VA Tampa B55 Structural Assessment Report 2022-02-07 FINAL.pdf

INNOVATIVE

ENGINEERING

INCORPORATED

CONDITION ASSESSMENT

BUILDING 55: PARKING STRUCTURE

JAMES A. HALEY VAMC

TAMPA, FL

FINAL REPORT

Prepared For:

Tampa Florida Veterans Healthcare System

February 7, 2022

I. Table of Contents:

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 2

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 3

III. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: 4

IV. QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS: 5

V. OBSERVATIONS: 6

VI. OPINIONS: 13

A. DEFINITIONS: 13

B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY DEFICIENCY LEVEL: 14

C. DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY SEVERITY LEVEL: 15

D. IMPLEMENTATION AND ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS 23

VII. CONCLUSION: 25

II. Executive Summary:

Innovative Engineering Inc. was asked to perform a condition assessment of Building 55, a parking structure on the James A. Haley VA Campus in Tampa, Florida. The goal of this assessment and subsequent report is to determine the current physical condition of the parking structure, identify and investigate deficient conditions, and provide repair and maintenance recommendations as well as a budget level estimate. A Level I condition assessment of the parking structure was conducted on October 25-28, 2021. A Level I condition assessment includes a visual assessment of all visible structural components including stair towers, elevators, exits and entrances, rooms, and exterior façades. A cursory inspection of architectural, waterproofing, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems were included in addition to the Level I condition assessment.

Based on the results of our visual assessment it was determined that the parking structure is in good condition considering the age of the structure and the levels of deterioration observed. No conditions requiring immediate action were noted. Some components of the parking structure appear to have reached the end of their service life and require repair or replacement to ensure the parking structure performs adequately and to prevent further and accelerated deterioration. It was also noted that there does not appear to be a preventive maintenance program currently in place.

The items listed in this report are presented in detail in section VI.E, Detailed Findings and Recommendations, by Severity Level in this report. If all of the repairs were completed as a single project over a one-year period, the total is estimated to be approximately $247,715.00. The actual estimated cost to remediate all the deficiencies documented in this inspection will vary depending on how the work is packaged and current market conditions. The observation of architectural, mechanical, plumbing, and other items not related to structural components or waterproofing systems was cursory in nature, so costs have not been included for the repair and remediation work associated with those deficiencies.

A good rule of thumb for budgeting the maintenance of a parking structure is $100 per parking space per year. This figure will be more conservative during the initial years and not enough in later years but will average over the lifespan of the structure. For the B55 parking structure, this would be the equivalent of budgeting in excess of $160,000 dollars per year for maintenance. Excessive deference of maintenance can also increase costs as the structure deteriorates at an accelerated rate. We recommend a maintenance plan be developed for Building 55. The following report includes our observations, findings, assessment, and recommendations based on our evaluation of the parking structure.

III. Introduction and Background:

Innovative Engineering Inc. was asked to perform a condition assessment of Building 55, a parking structure on the James A. Haley VA Campus in Tampa, Florida. Building 55 is located at the southwest corner of the campus. The following report details our assessment process, findings, recommendations for repair, and budget level estimates for repair for the conditions identified during the assessment. The objective of the assessment was to establish the existing condition of the parking structure in order to develop repair and maintenance recommendations that fit within the operational and budgeting constraints of the VAMC.

The referenced parking structure has an overall footprint of approximately 348 feet by 251 feet. The parking structure has a capacity in excess of 1,600 vehicles and is six stories in height. All levels of the referenced parking structure are elevated, with a detention pond located below the bottom level of the structure. The structure is divided into four lanes: two level drive lanes at the east half of the structure and two opposing ramps at the west half of the structure. Stair towers are located at the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of the parking structure. A three-car elevator lobby is located in the northeast corner of the structure adjacent to a stair tower.

The structure is constructed of precast concrete. Typical construction consists of a precast double tee beams (TT’s) that are supported by precast beams, resting on corbelled precast columns. The field of the TT’s have a factory installed topping with a pour strip of varying width around the perimeter of the structure and around the center load bearing precast wall panels. Each level also has field topped areas where a factory installed topping was not practical. Evidence of some previous repairs were noted. Building 55 is in overall good condition.

