Underground Singapore 2014

Incorporating the existing condition of buildings when

assessing potential impact of underground construction
K.H. Goh
Land Transport Authority, Singapore

R.J. Mair
University of Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT: The current framework for a staged assessment of risk of building damage due to un-
derground construction does not consider the existing condition of buildings. This paper suggests a
method to incorporate the existing condition of buildings into the impact assessment framework. The
first part of the paper discusses work to develop a framework to provide guidance in classifying the
existing condition of buildings more objectively. This was done by reviewing the available literature
on classifying the existing condition of buildings, and was implemented in recent visual inspections
conducted for new infrastructure projects in Singapore. The second part of this paper explores various
methods to include the existing condition of buildings into the damage assessment framework. Three
methods – a simplified approach, a quantitative approach and a risk-based approach – are reviewed
and discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, the approach for assessing the risk of building damage due to underground construction
follows broadly the staged approach suggested by Mair et al. (1996) – this is described in local guides
such as the LTA Civil Design Criteria (2010) and TR 26:2010, and consists of three stages as summa-
rized in the following:-
• Stage 1 preliminary assessment
A building within a settlement zone of less than 10mm and experiencing a slope of less than
1:500 can be considered to have negligible risk of damage and can be eliminated in this first
stage.
• Stage 2 assessment using tensile strain method
This is based on estimating the maximum tensile strain induced in the building by idealising the
building as a beam, and calculating the maximum tensile strain using the deflection ratio from the
settlement profile and the horizontal strain from the horizontal displacement profile. The induced
maximum tensile strain is then checked against the limiting tensile strain corresponding to various
building damage categories described by Burland el al (1977) and Boscardin and Cording (1989).
This approach assumes that the building has no stiffness and will deflect according to the deflec-
tion ratios and horizontal strains corresponding to the greenfield. This is a conservative assump-
tion as the inherent stiffness of buildings will often reduce both the deflection ratio and horizontal
strains – as illustrated by Mair (2013) from recent back-analysis of several case studies for a wide
variety of buildings. Buildings assessed to have “negligible”, “very slight”, and “slight” damage
categories are considered to be at low risk of damage, and can be eliminated from the assessment
at this stage.
• Stage 3 detailed evaluation
For buildings assessed to be in a damage category of “moderate” or higher, detailed evaluation is
to be undertaken. This would require, although not necessarily be limited to, evaluation of the
structural details of the building, giving full consideration to the sequence and method of excava-
tion, and considering soil-structure interaction effects. The influence of building stiffness should
 be considered at this stage (see Mair, 2013). Where required, the detailed evaluation may also in-
clude a review of the additional stresses induced in structural elements under the influence of ex-
ternal-induced distortions and movements, and to check that the serviceability limit states of the
building are not exceeded. This would involve a structural analysis of the key elements in the
building.

If the risk of damage is still unacceptable even after the detailed evaluation (i.e. moderate risk of dam-
age or higher), mitigation and/or protective measures would be provided for the buildings. This would
include (1) internal structural measures which refer to actions taken within the excavation during its
construction to reduce the ground movements generated at source, such as increasing wall thickness,
stiffening strutting supports and modifying the construction sequencing or, in the case of tunneling,
taking measures to reduce volume loss, (2) external structural measures which reduce the impact of
ground movements by increasing the capacity of the adjacent structure to resist, modify or accommo-
date those movements, such as underpinning and structural strengthening, and (3) ground treatment
measures which include all methods of reducing or modifying the induced ground movements through
improving or changing the engineering response of the ground.

However, the current approach to assessing potential building damage does not consider the existing
condition of buildings prior to any effects that may be induced by adjacent underground construction.
Specifically, a building which is already severely damaged may not be able to tolerate any significant
further movement. There are also questions raised about whether the Stage 2 assessment would be
suitable for buildings which are already cracked and hence less likely to behave as an elastic beam as
assumed when using the tensile strain approach.

Ideally there is a need to incorporate the existing condition of the building when assessing whether it is
able to tolerate the additional movements potentially induced by adjacent underground construction
activities. This paper suggests a method to incorporate the existing condition of buildings into the im-
pact assessment framework. The first part of the paper discusses work undertaken to develop a frame-
work to provide guidance in classifying the existing condition of buildings more objectively from vis-
ual inspection works; the second part of the paper explores various methods to include the existing
condition of buildings in the impact assessment framework.

