STRUCTURAL EVALUATION

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE
12059 MARION DRIVE
PRINCESS ANNE, MARYLAND
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
VeriClaim File No.: PHI11057650
AON Claim No.: 01MD12P0088
MKA No.: 2011.2220
Insured: University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Date of Loss: November 27, 2011
Lexington Claim No.: 683-445214
INVEST – ENGINEERING REPORT
January 16, 2012
Prepared For:
MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY
VERICLAIM, INC.
1818 Market Street, Suite 2320
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 832-0322
Prepared By:
MR. GREGORY D. SMITH, P.E.
MADSEN, KNEPPERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
425 Amwell Road, Suite 101
Hillsborough, New Jersey 08844
(908) 281-0327
Copyright 2012. Unauthorized reproduction of this report is prohibited.
If additional copies are required, please contact Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
LETTER REPORT, DATED JANUARY 16, 2012
II.
EXHIBITS
III.

EXHIBIT A – GREENHOUSE PLAN AND DETAILS

EXHIBIT B – ROUGH BROTHERS, INC. ON-SITE ASSESSMENT
REPORT, DATED DECEMBER 13, 2011
PHOTOGRAPHS
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
January 16, 2012
MKA No.: 2011.2220
I. LETTER REPORT
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
January 16, 2012
MKA No.: 2011.2220
January 16, 2012 Sent via email: [email protected] MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2320 Philadelphia, PA 19103 RE: UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE 12059 MARION DRIVE, PRINCESS ANNE, MARYLAND 21853‐2915 VERICLAIM FILE NO.: PHI11057650 AON CLAIM NO.: 02MD12P0088 LEXINGTON CLAIM NO.: 683‐445214 MKA PROJECT NO.: 2011.2220 Dear Mr. McAninley: In response to your request, Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc. (MKA) has performed an evaluation of claimed damage to a commercial hydroponic greenhouse located at 12059 Marion Drive in Princess Anne, Maryland. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the extent of structural damage that reportedly occurred on November 27, 2011 as a result of a fire. The opinions in this letter are based on the following:  Site visits performed on December 5, 15 and 16, 2011. The investigations were of a visual nature only and no destructive testing was undertaken.  Review of aerial photographs (Refer to Photograph 1).  Review of the greenhouse design drawings prepared by Rough Brothers, Inc. (RB) and John A. Ammon & Associates, Inc. dated September 17, 1997 with revisions. Electronic copies of the original drawings were provided by the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) to MKA on December 13, 2011. Refer to Exhibit A for select drawings.  Review of RB’s website www.roughbros.com, “The Venlo” greenhouse model, and their On‐Site Assessment Report dated December 13, 2011 (Refer to Exhibit B).  Review of technical literature on glass manufacturing, glass tempering, and the exposure of glass to elevated temperatures: MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 2 of 12 o
o
o
o
Glass Association of North America (GANA) ‐ www.glasswebsite.com National Glass Association (NGA) – www.glass.org GlassOnWeb.com ‐ www.glassonweb.com GlassFiles.com by GPD – www.glassfiles.com EVENT BACKGROUND On the afternoon of November 27, 2011, a fire broke out within the commercial hydroponic greenhouse located on the UMES campus, resulting in claimed damage to the greenhouse structure and contents. The fire was brought under control by firefighters within approximately 2 hours from the start of the fire. As a result of claimed damage sustained to the subject greenhouse, MKA was requested to perform the following activities:  Document the condition of the building and determine the extent of structural damage.  Determine an appropriate scope of repair including code upgrade requirements. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The subject building is a commercial greenhouse structure that was originally constructed in 1998 and has been owned by the insured since construction. The overall structure is made up of four main areas: the main greenhouse, research and development zone, loading zone, and the headhouse. The four areas have measured footprints of approximately 113,160, 2,460, 1,968, and 6,000 square feet, respectively. The main greenhouse, research and development zone, and loading zone are all constructed of a repetitive greenhouse module system. The headhouse is constructed using a pre‐engineered metal building structure. The research and development zone is located at the northwest corner of the main greenhouse with the loading zone and headhouse located at the central area of the main greenhouse northern wall. For the purpose of this report, the main entrance to the overall building faces north through the headhouse (Refer to Photograph 1 and Exhibit A). The construction of the building consists of the following: MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 3 of 12 MAIN GREENHOUSE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ZONE, AND LOADING ZONE  The greenhouse structure is formed of a repetitive rectangular shaped module that measures 12 feet in the north‐south direction and 20 feet, 6 inches in the east‐west direction (Refer to Photograph 2). The main greenhouse consists of 20 modules in the east‐west direction and 23 modules in the north‐south direction. The research and development zone consists of 2 modules in the east‐west direction and 5 modules in the north‐south direction. The loading zone consists of 4 modules in the east‐west direction and 2 modules in the north‐south direction (Refer to Photograph 1).  