The assessment of the referenced parking structure included a visual survey of the top of the drive surface, the underside of the drive surface, beam and column framing, and the exterior façade.

Figure 1: Typical Level Plan

IV. Qualifications and Limitations:

As a part of this inspection, any structurally unsafe conditions and potential water infiltration sources were noted; and representative views of these conditions requiring maintenance were identified and documented. Observation of other systems including architecture, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and fire protection was cursory in nature. The deficiencies requiring maintenance were visually observed in order to quantify them to the best of our knowledge, but this does not guarantee that all deficiencies and their locations have been documented. As with any work affecting existing construction, unforeseen conditions are unavoidable without demolishing otherwise serviceable construction, disrupting occupied operations, and incurring significant cost for close up examination, non-destructive, and destructive testing.

With the passage of time since the creation of this report, both concealed and visible conditions may have changed due to alterations, additions, renovations, and deterioration. Specific repair procedures are not part of this report. The repair procedures presented herein are solely conceptual in nature. For all aspects of the repairs to be addressed including materials selection and specific methods of repair, construction documents are required.

Cost data from numerous sources used in the estimate include RS Means, local contractors, and historical pricing data. The estimate should be considered “Budget Level” and the actual construction costs will vary if the packaging of the tasks vary from the packaging presented herein and depending on how and to whom the project is bid. Our opinion of the probable costs presented herein does not provide a warranty as to the accuracy of such cost opinions as compared to contractor bids or negotiated prices for the work.

This investigative phase of the work should be considered the first of four phases that include Investigation, Bid Documentation, Bidding, and Construction. This report alone does not constitute a bid document, a scope of work, or construction documents, and should not be used as such.

V. Observations:

Observation 1: East Face Overall Observation 2: Close-Up of South Face

Observation 3: Typical Condition at Pond Below Structure.

Note Water Lines on Columns Observation 4: Typical Condition at Interior During Rain Event

Observation 5: Top Level Sealant Failure. Note Visible Daylight and Moisture Intrusion Through Joint Observation 6: Failed Perimeter Sealant at Upper Level Allowing

Excessive Rainwater Runoff to Lower Levels During Rain Event

Observation 7: Failed Perimeter Sealant at Upper Level. Note

Cohesive Failures and Cracked Sealant Surface Observation 8: Failed Vertical Sealant at Upper Level. Note

Cohesive Failure

Observation 9: Sealant Failure and Evidence of Moisture

Typical at Pour Strip Sealant Joints Observation 10: Deteriorated Double Tee Stem Seat. Note

Spalling

Observation 11: Minor Deterioration at Double Tee Stem Seat Observation 12: Minor Deterioration at Double Tee Stem Seat

Observation 13: Failed Double Tee Shear Transfer Connection.

Note Missing Round Bar and Minor Spalling Observation 14: Failed Double Tee Shear Transfer Connection with Moderate Spalling

Observation 15: Failed Double Tee Shear Transfer Connection with Extensive Spalling Observation 16: Cracking at Underside of Double Tee Flange

Observation 17: Double Tee Flange Cracking at Pour Strip Observation 18: Debris Filled Expansion Joint

Observation 19: Top Level Slab Spalling Observation 20: Moisture Intrusion and Failed Backer Rod at

Failed Sealant Joint Between Double Tees

Observation 21: Moisture Intrusion due to Failed Sealant Joint at Pour Strip Observation 22: Sealant and Paint Failure at Exterior of

Structure

Observation 23: Gutter Downspout Discharge at Upper Level.

Note Scoured Concrete Surface Observation 24: Expansion Joint with Conduit Bypass Filled with

Sealant Adjacent to Downspout Discharge Area

Observation 25: Moisture Intrusion at Lower Level Conduit

Bypass due to Gutter Downspout Discharge Observation 26: Nonstructural Girder End Spall

Observation 27: Exposed Precast Embedment at Left. Note

Cap Still in Place at Right Observation 28: Typical Concrete Slab Cracking at Upper Level

Observation 29: Precast Panel Lifting Lug Pocket Deterioration Observation 30: Typical Evidence of Ponding Observed in

Stairwells

Observation 31: Evidence of Corrosion at Stairwell Railing Post

Pocket. Note Pocket Holding Moisture and Discoloration Observation 32: Concrete Delamination at Sunshade

