2014 SGN 08

Structural Guidance Note
2014 SGN 08
Typical structural defects in 20th
century concrete buildings:
an introduction
IiA 7246
Issue | 5 December 2014
This report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be relied
upon by any third party and no responsibility
is undertaken to any third party.
Job number
IiA 7246
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

13 Fitzroy Street
London
W1T 4BQ
United Kingdom
www.arup.com
Document Verification
Job title
Job number
2014 SGN 08
IiA 7246
Document title
Typical structural defects in 20th century concrete

buildings:
an introduction
IiA 7246
Document ref
Revision
Date
Filename
Draft 1
19 Jun
2014
Description
Name
File reference
2014 SGN 08 - Typical structural defects in 20th century

concrete buildings.docx
First draft
Authors
Contributors
Reviewers
Richard Hill
Sarah Tattersall
Bryan Marsh
Nuno Ferreira
Authors
Contributors
Reviewers
Richard Hill
Sarah Tattersall
Bryan Marsh
Nuno Ferreira
Authors
Contributors
Reviewers
Authors
Contributors
Reviewers
Signature
Issue
12 Dec
2014
Filename
Description
Name
2014 SGN 08.docx

Issue
Signature
Filename
Description
Name
Signature
Filename
Description
Name
Signature
Issue Document Verification with Document
IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

\\GLOBAL.ARUP.COM\LONDON\ARD\JOBS\STRUCTURES\STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE NOTES\2014\2014 SGN 08.DOCX
2014 SGN 08
Typical structural defects in 20th century concrete buildings:
an introduction
Contents
Page
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
Pre-war (18901914)
Inter-war (19141945)
Post-war (19451970)
19701990
1990 to the present
Construction timeline
Design code development
Methodology of appraisal
Cracking in concrete
Defects
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Design and detailing deficiencies

Construction-related defects
Durability-related defects
Materials-related defects
Accidental damage
Cladding-related defects
Testing
5.1
5.2
5.3
10
11
13
15
20
24
25
28
Types of concrete test
Determining concrete strength
Determining reinforcement
Key references

28
30
30
32
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Introduction
This Note provides a concise overview of common structural defects in 20th

century reinforced concrete structures.
Some defects, such as corrosion, are common to reinforced concrete of any age,
but others are limited to specific construction periods, as techniques and our
understanding of reinforced concrete has developed.
An existing structure will have constraints and limitations that influence its future
performance. These limitations will be a function of the original design and
construction details, and these may be substandard by todays codes and
guidelines and/or due to defects related to condition, damage or poor alterations.
Understanding the age of buildings is therefore key to being able to be confidently
advise clients of the risks that will need to be investigated and the limitations of
their buildings.
20th century concrete buildings can be broadly divided into five main periods:
Pre-war (18901914)
Post-war (19451970)
19701990
1990 to the present.
1.1
Pre-war (18901914)
In the UK, reinforced concrete dates back to 1854 when William Boutland
Wilkinson patented the first fireproof floor beams. Using these techniques, in
1886 he constructed a seven-storey building in Lincolns Inn Fields. However the
birth of reinforced concrete is often credited to the Frenchman Franois
Hennebique. In 1880s the Mouchel-Hennebique patent hollow floor system was
developed. Rival systems soon developed across Europe and the USA, and by
1905 there were several competing systems. The 1909 London Building Act aided
greater acceptance of reinforced concrete, and the economics of building with
reinforced concrete improved.
However, design understanding lagged behind construction advances and
structural frames typically relied on masonry infill for stability. This was a period
of innovation and developments were commercially driven, often outside of
regulations and good practice.
A notable event during this period was the founding in 1908 of the Concrete
Institute due to the reluctance of the Institution of Civil Engineers to recognise
commercial engineers. In 1922 the Concrete Institute became the Institution of
Structural Engineers.
Most pre-1914 reinforced concrete buildings are now listed, due to their technical
innovation. It is therefore important to try and obtain as much historical
information on the system specific to the building, as this will help inform repairs
and alterations.

1.2
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
After the First World War, there was a large demand for housing, and steel,
timber and bricks, as well as skilled labour, were scarce. Concrete became a
popular building material and was increasingly used for bridges, buildings and
stadia.
Cement was in short supply, driving a demand for alternative binders such as
GGBS (Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag), pumice and burnt clay.
With lessons learned from the Highpoint I block built in North London in 1934
(designed by Lubetkin & Tecton and engineered by Ove Arup), Highpoint II
(1936) embodied a significant step in reinforced concrete construction: box-frame
construction, where the internal crosswalls and floors became structural allowing
the front and rear elevations to be highly glazed.
Concrete structures of this period had very thin walls by present-day standards.
The shortage of good quality materials often led to deficient substitutes, and
innovations such as high alumina cement (HAC), used to speed up early strength
gain, were to prove problematic in later years.
Woodwool slabs were introduced as an inner face insulation sheeting and soon
became permanent shuttering.
As with the pre-war period, inter-war reinforced concrete buildings may be of
heritage significance, and this should be understood before undertaking any work
on them.
1.3
Post-war (19451970)
As happened after the First World War, there was a significant demand for
housing in the post-World War 2 period. This led to rapid construction and the
development of system-building by competing contractors.
Materials were effectively rationed by licensing, and construction was largely
limited to housing, schools and industry. A shortage and increase in the cost of
timber saw building details that would normally be timber replaced with concrete.
Box-frame construction remained popular, particularly in local authority housing
developments. Lean construction was commonplace and thin walls and slabs can
be expected when dealing with buildings of this period.
The introduction of CP114-2: 1948: Code of practice for the structural use of
reinforced concrete in buildings led to improvements in the quality of
construction. Greater control was placed on the grading of aggregate, batching,
vibration and compaction from this time.
Woodwool slabs became very popular in the early 1950s.
While prestressed concrete was introduced in England in 1936 and used for
underground munitions stores during the Second World War by the British War
Office, it wasnt widely used until the 1950s when it became popular in the design
of bridges and shell structures.

