From the article:
A new $2.8 million roof was installed in 2005, but leaks have persisted.
Nearly two years — and two studies — after Expo Square officials began looking into the issue, the fair board on Tuesday voted to spend $1.456 million to fix it.
Does no one warranty these things? If I got a new roof and it leaked, you can bet your donkey that I would be all over my roofers. I guess the county just can't be bothered to watch their money since it comes right out of our pockets and not theirs.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080820_16_A12_hTheQu631540
Cold galvanizing, basically high-Zink spray paint.
http://www.zrcworldwide.com/p_zrc.asp
$1.4mm??
Were there any other bidders?
I believe the term "roof leak" is a misrepresentation. It is not the roof itself that is leaking, it is the steel cables that hold everything up, I am guessing that they are pretty porious(?--too lazy to spell check).
1.4 might be a pretty good estimate. I assume that with any type of application method, there would need to be a thorough cleaning of the surface to ensure proper sealing. Also, I am not sure if it is the case with local government, but I know with the federal gov you have to abide by the department of labor's wage guidelines when paying people (Davis Bacon Act). Basically means you can't hire cheap labor to work on a job and they have to be paid at the job they are doing (i.e. if a guy is roofing, he has to be paid as a roofer, not a laborer.)
When I was in the AF, I have watch the DOL monitor a roofing job that was happening close to the edge of the base, after the week was done they asked for the employee's name and paystub. If something isn't correct they will fine you in a heartbeat.
Again, that was Fed, not sure about state.
quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso
I believe the term "roof leak" is a misrepresentation. It is not the roof itself that is leaking, it is the steel cables that hold everything up, I am guessing that they are pretty porious(?--too lazy to spell check).
1.4 might be a pretty good estimate. I assume that with any type of application method, there would need to be a thorough cleaning of the surface to ensure proper sealing. Also, I am not sure if it is the case with local government, but I know with the federal gov you have to abide by the department of labor's wage guidelines when paying people (Davis Bacon Act). Basically means you can't hire cheap labor to work on a job and they have to be paid at the job they are doing (i.e. if a guy is roofing, he has to be paid as a roofer, not a laborer.)
When I was in the AF, I have watch the DOL monitor a roofing job that was happening close to the edge of the base, after the week was done they asked for the employee's name and paystub. If something isn't correct they will fine you in a heartbeat.
Again, that was Fed, not sure about state.
City and County generally don't require D-B wages, I can't think of the last State of Oklahoma project we did, but I don't believe they use that at state level either. This one is a county project. Seems to be only Fed where we've run into it. In our classifications, we generally pay more than D-B wages.
quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso
I believe the term "roof leak" is a misrepresentation. It is not the roof itself that is leaking, it is the steel cables that hold everything up, I am guessing that they are pretty porious(?--too lazy to spell check).
Not porous per se (according to my friend at Matrix), but they are "twisted" cables and the water seems to follow the seams and then drip in through the joints where the cable meets the roof. They need to coat or polymerize the cables so the water stays on the "outside" instead of working its way in.
Regardless of HOW or WHY the roof is leaking, IT IS LEAKING.
Does the government not require a warranty on work that it has done? When I got a new roof on my house it came with a warranty.
Was "will not leak" not a condition of getting the job of installing a new roof?
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Regardless of HOW or WHY the roof is leaking, IT IS LEAKING.
Does the government not require a warranty on work that it has done? When I got a new roof on my house it came with a warranty.
Was "will not leak" not a condition of getting the job of installing a new roof?
This is more of an engineering problem than a implementation issue. The civic engineers were most likely government employees. I don't see how you could blame this on the roofer.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by JCnOwasso
I believe the term "roof leak" is a misrepresentation. It is not the roof itself that is leaking, it is the steel cables that hold everything up, I am guessing that they are pretty porious(?--too lazy to spell check).
1.4 might be a pretty good estimate. I assume that with any type of application method, there would need to be a thorough cleaning of the surface to ensure proper sealing. Also, I am not sure if it is the case with local government, but I know with the federal gov you have to abide by the department of labor's wage guidelines when paying people (Davis Bacon Act). Basically means you can't hire cheap labor to work on a job and they have to be paid at the job they are doing (i.e. if a guy is roofing, he has to be paid as a roofer, not a laborer.)
