of a barn blew into the road and broke a power pole. The barn kinda looked like your house.

haha, this is the best response I've gotten so far.

 

[mikedodge]

Unfortunately they did.

Sounds like the builder should be dealing with the window leaks then. Unless it's the windows themselves that are leaking and he's not the one that supplied them. Then it should probably be the window manufacturer but they'll probably blame it on a bad installation.

Hard to tell on the building itself. In a way it looks like it's lacking supports or columns for how tall the walls are but then again around here like someone else mentioned we also have snow to deal with.

 

[ybnormal]

as @BombShelter and @mikedodge pointed out about the trusses and columns, they do seem weird. the trusses visually just seem to be massively undersized for the roof, especially on a 40ft run. and the columns around the windows don't seem to line up like you would expect them too if they were reinforcing each other.

definitely get an engineer to look at it. also, get ahold of the original building design company and see if the builder actually adhered to the drawn up plans.

 

[jack stand]

I remember your post months ago with leaking issues with the windows as well as the roof.
I hate to say it but it sure seems like lawyer time or rather than paying the lawyer, just pay for a well detailed and documented remedy with another contractor.
Sorry your going through this and I like your design.

 

[mrbill55]

I've recently had a metal building put up, with the intent of building on the inside of it (something I'm about 30% of the way done with). The building started leaking and I had another metal builder come out yesterday (not the original creator of the building). He walked inside and basically told me I should sue the builders and immediately move out. I already have another manufacturer lined up to come give me their opinion, but I wanted some opinions here because the guy who just told me it's garbage said it would be obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with metal buildings.


Pictured below, all the metal you see is what I believe is normal 2x3 tube steel. I don't know what gauge the steel is, but the guy from yesterday said it wouldn't matter which gauge it is (of the normal gauges). The studs (running up and down), are 21 feet tall on the high side and they are 10ft on center. The guy from yesterday (not original installer) said the max they should be for that height is around 6ft on center, but he was reciting that from memory. But he was confident they couldn't go 10 ft on center.


It's a single slope roof. The ceiling joists are made by the guy who put up the building and it's spanning around 40 ft. Including the angle, they're just shy of 41ft I believe. He also said there's no way they would have ever gotten any engineering approval for this design. They are also 10ft apart. It is already sagging a bit in the middle.


I already know the original building made some really terrible mistakes. He put about half the windows in the wrong spots. There's large sections with missing screws, and a few other problems. But the original installer came back and fixed all of those.

I know that no one can be positive, and nobody is giving official legal advice. I also know that this could have been done better, but is it as bad as the guy from yesterday says, or was he overreacting a bit?

Another thing he mentioned, was how poorly the wall was supported around the windows. With there being so many windows, he said he'd be afraid the building would bend there on a large wind, and break the windows.
This is in Alabama, so the load requirements for snow and things are pretty low.

Here's before the spray foam

Before you do anything else, ask the original builder for the manufacturers engineering sheet on the building, blue prints at the very least (which will list the manufacturer/supplier). Then contact the manufacturer/supplier and see what the specs are rated for if not shown on the engineering sheet. This gets you back to the basics of the building envelope, everything else can be responded to after that. Scan it and post it here, we can then review what cannot be seen in the pictures you posted, and hopefully guide you in the right direction.

Window wise, if the builder installed them, he is responsible for the leaks between the outer frame of the window, and the building envelope itself. Anything else leaking in regards to the windows, is your issue to deal with, might I suggest you contact the manufacturer of the window and have them send someone out to review.


Bill S.

 

[jar944]

I can't I've seen trapezoid web trusses before.

 

[Slimmons]

Before you do anything else, ask the original builder for the manufacturers engineering sheet on the building, blue prints at the very least (which will list the manufacturer/supplier). Then contact the manufacturer/supplier and see what the specs are rated for if not shown on the engineering sheet. This gets you back to the basics of the building envelope, everything else can be responded to after that. Scan it and post it here, we can then review what cannot be seen in the pictures you posted, and hopefully guide you in the right direction.

Window wise, if the builder installed them, he is responsible for the leaks between the outer frame of the window, and the building envelope itself. Anything else leaking in regards to the windows, is your issue to deal with, might I suggest you contact the manufacturer of the window and have them send someone out to review.


Bill S.

I've asked for the engineering sheet or any other plans on the building several times. They manufacture the buildings in house, and they have directly refused to give me anything on the building.

 

[BombShelter]

Maybe call the window manufacturer and get the page that details the proper way to seal them.

 

[strutaeng]

I've asked for the engineering sheet or any other plans on the building several times. They manufacture the buildings in house, and they have directly refused to give me anything on the building.

Then it's really going to be up to what your contract stipulated. What did that look like?

Did it have any information as far as what the structure was going to be?

