Initial Structural Condition Survey

Transcription

Shanklin Cliff Lift – Initial Structural Condition
Survey
October 2012
3rd Floor, One Guildhall Square, Above Bar Street, Southampton SO14 7FP
Tel 023 8083 4948/4949 Fax www.capitasymonds.co.uk
Capita Symonds Ltd
www.capitasymonds.co.uk
Contents
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Brief
Background
Observations
Conclusion
Discussion on Recommended Actions, Options & Priorities
Recommendations
6.1
6.2
Structural recommendations for further Investigation in order to plan for a Further 10
year use of the lift
Further structural recommendations if Client wishes to investigate an extended life
beyond 10 years:-
7. Budget Estimate Costs for Further Investigations
1
2
3
11
14
17
17
18
19
Page i
Shanklin Cliff Lift - Initial Structural Condition Survey
th
17 October 2012
1. Brief
1. Brief
Undertake a visit of the Cliff Lift at Shanklin, Isle of Wight, with the Lift Engineer and
Electrical Engineer (also of Capita Symonds) to inspect the structure and any associated
influences acting upon it, and provide an initial Structural Condition Survey and
recommendations for any further structural and associated investigations required to allow
the continued operation of the lift facility. Also to make comment and suggest any
improvements to the structure that may be of use in improving the asset to the Client.
1
th
17 October 2012
2. Background
2. Background
A lift has existed on the site since circa 1890’s. It was originally a steel, or cast iron, framed
tower cantilevered vertically from the foundations at the ground level at the base of the cliff.
A link access bridge (probably of steel/cast iron and wood) also connected the tower back to
the cliff top. The lift operated within this open framed structure. This structure appears to
have survived until circa 1950’s when it was demolished and replaced by a concrete tower
(similarly cantilevered vertically from foundations within the lower ground) and linked to the
cliff with an apparent concrete bridge (presumably using steel reinforced beams). At some
point since its replacement it has been refurbished which included the replacement of the
concrete access bridge with a steel truss structure and canopy (circa 1970’s?).
2
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
3. Observations
th
An initial Structural Condition Survey was undertaken on 17 September 2012 to the
supporting structure of the lift tower, to the upper access bridge (providing access between
the top of the cliff and top of tower) and to the area of adjacent upper cliff that provides
support to the access bridge. This consisted purely of a visual inspection undertaken from
the public accessible areas on and surrounding the lift structure (with the aid of binoculars).
Additionally an inspection was made of the lift machine room (above the lift shafts in the top
of the tower), using access made available by the Lift Engineer (through a hatch and ladder
from the upper bridge level).
Observations of the condition of the supporting structure and also of any obvious
inconstancies in the attached fabric were noted as follows:•
Tower (viewed from the end of “Lift Road” at the base, and from “Eastcliff
Promenade” at the top of the cliff):o
Minor concrete spalling & rust staining to north face of tower, beneath level of
access bridge, adjacent to the quoin feature at the NW corner of the tower:-
o
External surface of concrete appears generally porous; however it is otherwise
relatively free of cracking and iron pyrites/rust staining.
3
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
o
Bed joint cracking and longitudinal thermal movement appears to be occurring
to the coping detail at the very top of the south and west elevations:-
o
There are vertical slots formed within the walls of the east, west and south
elevations, that appear to have possibly been windows (to allow viewing
during lift operation - there are some small windows within the lift car?) but
presumably this also assisted structurally in reducing the overall weight of the
concrete tower upon the foundations. These slots are now cladded with
pyramidal shaped panels (presumably GRP), bolted back to the concrete
structure. The heads of the bolt/nut fixings attaching these panels were
observed to be at least surface corroded:-
4
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
o
•
At this stage no inspection was undertaken to the ground level entrance
canopy structure. This will be an independent structure and its condition would
not affect the structural stability or longevity of the main tower and bridge
structures. It also is easily accessed for maintenance from ground level. It
would need further inspection if it is to be included in any refurb/maintenance
programme for the tower:-
Access bridge (only the structure viewable from deck level could be inspected,
no safe access was possible to allow the underside of the timber decking or
its supporting steel structure to be viewed):o
Moderate corrosion in a number of locations to the square hollow sections
forming the bottom (tension) chords of both of the two primary supporting steel
trusses on either side of the bridge. Also corrosion to the sides of the probable
rails (of the maintenance access platform), immediately beneath the truss
