STRUCTURAL STABILITY INVESTIGATION

OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT
SRINAGAR, J & K

CONFIDENTIAL: This report has been prepared by PROSAVA Pvt Ltd, Gurugram India for Mack Insurance
Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt Ltd. (MACK) for their reference and use. All information contained or
pertaining to this document is property of Mack and is available to said parties under strict obligation of
nondisclosure and restricted use unless otherwise agreed between the parties.
DOC ID- Mack.RGICL.Srinagar.03.03.2022
MARCH 7, 2022
PROSAVA PVT. LTD.
Sl. No. Chapters Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION 3
2 LAY OUT DESIGN AND STRUCTURE OF THE 4
BUILDING
3 FIELD VISIT OBSERVATION 6
(A) Examination of overall stability of the building 6

(B) Examination of Geotechnical issues 10

(C) Examination of structural components 11

(D) Examination of non - structural components 17

4 ANALYSIS OF DEFECTS 21
(A) GLOBAL STABILITY OF BUILDING 21
(B) GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEM 21
(C) DAMAGE TO STRUCTURAL ELEMENT 21
(D) DAMAGE TO NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENT 21
(E) CLASSIFICATION OF THE HABITABILITY OF 21
BUILDING
5 CONCLUSION 22
6 REFERENCE 23
1. INTRODUCTION
A structural stability investigation was carried out on the residential building at
Srinagar, J&K. The owner of the building is Mr. Nadeem Ahmad Bhatt and as per
information provided the construction of building was completed about 12 years ago
and building is currently used for residential purpose by the owner and his family.

An earthquake stuck the region on 05/02/2022 at around 9.46 AM. The epicenter of
quake was at Afghanistan -Tajikistan border with depth 180 km below the earth
surface. Its intensity was measured about 5.7 on Richter scale. The epicenter is
located approx. 390 KM from J&K. The earth quake was widely felt in the region
however no damage was reported as per official website of National center of
seismology.

4
Owner of building reported cracks and damages to the building in aftermath of the
earthquake. No casualty or loss was suffered by the occupants during the incident. An
Initial survey of damage caused by earthquake was carried out at request of owner by
surveyor deputed by Mack Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Limited
(MACK) on 09/02/2022.

Further to this, on advice of MACK, CEO of PROSAVA Pvt Ltd together with Design
Engineer and Mr. Prem Prakash from MACK visited the building site on 03 March,2022 to
inspect the damaged building and comment on the possible reasons for occurrence of the cracks
that have appeared in the building due to reported Earthquake and advise on the structural stability
of the building.

2. LAY OUT DESIGN AND STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING

The building is constructed as a G + 2 residential building measuring approx. 1080 sq

ft on each floor based on principles of a brick masonry structure as per functional
requirements of owner. The loads of the building are dissipated to the ground by
random rubble stone masonry dressed with beaded cement mortar pointing.

The building is located in Earth quake Zone V as per IS 1893(Part-1). As per owner the
building was constructed as per local norms and construction practices prevalent in the
region.

Following is key layout and floor plan of the building.

5
PLAN- GROUND & FIRST FLOOR

6
PLAN- SECOND FLOOR
In conjunction with these discussions and conditions prevailing at site, post-earthquake
deformities noticed at site were reviewed jointly with owner. Discussions were also
held with owner of the building with respect to current construction practices,
available solutions for repair/refurbishment and the applicable standards. No records
were available evidencing possible use of any professional engineering services for
design, specifications or construction

3. FIELD VISIT OBSERVATIONS

The field observations at the site were conducted based on following factors and same
are as follows:
A. Examination of overall stability of the building
Examination of the building from different directions and faces indicated that there
is no loss of balance of any part or the entire structure when considered as a rigid
body.
1. There is no sliding or sign of instability of the building. The cantilever
projections and portico of the building have not shown any signs of instability
or deformation.

7
2. Walls have not shown any signs of separation at corners. No corner cracks are
visible at any of the wall corners or in connecting region between roof slab

3. No cracks are noticed in any lintels, tie beams over openings.

4. All the doors and windows of the building are opening and closing smoothly
without showing any signs of stiffness or loosening.

