f.. ~.i .' .

,

I

-.

r.

j

Investigation ofthe December 6, 2007 Fatal

Parking Garage Collapse at Berkman Plaza 2, ,Jacksonvi.JJe, FL

u.s. DePartment ofLabor

.Occupational Safely and HealthAdrriinistratiOJ.j

Directorate ofConstruction

May1008

'. " "

. 1 J8 f

I

f,

r

!

,

i

j

j

I

../

.l

·1

" " .

.~.

. ',' . ,

," :. "

:::.: :..' ':.. ' .

r: :

. " ~~.: ..:

. :'~'"

.'

, .. " _ I : " •

.. ···.i~. .. .

......

-t ,

." '~. " ;'.. .. :.... ',. '..~.~

C-I£

db-bg,~

OSHRC Docket #08-0888
... , .

•

•

REPORT

•

•

Investigation ofthe December 6, 2007

Fatal Parking Garage Collapse

at Berkman Plaza 2,

Jacksonville, FL

Repon Prepared by

Mohammad Ayub, PE

• R-8

1

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 20149

ARSOL (8-60078) 0191
•

•

• •

Contributions to thisreportmadeby

Dinesh Shah, PE, Office ofEngineering Services, DOC, OSHA National Office

HenryMiller, CSHO, OSHA Jacksonville Area Office

• R·8

2

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 3 of 49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0192
•

•

REPORT

•

•

On December 6,.2007 at approximately6:15 a.m. anincident occurredduring theconstructionof

a five-storyconcrete parking garage in downtown Jacksonville, FL. The location is 500 East

Bay Street,Jacksonville, FL. One construction employeewas killed andtwenty-one injured.

The incidentoccurred when the 6th parkinglevel was being cast with fresh concrete.

The RegionalAdministrator, Region IV, requested the Directorate of Construction (DOC),

OSHA National Office, Washington, DC to provideengineering assistance to theJacksonville

Area Office. A structuralengineer visited the incidentsite and examined the failedstructure on

December 11,2007. The same structural engineermade a subsequent visit to the site on JanWlIY

. 8,2008.

Subsequently, DOC investigated the incident,analyzedthe structure for the designloads and for

the constructionloads placed at the time that the 6th level was being cast. This document

includes the report and the conclusionsreached

The garage is a poured-in-placeconcretestructuremeasuring approximately 116ft. x 252 ft..

There was no basement in the garage and irconsisted ofsix levels including the groundlevel,

called the 1

51 level. The roof was the 6th level and was designed for parking as well. The parking

garage was a part ofa bigger project, a 23-$totY condominium tower, calledBerkmanPlazaII.

Structurally,the parking garage is a separatestructure from the tower. Thestructural design

consisted ofcast-in-place one way continuous post-tensioned slabs in the north-south direction

and post-tensioned beams in the east-westdirection. The columns were alsocast in place. There

were sevenbays in the north-southdirectionand two in the east-west direction. The bays were

unequal and, therefore.the thicknessofthe slabs varied. The lateral load-resisting system

consisted of cast-in-placeshear walls enclosing the stairwells and someadditional shear walls on

the north side. See Fig. 1 for a typical plan of the garage. For the purposeof this report, the

prefix "G", meaning garage,has been omittedfor identifying column grid lines.

3

The following were the key participantsin the project:

•

R-8

- OSHRC Docket #08-0866 4 of 49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0193
r.,

•

•

1. Architect: Pucciano & English of Atlanta, GA.

•

2. Structural Engineer of Record(SER):Structural Consulting Group, LLCalso of Atlanta,

GA.

3. General Contractor/Construction Manager: ChoateConstruction Company ofPooler,GA.

4. Fonnwork, Shoring Contractor: Southern Pan Services Company of Lithonia, GA.

5. FormworkDesigner: PatentConstruction Systems(patent) ofTampa,FL and Universal

Engineering Sciences(UBiversal).

6. Concrete subcontractor: A. A. Pittman & Sons Concrete Co., Inc. ofJacksonville, FL.

This sub contractor wasresponsible for placing andfinishing concrete for the slabs and

beams hut not the columns.

7. Concretesub contractor; Southern Pan Services Company (Southern) of Lithonia, GA.

was responsible for all verticalconcrete, e.g., columns, shearwalls.

8. Concreteprovider: FloridaRock.

9. Reinforcing steel provider: Gerdau-Ameristeel ofJacksonville, FL.

10. Post-tensioning sub-contractor; PTE Strand Co., Inc.ofHialeah,FL.

11. Reinforcement placement subcontractor:Inf'mity Reinforcing of PalmCoast,FL.

The garagestructurewas placedunderthe threshold category by the FloridaBuilding Code

(FBC). SynergyEngineering (Synergy) wasretainedas the threshold inspector. Synergyhad a

contractfor the condominium tower as wellas for the garage. Amongitsresponsibilities wereto

inspect the reinforcing steel,post-tensioning steelconfonningto the contractdrawings and

approvedshopdrawings. Synergy also participated in the progress meetings held regularlyat the

site. It also had the responsibility for inspecting shores,reshores, and other fonnwork

components. The site representative ofSynergy was a registered professional engineer.

In addition to Synergy, Universal was anotherinspectorat the site. Universal wasretained by

Southern to inspectthe formwork, shoringandreshoringandadvisethemon suchmatters. Both

Synergyand Universal preparedinspection reports.

The construction began in the earlypart of2007 with pile foundations for the garage. The 1st

level was a slab on grade. Castingof the elevated slabs beganin June of2007. Each levelwas

•

R-8

4

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 5 of 49

ARSOL (B-6007fn n1Q&
• •

(

divided in twopartscalled A and B for casting identification. Up to the time of the incident,five

,

. levelswerealreadypoured and the casting of the sixth level,part A, was in progress at the time

ofthe incident, OnDecember 6. 2007, concrete castiog began in earnest in the early hours, e.g.,

12:30 a.m., from the west side ncarcolumnline E between column gridlines 2 and3 proceeding

north. Firstthecrewpoured concrete in the beam formworkup to the underside ofthe slab and

thenplaced concrete for the slab. Concrete for the slab wassuccessively placedwithout any

reportedproblems. After having cast concrete in the bay bounded by columngrid linesA & C

and 2 & 3, thecrewturned east and, began placing concretebetween columngrid lines 3 and 4,

then proceeding south towards column grid line E. They had comple~ castingconcreteup to

approximately 10-15 ft. south of column grid line C when the incidentoccurred,

The collapse was massiveas it encompassedall the elevated slabs fromcolumnsgrid lines A to

G andcolumngrid lines 2 to 4. The slabs fell generally on the top of each other with the

columnscrushed inbetween. The shores and re-shores were also crushedbetweenthe collapsing

slabs and beams. See Fig.s 5 thru 18 for the extent ofthe collapse. Two bayson the south side,

however,remained standingwith slabs north ofcolumn grid line G hangingtowardsthe north,

still connected by rebarsand post-tensioningcables, see Fig. 11. The failureincludedthe shear

wall on column grid line A and the shear walls enclosing stair GI near columngrid line 2.

Shores for the 6th level began to he erected on or about November 14,2007. At the time oftbe

collapse, the6111 level was shored downto the Sib level. Reshoreswere providedbetween the Sth

&' the4th level, and between the 4th and the 3l'C11evel. There were no reshoresunder the 3rd level

as theyhadbeen removedearlier on or about November 19,2007. Therefore, on the day ofthe

incident, theloadsofthewet concrete and othcrconstmction loads from the 6th level were

supportedon the sth, 4th and the 3M levels of the garage. This was the first time that concrete was

being cast on elevated slabs without reshores extending downto the 1SI level,

Southernretained Patent to design the formwork and to prepareformworklayout drawings

includingshoringand reshoring, Patent prepared the drawings showing the layout of the

formwork, shoresand reshores, The first three drawings bore a signaturedated May 4, 2007 and

the lastfive drawings had the same signaturedated June 12,2001. Ondrawings No.7 & 8,

5

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 6 of 49
•

•

number 8607K038, re-shoreswere indicated extendingdown to the

•

III level. It required that at

the time the 6~ level was cast, all levels below the 6th level must be shoredlreshored. See, Fig. 3.

During the interviewwith OSHA, Patentstatedthatit wastheir standard policy to askthe

contractorsto extendthe reshores down to the ground level,regardlessofthe heightofthe

structureand the numberoffIoors. Patent, however, statedthat ifthe contractordid not wish to

place re-shores down to theground level, the contractorhad the option to retain an engineerto

advise him whetherfewer levels ofreshores could be used.

There are conflicting reportsabout why Southernremovedthe reshores under the 3

nllevel

despite the fact that the Patent drawing showed the reshoresextendingdown to the lit level.

When OSHA asked Synergy why, as a thresholdinspector,it would permit placementof

concreteon the 6th level without the reshores underthe 3mlevel,it responded that the SE~ in

. responseto its e-mail seekingclarificationofwhere re-shoreswere required, advisedthat

reshoreswere only requiredunder a certain slab requiringrepairs, andat no otherplace.

Synergy,therefore, did not raise the issue with thecontractorofthe lack ofreshores under the 3n1

level. See, attachmentD, showing copies ofthe e-mails. It was discovered earlierthat 61 top

#5 mild steelreinforcement bars, 46-feet long,were inadvertently not placed in the ramp, from

2nd to 3n1tevel'siabbounded by column grid lines D & B,and 2 &; 3. To correctthe structural

deficiency createdby the lackofrebars, SERrecommended certain repairs to the slab and asked

that the slab in questioncontinue to be reshoreduntil repairswere completed. OSHAasked SER

about the e-mail. SER statedthat his responsewas not meant to address the necessityfor or lack

ofreshoresanywhere inthe garage exceptinthe areas needingrepairs. SER furtherexplained

that methods and means ofconstructionare solely the responsibility ofthe contractor, and the

contractor shoulddeterminewhethershoringand reshoringare required.

