The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About~Master - September 3, 2024, Special Meeting of the Ames City Council1.Resolution approving contract and bond for the Water Pollution Control Facility Nutrient Reduction Modifications Phase 1 with Woodruff Construction, Inc., of Ames, Iowa 2.Resolution authorizing submission of sites for a regional joint application for funding from the Federal Highway Administration's Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program (CFI) for the site at 1910 Green Hills Drive 3.Steven L. Schainker Plaza Status Report a. Motion directing staff AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AMES CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: The Mayor and City Council welcome comments from the public during discussion. The Standards of Decorum, posted at the door and available on the City website, define respectful conduct for public participation. If you wish to speak, please fill out the form on the tablet outside the door to the Council Chambers or scan the QR Code to the right to fill out the same form on a personal device. When your name is called, please step to the microphone, state your name for the record, and keep your comments brief so that others may have the opportunity to speak. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 CONSENT AGENDA : All items listed under the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made prior to the time the Council members vote on the motion. ADMINISTRATION: COUNCIL COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: Please note that this agenda may be changed up to 24 hours before the meeting time as provided by Section 21.4.(2), Code of Iowa. 1 To:Mayor and City Council From:City Clerk's Office Date:August 29, 2024 Subject:Contract and Bond Approval Item No. 1 MEMO There is no Council Action Form for the Water Pollution Control Facility Nutrient Reduction Modifications Phase 1 with Woodruff Construction, Inc., of Ames, Iowa. City Council approval of the contract and bond for the project is simply fulfilling a State Code requirement. City Clerk's Office 515.239.5105 main 515.239.5142 fax 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811 Ames, IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org 2 ITEM #:2 DATE:09-03-24 DEPT:ELEC SUBJECT: CHARGING AND FUELING INSFRASTUCTURE GRANT FOR LEVEL 3 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS COUNCIL ACTION FORM BACKGROUND: Electric Services is requesting approval to participate in an application to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration for the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Grant Program. The application is in partnership with the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMAMPO), which is leading a group effort of more than a dozen area city and county governments. Membership in the DMAMPO is not required to participate in the application. The CFI Grant Program offers up to an 80% federal funding match to strategically deploy publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. This program is a portion of the funding available from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Electric Services currently owns and operates 20 electric vehicle chargers at 10 locations throughout Ames. Nine locations offer Level 2 charging at similar speeds to what customers can install at their home or business. These destination chargers can take up to 8 hours to fully charge a vehicle, starting with an empty battery. They are meant to serve customers looking to “top off” their vehicle or maintain a full charge as they travel locally. Ames also operates a location with two Level 3 fast chargers that can charge vehicles at speeds up to up to 125 kW, more than 15 times faster than Level 2 stations. These chargers can bring a vehicle battery, depending on the model from a 20% to an 80% charge in 30-40 minutes. Of the charging stations in the Ames fleet, the Level 3 fast chargers are the most utilized, representing close to 2/3 of the energy sold for EV charging. Level 3 electric vehicle chargers are best suited to meet the needs of highway travelers, and fast charging is needed for customers to feel comfortable relying on an all-electric vehicle for longer trips and commutes. Ames’s portion of the grant request is in support of six Level 3 charging stations installed on city- owned right-of-way located at 1910 Green Hills Drive. This property is east of University Blvd., just south of Highway 30 (see attached sketch). The proposed stations would each be able to independently charge at speeds of 150kW or greater. This results in faster charging times than Ames’s existing fast chargers, which can only reach a combined peak output of 125 kW. The proposed location would bring faster charging speeds to the southwest side of Ames and be able to serve much of the traffic near the main entrance to Iowa State University. The total project cost to develop the six-station charging facility is estimated to be $1,400,000. The federal match from the grant would cover $1,120,000 of this amount, and the City would be responsible for a 20% cost share of $280,000. The adopted 2024-2029 Capital Improvements Plan contains $150,000 from Electric Utility funds in FY 2024/25 for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Additionally, $311,611 of unused EV Charging funds from prior years has been carried forward, resulting in a balance of $461,611 available as matching funds for this grant. 3 The installation of these additional fast chargers will help support the City Council's Climate Action Plan goal for carbon reduction. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a resolution in support of the regional joint application for funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s Charging & Fueling Infrastructure discretionary Grant Program for the site at 1910 Green Hills Dr. and commit up to $280,000 from Electric Utility funds to cover City's cost share portion. 2. Do not participate in the grant application. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This grant application, if approved, will provide up to 80% in federal matching funds to support electric vehicle infrastructure. Pursuing this grant will commit the City to provide 20% matching funds towards the project, up to $280,000, given a successful grant application. The proposed charging infrastructure will be owned by Electric Services and provide electric vehicle charging for the Ames community and visitors traveling to Ames on Highway 30 and Interstate 35. Expanded charging infrastructure is expected to encourage further purchase of electric vehicles, which have no direct emissions and reduce indirect carbon emissions compared to gasoline-powered vehicles. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as stated above. ATTACHMENT(S): EV Charger Site Layout.pdf 4 OHE OHEUGE UGE 12" WATER 12" SANITARY 48" STORM SEWER U.S. HWY. 30 UN I V E R S I T Y B L V D GREEN HILLS DR GREEN HILLS DR INSTALL 45'-3 POLE INSTALL POWER BLOCK (POUR CONC PAD FOR 2 FUTURE BLOCKS) INSTALL 750 kVA PAD XFMR (480V) GREEN HILLS DR INSTALL 6 - PARKING SPACES (9' X 22')INSTALL 2 - DCFC (INSTALL DUCTS FOR 4 FUTURE DCFC) INSTALL CT-RATED METER SOCKET (480V) & CKT BRKR PANEL W/ 3 - 400A BRKRS ON UNISTRUT FRAME 5 ITEM #:3 DATE:09-03-24 DEPT:ADMIN SUBJECT:STEVEN L. SCHAINKER PLAZA UPDATE COUNCIL ACTION FORM BACKGROUND: At the July 9, 2024 City Council meeting, staff provided an update on the progress of the Steven L. Schainker Ice Skating Ribbon. The report highlighted a significant issue that has influenced the timely completion of the project: an agreement among City staff, Confluence (project lead/ landscape architect), and Henkel Construction (General Contractor) that the current ice-skating ribbon surface is "unacceptable" and does not meet the quality standards that residents expect from City facilities. The question before the parties is how to rectify this situation and produce an acceptable product. The staff report outlined the pros and cons of two options: Option 1 - remove and replace the existing ice ribbon and Option 2 - grind the existing surface and install an overlay of Euclid product materials as proposed by Henkel. Because Confluence and City staff lack the necessary concrete expertise on how to best correct the ice ribbon deficiencies, the services of a concrete expert was engaged to review the ice skating ribbon. It should be noted that City staff approached Henkel about partnering on hiring a third-part expert. Henkel was unwilling to pay for this consultant indicating that it "do[es] not believe hiring an additional 3rd party is the best option for moving forward." Therefore, "Henkel does not support and will not pay for it." Since the July 9 Council meeting, the City's concrete expert has evaluated the ice skating ribbon and the Euclid products proposed by Henkel to remedy the surface issues. The expert's assessment included reviewing related project documents and an on-site inspection of the ice skating ribbon. The expert's findings were verbally shared with staff which was then captured and articulated in a letter the City Attorney sent on August 15, 2024 via certified mail to three employees of Henkel Construction (see attachment). A summary of the City's expert's findings regarding the work product include: a. Inconsistent finish of the concrete surface. b. Various bird baths in various sizes in the surface. c. Voids in several areas of the concrete. d. Ripples in several areas of the concrete where it appears the concrete has settled between the rink piping leaving ridges over the top of the pipes in certain areas. e. There is a considerable variation in the broom finish of the surface and not a uniform medium broom finish as agreed at the pre-pour meeting. f. Safety concerns due to extremely rough areas as people will be barefoot in the warmer months. g. Specifications were not followed when brought to Henkel and Everything Ice’s attention. 6 h. Jordison (the concrete subcontractor) indicated they would have a motorized screed to use, but did not have it at the start of the pour. Jordison kept indicating it was on the way but never showed up. Photographs taken during the pour appear to show that a “straight edge” hand operated screed was not supported at the edges in some parts of the pour. i. Vibration of concrete was inconsistent, random, or lacking all together, as can be viewed in the video of the concrete pour. j. Stone popouts on the surface. k. Apparent, lack of 1 ¼” of concrete over some of the Ice Rink Refrigerant Piping. l. The City understands that a pre-pour survey of the Ice Rink Refrigerant Piping was to be performed. This survey data has not been provided by the General Contractor to allow comparison to a final as-built elevations of the concrete surface to determine both whether there is the specified cover and variations of surface elevation. m. Wire mesh has protruded through the surface of the concrete in certain areas and has begun to corrode. n. The concrete pour has cracked in many places and those cracks need to be addressed. (Note: The expert further noted that this list is incomplete, and the City reserves the right to add to this list of identified defects.) In addition to sharing the findings from the City's expert, the letter also informed Henkel that the City rejects the proposal to apply the Euclid proposed materials to the ice skating ribbon (Option 2) to rectify the deficiencies for the following reasons: (1) The proposed materials are reported not to have been previously installed on an exterior ice skating ribbon similar to this application; (2) The proposed materials have not been used to repair a refrigerated slab application before; (3) The proposed materials and their use in this application do not come with a manufacturer ’s warranty; Henkel has not proposed a labor and material warranty on the installation; (4) The proposed materials are generally applied to concrete with control joints, but this 6,000 sq ft slab does not have control joints; (5) There is no representation as to the useful or expected life of the proposed materials; (6) There is a recommendation in Mr. Olson’s answers that certain products be prohibited from installation at ambient temperatures in excess of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. This recommendation raises a question about the effect of ambient temperatures in excess of 90 degrees to which the product would be repeatedly exposed every summer in Ames; we do not know what effect ambient temperatures may have on the product because it appears not to have been previously installed on a similar project; (7) The Euco-Recover is noted as a polymer modified, fiber-reinforced concrete