Scope of work:

Condition Assessment of RCC members of One Billet i.e. Billet-13

Part-1

i) Visual observations of condition of structural load bearing walls, RCC Batons, Brick
columns etc. of the structure:
In this study visual observation indicating any signs of distress in structural members
shall be carried out. Visual observation data will be supplemented by photographs
and other pertinent information wherever available.
ii) To conduct experimental investigation by Non Destructive Testing technique on the
selected accessible locations of the structural members of the structure: -
a) Assessment of surface compressive strength of concrete on selected RCC
members using Rebound Hammer (type N) test technique as per IS: 13311-1992
(Part-II). “P” type Rebound Hammer shall also be used for finding out the
plastering strength over the brick/RCC masonry. (Limited to 8 locations)
b) Quality assessment of concrete in selected RCC members using Ultrasonic Pulse
Velocity (UPV) testing technique as per IS: 13311- 1992 (Part – 1) (Limited to 8
locations).
Note: f The Ultra Sonic Pulse Velocity test method described in IS 516 (Part
5/Section 1): 2018 shall be applicable as and when published, in place of
corresponding IS 13311 (Part 1): 1992 ‘Methods of non-destructive testing of
concrete: Part 1 Ultrasonic Pulse velocity’.
c) Assessment of Carbonation depth of RCC Batons.
d) Determine the corrosion status of reinforcement steel using Half-Cell Potential
testing as per ASTM C876 on few selected safely accessible RCC batons.
(Limited to 6-8 locations)
e) Determination of compressive strength of few bricks taken randomly from
selected locations. (For 4-5 no’s bricks)
f) Determination of approximate composition of brick mortar at few randomly
selected locations. This will be done by assuming the brick mortar to be made of
OPC cement and sand only. (At 3 locations)
g) Chemical analysis of bricks for finding the pH, Sulphates, Chlorides, etc.
h) General seismic evaluation & verification of masonry building shall be done by
using IS 4326:2013 & IS 13935:2009 provisions.

1
 i) Brick masonry wall’s foundations shall be visually inspected (max 2 no’s
locations)
iii) Analysis and interpretation of test results/data obtained in (i) & (ii) above.
iv) The report covering (i) to (iii) above.
Data Provided by Sponsor
As mentioned in our proposal and informed by CPWD representatives at site, the
Billets are G+1 storied & constructed more than 50 years ago with 40mm thick red
sandstone as slab over a support of RCC batons. No architectural drawings, structural
drawings, design or foundation details of subject structures were made available to
us.

2.0 INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT -

2.1. Visual Observations:

To collect data of apparent distress in structural members of one Billet at New Delhi,
visual observation survey was carried out during the site visits. The visual observation on
apparent condition of structural members of the structures are summarized in section 3.1.
Billet-13 was selected to carry out the testing as the condition of the Billet was severe after
discussion with CPWD representatives.

2.2 Rebound Hammer Testing (RHT) as per IS: 13311 (Part 2) – 1992
Rebound hammer method is used for assessing the compressive strength on the surface of the
hardened concrete. Calibrated Rebound Hammer suitable for different ranges of compressive
strength is used to find the compressive strength on the surface of the concrete.
When the plunger of Rebound Hammer is pressed against the surface of the concrete,
the spring-controlled mass rebounds and the extent of such rebound depends upon the surface
hardness of concrete. The surface hardness and therefore the rebound is taken to be related to
the compressive strength of the concrete. The rebound is read off along a graduated scale and
is designated as the rebound number or rebound index. It is also to be noted that rebound
indices are indicative of compressive strength of concrete to a limited depth from the surface.
If the concrete in a particular member has internal micro cracking, flaws or heterogeneity
across the cross-section, rebound hammer indices will not indicate the same. IS 13311-1992,
part-II states, “As such, the estimation of strength of concrete by rebound hammer method

2
cannot be held to be very accurate and probable accuracy of prediction of concrete strength in
a structure is ±25 percent.”
The above test was carried out using a Schmidt’s Rebound Hammer on randomly selected
accessible locations. The surfaces at the chosen locations were thoroughly cleaned and
readings were taken around each point. The average of the readings becomes the rebound
index at that point of observations.

2.3. Rebound Hammer Testing (RHT) of Plaster Work using P-Type Rebound Hammer
P-Type Rebound hammer method is used for assessing the likely surface compressive
strength of materials with low hardness and strength such as lightweight concrete, plaster
work and surfacing.
Using the P-Type Rebound Hammer, the compressive strength and uniformity of
building materials are measured. The test hammer strikes the building material with a defined
energy. A body rebounds depending on the hardness of tested material. The rebound numbers
are read from a scale. The approximate impact energy of a P-Type Rebound Hammer is about
0.09 kgm. However, the test should only be used as an indication of the probable compressive
strength of plaster work. Furthermore, for carbonated surfaces, there is an increase in surface
hardness (due to the formation of calcium carbonate) without a necessary corresponding
increase in compressive strength. Thus, carbonation leads to overestimation of surface
compressive strength.
The test was carried out using a Schmidt’s Rebound Hammer (make PROCEQ) Type-P on
selected and accessible plastered surfaces of various RCC members as well as masonry walls.
Six readings were taken around each point of observation on the chosen surfaces. The
average of six readings becomes the rebound index at that point of observation and the
probable surface compressive strength for the point of observation was estimated based on
co-relation between rebound index/number and compressive strength provided by
Manufacturer (PROCEQ).

2.4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) Method.

