equivalent initial structural safetysfi.fairfactories.org/sfi_dev_files/1/audit_files/well fashion...

EQUIVALENT INITIAL STRUCTURAL SAFETYASSESSMENT

Factory Name: Well Fashion Ltd (Unit-2)

Address: A-6(Part), 7-8(Part), BSCIC, Industrial Estate,Kalurghat, Chittagong. Chittagong ChittagongBangladesh

Assessor: Bureau Veritas

Date: 16 Jun 2014

Created with EO.Pdf for .NET trial version. http://www.essentialobjects.com.

The Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety /15

Introduction to the Report

The following report contains a site profile and summary of non-conformities identified during an onsite assessment commissioned by theAlliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety (Alliance) and conducted by a third-party Qualified Assessment Firm (QAF). The assessment wasconducted against the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety Assessment Protocols (APs) and Fire Safety and Structural Integrity Standard,which is harmonized with the factory assessment guidelines developed by Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) forthe Bangladesh National Tripartite Plan of Action (NTPA). The goal of the Alliance process is to provide clear and practical technicalrequirements by which Bangladeshi Ready Made Garment (RMG) Factories producing for Alliance members may be consistently and fairlyevaluated for fire, structural, and electrical safety in a non-duplicative manner. Each assessment will prompt action plans that will be used byRMG factories to systematically and sustainably improve safety conditions for garment workers. Beyond tracking and reporting on actionsteps taken in a transparent manner, the Alliance organization and its members will seek to further support factory improvements throughtechnical assistance, training, implementation support for functional Worker Committees, and in some cases financial assistance and wagesupport for workers if factories are closed for remediation.

The contents of the report do not constitute a guarantee of compliance with the applicable laws, the Alliance Standard or the absolute orcontinued safety against fire, electrical and/or structural integrity issues that may lead to injury or loss of life. The report is designed to providea non-exhaustive summary of risk issues, based on a limited sampling and duration of time onsite by the named QAF. Neither the QAF northe Alliance can certify or guarantee the quality, outcome, or effectiveness of actions taken in response to the report.

For more information and report feedback please go to: www.bangladeshworkersafety.org.

FactoryName:

Well Fashion Ltd (Unit-2)

Address: A-6(Part), 7-8(Part), BSCIC, Industrial Estate, Kalurghat, Chittagong.Chittagong Chittagong Bangladesh


Date: 16 Jun 2014



GENERAL INFORMATION

General Information

Factory Name: Well Fashion Ltd (Unit-2)

Address: A-6(Part), 7-8(Part), BSCIC, Industrial Estate, Kalurghat, Chittagong. Chittagong Chittagong Bangladesh

Country: Bangladesh

Province: Chittagong

City: Chittagong

Zip Code: 4212

Audit Duration:

Re-Audit: Re-Audit After 0 Months

Draft Report Date : 06-28-2014

Final Report Date : 06-30-2014

Are all Action ItemsFrom PreviousAssessmentCompleted?:

N/A

Buildings in Complex : 3 Main Buildings 1 Ancillary Building

Number of BuildingLevels (Stories) :

1) Six Story RCC main production building-1: 6 (Grade + 5) 2) Ten Story RCC main production building: 10(Grade + 9) 3) Six Story RCC main production building-2: 6 (Grade + 5 + Occupied Roof)

Approximate BuildingArea (SF) :

477919.00 sf

Date of BuildingConstruction :

1) Six Story RCC main production building-1: Finished in 2004, 2) Six Story RCC main production building-2:Finished in 2005, 3) Ten Story RCC main production building: Finished in 2006, 4) Single story prefab ETPshed: Finished in 2005.

Date of Last BuildingRenovation/Addition :

1) Six story RCC main production building-1: Renovation ongoing

Is the Building mixeduse?:

No

Ancillary Structures inComplex :

1) Single story prefab ETP shed.

Number of AncillaryLevels (Stories) :

1 (Grade)

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



Approximate AncillaryStructures Area (SF) :

7360 sf

Number of Occupants : 2353

Exterior FacadeDescription :

Six & Ten Story RCC main production building-A,B,C&D: The buildings are RCC framed structures with infilledmasonry walls. The main door of the building is a glass door and the windows are of sliding glass type.

Structural SystemDescription :

Building is a Moment Resisting Frame with monolithic beam slab. Foundation is combined footing withwooden pile foundation and pile Foundation.

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

Structural System Design

Question: Are the available FoS for the columns adequate based on Preliminarycalculation?

