INITIAL REPORT

Neal Mitchell Associates

Tel: 508-234-8646 1041 Sutton Street, Northbridge, MA 01534 Fax: 508-234-8759 e-mail: nmitchell2@aol.com

July 15, 2011

Attorney Victor M. Anop Friends of Mater Dolorosa 103 Bridle Path Road Chicopee, MA 01013 RE: Structural Inspection Mater Dolorosa Parish Church, Holyoke Dear Attorney Anop: At your request, I have visited this church to conduct an initial structural review and verification of the alleged claim about the imminent structural failure of the bell-tower/steeple of this church. My visual inspection included extensive photographs along with sketches of the towers structural system. I have also reviewed the report Structural Conditions Assessment Report of the Mater Dolorosa Parish Church that was prepared by Engineering Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) of West Springfield. I am a Registered Structural Engineer in the State of Massachusetts (#18222), and I have been practicing structural engineering for the last 45 years. During that time I have been involved in the design and construction of buildings not only in this country but also in many countries around the world. I have also had extensive experience in the evaluation of existing structures to determine structural adequacy. Clearly the Mater Dolorosa Church is one of the architectural landmarks of Holyoke. It is an elegant building with a cultural heritage that extends over 110 years. It would appear that this church is a cultural landmark as well as being an important architectural building in the community. I was impressed by the character of the church as a contributor to the overall fabric of the community. As a visiting Professor at the Department of Architecture at the University of Notre Dame I had the rare opportunity of having extensive architectural discussions on church architecture with the then Chairman of the Department of Architecture. At the time he was considered one of the worlds leading scholars on the design of Catholic churches. I believe that he would have considered the Mater Dolorosa Church as an American Landmark. This church is clearly an architectural treasure. My inspection confirmed many of the observations reported by Engineering Design Associates, Inc in their revised Report of May 2, 2011. However, I take issue with some of the conclusions contained in that report as well as the priorities that were given for suggested repairs, as well as with the nature of some of the suggested repairs. I have been asked to investigate many churches around this state. The Mater Dolorosa Church is in the best physical condition of any of the churches that I have investigated. However, for most churches the clergys program of ongoing maintenance is both poorly managed and also poorly implemented. The problems that I observed at the Mater Dolorosa Church should have been addressed in any ongoing maintenance program. Therefore, perhaps it is best to first address some of the issues that were identified in the Engineering Design Associates, Inc. Report so that my overall comments can be put in context. This discussion will establish the lack of severity associated with the identified problems, and possible alternatives to consider for the necessary repairs.

EXTERIOR FRONT STAIRS I agree that all three front stairs require remedial work. The joins need to be filled with mortar, but the assertion that the foundations need to be repaired is really a significant stretch. Certainly minor maintenance procedures will make these steps usable, so the allegation for new foundations with an expenditure of $3,845 is hard to justify, when a cost of only $20 would be required to fill the open joints with mortar. Filling these joints would solve this problem.

FIRST FLOOR There is no question that the rotted bean has caused the floor to drop creating a problem at the Altar. The simple solution is to jack this beam and to add a temporary support under the section of the beam that has not rotted. A more elegant solution would be to jack the beam and add flitch plates that extend from the un-rotted section to the beam to the support wall. These steel plates would re-establish the proper bearing capacity and necessary structural strength of the beam at the support. The EDA Report suggests that the replacement of this beam will cost $3,425 while the jacking and the addition of the flitch plates could probably be implemented for a cost of about $250.

BEARING WALL ASSEMBLY (Choir Loft) The wall cracks in the plaster finish in the choir loft occur at the interface between a stud wall and the brick pier. Considering normal movements of materials it is clear that cracks often develop when different materials are adjacent to one another, and then the joint is covered by plaster. I do not believe that this is a structural crack. A proper expansion joint needs be added at this interface of two materials. The estimated cost of this repair in the EDA Report is $2,565. Although rated as Priority #2 it could easily be relegated to Priority #5 without causing any problems in the church itself. This is simply a cosmetic problem that is easily repaired. It should probably be done under normal maintenance at a cost that would be less than the proposed EDA estimated cost.

REPAIR AND REPLACE SLATE ROOFING In general a slate roof is considered to have a useful life of 100 years. It is clear that this roof has already lasted 110 years with minor repairs. It is clear that additional minor repairs are required to replace broken or missing slates. It is also clear that overall wear on the roof is beginning to show with slate deterioration. At some point the entire roof will need to be repaired. Generally this is an expensive undertaking so I suggest setting up a re-roofing fund with the goal of replacing this slate roof in five to six years. If leaks develop then this program will need to be accelerated, but if the repairs are both small and effective this re-roofing effort could easily be pushed to ten years. However, it is also clear that this roof will need complete replacement at some point in the future because it is showing the deterioration that occurs when the slates finally wear out. The cost of a new slate roof will be expensive and the suggestion of the EDA Report to replace the lower roof first is an interesting first step in the overall roof repair.

REPAIR CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MAIN CHURCH Most of the repairs for the main church are trivial in cost. My guess is that the identified issues could be cleared up with the normal maintenance budget for this building. The only expensive and critical undertaking would be the slate roof and I believe that this issue can be dealt with in five to ten years although the Church should be setting funds aside for this repair at some time in the future.