UPV Method is a non-destructive evaluation method for assessing the quality of
concrete; density, homogeneity and uniformity. Basic principle of UPV method is given
below.
In this method, an ultrasonic pulse of longitudinal vibrations is produced by an
electro-acoustical transducer which is held in contact with one surface of the concrete
member under test. When the pulse is induced into the concrete from a transducer, it

3
undergoes multiple reflections at the boundaries of the different material phases within the
concrete. A complex system of stress waves is developed which includes longitudinal
(compression), shear (transverse) and surface (Rayleigh) waves. The receiving transducer
detects the onset of the longitudinal waves, which is the fastest. After traversing a known path
length of the member, the pulse of vibrations is converted into an electric signal by a second
electro-acoustical transducer, and an electric timing circuit enables the transit time of the
pulse to be measured, from which the pulse velocity is calculated.
The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity in concrete is mainly related to its density and modulus
of elasticity. This in turn depends upon the materials and mix proportions used in making
concrete as well as methods of placing, compaction and curing of concrete. If the concrete is
not thoroughly compacted, or if there is segregation of concrete during placing or there are
internal cracks or flaws, the pulse velocity will be lower, although the same materials and mix
proportions are used.
There are two methods of conducting UPV test depending upon availability of faces
of RCC members in the structure. One is cross-probing (or direct-probing), in which the
transducers are held on two opposite faces of the RCC members. If the opposite face is not
available, then transducers are held on same face of the RCC member. This method is known
as ‘surface probing’ technique involving transmission of Ultrasonic Pulse through the
concrete surface. Surface probing in general gives lower pulse velocity than in case of cross
probing and depending on number of parameters, the difference could be of the order of
about 1 km/sec.
The underlying principle of assessing the quality of concrete from UPV method is
that, comparatively higher pulse velocities are obtained when the ‘quality’ of concrete in
terms of density, homogeneity and uniformity is good. In case of concrete of poorer quality,
lower velocities are obtained.
On this basis, guidelines have been evolved for characterizing the quality of concrete
in structures in terms of ultrasonic pulse velocity. Such guideline is given in Table 1, which is
reproduced from IS 516 (Part 5/Sec 1): 2018.
For the present investigation, accessible RCC members were selected from various
locations by random sampling technique to conduct UPV test. After removing plaster,
claddings etc., the surface of the RCC members were thoroughly cleaned and smoothened
with carborundum/grinding stone. The RCC members were then divided in parts at a suitable
grid spacing and UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked by cross
probing/surface probing technique depending on accessibility of opposite faces of RCC

4
members using UPV Tester PUNDIT (Portable Ultrasonic Non-Destructive Digital Indicative
TM
Tester) Lab of make PROCEQ. Grease was used as coupling medium between the
transducer face and the concrete surface.

TABLE A
VELOCITY CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE QUALITY GRADING (reproduced from
Table 1 of IS 516 (Part 5/Section 1): 2018
Sl No. Average Value of Pulse Velocity by Cross- Concrete Quality Grading
Probing (km/sec)
1 Above 4.40 Excellent
2 3.75 to 4.40 Good
3 3.00 to 3.75 Doubtful
4 Below 3.00 Poor
In case of ‘Doubtful’ quality it may be necessary to carry out further tests.

2.5. Carbonation Test

Carbonation is the formation of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3) by chemical reactions in
concrete. When CO2 penetrates into the hardened concrete, it reacts with portlandite
[Portlandite is a mineral formed during the curing of concrete, calcium hydroxide Ca(OH) 2]
in the presence of moisture, forming CaCO 3. The rate of carbonation depends mainly on the
relative humidity, the concentration of CO2, the penetration pressure and the temperature of
the environment where concrete is placed.
As carbon dioxide enters the concrete from the environment, it reacts with calcium
hydroxide present in the concrete and depending upon the quality of concrete it reduces the
alkalinity of the pore fluids, thereby de-passivating ferric oxide layer on reinforcing bar
which in turn makes the rebar susceptible to corrosion.
To determine the depth of carbonation, concrete is exposed and sprayed with a pH
indicator (solution of 1% phenolphthalein in 70% ethyl alcohol). The demarcation between
the region, which turns into magenta (dark pink colour) and the region showing no change in
colour indicate the carbonation front.

In the following study, carbonation depth was measured on the extracted concrete
cores immediately after extraction with help of phenolphthalein indicator solution as
described above.

5
2.6. Half-Cell Potential (HCP) Measurements

This test method covers the estimation of electrical Half Cell Potential of uncoated
reinforcing steel, to determine corrosion activity using reference electrode copper; copper
sulphate half-cell. It is not possible to expose all the reinforcements in the structural element
and observe the extent of corrosion. So, this method has been very convenient to assess the
condition of the entire length of a member by exposing a portion of the reinforcement at a
suitable location, which measures the half-cell potential on the entire length, by placing the
reference electrode on the wet concrete surface.
The Half-Cell Potential measurement is based on the principle that corrosion, being an
electro-chemical process, induces certain voltage in the reinforcement steel that is corroding.
The wetting of the concrete is required to make the portion between the concrete surface and
the reinforcing bar as electrolytes.

TABLE B
Criteria for deciding the status of corrosion
[ACCORDING TO ASTM C – 876]
Potentials over an Area Corrosion Probability
There is a greater than 90 % probability that
Less negative than -200 mV no reinforcing steel corrosion is occurring in that area
at the time of measurement
Corrosion activity of the reinforcing steel in
-200 to -350 mV
that area is Uncertain
There is a greater than 90 % probability that
More negative than -350 mV reinforcing steel corrosion is occurring in that area at
the time of measurement
For pre wetting the concrete surface, the voltmeter was observed for one of the following

conditions:

(a) The measured value of the half-cell potential does not change or fluctuate with time.

(b) The measured value of the half-cell potential changes or fluctuates with time.

If condition (a) is observed, pre-wetting the concrete surface is not necessary. However, if
condition (b) is observed, pre-wetting is required for an amount of time such that the voltage
reading is stable (+ 0.02 V) when observed for at least 5 min.

2.7 Compressive strength of Bricks

6
 Compressive strength of few bricks samples was determined in NCB Laboratory by
taking bricks randomly from the brick masonry walls to determine the approximate class
designation of bricks. The bricks were tested as per IS: 3495 (1992).

