0.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS...........................3

1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................3

2 INFORMATION FOR STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT.................................................7

2.1 Required input data......................................................................................................7

2.1.1 Structural system..................................................................................................7

2.1.2 Type of foundation...............................................................................................7

2.1.3 Ground condition..................................................................................................7

2.1.4 Overall dimensions, cross-sectional properties of the building elements,

mechanical properties and conditions of constituent materials..........................................7

2.1.5 Information about identifiable material defects and inadequate detailing...........8

2.1.6 Seismic design criteria used for initial design......................................................8

2.1.7 Building importance class....................................................................................8

2.1.8 Reassessment of imposed actions........................................................................8

2.1.9 Previous and present structural damage...............................................................8

2.2 Knowledge levels........................................................................................................8

2.3 Confidence factors.......................................................................................................9

3 Building Assessment of Old Office Building (Central Block)........................................10

3.1 General.......................................................................................................................10

3.2 Structural Modeling...................................................................................................11

________________________________________________________________________
i
 3.2.1 Reinforced concrete slabs...................................................................................12

3.2.2 Reinforced Concrete Frame...............................................................................20

3.3 Safety verification......................................................................................................31

3.3.1 Required vs. Available Reinforcement of Beams in the Critical Regions.........32

3.3.2 Required vs. Available Reinforcement in Columns...........................................38

4.0 References.................................................................................................................40

________________________________________________________________________
ii
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

RESULTS

1.1 Introduction

This document contains the structural assessment report of the old office building
constructed in 1961 in the premise of the UN ECA compound. It is designated as building
block 2 in the layout shown in Figure 1. The building is nine storeys high and is made up
of three independent blocks. Two of them lie on the North and South ends of the building
and therefore identified in the document as the N-S wing blocks, while the 3 rd one called
the central block is placed between the two blocks.

Fig. 1 Building Layout in the ECA Compound [3]

________________________________________________________________________
3
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

The building assessment is carried out using the latest Eurocode Standards. The
assessment results would therefore comply with the requirements of the corresponding
Ethiopian Building Code Standards, because the latter are identical with the Eurocode
Standards apart from country specific data such as seismic hazard maps and so on. The
Ethiopian Building Code Standards first published in 1995 has been revised recently and
submitted to the Ministry of Urban Construction and Development to enforce the
implementation.

According to Eurocode 8, earthquake resistant concrete buildings that are built in seismic
regions for which the provisions of low seismicity do not apply (low seismicity cases are
those in which the design ground acceleration on type A ground, a g, is not greater than
0.08g (0.78 m/s2) or those where the product a gS is not greater than 0.1g (0.98 m/s 2)
should be designed to provide adequate capacity to dissipate energy without substantial
reduction of its overall resistance against horizontal and vertical loading and an overall
ductile behavior. Concrete buildings designed to meet these requirements are classified in
two ductility classes, medium ductility (DCM) and high ductility (DCH) depending on
their hysteretic dissipation capacity.

With the design ground acceleration ag = I  agR = 1.2  0.112g = 0.1344g determined
using the reference peak ground acceleration of 0.112g for Addis Ababa and building
importance class III, the provisions of low seismicity do not apply. Therefore all
buildings in the UN ECA compound including the old office building should be designed
to meet the requirements of either of the two ductility classes.

The building assessment is conducted by carrying out a new structural analysis using as-
built measurements for the overall and cross-sectional dimensions of the structure and
verifying whether or not the compliance criteria for the ultimate limit state, i.e. no-
collapse requirement according to EN 1998-1: 2004 [1], is met. The level of protection
for limit state corresponding to no-collapse requirement is achieved by selecting design
seismic action with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years which corresponds to a
mean return period of 475 years The structural drawings which have been scanned and

________________________________________________________________________
4
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

made available to the consultant form the groundwork for the structural design review.
However, they are not complete because:
i. Existing floor beams do not match 100% with the drawings. There are inconsistencies
with regard to their cross sectional dimensions and positions.
ii. Existing columns match in number and locations with the drawings. However there
are inconsistencies with regard to their cross sectional dimensions.
iii. Material strengths have not been specified in the drawings.

Comprehensive as built measurements of the general geometry of the building and the cross
sectional dimensions of the structural members were taken and detailed as-built drawings
developed in order to overcome the problems stated in (i) and (ii) (see as-built drawings in
Annex B). The structural models could therefore be developed with actual dimensions. The
amount and arrangement of the reinforcement on the other hand, were taken from the original
drawings. To overcome the problem stated in (iii), indirect compressive strength tests
(Schimidt Hammer Tests) were conducted on the primary structural members, one beam and
one column per storey, thereby achieving limited level of inspection and testing according to
EN 1998-3: 2005. Concrete cores were also taken at few points (about one per building), to
corroborate the hammer tests and to test the degree of carbonation in the concrete structures
(see hammer test and carbonation test results in Annex C).

Based on EN 1998-3: 2005, the mean values obtained from in-situ tests divided by the
confidence factor, CF and material partial factors are used in the calculation of member
capacity. Characteristic yield strength of 340 and 300 MPa were assumed for flexural and
shear reinforcement based on information about commonly used types and strength of
reinforcement at the time of construction.

1.2 Assessment Results

The results of the investigations showed that the structures of the North-South Wing
Blocks satisfy the minimum safety requirements recommended by the Eurocode.
Therefore the two blocks do not need any strengthening other than maintenance to
reverse the complications resulting from adverse effects of carbonation of the concrete
structures that are not plastered or covered with mosaic.

________________________________________________________________________
5
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa
[5]
The Central Block on the other hand falls short of satisfying the Code requirements.
The main problem with this block is the lack of adequate lateral stiffness in the middle
to upper stories in the North-South direction. The high inter-story drift sensitivity
(stability index) coefficients in these stories exceed the allowable limit by wide margins
and reflect the need for strengthening of the building in the weak direction. It will also
require similar maintenance as the other two blocks to counter the adverse effects of
carbonation.

________________________________________________________________________
6
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

2 INFORMATION FOR STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT

2.1 Required input data

2.1.1 Structural system

The building is a frame wall system. Regularity of structure (in elevation and plan) influences
the required structural model (planar or spatial), the required method of analysis and the
value of the behaviour factor q (EN 1998-1:2004, Clause [Link]).

The value of the behaviour factor q used for the building assessment is 1.5 because higher
values cannot be justified on the basis of the available ductility. Moreover the building is
analyzed by the modal response spectrum analysis using a spatial structural model. Therefore
the verification for regularity in plan and elevation need not be carried out.

In spite of the fact that regularity checks are omitted, analysis is still conducted using the
lateral force method for comparison and for obtaining information about the signs of internal
forces, which are lost in the case of modal response spectrum analysis.

2.1.2 Type of foundation

The building is founded on spread footings connected to each other with reinforced concrete
beams.

2.1.3 Ground condition

The foundations are placed on hard rocks and the ground may be considered type A
according to EN 1998-1:2004, Clause 3.1.2.

2.1.4 Overall dimensions, cross-sectional properties of the building elements,

mechanical properties and conditions of constituent materials

As-built measurements are taken to obtain overall and cross-sectional dimensions. The
measurements are used to develop as-built drawings as shown in Annex D.

________________________________________________________________________
7
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

In-situ tests (Schmidt Hammer Tests) are conducted with the aim to use the test results in the
determination of the existing strengths of the structural members.

2.1.5 Information about identifiable material defects and inadequate detailing

No visible material defects were observed. However, carbonation tests show that the plaster
and concrete cover have undergone significant carbonation.

The reinforcement details do not comply with the requirements envisaged for ductility class
medium (DCM) or ductility class high (DCH).

2.1.6 Seismic design criteria used for initial design

The seismic design criteria used for the old office building is not known.

2.1.7 Building importance class

The building class of Africa hall is considered as class III because its consequence in seismic
resistance is vital since it serves as assembly hall.

