<%BANNER%>

Effectivness of the concrete reinforcing placement inspection process

University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONCRETE REINFORCING PLACEMENT INSPECTION PROCESS BY MARK POWERS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2002

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................v ........................vi .........................1 ........................1 Statement of Problem......................................................................................................2 .........................5 ........................5 .........................6 ........................6 .........................9 ......................13 3 ........................14 ......................14 .......................14 ......................14 ......................15 Job Site Supervisors..............................................................................................15 ......................16 ......................16 Estimation of Sample Size............................................................................................16 Limitations....................................................................................................................17 Survey Methodology.....................................................................................................17 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS...........................................................................................20 Survey Results..............................................................................................................20 Discussion of Results....................................................................................................24 ABSTRACT............................................................................................... CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. Background............................................................................................. Research Objectives............................................................................... Hypothesis Statements............................................................................ 2 LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................... Determining Causes of Rebar Corrosion................................................ Building Inspector Duties and Educational Requirements.................... Summary................................................................................................. METHODOLOGY................................................................................ Goals of the Study................................................................................... Research Methodology.......................................................................... Design of Questionnaire......................................................................... Selection of a Sample Group.................................................................. Building Inspectors......................................................................... Description of Sample Area Chosen....................................................... ii

PAGE 3

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................28 Conclusions...................................................................................................................28 Reco mmendations to Future Studies............................................................................31 A PROTOCOL AND ADMINISTERED SURVEY........................................................32 B DEMOGRAPHICS.......................................................................................................36 .......................38 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................39 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................41 APPENDIX C APPROVED CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSE LIST.............. iii

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES a Tble page 2-1 Distribution of Failure Cases in Respect to Sources of Error by Participation.......9 4-1 Hetrogeneity Chi-Squared Test for Repsonse Data...............................................21 -........................22 4-3 Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #2 Response Data.............................................22 4-4 Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #3 Response Data.............................................23 42 Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #1 Response Data..................... iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF FIGURES i Fgure page 3-1 Research Methodology Flow Chart.......................................................................15 4-1 A Distribution of Responses by Industry Experience............................................20 -.......................24 4-3 Response Distribution for Hypothesis #2..............................................................25 4-4 Response Distribution for Hypothesis #3 by Question..........................................26 42 Response Distribution for Hypothesis #1....................................... v

PAGE 6

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate Sch ool of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the ing Construction EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONCRETE REINFORCING PLACEMENT INSPECTION PROCESS By Mark Powers December 2002 Chair: Dr. Raymond Issa Communities could benefit from a well-trained, consistent and thorough concrete reinforcing inspection team as it could increase the safety and useful life of structures in concrete is he reinforcement d the responses of field supervisors, who were directly involved in the concrete reinforcement inspection process regarding building inspectors performance, with the following criteria: 1) Were referenced in the pection performance ilding inspectors performance was reviewed because they have the authority to both reject design errors and deny the approval of misplaced rebar. The sample of respondents was drawn from Gainesville, Florida, commercial construction project sites. The chi-squared and chi-squared heterogeneity statistical tools were used to test the hypotheses. The alpha levels Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Build Major Department: School of Building Construction with these components. The final placement of reinforcing members crucial because incorrect placement can cause accelerated corrosion in tas well as deficiencies in the load bearing capacity. This study examinethe contract plan requirements referenced? 2) Were the building codescontract plans in order to establish code compliance? 3) Was the insthorough and were results consistent with other building inspectors? Bu vi

PAGE 7

for all tests were 0.005. The results indicate that in the perception of the respondents, oncrete reinforcing clude the re-certification to coursework involving concrete reinforcing placement methods and designs, developing and implementing a specific inspection checklist, increasing the time devoted for each and enacting field experience requirements similar to current on-the-job training minimums that journeyman apprenticeship programs currently follow. building inspectors could improve their performance regarding cinspections. Some suggestions for improvement were discussed and infollowing: devoting some of the continuing education hours required for inspection vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 ntial factor in premature reinforcement corrosion which, in turn, is the principle form of deterioration in concrete structures (Dakin et al. 2001, p. 20). The need for quality supervision and field inspection is more evid material than for many others (Feld and Carper INTRODUCTION Failure to achieve the specific cover is probably the most influe ent with this 1997, p. 238). Background thapplications. Concretes initial plasticity, low tensile strengthtemperatures combined with steels high tensile strength and low resistamakes reinforced concrete a safe and versatile building tool used incame as early as the beginning of the 20 century when salt water wasconcrete for reinforced concrete. The salt accelerated the rebar corroreduced the useful life of the structures. The common defects that te Reinforced concrete, since its introduction in the mid 19 century, has been widely used throughout the industry in a broad range of structural and architectural and resistance to high nce to high heat many construction applications. The drawbacks associated with this combination are concretes permeability to corrosive agents and steels vulnerability to those agents. These findings th used to mix sion, which rapidly nd to shorten the life of a reinforced concrete building all stem from a simple cause. The enemy of durability is nearly always water, the vulnerable element is the steel reinforcement, and trouble is certain if the concrete fails to keep them apart (Building Research Station 1956). Design details must provide such protection and construction must not reduce 1

PAGE 9

2 the thickness of cover nor the imperviousness of the concrete (Feld and Carper, 1997 p. top or slow this icting service life of established to set minimum depths and coverage for reinforcement steel, dependent upon the type of component exposure and local environmental conditions. These minimums were created iving uniformity to service lifg rebar corrosion of rebar. With the continued use of reinforced concrete as a major building component, any improvement in a variable that directly affects the safe, useable life of these structures of how corrosion in Chapter 2. Upon causes of rebar ties involved in either the design or physical placement of rebar are the project architect, structural designer, residential engineer, inspector, contractor (head office), contractor (site staff), contractor (workman), ). he Problem 282). As evident in these two quotes, rebar corrosion and the quest to scorrosion are currently of great concern in design planning and predreinforced concrete. With these criteria, building codes have been to provide the rebar with adequate protective coverage, while g e prediction. With an established code, the greatest variations affectinare a design that does not follow code and the physical misplacement will be beneficial. The reasons why and finding the determining causesoccurs were the main focus of the literature review and are presented completing the literature review, one of the major potentially correctablecorrosion was found to be to human error. The key par and operator (crane, vehicle, ship, etc.) (Eldukair and Ayyub 1991Statement of t The preliminary question of Which party has the greatest objectivity and authority to curb poor design and improper rebar placement? will first be determined. Then an attempt to answer the question What is the current rating of that partys performance? will remain as the main focus of this study.

PAGE 10

3 In answer to the first question, the party with greatest objectivity is the building and no drive for nsures that no e party with the authority to both curb design errors and deny the approval of misplaced rebar is also the building inspector. This study will focus only on building inspectors as defined in the ing Florida Building Code Statute: Chdministrators and In468.603. (a) Building inspector means a person who is qualified to tructed in accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state to the entire by the analogy of ches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. No one branch has 100% of the power and each branch runs a checks-and-balances system on each other so the balance of power remains. The major are the and the building inspector (judicial). The owner/architect/engineer is responsible for legislating a safe design, while the general contractor is obligated to execute all of the work stipulated under the contract with the owner according to the required specifications. The owner gives payment (balance) to the general contractor only when portions of the work are inspector. The inspector has no financial involvement in the projectextra monetary gain. In a building project the inspectors objectivity icorners are cut and the codes and contract documents are followed. Th follow apter 486, Part XII of the Florida Statutes: Building Code Aspectors. inspect and determine that buildings and structures are consaccessibility laws. This statute points out the importance of the building inspectorproject team. The importance of a building inspector can be explainedthe federal government. The federal government has three branbranches in construction as related to direct building safety and qualityowner/architect/engineer (legislative), general contractor (executive)

PAGE 11

4 carried out, and the building inspector inspects (governs) the work performed by the to make sure that all of ough the ilding inspectors performance is not to imply that the general contractor is not responsible for maintaining good quality control. nce? The following historical rating of in either the design or physical placement of rebar, the participants involved with the most failure cases from greatest to least were the contractor (site staff), structural designer, resident and Ayyub in stribution of failure cases with respect to sources of error by participant, inercentage of failure ere may be room for improvement. This research is focused on identifying whether or not building inspectors are performing well by how they are rated by the individuals who are responsible for placing the work the building inspector is inspecting. Data on key reinforced concrete performance criteria were collected to provide a means of evaluating building inspectors performance. general contractor and the design of the owner/architect/engineer the specifications and code requirements are correctly followed. Even thcontractors work is subjected to inspection, the purpose of rating the bu What is the current rating of building inspectors performadoes not answer the question of current rating, but offers a surveyed inspector error or omission. Of the parties identified as being involvedengineer, and the inspector, respectively. In a survey done by Eldukair 1991, the di spectors accounted for 27.6% of failure cases. A 27.6% is a high pcases that suggests all of the errors may not be common mistakes and th

PAGE 12

5 Research Objectives elp examine crete reinforcing e million dollars. These data have the potential for helping identify areas where there is a need for a more formally educated and consistent building inspection force that may increase the lo The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze data that will hcurrent building inspector expertise and consistency in relation to the coninspection on commercial construction projects valued at over on ngevity and safety of commercial buildings. Hypothesis Statements The hypotheses tested for each performance determinant were as follows: 1) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors refer to the contract 2) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors reference the Florida Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow the code. 3) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors thoroughly inspect reinforcing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other building inspectors. docum ents to decide if the reinforcement is correct.

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 ntial factor in premature reinforcement corrosion which, in turn, is the principle form of deterioration in concrete structures (Dakin et al. 2001, p. 20). Reinforced concrete was first ilding component by the ures are be a preferred building component. With many reinforced concrete structures being built, identifying all of the variables and predicting the actual safe, useful life is very important. LITERATURE REVIEW Failure to achieve the specific cover is probably the most influeintroduced in the 1850s and gained popularity as a structural buend of the 19th century (Allen 1999). Today, reinforced concrete structcommonplace all around the world and will continue to Determining Causes of Rebar Corrosion One of the variables that affect the useful life of reinforced concrdiscussed in a study of rebar corrosion due to surface cracking (Franoof rebars is the major cause of the deterioration of reinforced concretewanted to know what mechanism has the largest effect on corrosion. ete was is and Arliguie 1998). This study observed the corrosion effects of reinforced concrete beams that were subjected to loading, varying temperature and a corrosive environment. Since, corrosion structures, they The solution of micro-cracking and cracking that occur from loading was looked at as a possible cause, but the test results concluded: reinforcement corrosion is not influenced by the widths of the cracks (for widths less than 0.5mm) or by the existences of the cracks themselves. However, it seems obvious that the load applied to a reinforced concrete beam plays a 6

PAGE 14

7 significant role in the penetration of aggressive agents and then in the corrosion of the reprotective outer nd Clark in 2000, they found that the destruction of this layer forms a major part of the United Kingdom construction workload, with similar situations existing throughout the world. The most n is reinforcement corrosion (Williamson and Clark 200, p.ned the effects of corrosion in reinforced concrete and they concluded: ength of (b) The corrosion products occupy a volume larger than the igrate into any e effective bar area is reducing, the corrosion does not affect the integrity of the surrounding changes nd change in mode of structural behavior. (Williamson and Clark 2000, p. 155,156) Another study on reinforcement corrosion focused on the differing permeability Clark 2001). The e heartcrete, or underlying material, in the lower portion of the member. The lower-quality upper concrete has a larger variation of the resulting overall quality and is more porous. This higher porosity allows corrosive agents to penetrate the steel faster. Some of the reasons the upper layer is subject to this variation were determined to be the following: inforcement (Franois and Arliguie 1998, p. 143,149). In order for steel reinforcing to begin deleterious corrosion, the layer on the rebar must be destroyed. In a study done by Williamson asignificant form of deterioratio 0 155). Williamson and Clarks research also exami (a) Reduction in steel area, resulting in losses in strreinforced concrete members. original steel. At the onset of corrosion, these products mvoid adjacent to the concrete. At this stage, although th concrete. (c) The nature of the bond between the steel and concreteand can deteriorate, resulting in loss of composite action a of concrete in relation to its location within a member (Williamson and upper layer of concrete was found to be of lower quality than th

