Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rev 1 Structrl Report Izki Roof BM Cracks 26 July 2017
Rev 1 Structrl Report Izki Roof BM Cracks 26 July 2017
INVESTIGATION
REPORT ON
BEAM CRACKS
AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
OF IZKI A&E
18 July 2017
SITE DESCRIPTION :
INSPECTION NOTES :
Figure 1A
The following observations and documents had been noted at site :
General Structural Notes for the Project
Below is the roof framing used in actual construction with an adjustment from entrance porch ( width of 2.395m
increased to 5.10m. )
Figure 2A
Figure 2B
The Contractor provided details of the Package Unit as shown in this picture. All the package units PACU A,B and
C had the same plinth sizes of approx. 2.80mL x2.80mWx0.30mThk on Proprietary Floating Floor System to
minimize the effects of vibration during actual operation. Slab openings for their ducts was designed to be
approx. 1.20m x 2.80m and also input in the software model.
PACU - 3 Equipment Plinth 2.80x2.80x0.30m
Figure 2C
The Contractor provided this plan showing the exact
locations of the Package Unit Plinths / Pads with their
corresponding slab openings. These are included as
inputs in the SAFE software model of the Roof Framing
as shown in Figure 5 .
Dead Load :
Ceiling / Services / Ductworks = 0.30 Kpa
40mm thk Precast Concrete Tiles = 1.00 Kpa
Lightweight Screed (100mm thk ave.) = 1.50 Kpa
Waterproofing / Insulation = 0.10 Kpa
Total Superimposed Dead Load = 2.90 Kpa
Live Load :
Construction / Maintenance (Minimum) = 1.00 Kpa
Mechanical Load :
PACU units and plinth / pad = 9.00 Kpa
Material Strengths :
Concrete :
28th Day Compressive Cube Strength , fcu = 35 N/mm2
Reinforcing Steel :
Yield Strength of Reinforcing Bar , fy = 420 N/mm2
Density of Materials
Reinforced Concrete = 25 KN / m3
Figure 3A
Slabs S2 and S3 are 150mm thick
as marked on the left and the
rest S1 are all 200mm slabs .
Slab S2
Slab S3
Figure 3B
The Design Slab Form on the right shows that
T12-100 rebars top & bottom are sufficient in
theory to sustain the loads for the slabs .
Figure 4A
All the Roof Beam main reinforcements for top / bottom from ETABS / SAFE analysis are well above
the reinforcements provided by the Roof Beam Schedule in Figure 4B EXCEPT the Roof Beams
marked in this figure that is , these beams RB6 theoretically seem to require more main
reinforcements as that shown in the beam schedule below.
Item No. 5 Site pictures and measurements of the cracks were taken at site last July 2017 following a request
by the MOH Site Engineer . The following observations were noted :
Cracks roughly vertical running most of the time
across the holes produced by tie rods. Will not be
Vertical Crack from Slab
seen easily at ground level. There was a need to
climb up a ladder to take a closer look at these
cracks.
Figure 5A
This is a typical scenario for the roof beams at
the site . Most cracks are formed vertical and
across the tie rod holes situated 1.20m apart and
these cracks are almost on every roof beam.
Figure 5B
This picture shows a typical crack where the crack width is
larger at the top compared to that at the bottom .
In this case , the crack width at the top near the slab soffit is
0.80mm as shown on the crack width gauge where at the
bottom is it around 0.60mm.
Item No. 6 This is another crack but similar to that in Figure 5 but showing narrower crack, however in this
case , reaches beyond to the slab ( this is also near midspan of the beam )
At some portions of the structure like this one at beam midspan ,
crack also formed on the slab soffit as continuation of crack at
the beam top which strongly suggest that beam and slab are
poured monolithic.
Figure 6A The picture above shows that beam and slab are monolithic , which is OK , however , the tension that
causes the cracks are on the top which is NOT NORMALLY LOGICAL at MIDSPAN . The usual beam crack types are
seen in Figure 6B .