The typical greenhouse structure module consists of square tube columns located at the four corners of the module with neighboring modules sharing the corner columns. The columns are interconnected by steel trusses spanning in the east‐west direction and a continuous, ‘U’ shaped steel gutter member in the north‐south direction. An additional ‘U’ shaped steel gutter spanning in the north‐south direction is located at the midpoint of the module and is supported by a stub column bearing on the east‐west oriented steel truss midpoint. At the north and south facing perimeter walls of the overall structure, the typical east‐west truss is not utilized and a full height column is present in lieu of the typical stub column. In addition to the roof support, the east‐west oriented steel trusses are also used to support the shade/heat retention system, hung fans, and other miscellaneous mechanical and electrical equipment (Refer to Photographs 2 and 3).  The roof of the greenhouse modules is made up of dry glazed tempered glass panes separated and supported by aluminum rafter bars and ridge members in an east‐west sloping, multi‐ridged gable configuration. Two gable ridges form each greenhouse module. An aluminum ridge member oriented north‐south is located at the midpoint between each ‘U’ shaped steel gutter member. Sloping perpendicular oriented aluminum rafters are spaced at 2 feet on center and span between the ‘U’ shaped steel gutter at the roof low points and aluminum ridge member at the roof high points. Glass panes span between the aluminum rafters. Roof vents are incorporated into the glass and aluminum roof structure of each gable (Refer to Photographs 2 and 3).  The overall greenhouse structure is laterally braced in the north‐south direction by diagonal ‘X’ bracing between columns at gird lines 5 to 6 and 19 to 20 along each north‐
south column line. The east‐west steel trusses supporting the mid‐module gutter line are used to create a multi‐bay portal frame and laterally brace the overall structure in the east‐west direction at each east‐west column line (Refer to Photographs 2 and 3). MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 4 of 12 
The floor of the greenhouse is finished with a combination of a concrete slab‐on‐grade and fabric covered grade. The column foundations consist of isolated spread footings of 1 foot, 6 inch diameter at the exterior perimeter and 2 foot diameter at the interior columns locations. All footings are 3 feet in depth and were not visible during the site visit (Refer to Photographs 2 and 3). 
Exterior wall finishes consist of vertically oriented polycarbonate siding panels. The siding is supported by horizontally oriented steel girts spaced vertically at 4 feet on center spanning between adjacent module columns (Refer to Photographs 2 and 3). 
A bench system for plant transportation is present throughout the main greenhouse. The bench system consists of rectangular aluminum plant trays supported by steel rails. The steel rails are oriented in a north‐south direction, supported at the concrete slab‐on‐
grade by steel posts, and present within the main greenhouse except at the central east‐
west corridor between grid lines 12 to 13 and north‐south corridor between grid lines J to K north of gridline 12. Rollers attached to the underside of the trays allow the trays to be moved in a north‐south direction along the rails. Moving along the steel rails toward the center corridor of the greenhouse, a steel frame system with rubber wheels oriented in an east‐west direction between grids 12 and 13 allows the trays to roll off of the steel rails and move across the full length of the greenhouse. A secondary frame system oriented north‐south between grids J and K allows the trays to turn north from the central east‐west frame system toward the loading zone (Refer to Photographs 2 ‐ 6). HEADHOUSE  The headhouse structure is a pre‐engineered rectangular metal building formed of five steel rigid frames spaced at 25 feet in the east‐west direction and spanning approximately 60 feet in the north‐south direction. Tapered ‘I’ shaped columns at the north and south walls of the building and prismatic ‘I’ shaped beams spanning between the columns are utilized in the frame construction. The frame beams are sloped at 1:12 and configured in a gable shaped roof. The steel frames support perpendicularly oriented ‘Z’ shaped steel purlins spaced at 5 feet on center and lapped at the frame beam support flanges for continuity. A 1.25 inch deep, 26 gage metal roof deck spans between the ‘Z’ shaped purlins in a north‐south direction, forming the exterior roof envelope (Refer to Photographs 7 ‐ 9).  The overall headhouse structure is laterally braced in the north‐south direction by the rigid steel frames. In the east‐west direction, a single bay of diagonal ‘X’ bracing between adjacent columns is utilized for lateral bracing at the north and south exterior MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 5 of 12 walls. Diagonal ‘X’ bracing is also utilized at the underside of the roof purlins to stabilize the roof diaphragm. 
