Identification of Cracks
1a] 
OBSERVATION:
1. Concrete is crushed and the reinforcement is exposed
2. Concrete spalled beyond the reinforcement which may be a sign of the rupture.
3. Beam top portion look safe because of the flange advantage from the slab
4. The crack develops from bottom to top means rebar yielding occurs in the support bottom only
.Are the damages repairable?
1. It forms a flexural failure due to the reversal of stress during earthquakes
2. During stress reversal, the Top support experiences tension, and the bottom experience compression
3. Top compression is managed by slab advantage. bottom tension was not satisfied by the provided reinforcement.
4. Since the reinforcement got yielded it can be repaired
1b]
OBSERVATION:
1. The crack appears on the beam and column edge
2. Crack seems to have developed through the structure as it looks much wider
3. Beam looks a tad separated from the joints
4. Concrete is not severely crushed
.Are the damages repairable?
1. its beam pull-out failure due to insufficient development length of reinforcement in joints
2. During an earthquake the horizontal movement of the structure makes this condition worse and detaches the beam member and column
3. Providing anchorage length between two existing concrete is very difficult. so not repairable
1c].
OBSERVATION:
1. Cracks are precisely at the joint of column-beam
2. Crack in a beam is developed through its entire width
3. Salb also develops cracks along the beam width
.Are the damages repairable?
1. Its a plastic hinge failure
2. The damage occurred only in the joint zone first of all
3. Cyclic lateral loading & stress reversal at the joints lead to the damage
4. Even the slab participated to its best to handle the tension. The slab is severely cracked means it is undergone tension with its flange condition. However, fail to control the damage
5. The joint can be strengthened.
2a]
OBSERVATION:
1. Concrete damaged at top of a column
2. concrete damage all around the column face
3. Beam is safe
4. The location of the looks at the edges of the building
5. No walls are built along the column means it is probably on the ground floor, for parking car movement access.
. Are the damages repairable?
1. It's a soft-story failure. technically plastic hinge formation
2. Due to the absence of an infill wall on the ground floor. the plastic form at the top of the ground story during the lateral movement
3. Based on the development of spalled in the column, it can either be repairable or non-repairable
2b]
OBSERVATION :
1. Column develops complete breakage diagonally
2. longitudinal reinforcement is intact
3. Shear reinforcement spacing look wider which means probably lesser shear rebar provided
4. Lack of cover spacing
. Are the damages repairable?
1. Its a pure shear failure
2. Inadequate shear reinforcement compels concrete to take all the shear stress
3. Retrofitting can be done in order to make it functional
2c]
OBSERVATION:
1. Column failed completely
2. Failure at the top of the column
3. There are two slabs connected to the column, Probably on at mind height of the column
4. As we can see there is a Crack at the second slab level which means the column was poured partially not at once which led to inadequate interlocking between the column
5. The wooden piles might be post-failure support after the column failed, Providing a temporary prop to avoid the collapse of the entire structure
. Are the damages repairable?
1. It's a short-column failure
2. An additional slab or a beam connected to a column in mid-height leads to this effect
3. This leads to failure especially if the connection is unintentional and not accounted for in the design
4. The failure given in the picture is not at all repairable