project update... If only!!!! Long
- Thread starter tile
- Start date
- Views: 10619
I agree 100% with Eddie(as usuall).To try and repair that disaster would be like putting perfume on a skunk.Also,to pay him for that mess would be like admitting to him and everyone else that you are happy with the job.You also have to remember that someday you may want or need to sell the property.If I was in the market for a property of you're type and I walked in and saw something like that I would not even consider buying.Not trying to be rude in my post.I just want you to think what may happen down the road if you settle for this or try to repair it.
Buckeye_Jim
Silver Member
EddieWalker said:
Eddie,
This is about finding peace in all of their chaos. How to move on from this contractor and getting the building completed. It is about terminating the contract now. You're right that it is not about having this guy like them. But if the contract can be terminated by an agreement as to what they get for their money, namely a foundation ready for the building to be erected, then they can put this episode behind them.
Now, my review of the pictures, I see that the flatwork seems to look professional, and that all the ugly areas are under the base plates. If a structual engineer can specify the fixes, and they are performed professionally, then you really wouldn't call it 'Southern Engineering'. The cost of the engineer and the new professional installation should be subtracted from a fair assessment of what the job up to that point would have been worth to arrive at a fair contract dissolution amount.
Again, just my $.02.
Jim
I didn't mean to start any arguments here.
I'm taking a route that is middle of the road. By that I mean I am going about this one step at a time. I've contacted a few of the necessary professionals and I have testing for the concrete scheduled for mid December. I am not rushing to a lawyer however I have not discounted the idea totally. I'd rather go to the lawyer once I have evidence by professionals that he has been negligent and not just my rants. Once I figure out what the total damages are I will decide what action to take next. Last thing I want to do is go off half cocked and I certainly am not going to let this go by without correction. I've got to take little steps or I'll loose all control of what happens and I can't afford to have that happen.
At this point I have no warranty on my building until it is re-engineered by a licensed engineer and it has to be stamped and certified. this is what the building manufacture has told me.
The building is still in the field tied up. I'm going to see if I can get it covered or something until this is settled.
The contractor seems to disappear for days and out of the blue he wants to rush and do mostly nothing. Which in itself is aggravating. I have not seen him or heard from him in maybe a week +/- until yesterday. He called yesterday and I told him the project was on hold and not to come out. He sent a guy out this morning who started to work so I had to go out there and tell him to leave. He tried to argue with me. I explained that I was not going to discuss this with him he just needed to leave. Not 20 minutes later the contractor showed up. I asked him if we could set up a time that we could discuss this matter. I didn't have time this morning as I was late getting out already. He was very upset and told me I was crazy that there were no problems and all this could be fixed easily. He didn't understand why I was being this way. When I explained the warranty issue he said they do this all the time and there are no problems. After I left he gathered up all his wood and took his trailer with him. I will give him a day to calm down and then I'll call him.
I know this is going to be more of a fight than I signed up for but I have to deal with the situation now. I will do what's fair for all involved but right now I don't know how bad it is until I have the tests done and the engineer gets here to tell me what the problems are and what it will take to make it right. Then I can decide what I need to do. I have no intentions of letting this go without an acceptable fix. I do plan to sell at some time and even if I didn't I don't plan to have a subquality building, even if it is a barn.
We may end up leaving that slab in place with some fixes and starting over next to that slab. We've discussed making the existing slab more of a carport of sort of patio with a trellis of sorts. Maybe a place for BBQ's. I'm thinking that if it's not structurally sound for the building that it may be useful in another way. I'd hate to think it was a total loss. The top of the slab is fairly nice and I'm sure with some engineering we can make it work. If it still looks bad then we could do a concrete topping on it. It's expensive and was not in our original budget but we'll just have to see where this takes us.
Back to the concrete mess...
The testing company has given me 2 options. 1 is to core drill it at 500.00++
the other is to do what they call a Swiss Hammer test that runs 250.00
I've heard of core drilling but i've never heard of the Swiss Hammer. The testing company comes highly recommended and they are leaning towards the Swiss Hammer because of the steel in the slab. I haven't spoke to the Arch. Eng. about it yet, just thought I'd get your ideas.