Observation 33: Close-Up of Concrete Delamination at

Sunshade Observation 34: Concrete Slab Spalling with Exposed

Reinforcement Near Drain

Observation 35: Organic Growth at Exterior of Structure Observation 36: Deteriorated Paint at Exterior Column

Observation 37: Deteriorated Paint at Exterior Column Observation 38: Typical Out of Order Call Box

VI. Opinions:

A. Definitions:

1. Severity of Deficiency:

i. High Priority: High potential for structural instability and/or a safety Issue (Complete repair within 1 Year)

ii. Moderate Priority: Potential for structural instability, a safety issue, or potential for significant water infiltration (Complete repair as soon as practical but within 2-3 years)

iii. Low Priority: Acceptable condition, not structurally unstable, and/or minor water infiltration potential (Include with regularly scheduled maintenance project)

2. Frequency of Deficiencies:

i. Typical: These types of deficiencies noted occur at multiple locations throughout the structure.

ii. Non-Typical: These deficiencies occur in only a few locations throughout the structure.

B. Summary of Findings by Deficiency Level:

1. High Priority: Potential for Structural Instability, a Safety Issue, or Potential for Significant Water Infiltration (Complete Repair as Soon as Practical but Within 1 Year):

a. Failed Sealants at Upper Levels

b. Deteriorated Double Tee Stems

2. Moderate Priority: Will Become Structurally Unstable or a Safety Hazard, or a Moderate

Water Infiltration Potential (Complete Repair within 2-3 Years):

a. Failed Double Tee Shear Transfer Connection

b. Double Tee Flange Cracks

c. Debris Filled Winged Bellows Expansion Joints

d. Top Level Slab Spalling

e. Interior and Exterior Sealant Failure

f. Downspout Drainage at Upper Level

g. Nonstructural Girder End Spall

3. Low Priority - Acceptable Condition, Not Structurally Unstable, and/or Minor Water

Infiltration Potential (Include with Regularly Scheduled Maintenance Project):

a. Exposed Precast Embedments

b. Concrete Slab Cracking

c. Precast Panel Lifting Lug Pocket Deterioration

d. Railing Post Pocket Deterioration

e. Concrete Delamination at Sunshade

f. Concrete Slab Spalls

4. General Observations: A Cursory Inspection of Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Fire Protection Was Conducted During the Condition Assessment and This Section Summarizes General Observations:

a. Organic Growth at Exterior

b. Deteriorated Paint Coating at Exterior Columns

c. Out of Order Call Boxes

C. Detailed Findings and Recommendations by Severity Level:

1. High Priority: High Potential for Structural Instability and/or a Safety Issue (Complete Repair Within 1 Year)

a. Failed Sealants at Upper Levels

i. Description: Deterioration or failure of the majority of the horizontal sealants was observed at the upper level of the parking structure. Failed sealant was observed at the perimeter of the structure, at pour strips, and double tee expansion joints throughout the exposed upper level. The failed sealant is the result of general aging, weathering, excessive deflection of supporting components, and ultraviolet degradation on the top level of the structure. Ultraviolet light can lead to the loss of elasticity of the sealant as well as cause cohesive and adhesive failures. The failed sealant at the top level has allowed large amounts of water to infiltrate the lower levels of the parking structure and may accelerate deterioration of components below. In several locations, backer rod has become dislodged and is hanging from the underside of the deck.

ii. Frequency: Typical

iii. Repair: Remove failed sealant and any backer material, clean the joint, and install a properly designed and detailed joint system.

iv. See Observations: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

b. Deteriorated Double Tee Stems

i. Description: Deteriorated double tee stem seats with minor to moderate spalling were noted at a few locations throughout the referenced parking structure. Deterioration at these locations appear to be the result of restrained differential movement, such as thermal expansion and contraction, between the double tee stem and corbel it is bearing on.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Remove unsound material, clean area, and patch with repair material. Patch material should be compatible with the substrate. Any reinforcing or other embedded elements encountered with corrosion should be cleaned to a bright metal finish and have an anti-corrosive protective coating applied. Reinforcing encountered that is compromised should be replaced in kind with adequate lap splices to adjacent, sound reinforcing. Caution should be taken to avoid cutting or damaging existing reinforcement during the repair process. Install a bearing pad between the double tee stem and corbel.

