Technical Services Reports · Executive Summary . To seek the transfer of Capital Funds from College Park Family Centre to renovate Drabble House and improve the facilities provided

Technical Services Reports Committee Consideration – 12 February 2019 Council Resolution – 26 February 2019 Table of Contents

Item No. Page No. TS01.19 College Park Family Centre Renovation ................................................... 2

TS02.19 Maisonettes Garage Replacement ........................................................... 8

2019 TS Reports – TS01.19 – TS02.19 – 26 February 2019

TS01.19 College Park Family Centre Renovation

Committee 12 February 2019 Council 26 February 2019 Applicant City of Nedlands Officer Pollyanne Fisher – Facilities Management Officer Director Martyn Glover – Director Technical Services Attachments Nil.

Executive Summary To seek the transfer of Capital Funds from College Park Family Centre to renovate Drabble House and improve the facilities provided at Dalkeith Hall. Recommendation to Committee Council: 1. agrees to redirect $20,000 from the College Park Family Centre Capital account

to Dalkeith Hall for the installation of split system units for heating and cooling; and

2. agrees to redirect $190,000 from the College Park Family Centre Capital

account to Drabble House for renovation. Discussion/Overview Background The College Park Family Centre was constructed in 1962 as purpose-built tennis club rooms (see photo below).


In 2003, the building was altered to accommodate a community Toy Library and Play Group. The City’s 2010 building inventory also suggests a community support group was originally intended to be accommodated on the site as part of the alterations.

Currently an area is allocated for use as a Toy Library and a larger area allocated for use as a Play Group. The Play Group area includes a fenced garden and playground used exclusively by the Play Group. Each of these two groups operate independently of one another, using their area exclusively under two separate Management Licenses. An additional community group also use the building for storage. The total combined income in the last financial year for the College Park Family Centre Facility was $2,609.09. A third unallocated and vacant area on the eastern side of the building is currently locked and not in use. It contains toilet and changing facilities and is not currently being maintained. With the proximity to the John Leckie Pavilion which includes accessible public toilet facilities, there is currently no demand to use this space. The City maintains the building and fixtures for all areas of the building that are currently in use including undertaking both scheduled and reactive maintenance. The City budgeted $24,000 for maintenance this year in addition to capital funds for renovation. A capital budget of $272,000 has been approved by Council for the renovation of the College Park Family Centre in 2018/19. The City commenced a full review of all City owned properties in August 2018. An updated building inventory is under development for presentation to Council later this year. Each building has been assessed in detail with all components allocated a condition rating. The process identifies the actions required to upgrade the City’s managed building assets to be in a ‘fair’ condition as a minimum standard, the costs of those actions, and to provide asset replacement schedules and operational expenditure reporting for effective budget planning in future to effectively maintain service levels. The condition data collected for the College Park Family Centre as part of this review, and feedback from user group consultation, was used to develop a scope of works for the renovation of the facility. College Park Family Centre – Condition The average condition of the current College Park Family Centre has been assessed as being ‘good’ overall. The facility is currently used for only 9 hours a week by a small number of users which reduces the wear and tear the building is subjected to. The alterations to the building in 2003 also mean that many of the current building components have not yet reached their life expectancy, with the roof having been recently replaced in 2015. The review did identify a small number of components of the building that rate as ‘very poor’ and ‘poor’, however many of these require only minor repair or affect a small area. These identified components will require attention and remediation, and these will be addressed with a portion of the current funding. College Park Family Centre – Consultation City Officers engaged in consultation with representatives from the Toy Library and the Play Group in November 2018.