resurfacing mortar; it is unclear if the mortar contains an epoxy or other UV sensitive material as a modifier. If so, there may 7 be a concern that ultraviolet radiation may degrade over the time the useful life of the Euclid product. The data sheet received had no information regarding suitability of use for outdoor exposure; (8) The concrete specification (Cast-in-Place Concrete, Section 033000 Paragraph 3.16) calls out requirements for repair of the slab and the repairs must meet the requirements of the specifications; (9) The multi-layer proposed materials (system) by design and installation result in multiple bond lines between layers, which may result in cracking or delamination over the years following installation; (10) The proposed materials (system) recommended by Mr. Andy Olson appear to be from his position as Sales Representative of Construction Products for Euclid; it is not known whether a materials scientist or professional engineer was involved with the development of the proposed material system design; (11) The City has concerns that the installation of these proposed materials will require recurring maintenance to preserve or repair the surface, which the City would not have incurred if the design had been correctly installed as required by the Contract Documents. Persons using the area of the ice skating ribbon will have metal tables and chairs on the surface in the summer months, which expected traffic may cause scratches, marring, or other damage to the exposed proposed material surface. We believe this damage would be less likely to a concrete surface. The letter further explains that the rejection of the proposed system does not require the ice skating ribbon be removed and replaced in accordance with the original specifications at this time. It offers that should the General Contractor want to propose other repair methods for City consideration, the City will review and consider alternatives proposed and approved by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Iowa and who possesses expertise in materials science and design of concrete repairs. Should the General Contractor pursue this alternative remedy proposal, the City requested, no later than August 31, 2024, the name of the engineer and firm the General Contractor will retain, schedule for investigation and remedial proposal, proposed schedule for doing the work, and other information as the City may request for its evaluation. It also should be noted that independent of the ice skating ribbon issues, the letter expresses the City's concern about the work quality and the progress towards completing the remaining work at the project site. On July 17, 2024, Henkel provided City staff with an expected project completion schedule (see attachment) that, exclusive of the ice ribbon, indicated all other work would be completed by October 1, 2024. However, due to the City not seeing adequate progress on the General Contractor's part in adhering to the schedule they provided, the letter also sought the General Contractor’s assurance that by the date of October 1, 2024, all work other than the ice skating ribbon, will be completed and ready in an acceptable and final condition. It is imperative that this schedule be met, and the General Contractor needs to take steps to assure the schedule is met. On Friday, August 30 Henkel emailed a response to the City which included an experience summary for their engineer, his engineering investigation and evaluation report, and four documents related to suggested products, all of which is attached for your review and consideration. An updated project completion schedule, minus the ice skating ribbon issue, was not included in this response. However, on Tuesday, September 3 the updated project completion schedule was provided (see attachment). 8 Henkel's engineer has offered the four following options to remedy the unacceptable surface issues (pages 18-20 of Henkel's Engineering Report): 1. GRIND THE SLAB FOR UNIFORMITY This option utilizes a large-scale floor grinder to place the slab surface profile on a uniform plane. Pro Features This option carries the least product performance risk. The mottled surface will be removed and only the sound concrete slab below it will remain. Con Features This approach will change the appearance of the surface and remove the protective cement cover over the aggregate. It will lower the slab profile relative to the surrounding edge slab. 2. GRIND THE SLAB - RESTORE VOIDS WITH COLOR MATCHED MORTAR - REGRIND This option utilizes a large-scale floor grinder to place the slab surface profile on a uniform plane. There will still be voids in deeper areas. In this option, the voids will be prepared and filled with color matched repair mortar. The patches will then require grinding when fully cured to match the texture of the surrounding concrete. Regular concrete restoration materials will have a different appearance from existing concrete, so it is important to utilize a color-controlled repair mortar. A leading brand of such materials is Butterfield Color MT Resurfacer manufactured by Sika Corp. Pro Features This option carries a low performance risk because only small amounts of patch mortar will be used. Filled voids will have the same uniform plane as the ground slab and will be finished the same. Much less material will be removed with this option than Option 1. Con Features This will change the appearance of the surface and remove the protective cement cover over the aggregate. It will require careful selection of repair mortar color to prevent discernable patching of voids. 3. REMOVE A TOTAL SHALLOW VOID - PLACE BONDING AGENT - INSTALL CONCRETE OVERLAY This option utilizes scabblers, heavy shot blast, or hydro demolition to create a uniform void of approximately 1-inch deep. The surface is prepared and applied with bonding agent. Armetec 110 will be specified as a proven bonding agent. The void will then be filled with a thin overlay of conventional small aggregate concrete and finished like normal concrete. Overlays are vulnerable to shrinkage curing so this mix will require careful mix design work, shrinkage control chemicals, and excellent curing operations. Pro Features This option provides the surface that is closest to its original intended configuration and can be finished accordingly. 9 Con Features This will be the most disruptive preparation process. Overlay mixes can be temperamental and dry out quickly if conditions are not ideal. Overlay mixes require careful proportioning and shrinkage compensation to prevent cracking and debonding. 4. GRIND AWAY RIDGES - PATCH VOIDS WITH POLYMER MORTAR - RESTORE ENTIRE SURFACE WITH POLYMER MODIFIED MORTAR This option utilizes grinders and shot blast to prepare the surface to receive restorative patches in voids. The surface is then prepared uniformly, and the entire surface is treated with polymer modified mortar. The specified material will be SikaTop 122, a long-term proven overlay material I have extensive experience in utilizing. Its service thickness ranges from less than 1/8-inch to over 1-inch. All protrusions with be ground down to the uniform finished plane. Next voids will be prepared with shot blast or mechanical roughening, and properly patched to a uniform surface profile. After patches have had time to cure, the entire surface including patches will be uniformly prepared with shot blasting and profiled to receive a full surface overlay. The entire surface will then be pressure washed and held in a saturated surface dry condition for one hour prior to initiating overlay repairs. The surface will then be uniformly coated with a thin layer of repair mortar that is scrubbed into the pores of the underlying concrete immediately prior to placing the finish overlay surface. The first scrub coat can be overlayed with the finish coat immediately or the second coat can be troweled smooth and then a light uniform layer of polymer modified mortar can be sprayed over the top of the freshly placed trowel coat to replicate a broom finish roughness. The entire surface will then be coated with curing compound to retain moisture and to allow the repair mortar set up time before its surface dries. Pro Features This option provides a solution that is minimally invasive to the original slab yet provides a uniform surface profile. The polymer modified mortars are specifically manufactured to provide thin overlay finish, but can also be applied to a deep level allowing a single material to comprise the entire surface for both void repairs and thin overly. SikaTop 122 is recommended for this option since it has a very long track record of excellent performance in this type of application. Con Features This restoration approach requires highly skilled restoration contractors to provide a surface that is both uniform in appearance and soundly adhered to the underlying slab. Polymer modified mortars are extremely adherent and working with them is difficult. This is a large repair area so it will require several skilled concrete craftsmen to accomplish a quality installation. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Select one of the four options recommended by Henkel's engineer to remedy the surface deficiencies and direct Henkel to proceed with the selected option at no cost to the City. 2. Reject each of the options recommended by Henkel's engineer to remedy the surface deficiencies and direct Henkel to remove and replace the entire ice skating ribbon (eg. tubing, rebar, 10 insulation, imbeds, concrete, etc.) at no cost to the City. 3. Direct staff to share Henkel's engineer's investigation and evaluation report with the City's consultant in order for him to review the report and provide comments regarding the findings of the report as well as a recommendation regarding how to proceed. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: The community's vision of the downtown plaza is for it to be an exciting, unique amenity for Ames residents to safely enjoy. The original completion date was June 30, 2023 and today the project remains incomplete. When the issues of the ice ribbon surface first came to the attention of City staff in February 2024, staff immediately informed the General Contractor and have since spent the last approximately six months considering possible remedies brought forward by the General Contractor, which none have been acceptable. While the project remains incomplete today, Henkel has provided new options to consider for remedying the deficiencies. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council support Alternative #3 and direct staff to share Henkel's engineer's investigation and evaluation report with the City's consultant in order for him to review the report and provide comments regarding the findings of the report as well as a recommendation regarding how to proceed. ATTACHMENT(S): Schainker Plaza Letter to Henkel.docx Ames Downtown Plaza Concrete Slab Evaluation.pdf Donald Staley CV.pdf SikaTop 122.pdf Sika Armatec 110.pdf Euco Re_Cover.pdf Armatec110 Application.pdf 7-17-2024 - Plaza Schedule.pdf 2024.08.30 - Ames Downtown Plaza Project Scheudle.pdf 11 Smart Choice Legal Department 515.239.5146 main 515 Clark Ave. P.O. Box 811 515.239.5142 fax Ames, IA 50010 www.CityofAmes.org August 15, 2024 Kent Brcka President Henkel Construction Company 208 E. State St. Mason City, IA 50401 [By certified mail] Jason Knipp Vice President of Operations, Central Iowa Office Henkel Construction Company 2500 Ford St. Ames, IA 50011 [By certified mail] Kyle Sievers Project Manager Henkel Construction Company 2500 Ford St. Ames, IA 50011 [By certified mail] Re: Work on the City of Ames’ Steven L. Schainker Plaza Dear Henkel Construction Company: The City of Ames City Council has considered the issues arising from the Ice Skating Ribbon installation at Steven L. Schainker Plaza, and the Council has directed me to send this letter to you for your response. The City has received a proposed surface repair system option for the Ames Ice Skating Ribbon concrete as submitted by Henkel Construction (Contractor) on June 6, 2024. The concrete surface repair system consisted of several applications of Euclid Chemical products as recommended by Euclid’s local sales representative, Mr. Andy Olson, to attempt to remedy the defective condition of the Ice Skating Ribbon. The City understands the proposed system includes the following products and layering: 1. QWIKSTITCH for crack repair before the following steps. 12 2 2. For low spots requiring filling – Eucoweld 2.0 latex bonding agent primer + Euco-Recover. 3. 1st Coat - Eucoweld 2.0 latex bonding agent primer + Euco-Recover. 4. 2nd Coat (as required) - Eucoweld 2.0 latex bonding agent primer + Euco-Recover. 