Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

NEWSLETTER
A PUBLICATION OF INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Volume : 1 Issue : 2 October – December, 2022

From the Desk of the President

I am extremely happy that editorial board of CROSFALL is coming out with second issue of this unique newsletter. As I
mentioned earlier. It is rst newsletter of its kind in India which focusses on the structural failures purely from learning
point of view. Interesting feature is that identity of the project and the people involved is not revealed and not asked for.
The civil & structural engineering fraternity widely appreciated rst issue of this newsletter. Gradually people are
coming forward to send the reports. Our editorial board members & domain experts are doing fantastic work in
evaluating, editing & reviewing the reports before these are published. I am fully condent that this newsletter will
serve the civil & structural engineering fraternity in more than one way.
I urge civil & structural engineers to send reports freely without any fear and hesitation. Reports may be for any type of structural failures
or structures which have visible gross structural deciencies having substantial risk of failure. Do send your feedback & suggestions.
— Manoj Mittal

Message from Chief Editor

Welcome to all our CROSFALL readers and subscribers. Since the launch of newsletter CROSFALL in October 2022, we
have received number of congratulatory messages which gives an impression that the newsletter is well received by the
structural engineering fraternity. However, we are well aware that we are still far from reaching the bulk of the
structural engineering community in India and overseas. There is clearly a need to expand our readership, so that more
and more of structural engineers and contractors learn from "others" mistake rather than from "their own". So, do please
pass on this newsletter to your friends and colleagues who are involved in the profession of civil engineering.
As far as our Editorial Board is concerned since our last newsletter, we are pleased to welcome Dr Vandana Bhatt in our team. In this
newsletter, we publish four reports that deal with different, but important topics:
• Report CF-05 – Deals with a reported failure of Reinforced Earth Walls. In the recent past we have seen a number of failures of RE Walls,
reecting problems with design, detailing as well as construction and maintenance. This report is therefore very timely.
• Report CF-06 – Deals with distress reporting on apartments in a multi-storied building. The case is a reection of the state of affairs in the
building industry.
• Report CF-07 – Deals with a classic case of severe corrosion in a steel bridge pier caused due to poor detailing. It shows that a small error
in detailing can really create a big problem.
• Report CF-08 – Deals with some real-life examples of failures due to lack of care and negligence in urban Bridges. It is an eye opener to
authorities since what is reported here is found in almost all metropolis.
This is the second newsletter of CROSFALL and with the publication of this newsletter, we have published a total of 8 reports covering a
wide range of issues, some dealing with particular issues and others of a more general nature. It is observed that majority of the reports
that we have been receiving are from bridge sector. We would appeal to all those engineers, working in building sector, tunnelling sector
and industrial structure sector to also come forward and contribute in the newsletter. Happy Reading.
— Alok Bhowmick

Editorial Board Members Contents

Chief Editor
Mr. Alok Bhowmick, Immediate Past President, IAStructE & MD, B&S Engg. Consultants Pvt Ltd
Report No. CF-05 : Failure Case Studies of
Mechanically Stabilised Earth
Member
(MSE) Retaining Structures
Mr. Manoj Mittal, President IAStructE & Civil / Structural Engineering Consultant, Shelter
(Highlighting Importance of
Consulting Engineers
Connection Design in
Prof. Mahesh Tandon, Past President IAStructE & MD, Tandon Consultants Pvt Ltd
Performance) ....................... 02
Dr. Visalakshi Talakokula, Honorary Secretary, IAStructE & Professor, Mahindra University
Prof. R. Pradeep Kumar, Vice President (South), IAStructE & Professor, IIIT Hyderabad Report No. CF-06 : Distress in three apartments
Mr. Umesh K. Rajeshirke, Vice President (West) IAStructE & MD, Spectrum Techno Consultants in a multistoried building ....... 05
Pvt Ltd Report No. CF-07 : Poor Detailing causes Severe
Mr. Rajiv Ahuja, GC Member, IAStructE & Independent Consultant (Highways & Bridges) Corrosion in Steel Piers of a
Mr. V. N. Heggade, GC Member, IAStructE & Design & Construction Consultant, DECon Complete Flyover ................................. 11
Solutions Report No. CF-08 : Failures due to Lack of Care
Dr. Shilpa Pal, GC Member, IAStructE & Associate Professor, Delhi Technological University and Negligence in Bridges .... 13
Dr. Harshavardhan Subbarao, GC Member, IAStructE, Chairman & MD, Construma Consultancy
Pvt. Ltd.
Compliments received for 1st CROSFALL
Newsletter .......................................................... 17
Dr. Vandana Bhatt, Techno-Legal Consultant at Pro-Care Project Administrators & Management
Advisors. About CROSFALL Newsletter .............................. 18
 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