bottom chords:-
5
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
o
Similar moderate corrosion also to some of the bottom ends of the vertical and
diagonal web members (of both trusses), at their welded connection with the
bottom chords:-
o
Minor corrosion spots at sites of regular drip falls on upper surfaces of the
horizontal steel sections, forming the top of the inner parapet walls, and also
of the diagonal web members of both main trusses. It was unclear if the water
drips are from condensation or rainwater leakage (perhaps through the
bridge’s glazed and polycarbonate clad canopy?):-
6
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
o
General surface corrosion and failed paint coating to the steel work below
parapet top rail level in the space between the inner parapet wall and the
outer glazed walling of the bridge canopy:-
o
Method of support of bridge to the tower could not be viewed/established.
Possibly is sat on corbelled concrete bearings (reused from original concrete
bridge?) or is possibly bolted to face of tower. Also Broken glazed panel to
east elevation of bridge canopy, immediately adjacent to the tower:-
7
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
o
The maintenance platform suspended beneath the bridge (and currently
parked at the north/cliff end abutment), does not appear to have been used or
maintained in a long time (the access steps down to its position are
completely overgrown, with many years growth, and corrosion is evident to
some of the visible parts):-
• Adjacent Cliff:o
It is understood that a recent small rock fall has taken place and that this is
possibly shown by what appears to be a recently exposed face of rock (i.e.
areas with no shrubbery/vegetation) at the middle-to-upper face of the
adjacent cliff (behind and to either side of the tower). It is unclear at present
if this or previous rock falls also account for the derelict condition of the
adjacent buildings to the west of the tower (possibly from damage)?:-
8
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
o
Ground water and silt is seeping from the ground each side of the base of
the tower, presumably from the cliff. The adjacent ground immediately east
of the lift entrance path is fully saturated and partially covered with water/bog
loving vegetation indicating year round presence of the water. The seepage
run-off produced from the above is currently draining into the kerb channel
drainage of the adjacent highway of “Lift Road” (a cul-de-sac accessed from
the “Esplanade”):-
9
th
17 October 2012
3. Observations
o
Through traffic for vehicles appears to be restricted to “Eastcliff Promenade”
along the top edge of the cliff (bollards at ends of road). It is unclear if this is
due to a policy of pedestrianisation or from a need to restrict vehicular
loading to the cliff edge? An initial look at the carriage and footways of the
road and also of the hard landscaping features of the adjacent hotel
frontages (viewed only from the highway) did not show any obvious signs of
cracking, settlement or movement of the ground immediately adjacent to the
cliff edge. This survey is however insufficient to establish the long-term
stability of the upper cliff:-
10
th
17 October 2012
4. Conclusion
4. Conclusion
•
Tower:o
o
o
o
o
The external condition of the concrete (and that viewed internally within
the lift machine room) appears to be very good, especially for the age of
the structure and the exposed coastal environment it is in (from the
saline-laden atmosphere and wind driven rain).
The minor spalling and rust staining recorded locally to the NW corner is
only a very low safety priority at present with regards to any future
dislodged and falling concrete fragments, This low risk is due to the
inaccessibility to the rear of the tower at lower ground level. Also if it is
the early deterioration of any embedded steel reinforcement then it is at a
stage that is locally repairable, either from abseil techniques or from a
mobile elevated working platform (MEWP). This is not an immediate
repair issue but one that should be monitored in future, especially if
access space is later provided for whatever reason around the rear of the
tower base.
The cracked and moved coping to the top of the west and south
elevations may be of a slightly higher concern, especially if any further
movement was to “jack” and dislodge the copings to an extent where
parts could fall. These could be easily monitored for the time being using
binoculars to check that they are remaining in position, however if
specialist access equipment was to become available (e.g. a MEWP,
possibly to access other areas) then the opportunity should be taken to
closely inspect both the copings and the rest of the upper roof structure.
The corrosion visible to the surface of the fixings attaching the pyramidal
cladding panels over the original “window” slots in the east, west and
south elevations appear from a binocular survey to be surface corrosion.
However without a close inspection it would not be possible to rule out
more significant corrosion. These panels are susceptible to wind suction
and if dislodged could sail some distance from the structure as they fall.
They therefore do present a reasonable risk if there fixings were to fail. It
