Concrete Scanning Report: What Information Should It Include?

A concrete scanning report should explain what was surveyed, why the investigation was required, how the work was completed, what concealed features were identified and what limitations affect the findings.

A useful report does more than present scanner screenshots or state that an area is clear. It should allow the structural engineer, contractor, designer or drilling team to understand exactly where the survey was carried out, what equipment was used, how identified features were interpreted and how the results may safely be applied.

The required reporting level depends on the survey purpose. A local scan before installing several shallow fixings may require marked-up photographs and a concise site record. A reinforcement survey, post-tensioning investigation or structural assessment may require survey grids, depth estimates, processed data, drawings and detailed limitations.

The key point is this: a concrete scanning report should preserve the evidence and context of the survey after temporary surface markings have disappeared. It must distinguish measured observations from interpretations, identify uncertain areas and avoid presenting the scan as an unconditional drilling clearance or structural approval.

What Is the Purpose of a Concrete Scanning Report?

The report creates a permanent record of the survey and communicates the findings to the people responsible for the next stage of work.

It should allow the reader to understand:

Why the concrete was scanned.
Which structural elements were investigated.
The exact locations and limits of the survey.
Which equipment and scanning methods were used.
What reinforcement, tendons, services or other features were identified.
How depths and positions were estimated.
Which findings were clear and which were uncertain.
What site conditions affected the survey.
Whether physical verification was completed.
What the report does and does not establish.

Without this information, scan findings can easily be misunderstood, applied to the wrong location or relied upon for purposes outside the original survey scope.

Why Surface Markings Alone Are Not Enough

Concrete-scanning findings are often marked directly onto slabs, walls or soffits using chalk, marker pens or tape. These markings are useful for immediate site work, but they are temporary.

Surface markings may be:

Removed during cleaning.
Covered by finishes or construction work.
Damaged by weather or traffic.
Misread by another contractor.
Moved or extended without authorisation.
Separated from the original marking key.

A report supported by photographs and fixed references preserves the meaning of the markings and provides evidence of the original survey conditions.

Different Types of Concrete Scanning Report

Not every project requires the same reporting format. The deliverable should be agreed before attendance.

Report Type	Typical Use	Typical Content
Site marking record	Local drilling, fixing or coring activity.	Photographs, location references, marking key, hole dimensions and limitations.
Basic scanning report	Reinforcement or service detection within defined local areas.	Scope, equipment, methodology, photographs, findings and limitations.
Reinforcement survey report	Structural investigation and as-built reinforcement assessment.	Grid plans, bar directions, spacing, estimated cover, layers and verification results.
Post-tensioning survey report	Tendon mapping before drilling, openings or alteration.	Suspected tendon routes, depths, bands, anchor zones, drawings and restrictions.
Detailed structural investigation report	Wider structural assessment, refurbishment or change of use.	Scanning data integrated with breakouts, cores, dimensions, drawings and engineering observations.

A quotation should define which report type is included. Otherwise, the client may expect a formal structural survey report when the testing provider has priced only for surface marking and photographs.

Project Information That Should Appear in the Report

The front section should identify the project and survey clearly enough that the report cannot be confused with another location or attendance.

Project name.
Full site address.
Client or instructing organisation.
Principal contractor where relevant.
Report reference.
Revision number.
Date of survey.
Date of report issue.
Name of the scanning technician or survey team.
Name of the report author and reviewer where applicable.
Related drawing, instruction or testing-brief references.

Revision control is important where drilling positions, survey areas or interpretations are later changed. The reader should be able to identify which version is current.

The Survey Instruction Should Be Recorded

The report should identify who requested the survey and what information was provided before attendance.

This may include:

A marked-up drawing.
An email instruction.
A concrete-scanning brief.
Proposed hole or core locations.
Post-tensioning drawings.
Structural reinforcement drawings.
Service drawings.
A verbal site instruction confirmed in writing.

Recording the instruction helps distinguish the agreed scope from additional areas or questions that were not included.

How Should the Survey Scope Be Described?

The scope should identify exactly what the investigation was intended to establish.

A clear scope may state that the survey was completed to:

Locate shallow reinforcement before installing anchors.
Identify lower-risk positions for proposed core holes.
Map reinforcement direction and spacing within a slab.
Estimate concrete cover to the first reinforcement layer.
Trace suspected post-tensioning tendon routes.
Investigate embedded service routes.
Estimate slab or wall thickness.
Identify possible voids or internal interfaces.
Select positions for local concrete breakouts.

