Loading...
Claim - Dubuque Rescue MissionCLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA This written report constitutes your claim against the City of Dubuque, Iowa. You should complete this form in full and attach any additional information that supports your claim. The Claim must be filed with the City Clerk at City Hall, 50 W. 13th St., Dubuque, IA 52001. It will then be referred by the City Council to the appropriate department for investigation. Once that investigation is completed, a report and recommendation will be submitted to the City Council. You will be provided with a copy of that report and recommendation. THE FINAL DECISION ON ALL CLAIMS IS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. NO EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION TO YOU AS TO WHETHER YOUR CLAIM WILL OR WILL NOT BE PAID. 1. Name of Claimant: Dubuque Rescue Mission 2. Address: 398 Main St., Dubuque,IA 52001 3. Telephone Number: 563 583 1394 4. Date of Incident: During construction of the Iowa St.Parking Ramp from Fall 2000 to present. 5. Time of Incident: From Fall 2000 to Present 6. Location of Incident (Be specific): On the North and East Sides of the Dubuque Rescue Mission Building at 398 Main St. 7. DESCRIBE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE THAT CAUSED INJURY OR DAMAGE. (Give full details upon which you base your claim. If a City employee was involved, give the employee's name.) 8. What were weather conditions like? Varied 9. Give name and address of any witnesses: See copy of report from exponent analysis and Mueser Rutledge Engineering 10. Did police investigate? (If so, give names of officers.) N/A 11. Was anyone injured? (If so, give names, addresses, and extent of injuries). No injuries 12. Was any damage done to property? (If so, describe property and the extent of damages. Attach estimates of damages or describe basis for ascertaining extent of damage.) Settlement of rock and debries underneath our building as well as formation of new surface cracks on East and North Wall of Building. 13. What other damages do you claim, if any? None. Insurance Claim is pending. 14. Have you been compensated for any part or all of your claim by any insurance company? (If so, give name and address of insurance company and amount paid.) None. Insurance claim is pending. 15. What amount do you claim from the City of Dubuque? Unable to determine at this point without having a full structural analysis. 16. Why do you claim the City of Dubuque is responsible? The Iowa Street Parking Ramp is a project of the City. 17. Have you made any claim against anyone else for damages as a result of this incident? (If yes, give name and address.) No 18. If the answer to Question 17 is yes, have you received any payment from that source, and if so, in what amount? Dated at Dubuque, Iowa this 20th day of November, , 2001. /s/ Murray E. Phillips (Signature) (Print Name) (Rev. 1/00 & 7/01) This written report constitutes your claim against the City of Dubuque, Iowa. You should complete this form in full and attach any additional information that supports your claim. The Claim must be filed with the City Clerk at City Hall, 50 W. 13th St., Dubuque, IA 52001. It will then be referred by the City Council to the appropriate department for investigation. Once that investigation is completed, a report and recommendation will be submitted to the City Council. You will be provided with a copy of that report and recommendation. THE FINAL DECISION ON ALL CLAIMS IS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. NO EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION TO YOU AS TO WHETHER YOUR CLAIM WILL OR WILL NOT BE PAID. 1. Name of Claimant: 2. Address: 3. Telephone Number: ~5/o'~'~ 5<~3~ 6. Location of Incident (Be specific): ON TH~_ ~O~Z*-~H ^~O ccJ~$~- cji O 7. DESCRIBE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE THAT CAUSED INJURY OR DAMAGE. (Give full details upon which you base your claim. If a City employee was involved, give the employee's name.) 8. What were weather conditions like? V/3, 9. Give name and address of any witnesses: ~-/. f)o ~ %r,.,'¢ /~ ~x~'/5'~ S. ,q~O 10. Did police investigate? (If so, give names of officers.) 11. Was anyone injured? (If so, give names, addresses, and extent of injUries). 12. Was any damage done to property? (If so, describe property and the extent of damage~' Attach estimates of damages or describe basis for ascertaining extent of damage.) 13. What other damages do you claim, if any? 14. Have you been compensated for any part or all of your claim by any insurance company? (if so, give name and address of insurance company and amount paid.) 15. What amount do you claim from the City of Dubuque? Ac'- 16. Why do you claim the City of Dubuque is responsible? 17. Have you made any claim against anyone else for damages as a result of this incident? (If yes, give name and address.) No 18. If the answer to Question 17 is yes, have you received any payment from that source, and if so, in what amount? Dated at Dubuque, iowa this ~01-~, day of ,2001. (Print Name) (Rev. 1/00 & 7/01) -.EXpOnentTM .Failure Analysis Assoclate~" Menlo Park, CA 9~o~.