The construction ofthe parking garage includedmany minor and major issues. It was reported

to OSHAby a number of sourcesthat the difficultieswere compoundedby the fact that theSER

was notforthcoming in resolving the questions, and had a nonchalant and dispassionate attitude

towards the structurehe designed. SER deniedthis during an interviewwith OSHA. The

majority of the issuesarose at the beam-column joints from the congestion createdby a large

•

R-8

6

OSHRC Docket #I08-G866 7 of 49
•

•

number ofpost-tensioning cables, topand bottom mild reinforcements

•

oftbe beam, and

longitudinal reinforcements and dowelsin the column. SeeFig.4 for the numberof

reinforcements at the deadend ofa post..tensioned beam. Honeycombing andvoidswere

reportedat the beam-columnjoints. For example, the Sib level beam on columnline G between

grid lines 1& 3, the 2nd level beam on column line G betweengrid line 3 & 4, and the Sib level

beam on gridline E between grid lined 2 & 3 couldnot be post-tensioned due to honeycombing

at their ends.

Anotherset of issues arose from the cracksobservedat the interior and exteriorbeam-cohmm

joints and in theslabs, see attachmentE. For example,it was reported that.cracks developed at

multiple levels at the columns C-2, C-3, 0:3., 0-4, E-4. F-4. 0-4 and H-4. There were also

cracks at thesleb framing into the shear walls enclosingthe stair. For example slabshad cracks

near the stair01, 02 and G3 at the 3M, 41b and Sib levels. There were also reportedto be cracks

in the 3rd level slab. An eyewitnessreportedduring an OSHA infonnal interview that a crack

extendeddiagonally across the post-tensioning cables throughthe entiredepthof 20" thickslab

on the 3rd level Others reported cracks of a lesser severity and not through the entiredepth of

the slab. The crackswere brought to the SER's attention. He respondedthat thecracks at the

beam column joints and at the slab walljunctions were occuning due to the restraints against

movement Hesuggested that certainareas of slab be reshoredand that the cracks shouldbe kept

under observation. When asked by OSHA aboutthe cracksin the 20" thick slabaway from the

shear walls, SER expresseda lack of knowledge ofthese cracks. The cracksin the 20" thick slab

were neverfully resolved.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSES and DISCUSSION

The purpose of the structural analyseswas to:

1. Determine whetherthe garage structurewas properlydesigned in accordance with the

industry standards.

•

R·8

7

OSHRC Docket ....0866 80.49
2. Determinewhetherthe third level could have supported the loadsimposed upon it at the

time of the incidentwithout any reshores under the third level, and ifthe contractor had •

assumed, asis customary, that the structural designwassound and reliable.

• •

•

3. Determinethe cause of the collapse.

The following drawings were reviewed.

1. Structuraldrawings SGO.l, SO 1.1,sa 1.2, SG 2.1 thru2.S, SO 3.1 thru3.5. SG 0.1

wassigned on December 16,2006. The rest were signedon September 5,2006.

2. Architectural drawings, G-l thm G-il with variousdates.

3. Fonnwork and shoring/re-shoring drawings 8607K038 (eightdrawings)

4. SouthernPan Services Companydrawings SO 3.1 tbru 3.5,G 6 tbro 8.

S. PTE Strand ce, strand lay-out drawingsPT-Ol, PTP021, PTP020, PTP 030. PTP 040

andPTP 060

6. GerdauAmeristeel re-bar detail drawings: R-OS, RC-02thruRC-IO, RSG-I throRSG-12.

The structural analyseswere generally limited to the area of the collapse. The following

information providedin the general notes ofthe structural drawings was pertinentto this

investigation: -'..e-i-rI. FloridaBuildingCode (FBC) was used to design the structure.

2. Designofthe garage was based upon a live load of SO psf, asindicated by the SER.

(There is no mentionof any live load reduction in the documents. It was, therefore,

assumedthat the FBC-pennittedreduction was used, see attachment A).

3. 5,000 psi was indicatedto be the concrete strength at 28 days for slabs, beams and

columns. However, for our evaluation, a 6,000 psi concrete strengthwas assumed forthe

beamsand slabs,based upon the testing laboratorydocuments, and 5,000psi for the

columns.

FBC and all other industry codes provide a "margin of safety"in the designof allstructures by

increasingthe aetual loadsby factors caUed "Load factors" andby reducingthe capacities of

• R-8

8

OSHRC Dock.t #08-0866 90149

ARSOL (8-60078) 0198
materials by "Phi (;, Factors". A combination of the twofactors provides a desired factor of

safety and is wellrecognized and practicedin the industry, andhas servedwell, see attachment

B. For the purposeof thisreport, evaluations were done withand withoutthese factorsto arrive

at the code-prescribed designstrength, and at the "failure" loads with no marginofsafety.

•

• •

.'

The load factors considered in the evaluation of the design were (1.4 x DL) or (1.2 x DL + 1.6 x

LL), which ever provided a higher value. For the strengthdesign, the; factorfor flexure and

shear was used as perACI 318-02 code. For the evaluation of the structure, a live load of 40 psf

was used as pennittedby the FBC, instead of SO psf as indicated by the SERin his general notes.

However,ifthe contractor wasto have determined whether the third level could support the

loads imposeduponit at the time of the incident, a live load capacityof 50 psfcould havebeen

used. The contractor couldhave safely assumed that the 3

rd levelhada live load capacity ofSO

pst: as this information wasreadily available onthe structural drawings.

Evaluation ofSlab:

The designconsisted ofone-waycontinuous post-tensioned slabin thenorth-southdirection

supportedby post-tensioned shallowand widebeamsin the east-westdirection. In addition to

the post-tensioning cables,the slab wasreinforced withmildsteel for positive and negative

flexuralmoments including temperature reinforcements. The slab design was generallytypical

for alllevels. Thethickness of the slabsvaried with theirspan lengths, as shown below:

i

Column line from Spanlength Slabthickness

GA toGC 60'-(/' 20"

GCtoGD 38'-10" 16"

GDtoGE 25'-4" '8"

GEtoGF 26'-10" 8"

GFtoGG 26'-10" 8"

GGtoGH 26'-10" 12"

GH to GI 47'-4" 14"

• R·8

9

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 10 of 49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0199
The slabdesignwasfound to be adequate for the live loadof 40psf withoutany liveload

reduction. The amounts of post-tensioning cables and mildsteelwere generallyproper. The

thicknesses ofthe slab also met thegeneral ACI guidelines and undue deflections could not have

been expected. The slabwas also deemedsatisfactory for a liveload of 50 psf.

•

• •

•

Evaluation of beams:

Flexure

The schedule ofbeamstakenfromthe structural drawings is shown in Figure2. Forlocation of

beams,see figure 1. For-our evaluation, 6,000 psi was considered to be the strength of the

concrete although the contract documents specified 5,000psi as the concrete strength. Testing

laboratory documents indicated that 6,000psi was the required strength for beamsandslabs(see

Table 4). Therewere fivedifferentbeams provided, SB-l thru SB-5. The most critical beamof

significance to thisinvestigation was 8B-5 thatwas themost heavilyloadedas itsupported

widerspansofthe slabs.

For ouranalyses, considerable thoughtwas given to determine whetherthe 8B-5beamshould be

treatedas a simplebeamor with continuity with the column at the east end,and with the

beam/column at the westend It was quickly realizedthatfixity at eitherof the ends of the beam

wouldbe problematic dueto a numberofreasons. At the east end, therewas a slender 14ft x 28"

column oriented about theminoraxis with the beam. Further, the 60" beamwasmuch wider

than thecolumn, thus onlya few topreinforcements coulddevelop their fullstrength in the

column. Thedrawings calledfor 6 # 8 continuous top and bottom bars. of whichonlythree

couldfall withinthe confines of the column. With a 90 degreehook, a minimum development

length of 15 Yi~ wasrequired for a concrete strengthof 6,000psi. The column was only 14"

wide, andwith theminimum amountof outside cover, it wouldnot have beenpossible to

develop fullstrength of thebars. The post-tensioning cables wereplaced at the center ofgravity

(c.g.),of theT-beamandthuscouldnot be expectedto providecontinuity of the beam withthe

column.

•

R·8

10

OSHRC Docket #08-0868 11 0149
•

•

•

On the westside, it wassimilarly problematicto consider the beam to be continuous. First, the

post-tensioning cableswere dead-endedon column grid line 3 at the e.g. of the beam. The top

mild reinforcementsdid not continueto the adjoiningspan. The columnwas, however, 28"wide

instead of 14". At least 3 #8 bars could be developedin the columnwith proper development

. lengths. It was calculated that 333 ft-kips of partial fixity couldbe obtainedwhich is only4.66%

ofthe total simplepositive momentand therefore, could be ignored.

The beam was evaluatedfor four load cases with 6,000 psi concrete:

I. Load case 1:Unfactoreddead load ofthe beam and the slab.

2. Load case 2: Unfactoredservice loadsconsisting of deadload of the slablbeam and the

reduced live load, as permittedby FBC,based upon a basic live load of 40 psf

3. Load case 3: Factoreddead load and factored reduced live load, as permitted by FBe.

4. Load case 4: Unfactoreddead load and other unfactoredloads of the wet concrete and

constructionloads comingfrom the higher levels at the time that the f1h level wasbeing

cast at the time of the incident.

