<<CLIENT>>

<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

REPORT
BUREAU VERITAS
<<FILE NO.>>

<<WORK ORDER>>
REPORT ON <<BUILDING NAME>>
<<CLIENT>>

Move Forward with Confidence

BUREAU VERITAS INDIA PVT LIMITED

Head Office Regional Office

72 Business Park, 9th floor, #1601&1602, Eco Centre, 16th floor,
Opposite Seepz Gate No. 2, EM-04, Salt Lake, Sector –V
MIDC Cross Road "C", Kolkata 700091
Andheri - (East), Mumbai - 400 093.
www.bureauveritas.com

<<FILE NO.>> Page 1 of 19


<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
Report on
Reference
Period of Evaluation tests
Evaluation tests carried out
under the guidance of
Evaluation tests carried out by
Evaluation tests carried out in
the presence of
Evaluation tests coordinated by
Date of submission of Final Report:
<<FILE NO.>>
<<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
: <<WORK ORDER>> of <<BUILDING NAME>> at
<<LOCATION>>
: <<W.O. NO.>>
: <<FROM DATE>> to <<TO DATE>>
: Sri. Shahid Syed
(Manager – Building & Infrastructure | Eastern Region)
M/s. Bureau Veritas India Private Limited, Kolkata.
: Sri. <<ENGINEER 1>>
(Sr. Engineer – NDT | Eastern Region)
Sri. <<ENGINEER 2>>
(Engineer – NDT | Eastern Region)
Sri. <<ENGINEER 3>>
(Engineer – NDT | Eastern Region)
M/s. Bureau Veritas India Private Limited, Kolkata.
: Ajit Kumar Oram
Junior Engineer | Engg. Service & Projects
M/s. Tata Steel Limited Joda, OMQ
: Abhishek Mojumder
Assistant Manager | Engg. Service & Projects
Anil Prasad
Head of The Department | Engg. Service & Projects
M/s. Tata Steel Limited Joda, OMQ
27th March 2020
********
Page 2 of 19
 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are thankful to the Management of <<CLIENT>>, for their kind co-operation

during the Assessment of the Structure and appreciate the courtesy and cordiality
extended to the Bureau Veritas auditors.

- Bureau Veritas (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer:
This report includes the findings of the Structural soundness Audit of the <<BUILDING NAME>> of <<CLIENT>> Located at
<<LOCATION>>. This report is issued within the scope of contract documents submitted and does not perpetuate into
compliance to any statutory regulations and / or codes of any country/region. The discussion of facts, as determined by the
investigator, and the views expressed in the report do not assume and are not intended to establish the existence of any duty at law
on the part of <<CLIENT>>, its employees or agents, contractors, their employees or agents, or any other party.

This report neither determines nor implies liability. As the areas not included in our scope was not able to study, so the rest of the
area is assumed here is safe and stable for all the possible intended purpose of loadings and also considered is in Good Condition
for perusal. Also some structural Members are covered with interior finishes and was not available to study was assumed here safe
and stable for all the intended purpose of loadings.

The Remedial and Restoration Scheme suggested here is based on the assumption that all the structural members are able to take
all the possible intended purpose of loadings (like Gravity Load, Seismic load, Wind Load, Dynamic and Static Load due to
running plant, and any other possible loads) with their original sizes and shapes. As detailed structural design details of existing
structure is not available for design review, during the exercise. The attempt is made by suggesting remedial measures to improve
the contribution of restored members to the total structural system of the plant to achieve their initial capacities.
.

<<FILE NO.>> Page 3 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

CONTENTS
SL. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

A INTRODUCTION 6
B PHYSICAL OBSERVATION 6–9
C EVALUATION TESTS 10
C INFERENCES 10
D RESTORATION MEASURES 10 – 13
E GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 13 – 14
F CONCLUDING REMARKS 14

APPENDIX
TABLES
Table – 1 – Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test Results
A
Table – 2 – Rebound Hammer Test Results
Table – 3 – Cover Meter Test Results
B SPECIFICATIONS
DRAWINGS DRAWING NO.
LAYOUT 22
C
DISTRESS LAYOUT 23
RESTORATION DRAWINGS 24
<<EXECUTIVE SUMMARY>>

<<FILE NO.>> Page 4 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

<<FILE NO.>> Page 5 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
A. INTRODUCTION
The existing <<BUILDING NAME>> at <<LOCATION>> is used as a <<PURPOSE>> comprises
of <<TYPE OF BUILDING>>. This building has <<NO. OF FLOORS>> and was built around
<<YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION>> and since then it is in operation.

