Parking garage issue - Precaster or EOR responsibility ??? 3

[UWMpe2000]

Here’s the scenario: There’s a three-story, precast parking garage that was built in 2017. At the second level, a large six-foot deep, precast girder (designed by the precaster) is supported on a cast-in-place concrete foundation wall (designed by the EOR). The connection was made by field welding 1/2-inch steel plates that were embedded in the precast girder and top of cast-in-place wall (i.e. not a sliding connection).

The girder and wall are starting to exhibit distress in the form of significant cracking, likely because the welded connection can’t accommodate the expansion/contraction from thermal movement and/or vibrations.

The precaster’s erection drawings show the welded connection between the embed plates. And the EOR's drawings indicate the connection should be "designed by the precast designer."

Who is ultimately responsible? The precaster, the EOR, or both?

 

[jayrod12]

You're likely not to get a definitive answer from anyone here as it would seem this one is headed down the legal system hole.

That being said, in another thread recently the concept of delegated design was talked about and it generally comes down to the EOR being responsible for pretty much everything. If they didn't show enough information for the precaster to know the design requirements, then that's EOR. Just saying "designed by the precast engineer" without indicating if it needs to be a sliding connection, or how much thermal movement is required to be accommodated, then to me that's on the EOR.

 

[Ron]

Agree with jayrod12, but for a slightly different reason. Agree that the EOR must convey the intent to the delegated engineer (pre-cast engineer). He/She also has the obligation to review the design by the engineer to see that the intent is met. Since the EOR was apparently silent on the performance of the connection, he/she was required to review the connection for viability. If he/she did so, he/she was wrong. If he/she didn't do so, he/she was negligent. Bad either way on the EOR. Some share would go to the precast engineer, but not as much as the EOR. Having said that, I've seen just the opposite happen in litigation!

 

[r13]

I think I have to agree with both responses. The precaster is incompetent, yet it is up to the EOR to release the drawing for construction.

 

[ldeem]

I think you would have to know if there was any communication between the precaster and the EOR to make a determination. It seems there must have been some communication so the EOR could design the embed plate and confirm the wall design.

Secondly I assume the precaster would have a standard details for such a connection. If their erection drawing deviated from their standards then that would seem to be more on the precaster but the EOR should have caught it.

Finally, not mentioned in the OP but I assume same end connection detail on both ends of the beam.

 

[WARose]

I lean more towards the Precaster being at fault here (without knowing what (if any) communication occurred between them and the EOR). The drawings call out that it is his responsibility. If he didn't have the necessary info from the EOR to do his connection....it's on him to communicate that fact during the design process. (And issue it with a "hold" cloud if he has to.)

The contract documents should be looked at as well.....if they say nothing.....that makes it more clear.

 

[hokie66]

I hate precast parking garages.

 

[JLNJ]

The industry is influential, you have to admit. They talked the code people down from 50 to 40 psf live load, even as the vehicles get bigger and heavier.

All you have to do is to mount a placard that says "40 psf maximum (everyone knows what that looks like), no parking in the aisles, don't pile up the snow, keep the heavy vehicles off, and alot big $$ for maintenance and repair". What could go wrong?

 

[r13]

Drag racing in high speed.

 

[Tomfh]

Issues like this are why construction lawyers exist. To quote an old mentor of mine - the side who is at fault is the side who the blame ends up landing on.

 

[Settingsun]

Tomfh's answer is the reality here: it depends, and not necessarily on technical matters.

That said, I'd split this down the middle. The precast beam designer should be expected to know the articulation requirements for the beam. Sounds like reasonably long span with significant potential for shrinkage and contraction/expansion? No allowance for uneven settlement either from the sounds.

The EOR should have known enough not to connect an irresistible force to the immovable wall. Let each fix what they designed.