REPORT No. CF - 05

Failure Case Studies of Mechanically Stabilised Earth (MSE)

Retaining Structures (Highlighting Importance of
Connection Design in Performance)

1. Introduction
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) or Reinforced Soil structures are composite structures consisting of
alternating layers of compacted backll and soil reinforcement elements that are xed to a facing. The
stability of MSE structures is derived from the interaction between the backll and soil reinforcements,
involving friction and tension. The facing is relatively thin and is intended to perform the primary
function of preventing erosion of the structural backll. The signicant relative cost saving that can be
realized when this system is used compared to traditional RCC retaining structures, combined with
ease of construction has resulted in widespread adoption of this technology in India and around the
world.

The standards to be followed for the design of reinforced soil walls and slopes nd mention in Clause 3100
of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRT&H) Specications for Road & Bridge Works (5th
Revision) as well as IRC: SP 102-2014. MoRT&H Clause 3100 allows for the design to be done as per BS
8006:2010 as well as FHWA-NHI-0024. Since BS 8006:2010 does not cover the design checks to be carried
out in seismic conditions, the general design approach involves conducting the design checks for the static
case as per BS 8006 while the design checks for the seismic case are carried out as per the Mononobe-Okabe
pseudo-static approach presented in FHWA-NHI-10-024.

MSE structures designed by adopting this design approach have been found to perform satisfactorily
when subjected to static and seismic loading conditions provided that recommended practices are
adopted during their construction.

In most MSE systems with fascia panels, the reinforcing elements are connected to the MSE facing by
means of a mechanical connection. Depending on the extensibility of the reinforcing element, the type of
facing element, and the position of the mechanical connection along the height of the MSE structure, the
load on the connection varies from 75% to 100% of the maximum tensile force to be resisted by the
corresponding reinforcing layer.

Hence, the mechanical connection is one of the most critical components in an MSE system that has to be
designed to accommodate the anticipated connection loads. Recent experiences suggest that incorrectly
designed mechanical connections were the fundamental reason for the failure of several MSE structures in
India.

This report presents case studies of unsatisfactory performance of some MSE structures with failure
resulting primarily due to decient connection performance.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 02

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

2. Case Studies
2.1. Case Study No. 1 : (Ref. Fig.1)
System : Geogrid with Concrete Panels
Probable reasons for Failure:
• Primary Cause:
• Connection failure, poor connection system and design
• Other added factors
• inadequate detailing
• Drainage criteria not examined
• Poor construction quality
Fig. 1 : Failure of MSE Wall for Case Study
2.2. Case Study No. 2 : (Refer Fig. 2)
System Adopted: Polymeric strap + Toggle and loop steel connector
Probable reasons for failure:
• Connection failure
• Corrosion at connection
• Can be either poor quality of galvanization or aggressive backll
• Collapsed after 15 years- Long term durability issue

Fig. 2 : Connection failure at closing wall and collapse of panel

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 03

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

2.3. Case Study No. 3: (Refer Fig. 3)

System : Geogrid + Toggle & Loop Connection
Probable Reasons for failure:
• Connection Failure
• The intact reinforced ll is noteworthy.

3. Lessons Learnt :
The primary cause for the failure, generally termed as "Loss of
Fascia", in majority of failed MSE walls is poor connection
system with other contributory reasons such as poor quality of
work, lack of detailing, and inadequate design. Only a few Fig. 3 : Failure of MSE Wall due to connection
examples are presented here. More focus needs to be given to
the connection system and the long-term performance of the connectors.
The connection design of MSE systems is a critical aspect of MSE structure design and is also observed to be
the most overlooked in terms of testing. Rigorous connection testing, through reputed institutes like CRRI
and IITs, combined with the development of a comprehensive database of connection failures and forensic
study ndings is very crucial in enhancing understanding of the mechanics at play which can in turn result
in scientically backed stipulations in Indian codes.
The other important topic is the long-term durability of the connection system, which is generally
neglected. This is critical with the use of steel components in any connection system. All steel components
must be hot dip galvanized if they are exposed to the backll. The electrochemical properties of the backll
must be in compliance with the specication.