2.1.8 Reassessment of imposed actions

The assessment made from original drawings and from site visit reveals that there is an
additional slab made of steel [Link] between the mezzanine and ground floor. See the
figure below. It has a story height of 2.55 and supported by rectangular steel columns.

This slab is completely a new imposed load and it creates additional actions in the ground
floor slab where there is no proper framing structural system. Because of this slab the ground
floor which was previously used as open area is changed and permanently occupied by duty
free shops, banks and other offices. In addition, the new slab serves as cafeteria where many
people collected and airline ticket offices. Hence this will change the imposed actions
previously assumed by the structural engineer.

The ground floor is supported on small beams (b/h=0.3x0.2) resting on thick masonry wall.
But the region delineated by red color doesn’t have sufficient support either from the
masonry wall or from other supporting structural systems. Hence there are clear warning

________________________________________________________________________
8
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

cracks visible in bold on the ground floor slab around the red triangular area shown on the
figure.

The dead and live loads are calculated and loaded on the original structural systems. See the
3D structural model on page……

Figure 1. The new slab constructed on the existing structure (The red triangles shows where
there i no sufficient support on the ground floor).And the green bold line shows the boundary
of the added slab

2.1.9 Previous and present structural damage

There are cracks on the ground floor slab radiating to the outer support.

________________________________________________________________________
9
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

2.2 Knowledge levels

Africa Hall will be assessed using admissible type of analysis, and appropriate confidence
factor values corresponding to knowledge level between Limited (KL1) and normal
knowledge level (KL2) because:

i. The overall structural geometry and member sizes are known from extended survey
(see attached as built drawings),
ii. The structural details are known from original detailed construction drawings with
limited in-situ inspection using rebar detectors,
iii. Information on the mechanical properties (compressive strength of concrete and
characteristics yield strength of reinforcing bars) is in accordance with the standard
practices at the time of construction and from limited in-situ testing.

Therefore, the structural assessment is performed using linear dynamic analysis (MRS) and
lateral force procedure (LF). Moreover a value of 1.28 is assumed for the confidence factor.

2.3 Confidence factors

As described in the previous section, confidence factor for old office building is assumed to
be 1.28.(Table 3.1)

________________________________________________________________________
10
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

3 Building Assessment of Africa Hall

3.1 General

This chapter contains the building structural assessments of Africa Hall. The building
assessment is conducted by carrying out a new structural analysis using as-built
measurements for the overall and cross-sectional dimensions of the structure and verifying
whether or not compliance criteria for the ultimate limit state, i.e. no-collapse requirement
according to EN 1998-1: 2004 [1], is met. The level of protection for ultimate limit state
corresponding to no-collapse requirement is achieved by selecting design seismic action with
10% probability of exceedence in 50 years.

The building is four storey high and lie on a plan area of 1900m2 each.

The q-factor approach (force based) is used for safety verifications of the structural elements.
With this approach safety verifications are conducted by comparing the capacities with the
demands. According to EN 1998-3: 2005 [2], demands are based on the reduced seismic
action, i.e. response spectrum reduced with respect to the elastic one by a factor of q, whereas
the capacities are evaluated as for non-seismic situation.

EN 1998-3: 2005 [2] recommends a value of q = 1.5 for reinforced concrete structures.
Higher values of q may be used provided that the required reinforcement detailing are
fulfilled to satisfy the requirements of local and global available ductility. The structural
drawings reveal that this is not the case. Therefore higher values of q cannot be justified for
the old office building. The capacities are determined using mean value properties of the
existing materials as directly obtained from in-situ tests and from additional sources of
information, appropriately divided by the confidence factors and material partial factors.

The mean value of the compressive strength obtained from in-situ tests is equal to 25MPa.
Based on similar information regarding reinforcing steel, characteristic yield strengths of 320
and 300 MPa are used for main reinforcement and stirrups respectively.

