HomeMy WebLinkAbout25-D002 169 Route 6A Structural Engineering ReportCONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC.
336 Baker Avenue 978-461-6100
Concord, MA 01742 www.cse-ma.com
May 9, 2025
Robert Wilkins, Chairman
Town of Yarmouth
Old King's Highway Historic District Committee ("OKHDC")
1146 Route 28
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
c/o: Kurt Raber, Catalyst Architecture/interiors, atal starchi ects.com
RE: Structural Observation Report
Detached Barn Structure
169 Main Street (Route 6A)
Yarmouthport, MA
Mr. Wilkens,
MAY 0 9 2015
Old King's Highway
Historic District
CSE 06296
This report summarizes the findings of the structural observation Consulting Structural Engineer,
Inc. (CSE) conducted on May 7, 2025, in and around the detached barn structure located at 169
Main Street in Yarmouthport, Massachusetts. Specifically, we conducted a walk-through visual
observation of the wood framing and foundation. The goal of the observation is to provide our
professional opinion regarding the current structural condition of these elements.
BACKGROUND
The barn is a stand-alone, detached structure on the referenced property. The building contains
two framed floors over crawl space approximately 24-feet x 24-feet in footprint area. We
understand the barn was constructed circa 1900 and renovated over the years to create more
modern habitable spaces and to correct damage encountered.
Barn Structure
BUILDING CODE REFERENCE
The structural condition is evaluated in accordance with the International Residential Code (IRC)
2021 as amended by the Massachusetts State Building Code, 10th edition Chapter 51 (MSBC)
known as the Massachusetts Residential Code. The IRC Appendix AJ Existing Buildings and
Structures directs those dangerous conditions encountered "where the stresses in any member,•
the condition of the building, or any of its components or elements or attachments; or other
condition that results in an overload exceeding 150 percent of the stress allowed for the member
or material in this code" shall be "made to comply with the applicable provisions of the MSBC' as
2 5 - D 00.
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC. November 14, 2017
Structural Observation Report
per section AJ109.4 of the MSBC. The analysis performed for this report utilizes the above
threshold as the basis for recommendations related to dangerous conditions encountered.
FINDINGS
General
The barn is vacant at the time of observation and interior finishes have been removed throughout
each floor to expose the framing members for review. The structure has been substantially
modified at the first floor framed level, the second floor framed level, and the exterior walls.
Modifications include the significant presence of modern dressed lumber as opposed to original
timber framing. Additional beam and joist framing has been introduced heavily throughout the
framed floor levels to the extent that the subfloor sheathing is modern plywood on modern framing
set to level above and around any original framing that may still exist. The foundation is not in a
serviceable condition and significant deterioration of wood framing members is present at the first
floor framed level.
The structural load path is supported almost entirely by modern framing reinforcements installed
in place of or as reinforcements to original timber framing.
Foundation
The perimeter foundation walls consist primarily of 2-wythe (8-inch thickness) brick masonry walls
over dry -stacked field stone. The rear section of the foundation wall has some concrete masonry
unit (CMU) wall sections at access openings. Newer concrete foundation wall infill has been
placed within the threshold of the front barn door. Interior foundations are cask -in -place concrete
pads installed during a past renovation and placed on various stone and masonry rubble.
� w
-
North foundation wall in crawl space.
Supporting soils at the base of the
wall are eroding, the wall has been
pushed inward from the force of
..,
exterior grade and hydrostatic
forces.
Interior footings in this area are
3
precariously supported by piles of
masonry stone/rubble.
North foundation wall along exterior.
Wall is out -of -plumb, the base of
foundation wall has been pushed
inward from the surcharge of exterior
grade and hydrostatic forces.
K
,
Sill timber has significant
deterioration from moisture exposure
f
and insect activity. Layers of modern
first floor framing evident above sill
timber.
Page 2 of 14
25-D002
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC. November 14, 2017
Structural Observation Report
3
4
6
Typical interior foundations within
crawl space.