PAGE 15

8 (a) Air and water move upwards in the fresh con crete creating a water/cement ratio, and therefore also porosity gradient. (b) The wall effect influences the uniformity of distribution of l ds and quality. (d) The adequacy of curing the surface layer of concrete is illiamson and Clark 2001, p. 53) any (Feld and Carper petence of the workforce has a direct effect on the resulting strength and quality of reinforced concrete. The need for quality supervision and field inspection is more evident with this material th goes on to state, good-the principle key to able 2-1, 604 structural and construction failures were analyzed between years 1975-1986 (Eldukair and Ayyub 1991). Due to the age and broad range of sample area in the 1991 study, the r, the component he conditions today. New research and testing has led to the introduction of corrosion-resistant materials, but they are more expensive than using traditional steel rebar and are generally only used in special applications. These corrosion-resistant materials do slow the corrosion process giving the final reinforcing bar location more tolerance than steel, but arge particles near to a molded surface. (c) The effects of different compaction metho susceptible to drying effects and hence incomplete hydration. (W In a study of building failures, reinforced concrete was examined as having mdifferent factors that can alter the predicted outcome of the final product1997). Feld and Carper, as well as others believe that the skill and com an for many others (Feld and Carper 1997, p. 238). The studyquality dense concrete with adequate cover over the reinforcement is durability (Feld and Carper 1997, p. 283). In a 1991 study of U.S. construction failures, as shown in Tcurrent localized results of this studys results may vary. Howevefailure mechanisms analyzed in the 1991 study have not changed with t

PAGE 16

9 in order to transfer building loads correctly they must still follow the design plans. many more ve not collapsed ases indicated that reinforced concrete elements were predominant.4% percent of the failures recorded deficiencies in reinforced concrete elements (Eldukair and Ayyub 1991, p. 63). Human gn strength ultimately decreasing the structures overall safety and useful life. ources of Error by Participation Reviewing Eldukair and Ayyubs research today raises the question: howbuildings from this period are suffering from a weakened structure but hayet? In the buildings analyzed by the 1991 study, most of the failure c error was found to be a major contributor to not achieving predicted desi Table 2-1. Distribution of Failure Cases with Respect to S Description of Participant Error by Par ticipation Failure Cases (%) 3.0 Structural er 48.2 31.1 27.6 Cntracor (h3.8 Co59.6 Operator 2.8 (Source: Eldukair and Ayyub 1991, p. 64) ents Project architect design Resident engineer Inspector otead office) ntractor (site staff) Contractor (workmen) 17.4 Building Inspector Duties and Educational Requirem Since the adoption of the 2001 Florida Building Code by the Florida Governor and Legislature becoming effective on March 1, 2002, the new code is the most pertinent information regarding reinforced concrete inspection. To supplement the 2001 Florida Building Code, a review of the Chapter 468, Part XII of the Florida Statutes: Building Code Administrators and Inspectors has been included in this section.

PAGE 17

10 The following was taken from the 2001 Florida Building Code, Building Volume re1 1908.6.1 Concrete cover shall be provided for reinforcement in 1908.6. garding reinforced concrete: 908.6 Concrete Protection for Reinforcement cast-in-place (not-pre-stressed) in accordance with Table e environments or other sever exposure conditions, the amount of concrete protection shall be suitably increased, ahall be considered, 1908.6.4 Exposed reinforcement, inserts and plates intended for b from corrosion. al upon nt shall make the following inspections, and shall either release that portion of the construction or shall hich must be building etermine the timing and sequencing of when inspections occur and s are inspected at each inspection. Bui pection: To be made after trenches are ede the following lab-on-grade piling/pile caps footers/grade beams 105.8 Reinforcing Steel and Structural Frames. Reinforcing steel or structural frame work of any part of any building or structure shall not be covered or concealed without first obtaining a release from the building official. (Florida Building Commission 2001) 1908.6.3 In corrosiv nd denseness and non-porosity of protecting concrete sor other protection shall be provided. onding with future extensions shall be protected 105 Inspections 105.6 Required Inspections. The building officinotification from the permit holder or his age ntify t ohe permit holder or his agent of any violations wcorrected in order to comply with the technical codes. Theofficial shall d what element ildng 1. Foundation Ins xcavated and forms erected and shall at a minimum inclubuilding components: stem-wall monolithic s

PAGE 18

11 The following is a review of the duties, education, and experience requirements as pter 468, Part XII of the Florida Statutes: Building Code Adminiswho is qualified nd determine that buildings and structures are constructed in aodes and state 468.609. (2) A person may take the examination for certification as ctor or plans examiner pursuant to this part if the Is at least 18 years of age. (( following c he field of nspection, or plans ategory sought; y education in the perience which totals g experience in construction, building code inspection, or plans review; ducation in the field which totals 4 erience in truction, building code inspection, or plans review; or 4. Currently holds a standard certificate as issued by the board and ans examiner training program of not less than 200 hours in the certification category sought. The board shall establish by rule criteria for the development and implementation of the training programs. After becoming a building inspector, continuing education hours are required to renew certification. A total of fourteen (14) hours of coursework must be taken every stated by the 2002 Cha trators and Inspectors: 468.603. (a) Building inspector means a person to inspect a ccordance with the provisions of the governing building caccessibility laws. a building code inspe person: (a) b) Is of good moral character. c) Meets eligibility requirements according to one of theiteria: r 1. Demonstrates 5 years' combined experience in tconstruction or a related field, building code ireview corresponding to the certification c 2. Demonstrates a combination of postsecondarfield of construction or a related field and ex4 years, with at least 1 year of such total bein 3. Demonstrates a combination of technical eof construction or a related field and experienceyears, with at least 1 year of such total being expcons satisfactorily completes a building code inspector or pl

PAGE 19

12 two (2) years that is approved by the Florida Building Commission. Alternative classes the approval of the ange. All of the cation hours must have a minimum duration of 50 minutes each (Florida Building Statutes 2002). A clear example of what a building inspector might look at during a concrete I) Manual of y the complexity jects range from high-rise to power plant construction, the Level B projects range from low-rise industrial and commercial to small bridge construction, and Level C projects range from residential erally fell under Level quire the placement n to mass concrete, hot weather concreting and cold weather concreting. To fortify the importance of concrete reinforcing inspection ACI states, Improper reinforcement placement can r even failure) (ACI In a study of building official certification it was found that there is a recognized need for uniform, mandatory and continuing training for inspection personnel in the State of Florida (Hart and Daudelin 1990, p. 3). The information in the survey was obtained from 154 Florida respondents to a building official questionnaire. It was also involving further specialization or personal interest may be taken withBuilding Code Administrators and Inspectors Board in an hourly exchcourses counted towards continuing edu reinforcing inspection was found in the American Concrete Institute (ACConcrete Inspection (1992). ACI breaks down the inspection activities bof the project and categorizes them into general levels. The Level A proto small drainage construction. Reinforced concrete structures genA and B type projects. Both Level A and B recommended inspections reinspector to be present through, pre-placement, placement, and post-inspection of concrete activities (including curing). With special attentio lead to severe cracking, steel corrosion, and excessive deflections (o1992, p. 203, 65).

PAGE 20

13 found that, stringent experience requirements should play a major role in the certification process (Hart and Daudelin 1990, p. 8). Summary The literature review, while not exhaustive, covered the implications andinvolving building official certification. Rebar corrosion occurs as a cin an attempt to slow and predict that process, minimum code and desifollowed. The 2001 Florida Building Code along with the Chapter 468quoted to show how the American Concrete Institute recommends fie1991 Eldukair and Ayyub study reviewed the key parties involvedproject and identified inspectors as one of the parties inv causes of rebar corrosion in reinforced concrete, current codes, professional organizational standards, past research regarding human error in the building process, and a study hemical process so, gn criteria must be Part XII of the Florida Statutes establishes design minimums as well as building inspector educational and field inspection requirements. The ACI Manual of Concrete Inspection (1992) was ld inspections. The in a construction olved in failure cases. At the timmprovement. The 1990 Hart and Daudelin study reviewed building official certification and the findings suggested a need for higher levels of experience and training. As suggested by the findings of the literature review, the issues of rebar corrosion and past research of building failures may directly link the useable life and safety of reinforced concrete buildings to the building inspection process. e of the study, the sample data suggests room for possible inspector i

PAGE 21

CHAPTER 3 DOLOGY METHO Goals of the Study effort to: 1) determine whether the contract plan requirements are refewhether the building co The purpose of this study is to analyze a construction supervisors view of building inspectors performance in relation to concrete reinforcing inspection in an rred to, 2) examine des are referenced to the contract plans to establish compliance, and 3) ascertain whethence is thorough and results are consistent with other building inspectors. Research Methodology r inspection performa l to develop a In order to satisfy the d by the goals of the study, it was imperative to obtain the opinions of those currently in the building industry. The implementation of a survey questionnaire fulfilled this need. Figure 3-1 shows the methodology flow chart and provides an In an effort to support the purpose of this research it was criticadefined and methodical approach to solicit the desired informationinformation require overview of this research. Design of Questionnaire The questionnaire was created to solicit relevant in formation regarding the goals of the study. The survey instrument consisted of questions pertaining to the overall performance of a concrete reinforcing inspection by the building inspector. The questionnaire was intended to canvass the opinions of the participants in regards to what they thought of building inspectors performance. The key performance 14

PAGE 22

15 Determine potecorrectable causreinf ntially es of orcing placement problems Literature Review Qualitative Survey Statistical Analysis Survey Result Analysi s R Literature Review esults ectors were the following: 2) reference of the building codes with the contract documents, and 3) thoroughness and consistency of field inspection. is questionnaire and protocol (approved by the University of Florida InAppendix A. f a Sample Group Conclusions and Recommendations Figure 3-1. Research Methodology Flow Chart areas addressed in the questionnaire regarding building insp 1) reference of the contract documents, A sample of th stitutional Review Board) is included in Selection o Job Site Supervisors The participants chosen were those who were: all working within the same geographic area, working on a project with reinforced concrete components, working on a project with a total construction cost exceeding $1 million, all working within one building code enforcement agencys jurisdiction, and working in commercial construction, in a supervisory position on the jobsite,

PAGE 23

16 di rectly involved with the concrete reinforcing building inspection process. Bu ilding Inspectors that: onents, inspect commercial construction projects, and are employed by a government building codes enforcement agency. The participants targeted were those inspect reinforced concrete comp Description of Sample Area Chosen This study was localized to the city limits of Gainesville, located in the north central part of the state and has an estimated popula Florida. The city is tion of 110,000 as of September 1, 2002 (City of Gainesville, Florida 2002). According to a phone conversation with the local building official, the estimated new commercial construction that fifty (50). projects active in Gainesville, Florida as of September 24, 2002 is lessEstimation of Sample Size The intention of this study was to survey each person involved in the concrete reinforcing inspection process for each commercial job within the Gainesville, Florida city limits. Due to the time involved in personally introducing the questionnaire to each particewleted and accepted according to the sample group criteria before the study data collection time ended. Resulting Sample Size: 23 responses 50 approximate commercial jobs ipant, twenty-three (23) intervi s were comp 46% sample

PAGE 24

17 Limitations of construction rocess in an of buildings. An attempt was made to receive the building inspectors responses to the same questionnaire (see Appendix A). Unfortunately, no responses had been received tipulated. There are four limitations that apply to this study: n surveyed in this study was localized to the Gainesville, Florida city area. y came from the opinions of sit 3) Central tendency bias Respondents may tend to avoid the extremes of a scale, which may limit the desire for the perfect inspection performance rating. This research was conducted to show the current perceptionssupervisors regarding the quality of the concrete reinforcing inspection peffort to determine a possible approach for improving building safety and the useable life before the cutoff deadline s 1) Limited range of sample The populatio 2) Subjectivity of topic Data obtained in this stud e supervisors whose workmanship is what is being inspected. gust 21, 2002 September 5, 2002. odology 4) Time limitation The data collection time was limited to AuSurvey Meth possible candidates were interviewed in person to determine whether they were qualified to be included in the sample group. The reason for personally introducing the questionnaire was four fold: and 4) to insure consistency of administering the questionnaire. The interviews were conducted between August 21, 2002 and September 5, 2002. Each employee holding a supervisory level position who was directly involved in the concrete reinforcing inspection process was asked whether they would be willing to complete a A total of thirty-one (31) 1) to obtain a higher acceptance rate, 2) to insure that the target person received the survey, 3) to answer any questions regarding the mechanics of the survey

