1. FAILURE TO PLANWhat Could Possibly Go Wrong ? PRESENTED BY Tony L. Cummings AIA, CSI Construction Forensics, Inc.Springfield, Virginia Michael A. Matthews, P.E. The Structures Group, Inc. Williamsburg, VirginiaKansas State UniversityLittle TheaterApril 9, 20134:00pm 6:00pm

2. FORENSICS As sobering as the subject is, studying construction failures has a positive side.Whether the failure is due to construction deficiencies, design deficiencies, and/or natural disasters, the analysis of thesefailures helps us to become better designers and contractors through a more intense and extensive awareness of theconsequences of poor planning, design or construction 3. The elements of poor design andconstruction last long after the sweetnessof cheapness is gone 4. WHAT IS FORENSICS What We Do & How We Do It Determine nature and extend of distress in various architectural, structuraland/or system components Provide both non-destructive and destructive evaluations ascertain cause ofdistress with regard to construction or design deficiencies. Evaluate all Contract Drawings, Specifications, RIFs, Change Orders, DailyLogs, Correspondence. Review all Building Codes, State Codes, Industry Publications. Report of Findings or Who, What, Where and How the problem occurred. Testify in Deposition, Mediation, Arbitration and/or Court. Offer repair recommendations, design and/or remediation oversight. 5. TYPES OF FAILURES CATASTROPHIC FAILUREPERFORMANCE BASED FAILURE 6. CATASTROPHIC FAILURESKemper Arena - June 1979LAmbiance Plaza - April 1987Tropicana Parking Garage - October2003 Route 90 Bridge crossing the Bay St. Louis Kansas City Hyatt Skybridge - January 1981 Mississippi - 2005 7. PERFORMANCE BASED FAILURES CLASS ACTION - MASONITE, WEYERHAEUSER, POLYBUTYLENE PIPE, WRGRACE, MARVIN WINDOWS, DRYVIT (EIFS) ARIZONA - 1,428 HOMEOWNERS SUE OVER ALLEGED DEFECTS FROM WATERDAMAGE NEVADA - $14.5 MILLION DOLLARS AWARDED AS A RESULT OF MOLD-RELATED ILLNESSES NORTH CAROLINA - $1.1 MILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT FOR WATERINTRUSION AND MOLD INFESTATION AT A NATIONAL HOTEL CHAIN CALIFORNIA - $100 MILLION DOLLAR SUIT AGAINST THE OWNERS OF AMOLD INFESTED APARTMENT COMPLEX WASHINGTON DC- $13.5 MILLION DOLLAR SUIT OVER MOISTUREINTRUSION ON A 10 STORY BRICK BUILDING 8. WONT HAPPEN TO MEREALLY ? ( < $500,000 annual billing )2002 10.8 claims / 100 firms2010 7.0 claims / 100 firms2001 2005: $98,000 - $110,0002006 2007: $155,000 +2010: $154,000 average / claim 9. WONT HAPPEN TO ME REALLY ?( $500,000- $5 Million annual billing )2001 48 claims / 100 firms2010 39 claims / 100 firms2001 - 2010: $170,000 - $226,000 10. WONT HAPPEN TO ME REALLY ?( > $5 Million annual billing ) 2002 219 claims / 100 firms 2009 167 claims / 100 firms 2010 180 claims / 100 firms2002 - 2009: $332,600 average2010 - $414,000 / claim 11. FORENSICS TESTING Minimal Intrusive TestingBOROSCOPE 12. FORENSICS TESTINGNon-Intrusive TestingIMPACT ECHO 13. FORENSICS TESTINGNon & Minimal Intrusive TestingMOISTURE METERS 14. FORENSICS TESTING Non-Intrusive Testing - EIFSINFRARED THERMOGRAPHY 15. FORENSICS TESTINGNon-Intrusive Testing - MasonryINFRARED THERMOGRAPHY 16. FORENSICS TESTINGNon-Intrusive Testing - Roofing INFRARED THERMOGRAPHY 17. FORENSICS TESTINGNon-Intrusive Testing - ElectricalINFRARED THERMOGRAPHY 18. FORENSICS TESTINGMinimal Intrusive Historic Evaluations RESISTOGRAPH 19. FORENSICS TESTING Non-Intrusive Historic EvaluationsAnthony Associates, Inc Anthony Associates, IncX-RAYAnthony Associates, Inc 20. FORENSICS TESTINGNon-Destructive Structural Evaluations Anthony Associates, IncAnthony Associates, IncX-RAY Anthony Associates, Inc 21. FORENSICS TESTINGNon-Destructive Structural Evaluations Anthony Associates, IncAnthony Associates, IncX-RAY 22. FORENSICS TESTING Non-Destructive Failure AnalysisAnthony Associates, Inc Anthony Associates, IncX-RAY Anthony Associates, Inc 23. FORENSICS TESTING Destructive Testing 24. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS 25. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS 26. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS 27. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS 28. PRIMARY FAILURE ISSUESINSUFFICIENT DETAILS INSUFFICIENT COORDINATIONINSUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING OF INDUSTRY PUBLICATIONS INSUFFICIENT CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 29. FAILURE TO PLANWhat Could Possibly Go Wrong ?Steel$3.4 MillionConcrete $4.1 MillionManpower $2.7 MillionBuilding a bridge from twodifferent sides and having itmeet in the middle?PRICELESS!! 30. FAILURE TO PLAN What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?Owner Determined to build on hissiteArchitect Designs building withoutknowing Highway plansEngineers Completing design of newroad expansion withoutany idea of land ownersplans for a buildingWhat we have here, is a failure tocommunicate 31. INSUFFICIENT DETAILS 32. INSUFFICIENT DETAILS 33. INSUFFICIENT DETAILS TYPICAL DETAIL 34. INSUFFICIENT DETAILS 35. INSUFFICIENT DETAILS RESULTING DAMAGE 36. INSUFFICIENT COORDINATION 37. INSUFFICIENT COORDINATION 38. INSUFFICIENT COORDINATION 39. Project Example No. 1 - ResidenceLOCATION:VirginiaCONSTRUCTION:Wood FrameYEAR CONSTRUCTED:1999 - 2000OCCUPANCY:April 2000INSPECTED:MAY 2000CONDEMDED:JUNE 2000 40. Project Example No. 1 Residence contd 41. Project Example No. 1 - Residence contdMOLD INFESTED FRAMINGTHROUGHOUT CRAWLSPACEMOISTURE SATURATED INSULATION ANDSTANDING WATER ON PLASTIC THROUGHOUTCRAWLSPACEENVIRONMENTAL TESTING VIABLE AIR SAMPLESTEST SWABS LIFT TAPE 42. Project Example No. 1 Residence contd FungiMOLD ON DRYWALLMOLD ON CARPET TACKMUSHROOMS BELOW INTERIOR METALMOLD ON SLIDING DOOR JAMBSILL AT SLIDING DOOR 43. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel LOCATION: Connecticut CONSTRUCTION: Modular YEAR CONSTRUCTED: 1992 OCCUPANCY: 1992 INSPECTED: 1999 - 2002 REPAIRED: 2001 2002 CONSTRUCTION CLAIM: $4.5 Million 44. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contdCEDAR SIDING FIBER BOARD TRIM 45. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contdFIBER BOARD TRIM AND PLYWOOD INSERT AT A/C FUNGAL FRUITING BODY AT TRIM AT SECOND A/C UNITUNIT 46. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 47. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 48. Project Example No. 2 -Hotel contd 49. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 50. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 51. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 52. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 53. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 54. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 55. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 56. Project Example No. 2 - Hotel contd 57. Project Example No. 3 - Museum CONSTRUCTION COST: $200 MillionCOMPLETED: 1999 Jeff Golberg/Estoo Photographer INSPECTED: 2005 CONSTRUCTION CLAIM: >$25 Million 58. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 59. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd American Architecture Award, ChicagoAthenaeum, 1998 Best of 1998 Award, New York Construction News Merit Award, American Institute of Architects(AIA) New York state, 1999[7] Merit Award, AIA New England Regional DesignAwards Program, 1999 Innovative Design and Excellence in Architecturewith Steel Award, AIA and American Institute ofSteel Construction, 1999 Honor Award, AIA Connecticut, 2000 AIA National Award for Architecture, 2000] New York Association of Consulting EngineersPlatinum Award for Excellence in StructuralDesign, 2000 Merit Winner, Engineering Awards ofExcellence, 2000 60. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 61. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 62. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 63. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 64. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 65. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 66. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 67. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 68. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 69. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 70. Project Example No. 3 - Museum contd 71. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center LOCATION: Missouri CONSTRUCTION: CMU YEAR CONSTRUCTED: 1997 - 2000 OCCUPANCY: 2000 INSPECTED: 2003 REPAIRED: 2005 72. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd 73. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contdWater Testing ASTM E1105 74. Project Example No. 4 RecreationalCenter contd - Infrared Thermography 75. Project Example No. 4 RecreationalCenter contd - Infrared Thermography 76. Project Example No. 5 RecreationalCenter contd - Infrared Thermography 77. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd - Destructive Testing 78. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd 79. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd 80. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd 81. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd 82. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd 83. Project Example No. 4 Recreational Center contd 84. CASE STUDY No. 1 - Mixed Use LOCATION: Virginia CONSTRUCTION: Brick Veneer/Wood Frame YEAR CONSTRUCTED: 2008 - 2010 OCCUPANCY: 2010 INSPECTED: 2011 REPAIRED: 2012-2013 85. Roof Design Revised Roof Design (As-Built Roof) Original Roof Design(Wet sprinkler not shown in original detail) 86. Revised Roof Design Deficiencies Horizontal baffles terminate against verticalventilation baffles of exterior walls. Means of providing continuous ventilationfrom thirty-three (33) wall louvers notprovided. Roof/attic area has numerous locationswhere fire walls and draft stop walls extendto roof cutting off free vent area. 2003 IBC Section 1203.2 requires 1 airspace between the insulation and theunderside of the roof sheathing, and thatcross ventilation must be provided for eachseparate space.Revised Roof Design Additionally, architectural and structural(As-Built Roof) drawings indicate fire separation walls anddraft stopping walls throughout attic areapreventing natural aircirculation. 87. Roof Moisture Test and ObservationCut Out Areas Roof Area: 59,295 square feet Condition of plywood roof sheathing first noted to be of concern during roof maintenance in Fall of 2010. First notification of roof distress in January 2011. Site visit conducted on March 22, 2011 to review the exterior of the building, roof system, as well as attic space. 88. Roof Distress ObservedClose-up view of the moisture reading in theAnother view of Roof Test Area No. 5 located in theplywood roof sheathing at Roof Test Area No. center of the rear elevation roof section of the building. 5 located in the center of the rear elevationThis view is looking towards the rear elevation parapetroof section of the building. The moisture of the building. The roof sheathing was wet to the touch meter denoted a reading of 23.1% moisture below the recovery board. Closer review again revealedcontent.1-0 wide baffles placed directly below the roofsheathing and centered on the truss spacing. Additionally, the batt insulation was also installed against the underside of the roof sheathing and baffle. 