Make Safe& Monitor
Risk-Based Decision Making for Complex Structural Assets
What is Make Safe & Monitor?
Make Safe and Monitor is a structured engineering decision framework for managing structural risk in deteriorating or damaged assets. It organises the available responses to deterioration into a hierarchy of five levels, ranked from least to most invasive. The framework requires that evidence justify escalation from one level to the next.
The methodology does not prefer inaction. It requires that action be proportionate to the evidence. A structure in which deterioration is present but not progressing is not the same problem as a structure in which deterioration is actively undermining capacity. The framework distinguishes between these conditions and applies different responses.
The key distinction is that most structural engineering practice does not make this assessment rigorously. Conservative practice defaults to higher intervention levels than the evidence supports, generating significant unnecessary capital expenditure across the built environment. TRSC establishes what the evidence actually supports, and certifies that finding professionally.
Assumptions are not evidence. Measurement is.
Structural engineering decisions made on the basis of conservative assumptions rather than measured evidence can generate capital expenditure that serves no structural purpose. TRSC's approach replaces assumption with data.
Actual chloride concentrations at reinforcement depth measured by laboratory analysis, not estimated from exposure class tables. Chloride ingress modelling forecasts when corrosion initiation will occur, enabling intervention planning years before damage becomes critical.
Carbonation depth measured by phenolphthalein indicator testing and correlated with concrete cover data. Carbonation rate modelling predicts when the carbonation front will reach reinforcement, providing a time-based window for preventive action rather than reactive repair.
Residual capacity of deteriorated elements calculated from measured section properties, material testing, and as-found reinforcement configuration, not conservative code assumptions. Elements with visible deterioration frequently retain adequate capacity for continued service when properly assessed.
Ultrasonic thickness testing, magnetic particle inspection, and visual assessment of steel structural elements to quantify section loss, identify active corrosion mechanisms, and determine residual load-carrying capacity. Coating condition assessment and corrosion rate measurement inform protective treatment strategies.
Species identification, moisture content profiling, and decay assessment for structural timber elements. Resistograph drilling and core sampling quantify the extent of internal rot and residual cross-section, enabling engineers to determine whether timber members can be retained, treated, or require replacement.
Crack gauges, tiltmeters, and half-cell arrays provide objective data on whether deterioration is active or arrested. This distinction is the foundation of proportionate intervention, and it can only be established by measurement over time.
3D scanning creates measured geometric baselines of structural elements, capturing wall tilt, deformation, and as-built configuration where drawings are absent. Repeat scanning over time quantifies whether movement is progressive or stable, directly informing the monitor-versus-intervene decision at the core of Make Safe & Monitor.
On-site proof loading of structural connections, anchors, and fixings measures actual installed capacity under controlled conditions, replacing catalogue assumptions with field-verified performance data. When proof testing confirms that existing connections meet required loads, it eliminates the need for precautionary replacement and supports a monitored retention strategy.
In standard structural engineering practice, when investigation data is absent or incomplete, the default response is conservative specification. Conservative in this context means assuming the worst-case condition and designing for it. This is professionally defensible, but it is not always proportionate to the actual condition.
When TRSC measures actual chloride profiles, actual corrosion rates, and actual residual capacity, the evidence frequently supports intervention scopes that are more targeted than what conservative assumption would recommend. Proportionate intervention follows naturally from rigorous investigation.
Reports identify issues.
They rarely quantify them.
Most engineering condition reports follow a standard pattern: a visual inspection identifies deterioration; the engineer lists every defect they observe, as they are professionally obligated to do, and the report is issued. The defects are real. The engineering assessment is sound.
But the report rarely answers two critical questions: how far does each defect extend? And how severe is it relative to the structural threshold that actually matters?
When that report reaches a remediation contractor, the contractor has no choice but to price every listed defect at its worst-case extent. Contingencies are added for latent conditions because nobody has investigated what lies beneath the surface. The result: remediation costs that reflect the absence of data, not the actual condition of the asset.
Extent and severity
before remediation pricing.
TRSC fills the void between the engineering report and the remediation contract. We determine the extent of each defect, how far it spreads, how deep it penetrates, whether it is localised or systemic, and its severity relative to the structural performance threshold for that element.
