Most people commissioning a structural assessment have never seen one. So here is a complete report, written the way we write ours, with every section filled in rather than described.
It is a specimen. The building, its location and all of its findings are illustrative. No client information appears in it, and the signature, PRC licence number and dry seal are deliberately left out — a sealed document is a professional instrument, not a sample.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Report reference | AEDO-SA-SPECIMEN-01 |
| Subject building | Two-storey single-family residence, approx. 118 m² total floor area |
| Location | Specimen address, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental (withheld) |
| Client | Property owner (withheld in specimen) |
| Purpose | Evaluate reported diagonal cracking above a ground-floor window and report on the overall structural condition |
| Assessment type | Visual condition survey with engineering evaluation. No destructive or laboratory testing. |
| Prepared / reviewed by | Civil engineer / principal engineer, AEDO Construction OPC (names and PRC numbers omitted from specimen) |
| Status | Specimen — not for construction, permit or transaction use |
The building is in serviceable structural condition. Of five conditions recorded, one requires repair within one month (corroding reinforcement at the entrance canopy beam, F-4), one requires monitoring over three months (diagonal cracking in an infill wall panel above window W-2, F-1), and three require no structural action. Nothing observed requires the building to be vacated, and no area needs to be taken out of use. The second floor slab carries a normal residential load satisfactorily but should be re-assessed before any additional load is added. No structural drawings were available; the evaluation rests on measured member sizes and stated assumptions.
AEDO Construction OPC was engaged by the property owner to inspect and report on the structural condition of the building following a diagonal crack above a ground-floor window, which the owner reported as widening over roughly six months.
| In scope | Not in scope |
|---|---|
| Visual survey of the accessible frame, slabs, roof structure and visible foundations | Removal of finishes, opening of members, or excavation to expose foundations |
| Measurement of recorded defects and accessible member sizes | Laboratory or in-situ material testing |
| Engineering evaluation against NSCP 2015 | Architectural, electrical, plumbing, fire protection or sanitary systems |
| Written findings, severity classification and prioritised recommendations | Design of any repair or retrofit (a separate engagement) |
| A monitoring plan where a condition needs observing over time | Certification for any regulatory, insurance or transaction purpose |
| Reference | Applied to |
|---|---|
| NSCP 2015, Sec. 204 | Dead loads: self-weight of frame, slab, walls, roof and finishes |
| NSCP 2015, Sec. 205 | Residential live loads, including the second floor slab check |
| NSCP 2015, Sec. 208 | Seismic demand, Zone 4 site, for the frame's lateral system |
| NSCP 2015, Sec. 207 | Wind demand on the roof structure and exposed canopy |
| PD 1096, Secs. 214–215 | Dangerous-building criteria — screened against, not triggered |
| RA 544, Sec. 14 | Seal and signature requirement for the issuing civil engineer |
| Element | As observed |
|---|---|
| Structural system | Reinforced concrete moment frame, three bays on the north elevation (grids A to C) |
| Columns | 300 × 300 mm typical, measured at accessible faces on both levels |
| Beams | 250 × 400 mm typical at the second floor; canopy beam 200 × 300 mm |
| Second floor slab | RC suspended slab, 3.6 m clear span in the living area, approx. 125 mm thick at the edge |
| Walls | 150 mm CHB infill, plastered both faces; non-load-bearing |
| Roof | Pre-painted metal roofing on steel purlins over a timber-framed ceiling |
| Foundation | Not exposed. Isolated pad footings assumed, consistent with the frame and construction period |
| Activity | Method / instrument |
|---|---|
| Crack widths | Graduated crack comparator card, read at the widest point |
| Member dimensions | 5 m steel tape at accessible faces; plaster thickness not deducted |
| Column verticality | Spirit level and plumb line over 2.4 m; method tolerance approx. 3 mm |
| Slab deflection | String line across the span, offset measured at mid-span |
| Photographic record | Each frame located and dated (Appendix B of the PDF) |
| Concrete strength | Not tested — no cores, no rebound hammer survey |
| Reinforcement | Not scanned; bar sizes noted only where already exposed |
| Ref | Location / member | Observation | Measured |
|---|---|---|---|
| O-1 | Ground floor, north elevation, infill panel above window W-2, grid A-B | Diagonal crack from the upper window corner toward the beam soffit, visible on both faces, partly following mortar joints and passing through blocks elsewhere | 2.6 mm max; 1.4 m long |
| O-2 | Ground floor, column C-3, north face | Fine vertical hairline cracking over approx. 600 mm above floor. No spalling, staining, exposed bar or displacement | Below 0.3 mm |
| O-3 | Second floor slab, living area, grid B-2 | Slight downward deflection under normal furniture loading; ceiling line visibly curved. No soffit cracking | 11 mm over 3.6 m (span/327) |
| O-4 | Entrance canopy beam, exterior, grid C | Rust staining across the soffit; one 220 mm length of exposed, actively corroding reinforcement where cover has spalled | Cover loss approx. 220 × 60 mm; 1 bar |
| O-5 | Ground floor, rear service area | Floor tiles sound hollow over approx. 1.2 m². No cracking in slab below or wall above | Approx. 1.2 m²; finish only |
Assumptions. With no drawings available, the evaluation assumes reinforcement consistent with the bars visible at the canopy beam, concrete strength consistent with ordinary residential practice of the period, and isolated footings on undisturbed soil. Each is stated so a later engineer can test it rather than inherit it.