PAGE 25

18 questionnaire at a time convenient to them. The participants were typically general bs surveyed e predominantly more companies they work for were held anonymous in this research due to a localized population. A list of job position, current project size and estimated annual company B. To introduce the survey to the taroached using a staHello, my name is Mark Powers and I am a graduate student at the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction. I am currently working on my masters spectors performance relating to ectly involved in estions? ith the appropriate person, it was stated: Your experience regarding the concrete inspection process is a valued resource and your opinions would be beneficial to my research. to complete a survey that I have designed as a part of my research to try and get an idea of how well building inspectors perform reinforced concrete inspection? Favorable responses resulted in setting a time best suited to the participant for administration of the questionnaire. contractor superintendents or assistant superintendents. On the larger jo($14-50 million), field engineers and assistant superintendents werinvolved in the building inspection process. The names of the participants and the volume of the participants can be seen in Appendix geted participant, the jobsite superintendent of each project was apprndard dialogue to get the required preliminary information: research and am researching building in reinforced concrete inspection. May I speak with the person dirhandling that process and ask them a few qu When in contact w They were further asked, Would you be willing

PAGE 26

19 The Participants who responded favorably totaled twenty-eight (28). Of these onnaires were ed and chi-er the various responses were consistent with one another. The questions asked required the respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement with a series of statements. A 5-r complete pinion or lacked ange of data, the chi-squared test was chosen because it tests categorical responses and predictors. To test the hypothesis and the consistency of the various samples, the observed value chosen for umulative frequency lue was the total e alpha level for both of these tests was set at 0.005. Each hypothesis has a descriptive analysis of the data to best explain the responses and relevance to the study. Along with this analysis bar charts were generated to visually represent the data. twenty-three (23) fit the sample group criteria. Once all the questireceived, the data collected was tested using the heterogeneity chi-squarsquared statistical tools. The heterogeneity test was used to indicate whethpoint Likert scale ranging from for complete disagreement to foagreement was used. A was recorded when the participant had no othe knowledge to express an informed opinion. Due to the variable rboth the chi-squared and chi-squared heterogeneity tests was the cthat a choice of occurred for each question. In turn, the expected vapossibility that a number could occur. Th

PAGE 27

CHAPTER 4 IS OF RESULTS ANALYS Survey Results Although the average industry experience was substantial, the heterogtest was performed to determine whether the responses were consistenThe heterogeneity chi-squared test results are shown in Table 4-1. 01020304050601234567891011121314151617181920212223Each Bar Represents One Respondent's Experience Years Working in Industry Figure 4-1. A Distribution of Responses by Industry Experience The construction industry experience of the twenty-three (23) respondents to the questionnaire varied from 1.5 to 53 years with an average of 21.6 years (Figure 4-1). eneity chi-squared t with one another. The end result was obtained by comparing the total pooled heterogeneity chi-squared result (5.9) with the critical value of (18.5) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set confidence interval of 99.5% with 6 degrees of freedom. Results less than the critical 20

PAGE 28

21 value (18.5) occur within the set confidence interval. As shown in Tab(5.9) is less than the critical value (18.5), so with a 99.5% level of confid le 4-1, the result ence, the various samples were not significantly different and all of the data can be accepted. Table 4-1. Heterhest for RespoObserved (O) Ex(E(O-E)2/E Degrees of Freedom ogeneity C i-Squared T nse Data Question # pected ) 6 8 23 9.8 1 7 1 23 21.0 1 Pooled X2 1 17 23 1.6 1 2 8 23 9.8 1 3 7 23 11.1 1 4 6 23 12.6 1 5 7 23 11.1 1 54 161 71.1 1 Total X2 of samples 77.0 7 Heterogeneity X2 (Total Pooled) 5.9 6 Note: Critical Value=18.5 at 6 Degrees of Freedom with an Alpha Level of 0.005 the contract documents to decide if the reinforcement is correct. er to the contract The chi-squared test results for Hypothesis 1 are shown in Table 4-2. The end result was obtained by comparing the chi-squared result (1.6) with the critical value of (7.88) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set confidence interval of 99.5% with one degree of freedom. Results less than the critical value (7.88) occur within the set confidence interval. In Table 4-2, the result (1.6) is less than the critical value (7.88), so with a 99.5% level of confidence the null hypothesis can be accepted. Hypothesis 1 (Question # 1) The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows: 1) H0: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors refer to 1) H1: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors refdocuments to decide if the reinforcement is correct.

PAGE 29

22 Table 4-2. Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #1 Response Data Question Observed Expected O-E (O-E)2(O-E)2/E D.F. # (O) (E) 1 1-6 1.6 1 7 23 3 6 Note: Critical Value=7.88 at 1 Degree of Freedom with an Alpha Level of 0.005 The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows: 2) H: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors reference the Florida rence the Florida ow the code. le 4-3. The end result was obtained by comparing the chi-squared result (9.8) with the critical value of (7.88) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set confidence interval of ue (7.88) do not 4-3, the result (9.8) is onfidence the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative ypothesis (H1) can be accepted. Table 4-3. Chuared Tor Hypothesis #2 Response Data # (O) (E) 2/E D.F. Hypothesis 2 (Question #2) 0Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow the code. 2) H1: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors refeBuilding Code to decide if the contract plans foll The chi-squared test results for Hypothesis 2 are shown in Tab99.5% with one degree of freedom. Results greater than the critical valoccur within the set confidence interval and are rejected. In Tablegreater than the critical value (7.88), so with a 99.5% level of c h i-Sq est f Question Observed Expected O-E (O-E)2(O-E) 2 8 23 -15 225 9.8 1 Noom with an Alpha Level of 0.005 Hypothesis 3 (Questions # 3-7) The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows: 3) H0: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors thoroughly inspect reinforcing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other building inspectors. te: Critical Value=7.88 at 1 Degree of Freed

PAGE 30

23 3) H1: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspecreinfor tors thoroughly inspect cing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other The chi-squared test results for Hypothesis 3 are shown in Table 4-4. The end result was obtained by comparing the chi-squared result (65.7) with the critical value of ce interval of lue (16.7) do not e result (65.7) is greater than the critical value (16.7), so with a 99.5% level of confidence the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H) can be accepted. It is stions #3-7 to nsistent 99.5% level of ed to the corresponding one degree of freedom critical value (7.88). Each individual questions result is greater than the critical value (7.88) ensuring that each question could be lyTable 4-4. Chesponse Data estion # Observe(O) Exped(E) E)22/E D.F. inspectors. (16.7) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set confiden99.5% with five degrees of freedom. Results greater than the critical vaoccur within the set confidence interval and are rejected. In Table 4-4, th1important to note that hypothesis #3 was formulated by combining queachieve a quality rating of the inspection process. To attain a coconfidence, each individual questions chi-squared result was referenc separate rejected. i-Squared Test for Hypothesis #3 R Qu d ect O-E (O(O-E) 28 3 7 23 -16 256 11.1 1 4 6 23 -17 9 12.6 1 5 7 23 -16 256 11.1 1 6 8 23 -15 225 9.8 1 7 1 23 -22 484 21.0 1 Sum 65.7 5 Note: Critical Value=16.7 at 5 Degrees of Freedom with an Alpha Level of 0.005

PAGE 31

24 02468101214123456Response to QuestionFrequency02468101214123456Response to QuestionFrequency Figure 4-2. Response Distribution for Hypothesis #1 2) H1: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors reference the FloridBuilding Code to decide if the contract plans follow code. 1618Discussion of Results 24 1618Discussion of Results 1) H0: Field supeilding inspectors refer to the contract ts that building inspectors are perceived by field supervisors as orienting themselves to the contract documents in regards to what is being inspected. The inspectors are then using the design information in the field as a basis for tion is shown in 4-2. a The statistical analysis leads to rejection of the null hypothesis and acceptance of the alternative hypothesis. However, a limitation of this hypothesis must be noted. Field supervisors may not physically see building inspectors cross-reference the Florida rvisors agree that bu docum ents to decide if the reinforcement is correct. Accepting this hypothesis sugges the overall general placement criteria. The hypothesis response distribuFigure

PAGE 32

25 25 01289123456FrueyBuilding Code with the contract plans. However, the inspector may be able to inherently reference the contract plans with knowledge of the code gained from the experience and education needed for inspection certification. The hypothesis response distribution is shown in Figure 4-3. 34567eqnc Response to Question Figure 4-3. Response Distribution for Hypothesis #2 3) H1: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors thoroughly inspect reinforcing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other building inspectors. Questions 3 through 7 in the survey questionnaire were used to form the accepted alternative hypothesis. A frequency-of-response bar chart for each question was generated and is shown in Figure 4-4. Accepting the alternate hypothesis suggests there is a need for more consistent, all-inclusive reinforcing placement inspections.

PAGE 33

26 0123456789123456Response to QuestionFrequency 012345678910123456Response to QuestionFrequency 02468123456Response to Questionequcy(C). Distribution of Responses for Question #5; Figure 4-4. Response Distribution for Hypothesis #3 by Question 10 12 en (A). Distribution of Responses for Question #3; (B). Distribution of Responses for Question #4; 14 Fr

PAGE 34

27 012345678123456Response to QuestionFrequency (D). Distribution of Responses for Question #6; 0123456789123456Response to QuestionFrequency 9 (E). Distribution of Responses for Question #7. Figure 4-4. Continued

PAGE 35

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions In conclusion, the placement of reinforcing inl to the useful life and safety of buildings that use reinforced concrete components as their primary load bearing structure. To insure that the placement of reinforcement is correct, building inspectors are charged with competently administering the building codes. If building inspectors have not gained the experience and technical knowledge required for thorough inspections, the workmanship and design of these structures are left only to those with a monetary vested interest. With a drive for extra monetary gain, corners can be cut and the codes and contract documents may not be followed. This research combined with future studies aimed at improving other key parties contributions to the concrete reinforcement design, installation, and inspection process may further benefit the commercial construction industry. If every keyneed for concrete reinforcement rework along with its associated costs would decrease while maintaining building safety and useable le projections. or improvement include: devoting some of the continuing education hours needed for recertification of inspectors to coursework involving concrete reinforcing placement methods and designs, developing and implementing a specific inspection checklist, increasing the time devoted to each inspection, and concrete is crucia party were in synch with one another, the if Some suggestions f 28

PAGE 36

29 enacting field experience requirements similar to those for currently followed by on-the-job training minimums journeyman apprenticeship programs. According to the 2002 Florida Statutes, building inspectors are required to take a total of fourteen (14) hours of approved continuing education coursework every two (2) years. A list of courses approved by the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board that address the topics of foundations, coinforcing has been included in Appendix C. The coursework is not limited to only those offered by the state, and the Florida Building Commission allows alternative educational training with the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Boards approval. This flexibility may in the future allow for a program created for specific training regarding reinforced concrete inspection to be a viable option in allowing an avenue for current building inspectors to become more proficient at concrete reinforcing placement inspection while fulfilling a quirement. Such a training program could cover common field installation techniques including necessary field adjustments, problems associated with reinforcing misplacement as well as acceptable inspection techniques. In order to reduce the variation of inspection results, the implementation of an inspection checklist may be beneficial. The checklist could be a comprehensive, step-by-step procedure that rates the rebar placement and workmanship. A checklist for each type of reinforced concrete component could be part of a data base in which the inspector retrieves the template dependent upon what is to be inspected: strip footing, wall, beam, elevated slab, etc. When the checklist is complete, it can be used as part of the documentation process with a copy given to the field supervisor and the original kept for the building inspectors records. ncrete, and concrete re recertification re

