Structural Pathology Housing

STRUCTURAL PATHOLOGY
AND DIAGNOSTIC OF HOUSING.
Project: Dwelling House.
M.E.C Engineering Solutions

The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I
Tel# -869-765-9303
Email: mecengineeringsolutions@gmail.com
March 26, 2016
STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT
CONTENT:
1. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS. ................................................ 3
1.1.
Architectural drawings represent a house of a fallowing dimensions: ..................... 3
a) Principals architectural dimensions. ........................................................................... 3

b) Principal Foundation Layout F1. ................................................................................. 4
1.2.
CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. ACTUAL CONDITIONS. ........... 5
1.3.
CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. WITH SECOND SIMILAR
FLOOR.7
2. VISUAL DIAGNOSTIC AND PATHOLOGY. ............... Error! Marcador no definido.
M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

Tel# -869-765-9303
Email:mecengineeringsolutions@gmail.com
Structural Pathology of Housing:

Report: The fallowing information, show descriptive details and specifications requested
by the costumer according the necessity to know the actual conditions of the housing and
the possibility to develop the construction of a second floor.
This document provides minimum requirements for structural analysis, design and
construction of Buildings.
Concrete elements were designed under requirements of:
- ACI: 2011/ Building code requirements for structural concrete
- International Building Code (IBC) 2003
- ACI 530-99/ Building Code requirements for masonry structures.
- ACI 318-11/ Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.
- ACI 315-99/ Details an detailing of concrete reinforcement
- BS 8002:1994- Code of practice for earth retaining structures
- BS 8666:2005 Standard shape
-ASCE standard ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum design load for buildings and other structures.
Note: All calculations and structural analysis in the present project was develop with the
official software Robot Structural Analysis

Email:mecengineeringsolutions@gmail.com | Tel# -869-765-9303
Page 2 of 21
1. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS.

1.1.
Architectural drawings represent a house of a fallowing dimensions:
a) Principals architectural dimensions.
Plan View.
F1

Page 3 of 21
Elevation View.
b) Principal Foundation Layout F1.
Typical Footing:
Note: The footing sections is typical for all the existing project.

Page 4 of 21
1.2.
CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. ACTUAL CONDITIONS.
Previous considerations:
Existing solid: Well graded gravels. Density: 26.50 kN/m3
Base of the foundation for axial load was 3500 psf (0.17MPa)
Concrete:
Maximum water-cementitious material ratio = 0.45.
Structural concrete compressive strength f`c= 3500 psi.
Unit Weight: 24.0 kN/m3
0.11Mpa for blocks wall.
0.395MPa for blocks wall filled with concrete mass.
Loads:
Dead loads (DL 1):
Self-weight (calculated for concrete density 149.8 pounds/ft 3 = 24 kN/m3).
DL 2.
Floor finished (21pounds/ft2 = 1 kN/m2). (Partition Load).
Live load (LL):
Floor Live load = (40 pounds/ft2) = 1.90 kN/m2).
Bearing pressure= Load/(B x 1m)
Shear force 0.75x0.17 f ' c d x (1m) (calculated for one meter of length)
For shear capacity not be considered steel bars crossing the section.

Page 5 of 21
ACTUAL CONDITION
Effective Acting Load on Footing.
Foundation Plate:
0.6m x 0.254 m x 24kN/m3 = 3.7 kN/m
Foundation Concrete wall
(thick=0.203m)
0.203m x 1.2m x 24 kN/m3 = 5.84 kN/m
Compacted soil over foundation
0.6m x 26.50 kN/m3 x 1.2m = 19.0 kN/m
Concrete Slab (assumed 50% of

slab acting):
0.152m x 3m x 24 kN/m3 = 10.9 kN/m
Floor Finish:
1kN/m2 x 3m = 3.0 kN/m
Interior Concrete block.

(thick=0.1524m)
0.153 m x 3.048 x 24 kN/m3 = 11.2 kN/m
Concrete cover Slab (assumed 50%

of slab acting):
0.152m x 3m x 24 kN/m3 = 10.9 kN/m
Sub Total Dead Load
DL= 64.24 kN/m
Service Live Load. Reduction factor: 0.5.
0.5x (1.9kN/m2 x 3m) LL= 2.85 kN/m
Total Service Load: 67.09 kN/m
Allowed Stress design.
Factored Load for ultimate limited state design:
1.4 DL = 90.0 kN/m
1.2DL + 1.6 LL = kN/m (max. load) = 81.7 kN/m

Page 6 of 21
Checking Plate Footing Dimension.