should be possible to survey the condition of these from an appropriate
MEWP located at the lower ground level of Lift Road, however would
probably be more economical if undertaken using abseil techniques
(provided safe access could be gained to the top of the tower and
sufficient anchorage obtained). This would need further research to
establish viability.
The visual inspection alone did not provide sufficient evidence to
ascertain the full structural design philosophy or construction of the tower.
Whilst it is obvious that the walls of the tower are carrying all the
compressive stresses from the vertical loading (from itself, the lift actions
and half of the access bridge), it is unclear if this is purely through the
concrete or through a combination of concrete and steel reinforcement.
Also it is unclear how the bending (tension & compression) stresses that
are generated from the horizontal loading on the tower (from wind and
11
th
17 October 2012
4. Conclusion
o
o
•
actions of the lifts) are carried. Possibilities could include steel bar
reinforcement, post-tensioned tendons, or encased steel framing. Having
knowledge of its design and construction may be relevant in respect to
assessing the condition of the structure if it does include the use of post
tensioning. Normally the deterioration (corrosion) of embedded nonprestressed steel bars or steel framing will manifest itself from cracking
and spalling of the surrounding concrete. The deterioration however of
steel tendons within ducts and loss of post tensioning will not necessarily
give such tell-tale indicators and would require intrusive investigation
techniques.
For the long-term appraisal of the structure (i.e. beyond the nest ten
years) further research or investigation should be undertaken to establish
and record the design, construction, and condition of the embedded
structure. If post-tensioning is found to have been used in the design and
that its serviceability remains critical to stability (safety) of the structure,
then the condition of the tendons and ducts will need to be investigated
as signs of deterioration may not manifest themselves from a visual
examination and surface testing alone.
See “Adjacent Cliff” below for additional consideration regarding the
foundations of the tower.
Access bridge:o
o
o
The moderate corrosion noted to the bottom tension chords and also to
the bases of the web members of the two main trusses requires further
investigation (and probably repair) in the near future (inspection within
next six months, repair as determined from inspection). Failure of the
bottom chords from loss of cross section would result in failure of the
access bridge, possibly with partial collapse. The extent of the corrosion
at present is only localised and not to the full circumference of the steel
hollow section. From the extent of thickness of the rust product, is
probably only surface related, however the process of corrosion will
remain ongoing, possibly at an accelerated rate now that the paint
protection coating has failed, and will inevitably reach a failure risk in the
next few years (not possible to give any specific estimate with the views
obtained).
The maintenance platform should not be used again without a thorough
test and close examination of it, its supporting rails and its operating
equipment. Its design also appears dated and possibly limited in use in
relation to the requirements of present Health & Safety legislation and
would also need a full risk assessment to establish its future usefulness.
Even in full restored working order this platform is unlikely to be of any
use other than to provide closer inspection and minor maintenance to the
sides of the canopy. It appears unsuitable to conduct inspection work to
the underside of the main structure (i.e. is not low enough below the
access bridge).
The presence of moderate corrosion, failure of the protective paint
coating and evidence of the underuse of the maintenance platform, all
12
th
17 October 2012
4. Conclusion
indicates that the bridge structure has not been regularly maintained and
possibly not regularly inspected. It should be noted that similar public
“footbridge” structures (e.g. as over highways) would normally be subject
to a full principal inspection (i.e. all surfaces inspected within touching
distance) at least once every six years with further regular intermediate
inspections between. Therefore, due to this, and also not being able to
view the underside of the bridge, it is not possible to estimate the likely
condition of either the transverse deck structure or of the underside of the
timber boarding. On this basis there is a risk that deterioration, similar to
that viewable in the bottom chords of the main trusses, will also be
present in other significant structural components. Whilst failure of such
“deck” components would not normally mean overall failure of the bridge
it could however be significant enough to cause localised failings to the
decking if not inspected & repaired. On this basis it is recommended that
the soffit structure of the bridge is inspected from “touching distance”
(using appropriate safe access) as soon as possible (certainly within
three months). Again the most practical and safe method of undertaking
