Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Concrete quality issues in multistory building construction in

Ghana: Cases from Kumasi metropolis
Kenneth A. Tutu *, David A. Odei, Philip Baniba, Michael Owusu
Department of Civil Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Private Mail Bag, University Post Office, Kumasi, Ghana

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study investigated concrete quality issues at eleven multistory building construction sites in
Multistory building collapse Kumasi metropolis amid several cases of multistory building collapses in Ghana. The objective
Structural failures was to understand key aspects of concrete quality problems at multistory building construction
Concrete defects
sites in Ghana to help recommend strategies for improving building safety standards. Apart from
Compressive strength
Concrete mixture design
observing construction practices at the eleven construction sites, fresh concrete and constituent
Concrete quality materials were sampled from four of the sites. The materials were used to produce concrete cube
specimens, generally replicating the mixing ratios utilized at the sites. The site- and laboratory-
produced concrete was tested for 28-day compressive strength. The site observations indicated
that aggregate sourcing, stockpiling and batching practices promoted variability in concrete
quality. Concrete production at the sites followed the recipe method (nominal mixing ratios),
employing either low-capacity concrete mixers or hand-mixing. Consolidation, curing and quality
control testing of concrete were not regular practices, and segregation and honeycombs were
common. The sites determined adequacy of mixing water by visual evaluation of concrete
workability. Had water content been properly determined and measured, the compressive
strength of the site-produced concrete, which ranged from 10 MPa to 18 MPa, could have been
26–100% higher. The compressive strengths of the site-produced concrete were 26–60% less than
the minimum 28-day characteristic compressive cube strength of 25 MPa required for structural
use in buildings in Ghana. If an appropriate water content had been used at the sites, the
compressive strengths could have still been less than the specified 25 MPa by 9%, on average.
These findings suggested that low concrete quality was a real issue and could pose significant
building failure risk or performance inadequacy. While the Ghana Building Code contains several
specifications that potentially promote high building construction quality, their enforcement was
non-existent or weak. A collaborative system of construction quality assurance and training
encompassing local government agencies, professional associations and laboratories of higher
educational and research institutions is recommended to help improve access to material testing
resources and high-quality technical expertise, as well as to disincentivize willful violation of
construction regulations.

1. Introduction

Multistory building collapses – with their associated deaths, injuries, trauma and property loss – are common in Ghana. During the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kensfold@yahoo.com (K.A. Tutu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01425
Received 2 May 2022; Received in revised form 4 August 2022; Accepted 22 August 2022
Available online 23 August 2022
2214-5095/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

period 2000–2020, about 60 people were killed and 140 injured in 20 major reported multistory building collapses [1–4]. Accra and
Kumasi, the two largest cities, recorded the highest number of collapses, where the buildings were meant for or used as offices,
commercial centers, worship centers, schools, residences and hotels. Defective design, substandard quality materials, poor work­
manship and building regulation violations have been suggested as some major causes of the failures [1, 2, 5–8].
The building collapse phenomenon also prevails in several African countries. For instance, between 2006 and 2015, Kenya
recorded four major collapses which killed 25 and injured 33, in which defective design and construction were blamed [9,10]. Tanko
et al. [11] identified poor structural design and construction as major causes of 64 building collapses that occurred in Nigeria between
1977 and 2011, which killed over 400 and injured 50. Lagos experienced a collapse rate of four buildings annually between 1978 and
2013, and the commonly-cited causes included ineffective building regulation, poor physical development planning, defective design
and construction, poor maintenance and unethical professional practices [12,13]. In Angola, a six-story police building collapsed in
2008 [14], while, in 2006, a church building in Uganda collapsed over the congregants [15]. Alinaitwe and Ekolu [15] cited poor
quality materials and workmanship, design and construction errors and lack of quality control as some major causes of building
collapses. Oloyede et al. [16], based on a survey of 80 building industry professionals in Nigeria, identified low-quality building
materials and workmanship as the foremost cause of building collapses. Tchamba and Bikoko [17] – through a survey and site in­
spection – identified poor quality concrete production and construction as a major cause of collapses in Uganda. While the afore­
mentioned African studies have generally identified poor quality construction materials as a prevalent problem, no empirical study
seems to have focused on concrete quality at multistory building construction sites to help characterize the low material quality
problem.
Fortunately, natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, landslides and volcanoes rarely cause cata­
strophic building failures in Ghana. Preferably, building development must follow a four-step process: (a) user-need analysis, (b)
engineering studies and design, (c) design evaluation and approval, and (d) construction quality control and assurance. Sidestepping or
inappropriate execution of any of the steps will adversely impact structural integrity and no compensating measure of excellence in the
other steps may prevent poor building performance or failure. The building construction process itself is a complex interactive series of
activities involving several resources (e.g., labor, materials, equipment, money, time and procedures). Limitations in any of these
activities or resources increase the risk of errors and potential failure.
It should be noted that on-site concrete production is a common practice in Ghana than ready-mixed concrete production, where a
supplier manufactures concrete off-site and delivers it to a job site. The quality of ready-mixed concrete tends to be more reliable, as
payment may be preconditioned on the material meeting certain quality parameters. Computerized concrete batching plants are
uncommon on project sites due to their prohibitive cost or unavailability. As noted earlier, poor-quality construction materials,
particularly concrete, are believed to contribute to building collapses in Ghana. It is unsurprising because the several constituents of
concrete tend to increase its risk of failure [18]. The non-homogenous nature of concrete causes it to behave differently under different
loading conditions, casting methods, handling, curing and environmental conditions, and these factors increase the vulnerability of
concrete to failure [19]. Danso and Boateng [20], in a study to ascertain whether the quality of Type I Portland cement used in Ghana
contributed to building collapses, could not establish adverse findings and recommended that future studies should focus on identi­
fying substandard materials, including concrete.
Despite the several cases of multistory building collapses in Ghana and the subsequent widespread allusion to poor-quality con­
struction as a potential causative factor, forensic investigation on material quality on the failed structures is rare and, if conducted, the
technical findings are often not made public. In the absence of such crucial information, it becomes challenging to understand several
aspects of the concrete quality problem, and this hinders continuous construction quality improvement and control. Therefore,
concrete production and construction practices warrant investigation in view of multistory building collapses, which invariably
generate public outcry, and yet little or no research has focused on concrete quality issues to explore their contribution to structural
failures or poor performance. This study is an attempt to begin developing an empirical engineering knowledge of concrete quality
issues in multistory building construction in Ghana with the view of identifying loopholes for redress.

2. Objectives and scope

This study investigated concrete production and construction practices at eleven multistory building construction sites in the
Kumasi metropolis to examine their impact on concrete quality. The study sought to understand the realities of concrete quality
problems at the multistory building construction sites to assist in proposing measures for improved building safety and performance.
Aggregate sourcing, stockpiling, batching, as well as concrete mixture design, production and construction practices were observed at
first hand. Fresh concrete and their constituent materials (aggregates and cement) were sampled from four of the sites. The aggregates
were subjected to a battery of laboratory tests and then used to produce concrete mixtures, generally replicating the mixing pro­
portions employed at the sites. The site- and laboratory-produced mixtures were tested for 28-day compressive strength to examine the
impacts of the observed concrete mixture design and production practices.