=
81.7 /
= (1) =
=
= 0.5 20"
(1)
170/2
B = 24 > 20 OK
Checking Bering Pressure Reactions.

Soil Bearing Pressure Assumed: 3500 psi (170 kN/m2)
= () =
1.3.
.
.
= . kN/ m2 < 170 kN /m2 OK
CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. CONSIDERING THE SECOND

FLOOR.
Previous considerations: (similar in point 1.2.)

PROPOUSAL CALCULATION VIEW.

Page 7 of 21
SECOND FLOOR
CALCULATION
1.3.1.
Effective Acting Load on
Footing.
Foundation Plate:
0.6m x 0.254 m x 24kN/m3 = 3.7 kN/m
Foundation Concrete wall
(thick=0.203m)
0.203m x 1.2m x 24 kN/m3 = 5.84 kN/m
Compacted soil over foundation
0.6m x 26.50 kN/m3 x 1.2m = 19.0 kN/m
Concrete Slab (assumed 50% of
slab acting):
0.152m x 3m x 24 kN/m3 = 10.9 kN/m
Floor Finish:
1kN/m2 x 3m = 3.0 kN/m
(thick=0.1524m)
0.153 m x 3.048 x 24 kN/m3 = 11.2 kN/m
of slab acting):
0.152m x 3m x 24 kN/m3 = 10.9 kN/m
of slab acting):
0.152m x 3m x 24 kN/m3 = 10.9 kN/m
(thick=0.1524m)
0.153 m x 4.6 x 24 kN/m3 = 17.0 kN/m
Floor Finish:
1kN/m2 x 3m = 3.0 kN/m
Roof Load:
1kN/m2 x 3m = 3.0 kN/m

Sub Total Dead Load
DL= 98.44 kN/m

Page 8 of 21
Service Live Load. Reduction factor: 0.5.

0.5x (1.9kN/m2 x 3m)*2
LL= 5.7 kN/m
Total Service Load: 104.2 kN/m

Allowed Stress design.
Factored Load for ultimate limited state design:
1.4 DL = 137.8 kN/m
1.2DL + 1.6 LL = (max. load) = 127.25 kN/m
1.3.2. Checking Plate Footing Dimension.

=
137.8 /
= (1) =
=
= 0.82 33"
(1)
170/2
B = 24 < 33 ERROR
1.3.2. Checking Bering Pressure Reactions.

Soil Bearing Pressure Assumed: 3500 psi (170 kN/m2)
= () =
.
.
= kN/ m2 > 170 kN /m2 ERROR
Dimensions in foundation plate quite short B= 24; the minimum required at least
should be B= 33, and recommendable design of B = 4-0.
1.3.3. Footing F1 Design Considering the Second Floor and the additional Wind
Load Pressure.
Wind velocity for Saint Kitts V: 64 m/s

Page 9 of 21
Calculation Model View:
Robot Structural Analysis Modeling.
Previous considerations similar point 1.2.

Assumptions
Geotechnic calculations according to
: ACI
Concrete calculations according to
: ACI 318-11
Shape selection
: without limits

Page 10 of 21

1.3.3.1.
Geometry.
A
L
h1
h2
h4
= 56.00 (in)
= 554.72 (in)
= 10.00 (in)
= 10.00 (in)
= 3.94 (in)
a'
c1
c2
= 7.09 (in)
= 2.00 (in)
= 2.00 (in)
1.3.3.2.
= 8.00 (in)
ex
= 0.00 (in)
Limited states.
Stress calculations
Take account of plastic redistribution of allowable stresses
Soil type under foundation: not layered
Design combination 1_SLS : 1.00G1
Load factors: 1.00 * Foundation weight
1.00 * Soil weight
Calculation results: On the foundation level
Weight of foundation and soil over it:
Gr = 16.56 (kN)
Design load:
Nr = 124.56 (kN)
Stress in soil:
Mx = -0.00 (lb*ft)
My = 0.00 (lb*ft)
12.70 (psi)
Design soil pressure
20.83 (psi)
Safety factor:1.64 > 1

Page 11 of 21
Uplift
Uplift in SLS
Design combination:
5_SLS : 1.00DL1+1.00DL2+1.00LL1
1.00 * Soil weight
Contact area:
s = 1.08
Slim
= 1.00
Average settlement
Soil type under foundation: not layered:

Design combination
1_SLS : 1.00G1

1.00 * Soil weight
Gr = 16.56 (kN)
Average stress caused by design load: q = 12.70 (psi)