SYSTEM (STEEPLE) The staging that has been erected around the front of this building is clearly foolish. It is a waste of money, and it accomplishes nothing. The representation has been made that the steeple is about to fail. That is simply an improper statement. The suggestion has also been made that the bricks will fall out of this bell-tower/steeple, but although the bricks do need re-pointing, the entire brick structure of this church is in reasonable condition. There has been no instance of bricks falling from this structure. Therefore, I believe that this type of failure is also unlikely. I have investigated brick pops on other buildings and the bricks in this bell-tower/steeple are in far better condition than the failure situations that I have investigated on other buildings. In addition, the staging that is presently in place would not protect anyone if in fact the bell-tower/steeple failed. The protection that is offered by the present system of staging around the front of this church would only offer minimal protection against a brick falling from the top of this bell-tower/steeple. The EDA Report claims that it will require $111,970 to properly repair the bell-tower/steeple. I suspect that the actual work could be done for much less because I see the need for a different type of repair action. However, before anything can be done to this structure the droppings from the birds must be properly cleaned and the openings to the outside must be properly sealed so that birds can no longer get into the tower. To accomplish this work new and proper ladders must be installed so that workmen can easily move up through the various levels in this bell-tower/steeple. The present access is severely limited by broken and flimsy ladders, and the work that needs to be accomplished in the various spaces cannot proceed without first having a proper clean up. The point has been made in the EDA Report that some of the heavy timbers in this bell tower are badly checked. I agree, but these members can be easily repaired with properly attached steel mending plates. This is a typical repair process for checked members in heavy timber mill construction. I estimate that all of the checked timbers can be repaired to full strength for under $1,000 for materials. These members have not been compromised by material deterioration, but rather by the checking that is caused by shrinking of the wood in these members. Properly attached mending plates can restore full strength of heavy timber members. Perhaps the most elegant aspect of this bell-tower/steeple design is the creativity that the designers used in the overall structural design of this structure. The structure itself is a combination of brick bearing walls with heavy timber construction integrated into the exterior brick skin. This structure is reinforced against wind by a tension cage of four metal rods at the four corners of the bell-tower/steeple. In all of the church towers that I have investigated, this is by far the most interesting and cleverest structural solution that I have seen. The bell in the tower is supported by two small steel beams. To permit people to hear this bell there are two large louvered arch windows on each of the four faces of this bell-tower/steeple. These large windows seriously reduce the tower mass at this level. The builders obvious concern was that these windows would reduce the lateral strength of the tower at this location, so the tension cage made with four two story rods was introduced in this bell-tower/steeple. This tension cage also holds down the steeple above the bell room against being blown over by the wind. The brick walls are strong in compression but weak in tension, so the tension rod frames were introduced by the original designers to carry any tension in the tower that was caused by wind. The support for these rods is based on their attachment to heavy timbers that are imbedded in the thick outside walls in the lower part of the bell-tower/steeple. These timbers run diagonal across the corners of the tower to decrease their span which helps to provide proper restraint for the tension rods.

The Steeple Is Essentially A heavy Timber Structure Sitting On Brick Walls. It Is Held In Place By The Tension Cage Cross Section Sketch Of The Tower

Top Of Tension Rods Showing Connection To Steeple (Above) Bottom Of Tension Rods Showing Diagonal Attachment to Walls (Below)

The integration of the heavy timbers with the outside brick walls at lower sections of the tower wall insures proper embedment with a short member span and sufficient wall weight on the timber supports. The maize of heavy timber at the top of these rods illustrates the designers decision to tie the steeple and the Bell Room to the more massive structure that exists in the lower sections of this tower. The structural design for wind resistance is ingenious, and it has been carefully overdesigned to insure the proper stability of this bell-tower/steeple. At the present time these tension rods are loose. Over the years the wood has shrunk which has introduced some flexibility in these rods. I suspect that the threads on these rods have rusted to the point where these rods can no longer be tightened with a wrench, but simple shims can also be inserted to upgrade these tension rods to their full capacity. In my opinion, this assemblage of brick, heavy timber and the tension cage with steel rods is the most elegant and strongest solution that I have ever seen for a tower like this. There is no way that this tower will ever fail with this structural combination. The strength of this bell-tower/steeple is attested by the fact that it is standing without problems after 110 years of service. The steeple on top of the bell room is composed of heavy timbers that are attached to the top frame of the tension cables so that this tension cage assemblage essentially holds the steeple cap in place. Fortunately the heavy timber assemblage is strong enough to hold things in place, with the tension rods actually providing an additional factor of safety. I advise re-tightening these rods to reestablish the increased safety factor that is associated with this tension cage construction. The bell floor (and above and below) has been open to the outside environment for many years so along with the effects of the bird droppings, the mortar joints in the brickwork has been compromised in places. This needs to be rectified once the bird droppings have been cleaned up and the scope of the problem can be more precisely determined. Our check of the brick indicated that the brick had not deteriorated, but questions exist about the condition of some of the joint mortar. Certainly any deteriorated mortar could be properly repaired by a good mason. I do not consider this to be a major job because the problems are limited, but I would allocate three to four days for two men to review and complete the necessary work. At best we are talking about a cost of $25,000 to perform the necessary maintenance on the interior of this bell-tower/steeple. Nothing in this structure needs to be replaced, only repaired. The repair requires steel mending plates for the beams, shims for the tension rods, mortar for the bricks, and plywood to close up the louvered openings and other openings that permit bird entry. For the loose tension rods it might be less expensive to just cut them to remove them and then replace these rods with new rods and end plates and nuts.
6

I estimate that it will take another $25,000 to clean up the bird droppings to a point where people can safely work in these spaces. Significant savings for this work should be possible with the selection of the proper people to do the clean up. The cost of this clean up must be under the direction of a qualified contractor who can do this type of work within the guidelines provided by the State of Massachusetts

CONCLUSION This bell-tower/steeple is clearly NOT in imminent danger of falling down. Obviously maintenance with some repairs will be needed to bring this structure up to its initial design strength. The initial design strength far exceeds the required design strength. It is very important to seal off this bell-tower/steeple from bird entry and to clean the area of bird droppings. This bird entry situation has been ongoing for many years, and it should be corrected now that the bell is no longer being used. The heavy timbers used in this construction are significantly overdesigned, but good maintenance requires that steel mending plates get applied over the badly checked sections. This checking situation is common in all of the old mill buildings that were constructed using heavy timber. In addition, the timbers in this structure are old timber so its strength is usually 25% to 50% greater than the present day rapidly grown timber. The tension rods should be re-tensioned so that the tension cage in the upper section of this tower can be brought back to its original strength. This entire assembly has an overall strength that greatly exceeds any wind loading that should be expected on this structure. The fact that some of the original strength has been lost over the years suggests that there is massive overdesign of this bell-tower/steeple structure. Our check of the basic integrity of the bricks in this upper section confirms the fact these bricks remain satisfactory so only the mortar is in question. These bricks need re-pointing, but again this activity should be considered as normal maintenance. Obviously once the area is sanitized this situation will require a more detailed investigation of the brickwork to determine the extent of this re-pointing, but this is a straightforward masonry repair activity. My suggested repairs and costs are based on similar repairs that I have supervised for repairs on several heavy timber buildings. This work has involved buildings in Boston and Cambridge as well as in Central Massachusetts. I estimate the costs of this maintenance work for the bell-tower/steeple (including clean up) to be less than $50,000. Judicious local hiring by the church using friends of the church could significantly reduce this cost. In that these repairs are essentially maintenance repairs being done in rather tight spaces, it permits the use of small local contractors. It is also clear that the scaffolding around the front of this church just doesnt make any sense. The allegations that this bell-tower/steeple will fail are clearly unfounded, and instead the structure of this bell-tower/steeple needs to be properly maintained. I would guess that the strength of this tower, with its unique design, far exceeds the strength of any other bell/tower/steeple in the area. However, the use of a larger roofing contractor with a lift truck will be needed to repair broken slates on the steeple and the main roof. I recommend the use of a contractor that has significant experience with slate roofing for these roofing tasks. All of the work that I have identified in this Report can be done while the church is being used. My suggestions involve repairs to the structure and not structural changes. These repairs will bring the structure back up to its original strength, and this repair (maintenance) activity does not jeopardize the use of the building.
7