89. Roof Distress ObservedClose-up view of the baffle below Roof Test AreaView of the removal of the batt insulation from No. 3. Evidence of water ponding in the baffle. below the Roof Test Area No. 3. The top Closer review revealed water stains on theapproximately 2 of the batt insulation exhibited continuous wood bridging below this area water stains and was wet to the touch.between trusses.Lack of air circulation against underside of roof sheathing led to moisture condensation onplywood roof sheathing resulting in deterioration of roof assembly. 90. Exterior Wall Moisture Intrusion North ElevationMoisture heated by the daylight temperatures off gas heat at night, captured byinfrared photographs. Following a moderate rain storm, infrared photographsare taken at night to delineate moisture intrusion into the exterior envelope. 91. Exterior Siding and Sheathing DistressInfrared #1 Infrared #2North Elevation 92. Exterior Wall Moisture IntrusionNorth Elevation 93. Exterior Siding and Sheathing DistressInfrared View #3 at North ElevationInfrared View #4 at North ElevationNorth Elevation 94. Differential Movement Exhibited in Brick Veneer and Wood FrameMovement and Distress at Masonry Rowlock Movement and Distress at Masonry Rowlockat Fourth Floorat Fourth Floor West Elevation 95. Calculated Differential MovementBrick to 4th FloorBrick to RoofExterior Wall Rowlock Course 52-11 41-9 1/4 Brick Expansion 0.37 inches 0.29 inches Wood Shrinkage0.53 inches 0.40 inches Total Movement0.90 inches 0.69 inches Movement of exterior wall components not designed to meet minimum building code requirements.Sections of West Elevation 96. Implementation of Remedial Repairs 97. Modified Rowlock and Flashing 98. Structural Framing Deterioration 99. Structural Framing Deterioration 100. Isometric Details for Repairs 101. Isometric Details for Repairs 102. New Flashing Conditions 103. Case Study No. 2 Life Support to Assisted LivingA Study of Structural/Architectural RehabLOCATION: VirginiaCONSTRUCTION: Brick Veneer/Concrete FrameYEAR CONSTRUCTED: Circa 1985OCCUPANCY: 1985INSPECTED: 2010-2013REPAIRED: 2010-2013 104. Our Goal Today Will Be To Illustrate Actual circumstance and timelines The diverse process of this unique rehabilitation The elements of economic alternative selection How these items encompass the role of Forensic Analysis &Structural Design and Architecture 105. Background Info Signature building within an upscale assisted livingcommunity 130,000 square foot three (3) story cast-in-place concretestructure with a basement Mixed use building including 56 residences, a bank, a postoffice, a restaurant, a lobby, a spa, an auditorium, andoffices 106. Signature Building within an Upscale Assisted Living Community Signature Building 107. Building Cross Section130,000 s.f. three story cast-in-place concretestructure with a basement 108. Initiating Circumstance Owners staff contacted our officelate Friday afternoon, Memorial Dayweekend 2010 Demolition of gypsum drywall oninterior walls within basement byfacility staff revealed buckled metalstuds 109. Initial Site Visit Observations Interior metal studs within basement constructed tight to underside of first floor slab Interior metal studs found to be buckled or out of vertical plumb several inches 110. Initial Site Visit Observations cont First floor lobby above the basement exhibited a bow in the floor slab in excess of 2 Second and third floor hallways exhibited rolling floor slabs 111. Initial