concrete repairs

Concrete repairs Performance in service and current practice

performance in service and current practice
It is estimated that around 50% of Europe’s annual construction budget is
presently spent on the refurbishment and repair of existing structures. This
report is the culmination of a wide-ranging survey into the performance of both

Concrete Repairs
current European concrete repair techniques and inspection practices, and
current research projects. It assesses the case histories gathered from across the
sector, including from owners of concrete structures, repairers and research
institutes, and presents its findings using charts, graphs, tables and photographs.
A review of the problems of concrete durability, current issues of sustainability,
Performance in service and current practice
and the differing expectations of what concrete repairs should achieve, provide
a practical introduction to the subject.

The survey was part of the work carried out by the CONREPNET network, G P Tilly and J Jacobs
made up of European research and representative bodies sponsored by the
European Commission.

G P Tilly and J Jacobs

Related Titles from ihs bre press
Achieving durable repaired concrete structures
EP 77, 2007
concrete structures in fire: performance, design and analysis
BR 490, 2007

IHS BRE Press, Willoughby Road

Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8FB
IHS bre press

www.ihsbrepress.com
EP 79

Conrepnet 1 coverv1.indd 1 12/11/2007 11:18:53

Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page 1

CONREPNET CONREPNET
Partners:
Thematic network on performance-based
remediation of reinforced concrete structures

Concrete repairs
Performance in service and
current practice

G P Tilly, Gifford & Partners Ltd

J Jacobs, Belgian Building Research Institute

Prelims 23/11/07 3:20 PM Page ii

Details of all publications are available

from IHS BRE Press Keywords
Website: www.ihsbrepress.com
or Concrete structures, EN 1504, maintenance, management, performance-
IHS BRE Press based intervention, protection, repair, remediation, sustainable assets,
Willoughby Road through-life care
Bracknell RG12 8FB, Uk
Tel: 01344 328038
Fax: 01344 328005
Email: brepress@ihs.com

Requests to copy any part of this

publication should be made to the
publisher:
IHS BRE Press
Garston, Watford WD25 9XX, UK
Tel: 01923 664761
Fax: 01923 662477
Email: brepress@ihs.com

EP 79
© CONREPNET 2007
First published 2007
ISBN: 978-1-86081-974-2

The companion publication Achieving durable repaired concrete structures is

available through IHS BRE Press (order ref. EP77).

Both publications can be purchased as a set (order ref. EP81).

For further details please visit www.ihsbrepress

Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page iii

iii

Contents

Executive summary vii

CONREPNET partner organisations viii

Acknowledgements ix

Abbreviations x

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 2 Expectations of repairs 3

Chapter 3 Performance of repairs in practice 5

3.1 Background 5
3.2 Causes of deterioration 7
3.3 Types of repair 8
3.4 Performance of repairs 10
3.4.1 Inspection 10
3.4.2 Classification of performances 10
3.4.3 Overall repair performances 10
3.4.4 Overall repair performances (by repair type) 10
3.4.5 Cathodic protection (CP) 11
3.4.6 Types of deterioration 12
3.4.7 Repairs in combination 12
3.4.8 Modes of repair failure 13
3.5 Causes of repair failures 14
3.5.1 Incorrect diagnosis 14
3.5.2 Incorrect design 14
3.5.3 Poor workmanship 15
3.5.4 Incorrect repair material 15

Chapter 4 Current repair practice 17

4.1 Background 17
3.2 Inspection 17
4.3 Repair methods 18
4.4 Quality control 19
4.5 Comparison with earlier repair practice 20
4.5.1 Relative use of the different methods of repair 20
4.5.2 Types of patch repair 20
4.5.3 Coatings 21
4.6 Inspection strategy 21
4.6.1 Methodology of inspection 22
4.6.2 Post-tensioned structures 25
Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page iv

iv Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

Chapter 5 Current research 27

5.1 Sizes of research projects 27
5.2 Research topics 28
5.3 Outcome of research projects 28
5.3.1 Improved durability 29
5.3.2 Performance-based repair 30

Chapter 6 European Standards 31

6.1 The current position 31
6.2 Application to performance-based repair 32

References 33

Appendices 35
Appendix I Concrete Repair History Questionnaire 36
Appendix II Concrete Repair Methods Questionnaire 38
Appendix III Concrete Repair Evaluation Methods Questionnaire 40
Appendix IV Concrete Repair Research Questionnaire 42
Appendix V Related research projects 44
Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page v

Contents v

Figures

Figure 3.1 Distribution of respondents 6

Figure 3.2 Distribution of environments 6
Figure 3.3 Distribution of case-histories by structure 6
Figure 3.4 Ages of structures 7
Figure 3.5 Primary causes of original deterioration 8
Figure 3.6 Ages of structures when repaired 8
Figure 3.7 Relative incidences of different types of repair 9
Figure 3.8 Relative uses of different types of coatings 9
Figure 3.9 Performances in relation to age of repairs 10
Figure 3.10 Patch repair after five years, showing signs of incipient anode behaviour due
to non-removal of chloride contaminated material 10
Figure 3.11 Performances of patches 12
Figure 3.12 Performances of patch repairs to corrosion 13
Figure 3.13 Modes of failure – all types of repair 13
Figure 3.14 Failure of polymer mortar patches and sprayed polymer coatings applied
to an AAR affected bridge 14
Figure 3.15 Failure of polymer mortar patches and polymer coating applied
to a bridge affected by corrosion 14
Figure 3.16 Reported causes of failures 15
Figure 3.17 Aesthetic deterioration of cement-based coating repair 15
Figure 3.18 Influence of environment on performance – all types of repair 16
Figure 4.1 Use of repair techniques 18
Figure 4.2 Acceptance ratings of repair products in the market 19
Figure 4.3 Acceptance ratings of the repair companies 19
Figure 4.4 Comparison between past and current usage of repair methods 20
Figure 4.5 Comparative use of cement-based and polymer-based mortars in patches 21
Figure 4.6 Comparative use of barrier and hydrophobic coatings 21
Figure 4.7 Performances of repairs 22
Figure 4.8 Levels of detectability of the deterioration of a repair 22
Figure 4.9 Pull-off test to measure adhesion of coatings and patches 24
Figure 4.10 Corrosion probes fitted to reinforcement prior to repair concrete being placed 24
Figure 4.11 Location of reinforcement bars 25
Figure 4.12 Measurement of crack widths 25
Figure 4.13 Detection of carbonation 25
Figure 4.14 Measurement of electrode potential 25
Figure 5.1 Distribution of respondents to research questionnaire 27
Figure 5.2 Distribution of research topics 28
Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page vi

vi Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

Tables

Table 3.1 Successful CP installations 12

Table 4.1 Relative usage of inspection techniques 17
Table 4.2 Use of the common methods of repair 18
Table 4.3 Examples of NDT to aid acceptance of repairs 24
Table 4.4 Continuous monitoring 24
Table 5.1 Number of participants in research projects 27
Table 5.2 Distribution of research topics and funding 28
Table 5.3 Distribution of research projects 28
Table 5.4 Research preferences of respondents 29
Table 5.5 Outcome of ongoing and completed research projects 29
Table 5.6 Research problems identified from case-histories 29
Table 6.1 European Standards related to concrete repair products and systems 31
Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page vii
Executive summary
It has been estimated that some 50% of Europe’s annual
construction budget is spent on refurbishment and repair
of existing structures. This figure is expected to increase
as the major population of concrete structures built in the
1960s and 1970s, which form a key part of Europe’s
infrastructure, start to require further repair and
refurbishment. However, limited available resources need
to be applied with greater efficiency and owners of
buildings and infrastructure now require greater certainty
in the performance of their concrete structures in order to
manage their assets more effectively. This has generated
a requirement for industry to deliver more durable repairs
to concrete structures.
To help address these issues, a thematic network on the
performance-based repair of reinforced concrete
structures was established in 2003, known as
CONREPNET. The object of this EU-funded network is to
improve the durability of concrete repairs through
performance-based rehabilitation. To this end, information
about concrete durability and repair issues has been
collected from industry and researchers. Problems and
barriers to achieving durable concrete repairs have been
identified and contemporary industry practices have been
investigated.
This report is concerned with sections of the project that
deal with performances of repairs in practice, current
practice and research.
Performance in practice has been assessed through case-
histories obtained from members of the network and
others. Some 230 case-histories were obtained for
concrete structures up to 150 years old but mostly 20 to
50 years old. The most common type of deterioration
reported was corrosion of the steel reinforcement, which
occurred in 55% of the cases. Performances of repairs
are disappointing; 20% failed in five years, 55% failed in 10
years and 90% failed in 25 years. The longest repair life
was 52 years. The most successful repairs were schemes
involving restoration of strength and crack injection.
Patches were applied in 60% of the repairs and were 30%
successful when applied solo and 50% successful when
applied in combination with a coating. Causes of repair
vii
failures were ascribed to incorrect diagnosis, incorrect
design of repair, poor workmanship, use of incorrect
materials and other factors such as extreme weather
conditions during the repair work.
Most of the repair projects reported in the case histories
were carried out in the period from 1960 to 1990, using
practices current at the time. A survey of current repair
practice (2003) indicated that there has been little change
since the methods of repair continue to be broadly similar.
Patching is becoming less common as electro-chemical
techniques and polymer mortars become more prevalent.
Inspection is regarded as critical to the repair process but
some small repair works for private owners were reported
as starting without any inspection. The most common
methods of non-destructive testing were measurements of
depth of cover, carbonation and chloride content. Around
25% of repair and inspection work is subcontracted.
A total of 138 research projects were surveyed (66
obtained via questionnaires and 72 via the official website
of the European Construction Research Network,
www.e-core.org). Numbers of participants per project
varied from one to 21 and budgets were from €5,500 to
€5 million. The projects were concerned with the different
aspects of concrete repair; durability, materials,
inspection, maintenance and restoration of strength. It was
found that only 60% of the research addressed problems
identified from the case-histories. It is concluded that
research to aid a performance-based approach to repairs
should address performances under all weather
conditions, and improved acceptance testing to provide
assurance that repairs will be durable. Repair standards
should be revised to have a more ‘performance friendly’
orientation.
Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page viii

viii Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

Freyssinet International, France: brought the repair

CONREPNET partner organisations specialist’s perspective to the project and to the
development of WP4 concerning future performance-
Building Research Establishment, UK (BRE): network
based concepts
co-ordinator and overall catalyst for many technical
aspects of the project, including the vision for future
Gifford and Partners, UK: leader of WP2 on the
performance-based concepts (WP4)
performance of past repairs and interventions
Belgian Building Research Institute (CSTC): leader of
Institute of Construction Science ‘Eduardo Torroja’,
WP3 on current practices
Spain (IETcc): led development of one methodology for
monitoring and assessment of performance of protection
CT Koulutus Oy, Finland (CT Centre): leader of WP5 on
and repair interventions on concrete structures employed
dissemination, research and technical development
in WP4 on future performance-based concepts
exploitation, training and intellectual property rights (IPR)
issues, led development of implementation of future
STÚ-K, Czech Republic: co-ordinated WP4 on future
performance-based concepts (WP4)
performance-based concepts

CONREPNET Member Organisations

Autostrade per l'Italia Hywel Davies Consultancy Queens University, Belfast

British Nuclear Fuels plc Ingenieurbuero Prof Schiessl Rakennus Oy Wareco

Centrum Stavebniho Inzenyrstvi Ingenieurgemeinschaft Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles

(CSI) Cossebaude GmbH Espanoles

City of Kotka Karlomix Bohemia Slovenian National Building and Civil

Engineering Institute (ZAG)
City University, London Kingston University
Swedish Cement and Concrete
COWI Konsultointi Jarvinen Oy Research Institute (CBI)

Czech Roads and Motorways Laboratoire de Recherche des Swedish National Road
Directorate Monuments Historiques Administration

Danish Technological Institute Lund Institute of Technology Team-Danielsson Oy

DYWIDAG Systems International Metrostav TNO Building and Construction

Research
Entisointi Pulla Oy Mott MacDonald Limited
Union of the Czech and Moravian
Federal Institute for Materials NCC Engineering Housing Cooperatives
Research and Testing
NECSO University of Birmingham
FEREB
Network Rail University of Patras
FORCE Technology
Norut Teknologi AS Vattenfall Utveckling AB
Glasgow City Council
Norwegian Defence Estates Vilniaus Miestprojektas
Hellenic Cement Research Centre Agency

Highways Agency Parish Union of Helsinki

Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page ix

ix

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge, with thanks, the support

received from members of the project team: Dr Stuart
Matthews and Dr John Morlidge, BRE; Ms Minna Sarkkinen,
CT-Heikkinen Ltd; Jean-Phillipe Fuzier, Freyssinet
International; Carmen Andrade, Institute of Construction
Science ‘Eduardo Torroja; and Dr Vaclav Vimmr, STÚ-K.

