Repair of Concrete in Highway Bridges - A Practical Guide

Repair of concrete in highway bridges – a
practical guide
Prepared for Quality Services, Civil Engineering, Highways
Agency and CSS Working Party for Highway Research
S Pearson (Derbyshire County Council) and R G Patel (TRL Limited)
Application Guide AG43

First Published 2002
ISSN 0968-4107
Copyright TRL Limited 2002.
This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of

a contract placed by the Highways Agency and CSS. Any views
expressed in it are not necessarily those of the Agency or the CSS.
TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing

waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these
environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled
paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured
using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.
ii
Members of the Working Group
Mr S Pearson Derbyshire County Council (Chairman)

Mr N Burrows Suffolk County Council
Mr J Chrimes Cheshire County Council
Mr G Cole Surrey County Council
Mr J Cuninghame TRL Limited (part-time)
Mr N Loudon Highways Agency
Mr B Mawson Gwent Consultancy
Dr R Patel TRL (Secretary)
Mr D Sharpe Glasgow City Council
Prof. P Vassie TRL Limited
Mr L Wellappili Highways Agency (part-time)
iii
iv
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 History of concrete with steel 5
1.2 Bridges – Design life 6
1.3 Durability/Service problems 6
1.4 Number of bridges/Repair costs 6
1.5 Modern trends in traffic flow/Load carrying capacity 7
1.6 Future developments 8
1.7 Objectives 8
2 CAUSES OF DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE BRIDGES 9

2.1 Reinforcement corrosion 9
2.2 Alkali silica reaction 10
2.3 Freeze-thaw attack 10
2.4 Sulfate attack 13
2.5 Plastic settlement and early thermal cracks 14
2.6 Factors affecting concrete deterioration 14
3 INSPECTION 17
4 INVESTIGATION 23
4.1 Overview of investigation 23
4.2 Non-destructive testing 24
4.3 Semi-destructive tests 25
4.4 Structural assessment 26
5 REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT 29

5.1 Introduction 29
5.2 Remedial techniques for structures vulnerable to
reinforcement corrosion 32
6 DECIDE THE COURSE OF ACTION 37

6.1 Selecting the best option 39
6.2 Management issues 41
v
Page
7 NON CONCRETE REPAIR OPTIONS 47

7.1 Introduction 47
7.2 Surface treatments 47
7.3 Cathodic protection (CP) 49
7.4 Chloride extraction 52
7.5 Realkalisation 54
7.6 Strengthening using plate bonding techniques 55
7.7 Comparison of repair methods 56
8 CONCRETE REPAIR 59
8.1 Introduction 59
8.2 Select repair material 60
8.3 Material properties 62
8.4 Structural considerations 63
8.5 Breaking out of concrete 64
8.6 Reinforcements 65
8.7 Concrete repair methods 66
8.8 Crack sealing 70
8.9 Design and specification 72
8.10 Design and specify – relevant aspects 73
8.11 Supervision/inspection 73
8.12 Trials 73
8.13 Site control and restrictions 73
8.14 Installation 74
8.15 Strength and propping 74
8.16 Contractual arrangements 74
8.17 Records 75
8.18 Monitoring the performance of repairs 75
8.19 Concrete repair check list 75
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 79
10 REFERENCES 81
11 GLOSSARY 89
APPENDIX: STANDARD AND ADVICE NOTE RELEVANT

TO CONCRETE BRIDGE REPAIR 91
vi
Repair of concrete in highway bridges - a practical guide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This practical guide covers all aspects of concrete bridge repair in sufficient depth to implement a best
value option. It is designed and written for readers who are new to the field and wish to become familiar
with the processes involved in a bridge repair starting with inspection through carrying out remedial
work and monitoring the repair. Deciding the course of action for a particular structure includes several
key stages at which alternative options should be considered. This is done through an easy to follow
flow chart. This is followed by non-concrete repair options (such as surface treatments, cathodic
protection, chloride extraction and realkalisation) and concrete repair options (such as patch repair with
mortar, concrete, flowable concrete, sprayed concrete).
The various sections are set out in a logical order, and provide relevant information on best repair
practice. For those needing more details on any subject, technique or protocols, references are
provided. Hence, the guide will also be useful to practising engineers, bridge owners and contractors
involved in the repair of concrete bridges. Experience has been drawn from engineers specialising in
the maintenance and management of Highways Authority owned structures but the contents of this
guide are applicable to concrete bridge structures owned by other organisations.
Reinforced concrete has been used for construction of bridges since the early 20th century. Concrete
was initially regarded as a maintenance free material. However, for a variety of reasons, particularly
the ever-changing environment and aggressive service conditions under which bridges have to operate,
they are susceptible to deterioration. The long, 120 year design life, demands properly designed
concrete, attention to detailing, careful supervision and a high standard of workmanship during
construction.
The mechanisms causing deterioration in concrete bridges are numerous. Two of the most common
causes of deterioration are due to chloride penetration and carbonation of concrete leading to pitting
and general corrosion of steel respectively. Corrosion of steel results in cracking and spalling of the
concrete and this in turn leads to secondary damage caused by enhanced ingress of aggressive agents.
If a risk of reinforcement corrosion is detected early during routine inspection, damage can be avoided
or reduced significantly by relatively simple protective measures. On the other hand, if corrosion of
the reinforcement has proceeded to the point where it has caused cracking and spalling of the concrete,
repair measures are normally more complicated and expensive. This is true irrespective of the
deterioration mechanism. If repair of a damaged bridge is not implemented at the earliest opportunity,
the consequences could be far reaching, particularly if the structural properties of the bridge are
impaired. To repair deteriorated structures a systematic approach is necessary with a balance between
technology, management and economics.
With the objective of producing a practical guide for the repair of bridges, Highways Agency funded
a contract with TRL. A working group was formed to steer the project. It comprised of Bridge Engineers
and Material Scientists from the CSS (formerly the County Surveyors’ Society), HA and TRL.
Relevant topics for concrete bridge repair were identified and discussed, and each member provided
a written contribution for the Guide. Many local authority Bridge Engineers contributed to the Guide
by hosting visits, taking part in discussions, and answering questionnaires.
The aim of the Guide is to provide practical guidance to improve repair of concrete bridges so that they
meet their functional requirements throughout their design life. The ‘added value’ of this Guide is that
it covers all aspects of concrete bridge repair in a single document and in sufficient depth to enable a
maintenance engineer to produce a ‘best value’ repair solution.
When a bridge shows signs of deterioration, the repair strategy should consider the following steps:
l Investigation and diagnosis.

l Assess the extent, significance and severity of the damage (including the effect on structural
capacity).
Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002
1
l Define the objective and constraints of repairs.
l Prepare a repair strategy and determine viable options.
l Carry out whole life costing.

l Select a repair method.
l Selection of materials.
l Prepare specification for repair.

l Surface preparation.
l Carry out repairs.
l Record repairs.
l Monitor repairs.
The Guide includes all aspects of concrete bridge repair, starting with the concrete deterioration
mechanism and the inspection of bridges through to carrying out remedial work and monitoring the
repairs.
A brief introduction to issues related concrete bridge repair is given in Section 1 and the causes of
deterioration of reinforced concrete are discussed in Section 2.
Regular and thorough inspection is the primary source of information on the condition of the bridge
stock, and is essential for effective bridge management. Most bridge owners follow an inspection
regime very similar to that specified by the Highways Agency’s ‘Bridge Inspection Manual’ and
Departmental Standard BD63. Section 3 of this Guide deals with general and principal inspections of
concrete bridges. It describes how and what types of visual defects may be observed. It also includes
a brief description of techniques used to investigate non-visible damage.
When a structure shows signs of distress or deterioration a thorough investigation will be necessary to
determine cause(s), extent and rate of deterioration and may include an assessment of structural
properties. Section 4 deals with the testing of reinforced concrete and structural assessment. Concrete
testing described in Section 2, which forms a part of a special inspection carried out on ‘as required’
basis, is triggered by the routine inspection. Any remedial work done without the investigation
described in this Section could limit the long-term durability of the repair.
Remedial techniques for structures vulnerable to reinforcement corrosion are described in Section 5.
This includes preventive measures to stop or delay the initiation of the corrosion process.
Deciding the course of action for a particular structure includes several key stages at which alternative
options should be considered; this may include taking no further action, installation of a monitoring
system or application a weight restriction. The crucial decision as to how the structure is managed
should be taken after the possible maintenance options have been assessed and a whole life costing
carried out. The decision making process is given in Section 6. It includes the management issues which
must be addressed before taking any decision on the repair.
As an alternative to conventional repair, a number of options not based on concrete replacement
could be effective in certain situations. These are largely surface treatments such as coatings, silane
treatment and corrosion inhibitors, or electrochemical treatments such as cathodic protection,
chloride extraction and realkalisation. Their main objective is to reduce the rate of steel corrosion,
a major contributor to the deterioration of steel reinforced concrete. These are described in detail in
Section 7.
2
The selection of a repair strategy and materials is one of the most important steps in the repair and
rehabilitation programme. A variety of repair processes, a large number of proprietary products and
a range of traditional cementitious materials make the selection process extremely difficult even before
economic and technical considerations are taken into account. Section 8 starts by defining repair
material requirements including their mechanical properties and long-term durability. It discusses all
the available repair methods, their selection criteria, and the design and specification of the repair.
Other factors that are integrally linked to the completion of a satisfactory repair such as trials,
installation of the repair, site constraints, propping of the structure and contractual arrangements are
also discussed. It is vital that for future reference ‘as repaired’ records of the entire repair are kept. A
sample of a proforma record sheet is included in Section 8. The Section also discusses objectives and
provides a strategy for monitoring the repair.
During the course of writing of this Guide it became clear that there are several areas where further
research would be beneficial. Two areas identified were electro-osmosis and anti-carbonation
coatings. Most deterioration mechanisms in concrete involve water. Electro-osmosis offers a potential
technique for reducing the moisture level in concrete and research is required to evaluate the
effectiveness of the technique. Anti-carbonation coatings are normally applied to structures that have
been treated using the realkalisation technique. However, it has been reported that these coatings
debond after a short period. It has been suggested that this may be because they are applied before the
concrete has had time to dry out and that research to determine the optimum time to apply the coating
would be useful. It is anticipated that as more research is carried out some of these gaps in our
knowledge will be filled and the Guide will be updated accordingly.
3
4
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 History of concrete with steel

One of the early pioneers of reinforced concrete was Francois Hennebique, who obtained patents for
reinforced concrete (RC) beams and established his design and build operation from Paris in 1898. The
spread of RC technology occurred through the use of agents resident in various countries around the
world, who would oversee the production of scheme plans which were sent to Paris for detailed design
and production of drawings for construction.
In Britain, Hennebique’s agent was Louis Gustave Mouchel, who established his office in Swansea
following construction of the first RC framed building there between 1897-99 and then turned his
attention to the promotion of RC construction, taking out further patents to protect his market position.
The conflict between the determination to promote RC technology and the desire to maintain
commercial advantage, was probably responsible for the slow acceptance of reinforced concrete in
Britain. Elsewhere, the success of RC construction was prodigious with 20,000 structures built by 1911,
doubling to 40,000 by 1920. By comparison, only 1000 structures had been built in Britain by 1911 and
this had increased only to 3000 by 1920. The ‘Hennebique System for Ferro Concrete Construction’
was very much the only system used in the early decades of the 20th century.
Hennebique was aware of the importance of the methods of making and placing concrete. To begin
with, he personally selected and trained the men to be entrusted with his method of construction before
they were issued with a licence to use his patents. In the days before mechanical control of mix
proportions and particularly mechanical vibration, the prime importance of constant supervisory
control was recognised. These principles are no less true today when Engineers automatically assess
exposed concrete for quality of finish, joint preparation and uniformity of pour control. Although a
great deal more is now known about the behaviour of concrete and the requirements needed to achieve
particular characteristics, the basic ingredients to give strength, density, impermeability and fire
resistance are unchanged. It was known that chlorides (sea water) should be excluded and that strength
was affected by aggregate types and water/cement ratio. Ahead lay the problems of high-alumina
cement, alkali-silica reaction, sulfate attack and awareness of the effects of carbonation and of chloride
ingress in hardened concrete from chlorides (e.g. de-icing salts).
The major developments in reinforced concrete which have affected design since Hennebique’s day
are the introduction of high tensile steel and prestressing techniques which have improved load
carrying and span characteristics of concrete structures. Eugene Freysinnet pioneered the use of
prestressing systems in France in the 1930s. Prior to the Second World War, most of the developments
in prestressed concrete took place in continental Europe and it was only with the influx of refugee
European engineers in the pre-war years, that detailed knowledge of prestressing became available in
Britain. L.G. Mouchel & Partners were responsible for some of the early designs based on design work
undertaken for a military underground storage system near Bath using pre-tensioned steel. They went
on to develop a method of producing pre-tensioned concrete railway sleepers for the Ministry of Works
to combat the wartime shortage of timber. This work led to the establishment of a factory at Tallington,
Lincolnshire in 1943 by Dow Mac Ltd.
The shortage of steel in the post war years, provided a continuing incentive for the use of RC and
prestressed concrete and again the Ministry of Works encouraged its introduction. At this time there
were no British post-tensioning systems and the choice lay between the Freysinnet system and the
Magnel-Blaton system devised by Gustave Magnel in Belgium during the Second World War. The first
post-tensioned bridge built in England was Nunn’s Bridge in Lincolnshire which was built in 1947 with
a span of 22.5m. A number of bridges were built over the next few years using prestressing systems
developed in Britain such as the Lee-McCall and Gifford-Udall systems as well as those imported from
the continent such as the Freysinnet and Magnel systems. Although methods of prestressing developed
significantly in the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the 1980s that the problems of inadequate grouting
of post tensioned structures and protection of joints in segmental construction were realised .
5
Many of the bridge structures designed by Mouchel are still in service, particularly those built without
joints, a concept ahead of its time in terms of improved durability. Where deterioration has occurred,
it is often the case that concrete quality is inadequate for its environment and the application of detailing
practice that would be unacceptable today. The history of performance of RC is more than 100 years,
whereas prestressed concrete has only been around for a little over 50 years. The potential durability
problems with prestressed/post-tensioned concrete are now well established from the findings of HA’s
Special Inspection Programme, but in general, prestressed concrete would be expected to be more
durable than RC because cracking is restricted and higher strength concrete is used.
1.2 Bridges – Design life

The requirement of BS5400, is that all bridges be designed for a life of 120 years, at the end of which
they should need replacement. For concrete bridges in particular, it was for many years believed by
many bridge owners and designers, that reinforced concrete did not deteriorate and that realisation of
a 120 year life with little or no maintenance, was achievable. In practice, this has been shown to be
wrong and many bridges have required major maintenance, strengthening and even early replacement
as a result of deterioration. This fundamental truth has been accepted in this country and elsewhere. The
concept of ‘functional obsolescence’, where structures require planned maintenance/upgrading during
their life, until they reach a point where they need to be replaced, has been accepted practice. This
concept has been included within the Highways Agency’s current strategy for management of their
structures and is also the objective for Local Authority Bridge owners.
1.3 Durability/Service problems

Many concrete bridges are now showing signs of deterioration and this trend can be expected to
continue unless repairs and preventative measures are carried out. Much of the deterioration is
attributable to chlorides from de-icing salts which penetrate the concrete and ‘depassivate’ the
reinforcement causing corrosion. For some bridges where chloride attack is not significant, evidence
of deterioration will not become apparent until carbonation is well advanced. The rate of carbonation
is dependent on the quality of the concrete and is likely to take longer for modern concretes where
enhanced concrete quality is assured through the application of improved specifications. Deterioration
can also be due to poor design and detailing, poor materials, poor workmanship or inadequate
maintenance.
In summary durability and problems in service are likely to be attributable to the adoption of inadequate
practice in the following areas:
l Detailing practice i.e. depth of concrete cover to rebar, provision for dealing with leakage from
joints, access for maintenance.
l Design requirements for maximum rebar spacing, type and spacing of shear links, maximum
permissible crack width under service loading, provision of reinforcement to control cracking
during the hydration process.
l Design strength of concrete which is influenced by the density and permeability of the hardened
concrete.
1.4 Number of bridges/Repair costs

The Highways Agency is responsible for 9700 bridges and of these approximately 80% are concrete. In
comparison Local Authorities including those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are collectively
responsible for 80700 bridges. Regionally there are variations in the make up of the bridge stock. For
example, 52% of the stock in the South East are concrete whereas this proportion reduces to 33% in the
North West where the proportion of masonry arch bridges is greater. Overall for the country as a whole
38% of bridges are concrete. These figures are based on a Year 2000 Bridge census carried out by the CSS.
6
It would be expected that concrete bridges in the North would deteriorate faster than those in the south
where winter temperatures are higher and road salting is less frequent.
Maintenance funding for all LA bridges is currently inadequate at a level of 0.32% of the replacement
cost of the bridge stock. In order to achieve a ‘steady state’ maintenance condition, it is estimated
that maintenance expenditure should be 1% of the replacement costs. The proportion of these sums
required for repair of concrete bridges is difficult to quantify but it would be expected that repair
schemes would be costed on a whole life basis to ensure that the repair strategy adopted is the most
economic.
The Highways Agency bridge stock is statistically younger than Local Authority structures, and is
generally less diverse in structural form and type, though often complex in layout. Structures on
Motorways and Trunk Roads are usually subject to greater vehicle loading and traffic volumes, and
consequently increased wear and tear. Difficulty of access and limitations on traffic restrictions may
be significant factors in the nature, duration and cost of maintenance works undertaken, and structural
concrete repairs may be combined with other bridge maintenance to meet overall network management
constraints. For many years the available maintenance funding has been targeted at priority works
based on a rigorous bidding system, to ensure that essential safety related maintenance is completed
expeditiously, and backed up by a programme of preventative and routine works. Increasingly whole
life costing and assessment techniques are being adopted, feeding into route based strategies to ensure
that funds are utilised on the greatest needs, and that safety levels on individual structures and elements
are not compromised.
1.5 Modern trends in traffic flow/Load carrying capacity

Increases in loading can also affect the amount of deterioration in structures, where they are
experiencing service loads greater than those for which they were designed.
During the 1980s it was realised that loadings were increasing and that assumptions about the worst
foreseeable loadings on bridge decks had not made adequate allowance for the densities of loading that
could arise during traffic jams. This was exacerbated by the shift away from lighter goods vehicles to
heavier vehicles. These vehicles had a higher gross and axle weights and at certain times of the day they
could constitute a large percentage of the total number of vehicles in the traffic flow. This leads to the
development of current loading standards which allow:
l A higher percentage of HGVs in traffic.
l Allowance for possible overload.
l Higher allowances for possible dynamic effects.

l Possible lateral bunching of vehicles.
Future increases in loading are likely as a result of increased volume of traffic and the possibility of
the maximum allowable vehicle weight being increased above 44 tonnes.
Increases in traffic using the road network will also impact on the ability to carry out repairs safely. It
is conceivable that, for heavily trafficked roads, temporary closure or even traffic restriction to carry
out repairs will rarely be possible. This is a factor that should be borne in mind when developing the
maintenance strategy for structures on particular routes.
7
1.6 Future developments

Up to now the maintenance of bridges has been hampered by the lack of a coherent strategy and has
resulted in a backlog of maintenance work. In future this will be addressed for Highways Agency (HA)
structures through the ‘Steady State Bridge Programme’, which will focus on maintaining safety,
minimising expenditure over time, minimising disruption to users and minimising the impact on the
environment. For Local Authorities (LAs), the backlog of maintenance work is significantly worse and
has been hampered by the priority given to the National Bridge Assessment and Strengthening
Programme. The extent and type of maintenance required for LA structures is also very different to that
of the HA, because as discussed above there are regional variations in the mix of bridge types and the
stock is much older.
It is hoped that future budgets for LA bridge maintenance will recognise the decline that has occurred
and make provision for additional funding to achieve a ‘steady state’ maintenance condition. This
objective will be greatly assisted by the development of improved repair materials and techniques. Of
equal importance is the means of procurement of repair works and there could be a role for lifetime
performance based criteria, with some risk transfer from the client to the contractor/supplier. The
lessons learned from the past about durability, will be of great benefit if applied to improved
specifications for new works.
1.7 Objectives
Repair of concrete highway structures is not covered by the general requirements of the Series 1700
Structural Concrete clauses in the Specification for Highway Works. Specific guidance is currently
available in BD27/86 ‘Materials for Repair of Concrete Highway Structures’ and BA35/90 ‘Inspection
and Repair of Concrete Highway Structures’. These documents are out of date. A new document for
the repair of concrete highway structures is planned by the HA and will benefit from the guidance
contained within this Guide.
The main objective of this Guide is to provide the necessary information starting with the concrete
deterioration mechanisms and the inspection of bridges through to carrying out remedial work and
monitoring the repairs. It covers all aspects of concrete bridge repair in a single document and in
sufficient depth to enable a maintenance engineer to produce a ‘best value’ repair solution.
8
2 CAUSES OF DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE BRIDGES

In most circumstances reinforced concrete is a durable material with an expected life in excess of 100
years. There are, however, a number of factors which can substantially reduce the durability and result
in the need for repairs and maintenance on bridges at a relatively young age. The challenge is to design
and build bridges that do not contain defects which can reduce their durability. There are also steps that
can be taken during the service life of a bridge to maintain and improve its durability. It is important
for the bridge inspection and maintenance engineer to have an understanding of the types of defect that
often lead to deterioration since this can aid diagnosis and cure (Concrete Society, 2000a). This section
briefly describes the most common defects which have resulted in early deterioration of concrete
bridges.
The main reasons for deterioration are:
l reinforcement corrosion (caused by chloride and carbonation);
l alkali-silica reaction;
l freeze-thaw attack;
l sulfate attack (e.g. thaumasite and delayed ettringite formation);
l cracking including settlement, plastic and early thermal cracking.
2.1 Reinforcement corrosion

Reinforcement corrosion occurs when the passivity of the steel provided by the concrete is broken
down. The alkaline nature of concrete ( pH ~13) results in the formation of a passive film on the
reinforcement surface that protects it against corrosion. This passive film is stable unless
l the alkalinity of the concrete is neutralised by acids such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; or
l aggressive anions such as chloride ions are present at the reinforcement surface.
Normally concrete does not come into contact with chloride ions unless it is situated in a coastal region.
Bridges are, however, an exception because sodium chloride is commonly used as a deicer during the
winter to prevent ice from forming on roads and causing traffic accidents. The sodium chloride
dissolves in rain water or condensate and can then come into contact with bridge concrete due to traffic
spray or inadequate drainage. Occasionally, chloride has and continue to be introduced in the concrete
mix through mixing water, as a part of accelerating admixtures or marine aggregates. Modern concrete
specification limits the amount of chloride in the mix. The parts of bridges most vulnerable to chloride
contamination are:
l the lower parts of piers and abutments of overbridges due to traffic spray;
l abutment shelves, crosshead beams and the upper parts of piers and abutments on underbridges
due to leakage through expansion joints.
Providing a bridge is constructed with a good depth of cover (~ 50 mm) and good quality concrete
(water/cement ratio ~ 0.45) it should take at least 40 years before reinforcement corrosion initiates even
if additional corrosion protection measure, such as silane, are not employed. If silane is applied during
construction and periodically during service to maintain protection it is hoped that the time to corrosion
could approach 100 years.
Carbonation is likely to be the cause of reinforcement corrosion on bridge concrete not exposed to
chlorides. Providing the depth of cover and concrete quality are good the time to corrosion due to
carbonation should be well in excess of 100 years.
9
It is important to remember that many bridges built in the past used poorer quality concrete and lower
cover depths thus reinforcement corrosion can be expected earlier in the life of most existing bridges.
Once reinforcement corrosion has initiated it proceeds at a rate largely governed by the ambient
temperature and the resistivity of the concrete which in turn depends on its moisture and chloride
content. Usually significant amounts of damage can result within 20 years of corrosion starting.
Corrosion caused by carbonation results in general corrosion (see Figure 2.1) and leads to cracking,
spalling and delamination of the concrete before significant reductions occur in the cross sectional area
of the reinforcement. This type of damage reduces the steel-concrete bond which can affect the flexural
strength of the element and spalling concrete from overbridges is a hazard to traffic. Corrosion caused
by chlorides can also result in cracking (see Figure 2.2), spalling and delamination but, in addition it
can cause intense pitting corrosion of the steel, substantially reducing its cross sectional area (see
Figure 2.3) and strength.
2.2 Alkali silica reaction