iv. See Observations: 10, 11, 12

2. Moderate Priority: Potential for Structural Instability, a Safety Issue, or Potential for Significant Water Infiltration (Complete Repair as Soon as Practical but Within 2-3 Years)

a. Failed Double Tee Shear Transfer Connection:

i. Description: The shear connection between adjacent double tee flanges supporting the drive surface helps share the load with adjacent double tee beams and stiffens the floor. This connection is constructed of embedments in the double tee beam flanges that are welded together to allow them to deflect together and share load, as shown in Figure 2. Failure of this connection has caused the areas around the joint to visibly move and shift as vehicle traffic passes over it. Not only can this be disconcerting to occupants and users of the parking structure, over time, due to repeated differential movement, this can cause additional structural damage to the affected precast double tees. Multiple locations with failed shear transfer connections were noted throughout the structure, particularly at the west ramp between floors one and two. Damage includes conditions where the round bar connecting the double tees has detached from both sides and fallen to the ground below. In more than one location, failure of the shear transfer connection has resulted in local spalling of the double tees, including one location where an anchor plate was dislodged from the structure.

ii. Frequency: Typical

iii. Repair: Install supplemental fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) shear transfer biscuits.

Repair any spalled or damaged double tee flange edges. Cut a ¼ inch wide slot to a depth that is within ½ inch of the bottom flange at a spacing directed by the engineer and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Install the FRP shear transfer biscuits in the slots with epoxy in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Allow to cure before allowing traffic to pass over repaired members.

iv. See Observations: 13, 14, 15

Figure 2: Typical Double Tee Shear Transfer Connection

b. Double Tee Flange Cracks:

i. Description: Cracks on the underside of double tees were noted, particularly under the exposed top level, but also at some other levels of the parking structure to a lesser extent. Cracking in concrete slabs is typically the result of stress induced by applied loads, temperature changes, or shrinkage. The cracks occur primarily beneath the location where the factory applied topping intersects the field installed topping towards the ends of double tees and, to a lesser extent, around the perimeter of some levels.

ii. Frequency: Typical

iii. Repair: Cracks narrower than 0.04 inches in width should be left alone and monitored for further degradation. Cracks wider than 0.04 inches should be sealed and injected with a low-viscosity epoxy. This approach is taken as cracks narrower than 0.04 inches in width are typically cosmetic in nature and not a significant structural or water ingress issue.

iv. See Observations: 16, 17

c. Debris Filled Winged Bellows Expansion Joint:

i. Description: Some expansion joints between stair towers and the remainder of the parking structure were noted to be filled with sand, organic matter, and trash. This type of joint is susceptible to debris ingress and, without periodic cleaning, the compression of these debris by vehicle tires or foot traffic can cause the joint to rupture at the underside of the joint, allowing moisture to infiltrate the spaces below.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Debris can typically be removed once per year by low pressure water, high pressure water, or with compressed air, with care taken not to excessively stress the joint. Installation of this type of joint was very typical for structures of this vintage and improvements have been made in expansion joint design. When the joint reaches the point of replacement, the joint should be retrofitted with a precompressed, coated, foam joint.

iv. See Observations: 18

d. Top Level Slab Spalling:

i. Description: Spalls in the concrete topping slab were noted at a few locations on the exposed top level of the parking structure. Spalling is typically a result of deterioration of a concrete surface brought on by the material absorbing moisture. Water absorbed into the concrete can create expansive corrosion of reinforcement, causing surface breaks, or spalls. Some spalls observed appear to be the result of inadequate concrete clear cover.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Remove unsound material, clean area, apply bonding agent, and patch with a properly specified repair material. The area should be sawcut to a rectangular perimeter to at least the minimum depth requirement of the repair material. Patch material should be polymer modified and compatible with the substrate. Any reinforcing encountered with corrosion should be cleaned to a bright metal finish and have an anti-corrosive protective coating applied. Reinforcing encountered that is compromised should be replaced in kind with adequate lap splices to adjacent, sound reinforcing. Caution should be taken to avoid cutting or damaging existing double tee reinforcement during the repair process.

