Discussion of the Results:

Monitoring results:
 A total of 10 ground settlement markers, 37 column settlement markers and 29 Demec
crack width monitoring stations were installed to monitor the movement behavior of
the building block.
 Monitoring stations were set up on some selected columns of the building that had
severely distorted/distressed visibly.
 Places with fewer distress marks were also monitored for comparison reasons. During
20day inspection period, 15 trips were completed, general conclusion of all ground
settlement markers showed fluctuation/deflection throughout the monitoring
inspection. For column settlement markers, 37 of them were divided into two specific
groups based on severe distress signals.

(i) GROUP 1: CS01 to CS19 & CS31 and CS37.

(ii) GROUP 2: CS20 to CS30.

For group (i), markers CS01 to CS05 (minimum -0.4mm to maximum -6.8mm); markers CS31
to CS37 (3 to -3mm); for group (ii) settlement activity in first two readings, was heaving for
the rest of the period.

All the Demec crack with monitoring stations except for D24 was recorded with stable crack
propagation and crack width fluctuating ranging from (0.3 to -0.2mm), a major crack in D24
had widened to 1.1mm but it was stabilized towards the end. The supervision had to be
kept extended to learn more about the patterns and behavior of the cracks.
The Soil and Foundation Investigation:
 Eight rotary boreholes counted were examined (BH1-BH8), out of them seven were
around the building block perimeter and one was near the tube well.
 The tasks were to obtain the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples for laboratory
examinations, excavation in certain selected areas to study about the foundation
system and extraction of soil samples for testing compaction level in the laboratory.
 A Mackintosh probe test was carried out at each of the excavation/trial pit locations
and several selected areas near the building block.
 The soil results showed it was clayey silt material in all the eight boreholes. The
depth for SPT values exceeded 50 and was between (9-17.5m). The topsoil was
(6-10 m) thick very soft compared to clayey silt, underneath the topsoil was very stiff
clayey silt and below there was still competent layers of hard stratum (SPT>=50).
 The two bottom layers were 10 and 15 mm deep respectively. The soil liquid limit
ranged between 41 and 53%, and the plasticity index between 10 and 28%, ground
water level 0.7 and 7m. The filled materials concise of clayey silt with traces of sand
and gravel, contained an SPT value (1 to 39) blows/ 0.3 (averaging =20) and moisture
content (23-36%, averaging 30%).
 Finally, total of seven trail pits were excavated to visualize the actual foundation of
the building, the study shows the system compiled with the original building
specifications

Material testing-Rebar Scanning:

 Total of 87 rebars were scanned on Ferro scan machine on selected RC beams,
columns, slabs, drop manels, the rebar scanning indicated 3 different results, the
percentage of area scanned, the brackets enclosed the values/range (mm) of
concrete cover provision (consistent, inconsistent, excessive/average).
 RC beams: all areas (100%): generally inconsistent, 57% -excessive (35-89mm), 43%-
Consistent average (14-32 mm).
 RC columns: 80% - excessive (35-98 mm), 20% consistent average (18-34 mm).
  RC slabs % drop panels: two scans on 2 selected slab panels (average,16-19mm), and
one selected first floor slab and drop panel (average, 37mm).

Material testing of the core samples:

