# Failed Building Inspection on Set



## MNicolai (Mar 7, 2013)

Just got a call from my local fire chief informing me that a set on stage at the theatre failed inspection by the fire dept and building inspector. I didn't have a hand in this set and haven't seen the issue myself yet, but he said something about supports not on 16" centers and boards cracking on the deck of the second story. He hadn't seen it himself though because he's out of town. He did say he supports the building inspectors decision to shut down the show until the issues are resolved.

I'm about to hop in my car and go see what's going on. Anyone used to seeing building inspectors expect 16" centers on 2x4 platforms?

I do know that the people who built this set were parents of kids in the show. When I saw the set this week, it looked well-built by carpenters (minus the use of OSB on walls). I'll be interested to see where it was breaking down and what deficiencies there were in the construction.


----------



## MPowers (Mar 7, 2013)

Please report in detail. I am VERY interested in this issue. please find out (if possible) what codes the inspector cites, if any, to justify his findings.


----------



## Footer (Mar 7, 2013)

I'm with Michael on this... let us know what they say before flying off the handle.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 7, 2013)

Initial report is that the set was substandard to both code and standard industry practices due to construction materials, methods of joining and fastening elements together, and general build quality.

Show opened 30min after scheduled curtain. Building inspector was blown away at how quickly parents arrived with trucks, tools, and lumber. They failed inspection at 5p, started Act 1 by 7:30p.

Set never should've been allowed on stage as was originally constructed. More details to come.


----------



## derekleffew (Mar 7, 2013)

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/scenery-props-rigging/18200-building-permits-scenery.html

Also, IBC :

> 105.2 Work exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:
> Building:
> 8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.


Normally, there's no inspection unless a permit is given. Hard to believe a building inspector would tell a fire inspector more than the owner/user of a premises.

Someone really must have pissed off the AHJ. Drop a c-note or two and I bet everything will be just fine.
.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 8, 2013)

It's a school production. When the fire dept tells the school the two-story set is unstable for people to dance on, it's seen as a courtesy.

They intended to shut the show down, but if the fire and building AsHJ (authorities having jurisdiction) both concur that it is not safe, the school would postpone the opening until proper reinforcements are implemented.

Fire and Building AsHJ both admit they don't know in this matter where the demarcation point is between code and.common sense. Building AHJ says he's not inspected stage sets before and doesn't know what codes are applicable. What he does know is how to recognize a spongy floor (OSB decking...) and cracked 2x4 joists...


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 8, 2013)

I've got a little more time now to go into specifics.

They used OSB for decking and walls, which is too spongy for decking and sucks up too much paint for walls.

They screwed adjacent platforms together instead of bolting them.

They had an insufficient number of cross-members supporting each 4x8 sheet of OSB, though I suspect if it had been 3/4" ply, this would've been less critical.

Where multiple corners of platforms intersected, they had one vertical 2x4 for support, which was not bolted but just screwed into the 2x4 frame.

It wasn't all bad. What was there was carpenter grade work, but it was carpenter grade work that was well-intentioned-but poorly implemented.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 8, 2013)

What occasioned the AHJs to inspect? Generally they have to be called.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 8, 2013)

My understanding is that someone brought it up in casual conversation to them, "You hear up at the arts center that they've got the middle school play this week? Huge set. They've got a second story to it" or something like that.

Nobody called them up with the intent of reporting the show. It just hadn't appeared on their radar earlier in the week to go check the stage out. Having the the assistant fire chief walk through is not unusual for us, though it doesn't happen frequently. Having the building inspector come in was a new one for us, but the assistant fire chief wouldn't have called the building inspector without a good reason.


----------



## Van (Mar 8, 2013)

Wow, NEVER heard of a building inspector doing his thing on a set before. In the short run it sounds like a good thing, in the long run this could be really messy. If State governments start making theatre companies pull permits for scenic builds things are going to get stupid fast.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 8, 2013)

Hopefully construction will pick up and they won't have the time.


----------



## Footer (Mar 8, 2013)

Van said:


> Wow, NEVER heard of a building inspector doing his thing on a set before. In the short run it sounds like a good thing, in the long run this could be really messy. If State governments start making theatre companies pull permits for scenic builds things are going to get stupid fast.



My space is in the depths of state govt. and we have never had anything inspected beyond the NFPA stuff.


----------



## bobcatarts (Mar 8, 2013)

The only inspections for sets I've ever heard of involved Actor's Equity - and that had more to do with angles of rake, or slip/fall protection, etc., so more design than fabrication. 

Fascinating. I'm glad parents pulled through, however, and everyone learned a valuable lesson about life. Or something.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 8, 2013)

You gotta wonder what they would do if you had triscuits. Ask for an engineer stamped drawing? It must have just felt too iffy.
.


----------



## Footer (Mar 8, 2013)

BillConnerASTC said:


> You gotta wonder what they would do if you had triscuits. Ask for an engineer stamped drawing? It must have just felt too iffy.
> .



Ha. Would have been an interesting discussion. 

I'm not sure why they did not like the OSB on the walls... holds to much paint? Who cares! It is just facing...


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 8, 2013)

Footer said:


> Ha. Would have been an interesting discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why they did not like the OSB on the walls... holds to much paint? Who cares! It is just facing...



The OSB on the walls was my comment, not AsHJ. The people who built the set used OSB everywhere where I wouldn't have used it anywhere. I would've used Lauan on the walls because it's easier to transport and handle and sucks up less paint, 3/4" ply on the decking because it's stronger.


