INTEGRITY AUDIT REPORT FOR PROPOSED

KAJJANSI HANGER COMPLEX.

Prepared by

Netalisire Daniel

August 2021
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... iv
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Building Overview.......................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Appraisal Methodology ..............................................................................................................................3
2 DESIGN REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Design information .....................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Design Loading Data ...................................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Roof ....................................................................................................................................................5
2.2.2 composite floor slab ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.3 Beams .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.4 Input, Analysis and Design ..................................................................................................................5
2.3 Elemental Designs and Output Summary................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Helicopter shade (Ground floor and first floor) .............................................................................. 13
2.3.2 Recommended members to the structure ...................................................................................... 13
2.3.3 Input, analysis and design for recommended solution ................................................................... 15
3 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT .........................................................................................................................21
3.1 Non-Destructive Field Testing ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Compressive Strength Test ...................................................................................................................... 21
4 SUPERVISION ...............................................................................................................................................23
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................23
5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 23
5.2 Recommendations................................................................................................................................... 23
6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................24
7 List of Annexes:..............................................................................................................................................24

i|Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Building structure overview ............................................................................................................ 1

Table 2: Design information........................................................................................................................... 5

Table 3: Roof loading data ............................................................................................................................. 5

Table 4: Floor slab loading for first floor.................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5: Design Output Summary for Helicopter shade implemented on site .................................... 13

Table 6: Recommended Design output summary for Helicopter shade ............................................... 14

Table 7: Non-Destructive Test Results ....................................................................................................... 22

LIST OF ACRONYMS
L= Length
W= Width;
BL= Beam Length;
A= Area
DL=Dead load,
LL=Live load, SL=Serviceability load, UL=Ultimate Load, UW=Unit Weight

ii | P a g e
iii | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bar aviation contracted Mutoni contractors to contruct the airplane hanger

iv | P a g e
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Building Overview
The existing frame is a steel structure. A general breakdown in typical components of the structure is as
follows: Floor system consisting of reinforced concrete composite slab, steel beams and columns
supported on isolated pad footings.

Item Description
Building Usage Helicopter shade
Structural system Steel beam structure supported on steel columns
No of levels 2 levels
Design drawings Available
Foundation type Isolated pad foundations
Table 1 Building structure overview

1|Page
Figure 1: Architectural Ground Floor Layout

2|Page
Figure 2: Architectural first floor layout

1.3 Appraisal Methodology

The Assessment followed the following steps:

 Document review: Structural drawings and corresponding design calculations were not reviewed
to ensure adequacy of the structural system to transmit loads safely to the ground as well as the
adequacy of the different structural elements. Quality control and quality assurance records were
also not reviewed.

3|Page
  Non- destructive field testing: Schmidt rebound hammer were used to determine the in-situ
concrete compressive strength for the first floor. Section sizes of the different structural elements
were also measured using a tape measure.

2 DESIGN REVIEW
2.1 Design information

Job

Site Location Kajjansi

Client
Building Regulation Authority
Date of Submission
Relevant Design Codes
Intended Use of Structures
Fire Resistance Requirements
General Loading Conditions
Wind Loading Conditions
Exposure Conditions
Sub-soil Conditions
Foundation Type
Materials Data
Other Relevant Information
Bar Aviation (U) Ltd
Kampala Capital City Authority
August 2021
1) Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures
2) Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures
3) BS8110, Part 1 1997: Structural use of concrete - code of
practice for design and construction
4) Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures
5) BS5950, Part 2 2001: Structural use of Steelworks in Building
6) BS EN 1997-1:2007 – EC7: Geotechnical Design-General rules
Helicopter shade, Restaurant
1 hour fire resistance for all elements
Roof – imposed = 0.6kN/m2
Floor- Live Load = 3.50 kN/m2
n/a
External: Moderate
Internal: Mild
Allowable bearing pressure = 170kN/m2
(Deduced from geotechnical investigations)
Reinforced concrete pad and unreinforced strip footings to
columns and walls respectively
Concrete:
 Reinforced: Class C25, Max Agg. Size = 20mm
 Blinding: Class C15
Reinforcement:
 High Yield: fy = 410 N/mm2
 Mild Steel: fy = 250 N/mm2
Unit Weights of Materials
 Concrete: 25kN/m3
 Concrete Blocks: 20kN/m3
 Steel: 77kN/m3

4|Page
Table 2: Design information

2.2 Design Loading Data

Tabulated in the following sections is the different loading data that was used for design of the different
structural elements. All loads are in kN/m2 unless otherwise indicated.

