STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSEMENT REPORT FOR AN

EXISTING TWO-STOREY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT FOR

EDNA QUAGRAINE AT OKPOI-GONNO,
KROMA – ACCRA

CLIENT: PREPARED BY:

Edna Quagraine Ing. Eric Owusu
Okpoi-Gonno, Kroma Adenta P&T
Accra

May, 2019

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the investigations, analysis and interpretation of results obtained from
conducting a structural integrity assessment on a two (2) storey residential building for Edna
Quagraine in Okpoi Gonno, Accra. This integrity assessment has been a necessity as the client seeks
a confirmation that the property is structurally safe for habitation.
The scope of services was to provide a detailed structural assessment of all the structural members
from the foundation to the roof and to identify deficiencies in any of structural members and provide
an interpretation of these deficiencies. In response to the scope, the following activities was
undertaken:
i) Physical inspection of the existing structure to identify any defects or signs of defects
ii) Determine the structural adequacy of the main structural members (i.e. foundation, columns,
beams and slab) under investigation
iii) Comment and advice the client as to whether or not the structure is safe for its intended load
without yielding to failure.
Field assessment tests were carried on 1st May 2019 so as to have a clear understanding of the
existing site conditions based on which analysis and design can be performed. Non-destructive tests
were carried out on the buildings to determine the compressive strength of the concrete structural
members as well as to identify the numbers and sizes of reinforcements in these members. =l
Results from the site investigations and the subsequent analysis concludes that, the existing structure
is capable of supporting the intended design load, as a residential apartment, without yielding to
failure without any further modification or strengthening.
Limitations to the investigation and Assumptions made during analysis have been affixed to the
report.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 SCOPE OF WORKS ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND BUILDING ........................................................................................ 5
2.1 The Structural System ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Sub-Structure ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Super Structure......................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 7
3.1 Visual/Physical Observation .......................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Non-Destructive Strength Tests .................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Elcometer 331 Covermeter ........................................................................................................... 9
4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................... 10
4.1 Visual/Physical Observations ...................................................................................................... 10
4.1.1 Survey of Loading on the Building Structure ........................................................................ 10
4.1.2 Survey of Addition or Alteration Works to Building Structure .............................................. 10
4.1.3 Other Surveys ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Non-Destructive Strength Test .................................................................................................... 10
4.2.1 Rebound Hammers ............................................................................................................. 10
4.2.2 Elcometer 331 Covermeter Test Results .............................................................................. 11
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.................................................................................................................. 12
6.0 DISCUSSIONS.................................................................................................................................. 13
6.1 Foundation ................................................................................................................................. 13
6.2 Columns ..................................................................................................................................... 13
6.3 Beams ........................................................................................................................................ 13
6.4 Slab ............................................................................................................................................ 13
7.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 14
8.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONTROL PARAMETERS ............................................................................... 15
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 16
10.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ENDORSEMENT, STANDARD CERTIFICATION AND GUARANTEE............... 17
11.0 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................... 18
11.1 PICTURES FROM THE SITE INVESTIGATION (Photo Gallery) ......................................................... 18

3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
It has become necessary to determine the integrity of a two-storey apartment building belonging to
Edna Quagraine (Client) at Okpoi Gonno in Accra. The client, therefore, engaged the services of the
Engineers to undertake this exercise in order to assure her with utmost certainty, suitability of the
facility for its intended use.
In response to the Clients request, the team on the 1st of May, 2019, undertook an assessment by
observing, measuring and carrying out non-destructive tests on this building. This document reports
on the structural integrity assessment of the facility based on visual inspection, tests and engineering
analysis conducted on the buildings. The analysis, however, does NOT include any Seismic
Analysis. The assessment was carried out by Ing. Eric Owusu and his team.