When I was in the AF, I have watch the DOL monitor a roofing job that was happening close to the edge of the base, after the week was done they asked for the employee's name and paystub. If something isn't correct they will fine you in a heartbeat.
Again, that was Fed, not sure about state.
City and County generally don't require D-B wages, I can't think of the last State of Oklahoma project we did, but I don't believe they use that at state level either. This one is a county project. Seems to be only Fed where we've run into it. In our classifications, we generally pay more than D-B wages.
Good to know.
These leaks likely existed not long after the building was completed in the 60's. I think the drip pans that are referenced in the article were there well before 2005, so the leaks were probably happening a long time ago. At some point the cables were also wrapped with a membrane to help keep the water out.
The roof itself is not leaking. It's an existing condition, which is why the warranty for the roof does not cover the leaks.
Since no work was done on the cables, they're not covered by the roofer's warranty. The work provided by the roofer appears to be holding up just fine, from what I understand.
The leaks are not related to any roofing quality control issue, the water is actually running down the inside of the cables almost like a wick plus what passes along the outside of them where it is difficult to seal against an irregular shape.
The cables have always been a leak issue. Originally, the building included copper sleeves over the cables that were filled with a thick grease to seal them and over the years that turned into a battery and the resulting corrosion damaged the structural value of the cables. In the late 70's this was discovered along with a very significant structural issue related to the original design... at that time the building almost fell down! Anyone else remember the bridge jacks installed to hold up the clear spans?
When the building was reroofed as part of the structural repairs, sleeves made of roofing material were put over many cables and that stopped leakage but in the long term that also caused additional corrosion which was discovered during this past inspections and re-roof work as many of those sleeves leaked and kept the cables wet which caused more corrosion concerns.
With the new roof on there have been various trials to address the leakage through the cable penetrations and that leads us to the current discussion developed by a different Architect and the resultant bids to put breathable covers on the cables that will be sealed to the new roof. Unfortunately, this work is expensive due to the physical logistics of working on the cables over the roof.
Oh and the previous posters are correct, there is no longer a "little Davis-Bacon Act" in Oklahoma that would have set the minimum wages on State funded work... I believe it was ruled unconstitutional.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
The leaks are not related to any roofing quality control issue, the water is actually running down the inside of the cables almost like a wick plus what passes along the outside of them where it is difficult to seal against an irregular shape.
The cables have always been a leak issue. Originally, the building included copper sleeves over the cables that were filled with a thick grease to seal them and over the years that turned into a battery and the resulting corrosion damaged the structural value of the cables. In the late 70's this was discovered along with a very significant structural issue related to the original design... at that time the building almost fell down! Anyone else remember the bridge jacks installed to hold up the clear spans?
When the building was reroofed as part of the structural repairs, sleeves made of roofing material were put over many cables and that stopped leakage but in the long term that also caused additional corrosion which was discovered during this past inspections and re-roof work as many of those sleeves leaked and kept the cables wet which caused more corrosion concerns.
With the new roof on there have been various trials to address the leakage through the cable penetrations and that leads us to the current discussion developed by a different Architect and the resultant bids to put breathable covers on the cables that will be sealed to the new roof. Unfortunately, this work is expensive due to the physical logistics of working on the cables over the roof.
Oh and the previous posters are correct, there is no longer a "little Davis-Bacon Act" in Oklahoma that would have set the minimum wages on State funded work... I believe it was ruled unconstitutional.
"...the building included copper sleeves over the cables that were filled with a thick grease to seal them and over the years that turned into a battery..."
So, goes without saying the original engineers understood little about galvanic corrosion. Dissimilar metals, no dialectric union= aggressive corrosion.
Don't try this one at home, kids.
There appears to be a consistency to inept engineering at Expo. Anyone read the story about the mis-designed central heating plant in last Sunday's paper?
In a situation such as this it would not be unusual to design in a transition from cable to a high strength smooth rod as a way to go through the roof.