The floor of the headhouse is finished with a concrete slab‐on‐grade and is presumably turned down at the exterior perimeter for frost protection of the structure (Refer to Photograph 9). Column foundations presumably consist of isolated spread footings at the column locations and were not visible during the site visit. 
Exterior wall finishes consist of vertically oriented metal siding. The siding is supported by horizontally oriented steel ‘Z’ shaped girts that span between adjacent columns (Refer to Photographs 7 and 8). DISCUSSIONS WITH INSURED Present during our December 5, 2011 site visit were multiple representatives of the insured, including Mr. Patrick Long and Mr. Ryan Charek of RB. They stated the following:  The greenhouse structure is erected on‐site from pre‐fabricated steel components and interconnected with bolts. Although the original construction proceeds by erecting adjacent exterior modules, internal modules can be disassembled and reconstructed while keeping neighboring surrounding modules in place.  The roof glazing system utilizes a dry fit connection between the tempered glass panes, supporting aluminum mullions and ridge member, and the ‘U’ shaped steel gutter member. Due to the dry fit nature of the system, internal sections of the roof glazing can be disassembled and reconstructed while keeping neighboring surrounding glazing in place similar to the steel structure module.  The bench system present at the time of loss was not part of the original RB construction contract and was installed after their work was completed. Similarly, several other mechanical, irrigation, and climate control systems were installed after their original construction contract. In addition to onsite discussions, the insured’s representatives from RB provided a report of their assessment of the damage (Refer to Exhibit B). They summarize the damage as follows:  “Sidewall glazing & glazing system including many of the doors need to be completely replaced.” MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 6 of 12 
“The glass in a venlo style house serves as a structural component. Our opinion is that all the glass, due to the heat, may have been compromised and should be completely replaced.” 
“The aluminum glazing will require something in excess of 50% replacement.” 
“Structural members may require something in excess of 30% replacement.” 
“Benching systems, other than quite a number of salvageable bench top/trays, will require replacement.” FIELD OBSERVATIONS Following is a summary of observations made during the site visit. Refer to Exhibit A for a plan of location of observed damage.  Based on the extent of damage to the bench system, greenhouse structure, and roof glazing, the fire was concentrated at the western portions of the main greenhouse. A nearly complete loss of the shade fabric and heat retention plastic sheeting throughout the main greenhouse, indicates that these materials are responsible for spreading of the fire beyond the western areas to select areas at the center of the main greenhouse. Eastern portions of the greenhouse bench system, structure, and roof glazing exhibit no damage and limited smoke staining (Refer to Photographs 10 ‐ 29). No fire damage was present at the research and development zone, loading zone, or headhouse (Refer to Photographs 7 ‐ 9 and 30 ‐ 32). MAIN GREENHOUSE STEEL STRUCTURE OBSERVATIONS  Structural damage was limited to the main greenhouse. Significant deformation of the structure’s columns, trusses, and gutter members was present throughout areas of the western portion of the structure, a central area just south of the loading zone, and a limited area at the southeastern quadrant of the structure (Refer to Photographs 10 ‐ 29 and Exhibit A).  Almost all diagonal ‘X’ bracing utilized to laterally brace the structure in the north‐south direction has been removed prior to the fire loss. Observation of multiple locations indicated that brace removal was accomplished by either unbolting or cutting off the braces. Observations of the column bases where the braces were attached indicate that MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 7 of 12 the braces were removed after the bench system and related concrete slabs‐on‐grade were installed. In total, 38 of the original 44 locations of ‘X’ bracing along 19 north‐south column lines have been removed (Refer to Photograph 33 and Exhibit A). 