iv. See Observations: 19

e. Interior and Exterior Sealant Failures:

i. Description: Failure of a large majority of joint sealants was observed throughout the interior and exterior of the parking structure. Failed sealant was observed at the perimeter of each level, at pour strips, and double tee expansion joints throughout the interior of the structure. At the exterior of the parking structure, sealant joints at exterior columns were often observed to be deteriorated. The failed sealant is generally the result of general aging, weathering, excessive deflection of supporting components, and ultraviolet degradation. Ultraviolet light can lead to the loss of elasticity of the sealant as well as cause cohesive and adhesive failures. Failed sealant at the top level of this structure, described elsewhere in this report, has allowed large amounts of water to infiltrate levels below. Failed sealant at these lower levels allows moisture to continue to penetrate the remainder of the structure and may accelerate deterioration of components below as a result. In several locations, backer rod has become dislodged and is hanging from the underside of the deck.

ii. Frequency: Typical

iii. Repair: Remove failed sealant and any backer material, clean the joint, and install a properly designed and detailed joint system.

iv. See Observations: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22

f. Downspout Drainage at Upper Level:

i. Description: Gutters channel rainwater away from the elevator tower at the northeast corner of the parking structure. Two downspouts were noted to discharge runoff directly onto the top level of the parking structure adjacent to an expansion joint. A bellows-style expansion joint spans most of this joint, except for an approximate four-foot section where a large quantity of conduits travels vertically up from the levels below. The gap surrounding this conduit has been filled with a large amount of sealant in an attempt to waterproof the location. However, excessive moisture introduced by the downspouts appears to pond in this area and penetrate multiple levels below through the expansion joint and sealant at the conduit bypass. Concrete at the base of the downspouts appears pitted and scoured, which implies that large quantities of water travel through this location.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Re-route the downspouts to a location where runoff will adequately drain and reduce moisture intrusion into the structure below or tie into the existing drain system.

Monitor locations with pitted concrete for additional deterioration such as delamination or spalling.

iv. See Observations: 23, 24, 25

g. Nonstructural Girder End Spall:

i. Description: Minor spalling was noted at the end of a precast girder. Spalling is typically a result of deterioration of a concrete surface brought on by the material absorbing moisture. Water absorbed into the concrete can create expansive corrosion of reinforcement, causing surface breaks, or spalls. At this location, grout applied to the end of a precast girder has experienced deterioration. At the time of observation, an excess of rainwater was observed running over the deteriorated area, suggesting that this condition may have been created as a result of moisture exposure. While no loose material was noted at the time of observation, continued deterioration may loosen the material, creating a falling object liability.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Remove unsound material, clean area, and patch with repair material. Patch material should be compatible with the substrate. Any reinforcing or embeds encountered with corrosion should be cleaned to a bright metal finish and have an anti-corrosive protective coating applied. Caution should be taken to avoid cutting or damaging existing reinforcement during the repair process.

iv. See Observations: 26

3. Low Priority: Will Become Structurally Unstable or a Safety Hazard, or a Moderate Water Infiltration Potential (Complete with scheduled maintenance):

a. Exposed Precast Embedments:

i. Description: Many of the precast elements within the referenced parking structure were observed with what appear to be bolt recesses that were used to move and erect separate components during construction. These embedments are in recessed pockets that were originally designed to be covered with a plastic cap. Many of these caps were noted to be broken or missing, exposing the embedment and promoting corrosion.

ii. Frequency: Typical

iii. Repair: The plastic caps should be removed from the pocket, the steel cleaned of corrosion, coated with a corrosion inhibitor, and the recess grouted solid. A non-shrink grout will prevent water ingress and provide a passivating action that will protect the steel from additional corrosion.

iv. See Observations: 27

b. Concrete Slab Cracking:

i. Description: Cracks were observed in the topping slab of a post-topped area at the top level of the parking structure. Cracking in concrete slabs is typically the result of stress induced by applied loads, temperature changes, settlement of supports, or shrinkage. Cracking at the upper level of the parking structure may allow moisture to penetrate the cracks and infiltrate the structure below.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Rout and seal cracks. The crack should be enlarged along its exposed face and filled with an appropriate joint sealant.