6.1 Gravity and live load. The 3.6 m slab's 11 mm mid-span deflection (span/327) is consistent with long-term deflection under sustained load rather than distress: no soffit cracking, and a smooth rather than locally kinked profile. The margin suits the present use and is not adequate to absorb arbitrary additional load.
6.2 Lateral system. The RC moment frame resists lateral load; CHB walls are infill and were not counted. Under NSCP 2015 Section 208 the site is Seismic Zone 4. Columns are plumb within method tolerance, no beam-column joint is cracked, and no displacement was measured across any crack.
6.3 Infill wall cracking. O-1 starts at a window corner — the stress concentration point where in-plane, thermal and shrinkage movement all collect. Its width and progression place it beyond shrinkage, but because the panel is infill, it is a serviceability and durability matter, not a loss of frame capacity.
| Ref | Finding | Severity | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| F-1 | Diagonal cracking in a non-load-bearing infill panel, consistent with movement rather than shrinkage. No effect on frame capacity | S2 | Monitor |
| F-2 | Hairline surface cracking at column C-3, consistent with shrinkage. No section loss or overload pattern | S1 | None |
| F-3 | Slab deflection within the expected range for span, age and loading. No soffit cracking | S1 | Re-assess before adding load |
| F-4 | Active corrosion with section loss at the canopy beam. Progressive if left open to weather | S3 | Repair within 1 month |
| F-5 | Debonded floor tiles. Finish defect, no structural component | S0 | Cosmetic only |
| Priority | Action | Refers to |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate | None. No condition requires the building to be vacated or any area taken out of use. | — |
| Within 1 month | Repair the canopy beam: break back to sound concrete, clean the bar to bright metal and prime, reinstate cover with polymer-modified repair mortar, restore the drainage fall. | F-4 |
| Within 3 months | Run the monitoring plan below on O-1. Do not fill or plaster the crack before monitoring ends — that destroys the evidence. | F-1 |
| Before any change | Re-assess the second floor slab before adding partitions, heavy storage or a water tank at that level. | F-3 |
| At next renovation | Re-lay the debonded floor tiles. Cosmetic priority. | F-5 |
| Indicative cost of recommended work | Band |
|---|---|
| Canopy beam concrete repair, as scoped above | ₱12,000 – ₱25,000 |
| Crack monitoring points, installation and three readings | ₱4,000 – ₱8,000 |
| Follow-up inspection, if monitoring is triggered | ₱5,000 flat |
| Slab re-assessment before added load, if that change is made | ₱5,000 flat |
Indicative AEDO practice bands for Philippine work in 2026, for budgeting only — not a quotation. Testing (reinforcement scanning, and core testing under NSCP 2015 Section 426.12) is triggered only if monitoring shows growth, more corrosion appears once the beam is opened, or load is added.
| Parameter | Requirement |
|---|---|
| What | Width of the O-1 crack at two fixed points: window corner and mid-length |
| How | Two tell-tale gauges across the crack, or paired reference pins read with a comparator card |
| Frequency | Monthly for three months, each reading dated and photographed |
| Trigger | Cumulative growth over 0.5 mm in three months, or any sudden increase |
| If triggered | Follow-up inspection, including reinforcement scanning at the adjacent columns |
| If not | Movement is complete. Repair the crack cosmetically and close the record |
This assessment is a professional opinion on the condition observed on the date of inspection, within the stated scope and methods. It is visual: no finishes were removed, no member was opened, and no foundation was exposed; concealed conditions are not covered. No drawings were available, so no comparison against an original design was possible. No material testing was performed. It does not certify the building as safe or constitute a certificate for any regulatory, insurance or transaction purpose, and it does not transfer liability for design or construction defects, which remains with the parties identified in Article 1723 of the Civil Code. It is valid for the condition as found and must be read in full.
"I inspected the building described in this report on the date stated, and the observations, findings and recommendations set out here are my professional opinion, subject to the limitations in Section 10."
In a live report this is signed by the inspecting civil engineer and countersigned by the reviewing engineer, each over their printed name and PRC licence number, with the dry seal. Section 14 of Republic Act 544 requires a registered civil engineer to obtain that seal. All of this is deliberately omitted from the specimen.
| Severity | Meaning | Typical action |
|---|---|---|
| S0 | Finish or cosmetic defect, no structural component | Repair at convenience |
| S1 | Element affected; capacity and serviceability unimpaired; stable | No action; record |
| S2 | Movement or deterioration whose progression is not yet established | Monitor to a stated trigger |
| S3 | Active deterioration or measurable section loss; capacity not yet compromised | Repair to a defined scope and date |
| S4 | Capacity demonstrably reduced, or load path compromised | Restrict use; design a retrofit |
| S5 | Risk of collapse or harm is immediate | Vacate; notify the building official |
AEDO's own classification, used to keep a finding's language consistent between engineers and reports. No Philippine code prescribes one. Appendices A (crack location sketch) and B (photographic log) are in the PDF.
If you are commissioning an assessment, send this to the engineer and ask whether their report will carry these ten sections. It is a fair question and a competent engineer will say yes.
If you already have a report, read it against this one. The guide to what a structural assessment report should contain explains each section and includes a free checker that scores the document in your hands.
If you are an engineer, take the structure. The engineering cannot be borrowed — observations, measurements, findings and recommendations have to come from your own inspection of a real building, under your own seal.
Every figure, observation and finding in the specimen is illustrative. It is not an assessment of any real building and must not be presented as one.
A licensed engineer inspects the structure and issues the report above with your building's actual findings in it.