Priority Level: High

Non-Compliance Level: 3

Description: Building A: Considering minimum concrete compressive strength: 2045 psi;Live Load: 42 psf; FoS of the columns are inadequate based on preliminarycalculations: Central Column: 1.65, Corner Column: 1.55, Edge Column: 1.40Building B: Considering minimum concrete compressive strength: 2045 psi;Live Load: 42 psf; FoS of of the Central and Edge columns are inadequatebased on preliminary calculations: Central Column: 1.36; Corner Column:1.97; Edge Column: 1.75, Building C: Considering minimum concretecompressive strength: 2370 psi; Live Load: 42 psf; FoS of the Corner andEdge columns are inadequate based on preliminary calculations: CentralColumn: 1.86; Corner Column: 1.41; Edge Column: 1.55, Building D:Considering minimum concrete compressive strength: 2045 psi; Live Load: 42psf; FoS of the columns are inadequate based on preliminary calculations:Central Column: 1.68; Corner Column: 1.27; Edge Column: 1.26,

Source of Findings: Uploaded Document: Uploaded Document

Suggested Plan ofAction:

Engage a qualified structural engineer to perform a detailed assessment within6 weeks. The assessment should include core testing to assess concretestrength.

Suggested DeadlineDate:

30 Jul 2014

Standard: Provide results of preliminary calculations in space provided. a) columncapacity; FoS > 1.86 - Safe b) column capacity; FoS 1.5 -1.86 - NeedsEvaluation c) Column capacity; FoS 1.25-1.5 - Needs Evaluation d) Columncapacity; FoS <1.25 - Unsafe In case of a critically low FoS (<1.25), considerImmediate Escalation Protocol

Question: Can documentation be provided that the building is compliant with therequirements for wind loading and storm surge loadings as detailed in BNBCPart 6 Section 1.5.3?

Priority Level: Medium


Description: Building A, B, C, D: There is no clear information available in the designdocuments to understand the consideration of storm surge and wind loading.

Source of Findings: Document Review: Document Review shows that there is no clear informationavailable in the design documents to understand the consideration of stormsurge and wind loading.

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014




Engage a qualified structural engineer to confirm satisfactory structuralperformance of the buildings under wind loading and storm surge.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: 2006 BNBC Part 6 Section 1.5. Compliance may be waived if the FactoryOwner provides satisfactory evidence of a cyclone operations plan thatincludes full evacuation of the factory in advance of any approaching cyclone"

Question: Have provisions been made in floors or decks for a concentrated load (such asheavy equipment, water tanks, stored materials, etc) applied at a locationwherever this load acting upon an otherwise unloaded floor would producestresses greater than those caused by a uniform load?



Description: 1) Six Story RCC main production building A: There are 2 water tanks, eachhaving a capacity of 2 tons of water storage. There is no analytical informationon the provision of these tanks in the design. 2) Six Story RCC mainproduction building B: There are 3 water tanks, each having a capacity of 1.5tons of water storage. There is no analytical information on the provision ofthese tanks in the design. 3) Ten Story RCC main production building C: Thereis 1 water tank, having a capacity of 2 tons of water storage. There is noanalytical information on the provision of this tank in the design. 4) Six StoryRCC main production building D: There is 1 water tank, having a capacity of 3tons of water storage. There is no analytical information on the provision of thistank in the design.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visual Assessment show that, 1) Six Story RCC mainproduction building A


Engage a qualified structural engineer to confirm and document that provisionshave been made to accommodate these water tanks. If provisions have notbeen made, have a qualified structural engineer develop a remediation plan.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.13 and 8.14

Question: Are credible structural design documents available for review and kept on site?



Description: Building A, B, C, D: A set of as-built structural design documents & soil testreports are available for review but do not match measurements taken onsite.The design report is also not available, and is required as per BNBC 2006clause 1.9.1.1.

Source of Findings: Document Review: Document Review of all of the buildings reveals that a setof as-built structural design documents & soil test reports are available for

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



review but do not match measurements taken onsite. The design report is alsonot available, and is re


Have a qualified structural engineer prepare credible as-built documentsbased on the requirements of Part 8 Section 8.19 of the Alliance Standard.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.19 Required Structural Documentation forNew and Existing Factories

Question: Can credible structural documentation indicating general conformance with2006 BNBC or other comparable applicable international model building codebe produced?



Description: All of the buildings were designed and constructed before 2006. Nodocumentation indicating general conformance with an applicable code wasfound.

Source of Findings: Document Review: Document review shows that all of the buildings weredesigned and constructed before 2006, however documentation does notindicate general conformance with any applicable code.


Engage a qualified structural engineer to develop the required documents toconfirm the structural integrity of the buildings. Documents must comply withAlliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.19 and 8.20.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Reference Alliance Standards Part 8 Section 8.2 Structural Integrity of ExistingFactory Buildings

Question: If the structure has been previously expanded, was the structural impact onthe entire structure analytically evaluated and confirmed by a qualifiedstructural engineer.



