BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

Wen Dazhi, BSc, PhD

PE, PE(Geo), AC(Geo), CE, MICE, MIEAust, CPEng

BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

D Damage categories t i Basis of damage assessment Staged design approach and design assumptions Case studies of buildings on mixed foundations Conclusions

GeoSS 10112009 2

DAMAGE CATEGORIES
Three broad categories that affect: 1) Visual appearance or aesthetics; 2) Serviceability or function; and 3) Stability.

GeoSS 10112009 3

DAMAGE CATEGORIES
Category Negligible V Slight V. Slight Moderate Typical crack width (mm) 0.1mm <1mm <5mm 5 15mm or several >3mm 15 to 25mm Effects Hairline cracks only Damage mainly to internal wall finishes. Doors & windows may stick slightly Doors and windows sticking. Service pipes may fracture. Weather tightness impaired. Windows and door frames distorted. Walls leaning, some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes disrupted. Beams lose bearing, walls require shoring. Windows broken with distortion. Danger of instability.
GeoSS 10112009 4

Severe

V. Severe

>25mm

DAMAGE CATEGORIES
Category Negligible V. Slight Slight Moderate Typical crack width (mm) 0.1mm <1mm <5mm 5 15mm or several >3mm 15 to 25mm Repair Hairline cracks only Can be easily treated during normal decoration Can be easily filled. Some repainting may be necessary Patching by a mason. Repainting and replacement of a small amount of brickwork. Extensive repair works involving breaking-out and replacing sections of walls. Major repairing work involving partial or complete rebuilding.
GeoSS 10112009 5

Severe

V. Severe

>25mm

AS2870 DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION FOR WALLS

Description of typical damage and required repair Approximate crack width limit Hairline cracks Fine cracks which do not need repair Cracks noticeable but easily filled. Doors and windows stick slightly. Cracks can be repaired and possibly a small amount of wall will need to be replaced. Doors and windows stick. Service pipes can fracture. Weather tightness often impaired. Extensive repair work involving breaking-out and replacing sections of walls, especially over doors and windows. Window and door frames distort. Walls lean or bulge noticeably, some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes disrupted. < 0.1mm < 1mm < 5mm Damage category 0 1 2

5mm to 15mm (or 3 a number of cracks 3mm or more in one group) 15mm to 25mm but also depends on number of cracks 4

GeoSS 10112009 6

AS2870 - DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION FOR CONCRETE FLOORS

Description of typical damage Hairline cracks, insignificant movement of slab from level. Fine but noticeable cracks. Slab reasonably level. Distinct cracks. Slab noticeably curved or changed in level. Wide cracks. Obvious curvature or change in level. Approximate crack width limit in floor < 0.3mm < 1mm < 5mm Change Damage in offset category <1/375 <1/300 <1/200 0 1 2 3 4

5mm to 15mm ( or a number of 1/200 to cracks 3mm or more in one group) 1/120 >1/120

Gaps in slab. Disturbing curvature 15mm to 25mm but also depends or change in level. on number of cracks
AS2870 Residential slabs and footings - construction

GeoSS 10112009 7

DAMAGE CATEGORIES
Category 2 - Slight: Results from within the
structure itself or associated with ground movement.

Category g y 3 - Moderate and above: Usually y

associated with ground movement.

GeoSS 10112009 8

DAMAGE CATEGORIES
Not economic to restrict to no damage. Typically allow up to slight damage for
most structures.

Restrict to very slight damage for

buildings of historical or architectural significance, such as heritage buildings.

GeoSS 10112009 9

BASIS OF BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

Criterion C it i f for onset t of f visible i ibl cracking: ki
Limiting tensile strain.

Local strain at onset of cracking much

smaller ll th than limiting li iti tensile t il strain. t i

GeoSS 10112009 10

MODES OF MOVEMENT - NOT DAMAGING

UNIFORM SETTLEMENT

UNIFORM TILT
GeoSS 10112009 11

RIGID BODY TILT

GeoSS 10112009 12

MODES OF MOVEMENT - DAMAGING

BENDING/SHEAR

HORIZONTAL EXTENSION
GeoSS 10112009 13

MODES OF MOVEMENT - DAMAGING

BENDING AND SHEAR STRAINS THAT CAUSE DAMAGE

GeoSS 10112009 14

LIMITING TENSILE STRAIN VS DAMAGE CATEGORIES FOR MASONRY BUILDINGS

Limiting g tensile Damage g Class Typical yp crack strain (%) width (mm) 0.0 - 0.05 Negligible <0.1 0.05 0.075 0.075 0.15 0.15 0.3 >0.3 Very Slight Slight Moderate Severe to Very Severe <1.0 <5.0 <15 >15

GeoSS 10112009 15

BENDING AND DIAGONAL STRAIN

Beam (E/G = 2.6 2 6 for f masonry structure) Undergoing Hogging with Neutral Axis at Bottom Edge

(/L)/liim

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 05 0.5 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Diagonal strain

Bending strain

L/H
GeoSS 10112009 16

TOTAL CALCULATED STRAINS

Horizontal strain and the bending strain Horizontal strain combined with diagonal
strain using a Mohrs circle of strain.