3. Properties, production, construction and failures

3.1. Concrete properties

The properties of fresh and hardened concrete indicate the performance characteristics of the material. Thus, mixture design and
production must ensure both fresh and hardened concrete possess properties pertinent to the intended application. Kosmatka and

2
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

Wilson [21] discuss several fresh concrete properties, including consistency (ability to flow), stability (resistance to segregation),
uniformity (evenly distribution of constituents), workability (ease of placing, consolidating and finishing) and, for hardened concrete
properties, they discuss properties such as strength (ability to resist strain or rupture induced by external forces) and durability (ability
to resist weathering, chemical attack, abrasion and other service conditions).
Workability of concrete is influenced by factors such as the method and duration of transportation, amount and characteristics of
cementitious materials, consistency of concrete, characteristics of aggregate, entrained air, water content, concrete and ambient air
temperatures, and admixtures [21]. Although it does not quantitatively characterize workability of concrete, slump is a common
measure of consistency of fresh concrete, where low slump value suggests a stiff consistency concrete which is generally difficult to
place and compact and also prone to segregation. High slump produced by excessive water causes poor concrete performance,
bleeding, segregation and increased drying shrinkage [21]. Thus, fresh concrete must be designed and produced to ensure easy
transportation and placing while maintaining its uniformity, and its flow characteristics and consistency should facilitate consolidation
and finishing.
Several hardened concrete properties may be tested, including strength (compressive, flexural, splitting tensile); air content,
density, absorption and voids; cementitious material content; chloride content; shrinkage and creep; and durability. Perhaps,
compressive strength is the commonest hardened concrete property tested for quality control purposes, as its improvement corre­
sponds with improvement of other concrete properties. According to ACI 318 [22], the averages of all set of three consecutive strength
tests must equal or exceed the specified strength and no individual test result must be more than 3.5 MPa smaller than the specified
strength.
Admixtures are known to improve concrete performance by enhancing some of its properties. For instance, Ayub et al. [23]
reviewed extensive literature to examine the impact of five mineral admixtures (fly ash, silica fume, ground granulated blast furnace
slag, metakaolin and rice husk ash) on the mechanical properties of hardened concrete and concluded that they improved compressive
strength, tensile strength, flexural strength and modulus of elasticity. Also, the admixtures reduced porosity, permeability, shrinkage
and creep of concrete.
The interfacial transition zone between cement paste and aggregate is key research area, as it plays a considerable role in the
concrete failure process. For instance, Giaccio and Zerbino [24] studied the mechanical behavior of concrete containing coarse ag­
gregates having major differences in strength, shape and surface texture, porosity and interface bond strength. The study discussed the
effects of aggregate type and strength on concrete failure mechanisms, stiffness, energy of fracture, and crack pattern. Similarly, Beshrb
et al. [25] evaluated the influence of four types of coarse aggregates (calcareous, dolomitic, quartzitic limestone, and steel slag) on the
mechanical properties of concrete. The steel slag and calcareous limestone aggregates produced concrete with the highest and lowest
compressive strength values, respectively. The split tensile strength of the concrete with steel slag was the highest, followed by those of
dolomitic, quartzitic and calcareous limestone. Another key finding from Beshrb et al.’s [25] study was that weaker aggregates yielded
a lower elastic modulus concrete than stronger aggregates did.

3.2. Concrete production and construction

The versatility of concrete reflects in its flexibility for in-situ casting into various shapes and sizes, with or without reinforcing steel,
or pre-casting with reinforcing steel, or prestressing. It is highly alkaline (pH ranges from 12 to13) and gains strength with age,
although it may lose strength at later stages due to environmental factors. The many variables – such as cementitious materials,
aggregate, water, admixtures, formwork, reinforcing steel, mixing, transportation, placement, consolidation, finishing, curing and
stripping – involved in concrete application increase the risk of its failure and, hence, the need for stringent quality control.
Water-cement (w/c) ratio has significant impact on concrete strength and durability. Higher w/c ratios produce workable but low-
strength concrete, while lower ratios produce less workable but high-strength concrete prone to excessive shrinkage. Impurities such as
clays, salts, chlorides and organic matter adversely affect concrete strength and durability. Kosmatka and Wilson [21] recommend the
following concrete mixture design process: (a) establish parameters such as air content, workability and strength based on structural
design requirements, construction methods and service conditions; (b) determine constituent material characteristics and production
technology; and (c) determine mixing proportions using relationships established through experimentation or experience.
Concrete production may follow a prescriptive (recipe) or performance-based methodology. Prescriptive methods specify a mixing
ratio for the constituents based on experience or experimentation, while performance-based methods indicate criteria for certain
concrete properties (e.g., strength, slump, permeability), and the mixture is produced to meet the criteria. Performance-based methods
often facilitate innovative use of local materials to leverage economic and sustainability benefits, although some project owners prefer
a combination of both methodologies, as a purely performance-based approach is considered time-consuming [21]. Prescriptive
concrete production requires stringent quality control as minor variations in material characteristics (e.g., cement type; aggregate
gradation, texture, shape, density, strength) and production processes can affect concrete properties.
Concrete mixtures can be designed to be self-consolidating; otherwise, they are consolidated mechanically, depending on the
mixture consistency, formwork complexity and reinforcing steel arrangement. Not only does poor consolidation produce weak and less
durable concrete, but it also causes honeycombs, excessive voids, sand streaks, placement lines and early corrosion of reinforcing steel,
while over-consolidation causes segregation, sand streaks and formwork damage [21].
Segregation and honeycombs are two related concrete quality-degrading defects. Segregation – separation of fresh concrete con­
stituents resulting in loss of uniformity and consistency – is often caused by poor mixture design, placement and consolidation practices
[26]. Bleeding, a form of segregation, is the formation of a layer of water at the surface of freshly consolidated concrete, caused by
settlement of solid particles and simultaneous upward migration of water [21]. While minimal bleeding improves resistance to plastic

3
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

shrinkage cracking and finishing, excessive bleeding results in laitance formation (a porous, low durability and weak layer) near the
concrete surface. Laitance must be removed before placing the next concrete lift to avoid the creation of weak construction joints.
Bleeding undermines the cement paste–aggregate bond to reduce concrete strength [21,26]. Honeycombs are voids created in concrete
when the spaces in the coarse aggregate matrix are not filled with mortar, a defect which facilitates moisture and air intrusion. Poor
reinforcing steel arrangement, grout loss through formwork openings, poor mixture design, segregation and poor consolidation are
some of the causes of honeycombs. Currently, there are no widely-accepted tests for quantifying segregation, although ASTM C232
[27] or AASHTO T158 [28] can be used to determine the rate of bleeding and bleeding capacity of concrete mixtures.
Although concrete may experience shearing, torsional, flexural and tensile stresses in service, compressive strength is the most
commonly-used design and construction quality parameter due to the simplicity of its measurement. Concrete properties such as elastic
modulus, permeability and durability are all influenced by concrete strength [26]. Water-cement ratio, constituent material properties,
consolidation and curing all affect concrete strength. Durability – ability of concrete to withstand service conditions such as weath­
ering, chemical attack and abrasion – impacts the structural integrity of buildings. Durable concrete maintains its desirable properties
under service conditions.

