35
CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU Partners: • BRE, UK • Gifford, UK • CT Koulutos, Finland • Freyssinet, France • BBRI, Belgium • IETcc, Spain • STU-K, Czech Republic

CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

  • Upload
    yovela

  • View
    16

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU. Partners: BRE, UK Gifford, UK CT Koulutos , Finland Freyssinet , France BBRI, Belgium IETcc , Spain STU-K, Czech Republic. PERFORMANCE OF REPAIRS IN PRACTICE. Proforma : Simple layout on one side of A4 Non-attributable Mostly tick boxes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

CONREPNETA project 50% funded by the EU

Partners:• BRE, UK• Gifford, UK• CT Koulutos, Finland• Freyssinet, France• BBRI, Belgium• IETcc, Spain• STU-K, Czech Republic

Page 2: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

PERFORMANCE OF REPAIRS IN PRACTICE

Proforma:

•Simple layout on one side of A4•Non-attributable•Mostly tick boxes•Up to 40 data points per response•45 % response

Page 3: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Distribution of Respondents230 (247) case histories

‘Consultants rarely involved subsequently’

Page 4: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Distribution of geographic locations

Page 5: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Distribution of Environments

Page 6: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

THE STRUCTURES

Page 7: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Distribution of Case-histories by Structure(Numbers in brackets)

Page 8: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Ages of Structures

Page 9: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Ages of Structures when Repaired

Page 10: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Primary Causes of Original Deterioration

Page 11: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

THE REPAIRS

Page 12: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

TYPES OF REPAIR

Page 13: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Relative uses of different patch materials

•60% cementitious

•30% polymer modified

•10% other (fibre reinforced etc)

Page 14: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Relative uses of different types of coatings

Page 15: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Classification of Performance

As seen at last inspection:

•Successful•Evidence of deterioration•Failure

Page 16: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Performance of repairs in relation to deterioration

Page 17: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Performance of repairs in relation to time

Page 18: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Performances of Patches

Page 19: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Added Value of Coating

Page 20: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Patch repair after 5 years

Page 21: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Frost damaged underpass repaired with a sprayed polymer coating

Page 22: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Cathodic Protection

74 Installations, most UK–46 wholly successful–13 needed attention–15 failed

Page 23: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Cathodic Protection

•Accidentally switched off•Phone lines vandalised•Control box fire•Control failure•Anode failure•Unsuitable application

Page 24: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Modes of Failure – All Types of Repair

Page 25: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

COMMENTS‘Partially wrong design of repair, partially wrong option of repair material, partially wrong design of concrete surface’

Poor workmanship :

‘the work had been a textbook example of how not to carry out a repair’.

‘coatings were incorrectly applied despite clear instructions being given’

‘the strength of the repair material was considerably greater than the substrate’

‘poor workmanship; too thin coating (against instructions)’and there were other instances where coatings were applied too thick or too thin.

Page 26: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Failure of Polymer Mortar Patches and Sprayed Polymer Coatings on an AAR Affected Bridge. Considered partly due to

incorrect diagnosis of the original problem and partly to incorrect design of the repair.

Page 27: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Failure of Polymer Mortar Patches and Polymer Coating Applied to Corroded Reinforcement.

Considered due partly to incorrect design of the repair and partly to incorrect application of anti-corrosion treatment to corroded

reinforcement.

Page 28: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Key Points •Performances of 230 concrete repairs have been collected and analysed

•Ages of structures when repaired were mainly in the range 10 to 40 years, the oldest was 100 years

•The most common problem was corrosion 60 per cent of repairs involved patching.

Page 29: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Key Points contd •50 per cent of the repairs had failed

•20 per cent failed in 5 years•55 percent failed in 10 years•90 per cent failed in 25 years

•Cracking, debonding and continued corrosion were the most common modes of failure •Incorrect design of the repair, poor workmanship and wrong diagnosis were the most common causes of failure.

Page 30: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

CURRENT REPAIR PRACTICE

Page 31: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

INSPECTION

•Visual methods are used in the majority of inspections.•20 to 30 per cent of inspection work is subcontracted•The most commonly used methods of NDT are measurements of depth of cover, carbonation and chloride content.•Some small repair works may start without any inspection

Page 32: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Repair Methods

Comment: ‘…sometimes had to apply a repair method specified by an owner or consultant while (we) would have proposed and used a more appropriate method if the choice had been up to (us)…’.

Page 33: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

QUALITY CONTROLAbout 90 per cent of repair projects are subjected to some degree of quality control: •Trial repairs carried out beforehand to check the proposed method

•On-site checking of repair materials to ensure specifications are met

•The common site tests practiced by most repairers are visual inspection, acoustic tests, pull-off tests, laboratory tests on cores and in some cases, structural loading tests

•Special tests to verify the correct functioning of techniques such as chloride removal and cathodic protection.

•Thickness measurements of applied coatings

Page 34: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

Grout Stability Testing

11 grouts tested:

•All passed the EN447 standard test

•Only 6 passed the BRITE EURAM test

Page 35: CONREPNET A project 50% funded by the EU

PERFORMANCE BASED APPROACHKey research points:

o patches are a common repair method but require improved durability

o corrosion and AAR are difficult to stop and require more research,

o repair materials should be more forgiving and tolerant of misuse,

o guidance notes are required that are simple and easy for generalists to understand and use.

o research should address performances under all weathers, and improved acceptance testing to provide assurance of durability.

Performance based repair