Moulivakkam Twin tower Collapse

1. BY
SARATH KUMAR M
Meenakshi Sundararajan Engineering College

2. OBJECTIVE
 This is the case study on 11 storey building
collapse at moulivakkam, porur.
 One building collapsed on its own during
construction.
 While the other one, semi built was
demolished by imploding.
 Hope this study will enhance the correct
reason for the collapse so that non-
recurrence of such things in future can be
made.

3. BUILDIN
G
DETAILS
 Builder – Prime sristi Housing Pvt,
Ltd.
 The project consist of two towers
i. The Faith Tower
ii. The Belief Tower
 Location – Kundrathur road near
porur junction
(Moulivakkam)
 Faith – 2BHK (4) in each floor
 Belief – 3BHK (4) in each floor
 Price – 5250/ sq.ft

4. TIME OF OCCURRENCE
 Belief Tower Collapse took place
in June 28
@ 5.30 PM
 Faith Tower razed to the ground
In three second
In November 2
@ 6.50 PM

5. REASON FOR THE
COLLAPSE
 Thunder Bolt
 Poor Quality of Construction
 Negligence of Soil Condition

6. BACKGROUND OF THE
BUILDER
 Prime sristi housing Pvt, Ltd (Madurai) has
nearly two decades of real estate
development experience.
 Their Motto
“Building should Stand apart and should
reflect Engineering Marvel”
 Whereas the actual thing seems to be vice
versa.

7. Contd.,
 Manoharan (builder) and his 2 Engineer has been
authentically verified.
 While the architect (Vijay Bargotra) was not
registered with them as stated by the council of
architecture, New Delhi.
 As per section 2 (a) 35,36&37 of a architects Act,
1972.
“Only a person registered as an architect with the
council can call himself as an architect”.
 So Mr.Vijay Bargotra has been arrested along
with manoharan.

8. ACTUAL REASON FOR THE
COLLAPSE
1.The actual study at the
site clearly showed that
it was not due to lightning
and poorness in construction
in all aspects, that leads to
Collapse.
2. Since porur lake is only at
a stone throw distance from
the collapsed building.

9. KEY ASPECTS
 Previous incidents also proved that whenever
the lake was full & overflowing these areas
were always inundated.
 Before applying for plan approval the first &
foremost activity to have done is
“Site Clearance”
 Whenever the nature of soil requires such
action, the ground surface of the site to be
erected shall be rendered damp proof to the
satisfaction of the authority.

10. Contd.,
 On considering all these circumstances it is a
common question that would arises in everyone’s
mind is
“ How the permission was
obtained at such a risky site
totally unsuitable for high rise
building”
 Other point made is that the
quality of material used in the
construction was not good.

11. TALE OF A DOOMED PROJECT
June 2013
CMDA issued planning permission to Prime sristi
Housing Pvt Ltd.
June 28, 2014
Tower belief crumbles after a heavy downpour,
Killing 61 construction workers.

13. Contd.,
July 3, 2014
State Govt constitutes a one main inquiry
commission headed by juctice R Regupathy.
August 2015
Commission report is in the Assembly.
The report holds six persons responsible for the
collapse. It also states that “hidden and underground
transactions” made b/w officials at various level.

14. Contd.,
October 2015
Kancheepuram collector orders demolition of the
second tower.
Builder approaches high court seeking a stay.
December 2015
Madras High court stays demolition
May 2016
Supreme court upholds District Collector’s orders to
demolish second tower of the complex.
November 2, 2016
The second Tower brought down using Implosion
Technique.

15. Second Tower Before Implosion

16. Implosion Technique Is In Process

17. Surrounding Area Covered By Dust

18. EXPERT POINT OF VIEW
 Expert says that the lack of geotechnical
investigation and a focus only on deadlines are
the major reasons for building collapse.
 He also says that the builder reduces the time
taken for construction , for the purpose of
reduction in cost.
 Geotechnical investigation and foundation
engineering is perhaps, the weakest of the links.
 Expert- Aswath M U, Professor & HOD civil IIT
Bangalore.

19. VIOLATION OF LAW
A. The plan approved by CMDA has not been used for
actual construction.
B. The structural design given for the foundation is Raft
& pile which is inadequate to bear the entire weight
of basement + building weight.
C. The column design are also inadequate to bear the
dead weight of such heavy structure.
D. The foundation was not designed as per the nature of
the soil.
E. The provision of anchorage, length to reinforcement
and column ties are inadequate to cover the
reinforcement.

20. Contd.,
i. The design and construction of the building
in all aspects are in violation of national
building code.
ii. The materials such as concrete, steel and
bricks used for the construction were not
properly tested.
iii. It also stated that the builder removed many
columns in the CMDA approved plan at the
basement level for the convenience to
create more space for car parking.

21. STATEMENT MADE BY EXPERTS
1. Dr. Devadas structural Engineering
department – IIT Chennai.
“ The applicant should obtain EIA Clearance
and the same has to be produced at the time of
completion certificate”.
2. Dr. Devadas Faculty of Architecture - Anna
university.
“ The Collapse of the building is primarily due to
gross deficiency in the structural design of the
RC column”

22. Contd.,
3. Dr. Muttharam Assistant Professor, Department
of soil Mechanics – Anna university.
“He states that the soil investigation was
conducted thoroughly but the raft foundation is
inadequate to carry the total load from the storied
building”.
4. Dr. Umarani C Structural Engineering – Anna
university.
“She also states that the gross deficiency in the
structural design of RC column is the major
causes”.

23. CONCLUSION
From the above, it is clearly evidenced that the right
construction procedures were not followed for such
high rise buildings.
The materials right from bricks to sand were found
to be not of proper quality.
The soil test was not conducted in true sense. It is
expected that for the plots, particularly near the
lakes, soil test would be given prominent
importance as they very foundation is involved.
The hasty construction coupled with poor quality
materials and people led to this deplorable
collapse.

24. REFERENCE
I. National Crime Records Bureau
II. National building code of India 2005 – point
no.6 requirement of plots: clause 6.2 Damp
sites and 6.3 surface water drains.
III. The Hindu Chennai dated 3rd November 2016.
IV. 2014 Chennai building collapse from
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
V. Trust height porur by prime sristi housing pvt
Ltd in Chennai central.