1.1 SCOPE OF WORKS

The scope of services was to provide a detailed structural assessment of all the principal structural
members in order to identify defects or weaknesses and irregularities of any form in any of these
members and provide an interpretation of these defects. Our scope of works is as follows:
i) Physically examine the already constructed structural members of the building to identify
any defects or signs of defects.
ii) Determine the structural stability and competence of the building.
iii) Comment and advice the client as to whether the structure is safe for its intended use.

This scope was fulfilled by performing the following activities:

i) A visual inspection of the existing structures to determine any form of failure occurring in
any form such as cracks, deflections or sways.
ii) A series of non-destructive tests to determine the compressive strength of the various
structural members and the number and sizes reinforcement bars used.

4
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND BUILDING
The building is located on latitude 5.636553
and longitude -0.116215 (source:
www.google.co.za). It is a two-storey structure
designed to serve as a four (4)-number two (2)
bedroom apartment building.
Each floor is primarily made up of two (2)
apartments, each with a kitchen, a living area, a
dining area, two (2) bedrooms suites and wash
rooms as well as an entrance porch. Each
apartment on the first floor has a kitchen
terrace. Access to the first floor from the
Fig.2.1: Location of Building ground floor is made possible by the presence
(Source: www.google.co.za) of an enclosed reinforced concrete staircase.
The building is situated on a site which has another structure serving as a residential facility on it
Access to the building is made possible by unpaved but well-developed road network.
Each building had its own underground septic tank aimed at providing services for residents. No
indicationBas to whether all these tanks are linked to a central sewerage system was identified so it
could be assumed that each tank was acting in isolation.
The site is well planned; however, judgment of
the drainage system could not be made with
enough confidence at the time of this
investigation as we did not notice any open or
covered drains and how well these drains are
also networked. The elevation of the road in
front of the site seems to be below the site
Fig. 2.2: Typical Septic Tank
which would make the design of drainage
system of the site much simple.

2.1 The Structural System

The building, simply, is made up of reinforced concrete structural columns, beams and slabs with
sandcrete block infills. The roof system is made us of timber rafters and purlins.

5
 2.2 Sub-Structure
The building is, generally, supported on 1m x
1m x 0.3m reinforced concrete column bases
(isolated footings) placed at a depth of 1.2m
below the ground. Our investigation, however,
did not reveal the presence of ground beams in
the structure.

Fig. 2.3: Foundation System

2.3 Super Structure
The super structure consists of a two-storey
building, designed to serve as a residential
apartment. The suspended floor which is made
up of 150mm thick slab and (150 x 450)mm is
supported primarily by (150 x 300)mm
reinforced concrete columns positioned at
vantage points.
Fig.: 2.4: Front Elevation

6
 3.0 INVESTIGATIONS
The investigations carried out on this project include:
i) Visual observations of the structural members under
investigation to determine any form of structural failure such
as cracks, deflections and/or sway.
ii) Non-destructive compressive strength test of concrete
in selected structural elements using the rebound hammers.
Determining the cover to reinforcements, the number,
spacing and sizes of bars in these structural members. These
were carried out using the Elcometer 331 Covermeter which
is a non-destructive instrument used for these purposes.

Fig. .3.1: Scanning for Reinforement

7
 3.1 Visual/Physical Observation
The visual inspection covered all areas of the
building (internal and external), and its
surroundings.
The group of Engineers undertook a visual
inspection by going around the main building to
physically inspect and detect the presence of any
structural defect that could affect the integrity of
the building. The visual inspection looked out for
Fig. 3.2: Preparing Surface of Suspended floor for signs of defects in structural members such as
Schmidt Hammer Test
foundations, beams, columns, slabs and roof in
order to identify failures such as excessive
deflections and other defects including
construction flaws. This exercise was undertaken
at both floor levels for each structural member
under investigation.

