STRUCTURAL STABILITY INVESTIGATION

OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT
BARAMULLA, J & K

CONFIDENTIAL: This report has been prepared by PROSAVA Pvt Ltd, Gurugram India for Mack Insurance
Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt Ltd. (MACK) for their reference and use. All information contained or
pertaining to this document is property of Mack and is available to said parties under strict obligation of
nondisclosure and restricted use unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

DOC ID- Mack.Baramulla.25.06.2022

JULY 9, 2022
PROSAVA PVT. LTD.
Sl. No. Chapters Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION 2
2 LAY OUT DESIGN AND STRUCTURE OF THE 2
BUILDING
3 FIELD VISIT OBSERVATION 5
(a) Outside Façade of building (North East Side) 5

(b) Ground Floor of the building 19

(c) First Floor of the building 25

4 ANALYSIS OF DEFECTS 39
(A) GLOBAL STABILITY OF BUILDING 39
(B) GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEM 40
(C) DAMAGE TO STRUCTURAL ELEMENT 40
(D) DAMAGE TO NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENT 40
(E) CLASSIFICATION OF THE HABITABILITY OF 40
BUILDING
5 CONCLUSION 41
6 REFERENCE 43
1. INTRODUCTION

A structural stability investigation was carried out on the residential building at

Katyawali, Baramulla, J&K. The owner of the building is Mr. Mohammad Fareed
Chachi and as per information provided by the owner construction of building was
completed about 3 years ago and building is currently being used for residential
purpose by the owner and his family.

Owner of building reported cracks and damages to the building in the normal course
of usage. No casualty or loss was suffered by the occupants during the intervening
period after construction of building. An Initial survey of damage was carried out at
request of owner by surveyor deputed by Mack Insurance Surveyors & Loss
Assessors Pvt. Limited (MACK) on 02/06/2022.

Further to this, on advice of MACK, CEO of PROSAVA PVT LTD together with
Design Engineer visited the building site on 25 June 2022 to inspect the damaged
building, comment on overall stability and the possible reasons for occurrence of the
cracks that have appeared during the normal course of usage post construction of the
building.

2. LAY OUT DESIGN AND STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING

The building is constructed as a G + 1 residential building with Attic measuring

approx. 850 sq ft on each floor based on principles of a brick masonry structure as per
functional requirements of owner. The loads of the building are dissipated to the
ground by random rubble stone masonry dressed with beaded cement mortar pointing.

The building is located on leveled soil bed of approx. size 1800 sq feet. A random
rubble masonry retaining wall is constructed on sides of setback area with leveled bed
to prevent soil erosion and provide under drainage arrangement for storm water.

No construction drawings were available with owner hence the details mentioned in
below plan are as per information provided by owner and site measurement of the
building, owner further informed that construction of building is as per construction
practices prevalent in the region.

3
Following is key layout and floor plan of the building.

PLAN- GROUND FLOOR

In conjunction with these discussions and conditions prevailing at site, deformities

noticed in the building were reviewed jointly with the owner. Discussions were also
held with owner of the building with respect to current construction practices,
available solutions for repair / refurbishment and the applicable standards. No records
were available evidencing possible use of any professional engineering services for
design, preparing specifications or construction of the building.

4
3. FIELD VISIT OBSERVATIONS

The field visit at the site was conducted together with owner and observations are as
follows:

(a) Outside Facade of the building (North West side)

The house is located on top of hill with plinth area of approx. 850 sq feet and
setback area of approx. 1050 sq feet. The setback area is over an embankment
protected by a random rubble masonry retaining wall. The cement pointing on
rubble masonry is not regular and there is vegetation on the wall surface. An
adjacent building with plinth level five feet below is located on south side of
the building.

5
 Diagonal cracks are visible below the window sill level and above the door and
window frames.

6
 Vertical cracks are noticed in the walls initiating from lintel level. Nature of
cracks is showing lack of bearing on the wall

7
 Diagonal cracks with width 18mm are noticed below the window sill.

8
 25 mm wide gaps are formed between door frame and brick wall, nature of gap
is widening at the top indicating signs of separation of wall.