3.3. Structural failures

This review focuses on structural failures influenced by deficiencies in concrete material and construction quality. In their study of
800 construction failures, Matousek and Schneider [29] found most of them were caused by lapses in quality assurance procedures. An
analysis of 150 major structural collapses and distresses (65 involved buildings) that had occurred globally between 1977 and 1981
identified design and construction deficiencies as primary causes [30]. Construction deficiencies encompassed defective falsework and
concreting, and the study recommended improved concrete design and construction methods.
Hadipriono and Diaz [31] studied 46 construction and structural failures that had occurred in the U.S. between 1982 and 1988.
Another insightful study was conducted by Eldukair and Ayyub [19], which involved 604 major structural and construction failures
occasioned by man-made factors during 1975–1986 in the U.S. Commercial and residential structures constituted approximately 48%
and 18% of the total failures, respectively. Failures occurred during construction (44%) and utilization (56%). The researchers denoted
collapse as a permanent failure where all or some structural elements needed replacement, and loss of safety failure and serviceability
failure represented a transition failure mode that could result in collapse if remedial work was delayed or ignored. Collapse failures
(56.4%) were frequent than loss-of-serviceability failures (39.4%) and loss-of-safety failures (4.2%). Nearly 59% of the collapse and
loss-of-safety failures occurred without warning. A significant number of the failures (86.4%) were due to deficiencies in reinforced
concrete elements, and this finding buttress the need for effective concrete construction quality control.
Recently, Wardhana and Hadipriono [32] examined 225 cases of building failures that had happened in the U.S. from 1989 to 2000.
Low-rise buildings (four or less stories) and multistory buildings represented 63% and 14% of the failures, respectively, while the rest
included stadia, auditoria, towers and plant-industrial buildings. Forty-seven of the failures occurred during construction, 177
occurred in-service, and there was no information on the others. Residential buildings experienced the highest failure frequency. For
104 cases for which information was available, the mode, median and mean age of the structure at the time of failure were 0, 6 and 32
years, respectively. The researchers defined two failure conditions: collapse and distress. A collapse failure referred to a situation
where the entire or a substantial part of the structure has come down, thus preventing the structure from performing its functions.
Distress was described as the unserviceability of a structure or some of its component(s) that could result in a collapse; the structure has
deformed without losing its entire structural integration. Construction deficiencies were identified as a major cause of the structural
failures.
It is considered that concrete and reinforcing steel share service loading until concrete fails, after which the reinforcing steel as­
sumes full load bearing. This theory underscores the critical importance of concrete quality in reducing failure risk. Concrete structural
elements may experience failure mechanisms such as fracture, deflection, shear, buckling or torsion and, in all these instances, con­
crete quality plays an influential role in minimizing failure risk. Kaminetzky [18] documented several cases in which building collapses
were caused by poor formwork and shoring design, premature formwork removal and poor-quality concrete. Punching shear failure –
localized failure around a column at an upper level floor causing a progressive vertical collapse – was common in concrete slabs [18].
Unfortunately, punching shear failure is often unaccompanied by advance warning, and studies show that slabs often fail in punching
shear due to premature formwork removal, coupled with low concrete strength and large construction loading [18, 33–38].
Punching shear strength is a function of concrete compressive strength in most structural design codes, such as Eurocode-2 [39] and
ACI Code 318 [22], and Shaaban et al.’s [34] study demonstrated the importance of concrete quality in minimizing punching shear
failures. Shaabana et al. [34] found the rate of increase of punching shear capacity with time was slower than that of compressive
strength. Specifically, punching shear capacity of slab specimens, after 7 days and 14 days, had attained 57% and 70% of their
counterparts after 28 days, respectively, while the corresponding compressive strength had reached 69% and 80% of their counterparts
after 28 days, respectively. Increasing compressive strength of the slab concrete from 25 MPa to 35 MPa yielded a 26% increase in
shear capacity after 7 days, while increasing it to 45 MPa improved the punching shear capacity by 49%, after 7 days. The researchers
recommended incorporating actual compressive strength of concrete at early age (e.g., 7 days) in punching shear resistance calculation
for slabs prior to formwork removal to prevent premature loading.
It is also important to note that concrete quality influences in-service performance and maintenance needs of concrete members.
For instance, reinforcing steel corrosion and concrete carbonation develop very slowly in good-quality concrete [40]. Concrete may
encounter chlorides from its environment or from some of its constituents (admixtures, aggregates, water) and, in the presence of
moisture and oxygen, the chlorides will cause corrosion of reinforcing steel which, in turn, will induce spalling and cracking to

4
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

minimize the structural capacity of concrete members. Chloride penetration rate depends, inter alia, on the permeability of concrete,
while spalling and cracking are influenced by the tensile strength of concrete [40]. Carbonation – a reaction between carbon dioxide,
moisture and cement paste – reduces the alkalinity of concrete, which is an inhibitor of metal corrosion. Having lost the alkaline
protection, and if moisture and oxygen gain access into the concrete, metal corrosion occurs easily, either in an acidic or mildly
alkaline environment. Carbonation is very slow in good-quality concrete, typically proceeding at a maximum rate of 1.0 mm per year
[40].
Despite advances in concrete structural design and construction, building performance and safety issues are still of concern due to
the dire consequences associated with catastrophic building failures. The literature review has demonstrated that concrete quality has
significant influence on the performance and safety of concrete structures; hence, effective quality control and assurance mechanisms
during concrete production and construction are crucial.

4. Methodology

4.1. Site observations

Eleven multistory building construction sites located in Kumasi metropolis – comprising four worship centers, two commercial
centers, three residential facilities and two educational facilities – were randomly visited. Apart from the worship centers having an
auditorium, two of them had a gallery, one had both a gallery and a basement and the remaining had a second floor. The remaining
buildings were of three to five stories. Overall, the buildings covered ground area ranging from 300 m2 to 2000 m2. The educational
facilities, one of the residential buildings and one of the commercial centers were public projects, while the rest were private. During
the site visits, concrete mixture design, production and construction processes, as well as aggregate sourcing, stockpiling and batching
practices were observed. The purpose of the concrete under production was noted, and visible defects and their treatment were
documented.

4.2. Material sampling and testing

Fresh concrete samples and their major constituents (coarse aggregates, fine aggregates and cement) were collected from four of the
sites, referenced as Sites 1 through 4 in this study. The cement type was Ordinary Portland Cement with a strength class of 32.5 R or
42.5 R. The fine and coarse aggregates were natural sand and crushed granite, respectively. They were tested in the laboratory in
accordance with standard procedures to determine their physical characteristics: sieve analysis [41], specific gravity and water ab­
sorption [42,43], flakiness index [44], aggregate crushing value (ACV) and 10% fines value [45]. The fineness modulus (FM) of the fine
aggregates was determined by summing the cumulative percent retained on sieves 150 µm, 300 µm, 600 µm, 1.18 mm, 2.36 mm, 4.75
mm, 9.5 mm, 19 mm, 37.5 mm, and dividing the sum by 100. ASTM C143 [46] was followed to measure the slump of the fresh
concrete. Three replicate 150 mm concrete cube specimens were fabricated and cured in water for 28 days [47] and tested for
compressive strength in accordance with BS EN 12390–3 [48].