3.2 Non-Destructive Strength Tests

The Elcometer concrete rebound (Schmidt)
hammer (with serial number 14005411) was used
Fig. 3.3: Concrete Strength Test on Staircase
to carry out the non-destructive compressive
strength tests of the structural members. To obtain
a good estimate of the compressive strength,
twelve (12) rebound hammer readings were taken
for each structural member under investigation.
The average of the values was then calculated
using ten rebound values by exempting the
outliers. From the average values obtained, the
compressive strengths were then estimated from
the conversion curves on the hammers.
Fig. 3.4: Concrete Strength Test on Columns

8
 3.3 Elcometer 331 Covermeter
This device was used for the non-destructive
determination of the exact location of the
reinforcement within the concrete, the actual bar
diameter and the cover to reinforcements.
The Elcometer 331 covermeter was also used to
determine the bar sizes in the structural members
based on which a decision can be made after our
Fig. 3.5: Concrete Strength Test on First Floor
Beams analyses.

9
4.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Visual/Physical Observations
No physical structural defects were observed in any of the structural members under investigation
through the visual examination of the building.

4.1.1 Survey of Loading on the Building Structure

Based on the visual inspection carried out, the building is primarily designed as a residential
apartment. This means the suspended floor is expected to serve mainly as bedrooms. kitchens, living
rooms and bathrooms. At the time of this investigation, the building was yet to be loaded since it
was yet to be fully completed.

4.1.2 Survey of Addition or Alteration Works to Building Structure

There were no indication of addition or alteration to the building structure which deviates from its
initial intended purpose as a residential apartment.

4.1.3 Other Surveys

No aggressive environment was detected around the premises. The building is suitably located at a
site demarcated for domestic dwellings. The entire site is relatively higher than the access road in
front of it. This implies that, drainage of the site can be achieved with relative ease.
The access road was unpaved during the time of the investigation and there were no properly
designed drainage system in the area.

4.2 Non-Destructive Strength Test

From the analysis of the tests conducted on the buildings, the following were our findings.

4.2.1 Rebound Hammers

We recorded a compressive strength of 38 N/mm2 for the column base tested. This is satisfactory
for the expected stresses to be transferred to this typical column base.
The compressive strengths of the ground floor columns was estimated be 44 N/mm2. For a building
designed to be used as a residential apartment, such a compressive strength value is considered to be
more than adequate to support the expected load on the first floor.
We recorded 34 N/mm2 on the first-floor columns which support the roof.

10
The suspended floor slab gave compressive strengths of 34 N/mm2 and 32 N/mm2 at two different
locations tested These results are similarly satisfactory for the purposes of a residential building.
The roof beams tested also gave compressive strengths of 28 N/mm2, which is adequate for analysis
with regards to the support of the roof structure.
The compressive strength for the staircase was found to be 30 N/mm2 which is also more than
satisfactory.
The equipment recognizes that there could be some level of error in the readings, hence a mean
range of error (± 22%) is given for each compressive strength. Details of test results obtained have
been provided in the Appendix.

4.2.2 Elcometer 331 Covermeter Test Results

The cover to the reinforcements for all the structural members ranged from 25mm to 40mm. As a
standard of practice, 30mm was taken as the cover to all reinforcements in our analysis.
The circular columns of diameter (150 x 300) mm, had six 16mm diameter bars (assumed to be mild
steel for analysis purposes) as longitudinal reinforcement from the ground floor to the roof. We also
found that 10mm (mild steel) bars were used as shear links in the columns and were averagely
spaced at 200mm centres.
The 150mm thick floor slab was reinforced with 12mm diameter bars (also assumed to be mild steel
foe analysis purposes) spaced at 150mm on the average. Though some areas showed closer spacing
of the reinforcements, we could only assume those areas were lap joints. For analysis purposes, the
slab was considered to be reinforced with 12mm mild steel bars at spaced at 150mm centres in both
directions.
We identified three 16mm diameter bars at the bottom of each the few first-floor beams. It was
however difficult to identify the configuration of the reinforcement at the top part of these beams’
due interference by reinforcement in slab. We thus assume the same number at the top as well, since
our investigation so give clear indication that the design drawings that was supplied to us were
strictly adhered to. The shear links were spaced at approximately 200mm centres and the sizes of
these links were identified to be 10mm diameter. All these bars were assumed to be of mild steel
class for analysis purposes.
Four 12mm diameter bars were identified in the roof beams. Two of these bars were positioned at
the bottom whereas the other two were positioned at the top. The shear links were spaced at
approximately 200mm centres and the sizes of these links were identified to be 8mm diameter. All
these bars were assumed to be of mild steel class for analysis purposes.