----------



## Van (Mar 8, 2013)

MNicolai said:


> The OSB on the walls was my comment, not AsHJ. The people who built the set used OSB everywhere where I wouldn't have used it anywhere. I would've used Lauan on the walls because it's easier to transport and handle and sucks up less paint, 3/4" ply on the decking because it's stronger.



Yeah even 3/4 CDX would have been a better choice than OSB. What thickness did they use ? 3/8 & 1/2" are always on sale a Home Despot. I see them get used way too often.


----------



## JLNorthGA (Mar 8, 2013)

Van said:


> Yeah even 3/4 CDX would have been a better choice than OSB. What thickness did they use ? 3/8 & 1/2" are always on sale a Home Despot. I see them get used way too often.



Out of curiosity - how do you paint CDX (or OSB for that matter). I've been buying the cabinet grade 3/4" Arauco Chilean plywood from Home Depot because it is cheaper than ACX for platforms ($31). So how do you get a smooth surface at an affordable price? VSSSD is not going to make it affordable - though I have used it to emulate stone.


----------



## jcslighting (Mar 8, 2013)

This reminds me of a similar 'inspection' we had on a high school set a few years back...

For 'Seussical the Musical' we built an 44'w x 18' deep raked stage that went from about 24" DS to like 7' US. It was all framed in 2x6 with adequate supports and all carriage bolted together using scab plates so the structure did not rely on fastener strength and was decked with 3/4" ply. The school board's electrician came in to wire some aisle lights in the theatre and called his 'girl friend' at the central office about the size of the set and wondered about safety. 

Long story, short version - the school district paid for a structural engineer to take a look at the set. After climbing all over and under the thing, the guy shook my hand and said, " you obviously knew what you were doing". In retrospect, I think the schools just want to cover their bases or behinds. If something were to happen I am positive a lawsuit would follow because someone would likely think they just hit the lottery. 

So now a few years later I walk into another school to help fix their lighting and I see where they had flown something overstage using cotton clothesline slung over the structural steel above the stage and tied off on a few 2x4's screwed to the stage floor. I quickly advised the director that not only was this crazy, it was incredibly unsafe and downright stupid. He said the summer community theatre was the guilty group! 

Sometimes you never know what you'll find onstage at the local school!


----------



## kicknargel (Mar 9, 2013)

IMHO, while plywood is nicer than OSB, OSB is designed and rated to be used as subfloor. It's probably under you right now. I wish I could remember where (may have been here!) I read that while OSB will feel slightly spongier, it has about the same tensile strength as CDX.

One must be careful about the cabinet-grade plywood (also know as paint grade, etc). It is NOT rated to be used as subfloor. It does not have the internal strength of CDX, ACX, or OSB. I would not use it in a life-safety situation. 

Standard practice I learned was to build the platforms in CDX or OSB, then add facing and decking of masonite. Gives a great paint surface, and on a larger platform you can cross the platform seams with the maso to make everything nice and smooth. And still comes out cheaper than ACX. Although, I've been have some issues with masonite recently, which I've been meaning to start a thread about. . .


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2013)

I believe any sheet product that is rated for structural use like as sub floor will have the information printed on the sheet, including it's thickness and what the maximum span is.


----------



## DuckJordan (Mar 10, 2013)

Actually the construction industry goes on knowledge rather than labeling. They set up standards for lumber product that have to be strictly adhered to.


----------



## Dustincoc (Mar 10, 2013)

The labeling is also required. I'm also on a Contractor forum and this came up a few weeks ago. Specifically it was a discussion on some really cheap OSB somebody could get that was slightly smaller than full sheets(I think it was something like 7 1/2' x 4') and it was brand new still on the pallet. I the discussion decided it was trimmings from a OSB production run. Originally the discusion was about how it could be used to sheath a roof without cutting it down to 6'6" nd wasting 4 Sq.Ft.per sheet. Then it was brought up that these mill trimmings usually aren't stamped and therefore cannot be used for structural purposes. The mill overrubs are not uncommon, its just that the people at the mill usually buythem very cheap and they disappear, so the common person never sees it. 

kicknargel, while I don't doubt there is OSB rated as subflooring over joists, and I've seem OSB panels with a membrane on the bottom designed as subflooring directly over concrete, I have never seen it done. All th subfloor I've ever seen are 3/4 CDX or rough cut 1x. I wouldn't trust any OSB less than 1 1/4" over joists as subflooring. As 3/4" CDX and 3/4" OSB weigh approximately the same(70-90Lbs) and a 1 1/4" OSB panel would weight 2/3 of that again, I can tell you my back would always choose the CDX although the cost in nominally higher. Also, the heavier panels would slow work and therefore make up the difference in cost. For wall sheathing, I have to go with Zip System(essentially an OSB panel with a vapor/moisture barrier built in) as it saves time and is weathers in the house that much faster. ZipSystem sheathing on a roof doesn't even need to be protected from the elements for a significant length of time, eliminating the rush to get the roof on.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 10, 2013)

DuckJordan said:


> Actually the construction industry goes on knowledge rather than labeling. They set up standards for lumber product that have to be strictly adhered to.



How do you think a building inspector can tell if the materials used are in fact what the building code requires?


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 10, 2013)

Our dept. does NOT inspect engineering, just fire codes. However if we saw something questionable, we'd refer it to the building dept., it's THEIR job to determine if something meets building code or not. 

