CPA HAUS

STRUCTURAL
INVESTIGATION
STOCKS & PARTNERS
The following contains an investigation that was carried out
on CPA Haus to assess the structural aspect of the property
in response to earth tremors due to adjacent Paga Ring
Road Project rock blasting.

Compiled: Stocks & Partners

P. O. Box 892, POM, 111
T: +675 323 7030
F: +675 323 9712
3/16/2016

Contents
BACKGROUND: .............................................................................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 3
THE BUILDING ........................................................................................................................................... 4
SITE TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 4
DESKTOP STUDY ............................................................................................................................................ 4
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION TO PNGS 1001 1982: PART 4 EARTHQUAKE LOADINGS .......................... 4
ULTIMATE LOADING OF FOUNDATIONS SUBJECT TO LATERAL LOADS .................................................... 4
CONCRETE STRUCTURES & GROUND VIBRATION..................................................................................... 5
FIELD TESTS, OBVERSATIONS & FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 5
DCP & Schmidt Hammer Tests .................................................................................................................. 5
DCP Test ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete using Schmidt Hammer Test Method ....................................... 7
Field Observations .................................................................................................................................... 8
Excavation Pits ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Structural Inspection of Building........................................................................................................... 9
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Foundations ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Schmidt Hammer Test............................................................................................................................. 10
Concrete Inspections & Excavation Pits .................................................................................................. 10
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 12
Concrete Works ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Foundation & Retention Works .............................................................................................................. 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................ 13
PHOTOS ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

BACKGROUND:
Formerly home to the United States (US) Embassy, the CPA (Certified Practising Accountants) Haus
stands on five (5) floors, inclusive of the roof level, along Armit Street on the Paga Hill of Port Moresby
(POM). At the foot of Paga Hill is the current construction of Paga Ring Road Project (PRRP), it is one of
Papua New Guineas (PNGs) largest road infrastructure, worth an estimated total value of over K500
million. The project also uses surface and underground blasting to excavate hard rock from the Paga Hill
side rock face. It involves placing explosives in drill holes and detonating them to cause explosion in
order to fracture huge rocks to sizeable end use. As implied from reports by the occupants of CPA Haus,
it is understood that the building experienced horizontal movement due to rock blasting from the PRRP.
During rock blasting, there are two primary energies released, gas energy (air displacement) and shock
energy from which ground vibrations occur and constitute predominantly the energy felt by buildings.
This report will investigate the foundation and superstructure of CPA building due to movement
experienced in the building structure seemingly from the nearby PRRP blasting activity and will further
recommend remedial works accordingly.
Key phrases with definitions:
Rocking of a building translational movement of a building as a single rigid body about its foundations
in contrast to a building under swaying action.
Swaying of a building inter-storey horizontal movement of a building during earthquakes or human
activities such as rock blasting

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

INTRODUCTION
Stocks & Partners Limited were commissioned by CPA on the 15th of February, 2016 to investigate the
cause of significant building sway and discomforting movement.
Buildings become subject to forces both inherent and external and their stability similarly is a
characteristic of their sound engineering design or a possible weakness in the founding medium or a
combination of both. The objective of this investigation is to identify which of these may be the cause or
may be a contributing factor.
Civil constructions, such as road works and in this instance the PRRP, invariably impact on the
surroundings. Among these impacts is structural damage as a result of blast induced vibrations from
blasting practices and consequent occupant discomfort.

METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of this report, in order to investigate the type of the foundation and superstructure of
CPA Haus due to the movement experienced in the building structure seemingly from the nearby PRRP
blasting activity, the following work had to be carried out:
Investigation of the existing foundations using Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing and
field observation pits;
Non-destructive testing and Investigation of the existing concrete structures using a Schmidt
Hammer;
Visual assessment of quality and condition of both structural elements and architectural
finishes;
Removal of concrete cover to ascertain reinforcement in block walls and reinforced concrete
(RC) columns.
These tests and investigations are done to determine compliance with our local building codes (PNGS
Parts 1 to 4 respectively), the respective Australian Standards, and acceptable construction practices in
Papua New Guinea.
The CPA Haus is located approximately 680m from nearest blast sites of the PRRP. It was reported by
occupants of the building that the structure had undergone noticeable horizontal movement during
blasting works on the PRRP, hence, raised concerns of the integrity and serviceability of the structure
and foundation material. This subsequently raises the need to investigate the existing foundations and
existing structure and assess the integrity of the structure as a result of the blasting work and
recommend any remedial measures required.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

THE BUILDING
The building stands approximately 11.0m from basement finish floor level to roof level on RC columns
and concrete masonry blockwalls. The structural members supporting the suspended floors consist of
RC beams and RC floor slabs. Its floor dimensions are approximately 8.0m wide x 15.0m long. CPA Haus
mainly serves as an office complex; however, it also provides room for training as required by the CPA
Board annually.

SITE TOPOGRAPHY
The building sits just below the access road and is constructed on an extremely steep slope. The site
steps down twice from the road before reaching basement level after which a retaining wall occurs
which retains the surrounding fill to achieve a relatively even lower part of the site. Interestingly this
lower part of the site, beside the building, a concrete bunker exists possibly dating back to the Second
World War and has an entrance through the retaining wall. The bunker when inspected was found to be
a separate structure to the main building.

DESKTOP STUDY
BUILDING CLASSIFICATION TO PNGS 1001 1982: PART 4 EARTHQUAKE
LOADINGS
To appreciate the lateral forces induced by ground vibrations, in accordance with the PNGS loading code
as stipulated in the heading above, CPA Haus shall be classified as:
In Seismic Zone No. 4 for Building Construction in PNG in accordance with Fig. 3.2;
Buildings accommodating more than 1000 people for a period of more than 8 hours per day on
average in accordance with Clause 3.4.3 (c);
Having a combination of ductile moment-resisting frames complying with Clause 3.4.4.1 in the RC
columns/ beams/ slabs and cantilever shear walls of limited ductility complying with Clause 3.4.4.4
in the reinforced masonry walls as the horizontal load-resisting systems respectively;
Founded on material that is described as firm in accordance to Clause 3.4.2 determined from the
DCP Test and visual inspection of excavated pits.

ULTIMATE LOADING OF FOUNDATIONS SUBJECT TO LATERAL LOADS

Ground vibrations primarily induce horizontal loads which are a consequence of inertia forces from the
mass of the building generated by the horizontal ground acceleration. If a horizontal load, as in those
due to ground vibrations, is acting on a foundation, then the soil has to resist a combined action of the
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

5
vertical and horizontal loads; the resultant loading is taken as inclined at an angle to the vertical. In such
cases the displacement of the soil from underneath the foundation is only counteracted by the passive
resistance of the soil medium on the opposite face of the foundation. If horizontal loads become severe
which result in movement of structures, then the stability of the foundation against sliding and
overturning must be checked, i.e. presence of engineered backfill and proper construction practice is
questionable on the foundation to provide the needed passive resistance. It is commonly stated in
foundation engineering textbooks that soil bearing capacities reduce after an earthquake/ lateral load is
encountered, i.e. soils become displaced and are loosely compacted.
PNGS 1001, Part 4, Clause 16.14 refers to footings that need to be checked and designed for tension
(uplift) which if founded partially on sound rock and partially on fill in a set of circumstances that may
present us with a scenario in which the building may potentially be rocking on its foundation.
Referring to photo 1, the possibility exists for the building to be partially founded on sound rock and
partially founded on weaker weathered rock and backfill towards its extremities. This scenario as
discussed above presents the circumstances for potentially a rocking foundation to the CPA building.
This lateral movement felt from a shock wave from blasting work, the lack of diagonal cracking in a
blockwall, the findings of the inspection pits at the extremities, confirming backfill to footings would
point to verification of our assertions of that the building may be rocking on is foundations.

