Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Multiple inspections confirmed severe corrosion in the reinforced concrete members due to high chloride content. The sources of chlorides were suspected to include mixing water, curing water, aggregates, or admixtures used during construction. Many reports indicated that while there were no major structural defects initially identified (as noted by Bureau Veritas), various functional distress features needed addressing to prevent further deterioration. Repeated mentions of reappearing cracks demonstrate that prior patching methods are ineffective without tackling root causes. Initial recommendations emphasized investigating corrosion causes and conducting necessary repairs through competent agencies. Subsequent evaluations stressed immediate remedial actions and periodic maintenance as essential for prolonging structural lives. A later evaluation by IIT Madras highlighted that continued occupancy poses serious risks to residents because of significant corrosion levels. Evacuating residents from Towers B and C was recommended due to urgent safety concerns. Several assessments pointed out a lack of documented quality control procedures during construction, which raises alarms about potential future distress not currently visible. Some reports noted limitations in retrofitting options due to accessibility issues within the structures themselves; particularly challenging retrofitting shear walls housing lifts while keeping towers occupied. It's clear from multiple expert recommendations that immediate steps should be taken regarding evacuation before a possible disaster occurs. The ongoing presence of chlorides indicates an inherent flaw in construction practices or 2025:KER:8278 materials used requiring comprehensive structural treatment rather than surface- level fixes which had proven inadequate.

(g) The cost of new construction is less than twice the cost of retrofitting. Added to this, the life of the new structure would be significantly higher than the retrofitted one. There will be no concerns regarding the stability and safety of the foundation and recurring problems arising due to corrosion.

(h) The extent of distress observed in Tower A is not severe. These defects could be addressed by the retrofitting methods as suggested by M/s BVIPL. The building should be under constant observation. If any major structural defects are seen, they should be brought to the attention of an expert structural consultant."