The scope should avoid vague wording such as “scan the concrete” because this does not explain which features, depths or outputs were required.

The Survey Limits Must Be Defined

The report should identify the physical limits of each surveyed area.

Survey limits may be shown using:

Dimensions from fixed structural edges.
Grid references.
Room or level references.
Column and wall lines.
Marked-up plans.
Photographs showing the complete survey area.
Coordinates from survey-control points.

A report should not state only that a slab was scanned if the work covered one small area of that slab. The findings apply to the surveyed zone, not automatically to the entire structural element.

The Accessible Face Should Be Identified

The report should state whether the element was surveyed from:

The upper slab surface.
The soffit.
One wall face.
Both wall faces.
A beam side.
A column face.
Several accessible faces.

This information affects how the findings are interpreted. A slab scanned from above may identify the upper reinforcement clearly while providing limited information about the lower reinforcement layer.

Proposed Drilling or Coring Details Should Be Included

Where the survey supports intrusive work, the report should record:

Number of proposed holes.
Hole or core diameter.
External barrel diameter where relevant.
Required drilling depth.
Whether the penetration is partial or full depth.
Permitted relocation tolerance.
Proposed drilling angle.
Structural approval status where known.

A location that appears suitable for a small shallow fixing may not be suitable for a large full-depth core. The report should preserve the dimensions against which the scan was interpreted.

Related STRUCTinspect Guidance

For a wider explanation of reinforcement, tendon, service and void detection, read What Can a Concrete Scanner Detect?. The report should make clear which of these concealed features formed part of the actual survey scope.

What Equipment Information Should Be Reported?

The report should identify the equipment used so the reader can understand the basis and limitations of the survey.

Depending on the method, this may include:

Equipment manufacturer.
Instrument model.
Ground-penetrating radar antenna frequency.
Cover-meter or ferroscan model.
Ultrasonic equipment type.
Software used for data processing.
Equipment identification or serial number.
Calibration or verification status.

Equipment identification is particularly important where several methods were used. The report should make clear which findings came from GPR, which came from an electromagnetic cover meter and which were confirmed physically.

Should Calibration Information Be Included?

Yes, where calibration affects the reported findings.

For GPR, the report may state whether depth conversion was calibrated against:

A known slab thickness.
An exposed reinforcement bar.
An existing opening.
A concrete core.
A drilled hole of known depth.
A known embedded feature.

For a cover meter, it may identify:

The assumed bar diameter.
Whether bar diameter was verified.
Whether an equipment check was completed before use.
Any correction applied for known surface finishes.

Where no project-specific calibration was possible, the report should state that depths are estimates based on the instrument settings and assumed material properties.

What Should the Methodology Section Explain?

The methodology should be detailed enough for the reader to understand how the findings were produced without reproducing an equipment manual.

It should explain:

How the survey area was established.
How the grid was marked or referenced.
The spacing between scan lines.
The directions in which scanning was completed.
Whether the survey was completed in one or two directions.
Whether the element was scanned from one or both faces.
How detected features were marked.
How depths were estimated.
How data was processed.
Whether another detection method was used.
Whether findings were physically verified.

The Survey Grid Should Be Described

Grid spacing directly affects the ability to detect and trace concealed features. The report should therefore identify the scan-line spacing or sampling pattern.

For example, it may state that:

Parallel scans were completed at fixed centres.
Perpendicular scans were completed across the same area.
Additional targeted lines were used to trace irregular features.
A local high-resolution grid was used around proposed core positions.
A wider reconnaissance grid was used across the remainder of the element.

Without grid information, the reader cannot judge whether a small object could have fallen between widely spaced scan lines.

The Scan Direction Should Be Recorded

Reinforcement and other linear features are generally identified most clearly when crossed by the scanner.

The report should state whether scanning was completed:

Parallel with the structural grid.
Perpendicular to the expected reinforcement.
In two orthogonal directions.
Along additional lines used to trace a tendon or service.

A one-direction survey should be identified clearly because it may provide reduced confidence for features running parallel with the scan path.

Surface Conditions Must Be Recorded

The report should describe the surface from which the survey was carried out.