GeoSS 10112009 17

INTERACTION DIAGRAM, /L, h & L/H

GeoSS 10112009 18

STAGED ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS

Stage 1 - if settlement <10mm, slope l < 1:500 1 500
Negligible damage

Stage 2 - Assume green field conditions,

building stiffness not considered, considered if tensile strain < 0.15% Slight damage (conservative)

GeoSS 10112009 19

STAGED ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS

Stage 3 - Detailed assessment assessment, considering
stiffness of building and three dimensional effects of tunnelling and excavation

GeoSS 10112009 20

10

ASSUMPTIONS FOR STAGE 2

Building simply follows the green field
settlement.

Building is made of masonry. Settlements due to consolidation are even,

and do not induce bending or horizontal strain.

First two assumptions are considered

conservative i.e. they over-predict strain and damage.
GeoSS 10112009 21

STAGE 3 ASSESSMENT

Refinement of Stage 2 assessment. Foundation details are considered.

Ground beams will reduce horizontal
extension to a negligible value. Piles will reduce settlements and bending strains. Continuous foundations, e.g. strip footings or rafts are less prone to damaging differential settlements.
GeoSS 10112009 22

11

STAGE 3 ASSESSMENT

Effects Eff t of f soil-structure il t t

interaction: building stiffness will modify Green Field settlements, typically making them wider and flatter flatter.

GeoSS 10112009 23

BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSEMENT SUMMARY SHEET Project/ Contract Number Name of Building: Address: Description of Structure:

PHOTO

Summary Sheet

Description of Foundations Drawings available Result of Preliminary Assessment Maximum settlement: Maximum slope: Second stage assessment required Result of Second Stage Assessment Maximum settlement: Maximum ground slope: Maximum tensile strain: Detailed evaluation required Detailed Assessment attached Protection measures needed Protection measures proposed: YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO

GeoSS 10112009 24

12

BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

The theory works well in buildings on
uniform foundations.

Reliance should not be placed on

theoretical assessment alone.

Careful inspection of buildings should be

carried out. There would be tell-tale signs g that indicate problems in the buildings.

Detailed structural assessment will be

necessary for those buildings.
GeoSS 10112009 25

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENTS COMMON ASSUMPTIONS

Consolidation settlements are generally
relatively uniform if the depth and compressibility of the soft soils are uniform.

If uniform,consolidation settlements do not

cause tensile strain and do not cause damage.

Consolidation settlements commonly assumed

to have negligible effect.
GeoSS 10112009 26

13

CASE STUDIES OF BUILDINGS ON MIXED FOUNDATION

For buildings on mixed foundations or
founded over varying depths of soft clay, the common assumptions:
That it is conservative to assume that the building moves with the ground That consolidation settlements do not induce significant differential settlement or tensile strain

ARE NOT APPLICABLE

GeoSS 10112009 27

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

GeoSS 10112009 28

14

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

Sunday y School New kindergarten section Old Church, wrapped in extension

GeoSS 10112009 29

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

Little India Station Cut & cover tunnel Farrer Park Station Rotan Lane Race Course Road

N
Kerbau Road Foochow Methodist Church Race Course Lane Kinta Road Robert Lane Road

Bored Tunnel

Little India Station

Cut & Cover Tunnel

Farrer Park Station

Bored Tunnel

100.00 Kallang Formation 90.00

80.00 Jurong Formation 70.00 Old Alluvium

GeoSS 10112009 30

15

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

17.5m

GeoSS 10112009 31

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

Deflection (mm) -40 -20 Red u ced L ev e l 105 100 95 Red u ced L ev el 0 20 40 60 80 100 -10 0 10 20 Deflection (mm) 30 40 50 60

85

90

75

80 65

55

70

Predicted Measured Formation Level

Predicted Measured Formation Level

GeoSS 10112009 32

16

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 (m) Total settlement 21 months after casting base slab Wall deflection at final excavation level 40 20 0 (mm)
1st strut 2nd strut 3rd strut 4th strut 5th strut 6th strut

0 50 100
(mm)

Consolidation settlement Settlement at final excavation level

GeoSS 10112009 33

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

1 0
Settlement t (mm)

10

100

Days

1000

20 40 60 80 100

Excavation at 3rd strut level Excavation resumed from 3rd to 4th struts Excavation at final formation
10-May-99 04-May-00 11-Nov-98 06-Nov-99 27-Aug-01 11-Mar-99 05-Mar-00 30-Dec-00 29-Apr-01 12-Sep-98 07-Sep-99 01-Sep-00 28-Feb-01 31-Oct-00 28-Jun-01 10-Jan-99 05-Jan-00 09-Jul-99 03-Jul-00

120

-2 0 Drawdown (m) 2 4 6 8 10 GWP3071 GWP3081 GWP3051-1 GWP3051-2 GWP3051-3

Excavation completed and base slab cast

GeoSS 10112009 34

17

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

Race Course Road 17 6 17.6m 3-storey sanctuary on pad footings Struts for cut & cover tunnel Addi i to the Addition h sanctuary on H-steel piles Kindergarten on H-steel piles

Rotan Lane

Sunday School on Bakau piles

Chander Lane
GeoSS 10112009 35

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

Computer p Room

Moderate to Severe damage (12mm crack) at 15mm settlement, b f before excavation started

GeoSS 10112009 36

18

D if f e r e n tia l S e ttle m e n t / C r a c k w id th ( m m ) 0 0 5 -N o v -9 8 0 5 -D ec-9 8 0 5 - Ja n - 9 9 0 5 -Feb -9 9 0 5 -M ar-9 9 0 5 -A p r-9 9 0 5 -M ay -9 9 0 5 - Ju n - 9 9 0 5 - Ju l- 9 9 0 5 -A u g -9 9 0 5 -Sep -9 9 0 5 - O c t- 9 9 0 5 -N o v -9 9 0 5 -D ec-9 9

50

40

30

20

10

CME404

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

Second Floor

CME405

Third Floor

First Floor

CMA3641

First Floor

CMD3772

Computer Room

Differential Settlement

Between L351 / L381

GeoSS 10112009 38

GeoSS 10112009 37

19

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

0.00E+00 Ro ota tion (Radia nt) 5.00E-04 1.00E-03 1 50E 03 1.50E-03 2.00E-03

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

ov -9 8 05 -D ec -9 8 05 -Ja n99 05 -F eb -9 9 05 -M ar -9 9 05 -A pr -9 9 05 -M ay -9 9 05 -J un -9 9 05 -J ul -9 9 05 -A ug -9 9 05 -S ep -9 9 05 -O ct -9 9 05 -N ov -9 9 05 -D ec -9 9

05 -N

Rotation (Radiant)

TM3211

GeoSS 10112009 39

Junction of Sunday School and Kindergarten

GeoSS 10112009 40

20

FOOCHOW METHODIST CHURCH

Original building position iti

Neighbouring unit

Settled building position

For buildings in a terrace, rigid body tilting will lead to tearing at the junction with the neighbour unit.
GeoSS 10112009 41

148 RACE COURSE ROAD

GeoSS 10112009 42

21

148 RACE COURSE ROAD

No 146 No 148 Race Course Road

Shirlaw, Wen, Algeo & Patterson-Kane (2003)

GeoSS 10112009 43

148 RACE COURSE ROAD

Settled by 107mm No 146, piled

Building tilting away from the adjacent structure

GeoSS 10112009 44

22

148 RACE COURSE ROAD

GeoSS 10112009 45

148 RACE COURSE ROAD

Adjacent buildings on different foundations: Old buildings on footings butted against newer buildings on deep foundations.
GeoSS 10112009 46

23

148 RACE COURSE ROAD

Original building position

Settled building position

Racking action causes damage, in particular at door / window frames / arches.

GeoSS 10112009 47

Masjid Wak Tanjong

GeoSS 10112009 48

24

Masjid Wak Tanjong

GeoSS 10112009 49

Masjid Wak Tanjong

Cross Walls

CCL Paya Lebar Station D/W Layout

GeoSS 10112009 50

25

Masjid Wak Tanjong

Excavation Level: RL85.7m

Interface between Kallang Formation and OA

GeoSS 10112009 51

Masjid Wak Tanjong

16.7m

Typical Excavation Sequence

GeoSS 10112009 52

26

Masjid Wak Tanjong

GeoSS 10112009 53

Masjid Wak Tanjong

GeoSS 10112009 54

27

Masjid Wak Tanjong

L 272 L 516 L 517 L 271 L 518

L 521

L520
CME 506 TE 524

L 519
L 515 L 536 L 528 L 529 L 530 TE 513 TE 523 L 538 TE 519 TE 518 TE 514 L 512 TE 512 CME 501 L 511 TE 511 L 537 L 513 L 514

L 270

TE 525 L 522 TE 526 L 523

CME 507

L 269

TM 510 CME 508

L 525

TM 509 TM 508 L 268

TM 511 TE 527

L 526

TE 522 L 524 L 527 CME 505 TE 521 L 501 CME 504 TE 501 TE 502 L 502 TM 501 TE 503 L 506 TM 503 TE 520 TM 502 L 503

L 539 L 534 TM 507 L 533 TE 515 L 510 TE 517 TM 505 TE 516 L 532 L 509 L 507 TE 508 TE 507 L 508

L 535

TE 528

CME 502 L 267

TE 510

TE 506

TE 509 TM 506 CME 503

GWV 209 I 221 MX 204

L 504 TE 505

I 220 MX 203

TE 504 TM 504

GWV 210

L 505
GWS 303 L 126 I 304

I 303

Instrumentation Plan
GeoSS 10112009 55

Masjid Wak Tanjong

105 Depth (RL) 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
Lateral Deflection
GeoSS 10112009 56 85.7

Lateral Soil Movement in Front of the Mosque

28

Masjid Wak Tanjong

Max reduction in pore water pressure

in piezometric level:

At 9m below ground: 1.5m At 15m below ground level: 3m 27m below ground level: 6m

GeoSS 10112009 57

Masjid Wak Tanjong

20/03/03 0.00 -10.00 -20.00 -30.00 -40.00 -50.00 -60.00 -70.00 -80.00 80 00 -90.00 505 519 520 01/08/04 14/12/05 28/04/07 09/09/08

Building Settlements
GeoSS 10112009 58

29

Masjid Wak Tanjong

GeoSS 10112009 59

Masjid Wak Tanjong

GeoSS 10112009 60

30

Masjid Wak Tanjong

Part of the building on piles and part on footings Damaging at small differential settlements.
GeoSS 10112009 61

Other Examples

GeoSS 10112009 62

31

Annex structure on footings abutting buildings on piles

GeoSS 10112009 63

Piled

Footings

FILL (6.5m THICK)

CIRCLE LINE STAGE 1

Nicoll Highway Station

SOFT MARINE CLAY (33m THICK)

OLD ALLUVIUM

GeoSS 10112009 64

32

GeoSS 10112009 65

Sing
sation
FILL (6 (6.5m 5m THICK) SETTLEMENT

SOFT MARINE CLAY (33m THICK)

SANDY OLD ALLUVIUM

GeoSS 10112009 66

33

STAR SINGSATION KTV CLUB

GeoSS 10112009 67

Walkway - piled

Main load bearing column - shallow foundations

GeoSS 10112009 68

34

No 7 CANTONMENT ROAD
136mm 72mm 72mm 55mm 20mm 9mm

No 7

No 9

Fill & Organic clay

Weathered Jurong Formation

Shirlaw, Wen, Algeo & Patterson-Kane (2003)

GeoSS 10112009 69

No 7 CANTONMENT ROAD

Shirlaw, Wen, Algeo & Patterson-Kane (2003)

GeoSS 10112009 70

35

No 7 CANTONMENT ROAD

Party Wall to No 9

Shirlaw, Wen, Algeo & Patterson-Kane (2003)

GeoSS 10112009 71

Buildings over varying depths of soft clay - usually a terrace problem

Pocket of soft clay

GeoSS 10112009 72

36

GeoSS 10112009 73

GeoSS 10112009 74

37

POSSIBLE MEASURES
To T identify id tif b buildings ildi th that t are unusually ll
sensitive to settlement To carry out protective measures

GeoSS 10112009 75

IDENTIFICATION
To identify buildings on mixed foundations A&A drawings

To identify locations of variation in geology, in

particular along terrace houses

A general walk around the site building

inspection
GeoSS 10112009 76

38

IDENTIFICATION
Look at the geological profile / soil
investigation data - consolidation often associated with areas with soft clay (marine/estuarine) Sensitive buildings often show some signs of damage or repair - existing cracks / spalling Watch out for additions to old buildings or new buildings abutting old buildings With terrace houses, signs of local dips in the roof line, local settlements in the road outside or local damage to drains / aprons
GeoSS 10112009 77

PROTECTIVE MEASURES
Recharge wells to control consolidation
settlement (only fully works with nearly water watertight wall and with wells installed before excavation starts) Separate the parts of the structure on different foundations Prop (where necessary for safety) and repair afterwards Underpinning
GeoSS 10112009 78

39

CONCLUSIONS Methods of Mair, Taylor and Burland to be

used used.

Stage 1 - if < 10mm, no need to consider

further

Stage 2 - green field assessment. Assumes

building is flexible and moves with ground

Stage 3 - Detailed evaluation, taking into

account building stiffness and foundations
GeoSS 10112009 79

CONCLUSIONS
Buildings on mixed foundations are
extremely sensitive to settlement and more susceptible to damage than other buildings.

Stage 3 analysis for all buildings on mixed

foundations are required.

GeoSS 10112009 80

40

THANKS

GeoSS 10112009 81

41