2.2.1 Roof
EN1991-1-1 Roof (loads in kN/m2)
DL LL SL UL
Covering (Iron sheets) 0.15
Water proofing, batens, rafters 0.15
Purlins, Truss 0.15
Ceiling 0.25
Table 6.10 Imposed load 0.6
Totals 0.70 0.60 1.30 1.85
Table 3: Roof loading data

2.2.2 composite floor slab

Typical floor Composite loading (kN/m2)

D B uW(kn/m2) DL LL SL UL Ref
Finishes(25mm) 0.025 1.000 20.00 0.50
Composite Slab 0.150 1.000 24.00 3.60
BS EN 1991-1-
Live load (Restaurant) 1.000 3.50 3.50 1:2002, Table 6
Totals 4.10 3.50 7.60 10.79
Table 4: Floor slab loading for first floor

Summary of Slab Loadings (kN/m²)

DL LL SL UL
First Floor 4.10 3.500 7.60 10.79

2.2.3 Beams
The beam loading was obtained by multiplying the slab loads with the tributary widths of each beam.

2.2.4 Column Load Audit

Typical Columns Loads (Critical Column); Loads in KN
Column C1/F1 at Grid B-1 Load
audit(L,W,BL,A) 5 2.5 7.50 12.50
DL LL SL UL
Roof 8.13 6.25 14.38 20.34
First floor slab 51.25 43.75 95.00 134.81
Beams 173.25

5|Page
 Col Self 3.50
228.00 43.75 95.00 134.81
Ground level 3.50 0.00 3.50 4.73
Slab 0.00 0.00
Beams 0.00
Col Self 3.50

Total (at column base) 239.63 50.00 98.50 159.88

2.2.5 Input, Analysis and Design

6|Page
 a) Input

Figure 3: Helicopter shade Staad Pro 3D generated model

7|Page
Figure 4: Input Section properties, dead load and Live loads onto beams for analysis

8|Page
Figure 5: Summary of sections input

9|Page
 b) Analysis

Figure 6: Bending Moments (critical load combination) in Beams for the shed

10 | P a g e
Figure 7: Shear forces (critical load combination) in the columns

11 | P a g e
 c) Design

Figure 8:Required utility check of Columns and beams

12 | P a g e
Utility ratio is the ratio of actual load on the member to the capacity of the member. If it exceeds more
than 1 then load imposed to the member is greater than its capacity and member fails under deflection.

Therefore, from the above design, member sections of 305x165x40 Kg/m that were used initially failed
under the utility check thus the causing a deflection in the slab as exhibited on site.

2.3 Elemental Designs and Output Summary

The structural design of the building was checked using the design information and loading data above.
A combination of hand calculations and Staad Pro software modules was used to design the various
elements. Detailed calculations of selected members are herewith attached under Annex C.

The summary of the output from the design of the structural elements is as follows:

2.3.1 Helicopter shade (Ground floor and first floor)

Member Size Design output implemented Status
Ground Bearing Slab 200mm Thick Solid slab R10-200 BEW Adequate
First floor
First floor slab 150mm thick composite 2T12 per valley Adequate
Slab
Beam 01 300x165x10mm I section Inadequate
Beam 02 IPE 200 I section Inadequate
Intermediate Beam IPE 200 I section Inadequate
Column
Column C1 (12 Nos) 300x165x10mm I section Inadequate
Column C2 (13 Nos) IPE 200 I section Inadequate
Footings
Footing F1 (12 Nos) 1500x1500x300 T12-200BEW Adequate
Stub column (12 Nos) 400x400 6T16-200BEW Adequate
Table 5: Design Output Summary for Helicopter shade implemented on site

2.3.2 Recommended members to the structure

Member Size Design output implemented Status
Ground Bearing Slab 200mm Thick Solid slab R10-200 BEW Adequate
First floor
First floor slab 150mm thick composite 2T12 per valley Adequate
Slab
Beam 01 300x165x10mm I section Adequate
Beam 02 IPE 200 I section Adequate
Beam 03 406x178x85 I section Adequate
Intermediate Beam IPE 200 I section Adequate