That being said, I'd be careful as to whom you let build. 2x6 is the MINIMUM I'd use for a joist, and only for a 4' span at the most.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 10, 2013)

JohnSB said:


> Our dept. does NOT inspect engineering, just fire codes. However if we saw something questionable, we'd refer it to the building dept., it's THEIR job to determine if something meets building code or not.
> 
> That being said, I'd be careful as to whom you let build. 2x6 is the MINIMUM I'd use for a joist, and only for a 4' span at the most.



So every 4x8 platform you build is 2x6 framed?


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 10, 2013)

MNicolai said:


> So every 4x8 platform you build is 2x6 framed?



Unless it's on casters, yes. 2x4's just don't have the strength for an 8' span. Even with 2x6's, I'd put in an midpoint support. The 2x6 also gives better support for sideways stresses. And you can use a 1/2" deck if it's good quality plywood on 12" centers. Always use quality lumber so you can reuse your platform, and build it right the first time. I'll run 2x lumber through a planer and sand it if it's going to show, nothing worse than a set looking like it was made out of somebodies half-***ed old deck.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Mar 10, 2013)

JohnSB said:


> Unless it's on casters, yes. 2x4's just don't have the strength for an 8' span. Even with 2x6's, I'd put in an midpoint support. The 2x6 also gives better support for sideways stresses. And you can use a 1/2" deck if it's good quality plywood on 12" centers. Always use quality lumber so you can reuse your platform, and build it right the first time. I'll run 2x lumber through a planer and sand it if it's going to show, nothing worse than a set looking like it was made out of somebodies half-***ed old deck.



A 2x6 framed 4x8 on 12" centers? I think my back is already sore.


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 10, 2013)

gafftapegreenia said:


> A 2x6 framed 4x8 on 12" centers? I think my back is already sore.



Uh, you just have to work smart. I built a 27x36' shed all by myself, you just have to plan your moves. Put the framing in place before you put on the deck.


----------



## josh88 (Mar 10, 2013)

I've never had a problem with 2x4 and a couple of middle rails. And if you face it properly it not only won't look like a deck it will save all the time running it through a planer.


Via tapatalk


----------



## danTt (Mar 10, 2013)

gafftapegreenia said:


> A 2x6 framed 4x8 on 12" centers? I think my back is already sore.



It's okay, it only uses half inch plywood, think of the weight savings!


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Mar 11, 2013)

JohnSB said:


> Uh, you just have to work smart. I built a 27x36' shed all by myself, you just have to plan your moves. Put the framing in place before you put on the deck.



The point of 2'x4' platforms is to allow one to have an inventory of stock sized platforms that are easily moved and configured. Many us do not have a shop directly connected to our space, let alone the luxury of building entire sets directly in situ. Yes, for one specific production, we did build large platforms (I think they were 10'x10', might have been bigger) out of 2x8, with hanger straps, because the designer wanted 5 large platforms with open space beneath them, however this is more typically an exception than a norm. 

A 4'x8' platformed, framed in 2"x6" on 12" centers, is incredibly over built and not standard for this industry.


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 11, 2013)

gafftapegreenia said:


> The point of 2'x4' platforms is to allow one to have an inventory of stock sized platforms that are easily moved and configured. Many us do not have a shop directly connected to our space, let alone the luxury of building entire sets directly in situ. Yes, for one specific production, we did build large platforms (I think they were 10'x10', might have been bigger) out of 2x8, with hanger straps, because the designer wanted 5 large platforms with open space beneath them, however this is more typically an exception than a norm.
> 
> A 4'x8' platformed, framed in 2"x6" on 12" centers, is incredibly over built and not standard for this industry.



We don't have a shop at all, we try to do cutting outside as much as possible, and assembly on stage. A 2x6 frame is not overbuilt at all, the same size deck would be 2x8 minimum. And the 12" centers is only for 1/2" sheet, 5/8-3/4" would be 16" centers. I'd much rather slightly over engineer and need a couple of extra hands, than to have something fail. When you are working at height, your actors need to be confident that the set is not going to wobble or fall.


----------



## kicknargel (Mar 11, 2013)

This is coming a little close to flame war for CB, where we like to be nice and civil. But there are time-tested industry standards that the professionals here and everywhere know and practice. And while we prefer over-built to under-built, the platforms as you describe are way over-built. 2x4 framing, with joists at 24" (or 16") centers, and legging on 4' centers is the industry standard. You might go heavier if you have a particular need (piano on platform, wider leg span, etc).

Build your platform as you wish--no concerns about safety (other than moving and lifting them). But for the posterity, it's overkill.


----------



## derekleffew (Mar 11, 2013)

Not a flame war, merely an open avenue of informed debate, until someone makes it personal. But, since I have this milk jug of gasoline handy...

From Residential Wood Framed Floors (Residential Wood Framed Floors
and Aquarium Weights):

> In the United States the minimum design floor live loads are usually stipulated in pounds per square foot (psf) by either state or local building codes. An example of typical design live loads might be 200 or 150 psf for a storage warehouse, 100 psf for a public meeting room, 50 psf for an office and 40 psf for a single family residence. So, your home most likely has the capacity to safely support a uniform live load of at least 40 psf. But keep in mind that this design live load is theoretically spread uniformly over the entire floor from wall to wall throughout your entire house. It is not a maximum load on any given area of the floor, it is just a theoretical average load that is used to design the floor for loads that are initially unknown. Some people find this confusing because in reality it is not the floor pressure (in psf) that matters at all, it is the floor load in pounds that really creates the stress in the primary structural framing members.