The reviewers, Dr Geir Horrigmore, Professor Paul

Lambert and Mr David Sharp, made many helpful
suggestions to improve this report. These are gratefully
acknowledged.

The authors and other members of the project team

gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by
the European Commission for this work and for the interest
and encouragement provided by the supervising scientific
officers Dr Ir Georgios Katalagarianakis (September 2002
to March 2004), Mr Ir Christophe Lesniak (April 2004 to
February 2006) and Dr Ir Dominique Planchon (February
2006 to September 2006). The work was carried out
under GROWTH Project GTC1-2001-43067 ‘CONREPNET -
Thematic network on performance-based remediation of
reinforced concrete structures’.

The project partners also wish to acknowledge the

essential contributions made to the project by the
members of the CONREPNET Thematic Network in terms
of data provided, experiences shared and contributions
made, as well as in the review of project deliverables.

The photographs 4.9 to 4.13 are the copyright of the

Belgian Building Research Institute, 4.14 was supplied by
Professor Lambert. Others were supplied by members of
the project team.
 Prelims 12/11/07 2:32 PM Page x

x x

Abbreviations

AAR Alkali aggregate reaction

CEB Comité Euro-International du Béton, now part of FIB
CFRP Carbon fibre reinforced plastic
CONREPNET Concrete Repair Network
CP Cathodic protection
ERS Electrical resistance strain gauge
FIB Fédération Internationale du Béton
HAC High alumina cement
LVDT Linear variable differential transformer
NDT Non destructive testing
QC Quality control
RH Relative humidity
RTD Research and technical development
VWG Vibrating wire gauge
Text 12/11/07 12:29 PM Page 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Structural concrete in its modern form has been in use
since the late 1800s and many early structures have
continued in operational use for over 100 years. At the
time they were constructed there were no design codes
and little was known about durability. There was a general
belief that concrete was a problem-free material requiring
little or no maintenance. Indeed, concrete was used as a
cladding on steel structures to protect them from
corrosion and fire and for the most part it has been very
successful in such applications. Performance of these
early structures has been surprisingly good when it is
considered that cover thicknesses over the steel
reinforcement were very low. Moreover, the concrete was
placed by hand with no vibration, invariably had cold
construction joints, and voids were commonplace.
The belief that concrete was problem-free continued until
the late 1960s when various durability problems became
apparent. These included alkali aggregate reaction (AAR),
sulfate attack, reversion of concrete containing high
alumina cement (HAC), and corrosion of the steel
reinforcement and prestressing tendons. The
maintenance problems were generally concerned with
structures that were more than 10 years old and
corrosion of the steel reinforcement was by far the most
common occurrence. Recent concrete structures appear
to have performed worse than the earlier ones, probably
due to a number of reasons, listed as follows.
● The state-of-art designs became more ambitious with
less material and higher operating stresses.
● Design and construction operations became more
economical.
● New design details were introduced that turned out to
be susceptible to corrosion, for example expansion
joints that could not be made waterproof and
permitted water to leak through to the underlying
concrete.
● The increased emphasis on competitive tendering put
pressures on the supply chain and, in some cases,
caused suppliers to cut costs and provide a low value
product.
● The application of whole life costing by economists,
coupled with relative high discount rates, led to the
philosophy of low cost construction.
● Pressures to speed up construction encouraged the
introduction of problematic materials, such as HAC,
without sufficient knowledge of their performances.
Likewise finely ground Portland cement enabled higher
early strengths to be achieved but at the expense of
having a concrete less tolerant of even mildly
aggressive exposure conditions.
● Carbonation of the cover concrete.
● Most importantly, the introduction of de-icing salt
during cold weather led to increased corrosion in
highway structures, adjacent buildings, and multi-
storey car parks. This is probably the most common
single cause of corrosion in reinforced concrete
structures.
● Concrete came to be used in industrial buildings
having aggressive environments.
In recognition of these durability issues, limit state design
codes were introduced that had crack control and
thickness of cover concrete as major requirements of the
serviceability limit state. New materials were developed
for repair work, such as polymer modified mortars, as
well as new types of repair, such as injection of sealants
(fine mortars and resins) into cracks. The concept of
designing for an assessed life was introduced; the
required lives varying according to the type of structure
(the longest being 120 years given in BS 5400 for
highway and rail bridges in the UK). However, service
lives are not maintenance free and the structures require
regular inspection and attention.
Repair techniques have been continually improving and at
different times there have been new materials and repair
methods on the market that have been expected to result
in better performances in the future. However, these
expectations have turned out to be illusory because it has
become apparent that performances of both new
construction and repairs remain poor. While this is a
generally accepted view supported by individual cases, it
is based mainly on subjective judgements because apart
from a few specific studies, there have been no
comprehensive collections of performance data that
include different environments and structures.
Text 12/11/07 12:29 PM Page 2

2 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

In recent years the adoption of sustainability ideas and ● Performance of repairs in practice in order to evaluate
principles into construction has increased the pressures more accurately the durability of repairs over real time
to maintain existing structures and minimise the ● Current industry practice in relation to inspection,
consumption of natural resources required for repair and interpretation of results and methods of repair
new construction. There are also pressures from ● Current research including sizes of projects, levels of
heritage authorities to maintain an increasing stock of funding, research topics and outcomes
historic concrete structures using minimal intervention. ● Best practice, including the European Standard
EN 1504 and use of national standards and other
Sustainable construction is an important global objective guidance documents.
that involves not only minimising the consumption of
resources in new construction but indirect resources The data in support of this work were collected through
such as demolition activities, transport of materials to questionnaires sent to all sides of the repair industry,
site, additional traffic and congestion. Construction including owners of structures, repairers, materials
causes atmospheric pollution through exhaust products suppliers, consultants, research institutes and
(such as carbon monoxide), dust and noise. Spent universities.
materials that cannot be re-cycled have to be placed in
land-fill sites, or elsewhere, causing increased expense Achieving durable repaired concrete structures —
and damage to the environment. Adopting a performance-based intervention strategy[2] is
a companion book that addresses the evolution of
The achievement of durable concrete repairs is crucial to performance based concepts to achieve durable repairs.
the sustainability of concrete structures. Activity in the
field has steadily increased and it is estimated that
maintenance repair work now takes 50 % of the European
construction budget. In the US it is estimated that the
annual expenditure due to damage by corrosion amounts
to some US$8.3 billion. Moreover, about 27% of the
162,000 highway bridges surveyed in 2000 had become
either structurally deficient or obsolete. Repair
performance data from the US Corps of Engineers
indicated that only 50% were classified as good, 25%
failed, and 25% were fair or poor[1].

Materials and structural engineers charged with the

development of durable repairs are faced with a variety of
problems.
● Performances of new materials have to be
demonstrated in the laboratory using accelerated and
artificial representations of service conditions; this is
less realistic than exposure to natural weathering in
real time, but pressures for development are too great
and it is not feasible to allocate five or 10 years to
exposure testing. Potential users are reluctant to
purchase repairs that have little or no track record and
even more reluctant to be the first user.
● Potential users may be forced to purchase repair
materials and techniques that are seen as best value
for money; this invariably favours the cheapest
proposal and gives little encouragement for suppliers
to develop higher quality but more expensive
solutions.
● Heritage authorities prefer the use of traditional
materials and methods such as lime based mortar and
locally sourced aggregate.

Against this background the CONREPNET network has

studied the possibilities of ‘performance based
rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures’ and the
present report describes four elements of the work
carried out.
Text 12/11/07 12:29 PM Page 3
Chapter 2
Expectations of repairs
Concrete structures are usually designed for an
assessed or nominal life, taking into account the effects
of loading actions during return periods defined by the
assessed life. These include maximum occurrences of:
● Wind
● Temperature
● Traffic
● Crowds (on stadia, footbridges etc.)
● Wave action (for marine structures)
● Snow
● Numbers of repeated-load cycles
Other factors that may have to be considered in less
common circumstances include:
● Impact
● Explosion
● Aggressive industrial environment
● Vandalism
Loading actions can influence durability in a number of
ways; repeated-loading can, for example, cause initiation
and propagation of fatigue cracks.
Current design for durability is through prescriptive
guidance and includes factors such as the disposition of
reinforcement to control cracking and crack widths,
thickness of concrete cover to reinforcement, quality of
concrete, and management of water (effective drainage,
waterproof membranes, leak proof expansion joints, etc).
However, state-of-art solutions have not yet reached the
stage when the processes of degradation can be
expressed numerically to enable a structure to be
designed in order to reach its required life, at which time,
it is worn out and ready to be replaced. It follows that it is
necessary to anticipate durability problems during the
lifetime of a structure and, in consequence, to carry out
maintenance and repair.
Expectations of repairs vary according to the type of
structure and requirements of its owner, as follows.
● Transport structures are long-life and represent very
considerable national investments that have to be
maintained in safe operational condition at reasonable
cost. Although design codes refer to lives of 60 –
120 years, these are assessed lives in terms of fatigue
and maximum occurrences of loading during the return
period, as mentioned above, and require properly
managed maintenance work. Repairs are generally
expected to last for at least 25 years.
● Sensitive industrial structures such as nuclear power
stations have shorter lives and have to be maintained
in a safe operational condition at all costs. Any repairs
that may be required are generally expected to last to
the end of the operational life of the structure which
may typically be 30 or 40 years.
● Some commercial structures have, as their main
requirement, to remain operational. Only minimal time
can be allowed for closure because of the high costs
that can be incurred by losses in revenue. In
consequence, it can be acceptable to have speedy
repairs that are known to have a limited life.
● In some cases the repairs are required to enable the
structure to remain safe and operational for a short
time until it can be demolished and replaced with a new
structure or subject to a more long term repair
strategy.
The differing expectations are reflected in the guarantees
required for the durability of the repairs. In many cases
five year guarantees are provided, whereas in more
prescriptive conditions the repairers are required to
provide 10 year guarantees. The provision of guarantees
requires insurance cover which is becoming increasingly
expensive and generates additional costs that have to be
passed on to the owners of structures. Furthermore, the
pressures of potential litigation are causing insurance
companies to become selective in the cover that can be
offered and there is a reluctance to include construction
work involving materials such as silica or asbestos that
pose risks to the health of the repairers.
Also, there is concern about the use of epoxy materials,
which are now banned in some countries.
The policy of some national authorities is to impose
prescriptive requirements designed to ensure that repairs
are durable and have an expected life of 25 years even
though this may not be guaranteed. This approach leaves
Text 12/11/07 12:29 PM Page 4

4 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

less scope for the introduction of alternative or innovative

methods of repair.

Owners of structures use different approaches to the

management of repairs. Some supervise the work very
closely using their own in-house experts. Others carry out
acceptance testing of the repairs. The latter are a
minority but in any case little guidance is available on
methods of acceptance testing.

When questioned about their expectations of repairs,

owners of structures said that they required a better
indication of the life of repairs. While this is a difficult
parameter to predict with any accuracy, there is a need
for a better understanding than the current sometimes
optimistic figures often given.