Consultation with a representative from the Toy Library flagged minor repairs already identified for remediation as part of the building condition assessment. The representative had no requests for changes to the facility. Consultation with two representatives from the Play Group again flagged repairs already identified and there was a request for one minor change, being to improve the privacy of the bathroom facilities. There was a concern expressed by the Play Group representatives that they may not be able to afford to continue operating in the future without being able to generate more income. The barrier to the ability to raise more funds remains the number of volunteers required to run sessions, the management of operations and attracting new members. None of the representatives consulted identified the need for, or requested, significant renovation. There was a concern that renovation could increase their management license fees in future and further impact on their viability to continue operating. Comparisons Below is a snapshot of how often the College Park Family Centre facility is used, by how many user groups and the income generated from each, compared to other City facilities of a similar age that are available for hire by the general community:

Facility Weekly

hours of usage*

No. user groups 2017/18 actual income

College Park Family Centre – Toy Library 3 1

$2,609.09 College Park Family Centre – Play Group 6 1 (total 20 members)

Drabble House 52.5 10 (total members unknown)

$43,504.66

Dalkeith Hall 44.5 13 (total members unknown)

$20,997.38

*Weekly hours of usage is based on first week in November 2018. It is noted that there are more regular user groups at Dalkeith Hall who use the facility for short periods, whereas some of the regular users at Drabble House use the facilities there for longer individual bookings. The College Park Family Centre, whilst being an older building and having some remedial works identified as being required to improve and maintain its overall condition, appears to generally meet the needs of the current users, and is a much better overall condition than Drabble House or Dalkeith Hall (air-conditioning). It is also noted that Drabble House and Dalkeith Hall are more frequently used by many more groups and people. Improvements to Drabble House and Dalkeith Hall would benefit a much larger portion of the Nedlands ratepayer community and could also increase their


attractiveness to new community groups and casual hirers, which would increase income for the City going forward. This is unlike the College Park Family Centre, which is exclusively used by single user groups under existing management licenses. Risk There is a risk that spending the full capital works budget on the College Park Family Centre will result in a renovated facility that meets requirements and as a result, is not well used by the community. There is a risk that such a facility could possibly become vacant in two-years’ time should the Play Group fail to continue operating. There is no current evidence that other family activity-based groups would be interested in occupying the space should that happen. The City may identify new occupants for whom the renovated facility isn’t suitable for, or further renovations and expense may then be required to adjust the facility to make it suitable for alternative uses and users. Recommendations It is recommended that sharing the College Park Family Centre renovation budget with other community facilities would be a better use of the funds and benefit the City of Nedlands community more widely. A list of actions to remediate all areas of the College Park Family Centre assessed as being in a less than ‘fair’ condition has been developed, with an estimated cost of $36,680. Of these remedial works, the kitchen is identified to have $6,320 worth of estimated repairs/replacements required. It is recommended that instead of expending funds on kitchen remediations, the whole kitchen be replaced instead. This will significantly modernise the facility and improve its amenity for current and future users. Privacy to the bathroom area could be achieved by applying frosting to the glass window that sits between the bathroom and the main room as requested by the Play Group users. Additional to this, the whole building is currently operating on its own unmonitored alarm system and is accessed by a key. To improve the security and ensure the building can be effectively monitored with improved accessibility, it is recommended the entire building be placed on the City’s centralised security system with alarms and swipe access. A capital budget of $62,000 should be sufficient to make overall improvements, replace fencing, replace the kitchen and improve the buildings security. The City’s annually provided maintenance budget can be utilised to address the remaining items requiring remediation elsewhere throughout the building. This budget would leave $210,000 of the $272,000 current College Park Family Centre renovation budget available for reallocation elsewhere. It is recommended that $20,000 of this remaining capital budget be allocated to Dalkeith Hall for the installation of air-conditioning. The temperature of Dalkeith Hall has been raised as a concern by many of its regular users with the hall becoming very hot in summer and very cold in winter. Quotes have been obtained for installing split system units to provide an effective heating and cooling solution, plus new electrical wiring to accommodate the units to be spaced out around the hall. This would cost an estimated $20,000 and would significantly improve the comfort and amenity of the facility for its 13 different user groups.