5. Topcoat - Euco-Recover. 6. Curing Compound - Kurez DR VOX (let sit for 30 days minimum) 7. Sealer – Light power wash of surface + Barricade WB 244 application. The City notes a small area on the west side of the ribbon had a partial in-place mockup of one coat of Eucoweld 2.0 and one application of Euco-Recover installed earlier this summer. This mockup was not successful, did not have a uniform appearance, appeared as it was not carefully installed, and we believe that all persons present, including Henkel’s representatives and City staff, agreed the appearance of the mockup upon completion was not satisfactory for the Ice Skating Ribbon. The City rejects the proposal to apply the Euclid proposed materials to the Ice Skating Ribbon based on the following factors: (1)The proposed materials are reported not to have been previously installed on an exterior Ice Skating Ribbon similar to this application; (2)The proposed materials have not been used to repair a refrigerated slab application before; (3)The proposed materials and their use in this application do not come with a manufacturer’s warranty; Henkel has not proposed a labor and material warranty on the installation; (4)The proposed materials are generally applied to concrete with control joints, but this 6,000 sq ft slab does not have control joints; (5)There is no representation as to the useful or expected life of the proposed materials; (6)There is a recommendation in Mr. Olson’s answers that certain products be prohibited from installation at ambient temperatures in excess of 90 degrees Fahrenheit. This recommendation raises a question about the effect of ambient temperatures in excess of 90 degrees to which the product would be repeatedly exposed every summer in Ames; we do not know what effect ambient temperatures may have on the product because it appears not to have been previously installed on a similar project; (7)The Euco-Recover is noted as a polymer modified, fiber-reinforced concrete resurfacing mortar; it is unclear if the mortar contains an epoxy or other UV sensitive material as a modifier. If so, there may be a concern that ultraviolet radiation may degrade over the time the useful life of the Euclid product. The data sheet received had no information regarding suitability of use for outdoor exposure; (8)The concrete specification (Cast-in-Place Concrete, Section 033000 Paragraph 3.16) calls out requirements for repair of the slab and the repairs must meet the requirements of the specifications; (9)The multi-layer proposed materials (system) by design and installation result in multiple bond lines between layers, which may result in cracking or delamination over the years following installation; (10) The proposed materials (system) recommended by Mr. Andy Olson appear to be from his position as Sales Representative of Construction Products for Euclid; it is not known whether a materials scientist or professional engineer was involved with the development of the proposed material system design; (11) The City has concerns that the installation of these proposed materials will require recurring maintenance to preserve or repair the surface, which the City would not have incurred if the design had been correctly installed as required by the Contract Documents. Persons using the area of the 13 3 Ice Skating Ribbon will have metal tables and chairs on the surface in the summer months, which expected traffic may cause scratches, marring, or other damage to the exposed proposed material surface. We believe this damage would be less likely to a concrete surface. Rejection of the Euclid system does not require the Ice Skating Ribbon be demolished and replaced in accordance with the original specifications at this time. There may be alternatives to demolition and replacement acceptable to the City, with the understanding that the Euclid proposed material system is not approved. If the Contractor wants to propose other repair methods for City consideration, the City will review and consider alternatives proposed and approved by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Iowa and who possesses expertise in materials science and design of concrete repairs. The City has no obligation to design and recommend the Contractor’s proposed repairs, but the City will evaluate and review submittals by the Contractor for the repairs within two weeks of receipt of those submittals. The City will leave to the Contractor’s discretion on the choice of an appropriate engineering firm to submit a proposed repair alternative, and the City will evaluate the proposed solution with its consultant or consultants. If the Contractor pursues this alternative remedy proposal, the City requests, no later than August 31, 2024, the name of the engineer and firm the Contractor will retain, schedule for investigation and remedial proposal, proposed schedule for doing the work, and other information as the City may request for its evaluation. The City reserves the right to reject the Contractor’s proposal and require demolition and replacement of the concrete Ice Skating Ribbon, if the proposed remedial plan is not acceptable to the City. Essentially, the City is offering the Contractor an opportunity to research and propose a suitable remedy in lieu of the City directing a definitive course of action at this time. Should the Contractor decide to not pursue an alternative repair solution or fail to notify the City of its intent to pursue one by August 31, 2024, the City will then direct the Contractor to proceed with full removal and replacement of the concrete Ice Skating Ribbon. The City’s identified defects in the Ice Skating Ribbon concrete placement and surface are based on (1) B32’s Ames Field Observation Report dated 12-20-23 and (2) Plaza Summary Report dated 3-26-24; and (3) the pre-pour meeting minutes (date of issuance 12-12-23); and (4) the video of the pour; and (5) the Contractor’s testing firm (Terracon) recent GPR report; and (6) the City and its consultants visual observations of the completed work. In summary, the following is a list of some but not all of the City’s concerns and construction defects that need to be addressed by the Contractor’s engineering firm, should the Contractor propose to pursue an alternative remedy: a.Inconsistent finish of the concrete surface. b.Various bird baths in various sizes in the surface. c.Voids in several areas of the concrete. d.Ripples in several areas of the concrete where it appears the concrete has settled between the rink piping leaving ridges over the top of the pipes in certain areas. e.There is a considerable variation in the broom finish of the surface and not a uniform medium broom finish as agreed at the pre-pour meeting. 14 4 f.Safety concerns due to extremely rough areas as people will be barefoot in the warmer months. g.Specifications were not followed when brought to Henkel and Everything Ice’s attention. h.Jordison indicated they would have a motorized screed to use but did not have it at the start of the pour. Jordison kept indicating it was on the way but never showed up. Photographs taken during the pour appear to show that a “straight edge” hand operated screed was not supported at the edges in some parts of the pour. i.Vibration of concrete was inconsistent, random, or lacking all together, as can be viewed in the video of the concrete pour. j.Stone popouts on the surface. k.Apparent, lack of 1 ¼” of concrete over some of the Ice Rink Refrigerant Piping. l.The City understands that a pre-pour survey of the Ice Rink Refrigerant Piping was to be performed. This survey data has not been provided by the Contractor to allow comparison to a final as-built elevations of the concrete surface to determine both whether there is the specified cover and variations of surface elevation. m. Wire mesh has protruded through the surface of the concrete in certain areas and has begun to corrode. n.The concrete pour has cracked in many places and those cracks need to be addressed. This list is incomplete, and the City reserves the right to add to this list of identified defects. Independent of the Ice Skating Ribbon issues, the City remains very concerned about your work quality at the project, as indicated in City staff’s recent list of seventeen defective work items not related to the Ice Skating Ribbon, and your progress for completing the remaining work at the project. The City Council and Staff are concerned that the October 1, 2024, completion date may not be met for all work in the building and the exterior items (including all site work, landscaping, water feature, etc.), excluding the Ice Skating Ribbon. Moreover, the City is concerned about the window for fall planting and the need to get work completed so planting may occur this fall as needed and specified. The City does not see adequate progress towards meeting this deadline and wants the Contractor’s assurance that by the date of October 1, 2024, all work other than the Ice Skating Ribbon will be completed and ready in an acceptable and final condition. It is imperative that this schedule be met, and the Contractor needs to take steps to assure the schedule is met. Sincerely, Mark O. Lambert City Attorney 15 ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION AMES DOWNTOWN PLAZA ICE RINK CONCRETE SLAB 510 CLARK STREET AMES, IOWA Staley Engineering Consultants, LLC Professional Engineers Des Moines, IA 16 ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION AMES DOWNTOWN PLAZA ICE RINK CONCRETE SLAB 510 CLARK STREET AMES, IOWA 08/30/2024 I hereby certify this Engineering Evaluation was prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa. _________________________________ August 30, 2024 Donald K. Staley Iowa P.E. No. 12266 My license renewal date is December 31, 2025. 17 Page - 1 INTRODUCTION This report is a presentation of results from an investigation and evaluation this author conducted on the concrete slab included in the Ames Downtown Plaza ice rink. The subject slab supports and sustains the rink ice sheet with an extensive network of refrigeration tubes and insulation intermixed with the reinforcing steel. The slab is conﬁgured for an ice rink, but it is also devised to serve as plaza paving in warm seasons. Ames Downtown Plaza Concept Image The condition of the slab is a source of controversy primarily due to its surface having an unacceptable ﬁnish. The long-term durability of the slab for supporting an ice sheet is the primary concern, but most parties to construction agree the appearance of the concrete is not suitable for a community signature project. The slab was constructed in December of 2023 and the disﬁgured condition of the surface was an immediate concern. The slab has now passed through 8-months of exposure and, as the project approaches completion, the plaza surface requires a permanent resolution. This author has been recently requested to investigate and evaluate the Ames Downtown Plaza rink concrete to diagnose the cause of surface distress, to determine if distress is extensive enough to warrant replacement of the entire slab system, and to propose options for a solution. 18 Page - 2 PURPOSE FOR INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION I have been engaged by Henkel Construction Company with the mission of bringing the controversy over the ice rink slab to a close even if I deem the concrete slab to require replacement. Henkel presented documents to me via access to the project ProCore account. Ice Rink Plan Image Key documents include the following: • Everything Ice Field and File Shop Drawings • B32’s Report for the day or concrete pour • Speciﬁcation section 13-1810 – Ice Rink System • Euclid Product Data proposed • Most recent letter from City of Ames dated 8/15/24 • Concrete test reports I have attached my curriculum vitae to this report and in the next section I will oAer my credentials in concrete restoration. I have nearly 40 years of continuous experience designing, constructing, and restoring concrete structures. I believe I can oAer reliable technical assistance in developing an agreeable resolution to this problem. 