Loading...
sr-032012-8aCity Council Meeting: March 20, 2012 Agenda Item: 8A To: Mayor and City Council From: Karen Ginsberg, Director, Community and Cultural Services David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development Subject: Consideration of Chain Reaction Sculpture by Paul Conrad Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve the removal of the sculpture Chain Reaction by Paul Conrad after six months if private fundraising for repair and restoration is not successful. 2) Authorize staff to complete all necessary testing. 3) Appropriate the budget increases outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget Actions section of this report. Executive Summary The sculpture, installed in 1991, is in need of major conservation work and its structural integrity appears compromised. Given the estimated costs of repair and conservation, which range from $227,372 to $423,172, staff recommends that City Council approve removal of the sculpture, with the understanding that this action would be delayed until six months from the completion of all necessary testing, to allow for private fundraising for restoration and repair. If this action is approved, and private funding is not secured, the work would be offered first to the artist's family and heirs and /or to any arts institution of their choosing. It would also be thoroughly documented for historic purposes. Removal of the artwork would cost $20,000. If the Council chooses to pursue restoration and repair, funds in the amount of $423,200 would need to be appropriated. Background Chain Reaction, by Paul Conrad, was a gift to the City that was approved by City Council on October 9, 3990 after extensive public process and debate. The work was originally offered to the City in 1988, and was not site specific in the sense that the artist offered it to other cities as well. The acquisition was reviewed by a panel of three prominent artists who recommended support of the acquisition to the Arts Commission, although one of the panelists expressed substantial concerns regarding the artistic merit of the work. In order to gain public input, a model of the piece was displayed in the lobby of City Hall from July through October of 1989. Of those surveyed, 730 citizens recommended 1 against the City accepting the sculpture and 392 citizens favored its acceptance. The Arts Commission voted three separate times over the course of the entire review process, each time to accept the gift. The work was funded by a private donation to the Santa Monica Arts Foundation of $250,000. The gift is covered by an agreement with the. artist which provides that the work can be relocated, removed and or destroyed at the discretion of the City. The staff retort that originally presented the sculpture for consideration states that the work will be made of bronze, which would require little or no maintenance. However, as actually fabricated, the sculpture is made of copper tubing over a fiberglass core with an internal frame of stainless steel. These materials, while durable, do not have the same permanence in an outdoor setting as cast bronze. The agreement with the artist calls for a complete set of `as- built' drawings to be provided to the City, however these drawings were never provided. This past summer, the City's Building Official observed members of the public, including children, climbing and interacting with the sculpture and was prompted to complete a preliminary evaluation of its safety. The structural integrity of the work could not be ascertained based solely on visual observation; however a number of issues of concern due to the deteriorating condition of the sculpture were observed. Many fasteners that attach the copper tubing chain to the fiberglass core were missing or not fully imbedded and some exhibit severe corrosion. An interdepartmental team of City staff met to review these findings and in the interest of public safety decided to fence off and preclude access to the sculpture while additional research and analysis were performed. Discussion Consulting Team The City assembled a professional team to assist in the assessment of Chain Reaction to determine the state of its structural integrity. The team included structural engineer Larry 2 Brugger, Twining Testing Laboratory, and Rosa Lowinger and Associates. Mr. Brugger is a registered Structural Engineer and former building official for the City of Long Beach. Twining Laboratory is well known for their quality control work with material testing and material standards. Ms. Lowinger is widely respected for her conservation work and oversees the sculpture conservation treatment programs for several major art collections including the Broad Art Foundation, the Huntington Library and Garden, and the Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden at the University of California, Los Angeles. The team worked to insure that minimal damage was done to the sculpture while assessing its structural integrity. Preliminary Research The team contacted the original structural engineer for the project, and both fabricators involved in building the work, in order to gather as much detail as possible. While archive research and discussion with the original fabrication team provided comprehensive background information, no records were found to confirm that the sculpture received review from the City's Building and Safety Division or that a building permit was issued. Without a valid permit on file, it could not be confirmed that inspection of critical elements of the sculpture occurred. Further, discussion with the original structural engineer of record revealed that his drawings and calculations were only conceptual and the final fabrication deviated from his engineered design. Without confirmation of an approved design and fabrication methodology, staff determined testing key elements of the sculpture was necessary. Initial Assessment and Findings The initial examination consisted of a visual inspection of the internal armature to detect any corrosion as well as lab testing of fiberglass and concrete samples along with sample chain -links and fasteners that attach the chains to the fiberglass shell of the sculpture. Prior to the examination, conservators carefully documented and catalogued the chain - links in the selected sample areas, then carefully cut out samples as well as the area designated as the entry point for the internal inspection. I3 Laboratory tests were performed on samples of the fiberglass shell for structural integrity and effects due to exposure to the elements. Although the results do not cause immediate concern, the results are inconclusive as the samples revealed varying thicknesses of fiberglass, likely due to manual application of the fiberglass layers. Furthermore it is not known how ultra - violet rays and precipitation have affected the top of the sculpture, the area of the sculpture that is the most vulnerable. Therefore additional samples must be extracted from