CONCRETE STRUCTURES & GROUND VIBRATION

It should be understood that the levels of allowable vibrations in concrete structures can exceed the
criteria level for human comfort. The CPA Haus is composed of rigid RC frames with concrete masonry
walls providing lateral load resistance to this building. In the event of severe ground vibrations, lateral
loads are experienced by the building. This loads may cause a tall structure to sway with its base firmly
fixed or it may create rocking of the structure due to it (the tall structure) being partially founded on
both rock and on very loose foundations in the underlying materials. Indications of sway due to lateral
loads on such a structure will result in hairline cracks on the RC structure and cracks on the masonry wall
mortar infill as an indication of high amplitude building vibrations/ shaking.

FIELD TESTS, OBVERSATIONS & FINDINGS

DCP & Schmidt Hammer Tests
Two (2) tests were conducted on site in the form of the DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetrometer) Test and the
SCHMIDT Hammer Test.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

6
DCP Test
All aspects of the Investigations were carried out in accordance with AS1289 F3.2-1984 with on-site
works comprising of four (4) DCP Tests of which only three (3) tests had their data recorded and
analyzed. Test 1 encountered refusal before a depth of 100mm. Test points 2 & 3 were carried out at
the northern boundary flowerbeds of the property, adjacent to the residential property across and test
4 was carried out on foundation level of footings by means of an excavation of the southeastern
founding material. Results are tabulated below:
Table 1: DCP Test Results for Test Point 2
Depth(m)

ABC (KPa)

CBR (%)

Remarks

0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
1.200
1.300
1.400

41
41
41
68
68
399
399
372
255
207
172
301
412
358

1
1
1
3
3
96
96
84
40
27
18
55
103
78

Possible peat layer

Possible peat layer
Possible peat layer
Peat layer stops

Skew observed on probe

Probe extended
Test continued with skewing probe
Minimum founding depth
Probe terminated

Table 2: DCP Test Results for Test Point 3

Depth(m)

ABC (KPa)

CBR (%)

Remarks

0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
1.200
1.300
1.400
1.500
1.600
1.700
1.800
1.900
2.000
2.100
2.200
2.300

41
41
41
41
114
41
41
41
134
172
92
190
240
255
223
271
207
190
172
271
240
271
464

1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
11
18
5
22
35
40
31
45
27
22
18
45
35
45
129

Possible peat layer

Possible peat layer
Possible peat layer
Possible peat layer
Peat layer stops
Possible peat layer
Possible peat layer
Possible peat layer
Peat layer stops , probe extended

Minimum founding depth

Probe terminated

Table 3: DCP Test Results for Test Point 4

Depth(m)

ABC (KPa)

CBR (%)

Remarks

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

7
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700

41
92
172
114
190
172
301

1
5
18
8
22
18
55

Diorite

Probe rebounded

In test points 2 and 3, located on Northern flowerbeds on which tests were carried out commencing
from natural surface, it appears that within the initial 500mm depth the soil profile is soft and becomes
firm as the depth increases into the soil.
In test point 4, which was carried out 2600mm below natural surface, i.e. at founding level of footings, it
was noted that the probe started giving firm readings at the 300mm depth mark. At a depth of 700mm,
refusal of the rod was encountered, which indicated the presence of bed rock (a hard foundation) being
found at this depth.

