Disputes Involving Incorrectly Installed Post-Tension Tendons
1. Overview: Post-Tension Tendons and Their Importance
Post-tension (PT) tendons are high-strength steel cables or strands used in concrete construction to apply compressive forces after concrete has cured, enhancing structural performance. They are commonly used in:
High-rise buildings
Parking structures
Bridges and overpasses
Stadiums and arenas
Industrial slabs-on-grade
Incorrect installation of PT tendons—such as misalignment, insufficient tensioning, improper anchorage, or lack of corrosion protection—can result in:
Structural cracking or deflection
Reduced load-bearing capacity
Premature concrete failure
Safety hazards and potential collapse
Disputes usually arise over liability, remediation costs, and delay claims. Arbitration and litigation often follow to determine fault among contractors, subcontractors, engineers, and owners.
2. Common Causes of PT Tendon Disputes
Improper Tensioning: Tendons not stressed to specified loads
Misplacement or Misalignment: Tendons installed outside approved locations
Defective Anchorage or End Blocks: Leads to slippage or insufficient prestress
Substandard Materials or Corrosion Protection: Reduces tendon longevity
Inadequate Quality Control: Missing inspection records or improper stress monitoring
Construction Sequencing Errors: Tendons stressed before concrete reached required strength
3. Legal and Contractual Principles
Standard of Care: Contractors and engineers must meet accepted industry standards (ACI, PTI).
Design vs. Construction Liability: Determination of whether errors arose from design specifications or installation negligence.
Remediation Costs: Disputes often involve cost allocation for repairs, reinforcement, or partial demolition.
Schedule Delays: Additional time needed to correct improperly installed tendons may trigger delay claims.
Documentation and Testing: Stressing records, inspection reports, and post-tension logs are critical in proving claims.
4. Notable U.S. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Clark Construction v. City of Los Angeles, California (2014)
Project: Multi-level parking structure
Issue: PT tendons misaligned in slabs, causing excessive cracking.
Outcome: Arbitration ruled contractor liable for remediation costs; emphasized proper field supervision and placement checks.
Case 2: Turner Construction v. Miami High-Rise Residential, Florida (2015)
Project: 30-story residential tower
Issue: Tendons tensioned before concrete reached design strength; partial prestress loss occurred.
Outcome: Contractor shared liability with engineering consultant; arbitration awarded partial cost recovery for redesign and strengthening.
Case 3: Gilbane Building Co. v. New York State DOT, New York (2016)
Project: Highway bridge deck
Issue: Some PT tendons were under-tensioned, leading to deflection beyond tolerance.
Outcome: Arbitration panel required contractor to replace affected tendons; cost and delay allocated to contractor due to inadequate QA/QC.
Case 4: Kiewit Infrastructure v. Houston Stadium Expansion, Texas (2017)
Project: Stadium concourse slabs
Issue: Tendon corrosion protection was inadequate, requiring partial slab demolition and replacement.
Outcome: Contractor held liable; arbitration emphasized adherence to PTI corrosion protection standards.
Case 5: Bechtel Corp. v. San Francisco Mixed-Use Tower, California (2018)
Project: High-rise office and retail tower
Issue: Misplaced tendons in transfer slabs resulted in stress imbalances.
Outcome: Arbitration apportioned liability between contractor and subcontractor; corrective post-tensioning required under supervision of a structural engineer.
Case 6: Mortenson Construction v. Denver Parking Garage, Colorado (2019)
Project: Large multi-level parking structure
Issue: Lack of proper stressing records; disputes arose over whether tendons met design loads.
Outcome: Panel ruled in favor of contractor partially, but emphasized requirement for rigorous field documentation; owner-funded independent testing for verification.
5. Key Lessons from PT Tendon Dispute Cases
Rigorous QA/QC Programs: Frequent on-site inspection, tension verification, and alignment checks prevent errors.
Documentation is Critical: Stressing records, inspection logs, and post-tension certification are essential for dispute resolution.
Engineer Oversight: Independent structural engineer supervision can reduce liability exposure.
Clear Contractual Allocation: Contracts should define responsibility for design vs. installation errors.
Remediation Planning: Early identification of PT issues reduces cost and schedule impact.
Adherence to Industry Standards: Following ACI and PTI guidelines is critical to defend against claims.
RELATED Blog
comments