HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineer's Visual Inspections 02.08.2012442,VV.1).W24,4r 42.t.)
4111111)
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MATERIALS HANDLING ENG:ZWEERS
DATE: 08 February 2012
PROJECT: Building 299 and 269 Visual Inspections
TO: $&D Hauling
POB 425
Debeque, Colorado 81630
Attn: Stan
(970) 309 1037
448 Will Avenue
Rifle, Colorado 81650
970-625-2774 Phone
970-625-4399 FAX
westar@rofnet E -Mail
Dear Stan.
At your request I conducted a visual inspection of the referenced buildings relative to various ground and
foundation movements. I was not ask to determine the cause, or suggest any remedies for the building
movements and displacements, and this type of work is beyond the scope of this inspection. I did review the
geotechnical report produced for this development by HP Geotech, Inc. dated 15 May 2004. The results of the
inspections are as follows.
Building 299:
This building is a basic warehouse style structure consisting of a steel truss frame superstructure, 8' high precast
concrete panel sidewalls, and a concrete floor. The roofing and siding are metal, and the building appears to be
insulated and heated. The foundation was not exposed and could not be inspected.
The major distress to this building consists of a large amount of uplift at the southeast corner of the building
combined with a lesser amount of subsidence on the east sidewall at the overhead door. The balance of the
building appears to be in relative good structural condition.
The ground/foundation movement is mostly upward which has raised the precast sidewall panels and the
associated steel truss frames. The lateral bracing along the southeast wall has broken loose apparently resulting
from the stress imposed by the frame displacement. The concrete floor slab is broken as well.
As far as safety and continued use is concerned I did not observe any sudden collapse potential in the current
condition. However, the lateral bracing along the southeast sidewall should be re -attached to the steel truss frame
in a manner similar to the original installation. This building should be continuously monitored for any further
displacements or distress by the Owner/Occupant, especially when snow remains on the roof, and during
seasonal temperature and ground water changes. Repairs should be made as soon as possible to stabilize the
damaged and displaced portion of the building structure.
The exterior grading does not comply with the geotech report in that grading shall prevent ponding of surface
water around the building to a distance of ten feet from the building. In addition there was free standing water in
an excavated hole adjacent to the southwest corner of the building. The surface of the water appeared to be near
the probable elevation of the foundation. Frost protection for the foundation was also recommended in the
Page 1 of 2
report, although a depth was not specified. There are no gutters, down spouts, or extensions on the building
which allows the water from the roof to pond near the building sidewalls.
Building 269:
This building is also a basic warehouse style structure consisting of 16' high precast concrete wall panels, a wood
truss roof structure, and a concrete floor. The roofing is metal, and the building appears to be insulated and
heated. The foundation was not exposed and could not be inspected.
The major distress to this building consists of a subsidence along the center west sidewall at the overhead door.
The balance of the building appears to be in relative good structural condition.
The ground/foundation movement is mostly downward which has caused the floor slab and precast sidewall
panels to deflect downward. There was no structural damage visible due to wall and ceiling cover, and there
were no obvious visual signs of damage except to secondary elements.
As far as safety and continued use is concerned I did not observe any sudden collapse potential in the current
condition. This building should be continuously monitored for any further displacements or distress by the
Owner/Occupant, especially when snow remains on the roof, and during seasonal temperature and ground water
changes.
The exterior grading does not comply with the geotech report in that grading shall prevent ponding of surface
water around the building to a distance of ten feet. Frost protection for the foundation was also recommended in
the report, but no depth was specified. There are no gutters, down spouts, or extensions on the building which
allows the water from the roof to pond near the building sidewalls.
Additional Information:
During the inspection you provided me with the following information.
1. The underground water system had a major leaked near the south end of building 299.
2. A sanitary sewer leach field is adjacent to the west side of building 269.
3. The movement problems with these building has occurred within the past 1 1/2-2 years.
4. The current owner of the buildings has tried to improve the surface drainage since water was ponding
near the buildings.
if you have any questions please call me.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Kesler, P.E.
s$ l~ i .
acs
A. J "%
wca. Cie
avj f f -,--:...e
r
President _.r
xc: File
Page 2 of 2