Lateral truss bridging formed of 1.375 inch diameter pipes to stabilize the east‐west oriented trusses was present at two bottom chord locations noted in the design and construction drawings. However, square tube top chord bracing and bottom chord bracing with diagonal struts bracing the top chord noted in the design and construction drawings were not observed (Refer to Photograph 34 and Exhibit A). MKA could not determine if the missing braces have ever been present. MAIN GREENHOUSE ROOF GLASS AND ALUMINUM MEMBER OBSERVATIONS  Damage to the roof glazing and aluminum support members was only present at the main greenhouse. The extent of roof damage closely mirrors the areas of damage to the steel supporting structure (Refer to Photographs 10 ‐ 29). Roof glazing damage where the supporting structure was not damaged was observed along the central portions of the southern exterior wall and northwest corner of the main greenhouse. We believe several areas at the ‘roof only’ damage locations are due to intentional glass breakage by the fire fighters during the loss event to vent the greenhouse and not a result of heat induced damage (Refer to Photograph 35).  At the northeast corner of the main greenhouse, minor smoke staining of the roof glass was present. Markings on the glass read: “S&S Glass; Safety Tempered; ANSI Z97.1‐
1984” indicating the roof glass is fully tempered (Refer to Photograph 36). MAIN GREENHOUSE EXTERIOR WALL OBSERVATIONS  Melting of the exterior wall polycarbonate panels was only present at the main greenhouse. The full western exterior wall has melted from the heat. Significant melting of the western end of the southern exterior wall and central and western portions of the northern exterior wall were present. Intermittent melting of the full extent of the eastern exterior wall was observed. We believe several areas of polycarbonate damage at the central portion of the southern exterior walls are due to intentional breakage by the fire fighters during the loss event to vent the greenhouse and not a result of heat induced damage (Refer to Photographs 37 ‐ 41). MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 8 of 12 
Horizontal steel girts supporting the exterior wall were warped and damaged significantly at the western wall with limited damage to small areas of the southern, eastern, and northern walls. MAIN GREENHOUSE BENCHING SYSTEM OBSERVATIONS  Damage to the bench system was observed with both melting and warping of select aluminum plant trays and/or damage to the tray support rails. The extent of damage to the trays and support rails closely mirrors the areas of damage to the steel greenhouse structure with all damage at the western and central areas of the main greenhouse. Limited damage of the east‐west frame system is present at the western areas of the greenhouse (Refer to Photograph 42). ANALYSIS Smoke staining, geometric deformations, and/or material property modifications are the three types of damage the greenhouse structure, roof glazing, exterior wall, and benching system could have sustained from the fire. At the time of our site visits, Unlimited Restoration, Inc. (URI) had mobilized to begin the cleaning and restoration of the building. We believe URI will be able to clean and remove all smoke staining to the structure, roof glazing, and bench system. Visual observations of the overall greenhouse have been performed to determine the locations of deformed structural elements, roof glazing, exterior wall, and the benching system that will require replacement. A plan summary of these areas is provided in Exhibit A. Material testing of un‐deformed structural steel, extruded roof aluminum members, and tempered roof glass have not been performed. Non‐destructive testing such as hardness tests for steel and aluminum and optical testing for tempered glass can be used to confirm the in‐place material properties of un‐deformed members for comparison to the original specified materials. However, we do not believe these tests are necessary to determine the scope of any materials containing modified properties. We believe the use of visual observation combined with an analysis of the behavior of these materials when subjected to elevated temperatures can be used to isolate damaged portions of the building. In the absence of non‐destructive testing, we believe that no measurable material property change to un‐deformed steel or aluminum roof elements has resulted from the fire. Prior experience with hardness testing of un‐deformed structural steel elements exposed to fire has shown no measureable material property modifications. This is because these elements will severely warp, twist, and deform at temperatures below the approximate 650 degree Celsius MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 9 of 12 transformational temperature, where material properties would begin to change. It follows then that steel elements exposed to fire without observable deformations will not contain modified material properties. The coefficient of thermal expansion for aluminum alloys is approximately twice that of carbon steels used in structures. As a result, an aluminum member adjacent to a structural steel member will deform more significantly when exposed to identical temperatures. Consequently, we believe the lack of observable deformation in aluminum members will also indicate unmodified material properties of the