 Carbonation tests were carried out on some selected concrete samples from site. The
carbonation depth were determined by applying phenolphthalein solution on the
samples. The depths, which relates to the age and durability properties of concrete,
ranged from almost negligible to maximum of 20 mm.
 The findings revealed the carbonation had not reached the rebar zone of the structural
elements, suggesting that no rebar corrosion related problems would occur soon.
 The test also found the presence of plastering and skim coatings which provides some
form of protection.
 Results of the statistical data revealed 95% of the maximum carbonation depth fell
within the range of (0- 14 mm).
 Another test was conducted separately to gauge the density of the concrete material.
The test result revealed to be generally above 2200 kg/m3. This indicated that the
concrete used in the building was super dense and compacted.
 Overall, 95% of the concrete density was above 2230 kg/m3, indicated was in good
condition.
 To perform in situ concrete strength, 26 concrete cores underwent the compressive
strength test in a laboratory. Below are the findings of such tests:
(i) Columns - 6 core samples from ground and 1 st floor columns (17.5-28 N/mm^2
and mean of 22.5 N/mm^2).
(ii) Beams – 3 core samples from selected ground beams (26.5- 31 N/mm^2 and
mean of 28.8 N/mm^2).
-Five core sample from selected 1st floor beams (18-29.5 N/mm^2); core C14
(10.5 N/mm^2).
-2 cores from selected roof beams (19.5 and 10 N/mm^2).
 (iii) Slabs – 3 core samples from selected 1st floor slab (20.5-25.5 N/mm^2 and mean
of 22.5 N/mm^2).
(iv) Pile caps – 6 core samples from exposed pile caps in trial pit area (21.5- 28
N/mm^2 and mean 24.2 N/mm^2).
 The test of statistical analysis of overall concretes comprehensive strength revealed that
95% has exceeded 14N/mm^2.Various compressive strengths were also displayed which
indicates concrete varied in quality, this must be limited to small areas because of only 2
cores showing exceptionally low concrete strength of 10 N/mm^2.

General Structural Inspection:

 Inspection was made on few of the 1 st floor and roof beams to get a general view of the
contract drawings provided, to get a brief history, previous repair work, details of
fortification and so on.
 The structural capacity, maximum bending moment, shear force of the existing structure
could be estimated based on the reinforcements carried out, the existing structures
factor of safety could be estimated based on the facts gathered and working load
condition.
 The 1st floor beams labeled FB6, FB19, FB22 were heavily inspected, the results shows
that all these beams would not require strengthening as the crack width and factor of
safety were adequate.
However, the shear force of the beam FB19 was fragile (safety factor of only 0.89 and
crack width 0.35 mm), therefore this section required reinforcement work on it.
Condition Assessment-Geotechnical Aspects:
The results obtained in the investigation of soil and general survey of the site of the academic
and administrative block suggests that the building is located partially on an excavated land and
partially on filled land, the rear part of the building block I.e. between

Gridlines 11 and 20 is placed on excavated land, the front part between gridlines 1 and 11, is
where the filled land of thickness showed up to about 10 m near gridline 4.

Soil Investigation:
Total of eight boreholes were drilled all around the site, the subsoil generally consisted of
clayey silts, but in the case of boreholes BH-1,BH-2, BH-3,BH-7 and BH-8 indicated very soft to
firm (SPTN<=4) clayey silts extending from the ground surface to a depth pf 6 to 10 m. This soft
soil is kind of filler earth that was dumped in the location long back in past. Otherwise the
building stands completely fine, competent hard stratum of (SPT>= 50) between 10 and 15m
from the actual ground surface.

Underground Water:
The ground levels in the boreholes BH-1to BH-7 indicated low levels between 0.7 to 7m below
the ground surface. The average depth of groundwater was about 4.8 m in height.

Tap groundwater from Tube wells:

The tube wells in the (table7.6) shows they were placed adjacent to the building to draw tap
water from the ground.
Consolidation Settlement and Possible causes:
The vertical displacement of the ground surface indicates there is a change in volume in the
saturated cohesive soils because of excess pore water pressure that fills the space of voids or
pores between the soil particles has already dissipated. The consolidation is a time dependent
rate which in-fact depends on the permeability of subsoil. The time is relatively short with
granular permeable soil but takes long with cohesive impermeable soil. The magnitude of
consolidation can be significant particularly in a compressible soft soil layer. Few possible
causes of consolidation settlement as discussed below:

(i) Lowering of ground water level: It was not realized until the settlements could be
caused by a lowering of groundwater level till Terzaghi’s investigation led in 1920’s
when the concept of effective stress was proposed. For saturated soils, effective stress is
equal to total stress less than pore water pressure,
σ ' =σ−u
 It was noticed that drawdown of groundwater table can cause a significant reduction in
pore water pressure in subsoil resulting in an increase effective stress. This process lead
to consolidation and settlement of subsoil.
A classic example is Mexico City where lowering of the groundwater level has caused
vast areas of the land around the city to settle or subside. In 1948, parts of the city were
settling at a rate of about 1 mm per day. Since measurements began in 1898, more than
6 m of subsidence has been recorded. In this city, consolidation settlement was possibly
due to several factors including lowering of groundwater level beneath the building.

