ejemplo de survery

8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery

1/24

Structural Survey

N Plant

Procter Gamble

_B

prepared for

Procter & Gamble

EXAMPLE REPORT

prepared by

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

297 Broadway

Arlington, Massachusetts 02174

Tel: 617 643-2000

Fax: 617 643-2009

Comm. 96xXx.00

30 April 1997


2/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble,_

SGH Comm. 96xXx.00

30 April 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (P G Requested Format)

Procter & Gamble (P&G) retained Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) to perform a

structural survey of the P&G facility located in _ .

The survey was conducted

in accordance with the guidelines expressed in the P&G Structural Survey Manual. The

objective of the structural survey is to identify and document potential structural deficiencies

based on visual assessments. Neither an exhaustive review of the structural design nor an

exhaustive field investigation of existing conditions at the Plant are objectives.

Summary of Survey

We identified twenty-nine (29) potential structural deficiencies (Issues) that warrant inclusion

in the Five-Year Action Plan as defined by P&G standards. We did not identify any situations

that warranted emergency response. We performed the risk assessment in accordance with

the P&G standards and found:

. .

Twelve (12) Issues are rank

1.

(Require mitigation within the first year of the

Five-year Action Plan).

. .

Five (5) items requiring quick fixes by the plant. (No further engineering

support is anticipated to make these simple repairs.)

. .

Five (5) Issues are Rank 2, Five (5) are Rank 3, One (1) is Rank 4.

. .

Ten (IO) of the twelve (12) Rank 1 issues are study items.

(Require further

investigation to determine the extent of the Issue and the necessary repairs.)

Next Steps

All of the above Issues can be addressed in accordance with the P&G Standard Operating

Procedure which outlines the Five-Year Action Plan. For those which require further study,

Appendix D includes suggested guidelines for the studies. These studies will not only

determine the extent and nature of the required repairs, but will also provide the information

needed for a risk assessment in order to establish the final ranking and timing for their

completion.


3/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble,_

SGH

Comm. 96xXx.00

30 April 1997

Background

We visually assessed conditions of the interior, exterior, and roof of Buildings A, B, C, and D

and the Prototype/Utility Building.

Our observations were limited in scope to the as-built

structural arrangement, structural details, current condition and structural performance of

elements to the extent that they could be observed from accessible areas without destructive

probing.

We collected general information about each buildings use, size and age, and basic

construction data for the major components of each building. Appendix E contains a data

sheet for each building that represents the building information presently in our database.

Table 1 is a summary of the structural issues we identified in our survey. For each issue, we

assign one of six priority categories (Rank). The Rank can be used to establish an execution

strategy. Concepts for corrective action and very approximate cost estimates for engineering

and construction to accomplish the remedial construction are also presented in Table 1.

Some issues are identified as possible Quick Fixes.

For other issues, the findings based on

the Survey are not definitive for either the extent and/or severity of the issue. These issues

are Study Items and warrant further review.

Table 2 presents a Ranked Summary of all cost

estimates we made for the m Plant.

Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates

A very approximate order of magnitude cost estimate for engineering and construction to

accomplish remedial construction for the Issues is 107,000, including 41,000 for performing

the recommended studies. These studies will likely result in recommendations for additional

remedial construction which is not included in the 107,000.


4/24

Structural

Survey

Procter & Gamble,_

SGH Comm. 96xXx.00

30 April 1997

TABLE

0 F CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION

1

1.1 Objective

1

1.2 Scope

1

1.3 General Description

of Facility

2

2. SITE VISIT AND SURVEY OF STRUCTURES

2

2.1

Scope of Visual Survey

2

2.2

Basic Construction Data

3

2.3 Structural Issues Identified by Survey 3

3. RANKING OF ISSUES

3

4. CONCEPTS FOR REPAIRS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

4

5. COST ESTIMATES

4

TABLES

Table 1 -

Ranked Summary of Structural Findings

Table 2 - Ranked Summary of Cost Estimates

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures 1 through 6

Photos

APPENDIX

Appendix A -

Executive Summary and Program Flow Chart

from P&G Structural Survey Manual

Appendix B -

Definition of Issue Types

Appendix C - Risk Analysis Methodology for Ranking Issues

Appendix D -

List of Study Items

Appendix E -

Building Data Sheets

* Bold Capitalized Headings are tab indexed.