________________________________________________________________________
11
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

3.2 Structural Modeling

The structure is composed of frame infill-wall system. Among many modeling techniques
proposed equivalent strut method is used. The frames with unreinforced masonry walls is
modeled as equivalent braced frames with infill walls replaced by equivalent diagonal strut.
Many investigators have proposed various approximations for the width of equivalent
diagonal strut. The width of strut depends on the length of contact between the wall & the
columns (αh) and between the wall & the beams (αL).

Where :

Em is elastic modulus of masonry wall,

Ef is elastic modulus of frame material,
t is thickness of infill, h is height of infill and L is length of infill,
Ic is moment of inertia of the column,
________________________________________________________________________
12
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Ib is moment of inertia of the beam and

θ = tan-1 (h/L).
According to EC6 the masonry can be classified as Group 1 masonry units. And the thickness
of the wall is 650mm>100mm (the minimum thickness for load bearing wall)
The short term secant modulus of elasticity, E, shall be determined by tests in accordance
with EN 1052-1 at service load conditions, i.e. at one third of the maximum load determined
in accordance with EN 1052-1. In the absence of a value determined by tests in accordance
with EN 1052-1, the short term secant modulus of elasticity of masonry, E, under service
conditions and for use in the structural analysis, may be taken to be 1 000 _ fk.
E=100fk
.fk= compressive strength of unreinforced masonry
Since our masonry units are about 53 years the long term modulus can be calculated
depending on the short term by applying correction factors for creep and shrinkage.
Characteristic compressive strength of unreinforced masonry made using general purpose
mortar can be calculated using

.fm=is the specified compressive strength of the general purpose mortar in N/mm2.
.fb=is the normalized compressive strength of the masonry units in N/mm2,
K=0.6 for group 1 masonry unit
Therefore fk (short)=0.6x15 0.65 x150.25
=0.6*5.813*1.97
=6.86N/mm2
fk(long)=0.5*6.86=3.43N/mm2
Em=1000x3.43=3430N/mm2
Therefore for strut 1 with L=4.79,h=3m

αh=3.14∗0.5
√
4 4∗28000∗2.667∗0.001∗2.8
0.65∗3430∗0.9
=0.786

αL=3.14∗0.5
√
4 4∗28000∗2.667∗0.001∗4.79
0.65∗3430∗0.9
=0.899

w=√ 0.7862 +0.8992 =1.2

Similarly other masonry units for different parts of the hall are considering the failures (shear
failure and corner crushing), the mechanical properties of their material, and construction
________________________________________________________________________
13
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

details at the time in the country, number of bays and openings. For the inside part the
masonry has openings and a reduction factor is applied to consider the opening.
In the modeling of equivalent diagonal compressed strut element out of plan actions are taken
care of by applying end releases. See fig below

Figure Strut model in representing masonry infill.

The rest of the building is composed of lateral force resisting and/or building stabilizing
system which are founded on isolated spread footings at an average depth of 3.0 m below the
basement. The foundations are connected to each other by means of reinforced concrete
beams. The building system satisfies the Euro code requirement with respect to minimum
torsional rigidity, because the vertical elements are well distributed in plan. For such cases,
the requirement that the system possesses a minimum torsional rigidity may be considered as
being satisfied without analytical verification.

________________________________________________________________________
14
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure 3.1 Structural models for Africa Hall

3.2.1 Reinforced concrete slabs

[Link] Basement Floor Slab

System: Basement floor slabs are made of reinforced concrete and rest on well
compacted and prepared grade.

t = 200 mm; with  8 c/c 200 mesh reinforcement

See Position Plan-Basement Floor Slab in Figure [Link]

________________________________________________________________________
15
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure [Link] Pos Plan - Basement Floor Slab

________________________________________________________________________
16
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

