inside - Chamberlin Roofing and Waterproofing

SPRING 2011
NEWSLETTER
Sustainably Preserving the Past –
City of Houston Central Permitting Center
Architectural rendering of the completed City of Houston Central Permitting Center
courtesy of Studio RED Architects.
Restoring and reusing an existing building is an
exemplary act of sustainability in the built environment.
It reduces construction waste and sometimes can
be extremely cost effective. For the City of Houston,
it made economic and environmental sense when
they chose to renovate an 86-year-old former rice
warehouse near downtown to consolidate their
Administration and Regulatory Affairs (ARA) and Public
Works and Engineering (PWE) permitting operations
under one roof. This new Central Permitting Center will
also house the city’s Green Building Resource Center,
an extension of PWE that shares sustainable energy
saving strategies with the public.
CONSULTANTS’ CORNER:
By: Alfredo E. Bustamante,
PE, CDT
&
Gary R. Searer,
PE, SE
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Studio RED
Architects,
Haynes Whaley
Associates
The building before renovation.
Structural
Engineers and Manhattan Construction were
chosen as the project team to lead the renovation.
As the waterproofing and masonry restoration
subcontractor to Manhattan, Chamberlin
performed new construction and remediation
work to restore the 187,000 sq. ft. building.
(Continued pg. 2...see COH CPC)
Certification of Facade Access Supports
for Powered Platforms and Lifelines
Building owners often need to access the exterior facade of
their buildings, whether for maintenance, window washing,
repairs, or construction. The most common means of accessing
the facade of tall buildings is the use of powered platforms or
scaffolds, which can be either building- or contractor-supplied.
The purpose of this article is to present a general overview of
(Continued pg. 2...see FACADE ACCESS)
INSIDE
this issue
City of Houston Central
Permitting Center
Restoration.........2 - 3
Certification of Facade
Access Supports ...2 - 5
National ABC Awards ..5
Cisco Data Center
Roofing Award .........5
Projects in Progress...6
WWW.C HAMBERLINLTD.COM
(COH CPC Continued from pg. 1)
The masonry restoration scope of
work included brick, clay tile and CMU
replacement and exterior building cleaning
and coating. Chamberlin removed paint,
graffiti and mastic to expose the original
red brick in several locations. To protect
the building from further vandalism, an
anti-graffiti sealer was applied to the lower
exterior levels with traditional waterproof
coatings on upper elevations.
To provide structural reinforcement
Chamberlin installed approximately 625 lineal
feet of epoxy injection to strengthen cracks in
load bearing basement walls. The team also
replaced damaged concrete, repaired
concrete columns, cleaned and sealed
structural metal and repaired concrete
window head beams.
“The window head beam repairs were
challenging because of the unforeseen
conditions that became apparent during the
demolition phase,” said Chamberlin Senior
Project Manager, Jonathan Winkles. “We
were also very safety conscious because
large pieces of concrete could potentially
fall when removed, so we created a failsafe
method of containing debris.”
To overcome the safety challenges of
removing large pieces of concrete from
window head beams, the Chamberlin
safety department constructed a rolling
scaffold platform for craftsmen on the interior
of the building to correspond
with their counterparts
working from the exterior on
swing stages. The platforms
were tied off to structural
columns and secured with
weights so Chamberlin
team members could
safely remove and replace
overhead concrete around
the windows.
“It was a real team
effort,” said Chamberlin
Superintendent, Mike Hicks. Paint and mastic was removed to expose the original brick facade.
“Each window restoration
required a team of two
A 3,750 sq. ft. curtainwall construction
people – one working on an exterior
addition was built on to the existing structure
swing stage and the other providing
as a public entry into the permitting center
support from the interior of the building.”
along with new fire exit stair towers on
Plywood was strategically placed
the east and north sides of the building.
between the swing stage and window to
Chamberlin installed terrazzo-filled
further protect other tradesmen below
expansion joint assemblies on the first
from possible loose concrete.
floor to connect the two buildings. When
it came time to install the interior two and
Because of its deterioration, Chamberlin
one-half inch joint, though, Chamberlin
removed approximately 200% more
discovered the existing floor level was not
concrete around the windows than initially
exactly flush with the new one. Because of
estimated. “That is the nature of restoration
its unevenness, the existing floor height
projects,” said Winkles, “you sometimes
difference ranged from one-quarter inch to
don’t know the full extent of work required
over two inches in some areas. To remedy
until you start digging in, so it becomes
the difference, Chamberlin made a 12 gauge
important to be able to provide solutions
steel plate with a two inch riser, which was
on the spot for existing conditions.”
slowly filled with concrete to square off and
build up the existing floor. Once both
(Continued pg. 3...see COH CPC)
(FACADE ACCESS Continued from pg. 1)
inspection and testing requirements to provide certification of
building-supplied components and to discuss building owner
responsibilities.