key areas at the top of the sculpture. The copper chain links were tested to determine strength and failure thresholds. The results were favorable in confirming that the welded seams would not fail under nominal pressure. The tests also revealed that substantial force would be required to pull a copper link from its mounting on the fiberglass shell. Details from both tests are in the attached report from the testing lab (attachment C.) Visual inspection of the sculpture's internal steel frame revealed corrosion and rust levels at various stages of debilitation. The area that exhibited the greatest concern was at the base of the main steel structure, particularly anchor bolts and nuts that secure the entire sculpture to the foundation. Other areas that exhibited corrosive damage were the structural connections for the stainless steel square tubes which form the shape of the sculpture, and at the wire mesh which allows adhesion of the fiberglass finish. The welded connections of the steel members at the base of the sculpture were x -rayed to determine possible damage and to assess their structural integrity. Results of this radiography test did not reveal concerns regarding the welded connections in the area examined, however, testing of the welded connections at the top of the sculpture is still necessary. In determining the suitability of the sculpture's structural concrete foundation, it was necessary to extract samples of the foundation. Core samples were extracted in two areas where the compressive strength of the concrete foundation would be determined. Although the tests confirmed concrete with high- strength aggregate, the results cannot be A! considered conclusive as calculated analysis is necessary to determine final suitability. The calculated analysis would consider the weight of the sculpture, bearing pressure of the soil and lateral forces due to wind and seismic activity. These figures would then be compared against the strength of the concrete. This analysis is typically done during the design stage of any structure and is a requirement of building codes and the permitting process. There is no record of it having been completed for the sculpture. Next Steps To fully ascertain the sculpture's structural stability, the following additional tests would need to be performed: 1) Testing of fiberglass samples at the apex of the sculpture as this area has experienced the greatest exposure to the elements. 2) Further visual inspection of metal framing elements to determine the extent of corrosive effects. Inspection is necessary within the upper or "mushroom cloud" portion of the sculpture and at the connection of the cloud to the stem of the sculpture. 3) Further radiography analysis of the welded connections at the top of the sculpture in key areas. The key areas include framing members within the "mushroom cloud" and critically, at the connection of the cloud and stem of the sculpture. 4) Extraction of an anchor bolt and nut at the base of the sculpture to determine anchor bolt suitability and effects of corrosion. 5) Calculated structural analysis of the base, stem, cloud and respective structural connections at each area to estimate the weight of the sculpture, its ability to withstand wind and seismic effects; the suitability of the main steel frame, connective square tube members, and the concrete foundation; as well as integrity of the fiberglass with connective chain links. Many of these tests are invasive and would further damage the work. Depending on test findings of both the structural engineering team and the conservation team, the City would then need to proceed with repairs, if feasible, to ensure the structural integrity of the work, and then conservation to address the work's aesthetic integrity. 5 Estimated Costs To date the City has spent $20,715 on the initial assessment work, $7,255 paid to Rosa Lowinger Associates for a conservation assessment and testing assistance, and $13,460 for the structural engineering report and initial testing. Estimated costs associated with further testing, repair and restoration of Chain Reaction by necessity cover a range, with the exception of the actual testing costs. This is primarily due to the fact that at this point in time all of the required tests have not been completed as City staff did not wish to commit additional funds without Council approval. The following estimates therefore include a range of likely possibilities depending on the most probable outcomes of the tests. In addition to testing, repair and conservation, it is recommended that if the City chooses to retain the sculpture at the site, a landscaped barrier (as noted in the estimate above) be put in place to limit public access to the work, particularly climbing by children. While landscaping alone would not completely preclude access to the sculpture, it could be designed in such a way as to limit access. Rebuilding and Longevity The issue of the cost of the repair and conservation is complicated by the fact that the core of the sculpture is fiberglass with an unknown life expectancy in terms of its structural stability. So that even if the City were to invest in the testing, repair and 0 Low Estimate High Estimate Initial Assessment $20,715 $20,715 Sub -total to date $20,715 $20,715 Additional testing $15,870 $20,870 Repair $64,000 $200,000 Conservation $52,000 $65,000 Landscaping $56,000 $80,000 Contingency 10% $18,787 $36,587 TOTAL $227,372 $423,172 In addition to testing, repair and conservation, it is recommended that if the City chooses to retain the sculpture at the site, a landscaped barrier (as noted in the estimate above) be put in place to limit public access to the work, particularly climbing by children. While landscaping alone would not completely preclude access to the sculpture, it could be designed in such a way as to limit access. Rebuilding and Longevity The issue of the cost of the repair and conservation is complicated by the fact that the core of the sculpture is fiberglass with an unknown life expectancy in terms of its structural stability. So that even if the City were to invest in the testing, repair and 0 conservation of the work, it is likely that in the next ten to twenty years the work would again present a risk due to the aging of the fiberglass core that supports the copper chain link system. Further, if the City were to attempt to address this issue at this time and consider completely rebuilding the work from the inside out, replacing the fiberglass in some way to be determined, not only would the costs increase, but the work would become essentially false. The artist is not available to participate in the design and rebuilding of the work, in particular the laying of the chains that finish the piece, an aspect of the work on which Paul Conrad spent a great deal of time. Significance and Precedence Paul Conrad, the artist who created Chain Reaction, was a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist who achieved world renown