Non-Destructive Testing of Concrete using Schmidt Hammer Test Method

SCHMIDT Hammer Test was used to obtain the compressive strength of reinforced concrete and
masonry structures respectively. These values would then be compared with standard design
compression values adopted in current engineering practise for compliance with structural engineering
design codes such as the AS 3600 Australian Standards, Concrete Structures, PNGS 1002 Papua New
Guinea Standards, Reinforced Concrete Structures and the PNGS 1004 Papua New Guinea Standards,
Reinforced Masonry Structures.
The SCHMIDT Hammer tests were carried out on exposed concrete surfaces of columns, stairs and slabs.
Refer SK-01 & SK-02 attached for test locations. For each test, there were a total of six (6) trial readings
obtained, among the trial readings three readings were nominated as scores by means of the highest
frequency and the nearest readings to the highly frequent reading.
All tests were carried out in accordance with Clause 4.10.3: Non-destructive Tests of the PNGS 1002 1982, Reinforced Concrete Structures. The table below shows test results (all units in MPa) and
recommendations. The characteristic design compression values commonly adopted in construction
practice (in accordance to AS 3600 & PNGS 1004) from which results will be compared to are as follows:
25 MPa for all RC slabs & RC stairs (except RC transfer slabs);
32 MPa for RC columns;
11 MPa for solid block walls (Clause 4.5.3 of PNGS 1004 - 1982)
Table 4: Schmidt Hammer Test Results vs. AS 3600 2001 & PNGS 1004 - 1982
Mark
1-BFL
2-BFL
3-BFL
4-BFL
5-GFL

Element
Solid block wall
RC Column
RC Column
Solid block wall
Solid block wall

Trial 1
23
27
23
25
23

Trial 2
22
27
25
25
23

Trial 3
20
26
25.5
25
23

Mean
21.7
26.7
24.5
25
23

Final MPa
27.80
33.05
30.73
31.25
29.15

Deviation MPa
+6.1
+6.35
+6.23
+6.25
+6.15

Remarks
Higher
Higher
Lower
Higher
Higher

Code Design Strength, MPa

11
32
32
11
11

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

8
6-GFL
7-GFL
8-GFL
9-GFL
10-BFL
11-BFL
12-BFL
13-GFL
14-GFL

RC stair side
RC stair top
RC stair side
RC stair side
RC Column
RC Column
RC Column
RC Column
RC Column

22
35
20
22
23
24
22.5
22
22.5

22.5
34
20
22
23
24
22.5
22.5
21

23
34
20
22
22
24
22.5
23
22.5

22.5
34.33
20
22
22.67
24
22.5
22.5
22

28.63
41.00
26
28.1
28.77
30.2
28.63
28.63
28.1

+6.13
+6.67
+6.0
+6.1
+6.1
+6.2
+6.13
+6.13
+6.1

Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower

25
25
25
25
32
32
32
32
32

Although these test results indicate that in some instances the concrete strength are lower than
expected, the majority of RC column strengths are below the code required mark to current design
standards in terms of the buildings serviceability (i.e. deflection limits, vibration limits and corrosion
protection requirements respectively) and stability criteria (i.e. overturning limit and sliding limit
requirements respectively) if the building is to be occupied without remedies to its current status of the
RC columns.
During the tests and random inspections, it appeared that honeycomb were predominant on all eleven
(11) inspection/ test spots of the RC elements. There were also courses of the solid blockwall that
turned out to be inadequately core filled after being cut into and inspected. These are clear indications
of poor workmanship and improper construction management at the time the then American Embassy
was constructed.

Field Observations
Excavation Pits
A total of three (3) observation pits were manually excavated by Maxscope Construction for inspection
of the founding material and footings (substructure). Two (2) of the pits had excavations terminated at
depths of 1500mm and 2000mm respectively due to the presence of large rocks (varying diameters of
600 to 1000mm) which prevented manual excavation. Only one (1) pit was excavated down to footing
level, however, rocks/ boulders were observed & encountered throughout the depth.
Excavations of the inspection holes were carried out at the exterior of the basement level (eastern side),
the excavation at the corners of blockwalls and in front of a column revealed that the underlying
substructure material is predominantly composed of backfilled diorite and boulders respectively. To
foundation depth, in all three excavations, voids (failure planes) were repeatedly encountered
throughout each excavation depth in between backfill materials. It was also noted that the backfill
material appeared not to be properly graded, i.e. the fill material had an uneven distribution of varying
particle sizes of the material will not allow natural cohesion of the soils.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