Lastly, it is recommended that the remainder of the capital budget, being $190,000, be allocated to Drabble House to undergo a modest renovation. Built in 1927, Drabble House is one of the City’s most highly utilised community buildings and has aesthetic, historic, representative and social cultural heritage significance. The building contains many original features, including intricate stain glass windows, doorways and a fireplace. Although it has been well maintained by the City, it is in a very aged condition with many components of the building having reached their end of life and, or, are starting to slip into a poor condition simply through age and heavy use. As a well-used facility that generates a good income for the City, it would benefit significantly from renovation to make it more accessible to everyone in the community, and to bring it up to the good and modern standards that befit a public facility, whilst preserving its unique heritage features. The building has a place in the City’s Municipal Inventory but not on the State Heritage listings. Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions: Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 June 2018, Item 13.9 Annual Budget

“That the Recommendation to Council be adopted subject to clause 1 being amended to 2.95%.”

Consultation In addition to the consultation already held with representatives of the College Park Family Centre, it is proposed that some minor consultation occur with current regular users of Drabble House to ensure the correct priorities have been identified for renovation and to best plan how it could be implemented with minimal disruption. Budget/Financial Implications It is recommended the capital budget of $272,000 approved by Council for the renovation of the College Park Family Centre in 2018/19, be amended and it be reallocated as follows: College Park Family Centre – minor improvements $62,000

Drabble House – renovation $190,000

Dalkeith Hall – installation of air-conditioning system $20,000

$272,000

Future budgets for the full renovation of the College Park Family Centre could be considered again once the longer-term future of the building is known. If Council approve the recommendation, works will be completed on the College Park Family Centre and Dalkeith Hall before the end of this financial year. A scope of works with approximate costings has been developed for Drabble House however, because it is so heavily used by a range of community users and as the renovation works will affect all


public parts of the building, it is anticipated the funds would be only partially expended during this financial year and may require carry over of the balance into 2019/20. The purpose of this would be to minimise disruption to the current users by allowing more time for consultation and notices, ensuring their needs can be accommodated temporarily in other facilities where required, and to schedule certain works to take place during breaks and holidays to limit the impacts of building closure periods, particularly during ablution and kitchen renovation.


TS02.19 Maisonettes Garage Replacement Committee 12 February 2019 Council 26 February 2019 Applicant City of Nedlands Officer Pollyanne Fisher – Facilities Management Officer CEO Martyn Glover – Acting Chief Executive Officer Attachments 1. Structural Assessment – Maisonettes Garages

2. Concept Design (Option 5) Executive Summary This report seeks to commence the replacement of the Maisonettes garages and to reconstruct the surrounding car parking area. Recommendation to Committee Council, in recognition of the structural engineer’s report dated 5 December 2018 and provisions within the existing leases, approves the replacement of the Maisonettes garages in accordance with the Option 5 Concept Plan. Discussion/Overview In June 2014 the City initiated the process to replace the garages that form part a City owned property at 67 Stirling Highway known as the Maisonettes. The Maisonettes consist of four privately rented residential units, each allocated a garage space. The garages have reached their end of life and don’t meet current design standards. They offer limited service to tenants being as they are in very poor condition, are too small to properly accommodate a vehicle with comfortable exit and entry on either side, and two are missing doors. There is also a current lack of security, general storage, clothes drying facilities and bin storage for the tenants. Concept designs were developed in 2014 by Palassis Architects for new garages that better suited the needs of the tenants, and a design was selected for which to proceed with developing detailed designs for construction. The project was then put on hold whilst the designs were partially completed, until Council approved funds for the project to go ahead at the Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 June 2018. Council allocated a budget of $163,200 to be spent in the 2018/2019 financial year for the design and construction of replacement garages and to reconstruct the surrounding car parking area. Because of the years that have lapsed since the project was first initiated, the previously developed concept designs were presented to Council at a workshop in September 2018. A Councillor notice of motion was then carried at the Ordinary Meeting of Council October 2018 to support the repaving of the car parking area but to defer the replacement of the garages pending a workshop. The resolution also identified that an independent engineering report may be obtained to determine if the garages were structurally sound or repairable for minimal cost, if considered necessary, and sought a summary of costs and incomes associated with the whole site.