Thanks
Tiles Wife
I'm taking a route that is middle of the road. By that I mean I am going about this one step at a time. I've contacted a few of the necessary professionals and I have testing for the concrete scheduled for mid December. I am not rushing to a lawyer however I have not discounted the idea totally. I'd rather go to the lawyer once I have evidence by professionals that he has been negligent and not just my rants. Once I figure out what the total damages are I will decide what action to take next. Last thing I want to do is go off half cocked and I certainly am not going to let this go by without correction. I've got to take little steps or I'll loose all control of what happens and I can't afford to have that happen.
At this point I have no warranty on my building until it is re-engineered by a licensed engineer and it has to be stamped and certified. this is what the building manufacture has told me.
The building is still in the field tied up. I'm going to see if I can get it covered or something until this is settled.
The contractor seems to disappear for days and out of the blue he wants to rush and do mostly nothing. Which in itself is aggravating. I have not seen him or heard from him in maybe a week +/- until yesterday. He called yesterday and I told him the project was on hold and not to come out. He sent a guy out this morning who started to work so I had to go out there and tell him to leave. He tried to argue with me. I explained that I was not going to discuss this with him he just needed to leave. Not 20 minutes later the contractor showed up. I asked him if we could set up a time that we could discuss this matter. I didn't have time this morning as I was late getting out already. He was very upset and told me I was crazy that there were no problems and all this could be fixed easily. He didn't understand why I was being this way. When I explained the warranty issue he said they do this all the time and there are no problems. After I left he gathered up all his wood and took his trailer with him. I will give him a day to calm down and then I'll call him.
I know this is going to be more of a fight than I signed up for but I have to deal with the situation now. I will do what's fair for all involved but right now I don't know how bad it is until I have the tests done and the engineer gets here to tell me what the problems are and what it will take to make it right. Then I can decide what I need to do. I have no intentions of letting this go without an acceptable fix. I do plan to sell at some time and even if I didn't I don't plan to have a subquality building, even if it is a barn.
We may end up leaving that slab in place with some fixes and starting over next to that slab. We've discussed making the existing slab more of a carport of sort of patio with a trellis of sorts. Maybe a place for BBQ's. I'm thinking that if it's not structurally sound for the building that it may be useful in another way. I'd hate to think it was a total loss. The top of the slab is fairly nice and I'm sure with some engineering we can make it work. If it still looks bad then we could do a concrete topping on it. It's expensive and was not in our original budget but we'll just have to see where this takes us.
Back to the concrete mess...
The testing company has given me 2 options. 1 is to core drill it at 500.00++
the other is to do what they call a Swiss Hammer test that runs 250.00
I've heard of core drilling but i've never heard of the Swiss Hammer. The testing company comes highly recommended and they are leaning towards the Swiss Hammer because of the steel in the slab. I haven't spoke to the Arch. Eng. about it yet, just thought I'd get your ideas.
Thanks
Tiles Wife
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
Jim,
I agree with you on your opinion of the contractor. I'm not so sure about the slab though. I've copied and attached two of the pictures that Mrs. Tiles posted that caught my eye about the quality of the job. Not the bolts, but the finish and pour itself. First, she mentioned all the extra water that was added. There was no reason for this except to give the crew longer to work the mud. He would have done that if he was short of people. We pour here in hundred degree temps and don't add water, so outside temps are not a good reason to add water, just time. Extra water means less strength.
If he'd done everything right, than it probably wouldn't matter if the concrete was a little weaker than it could have been. From the thicknes of the pad and beams, I doubt it would have cracked.
In the first picture, you can see the exposed rebar. This are doesn't have any strength in it at all. There are two pictures like that in her link, which indicates to me that nobody worked the mud to get rid of the air pockets. If she has two pictures of it, and mabye there's more, than you can gurantee that there's other air pockets inside the pad that nobody can see. The odds are just too overwhelming.
The second picture I've attached is one that shows the pad from the side. The other pictures make it look smooth, but this one makes it look wavy and very un-even. Ignore the bolts in that picture and look to the left at the edge of the pad. To me, this looks very bad and extremly unprofesional.
