Evolution of ACI 562

Code—Part 9
Interface bond provisions in ACI 562-16

by Khaled Nahlawi and Jay H. Paul

A
lthough ACI can trace its concrete design standard The second version of the code was published in June
back to 1910,1 more than a century elapsed before 2016.3 The most significant changes to ACI 562 include:
the organization issued its first concrete repair code, •• Revisions to Chapters 1 and 4 to include specific criteria
ACI 562-13.2 The repair code, unlike other ACI standards, is requirements for assessment and design of repair and
primarily a performance-based document. It was developed rehabilitation for varying levels of damage, deterioration,
to provide licensed design professionals (LDPs) with the or faulty construction;
minimum requirements for assessing and repairing or •• Revisions to allow the repair code to be used with the
rehabilitating existing structural concrete buildings, members, International Existing Building Code or as a stand-alone
systems, and, where applicable, nonbuilding structures. Prior code (Appendix A); and
to the development of the code, an LDP might set repair and •• Revisions to the interface bond provisions in Chapter 7.
rehabilitation requirements arbitrarily or based on the culture To assist engineers in applying the new code, ACI and the
or past experiences of the LDP’s firm. The new standard International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI) have collaborated
should result in improved consistency and overall performance and produced a guide for its use (refer to Reference 4). This
in the industry and thus further protect lives and property. article discusses the updated interface bond provisions, provides
excerpts from the new guide, and includes an example to
Existing Concrete Structures—Learning illustrate the application and significance of these new provisions.
Lessons and Advancing Solutions
ACI Committee 562, Evaluation, Repair, and Guide to the ACI 562 Code
Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings, strives to advance The primary purpose of the new guide is to help LDPs gain
the practice of engineering and improve the repair and more know­ledge and skill in interpreting and properly using
rehabilitation of existing concrete structures. ACI ACI 562-16. Although specifically developed for LDPs, the
Subcommittee 562-E, Education, is dedicated to helping guide was also designed to provide insights into the use and
engineers, building officials, contractors, owners, benefits of ACI 562 for contractors, material manufacturers,
inspectors, and others by conveying information in more building owners, and building officials. To achieve these
detail than is possible solely through the ACI 562 Code goals, the guide is separated into two main components:
and Commentary. To this end, and in the hope of chapter guides and project examples. The chapter guides
improving these documents, members of ACI 562 are explain the proper use of ACI 562, and the project examples
providing a series of articles under the main theme, illustrate the process of carrying out a concrete building
“Existing Concrete Structures—Learning Lessons and evaluation, repair, rehabilitation, or strengthening project
Advancing Solutions.” from inception through completion.
Through this series, the committee members explain the The chapter guides follow the general organization of
rationale behind some of the changes in the ACI 562-16 ACI 562; section numbers in Chapters 1 to 11 and Appendix A of
Code as well as share example problems, ideas, concepts, the guide correspond to the provision numbers in ACI 562. The
and the thoughts discussed in ACI Committee 562 chapter guides include background and explanation of the various
meetings. It is also anticipated the series will help the Code provisions with particular insight into how the chapters
committee address questions from the engineering and and sections of ACI 562 are applied to a repair project. Where
construction sectors, solicit answers to problems, and applicable, flowcharts are provided to help users navigate the
review areas of needed research. various pro­­visions of the Code. References to project examples
are provided where needed to illustrate how specific

52 NOVEMBER 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

 “Guide to the Code for Assessment, According to ACI 562-16, Section 7.4.2, for bonded
Repair, and Rehabilitation of interfaces with vu values of less than 30 psi (0.2 MPa), only
Existing Structures” is available at qualitative bond-integrity testing is required. For bonded
the ACI Store at www.concrete.org interfaces with vu of more than 60 psi (0.4 MPa) (per Section
7.4.4), or a repaired section that is subjected to a sustained
provisions within each chapter of tension force, reinforce­ment must be provided between the
ACI 562 are incorporated into the substrate and overlay.
design process. In some instances, The guide to ACI 562-16 includes an expanded discussion
additional limited-scope examples of this topic along with two examples to illustrate the application
are included to better illustrate and significance of these new provisions.
a point that is not covered by The following is such an example, taken from Chapter 7
the project examples. of the guide, addressing the approach and requirements to
To give readers a preview of the guide, some aspects determine bond strength of an overlay to an elevated slab in a
relative to Chapter 7 of ACI 562 are discussed herein. parking structure.