Discussions With Owner In continuous operation since construction circa 1985 Floors on first, second, and third floors were unlevel fromdate of occupancy Other interior metal studs within basement had beenpreviously noted to be buckled to a lesser degree Some tenants had leveled their floors with levelingcompounds 112. Documents Retrieved fromOwner & Municipality Original construction documents Architectural Structural Cast-in-place concrete reinforcing shop drawings Construction files including contractors daily reports andprogress meetings Final walk-thru and punch lists 113. Documents Retrieved from Owner & Municipality cont Having good documentation allowed two simultaneouspaths to be taken: Structural analysis of cast-in-place concrete two (2) way slabs Flexural Analysis Punching Shear Analysis Forensic review of historical files Collapse of forms during construction Previous engineering reports 114. Verification of Slab Thickness andReinforcing Coring of existing slabs Thickness Compressive strength Ground penetrating radar Location and spacing ofreinforcing Verification of reinforcingshop drawings 115. Building Code Research Construction completed circa 1985 Building Codes Time of Construction Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VUSBC) 1981 Edition which adopted and amended the 1981 Edition of the BOCA Basic Building Code During Forensic Review VUSBC 2006 Edition which adopted and amended the 2006 Edition of the International Building Code 116. Design Live LoadsBUILDING AREA ORIGINAL DESIGN1981 VUSBC2006 VUSBC DRAWINGS Adopted and Adopted and AmendedAmended BOCA IBCPublic Areas 100 psf 100 psf100 psf100 psf (1st Floor) 100 psf Corridors 80 psf (2nd & 3rd80 psf (serving public areas) Floors) Dwelling Units 40 psf40 psf40 psf 117. What are Magnitudes of Live Loads?50 psf 100 psf 150 psf(Approximately 12 individuals (Approximately 22 individuals (Approximately 34 individuals within 10 square feet)within 10 square feet)within 10 square feet) 118. First Floor Design Live Loads 100 psf 40 psf 119. Second Floor Design Live Loads100 psf40 psf 120. Third Floor Design Live Loads 100 psf 40 psf 121. Flexural Analysis of Existing Slabs Reviewed ACI 318 then and now Generated finite element analysis of elevated slabs Compared deflection results against field recorded Compared required reinforcement against constructiondrawings 122. ACI 318 Requirements Then and Now STRUCTURAL DESIGNACI 318-77 ACI 318-05CRITERIA(Then) (Now)Minimum Slab ThicknessRequired StrengthU=1.4D + 1.7L (EQ 9-2) U=1.2D + 1.6L (EQ 9-2)Strength ReductionFactors =0.9 (Section 9.3.2)=0.9 (Section 9.3.2.1)FlexureShear =0.85 (Section 9.3.2)=0.75 (Section 9.3.2.3) 123. Finite Element Deflection ModelFirst Floor 0 0 00 00 0 00.2 0.2 0.20.20.2 0.400.6 0.80.2 0.20 0.4 0.20.80 0.20.6 0.4 0.40.40.60.4 1.21.20.2 1 Deflection 0.40.2 0.60.20 1.4 0.2 0.40.21.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 11.21.41.6 00.4 0.6 0.401.21 0.4 0.4 0.80.80.8 0.60.6 Min Max0.40.6 1.40.80.2 101.6 1.40.20.80.8 0.80.6 0.4 0.6 0.81.2 0.6 1 1 0.80.60 0.4 0.4 0.40.60.4 1.60.6 calc > Allowable Construction Tolerances0.40.61.20.8 0.20.2 0.20 1 calc < Observed Deflection 0 0.60.60.40.8 1.6 1.4 1 0.8 1.40.8 0.2 0.61.41.40.80.80.40.2 0.20.4 0.410.200 0 0 0 000 0.20.20.