An independent structural engineer was engaged with a structural report presented to a Councillor workshop on 6 February 2019 (refer Attachment 1). The report identified that the roof is not structurally adequate, and the masonry walls are exhibiting signs of cracking which is likely due to foundation movement and the inadequate roof structure tie down. The structural engineer concluded that, in his opinion, the cost to remediate the structure is likely to be more expensive than demolishing the structure and replacing it with a lightweight carport arrangement and recommended that the existing garage structure be demolished and replaced. Maisonettes consists of four individual leased apartments. The lease document includes the provision of a carport with a roller door for each apartment as a condition of lease. The


current structure does not meet this requirement as they are too small for modern vehicles and they are structurally unsound. To improve the amenity for tenants and to resolve the structural issues with the Maisonettes garages in the most cost-effective way, this report seeks to proceed with the replacement of the garages as per the concept design provided in Attachment 2. Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions: Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 June 2018, Item 13.9 Annual Budget

“That the Recommendation to Council be adopted subject to clause 1 being amended to 2.95%.”

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 October 2018, Item 14.1 Councillor Mangano – Paving – Maisonette Car Parking Areas

“Council: 1. Supports proceeding with the repaving of the Maisonettes car parking areas; 2. Defers the replacement of the garages pending a workshop consideration of the issue in the context of the intended or contemplated future of the Maisonettes; 3. If considered necessary, requests an independent engineering report be obtained to determine if the garages are structurally sound or could be repaired for minimal cost; and 4. Be provided with a summary by financial year of all costs and incomes associated with the Maisonettes site.”

Consultation Consultation with Councillors has been held during workshops considering this project and the concept designs. Should Council resolve to proceed with the replacement of the garages, further consultation will be held with the tenants and users of the car park to ensure works can be carried out with minimal disruption and inconvenience. Budget/Financial Implications A sufficient budget of $163,200 has been allocated by Council in the 2018/2019 financial year for the design and construction of replacement garages and to reconstruct the surrounding car parking area.

Correspondence No: PS18329-REP-001

Page 1 of 17

5th December 2018

Ms Pollyanne Fisher

City of Nedlandst

71 Stirling Hwy

Nedlands WA 6009

Dear Pollyanne,

RE: 67 STIRLING HWY, NEDLANDS

MAISONETTE GARAGE STRUCTURAL REVIEW

1. INTRODUCTION

A representative of this office attended the above address on the 31st October 2018 to complete a visual inspection

of the garage structure. This report outlines the findings of that inspection and advice on any remediation required to

ensure the building is structurally adequate.

2. OBSERVATIONS

The structure consists of 4 garages and an attached storeroom, constructed using the following materials:

- 110mm x 230mm x 76mm clay bricks with 230 x 120 attached piers central along the wall (one to each

garage).

- 100 x 50 jarrah rafters at 1000mm crs supporting 80 x 40 jarrah battens at 850mm crs. Rafters are

supported off a jarrah top plate along the rear wall, and 155 x 50 jarrah beams centrally and across the

door openings.

- Steel sheet roof supported off the timber framing, with a custom orb profile.

- Jarrah door jambs are located either side of the openings, supporting a jarrah lintel over the opening.

- Garages 1, 3 and the storeroom have concrete slabs, whilst Garages 2 and 4 have asphalt.

- Roller doors have been removed to Garages 1 and 2.

- The site classification is assumed to be Class ‘A’, based on our previous experience in the area.

- Foundation sizes have not been reviewed

The original date of construction is unknown to the author of this report.

Generally, the following items were observed across all four garages:

- Cracking in the brickwork with crack widths of up to 4mm. There are clear signs cracks have been

previously repaired in some locations.

- Fretting of the mortar joints

- Insufficient roof framing connections and tie downs.

- Rusting to external gutters

Localised issues observed were:

- Sagging of the roof structure over the storeroom due to the absence of a central supporting beam to the

rafters.

- Damaged timber roof battens over the storeroom

- Cracking to the concrete slab to Garage 1 and storeroom

A summary of the observed items is provided in Appendix A, together with relevant photographs.