[Link] Ground Floor Slab

Figure [Link] Pos Plan – Ground Floor Slab

 C2 loading along the 61cm

Own wt per rib: 0.050.6125 + 0.150.125 = 1.1375kN/m

Screed: 0.030.6122 = 0.4026kN/m

Marble finish: 0.020.6127 = 0.33 kN/m

Hollow brick block Tile: 2.50.61 = 1.53 kN/m

Sofit Plaster: 0.020.6122 = 0.27kN/m

3.66kN/m

 C2 loading along the 59cm

Own wt per rib: 0.050.5925 + 0.150.125 = 1.1125kN/m

________________________________________________________________________
17
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Screed: 0.030.5922 = 0.39kN/m

Marble finish: 0.020.5927 = 0.31 kN/m

Hollow brick block Tile: 2.50.59 = 1.44 kN/m

Sofit Plaster: 0.020.5922 = 0.25kN/m

3.2kN/m

 3.2/0.0.59 = 5.4kN/m2

Variable load @ 2.0 kN/m2

Partition load @ 1.0 kN/m2

3.0 kN/m2

 Loading type E reticulated crossed

Own wt per rib: 0.080.725 + 0.240.125 = 2kN/m

Screed: 0.030.722 =
0.46kN/m

Marble finish: 0.020.727 = 0.38 kN/m

Hollow brick block Tile: 2.50.7 = 1.75 kN/m

Sofit Plaster: 0.020.722 = 0.31kN/m

4.9kN/m

 4.9/0.7 = 7kN/m2

Variable load @ 2.0 kN/m2

Partition load @ 1.0 kN/m2

3.0 kN/m2

System: Ribbed slabs Types A2 :

See Position Plan - Ground Floor Slab (ribbed slab) in Figure [Link]

Loading (Type C2):

Own wt per rib: 0.050.3825 + 0.150.0825 = 0.775 kN/m

Screed: 0.030.3822 = 0.25 kN/m

Marble finish: 0.020.3827 = 0.21 kN/m

________________________________________________________________________
18
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Hollow brick block Tile: 2.50.38 = 0.95 kN/m

Sofit Plaster: 0.020.3822 = 0.167 kN/m

2.35kN/m

 2.35/0.38 = 6.19 kN/m2

Variable load @ 2.0 kN/m2

Partition load @ 1.0 kN/m2

3.0 kN/m2

Figure [Link] Pos Plan - Ground Floor load path diagram

[Link] Added Steel floor

A separate model is prepared to take into account the reactions on the ground floor

________________________________________________________________________
19
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure .Three dimensional structural model for the steel floor added after the construction of
the concrete structure.

________________________________________________________________________
20
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure .Additional columns in addition to the bolted connection to the concrete structure and
causing Sevier crack to the ground floor where there is a one way ribbed slab.

________________________________________________________________________
21
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure. Load path and point loads from the added floor

[Link] Mezzanine Floor Slab

System: Ribbed slabs Type A,C and A4 loadings:

See Position Plan – mezzanine Floor Slab (ribbed slab) in Figure [Link]

Loading: Use loading similar to Pos-Ground Floor Slab

Own wt per rib: 0.080.3425 + 0.240.125 = 1.28 kN/m

Screed: 0.030.3422 = 0.224 kN/m

Marble finish: 0.020.3427 = 0.18 kN/m

Hollow brick block Tile: 2.50.34 = 0.85 kN/m

Sofit Plaster: 0.020.3422 = 0.15 kN/m

2.68kN/m

System: Solid slabs Types A:

See Position Plan - Ground Floor Slab (solid slab) in Figure [Link]

 External wall: 2.53.3 = 8.25 kN/m

40 mm plaster: 0.04223.3 = 2.90 kN/m

11.15 kN/m

Wall load is reduced by 30% to account approximately for the openings along the perimeter.