Alkali silica reaction (ASR) is a chemical reaction between aggregate particles and the alkali in cement.
This reaction product is a silicate which swells when it absorbs water causing stresses which fracture
the concrete. The reaction product is a white precipitate which is often, through not always, seen
emanating from the cracks in the concrete. ASR normally occurs during the first 20 years of a structures
life and requires three substances to be present simultaneously:
l reactive aggregate particles e.g. opal, flint;
l concrete with alkali content greater than 3kg/m3;

l concrete with a high moisture content.
The allowed and excluded combinations of aggregate reactivity and cement alkalinity for new
construction are defined in BRE digest 330 and Concrete Society Report TR30. Most cases of ASR
observed in the UK have involved exposure to an external source of water such as rain, condensation
or ground water.
The cracks which result from ASR tend to form a map pattern in lightly or unreinforced concrete (see
Figure 2.4). In heavily reinforced and prestressed elements the cracks are more likely to be coincident
with the main reinforcement and prestressing steel, respectively. The cracking can be quite severe and
certainty detracts from the appearance of a bridge, but in most cases the structural effects are limited
(ISE 1988). The cracks caused by ASR can increase the risk of secondary reinforcement corrosion
occurring at a later date. Modern bridges should not suffer from ASR since the alkali content of the
cement and aggregate reactivity were controlled by standards issued in 1988 (BCA, 1992) and 1999
(BRE Digest 330) and now incorporated in the Specification for Highway Works.
2.3 Freeze-thaw attack

Freeze thaw attack sometimes occurs on concrete in colder regions of the UK. It starts at the concrete
surface and moves inwards towards the body of the element. The surface concrete scales and crumbles
away exposing a fresh surface. Freeze thaw damage is most likely when:
l the concrete undergoes a high frequency of freeze thaw cycles;

l the concrete quality is poor;
l the concrete is saturated with water, particularly saline water.
10
Figure 2.1 General corrosion of reinforcement caused by carbonation of concrete
Figure 2.2 Corrosion of reinforcement causing cracking and rust staining in a bridge element
11
Figure 2.3 Pitting corrosion of reinforcement caused by chloride penetration in concrete
Figure 2.4 Example of map cracking (on vertical face) due to ASR
12
Deicing salts such as sodium chloride or calcium chloride can make concrete surfaces more susceptible
to frost damage and scaling. This is thought to result from osmotic pressure causing movement of water
towards the surface of the concrete where freezing takes places (Powers, 1956).
In most cases, freeze thaw damage does not have structural consequences although it has sometimes
caused problems in certain elements (see Figure 2.5). It could also increase the risk of reinforcement
corrosion if the damage is not repaired.
Figure 2.5 Example of surface scaling and structural damage caused by severe frost attack
2.4 Sulfate attack

Sulfate attack usually occurs on concrete buried in soil with a high sulfate or sulphide level (sulphide
can be oxidised to sulfate). It can also occur in concrete above ground and in seawater where the sulfate
content of the cement is abnormally high. Sulfate attack starts at the concrete surface and moves
progressively inwards. The rate of attack is usually much higher than for frost attack and substantial
damage can occur which could have structural consequences. Sulfate attack can be prevented by the
use of special cements such as sulfate resisting Portland Cement.
The Guide does not specifically address concrete repairs to reinforced concrete below ground level.
However, as with all repairs it is essential to determine the cause of any defects or deterioration in
the concrete before deciding on the options for remedial work. It is also important to determine the
effects and influence of the prevailing or anticipated ground conditions. Reference should be made
to BRE Special Digest 1 entitled ‘Sulfate and acid resistance of concrete in the ground’ (BRE, 2001)
and to the Report of the Thaumasite Expert Group published in 1999 as ‘The thaumasite form of
sulfate attack: Risks, diagnosis, remedial works and guidance on new construction’ (Thaumasite
Expert Group, 1999).
The latter document in particular gives current best practice on remedial works including concrete
repairs where thaumasite sulfate attack is encountered. An important issue is the prevention of
recurrence of the concrete deterioration. Measures such as the use of protective membranes, improved
drainage, replacement with non-aggressive backfill and the use of protective layers produced in low-
carbonate concrete should be considered.
13
2.5 Plastic settlement and early thermal cracks

These cracks occur very early in the life of a structure (Concrete Society, 1992) but rarely cause any
immediate problems. Plastic settlement cracks are formed due to restraint between the concrete and
the reinforcement or the formwork. As the concrete, particularly with high bleeding water, settles under
the process of settlement, it tears and cracks between the restraints. Early thermal cracking is a
consequence of the heat of hydration of the mix with high cement content in a mass concrete. In thicker
sections with a large volume, the concrete becomes insulating at outer edges as it hydrates. This results
in substantial increase in temperature in the central core of the element. The temperature difference
leads to early thermal cracking. More information on these subjects can be found in Table 3.1 and
Figure 3.1. Normally, these types of cracking would have been sealed at the construction stage. These
cracks, if not sealed, can increase the risk of corrosion occurring later.
2.6 Factors affecting concrete deterioration

The forms of deterioration described in sections 2.1 to 2.5 usually occur in conjunction with other
factors that can be classified under the headings materials, design, construction and environment and
which are listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Factors causing deterioration of concrete bridges
Materials Design Construction Environment
Low concrete strength Poor drainage details Poor compaction Chlorides

High water/cement ratio Congested reinforcement Honeycombing Carbonation
Highly alkaline cement Poor joint design Early age cracking Sulfates
Reactive aggregates Poor mix design Low cover Water
CaCl2 additive Non-inspectable areas
Deterioration caused by material, design and construction problems can only be reduced by improvements
made before and during construction. Deterioration due to environmental factors should be allowed for
in the design but can also be controlled to some extent during service by adopting a range of
preventative maintenance approaches. The performance of these protective measures is, however,
significantly reduced if the bridge has shortcomings in material, design and construction. In order to
achieve satisfactory durability it is, therefore, essential to pay particular attention to factors such as:
l cover depth;
l water/cement ratio;
l concrete mix design;
l choice of formwork;
l drainage details;
l joint design;
l detailing;
l workmanship;
l compaction;
14
l water management;
l inspectability;
l maintainability;
in addition to providing protection against aggressive substances in the environment. Both approaches
to improving durability are necessary, but neither is sufficient by itself.
Most deterioration processes involve water in some way and much could be achieved by improving
the detailing of kerbs, joints, parapets, upstands, drainage systems and waterproofing membranes and
avoiding the formation of sinks where water can accumulate and persist for considerable periods of
time (Pearson and Cuninghame, 1998). Regular routine maintenance such as cleaning drains and
vegetation control and removal may avoid more serious maintenance at a later date.
Some forms of deterioration and defects, although often not producing serious consequences immediately,
can result in corrosion occurring sooner because the transport, through the concrete, of aggressive
substances in the environment is facilitated. Examples are freeze thaw damage, ASR cracking, other
forms of cracking, impact damage and honeycombed concrete. The risk of secondary corrosion can be
reduced by crack injection with resins or the use of crack bridging coatings.
The main additional protective measures against aggressive substances in the environment are:
l silane impregnation to protect against chlorides and to some extent against water;
l anti-carbonation coatings to protect against carbonation;
l waterproofing membranes to protect against water, chlorides and sulfates;

l cast in corrosion inhibitors;
l joint replacement to protect against water and chlorides.
Although many of the material, design, construction and environment defects are often present the
occurrence of most of the main forms of deterioration (ASR, freeze thaw damage and sulfate attack)
is thankfully comparatively rare. For example the percentage of the bridge stock suffering from these
forms of deterioration at some time during their life is likely to be much less than one percent. This is
because:
l for ASR three conditions (given in section 2.2) must be satisfied simultaneously;
l for freeze thaw damage the number of freeze thaw cycles per year is relatively few for most
places in the UK;
l for sulfate attack the presence of high levels of sulfates in soils is not common and should be
detected by pre-construction tests allowing sulfate resisting cement to be used to prevent the
problem from occurring.
Corrosion of reinforcing steel is, however, likely to affect some parts of nearly all bridges in the UK
at some time during their lives because a high proportion of the road network is deiced with rock salt
(sodium chloride) during the winter and protective treatments against chloride ions are only partially
effective. Corrosion of reinforcing steel is, therefore, the most common type of deterioration by far and
to reflect this fact the remainder of this guide to concrete repair relates predominantly to deterioration
related to the corrosion process.
Deterioration caused by ASR, freeze-thaw and sulfate attack are not covered in this Guide and
references should be made to specialist reports such as those given in the list of references.
15
16
3 INSPECTION
The inspection of bridges is the primary method for monitoring the condition of the stock, detecting
defects and providing assurance that bridges are safe and serviceable.
There are two types of inspection that are carried out routinely at specified intervals. General
inspections are typically carried out every two years and Principal inspections are carried out every six
years.
General inspections only involve visual observations which are made from convenient access points
without the use of special equipment e.g. hoists. Binoculars and torches can be used to aid observations
of distant and dark parts of the bridge. In many situations it will not be possible to inspect all parts of
a bridge during a general inspection.
Principal inspections are mainly based on visual observations although these are usually supplemented
by sampling and non-destructive testing especially at the first principal inspection. Visual observations
must be made at a distance of less than one metre from all parts of the bridge and this often involves
the use of access hoists and platforms and lighting.
The supplementary techniques used during principal inspections include cover depth, half cell
potential and sampling to determine chloride content and carbonation depth of the concrete. Only a
small number of these tests are carried out in areas that are considered to be most vulnerable to
reinforcement corrosion.
The procedures for bridge inspection will change during the next few years as the new Bridge
Inspection Manual, issued by the Highways Agency, is fully implemented and will potentially
influence the inspection of local authority bridges. The main difference with existing procedures is that
the timing and constitution of the different types of inspection are less rigidly prescribed so the interval
between inspections, for example, may be varied according to various guidelines. The details of the
different test methods used in inspections remain little changed, however. A useful feature of the new
manual is that it provides a much more detailed explanation and description of the defects that can occur
and the tests that can be used on concrete bridges.
Many of the observations made during bridge inspections relate to deterioration of the concrete
surface even though the cause of the problem may also involve the reinforcement. Indications of
deterioration typically observed during inspections are:
l water leaks from construction or expansions joints or defective drains:
Water leaks onto concrete are a problem because (a) the concrete becomes saturated making it more
susceptible to freeze-thaw damage and (b) if the water contains de-icing salt, chloride ions can enter
the concrete and cause the steel reinforcement to corrode. These problems are exacerbated if the
concrete is already cracked or spalled.
l lime leaching:
Lime leaching indicates that the alkalinity in the concrete that passivates the reinforcing steel is being
progressively lost.
l rust staining:
Rust staining is a clear indication that the steel reinforcement is corroding although the position of the
staining is not always a reliable guide to the location of the corroding reinforcement. Rust staining can
also result from corroding steelwork (beams, bearings, drain pipes) and rusting tie wire. Staining from
pyrite aggregate particles can be mistaken for rust staining.
l scaling:
Scaling of concrete (see Figure 3.1) often results from freeze-thaw attack, but the extent of penetration
into the concrete is usually limited and rarely reaches the reinforcement. De-icing salt will penetrate
more easily into scaled concrete.
17
Figure 3.1 Scaling of surface of concrete wing wall
l cracking:
Reinforced concrete is designed to crack within defined limits. However, cracks occur for a wide
variety of other reasons (e.g. shrinkage, sulfate attack, alkali silica reaction, corrosion of reinforcement).
The cracks due to the first three causes are usually narrow and form an irregular pattern. Cracks
resulting from reinforcement corrosion are relatively wide and run parallel to the corroding reinforcement.
Cracks resulting from the first three causes can increase the rate of carbonation and chloride ingress
thereby reducing the time to corrosion. Cracks resulting from corrosion aid the transport of chloride,
water, oxygen and carbon dioxide to the reinforcement thereby increasing the rate of corrosion.
The Concrete Society (Technical Report TR22, 1992) provides a very useful diagram and table
classifying the types of cracks that can occur in concrete bridges in terms of their likely location, pattern
and causes. They are reproduced in this guide as Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1.
l spalling:
Spalling is normally caused by corrosion of reinforcement and aids the transport of chloride, water,
oxygen and carbon dioxide to the reinforcement thereby increasing the rate of corrosion. Figure 3.3
shows extensive spalling due to chloride induced reinforcement corrosion.
Delaminated concrete is detected by tapping the concrete with a light hammer and listening for a dull
sound. This test is usually carried out over a regular grid during principal inspections in the areas
selected for non-destructive testing and sampling. Delamination is normally caused by general
corrosion although it can also occur in areas that have previously undergone concrete repair, where
there is poor bond between the original concrete and the repair material. Delamination can initiate in
areas of heavy reinforcement, which limits the effects of compaction. Designers and detailers of
reinforced concrete should avoid such heavily reinforced concrete areas.
The non-destructive tests and sampling associated with inspection are carried out in areas vulnerable
to chloride ingress such as the bottom of piers and cross beams or abutment shelves under leaking
expansion joints. Further guidance is given in BA35.
Cover depth measurements are made to check vulnerability of steel to chloride ingress or carbonation.
18
For legend see Table 3.1
Tension
Shear bending
cracks cracks
er
of kick
Top
'Bad', i.e. ineffective, joint
Cracks at
kicker joints
Plus
rust
stains
Figure 3.2 Examples of non-structural cracks in a hypothetical concrete structure (Source: Concrete Society, 1992)
Figure 3.3 Extensive spalling due to chloride induced reinforcement corrosion
19
Table 3.1 Classification of cracks (after Concrete Society, 1992)
Primary
cause Secondary
Type of Letter in Most common (excluding causes/
cracking Figure 3.2 Subdivision location restraint) factors
Plastic A Over reinforcement Deep sections Excess bleeding Rapid early

settlement drying
B Arching Top of columns conditions
C Change of depth Trough and waffle slabs
Plastic D Diagonal Roads and slabs Rapid early drying Low rate of
shrinkage bleeding
E Random Reinforced concrete slabs
F Over reinforcement Reinforced concrete slabs Ditto plus steel

near surface
Early G External restraint Thick walls Excess heat Rapid

thermal generation cooling
contraction
H Internal restraint Thick walls Excess
temperature
gradients
Long-term I Thin slabs and walls Inefficient joint Excess

drying shrinkage
shrinkage inefficient
curing
Crazing J Against formwork ‘Fair faced’ concrete Impermeable Rich mixes

formwork poor curing
K Floated concrete Slabs Over-trowelling
Corrosion of L Natural Columns and beams Lack of cover Poor quality

reinforcement concrete
M Calcium chloride Precast concrete Excess calcium chloride
Alkali silica N (Damp locations) Reactive aggregate

reaction plus high alkali cement
20
Carbonation depth measurement is made using the pH indicator, phenolphthalein. A colourless

reaction indicates the depth of the carbonated zone. This test must be carried out on a freshly exposed
concrete surface that is normally most neatly obtained by splitting a small diameter core axially. The
combination of bridge age, cover depth and depth of carbonation can be used to provide a rough
estimate of the rate of carbonation and time to corrosion.
Samples of concrete for chloride analysis can be extracted by percussion drilling or coring. If coring
is selected the same core that was used for the carbonation test can be used for chloride analysis. It is
important that the core is sliced perpendicular to the axis to provide at least three samples from different
depths. The deepest depth should correspond to the cover depth in that area. The results can then be
used to give a rough estimate of the chloride flux and time to initiate corrosion.
Half-cell potential measurements are carried out on grids in the vulnerable areas; the maximum grid
dimension is 0.5m. The test should indicate whether the reinforcing steel has started to corrode and may
indicate if the corrosion is general or localised. Great care is required when interpreting the results.
Decisions on reinforcement condition should not be made on half-cell potential measurements alone.
There are two useful guides which explain both the theory and practice of half cell potential
measurements:
l TRL Application Guide No 9, 1990.
l Concrete Society/ICORR, Current Practice Guide, 2000.
21
22
4 INVESTIGATION
4.1 Overview of investigation

Defects and deterioration generally come to light during general or principal inspections and may
trigger a special inspection and some investigative work. A primary objective of the investigation is
to determine causes of deterioration. However, this should be followed by an assessment of the extent
of the deterioration, the rate of deterioration and the ability of the structure to perform its intended
function. The process of assessment should include but not be limited to the following:
l the present condition of the structure including visible and non-visible defects and the future
potential deterioration;
l the original design approach, which may identify inadequacies in design, specification,
execution and/or materials;
l the history of the structure including as built, inspection and maintenance records;
l the environment including exposure conditions and contaminants;
l the conditions of use (e.g. loading);
l the requirements for the future use of the structure.
The results of the completed assessment will be valid at the time when it is carried out. If there is a
considerable passage of time between the assessment and the implementation of the repair or there are
doubts about the validity of the assessment, a new assessment should be made. In some circumstances,
it may be possible to estimate when an element or whole of the structure would reach the end of the
design life if no repair is carried out. The following sections describe structural and management issues,
and their respective assessment. Non-destructive and semi-destructive testing of the reinforced
concrete is also summarised.
The purpose of testing is to establish (a) the cause of deterioration, (b) the rate of deterioration, (c) the
extent of deterioration, (d) severity and (e) the effect of deterioration on the load carrying capacity of
the bridge and the safety of the public.
The information arising from a special inspection should be sufficient to enable decisions to be made
about:
l whether essential maintenance is necessary;
l which remedial procedures would be effective for repairing damage and preventing further
deterioration;
l the extent of repairs necessary;
l the most appropriate time to carry out repairs.
Essential maintenance is work that must be carried out immediately in order to safeguard the public
and to reduce the risk of structural collapse to an acceptable value. If essential maintenance is not
carried out immediately other measures such as traffic restrictions must be imposed to reduce loads
enough to reduce the risk of collapse to an acceptable value. Reference should be made to BA79.
Deterioration that causes the concrete to be damaged usually requires a remedial procedure that has two
functions namely (a) to repair the damaged concrete and (b) to terminate the deterioration process
causing the damage and to prevent its re-occurrence in the future. Sometimes concrete repairs can
23
satisfy both functions but it is becoming more common to use a different procedure for each function.
Once deterioration has progressed to the stage that concrete damage results then preventative
maintenance is unlikely to be effective.
The choice of maintenance type (preventative, repair, strengthening) depends on the condition of the
bridge element under consideration. The choice of a particular maintenance method depends on the
cause and extent of deterioration.
A knowledge of the extent of deterioration enables the cost of the work to be estimated. It also provides
guidance on how the work should be programmed and whether traffic management will be needed and
for how long. This enables the level of traffic disruption associated with the repair work to be assessed.
Unless the maintenance is essential the criterion for deciding whether or not maintenance is justified
should be based on the whole life costing. The whole life cost depends on the cost of maintenance
currently being considered, the period of maintenance free life that results and the cost of subsequent
maintenance work.
4.2 Non-destructive testing

A wide range of tests can be applied during a special inspection. The purpose of the more commonly
used tests are described below. Further details can be obtained from the authoritative Technical Guide
No 2 entitled ‘Guide to Testing and Monitoring the Durability of Concrete Structures’ issued by the
Concrete Bridge Development Group (2002).
Cover depth, chloride content, carbonation depth and half-cell potential tests have been considered
previously in the section on bridge inspection. In special inspections these tests are carried out over more
extensive areas, often a complete element, in order to estimate the extent of corrosion reinforcement and
the duration and cause of corrosion. It may also be possible to decide if the corrosion is general or localised
by considering the potential gradient from an equipotential contour plot of the half-cell potential
measurements. These tests are normally carried out on a regular grid of dimension 0.5m for half-cell
potential and cover depth and about 2m for chloride and carbonation. The analysis of concrete samples
for chloride, taken from different depths in areas where corrosion has not yet started, provides a prognosis
for how the extent of repairs will increase with time. Carbonation depth measurements can be used in a
similar way. This information is useful when calculating whole life costs.
Visual observations and a delamination sounding survey are carried out over all the exposed surfaces
of the element under consideration using the grid set up for the tests described in the last paragraph.
These tests provide the area of concrete damage which can be regarded as the minimum area for
concrete repairs.
Grid lines can be drawn on the element surface with the aid of a chalk line. These chalk lines are visible
for no more than a few weeks so the appearance of the bridge is only temporarily affected.
Visual observations should also be used to locate areas subject to ponding and leaking water; these areas
are particularly vulnerable to deterioration. The source of leaks e.g. joints, drainage, waterproofing
should be established because the rectification of leaks forms an essential part of any remedial work.
Measurements of the electrical resistivity of concrete can be used in a number of ways:
l where other measurements indicate that corrosion has not yet started, resistivity measurements
can provide an indication of the rate of corrosion that may be experienced if and when it
initiates. Very high resistivities (> 100 Kohm.cm) on outdoor concrete in the UK indicate a very
dense concrete through which the passage of depassivators is likely to be low. Conversely very
low resistivities (< 10 Kohm.cm) indicate the presence of damp concrete with a relatively high
porosity. In circumstances where the moisture contains chloride ions corrosion initiation could
be imminent and will occur at a significant rate;
24
l where other measurements indicate that corrosion has started, a low resisitivity (<10 Kohm.cm)
indicates that the rate of corrosion is likely to be high; low resistivities in the presence of
chloride ions are the conditions needed for localised corrosion which leads to pitting of the steel
and significant reductions in reinforcement cross section. Conversely high resistivities indicate a
low rate of general corrosion.
The corrosion rate of reinforcing steel depends on the electrical current flowing through the concrete
between anodes and cathodes on the reinforcement. This current depends on the difference in potential
between the anode and cathode (typically about 0.4V) and the resistivity of the concrete. A high
resistivity substantially limits the current that can flow and hence the rate of corrosion. Corrosion
currents can be measured directly using a technique called linear polarisation resistance either in
specific locations or over a grid. Only an approximate value of corrosion rate can be inferred because
corrosion currents vary significantly from day to day due to variations in temperature and moisture
content of the concrete. Furthermore, corrosion currents in one location will be influenced by changes
in the electrochemical characteristics of adjacent corrosion cells. It is therefore beneficial to make
gridded measurements of corrosion current over a significant area of concrete surface. Corrosion
current measurements do not appear to be particularly reliable for measuring the rate of pitting
corrosion. Experience indicates that pits grow at a rate of 0.5 to 3mm per year and the use of these values
may be a more useful way of deducing the prognosis of pitting corrosion.
4.3 Semi-destructive tests