19 Page - 3 QUALIFICATIONS I have lived and practiced engineering in and around the Des Moines market since 1987 when I started my engineering design career working for the City of Des Moines. It was in that position that I ﬁrst became acquainted with conducting concrete restoration when I was assigned the City of Des Moines 1988 Parking Garage Restoration program. The program started in 1988 and extended over several years following. At that time the Des Moines parking structures had reached over the 20-year age mark and started to need major structural repairs. There were 4 garages included in the 1988 Parking Garage Restoration program. The original evaluation and restoration design work was performed by the Minneapolis branch of Walker Consultants based in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Construction and later stage design of the program was performed by City of Des Moines engineering staA. I provided restoration design and project management for construction in the later stages of the program. In the years following I have successfully performed dozens of concrete restoration projects. A sampling of these projects include: • Repairing a concrete basin at the Ames water treatment facility and other projects with public works and the electric utility. Des Moines based projects • Concrete repairs to the City of Des Moines 7th Street Park and Ride from design deﬁciencies • Replacing and restoring 3-stories of parking structure in Park Place Condominiums • Redesigning and replacing approximately 1,000 precast concrete connections in 100 Court Parking Garage • Restoring several large-scale distress conditions on the 700 Locust Parking Garage • Restoring Blank Park Zoo Sea Lion pool with shotcrete I have designed and constructed dozens of concrete restoration projects for Des Moines Water Works and continue doing so currently. The restoration portfolio includes a severely fractured ﬂoor and ceiling slab of a 100-foot diameter basin damaged in the ﬂood of 1993. This basin had a replacement cost of $2 million. Management was willing to allow me to try new concrete bonding materials at the time and to restore instead of replacing the basin. The cost of restoration was $100,000 and it remains in service 30-years later. The new bonding product was Armetec 110 manufactured by Sika Corp. and it remains an important product in the restoration tool chest today. One of the proposed solutions I oAer includes use of this product. The primary work I perform for Des Moines Water Works is designing new structures and restoring existing concrete structures. The two images below are before and after photographs for on of my recently restored structures. We recently complete 12 of these reconstructions located throughout Des Moines Water Works Park. 20 Page - 4 Des Moines Water Works Valve Chamber Restoration 21 Page - 5 Des Moines Water Works Treatment Basin Restorations Old concrete water treatment basins are notorious for need of concrete restoration. The processes have increasingly included more aggressive chemicals like chloride and ferric chloride and the 75+ year old structures are constantly becoming distressed as a result. I have performed dozens of this type of concrete restoration in Des Moines Water Works treatment basins. 22 Page - 6 100 Court Parking Garage Connection Restoration Project Parking garages present the greatest challenges from a concrete restoration viewpoint. The environment is highly exposed, and the structures are very slender to receive repairs. For this connection repairs my design utilized polymer modiﬁed mortar to rebuild concrete around a repaired steel connection. This project included the use of an impressive product, also manufactured by Sika Corp., referred to as SikaTop 122. 23 Page - 7 Engineers that design restoration projects have the best chance of success when they have personal experience using the products and techniques. I worked in construction industry prior to becoming an engineer so it is important to me that I design systems that workers will respect. My longest standing project I personally constructed was a basement restoration. This basement was constructed with concrete block that had deteriorated joints and widespread water intrusion. I researched products and determined that a combination of epoxy and polymer modiﬁed mortar had compatible chemistry to provide the water penetration protection and a good concrete appearance. The photographs below are current photos of the project I constructed in 1989. The integrity of the system has endured for over 35 years without degradation. This project included the use of the SikaTop 122 product I have used in dozens of projects since. Polymer Modiﬁed Mortar SikaTop 122 Wall Surface Repair 24 Page - 8 When working with concrete restoration contractors I had been exposed to shotcrete systems so I thought it may be possible that concrete restoration mortar could be applied similarly using pneumatic application. This is how I applied the SikaTop 122 mortar in the photographs below. The results were surprisingly excellent and provided a very uniform appearance. Similar results are available for restoration of the Ames Downtown Plaza Ice Rink. Polymer Modiﬁed Mortar SikaTop 122 Wall Surface Repair – Close up 25 Page - 9 Polymer Modiﬁed Mortar SikaTop 122 Wall Surface Repair – Very Close up 26 Page - 10 As I am approaching 40 years of concrete restoration experience, I have direct experience with the materials I will be proposing for the Ames Downtown Plaza ice rink and knowledge of the concrete restoration product market. I have conﬁdence that I can present a technically sound solution. I expect all parties to restoring the ice rink slab to examine the information I present with skepticism and to be completely satisﬁed that I have completely addressed all your concerns. Every diagnosis, assessment, and course of action should make logical sense to everyone whether you have an extensive background in this type of construction or not. DIAGNOSIS OF CAUSE Investigating and evaluating the circumstances around the ice rink concrete slab construction, the likely cause of distress became readily apparent. The concrete slab is chocked full of refrigeration tubing, embedded dasher board anchors, and reinforcing bars and welded wire fabric yet there is very little cracking and no cleaving of the surface that will be common when unsuitable concrete is used in a slab with this conﬁguration. This tells us that the concrete is likely well consolidated around the embedded components, so much so that weak spots have not manifested in cracks. I understand that testing has been conducted to conﬁrm that the surface distress does not project through the entire body of concrete. I reviewed Terracon ﬁeld testing reports and determined the placed concrete easily met speciﬁcations. The weakest compressive strength tested to be 3,960 lbs / square inch just short of the 4,000 lbs / square inch speciﬁcations for 28-days of age in only 7 days. All other tests indicated the concrete exceeded the 28-day curing strength in that same 7-day period. Concrete Field Test results for weakest specimen The shape of the ice rink is irregular and includes bends in the alignment that are notorious for instigating cracks in concrete slabs. There very few minor cracks in the total slab so my experience led me to suspect that the slab was heavily reinforced with ample crack control reinforcing steel. There is more detailed discussion of this in the next section. Investigating the slab detail and construction photographs I was surprised to ﬁnd the slab has more than the bare minimum reinforcing for crack control but not nearly to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) level recommended to keep cracking to the small amount I observed at the plaza site. 27 Page - 11 Photograph of Ice Rink immediately prior to casting concrete According to ACI 224R Control of Cracking in Concrete Structure, there are three primary measures recommended to control cracking to minor levels: 1. Place regular amounts of crack control joints to accept shrinkage stresses in the concrete. 2. Place large amounts of reinforcing steel to restrain the stresses before they progress enough to create cracking. 3. Provide good concrete quality control with the mix design, water content, and placement techniques to minimize shrinking and improve strength. Understanding these parameters, there are no joints in the ice rink slab and the reinforcing steel ratio is less than the ACI recommended minimum to restrain cracking. The only crack control measure remaining is likely the most beneﬁcial. There must have been good concrete quality control with a good mix design, low water content, and suitable placement to result in very few thin cracks occurring in a very irregular slab conﬁguration that is congested with embedded materials. The low level of cracking, despite a mottled surface, is an indication that a lot of things went right but somehow the surface was disﬁgured. Based on this observation, my ﬁrst recommendation is to not remove the slab in its entirety. Chances that the concrete mix, water content, and placement will result in very few small cracks is not a given. The mild winter placement likely had a lot to do with the success. Ready-mix providers minimize water content in winter to avoid free water bleeding out of the concrete and freezing to cause damage. 28 Page - 12 The exceptional cracking performance of the Ames Downtown Plaza is reason to focus on restoration as opposed to replacement. This slab is chocked full of refrigeration tubing, embedded anchors, and reinforcing steel all of which will instigate cracking in concrete that does not properly engulf these materials. A reproduction of the Ames Downtown Plaza ice rink concrete speciﬁcation appears on the following page. There are several clues in this speciﬁcation as to why the concrete has excellent crack performance but also why the surface ﬁnishing had the potential to be disﬁgured. First examining the reinforcing ratio provided in the ice rink slab. For proper design criteria we can refer to the ACI published standards. ACI 318 is the building code for structural concrete. Technically this slab is paving but it is reinforced making structural concrete criteria applicable. ACI 318 Chapter 7 prescribes minimum reinforcement ratio for concrete structures to control cracks is between 0.18% and 0.20%, but higher levels are needed to achieve better crack control. ACI 224R Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures Chapter 3 part 3.5.2 is shown in the image below. This recommends the reinforcement ratio to be at least 0.6 % to control cracks. The reinforcement ratio is the ratio of reinforcing steel area to the gross concrete section area. Note in the speciﬁcation Part B reinforcing steel is to be #4 bars and 12” centers. The upper steel is to be a light welded wire fabric identiﬁed as 6 x 6 – W2.1 x W2.1. This allows calculation of the reinforcing ratio. 29 Page - 13 The chart below shows the steel area per foot provided by the welded wire fabric → 0.04 in2 30 Page - 14 The chart below shows the area of typical reinforcing steel bars. Note that a #4 bar has a 1/2-inch diameter providing a total area of 0.2 in2 per bar. At 12-inches on center this is the area per foot. Calculating the Speciﬁed Concrete Reinforcement Ratio Each 1-foot of concrete = (1) #4 bar + 6 x 6 – W2.1 x W2.1 wire fabric Total Steel = 0.2 in2 + 0.04 in2 = 0.24 in2 Slab Concrete = 5-inches thick → Area of Concrete = 5” x 12” = 60 in2 Ice Rink Slab Reinforcement Ratio = 0.24 in2 / 60 in2 = 0.004 = 0.4% This ratio of reinforcement is 1/3 less than the recommended minimum for good crack control so we can conclude that it is not a high level of reinforcing that is causing the ice rink slab to have excellent crack performance. With no joints and a smaller reinforcement ratio, the main ingredient left for crack performance is good quality control in the concrete mix design, batching operations, site placement, and consolidation. Examining the mix design, there are several features that could produce good crack performance but also create surface ﬁnishing challenges. The ﬁrst clue is the water to cement ratio. The mix design for this slab has a low amount of water that is allowed relative to its cement content. This means it will be a dryer mix and will be very viscous without adding special chemicals to overcome the rigidity. The water to cement ratio is 0.4 while the ratio for normal pavement may be up to 0.5. This low water content is a signiﬁcant contributor to the excellent crack performance of this slab. Water is needed to activate the Portland cement in concrete, and it becomes chemically part of the ﬁnal cement particle. The amount of water needed to fully activate cement is a lot less than needed to make the concrete ﬂow smoothly. The excess water interferes with the growth of cement particles and eventually evaporates out of the concrete. As the water exits the concrete it leaves a void and the concrete shrinks inward. This creates shrinkage stress which results in cracks. 