1

JOSÉ (PEPE)
IZQUIERDO ENCARNACIÓN
BSCE, MCE, PE, HACI

ACI 352-13 Guide to the Code for Evaluation,

Repair, and Rehabilitation

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
ACI 352-13 Code and
Guide 2

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 ACI 352-13 Repair Code
3

This code provides:

• Evaluation procedures for existing concrete structures.
• Provides material and design requirements
• Guides the licensed design professional to bring existing
concrete structures in compliance with building codes
written for new construction.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Applicability
4

• Existing concrete structures,

• Concrete elements of buildings,
• Non building structures when required by the building
official,
• Building foundation members,
• Soil-supported structural slabs,
• Concrete portions of composite members, and
• Precast concrete cladding that transmits lateral loads to
diaphragms or bracing members.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Flowchart
Design Basic
Code
5

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Responsibilities of the LDP
6

• Evaluation
• Specifying repair materials and details
• Developing quality assurance programs covering the
repairs
• Advising the owner on future maintenance requirements.
• Report identified unsafe structural conditions to the owner
and jurisdictional authorities

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 4.2 Compliance method
7

• The 2012 IEBC describes three compliance methods:

• Prescriptive method,
• Work area method,
• Performance method,
• The methods are summarized in Appendix C of this
document. Chapter 34 of the 2012 IBC, which is
applicable to existing buildings, includes a specified
compliance method similar to the prescriptive method in
the 2012 IEBC and an alternate compliance method
similar to the performance method in the 2012 IEBC.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Preliminary evaluation
8

• The level and extent of the preliminary evaluation is

subject to the professional judgment of the LDP.
• In some cases where the repair project will address
structural damage, the extent of deterioration or
deficiency and case of damage are clearly defined and
known without significant evaluation.
• In other cases, a preliminary evaluation may suggest the
need for a more detailed evaluation.
• The existing conditions, as well as any observed
deficiencies or deterioration, should be considered in the
course of a preliminary evaluation.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Load Factors
9

• 5.1.3 It is not permitted to use load factors and load

combinations from the original design building code with
strength reduction factors from this chapter. It is not
permitted to use load factors and load combinations from
this chapter with strength reduction factors from the
original design building code.
• 5.1.6 When this code is the design basis code, loads shall
be determined in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7, except
that seismic loads shall be determined in accordance
with ASCE/SEI 41.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 5.2—Load factors and
load combinations 10

• 5.2.1 Design of the repair shall account for existing loads

on the structure; the effects of load removal; and the
sequencing of load application, including construction
and shoring loads, during the repair process.
• 5.2.2 Structural members and connections, whether being
designed for a repair or being structurally evaluated, shall
have design strengths at all sections at least equal to the
required strengths calculated for factored loads and
forces in such combinations as stipulated in this code.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION

11
Structural Assessment Structural Analysis
Section 6.2 Section 6.5

Material Properties
Section 6.3 Analysis of Repaired 
Serviceability
Design
Section 6.6
Section 6.7

Test Methods
Section 6.4
If determined by the  Seismic Analysis of 
structural assessment  Repaired Structure
Section 6.7.4
that the strength of a 
Destructive Non Destructive structure is not in 
Testing Testing question, structural  Strength Evaluations
analysis is not  Section 6.8
Strength Evaluations required.
Section 6.8

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 12

Methodology
Evaluation
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Requirements for
Structural Evaluation 13

• Effects of material degradation,

• loss of concrete strength from chemical attack;
• freezing and thawing;
• loss of steel area due to corrosion or other causes.
• Effect of deterioration on the ductility of the section
The strength or serviceability of a structure may be
compromised by spalling, excessive cracking, large
deflections, or other forms of degradation.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Structural assessment
14

• A structural assessment shall document existing conditions

as necessary to perform a structural analysis.
• If an analysis is required, the structural assessment shall
document:
a) As-measured structural member section properties and
dimensions.
b) The presence and effect of any alterations to the structural
system.
c) Loads, occupancy, or usage different from the original design.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Existing Condition
15

• Physical Condition
• Load Paths
• As-built Data
• Structural Members – Existing Conditions
• Material Properties
• Additional Considerations
• Seismic Resistance Assessment

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Material properties
16

• Material properties shall be obtained from available

drawings, specifications, and other documents for existing
construction.
• If such documents do not provide sufficient information to
characterize the material properties, this information shall
be obtained from the historical data provided in Tables
6.3.1a through 6.3.1c, or
• Determination of material properties in accordance with
the requirements of 6.3.5, or both.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 In place testing
17

