Set design review by an engineer?

[Gregi]

Last spring while we were busy building the set for our spring musical we had an accident; one of our new adult volunteers fell into the orchestra pit and broke his leg. He in turn sued the school district for his medical bills, lost wages, etc.
Although the accident had nothing to do directly with the set for the show, the school administration now wants us to submit all construction drawings and material specs to them for third party review before we start new set construction. The reviewer is a structural engineer who has little knowledge of set construction techniques. I am concerned that the reviewer will sit on the drawings until a few weeks before the show opens, leaving us little time to actually build anything. I also have reason to believe they will try to apply commercial building code requirements on us, even though stage scenery is considered a temporary structure. (Did I mention they want us to pay for the engineer's time out of the production budget?)

My question is: has anyone else had to deal with a similar situation, and if so, how was it resolved?

 

[robartsd]

Last spring while we were busy building the set for our spring musical we had an accident; one of our new adult volunteers fell into the orchestra pit and broke his leg. He in turn sued the school district for his medical bills, lost wages, etc.
Although the accident had nothing to do directly with the set for the show, the school administration now wants us to submit all construction drawings and material specs to them for third party review before we start new set construction. The reviewer is a structural engineer who has little knowledge of set construction techniques. I am concerned that the reviewer will sit on the drawings until a few weeks before the show opens, leaving us little time to actually build anything. I also have reason to believe they will try to apply commercial building code requirements on us, even though stage scenery is considered a temporary structure. (Did I mention they want us to pay for the engineer's time out of the production budget?)

My question is: has anyone else had to deal with a similar situation, and if so, how was it resolved?

The structural engineer may be very familiar with temporary structures--the construction industry rutinely needs temporary structures too, and structural engineers are often involved in those designs. I'd ask for a meeting between you, the engineer, and your administration to discuss your concerns.

 

[cmckeeman]

Also if you are paying for his time then can't you set his schedule a bit and make sure that he looks at them in time to receive payment?

 

[Amiers]

Also if you are paying for his time then can't you set his schedule a bit and make sure that he looks at them in time to receive payment?

I agree if he is being paid out of your budget then you should determine how fast he should review and make whatever changes to the design to "see fit". A meeting will be a good way to break the ice with the engineer and pick his brain on how he is going to work with you which hopefully he does.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

Believe it or not, sets do usually have to comply with building and fire codes (and electrical codes.) You are only exempted - usually - from a permit for scenery and other temporary structures, but the codes apply. And of course if anyone is an employee, OSHA or state equal applies, and maybe more stringent than building and fire codes.

I plan to make this an important issue at a USITT panel I'm on this coming spring.

You post raises a different issue in the pit fall hazard, which I have posted about here a number of times, and which will be specifically addressed in the 2015 Life Safety Code®.

There are probably better solutions than what you have been handed and I do sympathize with that. How you present plans will make a big difference in how onerous the burden will be. Would love to have your experiences with this at the USITT panel.

 

[robartsd]

Believe it or not, sets do usually have to comply with building and fire codes (and electrical codes.)

While the codes may still apply, the design criteria may be different. For instance, because a temporay structure is far less likely to experience an earthquate it is not required to have the same level of resistance to an earthquate that a permament structure would have.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

While the codes may still apply, the design criteria may be different. For instance, because a temporay structure is far less likely to experience an earthquate it is not required to have the same level of resistance to an earthquate that a permament structure would have.

Because someone on a set isn't worth as much as someone in a "permanent" building? I'll be sure to address that in the panel, along with other items for "temporary", including how long that is under different circumstances. Not all scenery is temporary.

 

[robartsd]

Because someone on a set isn't worth as much as someone in a "permanent" building? I'll be sure to address that in the panel, along with other items for "temporary", including how long that is under different circumstances. Not all scenery is temporary.

I do agree that there should be objective standards for structural design of sets, but those standards should not be identical to the standards used for pernament construction. I'm not saying that someone on a set isn't worth as much, just that designing a structure that is intended to be used for a few weeks to resist the same level disaster that a structure that is intended to be used for several years is not practical. On the other hand, you do make a good point about scenery not always being temporary. BTW, I'm coming at this topic as someone who has more experience with structural engineering than with set building (not that I have all that much experience with either).

 

[sk8rsdad]

I'm going to agree with robertsd. Sets aren't usually susceptible to wind and weather, prolonged wear and tear, snow load, and any number of other considerations incorporated into building code. That's not to say a set shouldn't be structurally sound but the idea of taking out a building permit to put up a luaun flat seems a tad excessive.

