sorry that was give the person the right to make the "error" right
read your contract again, check your exhibit 'b' etc. was it to provide control? or to do stakeout/layout for concrete contractor? check your invoices, what do they detail?
the concrete contractor wants you to end up holding the bag, and will say what they need to in court. show them the paper, this is what you wanted,this is what i provided. good thing you found the error, blindsides are not fun.
Just had that happen here on a local Hotel.
Super wanted offset hubs and the concrete guys said could do the rest with their own Nikon total station. They worked through the wither months pouring footers and walls, then setting anchor bolts. They super never asked for checks. In the end the 40 corner (Plus a curve) building was .25' out of square and 0.12' out of level. Mason used 4ft forms to pour a 5ft wall. They padded the last 1ft with plywood and it didn't hold. It has cost them over $20k to try to fix it so far. Your 0.15' may be fixable for the iron guys to just cut the column beams off the plate, move it and re-weld. That's what they did here. Since we had 5" columns on 12" plates. May not work for you. They also padded the sill plate with steel and grout, but had cut off all the anchors, then weld them on top of the steel sill plate.
Lee
Ok, the concrete guy says your points are off 0.75 of an inch (3/4") and takes it upon himself to move your points, but makes the mistake of moving them 0.75 of an inch in the wrong direction which produces a total error of 1.50 inches.
If he procedes to build the entire building 1.50 inches off, and everything is in its relative position, then why doesn't the roof fit?
If he would have built the building 10 feet off, the roof still should have "fit", the building would just be in the wrong place.
So it sounds to me that he either only moved part of the building in the wrong direction, or there is more to the story.
Was this building an addiction to an existing building, where the new roof had to meet an existing one?
At any rate, it doesn't sound like that big a deal.
You could simply "slot" the base plates to make up 1.50 inches. This is a relatively cheap fix, and it is structurally sound if done by a certified welder.
A little more expensive is the cutting of the columns off the base plate and rewelding them.
Another cheap fix is using a 1.50 inch steal plate as a washer where the beams connect to the columns.
I don't like the next idea, but I have seen it done many times. You can shear off the anchors bolts and then drill and epoxy new ones in the correct locations. This takes the longest time (cure time) and costs out the ying yang.
Last but not least, would be to demo the grade beams and columns and then repour all the anchor bolts. If this ends up being the only solution, then heads will roll because you just threw the schedule out the window. Might be a ass whipping or two involved if it comes to this.
One last heads up to look at would be the details. Metal buildings are a different animal from a structural buildings. Structural buildings is all about grid lines. Metal buildings however are based on skin line (exterior metal skin) and more often than naught, the metal columns are offset from the grid line. The metal building supplier should have sent out a detailed location of the bolts and plates, and it may not be exactly the same as the structural drawings.
Some good ideas there to sort the problemn, the roof probably doesn't fit as maybe they just moved one side or row of the structure and left the rest as is.
The way I see it is that the guy who moved it is on the hook for everything .
tim - he only moved one side and apparently did not cross check.
i like your ideas on the fixes. glad that is not my decision to make.
the problem arose from trying to use our hubs for more than their intended purpose. the hubs we set were to set form boards. they should have called us back to mark grid lines on the concrete before they did anything else. instead they let pedro the concrete wizard and his nifty david white theodolite save them some money and do the grid layout himself. super's call not mine. hope pedro has e&o, but i kinda doubt it.
and by the way "kinda" is a word just like "gonna", Mr. Cow.
you should be good, but the super should know better. next time he will...
form guys compliment us all the time when we stake for footing or pin for forms
other firms in these parts are typically out 0.06' where we not only layout within 0.02', we check everything afterwards. the crew uses steel tape to check, but i prefer to radial the points in place usually from a control point, then setup on a pair of the pins set and radial from there for a check.
Het Snoop, don't dis the David White transit....
I used one for a while and it worked great! For a paperweight, that is.
I'm so glad I'm not involved in Construction Surveying anymore.
Gonna is a word in Texas, we just ain't let Mr. Webster in on it yet.
James
:good:
Yes, for a free standing stucture I usually shoot in one corner from good control points and then move up to that point and square up the rest of the building. That way all the 90 degree corners and lengths get checked.
I've seen far too many times where a crew came in and radially shot all the corners in, only the leave a out of square mess behind because they didn't take the time to do some simple checks.
By far, the worse cases are extentions of existing buildings. I get called in as a consultant all the time in this type of situation because where they built from the new building layout didn't connect up with the existing structure.
Usually the surveyor (or his party chief) all say the same thing. "...but I set up on known property corners and shot everything in radially...".
When I ask to see their control where they went inside the existing building and asbuilt the existing columns (i.e., grid lines), I am usually met with a puzzled look and a "huh?".