4.3. Mixture design and production

The concrete mixing ratio implemented at four of the projects sites was generally replicated in the laboratory, using the raw
materials collected from the sites. Unfortunately, the exact amount of water added to the site-produced concrete mixtures was un­
known, as the sites did not measure the mixing water. The prevailing practice was to continually add water to the mixture until it had
attained a desirable workability, judged by visual evaluation of the construction workers. Hence, the site w/c ratio could not be
replicated in the laboratory, and the mixture design process determined the water content that yielded a slump (workability) suitable
for the intended use of the mixture. Consequently, water was progressively added to the constituent materials, and slump was
intermittently measured until it fell within the American Concrete Institute (ACI)–recommended ranges [49]. The corresponding water
content was then used to calculate the w/c ratio. Thus, the laboratory design process yielded concrete mixtures that would have been
produced had the construction sites adopted the respective ACI–recommended slump values for the various concrete applications. For
each mixture design, three replicate 150 mm concrete cube specimens were fabricated and cured in water for 28 days [47] and tested
for compressive strength in accordance with BS EN 12390–3 [48]. Table 1 shows the mixing ratios employed at the construction sites,
the ACI [49] slump recommendations, the laboratory design slump and the resulting w/c ratio.

Table 1
Laboratory Concrete Mixture Design.
Site Site ACI–Recommended Slump (mm) [49] Laboratory Mixing Laboratory w/c
Concrete Use Slump (mm) Ratio

1 Column 25–100 78 1:1:2 0.50

2 Column 25–100 72 1:2:4 0.78
3 Slab 25–75 64 1:3:3 0.83
4 Slab 25–75 54 1:2:4 0.80

5
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Site observations

Table 2 summarizes major concrete production and construction quality issues observed at the eleven sites. Based on the data
obtained from the sites, the following discussion is presented.

5.1.1. Material sourcing, stockpiling and batching

Material cost, availability and quarry proximity informed aggregate sourcing decisions, such that aggregates were obtained from
different quarries for a given project without quality testing. Natural mineral aggregates (crushed granite) were utilized as against
industrial by-products (e.g., blast-furnace slag and recycled concrete) or synthetic lightweight aggregates (e.g., expanded clays, shales
and slates). Aggregates constitute 60–80% of concrete volume and significantly influence concrete strength and durability. Using
different aggregate sources for the same project may cause major variation in concrete properties because of the potential variability in
aggregate characteristics, such as porosity, gradation, moisture absorption, shape, surface texture, crushing strength, abrasion

Table 2
Concrete Mixture Production and Construction Practices Observed During Visit.
Site Story & Purpose Owner (Execution) Mixture Design and Production Concrete Quality Issues
(Footprint)

1 4-Story, Educational Public • Recipe (prescriptive) method • Segregation/honeycomb

(1200 m2) (Contractor) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
2 4-Story, Residential Private • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(300 m2) (Hired Labor) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Hand mixing on the floor
3 5-Story, Residential Private • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(1050 m2) (Hired Labor) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
4 4-Story, Residential Public (Contractor) • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(1400 m2) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
5 Worship Center with Gallery and Basement Private • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(1200 m2) (Hired Labor) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
6 Worship Center with Gallery Private • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(450 m2) (Hired Labor) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
7 Worship Center with Gallery Private (Contractor) • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(300 m2) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
8 5-Story, Educational Public (Contractor) • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(700 m2) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
9 3-Story, Commercial Public (Contractor) • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(1400 m2) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical mixing
10 4-Story, Commercial Private (Contractor) • Recipe (prescriptive) method
(1000 m2) • No water measurement
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical & hand mixing
11 2-Story, Private • Recipe (prescriptive) method
Worship Center (Hired Labor) • No water measurement
(2000 m2) • Mechanical & hand mixing
• Open-air aggregate storage
• Mechanical vibration
• Curing (wet sacks)
• Concrete strength testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• No curing
• No consolidation
• No concrete testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• No consolidation
• No curing
• No concrete testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• Mechanical vibration
• No curing
• No concrete testing
• Segregation/honeycombs
• Poor-quality concrete
• No concrete testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• High organic content sand
• No concrete testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• Curing by water spraying
• Consolidation not a regular
• No concrete testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• Mechanical vibration
• Concrete strength testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• Consolidation not regular
• Concrete strength testing
• Segregation/honeycomb
• No consolidation
• No concrete testing
• Segregation/honeycombs
• No consolidation
• No concrete testing

6
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

resistance and elastic modulus. Fine natural aggregates (sand) was sourced from pits or waterbodies and no tests were conducted to
determine their suitability. At some of the sites, the sand stockpiles appeared to have extremely high organic content, judging from the
dark color and the presence of debris.
Aggregates were exposed to the weather elements; thus, their moisture content might have varied significantly for some batches of
concrete mixtures, which could, in turn, have altered the w/c ratio and, hence, concrete properties. Good aggregate stockpiling
practices were generally missing. For instance, barriers were not in place, resulting in intermingling or contamination of stockpiles;
batching of aggregates was done manually, disregarding the recommended practice of removing slices from the edges of stockpiles
from bottom to top so that every slice contained a portion of each horizontal layer in order to avoid segregation [21]. To ensure the
temperature of concrete at the time of placing does not exceed 30 ◦ C, the Ghana Building Code [50] recommends measures such as
shielding aggregate stockpiles from direct sunlight, spraying water mist on aggregate stockpiles to minimize their temperature and
using ice flakes to reduce temperature of mixing water. None of these measures was seen in practice during the site visits.
Although pozzolana cement was readily available in Kumasi and is known for its sustainability benefits [51], it was not in use at all
the sites visited, as against Type I Ordinary Portland Cement. Also, admixtures were not used, although the Ghana Building Code [50]
permits their use provided they conform to BS EN 934–2 [52] or ASTM C494 [53]. ACI Committee 212 enumerates benefits of ad­
mixtures, including increasing the plasticity of concrete without increasing water content, reducing segregation, retarding or accel­
erating concrete setting time, accelerating strength development and increasing durability of concrete [54]. Groundwater (boreholes)
or surface water (streams) was the source of mixing water, but there was no water quality testing, contrary to the Building Code [50],
which requires non-potable water be tested as per BS EN 1008 [55]. Although non-potable water can be used for mixing concrete,
excessive impurities (e.g., chlorides, sulfates, carbonates, alkalis, organic substances), if present, can affect concrete setting time,
strength and durability, as well as cause corrosion of steel reinforcement [21].

