Boise USA made 420mm wooden composite "I" beams were use in a new school in
Milton Keynes, England in 2003 - Giles Brook, Tattenhoe, Milton Keynes. A
batch of them failed entailing the closure of the school. Portakabin
classrooms have been installed on the playing fields and the pupils are
moving into these until the beams are replaced and the school building back
in order. Ceilings and florrs have been ripped up.
<http://www.gilesbrook.org.uk/repair_index.html>

A whole school has moved after first bussing the pupils around the city to
spare classrooms in other schools. Now into temporary portakabins. Serious
stuff.

The problem is a manufacturers failure of the beams. Boise sent over a
techie for the USA who agreed with TRADA an independent testing house
specialising in timber construction and the Building Research Establishment.
The failure was the laminated flange coming away from the OSB web.

The builders narrowed the failed beams to a particular day - they are date
and time stamped and which team made them - the builders said all beams made
on that day will be replaced. TRADA testers narrowed it down to 10 minutes.
This is the 10 minutes when the two types of glue did not mix properly in
the beam making process.

Within this 10 minutes about 1000 metres of beam estimate to have been made
with over 700 metres going to the school in England. Now Boise have to
track down where the other 300 metres of beams went - if they can. Could be
to the UK, US or Canada or wherever. The date of manufacture is 31 Jan
2003. So if you have 420mm Boise beams check the day of manufacture as they
will have a high risk of failure.

Who pays for the replacements and the extra cost of the temporary school
will be determined by lawyers I'm sure. The council is not using wooden
composite "I" beams any more in new builds. Enough is enough for them.

Doing a Google on Boise they have a poor environmental record and poor at
other things too.

John wrote:
>
> Who pays for the replacements and the extra cost of the temporary school
> will be determined by lawyers I'm sure. The council is not using wooden
> composite "I" beams any more in new builds. Enough is enough for them.
>
> Doing a Google on Boise they have a poor environmental record and poor at
> other things too.

There's no need to Google the fact that using wood beams in what should
be a masonry/steel structure is a poor choice. There's plenty of blame
to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school
board as well.

R

In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
> There's no need to Google the fact that using wood beams in what should
> be a masonry/steel structure is a poor choice. There's plenty of blame
> to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school
> board as well.
>


I agree. Schools should be made of non-combustible construction.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Wow, and I thought our school was doing a bad job with it's renovation
project.

John wrote:
> Boise USA made 420mm wooden composite "I" beams were use in a new school in
> Milton Keynes, England in 2003 - Giles Brook, Tattenhoe, Milton Keynes. A
> batch of them failed entailing the closure of the school. Portakabin
> classrooms have been installed on the playing fields and the pupils are
> moving into these until the beams are replaced and the school building back
> in order. Ceilings and florrs have been ripped up.
> <http://www.gilesbrook.org.uk/repair_index.html>
>
> A whole school has moved after first bussing the pupils around the city to
> spare classrooms in other schools. Now into temporary portakabins. Serious
> stuff.
>
> The problem is a manufacturers failure of the beams. Boise sent over a
> techie for the USA who agreed with TRADA an independent testing house
> specialising in timber construction and the Building Research Establishment.
> The failure was the laminated flange coming away from the OSB web.
>
> The builders narrowed the failed beams to a particular day - they are date
> and time stamped and which team made them - the builders said all beams made
> on that day will be replaced. TRADA testers narrowed it down to 10 minutes.
> This is the 10 minutes when the two types of glue did not mix properly in
> the beam making process.
>
> Within this 10 minutes about 1000 metres of beam estimate to have been made
> with over 700 metres going to the school in England. Now Boise have to
> track down where the other 300 metres of beams went - if they can. Could be
> to the UK, US or Canada or wherever. The date of manufacture is 31 Jan
> 2003. So if you have 420mm Boise beams check the day of manufacture as they
> will have a high risk of failure.
>
> Who pays for the replacements and the extra cost of the temporary school
> will be determined by lawyers I'm sure. The council is not using wooden
> composite "I" beams any more in new builds. Enough is enough for them.
>
> Doing a Google on Boise they have a poor environmental record and poor at
> other things too.