this would be by the use of an MEWP, probably parked on the adjacent
“Eastcliff promenade”, but possibly also from “Lift Road”.
•
Adjacent Cliff:o
o
o
Whilst there are no obvious indications that instability may be occurring to
the cliff immediately surrounding the support of the access bridge, the
natural erosion of the cliffs from wind and rain, and the fact that rock falls
have and will still continue to occur must be considered in any long-term
view on the serviceability of both the access bridge and of the tower as
well. Any assessment of this is over and beyond the capabilities of both
this report and any further structural investigations that may yet be
undertaken. This would need further specialist geotechnical engineering
in order to assess and advise.
A possible concern that should be noted with regards to the client
considering when and to what extent such further advice should be
sought may be the presence of the water seepage around the base of the
tower. This is obviously transporting silt/sand from the ground and base
of the cliff and therefore over a long period may possibly pose a threat to
both the stability of the cliff as well as the tower’s foundations.
A comparatively lesser affect of the seepage is that it is potentially
depositing material from the run-off into the local highway drainage and
could potentially cause blockage and therefore increase risk of flooding
during storm conditions.
13
th
17 October 2012
5. Discussion on Recommended Actions, Options & Priorities
5. Discussion on Recommended
Actions, Options & Priorities
•
Urgent priority - Steel structure and timber decking of the access
bridge.
Need to undertake further close examination and preliminary testing within
the next three months, before end of January 2013. Beyond this it is
recommended that the bridge should be closed to public use and remains
closed until such time that this work can be done and any defects found are
mitigated. It is considered at this stage that the most practical means of access
for undertaking this inspection/testing work alone would be to use a MEWP,
positioned on “Eastcliff promenade”. This will however need to be confirmed by
consultation with specialist plant suppliers. The inspection would need to be
conducted by a Structural Engineer, escorted by a specialist steel work contractor
who can clean back and expose any area of corroded steel in order to establish
the depth of corrosion (possibly with the use of specialist equipment). This
inspection and testing should allow an assessment of the corrosion to be made
and hence an assessment of the loss of steel cross-section to the supporting
structural elements. The result of this assessment may be the need for urgent
repairs and the closure of the access bridge until they can be arranged. Such
repairs are unlikely to be possible from a MEWP alone and therefore this exercise
may instigate the need for a full scaffold access to be installed. The support of
such scaffold should be possible from the cliff and the tower using a specialist
designed scaffold. This would also require confirmation by consultation with
specialist scaffolding contractors.
•
Medium Priority – Pyramidal cladding panels over the “window”
slots in the east, west and south elevations.
A close inspection should be undertaken of the fixings securing the panels. This
should be possible from an MEWP (possibly the same as above, but located at
the lower ground level in Lift Road). Medium priority is considered necessary on
basis of the possible distance that a panel could “sail” away from the tower if it
was to fail (i.e. from storm conditions).
•
Low priority – Upper roof and shaft of the tower.
The same MEWP access equipment mentioned above could also be further
specified to allow a Structural Engineer to examine the upper roof structure to the
tower (including the movement to the coping detail) and also the closer
examination (and possibly repair, if a concrete repair specialist was also in
attendance) of the spalling/rust staining to the NW corner of the tower (located
beneath the access bridge). The priority for these inspections (and repairs) are
low at present however is advised if the MEWP access is brought in to inspect
the Access Bridge. N.B. Even if there is a further need for a full scaffold in order
to repair the access bridge then it would not provide the access needed to these
areas.
14
th
17 October 2012
•
Low priority – Interior of lift shafts.
If safe to do so, a further inspection should be undertaken by a Structural
Engineer to examine the two internal shafts of the lift (from the top of the lift car)
and of the lift pit (with the lift car secured in a stationary position). This will require
each lift to be put temporarily out of service at a time (with the other still in
operation) and will need the attendance of a Lift Engineer to manage the site
safety and operation of the lift car. The purpose of the inspection will be to assess
the tower’s internal structural condition and to supplement information regarding
the design and construction knowledge of the tower for the benefit of longer term
assessment needs (see also below).
•
Low priority – Lower Ground Entrance Canopy.
During the visits for the lift shaft inspection and MEWP surveys, the opportunity
