Engineers Find Façade Failure at E. Wilson Morrison, Main Structural System Shows No Visible Distress

Engineers investigating E. Wilson Morrison Elementary School have traced significant movement in the building’s brick exterior to problems within portions of its wall system, while finding no visible structural distress in the concrete frame or foundation areas they inspected.

The findings provide a more detailed picture of the condition of the Crescent Street school. While much of the movement appears concentrated in exterior walls constructed after 1945, engineers also documented possible movement of some cinder block load-bearing walls behind the brick veneer. That means more investigation is needed before the full extent of repairs — or the overall condition of the affected walls — can be determined.

Kluber Architects + Engineers conducted a field survey on Aug. 24 and issued its structural façade assessment on Aug. 31. Additional wall openings were created by a contractor on Aug. 25 to give engineers a better view of concealed construction.

The investigation followed the discovery of masonry pulling away from the school. An unsafe structure notice had been issued Aug. 22.

The most significant visible problem was at the main southern entrance, where the brick veneer had moved approximately 2 to 3 inches away from the building at second-floor level.

Engineers found additional evidence of movement along northern and eastern portions of the post-1945 construction.

Despite the dramatic appearance of the displaced brick, the report does not describe evidence of a widespread failure of the school’s concrete structural frame.

Inside the building, engineers examined the concrete columns, beams, and floor slabs that support the second story. A photograph of an existing concrete column and beam along the southern façade specifically notes that no structural distress was observed.

The first-floor ceiling cavity also gave engineers a view of the concrete beam-and-slab system supporting the second floor.

Below the first floor, engineers entered a shallow crawl space running along the exterior southern wall. There, they observed a cast-in-place concrete foundation wall with no visible distress or displacement.

The report states that no apparent foundation settlement was found in the area inspected.

Engineers also examined the roof structure. Portions of the post-1945 construction use steel joist framing, and photographs from above the second-floor library show newer joist construction with a bulb-tee Tectum roof decking system. Evidence of older roof construction was also visible.

Overall, Kluber reported that the concrete superstructure and roof framing appeared to be in good working condition.

That finding is important, but it does not amount to a declaration that the entire building is structurally sound.

The report was a visual façade assessment, not a complete structural analysis of the school. No physical testing or sampling of building materials was performed, and no structural analysis of the building framing systems or façade system had been completed when the report was issued.

The additional photographs also show that the concern is not limited solely to loose exterior brick.

Openings in the northern and eastern façades revealed what engineers described as outward displacement of the cinder-block load-bearing wall, as well as cavity-wall construction.

Inside the second-floor library, engineers noted possible movement of a cinder block wall based on an area of exposed unfinished concrete slab beneath the carpet. Another photograph documented the separation of the vertical sealant between the wall and the casework.

In a nearby second-floor storage closet, cracking and separation were observed between the floor base and wall.

Those observations require further investigation, but the report also documents areas where suspected movement was not confirmed.

In a second-floor bathroom at the far southwest corner, for example, engineers found no evidence of the horizontal displacement suspected from an exterior wall opening.

Together, the observations point to a complicated problem involving different parts of a school that was constructed and expanded over several decades.

The original E. Wilson Morrison school was built on Crescent Street in 1910. In 1935, the property underwent rebuilding and expansion, including a two-story Colonial Revival masonry structure at the eastern end of the site and a gymnasium.

Around 1942, the original 1910 school was destroyed by fire and demolished.

A second two-story Colonial Revival structure was built at the western end of the site in 1945, using construction methods similar to those of the 1935 building.

Additional two-story masonry sections were then constructed sometime between 1945 and 1960 to connect the two Colonial Revival buildings.

The differences between those construction periods are central to what engineers are now finding.

The 1935 and 1945 Colonial Revival buildings use what the report calls “mass-wall” construction. Those walls contain multiple layers, or wythes, of brick masonry tied together to form a thick wall.

Historic construction documents reviewed by Kluber indicate those buildings use three wythes of brick.

Their second floors are framed with reinforced-concrete beams and structural slabs, supported by concrete columns and masonry bearing walls. The roof structure includes structural steel trusses and beams with precast concrete planks. The buildings are supported on conventional reinforced-concrete spread footings.

The later additions connecting the older structures were built differently.