 Must stage scenery construction "meet or exceed the most stringent requirements of applicable building codes" (IBC)? I don't know; I don't build or design scenery. But I DO KNOW that in the past I've built 2x4 framed, 3/4" plywood decked, 4x8 platforms, with
one toggle at 4'-0",
two toggles at 2'-8",
three toggles at 2'-0",
but never four toggles at 1'-7.2" or five toggles at 1'-4".

Which reminds me, I really should purchase that copy of _Structural Design for the Stage_ that's been on my wishlist forever.
.


----------



## Van (Mar 11, 2013)

Portland Opera Association used to always have to put thier sets on a rake because of the nasty seating arrangement in the Keller Auditorium. To accomplish this rake they used individual platforms that were 6'x8' with a T&G framing arrangment on thier sides. The framing was 2"x6", 16"OC and was Luan Mahogany. These would sit on "Raker Blocks" and support the entire set which was typically rented or trucked in from the Warehouse. Now In that sense those decks < platforms> were not 'Over-built' they were supportting huge casts, massive amounts of scenery, and had to last for years. For the typical type show I work on now, in a LORT D or SPT3 type theatre, a 2x6 framed deck would probably be over-kill for just about any set that I can concieve of us building. 
One thing we should all remember: speaking in absolutes in this business can get you in trouble very quickly. 
In General terms framing with 2x6 in the Theatre is over building, but not always. A 2x4 will more than sufficiently span an 8' distance I know I've spanned 14' with 2x's It all depends on how many, and how they are screwed in the field. 

3/4 CDX typically has a 60PSI bursting strength when supported on 16" centers.
CDX's biggest strength is in its resistence to lateral and torsional stresses which is why it's typically used as a sheeting material in "real" construction. 

OSB even 3/4 IS an UNDERLAYMENT to be used being another covering it is not a finish layer to be trod on without more suipport or if it's a single layer. 

How do I paint Plywood ? With a lot of paint. there is no great way to prep Ply that the grain wont show through except for lots of sanding and using a skim coat of Drywall compound or Bondo.


I once spent an entire month building Opera decks for Nike at Acme Scenic. My God that was a heavy, heavy, heavy job! But we trucked those decks all over the country, for years.


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 11, 2013)

kicknargel said:


> This is coming a little close to flame war for CB, where we like to be nice and civil. But there are time-tested industry standards that the professionals here and everywhere know and practice. And while we prefer over-built to under-built, the platforms as you describe are way over-built. 2x4 framing, with joists at 24" (or 16") centers, and legging on 4' centers is the industry standard. You might go heavier if you have a particular need (piano on platform, wider leg span, etc).
> 
> Build your platform as you wish--no concerns about safety (other than moving and lifting them). But for the posterity, it's overkill.



I use 2x6 for diagonal stresses. In terms of weight, you're only talking about 15 pounds, not a big deal. With 24" centers, you're just about locked into having 3/4" sheeting which is more spendy and heavier. Going one size up in a 2x is nowhere near "way over-built". Somebody else's kids are on that platform that I'm building, follow me?


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 11, 2013)

Van said:


> Portland Opera Association used to always have to put thier sets on a rake because of the nasty seating arrangement in the Keller Auditorium. To accomplish this rake they used individual platforms that were 6'x8' with a T&G framing arrangment on thier sides. The framing was 2"x6", 16"OC and was Luan Mahogany. These would sit on "Raker Blocks" and support the entire set which was typically rented or trucked in from the Warehouse. Now In that sense those decks < platforms> were not 'Over-built' they were supportting huge casts, massive amounts of scenery, and had to last for years. For the typical type show I work on now, in a LORT D or SPT3 type theatre, a 2x6 framed deck would probably be over-kill for just about any set that I can concieve of us building.
> One thing we should all remember: speaking in absolutes in this business can get you in trouble very quickly.
> In General terms framing with 2x6 in the Theatre is over building, but not always. A 2x4 will more than sufficiently span an 8' distance I know I've spanned 14' with 2x's It all depends on how many, and how they are screwed in the field.
> 
> ...



I absolutely hate CDX and OSB unless they are for underlayment. Way too much chipping and splinters. You can however skim coat it with drywall mud if it's not a walked on surface or moved much.


----------



## josh88 (Mar 11, 2013)

The combo of 2x6 AND 12" centers I think is what he meant. With only $5-10 difference in price between 1/2 and 3/4 wouldn't the buying of a couple more 2x6s for the added toggles balance out in the long run?


Via tapatalk


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 11, 2013)

josh88 said:


> The combo of 2x6 AND 12" centers I think is what he meant. With only $5-10 difference in price between 1/2 and 3/4 wouldn't the buying of a couple more 2x6s for the added toggles balance out in the long run?
> 
> 
> Via tapatalk



The 12" centers would only be for 1/2" material, some of it like OSB won't last long, especially with a big or multiple actors. It's easier to throw some 2x's in a vehicle than a 4x8 sheet. I can get a few 2x's inside my 4dr Jeep, and I can get 10' 2x's in the van, but not a 4x8 sheet. That lets me reuse some of the old sheet goods.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 11, 2013)

FWIW I learned 1X6 and 3/4 ply with framing on 32" centers, 2X4 legs at the corners. Of course at that time 1X6 was 5 5/8 x 7/8.