PAGE 37

30 A possible explanation of deficient inspections may be the result of a lack of time devoted to the inspection. If building inspectors are overburdened with work, they may be rushing inge inspection workload of a building inspector to accompte inspections should be ascertained and set as a limit not to be exceeded. If the number of new construction projects exceeds the capacity of a codes enforcement agency to handle safely, extra help should be employed to lessen oming a building review experience, with the exception of a person currently holding a standard certificate as issued by the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board and completing the training, the adoption our requirement ariety of work experiences for apprentices by requiring minimum hours of on-the-job training. One example is the National Center for Construction Education and Researchs Carpentry Apprentf work experience incluill work, interior wall coverehe categories covered could include all of the areas they will be inspecting. Each category would also require a minimum number of on-the-job training hours that must be documented before a building inspector can become certified. This would not only benefit the inspection of concrete reinforcing, but inspection process as a whole. spections to cover the workload. The avera lish comple the work burden. The state of Floridas minimum field experience required for becinspector is one year of construction, building code inspection or plans required training program hours. In the required field experienceof a modified journeyman apprenticeship programs on-the-job training hcould be made. Journeyman apprenticeship programs ensure a wide v iceship Program that encompasses the following categories o ding: foundations, walls, floors, framing, roofs, exterior m ag, stairs and others. For building inspectors, t

PAGE 38

31 Recommendations for Future Studies comparison since ved throughout r creating a safe building. This study focused only on one of these parties and they should in no way take the complete burden. Research should be done to assess the other parties expertise related to reinforced concrete components to determine whether any improvements can de questions e results to the Further studies should gather data from other municipalities for this study was limited to one jurisdiction. There are many parties involthe design and construction process that have a direct responsibility fobe made within their disciplines. In addition, other studies should inclurelating to the availability of building inspectors and then compare thosquality of the inspection.

PAGE 39

APPENDIX A PROTOCOL AND ADMINISTERED SURVEY

PAGE 40

. and consistent inspection force that 33 Protocol Title: Survey of Concrete Reinforcing Inspection Process Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. cy in relation to concrete reinforcing inspection of commercial construction projects which are over one million dollars in What you will be asked to do in the study: Fill out a seven question survey about reinforced concrete inspectionRisks and Benefits: The survey has the potential of showing a need for a more educatedse the longevity and safety of buildings. There are no risks because your name and company (agency) will not be used. Compensation: None. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. The consent form connecting your name to the number will be kept in a locked file in my faculty supervisor's office. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed, the form will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Mark Powers: Grad. Student at ME Rinker School of Building Construction, 1238 N.W. 55th Terrace, Gainesville, Fl 32605, phone: (352)374-2203, E-mail: buzzard9876@hotmail.com Dr. Raymond Issa: ME Rinker School of Building Construction 101 Fine Arts Building C PO Box 115703 Gainesville, Fl 32611-5703, 392-5965, raymond-issa@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________ Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine current building official expertise and consistentotal cost. Time required: 10 minutes may, if trained, increa 33

PAGE 41

Survey of Concrete Reinforcing Inspection, a Commercial Construction Superintendents View Job Title: Years of Experience: Type(s) of Construction: Estimated Annual Volume: Average Project Size: Instructions: In the following section, please circle the number which indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements. A score of denotes a low level of occurrence, while a score of denotes a high level of occurrence. Never AlwaysDo Not Know1. Local Building inspectors refer to the contract documents to decide if the reinforcement is correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Local Building inspectors reference the Florida Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow the code. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Local Building inspectors do a thorough inspection of the entire area to be inspected. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. While inspecting the rebar placement, local Building inspectors actually measure rebar lap length, rebar spacing and the proposed concrete coverage depth. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Local Building inspectors are knowledgeable about reinforced concrete inspection. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Different Building inspectors on the same job yield consistent interpretations of the contract documents regarding the rebar placement with one another. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Inspection occurs during the actual placement of concrete. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34

PAGE 42

ncrete Reinforcing Inspection, a Building Inspectors View Survey of Co f erience: Job Title: Years o Exp Type(s) of Construction: Instructions: In the following section, please circle the number which indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements. A score of denotes a low denotes a high level of occurrence. level of occurrence, while a score of 1. I refer to the contract documents to decide if the reinforcement is1 2 3 4 Never Always Do Not Know correct. 5 6 2. I reference the Florida Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow the code. 1 2 3 4 5 6 entire area to be inspected. 5 6 p, rebar depth and proposed 2 3 4 5 6 ble about reinforced 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Different building inspectors on the same job yield consistent interpretations of the contract documents regarding the rebar placement with one another. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Inspection occurs during the actual placement of concrete. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. I do a thorough inspection of the 1 2 3 4 4. While inspecting the rebar 1 placement, I actually measure rebar la concrete coverage. 5. I am knowledgea concrete inspection. 35

PAGE 43

APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHICS PYears in Estimated Company Annual Volume Project Size (in Millions) 1 Superintendent 2 13 12 articipant Number Position Industry (in Millions) Assistant 2 Superintendent 21 110 9 3 Superintendent 8 110 26 4 0 110 5 26 15 12 4 50 10 7 Superintendent 18 600 50 25 200 8 9 Superintendent 28 200 7 10 1.5 50 15 11 30 20 2 12 Superintendent 24 150 20 13 Superintendent 32 20 3 14 Superintendent 15 80 16 Assistant Superintendent 1 5 Superintendent 6 Assistant Superintendent 8 Superintendent Labor Foreman Assistant Superintendent 36

PAGE 44

37 Participant osition Years in Industry Estimated Company Annual Volume (in Millions) Project Size (in Millions) Project Engineer 25 100 10 Number P 15 16 Assistant Superintendent 8 60 13 17 Superintendent 40 70 14 18 Superintendent 38 60 4 53 70 3 24 60 2 dent 22 60 18 rintendent 40 60 15 intendent 3 60 8 ota282 Average project size $13 Million 19 Superintendent 20 Superintendent 21 Superinten22 Supe 23 Assistant Super T l

PAGE 45

APPENDIX C APPROVED CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSE LIST BUILDING CMINIRS & NUICATSORSE LIST (Abbreviated) Course Sponsor: Santa Rosa County Building Dept Contact: Rhonda Royals Sponsor No.: 0001245 Date Approved: April 21, 1995 Course: Concrete Transportation and LengtCourse Number: BCAI 0002463 Date Approved: June 16, 1995 Course Sponsor: Seminole County Fireotection Division Contact: Paul Watson Sponsor No.: 0001251 Date Approved: September 23, 1995 Course: Concrete Inspection & Testing. engtCourse Number: BCAI 0002649 Course Sponsor: The South Florida cials Council Contact: James Rodgers Date Approved: December 16, 1996 Course: #4: The S.F.B.C. Reinforced & Gypsum Concrete Chapter 25 & 26 Length: 1 hour Course Number: 0005359 Date Approved: January 22, 1997 Course Sponsor: Building Officials & Inspectors Association of Brod County Contact: William G. Dumbaugh Sponsor No.: 0000865 Date Approved: May 2, 1994 Course: Soils and Foundations Length: 1 hour Course Number: BCAI 0002041 Date Approved: January 23, 1998 Course Sponsor: Southern Building Code Congress International Inc. Contact: Lindsey Carter Sponsor No.: 0000991 Date Approved: September 22, 1994 Course: Concrete and Masonry Construction and Inspection Length: 7 hours Course Number: BCAI 0002097 Date Approved: September 22, 1994 (Source: Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2001) ODE ADNG EDU STRATO INSPECTORS BOARD AND COUR CONTI ION SPON Placement h: 1 hour Building and Pr L h: 4 hours Date Approved: March 8, 1996 Building Offi Sponsor No.: 0001258 war 38

PAGE 46

REFERENCES American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Inspection 2(92): 1992. p 5-6 Allen, Edward. Fundam London: HMS 956 C f Gainesville, F a. 2 ity of Gainesville Official (November-D ber 617 C ete Reinforcing l In C e R ott McDonald. te: Fo struction Ind 8th ed. ACI Publication SP-gs. 66, 200-203. entals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc. 1999. Building Research Station. Durability of Reinforced Concrete. Special Report No. 25. O. 1. ity olorid002. The C Web Site. City of Gainesville, Florida. http://www.cityofgainesville.org. July 7, 2002. Clifton, James. Predicting the Service Life of Concrete. ACI Materials Journal 90.6. ecem 1993): 611-. oncr Steestitute. 1996RSI. Concreteinforcing Steel Institute. http://www.crsi.org. August 9, 2001. Dakin, Julie, Elizabeth King, and MSpecifying, Detailing Achieving Cover to Reinforcement. Concrer the Conustry March 2001: 20-21. Eldukair, Ziad and Bilal Ayyub. Analysis of Recent U.S. Structural and Construction Failures. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 5.1. (February 1991): 57-73. Feld, Jacob and Kenneth Carper. Construction Failure 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1997. Florida Building Commission. Florida Building Code. Birmingham: Southern Building Code Congress International. 2001. Florida Statute, Chapter 468, Part XII, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors. Franois, R. and G. Arliguie. Effect of Microcracking and Cracking on the Development of Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Members. Magazine of Concrete Research 51.2. (April 1999): 143-150. 39

PAGE 47

40 Hart, N. Fred and Joe Daudelin. A Study of Building Official Certification: Needs, Requirements and Necessary Education for Certification Gainesville: Santa Fe Community College Limbrunner, George, P.E. and Leonard Speigel, P.E. Reinforced Concrete Design 1990. 4th ed. Marotta, Theodore and Charles Herubin. Basic Construction Materials Columbus: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1998. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1997. erry Sincich. S d T McClave, James an tatistics 8th ed. Upper Saddle Ri ver: Prentice-Hall, t. Resears, Designs and Methods Inc. 2000 Sim, Julius and Chris Wrigh London: S ch in Health Care: Concept tanley Thornes (Pu Tullman. U-Lasting Rebar rials Performa blishers) Ltd. 2000. Smith, Frank and Martin sing Stainless Steels as Long Material. Mate nce. May 1999: 72-76. ate of Florida, Department Code Ad Stof Business an2001. Building ministrators & Inspeinuing Education Sponsors and st. State of Floridadbpr/pr 1, 2002. orida, Department of Buildision of ding Code And Inspectors Board. Limited d Professional Regulation. ctors Board Cont Course L i http://www.state.fl.us/ o/buildc/bc_index.shtml. October State of Fl ing and Professional Regulation. Div Professions. Buil dministrators a Licensure Packa ge 2002. Stt of Build. Building Code Aministrators and Inspectors Board. Certification ate of Florida, Departmen ing and Professional Regulation. Division of Professions d Examinat ion and Endorsement Package 2002. ealth and Safety. 2002. Building Code gram. University of Florida. http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/buildcode. ly 7, 2002. Clark. Th Influence of the Permeability of Concrete Cover on Reinforcement Corrosion. Magazine of Concrete Research University of Florida Environmental orcement Pro H Enf Ju Williamson, S.J. and L.A. e 53.3. (June 2001): Williamson, S.J. and L.A. Clark. Pressure Required to Cause Cover Cracking of Concrete Due to Reinforcement Corrosion. Magazine of Concrete Research 183-195. 52.6. (December 2000): 455-467.

