STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT

PRESENTATION BY: PRESENTED TO:

ABHINAV DEWANGAN Dr. MEENA MURMU
ROLL NUMBER-17243002
2ND SEMESTER
M.TECH. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
 • Introduction
• Principle of Structural Assessment
CONTENTS • Classification
• Assessment Levels
• Methods of Data acquisition
• Methods of Structural Analysis
• Methods of Reliability Verification
• Structural Assessment Routines
• Principle of Probability Based Assessment
• Time variant Reliability Assessment
• Assessment Level overview
• Acceptance limit Example
• Standard norms as per ISO
• Case studies
• References
• Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
• A structural assessment is a procedure utilized to
check the adequacy, structural integrity and
soundness of structures and their components. An
assessment is made to evaluate a structures current
and future use and conformance to current building
codes.

• All buildings and structures require periodical

inspection to ensure structural safety, strength and
stability under normal/actual loads as well as
reducing the possibility of disproportionate collapse
under unanticipated or accidental loads.

• The consequences of having insufficient structural

integrity can be a danger to public safety – meaning
the building may not be able to support the loads
that it was designed for.
• Structural assessment can be initiated, when there has been a change in resistance.
Such as structural deterioration due to time-depending processes (e.g. corrosion,
fatigue) or structural damage by accidental actions. Also when there will be a
change in loading (e.g. increased traffic load) or an extension of the design
working life.
• Assessment can also be carried out to analyse the current structural reliability
(e.g.for environmental hazards like earthquake or extreme winds and/or waves).
Principles of Structural Assessment

OBJECTIVES
• To check the reliability of the existing structure, whether it is able to carry current
and future loads and to fulfil its task for a given time period.
• clear specification of the assessment objective. This is essential to identify the
most significant limit states. Associated with the limit states are the structural
variables to be investigated and with those the assessment procedure to be applied.
• A wide range of different assessment procedures exists with varying complexity
and the choice of the appropriate procedure depends mainly on the specified
requirement of assessment.
• There are two main objectives to conduct assessment of existing structures, the
assurance of structural safety and serviceability and the minimisation of costs.
STRUCTURAL SAFETY AND SERVICEABILITY
The main task of assessment is to ensure that the structure or parts of the structure
do not fail under loading. The assessment is carried out for ultimate limit states,
which are
• loss of equilibrium of the structure or parts of it as a rigid body (e.g. overturning)
• attainment of the maximum resistance capacity
• transformation of the structure or part of it into a mechanism
• instability of the structure of part of it
• sudden change of the assumed structural system to a new system (e.g. snap
through)
• A reduction of serviceability may lead to a limitation of use and therefore
serviceability assessment might become necessary.
SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE include
• local damage which may reduce the working life of the structure
• unacceptable deformations which affect the efficient use
• excessive vibrations which cause discomfort to people
Safety and serviceability can be evaluated for a variety of reasons, among others for
example changes in use or increase of loads, effects of deterioration, damage and
extreme loading events

METHODOLOGY
• The assessment of existing structures can be carried out with methods of varying
sophistication and effort. The core objectives, as described above, are to analyse
the current load carrying capacity and to predict the future performance with a
maximum accuracy and a minimum effort. Unduly conservatism but also too lax
restrictions should be avoided.
• Generally structural assessment should be carried out using limit state principles
with characteristic values and partial safety factors. If more refined methods are
necessary, the probabilistic approach has to be applied, if economic.
Classification

In general assessment procedures can be classified into three groups:

1. measurement based assessment,
2. model based assessment and
3. non-formal assessment.
MEASUREMENT BASED SERVICEABILITY ASSESSMENT
In the category fall those assessment routines, where the load
effects are not determined by structural analysis but direct by
measurement (e.g. performance monitoring, proof load tests).
Since only serviceability measures can be determined directly, the
method is only able to verify structural sufficiency within the
Serviceability Limit State. It is a two-component procedure where
the components are the follow:
• measurement of load effects
• serviceability verification
Measurement based assessment routines are in general not
complex. An example application is the evaluation of
serviceability measures like displacement or dynamic behaviour
after a new utilisation or the structure. The assessment of nearly
insufficient and monitored structures may also be based on this
method.
MODEL BASED SAFETY AND SERVICEABILITY ASSESSMENT