Section 7.4—Interface bond Example 7.2—Determining Bond Strength of

Section 7.4 was revised to emphasize the importance of Overlay to an Elevated Slab
proper bonding between the substrate and overlay.5 Bond Background
strength is influenced by the strength of the substrate concrete, A nine-story parking structure located in the Midwest of
strength of the repair material, quality of the substrate concrete the United States was constructed of 8 in. (200 mm) thick
surface preparation, construction procedures, characteristics of lightweight concrete flat slabs in 1971. The owner contracted
repair materials, and time-dependent factors such as shrinkage with an engineering firm to evaluate the structure and design
of concrete and variations in repair material properties with repairs. From the outset, the owner made it clear that
time. Section 7.4.3C of the Code commentary stresses the inspection and repair activities should have minimal impact
importance of substrate preparation and various methods used on operation of the structure (the revenue stream could not
to test for bond integrity. Various methods to prepare concrete be interrupted).
surfaces are discussed in ICRI 310.2R-20136 and ACI 546R- The design concrete compressive strength was 3750 psi
147 to achieve the desired performance of concrete repairs. (25 MPa) and the reinforcing steel was specified to be in
The Code commentary also references ICRI 210.3R-2013,8 accordance with ASTM A615 Grade 60 (yield strength of
which discusses bond strength in repairs and suggests 60,000 psi [400 MPa]).10 The top surfaces of the decks were
minimum values depending on application criticality. sounded and visually inspected and were found to be badly
The LDP should determine the factored interface shear deteriorated. The LDP estimated that the extent of deterioration
and tension stresses across the bonded interfaces between the on the top side ranged between 30 to 70%. Delamination and
repair materials and existing substrates. Then, the LDP should cracking was also evident on the bottom surfaces of the decks,
verify that the calculated horizontal shear strength is at least but the deterioration was much less extensive than that on
equal to the required bond strength or tensile strength of the the top surfaces.
concrete substrate, such that Cores extracted from several areas of the deck were tested
for strength and chloride content. Tests revealed that the concrete
vu ≤ φvni (ACI 562-16, Eq. (7.4.1.1)) compressive strength matched the design concrete compressive
strength and that chloride was present, with excessive concen­
Here, vu is the calculated bond demand shear stress based on tration levels near the top. Insufficient cover over the reinforce­
mechanics, f is the reduction factor obtained from ACI 562-16, ment was detected at various locations throughout the garage.
Section 5.3.2, and vni is the measured bond stress determined using
a valid test method such as ASTM C1583/C1583M.9 The overlay Procedure
should be tested for proper bonding as required by ACI 562-16, The LDP determined that the repair would consist of the
Sections 7.4.2 through 7.4.4, and as presented in Table 1. removal of 3-1/2 in. (90 mm) of the top of the deck slabs and
Table 1:
Testing requirements based on interface bond stress demand vu (Table 7.4.5 from Reference 4)
vu Section No. (ACI 562-16) Testing requirements
Less than 30 psi (0.2 MPa) 7.4.2 Bond-integrity testing
Between 30 and 60 psi (0.2 and 0.4 MPa) 7.4.3 Quantitative bond strength testing
Greater than 60 psi (0.4 MPa) 7.4.4 Quantitative bond strength testing
Completely resisted by interface reinforcement 7.4.5 Quantitative bond strength testing not required

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | NOVEMBER 2016 53

replacement with a bonded lightweight concrete overlay. There A total of six tests were performed (Table 2). The test results
are several methods for concrete removal, including shotblasting, exceeded 100 psi (0.69 MPa), a minimum value stated in
hydrodemolition, cutting, impact milling, pre-splitting, and ACI 562-16, Section 7.4.2C, and ICRI 210.3, and the
abrading. Irrespective of the method used, it must be effective, difference between maximum and minimum test results was
safe, and economical, and it should produce minimum damage 47 psi or 30%.
to the concrete substrates left in place (free of microcracks). The Once the LDP was satisfied with the test results and the
contractor and the LDP evaluated the different methods and it process was confirmed, the contractor proceeded with the
was decided to use hydrodemolition because it: implementation of the repair work starting with removal of
•• Results in a rough, irregular surface profile that provides the upper surface of the slab (Fig. 2).
an excellent bond for all types of repair materials, creating The LDP requested extensive testing of the repair work
a monolithic repair; throughout the duration of the project. The testing for the
•• Minimizes or eliminates surface microcracking; overlay concrete was similar to the testing for new cast-in-
•• Exposes aggregates without fractures or damage and thus place concrete. Pulloff testing in accordance with ASTM
ensures they will interlock with the overlay; C1583/C1583M was performed to confirm the adequacy of
•• Selectively removes lower strength and deteriorated the bond of the overlay to the substrate concrete. The results
concrete (delamination); of the pulloff tests are presented in Table 3.
•• Minimizes vibration in the surrounding structure; and The test results varied between 32 psi and 190 psi (0.22 MPa
•• Preserves and cleans reinforcing bars for reuse and and 1.31 MPa). The difference of 158 psi (1.09 MPa) or 83%
minimizes the need for sandblasting. indicates large scatter and is unacceptable. The LDP ordered
Robotic equipment was used for this job to ensure uniform petrographic examination of some of the samples. The test
removal of concrete. But prior to the start of the production results revealed that the contractor did not remove all debris
work, a mockup was installed and extensively tested to ensure and loose material from the substrate surface area, thus creating
the success of the recommended procedure. a weak bond between the substrate and overlay (Fig. 3).
The testing of the mockup slab included: Corrective actions were implemented to improve the bond
•• Tensile bond tests of the overlay concrete to the substrate strength:
by pulloff (Fig. 1); and •• The contractor improved the methods used to clean the
•• Petrographic examinations of cores. surface of the substrate and to remove residue resulting