Owners also expressed a need for simplified explanatory

guidance on repair processes. Currently available
documents are seen as being written for experts and too
esoteric for the average owner.
Text 12/11/07 12:29 PM Page 5
Chapter 3
Performance of repairs in practice
3.1 Background
If repairs are to be made more durable, it is necessary to
have a better understanding of their performance in
practice. The key performance data that are required
include:
● Types and causes of the original deterioration of the
concrete
● Types of repair carried out
● Success or otherwise of the repair
● Mode of failure of the repair
● Cause of failure of the repair
● Life of the repair.
To this end data were collected for a range of case
histories for structures, mainly in European countries.
Case histories are especially valuable as they provide
data on repairs designed and made under the pressures
imposed by the realities of requirements and the rigours
of site conditions (as opposed to the relative comfort of
work in the laboratory). These pressures generate
problems posed by:
● costs often having to be minimised to meet the
demands of competitive tenders,
● available time for the repair to be carried out reduced
by the need to minimise closure times and, on
occasions, to keep structures operational at all costs,
● work carried out in all weathers, sometimes too hot or
too cold for the repair materials being used, and
● the inevitable limitations of working from temporary
access.
The resulting repairs are subjected to varying
combinations of weather and loading in real time and
operational conditions that cannot be represented
adequately in the laboratory. It follows that the quality and
subsequent performance of repairs predicted from
laboratory studies require calibration against practice.
The case histories of repairs were obtained through
questionnaires and searches of the literature. Bearing in
mind that people, particularly busy engineers, are not
enthusiastic about completing questionnaires, the
document was limited to one side of A4 paper, mostly
made up of tick-boxes, and was non-attributable (the
structures were treated as being anonymous as there
was a general unease about issues of confidentiality).
The main features of the questionnaire were type of
structure, environment, key dates, type of deterioration,
type of repair, performance of repair, and cause(s) of
failure. This provided up to 40 data points per case-
history. The questionnaire was sent out with explanatory
notes and an example is given in Appendix I.
Some of the information requested was judgemental,
such as causes of repair failure, and it was necessary to
take the responses at face value. For the purposes of this
investigation, repairs are considered as being works
carried out to restore the structure to its original
condition with regard to serviceability and ultimate
strength. This involves a range of situations as follows.
● Deterioration due to progressive processes such as
corrosion and AAR.
● Deterioration caused by weathering, mainly frost
damage in Northern climates.
● Mechanical damage caused by actions such as
impacts, vibrations, overloading and settlement.
● Wear caused by the action of water in spillways and
repetitive mechanical actions.
A total of 247 case histories were received but 17 could
not be included as they were found to be irrelevant or
having insufficient information on key points. In other
cases it was evident that some of the data were not
available, for example, date of construction and type of
repair material. This left gaps so that some of the
analyses involved less than 230 data points. In one of the
responses it was noted that consultants may assess the
problem and design the repair scheme but are rarely
involved later and therefore have little or no opportunity
to observe or record subsequent performances.
Consequently there was a shortfall in case histories
supplied by consultants.
The case-histories were supplied by 24 respondents
giving a success rate (number of productive replies
related to total number of enquiries) of 45%.
Text 12/11/07 12:29 PM Page 6
6 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice
Consultant (23)
Repairer (64) Academe (83)
Owner (60)
Figure 3.1 Distribution of respondents (Numbers in brackets
denote case histories supplied. Sizes of segments of the chart
represent numbers who responded)
Comments made on the questionnaires by respondents,
which relate to case histories, are included in italics on
the following pages.
The respondents were from all sides of the industry;
academe, owners, repairers and consultants, their
numbers being represented in Figure 3.1. Academe
represents all those engaged in research, including
research institutions and universities. Owners are the
organisations who ultimately pay for the upkeep of the
structures and in many instances are responsible to the
public for their operation and safety. Repairers are
defined as suppliers of materials and contractors (in
Section 4 of this book, suppliers and contractors are
considered as separate groups). Contractors are the
organisations who are responsible for carrying out the
repair works and are sometimes given other
responsibilities such as recommending the actions to be
taken. The assignment of responsibilities varies
according to the policy of the owner, but consultants are
usually responsible for the preliminary investigation,
assessment and design of repair.
The case histories were from countries having a wide
range of climates and conditions: Finland, Denmark,
Sweden, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Belgium,
Netherlands, Spain, Greece and the UK.
The distribution of environments, illustrated in Figure 3.2,
shows that there were rather low numbers of case
histories for coastal and industrial sites albeit the relative
distribution is not unrepresentative of reality. Highways are
treated separately since they relate almost exclusively to
bridges and are well known as being generally one of the
most aggressive environments, particularly in Northern
Europe, where de-icing salt is used on highways during
cold periods. Bridges are rarely sheltered by the terrain or
by other structures so that they tend to experience
extremes of weather.
Industrial (10)
Coastal (27)
Urban (84)
Highway (54)
Rural (54)
Figure 3.2 Distribution of environments (Numbers in brackets
denote case histories supplied. Sizes of segments of the chart
represent numbers who responded)
Most of the responses were prepared in 2003 and times
such as age of repair are therefore related to this date
The main types of structure reported were: buildings,
bridges, dams, power stations and car parks (see Figure
3.3). Other less common structures included: piles,
water towers, tunnels, hangers and industrial structures
(a vertical shaft, an inland jetty and a silo). The bridges
were mainly, but not exclusively, highway bridges. Some
were in coastal regions and could experience chloride
contamination from the environment as well as de-icing
treatment.
Dates of construction varied from a church, composed of
masonry and concrete and built in 1852, to office buildings
built in 1998. Most of the structures reported are between
20 and 50 years old and are mainly of precast and
prestressed construction. There are 41 reinforced in situ
structures that are more than 60 years old. The distribution
of ages (related to 2003) is shown in Figure 3.4.
Other (22)
Dams (36) Buildings (77)
Power stations (12)
Car parks (8)
Bridges (75)
Figure 3.3 Distribution of case-histories by structure
Numbers of structures in brackets
Text 12/11/07 12:29 PM Page 7
Performance of repairs in practice
60
50
40
Number
30
20
10
0
0-10 11-20 21-30
Figure 3.4 Ages of structures
Key points
● The earliest structure to be repaired was 151 years old
● Most (about 60%) of the structures were 20 to 50 years old
● Consultants advising on repairs are rarely involved
subsequently and are often not aware of the repair
performance
3.2 Causes of deterioration
The main causes of the deterioration of the original
concrete were ascribed to: corrosion, frost action,
cracking, alkali aggregate reaction (AAR) and faulty
construction. Corrosion was almost exclusively
concerned with reinforcing steel but there were nine
instances of corroded pre-stressing steel and one of an
anchorage plate. Not surprisingly, corrosion was the
most common process of deterioration, being
responsible for 55% of the problems. Frost relates to
freeze-thaw action accentuated by poor quality concrete
and leakages, usually at construction joints or expansion
joints.
Cracking was mainly associated with corrosion but it was
not always clear whether it was a contributory cause or a
consequence. There were also incidences of cracking
due to structural actions such as loss of prestress.
Faulty construction included inadequate thickness of
cover concrete and incorrectly placed concrete resulting
in voids, honeycombing and cracking. Some 40% of the
cases of faulty construction were repaired immediately
but the rest were not identified until many years later
when problems had developed.
7
31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-151
Years (to 2003)
The distribution of the primary causes of deterioration is
shown in Figure 3.5.
Other less common types of deterioration included:
● inadequate strength (usually due to factors such as
losses of section caused by corrosion or inadequate
design in the first place),
● scour, leaking (of dams and water containing
structures),
● leaching (of spillways), impact damage, damage from
overloading, and
● sagging due to prestress loss, and structural
movement.
Inadequate thickness of cover concrete and carbonation
were only reported in a few of the case histories but this
probably represents a failure to identify the mechanism
since they are usually found to be among the more
common causes of deterioration.
The respondents commonly reported more than one type
of deterioration. For example, there were several
instances of corrosion, frost damage and cracking being
cited as having occurred simultaneously on the one
structure. However, some may be considered to be
consequences rather than original causes. In order to
deal with this potential confusion, the data were
interpreted so that the primary cause could be assigned.
Ages of the structures at the time of repair, as opposed
to the date of construction, were in the range 0 to 100
years, most being in the range 10 to 40 years, nine were
over 70 years and the oldest was 100 years (see
Figure 3.6).
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 8

8 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

60

50

40
Per cent

30

20

10

0
Corrosion Frost Cracks AAR Faulty Construction

Figure 3.5 Primary causes of original deterioration

60

50

40
Number

30

20

10

0
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-100

Age (Years)

Figure 3.6 Ages of structures when repaired

3.3 Types of repair
With only one exception, the repairs were designed and
carried out with the intention of achieving as long a life as
possible. The exception was a ‘holding repair’ which was
required to last a relatively short time until the structure
could be replaced. Although only one holding repair was
identified, one respondent pointed out that they are fairly
common and may be carried out for visits by public
figures, for public relations purposes, when budgets are
tight, or to calm public alarm.
The most common types of repair were: patching;
coating; crack injection; restoration of strength; sprayed
concrete; electro-chemical methods (mainly cathodic
protection) and added prestress. Numbers of repair
types are shown in Figure 3.7. Two or three methods
were commonly applied per repair, for example, patching
was often accompanied by coating or crack injection.
The data in Figure 3.7 are for all incidences of repair
types and the total therefore exceeds the number of case
histories.
Less common repairs included application of corrosion
inhibitors, wrapping with carbon fibre reinforced plastic
(CFRP), re-alkalisation, added cover concrete and added
prestress. Associated measures included added thermal
insulation, repaired expansion joints, re-tiling (of facades)
and waterproofing.
It should be noted that although these different methods
have been considered in a single group, they could be
subdivided as follows.
● Protection to maintain the existing condition by
exclusion of moisture, chlorides, carbon dioxide etc.
● Repair to halt the deterioration process and restore
durability.
● Strengthening to restore the load carrying capacity.
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 9

Performance of repairs in practice 9

160

140

120

100
Number

80

60

40

20

0
Patch Coating Crack Restoration Sprayed Electro- Added
Injection of strength concrete chemical prestress

Figure 3.7 Relative incidences of different types of repair (Numbers of repair types exceed numbers of case histories because more
than one repair type was often applied)

50
45
40
35
30
Number

25
20
15
10
5

0
Barrier Hydrophobic Aesthetic Other

Figure 3.8 Relative uses of different types of coatings

Patching was applied in 60% of the case histories, mostly
in cases where corrosion had occurred it was necessary
to remove defective concrete and clean or replace
corroded reinforcement. The material used for the
patching was ‘cementitious’* in 60% of the patches and
polymer modified mortar in 30%. Other types of patching
material included mortar containing steel fibres and
polymer modified mortar containing polyethylene fibres.
Coatings were applied in 35% of the repairs, the main
types being barrier and hydrophobic (numbers are given
* ‘Cementitious’ refers to mortar having no more than simple admixtures added to
improve flow or curing characteristics as an addition to the mix. ‘Polymer modified’
refers to mortars composed of cement plus polymeric materials added to improve
the physical properties of the mortar.
in Figure 3.8). Other types were anti-carbonation,
aesthetic and several that were not specified, probably
representing situations where more detailed information
was not available to the respondent. Coatings were
usually applied in combination with other repairs such as
patches and crack injection, with only 30% being solo.
Restoration of strength was carried out in 17% of the
repairs. The most common scheme was for
reinforcement bars that had corroded and lost so much
material that it was considered necessary to replace
them with new bars. This has the added value that new
bars are less likely to corrode than corroded bars, which
are difficult to clean properly and likely to harbour
residual chlorides. Other methods of restoring strength
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 10
10
included additional reinforcement, added concrete,
added anchors, added prestress and bonded plating
(steel or carbon fibre reinforced polymer). Sprayed
concrete was applied in 13% of the repairs.
3.4 Performance of repairs
3.4.1 Inspection
There are three stages in the repair process when
inspection should be carried out:
● Prior to repair. Inspection of the deteriorated
concrete to determine the extent and nature of the
problem
● After completion of the repair. Inspection to
determine whether the work has been carried out
properly and is acceptable
● Routine inspection. As part of the maintenance
schedule and to determine whether the repair remains
in a satisfactory condition.
The inspections reported in the case-histories were
mainly routine although inspections for acceptance
appear to be rarely carried out in any depth.
Only 15% of the inspections were reported as having
utilised non-destructive testing (NDT), the majority of
inspectors apparently being satisfied with visual
examinations. In cases where NDT was carried out the
tests included:
● measurements of electrode potentials to determine
the likelihood of active corrosion being present,
● thickness of concrete cover to determine the extent of
protective concrete present, although surprisingly this
was apparently not carried out on a routine basis as
part of the investigation before the repair was
designed,
● pull-off strength to determine the adhesion of patches
to the substrate,
● carbonation depth to determine the progress of
deterioration,
● chloride gradients to determine the likelihood of
corrosion developing, and
● impact-echo testing to determine whether delamination
or debonding had occurred.
Removal of cores for strength tests and petrographic
studies were reported as being occasionally carried out.
While petrographic studies can be invaluable in helping to
identify deterioration processes, strength tests on cores
appear to be carried out as a matter of tradition and it is
more useful to identify properties of the concrete such as
stiffness to enable repairs to be made with material that
is fully compatible with the substrate.
3.4.2 Classification of performances
Performances of the repairs were classified as:
● successful, as identified at the most recent inspection
and not requiring attention for the time being,
Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice
● exhibiting early evidence of failure, considered to be
unsatisfactory and eventually requiring further action,
for example, minor cracking suspected to be
associated with corrosion, and
● identified as failed and requiring immediate attention,
for example, continued corrosion.
There are some situations when classification of repair
performance can be, to some extent, a subjective
judgement. For example, a repair may be accepted as
being structurally successful but failing due to
aesthetics; some coatings and patches can become
discoloured and unacceptable to owners despite meeting
all other requirements (an example is given in Section
3.5). Needless to say these situations can lead to
disputes but ultimately repairs have to be carried out to
the satisfaction of the owner of the structure and the
repairer should provide information about likely
outcomes beforehand.
3.4.3 Overall repair performances
For all types of repair, 50% were reported as being
successful at the last inspection, 25% exhibited evidence
of failure, and 25% failed. However, it is more informative
to consider types of repair, their performances and
explanations given for causes of failures.
Repair performance is shown in Figure 3.9 and it is
evident that most failures occur in the first 10 years after
repair. Significant numbers also occur beyond this age;
the longest reported life to failure was 52 years. In the
subsequent analysis of performances in relation to time,
successful short duration repairs have been successively
deleted. Thus, when calculating percentage failures in,
say, 25 years, successful repairs of less than 25 years
duration have been discounted. On this basis it was found
that 20% of repairs failed in five years, 55% failed in
10 years and 90% failed in 25 years. In this analysis,
failure is defined as exhibiting early evidence of failure or
having failed altogether. These performances are
expressed in relation to the common guarantee times
and expectations quoted in Chapter 2.
Key points
● The longest reported repair life was 52 years
● 50% of the repairs reported had failed
● After exclusion of repairs that were successful but of shorter
duration
● 20% failed in five years
● 55% failed in 10 years
● 90% failed in 25 years
3.4.4 Overall repair performances (by repair type)
Success rates for the different types of repair within this
study were reported as follows:
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 11

