You are on page 1of 2

A.

General
This is a light structure whose frame is constructed with prefabricated concrete
columns, filled with prefabricated panels on the external walls. The roof frame
is made of light steel grilles, fastened at their edges to the columns and roof
cover with tin profiles placed on steel beams. As mentioned in my original
professional opinion, the structure is very flexible and relative movements can
be expected between the different components as a result of thermal influences,
wind action, and the movement of the foundations. These movements can be
seen in cracks between the columns and the fill-in panels on the external walls,
and between the other components of the frame (walls, gable walls, floors,
etc.).

On account of the flexibility of the structure and its ductility these phenomena
do not constitute a safety hazard, as long as the scale of movement and the
scale of cracking are not large (e.g. cracks whose width does not exceed cm
do not constitute a hazard). On the other hand, these phenomena should be
monitored on an ongoing basis, and treated if necessary.

Based on the visual examination on my visit, the building is in a reasonable


state of safety, taking into account its age and its nature, as described above.
This assessment does not apply to exceptional stresses such as earthquakes and
other dynamic stresses. Furthermore, a number of additional actions are
required, as detailed below.

B. With reference to the recommendations of the professional opinion of


23.11.1998 (Ref: 4.3 (j- 98-136)):
We refer to the order of recommendations in the section on conclusions of the
original professional opinion.
The foundations on the northern side of the building were stabilized by
building a supporting wall parallel to most of the eastern faade, to the
northern faade as a whole, and to part of the western faade. We could not
assess the structure of the wall in the visual examination. In light of the
professional opinion of the ground consultant (Eng. Daniel Merta) of
14.5.2000, it is unclear whether the wall is capable of completely
preventing movement of the foundations, but it is reasonable to assume it is
capable of limiting movement. It is also reasonable to assume that
significant movement of the foundations will be accompanied by
significant movement of the supporting wall, which will enable prior
warning. As mentioned above, the presence of cracks in the components of
the building and its interfaces should be monitored in any event.
Drainage work was implemented on the roof, which appears to be appropriate
on the basis of the visual examination. Instead of a 1.5m wide concrete strip
around the building, as recommended in the professional opinion, a strip (with
a width of about 2m) of interlocking bricks has been implemented. This strip
cannot prevent the penetration of water.
.1

. ,
. ,

, , .
) , (.