5.1.2. Concrete mixture design, production and placement

All eleven construction sites did not conduct concrete mixture design, but utilized nominal mixing ratios (recipe or prescriptive
approach) for structural concrete production, with a typical mixing ratio of one part cement to two parts fine aggregate to four parts
coarse aggregate (1:2:4) for beams, columns, staircase and slabs. Nominal mixing ratios of 1:1:2 and 1:3:3 for columns and slabs,
respectively, were also observed at some of the sites. This practice contravenes the Ghana Building Code [50], which requires that
structural concrete mixtures are designed to meet a 28-day characteristic compressive strength specified by the structural engineer and
conforming to one of the listed concrete strength classes. The concrete strength class, which ranges in five increments, are from C20/25
to C50/60, where the first value is the 28-day concrete cylinder strength in MPa and the second value is the 28-day cube strength in
MPa. Kosmatka and Wilson [21] have indicated that mixing ratio should emanate from a mixture design process that is supplemented
by concrete property testing.
For the C20/25 concrete strength class commonly used for structural design of buildings in Ghana, the Building Code [50] specifies
a maximum w/c ratio of 0.70 for moderate to intermediate exposure conditions and 0.65 for severe exposure. The Code specifies three
nominal concrete mixtures for non-structural uses; namely, 1:2:4 with maximum w/c ratio of 0.57 to yield a nominal 28-day
compressive cube strength of 20 MPa, 1:3:6 with maximum w/c ratio of 0.71 to yield a nominal 28-day compressive cube strength
of 15 MPa, and 1:4:8 with maximum w/c ratio of 0.92 to yield a nominal 28-day compressive cube strength of 10 MPa. The building
permit acquisition process requires project owners to submit concrete mixture design for approval, which must include requirements
such as material sources and samples; water, cement, aggregate and concrete test results; and proposed concrete production and
placement plant and machinery [50].
Low-volume, artisanal concrete mixers (often rented) were employed for concrete production, although some of the sites practiced
hand-mixing (e.g., Fig. 1 from Site 10). Reasons for the hand-mixing included cost minimization measures and quantity of concrete
under production. Regardless, hand-mixing of concrete for structural use is an unacceptable, as the practice produces poor concrete
due to slurry loss and non-uniform mixing. The Building Code [50] prohibits hand-mixing of concrete for structural uses. Even
hand-mixing of non-structural concrete requires prior approval, subject to 10% increase in the specified quantity of cement and
limiting the volume of a batch to 0.50 m3 [50]. Non-structural concrete, just like structural concrete, must be batched by weight and
manufactured with a plant or mixer [50].

Fig. 1. Hand-mixing of concrete on upper-level floor at Site 10.

7
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

None of the sites measured concrete mixing water; the quantity incorporated depended on a visual evaluation of the mixture’s
workability. This practice represented a major violation of the Building Code [50], which requires mixing water be measured,
adjusting it for the amount of free water contained in the aggregates. The erroneous assumption might have been that mixing ratios
would yield the desired concrete strength regardless of the w/c ratio. At all the sites, manual placement of concrete was practiced, and
it was a major cause of segregation due to poor concrete handling and excessive height of pour. The Code [50] does not permit height of
pour to exceed 2 m, unless otherwise approved, but this requirement was violated.

5.1.3. Concrete testing

Except for Sites 1 and 8, most likely because these were public-funded projects and contractual obligations might have dictated so,
no compressive strength testing was conducted. This observation is concerning considering that prescriptive-based concrete pro­
duction needs stringent quality control, as minor variations in constituent materials could adversely affect concrete properties.
As part of this study, slump values of 57 mm for column concrete and 47 mm for slab concrete were measured at Sites 1 and 4,
respectively. These values were within the range of 25–100 mm for columns and 25–75 mm for slabs recommended by ACI [49],
respectively. However, a slump of 147 mm for column concrete was recorded for Site 2, which was outside of the recommended range
by ACI [49]. The slump for the slab concrete at Site 3 collapsed, and the diameter was measured as 410 mm. Slump testing, which
characterizes consistency of fresh concrete, is performed to check workability in order to detect poor batches of concrete mixtures. The
sites did not measure slump, although the Building Code [50] requires (a) slump test [56], if slump is within 10–210 mm; (b) Vebe test
[57], if Vebe time is within 5–30 s; (c) degree of compactability [58], if compactability is within 1.04–1.46; and (d) flow table test [59],
if flow diameter is within 340–620 mm. According to the Code [50], structural drawings must indicate the required slump and, if it was
not specified, the Code recommends a target slump of 75 mm.
The Building Code [50] enjoins project owners to routinely furnish concrete production and testing records, including ambient
temperature and concrete placement temperature, aggregate moisture content and concrete strength test results. It should be noted
that site laboratories are rarely set up on most building project sites. Although material testing services are available at the laboratories
of some educational and research institutions, the proximity and fees often discourage the use of such facilities, if quality assurance
procedures are not stringent. While the building permit application process may require submission of concrete mixture design and
related information, construction quality assurance is not strictly enforced. As seen in Table 2, some project owners, particularly
private ones, prefer to hire individual construction professionals due to the lower cost of their services. Unfortunately, some of the
hired foremen are not registered professionals.

5.1.4. Consolidation and curing

Table 2 suggests concrete consolidation was not a prevalent practice. Where it was practiced, mechanical immersion vibration was
utilized, and some of those sites did not consolidate column and slab concrete. The effort required to extend consolidation equipment
power cord to greater heights and the risk of formwork failure discouraged consolidation at upper-level floors. While the Building Code
[50] permits non-structural concrete consolidation by hand or mechanical vibration, it mandates mechanical vibration for structural
concrete consolidation.
Concrete curing was generally neglected (e.g., Fig. 2(a) from Site 9) and, on sites where it was done, water spraying and sack
wetting were utilized (e.g., Fig. 2(b) from Site 1). According to the Building Code [50], fresh concrete must be protected from moisture
loss by retaining formwork for the curing period, installing impermeable sheeting or covering with sand or mats and continually
wetting them. Keeping the exposed surfaces continuously wet by spraying water tested to BS EN 1008 [55] is permitted by the Code
[50] under certain conditions. As a last option, the Code [50] allows the use of a curing compound with an efficiency index of 90% and
containing a fugitive dye to enable the extent of application to be seen, provided the surface will receive no concrete or an application
of a finish. Curing compounds must be tested as per ASTM C156 [60] to meet ASTM C309 [61] requirements, except that water loss
within 72 h shall not exceed 0.40 kg/m2. Curing is required to continue for at least 7–10 days, depending on the strength class of the
concrete or until the next concrete layer must be placed [50].

Fig. 2. (a) No curing of column concrete at Site 9; (b) Curing of column concrete at Site 1.