2.8 Brick mortar Composition

Chemical analysis of brick mortar samples taken randomly from few locations of
brick masonry walls was done in NCB Laboratory to determine the approximate composition
of brick mortar in terms of ratio of cement to sand. In order to arrive at an approximate
composition, two sub procedures were followed as per ASTM C-1084 – soluble silica sub
procedure and calcium oxide sub procedure to determine the percentage (by mass) of silica
(SiO2) and the Calcium Oxide (CaO) respectively in the powdered brick mortar sample. From
this the percentage cement obtained from each sub procedure was evaluated and lower of the
two was taken as the percentage cement content. As stated in the scope of work, it was
assumed that the brick mortar sample consisted only of Ordinary Portland Cement and sand.
This determination of mix proportion is only an approximate estimate and has some error
which may come from various sources, such as – presence of free lime in the cement-sand
mortar, presence of pozzolanic material, presence of significant amount of calcareous
aggregate, presence of insoluble residue other than sand, presence of any other source of
calcium oxide other than Portland Cement.

2.9. Chemical Analysis of Bricks

For analyzing Chloride content, Sulphate(SO3) content and pH in brick, brick pieces
were extracted from site and grinded into fine powder (passing 150µ IS: Sieve) and then
tested as per IS:14959 part (II).

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Visual Observation

Visual survey of the structural members of Billet-13 New Delhi was carried
out during the visits for condition assessment. Photographs of typical signs of apparent
distress and on-site testing are given in Fig.1 to Fig. 11 of Annexure-VI.

The visual observations are summarized hereunder:

Visual Observation: -
1. Cracking, spalling of cover concrete and exposure of corroded reinforcement was
observed in the Beam above the toilet block below parapet level of Billet-13-C.

7
 2. Cracking, spalling of cover concrete and exposure of corroded reinforcement was
observed in the Lintel beam on gate at the end of the corridor of Billet 13-C.
3. Cracking, spalling of cover concrete and exposure of corroded reinforcement was
observed in the Beam outside Room-8 of Billet 13-B on back side.
4. Seepage spots were observed on the Walls of Billet-13.
5. During visual survey, continuous RCC beams over the openings and below the slab
soffit were not observed. Only lintel beams were found on openings.
6. The plinth beam was not found during the visual survey of the footing.
7. It was observed that the foundation for the Billet is Brick Masonry stepped footing
with top width at NGL is 500 mm and width of base is 900 mm. The depth of footing
is 600 mm from NGL. Further 600 mm of filling is done upto the level flooring level.
8. The Floor slab and the Ceiling slab is constructed of Sandstone panels which were
found in dire shape during site investigation.
9. Heavy dead weight of steel Amirahs on sandstone slab was found, despite the distress
& uneven floor formations observed in sandstone slab.

3.2 Rebound Hammer Testing:

Rebound Hammer Testing was carried out on randomly identified & accessible
locations of RCC Batons of Billet-13 in the presence of CPWD’s representative officials. The
results of compressive strength obtained by Rebound Hammer Testing are given in
Annexure-I. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete as obtained on different identified
hardened concrete surfaces of RCC Batons of Billet-13 is summarized as below:
1. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-3 in corridor
near staircase, by Rebound Hammer Testing, as shown in S.No.1 on Page No.1 of
Annexure-I, is found to vary from 22.00 N/mm2 to 34.00 N/mm2 with an average of
29.96 N/mm2.
2. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-2 in corridor
near staircase, by Rebound Hammer, as shown in S.No.2 on Page No.1 of
Annexure-I, Testing is found to vary from 28.00 N/mm2 to 40.67 N/mm2 with an
average of 32.92 N/mm2.
3. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-2 in corridor
between 13-C & 13-D Billet, as shown in S.No.3 on Page No.1 of Annexure-I,
Testing is found to vary from 40.00 N/mm2 to 48.17 N/mm2 with an average of
43.42 N/mm2.

8
 4. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-4 in corridor
between 13-C & 13-D, by Rebound Hammer, as shown in S.No.4 on Page No.1 of
Annexure-I, Testing is found to vary from 40.67 N/mm2 to 46.83 N/mm2 with an
average of 43.25 N/mm2.
5. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-5 in corridor
between 13-C & 13-D Billet, by Rebound Hammer, as shown in S.No.5 on Page
No.1 of Annexure-I, Testing is found to vary from 36.67 N/mm2 to 41.33 N/mm2
with an average of 38.83 N/mm2.
6. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-2 in corridor
in front of Main Switch Board, by Rebound Hammer, as shown in S.No.6 on Page
No.1 of Annexure-I, Testing is found to vary from 20.50 N/mm2 to 26.50 N/mm2
with an average of 22.50 N/mm2.
7. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-4 in corridor
in front of Main Switch Board, by Rebound Hammer, as shown in S.No.7 on Page
No.1 of Annexure-I, Testing is found to vary from 18.83 N/mm2 to 23.00 N/mm2
with an average of 21.33 N/mm2.
8. Equivalent Compressive strength of concrete obtained on RCC Baton-2 near above
Almirah in Room-2 of Billet 13-C, by Rebound Hammer, as shown in S.No.8 on
Page No.1 of Annexure-I, Testing is found to vary from 38.67 N/mm2 to 41.00
N/mm2 with an average of 39.92 N/mm2.

Fig.A Graphical representation of Equivalent compressive strength obtained from Rebound

Hammer

9
3.3 P-Type Rebound Hammer Testing

The P-Type Rebound Hammer testing was conducted on accessible and selected faces of
plastered surfaces of masonry members of Billet-13. The results of the RHT values obtained
on various plastered surfaces from the identified sample locations are as follows (refer
Annexure-II)

1. The equivalent compressive strength obtained against the recorded average rebound
indices for plastered surface of Corner Column on Left hand side of entrance to Billet
13-D, as shown in S.No.1 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 8.70
N/mm2 to 9.80 N/mm2 with an average of 9.28 N/mm2.

2. The equivalent compressive strength obtained against the recorded average rebound
indices for plastered surface of Wall beside opening in front of Room No.2 of Billet 13-
D, as shown in S.No.2 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 9.50 N/mm 2 to
10.10 N/mm2 with an average of 9.85 N/mm2.

