Hana Getachew

The Cause and Significance of Crack and Structural Defect
Assessment of School Building in Dire Dawa City (Case Study on

Legehare Cracked School Building in Dire Dawa City)
Hana Getachew
A Thesis Submitted to
The School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Presented in Partial fulfillment of the Requirement for the
Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
(Structures)
Addis Ababa University
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
June 2017
i
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My first thank goes to almighty God for being with me all the time and throughout my study
to carry out this thesis work.
I am very grateful for my thesis advisor; Dr. Ing Adil Zekaria who has encouraged, directed,
and given me academic advisory and different necessary materials for this research work
with good heart and patient.
Dire Dawa University, my sponsor, also deserves thanks for its financial support to the
completion of the study.
I am thankful to Dire Dawa Ministry of Education Office for supporting me. Especially,
thanks for Ato Sisay Kassaye for his continuous support, encouragement and for being
beside me at difficulty time of this thesis work.
Last but not least, to my family, friends and all people who support and encourage me
deserve respect and thanks for their help.
iii
CONTENTS
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................... i
Abstract............................................................................................................................ viii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................1
1.1 General ..................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objective................................................................................................................2
1.3 Methodology ..........................................................................................................2
1.4 Scope and limitation...............................................................................................4
2. Literature review ...........................................................................................................5
2.1 Cracks ....................................................................................................................5
2.2 Evaluation of cracks ...............................................................................................5
2.2.1 Diagonal cracks...............................................................................................6
2.3 Settlement analysis .................................................................................................7
2.3.1 Stress distribution in soil due to footing pressure .............................................9
2.3.2 Consolidation Theory .................................................................................... 10
2.3.3 Defining differential settlement ..................................................................... 12
2.3.4 Factors producing differential settlement ....................................................... 13
2.3.5 Allowable settlement ..................................................................................... 14
2.3.6 Laboratory soil test ....................................................................................... 14
2.4 Cracking due to analysis and design error............................................................. 18
2.5 Evaluating the performance of the existing building ............................................. 19
2.6 Soil structural interaction ..................................................................................... 19
2.6.1 Effect of differential settlement on frame structure ........................................ 20
3. Visual inspection of the selected building .................................................................... 21
3.1 Damages observed at the selected building ........................................................... 22
4. Result and discussion .................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Differential Settlement ......................... 27
4.1.1 Boring and sampling of soil .......................................................................... 27
4.1.2 Laboratory testing ......................................................................................... 29
4.1.3 Numerical analysis and determination of foundations Settlements ................. 35
4.2 Assessment of cracking caused by analysis and design fault ................................. 43
iv
4.2.1 Description of case study .............................................................................. 43
4.2.2 Modeling of the building ............................................................................... 45
4.2.3 Analysis and design result ............................................................................. 48
4.3 The effect of the differential settlement on the building frame .............................. 53
4.3.1 Modeling ...................................................................................................... 54
4.3.2 Analysis result .............................................................................................. 55
4.4 Non linear analysis ............................................................................................... 59
5. Conclusion and recommendation ................................................................................. 60
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 60
5.2 Recommendation ................................................................................................. 61
Reference ........................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix A- soil investigation and analysis data ................................................................ 66
Appendix B Non linear Pushover Assessment .................................................................... 79
B.1. Pushover analysis result and discussion ............................................................... 79
v
List of Table
Table 2.1; Description of the Strength of Fine-Grained Soils Based on Liquidity Index [41]
........................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 4.1 Summarized soil property and description.......................................................... 30
Table 4.2 Es estimation using STP N-value ....................................................................... 36
Table 4.3 Standard penetration test N value from the original soil test data and Es ............. 36
Table 4.4 Modulus of elasticity for granular soils [17] ........................................................ 37
Table 4.5 Representative value of Poisson ratio [17] .......................................................... 37
Table 4.6 Immediate settlement of the foundation along Axis B and Axis C ....................... 38
Table 4.7 Settlements analysis result of pit 1 at the various depths...................................... 40
Table 4.8 Settlements result for pit 2, 3 and 4 at various depths .......................................... 41
Table 4.9 ES EN 1997 [32] Angular distortion limit ........................................................... 42
Table 4.10 Detail reference of the building ......................................................................... 44
Table 4.11 Load combination ............................................................................................. 46
Table 4.12 Columns demand capacity ratio ETABS2016 result ......................................... 50
Table 4.13 Building base foundations dimensions .............................................................. 54
Table 4.14 Axis B assigned ground displacement on ETABS 2016 .................................... 55
Table 4.15 Beams axis B and axis C reinforcement comparison with the original data ........ 56
Table 4.16 Column demand capacity ratio with Settlement effect on frame ........................ 57
List of figure
Figure 2.1Building diagonal cracks ......................................................................................6
Figure 2.2Typical time vs. deformation relationship for fine-grain soil [17]..........................8
Figure 2.3Vertical pressure within an earth mass [50] ..........................................................9
Figure 2.4 Method of determining p by Casagrande method ............................................... 11
Figure 2.5 Differential foundation settlement ..................................................................... 13
Figure 2.6 Settlement s, differential settlement δs, rotation θ and angular strain α ............... 14
Figure 2.7 Particle-size distribution curve........................................................................... 15
Figure 2.8 Table consolidation test apparatus ..................................................................... 17
Figure 2.9 Pressure void ratio curve ................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.1Existing building over view ................................................................................ 21
Figure 3.2 Diagonal cracks ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3.3 External infill walls diagonal cracks along Axis B ............................................. 23
Figure 3.4 Internal infill walls diagonal cracks along Axis B .............................................. 23
Figure 3.5 Infill walls diagonal cracks along the Axis C ..................................................... 24
Figure 3.6 External and internal side’s window corner diagonal cracks .............................. 24
Figure 3.7Along axis C column crack ................................................................................. 25
Figure 3.8 Some hair cracks on axis B and cracks at the edge along the axis C columns ..... 25
Figure 3.9 Building’s steel doors distortion ........................................................................ 26
vi
Figure 4.1 Excavated pit location around the building ........................................................ 27
Figure 4.2 Pit 1 and 4 excavations around the building and taking soil samples .................. 28
Figure 4.3 Pit 1 at 3m e –log P curve ................................................................................. 31
Figure 4.4 Pit 1 at 4.5m e –log P curve ............................................................................... 32
Figure 4.5 Pit 3 at 3m e –log P curve ................................................................................. 32
Figure 4.6 Pit 2, 3 and 4 at 4.5m e –log P curve .................................................................. 33
Figure 4.7 Pit 1 soil at 4.5m................................................................................................ 34
Figure 4.8 Pit 2, 3, and 4 soil at 4m up to 4.5m ................................................................... 34
Figure 4.9 e – log P curve ................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.10 Angular Distortion ........................................................................................... 41
Figure 4.11 The overall building dimension ....................................................................... 45
Figure 4.12 Basic structural system ETABS 2016 model .................................................... 47
Figure 4.13 Floor plan model ............................................................................................. 47
Figure 4.14 Bending moment diagram for beam on axis C ................................................. 48
Figure 4.15 General beams longitudinal reinforcement and comparison with the original
design ................................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 4.16 Axis B and C columns P-M-M interaction ratio from ETABS 2016 output ...... 51
Figure 4.17 Safe 2014 deflection output ............................................................................. 52
Figure 4.18 ETABS2016 analysis result of Axis C frame deformed shape .......................... 55
Figure 4.19 ETABS2016 analysis result of Axis B frame deformed shape .......................... 56
Figure 4.20 Column P-M-M interaction ratio under the effect of settlement effect on frame
(a) Axis B; (b) Axis C ........................................................................................................ 58
vii
ABSTRACT
This thesis focuses on investigating the cause of significant crack on a five story School
Building located in Dire Dawa city. The building is constructed with reinforced concrete
frame structure with infill hollow block concrete walls. Large diagonal crack is observed on
many walls coupled with minor crack on some structural members. The fact that this defect
is observed within three to five service years of the building brought attention for
investigation.
In this paper different approaches are followed to reach to a conclusion. Diagonal crack on
many walls is the first cue for a possible differential settlement problem. Hence, Soil
samples were collected around the building and different laboratory tests related to
settlement have been carried out. According to the tests and settlement estimation result,
there is a significant differential settlement among the foundations.
In addition to the settlement analysis, conventional structural analysis and design has been
conducted to verify whether the building structure satisfies the revised Ethiopian code of ES
EN 1992 and ES EN 1998:2015. The result shows that most of the structural members are
found to be safe with the exception of only few columns and beams were over stressed.
The building frame was further analyzed by considering the effect of foundation settlement.
The total settlement obtained from the soil investigation was used as a vertical ground
displacement at the corresponding foundation levels and the building was redesigned for this
displaced condition. The result from the design showed that significant number of structural
members (beams and columns) do not satisfy the requirement of the Ethiopian building
code.
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Dire Dawa is one of the administrative cities in Ethiopia. It is located at 515km away from
the capital city Addis Ababa. It covers about 1,213 km2 of land. It is geographically located
at 7044’30.48’’north and 39013’41.52’’east. Currently the city is in the phase of
development and industrialization where many construction projects are in progress. Such as
commercial, residential, public buildings and railway transport. Among public buildings,
there are hospitals, schools, recreation centers and many with other public services.
In a place where major concern is for fast coverage of service and also with limited resource,
it takes a careful feasibility study and skill to keep construction quality high. Hence,
problems have been encountered related to public buildings. And cracks on structural and
non structural members of buildings after a short service life are common.
Cracks are critical concern to structural engineers because they bring impairment to the
service, in fact they make the building itself a threat for its occupants as the building causes
damage, serious injury and fatality when it collapses. Also it is important to notice, easing
the risk of failure for a cracked building just from visual observation is risky by itself. Thus,
such defect on buildings needs to be investigated to the minimum to make sure that the
cracks are not progressive.
There are five similar educational buildings in Dire Dawa city owned by Ministry of
Education. All the buildings are constructed about the same time frame and opened for
service in 2008EC. They have almost similar structural design and construction time except
built at different location. But among them Legehare School building in Legehare Kebele is
one with significant defects.
Currently, most of the upper stories’ rooms in the building are out of service, but due to
shortage of class in the school, the school society are still taking class in ground and first
floor rooms. But based on the buildings records, there is no investigation has been taken to
identify the cause of these defects. Therefore a quick remedial plan is needed to stop any
aggravating condition and to bring the building to acceptable and safer zone.
1
1.2 OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this study is to investigate the causes of sever cracks on Legehare
school building, in Dire Dawa city, which appears just after few service life. And also to
deal with the best possible solution that could go with the current condition of the building if
it is not beyond repair.
But most importantly, the results of this study should be use as an input to take precaution
while constructing future school buildings with similar design in different places. Because
constructing similar design at different places is a very common practice when it comes to
government projects.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
In achieving the above objectives the following methodology is used. Literature review is
the initial stage. Numbers of studies from different source have been reviewed to form the
framework of the paper and to look for what is important during site inspection phase of the
study. It is suggested in many literatures that the existence of diagonal cracks is related to
differential settlement. Hence, performing geotechnical investigation was necessary.
Accordingly, various soil laboratory tests are conducted. Then differential settlement
conditions of the foundations under the structural load are studied based on test results and
collected data.
There is a possibility for the structural design to have significant errors which may reduce
the required capacity. Thus a design review was made to check whether standard design
procedures are used and at the same time to identify any significant design error that
contributed to the observed cracks.
The source for almost all the data is Ministry of Education Governmental Office which is
the client. The basic reference materials are textbooks, reports and building codes (ES EN
1992-1-1:2015 and ES EN 1998:2015) for structural analysis and design. The modeling of
the building for linear and nonlinear (pushover) structural analysis is prepared according to
ES EN 1992:2015, FEMA440 and ATC40 recommendations.
Finally, the effect of foundation settlement back to the frame structure is reviewed under soil
structural interaction concept. This helps to analyze the safety of the building under the
estimated settlement condition. Then summery of all the findings together with proper
recommendation concludes this study.
2
General frame work of methodology
Cracking Assessments of the building
Data collection and

Literature review identifying the potential
issues to determine the
problem of building
cracking
Field Structural analysis