2 DEFINING THE EXISTING CONDITION OF BUILDINGS

Visual inspections of buildings within the influence zone of underground construction have been con-
ducted as part of the advance engineering and/or detailed engineering studies for all major infrastruc-
ture projects undertaken by the LTA since 2006. The visual inspection by a consultant typically in-
volves liaising with owners to get access into the interior of buildings, so that any structural defects,
signs of structural distress, unusual structural deformations, material deterioration, water seepage, or
adverse and unauthorized loading conditions can be identified. Figure 1 shows some of the observa-
tions that can be picked up by the inspectors. A visual inspection report would then be prepared and
submitted, and this would include photographic records of observations and an assessment on the ex-
isting condition of the building by a Professional Engineer.

(a) Unauthorised steel prop (b) Structural crack on beam (c) Structural crack to
to beam in kitchen supporting upper slab columns supporting building
Figure 1. Examples of observations from visual inspections.
Based on the outcome of the building inspections, engineers are required to allow for the condition of
the building when conducting their assessment of the potential damage induced by underground con-
struction. However, there is no explicit guidance on how the existing condition of a building can be
classified, and this has resulted in different opinions on what types of defects would cause a building
to be classified as being in a ‘satisfactory’ or ‘poor’ condition. This is further exacerbated by the fact
that engineers responsible for the structural inspections are usually different from the engineers as-
sessing the potential damage to the buildings. Consequently, there is a potential mismatch in trying to
relate the existing condition of a building to the risk of damage that an adjacent excavation/tunnelling
activity could induce.

A review was thus undertaken to provide guidance in classifying the existing condition of buildings
more objectively, and this has been implemented in the engineering studies for recent infrastructure
projects. Specifically, this looks into the suitability of incorporating features of the building damage
classification system developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). The BRE classifica-
tion system is fundamentally based on the ease of repair of visible damage to the building fabric and
structure. Two classification systems of damage were proposed in BRE Digest 251 (1995) – one relat-
ing to visible damage to walls in relation to repair of plaster and brickwork for masonry, and another
relating to visible damage caused by ground floor slab settlement. As the BRE classification strictly
applies only to masonry brick or blockwork and is not intended to apply to reinforced concrete ele-
ments, there is a need to develop some guidance on observations relating to structural elements of rein-
forced concrete structures. This would depend on whether any structural defects can be easily repaired
or whether these might affect the stability of the building and hence require major repairs to be carried
out.

It is proposed to classify the existing condition of buildings into three broad categories, i.e. ‘Good’,
‘Satisfactory’ or ‘Poor’, based on the accumulated experience from visual inspection and damage as-
sessment works in Singapore. Buildings with existing condition in the ‘Good’ category would not have
any visible signs of structural defects / distress on the exposed structural elements, but may have some
minor visible damage on the building fabric that is non-structural and affects only the aesthetic appear-
ance of the property. Buildings with existing condition in the ‘Satisfactory’ category would have more
significant cracks and material deterioration on the exposed structural elements, and would also exhibit
some visible signs of defects in the brick or blockwork that would affect the serviceability functions of
the building. This could include some cracking, gaps and distortion impairing the weather-tightness of
the walls and slabs and slight jamming of doors and windows. The most severe condition would be the
‘Poor’ category, which relates to stability and severe serviceability concerns. Buildings in the ‘Poor’
category would have shown structural defects that affect the structural integrity and stability of local-
ized areas within the property or even the entire building, and would require a major repair job involv-
ing breaking-out and replacing parts of the building, or even complete rebuilding.