3. The equivalent surface compressive strength obtained against the recorded average
rebound indices for plastered surface of Column beside Room No.2 of billet 13-C, as
shown in S.No.3 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 9.20 N/mm2 to 9.50
N/mm2 with an average of 9.35 N/mm2.

4. The equivalent surface compressive strength obtained against the recorded average
rebound indices for plastered surface of Wall beside toilet (outside) of Billet 13-C, as
shown in S.No.4 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 8.70 N/mm2 to 12.30
N/mm2 with an average of 10.58 N/mm2.

5. The equivalent surface compressive strength obtained against the recorded average
rebound indices for plastered surface of Wall in front of Room-1 & 2 beside opening of
Billet 13-B, as shown in S.No.5 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 10.10
N/mm2 to 12.50 N/mm2 with an average of 11.52 N/mm2.

6. The equivalent surface compressive strength obtained against the recorded average
rebound indices for plastered surface of Column beside Room No.2 of Billet 13-B, as
shown in S.No.6 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 14.10 N/mm 2 to
16.00 N/mm2 with an average of 14.86 N/mm2.

7. The equivalent surface compressive strength obtained against the recorded average
rebound indices for plastered surface of Wall in front of Room-3 & 4 beside opening of

10
 Billet 13-A, as shown in S.No.7 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 8.25
N/mm2 to 15.25 N/mm2 with an average of 11.56 N/mm2.

8. The equivalent surface compressive strength obtained against the recorded average
rebound indices for plastered surface of Column beside Toilet of Billet 13-A, as shown in
S.No.8 at Page No.1 of Annexure-II, is found to vary from 18.80 N/mm2 to 20.00 N/mm2
with an average of 19.32 N/mm2.

Fig.B Graphical representation of Equivalent compressive strength on plastered surface

obtained from P-Type Rebound Hammer

3.4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing (UPV)

The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity testing was conducted on accessible & randomly
identified RCC Batons of Billet-13. The results of the UPV values obtained on various RCC
Batons from the identified sample locations are as follows:
i) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-1 in Corridor between 13-C & 13-D Billet (passing through column of Billet
13-D) using cross probing technique. The UPV measurements, as shown in S.No.1 at
Page No.1 of Annexure-III, were in the range of 2.71 km/sec to 4.28 km/sec with an
average value of 3.58 km/sec. When these values are compared with the velocity
grading criteria of IS 516 (Part 5/Section 1): 2018 (reproduced in Table A), the overall
quality of concrete is graded as DOUBTFUL.

11
ii) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-2 in Corridor between 13-C & 13-D Billet using cross probing technique. The
UPV measurements, as shown in S.No.2 at Page No.1 of Annexure-III, were in the
range of 2.81 km/sec to 4.23 km/sec with an average value of 3.21 km/sec. When
these values are compared with the velocity grading criteria of IS 516 (Part 5/Section
1): 2018 (reproduced in Table A), the overall quality of concrete is graded as
DOUBTFUL.
iii) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-4 in Corridor between 13-C & 13-D Billet using cross probing technique. The
UPV measurements, as shown in S.No.3 at Page No.1 of Annexure-III, were in the
range of 4.01 km/sec to 4.42 km/sec with an average value of 4.18 km/sec. When
these values are compared with the velocity grading criteria of IS 516 (Part 5/Section
1): 2018 (reproduced in Table A), the overall quality of concrete is graded as GOOD.
iv) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-2 in Main Switch Corridor using cross probing technique. The UPV
measurements, as shown in S.No.4 at Page No.1 of Annexure-III, were in the range of
3.51 km/sec to 4.07 km/sec with an average value of 3.74 km/sec. When these values
are compared with the velocity grading criteria of IS 516 (Part 5/Section 1): 2018
(reproduced in Table A), the overall quality of concrete is graded as DOUBTFUL.
v) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-4 in Main Switch Corridor using cross probing technique. The UPV
measurements, as shown in S.No.5 at Page No.1 of Annexure-III, were in the range of
3.83 km/sec to 4.21 km/sec with an average value of 4.05 km/sec. When these values
are compared with the velocity grading criteria of IS 516 (Part 5/Section 1): 2018
(reproduced in Table A), the overall quality of concrete is graded as GOOD.
vi) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-2 in Corridor near staircase using cross probing technique. The UPV
measurements, as shown in S.No.6 at Page No.1 of Annexure-III, were in the range of
4.00 km/sec to 4.49 km/sec with an average value of 4.25 km/sec. When these values
are compared with the velocity grading criteria of IS 516 (Part 5/Section 1): 2018
(reproduced in Table A), the overall quality of concrete is graded as GOOD.
vii) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-3 in Corridor near staircase using cross probing technique. The UPV
measurements, as shown in S.No.7 at Page No.1 of Annexure-III, were in the range of

12
 4.12 km/sec to 4.20 km/sec with an average value of 4.16 km/sec. When these values
are compared with the velocity grading criteria of IS 516 (Part 5/Section 1): 2018
(reproduced in Table A), the overall quality of concrete is graded as GOOD.
viii) UPV measurements were taken on the grid points marked on opposite faces of RCC
Baton-2 near & above almirah in Room-2 of Billet 13-C using cross probing
technique. The UPV measurements, as shown in S.No.8 at Page No.1 of Annexure-III,
were in the range of 3.35 km/sec to 3.78 km/sec with an average value of 3.55
km/sec. When these values are compared with the velocity grading criteria of IS 516
(Part 5/Section 1): 2018 (reproduced in Table A), the overall quality of concrete is
graded as DOUBTFUL.

3.5 Carbonation Test

Carbonation depth was measured on the concrete cores extracted from the RCC
members by spraying with a pH indicator (solution of 1% phenolphthalein in 70% ethyl
alcohol). The test results for depth of carbonation measured from top/bottom/side surface of
identified RCC members are given in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the carbonation test on 3 nos. 25 mm concrete cores extracted from
RCC beam above window outside Room-8 of Billet 13-B on backside indicate carbonation of
the extracted core length. For comparison, the measured concrete cover thickness is provided
alongside the respective carbonation depths in Table 2. The carbonation depth has exceeded
the average concrete cover in the tested location.