Fig. 1: Pulloff test on an overlay concrete (Fig. 7.2a from Reference 4)7 Fig. 2: Removal of 3-1/2 in. of slab by hydrodemolition (Fig. 7.2b from
Reference 4)
Table 2:
Test results of the pulloff test of the mockup area (after Table 7.2a in Reference 4)
Test parameters
Test number Test location Bond force, lb (kN) Bond strength, psi (MPa) Separation location
A1 900 (4.0) 126 (0.87) Substrate concrete
Level P8 floor slab
A2 790 (3.5) 110 (0.76) Surface of the substrate concrete
mockup area A
A3 790 (3.5) 110 (0.76) Surface of the substrate concrete
B1 1125 (5.0) 157 (1.08) Substrate concrete
B2 Level P8 floor slab 1000 (4.5) 142 (0.98) Surface of the substrate concrete
mockup area B
50% substrate concrete
B3 1000 (4.5) 142 (0.98)
50% surface of the substrate concrete

54 NOVEMBER 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

 from hydrodemolition; and least 100 psi (0.69 MPa), with the exception of one test result.
••Inspectors examined the substrate surface more closely to The LDP ordered another set of petrographic evaluations
determine suitability to receive the bonded overlay. of some of the samples. The examinations indicated that the
The pulloff testing after the corrective measures indicated overlay was well consolidated and there was good bond at the
more consistent results (Table 4). Tensile bond values were at contact surface with the substrate (Fig. 4).

Table 3:
Results of pulloff tests of the partially completed work (after Table 7.2b in Reference 4)
Test Date of Test parameters
number Test area and location placement Bond force, lb (kN) Bond strength, psi (MPa) Separation location
Level P9 on column line 2
BT-1 6-29-06 560 (2.5) 79 (0.54) Substrate concrete
between column lines G and H
Level P9 on column line 2
BT-2 6-29-06 670 (3.0) 96 (0.66) Substrate concrete
between column lines K and L
75% interface between
Level P9 west of column line 2
BT-3 7-08-06 225 (1.0) 32 (0.22) substrate concrete and overlay,
between column lines N and P
25% within substrate concrete
Level P9 between column lines
BT-4 7-14-06 1350 (6.0) 190 (1.31) Epoxy adhesive
8 and 9 and J and K
Level P9 between column lines
BT-5 7-14-06 1350 (6.0) 190 (1.31) Substrate concrete
8 and 9 and F and G

Fig. 3: Petrographic examination of the interface between the new Fig. 4: Petrographic examination of the interface between the
overlay and the existing concrete slab (Fig. 7.2c in Reference 4) concrete substrate and the overlay (Fig. 7.2d in Reference 4)

Table 4:
Results of pulloff tests after the remedial actions (Table 7.2c from Reference 4)
Test parameters
Test Date of concrete Bond force, Bond strength, Separation
number Test area and location placement lb (kN) psi (MPa) location
BT-16 Level P9, NWC Not provided 1240 (5.5) 174 (1.2) Interface zone
BT-17 Level P9, SWC Not provided 560 (2.5) 79 (0.54) Substrate concrete
BT-17A Level P9, SWC, 9 ft N of core BT-17 Not provided 790 (3.5) 100 (0.69) Interface zone
BT-17B Level P9D, West, 3 ft N of core BT-17 Not provided 790 (3.5) 100 (0.69) Interface zone
BT-18 Level P8D, West Not provided 1450 (6.5) 206 (1.42) Interface zone
BT-19 Level P8D, West, column 2 between N and P Not provided 1350 (6.0) 190 (1.31) Interface zone
Note: 1 ft = 0.3 m