5/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble,_

SGH Comm. 96xxx.00

30 April 1997

I.

INTRODUCTION

Procter 8. Gamble (P&G) retained Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) to perform a

structural survey of the Procter & Gamble facility located in _. The survey

was conducted in accordance with the guidelines expressed in the P&G Structural Survey

Manual. The Executive Summary and Program Flowchart from the Manual are in Appendix

A. This is the report of our structural survey for the m Plant.

1. 1 Objective

The objective of the structural survey is to identify and document potential structural deficien-

cies based on visual assessments. Neither an exhaustive review of the structural design nor

an exhaustive field investigation of existing conditions at the Plant are objectives.

1.2

Scope

The scope of our work includes the following tasks:

0

contact the site to collect readily available and pertinent drawings, reports and original

construction documents

. .

perform a cursory review of drawings, reports and documents for the purpose

of enhancing the visual survey

0

visit the site to collect building data and perform visual walk-through surveys of

structures

0

document potential structural deficiencies we identify, provide a Ranked Summary

(priority rank for each issue) and make recommendations for further study

0

communicate the scope of potential structural deficiencies to the Cost Estimator

(designated by P&G) and incorporate the Cost Estimators estimates of potential costs

for remedial construction into our report

0

summarize our findings in a written report

Our survey is limited to assessment of safety-related structural issues of the building frames,

mezzanine frames, major architectural and nonstructural components of buildings, and major

l


6/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble,_

SGH Comm. 96xXx.00

30 April 1997

site structures. Section 2.1 defines the scope of the structures and conditions included in our

visual observations at this site.

1.3. General Description of Facility

The B facility produces health and beauty care products. It is located about 25 miles

south of B and is roughly 1,000 ft above sea level.

Five main buildings, including the

current expansion project, comprise the facility totaling about 250,000 sq ft of floor space

(Fig. 1). Two of the buildings, Buildings A and B, were constructed in 1974 by B and

B. Building C was built in 1984 as a warehouse and now is currently under conver-

sion to a process facility. Building D was built in 1984 by a B government effort and

recently purchased by P&G. The Prototype/Utility Building was constructed in 1995.

2.

SITE VISIT AND SURVEY OF STRUCTURES

In November 1996, James Parker (SGH) and Glenn Bell

(SGH) visited the B facility to

collect building data and conduct the survey. B B (P&G) assisted our interface

with the plant.

2.1 Scope of Visual Survey

We visually observed conditions of the interior, exterior, and roof of Buildings A, B, C, and D

and the Prototype/Utility Building.

Our observations were limited in scope to the as-built structural arrangement, structural details,

current condition and structural performance of elements to the extent that they could be

observed from accessible areas without destructive probing. Our observations were primarily

from the building exteriors, from the roof and from the ground, and from interior locations

where the structure is exposed. Where the structure is concealed by acoustical type ceiling

tile, we removed the tile and made spot checks to the extent we judged adequate for the

purpose.

-2-


7/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble,_

SGH Comm. 96xxx.00

30 April 1997

We did not perform a detailed inspection of all storage racks. We made general condition

assessments of the major rack systems and identified those that warrant detailed inspections

based on observed damage and/or configuration.

2.2

Basic Construction Data

We collected general information about each buildings use, size and age, and basic

construction data for the major components of each building. Appendix E contains a

sheet for each building that represents the building information presently in our database.

data sheets include representative photos of the buildings for general reference.

data

The

2.3

Structural Issues Identified by Survey

Table 1 is a summary of the structural

Issues we identified in our survey. Each Issue has an

unique Issue Number and an Issue Type associated with it. Appendix B defines the category

for each Issue Type. Figures 2 through 6 indicate the general location for each Issue. Table

1 identifies representative photos of most Issues.