There is nothing that I saw that cant be easily repaired at minimal cost. It is also clear that this is not an impending failure situation of this bell-tower/steeple structure. The tightening of the tension rods and the mending plate design and location should be work that is done under the direction of a Professional Engineer. The Building Department of Holyoke will require this level of professional control to insure that proper repairs are made. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely

Neal B. Mitchell, Jr. P.E. S.E. MA #18222

LOAD ANALYSIS REPORT

Neal Mitchell Associates

Tel: 508-234-8646 1041 Sutton Street, Northbridge, MA 01534 Fax: 508-234-8759 e-mail: nmitchell2@aol.com

July 21, 2011 Attorney Victor M. Anop Friends of Mater Dolorosa 103 Bridle Path Road Chicopee, MA 01013 Dear Victor: At the Press Conference Peter Stasz gave me a copy of the Diocese of Springfields DECREE relating to the Bishops closing of Mater Dolorosa church. I admit that I was really shocked by the statements in this Decree, and the justification that was used to close your church. I question the statement in the DECREE; it is only a matter of time before there is either a partial or complete failure of the wood framed steeple structure, which is attributed to the Engineering Report that was prepared by Engineering Design Associates, Inc. (EDA). It is clear that the interpretation of this statement is open to question because in time most structures that are not maintained eventually fail. However, the assumption that this failure is imminent is an improper conclusion in my opinion. In fact, it is obvious that this steeple structure is NOT in any danger of failing in the foreseeable future. The DECREE goes on to suggest the dangers associated with this collapse. In fact, I understand that the engineer for the Diocese has suggested taking this steeple down before the strong winds of the fall. It is interesting that this tower has stood for over 110 years in all types of winds with no sign of failure, but now the situation is dire. I stated at your Press Conference that these statements of imminent failure were simply foolish.

The Steeple In Question

A proper Engineering Report always provides computational evidence to support catastrophic claims like this. In fact, this EDC report draws its conclusions on simple observations without any computational support. At the Press Conference I stated just the opposite opinion, based on my inspection and my experience. Anyone with experience in building could look at this structure and draw similar conclusions to mine, but a Reporter at the Press Conference seemed confused that two so-called experts could have such divergent views. Therefore, I decided to provide you with the computational evidence to prove my point and which was lacking in the EDA Report. It is interesting that although the Report by EDC purports to be a Comprehensive Analysis, it is in fact a series of observations that are quite straightforward until the steeple level 3 is addressed. It is also fairly obvious from the comments that the actual structural behavior of the Bell-Tower/Steeple was not understood, and therefore, the recommendation to remove the steeple is flawed.
1

The statement One of our duties as a professional engineering firm, is to protect the public health and safety is a fundamental requirement for any engineer. However, when an engineer invokes this responsibility it is incumbent on a professional to support his engineering conclusions with a more complete analysis. Therefore, I believe that the statement; Based upon the observations made, it is our recommendation that the pitched roof structure of the steeple be removed is technically unsupported in the EDA Report. I take issue with this statement, and therefore, I offer the following commentary and rough computations to support my observations. I have also read Mr. Duponts comments to the newspaper, and his support of his engineers findings on your steeple. His apparent lack of understanding solidified my need to provide you with a rough overview of the various loads on the steeple so that you would have some technical basis for your discussion of the EDA Report with him. I believe that the following detail will support my observations and provide you with the details needed to educate Mr. Dupont on basic structural behavior.

ROUGH DIMENSIONS OF THE STEEPLE I have not actually measured the steeple, so my dimensions are not exact, but they are roughly right. There is an old Dutch saying that: It is better to be roughly right than exactly wrong. However, based on the numbers it is clear that these dimensions are not that sensitive to actual differences, so this selection of dimension numbers should be sufficient to get an overall idea of the various loading conditions. I estimate that the overall dimension at the top of the bell room to be 12 square, and the steeple height at 30. The actual steeple base of the conical section is estimated at 10. These dimensions are illustrated in the adjacent sketch. I was not able to measure the actual steeple height so I proportioned the dimensions so that they represented a reasonable estimate of the various components. The idea was to get an order-of-magnitude estimate of the various loads that are associated with this steeple. Rough estimates are a reasonable way to get an understanding of the overall structural behavior.

WIND LOADS The analysis procedures for wind loading on buildings are covered in Section 6 Wind Loads (ASCE Standard Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures). These methods include factors for tanks and chimneys but not flat sided conical towers like the Mater Dolorosa Steeple. Rather than search the literature for a more exact analysis procedure for structures similar to this steeple, I have uses the more simplistic procedures provided in 780 CMR (The Massachusetts State Building Code) with conservative assumptions to get a general estimate of the wind loading on this steeple. The Massachusetts State Building Code (780 CMR) sets the design wind speed for Holyoke at 90 mph [(Table 5301.2(4)]. This wind speed considers the effect of gusts. The pressure on a structure caused by
2