This changes the economics of remediation entirely. Instead of a contractor pricing every defect as if it requires immediate full-scope repair, the owner receives a prioritised, evidence-based remediation programme that targets the areas of genuine concern first.
Each level defined. Each justified by evidence.
The hierarchy is not a preference; it is a decision framework. Each level represents the appropriate response to a defined set of conditions. Escalation is always evidence-driven.
The lowest-intervention response to structural deterioration. Rather than committing to remediation on the basis of visual assessment alone, TRSC installs monitoring instruments, tiltmeters, crack gauges, structural health monitoring systems, half-cell arrays, and observes the structure over time. The objective is to distinguish between deterioration that is progressing and deterioration that has arrested. This distinction is financially decisive: stable deterioration often requires no immediate intervention beyond periodic observation.
Apply when visual assessment identifies deterioration but structural capacity analysis indicates no immediate risk to safety or function. Monitoring is the appropriate response where the rate of deterioration is unknown and where the cost of premature intervention would be material.
Requires structural capacity assessment demonstrating adequate residual capacity, establishment of baseline monitoring data, and defined trigger thresholds that would escalate response. An RPEQ-signed monitoring plan defines the observation programme.
- Crack gauge installation on masonry walls with stable cracking patterns
- Half-cell potential monitoring on concrete elements with chloride exposure but adequate cover depth
- Tiltmeter arrays on heritage facades with historic movement
- Structural health monitoring on high-rise elements post-cyclone assessment
Make Safe is the targeted response to immediate structural safety risk where the permanent solution is not yet defined or has not been justified by investigation. It is not a compromise position; it is the appropriate engineering response when the information required to design a permanent solution is not yet available, or when immediate intervention is needed to protect people while investigation proceeds. Make-safe works are temporary by design. They are engineered to the same structural standards as permanent works. They are intended to create the time and access conditions required to investigate properly.
Apply when structural assessment identifies a risk that cannot be monitored away, a fracture, a loss of bearing, an element at imminent collapse threshold, but where the permanent design solution is not yet developed. Also appropriate when a structure has sustained damage in a disaster event and needs to be stabilised before full assessment is possible.
Requires an RPEQ-signed structural safety assessment identifying the specific element or mechanism of risk. Make-safe design is then developed to address that specific risk. The design scope is deliberately limited to what is necessary to eliminate the identified immediate risk.
- Temporary propping of compromised balcony structure pending full investigation
- Access restriction signage and barriers for elements assessed as unsafe to approach
- Temporary shoring of fire-damaged structural elements
- Spire stabilisation following cyclone damage pending permanent repair design
Targeted repair of elements that the investigation has specifically identified as deficient. TRSC's repair designs are traceable to investigation findings: every element repaired corresponds to a documented deficiency. We do not design contingency repair for areas that may be deficient; we investigate until we know which areas are deficient, then design repair for those areas only. This distinction is critical to delivering proportionate outcomes. A blanket repair scope for 100% of exposed concrete when investigation has established that 23% requires attention is not conservative; it is wasteful.
Apply when investigation has identified specific elements whose capacity has been compromised by deterioration and where that deterioration cannot be managed by monitoring alone. Repair restores capacity to a defined performance level.
Requires documented investigation findings identifying specific deficient elements, a structural assessment demonstrating that their condition falls below the required performance threshold, and a repair specification matched to the actual deficiency type, not a generic specification applied uniformly.
- Concrete repair to specific chloride-contaminated elements identified by half-cell potential survey
- Heli-Fix tie installation in specific heritage masonry wall panels identified by condition assessment
- Timber joint repair in heritage structures where decay is localised and documented
- Steel connection repair where investigation identifies specific loss of section
Structural strengthening is appropriate when capacity analysis, not assumption, demonstrates that the existing structure cannot meet the required load demand. TRSC designs strengthening solutions using carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) plate bonding, post-tensioning, steel plate bonding, and section enlargement. Strengthening is the right solution when repair of existing elements cannot restore the required capacity, or when load demands have changed since original construction. It is the wrong solution when applied to structures that analysis would demonstrate are adequate without it.
Apply when capacity assessment has quantified a specific shortfall between existing structural capacity and required load demand that repair alone cannot address. Strengthening requires a prior capacity analysis; that analysis defines the strengthening scope.