In accordance with the P&G Structural Survey Manual we have reported only conditions that

may represent risk or be indicative of abnormal structural behavior. We have not recorded in

this report areas of needed maintenance nor have we assessed the viability of the roof and

exterior walls for water-penetration resistance or durability. However, if a maintenance

deficiency appears directly responsible for a structural deficiency, we recorded the mainte-

nance issue in the summary.

3.

RANKING OF ISSUES

For each Issue, Table 1 indicates one of six priority categories (Rank). The six Ranks are,

from highest priority to lowest: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Maintenance (Mnt.). These Ranks can be

used to establish an execution strategy.

We assigned the Rank for each Issue based on the risk analysis methodology presented in

the P&G Structural Survey Manual (Appendix C). Since risk is the product of two variables,

potential consequence and the probability of occurrence of the consequence, ratings that

-3-


8/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble,_

SGH Comm. 96xXx.00

30 April 1997

relate to these two variables will best describe the relative risk. Each Issue is given a

Structural Safety Consequence Rating and a Business Interruption Rating, as well as a

Probability Rating. Table 3.1 of Appendix C provides a Combined Assessment Value based

on the two Consequence Ratings. Table 3.2 of Appendix C provides a Rank based on the

Combined Assessment Value and the Probability Rating. Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 in Appendix

C show the guidelines we used to assign the Ratings. The initial assessment is based solely

on our judgement. Further investigations and/or calculations may modify initial assessments,

more likely to a lower level but potentially possibly to a higher level.

4.

CONCEPTS FOR REPAIRS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Concepts for corrective action for each Issue is presented in Table 1. Some Issues are

identified as possible Quick Fixes. Quick Fixes are those Issues that do not require further

study or engineering for their correction, can be managed and executed by the Plant, and the

scope is such that the anticipated cost is relatively low. For other Issues, the findings based

on the Survey are not definitive for either the extent or severity of the Issue. The extent and

severity can affect both the Ranking and/or the proper concept for repair. We identify those

Issues that warrant further review as Study Items in Table 1 by including an approximate cost

for the study. Appendix D is a list of the Study Items with a brief outline of the suggested

study.

5.

COST ESTIMATES

Table 1 includes our cost estimates for engineering and construction to accomplish the

remedial construction and for performing the Study Items. Table 2 presents a Ranked

Summary of all cost estimates. These estimates are very approximate and are intended to

provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the relative cost of the Issues.

JCP27a-97.ras

-4-


9/24

Structural Survey SGH Comm. xxxxx.00

Procter & Gamble Plant, Example Plant, Example City, Example Country 28 March 1997

Table 1: Ranked Summary of Structural Findings

Bldg. No. Issue No.Location or

Area ID (1)

Issue Type

(2)

Photo

No.(s)

Initial

Seismic Issue

No. (Cross

Ref.) (3)

Issue Description

Structural

Safety

Assessment

Business

Interruption

Assessment

Combined

Assessment

Rating

Probability

Rating

Priority

RankQuick Fix? Concept for Repair

Study

Item?Comments

50/50 Target

Cost for

Remediation

Bldg. A A-1 through-out E2

A-1.1

A-1.2

A-1.3

seen from the underside and there is evidence that the

roofing has leaked or is leaking.

D M Remove and replace corroded roof deck.

significant. Inspect remaining deck

thickness from samples. If a large

replacement consider coordinating

with re-roofing.

A-2 D2A-2.2 removed without proper reinforcement.

B M 1Reinforce joist and provide vertical support Check lift frame to see if it can take

$10,000

A-3D.I. water

E2 There is corrosion of the steel roof framing. C L Clean and paint framing.

Bldg. Athrough-out

B2

There is no bottom chord bridging or other means to

pressures.

A H 1 $25,000

A-5 E2 A-5.2

Structural steel supporting roof-top mechanical

B M 3 $500 section loss. (Cost estimate basedon no strengthening required)

Bldg. A Making Area A-6.1 C L 1 Reinstall post.

Bldg. A Block IA-7.1

A-S2

Out of 12 vertical braces shown on the drawings for

or disconnected, 1 intact, and 4 hidden by finishes.

A H 2options to replace missing braces.

Bldg. A Block II -

The drawings do not indicate steel braces for the steel

connected to the frames in a manner to significantly

engage them as shear walls.

A Loptions to replace missing braces.

Bldg. A through-outA-9.1

A-NS.14The storage racks are damaged in some locations

B M 2 Remove and replace damaged members.Provide detailed inspection of racks

Bldg. A high-bay A-10.1

There is field welding of pipe supports to the bottom

the diagonal support cannot be resisted by the bar joist.

B M 3 locations and consider horisontal

thrust on bottom chord.

See figures for additional information

See Appendix B

(3)

Table continued next page

Example.xls 4/16/98

2:36 PM


10/24


Table 1: Ranked Summary of Structural Findings (contd.)

Issue No.Location or

(2) No.(s)

Seismic Issue

No. (CrossIssue Description Safety

Assessment

Business

Interruption

Assessment

Combined

Assessment

Rating

Probability

Rating

Priority

RankQuick Fix? Concept for Repair Study Item? Comments

50/50 Target

Cost for

Remediation

Bldg. B B-1 through-out E2B-1.1

B-1.2

There is corrosion of the metal roof deck that can be

seen from the underside and there is evidence that the

roofing has leaked or is leaking.

A D H M 1 Remove and replace corroded roof deck. $2,000

Extent of corrosion may be

significant. Inspect remaining deck

thickness from samples. If a large

fraction of the deck needs

replacement consider coordinating

with re-roofing.

Bldg. B B-2 through-out B2 B-2.1

The structural drawings call for bar joist extensions at

the columns and at the locations checked in the field the

extensions are not attached to the columns.

A A H M 1Connect extensions to beam or column at

each column location.$9,000

Bldg. B B-3 through-out D2 B-3.1 B-S2

Out of 7 vertical braces shown on the drawings, there

are: 2 confirmed intact, 1 confirmed removed because

of wall openings, and 4 hidden by finishes.

A A H L 2 $10,000Study lateral load capacity and

options to replace missing braces.

Bldg. B B-4Connector to

Bldg. A.B2 B-4

The vertical diagonal rod bracing in the connector

building is sagging and should be tightened.B D M L 3 YES Tighten diagonal rods.

Notes:

(1) See figures for additional information( 2) S ee Ap pe nd ix B

(3) Some of the issues are also associated with issues identified in the initial seismic survey. Only those seismic issues that are also safety related issues

from gravity or wind loads are listed here.

Table continued next page

Example.xls

CSTable1 Page 2 of 4

Page 2 of 4

4/16/98

2:36 PM


11/24



Bldg. No.Area ID (1) (2) No.(s)

Issue Description Safety

Assessment

Business

Interruption

Combined

AssessmentProbability

Rating

Priority

RankConcept for Repair Study Item? Comments

50/50 Target

Cost for

Remediation

C-1 throughoutC-1.1

C-1.2D O MNT Replace corroded metal roof. Roof maintenance issue.

Bldg. C C-2 making roof B2 C-2.1 C L 4attachment.

Bldg. C E line, J line C-3.1

The bottom flange of the jack girder is not braced by a

original construction drawings. The jack girders are

along Lines E and J. ( Identified 3 missing)

A Mstruts where they are missing. required at half of the locations.

$ 5,500

C-4 D2

The end span of the jack girder along Line J is removed

girder that is 10 ft. in from what is now the end support

(Col. J-3). Check the splice for capacity to carry

A H 1 (4)

C-5 D2 at the east end of the making expansion. The originalwind column at E-1 now supports a large girder. B L

Check the column capacity for wind

Bldg. C making rooms C-6.1 ton making rooms is not laterally braced, and the top

course is composed of broken block.

C L clip angles at 4 ft on center each side of the

wall.

