Revision: Issue 01

Date: 18th June2014

Category Amber
Caesar Apparels Limited
Mahanagar Packaging Ltd. and Quality Fashion Ltd
BSCIC Industrial Estate, Block-A, Baizid Bostami Road, Chittagong
(22.386503N, 91.806692E)
8th June 2014

Structural Inspection Report

Authors: Sebastian Kaminski, Erick Karla
Reviewed by: John Flaherty
Approved by: Robert McGrath

Category RED if
Key actions on
page 4 to 10
are not
immediately
carried out.

Executive Summary
On Sunday 8th June 2014 Mr Sebastian Kaminski and Mr Erick Karla of Arup carried out a visual
structural survey of the Caesar Apparels Ltd. factory at the coordinates given on the cover page
of this report. We inspected all parts of the building.
We met with Abdur Rahim (General Manager), Abu Jahed Monju (Manager HR, Admin &
Compliance) and Shafiqul Islam (Building Owner). The General Manager has been at this factory
for one year. The factory consists of one six storey production building. The site was reported by
the Manager to have no flooding history. The company rents 2 floors (1st and 3rd) of the building.
The ground and the 2nd floor of the building is occupied by Chittagong Mahanagar Packaging Ltd.
and Quality Fashion Ltd. respectively.
The fourth and fifth floors are currently under construction. A large reinforced concrete water
tank is also to be constructed on the East side of the building roof. The company has occupied
their floors since 2013.
We were presented with copies of Permit drawings for the building. The drawings dated
November 2006 were signed by the local authority in March 2007 and indicated a six storey
building. No as-built drawings were provided.
We were also presented with compressive strength testing of concrete cylinders made from
ready-mix concrete in January 2014. These were not considered relevant to this assessment.

Executive Summary (Continued)

The contractor responsible for the construction, was also present at the meeting. He informed us
that the building was built in stages, the ground floor in 2006 and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd in 2008.
A copy of the Soil Report for the site of the building was provided. It was issued in July 2006 by
Hydro Soil Engineers. It states that the soil is not suitable for shallow foundations and hence
recommends piles, however also leaves the decision on foundation type to the Structural
Engineer.
The building has a reinforced concrete structure made from slabs supported on beams and
columns that are supported by strip footing foundations. Lateral stability is achieved through
moment frame action of the reinforced concrete frame. A large underground water tank sits
within the building footprint between the strip footings.
The first, second and third floors are used for storage, packing, ironing, sewing, cuff & collar and
cutting. The ground floor is used for cardboard manufacturing and storage.

Executive Summary (Continued)

The information shown on the drawings presented was generally found to be in line with the as
constructed building. However inconsistencies were noted and these are referenced in the
observation section of this report.
We have important and urgent concerns in relation to the adequacy of the structural support
columns for the Building. Columns appear to be stressed to levels that require immediate review.
The following immediate action is required to be carried out:

All live loads in Northern first floor storage area to be reduced to 1.5kPa, and in area indicated
in following sheets live load to be limited on all floors to 1.5kPa, construction work to stop and
Gazi tanks to be emptied of water on all floors. Tanks to be relocated over internal columns
following detailed calculation and justification. This is pending verification of column capacities
by the Building Engineer.
A Detailed Engineering Assessment should be carried out and this needs to be addressed
immediately.

Actions on roof (6th)

1 2

A
B

C
D

E
F

Maximum Live Load 0.5 kPa,

Stop construction in this floor,

Actions on 5th
1 2

A
B

C
D

E
F

Maximum Live Load 0.5 kPa

Stop construction in this floor

Actions on 4th
1 2

A
B

C
D

E
F

Stop construction in this floor

EMPTY 5x Gazi Tank

2000 l
Maximum loading
to be 0.5kN/M2

Loads on 3rd
1 2

A
B
Reduce Live Load to 1.5kPa

C
D

E
F

Actions on 2nd
1 2

A
Reduce Live Load to 1.5kPa

C
D

E
F

EMPTY 1x Gazi Tank 1000l

EMPTY 1x Gazi Tank 500l

Loads on 1st
1 2

A
B
Reduce Live Load to 1kPa

C
D

E
F

10

Executive Summary (Continued)

A high level and non exhaustive list of key concerns are:

High column stresses, no loading plan and high uncontrolled live loads
Cracks at head of masonry walls
Cracks to external column
Inconsistencies Between Drawings and As Built Construction

We see no reason to suspend operations in the facility due to these concerns (subject to the
required actions noted at the end of this report).
Further actions with associated priorities and timeframes are given at the end of this report.
Please note that these actions should be completed as soon as practically possible and certainly
within the timeframe noted.
We have reviewed the property from an outline seismic perspective and would consider that the
building along with many others in the Chittagong region to have a significant risk of collapse in a
major Seismic event.

