Structural Assessment of Old
Buildings at IIT Ropar
Priyanshi Vachhani (2022CEB1023)
Rishabh Pratap Singh (2022CEB1027)
Tushar Dwivedi (2022CEB1032)
Udit Vijay Malav (2022CEB1033)
1 Introduction
The structural integrity of buildings is crucial for ensuring their safety, longevity, and usability. IIT
Ropar, established in 2008, has inherited several older structures that require thorough evaluation to
determine their continued suitability. This report presents a detailed structural assessment of older
buildings on the IIT Ropar campus, focusing on identifying deterioration, structural deficiencies, and
necessary remedial measures. The study involves comprehensive data collection, visual inspections, ma-
terial testing, and structural analysis to establish the safety and serviceability of the existing structures.
2 Objectives
• Evaluate the current structural condition of older buildings on the IIT Ropar campus.
• Identify visible and hidden structural defects, including cracks, foundation issues, and material
degradation.
• Conduct non-destructive testing (NDT) to assess material strength and structural integrity.
• Analyze structural stability concerning seismic and environmental factors, ensuring compliance
with national standards.
• Propose remedial and retrofitting measures for any structural deficiencies found, enhancing the
longevity and safety of the buildings.
3 Methodology
3.1 Data Collection
Gathering historical data on the buildings, including construction year, materials used, and past main-
tenance records.
3.2 Visual Inspection
Visual inspection is one of the most fundamental and essential steps in a structural audit. It involves
a systematic and detailed examination of the building’s structural elements to identify visible signs of
deterioration, damage, or defects. The primary purpose of visual inspection is to assess the current
condition of the structure and identify areas that require further investigation or immediate attention.
3.2.1 Purpose of Visual Inspection
• Identify Visible Defects: Visual inspection helps in identifying surface-level defects such as
cracks, spalling, corrosion, and water seepage.
• Assess Maintenance Needs: It provides insights into the maintenance requirements of the
structure, such as repairs or protective coatings.
• Plan Further Testing: The findings from visual inspection guide the selection of areas for detailed
non-destructive testing (NDT) and structural analysis.
• Ensure Safety: Early detection of structural issues through visual inspection can prevent catas-
trophic failures and ensure the safety of occupants.
3.2.2 Common Types of Defects Observed
During the visual inspection of the buildings at IIT Ropar, the following types of defects were commonly
observed:
• Cracks: Cracks in walls, beams, columns, and slabs are one of the most common signs of structural
distress. They can be caused by factors such as thermal expansion, shrinkage, overloading, or
foundation settlement.
1
• Corrosion: Corrosion of reinforcement bars, especially in concrete structures, is a major concern.
It leads to the expansion of steel, causing cracks and spalling of the concrete cover.
• Spalling: Spalling refers to the flaking or peeling of concrete surfaces due to corrosion, freeze-thaw
cycles, or chemical attacks.
• Water Seepage: Water seepage through walls or roofs indicates poor waterproofing or drainage
systems, which can lead to further deterioration of the structure.
• Foundation Settlement: Uneven settlement of the foundation can cause tilting or cracking of
the structure, indicating potential structural instability.
3.2.3 Importance of Visual Inspection in Structural Audits
Visual inspection plays a critical role in structural audits for the following reasons:
• Cost-Effective: It is a cost-effective method for identifying visible defects without the need for
specialized equipment.
• Immediate Feedback: It provides immediate feedback on the condition of the structure, allowing
for quick decision-making.
• Comprehensive Assessment: When combined with other testing methods, visual inspection
provides a comprehensive assessment of the structure’s condition.
• Documentation: Detailed documentation of visual inspection findings serves as a valuable refer-
ence for future audits and maintenance activities.
2
(a) Crack Observation 1 (b) Crack Observation 2
(c) Crack Observation 3 (d) Crack Observation 4
3.3 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
To assess the internal condition of the structural elements without causing damage, the following NDT
methods were used:
• Rebound Hammer Test: To estimate the compressive strength of concrete and detect weak
zones.
• Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test: To detect internal cracks, voids, and homogeneity of concrete.
• Cover Meter Test: To measure reinforcement cover depth and assess its adequacy against cor-
rosion.
• Ferroscanner: To detect the location and arrangement of steel rebars within the concrete struc-
ture.
3.4 Structural Analysis
Utilizing SAC2000 software for structural integrity analysis of roof trusses and load-bearing elements,
evaluating compliance with Indian structural codes.
4 Findings/Results
4.1 UPV Test Results
S.No Site UPV Test 1 (m/sec) UPV Test 2 (m/sec) UPV Test 3 (m/sec) Avg. (m/sec)
1 Workshop 1 South Wall Overhang 1360 1520 1650 1510
2 Workshop 1 North Wall Overhang 1150 1160 1160 1156.67
3 Workshop 1 East Side Overhang 2180 2200 2200 2193.33
4 Building 3 C4 1680 1800 1670 1737.5
5 Building 3 C10 2460 2490 2460 2477.5
Table 1: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) Test Results
(a) On-Site UPV Testing (Image 1) (b) On-Site UPV Testing (Image 2)
Figure 2: On-Site UPV Testing at IIT Ropar
4
4.2 UPV Test Analysis
UPV Value (km/sec) Concrete Quality
Above 4.5 Excellent
3.5 to 4.5 Good
3.0 to 3.5 Medium
Below 3.0 Doubtful
Table 2: Concrete Quality based on UPV Test (IS 13311 Part 1)
4.3 Analysis of UPV Test Results
All the UPV test results from the surveyed sites indicate average pulse velocities below 3.0 km/sec,
categorizing the concrete quality as Doubtful according to IS 13311 Part 1. This suggests the following:
• Poor Homogeneity: The low UPV values indicate the presence of internal cracks, voids, or
discontinuities within the concrete, which compromise its structural integrity.
