|
|
This is a very
classical question raised by many graduate engineers.
There are two
schools of thought on this issue
|
The first
school of thought is rather straightforward: the contractor fails to comply
with contractual requirements and therefore as per G. C. C. Clause 54 (2)(c)
[Clause nos will vary depending upon country/organization] the engineer could order suspension of the Works.
Under the conditions of G. C.
C. Clause 54(2)(a) – (d), the contractor is not entitled to any claims of cost
which is the main concern for most engineers. This is the contractual power
given to the Engineer in case of any failure in tests required by the contract,
even though some engineers argue that slump tests are not as important as other
tests like compression test.
The second
school of thought is to let the contractor to continue their concreting works
and later on request
the contractor to
prove that the
finished works comply
with other contractual requirements
e.g. compression test.
This is based
upon the belief
that workability is mainly required to achieve design concrete
compression strength. In case the compression test also
fails, the contractor should demolish and reconstruct the works accordingly. In fact, this is a rather
passive way of treating construction works and is not recommended because of
the following reasons:
(i) Workability of freshly placed concrete
is related not only to strength but also to durability of concrete. Even if the
future compression test passes, failing in slump test indicates that it may
have adverse impact to durability of completed concrete structures.
(ii) In case the compression test fails, the
contractor has to deploy extra time and resources to remove the work and
reconstruct them once again and this slows down the progress of works significantly. Hence, in view of such likely
probability of occurrence, why shouldn’t the Engineer exercise his power to stop the contractor and
save these extra time and cost?
*
* * * *