this wind velocity is presented in 780 CMR Table 5611.7.4. This table sets the design pressure value based on the Exposure Designation that is defined in the Code. For design purposes an Exposure of B would be considered for this steeple based on the height of the steeple, and the surface roughness that can be attributed to air flow that is caused by the surrounding buildings. The pressure associated with a 90 mph wind with exposure B is 16 psf. However, I have selected a conservative assumption of Exposure Level C which is usually used for open country and water locations where the surface roughness is minimal. A 90 mph wind with Exposure C has a design pressure of 21 psf. To be conservative in my analysis I have used the design pressure of 21 psf. The shape of the steeple affects the loading from the wind. From Direction A there is one flat surface and two angled surfaces with an overall dimension that is identical to load B which has a load against two angles surfaces. The sides of the steeple that are not perpendicular to the wind tend to shed the wind load. In effect, the wind pressure is never fully engaged with the non-perpendicular surfaces. However, I have used the conservative assumption that the all of the wind pressure is applied to the steeple cross section using a 10 perpendicular surface. In other words, my study involves very conservative assumptions of both pressure and surface area. The suction on the back side of the steeple is reflected in my use of the overall flat area. The surface area of the steeple for wind loading is (1/2) bh = 0.5 (10) (30) = 150 sq ft. With a 21 psf design pressure this creates a wind loading on the steeple of (150) (21) = 3,150 lbs. Assuming this load acts at 1/3 of the height of the steeple, this loading results in an overturning moment at point A of (3,150) (10) = 32,000 ft lb. This is the design load for wind action on this steeple with these admittedly conservative assumptions. The EDA Report suggests that it is this wind that will push this steeple over, and it is only a matter of time before there is either a partial or complete failure of the wood framed steeple structure (Supplement A of the EDA Report, and this is the obvious concern of the Bishop). This EDA observation has been made without the proper engineering support. When catastrophic situations are being suggested, most engineers back up their statements with proper computational details. There are no supporting details or computations for this statement in the EDA Report. However, with proper details this observation can be easily challenged. In fact commons sense should be enough for anyone to conclude that these statements are erroneous. However, the following information serves to prove the fact that even with conservative assumptions the potential failure of the steeple is not a reasonable conclusion.

WEIGHT OF THE STEEPLE Part of the resistance to this EDA expected catastrophic failure will be the actual weight of the steeple itself. The steeple is constructed of heavy timber members, sheathing and a slate roof. I estimated the
3

weight of the basic wood structure at 15 psf. The weight of the Slate roof is between 8 and 15 psf based on industry standards. After review of several sources, and considering the way that this building was built, I estimated the weight of the slate roof to be 12 psf. Therefore, the total dead weight of the steeple will be 27 psf based on the surface area of the steeple. The steeple is essentially a cone and the surface area of a cone is [ s(Slant Height) + r2] which in this case equals 556.3 sq ft. At a weight of 27 psf it makes the weight of the roof structure (without the steeple gables) = (556.3) (27) = 15,020 lbs. Adding the four gables brings this up to an estimated 16,000 lb. Therefore, the weight of the steeple to resist the overturning force of the wind is (16,000) (6) = 95,000 ft lbs. at point A. The wind loading on the steeple creates a moment at point A of 32,000 ft lbs, and the weight of the steeple creates a resisting moment of 95,000 ft lb. Therefore, the effect of the weight of the steeple is (95,000/32,000 = 3) or three times greater than the effects of the wind loading). It is interesting that just the dead load of the steeple has 3 times the capacity needed to resist the wind loads. A factor of 3 is a bit higher than a conventional factor of safety that any designer would use in the design of this steeple. The weight of the steeple is essentially independent of any loss due to deterioration or age. With a factor of safety of this steeple against overturning of 3 this clearly indicates that with no other attachments, that this steeple will has a reasonable factor of safety against failure due to the weight of the steeple alone. How can anyone claim that this steeple is in imminent danger of falling down due to wind loading?

TIMBER ATTACHMENTS TO THE MASONRY In addition to the weight of the steeple, there is also an extensive connection system of heavy timber members that connect the steeple to both the cross beam in the bell room as well as connections to the masonry. This nest of heavy timber and supports represents a separate attachment system that can hold the steeple down and resist the effects of the wind. See the pictures each side. I believe that it is safe to estimate these multiple timber attachments and connections inside the steeple as well as the connections of this wood to the brick in the bell-tower provides at least the same resistance of the wind load as the steeple weight itself. As you can see by the pictures this wood
4

connection system is in excellent shape. This assembly of heavy timber connectors also helps hold the steeple in place against sliding. If you assume that the overturning resistance of these timbers at least matches the steeple weight (It is probably greater) then the resistance to overturning increases to 180,000 ft lbs to resist a wind overturning moment of 32,000 ft lb. This increases the factor of safety to (180,000/32000 = 6). I have never designed a structure with this high a factor of safety, but in 1902 these design considerations make good sense on a building as important as a church steeple.

THE TENSION CAGE The designers of this church added a unique tension cage to this structure that was designed to provide an added factor of safety. This tension cage location is illustrated in the sketch on the right. It appears that this hold down technique was often used in churches that were designed in this period. I had never seen tension rods used like this, although tension rods in other locations were in common use in the construction of the old mill buildings at that time. The contribution of these metal rods must be added to the hold-down capacity of the steeple. I assumed the use of 3/4 steel rods with a yield strength of 36,000 psi. I also assumed that the design would utilize 80% of the yield strength of the rods. These assumptions provide a rod strength of [0.8 (36,000) (.6) = 17,000 lbs]. With two rods and a moment arm of 10, this adds an additional resisting force of [(2) (17,000) (10) = 340,000 ft lbs] against the wind force that is trying to tip this steeple over. Considering the wind loading moment of 32,000 ft lb then this adds an additional factor of safety of [(340,000/ 32000) = 11]. This rough computation illustrates that the overall factor of safety against overturning from the wind loads is 17. The forces resisting the overturning of the steeple due to wind loads are 17 times greater than the wind loads that are trying to create a failure condition. I would be very surprised if the design assumptions that EDAs engineers are using for their work for their clients ever exceeds 3. I think that it is safe to say that there is no other building in Holyoke with this factor of safety. Why then is this steeple going to fall over? Well the tie rods are loose so you dont get their full benefit. However, to tighten them only requires a few shims, and this would bring them back to a full strength contribution. This is a low cost fix ($100) so why wasnt this proposed?
5

It can be pointed out that there is some serious checking in a few of these old timbers. I see this condition all the time in the renovation of the old heavy timber buildings. In many cases these cracks have minimal impact on the strength of these members, when newer computational procedures are used, and when the strength of this old growth timber is considered. In some cases of buildings that I have worked on I have been concerned about load carrying capacity of checked beams. To fix this problem I have done what the old engineers did when they repaired the old mill buildings. I have added steel plates (which are sometimes called Flitch Plates). Proper attachment and the proper design of these mending plates is not a complex engineering task, and there are only a few members in this structure that need to be considered for plates like this. I expect that these beam checks developed in the first 10 years after this building was built, because this is the time frame that most heavy timber beams actually dry out. This drying produces shrinkage of the heavy timbers which is why the tension rods are loose, and during this time most of the checks develop. This means that the conditions that we are now observing have probably existed for 100 years. Why was nothing done to maintain these members and this structure? Buildings that are not properly maintained is really a classic slum lord procedure. Obviously the people that built this church assumed that maintenance would be minimal so they compensated with over design. However, even with the problems that have existed for many years it is clear that there is no danger of this steeple blowing over in the Winds this fall. In other words the claim that this steeple is going to fail is simply foolish. Checked beams, loose tie rods etc are not enough to reduce this factor of safety to a level that would cause concern. In addition, all of these problems can easily be corrected with normal maintenance at a cost that is well under $1,000. I understand why in 1902 the designers of this steeple were so careful. At that time no one knew the actual wind loads or pressure, the bell-room was open because of the vents, and the designers wanted to absolutely certain that under no conditions would this steeple fall down. I completely agree with their concerns and their design assumptions. I still believe that this was a clever design by skilled artisans. Remember, this was built at a time when the mill buildings in Holyoke were being built, so the skills with heavy timber and brick were highly developed. This church was built the same way they would build a factory, so overdesign of the critical elements was a standard procedure. There has been no question about the stability of the brick bell-tower which is both massive and in good shape. The observations that EDA made about loose tie rods and checked beams represent a maintenance deficiency and these conditions are not the basis for catastrophic failure. My guess is that the timber shrinkage took place in the first ten years so these tie rods have been loose for the last 100 years. Timber checking also usually takes place when the timbers dry out, so I assume that the observed checking has also taken place in the first ten years after initial construction. It would appear that all of the identified problems have been in existence for the last 100 years. With all of this the steeple has stood the test of wind loads, so now the assertion of potential failure just lacks credibility. I talked with several older members of your parish and they told me that the members regularly contributed to a maintenance fund, but maintenance was rarely ever done. Why wasnt proper maintenance performed on this important asset? Why now, when maintenance could be so inexpensive, is the Diocese suggesting that the steeple be torn down based on flakey assumptions, and no real computational evidence? These things just dont make any sense. Just looking at this steeple was enough for me, but when I read Mr. Duponts comments I realized that what I thought was common sense, needed to be supported by some general numbers. Please do not
6

consider this to be an exact analysis but rather a course order-of-magnitude look at a problem to support the common sense observations. Using exact measurements and refining the wind loads to reflect the actual shape of the steeple and proper height considerations will produce similar and I expect greater factors of safety. In that the factors of strength over load are so large it should be obvious that even with reduction of loose tie rods, cracked beams etc. that this steeple will stand up as well as any steeple in Holyoke. The Bishops DECREE is wrong in its statements about the structural condition of this Bell-Tower /Steeple. I hope that you will be able to educate him and his advisors? Sincerely

Neal B. Mitchell, Jr. P.E. S.E. MA #18222

BELL TOWER & STEEPLE STUDY REPORT

Neal Mitchell Associates

Tel: 508-234-8646 1041 Sutton Street, Northbridge, MA 01534 Fax: 508-234-8759 e-mail: nmitchell2@aol.com

September 24, 2011 Attorney Victor M. Anop Friends of Mater Dolorosa 103 Bridle Path Road Chicopee, MA 01013 Dear Victor: I have reviewed two documents relating to structural considerations for the Mater Dolorosa building that were prepared for the Bishop. It is my understanding that the Bishop based his Decree on the first document titled Structural Conditions Assessment Report that was prepared by Engineering Design Associates, Inc.. A second document is a letter prepared for Attorney Robert L. Quinn by Bernard Hunt, P.E.. Both of these documents are without the normal professional engineering seals that Engineers use to validate their conclusions. In addition, both documents suggest serious engineering conclusions without any backup engineering analysis or computations to confirm these serious suggested problems with the structure. I find it strange and troubling to read opinion letters that do not carry an Engineers seal, and even stranger to review documents that suggest the potential of structural failure, without any appropriate computational backup to support the allegations. It seems that the Bishop is acting on opinions based on partial and really unsupported information. However, Mr. Hunts opinion letter does state:We have not done a full structural analysis of the structure yet. Until we can do this analysis, our input is limited to our inspection of the observed conditions; our judgments concerning the conditions of the structural elements of the steeple, and our experience with other steeple structures. This is certainly a valid disclaimer that states that the letter is based on opinions and not proper engineering analysis. It is clear that Mr. Hunt should be engaged by the Bishop to back up his allegations with proper engineering computations to support his conclusions. Until this is done by either Engineer that is employed by the Bishop, these documents remain as unsubstantiated opinions that only appear to be confirming the wishes of the Bishop. This is not the way that Engineers normally work. Dire statements involving predictions of potential failure are always backed up by appropriate engineering analysis. The observations that are made in the document prepared by Engineering Design Associates, and the document that was prepared by Bernard Hunt P.E. both contain observations of conditions within the Bell Tower that require further discussion and much more detailed investigation. When I visited this church I made a similar set of observations, and then drew the exact opposite conclusions based on my experience with similar structures. How can Engineers come to such opposite conclusions? It is interesting that the non engineers have chosen to select the conclusions that suit them, rather than to get proper confirmation of either view through more detailed analysis. I addressed this issue for you by doing a series of very rough computations in an effort to determine the scale of the loading coupled with the resistance to failure to develop my thinking about the potential for failure. I included this information in a second Report that I sent on to you. It is interesting that rather than initiate a more detailed structural investigation of this situation, the Bishops lawyers have only chosen to feather the nest with yet another set of unsupported observations that only seem to provide the conclusions that the Bishop is looking for.