9
Structural Inspection of Building
The street side of the basement level as shown in SK-03, Building Section A, has been constructed
against ground, hence, the blockwalls and columns form a retaining wall structure along the roadside of
the building whereas the Eastern face is above ground and has a door for entrance. This eastern side
structure is retained by a 4.0m high stone pitched retaining wall which did not indicate any form of
distress which would be indicated by cracking as a means of stress relief.
The superstructure RC columns and block walls were also inspected from outside for possible signs of
distress and misalignments in building height. Concrete cover to existing RC columns and blockwalls
were removed to inspect the size, spacing and type of reinforcing bars in the structural elements whilst
gathering other important information. From the observations, it was apparent that:
o
o
o
o
o

o
o

There were no course cracks (i.e. stepped cracks on mortar infill between unit
blocks) throughout the masonry block walls both inside and outside;
Masonry wall structures have adequate cover to steel (i.e. protection of steel from
atmospheric corrosion);
The masonry walls are reinforced with bar spacing of vertical bars were greater than
600mm;
Masonry walls in some instances have unfilled cores which is an indication of
inadequate vibration and compaction of fresh concrete during construction;
RC columns are 320mm by 320mm in cross section, have adequate cover to steel
and are adequately reinforced for bending with 8Y20 vertical reinforcing bars,
however, it is just under-reinforced for shear with R10 ties at 200mm center spaces
(minimum shear reinforcement should be spaced at half the depth of the RC
column). However, It is still able to withstand stresses from the normal service
loads;
Honeycombs were noted at all Schmidt Hammer testing points on RC columns as
indicated in clause 3.1.2;
During removal of the external paint render for Schmidt hammer testing on RC
columns, it was noted that the paint on the external concrete face could be scraped
off with lessor effort than the internal surfaces this can possibly be attributed to
weather over time.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

10

CONCLUSIONS
Foundations
It can firstly be concluded as indicated from the DCP test results that the underlying subsoil from a
depth of 1000mm below natural surface, is firm for building construction, however, building sliding and
overturning (consequently rocking of foundation) may raise issues of stability of any construction
founded at such depths.
Secondly, it can be concluded that all footings located at the Eastern side of the building footprint are
founded on a layer of fill material incorporating rock/ boulders as revealed during the excavation of
foundations. In contrast, footings on the car park side are expected to be keyed into the Paga rock bed.
Furthermore, it has been estimated that the natural rock profile of the portion of Paga Hill where CPA is
located is about 3500mm below basement level and closer to the roadside of the building. However, this
is only taken as a basis of understanding the rock profile of the Paga hill in that portion as it is still
unclear where it is exactly located in relation to current exiting surfaces.

Schmidt Hammer Test

Firstly, from the above Schmidt hammer test results when compared with PNGS 1004 Reinforced
Masonry Structures Code, all solid block wall elements tested exhibited compressive strengths higher
than the code stipulated strengths and so meet compressive strength requirements set by the code,
thus, it can be concluded that the reinforced masonry block walls have adequate compressive strength.
Secondly, all RC columns contrary to the masonry walls have concrete strengths less than the concrete
strength for code stipulated exposure classification of the building. The stated compression value as
required by AS 3600 for RC elements therefore have a high risk of corrosion exposure of its reinforcing
steel and in withstanding code stipulated vibrations. However, although the concrete strength is less
than normally required for the environmental exposure, columns possessing such strengths are capable
of supporting service loads within an appropriate safety margin.

Concrete Inspections & Excavation Pits

Firstly, it is an opinion that the sway and/ or vibrations as described by occupants of CPA Haus are well
within the allowable limit of the structure itself, but it appears to have exceeded the criteria for human
comfort. This is however subject to comments hereunder.
Secondly, from the excavation pits, there were vivid signs of concerns in the soil matrix/ backfill
foundation with the presence of cavities of varying sizes (refer photo 2) throughout the depth of the
excavation profile. Therefore, it appears that (whilst bearing in mind the conclusions from the DCP tests)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