~ "' ,., March 14, 2001 Via Fax: 319-583~2890 . ..Mr. St. cve ConJon Conlon Construction Company '.' ?; O,.Box 3400 · :Dubuque, IA 52005-3400 · Subject: Prelim/nary F/ndings, Conclusions and Recommendations Third Street Parking Facflky/Main Street Buildings Dubuque, Iowa Project No: SF30049,000 -De~ _Mr. Conlon: · At your request, Exponent® Failure .~matysis Associates (Exponent) is performing an investigation of conditions in the vicin/ty of the west side of the Third Street parking facihty :project site in Dubuque, Iowa_ The purpose of our investigation is to evaluate the nature, extent, · aud cause o£disu-ess to the five Main Street build/rigs localed along the alley west o£the project .sit'c, and to make recommendations for measures in response to the distress. · The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief summary of our prelim/nary £md/ngs, conclusions, · md recommendations to-date, wMch can form the basis for discussions with representatives of · the City of Dubuque. The/ntant of the discussions is to develop and agree on a course of action · that'will allow the Main Street buildings t~ be re-occupied, and allow the parking facility project · · tap. roceed safely and expeddfiodsly. ' BaCkground and Investigation Scope ' Recent cracks in thc brick bearin~ walls of the Main Street buildings were first reported on J~num-y 12, 200t. The buildings and the excavation support system along the east side of the 'adjacent alley have been monitored daily since'shortly thereafter, tn response to the observed ?fistress, the City of Dubuque prohibited occupancy of a 30-foot portion o£the brdid/ngs along the a/ley. To date, Exponent's investigation has included: · Lnitial site reconnaissance of the project site, the Ma/n Street buiidLngs, and the vicinity. 14 '01 81:44PM EXPONENT CIVIL 650 32B 3094 M:r. Steve CoMon ~arch 14, 2001 · Page 4 P.5 These rucchan~sms may have con~/buted to the accumulation of stress mud to movement beneath the buil ~d~ngs to vm-ying de~ees and at different times. The relative contributions of these effects cannot be defincd at th/s time, On-Going Crack Movement: Movement has continued to oocur ~ross cracks in the Main Street building% w/th up to appmximataly 6 mm (£oout sA-inch) of horizontal offset and approximately 1.5 mm (about 1/16~inch) of vertical offset occurring betwee= 7anuary ~9 and FeBruary 26, 200!. There has been no measurable movement at the face of the tieback retain/ag wal~ since January' 20, 200!. Construction act/vhies since January t 5,200t, have been limited to excavation and placeruent of concrete pile caps on mad to the east of Line B. Continuation of Auger-Cast Pile Installation: About 39 of thc auger-cast p~le~ for the parking structure foundations remain to be installed due to the stop work order issued by the City. of Dubuque soon at, er the building cracks were first observed. However, continued movement at the bu. i2di.ng cracks has caused concern that resumption oftha auger-cast piling installation is likely to reactivate or accelerate build/ag ruovement. Cracked South Wall of the Silver Dollar: Cracking kn the south wa/1 of the Silver Dollar building is not related to the parking facility project activities, but is attributable to the effects of the imruediatetv adjacent construction to thc south. This cracking is cons/stent whh the effects of lo~al backfill compaction activities on the stone/masonry wmil construction (founded on the loose sands expected beneath tt~s wall). It was also reported that ~nterlor crackhag occm-red in October 2000 when soldier beams were driven along Main Street for the adjacent I-Iarbor View' bu/lding construction, , ·Pre, liminary Recommendations Based on the conclusions presented above, we recommend the £ollowing at this time: Continne the Monitoring: Continue to monitor the behavior of the buildings, the alley, · and the excavation suppor~ system using the monitoring syslem now ~u place. Allow Building Re-Occupancy: Allow re-occupancy of the Main S~eet build/rigs, proxdded that such occupancy does not prevent access for monitoring, further explora~on, and stabiikation work with/n the buildings. We understand that the buildings were first evacuated as an emergency safety precaution on the part of thc City of Dubuque. In o~ opinion, the existing d/stress and amount of movement do not pose a safety hazard to 6ccupants. Exponent is not aware of any eng/neehng evaluation iud/caring that there is a safety hazard warranth~g the current proh/bition of occupancy. Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers 708 Third-Avenue · New York, NY 10017-4144 Tel: (212) 490-7110 · Fax: (212) 490-6654 George J. Tarnaro Peter H. Edinger Alfred H. Brand Hugh S. Lacy David M. Cacoilo Joel Moskowitz Peter W. Darning Pad.ers Elmer A. Richards Edmund M. Burke Warren H. Anderson John W. Fowler J. Patrick Powers Sergio L Tello Co~ ~m~anf..s James L. Kaufman Daniel M. Hahn Raymond J. Poletto Roderic A. Ellman, Jn T~omas B. WendeI Frauds J. Arland Robert M. Sample Senior Associates February l4,2001 City Hail Building 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Attention: Mr. Gus Psihoyos Re: Dear Mr. Psihoyos, Building Settlement Investigation at New Third Street Parking Facility Dubuque, Iowa MRCE File No. 9526 Theodore Popoff David R_ Good Domenic D'Argenzio Walter E. Kaeck Robert lC Radske Harro R. Streidt Michael J. Chow In accordance with our agreement dated January 26, 2001, we have made an investigation of the building settlements that have occurred at the referenced site. Based on our findings, we believe that the primary cause of the building damage was due to improper installation of the augercast piles. Our findings are based on our field inspection, review of available contract drawings/specifications, geotechnicai investigation report, earth retaining structure "as-built" drawings and design computations (including tieback anchor installation testing logs and retests), anger-cast pile installation reports, opticai survey monitoring data, crack monitoring data and interviews with site personnel. This report summarizes our findings and recommendations. LIST OF EXHIBITS Drawing No. SK-1 Site Plan (Shoring/Foundation) Drawing No. SK-2 Typical Sections Drawing No. SK-3 Elevation Appendix A Appendix B Chronology of Events (Prepared by City of Dubuque) Augercast Pile Instailation Logs, Prepared by Maxim Technologies, Inc. (Dated: 12-05-00 thru 1-15-01) FOUNDATION ENGINEERING SINCE 1910 Building Settlement Investigation February 14, 2001 Page 2 Appendix C Survey Monitoring Logs of Buildings on Main St., Prepared by Buesing & Associates, Inc. (Dated: 1-20-01 thru 2-08-01) Appendix D Crack Monito~Sng Logs of Buildings on Main St., Prepared by Dun-ant Group, Inc. (Dated: 1-19-01 thru 2-13-01) Appendix E Crack Monitoring Floor Plans of Buildings on Main St,. Sheets Al.0 Thru Al.3, Prepared by Durrant Group, Inc. · (Dated: 2-07-01) MRCE SITE INSPECTION On Tuesday, January 30, 2001 through Thursday, February I, 2001, Mr. Robert K. Radske visited the site to inspect the damage to the existing buildings, the excavation support wall and view general site conditions. During our site visit, Mr. Radske met with you, the various contractors and their consultants, including: · m m · · · · Conlon Construction Co., the general contractor for the project IIW Engineers, Conlons' consultant Tschigfrie Construction, utility contractor for City for alley utility installation Durrant, crack monitoring consultant Buesing & Associates, surveyors monitoring exteriors of the buildings Maxim Technologies, Inc., inspection agency for City City of Dubuque engineers for the utility installation and others familiar with the project to gain an understanding of the procedures and methods used in the construction, as well as the events which led to the building settlement and building movement monitoring to date. The following is a summary of the information gathered during our interviews and visit to the site: Site preparation and utility installation within the alley was completed between mid to end of August 2000.The installation of new utility lines required excavation to below the existing adjacent building levels as illustrated on the attached Drawing No. SK-2. It was reported by the City's engineers that at no time were the bottom of the buildings' foundations exposed or undermined during Building Settlement Investigation February 14, 2001 Page 3 the excavation. The utility contractor and the City's engineers stated that the utilities were backfilled and compacted in accordance with the City's requirements. No cracks or other damages were reported by the building owners during this utility installation. Commencement of H-pile installation at the site was around mid October 2000. We understand that these piles were instal]ed by means of a percussion hammer. The first building damage was reported on October 30, 2000 at the Silver Dollar South Wall. Tieback anchors along the west excavation support wall line were reportedly installed between November 1 - 3, 2000. Tieback installation logs indicate anchors at the Silver Dollar Building were installed between November 2-3, 2000. Anchors were reportedly installed using a percussion rotary drill to drive a steel casing with a closed end tip. Them was no indication that air or water was used to flush the holes during casing installation. "As-built" anchor drawings indicate that tieback nos. 26 & 27 do not extend under the Silver Dollar building. However, tieback no. 28/29 does extend under the east end of the building. The remaining anchors along the west excavation support wall extend approximately up to 20 feet beyond the building's east wall line, as illustrated on the attached Drawing No. SK-2. No cracks or other damages were reported by the building owners during the tieback anchor installation. Tieback retensioning and lift-off tests performed in late January, 2001 indicated that tieback nos. 12/13, 13/14 and 14/15 lost approximately 30% of their original lock-off load. These anchors were subsequently mtensioned and locked-off at their original lock-off load. Additionally, tieback nos. 16/17, 20/21, 22/23, 24/25 increased approximately 30% above their original lock-off load. The remaining tiebacks tested along