• Material Degradation: The concrete may have undergone significant deterioration due to aging,
environmental exposure, or inadequate construction practices.
• Safety Concerns: Structures with doubtful concrete quality are at higher risk of failure under
load, especially during seismic events or extreme weather conditions.
4.4 Rebound Hammer Test Results
S.No Site Avg. Rebound Number Compressive Strength (MPa)
1 Workshop 2 East Side 33.4 35
2 Workshop 2 West Side 28.8 28
3 Building 3 West Side Column 33.0 35
4 Building 3 South Side Column 23.8 19
5 Workshop 1 North Side 29.34 29
6 Workshop 1 East Side 35.13 38
Table 3: Rebound Hammer Test Results
4.5 Analysis of Rebound Hammer Test Results
The Rebound Hammer Test results indicate variations in the compressive strength of concrete across
different locations. Key observations include:
• Higher Strength Areas: Locations such as Workshop 1 East Side and Building 3 West Side
Column show higher rebound numbers (35.13 and 33.0, respectively), indicating better concrete
quality and compressive strength (38 MPa and 35 MPa).
• Lower Strength Areas: Locations like Building 3 South Side Column and Workshop 2 West
Side exhibit lower rebound numbers (23.8 and 28.8, respectively), suggesting weaker concrete with
compressive strengths of 19 MPa and 28 MPa.
• Possible Causes: The variations in strength could be due to:
– Non-uniform curing during construction.
– Exposure to harsh environmental conditions leading to material degradation.
– Poor workmanship during concrete placement and compaction.
5 Cover Meter and Ferroscanner Test Results
The **Cover Meter Test** and **Ferroscanner Test** were conducted to measure the reinforcement
cover depth and detect the location and arrangement of steel rebars within the concrete structures. The
results are categorized by building and location as follows:
5
5.1 Theory of Cover Meter and Ferroscanner
• Cover Meter: A cover meter is a non-destructive testing instrument used to measure the thickness
of concrete cover over reinforcement bars. It works on the principle of electromagnetic induction,
detecting the presence of steel rebars and measuring the distance from the surface to the rebar.
• Ferroscanner: A ferroscanner is an advanced version of the cover meter that not only measures the
cover depth but also provides detailed information about the location, spacing, and arrangement
of steel rebars. It uses advanced electromagnetic scanning technology to create a 2D or 3D map of
the reinforcement layout within the concrete structure.
• Applications: Both instruments are essential for assessing the quality of reinforcement placement,
detecting corrosion risks, and ensuring compliance with design specifications.
Figure 3: Cover Meter Test in Progress
6
5.2 Workshop 1
S.No Location Average Cover Value (mm)
1 North Side 42.33
2 East Side 23.33
3 South Side Over Window (Roof Bend) 49.75
4 South Side 42.4
Table 4: Cover Meter Test Results for Workshop 1
5.3 Workshop 2
S.No Location Average Cover Value (mm)
1 East Side 30.5
2 West Side 24.08
Table 5: Cover Meter Test Results for Workshop 2
5.4 Building 3
S.No Location Average Cover Value (mm)
1 Column C4 53
2 Column C7 73.58
3 Column C10 68.83
4 Column C4-C5 71.16
Table 6: Cover Meter Test Results for Building 3
5.5 Analysis of Cover Meter and Ferroscanner Test Results
The Cover Meter and Ferroscanner Test results reveal significant fluctuations in reinforcement cover
depth across different locations. Key observations and reasons for these fluctuations include:
• Variations in Cover Depth:
– Workshop 1 East Side has the lowest average cover value (23.33 mm), which is below the
recommended minimum cover depth as per IS 456:2000 (20 mm for mild exposure and 45 mm
for severe exposure).
– Building 3 Column C7 has the highest average cover value (73.58 mm), indicating adequate
protection against corrosion.
• Reasons for Fluctuations:
– Construction Practices: Inconsistent placement of reinforcement during construction.
– Environmental Exposure: Areas exposed to harsh weather conditions may have experi-
enced spalling or erosion, reducing the cover depth.
– Aging and Degradation: Over time, the concrete cover may have deteriorated due to
carbonation or chloride ingress.
• Implications:
– Insufficient cover depth increases the risk of reinforcement corrosion, leading to structural
weakening.
– Adequate cover depth is essential for ensuring the durability and longevity of the structure.
7
6 Future Work Proposed
• Conduct additional Half-Cell Potential Tests to further evaluate reinforcement corrosion risks.
• Perform core extraction and laboratory testing for accurate material property assessment.
• Apply epoxy injection techniques for sealing structural cracks.
• Implement carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrapping for strengthening RCC members.
• Introduce shear walls and bracing systems to improve seismic resilience.
• Establish a real-time structural health monitoring system using IoT-based sensors.
References
1. IS 456:2000 – Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete.
2. IS 13311 (Part 2): 1992 - ”Non-destructive Testing of Concrete - Part 2: Rebound Hammer.”
3. IS 13311 (Part 1): 1992 - ”Non-destructive Testing of Concrete - Part 1: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity.”
4. IS 16406: 2015 - ”Non-destructive Testing of Concrete – Methods of Test – Determination of
Concrete Cover.”
5. IS 1893:2016 – Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.