It makes sense that the cables are wicking moisture down into the building. Would be interesting to see the detail of how this is handled at suspension bridge anchor ways as the same problem would exist there.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
The leaks are not related to any roofing quality control issue, the water is actually running down the inside of the cables almost like a wick plus what passes along the outside of them where it is difficult to seal against an irregular shape.
The cables have always been a leak issue. Originally, the building included copper sleeves over the cables that were filled with a thick grease to seal them and over the years that turned into a battery and the resulting corrosion damaged the structural value of the cables. In the late 70's this was discovered along with a very significant structural issue related to the original design... at that time the building almost fell down! Anyone else remember the bridge jacks installed to hold up the clear spans?
When the building was reroofed as part of the structural repairs, sleeves made of roofing material were put over many cables and that stopped leakage but in the long term that also caused additional corrosion which was discovered during this past inspections and re-roof work as many of those sleeves leaked and kept the cables wet which caused more corrosion concerns.
With the new roof on there have been various trials to address the leakage through the cable penetrations and that leads us to the current discussion developed by a different Architect and the resultant bids to put breathable covers on the cables that will be sealed to the new roof. Unfortunately, this work is expensive due to the physical logistics of working on the cables over the roof.
Oh and the previous posters are correct, there is no longer a "little Davis-Bacon Act" in Oklahoma that would have set the minimum wages on State funded work... I believe it was ruled unconstitutional.
"...the building included copper sleeves over the cables that were filled with a thick grease to seal them and over the years that turned into a battery..."
So, goes without saying the original engineers understood little about galvanic corrosion. Dissimilar metals, no dialectric union= aggressive corrosion.
Don't try this one at home, kids.
There appears to be a consistency to inept engineering at Expo. Anyone read the story about the mis-designed central heating plant in last Sunday's paper?
Wasn't Steven Alter of Matrix Architects/Engineers a charter member of former County Commissioner Dirty Bob Dick's Tulsa County Ring, along with Bob Parmele, Big Jim Orbison, et. al.??
Didn't they get sole-sourced all the engineering work both just before and after Vision 2025 as long as Dirty Bob was pulling the strings??
Isn't there actually a STREET named after MATRIX on the Fairgrounds property, just EAST of the Q-T Expo Building?
[:P]
The Tulsa World article made no mention of the fiber optic lights installed on the exterior roof cables of the IPE building (I hate calling it the "quik trip center")a few years ago. For the brief time these lights were working, I thought they were very cool. Does anyone know if they plan to make these lights operational again? They are very pretty and it would be a sorry waste of tax money not to have them working again.
The high strength rod methodology was discussed as was other options but those alternates appeared to be even more expensive and impractical (due to their weight) than this modification which will be significantly tested prior to full installation.
The Matrix specified roof did not ignore the cables. It required they be sealed like the roof being replaced (for hale damage and age) however during removal of that roof membrane water came out of many cable seals. Concerned with additional corrosion if the same detail was followed that approach was abandoned and a credit was issued for the work not performed by the roofer. To assist, Matrix (with TCPFA approval) brought in an engineering firm who specializes in cable stayed structures to evaluate and the cables and I believe test certain cables and make recommendations. The drip pans were a fix attempt that proved problematic and was not fully implemented. The idea came from pans installed long ago at some problem locations.
I have my own theory on the corrosion issues related to the original design but the records are incomplete. I believe the original seal should have utilized dielectric grease which is non-conductive to resist the dissimilar metals issues but with other significant issues related to that structure that have long been addressed... maybe that did not happen. Additionally, we do know that the original intent was for the grease to be periodically replenished or replaced and if it was done (remember, those total seals were replaced 2 roofs and 25+ years roofs ago) with standard grease or ignored perhaps the properties of the grease partially changed with time and exposure because the damage is not evident at all locations.
Based on experience I've had with cosmoline on surplus military parts, petroleum products can be good to help preserve metal, but if water gets underneath the protective coating, grease or cosmo will trap the water against the metal and allow corrosion and pitting.
Don't forget "Cosmolene" was supposed to preserve a certain car.