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.6000.80.60.2 1 0.4 0.2 10.60.4 0.2 1 0.4 0.401 0.41.6 0.8 0.80.80.60.2 0.61 1 1 0.61.21 1.20 1 11.4 0.81.6 0.6 0.41.2 1 0.8 1.4 0.4 1.21 1 1 1 0.2 10.60.410.20 0.20.4 1.60 0.21 0.8 0.4 11.4 0.40.61.41 0.41.2 1 0.4 0.6 1.20.8 1 0.21.2 0.60.20.80.8 0 1.6 1.4 0.20.6 1.41.2 1 0.6 1 1.40.20 0.4 0.20.4 1.400.6 1.21.41 1.6 00.80.8 0.4 1 0.8 1.4 0.41 0.8 1.40.6 0.4 00.4100.4 1.2 0.21.6 0.6 10.2 0.40.6 1.4 0.2 0 1 1.60.8 0.20.4 1 0.40.20.8 01.4 0.6 1.20.8 0.6 10.60.4 10.4 00.8 1.4 1.40.80.8 0.8 0.60.6 1.40 0.60.41.4 1.60.6 0.4 1 0.2 0.41.4 1.20.40.2 0 0 0.8 0 1 00.20.20.8 0.810.60.60.8 0.8 00 0.6 0.2 0 0 00 124. Finite Element Deflection Model Second Floor0 0 0.30.30.3 0 0.3 0.3 00.30.30.9 0.3 0.6 0.300.9 0.60.6 0.30.90.91.2 0.6 0.90.60.90.6 0.60.6 1.2 0.90.6 0.60.3 1.2 0.9 1.51.5 1.8 0.91.20.9 1.2 0.90.31.80.30.90.9 0.3 0.9 0.60.60.6 0.90.3 1.2 1.82.10.9 0.6 0.90.6 0.90.90.61.8 2.11.8 0.90.6 0.9 1.8 0.6 0.60.90.6 0.6 0.31.5 0.62.10.9 0.60.9 0.60.9 1.2 0.9 1.50.30.9 0.30.9 0.60.30.9 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.30.6 1.20.9 0.9 0.61.2 0.30.31.20.61.2 0.6 0.30.9 1.20.30.30.61.20.90.3 0.31.2 0.9 0.30.90.90.6 1.2 1.50.90.6 1.2 0.3 1.2 1.51.2 1.50.90.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.20.9 0.9 1.21.21.21.20.3 1.5 0.61.20.30.90.9 0.300.9 0 0 1.20.9 0.3 0.3 0.60.9 0 00.6 0.60 0.60.90.60.90 0.61.20 0.3 0.6 1.20.3 0.90.90 0.3 1.201.2 1.2 0.90.9 0.6 0 1.20.3 0.3 0.60.30.90.3 0.60.60.30.9 0.6 0.31.2 1.21.20.3 00 0.60.3 1.51.20.3 0.30.61.2 0.3 0.90.30.600.60.60.3 1.50.60.30.90.30.3 00.3 1.51.2 0.6 0.9 0 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.50.30.6 0.9 1.20.31.20.9 0.30 0.30.90.6 0.90.30.30.90.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.60.60 0.9 0.3 0.60.30.6 0.3 0.3 1.20.90.60.6 0.9 0.6 0.60.60.9 0.9 1.2 0.3 1.50.60.6 1.2 1.21.21.51.81.2 0.9 1.51.5 2.12.1 1.2 2.11.80.6 0.91.8 1.80.31.20.90.6 1.5 1.51.5 1.2 1.2 1.8 Deflection 1.21.20.9 0.60.91.2 1.2 0.3 0.9 0.60.3 0.60.3 0.6 0.60.3 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.60.30.60.30.3 0.6 0.30 0.3 0.60.91.21.51.82.12.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.60.30.90.60.9 1.21.2Min Max 0.9 1.2 0 1.20.90.90.30.30.6 0.3 0.60.30.3 0.3 0.3 00.60.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.601.2 1.2 calc > Allowable Construction Tolerances0.3 0.60.3 0.30.30 0.6 0.60.90.60.3 0.30.60.9 calc < Observed Deflection 0.31.2 1.21.20.91.2 0.9 1.20.90.3 0.30.30.30.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 125. Finite Element Deflection ModelThird Floor0 00 0.3 0.30.9 0.60.30.60.6 1.5 0.60.9 0.3 1.51.51.52.1 0.92.10.30.9 0 0.9 1.2 1.81.8 1.80.9 0.6 0.9 0.90.60.91.2 1.8 1.5 0.61.8 1.200.90.92.10.90.90.61.50.9 2.10.3 1.2 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.8 1.8 0.3 0.61.2 0.3 0.61.21.2 1.5 0.60.3 1.51.81.82.1 0.6 0.61.2 2.1 1.2 0.90.91.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 2.11.2 1.21.2 1.51.22.10.9 1.21.2 2.41.5 1.80.9 1.8 0.6 0.90.60.91.50.6 0.3 1.8 0.3 1.22.1 1.21.2 0.30.61.2 0.9 1.50.3 1.21.51.21.2 0.3 0.60.3 0.90.60.9 0.9 1.21.8 1.50.3 0 0.30.3 1.20.6 1.2 1.5 0.30.3 1.20.90.90.6 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.20.30.30.6 0.30.30.9 1.2 0.60.60.30.6 1.51.51.2 1.5 1.8 0.9 0.30.9 0.61.8 0.61.5 1.50.30.30.90.9 1.81.5 1.81.20.3 1.50.31.2 1.80.9 1.2 0.60.61.21.52.11.2 1.2 1.8 0.6 1.51.5 1.81.20.91.81.2 1.50 0 1.5 1.5 1.20.300.901.20.6 1.20 0.60.30.6 1.8 0.30.9 1.81.2 0.6 2.1 1.5 0.61.5 0.60.3 0.6 1.81.20.9 0.3 1.21.5 01.8 0.6 0.6 0.300.90.9 0.30.3 0.600.3 0.30.30.6 1.2 1.80.30.3 0.9 1.8 1.5 0.61.8 0.60.3 1.51.2 0.90.60.6 1.2 0 0.60.91.2 1.50.60.61.20.6 1.50.91.51.50.6 2.1 0.9 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.8 00.90.9 1.51.8 1.8 1.21.5 0.91.51.20.60.9 0.3 0.91.51.2 01.80.30.6 0.90 0 1.8 0.91.8 0.91.21.8 0.6 1.2 0.61.81.20.9 1.8 1.8 0.9 01.21.20.9 0.91.2 0.61.80.61.5 0.3 01.2 1.50.3 0.9 0 1.5 00.60.61.2 0Deflection 00.3 0.60.9 1.2 1.51.8 2.1 2.4Min Max 2.1 calc > Allowable Construction Tolerances calc < Observed Deflection 126. Second Floor Deflection2.10 0 0.30.30.3 0 0.3 0.3 00.30.30.9 