[Link] Mezanine Floor Slab

System: Solid slab Type A:

See Position Plan - First Floor Slab (Solid slab) in Figure [Link]

Loading: Use loading similar to Pos-Ground Floor Slab

________________________________________________________________________
22
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure [Link] Pos. Plan - Mezzanine Floor Slab

[Link] First Floor Slab

System: Solid slabs Type A and C:

See Position Plan - Second Floor Slab (Solid) in Figure [Link]

Loading: Use loading similar to Pos-Ground Floor Slab

________________________________________________________________________
23
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure [Link] Pos Plan - First Floor Slab

________________________________________________________________________
24
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure Load path diagram for first floor slab

[Link] Roof

System: Solid Type A:

See Position Plan - Third Floor Slab (Solid slab) in Figure [Link]

Loading: Use loading similar to Pos-Ground Floor Slab

Figure [Link] Pos. Plan – Roof load path diagram

________________________________________________________________________
25
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

3.2.2 Reinforced Concrete Frame

[Link] Reinforced Concrete Frames as Lateral Force Resisting and/or Building

Stabilizing Systems

The lateral force resisting system consists of 3D rigid reinforced concrete frames which are
founded on spread footings placed at an average depth of about 3.0 m below the basement
slab. The footings are connected to each other by means of reinforced concrete beams.

[Link] Gravity Loading

 Self-weights of beams and columns are directly included in the structural

model
 Reactions from new slab to the ground floor.


 Slab reactions are shown in Fig. 3.3.2a and 3.3.2b.

 Wall loads are shown in Fig. 3.3.2c

________________________________________________________________________
26
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure [Link] (ai) Frame Span Loads (SLBREACTIONDL)

Figure [Link] (aii) Frame Span Loads (SLBREACTIONDL)

________________________________________________________________________
27
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure [Link] (b) Frame Span Loads (SLBREACTIONLL)

________________________________________________________________________
28
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure [Link] (c) Frame Span Loads (WALL)

________________________________________________________________________
29
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

[Link] Earthquake Loading

[Link].1 Reference peak ground acceleration

Reference peak ground acceleration is agR = 0.112g for Addis Ababa. Therefore the design
ground acceleration on type A ground is ag = I  agR = 1.2  0.112g = 0.1344g.

Considering the international nature of old office building it is categorized as Importance

class III with an importance factor I = 1.2.

[Link].2 Lateral force method of analysis

As stated in section 2.1.1, lateral force analysis is conducted to use the results as reference for
scaling up the base shear if it is larger than the RSM results and for obtaining information
about the signs of internal forces, which are lost in the case of modal response spectrum
analysis.

Fundamental period of vibration T1

T1 = CtH3/4 ;

Ct = 0.075 (RC frames) ; H = 38.22 m  40 m ; TC = 0.4s (subsoil Class A)

 T1 = 0.075 38.223/4 = 1.26s

T1
{4×TC ¿¿¿¿ {4×0.4=1.6s¿¿¿¿
=

Fb = Sd(T1)m

Where:

 = 1.0 since T1  2TC;

Sd(T1) is the ordinate of design spectrum at period T 1 = 1.26s (T1 is between TC and
TD).

________________________________________________________________________
30
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Type I spectrum is adopted. S = 1.0 (subsoil class A based on the ground condition at
old office building)

Sd(T1) =
{ [] 2.5 T C
¿ a g⋅S⋅ ⋅ ¿ ¿¿¿
q T

Where:
q is the behavior factor;
 As stated in the introduction, the q-factor approach is
adopted and a value of q = 1.5 is used for buildings such as
the old office building that do not possess the required
global and local ductility stipulated in EN 1998-3: 2005.

Sd(T1) =1.2 x 0.112 gx 1.0 x ( 2.5

1.5 )( 1.26 )
0.4
=0.0711 g

≥0.2*.112gx1.0x0.112g=0.0269g

Fb = Sd(T1)m = 0.0775g  M  1.0 = 0.0775  W

[Link].3 Estimation of the Building Mass

The total mass is to be calculated by the software. The mass sources are the self-weight, dead
loads transferred from the slabs, dead loads transferred from the stair and walls.

Total Building weight, W = 63278.02kN

Base-Shear Force, Fb = 0.0775  63278.02= 4499.07kN

[Link].4 Base Shear Distribution over the height

The base shear is distributed over the height of the building according to the following
formula:

________________________________________________________________________
31
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

z i⋅mi
F i=F b⋅ n
∑ z j⋅m j
j=1

Base shear distribution over the height of the building is summarized in Table [Link].4.

