boffintech
Civil/Environmental
- Jul 29, 2005
- 469
Sorry for the rant...
ACI Committee 423.6 vs PT Suppliers
Performed a pre-pour inspection at a project site this past week and found that the encapsulation protection sleeves at the fixed/live/intermediate end anchorages contained considerable free moisture.
The requirements of ACI-423.6 are that for “aggressive environments” an encapsulated system be used and that that system be WATERTIGHT.
The PT supplier argues that Atlanta, GA is NOT an aggressive environment therefore the requirements regarding the same do not apply.
As the inspector I really don’t have any opinion one way or the other on the aggressive environment argument. I mean I have a contract with the owner to perform code required special inspections and other contract compliance observations and to report the results of those insp/obs to the EOR and arch. It’s a pretty simple gig: observe and report.
The EOR has written in the project manual an “Environmental Definition” that defines parking deck slabs as an “aggressive environment”. The project manual goes on to require that all areas defined as “aggressive environment” have fully encapsulated PT systems. As a result, the owner has purchased and the contractor is installing an encapsulated PT system.
The PT supplier steadfastly refuses to make the PT coating in the protection sleeves “free of voids” or to protect the material during shipping. OK, I’m not making this up, the supplier now claims that if PT grease is added to the protection sleeves that this constitutes a change to their system and thus “voids the warranty”. Not sure if that was an intentional pun on their part but I am stunned nonetheless that they are willing to go to mat over this. The fixed end sleeves are supposed to be filled with grease at the factory and the live and intermediate end sleeves are supposed to be filled with grease in the field. We know it, they know, everyone knows it, but these guys continue to be in a state of abject denial.
ACI-423.6 2.3.5 — Aggressive environments
The sheathing connection to sleeving at couplers and
to all stressing-end, intermediate, and fixed-end
anchorages shall be watertight and free of air spaces.
So my question: on the jobs where you guys have specified encapsulated PT, are you checking this during your structural observations? Or are you verifying that the inspector is checking this? And if so, what are you finding? If not, why are you giving these guys a free pass?
ACI Committee 423.6 vs PT Suppliers
Performed a pre-pour inspection at a project site this past week and found that the encapsulation protection sleeves at the fixed/live/intermediate end anchorages contained considerable free moisture.
The requirements of ACI-423.6 are that for “aggressive environments” an encapsulated system be used and that that system be WATERTIGHT.
The PT supplier argues that Atlanta, GA is NOT an aggressive environment therefore the requirements regarding the same do not apply.
As the inspector I really don’t have any opinion one way or the other on the aggressive environment argument. I mean I have a contract with the owner to perform code required special inspections and other contract compliance observations and to report the results of those insp/obs to the EOR and arch. It’s a pretty simple gig: observe and report.
The EOR has written in the project manual an “Environmental Definition” that defines parking deck slabs as an “aggressive environment”. The project manual goes on to require that all areas defined as “aggressive environment” have fully encapsulated PT systems. As a result, the owner has purchased and the contractor is installing an encapsulated PT system.
The PT supplier steadfastly refuses to make the PT coating in the protection sleeves “free of voids” or to protect the material during shipping. OK, I’m not making this up, the supplier now claims that if PT grease is added to the protection sleeves that this constitutes a change to their system and thus “voids the warranty”. Not sure if that was an intentional pun on their part but I am stunned nonetheless that they are willing to go to mat over this. The fixed end sleeves are supposed to be filled with grease at the factory and the live and intermediate end sleeves are supposed to be filled with grease in the field. We know it, they know, everyone knows it, but these guys continue to be in a state of abject denial.
ACI-423.6 2.3.5 — Aggressive environments
The sheathing connection to sleeving at couplers and
to all stressing-end, intermediate, and fixed-end
anchorages shall be watertight and free of air spaces.
So my question: on the jobs where you guys have specified encapsulated PT, are you checking this during your structural observations? Or are you verifying that the inspector is checking this? And if so, what are you finding? If not, why are you giving these guys a free pass?