Thickness of the actively settling soil:
z = 84.00 (in)
Stress on the level z:

- Additional: szd = 1.74 (psi)
- Caused by soil weight:
szg = 8.43 (psi)
Settlement:
- Original
s' = 0.01 (in)
- Secondary s'' = 0.00 (in)

- TOTAL
S = 0.01 (in) < Sadm = 2.00 (in)
Settlement difference:
Design combination
5_SLS : 1.00DL1+1.00DL2+1.00LL1

1.00 * Soil weight

Page 12 of 21
Settlement difference:
S = 0.01 (in) < Sadm = 2.00 (in)
Rotation:
About OY axis
Design combination:
5_SLS : 1.00DL1+1.00DL2+1.00LL1

1.00 * Soil weight
Gr = 16.56 (kN)
Design load:
Nr = 38.63 (kN)
Mx = -0.00 (lb*ft)
My = -7968.30 (lb*ft)
Stability moment:
Mstab = 20264.56 (lb*ft)
Rotation moment:
Mrenv = 7968.30 (lb*ft)
Stability for rotation:

1.3.3.3.
2.543 > 1
RC design
a) Assumptions
Concrete exposed to earth and weather : no
b) Analysis of punching and shear
Shear:
Design combination
1_ULS : 1.40G1

0.90 * Soil weight
Design load:
Nr = 166.09 (kN)
Mx = -0.00 (lb*ft)
My = 0.00 (lb*ft)
Length of critical circumference: 39.37 (in)

Shear force: 43.91 (kN)
Section effective height
heff = 7.63 (in)
Shear area: A = 300.20 (in2)

Shear stress:32.88 (psi)
Admissible shear stress: 88.68 (psi)

Page 13 of 21
c) Required reinforcement
Spread footing:
Bottom:
1_ULS : 1.40G1
My = 14574.02 (lb*ft)
Asx
Mx = 0.00 (lb*ft)
= 0.00 (in2/in)
As min
Asy
= 0.02 (in2/in)
= 0.02 (in2/in)
Top:
5_ULS : 1.20DL1+1.20DL2+1.60LL1
My = -1088.26 (lb*ft)
A'sx
A'sy = 0.00 (in2/in)
As min
= 0.02 (in2/in)
= 0.02 (in2/in)
Column pier:
Longitudinal reinforcement
A
= 2 x 0.07 (in2/in)
= 2 * (Asx + Asy)
Asx
= 2 x 0.07 (in2/in)
A min. = 2 x 0.03 (in2/in)
Asy
= 2 x 0.00 (in2/in)
d) Provided reinforcement
Continuous footing:
Bottom:
Along X axis:
52 Grade 60 #4
l = 121.49 (in)
e = 1*-270.81 + 51*10.63
Along Y axis:
5 Grade 60 #4
l = 550.72 (in)
e = 1*-17.47 + 1*16.65 + 1*1.06 + 1*0.56 + 1*17.15

Page 14 of 21
Top:
Along Y axis:
5 Grade 60 #4
l = 550.72 (in)
e = 1*-17.47 + 1*16.72 + 1*1.00 + 1*0.50 + 1*17.22
e) Pier
Dowels
104 Grade 60 #4 l = 64.12 (in) e = 1*-1.54 + 1*3.09
1.3.3.4.
Representations of calculations result.

3D VIEW.

Page 15 of 21
Dimensioning.
PLAN VIEW
SECTION
According the results, the foundation F1, should have the dimensions shown in the point
1.3.3.1. Geometry considering the second floor.

Page 16 of 21
2. VISUAL PATHOLOGY AND BUILDING DIAGNOSTIC.

2.1.
Structural Morphology.
The present structure is a family house, the architectural dimensions were described on
point 1.1. of the present report. The footing constructions bear a typical continuous
foundation, provided by a footing plate (A= 2-0; h= 0-10) in all the house, the footings
walls are provided of masonry blocks on the foundations, with thickness = 8 and filled with
concrete mass and the rest of the walls, concrete blocks (thickness = 6); currently, the roof
concrete slab with thickness = 6", have output pier steel bars with the future propose of
increase the second floor.
The concrete foundation slab have t = 5", overall, the building construction can be consider
as a typical nowadays constructions in the Island.
HOUSING

Page 17 of 21
2.2.
Observations Catalogue.
The fault catalogue is a system of existing results of diagnostic examinations which are
classified from the view of building constructions.
Observations:
Staining defects for facades
Commentaries:
Staining defects correspond to an alteration of colour or brightness of an area of the facade
when compared with nearby or adjacent areas and often occur due to the presence of water
(Chew and Ping 2003), in our case, the presence of water and the absence of gutters,
downspouts or any efficient storm drain system.
Such alterations tend to occur early in the life cycle of facades (that is, following construction
or repair work) and can profoundly deface the external image of the building even if overall
performance of the facade remains unchanged. Many a repair work occurs because of
facade disfigurement due to staining, affecting the aesthetic.