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
The demand for rapid construction in the 1950s saw the employment of precast
concrete panels as loadbearing walls (although early examples date back to the
early 20th century). This form of construction is commonly referred to as large
panel system (LPS) blocks or system-builds. This coincided with the
development of sealants and mechanical jointing details. Reema and Wates are
two of the most well-known system-builders. The London County Council was a
key promoter of system-builds utilising precast concrete, and by the early 1960s
England was noted for the high quality of its precasting.
The partial collapse of a high-rise residential LPS tower (Ronan Point) in London
in 1968 highlighted problems with the joints between panels and a lack of
robustness. As a result, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government
commissioned investigations into the cause of the disaster, and it instructed
owners of LPS dwellings to appraise all blocks over six storeys. In the decades
that followed many reports and guidance documents (mainly written by the
Building Research Establishment) on the appraisal of LPS buildings were
produced.
Shell structures were also fashionable in this period, the most famous example in
England being the Commonwealth Institute in Kensington, completed in 1962.
1.4
19701990
Lean construction continued to be commonplace and thin walls and slabs can be
expected in buildings from this period.
Limit state codes were introduced in the UK in 1972, bringing about modern
design practice. The largest change was the approach to shear design, which had
not been well understood up to this point.
During these decades several in-service problems arose from construction
methods that had been adopted during the post-war period. A few well publicised
collapses of concrete structures using HAC concrete led to its ban in the 1970s.
Most collapses have since been related back to poor construction details and if the
presence of HAC is suspected, specialist advice should be sought from AT&R.
However if there are no obvious signs of deterioration, and if the concrete is well
protected from water, then it may be possible to conclude that the building will
continue to perform adequately.
In 1977 the use of calcium chloride as an accelerator was banned, as it was
recognised that the presence of chlorides can promote corrosion.
Industry knowledge of the behaviour of concrete in fire rapidly developed in the
1980s, leading to improved and enhanced guidance for fire design.
1.5
1990 to the present
By now, design codes were well established and many design/construction-related

defects had come to light, prompting changes in design or material specification.
High-tech architecture saw concrete frames that were exposed to the eye but
inboard of a faade envelope (commonly glass) providing protection from rain
and external conditions. Stability will be provided by designed moment frame or
stability walls/cores (ie they should not be reliant on masonry infills for stability!)

1.6
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Construction timeline
Dating a building is an important step when surveying and assessing the building.
It may be possible to ascertain its age from a distinct architectural style.
Additionally, the availability of various structural materials, components and
systems and their periods of common use have changed over time. Of course,
buildings may at some point have been altered or extended.
Understanding the date and therefore likely form of construction and details can
also help to form an idea of what the hidden defects are likely to be.
Table 1. Periods when various forms of construction were used.

1.7
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Design code development
Regulations for reinforced concrete were introduced in 1915, although the first
national design code for concrete structures was not published until 1934. Prior to
the development of codes, designs were either proprietary or in accordance with
text books. Table 2 is an extract from TR70: Historical approaches to the design
of concrete buildings and structures [6]. This document provides useful reference
information, including on the development of design codes, materials standards
and historic design methodology.
Table 2. Publication dates for main codes [6]
Date
Design code
1915
London County Council Reinforced Concrete Regulations.
1934
Code of practice for reinforced concrete.*
1938
Code of practice for the design and construction of reinforced concrete structures for the
storage of liquids.
1948
CP114. The structural use of normal reinforced concrete in buildings.
1950
CP114.100114.105. Suspended concrete floors and roofs (including stairs).
1957
CP114. The structural use of normal reinforced concrete in buildings (Revised version of
1948 code).
1959
CP115. The structural use of prestressed concrete in buildings.
1960
CP2007. Design and construction of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures for
the storage of water and other aqueous liquids (imperial units).
1962
BS1926. Ready-mixed concrete.
1965
CP116. The structural use of precast concrete.
1969
CP114. The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings: Part 2. Metric units.
1969
CP116. The structural use of precast concrete: Part 2. Metric units.
1970
Addendum No 1 to CP116:1965 and CP116: Part 2: 1969. Large-panel structures and

structural connections in precast concrete.
1970
1972
CP2007. Design and construction of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures for
the storage of water and other aqueous liquids (metric units).
CP110. Code of practice for the structural use of concrete. Part 1. Design, materials and
workmanship. Part 2. Design charts for singly reinforced beams, doubly reinforced beams
and rectangular columns. Part 3. Design charts for circular columns and prestressed
beams.
1976
BS5337. Code of practice for the structural use of concrete for retaining aqueous liquids.
1981
BS5328. Methods of specifying concrete, including ready-mixed concrete.
1984
BS6349. Maritime structures.
1985
BS8110. Structural use of concrete. Part 1. Code of practice for design and construction.
Part 2. Code of practice for special circumstances. Part 3. Design charts for singly
reinforced beams, doubly reinforced beams and rectangular columns.
1987
BS8007. Code of practice for design of concrete structures for retaining aqueous liquids.
* The 1934 code was issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and hence is often referred to as The
DSIR Code