9
 Floor settlement is noticed at the plinth level, Diagonal cracks in brick wall are
noticed at corners.

10
 A clear gap almost 16 mm wide is visible between stone masonry and floor
slab at the south east corner of building giving clear evidence of subsidence
and soil erosion below the foundation.

11
 The drainage pipes provided in retaining wall as weeping holes are filled
 partially with eroded soil from the setback area leading to surface subsidence

 Gaps more than 25 mm width are noticed in retaining wall with no protection
of embankment earth from erosion in the setback area.
 Pointing of random rubble masonry not done leading to soil drainage, enlarged
gaps in rubble masonry, spread of vegetation on the walls and weakening of
retaining wall.

12
 More than 40mm wide cracks noticed in random rubble masonry

13
 Medium sized trees are noticed close to retaining wall whose roots could have
already percolated below the wall base. This can loosen soil during dry season
and lead to further erosion of soil

14
 A look at adjacent structures evidence that existing electric pole has tilted on
the setback area indicating large scale settlement and erosion of the
embankment soil. Adjacent building is also shown sign of tilt and cracks. This
indicates high erodibility of soil in the region

15
 There is a gap more than 75 mm wide formed between plinth of building and
surrounding floor slab. The resultant slope in floor slab is clear evidence of
subsidence and erosion below the floor slab.

16
 There is settlement in embankment due to erosion of soil

17
(b) Ground Floor of the building

 Cracks have generated in the brick wall on top of door pointing towards
inadequate bearing

18
 Vertical crack has generated in the brick wall on top of window frame

19
 Diagonal crack is noticed on the brick wall below the window sill
20
 Crack is noticed on beam supporting the staircase

 Vertical crack from bottom of slab separating window frame from brick
wall 21
 22
 Gap of almost 8 mm formed between door frame and wall indicating signs
 of plasticity of walls

23
 Cracks noticed below the slab level in the brick wall
 24
(c) First Floor of the building
 Cracks have generated in wall with width of crack almost 20 mm

25
 Continuous vertical crack has formed at the wall corner showing sign of
separation of wall

 Window frame has separated from wall

26
27
 A gap of 20 mm formed between wall and rafter due to plasticity of walls

28
  Continuous horizontal crack is formed between below bottom of slab and
wall

 Loss of ve

29
 corner.

 Windows stuck up and not opening due to wall settlement and unbalanced
forces.

30
 A crack 15 mm wide formed in the brick wall below window sill level. Cracks
are widening towards the top.

31
 First Floor slab is tilted in the direction of wall settlement

32
 Diagonal crack on brick wall and vertical wall separation with continuous
crack above

33
 Floor tilted due to wall settlement

34
35
 Diagonal crack, brick wall separation and continuous vertical crack

 Loss of verticality, cracks size 25 mm wide at floor level between floor and
walls.

36
Vertical crack at wall corner

 Floor slab tilted due to wall settlement

37
4. ANALYSIS OF DEFECTS
The defects were analyzed based on following criteria to interpret the status of
structural stability of the building.

(A) GLOBAL STABILITY OF THE BUILDING

The building is a brick masonry structure, constructed using random rubble masonry for
foundation with brick super structure in area demarked under earthquake zone V i.e highest
level of seismicity as per IS 1893. The building is showing signs of subsidence of soil on the
East side. Examination of key structural components indicates that there is loss of balance,
inclination of walls and crack generation on corner walls. There is progression of cracks
towards height of building at multiple locations. The door frames are showing separation and
windows are stuck and not opening at critical corners. Cracks have also appeared on glass
panes which indicate uneven and unbalanced load on structure. Size, location and progression
of cracks indicate a distinct possibility of fatigue leading to plastic mechanism. Due to these
evidences, we consider the risk on stability of this building is high.

(B) GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS

Soil settlement and liquefaction/slope failure has been noticed on the East face of the
building; hence further risk of failure due to Geotechnical problems is high. The cracks
appearing on the walls and inclination of floor slab is due to subsidence of embankment soil.
The possible reason is loss of embankment soil in the setback area. No other external factors
like any underground construction or tunneling work have been noted post construction of
building which may have led to soil erosion; hence we consider the geotechnical problems to
the building are due to natural causes, lack of coherence and high erodibility of soil in the
region

(C) DAMAGE TO STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

The structural elements being evaluated depend on the structural system with which the
construction was built with i.e beams, joints, columns, walls, etc. There is separation of walls
at corners and windows have got jammed. Diagonal cracks are noted on the walls below the
window sill level and over the lintel on door and window opening. These provide sufficient
evidence of signs of failure due to dynamic load on the building as a result of foundation
settlement. Based on examination of each one of the structural systems and at each damage 38
level we are of opinion that damage level is classified as high in the complete building.
Since more than 10% of the building elements have suffered damage to structural elements,
we are of the opinion that there is structural risk to the building and it poses major danger to
inhabitants and their belongings.

(D) DAMAGE IN NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

The non-structural elements like floor slab and partition walls, have developed major cracks
The nature of cracks indicate that they are due to dynamic activity due to subsidence in soil.

Considering the above, we are of opinion that damage to building elements is major and does
pose danger to integrity of building and safety of its inhabitants.

(E) CLASSIFICATION OF THE HABITABILITY OF A BUILDING

After evaluation based on above mentioned criteria, we are of opinion that building has
reduced capacity to resist imposed and dead loads and represents a major danger for the life
of its inhabitants. Major repair work must be undertaken to restore the soil within setback
area and embankment retaining wall must be made percolation proof for embedded soil with
effective drainage arrangement. Underpinning of foundation has to be done with repairs of
wall cracks by stitching with steel and grouting.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Accordingly, based on the results of the inspection we conclude as follows:

(A) Assessment of damage to the building and its overall condition:

(i) The building is not stable, there is evidence of lack of alignment, leaning of floors etc.
39
Significant damage is noticed at structural elements and surroundings of the building
 (ii) The geotechnical conditions surrounding the site indicate subsidence of soil,
settlement of building combined with erosion of soil from setback area and
embankment retaining wall.

(iii) The damage level to its non-structural elements is high and when combined with other
evidences indicates high severity or possibility of collateral damage to associated
structures in event of mishap

(B) Possible reasons of damage to the building:

(i) The geotechnical conditions surrounding the building indicate Subsidence of building
on the east side, which is possibly due to lack of cohesiveness in the soil below the
load bearing walls. The adjacent buildings and structures are also showing signs of
tilting and settlement which indicates high erodibility and lack of clay in subsurface
soil to act as binder.

(ii) Necessary protection to prevent erosion of soil in setback region surrounding the
building is not provided.

(iii) Retaining wall around the setback region is inadequately designed and constructed
allowing for subsidence of loose soil.

(iv) The soil subsidence has resulted in settlement of foundation, tilting of superstructure
with separation of wall joints at corners, diagonal cracks in walls and settlement of
floor slab.

Based on above we conclude that perceived risk level due to overall damages to the building
is high. Current condition poses major threat to the inhabitants of the building. The building
appears to be in plastic stage. The area lies in highest seismic risk zone hence in event of any
calamity there can be serious repercussions for the inhabitants and building structure.

40
6. REFERENCES: Reports, Codes & Standards referred during examination:

 IS: 456(2002): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PLAIN AND

REINFORCED CONCRETE.

 IS: 875 (Part-1): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- DEAD LOADS

 IS: 875 (Part-2): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- IMPOSED LOADS

 IS: 875 (Part-3): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- WIND LOADS

 IS: 875 (Part-5): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- SPECIAL LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

 IS: 1893-2002: CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT

DESIGN.

 IS: 4928-1993: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR EARTHQUAKE

RESISTANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS.

 IS: 1080: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION OF SIMPLE SPREAD FOUNDATION.

 IS: 1901: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL SAFETY OF

BUILDING FOUNDATION.

 IS 1904-1986: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATION – GENERAL
REQUIREMENT.

 IS 1786 - 1985: HIGH STRENGTH DEFORMED STEEL BARS AND

WIRES FOR CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT.

 IS 8009 -1976 (Part –I): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CALCULATION

OF SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS-SHALLOW
FOUNDATIONS.

 IS 2212-1991: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR BRICK WORK.

 IS 1905:1987: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL USE OF

UNREINFORCED MASONRY.
41