Performance of repairs in practice 11

25

20

15
Number

10

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-52

Time since repair (Years)

Failed Evidence of deterioration

Figure 3.9 Performances in relation to age of repairs

● Patching was 50% successful (all types)
● Cementitious patches were 45% successful
● Polymer modified materials were 50% successful
(see Figures 3.10 and 3.11)
● Coatings were 50% successful (all types)
● Barrier coatings were 50% successful
● Hydrophobic coatings were 55% successful
● Other coatings were 25% successful
● Sprayed concrete was 30% successful
● Cathodic protection was 35% successful, although see
section below
● Schemes involving restoration of strength were 75%
successful
● Schemes involving crack injection were 70%
successful.
These figures are indicative of repair performances but
cannot be considered to be statistically rigorous for
certain types of repair that have relatively small numbers
of case-histories. In any case the numbers are likely to be
influenced by the reporting organisations, some
respondents being reluctant to report failures of repairs
and others possibly over-reacting to minor defects.
Nevertheless, the data are credible and there are no
significant surprises.
3.4.5 Cathodic protection (CP)
The success rate reported for CP (35%) is poor but the
number of case histories (12) is low so that this result
may be atypical. However, an additional 62 abbreviated
case-histories were obtained for installations in the UK.
The performances of all 74 installations (including the 12
full case-histories) were as follows:
● Wholly successful: 46 (62%)
● Attention needed: 13 (18%), due to:
● Transmission problems
● The installation accidentally switched off
● ‘Failures’: 15 (20%), due to:
● Phone lines vandalised
● Control box overheated or fire
● An overlay (the anode) becoming debonded*
● Short circuit
● Anode failure
● Control failure
● Operational failure
● Unsuitable application.

Figure 3.10 Patch repair after five years, showing signs of

incipient anode behaviour due to non-removal of chloride
contaminated material * It was reported that although the overlay became de-bonded, the system
continued to function.
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 12

12 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

45

35

30

25
Number

20

15

10

5
0
Cementitious Polymer Modified Other

Type of Patch
Successful Evidence of failure Failure

Figure 3.11 Performances of patches

It can be argued that few of the installations were really
failures since the action of the CP would remain effective
for some time into the future and repairs could usually be
carried out quickly and economically.
It was reported that 17 of the installations were
monitored but it is believed that there were many more.
The effective lives of CP installations are not yet
established but one supplier commented on the
performance of a 20 year old installation, that:
‘……natural deterioration of conductive coating anode
[had occurred] as expected’
Numbers and ages of 26 of the successful CP
installations having data supplied are summarised in
Table 3.1.
A detailed description of the processes of corrosion and
cathodic protection is given by Broomfield in Corrosion of
steel in concrete[ 3].
Table 3.1 Successful CP installations
Age (years) Number
0–4 9 ●
5–9 5
10 – 19 6 3.4.7 Repairs in combination
20+ 6 In the previous sections, types of repair have been
3.4.6 Types of deterioration
● 50% of repairs to corrosion were successful. The
types of repair reported and their success rates were
crack injection (70%), and patching (40%). The high
success rate for crack injection is probably an
indication that corrosion was less advanced than in the
cases where it was considered necessary to go
through the steps of removing all the affected
concrete, replacing, or cleaning, the reinforcement
and putting in place patching material. Moreover,
crack injection could be regarded as being a
protective measure rather than a repair.
● 65% of repairs to corroded prestressing steel were
successful. Corrosion of prestressing steel presents
special problems as it can occur without any visible
evidence externally; there have been several cases
when it has led to structural collapse. This is discussed
in more detail in Section 4.6.
● 20% of repairs to AAR were successful. The types of
repair reported were: patch plus coating, coating
alone and patch alone. There were insufficient data for
success rates of these individual repair methods to be
meaningful but the overall value of three successes for
14 cases is indicative of the difficulties in making an
effective and lasting repair of AAR affected concrete.
● 25% of repairs to frost-damaged concrete were
successful. This is especially low and is an indication
that the failed concrete was repaired but the root
cause of the problem was not tackled.
● 90% of repairs to poor construction were successful.
This high success rate is probably due to the defects
being identified before processes of deterioration
such as corrosion had commenced, in fact 40% of the
cases were repaired immediately.
65% of repairs to cracking were successful.
considered irrespective of whether they were applied
solo or in combination. In 60% of the case-histories, more
than one type of repair was applied.
The added value of combining repair methods can be
seen for patching; when applied solo, patches were 30%
successful compared to 50% when coated, as shown in
Figure 3.12.
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 13

Performance of repairs in practice 13

50

45

40

35

30
Number

25

20

15

10

Patch Solo Patch plus Coating

Successful Evidence of failure Fail

Figure 3.12 Performances of patch repairs to corrosion

3.4.8 Modes of repair failure
The common failure modes for all types of repair were
reported as cracking, continued corrosion, de-bonding,
continued AAR and leakage (Figure 3.13). Other less
common modes included deteriorated concrete,
deteriorated coatings and spalling.
● For patches, 30% of failures were due to cracking,
25% due to de-bonding, 25% due to continued
corrosion and 20% due to other modes.
● For coatings, 25% of failures were due to cracking,
25% due to de-bonding, 20% due to continued
corrosion, 10% due to continued AAR and 20% due to
other modes. An example of a failed coating applied to
AAR affected concrete is given in Figure 3.14.
● For sprayed concrete, failures modes were mainly
cracking, de-bonding and continued corrosion.
● CP failure modes are listed in section 3.4.5. In
summary, there were failures of anodes, electrical
connections, installations accidentally switched off,
and a variety of other causes that could easily be
rectified. There was only one case where there was
continued corrosion and the CP was reported to have
been ineffective.

35

30

25

20
Number

15

10

0
Corrosion Cracking Debonding Continued AAR Continued Other
leakage

Figure 3.13 Modes of failure – all types of repair

Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 14
14
Figure 3.14 (top and bottom) Failure of polymer mortar
patches and sprayed polymer coatings applied to an AAR affected
bridge. This failure was considered to be partly due to incorrect
diagnosis of the original problem and partly to incorrect design of
the repair
3.5 Causes of repair failures
In the case-histories reported, failures of repairs were
attributed mainly to:
● incorrect diagnosis of the underlying problem,
● incorrect design of repair (an example of failure due to
incorrect design is shown in Figure 3.15),
● poor workmanship,
● use of incorrect repair materials
● failure to follow manufacturer’s instructions on the use
of repair materials, and
● other factors.
Problems with repair materials could be regarded as a
sub-set of incorrect design since they are mainly a matter
of incorrect specification. They are listed separately
because they represent a specialist element, and in any
case there are other factors such as whether advice was
provided or obtained from the materials suppliers.
Other factors that caused failure were extremes of
weather during repair work, subsequent overloading,
vandalism and low expenditure (too little was spent on the
repair). This last point is closely related to the system of
competitive tenders; as one respondent summed up:
Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice
Figure 3.15 (top and bottom) Failure of polymer mortar
patches and polymer coating applied to a bridge affected by
corrosion. This failure was considered to be due partly to incorrect
design of the repair and partly to incorrect application of anti-
corrosion treatment to corroded reinforcement
‘When construction is on the basis of competitive
tenders, the cheapest one is chosen’ .
In four cases it was admitted that the cause of failure was
unknown. Numbers of the different causes of failure are
shown in Figure 3.16.
3.5.1 Incorrect diagnosis
Respondent comment: ‘[It was] the wrong diagnosis to
propose patch repair works’
Examples of original problems being incorrectly
diagnosed, or not identified as needing attention,
included porous or honeycombed concrete; the presence
of deleterious materials such as calcium chloride or high
alumina cement in the original concrete; and failure to
identify the root cause of cracking
3.5.2 Incorrect design
Respondent comment: ‘Partially wrong design of
repair, partially wrong option of repair material, partially
wrong design of concrete surface’.
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 15

Performance of repairs in practice 15

45

40

35

30
Number

25

20

15

10

0
Incorrect design Incorrect material Poor workmanship Wrong diagnosis Other

Figure 3.16 Reported causes of failures

Where the repair was considered to have been incorrectly

designed, typical errors included: insufficient defective
concrete removed before patching; low cover at the time
of construction which was left uncorrected; cosmetic
treatment instead of a properly designed repair; and
inadequate arrangements made for drainage. In cases
where there was continued corrosion, it was generally
due to insufficient defective concrete having been
removed and incipient anodes becoming dominant; this
was a common shortfall in design of repairs.

3.5.3 Poor workmanship

Poor workmanship was a general problem. In one case a
correspondent noted on the questionnaire that:

‘The work had been a textbook example of how not to

carry out a repair’.

In another case:

‘Coatings were incorrectly applied despite clear
instructions being given’,
And in yet another,
‘Poor workmanship; too thin coating [against
instructions]’.
There were also other instances where coatings were
applied too thick or too thin. An example of ‘aesthetic
deterioration’ is given in Figure 3.17.
3.5.4 Incorrect repair material
Respondent comment: ‘The strength of the repair
material was considerably greater than the substrate’
In cases where the repair material was reported to be the
Figure 3.17 Aesthetic deterioration of cement-based coating
repair. The photo is of a test area, where appearance of
efflorescence has been activitated on purpose
cause of failure, it was rarely suggested that the material
was inadequate per se. One exception was cathodic
protection where some early anode materials proved to
have inadequate durability. More commonly, failed repair
materials were found to be incompatible with the original
concrete due to differing strength or absorption rates.
In one case, coating material intended only for internal
use was used externally and, not surprisingly, failed.
Figure 3.17 shows an example of strong efflorescence,
which is not a technical problem (durability or bond of
coating are not weakened), but has an unpleasant
appearance. It has been caused by difficult weather
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 16

16 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

90

80

70
Per cent successful

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Urban Rural Highway Coastal Industrial

Figure 3.18 Influence of environment on performance – all types of repair

conditions during the work followed by damp and cold. It

is likely that poor workmanship also contributed to the
problem. This is only one example of many similar cases.
Appearance of efflorescence is a typical problem when
using cement-based coating systems in northern
countries. Aesthetic appearance is considered very
important especially concerning repairs of building
façades. Recoating and cleaning due to efflorescence
have caused extra costs and angry customers. On the
other hand the durability properties and technical
functionality of cement-based coatings when applied to
facades are much better than organic coatings and
paints.
Influence of environment
The performances of concrete and repairs to concrete
structures located in different environments are shown in
Figure 3.18. The data follow the normal trends with
repairs in coastal and industrial environments exhibiting
high failure rates. However, the number of industrial case
histories was relatively small.
Key points
● The performance of 230 concrete repairs have been collected
and analysed
● Ages of structures when repaired were mainly in the range 10
to 40 years, the oldest was 100 years
● The most common problem to be repaired was corrosion
● 60% of repairs involved patching
● Cracking, debonding and continued corrosion were the most
common modes of repair failure
● In a number of cases corrosion was so far advanced that it was
considered necessary to replace wasted bars with new ones.
● The owner of a structure is the ultimate judge of whether a
repair has been successful
● Incorrect design of the repair, use of incorrect material, poor
workmanship and wrong diagnosis were the most common
causes of repair failure
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 17

17

Chapter 4
Current repair practice

4.1 Background Table 4.1 Relative usage of inspection techniques

Most of the repairs reported and analysed in Chapter 3, Technique Used sometimes Used commonly
were carried out during the period 1960 to 1990 and
involved the state-of-the-art methods contemporary to Visual inspection 4 96
that time. In subsequent years materials and techniques, Thickness of 14 86
as well as an understanding of the processes, have been cover concrete
improved and it is appropriate to examine how current Depth of carbonation 13 87
practice has been developed in relation to inspection and Core tests 21 79
methods of repairing deteriorated concrete. In this Chloride content 24 76
context current practice is related to 2003. Electrode potential 43 57
Petrographic analysis 66 34
Questionnaires about current practice were designed to Monitoring 69 31
be complementary to the one for case-histories, (see Corrosion rate 76 24
Appendix II). Responses were received from 55 Loading tests 77 23
organisations in 16 countries, giving a balanced
representation of views. The organisations employed The use of inspection techniques can be summarised as
some 64,500 people in total and about 6,000 were follows.
involved in concrete repair. For some of the ● The majority of respondents reported that they often
organisations, concrete repair represented less than 1% used visual inspection but surprisingly, four
of their business, for others it was 100%. respondents only sometimes carried out visual
inspections.
● Depth of cover, carbonation depth, chloride content
Key point and core tests were popular.
● Measurement of corrosion rate, petrographic analysis,
● Current practice data were provided by 55 organisations monitoring and loading tests were rarely used.
employing some 6,000 people on repair work ● 20 – 30% of the work was subcontracted.