and acclaim for his political cartoons. He also created a number of sculptures, primarily small scale bronze busts of political figures that resembled his caricatures. However, his primary focus was not monumental sculpture and Chain Reaction may have been the only monumental work of art that he created. As such, the artist lacked familiarity with the many considerations surrounding the fabrication of public art so that it can successfully withstand constant exposure to the elements and the public. When the work was installed, many in the art world felt that the sculpture was more successful as a political statement than as a work of art, although others heralded its significance. Additionally, as previously stated, Santa Monicans were extremely divided regarding the initial acceptance of the work. While the City has an obligation to care for the works in its collection for future generations, it also has an obligation to carefully weigh major expenditures. It appears at this point in time that the work was not constructed in such a way as to ensure its structural stability over the long term, or beyond 20 to 25 years, without significant investment and repairs. To put the potential cost of these repairs in perspective, City Council allocated $100,000 in one -time funds in 2008 to assist with major conservation needs for the City's collection. The funds were used to repair three works: Big Wave, by Tony deLap, which is also 20 years old; the installation by Michael Davis in the Public Safety Facility; and the work by Mauro Staccioli located at the intersection of Pico Blvd 7 and Ocean Ave. Initial estimates for Chain Reaction range from almost double to close to three times that amount. With limited funds available such an investment, possibly more than the original cost of the sculpture, seems disproportionate, particularly to remedy inherent flaws with the design and construction of the work. While private sector fundraising can always be seen as an option, the Cultural Affairs Division does not have the staff time to allocate for such fundraising in a year when there is major fundraising required for Glow. Commission Action The City has clear policies regarding how to handle art in the case of deterioration and issues of public safety. This process requires review by a conservator and development of recommendations for the Arts Commission based on the conservator's findings regarding the status of the work. Further, no work may be considered for deaccession prior to five years following its initial acceptance. Chain Reaction has been on display for 21 years. In addition the policy calls for notifying the artist or heirs of the situation. City staff met with Mr. Conrad's son, David Conrad, on August 18, 2011 to inform him of the initial assessment work and to ask for any details the family might have regarding the fabrication of the sculpture. City staff further notified Mr. Conrad of the staff recommendation to the Arts Commission and to City Council to consider removal of the work in late January. Mr. Conrad has indicated the family's desire to see the work remain at its current location and his willingness to work with the community to raise funds to repair and restore the work. The Santa Monica Arts Commission held a special hearing on February 1, 2012 to hear public testimony and consider the status of Chain Reaction. They considered the findings to date along with the City's deaccession policy which outlines when a work may be removed from public display. The Arts Commission voted 10 to 1 in support of the staff recommendation of deaccession and removal of the sculpture. The Commission 0 also voted to recommend that such action be delayed by six months to allow the family and community supporters of Chain Reaction a period of time to raise the funds necessary to repair the work. Staff supports this recommendation and, if approved by Council, will delay the removal until September 20, 2012. The Landmarks Commission discussed Chain Reaction at their meeting on Monday March 12th. The Commission supported allowing the community time for private fundraising and asked to agendize an exploration of the possibility of landmarking the sculpture at their next meeting in April. Alternatives There are a number of alternatives City Council might choose to pursue: Alternative 1: In lieu of removal, City Council could appropriate the funds, in an amount not to exceed $423,200 (equal to the high estimate plus a 10% contingency), to continue to pursue the repair and restoration of the Paul Conrad sculpture. Alternative 2: The City Council could appropriate the funds, in an amount not to exceed $423,200 (equal to the high estimate plus a 10% contingency) plus relocation and moving costs, and direct staff to pursue an alternate location in Santa Monica where the work is less accessible to the public. Public Outreach City staff have kept the public informed of the status of the work though regular press releases and through updates to the Santa Monica Arts Commission. There have been a number of articles in the local press and in the Los Angeles Times. In addition, a group of concerned citizens developed a petition to preserve the sculpture and collected numerous signatures in support of retaining the work. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions If City Council were to support the staff recommendation to complete additional testing and approve the removal of the sculpture in six months if private fundraising is not 7 successful, funds in the amount of $41,000 are available in the FY 2011/13 Community and Cultural Services Department Budget. The costs associated with this recommendation will be charged to 01560.555060. Should staff be directed to pursue either Alternative 1 (repair and restoration) or Alternative 2 (repair, restoration, relocation), Council action would be required to appropriate funding in an amount not to exceed $423,200 to account C010081.589000 for the repair and restoration of the sculpture. Additionally, in the case of Alternative 2 staff would need to be directed to return to Council at a later date with the additional amount needed to cover relocation costs which are not currently known. Prepared by: Jessica Cusick, Cultural Affairs Manager Ron Takiguchi, PE, Building Official Approved: Karen Ginsber' Director, Community and C Itur I Services David Martin Director, Planning and Community Development Forwarded to Council: Rod Gould City Manager Attachments: A. Preliminary report from Conservator Rosa Lowinger B. Preliminary Assessment Report from Structural Engineering Consultant, Larry Brugger, S.E. C. Twining Testing Laboratory, Investigation and Material Testing Report 10 Attachment A CONSERVATION OF SCULPTURE +ARCHITECTURE Chain Reaction, Paul Conrad - Santa Monica Interim Notes - November 18, 2011 Prepared by: Rosa Lowinger and Christina Varvi, Rosa Lowinger & Associates Introduction: The following is a summary of the findings from the examination of Chain Reaction