Download - Ejemplo de Survery
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
1/24
Structural Survey
N Plant
Procter Gamble
_B
prepared for
Procter & Gamble
EXAMPLE REPORT
prepared by
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
297 Broadway
Arlington, Massachusetts 02174
Tel: 617 643-2000
Fax: 617 643-2009
Comm. 96xXx.00
30 April 1997
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
2/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble,_
SGH Comm. 96xXx.00
30 April 1997
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (P G Requested Format)
Procter & Gamble (P&G) retained Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) to perform a
structural survey of the P&G facility located in _ .
The survey was conducted
in accordance with the guidelines expressed in the P&G Structural Survey Manual. The
objective of the structural survey is to identify and document potential structural deficiencies
based on visual assessments. Neither an exhaustive review of the structural design nor an
exhaustive field investigation of existing conditions at the Plant are objectives.
Summary of Survey
We identified twenty-nine (29) potential structural deficiencies (Issues) that warrant inclusion
in the Five-Year Action Plan as defined by P&G standards. We did not identify any situations
that warranted emergency response. We performed the risk assessment in accordance with
the P&G standards and found:
. .
Twelve (12) Issues are rank
1.
(Require mitigation within the first year of the
Five-year Action Plan).
. .
Five (5) items requiring quick fixes by the plant. (No further engineering
support is anticipated to make these simple repairs.)
. .
Five (5) Issues are Rank 2, Five (5) are Rank 3, One (1) is Rank 4.
. .
Ten (IO) of the twelve (12) Rank 1 issues are study items.
(Require further
investigation to determine the extent of the Issue and the necessary repairs.)
Next Steps
All of the above Issues can be addressed in accordance with the P&G Standard Operating
Procedure which outlines the Five-Year Action Plan. For those which require further study,
Appendix D includes suggested guidelines for the studies. These studies will not only
determine the extent and nature of the required repairs, but will also provide the information
needed for a risk assessment in order to establish the final ranking and timing for their
completion.
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
3/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble,_
SGH
Comm. 96xXx.00
30 April 1997
Background
We visually assessed conditions of the interior, exterior, and roof of Buildings A, B, C, and D
and the Prototype/Utility Building.
Our observations were limited in scope to the as-built
structural arrangement, structural details, current condition and structural performance of
elements to the extent that they could be observed from accessible areas without destructive
probing.
We collected general information about each buildings use, size and age, and basic
construction data for the major components of each building. Appendix E contains a data
sheet for each building that represents the building information presently in our database.
Table 1 is a summary of the structural issues we identified in our survey. For each issue, we
assign one of six priority categories (Rank). The Rank can be used to establish an execution
strategy. Concepts for corrective action and very approximate cost estimates for engineering
and construction to accomplish the remedial construction are also presented in Table 1.
Some issues are identified as possible Quick Fixes.
For other issues, the findings based on
the Survey are not definitive for either the extent and/or severity of the issue. These issues
are Study Items and warrant further review.
Table 2 presents a Ranked Summary of all cost
estimates we made for the m Plant.
Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates
A very approximate order of magnitude cost estimate for engineering and construction to
accomplish remedial construction for the Issues is 107,000, including 41,000 for performing
the recommended studies. These studies will likely result in recommendations for additional
remedial construction which is not included in the 107,000.
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
4/24
Structural
Survey
Procter & Gamble,_
SGH Comm. 96xXx.00
30 April 1997
TABLE
0 F CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Objective
1
1.2 Scope
1
1.3 General Description
of Facility
2
2. SITE VISIT AND SURVEY OF STRUCTURES
2
2.1
Scope of Visual Survey
2
2.2
Basic Construction Data
3
2.3 Structural Issues Identified by Survey 3
3. RANKING OF ISSUES
3
4. CONCEPTS FOR REPAIRS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
4
5. COST ESTIMATES
4
TABLES
Table 1 -
Ranked Summary of Structural Findings
Table 2 - Ranked Summary of Cost Estimates
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures 1 through 6
Photos
APPENDIX
Appendix A -
Executive Summary and Program Flow Chart
from P&G Structural Survey Manual
Appendix B -
Definition of Issue Types
Appendix C - Risk Analysis Methodology for Ranking Issues
Appendix D -
List of Study Items
Appendix E -
Building Data Sheets
* Bold Capitalized Headings are tab indexed.
