Elliot Lake mall 'structurally sound' say Sault engineers prior to collapse
Thursday, July 12, 2012 by: Donna Hopper
A recent article published by Global News revealed that the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario engineering firm of M.R. Wright and Associates Co. Ltd. issued a report stating that, despite evidence of rust and water damage, the inspected Algo Centre Mall roof and parking deck remained structurally sound.
On June 23, just a few short months following the inspection, a section of the mall's parking deck collapsed into the structure killing two and injuring more than 20.
A letter dated May 3, 2012 addressed to Algo Centre Mall manager, Rhonda Bear, states that representatives from M.R. Wright and Associates conducted a structural condition inspection on Thursday, April 12, 2012.
"Our inspection revealed evidence of rusting on the structural steel beam members in areas where the parking deck has leaked," the letter reads. "All beams inspected had little loss of section and we would consider the members still structurally sound."
The letter also indicates this is not the first time the engineering firm has been called to investigate and inspect the leaking Algo Centre Mall.
In 2009, then mall manager Henri McCleery commissioned M.R. Wright and Associates to inspect areas of the parking deck where significant leakage had been observed inside the mall and determine whether any structural weakening of the steel structure had occurred as a result.
That report, dated October 28, 2009, states that a visual inspection found minor rust in most areas, but required fireproofing had deteriorated and fallen off in some areas due to water saturation.
Pooling water was also observed on the parking deck, indicating insufficient roof drainage.
Waterproofing repairs were reportedly in progress at the time of the 2009 inspection.
The report discussed four areas of concern within the mall; the Zellers store, the service corridor, the Ticket Kiosk (where the collapse eventually occurred), and the main mall area east of the hotel.
"Inspection revealed that the concrete topping has been saw cut and caulked at four-foot intervals north to south and along each location on grid lines," states the report. "Efforts over the years appear to have attempted to waterproof the mall utilizing the concrete topping and the noted caulked joints located over joints in the precast slabs with no waterproofing membrane."
The report went on to state that the "inspection revealed no visual structural concerns both with the structural steel or prestressed slabs. The positive camber on the slabs appear to inhibit surface drainage. This indicates structurally that the slabs have significant load carrying capability."
At that time, the firm's major concern was the loss of fireproofing and recommended it be replaced with a product that is not water absorbent.
When M.R. Wright and Associates returned to conduct the April 2012 inspection, waterproofing measures where once again in progress.
"The upper surface waterproofing is considered only a temporary solution. A permanent repair needs to budgeted for to suitably protect the structure," the 2012 report states. "It is our opinion that the observed rusting at this time has not detrimentally changed the load carrying capabilities of the structure, and no visual signs of structural distress were observed."
To download the complete report documents, please click here.
Following the collapse at the Algo Centre Mall, a criminal investigation has been launched by the Ontario Provincial Police and a class action lawsuit has been filed aimed at mall owners, the City of Elliot Lake, and the Province of Ontario on behalf of the victims.
An unnamed engineer has also been reportedly targeted.
To read the full Global News article, please click here.
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. Keep discussions civil and on topic. Refrain from obscenity and don't post anything that your grandmother would be ashamed to read. Those who do not abide by these guidelines will have their membership revoked without notice. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.
Kevin5069 7/12/2012 9:04:04 AM ReportSo the Elliot Lake mall was structurally sound before it collapsed???
I'm not an engineer, but if it collapsed, I would say it was not entirely sound.
lizzardskills 7/12/2012 9:06:49 AM ReportDoes an engineer only inspect what they can see? I think more reports need to come out before the engineering company can be held partially responsible. What was hidden behind walls, roofs etc... That they couldn't see? Was the collapse partially because of the new waterproofing efforts? So many questions yet that haven't been and won't be answered for some time.
Pink Peony 7/12/2012 9:25:52 AM ReportObviously, it wasn't structurally sound.
Beej 7/12/2012 9:27:03 AM Report"Elliott said he hasn’t read the engineering report, but said, “It appears that they got it wrong and my understanding from our consultant is that given the nature of the collapse, a proper inspection should have revealed the problem.