11

Building Extents

12

Factory site location

Caeser Apparels Limited: Factory site location

Building Extents
13

North/Front Elevation
14

Building Extents

West Elevation

South elevation

15

Building Extents

East elevation

Roof

5th Floor
4th Floor
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
1st Floor
Ground Floor
Building: Current Use of Factory Floors
Roof: Plastic water tank and construction work on going.

5th Floor: Construction work on going.

4th Floor: Construction work on going.
3rd Floor: Sewing section of Caesar Apparels Ltd.
2nd Floor: Using by Quality Fashion Ltd.
1st Floor: Cutting and finishing section of Caesar Apparels Ltd.

Ground Floor: Using by Chittagong Mahanagar Packaging Ltd.

16

Building Extents

Number of Stories:
Six storey building (GF+5)

Year of construction:
Started construction work in 2006.
Completed 1st,2nd and 3rd floor between 2006 and
2008.
Started construction of 4th and 5th floor in 2014
and is still on-going.
Drawing permission:
Permission for six storey building from BSCIC
authority.
Status of permit:
Permitted up to six stories and construction ongoing as per permission.
Column layout and number of columns doesnt
match with permitted drawing.

Building Extents
17

Measured Grid
1 2

A
B

C
D

E
F
300 x 450
300 x 375

Building
Extents
18

Structural System

19

Structural System:
RC beam and slab construction. Lateral stability is provided
by moment/sway frame action. Additional stability provided
by brick infill walls.
Column sizes (excluding finishes):
Typical internal column: 450X300mm, render 10-20mm
Edge column 1: 375X300mm, render 10-40mm
Edge column 2: 300X250mm, render 10-40mm
Span size:
6.45X4.8m (maximum)
Slab thickness :
1st to 3rd floor: 140mm (average), + 20-30mm finishes
4th to 6th floor: 140mm (average), no finishes present
Beam size (excluding finishes):
Long direction: 250x600 mm deep, render 10-20mm
Short direction: 250x450 mm deep, render 10-20mm

Structural drawing

Floor-to-ceiling height:
Ground floor: 3.2m
Typical floor: 3.0m (average)
Aggregates:
Ground to 3rd floor brick chips all elements.
4th above stone chips in beam and slab, brick in columns.

Structural System

20

Internal column & beam (typical floor)

Cantilever on all side(Typical floor)

21

Structural System

Edge beam & column (typical floor)

Ground floor column and beam

Cantilever beam (typical floor)

Brick column at edge wall

22

Structural System

Edge beam & column (floor under

construction)

Ground floor column and beam

Observations

23

High column stresses, no loading plan and

high uncontrolled live loads

24

Loads on 1st
1 2

A
B

C
D

E
F

25

Heavy finishes to toilet

block = 6kN/m2

Heavy loaded
storage area

Large build-up in toilet

areas on cantilever slab.

Brick aggregate in
columns
Heavy storage loads on
1st floor

26

Cracks at head of masonry walls

27

Crack along head of faade masonry wall on cantilever leaves wall unrestrained at
head to wind loads out-of-plane

28

Cracking seen to external column

29

Crack to front entrance (North-East) first floor column

30

Absence of Structural Information And

Inconsistencies Noted Between Drawings
and As Built Construction

31

12

B
C

7 8

Column sizes different

between drawings and as
constructed

Main Entrance Faade differs

from information shown in the
plans

D
E
F
Undocumented Cantilevers
Undocumented Edge Columns

32

Problems Observed
ITEM 1:
ITEM 2:
ITEM 3:
ITEM 4:

33

High column stresses, no loading plan and

high uncontrolled live loads
Cracks at head of masonry walls
Cracks to external column
Inconsistencies Between Drawings and As
Built Construction

Item 1 and actions

High column stresses, no loading plan and high uncontrolled live loads

Priority 1
(Immediate - Now)

Priority 2
(within 6-weeks)
Priority 3
(within 6-months)

34

Reduce all live loads in Northern first floor storage area to 1.5kpa.
In area indicated: empty water out of all Gazi tanks, limit live load on all
floors to 1.5kpa, stop construction work on upper floors provide
temporary restraints to any walls in the temporary condition.
Building Engineer to review design, loads and columns stresses in all
columns.
Verify insitu concrete stresses either by 100mm diameter cores or
existing cylinder strength data for cores from 4 columns.
A Detail Engineering Assessment of Factory to be commenced, see
attached Scope.

Produce and actively manage a loading plan for all floor plates
within the factory giving consideration to floor capacity and
column capacity.
Detail Engineering Assessment to be completed

Continue to implement load plan

Detail Engineering Assessment

This Schedule develops a minimum level of information, Analysis and testing expected as part of a Detail Engineering Assessment.
The Building(s) have been visually assessed and it is deemed necessary that a detailed engineering assessment be carried out by a competent Engineering
Team employed by the factory Owner.
This Request should be read in conjunction with the BUET developed Tripartite Guideline document for Assessment of Structural Integrity of Existing
RMG Factory Buildings in Bangladesh (Tripartite Document), the latest version of this document should be referenced. T his document also gives guidance
on required competency of Engineering Team.

