Official Structural Evaluation of NMHS Gym Collapse FAQ- Updated May 8, 2025

FAQ- Official Structural Evaluation of NMHS Gym Collapse

Update 5/8/2025

The following FAQ is based on a structural evaluation conducted by KPFF Consulting Engineers, a third party contracted to complete an assessment.

1. What happened at the North Medford High School Gym?

On February 7, 2025, two glued laminated timber (glulam) beams in the gym experienced cracking. By February 11, three beams collapsed completely, followed by a progressive collapse of the entire main gym roof later that day.

 

2. What were the main causes of the collapse?

According to the engineering report, two main contributing factors were identified:

• Manufacturing of scarf joints in the glulam beams, possibly causing early delamination.
   
• Increased understanding of the structural capacity of deep glulam timber beams, which has revealed that flexural capacities previously assumed in 1965 were overestimated by today’s standards.

 

3. Were there any minor contributing factors?

Yes. These included:

• Snow loads during the event.
   
• Potential damage due to the connection of a basketball hoop.

 

4. Did the 2024 seismic retrofit cause the failure?

No. The seismic retrofit involved reinforcing the diaphragm, adding shear walls, and installing a new roof, but did not increase roof loads significantly or contribute to the failure.

 

5. Was decay or deterioration in the wood a factor?

No. Visual inspections and resistograph readings indicated no decay, only minor temporary staining. The wood was found to be sound.

 

6. What are scarf joints and why did they matter?

Scarf joints are long-tapered wood splices used in older glulam beam laminations. The collapse analysis suggests poor glue bonding and delamination at these joints initiated the failures in Beams A and B.

 

7. Was the use of glulam beams appropriate for this building?

Yes. The use of glulam beams was an appropriate choice to be used for a gymnasium. Modern glulam beams are still an appropriate structural member to be used in gymnasiums with similar spans and loads.

 

8. Did the weight of the new roof increase load on the structure?

When compared to the original roof weight, the new roof (including seismic retrofit work) had a negligible impact on the roof load. The engineering evaluation indicates that a max increase of 1 PSF could have taken place but it is more likely to have reduced in weight up to 3 PSF. 

 

9. What role did snow play in the collapse?

The February 2025 event snow load is estimated between 12.5 to 25.9 PSF, which exceeded the beam’s capacity when reviewed with current code requirements.

 

10. Did ponding (water pooling) contribute to the failure?

Ponding was not a contributing factor to the initial beam failures. The roof had sufficient slope and camber meeting code requirements to prevent ponding. However, ponding instability did contribute to the progressive collapse after the initial failures.  Meaning as the damaged roof beams deflected, they created low spots in the roof where snow melt further accumulated. This led to more damage and more deflection eventually leading to full member collapse.  MSD was pumping water out of these areas as they were identified and within the limits of accessibility for the safety of crews working the scene.   

 

11. Were there changes in wood design standards over time that affected safety?

Yes. Modern codes reduce allowable stresses for deep glulam beams manufactured before 1970 and require reduced volume factors. These changes mean the original design would now be considered overstressed for dead and snow loads.

 

12. Was the structure originally designed for snow loads?

The original building had an inherent 20 PSF snow load capacity due to the roof live load allowance (roof live loads and snow loads are not cumulative or required to be considered simultaneously by code). 

 

 13. Is MSD doing anything different moving forward?
The MSD hired a third-party engineering team to do a comprehensive engineering assessment of all large-span structures across the district.  This analysis is intended to identify any deficiencies that may require retrofit as well as document the material type and age of trusses and beams in the roof systems. These proactive measures will support the ongoing annual monitoring of district facilities to enhance safety and resilience.

 

---

North Medford Gym Roof Collapse  - Summary & FAQ Updated Feb. 27, 2025

Live Feed of Gym Demolition

What happened?
Feb. 7, 2025 (Friday) 4:11 p.m. - A cracking noise was heard by a team practicing in the gym.  The gym was immediately evacuated and practice relocated.

Facilities crews arrived on site within 19 minutes.  They observed a crack on one glulam beam and a slight, hairline type fracture on a second glulam beam.

Facilities crews secured the gym site, changed out locks, posted signage, confirmed all roof drains were cleared and operating and turned up the heat in the building.

Feb. 8, 2025 (Saturday) - MSD Crews, the architect team, the contractor team, the engineer, MFD and the City evaluated the structure and confirmed the crack had expanded.  MSD coordinated with insurance and worked with the contractor to line up a shoring team.  The bulk of the day was spent in attempting to reduce the snow load via a variety of methods.

Feb. 9, 2025 (Sunday) - Monitored, pumped melting snow water off the roof, continued coordination of the shoring plan.

Feb. 10, 2025 (Monday) - Monitored, finalized the shoring plan, and pumped melting snow water off the roof.

Feb. 11, 2025 (Tuesday) 8:40 a.m. - Three beams collapsed, and a broken emergency response button (ERB) sent the school into a lockdown.  There was never any threat to students or staff on campus.

Feb. 11, 2025 (Tuesday) 10:46 a.m. - The gym roof collapsed completely. Students were released early out of an abundance of caution. 

Feb. 12, 2025 (Wednesday) -  School was canceled so that crews could assess the damage and ensure all necessary safety mitigation measures were in place for a return to campus.