3.6. Half-Cell Potential Test

Half-cell potential measurements, using copper, copper-sulfate half-cell technique,
were taken at site to ascertain corrosion of reinforcement in RCC members. The measurement
was carried out in selected accessible RCC Members. The results are discussed hereunder:

i. Test results of Half-Cell Potential measurements taken on Lintel beam on gate at the
end of the corridor of Billet 13-C, as shown in Table 4, were found to vary from -509
mV to -536 mV with an average of -522.27 mV and the values when compared with
the corrosion criteria as per ASTM C-876 (Refer Table – B) indicate that there is
greater than 90% probability of occurrence of corrosion in the tested area.

ii. Test results of Half-Cell Potential measurements taken on Beam above the toilet block
below parapet level of Billet-13, as shown in Table 4, were found to vary from -506

13
 mV to -529 mV with an average of -517.44 mV and the values when compared with
the corrosion criteria as per ASTM C-876 (Refer Table – B) indicate that there is
greater than 90% probability of occurrence of corrosion in the tested area.

iii. Test results of Half-Cell Potential measurements taken on Beam outside Room-8 of
Billet 13-B on back side, as shown in Table 4, were found to vary from -334 mV to
-397 mV with an average of -368.75 mV and the values when compared with the
corrosion criteria as per ASTM C-876 (Refer Table – B) indicate that there is greater
than 90% probability of occurrence of corrosion in the tested area.

Note: Exposure of reinforcement was not found in any other RCC batons or beams of Billet-
13. Thus, Half Cell potential test was decided to be limited to above 3 locations as mutually
decided by NCB and CPWD representatives.

3.7 Compressive Strength, Water Absorption & Efflorescence of Brick Sample

1. The compressive strength of Brick samples taken from brick masonry Walls and
Columns of Billet 13 is found to vary from 7.11 N/mm2 to 18.51 N/mm2 with an
average of comes out to be 13.20 N/mm2. (Refer Table-3 & Annexure IV). The
average value satisfies the requirement of Table-1 (>7.5 N/mm2 compressive strength
for Class 7.5 bricks) of IS-1077:1992 (Reaffirmed 2002)-Common Burnt Clay Building
Bricks-Specifications.

2. The water absorption value of Brick sample taken from brick masonry walls and
Columns of Billet-13 is found to vary from 10.47% to 14.34% with an average of
12.70%. The corresponding value for efflorescence is ‘Nil’ in all the tested samples for
efflorescence (Refer Table-3 & Annexure IV). The values satisfy the requirement of
Clause-7.2 (<=20% water absorption for Class 7.5 bricks) of IS-1077:1992 (Reaffirmed
2002)-Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks-Specifications.

3.8 Brick Mortar Composition

1. The percentage soluble silica content & calcium oxide content in brick mortar sample
(M1/5828) taken from brick masonry Column beside Room-3 in Billet-13B comes out to
be 1.50% and 7.39% respectively as shown in Table-4. The value of Cement content
calculated from soluble silica procedure and calcium oxide procedure is 7.14% and
11.64% respectively. As per ASTM C 1084-02, lower of the above two values is taken for
cement content which is 7.14%. Based on the cement content obtained, the approximate

14
composition of brick mortar sample in terms of ratio of cement to sand (by volume)
obtained is 1: 15 (Refer Table-4).

2. The percentage soluble silica content & calcium oxide content in brick mortar sample
(M2/5828) taken from brick masonry Arch between Room-1 & 2 in Billet-13D comes out
to be 1.67% and 6.37% respectively as shown in Table-4. The value of Cement content
calculated from soluble silica procedure and calcium oxide procedure is 7.95% and
10.03% respectively. As per ASTM C 1084-02, lower of the above two values is taken for
cement content which is 7.95%. Based on the cement content obtained, the approximate
composition of brick mortar sample in terms of ratio of cement to sand (by volume)
obtained is 1: 13.51 (Refer Table-4).
3. The percentage soluble silica content & calcium oxide content in brick mortar sample
(M3/5828) taken from brick masonry Column beside Room-2 in Billet-13B comes out to
be 1.72% and 8.13% respectively as shown in Table-4. The value of Cement content
calculated from soluble silica procedure and calcium oxide procedure is 8.19% and
12.80% respectively. As per ASTM C 1084-02, lower of the above two values is taken for
cement content which is 8.19%. Based on the cement content obtained, the approximate
composition of brick mortar sample in terms of ratio of cement to sand (by volume)
obtained is 1: 13.09 (Refer Table-4).

4. The percentage soluble silica content & calcium oxide content in brick mortar sample
(M4/5828) taken from brick masonry wall beside 5th Arch in Billet-13B comes out to be
2.84% and 8.13% respectively as shown in Table-4. The value of Cement content
calculated from soluble silica procedure and calcium oxide procedure is 13.52% and
12.80% respectively. As per ASTM C 1084-02, lower of the above two values is taken for
cement content which is 12.80%. Based on the cement content obtained, the approximate
composition of brick mortar sample in terms of ratio of cement to sand (by volume)
obtained is 1: 7.95 (Refer Table-4).

5. The percentage soluble silica content & calcium oxide content in brick mortar sample
(M5/5828) taken from brick masonry Corridor Corner Column in Billet-13D comes out to
be 2.34% and 6.58% respectively as shown in Table-4. The value of Cement content
calculated from soluble silica procedure and calcium oxide procedure is 11.14% and
10.36% respectively. As per ASTM C 1084-02, lower of the above two values is taken for
cement 10.36%. Based on the cement content obtained, the approximate composition of

15
 brick mortar sample in terms of ratio of cement to sand (by volume) obtained is 1: 10.09
(Refer Table-4).