8
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

5.1.5. Segregation and honeycombs

Segregation or honeycombs were common at all the sites. For instance, Fig. 3 shows its occurrence in slabs, columns, beams and
staircases at Site 5, which has exposed reinforcing steel and electrical wiring conduits. Studies have shown that adequate concrete
cover protects steel reinforcement from corrosion, when the products of the concrete neutralization process hinder access of carbon
dioxide to deeper parts of concrete [62]. As seen in Fig. 4, the defects appeared at the lower, middle and top portions of columns at Site
7. Segregation or honeycombs at lower portions of columns was likely caused by poor concrete placement techniques and/or lack of
consolidation, and their presence at middle and top sections of columns suggested additional causes such as poor concrete mixture
design, production and handling practices.
Fortunately, segregation or honeycombs can be minimized through good aggregate stockpiling practices, proper concrete mixture
design and effective construction techniques. The foremen generally understood the causes and implications of segregation or hon­
eycombs, but there appeared to be a neglect of best concrete production and construction practices to minimize their occurrence.
Mortar dressing was the treatment method observed.

5.2. Material testing results

5.2.1. Aggregates
Aggregate gradation impacts cement and water demand, workability, bleeding, porosity, shrinkage, surface texture and durability,
such that very fine sands are uneconomical, while very coarse aggregates produce harsh mixtures [21]. Fig. 5 shows the aggregate
gradations from Sites 1–4, with ASTM C33 [63] grading limits for normal weight aggregates superimposed on them, whereas Table 3
presents several aggregate characteristics. The fine aggregate gradations were generally within the ASTM C33 [63] band except for Site
3, where the middle proportion of the gradation curve was outside the band. Also, the gradations met the Building Code [50]
requirement for 100% of fine aggregate particle to pass the 4 mm sieve, with a ± 5% tolerance. Fineness modulus (FM) indicates the
fineness of an aggregate: the higher the FM, the coarser the aggregates. ASTM C33 [63] specifies FM between 2.3 and 3.1 for fine
aggregates. As seen in Table 3, only the Site 3 fine aggregate (sand) failed this requirement.
The coarse aggregate gradations fell outside the ASTM C33[63] limits, leaning toward a coarser gradation. The maximum
aggregate size (first sieve to retain at least 15% of aggregates) was 25 mm. Small-size coarse aggregates have larger total surface area
with higher demand for water and cement. Thus, the smaller the maximum aggregate size (MAS), the higher the demand for cement
paste for a given w/c ratio. Because large particles produce more cracks in the interfacial transition zone between the coarse aggregate
and cement paste, MAS is generally limited to 19 mm [26]. Overall, the gradations showed no large deficiency or excess of any one
particle size. However, the coarser gradation suggests a relatively lower demand for cement paste and, hence, possible lower concrete
strength.
The specific gravity and water absorption values fell within typical values of 2.400–2.900 for most natural aggregates [21] and
0.07–0.30% for granite [64], respectively. The Building Code [50] sets a maximum water absorption at 2.5%. Specific gravity is a
general indicator of aggregate quality, while water absorption approximates aggregate porosity and strength. Aggregates with lower
absorption values tend to require little or no moisture correction during concrete production. ACV indicates the resistance of ag­
gregates to crushing under a gradually applied compressive load, whereas 10% fines value measures aggregate resistance to crushing.
Typical maximum ACV ranges from 30% to 40%, while minimum limits for 10% fines generally fall in the range 50–150 kN, depending
on the concrete use. The Building Code [50] has no specification for ACV, but specifies a minimum 10% fines value of 160 kN and a
minimum wet/dry 10% fines ratio of 0.75, criteria which the aggregates passed. Flaky aggregates, due to their small thickness

Fig. 3. Segregation or honeycombs in concrete structural members at Site 5.

9
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

Fig. 4. Segregation or honeycombs in columns at Site 7.

compared with their other dimensions, often produce low-strength and harsh mixtures, and hence their use is discouraged or limited to
a maximum of 15% by mass of the total aggregate [26]. The Building Code [50] requires a maximum flakiness index of 35% for crushed
aggregates, which was met. Overall, the aggregate test results indicated adequate strength and shape characteristics for concrete
production.

5.2.2. Compressive strength

Table 4 shows the 28-day compressive strength values obtained for the site- and laboratory-produced concrete mixtures. The site-
produced mixtures recorded strengths that were 26–100% less than the laboratory-produced mixtures. A paired t-test at 5% signifi­
cance level indicated the difference in strengths was significant (p-value = 0.0051). The results confirmed that w/c ratio had sig­
nificant impact on concrete strength, and hence quality. The very low strength of the mixture from Site 3 was due to the extremely high
water content, which totally collapsed the slump (diameter of 410 mm). Had the project sites followed the ACI [49] slump recom­
mendations and incorporated the right quantity of mixing water, the same constituent materials and mixing ratios could have yielded
28-day compressive strengths that could have been 26–100% larger than the measured values.
Structural designers of multistory buildings in Ghana commonly utilize 28-day concrete compressive cube strength of 25 MPa. The
site-produced, laboratory-cured concrete cube specimens recorded 28-day compressive strengths that were less than the minimum
required concrete design strength input value of 25 MPa [50] by a margin ranging from 26% to 60%. The actual strength deficit could
be larger, considering that curing was not a regular practice and, hence, concrete strength gain might progress slowly. Slow rate of
strength gain increases the risk of structural failures, when formwork and shoring are removed before structural members had
developed sufficient strength to be self-supporting. Based on the test results, if the water content had been appropriately determined
and measured during concrete production, the compressive strength for the site-produced mixtures could have been less than the
structural design input value of 25 MPa by average of 9%.
The compressive strength values of the site-produced concrete were compared with results from other studies. Aryal and Mishra
[65] obtained mean 28-day compressive cube strength of 24 MPa for concrete mixtures sampled from 30 residential building con­
struction sites in Nepal, which exceeded the minimum requirement of 20 MPa for structural concrete. Only 20% of the samples missed
the strength specification, and most of the mixtures (73%) were produced at a w/c ratio between 0.4 and 0.6. In a Japan study, Shimizu
et al. [66] cored 10,788 concrete cylinders from 1130 public buildings (up to 10 floors) constructed in the 1920 s and 1980 s and tested
them for compressive strength. None of the buildings constructed after 1970 s recorded an average compressive strength less than
12.5 MPa. Coefficient of variation of the strength measurements declined after mid-1960 s, falling in the range of 8–25%, a trend
attributed to improved construction quality. Similarly, in Turkey, Maziligüney et al. [67] extracted 4647 concrete cores from 693
public, residential and military buildings constructed between 1940 and 2002 and measured a mean compressive strength of
10.6 MPa, which was less than specification requirements. The compressive strength results for the military buildings were higher,
demonstrating the potential effect of good quality control.
The Nepal and Japan studies [65,66] demonstrate that, with sustained quality control measures, the building industry can produce
concrete to meet specification requirements and improve building safety. While the Ghana Building Code [50] contains specifications
that promote good concrete quality and available aggregates and cement materials possess acceptable engineering properties, a key
missing element is construction quality control and assurance. If this element is effectively addressed, concrete quality for building
construction will most likely improve, resulting in overall better building safety and performance.

6. Summary and recommendation

Several cases of multistory building collapses in Ghana motivated this empirical study of concrete quality issues at eleven
multistory building construction sites in Kumasi metropolis. Key findings from the study and a recommendation are summarized
below:

10
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

Fig. 5. Aggregate Gradation for Sites 1–4.