A detailed guidance to classify the current condition of a building from visual inspection works is
shown in the table in the Appendix. This combines the BRE classification for walls and ground floor
slabs, with the observations on structural elements that are made during the visual inspection of rein-
forced concrete structures in Singapore. In summary, a ‘Good’ condition would be given to buildings
with minor aesthetic concerns which can be easily rectified, a ‘Satisfactory’ condition would refer to
buildings with some serviceability issues, and a ‘Poor’ condition would refer to buildings with stability
concerns or severe serviceability issues. It is tempting to erroneously base the classification solely on
the crack width, but it should be emphasized that this factor alone can produce a misleading concept
on the extent of damage and building condition. It must be appreciated that crack width is only one in-
dicator in assessing damage categories and should not be used on its own as a direct measure
of damage, as is made clear by Burland et al (1977) and reiterated in the BRE classification
(BRE Digest 251, 1995). Also, the descriptions provided in the table in the Appendix relate to visible
damage, when many areas of the building may be obstructed or not readily exposed for visual inspec-
tion. Tell-tale signs of excessive deformations, unusual loading conditions and deviations from ap-
proved structural drawings, would need to be considered when assessing the current condition of the
building. Indeed, it would be the responsibility of the engineers conducting the visual inspection to
understand the descriptive defects described in the guidance table for structural elements, wall and
ground floor slabs, before considering the defects holistically when making his assessment. It is the
authors’ belief that this approach would provide more objective guidance to engineers when classify-
ing the overall condition of buildings.
3 INCORPORATING EXISTING CONDITION INTO BUILDING IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The structural response of a building to external induced movements which has suffered significant de-
formations and cracking in the past may be quite different from a building which is in a good condi-
tion. A building in a ‘Poor’ condition based on the proposed guidance in the Appendix, is likely to be
less tolerant to any additional movements caused by adjacent underground construction, and would re-
quire more robust mitigation and preventive measures. This part of the paper evaluates various meth-
ods to include the existing condition of buildings into the damage assessment framework, before rec-
ommending the way forward to include the condition of buildings into the 3-staged framework for
building impact assessment. Three methods – a simplified approach, a quantitative approach, and a
risk-based approach – are reviewed and discussed.

3.1 Simplified approach

Fok et al (2012) discussed the various activities leading up to the assessment on the risk of building
damage caused by underground construction, and based the assessment framework on various types of
buildings - see Figure 2.

Define Zone of Influence

Estimate relevant vertical and Study as-built drawings and

horizontal ground movements conduct visual inspections

Building in poor
Current structural condition of building is satisfactory or good
structural condition

Building on deep Building on shallow Building on mixed

foundation foundation foundation

Estimate induced forces

and moments on pile
Conduct Stage 1 Sensitive
prelim assessment structures
such as
monuments,
NO Pile
capacity
conservation
adequate?
buildings, etc.
YES Max settlement
<10mm and max
slope <1:500?
YES

NO
Conduct Stage 2 tensile
NO Is differential
strain assessment
movement
and rotation
at pile head
acceptable? YES Damage
category less
than slight?
YES

NO
Conduct Stage 3
Conduct Stage 3 detailed assessment
detailed assessment

Damage YES
condition YES Damage
acceptable? condition
acceptable?

NO
No mitigation measure required NO

Identify mitigation measures for

structural protection

Figure 2. Framework for assessing the risk of building damage (reproduced from Fok et al 2012)
Specifically, it was highlighted that the tensile strain approach of building behaviour being essentially
elastic would not hold true for buildings with significant cracks and/or are showing unusual defor-
mations. By ascertaining the existing structural condition of the building through a detailed visual in-
spection, it was suggested to always carry out a Stage 3 detailed evaluation for buildings that are found
to be in poor structural condition, through careful consideration on the existing stresses and strains in-
herent in the building together with the additional stresses and strains due to the underground construc-
tion. However, if the current condition of the building is satisfactory or good, the 3-staged assessment
approach would still be conducted as per normal.

This is a simplified approach which channels all buildings in poor condition that are within the zone of
influence of the underground construction into a Stage 3 detailed evaluation, regardless of whether the
underground construction is expected to induce significant effects or not. Clearly, a building in a poor
condition that is far away from the underground construction would be at a lower risk of additional
damage induced compared to a building that is directly adjacent to the underground construction. The
approach is undoubtedly conservative, but could be rationalised to eliminate less critical buildings
based on the potential degree of damage predicted.