(4)

C-72nd floor

B5C-7.2

C-N5.8

not sufficiently laterally braced and there is insufficient

allowance for relative movement between the wall,

metal building.

B M 3lateral support of wall.

Bldg. Ccombustible

B5 C-N5.8

At the comb. storage rm., the CMU partition is built tight

supported from roof of metal building. There is

insufficient allowance for relative movement between the

B M 3lateral support of wall.

Bldg. C throughout C-9.1

A significant amount of nonstructural items are hung

building was originally a warehouse with very little hung

weight.

B MThe roof framing should be reviewed for the

(4)

C-10second level

E3Mezzanine Level (Second Floor).

D L 5 (4)

C-11 D2 C-S1 braces shown on the original structural drawings. They

are:

A Lreplace missing members.

$ 15,000

C-11.1wall, 1 Line between D and E, is removed.

C-S1.2horizontal strut of the eastern most brace is moved one

bay east, and this makes some of the tension diagonals

C-S1.3

The vertical bracing in the south wall is modified. The

(out of six total in west wall) due to interference with

door openings.

C-11.3

The vertical bracing in the north wall is modified. At two

removed and re-attached in a lower position. The rods

are not taught and the connections do not appear to

C-S1.5locations the horizontal struts between the upper and

lower cross bracing is relocated to the adjacent bay.

Bldg. C C-12.1(examples in photos).

B M 2 Remove and replace damaged members.Provide detailed inspection of racks

Notes:

See figures for additional information

( 2) S ee Ap pe nd ix B

Some of the issues are also associated with issues identified in the initial seismic survey. Only those seismic issues that are also safety related issues

(4) These Issues are part of a construction project in progress and can be addressed by the Engineer of Record for the project or other construction participants. Additional study costs or construction remediation costs may not be needed.

CSTable1

4/16/98

2:36 PM


12/24


Procter & Gamble Plant, Example Plant, Example City, Example Country 28 March 1997


Bldg. No. Issue No.Location or

Area ID (1)

Issue Type

(2)

Photo

No.(s)

Initial

Seismic Issue

No. (Cross

Ref.) (3)

Issue Description

Structural

Safety

Assessment

Business

Interruption

Assessment

Combined

Assessment

Rating

Probability

Rating

Priority

RankQuick Fix? Concept for Repair Study Item? Comments

50/50 Target

Cost for

Remediation

Bldg. D D-1 east end B5 D-1.1 -Door opening in six inch masonry wall does not have a

lintel.B D M M 2 YES Install steel l intel .

Bldg. D D-2 west side E1 D-2.1 -The light gage roof framing for the cafeteria appendage

looks inadequate and in poor condition.B D M M 2 Demolish. $ 2,500

Bldg. D D-3 south side E1D-3.1

D-3.2-

The framing of lean-to appendages appears inadequate

and in poor condition.B D M M 2 Demolish. $ 2,500

Notes:

(1) See figures for additional information

( 2) S ee Ap pe nd ix B

(3) Some of the issues are also associated with issues identified in the initial seismic survey. Only those seismic issues that are also safety related issues

from gravity or wind loads are listed here.

Example.xls

CSTable1 Page 4 of 4

Page 4 of 4

4/16/98

2:36 PM


13/24


Procter & Gamble Plant, Example Plant, Example City, Example Country DRAFT 28 March 1997

Table 2: Ranked Summary of Cost Estimates

Bldg. No. Issue No.

Priority

Rank Quick Fix? Study Item?