6.3.5 When properties are to be determined by in-place testing,

the locations and numbers of material samples shall be defined
by the licensed design professional. The number of samples shall
not be less than required by the test standard.
• The focus of the prescribed material testing should be on the
principal structural members and specific properties needed
for analysis.
• The licensed design professional should determine the
appropriate number and type of testing needed to evaluate
the existing conditions.
• Core drilling should minimize damage of the existing
reinforcement and should generally occur at locations where
the coring will least affect the member strength.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Structural analysis of
existing structures 18

• The licensed design professional is responsible for

determining the appropriate method of analysis
• Linear Elastic
• Non Linear
• Other
• External effects
• Pre stressing
• Material volume changes
• Temperature variations
• Differential foundation movement

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Analysis
19

• Must consider the load path

• Consider three dimensional
distribution of loads and forces in the
complete structural system
• Consider the effects of previous
repairs and of any previous structural
modifications on the behavior of the
structure.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Structural serviceability
20

• Serviceability analysis must be performed based

on in place geometry and properties
• Issues:
• Deflections
• Vibrations
• Leakage
• Objectionable cracking
• Performance criteria defined by professional
• Floor deflection criteria in ASCE/SEI 7
• Vibration criteria given in Murray et al. (1999).
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Seismic analysis of
repaired structure 21

• Consider interaction of structural members and nonstructural

components that affect the response of the structure to
seismic motions
• Existing, repaired, and added supplementary members
assumed not to be a part of the seismic-force resisting system
shall be permitted provided their effect on the response of the
system is considered and accommodated in the repair
design. Consequences of failure of structural members that
are not a part of the seismic-force-resisting system and
nonstructural components shall be considered.
• The method of analysis shall consider the structural
configuration and material properties after repair.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Strength evaluation
by load testing 22

• Load testing is permitted

• Can verify strength of a structural system
• To achieve a reliable estimate of short term strength
• May provide most effective means of verifying strength
• Use when:
• Inconclusive field assessments
• Unknown effects of existing conditions
• For example, as defined in ACI 437-13, can be performed
to determine that the service load deflection and
cracking are acceptable.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Strength and serviceability
23

• The strength and serviceability behavior of existing concrete

structures can be evaluated using information from the original
design and construction.
• When deterioration is present, the strength and stiffness may no
longer be adequately predicted using the assumptions from the
original design.
• Deterioration and changes to member stiffness associated with
repair work may result in the redistribution of internal forces to other
portions of the member or to other members not anticipated by the
original design.
• The deterioration may also cause inelastic behavior, with
permanent deformations or cracking. As a result, load redistribution
may increase forces and stresses in portions of members less
affected by deterioration.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
…Strength and serviceability
24

• The LDP develop repair design and

construction procedures that
consider the stiffness, loading,
internal forces, and deformations
of both the existing and repaired
structure.
• The repair design must consider if
the distribution of internal forces
and deformations in the members
and structure are significantly
affected by the repair process and
accommodate or alter the repair
process accordingly.
• The effect of the repair process on
the stiffness of the structure and
member under repair also needs to
be considered.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
Strength and serviceability
25

• Designed For:
• Adequate Stiffness to limit
• Vibrations
• Cracking
• Deformations
• Considerations given to:
• In place internal forces
• Some forces and deformations may be
locked in by repair

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Bond
26

• Bond > 1.5 (Bond Force)

• The measured bond strength shall not
be less than the lower of the required
bond strength or the tensile strength
of the existing concrete.
• Testing: Follow ASTM C1583
• Supplementary reinforcement
permitted

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Materials…
27

Consider compatibility of repair materials:

• Dimensional
• Bond Composite
• Durability Substrate
• Mechanical
• Permeability Bond Line

• Electrochemical New Material

Consider global performance of structure

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Reinforcement
28

Issues to consider
• Corrosion
• Mechanical Damage
• Delaminated Concrete
• Strength

Proper development needed:

• ACI 318-11
• ACI 440.1R
• ACI 440.2R

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Repair using supplemental
post-tensioning 29

• Supplemental post-tensioning can introduce

additional moment, shear, and axial forces within
the existing structure that should be considered in
the design and detailing of the repair.
• The internal forces induced by the supplemental
post-tensioning can be significant. For statically
indeterminate structures, restraint to post-
tensioning deformations can result in significant
internal forces.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Repair using fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) composites 30

• FRP is permitted in conformance

to ACI 440.6
• Used externally or internally
Attention to:
• Strength increase limits
• Service limits
• Design Properties

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 DURABILITY 31

Compatibility

Structure
Repair Environment
Materials

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Durability
32

ACI 562, Section 8.1.2, requires the repair program

address:
• Compatibility of the repair materials
• Interaction of repair materials with the existing
structure
• Durability of the repair materials and the existing
structure
• Anticipated maintenance

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Inspection
33

• QA/QC is required as in any construction project!!