TS02.19 - Attachment 1Structural Assessment


Page 2 of 17

3. COMMENTARY

Compliance

To determine the extent of compliance and remediation required, it is first necessary to determine the structural

classification in accordance with the National Construction Code (NCC). It is our interpretation that the Maisonettes

building would be considered Class 2 – a building containing 2 or more sole occupancy units. As such, the garage

structure cannot be considered Class 10a – a private garage, as it is not associated with a Class 1 building and

contains more than the 3 vehicle spaces allowed for association with any other building class. Therefore, it is our

interpretation that the garage structure would be considered Class 7a – a carpark.

State legislation relating to existing structures is addressed in the Building Act (2011) and the Building Regulations

(2012). Within the Building Regulations; Part 8, Division 2A, regulation 48A, clause 2(a), it states that the ‘Owner of

an existing building that is a Class 2 to Class 9 building must ensure that the safety measures in each part of the

building are capable of performing to a standard set out in the relevant building standards for the part’, where:

- Safety measures are defined as measures relating to the building use and application.

- Relevant building standards, in relation to a part of a building, means each requirement in relation to the

technical aspects of the construction of the part applicable to the part at the time of its construction.

In layman’s terms, the regulations require an existing structure requiring maintenance to be compliant with the

standards in place at the time of its construction, and that it does not have to be remediated to be compliant with

current Australian Standards.

Regardless of the year of construction, the general requirements relating to the structural adequacy of a building,

being that it needs to be able to resist applied loads, has not changed over the years. As such, we have completed a

technical evaluation to determine whether the building is fit for purpose rather than compliant with current standards.

Our technical evaluation of the general building structure is summarised below:

- Roof sheeting - Acceptable

- Roof Battens - Acceptable

- Roof Rafters - Acceptable

- Roof Beams - Acceptable

- Masonry Walls (uncracked) - Acceptable

- Masonry Piers - Unable to be evaluated

- Foundations - Unable to be evaluated

- Roof tie downs - Unacceptable

The underlying issues relating to the existing masonry condition need to be addressed to ensure the masonry

performs as expected by the technical evaluation. The capacity of the piers would also need to be confirmed by

inspection of the steel reinforcement (if any).

Masonry Condition

There is significant cracking as outlined in Appendix A. The location of the cracking is relatively consistent, generally

being at each end of internal walls and adjacent to the central internal piers. The cracking appears consistent with

settlement of the perimeter walls and foundations. We are unsure when the ground covering to the front of the

building was installed, but the sides and rear remain sand and with the contribution of the rusted gutters, the soil

immediately adjacent to the walls is likely to have been regularly wetted, which can lead to larger settlements than

experienced by the internal areas.

A contributing factor adjacent to the piers is likely to also have been the loads imposed on the brickwork by the roof

beams, which appear to have been built into pockets in the wall without tie downs to the piers. The uplift imposed on

the brickwork over the beams under wind loading would have cracked the upper courses of the wall in these

locations, creating further weak points that could have opened under foundation movement to the perimeter.

Cracks can be repaired using the crack stitching procedure outlined in the attached Helifix Crack Stitching data

sheet, using the 6mm rods. Over roof beams at pier locations and at entry door nibs, we recommend the cracked

bricks be removed and new brickwork toothed in the existing rather than using the crack stitching method.


Page 3 of 17

External bed joints and perpends in places have fretted away over time and will also require repointing to maintain

the walls structural adequacy. Joints should be washed out prior to being repointed.

Roof Tie Downs

Roof tie downs, where evident, consist of skew nailed connections which appear to be rusting and pulling out. The

wall plate does not appear to be connected to the rear masonry wall, whilst the internal beams appear to simply bear

onto the piers without any tie downs provided. Timber lintel connections to the door jambs consists of a single rusted

bolt with insufficient edge distance, whilst the jamb fixing to the masonry door nibs varies in adequacy.

In general, the roof appears to rely on its own self weight to hold it down, which is structurally inadequate. In

addition, the stability of the North, South and internal masonry walls rely on the adequacy of the masonry piers to

support them, which in turn rely on a positive connection at the top of the pier to the roof structure.

