Missing Weld/Embed Plate

[jar546]

The contractor missed a weld plate (embed plate) and in the RFI the engineer specified expansion bolts. This is the result of the expansion bolts. Looks like they probably hit the rebar and the hole went in at an angle. Now we have one problem and the fix created another. What has engineers in your area done for situations like this?
The two bolts on the other side are in straight.

 

[jar546]

The revised detail spec's by the engineer was not followed:

 

[tbz]

Well without measurements to verify I can't say for sure, but it does not even look like they followed the engineers directive.

Looks like they installed the plates wrong and did not notch the lower flange to allow for the plate to slide down.

The second question is did you check to see if the anchors are 5-inches on c/l, they look closer in the picture, than 5-inches, just saying.

Get the engineer that drew the fix to give an inspection letter explaining how to fix it, or at least explain if the incorrect installation is structurally compliant as done.

I have been called out many a time on a project where the inspector flag it for not done as per engineer of record submitted design, when the contractor could not get the original fabricator to fix the work.

 

[ICE]

Do you require a deputy inspector for torquing wedge anchors? Do you use a torque wrench? 5/8” seems a little small. If you put a torque wrench on it you will find it has “relaxed“. That loss of torque is small and not significant…. But when it’s a mile of storage racks and you look up at the contractor and say, “I’m sorry to tell you that these are loose, watch this….. followed by the sound of a click in about a 1/4 turn”

 

[e hilton]

Looks like they installed the plates wrong and did not notch the lower flange to allow for the plate to slide down.

The detail only calls for a 4x4x3/8 plate … length is not specified.

 

[Mark K]

The easy fix is to use threaded rods with epoxy in the drilled holes.

 

[north star]

# ~ #

* tbz * has it correct !..........The engineer of record
will need to design a fix, along with their design
seal & signature on the submittal.

# ~ #

 

[tbz]

The detail only calls for a 4x4x3/8 plate … length is not specified.

does not need to, they had the option to use (2) A325 bolts

or

Weld. cop flange, they did not cope and weld the flange, just welded the web.

Additionally what is the distance between the anchors, the spec says 5" c/l, might be but looks shorter.

 

[Msradell]

It just looks like a big goof up no matter how you look at it.

 

[Mark K]

The detail does not call for a 4x4x3/8 plate. Rather it specifies double L4x4x3/8 angles

Further the all around weld called for is not achievable for both angles

 

[e hilton]

The detail does not call for a 4x4x3/8 plate. Rather it specifies double L4x4x3/8 angles

Further the all around weld called for is not achievable for both angles

Oh, but surely they have a clip on the other side like the plans call for … right? :}

My point was, the bottom flange might not need to be cut back if the clip fits between the flanges.

 

[Mark K]

Oh, but surely they have a clip on the other side like the plans call for … right? :}

My point was, the bottom flange might not need to be cut back if the clip fits between the flanges.

The spacing between the anchors into the concrete will be greater than the spacing dictated by the steel members..

A more common approach would be to use a plate with anchors with a perpendicular steel plate to be connected to the steel beam. The embedded plate size is not limited by the bolts to the steel beam.

 

[jar546]

The spacing between the anchors into the concrete will be greater than the spacing dictated by the steel members..

A more common approach would be to use a plate with anchors with a perpendicular steel plate to be connected to the steel beam. The embedded plate size is not limited by the bolts to the steel beam.

In this case, I've asked the contractor to submit an RFI to the engineer to determine whether or not he/she finds the installation acceptable or to design a fix since the contractor cannot follow directions. This started out as a missing embed which created an RFI which is now causing another RFI. The bottom line per the Building Department is "not per approved plans."

 

[steveray]

What did the SI say?

 

[ICE]

to determine whether or not he/she finds the installation acceptable

You need help with that?

 

[SCBO1]

I don't see 5-inch on center bolting on the flange to concrete wall?

 

[jar546]

You need help with that?

Newsflash: They were able to tighten the bolts and the engineer signed off on the job with a reply to the RFI.

 

[ICE]

You gave the engineer the option to accept the work as is. The bolts are loaded in shear which hasn’t changed. The bolts are so close to each other that the pullout cones overlap. I dealt with an engineer in his eighties that would stamp and sign a drawing on a Denny’s place mat.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

IMHO the only course of action is to have the engineer-of-record review the condition. If he/she thinks it's okay, have them submit a letter stating that over their seal and signature. If the engineer-of-record doesn't think it's okay, he/she is the ONLY party who can legally design a correction (without creating a nightmare of a professional liability problem).