(ii) Soft soil underfill/structure loads: Consolidation settlement exists if a structure or fill is
placed over an existing layer of compressible soft soil.
(iii) Improperly compacted fill materials: Consolidation settlement can also result from
improperly compacted fill materials as they compress under their own weight. If top 6-
10m thick very soft to firm clayey silts encountered in boreholes BH-1 to BH-8 are fill
materials hen consolidation settlement exists.

Negative Skin Friction on pile shafts:

 The consolidation settlement of subsoil results in downward movement, incase of pile
shafts used for supporting structures in areas that undergoes consolidation settlements,
these downward movements will have consequence in drag-down forces on the pile
shafts (generally known as negative skin friction).
 The incidence of negative skin friction on the pile shaft is comparable to imposing an
additional compressive load on to remaining pile. As a result, the remaining pile may
have failed to carry the load that it was designed to withstand within the allowable and
durable limits, thus resulting in excessive pile settlements.
 In its load carrying capacity the existing pile may have failed, if the additional load was
too excessive, either in structural or geotechnical capacity. It is often not easy to
determine whether the whole pile or the individual pile has failed in its capacity or it has
 merely experienced any excessive settlements because the real process may be
deceiving.

Deliberation of the Problems:

General building block problems are related to the following factors:

(i) Consolidation settlements due low groundwater levels, the results showed opposite in this case
the ground settlement and column settlement markers experienced heaves instead of
settlements during the recharge of groundwater at its original level.
(ii) Consolidation due to improper compacted fills, this problem is negligible (due to insignificant
after about 10 years of the completion of building), most of the consolidation must have
occurred during the 10 years and rate of consolidation must reduce with time.
(iii) Excessive pile settlements or insufficient load-carrying capacities in individual or group piles due
to negative skin friction that is induced on pile shafts.
(iv) Unknown condition of existing affected piles i.e. if any piles damaged by the negative skin
friction in the past.
(v) The actual pile length and number of piles driven, and unknown actual loads imposed on piles
after load sharing and redistribution.
(vi) Uncertainties of the previous design of the foundation as it was informed from beginning the
cracks have been visible since the completion of the building.

Proposed remedial work:

The last inspection of the ground and column settlement showed no signs of negative friction in
the pile shafts, the team must still safeguard the long-term performance of the pile foundation.
There are lot of uncertainties and disadvantages in the above discussion from (iii to iv), in view
of this the following remedial work was proposed:

(i) Ignore the working load capacity of already affected piles for the current design.
(ii) Strengthen the affected pile foundations by underpinning with adequate micropiles. A
minimum of two micropiles are required for each affected group of pile.
(iii) Considering adding new pile loads in the existing and newly proposed pile foundation.
 (iv) Some old ones were destroyed due to negative skin friction, details of the proposed
micropile:
 Diameter of micropile: 200mm.
 Estimated length of micropile: 20-30 m.
 Working load of micropile: 50 TONS.
 Usage of minimum grade 30 non-shrink cement grout.

Conditional Assessments - Structural aspects:

The occurrence of differential ground settlement had impacted and caused distortion, deflection on
some structural elements of the building block and architectural damages, such as doors, door frames,
broken windows, ceiling boards etc. Despite all this damage the overall structural integrity of the
building is intact, and the inspection is deemed stable. Structural cracks observed at several location of
1st floor beams and slabs must be reincarnated and strengthened accordingly. The contract drawings of
1st floor missed several beams claiming to be present. Hence the 1 st floor slabs had to be strengthened to
make the structure more solid and rigid.