Feb. 13, 2025 (Thursday) - School resumed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did this happen?
We are awaiting the official engineering assessment, but engineers have informed us that typically there are multiple contributors to a collapse like this. Engineers estimate that approximately 700,000 pounds of snow accumulated on the roof. This weight may have exacerbated an existing structural weakness, leading to cracking in the glulam beam and, ultimately, the roof collapse. We will share more details once the final engineering report is complete.

What about the recent seismic upgrades to the gym?
At this time, there is no indication that the seismic upgrades contributed to the collapse. This will be looked at closely in the engineer assessment.  The engineer for the seismic work confirmed that lighter roofing materials, the removal of a cell tower, and reinforcement of the roofing diaphragm—likely helped the damaged beams withstand the immense snow load for as long as they did. 

The seismic upgrades played a crucial role in preventing a full-scale collapse of the entire facility. The reinforced walls remain standing, which minimized the extent of the damage and the danger crews encountered.

Once the building is stabilized and made safe, engineers will conduct a full assessment to determine all contributing factors and inform future repair plans.

Was this an engineering failure?
A thorough engineering review will be conducted once the structure is stabilized.

What actions were taken to prevent the collapse?
Our priority was ensuring the safety of students and staff.  Please keep in mind that this roof was compromised and unsafe to work on.

Efforts to reduce the snow load and stabilize the structure included:

• Deploying a shoring team as soon as possible. They were due to arrive on 11 Feb 2025.
• Shoveling snow from the roof in areas safe to do so from a lift.
• Applying ice melt.
• Utilizing heat cords.
• MSD crews eroded the snow with a fire hose working from the drains out to ensure that no additional water load was added to the roof.  At no point in time was the snow on the roof saturated with water. This only impacted a very small area around one drain. 
• Hoping for the sun to come out and melt that snow!
• Using pumps to remove melting snow water to prevent pooling.

These efforts were extremely dangerous due to the roof’s 172 ft x 194 ft (33,368 sq. f.) size and the hazardous conditions incurred with the fractured beams. 

Are other school buildings at risk?
No. All other large-span structures in the district have been thoroughly inspected and are safe for continued use. There are no signs of structural damage.

Does the district remove snow off of roofs?
No. The district maintains millions of square feet of roofing, and large-scale snow removal is not a standard practice in our area for roofs. Our buildings are designed to handle typical snow loads, including the amount we experienced during this storm.

 

How often do we inspect the integrity of these buildings?

Facility crews inspect roofs frequently to ensure drains are cleared and that there is no flashing damage, roof leaks, etc.  We have crews working in schools everyday.  We specifically look at roofs during repairs, during capital project assessments, over the summer, during the fall and prior to significant storms.

 

Was there asbestos-containing material in the building?

There is some asbestos-containing material in the building, primarily in the joint compound of the soffit area (the enclosed structure around the beam), and some spray-on fireproofing on the steel girders. MSD has a current asbestos survey. This has been shared with the contractors, insurance, and the professional services team so that they can account for any necessary abatement during demolition and reconstruction. The rest of the campus is not at risk from asbestos exposure.

 

Were there any injuries?

We had one supervisor who fell onto his knees as he ran away from the building.  His knees were skinned up.  He was evaluated by medical personnel and released.  

 

What does the MSD Board Resolution #2025-1- approval of exemption of bidding requirements mean?

In emergency situations, the board can approve to relax some of the bidding requirements to ensure expediency in response to the incident.  For the North gym, the selection of the shoring and the demolition contractor could be accelerated.  It was still a competitive bid.  It was posted on our website, and we received multiple proposals.   The full bid process will be utilized when we select a professional services team and a contractor.

 

How does the district’s insurance work?

The Medford School District obtains its property and liability insurance through PACE.

 

The Oregon School Board Association (OSBA) formed the first property-casualty pool coverage for education in Oregon in 1985 and has served education entities for more than 20 years. Special Districts Association of Oregon (SDAO) has provided coverage for local governments since the mid-1980s and now provides coverage for more than 850 entities, adding schools in 2003 to fill a coverage gap left when a major insurer pulled out of the state.

 

By merging programs, OSBA and SDAO formed the largest property and liability risk pool of school entities in the state, with more than 200 education organizations.

 

The District pays premiums into the pool just like individuals and companies pay premiums for their property-casualty and/or liability insurance coverage. 

 

For the gym collapse, the district will pay a deductible of $100,000 and the remainder of the gym replacement cost will be covered by PACE. The policy also covers damaged contents within the gym, debris removal, and a variety of other losses and/or out of pocket costs incurred by the district due to the roof collapse. The policy covers the full replacement of the gym as it stood prior to the collapse and will bring it up to modern codes and standards.   

 

What does the way forward look like?

First and foremost, we will rebuild the gym.  

 

Next Steps:

• Demolition Planning, Design and Mobilization - In-progress
• Demolition and Shoring - Starts 10 March - Clear The Debris and Stabilize The Site 
• Engineer Assessment - In-progress
• Weather In The Remaining Areas of The Site
• Selection of Professional Services Team
• Design Process
• Selection of Contractor Team
• Construction - Rebuild Timeline: TBD