50/50 Target

Cost Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5

Bldg. A A-1 1 $2,000Bldg. A A-2 1 $10,000 $10,000

Bldg. A A-3 3 $7,500 $7,500Bldg. A A-4 1 $25,000 $25,000

Bldg. A A-5 3 $500 $4,000 $4,000Bldg. A A-6 1 YESBldg. A A-7 2 $10,000

Bldg. A A-8 2 A-7 + A-8Bldg. A A-9 2 YES

Bldg. A A-10 3 $1,500Bldg. B B-1 1 $2,000

Bldg. B B-2 1 $9,000 $9,000Bldg. B B-3 2 $10,000Bldg. B B-4 3 YES

Bldg. C C-1 MNTBldg. C C-2 4 (4) (4)

Bldg. C C-3 1 $5,500 $5,500Bldg. C C-4 1 (4) (4)

Bldg. C C-5 3Bldg. C C-6 3 (4) (4)Bldg. C C-7 3 (4) (4)

Bldg. C C-8 3 (4) (4)Bldg. C C-9 2 (4)

Bldg. C C-10 5 (4)

Bldg. C C-11 2 $15,000Bldg. C C-12 2 YESBldg. D D-1 2 YESBldg. D D-2 2 $2,500 $2,500Bldg. D D-3 2 $2,500 $2,500

$41,000 $66,000 $49,500 $5,000 $11,500

Notes:(4) These Issues are part of a construction project in progress and can be addressed by the Engineer of Record for the project or

other construction participants. Additional study costs or construction remediation costs may not be needed.

Example.xlsCSTable2 Page 1 of 1

3:53 PM4/15/98


14/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble Plant,

EXAM PLE REPORT W-Icommiarch997

FIGURE 1

::;

NOR

I

xpansion \ 1

\

I

BLDG

BLDG

\ / \/

C

XI /\

I

Fire Water

Pump House

Subs tation

I

I

I

4 +--+--Connector

T

i

SIT PLAN

SITE PLAN

Tunks

SITE ID NO.


15/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble Plant ,

EXAMPLE REPORT

SGH Comm.

March 1997

FIGURE

* /

-f

/

/

/

:-------

,

,

FIRST

FLOOR PLAN

BUILDING A

LEGEND

,, ,-Is %12 NO. (See RANKED SUMMARY1

a

-

SOL10 INDICATES GENERAL LOCATION

OF 1SSUE

lNDICATES ISSUE IS THROUGH-OUT AREA

fNDICATES ISSUE IS ON LEVEL ABOVE

OR BELOW THAT SHOWN. LEVEL NOTED I--

SITE ID NO.

_ _ . . ..

_. . . . . . . ---.-.- --- --- --- --


16/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble Plant.

EXAMPLE REPORT

SGH Comm.

March 1997

FIRST

FLOOR PLAN

FIGURE

LEGEND

@

ISSUe NO. [SEE RANKED SUMMARY]

A-

SOLID INDICATES GENERAL LOCATtON

OF ISSUE

INDICATES ISSUE IS THROUGH-OUT AREA

INDICATES ISSUE 1S ON LEVEL A DOVC

OR BELOW THAT SHOWN. LEVEL NOTED [

BUILDING B

SITE ID NO.


17/24

4

-

.

-


18/24

Structural Survey

Procter & Gamble Plant,

EXAMPLE REPORT

SGH Comm.

March 1997

FIGURE

ECOND FI OOR PLAN_

LEGEND

6

ISSUE NO. (SEE RANKED SUMMARY]

A-

SOL10 INDICATES GENERAL LOCATION

OF ISSUE

INDICATES ISSUE rS THROUGH-OUT AREA

INDICATES ISSUE IS ON LEVEL A6OVE

OR BELOW THAT SHOWN. LEVEL NOTED [-

BUILDING C

SITE ID NO.


19/24

Structural Survey

SGH Comm.

Procter & Gomblr Plant.

March 1997

FIGURE

@

D-

e

-

. .

i

7

;

L-

ILL-l

. .

.

. .

.

I

P

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

.

i

l-

A_-

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

I

LEGEND

6

ISSUE NO. (See RANKeD SUMMARY)

A-

SOLID INDICATES GENERAL LOCATION

OF ISSUE

INDICATES ISSUE IS THROUGH-OUT AREA

INDICATES ISSUE IS ON LEVeL ABOVE

OR BeLOW THAT SHOWN. LCVtZL NOTED l-

BUILDING D

SITE ID NO.


20/24


21/24


22/24


23/24


24/24

ejemplo de survery

Documents