in November 2011. Rosa Lowinger & Associates carried out initial work to prepare the sculpture for inspection by engineers. This report documents the work carried out that Week and what is proposed for the next steps. Work carried out to date: NOVEMBER 15, 2011: - Conservators Dave Harvey and Christina Varvi of Rosa Lowinger and Associates arrived onsite in Santa Monica to begin work on Paul Conrad's `Chain Reaction ". Conservators met with Malina Moore & Jessica Cusick of the City of Santa Monica's Cultural Affairs Division and Ron Taldguchi, City of Santa Monica Building Official, to review the planned course of action for the day. The goal was to remove sections of brass chain links and fiberglass for strength /durability testing by the city /county engineers. At an earlier meeting, a 2'x3' section at the base of the sculpture had been selected by the City engineer for removal and was marked off with blue tape. An additional `path" leading up to this area was marked off with blue tape (for chain removal only) in order to allow conservators and engineers easier access to the selected test area above, mitigating damage to the chains. Prior to removing any material, conservators used green tape to number each chain link within the selected areas. These areas were carefully photographed in order to accurately re- position the links once they are re- installed. After initial photo documentation was completed, conservators attempted to remove the chain links from the fiberglass surface. Photos were taken of specific areas before any material was removed. hnage: Selected areas for brass link removal with labeling system. Los Angeles Studio: 5418 Packard Street. • Los Angeles, CA 90019 Miami Studio: 4728 N.E. Miami Place #Miami, FL 33137 323.377.8425 w r1aconservation.com The brass chain links are primarily attached to the fiberglass surface with tack screws originating from within the piece. Around the base of the sculpture, there are numerous repairs to secure loose brass links. The majority are steel screws inserted from above, securing one -to- two brass links to the fiberglass surface. There is also some copper wire connecting two or more links together. Conservators were easily able to remove four steel screws as well as some copper wire, all previous repairs. The screws were retained and labeled, indicating which links they connected. The copper wire was not labeled since it was cut and cannot be re -used. However, samples were retained, should the City engineers want to test its strength /durability. The majority of the visible screw heads had been previously cut off or were severely corroded and /or stripped to the point where they could not be removed with a screwdriver or power drill. Conservators removed the heads of two screws using a Dremel and then attempted to slip the brass links over the shank and thread. Unfortunately, this was not possible in either case since the screw shank /thread had corroded and was fused to the brass link(s). Conservators then attempted to cut the shank /thread in between the brass links and /or the bottom link and fiberglass, but there was not enough space between the two surfaces to fit a Dremel, or other cutting tool, without damaging the links. Conservators then attempted to gently pry the links from the surface of the fiberglass, using a small crowbar padded with foam. This attempt was also unsuccessful in liberating the links and was abandoned in fear of cracking /breaking the fiberglass if continued and excessive farce was used. Image: Corroded screw. Image: Limited or no space between materials in order to cut the screw. Ultimately, it was determined that the links could not be safely removed from the surface of the fiberglass: Even if one could cut the steel screws used for repairs, it would be extremely difficult to detach the links due to the tack screws inserted from within the sculpture. Pursuing further attempts would have surely damaged the piece. Mauna, Jessica, and Ron were notified of our decision and returned to the site to discuss alternatives. The group questioned whether the conservators could cut the fiberglass with the chains still attached. They were advised that this would be highly detrimental to the integrity of the sculpture and that it would hopefully be a last resort. As an alternative, Dave Harvey suggested that a 2" x 8" piece of fiberglass (a dimension previously requested by the city /county engineer) be removed from a "bald" area further up on the sculpture for the time being. This would enable the engineers to begin some of their testing and create an opening through which they could insert a borescope and decide whether or not removing the 2'x$' panel is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, there is an area along the edge, about t' to the left of the 2'x3' selected area where several of the chain links were lose and only connected by copper wire. Mr. Harvey suggested the conservators move the links in this area as much as possible to create another cutting option for the engineers to examine the interior of the sculpture. The engineers could examine this area and decide whether or not a cut in this location would be beneficial to their needs, specifically testing the concrete foundation. The group agreed with both of Mr. Harvey's suggestions. Image: Area cleared & marked for 2 "x8" cut. Image: Area cleared for potential cut, pending engineer approval. Before moving any of the chain links, they were also labeled and photographed to ensure they will be accurately re- positioned at a later date. In preparation for the cut, Mr. IIIrvey measured and marked a 2" x 8" strip on the fiberglass surface. To remove the fiberglass, he made four cuts using a diamond blade Rotozip spiral saw. Malina and Jessica were present when the cut was made and witnessed sparks emanating from the sculpture while Mr. Harvey was cutting. After the cut was made, Mr. Harvey removed the fiberglass section, finding that it was only about 1/8" thick. Behind the fiberglass was a plastic/ bituminous sheet backed with paper, followed by a burlap -like cloth. All of these were fitted over a large -gauge chicken wire. The sample was wrapped in acid -free tissue paper- with all layers intact. Mr. Harvey retained the sample to review with the engineers the following day. Image: Layers below fiberglass surface after cutting. Image: Interior structure of sculpture. 