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | NOVEMBER 2016 55

Conclusions Repair Materials,” Concrete International, V. 38, No. 9, Sept. 2016,
To ensure any project is successful, the construction pp. 56-60.
phase of the work should be performed with high-quality 6. ICRI Surface Preparation Committee, “Selecting and Specifying
workmanship and materials that satisfy the intent of the Concrete Surface Preparation for Sealers, Coatings, and Polymer
construction documents. The described project (Example 7.2) Overlays (ICRI Technical Guideline No. 310.2R-2013),” International
was in large part successful because the owner, contractor, Concrete Repair Institute, Rosemont, IL, 2013, 54 pp.
and engineers worked together. While this repair was very 7. ACI Committee 546, “Guide to Concrete Repair (ACI 546R-14),”
challenging because it was necessary to keep the garage open American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 70 pp.
with a maximum number of spaces while the repairs were 8. ICRI Evaluation Committee, “Guide for Using In-Situ Tensile
made, the project was completed on time and within budget. Pull-Off Tests to Evaluate Bond of Concrete Surface Materials (ICRI
Technical Guideline No. 210.3R-2013),” International Concrete Repair
Maintenance program Institute, St. Paul, MN, 2013, 20 pp.
Repair work may fail prematurely if a well-established 9. ASTM C1583/C1583M-13, “Standard Test Method for Tensile
maintenance program is not implemented. Therefore, Strength of Concrete Surfaces and the Bond Strength or Tensile Strength
ACI 562-16, Chapter 1, General Requirements, and Chapter 8, of Concrete Repair and Overlay Materials by Direct Tension (Pull-Off
Durability, require that the LDP provides the owner with a Method),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, 5 pp.
maintenance program for the individual repairs. Properly 10. ASTM A615, “Specification for Deformed Billet-Steel Bars for
executed and monitored, a maintenance program will extend Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
the life span of repair work and minimize the total cost of PA, 1968.
ownership. The maintenance program for the example parking 11. Nam Shui, K., and Stanish, K., “Extending the Service Life of
structure could be divided into three categories11: Parking Structures,” Concrete International, V. 30, No. 4, Apr. 2008,
•• Routine maintenance—this includes repairing leaking joint pp. 43-49.
sealant, clearing plugged drain lines, repairing small areas
of spalled or delaminated concrete, replacing expansion joint Selected for reader interest by the editors.
seals, and washing down the parking decks twice a year.
Keeping the structure clear of deicing salts and other debris
can significantly improve the life span of the repair work; Khaled Nahlawi is a Senior Engineer
•• Preventive maintenance—this includes reapplication of at ACI. He has extensive experience in
surface sealers, traffic membranes, joint sealants, and design of new structures as well as design
expansion joints. Preventive maintenance usually does not and management of retrofit and repair
entail the major disruptions associated with structural projects. He was the project engineer on
repairs; and the first U.S. application of post-tensioning
•• Replacement—this includes replacement of structural and strengthening to an unreinforced
operational items at the end of their service lives. Lighting, masonry structure after the Loma Prieta
elevator equipment, plumbing fixtures, and parking access Earthquake. He serves as the Secretary
and control equipment must be maintained to ensure that on the ACI TAC Repair and Rehabilitation Committee. He received
customers are safe and keep coming back. his BS in civil engineering from Damascus University, Damascus,
Syria; his MS in construction engineering and management;
References and his PhD in structural engineering from the University of
1. “Standard Building Regulations for the Use of Reinforced Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Concrete,” Standard No. 4, National Association of Cement Users (ACI),
Jay H. Paul, FACI, is Senior Principal at
V. 6, 1910, 13 pp.
Klein and Hoffman, Inc., Chicago, IL. He
2. ACI Committee 562, “Code Requirements for Evaluation, Repair,
has more than 40 years of experience
and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings (ACI 562-13) and Commentary,”
in the evaluation, design, and repair of
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 59 pp.
environmental structures, parking facilities,
3. ACI Committee 562, “Code Requirements for Assessment, Repair,
building façades, roofs, and foundations.
and Rehabilitation of Existing Concrete Structures (ACI 562-16) and
He is the Secretary of ACI Committee 563,
Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2016,
Specifications for Repair of Structural
86 pp. Concrete in Buildings. He serves on the
4. “Guide to the Code for Assessment, Repair, and Rehabilitation of ACI TAC Repair and Rehabilitation Committee and ACI Committees
Existing Concrete Structures—A Companion to ACI 562-16 Repair Code 364, Rehabilitation; 546, Repair of Concrete; and 562, Evaluation,
(MNL-2 [16]),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Repair, and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings. He received his
2016, 175 pp. BS and MS in architectural engineering from the University of
5. Brewe, J.E.; Tumialan, J.G.; and Kelly, P.L., “Evolution of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
ACI 562 Code—Part 7, Interface Bond between Existing Concrete and

56 NOVEMBER 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com