31 Page - 15 Minimal water content is desired in concrete, but it must also ﬂow around the embedded components and be workable. Speciﬁers of this slab addressed this issue by calling for HRWRA. These initials indicate High Range Water Reducing Admixture. This is a chemical, often referred to as superplasticizer, that greatly improves workability of the concrete. Understanding the concrete mix was superplasticizer treated goes a long way to explaining why the slab has behaved well under most criteria but ended up with a disﬁgured ﬁnish surface. Superplasticizers are of various chemical compositions that all work to perform similarly. The are chemicals that prevent the concrete chemical reaction, called hydration, from stiAening up the concrete in a gradual process. When superplasticizer is added to concrete it will remain very ﬂuid for an extended period and then become rigid very quickly as the cement hydration process overwhelms the superplasticizer. Working with superplasticizer treated concrete can create diAiculty for cement ﬁnishers that have primary experience with normal concrete. Normal concrete has a gradual stiAening period where the concrete hardens slowly. This gives ﬁnishers time to work the surface. Superplasticizer treated concrete will remain ﬂuid until it starts to harden and then very quickly become unworkable. The concrete surface hardens quickly as the physical properties of the fresh concrete catch up to the hydration progression that has been suppressed by the temporary chemical softening provided by superplasticizer. Superplasticizer treated concrete mixes can catch concrete ﬁnishers oA guard because of its narrow window of ﬁnishing opportunity. This concrete must receive its ﬁnish when it appears to be too early with normal concrete. If a concrete ﬁnisher waits for a normal surface condition it will be too late and the ﬁnishing process will disrupt the surface. The conditions found in the Ames Downtown Plaza have all indications that the surface was disrupted after its hydration level had progress past the proper ﬁnishing window. A positive aspect of the superplasticizer treated concrete ﬁnishing problems is that the concrete is usually well consolidated and sound below the disﬁgured surface. A cement ﬁnisher can only damage the concrete at the surface when it has reached its initial hardening stage. Engineers that routinely work with superplasticizer treated concrete will not be concerned about the integrity of the overall concrete if the surface has a poor ﬁnish because it is a sign the concrete was advanced in its maturity before it was agitated with ﬁnishing. Others are not as easily convinced that there are not more extensive problems. It may be helpful to delve into the details of superplasticizer chemistry to better understand how engineers can be conﬁdent the mottled surface is not a harbinger of larger problems. 32 Page - 16 Portland cement is the “glue” in concrete that holds the sand and gravel together to form a solid. When activated, the cement molecules are shaped like burdocks with spines growing out from a central core. As the activated cement grows the spines extend outward to form an interlocking netting system that binds the sand and gravel together into a uniﬁed hardened material. Referring to the two images below, these are electron microscope images of cement particles. With this geometry it is easy to image how the of the cement particles intertwine to create a solid material. It is also evident that the threads projecting out from the core are very ﬁne in the early stages and easily disrupted until they thicken and knit into adjacent particles much the same as a rope gains strength as its individual ﬁbers are twisted together. Electron microscope images of Portland cement particles As the hydration process takes place, the unreacted cement particles exist with a positive electrical charge and an aAinity for reacting with water. It is at this level that superplasticizer functions. It has negatively charged particles that attracts the positive cement particles and suspends them enough to slow down their opportunity to encounter water. Referring to the graphic image below, this is a representation of how superplasticizer treated concrete is situated. The cement particles shown with a plus symbol are intermixed with water represented with gray circles and superplasticizer that is shown with minus signs in blue circles. The dispersed negatively charged superplasticizer pulls the cement particles away from the water and stops that speciﬁc reaction from occurring. It does not stop all reactions and eventually the cement encounters water and reacts. The suspension caused by the superplasticizer slows the process long enough to provide good placement workability in fresh concrete. 33 Page - 17 As a cement particle has a chance to encounter water it hydrates and grows extending its tentacles. That displaces the superplasticizer and opens opportunity for other cement particles to encounter water and hydrate as a result. The more particles that start to hydrate the faster the intertwining takes place. The overall process occurs quickly as the superplasticizer particles do not have enough suspension capability to restrain the larger reacted particle that also has a more neutral electrical potential. In other words, there is less strength in its positive change after it reacts with water. SOLUTIONS The good cracking performance in the Ames Downtown Plaza combined with a disﬁgured surface indicates we have a good slab with a distressed surface. I have reviewed the Euco Re-Cover product initially proposed for resurfacing the Ames Downtown Plaza concrete slab. This is a product produced by Euclid Chemical, a prominent manufacturer of concrete repair materials. I have used many Euclid Chemical products in many applications and experienced good results. Polymer modiﬁed concrete repair mortars are common in the restoration market and Euclid produces some very good products. Euco Re-Cover is a relatively new product to the market, and I do not have direct application experience using the material. For those reasons alone, I have not included the material in my proposed solutions. Most Euclid Chemical products prove to be reliable but, when recommending important restoration materials, I prefer to rely on materials I have used for decades. 34 Page - 18 The solutions I am proposing include the use of products manufactured by Sika Corporation. Sika was an early participant in the concrete restoration industry and remains an industry leader today. They have had worthy competitors through the years, including Euclid Chemical, but they have held steady with a reliable base line of repair materials that have track records extending back over 45 years. Most concrete repair product manufacturers have changed ownership and rebranded their products. Sika has improved but not re-branded their products so the materials I propose are those I used personally for a period covering nearly 40 years. I propose four restorative treatment options for the Ames Downtown Plaza ice rink concrete slab. These options are as follows: 1. GRIND THE SLAB FOR UNIFORMITY 2. GRIND THE SLAB TO REMOVE RIDGES AND USE RESTORATION MORTAR TO FILL VOIDS 3. PERFORM A UNIFORM REMOVAL OF UP TO 1-INCH AND INSTALL A NEW CONCRETE SURFACE BONDED TO THE ORIGINAL SLAB 4. GRIND ALL RIDGES - REMOVE ANY DEBONDED SURFACE CONCRETE – PROPERLY FILL VOIDS WITH POLYMER REPAIR MORTAR – PROVIDE A UNIFORM SURFACE PREPARATION AND COVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE WITH POLYMER MODIFIED MORTAR Details of these options are as follows: 1. GRIND THE SLAB FOR UNIFORMITY This option utilizes a large-scale ﬂoor grinder to place the slab surface proﬁle on a uniform plane. Pro Features This option carries the least product performance risk. The mottled surface will be removed and only the sound concrete slab below it will remain. Con Features This approach will change the appearance of the surface and remove the protective cement cover over the aggregate. It will lower the slab proﬁle relative to the surrounding edge slab. 35 Page - 19 2. GRIND THE SLAB – RESTORE VOIDS WITH COLOR MATCHED MORTAR – REGRIND This option utilizes a large-scale ﬂoor grinder to place the slab surface proﬁle on a uniform plane. There will still be voids in deeper areas. In this option, the voids will be prepared and ﬁlled with color matched repair mortar. The patches will then require grinding when fully cured to match the texture of the surrounding concrete. Regular concrete restoration materials will have a diAerent appearance from existing concrete, so it is important to utilize a color-controlled repair mortar. A leading brand of such materials is Butterﬁeld Color MT Resurfacer manufactured by Sika Corp. Pro Features This option carries a low performance risk because only small amounts of patch mortar will be used. Filled voids will have the same uniform plane as the ground slab and will be ﬁnished the same. Much less material will be removed with this option than Option 1. Con Features This will change the appearance of the surface and remove the protective cement cover over the aggregate. It will require careful selection of repair mortar color to prevent discernable patching of voids. 3. REMOVE A TOTAL SHALLOW VOID – PLACE BONDING AGENT – INSTALL CONCRETE OVERLAY This option utilizes scabblers, heavy shot blast, or hydro demolition to create a uniform void of approximately 1-inch deep. The surface is prepared and applied with bonding agent. Armetec 110 will be speciﬁed as a proven bonding agent. The void will then be ﬁlled with a thin overlay of conventional small aggregate concrete and ﬁnished like normal concrete. Overlays are vulnerable to shrinkage curing so this mix will require careful mix design work, shrinkage control chemicals, and excellent curing operations. Pro Features This option provides the surface that is closest to its original intended conﬁguration and can be ﬁnished accordingly. Con Features This will be the most disruptive preparation process. Overlay mixes can be temperamental and dry out quickly if conditions are not ideal. Overlay mixes require careful proportioning and shrinkage compensation to prevent cracking and debonding. 36 Page - 20 4. GRIND AWAY RIDGES – PATCH VOIDS WITH POLYMER MORTAR – RESTORE ENTIRE SURFACE WITH POLYMER MODIFIED MORTAR This option utilizes grinders and shot blast to prepare the surface to receive restorative patches in voids. The surface is then prepared uniformly, and the entire surface is treated with polymer modiﬁed mortar. The speciﬁed material will be SikaTop 122, a long-term proven overlay material I have extensive experience in utilizing. Its service thickness ranges from less than 1/8-inch to over 1-inch. All protrusions with be ground down to the uniform ﬁnished plane. Next voids will be prepared with shot blast or mechanical roughening, and properly patched to a uniform surface proﬁle. After patches have had time to cure, the entire surface including patches will be uniformly prepared with shot blasting and proﬁled to receive a full surface overlay. The entire surface will then be pressure washed and held in a saturated surface dry condition for one hour prior to initiating overlay repairs, The surface will then be uniformly coated with a thin layer of repair mortar that is scrubbed into the pores of the underlying concrete immediately prior to placing the ﬁnish overlay surface. The ﬁrst scrub coat can be overlayed with the ﬁnish coat immediately or the second coat can be troweled smooth and then a light uniform layer of polymer modiﬁed mortar can be sprayed over the top of the freshly placed trowel coat to replicate a broom ﬁnish roughness. The entire surface will then be coated with curing compound to retain moisture and to allow the repair mortar set up time before its surface dries. Pro Features This option provides a solution that is minimally invasive to the original slab yet provides a uniform surface proﬁle. The polymer modiﬁed mortars are speciﬁcally manufactured to provide thin overlay ﬁnish, but can also be applied to a deep level allowing a single material to comprise the entire surface for both void repairs and thin overly. SikaTop 122 is recommended for this option since it has a very long track record of excellent performance in this type of application. Con Features This restoration approach requires highly skilled restoration contractors to provide a surface that is both uniform in appearance and soundly adhered to the underlying slab. Polymer modiﬁed mortars are extremely adherent and working with them is diAicult. This is a large repair area so it will require several skilled concrete craftsmen to accomplish a quality installation. 