A lot of this seems to be concern for failure in bending but in the real world of buildings deflection generally controls design.

Regrettable that it's so hard - expensive I suppose - to get into stressed skin construction - triscuits I guess they are popularly called. I got such a kick out the first stressed skin platform I worked on - 4'X16 spanning the 16' between supports with 1 x 4s skinned with 3/8 ply. Very cool.


----------



## JohnSB (Mar 11, 2013)

BillConnerASTC said:


> FWIW I learned 1X6 and 3/4 ply with framing on 32" centers, 2X4 legs at the corners. Of course at that time 1X6 was 5 5/8 x 7/8.
> 
> A lot of this seems to be concern for failure in bending but in the real world of buildings deflection generally controls design.
> 
> Regrettable that it's so hard - expensive I suppose - to get into stressed skin construction - triscuits I guess they are popularly called. I got such a kick out the first stressed skin platform I worked on - 4'X16 spanning the 16' between supports with 1 x 4s skinned with 3/8 ply. Very cool.



Good lord you must be old!! LOL You could probably get relatively clear lumber then too, much better quality.


----------



## chausman (Mar 11, 2013)

JohnSB said:


> Good lord you must be old!! LOL You could probably get relatively clear lumber then too, much better quality.



That's how we build our platforms. Just closed a show with a bunch of them.


----------



## RickR (Mar 11, 2013)

I too learned 1x6 but we used 24" centers and 1/2" ply.

Yes it was better wood, by 1985 it was getting hard to find #2 pine that didn't cost like #1 and/or look like #3. Also, one person could pick up a 4x8 and move it comfortably. THAT was a key criteria.

It's also worth noting that the master carp. was a true craftsman, worked for years in construction and did sculpture as a hobby. There were a few times we did heavier work. 42nd Street comes to mind, several people on one platform, jumping up and down together, night after night.


----------



## jglodeklights (Mar 11, 2013)

4'x8' platforms framed with 2x4, 2' 8" toggle spacing and CDX or OSB skin (my research indicates that OSB has the same weight rating as Ply, but is just inherently more flexible) have a weight capacity equal to that of current homes at 125lbs x sq. ft even distribution. (IRC). The bigger issue is actually the way platforms are legged and assembled. Drywall screws have no rating. Other types of screws, such as some construction grade Torx, and nails and bolts do. 2x4 pine is actually very strong along the length dimension (as are most wood products). However, lateral deflection in the 2x4's used as legs can be a major issue. Proper cross bracing helps to alleviate this concern, even in the face of horrible distortion of the shape of the 2x4. For _Rent_ we built the main part of the set using 14'x5' 2x6 platforms with (8) 7'6 2x4 legs. Proper hardware in joining the legs to platforms and platform to platform meant this was somewhat disconcerting, but acceptable and safe for the number of actors we had on it. Were we to use four platforms with (6) legs each insead of two with (8) legs each, 2x4 framing would have been acceptable, but would have resulted into three seams with double legs as compared to only one seam with double legs (center seam).

I agree with Derek. Structural Design for the Stage is a great resource. It is also on my wishlist (I am currently not TD'ing enough to warrant purchasing it). The BackStage Handbook also has much valuable information for constructing scenery.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 12, 2013)

Thinking about it, the 1X6 - as long as there are no major flaws - is stiffer and probably calcs out pretty good in bending as well. It's been a while since I used this stuff.

The nice thing about 1x6 - it's a good riser height. Seems like a 2x4 framed platform is useless without legs.


----------



## JLNorthGA (Mar 12, 2013)

BillConnerASTC said:


> Thinking about it, the 1X6 - as long as there are no major flaws - is stiffer and probably calcs out pretty good in bending as well. It's been a while since I used this stuff.
> 
> The nice thing about 1x6 - it's a good riser height. Seems like a 2x4 framed platform is useless without legs.



I'm forever thankful for leg-o-matic braces. I can make my platforms any reasonable height. I have a set of 2 x 4 legs to make the total platform height 8" or 12". The 8" height is for landings for stairs and general use in plays. The 12" is for musicians (drums, big band trumpet or trombone sections). I have a set of legs for 16" also that I use with an 8" step unit.


----------



## Van (Mar 12, 2013)

JLNorthGA said:


> I'm forever thankful for leg-o-matic braces. I can make my platforms any reasonable height. I have a set of 2 x 4 legs to make the total platform height 8" or 12". The 8" height is for landings for stairs and general use in plays. The 12" is for musicians (drums, big band trumpet or trombone sections). I have a set of legs for 16" also that I use with an 8" step unit.



I have boxes, little rectangular boxes. If I set them this way I have a 6" deck, This way an 8" deck or that way a 12" deck. I love using triscuits but you can use the same boxes with Decks/platforms.


----------



## Footer (Mar 12, 2013)

Van said:


> I have boxes, little rectangular boxes. If I set them this way I have a 6" deck, This way an 8" deck or that way a 12" deck. I love using triscuits but you can use the same boxes with Decks/platforms.



We used to just have stacks of studwalls for this. Care to post a picture of the boxes? Or they just apple boxes?


----------



## josh88 (Mar 13, 2013)

Footer said:


> We used to just have stacks of studwalls for this. Care to post a picture of the boxes? Or they just apple boxes?



for that matter how are they attached? I get the rectangle concept but do you have a method that keeps them from getting torn up with screw holes or bolt holes?