Almost all respondents evaluated inspections manually

4.2 Inspection and about 50% used computer aided methods.

Respondent (consultant) comment: ‘Inspection prior
to the repair is critical to the whole process’.
From the responses received, the relative usage of the
more common methods of inspection (expressed as
percentages) have been summarised in Table 4.1.
Surprisingly, there were respondents who apparently had
not heard of common tests such as location of
reinforcement, electrode potential measurement,
corrosion current measurement, monitoring and
petrographic analysis (this may, however, have been due to
misunderstanding of a questionnaire written in English).
The popularity of electrode potential measurements,
corrosion current measurements and monitoring was
seen to be increasing.
The organisation selected to carry out the inspection
prior to repair varies widely.
● Consultants usually carry out inspections in the
projects they control.
● Owners carry out inspections in 65% of their projects.
● Contractors claim to do inspections prior to repair in
45% of their projects.
● Some small concrete repair works for private owners
may start without any inspection.
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 18

18 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

Table 4.2 Use of the common methods of repair

Key points
Repair Used sometimes Used commonly
● Visual methods are used in the majority of inspections
● 20 to 30 % of inspection work is subcontracted Patches 14 86
● The most commonly used methods of NDT are measurements Coatings 37 63
of depth of cover, carbonation, core tests and chloride content Crack injection 29 71
● Some small repair works may start without any proper Sprayed concrete 36 64
inspection Electro-chemical 63 37
methods
‘Other’ methods 9 91
4.3 Repair methods

Respondent (contractor) comment: ‘[We] sometimes
had to apply a repair method specified by an owner or
consultant while [we] would have proposed and used a
more appropriate method if the choice had been up to
[us]…’.
The relative uses of the most common types of repair
method are shown in Table 4.2. Other methods listed in
Table 4.2 include restoration of strength (bonded
plating), electro-chemical techniques (cathodic
protection, re-alkalisation and chloride removal) and
corrosion inhibitors. Respondents reported increased
interest in cathodic protection and hydrophobic coatings,
and decreased interest in sprayed concrete and crack
injection. The reported decrease in interest in sprayed
concrete is in contradiction to the increased number of
applications that can be seen on the market. However,
the small number of respondents may make this an
incorrect interpretation.
Some 25% of the respondents reported that the repairs
are subcontracted to specialist repairers.
Those owners who carry out inspections themselves
invariably decide what methods of repair will be used
and, in general, they make the decision in 30% of all
repair projects. Contractors select the repair methods in
about 50% of projects. On occasions when special
methods such as CP or strengthening, are proposed, it
was reported that the contractor invariably decides
whether it is appropriate or not. The relative uses of the
common repair techniques are shown in Figure 4.1.
Acceptance ratings, representing the popularity of the
different methods of repair in the market, are shown in
Figure 4.2. Acceptance ratings, representing the
preferences of the repair industry are shown in Figure 4.3.
Comparison of Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show that the views of
the repair industry are generally in accord with the
preferences of the market place. The exceptions to this
are the sprayed concrete and crack injection methods,

100

80

60
Per cent

40

20

0
Patch Coating Crack Sprayed Electro- Other
injection concrete chemical

Never/rarely Sometimes Often

Figure 4.1 Use of repair techniques
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 19

Current repair practice 19

3
Rating

Sprayed concrete

Re-alkalisation

Chloride removal

CP (impressed current)

CP (sacrificial anodes)
Cement-based mortars

Polymer-based mortar

Cement-based coatings

Resin-based coatings

Impregnation

Crack injection

Figure 4.2 Acceptance ratings of repair products in the market

3
Rating

0
Cement-based mortars

Polymer-based mortar

Impregnation

Crack injection

Chloride removal

CP (impressed current)

CP (sacrificial anodes)
Cement-based coatings

Resin-based coatings

Sprayed concrete

Re-alkalisation

Figure 4.3 Acceptance ratings of the repair companies

which the companies rate as being equally important as 4.4 Quality control (QC)
other repair methods (Figure 4.3) compared to very low
acceptance in the market for these methods (Figure 4.2). It was found that about 90% of repair projects are
This may be aggravated by the fact that these techniques subjected to QC. The type and number of QC tests depend
require specialised workmanship. Only repairers that often in many cases on the available budget. There is no
apply these techniques, and rate them highly, are able to generally accepted procedure for quality control and in an
provide the necessary quality and deliver durable repairs. attempt to regularise the situation one consultant felt it
However, the position is influenced by the limited number necessary to prepare a document outlining a more logical
of repairers offering these products. approach to the question.
Text 12/11/07 12:30 PM Page 20
20
Various quality assurance and quality control tests were
mentioned by the respondents.
● Trial repairs carried out beforehand to determine
whether the proposed method of repair is practical
● On-site checking of repair materials to ensure that they
meet the claimed specifications.
● The common site tests which are known and practiced
by most repairers such as visual inspection, acoustic
tests, pull-off tests, laboratory tests on cores and in
some cases, structural loading tests.
● Special tests to verify the correct functioning of
techniques such as chloride removal and cathodic
protection.
● Thickness measurements of applied coatings.
Visual inspection and checks should be made within
touching distance of the structure.
Key point
● There is no generally accepted procedure for quality control
and in an attempt to regularise the situation one consultant felt
it necessary to prepare a document outlining a more logical
approach to the question.
4.5 Comparison with earlier repair practice
In this section comparison is made between current
practice and the earlier repair practice described in
Chapter 3 (mainly for the period 1960 to 1990) to
identify the developments and changes that have
occurred as materials and techniques have been
improved and experiences of the various repair methods
have been gained.
4.5.1 Relative use of the different methods of repair
Comparative data for the most common methods of
repair, shown in Figure 4.4, suggest that patching is
apparently becoming less popular. This is surprising
40
35
30
25
Per cent
20
15
10
5
0
Patching Coating
Figure 4.4 Comparison between past and current usage of repair methods
Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice
since reinforcement corrosion remains the most
common problem and repairs invariably require removal
of contaminated concrete and cleaning of the
reinforcement, which must be followed by patching to fill
the excavation and provide good protective cover to the
reinforcement.
On the other hand, sprayed concrete and electro-
chemical methods have become more popular. It is
suggested that the most credible of these trends is for
electro-chemical methods – and cathodic protection (CP)
in particular – to become more popular as engineers gain
confidence from experiences in the US and UK where
large numbers of CP installations have been in use for
many years.
Repair methods that are occasionally used (‘other’
methods), reported in both past and present responses,
included restoration of strength and use of corrosion
inhibitors.
Overall, current uses of the different types of repair
method are broadly similar to past practice.
4.5.2 Types of patch repair
It is evident from Figure 4.5 that whereas in the past,
cementitious mortars were used on almost twice as
many occasions as polymer modified mortars in patch
repairs, there is little difference in current practice. This
is probably a consequence of improvements in the
polymer modified materials over those used in the past
and the knowledge of laboratory testing, which indicates
that polymer modified mortars have advantages over
cementitious materials. However, this is not wholly
supported by the evidence from past performances,
which indicates that there is little difference in respective
durability:
● 55% of cement based mortar patches failed
● 50% of polymer based mortar patches failed
Past practice
Present
practice
Crack Sprayed Electro- Other
Injection concrete chemical
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 21