3.2 Quantitative approach

The second method adopts a quantitative approach by adding current tensile strains that are inherent in
the existing building condition (say εcur), onto the additional tensile strains induced into the building
by underground construction activities (say εmax). The total tensile strains (εtot = εcur + εmax) is then
evaluated against the limiting tensile strain (εlim) corresponding to the various damage categories, as
recommended by Boscardin and Cording (1989).

Whilst the additional tensile strains induced into the building by differential movement can be calcu-
lated from the equations presented by Burland et al (1977), it would be extremely challenging to esti-
mate an equivalent tensile strain inherent in the existing building condition. Some engineers have tried
to estimate the current tensile strains from visual inspections, by relating these to observations of exist-
ing cracks. Specifically, they have tried to equate the occurrence of cracks and crack-width dimensions
reported in the visual inspection reports to a single tensile strain value so that this can be added to the
evaluation of damage category - see illustration in Figure 3. However, this approach is highly ques-
tionable and extremely subjective, depending on individual interpretation, and it is without theoretical
basis. This is because crack-widths cannot be directly related to tensile strains without considering
specific deformation modes. Moreover, observation of cracks in existing buildings are localized and,
more often than not, the cracks are not related to the simplified hogging and sagging deformation
modes that were used by Burland et al (1977) to formulate the beam equations for calculating induced
tensile strains (εmax). Such a questionable approach should never be used in the tensile strain approach,
unless there is very careful understanding of the deformation mode corresponding to the current build-
ing condition; appropriate calibration is required to ensure that the current tensile strains are properly
estimated and the additive principle to directly superimpose estimated current tensile strains is reason-
able.

Tensile Strain from existing condition (εcur) Check εcur+εmax against εlim to assess damage category
Observed crack- Inferred tensile Category of Normal degree of Limiting tensile
widths strains εcur (%) damage severity strain εlim (%)
<0.1 mm 0 – 0.05 0 Negligible 0 – 0.05
0.1mm - 1mm 0.05 – 0.075 1 Very slight 0.05 – 0.075
1mm - 5mm 0.075 – 0.15 2 Slight 0.075 – 0.15
5mm - 15mm 0.15 – 0.3 3 Moderate 0.15 – 0.3
> 15mm > 0.3 4 or 5 Severe to very severe > 0.3
Figure 3. A questionable approach to estimate current tensile strains for evaluation against limiting tensile strains
3.3 Risk-based approach

Recent projects in the UK have adopted a risk-based, index system approach to the tensile strain meth-
od, to account for heritage and sensitivity of specific buildings identified by the relevant authorities.
This differs slightly between projects. For example in the London Crossrail project, a heritage sensitiv-
ity score is provided to buildings that are culturally sensitive or with features that have high heritage
value, and a structural sensitivity score is given to buildings with delicate structural forms that are sen-
sitive to movements. In the Thames Tideway Tunnel project, there is additional provision for including
a condition sensitivity score to account for different heritage condition in the building. Table 1 summa-
rises the sensitivity score categories that are used in both UK projects. The category of induced dam-
age estimated using the tensile strain method are added together with all the individual sensitivity indi-
ces (for structure form, heritage features, and current condition), to give a final category of damage for
evaluating the normal degree of severity expected. This is conceptually illustrated in Figure 4.

Table 1. Sensitivity score categories used in UK projects (Source: Crossrail Information Paper, Thames Tideway
Tunnel Settlement Information Paper)
Structure Heritage Features Condition
Score Sensitivity of the structure to Sensitivity to calculated Factors which may affect the sensitivity of
ground movements and interaction movement of particular structural or heritage features
with adjacent buildings features within the building
Masonry buildings with lime mortar No particular sensitive Good – not affecting the sensitivity of
and regular openings, not abutted features structural or heritage features
by other buildings, and therefore
0 similar to the buildings on which the
original Burland assessment was
based
Buildings not complying with Brittle finishes, eg. faience or Poor – may change the behaviour of a
categories 0 or 2, but still with some tight-jointed stonework, which building in cases of movement. Poor
sensitive structural features in the are susceptible to small condition of heritage features and finishes.
zone of settlement, e.g. cantilever structural movements and Evidence of previous movement.
1 stone staircases, long walls without difficult to repair invisibly
joints or openings, existing cracks
where further movements are likely
to concentrate, mixed foundations
Buildings which by their structural Finishes which if damaged will Very poor – parlous condition of heritage
form will tend to concentrate all have a significant effect on the features and finishes, or severe existing
their movements in one location heritage value of the building, damage to structure including evidence of
2 (eg. a long wall without joints and eg. delicate frescos, ornate ongoing movement. Essentially buildings
with a single opening) plasterwork ceilings. which are close to collapse or where finishes
are loose such that even very small
movements could lead to significant damage
Adopted in Cross Rail
Yes Yes No
project?
Adopted in Thames
Yes Yes Yes
Tideway Tunnel?