Permanent supports for building access typically consist of
anchorages and davits. Anchorages are points of attachment that are
used to anchor lifelines or tie-backs (photograph 1) for certain types of
facade access equipment. Davits (photograph 2) are devices, typically
used singly or in pairs, for suspending powered platforms on a
building for the purposes of performing exterior maintenance or
construction activities.
Applicable Standards
The only universally applicable standards for testing and inspection
of facade access support systems are provided by OSHA; however,
OSHA requirements are often unclear and sometimes conflict with
one another. To make matters more complicated, OSHA standards
vary depending on the type of work being performed. For example,
2
ACTIVE MEMBERS OF:
Photograph 1: Rooftop anchor
Photograph 2: Davit
scaffolds used for building maintenance have different requirements
than scaffolds used for construction.
For building maintenance activities, such as window cleaning,
re-glazing, and caulking, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.66 and 1910.28 apply.
(Continued pg. 3...see FACADE ACCESS)
(COH CPC Continued from pg. 2)
surfaces were uniform, Chamberlin installed
the joint, which was filled with terrazzo to
seamlessly match the floor’s new finish.
“This building was built to last,” said Winkles,
“You don’t see these types of construction
means and methods used anymore, so it
provided a history lesson of sorts during its
restoration. For example, exterior walls are
three bricks wide, rebar is squared and
twisted and structural concrete columns
are cone-shaped at the top.”
Though the building needed a little more TLC
than expected, all teams worked together to
find the best possible solutions. The interior
of the building was largely left in its original
state for aesthetic value. Structural repairs
were made where necessary, but brick walls,
concrete columns and ceilings were left
exposed providing a raw, historic look.
Chamberlin removed and replaced deteriorated concrete
around window head beams.
Interior of the 86-year-old building before renovation.
Photo courtesy of Studio RED Architects.
The project is seeking LEED Silver status,
which fulfills the City of Houston’s Green
Building Resolution target for all new
construction and renovated buildings
owned by the city that are over 10,000 sq. ft.
As architect, Pete Ed Garrett of Studio RED
Architects, wrote in his recent article in the
Houston Business Journal, “...in essence,
recycling buildings through renovation is
one of the most sustainable things we can
do... the added bonus is that Houston can
demonstrate that it cares about its buildings,
their stories and its soul.”
Architectural rendering of the City of Houston Central Permitting Center interior courtesy of Studio RED Architects.
(FACADE ACCESS Continued from pg. 2)
For construction activities the requirements of OSHA 1926 Subpart ‘L’
apply. The meaning of “construction” is not well-defined in the OSHA
standards, but the general industry consensus is that anything
beyondnormal window cleaning, glazing, and caulking would qualify
and trigger OSHA 1926 Subpart ‘L’, including painting, installing a
sign or stringing holiday lights. Since facade access is achieved by
either building-supplied or contractor-supplied equipment, different
requirements can apply to the contractor and the owner.
In this context, applicable structural requirements include the
provision that davits, davit bases and equipment tie-back anchors
be able to support four times the rated load of the attached motor
or hoist for maintenance activities and four and one-half times the
rated hoist load for construction activities. Regardless of the type
of work being performed, fall arrest anchorages must be able to
sustain a 5,000 pound static load for each attached lifeline.
(Continued pg. 4...see FACADE ACCESS)
Photograph 3: Facade access support testing in action.
3
(FACADE ACCESS Continued from pg. 3)
Summary of Testing and Inspection Requirements
OSHA requires that facade access installations be both tested and
inspected, as summarized below.
Testing Requirements
Testing requirements for new installations are provided in OSHA
1910.66(g)(1):
Installations and alterations. All completed building maintenance
equipment installations shall be inspected and tested in the field
before being placed in initial service to determine that all parts
of the installation conform to applicable requirements of this
standard, and that all safety and operating equipment is
functioning as required. A similar inspection and test shall be
made following any major alteration to an existing installation…
Nominally, proof load testing to verify that an installation meets the
capacity requirements of OSHA is only required for initial certification of
the installation or after any major alteration. For new installations, the
proof load testing must be performed prior to putting the installation into
service. For installations that are not new but that have never been
adequately tested, proof load testing is usually the best method of
ensuring that the installation meets the minimum capacity requirements.