the west retaining wall were reported to be within normal lock-off capacity tolerance of 5% to 10%. Optical survey and crack monitoring of the buildings have been performed on a daily basis since January 19, 2001. During our site visit, we recommended installation of additional crack monitoring gauges, mapping of cracks and surveying of additional points (including the tops of the buildings and also the lower portion of the soldier piles). During our inspection of the buildings we observed the same typical pattern of cracks throughout all of the buildings, some starting at a point in the basement level and extending upward to the roof. The cracks ranged in width from hairline Building Settlement Investigation February 14, 2001 Page 4 to as much as 1-I/8 inch. Movement of the building indicated both horizontal and vertical displacement of the structures. The crack pattern typically included: a) vertical shear crack between the east wall of the buildings and the interior masonry party bearing walls between ali of the buildings b) vertical and diagonal shear cracks within the interior masonry party walls at approximately 10 feet, 20 feet and 30 feet within the Monte Carlos and Ellen's Floral buildings Details of the crack locations have been prepared by Dun-ant Group, Inc. and are included in Appendix E of this report. Installation of the augercast piles reportedly commenced on December 5, 2000 along Column C and B grid lines. Along Column A grid line, piles were installed between January 10 - t5, 2001. Piles were installed using a continuous flight hollow stem auger supported by a free hanging pile lead. Details and information of the drill rigs' torque capacity or pitch of the auger flights were not available. Inspection of the augercast pile installation was performed by Maxim Technologies Inc. Pile installation has been substantially completed on the site except 15 piles along the Column A grid line and approximately 23 piles along Column grid D. Pile inspection togs of piles installed to date are included in Appendix B of this report. The inspector reported numerous problems and difficulties in the pile logs during pile installation, including: a) observation of anomalies (including: sloughing of the surface and saturated soils within the auger flights) when drilling below the water level in the bearing sand. However, no significant spoil volume was reportedly observed upon completion of the piles. b) several occurrences where auger required removal from bottom of full depth of pile due to equipment difficulties prior to grouting of hole. c) several occurrences where portions of the grouted pile required partial re- dnilling due to difficulties with installation of reinfoming cage into hardened grout. d) communication of grout encountered during drilling of a pile adjacent to a previously grouted pile. Building Settlement investigation February 14, 2001 Page 6 assumed below the tip of the soldier piles. Passive pressures supporting the toe of the soldier piles were calculated assuming an undisturbed subgrade, without adjustment for the effects of augemast pile drilling, which could reduce the passive resistance of the soil against the pile toe. Passive pressures at the pile toe were calculated assuming that each soldier pile engages a tributary width of soil equal to three times the width of the pile flange. Our wall analysis results are as follows: The minimum toe embedment required by our analysis is 7.5 ft. The factor of safety against toe failure provided by the penetration specified in the Schnabel's drawing is 1.33. This factor of safety is consistent in the industry practice. The support reaction we calculated at the tieback support level is 5 kips/fl of wall (horizontal reaction), which results in tieback loads of 93 kips for tiebacks at 18'-0" o.c.. This load is comparable to the tieback loads of 95 kips per tieback shown on the Schnabel drawings. ~he calculated maximum bending moment in the soldier piles is 167 fl-k, which results.in a maximum bending stress of 46 ksi. The Schnabel drawings indicate ASTM A36 soldier piles with a minimum yield stress of 36 ksi. Therefore, the bending stress calculated in our analysis exceeds the yield stress of the piles by 28%. The stress level in the H-piles is very high. It is conventional industry practice to limit bending stresses to approximately 72 percent of the yield stress (26 ksi) for temporary excavation support structures. The soldier pile design did not take into account the potential disturbance of the soil due to augercast pile installation. The earth retention shop drawings prepared by Schnabel excluded any disturbance to the snbgrade in front of the soldier piles. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our investigation findings listed above indicates that no building damage was reported during the excavation and installation of the utility work within the alley adjacent to the rear portion of the Main St. buildings. The first building distress was reported after the commencement of H - pile installation for the excavation support system for the new parking facility. There was no building movement or damage reported during the tieback installation period. The most significant damage was reported only after the commencement of the augercast pile installation along column grid line A which were installed between January 10 - 15, 2001. We have not yet finalized our analysis or correlation between the construction activities at the new Chamber of Commerce Building and the damage at the Silver Dollar Building. Based on our analysis of the information available to date, it is our opinion that the prominent cause of the settlement at the Mission, Monte Carlo, Ellen's Flower Shop, and Corporate Building Settlement Investigation February 14, 2001 Page 7 Express buildings, including possibly some of the damage at the Silver Dollar building, was the result of subsurface soil disturbance beneath the buildings and behind the earth retention structure as a result of the augercast pile installations. We believe that the procedures used for the installation of the augercast piles in the sensitive loose to medium dense sandy soils below the ground water level resulted in subsidence and loosening of the soils due to decompression affects of the augering, which thereby ms~lted in settlement of the foundations of the adjacent buildings. In addition, the chronological records of events at the site also correspond to the period of improper auger pile installation procedures along Column grid line A. We have observed building settlement problems at other projects where soil, ground water and excavation support conditions were similar to this location. Some damage at the south wall of the Silver Dollar building was also reported soon after the installation of the excavation support system H-piles. Webelieve that densification of the loose sands below the building foundations due to vibrations during H-pile driving, could also have contributed to the building settlement at this location. We believe that the increase and/or loss of load at the tiebacks was also related to the augemast pile installation. We suspect that the load change was due to soldier pile inward movement at the bottom, and possibly downward movement, as a result of loss in passive pressure during pile drilling. We have illustrated the range of theoretical active failure planes associated with loosening of soil by the H-pile driving and angering process on the attached Drawing No. SK-2. The failure planes indicate a range of disturbance beneath the building which coincides with the location of cracks observed within the adjacent structures. We believe that the effect of any loose backfill within the alley or the tieback installation had no contribution to the settlement of the buildings. The effect of any frost action along the buildings appears to be above the foundation levels of the buildings experiencing settlement. Some minor damage to the Silver Dollar building may be attributed to the construction of the new Chamber of Commeme building. Review of the monitoring data to date indicates that there has been movement of interior cracks recorded since approximately January 20, 2001, in the Monte Carlo and Ellen's Flower Shop buildings. Several crack gauges show about 4.5mm of additional movement. Details of these crack monitoring readings are included in Appendix D of this report. We recommend that the work proceed only if the following conditions are met: No movements have been recorded for a period of 10 days and daily monitoring of all buildings and excavation support system is continued on a daily basis. Building Settlement Investigation February l4,2001 Page 8 Continuous moniloring of ail monitoring points both exterior and interior during augercast pile installation. Proper augercast pile installation procedures are followed. This must include proper rotation of the auger during dh/ling and grouting. Additionally, auger must not be extracted from hole without grouting or backfilling of hole with soil by means of proper counter rotation of auger in the event equipment problems occur. All drilling operations are terminated in the event any movement at any of the monitoring points is observed. 5. Buildings shall not be re-occupied until augercast pile installation is completed. Excavation support wall design engineer reviews design of wall to evaluate any affects due to soil disturbances during pile drilling and directs general contractor as to the limits of subgrade excavation at base of retention wall for construction of pile caps. We recommend that excavation be restricted in order to minimize further disturbance. The general contractor expedites construction of the permanent foundation wall along the west side of the site as soon as possible in order to minimize further disturbance and provide additional support to the earth retention wall adjacent to the buildings. We recommend that the soldier piles along the west wall of the site not be extracted upon backfilling. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this report and to provide additional assistance. Attachments RKR/DMC/9526:Ltr-2 Very truly yours, MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Robert K. Radske, P.E. David M. Cacoilo, P.E. By: