date: 13th march 2014 category red jeans care...

Client Summary Report Observations & Actions

Authors: Hugh Griffin & Bernard Travers Checked by: Peter Flynn/Aidan Madden

Approved by: Peter Flynn

1

Jeans Care Limited 384/B, Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka-1208

(23.76654N, 90.39893E)

1st March 2014

Revision: Issue 1 Date: 13th March 2014 Category Red

2

Executive summary

On 1st March 2014 Mr Hugh Griffin and Mr Bernard Travers carried out a visual structural survey of JEANS CARE LIMITED factory at the address and coordinates given on the cover page of this report. We were accompanied by Mr Miraz Raihan of SGS. In addition to Jeans Care Ltd the building also contains another factory, CDF Fashion Ltd. We met with Mr H. M. Moshin, General manager of Jeans Care Ltd and Major AKM Abdul Malek, Director-Compliance & administration of CDF Fashions Ltd. The factory comprises a 7-storey building. Jeans Care Ltd occupy L1-L3. CDF Fashions Ltd occupy Ground Floor as storage and L4 and L5 as production areas. L6 contains canteen facilities, storage and a limited production area belonging to Jeans Care Ltd. The building was constructed in several stages during the period 1993 to 1998. Jeans Care Ltd have been based in the building since 2007. CDF Fashions Ltd have been based in the building since 2010. We were shown copies of structural drawings for the building. These were undated and produced by P K Howlader (Engineer). We were also shown an architectural plan signed by RAJUK in 1998. We were also shown copies of a Soil Investigation report which was not dated. While the building appears to be generally in good structural condition we do have important and urgent concerns in relation to the adequacy of the support columns and local floor areas.

3

Executive Summary (Continued) These concerns need to be addressed immediately, which give rise to our recommendation for an immediate Detailed Engineering Assessment (see Item 1 actions below). The principal reasons for our concern is that the columns appear to be stressed to levels that require immediate review. We would recommend that the building be partially evacuated in the area highlighted on the next page and a Detailed Engineering Assessment for this building be completed within 6 weeks of receiving the report. In addition loading on all production floors should be reduced to 1kN/m2 throughout. A high level and non exhaustive list of further key concerns are: • Columns appear to be stressed to levels that require immediate review – Building Engineer to

carry out Detail Engineering Assessment and verify concrete stresses, in-situ concrete strength and reinforcement provided

• Cracking to top and bottom of floor slabs • Design check required due to discrepancies between drawings and building structure • Design check required for plinth loading in toilet areas to confirm flat slab load capacity • Load management of storage loads on 6th Floor • Information provided on the structural drawings for the building was not consistent.

4

Executive Summary (Continued)

Main Factory Building Immediate Action Required

First floor slab to be evacuated in the area shown immediately – pending verification of column capacity by the building engineer.

2.0m

All Live load (personnel , equipment, storage etc) to be reduced/limited to 1kN/m2 on all levels above ground floor immediately

5

Executive Summary (Continued) Further actions with associated priorities and timeframes are given at the end of this report. Please note that these actions should be completed as soon as practically possible and certainly within the timeframe noted. We have reviewed the property from an outline seismic perspective and would consider that the building along with many others in the Dhaka region to have a significant risk in a major Seismic event. Our Limitations and Assumptions are also noted at the end of this report.

6

Building Extents

Building Extents 7

Building Extents 8

7 storey reinforced concrete frame with a steel roof. It was built in several phases in the period of 1993-1998. The soil test report recommends pad foundations for 7 storied factory building, which agrees with the supplied drawings Jeans Care Ltd. occupies L1 to L3 and L6 and CDF Apparels Ltd occupies GF, L4 and L5.

9

Building Observations Factory Building

10

Columns appear to be stressed to levels that require immediate review – Reduce Floor

Loading immediately and Building Engineer to carry out Detail Engineering Assessment

11

Main Factory Building Immediate Action Required

First floor slab to be evacuated in the area shown immediately – pending verification of column capacity by the building engineer.

2.0m

All Live load (personnel , equipment, storage etc) to be reduced/limited to 1kN/m2 on all levels above ground floor immediately

12

Columns appear to be stressed to levels that require immediate review

Cursory calculations indicate that column size appears to be smaller than required by code for the applied dead and live load,

Brick aggregate seen when plaster removed.

13

Cracking to underside of concrete beams on soffit of 1st floor

14 Cracks in beams

Cracking to underside of concrete beams on soffit of 1st floor

Cracking pattern seen in the finishes on the underside of concrete beam on the 1st floor appears to be flexure.

15

Cracking to finishes on top of floor slabs and on bottom of floor slabs in local areas

16

Cracks were observed in the underside of 5th floor slab (long span

end bays).

There are signs of extensive cracking and later repair over beams at

numerous locations throughout the floor plates.

Cracking visible in floor top and bottom of slab.

Cracking to Finishes on floor slab

17

Design check required for plinth loading in toilet areas to confirm slab load capacity

18

500mm high sand-filled plinth and finishes will exert load greater than that in the general factory area.

Design check required for plinth loading in toilet areas to confirm flat slab load capacity. Slab cantilevers at each floor at these locations.

19

Design check required due to discrepancies between design information and building

structure as found

20

The extent of the building as found, differs from the design drawings in two locations.

Discrepancies between design drawings and findings on-site.

The grid dimensions and number of bays as found differ from the Rajuk approved drawings.

Design Drawing

The Site Investigation data does not support the recommended bearing pressure for foundation design given in the Report.

Additional cantilevers at end of building

2 additional bays

21

Additional openings for stairs (not shown on the design drawings) have been formed in different locations within the floor slab at First, Second, Third and Fifth floors to facilitate access between floors.

Discrepancies between design drawings and findings on-site.

22

Check required to confirm that steel roof is designed to resist high wind loading

23

Roof is partially braced only by purlins & metal decking.

Roof Steelwork

24

Priority Actions

25

Problems Observed – Factory Building ITEM 1; Columns appear to be stressed to levels that require immediate review ITEM 2; Cracking to beams ITEM 3; Cracking to top and bottom of floor slabs ITEM 4; Design check required for plinth loading in cantilevered toilet areas to confirm load capacity ITEM 5; Design check required due to discrepancies between design information and building structure ITEM 4; Design check required for unbraced light steel roof

26

Priority 1 (Immediate - Now)

Item 1 and actions

Verify the structural adequacy of columns at all levels based on as built dimensions, material properties and verified reinforcement content.

• Area highlighted in Red above and in page 4 to be totally evacuated and loading in remaining factory (Orange) to be limited to 1.0kN/m2 ,pending verification of column capacity by the Building Engineer

• Factory Engineer to review design, loads and column stresses in area identified above.

• Verify in situ concrete strength either by cores or existing cylinder strength data for 6 columns (Core minimum sizes 100mm diameter)

• A Detail Engineering Assessment to be commenced, see attached Scope

Priority 2 (within 6-weeks)

• Produce and actively manage a loading plan for all floor plates within the Factory Building giving consideration to floor capacity and column capacity.

• Detail Engineering Assessment to be completed

Priority 3 (within 6-months)

• Continue to implement load plan

27

This Schedule develops a minimum level of information, Analysis and testing expected as part of a Detail Engineering Assessment. The Building(s) have been visually assessed and it is deemed necessary that a detailed engineering assessment be carried out by a competent Engineering Team employed by the factory Owner. This Request should be read in conjunction with the BUET developed Tripartite Guideline document for Assessment of Structural Integrity of Existing RMG Factory Buildings in Bangladesh (Tripartite Document), the latest version of this document should be referenced. T his document also gives guidance on required competency of Engineering Team. We expect that the following will be carried out: 1. Development of Full Engineering As-Built Drawings showing Structure, loading, elements, dimensions , levels, foundations and framing on Plan,

Section and Elevation drawings . 2. The Engineering team are to carry out supporting calculations with a model based design check to assess the safety and serviceability of the building

against loading as set out in BNBC-2006, Lower rate provisions can be applied in accordance with the Tripartite Guidelines following international engineering practice, justification for these lower rate provisions must be made.

3. A geotechnical Report describing ground conditions and commenting on foundation systems used/proposed. 4. A report on Engineering tests carried out to justify material strengths and reinforcement content in all key elements studied. 5. Detailed load plans shall be prepared for each level showing current and potential future loading with all key equipment items shown with associated

loads. 6. The Engineering team will prepare an assessment report that covers the following:

• As-Built drawings including • Plans at each level calling up and dimensioning all structural components • Cross sectional drawings showing structural beams, slabs, floor to floor heights, roof build-ups and Basic design information of the

structure • Highlight any variation between As-built compared to the designed structure • Results of testing for strength and materials • Results of geotechnical assessment and testing/investigation • Details of loading, inputs and results of computer modelling • Commentary on adequacy/inadequacy of elements of the structure • Schedule of any required retrofitting required for safety or performance of Structure

Any proposals for Retrofitting to follow guidance developed in the Tripartite Document

Detail Engineering Assessment

28


Item 2 and actions

Cracks in beams on the underside of 1st floor.


• Sections of plaster finish to beams to be removed to investigate if cracks penetrate the building structure.

• Check of beam(s) to be carried out as part of the Detail Engineering Assessment.


• Building Engineer to prepare Allowable Floor Loading Plans.

• None required.

29


Item 3 and actions

Cracking on slab soffits and tops

• None required.


• As part of the Detail Engineering Assessment investigate cracking cause, need for remedial works and potential for future monitoring


• Monitor cracks on slab. Conduct regular inspection of cracks. Investigate if cracks are only in the plastering.

• If cracks grow larger, remove all items above the slab and close working areas below the affected areas .

30


Item 4 and actions

Plinth loading in toilet areas located on the cantilever slabs at end of building

• None required.


• As part of the detail engineering assessment verify that cantilever slab and supporting columns have sufficient capacity to support sand-filled plinths plus toilet loading.


• None required.

31


Item 5 and actions

Documentation issues Steel stair structures, openings for stairs, additional cantilevers at end of building and 2 additional bays were not shown on factory drawings.

• None required.


• Survey all areas as part of the Detail Engineering Assessment • Building engineer to produce/complete calculations to justify

additional structure or modified structure for undocumented changes.


• Building engineer to collect information and complete documentation.

32


Item 6 and actions

Apparently non-engineered steel roof structure is unlikely to be able to withstand strong wind events.

• None required.


• Steel structures to be surveyed and analysed as part of the detail engineering assessment and any remedial work or additional strengthening measures scheduled


• Steel structures should be designed and upgraded to support code vertical and wind loads by the Building Engineer, or they should be vacated and removed.

33

This report is for the private and confidential use of Accord for whom it was prepared together with their professional advisors as appropriate. It should not be reproduced in whole or in part or relied upon by third parties for any use without the express written permission of Arup. This report can be used in discussion with the supplier or factory owner as a means to rectify or address any observations made. The report is not comprehensive and is limited to what could be observed during a visual inspection of the building. This Report is not intended to be treated as a generalised inspection and does not cover the deterioration of structural members through dampness, fungal or insect attack, nor does it deal with problems and defects of a non-structural nature. Other non structural aspects of the building such as fire safety have not been assessed in this survey. Except as otherwise noted, drains and other services were not viewed or tested during our inspection and are therefore similarly excluded from this Report. We have not inspected any parts of the structure which are covered, unexposed or inaccessible and we are therefore unable to report that any such part of the property is free from defect. External inspection of the façade walls has generally been carried out from ground level only by visual sighting. No opening up works were carried out (except as noted) and we rely on the Architects and Engineers drawings provided to us for our views on concealed parts of the structure and in particular foundations. Strengths of materials and components are untested and we recommend that the factory owners Building Engineer carries out insitu testing over and above those suggested to satisfy themselves with the material strengths and component details. Recommendations, where given, are for the purpose of providing indicative advice only, are not exhaustive, relate solely to identifying key and obvious structural defects as identified in this presentation, and do not take the form of or constitute a specification for works. We take no responsibility for the works as constructed. This report does not interfere with the factory owners Building Engineers responsibility for the structural performance of this building, The Building Engineer remains fully responsible for the structural adequacy of the building. This report does not comment in detail on the future seismic performance of the building and only highlights the fact that the building may experience significant damage or collapse in a seismic event along with many others in the Dhaka region. The observations in this report are based on the Engineering Judgement of the lead surveyor/engineer at the time of the survey. We assume in making these observations that no covering up of faults defects, filling or plastering over cracking or significant repair work has been carried out by the building owner. Any future alteration or additional work by the building owner will void this report.

Survey Limitations and Assumptions

date: 13th march 2014 category red jeans care...

Documents