Minimum roof remediation requirements are outlined in Table 1 below:

Element Minimum Connection / Tie Down

Batten to rafter 2/3.15mm Dia. x 75mm long galv. nails installed through batten into rafter or 1-Pryda Batten Strap

Rafter to wall plate / beam 2/3.15mm Dia. x 75mm long galv. skew nails installed through rafter into support or 1-Pryda Unitie

Wall plate to masonry wall 32 x 1.2GI straps at 1200mm centres anchored over top plate and fixed to face of wall using 1-M10 masonry anchor 1800mm from top of wall.

Central timber beam to pier

1-M12 rod chased into face of pier and anchored into concrete slab, or concrete footing where no slab applicable. Rod anchored to beam via ex 8 angle and 2-M12 bolts

Timber lintel to door jamb 2-M10 bolts

Door jamb to masonry 3- M10 masonry anchors

Table 1 – General Roof Connections

Localised issues

Of the localised issues observed, these should be addressed as follows:

Element Remediation

Storeroom roof member damage Damaged battens should be replaced by installing a new batten immediately adjacent and refixing the roof sheeting. The new batten should be fixed as per Table 1

Storeroom roof sag A central beam is required to support the rafters that are currently spanning between external walls. The beam shall be a minimum 190 x 45 MGP10, fixed as per Table 1.

Cracking to ground floor slabs

The cracking to the slab appears reflective of the foundation settlement in this area and can be either left as is, the crack patched or the slab locally removed and repoured to the correct level.

Table 2 – Localised Issue Remediation

Useability

We have reviewed the dimensions of the garage against AS/NZS 2890.1:2004; ‘Parking Facilities – Off-street car

parking.’ Clause 5.4(a) requires that fully enclosed single vehicle car garages shall have an overall internal width

midway along the length of 3m, are a minimum 5.4m long with a minimum 2.4m doorway width and 2200mm

clearance height. The existing overall clear width measured on site varied from approximately 2900mm to 2940mm

at the pier locations, indicating that the internal dimension is not compliant with current Australian standards for

parking and as such the garages may not be appropriate for current day car sizes.


Page 4 of 17

4. CONCLUSIONS

State building regulations do not require any maintenance be undertaken to the structure to bring it up to compliance

with the current National Construction Code, provided there are no plans to expand on the existing structure or

change its usage and therefore classification under the NCC.

The structure is however required to be structurally adequate, and our technical evaluation has indicated the roof in

particular is not. The masonry walls also exhibit signs of cracking, likely due to foundation movement and the

inadequate roof structure tie down that need to be repaired.

A summary of necessary remediation items is provided within this report, which may need to be expanded upon if the

council intends to remediate the structure through a tender process with an external builder.

It is our opinion that the cost to remediate the structure is likely to be more expensive than demolishing the structure

and replacing it with a lightweight carport arrangement. Together with the current useability issues touched on in the

report and advised anecdotally to the author on site, it is our recommendation that the structure be demolished and

replaced.

Yours sincerely,

Edward McLarty

Manager, Structural Engineering Services


Page 5 of 17

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD

SC

BC BC BC

BC BC

BC BC

BC

BC

FR

PATCHED

BC

SC

FR

FR

FR

FR

KEY:SC - Slab CrackBC- Brickwork CrackFR - Mortar FrettingPx - Photo Reference

P1

P3 P2

BC

P4

P5

P6P7P8

P9

PATCHED

P10

P11P12

P13

P15

P16 P17P18

P19

P20

P21

P22

P23P24

GARAGE ARRANGEMENT


Page 6 of 17

Photograph 1 – Previous patching to Unit 4

Photograph 2 –Unit 4 crack


Page 7 of 17

Photograph 3 – Inadequate anchorage of door jamb, Unit 4

Photograph 4 – Cracking to nib wall, Unit 4


Page 8 of 17

Photograph 5 – Unit 3/4 crack

Photograph 6 – Unit 2/3 crack


Page 9 of 17

Photograph 7 – Unit 3 cracking to brickwork over roof beam

Photograph 8 – Unit 3 cracking to brickwork


Page 10 of 17

Photograph 9 – Unit 2 cracking to brickwork (opposite side to P8)