Concrete cores are taken for a variety of purposes:
l to measure the strength of the concrete ( the strength of reinforcement is usually obtained from
separate samples, a minimum of 300mm long which involves concrete break-out);
l for chloride and carbonation tests as described previously;
l to assess the compaction of the concrete and the presence of honeycombing;
l to assess the homogeneity of the concrete;
l to examine for evidence of alkali silica reaction, sulfate attack or frost damage;
l to assess the modulus of elasticity of the concrete to assist with a selection of the repair material.
Some cores are usually taken through sound concrete while others are taken in deteriorated concrete
in order to elucidate the cause of deterioration.
Tests to check the effectiveness of waterproofing membranes and silane treatments in preventing chloride
ingress should also be considered when carrying out a special inspection. The top surface of a bridge deck
is covered with a waterproofing membrane and asphalt surfacing hence any defects or deterioration is
likely to remain hidden until it reaches a very advanced stage. In this situation sample cores through the
surfacing and into the concrete can be taken to look for indications of deterioration/chloride ingress which,
if found, may necessitate localised removal of the surfacing and waterproof membrane to allow closer
examination of the concrete surface in affected areas. Delamination of the membrane from the concrete
may also indicate potential problems. If protective systems are at or near the end of their life its
replacement as a part of the remedial works is likely to be justified to limit the amount of traffic disruption
associated with maintenance during the life of a bridge.
Localised corrosion can sometimes develop to a substantial level before any visual indications are
evident. This can affect the safety of the structure necessitating bridge strengthening where earlier
detection would have resulted in a requirement for much less extensive maintenance. At present, there
are no effective non destructive techniques for determining the loss of reinforcement cross section in
situ. Non destructive techniques are available for determining the rate of corrosion but it is difficult to
25
use this information to find the cumulative loss of section because:

l corrosion rate measurements are instantaneous and not cumulative;
l corrosion rate can vary substantially from hour to hour due to changes in environmental
conditions.
It is therefore necessary to expose the reinforcement for examination in some trial areas where localised
corrosion is thought to be occurring. The possibility of localised corrosion is indicated by the results
of the half cell potential and resistivity non-destructive tests. The criteria for localised corrosion are:
l resistivities less then 15 Kohm.cm;
l high potential gradient (> 0.3 V m-1);
l low half cell potentials (< - 400mV vs saturated Cu/CuSO4).
In order to estimate the potential gradient the half cell potentials must be plotted as equipotential
contour lines. It should be emphasised that the above criteria only provide a guide to the circumstances
under which localised corrosion can occur. Localised corrosion can occur when these criteria are not
satisfied and visa versa.
The trial exposure area should have a minimum area of about 0.5m². The concrete should be removed to
a depth of about 15 mm beneath the reinforcement. Ideally, the concrete should be removed by water
jetting since this does not damage the reinforcement or the remaining concrete. If percussion drills are
used to remove the concrete particular care should be taken not to hit the reinforcement since this can cause
as much damage as the localised corrosion. As soon as the concrete has been removed the reinforcement
should be examined for signs of corrosion and in particular the colour of the corrosion deposit. If it is black,
green or white this is an indication of localised corrosion. If it is brown then the corrosion is probably not
localised. It is important to carry out this examination as soon as the concrete is removed since the black,
green and white corrosion deposits are rapidly oxidised on exposure to air and are converted to the brown
form. It is also important to note whether the corrosion deposit covers most of the exposed bars or is
confined to small areas with the remainder of the bars being un-corroded since the latter provides a positive
indication of localised corrosion. Any corrosion deposit should be removed by water jetting or mechanical
wire brush. This will reveal the profile of the bar. Any clearly defined regions of corrosion can be assessed
by measuring the minimum bar diameter using callipers or micrometer. These instruments need to be of
a design capable of access beneath the reinforcement. The profile of the bar can be drawn with the aid of
a profilometer. Small diameter pits can be examined using a micrometer with special attachments for
measuring the pit depth. This can be difficult because the pit is often packed with corrosion product that
can be difficult to remove even by water jetting.
Note that if the concrete is cut away by water jetting it is easy to unintentionally remove the corrosion
deposit at the same time so that its characteristics cannot be examined.
4.4 Structural assessment

Before carrying out any work on a bridge, other than minor cosmetic repairs, it is essential to carry out
a structural strength assessment. This is part of the overall investigation and information gathering
process required to determine the extent of work. Calculations may also be necessary to determine the
amount of concrete that can safely be removed during a repair operation without restricting live load
or providing temporary supports where the highway must remain open. The effect of concrete repairs
on the future performance of the bridge also needs to be taken into account. This section is not a
comprehensive review of the topic and further advice should be sought from the literature.
A principal source of reference is the Highways Agency BA 51, ‘The Assessment of Concrete Structures
affected by Steel Corrosion’. The key points from this document are summarised below. BD44 and BA44
26
provide further advice on the assessment of deteriorated structures. Although it may be desirable to deal,
as soon as possible, with corroding structures, there may be insufficient resources to allow this to happen.
It is very important, therefore, to consider the assessment of the bridge stock as a continuous process rather
than a single ‘snap shot’ in time. In this way the risk associated with the strength and safety of the structure
can be monitored and intervention arranged before the structure reaches a critical state.
There are two types of corrosion - local and general. Local corrosion leads to section loss although the
relationship is not directly proportional. Advice on the determination of the effective cross-sectional
areas of bars is contained in BA38. This Advice Note should also be used to check the fatigue strength
of corroded bars subjected to significant live load stress range. The main structural effect of general
corrosion is loss of bond, although it may be necessary to check for overall loss section.
In order to maintain the safety of the structure, it will be necessary to consider the rate of deterioration
and introduce a monitoring procedure so that this can be reviewed at future Special Inspections.
Local corrosion creates stress concentration in reinforcement yields. Bars which are considered to be
suffering from local corrosion should not be considered to be effective in plastic analysis, such as yield
line analysis.
Tests have shown that the loss of bond strength caused by general corrosion, is not significant until the
point when longitudinal cracks form over the bars. Then the bond strength should be reduced by 30%.
Where the concrete cover is less than one bar diameter and there are no links, includes a reduction factor
for bond stress which is over and above the reductions required by BD44.
More recent work has been published (Mangat and Elgarf, 1999a) which shows that bond strength can
vary widely depending on the degree or corrosion. They have also shown (Mangat and Elgarf, 1999b)
that marked reductions in flexural strength can occur due to reinforcement corrosion and this is caused
primarily by the breakdown of bond at the steel/concrete interface. These results conflict with other
published material (Cairns, 1993) which suggests that reinforced concrete beams may be capable of
carrying a significant proportion their load capacity even where reinforcement is exposed over a major
proportion of the span. Clearly this aspect needs to be treated with caution and further clarification and
guidance is required.
Where the cover concrete is spalling or delaminating over a significant area, the structure should be
assessed ignoring the cover concrete in those regions. The bond of bars in areas of delamination should
also be ignored. The bars should also be ignored for the purposes of calculating the concrete shear
strength unless they are restrained by links which are still effective.
The behaviour of reinforced concrete slabs is such that they are less susceptible to the effects of local
corrosion than beams.
Some of the effects of corrosion on the assessment of concrete bridges have been considered. It has,
perhaps, previously been considered that once a repair has been carried out by replacing or cleaning
corroded steel and patching the concrete, that the strength of the structure has been fully restored.
However, this may not necessarily be the case.
The Key points from research are:
l Corrosion significantly affects the assessment results.

l The loss of bond strength may be more significant than current HA advice suggests.
l The type of repair material can have a significant effect on the future strength of the bridge.
l The method of working during repair can have a significant effect on the future strength of the bridge.
l The assessing engineer needs to take particular care where concrete repairs have been carried out
and note should be taken of as-built records.
27
28
5 REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
5.1 Introduction
The outputs from Sections 3 and 4 on inspections and investigation should provide sufficient
information on:
l the causes and nature of the problem;
l the current condition of each bridge element;
l the extent of the problem on each element;
l the estimated rate of future deterioration;
l the load carrying capacity of the deteriorated bridge;
l site specific factors which could influence the maintenance strategy;
l to enable the situation to be assessed and decisions to be taken on;
l the most appropriate maintenance strategy;
l the best time to carry out repairs/maintenance;
l the extent of maintenance work required.
The causes of reinforcement corrosion fall into two categories, physical and/or chemical. Physical
causes are typically leaking expansion or construction joints which cause significant areas of concrete
to come into contact with saline water. Another physical cause is poorly compacted or honeycombed
concrete which can result in accelerated carbonation and other deterioration process. Chemical causes
related to the substance in the bridge environment that is depassivating the reinforcing steel i.e. chloride
ions or carbon dioxide. It is important to identify the chemical cause since this plays an important part
in deciding the best methods for preventing or stopping reinforcement corrosion. Physical causes must
be identified and rectified to minimise the risk of the problem re-occurring in the future. The nature
of corrosion i.e. localised or general form indicates the type of damage that occurs. The current
condition of an element will help in deciding the most appropriate maintenance strategy. For example
if an element has suffered significant chloride contamination, but the reinforcing steel has not yet
started to corrode a preventative maintenance strategy is indicated. If, on the other hand, corrosion has
already started the appropriate strategy would be to reduce the corrosion process and repair any
damaged concrete. For bridges where more than one element is showing signs of deterioration it is
reasonable to consider bringing forward maintenance work on the less deteriorated elements so that all
the known problems can be tackled at the same time thereby avoiding additional access, traffic
management and disruption costs that would result from an early return to the bridge for additional
maintenance. A good target is that on completion of maintenance work a bridge should be largely free
of maintenance for the next 20 years.
The extent of deterioration on an element has a significant influence on the choice of maintenance
strategy and method. For example if there is extensive concrete damage to an element patch repairs may
not be viable and it may be necessary to replace the element or strip all the cover zone concrete, shutter
and repair with a flowable concrete, whilst providing temporary support.
It is useful to have an estimate of the rate of deterioration of an element since this can help to prioritise
maintenance work on different bridges and particularly where the funding available is insufficient to
carry out all the identified maintenance in a given year. In principle a knowledge of the rate of
deterioration should enable the age at which deterioration results in a bridge becoming substandard to
be estimated. In practice, at the present time, such estimates are very approximate due to limitations
29
of the methods used to measure the rate of deterioration. Ideally the method should measure the amount
of reinforcing steel remaining in a corroded element at a given time, however, at present the only
available techniques measure the rate of corrosion which is an instantaneous measure. In other words
a single measurement of corrosion rate only indicates the rate at the time of the measurement and this
may be very different from the average value of rate taken over a year say, because the rate of corrosion
is known to vary significantly over a day or week due to changes in temperature and concrete
conductivity. Variations in rate over somewhat longer periods can result from changes in concrete
corrosivity. A single measurement of rate provides no reliable information about historical values of
corrosion rate or when corrosion started. In the same way a single measurement is not a reliable measure
of the corrosion rate in the future. A single measurement is, therefore, inadequate for estimating the
amount of steel remaining.
This problem could only be overcome if corrosion rate monitoring took place throughout the life of the
element and this has not been the normal practice. The current rate of corrosion is however a reasonable
guide to what may happen in the next decade. Corrosion rates vary significantly with the ambient
temperature and moisture content of the concrete, which can change significantly from hour to hour
due to changes in the weather. To obtain a reasonable estimate of the rate of corrosion for future
predictions of condition it is, therefore, necessary to monitor the corrosion rate at hourly intervals over
a 9 month period in order to take account of short term and seasonal variations. However, it is not a
practical or cost effective option but with development of new monitoring techniques this will become
increasingly the norm in the future.
There are three main types of maintenance: essential, preventive and repair.
Essential maintenance is required when it becomes unsafe to use a bridge. This may occur for several
reasons but the most common are as follows:
l When the load carrying capacity of a bridge is insufficient to carry the loads to which it is
subjected. This is usually caused when the permissible load is increased by statute, but can also
be caused by deterioration or by a combination of these two causes. In this situation the bridge is
said to be substandard.
l When the soffit or piers of an overbridge suffer from reinforcement corrosion that can cause
lumps of delaminated concrete to fall unpredictably into the road presenting a hazard to traffic
passing under the bridge.
In either of these situations maintenance must be carried out immediately otherwise traffic restrictions
must be imposed to make the bridge safe for use, hence the use of the term essential maintenance. The
essential maintenance operations usually required are:
l to strengthen the bridge so that it can safely carry the required loads;
l to remove delaminated concrete and carry out concrete repairs.
The types of traffic restriction adopted before repairs are carried out are typically:
l to close lanes on the road underneath the bridge that are in danger of falling concrete;
l to close lanes over the substandard elements;
l to impose a weight restriction on the traffic using the bridge.
The purpose of preventative maintenance is to slow down the deterioration processes thereby
increasing the serviceable life of the bridge. Preventative maintenance should increase the age of the
bridge when essential maintenance is ultimately needed and may avoid its need altogether. The most
commonly used types of preventative maintenance are the impregnation of concrete with silane, a
30
hydrophobic substance, covering concrete surfaces with waterproofing membranes and the painting
of structural steelwork. All of these preventative treatments are designed to prevent corrosion of steel
and are only likely to be effective when applied before corrosion initiates or after repair work that stops
the corrosion process. Preventative maintenance is applied to all bridges that are not yet corroding. The
justification for adopting a preventative maintenance strategy is that the lifetime cost for the bridge is
reduced. Preventative maintenance is normally most effective when applied immediately after
construction.
The purpose of repair work is to stop corrosion, prevent its reoccurrence and make good any damage
to the concrete. Repairs should reduce the rate of deterioration thereby increasing the serviceable life
of the bridge and the age at which essential maintenance becomes necessary. The most commonly used
types of repair process are concrete repair and cathodic protection. Repair work is generally carried out
following corrosion initiation. The justification for repair work is a reduction in whole life cost.
Knowledge of the load carrying capacity of a bridge will decide whether or not it is substandard which
has a major bearing on the choice of maintenance strategy. If a bridge is shown to be substandard by
the results of a load assessment the only possible maintenance strategies are:
l to strengthen or replace the affected elements;
l to apply traffic restrictions to reduce the load;
l to regularly monitor the bridge for incipient indications of failure.
The last strategy is only valid when it can be demonstrated that any potential failure would be non-
catastrophic in nature. In this respect, reference should be made to BA79.
If a bridge has adequate load carrying capacity then the maintenance strategy would be either:
l preventative maintenance;
l repairs;
l replacement;
l do nothing;
depending on which strategy generates the lowest whole life cost. The Highways Agency is currently
trialling a system called Bid Assessment and Prioritisation System (BAPS), a computer based system
that will replace BE14 and BE15. It stems from the Highways Agency’s overall review of the
management of trunk roads. BAPS combines the strategic needs of the network with the maintenance
needs of individual structures. It takes account of alternative maintenance strategies, the application
of whole life cost principles and the assessment of risk in terms of road user delays that result if work
is not carried out. BAPS forms one module of a comprehensive bridge management system called
Structures Management Information System (SMIS) which has been developed recently by the
Highways Agency. It brings together information from a number of management tools to provide
rational and consistent methods for the prioritisation of works and the determination of future
maintenance needs.
A shortcoming of current assessment procedures is that the outcome is in the form of a pass-fail
criterion. For bridges that pass the criterion it would be useful to know how easily they passed since
this would help to prioritise and plan maintenance of the bridge stock.
31
5.2 Remedial techniques for structures vulnerable to reinforcement corrosion

There are a number of types of remedial measures:
(a) do nothing;
(b) preventative methods;
(c) methods for reducing the corrosion process;
(d) methods for repairing damaged concrete;
(e) maintaining the safety of structure users;
(f) methods for strengthening/replacement.
The condition of the structure determines which types are appropriate. This is important because the
wrong choice of remedial measure is likely to be completely ineffective. Types (b) and (c) are only
likely to be effective when applied before corrosion has initiated. Type (f) would only be relevant if
the load carrying capacity of the structure has been shown to be inadequate and would be combined
with methods (b) to (e) to stop further corrosion and prevent it from reoccurring. Types (c) and (d) are
normally used together since it is unusual to find corrosion without any concrete damage. The use of
type (e) on its own would normally only be considered if the strength of the deteriorated part of the
structure was insensitive to the steel-concrete bond and to the steel cross section.
The amount of testing work on the structure that is needed in order to be able to specify a durable repair
depends on the type of remedial measure. Testing prior to repair work is often important. It’s purpose
is to ensure the correct repair/maintenance method and extent of repairs is used in order to achieve an
effective and durable repair. For example preventative methods are often applied to the entire surface
of a structural element so testing is only needed in order to decide the potential cause of deterioration.
Sometimes, however, preventative measures are only applied to areas of the structure which have the
most extreme exposure to corrosive substances in the environment or which are vulnerable to corrosion
due to low concrete cover or because they are a sink where corrosive substances can accumulate. In
this case testing and observations are also needed to locate the vulnerable areas.
Areas of damaged concrete can be determined by visual observation or by tapping the concrete surface
with a hammer and listening for a low frequency audio response. Most techniques for stopping
corrosion are often applied to the entire structural element hence pre-testing is only required to
determine the cause of corrosion. Concrete repairs are an exception in this respect because if they are
to stop corrosion for a substantial period of time tests are needed firstly to decide whether or not there
is macrocell corrosion. If there is no macrocell corrosion concrete repairs should be effective if the
damaged concrete is replaced and preventative measures are used to avoid further deterioration. If there
is evidence of macrocell corrosion then extensive testing prior to repairs is needed in order to determine
the total extent of all the anode-cathode cells since this is the area of the structure where concrete repairs
are needed. The repair of this area should remove most of the chloride ions generally responsible for
macrocell corrosion and prevent the formation of incipient anodes, although the extent of repairs may
be too high to be viable.
In order to determine the degree of strengthening required, testing is needed to find the strength of the
concrete and steel and the cross section of steel and steel-concrete bond still available after corrosion.
(a) Do nothing
In some instances remedial measures to deal with reinforcement corrosion may not be needed or may
be deferred. For example, concrete more than about 8 meters from the road surface receive little
exposure to deicing salts and is, therefore, not vulnerable to reinforcement corrosion unless the cover
depth or concrete quality are abnormally poor. In these circumstances the ‘do nothing’ option is
32
justifiable. The budget for bridge maintenance is always limited which means that some maintenance
work that is deemed to have a relatively low priority must be deferred. In these circumstances the
deferred work means that currently the ‘do nothing’ has been selected.
It is necessary to compare a number of maintenance options in economic terms each year as part of the
bridge management process. The ‘do nothing’ option must, therefore, always be included since in any
given year most bridges will not require any maintenance.
(b) Preventive methods
Preventative methods increase the age of a structure when corrosion first initiates and may also
subsequently reduce the rate of corrosion. Some preventative methods must be applied during
construction, but all must be applied before corrosion initiates to be at all effective. The earlier they
are applied the more effective they are. Some can be reapplied a number of times to prevent corrosion
throughout the design life of a structure. Preventative maintenance is probably the most effective and
reliable way of controlling corrosion in concrete structures; its main limitation is that it must be applied
early in the life of the structure and although it may need replacing periodically, the frequency is
unlikely to be much greater than for techniques designed to stop on-going corrosion.
Preventive techniques providing a physical barrier such as paints, silanes and waterproofing
membranes are applied to the concrete structure after its construction but before corrosion initiates.
Some corrosion inhibitors, on other hand, can be incorporated in the concrete mix. This has the
advantage that the corrosion reaction is suppressed from the start. The disadvantage is that, for
massive concrete, expensive inhibitor is used in regions where it will never be needed since
reinforcement corrosion originates from the surface of the concrete. Cast in corrosion inhibitors does
not prevent or retard the ingress of chlorides, but instead protect the reinforcement from corroding
at much higher chloride levels. For example, in the absence of cast in inhibitor reinforcement
corrosion initiates at about 0.3% chloride ion content by weight of cement. In the presence of the
normal dosage of corrosion inhibitor, however, corrosion will not initiate until the chloride content,
at the reinforcement, reaches about 0.2% by weight of cement. In many cases, this will not occur
during the lifetime of a bridge.
The electrochemical techniques such as cathodic protection, chloride extraction and realkalisation can
also be used for preventive maintenance for stopping corrosion initiation. All the preventive techniques
mentioned in this paragraph, not based on concrete replacement, can also be used as a repair option and
are described in more detail in Section 7 entitled ‘non concrete repair options’.
(c) Method for reducing corrosion process
After the initiation of reinforcement corrosion there is an interval of time before damage to the concrete
can be observed. This interval depends on the rate and type of corrosion. If corrosion is the macrocell
type leading to the formation of isolated though intense pits the interval before concrete damage occurs
can be large enough for substantial loss of reinforcing bar cross section to result without visual
indications. This type of corrosion is fortunately rare. Normally macrocell corrosion occurs in
conjunction with microcell corrosion so that there are signs of concrete damage before the cross section
of the bars is too severely reduced. Microcell corrosion by itself normally results in concrete damage
before the bar section has reduced significantly.
Structures are not monitored in service to find out when corrosion initiates hence by the time steps are
taken to combat corrosion, damage to the concrete and significant reductions in reinforcement section
have often already occurred. Maintenance both to stop the corrosion process and to repair the damaged
concrete is therefore usually needed for structures where corrosion is well established. The techniques
for minimising corrosion include surface treatments (e.g. coatings, impregenants, inhibitors), cathodic
protection, chloride extraction and realkalisation. These are discussed as repair options in Section 7.
One remaining method of minimising corrosion is a patch repair which is described below. Methods
33
for stopping corrosion deal both with the situation already pertaining within the concrete and with the
prevention of additional corrosive substances entering the concrete.
(d) Methods for repairing damaged concrete
Patch repair is the traditional and most widely used method of repairing structures suffering from
corrosion. It is particularly useful where the entire structure is not affected or the repaired area is of
minor importance. It usually involves cutting out the concrete to a depth below the main reinforcement
from those areas where corrosion had caused disruption of the concrete cover (Read,1992). Any rust
on the exposed reinforcement is also removed. Some manufacturers advise applying an epoxy resin or
acrylic rubber to the steel to provide it with a small measure of additional protection. Opinions vary
on the effectiveness of this technique which could be detrimental to long term adhesion of repair
material. Finally, the exposed area is filled with fresh concrete or a proprietary material such as a
polymer concrete overlay and sealed at the surface with materials such as acrylate or latex.
Unfortunately, in practice, this method has not always provided a lasting repair solution. Experience
has shown that although the actual repaired area usually performs satisfactorily, incipient anodes may
occur causing corrosion to be initiated in the surrounding areas of concrete (Vassie, 1984)
Corrosion cells consist of an anode and a cathode. An anode is a region where iron atoms are oxidised
electrochemically to iron ions and the cross section of reinforcement is reduced. A cathode is a region
where an electrochemical reduction reaction occurs, usually the conversion of oxygen molecules to
hydroxyl ions. Sometimes the anodes and cathodes are separated by atomic distances and a given point
on the surface will switch rapidly between anodic and cathodic states. This type of cell is called a
macrocell and associated with local corrosion which results in a distinctly non uniform distribution of
corrosion product known as pitting. This is characterised by small areas of intense corrosion and loss
of reinforcement cross section surrounded by larger areas of un-corroded bar. In a macrocell the anode
provides a degree of cathodic protection to the surrounding steel and this explains why the distribution
of corrosion product is non-uniform. This protection is limited and as the chloride content of the
concrete around the reinforcement increases the protection begins to breakdown. Ultimately a new
anodic site will form, but there is an interim situation where the protection can be detected at certain
points, and these points can be considered to be precursors of the new anodic sites that will ultimately
be formed. These anodic precursor sites have been called incipient anodes. If concrete repairs are
carried out only at the original anodic site, the effect will be to remove the cathodic protection provided
by this anode thereby stimulating the incipient anodes remaining in the original concrete to become
fully developed anodic sites, resulting in further corrosion problems within a few years of carrying out
the concrete repair work.
Concrete repairs, made to a structure suffering from macrocell corrosion, and designed to minimise
corrosion and repair the damaged concrete are sometimes likely to be so extensive as to be not
economically viable. It is becoming more common to use concrete repair to deal with the damaged
concrete and another method to stop the corrosion e.g. cathodic protection (CP) or chloride extraction.
Instead of applying CP to the entire structural element using an impressed current system it is possible
to use a newly developed sacrificial zinc anode (Sergi and Page, 1999) situated just within the concrete
repair, to provide protection against the development of incipient anodes. These anodes are easier to
install and require no electrical equipment or post application maintenance, unlike the impressed
current systems. Experience of these sacrificial anodes is currently very limited. Unlike, CP, one
disadvantage that there is no monitoring of sacrificial anodes.
This type of repair is usually costly due to the labour intensive work of mechanically breaking out the
concrete and the temporary support often required due to the loss of composite strength (Wallbank,
1989). Another disadvantage is that it is often uncertain how much break out is necessary. Too much
breakout leads to greatly increased cost and disruption whereas too little breakout leads to an ineffective
repair. A possible consequence of concrete repair is the induction of micro-cracks within the parent
concrete as a result of the hammering action on the surface. It also has an impact on the environment
due to excessive noise and which makes it unsuitable for repairing structures that lie within urban areas.
34
Concrete can now be more effectively removed by high pressure water jetting although the water
generated can be a problem in some circumstances. Preventative measures are often required to stop
further ingress of corrosive substances after concrete repair. The life of concrete repairs is very
sensitive to how well the work is done. A poor repair is unlikely to last for more than 2-5 years whereas
a good repair will last more than 15 years.
(e) Maintaining the safety of structure users
Concrete structures are normally very safe. Occasionally partial or total failures occur where corrosion
has dissolved some reinforcement, jeopardising the safety of users. Spalled lumps of concrete from
corroding structures also present a hazard.
Spalled lumps of concrete particularly from higher levels of a structure are a hazard for people or traffic
passing underneath. Dealing with this kind of hazard forms a part of many repair schemes for corroding
concrete structures. Loose concrete can be easily detected by hammer tapping and can be safely
removed. This procedure is clearly only a temporary measure and would need to be repeated at least
annually until the corrosion process is stopped. Another approach is to fix netting or cladding to the
area of spalling/delamination in order to catch the lumps of concrete which can then be safely removed.
In situations where the loss of bond due to spalling and delamination has been shown to have
insignificant structural consequences maintenance has been restricted to just catching the spalled
lumps of concrete, thereby reducing costs.
(f) Methods for strengthening or replacement
Where the assessed load carrying capacity of a structure is inadequate strengthening is required.
Strengthening is generally carried out in conjunction with maintenance to stop the corrosion process
and to prevent is reoccurrence. A frequently employed method of strengthening concrete bridge decks
by the use of external reinforcement such as steel or advance composite plate bonding. If the
deterioration is very severe there may be an economic case for replacing elements. Decisions about
whether to strengthen and rehabilitate or to replace are usually based on economics and the
consequences relating to loss of use of the structure. Consideration should be given to the use of
temporary works, to enable bridge elements to be replaced, whilst maintaining the traffic flow.
35
36
6 DECIDE THE COURSE OF ACTION

