Nipro (GLAB) Draft

STRUCTURAL REPORT
ON THE
GREAHAM LOUISY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
ON THE
CASTRIES WATERFRONT
CASTRIES
ST.LUCIA.
FEBRUARY 2018
JDC Engineering Report – Roof of the Greaham Louisy Administrative Building – Feb 2018.
INTRODUCTION
The Greaham Louisy Administrative Building has been impacted by water penetration
through its flat concrete roof. The National Insurance Property Development and
Management Company (NIPRO) by correspondence dated xxxxxxxxx retained my
services to undertake a consultancy to:
 Identify cause(s) of water penetration through the roof of the Greaham Louisy
Administrative Building,
 Identify the cause of failing window systems within the office of the O.E.C.S
Ambassador,
 Recommend appropriate remedial roof and other ancillary works to address the
noted defects.
Engineering Survey : Executed during the month of February 2018.
DECLARATION
Liability : The survey of the property was for the purpose of preparing this
Structural Assessment Report on the roof of the Greaham Louisy
Administrative Building and not for a market valuation. This writer
therefore accepts no liability for failing to report any observations, rot,
pests, or other factor present either now or subsequently which is likely
to affect the value of the property at the time of preparation of this
Structural Report.
Third Party : This Structural Report has been prepared for the sole use of the above
named Client to whom it is addressed and for the purpose stated above.
This writer cannot accept responsibility for the sufficiency of this Report
in respect of any third party for whatever purpose.
Confidential : This report is confidential to the Client to whom it is addressed and to