iv. See Observations: 28

c. Precast Panel Lifting Lug Pocket Deterioration:

i. Description: Hoisting during installation of the precast façade panels is facilitated by lifting lugs cast into pockets along the top of the panels. After installation, pockets that may be exposed to severe weather conditions are grouted solid to prevent moisture intrusion and corrosion of the steel lifting lugs. Over time, these grout plugs are prone to debond from the substrate, allowing water to promote corrosion of the lugs. This condition was noted at one location on the top level of the structure.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Remove existing grout, clean corrosion from steel components, coat steel surfaces with a corrosion inhibitor and refill pocket with a proper polymer modified non-shrink grout.

iv. See Observations: 29

d. Railing Post Pocket Deterioration:

i. Description: Installation of railings in stair towers is facilitated by grouting the posts into pockets along the surface of the stair landings. After installation of the posts, the pockets are grouted solid to prevent moisture intrusion and corrosion of the railing posts. The configuration of these pockets often form reservoirs that hold water, allowing corrosion of the embedment that may create spalls and compromise the integrity of the handrail. This reservoir condition was noted at stair towers, and evidence of corrosion was observed at some locations.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: If the pocket has yet to spall, the reservoir should be cleaned, coated with a bonding agent and filled with grout to create a domed surface that promotes water runoff. If spalled surfaces are encountered, remove existing grout, clean corrosion from components, coat surfaces with a corrosion inhibitor, and refill pocket with a proper polymer modified non-shrink grout.

iv. See Observations: 30, 31

e. Concrete Delamination at Sunshade:

i. Description: Precast concrete panels that make up the facade of the referenced parking structure were noted with horizontal sunshades protruding out from the face of the structure. These shades can reduce the intensity of light shining into the structure and may help shed moisture from the structure. The tops of these shades are slightly sloped and have a reglet cut into the bottom edge to promote drainage.

Concrete at the top of one sunshade appears to be experiencing delamination.

Moisture appears to pond on the sunshade at this location, creating a condition that allows the persistent moisture to deteriorate the precast surface.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Remove unsound material, clean area, and patch with repair material. Patch material should be compatible with the substrate. Repair depth shall be at least the minimum depth requirement of the repair material as specified by the manufacturer.

Any reinforcing or embeds encountered with corrosion should be cleaned to a bright metal finish and have an anti-corrosive protective coating applied. Reinforcing encountered that is compromised should be replaced in kind with adequate lap splices to adjacent, sound reinforcing. Caution should be taken to avoid cutting or damaging existing reinforcement during the repair process.

iv. See Observations: 32, 33

f. Concrete Slab Spalls:

i. Description: Spalls in the concrete topping slab were noted at a few isolated locations throughout the lower levels of the parking structure, particularly near floor drains.

Spalling is typically a result of deterioration of a concrete surface brought on by the material absorbing moisture and creating expansive corrosion. Some spalls observed appear to be the result of inadequate concrete clear cover.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Remove unsound material, clean area, apply bonding agent, and patch with a properly specified repair material. The area should be sawcut to a rectangular perimeter to at least the minimum depth requirement of the repair material. Patch material should be polymer modified and compatible with the substrate. Any reinforcing encountered with corrosion should be cleaned to a bright metal finish and have an anti-corrosive protective coating applied. Reinforcing encountered that is compromised should be replaced in kind with adequate lap splices to adjacent, sound reinforcing. Caution should be taken to avoid cutting or damaging existing double tee reinforcement during the repair process.

iv. See Observations: 19, 34

4. General Observations: A Cursory Inspection of Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Fire Protection Was Conducted During the Condition Assessment and This Section Summarizes General Observations:

a. Organic Growth at Exterior:

i. Description: Organic growth was noted on the exterior of the building in several locations. The accumulation of organics may allow moisture to concentrate at these locations, which could result in structural issues or moisture ingress, and may have a detrimental impact on the lifespan of the structure.

ii. Frequency: Non-Typical

iii. Repair: Remove organic accumulation from the exterior of the structure. Where organics are found to be growing, remove down to the root and treat what remains with a weed or plant killer to ensure regrowth does not occur.

iv. See Observations: 35

b. Deteriorated Paint Coating at Exterior Columns:

i. Description: Deteriorated and failed paint was noted on some columns at the exterior of the parking structure. While white paint clads the majority of the exterior of Building 55, paint failures observed were generally concentrated at exterior columns. This paint failure may be due to general weathering and ultraviolet radiation exposure, improper surface preparation, or varying concrete surface conditions between façade panels and columns.