Current repair practice 21

70 Past practice
60
Present
50 practice
40
Per cent

30
20
10
0
Cement-based Polymer-based

Figure 4.5 Comparative use of cement-based and polymer-based mortars in patches

80 Past practice
70
Present
60 practice
Per cent

50
40
30
20
10
0
Barrier Hydrophobic

Figure 4.6 Comparative use of barrier and hydrophobic coatings

4.5.3 Coatings Key points

The relative use of barrier coatings and hydrophobic
coatings has remained virtually unchanged; barrier
coatings continue to be applied twice as often, as shown
in Figure 4.6. It is suspected that financial pressures and
a desire to cover unsightly patching with a coating of
uniform appearance, make barrier coatings more
attractive to owners of structures. Evidence from past
performances suggests that there is little difference in
the performances of the coatings in practice.
● 50% of barrier coatings failed
● 45% of hydrophobic coatings failed
4.6 Inspection strategy
From the responses it is apparent that too little attention
has been given to inspection at the different stages of the
repair process and, in consequence, many of the early
failures of repairs have been due to inadequate control of
the work. As part of a comprehensive repair strategy,
deterioration curves shown in Figure 4.7 delineate failure
envelopes in relation to the common requirements of
repairs.
● Guaranteed repair lives of five years or 10 years
● Life expectation of 25 years.
● About 90% of repair projects are subjected to quality control of
one sort or another but there is no generally accepted
procedure
● Patching has apparently become less prevalent in current
practice
● Electro-chemical techniques and sprayed concrete have
become more prevalent in current practice
● Use of polymer modified mortars has increased
● Barrier coatings continue to be used twice as much as
hydrophobic coatings
● Overall, uses of the different methods of repair are broadly
similar to past practice
● 25% of repair work is subcontracted
The performance in practice, as determined from the
case-histories analysed in Chapter 3, are shown within
these envelopes; these are 20% of repairs fail in five
years, 55% in 10 years and 90% in 25 years. It follows
from these performances that although the normal timing
of principal inspections, commonly at intervals of five or
six years for the better managed structures, may be
appropriate to the general maintenance of those having
long lives, in the first 10 years it would be better to
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 22
22
Deterioration
Figure 4.7 Performances of repairs
inspect repairs at closer intervals, of say one year. In
addition, NDT should be used in support of visual
observations bearing in mind that 35% of repairs failed at
between five and 10 years.
Key point
● In the 10 years after repair, inspections should be at relatively
close intervals
4.6.1 Methodology of inspection
There are three stages in the development of
deterioration which can be exemplified by the processes
of corrosion caused by ingress of chlorides, as shown in
Figure 4.8:
1 Incubation when processes of corrosion are
developing but not yet active, for example chlorides
diffusing from the surface of the concrete and moving
towards the steel reinforcement. The presence of
these chlorides is detectable.
2 The onset of corrosion when the local passivity has
been destroyed and the steel reinforcement is no
longer fully protected. The electro-chemical reaction is
actively progressing and can be detected by
techniques such as measurement of electrode-
potential.
Deterioration
Figure 4.8 Levels of detectability of the deterioration of a repair
Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice
Time - Years
3 Damage, for example cracking and rust staining on the
surface of the concrete can be seen with the naked
eye and is evidence of significant corrosion of the steel
reinforcement buried beneath the surface.
However, it is evident from the case-histories that most
inspectors rely on visual evidence so that by then
corrosion will have reached an advanced stage and
opportunities to take timely defensive action will have
been lost.
Data can be added to Figures 4.7 and 4.8 to provide a
broad picture of performances and enable inspection and
repair work to be planned and carried out more effectively.
The model in Figure 4.8 for corrosion, can be applied to
other processes of deterioration, for example frost and
AAR, albeit there may be fewer stages.
It is also important to recognise that inspection and
monitoring should be carried out as a step-by-step
process and different tests and approaches are required
to aid diagnosis, acceptance, and assessment of the
subsequent performances of repairs. In the following
section, four stages of inspection are identified.
Stage 1. Identification of the underlying cause of
deterioration
In the case-histories discussed in Chapter 3, 50% of
failures were ascribed to either incorrect diagnosis of the
Time - Years
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 23
Current repair practice
underlying problem or incorrect design of the repair.
Many of the cases of incorrect diagnosis were due to
priority being given to identifying the process of
deterioration. This could result in failure to recognise that
problems are invariably initiated by an underlying cause,
usually poor design or inadequate water management,
which permit deterioration processes to develop.
The most common problems reported in the case-
histories were related to corrosion of steel
reinforcement. One of the underlying causes is often the
provision of inadequate protection against chlorides
through a low thickness of cover to the reinforcement,
the presence of permeable concrete, cracking, or local
leakage (commonly by failing expansion joints) that
permits water and chlorides to diffuse into the concrete
and initiate the process of corrosion. Identification of the
underlying cause is the first step in diagnosis and is as
important as identification of the deterioration process.
Cracking, which occurred in 22% of the reported failures,
is a product of various underlying causes. It can be
caused by mechanisms as disparate as loss of pre-
stress, structural movement, overloading, impact,
corrosion, freeze-thaw action and AAR. The mechanism in
question needs to be identified using a combination of
observation, NDT, and numerical analysis. Numerical
analysis is not normally considered as being a form of
NDT but nevertheless it is an invaluable tool that is
sometimes overlooked.
Stage 2. Identification of the deterioration process
The data in Chapter 3 indicate that only 15% of the
responses related to investigations using non-destructive
testing. It follows from the rather disappointing
performances of repairs that there is a clear need for
NDT to be used more generally and targeted more
effectively in order to improve the quality of different
stages of the repair process, i.e. as an aid to diagnosis,
acceptance of repairs, and their subsequent
performance. Visual inspection is important but must be
carried out properly by experienced inspectors able to
detect and interpret early evidence of problems.
Moreover, it should be carried out within touching
distance of the concrete unless the nature of the
structure makes this impossible.
Common processes of deterioration, as reported in the
case-histories, were:
● Corrosion, 55% of identified occurrences
● Freeze-thaw action, 10% of identified occurrences
● AAR, 5% of identified occurrences
Corrosion, frost and AAR are fundamental processes
detectable by specific tests but many repairs failed due to
incorrect diagnosis or failure to identify the full extent of
the affected concrete. The classic example is where a
patch repair is made, but insufficient affected concrete is
23
removed from the vicinity of the corrosion and incipient
anodes develop in the region around the patch.
Stage 3. Acceptance testing of repairs
In practice, the likelihood of acceptance testing of
repairs being carried out is rather variable. Some
authorities prefer to rely on close supervision of the work
and feel that testing would be an unnecessary additional
activity (and expense). Nevertheless acceptance testing
should be carried out in order to:
● identify inadequate repairs in time for corrective
actions to be taken, and
● provide data to satisfy owners of structures that the
work has been carried out properly and can be
accepted.
Moreover, access can be the most expensive element in
testing so it is therefore more economic to carry out
tests immediately after the work when access is still
available. Later testing, in the absence of easy access, is
likely to be restricted and less comprehensive.
The acceptance tests should be selected to suit the type
of repair and likely modes of failure.
The most commonly reported modes of repair failure in
the short term include cracking, debonding, and spalling.
In the longer term, continued corrosion and AAR are
prevalent. It follows that acceptance tests should be
targeted at these problems.
Although there have been numerous publications
describing tests and methods of inspection, none have
dealt adequately with the specific requirements of
repairs. Some of the methods of NDT that can be used to
aid diagnosis include tests less commonly used on site.
Although there are numerous reports and papers dealing
with the different methods of NDT, most address
concrete in general or properties of the repair material,
for example Table A1 in EN 1504-9.
Some examples of appropriate methods of NDT to aid
acceptance are listed but not considered in any detail in
Table 4.3
Stage 4. Subsequent inspection of mature repairs
Subsequent inspections of mature repairs are usually
periodic and carried out at the same time as normal
maintenance. This procedure is rather unsatisfactory
because methods used are the same as for normal
inspections and repairs are rarely treated any differently.
For most types of structure there are recommended
maintenance schedules that comprise general
inspections, which should be carried out annually, are
usually visual and can only identify defects in a fairly
advanced stage of development. Principal inspections
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 24

24 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

Table 4.3 Examples of NDT to aid acceptance of repairs ● It is considered necessary to demonstrate that the
repair has been effective and remains effective.
Repair Common NDT
defects Continuous monitoring can be expensive and there has to
be good reason to do so. Some of the methods that can
Patch - Built-in defects - Impact-echo be used for continuous monitoring are given in Table 4.4.
- Fine cracking - Permeability General rules for the inspection and assessment of
- Poor adhesion - Pull-off strength concrete structures can be found in the CEB Bulletin 243
(Figure 4.9) Methods of testing and assessment of concrete
Coatings, - Pin holes, fine cracks - Permeability structures[4]. This approach can be used prior to repair,
all types - Poor adhesion - Pull-off resistance but also for evaluating the behaviour of repaired
- Incorrect thickness - Thickness structures.
measurement
Coatings, hydrophobic Failure to protect Water absorption Examples of some of the common methods of NDT are
Crack injection Failure to seal Permeability illustrated in Figures 4.11 to 4.14
Cathodic protection - Inadequate electrical - Electrical
continuity continuity
- Failed electrical control - Depolarisation
Table 4.4 Continuous monitoring
(after
commissioning) Requirement Measurement Method

Ensure structural Crack growth LVDT, VWG

integrity
Loading data - Traffic - Weigh-in-motion
- Crowds* - Autocounting
- Wind speed & direction - Anemometers
- Temperature - Thermo-couples
Vibration data Amplitudes and Accelerometers
frequencies
Fatigue data - Stress cycles - ERS plus analysis
- Crack growth - Acoustic emission
- local fractures - Acoustic emission
Corrosion Electro-potential Buried probes
(Figure 4.10)
* on footbridges and in stadia

Figure 4.9 Pull-off test to measure adhesion of coatings and Key

patches (see Table 4.3) LDVT: Linear variable differential transformer
VWG: Vibrating wire gauge
are carried out at intervals of five or six years depending ERS: Electrical resistance strain gauge
on the requirements of the owner and the type of
structure but as a significant proportion of repairs were
reported to have failed or exhibited evidence of
deterioration in the first five years, the first inspection
after repair work is important and requires special
attention to assess the repairs.

In certain cases it may be deemed necessary to carry out

continuous monitoring before or after repair work.
Typical reasons for continuous monitoring are as follows:
● Definitive measurements of deterioration are required
before a repair can be designed
● There is evidence of deterioration but it is not clear
whether it has stabilised or is continuing
● Loading data (traffic, thermal, wind) are required over
a period of time to aid design of an effective repair Figure 4.10 Corrosion probes fitted to reinforcement prior to
● The structure has deteriorated to the extent that it is to repair concrete being placed (see to Table 4.4)
be replaced and it is necessary to confirm that in the
meantime it remains in a safe condition.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 25
Current repair practice
Figure 4.11 Location of reinforcement bars
Figure 4.13 Detection of carbonation
4.6.2 Post-tensioned structures
There can be situations where conventional methods of
inspection are inadequate and it is necessary to take a
different approach. Inspection of the prestressing
strands in grouted post-tensioned structures is a relevant
example as it presents problems and conventional
methods of inspection are inadequate. Moreover, visual
inspection of the structure is rarely helpful as the strands
can corrode to an advanced stage and fractures can
occur without any superficial evidence on the surface of
the external concrete. It is a particularly sensitive issue
because corrosion can lead to wire fractures, structural
collapse, and on occasions, loss of life. It has therefore
been necessary to identify effective non-standard
methods of inspection[5].
The most promising methods of NDT listed in guides and
standards (including X-ray, radar, impact-echo and
ultrasonics) have been developed and applied to post-
tensioned concrete with only limited success. In the
event it has been necessary to turn to relatively low
technology and the most reliable method has been found
to be intrusive drilling into the duct and directly observing
the condition of the strands by experienced inspectors. If
25
Figure 4.12 Measurement of crack widths
Figure 4.14 Measurement of electrode potential
a void is discovered, its size can be assessed and an
endoscope inserted to enable the exposed strands to be
examined for evidence of corrosion along their length.
The process of inspection of prestressing strands is best
carried out in stages as recommended in the Highways
Agency document BA50/93[6], which was prepared to
deal with these problems. The stages are:
● desk study,
● preliminary inspection and, if necessary,
● detailed site investigation.
In situations when corrosion is believed to be present and
it is practical to await events, acoustic emission can be
used to monitor the situation and record occurrences of
any wire fractures. This has been done successfully on
post-tensioned floor slabs in office blocks and parking
structures, especially when the tendons are unbonded.
Repair of damaged post-tensioning has also presented
special problems. When corrosion has not yet developed
or is considered not excessive, voids in the grout can be
filled so that the steel strands are protected from further
damage. It is important that the grout remains stable
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 26

26 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

when injected and does not bleed because this can

develop further voids. Stability of the grout can be
assessed using the BRITE Euram test[7].

Small voids can be filled with an epoxy grout. In work on

autostrada bridges in Italy it was recommended that
epoxy used to fill the voids should have the following
properties:
● Maximum viscosity 0.2 Pa at 65% RH and 20°C
● Minimum life of 150 minutes at 65% RH and 20°C
● A value of pH between 10.5 and 12.5.

On occasions when there are large voids, or the duct is

empty, a cementitious grout is generally the best option.
The grout can be injected under pressure or the process
can be aided by vacuum.

When corrosion is advanced to the extent that the

structure is assessed as being at risk, it may be
necessary to replace the element or take steps to
restore the strength. This can be achieved by various
methods, for example:
● Additional prestress by external post-tensioning
● Replacement of the damaged strands
● Repairs to the damaged strands
● Strengthening by addition of bonded steel or CFRP
● Propping the structure with elastic supports.

For grouted internal post-tensioning, the addition of

external prestress can be an effective way to restore
strength and is often used. It is, however, necessary to
ensure that the concrete is not over-compressed locally
or globally. Also, if the prestressing tendons are external
to the structure and exposed to weathering, they require
adequate corrosion protection. In all cases, repairs
should be accompanied by measures to ensure there are
no routes for water or de-icing salts to penetrate into the
concrete or tendons.

There have been cases when corrosion has been found to

be too advanced for the structure to be repaired and it
has been necessary for it to be demolished and replaced.