Photograph 10 – Cracking to Unit 2/3 wall adjacent pier


Page 11 of 17

Photograph 11 – Cracking to Unit 2/1 wall



Page 12 of 17


Photograph 14 – Cracking to Unit 1/storeroom wall


Page 13 of 17

Photograph 15 – Masonry and slab cracking to Unit 1

Photograph 16 – Slab cracking to storeroom


Page 14 of 17

Photograph 17 – Damaged battens to be replaced

Photograph 18 – Sag in Storeroom Roof


Page 15 of 17

Photograph 19 – Fretting to brickwork outside storeroom

Photograph 20 – Fretting to brickwork outside storeroom


Page 16 of 17

Photograph 21 – Absence of tie down to roof beams

Photograph 22 – Inadequate lintel fixing to door jamb,


Page 17 of 17

Photograph 23 – Standard rafter skew nail connection to wall plate

Photograph 24 – Lack of wall plate tie downs

PRODUCT SHEET – PS/CS01

Crack StitchingA reliable and cost-effectivemeans of repairing andstabilising cracked masonry

HeliBar is inserted into HeliBond grout within a cut slot

Scan the QR Code for full Product Information,Case Studies and downloadable Repair Details

Appl icat ions• Rapid and permanent solution to cracked masonry

• Suitable for all forms of masonry structure

Features• Fully concealed, non-disruptive repair solution

• More reliable than crack injection methods

• HeliBond cementitious grout is injectable and rapidlyproduces high compressive strength

• HeliBars and HeliBond grout combine to create excellenttensile strength within the masonry

• No additional stresses are introduced during installation

• Masonry remains flexible enough to accommodatenormal building movement

• Tensile loads are redistributed

• Reduces likelihood of further cracking nearby

• Avoids costly and disruptive taking down and rebuilding

Over 50 standard repair specifications

are available online, covering all common

structural faults.

Relevant Repair Details: CS01 to CS03

1. HeliBar to be long enough to extend a minimum of

500mm either side of the crack or 500mm beyond the

outer cracks if two or more adjacent cracks are being

stitched using one rod.

2. Where a crack is less than 500mm from the end of a

wall or an opening, the HeliBar is to be continued for at

least 200mm around the corner and bonded into the

adjoining wall or bent back and fixed into the reveal,

avoiding any DPC.

3. For solid masonry in excess of 230mm thick and in a

cavity wall where both leaves are cracked, the wall must

be crack stitched on both sides.

4. If there is render, this thickness must be added to the

depth of slot. Crack stitching must be installed in the

masonry and never in the render.

5. Ensure the masonry is well wetted or primed to

prevent premature drying of the HeliBond due to rapid

de-watering, especially in hot conditions. Ideally

additional wetting of the slot should be carried out

1 to 2 minutes prior to injecting the HeliBond grout.

6. Do not use HeliBond when the air temperature is

+4°C and falling or apply over ice. In all instances the

slot must be thoroughly damp or primed prior to

injection of the HeliBond grout.

Insta l lat ionProcedures

PRODUCT SHEET – PS/CS01

Vertical Spacing

depth of slot

Singleleaf

every 4 courses (approx. 340mm)

25 – 40 mm25 – 35mm 25 – 40mmon both sides

Solid /multi-leaf masonry

Up to

110mm

110mm

to 230mm over 230mm

Slot Depth and Spacing

1. Rake out or cut slots into the

horizontal mortar beds, a minimum

of 500mm either side of the crack

4. Using the HeliBar insertion tool,

push one HeliBar into the grout to

obtain good coverage

2. clean out slots and flush with clean

water and thoroughly soak the

substrate within the slot

5. insert a further bead of HeliBond

over the exposed HeliBar, finishing

10 – 15mm from the face, and ‘iron’

