IDENTIFICATION OF CRACKS
Q.1 Mode of failure or damage of the beams in the given figure, are the damages repairable.
Ans: fig a) Observation of the beam. * Concrete crushed and the reinforcement is exposed.
* Concrete spalled beyond the reinforcement which may be a sign of rupture.
* Beam top portion looks safe because of the flange advantage from slab.
* The crack develops from bottom to top means rebar yielding occurs in support bottom only.
Solution: * Its form of Flexural failure due to reversal of stress during earthquake.
* During stress reversal, Support top experiences Compression and Bottom experiences tension.
* Top compression is managed by Slab advantage. Bottom tension was not satisfied by the provided reinforcement.
* Since the reinforcement got yielded, it can not be repaired.
b) Observation of the beam. * Cracks along Beam-Column edge.
* Cracks seem to have developed through the structure as it looks much wider.
* Beam looks separated from the column at joint. * Concrete is not severely crushed.
Solution: * It's a Plastic hinge failure.
* The darnage occurred only in the joint zone first of all.
* Cyclic lateral loading & stress reversal at the joints led to the damage.
* Even the slab participated to its best to handle the Tension (Slab is severely cracked means it has undergone tension with its flange condition), But unable to control the damage.
* The joint can be strengthened.
c) Observation of the beam. * Cracks are exactly at the joint of Column-Beam.
* Cracks in Beam developed through its entire width.
* Slab also developed more cracks along the beam width direction.
Solution: * It's a Plastic hinge failure.
* The damage occurred only in the joint zone first of all
* Cyclic lateral loading & stress reversal at the joints led to the damage.
* Even the slab participated to its best to handle the Tension (Slab is severely cracked means it has undergone tension with its flange condition),
But unable to control the damage
* The joint can be strengthened.
Q.2 Mode of failure or damage of the beams in the figure above, are the damages repairable.
Ans: fig a) Observation of the beam. * Concrete damaged at top of a Column.
* Concrete damaged all around the Column face.
* Beams are safe.
* The location of column looks at edge of the building.
* No walls are built along the column means it is probably at Ground floor, for Parking Car movement access.
Solution: * It's a Soft storey failure, Technically Plastic hinge formation.
* Due to absence of Infill walls at the Ground floor, The plastic hinge forms at the Top of ground storey columns during Lateral movement.
* Based on the development of crush of concrete, it can either be repairable or Non-repairable.
fig b) Observation of the beam. * Concrete developed complete breakage diagonally.
* Longitudinal reinforcements are intact.
* Shear reinforcement spacing looks wider (which means probably lesser shear rebar provided)
Solution: * It's a Pure Shear failure.
* Inadequate shear reinforcement compels concrete takes all the shear stresses.
fig c) Observation of the beam. * Column failed completely
* Failure at top of column.
* There are two slabs connected to the column,
* The wooden piles might be a Post failure support after column failed, providing temporary prop to avoid collapse of the entire structure.
Solution: * It's a Short Column failure.
* An additional slab or a Beam connected to a Column in mid-height leads to this effect.
* This leads to failure especially if the connection is unintentional and not accounted in design.
* The failure given in the picture is not at all repairable.