aluminum alloy and can serve as additional confirmation of neighboring unmodified structural steel properties. Contrary to steel and aluminum alloys, glass is a non‐crystalline solid. Heating of glass will not result in a meaningful rearrangement of the internal structure, as no long range pattern of molecules exists. Glass exhibits a glass transition temperature where the glass changes from a hard solid to a molten‐like state. For the soda‐lime float glass used in the greenhouse roof, this transition temperature is on the order of 550 degrees Celsius. Below this temperature, the glass will remain a solid and any applied heating or cooling to the glass will result in a temporary stress condition within the glass until the heating or cooling condition is returned to the previous level. Heating above the glass transition temperature will result in the glass becoming molten and relieving of any stresses within the glass. Tempering glass creates a parabolic stress distribution across the thickness of the glass with compressive stresses on the exterior face and tensile stresses at mid‐plane of the glass thickness. In order to have permanently affected the tempered stress condition within the glass, temperatures within the roof glass would have had to exceed the glass transition temperature. Temperatures within the glass transition range would have created substantial deformations within the surrounding steel and aluminum structure and resulted in the glass falling out and breaking. Even if it is assumed that the steel and aluminum were unaffected by the supported glass reaching the glass transition temperature, this will result in the glass becoming molten like and deforming. Consequently, we do not believe any of the remaining un‐deformed glass supported by the un‐deformed aluminum and steel structure has any modification to the tempered properties of the glass as a result of exposure to the fire. CONCLUSIONS The damage to the main greenhouse is consistent with localized elevated temperatures from the fire causing distortions in structural members, the roof glazing system, and melting of the exterior wall finishes. Even though the fire was spread throughout the greenhouse by the continuous overhead shade system, limited flammable materials were contained within the greenhouse. Consequently, the lack of fuel allowed a majority of the structure, glass roof, and MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 10 of 12 bench system of the main greenhouse to avoid observable distortion and damage. The polycarbonate panels at the exterior wall are highly susceptible to elevated temperatures and we believe should be replaced in their entirety based on observed extensive melting. We believe the remaining un‐deformed steel, aluminum, and glass roof members do not contain material modifications as a result of exposure to the fire and any smoke damage sustained by the un‐deformed members can be cleaned and returned to their pre‐loss state. Consequently we recommend replacement of the structure and glass roof limited to the areas noted in Exhibit A and discussed below. The owner should retain the services of an architect and engineer in order to perform a comprehensive survey of all elements of the building and prepare a complete set of repair and re‐construction documents. REPAIRS In order to return the structure to its pre‐loss state, damage observed in the form of deformed elements will need to be replaced. Observed deformations are highly concentrated in the western and central areas of the greenhouse. However, the damaged areas are not in one continuous zone and are dependent upon the location of stored flammable materials that were located within the greenhouse prior to the fire. In an effort to balance a practical replacement procedure of damaged elements with economy and time restraints, we are recommending the highlighted area noted in Exhibit A for replacement. The highlighted area encompasses both observed damaged and undamaged structural and roof system modules. However, it will allow for one continuous area of structure and roof system replacement that is accessible from the exterior of the building. In addition, it incorporates a majority of the structure, roof system, and bench system damage. We believe a secondary isolated area of structural and roof damage can be replaced without removing portions of undamaged greenhouse between the primary and secondary areas. Several noted areas in Exhibit A indicate replacement of the roof system only. Due to the repetitive dry fit nature of the roof glass and aluminum mullions and undamaged supporting steel structure, we believe these areas can have the roof system replaced while keeping the supporting steel structure intact. Representatives from RB at our initial site visit indicated that this was a feasible repair procedure. We recommend complete replacement of the exterior wall polycarbonate panels. Any deformed supporting horizontal steel girts will also require replacement. Replacement of the benching system will only be required between grid lines A and E, which represents approximately 15% of the overall system. Aluminum plant trays were removed prior to our site MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 11 of 12 inspection and an accurate account of the damage could not be determined. However, we believe the tray damage will be on the order of 20% of the overall building