Mrs. Tiles,
I think you have a good understanding of what you need to do and are handleing this better than most. Better than I would. hahaha
The contractor is gonna be a problem, and from what you just wrote, I think he is already becomeing a problem. You told him not to come over and he sends a guy anyway. Then he shows up himself and argues with you. You are the boss, not him. He does what you say. Unfortuanately he's trying to convince you of something you already know is a lie. Nobody does a pad like he did and stays in business. He did a terrible job and now he's trying to make up some fantasy that it's an easy fix. It isn't. If he'd done it right, there wouldn't need to be a fix in the first place. The simple fact that he says it's an easy fix is proof that he knows it done wrong, but he thinks you don't know any better and he can BS you into accepting it. There's no telling how many times he's done this to others.
The one thing I was hopeing you'd address is what happened when you talked to the inspector. Did he sign off on the pad? Did he tell you why he failed it so many times and why he changed his mind without the contractor changing anything? If you can get the inspector on your side, than your case against the contractor will become very solid.
Good luck,
Eddie
I agree with you on your opinion of the contractor. I'm not so sure about the slab though. I've copied and attached two of the pictures that Mrs. Tiles posted that caught my eye about the quality of the job. Not the bolts, but the finish and pour itself. First, she mentioned all the extra water that was added. There was no reason for this except to give the crew longer to work the mud. He would have done that if he was short of people. We pour here in hundred degree temps and don't add water, so outside temps are not a good reason to add water, just time. Extra water means less strength.
If he'd done everything right, than it probably wouldn't matter if the concrete was a little weaker than it could have been. From the thicknes of the pad and beams, I doubt it would have cracked.
In the first picture, you can see the exposed rebar. This are doesn't have any strength in it at all. There are two pictures like that in her link, which indicates to me that nobody worked the mud to get rid of the air pockets. If she has two pictures of it, and mabye there's more, than you can gurantee that there's other air pockets inside the pad that nobody can see. The odds are just too overwhelming.
The second picture I've attached is one that shows the pad from the side. The other pictures make it look smooth, but this one makes it look wavy and very un-even. Ignore the bolts in that picture and look to the left at the edge of the pad. To me, this looks very bad and extremly unprofesional.
Mrs. Tiles,
I think you have a good understanding of what you need to do and are handleing this better than most. Better than I would. hahaha
The contractor is gonna be a problem, and from what you just wrote, I think he is already becomeing a problem. You told him not to come over and he sends a guy anyway. Then he shows up himself and argues with you. You are the boss, not him. He does what you say. Unfortuanately he's trying to convince you of something you already know is a lie. Nobody does a pad like he did and stays in business. He did a terrible job and now he's trying to make up some fantasy that it's an easy fix. It isn't. If he'd done it right, there wouldn't need to be a fix in the first place. The simple fact that he says it's an easy fix is proof that he knows it done wrong, but he thinks you don't know any better and he can BS you into accepting it. There's no telling how many times he's done this to others.
The one thing I was hopeing you'd address is what happened when you talked to the inspector. Did he sign off on the pad? Did he tell you why he failed it so many times and why he changed his mind without the contractor changing anything? If you can get the inspector on your side, than your case against the contractor will become very solid.
Good luck,
Eddie
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
Jim,
I agree with you on your opinion of the contractor. I'm not so sure about the slab though. I've copied and attached two of the pictures that Mrs. Tiles posted that caught my eye about the quality of the job. Not the bolts, but the finish and pour itself. First, she mentioned all the extra water that was added. There was no reason for this except to give the crew longer to work the mud. He would have done that if he was short of people. We pour here in hundred degree temps and don't add water, so outside temps are not a good reason to add water, just time. Extra water means less strength.
If he'd done everything right, than it probably wouldn't matter if the concrete was a little weaker than it could have been. From the thicknes of the pad and beams, I doubt it would have cracked.
In the first picture, you can see the exposed rebar. This are doesn't have any strength in it at all. There are two pictures like that in her link, which indicates to me that nobody worked the mud to get rid of the air pockets. If she has two pictures of it, and mabye there's more, than you can gurantee that there's other air pockets inside the pad that nobody can see. The odds are just too overwhelming.
The second picture I've attached is one that shows the pad from the side. The other pictures make it look smooth, but this one makes it look wavy and very un-even. Ignore the bolts in that picture and look to the left at the edge of the pad. To me, this looks very bad and extremly unprofesional.