his professional advisors. Neither the whole nor any part of this Report
or any reference thereto may be included in any published document,
approval, circular or statement nor published in any way without the
written approval of the writer of the form and context in which it may
appear.
1. Introduction
2. The Greaham Louisy Administrative Building
2.1 General Description
2.2 The Flat Concrete Roof
2.3 Earthquakes and Subsidence
3. Limitation of the Report
4. Observations
4.1 General
4.2 Internally
4.3 Externally
5. Review of Renovations to the Flat Roof System.
5.1 Repairs prior to January 2014
5.2 Repairs after January 2014
6. Investigative Analysis
6.1 Spalling
6.2 Ponding
6.3 Insulation
6.4 Durability
6.5 Repair
7. Recommendations
6.1 Partial Tear Off
6.2 Repair of Spalling Concrete
8. Conclusions
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION.
The approximately thirty (30) year old, six (6) storey (ground plus 5 floors) Greaham
Louisy Administrative Building is located along the Castries Waterfront, the second
structure after the Conway Car-park Facility (located at the northern corner of Jn Baptiste
Street and John Compton Highway) along the John Compton Highway if driving north
from the city center. This multi-storey Office Complex accommodates offices of
ministerial departments of the Government of St. Lucia.
The Office of the Prime Minister is accommodated at the 5th floor, the Ministry of Social
Transformation is at the 4th, the Ministry of Physical Development, Housing, Urban
Renewal and Local Government is at the 3rd, the Ministry of the Public Service and the
Government Information Service is at the 2nd, the Survey and Physical Planning Sections
of the Ministry of Physical Development are at the 1st and the Land Registry of the
Ministry of Physical Development and Financial Management (FINMAN) Section of the
Ministry of Finance are the ground floor level.
The six (6) storey reinforced concrete structure is constructed on level terrain with the
ground floor being approximately 350mm (14”) above road level. It is approximately
6013.44m2 (66,810 square feet) in area (1002.24m2 (11,135 square feet) per floor) and is
based on a rectangular grid system measuring approximately 46.40m (154’-8”) long
comprising seven (7) equal spans of 6.20m (20’-8”) each with a 1.50m (5’-0”) long
cantilever at either end. It is 21.60m (72’-0”) wide comprising three (3) equal spans of
6.20m (20’-8”) with a 1.50m (5’-0”) long cantilever at either end.
The reinforced concrete floors including the roof are constructed from M moulds,
resulting in a floor 300mm (12”) thick consisting of waffle (ribbed) slabs each 800 x 800
(2’-8” by 2’-8”) and 100mm (4”) deep spanning two directions. The ribs are
approximately 300mm (12”) deep (including the slab thickness) and average rib width
located at the ends of the slabs is approximately 175mm (7”). The floors are thickened
the full depth of the ribs at the crowns of the typical reinforced concrete columns 400 x
400 (16” x 16”) in section to better able resist the generated shear stresses. Other bands of
concrete extending the full floor depth exist along column grids to accommodate
differences in the number of waffles that are used. Floor to floor height is 3.0m (10’-0”)
on floors one (1) through to five (5) and is 4.80m (16’-0”) at the ground to first floor.
The building length is orientated parallel to and along the John Compton Highway. A
reinforced concrete canopy provides covered access between the main entrance at ground
floor level and the internal circulation parking areas. An emergency exit steel framed
stairs have been added to each floor at the rear or eastern elevation. Internal access to the
upper floors is provided by two (2) elevators and two (2) “doglegged” steel framed stairs
constructed at opposite ends of a central reinforced concrete core.
The perimeter enclosure (curtain) walls of the building are of 6” thick masonry block
erected at the ends of the cantilevered floor and are of various heights in function of the
presence of glazing or the need to have enclosed spaces for specific reasons.
Internally, the office space is an “open” floor plan with most internal partitions being
light weight timber studded frames clad with plywood or gypsum board. Some offices are
fully enclosed with 6” masonry blocks for security or privacy reasons.
2.2 THE FLAT CONCRETE ROOF
The AS BUILT original roof system, briefly described, comprised white colored
reflective granule surfaced modified asphaltic membranes on polyisocyanurate insulation
ballast fixed to the flat reinforced concrete roof slab with negligible gradients. Surface
runoff is channeled to downspouts installed within the reinforced concrete roof slab.
Concrete pavers were installed to protect the built-up roof system from pedestrian traffic
likely to be generated by personnel maintaining mechanical and electrical plant (MEP), air
conditioning and water storage equipment installed on the roof.
The polyisocynanurate insulation board is simply glass fibre cellulosic felt facers bonded
to a core of isocyanurate insulation foam.
As with all single-ply systems, the modified asphaltic membranes provide no redundancy.
Their water tightness depends both on the mechanical performance of the material and the
quality of the torch welded seams together with the weathering resistance of the polymer.
The white colored reflective mineral granules impregnated into the surface of the
membranes reduce the heat load on air conditioning equipment.
The built-up roof system has been renovated at least thrice over the last thirty (30) years
(1998-2017) primarily due to persistent water penetration through the roof into the fifth
(5th) floor caused by failure of the water tightness of the modified bituminous membranes.
2.3 SEISMIC ACTIVITY
St. Lucia has an intermediate seismic hazard. The island lies in a transition zone where
the rate of seismic activity is increasing. The island seismic hazard is not as low as that of
St. Vincent to the south but is not as high as that of Martinique to the north.
There have been at least five (5) swarms of shallow earthquakes in St. Lucia in the last
hundred (100) years. These occurred in the years 1906, 1986, 1990, 1999 and 2000.
Those of 1906, 1990 and 2000 appear to have been triggered by a larger tectonic
earthquake.
The following table sourced from the Seismic Research Centre of the University of the
West Indies illustrates recent seismic events reported as have been felt in St. Lucia during
the past ten (10) years:
Date Location Magnitude Depth(Km)