Requires a structural capacity analysis demonstrating the specific elements and mechanisms where capacity is insufficient. The strengthening design is then derived from the capacity analysis to address the specific deficit identified. RPEQ-signed design and form of construction approval.
- CFRP plate bonding to concrete beams where capacity analysis identifies flexural deficiency
- Post-tensioning installation to extend span capability of existing slabs
- Steel flitch plate installation in timber structures with degraded capacity
- Column jacketing to restore section area lost to corrosion
Full replacement is the last resort in TRSC's intervention hierarchy. It is the correct engineering response when an element or structure cannot be retained safely and economically through any combination of monitoring, make-safe, repair, or strengthening, and only then. The frequency with which replacement is recommended by others without exhausting the lower intervention levels is, in TRSC's experience, a significant source of unnecessary capital expenditure in the built environment. Our documented project history demonstrates that what others recommend for replacement can frequently be retained through rigorous investigation and evidence-based assessment.
Apply when capacity analysis demonstrates that an element cannot meet the minimum performance threshold through any feasible retention strategy, when the cost of retention exceeds replacement on a whole-of-life basis with the evidence to support that finding, or when the element presents an irreducible immediate safety risk.
Requires documented assessment of all retention options and their technical feasibility. Replacement should be supported by evidence that monitor, make-safe, repair, and strengthen options were all considered and found inadequate for defined reasons. Not the first option considered.
- Full balcony replacement where structural assessment identifies steel framing with zero residual capacity
- Pile replacement where underwater inspection identifies loss of structural section exceeding safe retention thresholds
- Roof replacement where structural assessment identifies elements below minimum safety threshold
The methodology in practice. See the case studies.
Every TRSC project applies this framework. The case studies demonstrate how evidence-based assessment leads to proportionate, defensible engineering decisions.
Engineering questions answered directly.
The questions asset owners and building managers ask most often about Make Safe and Monitor.
When should monitoring replace remediation?
Monitoring is the appropriate primary response when investigation establishes that deterioration is present but structural capacity remains adequate and deterioration rates are stable or unknown. The decision is supported by a structural capacity assessment demonstrating adequate residual life, a monitoring plan defining trigger thresholds, and an RPEQ-signed opinion on the adequacy of the monitoring approach. Monitoring replaces immediate remediation; it does not eliminate the obligation to act if trigger thresholds are exceeded.
How does TRSC establish that monitoring is sufficient?
The sufficiency of a monitoring programme is established by two parallel analyses. First, a structural capacity assessment determines the residual capacity of the monitored element and the minimum performance threshold it must maintain. Second, the monitoring triggers are calibrated to the capacity assessment so the programme is designed to detect deterioration before capacity falls below the defined threshold. The monitoring programme is sufficient when the trigger response time is shorter than the deterioration rate. TRSC documents this logic explicitly in the monitoring plan.
What happens if a monitored structure deteriorates?
Every TRSC monitoring plan defines trigger thresholds and response actions in advance. If a monitored reading exceeds a defined trigger, a defined response is initiated. That may be an increased inspection frequency, a structural re-assessment, or an escalation to make-safe or repair depending on the nature of the trigger. The monitoring programme is not passive observation; it is a structured risk management framework with defined decision points.
What is the liability position of monitoring versus remediation?
TRSC's monitoring approach is RPEQ-signed and documented. The engineering opinion that supports a monitoring programme is as professionally defensible as the engineering opinion that supports remediation, provided it is supported by adequate investigation and documented reasoning. The liability position is not determined by the intervention level chosen; it is determined by the quality of the evidence and the rigour of the engineering analysis that supports the decision. A monitoring programme documented with an RPEQ-signed opinion, explicit trigger thresholds, and a defined response protocol is a professionally sound position.
How long does structural monitoring need to continue?
Monitoring duration is determined by the specific risk being managed. In some cases (stable historic cracking in a heritage structure), monitoring continues indefinitely as part of asset management practice at low frequency and cost. In other cases (post-repair monitoring to confirm remediation efficacy), monitoring continues until the evidence establishes that the repaired element is performing as designed. TRSC defines monitoring duration in the monitoring plan and reviews it at each data reporting period. We recommend closure of monitoring programmes when the evidence supports it.
Get an independent structural opinion.
TRSC provides independent, RPEQ-certified structural engineering assessments. If you need clarity on the actual condition of your structure, we deliver evidence-based findings you can rely on.