PAGE 48

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mark Powers was born i n Shell Lake, Wisconsin, and moved to Gainesville, Florida, in 1991. He has been involved in construction since he was seven years old l he attended ding Construction. He was then accepted to the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction at the Unved his Bachelor of Science in Building Co undergraduate degree, he continued to work in the actor, he continued his education by completing the Associated Builders and Contractors Inc.s apman carpenter. He also completed his Master of Science in Building Construction degree at the Unrida in December of 2002. while working with family in the industry. After gr aduating hig h schoo Santa Fe Community College to complete an Associate of Arts in Buil iversity of Florida, where he recei nstruction. While receiving the commercial construction industry. Working for a local general contr prentices hip program to become a state of Florida recognized journey iversity of Flo 41


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000592/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectivness of the concrete reinforcing placement inspection process
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Powers, Mark ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2002
Copyright Date: 2002

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000592:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000592/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectivness of the concrete reinforcing placement inspection process
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Powers, Mark ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2002
Copyright Date: 2002

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000592:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONCRETE REINFORCING PLACEMENT
INSPECTION PROCESS












BY

MARK POWERS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2002















TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

L IST O F T A B L E S ........ .... ...... ..... ... .. ........ ................................ .. ........ ......... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ............................... ... ...... ... ................. .v

ABSTRACT .............. .......................................... vi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION .................................... ................ .... ..... .. ...... ........ ..

B background ............................................................... ... ........ ............. 1
State ent of Problem .......................................................... .. .......... .. 2
Research Objectives........................................... 5
H hypothesis Statem ents ........................................................... .. .......... 5

2 LITER A TU R E R EV IEW ............................................................... ........................ 6

Determining Causes of Rebar Corrosion..................................................................... 6
Building Inspector Duties and Educational Requirements ........................................... 9
S u m m ary ...................................................................................... 13

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................. .....................14

G oals of the Study............................ ............... ..... 14
R research M eth o d ology ................................................................................................. 14
D design of Q u estionnaire ....................................... .................................................. 14
Selection of a Sam ple G roup ........................................................................................ 15
Job Site Supervisors ................................................ ........ .. ...... .... 15
B building Inspectors .................. ..................................... .. .......... 16
D description of Sam ple A rea Chosen..................................... .......................... ........ 16
E stim ation of Sam ple Size .......................................................... ... .............. 16
L im ita tio n s ........................................................................................................ 1 7
Su rv ey M eth odology ............................. .................................................. 17

4 A N A L Y SIS O F R E SU L T S ........................................ ............................................20

Survey R results ...... ...... .................................................... .......... .. .............. 20
D discussion of Results ............................................................................. 24










5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. ............. ....................28

C onclu sions............................................ 28
Recomm endations to Future Studies ..............................................................31

APPENDIX

A PROTOCOL AND ADMINISTERED SURVEY .....................................................32

B D E M O G R A P H IC S .............................................................................. ....................36

C APPROVED CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSE LIST............................... 38

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .......................................................................... ....................39

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ...................................................................... ..................41















LIST OF TABLES
Table page

2-1 Distribution of Failure Cases in Respect to Sources of Error by Participation .......9

4-1 Hetrogeneity Chi-Squared Test for Repsonse Data....................... ...............21

4-2 Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #1 Response Data...........................................22

4-3 Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #2 Response Data...........................................22

4-4 Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #3 Response Data...........................................23















LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page

3-1 Research M ethodology Flow Chart. ........................................... ............... 15

4-1 A Distribution of Responses by Industry Experience.....................................20

4-2 Response Distribution for Hypothesis #1. ................................... ...............24

4-3 Response Distribution for Hypothesis #2. .................................. .................25

4-4 Response Distribution for Hypothesis #3 by Question............... ............... 26













Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in Building Construction

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONCRETE REINFORCING PLACEMENT
INSPECTION PROCESS

By

Mark Powers

December 2002

Chair: Dr. Raymond Issa
Major Department: School of Building Construction

Communities could benefit from a well-trained, consistent and thorough concrete

reinforcing inspection team as it could increase the safety and useful life of structures

with these components. The final placement of reinforcing members in concrete is

crucial because incorrect placement can cause accelerated corrosion in the reinforcement

as well as deficiencies in the load bearing capacity. This study examined the responses of

field supervisors, who were directly involved in the concrete reinforcement inspection

process regarding building inspectors' performance, with the following criteria: 1) Were

the contract plan requirements referenced? 2) Were the building codes referenced in the

contract plans in order to establish code compliance? 3) Was the inspection performance

thorough and were results consistent with other building inspectors? Building inspectors'

performance was reviewed because they have the authority to both reject design errors

and deny the approval of misplaced rebar. The sample of respondents was drawn from

Gainesville, Florida, commercial construction project sites. The chi-squared and chi-

squared heterogeneity statistical tools were used to test the hypotheses. The alpha levels









for all tests were 0.005. The results indicate that in the perception of the respondents,

building inspectors could improve their performance regarding concrete reinforcing

inspections. Some suggestions for improvement were discussed and include the

following: devoting some of the continuing education hours required for re-certification

to coursework involving concrete reinforcing placement methods and designs, developing

and implementing a specific inspection checklist, increasing the time devoted for each

inspection, and enacting field experience requirements similar to current on-the-job

training minimums that journeyman apprenticeship programs currently follow.













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

"Failure to achieve the specific cover is probably the most influential factor in

premature reinforcement corrosion which, in turn, is the principle form of deterioration

in concrete structures" (Dakin et al. 2001, p. 20). "The need for quality supervision and

field inspection is more evident with this material than for many others" (Feld and Carper

1997, p. 238).

Background

Reinforced concrete, since its introduction in the mid 19th century, has been

widely used throughout the industry in a broad range of structural and architectural

applications. Concrete's initial plasticity, low tensile strength and resistance to high

temperatures combined with steel's high tensile strength and low resistance to high heat

makes reinforced concrete a safe and versatile building tool used in many construction

applications. The drawbacks associated with this combination are concrete's

permeability to corrosive agents and steel's vulnerability to those agents. These findings

came as early as the beginning of the 20th century when salt water was used to mix

concrete for reinforced concrete. The salt accelerated the rebar corrosion, which rapidly

reduced the useful life of the structures. "The common defects that tend to shorten the

life of a reinforced concrete building all stem from a simple cause. The enemy of

durability is nearly always water, the vulnerable element is the steel reinforcement, and

trouble is certain if the concrete fails to keep them apart" (Building Research Station

1956). "Design details must provide such protection and construction must not reduce









the thickness of cover nor the imperviousness of the concrete" (Feld and Carper, 1997 p.

282). As evident in these two quotes, rebar corrosion and the quest to stop or slow this

corrosion are currently of great concern in design planning and predicting service life of

reinforced concrete. With these criteria, building codes have been established to set

minimum depths and coverage for reinforcement steel, dependent upon the type of

component exposure and local environmental conditions. These minimums were created

to provide the rebar with adequate protective coverage, while giving uniformity to service

life prediction. With an established code, the greatest variations affecting rebar corrosion

are a design that does not follow code and the physical misplacement of rebar.

With the continued use of reinforced concrete as a major building component, any

improvement in a variable that directly affects the safe, useable life of these structures

will be beneficial. The reasons why and finding the determining causes of how corrosion

occurs were the main focus of the literature review and are presented in Chapter 2. Upon

completing the literature review, one of the major potentially correctable causes of rebar

corrosion was found to be to human error. The key parties involved in either the design

or physical placement of rebar are the project architect, structural designer, residential

engineer, inspector, contractor (head office), contractor (site staff), contractor (workman),

and operator (crane, vehicle, ship, etc.) (Eldukair and Ayyub 1991).

Statement of the Problem

The preliminary question of "Which party has the greatest objectivity and

authority to curb poor design and improper rebar placement?" will first be determined.

Then an attempt to answer the question "What is the current rating of that party's

performance?" will remain as the main focus of this study.









In answer to the first question, the party with greatest objectivity is the building

inspector. The inspector has no financial involvement in the project and no drive for

extra monetary gain. In a building project the inspector's objectivity insures that no

corners are cut and the codes and contract documents are followed. The party with the

authority to both curb design errors and deny the approval of misplaced rebar is also the

building inspector. This study will focus only on building inspectors as defined in the

following Florida Building Code Statute:

Chapter 486, Part XII of the Florida Statutes: Building Code Administrators and

Inspectors.

468.603. (a) "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified to
inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in
accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state
accessibility laws.


This statute points out the importance of the building inspector to the entire

project team. The importance of a building inspector can be explained by the analogy of

the federal government. The federal government has three branches: the legislative,

executive, and judicial. No one branch has 100% of the power and each branch runs a

checks-and-balances system on each other so the balance of power remains. The major

branches in construction as related to direct building safety and quality are the

owner/architect/engineer (legislative), general contractor (executive), and the building

inspector (judicial). The owner/architect/engineer is responsible for legislating a safe

design, while the general contractor is obligated to execute all of the work stipulated

under the contract with the owner according to the required specifications. The owner

gives payment (balance) to the general contractor only when portions of the work are









carried out, and the building inspector inspects (governs) the work performed by the

general contractor and the design of the owner/architect/engineer to make sure that all of

the specifications and code requirements are correctly followed. Even though the

contractor's work is subjected to inspection, the purpose of rating the building inspector's

performance is not to imply that the general contractor is not responsible for maintaining

good quality control.

"What is the current rating of building inspectors' performance?" The following

does not answer the question of current rating, but offers a surveyed historical rating of

inspector error or omission. Of the parties identified as being involved in either the

design or physical placement of rebar, the participants involved with the most failure

cases from greatest to least were the contractor (site staff), structural designer, resident

engineer, and the inspector, respectively. In a survey done by Eldukair and Ayyub in

1991, the distribution of failure cases with respect to sources of error by participant,

inspectors accounted for 27.6% of failure cases. A 27.6% is a high percentage of failure

cases that suggests all of the errors may not be common mistakes and there may be room

for improvement.

This research is focused on identifying whether or not building inspectors are

performing well by how they are rated by the individuals who are responsible for placing

the work the building inspector is inspecting. Data on key reinforced concrete

performance criteria were collected to provide a means of evaluating building inspectors'

performance.









Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze data that will help examine

current building inspector expertise and consistency in relation to the concrete reinforcing

inspection on commercial construction projects valued at over one million dollars. These

data have the potential for helping identify areas where there is a need for a more

formally educated and consistent building inspection force that may increase the

longevity and safety of commercial buildings.

Hypothesis Statements

The hypotheses tested for each performance determinant were as follows:

1) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors refer to the contract
documents to decide if the reinforcement is correct.

2) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors reference the Florida
Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow the code.

3) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors thoroughly inspect
reinforcing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other building
inspectors.













CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

"Failure to achieve the specific cover is probably the most influential factor in

premature reinforcement corrosion which, in turn, is the principle form of deterioration

in concrete structures" (Dakin et al. 2001, p. 20). Reinforced concrete was first

introduced in the 1850's and gained popularity as a structural building component by the

end of the 19th century (Allen 1999). Today, reinforced concrete structures are

commonplace all around the world and will continue to be a preferred building

component. With many reinforced concrete structures being built, identifying all of the

variables and predicting the actual safe, useful life is very important.

Determining Causes of Rebar Corrosion

One of the variables that affect the useful life of reinforced concrete was

discussed in a study of rebar corrosion due to surface cracking (Francois and Arliguie

1998). This study observed the corrosion effects of reinforced concrete beams that were

subjected to loading, varying temperature and a corrosive environment. Since, "corrosion

of rebars is the major cause of the deterioration of reinforced concrete structures," they

wanted to know what mechanism has the largest effect on corrosion. The solution of

micro-cracking and cracking that occur from loading was looked at as a possible cause,

but the test results concluded: "reinforcement corrosion is not influenced by the widths of

the cracks (for widths less than 0.5mm) or by the existences of the cracks themselves.

However, it seems obvious that the load applied to a reinforced concrete beam plays a









significant role in the penetration of aggressive agents and then in the corrosion of the

reinforcement" (Francois and Arliguie 1998, p. 143,149).

In order for steel reinforcing to begin deleterious corrosion, the protective outer

layer on the rebar must be destroyed. In a study done by Williamson and Clark in 2000,

they found that the destruction of this layer "forms a major part of the United Kingdom

construction workload, with similar situations existing throughout the world. The most

significant form of deterioration is reinforcement corrosion" (Williamson and Clark

2000, p. 155). Williamson and Clark's research also examined the effects of corrosion in

reinforced concrete and they concluded:

(a) Reduction in steel area, resulting in losses in strength of
reinforced concrete members.