4 Wire cutters were used to remove the chicken wire from the 2 "x8" probe. Using a flashlight, conservators, as well as Malina and Jessica, were able to quickly inspect the interior of the sculpture and take several photographs. It appears that the chicken wire was formed over a stainless steel armature, which is connected to the central "flag pole ". From our limited observation, it appears that the stainless steel armature had welded connections and did not exhibit any sign of rusting. Minimal surface corrosion was observed on the central "flag pole". After observing the interior, all parties agreed that no further cuts would be Blade until the engineers were on site and reviewed the sculpture. All open areas were covered with duct tape to prevent water intrusion. November 16, 9011: Further work was carried out by Dave Harvey and Rosa Lowinger to prepare the sculpture for inspection. An additional 6" x 5" cut was made at the base of the sculpture to allow for core drilling of the foundation. Additional 1" holes were drilled to allow for inspection of the interior. On this same day the team also inspected the upper level of the piece. We found a removable panel on the Fast side of the mushroom cloud. The panel was wired in place using copper wire in approximately 5 locations. The chains at the upper level were found to be primarily attached with wire rather than screws. The wire was clipped to allow for removal of the panel. This panel with its accompanying chains was removed and given to Malina Moore and Jessica Cusick for storage at the City offices. Initial inspection of the interior was done using a borescope by Andrew Tan of Twining, Inc inspection and testing engineers. Initial findings showed that the interior mild steel has numerous isolated areas of corrosion on ferrous metal components. The upper structure on the mushroom cloud was documented as being well built to specifications far more rigorous than those shown on the original document. All open areas were covered with duct tape to prevent water intrusion. The open panel on the top mushroom was covered with tarp and duct tape. November 18, 2ol 1: Engineers Andrew Tan and Larry Brugger met with conservator Rosa Lowinger at the site along with Ron, Malina, and Jessica. A core drill was used to drill a sample of the foundation. The foundation was found to have two tiers. The topmost tier is approximately 6° deep and consists of a concrete with a medium and some large size aggregate. Below this is a second foundation- which was cored to a depth of 8.6 ". The foundation is actually deeper; however the coring material was insufficient to probe further. The second core contained substantially bigger aggregate than the upper portion. These core samples are being tested for compression strength. Mr. Tan also employed a more powerful borescope to inspect areas of the foundation plate that affixes the central column to the plate and the concrete foundation. The initial results indicated that there is substantial corrosion and pitting of the anchor bolts that hold the base plate in place. Moreover, there is no way to determine how deep these bolts extend into the foundation itself. Next Steps: The engineers feel that it is essential to enter the bottom portion of the sculpture in order to gain more information on the following matters: 1. The length and condition of the anchoring bolts. 2. The condition ofthe welds on the steel structure. u. The thickness of the base plate. 4. The actual depth of the foundation. In addition, the engineers would like to find out more infbrmation on the upper level on the following matters: 1. The condition of the welds. -2. How the top is attached to the central pole. Rosa Lowinger concurs that given the corrosion seen on the anchor bolts that treatment is warranted. Therefore, removal of a panel at the bottom is unavoidable. All effort will be made to carry this out in as systematic and non destructive a method possible. The removal of the panel will be scheduled by Monday to be carried out either right before or right after Thanksgiving. Rosa Lowinger C November 16, 2011 rowinger ct rosalowingerxom Fami August 10, 2011 Prepared by Lawrence Brugger Structural Engineer CHAIN REACTION SCULPTURE August 10, 2011 JI' IN1 PRELIMINARY REPORT This report is in response to a request by the City of Santa Monica to provide a structural evaluation of an existing sculpture in Santa Monica, California. The sculpture, titled "Chain Reaction" was designed by Mr. Paul Conrad. The sculpture is approximately 26 feet high, located on City owned property. There is currently a temporary six foot high chain linked fence around the sculpture. The sculpture is made of a fiberglass material with hollow copper chains draped over the fiberglass. It was noted that in order to provide a structural evaluation, some destructive testing and exploratory openings may be needed to evaluate the sculpture. The request for a structural evaluation was made after children had been observed climbing on the sculpture. A concern as to the structural stability of the sculpture was raised at that time by Ron Takiguchi, the City's Building Official. A review of city building permit records revealed that no building permits were issued for the installation of the sculpture. As such, no plans were on file and there was no record of any inspections being made during the construction. INVESTIGATION A structural design for the sculpture had been previously prepared by Mr. Richard Ranous, SE. The structural design, was not dated, but appeared to have been completed in the late 1980's or 1990. The design was found to be in compliance with the building code regulations in effect in 1990 (the California Building Code based on 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code published by the International Conference of Building Officials,) On July 8, 2011, a group consisting of Santa Monica City Staff members Mr. Ron Takiguchi, Building Official, Ms. Jessica Cusick, Cultural Affairs Manager and Ms. Malina Moore, with the Cultural Affairs Department along with Ms. Rosa Lowinger, President of Rosa Lowinger and Associates, and the author of this report visited the site. The sculpture was observed to be completely covered in a fiberglass material with hollow copper chains draped over the entire sculpture. The hollow copper chain links were attached to the fiberglass with screws that were drilled from inside the sculpture thru the fiberglass and into the hollow copper links. Signs of deterioration in the copper links were noted, and some of the screws had pulled out of the fiberglass. The loose Page 1 of 4 CHAIN REACTION SCULPTURE PRELIMINARY REPORT August 10, 2011 hollow copper links were tied together by wires. The wires were installed approximately five years ago as a minor repair project according Ms. Cusick. It was decided that it would be beneficial to speak with Mr. Ranous. Mr. Ranous' phone number was found in the Structural Engineers Association of California phone list. He is currently living on the east coast working for ABS Consulting Engineers. Mr. Ranous was contacted regarding his design. He had a vague memory of the sculpture. He said he provided the structural design while he was working for HRC Consultants Inc, located in the Arcadia area of Southern California. He was given the design parameters, including the weight and height of the sculpture, but does not remember seeing the sculpture or any plans for its construction. Mr. Ranous said he provided the design as a favor for a client. He remembered that the contractor was George