(a) For a given project, aggregates could originate from several quarry sources, depending on cost, proximity and material
availability, while concrete mixing water came from either boreholes or streams. With no material testing and best aggregate
stockpiling and batching practices ignored, variations in material properties could pose high risk to concrete quality.
(b) Concrete production was by the recipe method (nominal mixing ratio) with no water content measurement. Adequacy of mixing
water was determined based on a visual evaluation of workability, a practice which produced low 28-day compressive strength,

11
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

Table 3
Aggregate Test Results for Sites 1–4.
Site 10% Fines (kN) ACV Flakiness Index (%) Aggregate Specific Gravity Water Absorption (%) Fines Modulus
(%)
Dry Wet Wet/Dry Coarse Fine

1 232 227 0.98 20.4 7.83 2.680 2.320 0.40 2.50

2 220 216 0.98 19.5 8.09 2.730 2.590 0.26 2.30
3 218 187 0.86 20.1 11.72 2.680 2.530 0.36 2.03
4 223 207 0.93 20.7 6.57 2.690 2.330 0.42 2.44

Table 4
28-Day Compressive Strength Test Results.
Site Mixing Ratio 28-Day Compressive Strength (MPa) Difference
(%)
Site Mixtures Laboratory Mixtures

1 1:1:2 18.4 27.6 50

2 1:2:4 18.1 22.8 26
3 1:3:3 10.1 20.2 100
4 1:2:4 14.5 20.4 41

which ranged from 10 to 18 MPa. Had an appropriate water content been determined and utilized, the compressive strengths
could have been increased by 26–100%.
(c) Low-capacity mechanical mixers were utilized for concrete production, although hand-mixing was also practiced. Consolida­
tion, curing and quality control testing were mostly ignored. Public projects were executed by contractors, and they might
occasionally conduct compressive strength testing, while most private projects hired individual foremen, and quality control
testing was neglected.
(d) Segregation and honeycombs were common defects, and they were treated with mortar. Poor aggregate stockpiling, concrete
production and construction practices were largely responsible for these defects. Although the foremen had a good under­
standing of the causes and implications of these defects, there was no determined effort to minimize them.
(e) The site-produced concrete had 28-day compressive strengths that were 26–60% lesser than the Ghana Building Code minimum
required characteristic compressive strength of 25 MPa. In reality, the strength deficit could be larger, considering that curing
was generally neglected at the sites and, hence, concrete strength gain might progress slowly. If water content had been
appropriately determined and measured, the compressive strengths recorded could have been lesser than the requirement of
25 MPa by 9%, on average. Low concrete strength is a risk to structural failures.
(f) The Ghana Building Code contains provisions that could potentially ensure high concrete quality to minimize building safety
risks and improve performance. However, their enforcement appears to be very weak, as evident at the eleven sites included in
this study.
(g) A robust construction quality assurance program should be instituted, in partnership with laboratories at the various educa­
tional and research institutions, to ensure access of the building industry to material testing services and high-quality technical
expertise.

In a nutshell, low concrete quality represents a significant problem in multistory building construction in Ghana and could
significantly be contributing to the common phenomenon of building collapses in the country. While the causes of the low concrete
quality problem could be assigned to lapses on the part of the various project stakeholders (owners, designers, contractors, supervisors,
statutory agencies), it appears the statutory agencies wield the greatest influence to initiate significant improvement in building
construction quality to minimize the risks of building collapses.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

[1] R. Owusu, C. Bowang, The collapse of buildings in Ghana: the role of stakeholders, Asia Pac. J. Res. 1 (LI) (2017) 53–67.
[2] L.A. Asante, A. Sasu, The challenge of reducing the incidence of building collapse in Ghana: analyzing the perspectives of building inspectors in Kumasi, SAGE
Open 8 (2) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018778109.