Once the capacity of the installation has been confirmed, certification
can be provided to the building owner. After that, the system is only
required to be visually inspected once a year to verify that elements
have not been damaged and are being adequately maintained.
However, if damage and/or deterioration are suspected (e.g., due to
years of exposure and use or due to outward signs of degradation),
or if the owner of a building lacks documentation that the building’s
equipment has the required capacity (e.g., a building without proper
documentation is purchased), load testing is a valuable tool that can
be used to verify that the equipment has the minimum capacity
required by OSHA.
Photograph 4: Davit proof load testing.
exceed the minimum capacity required by OSHA. Testing to a lesser
load will only verify the ability to carry that lesser load. The proof test
load applied to a platform support element (e.g., davit or davit base)
should be equivalent to the rated load of the supported hoist multiplied
by the appropriate load factor. The proof test load for anchorages should
be 5,000 lbs times the number of lines that are allowed to be attached
(usually one). Anchorage testing should verify adequate strength in all
directions for which use is anticipated.
To the extent possible, we recommend that every permanent
component of a building’s facade access support system be proof load
tested (photographs 3 and 4) before providing a written certification to
the building owner. If access or other constraints prevent testing of
certain elements, we recommend exposing the attachment of those
installations to the building and verifying the capacity analytically.
Testing Specifics
There appears to be some confusion in the industry regarding the
appropriate level of testing. Testing of facade access support system
components to a maximum of one-half the OSHA required capacity
is recommended by California OSHA and the International Window
Cleaning Association (IWCA). Unfortunately, such testing does not
verify compliance with minimum OSHA standards. Since OSHA
(including California OSHA) requires building owners to assure users
of their equipment that it meets minimum OSHA safety requirements,
half load testing does not give owners the information they need.
Testing an installation to half of the required strength only proves that
the installation is at least half as strong as it needs to be.
To satisfy the testing requirements of OSHA and verify the actual
capacity of facade access support elements, the test load must equal or
Building Owner Responsibilities
OSHA 1910.66(c)(3) requires that building owners of all installations,
both new and existing, inform the user of the facade access support
Inspection Requirements
Annual Inspection: OSHA 1910.66(g)(2)(i) and (ii) require that building
supporting structures and all parts of the equipment be inspected by a
competent person at intervals not exceeding 12 months.
Maintenance Inspection: OSHA 1910.66(g)(3)(i) requires that
maintenance inspections be performed every 30 days or prior to
each work cycle if the work cycle is less than 30 days.
Testing is usually the best method of verifying the capacity of an existing
installation that is at least partially obscured by roofing such as most
davit bases and anchorages. Although the capacities of exposed
elements, like davits and attachment devices, often can be determined
through analytical methods, even in such instances, verification via load
testing is often the best approach. This is especially true for installations
with materials whose properties are not documented.
4
On occasion, we have found that older proprietary roof anchor elements
are not designed to remain elastic when subjected to the loads required
by OSHA. These elements are problematic because proper in-field load
testing would likely cause damage. Since load testing cannot be used to
certify such elements, more costly methods such as exposure and
analysis must be used to determine capacity.
(Continued pg. 5...see FACADE ACCESS)
(FACADE ACCESS Continued from pg. 4)
system in writing that the installation
has been inspected, tested, and
maintained in compliance with OSHA’s
testing, inspection, and maintenance
requirements. If a system was
installed or was modified since
July 23, 1990, OSHA 1910.66(c)(1 and
2) require the owner to inform
the user that the system meets all
of OSHA’s requirements relating to
minimum strength as well as the
load test requirements, including
verification that the installation has
the minimum required capacity by
a professional engineer.
Building owners are required to test and verify
their systems prior to usage.
Inspection requirements germane
to the building owner mandate
that the davits, davit bases, fall
protection anchorages and related
building elements be inspected by a
competent person every 12 months.
OSHA requires daily and start-up
inspections (maintenance inspections)
of the equipment and record results
of these inspections in the daily log
book. Building owners are required
to maintain documentation of the
maintenance inspections, as indicated
by OSHA 1910.66(g)(3)ii:
The building owner shall keep a
certification record of each
inspection and test performed
under paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this
section. The certification record
shall include the date of the
inspection and test, the signature
of the person who performed the
inspection and/or test, and an
identifier for the platform
installation which was inspected.