Deciding the course of action for a particular structure is a logical process linked to the information and
philosophies expressed in other chapters of this guidance document.
The process includes several key decision stages at which alternative courses of action can be considered
such as to take no further action, to install a monitoring system or to apply a weight restriction. One key
decision crucial to the way a structure is managed is taken when the possible maintenance options have
been assessed and a whole life costing carried out.
As indicated in the introduction Section 1.4 there are currently insufficient funds to carry out all
required maintenance work on all structures. Following a whole life costing a decision has to be made
on whether or not funds are available to carry out the work. If the answer is yes then the preferred type
of repair is detailed/designed, procured and implemented. If the answer is no then the maintenance and
load carrying philosophy for the structure needs to be re-examined.
The many facets of the decision making and the interlinking of the thought processes are set out in the
flow chart (Figure 6.1).
In deciding the course of action it is natural to look for the best technical solution to the problem of the
particular structure based on the results of a scientific and engineering assessment. However, this may
not always provide the best overall solution when the constraint considerations detailed in Section 6.2 are
taken into account. Often these practical considerations particularly those of traffic and road space
availability compromise the achievement of the best technical solution.
This is particularly pertinent when unexpected defects are found during the course of the works.
Examples regularly occur during waterproofing operations when deck defects undetectable prior to the
removal of existing surfacing occur. The engineer should be aware that this is a common occurrence
and in deciding the course of action take it into account by devising a treatment methodology and
including it as part of the contract. This will avoid unnecessary delays in rectifying the fault and
minimise time loss and disruption to traffic. In this instance the best technical solution may have to be
sacrificed to satisfy non-technical constraints.
Depending on the cause a combination of actions may be required spread over a period of time. Perhaps
the most common example of this is where a breakdown of joints and waterproofing have led to
damage. In this instance the removal of the cause that is the replacement of the defective joints and
waterproofing is essential prior to concrete repair. The repair will then follow at some convenient date
when the structure has dried out and a successful repair is more likely to be achieved.
Such considerations need to be accounted for when progressing though the decision making flow chart
given in Figure 6.1.
The flow chart is based on an organisation’s overall bridge management strategy. At certain critical
decision stages the chart links back to the management strategy as a mechanism for high level decision
making. Decisions taken at this level will vary from organisation to organisation reflecting the different
philosophies encompassed in particular management strategies.
Underpinning the high level management strategy in most organisations is a graded inspection system
consisting of general, principal and special inspections. Each organisation may vary in the way it
implements its inspections but the information gathered forms the cornerstone of a successful bridge
management system. It is from such inspections that the base information for assessing the need for
and extent of concrete repairs is obtained leading to a series of decision making steps forming the basis
of the flow chart.
If a problem is identified from an inspection the cause, extent and severity needs to be ascertained prior
to taking a decision on the way forward which could be to take no further action; to monitor; to carry
out a load assessment check or a safety check before continuing the decision making process. In the
context of the flow chart the safety check is taken as a means of assessing any danger to the public from
37
Bridge Management
Strategy
Principal and general Special inspections

inspections Section 4
Section 3
Problem identified No Problem identified
Define problem course

no action
Monitor and extent and severity
Load Safety check no action

Weight
Restriction Assessment
Establish maintenance and/or

no action
Monitor load carrying philosophy
Section 5
Funding unavailable
Decide possible
maintenance options
Section 6
Fun
Whole life costing
Non-concrete repair Concrete repair

Section 7 Section 8
Decide method of repair Combination Decide method of repair

repair
Decide method of procurement eg performance

specification specialist contractor
Carry out
repair
Monitor
performance
Figure 6.1 Flow chart for decision making process
38
spalling concrete, reduced effectiveness on parapet performance caused by concrete defects or any
other risk not directly associated with the structures ability to carry load to current standards.
The results from a load assessment and/or safety check will enable a maintenance and load carrying
philosophy to be determined and certain key decisions to be made.
It is at this stage that the engineer needs to consider whether or not to apply a weight restriction or to
define a monitoring system, to carry out maintenance or to take no action. If it is decided to weight
restrict, monitor or take no action, the future management of the structure will be determined by the
high level management strategy. However, if it is decided to carry out maintenance, possible options
will need investigation and financial assessment using whole life costing techniques in accordance with
the Highways Agency document BD 36/92 and BA 28/92, both of which are currently under revision.
At this stage the cost of implementing a scheme is compared with available funding. In the event of
insufficient funding being available, the maintenance philosophy will need to be revisited as indicated
in the flow chart. If sufficient funding is available the preferred method of repair can be finally worked
up ready for the procurement stage. The preferred method may be a non-concrete repair, as discussed in
Section 7 or a concrete repair as in Section 8 or perhaps more commonly in practice a combination of both.
6.1 Selecting the best option

The purpose of preventative maintenance techniques described in chapter 7, as the name implies, is to
prevent significant deterioration. Where corrosion is concerned deterioration can be considered to start
as soon as chloride and carbon dioxide begin to penetrate the concrete cover. It can take several decades
before the concrete next to the reinforcement becomes carbonated or contains sufficient chloride to
initiate corrosion. During this period (Figure 6.2, Zone1) there is no physical damage to the concrete.
Even after corrosion begins there is usually a period of several years (Figure 6.2, Zone2) before the
concrete starts to crack due to the stresses generated by the formation of rust. Subsequently the amount
of concrete damage and loss of steel section will progressively increase (Zone 3).
The most effective maintenance strategy for Zone 1 is preventative and this includes waterproofing
membranes, silane impregnant and anti carbonation coatings.
Possible maintenance methods for Zone 2 are described in chapter 7. These methods are intended to
stop the corrosion process or reduce its rate to an insignificant level.
The maintenance strategy for Zone 3 additionally has to include repair to the damaged concrete and
reinforcement. Concrete repairs, described in Section 8, are an important aspect of the maintenance
requirements of a concrete bridge that has reached Zone 3.
Using Figure 6.2 and the results of the following tests can narrow the choice of options down:
l chloride – depth profiles;

l carbonation depth;
l half cell potential;
l visual observations.
For example if the bridge element falls into Zone 1 of Figure 6.2 then the choice of maintenance
option can be limited to preventative measures such as:
l silane treatment;
l coatings;
l migrating inhibitors.
39
Concrete damage has resulted

from continuing corrosion
Corrosion has started but there

is no concrete damage
No corrosion, but carbonation and

chloride ingress are taking place
Condition
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Age
Zone Suitable remedial treatment
1 Preventative
2 Reduce corrosion rate
3 Reduce corrosion rate +

Repair damaged concrete
Figure 6.2 Maintenance strategy on the basis of test data
If the bridge element falls into Zone 2 then the choice of maintenance option can be limited to those
for minimising on going corrosion such as:
l migrating corrosion inhibitor;

l cathodic protection (impressed current or sacrificial);
l chloride extraction;
l realkalisation.
If the bridge element falls into Zone 3 then the choice of maintenance option for stopping corrosion
is limited to the Zone 2 options plus concrete repair. Concrete repairs will in any case be required to
repair the damaged concrete on elements in Zone 3. The choice between the preventative options for
elements in Zone 1 can be made by consulting Table 6.1. The choice between the methods for stopping
corrosion on elements in Zone 2 can be made by consulting Figure 6.2. Site specific factors may also
have a significant bearing on the selection.
The choice between the preventative options for elements in Zone 3 can also be made by considering
the information in Figure 6.2. Normally concrete replacement would be selected as a method of
stopping corrosion only when the amount of chloride contaminated concrete that needs to be replaced
is relatively small. This situation can occur when corrosion is detected at an early stage of development
or when partial failure of a protective system leads to localised chloride contamination or carbonation.
40
Table 6.1 Principles and repair methods
Principle Examples of repair methods based on principles
Protection against ingress. Surface impregnation.

Surface coating.
Filling cracks.
Moisture control. Impregnation.

Surface coating.
Concrete restoration. Hand-applied mortar.

Recasting with concrete.
Sprayed concrete.
Structural strengthening. Replacement of corroded steel & recasting with concrete.

Plate bonding.
Adding mortar or concrete.
Increasing resistance to chemicals and weather. Coatings.

Impregnation.
Preserving or restoring passivity. Increasing cover.

Replacing contaminated or carbonated concrete.
Realkalisation.
Chloride extraction.
Cathodic protection (CP).
Repair of delaminated concrete. Breaking-out followed by replacement of steel and concrete

[The repair methods available are patch repair, sprayed
concrete, flowable concrete or recasting with formwork].
When a decision on the preferred repair system has been reached it is essential to consider the method
of procurement as this will be a major factor in ensuring the long term integrity of the repair and
obtaining a value for money scheme.
Both non-concrete and concrete repair methods rely on specialist propriety products and specialist
application methods. It is for the above reason that it is recommended that procurement is carried out
using a performance specification and specialist contractors familiar with the systems proposed. The
contract should also allow for material and application trials to be carried out as a pre-requirement to
ensure the long-term viability of the repair. Premature failure can have a major impact on future
spending requirements and cause unacceptable disruption to highway users. Finally when the repair
has been carried out it is essential to monitor its performance to provide information for assessing the
repair system for future use and to provide early warning of any potential failures.
6.2 Management issues
Design constraints
Before any decision can be taken regarding the selection of a preferred remedial strategy, the design
constraints affecting the structure to be repaired must be established. It is essential that they are
considered and assessed, before detailed technical issues are analysed, as they may affect the viability
of repair options. These constraints will be different for every scheme and structure, but generally fall
41
into the following broad categories, though not all of them will apply in all cases:
l Technical;
l Geometric;
l Access/Temporary works;
l Traffic;
l Roadspace availability/Other works;

l Environmental;
l Third party consultation;
l Health and safety;

l Aesthetics;
l Political issues/Public views/Publicity;
l Costs;
l Type of contract;
l Ongoing liabilities.
Technical
A prime factor in developing a concrete repair remedial scheme will be to utilise the data obtained
through inspection, testing and structural assessment, to determine the cause of the defects or
deficiencies. Without an examination of the causes, the devised solution may not be fully effective, and
durable. These causes may be the result of internal problems with materials, external environmental
effects or most likely a combination of the two. It is also important to determine the rate of deterioration
in the structure, and if possible when the deterioration commenced, or was first observed.
In considering a particular repair technique it may be necessary to carry out further specialised testing,
to assess the effects of the work on the global structure and the structural element under repair. Where
significant quantities of concrete are to be removed during the repair process, structural implications
must be assessed. This may entail placing limitations on the amount of concrete to be removed, phasing
the works to limit the effects, and requirements for temporary structural support. Traffic effects, such
as loading and vibration, on newly placed concrete must also be considered, and requires careful
assessment of traffic management and restrictions. Some works where there are significant structural
implications and public safety issues will require technical approval.
It is also important to assess the extent of the required work in advance. Whilst this is not always
possible or practical, it is generally worth undertaking all testing in advance to ensure that there are ‘no
surprises’ during the construction work and there can be confidence in the scope of the remedial work,
timescales and costs.
When specialist materials and methods of working are being considered it is worth consulting in
advance with suppliers and contractors with the requisite expertise. In some cases such as cathodic
protection it is essential to have the necessary expertise in-house or available from an independent
source, to assist with technical advice, drawing up contract documentation, assessment of tenders and
site supervision.
42
Geometric
The location of the structure, its size and position may influence the type and method of repair to be
adopted, as well as access to the structure, and the form of temporary works to be utilised.
The road, railway, river or canal carried or crossed by the structure must be considered. In particular
the gradient and curvature of roads and proximity of junctions and interchanges may affect the traffic
management, and hence place limitations on the form and extent of the proposed remedial measures.
The proximity to railway lines, rivers and canals should also be taken into account. Horizontal and
headroom clearances may impose additional restrictions, on the type of work to be undertaken and its
timing.
Access/Temporary works
The geometry of the structure, and nature of the remedial work proposed, will influence the
arrangements required for safe access, and the type of temporary work required. In some cases, access
difficulties and temporary works may limit the viable remedial options available, and in difficult cases
entirely govern the type of repairs undertaken. Where temporary works are a significant issue, it may
be worth considering alternative methods of procurement such as Design and Build, where advantage
can be taken of contractors expertise in design of falsework, access and supports, and to ensure the
interaction between and compatibility of the temporary and permanent works.
Traffic
This is a major consideration that affects the planning, design and construction of remedial works on
all highway structures. The traffic volumes, speeds and composition (particularly HGVs), and
variations through the day, week and year will influence the traffic management requirements, and
hence the works proposed. Proximity of the traffic to the structure must also be considered. Early
consultation with the Police, highway authorities and other transport undertakings is essential.
Due consideration must be given to the traffic both on and under bridges and the highway authorities
consulted. Safe and unhindered access for construction traffic is another issue, including site personnel,
and delivery and disposal of materials.
A related issue is the development of the traffic management scheme, and to ensure that it is viable.
Discussions with the Police and other authorities will usually be necessary. Phased traffic management
to fit in with different stages of the works require particular care. Advance warning signs and diversion
route signs must be considered as with the provision of a free breakdown recovery service.
Traffic restrictions will usually require the publication and making of Traffic Regulation Orders, and
this may have implications for programming the scheme, and possibly on the type and nature of the
works envisaged.
Roadspace availability/Other works
The limitations imposed by traffic and other operations on the road may affect the remedial measures.
Interaction and potential for interference between different maintenance operations should be assessed
during the design process. This may involve discussions between different highway authorities
particularly where very restrictive or disruptive traffic management measures are necessary, or traffic
diversions are proposed. Consideration should be given to combining works together to limit traffic
disruption to a minimum.
Roadspace availability should be checked at an early stage in the design process, and should be booked
in advance. Railway possessions are a particular example and usually require scheduling a long time
in advance. Consideration will need to be given to limiting the work to particular periods, eg overnight
43
working, weekends, avoiding Summer holidays. In some cases this will entail using alternative
methods of working or types of repair rather than the most technically feasible solution. Every effort
should be made to make a realistic assessment of the time required for the works.
Environmental
Some forms of repair are sensitive to the prevailing environmental conditions. Temperature, relative
humidity, wind force and direction, and rainfall may be important issues. The resultant effects on the
condition of the concrete substrate will require consideration. The location of the structure in proximity
to or within significant environments eg. marine, rivers, hazardous wastes, industrial areas etc. will
require special advance investigation. Underground activities such as mining may alter the design of
remedial works.
The results of the environmental assessment may result in requirements in the contract documentation
for special measures for protection from the elements such as enclosures, sheeting and heating. There
may also be other environmental restrictions such as temperature limitations for working with
particular materials, and surface dryness of concrete substrates.
The methods of working proposed may necessitate the introduction of additional measures to protect
the local environment and deal with waste materials. Special care needs to be taken with operations
such as grit blasting, water jetting, sprayed concrete, silane impregnation and the use of other coatings
in terms of potential impact on the environment.
Health and Safety
Clearly Health and Safety is an issue affecting all forms of remedial work and should be assessed at
an early stage. There are many issues including working in proximity to traffic, use of traffic barriers,
safety zones, access for personnel, plant and materials, use of materials, disposal of wastes and
screening. Compliance with the relevant safety Regulations will be required, as well as all other
relevant legislation.
Third party consultation
When planning remedial work it is essential that, where necessary, there is detailed consultation with
third party organisations that might be affected by the works. Examples are Railtrack, London
Underground, British Waterways Board, River Authorities, Drainage Boards, Service Companies
(electricity, gas, water, telephone, petrol, etc.) Heritage and nature organisations, Local Highway
Authorities, Police, Fire Service and Ambulance. Transport operators such as bus and train companies
may also need to be consulted. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but to serve as an example.
Such consultations should take place as early as possible in the design process as they may affect the
nature and detail of the work permitted and the timing. Particular examples can be sited where works
in proximity to railway tracks require advance booking of track possessions, negotiation with
signalling engineers, civil engineers, the Railway Inspectorate and possibly with train operating
companies themselves. Service companies who have facilities in, on or close to the structure that may
be affected by the works, and their requirements may influence the type, nature and duration of the
contract.
Early consultation with the Police will be necessary, in planning the road closures and traffic
management that can be operated safely. Special considerations may need to be made where work is
undertaken that has significant effects on local people – such measures as provision of temporary bus
services, temporary housing of inhabitants have been used in exceptional circumstances.
Work on listed structures and those in Conservation Areas raises additional issues, and it essential that
prior approval and consents are obtained from the appropriate authorities.
44
Where remedial works may effect flora and fauna, special care is required, which may require advance
consultation with English Nature, local farmers and special interest groups. Some structures may have
bat and bird boxes, or other provisions and the implications will need to be considered. Structures
located in Sites of Special Scientific Interest must be handled with care, to ensure minimal impact.
Aesthetics
When considering remedial works options, an issue which should be considered, is the finished
appearance of the final scheme, particularly in environmentally sensitive locations. This may require
advance approval of the types and sources of materials, finishes and colours to be used, by Planning
Authorities, English Heritage and other interested bodies.
Political issues/Public views/Publicity
Consideration should be given to the necessity to consult/inform/seek views from MEPs, MPs and local
councillors and the public, particularly those people whose property, business and travel arrangements
may be affected by the works. It is advisable to assess the need for and type of publicity required at an
early stage in the design process.
Costs
In determining the preferred remedial option, costs should be assessed. It is highly desirable to consider
the whole life effects of works, especially as a means for comparison between repair strategies.
Type of contract
Consideration of the type of work proposed and the preferred form of contract should be assessed
during the design process. Some forms of work may warrant different forms of contract. Design and
build is an obvious example where best use can be made of contractors expertise with design of
temporary works. Important considerations in selecting the form of contract are the assessment and
apportionment of risks, and the encouragement and development of quality and innovation.
In some instances it will be necessary to impose restrictions on the contractor in the form of lane rental
or occupation charges. Incentives can be built into the contract to encourage early completion of the
works.
Ongoing liabilities
In making decisions about the appropriate repair options it is essential to consider ongoing liabilities
(if any). For instance a cathodic protection scheme will incur ongoing management costs to operate the
system, to train staff, and to replace components in due course, whether as a result of deterioration or
malicious interference. Issues such as the siting of remote monitoring systems, may need to be changed
if office locations alter in the future. Straightforward concrete repairs may also be accompanied by
enhanced future monitoring of the structure.
Any repair option must be considered in terms of an ongoing maintenance and management strategy,
for the structure concerned, the length of road on which it is sited (including other structures which may
or may not be of similar design) and the local and regional road network. Decisions made now may
affect future considerations. Periodic small scale repairs may delay the onset of corrosion and the need
for major works, but it may not be the most effective strategy. Equally a major break-out and repair
proposal may not be cost effective, due to prolonged traffic disruption and a shorter duration smaller
scale work combined with cathodic protection may be preferable. Clearly any strategy should also
recognise known changed future circumstances – increased traffic as a result of new road schemes,
industrial and residential development, reduced traffic due to a bypass or detrunking, adjacent major
works or other commitments to avoid roadworks on a length of road.
45
46
7 NON CONCRETE REPAIR OPTIONS
7.1 Introduction
As an alternative or in combination with the conventional repair, a number of options not based on
concrete replacement could be cost effective in certain situations. The main objective of these options
is to reduce the rate of steel corrosion, as it is one of the major contributors to the deterioration of steel
reinforced concrete. It is, therefore, vital that early signals indicating changes in concrete chemistry are
detected during the on-going inspection programme. The important indicators in terms of steel
corrosion include increase in chloride content, carbonation and reduction in pH of concrete. Failure to
detect these chemical changes early, and allowing severe steel corrosion and the associated physical
damage to the concrete will impede the effectiveness of the chosen option. In the following sections
the options available are outlined and wherever possible the criteria for their selection is presented. The
options are:
l Surface treatments.
l Electro-chemical techniques.
l Strengthening using plate bonding techniques.
A comparison of the methods (and their relative costs) for minimising reinforcement corrosion are
given in Table 7.1 and 7.2 respectively.
7.2 Surface treatments