11
5.0 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The principle for all our analysis was based on worst case scenario. This means that, only the
minimum values of the compressive strength obtained from the field test was used in the analysis.
Similar assumption was made for the steel reinforcements in the structural members.
From the analysis (see Appendix for detailed calculation), it is observed that, designing the
suspended floor slab with a live load of 2 kN/m2 (Table 1, BS 6399-1, 1996) and in order to ensure
structural stability, the following would be required:
i) The column with the heaviest would require a base of 950mm x 950mm having a thickness
of 300mm requiring 12mm mild bars spaced at 150mm as reinforcement.
ii) The 150mm x 300mm columns also required four (4) 12mm mild steel bars as
reinforcements.
iii) Analysing the largest slab panel (within gridline E-H/7-9), the floor slab would require
12mm bars (mild steel), spaced at 300mm centres.
iv) The 150mm x 450mm beams were also found to require two (2) 16mm mild steel bars at the
top and same at the bottom. 8mm (mild steel) stirrups spaced at 300mm were required for
these beams.

12
6.0 DISCUSSIONS
From the results of the analysis of the structural members, the following comparative assessments
can be made for each structural member:

6.1 Foundation
It is usual for builders to adopt a isolated footing as the foundation system for two-storey residential
apartments. From the structural analysis, base of 1000mm x 1000mm having a thickness of
300mm, and reinforced with 12mm mild bars spaced at 150mm will be adequate to support the
intended load from the structure.

6.2 Columns
The existing reinforcements in the 150mm x 300mm columns are six 16mm bars (mild steel) and
from the analysis, four (4) 12mm bars is required in these columns to ensure structural stability. It
can, therefore, be deduced that, these columns are safe for its intended purpose and, thus, requires
no further modification.

6.3 Beams
The existing reinforcements in the 150mm x 450mm beams are three 16mm bars (mild steel) each at
the top and bottom, and from the analysis, four (2) 16mm bars are each required at the top and
bottom of these beam to enable safely transfer load to the adjoining columns. It can, therefore, be
deduced that, these beams are safe for their intended purpose and, thus, do not requires any further
modification.

6.4 Slab
The analysis indicates that a slab of thickness 150mm reinforced with 12mm bars (mild steel)
spaced at 300mm should be able to resist the design floor load. However, the actual reinforcements
in the slab were 12mm bars, generally spaced at 200 mm centres. This indicates that the floor slab
is, similarly, also adequate for the intended purpose and, thus, does not require any further
modification.

13
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The following were the challenge faced in carrying out this investigation which could have a
marginal impact on our findings:
No geotechnical report of the site soil conditions was made available to us. This report could have
given us an idea of the bearing capacity of the soil based on which the foundation could have been
analysed and designed. For the purpose of design, the allowable bearing pressure was taken to be
200kN/m2.

14
8.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONTROL PARAMETERS
a) Design considerations:
i) The building is, generally, made up of reinforced concrete frame of columns, beams and
slab with masonry block infills.
ii) The cover to the reinforcement gives an indicated of more than three hours (2hrs) of fire
resistance as per the provision in BS 8110 (cl. 3.3.6, tab 3.4).

b) Loads:
i) Imposed loads are as per BS 6399: part 1 1996 (Table.1 Section B)
ii) Dead loads were computed as per the members, composition and geometry of the design.

c) List of Standards used:

i) BS 8110 – 1: 1997 Structural Use of concrete
ii) BS6399 Part 1 1997: Code of practice for dead and imposed loads

15
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From the observations made and tests carried out on the buildings and analysis and interpretation of
the results obtained, the Engineers can safely conclude that, the building is structurally safe for its
intended use as a residential apartment. This means that, during the normal designed working
conditions of the building, it is expected that, any deformation of the structural members will not
distract the appearance, durability and performance of the building.