In this category fall all those assessment routines, where the load
effects are determined by model based structural analysis. Using
this method Ultimate Limit State and Serviceability State can be
modelled and therefore assessed. It is a threecomponent
procedure where the components are the follow:
1. acquisition of data of loading and resistance
2. calculation of load effects on structural models
3. safety and serviceability verification
Most assessment applications are processed based on a structural
model, exceptions are only the above mentioned measurement
based serviceability assessments.
A detailed description of the specific components and a selection
of methods within each component is given in the next section.
NON-FORMAL ASSESSMENT:
In this category fall assessment routines which are based on the
experience and the judgement of the assessing engineer. They are
more or less subjective and are applied only exceptional. Most non-
formal assessment takes place within structure management, where
the structural condition is evaluated on the base of visual inspections.
 STRUCTURAL
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT LEVELS

QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT

MEASUREMENT
MODEL BASED
BASED
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT

LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5

Experience based subjective Assessment of the Adaptation of the target

Assessment of the reliability measures and
assessment of the Direct assessment of the safety and servicibility Probabilistic assessment of
safety and servicibility assessment of the safety
deterioration effects and servicibilty vaues from using refined moel the safety and servicibility
using the simple model and servicibility with
other damage after the the measured load effects based methods (data values(Data from test,
based methods (data modified structure
visual inspection from tests and monitoring, e.t.c.)
from documents) specific values
monitoring, e.t.c.)
Methods of data acquisition
To determine load effects, in most cases of assessment it is necessary to gather
information about material and structural properties and dimensions as well as
about the previous, current and/or future loading on the structure. Environmental
conditions are of physical, chemical or biological nature and can have an effect on
material properties.
1. Study of documents
• To review documents from design and construction process as well
as inspection and maintenance reports. It has to be assured that the
reviewed documents are correct.
• Loads can be usually determined from current loading codes and
environmental conditions may be obtained from inspection reports.
• Resistance properties like material and structural properties and
dimension can be obtained from codes, drawings and other design
specifications (e.g. static calculations, subsoil condition report),
from construction documents (e.g. material delivery
documentation) and from reports of earlier inspection and
maintenance.
2. Inspections and material testing
• cross sectional and longitudinal geometry changes (damages)
from overloading (e.g. cracks, ruptures) and from deterioration
processes (e.g. corrosion, spalling, fatigue cracks) using laser,
ultrasonic devices, slide gauge, electronic gauges, etc.;
• structural integrity (e.g. for hidden damage or inhomogeneity)
using for instance impact echo testing material strength using
tension and compression tests on samples, accelerometer
method, pull-out tests, pull-off tests, etc.;
• parameter, influencing the dead load and the superimposed
dead load (e.g. material densities, permanent equipment)
• duration influencing parameters of the structure (e.g.
environmental conditions, carbonation and chloride content of
concrete) using pH-test, phenolphthalein test, quantitative
chloride analyses on sample, etc.;
• serviceability matter (e.g. crack widths, surface conditions of
roads)
3. Performance testing and monitoring
In the case of insufficiency and inconsistency in the data acquisition of the
structural behaviour observance for which the performance of the structure should
be tested. Then there we should go for the static and/or dynamic behaviour
measurement once, periodically or permanent to receive information about
desired structural properties.

• Structural health monitoring

the permanent or periodical
measurement of structural time variant
quantities like displacement, strains
and stresses, damage evaluation (e.g.
crack width) and vibration
characteristics with the aim to detect
changes in the structural properties and
in some cases to be alarmed, when
limit states are reached or exceeded.
System identification by static and dynamic measures
With this procedure static properties like displacements (e.g.
deflections, inclinations) under defined loads as well as dynamic
properties like natural frequencies and mode shapes are measured at
the real structure. The structural system model becomes refined then
in a way, so that the model reflects the same characteristic behaviour
as the real structure.