Laboratory soil tests
investigation
 Linear static analysis

 Visual
 Grain size and of the building and
inspection
Hydrometer test design
 photograghs of
 Attemberg limit  Soil structure
the building
 primary interaction of the
 pit excavation
Consolidation building (effect of
for soil tests
test settlement on frame)
 Non linear pushover
analysis
Conclusion
Recommendation
3
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
This study mainly focuses on investigating the cause of crack on Legehare shool building.
However, the analysis of the super structure analysis made for this building is also
applicable to other similar design practice in other place. Effort is made to contain many
settlement analyses in the study as to see the soil property from different angles. Although
all materials and data collected for this study are found to be enough to reach at conclusion,
the following limitations make the study very specific.
 Pits boring for soil investigation are extended only up to 4.5 m depth due to lack
of boring equipments.
 In this investigation the issues with respect to building construction qualities are
neglected because relevant information were not available. Also the quality of
the building construction material is not included in this thesis.
 Some soil characteristics data which are not carried out in laboratory test are
gathered from the previous soil test report and literature review.
 Only primary consolidation settlement test is performed for soil laboratory
settlement test.
4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Providing a detail review of literature concerning the cause of cracks in general is a good
background to see the problem clearly. However, it is difficult to address all in this thesis.
So the following are directly linked with the current condition of the building.
2.1 CRACKS
A crack is a complete or incomplete separation of any brittle material into two or more parts,
produced by breaking or fracturing as a result of the strains that induce tensile stress in
excess of the material’s capacity. The crack in concrete and building walls is an inherent
feature, which cannot be completely prevented but can only be controlled and minimized.
The crack propagate without limit it may cause the structural failure.
Cracks in building could be broadly classified as structural and non structural cracks. And it
causes by a multiple reason, specifically diagonal crack can appear in many structural
materials and components including block, brick, and concrete foundation walls, chimneys
and building interior drywall or plaster. Most studies shown that diagonal cracking in
masonry structures usually caused by differential settlements, occasionally frost heaves and
more rarely the development of a sink hole under or near the foundation.
Generally, incorrect analysis during design, faulty construction and related to foundation
overloading and differential settlements are some of the main reasons to structural and non
structural cracks of building.
2.2 EVALUATION OF CRACKS
Before proceeding with repairs an evaluation should be made to determine the location and
extent of cracking, the cause of the cracking and the need for repair.
Cracks need to be repaired if they reduce the strength, stiffness, or durability of the
appearance of the building structural elements otherwise it can be ignored. Location and
extent of cracking as well as information on the general condition of the concrete can be
determined by different evaluation methods. The evaluation of cracks is necessary for the
following purpose
 To identify the cause of cracking

 To assess the structure for its safety and serviceability
 To establish the extent of the cracking
 To establish the likely extent of further deterioration
 To study the suitable of various remedial measures
 To make a final assessment for serviceability after repairs
5
The commonly used methods in cracking evaluation are
 Visual examination
 Non destructive testing
 Various laboratory and field soil tests
 Review of designs for details
Identifying the cause of the cracks should be the first priority to find the solution. And it can
be caused by various reasons.
Cause of cracking due to
 Thermal cracking
 chemical reaction
 weathering
 corrosion of reinforcement
 poor construction practice
 errors in analysis, design and detailing
 settlement of foundation
2.2.1 DIAGONAL CRACKS

Diagonal cracks in buildings such as the one shown in Fig 2.1 occur when there is large
differential settlement of foundation either due to unequal bearing pressure under different
parts of the structure or due to bearing pressure on soil being in excess of safe bearing
strength of the soil or due to low factor of safety in the design of foundation. Moreover,
there are other major causes such as earthquakes and floods which are not covered in this
thesis. [41]
Figure 2.1Building diagonal cracks
And also mainly, differential settlements in buildings occur when there are local variations
in the nature of supporting soil ‘and such variations are not detected and taken care of in the
foundation design at the time of construction. In order to avoid settlement cracks in
6
buildings, it is essential that designs for their foundations are based on sound engineering
principles and good practice.
2.3 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Settlement is defines as the downward displacement of foundation as a result of stress

increase caused by the construction of foundations or other loads compresses soil layers.
Two basic types of settlement:
 Settlement due directly to the weight of the structure. The first type of settlement is
directly caused by the weight of the structure. For example, the weight of a building
may cause compression of an underlying sand deposit or consolidation of an
underlying clay layer. The settlement analysis must include the actual dead load of
the structure. The dead load is defined as the structural weight due to beams,
columns, floors, roofs, and other fixed members.
 Settlement due to secondary influences. The second basic type of settlement of a
building is caused by secondary influence, which may develop at a time long after
the completion of the structure. This type of settlement is not directly caused by the
weight of the structure. For example, the foundation may settle as water expelled out
of the soil under the footings and causes unstable soils to collapse. The foundation
may also settle due to yielding of adjacent excavations or the collapse of limestone
cavities or underground mines and tunnels. Other causes of settlement that would be
included in this category are natural disasters, such as settlement caused by
earthquakes or undermining of the foundation from floods. [19]
Virtually all references agree that the total settlement of a foundation is composed of three
components graphically as shown in Fig 2.2 they are immediate settlement, consolidation or
primary settlement and secondary settlement or creep
1. Elastic settlement (or immediate settlement), which is caused by the elastic

deformation of dry soil and of moist and saturated soils without any change in the
moisture content. Elastic settlement calculations generally are based on equations
derived from the theory of elasticity.
2. Primary consolidation settlement, which is the result of a volume change in saturated
cohesive soils because of expulsion of the water that occupies the void spaces.
3. Secondary consolidation settlement, which is observed in saturated cohesive soils
and is the result of the plastic adjustment of soil fabrics. It is an additional form of
compression that occurs at constant effective stress. [14]
7
Figure 2.2Typical time vs. deformation relationship for fine-grain soil [17]
The immediate settlement is also sometimes called volume distortion settlement. Essentially,
this is the rearrangement of grains due to changing stress, resulting in a reduction in void
ratio and instant settlement. In most texts, immediate settlement is considered to be an
elastic process. Therefore the settlement can be calculated from elastic theory. The
important consideration, this immediate settlement calculation from elastic theory will
underestimate the actual settlement. Bowles cited Holtz and Kovaks [1981] state, ʺThe
immediate, or distortion, settlement, although not actually elastic is usually estimated by
using elastic theoryʺ. It is recommended that a lower value of E be used to account for the
plastic flow. [13]
The most difficult part of a settlement analysis is the evaluation of the modulus of elasticity
Es that would conform to the soil condition in the field. and it can be determine form both
laboratory and field tests but due to the disturbance of the sample and other reasons the
laboratory test do not represent the actual conditions and normally give low values. [52]
One of the field test use to estimate elastic modulus of the soil is Standard penetration test
(STP), the standard penetration test (STP) boring is the most popular sampling and in-situ
penetration resistance testing method. The number of blow required to drive the split spoon
30cm is recorded and called “The STP N-value”.[20]
The net elastic settlement equation for a flexible surface footing [52];
= (2.1)
8
The Primary consolidation is the gradual re-arrangement of grains as water is expelled. This
component of settlement is usually dominant in fine grained saturated clays. But
consolidation also occurs in other soil types.
2.3.1 STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN SOIL DUE TO FOOTING PRESSURE

Estimation of vertical stresses at any point in a soil-mass due to external vertical loadings
has a great significance in the prediction of settlements of buildings, bridges, embankments
and many other structures. Equations have been developed to compute stresses at any point
in a soil mass on the basis of the theory of elasticity.
When a load is applied to the soil surface as shown in Fig 2.3, it increases the vertical
stresses within the soil mass. The increased stresses are greatest directly under the loaded
area, but extend indefinitely in all directions. Many formulas based on the theory of
elasticity have been used to compute stresses in soils. They are all similar and differ only in
the assumptions made to represent the elastic conditions of the soil mass. The formulas that
are most widely used are the Boussinesq and Westergaard formulas. [52]
Boussinesq's equation considers a point load on the surface of a semi-infinite, homogeneous,

isotropic, weightless, elastic half-space to obtain qv [13]
qv = cos5θ = (2.2)
Ab has the maximum value of 0.477 at r/z = 0
Figure 2.3Vertical pressure within an earth mass [50]
Boussinesq assumed that the soil is elastic, isotropic and homogeneous for the development
of a point load formula. However, the soil is neither isotropic nor homogeneous. The most
common type of soils that are met in nature are the water deposited sedimentary soils. [52]
9
When the soil mass consists of layered strata of fine and coarse materials, as beneath a road
pavement, or alternating layers of clay and sand, some authorities are of the opinion the
Westergaard (1938) equations give a better estimate of the stress qv.[13]
The Westergaard equations, unlike those of Boussinesq, include Poisson's ratio μ, and the
following is one of several forms given for a point load Q: [13]
qv= = (2.3)
Where a = (1 - μ)/ (2 - μ), for r/z = 0 taken Aw=0.32
2.3.2 CONSOLIDATION THEORY

If a fully saturated soil subjected to an increased total stress is allowed to gradually reduce in
volume due to dissipation of excess pore pressure, it is said to have primary consolidated.
This process might take a long time and when all excess pore pressure has dissipated, the
soil is considered fully consolidated.
A clay is said to be normally consolidated if the present effective overburden pressure is the
maximum pressure to which the layer has ever been subjected at any time in its history,
whereas a clay layer is said to be over consolidated if the layer was subjected at one time in
its history to a greater effective overburden pressure, than the present pressure. The ratio
overburden pressure,Po to present pressure or preconsolidation pressure, Pc is called the
overconsolidation ratio (OCR).[52]
Several methods have been proposed for determining the value of the maximum
preconsolidation pressure. They fall under field method and graphical procedure based on
consolidation test results.
The earliest and the most widely used method was the one proposed by Casagrande (1936).
The method involves locating the point of maximum curvature, B, on the laboratory e-log p
curve of an undisturbed sample as shown in Fig 2.4. From B, a tangent is drawn to the curve
and a horizontal line is also constructed. The angle between these two lines is then bisected.
The abscissa of the point of intersection of this bisector with the upward extension of the
inclined straight part corresponds to the preconsolidation pressure Pc. [52]
10
Figure 2.4 Method of determining p by Casagrande method
Therefore, equation for computing primary consolidation settlement for normally

consolidated clay, OCR=1 is
Sc= (2.4)
For over consolidated clay the settlement calculation depends upon the excess foundation
pressure Pc over and above the existing overburden pressure Po, OCR > 1
(a) If Po + ΔP < Pc, Sc= (2.5a)
(b) If Po < Pc < Po + ΔP, Sc= (2.5b)
The secondary settlement represents time‐dependent settlement, or creep, that occurs under a
constant effective stress. This component of settlement is important in organic soils.
Generally the analysis of settlement consists of two major components (elastic settlement
and primary consolidation) which are the value of total settlement.
Computation of settlement of a soil deposit in the field is consist of two parts
 computation of magnitude of final settlement

 determination of the time-rate of settlement
For the computation of final settlement, the coefficient of volume change or the compression
index is required, determine from void ratio and the effective stress curve. For the time rate
of computation, coefficient of consolidation requires using the Terzaghi theory.
11
2.3.3 DEFINING DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
Differential or uneven settlement occurs when the soil beneath a structure cannot bear the
weights imposed. The settlement of a structure is the amount that the structure will “sink”
during and after construction. Differential settlements become a big problem when the
foundation settles unevenly. The more uneven the settlement is, the greater the problems are
to the building's structure.
If the structure as a whole settles uniformly into the ground there will not be any detrimental
effect on the structure as such. The only effect it can have is on the service lines, such as
water and sanitary pipe connections, telephone and electric cables etc. which can break if the
settlement is considerable. But the differential settlements between the footings have a big
effect on any structures. [52]
Differential settlement is a general term used to describe the differences in vertical

displacement of foundations. However differential settlement on its own does not give any
indication of the spatial variation. It is the magnitude of differential settlement combined
with the spatial variation that influences the behavior of the structure.
Angular distortion is defined as the ratio of the differential settlement (δ) and the distance (l)
between two points after eliminating the effect of tilt of the building. And also they defined
a slope, equivalent to angular distortion; and relative deflection as the ratio of deflection to
the length of the deflected part. Subsequently similar definitions have been stated by a
number of authors. [50]
Determining the settlement behavior of the proposed structure is one of the primary
obligations of the geotechnical engineer. The following parameters are often required:
 Total settlement. Also known as the maximum settlement, it is the largest

amount of settlement experienced by any part of the foundation, such as
shown in fig.
 Maximum differential settlement δ. The maximum differential settlement is
the largest difference in settlement between two different foundation
locations, such as shown in fig. The maximum differential settlement does
not necessarily occur at the same location as the total settlement.
 Rate of settlement. It is often desirable to know if the settlement will occur
during construction as the dead load is applied to the soil, or if the settlement
will occur over the life of the project, in which case there may be on-going
cracking to the structure.
 Maximum angular distortion d/l. The angular distortion is defined as the
differential settlement between two points divided by the distance between
them less the tilt, where tilt equals rotation of the entire building [48]. As
shown in fig. The highest value of d/l would be the maximum angular
12
distortion. The location of the maximum angular distortion does not
necessarily occur at the location of the total settlement or maximum
differential settlement.
2.3.4 FACTORS PRODUCING DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Differential settlement between the footings as seen in fig 2.5 may cause damage to
structures. A good understanding of mechanisms and factors producing differential
settlement will result in a better understanding of the behavior of the structure and will
therefore allow for a more optimal design. There have many reasons to the cause of
differential settlement such as, soil variability, loads and their variability, foundation load-
displacement response and building stiffness on differential settlement.
Since varying stiffness and strength of soil beneath foundations is a potential cause of
differential settlement.
Soils are heterogeneous materials created by complex geological processes. Soil properties
vary from point to point, even in the same strata. [50] Discussed how soil variability can be
linked to complex depositional conditions. And also [28] presented the value of a
comprehensive geological model in understanding soil conditions on a site, but also states
that, regardless of the detail and the amount of work involved, the geological model is
unlikely to achieve the same qualitative accuracy as the structural engineering design
because of the inherent complexity and in homogeneity of the soil. Other researchers have
investigated and quantified the spatial variability of natural soils.
Soil variability to have an effect on settlement, it must be within the stress influence zone of
the foundation. For a flexible square foundation, the vertical stress at a depth of 3B, where B
equals the width of the foundation, is less than 6% of the surface stress Therefore most soil
compression will occur within a 3B depth and the focus should be on soil variations within
this zone. [9]
Figure 2.5 Differential foundation settlement
13
2.3.5 ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENT
Settlements are quantified either by a measurement of the total settlement or differential
settlement. Differential settlements are more damaging than uniform settlements. Total
settlements, therefore, are often of less interest than differential settlements. Differential
settlements can be measured in multiple ways, but the most commonly used measurement is
angular distortion.
According to the revised code ES EN 1997 the maximum acceptable relative rotations θmax
shown in Fig 2.6 for open framed structures, infilled frames and load bearing or continuous
brick walls are unlikely to be the same but are likely to range from about 1/2000 to about
1/300, to prevent the occurrence of a serviceability limit state in the structure. A maximum
relative rotation of 1/500 is acceptable for many structures. The relative rotation likely to
cause an ultimate limit state is about 1/150. [23]
Unequal settlement of the subsoil may lead to cracks in the structural components and
rotation. It may be cause by
i) Non uniform nature of the subsoil throughout the foundation

ii) Eccentric loading
iii) Improper design of the base footing
Figure 2.6 Settlement s, differential settlement δs, rotation θ and angular strain α
2.3.6 LABORATORY SOIL TEST