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Methodology of appraisal
A common misconception is that modern structures have been engineered and

that they will have been correctly designed, say, for lateral stability.
Unlike older buildings of loadbearing masonry where the structure is often on
display and load paths are relatively simple to visualise and understand, modern
framed buildings often have their structure concealed behind architectural
finishes. Visualising the structural skeleton may therefore be difficult.
Without drawings it is very difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate between
structural concrete walls and concrete walls added in by the architect. Also, the
faade may be contributing to the overall building stability; the old London Stock
Exchange was a typical example of such a case.
In addition, without drawings you will not immediately know the amount, size or
type of reinforcing steel and you may not know if it comprises embedded steel
sections or individual bars. Also, the concrete strength and mix properties may not
be known. There are various destructive and non-destructive tests, from which
investigators can gain greater confidence in the original design as well as the
current condition. Testing will need to be carefully considered, based on the
reasons for your current assessment (ie what are you trying to confirm or justify)
and access to the building to undertake testing (ie whether it is occupied, or
owned by the client commissioning your appraisal, etc).
We therefore tend to rely heavily on archival drawings, if they exist. However
even with access to these it is advisable to break away the cover concrete in
several locations to expose the reinforcement, so as to confirm that what is on the
drawing was actually built.
A word of caution: dont take things at face value. Brick walls may be rendered
and painted, giving the same appearance as concrete walls, and structural
elements may seem thicker than they actually are due to the application of cement
render or screeds. Some targeted physical investigation may be required.
Finally, it is common that the engineer will want to know the concrete
compressive strength for the building being appraised. However, knowledge of
strength is not always important, ie where no change of use or loading is planned.
Compressive testing can be disruptive and expensive, and there will always
remain a degree of uncertainty as it is impracticable to get a large number of cores
from all of the building elements. Judgement will be needed to balance the impact
on the building versus the degree of uncertainty in the results. This is to be the
subject of a forthcoming stand-alone internal guidance note.

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Cracking in concrete
Reinforced concrete structures have to crack to fully mobilise the steel

reinforcement, so understanding the importance of cracking is key. Cracks and
crack patterns have different characteristics, depending on the underlying cause.
Most of the crack types listed below are not typically considered to be structural
defects, although they may have serviceability or aesthetic implications.
Fig 1. Reasons that cracking may occur [12].
Fig. 2. Theoretical examples of types of cracks [10].

Fig 3. Theoretical examples of crack patterns [12].

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Defects
Defects in concrete structures can be broadly divided into five categories:
design and detailing deficiencies

construction-related defects
durability-related defects
materials-related defects
accidental damage (ie fire, earthquake, impact, poor structural alterations).
Further details on the more commonly encountered, structurally significant

defects are included below, including links to more detailed reference
information. Where information is available, the period during which the defects
might be encountered and the likelihood of encountering them have been
included, although this information is not always readily available.

4.1
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Design and detailing deficiencies
Possible design deficiencies in concrete buildings include:
lack of robustness
lack of shear reinforcement
lack of tying or bearing of precast units (including stairs)
incorrect detailing (particularly at joints)
inadequate assessment of critical load paths.
Large panel system (LPS) robustness
Indicators: There may be no visible

indicators under normal service loads.
Period: LPS structures were built up to the

early 1970s.
Consequences: Inadequate tying between

precast elements gave poor robustness
performance.
Insufficient numbers of ties between inner
and outer panels can lead to panel failure.
Corrosion of in situ stitch reinforcement
can lead to joint failure.
Method of assessment: Destructive and

non-destructive tests along with risk-based
appraisals; refer to BRE Report 511
Details: The partial collapse of a

residential tower block at Ronan Point
brought to everyone's attention the fatal
design flaw. Immediately following, the
Ministry of Housing and Local
Government instructed owners of LPS
dwellings to appraise all blocks of over six
storeys. Note that blocks of six storeys or
less may not have been strengthened.
Further reference: Handbook for the

structural assessment of large panel system
(LPS) dwelling blocks of accidental
loading. [14]

Lack of shear reinforcement
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: There may be none, or

diagonal shear cracks may form.
Period: before 1985, particularly before

1972
Consequences: Shear failure is brittle. It

can be sudden and lead to partial or total
collapse.
Method of assessment: non-destructive

testing and opening up to verify shear
reinforcement; design check on capacity
Details: Before 1969, minimum shear

reinforcement was not required. With the
introduction of CP114 in 1969, nominal
shear reinforcement was required for nearly
all components except slabs, footings and
minor members. Shear reinforcement
design was based on levels of permissible
stress, and little guidance was given on
punching shear resistance.
In 1972, CP110 introduced a new approach
and provided more guidance on slabs. The
introduction of BS8110 in 1985 brought
shear reinforcement design towards todays
standards.
Further reference: Historical approaches

to the design of concrete buildings [6].