Figure 6B
These are the usual crack types DUE TO
LOADS AND THEREFORE , considered
STRUCTURALLY CRITICAL.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH OUR
CRACKS. Note also that these cracks is
the main result of insufficient beam size
design or overloading .
Figure 6C
Tie rods/sleeves 25mm in diameter are used to hold the formworks during concrete pour. Most of the tie rods
are located 10 to 15 cm. from beam bottom. In our experience throughout the Gulf Region, we often use tie rods
for compression intensive elements such as tall columns or walls . where it is very impractical to brace with
inclined formwork shores from ground level .
Seldom we use tie rods on beams , only when the beam is very wide and beam bottom is very high from ground
such as those for the coping beams of flyovers / bridges . We use clamps for beams instead.
Item No. 7 Shown below is the Scope of Optimal but Efficient Repair for the Roof Beam cracks suggested
Figure 7A
The sketch of the bending
moment of the Mechanical loads
from the PACU as per its operating
location is shown above.
Figure 8A
The beams marked in this figure do not have sufficient block walls below them to somehow
minimize future vertical deflection and control &help warn us about any further movements . Also ,
these beams which span 5m to 7m, could deflect more after developing cracks.
Note also that the beam marked here shown horizontally , carries on top of it package unit C
which will induce vibrations in its future operations while underneath it is a wide glass window.
Hence , the decision to retrofit these long span beams with steel channel at the beam bottom
will improve their serviceability in terms of user safety.
A steel channel section preferably a rolled PFC ( parallel flange channel ) section of proper size
will be selected to fit the bottom of the concrete beam . Grade 8.8 bolts amply spaced to be designed to
sustain horizontal sliding shear assuming a composite action between steel channel and reinforced
concrete beam. The bolts will carry shear primarily and should be fitted into the beam bottom either
chemically or mechanically ( as in using appropriate expansion bolts ).
Preliminary details for these retrofits are shown in Item 9.
Item No. 9 This is a CAD sketch of the Steel Retrofit Suggested by us for the Bottom of the R.C. Beams
marked in Figure 8A to improve the Serviceability of the Roof during the Operation . The Contractor has to
submit the Company Profile of the Repair Specialist , their Method Statement and Material Approval Sheet for
the Repair Products to be used.
Figure 9A
The preferred retrofit detail is originally that of carbon fiber strip to be installed at the bottom of the beam.
However , this technology is not popular in Oman , and therefore , considered very rare and expensive .
Therefore , instead of carbon fiber , we will use mild steel channel with dimensions selected to fit the bottom
width of the reinforced concrete beam using Grade 8.8 bolts at ample spacing designed to transfer horizontal
sliding shear between beam and channel, both materials acting as a composite section.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND FINALISED RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion A
The 28th day compressive strength results for the roof slab and beam concrete in Figure 1B, are well
within the acceptable standards as per the design criteria of Grade C35 , which means that the inferior concrete
mix is NOT the main cause for the cracks .
Conclusion B
The superimposed DEAD LOADS on the roof which includes the 40mm thick concrete tiles as well as the
100mm thick ( ave. thickness ) of the lightweight screed HAD BEEN ENFORCED AT SITE as per information
provided by the MOH Engineer for this project. Therefore , THERE IS NO OVERLOADING OF THE ROOF as per
present condition of loading and therefore , THE PRESENT ROOF LOADINGS INCLUDING THE PACKAGE UNITS
WILL NOT CAUSE THESE BEAM CRACKS as per our analysis.
Conclusion C
As a continuation of Conclusion B , the NATURE OF THE WIDTH and ORIENTATION of the CRACKS
SUGGEST that they are NOT CAUSED BY DIAGONAL SHEAR OR BENDING TENSION DUE TO NORMAL STRUCTURAL
GRAVITY LOADS as shown in Figure 6B.
Conclusion D
The roof slabs are sufficiently designed as regards to thickness and rebars considering all gravity loads
( dead , live and mechanical – package units) based on SAFE software results analysis as in Figure 3B.