ii. Frequency: Typical

iii. Repair: Remove the existing failed paint. If a new paint coating is desired, prepare the surface and apply a properly specified primer and paint system following all manufacturer instructions and recommendations.

iv. See Observations: 36, 37

c. Out of Order Call Boxes:

i. Description: Call boxes that can be used to contact the VA Police Department were noted in various locations throughout the parking structure. Several of the call boxes observed were noted to be out of order.

ii. Frequency: Typical

iii. Repair: To prevent confusion to users within the parking structure, repair, replace, or remove call boxes that are not operational.

iv. See Observations: 38

D. Implementation and Estimate of Probable Costs

The recommended base repair program has been estimated in Table 1 below, based on a single construction year. Without considering budget limitations and the need to maintain operability of the parking structure during remediation activities, a single year construction plan is the most cost-efficient path. The main advantage of a single year plan is that all repairs and waterproofing measures are carried out concurrently, halting the spread of deterioration. The disadvantage to this type of plan is the much greater upfront expenditure and potential short-term disruption of operations in the facility.

Construction Based on a Single Year

Severity Repair Type or Item Estimated Cost High Failed Sealants at Upper Levels $21,890.00

Deteriorated Double Tee Stems $675.00

Moderate

Failed Double Tee Shear Transfer Connections $75,600.00 Double Tee Flange Cracks $6,080.00 Debris Filled Winged Bellows Expansion Joints $548.00 Top Level Slab Spalling $260.00 Interior and Exterior Sealant Failure $90,980.00 Downspout Drainage at Upper Level $250.00 Nonstructural Girder End Spall $225.00

Low

Exposed Precast Embedments $260.00 Concrete Slab Cracking $840.00 Precast Panel Lifting Lug Pocket Deterioration $270.00 Railing Post Pocket Deterioration $115.00 Concrete Delamination at Sunshade $195.00 Concrete Slab Spalls $650.00

Total Costs Repair Total $198,723.00 Mobilization $6,000.00 Sub Total $204,723.00 10% Contingency $20,472.00 Construction Total $225,195.00 10% A&E Fees $22,520.00 Project Total $247,715.00

Table 1: Estimate of Probable Cost Over One Year

The Building 55 Parking Structure is considered to be in good overall condition and a plan for remedial action will help to maintain this condition and prevent additional deterioration. If left unchecked, the rate of deterioration will increase and the cost of repairs could increase exponentially. Similar to automobiles, HVAC systems, and most other items requiring regular maintenance, unrepaired conditions open the door for deterioration of other components, accelerating the rate in which components deteriorate and new deficient conditions form. Figure 3: Repair Costs v/s Time, illustrates this point.

Figure 3: Repair Costs v/s Time

As can be seen on the first curve, the rate of deterioration (the slope of the line) increases as time progresses the slope of the C-D segment is steeper than the B-C segment, which is steeper than the A-B segment. The line segments labeled A-A’ and B-B’ represent maintenance projects. The downward shift shows the level of deterioration decreasing and the length of the line represents the cost of the project.

Although the cost of the B’ project is more than the A’ project, it leaves the structure in a more deteriorated state. This means that less money spent at shorter intervals will save money and provide for a longer service life of the structure.

VII. Conclusion:

To summarize, Innovative Engineering Inc.’s assessment of the Building 55 included a visual survey of the top of the drive surface, the underside of the drive surface, beams and columns, the exterior façade, waterproofing, and general observations of other systems. The general observations included any obvious architecture, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection issues noted during the course of the structural and waterproofing inspection. The observations of this visual assessment were documented, and professional opinions were sorted by priority from high severity to low severity. The most serious of these conditions included minor to moderate structural deterioration of precast members. These most serious conditions should be monitored until completion of repairs. Parking structures are exposed to various elements and harsh environments over the course of their service life. Therefore, the VAMC should continue with the appropriate design and implementation of appropriate and well executed repairs that can significantly reduce further deterioration and higher associated costs.

Observations made are based on the construction visible at the time of the assessment. Please notify the undersigned immediately if there is any exception taken to the contents of this letter.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely, Trey Thomas PE

Scott L. Weiland PE

February 7, 2022 Date