firmly into the slot using the

HeliBar Finger trowel

6. Re-point the mortar bed and make

good the vertical crack with

crackBond te

3. Using the Helifix Pointing gun,

inject a bead of HeliBond along the

back of the slot

HeliBar Diameter 4.5mm 6.0mm SuperSix 8.0mm 10.0mm

Product Code HBR45 HBR60 HBR60S HBR80 HBR10

Cross Sectional Area (mm2) 5.6 8.1 9.4 10.0 15.0

Stock Length (m) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

Pitch (mm) 25 29 30 39 45

Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 1400 1112 1200 1100 1088

Tensile Strength (kN) 8.0 9.5 11.2 11.4 16.7

0.2% Proof Stress (MPa) 1150 840 1000 860 770

Shear Strength — Averaged (MPa) 900 650 770 700 750

Grade of Stainless Steel ASTM304 ASTM316 ASTM304 ASTM316 ASTM316

Weight (g/m) 53 58 73 80 120

Recommended tooling

For cutting slots: Chisel, mortar saw or angle grinder with chest guard and vacuum

For mixing HeliBond grout: 3-jaw-chuck drill with mixing paddle

For injection of HeliBond into slots: Helifix Pointing Gun CS with mortar nozzle

For smoothing pointing: Standard finger trowel

Character ist icMater ia l Propert ies

98 Kurrajong Avenue, Mount Druitt, Sydney, NSW 2770, Australia

Tel: 1300 66 70 71 • Fax: 02 9669 1702

email: [email protected]

www.helifix.com.au January 2014

PROJECT

CLIENT

REVISION

SCALE

C Copyright 2011 Magenta (WA) Pty Ltd Tradingas Palassis Architects. All rights Reserved.Check all dimensions on site.

DRAWN

DWG PROJECT NUMBER

CHECKED

STATUS

ISSUE DATE DWG NUMBER

PAPER SIZEREVISIONS NOTES

APPROVED

2014051CITY OF NEDLANDSA3 OPTION 51:200SEE SPECIFICATION FOR DETAILS ON ALL PRODUCTS & MATERIALS.

CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE & REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TOTHE ARCHITECT

30.25

30.04

29.95

29.84

29.8829.89

30.02

30.09

29.91

DR

AIN

AG

EG

RATE

DR

AIN

AG

EG

RATE S

EW

ER

MA

NH

OLE

CLO

THE

SLIN

ES

GA

RA

GE

CO

MP

LEX

MA

IN R

ES

IDE

NTIA

LC

OM

PLE

X(IN

TER

NA

L DE

TAIL

NO

T SU

RV

EY

ED

)

DR

AIN

AG

EG

RATE

NE

IGH

BO

UR

ING

BR

ICK

BU

ILDIN

G.

CITY O

F NE

DLA

ND

SA

DM

INIS

TRATIO

N O

FFICE

.

STIRLIN

G H

IGH

WAY

CO

NC

RETE FO

OTPATH

BRIC

K WALL ALL AR

OU

ND

STN

9000P

EN

MA

RK

ON

PATHR

L : 30.460

STN

9001P

EN

MA

RK

ON

PATHR

L : 30.120

STN

9005N

AIL IN

BITU

ME

NR

L : 30.218

STE

EL

STA

IRC

AS

E

FLOO

RLE

VE

L30.80

FLOO

RLE

VE

L30.77

STE

PS

STE

PS

STN

9004N

AIL IN

BITU

ME

NR

L : 29.944

SHEDWALL

1.8M HIGH FIBRO FENCEATOP BRICK WALL

STE

PS

BRICK WALLSHEDWALL 1.8M HIGH FIBRO FENCE

1.8M H

IGH

TEM

PO

RA

RY FE

NC

ING

STN

9003N

AIL IN

BITU

ME

NR

L : 30.547

STN

9002P

EG

& TA

CK

RL : 30.529

CONC PATH

DR

AIN

AG

ED

OW

NP

IPE

0.5M HIGH BRICK WALL

1.8M H

IGH

FIBR

O FE

NC

E

30.0

30.0

30.5

1

6 5

4

3

3

3

2

LEGEND:

1. EXISTING APARTMENTS2. EXISTING TREE3. NEW CAR PARKING4. NEW GARAGE5. NEW STORE6. NEW BIN & DRYING AREA

TS02.19 - Attachment 2Concept Design (Option 5)

Documents

Technical Services Reports · Executive Summary . To seek the transfer of Capital Funds from College Park Family Centre to renovate Drabble House and improve the facilities provided