based on the observed bench system and structure damage. Based on highlighted modules in Exhibit A, 30% of the structure and 33% of the aluminum and glass roof will require replacement. RB notes percentages of damage to specific elements that will require replacement in their report (Refer to Exhibit B) with similar numbers for the structure replacement. Noted replacement of the aluminum mullions by RB at 50% does not appear to be based on an accurate survey of the damage as was done by MKA. Based on our research and analysis, RB’s assertion that replacement of the roof glass in its entirety is a gross over reaction and not based on either an accurate survey of the damage or engineering analysis. While not a direct result of the loss, but of structural concern, is the missing diagonal ‘X’ braces that laterally stabilize the overall structure in the north‐south direction as well as the missing horizontal bracing for the east‐west truss members. Without the diagonal ‘X’ braces, the building is not able to support building code required lateral loading as well as provide adequate lateral bracing for the columns. Similarly, missing lateral bracing for the east‐west trusses that are noted on the original design drawings but not observed in the field must be installed to provide adequate lateral bracing of the truss compression chords for both gravity and lateral load resistance. An analysis of the roof structure incorporating the lack of both bracing conditions was performed. The analysis determined that these conditions would be classified as a dangerous condition based on the Maryland Building Rehabilitation Code that incorporates an amended 2009 International Existing Building Code. As a result of this designation, the repairs section of the code states: “Regardless of the extent of structural or nonstructural damage, dangerous conditions shall be eliminated.” Therefore, we believe this condition will need to be remediated as a code required upgrade as part of the repair work for the structure. Retention of an architect and engineer by the insured to develop repair and reconstruction documents should include a comprehensive survey of the building to determine both damage related to the fire as well as modifications made to the building by either the insured or tenants that are in violation of the Maryland Building Rehabilitation Code. LIMITATIONS This letter report has been prepared for VeriClaim, Inc. and their representative, Mr. Chuck McAninley for their use in assessing damage to the subject property located at 12059 Marion MR. CHUCK MCANINLEY VERICLAIM, INC. MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 January 16, 2012 Page 12 of 12 Drive in Princess Anne, Maryland. This letter is intended for the confidential use of VeriClaim, Inc. and its representatives, or to be distributed as they deem fit. The opinions in this letter are limited to visual observations of areas of reported damage claimed by the insured. If any additional information is provided to MKA after the issuance of this report, we reserve the right to review such information and, if necessary, modify our opinions accordingly. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is given about the general or specific condition of the property as it affects the owner or prospective future owner. Reliance upon information, observations or opinions contained in this report should not be made by any party except the intended recipients. The remedial repair scope outlined in this report should be considered conceptual in nature. The Insured should retain their own experts to implement the design and oversee the work. We will make ourselves available to discuss this approach with the Insured’s consultants if so requested. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, MADSEN, KNEPPERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gregory D. Smith, P.E. State of Maryland Professional Engineer License Number: 40169 GDS/tah
II. EXHIBITS
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
January 16, 2012
MKA No.: 2011.2220
EXHIBIT A
GREENHOUSE PLAN AND DETAILS
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
January 16, 2012
MKA No.: 2011.2220
EXHIBIT B
ROUGH BROTHERS INC. REPORT
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
January 16, 2012
MKA No.: 2011.2220
GREENHOUSE DESIGN /SRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / MANUFACTURING / SYSTEMS INTEGRATION / CONSTRUCTION
ON-SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
DECEMBER 13, 2012
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE
Princess Anne, Maryland
ROUGH BROTHERS’ GREENHOUSE FACILITY FIRE DAMAGE SITE
ASSESSMENT REPORT
On December 5, 2011 Patrick Long and Ryan Charek of Rough Brothers, Inc.
visited the site for an initial site assessment of the fire damage to the Rough
Brothers’ greenhouses. Others also in attendance included Ron Ward –
University of Maryland, Daniel S. Kuennen – University of Maryland, Director
Rural Development Center, Greg Smith & Tom Costantini both of Madsen,
Kneppers & Associates, Inc., Gene Eady of Unlimited Restoration, Inc.
Representatives of the University shared an understanding of the current use of
the greenhouse facility. That being, leased space for orchids. This preliminary
site-assessment report addresses the current state of the greenhouse facility with
respect to fire damage as well as some considerations and recommendations.