“This is not something that was caused by a traumatic, unforeseen event. There was no earthquake or lightning strike or anything of that nature. This failure of the building occurred because of a long-term problem of corrosion due to water infiltration that was well known.”
At least one former mall tenant contended with leaky ceilings in her shop and that it was not uncommon to see buckets catching leaks at various points around the mall.
“If I can be so bold, if one had removed some ceiling tiles and looked up into the roof from underneath, the gravity of the problem might have been apparent to a layperson, let alone an engineer,” Elliott said."
Someone will pay, and pay dearly.
JediMindTrick 7/12/2012 9:35:03 AM ReportThere are different levels of engineering reports. Some are only visual inspections while others may include random beam/ structural component testing. Also, engineers do not act as enforcing officers.
Seems like past recomendations were not taken seriously by the mall's owner/ management.
If visual tests conducted didn't show significant concerns, then the firm is not at fault (my opinion).
3rd times a charm 7/12/2012 9:52:46 AM ReportJed "If visual tests conducted didn't show significant concerns, then the firm is not at fault (my opinion)."
Oh, yes, heaven forbid that anyone do an actual inspection on a place that has been a danger zone since the mid-1980's...a 'visual' walk around showed the condition of the parking structure and considering it's the only place in town to park, there should have been a much more detailed inspection, IMO.
That parking lot has always been dangerous and to actually 'pass' an inspection as late as April 2012, is beyond my comprehension...
Pink Peony 7/12/2012 9:56:00 AM ReportUnder the National News here, with the headline "Cop probe may complicate Elliot Lake inquiry". Interesting.
"To avoid problems involving the right to a fair trial, the public inquiry can wait until the criminal process is resolved — as was done in British Columbia in the Robert Pickton inquiry, Wardle said."
Let's see if the provincial government holds off on the public inquiry until the criminal investigation is done.
JediMindTrick 7/12/2012 10:11:36 AM Report3RD -
The fact is as much as it should have been done, it hadn't been and the tests done passed general requirements.
What I am reading though in lots of articles is COMPELTE misunderstanding of structural concerns vs. architectural defficiencies (ie. a structural engineer won't be concerned with broken ceiling tiles or cracked tiles on the floor)
anapeg 7/12/2012 10:15:14 AM Report I have money says there is going to be an opening for an engineer here in town. Perhaps a complete company.
Brianne 7/12/2012 10:19:53 AM ReportI'm sure the testing of the beams that they removed from there will confirm exactly what was wrong and what caused them to break.
scottstewy123 7/12/2012 10:20:44 AM ReportIn a court of law the words Due diligence comes to my mind. Naturally many are targetting and wanting to string up the owners. Now this April inspection report will give the Mall owners a pass because of DUE DILEGENCE. Were the mall owner stingy on repairs. probably. But they brought in the proper engineers. Allowed them to do there thing. I believe the mall owners will get very little against them because of the paper work the owners will have. The owners from the south seemed to have a few safety inspections which everyone of them seemed to pass. The owners will slide out of this mark my words. They seemed to do the lawful,again thats the key word here ,lawful minimum upkeep.
Ms. Mc 7/12/2012 11:24:44 AM ReportBULLHORN!!
lowla 7/12/2012 11:41:15 AM ReportI wonder what other buildings they have inspected?
JediMindTrick 7/12/2012 11:55:43 AM ReportHuge mistake to publish these reports. Just saying, very unprofessional for any news agency not just Soo Today.
nightingale 7/12/2012 12:17:55 PM ReportMy immediate thought is that if I had a building that was last inspected by M.R. Wright and Associates Co. Ltd. , I would quickly hire a new inspection company to be checking out the safety of my building!
JB 7/12/2012 12:33:06 PM ReportThey should be called M R WRONG
aarebo 7/12/2012 12:51:18 PM Report3rd There may have been need for a more in depth inspection, however MR Wright would have done what they were contracted to do and no more no less. To put all the blame on MR Wright is an easy way to pass the buck. The owner obviously did the minimum upkeep so who knows what they were contracted to inspect or how in depth that inspection was to be.