Relevant conditions may include:

Exposed structural concrete.
Screed.
Tiles or stone finishes.
Resin coating.
Plaster or render.
Repair mortar.
Waterproofing.
Standing water or high moisture.
Rough or uneven concrete.
Obstructions preventing complete coverage.

Surface conditions affect scanner movement, signal quality and the reference used for reported depths.

The Depth Reference Must Be Clear

Every reported depth should relate to a clearly identified surface.

Possible references include:

Finished floor level.
Top of screed.
Exposed structural concrete.
Painted soffit.
Rendered wall face.
Prepared breakout surface.

A reinforcement depth of 70 mm from finished floor level may represent only 30 mm of structural concrete cover if a 40 mm screed is present. The report should prevent these values from being confused.

How Should Concrete Scanning Findings Be Presented?

Findings should be grouped by survey area and feature type. They should describe what was observed before offering interpretation.

The report may identify:

Shallow reinforcement direction.
Approximate bar spacing.
Estimated reinforcement depths.
Possible upper and lower reinforcement layers.
Post-tensioning tendon or duct routes.
Tendon bands or anchorage zones.
Possible embedded services.
Cast-in channels, plates or fixings.
Possible slab underside or back-face reflections.
Construction interfaces.
Possible voids or anomalous zones.
Areas of heavy reinforcement congestion.

Measured Findings and Interpretation Should Be Separated

A strong report distinguishes between what the instrument recorded and what the response is believed to represent.

Evidence Level	Example Description	Meaning
Observed	A continuous linear radar response was recorded.	The instrument detected a feature, but its identity is not yet stated.
Interpreted	The response is consistent with a tendon duct.	The interpretation is supported by pattern and context but may not be physically confirmed.
Verified	The bar position and diameter were confirmed by local breakout.	The finding has direct physical confirmation at that location.
Unresolved	The feature could not be identified due to congestion.	The location should be treated cautiously or investigated further.

This approach prevents interpretation from being mistaken for confirmed fact.

How Should Reinforcement Findings Be Reported?

For reinforcement surveys, the report may state:

The direction of the nearest reinforcement layer.
Approximate centre-to-centre spacing.
Estimated cover or depth.
Whether several layers were identified.
Whether the nearest steel may be links or secondary reinforcement.
Areas where individual bars could not be resolved.
Whether bar diameter was assumed, estimated or physically verified.

It should not normally claim reinforcement grade, lap length, anchorage or structural capacity based on scanning alone.

How Should Tendon Findings Be Reported?

Post-tensioning findings should normally include:

Suspected tendon or duct routes.
Whether the routes were traced continuously.
Estimated tendon depths.
Possible banded or distributed arrangements.
Areas of overlapping tendon responses.
Possible anchorage or stressing zones.
Conventional reinforcement that may affect interpretation.
Features that could be services rather than tendons.

The report should avoid guaranteeing that a proposed drilling location contains no tendon. It should explain the evidence, confidence and remaining limitations.

How Should Possible Services Be Reported?

A scanner may identify an embedded linear feature without confirming its contents or operating status.

Appropriate wording may include:

Possible embedded service route.
Linear feature consistent with a conduit.
Unidentified embedded feature.
Feature requiring comparison with service records.
Restricted area pending further investigation.

The report should not state that a service is dead, isolated or safe to drill unless that status has been established separately by the responsible project team.

How Should Depth Estimates Be Reported?

Depth values should normally be described as estimates unless they have been physically verified.

The report should state:

The surface from which depth was measured.
The equipment used.
The calibration method.
Any assumed concrete properties.
Whether a finish thickness was included.
Whether the value relates to a bar centre, bar face, duct or interpreted reflection.
The limitations affecting the estimate.

A table of depths may be useful, but displaying values to the nearest millimetre should not imply that the actual position is known to that degree of precision.

Should a Tolerance Be Stated?

A project-specific tolerance may be stated where it is supported by the equipment, method, calibration and site conditions.

The report should not copy a nominal manufacturer accuracy without considering:

Reinforcement congestion.
Feature depth.
Concrete moisture.
Surface finishes.
Bar diameter assumptions.
Grid spacing.
Interpretation uncertainty.

Where a defensible numerical tolerance cannot be established, the report should explain the practical level of confidence instead.

What Drawings Should Be Included?

Drawings help relate scan findings to the structure and proposed work.

Depending on the survey, the report may include:

A site location plan.
A floor or level plan.
Survey-area plans.
Grid references.
Reinforcement maps.
Tendon-route plans.
Proposed hole or core locations.
No-drill or restricted zones.
Sections showing estimated depths.
Verification or breakout locations.