ORIGINAL GREENHOUSE STRUCTURE AND GREENHOUSES SPECIFIC
EQUIPMENT
The existing greenhouse is a galvanized steel, venlo style greenhouse as
manufactured and installed by Rough Brothers, Inc. The original construction
occurred in 1998. The architect of record, working as a subcontractor to Rough
Brothers was John A. Ammon + Associates of Baltimore, MD. A Post Plan (Sheet
GH-2), a Gable Elevation (GH-4) and Section View (GH-15) are attached to this
report as pdf’s.
The original greenhouse structure having an overall footprint of 115,000 square
feet included the following original features, systems and components: 8mm
clear double-skinned polycarbonate glazing at the sidewalls, 5/32” clear
tempered glazing at the roof, internal automatic shade/heat retention curtains,
horizontal air-flow fans, ground cloth, hot water heating system, oil burning
boilers, CO2 system, irrigation system, and miscellaneous other equipment
items.
Rough Brothers, Inc. 513.242.0310
5513 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45217
1
Since the original construction a number of additional systems and equipment
components have been added. Some of these include: additional haf fans,
exhaust fans, benching systems, evaporative pad systems, insect screening
systems, added environmental controls and interior plastic partition glazing.
ON-SITE OBSERVATIONS
The fire appears to have started in the southwest area of the greenhouse range
and spread north or north east though the greenhouse facility, resulting in
considerable damage to the greenhouse as well as the greenhouse systems.
Some areas received more damage than others, with the least amount of
damage occurring on the northeast end of the greenhouse facility. The degree of
damage appears to have been directly influenced by the concentration of
materials or furnishings within the greenhouse, with the most serious damage
seen directly south of the headhouse area.
More specifically with respect to major systems and components:
A.) Sidewalls: polycarbonate glazing has been completely destroyed in
most areas.
Rough Brothers, Inc. 513.242.0310
5513 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45217
2
B.) Roof Glazing: extensive glass breakage and smoke damage to most
all that remains in place.
C.) Aluminum Glazing System: considerable heat damage.
C.) Structural Members: failure in select areas.
Rough Brothers, Inc. 513.242.0310
5513 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45217
3
D.) Shade/Heat Retention System: completely destroyed.
E.) Horizontal Air-Flow Fans: fire damage to the vast majority.
F.) Heating System: damage in select areas.
Rough Brothers, Inc. 513.242.0310
5513 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45217
4
H.) Evaporative Pad Cooling System: completely destroyed.
I.)
Exhaust Fans: damage, but some may be salvageable.
G.) Greenhouse Environmental Control System: likely extensive
damage.
Rough Brothers, Inc. 513.242.0310
5513 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45217
5
H.) Benching System: considerable damage to the system, however
many of the bench top/trays could likely be salvaged.
COMMENTS, CONSIDERATIONS AND OPINIONS
Sidewall glazing & glazing system including many of the doors need to be
completely replaced.
The glass in a venlo style house serves as a structural component. Our opinion is
that all the glass, due to the heat, may have been compromised and should be
completely replaced.
The aluminum glazing will require something in excess of 50% replacement.
Structural members may require in excess of 30% replacement.
The shade/heat retention system requires total replacement.
Horizontal air flow fans likely require complete replacement.
The heating system may be salvageable.
The evaporative pad system requires total replacement.
An unknown number of the exhaust fans may need to be replaced.
The greenhouse environmental control system will likely require a total
replacement.
Benching systems, other than quite a number of salvaged bench top/trays, will
require replacement.
Rough Brothers, Inc. 513.242.0310
5513 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45217
6
SUMMARY
Based on Rough Brothers site visit of December 5, 2011significant fire damage
was noted to the greenhouse structure, the glazing system, the glass and the
greenhouse ‘specific’ equipment and systems. Our belief is that something shy of
a complete rebuild could bring the greenhouse range back to it previous working
condition. However, when looking at the possible costs of restoration,
consideration should be given to a complete replacement. And in doing so, a fair
amount of discussion would also be recommended with regard to the intended
and on-going use of the facility. Good greenhouse space requires consideration
of many parameters which integrated together successfully provide an optimal
space suitable for plants.
Whether restoration or a complete rebuild, good planning can insure that the final
greenhouse design matches the current intended use, but also allows for
flexibility as performance parameters and requirements change over time.
Rough Brothers, Inc. 513.242.0310
5513 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45217
7
III. PHOTOGRAPHS
Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
January 16, 2012
MKA No.: 2011.2220
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 Headhouse Loading Zone True North Plan North Main Greenhouse Research and Development Zone 1.
