Soil Mechanics and FoundationEngineering, Vol. 35, No.

3, 1998

TECHNOLOGY AND WORK PRODUCTION

RECONSTRUCTION AND STRENGTHENING OF TENEMENT FOUNDATIONS

V. I. Krutov and A. S. Kovalev UDC 624.159.4:69.059.32

Experience is described for the reconstruction and strengthening of the strip foundations of a tenement
building and the stepwise installation of a new foundation; installation of reinforced-concrete casing walls
along the lateral surfaces of existing foundations over their entire height; and, the gluing of waterproofing
along the lower surface and lateral walls of the new sections of the foundations and reinforced-concrete
casing walls.

The need for the reconstruction and strengthening of foundations arose in connection with the rebuilding of a
tenement located at 7 Malyi Levshanskyi Avenue.
The reconstructed tenement, which was built in 1913, is a three-story brick structure with a basement having
planform dimensions of 12 x 40 m. The stories and basement are 3.2-m and 2-m high, respectively. The external walls and
internal transverse walls of the building are 77 cm and 51-64 cm thick, respectively.
The foundations are strip foundations formed from rubble and partially brick masonry with a lower-surface width of
0.8-1.2 m and height of 1.2-1.8 m. There was no waterproofing between the wails and foundations.
According to inspection data, the quality of the brick masonry of the external and internal bearing walls is satisfacto-
ry. The strength of the red brick corresponds to that of a Grade no lower than M100, and that of the limestone mortar to a
Grade no lower than M50. Diagonal settlement-induced cracks opened to a width of 10-20 mm were observed within the
limits of the stairwell in the transverse walls and partitions after exposure of the plaster.
The quality of the rubble and brick masonry of the foundations over a large part of the building above the basement
floor is satisfactory. The strength of the rubble masonry can be assumed no lower than M100, the brickwork no lower than
M75, and the limestone mortar 50 kg/cm 2. Based on Construction Rule and Regulation 22-81, the computed compressive
strength of the rubble masonry is 600 kPa. As revealed during work production on individual segments below the basement
floor; however, the limestone mortar had sustained severe weathering, and there was dislodged rubble and brick masonry.
The foundation bed is composed of sands of medium fineness with a gravel inclusion and interlayers of fine sands.
The physical characteristics (moisture content of 0.07, dry density of 2 tons/m 3, void ratio of 0.37, and compaction coeffi-
cient of 0.95-0.97) make it possible to rate the sands as slightly compressible and dense with a rather high bearing capacity;
the computed strength of the sands is up to 500 kPa, and the minimum strength of the fine sands is 300 kPa. Considering the
long-term compression of the sands beneath the foundations (more than 80 years), the computed strength can be increased by
20% in conformity with Construction Rule and Regulation P-B. 1-62, which had previously been in effect.
In the initial inspection, the upper layer of ground water was observed at a depth of 1.9 m from the lower surface of
the existing foundations.
In connection with an increase in the height of the basement from 2 to 2.8 m and the possible addition of one-two
stories to the superstructure, it was necessary to increase the depth of foundation embedment by 1 m and the width of their
lower surface by 0.2-0.5 m, and also strengthen the foundations beneath the existing basement floor.
Three alternate schemes were considered for solution of the stated problem.
1. The installation of concrete strip foundations beneath the existing rubble foundations, increasing their lower
surface by 0.1-0.25-m in each direction (Fig. la). The installation is accomplished by individual enclosures 1.5-2 m in length
by opening trenches beneath the existing foundations.

Translated from Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 3, pp. 23-26, May-June, 1998.

92 0038-0741/98/3503-0092520.00 9 Plenum Publishing Corporation

 b

!g
rr'-~t i i
I, J ,I j , I 5 ~5
I~T ~l I , . J J ~ 3
,..!
6
5

3 1
" 2 r 9 tOO-L~O
3

250 ~ ~ ~"l 250 2 5 0 ~ L, ~ 2 5 0 ~ L,9 ,,7- 250

1 "I "1 "1 ,4 4 ~ 4

Fig. 1. Alternate schemes for reconstruction and strengthening of foundations. 1) existing rubble foundations;
2) concrete strip foundations; 3) reinforced-concrete casing walls; 4) metallic unloading beams; 5) walls; 6)
anchors; 7) cantilevers.