"John"> wrote
> The problem is a manufacturers failure of the beams. Boise sent over a
> techie for the USA who agreed with TRADA an independent testing house
> specialising in timber construction and the Building Research
> Establishment.
> The failure was the laminated flange coming away from the OSB web.

I always thought that was a peculiar way of doing that, especially
considering the amount of stress thats on the bottom chord of floor joists.

> The date of manufacture is 31 Jan 2003.

My birfday!

"RicodJour"> wrote
> John wrote:
>>
>> Who pays for the replacements and the extra cost of the temporary school
>> will be determined by lawyers I'm sure. The council is not using wooden
>> composite "I" beams any more in new builds. Enough is enough for them.
>>
>> Doing a Google on Boise they have a poor environmental record and poor at
>> other things too.
>
> There's no need to Google the fact that using wood beams in what should
> be a masonry/steel structure is a poor choice. There's plenty of blame
> to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school
> board as well.

Should?
There is no reason to NOT use wood if all other issues are factored in and
compensated for.
But I do agree that here in the US it seems that no money spared in the
construction of gov't buildings.

"Bob Morrison"> wrote
> In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
>> There's no need to Google the fact that using wood beams in what should
>> be a masonry/steel structure is a poor choice. There's plenty of blame
>> to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school
>> board as well.
>
> I agree. Schools should be made of non-combustible construction.

I've used trusses constructed of pressure treated lumber and stainless steel
plates when combustion was an issue.
Not to mention the code issue of sprinklers in attic/contained spaces.
We all now know what *can* happen to (exposed) steel when subjected to
extreme heat.

"Don" <one-if-by-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Bob Morrison"> wrote
>> In a previous post RicodJour wrote...
>>> There's no need to Google the fact that using wood beams in what should
>>> be a masonry/steel structure is a poor choice. There's plenty of blame
>>> to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school
>>> board as well.
>>
>> I agree. Schools should be made of non-combustible construction.
>
> I've used trusses constructed of pressure treated lumber and stainless
> steel plates when combustion was an issue.
> Not to mention the code issue of sprinklers in attic/contained spaces.
> We all now know what *can* happen to (exposed) steel when subjected to
> extreme heat.

Yep. One reason why steel is in question.

RicodJour wrote:
> John wrote:
> >
> > Who pays for the replacements and the extra cost of the temporary school
> > will be determined by lawyers I'm sure. The council is not using wooden
> > composite "I" beams any more in new builds. Enough is enough for them.
> >
> > Doing a Google on Boise they have a poor environmental record and poor at
> > other things too.
>
> There's no need to Google the fact that using wood beams in what should
> be a masonry/steel structure is a poor choice. There's plenty of blame
> to be assigned to the code officials, architect, engineer and school
> board as well.
> R

One problem is demographical, young folks
move in to a new area and have lots of babies,
and then need schools, then the neighbourhood
becomes fogy and the schools 1/2 empty and
perhaps even redundant, in some places that
could be 10-15 year cycle.
Ken

"Don" <one-if-by-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "John"> wrote
>> The problem is a manufacturers failure of the beams. Boise sent over a
>> techie for the USA who agreed with TRADA an independent testing house
>> specialising in timber construction and the Building Research
>> Establishment.
>> The failure was the laminated flange coming away from the OSB web.
>
> I always thought that was a peculiar way of doing that, especially
> considering the amount of stress thats on the bottom chord of floor
> joists.

The laminated flange was fine, it was the OSB web that runs in a groove in
the flange that came away.

The laminated flange is supposed to be stronger than raw timber and doesn't
shrink (well within 1% or whatever)

>> The date of manufacture is 31 Jan 2003.
>
> My birfday!

Check the date stamp on your beams then. :-)