6. The percentage soluble silica content & calcium oxide content in brick mortar sample
(M6/5828) taken from brick masonry Wall inside Toilet in Billet-13C comes out to be
2.27% and 8.18% respectively as shown in Table-4. The value of Cement content
calculated from soluble silica procedure and calcium oxide procedure is 10.81% and
12.88% respectively. As per ASTM C 1084-02, lower of the above two values is taken for
cement content which is 10.81%. Based on the cement content obtained, the approximate
composition of brick mortar sample in terms of ratio of cement to sand (by volume)
obtained is 1: 9.63 (Refer Table-4).

7. The percentage soluble silica content & calcium oxide content in brick mortar sample
(M7/5828) taken from brick masonry Wall outside bathroom in Billet-13C comes out to
be 2.28% and 7.16% as shown in Table-4. The value of Cement content calculated from
soluble silica procedure and calcium oxide procedure is 10.86% and 11.28% respectively.
As per ASTM C 1084-02, lower of the above two values is taken for cement content
which is 10.86%. Based on the cement content obtained, the approximate composition of
brick mortar sample in terms of ratio of cement to sand (by volume) obtained is 1: 9.58
(Refer Table-4).

3.9 Chemical Analysis of Brick samples

Chloride content, Sulphate content and pH of selected Masonry members are

determined from the powder samples prepared from extracted bricks. The values of test
results are given in Table 5
i. The total acid soluble chloride content varies from 0.17 kg/m3 to 0.20 kg/m3,
with an average of 0.19 kg/m3. (Refer Table 5). The corresponding water
soluble chloride content is found to be 0.04 kg/m3.
*Note: Taking a conservative density of bricks as 2000 kg/m3
ii. The sulphate (SO3) (water soluble sulphate) content varies from 0.08 % to
0.09%, with an average of 0.085% by weight of bricks.
iii. The pH value of bricks is found to vary from 8.52 to 8.82 with an average of
8.67.

3.10 Water Absorption of Sandstone Sample

16
The water absorption value of Sandstone sample taken from 1st floor level in Billet-13 is
found to be 1.0%. (Refer Table-6 & Annexure V). The values satisfy the requirement given
in Table 1 of IS:3622-1977.

4.0. Study of Earthquake Provisions as per IS: 13935 – 2009 – “Seismic Evaluation,
Repair and Strengthening of Masonry Buildings – Guidelines” and IS: 4326-2013 –
“Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings – Code of Practice” for
Tow Storey Load Bearing Semi Permanent Structures (Billet-13) based on Layout
drawings provided by CPWD, New Delhi

4.1. Assessment of provisions for earthquake resistance as per IS 4326-2013

As only GA drawing showing plan of Billet-13 was provided so followings principles have
been observed in the Billet.

4.1.1 Lightness and Continuity of Construction

The above principal requirements for lightness as per clause 4.1 of IS 4326: 2013 and
continuity of construction as per clause 4.2 of IS 4326: 2013 is satisfied.

4.1.2 Projecting and Suspending Parts

As per clause 4.3 of IS 4326: 2013 - Projecting parts shall be avoided as far as
possible. If the projecting parts cannot be avoided, they shall be properly reinforced and
firmly tied to the main structure, and their design shall be in accordance with IS-1893.
Ceiling plaster shall be avoided as far as possible and when it is unavoidable, the plaster shall
be as thin as possible. Suspended ceiling shall be avoided as far as possible. Where provided,
they shall be light and adequately framed and secured.
The layout drawings as well as visual observations confirmed the absence of
projecting parts in the form of Chajjas & Cantilever Balcony. The ceiling was found to be
constructed of Sandstone with absence of plaster.

4.1.3 Building Configuration/Shape of Building

As per clause 4.4 of IS 4326: 2013, in order to minimize torsion and stress
concentration – The building should have simple rectangular plan and be symmetrical. Where
symmetry of structure is not possible in plan, elevation or mass, provision for torsional and
other effects due to earthquake forces shall be made in structural design or parts of different
rigidities may be separated through crumple sections. Buildings having plans with shapes like
L, T, E and Y shall preferably be separated into rectangular parts by providing separation

17
sections at appropriate places (Note: The buildings with small lengths of projections forming
L, T, E or Y shapes need not be provided with separation section. In such cases the length of
the projection may not exceed 15 to 20 percent of the total dimension of the building in the
direction of the projection. For small buildings with minor asymmetry in plan and elevation,
separation section may be omitted).
The general configuration shown in layout drawings showing First Floor Plan and
Ground Floor Plan of Billets indicate that the buildings have an approximately rectangular
plan (with projections of small lengths) and have a symmetry in plan about one axis.
As defined in Table 5 of IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016- “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures” and in A-7.2.3 of IS 13935: 2009 – “Seismic Evaluation, Repair and
Strengthening of Masonry Buildings – Guidelines”, a re-entrant corner is formed where both
projections of the structure beyond the re-entrant corner are greater than 15 percent of its plan
dimension in the given direction. Such re-entrant corners result in plan irregularities and the
grade of damage may be increased at these corners.
The general configuration shown in drawings showing First Floor and Ground Floor
Plan of Billets indicates that the projection of the structure does not exceed the total plan
dimension(A/L>0.15 to 0.20) by more than 20 percent in longitudinal direction but exceed
the total plan dimension (A/L> 0.15) in transverse direction which does not satisfies the
requirement as recommended by clause 4.4.4 of IS 4326: 2013.

4.1.4 Strength in Various Directions, Foundations, Ductility and Non-Structural Parts

Due to non-availability of relevant structural drawings and design details and non-
availability of details regarding type of soil, Safe Bearing Capacity of Soil etc. conformity to
clauses 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8 of IS 4326: 2013 could not be assessed. Ductility is also not secured
in masonry building construction due to non- availability of reinforced steel at critical
sections However, stepped footing was observed as per excavation done on site in front and
backside of Room No.1 of Billet-13.

4.1.5 Separation of Adjoining Structures and Gap width

As per clause 5.1.1 of IS 4326: 2013, separation of adjoining structures or parts of the
same structure is required for structures having different total heights or storey heights and
different dynamic characteristics to avoid collision during an earthquake. In the present case,
the adjoining blocks are of similar height. As per the drawings available and visual survey
conducted at site, the Billets are divided into two parts on each level. On each level, the
Billets are connected by a gallery or corridor as per the visual survey done.