The certification record shall
be kept readily available for
review by the Assistant Secretary
of Labor or the Assistant
Secretary's representative
and by the employer.
Maintenance inspections performed
by a competent person are required
at monthly intervals, but OSHA has
previously indicated that monthly
inspection can be reduced to coincide
with the start of each work cycle when
the cycle is longer than 30 days.
OSHA defines a competent person as
a person who, because of training and
experience, is capable of identifying
hazardous or dangerous conditions in
powered platform installations and of
training employees to identify such
conditions. The competent person can
either be a building owner employee,
the contractor, or an outside firm. The
building owner is obligated to keep a
record of such inspections.
Conclusion
OSHA requirements are often unclear;
nevertheless, owners are required to
comply with the requirements or risk
fines and penalties. The authors hope
that the brief overview presented
above helps explain some of the
pertinent requirements with which
building owners must comply.
Alfredo E. Bustamante, PE, CDT is a Senior
Associate with the Houston office of Wiss,
Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. He has been
involved with the evaluation and testing of
facade access support systems, non-destructive
testing of concrete structures, steel/masonry
computer modeling and analysis, exterior
wall cladding repair, and investigation
of parking structures. Bustamante is a
member of the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC). He can be contacted
via e-mail at [email protected].
Gary R. Searer, PE, SE, is an Associate
Principal and Unit Manager of the
Los Angeles unit of Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc. He has been involved with
the assessment, repair, and maintenance of
parking structures, civil structures, and office
buildings, as well as facade access systems
for the past 17 years. Mr. Searer can be
contacted via email at [email protected].
National Project & Safety Awards
Pictured on left, Michael Uremovich, ABC national chairman with Joe Ayala,
Chamberlin waterproofing project manager, on right.
Chamberlin was recognized as a winner of the 2010
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) National
Safety Merit Award and Eagle Award during the 21st
annual Excellence in Construction Awards banquet.
The ABC National Safety Excellence Awards honor
companies whose safety performance and training
programs are judged to be exemplary. In 2010,
Chamberlin invested over 11,800 man-hours in
safety training and education.
The National Eagle Award was received in recognition
of the historical restoration of Texas State Fair Park and
Esplanade in Dallas, Texas. Chamberlin’s innovation and
commitment to superior craftsmanship are some of the
key elements that helped the team earn the award.
Cisco Data Center Named a
Project of the Year
Chamberlin installed roofing and waterproofing systems on Cisco Data Center.
Chamberlin was a finalist in Sika Sarnafil’s 12th Annual
Project of the Year competition in the low-slope category
for roofing system installation at Cisco Data Center in Allen,
Texas. Entries were judged on project complexity, design
uniqueness, project importance, quality craftsmanship
and creative problem solving.
The 160,000 sq. ft., single story building houses offices
and data equipment that is operational 24 hours a day.
A complex installation of multiple roofs made this project
unique. Two types of integral roofing systems were
installed to keep the building watertight and protect
critical data processing hardware.
5
PROJECTS IN PROGRESS
LOVE FIELD MODERNIZATION PROGRAM – Dallas, TX
LOCATIONS:
Call the nearest local office
or 1-800-749-1432
HOUSTON
7510 Langtry
Houston, Texas 77040
Ph. (713) 880-1432
Fax (713) 880-8255
DALLAS/FT. WORTH
2346 Glenda Lane
Dallas, Texas 75229
Ph. (214) 273-9110 / (817) 237-1927
Fax (214) 273-9120 / (817) 237-2676
AUSTIN
1515 Dungan Lane, Ste. 210
Austin, TX 78754
Ph. (512) 275-1600
Fax (512) 275-1603
SAN ANTONIO
9035-E Aero St.
San Antonio, TX 78217
Ph. (210) 822-6536
Fax (210) 822-8211
OKLAHOMA CITY
2620 South Meridian Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Ph. (405) 680-0506
Fax (405) 680-0508
TULSA
10838 E. Newton St., Ste. 117
Tulsa, OK 74116
Ph. (918) 439-0055
Fax (918) 439-0067
Also licensed in
Arkansas, Louisiana and
New Mexico.
New Construction Roofing
Contract Amount: $4,300,000 (approx.)
Owner: Southwest Airlines Co.
Architect: Corgan Associates
General Contractor: Hensel Phelps Construction
Scope of Work: Modified Bitumen roofing system, flashing
and sheet metal
Project Description: Airport terminal and concourse
RELIANT PARK SPECIAL PROJECTS – Houston, TX
Remedial Roofing & Waterproofing
Contract Amount: $950,000 (approx.)