2. The installation of casing walls 0.25-m thick beneath the lower surface and around the perimeter of the existing
foundations over their entire height; loads from the walls are transmitted onto these casing walls via metallic beams (Fig. lb).
Walls in the form of slotted foundations are built in trenches opened along the existing foundations, reinforced with cages,
concreted " ," and tied to the rubble and brick masonry of the foundations by metallic anchors installed in masonry joints
every 0.25 m over the height.
3. The installation of reinforced-concrete walls (Fig. lc) 0.25 m thick with cantilevers beneath the lower surface of
the foundations and 1-1.2 m above their casing along the surface of the foundations. Combined functioning of the existing
and newly installed sections of the foundations is ensured by the cantilevers and anchoring of the casing by metallic pins in
the joints of the rubble masonry.
Comparison of the alternate schemes with respect to volumes of earthwork, concrete work, and consumption of
reinforcement and metal indicated that the third scheme, which was also first adopted for implementation, was the most
economical and simplest to realize.
In opening trenches for the newly constructed basements, however, it was revealed that the sands over the basic area
have an elevated moisture content, and ground water appears at a depth of approximately 1 m beneath the lower surface of
the existing foundations. Moreover, steel .... pipes from which water is bleed, are positioned within the bounds of and
around the reconstructed building. The need therefore arose to install continuous glued waterproofing around the lower
surface and along the lateral surfaces of the newly placed and existing foundations.
In this connection, we adopted a new alternate scheme of foundation strengthening, which is a combination of
elements of the first and third alternate schemes (Fig. 2a and b). It consisted in the following:
- -the placement of new concrete foundations beneath the existing ones; due to the low strength of the mortar in the
rubble masonry and the dislodgement of individual stones near the lower surface, it was required to install the foundations in
separate enclosures, not all at once over the entire width of the foundation (in accordance with the first scheme), but in
stages, i.e., first by 0.5 m the width of the foundation from one side, and then from the other by this same width;
- -the installation of reinforced-concrete casing walls 12-cm thick along the lateral surfaces of the existing founda-
tions to a height of 1 m on the inside, and to the top of the floor on the outside; and,
- the placement of continuous glued waterproofing formed from two layers of roofing paper over all surfaces of the
newly installed foundation sections.
Installation of the reinforced-concrete casings makes it possible not only to reinforce the existing foundations, but also
ensure the creation of a heavy-duty reinforced-concrete foundation girdling wall capable of taking up and smoothing signifi-
cant nonuniform bed settlements.
The foundations were strengthened by individual enclosures in two steps for each enclosure, and the following basic
types of work were included in the first steps:
1) partitioning the foundation plan into individual enclosures;
2) opening trenches for the new foundation section;

93
 3) cleaning soil, weak mortar, and rubble masonry and brick that had been dislodged from the lateral and lower
surfaces of the existing foundations;
4) cleaning of the joints in the rubble and brick masonry within the bounds of installation of the reinforced-concrete
casings and the punching of holes for anchors;
5) cleaning and leveling the bed for the new foundation sections;
6) placement of foundation waterproofing beneath the lower surface and lateral sections of the foundations;
7) installation of anchors in the rubble and brick masonry;
8) installation of reinforcing cages and reinforced-concrete casings and their welding to the anchors;
9) installation of the outer form work for the foundations and reinforced-concrete casings;
10) concreting of the foundations and reinforced-concrete casings; and,
11) backfilling of the trenches.
Continuous visual inspections of the condition of the bearing walls were made prior to the start of and during work
production on foundation strengthening in connection with their possible cracking.
To ensure combined functioning of the newly built sections of foundations and existing foundations, the latter within
the limits of individual sections or parts thereof, were partitioned into enclosures 1.5-2 m in length, which were uniformly
situated over the length of the foundations, and, especially in areas where they come in contact and intersect.
Work within the limits of a single section in several enclosures located no less than 3-4 m apart was usually per-
formed simultaneously.
Transition from one enclosure to another was accomplished in both directions such that sufficiently uniform strength-
ening of the foundations was ensured beneath all walls.
Work involving the opening of trenches-slots near previously completed enclosures was permitted only after the
concrete in the walls had hardened and attained a strength of no less than 25-40% of the design strength, i.e., after 3-5 days.
The trenches for the new foundation sections were opened by hand uniformly along the entire length of the enclosure
inward to half the width of the existing foundation, and to 0.3-0.5 m of the face from the side.
The slopes of the trenches approached vertical beneath the lower surface of the existing foundations, and were
widened upward by 20-40 cm per each meter of depth from the side.
Furrows I2-15 cm wide were opened in the ends of the trenches and over their entire height near the lateral faces of
the foundations in the first enclosures for installation of the reinforcing cages.
In the process of opening the trenches, particular attention was focused on averting collapse of the trench walls and
also their careful cleaning under the existing foundations.
It must be pointed out that in connection with the high density and moisture content of the sandy soils, and the
existence of silty-clayey particles in them, no collapse of the foundation walls or sloughing of soil was observed in opening
trenches for the foundations.
Metal brushes, scrappers with curved ends, and other devices were used to clean soil, low strength mortar, and
separated and dislodged rubble masonry and brick from the lateral and lower surfaces of the existing foundations. To ensure
a strong bond between the reinforced-concrete casings and the existing foundations, we cleaned the joints in the rubble
masonry and used jumpers to bore holes for anchors to a depth of no less than 30 cm. Dust and fine particles of mortar were
removed from the joints and holes by a jet of compressed air.
Anchors built of deformed-bar reinforcement 16-20 nun in diameter were situated every 20-40 cm over the height,
and every 80-100 cm along the foundations, and were installed with compact filling of the holes, and cement mortar of a
grade no less than M75 was cleared away from around their joints.
Frequently, the lateral surfaces of the foundations were cleaned and the anchors installed prior to opening the
trenches, and without partitioning the foundations into individual enclosures.
Prior to placing the waterproofing, the beds under the new sections of the foundations were cleaned of debris and soil
and carefully leveled with a cushion of coarse or medium sand up to 3-5 cm thick. The sandy layer was compacted by
manual tampers.
In performing work on the first enclosures, waterproofmg was placed from two layers of roofing papers with the
joints overlapped so that one of its ends rested on the inner surface of the outer longitudinal form work, and the other abutted
tightly against the vertical wall of the trench beneath the existing foundation, and was secured directly at its lower surface by
pins driven into the ground.