Now, the concerned authority of <<CLIENT>> wants to assess the structural stability of the
building by conducting visual inspection and non-destructive test. In connection with this M/s.
Bureau Veritas India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged to carry out the structural stability of the structure.

In response to this, a field evaluation study was carried out by us on the period <<FROM DATE>>
to <<TO DATE>>

<<GENERAL VIEW>>

Fig: General View of <<BUILDING NAME>>

B. PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS
Following are the physical observations made consequent to the inspection:

<<OBSERVATION>>
<<INSERT PHOTOS>>
C. EVALUATION TESTS
Following are the evaluation tests carried out:
1. Dimensional Measurements of Structural Members.
2. Non-destructive tests to assess the quality / strength of in-situ concrete in RC members.
a. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test on RC members.
b. Rebound Hammer Test on RC members.
3. Profometer studies test on RC members at random for detecting thickness of cover concrete.
1. Dimensional Measurements of Structural Members
A detailed physical measurement was carried out to obtain the dimensions of various members.
The dimensions of typical structural members were physically measured and recorded.
[Reference Sketch no. .....]

<<FILE NO.>> Page 6 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
2. Non-destructive tests to assess the quality / strength of in-situ concrete in RC
members.
a. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test on <<UPVT MEMBER>>
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity test was conducted on <<UPVT MEMBER>> at random locations of
the structure. The tests were conducted using 'PUNDIT LAB' (Portable Ultrasonic Non-
Destructive Digital Indicating Tester) equipment from M/s. Proceq, Switzerland as per the
guidelines in Indian Standards IS 516(Part 5/Sec 1): 2018. The results of the tests are tabulated in
Table-1.
From the results of the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity test, it is inferred that quality of concrete in RC
pedestals at unaffected regions falls under the category of 'Good Concrete' as per Table-1 of IS
516(Part 5/Sec 1): 2018. Whereas at affected regions, it falls under the category of 'Poor Concrete'.

Fig: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test is in progress at RC Members

b. Rebound Hammer test on <<RHT MEMBER>>

Rebound Hammer test was carried out on the <<RHT MEMBER>> at random Locations to assess
the surface hardness / quality and strength of in-situ concrete. The tests were conducted using
Schmidt Rebound Hammer from M/s. Proceq, Switzerland as per the guidelines in Indian
Standards IS: 13311-(Part-II)-1992-(Reaffirmed in 2013). The results of the tests are tabulated in
Table-2.
Rebound Hammer Test results indicate that the estimated strength of in-situ concrete in un-
affected region falls in the range of 22 N/sq.mm to 30 N/sq.mm.

Fig: Rebound Hammer Test is in progress at RC Members

3. Cover meter studies to assess the thickness of cover to reinforcement in <<CMT

MEMBER>>
Cover meter studies were carried out on <<CMT MEMBER>> order to assess the thickness of
cover concrete in the R C members. The tests were conducted using Profometer-600 from M/s.

<<FILE NO.>> Page 7 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
Proceq, Switzerland as per the guidelines furnished by the manufacturer's manual. The results of
the tests are tabulated in Table-3.
From the results of the test, it is observed that cover concrete provided to the reinforcement is
adequate and found to be in order in the tested locations.

Fig: Cover Meter Test is in progress at RC Members

D. INFERENCES
Based on the detailed physical observations and investigative studies following are the inferences
drawn:

1. From the results of Non-Destructive tests, it is inferred that the quality and strength of in-situ
concrete in the tested RC members are found to be satisfactory at unaffected region.

2. From the results of the cover meter test, it is observed that cover concrete provided to the rebars is
adequate in most of the tested RC members except in the basements.

3. From the detailed observation and results of NDT tests, it is evident that the existing building is
sound and stable for the present status. However, the observed distress needs to be treated
immediately in order to ensure the soundness of structure.

4. Cracks, spalling of cover concrete and exposure of corroded rebars observed in columns, beams, and
slabs are mainly due to corrosion of rebars. Corrosion of rebars are essentially due to ingress of
moisture into the interior concrete for a prolonged period.