16
10.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ENDORSEMENT, STANDARD CERTIFICATION
AND GUARANTEE
In accordance with Structural Engineering principles and codes of practice. I, Eric Owusu, the
structural Engineer appointed by the building owner have personally conducted an inspection of the
condition of the structure of the building and hereby submit the report of the results of my
inspection. I certify that the Inspection was carried out and the report was prepared by me in
accordance Structural Engineering Principles and Codes of practice.
No warranties or guaranties are given or implied for any latent concealed defects or for any defects
occurring after the date and time of the inspection. The consultant is not liable for any problems,
defects, or deficiencies that could not be reasonably discovered during the inspection.
The services provided herein are for the Owner's exclusive use and benefit and that such services,
data, recommendations, proposals, reports, photographs and similar information produced and
provided by the Consultant are not to be used or relied upon by other parties without the express
permission of the consultant.

__________________________ _______________________
Structural Engineer Date
(Signature and Stamp)

17
11.0 APPENDIX
11.1 PICTURES FROM THE SITE INVESTIGATION (Photo Gallery)

Fig. 11.1: Testing for Concrete Strength in Columns (Ground Floor)

Fig. 11.2: Removal of Screed to Expose Concrete Floor Fig. 11.3: Picture Shows Screed Thickness of
Approximately 60mm
18
Fig. 11.4: Testing for Strength of Concrete in Fig. 11.5: Testing for Concrete Strength in Columns
Suspended Floor (First Floor)

Fig. 11.6: Using the Elcometer Covermeter on the Fig. 11.7: Typical Reading on Elcommeter (Covermeter)
Suspended Floor

19
Fig. 11.8: Testing for Strength of Concrete in Staircase Fig. 11.9: Hacking to expose concrete in Column

Fig. 11.10: Testing for Strength of Concrete in First Floor Fig. 11.11: Digging to Expose Concrete in Foundation
Beams

20
 NON-DESTRUCTIVE REBOUND HAMMER TEST RESULTS

Concrete Strength Test (on Column Bases)

Compressive
Location DIRECTION/ANGLE Rebound Value Average Strength
(MPa)
Column
- 90° (↓) 30 42 36 38 33 33 36 38 32 31 34.9 38
Bases

Concrete Strength Test (on Ground Floor Columns)

Compressive
Location DIRECTION/ANGLE Rebound Value Average Strength
(MPa)
Ground Floor
0° (→) 41 40 41 41 44 42 47 42 42 43 42.3 44
Column
First Floor
0° (→) 40 36 40 32 33 36 33 33 38 33 35.4 34
Column

Concrete Strength Test (on First Floor Slab/Beams)

Compressive
Location DIRECTION/ANGLE Rebound Value Average Strength
(MPa)
Slab/Beam 1 + 90° (↑) 38 39 38 40 40 40 39 41 40 40 39.5 34
Slab/Beam 2 - 90° (↓) 28 31 32 33 31 32 36 28 30 34 31.5 32

Concrete Strength Test (on Roof Beams)

Compressive
Location DIRECTION/ANGLE Rebound Value Average Strength
(MPa)
Beam 90° (↑) 30 30 31 30 31 32 36 33 30 35 31.8 28

Concrete Strength Test (on Staircase)

Compressive
Location DIRECTION/ANGLE Rebound Value Average Strength
(MPa)
Staircase 45° (↗) 34 32 33 34 40 35 33 36 34 43 35.4 30

21