Damage Index + Sensitivity Indices = Damage Category

Induced tensile strain (%) Damage Index
0 – 0.05 0
0.05 – 0.075 1 Damage Category Normal degree of severity
0.075 – 0.15 2
0.15 – 0.3 3 0 Negligible
> 0.3 4 or 5
1 Very slight

2 Slight
Structure Heritage Current Sensitivity
form features condition Index 3 Moderate
Typical Nil Good 0
Delicate Brittle Poor 1 >4 Severe to very severe
Sensitive Delicate Very Poor 2

Figure 4. Risk-based approach of using index system to incorporate existing condition of buildings
It is noted that the sensitivity score categories used in the UK may not be relevant to the local context
in Singapore. For example, mixed foundations in the UK would only get an additional structural sensi-
tivity score of 1. Buildings on mixed foundations in Singapore have been observed in the past to be ex-
tremely sensitive to additional movements induced by underground construction due to the soft marine
clay. Some of the issues relating to buildings on mixed foundations in Singapore were explained by
Wen (2011). As such, mixed foundation may warrant a structural sensitivity score of 2 in Singapore.
Another aspect of structural sensitivity that is specific to South-east Asian cities would relate to pre-
war conservation shophouses that are abutting each other and providing restraint against deformations
induced by underground construction. The restraint could potentially increase the hogging defor-
mations and cause more damage to the structure.

Moreover, the categories for the condition sensitivity also hinge heavily on heritage features and fin-
ishes. Whilst heritage buildings may not be all that prevalent in Singapore, the presence of compressi-
ble Kallang Formation tributaries throughout the island has caused some low-rise buildings on shallow
foundation to be in poor existing condition due to the many years of on-going consolidation settle-
ment. In some instances, there have been allegations that the underground construction has caused
damage to private houses, even though the houses are outside the influence zone of the underground
construction and the defects are in fact pre-existing due to on-going consolidation. It would be neces-
sary to tailor the condition sensitivity index according to local context, in order to manage the risks of
buildings already in poor condition from being adversely affected by underground construction activi-
ties.

The risk-based, index system approach to the tensile strain method is promising as it can incorporate
current condition and sensitive structural and heritage features of buildings. However, there needs to
be some degree of customization based on experience and acceptable risk levels in the local context.
More work should be done with the local industry to establish an appropriate sensitivity index matrix,
but Table 2 could be a first approach on how to make the various sensitivity indices more relevant in a
local context.

Table 2. Proposed categories of sensitivity index for Singapore context

Structural form Heritage Features Existing Condition

Categories
of sensitivity Sensitivity of the structure to Sensitivity to calculated Factors which may affect structure
indices ground movements and interac- movement of particular fea- sensitivity to further movements
tion with adjacent buildings tures within the building
Similar to buildings for which the No particular sensitive fea- Good or Satisfactory (based on the
0 Burland et al assessment was tures visual inspection guidance given in
formulated the Appendix)
Buildings with some sensitive Brittle finishes, eg. faience Poor condition – may change the
structural features in the move- or tight-jointed stonework, structural behaviour in cases of addi-
ment zone (e.g. existing cracks which are susceptible to tional movements. Evidence of on-
where further movements are small structural movements going movements that caused exist-
1 likely to concentrate) and difficult to repair in- ing damage, but this relates only to
visibly serviceability concerns and unlikely
to affect the structural stability and
integrity to any part of the building
Buildings which by their struc- Finishes which if damaged Poor condition – especially if existing
tural form will tend to concentrate will have a significant effect damage are likely to affect the struc-
all their movements in one loca- on the heritage value of the tural stability and integrity to any part
tion (eg. buildings on mixed building, of the building, and also if very small
2 foundations, shophouses on shal- movements could lead to significant
low foundations abutting each damage.
other, long wall without move-
ment joints)
4 CONCLUSION