Every drawing should include an identifiable reference, orientation, scale or dimensions and a key explaining the markings.

What Photographs Should Be Included?

Photographs should show enough context for the reader to identify the location and understand the surface markings.

Useful photographs include:

A general view of the room, level or structural area.
The complete surveyed zone.
Close views of reinforcement and tendon markings.
Proposed drilling or coring positions.
Fixed reference dimensions.
Surface finishes and obstructions.
Areas that could not be surveyed.
Physical verification or breakout findings.

A close photograph of marks with no wider context may be difficult to relocate later. General and detailed images should therefore be used together.

The Marking Key Must Be Explained

If different colours or line types were used on site, the report should explain their meaning.

For example:

Red lines: detected reinforcement.
Yellow lines: possible post-tensioning tendon routes.
Blue lines: possible services.
Hatched area: uncertain or restricted zone.
Cross mark: proposed drilling centre.

The actual marking system may differ, but it must be consistent and documented. Site personnel should never be expected to guess the meaning of a mark.

Should Raw GPR Images Be Included?

Raw or processed radar images may be included where they help explain the findings, but screenshots alone do not make a complete report.

Each image should identify:

The survey line or grid reference.
The scan direction.
The horizontal distance scale.
The depth or travel-time scale.
Key interpreted responses.
The processing applied where relevant.

A radar image without a location reference or interpretation may be of little practical use to the project team.

Should Three-Dimensional Scan Images Be Included?

Three-dimensional or plan-view data can help communicate reinforcement patterns, tendon bands and continuous features.

However, the report should explain that processed images are interpreted visualisations of recorded data rather than direct photographs of the concrete interior.

The image should not be used to imply complete detection where deeper features were masked or the grid was too wide to capture small objects.

What Limitations Should a Concrete Scanning Report Include?

Limitations are a core part of the technical result, not generic disclaimer wording added at the end.

Relevant limitations may include:

Only one face of the element was accessible.
Dense shallow reinforcement masked deeper features.
The survey was limited to defined local areas.
Surface finishes affected depth references.
Obstructions prevented complete grid coverage.
The concrete was wet or had variable material properties.
Closely spaced features could not be separated.
Bar diameter was assumed rather than verified.
No project-specific depth calibration was available.
Possible services could not be identified conclusively.
The scanner could not confirm whether services were live.
The method could not confirm reinforcement grade or condition.
No physical verification was permitted.

Why Generic Limitations Are Not Enough

A statement that “results may vary” does not explain the actual uncertainty affecting the survey.

The report should identify specific conditions. For example:

“The lower reinforcement layer could not be resolved due to dense upper steel.”
“Depths are measured from the top of the floor finish rather than exposed structural concrete.”
“The survey could not extend behind the fixed plant base.”
“The identity of the linear feature could not be distinguished between a service duct and tendon.”

Project-specific wording is more useful than broad disclaimers because it tells the reader exactly how the findings should be treated.

The Report Should Define Where Its Findings Apply

Concrete-scanning results are local to the surveyed areas and conditions.

The report should make clear that findings should not automatically be applied to:

Untested areas of the same slab.
Other floors or structural bays.
Areas with different finishes.
Different concrete pours.
Revised drilling locations.
Greater depths than the survey could assess.
Future work after site markings have changed.

If the proposed drilling position is moved, the revised position should normally be scanned and authorised separately.

What a Concrete Scanning Report Cannot Confirm Alone

Unless supported by additional investigation, the report should not claim to confirm:

Reinforcement grade.
Exact bar diameter in all conditions.
Lap and anchorage details.
Reinforcement corrosion condition.
Concrete compressive strength.
Remaining tendon force.
Tendon strand condition.
Whether a service is live or isolated.
The full extent of internal voiding.
Structural capacity.
Suitability of a proposed opening.
Unconditional safety to drill.

These questions require engineering assessment, service controls, material testing or physical verification.

What Should the Conclusion Say?

The conclusion should summarise the main findings without overstating them.

It may state:

Which reinforcement patterns were identified.
Whether suspected tendon or service routes were found.
Whether proposed locations were moved.
Which areas remain restricted or uncertain.
Whether depths are estimated or verified.
Whether further investigation is recommended.
Who should review the findings before work proceeds.

