Holistic workflow uncovers bias in concrete strength assessments, indicating need for probabilistic approaches in structural performance analysis.
This study proposes a holistic workflow to investigate the impact of systematic bias and uncertainty in Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)-based strength estimations on structural performance decisions for earthquake-damaged buildings. Element-level material properties were obtained using a field-calibrated multivariate WINSONREB model (combining Windsor Probe, UPV, and Schmidt hammer tests) and subsequently integrated into a Building Information Modeling (BIM) platform to develop an as-is digital representation of the structure. Quantitative analyses revealed that the proposed model systematically overestimates concrete strength by an average of +5 MPa, particularly in low-strength zones, and that the model's standard error (±5.7 MPa) is sufficient to shift the building's performance classification between Collapse Prevention (CP) and Life Safety (LS) levels under the Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC). These findings highlight the critical importance of adopting a probabilistic framework for interpreting NDT data, as opposed to deterministic assumptions, to adequately capture uncertainty propagation in engineering decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eren et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: