Rehabilitation of Fence Corrected One
Rehabilitation of Fence Corrected One
Rehabilitation of Fence Corrected One
STUDIO
BY
[R2022/410/001]
[R2022/410/003]
[R2022/410/006]
[R2022/410/007]
[R2022/420/013]
JULY, 2024
DECLARATION
ENDR. ADEGBOYEGA I. A
(HEAD OF DEPARTMENT)
...................................................... .......................................
ABSTRACT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Rehabilitation of fence is based on a previous analysis of the
pathologies and in a background knowledge, fundamentally scientific
(Lourenço 2008, Molnár et al. 2008, Terpeluk et al. 2008), but in
rehabilitation is also important, in many of the situations, the field
knowledge, that is only possible to get during several professional
works (Mendes da Silva 2013, Abrantes 2019) and the experience of
Tramo (2019).
fences are ubiquitous in urban and suburban environments, serving
as vital structures for property demarcation, security, and aesthetic
enhancement. Over time, however, these fences can deteriorate due
to various factors such as weathering, structural stresses, and lack of
maintenance. As such, the rehabilitation of concrete fences has
become a pertinent topic in civil engineering and construction
management literature.
An initial review looked at international and Australian examples of
successful rehabilitation techniques post surface Boone et al. (1986),
Reddell and Hopkins (1994), Daniels (no date (after 2003), Holmes
(2001), Hall et al. (2010) and Gould, (2011) provided some insight
into leading practice for successful rehabilitation with the potential
to limit effective rehabilitation. These factors are not, however,
universally applicable as they vary between bioregions and locations
and some also vary seasonally (EPA, 2006).
Firstly, the meaning of ‘successful rehabilitation’ is not used
consistently throughout the literature or even by Western Australian
regulatory bodies and perhaps more critically, there are not yet
uniform standards or criteria for determining ‘successful’
rehabilitation (Mudd, 2009).
According to Smith (2017), the degradation of fences primarily stems
from environmental factors such as freeze-thaw cycles, moisture
ingress, and chemical exposure. These elements contribute to the
weakening of structures over time, leading to cracks, spalling, and
loss of structural integrity. The literature review revealed that there
is considerable flexibility in the terminology used and therefore it is
considered useful to provide the definitions of the terminology used
for this study.
The term ‘rehabilitation’ is often interchanged with ‘restoration’ and
‘reclamation’. The term rehabilitation in this study is used in
preference to restoration and reclamation and is defined as follow:
“a process where disturbed land is returned to a stable, productive
and self-sustaining condition, taking future land use into account.
The process differs from the narrower definition of restoration by
not aspiring to fully replace all of the original components of an
ecosystem” (EPA, 2006).
Various techniques have been proposed for rehabilitating
deteriorated fences. Johnson (2018) emphasizes the importance of
thorough inspection and assessment before initiating any repair
work. Techniques such as epoxy injection for crack sealing and
carbon fiber reinforcement for structural strengthening have been
widely studied (Garcia et al., 2019). These methods aim not only to
restore the original strength of the concrete but also to enhance its
durability against future degradation.
The rehabilitation of fences also intersects with environmental
sustainability and economic viability. Martinez (2020) discusses the
environmental impact of different repair materials and techniques,
highlighting the importance of using eco-friendly materials and
processes. Moreover, Costello (2019) provides insights into the cost-
effectiveness of various rehabilitation strategies, suggesting that
investing in preventive maintenance can mitigate long-term repair
expenses.
Several case studies have demonstrated successful rehabilitation of
fences in various geographical and environmental conditions. For
instance, the rehabilitation of fences in urban settings has required
innovative approaches to preserve architectural heritage while
meeting modern structural standards (Brown & White, 2021).
Despite advancements in rehabilitation techniques, challenges
remain in ensuring the long-term durability and aesthetic appeal of
concrete fences. Future research directions include exploring
advanced materials, automated monitoring systems, and predictive
modeling to optimize maintenance schedules and improve overall
performance (Taylor, 2022).
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHODOLOGY
-Site Conditions
- Topography: Note the slope, elevation, and terrain features.
- Soil Conditions: Assess the soil type, stability, and potential for
erosion.
- Vegetation: Identify the types of plants, trees, and their proximity
to the fence.
- Climate: Consider the local weather patterns, temperature
extremes, and precipitation levels.
-Fence Conditions
- Type and material: Identify the fence type (wood, metal, vinyl, etc.)
and its condition.
- Height and length: Measure the fence's height and length.
- Condition of posts, boards, and panels: Assess their condition,
damage, or deterioration.
- Gates and openings: Inspect gates, doors, and other openings.
-Environmental Factors
● cement
● wood
● sand
● shovel
● water can
● saw blade
● nails
● hammer
● measuring tape
● marine board
● granite
● reinforcement
● water
● paint
● reinforcement (formwork)