CA Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd.
C. A. Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Principal Clarence A. Reed P. Eng (Civil)
February 17, 2009 Town of Kindersley 106 – 5th Avenue East Kindersley, Sask. S0L 1S0 Attention:
Re:
Mr. Jason Behiel Director, Asset & Facility Management
Kindersley Aquatic Center Kindersley, Sask. Our File S28-05-19
This will confirm our results of our visual inspection of the above noted subject property. The results are based upon: • A general visual inspection by the writer on the property on November 24, 2008. • General discussions on site with Jason Behiel, Director, Asset & Facility Management, Town of Kindersley and other Aquatic Staff Members. • A review of the enclosed photographs No. 1 to 6 taken at the site on November 24, 2008. • Review of James D. Zimmer, Architect written Report No. 1 (copy enclosed). • Review of SN Engineering Inc. written report dated February 15, 2009 (copy enclosed).
Phone Cell Fax Email
(306) 873-4409 (306) 873-1938 (306) 873-5157 [email protected]
Box 1658 Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0
Following is a description of the subject property and our comments relative to our analysis and site visual investigation: 1.0 GENERAL For a detailed building description of the existing structure inspected and general concerns of the owner see our enclosed written report dated June 24, 2008. 2.0 DISCUSSION From our visual examination of the structure conbined with the review of the contents of the enclosed Architectural and Mechanical report reviews, it is our opinion that because of the extreme corrosion effects caused by the high moisture level within the structure that the long term structural integrity of the roof purlins of the Pre-Engineering structure are in question and we recommend that at the end of the summer 2009 pool operating season the structure be closed to the public, at which time a major upgrade should be undertaken. We have arrived at this recommendation because of the following reasons: a) The severe corrosion that can be noted on several of the roof purlins could result in their individual structural capacity to be seriously reduced under heavy snow loading conditions; hence some individual roof purlins could fail, causing a partial roof collapse. We do not have any concerns of any corrosion noted on the main steel roof beams and supporting wall columns to have been effected by the noted corrosion. b) In addition to the structural concerns of the roof purlins it was noted (see enclosed Architectural and Mechanical reports) that the existing building insulation value is basically nil and/or of little value. In addition it could be noted that voids occurred in various locations of the masonry walls at the north west and north east corners in which outside air could freely enter the interior of the structure. As a result of the foregoing, the Town of Kindersley had found that heating cost to operate the facility during winter months is economically impractical. c) In addition to the Architectural, Mechanical and Structural concerns of the existing building during our inspection of November 24, 2008 we noted a number of the electrical plug-ins had also undergone serious corrosion to the point they should be replaced and/or properly repaired and fault grounded.
3.0 BUILDING OPERATIONAL REPAIRS Because we cannot recommend that the facility be operated beyond the completion of the summer 2009 period unless major structural repairs are completed along with proper upgrading of the building insulation package, the following options are presented for the owners consideration: A. CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE STRUCTURE “AS IS” Because of our concern about the structural integrity of the building “as is” we do not recommend this option. B. REMOVE THE EXISTING BUILDING SHELL AROUND SWIMMING POOL AND OPERATE THE POOL AS AN OPEN POOL DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS ONLY This option is economical feasible but may not gain the public’s support. C. STRUCTURAL UPGRADE EXISTING POOL BUILDING AREA IN CONJUCTION WITH UPGRADE OF BUILDING INSULATION ENVELOPE This option is discussed within the enclosed Architectural Report. From this report you will note that the cost to undertake this option combined with required mechanical and electrical upgrades is estimated to exceed $1.0 million dollars. D. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING POOL BUILDING AREA WITH NEW STRUCTURE Again as outlined in the attached Architectural Report the cost of this option will likely be very completive with Option C. 4.0 CONCLUSION Based on our inspection of November 24, 2008 combined with the review of the enclosed Architectural and Mechanical reviews of the structure it is our conclusion that because of long term structural concerns reference the severely corroded roof purlins we recommend that the existing building surrounding the pool section of the structure be closed to the general public at the end of the 2009 summer operational period. At that time the owner will be required to make a decision on continued use of the structure under the various options outlined in Section 3.0 above.
