Discovered Cold Joint after the fact in Monolithic Slab for a Metal Building in a High Velocity Wind

[NeedanewGC]

I recently was reviewing photographs of a structure that was constructed and became aware that the general contactor intentionally poured a cold joint in the monolithic slab foundation for a metal building. The project is located in a high velocity wind zone and the thickened edge of the mono slab was designed to be 24" deep and 9' wide with anchor bolts for the metal building columns at 20' centers. Building is 100' x 80'. The pictures I reviewed were clear that the first 16" of the bottom of the slabs "thickened edge foundation" was poured on one date and then 3 weeks later the the slab was then poured on top of the perimeter foundation. The anchor bolts were supposed to have been embedded 12". The top bar was not placed at the proposed height of the thickened edge. Instead the contractor pushed the rebar down to allow his unnecesary form create a vertical edge, 4.5" below the proposed top of the thickened edge foundation.

The job is nearing completion and the owner is not understanding of the impact of this. I am not the engineer of record, but cannot ignore this. Any thoughts ?

 

[phamENG]

If you are not the engineer of record, you need to to bring it to his/her attention immediately. You are correct that messing with these details could have a serious impact on the structural performance of this building.

 

[KootK]

1) For sure bring this to the EOR's attention.

2) Yeah, the cold joint could mess significantly with at least two things:

a) Thrust tie performance if the thrust is being resisted by slab rebar and;

b) Uplift performance assuming that the design required the uplifting column to engage the weight of the footing below.

 

[NeedanewGC]

What obligation does the EOR have if the original contractor did not follow his plan? Is the engineer not obligated if the contractor did not follow his design and this is one year later? What else can be done to rectify this horror?

 

[jayrod12]

The EOR can refuse to certify the installation, which may or may not be required. Where I am, the owner/GC requires the EOR sign off on the building before they'll issue the occupancy permit. So usually as soon as we indicate that lack of completing the remedial measures could affect obtaining occupancy, the GC magically finds a way to do it.

In this scenario if I were EOR, I'd be looking for ways to work with the contractor to rectify the issues without full removal and replacement. However there are other people I know that wouldn't even consider playing ball with the GC and just telling them to remove it and start over.