4.2
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Construction-related defects
Construction-related defects may include:
honeycombing (inadequate grading or poor compaction) and grout loss

lack of cover (from poor control during construction, such as misalignment of
formwork or bars)
poor quality concrete or inadequate care during the curing process
inadequate formwork (sagging, grout loss, etc).
They may also include defects that have primarily aesthetic implications:
colour variations
steps in the surface, from misalignment of formwork and blow holes
staining (eg from rust on the formwork prior to casting, from impurities in the
concrete mix, or from pollutants in the atmosphere)
reinforcement ripple.
Further information on visual defects in concrete is available on the Visual

Concrete pages of the Structural Skills Network.
Honeycombing and grout loss
Indicators: lack of fines
Likely locations: various but most

commonly in the lower portions of
structural elements where placing the
concrete was difficult
Consequences: Shallow areas are

cosmetic, but deeper areas may lead to a
significant reduction in protection to the
reinforcement.
Method of assessment: visual inspection

Details: Honeycombing can result from
inadequate grading of aggregate and/or
poor compaction of the concrete.
Alternatively it can be caused by grout
leakage at construction or formwork joints
where they have been inadequately sealed.
Further reference: Diagnosis of

deterioration in concrete structures.[10].

Lack of cover
Reinforcement ripple
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: The reinforcement pattern may

be reflected in colour variations on the
concrete surface (although this might not
always be due to low cover). Localised
cracking and rust staining due to corrosion
may subsequently occur.
Consequences: reduced durability, fire

protection and bond, possible risk from
falling concrete
Method of assessment: A covermeter can

be used to estimate the cover, although
results should be verified with localised
opening-up.
Details: .

Indicators: shallow troughs reflecting the

pattern of reinforcement
Likely locations: skip-floated concrete;

lightweight aggregate concrete
Consequences: While reinforcement ripple
is not typically considered to be a structural
defect, it can have an alarming appearance;
it is therefore considered to be an aesthetic,
not a structural or durability problem.
Details: Reinforcement ripple is a surface

irregularity on concrete slabs, in the form
of shallow troughs over the lines of
reinforcement.
It is believed to be caused by vibrations set
up in the reinforcement by the method of
compacting the concrete, which results in
additional compaction around the bars.
Further reference: Concrete advice Note

9. Reinforcement ripple. The Concrete
Society, 2003.

4.3
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Durability-related defects
Durability-related defects include:
reinforcement corrosion from carbonation

reinforcement corrosion from chlorides
freezethaw damage
chemical attack, eg sulphate attack
erosion and abrasion
salt weathering.
In addition, the following may be observed:
efflorescence
staining (see construction-related defects in Section 4.2).
In reinforced concrete, the steel is protected from corroding by an alkaline

environment, due to calcium hydroxide and small amounts of sodium and
potassium present in the cement. In these alkaline conditions, a stable oxide layer
(passive layer) is formed on the surface of the steel, which protects it from
attack. Most condition-related problems are due to a change in this protective
environment which leads to corrosion of the reinforcement.

Corrosion from carbonation
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: spalling, cracking
Likely locations: all externally exposed

surfaces or internal surfaces in moist
conditions
Consequences: Carbonation results in loss

of protection to the steel reinforcement,
resulting in a risk of corrosion expansion
and associated spalling of concrete.
Method of assessment: Phenolphthalein

can be used to test the depth of carbonation
on freshly exposed concrete faces
(localised break-out).
Details: Carbonation is the reaction of CO2

in the atmosphere with calcium hydroxide
in the cement paste. The reaction produces
calcium carbonate and lowers the pH of the
concrete from a protective alkaline
environment, to about pH9. At this pH, the
protective oxide layer breaks down and
corrosion becomes possible.
The rate of penetration of CO2 into the
concrete is affected by the quantity of
moisture in the atmosphere. The optimum
condition for carbonation-induced
corrosion is sheltered, moist exposure or in
wetting and drying conditions, particularly
where cover to reinforcement is low.


Corrosion from chlorides
Freezethaw
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: spalling, cracking, corrosion of

reinforcement
Likely locations: Corrosion of

reinforcement is accelerated by chloride
ions from internal sources such as calcium
chloride (a once commonly-used
accelerator, see Section 4.4) or the use of
unwashed marine aggregates, and from
external sources such as de-icing salts or a
marine environment.
Consequences: corrosion of reinforcement

and related spalling (loss of section)
Method of assessment: laboratory testing

of dust samples (see Section 5.1.3)
Details: Chloride-induced corrosion can

typically be differentiated from
carbonation-induced corrosion as it is
characterised by local, rapidly corroding
areas of bars (pitting); carbonation-induced
corrosion tends to be general.

Indicators: surface scaling and spalling;

note that frost attack may produce a similar
crack pattern to alkali-silica reaction
(ASR); it can sometimes be distinguished
by the presence of spalling.
Likely locations: concrete subjected to

freezing when saturated
Consequences: loss of section, reduced

durability
Method of assessment: visual

examination, petrographic examination
(see Section 5.1.1).
Details: Surface scaling and spalling can

occur when water held in the capillary
pores of cement paste freezes at low
temperatures. Ice formation results in
expansive forces, which can be greater than
the local strength of the concrete. Severity
may be greater where exposed to de-icing
salts.