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
5/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble,_
SGH Comm. 96xxx.00
30 April 1997
I.
INTRODUCTION
Procter 8. Gamble (P&G) retained Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) to perform a
structural survey of the Procter & Gamble facility located in _. The survey
was conducted in accordance with the guidelines expressed in the P&G Structural Survey
Manual. The Executive Summary and Program Flowchart from the Manual are in Appendix
A. This is the report of our structural survey for the m Plant.
1. 1 Objective
The objective of the structural survey is to identify and document potential structural deficien-
cies based on visual assessments. Neither an exhaustive review of the structural design nor
an exhaustive field investigation of existing conditions at the Plant are objectives.
1.2
Scope
The scope of our work includes the following tasks:
0
contact the site to collect readily available and pertinent drawings, reports and original
construction documents
. .
perform a cursory review of drawings, reports and documents for the purpose
of enhancing the visual survey
0
visit the site to collect building data and perform visual walk-through surveys of
structures
0
document potential structural deficiencies we identify, provide a Ranked Summary
(priority rank for each issue) and make recommendations for further study
0
communicate the scope of potential structural deficiencies to the Cost Estimator
(designated by P&G) and incorporate the Cost Estimators estimates of potential costs
for remedial construction into our report
0
summarize our findings in a written report
Our survey is limited to assessment of safety-related structural issues of the building frames,
mezzanine frames, major architectural and nonstructural components of buildings, and major
l
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
6/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble,_
SGH Comm. 96xXx.00
30 April 1997
site structures. Section 2.1 defines the scope of the structures and conditions included in our
visual observations at this site.
1.3. General Description of Facility
The B facility produces health and beauty care products. It is located about 25 miles
south of B and is roughly 1,000 ft above sea level.
Five main buildings, including the
current expansion project, comprise the facility totaling about 250,000 sq ft of floor space
(Fig. 1). Two of the buildings, Buildings A and B, were constructed in 1974 by B and
B. Building C was built in 1984 as a warehouse and now is currently under conver-
sion to a process facility. Building D was built in 1984 by a B government effort and
recently purchased by P&G. The Prototype/Utility Building was constructed in 1995.
2.
SITE VISIT AND SURVEY OF STRUCTURES
In November 1996, James Parker (SGH) and Glenn Bell
(SGH) visited the B facility to
collect building data and conduct the survey. B B (P&G) assisted our interface
with the plant.
2.1 Scope of Visual Survey
We visually observed conditions of the interior, exterior, and roof of Buildings A, B, C, and D
and the Prototype/Utility Building.
Our observations were limited in scope to the as-built structural arrangement, structural details,
current condition and structural performance of elements to the extent that they could be
observed from accessible areas without destructive probing. Our observations were primarily
from the building exteriors, from the roof and from the ground, and from interior locations
where the structure is exposed. Where the structure is concealed by acoustical type ceiling
tile, we removed the tile and made spot checks to the extent we judged adequate for the
purpose.
-2-
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
7/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble,_
SGH Comm. 96xxx.00
30 April 1997
We did not perform a detailed inspection of all storage racks. We made general condition
assessments of the major rack systems and identified those that warrant detailed inspections
based on observed damage and/or configuration.
2.2
Basic Construction Data
We collected general information about each buildings use, size and age, and basic
construction data for the major components of each building. Appendix E contains a
sheet for each building that represents the building information presently in our database.
data sheets include representative photos of the buildings for general reference.
data
The
2.3
Structural Issues Identified by Survey
Table 1 is a summary of the structural
Issues we identified in our survey. Each Issue has an
unique Issue Number and an Issue Type associated with it. Appendix B defines the category
for each Issue Type. Figures 2 through 6 indicate the general location for each Issue. Table
1 identifies representative photos of most Issues.