0.3 0.6 0.300.9 0.60.6 0.30.90.91.2 0.60.9Field Measured Deflections 0.90.60.6 0.90.6 0.61.2 0.60.6 1.2 0.91.5 1.8 0.3 1.51.2 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.90.31.80.30.90.9 0.3 0.9 0.60.60.6 0.90.3 1.2 1.82.10.9 0.6 0.90.6 0.90.90.61.8 2.11.8 0.90.6 0.9 1.8 0.6 0.60.90.6 0.6 0.31.5 0.62.10.9 0.60.9 0.60.9 1.2 0.9 1.50.30.9 0.30.9 0.60.30.9 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.30.6 1.20.9 0.9 0.61.2 0.30.31.20.61.2 0.6 0.30.9 1.20.30.30.61.20.90.3 0.31.2 0.9 0.30.90.90.6 1.2 1.50.90.6 1.2 0.3 1.2 1.51.2 1.50.90.6 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.20.9 0.9 1.21.21.21.20.3 1.5 0.61.20.30.90.9 0.300.9 0 0 1.20.9 0.3 0.3 0.60.9 0 00.6 0.60 0.60.90.60.90 0.61.20 0.3 0.6 1.20.3 0.90.90 0.3 1.201.2 1.2 0.90.9 0.6 0 1.20.3 0.3 0.60.30.90.3 0.60.60.30.9 0.6 0.31.2 1.21.20.3 00 0.60.3 1.51.20.3 0.30.61.2 0.3 0.90.30.600.60.60.3 1.50.60.30.90.30.3 00.3 1.51.2 0.6 0.9 0 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.50.30.6 0.9 1.20.31.20.9 0.30 0.30.90.6 0.90.30.30.90.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.60.60 0.9 0.3 0.60.30.6 0.3 0.3 1.20.90.60.6 0.9 0.6 0.60.60.9 0.9 1.2 0.3 1.50.60.6 1.2 1.21.21.51.81.2 0.9 1.51.5 2.12.1 1.2 2.11.80.6 0.91.8 1.80.31.20.90.6 1.5 1.51.5 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.21.20.9 0.60.91.2 1.2 0.3 0.9 0.60.3 0.60.3 0.6 0.60.3 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.60.30.60.30.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.60.30.90.60.9 1.21.2 0.9 1.2 0 1.20.90.90.30.30.6 0.3 0.60.30.3 0.3 0.3 00.60.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.601.2 1.20.3 0.6Modeled Results0.3 0.30.30 0.6 0.60.90.60.3 0.30.60.9 0.31.2 1.21.20.91.2 0.9 1.20.90.3 0.30.30.30.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 127. Creep Time dependent Increasing deflection of slab Age of loading Duration of loading Composition of concrete Mix Design Components Ratio of span to depth Magnitude of stress Reinforcement 128. Analyzed Live Loads: BUILDING ORIGINAL DESIGNAnalyzed Capacity AREADRAWINGS Public Areas100 psf100 psf (1st Floor)Corridors80 psf (2nd & 3rd Floors) ~20 psfDwelling Units40 psf 129. First Floor Flat Slab Flexural StrengthAnalysis 130. Second Floor Flat Slab Flexural Strength Analysis 131. Third Floor Flat Slab Flexural Strength Analysis 132. Punching ShearTwo (2) way shear or punching shear results in the formationof inclined cracks through the slab in vicinity of the column Pipers Row Car ParkWolverhampton, EnglandCollapsed 1997, 32 years after Examples of Punching Shearconstruction circa 1965 133. ACI 318 Punching Shear ACI 318-77 (Then) ACI 318-05 (Now)Not Applicable 134. Underside of First Floor Slab 135. Underside of Second Floor Slab 136. Underside of Third Floor Slab 137. Structural Review & Analysis Revealed Significant Deficiencies Excessive deflections should have been anticipated In addition to long term creep Flexural Strength Deficiencies Insufficient reinforcing/slab thickness for design loads Punching Shear Deficiencies Slab thickness/column sizesIf utilized to full live loading, result ofdeficiencies could be catastrophic. 138. Presenting Bad News to Client Owner was faced with the following information: All three (3) elevated concrete slabs were grossly deficient inflexural capacity All three (3) elevated concrete slabs were grossly deficient inpunching shear capacity Recommended Owner conduct peer review Provided short list of firms to Owner 139. Peer Review Met with Owners peer reviewer Provided copies of all analysis and models Walked site with peer reviewer to observe distress Findings of peer review Verified initial forensic assessment Presented findings to the Board of Directors and Ownerscounsel 140. Owner Faced with the Following Questions Possibility of continued occupancy? Evacuate and condemn? Remedial repairs? 