18
 4.1.6 Roofs and Floors
As per clause 5.4.1 of IS 4326: 2013 - Flat roof or floor shall not preferably be made
of terrace of ordinary bricks supported on steel, timber or reinforced concrete joists, nor they
shall be of a type which in the event of an earthquake is likely to be loosened and parts of all
of which may fall.
In the present case, roof and floor slabs are made of sandstone. The sandstone slabs are
found in damaged condition at several locations and not connected monolithically with the
walls. Keeping in view of observation, the sandstone slabs may not perform adequately in the
event of an earthquake of sufficient magnitude.

4.1.7 Staircase
As per clause 5.5.2-(b) of IS 4326: 2013, when stairs are built monolithically with
floors they can be protected against damage by providing rigid walls at the stair opening. No
drawings are available for staircase and from visual observation of Billets Station, it seems
that the staircase construction is not having RCC Column & RCC tie beams, which does not
satisfy the requirement of Built-in type of staircase. It is observed that the walls enclosing the
staircase extended up to the building foundation.

4.1.8 Strength of Masonry unit

As mentioned in NCB report, the compressive strength of sample of burnt clay bricks
(used as masonry unit in the load bearing walls) obtained from the load bearing walls and
columns of Billets through random sampling technique is found to be in range of 7.11 N/mm 2
to 18.51 N/mm2 with an average of 13.20 N/mm2. This satisfies the requirement of
compressive strength of Common Burnt Clay bricks of class designation 7.5 as per IS 1077:
1992 and is also more than the minimum compressive strength requirement of 3.5 N/mm 2 as
per clause 8.1.1.1 of IS 4326: 2013.

4.1.9 Mortar Mix

The building consists of load bearing masonry walls with RC floor slabs and is
resemblance to box type of construction and based on Table 2 of IS 4326: 2013, the building
falls in category D, as it is located in Zone IV (considering an Importance Factor of I=1, as
per Table 8 of IS 1893 (part 1): 2016). The approximate mix proportion of cement to sand in
mortar used in masonry construction is 1:8 to 1:15 based on the chemical analysis of sample
of mortar by volume (based on ASTM C-1084), this does not satisfy the requirement of 1:5 to
1:6 required for category D buildings as per Table 3 of IS 4326: 2013.

19
 4.1.10 Openings in Load Bearing Walls
As per 8.3.2 of IS 4326: 2013 - Openings in any storey shall preferably have their top
at the same level so that a continuous band could be provided over them, including the lintels
throughout the building.
The requirements of size and positioning openings in load bearing walls are given
below in Figure-7 and Table-4 from IS 4326: 2013).
As per the assessment done at site, the openings of the buildings had their top at the same
level.

INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE

20
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE
"https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S03/is.4326.1993/is.4326.1993_015_02.jpg" \*
MERGEFORMATINET

Fig-7 (as per IS:4326-2013) Dimensions of openings and piers for Recommendations in

21
 Table-4

S.No Details of openings for Building Category

Position of Openings
. A and B C D and E
1. Distance b5 from inside corner of Zero mm 230 mm 450 mm
outer wall, Min
For total length of a) one storied 0.60 0.55 0.50
2
openings, the building
ratio (b1+b2+b3/l1)
b) two storied 0.50 0.46 0.42
or (b6+b7/l2) shall
building
not exceed:
c) 3 or 4 0.42 0.37 0.33
storied
building
3. Pier width between consecutive 340 mm 450 mm 560 mm
openings b4, Min
4. Vertical distance between two 600 mm 600 mm 600 mm
openings one above the other h3, Min
5. Width of opening of ventilator b8, 900 mm 900 mm 900 mm
Max

Table 4 (as per IS:4326-2013) Dimensions of Openings and Piers for Recommendations
in load bearing walls
1) The distance of first opening from inside corner of outer wall is 490 mm as against the
minimum requirement of 450 mm as mentioned in Table for D type building which is
satisfactory. (As per the measurements taken)

2a) The ratio of total length of opening to total wall length, where openings in the form of
arches have been given, (b1/l1) = (18.80) / (15.5+18.80) = 0.55 which is not satisfactory for
two storied building as per the above table

2b) The ratio (b1+b2)/l1 = (1.10+0.93)/3.91 = 0.52 which is not satisfactory for two storied
building as per the above table

3) Pier width between consecutive opening is 900 mm as per the measurements taken which
is satisfactory as per the above table.

4) Vertical distance between two openings one above the other, h 3 = 650 mm, which is
satisfactory as per the given table.

22
5) Width of opening of ventilator, b8 = 1050 mm, which is not satisfactory as per the
requirement given in the above table.

4.2 Assessment of provisions for earthquake resistance as per IS 13935-2009

4.2.1 Length of Walls between Cross Walls

As per Table 3 of IS 13935: 2009, length of walls between cross walls should not be
more than 35 x thickness of wall or 8 m whichever is less. As per the measurements taken in
Billet-13, it is seen that the thickness of walls is 400 mm, and hence 35 times the thickness of
wall comes out to be 14 m. Based on the measurements done, the wall length between cross
walls is 3.65 m which is satisfying the above requirement. The Cross Wall thickness in most
of the cases is found to be 400 mm which is satisfying the minimum thickness criteria of
230mm as given in IS-4326-2013

4.2.2 Height of Wall from Floor to Ceiling

As per Table 3 of IS 13935: 2009, height of wall from floor to ceiling should not be
more than 15 x thickness of wall or 4 m whichever is less. Based on the measurements taken
in Billet-13, it is seen that the thickness of walls is 400 mm, and hence 15 times the thickness
of wall comes out to be 6000 mm. Based on drawings of Billet 13 provided to us, it is seen
that the height of wall from floor to ceiling varies from 3280 mm to 3680 mm. Therefore, the
above requirement is satisfied.