In accordance with the P&G Structural Survey Manual we have reported only conditions that
may represent risk or be indicative of abnormal structural behavior. We have not recorded in
this report areas of needed maintenance nor have we assessed the viability of the roof and
exterior walls for water-penetration resistance or durability. However, if a maintenance
deficiency appears directly responsible for a structural deficiency, we recorded the mainte-
nance issue in the summary.
3.
RANKING OF ISSUES
For each Issue, Table 1 indicates one of six priority categories (Rank). The six Ranks are,
from highest priority to lowest: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Maintenance (Mnt.). These Ranks can be
used to establish an execution strategy.
We assigned the Rank for each Issue based on the risk analysis methodology presented in
the P&G Structural Survey Manual (Appendix C). Since risk is the product of two variables,
potential consequence and the probability of occurrence of the consequence, ratings that
-3-
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
8/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble,_
SGH Comm. 96xXx.00
30 April 1997
relate to these two variables will best describe the relative risk. Each Issue is given a
Structural Safety Consequence Rating and a Business Interruption Rating, as well as a
Probability Rating. Table 3.1 of Appendix C provides a Combined Assessment Value based
on the two Consequence Ratings. Table 3.2 of Appendix C provides a Rank based on the
Combined Assessment Value and the Probability Rating. Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 in Appendix
C show the guidelines we used to assign the Ratings. The initial assessment is based solely
on our judgement. Further investigations and/or calculations may modify initial assessments,
more likely to a lower level but potentially possibly to a higher level.
4.
CONCEPTS FOR REPAIRS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Concepts for corrective action for each Issue is presented in Table 1. Some Issues are
identified as possible Quick Fixes. Quick Fixes are those Issues that do not require further
study or engineering for their correction, can be managed and executed by the Plant, and the
scope is such that the anticipated cost is relatively low. For other Issues, the findings based
on the Survey are not definitive for either the extent or severity of the Issue. The extent and
severity can affect both the Ranking and/or the proper concept for repair. We identify those
Issues that warrant further review as Study Items in Table 1 by including an approximate cost
for the study. Appendix D is a list of the Study Items with a brief outline of the suggested
study.
5.
COST ESTIMATES
Table 1 includes our cost estimates for engineering and construction to accomplish the
remedial construction and for performing the Study Items. Table 2 presents a Ranked
Summary of all cost estimates. These estimates are very approximate and are intended to
provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the relative cost of the Issues.
JCP27a-97.ras
-4-
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
9/24
Structural Survey SGH Comm. xxxxx.00
Procter & Gamble Plant, Example Plant, Example City, Example Country 28 March 1997
Table 1: Ranked Summary of Structural Findings
Bldg. No. Issue No.Location or
Area ID (1)
Issue Type
(2)
Photo
No.(s)
Initial
Seismic Issue
No. (Cross
Ref.) (3)
Issue Description
Structural
Safety
Assessment
Business
Interruption
Assessment
Combined
Assessment
Rating
Probability
Rating
Priority
RankQuick Fix? Concept for Repair
Study
Item?Comments
50/50 Target
Cost for
Remediation
Bldg. A A-1 through-out E2
A-1.1
A-1.2
A-1.3
seen from the underside and there is evidence that the
roofing has leaked or is leaking.
D M Remove and replace corroded roof deck.
significant. Inspect remaining deck
thickness from samples. If a large
replacement consider coordinating
with re-roofing.
A-2 D2A-2.2 removed without proper reinforcement.
B M 1Reinforce joist and provide vertical support Check lift frame to see if it can take
$10,000
A-3D.I. water
E2 There is corrosion of the steel roof framing. C L Clean and paint framing.
Bldg. Athrough-out
B2
There is no bottom chord bridging or other means to
pressures.
A H 1 $25,000
A-5 E2 A-5.2
Structural steel supporting roof-top mechanical
B M 3 $500 section loss. (Cost estimate basedon no strengthening required)
Bldg. A Making Area A-6.1 C L 1 Reinstall post.
Bldg. A Block IA-7.1
A-S2
Out of 12 vertical braces shown on the drawings for
or disconnected, 1 intact, and 4 hidden by finishes.
