088-1998 LTC
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
L.T.C. No.SS-199S
LETTER TO COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
Sergio Rodriguez /11 ,
City Manager
FROM:
SUBJECT:
UPDATE ON LOEWS STRUCTURAL PEER REVIEW
Both the City's independent peer review structural engineer, Herbert Gopman, and Loews peer
review structural engineer, Y srael Seinuk, are proceeding toward concluding their evaluations.
This afternoon, Herbert Gopman faxed to the City a draft preliminary letter. The document is
unsigned and unsealed. It is attached for your information. A meeting was already scheduled (prior
to receipt of the Gopman letter) for all engineers to meet and discuss their conclusions on Friday,
June 19, 1998. The purpose of the meeting is to review the various reports and to arrive at collective
recommendations for corrective work on deficiencies so that remedial action can begin as soon as
possible.
There is no direct liability to the City or RDA. The developer is responsible for all development cost
overruns.
SR:HSM:jph
Attachment
F:\CMGR\$ALL\L TC.98\LOEWS.WPD
l
{
I
I
I
I
I
1
'1
j
1
1
i
I
I
J
i
i
j
I
:l
I
I
'1
This is the conclusion 10 our investiga ion of t+ wind resisting system of the Lo
,j
Our investigation was based on CUlT 1 requirfents of the South Florida Building ~ode which
adopts the wind load criteria of AS.C E. 7-93; The a.ct~ values used came from e final
determinations as arrivc;d from the . tunnel tests results ofRowan-W1l1iams-D 's and Irwin
ofOuclph, Ontario. ,
,
Calculations made for our detenninati ns cam~ from two different sources, one & a consultant
we retained, using a three dimensio~ analysi . different from our use, and an in ho se analysis
uaina the oommonly used three dimenlnonal ysis known as E-tabs. In both cas ,the final
results agreed that tbe wind frames~t olwnn, nes 3,4 and 6 were significantly un erdesigned, in
some cases greater than four times allow, e design values when considering t e allowable
capacities of the piles under the Cram . The , es themselves below the fourth I el were .
significantly underdeiigned to the ext t of e their allowable values. The stru al wind '
system does work above the fourth l,eI. ther' is a very large decrease in building titmess below
the fourth level. The comparison madf was as: ollows: '
The top habitable floor bas a drift ra~" ofUI' 8. or a drift in inches of 11.03". Th 4lh tloor has a
drift ratio ofU196 or a drift in inche of 4.8" , . though these exceed the comfort evel of the ·
buildine. and in aIllikelibood the bu' , ing will evacuated. it is likely that the b ' ing cladding
will be affected prior to any structur' failure. . nonnal design comfort level (n a code
requirement) is from U300 to U400, repend" gon the feeling ohhe design engin r..
Additionally. we checked the wind re~sta.nce t wind forces of 75 miles per hour ( onsidered
I
maximum summer winds), the wind' es 'e found to be capable of sustaining these forces,
however some of the pile caps were '11 susp as there appeared to be a lack of fficient piles
JUN-16-199S 15:24
Mr. Phil Azan
City of Miami Beach
Building DepastJUont
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
RE: Loews Hotel
Dear Mr. Azan:
P.01
I
I
I
I
"
I I
- I I
, l
in some of the smaller caps of the tr*1 er ~s.
Since our analysis was based on inte tion, , at is to say there would be a load di
thin frames of the building, there stiU ~sts th' probability that these thinner fram
the distribution since they have not ~. n pro ' Iy reinforced. The distributed fore
to the stiffer frames, imposing even ore 10 than our analysis shows.
In concluding our repon, the investi tion sh '
and 6 from the 4. level down, these '1 elude t Columns, beams, piles and pile ca .
In order to more equally distribute th~ forces , by the building and not allow torsional
distribution to other frames and thus tJVCrloadithem. it is _sled that the conce trlIlion of
repairs be made within the vicinity o~framc Ii s 3,4 and 6.
To further expand on this last comm~t, our : alysis shows that the Shearwal1s re aining at the
lower levels defined 89 Shearwall~ t, p and 3 ~n the West side near the retail area, arc also
deficient in reinforcing. This conditio-p is projbly correctable by elimin~ting the ccssivc
torsional forces thrown into the stru ure 6-0 tbe defective wind frames 3. 4 and . If a
correction can be focused in the East a, an ther analysis would probably show e West si~ to
be sufficient. 1 ~
J
I
GOPMAN CONSULTING ENT' l'
I 1
,I
I
I
1
I
1
t
P.02
!
I
I
I
I
1
JUN-16-199S 15:25
Respectfully Submitted,
Herbert L. Gopman, P,E.
June 16, 1998
C'loe~lct
.,
'.
TOTAL P.02