Mechanical analysis is the determination of the size range of particles present in a soil,
expressed as a percentage of the total dry weight. Two methods generally are used to find
the particle-size distribution of soil: (1) sieve analysis—for particle sizes larger than 0.075
mm in diameter, and (2) hydrometer analysis—for particle sizes smaller than 0.075 mm in
diameter. The basic principles of sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis are described
briefly in the following two sections. [13]
Sieve analysis consists of shaking the soil sample through a set of sieves that have
progressively smaller openings.
14
Hydrometer analysis is based on the principle of sedimentation of soil grains in water. When
a soil specimen is dispersed in water, the particles settle at different velocities, depending on
their shape, size, weight, and the viscosity of the water.
Figure 2.7 Particle-size distribution curve
Once the percent finer for each sieve is calculated, the calculations are plotted on semi
logarithmic graph paper with percent finer as the ordinate (arithmetic scale) and sieve
opening size as the abscissa (logarithmic scale). This plot shown in Fig 2.7 is referred to as
the particle-size distribution curve.
I. Consistency of soil and determination of consistency limits plasticity of soils

The plasticity of a soil is its ability to undergo deformation without cracking or fracturing. A
plastic soil can be molded in to various shapes when it is wet. Plasticity is an important
index property of fine grained soil, especially clayey soils. Plasticity is due to the presence
of clay minerals. The absorbed water helps particles to slip one over the other plastically. If
water content decreases, the plasticity of soil decreases. The soil becomes plastic only when
it has clay minerals. Non-clay minerals, with whatever finer, cannot become plastic. It
cannot be rolled in to thread.
a. Liquid limit
A soil containing high water content is in a liquid state. It can flow like liquids (no
resistance to deformation). If the water content is reduced gradually, at particular water
content the soil becomes plastic (show small shearing strength). The water content at which
the soil changes from the liquid state to the plastic state is called liquid limit (LL). Or the
liquid limit is the water content at which the soil ceases to be liquid.
b. Plastic limit
The soil in the plastic state can be molded in various shapes. When water content is
further reduced gradually, the soil cracks when molded (it becomes semi-solid).the
water content at which the soil becomes semi-solid is known as plastic limit (PL). Or the
plastic limit is the water content at which the soil just fails to behave plastically. Or
15
plastic limit is the minimum moisture content at which the soil clay can be rolled in to a
thread of 3 mm diameter without cracking.
c. Plasticity index
The numerical difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit is known as
plasticity index (PI).
It is the range of water content over which the soil exhibits plasticity. PI = LL – PL
Table 2.1; Description of the Strength of Fine-Grained Soils Based on Liquidity Index [41]
Values of
LI Description of soil strength
LI < 0 Semisolid state—high strength, brittle, (sudden) fracture is expected
Plastic state—intermediate strength, soil deforms like a plastic
0 < LI < 1 material
LI >1 Liquid state—low strength, soil deforms like a viscous fluid
II. The standard one dimensional consolidation test

The main purpose of the consolidation test on soil samples is to obtain the necessary
information about the compressibility properties of a saturated soil for use in determining
the magnitude and rate of settlement of structures. The following test procedure is applied to
any type of soil in the table consolidation test apparatus shown on Fig 2.8. Loads are applied
in steps in such a way that the successive load intensity, P, is twice the preceding one. The
load intensities commonly used 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 tons/ft 2 (25, 50, 100,200,400, 800
and 1600 kN/m2). Each load is allowed to stand until compression has practically ceased (no
longer than 24 hours). The dial readings are taken at elapsed times of 1/4, 1/2, 1,2,4, 8, 15,
30, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 1440 minutes from the time the new increment of load is put on
the sample (or at elapsed times as per requirements). Sandy samples are compressed in a
relatively short time as compared to clay samples and the use of one day duration is
common for the latter. After the greatest load required for the test has been applied to the
soil sample, the load is removed in decrements to provide data for plotting the expansion
curve of the soil in order to learn [51]
16
Figure 2.8 Table consolidation test apparatus
Incremental loads including unloading sequences are applied to the platen and the settlement
of the soil at various fixed times under each load increment is measured by a displacement
gauge. Each load increment is allowed to remain on the soil until the change in settlement is
negligible and the excess pore water pressure developed under the current load increment
has dissipated. For many soils, this usually occurs within 24 hours. [37]
Finally, it is necessary to analyze the test results in the relation of pressure versus void ratio
curve as shown in Fig 2.9.
17
Figure 2.9 Pressure void ratio curve
2.4 CRACKING DUE TO ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ERROR
Design errors are unavoidable in any building designs and can negatively affect cost,
schedule and safety performance of the structures. The different types of design drawings
may have various levels of design errors due to many factors such as unclear overview of
the designs, lack of coordination process, and human mistakes.
This design and detailing errors that may results in unacceptable cracking include use of
poorly detailed re-entered corners in walls, slabs, restraint of members subjected to volume
changes by vibration in temperature and moisture, lack of adequate contraction joint and
improper design of foundation resulting in differential settlement within the structure. Re-
entrant corners provide location for stress concentration is the prime location for initial
cracks, in the case of window and door opening in concrete walls and beams. Additional
properly anchored diagonal reinforcement is required to keep inevitable crack narrow and
prevent them from propagating further.
Inadequate amount of reinforcement may results in excessive cracking. A common mistake

is to lightly reinforce an element because it is a non-structural element and tying it to rest of
the structure in such a manner that it is required to carry a major portion of the load once the
structure begin to deform. The non structural elements carry the load. Since this element is
not detailed to act structurally, unsightly cracking may results even thought the safety of the
structure is not threatened. The restrained members subjected to volume change frequently
develop cracks. A slab, wall or a beam restrained against shortening, even if pre stressed,
can easily develop tensile stress sufficient to cause cracking. Beams should be allowed to
move.
18
2.5 EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
Existing building structures deform inelastically when subjected to earthquake loads, so

seismic performance evaluation of structures should be conducted considering post-elastic
behavior. Therefore, a nonlinear analysis procedure must be used for evaluation purpose as
post-elastic behavior cannot be determined directly by an elastic analysis. Moreover,
maximum inelastic displacement demand of structures should be determined to adequately
estimate the seismically induced demands on structures that exhibit inelastic behavior
Four distinct analytical procedures can be used in systematic rehabilitation: linear static,
linear dynamic, nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic procedures. The choice of analytical
method is subject to limitations based on building characteristics. The linear procedures
maintain the traditional use of a linear stress-strain relationship, but incorporate adjustments
to overall building deformations and material acceptance criteria to permit better
consideration of the probable nonlinear characteristics of seismic response. The nonlinear
static procedure, often called “pushover analysis,” uses simplified nonlinear techniques to
estimate seismic structural deformations. The nonlinear dynamic procedure, commonly
known as nonlinear time history analysis, requires considerable judgment and experience to
perform, and may only be used within the limitations described. [27]
2.6 SOIL STRUCTURAL INTERACTION
Soil-structure interaction is interdisciplinary field which involves structural and geotechnical

engineering. In the conventional analysis of building frame, the structural designer assumes
that columns are resting on unyielding rigid base. Similarly, in foundation design,
foundation settlements are calculated without considering the influence of the structural,
stiffness. Although, interaction effect is ignored to simplify the mathematical model but
neglecting the interaction between soils and structures may result in a design that is either
unnecessarily expensive or unsafe. A more rational solution of soil-structure interaction
problem can be achieved with computational validity and accuracy by appropriate analysis.
The building frame, foundation and soil mass form a complete structural system to resist the
external loads. The mechanics of soil-structure interaction takes place between these
components. The superstructure, foundation and soil mass can be considered as a single
integral compatible structural unit for carrying out the interaction analysis to predict more
realistic behavior. The stress-strain characteristics of the supporting soil play a vital role in
the interaction analysis. The resulting differential settlements of the soil mass are also
responsible for the redistribution of forces in the superstructure.
Most of the civil engineering structures involve some type of structural element with direct
contact with ground. When the forces, such as foundation settlement, earthquakes, act on
these systems, neither the structural displacements nor the ground displacements, are
19
independent of each other. The process in which the response of the soil influences the
motion of the structure and the motion of the structure influences the response of the soil is
termed as soil-structure interaction (SSI). [10]
Several investigators have studied the influence of the phenomenon of soil-structure

interaction in framed structures and investigated that the force quantities are revised due to
interaction. [7] Provided a highlight about how to use the spring in static analysis with
account long and short term deformation of the sub grade soil. [34] proposed an economical
iterative procedure for building frames and found significant reduction in differential
settlements and consequent additional moments.[37] presented an interaction analysis of a
seven-storey; three-bay framed structure in which the soil mass was treated as a Wrinkler’s
or elastic half space medium.
2.6.1 EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT ON FRAME

STRUCTURE
The dynamic nature of loads, seasonal variation of soil properties, uneven soil strata below
footings or inappropriate design of foundation makes differential settlement inevitable.
Differential settlement is largely responsible for developing forces or changing the existing
forces in the structure and is often considered as the underlying cause of many structural
failures.
Differential settlement can cause a significant tilt in the structure, making the occupants
uncomfortable. Cracks in the foundation and interior walls, non-uniform settling of doors
and windows, sinking of chimneys, bulging walls and sunken slabs are often considered as
the adverse effects of differential settlement and can be devastating to a building. These
effects are a result of increased axial force, shear force and bending moments in the
structure. It is common to implement repair and maintenance measures to prevent or reduce
the effects of differential settlement. [52]
The responses of structure in terms of axial forces and vertical displacements of columns in
each floor, bending moments and shear forces in beams were analyzed when the corner,
edge and center columns were subjected to a settlement of 25 mm. The deformation in
structure is elastic for settlement up to 25 mm and the most critical case was that of the
center column. It is also inferred that the adjacent beam of the settling column develops
significant bending moment, the settling column develops tensile forces while the adjacent
column develops compressive forces. The effect of differential settlement is limited to one
span from the settling column. [13]
20
3. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE SELECTED BUILDING
Most valuable or important data are obtained from visual analysis of a building. A building
itself can speak the problem underneath it. The visual observation leads to the proper
methods of investigation which helps to identify the cause of a failure. Therefore multi site
visits has been done to observe current situation of Legehare school building shown in Fig
3.1.
Figure 3.1Existing building over view
21
3.1 DAMAGES OBSERVED AT THE SELECTED BUILDING
There are five school buildings which are constructed and opened to service in Dire Dawa
city have the same design, construction time and cost at a various place. But on one of those
buildings, crack observed within three up to five years after construction completion as can
be seen in Fig.3.2 up to Fig 3.9 The four other buildings, except very few nonstructural
defects, they are still safe and in a proper service condition.
The Diagonal cracks on wall are constant width throughout their lengths and seem to have
occurred at the same time possibly caused by differential settlement or as a result of analysis
and design or other. Diagonal cracks emerging from the corners of beams pocket, door and
windows edges, and the vertical ones were identified. The slab and some of the beams and
columns also suffer severe hair cracks extending through the walls possibly caused by;
uneven settlement in the foundation soil putting the building under tension some of these
cracks are shown from Fig 3.2 up to Fig 3.9
Figure 3.2 Diagonal cracks
22
Figure 3.3 External infill walls diagonal cracks along Axis B
Figure 3.4 Internal infill walls diagonal cracks along Axis B
23
Figure 3.5 Infill walls diagonal cracks along the Axis C
Figure 3.6 External and internal side’s window corner diagonal cracks
24
Figure 3.7Along axis C column crack
Figure 3.8 Some hair cracks on axis B and cracks at the edge along the axis C columns
25
Figure 3.9 Building’s steel doors distortion
It would be difficult to address the entirely causes of the building cracks in once. Therefore,
in this thesis the investigation focused on main reasons of the defects based on the cracks
observed in the building. These are
 Cracking due to differential settlement of foundation discussed in part one under soil
analysis part
 The other one is cracking due to linear analysis and design errors and non linear
analysis of the building structure covered in part two under structural analysis part.
And finally the building under super structural load and the sub structural reaction
combined effect are studied by applying a vertical displacement at the base of each
column.
26
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL

SETTLEMENT
Previous studies showed us diagonal cracks are the very likely results of differential
settlement. And as shown in the previous figures most of the defects appear as diagonal
crack. Therefore to avoid any assumption and study the actual cause of damage, settlement
test has to be made.
4.1.1 BORING AND SAMPLING OF SOIL

The soil used for various tests were collected from Legehare site in Dire Dawa. Number of
pit trial required is recommended differently by different Codes depending on the type and
dimension of the building. For this investigation four pits were excavated within an
appropriate spacing for horizontal stratification of soil as shown in Fig 4.1. Due to the
scarcity of drilling machine at proper time, exploring the soil was conducted up to 4.5m with
the help of different hand boring equipments. The vertical soil stratification was observed by
taking three samples within 1.5m spacing for both disturbed and undisturbed samples of
each pit.
In each pit, along the vertical strata, the soil character varied. For the safety of the existing
building each excavation was conducted at least 3m away from the building’s columns. The
disturbed and undisturbed samples were wrapped and contained in plastic bags. Undisturbed
samples were covered with wax at the top and bottom of the sampler tubes which protects
the soil samples from losing moisture content. Then the samples were transported safely to
AAiT soil laboratory.
Figure 4.1 Excavated pit location around the building
27
Figure 4.2 Pit 1 and 4 excavations around the building and taking soil samples
28
4.1.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory test is an essential aspect of structural and geotechnical engineering. It gives an
approximation about the settlement behavior of a foundation. In this study, laboratory test
was conducted using ASTM standard procedures. It provides a clear understanding and
knowledge of the soil properties.
Sieve and hydrometer, Attemberg limits and one dimensional consolidation tests are
conducted to study the behavior of the soil from each pit.
Site investigation and soil laboratory test had been performed before the design and
construction of the building. So soil tests and report data gathered from Ministry of
Education Office in Dire Dawa (owner) were helpful to fulfill some missing information
about the soil condition.
a. Index properties and soil classification tests
A series of index property tests were conducted on the soil samples to identify the types of
soil. The main physical index property of the soils investigated in this study was soil
classification, which depends on Atterberg limits and particle size distribution.
The sieve analysis of the soil samples were done as per ASTM D22, first the disturbed
samples were naturally dried for more than two days. The dry sample was taken to pass
through a series of 4.75, 2.36, 2.00, 1.8, 0.6, 0.3, 0.15 mm sieves. The pan was attached at
the bottom of the sieve stack. The sample was poured on the top sieve and stirred for about
10 minutes. Soil retained at each sieve was weighed. The weights of the sample on each
sieve were added to compare it with the initial weight of sample. The difference should not
be more than 1%.
Hydrometer analysis was performed on the same sample which was finer than 0.075mm
sieve size. Therefore, the retained soils on various sieves from sieve analysis and
hydrometer analysis were calculated and a particle distribution was obtained as shown in the
appendix.
29
For classification of soil, atterberg limits tests (liquid limit and plastic limit) were performed
on the collected samples.
The laboratory soil test result about the properties of soil from each pit is summarized in the
Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Summarized soil property and description
Depth Strength of fine

Pits (m) Soil description grained soil Ll Pl Pi
2.5 Brown sandy clay with silt Semisolid state 36.8 15.3 21.53
1 4 Brown sandy clay Semisolid state 32 17.4 14.37

Whitish spot silty, brown
2.5 sandy clay Semisolid state 27.8 12 15.8
2, 3
and 4 4.5 White clay with sand and silt Semisolid state 54 23 31
Therefore, from the soil laboratory test result and pervious study data, beneath the
foundation there is sandy clay and silty clay soil.
b. One dimensional consolidation test

Consolidation tests for each of four pits at different depths were performed. The soil sample
was kept inside a stiff steel ring. The stiff steel ring prevents lateral expansion of the sample
and allows only vertical downward deformation. And the two porous stones allow water
drainage. The sample was fully submerged in water and remained fully saturated during the
test. The different pits samples were prepared in a 5cm diameter and 2 cm height ring where
they were placed to be tested by consolidation test apparatus. An initial sitting pressure of 7
kPa was applied on each sample from each pit and then the samples were allowed to
consolidate for 24 hours. The initial setting loads brought some acceptable swell in all
samples. Dial gauge reading was noted under initial sitting pressure and in each incremental
loadings i.e. 50 kPa, 100 kPa, 200 kPa, 400 kPa, 800 kPa, 1600 kPa. and at a certain time
intervals i.e. 6secs, 15 secs, 30 secs, 1min, 2 mins, 4 mins, 8 mins, 15 mins, 30 mins, 60
mins, 120 mins, 240 mins, 480 mins and 1440 mins. And also the gauge reading was noted
in the event of both loading and unloading.
The consolidation tests were performed on the undisturbed soil sample to determine the
settlement characteristics of soil at different depths of varies pits.
30
Varies pits consolidation Test results
The e - log P curve from consolidation test results of each pit is presented in this section.
The pre consolidation pressures/stress (σc) is determined from the laboratory e-log P curves
using a Casagrande method. The rest of the test results are available in the Appendix section.
Fig 4.3 shows e – log P of Pit 1 at 3m, Fig 4.4 shows e – log P of Pit 1 at 4.5m, Fig 4.6
shows e – log P of Pit 2, 3 and 4 at 3m and Fig 4.6 shows e – log P of Pit 2, 3 and 4 at
4.5m.
Figure 4.3 Pit 1 at 3m e –log P curve
31
Figure 4.4 Pit 1 at 4.5m e –log P curve
Figure 4.5 Pit 3 at 3m e –log P curve
32
Figure 4.6 Pit 2, 3 and 4 at 4.5m e –log P curve
The soil layers observed in pits 2, 3 and 4; specifically below 4m from ground level show
significantly varying property as compared to layers up to -4m level.
On the other hand it is also observed that layers in pit 1 are significantly different from
layers in pit 2,3 & 4. Generally, the soil property of layers from pit 1 to pit 4 observed to be
stronger.
As can be seen in Fig 4.7, the color texture of soil layers observed in pits 2, 3 & 4 from NGL
level 0.00m to -4m is brown with sparsely dotted white spots. Whereas for layers below -4m
of pits 2, 3 & 4 as seen in Fig 4.8, the color texture is generally white and relatively stiffer
than the layers found above-4m level.
33
Figure 4.7 Pit 1 soil at 4.5m
Figure 4.8 Pit 2, 3, and 4 soil at 4m up to 4.5m
Therefore, only from the visual and laboratory test, pit 2, pit 3 and pit 4 have almost similar
soil type and settlement property.
34
4.1.3 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF
FOUNDATIONS SETTLEMENTS
Total settlement is the vertical movement of the foundation from its as constructed position
to its loaded position. The total settlement of the foundation due to the imposed load is
determined with respect to the application of elastic or immediate, primary consolidation
and secondary settlements. But secondary settlement is important in organic soil deposit and
can be significant in highly plastic clays, organic soils, and sanitary landfills. Therefore, this
component is not discussed further in this study.
a. Immediate Settlement analysis
Immediate settlement is generally assumed to be the settlement that occurs quickly after the
construction of foundation.
The immediate settlement may be estimated from elastic theory. A realistic analysis is
difficult to perform because of the non linear characteristics of soil. Thus, result from theory
of elasticity is generally used in practice by assuming the soil is homogeneous and isotropic.
The calculation for immediate settlement for homogeneous soil layer is carried out using the
following formula [17]
= (3.1)
Where
e = elastic settlement
B = width of foundation,
Es = modulus of elasticity of soil,
µ = Poisson's ratio,
qn = net foundation pressure,
If = influence factor.
Is = shape factor
Modulus of elasticity
The modulus of elasticity (Es) of a soil is a soil parameter that is commonly used in the
estimation of settlement. Many literatures are providing the range of modulus of elasticity
for a various soil type. And also several laboratory and field test methods are available to
estimate the strain-stress modulus of elasticity. Some are;
35
Laboratory test
 Unconfined compression tests

 Triaxial compression tests
Field test
 STP (standard penetration test)

 CPT (cone penetration test)
To estimate the elastic modulus of the soil, some of the field test data previously recorded
which are not found as the main areas of error are used to compare and support
recommended in literatures. These data are closer to the specific condition of the soil than
others generally provided in literatures. Also the best course of action is to perform the test
again and see the results directly. But material and resource constrains brings the results less
than 100% certainty. However, the other course of action is to make through literature
review, which is performed, as to have strong stand for the next analysis. This assures no
significant variation occurs on the output of the analysis from the actual behavior of soil.
Therefore, to compute the modulus of elasticity recommended N-value result from the
previous soil test data used initially as an input.
Some equations for a wide range of soil properties, from the coarse to fine grained soils [13]
are described in Table 4.2 to Table 4.5;
Table 4.2 Es estimation using STP N-value
Soil Es (MPa)
Gravelly sand Es = 0.6(N+6), N < 15

Es = 0.6(N + 6), N > 15
Clayey sand Es = 0.32(N+15)
Silts, sandy silt,
or clayey silt Es = 0.3(N + 6)
Table 4.3 Standard penetration test N value from the original soil test data and Es
depth
Bore holes at STP N-value Es = 0.3(N + 6) in MPa
1 3m 15 6.3
4.5m 41 14.1
2 3m 19 7.5
4.5m 17 6.9
36
Table 4.4 Modulus of elasticity for granular soils [17]
Soil type Es (kN/m2)

Soft clay 1,800–3,500
Hard clay 6,000–14,000
Loose sand 10,000–28,000
Dense sand 35,000–70,000
Table 4.5 Representative value of Poisson ratio [17]
Type of soil Poisson’s ratio, μs

Loose sand 0.2–0.4
Medium sand 0.25–0.4
Dense sand 0.3–0.45
Silty sand 0.2–0.4
Soft clay 0.15–0.25
Medium clay 0.2–0.5
The poisson’s ratio of the sub grade soil assumed 0.3 for all pits.
The total immediate settlement of foundations along axis B and axis C for sandy clay soil
are determined based on the estimated settlement parameters. And the results are
summarized in the Table 4.6.
37
Table 4.6 Immediate settlement of the foundation along Axis B and Axis C
Axial Pit Axial

Pit no load Es μs S no load Es μs S
Axis B (kN) (MPa) (mm) Axis C (kN) (MPa) (mm)

Pit 1 Pit 1
at 3m 686 6300 0.3 44.29 at 3m 925 6300 0.3 13.565
at at
4.5m 686 14100 0.3 12.92 4.5m 925 14100 0.3 11.687
Stotal 57.21 Stotal 25.252

at 3m 1594 6300 0.3 20.67 at 3m 1051 6300 0.3 15.412
at at
4.5m 1594 14100 0.3 23.35 4.5m 1051 14100 0.3 13.279
Pit 2 Pit 2
at 3m 686 7500 0.3 37.2 at 3m 925 7500 0.3 11.394
at at
4.5m 686 6900 0.3 26.41 4.5m 925 6900 0.3 23.883
at 3m 1594 7500 0.3 17.37 at 3m 1051 7500 0.3 12.946
at at
4.5m 1594 6900 0.3 47.72 4.5m 1051 6900 0.3 27.136
b. Primary consolidation settlement
Consolidation settlement parameters for the soil stratum are computed from one dimensional
consolidation test.
The numerical analysis for normally consolidated clay is determined by the following
formula;
Settlement = H (3.2)
= change in void ratio; can be calculated by using e-log σv plot which is obtained from
laboratory test result.
H = thickness of the soil layer
The change in void ratio;
38
(3.3)
Cc= slope of the e–log s plot and is defined as a compression index
(3.4)
σvo= average effective stress kN/m2
σ=the net change in pressure produce by the structure in kN/m2
In the other hand, for overconsolidated clay soil the settlement is determined based on
overcosolidation ratio, OCR.
The slopes of swell index line segment, Cs (or recompression index, Cr) value can be found
based on the following slope formula read from the graph shown in Fig 4.9.
Figure 4.9 e – log P curve
(3.5)
OCR = (3.6)
39
Two conditions are considered to compute settlements of the soil:
1. if the overconsolidation ratio, OCR =1 then the soil is normally consolidated

therefore the settlements are determined by using
Sc= (3.7)
2. if the overconsolidation ratio, OCR >1 then the soil is over consolidated but,
a. if σo + Δσ < σc used S = (3.8)
b. if σo < σC < σD + Δσ used S = (3.9)
Where, σc(Pc) = Preconsolidation stress (determined by Casagrande’s method),σo = current

