REPORT ON AN IN-SITU INTEGRITY TEST

[NON-DESTRUCTIVE] OF COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

ON PROPERTY BELONGING TO

CHRIST IMAGE ASSEMBLY

AT

16, ABRAHAM AKINOLA, MANGORO,

ONIPETESI ESTATE, LAGOS STATE.

CONDUCTED AND PREPARED BY;

SKAAP CONSULT
SUITE 202, ALL SEASON’S PLACE, 74 ISHERI ROAD, BESIDE FRSC, OJODU
BERGER, LAGOS STATE

REF: SKAAP/NDT/589

LSMTL/2020/LAB-REG/D/003

August, 2023
 Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Site Location ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Purpose of Investigation ............................................................................................................... 6
4.0 Field/Scope of work ........................................................................................................................ 7
5.0 Visual Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 8
6.0 Measurement of Concrete Strength and Methodology ........................................................ 9
7.0 Analysis of the Result .................................................................................................................. 10
8.0 Summary of result ........................................................................................................................ 13
9.0 Conclusion and Recommendation(s)....................................................................................... 14
Appendix...................................................................................................................................................... 15

2
 List of Tables

Table 1: UPV test result of the points tested on ground floor columns............................................................. 11
Table 2: Summary of test result on the building............................................................................................... 13

3
1.0 Introduction

Many times, concrete is viewed as a maintenance-free material and if properly

proportioned and placed, concrete will have a very long service life, usually without

the need for any maintenance, at least for some time. Unfortunately, there are

times when the concrete does need maintenance to extend or prolong its service

life. Concrete in these circumstances should be inspected regularly to ensure that

it is receiving the maintenance necessary to retain serviceability. The diagnostic

phase is crucial for structural safety evaluation, especially for monitoring and

maintenance processes. The test available for testing concrete range from the

completely non-destructive, where there is no damage to the concrete, to those

where the concrete surface is slightly damaged known as semi destructive test

(such as core test, pull out and pull off test), in the case of the semi destructive

the surface has to be repaired after the test. In some cases, it is also possible to

check the quality of workmanship, structural integrity, detect voids, cracks and

delamination in structural elements.

This report presents the results of a non-destructive structural (in-situ) integrity

test conducted on a property belonging to Christ Image Assembly. At the time of

the test, Mr. Olutola Niyi witnessed the field activities. The SKAAP CONSULT staff

for the field activities are:

1. Mr. Madoti Oluwadamilare

2. Mr. Ajibade Yusuff
3. Mr. Ahmad Tijani
4. Mr. Oyedele Ridwan

4
2.0 Site Location

The site is located at 16, Abraham Akinola, Mangoro, Onipetesi Estate, Lagos State.

The coordinate is 6.602797N, 3.322142E. The image below shows the satellite

view of the location of the structure.

5
3.0 Purpose of Investigation

A Non-Destructive Test (NDT) is required for the following purposes:

I. To determine the stability and integrity of the building.

II. To determine the compressive strength of the structural elements of the

building with respect to BS EN 12504-4:2004 (testing concrete).

III. Using the results obtained to proffer reasonable recommendation(s)

concerning the structure where necessary.

This is in line with Lagos State Government’s effort to reduce the incidence of

building collapse within the geographical boundary of Lagos State.

6
4.0 Field/Scope of work

The test was conducted on August 29, 2023. The scope of work done is as follows;

I. Reconnaissance survey to verify the physical state of the structure.

II. Probing of the structures with the re-bar detector (profoscope) for the

structural element.

III. Concrete strength test using the Portable Ultrasonic Non-Destructive

Digital Indicating Tester (PUNDIT) on the structural members.

Before the commencement of the test, the PUNDIT was calibrated. Indirect method

was employed using 120mm spacing then, three (3) test points were randomly

selected to get a good representation and result on each structural member,

according to BS EN12504-4:2004, for testing concrete.

7
5.0 E3e3E3e3E3e343Visual Assessment

Visual observation(s) does not completely represent the structural status of the

building, but in association with the scientific analysis (interpretations made from

the NDT results) which gives an estimation of the Equivalent Compressive Strength

(E.C.S) of the structural elements, a more defined conclusion and

recommendation(s) would be achieved. At the time of test, the following were

noted and recorded;

 The structure is a single floor building used for a commercial (religious) purpose

[see picture 1].