4.3 Provision of Seismic Strengthening Arrangements

As per Table 5 of IS 4326: 2013, masonry buildings of category D of this type are to
be provided with strengthening arrangements in the form of lintel bands, roof bands (where
necessary – As per clause 8.4.2 & 8.4.3 of IS 4326: 2013, such a band need not be provided
underneath reinforced concrete or brick-work slabs resting on bearing walls, provided that the
slabs are continuous over the intermediate wall up to the crumple sections, if any, and cover
the width of end walls, fully or at least 3/4 of the wall thickness. As per Clause 8.4.5.2 of IS-
4326-2013 vertical steel at critical locations such as corners and junctions of walls, vertical
steel at jambs of openings should be provided for full integrity, Plinth bands (as per 8.4.6 of IS
4326: 2013) is required where strip/Isolated footings of masonry are used and soil is soft or
uneven in its properties), dowel bars (as per clause 8.4.7 of IS-4326 -2013) at corners and T-
junctions of walls at the Sill level of windows. However, the Visual Observation of Billet-13
indicates the absence of any such strengthening arrangements. This means the Building does
not consist the seismic resistant design criteria as per above mentioned IS-4326-2013

23
4.4 Observations-
It was observed that Chajjas and cantilever balcony were absent in the structure.
While checking the Foundation exposed in front & backside of Room-1 of Billet-13, it was
observed that footing with base width 900 mm and top width 500 mm (at NGL) of stepped
footing in nature & depth of around 600 mm from NGL was provided in Billet-13 . Further,
600 mm filling was done on top of it where flooring was done. Plinth beam was not observed.
Both the external and internal walls were constructed with thickness of 400mm. RCC tie
beams & RCC column are not provided in stair case construction. The structure is constructed
of Brick Masonry with Sandstone Slabs without any plaster in corridor which are supported
over RCC batons. Despite presence of steel in RCC members, structure is not considered
whole RCC structure. Billet-13 was observed to be connected by gallery or corridor on each
level.

4.5 Seismic Evaluation Findings-

As per codal provisions of IS-4326-2013, it is observed that structure does not satisfy
the requirement of RC band like Lintel band & Plinth band, which is absent in entire structure
of Billet-13. Since Structure exist in Zone -4 in Delhi region & does not satisfy the safety
criteria from Earth resistant design aspects, as the wall & structure found un-safe as per
current code of practices of Earthquake resistant design. Similarly, Strength arrangement as
per Table 5 of IS-4326 in Billet-13 is absent for features (b, d, e, f, g)

Openings requirement in walls of the Billet-13 does not satisfy the Category (D-type
Building) as given in table of IS-4326-2013.

The structure is not considered as RCC framed structure despite the presence of RCC
batons as columns and slabs are constructed of masonry and sandstone respectively.

Billet-13 is not satisfying the requirements of the provisions given in IS 4326-2013 &
IS 13935-2009 in the form of absence of Lintel band & Plinth Band along with absence of
Vertical Steel at Corners of walls & at Jambs of opening & junction of walls.

5.0 Findings of Testing -

Based on the investigation carried by NCB to assess the condition of Billets (1No.) at
Delhi, the findings are below:
i) Based on the visual observations, distress was observed in the RCC Batons and
beams of Billet-13 as discussed in Section 3.1. Seepage was also observed in the
Masonry walls.

24
ii) The equivalent compressive strength of the concrete in RCC members, assessed by
N-type Rebound Hammer testing as per IS 13311-1992 (Part II) at randomly
identified RCC members varies from 18.83 N/mm2 to greater than 48.17 N/mm2.
iii) The equivalent compressive strength of the plastered surfaces in masonry members,
assessed by P-type Rebound Hammer testing as per IS 13311-1992 (Part II) at
randomly identified masonry members varies from 8.25 N/mm2 to 20.00 N/mm2.
iv) Based on the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity on representative RCC members, results when
interpreted as per IS 516 (Part-5/Section-1): 2018 grade, the quality of concrete is
found to be DOUBTFUL to GOOD when cross probing.
v) Based on the carbonation study, the depth of carbonation is found to be whole length
of the extracted core which exceeds the provided concrete cover.
vi) Test results on Half-Cell Potential Measurements indicate that probability of
corrosion occurring in reinforcing steel is greater than 90% in all the tested locations
at the time of measurement.
vii) The average compressive strength, water absorption & Efflorescence values of bricks
satisfies the requirements of Class 7.5 bricks as per IS-1077:1992 (Reaffirmed 2002).
viii) The approximate brick mortar composition in the form of cement-sand ratio is found
too vary from 1:7.95 to 1.15.
ix) The average value of total acid soluble chloride content and the sulphate content is
0.19 kg/m3 and 0.085% respectively.
x) The average pH value of the various representative brick powder samples is found to
be 8.67.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS-
The results of investigation carried out on the various randomly identified accessible
locations of Billets indicates that, the quality of concrete in the RCC members is
‘Doubtful’ to ‘Good’ and the distress in the form of cracking, spalling of concrete and
corrosion of exposed reinforcement has been occurred in RCC beams and batons of
Billet-13. Sandstone slab is found in damaging condition due to its high porosity nature.
The equivalent compressive strength of RCC evaluated from the N-Type Rebound
Hammer Test gives an overestimation of the compressive strength.
The carbonation in concrete of RCC members of Billet-13 has exceeded the concrete
cover provided.

25
 Test results on Half-Cell Potential Measurements indicate that probability of corrosion
occurring in reinforcing steel is greater than 90% in all the tested RCC members.
The results of mortar composition indicate that the ratio of cement and sand does not
satisfy the requirements of IS 4326-2013.
The presence of large openings in the structure; absence of RCC bands on the periphery
and plinth beam does not satisfy the requirements of seismic of IS 4326:2013 & IS
13935-2009.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS –
In view of above Seismic analysis & Testing done on Billet-13 we are in opinion that
due to distress observed in sandstone slab, doubtful quality of RCC batons & beams, high
carbonation & corrosion in identified RCC members, the existing structure requires
significant cost of repair. Existing structure is composite in nature which is not satisfying the
seismic guidelines of IS-4326-2013 and thus found unsafe in present condition.

26