 

[llburg]

This is such a complicated issue. It's easy to see the benefits of a standardized "code," but I'm not sure it's practical. On one hand you have newbie parental volunteers, who may or may not know what they're doing, and on the other, industry professionals with decades of experience who know how to get it done right, fast, and safe. The first group would be oblivious to the "code's" existence, and the second would view it as a hindrance to the efficiency of their work. Besides, any potential code would have to take into account the many different circumstances scenery may fit into. A small set for a high school, and a Hudson job built for the national tour look vastly different, and neither bear any resemblance to residential or commercial building codes.

 

[RickR]

I'm going to agree with robertsd. Sets aren't usually susceptible to wind and weather, prolonged wear and tear, snow load, and any number of other considerations incorporated into building code. That's not to say a set shouldn't be structurally sound but the idea of taking out a building permit to put up a luaun flat seems a tad excessive.

All this is why you have a meeting with the structural engineer.

S/He will be very happy not to apply exterior load factors to interior systems, as they do it all the time. I also think it likely that the engineer will freely admit that they don't know much about theater. The ones I've worked with on truss structures and full buildings don't think they know everything. The job of a flat is to hold up paint and it's well suited. A bit of bracing, which they understand far better than most carpenters, and off you go. The primary issue will be platforms and stairs, and there they will look at lumber size and load. Are 15 dancers on a 4x8 made of 2x4 32OC & 1/2 ply? That probably won't pass. How many nails are put into each corner? How many diagonal braces on those legs? Much of what we do can't hurt anybody if it falls, but there is the other stuff to consider.

You might note that Bill said permits are not required AND that they have already shown structural failures. Welcome the input with a smile so they listen to you. And appreciate a chance to learn from an expert.

 

[DRU]

Because someone on a set isn't worth as much as someone in a "permanent" building?

Can someone remove this strawman from the stage before it gets beaten to death? Robartsd's comment had to do with earthquake criteria in the building code and its application to set building, not the value and worth of human beings.

Believe it or not, sets do usually have to comply with building and fire codes (and electrical codes.) You are only exempted - usually - from a permit for scenery and other temporary structures, but the codes apply.

Section 108 of the International Building Code confirms this statement, from my understanding. Since this is true, does that mean that my flats must comply with 2308.9 of the IBC? And if that is true, does that mean the Backstage Handbook as it stands now is invalid in how it explains to build a flat, and must be updated to comply with 2308.9?

I plan to make this an important issue at a USITT panel I'm on this coming spring.

Which panel is that? I would love to be in on that discussion.

Back to the OP's question:

If I were in your shoes, Greg, I would talk to my administrators and convince them, instead of going straight to a structural engineer, to find a theater professional in your area (from a well respected university program or from a professional scene shop) and ask/pay them to review your set designs/construction techniques. If their recommendation for your design is "check with a structural engineer", THEN contact a structural engineer for that specific interest. If you are doing The Music Man with some stage wagons and some flats, the theater professional can point you in the right direction of best practices (especially if the best practice is "check with a structural engineer").

 

[MNicolai]

There was an near-miss of an incident at a local high school, after which they wanted more review of sets before they were erected. I found a local university TD who was willing to back up the set designer at the high school if need be. Sufficed to have the AHJ walk the stage before opening and they didn't have any notes. Mostly wanted the heads-up something was happening and the opportunity to flag something potentially risky via a second set of eyes. As far as the scenery construction is concerned, biggest danger is you get a lot of parents on stage who start trying either to build 1) a house, drywall and all, or 2) the most set for the least budget, using sub-par materials and methods without understanding industry-accepted methods for construction that are sturdy, durable, and cost-effective.

Parents coming in to help with construction on a fly-by-night basis are my biggest fear on any stage. I had one who went out and bought a bunch of 3/4" EMT conduit and wanted to rehang legs somewhere they were not intended to be hung by dropping wire from the grid and suspending hundreds of pounds of legs from 3/4" conduit, which under those forces would have the structural integrity of a paper clip.

The real danger here though is mistaking any inspection of the set as addressing the issue of slips/trips/falls into the pit. That's an issue it needs to be made clear to the school district has not and will not be addressed by structural reviews of the set. There are many options I wont get into (for now) and I know @BillConnerASTC has a number of solutions/suggestions for this as well.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

There is a backstage culture that drives some of this. The music or show choir or drama director that sees a bit or effect in a professional production and then wants to duplicate it but they have neither the experience nor budget to do it. Wrapped up in the show must go on notion, which I'm sure has resulted in many unfortunate events.