I started my computations by first assuming a situation with perfect structural conditions, and I determined that the capacity of this structure and I determined that this structure far exceeded the resistance that was needed to resist even excessive applied loads. I then factored in reasonable assumptions for the effects of 110 years of deterioration, the acidic effects of bird droppings, and the deterioration of the mortar between the bricks, coupled with the fact that there has been minimal maintenance to this structure for many years. My computations and assumptions of deterioration confirmed my view that this steeple was not in a condition of impending failure. These conclusions were borne out by the recent hurricane that went through Holyoke, and the presence of micro-bursts in this Holyoke neighborhood. Under these very severe conditions, and over its life of 110 years, there are still no real signs of and structural distress in the various structural components of this steeple. The mortar used in a brick wall often needs to be re-pointed based on age and weathering. If we were to condemn all of the churches in Holyoke that had brick walls that needed re-pointing then we could probably shut down most of them. Of course, the gating factor in all of this is the extent of this need. How extensive is this problem, and how much of the overall mortar has been compromised? Therefore, we have gone back into the Bell Tower to determine the extent of this problem and to determine more precise estimates of this deterioration. The question is one of questioning if this a simple maintenance issue, or is the deterioration so great that it represents an indication of potential failure? To support these more detailed investigations we have compiled a gallery of over 50 detailed pictures of the various brick and wood members in the Bell Tower. These photographs are available to you in digital form if you have a need for this type of record. The pictures were taken sequentially around the walls of the Bell Tower in an effort to create a photographic record of the present conditions. These pictures and this more detailed site investigation are used to support the comments that are contained in this Report. It is clear that the bird dropping have created an acid condition that has eaten away some of the interior mortar in the Bell Tower. These Bell Tower walls appear to be made up of 4 courses of brick to create a 17 wall thickness. We inserted a screw driver into the mortar between the bricks to determine the degree of deterioration and the depth of decomposed mortar. Using this procedure we were able to determine the depth of mortar deterioration in the joints at various locations in the Bell Tower. We were able to penetrate into the joints by almost two inches, or about half of one brick in a four brick wall thickness. It appears that the mortar on the other bricks is still solid, and this can also be easily observed by checking the exterior of the bell tower. This would indicate that this mortar deterioration is a minor problem that is easily corrected by standard re-pointing procedures. This situation of mortar deterioration looks bad with a simple exterior observation, but if you investigate further it is clear that the problem is not serious and that it can be easily fixed. Again this is a clear case of the need for proper maintenance by the building owner, as well as the need for a proper and more detailed investigation by the engineers that have been retained by the Bishop. Our study of the bell tower indicated that about 40% of the brick surfaces on the inside needed to be repointed. This is a simple maintenance procedure and it is one of the fundamental repairs that old brick structures often require. I believe that any engineering analysis will show that the loss of strength that is associated with condition of these walls will validate that the wall still has more than enough strength needed to resist the weight, sliding, and overturning loads from this steeple. Granted we have reduced the wall from 17 to 15, but the thickness of brick that is needed to carry the loads of this steeple are far less that what is still existing in this Bell Tower. Certainly it is not a major job to re-point these bricks as a simple maintenance procedure. It is hard to believe that the owners of this building have not conducted proper maintenance of this asset. The documents also include claims that the walls are not plumb. In my many years of reviewing brick buildings I have yet to visit an old building that had walls that were all plumb. If we were to use

plumbness as a criterion, then most of the brick buildings in Holyoke would have to be shut down. For example, I have provided consulting for Robert Berger, Inspector of Buildings in Grafton, on the Towns four story brick Town Office building, which was also built over 100 years ago. The deflection of one wall, on the fourth story, was more than 2 out of plumb. This wall carries a large mansard roof over a town meeting space. Proper engineering analysis confirmed that this 10 exterior wall was sufficiently stable so that it did not have to be taken down. This project makes the Bell Tower of Mater Dolorosa tiny by comparison. The out of plumb condition at the top of a 17 thick Bell Tower at the Mater Dolorosa wall something to watch, but this is nothing to suggest that failure of this Bell Tower was imminent. This is standard brick construction for very old buildings here in New England and the oversized wall thicknesses help to compensate for this aging problem. . There are also claims of brick deterioration on the inside of the Bell Tower. I had this investigated by scraping away the surface powder and then tapping these bricks with a hammer to get an idea of soundness. We concluded that the powdering on the brick faces was a dusting that was less than 1/16 thick, and that the bricks that were powdered like this were in fact solid. In fact, there was no serious brick decomposition in the Bell Tower. This dusting appears to be caused by the acidic effects of the bird droppings that coat the inside of this Bell Tower. It is clear that the bird droppings have aggravated the aging of this 110 year old structure. The birds are now being kept out by the new screening that has been installed by the parishioners. The next step is to properly clean both the wood and the bricks so that the acid deterioration of this structure can be stopped. Again these are standard building maintenance procedures that any building owner should be performing. In my discussion with various parishioners I was told that the congregation made contributions to a maintenance fund that seems never to have been used? One can only wonder what happened to these funds and then ask the question why these funds were not used for maintenance? . We also investigated the main timber beams for wood rot and checking. Generally wood dries and cracks in the first five years, so I must assume that the checking has been in existence for about 100 years. I assume that the original designers and builders of this church accommodated for this situation by using such large timbers which are clearly oversized for the loads that are involved. We have also measured the depth of some of these cracks and found that the splits were from 2 to 3 deep, and in most cases they were essentially along the beams and not across the beams. Therefore, the tension and compression strength of these members is only slightly impacted. I recently completed the engineering analysis of an old (1900) five story, heavy timber, post and beam industrial structure that was being renovated for use by as the Lawyers of the District Attorneys Offices here in Worcester. In some cases the beams in this structure had horizontal checks, but with analysis, I found that the reduced capacity of the checked beams far exceeded the new loads that would be put on these floors by lawyers offices. In the case of the Mater Dolorosa steeple, it is clear that the capacity of the wooden frame that is being used to hold the steeple far exceeds what is needed to resist the wind loads that act on the steeple. In addition, the checking that has taken place in some of these steeple hold down timbers is vertical, so that load capacity reduction is minor. It is clear that the heavy timber members that are being used to anchor the steeple have been significantly overdesigned by the original builders of this church. This is a good example of great old time construction that was built to last. However, if this cracking is a concern I suggest the use of steel mending plates on the sides of the beams with long screws that extend across any checks. I have used TimberLok screws by Fasten Master to strengthen heavy timber beams where the structure is being subjected to new and heavy loads due to a building change in use. These screws with properly designed steel plates, which effectively serve as washers, have permitted me to bring heavily checked beams up to full strength. Certainly this is an inexpensive way for you to eliminate this concern of people that are making an overview inspection of observable conditions.