The approach to incorporate the existing building condition into the assessment of potential impact of
adjacent underground construction is discussed in this paper. This has two components. The first con-
cerns specific guidance to classify the existing condition of buildings. This combines the BRE’s classi-
fication framework for damage assessment to buildings, with general observations on structural ele-
ments that are made during the visual inspection of reinforced concrete buildings in Singapore. This
will help engineers conducting visual inspections to be more objective when classifying the condition
of the building, so that those undertaking the impact assessment would have more confidence regard-
ing the building condition.

The second component relates to including the existing condition of buildings in the current assess-
ment framework. Three approaches have been considered in this paper. The ‘Simplified approach’ of
requiring all poor condition buildings to be subject to a detailed evaluation is conservative but does not
address the pertinent issue of having a rational approach to eliminate buildings depending on the po-
tential degree of damage. The ‘Quantitative approach’ to infer the inherent tensile strain from existing
condition (and in particular from crack widths) is highly questionable, extremely subjective and is not
recommended. The most promising is the ‘Risk-based approach’, which includes the current building
condition, takes account of any sensitive structural form or heritage features. The proposed ‘Risk-
based approach’ has been developed from systems currently used for some projects in the UK
(Crossrail and Thames Tideway); it will need to be customized to local Singapore experience, and im-
proved in due course by inputs from industry.

REFERENCES

Boscardin, M.D. and Cording, J.C. 1989. Building response to excavation-induced settlement. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 115(1): 1–21.
BRE Digest 251. 1995. Assessment of damage in low rise buildings with particular reference to progressive
foundation movements, revised 1995. Building Research Establishment.
Burland, J,B., Broms, B.B. and de Mello, V.F.B. 1977. Behaviour of foundations and structures: state-of-the art
report. Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 2:
495–546.
Crossrail Information Paper. D12 – Ground Settlement. Feb 2008. Crossrail, UK.
Fok, P., Neo, B.H., Goh, K.H. and Wen, D. 2012. Assessing the impact of excavation-induced movements on ad-
jacent buildings, The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering, Vol. 5(3), pp. 195-203.
LTA Civil Design Criteria. 2010. Civil Design Criteria for Road and Transit Systems, Feb 2010, Land Transport
Authority, Singapore.
Mair, R.J., Taylor, R.N. and Burland, J.B. 1996. Prediction of ground movements and assessment of risk of
building damage due to bored tunnelling, In R.J. Mair and R.N. Taylor (eds.), Proc. intern. symp. on Geo-
technical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, London, 15-17 April 1996: 713–718. Rotter-
dam: Balkema.
Mair, R.J. 2013. Tunnelling and deep excavations: ground movements and their effects. Proceedings of the 15th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering – Geotechnics of Hard Soils – Weak
Rocks (Part 4) A. Anagnostopoulos et al. (Eds.) IOS Press.
Thames Tideway Tunnel Settlement Information Paper. Jan 2013. Thames Water Utilities Limited, UK.
TR26:2010. Technical reference for deep excavation. Spring Singapore.
Wen, D. 2011. Underground construction and tunnelling in urban environment. Keynote lecture for the 14th
Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 23-27 May, 2011, Hong Kong.
APPENDIX - GUIDANCE TO CLASSIFY OVERALL BUILDING CONDITION FROM VISUAL INSPECTIONS