If you got what the contract stated, then I think you will be SOL, especially if the building wasn't designed to any building code requirements.

Though situation. Tell more on what you agreed to, or what you think you had agreed on with the builder.

How far are you away from the coast?

 

[Toolfool]

My building is 46x48x12. Posts are doubled 2-1/2 x 2-1/2, less than 5' OC.
Engineering and permits were required. I was also in construction for 35 years. I visited the manufacturer in person and insisted on seeing a few structures of previous customers before committing to purchase. Unfortunately, your structure appears to be under-engineered. I would start with an engineer for documentation of what you HAVE, then approach the manufacturer about what you were supposed to receive.

 

[Boogerman]

I'm essentially never in the lawyer up camp, but this is probably one of the few situations where you're going to be there, unless you just decide to cut your losses and go on.

Here's my opinion, I'm not going to offer my qualifications, so take it for what it is, an internet post.

1) You have an unpermitted building, designed by an unqualified designer, and built sub-standard.
2) It's an unconventional design, so not even built to rule of thumb basics.
3) It's a nightmare design and execution concept, so a qualified structural engineer is just going to shake his head and wish you luck with someone else, or tell you "it's going to get expensive, and ugly".

At this point you have two choices:

1) Decide YOU did this to yourself, pull up your big boy pants, and pay to have someone COMPETENT correct it.
2) Read your contract (you do have one, with the original builder?) and if it has anything in it about design suitability and servicability, pay to have an attorney advise you on your options.

My windshield survey opinion is that the slenderness ratio of the end columns supporting the trusses is too large, and that the moment connections will create too large a stress immediately below the truss in the columns. To alleviate the moment concerns, the trusses would need to be much closer together to reduce the moment. A gusset could also be added, that would need to be calculated. The slenderness would be helped by the closer spacing, but the columns might have to be larger also, and some different cross bracing might help. The building also appears to have essentially no lateral load moment resistance, depending on whether it's a post and pole type design and the columns are heavy enough and embedded in a decent foundation.

It's such an unconventional design that there's no real eyeball comparisons to judge it by. A detailed analysis needs to be done. This is actually pretty easy for a structural engineer with a design program to do, and give the structure a pass/fail for immediate safety. To design a correction might take quite a bit of additional work. Having the spray foam covering everything up isn't an advantage in helping out either the analysis or correction process.

This is one of the times where no permits can bite you. A prudent owner hiring a good contractor with a conventional design has a good chance of getting a decent product. For a weird, unconventional design such as this, the very high expense of engineered design and qualified inspection is nearly a necessity to insure you get a good product. There's not a good body of common knowledge out there that can be relied on to know you have a good design.

 

[crane operator]

One way pitch roofs are a bad deal load wise (in how they carry weight), and I would say the trusses are woefully inadequate for the load. And the wall columns are not heavy enough for the transfer and the corner stresses.

We build a lot of one way pitch buildings right now, they are "in" architecturally, but they need serious vertical columns and the trusses/ beams, are twice the size of two way pitch roofs.

It looks like someone that builds carports, decided to branch out into full size buildings, and just don't know what they are doing.

Its going to need serious reinforcement, and the spray foam is going to make that a *****. Bite the bullet and rebuild it.

 

[mikedodge]

He's probably refusing to provide any engineering info in it because there isn't any.
If you didn't have any input on how you wanted it built and the design and everything was purely on the builder get it reviewed by a structural engineer to find out how it needs to be modified to accommodate the size of it properly and then get a lawyer involved if the builder doesn't agree on doing the extra work.

 

[Old tool guy]

Looks very nice from the outside. Inside looks badly undersized. First step would be to hire an architect or engineer to survey and write a report.

 

[Fixr]

I'll add another recommendation for getting a professional structural engineer's evaluation followed by an attorney experienced in construction disputes. I'm just a retired mechanic, but the building looks wildly underbuilt and unsafe to me.

 

[Tracs]

Yeah, the leaking in the roof, the original contractor came out and fixed. The leaking around the windows, he has refused to fix and blames the windows. I was just tired of dealing with him (it's been several months), and hired this other guy to fix it.

It is hard to tell from your pictures, but it looks like the windows were installed into the framed steel structure, but it doesn't look like any sort of window trim or drip edge was installed. It looks like maybe flashing is installed but then the exterior corrugated steel was installed around the windows. Even with flashing, water is just going to run down the larger gaps of the exterior steel.

 

[Joemctag]

I'm essentially never in the lawyer up camp, but this is probably one of the few situations where you're going to be there, unless you just decide to cut your losses and go on.

Here's my opinion, I'm not going to offer my qualifications, so take it for what it is, an internet post.

1) You have an unpermitted building, designed by an unqualified designer, and built sub-standard.
2) It's an unconventional design, so not even built to rule of thumb basics.
3) It's a nightmare design and execution concept, so a qualified structural engineer is just going to shake his head and wish you luck with someone else, or tell you "it's going to get expensive, and ugly".