12
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

[3] F.W. Boateng, Building collapse in cities in Ghana: a case for a historical-institutional grounding for building risks in developing countries, Int. J. Disaster Risk
Reduct. 50 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101912.
[4] GhanaWeb (2020) “Akyem Batabi: Collapsed Church Building Constructed with Weak Concrete, Expired Permit – Report”. Accessed January 3, 2021 at 〈https://
www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Akyem-Batabi-Collapsed-church-building-constructed-with-weak-concrete-expired-permit-Report-
1111177〉.
[5] E. Boadi-Danquah, “Why Does a Building Collapse?”, 2012. Accessed on January 3, 2018 at 〈https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/Why-
Does-A-Building-Collapse-255779〉.
[6] J. Asare-Bediako, “Case Study: Melcom Disaster,” 2013. Accessed on January 3, 2018 at 〈https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Case-
Study-Melcom-Disaster-274593〉.
[7] S. Arthiabah, “Structural Failures said to be Main Cause of Buildings Collapse in Ghana,” 2013. Accessed on January 3, 2018 at 〈https://www.
ghanabusinessnews.com/2013/05/25/structural-failures-said-to-be-main-cause-of-buildings-collapse-in-ghana/〉.
[8] M. Bediako, “Common Causes of Building Collapse in Ghana,” 2015. Graphic Online. Accessed on January 1, 2018 at 〈https://www.graphic.com.gh/features/
opinion/common-causes-of-building-collapse-in-ghana.html〉.
[9] J.M. Kioko, Causes of building failures in Africa: a case study on collapsing structures in Kenya, IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 11 (3) (2014).
[10] T. Mthethwa, “African Menace 2: Collapse of Buildings,” 2016. Accessed on January 1, 2018 at 〈https://recruitlink.co.za/articles/african-menace-2collapse-
buildings〉.
[11] J.A. Tanko, F.A. Ilesanmi, S.K. Balla, Building failure causes in Nigeria and mitigating roles by engineering regulation and monitoring, Eng. J. 5 (2013) 184–190.
[12] L. Egunjobi, A. Adebayo, Incidence of building collapse in Nigeria: case of Lagos State, OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 9 (3) (2016) 109–114.
[13] B.F. Akande, B. Debo-Saiye, S.D. Akinjobi, T.O. Alao, O.O. Akinrogunde, Causes, effects and remedies to the incessant building collapse in Lagos State, Nigeria,
Int. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 16 (04) (2016) 15.
[14] T.G.L.J. Bikoko, J.C. Tchamba, F.N. Okonta, A comprehensive review of failure and collapse of buildings/structures, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 10 (3) (2019)
187–198. 〈https://ssrn.com/abstract=3453723〉.
[15] H.M. Alinaitwe, S.O. Ekolu, Failure of structures in East Africa with focus on the causes of failures in the construction phase, in: S.O. Ekolu et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Construction Materials and Structures, 24–26 November, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2014, pp. 76–85.
[16] S.A. Oloyede, C.B. Omoogun, O.A. Akinjare, Tackling causes of frequent building collapse in Nigeria, J. Sustain. Dev. 3 (3) (2010), https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.
v3n3p127.
[17] J.C. Tchamba, T.G.L.J. Bikoko, Failure and collapse of building structures in the cities of Yaoundé and Douala, Cameroon from 2010 to 2014, Mod. Appl. Sci. 10
(1) (2016), https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v10n1p23.
[18] D. Kaminetzky, Design and Construction Failures: Lessons from Forensic Investigations, McGraw-Hill, USA, 1991.
[19] Z.A. Eldukair, B.M. Ayyub, Analysis of recent U.S. structural and construction failures, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 5 (1) (1991) 57–73, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0887-3828(1991)5:1(57).
[20] H. Danso, I. Boateng, Is the quality of cement a contributing factor for building collapse in Ghana?, in: S. Laryea, S. Agyepong (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th West
Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, August 12–14, 2013, Accra, Ghana, 2013, pp. 765–772.
[21] S.H. Kosmatka, M.L. Wilson, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, Sixteenth Edition, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 2016.
[22] ACI Committee 318-14. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-14 and Commentary (318R-14), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, 2014.
[23] T. Ayub, S.U. Khan, F.A. Memon, Mechanical characteristics of hardened concrete with different mineral admixtures: a review, Sci. World J. 2014 (Article ID)
(2014), 875082, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/875082.
[24] G. Giaccio, R. Zerbino, Failure mechanism of concrete: combined effects of coarse aggregates and strength level, Adv. Cem. Based Mater. 7 (2) (1998) 41–48,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1065-7355(97)00014-X.
[25] H. Beshrb, A.A. Almusallam, M. Maslehuddin, Effect of coarse aggregate quality on the mechanical properties of high strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 17
(2) (2003) 97–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00097-1.
[26] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro. Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, fourth ed, McGraw Hill Companies, Inc., New York, 2015.
[27] ASTM C232, Standard Test Method for Bleeding of Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2021.
[28] AASHTO T158, Standard Method of Test for Bleeding of Concrete, American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2019.
[29] M. Matousek, J. Schneider, “Untersuchungen zur struktur des Siecherheitsproblems bei Bauwerken.” Report No. 59, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, 1977.
[30] F. Hadipriono, Analysis of events in recent structural failures, Accessed on January 5, 2022, J. Struct. Eng. 111 (7) (1985) 1468–1481, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:7(1468).
[31] F.C. Hadipriono, C.F. Diaz, Trends in recent construction and structural failures in the United States, Forensic Eng. 1 (4) (1988) 227–232.
[32] K. Wardhana, F.C. Hadipriono, Study of recent building failures in the United States, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 17 (3) (2003), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0887-3828(2003)17:3(151).
[33] American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI SP-232 Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.
[34] I.G. Shaabana, A.H. Hosni, W.M. Montaser, M.M. El-Sayed, Effect of premature loading on punching resistance of reinforced concrete flat slabs, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 12 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00320.
[35] N.J. Gardner, Relationship of the punching shear capacity of reinforced concrete slabs with concrete strength, Acids Struct. Eng. J. 87 (5) (1990) 66–71.
[36] A.M.A. Hafez, Punching shear behavior of normal and high-strength concrete slabs under static loading, Ukr. J. Eng. Sci. 33 (4) (2005) 1215–1235.
[37] J. Sagaseta, L. Tassinari, M.F. Ruiz, A. Muttoni, Punching of flat slabs supported on rectangular columns, Eng. Struct. 77 (2014) 17–33.
[38] G.I.B. Rankin, A.E. Long, Punching strength of conventional slab-column specimens, Eng. Struct. 178 (2019) 37–54.
[39] Eurocode-2, European Committee for Standardization, EN 1992-1-1, Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European
Committee, 2004.
[40] P.H. Emmons, Concrete Repair and Maintenance Illustrated: Problem Analysis, Repair Strategy and Techniques, R.S. Means Company, Inc., Massachusetts,
1994.
[41] ASTM C136, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2015.
[42] ASTM C127, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 2015.
[43] ASTM C128, ASTM C128 Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2015.
[44] BS 812-105.1, Testing Aggregates: Methods for Determination of Particle Shape – Flakiness Index, British Standards Institution, London, 1989.
[45] BS 812-111, Testing Aggregates: Methods for Determination of Ten Percent Fines Value (TFV), British Standards Institution, London, 1990.
[46] ASTM C143, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2015.
[47] BS EN 12390-2, Testing Hardened Concrete: Making and Curing Specimens for Strength Tests, British Standards Institution, London, 2019.
[48] BS EN 12390-3, Testing Hardened Concrete: Compressive Strength Of Test Specimens, British Standards Institution, London, 2019.
[49] American Concrete Institute (ACI), Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavy-Weight, and Mass Concrete. Report No. ACI 211.1-91, ACI
Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 1, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.
[50] GBC, Building Code of the Republic of Ghana, GS 1207:2018, Ghana Standards Authority, Ministry of Works and Housing, Accra, 2018.
[51] BRRI, “The Pozzolana Cement Technology”. Building and Road Research Institute of Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Kumasi. Accessed June 5,
2022 at 〈https://www.brri.org/the-pozzolana-cement-technology〉.

13
K.A. Tutu et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01425

[52] BS EN 934-2, Admixtures for Concrete, Mortar and Grout. Concrete Admixtures - Definitions, Requirements, Conformity, Marking And Labelling. British
Standards Institution, London, 2012.
[53] ASTM C494, Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2012.
[54] American Concrete Institute (ACI), Report on Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, Report No. 212.3 R-16, ACI Committee 212, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2016.
[55] BS EN 1008, Mixing Water for Concrete. Specification for Sampling, Testing and Assessing the Suitability of Water, including Water Recovered From Processes
in the Concrete Industry, as Mixing Water For Concrete, British Standards Institution, London, 2002.
[56] BS EN 12350-2, Testing Fresh Concrete – Slump Test, British Standards Institution, London, 2019.
[57] BS EN 12350-3, Testing Fresh Concrete – Vebe Test, British Standards Institution, London, 2019.
[58] BS EN 12350-4, Testing Fresh Concrete – Degree of Compactability, British Standards Institution, London, 2019.
[59] BS EN 12350-5, Testing Fresh Concrete – Flow Table Test, British Standards Institution, London, 2019.
[60] ASTM C156, Standard Test Method for Water Loss [from a Mortar Specimen] Through Liquid Membrane-Forming Curing Compounds for Concrete, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2020.
[61] ASTM C309, Standard Specification for Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds for Curing Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
2019.
[62] L. Czarnecki, P. Woyciechowski, Concrete carbonation as a limited process and its relevance to concrete cover thickness, Acids Mater. J. 109 (2012) 275–282.
[63] ASTM C33, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2013.
[64] National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA). The Aggregates Handbook, second ed, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, Alexandria, VA,
2012.
[65] R. Aryal, A.K. Mishra, In-situ compressive strength assessment of concrete in under-construction residential buildings at gaindakot municipality, Accessed May
25, 2022, Mater. Today Proc. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.630.
[66] Y. Shimizu, M. Hirosawa, J. Zhou, Statistical analysis of concrete strength in existing reinforced concrete buildings in Japan, in: Proceedings, 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, January 30 - February 4, 2000.
[67] L. Maziligüney, I.O. Yaman, F. Azılı, In-situ concrete compressive strength of residential, public and military structures, in: 8th International Congress on
Advances in Civil Engineering, September 15 – 17, 2008, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus.

14