5. Honeycomb in RC Member was essentially due to low quality of workmanship during construction.

6. Stagnation of water at the basement was essentially due to ground water seepage.

7. Dampness in masonry wall is essentially due to water seepage, water stagnation, non-aeration area
and aging effect.

8. Plaster deterioration was found due to aging effect and several unfilled drilling holes.

<<FILE NO.>> Page 8 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
9. Vegetation growth, dumping of waste material and formation of algae are essentially due to lower
maintenance frequency.

E. RESTORATION MEASURE
Based on the physical observations and inferences, the following restoration measures are worked out
for the building for effective functioning:

F. GENERAL RECOMMENDATION

1. All Vegetation adjacent to the building has to be uprooted as soon as possible.

2. Plinth protection of size 900mm (Width) x 150 mm (Thickness) with M15 (1:2:4) grade concrete has
to be placed all around the peripheral masonry wall.
3. Drainage and gardening has to be shifted after plinth protection.
4. All the plumbing line should be rechecked and especially the overflow pipeline of the tank (in no case
it can be left at the roof or open at the adjacent) and all the drainage and rainwater pipe should be
continued to drain (in no case it can be left open adjacent to the wall).
5. Indiscriminate holes in masonry wall has to be filled with appropriate size of bricks followed by re-
plastering in CM 1:4 mixed with water proofing plasticizers.
6. Repaint the surface after removing the root cause and proper surface preparation (dampness or
deteriorated plaster or worn out paint, formation of algae) of peeling of paint.

G. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The existing <<BUILDING NAME>> of <<CLIENT>> located at <<LOCATION>> is structurally
safe, the identified distress in the building is essentially due to age effect, seepage of water, and
improper roofing arrangements at a few regions.
On carrying out the above recommended restoration measures effectively as per specifications and
sound engineering construction practice, the structure will be rendered normal. It is essential that
the recommended restoration measures shall be executed by an experienced agency under the
supervision of experienced technical personnel.
It is mandatory to carry out the periodic maintenance of the building as per standard practice to
enhance the life of the structure.
<<FILE NO.>> Page 9 of 19
 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

SHAHID SYED
(Manager – B & I | Eastern Region)

<<FILE NO.>> Page 10 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

TABLES

<<FILE NO.>> Page 11 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
<<UPVT>>

<<FILE NO.>> Page 12 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
TABLE – 1A

REFERENCE QUALITY GRADING CHART FOR

ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST

Instrument : PUNDIT [Portable Ultrasonic Non Destructive Digital Indicating Tester]

Make : Proceq, Switzerland.

Pulse Velocity (Km/sec) Concrete Quality Grading

Below 3.0 Poor

3.0 to 3.75 Doubtful

3.75 to 4.40 Good

Above 4.40 Excellent

Note: Concrete quality grading for different velocity criterion as reproduced from

Table-1 of IS: 516 (Part5/Sec 1): 2018

In case of “Doubtful quality”, it may be necessary to carry out further tests.

<<FILE NO.>> Page 13 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
<<RHT>>

<<FILE NO.>> Page 14 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
TABLE – 2A
REFERENCE STRENGTH CHART FOR REBOUND HAMMER TEST (CONCRETE)

Equipment : Schmidt Hammer

Make : M/s. Proceq, Switzerland

Type : N-34

Technical Reference : 1. IS:13311-(Part –II) – 1992 (Reaffirmed in 2013) and

2. Instrument manual furnished by M/s. Proceq, Switzerland

ESTIMATED COMPRESSIVE
REBOUND
STRENGTH RANGE
NUMBER
(N/Sq.mm)
22 to 26 10 to 14

26 to 30 14 to 18

30 to 34 18 to 22

34 to 38 22 to 26

38 to 42 26 to 30

42 to 46 30 to 34

Note: Estimated compressive strength is worked out based on the Calibration Chart
Developed for the above test instrument in our laboratory.

*********

<<FILE NO.>> Page 15 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>
<<CMT>>

<<FILE NO.>> Page 16 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

SPECIFICATIONS

<<FILE NO.>> Page 17 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

Enter Specifications

<<FILE NO.>> Page 18 of 19

 <<CLIENT>>
<<WORK ORDER>>
<<BUILDING NAME>> From <<FROM DATE>> To <<TO DATE>>

DRAWING

<<FILE NO.>> Page 19 of 19