1. June 19th, 2017 North East of St. Lucia 3.6 10.0 Km
2. June 12th,2017 East of St. Lucia 4.2 10.0 Km
3. Feb 3rd, 2017 North East of St. Lucia 5.8 20.0 Km
4. Jan 19th,2017 South East of St. Lucia 3.0 15.0 Km
5. Jan 16th, 2017 North East of St. Lucia 3.7 10.0 Km
6. Jan 8th, 2017 East of St. Lucia 4.1 10.0 Km
7. Feb 2nd, 2016 East of Martinique 4.9 18.0 Km
8. Aug 24th, 2016 North of St. Lucia 3.6 29.0Km
9. Oct 1st, 2016 South East of St. Lucia 3.6 5.0 Km
10. Feb 9th, 2015 On land in St. Lucia 2.3 17.0 Km
11. May 14th, 2015 East of St. Lucia 4.7 21.0 Km
12. Oct 1st, 2015 East of Martinique 4.8 39.0 Km
13. Dec 28th, 2015 North West of Martinique 5.5 147.0 Km
14. Feb 18th, 2014 East of Martinique 6.4 16.0 km
15. Jan 16th, 2014 East of Guadeloupe 3.8 107.0 km
16. Dec 16th, 2013 North of Barbados 3.6 56.0 km
17. June 24th, 2013 North of St. Lucia 3.9 36.0 km
18. June 8th, 2013 On land in St. Lucia 2.1 17.0 km
19. June 6th, 2013 South east of St.Vincent 4.0 29.0 km
20. May 19th, 2013 North east of St. Lucia 4.0 32.0 km
21. Jan 19th, 2013 North of St. Lucia 3.7 72.0 km
22. Dec 27th, 2012 North east of St. Lucia 3.0 78.0 km
23. Nov 29th, 2007 On land in St. Lucia 7.3 142.0 Km
Earthquakes generate significant lateral accelerations in function of its intensity that can
impact structures by generating shear forces that are greatest at nodes of intersecting
structural elements.
Structural elements such columns, beams, slabs especially masonry walls oscillate at
different frequencies in function of their individual inertias when subjected to seismic
accelerations. These elements would each oscillate differently and produce a different
structural response to earthquake forces. These differing seismic responses would result
in a concentration of stresses and the appearance of cracking at:
 Points of maximum shear of beams near supporting columns,

 The vertical joint between intersecting masonry block walls,
 The joint between the elevator/stair core and floor/roof slabs,
 The joint between parapet walls and the roof slab,
 The corners of openings for windows and doors,
 The vertical joint between masonry block walls and reinforced concrete columns
and beams.
The magnitude and extent of the cracking is directly related to the standard of
workmanship and the adequacy of the construction joints in response to the forces
generated. These cracks facilitate moisture penetration into the building.
3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT
Only material facts which were discernible by a visual inspection of the roof system of
the Greaham Louisy Administrative Building are disclosed in this Report. The
investigation of the observed defects did not include any destructive analysis or
measurements to determine the quanta and location of reinforcement or the density and
compressive strength of the existing reinforced concrete works. A destructive analysis
would require chiseling off sections of beams, pillars or roof floor slab to determine the
precise quanta and placement of reinforcement within. The latter coupled with
measurements of concrete strength would facilitate a computation of the adequacy of the
design and construction of the building.
4.0 OBSERVATIONS
4.1 General
The primary focus of this Report was to identify the cause(s) of the water penetration
through the flat concrete roof slab into the fifth (5th) floor office spaces and to
recommend remedial measures to address same.
Externally, the building appears poorly maintained and esthetically bland. The masonary
block enclosure walls are stained with dirt streaks and most/all of the original metal
framed canopy shades over the windows have been removed/discraded.
4.2 Internally
A. The Fifth Floor Ceiling
Dried stains were observed from water penetrating through cracking within the
underside of the fifth (5th) floor concrete roof, i.e. the ceiling which for the main
is comprised of exposed reinforced concrete ribs and underside/domes of the
precast molds or waffles. See Fig 7.0 – 10.0.
Hairline cracking was observed propagating through the full thickness of the roof
slab, almost in straight line of mostly north to south (propagating across the
shorter dimension of the rectangular building) orientation through the ribs and
underside of the waffle/mold. Residue stains from water leaks was observed:
1. Concentrated mostly within the northern end of the ceiling between the northern
elevation and the central elevator/stair core,
2. Over the Reception Area and
3. Within the ceiling of the Conference/Meeting Room located at the south eastern
corner of the building.
B. OECS Ambassador’s Office
The Ambassador’s Office is located at the north western corner of the fifth (5th)
floor. The L-shaped corner window glazing has become almost completely
detached from its upper fixing anchored into the underside edge of the fifth (5th)
floor roof slab. There is a real risk that the window might become completely
detached and collapse onto the ground floor pavement.
Spalling of the concrete was observed at underside edge of the reinforced concrete
fifth (5th) floor roof slab. Chunks of concrete have been expulsed thereby
undermining the proper anchoring of the aluminum framing of the window
glazing. See Fig 3.0 – 5.0.
C. Spalling, though to a lesser degree was also observed along the top edge of other
window openings within other offices of the fifth (5th) floor. See Fig 6.0.
4.3 Externally
The reinforced concrete flat roof to the fifth (5th) floor was subjected to a detailed
inspection. The roof was last renovated over the period commencing in January 2014 and
again from February 2016 when the bituminous membranes were completely discarded
and replaced with new bituminous membranes on mass concrete impregnated with
waterproofing and sealant additives (COMPLAST and RADCON) and installed with
significantly increased gradient to drain runoff expeditiously towards the roof drain
outlets.
During an earlier renovation intervention (years prior to 2014) the insulation boards had
been removed and discarded, an action that unquestionably increased the heat load of the
fifth (5th) floor with a corresponding increase in cooling costs.
. It was observed that:
1. Concrete pavers to protect roof membranes from damage caused by pedestrian

traffic on the roof were absent.
2. Flashing details over the perimeter parapet (up-stand) were installed with a poor
standard of workmanship and attention to detail.
3. Blisters, splits/tears, failed seam welds, ponding of water and other defects were
observed within the bituminous membranes of the built-up roof system.
4. Air condition condensate is being discharged directly onto the modified
bituminous membrane adjacent to the external masonry walls of the elevator/stair
core. The membranes were in a state of permanent saturation.
5. Water and granules were ponding near the runoff discharge outlets within the
roof.
6. Significant amounts of reflective granules has washed off the bituminous

membranes and accumulated/deposited near drainage outlets facilitating further
ponding of surface runoff.
See Fig. 15.0 – 32.0.
5.0 Review of the Renovations to the Flat Roof System
The fifth (5th) floor has been impacted by water penetration through the flat reinforced
concrete roof. A number of previous attempts at rectification of this defect have proven
inadequate.
A properly installed built-up roof system should normally provide at least twenty (20)
years satisfactory service. Thus clearly, attempts at repair have proven inadequate.
5.1 Remedial works undertaken PRIOR to January 2014 were inadequate because:
i.) It was ill-advised to discard the insulation boards and to apply the bituminous
membranes directly onto the flat reinforced concrete roof.
ii.) Omission of the insulation boards increased the heat load of the fifth (5th) floor
resulting in increased cooling costs and probably necessitating air
conditioning units of greater cooling capacity, an overall wasteful and inept
approach.
iii.) The cracking then existent within the roof slab were not sealed prior to the
application of the bituminous membranes such that Bitumen adhesive (under
intense solar pressure) had become sufficiently fluid/molten (to seep through
cracking existent within the roof slab) to drip and appear within the ceiling of
the fifth floor.
5.2 The renovations undertaken from January 2014 included:
 Removal of all the existing bituminous membranes

 Scraping off remnants of bitumen adhesive on the reinforced concrete substrate of
the roof.
 Application of a bonding agent to the reinforced concrete roof substrate to
improve bonding of new concrete.
 Screed roof with mortar impregnated with COMPLAST integrated with
significantly increased gradient towards existing drain outlets.
 Seal/waterproof new roof screed with RADCON.
 Install new bituminous membranes
 Repairs to roof downpipes and drain outlets.
Additional repairs became necessary when water penetration continued to be a challenge

and these were undertaken from February 2016 and included:
 Removal of all paint on the external masonry surfaces of the central elevator/stair
core.
 Cleaned masonry surfaces were subsequently sealed with Tremco Vulkem 801
heavy duty aluminized coating and
 Blocking off and sealing of all openings of utility piping through the roof
The remedial intervention in January 2014 and from February 2016 again proved
inadequate at preventing further water penetration because:
a. Remnants of bitumen adhesive (used to install the now discarded bituminous