141. Factors Considered by Owner Prior toDecision Signature building within this retirement community Dining facility, Bank, Salon, Spa were extensively used by the entire community not just building residents Center of the social agenda for the community Revenue stream of the building was integral to Ownersbusiness model Concern over occupancy and permitting Fire Marshall Building Official 142. Owners Direction After reviewing the engineering and economicanalysis, the Owner chose to focus efforts on developingremedial repair options for the existing building. These remedial repair options were to be performedunder the auspis of a top to bottom rennovation. 143. Economic Alternative Selection Adding a third floor to the two (2) wings Increasing value of asset Adding an ancillary residential building Allowing total evacuation Adding a new dining facility to the existing building Allowing continued occupancy during phase repairs 144. Practical Live Load Concerns of Continued Occupancy50 psf 100 psf 150 psf(Approximately 12 individuals (Approximately 22 individuals (Approximately 34 individuals within 10 square feet)within 10 square feet)within 10 square feet) Emergency Evacuation Loading from sprinkler discharge 145. Addressing Building Deficiencies to Allow Continued Occupancy Limited live loads in public areas Initiated phased remedial repair toaddress punching shear issues atworst locations first Constructed new attached caf toallow dining area to be shut down Used a three (3) phased approachto renovate the building whileoccupied 146. Remedial Repairs Considered Install shotcrete/structural steel shearcolumns Drilling for rebar and bolts Bonding of steel plates to concrete Install structural steel beams andcolumns Install externally bonded fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) system Self-leveling topping slab 147. Remedial Repairs ImplementedDEFICIENCYREPAIRPunching shearSteel shear collars Flexural capacity Externally bonded FRP systemExcess deflection/out of level slabsSelf-leveling topping slabs 148. Increasing Live Load Capacity on Top of Slab 149. Increasing Live Load Capacity on Bottom ofSlabBottom of Slab 150. Concrete Surface Preparation Section of slab prepared forSlab roughness compared againstinstallation of FRP by grinding or CSP sampleblasting 151. Installation of FRPApply epoxy basecoat andFRP Saturation Machineinstall saturated FRP stripInstallation of saturated FRP Section of slab with FRP stripsstrips installed 152. Fireproofing FRP StripsSpray on fireproofing installed over FRP strips Spray on fireproofed FRP strips above ACT 153. Adhesion TestingFRP strips installed (NoteFRP adhesion testing machineadhesion test panel with pucks in foreground). Typical FRP adhesion test panel 154. Tensile TestingTension test panel 155. Punching Shear Repairs at Interior Columns 156. Top Surface Slab Repair Adjacent toColumnsTypical cracking of slab around Cracks repaired by gravity feedingconcrete columns epoxy resin 157. Top Surface Slab Repair Adjacent to Columns cont.Cracks in floor slab extending Cracks filled with epoxyfrom columnRepaired Area with FRP Installed 158. Underside Slab Shear Collar InstallationInstallation of steel shear collarFire rated enclosure beinginstalled around shear collarColumn with steel shearTypical steel shear collarcollar installed 159. Shear Collar Bond TestingConcrete surface roughenedPucks pulled using tension Pulled puck (Note concreteand pucks installed deviceadhered to puck) 160. Caf Addition 161. Room Renovation