Hopkins, from the Glendale area of Southern California. He recommended that both HRC Consultants Inc. and George Hopkins be contacted, as they may have information on the construction of the sculpture. Contact information for HRC Consultants Inc. and George C. Hopkins Construction Company, Inc. was found using the internet. A few calls were placed to HRC Consultants Inc, over the span of three weeks, with no answer. It was found that George Hopkins' son, Gary Hopkins, had taken over the construction business. The son said he remembered the sculpture project and would look for his father's files. He called back a few days later and said that he could not locate any files for the project. Mr. Hopkins did say that the project had been broken up into different components. He also indicated that his company was responsible for the concrete foundation and the steel structure that supported the fiberglass and chains. He stated that the fiberglass and chains were installed after his company completed their portion of the project. His company was not part of the installation of the fiberglass or chains and they did not witness this part of the construction. Unfortunately Mr. Hopkins could not remember specific details of the construction project, such as whether the steel frame was welded or bolted, but he did say that they used standard construction practice to build their portion of the structure. The name of the company that manufactured the fiberglass sculpture, Carlson Arts, LLC from Sun Valley, California was provided by Ms. Cusick. Carlson Arts was contacted and a representative of the firm discussed the sculpture project and the material used in the fabrication of the sculpture. They said they did not have files that went back that long ago, but that they would check with staff to see if anyone had information on the Page 2 of 4 CHAIN REACTION SCULPTURE August 10, 2011 project. They also said that they would contact us if they found any information. They have not called back. After reviewing the materials provided, speaking to the individuals mentioned above, and assessing the structure, the following concerns have been identified before a final determination can be made regarding the structural integrity. 1. There is no evidence that the fiberglass has adequate structural properties to resist the anticipated vertical loads from gravity as well as the lateral loads from wind and seismic events, 2. The fiberglass may have deteriorated over time due to exposure to the weather. This would cause it to become unstable and collapse under the anticipated loads described above. 3. The structural frame may not have been installed correctly or may have been damaged during the installation of the fiberglass. 4. The fiberglass at the location of the screws used to hold the chain links to the fiberglass may have deteriorated to the point that there is inadequate support. 5. The point of support for the large "cloud" portion of the sculpture rests on a narrow support, which maybe a weak point in the structure. 6. The information given to the design engineer regarding the height and weight of the structure may have been incorrect. RECOMMENDATIONS To address the concerns expressed above, the following actions are recommended. 1. There should be an opening made in the fiberglass near the base, large enough to view the structural frame, and its attachment to the foundation. 2. A sample of the fiberglass from the bottom, mid height (below the large 'cloud" portion of the sculpture) and at top of the sculpture should be sent to an approved testing laboratory to determine its weight and it's resistant to weather, including ultra violet rays from the sun. 3. The fiberglass samples should also be test for their structural values including shear and bending strengths. A test to determine the pull out strength of the existing screws in the fiberglass should also be conducted. Page 3 of 4 CHAIN REACTION SCULPTURE PRELIMINARY REPORT August 10, 2011 4. A sample of copper chain links should be weighed for use in estimating the overall Weight of the chains installed on the structure. 5. An inspection of the fiberglass on top of the structure should be made to ensure it has not deteriorated. 6. An inspection of the attachment of the fiberglass to the structural frame near the top should be made to ensure it is adequate to resist anticipated loads. 7. Once the above has been completed, an analysis will need to be done to determine the structural stability of the sculpture. Especially at the point of connection between the large "cloud" portion and the narrow support. CONCLUSION The recommendations in this report are intended to allow for enough information to be obtained so as to provide a final determination on the structural stability of the sculpture. Since, the sculpture has only been evaluated using the building codes in effect at the time of construction there may be a desire to analyze the sculpture for compliance with the current building code, in that case, additional testing and analysis will need to be performed. Respectively submitted N G�c "V-e 6ugq � No. SE 2754 w Lawrence Brugger Structural Engineer v >sT�uct 3�t4,s Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Site Plan Attachment B: Pictures of Sculpture (from Ron Takaguchi's report to the City Manager) ' Attachment C: Structural Calculations by Richard Ranous Attachment D: Selected ASTM Standards to evaluate fiberglass 1795 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA - Google Maps Page 1 of 1 Address 1795 Main St Notes Attachment ' - € Z> Santa Monica, CA 90401 Site of Chain Reaction ' - Sculpture r!• t . e� m 5rh .k., r4 %h lox S. Ft ✓r, ` t,(IL; 2 �t� rA 4 %D _ Ct sklw f 9ll.i `. 1 tl l- 3f Y ��1- IAenia lal�p[ -IS t i I� tr s� Yt t or .In,f Ihl 1130 In I d� �� ..I d- 411 »r Z3, e.Llck YY I � U -7( Nnlchkl4s Pa(le 15'0 12K9R1 t E?Y43ak 1 a( —�fl �Crth k•HIIP i —' ,K ©2011 Google- Mapdata®2011,t8ogle • -.� http: /lmaps.google.com/ maps ?fig &source= s_q &hl= en &geocode = &q =1795 +Main +Street, +.., 8/8/2011 C&,' E A t v q f ��. iC Photo from the Internet � >> rt _ ® dluVI 104, 4A FT Ind' It P::F :111514' t i �6 a Mou.0 1k1 ( -- --* C tYl arc Cl L121 +lc,"L e sr Ga �ar°foM 9rF � t�2 4014- Caq g o 15.4 ® 2.1'L (OAX) Ibi Lcup 04 Mpbcov> j.%mWj_=rz �' 1 Af 30,E C e�t�P�6e, o ea I A t I� ® dluVI 104, 4A FT Ind' It P::F :111514' t i �6 a Mou.0 1k1 ( -- --* C tYl arc Cl L121 +lc,"L e sr Ga �ar°foM 9rF � t�2 4014- Caq g o 15.4 ® 2.1'L (OAX) Ibi Lcup 04 Mpbcov> j.