Mrs. Tiles,
I think you have a good understanding of what you need to do and are handleing this better than most. Better than I would. hahaha
The contractor is gonna be a problem, and from what you just wrote, I think he is already becomeing a problem. You told him not to come over and he sends a guy anyway. Then he shows up himself and argues with you. You are the boss, not him. He does what you say. Unfortuanately he's trying to convince you of something you already know is a lie. Nobody does a pad like he did and stays in business. He did a terrible job and now he's trying to make up some fantasy that it's an easy fix. It isn't. If he'd done it right, there wouldn't need to be a fix in the first place. The simple fact that he says it's an easy fix is proof that he knows it done wrong, but he thinks you don't know any better and he can BS you into accepting it. There's no telling how many times he's done this to others.
The one thing I was hopeing you'd address is what happened when you talked to the inspector. Did he sign off on the pad? Did he tell you why he failed it so many times and why he changed his mind without the contractor changing anything? If you can get the inspector on your side, than your case against the contractor will become very solid.
Good luck,
Eddie
I agree with you on your opinion of the contractor. I'm not so sure about the slab though. I've copied and attached two of the pictures that Mrs. Tiles posted that caught my eye about the quality of the job. Not the bolts, but the finish and pour itself. First, she mentioned all the extra water that was added. There was no reason for this except to give the crew longer to work the mud. He would have done that if he was short of people. We pour here in hundred degree temps and don't add water, so outside temps are not a good reason to add water, just time. Extra water means less strength.
If he'd done everything right, than it probably wouldn't matter if the concrete was a little weaker than it could have been. From the thicknes of the pad and beams, I doubt it would have cracked.
In the first picture, you can see the exposed rebar. This are doesn't have any strength in it at all. There are two pictures like that in her link, which indicates to me that nobody worked the mud to get rid of the air pockets. If she has two pictures of it, and mabye there's more, than you can gurantee that there's other air pockets inside the pad that nobody can see. The odds are just too overwhelming.
The second picture I've attached is one that shows the pad from the side. The other pictures make it look smooth, but this one makes it look wavy and very un-even. Ignore the bolts in that picture and look to the left at the edge of the pad. To me, this looks very bad and extremly unprofesional.
Mrs. Tiles,
I think you have a good understanding of what you need to do and are handleing this better than most. Better than I would. hahaha
The contractor is gonna be a problem, and from what you just wrote, I think he is already becomeing a problem. You told him not to come over and he sends a guy anyway. Then he shows up himself and argues with you. You are the boss, not him. He does what you say. Unfortuanately he's trying to convince you of something you already know is a lie. Nobody does a pad like he did and stays in business. He did a terrible job and now he's trying to make up some fantasy that it's an easy fix. It isn't. If he'd done it right, there wouldn't need to be a fix in the first place. The simple fact that he says it's an easy fix is proof that he knows it done wrong, but he thinks you don't know any better and he can BS you into accepting it. There's no telling how many times he's done this to others.
The one thing I was hopeing you'd address is what happened when you talked to the inspector. Did he sign off on the pad? Did he tell you why he failed it so many times and why he changed his mind without the contractor changing anything? If you can get the inspector on your side, than your case against the contractor will become very solid.
Good luck,
Eddie
Attachments
rlk
Gold Member
Ms Tile, in your first picture, is that grass I see? If it is, that tells me the contractor did not remove organic material. I don't know where you are located, but in North Carolina, you need to remove all organic material prior to pouring concrete. Top soil should also be removed. Not removing will cause the concrete to settle / crack.
Bob
Bob
Buckeye_Jim
Silver Member
Eddie,
I agree that 2nd picture looks pretty bad. But it is also distorted by the big zoom up. The step up to the steel troweled area is only 1.5 inches, so the big creast in the picture on that line is probably only a 1/2 inch or so. I can't figure out why the area for the base plates are so much wider than the base plates themselves. Maybe the plans call for them to grout in the extra space.
One of my complaints in looking at the pictures is the use of 2x4 for stake material. A big waste of material (maybe) leading to not using enough stakes. Especially along the 2x2 use to form that 1.5" edge on the slab. A usual procedure should have been to fill the footings first with much dryer concrete (1 to 2 inch slump) tamping and vibrating as you go to make sure the forms were filled. Then do the slab with wetter concrete where strength is not a big issue.