The roof beams are also analysed carefully using ETABS / SAFE software and found to be sufficient to
sustain all the gravity loads ( dead , live and mechanical ) as well as the additive effects of wind and seismic
parameters as applied in Oman, specifically in the governorate of Dhakliyah.
We can conclude therefore that the VERTICAL CRACKS on the ROOF BEAMS RB1 , RB2 , RB3 , RB4 and RB5
ARE NOT CAUSED BY INSUFFICIENT CONCRETE DESIGN .
Conclusion E
As an exemption from Conclusion D , INTERNAL ROOF BEAMS RB6 as marked in Figure 8A , however ,
SEEMED TO LACK MAIN REINFORCEMENT as per analysis . Therefore , WE RECOMMEND RETROFITTING of the
bottom of these Internal Roof Beams by Carbon fiber or preferably the Steel Channel in Figure 9A.
Conclusion F
The following factors MIGHT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE INITIAL FORMATION OF MICROCRACKS AND THEIR
DEVELOPMENT INTO MEDIUM SIZED CRACKS :
Use of tie rods ( instead of clamps ) as supports for the roof beam shuttering ( use of clamps could have
avoided stress concentration on the tie rod holes when subjected to any type of tension ).
However , tie rods are acceptable for compression intensive elements such as columns and walls.
The tie rods are placed near the beam bottom ( we deem it preferable that these rods be placed at
beam mid depth where flexural tension is minimal ) .
Probable removal of the tie rods when concrete has not yet attained its desired initial strength .
Unmindful careless removal of tie rods and shuttering could have lead to accidental horizontal loads to
cause lateral buckling on the beam web enough to induce these vertical side cracks.
In supporting the beam after the removal of formworks, partial removal of some reshores earlier than
the usual as well as the adjustments of the base jacks of the reshores going beyond their intension say
of cambering , might have caused reversal of bending leading to tension on the upper side of the beam
at some locations .
Seasonal variations in temperature of concrete throughout the course of time of the project.
Shrinkage or continued drying of the surface concrete faster than that of the interior concrete.
Possible double handling of the package units on the Roof before they were finally placed on their
appropriate locations.
Conclusion G
Vibrations due to future operations of all the package units ( 3 nos. ) could lead to further movement of
these cracks on beams in the vicinity of the package units. ONLY THOSE BEAMS as shown in FIGURE 7B that are
probable to be DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE OPERATIONAL VIBRATIONS OF THE PACKAGE UNITS WILL BE TREATED
BY CONCRETE CRACK REPAIR EPOXY INJECTION CHEMICALS with prior approval by the MOH Engineer. METHOD
STATEMENTS ON APPLICATION as well as MATERIAL SHEETS FOR THE REPAIR PRODUCTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED
BY SPECIALIST SUPPLIERS / INSTALLERS to be approved by the Engineer before actual usage at site.
Conclusion H
As an offshoot from Conclusion G , TWO BEAMS IN THE VICINITY OF PACKAGE UNIT C as shown in Figure
8A NEEDS TO BE RETROFITTED as per detail in Figure 9A .
WITH THE UNFORTUNATE OCCURRENCE OF THESE UNEXPECTED CRACKS, the purpose of the retrofit is to
IMPROVE THE SERVICEABILITY OF THESE BEAMS FOR THE SENSE OF SECURITY OF THE USERS STAYING UNDER THE
7.0M BEAM SPANS .
Conclusion J
Also , the Internal Roof Beams RB6 as marked in Figure 8A needs additional longitudinal rebars as shown
by the structural analysis. If the LACK OF THESE REBARS HAD NOT BEEN DOCUMENTED TO BE ADJUSTED AND
MET AT SITE , WE WILL BE ENFORCING THESE RETROFITS (FIGURE 9A) TO ENSURE THE SERVICEABILITY AND
DURABILITY OF THE ENTRANCE PORCH
Prepared By :
Eng’r Wilfredo
Engr. Suveesh