Page 18 of 21
Cracking defects in masonry walls and corners.
Commentaries:
One of the recurrent defects of masonry walls is cracking in consequence of natural
movements (change on temperature or water content, irreversible clay brick expansion or
hydraulic shrinkage of cement mortars). Irreversible movements are quite dangerous and
can progress for one or two years. All these situations tend to expand or contract the wall
but these movements are both internally and externally restrained, which produces high
local stresses.
Considering the cracking characteristic in our analysis, the longitudinal typology we
concern the crack evaluation to the possible causes:
-
Differential movement of the structure due for a historical foundation settlements.
Loss of adherence:
Loss of adherence may be regarded as a pathology resulting from many causes and,
often, from increasing degradation levels of staining and cracking. (Kus and Nygren
2002).
The fall or displacement of principal armor steel bars during

concreting, cause fissures where tensile efforts are not
taken by steel.

Page 19 of 21
3. CONCLUSIONS.
1. The currently structural conditions do not represent evidences of important for
deep assessment damage, and not represent dangerous or risk for a human
life.
2. The currently design are concern of one house of one floor.
3. According the structural calculations, results and the general evaluations is not
recommendable the constructions of a second floor plan.
4. No cracks were detected in the main structural elements (beams and
columns)
4. RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. Give solution storm drains to prevent slag, spots and stains on the walls of the
facade.
2. Plan and execute a plan of structural maintenance and repair housing.

Page 20 of 21

Structural Pathology Housing

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

Structural Pathology Housing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL PATHOLOGY

AND DIAGNOSTIC OF HOUSING.

Project: Dwelling House.

M.E.C Engineering Solutions

March 26, 2016

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

Architectural drawings represent a house of a fallowing dimensions: ..................... 3

a) Principals architectural dimensions. ........................................................................... 3

CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. ACTUAL CONDITIONS. ........... 5

CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. WITH SECOND SIMILAR

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

Structural Pathology of Housing:

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

1. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS.

Architectural drawings represent a house of a fallowing dimensions:

a) Principals architectural dimensions.

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

b) Principal Foundation Layout F1.

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. ACTUAL CONDITIONS.

Maximum water-cementitious material ratio = 0.45.

Structural concrete compressive strength f`c= 3500 psi.

Unit Weight: 24.0 kN/m3

0.11Mpa for blocks wall.

0.395MPa for blocks wall filled with concrete mass.

Bearing pressure= Load/(B x 1m)

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

0.6m x 0.254 m x 24kN/m3 = 3.7 kN/m

Foundation Concrete wall

Compacted soil over foundation

0.6m x 26.50 kN/m3 x 1.2m = 19.0 kN/m

Concrete Slab (assumed 50% of

Interior Concrete block.

Concrete cover Slab (assumed 50%

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

Checking Plate Footing Dimension.

Checking Bering Pressure Reactions.

= . kN/ m2 < 170 kN /m2 OK

CHECKING THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION F1. CONSIDERING THE SECOND

Previous considerations: (similar in point 1.2.)

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

Effective Acting Load on

0.6m x 0.254 m x 24kN/m3 = 3.7 kN/m

Foundation Concrete wall

Compacted soil over foundation

0.6m x 26.50 kN/m3 x 1.2m = 19.0 kN/m

Concrete Slab (assumed 50% of

1kN/m2 x 3m = 3.0 kN/m

Interior Concrete block.

Concrete cover Slab (assumed 50%

Concrete cover Slab (assumed 50%

Interior Concrete block.

1kN/m2 x 3m = 3.0 kN/m

1kN/m2 x 3m = 3.0 kN/m

M.E.C Engineering Solutions. The Glen St.Peters ST. Kitts W.I

STRUCTURAL BUILDINGS REPORT

Service Live Load. Reduction factor: 0.5.

e = 1-17.47 + 116.65 + 11.06 + 10.56 + 1*17.15

e = 1-17.47 + 116.72 + 11.00 + 10.50 + 1*17.22