Kluber did not have original construction documents for those areas, but contractors opened portions of the walls so engineers could inspect the construction.

They found a cinder block structural wall behind a separate exterior brick veneer. Metal ties connect the brick to the load-bearing wall.

This early form of cavity-wall construction depends on a narrow space between the brick and structural wall to manage water. Moisture that gets behind the exterior brick is supposed to travel downward through the cavity and drain out of the wall.

Engineers found that the system was not functioning as intended.

They were unable to locate drainage weeps, and openings showed that the cavity between the brick and cinder block was extremely small in places and clogged with excess mortar.

This can trap moisture inside the wall and expose the metal ties to prolonged damp conditions.

Engineers believe deterioration of those ties is a primary cause of the brick veneer losing its lateral support.

The inspection found other evidence that water has entered or could enter the wall system.

Sealant around several windows on the southern façade was dried, separated or failed. One stone windowsill was horizontally cracked, which engineers said suggested water infiltration into the cavity-wall system.

The southern wall also receives extensive sunlight, adding another source of stress.

Brick expands as it heats, and the report explains that brick and cinder masonry react differently to temperature changes. Engineers believe that years of thermal expansion, combined with moisture-related deterioration, likely contributed to the failure of the metal ties.

As more ties fail, the exterior brick loses the lateral restraint provided by the structural wall behind it. The veneer can then buckle under its own weight or pull outward.

That condition was clearly visible during the inspection.

Photographs 35 through 39 document noticeable outward displacement of the southern façade relative to the window frames. Other photographs show separated window sealant, cracking and gaps around stone sills.

Movement was not limited to the south side.

Engineers documented minor façade movement on the northern wall. Openings there revealed similar cavity-wall construction, and photographs show outward displacement of the cinder-block load-bearing wall.

An opening in the eastern façade also showed outward displacement of the cinder block wall and cavity-wall construction.

Those findings help explain why engineers are calling for additional openings before recommending a permanent repair.

At this stage, the report presents a mixed but important picture of the building’s structural condition.

The reinforced concrete frame components that engineers observed did not exhibit visible structural distress. The concrete foundation wall inspected beneath the southern façade showed no visible distress or displacement. The roof framing appeared to be in good working condition.

There was also no visible evidence of foundation settlement in the area examined.

At the same time, the exterior brick veneer has experienced substantial movement, and there are indications that some load-bearing cinder block walls may also have shifted. Interior separation and cracking were documented in limited areas near those walls.

That distinction is why the report does not simply characterize the issue as cosmetic brick damage.

Kluber concluded that the façade instability is related to the cavity-wall construction and its inability to drain effectively. The clogged cavity and lack of visible drainage likely contributed to the failure of the metal ties supporting the brick veneer.

But determining exactly how much of the backup cinder block wall has moved, and what that means for permanent repairs, will require additional investigation.

For now, engineers recommend that access to the building remain restricted.

They also recommend temporarily shoring the roof framing above the second floor to reduce loading on the exterior walls while the investigation continues.

Larger openings are to be made at selected locations in the existing façade, from both the interior and exterior. Those openings will allow engineers to gather more information about the connections between the brick veneer and cinder block construction and better determine the condition of concealed portions of the wall.

After that supplemental investigation, engineers expect to evaluate whether the affected exterior walls can be retrofitted or repaired or whether portions of the façade will need to be replaced.

Only then can estimated costs for the façade work be developed.

The report does not provide a repair cost, reopening date, or final determination on the future use of the building.

It also places clear limits on its findings.

Kluber’s conclusions are based on conditions that were accessible and visually observable during the inspection from the ground, lifts, and ladders. No physical testing or material sampling was conducted.

No full structural analysis of either the building framing or façade system was performed.

For that reason, the report provides evidence that several major components of the building — particularly the observed concrete frame, foundation wall, and roof framing — show no visible signs of structural failure. But it does not certify the overall building as structurally sound.

The next investigation will be important in determining whether movement is confined mainly to the veneer and portions of the cinder-block backup walls, or whether more extensive structural work will be required.

For now, the engineering findings point most strongly to the post-1945 cavity-wall system as the source of the problem rather than settlement or visible deterioration of the school’s primary concrete frame.

Photos of the inspection are in the Structural Report below:

Structural Façade Assessment – Part 1

Structural Façade Assessment – Part 2