membranes directly onto the reinforced concrete flat roof) were improperly
removed such that it prevented a satisfactory bond between the new raised mortar
screed and the underlying reinforced concrete flat roof. Scraping alone was
woefully inadequate.
b. The standard of workmanship of the installed bituminous membrane is noticeably

poor. It is plagued with failed seam welds, splits/ tears and ponding of water. The
standard of workmanship along the perimeter parapet and plinths supporting A/C
condensers are similarly noticeably poor and easily facilitate water penetration.
c. Mortar and reinforced concrete contracts on curing and would easily become
detached from previously existing concrete and certainly between the bitumen
layered reinforced concrete roof and the new screed thus providing channels for
water penetration into the fifth (5th) floor. The latter facilitates water ingress and
propagation through existing cracking within the main reinforced concrete roof.
d. Once the water has penetrated to the upper masonry surface of the reinforced
concrete roof, water would then percolate through the cracks within the roof and
into the fifth (5th) floor.
The above described inadequacies of the undertaken works were insufficient at

preventing water ingress beneath the mortar screed and penetration into the fifth (5th)
floor ceiling.
Notwithstanding the above failures, costly maintenance challenges would likely increase
because:
e. Continued water penetration and saturation of the concrete roof slab through the
cracking will result in spalling of the concrete, repair of which would escalate
costs of maintenance without a permanent resolution to the problem.
f. The thickened layer of new screed unnecessarily increases the loading on the roof
without any tangible benefit.
g. Greater attention to workmanship and detailing should have been exercised to

ensure a more satisfactory and conclusive result.
6.0 INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS OF DEFECTS
6.1 Spalling of Concrete
Spalling may be precipitated by:
1. “Honey combed” concrete or

2. Concrete with excessive amounts of coarse aggregate that leaves voids
between the aggregate components of the concrete or
3. Structural elements constructed with inadequate cover to the reinforcement
within or
4. Moisture coming into contact with reinforcement within concrete.
Spalling occurs when moisture laden air or salt laden air or surface run off gets into
contact with reinforcement within structural elements and upon combining with oxygen
in the air initiates corrosion. As the corrosion progresses, the reinforcement increases in
volume and expels the surrounding concrete cover. As concrete cover is expelled more
reinforcement becomes exposed and the process propagates.
In this specific case, spalling will occur when the reinforcement contained within the ribs
and domes/waffles of the roof slab remain in contact with the water penetrating through
cracking within the roof slab.
With time and if left unattended, the corrosion will propagate, expelling progressively
greater amounts of concrete cover until the reinforcement contained within the structural
element becomes totally exposed to the corrosive process. This could continue until the
integrity of the structural element so affected is compromised as it becomes unable to
sustain the generated loads.
6.2 Ponding
Ponding is described as water that does not drain or dissipate from the roof surface within
48 hours after precipitation ends. Ponding can also result from other sources including
improperly piped air conditioning condensate and overflowing water storage tanks.
Any roof drainage system that impedes good, immediate drainage of a roof presents a
hazard to the durability and water tightness of the built-up roof system.
Water “ponding” on the roof can promote vegetation, fungi and bacterial growth. Water
ponding on the roof can also result in the premature deterioration of the modified
asphaltic membrane and flashing assemblies. In the event that water tightness is
breached, an opening in the roof membrane can significantly worsen damage to the roof.
6.3 Insulation
The function of the insulation board is to provide insulating value and it has economic
benefits: increased comfort, smaller cooling equipment requirements and lower operating
expenses. The insulation must also provide a smooth dry, clean and firmly attached
substrate to receive the roof membrane.
6.4 Durability
A properly installed built-up roof system should normally provide at least twenty (20)
years satisfactory service. The decision to tear-off and replace (partially or totally repair)
or to prepare and then totally recover an existing roofing system is not always clear cut.
The Tear roof approach is normally influenced by:
- Structural weight conditions,

- Over 25% of the existing roof is wet,
- Need to maximize long-term performance.
The objective for any tear-off project is to provide a sound substrate for the installation of
a new roofing system and to correct existing design deficiencies. At a minimum, attention
to the following considerations is normally recommended:
- Thoroughly inspect decking and flashing substrates,