Table [Link].4 Seismic base shear distribution over the height

Level mi (kg) zi Zimi Fi

STORY4 589 14.49 8534.61 333.23

STORY3 1040 10.49 10909.6 425.96

STORY2 1200 6.49 7788 304.08

STORY1 551.7 2.49 1373.733 53.64
Base 74.77 0 0 703.02
Total 6527 115969.6 4499.07

[Link].5 Accidental eccentricity

In order to account for uncertainties in the location of masses and in the spatial variation of
seismic motion, the calculated center of mass at each floor i shall be considered as being
displaced from its nominal location in each direction by an additional eccentricity:

eai = ± 0.05  Li

The following four load cases are thus considered.

 EQXL – corresponds to EQ force in the X-direction and 5% eccentricity to the left

 EQXR – corresponds to EQ force in the X-direction and 5% eccentricity to the right

 EQYL – corresponds to EQ force in the Y-direction and 5% eccentricity to the left

 EQYR – corresponds to EQ force in the Y-direction and 5% eccentricity to the right

Seismic actions are shown Figures 3.3.3 a, b, c and d.

Fig. 3.3.3 (a) Seismic action- EQXRT

________________________________________________________________________
32
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Fig. 3.3.3 (b) Seismic action- EQXLT

Fig. 3.3.3 (c) Seismic action- EQYRT

Fig. 3.3.3 (d) Seismic action- EQYLT

[Link].6 Dynamic response Spectrum Analysis

Two response spectrum cases, SpecX and SpecY are considered with the 30%
combination rule to compute the action effects due to the combination of the horizontal
components of the seismic actions in the two orthogonal directions (EN 1998-1: 2004,
clause [Link].1(3)).

[Link] Design Load Combinations

The values of actions which occur simultaneously are combined as follows:

i) Persistent and transient situation

COMB1 – 1.35 Gk + 1.5 Qk

ii) Seismic Situation

General Format: Gkj + AEd + 2iQki , which can be approximated using COMB1
as:

0.75  COMB1 AEd, x

OR

0.75  COMB1 AEd,y

 Lateral Force Method Analysis

________________________________________________________________________
33
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

There are a total of eight load combinations for seismic situation (COMB2 to COMB9)
corresponding to the four load combinations above, whose seismic actions A Ed have each
two alternative lines of actions to take in to account the effects of accidental torsional
eccentricity.

 Dynamic Response Spectrum Analysis

The response spectrum cases result in the following two additional load combinations.

COMBRSX - 0.75  COMB1 + SpecX

COMBRSY - 0.75  COMB1 + SpecY

Finally envelopes have been evaluated for the purpose of determining the design action
effects in the critical regions. Due consideration is given, to avoid mixing of the design
moments in columns resulting from one load case with design axial forces resulting form
another load case.

ENVEX-Envelope of load combinations with seismic actions in the x-direction

ENVEY-Envelope of load combinations with seismic actions in the y-direction

ENVELOPE-Envelope of COMB1, ENVEX, and ENVEY

[Link] Second Order Analysis

Second order effects (P- effects) need not be taken into account if the interstorey drift
sensitivity coefficient , fulfills the following condition in all storeys:

The internal forces and storey drift used to determine  are computed using a linear dynamic
analysis based on reduced stiffnesses, i.e. EcIII = 0.35 EcIg for beams and EcIII = 0.70 EcIg for
columns. The results of the stability index calculations are summarized in Table [Link].