We trust the above and enclosed is what your office required and if there are any questions please contact the writer.
Yours truly,
C. A. Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd.
C. A. Reed, P. Eng.
Photograph No. 1
Photograph No. 2 – Note slide support angle no longer properly connected to roof purlin.
Photograph No. 3 – Note that the original metal wire mesh that held the roof insulation in place is completely corroded away and is no longer evident. Also, when the roof insulation fabric was inspected it was found to have a number of very fine pin holes through the moisture vapour barrier thereby resulting in the roof insulation absorbing moisture from the building interior atmosphere.
Photograph No. 4
Photograph No. 5
Photograph No. 6
C. A. Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Principal Clarence A. Reed P. Eng (Civil)
June 24, 2008 Town of Kindersley 106 – 5th Avenue East Kindersley, Sask. S0L 1S0 Attention:
Mr. Jason Behiel Director, Asset & facility Management
Dear Sir, Re:
Kindersley Aquatic Center Kindersley, Sask. Our File S28-05-19
At the request of Sarah Clappison, Aquatic/Program & Safety Manager email dated May 6, 2008 and your follow up email dated May 23, 2008 the writer made a brief visual examination of the above structure on the morning of June 12, 2008 in your presence. The purpose of our inspection was to review the structural condition of the building because of the Town’s concern of metal corrosion on various roof components of the structure. The results of our visual examination are based upon the following: • • • •
Phone Cell Fax Email
A general brief visual review carried out by the writer on the morning of June 12, 2008 in your presence. A general discussion with yourself on the overall operation and maintenance of the facility. A review of the enclosed photographs No. 1 to No. 14 taken by the writer during our noted site review. A review of the photographs taken by owner’s representative that are enclosed No. A to F (6 in total).
(306) 873-4409 (306) 873-1938 (306) 873-5157 [email protected]
Box 1658 Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0
The following is a description of the subject property and comments relative to our analysis and are brief site visual investigation: A. BUILDING DESCRIPTION The area of the structure over the enclosed swimming pool is a Pre-Engineered Metal Building (PEMB) as manufactured by ARMCO. This PEMB is approximately 80’ wide by 140’ long with approximately 18’ high eave wall height. The first 10’ of the wall is 8” light weight concrete masonry with the remainder of the wall with metal panels. The roof is a low pitch metal roof with conventional PEMB roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane. This PreEngineered portion of the structure was constructed approximately in 1975. The front portion of the complex is of 8” light weight masonry block construction and was renovated and added on to sometime about 2004. This portion of the complex is used for public entry, dressing rooms, mechanical room etc. As the owner had no concerns of this front portion of the structure the writer did not complete a visual inspection of this area but limited our review to the Pre-Engineered Metal Portion of the complex. It was noted completed complex had a concrete floor slab on grade throughout. B. GENERAL DISCUSSION From our examination we could note various areas of severe corrosion to the exposed metal portions of the Pre-Engineered Metal Structure. In particular, to the roof metal purlins (see enclosed photographs No. 1 to 14). For Pre-Engineered Metal Building constructed in the 1970 period, it was common practice to hold the insulated/vapour barrier roof membrane in place between the roof purlin supports with a light gauge wire metal mesh. Basically over time since construction, this metal roof support mesh is completely corroded out of existence (see Photograph No. 10 to 11). Also noted severe corrosion to a number of the roof metal purlins to the extent some of them (not all of them) may be in question to their respective structural capacity under heavy snow loads. C. RECOMMENDATIONS From our brief visual inspection of the structure and discussion on site with yourself it is the writer’s opinion that the long term structural capacity of the roof area of the Pre-Engineered Building portion of the complex over the roof area is in question. In addition we understand that the complex is not operated over the winter period because of the high energy cost to heat the building. We expect this occurs firstly, the result of very low insulation value used in the construction of the exterior walls and roof, and secondly, the existing HVAC roof mounted unit is not properly designed and/or installed (ie. There does not appear to be any insulation on the exterior duct work).