Proof load tests

The application of defined loads to a structure to verify the load
carrying capacity is a strong tool for assessing existing structures.
Within the serviceability limit state load effects can be measured System Identification: Changes in the first natural
after application of the proof load and in a second step there will be frequencies of the Brandenburg
the verification, if the measure exceeds the limit state or not. Within Gate in Berlin before and after changes in the
the ultimate limit state the fact that the structure or elements of the foundation conditions are shown by
power spectra.
structure don't fail during the test verifies the no-exceeding of the
limit state.
Monitoring of live loads and environmental conditions
• Assessing loads due to the intended use (e.g. floor loads in buildings and
traffic loads on bridges) as well as environmental loads (e.g. wind, waves,
temperature, earthquake)
• Environmental conditions are of physical, chemical or biological nature.
Due to monitoring of environmental conditions future deterioration of the
structure or parts of the structure can be predicted.
Methods of structural analysis
Structural performance shall be analysed using models that reliably represent the
loading on the structure, the behaviour of the structure and the resistance of its
components.
• Simple analysis methods
• For lower assessment levels
• By simple structural models, provided that the approximately large uncertainty is
regarded with an adequate safety measure.
• Space frame and grillage analysis (combined with a simple load distribution and
linear elastic material behaviour)
Complex analysis methods
• In case low level assessment failed, refined load effect calculation methods need
to be accomplished.
• Refined methods include mainly finite element analysis and non-linear methods
• such as yield line analysis, where these may lead to higher capacities. Particularly
a specified modelling of the material behaviour such as time-variant behaviour
(e.g. shrinkage and creeping of RC structures) and the consideration of
interactions between material components (e.g. bond, tension stiffening in RC)
will uncover hidden capacity reserves and reduce conservatism.
• Applying full probability safety verification, stochastic finite elements can be used
to model the structure. The difference to conventional finite element models is
that the stochastic elements take the spatial correlation of the random variables
into account.
Methods of reliability verification
• While data acquisition and structural analysis are procedures to obtain
information about the structural state the third component of the assessment
process discusses the actual evaluation of the safety and serviceability margin
which can be described as the distance between the actual real state of the
structure and the limit state.
• The verification of an existing structure should normally be carried out to ensure
a target reliability level that represents the required level of structural
performance.
• Current codes or codes equivalent to ISO 2394, which have produced sufficient
reliability over a long period of application may be used. Former codes that were
valid at the time of construction of an existing structure should be used as
informative documents
Deterministic verification with global safety
factors
• The deterministic approach is the traditional way of defining safety. It is fully
based on experience and the safety measures are of empiric nature respectively.
Deterministic verification is characterised by simplifications and associated with
those by conservative safety measures.
• Deterministic verification methods with one global safety factor reflect reality
insufficient and contain a considerable amount of uncertainty and for that reason
should be used only exceptionally within the assessment of existing structures.
• The most common deterministic safety measure is the global 'factor of safety'. It
is the ratio of the resistance and the load effect and applied mostly on the
resistance side.
• Another concept is the load factor method, where the safety measure is
represented by the 'load factor', which is the ratio of the ultimate strength of a
member to its working loads.
Partial safety factors
• The semi-probabilistic approach is based on the limit state principle. The primary
concern is to ensure that failure does not occur in a component of the structure
or the structure itself, which is described as Ultimate Limit State (ULS).
• For structural assessment it may also be important to analyse the serviceability
performance where the structural effects of loading may be a serviceability
failure, described as Serviceability Limit State (SLS).
• Partial safety factors guard against the extreme variations of the design
parameters, which could possibly occur during their use on both, resistance and
load side.
• To simplify verification routines, partial safety factors supply a wide range of
structures and failure modes. Also in design a safe structural answer is more
important than a realistic one and economic design means ease of construction
instead of structural efficiency. For those reasons semi probabilistic methods tend
to be conservative for the majority of structures.
Probabilistic verification
• Probabilistic verification procedures are also based on the principle of
limit states
• Probability of failure and structural reliability are directly associated.
The measures of whether a structure is adequately safe or not, are
the probability of failure and the equivalent reliability index.
• the procedure is highly sensitive to the chosen probability
distributions which represent the basic random variables and also to
the analysis methods and models for calculating the load effects (e.g.
grillage analysis, FE analysis).
Target reliability
• In a probability based approach to assessment the structural risk
acceptance correspond to a required minimum structural reliability,
defined as target reliability.
• The requirements to the safety of the structure are consequently expressed
in terms of the accepted minimum reliability index β or the accepted
maximum failure probability Pf.
• The target reliability level, used for verification of an existing structure can
be determined based on calibration to existing practice (i.e. on existing
codes), assuming that existing practice is optimal. Further possibilities to
optimise the necessary reliability level are the concept of the minimum
total expected cost and/or the comparison with other social risks
• There are fundamental differences between the assessment of existing structures
and the design of new structures, which affect the requirement on the structural
performance and thus may affect the used target reliability in individual cases.
The differences are as follows (ISO 13822):
• − economic considerations: the cost between acceptance and upgrading the
existing structure can be very large, whereas the cost of increasing the safety of a
structural design is generally very small, consequently conservative generic
criteria are used in design but should not be used in assessment,
• − social considerations: these include disruption (or even displacement) of
occupants and activities, also heritage values, considerations that do not affect
the structural design, but assessment,
• − sustainability considerations: reduction of waste and recycling, considerations
of less importance in the design of new structure, but in assessment.
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT ROUTINES
Performance assessment (Level 1)
• The most straightforward formal assessment routine is the comparing
of directly measured performance values xm with defined threshold
values xt :
xm ≤ xt