Just the incident that began this thread is a great example. If whenever anyone new on a stage was simply made aware of the hazards. 5 minutes at the beginning of the first session. "Pay attention everyone. We have an orchestra pit. A stage is the only place in any building of any type where a fall hazard does not require a guard. Many people have been injured by falling off a stage, especially guests and new comers in nonperformance time. Don't go near the edge unless you have to, be vigilant and also watch out for others." The same sort of short training sessions for other hazards - ladders, rigging, tools, etc., etc., will go a long ways towards reducing and preventing these kind of events, the repercussions of which affect us all. Because of that one idiot in Rhode Island we now have to sprinkler every bar with a juke box in the country.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

As far as designing scenery for seismic events, not all scenery is flats. I've seen (and have built) plenty of tall, heavy scenery elements, which could setiously injure or kill someone if it fell on them. Such a piece on a stage in a seismically active area should index take that into account. Suggesting the short duration is sufficient reason alone to ignore that hazard is not good planning and not permitted by the laws.

Unfortunately, as proven by history, the result of many irresponsible decisions which result in a few ending with casualties will occasion regulation that burdens all of us.

 

[RickR]

DRU: Lets not confuse a flat with a wall! It can be as bad as confusing temporary with portable! Think of all the rolling black/white boards in a school. Much of this stuff gets buried in definitions and goals.

I've been in a number of earthquakes of moderate size. I think most scenery would be fine and would expect an engineer to confirm it. Again it's definitions: Scenery tends to weigh very little, Scenery rarely supports upper floors. An engineer will take these things into account.

One other factor to consider. An engineer caries state licensing and significant insurance to back up their opinions. A local TD may find themselves in court trying to explain "backstage culture" and why a flat isn't a wall.

 

[MNicolai]

One other factor to consider. An engineer caries state licensing and significant insurance to back up their opinions. A local TD may find themselves in court trying to explain "backstage culture" and why a flat isn't a wall.

An engineer also costs a good deal of money to issue a stamp or a perform a review that their name will then be associated with because of the cost for their liability insurance and their time. This is an instance where bringing in a bulldozer where only a shovel is needed incurs fees of $1000 minimum, potentially up to several thousand dollars. Suddenly makes putting on a production prohibitively expensive for many groups. Not to mention the costs associated with drawing up their plans/methods of construction in advance -- something many smaller groups improvise on-the-fly -- alternatively, if there are drawings for scenery, they will many times be only artistic drawings and not representative of the structural efforts/methods of reinforcement.

I don't have an answer for all of this. Somewhere there's a balance to be found between creating an undue burden on groups that are perfectly capable of producing their sets without threat to life and limb and while giving amateur groups a guide or second set of eyes to keep them from making egregious errors in judgement that have potential to be fatal.

That said -- there's no substitute in regulation or inspection to having a qualified person employed or contracted to oversee a given production or the operation of a venue. Inspection of the set won't catch that all the lights were hung without safety cables and that a couple were only made finger-tight and didn't get tightened with a wrench. An inspection may or may not catch that the orchestra pit or a platform is adequately built for general use but that in this instance 100 people are going to be on-stage jumping in-sync like a jack hammer.

 

[Gregi]

First, thank you all for your input. It certainly has given me a lot to think about. I will definitely arrange for a meeting with the engineer and the administration to try and set the ground rules. I have always stressed safety on stage and in the scene shop. I would never take chances with the safety of the actors, crew or musicians. Unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society so having a licensed professional review our plans may indeed be a good idea. I will keep you appraised as the process goes along as John has suggested.

Thanks again.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

Rereading the original post and the question regarding anyone else, by google I found one jurisdiction in Massachusetts that amended the model code and they require building permits for a set.

Good luck!

 

[ruinexplorer]

Moreover, I believe what is needed is a review of risks involved in the space and how to mitigate those risks. When the orchestra pit is not able to be covered or have a safety net, there should be some sort of safety marking and potentially a temporary barrier to prevent this type of accident. This is something that should be in place no matter if it is a professional or educational theater. The challenge with volunteers is to make sure that they are aware of the risks. While a brief walk-around at the beginning of each day may help lessen accidents, I recommend some formal means of identifying risks and documenting that all present acknowledge these risks. That may help in litigation depending on how this is done.