Corners Coppell-CS050811August 11, 2005
Eric Royal
Royal General Contractors, Inc.
PO Box 734
Coppell, TX 75019 ~
RE: Citi-Center
1001 E. Sandy Lake Rd.
~ Coppell, TX 75019
The City of Coppell Building Inspections, Engineering and Fire Departments have
reviewed the report entitled "A Visual Report of Three Existing Entry Bridges" by
Hlavaty and Associates dated 8/4/05. Although Mr. Hlavaty states that no structural
'failures' were detected at the time of the on-site observation, we believe all of his
recommendations should he addressed to prevent future problems. Correcting all of Mr.
Hlavaty's "observations" should help in insuring that the bridges are structurally sound
for a longer period of time.
It has been determined that these recommendations should be corrected prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any proposed tenants of this property. Further,
we recommend Hlavaty and Associates, or another qualified company, perform a 're-
inspection' within 2 years (August 2007) and submit the report to the City of Coppell for
review.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this information, please contact me at
972/304-7055.
With your safety in mind,
Timothy A. Oates, Fire Marshal
Coppell Fire Department
c, OPPEL/,,
!~$5.200~
HLAVATY & ASSOC., INC.
P.O. Box 741386 · Dallas, Texas · 75374
Voice (972) 783-0122 · Fax (972) 783-0124
August 2, 2005
Mr. Arthur Walker
Blue Chip Partners
675 Third Avenue
New York, New York
10017
A Visual Report Regarding Three Existing, Entry Bridges to
Citi Center - Coppell, Texas
Job No. 03105
Dear Mr. Walker;
Recent History
I was contacted last week by Mr. Eric Royal, owner of Royal General Contractor, Inc.,
regarding the above mentioned project and I was asked to participate in a visual evaluation of
three existing bridges that create access to the center over a drainage ditch that parallels Sandy
Lake Road, adjacent to the northern most property line. His selection of this firm was based on
the fact that the structural design for the original project was performed by Andy Hlavaty and
Associates in 1986. And his request for the observation was to satisfy the City of Coppell asking
for the review. The center has remained dormant for twenty years and the city appears to be
hesitant about granting a certificate of occupancy to a new tenant without some assurance that the
bridges are 'functional'.
No construction documents were available for review, so Mr. Royal provided this firm
with his copy. Getting back into the drawings after 20 years, it was discovered that the bridges
were a product of the civil engineer's design. In fact, they prescribed that the bridges be formed
from concrete box culverts; preformed culverts that also accommodated storm water flow. The
embankments and channels, flanking the culverts, were to be poured-in-place concrete on grade,
forming a non-erosive 'flume' that narrowed down some 50'-0" (approximate) to the point of
discharge.
As mentioned earlier, the design was prescriptive. The contract drawings contained no
tangible information for building; leaving the contractor with the task of properly engineering the
structure. A check with other sources indicated there was no formal design submittal by a sub nor
was there a record of a shop drawing(s) that showed the engineering required to build such a
structure.
.Construction
Unable to establish the exact construction of the bridges fi.om the design documents, the
review team (Mr. Eric Royal and Mr. Andy Hlavaty) met at the job to perform a site review.
What was apparent about each bridge was that the culvert sections were not formed with precast
concrete units, but were constructed with poured-in-place concrete; in other words, the structure
was site cast as opposed to being manufactured in a plant and shipped to the site for installation.
To this writer's knowledge, no documentation exists that defines the as-built structure.
The following is a general observation of each bridge and each bridge will be identified
by its relative location; the west bridge, the middle bridge and the east bridge.
The West Bridge
The structurally supported, concrete drive slab appears to be 10" thick and spans
approximately 10%6" to the vertical, 8" wide, concrete support walls (for a total of 5 support
walls). Those walls either rest on a concrete slab-on-grade or pass on either side of the concrete
slab-on-grade to a more substantial foundation; there is simply no way to tell without demolition.
The concrete slab continues beyond the bridge on both sides to complete the embankment and
drainage canal portion of this design.
The condition of the structure will be discussed later in this report. Where the flow of
storm water has gone to a 'trickle', only the center most openings have water flowing through.
Silt and debris cover the outer most openings; however, where an intermediate storm drain
dumps into the bridge portion of the canal, some erosion of the silt has occurred. Vegetation is
thick on the embankments leading up to the bridge, probably growing in silty deposits laid down
over the years.
This bridge was made decorative with the addition of brick, brick features, railings and
light fixtures. To further enhance this entrance, brick pavers were placed fi.om one end of the
approach slab to the other end of the approach slab. The approach slab is defined as that portion
of the drive structure that is slab-on-grade, leading up to the structurally suspended slab.
The Middle Bridge
The basic construction of the middle bridge is identical to the west bridge.
The East Bridge
Again, the basic construction of the east bridge is identical to the west bridge; however,
there are no brick features, light fixtures or brick pavers.
Observations (coordinate numbered paragraph with same number under Recommendations)
In general, the bridges appear to be in descent shape. No apparent 'conditions' exist other
than those listed below.
1)
As a general observation, the entire drainage ditch is covered with vegetation (photos #2,
#13 and #25), while silt and debris cover a good portion of each concrete drainage canal.
Some water between the bridges collects in small pools and does not appear to flow
The West Bridge (photos #1 through #12)
2) The metal shelf angles, supporting brick (photos #5 through #7), are exposed tothe
atmosphere, but appear to have 'weathered' the last twenty year without producing rust or
corrosion.
