Back to Basic - Remeasurement

what do you mean? are you doing a structural design or just taking the quantity of reinforced concrete?

if it is design, you do some structural calculations!

if it is just quantities, then check the details of your drawings!

Thanks for replying. - The structural framework of the project is already completed. It is a contractual matter. I am talking about the common volume of concrete when beams intersect the column. Where would that volume be added- to column qty. or to beam? Usually, it is on column.

Right away, anyone would say that it would be a minimal quantity, but not on this project. There is also big difference in their rates.

Our Method of Measurement does not say the delineation of qty. when beams cross the column.

I am looking for a written guideline of a reputable standard.

Thanks once again.

you have to illustrate it in a detailed manner (if you got the drawings). I don’t see any problem with that. It’s just a matter of presentation and calculations in terms of cubic meters or whatever.

make a tabulation of the dimensions of your columns and beams (supported by your drawing / detail)

Hernan,

Usual computation especially if beams width is larger than thickness of column when it crosses the method of measurement should use a beam rate. It is also clearly shown on the drawing that the beam number/name or beam tag number is the same after crossing the column. You can make an argument by showing the detail drawings and rebar schedule. Lintel beam are normally end from column to column and the column rates prevails. Maybe you can use the detail drawing as reference. Column name or column tag number change on every floor or levels. There should be a heavy civil or building pagination that you can use as another reference. Strange to hear that does not defined in your contract method of measurements especially on bulk quantities that you mentioned.

Rodel

Rodel,

Thanks alot. - You have a valid point. But not all beams maintain their tag when crossing the column, and generally beam widths are smaller than column thickness. Our case, the column has the higher rate than that of the beam.

Yes, it is strange that such condition is not defined in our method of measurement.

Hernan

Can I make a suggestion?
Consider the formwork, measure the formwork for the beam and the concrete and re-bar contained.
Do the same for the column, in other words measure the beam from face of column to face of column. The column is measured from top of slab to top of slab.

I am only a mere planner with no QS training so I may be barking up the wrong tree.

Hernan,

If the thickness of the column is larger than the width of the beam, I think you have a valid reason of claiming the column rate. You can argue that beam tag number ends on the face of the column. It also make easier when you do the quantification so you don’t need to subtract the beam volume on the column volume. You maybe face the same problem on the slab if that is also a separate rate. In case that slab rate is same rate as beam I’m afraid you need to follow the beam rate. Good Luck.

Andrew/Rodel/Clive,

Thanks...
Andrew, we took a stand just like you’ve said. It is not a close chapter yet, and I am looking at 70/30% sharing of the common volume.

Regards,

Hernan