Comments of Expert Panel

The report highlights the failure of connections as primary reason for failure of RS walls combined with the
other reasons such as inadequate detailing, Drainage criteria not examined and Poor construction quality.
There are various types of Facing Elements, the most common being precast RCC panels, precast concrete
blocks, and Gabion facing. The connection details for each of facia type are different. Connection is done by
using either nut or bolt, HDPE inserts with bodkin joint, hollow embedded devices, polymeric/steel
rods/pipes etc. To ensure their long-term design strength, connections of the panel/block with the
reinforcement should be clearly dened and tested as per relevant ASTM standards and the results of these
tests should be provided by the supplier. Connection strength and layout once approved, shall not be
changed during execution. Several failures have occurred due to improper connections and deviation
from the connections proposed in the approved drawings.
All metallic connectors, tie strips and lugs shall be hot dip galvanized as per specications to protect these
against corrosion. Connections have to be designed for full tension in reinforcing elements. The connection
failures may also occur due to other reasons such as poor-quality control, inadequate design of facia
elements, poor compaction which results in high connection forces. Internal settlement, which is a function
of the state of compaction of the reinforced soil and height of the MSE wall, is the major cause of high
connection forces. In addition to proper design of RS wall system & connection, the method of
construction shall have quality assurance plan and shall meet the applicable MoRTH Specications and
guidelines given by the Vendor to avoid failures of connections and RS walls.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 04

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

REPORT No. CF - 06

Distress in three apartments in a multistoried building

1. Introduction
The reporter, who is a structural engineer, was approached by an owner of a at in a multi-story residential
complex to carry out a rapid audit of his at from safety and stability considerations. He is staying in this
at for many years, but his concerns after so many years became grave after he learnt about serious distress
in the nearby tower. The reporter conducted visual inspection on the following:
(a) The exterior periphery of the building
(b) 3 different ats in the building, which were showing signs of distress
(c) Part staircases
The reporter was allowed to photograph the areas of the building inspected by him for his record and
making of the report. The building was fairly new and its construction was completed approximately 6
years back.
No structural drawings were available with the at owner or the RWA of the society. The reporter
explained the importance of structural drawings from the safety standpoint of the building occupants and
inquired if the owners could obtain the structural drawings of the building for review to which the owner
answered that the structural drawings were not available even with the Resident Welfare Association
(RWA) and hence it was not possible to obtain these.
The building has one basement, a ground oor, and twelve oors above. Each oor typically has 4 ats and
the typical built-up area of a single oor is approximately 6500 Sq. Ft. The residential tower contains two
staircases and two lifts.
Before delving into site observations and recommendations, it will be prudent to explain to the readers
what types of structural checks exist for buildings. Essentially two types of structural verication are
usually performed for the safety auditing of structures:
a) First: Checks to ascertain that the structural members i.e. columns, beams, shear walls, oor slabs,
etc. still possess their design strength, implying that the concrete and reinforcing steel (assuming an
RCC building) still retain their original strength. Any of the structural members losing their strength
and load-carrying capacity beyond a limit can cause a local collapse or sometimes a more serious
global collapse. To perform this rst type of structural check, professionals will undertake visual
inspection and may recommend some Non-Destructive Tests
b) The second type of structural check is a more comprehensive structural investigation. In this
procedure, the professional structural engineer will determine the capacity of the building to
respond/withstand (global structural behavior) the actions and be safety against the most adverse
forces that the building may ever face. A structural engineer may suggest Non-Destructive Testing to
determine existing concrete strength which he will use for modeling the building study all the
structural drawings, build a Finite Element Analysis model in specialized structural software and
analyse the building response to vertical loads, wind forces or an expected earthquake as per location
and the seismic zone where the building lies as per the applicable national standards.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 05

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

c) As per the provisions of National Building Code -2016, physical inspection for buildings mentioned
in clause 12.2.5.1 needs to be performed every 3 to 5 years and documented for future use and record.
However, building owners are not following the same for want of a regulation mechanism. Some
building owners/associations are unable to follow the guidelines as mentioned in the National
Building Code-2016 of conducting periodical physical inspection as they do not have in their
possession copies of the structural drawings. Structural drawings are important for performing the
detailed structural safety checks. Non-implementation of this provision of NBC-2016 compromises
the safety of the buildings & its occupants as important safety checks may not be performed
adequately.