• The assessment can be carried out under working load or under

defined proof load. Common applications are:
• − Serviceability tests after construction. Measures are static and dynamic
parameters (e.g. deflection of bridge decks, acceleration and natural frequency of
foot bridges).
• − Serviceability and transport safety tests preliminary to utility changes. Measures
are static and dynamic parameters (e.g. deflections of ceilings in buildings;
deflection, inclinations, acceleration and natural frequencies of railway bridge
decks for an increased traveling speed of trains).
• − Monitoring of dynamic loading. Measures are dynamic parameters (e.g. increase
of vibration amplitudes at bad surface conditions of road bridges).
• − Performance monitoring of nearly insufficient structures. Measures are static and
dynamic parameters (e.g. deflection, crack growth)
Partial factor based assessment routines
(Level 2, 3, 4)
• Within the partial safety factor approach the safety and serviceability of a
structure or component is validated by comparing the characteristic values
for the action Sk and the resistance Rk:

• where γS and γR are the partial safety factors for the action effects and the
resistances respectively. While the characteristic values are based on
statistical parameters, the partial safety factors have to be determined by
calibration. This used to be based on engineering judgment, now there
exist probabilistic tools for calibration.
Codified partial safety factors (Level 2, 3)
Generally, partial safety factors are constituted in codes and guidelines. If there are no specific
codes and guidelines for assessment with adapted safety factors, safety factors calibrated for
design from according design codes and guidelines have to be used.
Assessment based on documents and visual inspection (Level 2)
• Information about load and resistance is taken from design documents and codes with
exception of specific values, leading to the assessment (damage, extraordinary load).
Knowledge about structural condition from visual inspection may also enter the
assessment. Within this routine the structural analysis is based on those used in the design
process.If necessary, more refined analysis techniques (e.g. FE analysis) may be used.
• Common applications are:
− validation of safety and serviceability after extreme load damage (damages can result from
extreme traffic or floor load, impact, earthquake, windstorm, etc.),
• − validation of safety and serviceability after deterioration damage (damages are results of
fatigue, corrosion or other deterioration processes),
• − determination of safety and serviceability for utility changes (utility changes can be a new
use of buildings (e.g. to warehouses) and extreme heavy vehicle crossing of bridges, not
designed for that load).
Assessment based on supplementary
investigations (Level 3)
Detailed investigation on material properties and dimensions
• When a structure or components could not be assessed as sufficient with Level 2 methods,
accurate information about material properties and dimensions from in situ and lab tests may
lead to a successful verification of safety and/or serviceability.
• Typical parameters to be analysed are:
− geometric dimensions,
− mechanical and chemical material properties,
− hidden damage or inhomogeneities.

• Investigation methods are listed and explained in 2.3.1.2.

• To be able to make a sufficient conclusion about a material property, tests have to be carried out
on an adequate number of samples. Statistics of the test results can than be used for determining
the site-specific characteristic value of the tested property. Geometrical measures are generally
applied with their nominal value.
• Measurement based system identification
• When it becomes necessary to use more refined analysis methods and models (e.g. FE models)
the structural properties of the model need to be adapted to the reality. For that reason it is
useful to determine performance measures and compare them to those of the model. Structural
parameter need then to be adapted at the model to reflect the real structure in a sufficient
manner.

• Performance values and method of data acquisition:

− displacements (e.g. midspan deflection) – load tests
− strain / stress values – load tests, monitoring
− natural frequency and mode shapes – monitoring

• Structural parameters within model adaptation are:

− cross sectional stiffness (e.g. module of elasticity, dimensions, stiffness of superstructures and
attachments)
− hinge and bearing flexibility
− mass distribution and damping behaviour
− constraints which affect structural performance (e.g. external prestressing)
Site specific live load models