Concrete pads are present at interior
post supports beneath the first floor
beams. Some are founded on soils,
some on masonry stone/rubble.
Many interior foundations are
unstable, and posts are out of plumb
as a result. No mechanical
anchorage is present to secure posts
in place.
South foundation wall along exterior.
Wall is out -of -plumb, the base of
foundation wall has been pushed
inward from the surcharge of exterior
grade and hydrostatic forces.
Concrete foundation wall infill
present within barn door threshold on
front wall.
Page 3 of 10
2s- v 0o 2 lei
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC. November 14, 2017
Structural Observation Report
Rear foundation wall.
Cementitious parge coating on the
—_ exterior conceals CMU patch work
6 I y around each access opening.
First Floor Framing
The first floor framing is supported by three (3) beam lines equally spaced under the floor
spanning from side -to -side. The center beam is 6x6 likely original_ the flanking 4x8 beams to the
left and right of the center beam are reinforcements installed at the mid -span of first floor joists
during a past renovation. 6x6 posts are located along each beam approximately 5-feet on center.
S
First floor framing general layering of
original framing, modern framing and
reinforcing beam lines.
All interior posts are modern 6x6
lumber on modern concrete footings.
Newer 2x4 purlins have been
installed across the original 3x5 joists
in significant areas of the floor.
Where this is done the original wood
plank subfloor has been removed.
Page 4 of 10
5- D 00
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC. November 14, 2017
Structural Observation Report
9
3x5 purlins bearing on 6x6 center
beam line.
Deterioration from exposure to
moisture and insect activity is
common throughout the first floor
level.
Second Floor Framing
The second floor framing is almost entirely modern 2x8 lumber framing set level and framed
around the original 3x5 purlin framing. The floor is supported by a 6x6 centerline beam supported
by each side wall and two (2) interior 6x6 posts.
10
17
Front section of second floor framing.
2x8 joist framing throughout. The
3x5 purlins are spaced at 4-feet on
center and provide support of the the
2x8 floor framing 4-feet off the front
wall
3x5 purlins supporting 2x8 framing 4-
feet off the front wall.
Analysis demonstrates that the 3x5
purlins are overstressed beyond the
150% threshold.
Page 5 of 10
2 5 - D 0 0 2 - -I"
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC. November 14, 2017
Structural Observation Report
12
4
13
Damage observed 3x5 purlin at front
wall.
The horizontal split is the result of the
end notch in the purlin and the
overstress condition due to support
of the W floor frame system.
6x6 centerline beam supporting the
second floor.
Analysis demonstrates that the 6x6
centerline beam is significantly
overstressed beyond the 150%
threshold.
No suitable header is present above
the rear slider. An observable sag is
— -- present above the door due to
14 loading.
Analysis demonstrates that the 4x6
timber above the slider is
overstressed beyond the 150%
�• threshold.
Page 6 of 10
2s-,) oo a
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC.
Structural Observation Report
Roof Framing
November 14, 2017
The roof framing consists of 2x6 full sawn rafters spaced at 32-inches on center. No ridge beam
or ridge board is present. Modern 2x8 collar ties are added in the upper third of the roof at each
rafter. No attic level or rafter ties are present at the side wall top plate level. A single timber kicker
brace is present approximately mid -span of each side wall.
15
1s
17
Rafter and collar tie configuration. No
ridge board present.
Rafter bearing on side walls, kicker
brace approximately mid -span of
wall. No rafter ties present at wall top
plate all thrust resisted by the single
timber post in wall and kicker brace.
Modern 2x4 stud wall present inside
original exterior wall aiding in rafter
support.
Observed separation of kicker brace
approximately 2-inches due to
outward thrust of roof framing pulling
the brace from the floor.
Page 7 of 10
2 5 - D 0 0 2
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC. November 14, 2017
Structural Observation Report
Observable bow along eave line
related to the outward movement of
rafters due to inadequate rafter tie.
