10 Reasons of Collapse

of Feature Wall At Anushriya Villa, Noida Sector 128

COVER NOTE Structural Failures occur due to a combination of reasons. Structures are anyways designed with factors of safety, by all structural consultants, So, a failure of this type, is due to many factors, which work in tandem. Our team visited site the same day (May 16) when the client informed us of the wall Failure. What the team found was that the structural failure was cased due to lack of Basic structural norms being followed, despite intimations on several past occasions. The details hereunder have been put together methodically to explain and pinpoint the Cause of the failure on faulty workmanship and lack of procedural norms in civil constRuction. The following slides are easy to understand and can establish without any doubt that The civil contractor and supervisor need to be pulled up.

This is the Structural Drawing showing details of Structural members for the said wall.

Drawing Title: Feature Wall Column and Beam Detail Date of Issue: 10th Sep. 2012

This is the Architectural Drawings for the said wall showing all structural members in elevation.

1. The FOOTINGS
Proposed Foundation Design of the Feature wall, which is showing it starting from 1metre below the Natural Good earth Level. The executed foundation to be re-excavated & checked / verified for adherence to this drawing. There are serious doubts of unsettlement in this foundation, due to foundations not being on compacted earth, as per norms. Also the grade of concrete used therein, may need to be examined at a lab to see if it matches norms.

ON SITE STATUS

Photograph taken on 31st Aug. 2012.

Earth Filling where the Feature wall to come is half done without proper Compression of soil. Good Earth is far below this filling, from where the foundation was proposed. This leads to the doubt in Slide 1.

2. Number of Columns & Tie Beams

Proposed Column detail and Elevation with all the structural members & levels marked, can be seen.
Please note there are 4 columns proposed and several tie beams between columns and to the 90 Degree adjacent wall.
Drawing Title: Feature Wall Column & Beam Layout Date of Issue: 10th Sep. 2012

ON SITE STATUS
Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013. a. Shocking to note even plaster is intact and no tie up, even in brick work, is visible; also no bar connectivity with existing columns is visible. b. Site showed ONLY THREE, instead of FOUR Columns proposed.

c. One of these 3 Visible Columns was wrongly erected from above the Plinth beam, WITHOUT necessary foundation.

3. No PLINTH BEAM with Adjacent wall

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 a. Plinth Beam not connected with Existing Column b. Plinth beam level is not as per drawing . Top of plinth beam and internal road level should match as per drawing. WITHOUT THESE THE WALL WOULD ALWAYS SHEAR AWAY & FALL.

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 1. Plinth beam terminates here. Not connected with Existing Column 2. The weight seems to be on a brick foundation that was hastily made; but as mentioned earlier, excavation would need to be done, to know the exact picture.

4. Reinforcement against Structural Norms

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 All overlaps of steel rods in column placed at same place, contrary to the norms that overlapping should be at different places for proper strength. This explains how the columns have separated so easily, as encircled and shown here.

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 Forget Rod Lapping not done here. .. The fact is that there is NO CONNECTION at all. With an inexplicable gap of 6 atleast between the two rods! This is not at all acceptable and is a serious breach of established norms.

5. Ring Distance not as per norms

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 Ring distance and overlapping are uneven and deviated from drawings. 150mm c/c In some cases, it is 200mm and in some more Proper chiselling of concrete will show the exact spacing. These appear to be methods of saving cost and steel, at the cost of structure.

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 Ring Distance and Main Vertical rods distance not as per drawings.

6. No Steel development
Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 Steel development length where column meet beam not provided as per norms. This results in weakness at joints and ease of shearing off, resulting in structural failure.

7. Middle beam not tied up.

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 Middle Beam, on Adjacent wall, was not connected properly with the Existing Column. Picture shows that middle beam was merely touching the Adjacent wall. No hooking or welding of steel reinforcement at all noticed; maybe wire or even that was not used.

8. Top beam not tied up

Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 Top Beam was not connected properly with the Existing Column and Beam. Picture shows that no rod extension provided and lapped with the adjacent wall.

9. The Tie rod Missing

This is the Column detail as per drawing issued. Please Note: This tie rod is missing in Column reinforcement, in some places.

Drawing Title: Feature Wall Column and Beam Detail Date of Issue: 10th Sep. 2012

10. No Curing
Photograph taken on 15th May. 2013 Apart from structural RCC issues, the contained infill brickwork is also not acceptable. Material cement : sand ratio is not at all proper, as visible. Curing not done at all, apparently, as all bricks appear to have separated from each other very simply. Also, note that the Concrete quality is very poor. Lab analysis of this may be done to analyse crushing strength.

The End Note

Contractors will always want to cut corners and find ways of saving money. Apart from this, all the evidence shows that there was: 1. Lack of Supervision at Site During execution. (It Has been always suggested & advised, by us often, to appoint dedicated Project Managers / Supervisors) 2. Poor workmanship and lack of acceptable level of expertise in Construction (An on site engineer would have ensured the basics of construction are enforced) 3. No attention was paid to Curing of the Structure during and after the construction. (Attachment and sense of ownership to project may be lacking due to constant useage of different teams and labour contractors) 4. Cost Constraints given to Contractors, as informed by contractors, on site. (This results in compromise in cement sand mixes, steel, curing and several other malpractices)

5. Non adherence to and / or Comprehension of the Drawings, provided.