Please see Landmark’s responses to the issues that were presented in my e-mails. Burnie: Thoughts on Matt’s response on item #2 that none of the covers were less than 1”? Ron King, P.E. Associate, Denton Office Manager Freese and Nichols, Inc 2220 San Jacinto Blvd, Suite 330 Denton, Texas 76205 940-220-4350 Office rgk@freese.com www.freese.com From: Wiatrek, Matt [mailto:mwiatrek@teamlandmark.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:59 AM To: Ron King Cc: Grendzinski, John; Wiatrek, Matt Subject: Surveyor Road - 2nd lift response Ron, Please see the responses below concerning the 9 issues you emailed yesterday. Comments from Landmark’s design engineer, John Grendzinski, are identified in Green. We are pushing to have the repair procedure to you prior to our 4pm meeting. Call me on the cell if you have any questions. 1. They poured this second lift without notifying the inspector to come out and look at the rebar beforehand. We have no way of knowing for sure everything that is in the lift is correct. The only thing our inspector was able to do was to look at the rebar protruding through the top of the lift. However, that does not help us with any of the covered rebar. We recommend that Landmark be required to provide non-destructive investigation of the rebar placement in Lift #2 to clarify what was placed, sizes, spacing, cover, etc. using GPR radar (the version of GPR equipment designed for concrete investigation). I have attached a vendor that FNI uses for this, in case Landmark needs a contact for someone who does this. [Wiatrek, Matt] Written response not required. This will be a discussion point for Friday’s meeting. 2. In the pier cap shop drawing, sheet S4-D2 calls for a 1-1/2” cover over the wire mesh from the exterior face of the wall. As inspector noted, there were 5 places where it was less than this. They told us that their engineer is ok with a 3/8” variance from this, ie. down to 1.125” cover. The inspector found these some locations with less than an inch cover. [Wiatrek, Matt] Mike Kuehn was onsite 5/5 and measured mesh coverage in several areas, none of which were less than 1” (results attached). [John G] The 3/8” tolerance is from ACI 117. From Michael’s survey, I see 8 inside and 12 outside covers less than specified, and one less than specified minus tolerance. Given the situation (locale, location in the structure, reinforcement arrangement, stress condition), I would rather we live with the 1” cover at that location than try to remediate. 3. Look at the photo of the “misplaced 513 vertical rebar” (this is actually a D-710 #7 bar, photo is mislabeled). This rebar is encroaching into the beam seat location. The beam will be one of the beams used to support their second story floor. [John G] It looks like the D701 bar is for the sleeve at 169°. The extension this bar can be cut off at the top of lift 2 without any issues because this is far enough above the sleeve. 4. See photo of opening for crane cables. This opening is not in the shop drawings, and there is no indication of whether this was authorized by the engineer that sealed the drawings, or how it is to be filled in. Was it reinforced? Are there structural drawings for this? [John G] I’m ok with the boxout provided it’s grouted-back after use. 5. Tag on rebar. [Wiatrek, Matt] The tagged rebar is associated with lift 3 and will be removed prior to placement of lift 3 concrete. Lift 3 is not ready for inspection. 6. Foam seal not seated properly. [Wiatrek, Matt] The foam seal is associated with lift 3 and will be in place prior to placement of lift 3 concrete. Lift 3 is not ready for inspection. 7. Item not in the report, but discovered after further research of the photos and shop drawings – See Concrete Structural Drawings, S5-H3: D613 rebar (#6 size per sheet S20-D) is required, but #5 size was installed. [John G] We need to dowel back. I’ll prepare a procedure. 8. On sheet S5-D2, vertical D406 bar is called out, but it was not installed. The drawing shows that it is to penetrate into the top of Lift #2. [John G] These bars are these to provide continuity of inner face reinforcement in the transition from rebar to mesh. We need to dowel-in some bars. I’ll prepare a procedure. 9. Some of the D512 rebar for several of the beam seats will not meet the cover for the block outs. [John G] These bars should follow the cover requirement for interior, one inch. With tolerance considered, where covers is less than 3/4 inch, I suggest making the boxout ½ inch narrower so that there’s about 1 inch cover. Regards, Matthew Wiatrek Landmark Structures Office 817.439.8888, x1204 • Fax 817.230.2082 Direct 817.230.8818 • Mobile 817.296.5583 mwiatrek@teamlandmark.com www.teamlandmark.com Please consider the environment before printing this message. ________________________________ This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain the sender's organization's confidential and privileged information. The recipient is hereby notified to treat the information as confidential and privileged and to not disclose or use the information except as authorized by sender's organization. Any unauthorized review, printing, retention, copying, disclosure, distribution, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of the material from any computer. Thank you for your cooperation.