Loads imposed upon the beamswere derivedbased upon the tributary area. Thebeam had 78

strands in addition to 6 #8 rebars top and bottom. It was determinedthat, based upon concrete

strength of 6,000 psi, the beam had a positiveflexural strength of approximately 5,370 and 5,967

ft-kips with and without;factor, respectively. Under the load case No.1, the actual demand to

support the unfactoreddead loads ofthe slab and the beam was5,013 ft-kips. Under load case

No.2, the actual demandwas 5,496 ft-kips below the design strengthwithoutthe (Ifactor.

However, underload caseNo.3, the actual demand was 7,018 ft-kips, 31% higher than the

design strength,indicating deficientdesignby the SER. Under load caseNo. 4 ~t representsthe

loads at the time of the incident, the actual demandwas 7,150 ft-kips, higherthan the design

strength of 5,967ft-kips, even when load factors and ;factors are not considered.

From the flexural aspect, the beamdesign was deficient under code prescribed. load and ;

factors. The beamwas, however, able to support its own dead load with little factor of safety

•

R-8

11

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 12 of 49

A C1C:!r"\1 ID ~n""70\ ""'''''1.4
when the shores were removed. At the completion ofthe project,it is believedthatthe beam • would have been able to supportthe load without the load and the I}factors.

• •

•

•

At the time of the incident, caseNoAsthe actual demand was 7,150 ft. kips which could be

reduced to 6,820 ft. kips, consideringa fixity of333 ft. kips at each endsofthe beam. Evenwith

consideration ofthe partial fixity, the actual demand was 14%.higher than the design strength

without load and ; factors. However, the actual demand could even be lower because the beam

SB6located between columngrid lines 4A and 4C supporteda part of the 3rd level loads coming

from the 6111 levels as this beam remained shored during the castingof the 6th level. This

reduction in demand was not accountedfor in the computation.

A failure due to flexure generallydoes not take place in a catastrophic manner as it provides

visible deformationand noticeablesag before leading to the ultimatecollapse. No such

observationswere reportedby employeesbut future observations ofthe failed elements, afterthe

current recovery is completed,could lead to re-evaluation.

Shear

Under load case Nos. 1,.2and 4sour analysisindicated that the designed shear stirrups at a

spacing of 12" o,c, were marginal,see Table 1. As mentioned earlier.the evaluation of these

cases was done without consideringload and ; factors. Whenload and ; factors were

considered, the spacing ofshear stirrupsin all load cases were found to be deficient. In load case

No. 3sthe required spacing was StS o.e., as per applicable codesinstead of 12" as shown on the

contract drawings.

The shear stirrupswere significantlyunder-designed for the factored dead and live loadsand did

not meet the code requirements. At the completion ofthe project.it is believed that failure

would not occur due to deficientshear designbased upon unfactoreddead and live loadsbut

then, the marginofsafety would be minimal. It is further believedthatthe deficient sheardesign

did not contribute to the collapse as shown in Table 1, load caseNo.4.

12

R-8 OSHRC Docket #08-0866 13 of 49

1\ .-.-,...~, , ... _
• Evaluation of Columns:

• •

•

21 columnswere evaluated for different load cases. A load combination of(1.4 x DL) or (1.2 x

DL +1.4x LL) was used to arrive at the governing load. The following load caseswere

considered:

1. Load CaseNo.1: Unfactored dead load ofslab, beamand columns.

2. Load Case No.2: Unfactored dead and unfactoredreducedlive loads.

3. Load CaseNo.3: Factored dead and factored reduced live loads (Basic live load of40

pst).

4. Load CaseNo.4: Unfactorcd dead loads and unfactoredconstruction loads fromthe

6th level at the time ofthe incident

The required capacities were compared with available strengthswith and withoutthe ; factor,

seeTable 2.

With; factor, Design strength tPP..rrua = O.80;rO.8S~' (A,-A.,) +/"A"J

Without;factor,Design strength p.. _ = O.SOrO.8S.fc' (A.- A,J +/"All)

Ofthe 21 columns, eight columns C2, C3, C4, D3, E3, F3, G3 and H4 were consideredcritical

for the above four load cases,see Table 2.

Ofthe" eight columns,all except H4 were determined to be deficientas per theprescribed codes,

based upon the 5,000psi concrete, the strength specified by the SER. However,if6,000psi

concrete was considered, only four columns, C2, C3, C4 and D3 would be deemed to be

deficient. Availablerecords,see Table 3, indicated thatthe requiredstrengthwas only 5,000psi

for all columns. Further, ifthe ; factoris not considered in-the evaluation of the column design

strength, all columnshad the capacity to support the load evenat 5,000 psi concrete strength,

with the exceptionofC4.

•

R-8

13

OSHRC Docket flO8-0868 14 of 49
The columnC4 was considered the most critical. Thesize of the columnC4 was increased

below the third leveldue to architectural reasons. Therefore, loads from the third level and

above were only considered for the C4 column. For load caseNo.1. C4 was barelyable to

support the dead loadseven when the ; factorwas not considered. When the ; factoris

considered, the designstrengthwas 971 kips comparedwith the demand of 1,545 kips. This is

the most serious design flaw in the structure. For load caseNo.2. the column could notsupport

theloadswith or withoutthe ; factor at 5,000 psi concretestrength.. Only at 6.000psi concrete

without the ; factor. the column could barely support the loads. For load caseNo.3, the column

was determinedto be grosslyunder-designed. For the load case No.4, it wascomputedthat

approximately 1,641 kips were placed on the column at the time of the incidentbetweenthe third

and the second floor. The columncould not supportthis loadeven when the ; factoris omitted

at 5,000psi concrete strength. Only when the concrete strength isconsideredto be 6,000psi,

and when the ; factor is ignored,then the columnis able to supportthe load.

•

• •

•

Actual concretestrengths ofthe columnshave been tabulated in Table No. 3. With the exception

oftwo columns,mostof the concretebreakingstrengthsat 28 dayswere noted to be 6,000psi or

higher. In two cases, however, the concrete strengths were approximately 5,700 psi. For the C4

column, there werethreelaboratorybreaking strengthreports availaBle: 302 sampledon July 23,

2007; 435A sampledon October 12, 2007; and 436A sampledon October IS, 2007. Report3Q2

indicates a strength of 7,230pounds at 7 days. Reports435A and 436A indicatestrengths of

5,770 and 6.480poundsrespectively, at 28 days. The sampling ofthe concretefor ReportNo.

302 was taken when concretewas placed betweenthe 2nd andthe 3nl levels. Therefore,ifindeed

the actualconcretestrengthwas above 6,000psi, and the margin of safetywas disregarded, it is

consideredunlikelythat the failure couldhave OCCUIred at the loadsplaced on the C4 columnat

the time of the incident.

Discussion;

We will now consider whetherit would have been appropriate for the contractorto have assumed

that the 3rcllevel slaband beam would be ableto supportthe loadsduringcasting of the 6th level,

assuming that the structuraldesignwas correctand reliable. Contractorhad a right to assume

•

R-8

14

OSHRC Docket .8-0866 15 of 49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0204
that the structuraldesignis sound and meets the applicable codes. It is concludedthat it would

be erroneousfor thecontractorto load the 3

mlevel during casting oftbe 6thlevel without

performing an evaluationofthe capacityof the slab, beam and column with due regard ttl the

design parametersandapplicable buildingcodes. Only a personknowledgeable in stroctural

design couldperform such anevaluation. Regrettably, no·such evaluation was performed.

•

• ••

•

We then consideredthat had the contractorperformedsuch a proper evaluation, what conclusion

would be have reached. Our analysisindicated that the contractorcouldhave reachedthe

conclusion that reshoresmight not be requiredunder the 3rd level,iftbe designofthe structure

was properlyperformed. This conclusion wouldlead ttl little marginof safety,and failure could

occur with any incidentalincreaseof constructionload.

SER had indicated that the designof the garagewas based upon a live load of 50 pst It was also

mentionedon the structuraldrawings thatthe design was perfonned inaccordance with PBCthat

would have permitted a reducedlive load of30 psf(60% of50 pst) for the beam. The20" slab

would therefore be designedfor its dead loadof250 psfand a live load of3()ps£ Similarly, the

16" slab would be designed forits dead load of 200 psf and a live load of 30 PSL The ultimate

load capacity of the 20" slab wouldthereforebe 1.4 x 250- 350 psf, and that of I(I' slab would

be 1.2x 200+ 1.6 x 30=288 PSL Applying the phi meter of0.9, the ultimatestrengthcapacities

at the time of failure wouldbe increasedto 389 psfand 320 psffor 20" and 16" slabs

respectively. Therefore, the 20" slab had a "reserve" capacityof 139psf(389-250=139) and the

16" slab had a "reserve capacity of120psf(320-200=120).

The superimposed loads fromthe 6th level during its castingwouldbe:

Dead load of concrete" 250 psf for 20" slab;200 psffor 16" slab

Constructionload=50psf seeAttachmentC

Forms and shores =6.5psf, see AttachmentC

All loadsexcept the forms and shoreswill be shared equallyby the 5th, 4th and 3mlevels. The

20" and 16'·slabs at the 3rd level would thereforebe subjectedto loadofI06.5 psfand 90 psf

respectivelybelow their "failure loads" at the time of castingof the 61kJ. level.