94
 a

5
~~6 ';5
"% 12

i 7 .

Fig. 2. Alternate scheme adopted for foundation strengthening, a) first step;

b) second step; 1 and 2) existing walls of building and foundations; 3)
trench for new section of foundations; 4) waterproofing; 5) form work for
new sections of foundations and reinforced-concrete casing walls; 6) an-
chors; 7) new section of foundation; 8) reinforced-concrete wall; 9) rein-
forcing cage; I0) backfilling trenches; 11) new section of brick masonry;
12) direction of bend in waterproofing placed in first stage.

Reinforcing cages of the reinforced-concrete casings were installed in individual sections over the height, and welded
to one another and to the anchors. In the first stages of work production, the ends of the cages were set in the vertical
furrows previously opened at the ends of the trenches.
The cages were made of Class All reinforcement 12 mm in diameter with a 200 x 200-mm mesh. The longitudinal
rods of the cages were welded to one another at each level.
The new foundation sections and casings were concreted with a Grade V12.5 concrete having a slushy consistency,
a fine crushed-stone aggregate, and a slump of 18-20 cm. To ensure intimate contact and good adhesion between the newly
built foundations and the lower surface of the existing ones, the concrete was initially placed without interruption to a height
of 0.6-0.8 m above the lower surface of the existing foundation. In that case, special attention was focused on careful
consolidation of the concrete beneath the lower surface of the existing foundations; this was achieved by vigorous rodding of
the concrete by reinforcing bars.
The casings were concreted 20-30 cm above or below the joints in the reinforcing cages over the height.
After the concrete had hardened and attained a strength 25-40% of the design strength forms were removed from the
foundations and casings, and the trenches backfilled with a sandy soil in layers of 20-25 cm deep with each layer compacted
by manual tampers. In that case, a fill-soil density corresponding to a compaction coefficient Kcom = 0.92-0.95 was ensured.
Work involving foundation installation in the second stages (see Fig. 2b) was performed only after backfilling in the
first stages (see Fig. 2a). Characteristic features of these operations consisted in the following;
- - the trenches for the new foundation sections were opened with the waterproofing that had been previously placed
in the first stages along the vertical wall of the foundation trench protected from damage;
- - the slots and recesses that were formed for previously constructed parts of the new foundations were filled with
a carefully consolidated Grade M100 cement grout based on an expansive cement;
- - the waterproofing beneath the lower surface and lateral faces of the new foundations was placed by overlapping
the seams with additional strips of roofing paper; and,
- - the reinforcing cages for the reinforced-concrete casings were installed after removal of the lateral form of the
first enclosures so that the longitudinal rods of the cages coincided at each level and ensured their subsequent reliable
welding.
In performing the work on foundation strengthening, the following were monitored continuously:
- - the quality with which the lower surface and walls of the foundations and masonry seams were cleaned, the
anchors fixed, the bed beneath the new sections of the foundations cleaned and leveled, and the waterproofing installed;
- - the condition of the brick walls of the building and existing foundations, the walls of the trench, the waterproof-
ing, and its preservation during work production;

95
 - - provision for intimate contact between the concrete of the new sections and the lower surface of the existing
foundations; and,
- - observance of the sequence of work production, proper alternation of operations in the first and second stages and
in accordance with the enclosures.
The work on foundation strengthening, which was performed in virtually four months, was carried out simultaneously
with the replacement Of the wooden by reinforced-concrete floors over metal beams, and the installation of basement rooms.
The rate of work production was determined primarily by the availability of required building materials.
It should be pointed out in conclusion that during work production involving strengthening of the foundations, no
reduction in the quality of work has been noted, and no new cracks have appeared in the walls, despite repeated changes in
the natural conditions of the soils.

96