should be taken to also structurally survey the condition of the ground storey
entrance canopy structure from above and below.
•
Longer term - Assessment of tower.
If the intended life of this lift facility is to go beyond a further 10 years it is
recommended that the structure and adjacent cliff is fully assessed to check that
its present strength and condition will allow this and, depending upon what
remaining serviceable life is chosen (20yrs?, 30yrs?, etc), a “life plan” is then
produced detailing the required strategy of planned inspection, remediation and
refurbishment in order to establish the budget required to achieve this (assuming
that this work has not already been started). This essentially will require the
combined input of a Lift Engineer, Structural Engineer and Geotechnical
Engineer, to each undertake full assessments of their respective element. It may
very well be that the assessment of the future of the cliff (from natural erosion
processes) will determine the future existence of a lift at the present location? It
may be that if confidence from this assessment is good, then it is possibly going
to be the remaining economic serviceable life of the existing structure that will
then determine the viability. It is worth noting that the current tower structure is
from circa mid 1950’s and as most “building” designs and specifications (past and
present) are all geared around a design building life of 60 years, then this present
structure is now close to this age. Equally it may be the cost of refurbishing the lift
equipment that will be the determining factor regarding economical viability. The
length of any extended life therefore depends on a hierarchy of variables, the
longer period required the more dependant becomes having confidence in the
environment in which the lift is situated (i.e. the cliff), the shorter then it is more
dependent upon the viability of the cost of the lift equipment and maintaining the
safety of the structure to suit.
•
Regarding any future Structural Assessment of the tower, the Client has a choice
to control and reduce the cost of undertaking this assessment through the effort
they can make in retrieving their records of the structure. The more structural
records that can be obtained from their own organisation’s archives, the less the
intrusive investigation and design reassessment will need to be to otherwise
replicate this vital information. The client should undertake a thorough search of
their records/archives to retrieve copies of all information pertaining to the design
15
th
17 October 2012
and construction of both the concrete lift tower and of the later replacement of its
original concrete access bridge, with the current steel bridge. Provision of
drawings, specifications, structural calculations, photos, maintenance records,
previous inspection reports, contact details of previous consultants, can all assist
in establishing the strength and remaining serviceable life capacity of the
structure(s).
16
th
17 October 2012
6. Recommendations
6. Recommendations
6.1
STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO PLAN FOR
A FURTHER 10 YEAR USE OF THE LIFT STRUCTURE
•
Undertake further structural investigation/testing of the Access Bridge and upper
Tower by a Structural Engineer, using a MEWP access, and with the assistance
of both steelwork and concrete specialists to test and, where viable within the
plant hire, undertake minor repairs. This exercise will determine whether the
Access Bridge is safe enough to remain open and for how long.
The close examination and preliminary testing must be
undertaken within the next three months, before end of
January 2013. Beyond this it is recommended that the bridge
should be closed to public use and remains closed until such
time that this work can be done and any defects found are
mitigated.
•
Undertake inspection of fixings to the “window” slot cladding using MEWP
(located at lower ground level).
•
Also using the MEWP, provide access to others for planning further repairs and
refurbishment works to the lifts and canopy, as follows:o
Lift Engineer, invited to survey exterior of service opening to lift machine
room, with view of working with a scaffold specialist to provide a scaffold
bridge between the tower and the cliff (running above the Access Bridge) for
the removal/installation of heavy lift equipment (only required if this can not
be done via the existing hatch & ladder).
o
Architect or Building Surveyor, invited to survey the canopy to provide
recommendations for any repairs (e.g. replacement of existing broken
glazed panel) and any desired refurbishment (e.g. modifications needed to
allow future replacement of damaged glazing/panelling from internally
without further provision of a scaffold),
o
Specialist scaffolding designer/contractor, invited to survey for the future
provision of a full scaffold (to span from the tower to the cliff). The eventual
design of such a scaffold will need to take into account the access needs for
the repair of the bridge (from the Structural Engineer’s recommendations),
the replacement of the lift equipment (if required, from the Lift Engineer) and
the repair/refurbishment of the canopy (as advised by the Architect/Building
Surveyor).
•
Also undertake structural survey of ground storey entrance canopy structure (the