Chemical attack: internal sulphate

attack, or delayed ettringite
formation (DEF)
Chemical attack: external delayed

thaumasite sulphate attack (TSA)
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicator: cracking
Likely locations: heat-cured precast, and

in situ massive concrete exposed to
moisture. There is a concern that DEF may
occur in large concrete structures due to the
heat of hydration as the concrete cures.
DEF is not a common phenomenon.
Consequences: loss of durability due to

delayed internal expansive reactions
Method of assessment: visual assessment,

petrographic examination (see Section
5.1.1)
Details: The mineral ettringite is normally

formed at an early age during the concrete
curing process at ambient temperatures.
Delayed formation of ettringite occurs
when early high temperatures prevent its
normal formation. Its gradual formation in
the cooled, set concrete is expansive and
can lead to cracking and can increase the
risk of problems such as freezethaw
attack. The right conditions must be
present for the delayed reaction to occur,
including the presence of water.
Further reference: BRE IP11/01. Delayed

ettringite formation: in situ concrete.
Indicators: cracking, deflection
Likely locations: concrete in wet ground,

eg foundations, with sulphates in the
groundwater. TSA is a rare phenomenon.
Consequences: loss of strength.
Method of assessment: visual assessment,

petrographic examination (Section 5.1.1)
Details: TSA is a rapid form of sulphate

attack which occurs in the presence of
sulphates in the groundwater. TSA occurs
at low temperatures in wet ground. The
thaumasite mineral forms, gradually
replacing the cement paste matrix, and
causes the concrete to soften and
eventually disintegrate.
Further reference: Deterioration of

cement-based building materials: lessons
learnt [13].

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
In addition, the following defects that are typically but not necessarily durabilityrelated may be observed:
Efflorescence and lime leaching
Rust-staining and rust-spots
Indicators: white patches or deposits,

stalactites on the surface
Consequences: typically an aesthetic

problem, although significant leakage may
be symptomatic of a more severe problem
with adverse effects on durability
Method of assessment: visual assessment
Details: Water leaking through the

concrete can dissolve calcium hydroxide
from the matrix. On contact with the
atmosphere (generally at cracks or joints),
this is precipitated on the surface as a white
residue. Significant leakage can result in
the formation of stalactites. Light
efflorescence on younger structures may
result simply from water drying from
concrete.

Indicators: rust stains or spots on concrete

surface
Consequences: typically an aesthetic

problem only
Method of assessment: check on cover,

carbonation and chemical analysis of
samples to rule out a more serious problem
Details: When reinforcement has been

fixed for some time before concreting, rust
from the reinforcement may get washed
onto the formwork and stain the concrete
surface.
Rust spots are typically from tying
wires/nails left on formwork, tying wire
not bent back in, or from iron compounds
in aggregates (eg pyrites).


4.4
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Materials-related defects
Materials-related defects include:
high alumina cement (HAC)

calcium chloride
Aggregate-related defects such as aggregate swelling and shrinkage, softening
and alkali-silica reaction (ASR).
Types of products:
autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)

woodwool slabs.
High alumina cement (HAC)
A view of the end of a typical precast HAC concrete

I-beam that has been exposed by removing bricks
from a cavity wall from High alumina cement
concrete, Moss & Dunster.
Indicators: can be hard to detect, possibly

dark colour of concrete, age of structure,
shape of element
Period: 19221975; the height of use was

19501970.
Likely locations: precast prestressed

concrete beams
Consequences: loss of strength and

increased susceptibility to corrosion
Method of assessment: Chemical analysis

can be used to determine the type of
cement, based on alumina content.
Methods to determine the residual strength
are discussed in Section 5.2.
Details: HAC was promoted after WWII

due to its resistance to the effects of
sulphate, and the speed at which it could
reach peak strength within 24 hours of
pouring. However, this high strength is due
to the cement being in an unstable form.
With time, it converts to a more stable,
weaker concrete, leaving the concrete
much more porous than before.
In addition, its increased porosity makes it
more vulnerable to chemical attack
although exposure of HAC elements to
aggressive chemical environments is rare.
Further references:
ROGERSON, R, et al. High alumina
cement concrete in buildings.
BATE, S. High alumina cement concrete in
existing building superstructures. BRE.

Calcium chloride
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: spalling, cracking, corrosion of

reinforcement

19501970.
Consequences: corrosion of reinforcement

and related spalling (loss of section).
Method of assessment: petrographic

examination (see Section 5.1.1), chloride
test.
Details: Calcium chloride was commonly
used as an accelerator until it was no longer
permitted, as directed in an amendment to
CP110 in 1977. Excessive chlorides in the
mix cause a reduction in the alkalinity,
leading to corrosion of reinforcement.


2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Alkali-silica reaction/alkali-aggregate
reaction (ASR/AAR)
Indicators: a network of cracks map

cracking, possibly with evidence of exuded
gel products; note that frost attack may
produce a similar crack pattern, however it
can sometimes be distinguished by the
presence of spalling.
Period: 19301980, particularly 1960

1980. Relatively few structures have been
identified with ASR and even fewer of
structural significance.
Consequences: typically surface cracking;

internal cracks may cause loss of strength.
Method of assessment: visual inspection,

petrographic examination (see 5.1.1)
Details: ASR is a reaction between certain

forms of silica contained in aggregates, and
alkalis present in Portland cement. It
occurs only in the presence of moisture.
The products of the reaction are usually of
greater volume, resulting in an expansion
and causing random map cracking.
De-icing salts can contribute to ASR.
Further references:
INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS. Structural effects of alkalisilica reaction, IStructE, 1992, with 2010
addendum.
BUILDING RESEARCH
ESTABLISHMENT. Digest 330 Part 1,
Alkali-silica reaction in concrete, 2004.

Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
Woodwool
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: hairline cracking, excessive inservice deflections

1950.
Likely locations: roof planks, beam and

block floors
Consequences: excessive roof deflections

resultin in ponding of rainwater.; some
evidence of corrosion initiation
Method of assessment: petrographic

examination (see Section 5.1.1)
Details: AAC is formed by aerating a mix

of fine inert mineral particles and bonding
them together with Portland cement. This
is steam-cured and combined with
reinforcement to form lightweight roof,
floor and wall panels.
Further reference:
BUILDING RESEARCH
ESTABLISHMENT. IP10/96. Reinforced
autoclaved aerated concrete planks
designed before 1980.
Indicators:

1950.
Location: as permanent formwork, as

insulation panels
Consequences: loss of durability
Method of assessment: opening-up to

inspect condition of concrete slabs formed
on woodwool shuttering
Details: Woodwool slabs are made from
wood shavings bound together with
cement. They have good insulation and fire
properties. When using woodwool as a
permanent formwork, the concrete was
typically poorly compacted due to the
compressibility of the board, leading to
durability issues.
Further reference:
http://www.sandberg.co.uk/investigationinspection/inspection/woodwool.html

4.5
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Accidental damage
Fire
Indicators: blackened surface, cracking

and spalling, change in colour of concrete
Likely locations: various
Consequences: loss of strength (depending

on temperature of the fire)
Method of assessment: Colour change can

sometimes be used to estimate the
temperature reached.
Details: Differential expansion of layers of

concrete and internal pressure as moisture
becomes super-heated can result in
cracking and spalling.
Heating concrete above 300C reduces its
compressive strength linearly, with all
strength lost above about 1000C. Loss in
strength may be associated with a change
in colour. Strength in reinforcement is also
reduced.
Further reference:
CONCRETE SOCIETY. Technical Report
33 Assessment and repair of fire-damaged
concrete structures.

Human intervention
4.6
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: core-drilled (rather than

formed) service openings, chases which cut
reinforcement links, etc.
Likely locations: various
Consequences: loss of strength
Method of assessment: removal of

internal finishes to expose concrete
sections for visual inspection; where loss of
section occurs, carry out a design check on
remaining section
Details: To allow full appraisal of a

concrete frame, the true dimensions of the
structural elements will need to be
confirmed. Columns and beams may be
rendered or disguised by decorative boards.
Be especially suspicious when only one or
two columns are clad and the others are
exposed the cladding may be hiding a
defect or alteration.
Cladding-related defects
The following defects are observed in the building cladding, but have been
included in this Note as problems often result from incorrect detailing in the
design, in terms of their interaction with the concrete frame (ie no provision for
creep or thermal movements between two different materials).

Failure of brick slips and panels:

deflection of concrete frame
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: loss of brick-slips, failure of

entire panels, vertical cracking in
brickwork
Likely locations: concrete-framed

buildings with brick faades and no
movement joints at floor levels; common in
buildings pre-1980 when brick slips were
used on concrete-framed tower blocks to
hide concrete slabs and provide a
continuous brick faade. Each level of the
brick faade bears on a concrete nib so that
a storey-high panel of brick is supported at
every floor.
Consequences: compression failure of

brick panels, dislodging of brickslips, and
possible collapse of areas of the outer
brickwork

to identify missing brick slips, bulging in
brick panels, and vertical cracks in the
brickwork
Details: Over time, creep shrinkage of the

concrete frame occurs, shortening the
height of the building. The initial and
seasonal movements in the brick cause the
panel to expand. Without movement joints
at floor locations, the brickwork is put into
compression, which it will not have been
designed to take.
Where the panel is fully supported on the
nib, compression cracks or buckling failure
of the panel can occur.
Where the panel overhangs the edge of the
supporting nib (see next defect), the panel
puts the brick slips into compression and
debonding can occur. The panel is then free
to rotate at the base and head causing
panels to bulge outwards. Where there are
insufficient ties or where the restraint
offered by the ties has degraded, over time
the panel can bulge outwards and collapse.
Understanding the support condition of the
brickwork is critical for even small faade
changes including overcladding with
external wall insulation.

Failure of brick panels: excessive

overhang
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Indicators: may be nothing obvious until

local or global failure occurs; key
indicators will be loss of brick-slips, failure
of entire panels, vertical cracking in
brickwork.
Likely locations: concrete-framed

buildings with brick faades; common in
buildings pre-1980 before the introduction
of secondary steelwork to support the
faade; each level of brick faade bears on
a concrete nib so that a storey-high panel of
brick is supported at every floor.
Consequences: Loss of support of brick

panels can lead to collapse of local or
larger area of brickwork.

to identify missing brick slips, bulging in
brick panels, and vertical cracks in the
brickwork; also steps in the face of
brickwork where a section of brickwork
may have been pushed outward (ie base of
parapets)
Details: Construction tolerances often

resulted in concrete nibs not always
providing the required support to the
brickwork panels (ie two-thirds supported).
The gap between the face of the nib and the
brickslip was built up with mortar or even
the doubling up of brickslips. This resulted
in areas of the brickwork being gravity
stacked over several storeys, which it will
not have been designed to do.
Of particular note is where parapets exist
and where there are no vertical joints in the
parapet brickwork to accommodate
horizontal expansion. Ratcheting over time
can reduce the original bearing length and,
if this is insufficient to begin with, loss of
bearing can become a real problem.