The conclusion should not state that the slab “passed” unless there is a defined acceptance requirement and the report is authorised to make that assessment.

Can the Report State That an Area Is Clear?

The phrase “clear” should be used carefully because it can be interpreted as a guarantee that no concealed feature exists.

More technically appropriate wording may include:

No significant response was identified within the surveyed area and stated depth limitations.
The proposed position avoided the clearly detected shallow reinforcement responses.
No tendon-like response was identified at the proposed location, subject to the stated limitations.
The location was marked as the lower-risk position identified during the survey.

The report should still require the project’s structural, service and permit controls to remain in place.

Who Should Approve Drilling or Structural Alteration?

The scanning technician records and interprets concealed-feature evidence. Structural approval normally remains with the responsible structural engineer or designer.

Service isolation remains with the responsible contractor, building operator or specialist service team.

The report should identify that scanning does not replace:

Structural design approval.
Post-tensioning specialist review.
Service drawings and isolation.
Permit-to-drill procedures.
Controlled drilling methods.
Project RAMS.

Concrete Scanning Reports Within Structural Investigations

On refurbishment and retrofit projects, the scanning report may form one part of a broader evidence package.

STRUCTinspect has discussed the need to verify existing structural conditions rather than relying only on record information in Structural Investigation for Office Retrofit: Beyond the Energy Model.

The wider report package may combine:

Concrete scanning.
Cover surveys.
Reinforcement breakouts.
Concrete cores.
Material testing.
Dimensional surveys.
Crack and defect mapping.
Review of structural drawings.
Engineering interpretation.

The scanning report should reference related investigation documents so the information can be reviewed as one coordinated evidence chain.

How Should Physical Verification Be Reported?

Where breakouts, cores or controlled holes were used to verify the scan, the report should record:

The verification location.
The reason it was selected.
The method used.
The actual measured depth.
The bar or feature dimensions.
The condition observed.
Comparison with the scanning interpretation.
Photographs before and after exposure.
The reinstatement completed or required.

Physical verification at one location does not automatically validate all scanning findings across the structure, but it can improve calibration and confidence in similar surrounding conditions.

How Should Report Recommendations Be Written?

Recommendations should respond directly to the identified uncertainty.

Examples include:

Rescan the revised drilling position before work proceeds.
Obtain structural-engineer approval for the proposed opening.
Confirm the possible service using service drawings and isolation checks.
Complete a targeted breakout to verify bar diameter.
Scan the opposite face to investigate the lower reinforcement layer.
Complete a wider survey to trace the suspected tendon route.
Treat the congested area as a no-drill zone.
Use controlled drilling with the specified depth stop.

A recommendation should not transfer design responsibility to the scanning technician. The responsible engineer should decide whether the evidence is sufficient for the proposed work.

Report Quality and Site RAMS

The report and RAMS should align. If the RAMS states that uncertain areas will not be drilled, the report should identify those areas clearly.

The report should also support practical site controls by recording:

Approved or proposed drilling locations.
Maximum drilling depths.
No-drill zones.
Features that require isolation or further review.
Stop-work conditions.
Areas requiring rescanning.

STRUCTinspect has covered the wider connection between technical methodology and site control in What a Structural Testing RAMS Must Contain Before Loading Starts. The same principle applies to scanning: the technical evidence must be transferred into clear responsibilities and practical restrictions.

Common Concrete Scanning Report Mistakes

Mistake	Why It Is a Problem	Better Approach
No exact survey location.	The findings cannot be related reliably to the structure.	Use plans, dimensions, grids and contextual photographs.
Scanner screenshots only.	The reader may not understand the location, direction or interpretation.	Add methodology, plans, annotations and written findings.
No depth reference.	It is unclear whether the measurement includes finishes.	State the exact survey surface for every depth value.
Every response described as confirmed.	Interpretation may be mistaken for physical evidence.	Separate observed, interpreted, verified and unresolved findings.
No project-specific limitations.	The reader cannot understand where confidence was reduced.	Record congestion, access, finishes, calibration and unresolved areas.
Stating that the area is guaranteed clear.	Small, deep or masked features may remain undetected.	Describe the actual findings and survey limitations.
No proposed hole size or depth.	The report cannot show what drilling case was assessed.	Record the exact dimensions and penetration depth.
No revision control.	Superseded locations or findings may be used accidentally.	Use unique report references, revisions and issue dates.