Extract Section 14.4.2 National Building Extract Section 12.3 National

Code 2016 Part-2 Administration, Section-3- Building Code 2016 Part-2
Permit and Inspection Administration, Section-3-Permit
and Inspection
14.4.2 All buildings covered under 12.2.5.1 shall be
subjected to periodic physical inspection by a 12.3 Preparation and Signing of Plans
team of multi-disciplinary professionals of local
The registered architect/engineer/
Authority. The work by team of professionals
Supervisor/town planner/landscape
may be outsourced by the authority to competent
architect/urban designer/utility service
professionals as may be deemed necessary. The
engineer shall prepare and duly sign the
term shall ensure the compliance of byelaws,
plans as per their competence (see Annex
natural lighting, ventilation, etc. besides
A) and shall indicate his/her name,
structural safety, electrical safety and
address, qualication and registration
accessibility (for designated public buildings and
number as allotted by the Authority or the
areas as per 13 of part 3 'Development Control
body governing such profession. The
Rules and General Building Requirements' of the
structural plans and details shall also be
Code). After checking, the team shall be required
prepared and duly signed by the
to give the certicate for above aspects. If any
competent professionals like registered
shortcoming/deciencies or violations are
engineer/structural engineer (see Annex
noticed during inspection, the authority shall
A). The plans shall also be duly signed by
ensure to compliance of these within a specied
the owner indicating his address. The
time frame of six months. If not complied with,
type and volume of buildings/
the building shall be declared unsafe/unt. The
development work to be undertaken by
period of inspection shall unusually be 3 to 5
the registered professionals may
years but in any case not more than 5 years.
generally be as in Annex A.

NOTE : It is applicable for buildings which are 15 m or more in height and for special buildings like
educational, assembly, institutional, business, mercantile, industrial, storage and hazardous and mixed
occupancies having a covered area of more than 500 sqm.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 06

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

2. The outcome of Visual Inspection

Based on a visual inspection of the site, the reporter's site observations are as under:

2.1. Basement:
(a) There has evidence of some basement roof beams being supported by fabricated steel supports to
have been installed post-construction of the concrete members. As per the owners these steel
supports existed in the building since the day, they occupied the building.
(b) There is evidence of a concrete core-cut sample to have been taken from one beam, probably for
testing the concrete strength of the beam. The date when this concrete core-cut sample has been
extracted could not be ascertained.

2.2. Flat on Ground Floor:

(a) The roof slab of the at had extensive cracks in multiple rooms. These cracks in the roof slab were
serious and needed immediate attention and further urgent action.
(b) The roof slab cracks were photographed for the record.
(c) There was clear evidence of the concrete getting severely degraded in strength, and also corrosion in
the reinforcing steel was observed. Corrosion of reinforcing steel had caused swelling, leading to
cracks in the oor slab concrete.
(d) The reasons for degradation in the concrete strength can be many. A detailed chemical analysis of
existing pieces of concrete taken from the area showing concrete deterioration was required to be
performed to establish the cause/s. The reasons can vary from carbonation, exposure to chloride or
sulphate attack, and Alkali-Silica/Alkali-Carbonate reaction amongst many others.
(e) The cracks and deterioration noticed in the oor slabs would accelerate with time. The condition will
worsen further in due course of time. These cracks in the oor slab were presently visible only from
the bottom as the top was covered with vitried tiles.
(f) The load-carrying capacity of the roof slab of the at had been jeopardized. It was difcult to say
what is the present load-carrying capacity of these oor slabs that are showing serious signs of
structural deterioration.
(g) These oor slabs were prone to collapse and therefore as a precautionary measure the occupants
should vacate, and the oor slabs should be propped using temporary steel supports until such time
all site investigations are completed and permanent structural remedial measures gured out and
executed.
(h) The engineer visited only three ats of many that the building has. The same or similar structural
vulnerability may be existing in many other areas/ats. The owner was asked to share this report
with the Resident Welfare Association and ask them to get all the ats inspected and record the areas
that are showing similar signs of structural distress by taking photographs and reporting the same to
the concerned authorities.
(i) The following urgent and immediate Non-Destructive Test (within one week of the issue of this
report) for the oor slabs showing structural distress is recommended:

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 07

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

(i) Ascertain the concrete strength of the oor slab by extracting a concrete core-cut cylinder from the
oor slab in the area showing structural distress (cracks) and testing the same in presence of
witnesses representing the residents in an accredited concrete test laboratory.
(ii) One of the two things will happen when testing personnel from the concrete test laboratory come to
the site to extract the concrete core from the oor slab. Either they will be successful in extracting a
concrete cylinder core using the core cutting machine that they will bring along, in which case the
prepared concrete cylinder should be tested using the prescribed Indian Standard procedure by
applying a gradually increasing load until the point of failure which would determine that existing
concrete compressive strength. The second scenario can be that when the concrete core cut is being
attempted the concrete will just crumble and dissipate implying the testing team will not be
successful in extracting the concrete cylinder from the oor slab for further laboratory testing. In this,
case it should be inferred that the RCC Floor Slab has a negligible residual load carrying capacity
unless further tests/checks prove otherwise. The building containing this oor slab should be
considered unsafe as the weak oor slab/s can potentially fail/collapse under service loads.
Occupants should vacate and the distressed oor/is s propped with steel supports from below. The
paperwork along with photographs should be reported to the concerned authorities for further
action.

2.3. Flat on Second Floor:

(a) Visible cracks were seen in the roof slab in the balcony area of the at.
(b) Balcony slab cracks were photographed for the record.
(c) Cracks suggest that the concrete has severely degraded in strength, which has led to corrosion in the
reinforcing steel. Corrosion of reinforcing steel has caused it to swell leading to cracks in the oor
slab concrete.
(d) The reasons for degradation in the concrete strength can be many. A detailed chemical analysis of
existing pieces of concrete taken from the area showing concrete deterioration needs to be performed
to establish the cause/s. The reasons can vary from carbonation, exposure to chloride or sulphate
attack, and Alkali-Silica/Alkali-Carbonate reaction amongst many others.
(e) The cracks and deterioration noticed in the oor slabs would accelerate with time. The condition will
worsen in due course of time. These cracks in the concrete slab were presently visible only from the
bottom as the top is covered with vitried tiles.

2.4. Flat on Third Floor:

(a) The owners have noticed undulations in vitried oor tiles.
(b) Presently cracks were not visible on the oor slabs however, it was very much possible that the
concrete had deteriorated, and accelerated corrosion of reinforcing steel started. Undulations in the
oor tiles are a tell-tale sign.
(c) It is recommended that the owner should get a concrete core-cut sample taken from his oor for
Non-Destructive Testing to ascertain the concrete compressive strength as also the concrete
condition.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 08

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

(d) A detailed chemical analysis of existing pieces of concrete will determine the extent of carbonation of
concrete if the concrete has been exposed to chloride or sulphate attack or Alkali-Silica/Alkali-
Carbonate reaction amongst many others that can accelerate the deterioration in concrete.

3. Recommendations
(a) Urgent and immediate Non-Destructive Test (within one week of issue of this report) for the oor
slabs showing structural distress were recommended. The concrete strength of the oor slab should
be ascertained by extracting a concrete core-cut cylinder from the oor slab in the area showing
structural distress (cracks) and testing the same in presence of witnesses representing the residents in
an NABL accredited laboratory.
(b) In the event the concrete just crumbles and dissipates while the concrete core-cut is being attempted
on the oor slab, implying that the testing team is not successful in extracting the concrete core-cut
cylinder from the oor slab for further laboratory testing. In this case, it should be inferred that the
RCC Floor Slab has a negligible residual load carrying capacity unless further tests/checks prove
otherwise. The building containing this oor slab should be considered unsafe as the weak oor
slab/s can potentially fail/collapse under service loads. Occupants should vacate and the distressed
oor/s be propped with steel supports from below. The paperwork along with photographs should
be reported to the concerned authorities for further action.
(c) The engineer had visited only three ats of many that exist in the building. The same or similar
structural vulnerability may be existing in many other areas/ats. Resident Welfare Association
should get all the ats inspected and record the areas that are showing similar signs of structural
distress by taking photographs and reporting the same to the concerned authorities.
(d) The Resident Welfare Association should order a comprehensive structural investigation of the
building as explained in this report. For a comprehensive structural audit to take place the
Resident Welfare Association will need to obtain all the structural drawings from the concerned
authorities.

Comments of Expert Panel

It is important for the occupants of any buildings and/or their representative apartment associations /
RWAs to get periodic structural auditing done as per the provisions of NBC-2016 and other codes. There is
also urgent need for the regulatory authorities to ensure this. Owners must make sure that they have copy
of As-Built structural drawings and other documents pertaining to their apartment / building structure
e.g. completion drawings, design Basis report, Soil investigation report, names of all professionals
including the contractor/builder involved in the construction of the said apartment/building. Any
distress noticed must be brought to the notice of concerned authorities. Visual inspection/Structural
assessment / Detailed Structural Audit of the buildings must be carried out by a competent engineer as per
the procedures laid down in BIS standards, following sound engineering practices. Structural repair,
strengthening or retrotting suggested by the structural engineer should be taken seriously and got done
without any delay. Guidance, strict supervision and quality assurance by competent qualied engineers is
a must during the whole process.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 09

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

Fig. 1 : Some basement beams are supported by Fig. 4 : Indoor view of ground oor at
fabricated steel columns.

Fig. 2 : Side view of the steel column supporting Fig. 5 : visible cracks on the roof slab
the basement beam.

Fig. 3 : Concrete Core cut sample has been taken from Fig. 6 : Indoor view of ground oor at
basement beam.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 10

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

REPORT No. CF - 07
Poor Detailing causes Severe Corrosion in
Steel Piers of a Flyover
The reporter, in this case, is a structural engineer who has reported severe corrosion in the Steel Pier Base
Plate of an existing yover in one of the busiest metro cities, located in a very busy road crossing.

1. The Existing Structure:

The yover comprises a 45m long girder which is a
steel trapezoidal box girder and the rest 25m spans
are made of 5 nos. of Steel Plate girders. The entire
deck is of RCC composite construction. The
foundation is of bored cast-in-situ RCC Piles with
RCC Pile Caps. Piers and Pier Caps are made out of
steel structures. All piers are single columns with
cantilever arms on both sides. Bearing used for the
25m span girders are Neoprene type and POT PTFE
type for the Box Girder. The maximum height
clearance at the obligatory span is a little above 5.5m
from the road surface. Construction of this yover
took little more than three years and the same was
Fig. 1 : View of the distressed Flyover from surface road level
commissioned sometime in the year 2002. Fig.1
shows a view of the Flyover from surface road level.

2. The Problem:
It is a case of a serious level of corrosion in the gridded Base Plate of steel box type pier. The probable cause
of corrosion is the poor detailing of the steel pier. There was no provision kept for drainage of any seepage
water from inside the box-type steel piers. Fig. 2 below shows some photographs from inside the pier.

Fig. 2 : View of the corroded steel pier box from inside

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 11

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

3. The Diagnosis:
Faulty detailing in the gridded portion in the base plate is the cause that leads to retention of the water that
percolated inside the pier box section through gaps at the end of the different splice joints. It is obvious that
while fabricating pier base using steel plates to form grids, a number of separated compartments will form.
Unless some drainage slots/openings are left at the bottom corner of each plate and also in the main plates
(4 sides), percolated water will automatically get accumulated inside the pier box.

4. Lessons Learnt and Proposed Remedial Measures:

Closed box-type steel piers in no way can be made fully watertight. Every possibility is there for the
rainwater to get inside the pier box through the gaps at the end of the splice cover plates at splicing joints.
As a result, any water that gets inside the pier box will reach the base of the piers and nally, the
compartments created in between the main and cross stiffener plates will get lled up. To avoid such
undesired happenings in the future, appropriate provisions have to be there in the base plate fabrication
drawings, during construction, for early draining out of such accumulated water.
Remedial measures can be thought of as:
a. The main stiffener plates and cross stiffener plates must have a small opening at their bottom at all the
joining locations. This has to be suitably shown in detail in the fabrication drawings. Such openings
may be of size 10mm x 10mm cut at the bottom ends. All these openings will allow the accumulated
water to ow out from one compartment to the other and nally reach any of the four edges. The
main four plates (vertical) of the Pier box structure also have 10mm diameter holes at the base plate
level to allow the accumulated water to nally drain out of the pier base. Such holes (on all the four
sides) must have stainless steel drain pipes, protruding out of the pier vertical surfaces to ensure non-
clogging of such openings due to concrete embedding at the pier bases.
b. Non-Shrink Grout Concrete to be lled up after installation of the base plate stiffeners (grillages) to a
height about 75mm above the stiffener plate top level. After lling of Non-shrink grout concrete, like
done earlier, stainless steel drain pipes are to be installed on all the four sides of the pier plates after
making holes of diameter 10 mm. Such holes are to be at the level on the top surface of the nished
concrete.
c. Anti-corrosive paint inside the piers and closed box section should be made mandatory. Manual
cleaning using Steel Brushes & Steel Scrapers and then followed by the application of 2 coats of Zinc-
Rich Epoxy of 20 micron (total), which is as per Table D-2 of Annex-D of IRC:24 - 2010 should be
followed in such cases.
d. Access to inside of pier should be provided for regular inspection and maintenance.
e. Hollow steel piers where inside accessibility is a problem, should be avoided.

Comments of Expert Panel

Hollow steel box type piers can be prone to corrosion due to water accumulation inside the base if proper
attention to water drainage provisions and holes are not made at the time of design and in the drawings
itself. Water nds its way into the steel box pier through splice plates between segments of the box piers.
Structural designers must pay attention to this important detail to avoid corrosion due to water
accumulation and also specify durability enhancing measures in their drawings.
The IRC-24 Code shall include such specic and necessary clauses in this regard to ensure adoption of
drainage provisions and durability enhancing measures in hollow box piers held at the time of design and
during fabrication.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 12

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

REPORT No. CF - 08

Failures due to Lack of Care and Negligence in Bridges

1. Distress/Failure due to Unsafe Environment:
In this case, the reporter has reported a number of cases of bridge distress/failure caused due to the
creation of unsafe conditions around the bridge and due to poor maintenance of the bridges. The damages
to a Bridges are usually linked to:

a. Error in design/ deciency in the implementation of design principles during detailing

b. Use of materials not conforming with specications during construction

c. Lack of stability during construction/ improper construction methodology

d. Inadequate Inspection and maintenance practices

There is, however, another avoidable common reason i.e., the unsafe conditions created around the
structures, some of which are man-made and often deliberate.

One will nd from the attached pictures:

a. instances of damage caused due to the growth of greens on the structure, (Fig. 1 to 4)

b. informal settlers using the underside of the bridge as their habitat unimpeded, (Fig. 5 & 6)

c. use of the underside of the structure for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, ofcially
sanctioned by the authorities, (Fig. 7 to 9)

d. instances where the design and detailing of structure does not permit essential maintenance work to
be done because of a lack of access to such location. (Fig. 10 to 14)

A. Instances of damage caused due to the growth of greens on the structure-plants have caused
corrosion and spalling of concrete cover.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 13

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

B. Informal settler used the underside of the bridge without any interference - leading to severe
damages

Fig. 5 Fig. 6

C. Use the underside of the structure for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, with
ofcial sanction - leading to permanent damage

Fig. 7 Fig. 8

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 14

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

Fig. 9

D. Instances where the design and detailing of structure do not permit essential maintenance work to
be done because of a lack of access to such location

Case 1 : Bridge across electried railway tracks does not permit any inspection & maintenance work
to be done- corrosion started due to lack of concrete ow due to congestion of Rods/PSC wires

Fig. 10 Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 15

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

Case 2 : No access to underside of bridge left damages unnoticed leading to catastrophic failure of
poorly designed gussets.

Fig. 13 Fig. 14

2. Lessons Learnt:
It is essential that the statutory responsibility for avoidance of such damage is assigned to the authorities
in-charge and their designers. The designers should be made responsible for the preparation of the
maintenance manual with a specic schedule for undertaking inspection and recommended corrective
procedures/ rehabilitation work. Access to all parts of the bridge should be ensured during the design
stage and provisions for the same must be kept. Owner agencies should carry out regular inspections and
maintenance.

Comments of Expert Panel

Inspection and maintenance of bridges is a neglected area in our country. Apart from regular inspection of
various components of a bridge like bearings, expansion joints, superstructure, substructure, railings and
wearing coat etc., it is important to look for concrete and steel deterioration, spalling of concrete, loss of
cover leading to exposure of steel reinforcement and cables leading to their corrosion which may be caused
by other reasons reported in this article. The reporter has reported instances of "unsafe environment
around the structure" which are normally overlooked. The growth of vegetation in superstructure as seen
in the Figs. shall cause non-functioning of expansion joints, moisture ingress, cracks, delamination and
spalling in the concrete thereby exposing the reinforcement and causing degradation of concrete. When
underside of bridge is used for residential and commercial purposes, the smoke emanating from cooking
or similar activities will be harmful to the concrete and affect the durability of the structure. Heavy vehicles
parked below may cause collision with the piers. Lack of access to the underside of superstructure, pier
cap, bearings etc. will block the inspection and maintenance activities because of which damage caused
may go unnoticed for years and lead to unexpected failure of the structure. Regular inspection,
maintenance, proper access to all parts of the bridge and enforcement of laws to provide safe environment
around the structure should be ensured by authorities to prevent the damage to the structure and ensure
its durability and longevity.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 16

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

Comments received on 1st issue of CROSFALL Newsletter

Thank you for your email and for sending the Many thanks for sharing the inaugural issue of your
CROSFALL Newsletter. Although the failures occurring CROSFALL newsletter.
in many other countries are analyzed and the nal report I look forward to sharing the information with my
presented for the engineers to learn from them, In India CROSS colleagues here in the UK and through them, to
they are reported in the Newspapers when they occur. CROSS-USA.
Even though some committees are formed, the nal
Congratulations on bringing this initiative to fruition.
report is not made public. In these conditions, your
efforts are to be appreciated. Congratulations. Hope - Mr. Martin Powell
you will get more reporting of such failures, which will Chief Executive, The Institution of Structural Engineers
be useful to the young engineers not to repeat them in
their work. Great initiative, Alok. I would like to post it on my FCE
Facebook page. I've posted it on the FCE and the Civil
- Dr. N. Subramanian
Engineering Discussions WA pages too.
FNAE, FIE, F.AS E
Consulting Engineer, Gaithersburg, MD-20878 -Mr. B. S. C. Rao
Former Executive Director, BMRCL

Fantastic initiative. Kindly let me include in the This is a fantastic effort. Kudos to you and your team. All
circulation list. In turn, I will attempt to report a few the best.
failures that I have witnessed and studied in -Prof. Prem Krishna
Buildings Segment. If there is a subscription let me Retd. Professor, IIT, Roorkee
know.
- Mr Girish Dravid Congratulations and thanks for 1st inaugural issue of
Director, Sterling Engineering Consultancy Services CROSFALL.
- Er. Rajesh Gangwar
Consulting Engineers
This is an excellent initiative Mr. Alok. Hearty
compliments to you & team. It's very essential for the
This is very good. Congratulations for coming out with
fraternity.
such a publication.
– Mr. Ramachandra V.
- Mr Deepak Singh
Head – Tech Services, UltraTech Cements
Lead DRM Specialist at World Bank

Congratulations to CROSFALL! Very interesting and Many practical aspects and details are being explained
helpful. by experts with condence, these aspects are not
available in a single book and most of the civil
I just came back from a 6 months sabbatical named
Engineering professional may not have heard of all the
“building in Africa”. We drove by car from Cape Town
issues discussed in this program. Wonderful, keep it up.
to Cairo. Now I need to get started here again but I will
May God Bless you and you keep on serving the
keep my eyes open regarding your request.
fraternity. Regards. Jai Hind.
- Dr. Mike Schlaich
-Mr. I. J. Ghai
Partner at Schlaich Bergermann Partner
Consulting Engineers Associates (C.E.A.)

This is a commendable initiative, Er. Alok Bhowmick Ji. Many thanks for sharing this Newsletter. This is an
Hearty congratulations on this maiden issue. excellent imitative! Well done.
- Er. H.R. Girish, - Ms Henrike Brecht
Chairman, ICI-Bengaluru Centre Senior DRM Specialist, World Bank

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 17

 Condential Reporting Of Structural Failures And Lessons Learnt

About the CROSFALL Newsletter

CROSFALL is a unique newsletter created by Indian Association of Structural Engineers (IAStructE). Its
purpose is to share lessons learnt from structural failures, near-misses and safety concerns. CROSFALL
has a condential reporting system, which allow safety issues to be reported by professionals, without
exposing their identity and without creating concerns in areas like co-worker relations, client loyalty, or
insurance. Any identiable details, such as a project, product, individual or organization, will remain
completely condential to CROSFALL editorial team. Reporters' personal information will be collected to
only verify the contents of the report, and to communicate with the reporter if necessary, but this will also
remain strictly condential.
The newsletter will report only safety related issues with the objective to learn lessons from such failures
and to help prevent future structural failures, by providing insight into root causes of such failures and
spurring the development of safety improvement measures.
CROSFALL team will depend on professionals to submit reports, whenever they can share their concerns
about what they see around or what they experience on any real-life projects. Anyone involved in the civil
engineering industry is welcome to submit a report. The more reports submitted, the better CROSFALL
can identify and quantify safety issues across the industry. This will help the entire industry to learn lesson
from CROSFALL publications.

What can be reported?

• Structural failures,
• Poor Design and Detailing, Lack of Seismic Safety in planning
• Safety concerns about high risk erection schemes at Site
• Safety concerns on Temporary Works
• Near misses or observations relating to procedures followed at site, which may lead to failures or
collapses.

To submit the report :

Visit : www.iastructe.co.in/crosfall.php
E-mail : [email protected]

Disclaimer :
The objective of this newsletter is to help professionals to make structures safer. This is achieved by publishing information about failures, based
on the condential reports received by IAStructE and information available in the public domain. IAStructE can not be held liable for the
veracity of the information given by the reporter. As this document is based on the Condential reporting system, the reporter's name and
identity as well as the project name, location and identity will not be divulged under any circumstances. Expert Panel opinions given in this
document are those of the group of individual experts in the eld and not that of the association. IAStructE cannot be held liable for the opinions
expressed herein. This newsletter is intended for those who will evaluate the signicance and limitations of its contents and take responsibility
for its use and application. No liability (including negligence) for any loss resulting from opinions/informations given in this newsletter is
accepted.

Volume: 1 • Issue: 2 • October – December 2022 18