Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
Time of Constructions
Original Building was completed in 1939
Several Addition & Alteration Works carried out throughout its
operation life
- 1950s
- 1970s
- 1990s
4
Framing Plans
Framing Plans of the existing building
(The building is approximately 40m wide X 100m long X 20m tall)
N
Ground Floor First Floor
5
Blow Up of Part Plan
K J I H G F E
4640
2
5880
3
4230
4
6
View of the 1st Floor Central Corridor
7
Structural Features of Central Market
Haunch Beam
8
Structural Features of Central Market
Column Head
9
Structural Form & Loads Path of Central Market
Portal Frame system resist Lateral Wind Load
Slab, Beam, Column system resist Gravity Load
All loading will transfer to Foundation
10
Back Analysis
Design Live Load
Retail/Market (30s) 5.4 kPa M & E (90s) 7.5 kPa Inaccessible Roof (90s) 2 kPa
Stair/Landing (30s) 5.7 kPa Domestic (30s) 3.3 kPa Staircase (90s) 3.5 kPa
11
Back Analysis
12
Reinforcement Deduced from Open-up
Inspection and Back Calculation
(Exposed during
open-up
(Exposed during
inspection)
open-up inspection)
(Exposed during
open-up inspection)
(Exposed during
open-up inspection)
13
Foundation
Lack of information on
existing foundation
Approximate dimension
of pilecaps is retrieved
from Site Investigation
An article extracted from
The Hong Kong
Builders has reported
Cast in-situ Vibro Piles
foundation system is used
14
Foundation Vibro Pile
15
Non-Compliance with Current Codes and
Standards
Fire Resistant Period of Structural Elements (CoP of FRC 1996)
- 2 Hours of FRP for every elements is required for Place of Assembly
which exceeding 7000m3 but not exceeding 28000m3
Wind Load (CoP on Wind Effects 2004)
2.23 kPa
0.98 kPa
2.01 kPa
1.82 kPa
16
Significance of Central Market
17
Famous Historic Concrete Buildings
18
Wing Lee Street in Hong Kong 1960s Lui Seng Chun1931
19
Central Market 1930s
20
Significance of Central Market
Concrete Materials
1. Monolithic Flexible
2. Truly Composite
3. In-Situ
21
Concerns on Historical Concrete Buildings
22
Causes of Concrete Deterioration
23
Visual Survey - Extent of Defects
Ground Floor
First Floor
24
Examples of Materials Testing Assessment
Test Plan Test Location at First Floor
12
11 4
25
Examples of Test Locations
Detailed Random
Sampling Sampling
Area Area
26
Material Testing Chemical
Depth of Carbonation
27
Material Testing Physical
28
Material Test Results 1
Strength Assessment
Material Strength Average Tested Design Strength based
Strength of Material on LCC By-laws 1915
Concrete Strength 17.8 MPa 15.5 MPa
Reinforcement Strength 139.7 N/mm2 110 N/mm2
29
Material Test Results 2
Durability Assessment
Test Carried Out Average Test Result
Beam Slab Column
Concrete Cover Meter 23 mm 20 mm 22 mm
Depth of Carbonation 43 mm 37 mm 14 mm
30
Material Test Results 3
Predication of Life Cycle of Concrete based on Carbonation Depth
31
Material Test Results 4
Durability Assessment
Chloride Content
- 11 out of 80 tested samples were found high level of chloride
content
- High level of chloride content samples are taken from defective
areas
Interpretation of
Chloride Profile in respect to Concrete Depth (Example)
0.5 Chloride Conc. Profile
Average Chloride Conc. in this depths
Chloride Conc. (% of concrete wt.)
Post-Tensioned
0.4
Rebar 3 Duct
Rebar 1 Rebar 2
0.3
0.2
0.12
0.1
Corrosion Threshold Concentration
for Corrosion (0.03%)
No Corrosion
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Concrete Depth (mm)
Rebar 1: Chloride concentration: 0.12% (Corroding) at average rebar depth of 40 mm.
Rebar 2: Chloride concentration: 0.03% (Threshold: Start Corrosion) at average rebar depth of 62 mm.
Rebar 3: Chloride concentration: 0.001% (No Corrosion) at the average depth of 80 mm.
PostTensioned Duct: Chloride concentration is negligble at the average depth of 95 mm.
: Fisrt sandard diviation of rebar depth
32
Material Test Results 5
Durability Assessment
Concrete Open Up Inspection
- Exposed reinforcement bars are of mild corrosion status
- The cause of corrosion is possibly due to lost of protection
from carbonated concrete
33
Repair Method
Possible Repair Approach
All proposed approach is based on assumption the building will
have regular maintenance in the future operation.
Applicable for
Elements Possible Repair Approach Nominal Cover for Carbonation
cover FRP / Chloride
Patch Repair * N/A N/A Temp
Beam/Slab Partial Re-casting / Re-
construction
Re-alkalization N/A N/A
34
Repair Method 1
Conventional Patch Repair
35
Repair Method 2
Partial Recasting with New Concrete
Example from Mei Ho House
The contaminated part of the concrete will be removed
Replace or recondition any corroded reinforcement
Recast it with the same or even better grade concrete to
restore its structural strength
Also improve any FRP performance as required
36 Recasting
Repair Method - 3
Concrete Re-alkalization
Basic Theory
Electrochemical re-alkalization is non-destructive to halt and Anode Assembly
prevent corrosion in carbonated concrete. The process raises
the pH of the carbonated concrete through electro-osmosis.
When an electric field is applied, alkali (hydroxyl) ions
migrate from the electrolyte into the concrete, raising its pH
to the original levels. The passivating layer of the rebars is
High pH Polymer Paste
thus re-established to protect them from corrosion.
Wood Frame
3m
Pentration Hole
(15 mm Dia.) 0.05 m
1.6 m
Plywood
1.5 m
3.2 m
37
Summary
38 Summary
THANK YOU