•

R-8

15

OSHRC Docket ...0866 160149
Itmust be mentioned.here that atthe completion of the structure, the3rd level would never

experience a loadaslarge as it wassubjected to duringthe 6tb.level casting because thegarage

floors aredesigned fora lightlive load of30 psfas perFBC. When the6th level wasbeing cast,

the 3rd level was subjectedto. a load 300% greater than the live load.

•

•

•

•

16

OSHRC Docket 1108-0866

•

17 of 49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0206
•

•

ConclusioDs:

•

1. At the time of theincident whenthe concrete onthe6" levelwas.being poured,there

wereno re-shores belowthe 3n1 level excepta fewunder the perimeterbeams. Thereshoresunder the 3111 levelin the collapsed area wereremoved by the shoring

subcontractor without a determination madeby a personknowledgeable in structural

design that the 3111 level wouldbe ableto supportthe loadsof thewet concrete and

construetion loads from the 6tJ level. andform andshore loads. The contractor violated

OSHA's 1926.701(a) standard. Iffthe contractor had not removedthe reshores, the

•.incident wouldnot haveoccurreddespite the flawed structural design.

S'

2.

3.

4.

s.

6. The shoringsubcontractor disregarded the shoring planspreparedby its subcontractor

which indicated that the 3nl level should be reshored. downto the 111 level. There were no

•

R-8

17

OSHRC Docket #08-0888 180.49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0207
•

•

other shoringplansavailableat the site for the employees to relyuponandrefer to. Thus•

OSHAstandard 1926.703(a)(2) was violated.

7. In the areasof the parkinggaragethat were stillstanding afterthe incident, several

aluminum stringers were observed to bavebeen placedin the flat position instead ofthe

uprightposition. This compromised the load-carrying capacityof thebeams. However,

this did not contribute to the collapse.

8. The threshold inspector fal1ed in his duty to reportto the appropriate Par1y tbe absenceof s·'",}' '. jY&JZ)(aL

reshoresbelowthe3Mlevel at the time that the 6

rhlevel wasbeing cast

9. The threshold inspector failedto noticethat top continuous rebarswm: missingin the .

ramp slab fromthe second to the thirdlevel. The slab was pouredwithout the top bars,"

• R-a

18

OSHRC Docket 1108-0888 190'49
•

%

• •

t>

:0

o

)

.....

lO

I

»

:>

::>

...

s

:>

:>

"

:>

o

til

:I:

a

o

n

I

I

N

I:)

t

•

TABLEt

SUMMARY OF DESIGNFORCES OF THIRD FLOOR BEAMSB-Sif,;'- 6,000 psi)

Loading Loadingduringeonslruttioowithout load flU:lor and I faclor -Loadinsfor finished .truchR with load

SIage raclorand factor

~= 1.0for bendingand1.0for &bear ~- 0.9 for bcDdina and 0.75 for shear

Loading Loadcase I: Loadc:ase 2: Loach:ase 4: LoadcaseJ:

Unfaclomldead load (1.0 DL)oribe Selvk:e load UnfactomiCOL + wei ~te and Factored {(DL+ reduced LL)} or

thirdfloorbe8m andslab Unfaeton:d (DL+reduced U,) constJuclion loadfromcolwnn Une A 10 faclored {(DL)}

D alsixthfloor)

Loadcombination - {(1.2DL) + (1.6

LOlld combination -{(l.O DL)+ reduced u..)} or {(1.4DL»)

1/3{(wet concn:to at fl' Door+SO psI)}

Loading (1.4 DL) GoVemJI

Magnitude AdUaI Desi Remarks Actual Design Rcmaib AClUal Design Remarb Actual Design Reowb

danand demand s1IcoRlb. dcmatld stn:ml.1h demand strcoith

Flexural Actual momenl Aclualmomeat Actualmoment Actualmoment

moment islessthan illl islessthanilll is 20 % beyond is 31 % beyond

(UniI8-kips) 5,013 5,967 design 5,496 5,967 design strelJglb. 1.150 5,967 irsdesign 1,018 5,310 designslmJgth.

strength. r. 0,((, sllength. r. N.G•

r. OK ... N.C.

Designshear Actualsbearil Actual shearil AChialshear Is &isling shear

athf2 less!hanIaken less!hanIIIken lesslhantaken stirrups of1# 4 at

From 326 520 by concrete. 357 520 by e:tlIICICIe. 46S 520 by concrelc. 456 390 Ir(againat

supportface :.O.K .·.O.K :.0." requiTed at 8")

(Unit kips) on center is not

enough 10resist

dJesl1eu.

:. N.G.

'<,

19
• • •

>

[J

?

2

...

:I

,

)

)

)

)

•

)

o

•

z

r

i

I

:

N

..

s.

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF CRITICAL COLUMNDESIGNLOADSANDITS DESIGNSTRENGTH

(UNITKIPS)

Loading Garage column designation basedon theirgrid line

ell C31 C4" D31 EJI F3' G3 J H4J

Unfaetored deadloadof theslab,beamand 1,027 2,679 1,545 1,285 777 765 840 674

columns

Service load 1,089 2,846 1,641 1,385 869 861 894 716

lunfactored DL+unfactored reducedLL)

Ultimate loaef' 1,438 3,751 2,163 J,799 1,088 1,071 1,176 944

Loadduring C8$ting of sixth floor: 1,080- 2,841- 1,641- 1,283- 613 S9S 652 504

unfactored (DL+sixthfloorwet concrete

loadand construction loadfromA toD)

Designstrengthfl/',," (Ie' = 5,000 psi) 1,049 2,196 971 1,049 1,049 1,049 1,049 971

ifc • = 6.000 psi) 1,220 2,536 1,142 1.220 1.220 1,220 1.220 1,142

Desigustrength .....1.0 (fe''''' 5,000 psi) 1,614 3,378 .,494 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,614 1,494

((,:, =6.000 psi) 1.877 3.902 i 757 1.877 1.877 1.877 1.877 1.757

Ultimate loadVB. Design strength fIP".. ifc' ... 5,000 psi) N.G. N.G. N.G. N.G. N.G. N.G. N.G. O.K.

(fc • =6.000 OBi) N.G. N.G. N.G. N.G. O.K. 0.1{. OJ{. 0..1(.

Service load vs, Design strength (.. = 1.0)

(fc'=5,000 psi) O.K. O.K. N.G. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K.

({c' = 6,000 psi) O.K. OJ{. 0.1<. 0.1<. O.K. OoK O.K. O.K.

Loadat the time of incident vs. design

strength (;=1.0) ifc' = 5,000 psi) O.K. OJ{. N.G. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K.

(fc' = 6.000 psi) O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. O.K. 0.1(. O.K.

20

-

-
• • •

:p

ell

o

!

i':

r

[

!

I:

Legend:

1

2

.l

•

•

Load from sixth floor throughsecond floor.

Loadfrom sixth floor through thirdfloor.

Design strength ,u'n,...-= O.80~O.85~' (A,-A,J +fyA,,] (Ret ACI 318-02, Eq. 10-2)

Load is based on weight ofwet concrete load and constructionload on sixth floor from column line A to column line D

only.

Ultimateload is based on 1.4 D.L. which is greater out ofloadingcombination of(l.2 DL +1.6 L.L.) Of (104 DL)

e

-

>

0

()

)

...

0

D N

:> N

,

... l

0

•

21

.- CD )

J

...

...
TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF CONCRETE CYLINDER TEST REPORT FORCOLUMNS

Report Date Pour Floor Column . Required Test Results (Psi)

Number Sampled Level To Floor Numbers 28-Day

Numbers Strength 7 Days 28 Days

(psi)

105 3/5/07 Gl 1It to21lG C3,12.3 5,000 3,170 6,330

118 3/22/07 01 lSI to 2nd 13,13.5 5,000 4,590 7,310

125 3130/07 01 ll:il to'211Q 04 5,000 . 4,620 7,320

137 4/11/07 01 l:n to 2114 HI 5,000 5,070 7,465

145 4/17/07 Gl 1:>1 to 2114 01 5,000 4,810 7,355

216 5/30/07 01 l:iT to 2M E3, 5,000 3,970 Not

F3,G3 Identified in

the report

164 4/26/07 02 Foundation Gridline 5,000 4,230 Not

To 2nd A Identifiedin

floor thereport

302 7/23/07 02 211Q to 3rd 0, C3, 6,000 7,230 Not

C4 Identified in

". the report

319 8/1107 02 2

f1Q to 3rd 13.5,.13, 5,000 4,050 5,715

12.3,E3,

03

372 9/4/07 G3B 3rd to 4th D4,E4, 5,000 4,610 6,880

D3,D2,

C2

435A 10/12/07 04B 4th to 5th C2,A3, 5,000 3,720 5,770

C4,D4

436A 10/15107 G4B 4th to 5th B4,C4, 5,000 4,760 6,480

E4, C2,

D3.E3

476A 1119/07 GSA 5th to 6th OI,Hl 5,000 5,080 6,655

504 .11/29/07 GSA 5th to 6th F3,03, 5,000 3,090 Not

04 Identifiedin

the report

•

•

• Berkman Plaza

R-8

• •

22

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 230149
TABLE 4

SUMMARY OFCONCRETE CYLmDER TEST REPORT FORSLAB AND BEAMS

Report Date Pour Pour Area Required TestResults(psi)

Number Sampled Level 28-Day

Strength 7 Days 28 Days (nsi\

352 8/27107 03A BeamSB·S 6,000 7,330 9,215

at Grid Line

GO-G3

353 8127107 G3A Ramp from 6.000 5.850 7,900

2nc1 lo 3111

floor at Grid

LineOo-G3

354- 8127/07 G3A Ramp from 6,000 7,320 8,460

2nc1 to 3111

flooratOC03

3SS 8127107 G3A AtOridLine 6,000 7,120 9,235

CS-4

356 8127107 G3A At OridLme 6.000 6,810 NotIdentified in the

F-3 report

357 8127/07 G3A At Grid Line 6.000 6,870 7.940

8-4

358 8127/07 G3A At Grid Line 6,000 7,000 9,445

B-3

463 Ilnl07 GSA - Not 6,000 5,460 NotIdentified in the

Identifiedm report thereoort

464 IIm07 GSA Not 6,000 5,590 NotIdentified inthe -. Identified in report the report

465 Ilm07 GSA Not 6.000 6,110 NotIdentified in the

Identifiedin report theJ"el)Ort

466 . Um07 GSA Not 6,000 6,580 NotIdentified in the

Identified in report the report

467 Um07 GSA Not 6,000 5,100 NotIdentified in the

Identifiedin report thcreport

468 Um07 GSA Not 6,000 5,110 NotIdentified in the

Identifiedin report the I'C'OOI1

•

•

•

R-8

BcrlammPlaza

• •

23

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 24 of 49

l\ O~t""\1 10 QrV\"7O\ /,VH.,
z.

t

.1I ... ---r1

I:

.1.