I have attached some of pictures of my building (30' x 50'). I was too cheap to buy the base plates, so we formed a trough for arches to drop into. They are later grouted. My building was engineered for 70 lbs per sq ft snow load, but we were only reguired to install 2 1/2" bars in the footings. She must have a "floating slab" design to resist frost upheaval. While we can have heavy wet snow (sierra cement) we do not have to take frost into account.
Mrs. Tiles you seem to be calmer in your last post. That's good. You have to live with this, so no need to make any apologies about demanding a quality result.
Jim
I agree that 2nd picture looks pretty bad. But it is also distorted by the big zoom up. The step up to the steel troweled area is only 1.5 inches, so the big creast in the picture on that line is probably only a 1/2 inch or so. I can't figure out why the area for the base plates are so much wider than the base plates themselves. Maybe the plans call for them to grout in the extra space.
One of my complaints in looking at the pictures is the use of 2x4 for stake material. A big waste of material (maybe) leading to not using enough stakes. Especially along the 2x2 use to form that 1.5" edge on the slab. A usual procedure should have been to fill the footings first with much dryer concrete (1 to 2 inch slump) tamping and vibrating as you go to make sure the forms were filled. Then do the slab with wetter concrete where strength is not a big issue.
I have attached some of pictures of my building (30' x 50'). I was too cheap to buy the base plates, so we formed a trough for arches to drop into. They are later grouted. My building was engineered for 70 lbs per sq ft snow load, but we were only reguired to install 2 1/2" bars in the footings. She must have a "floating slab" design to resist frost upheaval. While we can have heavy wet snow (sierra cement) we do not have to take frost into account.
Mrs. Tiles you seem to be calmer in your last post. That's good. You have to live with this, so no need to make any apologies about demanding a quality result.
Jim
Attachments
capt jack
Silver Member
Eddie Walker is right on (as usual) adding water weakens concrete . On jobs
I've done or had done for me, I puckered about 10-20 gal. of water being added per truck. But 105 gal. should have made the concrete thin enough to fill up the forms and seek it's own level UNASSISTED. You said the "contractor" arrived for the pour alone and then some helpers showed up, I wonder if he got them and trained them on the donut shop parking lot that morning. I'll bet the results of the concrete stress test (not the stress test this guy is putting you thru, the one the engineering firm does) will help you make up your mind. This is not a minor fix. However compared to what others face in life, bad concrete is a minor problem.
I've done or had done for me, I puckered about 10-20 gal. of water being added per truck. But 105 gal. should have made the concrete thin enough to fill up the forms and seek it's own level UNASSISTED. You said the "contractor" arrived for the pour alone and then some helpers showed up, I wonder if he got them and trained them on the donut shop parking lot that morning. I'll bet the results of the concrete stress test (not the stress test this guy is putting you thru, the one the engineering firm does) will help you make up your mind. This is not a minor fix. However compared to what others face in life, bad concrete is a minor problem.
CurlyDave
Elite Member
In the first picture, you can see the exposed rebar. This are doesn't have any strength in it at all. There are two pictures like that in her link, which indicates to me that nobody worked the mud to get rid of the air pockets. If she has two pictures of it, and mabye there's more, than you can gurantee that there's other air pockets inside the pad that nobody can see. The odds are just too overwhelming.
Eddie:
I hate to disagree with you, but in every reinforced concrete structure I have ever seen engineering plans for, the strength is derived from the bar, not from the concrete.
The reason bar is placed a certain distance from the edge of a pour is usually to prevent rusting. While I agree that the job is sloppy to the point of being inexcusable, I think that this area could be salvaged by being grouted, especially if a consciencious contractor took care to assure bonding between the grout and the existing pour.
I completely agree with the idea that there are probably major voids in other areas.
This is never going to be a fine slab, but with some additional expense it might be salvaged.
The part that gives me some concern is from the original post:
While I waited for the building documents and the permitting to go thru I had my neighbor dig up the area for the slab pad and I brought in several trucks of dirt. No real requirements but I wanted to elevate the barn about 2'. This dirt pad sat for some time til the contractor got the permit and we could finally get started.
The pad apparently was poured on 2' of "dirt" (topsoil, clay, whatever is not specified) and there is no mention of placing this in lifts or compacting it.
If anyone is concerned about settlement, look no further. This is almost guaranteed to settle over time.