Key points

● Inspection of grouted post-tensioning strand presents special

problems because corrosion and fractures can lead to
collapse without the appearance of any external evidence and
contemporary codes and methods of inspection offer no help.
● The most reliable method of inspection of grouted post-
tensioning strand is by intrusive drilling into the duct and direct
observation of the strands by experienced personnel.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 27
Chapter 5
Current research
This chapter is concerned with current research on
concrete repairs in relation to:
● recent and on-going projects
● relevance of current research to durable repairs of
concrete
● extent of adoption of research results by the repair
industry
● requirements for further research
The data were obtained from questionnaires sent to
relevant organisations.
Responses to enquiries produced data for 66 different
projects from 28 respondents representing some 308
organisations. The distribution of respondents is shown
in Figure 5.1. About 40% of the projects were led by
consultants, 31% by academe and 21% by repairers. This
is considered to be an appropriate balance between
industry concerned with the need to address practical
issues and professional researchers concerned with
academic rigour. The two are not always mutually
compatible.
The longest running project, started in 1995, lasted for
eight years. There were 44 projects reported to be
completed and 22 on-going. Data from the
questionnaires were augmented by information obtained
from 72 other research projects related to concrete
repair and identified from the official website of E-core
(The Thematic Network E-CORE, European Construction
Research Network)[8].
Consultant (32%)
Repairer (36%)
Owner (8%)
Academe (24%)
Figure 5.1 Distribution of respondents to research questionnaire
27
Key point
● Data for 66 research projects were obtained from 28
respondents and supplemented by 72 projects from
www.e-core.org
5.1 Sizes of research projects
Numbers of participants per project are summarised in
Table 5.1
It is notable that about 20% of the projects were carried
out by one organisation alone. At the other extreme, one
project was reported as having 21 participants.
Financial information was provided for 49 of the 66
projects. The total budget for these projects was €37.5
million at an average per project of €0.8 million. The
smallest project had one participant and a budget of
€5,539, the largest had 16 participants and a budget of
€5.1 million. Many funding agencies require a 50%
contribution from industry and many were provided in-
kind, often in the form of materials and time, which are
not always acknowledged as equivalent financial
contributions. The total budget for the 66 projects,
including this ‘in kind’ contribution, could amount to some
€50 million.
Numbers of projects funded by the different agencies
and the distribution of funding across the research topics
are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.1 Numbers of participants in research projects
Number of Participants Number of Projects
1 12
2–4 32
5 – 10 12
More than 10 10
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 28

28 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

Table 5.2 Distribution of research topics and funding Table 5.3 Distribution of research projects

Research Private National International Budget Research Percentage (%)

Topics (€ million) projects

Durability 1 10 3 8.7 Materials 31

Materials 3 16 6 6.6 Durability 18
Inspection 0 2 3 2.9 Inspection 18
Maintenance 0 3 5 12.7 Maintenance 18
Strengthening 4 7 2 6.7 Strengthening 15

The international projects listed here are mainly funded
by the European Commission’s RTD programme and
include thematic networks on concrete repair and
rehabilitation such as CONFIBRECRETE[9], ONTECVET[10]
and REHABCON[11] (see Appendix V).
5.2 Research topics
The research projects are listed under the following
general topics.
● Concrete durability. Research aimed at
understanding the performance of concrete, its
deterioration mechanisms, and the impact these have
on the expected service life of the structure. This class
includes performance and behaviour of repaired
structures, the preparation of the substrate and any
action taken at the time of construction to enhance
service life. The latter is only relevant when it can be
applied to repair work.
● Materials. Research on repair materials and methods
including the performance of impregnations and
cathodic protection.
● Inspection. Research related to inspection of
concrete structures and evaluation of the data,
monitoring techniques prior to repair and choice of
repair methods.
● Maintenance. Research to improve service life by an
appropriate management strategy, long term
monitoring and development of databases and
software to aid an understanding of the aging of
structures.
● Strengthening. In relation to concrete repair, relevant
strengthening is concerned with restoration to the
original condition rather than increased strength to a
level above the original design requirement.
Most of the research projects reported to CONREPNET
are concerned with materials (38%) followed by durability
(21%) and strengthening (20%). This distribution may
simply relate to the perceived potential for a successful
outcome and commercial advantages to the
organisations involved. However, if the research projects
listed on www.e-core.org are also taken into account
(resulting in a total of 138 projects), there is less
emphasis on materials and more on inspection and
maintenance (see Table 5.3).
The preferences expressed by the different types of
organisation towards the research topics are shown in
Table 5.4
● Consultants, contractors, owners and suppliers all
expressed greatest interest in repair materials and
methods
● Members of academe expressed most interest in
durability
● Owners apparently had no interest in either
maintenance or strengthening but this is not
considered to be representative of all owners.
● Preferences for research on inspection and
maintenance are at a low level but otherwise broadly in
line with the numbers of projects on each topic.
5.3 Outcome of research projects
There were 45 completed research projects and 21
ongoing projects reported. General information about the
outcome of the projects at the time of reporting is given
in Table 5.5. Of the 21 projects still running, articles and
presentations have been given for six and the progress of
five can be followed on the web site .

The distribution of these projects is shown in Figure 5.2. Further research has been identified as being necessary
for 75% of the projects, including the ongoing ones. The
need for further research can lead to contradictory
Strengthening
interpretations; an industrial sponsor requires a practical
Materials
and usable end product and would regard a project
Inspection needing more work as being not entirely successful. On
the other hand a researcher might feel differently as the
Maintenance motivation for follow-up research projects that lead to a
more comprehensive outcome would be welcomed.
Durability
Most importantly, it is claimed that results are used in
Figure 5.2 Distribution of research topics (66 projects) nine (40%) of the ongoing projects and 36 (80%) of the
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 29

Current research 29

Table 5.4 Research preferences of respondents

Respondents Durability (%) Materials (%) Inspection (%) Maintenance (%) Strengthening (%)

Consultant 16 32 11 21 21
Contractor 0 53 7 0 40
Owner 33 50 17 0 0
Academe 47 7 13 13 20
Supplier 18 55 9 18 0
Number of projects 14 24 7 8 13

Table 5.5 Outcome of ongoing and completed research projects

Outcome Ongoing (21) Completed (45)

The results are generally available 5 33

There has been dissemination 6 31
The results are used 9 36
Further research is required 15 36
Further research is planned 11 23

completed projects. This is a high success rate but is not Durability

entirely compatible with 51 of the 66 projects claiming to
require further research.
5.3.1 Improved durability
Summaries of research problems have been identified
from the performances of repairs in practice, given in
Chapter 3, and are listed in Table 5.6. Research
requirements identified from these data are outlined in
the following sections.
Table 5.6 Research problems identified from case histories
Repairs to concrete affected by corrosion and AAR have
low success rates and despite the high volume of past
research there are aspects of these topics that still
require attention.
Patches and sprayed concrete are repair techniques that
are reported to have high failure rates and merit more
research under site conditions.
It is notable that none of these topics were mentioned in
the responses describing current projects.

Research topics Problems identified Repair materials and methods

Durability The poor performance of repairs is
attributed to a variety of causes including
incorrect diagnosis, incorrect design and
poor workmanship
Repair materials Many failures were attributed to incorrect
and methods use of materials but there is no criticism
of the materials per se
Inspection and Only 15% of inspections use NDT.
assessment Incorrect assessment is blamed for many
of the failures
Maintenance The processes of corrosion and AAR
continue to be difficult to manage
Strengthening Strengthening projects have a high
success rate and no problems are
identified
There have been cases in practice where failures of
repair materials were attributed to incorrect selection or
hostile weather during application but there was no
suggestion that the materials were inadequate.
Nevertheless there would be benefit from research
carried out with the objective of developing materials that
are more forgiving and tolerant to misuse and extremes
of weather. This is an area where materials suppliers are
best placed to take a lead.
Inspection and assessment
In practice 85% of inspections rely on visual means and
only 15% used NDT. While there is a continued need for
robust and reliable methods of inspection, the main
requirement is to produce convincing arguments and
data that will persuade clients of the long term value of
periodic in-depth inspections. It is also necessary to have
methods that are not seen as being unduly expensive in
terms of equipment or operational time.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 30

30 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

Maintenance Research carried out under service conditions and

It is evident that guidance notes and manuals are not
being used sufficiently by practitioners in the field,
possibly because they are seen as voluminous
documents that are rather complex and time consuming
to use. Moreover, clients, as opposed to practitioners,
have indicated that they would like to have
straightforward, clearly written, jargon-free guidelines
that generalists will find easy to understand.
Strengthening
In the reported case-histories, the most common
methods to restore strength were by replacement of
corroded reinforcement with new bars, addition of post-
tensioning where prestress had been lost for one reason
or another, and externally bonded plating. There were no
reported problems and the success rate of 75% was high
compared with 50% for repairs in general.
In the current projects, a disproportionate amount of
work is being carried out on strengthening and the use of
fibre reinforced materials than is justified by the evident
research requirements in the field, listed in Table 5.6.
Research needs
It was found that only 60% of the research projects
tackled problems identifiable in past performances
(Chapter 3) as requiring attention.
Analysis of past performance indicates that the chain of
events in practice is not represented in laboratory-based
research and there is room for more site orientated work
and long term exposure. Laboratory testing cannot
replicate site conditions and results can be misleading.
This is exemplified by the work on repair mortars where
research indicated that polymer modified materials
performed much better than cementitious. In practice
there was little difference since polymer modified
patches were reported as being 50% successful whereas
cementitious patches were 45% successful. However,
cement-based materials are generally popular because
they are cheaper.
involving exposure to all weather conditions may
therefore be required to provide sufficiently convincing
evidence of performances.
Improved methods of acceptance testing may be
required to provide assurance of the potential durability
of repairs.
Performance-based repair is discussed in the companion
book Achieving durable repaired concrete structures[2],
which is also an output of CONREPNET.
Key points
● Research to improve the durability of repairs should address
the following topics
● Patching is a common repair method but gives poor
performance, particularly with chloride contaminated
concrete, and requires further work to improve durability
● Corrosion and AAR are processes of deterioration that are
difficult to stop and require further research
● Repair materials are required to be more forgiving and
tolerant of misuse
● Guidance notes are required that are simple and easy for
generalists to understand and use
● Research to aid a performance-based approach to repairs
should address the following topics
● Performance under all-weather conditions
● Relevant acceptance testing to provide assurance of
improved durability

5.3.2 Performance-based repair

Performance-based repair is seen as a promising method
of achieving improved performances because it enables
novel techniques to be introduced. However, it is
anticipated that clients will continue to require persuasion
to accept new repair methods for the following reasons:
● There is a general reluctance among many clients to
be ‘first in the field’ when a new method is proposed
● Clients invariably require evidence that a new method
has already been used successfully elsewhere
● It is common to require convincing evidence of good
performance under service conditions.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 31

31

Chapter 6
European Standards

In addition to the EN 1504 series, some standards are

6.1 The current position
It is current practice for concrete repair to be carried out
to the specifications of local or national standards and
guidelines. The characteristics and the performances
required may vary, as well as the approval systems that
have been developed in most countries. With the
introduction of European Standards, these differences
should be minimised.
The EN 1504 Standard, ‘Products and systems for the
protection and repair of concrete structures’, is in 10
parts. Part 1 gives the definitions and terms used in all
the parts [12-21] (see Table 6.1). Parts 2 to 7 address
different products, relevant performance characteristics
and performance requirements. Part 8 deals with the
quality control of the products, Part 9 provides guidance
on the choice of the possible solutions and Part 10 deals
with the quality control of the work on site. These
standards do not, however, apply to all types of concrete
damage. Repair of concrete structures damaged by fire
or the repair of defects in existing post-tensioned
systems are not covered.
drafted or are being prepared that cover re-alkalisation,
chloride extraction, cathodic protection and sprayed
concrete for repair.
Concrete repair works are covered by ENV 1504-9. A
new version updated and adapted to the other standards
of the EN 1504 series is due to be published as soon as
all the standards are finalised. This standard deals with all
phases of a repair project, starting at the awareness of a
problem up to the maintenance and inspection after the
repair work is done.
According to ENV 1504-9, safety before, during and after
the works is to be ensured. Also an assessment is
considered necessary to reveal all defects and identify
their extent and their causes. The standard also helps in
the choice of the most appropriate option to the identified
problem. This option can always be found somewhere
between doing nothing and demolition of the structure.
Factors that may influence the choice are divided into
four main categories: general, health, structural and
environmental. More information on these categories can
be found in the Standard.

Table 6.1 European Standards related to concrete repair products and systems

Number Year Title

EN 1504-1 1998 Part 1: Definitions

EN 1504-2 2004 Part 2: Surface protection systems for concrete
EN 1504-3 2006 Part 3: Structural and non-structural repair
EN 1504-4 2004 Part 4: Structural bonding
EN 1504-5 2004 Part 5: Concrete injection
EN 1504-6 2007 Part 6: Anchoring of reinforcing steel bar
EN 1504-7 2007 Part 7: Reinforcement corrosion protection
EN 1504-8 2004 Part 8: Quality control and evaluation of conformity
ENV 1504-9 1997 Part 9 : General principles for the use of products and systems
EN 1504-10 2003 Part 10: Site application of products and systems and quality control of the works
CEN/TS 14038-1 2004 Electrochemical re-alkalization and chloride extraction treatments for reinforced
concrete – Part 1: Re-alkalization
EN 12696 2000 Cathodic protection of steel in concrete
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 32

32 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

All this information should assist the project leader
(owner, consultant or repair specialist) to make the
choice of action based on the actual condition of the
structure (extent and causes of defects and exposure)
and the future conditions (this can include modified use of
the construction). The selected protection or repair
option also has to be taken into account. Standard
ENV 1504-9 mentions 11 repair principles and their
related repair methods.
ENV 1504-9 states clearly that after repair, a report of
the repair work must be delivered. This report should
document all relevant information that may help future
users to understand the choice of the solution applied.
The report also includes suggestions for inspection and
maintenance, necessary to reach the intended lifetime of
the construction.
Actual practice in most of the European countries follows
the available guidance documents which are based on
the European Standards of the EN 1504 series. However,
like EN 1504, they rarely, if ever, take account of the
behaviour of the repaired structure.
A true performance-based approach to repair will in the
future require revised ‘performance friendly’ standards.
New criteria and methods to measure them will need to
be introduced. Models to evaluate the aging of concrete
repairs must be developed to allow the estimation of the
remaining service life of the repaired construction.
In addition to the EN 1504 series, some standards are
drafted or are being prepared that cover re-alkalisation,
chloride extraction, cathodic protection and sprayed
concrete for repair.