over burden stress, σ = stress due to external load comes from the structure, σD = σo + σ.
Generally, after the laboratory test and numerical analysis of consolidation settlement
parameters, the final settlement results are calculated as shown in the Table 4.7 and Table
4.8;
Table 4.7 Settlements analysis result of pit 1 at the various depths
soil
stratum Consolidation parameters Westergaard's Stress
thickness, Footing size coefficient Axial load Increment, S(m) Remark
H(m) eo Cc Cs Po(kN/m2) Pc OCR B(m) L(m) Iw P(kN) σ (kN/m2)
Axis B
1 0.37 0.12 0.027 54 100 1.852 1.8 1.8 686 211.728395 0.044 over consolidated soil
3 0.51 0.21 81 83 1.025 0.32 686 97.5644444 0.14 Normally consolidated soil
Total S(mm) 183.7
1 0.37 0.12 0.027 54 100 1.852 3.2 3.2 1594 155.664063 0.034 over consolidated soil
3 0.51 0.21 81 83 1.0247 0.32 1594 226.702222 0.239 Normally consolidated soil
Total S(mm) 273.8
Axis C
1 0.37 0.12 0.027 54 105 1.944 1.8 3.2 1257.57 218.328125 0.043 over consolidated soil
3 0.51 0.21 81 83 1.025 0.32 1257.57 178.8544 0.213 Normally consolidated soil
Total S(mm) 256.2
1 0.37 0.12 0.027 54 100 1.852 2.4 2.4 1051.68 182.583333 0.039
3 0.51 0.21 81 83 1.025 0.32 1051.68 149.572267 0.187
Total S(mm) 225.8
Axis C'
1 0.37 0.12 0.027 54 105 1.944 1.8 1.8 493.5 152.314815 0.032 over consolidated soil
3 0.51 0.21 81 83 1.025 0.32 493.5 70.1866667 0.114 Normally consolidated soil
Total S(mm) 146.3
40
Table 4.8 Settlements result for pit 2, 3 and 4 at various depths
soil Westergaard's Stress
Consolidation parameters
stratum Footing size coefficient Axial load Increment, S(m) Remark
thickness, eo Cc Cs Po(kN/m2 Pc OCR B(m) L(m) Iw P(kN) σ (kN/m2)
Axis B
1 0.7 0.223 0.048 54 80 1.4815 1.8 1.8 686 211.728395 0.07321 over consolidated
3 0.41 0.115 0.0095 85.005 140 1.647 0.32 686 97.5644444 0.03261 normally consolidated
Total S(mm) 105.818
Total S(mm) 156.384
Axic C
1 0.7 0.223 0.048 54 80 1.4815 1.8 3.2 1257.57 218.328125 0.07461 over consolidated
3 0.41 0.115 0.0095 85.005 140 1.647 0.32 1257.57 178.8544 0.07175 normally consolidated
Total S(mm) 146.351
Total S(mm) 111.785
Axic C'
1 0.7 0.223 0.048 54 80 1.4815 1.8 1.8 493.5 152.314815 0.05879 over consolidated
3 0.41 0.115 0.0095 85.005 140 1.647 0.32 493.5 70.1866667 0.01535 normally consolidated
Total S(mm) 74.1363
The total settlement of the foundation is the maximum value obtained from the sum of
immediate and primary consolidation settlements of the foundation with respect to its
original position.
STotal = Simmediate +Sconsolidated (3.10)
Figure 4.10 Angular Distortion
From the Geotechnical point of view, as discussed previously in the literature section no
significant damage will come to a structure if its foundations are uniformly settled as a
whole regardless of how large the settlement may be. In this case only the connections of the
underground utility lines are affected. However, when the settlement is non-uniform
(differential), as it’s always the case, it tends to break structure apart. The settlement
analysis result of this study shows the differential settlements of the foundations due to
varying property of soil underneath. The level of damage to the structure can be evaluated in
terms of angular distortion.
41
As shown in Fig 4.10 the angular distortion is the settlement different between the maximum
point to the minimum point divided by the length between them. Different codes
recommend different damage levels.
Table 4.9 ES EN 1997 [32] Angular distortion limit
Angular
limit states Distortion limits
To prevent the occurrence of a serviceability limit
state 1/300 - 1/2000
A maximum relative rotation acceptable for many
structures 1/500
likely to cause an ultimate limit state 1/150
The maximum angular distortion between Pit 1 and 2 is 0.0052. It is greater than the code
recommended for maximum acceptable limit 1/300 as can seen in Table 4.9.
It has been eight years since the building constructed and open to the service. Within this
years, according to time-rate of the settlement calculation result 80% and 70% around pit 1
and the rest of the pits respectively settlements are takes placed from the total or final
settlement.
42
4.2 ASSESSMENT OF CRACKING CAUSED BY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
FAULT
One of many reasons building can be cracked unexpectedly within short life time is
structural analysis and design errors. Some of these errors lead to over consideration of a
design load which will result in the so called under design, also have a direct impact on the
cost of the building. But most errors are about collecting insufficient or wrong pre design
data, neglecting safety factors, the variation between the new and old design code and other
paper work errors related with copying and editing. And by their nature they make things
missed and design results insufficient. So the probability of under design is very high.
Considering their gradual consequence, both wrong design results are treat for the safety of
the building but mostly under design will result a born weak structure that could fall apart
anytime soon. Therefore, in this study effort is made for the analysis and design of the
existing building from the given architectural and structural drawings and compares it with
the original building designed data.
4.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDY

This study involves modeling a 6-story school building which is constructed from a
reinforced concrete structural frame with hollow concrete block (HCB) walls. The walls are
20mm thick. The structural members are made of in-situ reinforced concrete. All the floor
slabs are solid reinforced concrete with 200mm thickness. The substructure contains spread
and combined footings.
The building is laid on 46m by 8m rectangular area raising 16m from ground as shown in
Fig 4.11 plan view from ETABS2016. The whole structural system is essentially
symmetrical. Also each frame of building is designed as gravity frame. Regarding the
material strength, the characteristic compressive strengths of concrete constituting the
columns and beams is 20 MPa. The yield strength of steel deformed bars is 260.87 MPa.
The allover structural dimension of the building described in Table 4.10.
43
Table 4.10 Detail reference of the building
Description Value/cross-section Remark

Story height 3m All stories
wall thickness 20cm
Slab thickness 20cm it’s typical to all stories
Beam size
Top tie beam 20cmx30cm
Intermediate beams 30cmx40cm Beams from 1st up to 5th stories
Grade beam 25cmx40cm

Columns
C1 and C4 30cmx30cm 4th floor columns
30cmx30cm 3rd floor columns
30cmx30cm 2nd floor columns
30cmx30cm 1st floor columns
35cmx35cm Ground floor columns
35cmx35cm Foundation columns
C2 30cmx30cm 4th floor columns
C3 30cmx30cm 4th floor columns
44
Figure 4.11 The overall building dimension
4.2.2 MODELING OF THE BUILDING

The super structure building model is copied from architectural drawings to ETABS 2015
and 2016. Three dimensional static linear analyses are done according to ES EN 1998:2015
new code recommendations. All of the structural elements such as beams, columns, and slab
sections are used directly from the given original structural drawings data which designed
and prepared before the building is constructed. The building is regular in plan and
elevation. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors of the building are similar.
a. Earthquake static analysis
The revised ES EN 1998-1:2015 part 1 at Table: D2 shown that Dire Dawa city is
categorized under seismic hazard zone 3 and the ground acceleration 0.1g is determined
using the reference peak ground acceleration for Dire Dawa and building importance
considered class II. The behavior factor q for ductility class low is 1.5 is used for this
analysis.
As per the new code recommendation type 2 spectrum type is used for the selected building
structural seismic analysis. And the soil is assumed as type C.
It is also necessary to define effective elastic properties since the elastic part of the member
cracks when the member enters into inelastic range. Hence, the stiffness reduction factors
are used to reduce the gross stiffness properties of the beams, columns and slabs of the
structural members.
The stiffness modification factors used for all section are as follow
o Shear area in 2 & 3 direction = 0.5
o Torsional constant = 0.1
o Moment of inertia in 2 & 3 axis = 0.5
 Slabs
o Bending in m11, m22 and m33 directions = 0.05
45
Eurocode8 2004 seismic load pattern are defined to apply the lateral earthquake load on a
given structure with using the above data.
Load combinations
Different load combinations are used to analysis the given structure including new seismic
load combination. The load combinations which are displayed on Table 4.11 shall be
accounted and considered in this study as per the new ES EN 1998:2015 and ES EN
1992:2015 code recommended
Table 4.11 Load combination
Total output
Combinations
combinations
GRAVITY 1
GRAVITY ± IMPX 2
GRAVITY ± IMPY 2
SEISMIC±GRAVITY(DEAD
1
+SDEAD+PARTITION+0.3 LL)
1.35(DEAD+SDEAD+PARTITION)
1
+1.5LL
SERVICE 1
[SEISMIC GRAVITY] ± [IMP X,Y]
± [EQXN, EQXP, EQYN,EQYP],±
0.3*[EQXN, EQXP,EQYN,EQYP] 32
ENVELOPE X (all equivalent static

load combinations) 1
ENVELOPE Y (all equivalent static

1
load combinations in the X)
ENVELOPE 1
The building is modeled and analyzed as a 3D frame system on ETABS2016 as shown in

Fig 4.12 and Fig 4.13. The result of this analysis was interpreted as, for the beams member
case design the reinforcement and compare with the original design are done, for columns
the demand capacity ratio ETABS output are checked. Unlike beams and columns the slab
member of the structure are checked by comparing the SAFE2014 deflection output result
with the acceptable code recommended limit.
46
Figure 4.12 Basic structural system ETABS 2016 model
Figure 4.13 Floor plan model
47
4.2.3 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RESULT
I. Beam
According to ENVELOPE load combination from the list of different load combinations the
result of analysis or sample bending moment diagram over the beams along axis-B are
shown in Fig 4.14.
Figure 4.14 Bending moment diagram for beam on axis C
48
Figure 4.15 General beams longitudinal reinforcement and comparison with the original design
Provided reinforcement calculated Calculated/ Remark

Level Location #Bars Area (mm2) Moment R-bar Area provided
& beam section (kN-m) (mm2)
Axis B
(300x400)
sec 7-7 (support) 4φ20 1256.64 58.84 958 0.762 top bar
sec 5-5 (span) 3φ16 603.2 26.63 477 0.791 Bottom
Axis C
(300x400mm)
sec 2-2 (support) 3φ16 603 61.1 778.48 1.291 top bar
1st, 2nd, 3rd sec 3-3 (span) 2φ16 402.124 24.5 477 1.186 bottom
and 4th Axis 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
typical floor (300x500mm)
Sec 6-6 5φ20 1570.8 90.96 1219 0.776 right side top
Sec 9-9 4φ20+2φ20 1884.96 212.6 2008 1.065 left side top
Sec 8-8 3φ20 942.5 56.67 822 0.872 bottom
Axis 3, 5, 7, 9
(300x500mm)
Sec 10-10 5φ20 1570.8 90.96 1446 0.921 right side top
Sec 12-12 4φ20+2φ20 2199.115 212.6 2289 1.041 left side top
Sec 11-11 3φ20 1256.63 56.67 1059 0.843 bottom
Axis1' and 11'
(300x500mm)
Sec 9-9 6φ20 1884 90.96 1198.78 0.636 top
Sec 8-8 3φ20 942 56.67 725.728 0.770 bottom
Axis 1 and 11
(300x500mm)
Sec 9-9 6φ20 1884 127.64 1740.204 0.924 top
Sec 8-8 3φ20 942 43.89 556.43 0.591 bottom
Top tie beam (200x300mm) 2φ14 307.87 14.26 176.81 0.574 top bar
2φ14 307.87 11.9 176.81 0.574 bottom
Grade beam(250x400mm) 2φ14 307.87 51.13 406 1.319 top bar

2φ12 226 28.58 250 1.106 bottom
The demand capacity ratio for beams at each floor is display in Table 4.12 as a ratio of
calculated to provided rebar area. Most beams show a demand capacity ratio less than 1.
However, significant portion beams show exceeded demand capacity ratio greater than 1.
Thus it can be deducted that the contribution to observed cracks design error cannot be
ignored.
49
II. Column
The vertical compression members in RC structure subjected to axial load and moment due
to unbalanced moments from beams and also the load may not be centered on the columns.
Therefore, columns should be designed for axial load and design moment obtained from the
analysis result.
Table 4.12 Columns demand capacity ratio ETABS2016 result
Column design
Demand/capacity
Column P-m-m interaction
axis B B H Level Nsd M2-2 M3-3 ratio
Col B6 300 300 4th floor 87.787 17.32 5.4 0.413
Col B6 400 400 3th floor 395.46 48.68 22.2 0.367
Col B6 400 400 2th floor 703.46 39.04 37.94 0.478
Col B6 450 450 1th floor 1016.7 54.68 46.38 0.475
Col B6 500 500 Ground 1334 36.65 66.48 O/S
Col B6 500 500 Foundation 1462.4 41.89 104.87 0.597
Column
axis C
Col C6 300 300 4th floor 46 8.2 3.6 0.233
Col C6 350 350 3th floor 242.49 48.8 18.09 0.584
Col C6 350 350 2th floor 442.62 38.08 28.9 0.55
Col C6 400 400 1th floor 648 56.3 44.6 0.619
Col C6 400 400 Ground 855.2 36.4 42.45 0.514
Col C6 400 400 Foundation 957.08 13.59 53.35 0.587
Column
axis C’
Col C’11 300 300 4th floor 42.22 6.43 12.82 0.348
Col C’11 300 300 3th floor 179.1 8.87 12.6 0.343
Col C’11 300 300 2th floor 305.825 13.89 25.76 0.514
Col C’11 300 300 1th floor 451.684 13.89 33.2 0.606
Col C’11 350 350 Ground 637.78 21.189 53.604 0.644