roof could be viewed from the MEWP if viable within plant hire).
17
th
17 October 2012
6. Recommendations
6.2
•
Undertake structural survey of interior of both lift shafts (from top of lift cars) and
lift pits, all under the supervision and operation of a Lift Engineer.
•
The output of this exercise would allow a programme of works to be designed to
suit the future serviceable life expectancy of the Client (recommended minimum
of 10 years). From this quotes can be obtained to cover a Planned Repair
Programme.
FURTHER STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS IF CLIENT WISHES TO INVESTIGATE AN
EXTENDED LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE BEYOND 10 YEARS:As above, plus:1. Client to obtain all records of the Lift (as detailed in conclusions section above) and
any previous studies undertaken on the geology and stability of the cliffs.
2. Appoint Geotechnical Engineers to assess adjacent cliff for future stability and hence
viability of providing prolonged support to the existing Access Bridge (or even a
future longer spanning replacement, if needed). Also to assess potential rock falls
against base of tower (future threat of rock debris damage/pressure against tower
and surcharge loading to tower’s foundations). Also to assess the water seepage
with regards to possible erosion/damage of tower’s foundations.
3. Appoint Structural Engineer to undertake a full Structural Assessment of the tower
and bridge to determine the existing serviceable life in its current environment and
also in relation to the above geotechnical assessment and future actions from the
cliff/ground water. Degree of intrusive investigation and desk top calculation will
depend on extent of availability of Client’s records. May also need to include a full
post tension tendon assessment, if applicable.
4. Appoint Lift Engineer to reassess lift equipment longevity for the chosen extended
life.
18
th
17 October 2012
7. Budget Estimate Costs for Further
Investigations
•
•
The following is based upon initial enquiries made to respective specialists. It is considered
that an MEWP will be required on site for two days to undertake all of the further investigations
listed in 6.2 above.
A reduced attendance could be arranged for one day if it was to just investigate the access
bridge, i.e.
to determine if it could remain open beyond 3 months (beyond
end of Jan 2013), as advised above.
Day one (Access Bridge + Cladding panel investigation + scaffold estimating access)
To investigate Urgent & Medium Structural risks:MEWP equipment*
£2500 (for 8 hours attendance, & £150.00/hr for each hour over)
Steelwork testing specialist**
(2 ops on site & report)
£2300
Structural Engineer**
(2 staff ops on site &
O.A. report)
£3400
Scaffolder’s visit***
£0.0
Total
£8200
Notes on estimates:-
*
Includes transport to/fro from mainland (or staying over for a second day), but not for:highway “crane” license (for MEWP),
oversailing licenses or arrangements for MEWP operating above adjacent private
property,
• removal of traffic bollards to allow access to Eastcliff promenade,
• traffic management/heras fencing around crane,
For these it is recommended that the Client may be better placed to arrange locally using own
Council resources/procedures.
•
•
**
Includes travel to/fro from mainland
*** It is assumed that an Island based scaffolding company (from Client’s own term/framework
arrangements?) would visit site and, using the MEWP access, provide a quote for any future needed
scaffold access for repairs (where needed) and any proposed refurbishment works.
19
th
17 October 2012
Day Two (Concrete repairs & remaining external structural inspections from MEWP + Internal Lift
Shaft inspection + access provision to other disciplines)
To investigate the lower structural risks, inc. concrete inspect (and possible repair if necessary) and to
provide access to other disciplines for their inspection needs. Also to undertake internal lift shaft
inspection:-
MEWP equipment*
£2500 (for 8 hours further attendance, & £150.00/hr for each hour
over)
Concrete repair specialist**
(2 ops on site & materials)
£1200
Structural Engineer**
(2 staff on site &
add report items)
£2200
Lift Engineer***
(1 staff on site)
£0.0
Build Surveyor
(1 staff on site &
add report items)
£850
Total
£6750
Notes on estimates:-
*
Includes transport to/fro from mainland (or staying over for a second day), but not for:highway “crane” license (for MEWP),
oversailing licenses or arrangements for MEWP operating above adjacent private
property,
• removal of traffic bollards to allow access to Eastcliff promenade,
• traffic management/heras fencing around crane,
For these it is recommended that the Client may be better placed to arrange locally using own
Council resources/procedures.
•
•
** includes travel to/fro from mainland
*** Attendance by Client’s term lift servicing Engineer
20
th
17 October 2012

Initial Structural Condition Survey

Transcription

Similar documents

SlideAwayLift Wheelchair Lift Brochure

Product Brochure

30 St Mary Axe - Foster + Partners

Specification Guide

W10 SOLIES 2014.cdr - Independent Energy Solutions Corp.

Car-Lifts - NANI – Verladetechnik

2.8 Mo

ShoreStation Installation Guide * DANGER

IP1-HMTV.07

updates - Favelle Favco