structural concrete freeze damage

huangyhg

structural concrete freeze damage
a contractor has built several structural foundations.  they were built and cured according to project and aci specifications.  these foundations contain block-outs and embedded metals (i.e. anchor bolts with and without sleeves or cans).  the contractor was given a completion date and was to be done in the fall.  he finished and the structures sat idle until the subsequent contractor was to take the area over.  since the completion date, it has rained, snowed, froze, and thawed while these foundations were exposed to the elements.  water/ice sat in the block-outs and in the cans and now there is thermal/freeze damage to the concrete, especially between the embeds.  the engineer is saying that this is a warranty issue while the contractor disagrees since he met the completion date and was out of the area.
has anyone ever dealt with this situation before?  which party is correct?  what documentation is out there to prove this?
thank you for your input.
this type of situation is a common problem. the best documentation is the contract itself. imho, if the contract is mute on "protection of the finished (and accepted) work", then the contractor is off the hook. since the engineer is having to rely on calling the problem "a warranty issue" (instead of pointing to specific contract language), it sound like the contract is flawed and the damage is not the contractor's responsibility.
i agree with sre.  unless the contract required the foundation installer to protect the blockouts, he is not responsible.
it depends on who is actually responsible for the project oversight.  is it a gc (general contractor) project?  a cm (construction mgt) project.  that is ultimately where the responsibility will lie, who is in control of the project?
good point.
as noted...it's likely a contractual issue.  fundamentally, it likely has not significantly affected the performance of the concrete.
ron could be right that no significant damage has been done, but then again he could be wrong.  if i were the owner, i would want to be sure.  ice occupies 4% more volume than liquid water, so expansive pressures are large.
hokie...you're right, i could be wrong!  generally though, one would expect that in that climate, the concrete would be air entrained.  given that, any damage would be either superficial or blatantly obvious.
i quick visual inspection would detect the obvious. if you wanted to check for microcracking, a core could be taken and petrography done on it to check for such damage.
i thought the op's statement that there was damage meant that there were visual cracks caused by the expansive force of water splitting the concrete.
hokie66,
yes, there are visual cracks in the concrete.  the cracks seem to extend between the bolt cans which leads me to believe that ice in the cans expanded and caused the cracking.  the biggest question is: is the contractor responsible for this fix?  as previously stated, the contractor had completed the foundation and the area has been turned over to the subsequent contractor.  it seems to me that the damage was out of the contractor's control, and this cannot be blamed on workmanship.
by the way, the air content was around 6%.  
if there was an official turnover from one contractor to another, surely the first contractor is not responsible.  whether or not the second contractor assumed liability for protecting the footings probably depends on his contract.