Col C’11 350 350 Foundation 785.12 29.12 54.08 0.702
As can be seen from Table 4.13 and Fig 4.15, the demand capacity ratios for each column is
displayed. It can be seen that most columns have a demand capacity ratio less than 1. I.e.
most columns are safe except columns B6 at a ground floor as shown in Fig 4.15. It can be
suggested from the result that the contribution to exhibited cracks from design error is
minimal.
50
Figure 4.16 Axis B and C columns P-M-M interaction ratio from ETABS 2016 output
51
III. Slab checking for serviceability
The floor slabs are modeled on SAFE 2014 by exporting directly from ETABS2016 model
including loads which are applied on the floor.
The typical floor slabs checking for serviceability (long term deflection) under sustain loads
with the allowable deflection. The EUROCODE 2 recommended that the allowable
deflections should not exceed Le/250.
Le = effective span length
Le for the typical slabs = 4000mm
The allowable deflection Δ = 16 mm > the maximum deflection as seen in Fig 4.16 from
SAFE 2014 output is 11.62mm
Therefore the typical slabs of the floors under the expected given loads are within acceptable
deflection limit and the typical slabs are safe under the previous designed condition.
Figure 4.17 Safe 2014 deflection output
52
4.3 THE EFFECT OF THE DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT ON THE
BUILDING FRAME
Foundation design necessitates two different studies; one deals with the bearing capacity of
the soil; the other is concerned with the foundation settlements. Considering that the loads
transferred from the superstructure to the foundation are non-uniform, differential
settlements between the foundation's elements are expected. But the conventional design of
building frames is based on the assumption that the settlement of footings has no effect on
the load of the corresponding columns and on other structural members of the building. In
reality, the differential settlements among various footings result in a redistribution of the
column loads, the amount of which depends on the rigidity of the structure and the load-
settlement characteristics of the soil.
The settlement analysis result showed that the foundation soil prevailing underneath the
building is under differential settlement condition. On the other hand, analyzing and
redesigning the entire building structure without settlement consideration brought minor
difference from the original design data. Here the difference is small enough not to exceed
the safety factor provided for loads and materials at first place. But the cumulative effects of
the soil and the building structure has to be evaluated thoroughly. Hence, force quantities
and settlement at lately adjusted condition can only be obtained through interactive analysis
of the soil–structure– foundation system. This explains the importance of considering soil
effects on the whole structural system of the building.
Three dimensional analyses of the superstructure, the foundation and the soil beneath all
together constitute a complete system. Also due to differential settlement among various
parts of the structure, the axial force, moments and other stresses in the structural members
may change. And the extent at which the loads are redistributed depends upon the rigidity of
the structure and the load –settlement characteristics of soil.
So far the supper structure and the soil settlement characteristics are analyzed individually.
Here in this chapter, the building is modeled and analyzed nearly to simulate its actual
existence which means its frame structure and soil behavior/settlement/ all together.
Following the analysis, the effect of foundation differential settlement and the building
frame structure one on another is discussed. Most importantly, this analysis is performed to
observe whether the building structure with the original design can sustain the additional
stress from soil differential settlement or not.
53
4.3.1 MODELING
The conventional model of the frame with fixed bases is analyzed using ETABS 2016. And
the outputs are presented in the previous chapter. Now, in this chapter similar model is used
to study the soil structure interaction system, except with the introduction of determined
settlement values as a ground displacement at the bases of the columns. The analysis is
performed in 3D model and parameters are calibrated based on the settlement analysis data.
The building has four type of footing in general as described in Table 4.14; three isolated
and one combined.
Table 4.13 Building base foundations dimensions
Type Footing dimension

F1 1.8mx1.8m
F2 2.4mx2.4m
F3 3.2mx3.2m
Combined footing 3.2mx1.8m
During modeling the downward displacements assigned at the column bases are obtained
from settlement analysis. And as discussed in the previous chapter, the laboratory result of
soil parameters observed in pit 2, 3 and 4 are approximately similar but soil parameters in pit
1 significantly vary to be approximated. Hence, for the soil laid under foundation bases
which coincide with the pits, the respective soil parameters are used. And for the soil laid
under foundation column in between pit1 and pit 2, the final settlement parameters are
interpolated. On the other hand, the respective foundation settlements in between the two
pits are determined by using interpolated final settlement parameters and modeled on
ETABS 2016 as shown in Fig 4.17.
54
Table 4.14 Axis B assigned ground displacement on ETABS 2016
4.3.2 ANALYSIS RESULT

Figure 4.18 and 4.19 clearly shows the final settlement different at both sides of the
building. And unlike the results from visual observation and followed by analysis, here the
difference between the two sides of the building in terms of differential settlement is quite
noticeable.
Figure 4.18 ETABS2016 analysis result of Axis C frame deformed shape
55
Figure 4.19 ETABS2016 analysis result of Axis B frame deformed shape
Table 4.15 Beams axis B and axis C reinforcement comparison with the original data
Provided
reinforcement Calculated Calculated/
Level Location & #bars Area (mm2) R-bar area provided Remark
Beam section (mm2)
Axis B
(300x400mm)
Sec 7-7
(support) 4φ20 1256.64 1515 1.21 Top bar
Sec 5-5(span) 3φ16 603.2 884 1.47 Bottom
Axis C
1st, 2nd, 3rd
and (300x400mm)
4th typical Sec 3-3
floor (support) 3φ16 603 1226 2.03 Top bar
Sec 2-2(span) 2φ16 402.124 717 1.78 Bottom
In Table 4.15 shown that the demand capacity ratio of beams on Axis B and C of typical
floors is computed as a ratio rebars area of calculated to provided. The demand capacity
ratio values in Table 4.15 indicate that the case study building beam members are highly
stressed.
56
As compare with demand capacity ratio computed for the conventional design shown in
Table 4.12 and the result in Table 4.15 demand capacity ratio computed for displacement
load due to differential settlement, the lateral exhibits much larger value.
Table 4.16 Column demand capacity ratio with Settlement effect on frame
Column design Demand/capacity

Column B H Nsd M2-2 M3-3 P-M-M
axis B (mm) (mm) Level (kN) (kN-m) (kN-m) interaction ratio
Col B6 300 300 4th floor 90.45 43.74 52.26 0.994
Col B6 400 400 3th floor 394.67 41.55 67.08 O/S
Col B6 400 400 2th floor 702.47 50.61 56.5 0.879
Col B6 450 450 1th floor 1019.51 77.17 67.4 0.655
Col B6 500 500 Ground 1344.34 152.83 87.04 0/s
Col B6 500 500 Foundation 1450.35 109.32 94.71 0.838
Column
axis c
Col C1 300 300 4th floor 21.2 89.63 138.43 O/s
Col C1 300 300 3th floor 75.6 136.65 168.76 O/s
Col C1 300 300 2th floor 155.287 164.51 167.46 O/s
Col C1 300 300 1th floor 245.54 200 146.51 O/s
Col C1 350 350 Ground 363.89 284. 199.05 O/s
Col C1 350 350 Foundation 480.73 166.13 74.97 O/s
Column
axis c
Col C6 300 300 4th floor 48.47 43.824 10.83 0.396
Col C6 350 350 3th floor 233.51 35.97 34.85 0.846
Col C6 350 350 2th floor 426.44 53.21 30.167 0.58
Col C6 400 400 1th floor 628.75 69.11 41.89 0.630
Col C6 400 400 Ground 836.74 75.4 38.15 0.612
Col C6 400 400 Foundation 970.4 45.02 48.46 0.724
Column
axis c’
Col C’11 300 300 4th floor 201.75 50.66 16.05 O/S
Col C’11 300 300 3th floor 1060.1 91.13 28.1 O/S
Col C’11 300 300 2th floor 2073 104.83 29 O/S
Col C’11 300 300 1th floor 3303 137.844 28.3915 O/S
Col C’11 350 350 Ground 4966 219.56 36.76 O/S
Col C’11 350 350 Foundation 6222.47 119.189 23.0597 O/S
57
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.20 Column P-M-M interaction ratio under the effect of settlement effect on frame (a) Axis
B; (b) Axis C
The demand to capacity ratio ETABS2016 output result as shown in Fig 4.20 for vertical
displacement loaded due to differential settlement revealed that most of the existing column
structures are overstressed. These indicate that there is significant deformation in columns.
When comparing result from conventional design, Table 4.13 with analysis result from
differential settlement analysis as shown in Table 4.16, there is large difference such that in
the later most column structure showed overstressed status than in the former.
58
4.4 NON LINEAR ANALYSIS
Although there was no history of seismic event occurred near the case study building, non
linear pushover analysis was conducted to observe the pushover analysis was conducted to
observe the ultimate failure behavior of the sample building. Detail analysis procedures,
corresponding analysis calculations and detail result are shown in the Appendix B.
59
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 CONCLUSION
Four different assessment approaches have been used to evaluate the performance of the
building, which then lead to the cause of the crack. After a careful analysis and result
discussion the following conclusions are drawn from each assessment.
 There is variation in property of soil along vertical and horizontal strata. This
brought relative rotation of the structure which exceeded the maximum acceptable
limit. Therefore, differential settlement is the major cause for the crack.
Based on results from settlement time rate analysis, major portion of the final
settlement has already been exhausted. Thus, the probability which further structural
crack could occur due to settlement is less.
 From design review result /as per the revised codes/, some of the building’s columns
and beams are found over stressed. This condition makes the building less resistant
against settlement effect. Thus, design error is the contributing factor which
aggravates the width and length of the crack.
 Finally from SSI analysis, many columns are overstressed. These are more
overstressed columns found in the second assessment approach (design review
result). Furthermore, many beams exceeded their acceptable deflection limits.
Therefore, SSI analysis results comprehensively indicate that the effect of foundation
differential settlement significantly contributed to the existing condition of the
building.
 Though no seismic activity has occurred near the building, results from pushover
analysis points that the building is not safe for such event. Specifically structural
elements along the shorten direction exceeded the collapse prevention limit which is
not acceptable for the service category of the building/school building/.
60
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
Conventionally, soil investigation is carried out to determine the bearing capacity and decide
the location of the foundation. It is not common to conduct settlement analysis during the
conventional soil investigation. The result of the study shows the importance of conducting
such investigation especially for site consisting of clay layers.
Therefore the author suggests that concerned government office involved in design permit
should make the settlement analysis as one of the requirement.
Generally speaking, foundation affected by soil settlement can be repaired. But introducing
such method in context of low cost building will be unacceptably expensive and in some
cases unnecessary as it may even exceed the total cost of the building.
61
REFERENCE
1. A.S. Moghadam and W.K. Tso (2000). 3-D Pushover Analysis for Damage
Assessment of Buildings. Ontario, Canada.
2. Aarlin K Mathew, Sat Kumar Tomer, Lovely K.M. (2015), Effect of Soil-Structure
Interaction in Seismic Analysis of Framed Structures Using ANSYS, © 2015 ijedr |
volume 3, issue 3 | issn: 2321-9939
3. Abhijeet A. Maske, Nikhil A. Maske, Preeti P.Shiras (2014). Pushover analysis of

Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures: A Case Study. India
4. ACI 224.1R (2007), Cause, Evaluation, and Repair of Cracks in Concrete Structures.
USA
5. American Association for Testing and Materials (1999).Annual book of ASTM

standard, Sec.4. Vol. 04.08, Washington, D.C.
6. American Association of State Highway and transportation officials (1982),

AASHTO Materials, Part Specificaation Washington, D.C.
7. Asrat Worku (2007). The Use of Springs In Static Analysis of Structures to Account
for Short and Long Term Subgrade Deformations, Addis Ababa University.
8. Atishay Lahri and Vivek Garg (2015), Effect of Differntial Settlement on Frame
Forces,India
9. Atkinson J. (1993), An introduction to the mechanics of soils and foundations:

through critical state soil mechanics.UK, London, City University.
10. Bahar Ramdane, Sadaoui Omar and Amzal Djahid (2013), Differential Settlement of
Cylindrical Steel Storage Tanks: Case of the Marine Terminal of Bejaia,
11. Bhojegowa V T, Mr. K G Subramanya (2015), Soil Structure Interaction Analysis

on a RC Building with Raft foundation under Clayey Soil Condition, Karnataka,
India.
12. Bill Mosley (2007), Josh Bungey and Ray Husle,Reinforced concrete design to
Eurocode 2, Sixth Edition.
13. Bowles, J.E. (1996), Foundation Analysis and Design 5th edition, McGraw-Hill,
14. Braja B. Das (2009). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering 7th Edition, USA.
15. D. Nagarajan, K. Premalatha (2014). Investigation of foundation Failure of a