We expect that the following will be carried out:

1. Development of Full Engineering As-Built Drawings showing Structure, loading, elements, dimensions , levels, foundations and framing on Plan,
Section and Elevational drawings .
2. The Engineering team are to carry out supporting calculations with a model based design check to assess the safety and serviceability of the building
against loading as set out in BNBC-2006, Lower rate provisions can be applied in accordance with the Tripartite Guidelines following international
engineering practice, justification for these lower rate provisions must be made.
3. A geotechnical Report describing ground conditions and commenting on foundation systems used/proposed.
4. A report on Engineering tests carried out to justify material strengths and reinforcement content in all key elements studied.
5. Detailed load plans shall be prepared for each level showing current and potential future loading with all key equipment items shown with associated
loads.
6. The Engineering team will prepare an assessment report that covers the following:
As-Built drawings including
Plans at each level calling up and dimensioning all structural components
Cross sectional drawings showing structural beams, slabs, floor to floor heights, roof build-ups and Basic design information of the
structure
Highlight any variation between As-built compared to the designed structure
Results of testing for strength and materials
Results of geotechnical assessment and testing/investigation
Details of loading, inputs and results of computer modelling
Commentary on adequacy/inadequacy of elements of the structure
Schedule of any required retrofitting required for safety or performance of Structure
Any proposals for Retrofitting to follow guidance developed in the Tripartite Document

35

Item 2 and actions

Cracks at head of masonry walls

Priority 1

None required

Engineer to inspect cracked masonry and consider a suitable

repair or strengthening option to restrain the wall out-of-plane.

Carry out repair

(Immediate - Now)

Priority 2
(within 6-weeks)

Priority 3
(within 6-months)

36

Item 3 and actions

Cracking seen to external column

Priority 1
(Immediate - Now)

Priority 2

Remove render to verify if cracking exists in concrete. Building

Engineer to specify appropriate repair.

Repair as necessary

(within 6-weeks)

Priority 3
(within 6-months)

37

Reduce loading in the bays supported by this column to

1.5Kn/m2 on all occupied levels.
Levels under construction not to have a live load greater than
0.5Kn/M2 are previously highlighted

Item 4 and actions

Drawings do not match as built

Priority 1

None Required

Building Engineer to update the drawings to reflect the asbuilt structure and loading levels at all floor levels,
including as built floor finishes thickness.

None Required.

(Immediate - Now)

Priority 2
(within 6-weeks)

Priority 3
(within 6-months)

38

Survey Limitations and Assumptions

This report is for the private and confidential use of Accord for whom it was prepared together with their professional advisors as appropriate. It should
not be reproduced in whole or in part or relied upon by third parties for any use without the express written permission of Arup.
This report can be used in discussion with the supplier or factory owner as a means to rectify or address any observations made. The report is not
comprehensive and is limited to what could be observed during a visual inspection of the building.
This Report is not intended to be treated as a generalised inspection and does not cover the deterioration of structural members through dampness,
fungal or insect attack, nor does it deal with problems and defects of a non-structural nature. Other non structural aspects of the building such as fire
safety have not been assessed in this survey.

Except as otherwise noted, drains and other services were not viewed or tested during our inspection and are therefore similarly excluded from this
Report. We have not inspected any parts of the structure which are covered, unexposed or inaccessible and we are therefore unable to report that any
such part of the property is free from defect.
External inspection of the faade walls has generally been carried out from ground level only by visual sighting. No opening up works were carried out
(except as noted) and we rely on the Architects and Engineers drawings provided to us for our views on concealed parts of the structure and in particular
foundations. Strengths of materials and components are untested and we recommend that the factory owners Building Engineer carries out insitu testing
over and above those suggested to satisfy themselves with the material strengths and component details.

Recommendations, where given, are for the purpose of providing indicative advice only, are not exhaustive, relate solely to identifying key and obvious
structural defects as identified in this presentation, and do not take the form of or constitute a specification for works. We take no responsibility for the
works as constructed. This report does not interfere with the factory owners Building Engineers responsibility for the structural performance of this
building, The Building Engineer remains fully responsible for the structural adequacy of the building.
This report does not comment in detail on the future seismic performance of the building and only highlights the fact that the building may experience
significant damage or collapse in a seismic event along with many others in the Dhaka region.
The observations in this report are based on the Engineering Judgement of the lead surveyor/engineer at the time of the survey. We assume in making
these observations that no covering up of faults defects, filling or plastering over cracking or significant repair work has been carried out by the building
owner. Any future alteration or additional work by the building owner will void this report.

39