 The building has been built over 20 years ago.

 The building was gutted by fire 2 years ago.

 Dilapidated roof was noticed on the building [see picture 2].

 Spalling was noticed on the building external block wall around the window area

[see picture 3].

 Corrosion cracks were noticed on some columns while majority of the block

walls have also cracked [see picture 4].

 Plant growth was noticed in the building [see picture 5].

 Flaking of paint was noticed on columns and block wall of the building [see

picture 6].

 Exposed and corroded reinforcement bars were noticed in the building columns

[see picture 7].

 Crack was noticed on the window lintel of the building [see picture 8].

 There was no sign of foundation settlement noticed on the building at the time

of test.

8
6.0 Measurement of Concrete Strength and Methodology

The test was carried out using the portable Ultrasonic Non-Destructive Digital

Indicating Tester (PUNDIT). The test was carried out in accordance to BS EN

12504-4; 2004; Recommendation for Measurement of Velocity of Ultrasonic Pulses

in Concretes.

Using the Portable Ultrasonic Non-Destructive Digital Indicating Tester (PUNDIT),

a pulse of longitudinal vibrations is produced by an electro-acoustical transducer

(transmitter), which is held in contact with one surface of the concrete under test.

When the pulse generated is transmitted into the concrete from the transducer

using a semi- liquid coupling material, it undergoes multiple refractions at the

boundaries of the different material phases within the concrete and is then received

by another electro-acoustical transducer (receiver) held in contact with the surface

under test at some distance away from the transmitter, this distance is called the

path length.

A complex system of stress waves develops which includes both longitudinal and

shear waves, and propagates through the concrete. The first waves to reach the

receiving transducer are the longitudinal waves, which are converted into an

electrical signal by the receiving transducer. Electronic timing circuits enable the

transit time (T) of the pulse to be measured. This test is conducted for assessing

the quality and integrity of concrete by passing ultrasound waves through the

specimen under test.

9
7.0 Analysis of the Result

The tables below show the analysis of the test carried out on the floor of the

building. Since the structural drawing was not provided, an assumed design

strength of 25N/mm2 was used to analyze the structural members as

recommended in the standard code of practice (BS 8110).

10
 Table 1: UPV test result of the points tested on ground floor columns

EQUIVALENT
PATH AVERAGE
STRUCTURAL TRANSMISSION VELOCITY COMPRESSIVE
TRIALS LENGTH (E.C.S) REMARK
ELEMENT TIME (µs) (Km/s) STRENGTH
(mm) (N/mm^2)
(E.C.S)
A 28.5 120 4.21 28.48
C1 B 29.9 120 4.01 25.63 26.83 GOOD
C 29.5 120 4.07 26.38
A 29.6 120 4.05 26.19
C2 B 30.3 120 3.96 24.91 26.31 GOOD
C 28.8 120 4.17 27.82
A 28.5 120 4.21 28.48
C3 B 30.7 120 3.91 24.23 26.11 GOOD
C 29.9 120 4.01 25.63
A 36.3 120 3.31 17.56
C4 B 38.1 120 3.15 16.15 15.65 POOR
C 43.2 120 2.78 13.24
A 45.8 120 2.62 12.17
C5 B 48.3 120 2.48 11.32 12.03 POOR
C 44.7 120 2.68 12.60
A 30.3 120 3.96 24.91
C6 B 28.4 120 4.23 28.70 26.80 GOOD
C 29.3 120 4.10 26.78
A 42.9 120 2.80 13.38
C7 B 48.4 120 2.48 11.29 13.09 POOR
C 40.5 120 2.96 14.62
A 48.5 120 2.47 11.26
C8 B 43.5 120 2.76 13.11 12.99 POOR
C 40.5 120 2.96 14.62
A 29.6 120 4.05 26.19
C9 B 30.2 120 3.97 25.09 26.15 GOOD
C 29.1 120 4.12 27.18
A 45.3 120 2.65 12.36
C10 B 35.8 120 3.35 18.00 15.17 POOR
C 39.6 120 3.03 15.15
A 47.8 120 2.51 11.48
C11 B 38.9 120 3.08 15.60 14.10 POOR
C 39.5 120 3.04 15.22
A 48.9 120 2.45 11.14
C12 B 43.8 120 2.74 12.97 12.91 POOR
C 40.5 120 2.96 14.62
A 30.5 120 3.93 24.57
C13 26.18 GOOD
B 29.3 120 4.10 26.78