98
Observable sag in the roof plane at
center area and sag in ridge line
related to the outward movement of
rafters due to inadequate rafter tie.
Exterior Walls
All exterior walls are substantially reinforced with modern 2x4 studs to carry gravity loads down
to the foundation. The stud reinforcements are spliced at the original 3x6 horizontal timber girls
at each gable end and along the first floor side walls. The horizontal length of these original girls
are approximately 12-feet on the side walls and up to 24-feet on the second floor gable end walls.
20
Typical gable end wall on second
floor. 2x4 stud infill framing between
horizontal girls. The 3x6 horizontal
girt along the top of windows spans
the full width, approximately 24-feet
in support of wind loading on the face
of wall.
Page 8 of 10
2 5 - D 00 2
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC.
Structural Observation Report
21
22
PROFESSIONAL OPINION
November 14. 2017
Each side wall of the second floor is
reinforced by an inboard 2x4 stud
wall to support roof loads from
Wj rafters.
Gable end stud reinforcements
i spliced at girts.
Vertical wood plank sheathing
throughout.
First floor side walls are reinforced
with modern 2x4 studs on the flat,
spliced at horizontal girts. Span of
horizontal girts approximately 12-
feet in support of wind loads on the
face of wall.
+�7 Vertical wood plank sheathing
throughout.
Consistent with the observations presented above, it is our professional opinion that all structural
systems of the building (roof, walls, floors and foundation) require significant reinforcement or
replacement. The original structure and subsequent reinforcements cannot safely support the
required loads in its current condition as follows,
• The roof lacks the support of a ridge beam or adequate rafter ties to properly support roof
loads.
• The second floor framing relies on undersized beams (6x6 centerline) and purlins (3x5
front section purlins) for support. Analysis demonstrates these elements to be classified
as dangerous, observed damage to the purlins at the front wall support is consistent with
the analysis.
• The first floor suffers from significant deterioration from past exposure to moisture and
insect damage. Past repairs have been spliced in and around the floor to address damage
but do not comprehensively replicate an intact structure at this level. Interior post supports
within the crawl space are out -of -plumb in most cases due to foundation conditions.
• Foundations lack suitable support of the ground in areas where erosion has compromised
the base of foundation walls and exterior surcharges have rotated the base of the wall
inward. Similar circumstances at interior footings supported precariously on masonry
stone/rubble piles.
• Exterior walls are inherently flexible in their current configuration that depends on long -
span horizontal girts to resist wind forces on the wall. In addition, and as the reinforcing
studs are spliced at these girts in most locations, any vertical loads carried through the
Page 9 of 10
2- D 00 2
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, INC. November 14, 2017
Structural Observation Report
girts may induce out of plane movement of the gins resulting in inadequate support for the
floors and roof above.
Contemplating reinforcement of all primary structural systems within the building superstructure
and complete replacement of the foundation is not a reasonable path to a code compliant and
safe structure in our opinion. We recommend complete demolition of the structure and
reconstruction with new code compliant structural systems to match the existing building.
LIMITATIONS
The observations and recommendations made in this report are based on one walk-through,
visual observation of the barn structure and foundations. The work carried out to date and the
information presented in this report is representative of only the areas witnessed during the
observation. As a result, it cannot be assumed that this report identifies all structural deficiencies,
specifically those portions of the structure which are concealed and not presently observable.
Please contact the undersigned to review conditions exposed during any work related to the
recommendations made in this report in the event assumptions made in this report differ from
actual conditions encountered. We reserve the right to amend this report should additional
information become available.
Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions or would like to discuss our
findings in more detail.
Sincerely, j
i HOF
BRIAN
A.
A.
rrianA.
WALSH
STRUCTURAL
lsh, PE .o No.48077
Managing Director °gs
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL
BAWalshCcDese-ma.com
(978) 300-3041
Cc: Greg Bilezikian, Owner
Atty. John W. Kenney
Atty. Patrick R. Nickerson
Christopher Weeks, Contractor
Page 10 of 10
2 5 - D 0 0 2