I

I

14"SLA:B

I

•

SB2

. ' .. __ fl

....-_._--~2_,... __ ...~.~~~: r 'J ••- .. ',. . ,,- '" . '--,...-- PAGE 24

r .c:~--l~!-" .a-,4r +,,,.,.,::l . (7) .~') @ (-)

OSHRC Docket "08·0866 25 of 48

.. .... _-l-•

.

I

.'-~~I

16" SLAB !

! I ---- -"=-;B;=--=;.-=i-Siw .=-' .... ---t-

. - - - --:or--=- - - .' ·1

I •

: i

! 20" SLAB II

; l I

: i .I

R-8

(8)--

t

•

•

•

ARSOL (8-60078) 0214
• ,•

..

aHi!A~ sc:.H!!CUU!

MA~ "DIM!!NSIONS ~INflQfltG.INS

SI+I D'

RJU.~,SEE

TRfa::: .~ ct6. 16' D.c.. VERT. E.F..#04016·0.c..

SHEET see.1 PORIZ Er•• 4-44 VERT. E.E.

~2 14" lltlCX CONGRETE WALl. It6• 16' D.c.. VERT. c.r..#04016'0"". l~te~HJ"' SEE HORIZ Er.• +.f.4 VERT. E.E.

11

1.2

T3

T4

15

T6

11

SGO~1

SHEET NO•

GM!.N*:i. STRUCTURAL NOTES

,',. 1,.= ...,

"

eeAM' SCHEDULE ,~\IIFORGIt$ , '

SB-I 21"D x 3a''H wi44 siRAHDs • 6-1& TOP • BOTTOM FlU. LEN6I'H HInt ft4 liES0121 O/G.

5&-2 zro x 4&~' wi3Cf S1tWC'S e,

6-#& TOP • BOTTOM FlU. 1.ENS1H H1TH tt4 TIES ol2·OIC.

SB-a 2111[) x Ia'W HI 24 STRANDS •

6-4t& TOP'" BOTTOM Rlll.fH5nt Hmt t4 TIES .121 OIG.

, 5S-4 :53" x 6O'HHI 62 •

6-1& TOP • BqTTOH Rll LeeTH HTH t4 TIES '12' O/G.

SB-5 :a" X60....wl1b S1RAND5 e . 6-4t& TOP O.BOTTOM Rll LfN6TH HITH tt4 TIE5 012' OIG.

S6-6 72"0 x 30' H HlTH36 5lRANDS • , '

6-t& TOP 0 BOTTOM Rll LEHa1H Hmt ....TIES 0121 OIG.

.. '

POST-TeNSION

,ReINFOrc-CIN~

,SCHeDULE

51 16 X 3/' 0 14' O.G.

52 It6 X 161 0 24' OJ;.

B3 16 X 1&' 0 12' OJ:..

54 It6X 32'. 10' OJ;.

•

",L.UMN~U! , flIt. = 5000 pal MARl< J:'1~1~N5 ~INflO1ItCIN6 ••

,CI, " W:x2fJ', " '

6-4tf~. HI TIES ,. 12'oc.

C2, '\4" lC 2&. &-tt& vau. HIt, ilES. 12· O£"

GS 24' X 28" HI'TH \()o4lq VERT. -.e nes. 12'oc.

(.4, ')5"x ....,. HrTH 12 let\IER.T; *Sns.12' DIG.

GS 2&1 X 21)" HTH I6Icf • te TICS .12' a/G.

•

R·8 OSHRC Docket #08-0866

FIGURE 2

PAGE 25

26 of 49

ARSOL (8-6007R' n?1!=\
•

•

GC e • CD

I I . ,

. . .... . . 16" SLAB ",', r·" .. . ,'. '. . . :. , 01 · ... , • .. , . .' , .~

~--DI;. . " :t V · . .,

II' -- C><C>< ,. lor.. (ftP~ •

t>< "Il!to

.. . 16" SLAB y .' , e . ..... 4 ... · ->:r . ,

1 ~~I'IIr_ ~. , .

l- . '. ', .. ,. ,

I- ':1- I- i ,I - -- I- '.

V

lor_ (ftP.) , j , •. •

u- C><t>< · · I

r-.

I, . r-, 1-. :.. i'-- .

. ' , ... ..... - . . 16" SLAB. ., . ,..... · .V 1 .• : .. . ,", ". .. -i • '" .. "

" • 1- ," ... .... · 'c ': I '/ "

•• 1- I ,,I - . . l ,

~~ II' C><t>< r-. , 1"IlP

. ' , . , ,

" .1- 16" SLAB • . ... 'r .. :.. '. ' .. ...... '. . ,./

T • 1 J~ - • I- F'<--~ ."~ . '. " ..".~ ':-'4.' L .

" "

. ~.' I • - V r- -- J lor_ (III'~

C><t>< · '<, * ......... I ...

V 16" SLAB /. •. Ii, . .; , " .- . .,

.' . . t ........... .. .' ...... ', .

,.i.4_ : . 4-

~::"'"'l& - V j l- .

t><t><: i'-- "

5" h::tT.J r- .\0 SLAH, . .f- , . tO PARTIAl RE-SHORING SECTION (TYP.)

SCIIe: 3l1S"-1"l1'

"

FIGURE 3

•

R-8 27 of 49

PAGE 26

OSHRC Docket #08-0866

....- ..-- ...~--.-..

--... 88071(038

ARSOL (8·60078\ 0'1n
•

•

.

:,'

',';.' . :....

. ", .~ "

.... . ; ..

."~~ ...

BerkmanPlaza

R·8

27

OSHRC Docket #08-0888 28 of 49
• •

'. -,

"' .... .. .. '

. :

"". :.~ .'

: .' ..... -, " ..

-:

'. ,,':-~ .

FIGURE 6

J3crkmlUl Pls..,a

R-8

28

OSNRC Docket #08-0866 290'49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0218
AerkmanPiau

R-8

FIGURE 8:

29

OSHRC Docket #08-0866

•

",,",

.. -, ).'

30 of 49

ARSOl (8-60078) 0219
, ..'

.~:

-.:

). :

;.:-::,,'

• •

. .. .

"",li1~~~:t\fifi,~I,,}.t1~lt?~,~~~'i~~~~i~g!~~~;i\w~i:~\~," .....

: .'. .

-x.

..:.

;"

"

' ",;.

FIGURE 10

Mcrkmnn Plaza

R-8

30

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 310.49

ARSOL (8-60078) 0220
Berkman Plaza

R-a

e.

FIGURE.12:

31

OSHRC Docket #08-0866

e

':..'.

32 of 49
:\i.~. .;~ .

.....

.;.:" .:

. '.~:'

• •

,';'"

~> .:." ,",.

Berkmall Plaza

R·8

32

OSHRC Docket 1IOa-0868 33 of 49

ARRnl (R-Rn07R\ n???
":,'.

"

Berkman PllIZlI

R-8

•

FIG-URE-l6

.33

OSHRC Docket #08-0866

~.~. .:.

.::':::,-;....: .:::.

. :'.

34 of 49

.

.'.

" ., .' ~"
~'"

.' /

.. ;-.' ....

Berkman Plaza

R·8

• •

OSHRC DoJ~.t #08-088. 35 of 49
•

e· ATTACHMENT A

(SHEET 1 of 3)

•

•

FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (2004)

PAGE 35

R-8 OSHRC Docket #08-0866 36 of 49
•

•

•

Ku.. =Uve load element factor (see Table 1607 9 1 ) ATTACHMENT A

.. ._ (SHEET2 of3)

AT =Tributary ea. in square feet (square meters). L shall not be less than 0.50 L •for

members supporting one floor and L shall not be less than 0.40 L for members supporting a

two or more floors.

LIVE LOAD

TABLE 1607.9.1

LIVE LOAD ELEMENT FACTOR, K LL

ELEMeNT KLL

Interior columna 4

Exterior columns without cantilever slabs 4

EdaecolumnswIth cantflever slabs 3

Comercolumns with cantileverslabs 2

Edgebearna w/ft\outcantDever slabs 2

Interiorbeams 2

Allothermembers not identified aboveincluding: 1

Edge beamsWith cantileverslabs

cantilever beams

Two-way slabs

Members without provisions for continuous

sheartnmsfer normal to theirsoan

live

1607.9.1.1 Heavy live loads•

. Live loads that exceed 100 psf (4.79 kN/m 2) shall not be reduced except the

live loads for members supporting two or more floors are permitted to be reduced by a

maximum of 20 percent, but the live load shall not be less than L as calculated in

Section 1601.9,1 •

1607.9.1.3 Spec'a' occupancies.

Live loads of 100 psf (4.79 kN/m z) or less shall not be reduced In public assembly

occupancies.

1607.9.1.4 SpecIal structural elements.

Llve loads shall not be reduced for one-way slabs except as permitted in Section

1607,9,1,1 . Live loads of 100 psf (4.79 kN/m 2) or less shall not be reduced fer roof

members except as specified in Section 1607•.~.

live load

1607.9.2 Alternate floor live load reduction.

As an alternative to Section 1607.9.1·, floor live loads are permitted to be reduced in.

accordance with the fellowlng provisions, Such reductions shalf apply to slab systems, beams,

girders. columns, piers, walls and foundations.

1. A reduction shall not be permitted in Group A occupancies,

2. A reduction shaU not be permitted when .the live (oad exeeeos 100 pst (4..79 kN/m l ) except that the design live load fer columns may be reduced by 20 percenl

http://ecodes.iccsafe,orgficcelgateway.dlllFIorida%20CustomIBuild2004_FU320/327?f=tem... 1213112007

R-8 OSHRC 1';~f'lt3108-o8.. 37 of 49
.'

•

3. For live. not exceeding 100 psf (4.79 kN/m Ae design live load for any

strudural me r supporting 150 square feet {13.94 m-Prormore is pennitted to be

reduced in accordance with the following equation: TT

A ACHMENT.4

R =r(A - 150) (Equation 18-22) (SHEET 3 of 3}

For SI: R =r( A -13.94)

Such reduction shall not exceed 40 percent for horizontal members, 60 percent for

vertical members. nor R as determined by the following equation:

R= 23.1 (1 + OIL D) (Equation 16-23)

where:

A = Area of floor or roof supported by the member, square feet (m z ).

D =Dead load per square foot (m z) of area supported.

L. =Unreduced live load per square foot (m 2) of area supported.

R ='Reductio~ in percent.

r = Rate of reduction equal to 0.08 percent for floors.

1607.10 Distribution of floor loads.

Where uniform floor five loads are Involved in the design of structural members arranged so as to

create continuity, the minimum applied loads shall be the fuJI dead·loads en all spans in

combination with the floor live loads on spans selected to produce the greatest effectat each

location under consideration. It shall be permitted to reduce floor liv. loads in accordance with

Section 1607.9 .

1607.11 Roofloada.

The structural supports of roofs and marquees shall be designed to resist wind and, where

applicable. snow and earthquake loads. in addition to the dead load of construction and the -- appropriate live loads as prescribed in this section, or as set forth in Table 1607.1 . The live loads

acting on a sloping surlace shalf be assumed to act vertically on the horizontal projection of that

surface.

1607.11.1 Distribution of roof loads.

Where uniform roof live loads are involved In the design of structural members arranged so as

to create continuity, the minimum applied foads shall be the full dead loads on all spans in

combination with the rooflive loads on adjacent spans or on alternate spans, whichever

produces the greatest effect.. See Section 1607.11.2 for minimum roof live loads.

live

1607.11.2 Minimum roof five loads.

Minimum roof loads shall be determined for the specific conditions in accordance with Sections

1607.11.2.1 through 1607.11.2.4.

•

1807.11.2.1 Flat, pitched and curved roqfs.

Ordinary flat. pitched and curved roofs shall be designed for the live loads specified in

the following equation or other controlling combinations of loads in Section ~.

whichev+er produces the greater load. In structures where special scaffolding is used

as a work surfac.efor wol"kers and materials during maintenance and repair Clperations, a

lower roof load than specified in the follewing equation- shall not be used unless

approved by the building official. Greenhouses and screen enclosures shatl be designed

http://ecodesiccsafe.orglicce!gateway.dIlIFlorida%2OCustomIBuild2004_FL/320/327?f=tem... 12/3112007

R.8 aSHRC ....1110..0866 38 of 49

,"
Aci 318-02

AC1318R-02

I

A TTAcH MENTB-' -

(SHEET 1 of3)

. '.. c ..

}',::- .~\

•

,',

"

.:;. ......

• I I

"

'.. '..

.'..'

j"i .: ,

:"

'.

....

r ,"

~. :'.•t::;

'-:' .' .""

"

, t'

. .'... . • ': .....;. l~"~; ,

• 0

•• '0

., r »

.'

•

..

lPAGE 38 I '~:. . .. ... 2 • ~. • ..',

oS"Rt.;D~,C"ket-#08.U:',' :':' f '

a."'-l.... .". . ".
CHAPTER 9

ACI 318 BUilding Code and Commentary

OSHRC Docket #08-0866

•

•

•

31B131 BR-ge

co.

L • live loads, or related internal moments and

forces

• roof live load, or related internal moments and

forces

maximummomentin memberat stage deflection Is computed, In.-lb

M111 • cracking moment, In.-lb. See 9.5.2.3 "b • nominalaxial load strength at balanced strain

conditions, lb. See 10.3.2 "n • nominal axlalload strength at given eccentriclty,lb

R • rain load. or related internal moments and

forces

S • snow load, or related internal moments and.

forces

T • cumulative effect of temperature, creep,

shrinkage, differential settlement, and shrinkage-compensating concrete

U • required strength to resist factored loads or

related intemal moments and forces

W • wind load, or related internal moments and

forces

Wo • weightof concrete, 1b/tt3

y,. • distancefrom centroidal axis of gross section.

neglecting reinforcement, to extreme fiber in

tension, In.

a • ratio of flexural stiffness of beam section to

flexural stiffness of a width of slab bounded

laterally by centerllnes of adjacent panels (if

any) on each sideof beam. See Chapter13

a", • average valueof a.for all beams onedges of a

panel

fJ • ratioofclearspansIn long to short directionof

two-way stabs

e, • net tensile strain in extreme tension steel at

nominalstrength

.\ ... mUltiplier for additionaf long-termdeflection as

definedin 9.5.2.5

, • time-dependent factorfor sustainedload. See

9.5.2.5

p :& ratio of nonprestressed tension reinforcement,

A.lbd

p' - reinforcement ratio tor nonprestressed compression reinforcement, A:'bd

Pb - reinforcement ratioproducing balanced strain I conditions. See 10.3.2

, - strength reduction factor. See 9.3

9.1 - General

9.1.1 - Structures and structural members shall be

designed to have design strengths at all sections at

least equal to the required strengthscalculated for the

factored loads and forcesin such combinations as are

stipulatedin this code.

R-8

FMM:ENTARY

ATTACHMENT B

(SHEET 2 ofJ)

The definition of net tensile strain in 2.1 excludes straillS

due to effective prestreSS., creep.shrinlcage, andtemperature:

R9.1-General

In the2002code. the load factor combina.tions and strenglh

reduction factors of the 1999code were revised and moved

to Appendix C. The 1999 combination& have been replaced

with thoseof ASCE7·98.9.lThe strength reduction factors

were replaced with those of the 1999 Appendix C, except

that the factor for nCXlITCwas increased.

PAGE 39

40 0'49

, .

(

/
AlTACHMENT B

(SHEET 3 of3)

•

CODe

9.1.2 - Members also shall meet all other require--

mentsof this code to ensureadequate performance at

service load levels.

9.1.3- Design of structures and structural members

using the load factDr combinations and strength reduction factors of Appendix C shall be permitted. Use of

load factor combinations from this.chapter in conjunc·

tion with strength reduction factors of Appendix C shall

notbe permitted.

318J318R-97

eMMENTARY

The changes weremade to further unify the design profession on one set of load factors and combinations, and to

facilitate the proponioning of concrete building &U'UetllJ'eS

that include memben of materials other than concrete.

When used with the strength reduction factors in 9.3, the

designs for gravity loads will be comparable to those

obtainedusingthe strength reduction and load faeton ofthe

1999and earliercodes. For combinations withlateral loads.

some designswill bediffcr=nt, but the resultS of eithersetof

load factorsareconsidered acceptable.

Chapter9 defines the basicstrength and serviceability conditions for proportioning structuralconcretemembers.

The basicrequimnentforstrengthdesignmay be =tplCUed

as follows:

Design Strength RequiredStrength

f (Nominal Strength) U

In the strengthdesign procedure. themarginofsafety isprovided by multiplying the service load by a load factor and

the nominal strength bya strengthreductionfactor. .

ACI 318 Building CDde and Commentary

OSHRC Docket #08-0188

+ D.5(L,or 8 or R)

U =1.2D + 1.6W +1.0L + a.SeLr or S or R) (9-4)

9.2- Required strength

41 of 49

PAGE 40

Due regard isto be giVCl'l to sign in determining U foreembinations of loadings, as one type of loading may produce

effects of opposite sense to that produced by another type.

The load combinations with O.9D are specifically included

for the casewhere a higherdead load reduces the effects of

otherloads. Theloading casemay also be critical for tensioncontrolled column sections. In such a case, a reduction in

axial loadand an increase in momentmay resull in a critical

load combination.

The required strength U is expressed in terms of factored

loads, or related internal moments and fon:es. Factored

toads are the loads specified in the general building code

multiplied by appropriate load factors.

The factorassigned 10 eacb load is influenced by thedegree

of accuracy to which the load effect usually can be calculated and the variation that might be expected in the: load

during the lifetime of the strucwre. Dead loads, because

they are more accurately determined and less variable. are

assiJIled a lowerload factor than live loads. Load factors

also account for variability in the structural analysisused to

computemoments andshears.

The code gives load factors for specific combinations of

loads.In assigning faeton to combinations of loading, some

consideration is given to the probability of simultaneous

OCCU1TCJlce. While most of the usual combinations ofloadings are included, the designer should not assume that all

cases arecovered.

R9.2 - Required strength

U=O.9D+ 1.oE+ 1.6H (9-7)

R-I

U:1.4(D+F) (9-1)

U: 1.2(0+ F+ n + 1.6(L + If) (9-2)

U= 1.2D+ 1.0E+ 1.0L + 0.28 (9-6)

U= 0.9D+ 1.6W+ 1.6H (9-S)

U =1.20+ 1.6(L,or 8 or R) + (1.0L or O.8W) (9-3)

except as follows:

(a) The load factor on L in Eq. (9-3) to (9-5) shall be

permitted to be reduced to 0.5 except for garages.

areas occupied as placesof publicassembly, andall

areas where thelive loadL Is greaterthan 100Iblft2.

9.2.1 - Required strength Ushall be at least equal to

the effects of factored loads In Eq. (9-1) through (9-7).

The effect of one or more loads not acting simultaneously shallbeinvestigated. •

•
•

•

•

• ATTACHM.C

(SHEET 1

ACt 347.2R-05

Guide for ShoringlReshoring of

Concrete MUltistory Buildings

Reported by ACI Committee 347

American Concrete lnstltute"

PAGE 41

R-8 OSHRC Docket #08-0866 420'49
347.2IH1

•

•

•

• •

•

•

• .,T..;

I •

'L~ ••

"0.

t 12.5Ibltt2(5.39kPa). 1It:=::::IC:===E=;==-=====-====W

50 IW(2.4 kPa).

6.5Ib/fr2 (0.31 kPa).

eHORINGJRESHORING OFCONCRETE MULT/ST.UILDINGS

ATTACHMENT C

I) Throelevelsof reshores. (SHEET 2 of 2) , • It~ • ,.-..,.

2) Two levelsof reshores. lS • '7.:111 • :lU III)

Shoreln:shore material: Douglas fir larch. construction

grade.

Shorelreshore size: 4 x 4 in.,S4S,(l00 x 100nun)poSts.

Modulusof elasticityof wood (basevalue):

Ewe 1500 ksi(10.34 11103 MPa).

Compressive Strength of wood parallel to grain (base

value):

Fe =1650psi (11.37MPa).

e. Construction loads

Slab self wei&ht:

Liveloadduringplacement:

Formandshore load:

•

of

•

43 of 48

(b)SectiDn

T

aI •

a

I

•

&

•

t:=.... '" .. ... ..... ....

•

•

Fig. 5.J-Two-way constructiDn examplt building.

f. ConstrUction weather r:onditioDl

Hot w~ assume average daily concrete curina

temperature of 80 "F (26.7DC).

Mild weather: assume average daily concrete curinS

temperature of 60 of (15.5DC).

Cold weather: assume average daily concrete cUrinS

temperature of 40 of(4.4 DC). i

g. Construction rate scenaricis

Onefloorpet week.

One floorevery 10days.

Onefloorpertwoweeks.

Resnores are relocated one day before placing a new

floorslab.

Though the one floor per week rate does not provide

enough time to recover the fonning material from the

. floor below to install it above the floor, it can be

assumed that a secondsetofformsis availableatthestte

to achlevethisrate of conslrUCtion. An alternatewJl) be

to adjust the concrete mixture proponion, concrete floors above thefifth leveleverytime the shoring system is

curing temperature, or both. to achieve faster concrete instalJedat the activelevel and the new slab is placed.Thc

strength ~velopmcnt. and therefore, quickerstrippina maximum slab construction load is 1.38D, or 155 Ibltt2

time. (i.42 kPa), forthe three resbore system, and l.SD, or 169lb1f~

5.1.1 COlUtruct;on load dilrribution-TheconstructioD (8.09 kPa),for thetwo reshore system.

load disuibution between the concreteslabs andthe shoring{ The maximum shoring and resboring construction load

reshoring system is evaluated by using the simplified occurs during theplacement of the top floor level.This load

method. Though this example utilizes a wood shoring! includc£ the stab se1fweigbl of 112..5 Iblft2 (5.39 kPa), the

reshoring syStem, it is assumed that the compressibility of formweightof6.5l~ (0.31 kPa),andthe construction live

the sboringlreshoring system does not significantly impact loadofSO 1b1ft2 (2.4kPa) during the concrete plaecmcnL The

construction load redistribution. The results of the shoring maximum shorelresbore construction loadis lSD, or1691tutt2

syStem usinS one shore level in combination with three (8.09lcPa), for boththethree· and two-reshore system.

reshorclevelsare showninTable5.1. Asimilarconstruction Both the uppershoring level and all the reshore levcls

load distribution table can be developed for twO rcsborc ClU1')' the $arM maximum r:onstruction load as long as the

Icvels. Note that Table 3.1 can also serve as a basisfor the shoring/reshoring systemis supported on the ground. After

construction load distr,ib~tion for thisexample, because the the removalof the lowest level of reshores£rom theground,

sum of the assumed live load and form weightisthesame. the maximum applied construction load on the reshores

Table S.I showsthat the mllJtimum slab load first occurs becomeslessat thelowerreshored levelsand increases at the

on thefounh floorslabduringtheplacementof thefifthfloor upper reshored and shored levels. Therefore, the lower

slab (seeStepNo.9). The fifth flooris the first floorlevelto reshored levels will require fewer reshore POSlS than the

be placedaftu theresheres have been'removedfromthe fIrSt upper floors.

floor. thusremoving the directpath of the construction load A~ording to the simplified method, the construction

to theground. The maximumslabloadis repeated for all the loadsarc distributed between the sapponing slabs inproporPAGE 42

R-8 OSHRC Docket #08-0868

•

••
.I Page 1002

•

•

TIm Frazier

From: SoheU Rouhi{srcUhl@scg-atl.oomJ

Sent: TUesday, October 3D, 200711:43 AM

To: lim Frazier

SUbject RE: Berlcman Plaza If:RFA007Parleing Garage Shoring

•

ATTACHMENT D

(SHEET 1 of 2)

..--------.__..

Correct

Thanks

. ..•.-._-.._-- ·~~~~f~_.... _ __ _._.~__.......__...... _.._._ ..

From: Tun Frazier [maJlto:tfrazler@synergyst:ructural.c:>rnJ Sent: Tuesday, October 3D, 2007 9:46 AM

Ta: Sohel'Rouhl

Cc: beardgary@lbelJSOuth.net; MIke Mortis

Subject: RE: Berkman Plaza n: RFA 007 P1Srklng Garage ShOring

Bohell.

Theyarebeginning to remove shoring at thegarage. Peryour email below I justwanted toclarify thattheareas

entlre you 818garage T1Iquesting correct?to stayshored all theway tothe ground are onlythebaysWhere the repair is required. notthe

Thanks

.....................--------_.. ..." _------- __..--- .....•..•..-.. , -----.. From: SoheilReubl [mailfo:srouhiOscg-atl..comJ

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 6:01 PM

To: Kirk Gfrbert; M1ko,~ David English

CC rshah@Puaiano-engUsh.c:om; TImfrazier; Paul Dionne; Robert stewart; beardga/YObeUsouth.net Subject: RE: Berkman Plaza U: RFA 007Partcfng Garage Shoring

Timothy G.fnszier11. P.E.

Executive VicePresident

Synqy 8tructwal EDg:io~B 904-396-9JOO (Offico)

904-955-4764 (Mobile) •

As long as the shores stayin place I Will not haveany problemcontinuing theproject

Thanks

Sohel Rouhi P E

--_._-......_-._----..._-----_._- _._,...._.._---_._---_....__..._-----_.....- From: lOti< Gilbert [mallto:KGllbert@chom=co.comJ . Sent: Fridav, August 31, 2007 2:15PM

To: MikeMorris; 'David EnglisJr; Sohell Rouhl

Cc; rshah@lpuc:clano-engfJsh.mm; tfrazJer@synergystructural.com; Paul Dionne; Robertstewart; beBrdgary@bellsouth.net

Subject: Berfcman PIismII: RFA 007 Patfdng Garage Shoring Importance: High

Please see attaehed RFA 007 concerning the Parlclng Garaae. Two solutions havebeenprocuredby Mike and

wewill fonnally submIt them next weetc:. We would nice toproceed With theGarage construction soastoallow

•

114/2008

R·8

PAGE 43

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 440'49
adequate review oftheproposed solutions without delay to progreaa Thank youforanyurgency inreviewing and ' responding to this request.

Kirk Gilbert

Project Manager

Choate Constl'lJction Co~ny

101 West Mulbeny Boulevard, Suite 200

Poolef, GA 31322

office. (912) 790-0011

fax. (912) 790-0010

.....;\.

.'

•

•

•

11412008

R-8

• ATTACH1&NT D

(SHEET. 2)

PAGE 44

OSHRC Docket #08-0866

Page 2 of2

45 of 49
4

IReport Number: 229

I

IPaieNumber: I of I

D8te: November 14.2007

FIELD REPORT

THRESHOLD BUILDING INSPECTION

Synergy

Structural

Engilleering

•

1\

_._._.. _.__. .__..__,, .,__ .,• _."..~V~~~~E i

I

I

r=~; J=:T~'~l~ l_~____n_IJ_Co.,_lIIQ._~---_I--.......--.-l--_l

Weather: !76°F. Sunny Timr:~ 11:00 AM

Others Prescnt:J EricCannon (SSE) .----i---------:.-----L..--------I

•

OBSERVATIONS:

Purpose ofthe Trip: To observethe following:

I. Generalfit-up and reinforcin& ofthe following wall~ on the Sill floorofthe garage:SW·2 at

GA-G4 and StairWell #1 wallsat GA-GZ '

•

2.

3.

The following cracksthat haveoccurred in the Garage:

• The crack in the )nI floor slab at the slab/stairwell 1 wallinterfaceat 02-08,

• The crack in the 411I floor slab at the slab/stairwell I wallinterfaceat G2-08.

• Thetrackat the bottom of the 3'" noor slab thatextendsfrom the southeast

comer ofstairwell#1 east along OB.

• The crack on the )" floor slab that beginsat the intersection of the S8·

S/column interface at OC.Q3 and extends northalongthe bottomof the slab.

General layoutand heightsforthe banded and unUbrm rendons on the 171hfloorofthe tower

betweengrid lines 1 " 17.1 (Pour 17A).

Observations:

I.

The following wasobserved:

Sec the attachedpunchlist forspecific itemsobserved and noted.

. ,

46 0149

Timolby O.Ftazic:r. PE

PE#: 59321 SI#: 7017305 . fllllOlhy 0. fruier. P.E

------i----------

OSHRC Docket #08-0866

PAGE 45

1301 Riwrpllce Blvd. Jleksonvlllc. Florilll32207. Phone (9041 3969100 • Fax(904)3969102

IIarbare-aca. Co. 1M. 11l8olH......

MubcIrc-m, eo.. lac. IAlI.. Tmll

_________lC11ollle C_1NCtioa lKbl< OI1ben

.. .~c., orl.a.-ville. j~~." _. ..._.

I.... ,.....-.1lCl:--------r-----,-------,------i

gr;~~---+-------+------_ ~l~ •..- , ./ IC_ --,---1r-------+---------i

./ 1B:i'dl"B ClIIIcIlI; ···_·1- -_._-- .. _. ,Landsclpc: AtcbitllClS: ;... ;.. .. - ......

./ l~~SUUCl8rlll bn~~~ File: _ . •

Field R.epl'C)Cntalj~l:;

• A "",,...,,_t ,- -----. ----
FIELD R.EPORT

THRESHOLDBUILDING INSPECfION

Synergy

Slruelural

Engineering

• ATIACHMENT E

____.. .... ._ . ._.__...J.S~~.!1.0F:.~L_ .... ..,

r;

•

LoCllion:

Project:

Project

ltern#3

From

Page I

..._.....,----,-------- I Berkman Plaza Tower II ...-_•._- Report: J 229

- 106·Harbor-D1 1~~-;;~tiV;Y;mo,hy o. FnlZier. PoE. i P-ag-c-:----1--2-""'-;(\4,

I-- . -,-__._~-IN-PLACECONCRETE: _. - -~.l

I

Item:

J:ormiq:

ShoriaBIRe-sharina:

R.1lJraemen1 Size:

Rciftfurcanenl Spac:in,:

Rllinfon:cmcnt Condition:

I. N/A

N/A

No I Yes No I Yes Yes I No

N/A

I

.•. -. N/A .. .. --- ",

", -

I

./

•

RcinCorccmeat Clarance:

Rllnf'orcaneol LapSpllces:

RciIIrO/CCllllmt Dowell:

Other:

Embeds:

Pe"cUltions:

Screedr:

SeqUetlCC:

s- COlIC"" & CirOllt Dtl;w,.;".

NJA

./

NlA

I NlA

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NlA

N/A

NfA

I 3.

",

",

NlA

N/A 1 -

J

N/A

N/A

./ I .J

N/~ I

Not/!$ R~errlng tD DqicJtncies byNumber:

r

NJA - Not Applicable

I. This wall was co!flpleted except forthe IlXleIIsion that extendssouthalongQ4 10carrythe precast panel.see RFI 135.

.. This sectlo~ ofwall willbeobserved during thenext site observation.

2. Seepages 3 & 4 forspeCific notes 011 Ihcse cracks.

J. MwtipJetendonsdid not have the required clearances per the approved PT shop drawings. These tendons

heights will be observeddwing the nextsite observation.

:PAGE 46

• R-8

130t RiverplaceBlvd. Ja.cksonville. Florida 32207. Phone (904) 396 9100 • Fax(904) 396 9102

OSHRC Docket #08-0866 470149
• ATTACHMENT E

• (SHEET 3 OF 4) .....·... 8_.~..__,__ -000:-' ....-':""~''''':-.~..-;--:-----,. .. ' . • .......__...

.:

FJELD REPORT

THRESHOLD ,'. .BUILDING I: ",iNSP.ECTI,ON

Figure 4- Thecrack ~l the bonem ofthe 3rd floor slab lh~r extends from thesoutheast'Corner ofsrairwell 11 I east along OB

.;

.1

-:.. .......

., .v .:':

1\

! i

Project:

Synerg)'

Structural

Engineering I .. . .... ..•..:__••• _ ••_ .••••• , __.__._._..-------_•. _ ......1

; Berkman Plaza Tower Jl : Report:. 229 ...··r----;-·--..":"..i ..----··-· '- ----,"'--- ...., .......' "~i-'---'''- "-"',T'" ". '-"'r'--

._-.L.~~~!.O!...~L:'ieldRepresentative:: ; TlmolhyG. Frazier; P:E.. i P~!:~_.,:,...". ...1._.!_.-i.._of 4

.__......:...,.;-'--p_iu.....o""!"·!~...~.'.-._ ... _.. ...... ;. ~, ~-_.~....... -_.~--'-'......_------..;.- .-- .. .-..:....-_~

Project: ,.._._---

:I ~l~~r~·.J ~¢r~ck\ri' the ~t" tl'oor'si~b' ~t~l'~ s~bist~r;c;u :1'WiJI:.

:;.'. intetface.at 02-'OB. ThisCtBck;was'meaSured to·'be.Q:H2~·.·

t-

.,

., .- " ' .

..

..' ' "

,;",:.,

-.. . .~

~. .

~< .., ,.,' ',::.

Xl'

....,.

PAGE 41

ARSOL (8-600781 0237

R-8

130 I Rh·erplace.8Iyd • jack$ortyill~. FloridaJ2207. Phone (1104) 3116 9Loo • Fax(9041 391) 9102

OSHRC Docket ~8-o866 48 of 49
• • ATTACHMENT E

(SHEET 4 OF 4)

"*, '.

Synerg)'

Struetural

Engineering

·FIELD REPORT

TIlRESHOLD BUILDING INSPECTION

:;. ' ..::'

... ~.

: ....

'\'

.. 'f'

... ':~

4 ----f

_c--.4'

Z29

;.-..._...........- ......-' -----._~....._. -..._-~_ .._... ......._.._"",-._-_.. _....-.._....-...-.---------1

Project:

, Project: : 06-Har.bcir-0'I :-.....-_...__..----:..-..

" . .' ~.

Berkman PlazaTower U Report: ..._ .........- ..- - ..._. . .,.~. -_.__...-_.. .._... i .... ... . t. . . . .

Field'·R.epreseruallve: .:Tlmolhy.G.Frazier. P.,E. Page: 4. i of . ._•...; ----:.:-.......__..;, ._.... _. ._......J.....

PHO:roS:.·: . 1_' ._•• _

- --..;.'-_&.....~.:.~-...:...~------- ...~~._...;....- .

.r l

L· !

'.

.:::..;~.. .. ~:.>~.: :. :f':,.:; ···l:.:: 'l~'· • . '::. .Y:4::':: ~i:·· .' ~~:.:.": ...-. '::::}\:":;' .

f;j·<j~'~f

' .. :... ".\:~' ' •. : -v , ~;,.;

.. ..:' .... ~: .

.: ....:. ·.:..·.~t~r·. :~.. .:'.. n·.:\/~.\ ,~::·~· .....;.

'. x·:t r: .~:.:: .:.\'.?:::." ,.....;.: ..~.~\ ;-.:.·:~ih·~: . 'j',:...

.~ .

'.':':'" .

'.' .

l.·

...:

::.:

:.~:....

•• =

.r··

t:

"

I '.. :". : .

".;'

..' . ..::.....:

"~,i . ' .., '.

.:.

i

ARSOL (8-60078) 0238

R-8

PAGE 48

nUl Riverplace BIV'd • Jacksonl'iIIe, floridll3:l107. Phone (9U4j39b 9HlO • Fax 1904', :191\ <.1102

OSHRC Docket #08-0886 48 of 48
Mr. Steffenson?

MR. STEFFENSON:

•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

-------------~,

1474

MOHAMED AYUB,

having been first duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows:

JUDGE WELSCH: Sir, for the record, would you

state your full name, spell yo~r last name and state

your address, please?

THE WITNESS:

Thank you, Your Honor .

---000---

REBUTTAL DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. STEFFENSON:

Q. Mr. Ayub, who are your currently employed by?

A. The US Department of Labor, OSHA.

Q. And, what is your current position?

A. Director, the Office of Engineering.

Q. And, how long have you held that position?

A. Fifteen years.

Q. For how many years have you worked for OSHA?

A. Nineteen.

Q. What did you do for the other four years?

CARLIN ASSOCIATES (216) 226-8157