Residential Building. Anna University, Chenna, TamilNadu, India.
62
16. D.N. Shinde1 , Nair Veena V2 , Pudale Yojana M3(2014). Pushover Analysis of
Multistory Building, Budhgaon, Maharashra, India.
17. Das, B. M. (1998). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 4th red. Boston: PWS
Publishing Company
18. Debbie A.Hill, Larry Hammond and Bruce Skolnik (2004). Effective Post-PLRA
Settlement Models: A Case Study of Arizona's Protective Segregation Lawsuit, Issue
2 spring.
19. Donald P. Codulo, William A. Kitch, Mon-chu Ronald Yeung (2001). Foundation
Design: Principles and practice, 3rd edition, New Jersey, USA.
20. Engineer educators, Inc.(2008), Geotechnical Engineering Overview,
21. ETABS2016 Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures Inc.
22. Ethiopian Building Code Standards : EBCS-2 Structural Use of Concrete (1995).
Ministry of Works and urban Development, Addis Ababa.
23. Ethiopian Standards based on Euro Norms Annex, ES EN 1997: (2015), Eurocode 7.
Geotechnical Design- part one: General rules. Ministry of Works and urban
Development, Addis Ababa.
24. Ethiopian Standards based on Euro Norms: ES EN 2 1992:(2015), Design of

Concrete Structures. Ministry of Works and Urban Development, Addis Ababa.
25. Ethiopian Standards based on Euro Norms: ES EN 8 1992: (2015), Design of

Structures for earthquake resistance. Ministry of Works and urban Development,
Addis Ababa.
26. Fajfar P. and Gasperic P. (1996). The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of
RC buildings Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics.
27. FEMA 273, NEHRP Nehrp guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington D.C, USA
28. Fookes, P.G. (1997), The first Glossop Lecture: Geology for engineers: the
geological model, prediction and performance. London, England.
29. Gaikwad M.V., Ghogare R.B and Vageesha S. Mathada (2015). Finite Element
Analysis of Frame with Soil Structure Interaction Ijret: International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Technology.
30. Gazetas, G. (1991), Formula and Charts for Impendance of Surface and Embedded
foundation, Journal of Geoechnical Enigneering.New York, USA.
63
31. Gerrit Smit (2010). The behaviour of modern flexible framed structures undergoing
differential settlement. University of Southampton.
32. Ioannis Anastasopoulos (2013), "Structural damage of a 5-Story Building:

Differential Settlement Due to construction of an Adjacent Building or Because of
Construction Defects, Athens, Greece.
33. Jain O.P., Trikha D.N. and Jain, S.C. (1977). Differential foundation settlement of
high rise buildings. Proc. Int. Symposium on soil-structure interaction. University of
Roorkee, Roorkee, India
34. John S. Horvath and Regis J. Colasanti, (2011), A Practical Subgrade Model for
Improved Soil-Structural Interaction Analysis: parameter Assessment.New
York,U.S.A.
35. Konstantinos Syngros and Alan Poeppel (2015). Soil-Foundation-Superstructure

Interaction for Tall Building on Combined Pile-Raft Foundations.
36. Lee, I.K. and Brown, P.T. (1972). "Structural-Foundation Interaction Analysis",
J.Struct. Div, ASCE.
37. Liam Wotherpoon, Michael Pender, Jason Ingham (2004). Combined modeling of
Structural and Foundation Systems,
38. Lymon C.Reese,William Isenhower,Shin-TowerWang (2005). Analysis and Design

of Shallow and Deep Foundations.
39. Meltem Vatan. Condition Survey of Historic Building by Visual Inspection - Case
Study: Case Study: Murat Pasha Mosque, Florya Campus. Istanbul, Turkey.
40. Mohammed Ismaeil, Mohamed Solaih, Adel Akl (2015). Seismic Capacity
Assessment of Existing RC Building in the Sudan by Using Pushover Analysis.
Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
41. Muni Budhi [2010], Soil Mechanics and Foundations,Arizona University
42. N. Subramanian (2011), Design of Steel Structures, Appendix C, Oxford University
43. Pooja Nama, Ankush Jain, Rajat Srivastava and Yash Bhatia. Study on Cause of
Cracks and its Preventive measures in Concrete Structure. Career Point University,
Kota.
44. Ramakant Agrawal and M. S. Hora. Effect of Differential Settlement on Nonlinear

Interaction Behaviour of Plane Frame-Soil System. Bhopal, India.
64
45. Response-2000 Version 1.0.5 (2000). Reinforced Concert Section Analysis,
University of Toronto Inc.
46. Roger W. Johnson (2013). The significance of Cracks in Low-Rise Buildings.
47. S. G. Paikowsky (2013). Short and Long Term Settlement Analysis of Shallow
Foundation. University of Massachusetts Lowell. USA.
48. SAFE2014 Version 14.2.0 (2014). Reinforced Concert Section Analysis, Computers
and Structures. University of Toronto Inc.
49. SAP2000 Version 18, Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures Inc.
50. Skempton, A.W., and Macdonald, D.H. (1956). The Allowable Settlement of
Buildings, Proc. I.C.E. London.
51. Terzaghi, K. V. (1955) "Evaluation of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction,"

Geotechnique
52. V. N. S. Murhy (2002). Geotechnical engineering, principles and practices of soil

mechanics and foundation engineering, New York, USA.
65
APPENDIX A- SOIL INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS DATA
66
Soil laboratory test results
Varies Pits Grain Size Distribution
Pit 1 at 3m
Pit 1 at 4.5m
67
Pit at 2, 3 and 4 at 3m
Pit at 3 and 4 at 4.5m
68
Consolidation test cumulative gauge readings of each pits from consolidation test
Pit 1
At 3m
Dial Guage Reading, mm

7 50 100 200 400 800 1600
Time(min.) time [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
0 0.00 3.39 3.102 3.428 3.806 4.204 5.022 5.474
0.1 0.32 3.324 3.762 4.310 4.758 5.326 5.842
0.25 0.50 - 3.342 3.618 4.330 4.780 5.338 5.866
0.50 0.71 - 3.348 3.642 4.370 4.806 5.350 5.890
1 1.00 - 3.354 3.662 4.396 4.828 5.364 5.922
2 1.41 - 3.566 3.644 4.224 4.852 5.378 5.946
4 2.00 - 3.570 3.702 4.266 4.878 5.390 5.980
8 2.83 - 3.596 3.720 4.290 4.906 5.402 6.018
15 3.87 - 3.418 3.734 4.310 4.928 5.414 6.060
30 5.48 - 3.404 3.952 4.328 4.950 5.428 6.110
60 7.75 - 3.408 3.966 4.346 4.970 5.438 6.162
120 10.95 - 3.418 3.980 4.362 4.986 5.448 6.208
240 15.49 - 3.402 3.990 4.378 5.000 5.454 6.236
480 21.91 - 3.422 3.804 4.390 5.010 5.462 6.258
1440 37.95 3.10 3.428 3.806 4.204 5.022 5.474 6.278
Calculation table:
Applied Final Change Final Void Void
Dial In Ratio,
Pressure reading specimen Specimen Height,hv e
P Height Height
(kpa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Loading
7 0.00 20.00 8.20 0.70
7 2.300 0.15 20.00 8.20 0.70
50 4.798 -0.49 19.51 7.72 0.65
100 5.380 -0.58 18.93 7.13 0.60
200 6.124 -0.74 18.19 6.39 0.54
400 6.898 -0.77 17.42 5.62 0.48
800 7.466 -0.63 16.79 4.99 0.42
1600 8.252 -0.83 15.96 4.16 0.35
Unloading
1600 8.652 -0.83 15.96 4.16 0.35
800 8.558 0.09 16.05 4.25 0.36
400 8.406 0.15 16.20 4.41 0.37
200 8.324 0.08 16.29 4.49 0.38
69
At 4.5m

7 50 100 200 400 800 1600
Time(min.) time[kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
0 0.002.88 2.462 2.809 3.328 4.020 4.814 5.733
0.1 0.32 2.650 3.032 3.636 4.460 5.280 6.070
0.25 0.50 - 2.644 3.060 3.672 4.484 5.302 6.092
0.50 0.71 - 2.686 3.096 3.714 4.514 5.336 6.122
1 1.00 - 2.696 3.127 3.762 4.552 5.369 6.146
2 1.41 - 2.706 3.158 3.810 4.584 5.402 6.178
4 2.00 - 2.730 3.186 3.850 5.624 5.442 6.212
8 2.83 - 2.733 3.214 3.892 5.662 5.488 6.252
15 3.87 - 2.745 3.236 3.923 4.692 5.534 6.278
30 5.48 - 2.760 3.258 3.948 4.722 5.600 6.350
60 7.75 - 2.769 3.279 3.967 4.748 5.636 6.412
120 10.95 - 2.790 3.294 3.982 4.764 5.676 6.466
240 15.49 - 2.799 3.302 3.996 4.780 5.702 6.507
480 21.91 - 2.804 3.315 4.006 4.796 5.720 6.532
1440 37.95 2.46 2.809 3.328 4.020 4.814 5.733 6.550
Calculation table:
Dial In Ratio,
P Height Height
Loading
7 2.880 0.000 20.000 6.775 0.512
7 2.460 0.420 20.420 7.195 0.544
50 2.809 -0.347 20.073 6.848 0.518
100 3.328 -0.519 19.554 6.329 0.479
200 4.020 -0.692 18.862 5.637 0.426
400 4.814 -0.794 18.068 4.843 0.366
800 5.733 -0.919 17.149 3.924 0.297
1600 6.550 -0.817 16.332 3.107 0.235
Unloading
1600 6.550 -0.817 16.332 3.107 0.235
800 6.494 0.056 16.614 3.389 0.245
400 6.414 0.080 16.694 3.469 0.260
200 6.316 0.098 16.792 3.567 0.270
70
Pit 2
At 3m

7 50 100 200 400 800 1600
0 0.00 2.44 2.296 2.652 3.098 3.840 4.606 5.636
0.1 0.32 2.308 2.804 3.698 4.242 5.070 5.646
0.25 0.50 - 2.310 2.826 3.710 4.286 5.088 5.672
0.50 0.71 - 2.520 2.848 3.748 4.324 5.110 5.698
1 1.00 - 2.618 2.870 3.780 4.348 5.136 5.724
2 1.41 - 2.728 2.892 3.618 4.380 5.168 5.756
4 2.00 - 2.746 2.912 3.650 4.410 5.202 5.792
8 2.83 - 2.756 2.930 3.680 4.442 5.238 5.830
15 3.87 - 2.770 2.948 3.712 4.478 5.274 5.884
30 5.48 - 2.784 2.990 3.738 4.508 5.312 5.924
60 7.75 - 2.800 3.026 3.758 4.534 5.346 5.978
120 10.95 - 2.812 3.050 3.780 4.554 5.376 6.028
240 15.49 - 2.824 3.066 3.796 4.572 5.598 6.064
480 21.91 - 2.832 3.082 3.812 4.588 5.614 6.091
1440 37.95 2.30 2.840 3.098 3.840 4.606 5.636 6.136
Calculation table:
Dial In Ratio,
P Height Height
Loading
7 0.00 20.00 3.88 0.24
7 2.300 0.15 20.00 3.88 0.24
50 2.840 -0.54 19.46 3.34 0.21
100 3.098 -0.45 19.01 2.89 0.18
200 3.840 -0.59 18.42 2.30 0.14
400 4.606 -0.74 17.68 1.56 0.10
800 5.636 -0.61 17.07 0.95 0.06
1600 6.210 -0.72 16.35 0.23 0.01
Unloading
1600 6.210 -0.72 16.35 0.23 0.01
800 6.022 0.19 16.54 7.38 0.02
400 5.724 0.30 16.61 2.06 0.03
71
Pit 2, 3 and 4
At 3m

7 50 100 200 400 800 1600
0 0.00 2.44 4.312 4.798 5.380 6.124 6.898 7.466
0.1 0.32 4.606 5.040 6.360 7.148 7.682
0.25 0.50 - 4.614 5.084 6.398 7.118 7.708
0.50 0.71 - 4.626 5.124 6.632 7.208 7.832
1 1.00 - 4.632 5.154 6.674 7.232 7.972
2 1.41 - 4.642 5.186 6.706 7.260 7.996
4 2.00 - 4.652 5.216 6.738 7.290 8.032
8 2.83 - 4.664 5.248 6.766 7.322 8.070
15 3.87 - 4.676 5.268 6.788 7.348 8.102
30 5.48 - 4.690 5.292 6.812 7.376 8.136
60 7.75 - 4.722 5.313 6.834 7.390 8.166
120 10.95 - 4.752 5.333 6.852 7.415 8.188
240 15.49 - 4.766 5.348 6.866 7.430 8.208
480 21.91 - 4.780 5.362 6.891 7.447 8.225
1440 37.95 2.30 4.798 5.380 6.124 6.898 7.466 8.252
Calculation table:
Dial In Ratio,
P Height Height
Loading
7 0.00 20.00 8.20 0.70
7 2.300 0.15 20.00 8.20 0.70
50 4.798 -0.49 19.51 7.72 0.65
100 5.380 -0.58 18.93 7.13 0.60
200 6.124 -0.74 18.19 6.39 0.54
400 6.898 -0.77 17.42 5.62 0.48
800 7.466 -0.63 16.79 4.99 0.42
1600 8.252 -0.83 15.96 4.16 0.35
Unloading
1600 8.652 -0.83 15.96 4.16 0.35
800 8.558 0.09 16.05 4.25 0.36
400 8.406 0.15 16.20 4.41 0.37
200 8.324 0.08 16.29 4.49 0.38
72
At 4.5 m

