Pre-Grout Nonconformances: Cover, a Kinked Bar, and Misplaced Anchors
During a pre-grout inspection of a 10-in. nominal CMU wall, the inspector documents four items. The structural notes require 3/4-in. minimum grout cover to vertical bars on the interior face and 1-1/2 in. on the exterior face, no. 6 verticals at 24 in. on center, and anchor bolts within plus or minus 1/4 in. of the location shown. First, one vertical bar sits against the face shell with a measured exterior cover of 3/8 in. Second, a 4-ft length of vertical bar is kinked so it lies partly in the mortar joint instead of the cell. Third, the lap splice at a floor line measures 24 in., while the plans reference development length in TMS 402 without giving a dimension. Fourth, two 3/4-in. anchor bolts are 1-1/4 in. off the wall line and 1 in. off spacing. The contractor says the crew will pull the kinked bar back into the cell with a bar and grout it, since it will be buried anyway, and wants to pour tomorrow morning.
1. Sort the four observations into those that are acceptable, those that must be corrected before grouting, and those that require the engineer of record's evaluation. Explain the basis for each.
Read the worked answer
None of the four is acceptable as found, but they do not resolve the same way.
Cover of 3/8 in. where the documents require 3/4 in. and 1-1/2 in. is a nonconformance. Cover governs durability and fire resistance, and thin cover over a bar at the exterior face is exactly where moisture and freeze-thaw act. It must be corrected by repositioning the bar or by a written repair approved by the engineer.
The kinked bar is a nonconformance and a structural issue: a bar lying in a mortar joint is not in the cell, is not confined or bonded as assumed, and cannot develop the assumed lap with the bar above. It must be corrected before grouting.
The 24-in. lap cannot be judged from the drawings as written, because the drawings give a performance reference rather than a length. I would compare it to the approved placing drawings or reinforcing detail, and if none exists, request the engineer to state the required lap. Until then the item is unresolved, not approved.
The anchor bolts exceed the stated plus or minus 1/4-in. tolerance and must go to the engineer of record, who may accept an oversized or slotted plate where the connection can tolerate the eccentricity, or require replacement. The inspector cannot accept it.
Grouting must wait: every one of these is far cheaper to fix before the pour than after.
2. The contractor proposes to pull the bent bar back into the cell and grout as-is. What are the concerns, and what is the correct disposition process?
Read the worked answer
Cold-working a bent no. 6 bar back into alignment is not a harmless adjustment. Straightening induces plastic strain and can leave residual stresses, crack or notch the bar at the bend, and damage the masonry face shells in the process. Even if the bar visually returns to the cell, its final position is uncertain, cover is uncertain, and if the bar was fabricated short or misplaced, the lap with the bar above may still be deficient. Bending also raises the question of whether this bar was bent before or after installation, which affects what the engineer needs to know.
The correct process is documentation first, correction second. I would write a nonconformance report identifying each item by location with measurements and photographs, transmit it to the contractor and the engineer of record, and require a written disposition for each. Possible dispositions include removing and replacing the bar, locally removing face shell with an engineer-approved repair detail, accepting reduced capacity by analysis, or, for the anchor bolts, an approved connection modification.
I would then re-inspect after correction and before grouting, and sign off only against the written disposition. A verbal 'we will fix it' is not a disposition, and grouting over an unresolved nonconformance converts a repairable item into a dispute.
3. What documentation would you require before allowing the grout pour, and what would you do if the contractor proceeds without it?
Read the worked answer
Before the pour I want a complete file: daily report entries describing the as-found conditions with measurements, a location sketch, dated photographs with scale, the nonconformance report and its transmittal, and the engineer's written disposition for each item. Then a re-inspection record showing the corrected condition, verification that bars are in cells with the required cover, that laps match the approved length, and that anchor bolt positions are within tolerance or covered by an approved modification. Only then a signed pre-grout inspection approval.
If the contractor proceeds to grout without that approval, I would notify the contractor in writing immediately that the pre-grout inspection was not approved, document the time and the pour sequence, and notify the building official, who has the authority to stop work. I would not sign an inspection record for that pour, and I would record clearly which cells were grouted before correction and which items remain unresolved. The element then goes to the engineer of record for evaluation, with options including exposure and repair, supplemental reinforcement, or removal and reconstruction.
The temptation in the field is to accept a promise and stay on schedule. For grouted masonry, that trade is almost never recoverable.