Testing
5.1
Types of concrete test
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
To gain an understanding of the condition of the concrete, testing should be done

in conjunction with a visual survey and a covermeter survey at test locations.
Factors to consider when determining frequency and locations of tests include:
external or internal environment

presence of visible defects extent of cracking, spalling, etc
type of environment (external, marine, de-icing salts presenting higher
corrosion risk)
exposure (eg south facing, horizontal versus vertical).
A wide range of concrete tests are available, including:
petrographic examination
carbonation testing
chloride testing
half-cell potential
resistivity
linear polarisation resistance.
In most cases it will be appropriate to apply a range of tests based on what

information is required. Careful consideration should be given to selection of the
range and number of tests, as it is often not possible or desirable to go back to do
further testing.
5.1.1
Petrographic examination
A petrographic examination can be thought of as a concrete health check. It

involves the use of high power optical microscopes to examine samples of
concrete to determine their mineralogical and chemical characteristics. Compared
to carbonation and chloride testing, this is expensive and takes more time to get
the results, so needs careful consideration when determining the number and
location of tests required. However it is an important test to consider when
appraising a concrete structure.
The examination should only be entrusted to an experienced concrete
petrographer and should provide description and commentary on the components
of the concrete together with other features noted which are relevant to the
structural and durability performance of the concrete. This may include:
chemical attack, particularly sulfate or acid

alkali-silica reaction (ASR)
presence of high alumina cement (HAC)
delayed ettringite formation (DEF)
thaumasite sulfate attack (TSA)
aggregate or cement paste shrinkage
frost attack
carbonation

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
microcracking
aggressive leaching
detection of unsound contaminants.
5.1.2
Carbonation testing
There are several common ways of performing the carbonation test. A small piece
of concrete may be broken away and a solution of phenolphthalein sprayed onto
the freshly exposed substrate. Alternatively, a hole approximately 25mm in
diameter is drilled, the dust removed from the hole, and a solution of
phenolphthalein then sprayed onto the wall of the hole; this method should not be
encouraged as it can give false results if the drill dust is not fully removed from
the walls of the hole. Best results will be obtained from extracting a small
diameter (25mm50mm) core, splitting it open along its length, and spraying the
fracture surface. The alkaline concrete will turn pink but the carbonated concrete
will not change colour, thus enabling the depth of carbonation from the surface to
be measured.
Fig 4. Phenolphthalein sprayed onto freshly exposed concrete
5.1.3
Chloride testing
Testing can be performed on dust samples taken using a drill (noting the depth of
sample) or on samples from small (50mm) cores or lump samples, and then lab
tested to determine chloride level. Samples should be taken incrementally with
depth down at least to the depth of the reinforcement if chloride ingress from an
external source is suspected. More than one hole may need to be drilled to obtain
sufficient sample at each depth increment.
5.1.4
Cement content testing
Cement content determination is commonly required within test programmes but

may be of limited value, due to the significant uncertainty in the results obtained
(probably no better than +/- 40 kg/m3). In theory, cement content is required for
interpretation of chloride content measurements, but the high inherent variability
in results means that assumed values are generally used. Cement content
measurements may provide an overall indication of concrete quality.

5.1.5
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Sulfate content testing
Sulfate content testing is commonly specified but is rarely of any practical use
unless sulfate-related deterioration is suspected. Testing can be performed on
drilling dust samples (min 50g).
5.1.6
Half-cell potential
Corrosion of reinforcing steel is an electrochemical process and the behaviour of

the steel can be characterised by measuring its half-cell potential. An electrode
forms one half of the cell and the reinforcing steel in the concrete the other. The
test provides a measure of the likelihood of active corrosion at the time of testing.
Care must be taken in interpretation of data and should be based on spacing of
contours on an isopotential plot rather than the absolute readings.
5.2
Determining concrete strength
Methods of determining the in situ concrete strength include:
compressive testing of extracted cores

rebound hammer (Schmidt hammer)
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)
internal fracture/pull-out.
Obtaining reliable information on in situ concrete strength is a topic in itself and

will be dealt with in a subsequent Guidance Note.
5.3
Determining reinforcement
The strength of reinforcement can be estimated from the date of construction.

Alternatively, a sample can be taken for testing, which requires removing a short length
(refer to BS EN 15630-1).
There are several methods of obtaining the layout of reinforcement:
archive drawings
covermeter (eg Ferroscan)
ground-penetrating radar (GPR).
It should be noted that while a comprehensive set of drawings and reinforcement

details may exist, some opening-up work should be considered to verify that the
as-built structure matches the drawings.
5.3.1
Covermeter (eg Ferroscan)
The presence of reinforcement in concrete can be detected by the influence that

reinforcing steel has upon an electromagnetic field induced by the covermeter.
A covermeter may be used to determine the arrangement and position of
reinforcement together with the concrete cover to the bar and/or the indicative bar
diameter.
Some covermeters (eg Ferroscan) produce a full image of the reinforcement
within the scanning areas. The images may be evaluated by viewing transverse or
2014 SGN 08
an introduction
longitudinal sections, slices at different depths, and by producing statistical

information.
Results should always be calibrated by physical measurement of cover (eg by
opening up, or drilling down to the bar) in at least one location.
Limitations of the technique include:
Results for bar diameter are likely to need verifying/calibrating with some
intrusive tests.
The detection depth is limited (consider GPR for greater depths).
Results may be difficult to interpret in areas of congested reinforcement.
5.3.2
Ground-penetrating radar
GPR systems use an antenna to send electromagnetic signals into a subsurface.