7 50 100 200 400 800 1600
0 0.00 3.39 2.901 3.018 3.153 3.453 3.924 4.360
0.1 0.32 2.974 3.066 3.330 3.834 4.152 4.664
0.25 0.50 - 2.976 3.070 3.338 3.838 4.266 4.692
0.50 0.71 - 2.979 3.076 3.344 3.844 4.182 4.714
1 1.00 - 2.982 3.082 3.358 3.852 4.200 4.741
2 1.41 - 2.986 3.089 3.370 3.860 4.218 4.762
4 2.00 - 2.989 3.096 3.382 3.870 4.240 4.788
8 2.83 - 2.992 3.103 3.392 3.877 4.264 4.813
15 3.87 - 2.994 3.110 3.402 3.885 4.282 4.835
30 5.48 - 2.998 3.118 3.412 3.892 4.302 4.859
60 7.75 - 3.000 3.125 3.421 3.900 4.316 4.880
120 10.95 - 3.004 3.132 3.428 3.906 4.329 4.895
240 15.49 - 0.000 3.138 3.437 3.912 4.340 4.908
480 21.91 - 0.000 3.142 3.440 3.917 4.350 4.921
1440 37.95 2.46 3.018 3.153 3.453 3.924 4.360 4.934
Calculation table:
Dial In
Pressure reading specimen Specimen Height,hv Ratio, e
P Height Height
Loading
7 0 0.00 20.00 6.70 0.50
7 3.100 0.92 20.92 7.62 0.57
50 5.214 -0.12 20.80 7.51 0.56
100 5.870 -0.14 20.67 7.37 0.55
200 6.458 -0.30 20.37 7.07 0.53
400 7.000 -0.42 19.95 6.66 0.50
800 7.894 -0.44 19.52 6.22 0.47
1600 8.602 -0.57 18.94 5.65 0.44
Unloading
1600 8.602 0.00 18.94 5.65 0.44
800 8.550 0.05 18.99 9.83 0.44
400 8.232 0.32 16.61 2.06 0.45
73
Soil index properties from the previous studied Soil test report
Grain size distribution at a varies depth
74
Attemberg Limit at a varies depth
75
The building structural drawings
Typical floors beam detail
76
Columns
77
Foundation detail
78
APPENDIX B NON LINEAR PUSHOVER ASSESSMENT
B.1. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS RESULT AND DISCUSSION

B.1.1 Base shear versus top displacement (pushover curve)
A static nonlinear (pushover) analysis performed using SAP2000 version 18.1.0. The loads
were applied independently in the global X and Y directions. The control node to monitor
the displacement of the building was selected at the centre of mass of the building. In the
present paper, a displacement control based analysis was performed. A pushover analysis
was carried out separately in the X and Y directions and a maximum roof target
displacement of 0.28m was chosen to be applied. Due to an incremental lateral
displacement, the pushover curve slope gradually changed with the progressive plastic hinge
formation in beams and columns throughout the building structure. The resulting pushover
curves, in terms of base shear roof displacement (V-U) are displayed as shown in Fig B.1 for
both X and Y directions.
Figure B.1: Pushover curve, load vs deflection
79
X- Direction
Figure B.2: Base shear-roof displacement in X direction

The maximum base shear of the structure in the X direction from Fig B.2 is V= 886 kN and
ultimate roof displacement δ = 0.1153 m
Y-Direction
Figure B.3: Base shear-roof displacement in Y direction

The maximum base shear of the structure in the Y direction from Fig B.3 is V= 886 kN and
ultimate roof displacement δ = 0.2323 m.
From the pushover curve result, X direction receive similar force within lesser displacement
than Y direction. Therefore X direction is stiffer than y direction. This happened by the fact
in the X direction more number of columns are exist than Y.
80
Hence, based on the above result, if any earthquake will come about, most of the damage
will first occur on Y-axis (lesser number of columns exists).
a. Performance level
As can be seen in Fig B.4 the performance point is the point where the capacity curve
crosses the demand curve according to FEMA356 and ATC40. For each pushover analysis,
a corresponding capacity curve was thus obtained as shown in the Fig B.5 and Fig B.6. The
yellow line represent demand curve, the green one is the capacity. This analysis was
completed within 17 and 10 (last) steps along in the X and Y direction respectively.
The main output of a pushover analysis is in terms of response demand versus capacity. If
the demand curve intersects the capacity envelope near the elastic range, then the structure
has a good resistance. If the demand curve intersects the capacity curve with little reserve of
strength and deformation capacity, then it can be concluded that the structure will behave
poorly during the imposed seismic excitation and need to be retrofitted to avoid future major
damage or collapse. From this analysis in both directions the performance point as shown in
the Fig. and Fig occurs at the plastic zone which means the structure is not safe under the
expected lateral earthquake load.
Figure B.4: Performance point and damage level

X direction
This analysis was completed in 13 steps and performance point was set between step 4 and 5
of the analysis. The performance point D is equal to 0.065m.
81
Figure B.5: Performance point due to push in the X direction according to ATC 40
Table B.1: Push capacity curve damage level in the X direction
TABLE: Pushover Capacity Curve
LoadCase Step Displacement BaseForce AtoB BtoIO IOtoLS LStoCP CPtoC CtoD DtoE BeyondE Total
Text Unitless m KN Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless
PUSH X 0 0.000439 0 1000 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH X 1 0.00315 85.69 999 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH X 2 0.022166 617.959 923 75 12 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH X 3 0.032145 748.345 860 88 62 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH X 4 0.052248 870.163 824 48 117 9 0 12 0 0 1010
PUSH X 5 0.072459 951.872 799 66 56 16 0 71 2 0 1010
PUSH X 6 0.074959 958.702 789 75 43 18 0 82 3 0 1010
PUSH X 7 0.079959 966.754 777 87 21 13 0 106 6 0 1010
PUSH X 8 0.096209 979.781 755 93 24 1 0 129 8 0 1010
PUSH X 9 0.103084 982.966 750 95 24 3 0 129 9 0 1010
PUSH X 10 0.114998 986.216 743 100 24 1 0 117 25 0 1010
PUSH X 11 0.126248 984.663 738 99 29 1 0 96 47 0 1010
PUSH X 12 0.146248 978.06 734 82 50 0 0 87 57 0 1010
PUSH X 13 0.166248 968.366 729 70 67 0 0 70 74 0 1010
82
From table B.1 can be concluded that most elements have entered in the plastic zone in the
X direction. More than 9 elements of the building are in the collapse prevention (CP-C) limit
state at the performance point. This means that the building of those elements requires
strengthening.
Y direction
This analysis was completed in 9 steps and as show in Fig B.2 performance point was set
between steps 6 and 7 of the analysis. The performance point d is equal to 0.18m.
Figure B.6: Performance point due to push in the y direction according to ATC 40
Table B.2: Push capacity curve damage level in the Y direction

TABLE: Pushover Capacity Curve
LoadCase Step Displacement BaseForce AtoB BtoIO IOtoLS LStoCP CPtoC CtoD DtoE BeyondE Total
Text Unitless m KN Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless Unitless
PUSH Y 0 0.058714 0 1000 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH Y 1 0.062773 37.822 999 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH Y 2 0.084781 236.245 988 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH Y 3 0.108802 424.89 963 28 19 0 0 0 0 0 1010
PUSH Y 4 0.129439 556.711 937 30 29 6 0 6 2 0 1010
PUSH Y 5 0.150492 649.404 921 26 39 1 0 18 5 0 1010
PUSH Y 6 0.17284 719.14 909 12 60 4 0 16 9 0 1010
PUSH Y 7 0.194336 784.849 902 18 46 9 0 22 13 0 1010
PUSH Y 8 0.214878 833.501 893 20 33 20 0 26 18 0 1010
PUSH Y 9 0.232808 882.163 887 21 26 16 0 40 18 2 1010
83
From table B.2 Y direction can be concluded that most elements have entered in the plastic
zone. More than 60 elements of the building are in the collapse prevention (CP-C) limit state
at the performance point. This means that the building of those elements requires
strengthening.
Plastic hinge formation at the performance point

Plastic hinge formations for the selected building mechanisms have been obtained at
different displacements levels. The formation of hinges at the performance point step of
pushover analysis is plotted in Fig B.7 at X direction and Fig B.8 at Y direction for a given
story’s building. Plastic hinge formation starts with beam ends and at top columns of lower
stories, then consecutively to upper stories and continue with yielding of interior
intermediate columns in the upper stories. The life safety performance level is selected
because the buildings are designed according to EBCS-8, 1995 which is intended to protect
the life safety of the people. But as shown in the fig, most of the selected building hinges are
formed at the non linear plastic range LS and CP performance level which are shown the
building is not safe for expected earthquake load.
84
(a)
(b)
Figure B.7: Yielding pattern of the structure at the performance point in x direction;
(a) step 4 (b) step 5
85
(a)
(b)
Figure B.8: Yielding pattern of the structure at the performance point in x direction;
(a) step 6 (b) step 7
86
ATC 40 seismic coefficient CA and Cv
Table B.3; Seismic coefficient CA
Table B.4; Seismic coefficient Cv
Some progressive step of plastic hinge formation

X direction
Step 2
87
Step 4
Step 6
88
Y direction
Step 3
Step 4
89
At step 6
90

Hana Getachew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hana Getachew

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hana Getachew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Cause and Significance of Crack and Structural Defect

Assessment of School Building in Dire Dawa City (Case Study on

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Cracking Assessments of the building

Data collection and

Field Structural analysis

 Linear static analysis

2.2 EVALUATION OF CRACKS

 To identify the cause of cracking

Cause of cracking due to

2.2.1 DIAGONAL CRACKS

Figure 2.1Building diagonal cracks

2.3 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

Settlement is defines as the downward displacement of foundation as a result of stress

Two basic types of settlement:

1. Elastic settlement (or immediate settlement), which is caused by the elastic

2.3.1 STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN SOIL DUE TO FOOTING PRESSURE

Boussinesq's equation considers a point load on the surface of a semi-infinite, homogeneous,

Ab has the maximum value of 0.477 at r/z = 0

Figure 2.3Vertical pressure within an earth mass [50]

Where a = (1 - μ)/ (2 - μ), for r/z = 0 taken Aw=0.32

2.3.2 CONSOLIDATION THEORY

Therefore, equation for computing primary consolidation settlement for normally

(a) If Po + ΔP < Pc, Sc= (2.5a)

(b) If Po < Pc < Po + ΔP, Sc= (2.5b)

Computation of settlement of a soil deposit in the field is consist of two parts

 computation of magnitude of final settlement

Differential settlement is a general term used to describe the differences in vertical

 Total settlement. Also known as the maximum settlement, it is the largest

2.3.4 FACTORS PRODUCING DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT

Figure 2.5 Differential foundation settlement

i) Non uniform nature of the subsoil throughout the foundation

2.3.6 LABORATORY SOIL TEST

Figure 2.7 Particle-size distribution curve

I. Consistency of soil and determination of consistency limits plasticity of soils

II. The standard one dimensional consolidation test

2.4 CRACKING DUE TO ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ERROR

Inadequate amount of reinforcement may results in excessive cracking. A common mistake

Existing building structures deform inelastically when subjected to earthquake loads, so

2.6 SOIL STRUCTURAL INTERACTION

Soil-structure interaction is interdisciplinary field which involves structural and geotechnical

Several investigators have studied the influence of the phenomenon of soil-structure

2.6.1 EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT ON FRAME

Figure 3.1Existing building over view

Figure 3.2 Diagonal cracks

Figure 3.4 Internal infill walls diagonal cracks along Axis B

4.1 EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL

4.1.1 BORING AND SAMPLING OF SOIL

Figure 4.1 Excavated pit location around the building

a. Index properties and soil classification tests

Table 4.1 Summarized soil property and description

Depth Strength of fine

1 4 Brown sandy clay Semisolid state 32 17.4 14.37

b. One dimensional consolidation test

Figure 4.3 Pit 1 at 3m e –log P curve

Figure 4.5 Pit 3 at 3m e –log P curve

Figure 4.8 Pit 2, 3, and 4 soil at 4m up to 4.5m

a. Immediate Settlement analysis

Es = modulus of elasticity of soil,