11
the blast energy, suspected to be at the top of the Paga Hill, transferred through the rock medium of the
hill is suspected as the likely cause for the building together with its footings to have rocked on its
foundations. This is in contrast to swaying which is the usual or expected displacement behavior of a
building founded such that the effects of sway are evident. And therefore, the absence of diagonal
cracks in the concrete masonry walls and prevalent hairline cracks in the RC columns respectively lead to
the likely conclusion that rocking rather than sway had occurred.
Thirdly, the block wall strip footings were also discovered after full excavation to footing level, of having
inadequate rectangular cross-section construction, a profile expected and designed to provide an
adequate bearing area and even stress distribution at its base. Refer SK-03 for illustration.
It appears that the backfill material was inadequately compacted and does not compose of the proper
engineered backfill material so as to give the needed passive earth pressure during lateral loading of
foundations as intended. This is due to the fact that no subsequent signs of vertical cracks on the stone
pitch retaining wall (which they are highly vulnerable to in lateral loading) were observed. Where
designed for such these offer a form of load pick up mechanism and provide resistance to the backfill
and continuous hydrostatic pressure.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

12

RECOMMENDATIONS
As per conclusions and discussions above, Stocks & Partners would like to recommend the following
remedial works to be carried out accordingly by a nominated contractor in stages as presented below:

Concrete Works
To counteract the high likelihood of corrosion of steel, all RC columns shall be coated with an
additional protective layer of 50mm of grout constituting of high strength non-shrinkage grout
or similar approved product procured accordingly by contractor and installed in accordance to
the manufacturers specification. This shall be applied to the RC column reinforcement cover
over its full height (i.e. from foundation level to column top at roof).

Foundation & Retention Works

1. Investigation of underpinning of the existing footing structure extremities shall be carried out.
The areas in which loosely compacted backfill and weathered rock exist shall be corrected by
adopting recommendations in items 2 and 3 below. All of this shall be carried out to a suitable
design to be produced as part of this investigation which shall be a design which encompasses
the underpinning of the existing footing structure and corrective measures to backfill areas
surrounding the building foundation.
2. To cater for the improved stability of the overall structure and foundation, material that has
been used as backfill on the Eastern side stone pitch retaining wall should be removed to the full
wall height in portions of no more than three (3) meter lengths and be replaced with compacted
hardfill material compacted at no more than 200mm layers up to finish level. This should be
carried out in stages by alternating portions of excavation and backfilling so as to not undermine
the buildings stability during correction of the backfill material.
3. Further to the above recommendation, to increase passive earth pressure in the soil matrix, an
additional stone pitch retaining wall shall be built on the Eastern face of the building such that
the distance between the basement external wall face and the retaining wall is increased to
provide greater mass of soil for greater passive resistance against building lateral movement.
Backfilling and compaction should follow as recommended above. Refer SK-04 for wall details.

END OF REPORT

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

13

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faulkes, K. A, Hall, A. S, Rangan, B. V & Warner, R. F (1998). Concrete Structures. South Melbourne,
Australia: Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty. Limited.
Starzewski, K & Wilun, Z. (1975). Soil Mechanics in Foundations Engineering, 2nd Edition, Volume 2
-Theory& Practice. 450 Edgware Road, London: Surrey University Press.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

14

PHOTOS

Photo 1: DCP Test Point 4 carried out at excavated depth of over 2600mm in which hard rock was encountered at a depth of
650mm - 700mm. Bulging outline of rocks & boulders visible at bottom center portion of photo.

Photo 2: Air pockets observed throughout excavation depths of all inspection pits
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg

15

Photo 3: Similar honeycombs observed on all Schmidt Hammer Test points

Photo 4: Absence of cracks on masonry blockwall clearly indicates no sign of swaying of building.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Registered Office:
Section 59 Lot 20, Corner Koani & Gabaka Street, Gordons
P. O. Box 892, Port Moresby, NCD, Papua New Guinea |
P (675) 323 7030 | F (675) 323 9712 | M (675) 7686 3354
Email :ljstocks@stockspartners.com.pg