37 University of Iowa - B.S., Civil Engineering, 1982 University of Iowa - M.S., Structural Engineering, 1983 Registration/License Civil Engineering, IA, 12266. National Council of Examiners of Eng. & Surveying, 29800 Civil Engineering, MO 2006000131 Inactive Registrations Civil Engineering, SD 7837 Civil Engineering, ND 5690 Civil Engineering, KS 19050 Civil Engineering, WI 40240 Civil Engineering, CO, 43601 Structural Engineering, MN, 47795 Structural Engineering, TX, 104361 Structural Engineering, OK, 24239 Civil Engineering, ID, 14584 Education Donald K. Staley, P.E. Professional Engineer Structural / Civil / Forensics Experience Summary Professional experience since 1983. Mr. Staley has assisted clients by providing civil and structural engineering services for a wide variety of projects ranging from small building renovations to large site and multi-million dollar commercial and utility structures. Having worked in the field of construction, construction management, and commercial development prior to becoming an engineer, Mr. Staley has many unique qualifications for unusual and complex projects requiring experience beyond traditional civil or structural engineering. Mr. Staley has brought this experience and knowledge to projects for municipalities, public entities, industries, and private developers. He has been the designer and project manager for multi-story office buildings, apartments, condominiums, and nursing care facilities; hospitals and medical clinics; churches; and new and/or major additions to schools. Mr. Staley has also assisted his clients with a diverse range of civil and utility structures including box culverts and storm water control structures; large retaining structures, several water treatment process buildings, containment structures, and process improvements; collector wells, pump stations, and hydraulic control structures. In addition, he has extensive experience in reconstruction and restoration of structures including rural bridges, foundation underpinning, restoration of pre-cast and post-tension parking garages, post-tension modifications to existing concrete structures, high capacity transformer support structures, and river dam gate structures. His experience with recreation facilities includes design of aesthetic structures including community entrance signage, entry archways, cast-stone waterways, zoo buildings and animal containment facilities; several park amenities, pool houses, and concession facilities. Mr. Staley frequently provides technical assistance for salvaging and retrofitting structures for deficient building envelopes, change of use or damage from overstress, foundation settlement, water infiltration, fires, severe weather, and flooding. His expertise is frequently utilized for insurance forensic investigations, and technical analysis for subrogation or litigation. Working as a prolific practicing designer throughout his entire engineering career has enabled him to not only understand codes and industry standards in many geographic locations but also practical construction techniques as well. 38 November 2022, Version 01.06 020302040070000021 PRODUCT DATA SHEET SikaTop®-122 Plus Two-component, polymer-modified, cementitious, trowel-grade mortar plus Sika FerroGard® 901 penetrating corrosion inhibitor SikaTop®-122 Plus is a two-component, polymer- modified, portland cement based, fast-setting, trowel- grade mortar. It is a high-performance repair mortar for horizontal and vertical surfaces and offers the additional benefit of Sika FerroGard® 901, a penetrating corrosion inhibitor. On grade, above and below grade on concrete and mortar. ▪ On horizontal surfaces.▪ As a structural repair material for parking structures, industrial plants, walkways, bridges, tunnels, dams, ramps, floors, etc. ▪ To level concrete surfaces.▪ As an overlay system for topping/resurfacing concrete.▪ Extremely low shrinkage ▪ High compressive and flexural strengths▪ High abrasion resistance▪ Increased freeze/thaw durability and resistance to deicing salts ▪ Compatible with coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete - Passes ASTM C-884 ▪ Increased density - improved carbon dioxide resistance (carbonation) without adversely affecting water vapor transmission (not a vapor barrier) ▪ Sika FerroGard® 901, a penetrating corrosion inhibitor - reduces corrosion even in the adjacent concrete ▪ USDA certifiable for the food industry▪ ANSI/NSF Standard 61 potable water compliant▪ Tested per ICRI guideline for inorganic repair material data sheet protocol guideline n°320.3R ▪ 1 gal (3.78 L) jug 4/carton 61.5 lb (28.9 kg) bag 12 months from date of production if stored properly in original, unopened and undamaged sealed packaging Store dry at 40–95 °F (4–35 °C) Protect Component A from freezing. If frozen, discard. Protect Component B from moisture. If damp, discard. Concrete gray when mixed 39 136 lbs/ft3 (2.18 kg/L)(ASTM C-138) 1 day 2,500 psi (17.2 MPa) 7 days 5,300 psi (36.5 MPa) 28 days 7,000 psi (48.3 MPa) (ASTM C-109) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 28 days 3.0x106 psi (ASTM C-469) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 28 days 1,500 psi (10.3 MPa)(ASTM C-293) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 28 days 2,000 psi (13.8 MPa)(ASTM C-882 modified)* * Mortar scrubbed into substrate at 73 °F (23 °C) and 50 % R.H. 28 days 500 psi (3.4 MPa)(ASTM C-496) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 7 days >300 psi (2.1 MPa) 28 days 400 psi (2.8 MPa) (ASTM C-1583) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 28 days 1’’x1’’x11-1/4’’ specimen < 0.05 % 3’’x3’’x11-1/4’’ specimen < 0.021 % (ASTM C-157 modified (mod. ICRI 320.3R)) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. Duration >70 days Average Max Strain -9 μstrain Average Stress Strain 0.49 psi/day Potential for Cracking Low (ASTM C-1581) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 90 days No cracking 28 days < 500 C (ASTM C-1202 AASHOT T-277) 300 cycles 98 %(ASTM C-666) Plant-proportioned kit, mix entire unit. 136 lbs/ft3 (2.18 kg/l)(ASTM C-138) Neat 0.51 ft3 (0.02 m3) per unit Extended with 42 lb (19 kg) of 3/8" (9.5 mm) gravel 0.75 ft3 (0.03 m3) per unit (Coverage figures do not include allowance for surface profile and porosity or material waste) 1/8" (3.2 mm)1" (25 mm) 1" (25.4 mm)4" (101.6 mm) November 2022, Version 01.06 020302040070000021 40 65–75 °F (18–24 °C) > 45 °F (7 °C) > 45 °F (7 °C) 35–70 minutes (ASTM C-266) > 90 minutes (ASTM C 266) 73o F (23o C), 50% R.H. 50–120 minutes Note: All times start after adding Component ‘B’ to Component ‘A’ and are highly affected by temperature, relative humidity, substrate temperature, wind, sun and other job site conditions. Results may differ based upon statistical variations depending upon mixing methods and equipment, temperature, application methods, test methods, actual site conditions and curing conditions. Do not use solvent-based curing compound.▪ Size, shape and depth of repair must be carefully considered and consistent with practices recommended by ACI or ICRI. For additional information, contact Technical Service. ▪ For additional information on substrate preparation, refer to ICRI Guideline No.310.2R Coatings, Polymer Overlays, and Concrete Repair. ▪ If aggressive means of substrate preparation is employed, substrate strength should be tested in accordance with ACI 503 Appendix A prior to the repair application. ▪ As with all cement based materials, avoid contact with aluminum to prevent adverse chemical reaction and possible product failure. Insulate potential areas of contact by coating aluminum bars, rails, posts etc. with an appropriate epoxy such as Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod. ▪ Refer to Sika® Antisol®-250 W product data sheet for use. ▪ For further information and advice regarding transportation, handling, storage and disposal of chemical products, user should refer to the actual Safety Data Sheets containing physical, environmental, toxicological and other safety related data. User must read the current actual Safety Data Sheets before using any products. In case of an emergency, call CHEMTREC at 1-800-424-9300, International 703-527-3887. Concrete, mortar, and masonry products must be clean ▪ and sound.Remove all deteriorated concrete, dirt, oil, grease, and other bond-inhibiting materials from the area to be repaired. ▪ Be sure repair area is not less than 1/8” (3.2mm) in depth. ▪ Preparation work should be done by high pressure water blast, scabbler or other appropriate mechanical means to obtain an exposed aggregate surface profile of ±1/16"-1/8" (1.6-3.2 mm) (CSP-5-6). ▪ To ensure optimum repair results, the effectiveness of decontamination and preparation should be assessed by a pull-off test. ▪ Saw cutting of edges is preferred and a dovetail is recommended. ▪ Substrate should be Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) with clean water prior to application. No standing water should remain during application. ▪ Reinforcing steel: Steel reinforcement should be thoroughly prepared by mechanical cleaning to remove all traces of rust. Where corrosion has occurred due to the presence of chlorides, the steel should be high pressure washed with clean water after mechanical cleaning. For priming of reinforcing steel use Sika® Armatec® 110 EpoCem (consult PDS). ▪ Concrete Substrate: Prime the prepared substrate with a brush or sprayed applied coat of Sika® Armatec® 110 EpoCem (consult PDS). Alternately, a scrub coat of SikaTop®-122 Plus can be applied prior to placement of the mortar. The repair mortar has to be applied into the wet scrub coat before it dries. ▪ November 2022, Version 01.06 020302040070000021 41 Pour approximately 7/8 of Component ‘A’ into the mixing container. ▪ Add Component ‘B’ (powder) while mixing continuously. ▪ Mix mechanically with a low-speed drill (400–600 rpm) and mixing paddle or mortar mixer. ▪ Add remaining Component ‘A’ (liquid) to mix if a more loose consistency is desired. ▪ Mix to a uniform consistency, maximum 3 minutes.▪ Thorough mixing and proper proportioning of the two components is necessary. ▪ Refer to ACI 306 Guidelines when there is a need to place this product in cold & hot temperatures. Thinner application will be more sensitive to the temperature ▪ For applications greater than 1" (25.4 mm) in depth, add 3/8" (9.5 mm) coarse aggregate. ▪ Pour all of Component ‘A’ into mixing container.▪ Add all of Component ‘B’ while mixing, then introduce 3/8" (9.5 mm) coarse aggregate at desired quantity. ▪ Mix to uniform consistency, maximum 3 minutes.▪ The aggregate must be non-reactive (reference ASTM C-1260, C-227 and C-289), clean, well graded, Saturated Surface Dry (SSD), have low absorption and high density, and comply with ASTM C-33 size number 8 per Table 2. ▪ Do not use limestone aggregate.▪ Variances in the quality of the aggregate will affect the physical properties of SikaTop®-122 Plus and may result in different strengths. ▪ The addition rate is 42 lb (19 kg) of aggregate per bag. It is approximately 3.0-4.5 gallons (11.3-17.0 L) by loose volume of aggregate. ▪ SikaTop®-122 Plus must be scrubbed into the substrate, filling all pores and voids. ▪ Force material against edge of repair, working toward center. ▪ After filling repair, consolidate, then screed.▪ Allow mortar or concrete to set to desired stiffness, then finish with wood or sponge float for a smooth surface, or broom or burlap-drag for a rough finish. ▪ As per ACI recommendations for Portland cement concrete, curing is required. ▪ Moist cure with wet burlap and polyethylene, a fine mist of water or a water Sika® Antisol®-250 W* compatible curing compound meeting ASTM C-309. ▪ Curing compounds adversely affect the adhesion of following lifts of mortar, leveling mortar or protective coatings. ▪ Moist curing should commence immediately after finishing. ▪ Protect freshly applied mortar from direct sunlight, wind, rain and frost. ▪ To prevent from freezing, cover with insulating material. ▪ * Pretesting of curing compound is recommended. See Legal Disclaimer. November 2022, Version 01.06 020302040070000021 42 Prior to each use of any product of Sika Corporation, its subsidiaries or affiliates (“SIKA”), the user must always read and follow the warnings and instructions on the product’s most current product label, Product Data Sheet and Safety Data Sheet which are available at usa.sika.com or by calling SIKA’s Technical Service Department at 1-800-933-7452. Nothing contained in any SIKA literature or materials relieves the user of the obligation to read and follow the warnings and instructions for each SIKA product as set forth in the current product label, Product Data Sheet and Safety Data Sheet prior to use of the SIKA product. SIKA warrants this product for one year from date of installation to be free from manufacturing defects and to meet the technical properties on the current Product Data Sheet if used as directed within the product’s shelf life. User determines suitability of product for intended use and assumes all risks. User’s and/or buyer’s sole remedy shall be limited to the purchase price or replacement of this product exclusive of any labor costs. Sale of SIKA products are subject to the Terms and Conditions of Sale which are available at https://usa.sika.com/en/group/SikaCorp/termsandconditions.html or by calling 1-800-933-7452. 