Column
Column C1 (12 Nos) 300x165x10mm I section Adequate
Column C2 (13 Nos) IPE 200 I section Adequate
Column C3 (8 Nos) 406x178x85 I section Adequate
Footings
Footing F1 (12 Nos) 1500x1500x300 T12-200BEW Adequate
Footing F2 (8 Nos) 2000x2000x300 T16-200BEW Adequate

13 | P a g e
 Stub column (12 Nos) 400x400 6T16 Adequate
Stub column (8 Nos) 450x450 12T16 Adequate
Table 6: Recommended Design output summary for Helicopter shade

14 | P a g e
2.3.3 Input, analysis and design for recommended solution
a) Input

Figure 9: Helicopter shade Staad Pro 3D generated model

15 | P a g e
Figure 10: Input Section properties, dead load and Live loads onto beams for analysis

16 | P a g e
Figure 11: Summary of sections input

17 | P a g e
 b) Analysis

Figure 12: Bending Moments (critical load combination) in Beams for the shed

18 | P a g e
Figure 13: Shear forces (critical load combination) in the columns

19 | P a g e
 c) Design

Figure 14:Required utility check of Columns and beams

20 | P a g e
Therefore, from the above design, additional member designs of 406x178x85Kg/m to member sections
of 305x165x40 Kg/m that were used initially adequately support the structure and pass under the
utility check.

3 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT
3.1 Non-Destructive Field Testing
During the course of the project, Solgeotechnics Ltd were contracted by the client to carry out an in-situ
compressive strength investigation from which the existing frame building was built. Field tests were
carried out on August 2021 and report was compiled (See Annex F).

Different concrete structural elements of the building after visual inspection were subjected to non-
destructive strength assessment. These included Composite floor slabs, Stub columns and staircase. The
test was conducted in accordance with BS EN 12504-2:2012 to estimate the in-situ strength of concrete
based on the correlation established between in situ strength at the particular location and rebound
numbers.

The slab average concrete compressive strength was found to be >10N/mm2 for the points tested. The
Ground Slab concrete compressive strength was found to be with an average of 23.0N/mm2.

3.2 Compressive Strength Test

During the course of the project solgeotechnics Ltd were contracted by client to carry out compressive
strength tests on concrete cube samples for structural elements which included; stub column, first floor
slab. Compressive strength tests were carried out august 2021 and the report was compiled (Report
attached in Annex F).

21 | P a g e
The results from the field testing are indicative of competent materials and workmanship implemented with the requisite quality
observances. The detailed results of the field testing are herewith tabulated:

Equiv’t Concrete Strength

Date of test Location Element Test ID Remarks Status
(N/mm2)
Ground Stub columns 24 Adequate
9th August floor
Ground slab 23 Adequate
2021
First Floor Slab >10 Inadequate

Table 7: Non-Destructive Test Results

22 | P a g e
 4 SUPERVISION

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusions

 Therefore, from the above design, additional member designs of 406x178x85Kg/m to member
sections of 305x165x40 Kg/m that were used initially adequately support the structure and pass
under the utility check.

5.2 Recommendations
 The construction works should proceed as per the drawings attached in Annex B and Annex C.
During the construction, the client has been advised to ensure that works are supervised by
competent professional personnel to ensure safety, structural soundness and compliance to
drawings and specification.
 Client should as soon as possible undertake external works necessary to protect the foundations
from effects of storm water runoff that percolates into the ground.

23 | P a g e
 6 REFERENCES
1) Appraisal of existing structures 3rd Edition.(2010), IstructE
2) Guide to surveys and inspections of buildings and Associated structures(2008), IstructE

7 List of Annexes:
ANNEX A: SITE PHOTOS

ANNEX B: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS

ANNEX C: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS

ANNEX D: FIELD TESTS REPORT

24 | P a g e
 ANNEX A: SITE PHOTOS

25 | P a g e
 Figure 15: Side view of the helicopter shade showing deflected Figure 16: Girder system attached to deflecting members to
beam minimize deflection

Figure 17: Corrugated sheet used as a steel deck for the slab

26 | P a g e
 ANNEX B: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS

27 | P a g e
 ANNEX C: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS

28 | P a g e
 ANNEX D: FIELD TESTS REPORT

29 | P a g e