----------



## Van (Mar 13, 2013)

Footer said:


> We used to just have stacks of studwalls for this. Care to post a picture of the boxes? Or they just apple boxes?






josh88 said:


> for that matter how are they attached? I get the rectangle concept but do you have a method that keeps them from getting torn up with screw holes or bolt holes?



For most applications the triscuits can simply sit on top of the box. All my Triscuits have holes drilled at points around the perimeter to allow for a 4 -6" deck screw for those times I need to attach them to knee walls. I also have a HUGE stock of standard sized knee-walls for taller decks. Anything over 12" gets unstable without more support than a deck block. Another nice thing about using triscuit is you can span seams with these boxes and still have sufficient support. 

We should probably move all this to a new thread as we have ventured far afield.

EDIT*** OK this is just a concept sketch. I just realized that as drawn these are not exactly what I use. The real blocks give me 5.75, 7.75 and 11.75" this allows for adding a .25" MDF or Maso top or just carpet. ***


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Mar 13, 2013)

Well, if we are going to break a thread off of this one about platform construction, then I don't feel bad about adding another sidebar discussion.

The fasteners used. Staples? Nails? Screws? What are you using, and why? I'm especially interested to hear what screws Vans shop is using.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 13, 2013)

We use coarse drywall for sheet goods onto framing and nails for framing.

Connecting adjacent platforms is always via carriage bolts. My colleague has seen screws hardened and non-hardened shear. His most memorable encounter was when someone built a structure with two platforms connected with a crap-ton of deck screws. A cast member of average build fell onto the platform -- the dozen or so screws all sheared and the platform dropped.


----------



## MNicolai (May 1, 2013)

This topic was revisited today when it came to a tee. The scenic designer and I were present for a fire dept walkthrough of the set. The deputy fire chief examined the set. He noted an elevated 8' platform and concerns for it. Then he elaborated that his understanding from the building inspector was that platforms elevated above a certain height were required to meet code, then requested we contact the building inspector for a review of our structures, with a follow-up meeting the night before opening night with both himself and the building inspector both present.

A phone call to the building inspector quickly went down an unexpected path when the inspector asked, "Are you applying for a permit for this?" We said no, as it's a temporary theatrical set. He told us he disagreed about our assessment of whether or not a permit is required. Since then, I have noted the passage earlier in this thread from IBC about theatrical scenery being specifically exempted from permit regulations.

This quickly shifted up the food chain when the scenic designer I spoke with the director and the arts center manager, who immediately called the building and grounds supervisor. B&G supervisor told us he agreed with us that permitting was not appropriate, and that permitting was not part of his agreement with the fire dept. The terms of that agreement were that the school district would give the fire dept a heads up when a set is on stage and schedule an inspection, and if they had concerns about structural elements, they could contact the building inspector for an unofficial, informal peer review.

We have a meeting with the building inspector tomorrow, but currently the understanding we share with the B&G supervisor is that the building inspector has no jurisdiction or mechanism of enforcement. His comments are purely advisory for the purposes of limiting potential safety hazards in an academic setting, and we can choose to ignore them or act upon them as we deem necessary. Ultimately, we need to feel comfortable that the set is safe, and the school district believes this to be the best way to do that. I will likely advise them after this that they'd be better off giving a couple hundred bucks to a technical director nearby and bring them in to provide a peer review from someone with a history in theatrical scenic construction. Bringing someone in whose experience is in building construction will lead to a large number of grievances that are irrelevant because they are comparing against non-applicable building codes.


----------



## teqniqal (May 1, 2013)

MNicolai said:


> . . . . Having the the assistant fire chief walk through is not unusual for us, though it doesn't happen frequently. Having the building inspector come in was a new one for us, but the assistant fire chief wouldn't have called the building inspector without a good reason.



After hearing of all the wood construction mentioned in this thread (mostly below this point in the thread), I am curious if the set materials were "constructed of non-combustible materials, limited combustible materials, or fire retardant treated wood." per NFPA 101 Article 13.4.5.11.3 ? Did the (Assistant) Fire Chief (Marshal?) even ask? It has been a hundred years since the Iroquois Theatre Fire, so you'd think the message might have been received, however, I still see little use of appropriate materials on the stages I visit.


----------



## SteveB (May 1, 2013)

teqniqal said:


> After hearing of all the wood construction mentioned in this thread (mostly below this point in the thread), I am curious if the set materials were "constructed of non-combustible materials, limited combustible materials, or fire retardant treated wood." per NFPA 101 Article 13.4.5.11.3 ? Did the (Assistant) Fire Chief (Marshal?) even ask? It has been a hundred years since the Iroquois Theatre Fire, so you'd think the message might have been received, however, I still see little use of appropriate materials on the stages I visit.



I'm certainly not an expert, but non-treated wood is a common material in all scenic construction and if appropriately treated, is then code compliant. Backpainting using paint with a fire retardant is one of the methods, although (as far as I've been told) use of latex paint application (in NYC) is fine.


----------



## MNicolai (May 1, 2013)

He asked if anything had been flame retarded. The scenic designer told him he had been via paint. Lots of raw wood on undersides and backsides of things though that he didn't comment on.

I talked to a local TD about this earlier today, who's also a volunteer EMT for some 30 years. He said so long as there are sprinklers and no likely ignition sources (live flame, sparks), his opinion is to not bother with flame retardant and backpainting.