________________________________________________________________________
34
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Table [Link] Calculation of stability index 

Story Pu Vu,x Vu,y Δ 0,x / lc Δ0,y / lc θx θy

STORY10 4094.3 904.12 1022.53 0.002723 0.004193 0.01233 0.01679
STORY9 10899.61 1688.7 1777.68 0.003083 0.004978 0.01990 0.03052
STORY8 17935.54 2191.26 2194.94 0.003358 0.005474 0.02749 0.04473
STORY7 25180.08 2564.57 2548.01 0.003214 0.008023 0.03156 0.07929
STORY6 32526.69 3065.35 3065.35 0.002957 0.009696 0.03138 0.10289
STORY5 39883.16 3494.87 3494.87 0.002976 0.006447 0.03396 0.07357
STORY4 49024.78 3912.94 3912.94 0.002156 0.003718 0.02701 0.04658
STORY3 58118.15 4224.69 4224.69 0.00205 0.004518 0.02820 0.06215
STORY2 67424.31 4437.01 4437.01 0.00317 0.005552 0.04817 0.08437
STORY1 70983.62 4480.95 4481.75 0.002034 0.002672 0.03222 0.04232

Therefore 2nd order effects need not be taken into account.

3.3 Safety verification

The evaluation is based on the verification of all cross-sections by comparing the required
amount of reinforcement in the beams and columns according to the new analysis and design
with the available reinforcement on the working drawings.

________________________________________________________________________
35
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

3.3.1 Required vs. Available Reinforcement of Beams in the Critical Regions

a) Flexure

Required amount of reinforcement are presented in the following pages. The governing
load combination for the design of beams is ENVELOPE.

Apart from the discrepancies at some locations caused by the difference between the
systems shown on the drawings and actual conditions, most sections are adequately
provided and satisfy the minimum safety requirements stipulated by EBCS-2 [2].

b) Shear

For practically all beams, shear reinforcement is provided in the critical region by S-300
bars of diameter 6 mm at 50 mm centers. According to EBCS-2, the design shear capacity
of a typical beam section (b/h = 500/800 mm) is approximately 210 kN which together
with the shear capacity of concrete exceeds the design action effect by a wide margin.
Therefore the sections don’t satisfy the minimum safety requirements for shear
recommended by EBCS-2 [2].

Figure 3.3.1 (a) Beam reinforcement –storey 10

Figure 3.3.1 (b) Beam reinforcement –storey 9

Figure 3.3.1 (c) Beam reinforcement –storey 8

Figure 3.3.1 (d) Beam reinforcement –storey 7

Figure 3.3.1 (e) Beam reinforcement –storey 6

________________________________________________________________________
36
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

Figure 3.3.1 (f) Beam reinforcement –storey 5

Figure 3.3.1 (g) Beam reinforcement –storey 4

Figure 3.3.1 (h) Beam reinforcement –storey 3

Figure 3.3.1 (i) Beam reinforcement –storey 2

Figure 3.3.1 (j) Beam reinforcement –storey 1

3.3.2 Required vs. Available Reinforcement in Columns

The governing load combinations are ENVEX and ENVEY for seismic situations in the x-
and y- directions respectively. Second order effects are accounted for directly through a
second order analysis.

Equivalent geometric imperfections are introduced by increasing the eccentricity of the

longitudinal force by the additional eccentricity prescribed by EBCS-2 [2].

Summary of the design action effects including the additional eccentricity are shown on
worksheet pages 238 to 269. The result shows that amount of reinforcing steel in the columns
are adequate and therefore satisfy the minimum safety requirement stipulated by EBCS-2 [2].
The difference between the required and provided amount of reinforcement in the very few
columns that failed to satisfy the code requirement are quite insignificant and therefore it can
be concluded that the partition walls can be removed in the upper two stories as required
without compromising the structural integrity of the building.

________________________________________________________________________
37
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

________________________________________________________________________
38
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.
Building Structures Assessment Report for Africa Hall, UN ECA, Addis Ababa

4.1 References

[1] UNDP Ethiopia, Terms of Reference for the Evaluation of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Structure to Determine the Possibility of Removing Partition Walls, April, 2011.

________________________________________________________________________
39
Prepared by Dr.-[Link] Zerayohannes, AAiT, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Concrete
Structures and Materials Chair and Ashenafi Shiferraw.