• These load models allow for the worst credible happenstance, in case of
bridges for instance based on estimated maximum dynamic impact effects,
worst overloading of vehicles and maximum lateral bunching of vehicles on
a bridge.
• Also, they often allow for future increases in live loading and are
inappropriate for safety evaluation of short time periods With bridges
taking into account different traffic conditions on different types of roads,
different impact characteristics, or the lower probability of maximum
impact effects occurring at the same time as lateral bunching leads to site
specific live load models with reduced magnitudes.
• To develop a site specific live load for assessment, statistical data needs to
be collected from a range of structures of the same type. Then probabilistic
load models have to be generated based on the collected data. With
reliability analysis the load model will be calibrated for defined sets of
structures. This work needs to be done in preliminary stages of the
assessment by a technical authority.
Modified partial safety factors (Level 4)
• Based on structure-specific safety characteristics, target reliability as
assessment criteria can be modified. Within partial factor based
safety format those factors need to be modified to represent the
adjusted safety margin. Concerning resistance and load parameter,
the actual assessment is still on a purely deterministic basis, since the
same fixed nominal or characteristic values are used for each basic
parameter. Specific safety characteristics are loading history,
consequences of failure, reserve strength and redundancy, warning of
failure by inspection and monitoring.
• Loading history: For modifications based on loading history the underlying
assumption is that if the bridge has been in service for a sufficiently long period
of time, it can be reasonably assumed that it will have been subject to some
extreme loading
• Consequences of failure: For modifications based on consequences of failure
structures can be classified according to the consequences, if failure occurs (e.g.
low, medium, high, very high hazards to life and economic consequences). The
classification is based on the ratio r defined as the ratio between total costs (i.e.
construction costs plus direct failure costs) and construction costs.
• Reserve strength and redundancy: For modifications based on reserve strength
and redundancy structures can be classified according to the type of failure if
failure occurs (e.g. ductile and redundant with high reserve strength, brittle
failure).
• Warning of failure: For modifications based on warning of failure magnitude of
the target reliability can be reduced, if early warning by periodic inspections or a
monitoring system is intended. Modifying partial safety factors based on adjusted
target reliability is a probabilistic procedure and should be carried out for sets of
structures and structural specifics by a technical authority.
Probabilistic assessment routines (Level 5)
• The main result of a probabilistic assessment routine is the calculated
probability of failure or the equivalent reliability index of a structure or
structural member.
• Uncertainties are modelled using appropriate probability distribution
functions for each basic variable and for defined limit states the probability
of failure or the equivalently the reliability index is calculated for structural
components or the overall structure.
• According to ISO 2394, three types of uncertainties may be identified:
− inherent random variability or uncertainty, subdivided into uncertainties
which can, and cannot, be affected by human activities;
− uncertainty due to inadequate knowledge, subdivided into uncertainties
which can, and cannot, be decreased by research activities;
− statistical uncertainty
Principles of probability
based assessment
• The critical failure modes have to
be determined in a pre-evaluation
process, applying traditional
deterministic analysis.
Information about location and
extend of deterioration or
mechanical damage can be
acquired from inspections and
monitoring. With sensitivity
analysis it can be estimated
whether the conclusion on
identified critical failure modes is
stable due to variations in
information and modelling.
• The limit state surface (or failure
surface) is the limit state
equation in the n dimensional
basic variable space:
g(x) = 0
• with x denoting the vector of n
basic variables. It is describing
the functional coherency of all
basic variables within one failure
mode and divides the basic
variable space in a safe domain:
g(x) ≥ 0 and a failure domain:
g(x) < 0

Schematic illustration of the probability density functions of

the basic variables R and S, the joint p.d.f. and the
limit state g(x)=R-S=0 [14].
• All basic variables within the critical limit state related to load, resistance and modelling which
imply uncertainty, are modelled as stochastic variables with corresponding statistical distributions
in agreement with the knowledge about the variables from documents including codes, by
inspection, testing and monitoring. It is especially convenient to model human natured live load
specific to the structures in question, where the statistical distribution of the load strongly
depends on the structures utilisation.

• In a general case, the probability of failure Pf is defined by the limit state g(x) < 0:
Pf = P (g(x) < 0)