Surface treatments are often used as a preventive maintenance method. However, they can also be used
in conjunction with other repair techniques to prevent the reoccurrence of problems. Surface treatments
largely fall in to three groups; coatings, surface impregnants and corrosion inhibitors.
Coatings:
Coatings are physical barriers, which prevent ingress of chlorides and carbon dioxide, and which allows
concrete to breathe and thereby reduces its moisture contents. In addition to economic requirements
such as ease of application, ease of overcoating and long service life, the selection criteria of the barrier
coatings can be summarised as follows:
l Chemical resistance (e.g. to salt).
l Diffusion resistance (e.g. to water, CO2, O2, chloride ions).

l Weathering resistance (e.g. to UV light, variable temperature and humidity, water).
l Resistance to expansive forces (e.g. to freezing and thawing, alkali aggregate reaction).
l Aesthetic appearance.
l Crack bridging ability.
l Adhesion strength.
l Abrasion resistance.
47
Some earlier examples of coating utilising paint systems not meeting the above criteria have not
performed adequately. As a consequence use of paint as a repair option is very rare.
Surface impregnants:
The surface impregnants are generally low viscosity liquids that penetrate the concrete and line the
pores. They are colourless with no effect on the appearance of the structure. They are water or alcohol
soluble hydrophobic materials which repel water and water-containing chloride salts. They do not
block the pores of the concrete and allow it to ‘breath’ water vapour and other gases which otherwise
would remain trapped within the structure. The majority of commercially available materials are
silanes, siloxanes or silicone resins.
Silanes become reactive in the presence of moisture and the reaction is governed by the pH of concrete.
While the reaction is taking place the volatile silane will continually evaporate and to maximise the
success, it is necessary to use very high concentration of silane. It is not necessary to remove old silane
when treatment becomes necessary. Silanes are one of the least expensive types of corrosion control
maintenance. Their effective life is not known but it could be as much as twenty years. The main
disadvantage of silane is that it is harmful to the environment because of its vapour and absorption of
excess material by the soil in which the structure stands. Consequently vigorous health and safety
precautions should be instigated when using silane. Solutions of silane in water and immobile aqueous
emulsions are now available which largely eliminate these environmental problems.
The silanes specified in BD 43/90 for use on HA structures are Isobutyl trimethoxy silane and Isobutyl
triethoxy silane. For impregnants not currently specified by the HA, a test developed by Calder and
Chowdhury (1996) can be used to evaluate their performance. Because of the wide variety of structures
and the fact that not all parts of a structure are equally at risk from chloride attack, the advice note BA
33/90, ‘Impregnation of concrete highway structures’ provides guidance as to where and when silanes
should be applied.
Siloxanes are described as oligeomeric alkylalkoxysiloxanes. They have all the advantages of silanes
with respect to reactivity and water repellancy. However, they have low vapour pressure and under very
dry conditions exhibit less penetration than silanes.
Corrosion inhibitors
A corrosion inhibitor, in the present context, is a substance which when added to the corrosive
environment, in this case, chloride-contaminated pore solution around the steel, reduces the rate of the
metal dissolution. The inhibitors are classified as cast-in or migrating types. These materials are soluble
salts that are incorporated in the concrete at the construction stage, to repair concrete during
refurbishment, or as surface application on mature concrete.
There is no general theory of corrosion inhibition in concrete because the mechanism is dependent to
a large extent on the particular inhibitor. One basic concept is the formation of stable compounds, which
are adsorbed or precipitated on the metal surface. This hinders corrosion reaction either at anodic or
cathodic region of the steel. The cast-in type of inhibitors do not influence the ingress of corrosive
substances and do not begin to function until these have reached the steel which may take several years.
Inhibitors are divided into according to application and type of corrosion process that is anodic,
cathodic or mixed. There are various opinions expressed for their effectiveness, however each inhibitor
should be examined on its merit under conditions of application and use.
Methods for the treatment as a repair option include impregnation by ponding, implantation into drilled
cavities and electric injection under a potential gradient. Ponding and implantation rely on diffusion
of inhibitors through the cover concrete. The speed at which diffusion occurs will depend on the
porosity and on the degree of concrete saturation. Migrating corrosion inhibitors (MCI), which are
48
effectively ‘mixed’ anodic and cathodic inhibitors, are reputed to diffuse through the cement paste in
the vapour phase, which assumes that the concrete is only partially saturated up to the depth of the
reinforcement. MCIs are said to migrate through the concrete pores, form a monomolecular protective
layer and are absorbed physically onto the metal surface. These materials are based on inhibitors that
are known to be effective in stopping corrosion on bare steel hence the most critical feature of their
performance on reinforced concrete is how quickly they migrate through the concrete to generate a
concentration at the reinforcement sufficient to stop corrosion. The evidence to date suggests that these
inhibitors (a) can only migrate at a sufficient speed through poor quality concrete with a water to cement
ratio greater than 0.6 and (b) cannot accumulate in sufficient quantities near the reinforcement to
provide protection when the total chloride concentration exceeds about 1% by weight of cement.
It has not yet been established whether migrating inhibitors can readily stop or substantially reduce the
rate of ongoing corrosion; they may only provide additional protection against corrosion initiation. It
appears, therefore, that migrating inhibitors are only effective in a limited number of situations. They
are however of relatively low cost, although their effective life is not known.
A variety of organic and inorganic substances has been tested which inhibit metallic corrosion in the
concrete environment. The inorganic inhibitors include borate of sodium, calcium or zinc, nitrite of
sodium or calcium, nitrates of sodium, calcium or potassium. The organic inhibitors are based an
amino-alcohol, amine or carboxylic acid radical.
7.3 Cathodic protection (CP)
Introduction
Traditional repair techniques necessitate removal of all concrete contaminated beyond a particular
chloride content to be durable. An alternative approach is to use cathodic protection (CP). This involves
the application of a small electrical current into the concrete and onto the reinforcement. This inhibits
further corrosion. CP is a particularly attractive option as it does not require the removal of chloride
contaminated but otherwise sound concrete, and should prevent further corrosion even when exposure
to chlorides continues. CP is a specialised technique and requires the services of specialised contractors
for installation of systems.
Direction of current flow
Anode
Cations
Anions
Cathode Direct
(reinforced bar) current
supply
Concrete
Figure 7.1 Schematic diagram showing application of CP
49
Cathodic protection mechanism
The corrosion mechanism of steel in concrete is electrochemical. Metal ions pass into solution at anodic
areas liberating electrons into the metal. These electrons are consumed at cathodic areas in reactions
such as the reduction of oxygen and water to form hydroxyl ions. The electrochemical circuit is
completed by the pore water electrolyte.
Metal loss (ie corrosion) only occurs at anodic areas. In cathodic protection corrosion is prevented by
applying a current from a separate anode so that all the reinforcement to be protected is rendered a
cathode and therefore does not corrode. The protection current can be provided by using an external
anode of a more reactive metal (sacrificial anode cathodic protection) or by applying a current from
a DC supply through an inert anode (impressed current cathodic protection).
With a sacrificial anode system there is little control over the level of CP applied; this will be dictated
by the sacrificial anode material and the circuit resistance. Sacrificial systems have had limited use in
the UK and are considered experimental. However, research is in progress and there are new systems
coming into market. An impressed current system allows the level of CP current to be controlled by
the amount of current supplied and is the system generally for bridges. Current is generally supplied
from the mains using a transformer/rectifier to provide a DC supply.
Structures suitable for cathodic protection
CP is considered mainly as a repair option for concrete structures corroding as a result of chloride
contamination. It is not precluded from use on carbonated structures but the higher resistivity of
carbonated concrete requires higher driving voltages and its use would require more careful consideration
against other repair options. It is also questionable whether it should be used on prestressing wires.
Under certain conditions CP can result in hydrogen evolution which might lead to embrittlement. Use
of CP on prestressed steel would require very careful control of the steel potentials which are generated
during the process. Earlier concerns that CP might aggravate alkali aggregate reaction or lead to a
reduction in bond strength are now considered to be unfounded provided the CP installation operates
within standard limits.
It should be borne in mind that CP will at best do no more than minimise further deterioration of a
structure. It is therefore important to to establish that structural integrity has not been impaired.
CP installation
For CP to be effective the metallic component to be protected must be electrically continuous and in
an electrolyte of high enough conductivity to conduct the current from the CP anode to the steel.
Reinforcement is generally assumed to be electrically continuous from rubbing connections and tie
wires but this needs to be verified/rectified before application of CP systems. Provided corrosion of the
reinforcement has not impaired structural integrity, only minimal concrete repairs are required before
installation of a CP system. There is no need to remove sound but chloride contaminated concrete. The
object of the repairs is to provide a firm surface for the application of the CP anode. Therefore
delaminated areas must be detected and repaired. It is also important to ensure that there is adequate
concrete cover so that short circuits between the external anode and the reinforcement are avoided. The
resistivity of the repair material is also important so that current distribution is as uniform as possible.
Resistivity of repair materials should be matched to that of the original concrete.
The relatively poor electrical conductivity of concrete means that the CP anode has to be applied to the
entire concrete surface above the steel to be protected in order to minimise the electrical pathway to
the steel. A range of anode types have been used and others may be developed. Some of the main types
of anode are described below:
Conductive Coatings are basically paint coatings loaded with a conductive pigment such as carbon. A
cosmetic/protective top coat is sometimes applied over the conductive coat.
50
Sprayed metal coatings consist of a layer of metal, usually zinc or titanium, thermally sprayed over the
concrete surface.
Conductive Titanium Mesh Systems consist of a mesh of titanium with a proprietary precious metal
or metal oxide coating. The mesh is attached to the concrete surface and given a cementitious overlay
(see Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.2 Installation of CP mesh anode system
Conductive overlays consist of cementitious materials containing carbon or metal coated fibres.
Conductive asphalts have also been used.
Embedded discrete anodes consist of individual anode elements placed in holes drilled in the concrete
surface. The holes contain a conductive paste to transmit current into the concrete.
The choice of anode will depend on a range of factors including the location (eg deck or substructure),
environment, ease of access for maintenance, aesthetics, and cost. Some systems are relatively cheap to
install but will require more frequent maintenance (eg conductive coatings) whilst others are more
expensive to install but should be more durable (eg mesh systems).
Operating characteristics
Typical current requirements of bridge CP systems are of the order of 10 to 20 mA/m2 of steel surface
and operating voltages tend to be less than 12 V. Control of CP systems needs to take into account the
changing conductivity of concrete as weather conditions alter. It is usual to use a constant current
supply controlled to meet specific operating criteria based on monitoring the electrical performance
of the system.
Monitoring criteria
A number of electrical criteria have been used for for monitoring and control of CP installations and
there is still some debate on the subject. The most common method at the moment is based on potential
51
decay. As a CP current is applied, the potential of the steel, measured against a standard reference cell,
becomes more negative. If the CP current is turned off the potential will ‘decay’ towards more positive
values. Once the CP system is fully energised, a decay of 100 mV from the ‘instant off’ potential (this
is the potential measured within about 0.5 seconds of the current being turned off - this eliminates
measurement errors in the steel potential caused by the CP current flow) over 24 hours is considered
to indicate adequate performance. It is usual to use reference cells embedded in the concrete at the time
of CP installation. The monitoring can be carried out manually or automatically as part of the overall
CP control system. Some systems are modem linked to a central control. It is also desirable to monitor
the driving voltage required to maintain the target CP current. Increasing driving voltage results from
increasing circuit resistance and indicates deterioration in anode performance.
Maintenance
To be effective CP needs to be applied continuously. Hence the anode systems need to be regularly
maintained to ensure continuing protection. Frequency of maintenance will depend on the type of anode
system used. Hence it is important to consider maintenance costs when choosing the anode system.
Future development
An HA advice note (BA 83/02) has been published. It was developed in conjunction with Corrosion
Prevention Association (CPA). CPA has produced a useful reports and monographs on CP.
7.4 Chloride extraction
Introduction
Chloride extraction is similar to CP in that it involves the application of an electric current onto the
reinforcement. However in this case the current density is higher. Under the influence of the electric
field, anions such as chlorides are attracted towards an external anode positioned in an electrolyte on
the concrete surface and are eventually extracted into the electrolyte (see Figure 7.3). In addition
chemical reactions at the reinforcement increase the hydroxyl ion concentration. Together these
actions should re-establish non corrosive conditions in the concrete. Unlike CP this is a one-off
treatment requiring only temporary installation of the anode and electrical supply. As in the case of CP,
chloride extraction is a specialised technique and requires the services of specialised contractors for
installation of systems.
Structures suitable for chloride extraction
Chloride extraction intended for use on chloride contaminated concrete. The process is most effective
in removing chloride from the zone between the first layer of reinforcement and the surface; In general,
chloride extraction is effective in removing about 70% of the chloride from the cover zone so the level
of chloride remaining will depend on what was there originally. At the moment there is no universally
agreed target chloride level after chloride extraction that ensures continuing passivity - partly because
the passivity is dependent upon a combination of the reduced chloride level and the increased alkalinity.
It will not be, however, particularly effective in removing chloride from behind the first layer of
reinforcement. Hence the chloride distribution is important in deciding whether a contaminated
structure is suitable for treatment. It is not recommended for use on prestressing wires. Problems from
hydrogen evolution - mentioned earlier in relation to CP - are far more likely to occur because of the
more high potentials generated during chloride extraction. There is also an increased risk of initiating
alkali aggregate reaction (AAR) because of the increasing pH from hydroxyl ion production and
migration of alkali metal ions towards the reinforcement. Some investigations have shown that AAR
can be aggravated whereas others have not. A careful evaluation of the aggregate type (susceptible or
not to AAR), and existing alkali levels in the structure, particularly the effect of sodium ions from
52
Direction of current flow
Plastic tank
Electrolyte Anode
Cations
Anions
Direct
current
supply
Concrete Cathode (reinforcing bar)
Figure 7.3 Schematic diagram showing arrangement for desalination process
chloride contamination, needs to be carried out before chloride extraction is recommended.

As in the case of CP, chloride extraction will at best do no more than minimise further deterioration
of a structure. It is therefore important to establish that structural integrity has not been impaired.
Pre-installation procedures
It is important that current is applied evenly over the surface of the concrete. Hence the reinforcement
must have electrical continuity, and cracked, spalled or delaminated areas need to be repaired. The
concrete should be sampled to establish chloride profiles although this might have already been carried
out as part of the inspection procedures indicating that repair is needed. A half cell potential survey also
provides useful information as potentials should become more positive after treatment. However see
note of caution in section ‘POST TREATMENT’.
Installation and operating characteristics
The external anode/electrolyte combination is usually a titanium mesh immersed in potable water
or saturated calcium hydroxide solution. The latter electrolyte helps maintain a high pH such that
chlorine gas - a possible health hazard in enclosed areas - is not evolved at the anode. Steel mesh
can also be used but, although cheaper, will corrode during the process and could stain the concrete
surface. The electrolyte is contained in reservoirs attached to the concrete surface. Other methods
of electrolyte containment have also been used such as cellulose fibre sprayed over an anode mesh
positioned a short distance above the concrete surface using wooden battens. Electrical connections
are made to the steel reinforcement and the anode mesh and DC current applied – generally using
a transformer/rectifier. Current is applied at 1 to 2 A/m2 of concrete surface for a period of 4 to
8 weeks. The total charge applied should not exceed 1500 A.hours/m2 of concrete surface. It is usual
to apply the process in specific electrically separate zones so that current spread over the structure
can be controlled.
The progress of the treatment is monitored by taking concrete cores or dust samples for chloride
analysis generally after a few weeks of the treatment. Using information on the original chloride levels
in the concrete this allows an estimate of the total chloride extraction time needed to be made. Further
sampling may be carried out after a further period. The chloride extraction will be terminated when the
process has resulted in chloride levels reaching a previously decided objective. The progress of the
chloride extraction can also be monitored by analysis of the chloride content of the electrolyte.
53
Post treatment
Chloride extraction does not confer the permanent protection offered by CP. The passive conditions
established by chloride extraction could be lost if, say, there was scope for redistribution of chloride
within the structure from zones not affected by the chloride extraction, or exposure to chlorides
continued. In such cases it would be necessary to monitor for the onset of renewed corrosion using
standard methods. However the standard electrochemical test methods such as half cell potentials and
corrosion current measurements should be used with caution. The chloride extraction process polarises
the steel to very negative values and these can persist for some time once the process is terminated. For
example the half cell potentials that were originally about –300 mV v AgCl could fall to –1 V during
chloride extraction. After chloride extraction the potentials could rise to values around 0 indicating
passive steel. However the rate of change varies. In some laboratory trials passive potentials were
apparent within a few weeks of treatment (Patel and McKenzie, 2000); in some site trials potentials
remained apparently active for several months (Armstrong et al.,1996). Hence early monitoring could
give a misleading impression. Similarly corrosion current measurements rely on the potential being
relatively stable; it is also possible that the large changes to the concrete chemistry render such
measurements inappropriate for structures where chloride extraction have been used. The use of
corrosion current measurements for corrosion monitoring generally is an area of ongoing research.
7.5 Realkalisation
Introduction
Realkalisation is a similar process to chloride extraction but is used on carbonated concrete. A DC

current is applied to the reinforcement from an external anode in an electrolyte of an alkali metal on
the concrete surface. This raises the pH of the concrete back to passive levels by a combination of
migration of alkali metal ions from the electrolyte into the concrete, and generation of hydroxyl ions
at the reinforcement. As in the case of chloride extraction it is a one-off treatment requiring only
temporary installation of the anode and electrical supply. Current densities used are similar to those
used in chloride extraction but the time is shorter – generally only about 2 weeks. Again it is a
specialised technique and requires the services of specialised contractors for installation of systems.
Structures suitable for realkalisation
Realkalisation is intended for use on carbonated concrete. Hence it is most important to establish the
extent of carbonation (for methods see section ‘Pre installation procedures’) and confirm whether
carbonation is the cause of any corrosion, or is likely to lead to corrosion in the relevant time scale.
The limitations with regard to prestressing highlighted in relation to chloride extraction are also
relevant to realkalisation. With regard to AAR the fact that alkali levels are depressed at the start implies
that there is more leeway particularly as realkalisation is applied for a shorter period. However there
could be increases in alkalinity in areas that are still uncarbonated and this must be considered.
Realkalisation on bridge structures is not widely used and expert advice may be useful before
considering the use of the technique.
Pre-installation procedures
It is important that current is applied evenly over the surface of the concrete. Hence the reinforcement
must have electrical continuity, and cracked, spalled or delaminated areas need to be repaired. The
repair material needs to be compatible with the process. Carbonation is often associated with areas of
low cover. If the cover is very variable it may be necessary to apply high resistance screeds to areas of
particularly low cover to prevent current dumping through such regions. Any surface coatings need to be
removed or assessed for likely effects on the process – say by a trial treatment on a test area. Cores should
54
be taken at representative points to establish pre-treatment carbonation and alkali metal ion distributions.
Depth of carbonation is usually detected by splitting the core lengthwise to provide a freshly exposed
surface then spraying with phenolphthalein indicator. The colour changes from red to colourless as the
pH drops below about 10. This therefore classes the concrete into two quite broad bands of pH. More
detailed profiles of pH can be obtained using a range of indicators, or by profile grinding the core and
measuring pH on water extracts of the concrete dust. Alkali metal ion distribution is established by
chemical analysis. It is important to take sufficient cores to assess the variability in carbonation over the
whole area of interest.
Installation and operating characteristics
The external anode/electrolyte combination is usually a CP titanium mesh immersed in a 1 molar

sodium carbonate solution. If it is considered that introduction of sodium carbonate into the concrete
is undesirable from AAR considerations, then calcium hydroxide can be used. Steel mesh can also be
used but, although cheaper, will corrode during the process and could stain the concrete surface. The
electrolyte is contained in reservoirs attached to the concrete surface. Other methods of electrolyte
containment have also been used such as cellulose fibre sprayed over an anode mesh positioned a short
distance above the concrete surface using wooden battens. Electrical connections are made to the steel
reinforcement and the anode mesh and DC current applied – generally using a transformer/rectifier.
Current is applied at 1 to 2 A/m2 of concrete surface for a period of about 1 to 2 weeks. It is usual to
apply the process in specific electrically separate zones so that current spread over the structure can
be controlled.
The progress of the treatment is monitored by taking concrete cores or dust samples for sodium ion and
pH analysis. Using information on the original levels in the concrete this allows an estimate of the
progress being made. The usual aim is to terminate the process once the concrete has been realkalised
to the level of the first layer of reinforcement.
Post treatment
A realkalised structure will still be exposed to the atmospheric CO2 which resulted in the original
carbonation. Hence it would be expected that the problem would eventually reoccur unless concrete
cover has been increased as part of the repair process. Depending on the remaining target life of the
structure it could be desirable to reduce further exposure to CO2 by applying an anti-carbonation paint
coating. Immediately after treatment the concrete is likely to be saturated. Prior to applying a coating
it is necessary to allow a period for the concrete to dry out, or to use a coating specially formulated for
application to saturated concrete.
Monitoring realkalised structures for corrosion activity is subject to the same considerations as
mentioned for chloride extraction. If an anti-carbonation coating is present this complicates monitoring
even more. The inclusion of embedded corrosion monitoring probes bears consideration under such
circumstances.
7.6 Strengthening using plate bonding techniques

If structures require strengthening, consideration should be given to establishing viable options, taking
into account all the design and other constraints. One such option would be the use of plate bonding
techniques, either in the form of steel plates or fibre reinforced composites, to strengthen concrete
members against bending or shear deficiencies, or to wrap columns to enhance impact resistance. Often
concrete repairs may be required in association with these strengthening operations. Where there is a
combination of works, additional measures will be required for concrete repairs, to ensure that the
concrete surface is suitable for the plate bonding.
As with all concrete repair works, there should be a pre-contract investigation of the condition of the
structure. This should identify deterioration processes likely to affect the performance of the structure
55
within its residual life. Such investigations should include thorough inspection of the concrete surfaces
on which the bonding is to be carried out, a visual inspection, an assessment of the concrete strength,
chemical analysis and acoustic techniques such as ‘hammer tapping’ surveys to identify defects.
If defects are identified, repairs should be carried out using an appropriate concrete repair system. As
a special requirement cementitious repairs should be cured for at least twenty-eight days before
undertaking any subsequent bonding work – this is an issue for special consideration for designers
planning or programming works.
Good preparation of the concrete surfaces is of paramount importance to the long term success of the
bonding and strengthening operation. Before adhesive is applied the concrete surface must be cleaned
so that it is free of laitance, loose material and other contaminants. This applies equally to original
surfaces as with any repaired areas. The surface preparation process is important in that it should
remove the surface layer to expose small particles of aggregates, without causing micro-cracks or other
damage in the substrate. The surface should not be polished or roughened excessively. Sharp edges,
shutter marks or other irregularities should be removed to achieve a flat surface. The usual techniques
involved include wet, dry or vacuum abrasive blasting, high pressure washing, steam cleaning or for
smaller areas, mechanical wire brushing or surface grinding. Generally mechanical methods such as
needle gunning and bush hammering are too aggressive.
Minor imperfections or slight unevenness in the concrete surface, can often be treated with epoxy
materials which can be applied in thin layers, and the rapid strength gain permits over-bonding to be
carried out after a short time. Some bonding systems require the use of a primer on completion of the
surface preparation. This primer, which seals the surface should be applied strictly in accordance with
the manufacturers instructions, and in the case of repaired surfaces should be compatible with the
materials used.
Assessment of surface quality can take the form of a series of pull-off tests (where a surface primer is
used, the test should be carried out on the primed surface). The test should be undertaken by means of
a ‘dolly’ based on the test described in BS1881:Part 207, and a minimum of three tests completed, to
give an indication of the tensile strength of the substrate and the quality of the surface preparation. The
concrete surface should be dry for normal applications. Where this is not possible, because of the nature
of the structure, special consideration should be given to the type of adhesive to be employed. Reference
should be made to Concrete Society Report TR55 (2000b).
7.7 Comparison of repair methods