The wood is badly stained by the bird droppings. We scraped these beams to see if there was deterioration or rot in these beams. Probing the tops of these members with a screw driver confirmed that the wood was still sound, and when a small nail was pounded into the top it required force to pound in, and it provided proper resistance to normal pull out. These old timber structures have much better strength and durability than the lumber that we can get in the market today. My investigation of old brick buildings in Worcester using this old lumber indicated that we had member sizes for a 2x12 (which is now 1.5 x 11.5) compared to the 2 x12 that were used which actually measured 3 x 13. In addition, my testing of this old lumber indicated fiber strengths that were as much as 40% greater than comparable new lumber that we were adding to this building. Therefore, the detailed structural analysis that is proposed by Mr. Hunt P.E. needs to consider these factors in his more detailed analysis, as well as using the actual dimension of all of the heavy timber members in this Bell Tower. My guess is that heavily checked members in this Bell Tower (holding the steeple in place) have had a strength reduction of no more that 10% to 15%. Therefore, based on the real loads on these members, I estimated that this capacity reduction is insignificant. My computations illustrated significant overdesign by factors that people used when this building was built. It is consistent in overdesign capacity with other old heavy timber buildings that I have investigated. It is interesting that the 1 x 8 stairs in the Bell Tower are still in good shape. If there was wood rot I would have expected it to be very evident in these thin wood pieces. In most old buildings the sill plates tend to rot over time due to their contact with the brick. We did not see any serious evidence of this between the brick wall tops and the wood steeple however, it is clear that these plate elements probably require replacement based on the fact that it has been in place for 110 years. I suggest that as part of the overall maintenance effort that these wood members be investigated for potential replacement. The flashing is all in bad repair. After 110 years this is not surprising, but this situation has been aggravated by the acid effects from the bird droppings. It is clear that any repair should also involve an investigation of all of the flashing to upgrade it to an acceptable level. My computations validate my conclusions that this steeple is not about to fall down. I look forward to reviewing the computations that will be provided by the other engineers that can either confirm their conclusions that this Steeple is about to fail, or permit them to revise their thinking based on standard engineering analysis. The written observations that have been reported to the Bishop (based on simple visual observations) are observations that I agree with as simple visual reporting. However, these observations must be calibrated by a bit more detailed engineering analysis. It is clear that the Bishop needs to provide you with more substantial engineering documentation to substantiate his decision to remove the steeple. I suspect that similar dire comments, based on similar visual inspections, could be made for every other church steeple in Holyoke. I assume that most have similar maintenance problems. Buildings, like most things, wear out over time so they require proper maintenance. It is clear that the Mater Dolorosa church has not been properly maintained. It is a shame to blame the parishioners for these problems. and then take draconian action to cover up this lack of ongoing maintenance. I estimate that mortar deterioration problems, timber checks, tension rod loosening, and other factors that can be attributed to age and lack of maintenance have reduced the overall carrying capacity of the structure that supports the steeple by as much as 15% to 20%. I estimate that the various structural components that support the steeple exceed the needed structural requirements by over 15 times. These are factors of safety that no one uses in construction today based on improved analytical procedures and more detailed information on material properties.

It is clear that even with the aging and degradation that has taken place in the Bell Tower that the original builders of this structure more than compensated for any degradation with their excessive design safety factors. Because the cross at the top of the steeple was the churchs community beacon to the faithful, its preservation was a driving force in the design and construction considerations of the Bell Tower and steeple. It was a critical part of the church, and the design and construction reflects this fact. My conclusion is that this steeple will not fail as a result of wind loads. The walls, the wood framework and the tension rods are each capable of resisting the applied loads even with the deterioration that has taken place. I believe that proper cleaning of the bird droppings, re-pointing the bricks and providing mending plates to some of the main timbers will bring this Bell Tower and steeple back to its original condition and strength. These activities should be considered as normal maintenance and they represent only minor costs. Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional engineering support. Sincerely,

Neal B. Mitchell, Jr. P.E. S.E. MA #18222

REPAIR REPORT

Neal Mitchell Associates

Tel: 508-234-8646 1041 Sutton Street, Northbridge, MA 01534 Fax: 508-234-8759 e-mail: nmitchell2@aol.com

MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:

Len Neal August 28, 2011 MAINTENANCE REPAIRS

I assume that the parishioners are permitted to make repairs in the Bishops building? I am not certain of the legality of anything when it comes to the church as they seem to have their own rules (or lack of them when it involves their action). The large timber members in the steeple and supporting the steeple are overdesigned. In my opinion the builders assumed that their heavy timber members would check (due to shrinkage) and they took this into consideration in their design. Therefore, based on my computations, I do not believe that patching plates are needed. However, I suspect that the concerns of the Bishop are best addressed by patching the checked members so I have prepared the drawings that you will need for proper repairs. In old heavy timber building the usual repair was necessitated because of the need for increased strength. It is easy to increase the strength of wood beams by adding steel plates to the sides or the bottom. These plates have the effect of greatly increasing both the beam strength and stiffness. In some old mill buildings I have observed tension rods that are set off the beam and added below the beam. These typical procedures are used to increase capacity of wood members. The wood members in the steeple area of the Mater Dolorosa Church have more than enough strength to carry the loads. Therefore, the problem is not one of increasing strength and carrying capacity but rather one of making the necessary maintenance repairs to return the checked members to their full original design capacity. In the case of a Vertical check there is a minor loss in strength because the two parts have the tendency to act separately. Of course the size and the depth of the crack impacts the overall strength, but generally engineers assume that the strength reduction is minor and that the member overdesign more than compensates for this strength reduction. Any repair involves a solution that insured that the two parts of the beam work together. This requires that the shear capacity between the two parts of the beam is replaced by the proposed fix. I suggest that the crack get filled with standard liquid nail that is used by framers to attach the sub-floors to joists. This material comes in a tube and it is easily applied with a caulking gun. A stiff metal plate should be used to insure that this glue is spread over the full depth of the crack. Once the crack has had the glue applied to the crack the side plates should be screwed to create the necessary pressure on the glue and to also provide a mechanical fastener for proper shear transfer. The screwing should start at the root of the crack and proceed toward the maximum crack width. In this way the crack will be closed with proper pressure within the beam.