Concrete Scanning Report Checklist

Project details: name, address, client, report reference and revision.
Survey date: record when the work was completed.
Instruction: identify the brief, drawings and information received.
Purpose: explain what the scan was intended to establish.
Survey limits: define the exact areas and structural elements.
Accessible face: state whether scanning was from the top, soffit or other face.
Proposed work: record hole diameter, depth and relocation tolerance.
Equipment: identify the scanner, antenna and complementary instruments.
Calibration: state the verification reference and assumptions.
Methodology: explain grid spacing, scan directions and processing.
Surface condition: record finishes, moisture and obstructions.
Findings: describe reinforcement, tendons, services and anomalies.
Depths: identify the measurement surface and estimation method.
Evidence level: separate observed, interpreted, verified and unresolved findings.
Drawings: include plans, grids, markings and proposed work locations.
Photographs: include context, close views and fixed references.
Marking key: explain all colours, lines and symbols.
Limitations: identify project-specific restrictions and uncertainty.
Recommendations: state whether further scanning or verification is required.
Responsibility: identify that structural and drilling approval remains with the responsible project team.

Evidence-Based Summary

A concrete scanning report should explain the survey purpose, exact location, equipment, method, findings and limitations.

It should preserve the meaning of temporary site markings through referenced photographs, drawings and a clear marking key.

Measured observations should be separated from interpreted and physically verified findings.

Depth estimates should identify the measurement surface, calibration method and assumptions.

The report should identify areas affected by reinforcement congestion, limited access, surface finishes or uncertain feature identity.

It should not describe a location as unconditionally clear or provide structural approval unless that responsibility and acceptance basis are specifically defined.

The strongest report allows another competent person to understand exactly what was surveyed, what was found and how the evidence may safely be used.

FAQ: Concrete Scanning Reports

What should a concrete scanning report include?

It should include project details, survey purpose, exact locations, equipment, methodology, findings, estimated depths, photographs, drawings, limitations and recommendations.

Does every concrete scan need a formal report?

The required deliverable depends on the project. A local drilling check may use a concise marking record, while structural or post-tensioning investigations usually require more detailed reporting.

Are photographs enough for a concrete scanning report?

Photographs are important but should be supported by location references, a marking key, methodology, findings and limitations.

Should the report include the scanner model?

Yes. Identifying the equipment and antenna or instrument type helps the reader understand how the findings were obtained.

Should GPR depth estimates be described as exact?

Normally, no. GPR depths are estimated from signal travel time and assumed or calibrated material properties. The report should state the basis of the estimate.

Should raw GPR data be included?

Raw or processed images may be useful, particularly for detailed surveys, but they should be referenced, annotated and explained rather than included without context.

Can the report state that an area is clear to drill?

The report can state that no significant response was identified within the surveyed area and stated limitations. It should not guarantee that no concealed feature is present.

Should proposed hole dimensions appear in the report?

Yes. Hole diameter and depth are essential because the scan findings must be interpreted against the actual drilling or coring requirement.

How should uncertain features be described?

They should be described as possible, suspected, consistent with or unidentified features, with an explanation of why the identity could not be confirmed.

Should the report include surface finishes?

Yes. Screeds, tiles, coatings and repairs affect signal quality and the reference from which depths are measured.

Should physical verification be recorded?

Yes. Breakouts, cores or known reference features should be documented with locations, measurements, photographs and comparison with the scanning interpretation.

Who should interpret the report for structural work?

The scanning technician should explain the survey findings and limitations. The responsible structural engineer or designer should determine how the evidence affects drilling, openings or structural alterations.

How long are surface markings reliable?

Their durability depends on the marking material and site conditions. Photographs and referenced drawings should be completed because markings may be removed, damaged or covered.

Source Context and Editorial Note

This article is a STRUCTinspect technical explainer covering the content, structure and practical use of concrete scanning reports for reinforcement, post-tensioning, service detection and structural investigation.

It provides general construction information rather than a mandatory reporting template or project-specific specification. Report content, survey detail, accuracy statements, verification and review requirements should be selected for the particular structure and investigation objective.

This article does not provide structural engineering, post-tensioning, service detection, health and safety, contractual or construction advice. Concrete-scanning findings used for drilling, cutting, coring or structural alteration should be reviewed by the appropriate designer, structural engineer, contractor or competent professional responsible for the works.

Menu