I see a potential mess here with tile's wife (and tile) having a very valid complaint about an incredibly sloppy job, but the contractor having a counterclaim that the preparation was improper. Now why the contractor would agree to pour concrete on such a poor surface is a mystery to me, and he may be liable for it, but you would need someone familiar with construction case law in the local juristiction to sort that out.
I would certainly think that any competent contractor would recognize a 2' base the exact size & shape of the pad as a recent fill-in and would question how it was placed.
The other issue which is of some concern is that while I see vapor barrier, I see no drain rock under it, and I see no sand over it. This is just plain not the right prep work out here on the left coast, and I think the laws of nature are the same wherever you are. No sand over the vapor barrier will lead to cracks.
And, speaking of cracks, there is no indication of any bar or mesh in the slab itself, just in the grade beams under it.
The real bottom line is that I would not pay the contractor anything until I had the engineering report, and then I would subtract the cost of fixing the problems from the contractor's bill.
Lastly, when I Google "Swiss Hammer concrete" I find that it is actually a Schmidt Hammer, or a rebound hammer.
The Portland Cement Association Concrete Technology | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Rebound Hammers | Portland Cement Association (PCA) does not feel that this is a reliable technique, unless a corelation is established with cylinder crush tests from the same batch of concrete.
The Swiss Hammer will tell you if the concrete is of the same quality all over, which I doubt, since different amounts of water were added to each truck, and it will pinpoint the worst places, but I would have a core drilled sample taken & tested at the worst place. Essentially you don't have material all from the same batch. It might have been when it left the plant, but adding different amounts of water means you have a different batch for each truckload.
Eddie:
I hate to disagree with you, but in every reinforced concrete structure I have ever seen engineering plans for, the strength is derived from the bar, not from the concrete.
The reason bar is placed a certain distance from the edge of a pour is usually to prevent rusting. While I agree that the job is sloppy to the point of being inexcusable, I think that this area could be salvaged by being grouted, especially if a consciencious contractor took care to assure bonding between the grout and the existing pour.
I completely agree with the idea that there are probably major voids in other areas.
This is never going to be a fine slab, but with some additional expense it might be salvaged.
The part that gives me some concern is from the original post:
While I waited for the building documents and the permitting to go thru I had my neighbor dig up the area for the slab pad and I brought in several trucks of dirt. No real requirements but I wanted to elevate the barn about 2'. This dirt pad sat for some time til the contractor got the permit and we could finally get started.
The pad apparently was poured on 2' of "dirt" (topsoil, clay, whatever is not specified) and there is no mention of placing this in lifts or compacting it.
If anyone is concerned about settlement, look no further. This is almost guaranteed to settle over time.
I see a potential mess here with tile's wife (and tile) having a very valid complaint about an incredibly sloppy job, but the contractor having a counterclaim that the preparation was improper. Now why the contractor would agree to pour concrete on such a poor surface is a mystery to me, and he may be liable for it, but you would need someone familiar with construction case law in the local juristiction to sort that out.
I would certainly think that any competent contractor would recognize a 2' base the exact size & shape of the pad as a recent fill-in and would question how it was placed.
The other issue which is of some concern is that while I see vapor barrier, I see no drain rock under it, and I see no sand over it. This is just plain not the right prep work out here on the left coast, and I think the laws of nature are the same wherever you are. No sand over the vapor barrier will lead to cracks.
And, speaking of cracks, there is no indication of any bar or mesh in the slab itself, just in the grade beams under it.
The real bottom line is that I would not pay the contractor anything until I had the engineering report, and then I would subtract the cost of fixing the problems from the contractor's bill.
Lastly, when I Google "Swiss Hammer concrete" I find that it is actually a Schmidt Hammer, or a rebound hammer.
The Portland Cement Association Concrete Technology | Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Rebound Hammers | Portland Cement Association (PCA) does not feel that this is a reliable technique, unless a corelation is established with cylinder crush tests from the same batch of concrete.
The Swiss Hammer will tell you if the concrete is of the same quality all over, which I doubt, since different amounts of water were added to each truck, and it will pinpoint the worst places, but I would have a core drilled sample taken & tested at the worst place. Essentially you don't have material all from the same batch. It might have been when it left the plant, but adding different amounts of water means you have a different batch for each truckload.