8
5. The top Attic of the building has also shown no sign of any wood rafter
separation or unusual gaps at joints indicating that support structure is fully
stable and rigid post- earthquake.

9
B. Examination of Geotechnical issues
1. We observed the area around the building for issues related to geotechnical
problems being faced like soil settlement, liquefaction, or slope failure to
check the global condition of the building and have noticed no significant
deuteriation. Some minor cracks are visible on foundation masonry and
floors surrounding the house but the slopes are maintained and width and
depths of these cracks are not significant. The nature of cracks gives
appearance of a shear failure due to minor settlement of stone masonry
below the load bearing main wall. We recommend that these cracks must
be exposed and filled with cement sand mortar.

10
C. Examination of structural components
1. On ground floor front face, we have noticed a minor wall crack of size 1
mm with depth 15 mm below the window sill level. This crack has carried
through the floor slab up to the stone masonry. The crack must be exposed
for its full depth and surface repaired. The nature of this crack indicates that
it is due to initial settlement of earth post construction and wall cracking
due to shear forces experienced due to this settlement.

11
2. The inside face of wall is showing crack on middle of window. The size of
12
crack is less than 1 mm. The crack has travelled vertically indicating the
 nature as shear crack. It should be surface repaired.

3. On the first floor a crack of about 1.5 mm was noticed on the wall. The crack
has depth of about 150 mm. The crack has travelled vertically through the
brick indicating the nature as shear crack. The crack width has reduced towards
the bottom and has not carried to the level of floor slab. There is no sagging of
window sill above the wall and all the window panels are working smoothly.
This crack may be exposed, stitched using steel flat of size 40 x 6 x 150 mm
long at spacing of approx. 500 mm. The surface may be repaired and finished
post stitching.

13
14
15
4. At first floor interior wall below window sill level a crack is observed on
internal wall. The width of crack on inner surface is very minor however it
appears in continuity of external wall crack and follows similar pattern. The
inside wall paint has retained its color and texture indicating that the crack
is not deepening and condition is not deteriorating further.

16
D. Examination of non - structural components :

1. A minor crack is visible on the tile at the kitchen wall. The crack is limited
to one tile only and has not shown signs of carrying through the wall.
Replacement and repair of the tile may be done.

17
2. A minor crack is noticed on the second-floor slab. The crack does not
follow any major pattern and there are other minor cracks in its vicinity on
the floor. The nature of these cracks shows signs of internal stress
development due to temperature variation during setting of cement
concrete.

3. Wall corner at second floor has

minor crack on the plaster. This
crack appears on plaster surface
and does not appear to have carried
through to the wall level. This
crack may be surface repaired.

18
4. Honeycombing, segregation of concrete and micro cracks on surface of
floor slab concrete was observed on slab concrete in stairwell which appear
to be defects during initial casting of concrete and may be repaired 19
 superficially.

4. ANALYSIS OF DEFECTS 20
The defects were analyzed based on following criteria to interpret the status of
structural stability of the building.

(A) GLOBAL STABILITY OF THE BUILDING

Examination of key structural components indicates that there is no loss of balance, breakage
of any critical part, progression of cracks/collapse, deformation, fatigue leading to plastic
mechanism, Further, it is noticed that there is no collapse, inclination of building or leaning
of any floor hence the risk on stability of this building is very low.

(B) GEOTECHNICAL PROBLEMS

No soil settlement, or liquefaction/slope failure or general mass movement has been noticed
post-earthquake, hence any further risk of failure due to Geotechnical problems is low. The
shear crack appearing on the ground floor slab and stone masonry below the ground floor
wall is due to soil settlement after initial construction and not due to dynamic seismic loads

(C) DAMAGE TO STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

The structural elements being evaluated depend on the structural system with which the
construction was built with: beams, joints, columns, walls, etc. There is no separation of any
wall at corners and all the doors and windows are working smoothly. The cracks on the wall
below the window sill level are vertical caused possibly due to additional shear loads after
minor foundation settlement. There are no horizontal or diagonal cracks indicating signs of
failure due to dynamic load on the building in event of an earthquake. Based on examination
of each one of the structural systems and at each damage level we are of opinion that damage
level is classified as none/very slight in almost complete building.

Based on this we are of the opinion that there is very low structural risk to the building as less
than 10% of the building elements have suffered very punctual slight damage to structural
elements and does not pose any danger to inhabitants or the structure.

Minor defects / cracks appearing on wall surface may be exposed and surface repaired so that
no water/air percolation happens and building retains its original strength requirements.

(D) DAMAGE IN NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

The non-structural elements like floor slab and partition walls, have developed minor cracks
primarily restricted to wall surface coating or top surface only. Such cracks generally appear
due to effect of thermal expansion. The nature of cracks do not lead to possibility of the same
appearing due to dynamic seismic activity.

Considering this we are of opinion that damage is minor and very punctual and does not pose
any danger to integrity of building or safety of its inhabitants.

These cracks may be superficially repaired after exposing the cracked surface and surface
finished
(E) CLASSIFICATION OF THE HABITABILITY OF A BUILDING
After evaluation based on above mentioned criteria, we are of opinion that building has
retained its capacity to resist loads, its ductility and redundance and there are no possibilities
of a fall or overturning of objects that represent a danger for the life of its inhabitants.
21
5. CONCLUSIONS
Accordingly, based on the results of the inspection and assessment of damage to the building
on the overall condition we summarize as follows:

(a) The building is completely stable with no evidence of lack of alignment, leaning of floors
etc.
(b) The geotechnical conditions surrounding the site do not indicate any soil settlement or
slope failure.
(c) The damage level to its structural elements and the of its surroundings is insignificant.
(d) The damage level to its non-structural elements is light and when combined with other
evidences does not indicate any severity or possibility of collateral damage to associated
structures.

Hence, based on post seismic evaluation of building we conclude on extent of cracks and
their possible reasons as follows:

(a) The observed cracks are minor in nature, building is structurally stable and does not
require any structural rehabilitation. The noticed defects were inherent and hidden
post initial construction. There are no signs of aggravation of defects post-earthquake
(b) Perceived risk level based on overall level of damages to the building is low and does
not pose any threat the inhabitants of the building.
(c) The nature of cracks suggest that they are not a result of seismic forces. From the
photographs given at Page-3, above, it is also confirmed that the Tremors were only
weak/minor in nature and did not cause any threat/damage to buildings.
(d) Origin of cracks in all probability is due to settlement of support below, thermal
variations and/or due to inadequacies at the time of construction.
(e) The earthquake that originated from Afghanistan-Tajikistan Border region on 5/2/2022
was widely felt in J & K. However, no damage report was reported from any part of
India as per review report of National center of seismology.

22
6. REFERENCES: Reports, Codes & Standards referred during examination:

 IS: 456(2002): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PLAIN AND

REINFORCED CONCRETE.

 IS: 875 (Part-1): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- DEAD LOADS

 IS: 875 (Part-2): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- IMPOSED LOADS

 IS: 875 (Part-3): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- WIND LOADS

 IS: 875 (Part-5): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN LOADS

(OTHER THAN EARTHQUAKE) FOR BUILDINGS AND
STRUCTURES- SPECIAL LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION

 IS: 1893-2002: CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT

DESIGN.

 IS: 4928-1993: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR EARTHQUAKE

RESISTANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS.

 IS: 1080: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION OF SIMPLE SPREAD FOUNDATION.

 IS: 1901: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL SAFETY OF

BUILDING FOUNDATION.

 IS 1904-1986: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATION – GENERAL
REQUIREMENT.

 IS 1786 - 1985: HIGH STRENGTH DEFORMED STEEL BARS AND

WIRES FOR CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT.

 IS 8009 -1976 (Part –I): CODE OF PRACTICE FOR CALCULATION

OF SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS-SHALLOW
FOUNDATIONS.

 IS 2212-1991: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR BRICK WORK.

 IS 1905:1987: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL USE OF

UNREINFORCED MASONRY.
23
 REVIEW REPORT BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SIESMOLOGY
OF EARTHQUAKE OF MAGNITUDE 5.7 OCCURRED ON 5 th FEB
2022 IN AFGANISTAN TAJIKISTAN BORDER REGION.

24