RLE 7/12/2012 12:51:40 PM ReportThere is going to be an inquiry. There is a criminal investigation. Wouldn't it be fairer to wait for these to conclude as opposed to blathering away about something of which no facts are available?
Sunnidelight 7/12/2012 1:05:47 PM ReportThis problem goes back years. I lived in Elliot Lake for a long time and refused to park in the area where the collapse was, even though it was my designated parking space. There would be deep puddles in the spring summer and fall and extreme icing in the winter. People wanted to park on the roof because of easy access to the elevator, just inside the main roof entrance door where all the professional offices are located. If you walked in the ramp door to go into the mall, there were often buckets and cone hazards because it was leaking and so wet. That was eight years ago. The roof parking could easily have been closed. There were several other parking lots to accommodate visitors to the mall. After all, it's Elliot Lake.
scottstewy123 7/12/2012 1:09:32 PM ReportJediMindTrick how in the world can you say its a mistake to publish those reports? I have say thats good journalism.
JediMindTrick 7/12/2012 3:13:30 PM ReportBecause they are part of an on-going investigation and most people who will read them don't really know how to interpret the language used.
Plus, the names of the engineers are still at the bottom of pages...I feel this leaves them open for an unfair amount of public scrutiny with actual evidence of wrong doing (breach of privacy)
asIseeit 7/12/2012 3:18:08 PM ReportIf cars are going to park on a roof and with salt and other environmental conditions a non-permeable membrane is required to place a barrier between internal and external structures. At a cost of 1 million dollars the mall owners rejected this and chose to do "patch" repairs.
A.E.D. 7/12/2012 3:32:44 PM ReportI wonder if its the same firm that inspected the old station mall roof collapse,Makes a person think twice before entering our old out dated station mall.I hope this firm has good insurance,because thur going to need it and if they are not a CORP. they stand to loose everthing they own. $$$$$$
houston 7/12/2012 3:48:06 PM ReportThe amazing thing about this tragedy is that this engineering firm in SSM actually got paid for this. The owner of this company should do jail time. His company is basically toast, and all his previous work must be inspected by a third party also. An example must be set!
I'm In 7/12/2012 6:35:28 PM ReportTo all the engineering experts on this sight, just because Wright and Associates did the inspection and are from SSM you want to hang them. The mall owners did not follow the recommendations given by the engineering firm as to what should be done, the owner's are at fault in this one wait and see. And to the expert that wonders if this engineering firm inspected the Station Mall roof collapse in 1995, this collapse was due to heavy snowfall that year, because the mall is structually sound and no charges were laid.
zdc 7/12/2012 10:06:24 PM ReportAmazing enough , glass couldn't handle five or six feet of mother natures finest
zdc 7/12/2012 10:13:08 PM ReportI wonder if the steel was cut after they had cut into the concrete
Forum420 7/13/2012 1:24:59 AM ReportThis is why I studied science instead of engineering. Engineers only see the very small and miss the larger picture. Case in point this painfully embarrassing excuse of a mall.
blackfly 7/13/2012 6:44:29 AM ReportIts interesting to read all these comments.I guess everyone has an opinion but I do think it will come out in the end and there will be fingers pointed and someone to blame. I don't think they can blame the engineering company for doing a visual inspection if thats what makes you in compliance and contracted to do. Maybe, just maybe there should be a change in which the inspections were done. Government should have , if they don't already,random testing and not to the owners knowledge, as it seems as stated in the reports that water proofing and fireproofing was being done at each inspection. Kinda sounds like a tip-off about knowing when the inspection was being done and " sugar coating " what was actually under the fireproof membrane and waterproofing???? Like I said, the truth will come out and hopfully something good comes out of this so it doesn't happen again. Hats off to the volunteers and the professionals involved with this.
asIseeit 7/13/2012 10:47:05 AM ReportThe basics are a membrane..simple enough
Note: Comments that appear on the site are not the opinion of SooToday.com. Keep discussions civil and on topic. Refrain from obscenity and don't post anything that your grandmother would be ashamed to read. Those who do not abide by these guidelines will have their membership revoked without notice. If you see an abusive post, please click the link beside the post to report it.