The characteristics of various methods for minimising reinforcement corrosion are given in Tables 7.1
and 7.2.
56
Version No: 1
Table 7.1 Characterisation of methods for minimising reinforcement corrosion
Effectiveness Ease of
Protects for intermittent Effectiveness initial Ease of Frequency of Comparative
Treatment against wetting for ponding Aesthetics application replacement replacement cost
Silane Chloride Good Poor Neutral Easy Easy 20* Low
Paint Carbonation Very good Good Improved Moderate Moderate 10-15 years Low
& chloride
Cast-in Carbonation Very good Good Neutral Easy Not needed – High
inhibitors & chloride
* Silane has a relatively short track record in service; there is evidence that it is fully effective for 12 years and its life is expected to be much longer
Application Guide AG43
Table 7.2 Characteristics of methods for minimising reinforcement corrosion
Effective for

Method of Propping corrosion Effects of Post repair Preventative Comparative Possible
stopping Pre repair during caused by repairs monitoring / maintenance cost of adverse
corrosion testing repair CO2 / Cl / both on users maintenance needed repair effects
Concrete Extensive Usually Both High Monitoring Yes Very high incipient anodes
repair
Impressed Moderate Unlikely Both Low Monitoring No High None

Current CP & maintenance
Chloride Moderate Unlikely Chloride Low Monitoring Yes Moderate H embrittlement

extraction and ASR
Migrating Limited Unlikely Both Low Monitoring Yes Low None

inhibitor
August 2002
Sacrificial CP Moderate Unlikely Both Low Monitoring No Low None
Realkalisation Moderate Unlikely Carbonation Low Monitoring Yes Moderate H embrittlement

and ASR
57
58
8 CONCRETE REPAIR
8.1 Introduction
Concrete repair work carried out since the early 70s have become somewhat complicated by the large
array of different repair processes and methods that have been put onto the market. Earlier repair was
carried out using standard Portland cement based mortar, but now materials range from pure polymers
such as polyesters and epoxy resins to polymer modified Portland cement based products. Although
there may be a temptation to ignore the wide spectrum of materials available simply due to its
complexity, and stick to cementitious materials similar to the original substrate, this would make poor
engineering judgement due to the advantages provided by the new materials.
A high proportion of current UK expenditure on repair of existing structures is related to the repair of
concrete. It may be impossible to specify the life expectancy of a given repair and hence to compare
potential repair methods. However, much can be done to increase the chances that a repair will be
durable and acceptable in appearance. It is important that when deciding upon and specifying the
requirements for a concrete repair, the following points are taken into account and understood if
durability and appearance requirements are to be achieved:
l Accurate determination of the condition of the concrete immediately adjacent to the repair
through adequate testing prior to the works is vital in providing an extended life to the repair and
quantifying the contract to provide realistic cost estimates.
l Choice of material types together with preparation and application methods should reflect the final
function of the repair.
l Proper use should always be made of trial mixes and site tests generally to determine in
particular flow setting time and appearance characteristics.
l Good management practices are required in the handling, mixing, storing, placing and curing of
materials.
l Preparation of surfaces prior to repair must reflect the extent and nature of the problem to be
rectified and be compatible with the chosen repair material.
l Examination of the structure as a whole should be carried out to ensure that it is operating
efficiently, and that defects that may affect repair durability are removed, i.e. blocked drainage
paths etc.
The final appearance of any concrete repair is often important, and if this is critical repairs must be
carried out sympathetically with the surrounding structure and environment. In areas where appearance
is less important such as bearing shelves and other hidden from view the finish specification can be
relaxed. The appearance of the repair will depend upon:
l Colour - with present day grout pigments and colour additives it should be possible, with
suitable trials, to obtain a satisfactory colour match.
l Texture and standard of finish - with proper material design, tooled finishing and adequate
curing the repair can be made to blend into the existing surface finish.
It is almost impossible to obtain a total match of colour and texture. If uniformity of appearance is
paramount then a coating or other masking technique may be considered. However, the suitability of
the coating and its durability must be carefully assessed. In such cases it is essential to produce a
location plan of the repaired areas as an aid to long term monitoring.
59
8.2 Select repair material

Before the repair method can be decided upon, it is essential that the condition of structure is determined
using the inspection and investigation techniques described in Sections 3 and 4. Having studied the test
results and the causes of deterioration the following options need to be considered:
l No remedial action.
l Concrete repair.
l Non-concrete repair.
l Combination of concrete and non-concrete repair.
The last three options require decisions to be taken on the selection of the best repair option and section
6 offers guidance on this under the heading ‘selecting the best option’. An option that includes concrete
repair will then need further consideration to select the best material to satisfy the particular
management issues and repair functionality and durability.
Typical functions are listed below:
l Chloride inhibition.
l Special application.
l Structural performance.
l Cosmetic repair.
l Combination of any above.
Chloride penetration of the original concrete and the consequent corrosion of reinforcement is perhaps
the main reason for concrete deterioration and delamination. It is therefore one of the main reasons for
carrying out concrete repairs. The repair has generally to function in the same or a similar environment
to that which caused failure of the original parent concrete.
The selection of the repair material must take this into account and the absorption properties will be
an important parameter in the decision making process. This property can be either intrinsic to the
chosen material or induced by the use of coatings such as silanes. Such repairs are also commonly used
with non concrete repair techniques like cathodic protection in order to minimise the detrimental effect
of any further chloride penetration or incomplete removal of chloride ions already present.
Special applications for concrete repairs occur from time to time often as a result of constraints imposed
by traffic and management issues. Unexpected defects found during the course of works such as
waterproofing need to be dealt with quickly to avoid contract and traffic management problems. For
these types of repair early setting and curing characteristics are important properties which govern the
choice of the most suitable material. In fact when carrying out works of this kind unexpected defects
should be anticipated and a supply of suitable material should be available on site for immediate use.
With regard to repairs associated with structural performance, the compressive and tensile strength
together with the modulus of elasticity will be major factors governing the choice of materials. For this
type of repair cement based materials are likely to be more compatible with the parent concrete than
epoxy or polymer mortars but these generally require longer curing periods. Failure to cure adequately
can adversely affect the interface bond so reducing the repair functionality and durability.
Whatever the reason for the required function of the repair the appearance is very important in sensitive
high visibility areas. Great care must be taken to achieve cosmetic compatibility with the surrounding
60
parent concrete for both colour and texture. This is what the public sees and in their eyes will determine
the success or failure of the repair solution. The reaction of the public should not be ignored as an
adverse reaction can cause many complaints, which take time to deal with and can affect best value
service satisfaction targets.
When selecting a material for any type of function if in doubt use trials and testing to confirm suitability.
Typical factors which determine the choice of repair materials their application and the preparation of
the area to be repaired are:
l The final function of the repair eg. Chemical resistance, cosmetic repair, strength replacement,
anti corrosion repair.
l The location of the repair eg.if the repair material is to be applied to a soffit or vertical face it
must be a modified cementitious mortar with superior adhesion and have the ability to be built
up in thick layers without falling off.
l The time that the repair is carried out eg.if the repair is to be carried out in the winter it will need
to be able to harden/cure at low temperatures or special protection and curing techniques will be
required.
l For high early strength gain special repair mortars such as vinyl ester, magnesium phosphate or
high alumina need to be considered. This requirement is generally governed by traffic and
management issues detailed in section 6.
Compatibility between repair material and parent concrete has to be a balance between physical, chemical
and electro-chemical properties. Both should have as near as possible the same compressive and tensile
strengths, the same coefficients of thermal expansion, the same water absorption and approximately the
same E value. Recent research (Mangat, 1999 and Mangat 2000) indicate that the repair material should
be stiffer than substrate hance have higher modulus to maximise durability and structural performance.
Finally the repair material must have low volumetric change and must not shrink or expand significantly
during the curing process It is often impossible to satisfy all the desirable compatibility requirements
between the parent and added materials. The engineer must therefore give serious consideration to the
reason for carrying out the repair and choose which property matches offer the best opportunity for
achieving the required function with acceptable appearance and durability. The different types of repair
materials can be broadly categorised as shown in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Categories of repair materials (modified table from Emberson and Mays, 1990)
Resinous materials Polymer modified cementitious materials Cementitious materials
A Epoxy mortar D Styrene butadiene modified G Ordinary Portland cement/mortar
B Polyester mortar E Vinyl acetate modified H High alumina cement mortar
C Acrylic mortar F Magnesium phosphate modified I Flowing concrete
61
Although cementitious materials will usually have properties closest to the original substrate and
therefore provide compatibility, there are many reasons why this type of repair material will not always
provide the best solution:
l Thin repairs, usually hand applied to vertical or overhead areas, require better initial bond
characteristics and build up characteristics, than cementitious materials will give.
l If the existing concrete has failed due to chemical attack or high wear, then using a polymer
resin mortar with higher strength and resistance to chemicals would be appropriate.
l Logistical reasons may require a very quick setting time and early strength gain, in which case
resin mortars, e.g. vinylester resins, could be used.
The difference between normal flow (predominantly comprising Portland cement) and high flow
(proprietary shrinkage compensated) should be appreciated together with the need to adequately test
in trials that the concrete flows adequately. Sprayed concrete - either a designed mix or a proprietary
polymer - modified Portland cement mortar - also has unique testing requirements.
Pre-batched, shrinkage compensated polymer modified cementitious or complete polymer mortars

with specific bond coats, primers etc., may also be used and these will require strict compliance with
the manufacturer’s instructions; and site trials should be considered prior to taking a decision on
suitability.
8.3 Material properties

The different generic materials in Table 8.1 have significant differences in physical and mechanical
properties as compared with the substrate concrete. These properties will vary with time as the
processes of hydration and polymerisation progress. The significance of property mismatch between
repair material and substrate is not always critical but does depend on the size and location of a patch
repair together with its required function. Typical properties for the different types of repair material
are given in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Typical mechanical properties of concrete repair materials (After Mays and
Wilkinson, 1987)
Polymer
modified Plain
Resinous cementitious cementitious
Property materials materials materials
Compressive strength, MPa 50-100 30-60 20-50
Tensile strength, MPa 10-15 5-10 2-5
Modulus of elasticity in compression, GPa 10-20 15-25 20-30
Maximum service temperature (°C) 40-80 100-300 >300
Coefficient of thermal expansion (per °C) 25-30x10-6 10-20x10-6 10x10-6
Water absorption (% by mass) 1-2 0.1-0.5 5-15
62
Whilst strength cherecteristics of the repair material are important and should be similar to the
surrounding subtrate as indicated in Section 8.2, the modulus of elasticity is perhaps the most important
parameter to the success or otherwise of the repair.
The modulus of elasticity of a patch repair material as compared with that of the substrate concrete may
result in a different stress distribution in the element as a whole following repair. This could be
important when the repair is in a load carrying zone. Materials with a low modulus value may generate
relative high stresses in the substrate concrete as compared with those in the repair material and
correspondingly high longitudinal shear stresses at the repair substrate interface, with the consequent
potential for bond failures. If bond failures occur as a consequence there may be long-term durability
implications. As a guideline, it is recommended that the modulus of elasticity of the repair material lies
within the range +10 kN/mm2 of that of the substrate concrete.
The adhesion of the repair material to the concrete substrate is an area in which considerable research
has taken place. Of the many surface preparation techniques evaluated, grit blasting and water jetting
are both effective. Water jetting will provide a rough, clean and damp surface giving the highest bond
strengths so using the repair material properties to maximum effect.
The flexural performance of beams repaired in the tension zone is enhanced by the use of relatively high
tensile strength repair materials. It is recommended that the tensile strength of repair materials should
always be greater than that of the substrate concrete.
Other compatibility factors should also be considered, particularly dimensional, where volume
changes can take place without loss of bond and delamination, due to modulus of elasticity, creep and
drying shrinkage thermal movement.
Chemical compatibility between existing substrate and repair material should be such that no adverse
effects occur, and the repair material should assist in preventing later corrosion of reinforcement within
the area of repair with or without the use of reinforcement coatings.
The importance of defining the requirements of water cement ratio/aggregate size/cement content and
low heat of hydration cement correctly within the specification will increase the life of the repair.
Sulfate resisting Portland cement provides less protection to reinforcement against chloride induced
corrosion than other cements. It should only be used to repair reinforced concrete made with sulfate
resisting concrete, or not exposed to chlorides.
Specialist situations may require innovative repairs to be carried out such as thin layer repair, or
requiring high build materials with specific characteristics, which can only be achieved through
polymer modified materials. Other applications such as the repair of ASR affected concrete may
require particular additional properties in the repair material – typically the use of low reactivity
aggregates. Where repairs are to be carried out in association with another remediation technique such
as cathodic protection, the resistivity of the repair material is important and should be specified. Advice
from a cathodic protection specialist should be sought.
8.4 Structural considerations

Concrete repair will always entail removal of parent concrete during the preparation phase. This will
affect the performance of the structure to a greater or lesser degree depending on the amount of concrete
removed and whether or not the affected member is of primary, secondary or tertiary importance with
regard to overall structural stability and carrying capacity.
The engineer must assess the effects of removing concrete and possibly reinforcement in the
preparation phase to ensure the integrity of the structure is maintained to prevent the safety of the public
and site staff being compromised.
63
This does not necessarily mean that a full, calculated assessment must be carried out on all structures
prior to repair. In some instances where the repairs are small and affecting areas or members of low
structural sensitivity a subjective assessment based on inspection and engineering judgement may be
sufficient. However, if in doubt a full calculated assessment should be carried out. Less experienced
engineers should consult more experienced colleagues in determining the appropriate assessment for
any particular instance. Great care should also be taken in the application of design and assessment
codes of practice in repair situations as they may not always be appropriate.
The assessment whether judgmental or calculated should take account of the following:
l The amount of concrete to be removed and its location.
l The amount of reinforcement to be removed and its location.
l The amount of concrete or reinforcement to be removed at any one time.
l The sensitivity of the location to structural integrity i.e. Is the affected member primary,
secondary or tertiary? Is the affected area in a highly stressed zone?
l The need to limit or eliminate live load.
l The need for propping and if considered necessary the response of the structure to such
propping.
In addition to their effect on safety during the repair work the last two points above need to be
considered as part of the actual repair process. The process and the consequent long term performance
and durability of the repair may be sensitive to structural vibrations during the repair material
placement and setting phase. Limiting live load and/or the use of propping can control such vibrations.
The installation of load relief systems is both expensive and time consuming while the introduction of
traffic constraints has serious impacts on the travelling public. Neither technique should be used as
standard practice. Usage should depend on the outcome of the assessment of either safety or required
repair conditions.
Preloading a structure or member prior to concrete repair is another technique that has, in some
instances, been considered as part of the concrete repair process. It is potentially applicable to areas
where the repair is required to act structurally with the parent concrete. Pre-loading may assist to
achieve this. It is, however, a specialist area and expert advice should be sought before such techniques
are used.
8.5 Breaking out of concrete

Various specifications use different terminology to refer to the concrete that is to be removed. It is not
uncommon to find that some people expect ‘unsound’ concrete to be delaminated, loose or of reduced
strength when it may be structurally ‘sound’ in every respect other than high chloride levels. Whatever
criteria are used to establish the extent of concrete to be removed they must be unambiguous. The
common expression ‘break out to sound concrete’ is ill defined.
It is common when repair work commences that much more concrete requires removal than was at first
envisaged e.g. the reinforcement is corroded further into the structure than allowed for. The designer/
specifier should consider what allowances may have to be made in such a scenario and whether to
stipulate a maximum depth of concrete removal before propping or other measures are required.
Breaking concrete out mechanically (shown in Figure 8.1) can create a weak layer or potential failure
plane immediately below the broken out surface (sometimes referred to as bruising). This may be
adequately removed by grit blasting or hydro demolition but the substrate should be checked for
64
Figure 8.1 Concrete removal with pneumatic breaker
soundness by hammer testing, or other means, prior to applying the repair material. Bruising will not
occur if the defective concrete has been removed by hydro demolition. In addition if mechanical
breakers contact the reinforcement vibrations can result which may damage the concrete interaction
with the reinforcement in areas surrounding the repair. Wherever possible hydro demolition should be
the preferred method of concrete removal.
In chloride contaminated concrete, a commonly adopted strategy is to break out and replace all the
concrete containing more than 0.3% total chloride ion by weight of cement. This may not be practical
or desirable in all situations, and these restrictions are often relaxed to reduce the quantity of concrete
that has to be replaced. In taking this course of action the disadvantage is that either corrosion will not
be stopped everywhere or it will re-occur in the original concrete around the perimeter of the repair,
due to the development of incipient anodes. Other remedial options such as detailed in Chapter 7 should
also be considered in combination with more limited concrete repair.
In chloride contaminated reinforced concrete all the concrete containing more than 0.3% total chloride
ion by weight of cement should be replaced. In practice these restrictions are often relaxed to reduce
the quantity of concrete that has to be replaced. In taking this course of action the disadvantage is that
either corrosion will not be stopped everywhere or it will re-occur in the original concrete around the
perimeter of the repair due to the development of incipient anodes.
8.6 Reinforcements
Where there is doubt about whether or not to remove reinforcement it is recommended that cleaning
(preferably by high pressure water jetting) be carried out before the decision is reached. Section loss
can then be accurately determined. Bear in mind that uncleaned corroded reinforcement can often
appear to be in far worse condition due to the expansive nature of the corrosion process.
If section loss has occurred then the effectiveness of the remaining reinforcement should be determined
by a qualified engineer taking account of all relevant design factors relating to both the member to be
repaired and the structure as a whole.
65
Once a decision has been made that new reinforcement should be introduced into the repair there are
three usual methods of fixing:
Lapping
Here reinforcement should be fixed as for new build with appropriate lap lengths and tying wire
(preferably stainless steel) used. If the size of repair marginally precludes sufficient lap length then
individual assessment of the laps may result in a shorter lap requirement. Extending the repair size to
accommodate the bars may also be considered. However it should be appreciated that this may not be
practicable or economic and can only be assessed on a repair specific basis.
Mechanical connectors
Mechanical connectors are a very effective method of joining rebars where insufficient lap length is
available. The strength of most connectors greatly exceeds the strength of the rebars. The diameter of
connectors is greater than that of the reinforcement and difficulties may be encountered if there is
reinforcement congestion or limited cover available to accommodate the device. It may of course be
possible to enlarge a repair to provide appropriate cover. Consideration should also be given to
staggering of the position of the connectors in adjacent reinforcement. Their use is also not
recommended in structurally critical areas, where there are high stresses or elements potential subject
to fatigue.
Welding
The welding of replacement reinforcement using butt and fillet welds has been successful in many
situations. If this option is to be considered then the compatibility of the existing and replacement steel
must be established. Welding can reduce the tensile strength of the reinforcement and this must be taken
into account. Correct welding procedures and certification are required. It is also important that
scrupulous preparation be observed throughout. Testing of the finished welds is strongly recommended.
Other options
If it is not possible or desirable to use any of the foregoing methods of fixing replacement reinforcement
then the use of threaded connectors may provide a solution. They are normally only used for connecting
bars where the threading can be carried out away from the structure. In certain cases it may be possible
to thread bars insitu however this would require special consideration of each particular case and would
generally be regarded as a last option.
8.7 Concrete repair methods