201 Polito Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 Phone: +1-800-933-7452 Fax: +1-201-933-6225 usa.sika.com SikaTop-122Plus-en-US-(11-2022)-1-6.pdf November 2022, Version 01.06 020302040070000021 43 March 2020, Version 01.02 020302020050000003 PRODUCT DATA SHEET Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem BONDING PRIMER AND REINFORCEMENT CORROSION PROTECTION Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem is a cementitious epoxy resin compensated 3-component, solvent-free, coating material with corrosion inhibitor, used as bonding primer and reinforcement corrosion protection. Suitable in concrete repair as corrosion protection for reinforcement ▪ Suitable as a bonding primer on mortar, steel, and on placing fresh, plastic concrete to existing hardened concrete ▪ Protection to reinforcing steel in areas of thin concrete cover ▪ Contains EpoCem® technology - improved bonding agent ▪ Extended open times for repair mortars▪ Excellent adhesion to concrete and steel▪ Contains corrosion inhibitor▪ Good resistance to water and chloride penetration▪ High shear strength▪ Long pot life▪ Can be brushed on or applied using spray gun▪ Can be used exterior on-grade▪ Excellent bonding bridge for cement or epoxy based repair mortars ▪ High strength, unaffected by moisture when cured▪ Non-flammable, solvent free▪ Portland cement, epoxy resin, selected aggregates and additives. 3.5 gal (13.2 L) 47.6 oz (1.4 L) 122.1 oz (3.6 L) 46.82 lb (21.3 kg) A + B in carton, C in bag 1.65 gal (6.2 L) 22.7 oz (0.67 L) 57.6 oz (1.7 L) 5.5 lb (2.5 kg) (4 bags) Factory- proportioned units in a pail Component A White liquid Component B Colorless liquid Component C Gray powder 12 months from date of production if stored properly in original, unopened and undamaged sealed packaging Store dry at 40–95 °F (4–35 °C) 44 Protect Component A and B from freezing. If frozen, discard. Protect Component C from moisture. If damp, discard. 3 days 4,500 psi (31.0 MPa) 7 days 6,500 psi (44.8 MPa) 28 days 8,500 psi (58.6 MPa) (ASTM C-109) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 28 days 1,250 psi (8.6 MPa)(ASTM C-348) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. 28 days 600 psi (4.1 MPa)(ASTM C-496) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. Sika® Armatec® 110 EpoCem coated 625 psi (4.3 MPa) Epoxy coated 508 psi (3.5 MPa) Plain reinforcement 573 psi (4.0 MPa) (ASTM C-1583) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. (14 d. moist cure, plastic to hardened concrete) Wet on wet 2,800 psi (19.3 MPa) 24 hr. open time 2,600 psi (17.9 MPa) (ASTM C-882) 73 °F (23 °C) 50 % R.H. Control 7.32 x 10-10 ft/sec 145 psi (10 bar)8.92 x 10-15 ft/sec μ H2O ~100 μ CO2 ~14,000 Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem more than tripled the time to corrosion▪ Reduced corrosion rate by over 40 %▪ A+B+C ~125 lb/ft3 (~2.0 kg/l) 80 ft2/gal (7.4 m2/l) 40 ft2/gal (3.7 m2/l) (Coverage figures do not include allowance for surface profile and porosity or material waste) 20 mils 1 20 mils 2 65°-75°F (18°-24°C) 40–95 °F (5–35 °C) 40–95 °F (5–35 °C) ~ 90 minutes Sika repair mortars and non-fast setting concrete can be applied on Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem within a maximum time of: March 2020, Version 01.02 020302020050000003 45 80°- 95 °F (26°- 35 °C)6 hours 65°-79 °F (18°- 26 °C)12 hours 50°- 64° F (10°- 17° C)16 hours 40°- 49° F (4°- 9° C)wet-on-wet Concrete Free from dust, loose material, surface contamination and materials which reduce bond or prevent suction or wetting by repair materials. ▪ Delaminated, weak, damaged and deteriorated concrete and where necessary sound concrete shall be removed by suitable means. ▪ Substrate must be Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) with no standing water. ▪ Steel reinforcement Rust, scale, mortar, concrete, dust and other loose and deleterious material which reduces bond or contributes to corrosion shall be removed by blast cleaning or other means of mechanical abrasion and reinforcement. ▪ Should be fully exposed and have all corrosion removed. ▪ Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem can be mixed with a low- speed (< 250 rpm) electric drill mixer. ▪ Shake components A and B thoroughly before opening.▪ Pour liquid components A and B into a suitable mixing vessel and mix for 30 seconds. ▪ While still mixing components A and B slowly add powder component C. ▪ Mix the three components together for a minimum 3 minutes until blend is uniform and free of lumps, minimizing addition of air. ▪ Mix only the quantity that you can be applied within the pot life. ▪ DO NOT ADD WATER.▪ As reinforcement corrosion protection Apply by stiff-bristle brush or spray at 80 ft2 /gal.▪ Take special care to properly coat the underside of the totally exposed steel. ▪ Allow coating to dry 2-3 hours at 73 °F, then apply a second coat at the same coverage. ▪ Allow to dry again before the repair mortar or concrete is applied. ▪ Pour or place repair within 7 days▪ As a bonding primer Apply using a stiff-bristle brush or broom. To achieve good bond, Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem must be applied well into the substrate, filling all pores and ensure complete coverage of all surface irregularities (minimum layer thickness 1/64″ (0.5 mm). ▪ Spray apply with Goldblatt Pattern Pistol or equal equipment. ▪ Apply the freshly mixed patching mortar or concrete wet on wet, or up to the maximum recommended open time, onto the bonding slurry. ▪ Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem must be protected against contamination and rain until application of the repair mortar. Clean all tools and application equipment with water immediately after use. Hardened material can only be mechanically removed. Avoid application in direct sun and/or strong wind and/or rain. ▪ Do not add water.▪ Not a vapor barrier.▪ Apply only to sound, prepared substrates.▪ Not recommended for use with expansive grouts and SikaQuicks ▪ Use of semi-dry mortars onto Sika® Armatec®-110 EpoCem must be applied “wet on wet” ▪ When used in overhead applications with hand placed patching mortars, use “wet on wet” for maximum mortar built thickness. ▪ Substrate profile as specified by the overlay or repair material is still required. ▪ As with all cement based materials, avoid contact with aluminum to prevent adverse chemical reaction and possible product failure. Insulate potential areas of contact by coating aluminum bars, rails, posts etc. with an appropriate epoxy such as Sikadur® Hi-Mod 32. ▪ March 2020, Version 01.02 020302020050000003 46 Results may differ based upon statistical variations depending upon mixing methods and equipment, temperature, application methods, test methods, actual site conditions and curing conditions. See Legal Disclaimer. For further information and advice regarding transportation, handling, storage and disposal of chemical products, user should refer to the actual Safety Data Sheets containing physical, environmental, toxicological and other safety related data. User must read the current actual Safety Data Sheets before using any products. In case of an emergency, call CHEMTREC at 1-800-424-9300, International 703-527-3887. A+B+C combined 50 g/l Prior to each use of any product of Sika Corporation, its subsidiaries or affiliates (“SIKA”), the user must always read and follow the warnings and instructions on the product’s most current product label, Product Data Sheet and Safety Data Sheet which are available at usa.sika.com or by calling SIKA’s Technical Service Department at 1-800-933-7452. Nothing contained in any SIKA literature or materials relieves the user of the obligation to read and follow the warnings and instructions for each SIKA product as set forth in the current product label, Product Data Sheet and Safety Data Sheet prior to use of the SIKA product. SIKA warrants this product for one year from date of installation to be free from manufacturing defects and to meet the technical properties on the current Product Data Sheet if used as directed within the product’s shelf life. User determines suitability of product for intended use and assumes all risks. User’s and/or buyer’s sole remedy shall be limited to the purchase price or replacement of this product exclusive of any labor costs. Sale of SIKA products are subject to the Terms and Conditions of Sale which are available at https://usa.sika.com/en/group/SikaCorp/termsandconditions.html or by calling 1-800-933-7452. 201 Polito Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 Phone: +1-800-933-7452 Fax: +1-201-933-6225 usa.sika.com Carretera Libre Celaya Km. 8.5 Fracc. Industrial Balvanera Corregidora, Queretaro C.P. 76920 Phone: 52 442 2385800 Fax: 52 442 2250537 SikaArmatec-110EpoCem-en-US-(03-2020)-1-2.pdf March 2020, Version 01.02 020302020050000003 47 DESCRIPTION EUCO RE-COVER is a polymer modiﬁed, ﬁber-reinforced concrete resurfacing mortar. Adding only water, EUCO RE-COVER provides a fresh, aesthetically pleasing appearance to new concrete that has been marred by rain or plastic covering, old or spalled concrete, and salt damaged concrete. PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS FEATURES/BENEFITS • Excellent working time at 70 °F (21 °C) • Polymer modiﬁed • Micro-ﬁber reinforced • Suitable for freeze-thaw environments • Open to foot trafﬁc in 4 hours, rubber tire trafﬁc in 12 hours at 75 °F (24 °C) • Available in standard light grey as well as white (white may be subject to a minimum quantity order) PRIMARY APPLICATIONS • Driveways • Sidewalks • Pool decks • Garage ﬂoors • Elevated slabs • Vertical concrete surfaces EUCO RE-COVER HORIZONTAL REPAIR Master Format #: 03 01 30.61 PACKAGING 40 lb (18 kg) bags and pails Code: 150R 05 (pail, MTO) Code: 150R 40 (bag) APPROXIMATE YIELD 40 lb (18 kg) unit: 0.48 ft³ (0.014 m³) per unit when mixed with 4.5 quarts (4.3 L) of potable water. MINIMUM/MAXIMUM APPLICATION THICKNESS Featheredge to 3/8 inch (10 mm) CLEAN UP Clean tools and equipment with water before the material hardens. SHELF LIFE 2 years in original, unopened package FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE RESURFACER Test Method Test Property Values - Working Time 30 minutes at 70 °F (21 °C) ASTM C266 Initial Set approximately 1 hour ASTM C266 Final Set approximately 2.5 hours ASTM C109 Compressive Strength 4000 psi (28 MPa) at 28 days TECHNICAL INFORMATION The following are typical values obtained under laboratory conditions. Expect reasonable variation under ﬁeld conditions. Application Thickness (inches)1/16 1/8 1/4 3/8 Coverage Area per Unit (ft2)92.1 46.0 23.0 15.3 The following coverage rates are approximations based on yield of a 40 lb unit mixed at standard consistency. www.euclidchemical.com19215 Redwood Road • Cleveland, OH 44110 • 800-321-7628 48 DIRECTIONS FOR USE Surface Preparation: Concrete surfaces must be structurally sound, free of loose or deteriorated concrete and be free of curing and sealing compounds, dust, dirt, paint, efﬂorescence, oil and all other contaminants. Typically, pressure washing the surface with a commercial pressure washer (3000 psi, 4 GPM) (21 MPa, 0.25 L/s) and allowing to fully dry will be sufﬁcient for preparation. In areas of heavy contamination, preparing the concrete through mechanical means is recommended. Abrade the surface to a proﬁle of at least CSP 2, in accordance with ICRI Guideline 310.2-1997. Priming: Apply EUCO RE-COVER to dry surfaces. Although a primer is typically not needed, if the concrete is very porous TAMMSWELD or EUCOWELD 2.0 bonding adhesive must be used to prevent pinholes from forming in the EUCO RE-COVER. Please refer to the TAMMSWELD or EUCOWELD 2.0 technical data sheet for further instructions. Mixing: One 40 lb (18 kg) unit requires 4.5 qt (4.3 L) of potable water. Up to an additional pint (0.4 L) can be added when the temperature exceeds 80 °F (27 °C). For repairing deeper spalls prior to overlaying, one unit can be mixed with 3.5 to 4 qt (3.3 to 3.8 L) of potable water to make a stiff paste suitable for spall repairs. All materials should be in the proper temperature range of 50 to 90 °F (10 to 32 °C). Single 40 lb (18 kg) units may be mixed with a drill and “jiffy” mixer. Add 80% of the total mix water to a clean mixing vessel, then gradually add the dry product. Slowly add the remaining 20% of mix water during mixing. Do