(b) The corrosion products occupy a volume larger than the
original steel. At the onset of corrosion, these products migrate into any
void adjacent to the concrete. At this stage, although the effective bar area
is reducing, the corrosion does not affect the integrity of the surrounding
concrete.

(c) The nature of the bond between the steel and concrete changes
and can deteriorate, resulting in loss of composite action and change in
mode of structural behavior. (Williamson and Clark 2000, p. 155,156)

Another study on reinforcement corrosion focused on the differing permeability

of concrete in relation to its location within a member (Williamson and Clark 2001). The

upper layer of concrete was found to be of lower quality than the "heartcrete," or

underlying material, in the lower portion of the member. The lower-quality upper

concrete has a larger variation of the resulting overall quality and is more porous. This

higher porosity allows corrosive agents to penetrate the steel faster. Some of the reasons

the upper layer is subject to this variation were determined to be the following:









(a) Air and water move upwards in the fresh concrete creating a
water/cement ratio, and therefore also porosity gradient.

(b) The wall effect influences the uniformity of distribution of
large particles near to a molded surface.

(c) The effects of different compaction methods and quality.

(d) The adequacy of curing the surface layer of concrete is
susceptible to drying effects and hence incomplete hydration. (Williamson
and Clark 2001, p. 53)

In a study of building failures, reinforced concrete was examined as having many

different factors that can alter the predicted outcome of the final product (Feld and Carper

1997). Feld and Carper, as well as others believe that the skill and competence of the

workforce has a direct effect on the resulting strength and quality of reinforced concrete.

"The need for quality supervision and field inspection is more evident with this material

than for many others" (Feld and Carper 1997, p. 238). The study goes on to state, "good-

quality dense concrete with adequate cover over the reinforcement is the principle key to

durability" (Feld and Carper 1997, p. 283).

In a 1991 study of U.S. construction failures, as shown in Table 2-1, 604

structural and construction failures were analyzed between years 1975-1986 (Eldukair

and Ayyub 1991). Due to the age and broad range of sample area in the 1991 study, the

current localized results of this study's results may vary. However, the component

failure mechanisms analyzed in the 1991 study have not changed with the conditions

today. New research and testing has led to the introduction of corrosion-resistant

materials, but they are more expensive than using traditional steel rebar and are generally

only used in special applications. These corrosion-resistant materials do slow the

corrosion process giving the final reinforcing bar location more tolerance than steel, but









in order to transfer building loads correctly they must still follow the design plans.

Reviewing Eldukair and Ayyubs research today raises the question: how many more

buildings from this period are suffering from a weakened structure but have not collapsed

yet? In the buildings analyzed by the 1991 study, "most of the failure cases indicated that

reinforced concrete elements were predominant... 86.4% percent of the failures recorded

deficiencies in reinforced concrete elements" (Eldukair and Ayyub 1991, p. 63). Human

error was found to be a major contributor to not achieving predicted design strength

ultimately decreasing the structures overall safety and useful life.

Table 2-1. Distribution of Failure Cases with Respect to Sources of Error by Participation
Description of Participant Error by Participation Failure Cases (%)

Proj ect architect 3.0
Structural designer 48.2
Resident engineer 31.1
Inspector 27.6
Contractor (head office) 3.8
Contractor (site staff) 59.6
Contractor (workmen) 17.4
Operator 2.8
(Source: Eldukair and Ayyub 1991, p. 64)

Building Inspector Duties and Educational Requirements

Since the adoption of the 2001 Florida Building Code by the Florida Governor

and Legislature becoming effective on March 1, 2002, the new code is the most pertinent

information regarding reinforced concrete inspection. To supplement the 2001 Florida

Building Code, a review of the Chapter 468, Part XII of the Florida Statutes: Building

Code Administrators and Inspectors has been included in this section.









The following was taken from the 2001 Florida Building Code, Building Volume

regarding reinforced concrete:

1908.6 Concrete Protection for Reinforcement

1908.6.1 Concrete cover shall be provided for reinforcement in
cast-in-place (not-pre-stressed) in accordance with Table 1908.6.

1908.6.3 In corrosive environments or other sever exposure
conditions, the amount of concrete protection shall be suitably increased,
and denseness and non-porosity of protecting concrete shall be considered,
or other protection shall be provided.

1908.6.4 Exposed reinforcement, inserts and plates intended for
bonding with future extensions shall be protected from corrosion.

105 Inspections

105.6 Required Inspections. The building official upon
notification from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following
inspections, and shall either release that portion of the construction or shall
notify the permit holder or his agent of any violations which must be
corrected in order to comply with the technical codes. The building
official shall determine the timing and sequencing of when inspections
occur and what elements are inspected at each inspection.

Building
1. Foundation Inspection: To be made after trenches are
excavated and forms erected and shall at a minimum include the following
building components:
stem-wall
monolithic slab-on-grade
piling/pile caps
footers/grade beams

105.8 Reinforcing Steel and Structural Frames. Reinforcing steel
or structural frame work of any part of any building or structure shall not
be covered or concealed without first obtaining a release from the building
official. (Florida Building Commission 2001)









The following is a review of the duties, education, and experience requirements as

stated by the 2002 Chapter 468, Part XII of the Florida Statutes: Building Code

Administrators and Inspectors:

468.603. (a) "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified
to inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in
accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state
accessibility laws.

468.609. (2) A person may take the examination for certification as
a building code inspector or plans examiner pursuant to this part if the
person:

(a) Is at least 18 years of age.
(b) Is of good moral character.
(c) Meets eligibility requirements according to one of the following
criteria:

1. Demonstrates 5 years' combined experience in the field of
construction or a related field, building code inspection, or plans
review corresponding to the certification category sought;

2. Demonstrates a combination of postsecondary education in the
field of construction or a related field and experience which totals
4 years, with at least 1 year of such total being experience in
construction, building code inspection, or plans review;

3. Demonstrates a combination of technical education in the field
of construction or a related field and experience which totals 4
years, with at least 1 year of such total being experience in
construction, building code inspection, or plans review; or

4. Currently holds a standard certificate as issued by the board and
satisfactorily completes a building code inspector or plans
examiner training program of not less than 200 hours in the
certification category sought. The board shall establish by rule
criteria for the development and implementation of the training
programs.

After becoming a building inspector, continuing education hours are required to

renew certification. A total of fourteen (14) hours of coursework must be taken every









two (2) years that is approved by the Florida Building Commission. Alternative classes

involving further specialization or personal interest may be taken with the approval of the

Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board in an hourly exchange. All of the

courses counted towards continuing education hours must have a minimum duration of

50 minutes each (Florida Building Statutes 2002).

A clear example of what a building inspector might look at during a concrete

reinforcing inspection was found in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of

Concrete Inspection (1992). ACI breaks down the inspection activities by the complexity

of the project and categorizes them into general levels. The Level A projects range from

high-rise to power plant construction, the Level B projects range from low-rise industrial

and commercial to small bridge construction, and Level C projects range from residential

to small drainage construction. Reinforced concrete structures generally fell under Level

A and B type projects. Both Level A and B recommended inspections require the

inspector to be present through, "pre-placement, placement, and post-placement

inspection of concrete activities (including curing). With special attention to mass

concrete, hot weather concreting and cold weather concreting." To fortify the importance

of concrete reinforcing inspection ACI states, "Improper reinforcement placement can

lead to severe cracking, steel corrosion, and excessive deflections (or even failure)" (ACI

1992, p. 203, 65).

In a study of building official certification it was found that there is a recognized

"need for uniform, mandatory and continuing training for inspection personnel in the

State of Florida" (Hart and Daudelin 1990, p. 3). The information in the survey was

obtained from 154 Florida respondents to a building official questionnaire. It was also









found that, "stringent experience requirements should play a major role in the

certification process" (Hart and Daudelin 1990, p. 8).

Summary

The literature review, while not exhaustive, covered the implications and causes

of rebar corrosion in reinforced concrete, current codes, professional organizational

standards, past research regarding human error in the building process, and a study

involving building official certification. Rebar corrosion occurs as a chemical process so,

in an attempt to slow and predict that process, minimum code and design criteria must be

followed. The 2001 Florida Building Code along with the Chapter 468, Part XII of the

Florida Statutes establishes design minimums as well as building inspector educational

and field inspection requirements. The ACIManual of Concrete Inspection (1992) was

quoted to show how the American Concrete Institute recommends field inspections. The

1991 Eldukair and Ayyub study reviewed the key parties involved in a construction

project and identified inspectors as one of the parties involved in failure cases. At the

time of the study, the sample data suggests room for possible inspector improvement.

The 1990 Hart and Daudelin study reviewed building official certification and the

findings suggested a need for higher levels of experience and training.

As suggested by the findings of the literature review, the issues of rebar corrosion

and past research of building failures may directly link the useable life and safety of

reinforced concrete buildings to the building inspection process.













CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Goals of the Study

The purpose of this study is to analyze a construction supervisor's view of

building inspectors' performance in relation to concrete reinforcing inspection in an

effort to: 1) determine whether the contract plan requirements are referred to, 2) examine

whether the building codes are referenced to the contract plans to establish compliance,

and 3) ascertain whether inspection performance is thorough and results are consistent

with other building inspectors.

Research Methodology

In an effort to support the purpose of this research it was critical to develop a

defined and methodical approach to solicit the desired information. In order to satisfy the

information required by the goals of the study, it was imperative to obtain the opinions of

those currently in the building industry. The implementation of a survey questionnaire

fulfilled this need. Figure 3-1 shows the methodology flow chart and provides an

overview of this research.

Design of Questionnaire

The questionnaire was created to solicit relevant information regarding the goals

of the study. The survey instrument consisted of questions pertaining to the overall

performance of a concrete reinforcing inspection by the building inspector. The

questionnaire was intended to canvass the opinions of the participants in regards to what

they thought of building inspectors' performance. The key performance























Figure 3-1. Research Methodology Flow Chart


areas addressed in the questionnaire regarding building inspectors were the following:

1) reference of the contract documents,

2) reference of the building codes with the contract documents, and

3) thoroughness and consistency of field inspection.

A sample of this questionnaire and protocol (approved by the University of Florida

Institutional Review Board) is included in Appendix A.

Selection of a Sample Group

Job Site Supervisors

The participants chosen were those who were:

working in commercial construction,

in a supervisory position on the jobsite,

all working within the same geographic area,

working on a project with reinforced concrete components,

working on a project with a total construction cost exceeding $1 million,

all working within one building code enforcement agency's jurisdiction,
and









directly involved with the concrete reinforcing building inspection
process.

Building Inspectors

The participants targeted were those that:

inspect reinforced concrete components,

inspect commercial construction projects, and

are employed by a government building codes enforcement agency.

Description of Sample Area Chosen

This study was localized to the city limits of Gainesville, Florida. The city is

located in the north central part of the state and has an estimated population of 110,000 as

of September 1, 2002 (City of Gainesville, Florida 2002). According to a phone

conversation with the local building official, the estimated new commercial construction

projects active in Gainesville, Florida as of September 24, 2002 is less that fifty (50).

Estimation of Sample Size

The intention of this study was to survey each person involved in the concrete

reinforcing inspection process for each commercial job within the Gainesville, Florida

city limits. Due to the time involved in personally introducing the questionnaire to each

participant, twenty-three (23) interviews were completed and accepted according to the

sample group criteria before the study data collection time ended.

Resulting Sample Size:

23 responses
S5>0 approxima46% sample
< 50 approximate commercial jobs









Limitations

This research was conducted to show the current perceptions of construction

supervisors regarding the quality of the concrete reinforcing inspection process in an

effort to determine a possible approach for improving building safety and the useable life

of buildings. An attempt was made to receive the building inspectors' responses to the

same questionnaire (see Appendix A). Unfortunately, no responses had been received

before the cutoff deadline stipulated. There are four limitations that apply to this study:

1) Limited range of sample The population surveyed in this study was localized
to the Gainesville, Florida city area.