• Several methods are developed to compute Pf

− exact analytical methods
− numerical integration
− approximate analytical methods
− simulation methods.
• The relation between the probability of failure Pf and the reliability index b is described by:
b = F -1(Pf )
• In a final step the calculated structural reliability is compared to the safety requirements,
constituted in target values of the probability of failure or reliability index.
Time variant reliability assessment
• Live load and resistance of a structure do change with time, particularly if
the structure is subjected to deterioration advancing processes like
environmental or chemical attack, or fluctuating stresses. A reliability
analysis should therefore consider time variance in basic variables
describing load and/or resistance as processes.
• In case of time dependent random variables (i.e. random processes), the
limit state function should be considered with respect of time:
g(x(t)) < 0 for t є [0,T]
• where [0,T] denotes the reference period, which can be structural lifetime
or other period of interest. Then probability of failure becomes:
Pf (t) = P (g(x(t)) < 0)
• It is called "first passage probability", since it defines the probability that
the limit state is "crossed" for the first time during the reference period
[0,T]. Depending on the problem, there are several approaches for
determination of failure probability at specific points in time taking into
account the time dependence of load effects and / or resistance, e.g. [6]:
• − time-integrated approach where the whole lifetime of a structure is
considered
• − discrete approach, where shorter periods are considered (e.g. wind
storms)
The determination of the characteristic value
fck of concrete strength
• under pressure based on measurement results. The characteristic value of strength is
defined as the 5% lower quantile
• fck = fc0.05.
• The number of measurements n = 24 (34.0, 30.2, 23.2, 25.9, 29.5, 33.3, 34.0,
• 26.5, 29.8, 29.4, 45.8, 30.3, 32.7, 32.8, 24.1, 32.6, 29.6, 21.7, 33.5, 36.4, 35.3, 32.7,
• 33.8, 22.3 MPa).
• An average based on these measurements mfc = 30.80 MPa.
• A standard deviation of a given measurement file sfc = 5.281 MPa.
• The variation coefficient Vfc = sfc/mfc = 5.281/30.80 = 0.1714.
• The coefficient value kn = 1.65 is determined using interpolation for unknown Vx (the
variation coefficient is not known from many previous measurements – we know only
the variation coefficient from our measurement file).
• fck = mfc(1-kn Vfc) = 30.80(1-1.65 x 0.1714) =22.08MPa
• The standard framework ISO recommends using the following partial factor
values of material reliability γM:
• For concrete γC = 1.5
• For concrete reinforcement γs = 1.15
• For construction steel γs = 1.15 (calculation examples for some cases 1.30,
1.45, 1.50)
• For solid wood γM = 1.3
• For glued laminated wood γM = 1.25
• For masonry γM = 1.15 až 3.0 (the factor value is determined based on
masonry material and
Case Studies
Conclusion
REFERENCES
• Https://www.Structuretec.Com
• SAMCO final report 2006[f08a guideline for the assessment of existing structures f08a] guideline for the assessment of
existing structures {dir. U. Prof. Dr. W. Rücker, dipl.-Ing. F. Hille, dipl.-Ing. R. Rohrmann federal institute of materials research
and testing (BAM), division VII.2 buildings and structures unter den eichen 87, 12205 berlin, germany}
• “A case study on the structural assessment of fire damaged building” M H osman1, N N sarbini2, I S ibrahim1, C K ma2,m
ismail2 and M F mohd3, IOP conf. Series: materials science and engineering 271 (2017) 012100 doi:10.1088/1757-
899x/271/1/012100.
• “Forensic investigation of fire-affected reinforced concrete buildings “ iosr journal of mechanical and civil engineering (iosr-
jmce) e-issn: 2278-1684,p-issn: 2320-334x, volume 11, issue 4 ver. IV (jul- aug. 2014), PP 17-23 www.Iosrjournals.Org
www.Iosrjournals.Org 17 | page awoyera, P.O.1, akinwumi, I.I.2, ede, A.N.3, olofinnade, M.O.4
• “ effects of temperature levels and concrete cover thickness on residual strength characteristics of fire exposed reinforced
concrete beams “ f. Kigha1, J. A sadeeq2 and O. S. Abejide3,*, nigerian journal of technology (NIJOTECH) vol. 34 no. 3, july
2015, pp. 429 – 437 copyright© faculty of engineering, university of nigeria, nsukka, ISSN: 0331-8443
• Case studies to test: A framework for using structural, reactivity, metabolic and physicochemical similarity to evaluate the
suitability of analogs for sar-based toxicological assessments,karen blackburn a,⇑, donald bjerke b, george daston a, susan
felter a, catherine mahony c, jorge naciff a, steven robison a, shengde wua,
• CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS FOR REPAIR AND UPGRADING prepared under:- goi-undp disaster, risk management
programme national disaster management division ministry of home affairs, government of india new delhi
• Professional engineers ontario structural condition assessments of existing buildings and designated structures guideline
• BASICS FOR ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURES milan holický, vladislava návarová, roman gottfried, michal kronika jana
marková, miroslav sýkora, karel jung, edited by: milan holický, klokner institute, czech technical university in prague, czech
republic