not exceed maximum water or add any additional additives. Mix for 3 to 5 minutes. Do not retemper. Place immediately. Coloring: EUCO RE-COVER can be integrally colored. Add the desired liquid or dry colorant to the mixing water and stir until colorant evenly disperses throughout the water. Continue mixing in the EUCO RE-COVER as directed. The Euclid Chemical Company does not warrant any colored application. For even results, it is a best practice to “box” all mixing water that has been colored prior to mixing individual units of EUCO RE-COVER. Colored results vary based on the colorant and amount used. Placement: Ambient and surface temperatures should be at least 50 °F (10 °C). Working time at 70 °F (21 °C) is approximately 30 minutes. Surface and air temperatures greatly affect the working time of the material. Place the mixed EUCO RE-COVER onto the concrete in the desired area. For best adhesion to the concrete, use a scrub brush or stiff street broom to scrub the material onto the prepared substrate. Working from joint to joint in the base concrete is a good practice. On hotter days, it is best practice to work in small, controlled areas to avoid cold joints. This product is designed for ﬁnishing with a trowel or a broom. The maximum placement depth of EUCO RE-COVER is 3/8” (9.5 mm). If multiple lifts are to be applied, score the previous lift after placing to provide a suitable surface for mechanically bonding subsequent lifts. Finishing: This product is designed to be ﬁnished with a trowel or broom. Do not add water to the surface during the ﬁnishing operation. When placing under hot and windy conditions, the use of EUCOBAR evaporation retarder is recommended to prevent the loss of surface moisture. Always re-establish ﬂoor and slab joints when using this product as a ﬁnished surface. Curing and Sealing: Proper curing procedures are important to ensure the durability and quality of the repair. As soon as the material can be walked on without harming the ﬁnish, apply a water-based cure and seal such as DIAMOND CLEAR VOX or SUPER DIAMOND CLEAR VOX to the surface. If you can apply a cure and seal sooner from the sides of the project, then do so. PRECAUTIONS/LIMITATIONS • Store in a dry place. • Always mix full units. • Minimum application temperature is 50 °F (10 °C). • When necessary, follow the recommendations in ACI 305R “Guide to Hot Weather Concreting” or ACI 306R “Guide to Cold Weather Concreting”. • Avoid applying material in direct sun. • DO NOT use a solvent-based cure and seal on this product. • DO NOT use plastic or other covering means to cure EUCO RE-COVER, for discoloration will occur. Rev. 06.22 WARRANTY: The Euclid Chemical Company (“Euclid”) solely and expressly warrants that its products shall be free from defects in materials and workmanship for one (1) year from the date of purchase.Unless authorized in writing by an ofcer of Euclid,no other representations or statements made by Euclid or its representatives,in writing or orally,shall alter this warranty.EUCLID MAKES NO WARRANTIES,IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE,AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ORDINARY OR PARTICULAR PURPOSES OF ITS PRODUCTS AND EXCLUDES THE SAME.If any Euclid product fails to conform with this warranty,Euclid will replace the product at no cost to Buyer.Replacement of any product shall be the sole and exclusive remedy available and buyer shall have no claim for incidental or consequential damages.Any warranty claim must be made within one (1)year from the date of the claimed breach.Euclid does not authorize anyone on its behalf to make any written or oral statements which in any way alter Euclid’s installation information or instructions in its product literature or on its packaging labels.Any installation of Euclid products which fails to conform with such installation information or instructions shall void this warranty.Product demonstrations,if any,are done for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute a warranty or warranty alteration of any kind.Buyer shall be solely responsible for determining the suitability of Euclid’s products for the Buyer’s intended purposes.49 Sika Corporation Sika Armatec 110 Application Instructions 50 Sika Corporation Sika Armatec 110 EpoCem Bonding Agent and Reinforcement Protection Sika Armatec 110 EpoCem is a 3-component, solvent-free, epoxy- modified, cementitious product specifically formulated as a bonding agent and an anti-corrosion coating 51 Sika Corporation Sika Armatec 110 EpoCem Where to use: As a anti-corrosion coating for reinforcing steel in concrete restoration As Added protection to reinforcing steel in areas of thin concrete cover As a bonding agent for repairs to concrete and steel As a bonding agent for placing fresh, plastic concrete to existing hardened concrete 52 Sika Corporation Sika Armatec 110 EpoCem Coverage: Bonding Agent : minimum on smooth, even substrate 80 sq.ft./ gal (@20 mils) Reinforcement Protection : 40 sq.ft./gal (@20 mils – 2 coat application) 53 Sika Corporation Sika Armatec 110 EpoCem Packaging: 3.5 Gal Unit: “A” Comp: 47.6 fl. Oz. “B” Comp: 122.1 fl. Oz. “C” Comp: multi-wall bag 1.65 Gal Unit: “A” Comp: 22.7 fl. Oz. “B” Comp: 57.6 fl. Oz. “C” Comp: 4 Bags @ 5.5 lbs ea. 54 Sika Corporation Surface Preparation Cementitious Substrates: Should be cleaned and prepared in accordance with the requirements specified by the overlay or repair material by blast cleaning or equivalent mechanical means. Substrate must be saturated surface dry (SSD) with no standing water. 55 Sika Corporation Surface Preparation Steel: Remove corrosion and contaminants from exposed steel. Surface should be cleaned and prepared thoroughly by blast cleaning. Exposed steel should be cleaned to white steel. Determine section loss, splice where more than 15-25% loss as directed the Engineer. If half of the diameter is exposed, chip behind bar, ½” minimum for mortar only. 56 Sika Corporation SikaArmatec 110 EpoCem 1.65 Gal Unit Comes packaged with 4 bags @ 5.5 lbs. excellent for smaller batches. 57 Sika Corporation Armatec 110 EpoCem- Tools 1.65 Gal Unit Comes packaged with 4 bags @ 5.5 lbs. excellent for smaller batches. 58 Sika Corporation Steel Preparation Steel should be cleaned and prepared by blast cleaning 59 Sika Corporation Armatec 110 1.65 Gal Unit A & B Comp. proportions are clearly marked on the side of the plastic jugs for easy mixing. 60 Sika Corporation Mixing Shake contents of A & B Components. For 3.5 Gal Unit: Pour entire amount of both A & B Component into a clean dry pail. For 1.65 Gal Unit: Proportion according to markings on side of jugs 61 Sika Corporation Mixing Mix liquid thoroughly for 30 seconds with a Sika paddle (jiffy mixer) on a low speed drill 400-600 rpm drill. 62 Sika Corporation Mixing Slowly add entire “C” Component while continuing to mix for 3 minutes until blend is uniform and free of lumps. 63 Sika Corporation Mixing While mixing for 3 minutes stop to scrape down the sides to insure all material is fully mixed 64 Sika Corporation Corrosion Protection Only: Apply at 80 sq.ft./gal (20 mils). Take special care to properly coat the underside of the totally exposed steel. Allow Coating to dry 2-3 hours @ 73 degrees F. 65 Sika Corporation Corrosion Protection Only: Apply second coat at same coverage after waiting 2-3 hour for first coat to dry. 66 Sika Corporation Bonding Agent & Rebar Protection First Coat: Apply at 80 sq.ft./gal (20 mils). Take special care to properly coat the underside of the totally exposed steel. Allow Coating to dry 2-3 hours @ 73 degrees F. 67 Sika Corporation Bonding Agent & Rebar Protection Second Coat: Apply at 80 sq.ft./gal (20 mils) on both steel and concrete substrate. Proceed to applying repair mortar “wet-on-wet”. If Armatec 110 is dry apply again prior to placing repair mortar. 68 Sika Corporation Sika Armatec 110 EpoCem Sika Technical Data Sheets can be obtained via www.sikaconstruction.com Refer to data sheets for specific information on each Sika product. 69 ID Task Mode Task Name Duration Start Finish % Complete 1 Ames Downtown Plaza Project 542 days Mon 9/5/22 Tue 10/1/24 65% 2 Site Work 542 days Mon 9/5/22 Tue 10/1/24 60% 8 Ice Rink 376 days Fri 4/14/23 Fri 9/20/24 66% 14 DELAY - Ice Rink Slab Surface Remedy Decision 140 days Fri 1/5/24 Thu 7/18/24 0% 15 Install Remaining Ice Equipment (Tenative)10 days Mon 8/19/24Fri 8/30/24 0% 13 Ice Equipment Testing (Tenative)5 days Mon 9/2/24 Fri 9/6/24 0% 17 Dasher Boards 5 days Mon 9/16/24Fri 9/20/24 0% 29 Splash Pad 259 days Mon 8/28/23Thu 8/22/24 69% 36 DELAY - ASI #12 - Bonding (From finding Issue to executed CO) 40 days Wed 5/29/24 Tue 7/23/24 84% 37 Splash Pad Concrete 15 days Wed 7/24/24Tue 8/13/24 0% 32 Fountain Nozzle/Equipment Setting 10 days Wed 8/7/24 Tue 8/20/24 0% 34 Fountain Trim Out 5 days Wed 8/14/24Tue 8/20/24 0% 33 Fountain Testing/Training 1 day Wed 8/21/24Wed 8/21/240% 31 Health Inspection 1 day Thu 8/22/24 Thu 8/22/24 0% 20 Remaining Site Work 99 days Thu 5/16/24 Tue 10/1/24 10% 25 Remaining Rough Grading 5 days Wed 7/24/24Tue 7/30/24 0% 26 Re-Do Sidewalk Around Splash Pad (ASI #12)15 days Wed 7/24/24Tue 8/13/24 0% 23 Synthetic Turf 5 days Mon 8/12/24Fri 8/16/24 0% 21 Sidewalks/Remaining Site Paving 25 days Wed 8/14/24Tue 9/17/24 0% 22 Landscaping 25 days Wed 8/28/24Tue 10/1/24 0% 28 Pavers 5 days Wed 8/28/24Tue 9/3/24 0% 24 Irrigation 10 days Mon 9/2/24 Fri 9/13/24 0% 48 RR/Mech Building 487 days Thu 10/20/22Fri 8/30/24 73% 68 MEP Rough In/Pull Wire 25 days Wed 7/17/24Tue 8/20/24 0% 72 Install Door Frames 5 days Mon 7/22/24Fri 7/26/24 0% 67 Remaining Painting 8 days Thu 7/25/24 Mon 8/5/24 0% 69 Precast Staining 5 days Mon 7/29/24Fri 8/2/24 0% 70 Countertop 2 days Wed 7/31/24Thu 8/1/24 0% 62 Precast Caulking 4 days Mon 8/5/24 Thu 8/8/24 0% 73 Pass Thru Window 3 days Mon 8/5/24 Wed 8/7/24 0% 66 Doors & Hardware 3 days Tue 8/6/24 Thu 8/8/24 0% 71 Gutters and Downspouts 2 days Fri 8/9/24 Mon 8/12/240% 65 MEP Finishes 5 days Fri 8/23/24 Thu 8/29/24 0% 74 Wood Screen Wall 5 days Mon 8/26/24Fri 8/30/24 0% M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Jul 14, '24 Jul 21, '24 Jul 28, '24 Aug 4, '24 Aug 11, '24 Aug 18, '24 Aug 25, '24 Sep 1, '24 Sep 8, '24 Sep 15, '24 Sep 22, '24 Sep 29, '24 Task Split Milestone Summary Project Summary Inactive Task Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Deadline Progress Manual Progress Page 1 Project: 2024.07.17 - Ames Dow Date: Wed 7/17/24 70 ID Task Mode Task Name Duration Start Finish % Complete Responsibility Predecessors 1 Ames Downtown Plaza Project 555 days Mon 9/5/22 Fri 10/18/24 69% 2 Site Work 555 days Mon 9/5/22 Fri 10/18/24 62% 8 Ice Rink 391 days Fri 4/14/23 Fri 10/11/24 61% 14 DELAY - Ice Rink Slab Surface Remedy Decision 175 days Fri 1/5/24 Thu 9/5/24 0%12 15 Install Remaining Ice Equipment (Tenative)10 days Mon 9/23/24Fri 10/4/24 0%Everything Ice 13 Ice Equipment Testing (Tenative)5 days Mon 10/7/24Fri 10/11/24 0%Everything Ice 15 17 Dasher Boards (Tenative)5 days Mon 10/7/24Fri 10/11/24 0%Rink Systems 18FS+60 days,13SS 30 Splash Pad 284 days Mon 8/28/23Thu 9/26/24 77% 32 Fountain Nozzle/Equipment Setting 15 days Thu 9/5/24 Wed 9/25/240%Fountain Tech 37SS 37 Splash Pad Concrete 15 days Mon 8/26/24Fri 9/13/24 40%Caselli 36FS+18 days 34 Fountain Trim Out 5 days Mon 9/16/24Fri 9/20/24 0%Fountain Tech 37 33 Fountain Testing/Training 1 day Thu 9/26/24 Thu 9/26/24 0%Fountain Tech 34,32 20 Remaining Site Work 112 days Thu 5/16/24 Fri 10/18/24 29% 27 Re-Do Sidewalk Around Splash Pad (ASI #12)15 days Mon 8/26/24Fri 9/13/24 40%Caselli 36FS+18 days 21 Sidewalks/Remaining Site Paving 15 days Mon 9/16/24Fri 10/4/24 0%Caselli 37 23 Synthetic Turf 5 days Mon 9/9/24 Fri 9/13/24 0%SynLawn 24 Final Grade 3 days Wed 9/18/24Fri 9/20/24 0%ConStruct 29 Pavers 5 days Mon 9/23/24Fri 9/27/24 0%Hardscapes 37,21FS-15 days 25 Irrigation 5 days Mon 9/23/24Fri 9/27/24 0%DSM 37,21FS-12 days 22 Landscaping 10 days Mon 10/7/24Fri 10/18/24 0%Distinctive 21 48 RR/Mech Building 509 days Thu 10/20/22Tue 10/1/24 83% 68 MEP Rough In/Pull Wire 55 days Wed 7/17/24Tue 10/1/24 60% 65 MEP Finishes 28 days Fri 8/23/24 Tue 10/1/24 30%MEP Trades 64,67 75 Wood Screen Wall 5 days Mon 9/9/24 Fri 9/13/24 0%Henkel 70 Countertop 2 days Mon 9/9/24 Tue 9/10/24 0%CKF 74 Pass Thru Window 3 days Mon 9/9/24 Wed 9/11/24100%Reflections 69 71 Gutters and Downspouts 2 days Mon 9/23/24Tue 9/24/24 0%Modern Builders62 M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F Sep 1, '24 Sep 8, '24 Sep 15, '24 Sep 22, '24 Sep 29, '24 Oct 6, '24 Oct 13, '24 Task Split Milestone Summary Project Summary Inactive Task Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Deadline Progress Manual Progress Page 1 Project: 2024.08.30 - Ames Dow Date: Tue 9/3/24 71