2) Subjectivity of topic Data obtained in this study came from the opinions of
site supervisors whose workmanship is what is being inspected.

3) Central tendency bias Respondents may tend to avoid the extremes of a scale,
which may limit the desire for the perfect inspection performance rating.

4) Time limitation The data collection time was limited to August 21, 2002 -
September 5, 2002.
Survey Methodology

A total of thirty-one (31) possible candidates were interviewed in person to

determine whether they were qualified to be included in the sample group. The reason

for personally introducing the questionnaire was four fold:

1) to obtain a higher acceptance rate,

2) to insure that the target person received the survey,

3) to answer any questions regarding the mechanics of the survey, and

4) to insure consistency of administering the questionnaire.

The interviews were conducted between August 21, 2002 and September 5, 2002. Each

employee holding a supervisory level position who was directly involved in the concrete

reinforcing inspection process was asked whether they would be willing to complete a









questionnaire at a time convenient to them. The participants were typically general

contractor superintendents or assistant superintendents. On the larger jobs surveyed

($14-50 million), field engineers and assistant superintendents were predominantly more

involved in the building inspection process. The names of the participants and the

companies they work for were held anonymous in this research due to a localized

population. A list of job position, current project size and estimated annual company

volume of the participants can be seen in Appendix B. To introduce the survey to the

targeted participant, the jobsite superintendent of each project was approached using a

standard dialogue to get the required preliminary information:

"Hello, my name is Mark Powers and I am a graduate student at the M.E. Rinker

School of Building Construction. I am currently working on my master's

research and am researching building inspectors' performance relating to

reinforced concrete inspection. May I speak with the person directly involved in

handling that process and ask them a few questions?"

When in contact with the appropriate person, it was stated:

"Your experience regarding the concrete inspection process is a valued resource

and your opinions would be beneficial to my research."

They were further asked,

"Would you be willing to complete a survey that I have designed as a part of my

research to try and get an idea of how well building inspectors perform reinforced

concrete inspection?"

Favorable responses resulted in setting a time best suited to the participant for

administration of the questionnaire.









The Participants who responded favorably totaled twenty-eight (28). Of these

twenty-three (23) fit the sample group criteria. Once all the questionnaires were

received, the data collected was tested using the heterogeneity chi-squared and chi-

squared statistical tools. The heterogeneity test was used to indicate whether the various

responses were consistent with one another. The questions asked required the

respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement with a series of statements. A 5-

point Likert scale ranging from "1" for complete disagreement to "5" for complete

agreement was used. A "6" was recorded when the participant had no opinion or lacked

the knowledge to express an informed opinion. Due to the variable range of data, the chi-

squared test was chosen because it tests categorical responses and predictors. To test the

hypothesis and the consistency of the various samples, the observed value chosen for

both the chi-squared and chi-squared heterogeneity tests was the cumulative frequency

that a choice of "5" occurred for each question. In turn, the expected value was the total

possibility that a number "5" could occur. The alpha level for both of these tests was set

at 0.005. Each hypothesis has a descriptive analysis of the data to best explain the

responses and relevance to the study. Along with this analysis bar charts were generated

to visually represent the data.
















CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS


Survey Results


The construction industry experience of the twenty-three (23) respondents to the


questionnaire varied from 1.5 to 53 years with an average of 21.6 years (Figure 4-1).


Although the average industry experience was substantial, the heterogeneity chi-squared


test was performed to determine whether the responses were consistent with one another.


The heterogeneity chi-squared test results are shown in Table 4-1. The end result was


obtained by comparing the total pooled heterogeneity chi-squared result (5.9) with the


critical value of (18.5) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set


confidence interval of 99.5% with 6 degrees of freedom. Results less than the critical
60


50


V 40
C
C

C 30
30

20



10-




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Each Bar Represents One Respondent's Experience
Figure 4-1. A Distribution of Responses by Industry Experience









value (18.5) occur within the set confidence interval. As shown in Table 4-1, the result

(5.9) is less than the critical value (18.5), so with a 99.5% level of confidence, the various

samples were not significantly different and all of the data can be accepted.

Table 4-1. Heterogeneity Chi-Squared Test for Response Data
Observed Expected Degrees of
Question # (0) (E) '(O-E)2/E Freedom
1 17 23 1.6 1
2 8 23 9.8 1
3 7 23 11.1 1
4 6 23 12.6 1
5 7 23 11.1 1
6 8 23 9.8 1
7 1 23 21.0 1
Pooled X2 54 161 71.1 1
Total X2 of
samples 77.0 7
Heterogeneity X2
(Total Pooled) 5.9 6
Note: Critical Value=18.5 at 6 Degrees of Freedom with an Alpha Level of 0.005

Hypothesis 1 (Question # 1)

The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:

1) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors refer to the contract
documents to decide if the reinforcement is correct.

1) Hi: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors refer to the contract
documents to decide if the reinforcement is correct.

The chi-squared test results for Hypothesis 1 are shown in Table 4-2. The end

result was obtained by comparing the chi-squared result (1.6) with the critical value of

(7.88) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set confidence interval of

99.5% with one degree of freedom. Results less than the critical value (7.88) occur

within the set confidence interval. In Table 4-2, the result (1.6) is less than the critical

value (7.88), so with a 99.5% level of confidence the null hypothesis can be accepted.















Note: Critical Value=7.88 at 1 Degree of Freedom with an Alpha Level of 0.005

Hypothesis 2 (Question #2)

The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:

2) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors reference the Florida
Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow the code.

2) Hi: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors reference the Florida
Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow the code.

The chi-squared test results for Hypothesis 2 are shown in Table 4-3. The end

result was obtained by comparing the chi-squared result (9.8) with the critical value of

(7.88) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set confidence interval of

99.5% with one degree of freedom. Results greater than the critical value (7.88) do not

occur within the set confidence interval and are rejected. In Table 4-3, the result (9.8) is

greater than the critical value (7.88), so with a 99.5% level of confidence the null

hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) can be accepted.

Table 4-3. Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #2 Response Data
Question Observed Expected O-E (O-E)2 E(O-E)2/E D.F.
# (0) (E)
2 8 23 -15 225 9.8 1
Note: Critical Value=7.88 at 1 Degree of Freedom with an Alpha Level of 0.005

Hypothesis 3 (Questions # 3-7)

The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:

3) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors thoroughly inspect
reinforcing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other building
inspectors.









3) Hi: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors thoroughly inspect
reinforcing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other
inspectors.

The chi-squared test results for Hypothesis 3 are shown in Table 4-4. The end

result was obtained by comparing the chi-squared result (65.7) with the critical value of

(16.7) which was found in the Chi-Squared Distribution at the set confidence interval of

99.5% with five degrees of freedom. Results greater than the critical value (16.7) do not

occur within the set confidence interval and are rejected. In Table 4-4, the result (65.7) is

greater than the critical value (16.7), so with a 99.5% level of confidence the null

hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Hi) can be accepted. It is

important to note that hypothesis #3 was formulated by combining questions #3-7 to

achieve a quality rating of the inspection process. To attain a consistent 99.5% level of

confidence, each individual question's chi-squared result was referenced to the

corresponding one degree of freedom critical value (7.88). Each individual question's

result is greater than the critical value (7.88) ensuring that each question could be

separately rejected.

Table 4-4. Chi-Squared Test for Hypothesis #3 Response Data

Question Observed Expected O-E (O-E)2 E(O-E)2/E D.F.
# (0) (E)
3 7 23 -16 256 11.1 1

4 6 23 -17 289 12.6 1

5 7 23 -16 256 11.1 1

6 8 23 -15 225 9.8 1

7 1 23 -22 484 21.0 1

Sum 65.7 5
Note: Critical Value=16.7 at 5 Degrees of Freedom with an Alpha Level of 0.005











Discussion of Results

1) Ho: Field supervisors agree that building inspectors refer to the contract

documents to decide if the reinforcement is correct.

Accepting this hypothesis suggests that building inspectors are perceived by field

supervisors as orienting themselves to the contract documents in regards to what is being

inspected. The inspectors are then using the design information in the field as a basis for

the overall general placement criteria. The hypothesis response distribution is shown in

Figure 4-2.

18

16

14

12

r 10

8
I-
LL
6

4

2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Response to Question
Figure 4-2. Response Distribution for Hypothesis #1

2) Hi: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors reference the Florida

Building Code to decide if the contract plans follow code.

The statistical analysis leads to rejection of the null hypothesis and acceptance of

the alternative hypothesis. However, a limitation of this hypothesis must be noted. Field

supervisors may not physically see building inspectors cross-reference the Florida










Building Code with the contract plans. However, the inspector may be able to inherently

reference the contract plans with knowledge of the code gained from the experience and

education needed for inspection certification. The hypothesis response distribution is

shown in Figure 4-3.

9

8

7

6





3






0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Response to Question
Figure 4-3. Response Distribution for Hypothesis #2

3) Hi: Field supervisors do not agree that building inspectors thoroughly inspect

reinforcing for concrete and yield results consistent with those of other building

inspectors.

Questions 3 through 7 in the survey questionnaire were used to form the accepted

alternative hypothesis. A frequency-of-response bar chart for each question was

generated and is shown in Figure 4-4. Accepting the alternate hypothesis suggests there

is a need for more consistent, all-inclusive reinforcing placement inspections.

























1 2 3 4 5 6
Response to Question
(A). Distribution of Responses for Question #3;


1 2 3 4 5 6
Response to Question
(B). Distribution of Responses for Question #4;


1 2 3 4 5 6
Response to Question
(C). Distribution of Responses for Question #5;
Figure 4-4. Response Distribution for Hypothesis #3 by Question
























1 2 3 4 5 6
Response to Question
(D). Distribution of Responses for Question #6;


1 2 3 4 5 6
Response to Question
(E). Distribution of Responses for Question #7.
Continued


Figure 4-4.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

In conclusion, the placement of reinforcing in concrete is crucial to the useful life

and safety of buildings that use reinforced concrete components as their primary load

bearing structure. To insure that the placement of reinforcement is correct, building

inspectors are charged with competently administering the building codes. If building

inspectors have not gained the experience and technical knowledge required for thorough

inspections, the workmanship and design of these structures are left only to those with a

monetary vested interest. With a drive for extra monetary gain, covers can be cut and

the codes and contract documents may not be followed. This research combined with

future studies aimed at improving other key parties' contributions to the concrete

reinforcement design, installation, and inspection process may further benefit the

commercial construction industry. If every key party were in synch with one another, the

need for concrete reinforcement rework along with its associated costs would decrease

while maintaining building safety and useable life projections.

Some suggestions for improvement include:

devoting some of the continuing education hours needed for recertification
of inspectors to coursework involving concrete reinforcing placement
methods and designs,

developing and implementing a specific inspection checklist,

increasing the time devoted to each inspection, and









enacting field experience requirements similar to those for currently
followed by on-the-job training minimums journeyman apprenticeship
programs.

According to the 2002 Florida Statutes, building inspectors are required to take a

total of fourteen (14) hours of approved continuing education coursework every two (2)

years. A list of courses approved by the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors

Board that address the topics of foundations, concrete, and concrete reinforcing has been

included in Appendix C. The coursework is not limited to only those offered by the state,

and the Florida Building Commission allows alternative educational training with the

Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board's approval. This flexibility may in

the future allow for a program created for specific training regarding reinforced concrete

inspection to be a viable option in allowing an avenue for current building inspectors to

become more proficient at concrete reinforcing placement inspection while fulfilling a

recertification requirement. Such a training program could cover common field

installation techniques including necessary field adjustments, problems associated with

reinforcing misplacement as well as acceptable inspection techniques.

In order to reduce the variation of inspection results, the implementation of an

inspection checklist may be beneficial. The checklist could be a comprehensive, step-by-

step procedure that rates the rebar placement and workmanship. A checklist for each

type of reinforced concrete component could be part of a data base in which the inspector

retrieves the template dependent upon what is to be inspected: strip footing, wall, beam,

elevated slab, etc. When the checklist is complete, it can be used as part of the

documentation process with a copy given to the field supervisor and the original kept for

the building inspectors' records.