- Plan a tear –off strategy so that roof drainage patterns are never blocked and
construction traffic is directed away from new roof areas,
- Protect new roof areas adjacent to tear-off areas from dirt, debris and drainage.
-
Factors that support the recover (new membranes over old) approach include:
- Need to minimize cost,

- Preserve existing thermal roof insulation,
- Disposal restriction,
- Difficult access to roof,
A recover should be considered only if the following factors are addressed and
preparation includes:
- Establish the history of the failed existing roof system, determining and correcting
the cause of any premature failure,
- Determination that the concrete deck is structurally sound to receive a new roof
system,
- Repair any irregularities in the existing membrane and deck system,
- Provide for proper drainage of the new roof system to eliminate ponding,
- The existing membrane surface is for the most part sound, without excessive
quantities of defects such as blisters, ridges, fish-mouths or other irregularities.
- The existing roof system components are well attached to each other and their
substrate,
- Existing substrates and insulation are dry over the majority of the roof area.
- The existing structure is capable of supporting the new loads imposed by the
recover system,
- A moisture survey should be made to determine the extent of wet insulation and
moisture entrapment.
6.5 Repair
The locations impacted by water penetration are concentrated primarily within the
southern section of the roof (between the central elevator/stair core and the southern
elevation), within the reception area and within the ceiling over the conference room at
the south western corner.
A. Partial Tear Off of Roof
A partial tear-off within the areas impacted by water penetration may be the most
practical and expedient approach at repair. This work would include:
- Removal of the bituminous membranes within the most impacted areas,

- Sealing of any observed cracking within the raised mortar screed,
- Re-routing of downpipes and condensate plumbing to discharge in areas designed
to receive and dissipate same expeditiously,
- Installation of new bituminous membranes with a much improved standard of
workmanship and attention to detail especially along the parapet walls and around
the concrete plinths.
- Installation of raised metal racks to remove and support air conditioning piping
away from the roof deck.
A partial tear off would minimize the duration of repair and disruptions to work at the
fifth (5th) floor.
B. Complete Re-Build of Roof
This second option would require a complete overhaul of the existing roof system and
should include:
- Removal of the existing bituminous membranes,

- Chisel out and discard raised mortar screed,
- Chisel out render on roof slab to ensure removal of asphalt based adhesive,
- Seal roof slab by application of a 25mm (1”) thick mortar impregnated with
Nitobond PVA to seal cracks and provide a suitable substrate for new roof,
- Installation of new 150mm (6”) insulation board,
- Installation of bituminous membranes over insulation boards,
- Re-routing of downpipes and condensate plumbing to discharge in areas designed

to receive and dissipate expeditiously.
- Installation of raised metal racks to remove and support air conditioning piping
away from the roof deck.
- Installation of concrete pavers for pedestrian access
A complete re-build presents the following challenges:
1. Most expensive option,