At this point you have two choices:

1) Decide YOU did this to yourself, pull up your big boy pants, and pay to have someone COMPETENT correct it.
2) Read your contract (you do have one, with the original builder?) and if it has anything in it about design suitability and servicability, pay to have an attorney advise you on your options.

My windshield survey opinion is that the slenderness ratio of the end columns supporting the trusses is too large, and that the moment connections will create too large a stress immediately below the truss in the columns. To alleviate the moment concerns, the trusses would need to be much closer together to reduce the moment. A gusset could also be added, that would need to be calculated. The slenderness would be helped by the closer spacing, but the columns might have to be larger also, and some different cross bracing might help. The building also appears to have essentially no lateral load moment resistance, depending on whether it's a post and pole type design and the columns are heavy enough and embedded in a decent foundation.

It's such an unconventional design that there's no real eyeball comparisons to judge it by. A detailed analysis needs to be done. This is actually pretty easy for a structural engineer with a design program to do, and give the structure a pass/fail for immediate safety. To design a correction might take quite a bit of additional work. Having the spray foam covering everything up isn't an advantage in helping out either the analysis or correction process.

This is one of the times where no permits can bite you. A prudent owner hiring a good contractor with a conventional design has a good chance of getting a decent product. For a weird, unconventional design such as this, the very high expense of engineered design and qualified inspection is nearly a necessity to insure you get a good product. There's not a good body of common knowledge out there that can be relied on to know you have a good design.

If the purlins and girts, all spanning 10’, are adequate for the roof and wall ( wind ) loads, then maybe the roof trusses and the “columns “ could be beefed up in place without disassembling the whole building . Might have to shore each truss as it’s done. Good luck.

 

[dougf]

I followed your other thread about the windows. I'm sorry for what you've been through with this building. I'm very curious as to your contract, and if you could redact it and post a copy it would be an interesting read.

 

[bluedog225]

Maybe build a steel structure inside to shore up the sketchy parts. Sounds odd but it would save existing work and might be cheaper.

 

[kwb]

I have seen a lot of build threads with these sort of buildings. I usually stay on the sidelines.

If you are finishing out the space - starting with a carport is penny wise and pound foolish. I said something similar on question about a pole building as well. Now I am sure that someone out there is building a metal building from all this light gage material that might actually build a good building.... I just haven't seen it yet.

We all know accessory buildings (Shop, garage, mancave..... whatever you call it) don't add value to resale. So I completely understand desire to not go over the top unless you have a bunch of money, never plan to sell, are using the space to make money, or have other requirements (like zoning/HOA) that force some of these fundamental type questions. If you are looking mostly for dry storage I can see these sort of buildings fitting the need.

I also get having a job in another area of expertise, building a building is a skill and also a good chunk of time that most of us don't really have to do. So getting a quick shell up and then being able to chip away at things inside at DIY pace that allows life to happen - there is a logic to that. The important part is to know what you want at the end then take steps over 6mo or 10yrs to get there. If you are going into this as a known temporary thing then a 5-10yr effective life is reasonable, just don't think it will be the same as a structure designed for 50yrs.

As for this building- not knowing what the foundation is makes it really hard for me to even say if you really can come out ahead with a rework plan. The trusses look very light and even appear to have a sag to them already. The good news is that you appear to be building a building inside of it to finish it off, adding some structure and connecting the two might save your day but it will probably involve adding some beams/trusses and posts at the ends to make it all work.

My $0.02 (which I am way past) is at the root of this is there was not a clear matching of expectations between owner and builder at the start of the project. I doubt that if there was this would have been the builder you would have chosen.

 

[kbuhagiar]

Maybe build a steel structure inside to shore up the sketchy parts. Sounds odd but it would save existing work and might be cheaper.

Not odd at all. It's actually a pretty good idea.

Several years ago, in order to meet earthquake safety standards, the City & County of San Francisco used this method to shore up a few of it's historically significant Municipal Railway maintenance yard structures. I believe the San Francisco Belt Railroad also used the same method to renovate it's roundhouse. Sadly, it was demolished years later to make way for Pacific Bell Park (then SBC Park, then AT&T Park and now known as Oracle Park), home of the San Francisco Giants.

This method reduced both costs and down time, as these structures are/were active 24/7/365 maintenance facilities.

 

[PugetDude]

Paging @readhead

 

[NUTTSGT]

Paging @readhead

Exactly who I was waiting to chime in.


Edit: So I went back and looked at the pictures and curious about something. It appears that the bottom chord of the roof trusses are welded to the posts and the top chord/web is resting on top of the post.

Is that how these metal building are erected or should both top/bottom chords be resting on the top of the posts ?