Description: 1) Six Story RCC main production building A: There is no evidence of previousexpansion of the structure. 2) Six Story RCC main production building B:There has been horizontal & vertical expansion where 1 floor is added and atnorth side & east side, the building was horizontally expanded. No informationon the impact of this load on the previous structure is available. 3) Ten StoryRCC main production building C: There is no evidence of previous expansionof the structure. 4) Six Story RCC main production building D: There has beena vertical expansion of this building, where 1 steel shed has been added at theroof. No information on the impact of this load on the previous structure isavailable.

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



Source of Findings: Document Review: Document Review supported by visual inspection revealsthat there is no information on the structural impact of the new construction onthe existing structures., Visual Assessment, Document Review: DocumentReview supported by visual inspection reveals that there is no information onthe structural impact of the new construction on the existing structures., VisualAssessment


Have a qualified structural engineer complete an analytical evaluation of thestructural impact of the addition.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Reference Alliance Standards Part 8 Section 8.1 Applicability of BuildingCode.

Question: Where density of operations, storage of materials, or equipment weightsrequire live load capacity in excess of 2.0 kN/m2 (42 psf), do the designdocuments confirm that the required load capacity exists? Or has the loadcapacity been analytically confirmed and certified by an Alliance-qualifiedstructural engineer?



Description: 1) Six Story RCC main production building A: The density of operation at the4th floor exceeds 42 psf. The estimated live load of that floor is about 60 psf,but there is no analytical confirmation of strength that can support this load. 2)The density of operation does not exceed 42 psf for all other buildings.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visual Assessment show that


Have a qualified structural engineer confirm that capacity to support the load isavailable. Load Plans complying with Alliance Standard Part 8 Section8.20.4.3 should also be developed


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standards Part 8 Section 8.15 Minimum Floor Design Loads

Question: Are Certificates of Occupancy available for review?

Priority Level: Low


Description: The factory has not obtained the Certificate of Occupancy from the authority.

Source of Findings: Document Review: Document review shows that the factory has not obtainedthe Certificate of Occupancy from the authority.


Apply for issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and pursue the matter to obtainthe same.

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014




16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.3 Preliminary Structural Assessment

Structural System Construction

Question: Are the performance of key structural elements such as columns, slendercolumns, flat plates and transfer structures satisfactory?

Priority Level: High

Non-Compliance Level:

Description: Some hair line cracks have been found on beam surface at 8th and 9th floor ofbuilding-C.

Source of Findings:



Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.3.3

Question: If yes, have the structural members constructed with MCAC been investigatedby an appropriate program of in-situ testing and representative destructivetesting or core samples?



Description: The structural members constructed with MCAC have not been investigated byan appropriate program of in-situ testing and representative destructive testingor core samples. The column stress calculated taking into account the strengthof concrete shows overstress for all building at 2045 psi.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Fos Calculation shows that the column constructed ofMCAC is overstressed. The FoS is under the acceptable limit (1.86).


Conduct destructive testing or core samples under the guidance of qualifiedengineer.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Reference Alliance Standards Part 7 Building Materials Section 7.2 Masonry-chip aggregate concrete (MCAC)

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



Question: Are any structural elements constructed with MCAC exposed to rainfall orother sources of water sealed with a protective coating to prevent waterintrusion?



Description: 1) Six Story RCC main production building-A, B & D: The roof of the building isof MCAC aggregate but no protective sealing is provided. 2) Ten Story RCCmain production building-C: There is no exposed MCAC in the building.Exposed portion is made of stone chips.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: A visual inspection showa that


Provide a protective coating at the structural elements constructed with MCACexposed to rainfall or other sources of water. Have protective coatingapproved by the Alliance or a qualified structural engineer. Alternatively,provide a 2% slope on the expo


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standards Part 7 Building Materials Section 7.2 Masonry-chipaggregate concrete (MCAC).

Question: Are structural steel members free of corrosion, physical damage or other typesof deterioration?



Description: There are structural steel members in all buildings. Corrosion has been foundin these steel members.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: A visual assessment shows that there are structural steelmembers in all buildings. Corrosion has been found in these steel members.


Complete further testing on areas of deterioration in order to understand thelevel of corrosion and weakening of the member and have a qualifiedstructural engineer develop a remediation plan.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.26

Question: Have all areas of needed maintenance, including areas with efflorescence,dampness, standing water on rooftops, and corrosion been addressed.



FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



Description: Building A: Standing water on roof and dampness at fifth floor were observed.Building B: Standing water on roof and dampness at second floor wereobserved. Also, dampness at expansion joint was observed at fourth floor.Building C: Standing water on roof and corrosion in steel rebars of OWHTwere observed. Building D: Dampness at dining shed on roof was observed.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visually confirmed.


Under guidance from a qualified structural engineer, address all areas ofneeded maintenance by correcting the identified issues.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.26 Durability and Maintenance

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



Question: Are all non-structural elements suspended from, attached to, or resting atopthe structure adequately anchored and braced to resist earthquake forces?



Description: All of the buildings have some racks which are not braced or anchoredproperly to resist earthquake forces. Also there are plastic water tanks on theroof of all of the buildings which are not braced for earthquake forces.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visual inspection shows that all of the building have someracks which are not braced or anchored properly to resist earthquake forces.Also, there are plastic water tanks on the roof of all of the buildings which arenot braced for ear


Adequately anchor and brace all non-structural elements to resist earthquakeforces to comply with the BNBC and Alliance Standard.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standards Part 8 Section 8.18 Seismic Bracing of Key Non-StructuralElements and 2006 BNBC Part 6

Question: If the building is currently being renovated or expanded, are the ConstructionPractices and Safety requirements of Section 9 being followed?



Description: 1) Six Story RCC main production building A, C & D: No renovation orexpansion work is ongoing. 2) Six Story RCC main production building B:Building B is being extended Horizontally & vertically. However, the safetyrequirements are not adequately addressed.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visual observation shows that, 1) Six Story RCC mainproduction building A, C & D


The management should ensure that the construction practices and safetybeing adhered to as per BNBC or standard.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 9 Construction Practices and Safety.

Question: Is expansion joint material free from cracking and other forms of deterioration?

Priority Level: Low


Description: 1) Six Story RCC main production building A: There are two expansion jointswhich are filled with mortar. This will make the expansion joints ineffective. 2)

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



Six Story RCC main production building B: There is one expansion joint whichis filled with mortar. This will make the expansion joint ineffective.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visually confirmed.


Remove the blockages from the existing expansion joints. A qualified structuralengineer should be involved for maintenance of expansion joints.


16 Aug 2014


Question: Is the building free of active signs of water intrusion or ponding due to lack ofperformance of the façade system?

Priority Level: Low


Description: Building A: Dampness at 5th floor due to water ingress through exteriorfacade. Building B: Dampness at 2nd floor due to water ingress throughexterior facade. Building D: Dampness at dining shed due to water ingressthrough exterior facade.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visual inspection shows several areas of dampness dueto lack of performance of the facade system.


Repair the exterior façade system to prevent water intrusion.


31 Oct 2014


Structural Safety Programs

Question: Are floor loads in compliance with posted plans?



Description: Building A, B, C, D: Load plans have been prepared, but are not in compliancewith the Alliance Standard.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Document review shows that


Have a qualified structural engineer develop Floor Loading Plans per therequirements of Part 8 Section 8.20.5.3.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.10 Floor Loading Plans (Load Plans).

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014



Question: Is a program in place to ensure that the live loads for which a floor or roof is orhas been designed will not be exceeded?



Description: All buildings: There are no programs that will ensure that the designated loadin each floor will not be exceeded.

Source of Findings: Document Review: All buildings


Develop a program to ensure that all live loads for which a floor or roof hasbeen designed for will not be exceeded. The designated Load Manager shalloversee this program and ensure it is enforced.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 13 Section 13.7 and Part 8 Section 8.9.

Question: Have Load Plans been prepared for each floor documenting the actualmaximum operational loading that is intended and/or allowable on each floor.

Priority Level: Low



Source of Findings: Document Review: Document review shows that, Building A, B, C, D




16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.10 Floor Loading Plans (Load Plans)

Question: Are Floor Load Plans posted as required?

Priority Level: Low



Source of Findings: Document Review: Document review shows that, Building A, B, C, D



FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014




16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.20.5.3

Question: Are areas used for storage of work materials and work products, clearlymarked to indicate the acceptable loading limits as described in the Load Planfor that floor?

Priority Level: Low


Description: All buildings: Load plans have been prepared, but are not in compliance withthe Alliance Standard. There are no markings on the floor to designate spacesand height for storage of work materials.

Source of Findings: Visual Assessment: Visual assessment shows that, for all buildings, load planshave been prepared, but are not in compliance with the Alliance Standard.There are no markings on the floor to designate spaces and height for storageof work materials.


Provide signage or the appropriate markings at all areas used for storage toindicate the acceptable loading limits detailed in the Load Plan.


16 Aug 2014

Standard: Alliance Standard Part 8 Section 8.11 Floor Load Markings

FactoryName:




Date: 16 Jun 2014