Different materials will return different signals, by absorbing or reflecting energy
to a different extent.
GPR has a wide range of uses and can be used with a variety of materials. In
concrete, it is most likely to be used to:
measure the thickness and build-up of slabs and walls, for example it can
differentiate between slab and screed
rebar map reinforced concrete (up to 450mm deep)
locate post-tensioning ducts.
Limitations of the technique include:
The rebar diameter cannot be detected.
5.3.3
Resistivity
The resistivity of concrete cover is a determining influence on the rate of

corrosion of reinforcement. It can be estimated from measurements of the drop in
electrical potential between probes (typically in an array of four) placed in contact
with the concrete surface when a known alternating current is applied. It should
generally be used in conjunction with measurement of half-cell potential.
Results can be adversely affected by a carbonated concrete surface layer; they are
also affected by temperature and moisture content.
5.3.4
Linear polarisation resistance
LPR measurements are generally used to determine the instantaneous corrosion

rate of an electrode. The technique is based on the observation that within a small
potential range around the corrosion potential (Ecorr), the relationship between the
corrosion potential (Ecorr) and the logarithm of current density (I) is approximately
linear. While instantaneous rates of corrosion can be measured and are of interest
to determine mass of steel loss in either chloride-induced corrosion or
carbonation, usually the external environment may influence the accuracy of LPR
measurements due to seasonal variations. Care and appropriate measurement
methodologies should be followed at all times.

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
Key references
The list below contains useful general references. Note that references for specific
defects have been included alongside details of that particular defect in Section 4.
Arup appraisal guidance

[1]
2014 SGN 05: Typical floor systems in 19th and early 20th century
buildings: an introduction.
[2]
2014 SGN 06: Typical defects in 19th century buildings: an

introduction.
General appraisal guidance

[3]
THE INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. Appraisal of

existing structures. Third edition. IStructE, 2010.
[4]
CONCRETE BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP. Technical Guide

2. Guide to testing and monitoring the durability of concrete
structures. CBDG, 2002.
Historic concrete
[5]
SUTHERLAND J. et al. Historic concrete: background to appraisal.

Thomas Telford, 2001.
[6]
THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Technical Report No 70. Historical

approaches to the design of concrete buildings. CCIP, 2009.
[7]
BUSSELL, MN. Institution of Civil Engineers No 11068. The era of

proprietary reinforcing systems. In Structures and buildings,
historic concrete. ICE, 1996.
[8]
BUSSELL, MN. Institution of Civil Engineers No 11069. The

development of reinforced concrete: design theory and
practice. In Structures and buildings, historic concrete. ICE,
1996.
[9]
HISTORIC SCOTLAND. Historic concrete in Scotland. Part 1:

History and development. Historic Scotland, 2013
Concrete deterioration
[10]
THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Technical Report No 54. Diagnosis of

deterioration in concrete structures. The Concrete Society,
2000.
[11]
WHITTLE, R. Failures in concrete structures. CRC Press, 2013.
[12]
THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Technical Report No 44. The relevance

of cracking in concrete to corrosion of reinforcement. The
Concrete Society, 1995.

2014 SGN 08
an introduction
[13]
BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. IP4/03. Deterioration

of cement-based building materials: Lessons learnt. BRE,
2003.
[14]
BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. BRE Report 511.

Handbook for the structural assessment of large panel system
(LPS) dwelling blocks of accidental loading. BRE. 2012.


2014 SGN 08

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2014 SGN 08

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Structural Guidance Note

This report takes into account the particular

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

Typical structural defects in 20th century concrete

2014 SGN 08 - Typical structural defects in 20th century

2014 SGN 08.docx

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

Design and detailing deficiencies

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

This Note provides a concise overview of common structural defects in 20th

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

1990 to the present

By now, design codes were well established and many design/construction-related

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

Table 1. Periods when various forms of construction were used.

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

Design code development

London County Council Reinforced Concrete Regulations.

Code of practice for reinforced concrete.*

CP114. The structural use of normal reinforced concrete in buildings.

CP114.100114.105. Suspended concrete floors and roofs (including stairs).

CP115. The structural use of prestressed concrete in buildings.

BS1926. Ready-mixed concrete.

CP116. The structural use of precast concrete.

CP116. The structural use of precast concrete: Part 2. Metric units.

Addendum No 1 to CP116:1965 and CP116: Part 2: 1969. Large-panel structures and

BS5328. Methods of specifying concrete, including ready-mixed concrete.

BS6349. Maritime structures.

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

A common misconception is that modern structures have been engineered and

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

Reinforced concrete structures have to crack to fully mobilise the steel

Fig 1. Reasons that cracking may occur [12].

Fig. 2. Theoretical examples of types of cracks [10].

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

Fig 3. Theoretical examples of crack patterns [12].

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

Defects in concrete structures can be broadly divided into five categories:

design and detailing deficiencies

Further details on the more commonly encountered, structurally significant

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note

Design and detailing deficiencies

Possible design deficiencies in concrete buildings include:

Large panel system (LPS) robustness

Indicators: There may be no visible

Period: LPS structures were built up to the

Consequences: Inadequate tying between

Method of assessment: Destructive and

Details: The partial collapse of a

Further reference: Handbook for the

IiA 7246 | Issue | 5 December 2014

Structural Guidance Note