To properly fully evaluate the structure and advise your department on how to update the facility so it can be operated year around (it seems somewhat impractical to have a covered swimming pool in place that is not used year around) within an economical budget we suggest the following: Phase 1 Our firm return to the site with our Mechanical Engineering Consultant and out Architectural Consultant to fully review the complex in full detail to: • •
• •
Check out existing wall and roof insulation R value and how it can be improved on. Check out the existing complex’s HVAC heating/ventilation system and what improvements can be made to more economically operate the complex from energy view point. Evaluate the structural condition of the roof and if it needs to be replaced and/or can it be structurally upgraded. Prepare a full written report to the Town outlining our findings and possible capital budget to upgrade.
The cost of the review study for our Engineered/Architectural review complete with all travel and expenses will be. $6575.00 (plus 5% GST) Phase 2 With the results of the fore mentioned building review our forces can prepare the necessary construction drawings required to tender the upgrades for construction. Based on our brief examination of the site on June 12, 2008 we would expect the complex will require in excess of $400,000.00 in upgrades (including structural) so it can efficiently and properly operate the year round for many years to come. Phase 3 Complete the previous 2 phase’s of outlined above work so as any upgrade construction could start approximately September 1, 2009 with completion planned for May 1, 2010.
We trust the above is of assistance to your forces and is what was required. Enclosed you will find our invoice for Engineering Services to date and if can be of further assistance please contact the writer. Yours truly,
C. A. Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd.
C. A. Reed, P. Eng.
Photograph No. 1 – Front entry.
Photograph No. 2 – Rear north view.
Photograph No. 3 – East elevation.
Photograph No. 4 – Typical isolated exterior masonry deterioration.
Photograph No. 5 – Typical isolated exterior masonry deterioration.
Photograph No. 6 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 7 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 8 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 9 – Roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane – note complete corrosion of wire mesh.
Photograph No. 10 – Roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane – note complete corrosion of wire mesh. And also note the severe corrosion of roof purlins.
Photograph No. 11 – Roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane – note complete corrosion of wire mesh. And also note the severe corrosion of roof purlins.
Photograph No. 12 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 13 – Isolated area of rust on the roof panel (only rust area of the roof).
Photograph No. 14 – HVAC unit on roof.
February 17, 2009 Town of Kindersley 106 – 5th Avenue East Kindersley, Sask. S0L 1S0 Attention:
Re:
Mr. Jason Behiel Director, Asset & Facility Management
Kindersley Aquatic Center Kindersley, Sask. Our File S28-05-19
This will confirm our results of our visual inspection of the above noted subject property. The results are based upon: • A general visual inspection by the writer on the property on November 24, 2008. • General discussions on site with Jason Behiel, Director, Asset & Facility Management, Town of Kindersley and other Aquatic Staff Members. • A review of the enclosed photographs No. 1 to 6 taken at the site on November 24, 2008. • Review of James D. Zimmer, Architect written Report No. 1 (copy enclosed). • Review of SN Engineering Inc. written report dated February 15, 2009 (copy enclosed).
Phone Cell Fax Email
(306) 873-4409 (306) 873-1938 (306) 873-5157 [email protected]
Box 1658 Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0
Following is a description of the subject property and our comments relative to our analysis and site visual investigation: 1.0 GENERAL For a detailed building description of the existing structure inspected and general concerns of the owner see our enclosed written report dated June 24, 2008. 2.0 DISCUSSION From our visual examination of the structure conbined with the review of the contents of the enclosed Architectural and Mechanical report reviews, it is our opinion that because of the extreme corrosion effects caused by the high moisture level within the structure that the long term structural integrity of the roof purlins of the Pre-Engineering structure are in question and we recommend that at the end of the summer 2009 pool operating season the structure be closed to the public, at which time a major upgrade should be undertaken. We have arrived at this recommendation because of the following reasons: a) The severe corrosion that can be noted on several of the roof purlins could result in their individual structural capacity to be seriously reduced under heavy snow loading conditions; hence some individual roof purlins could fail, causing a partial roof collapse. We do not have any concerns of any corrosion noted on the main steel roof beams and supporting wall columns to have been effected by the noted corrosion. b) In addition to the structural concerns of the roof purlins it was noted (see enclosed Architectural and Mechanical reports) that the existing building insulation value is basically nil and/or of little value. In addition it could be noted that voids occurred in various locations of the masonry walls at the north west and north east corners in which outside air could freely enter the interior of the structure. As a result of the foregoing, the Town of Kindersley had found that heating cost to operate the facility during winter months is economically impractical. c) In addition to the Architectural, Mechanical and Structural concerns of the existing building during our inspection of November 24, 2008 we noted a number of the electrical plug-ins had also undergone serious corrosion to the point they should be replaced and/or properly repaired and fault grounded.