2. Excessive and prolonged noise pollution from chisel/jack hammer works,
3. Risk of further and widespread water ingress from rainfall during implementation
of the repair works.
C. Areas Impacted by Spalling
The preferred methodology at repairing areas impacted by spalling should ensure that the
concrete is sealed against moisture penetration. Reinforcement should be cleaned of
corrosion and the impacted areas re-constructed. The following should be the approach at
repair:
- The affected concrete should be chiseled out to remove all spalled, delaminated or
cracked concrete until the reinforcement within is totally exposed.
- The corroding reinforcement should be examined to determine if it should be
replaced,
- If retained, the reinforcement should be wire brushed clean or sand blasted to
remove all traces of latent corrosion,
- The cleaning of the reinforcement should extend at least 50mm (2”) into un-
impacted concrete,
- Remove all loose concrete,
- The cleaned reinforced should be sealed with Simpson’s ETI injection epoxy
(ETI-LV) as per the manufacturer’s specification and available from Renwick &
Co. Ltd at Vide Boutielle, P.O. Box 223.
- Care should be exercised to work within the setting limits of the epoxy.
- Exposed concrete surfaces should be treated with Nitobond PVA as an adhesive
to bond the previously cured concrete to new concrete.
- Subsequently concrete of 27N/mm2 (4000psi) grade, 28 day cube minimum
compressive strength should be prepared with water impregnated with Nitobond
PVA diluted at the rate of one (1) part Nitobond PVA to ten (10) parts water to be
used to reconstruct the affected areas by pouring into forms or through trowel
application ensuring proper compaction. The Nitobond products are available
from Renwick & Co. Ltd, P.O. Box 90, Vide Boutielle, Castries.
- The repaired and cured concrete at the underside and external façade of the
suspended reinforced concrete floor should be sealed against moisture absorption
by application of a mortar slurry prepared impregnated with Nitobond PVA (one
(1) part water to five (5) parts Nitobond PVA).
- Lastly, the repaired areas should be painted
7.0 RECCOMENDATIONS
7.1 The Leaking Roof
The roof membrane shall be inspected in great detail and failed seam welds, fish-mouths,
tears/splits, blisters, failings around downspouts identified and marked for repair.
A partial tear off and repair only of the areas impacted by water penetration (at the
northern end) is recommended. The latter is the least intrusive, most expedient and cost
effective approach. The methodology of work involved is as outlined in 6.5A above.
The tear off repair will not address issues of increased heat load within the fifth (5th)
floor.
7.2 O.E.C. S. Ambassador’s Office
Window openings on the fifth (5th) floor along the masonry curtain (masonry enclosure)
walls should be inspected in greatest detail to identify areas impacted by spalling in
addition to that in the Office of the O.E.C.S. Ambassador.
Once identified, window systems within areas impacted by spalling should be

disassembled, drain holes cleaned, operating mechanisms checked, repaired where
necessary and stored.
The areas impacted by spalling shall then be repaired as described in 6.5C above.
Once the spalled areas have been repaired and the concrete cured (after approximately
fourteen (14) days), the window systems shall be re-installed as per manufacturer’s
specifications.
7.3 Roof MEP Installations
All air Conditioning, water storage tanks and other mechanical and electrical equipment
installed on the roof shall be placed on reinforced concrete plinths or affixed to metal
racking anchored into the external masonry surface of the centrally located elevator/stair
core.
Condensate, water tubing and electrical lines shall similarly be fitted onto metal trays
designed and located in an orderly pattern to prevent the existing chaotic assemblies on
the roof surface.
Concrete pavers shall also be placed to protect the bituminous membranes while
facilitating service of roof installed plant. Pedestrian traffic should be monitored and
controlled to prevent haphazard traffic on the roof.
The roof surface should be regularly cleaned of rubbish and condemned MEP equipment
disposed of to protect the soundness of the membranes and to prevent debris from
blocking the water outlets.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS.
I warrant that I have visited, examined, measured and studied as described above the
water penetration issues impacting the fifth (5th) floor of the Greaham Louisy
Administrative Building.
Implementation of the remedial measures as recommended should eliminate further water

ingress through the fifth (5th) floor roof.
I trust that the opinions articulated in this Report are of interest to you and look forward
to an opportunity to discuss and expound the particulars in greater detail.
Sincerely
Joseph Dujon
Civil Eng; Registered Professional Engineer
Photos Attached:
Fig 1.0: Part northern elevation, adjacent to the Castries Waterfront showing metal window canopies.
Fig 2.0: Western elevation with O.E.C.S Ambassador’s office at far left on Fifth (5th) floor.
Fig 3.0: View of the O.E.C.S Amb. Office. Note the cracking at the op right of window opening.
Fig 4.0: Cracking at window opening impacted by spalling.

Fig 5.0: Internal view of a window opening impacted by spalling.
Fig 6.0: Internal view of another window opening on the fifth (5th) floor impacted by spalling.
Fig 7.0: Leak stains through cracking within waffled ceiling at Reception of fifth (5 th) Floor
Fig 8.0: Leak stains through cracking within waffled ceiling at Reception of fifth (5 th) Floor.
Fig 11.0: View of roof taken facing north. Note MEP debris and undulating slopes within roof slab.
Fig 12.0: View facing south. Note assemblies of split unit A/C condensers rigged onto the roof slab.
Fig 13.0: General view of roof slab taken facing east. Note litter of debris of electrical/plumbing tubing.
Fig 14.0: General view of roof slab taken facing west. Note debris & washed granules near downspouts.
Fig 15.0: Note washed off surface granules accumulated near downspout.
Fig 16.0: Note repaired membrane patch near downspout.