It goes without saying that opinions and code requirements are not always synonymous.


----------



## TheaterEd (May 6, 2013)

MNicolai said:


> I will likely advise them after this that they'd be better off giving a couple hundred bucks to a technical director nearby and bring them in to provide a peer review from someone with a history in theatrical scenic construction. Bringing someone in whose experience is in building construction will lead to a large number of grievances that are irrelevant because they are comparing against non-applicable building codes.



Couldn't agree with this more. The last school I worked at had the home construction teacher building their sets.... My biggest complaint was that he never showed up for strikes and he used three different types of screws (phillips, star, and square).

If you're looking for some peer review, though I am relatively certain you have more experience in the field than I do, I'm always looking to check out how other folks build there sets. Let me know.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (May 6, 2013)

TheaterEd said:


> My biggest complaint was that he never showed up for strikes and he used three different types of screws (phillips, star, and square).



Oh thats just cruel. And besides, everyone knows Square is where its at.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 6, 2013)

MNicolai said:


> We have a meeting with the building inspector tomorrow, but currently the understanding we share with the B&G supervisor is that the building inspector has no jurisdiction or mechanism of enforcement.



I'm researching this because of several recent inquiries about the issue, but do not assume that because a building permit is not required that the building official does not have jurisdiction nor that the building codes do not apply. From the 2012 IBC:


105.2 Work exempt from permit. 
Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following: 

Building: 

8. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.

SECTION 108 TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES 

108.1 General. 
The building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures and temporary uses. Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official is authorized to grant extensions for demonstrated cause. 

108.2 Conformance. 
Temporary structures and uses shall conform to the structural strength, fire safety, means of egress, accessibility, light, ventilation and sanitary requirements of this code as necessary to ensure public health, safety and general welfare. 

108.3 Temporary power. 
The building official is authorized to give permission to temporarily supply and use power in part of an electric installation before such installation has been fully completed and the final certificate of completion has been issued. The part covered by the temporary certificate shall comply with the requirements specified for temporary lighting, heat or power in NFPA 70. 

108.4 Termination of approval. 
The building official is authorized to terminate such permit for a temporary structure or use and to order the temporary structure or use to be discontinued.


----------



## Morte615 (May 6, 2013)

gafftapegreenia said:


> Oh thats just cruel. And besides, everyone knows Square is where its at.



Oh God I hate square heads!! They strip way to easy for people that don't understand how to size screw to bits! As well as the bits just not being nearly as common as star (easy to get a close size and will work mostly, but still strip quickly then) or phillips. Personally I try to use #2 phillips heads as much as possible just because almost everyone has the correct size bit in their kit somewhere.


----------



## MNicolai (May 6, 2013)

BillConnerASTC said:


> I'm researching this because of several recent inquiries about the issue, but do not assume that because a building permit is not required that the building official does not have jurisdiction nor that the building codes do not apply. From the 2012 IBC:




> 105.2 Work exempt from permit.
> Exemptions from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:
> 
> Building:
> ...




> 108.4 Termination of approval.
> The building official is authorized to terminate such permit for a temporary structure or use and to order the temporary structure or use to be discontinued.



My interpretation is that 108.4 is referring to temporary structures that require pulling a permit, whereas theatrical sets are specifically exempted. Obviously, fire codes, means of egress -- those things still apply but would be enforced by the fire inspector instead of the building inspector.

We received some additional suggested arguments from a third-party through one of the VP's of USITT:
+ Scenery is temporary, and may be able to be defined as "sculpture"
+ We are not constructing buildings, we are creating an artistic product.
+ UBC does not address art or art installations.
+ UBC assumes public access by untrained personnel to structures it regulates. Theatrical sets are the exact opposite: not open to the public, and all cast and crew are trained on how to safely navigate the stage area.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 6, 2013)

MNicolai said:


> My interpretation is that 108.4 is referring to temporary structures that require pulling a permit, whereas theatrical sets are specifically exempted. Obviously, fire codes, means of egress -- those things still apply but would be enforced by the fire inspector instead of the building inspector.
> 
> We received some additional suggested arguments from a third-party through one of the VP's of USITT:
> + Scenery is temporary, and may be able to be defined as "sculpture"
> ...



You are possibly correct regarding 108.4 and I will ask that specifically. In having worked closely with the ICC and the legacy predecessors BOCAI, ICBO (who published the UBC), and SBCCI very closely since the late 1980s. I'm pretty sure that even those things exempt from permit are required to comply with the building code and that the building official has jurisdiction if its in there jurisdiction.

A few comments on your defenses:

Buildings vs art - they are wise to the label game - and it won't fly.

Hang a piece of sculpture over the means of egress - its their business.

Temporary stages - they sure are part of the building officials jurisdiction now. (Could be why this has arisen as an issue recently, as I predicted on another forum.)

Catwalks and pits and elevator pits and gridirons and all kinds of limited or restricted access areas are indeed regulated by the building codes.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 6, 2013)

Just a few more citations from the IBC:

"101.3 Intent. 
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.


104.6 Right of entry. 
Where it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this code, or where the building official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition which is contrary to or in violation of this code which makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the building official is authorized to enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by this code, provided that if such structure or premises be occupied that credentials be presented to the occupant and entry requested. If such structure or premises is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry. 

Definition:
STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed."