3.0 BUILDING OPERATIONAL REPAIRS Because we cannot recommend that the facility be operated beyond the completion of the summer 2009 period unless major structural repairs are completed along with proper upgrading of the building insulation package, the following options are presented for the owners consideration: A. CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE STRUCTURE “AS IS” Because of our concern about the structural integrity of the building “as is” we do not recommend this option. B. REMOVE THE EXISTING BUILDING SHELL AROUND SWIMMING POOL AND OPERATE THE POOL AS AN OPEN POOL DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS ONLY This option is economical feasible but may not gain the public’s support. C. STRUCTURAL UPGRADE EXISTING POOL BUILDING AREA IN CONJUCTION WITH UPGRADE OF BUILDING INSULATION ENVELOPE This option is discussed within the enclosed Architectural Report. From this report you will note that the cost to undertake this option combined with required mechanical and electrical upgrades is estimated to exceed $1.0 million dollars. D. REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING POOL BUILDING AREA WITH NEW STRUCTURE Again as outlined in the attached Architectural Report the cost of this option will likely be very completive with Option C. 4.0 CONCLUSION Based on our inspection of November 24, 2008 combined with the review of the enclosed Architectural and Mechanical reviews of the structure it is our conclusion that because of long term structural concerns reference the severely corroded roof purlins we recommend that the existing building surrounding the pool section of the structure be closed to the general public at the end of the 2009 summer operational period. At that time the owner will be required to make a decision on continued use of the structure under the various options outlined in Section 3.0 above.
We trust the above and enclosed is what your office required and if there are any questions please contact the writer.
Yours truly,
C. A. Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd.
C. A. Reed, P. Eng.
Photograph No. 1
Photograph No. 2 – Note slide support angle no longer properly connected to roof purlin.
Photograph No. 3 – Note that the original metal wire mesh that held the roof insulation in place is completely corroded away and is no longer evident. Also, when the roof insulation fabric was inspected it was found to have a number of very fine pin holes through the moisture vapour barrier thereby resulting in the roof insulation absorbing moisture from the building interior atmosphere.
Photograph No. 4
Photograph No. 5
Photograph No. 6
C. A. Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Principal Clarence A. Reed P. Eng (Civil)
June 24, 2008 Town of Kindersley 106 – 5th Avenue East Kindersley, Sask. S0L 1S0 Attention:
Mr. Jason Behiel Director, Asset & facility Management
Dear Sir, Re:
Kindersley Aquatic Center Kindersley, Sask. Our File S28-05-19
At the request of Sarah Clappison, Aquatic/Program & Safety Manager email dated May 6, 2008 and your follow up email dated May 23, 2008 the writer made a brief visual examination of the above structure on the morning of June 12, 2008 in your presence. The purpose of our inspection was to review the structural condition of the building because of the Town’s concern of metal corrosion on various roof components of the structure. The results of our visual examination are based upon the following: • • • •
Phone Cell Fax Email
A general brief visual review carried out by the writer on the morning of June 12, 2008 in your presence. A general discussion with yourself on the overall operation and maintenance of the facility. A review of the enclosed photographs No. 1 to No. 14 taken by the writer during our noted site review. A review of the photographs taken by owner’s representative that are enclosed No. A to F (6 in total).
(306) 873-4409 (306) 873-1938 (306) 873-5157 [email protected]
Box 1658 Tisdale, SK S0E 1T0
The following is a description of the subject property and comments relative to our analysis and are brief site visual investigation: A. BUILDING DESCRIPTION The area of the structure over the enclosed swimming pool is a Pre-Engineered Metal Building (PEMB) as manufactured by ARMCO. This PEMB is approximately 80’ wide by 140’ long with approximately 18’ high eave wall height. The first 10’ of the wall is 8” light weight concrete masonry with the remainder of the wall with metal panels. The roof is a low pitch metal roof with conventional PEMB roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane. This PreEngineered portion of the structure was constructed approximately in 1975. The front portion of the complex is of 8” light weight masonry block construction and was renovated and added on to sometime about 2004. This portion of the complex is used for public entry, dressing rooms, mechanical room etc. As the owner had no concerns of this front portion of the structure the writer did not complete a visual inspection of this area but limited our review to the Pre-Engineered Metal Portion of the complex. It was noted completed complex had a concrete floor slab on grade throughout. B. GENERAL DISCUSSION From our examination we could note various areas of severe corrosion to the exposed metal portions of the Pre-Engineered Metal Structure. In particular, to the roof metal purlins (see enclosed photographs No. 1 to 14). For Pre-Engineered Metal Building constructed in the 1970 period, it was common practice to hold the insulated/vapour barrier roof membrane in place between the roof purlin supports with a light gauge wire metal mesh. Basically over time since construction, this metal roof support mesh is completely corroded out of existence (see Photograph No. 10 to 11). Also noted severe corrosion to a number of the roof metal purlins to the extent some of them (not all of them) may be in question to their respective structural capacity under heavy snow loads. C. RECOMMENDATIONS From our brief visual inspection of the structure and discussion on site with yourself it is the writer’s opinion that the long term structural capacity of the roof area of the Pre-Engineered Building portion of the complex over the roof area is in question. In addition we understand that the complex is not operated over the winter period because of the high energy cost to heat the building. We expect this occurs firstly, the result of very low insulation value used in the construction of the exterior walls and roof, and secondly, the existing HVAC roof mounted unit is not properly designed and/or installed (ie. There does not appear to be any insulation on the exterior duct work).
To properly fully evaluate the structure and advise your department on how to update the facility so it can be operated year around (it seems somewhat impractical to have a covered swimming pool in place that is not used year around) within an economical budget we suggest the following: Phase 1 Our firm return to the site with our Mechanical Engineering Consultant and out Architectural Consultant to fully review the complex in full detail to: • •
• •
Check out existing wall and roof insulation R value and how it can be improved on. Check out the existing complex’s HVAC heating/ventilation system and what improvements can be made to more economically operate the complex from energy view point. Evaluate the structural condition of the roof and if it needs to be replaced and/or can it be structurally upgraded. Prepare a full written report to the Town outlining our findings and possible capital budget to upgrade.
The cost of the review study for our Engineered/Architectural review complete with all travel and expenses will be. $6575.00 (plus 5% GST) Phase 2 With the results of the fore mentioned building review our forces can prepare the necessary construction drawings required to tender the upgrades for construction. Based on our brief examination of the site on June 12, 2008 we would expect the complex will require in excess of $400,000.00 in upgrades (including structural) so it can efficiently and properly operate the year round for many years to come. Phase 3 Complete the previous 2 phase’s of outlined above work so as any upgrade construction could start approximately September 1, 2009 with completion planned for May 1, 2010.
We trust the above is of assistance to your forces and is what was required. Enclosed you will find our invoice for Engineering Services to date and if can be of further assistance please contact the writer. Yours truly,
C. A. Reed & Associates (Sask.) Ltd.
C. A. Reed, P. Eng.
Photograph No. 1 – Front entry.
Photograph No. 2 – Rear north view.
Photograph No. 3 – East elevation.
Photograph No. 4 – Typical isolated exterior masonry deterioration.
Photograph No. 5 – Typical isolated exterior masonry deterioration.
Photograph No. 6 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 7 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 8 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 9 – Roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane – note complete corrosion of wire mesh.
Photograph No. 10 – Roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane – note complete corrosion of wire mesh. And also note the severe corrosion of roof purlins.
Photograph No. 11 – Roof insulation/vapour barrier membrane – note complete corrosion of wire mesh. And also note the severe corrosion of roof purlins.
Photograph No. 12 – Typical interior view of the pool area.
Photograph No. 13 – Isolated area of rust on the roof panel (only rust area of the roof).
Photograph No. 14 – HVAC unit on roof.