The plates are designed with a nail hole in them for positioning. This permits the installer to set the bottom of the plate at the beam bottom (or at the beam top if the check is on the top) and then the nail holds the mending plate in place. Start screwing with the top screw and proceed down the mending plate. The mending plates are designed to take three TimberLok screws. These TimberLok screws are self drilling so they can be inserted without the need to drill a hole first. I suggest the use of a DeWalt DC920 XRP Battery driven drill because this level of power is required to set these screws. Do not over-screw. Each of these vertical mending plates requires three screws. The details of the vertical mending plate are illustrated on the left. If the plates are used on one side they should be spaced at 12 oc and if they are placed on both sides of the beam they should be staggered and placed at 24 on each side. Only put them on both sides if the check is in the middle of the section. Make certain that the screws are long enough to extend at least 2 beyond the farthest edge of the crack when you are locating the position of these plates. The horizontal cracks have the possibility of significant strength reduction depending on the extent and depth of the crack. In general, these serious conditions rarely are the case. In the case of a horizontal crack the mending plates are attached to either the top or the bottom of the wood beam.
2

In the case of horizontal cracks the mending plates should be located so that the screws extend at least 2 inches beyond the crack. These mending plates should be located along the beam so that the center lines are 18oc (or 9 end to end). These plates should be installed under the full length of the crack. Assuming that this shrinkage probably took place about 100 years ago you should not expect that the screws will bring the two sides of the check together. However, there will be some closure and the glue plus the screw connections will be enough to restore the full beam capacity. You should take pictures and crack measurements before and after the repairs so that there is a photographic record of the work that you have done. The member strength of the beams that carry the tension rods is sufficient to carry the load put on them by the steel under its design stress. However, the proper repair of these members at the top requires the

addition of shims so that the lateral play is removed from these rods. In other words the rods should be tight but not under any stress. It should be assumed that after many years of shrinkage that some of these heavy members will have changed dimension which requires the use of shims. I recommend that you employ 1/16 steel plate shims so that your fix of this problem will essentially be permanent. Current practice would be to add plates above and below the rod carrying beams at the point where the rod goes through the beam. These plates effectively stop checking that initiates at the hole as well as providing a rigid rub surface for the tension rods. The detail of this plate is illustrated on the right.

CONCLUSION These mending plates will not increase the capacity of the various members. They are designed to provide proper mending to the existing structure so that the original capacity of this system is replaced. In effect these plates are simply large washers. The crown of the screw sets itself in the plate when the screw is properly installed. This entire wood frame structure with the tension cage is significantly overdesigned. Its ability to withstand wind loads for the last 100 years attests to the overall strength of the system. I estimate that most of the shrinkage and checking of these beams and columns took place in the first three or four years after construction. These repairs should provide the cosmetic verification of structural stability that is needed by the Bishop and his Engineer.

HUNT REPORT

BERDICHEVSKY AFFIDAVIT

BERDI CONSULTING
25 WAYLAND HILLS ROAD, WAYLAND MA 01778 TEL: (508) 308-9012

To whom it may concern Re: Mater Dolorosa Church Date: 02.20.2012

1. I am Stanislav Berdichevsky, Professional Engineer, with office at 25 Wayland Hills Rd, Wayland MA, 01778. 2. I received an equivalent of MS in Civil/Structural Engineering from Moscow Civil Engineering Institute, Moscow Russia in 1981. In 1990 I received an equivalent of Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics. I wrote several articles on steel structures connections and did a research in the field of numerical design methods. In 1992 I joined Michigan office of Greiner Inc. (now URS Corporation) where I worked till 1994 as a structural engineer. I was dealing mostly with the design of schools, hospitals, sport facilities, etc. I passed Structural Engineering board exams and obtained my license in 1993. Since 1994 I practice engineering consulting in metro Boston area doing mostly residential projects of a small and medium scale. 3. After reviewing and analyzing the report and calculations provided by Neal Mitchell Associates regarding the steeple and the bell tower of Mater Dolorosa church in Holyoke, MA, I can certify that the methodology and conclusions of the report are reasonable and adhere to the basic mechanical principles as well as the common engineering practices. All the assumptions and simplifications made in the report are of conservative nature. The conclusion that the steeple and the bell tower are not in condition of a catastrophic failure is well justified by the presented evidences and calculations. 4. I am familiar with the reports provided by EDA and BECI. These reports are thoroughly listing numerous structural deficiencies of the building, and there is no doubt that the major deficiencies contributing to the deterioration of the steeple structure should be addressed in a timely manner. However, the main conclusion of the imminent structural failure of the steeple is not supported by any engineering analysis. 5. In my professional opinion, the report prepared by Neal Mitchell Associates proves that there is no danger of a catastrophic steeple overturning under the lateral (wind or seismic) loading conditions. Obviously, the maintenance measures should be performed to prevent further deterioration. 6. I have had no prior association of any nature with any of the parishioners of Mater Dolorosa church, which could influence the engineering objectivity. This review and affidavit are provided on a Pro Bono basis.

BERDI CONSULTING
25 WAYLAND HILLS ROAD, WAYLAND MA 01778 TEL: (508) 308-9012 If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,

Stanislav Berdichevsky P.E. 25 Wayland Hills Rd Wayland MA 01778

HURRICANE LETTER

Neal Mitchell Associates

Tel: 508-234-8646 1041 Sutton Street, Northbridge, MA 01534 Fax: 508-234-8759 e-mail: nmitchell2@aol.com

August 26, 2011 Attorney Victor M. Anop Friends of Mater Dolorosa 103 Bridle Path Road Chicopee, MA 01013 RE: Mater Dolorosa Parish Church, Holyoke Dear Attorney Anop: Presently, the hurricane is scheduled to pass directly over Holyoke. The winds are predicted to exceed 100 mph over land so this will again put your steeple under significant and extraordinary loading. I expect that the Bishop and his team will profess that doomsday is here, and that your building will fall down. My study computations of your steeple were based on a 100 mph wind, and these computations illustrated that the steeple had a factor of safety of seventeen (17) compared to the normal building structural safety factor of (2 or 3). Although it is unreasonable to assume that this wind will cause any structural damage to your steeple, you should be aware that nature has the ability of creating completely unforeseen and unanticipated loading conditions. However, even with this consideration it is clear that this steeple has more than enough strength to resist whatever hurricane loads are applied to it. If the Bishop is concerned about failure you should suggest that his engineer utilize simple weight and loading computations to validate that the steeple has adequate strength under extreme conditions. If they are incapable of employing simple engineering, I suggest that you offer them my second report. However, I do understand that your vigil will continue even with the storm. The pressures that will be on your large stained glass windows could cause window failure and glass shattering. At the wind pressures that will exist during this storm there is a serious problem with flying objects. These objects act as missiles that can smash through the windows, so it is very important to keep anyone away from all windows and doors. Also be sure to lock all doors so that doors are not blown open during the storm. If there is any questions about this please feel free to call me. Sincerely,

Neal B. Mitchell, Jr. P.E,. S.E. MA #18222