Bangladesh News

The method of demolition of Rangs Bhaban was correct, said the Ministry of Housing and Public Works yesterday quoting the report submitted by the committee probing the December 8 collapse of the building.

In support of its claim, the ministry in a statement quoted portions of the probe report where it stated that ‘Concrete Shear Failure’ was the cause of the collapse that was triggered by ‘vibration’ caused by ‘hammering’. Besides, the strength of the concrete of the collapsed

portion was found to be only 2,500 PSI (pounds per square inch) against the recommended 4,000 PSI, the ministry said quoting the report.

‘Impact Load’ created due to piling up of concrete debris from upper floors caused the successive caving in of the lower floors, the report said.

Following the collapse, the government on December 11 formed a four-member committee headed by Shah Alam, chief engineer of the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (Rajuk), to probe the incident. Later, another member from the Explosives Directorate was included in the committee.

Three other members of the committee are Dr Raquib Ahsan and Syed Ishtiaq Ahmad, both associate professors of Civil Engineering Department of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (Buet), and Nazrul Islam, deputy chief (Planning Cell) of the Housing and Public Works Ministry.

Associate Professor Syed Ishtiaq Ahmad of Buet, also a member of the committee, however, told The Daily Star, “The building might not have been collapsed if it wasn’t attempted to be demolished.”

Preferring anonymity, another member of the committee said, “If Rajuk carried out the tasks with proper necessary precautions, the accident would not take place.”

“During the demolition work, the vibration in the building led to the collapse. But the probe committee did not mention it to save Rajuk,” he added.

Regarding the demolition of the 22-storied structure, Bureau of Research and Testing Corporation of Buet made the following observation: “The whole building needs to be demolished then perhaps the best method would have been to demolish by explosives. Expertise for demolition of such a tall building within a congested area is unavailable. The demolition here should be the reverse process of construction.”