A H 2options to replace missing braces.
Bldg. A Block II -
The drawings do not indicate steel braces for the steel
connected to the frames in a manner to significantly
engage them as shear walls.
A Loptions to replace missing braces.
Bldg. A through-outA-9.1
A-NS.14The storage racks are damaged in some locations
B M 2 Remove and replace damaged members.Provide detailed inspection of racks
Bldg. A high-bay A-10.1
There is field welding of pipe supports to the bottom
the diagonal support cannot be resisted by the bar joist.
B M 3 locations and consider horisontal
thrust on bottom chord.
See figures for additional information
See Appendix B
(3)
Table continued next page
Example.xls 4/16/98
2:36 PM
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
10/24
Structural Survey SGH Comm. xxxxx.00
Table 1: Ranked Summary of Structural Findings (contd.)
Issue No.Location or
(2) No.(s)
Seismic Issue
No. (CrossIssue Description Safety
Assessment
Business
Interruption
Assessment
Combined
Assessment
Rating
Probability
Rating
Priority
RankQuick Fix? Concept for Repair Study Item? Comments
50/50 Target
Cost for
Remediation
Bldg. B B-1 through-out E2B-1.1
B-1.2
There is corrosion of the metal roof deck that can be
seen from the underside and there is evidence that the
roofing has leaked or is leaking.
A D H M 1 Remove and replace corroded roof deck. $2,000
Extent of corrosion may be
significant. Inspect remaining deck
thickness from samples. If a large
fraction of the deck needs
replacement consider coordinating
with re-roofing.
Bldg. B B-2 through-out B2 B-2.1
The structural drawings call for bar joist extensions at
the columns and at the locations checked in the field the
extensions are not attached to the columns.
A A H M 1Connect extensions to beam or column at
each column location.$9,000
Bldg. B B-3 through-out D2 B-3.1 B-S2
Out of 7 vertical braces shown on the drawings, there
are: 2 confirmed intact, 1 confirmed removed because
of wall openings, and 4 hidden by finishes.
A A H L 2 $10,000Study lateral load capacity and
options to replace missing braces.
Bldg. B B-4Connector to
Bldg. A.B2 B-4
The vertical diagonal rod bracing in the connector
building is sagging and should be tightened.B D M L 3 YES Tighten diagonal rods.
Notes:
(1) See figures for additional information( 2) S ee Ap pe nd ix B
(3) Some of the issues are also associated with issues identified in the initial seismic survey. Only those seismic issues that are also safety related issues
from gravity or wind loads are listed here.
Table continued next page
Example.xls
CSTable1 Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
4/16/98
2:36 PM
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
11/24
Structural Survey SGH Comm. xxxxx.00
Table 1: Ranked Summary of Structural Findings (contd.)
Bldg. No.Area ID (1) (2) No.(s)
Issue Description Safety
Assessment
Business
Interruption
Combined
AssessmentProbability
Rating
Priority
RankConcept for Repair Study Item? Comments
50/50 Target
Cost for
Remediation
C-1 throughoutC-1.1
C-1.2D O MNT Replace corroded metal roof. Roof maintenance issue.
Bldg. C C-2 making roof B2 C-2.1 C L 4attachment.
Bldg. C E line, J line C-3.1
The bottom flange of the jack girder is not braced by a
original construction drawings. The jack girders are
along Lines E and J. ( Identified 3 missing)
A Mstruts where they are missing. required at half of the locations.
$ 5,500
C-4 D2
The end span of the jack girder along Line J is removed
girder that is 10 ft. in from what is now the end support
(Col. J-3). Check the splice for capacity to carry
A H 1 (4)
C-5 D2 at the east end of the making expansion. The originalwind column at E-1 now supports a large girder. B L
Check the column capacity for wind
Bldg. C making rooms C-6.1 ton making rooms is not laterally braced, and the top
course is composed of broken block.
C L clip angles at 4 ft on center each side of the
wall.
(4)
C-72nd floor
B5C-7.2
C-N5.8
not sufficiently laterally braced and there is insufficient
allowance for relative movement between the wall,
metal building.