The publication of Parts 2 – 7 of the EN 1504 Standard

will result in the appearance of the CE-mark for concrete
repair materials. This CE-mark will be required from Key points
January 2009 onwards.
● When EN 1504 is fully introduced, conflicting National
Standards will be withdrawn
6.2 Application to performance based
● A true performance-based approach to repair of concrete
repair
structures will in the future require ‘performance friendly’
The approach presented in EN 1504 allows a standards
performance-based specification to be used for concrete
repair but has a prescriptive element that would
sometimes have to be overridden. However, the criteria
presented in the constituent parts of the EN 1504 Series
do not cover the behaviour of the repaired structures or
the performances of the repair products after aging. This
is not helpful to the specification of performance-based
repairs and it may be more practical to work out
prescriptive-based repair projects that are afterwards
subjected to a performance-based maintenance
programme.

Some techniques are amenable to being specified using

the performance-based approach. For example, when
applying electro-chemical chloride removal techniques,
the acceptable remaining chloride content in the
concrete can be specified beforehand. Unfortunately,
when this approach has been used, practitioners have
experienced difficulties in estimating the costs and have
become reluctant to tender for such specifications.

Although it is possible for electro-chemical techniques to

have precise acceptance criteria, there is no certainty
that the repaired structure will be durable unless an
appropriate level of competence is maintained
throughout the inspection, design, repair and operation
phases of the work. Cathodic protection is a repair
method that requires periodic monitoring and
adjustment, initially quarterly but annually in established
systems. Regular measurements are required to control
the correct performance of the system.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 33
References
[1] Emmons A. Vision 2020: A strategic plan for improvements to
the concrete repair industry. Unpublished presentation, BRE 2006
[2] Matthews S, Sarkkinen M & Morlidge J (Eds). Achieving
durable repaired concrete structures. Adopting a performance-
based intervention strategy. EP 77 Bracknell, IHS BRE Press,
2007
[3] Broomfield JP. Corrosion of steel in concrete, 2nd edition,
London, Spon Press, 2007
[4] Comité Euro-International du Béton, (fib). Strategies for
testing and assessment and testing of concrete structures by
reinforcement corrosion. Lausanne CEB Bulletin 243, 1998
[5] Tilly G P. Performance and management of post-tensioned
structures. Proc, ICE Structures & Buildings 2002: 152
(Feb): 3 – 16
[6] Highways Agency. Post-tensioned concrete bridges. Planning,
organisation and methods for carrying out special inspections.
BA50/93. London, The Stationery Office, 1993.
[7] Tilly GP, de Cuyper J & Stouffs A. Assessing the stability of
grout. Concrete: 1999 (July/August ): 35 – 37.
[8] E-core. (The Thematic Network E-CORE, European
Construction Research Network)
www.e-core.org
[9] CONFIBRECRETE (Training and Mobility of Researches)
http://encore.ci.group.shef.ac.uk/confibrecrete
[10] CONTECEVET (Eduardo Torroja Institute for Construction
Science) A Validated Users Manual for Assessing the Residual
Service Life of Concrete Structures
www.ietcc.csic.es/
[11] REHABCON (Strategy for maintenance and rehabilitation in
concrete structures) www.cbi.se/rehabcon/index.htm
[12] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN1504 -1: 2005 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 1: Definitions.
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
33
[13] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN1504 -2: 2004 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 2: Surface protection
systems for concrete.
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
[14] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
(CEN) EN1504 -3: 2005 Products and systems for the protection
and repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements,
quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 3: Structural and
non-structural repair
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
[15] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN1504 -4: 2004 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 4: Structural bonding.
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
[16] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN1504 -5: 2004 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 5: Concrete injection.
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
[17] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN1504 -6: 2006 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 6: Anchoring of
reinforcing steel bar. Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
[18] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN1504 -7: 2006 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 7: Reinforcement
corrosion protection. Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 34

34 Concrete repairs: Performance in service and current practice

[19] Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN1504 -8: 2004 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 8: Quality control and
evaluation of conformity.
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/

[20] Committee for Standardization (CEN)

ENV1504 -9: 1997 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 9: General principles for
the use of products and systems.
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/

[21] Committee for Standardization (CEN)

EN1504 -10: 2003 Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Definitions, requirements, quality
control and evaluation of conformity. Part 10: Site application of
products and systems and quality control of the works.
Available through the CEN online catalogue,
www.cen.eu/esearch/
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 35

35

Appendices

The following appendices are examples of the questionnaires that were sent to members of the industry to gain the
information contained in this report.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 36

36

Appendix I

Concrete Repair Case History Questionnaire

Concrete Repair Case-history

A blank questionnaire
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 37

Appendix 1 37

Concrete Repair Case history

An example of a completed questionnaire

Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 38

38

Appendix II

Concrete Repair Methods Questionnaire

Concrete Repair Methods

Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 39

Appendix II 39

Please also add a list of relevant standards, recommendations, working rules etc., applied in your company
x = used technique > increasing importance < decreasing importance

Guidance on to complete the questionnaire This questionnaire should provide sufficient information to obtain an idea on the repair methods actually
used. Please do not forget to indicate the type of construction (building, bridge, …). If the type of construction influences the repair method, please
inform us on the differences. Eventually fill in two separate questionnaires.

Also different types of damage may influence the choice of the repair method. Please inform us on differences.
Generally numbers refer to the number of projects carried out by the company.
Whenever necessary, add other used methods.

In addition to the above information, provide an inventory of guides and standards you use now :
Reference
Title
Field of application (national, some owners,…)
Abstract
Acceptance degree (general, selected number of companies)

Eventually: same information for coming guides, standards

+ estimated date

May we insist on trying to be as complete as possible? Your information is absolutely indispensable to obtain a complete image of concrete repair in
Europe.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 40

40

Appendix III

Concrete Repair Evaluation Methods Questionnaire

Concrete Repair Evaluation Methods

Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 41

Appendix III 41

Guidance on to complete the questionnaire.

This questionnaire should provide sufficient information to obtain an idea how the inspection prior to a repair job, is performed. Please do not
forget to indicate the type of construction (building, bridge, …). If the type of construction influences the inspection method, please inform us of the
differences.

Generally numbers refer to the number of projects carried out by the company.
Whenever necessary, add other used methods.

In addition to the above information, provide an inventory of guides and standards you use now :
Reference
Title
Field of application (national, some owners,…)
Abstract
Acceptance degree (general, selected number of companies)

Eventually : same information for coming guides, standards

+ estimated date

May we insist on trying to be as complete as possible? Your information is absolutely indispensable to obtain a complete image of concrete repair in
Europe.

Additional remarks on the evaluation methods enquiry

Giving respondents the opportunity to mention other actions related to the inspection of concrete structures resulted in the following list of remarks :
● Selective removal of the bituminous surfacing and waterproofing membrane.

The above procedures are used on bridges on provincial highways (major roads and freeways).
The procedures are described in the Ministry’s Structure Rehabilitation Manual.
● Estimation of concrete strength by non-destructive tests, as _Rebound Hammer _Nail pull off (HILTI) and concrete condition by ultrasonic
measurements
● Regular checks of all the repairs done in the past
● Specific NDT methods like ultrasonic pulse echo, SASW, impact echo, radar and digital radiography are used for determination of concrete
integrity, and also location and conditions of pre-stressed cables
● We use other specialized tests occasionally to determine the cause of defects where the above tests do not provide sufficient information –
particularly where sulfate attack, thaumasite attack, ASR or there are structural problems etc. are suspected. Other tests may help with the
development of an ongoing management strategy, or use of a particular remedial technique. The test information will be supplemented by
structural assessment information, and review of design constraints, and individual inspection data in order to allow decisions to be made
● Performance check with time
● We have revisited completed projects some 20+ years after repair to assess both condition of refurbishment system and the integrity of the
background concrete
● Assessment of absorption factors to determine feasibility of applying and monitoring corrosion inhibitors
● Car Parks are becoming a focus for repair, where the investigation is more robust and the monitoring is more common
● Design and detailing of repairs, engineering supervision of repair work
● Assessment of voids and sign of corrosion in ducts of prestressing tendons
● Our company sometimes acts as owner (BOT projects etc.), sometimes as consultant (company-internal) and sometimes as contractor. Out of
our total turnover the contracting part is largest and I have tried to answer the questions from the contractor divisions part of view.
● Technical advice concerning the concrete repair methods. Supervising the execution of the concrete repair
● Beside of rebar localization, also the depth, size and the function in the structure are sometimes registered
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 42

42

Appendix IV

Concrete Repair Research Questionnaire

Concrete Repair Research

Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 43

Appendix IV 43

The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information about recent research activities in the field of concrete repair. In this as well methods for the
evaluation of the condition of the concrete as well as repair methods and repair products may be subject of the research program. Many research items may
or may even not be considered as dealing with concrete repair initially. A main criterion for this enquiry is that the method must by applicable on existing
concrete elements, even if its initial application field is new constructions.

As subjects of research programs generally are to be kept secret until results are available, we understand that it may not be possible to comment on all actual
running projects. We sincerely hope you will provide sufficient information, allowing us to report a rather complete review on research regarding to
concrete repair.

Wherever possible questions are asked in such a way that you only have to strike out what’s not appropriate. In order to obtain a correct impression on the
research activities, it is important to know the following items :
Who is the prime partner in the research project?

What is the correct name of the project?

When was it carried out (start and end date)?

If you are not able to answer one of the other questions, just mention ‘no answer’. A filled in questionnaire is added as an example. Please fill in 1
questionnaire for each relevant research project you or your company is involved in.

May we insist on trying to be as complete as possible? Your information is absolutely indispensable to obtain a complete image of concrete repair in Europe.
Text 12/11/07 12:31 PM Page 44

44

Appendix V

Related research projects

CONFIBRECRETE
ConFibreCrete — Training and Mobility of Researchers
(TMR) network

ConFibreCrete was a European Union TMR network

aiming to develop guidelines for the design of concrete
structures, reinforced, prestressed or strengthened with
advanced composites. The network comprised 10 teams
from eight different European counties collaborating over
a period of five years, starting December 1997. The total
research effort that was contributed was around 800
man-months.

The work of the network was closely linked to the work of

the FIB Task Group 9.3.

ConFibreCrete guidelines can be downloaded at:

http://encore.ci.group.shef.ac.uk/confibrecrete/

CONTECEVET
A Validated Users Manual for Assessing the Residual
Service Life of Concrete Structures.

The manual resulting from this project can be

downloaded at:
http://www.ietcc.csic.es/fileadmin/Ficheros_IETcc/Web
/EventosPublicaciones/PublicacionesElectronicas/manu
al_ingles.pdf

REHABCON
Strategy for maintenance and rehabilitation in concrete
structures, started in 2001 and completed in June 2004.

Information about this project and its manual, can be

found at :
http://www.cbi.se/rehabcon/index.htm.
UI#CRETE REPAIRS
PERFORMANCE IN SEMCE AND CURRENT PRACTICE n

It is estimated that around 5096 of Europe’s annual construction budget is

presently spent on the refurbishment and repair of existing structures. This
repmt is the culmination of a wide-ranging survey into the performanceof both
current European concrete repair techniques and inspection practices, and
c u m t mearch projeds. It assessesthe case histories gathered from across the
sector, includingfrom owners of concrete structures, repairers and research
ins&utes, and presents its findings using charts, graphs, tables and photographs.
A review of the problems of concrete durability, current issues of sustainability,
and the differingexpectations of what concrete repairs should achieve, provide
a practical introduction to the subject.
The suwey was part of the work carried out by the CONREPNET network,
made up of European research and representative bodies sponsored by the
European Commission.

ACHIEVING DURABLE REWIRED CONCRETE STRUCTURES

EP 77,2007 I
CONCRETE STRUCTURES IN FIE ff RFORMANCE. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
BR 490,2007

I bre press
IHS BRE Press, Willoughby Road
Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 8FB
www. ihsbrepress.com
EP79
9
l I
978-1-86081-974-2
ISBN

1860 a1974