The attachment of the metal shelf angles to the concrete beam could not be observed.
3)
Several areas of the poured-in-place walls had 'pockets' that exposed reinforcing steel. It
is not known how the 'pockets' were formed, but there appears to be no significant
'damage' associated with them.
4)
The soffit of the drive slab (photo #8) has several random 'stxeaks' nmning throughout.
The temptation is to call each 'streak' a crack, but it could not be confn'med that crocks
were present because the hard, white deposit defining the streak could not be filed down.
The origin (cause) of the 'streaks' remains unknown.
Other areas of the soffit appeared rough (photos #9 and #10), as though the concrete was
placed without being properly vibrated. The bottom of the slab does appear rough and
uneven in it's forming in some areas, but no reinforcing steel was exposed.
Finally, the appearance of two separate and distinct 'halves' (photos #11 and #12) may be
nothing more than a cold joint that occurred between pours. The white deposits, noted
above, are also evident at the jointing of the two 'halves'.
The Middle Bridge (photos # 13 through #24)
5) This bridge has vegetation growing all around (see item 1) above).
6)
As with items 2) above, this bridge has an exposed metal shelf angle (photo # 18). Again,
it appears no mst or corrosion is present. Also, the attachment of the metal shelf angles to
the concrete beam could not be observed.
7)
Small areas of wall 'pockets' were present (photo # 18), as well as evidence of some poor
forming techniques. They do not appear to have compromised the structure.
8)
The sidewalks associated with the southern portion of the drive approach appear to have
settled or heaved (photos #19 and #20). This portion is slab-on-grade and is not a
structurally supported slab.
9)
The separation of brick at the mortar joint has occurred on the decorative walls on the
south side of the bridge; both the east and west walls. Movement in the slab-on-grade is
the probable cause, due to either a poorly compacted backfill or expansive clays used as
the base beneath the slab.
The East Bridge (photos #25 through #32)
lo)
The slab-on-grade associated with the southern portion of the drive approach appears to
have settled or heaved (photos//27 and//28). Movement in the slab-on-grade is the
probable cause, due to either a poorly compacted backfill or expansive clays used as the
base beneath the slab. Again, this portion is slab-on-grade; the condition does not occur at
a structurally supported slab.
Several areas along the stem wall (photo/t29) have vertical cracks, but there is no
evidence of rusting of the reinforcing steel. Temperature/shrinkage stresses in the
concrete are the most likely cause.
12)
The spalled concrete in beams, walls and slabs suggest this bridge might be the worst of
the three, in terms of needing maintenance. No major elements are structurally impacted;
just the numerous 'pockets' showing rebar (photos #30 through #32).
Recommendations (coordinate numbered paragraph with same number under Observations)
1)
It is advised that all vegetation be removed; both from the area of the bridges and between
the bridges. Furthermore, remove all silt and debris that's accumulated on the slab-on-
grade portion of the bridges.
It's further recommended that the entire drainage ditch be leveled to accommodate a mom
uniform flow of storm water.
2)
Although no rust was present, it's recommended that a maintenance program be started to
include periodic inspection of all brick shelf angles. Log all inspections with facility
management.
It is recommended that all 'pockets' or other deformities be checked for loose concrete.
Remove all debris from the 'pocket' and clean the exposed steel with a wire brush. Patch
the 'pocket' with an approved patching compound, such as a two part epoxy. Allow the
contractor to make his submittal for approval.
4)
Include a periodic inspection of the slab's soffits and log all inspections with facility
management.
5) Refer to item 1) above.
6) Refer to item 2) above.
7) Refer to item 3) above.
8)
This item will remain open until conversations occur between the contractor, the owner
and the engineer as to the best remedy. For instance, do you leave the 'condition' as is
and attempt to 'level' the concrete out or do you make major repairs which affect the soil
and slab? A consensus between all three parties is needed. And these may not be the only
options.
9) Refer to item 8) above for a similar recommendation.
10) Refer to item 8) above.
ll)
Again, this item will remain open until conversations occur between the contractor, the
owner and the engineer as to the best remedy. I recommend either pressure injecting the
cracks with a two part epoxy (expensive) or apply a coat of an approved surface sealer
(cheaper, but less durable).
12) Refer to item 3) above.
Conclusion
The bridges appear to be performing. No structural 'failures' were detected at the time of
the on-site observations. The items listed under Recommendations are recommended 'corrective
fixes' that, in my opinion, are needed to 'upgrade' the structures for esthetic reasons.
These comments are based on a visual observation only of the bridges. No calculations
were nm to determine the structural capacity of any member. It has been assumed that the bridges
were designed by others and constructed to meet the minimum requirements of some prevailing
building code. Their design has already been established. This firm will accept no liability for the
structural design of these bridges.
Should conclusive results be needed regarding the structural integrity of each bridge, I
would suggest a series of load tests. These tests can be conducted to satisfy the most demanding
inquiry as to the safety of each member. Any description of such load tests are beyond the scope
of this report.
Sincerely,
aty, P ~
CC:
Mr. Eric Royal, Owner; Royal General Contractors, Inc.
files
PHOTOGRAPHS
(opp ll £iti (enter
.800.442't154
Photo #13
Photo #17
Photo #19
*; Phot~