A possible explanation of deficient inspections may be the result of a lack of time

devoted to the inspection. If building inspectors are overburdened with work, they may

be rushing inspections to cover the workload. The average inspection workload of a

building inspector to accomplish complete inspections should be ascertained and set as a

limit not to be exceeded. If the number of new construction projects exceeds the capacity

of a codes enforcement agency to handle safely, extra help should be employed to lessen

the work burden.

The state of Florida's minimum field experience required for becoming a building

inspector is one year of construction, building code inspection or plans review

experience, with the exception of a person currently holding a standard certificate as

issued by the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board and completing the

required training program hours. In the required field experience training, the adoption

of a modified journeyman apprenticeship programs' on-the-job training hour requirement

could be made. Journeyman apprenticeship programs ensure a wide variety of work

experiences for apprentices by requiring minimum hours of on-the-job training. One

example is the National Center for Construction Education and Research's Carpentry

Apprenticeship Program that encompasses the following categories of work experience

including: foundations, walls, floors, framing, roofs, exterior mill work, interior wall

coverage, stairs and others. For building inspectors, the categories covered could include

all of the areas they will be inspecting. Each category would also require a minimum

number of on-the-job training hours that must be documented before a building inspector

can become certified. This would not only benefit the inspection of concrete reinforcing,

but inspection process as a whole.









Recommendations for Future Studies

Further studies should gather data from other municipalities for comparison since

this study was limited to one jurisdiction. There are many parties involved throughout

the design and construction process that have a direct responsibility for creating a safe

building. This study focused only on one of these parties and they should in no way take

the complete burden. Research should be done to assess the other parties' expertise

related to reinforced concrete components to determine whether any improvements can

be made within their disciplines. In addition, other studies should include questions

relating to the availability of building inspectors and then compare those results to the

quality of the inspection.














APPENDIX A
PROTOCOL AND ADMINISTERED SURVEY










Protocol Title: Survey of Concrete Reinforcing Inspection Process
Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.
Purpose of the research study:
The purpose of this study is to examine current building official expertise and consistency in relation to
concrete reinforcing inspection of commercial construction projects which are over one million dollars in
total cost.
What you will be asked to do in the study:
Fill out a seven question survey about reinforced concrete inspection.
APPROVED BY
Time required: University of Florida
Institutional Review Board (1R 02)
10 minutes Protocol# Zoo -U 6SS
Risks and Benefits: For Use Through ~ zo,,- 3
The survey has the potential of showing a need for a more educated and consistent inspection force that
may, if trained, increase the longevity and safety of buildings. There are no risks because your name and
company (agency) will not be used.
Compensation:
None.
Confidentiality:
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a
code number. The consent form connecting your name to the number will be kept in a locked file in my
faculty supervisor's office. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed, the form will be
destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report.
Voluntary participation:
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.
Right to withdraw from the study:
You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.
Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
Mark Powers: Grad. Student at ME Rinker School of Building Construction, 1238 N.W. 55th Terrace,
Gainesville, Fl 32605, phone: (352)374-2203, E-mail: buzzard9876@hotmail.com
Dr. Raymond Issa: ME Rinker School of Building Construction 101 Fine Arts Building C PO Box 115703
Gainesville, Fl 32611-5703, 392-5965, raymond-issa@ufl.edu
Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433.
Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have
received a copy of this description.
Participant: Date:
Principal Investigator: Date:











Survey of Concrete Reinforcing Inspection, a Commercial Construction
Superintendent's View


Job Title:
Years of Experience:
Type(s) of Construction:
Estimated Annual Volume:
Average Project Size:

Instructions: In the following section, please circle the number which indicates the
extent to which you agree with the following statements. A score of "" denotes a low
level of occurrence, while a score of "5" denotes a high level of occurrence.


1. Local Building inspectors refer to
the contract documents to decide if
the reinforcement is correct.

2. Local Building inspectors
reference the Florida Building
Code to decide if the contract plans
follow the code.
3. Local Building inspectors do a
thorough inspection of the entire
area to be inspected.

4. While inspecting the rebar
placement, local Building
inspectors actually measure rebar
lap length, rebar spacing and the
proposed concrete coverage depth.

5. Local Building inspectors are
knowledgeable about reinforced
concrete inspection.

6. Different Building inspectors on
the same job yield consistent
interpretations of the contract
documents regarding the rebar
placement with one another.
7. Inspection occurs during the actual
placement of concrete.


Never Always Do
Not
Know
1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6





1 2 3 4 5 6



1 2 3 4 5 6





1 2 3 4 5 6











Survey of Concrete Reinforcing Inspection, a Building Inspector's View


Job Title:
Years of
Experience:

Type(s) of
Construction:


Instructions: In the following section, please circle the number which indicates the
extent to which you agree with the following statements. A score of "" denotes a low
level of occurrence, while a score of "5" denotes a high level of occurrence.
Never Always Do Nc


1. I refer to the contract documents to
decide if the reinforcement is correct.


2. I reference the Florida Building Code
to decide if the contract plans follow
the code.

3. I do a thorough inspection of the
entire area to be inspected.

4. While inspecting the rebar
placement, I actually measure rebar
lap, rebar depth and proposed
concrete coverage.

5. I am knowledgeable about reinforced
concrete inspection.


6. Different building inspectors on the
same job yield consistent
interpretations of the contract
documents regarding the rebar
placement with one another.

7. Inspection occurs during the actual
placement of concrete.


1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5




1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


Know
6



6



6


6




6



6


>t



















Participant
Number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


Position
Assistant
Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent
Assistant
Superintendent

Superintendent
Assistant
Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent

Labor Foreman
Assistant
Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent


APPENDIX B
DEMOGRAPHICS

Estimated
Company Annual
Years in Volume
Industry (in Millions)

2 13

21 110

8 110

10 110

26 15

4 50

18 600

25 200

28 200

1.5 50

30 20

24 150

32 20

15 80


Project Size
(in Millions)

12

9

26

5

12

10

50

8

7

15

2

20

3

16













Participant
Number

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Position
Project
Engineer
Assistant
Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent

Superintendent
Assistant
Superintendent


Years in
Industry

25

8

40

38

53

24

22

40

3


Estimated
Company Annual
Volume
(in Millions)

100

60

70

60

70

60

60

60

60

Total
Average project
size


Project Size
(in Millions)

10

13

14

4

3

2

18

15

8

282

$13 Million














APPENDIX C
APPROVED CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSE LIST

BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATORS & INSPECTORS BOARD
CONTINUING EDUCATION SPONSOR AND COURSE LIST
(Abbreviated)


Course Sponsor: Santa Rosa County
Building Dept
Contact: Rhonda Royals
Sponsor No.: 0001245
Date Approved: April 21, 1995
Course: Concrete Transportation and
Placement
Length: 1 hour
Course Number: BCAI 0002463
Date Approved: June 16, 1995

Course Sponsor: Seminole County
Building and Fire Protection
Division
Contact: Paul Watson
Sponsor No.: 0001251
Date Approved: September 23, 1995
Course: Concrete Inspection & Testing.
Length: 4 hours
Course Number: BCAI 0002649
Date Approved: March 8, 1996

Course Sponsor: The South Florida
Building Officials Council
Contact: James Rodgers
Sponsor No.: 0001258
Date Approved: December 16, 1996


Course Sponsor: Building Officials
& Inspectors Association of
Broward County
Contact: William G. Dumbaugh
Sponsor No.: 0000865
Date Approved: May 2, 1994
Course: Soils and Foundations
Length: 1 hour
Course Number: BCAI 0002041
Date Approved: January 23, 1998

Course Sponsor: Southern Building
Code Congress International
Inc.
Contact: Lindsey Carter
Sponsor No.: 0000991
Date Approved: September 22, 1994
Course: Concrete and Masonry
Construction and Inspection
Length: 7 hours
Course Number: BCAI 0002097
Date Approved: September 22, 1994


Course: #4: The S.F.B.C. Reinforced &
Gypsum Concrete
Chapter 25 & 26
Length: 1 hour
Course Number: 0005359
Date Approved: January 22, 1997

(Source: Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2001)














REFERENCES


American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Inspection 8th ed. ACI Publication SP-
2(92): 1992. pgs. 65-66, 200-203.

Allen, Edward. Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods 3rd ed.
New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc. 1999.

Building Research Station. "Durability of Reinforced Concrete." Special Report No. 25.
London: HMSO. 1956.

City of Gainesville, Florida. 2002. "The City of Gainesville Official Web Site." City of
Gainesville, Florida. http://www.cityofgainesville.org. July 7, 2002.

Clifton, James. "Predicting the Service Life of Concrete." ACI Materials Journal 90.6.
(November-December 1993): 611-617.

Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. 1996. "CRSI." Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.
http://www.crsi.org. August 9, 2001.

Dakin, Julie, Elizabeth King, and Mott McDonald. "Specifying, Detailing Achieving
Cover to Reinforcement." Concrete: For the Construction Industry. March 2001:
20-21.

Eldukair, Ziad and Bilal Ayyub. "Analysis of Recent U.S. Structural and Construction
Failures." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 5.1. (February 1991):
57-73.

Feld, Jacob and Kenneth Carper. Construction Failure 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. 1997.

Florida Building Commission. "2001 Florida Building Code." Birmingham: Southern
Building Code Congress International. 2001.

Florida Statute, Chapter 468, Part XII, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors.

Francois, R. and G. Arliguie. "Effect of Microcracking and Cracking on the Development
of Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Members." Magazine of Concrete Research
51.2. (April 1999): 143-150.









Hart, N. Fred and Joe Daudelin. A Study of Building Official Certification: Needs,
Requirements and Necessary Education for Certification. Gainesville: Santa Fe
Community College. 1990.

Limbrunner, George, P.E. and Leonard Speigel, P.E. Reinforced Concrete Design 4th ed.
Columbus: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1998.

Marotta, Theodore and Charles Herubin. Basic Construction Materials 5th ed. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1997.

McClave, James and Terry Sincich. Statistics 8th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall,
Inc. 2000.

Sim, Julius and Chris Wright. Research in Health Care: Concepts, Designs and Methods.
London: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd. 2000.

Smith, Frank and Martin Tullman. "Using Stainless Steels as Long-Lasting Rebar
Material." Materials Performance. May 1999: 72-76.

State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation. 2001. "Building
Code Administrators & Inspectors Board Continuing Education Sponsors and
Course List." State of Florida.
http://www.state.fl.us/dbpr/pro/buildc/bcindex.shtml. October 1, 2002.

State of Florida, Department of Building and Professional Regulation. Division of
Professions. Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board. Limited
Licensure Package. 2002.

State of Florida, Department of Building and Professional Regulation. Division of
Professions. Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board. Certification
Examination and Endorsement Package. 2002.

University of Florida Environmental Health and Safety. 2002. "Building Code
Enforcement Program." University of Florida. http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/buildcode.
July 7, 2002.

Williamson, S.J. and L.A. Clark. "The Influence of the Permeability of Concrete Cover
on Reinforcement Corrosion." Magazine of Concrete Research 53.3. (June 2001):
183-195.

Williamson, S.J. and L.A. Clark. "Pressure Required to Cause Cover Cracking of
Concrete Due to Reinforcement Corrosion." Magazine of Concrete Research 52.6.
(December 2000): 455-467.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Mark Powers was born in Shell Lake, Wisconsin, and moved to Gainesville,

Florida, in 1991. He has been involved in construction since he was seven years old

while working with family in the industry. After graduating high school he attended

Santa Fe Community College to complete an Associate of Arts in Building Construction.

He was then accepted to the M.E. Rinker School of Building Construction at the

University of Florida, where he received his Bachelor of Science in Building

Construction. While receiving the undergraduate degree, he continued to work in the

commercial construction industry. Working for a local general contractor, he continued

his education by completing the Associated Builders and Contractors Inc.'s

apprenticeship program to become a state of Florida recognized journeyman carpenter.

He also completed his Master of Science in Building Construction degree at the

University of Florida in December of 2002.