Fig 17.0: Note poor quality plumbing, poor detailing resulting in poor seam weld of membranes
Fig 18.0: Poor plumbing standards, condensate discharge of membrane, garbage and vegetation growth.
Fig 19.0: A total absence of order and quality installation of MEP on the roof slab. Note raised membranes.
Fig 20.0: View of failed seam weld between plinth supporting A/C condenser and roof slab.
Fig 21.0: View of failed seam weld. Windblown rain easily penetrates to saturate the roof slab.
Fig 26.0: MEP debris (redundant wiring, tubing, ducting) impeding surface runoff and causing leaks.
Fig 27.0: Poor standard of workmanship and failed seam weld at corner of plinth
Fig 28.0: Failed seam weld (at landing to stair) despite attempt at repair. Generally poor quality work.
Fig 29.0: Failed seam weld.
Fig 30.0: Failed seam weld facilitating water ingress and penetration into the Fifth (5 th) floor.
Fig 31.0: Accumulation of washed off granules and ponding at downspout of roof.
Fig 32.0: Poor standard of workmanship at parapet. Windblown rain may likely penetrate membrane.

Nipro (GLAB) Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nipro (GLAB) Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL REPORT

GREAHAM LOUISY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING

Engineering Survey : Executed during the month of February 2018.

Confidential : This report is confidential to the Client to whom it is addressed and to

2. The Greaham Louisy Administrative Building

2.1 General Description

2.2 The Flat Concrete Roof

2.3 Earthquakes and Subsidence

3. Limitation of the Report

5. Review of Renovations to the Flat Roof System.

5.1 Repairs prior to January 2014

5.2 Repairs after January 2014

6.1 Partial Tear Off

6.2 Repair of Spalling Concrete

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION.

2.2 THE FLAT CONCRETE ROOF

2.3 SEISMIC ACTIVITY

Date Location Magnitude Depth(Km)

 Points of maximum shear of beams near supporting columns,

3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT

A. The Fifth Floor Ceiling

B. OECS Ambassador’s Office

. It was observed that:

1. Concrete pavers to protect roof membranes from damage caused by pedestrian

6. Significant amounts of reflective granules has washed off the bituminous

5.0 Review of the Renovations to the Flat Roof System

5.2 The renovations undertaken from January 2014 included:

 Removal of all the existing bituminous membranes

Additional repairs became necessary when water penetration continued to be a challenge

a. Remnants of bitumen adhesive (used to install the now discarded bituminous

b. The standard of workmanship of the installed bituminous membrane is noticeably

The above described inadequacies of the undertaken works were insufficient at

g. Greater attention to workmanship and detailing should have been exercised to

6.0 INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS OF DEFECTS

6.1 Spalling of Concrete

Spalling may be precipitated by:

1. “Honey combed” concrete or

The Tear roof approach is normally influenced by:

- Structural weight conditions,

- Thoroughly inspect decking and flashing substrates,

- Need to minimize cost,

A. Partial Tear Off of Roof

- Removal of the bituminous membranes within the most impacted areas,

B. Complete Re-Build of Roof

- Removal of the existing bituminous membranes,

- Re-routing of downpipes and condensate plumbing to discharge in areas designed

A complete re-build presents the following challenges:

1. Most expensive option,

C. Areas Impacted by Spalling

7.1 The Leaking Roof

7.2 O.E.C. S. Ambassador’s Office

Once identified, window systems within areas impacted by spalling should be

7.3 Roof MEP Installations

Implementation of the remedial measures as recommended should eliminate further water

Fig 4.0: Cracking at window opening impacted by spalling.

Fig 5.0: Internal view of a window opening impacted by spalling.

Fig 16.0: Note repaired membrane patch near downspout.

Fig 29.0: Failed seam weld.

You might also like