Classification of Observations on struc- Adapted from BRE Digest 251 (1995)

overall building tural elements Classification of visible damage to walls (brick, blockwork) Classification of visible damage on ground floor slab settlement
condition with particular reference to ease of repair in italics
No sign of any struc- Hairline cracks of less than about 0.1mm Hairline cracks between floor and skirtings
tural damage / distress
and material deteriora- Fine cracks which can be treated easily using normal deco- Settlement of the floor slab, either at a corner or along a short wall, or possibly uni-
Good ration. Damage generally restricted to internal wall fin- formly, such that a gap opens up below skirting boards which can be masked by resetting
tion on visible structural
elements ishes; cracks rarely visible in external brickwork. Typical skirting boards. No cracks in walls. No cracks in floor slab, although there may be negli-
crack widths* up to 1 mm. gible cracks in floor screed and finish. Slab reasonably level. Typical gap** up to 6mm.
No sign of structural Cracks easily filled. Recurrent cracks can be masked by Larger gaps below skirting boards, some obvious but limited local settlement leading to a
distress on visible struc- suitable linings. Cracks not necessarily visible externally; slight slope of floor slab; gaps can be masked by resetting skirting boards and some local
tural elements, but some some external repointing may be required to ensure rescreeding may be necessary. Fine cracks appear in internal partition walls which need
structural cracks and weather-tightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly some re-decoration; slight distortion in door frames so some ‘jamming’ may occur, ne-
material deterioration and require easing and adjusting. Typical crack widths* up cessitating adjustment of doors. No cracks in floor slab although there may be very slight
(eg concrete spalling, to 5 mm. cracks in floor screed and finish. Slab reasonably level. Typical crack widths* up to
corrosion of steel rein- 1mm and gap** up to 13mm.
Satisfactory forcements) are ob- Cracks which require some opening up and can be patched Significant gaps below skirting boards with areas of floor, especially at corners or ends,
served. Generally, the by a mason. Repointing of external brickwork and possibly where local settlements may have caused slight cracking of floor slab. Sloping of floor in
defects are unlikely to a small amount of brickwork to be replaced. Doors and these areas is clearly visible; (slope approximately 1 in 150). Some disruption to drain,
affect structural stability windows sticking. Service pipes may fracture. Weather- plumbing or heating pipes may occur. Damage to internal walls is more widespread with
and integrity of any part
tightness often impaired. Typical crack widths* are 5 to 15 some crack filling or replastering of partitions necessary. Doors may have to be refitted.
of the building
mm, or several of 3mm cracks. Inspection reveals some voids below slab with poor or loosely compacted fill. Typical
crack widths* up to 5mm and gap** up to 19mm.
Signs of structural dis- Extensive damage which requires breaking-out and replac- Large, localised gaps below skirting boards; possibly some cracks in floor slab with
tress and structural ing sections of walls, especially over doors and windows. sharp fall to edge of slab; (slope approximately 1 in 500 or more). Inspection reveals
damage on visible struc- Windows and door frames distorted, floor sloping noticea- voids exceeding 50 mm below slab and/or poor or loose fill likely to settle further. Local
tural elements. These bly***. Walls leaning or bulging noticeably, some loss of breaking out, part refilling and relaying of floor slab or grouting of fill may be necessary;
defects are likely to af- bearing in beams. Service pipes disrupted. Typical crack damage to internal partitions may require replacement of some bricks or blocks or relin-
fect the structural stabil- widths* are 15 to 25 mm, but also depends on number of ing of stud partitions. Typical crack widths* range between 5 to 15mm but may also de-
ity and integrity to any cracks. pend on number of cracks, and gap** up to 25mm.
Poor part of the building, Structural damage which requires a major repair job, in- Either very large, overall floor settlement with large movement of walls and damage at
volving partial or complete rebuilding. Beams lose bearing, junctions extending up into 1st floor area, with possible damage to exterior walls, or
walls lean badly and require shoring. Windows broken with large differential settlements across floor slab. Voids exceeding 75mm below slab and/or
distortion. Danger of instability. Typical crack widths* are very poor or very loose fill likely to settle further. Risk of instability. Most or all of floor
greater than 25 mm, but depends on number of cracks. slab requires breaking out and relaying or grouting of fill; internal partitions need re-
placement. Typical crack widths* greater than 15mm but may also depend on number of
cracks, and gap** greater than 25mm.
* Crack width is one factor in assessing category of damage and should not be used on its own as a direct measure of it.
** Gap refers to space usually between the skirting and finished floor, caused by settlement after making appropriate allowance for discrepancy in building, shrinkage, normal bedding and the like.
*** For floors and walls, local deviation of slope from the horizontal or vertical of more than 1/100 will normally be clearly visible. Overall deviations in excess of 1/150 are undesirable.