These repairs are normally carried out following removal of cracked and spalled concrete which has
been identified as being defective using inspection and investigation techniques described in sections
3 and 4. Removal is generally done using pneumatic/electric breaker or these days increasingly by
hydro-demolition if there are numerous areas. In all cases the boundary of the repair should be sawcut
using a power-cutting disc. This exposed reinforcement should be cleaned and treated. To ensure there
is good bond between parent concrete and the repair material it is usual to cut back behind any
reinforced reinforcement by a specified amount. Some manufacturers also require a primer or bonding
coat to be applied prior to the application of the repair material. Unless stated otherwise by the
manufacturer, the concrete substrate should be thoroughly soaked with clean water for a prescribed
period of time.
66
The repair methods under this heading comprise:
Hand placed repair mortars
They are used only for small patch repairs with a surface area of less than 1 sq metre and a repair depth
of less than 30mm. Different grades are available dependant on whether they are to be applied to a soffit
or vertical face or conversely to the top face. Most commonly used are the polymer modified Portland
cement mortars, primarily styrene butadiene acrylic or vinyl co-polymers although some systems are
polyurethane based. To a lesser extent, to suit specialised applications non Portland cement based
materials such as magnesium phosphate or high alumina are still used. Although there can be problems
with polymer modified cementitious mortars there are several distinct advantages over other materials:
l low permeability to the ingress of chlorides and other aggressive materials;
l ability to set rapidly and will harden even below 0° C;

l excellent chemical resistance;
l can be applied in thin layers.
Hand placed proprietary repair concrete
This is used for repairs where the surface area is at least 1 sq metre and the depth to be filled is greater
than 30mm - on the top face of a slab for instance which has become badly spalled and where the
reinforcement is not too congested. The placed material is not vibrated with a poker and should be only
lightly tamped.
Hand placed design mix repair concrete
This is used where a design mix has been specified for special structural concrete. As above it is best
suited to repair larger areas with ready access for placing.
Flowable grout/concrete
These self-compacting materials are appropriate where the scale of the repair is too large for hand
application and where access for vibrating the replacement material is restricted if not impossible - for
example, sides and soffits of beams and crossheads, and/or where the repair volume is congested with
reinforcement. They also are useful in producing the original profile of a member of a structure where
concrete has been removed from several faces.
Flowable grout and concrete are available in dry packs and preparation involves putting the materials
in a mixer and adding the recommended amount of water. Adding water above the recommended level
may adversely affect various properties of the mix, particularly the compressive strength and the plastic
shrinkage.
The repair procedure referred to as a ‘mix and pour’ technique begins with complete removal of
degraded and contaminated concrete, preferably by water jetting. It is important when removing old
concrete from the soffit to ensure that the finished surface is smooth. An uneven surface with crevices
will trap air when repair material is placed. Soffit surfaces, therefore, should be slightly inclined
upwards towards an open surface (see Figure 8.2). The shuttering, to reform the desired shape, and
hoses are fixed so that the replacement material enters from the bottom. The replacement concrete/
grout is poured using a funnel and bucket. The pour should be as nearly continuous as possible. The
more steadily the forms are filled, the more easily will air and residual water from the requisite pre-
soaking be expelled from the substrate. The new, wet mix must not be vibrated in the forms to avoid
67
Loading funnel
for bucket pouring
Sawn edge of
previous pour
Plywood
shutter
Parent concrete
Flexible hose Interface prepared by

fixed to support water blasting, with
timbers sloping soffit and
rounded arrises
Hose clipped to
entry port in
soffit shutter
Figure 8.2 Diagrammatic representation of repair with flowable concrete
air bubbles at the interface of the parent concrete and the repair material. Test have shown that it is better
to have an ambient temperature of 15oC or greater as this increases the flow distances of materials
significantly (Patel, 1992). However, it is important that flow characteristics of materials are evaluated
by carrying out a site trial at the prevailing ambient temperature before using in the actual repair.
Sprayed concrete
This is a mixture of cement, aggregate and water ejected at high velocity from a nozzle. It is referred
to as ‘Gunite’ if the maximum size of aggregate is less than 10mm and ‘Shotcrete’ if the aggregate is
10 mm or greater. Reference should be made to Clause 1776AR of the Specification for Highway
Works.
There are two main types of sprayed concrete:
Dry mix - cement based polymer modified one component repair mortar containing silica fume
and high range water-reducing agents. It is thoroughly mixed ‘dry’ and fed into a purpose-made
machine wherein the mixture is pressurised , metered into a dry air stream and conveyed through
hoses to a nozzle before water as a spray is injected into the mix.
Wet mix - a similar composition but mixed with water at source prior to being conveyed through
a hose to a nozzle where air is injected . It was developed in a bid to produce less rebound when
being applied and to make trowelling off to a smooth face easier. Many specifiers still prefer to
use the dry mix material.
68
It is a suitable material to use where large volumes of defective concrete have been removed. It can be
applied in thick layers to all faces during a single operation and it is relatively quick to apply and, hence,
widely used for building up areas such as walls and soffits (see Figure 8.3). On the down side, with
complex shapes it is difficult to accurately obtain the original profile accurately and there is a need to
set up screed lines prior to spraying. Also if the width of the repair is less than say 100mm it is not an
economical method of repair as loss of material through overspray becomes excessive. It is an ideal
method of repair when used in conjunction with cathodic protection schemes as it can be used for the
repair back to original profile and then for the overlay following installation of a mesh anode. Generally
the manufacturer provides a different grade of material for CP which has good conductive properties.
Figure 8.3 Sprayed concrete repair in progress at Tay Bridge
Unlike hand applied material the work areas have to be fully encapsulated to prevent overspray into
the atmosphere from the nozzle. The spraying can only be done by trained and skilled operatives who
are able to ensure that there is always a dense application without products of rebound material being
entrapped. This is especially important when the material is being applied around reinforcement. It
is recommended that there is a second man alongside the nozzle man to blow away rebound material
with a compressed air blowpipe. It is advisable before embarking on the repair to arrange for trial
spray areas to be carried out way from the works. This can then be done by spraying the material into
large wooden panels (see Figure 8.4) with reinforcement present to replicate the configuration and
congestion likely to be encountered. This will enable the ability of the operatives to be assessed and
also allow cores to be taken to check out compressive strength and compaction. There is greater
chance of areas of sprayed material becoming debonded from the parent concrete than hand applied
materials. So, to minimise the risk the substrate should always be properly prepared using grit
blasting or ultra high pressure water jetting. In all but very thin applications it is also advisable to
have a light wire reinforcing fabric pinned firmly to the substrate to secure the sprayed concrete until
it has cured. Prior to application the substrate should be thoroughly wetted.
To obtain a dense application the nozzle should be normal to the substrate at a distance of 1 metre
away. Although a trowel finish can be obtained it is probably better to leave untrowelled if possible,
as it is felt the trowelling has an adverse effect on the bond. A great deal of expertise is required to
successfully trowel off and it is advisable to wait for the initial hardening to have taken place (known
as ‘false set’) 1 -2 hours after spraying. Also wooden trowels are preferable to steel ones.
69
Figure 8.4 Trial with sprayed concrete using wooden panel
Alternatively, to obtain a smoother finish without trowelling the work can be finished short of the
finished profile and then a thin ‘flash coat’ applied. For surfaces left as sprayed it is normal practice
to brush the sprayed surface 1 hour after application with a soft plasterers brush. This removes
adhering rebound and should help reduce crazing which tends to appear after a few months (as a rule
this is not detrimental to the performance). Damp curing lessens the risk of crazing but it needs to
be applied for at least 4 days. Alternatively but not considered as effective, is the use of proprietary
curing compounds. Although designed to ‘weather off’ in due course, they tend to stain the structure
particularly in areas protected from the weather.
8.8 Crack sealing

Prior to crack sealing the underlying cause of the cracking should be ascertained as this will be a pertinent
factor in defining the sealing material and application methods.
It must be remembered that reinforced concrete is designed to crack under structural action. With regard to
modern highway bridges the width of structural cracking is limited as defined in BD 24/92. Cracks limited
to the widths specified in that document should not adversely affect the concrete’s resistance to chloride
penetration and carbonation. Due to the design controls governing this type of cracking it is recommended
that in all but exceptional circumstances they are not sealed. If such cracks are sealed the causation
mechanism will generally result in sympathetic cracking occurring adjacent to the original. In older
reinforced concrete bridges designed before crack control criteria were introduced structural cracking may
be of such a width as to allow the ingress of chlorides to the detriment of the structure. In such cases sealing
with a flexible sealant may be appropriate but only if the ingress of chloride has not progressed sufficiently
as to affect the reinforcing steel. If this is not the case then sealing should be considered as a part solution
in conjunction with a non-concrete repair method detailed in Section 7.
Other common causes of cracking are:
l Surface cracking due to the setting and curing process. This is usually shows as a close network
of small width cracks. These are seldom a problem and do not need treatment.
l Shrinkage and early thermal movement.
70
l Detrimental intrinsic concrete characteristics such as AAR, thaumasite, delayed ettringite.

l Subsidence.
l Malfunction of bridge components such as joints bearings and movement restraints.
l Corrosion of reinforcement (cracks due to this cause should not be sealed without correcting the
underlying cause by a non concrete repair technique as described in Section 7 alternatively break out
concrete and replace with a repair material).
The characteristics of the crack or cracking (seasonal and loading effects i.e. long and short term) need
to be investigated in order to design an adequate sealing technique. Cracks showing a tendency to no
or small further movement strains typically (<10-2) may be suitable for sealing with an epoxy material
while cracks showing greater strain movements may require a more flexible sealant material.
The type and properties of materials available for sealing are many and constantly evolving. The main
message for the engineer is that the choice of material should be chosen to match the crack causation
plus dimensional and movement characteristics. Special attention should be given to the elasticity and
viscosity properties as the former will control the tendency for sympathetic cracking to occur while the
later will determine penetration and adequacy of seal.
When further major movement is expected at the crack, it is better to make the seal considerably wider
than the crack to reduce the strain. This can be done by cutting a chase along the line of the crack and
sealing it with polysulphide rubber sealant or a preformed neoprene sealing strip. The seal should be
prevented from bonding to the bottom of the chase so that it will only be subjected to direct stress.
Cracks caused by detrimental intrinsic concrete characteristics are the result of complex chemical
reactions within the concrete resulting in expansive forces which induce the cracking. Cracks often
contain deposits resulting from the reactions which have or are taking place and which can prevent
adequate penetration of the sealing material. Specialist advice should be sought in such cases before
crack sealing is attempted.
Typical methodology for crack sealing is to fix a series of injection ports along the line of the crack,
seal the surface between the ports with an epoxy mortar and inject an epoxy resin via one of the ports
(see Figure 8.5). Then wait until it starts to leak out from the next thus indicating that a particular crack
has been sealed. As an alternative to epoxy resin one can consider the use of polyster or methyl
methacrylate resins but tests have indicated that neither are as penetrative as the epoxy. It is useful to
blow out the crack with compressed air prior to sealing to remove any dust and grit. Great care needs
to be exercised during the pumping operations as too much pressure may force out the seal or make the
resin take an alternative path where less resistance exists. If the crack is moist, a damp resistant resin
should be chosen. To ensure that the resin and hardener do not start to cure in the hose or at the nozzle
it is recommended that the constituents are fed continuously through separate lines from metering
pumps so as to be mixed at the head and curing only starts beyond this point.
Where there is a large number of finer cracks or where they are adjacent cracks of varying width an
alternative method of crack sealing may be used known as Vacuum Impregnation. The affected part
of the structure is encapsulated in a plastic sheeting with the edges sealed to the concrete. A partial
vacuum is created within the encapsulation and then a low viscosity resin is introduced. The resin is
then drawn into the cracks by the vacuum.
71
Figure 8.5 Crack sealing in concrete beam using injection ports
8.9 Design and specification

Balance of opinion is that specification should not name products. BBA Certification (or similar)
appears to be preferred by most specifiers. In general existing specifications using proprietary products
have worked where every aspect of the process has been carefully monitored and specifications/
instructions fully complied with.
For extensive projects with large budgets or and/or lasting many years it will be appropriate for the
project team to consider amending or developing standard specifications to suit their own requirements.
Trials to establish suitability of proposed materials/application methods are a prerequisite for
confidence in the end result and should be considered for all but the smallest repair projects. The project
team must assess the proportion of trial costs which would be reasonable against the overall project
budget and the cost of remedial works which could be required beyond the contractual maintenance
period or as a possible result of accepting proposals which subsequently prove ineffective. For
example, most repair contracts effected under ICE 5th the onus is on the Contractor to comply with the
Contract - not the material supplier.
Any ‘guarantees’ mentioned by any other party (however well meaning) must be regarded as
contractually irrelevant unless the standard Conditions of Contract are amended accordingly. In this
regard specialist advice on contract law may be worth seeking. It should be appreciated that any course
of action that extends a contractor’s obligations is likely to impose an additional cost that may result
in higher rates.
It is very easy to amend contract clauses and specifications in a way that appear to give the employer
confidence that the Contractor will be responsible for all or any remedial works, and associated costs,
for years to come. It is rather more difficult to make them stick many years down the line.
72
8.10 Design and specify – relevant aspects

1 Aesthetics – as far as possible the colour and texture of the repair should match existing.
2 It may be worth extending the repair area to stop at shutter lines, construction joints or other
features to mask the edges.
3 Fairing coats or paint coatings are excellent for masking repairs but are likely to require more
intensive maintenance than bare repairs. They may also delay visual identification of future
deterioration e.g. failure of coating bond.
The specification for repairs is generally required to be of the generic type, e.g. polymer modified
cementitious mortars, however, this is not considered sufficient, as each manufacturers product has
variations which best suit a particular situation. For a successful repair it is essential that all parties
involved act as a team and consideration should be given to some form of partnering contractual
arrangements. The decision on materials, delivery, storage and use can then be made jointly and,
preferably, following trials.
Manufacturers recommendations for the use of repair materials are written to cover a range of
situations, it is therefore essential that site staff have a clear understanding of these recommendations
and a knowledge of the tolerance and limitations behind them.
8.11 Supervision/Inspection
Because of the potential variation of the repair work, adequate levels of supervision should be available
to ensure consistent decisions are made with regard to the repair extent. Existing records and relevant
information should be available to site staff at the time to assist in the identification of the extent of the
repairs and site staff must ensure that adequate records of the repair are kept.
8.12 Trials
For all critical repair operations trials should be conducted in advance. It is essential that those
undertaking the repairs are also fully involved in the trials to ensure continuity. Trials should reflect
as closely as possible site conditions and operatives should develop an understanding of the sensitivity
of repair materials to mixing times, batch size, climatic conditions etc.
8.13 Site control and restrictions

Vibration to the repair area either by compaction methods, or through adjacent traffic flow should be
minimised or removed whenever practically possible. This may result in the possibility of lane,
carriageway or total closure, depending on the extent of the repair area and flexibility of the structure.
Site supervision should be present to ensure that adequate monitoring and inspection of work practices
is carried out. The success of any concrete repair is very sensitive to the adequacy of the work practices
and how materials are prepared and placed. Quality control should be dominant in the exercise of any
concrete repairs.
Consideration should be given to working times of operatives and the general conditions, space and
access they are given. Proper planning for adequate and safe working conditions will only help in the
better use of materials and techniques.
73
Due care and attention needs to be given to environmental needs during any concrete repair:
(a) The need to minimise pollution and to have adequate protective and contingency measures is
important, particularly over rivers where the Environment Agency will require approval and
method statements for working procedures.
(b) Countryside and wildlife will need to be adequately thought about and protected - more so in
areas of SSSI/AONB and local trusts.
(c) Protected species of flora and fauna etc might occasionally alter the methods of working.
Where large sites are being carried out, some form of Environmental Impact Assessment may
be required.
8.14 Installation
There are many aspects during installation of the concrete repair that may be critical:
(a) Removal of adequate area of existing concrete (covered in durability), and proper preparation
of existing steel and concrete surfaces.
(b) Structural continuity to be safely maintained while the repairs are being carried out. Depending
on the extent and location within the structure this may require temporary propping/additional
strengthening or reduction in live loading. Proper structural investigation should be carried out
where the structure is continued to be used whilst the repair work is undertaken.
(c) Utilising specialist repair advice on difficult repair areas, i.e. post tensioned or prestressed
concrete.
(d) Secondary reinforcing for large areas. This will need to be considered job for job and will
require structural engineering advice.
Repair work to be carried out by approved contractor using approved materials and methods as
discussed earlier in this section. It must be emphasised that the management constraints will be
different for every structure. All the management issues including traffic, environmental, health and
safety etc (see Section 6) should given be proper consideration prior to installation of repair.
8.15 Strength and propping

The repair may involve the removal of material, which contributes directly to the strength of the
structure. The extent to which strength of the structure will be affected by removal of such material must
be defined and any necessary limits set. This will include consideration of stress transfer and any
necessary temporary support. Additionally the extent of repair that may be undertaken in one phase
may need controlling. It is essential that the site team fully understand the situation.
8.16 Contractual arrangements

To obtain competitive tenders for concrete repair is problematic. Most forms of contract perform best
with predictability of outcome. The inevitable variation that will occur in repair contracts can be
accommodated by the use of provisional quantities, but where access is difficult and time limited
additional items will be necessary to cover for further site visits.
74
Contractual arrangements need to be sufficiently flexible where a particular planned operation, despite
test areas, does not work. A particular area is the removal of existing waterproof membranes where
originally proposed methods have proved ineffective or extremely slow.
8.17 Records
As build records of all repairs should be made. These should indicate the extent of the repairs and the
methods employed. It is valuable if these can be supplemented by photographs and even video of the
operation. A sample proforma is shown on page 65.
8.18 Monitoring the performance of repairs

Ideally a repair should give a reasonable period of reliable performance without the need for
monitoring. Repair methods for corroding reinforced concrete have been developed only during the last
decade and currently have a limited track record. There are some concerns regarding the long term
durability of these repair methods hence monitoring is required even though this produces a significant
increase in lifetime costs. The main purpose of monitoring repairs is to check that corrosion of the
reinforcement has not re-commenced following repair work. If corrosion is detected then further
repairs will be required.
It is therefore necessary to monitor repairs and their surroundings periodically using half cell potential
measurements to provide an early warning of new corrosion so that steps can be taken before further
damage to the concrete occurs. A monitoring interval of two years should be sufficient and it may be
convenient to combine this with a general inspection.
Concrete repairs sometimes debond from the parent concrete especially if the depth of the repair is
small. It is useful to check for this during general inspections by tapping the repair surface with a light
hammer and listening for a dull report indicating that the repair has debonded.
8.19 Concrete repair check list

1 As a general rule inadequate cover should be rectified. However it must be considered whether
a rash of repair ‘blisters’ sitting proud of a plane area may look absurd and draw attention to
repairs. A properly executed repair, even with reduced cover, is likely to provide better
protection to the reinforcement than the existing surrounding concrete.
2 The design strength and other properties of the repair material should, where possible, match
those of the substrate.
3 Saw cuts should be carried out after the repair has been broken out. Saw cutting first often
results in low cover reinforcement being cut despite every attempt to carefully locate rebars
first.
4 Shuttered, poured repairs are preferable to layered repairs. Reducing the number of failure
planes and providing a homogenous mass.
5 If a limited number of very large bars are the only reinforcement encountered in a repair then
consideration should be given to introducing a light mesh at appropriate cover below the
surface and/or inserting dowels to link the repair to the substrate. Equally introduction of mesh
into the repair may help prevent falling concrete if the repair itself fails in the future. This may
be prudent in soffit repairs above pedestrianised areas where falling concrete has been a
problem.
6 Try to plan projects so that repairs are carried out in suitable weather – i.e. plan to eliminate
avoidable problems.
75
7 If repair is required due to water penetration look at ways of preventing water reaching the
repair e.g. introducing drip checks, drip notches, locally varying the thickness of the repaired
areas to shed, rather than attract, water.
8 Be aware that when the worst areas of a structure are repaired then secondary deterioration will
stand out and the overall effect may not be of significant improvement.
9 Where cracks exist in the substrate they may well appear in time in the repair. The introduction
of crack inducers may encourage them to appear where the designer can deal with them.
10 Try to avoid replacing a bad detail with the same bad detail e.g. if a repair is required because
the original designer omitted a water bar at a construction joint then consider the possibility of
rectifying this omission.
11 The ideal repair material for deck repairs may not be suitable for walls and soffits as well. Be
prepared to consider different solutions for different parts of the same structure.
12 The use of fibres (steel and synthetic) can be very beneficial in minimising cracking.
13 Repair materials with relatively low strength, low shrinkage, high creep and low modulus of
elasticity are most desirable for non-structural protective repairs.
14 Consideration should be given to specifying compatibility, low shrinkage and low
permeability.
15 If reinforcement is being jet or blast cleaned it makes sense to clean any replacement
reinforcement when fixed.
16 If it is at all likely that future cathodic protection will be installed then specification of
component parts of the repair must take this into account.
17 Leaking construction joints are a common cause for concrete repair. Introducing sealants into
chases cut in the repaired concrete can prevent recurrence.
18 Shrinkage can be reduced by using 30% by weight of aggregate in repair materials.
19 Strength and other properties of the repair material should be measured using the same tests
that were used to determine the properties of the substrate concrete. Proprietary systems may
select the tests that show their properties in the best light. When assessing systems check which
tests were used.
20 There is no substitute for experience. When assessing a concrete repair system take up
references where the structure and conditions are similar to the one being repaired.
21 Optimum stiffness for a repair material is 30% greater than the substrate.
22 Repair failures generally seem to result from a combination of factors conspiring against
success rather than single omissions or reasons. It cannot be over emphasised that every aspect
of a repair should be strictly controlled and in accordance with specifications and
manufacturer’s requirements if a successful outcome is to be achieved.
23 There should be no free surface moisture when the repair is applied i.e. that would wet a hand
drawn across the surface. With proprietary systems which include a bonding agent (usually
polymer modified) no pre-wetting is required. When using Portland cement based repair
materials it is preferable to err on the side of surfaces being too dry rather than too wet.
24 The temperature of the substrate can also affect bond strength. With Portland cement based
materials optimum bond is achieved at around 200C. The temperature less than 100C may
reduce bond strength.
76
A2000 Anyspan Interchange

Bridge No A 200025-250- Chloride Viaduct
Concrete Repair Record Sheet (Suggested record sheet for concrete repairs)
Repair No
Location
Area
Max depth Min depth Av. depth
Overbreak Inclination
Exposed steel
Breakout method
Reinforcement replaced Extent
Reinforcement cleaned Method
Shutter type
Materials
Bonding agent Rebar coating
Repair mortar Curing method
Ambient conditions during repair
Date commenced Date completed
Air temp Max Min
Substrate temp Max Min
Weather
A sketch of the repair is to be provided overleaf showing any repair specific characteristics.
77
78
9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by members of the CSS/HA/TRL Concrete Bridge repair Working Group
under the guidance of S Pearson.
The project was jointly sponsored by the Highways Agency (Project officer N Loudon) and the
CSS Working Party on Highway Research (Chairman R Wilkins)). Their support is gratefully
acknowledged.
Many local authority Bridge Engineers contributed to the project by hosting visits, taking part in
discussions and answering questions. The Working Group is grateful to all those who gave freely
of their time and expertise.
79
80
10 REFERENCES
Almusallam A A, Al-Gahtani A S, Maslehuddin M and Khan M M (1997). Evaluation of
repair materials for functional improvement of slabs and beams with corroded reinforcement.
Proc. Instn, Civ, Engrs. Structs. & Bldgs. February 1997 issue.
Armstong K, Grantham M G and McFarland B (1996). The trial repair of Victoria Pier, St
Helier, Jersey, using electrochemical desalination. Construction Repair, July/August, pp 10-15.
Austin S A, Robins P J (1993). Development of patch test to study behaviour of shallow concrete
patch repairs. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol 45, No 164, pp 221-229.
Baker A F (1992). Structural investigation. Durability of concrete structures: Investigation,

repair, protection. Edited by Geoff Mays, Published by E&FN Spon pp 37-81.
Barr B I, Evans H R, Harding J E and Baldo P (1994). The use of high pressure water jet for
bridge deck repair and widening. Bridge assessment management and design. Proceedings of the
Centenary Year Bridge Conference, (held) 26-30 September 1994, Cardiff pp 391-6.
Boam K J (1992). Highway bridges: Case study of reinforced concrete repairs, Durability of
Concrete Structures: Investigation, repair, protection. Edited by Geoff Mays, Published E&FN
Spon, pp 188-206.
Bradley S J (1995). Precautions and repair methods. Concrete structures: managing the cost and
risk of ownership. Proceedings of a seminar held 18 October 1994, London.
Branco F A and De Brito J (1995). Decision criteria for concrete bridge repair. Structural
Engineering International, Vol 5, No 2, pp 92-95, IABSE.
Building Research Establishment (1999). Alkali silica reaction in concrete. Digest 330. Watford:
Building Research Establishment.
Building Research Establishment (2001). Sulfate and acid resistance of concrete in the ground.
Special Digest 1. Watford: Building Research Establishment.
British Cement Association (1992). Diagnosis of the alkali silica reaction. Report of a Working
Party. Slough: Wexham Springs.
Broomfield J P (1997). Corrosion of steel in concrete: Understanding, investigation, and repair.

London: E & FN Spon.
BSI (2000). Cathodic protection of steel in concrete. BS EN 12696:2000.
Bungey J H (1997). Non-destructive testing: assessment of concrete durability related to expected

performance in service. Proc. of STATS 21st Anniversary Conference on Prediction of Concrete
Durability, London. Edited by J. Glanville, A. Neville, pp 16-38.
Cairn J (1990). An analysis of the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams following deterioration
and repair. First International Conference of bridge management.
Cairn J (1993). Behaviour of concrete beams with exposed reinforcement. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs.
Structs & Bldgs, May 1993 issue.
81
Cairns J (1993). Load relief during structural repairs to reinforced concrete beams. Proc. Instn.
Civ. Engrs, Structs. & Bldgs., November 1993 issue.
Cairns J (1995). Load relief during structural repairs to reinforced concrete beams (discussion).
Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs. Structs. & Bldgs., February issue.
Cairns J and Zhao Z. (1993). Behaviour of concrete beams with exposed reinforcement. Proc.
Instn. Civ. Engrs. Structs. & Bldgs., May 1993 issue.
Calder A J J and Chowdhury Z S (1996). Fourth Int. Conf. on Corrosion of reinforcement in

Concrete Construction, Cambridge.
Chess P M (1998). Cathodic protection of steel in concrete. London: E & FN Spon.
Cleland D L, Yeoh K M and Long A E (1997). Corrosion of reinforcement in concrete repair.