11
 C 29.1 120 4.12 27.18
A 39.7 120 3.02 15.09
C14 B 38.5 120 3.12 15.87 14.69 POOR
C 43.5 120 2.76 13.11
A 28.7 120 4.18 28.03
C15 B 29.8 120 4.03 25.81 26.37 GOOD
C 30.1 120 3.99 25.26
A 29.8 120 4.03 25.81
C16 B 29.6 120 4.05 26.19 26.13 GOOD
C 29.5 120 4.07 26.38
A 29.0 120 4.14 27.39
C17 B 29.2 120 4.11 26.98 27.85 GOOD
C 28.2 120 4.26 29.17
A 39.8 120 3.02 15.03
C18 B 42.1 120 2.85 13.76 14.49 POOR
C 40.4 120 2.97 14.67
A 28.5 120 4.21 28.48
C19 B 28.9 120 4.15 27.60 27.62 GOOD
C 29.3 120 4.10 26.78
A 28.1 120 4.27 29.40
C20 B 30.4 120 3.95 24.74 27.46 GOOD
C 28.6 120 4.20 28.25
A 29.5 120 4.07 26.38
C21 B 30.5 120 3.93 24.57 26.05 GOOD
C 29.1 120 4.12 27.18
A 45.1 120 2.66 12.44
C22 B 48.3 120 2.48 11.32 12.93 POOR
C 39.8 120 3.02 15.03
A 30.4 120 3.95 24.74
C23 B 28.2 120 4.26 29.17 27.24 GOOD
C 28.8 120 4.17 27.82
A 30.8 120 3.90 24.07
C24 B 30.5 120 3.93 24.57 25.93 GOOD
C 28.2 120 4.26 29.17
A 29.1 120 4.12 27.18
C25 B 29.7 120 4.04 26.00 27.53 GOOD
C 28.1 120 4.27 29.40
A 28.7 120 4.18 28.03
C26 B 29.9 120 4.01 25.63 27.23 GOOD
C 28.7 120 4.18 28.03
A 30.6 120 3.92 24.40
C27 B 28.2 120 4.26 29.17 26.92 GOOD
C 29.1 120 4.12 27.18

12
8.0 Summary of result

The table below shows the summary of the test done on the building.

Table 2: Summary of test result on the building

Total
Number Number Percentage Percentage
Floors Elements number
of good of poor good (%) poor (%)
tested

GROUND FLOOR Column 27 17 10 63 37

13
9.0 Conclusion and Recommendation(s)

An in-situ non-destructive super-structural investigation on the property was

conducted to obtain a reliable structural information that relies on rigorous

observations, and collection of data that adequately describes the building.

From the scientific analysis carried out, over 50% of the structural elements tested

have estimated compressive strength above the design strength of 25N/mm2

adopted for the structure.

Furthermore, the visual observation revealed that there were several structural

defects noticed on the building. Due to these findings, the following

recommendation(s) should be taken into consideration;

 Poorly rated columns should be identified and properly strengthened or replaced

following the recommendation and supervision of a qualified structural engineer.

 The walls of the building should be carefully broken down and replaced.

 Defects noticed in the building (such as spalling and exposed reinforcement

bars, cracks, plant growth, flaking of paint) should be properly repaired.

 On completion, good maintenance culture should be adopted to guarantee

the integrity, stability and serviceability of the building.

Note: This report presents the status of the building at the superstructure
only.

In these circumstances, it is essential to state clearly that non-adherence to the

recommendation(s) excludes us of any responsibility.

We hope you find this report useful and kindly contact us for any clarifications.

…………………………………………
Engr. Komolafe Bolatito A.
For: SKAAP Consult

14
Appendix

15
 Picture 1: view of the tested building

Picture 2: dilapidated roof due to fire outbreak in the building

Picture 3: spalling on external block wall of the building around the window area

16
 Picture 4: cracks noticed on columns of the building

Picture 5: plant growths noticed in the building

Picture 6: flaking of paint noticed on block wall and columns of the building

17
 Picture 7: exposed and corroded Picture 8: crack noticed on the window
reinforcement bar in a column lintel of the building

Picture 9: probing for structural element Picture 10:test procedure using PUNDIT

18
Fig 1. Building sketch showing points/areas tested on the ground floor

19