B M 3lateral support of wall.
Bldg. Ccombustible
B5 C-N5.8
At the comb. storage rm., the CMU partition is built tight
supported from roof of metal building. There is
insufficient allowance for relative movement between the
B M 3lateral support of wall.
Bldg. C throughout C-9.1
A significant amount of nonstructural items are hung
building was originally a warehouse with very little hung
weight.
B MThe roof framing should be reviewed for the
(4)
C-10second level
E3Mezzanine Level (Second Floor).
D L 5 (4)
C-11 D2 C-S1 braces shown on the original structural drawings. They
are:
A Lreplace missing members.
$ 15,000
C-11.1wall, 1 Line between D and E, is removed.
C-S1.2horizontal strut of the eastern most brace is moved one
bay east, and this makes some of the tension diagonals
C-S1.3
The vertical bracing in the south wall is modified. The
(out of six total in west wall) due to interference with
door openings.
C-11.3
The vertical bracing in the north wall is modified. At two
removed and re-attached in a lower position. The rods
are not taught and the connections do not appear to
C-S1.5locations the horizontal struts between the upper and
lower cross bracing is relocated to the adjacent bay.
Bldg. C C-12.1(examples in photos).
B M 2 Remove and replace damaged members.Provide detailed inspection of racks
Notes:
See figures for additional information
( 2) S ee Ap pe nd ix B
Some of the issues are also associated with issues identified in the initial seismic survey. Only those seismic issues that are also safety related issues
(4) These Issues are part of a construction project in progress and can be addressed by the Engineer of Record for the project or other construction participants. Additional study costs or construction remediation costs may not be needed.
CSTable1
4/16/98
2:36 PM
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
12/24
Structural Survey SGH Comm. xxxxx.00
Procter & Gamble Plant, Example Plant, Example City, Example Country 28 March 1997
Table 1: Ranked Summary of Structural Findings (contd.)
Bldg. No. Issue No.Location or
Area ID (1)
Issue Type
(2)
Photo
No.(s)
Initial
Seismic Issue
No. (Cross
Ref.) (3)
Issue Description
Structural
Safety
Assessment
Business
Interruption
Assessment
Combined
Assessment
Rating
Probability
Rating
Priority
RankQuick Fix? Concept for Repair Study Item? Comments
50/50 Target
Cost for
Remediation
Bldg. D D-1 east end B5 D-1.1 -Door opening in six inch masonry wall does not have a
lintel.B D M M 2 YES Install steel l intel .
Bldg. D D-2 west side E1 D-2.1 -The light gage roof framing for the cafeteria appendage
looks inadequate and in poor condition.B D M M 2 Demolish. $ 2,500
Bldg. D D-3 south side E1D-3.1
D-3.2-
The framing of lean-to appendages appears inadequate
and in poor condition.B D M M 2 Demolish. $ 2,500
Notes:
(1) See figures for additional information
( 2) S ee Ap pe nd ix B
(3) Some of the issues are also associated with issues identified in the initial seismic survey. Only those seismic issues that are also safety related issues
from gravity or wind loads are listed here.
Example.xls
CSTable1 Page 4 of 4
Page 4 of 4
4/16/98
2:36 PM
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
13/24
Structural Survey SGH Comm. xxxxx.00
Procter & Gamble Plant, Example Plant, Example City, Example Country DRAFT 28 March 1997
Table 2: Ranked Summary of Cost Estimates
Bldg. No. Issue No.
Priority
Rank Quick Fix? Study Item?