Aerial image of the commercial greenhouse building from Google Earth. North‐south oriented gutter at column lines
Typical east‐west oriented truss at column lines
Mid‐module north‐south oriented gutter supported at truss midpoint 20’‐ 6” Col T‐24 Col T‐23 12’‐ 0” Full height mid‐module column with no truss at north and south exterior walls.
Col U‐24
Col U‐23
2. Typical greenhouse module looking northeast from column T‐22. Photolog Page 1 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 Al. rafter Glass Vent Exterior wall panels. Two gable ridges per greenhouse module
Bench system support rails and posts Horiz. girt Col T‐21 Col U‐21 Diagonal ‘X’ bracing 3. Typical greenhouse module looking southeast from column T‐22. Typical north‐south rails with plan trays Frame system Col J‐13 4. East‐west frame system looking west from center of module bounded by gridlines J, K, 12, and 13. Photolog Page 2 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 Typical north‐south rails with plan trays Col L‐12 Col L‐13 Frame system 5. East‐west frame system looking east from gridline K between gridlines 12 and 13. Typical north‐south rails with plant trays Gridline J Col K‐13 Frame system 6. North‐south frame system looking north from gridline 13 between gridlines J and K. Photolog Page 3 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 Loading Zone 7. West elevation of the headhouse building. Roof purlins Horizontal girts Typical north‐
south frames
8. Headhouse interior looking northeast. Photolog Page 4 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 Typical north‐
south frame Roof purlins
Loading Zone 9. Headhouse interior looking south toward the greenhouse structure. 10. Looking north between grids B and C from grid 13. Photolog Page 5 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 11. Looking south between grids B and C from grid 13. 12. Looking north between grids D and E from grid 13. Photolog Page 6 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 13. Looking south between grids D and E from grid 13. 14. Looking north between grids F and G from grid 13. Photolog Page 7 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 15. Looking south between grids F and G from grid 13. 16. Looking north between grids H and I from grid 13. Photolog Page 8 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 17. Looking south between grids H and I from grid 13. 18. Looking north between grids J and K from grid 13. Photolog Page 9 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 19. Looking south between grids J and K from grid 13. 20. Looking north from column L‐10. Photolog Page 10 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 21. Looking south from column L‐10. 22. Looking northeast from column N‐10. Photolog Page 11 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 23. Looking south from column N‐10. 24. Looking north from column P‐10. Photolog Page 12 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 25. Looking south from column P‐10. 26. Looking northwest from column R‐10. Photolog Page 13 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 27. Looking south from column R‐10. 28. Looking north from column T‐10. Photolog Page 14 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 29. Looking south from column T‐10. 30. No fire damage at the Research and Development Zone. Photolog Page 15 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 31. No fire damage at the Loading Zone. Photograph looking west from column K‐25. 32. No fire damage at the Loading Zone. Photograph looking east from column K‐25. Photolog Page 16 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 33. Column B‐19 base looking southeast. Typical condition of removed brace locations. Note the threaded rod for the brace connection and the indentation at the concrete slab‐
on‐grade from the brace when the slab was cast. Truss Bracing at Bottom Chord 34. Typical east‐west truss between columns D‐5 and E‐5 looking north‐east from column D‐4. Note the truss bottom chord brace points. No other truss chord bracing is present. Photolog Page 17 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 Broken glass 35. Looking east from column J‐1 at the southern exterior wall. Note the relatively intact shade fabric and roof glass broken by the firefighters during the loss event. 36. Roof glass marking indicated the glass is tempered to the ANSI Z97.1‐1984 standard. Photolog Page 18 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 Temporary repairs made at melted panels 37. Eastern exterior wall with isolated melting. 38. Eastern half of northern exterior wall with damaged humidifying screen removed. Western half similar. Photolog Page 19 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 39. Western exterior wall with extensive melting. 40. Western half of southern exterior wall with melting/warping. Photolog Page 20 of 21 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE Princess Anne, Maryland MKA Project No.: 2011.2220 41. Fire department breakage at the central section of the southern exterior wall. 42. Central tray transport frame damage at the western exterior wall between grid lines 12 and 13. Photolog Page 21 of 21