As my building official friends tell me, arguing with a building official is like wrestling with a pig in mud: you get dirty, the pig enjoys it, and the pig almost always wins.


----------



## avoreis (May 7, 2013)

jcslighting said:


> So now a few years later I walk into another school to help fix their lighting and I see where they had flown something overstage using cotton clothesline slung over the structural steel above the stage and tied off on a few 2x4's screwed to the stage floor. I quickly advised the director that not only was this crazy, it was incredibly unsafe and downright stupid. He said the summer community theatre was the guilty group!
> 
> Sometimes you never know what you'll find onstage at the local school!



I manage the theater department at a very large high school in Minnesota. One summer quite a few years ago we had a children's community theater in and I let the director, who was also the technical director use the scene shop to build a couple of small flats. He quickly lost the use of the shop when I came in and found the safety guard ripped off of my compound miter saw. He tried to cut a piece of muslin with it and it instantly caught and bound. It ripped off the guard and shattered the frame where the guard spring attached. He was lucky he didn't loose a finger... It was a beautiful, brand new Milwaukee saw too. 

A year before I worked at the school another community theater group used a yellow, high glossed oil based paint on the stage floor. Two coats. When they left the maintenance department tried painting the floor black again but the yellow kept wearing through. The first thing I did when I got there was had the floor sanded. A lot of money, and 29 coats of paint later (or so the sander guy said) we got down to bare wood. Freshly painted black the new technical director of the community theater was told to be very careful about painting her set, which was a series of draped cheesecloth hung from battens. She painted the first one laid out on the stage floor without a drop cloth... That was the only time I really yelled at someone in the theater (I screamed, "YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME") when I walked in and noticed the fresh white bloch on the floor. I felt bad later when the producer laid into her because she had just paid to have the floor resurfaced.


I have my fair share of community theater stories...


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 7, 2013)

Well, the staff at the International Code Council, who publish the IBC, the most widely adopted model building code in the USA along with many other codes and standards, concur that scenery is indeed a structure and subject to the building codes and that in most jurisdictions the building official has the authority to inspect it and require changes or removal.

Now, saying it has to be built like "commercial buildings" is a little extreme. For instance, in the common case of being on a stage in an otherwise enclosed and code compliant building, you can ignore wind and snow loads and other safety issues dealing with weather, including just keeping the rain out. You probably can skip a lot of the sanitation and mechanical (heat and cooling) issues, as that is covered by the building. Electrical is temporary and for the most part, everyone accepts that the National Electric Code applies and has allowances for stages and temporary conditions (albeit the NEC temporary is different - 30 or 60 days?). Fire safety has been addressed, so that basically leaves structure and egress (egress being the basis for guards, stairs, ramps, etc.)

So, there are a lot of exceptions to railings and guards in the IBC, in fact 7, and 5 1/2 deal with auditoriums and stages. We live and work in very unique buildings, with many more code exceptions than other occupancies. Stairs and ramps and egress as well. Based on familiarity and training, and assuming you try to adhere to the AEA rules, there probably isn't a problem with the ramps and escape stairs and high platforms without guards. Doesn't mean you can ignore these issues or have tippy, wobbly stairs or allow non-performers to run around on your sets, nor can you ignore OSHA regulations if the occupants are your employees, but this shouldn't be a hardship.

So that kind of leaves structure as a biggie. I don't think anyone will require a platform to be as strong as a stage, which is 125 or 150 psf depending on which edition of which code applies, but is a loading as strong as a bedroom in a single family house, 40 psf, reasonable? I think you could maybe argue for even less, but 40 or 50 psf seems to be a common criteria. Deflection is tougher, because traditionally the building code was concerned about cracking plaster on the ceiling under if the floor deflected - bend but not brake. Later it adopted a criteria for gypsum wallboard, which was less fragile. And comfort is an issue - people don't usually like bouncy floors (at least adult people) - so the codes still limit deflection for all these concerns - and we may not care how springy the floor is in the Juliet balcony, because the actress is fine and only there for a few minutes and isn't dancing.

I know I can find ply and other structural sheathing that has span ratings printed right on it. I can find tables that have "deemed to comply" criteria, designs and materials sizes that have been proven adequate by time tested use and accepted as adequate by the code development process. And I know that some folks have demonstrated by engineering and by testing other materials and methods. You may also find it useful to show that your scenery is built as described in published books and articles. It would be hard to say that what Parker and Smith said was OK for the last 50 years is not OK.

But frankly used 1/2" MDF on 24" centers seems just too light, and unless the material was stamped with that span rating for floors, I'd probably red tag it as well. And don't forget that span ratings of sheathing is often based on continuous application, and one whole 4 X 8 is stronger than four pieces 4 x 2.

And this has been ratcheted up as a result of the Indiana State Fair stage collapse according to the ICC staffer who hears this from their building official members.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (May 7, 2013)

And I still haven't seen here what the construction was of the platforms in the original post. 2X4 on what centers? greater than 16" is all I've found. And some material other than ply for the deck but I have not found thickness or specifics of material. Some sheets are rated for floor, and some for walls, and some for roof, and some for combinations, but often with different span ratings based on the application, ie: floor v. wall. Working strictly from recollections, I think you can get away with 15/32 ply on 2' centers on a roof, and it's springy, but you might be able to justify that for a platform of limited occupancy and limited use but not if you have the Seven Brides chorus dancing on it.


----------

