• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

Yes, you can get arrested....

Billct2

Billct2

Active Member
http://newhavenregister.com/articles/2010/07/23/news/doc4c49994ddab60962285632.txt
This is a large reputable local company that has done a ton of large corporate accounts and many many electric sign projects.
I can't believe they don't have an electrical license, but I guess they don't, or they let it lapse.
I think the big issue was the installation, not the wiring, but the failure to have an electric license was all they could be charged with. I saw the wall after the collapse and it's a typical metal stud/drywall construction. I think the sign was too heavy for the wall. The wall was not properly supported if it was going to have signs installed on it. This was a failure on the part of everyone from the mall owners, the design engineers, the contractors who installed the wall, the inspectors who approved it and the sign guys who didn't verify the safety of the install.
This can be a scary business sometimes, people get hurt and killed because of poor installs. Sometimes I have to think, what if my wife and children were walking under this sign?
 
Ghost Prophet

Ghost Prophet

New Member
Wow that's funny. Thankfully I don't have the headache of making electric or large dimensional signs here and even if we did we probably wouldn't offer installation.

Now death by vinyl... that would be quite the sight.
 
Rodi

Rodi

New Member
I used to set a lot of type for Sign Light, they were a top notch company, paid their bills quickly and were not cheap. Too bad.
 
Craig Sjoquist

Craig Sjoquist

New Member
Gees no engineer stamp on that install, what about the sign inspector, wiring had nothing to do with it collapsing.
To support that kind of weight, that wall needs to be stout, 2x6 wood framing with cross braces I believe not metal studs and drywall and whatever. gees

even a 4 x 8 sheet of 3/4 plywood secured to studs in wall might have been ok
 
3dsignco

3dsignco

New Member
It reads like they are going after the Individual Installers which if so is BS. It should be the owners if anyone. Here as an Owner I am the one who has to take the Exam for my Business not the employees. Then it is my Responsibility to make sure my employees are doing the job right. *Risk of Business* Hence Insurance.

I agree with Craig though where was the wet stamp if there was any question about the install and the inspection.

Hard to tell with out seeing the install and damage but I am willing to bet they used toggles or Backing plates on the Drywall/Stucco. "Sheet metal Backed Drywall" Well duh.. No structural integrity there at all and the Drywall ripped out/off the pop can studs

I see this a lot with new Malls. Either Double layer drywall with stucco or even worse the Styrofoam drivit setup.(Which I think has been banned from commercial structures).

Most of this should be placed back on the Architects,, You are building a Mall, Renting out space.. What do they think No one is going to put up signs.

They really need to start planning ahead on this stuff buy including a Sign Hanger bar in the initial construction. We all see covenants spec-ing the type of signs that can be installed so it isn't rocket science to add a Hanger bar behind the Studs attached to the red iron. A few extra $100 to do during construction.

Sorry for the rant but stuff like this Just Pisses me off.
 
G-Artist

G-Artist

New Member
The story is typical of reporters who have never worked an honest job a day in their lives.

Every meaningful and important fact was left out...but innuendo was paramount.

What [state] license was needed? Was there or was there not a local permit pulled?

From reading what folks here know about the install company I guess it is safe to assume
they are licensed locally.

220 pounds is nothing, weight-wise, for a solid wall to bear.

The only reason that collapse could happen, IMHO, is that the sign was attached strictly to the facade and not the underlying wall which should be a rated load bearing one.
 
D

dfeicke

New Member
I think we all know that in today's world, shortcuts are being taken in just about all fields of work.

Cheap labor is being employed; and regular laborers are being made to do things they are not qualified to do (like installing channel letters or big signs), to save money over hiring professionals.

I've seen channel letters in malls, installed with the GTO cables running right thru the drivit (plywood) walls, with no glass insulators. This is a recipe for disaster. But, developers (and mall owners) are well noted for cutting corners where they can. It's an 'out of sight, out of mind' thing.
 
surf city

surf city

New Member
From the picture it looks like the whole soffit section came down so I would say it's unlikely they used toggles to fasten it. But, judging from the way it came down it appears the soffit was incorrectly built to withstand any weight attached to it. There doesn't seem to have been any bracing that was attached behind it. i would say whoever built it did a poor job but then again if I was hanging a sign on it I think I would have checked to see if the soffitt had any "girth" to it meaning, will it move if weight was attached to it.
 
G-Artist

G-Artist

New Member
It is hard to tell from the picture but it looks like there are no uprights that the facade was
attached to. If that sign was illuminated, you'd think someone would have noticed it when
they ran the wiring if not before.
 
Billct2

Billct2

Active Member
Si Allen

Si Allen

New Member
If the sign pulled down 200 feet of the bulkhead ... the fault goes back to the architect!

If a C7 license is required ... it means that an electrical outlet is already in place at the sign location. In my experience, the method of attachment would have been called out on the blueprint.

Many times I have wound up screaming at the architect ... telling him that I had nothing [FONT=&quot]substantial[/FONT] to hang the sign on ... and to issue a change order to correct it!

The sign did not fail ... the structure failed.
 
3dsignco

3dsignco

New Member
Looking at the Photos. The Installers should not have taken it for granted that it would handle the weight..But should really fall back to the Builder, Architect and whoever signed off the CO

At minimum a Tie Back to the main wall.. That was just a Dummy wall with no structural integrity at all.

That whole wall was just an Accident waiting to happen.
 
signage

signage

New Member
1leonchen said:
Glad no one was seriously hurt or killed! stufff happens
Click to expand...


Stuff like this shouldn't happen! This problem mainly lies on the Architect/Engineering Co. and inspectors. The sign company/installer is also at fault due to not making sure what he is attaching to is structurally sound enough to support what they are installing, if they didn't know or were not sure then he should have gotten an engineer involved!
Most Mall and shopping centers have sign specifications, which say what types of signs are allowed and usually state allowable square footage. Part of these specs are to keep things looking consistent and making sure adequate supporting structures are in place to support the allowed signs!
 
A

andy

New Member
The space above a shop frontage is ALWAYS used for hanging signs... that's what it's there for.

This sign company have been stitched up like a kipper... the architect should NEVER have signed off on a cr@ppy plasterboard construction when it's obvious to ANYONE that a shop fascia is required to support load. Wrong materials, wrong construction methods and you can guarantee that NO ONE asked a structural engineer to look at this fascia design BEFORE it was built.

The centre management should have issued construction drawings to ALL sign companies working in their building.. they have a record of exactly how this jerry built fascia system was thrown together. If anyone had bothered with load bearing calculations at the design stage the centre management would be able to hand out figures for maximum load per square foot and specifications for fixings to be used.

In this case the poor old sign maker has made a fatal error... they've trusted the construction professionals to design and build a fascia system which meets the basic requirements of a retail fascia.... the ability to bear load safely.

Another issue which is lacking from the original story is accumulated loading... this sign tore out 200ft of plasterboard so it's clear that the entire fascia run is a connected construction. It could be entirely possible that this "defective" sign installation was exactly the same as others on the same fascia run.... the reason the entire fascia let go could be as simple as the final sign being the straw that broke the camels back.... the other signs were just about holding but the added weight of the last sign tipped the whole fascia over the point of no return.

On old shop frontages it's normal to do a lot of poking around to find out exactly what lies beneath.. a new fascia in a location dedicated to retail sales? I think most people would quite rightly assume that a new build was constructed to modern building regs and would therefore be adequate by design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top