Owner: Harris County Sports and Convention Corporation
Property Manager: SMG - Reliant Park Management
Architect: Leo A. Daly & Associates
General Contractor: Manhattan Construction Company
Scope of Work: Remove and replace TPO roofing membrane,
sheet metal flashing, trim and copings; remove and replace
expansion joint assemblies, expansion joint cover plates and
miscellaneous sealants
Project Description: Reliant Stadium remediation
MONTEREAU PHASE 2 – Tulsa, OK
New Construction Waterproofing
Contract Amount: $100,000 (approx.)
Owner: Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.
Architect: D2 Architecture, LLC
General Contractor: Flintco, Inc.
Scope of Work: Deck Coating, flashing and joint sealants
Project Description: Addition to resort style retirement community
LAKEWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER – Lakeway, TX
New Construction Waterproofing
Contract Amount: $850,000 (approx.)
Owner: Lakeway Regional Medical Center Development, LLC
Architect: Page Southerland Page
Consultant: Systems Building Envelope Consultants, Ltd.
General Contractor: Hoar Construction
Scope of Work: Below-grade waterproofing, horizontal waterproofing,
expansion joints, joint sealants, site sealants, fire sealants, air and
vapor barrier and water repellents
Project Description: Hospital and parking garage
PRESTON SHERRY PLAZA – Dallas, TX
Remedial Waterproofing
Contract Amount: $100,000 (approx.)
Owner: TRT Preston Sherry, LLC
General Contractor: Chamberlin Roofing & Waterproofing
Scope of Work: Joint sealants, water repellent and exterior
building cleaning
Project Description: Seven story retail and office center
SOUTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER ADDITION – Liberal, KS
New Construction Waterproofing
Contract Amount: $100,000 (approx.)
Owner: Southwest Medical Center
Architect: Health Facilities Group, LLC
General Contractor: Nabholz Construction
Scope of Work: Dampproofing, joint sealants, firestopping
and caulking
Project Description: Medical office building
SKYLINE HIGH SCHOOL – Dallas, TX
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
FLEMING TEACHING LABORATORY – Houston, TX
CONRAC PARKING GARAGE – New Orleans, LA
301 CONGRESS AVENUE – Austin, TX
New Construction Roofing
Contract Amount: $650,000 (approx.)
Owner: Dallas Independent School District
Architect: Jacobs & Associates Architects
General Contractor: Turner Construction
Scope of Work: Modified Bitumen roofing system, flashing
and sheet metal
Project Description: Building additions to multi-story 5A high school
New Construction Waterproofing
Contract Amount: $850,000 (approx.)
Owner: City of New Orleans
Architect: Coover Clark
Consultant: Walker Parking Consultants
General Contractor: Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc.
Scope of Work: Concrete sealer, expansion joint cover assemblies,
vehicular traffic coatings, water repellents and joint sealants
Project Description: Consolidated rental car facility at
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
New Construction Roofing
Contract Amount: $300,000 (approx.)
Owner: University of Houston
Architect: PGAL
Consultant: Building Exterior Solutions, LLC
General Contractor: Hoar Construction
Scope of Work: Reflective Modified Bitumen roof system and sheet metal
Project Description: Undergraduate biology and chemistry lab
Roof Replacement
Contract Amount: $150,000 (approx.)
Owner: Common Wealth Partners
Consultant: Systems Building Envelope Consultants, Ltd.
General Contractor: Chamberlin Roofing & Waterproofing
Scope of Work: Remove existing roof system and install new
TPO single-ply roofing, sheet metal and OSHA approved davit and
tie-back system
Project Description: Commercial office building overlooking
Lady Bird Lake
“Please allow me to introduce myself...”
“As the spokesperson for Chamberlin
Roofing & Waterproofing people know me,
quite simply, as the Chamberlin Man.
I represent the courteous, professional
and trustworthy service our entire team
offers each and every day.
You’ll see me from time to time offering
thoughts and tips to help you get the most
out of your construction projects. Whether
you’re dealing with building envelope or
parking garage issues, I am your go-to guy.
Or, give the good folks at Chamberlin a
ring on the phone and let ‘em know what
you are dealing with. It would be a pleasure
to hear from you.
Well then, I am pleased to make your
acquaintance. I’ll be seeing you around.”
Want to know more about the Chamberlin Man?
Visit his web site – www.chamberlinltd.com/the-chamberlin-man