%mWj_=rz �' 1 Af 30,E C e�t�P�6e, o ea I A J v .sue, 4e 0 At C, �t T70 �rz 0.4 !fj 3 2" sib. �tf i Niffifill 6 1) Selected ASTM Standards for Testing Fiberctlass There are several standards for testing fiberglass. The following are a few that may be useful for this project: ASTIR D4329 - 00 Standard practice for Fluorescent UV Exposure of Plastics This practice covers specific procedures and test conditions that are applicable for fluorescent UV exposure of plastics conducted in accordance with Practices G 151 and G 154. This practice also covers the preparation of test specimens, the test conditions best suited for plastics, and the evaluation of test results. ASTIR G1 54 - 00 Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Light Apparatus for UV Exposure of !Nonmetallic Materials This practice covers the basic principles and operating procedures for using fluorescent UV light, and water apparatus intended to reproduce the, weathering effects that occur when materials are exposed to sunlight (either direct or through window glass) and moisture as rain or dew in actual usage. ASTM D5870 -11 Standard Practice for Calculating Property Retention Index of Plastics The property retention index (PRI) determined by this practice is intended primarily to provide relative durability performance information on materials for design engineers. It is up to the user to ensure that appropriate sampling procedures are used for the selection of specimens to be exposed so that the PRI data obtained is actually representative of the material being evaluated. Attachment C December 6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 Larry Brugger JAS Pacific Inc. 21815 Pioneer Blvd, Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716 -1237 Subject: Chain Reaction Sculpture Investigation and Material Testing Santa Monica, CA Dear Larry: Twining has performed investigation and material testing on the above subject sculpture located in the city T w t N t N G of Santa Monica to determine the as -built conditions and material properties of the structure in accordance with your e -mail correspondence received on October 11, 2011 and our signed cost Proposal Number 11- 1136 Revision 1, dated November 7, 2011. A summary of `our scope of work, details of the investigation ;,+;> and laboratory testing, along with results and findings are presented in the following sections. I. Scope of Work � iingum.nnn The following is a summary of our scope of work: ❑ Provide boom lift machinery and certified operator to access high elevation of the sculpture for the inner structure investigation and fiberglass shell material extraction. ❑ Fiberglass coupon sample extraction witness at the project site to document locations and sample identification taken from the sculpture's base and "mushroom" top section. Sample cutting and removal was performed by Rosa Lowinger & Associates. ❑ Perform non - destructive survey on concrete foundation inside or near the sculpture base to determine steel reinforcing layout to avoid cutting steel for concrete core sampling purpose for compressive strength test of the concrete. ❑ Perform visual inspection and documentation of the sculpture's inner steel structure configuration, member size and connections including anchorage to concrete foundation. ❑ Perform lab testing on the extracted fiberglass shell coupons to determine the tensile strength of the material in accordance with ASTM D638, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of ❑ Perform lab testing on the extracted fiberglass shell coupons to determine the flexural strength of the material in accordance with ASTM D790, Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. ❑ Perform lab compression test on the concrete core samples obtained from the foundation in accordance with ASTM C42, Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete. ❑ Perform the following lab testing on the copper chains: 1. Unit weight test. 2. Screw ultimate pull -out strength from the chain utilizing undamaged screws (found lying inside of the sculpture base) and driven into the chain. 3. Tension test to establish ultimate pull -out strength between two linked chains. ❑ Prepare a cumulative final test report detailing the test results and findings, along with photographs of the testing where applicable. Page 1 of 8 Cot pm H.dquartere XW Livf Sprmg, Sired, Sui,e 300 1 nng Bend,, (lA 90806 December 6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 II. Field Investigation and Findings Based on the preliminary information provided and our field investigation, the Chain Reaction sculpture was reportedly built in 1991 and made of fiberglass shell lining in the form of a mushroom - shaped figure measuring approximately 26 feet high. The sculpture's outer shell is entirely covered with approximately 9 -inch long by 5 -inch wide copper chain links at random orientation, The sculpture base measures approximately 14 feet 8 inches in diameter and sits on top of a circular concrete foundation of approximately 20 feet in diameter. To minimize damage to the sculpture fiberglass shell, small cut -outs or drilled holes through the shell were made on November 16, 2011 at random locations along the base to determine and /or verify the inner structure composition per the provided sketch on the structural calculations (included in Appendix A) by inserting a boroscope through the holes and cut -outs to view the existing contents and conditions of the sculpture's inner structure. Results indicated the fiberglass shell is supported (or stiffened) by an inner skeleton frame fabricated from 1 -inch square stainless steel tubing formed and welded in sections to the shape and curvatures of the shell as shown in Figure 1. below. Figure 1 Based on the man -sized access hole opening cut at the base shown in Figure 1 above, there exists at the center of the sculpture a main vertical steel tubular member, approximately 13 inches in diameter (wall thickness of 7/16 inch as tested by our EPOCH 600 ultrasonic flaw detector manufactured by Olympus) running all the way to the top. The bottom of the round tubular member is welded to a 42- inch square base plate of approximately 1'% inches thick and anchored to the concrete foundation with 1 -inch diameter anchor bolts (8 bolts total). The round tube member is reinforced all around with %- inch thick triangular welded gusset plates (total of 8 gussets). Corrosion was apparent on the gusset plates and more severe on the anchor bolts and nuts as shown in Figures 2A and 2B below. Page 2 of 8 Figure 2A III. Field Non - Destructive Testing of Welds A. Visual Inspection December 6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 Figure 2B Result of the visual inspection indicated the fillet weld leg size of the round tubular member to the base plate, gusset plates to the round tubular member and to the base plate, was nominal Ya inch. B. Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) The magnetic particle testing of the fillet welds for all gusset plates to the base plate resulted in acceptance per the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1 requirement. Field non - destructive test report is included in Appendix A. C. Radiography (RT) Radiography testing of the fillet welds for all gusset plates to the 13 -inch diameter round tubular member resulted in acceptance per AWS D1.1 requirement. Field test report prepared by our subcontractor, Davis Laboratories, is included in Appendix A. IV. Laboratory Test Results and Findings A. Copper Chain Unit Weight Test Three copper chain links were individually weighed on a calibrated scale with results noted in Table 1 below. Table 1 —Chain Link Weight Sample No. Weight Grams Ounces 1 239.2 8.44 2 243.6 8.57 3 239.4 8.45 Average 240.7 8.48 Page 3 of 8 December6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 B. Screw Pullout Three undamaged self- tapping crews were obtained from the base of the sculpture that may have resulted from extra screws during construction of the sculpture or loose over time and fell to the bottom. For the purpose of our laboratory testing, the three screws were driven into the hollow copper chain links (obtained from the site) at a minimum of '% -inch penetration to simulate attachment of the chain links to the sculpture fiberglass shell (Note: By inspection, the screws were driven from the inside of the sculpture through the fiberglass shell and into the copper chain). Tensile tests were conducted using a hand -held calibrated dynamometer as shown in Figure 3 below to determine the screw pull out strength from the copper chain. Results of the testing are summarized in Table 2 below: Table 2 — Results of Screw Pul lout from Copper Chain Test No. Maximum Load lb Failure Mode 1 121 Screw pullout from chain 2 132 Screw pullout from chain 3 109 Screw pullout from chain Average 120 Figure 3', Test Set Up C. Copper Chain Link Tensile Two linked copper chain section obtained from the jobsite was placed in the tensile testing machine and loaded in tension to determine the ultimate pullout strength from each other (see Figure 4A). The maximum load obtained was 789 pounds; failure was the spot welds at the two halves section shown in Figure 4B below. Page 4 of 8 Figure 4A — Test Set Up D. Flexural Test December 6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 Figure 4B — Failure Mode Two approximately 1 -inch wide fiberglass shell coupons identified as Sample #1 cut from the lower stem approximately 4 feet from the base and Sample #2 cut from the mushroom top portion were tested in general accordance with ASTM D790, Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. The following Table 3 summarizes the details of the flexural tests. Table 3 — Flexural Strength Test Results Sample ID Specimen Width (b) Test Span (L) Specimen Depth (d) Max: Load (P) Flexural Strength (psi)' 1 0.954 in. 6.25 in. 0.070 in. 14lbs 28,080 2 1.14 in. 6.25 in. 0.089 in. 17 Ibs 17,650 'Flexural strength is calculated at breaking load using ASTM D790 Equation (3): a = 3PLt2bd' ASTM D790 indicates the minimum number of five test specimens; however the number and size of the specimens were limited in order to minimize damage to the existing structure per client's request. The main factors contributing to the large variation in the flexural strength between the two samples noted in the table above may be the non - uniformity and surface irregularity of the material since it appeared that the fiberglass shell was hand - molded during fabrication. Therefore, although ultraviolet exposure will affect the material strength degradation over time, it is inconclusive based on this testing to confirm that the large deviation in the strength between the two samples was caused by more exposure to sunlight from one area versus the other. E. Tensile Test Two approximately 1 -inch wide fiberglass shell coupons identified as Sample #1 cut from the lower stem approximately 4 feet from the base and Sample #2 cut from the mushroom top portion were tested in general accordance with ASTM D638, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. The following Table 4 summarizes the details of the tensile tests. Page 5 of 8 December 6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 Table 4 — Tensile Stren th Result ummary Sample Specimen Width, Section Section Area Ultimate Load, Tensile Strength, ID in. Thickness, in.' Ibs psi in. 1 0.75 0.100 0.075 539 1 7,190 2 0.57 0.060 0.034 209 1 6,110 "Test specimens were cut to Type I configuration as noted in ASTM X638. ASTM D638 indicates the minimum number of five and 10 test specimens for isotropic and anisotropic materials, respectively; however the number and size of the specimens were limited in order to minimize damage to the existing structure per client's request. The main factor contributing to the variation in the tensile strength between the two samples noted in the table above is likely due to the non - uniformity and surface irregularity of the material since it appeared that the fiberglass shell was hand - molded during fabrication. Therefore, although ultraviolet exposure will affect the material strength degradation over time, it is inconclusive based on this testing to confirm that the deviation in the strength between the two samples was caused by more exposure to sunlight from one area versus the other. F. Foundation Concrete Compression Test A nominal 4 -inch diameter core bit was used to originally obtain one concrete sample for compressive strength testing at one specified location of the sculpture concrete foundation. At approximately 5'/2 inches deep of coring, the sample broke off at a straight planar layer which indicated a topping layer and thus assigned an identification of CR -F -1 for testing traceability purpose. Coring at the same location continued further down to determine the thickness of the foundation but was limited to additional 41/2 inches of depth which the sample was assigned an identification of CR -F -2. Results of the compressive strength test for Samples CR -F -1 and CR -F -2 were 5,530 psi and 7,060 psi, respectively. Detail test results of the compression testing are included in Appendix A. V. Conclusion Based on the results and findings as noted above, and our understanding of the scope of work, we make no statement of compliance or noncompliance to the project specification or standards. Any findings presented in this report were prepared based on our understanding of the scope of work, general accepted and applied engineering principles and practices. The findings are applicable to the area investigated and therefore may or may not represent the structure at its entirety. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. This report was prepared for the above named client to be used at its entirety for investigative and/or design purpose. The use of this report other than noted and portions there of shall be at the user's own discretion based on their own interpretation of the results contained within. In closure, Twining is pleased to be of service to you for this project and we look forward to working with you again in the near future. Please contact us at 562- 513 -1502 or via email atra Jtwinin inc.ron should you have any questions. Page 6 of 8 Respectfully submitted, TWINING INC. EW C64)65 FXP Evaluation Service Manager Page 7 of 8 December 6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 December 6, 2011 Project No.: 110876.1 APPENDIX A NDT and Laboratory Test Reports Page 8 of 8