Construction and Building Materials, Vol 11, No 4, pp 233-238.
Concrete Bridge Development Group (2002). Guide to testing and monitoring the durability of
concrete structures. Technical Guide No 2.
The Concrete Society (1988). Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete. Technical Report No.36.
The Concrete Society (1991). Patch repair of reinforced concrete - subject to reinforcement
corrosion. Model specification and method of measurement. Technical Report No. 38.
The Concrete Society (1992). Non-structural cracks in concrete. Technical Report No. 22.
The Concrete Society (1995). Alkali silica reaction: Minimising the risk to concrete. Guidance
notes and model specification. Technical Report TR30.
The Concrete Society (2000). Diagnosis of deterioration in concrete structures. Technical

Report No. 54.
The Concrete Society (2000). Design guidance for strengthening concrete structures using fibre
composite materials. Technical Report No. 55.
Cronin D J and Kay W (1992). Repair methods in practise. Proc. of Int. Rilem Conf. on
Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, Melbourne, Australia 31 Aug-2 Sep, pp 385-402.
Doolan T F (1992). Repair strategies for concrete bridges. Proc. of Int. Rilem Conf. on
Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, Melbourne, Australia, 31 Aug-2 Sep, pp 61-69.
Emberson N K and Mays G C (1996). Significance of property mismatch in the patch repair of
structural concrete. Part 3: Reinforced concrete members in flexure. Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol 48, No 174, pp 45-57.
Emberson N K and Mays G G (1990). Significance of property mismatch in the patch repair of
structural concrete Part 1: Properties of repair systems. Magazine of Concrete Research, 42,
No. 152, pp 147-160.
Emmons P H and Vaysburd A M (1994). Factors affecting the durability of concrete repairs: the
contractor’s viewpoint. Construction and Building Materials, Vol 8, No 1, pp 5-16.
Emmons P H and Vaysburd A M (1996). System concept in design and construction of durable
concrete repairs. Construction and Building Materials, Vol 10, No 1, pp 69-75.
82
Emmons P H and Vaysburd A M (1997). Corrosion protection in concrete repair: myth and
reality. Concrete International, Vol 19, No 3, p 47.
Gannon E J, Weyers R E and Cady P D (1995). Cost relationships for concrete bridge
protection, repair, and rehabilitation. Transportation Research Record, N1490 p 32-42,
Transportation Research Board.
Glanville J and Newman J (1997). The performance prediction of concrete: a review of

landmarks 1975-1995. Proc. of STATS 21st Anniversary Conference on Prediction of Concrete
Durability, London. Edited by J. Glanville, A. Neville, pp 9-10.
Godfrey P S (1995). The philosophy of when to repair. Concrete structures: managing the cost and
risk of ownership, Proceedings of a seminar held 18 October 1994, London.
Godson I B, Cheaitani A and Campbell K D (1997). Bridge repair, protection & strengthening
techniques of the future. Austroads Bridge Conference, 1997, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia, Vol 2, pp 347-61.
Gullikers J J, van Mier J G (1992). Accelerated corrosion by patch repairs of reinforced

concrete structures. Proc. of Int. Rilem Conf. on Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, Melbourne,
Australia, 31 Aug-2 Sep, pp 341-353.
Highways Agency (1999). Bridge Inspection Manual, Vol. 2, Concrete bridges and concrete
elements. London: Highways Agency.
Holl C H and O’Connor S A (1997). Cleaning and preparing concrete before repair concrete.
Concrete International, Vol 19, No 3, pp 60-63.
Institution of Structural Engineers (1988). Structural effect of the alkali silica reaction.
Technical guidance on the appraisal of existing structures.
Kay E A (1997). The European Standard on concrete repair principles. Construction Repair,
Vol 11, No 2, pp 52-55.
Lambert P (1996). Reinforced concrete repairs reviewed. Highways Vol 64, No 5, pp 14-6.
Mallett G P (1994). Repair of concrete bridges. State of the Art Review. London: Thomas Telford.
Mangat P S and Elgarf M S (1999). Flexural strength of concrete beams with corroding
reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, Jan/Feb 1999 issue.
Mangat P S and Elgarf M S (1999a). Bond characteristics of corroding reinforcement in

concrete beams. Materials and Structures, Vol 32, March 1999 issue, pp 89-97.
Mangat P S and Elgarf M S (1999b). Flexural strength of concrete beams with corroding
reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, Jan/Feb 1999 issue.
Mangat P S and Elgarf M S (1999c). Strength and serviceability of repaired reinforced concrete
beams undergoing reinforcement corrosion. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol 51, No 2.
Mangat P S and Elgart (1999). Strength and serviceability of repaired concrete beams
undergoing reinforcement corrosion. Magazine of Concrete Research, April, 51, No.2.
Mays G and Wilkinson W (1987). Polymer repairs to concrete: Their influence on structural
properties. Katherine and Bryant Mather International Conference, ACI-SP 100-22.
83
Mays G C and Barnes R A (1995). The structural effectiveness of large volume patch repairs to
concrete structures. Proc. Instn, Civ, Engrs. Structs. & Bldgs. November issue.
Mietz J (1998). Electrochemical rehabilitation methods for reinforced concrete structures – a

state of the art report. European Federation of Corrosion Publications Number 24. London: IOM
Communications Ltd.
Morgan D R (1996). Compatibility of concrete repair material and systems. Construction and
Building Materials, Vol 10, No 1, pp 57-67.
Patel R G (1992). Research on flowable concrete. Research Report RR322. Crowthorne: TRL limited.
Patel R G and McKenzie M (2000). Electrochemical treatment to reinforced concrete. Project

Report PR/IS/10/00. Crowthorne: TRL Limited. (Unpublished report available on direct personal
application only)
Pearson S and Cuninghame J (1998). Water management for durable bridges. Application Guide
AG33. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.
Pocock D C (1996). Societies, standards, and working parties-the present position in European
standards for cathodic protection of concrete structures. Construction and Building Materials,
Vol 10, No 1, pp 101-107.
Powers T C (1956). Resistance to weathering - freezing and thawing. ASTM Special Technical
Publication, No. 169, pp 182-7
Purvis R L (1994). Underwater bridge maintenance and repair, NCHRP synthesis of highway
practice. Transportation Research Board.
Read G E (1992). Degradation of reinforced concrete structures due to corrosion attack.

International Conference on Structural Improvement Through Corrosion Protection of Reinforced
Concrete. Institute of Corrosion, London, Conference Document E7190.
Rigden S R, Burley E and Tajalli A (1995). The assessment of future repair and maintenance
costs of bridges in net present value terms. Proceedings from one-day seminar on whole life
costing - concrete bridges, Concrete bridge development group, BCA, Crowthorne, pp 15-26.
Rostam S (1996). High performance concrete cover-why it is needed, and how to achieve it in
practice. Construction and Building Materials, Vol 10, No 5, pp 407-421.
Sergi G and Page C L (1999). Sacrificial anodes for cathodic protection of reinforcing steel around
patch repairs applied to chloride contaminated concrete. Proceedings of Eurocorr 99, Aachan.
Shahrooz B M, Miller R A, Saraf V K and Godbole B (1994). Behaviour of reinforced concrete

slab bridges during and after repair. Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research
Board, No. 1442, pp 128-35.
Somerville G (1997). Engineering design and service life: a framework for the future. Proc. of
STATS 21st Anniversary Conference on Prediction of Concrete Durability, London. Edited by
J. Glanville, A. Neville. pp 59-74.
Tabor L J (1978). The evaluation of resin systems for concrete repair. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 1978, 30, No.105
Tabor L J (1992). Repair materials and techniques. Durability of concrete structures:

Investigation, repair, protection. Edited by Geoff Mays, Published by E&FN Spon, pp 82-127.
84
Technical Liaison Committee (2000). Half-cell potential surveys of reinforced concrete

structures. Current Practice Guide Sheet No 120, Report by Technical Liaison Committee of the
Institute of Corrosion and the Concrete Society, July-August, pp 43-45.
Thaumasite Expert Group (1999). The thaumasite form of sulfate attack: Risks, diagnosis,
remedial works and guidance on new construction.
Vassie P R (1984). Reinforcement corrosion and the durability of concrete bridges. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, 76, pp 713-723.
Vassie P R (1991). The half-cell potential method for locating corroding reinforcement in concrete
structures. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.
Wallbank E J (1989). The performance of concrete in bridges: a survey of 200 highway bridges.
London: The Stationery Office.
Wyatt R A and Oehlers D J (1992). Application of composite plated beam construction to

existing railway bridge corbels. Proc. of Int. Rilem Conf. on Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures,
Melbourne, Australia, 31 Aug-2 Sep, pp 297-308.
Wynhoven J H, Cox J P, Goad A C and Hunton D A (1992). Rehabilitation revisited. Proc. of

Int. Rilem Conf. on Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures, Melbourne, Australia 31 Aug-2 Sep,
pp 377-384.
85
British Standards referred to in the text:

BS 5328: Part 2: 1997. Concrete. Methods for specifying concrete mixes.
BS 5328: Part 3: 1990. Concrete. Specification for the procedures to be used in producing and
transporting concrete.
BS 5328: Part 4: 1990. Concrete. Specification for the procedures to be used in sampling, testing
and assessing compliance of concrete.
BS 5400: Part 1: 1988. Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. General statement.
BS 5400: Part 4: 1990. Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. Code of practice for design of
concrete bridges.
BS 5400: Part 5: 1976. Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges. Code of practice for design of
composite bridges.
BS 5628: Part 1: 1992. Code of practice for use of masonry. Structural use of unreinforced masonry.
BS EN 12696: 2000. Cathodic protection of steel in concrete, BSI (2000)
86
References for Glossary:
Barker J A (1983). Dictionary of concrete. Harlow: Construction Press.
Barker J A (1981). Dictionary of soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Harlow: Construction
Press.
BS 6918:1990. Glossary of Terms for corrosion of metals and alloys. London: British Standard
Institute.
BSI (1993). Glossary of building and civil engineering terms. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Emerson M (1995). Mechanisms of water absorption by concrete. Proceedings of International
conference on Protection of Concrete, University of Dundee, September 1995. Published by E & F N
Spon, London. (Ed. R K Dhir and J W Green).
Hall C (1981). Water movement in porous building materials - IV. Building and environment. 1981.
Vol 16. No 3, pp 201 - 207.
Scott J S (1991). Dictionary of Civil Engineering. London: Penguin Books.
Stewart Stein J (1980). Construction glossary. USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Whiteoak D (1990). Shell Bitumen Handbook. United Kingdom: Shell Bitumen.
87
88
11 GLOSSARY
Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR): A chemical reaction of sodium and potassium ions in
Portland cement with reactive silica aggregate. This reaction
generates expansive forces in hardened concrete which can
cause cracking.
British Board of Agrément (BBA): Organisation which tests materials and products to confirm
the requirements of the specifications, then issues a Roads
and Bridges certificate for those products which are suitable
for use on highways (as opposed to the general certificate
which is intended for buildings).
Carbonation: A chemical combination between the carbon dioxide in the air

and the lime in the concrete, reducing the pH so that steel
may rust, and also causing drying shrinkage.
Cathodic protection (CP): It is electrochemical technique to stop corrosion of steel in

chloride contaminated concrete or to prevent corrosion in
case of future chloride contamination.
Concrete scaling: Local flaking or peeling away of the surface of the concrete.
Corrosion: Physiochemical interaction between a metal and its

environment which results in impairment of the function of
the metal.
Corrosion inhibitor: Chemical substance which decreases the corrosion rate when
present or placed in concrete at a suitable concentration.
Design manual for roads Contains design standards (BDs) and advice notes (BAs).
and bridges (DMRB): Issued by the Highways Agency.
Ettringite: A product of sulfate attack on concrete, which causes the

concrete to expand and subsequently crack.
General corrosion: A corrosion process where steel in concrete rusts uniformly

over its surface usually because the alkalinity of the concrete
has been reduced by carbonation.
Hydrogen embrittlement: A process resulting in a decrease of the toughness or ductility

of a metal due to absorption of hydrogen.
Half cell potential: The difference in electrical potential between an electrode

and the electrolyte solution with which it is in contact,
measured with reference to another specified reference
electrode.
Laitance: A scum on a cement concrete surface which is weaker then

the rest of the concrete and should be removed.
Macrocell: Corrosion cell where the anode and the cathode are discrete
and separated by distance of more than 10mm.
89
Microcell: Corrosion cell where anode and cathode are not discrete are
separated by microscopic distances.
MCHW: Manual of Contract documents for Highway Works; issued

by the Highways Agency and mandatory for Highways
Agency structures. Includes:
Volume 1 SHW: Specifications for highway works.
Volume 2 NGSHW: Notes for Guidance on the
Specification for Highway Works.
Outgassing: Release of gas from a material, eg from a concrete deck due

to the effect of increasing ambient temperature on the air and
moisture in the voids of the concrete.
Passivity: Is the decrease in the rate of corrosion of a metal resulting

from the formation of a thin protective film (often invisible)
of metal corrosion products, usually oxide.
Pinholing: This is associated with liquid applied waterproofing systems.

Air or water vapour rises through the coating, causing small
blisters on the surface which sometimes burst to form
pinholes with diameter ranging between 1 and 8mm. If these
are not closed, they leave a permanent pathway for moisture
to reach the concrete deck.
Pitting corrosion: A process where the steel corrosion results in pits (cavities
extending from the surface into the metal) rapidly at a number
of points as a result of chloride contamination at a boundary
between the steel the cement paste.
pH: Logaritham of the reciprocal of the molar concentration of the

hydrogen ion; a scale indicating the acidity of a solution.
Pulverised fuel ash (PFA): Finely ground coal of which 99% is smaller than 0.25mm
diameter. Used as a replacement for cement in concrete.
Restivity (electrical): It is a measure of how easily corrosion current can flow as a

result of the potential differences caused by corrosion.
Rust: Visible corrosion products consisting mainly of hydrated iron

oxides.
Silane: A colourless impregnant sprayed onto concrete surfaces to

prevent the passage of water.
U4 finish: A description of the type of finish required for the concrete

deck before waterproofing. It is taken from the ‘Specification
for Highway Works’ Volume 1, Series 1700, Clause 1708.
90
APPENDIX: STANDARD AND ADVICE NOTE RELEVANT TO

CONCRETE BRIDGE REPAIR
The following tables give a list of all the sections and clauses of the Highways Agency (HA) Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works, Specification for
Highway Works (SHW) which contain information relevant for concrete bridge repair.
Document DMRB Section(s) of document

reference reference Title Date of issue relevant to concrete repair
BD 15/92 1.3.2 General Principles for the Dec 1992 Several.

Design and Construction
of Bridges.
Use of BS5400: part 1: 1988.
BD 16/82 1.3 Design of Composite Bridges. Nov1982 Several
Use of BS5400: Part 5: 1979. Dec 1987
Amendment No 1. .
BD 21/01 3.4.3 The Assessment of Highway May 2001 Includes methods of

Bridges and Structures. assessment, and inspection
for assessment.
BD 24/92 1.3.1 Design of Concrete Bridges. Nov 1992 Several.
Use of BS 5400: Part 4: 1990.
BD 27/86 3.3 Materials for the repair of Nov 1986 Includes model
concrete Highway Structure specifications for repair
materials and impregnation.
BD 31/87 2.2 Buried Concrete Box Type Jan 1988 Includes requirements for
Structures. drainage, waterproofing
and joints.
BD 35/99 2.4.1 Quality Assurance Scheme for Aug1999 Several.

Paints and Similar Protective
Coatings.
BD 36/92 1.2.1 Evaluation of Maintenance Aug. 1992 Several

Costs in Comparing Alternative
Designs
BD 43/90 2.4 Criteria and Materials for the April 1990 6.2
Impregnation of Concrete
Highway Structures
Continued ....
91

BD 47/99 2.3.4 Waterproofing and Surfacing Aug 1999 Several.

of Concrete Bridge Decks.
BD 57/01 1.3.7 Design for Durability. Aug 2001 Several.
BD 63/94 3.1.4 Inspection of Highway Oct 1994 Requirements for

Structures. inspections which
supersedes BA 18.
BD 67/96 2.2.7 Enclosure of Bridges. Aug 1996 Additional method of

protecting the steel of a bridge
from corrosion, while
providing access for inspection
and maintenance.
BA 16/97 3.4.4 The Assessment of Highway May 1997 Includes advice on

Bridges and Structures. maintenance and repair.
BA 27/99 2.4.2 Quality Assurance Scheme for Aug 1999 Several.

Paints and Similar Protective
Coatings.
BA 28/92 1.2.2 Evaluation of Maintenance Costs Aug 1992 Several.

in Comparing Alternative Designs
for Highway Structures
BA 33/90 2.4 Impregnation of Concrete Apr 1990 Several.

Highway Structures.
Addendum May 1990
BA 35/90 3.3 Inspection and Repair of Concrete Jun 1990 Several.

Highway Bridges.
BA 38/93 3.4.5 Assessment of the Fatigue Life Oct 1993 Includes guidance on
of Corroded or Damaged assessment of the remaining
Reinforcing bars. fatigue life of corroded or
damaged reinforcement.
BA 39/93 3.4.6 Assessment of Reinforced Apr 1993 Includes consideration for

Concrete Half-joints. corrosion of reinforcement.
BA 41/98 1.3.11 The Design and Appearance Feb 1998 Includes advice on inspection,
of Bridges. maintenance and weathering
considerations.
BA 42/96 1.3.12 The Design of Integral Bridges. Nov 1996 Several.
BA 43/94 3.3.2 Strengthening, Repair and Dec 1994 Includes case studies of
Monitoring of Post-tensioned bridges, some of which have
Concrete Bridge Decks. problems associated with poor
water management.
Continued ....
92

BA 47/99 2.3.5 Waterproofing and Surfacing Aug 1999 Several.

of Concrete Bridge Decks.
BA 44/96 3.4.15 Assessment of Concrete Highway Nov 1996 Several

Bridges & Structures.
BA 52/94 3.4.10 The assessment of concrete Nov 1994 Several

structures affected by alkali
silica reaction
BA 50/93 3.1.3 Post-tensioned Concrete Bridges: Jul 1993 Includes advice on inspection
Planning, Organisation and of post-tensioned concrete
Methods for Carrying Out bridges.
Special Inspections.
BA 51/95 3.4.13 The assessment of Concrete Feb 1995 Includes guidance for the
Highway Structures Affected assessment of concrete
by Steel Corrosion. structures affected by
reinforcement corrosion.
BA 57/01 1.3.7 Design for Durability. Aug 2001 Several.
BA 58/94 1.3.10 Design of Bridges and Concrete Nov 1994 Advice on corrosion
structures with External Unbonded protection, inspection and
Prestressing. maintenance.
BA 59/94 1.3.6 Design of Highway Bridges May 1994

for Hydraulic Action Advice to prevent scour.
BA 63/94 3.1.5 Inspection of Highway Oct 1994 Several.

Structures.
BA 67/96 2.2.8 Enclosure of Bridges. Aug 1996 Additional method of

protecting the steel of a bridge
from corrosion while providing
access for inspection and
maintenance.
BE 70/97 2.1 Reinforced and Anchored Earth Feb 1997 Requirements for durability
Retaining Walls and Bridge of reinforcing elements.
Abutments for Embankments
(Revised 1987).
BE 8/75 2.4 Painting of Concrete Highway Oct 1975 Several.

Structures.
HD 23/99 7.1.1 General Information. Feb 1999 Introduction to Volume 7

of the Design
93
Sections from the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works which have information relevant
to Concrete Bridge Repair.
Volume 1 - Specification for Highway Works (SHW).

Volume 2 - Notes for Guidance on the Specification for Highway Works (NGSHW).
SHW NGSHW
Reference Reference Title
000 NG000 Introduction

100 NG100 Preliminaries
500 NG500 Drainage and Service Ducts
1700 NG1700 Structural Concrete
1800 NG1800 Structural Steelwork
1900 NG1900 Protection of Steelwork Against Corrosion
2000 NG2000 Waterproofing of Concrete Structures
2100 NG2100 Bridge Bearings
2300 NG2300 Bridge Expansion Joints and Sealing of Gaps
2500 NG2500 Special Structures
5000 NG5000 Maintenance painting of steel highway structures
Appendix B Product Certification Schemes
Appendix C British Board of Agrément Roads and Bridges Certificates
Appendix E Departmental Type Approval/Registration
Appendix F Annex 1 Publications Referred to in the Specification/Notes for Guidance
Appendix H Quality Records
94

Repair of Concrete in Highway Bridges - A Practical Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Repair of Concrete in Highway Bridges - A Practical Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Repair of Concrete in Highway Bridges - A Practical Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Repair of concrete in highway bridges – a

S Pearson (Derbyshire County Council) and R G Patel (TRL Limited)

Application Guide AG43

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of

TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing

Mr S Pearson Derbyshire County Council (Chairman)

2 CAUSES OF DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE BRIDGES 9

5 REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT 29

6 DECIDE THE COURSE OF ACTION 37

7 NON CONCRETE REPAIR OPTIONS 47

APPENDIX: STANDARD AND ADVICE NOTE RELEVANT

l Investigation and diagnosis.

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

l Define the objective and constraints of repairs.

l Prepare a repair strategy and determine viable options.

l Carry out whole life costing.

l Prepare specification for repair.

l Carry out repairs.

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

1.1 History of concrete with steel

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

1.2 Bridges – Design life

1.3 Durability/Service problems

1.4 Number of bridges/Repair costs

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

1.5 Modern trends in traffic flow/Load carrying capacity

l Allowance for possible overload.

l Higher allowances for possible dynamic effects.

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

1.6 Future developments

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

2 CAUSES OF DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE BRIDGES

2.1 Reinforcement corrosion

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

2.2 Alkali silica reaction

l reactive aggregate particles e.g. opal, flint;

l concrete with alkali content greater than 3kg/m3;

2.3 Freeze-thaw attack

l the concrete undergoes a high frequency of freeze thaw cycles;

l the concrete is saturated with water, particularly saline water.

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

Figure 2.1 General corrosion of reinforcement caused by carbonation of concrete

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

Figure 2.3 Pitting corrosion of reinforcement caused by chloride penetration in concrete

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

2.4 Sulfate attack

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

2.5 Plastic settlement and early thermal cracks

2.6 Factors affecting concrete deterioration

Table 2.1 Factors causing deterioration of concrete bridges

Materials Design Construction Environment

Low concrete strength Poor drainage details Poor compaction Chlorides

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002

l anti-carbonation coatings to protect against carbonation;

l waterproofing membranes to protect against water, chlorides and sulfates;

l joint replacement to protect against water and chlorides.

Version No: 1 Application Guide AG43 August 2002