50/50 Target
Cost Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5
Bldg. A A-1 1 $2,000Bldg. A A-2 1 $10,000 $10,000
Bldg. A A-3 3 $7,500 $7,500Bldg. A A-4 1 $25,000 $25,000
Bldg. A A-5 3 $500 $4,000 $4,000Bldg. A A-6 1 YESBldg. A A-7 2 $10,000
Bldg. A A-8 2 A-7 + A-8Bldg. A A-9 2 YES
Bldg. A A-10 3 $1,500Bldg. B B-1 1 $2,000
Bldg. B B-2 1 $9,000 $9,000Bldg. B B-3 2 $10,000Bldg. B B-4 3 YES
Bldg. C C-1 MNTBldg. C C-2 4 (4) (4)
Bldg. C C-3 1 $5,500 $5,500Bldg. C C-4 1 (4) (4)
Bldg. C C-5 3Bldg. C C-6 3 (4) (4)Bldg. C C-7 3 (4) (4)
Bldg. C C-8 3 (4) (4)Bldg. C C-9 2 (4)
Bldg. C C-10 5 (4)
Bldg. C C-11 2 $15,000Bldg. C C-12 2 YESBldg. D D-1 2 YESBldg. D D-2 2 $2,500 $2,500Bldg. D D-3 2 $2,500 $2,500
$41,000 $66,000 $49,500 $5,000 $11,500
Notes:(4) These Issues are part of a construction project in progress and can be addressed by the Engineer of Record for the project or
other construction participants. Additional study costs or construction remediation costs may not be needed.
Example.xlsCSTable2 Page 1 of 1
3:53 PM4/15/98
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
14/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble Plant,
EXAM PLE REPORT W-Icommiarch997
FIGURE 1
::;
NOR
I
xpansion \ 1
\
I
BLDG
BLDG
\ / \/
C
XI /\
I
Fire Water
Pump House
Subs tation
I
I
I
4 +--+--Connector
T
i
SIT PLAN
SITE PLAN
Tunks
SITE ID NO.
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
15/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble Plant ,
EXAMPLE REPORT
SGH Comm.
March 1997
FIGURE
* /
-f
/
/
/
:-------
,
,
FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
BUILDING A
LEGEND
,, ,-Is %12 NO. (See RANKED SUMMARY1
a
-
SOL10 INDICATES GENERAL LOCATION
OF 1SSUE
lNDICATES ISSUE IS THROUGH-OUT AREA
fNDICATES ISSUE IS ON LEVEL ABOVE
OR BELOW THAT SHOWN. LEVEL NOTED I--
SITE ID NO.
_ _ . . ..
_. . . . . . . ---.-.- --- --- --- --
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
16/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble Plant.
EXAMPLE REPORT
SGH Comm.
March 1997
FIRST
FLOOR PLAN
FIGURE
LEGEND
@
ISSUe NO. [SEE RANKED SUMMARY]
A-
SOLID INDICATES GENERAL LOCATtON
OF ISSUE
INDICATES ISSUE IS THROUGH-OUT AREA
INDICATES ISSUE 1S ON LEVEL A DOVC
OR BELOW THAT SHOWN. LEVEL NOTED [
BUILDING B
SITE ID NO.
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
17/24
4
-
.
-
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
18/24
Structural Survey
Procter & Gamble Plant,
EXAMPLE REPORT
SGH Comm.
March 1997
FIGURE
ECOND FI OOR PLAN_
LEGEND
6
ISSUE NO. (SEE RANKED SUMMARY]
A-
SOL10 INDICATES GENERAL LOCATION
OF ISSUE
INDICATES ISSUE rS THROUGH-OUT AREA
INDICATES ISSUE IS ON LEVEL A6OVE
OR BELOW THAT SHOWN. LEVEL NOTED [-
BUILDING C
SITE ID NO.
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
19/24
Structural Survey
SGH Comm.
Procter & Gomblr Plant.
March 1997
FIGURE
@
D-
e
-
. .
i
7
;
L-
ILL-l
. .
.
. .
.
I
P
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
.
i
l-
A_-
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
I
LEGEND
6
ISSUE NO. (See RANKeD SUMMARY)
A-
SOLID INDICATES GENERAL LOCATION
OF ISSUE
INDICATES ISSUE IS THROUGH-OUT AREA
INDICATES ISSUE IS ON LEVeL ABOVE
OR BeLOW THAT SHOWN. LCVtZL NOTED l-
BUILDING D
SITE ID NO.
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
20/24
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
21/24
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
22/24
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
23/24
-
8/10/2019 Ejemplo de Survery
24/24