• Inspected as per existing building code
• No building code?-Design professional shall propose inspection
scheme (Section 10.1 C)
• Include inspection procedures in contract documents

Required 
Inspections

Partial  Mixing/Placing 
Forms and Re‐ Construction  Construction  Post 
Demo/Surface  Placing Anchors Curing Repair 
shoring Sequence/Erection Loads Tensioning
Prep Materials

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 34

Project Examples

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 352 Guide Example Projects
35

• Example #1- Typical Parking Garage Repair

• Example #2- Typical Façade Repair
• Example #3- Adaptive Reuse of Historic Depot
• Example #4- Parking/Plaza Slab Strengthening
• Example #5- Precast/Prestressed Double-Tee Repair

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 36

Example #1
Typical Parking Garage Repair
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Parking Example
37

60% Delaminated Area 20% Delaminated Area

 Description
38

• The structure is a two-story, enclosed parking garage

located in the northern U.S.
• The garage, constructed in the 1960s, measures
approximately 240 x 150 ft (73.2 x 45.7 m) in plan.
• The lower level is on ground, and the middle level and
roof consist of reinforced concrete flat slabs with drop
panels.
• The middle-level deck was covered with an asphalt
topping.
• No design information or drawings were available.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Situation
39

• At the middle-level deck, the owner noted potholes and

unevenness in the asphalt topping and water leakage
through cracks.
• A few small pieces of concrete had fallen from the
underside of the slab.
• The project was initiated to determine the current
condition of the garage and to develop a plan and
urgency for garage maintenance.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Governing Building Codes
40

Based on discussions with the building officials, the building codes

adopted bythe jurisdiction were determined.
• Jurisdiction - northern U. S. city.
• Original Building Code - 1961 Uniform Building Code (1961 UBC).
• Current Building Code - 2006 International Building Code (2006 IBC).
• Existing Building Code - Covered in Chapter 34 of 2006 IBC.
ACI 562 supplements the existing building code and governs in all
matters pertaining to concrete members in existing buildings, except
wherever ACI 562 is in conflict with the requirements in the existing
building code, in which case Chapter 34 of the 2006 IBC governs.
• Design Basis Codes - Based on a preliminary evaluation as
described in, the design basis code was determined to be the 1961
UBC.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Existing Conditions
41

Existing structural geometry.

• The existing structural geometry, including typical dimensions
and member sizes, was measured on-site.
Existing concrete condition.
• On the top surface of the middle-level deck, the asphalt
topping was removed, exposing the top concrete surface.
Exposed concrete surfaces were visually surveyed for types
and patterns of distress and deterioration (ACI 201.1R, “Guide
for Conducting a Visual Inspection of Concrete in Service”).
• Concrete surfaces were selectively sounded by chain drag,
hammer tapping, or tapping with a reinforcing bar to estimate
the extent of delaminated concrete.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Docuemented Distress
42

• The underside of the middle-level slab was 10 to 20%

delaminated or spalled due to corrosion of the
embedded reinforcement, with greater damage
observed in Slab Area 1.
• Just above the slab, the bases of columns had small
areas of delamination due to corrosion of the embedded
reinforcement mostly in Slab Area 1.
• The upper portion of the middle-level slab was heavily
contaminated with chloride, greatly exceeding the
corrosion threshold value (ACI 222R), particularly in areas
that were delaminated, spalled, or cracked.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Corrosion Details
43

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Reinforcement
44

• The reinforcing layout and condition was documented at a

few typical locations by measurement of exposed bars,
magnetic survey, and exploratory chipping to expose bars.
• Bar size, spacing, and concrete cover were determined for top
and bottom reinforcement in column strips and middle strips at
exterior columns, first interior columns, and interior columns.
• Surface corrosion and some section loss were documented for
the top slab bars in Slab Area 1 (ACI 364.1R).

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Strength of
existing structure 45

• The middle-level slab and the columns were in compliance

with the 1961 UBC without consideration of current
deterioration.
• As there was substantial documented top surface concrete
deterioration in Slab Area 1 but significant effort would be
necessary to accurately determine the structural effects of this
deterioration, the top slab reinforcing bars were conservatively
judged to be debonded at delaminations and therefore
structurally ineffective.
• Accordingly, the shear and flexural strength in Slab Area 1 was
found to be substantially less than that required by the 1961
UBC.
• Slab Area 1 was determined to be structurally deficient and
unsafe.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 concrte in reinforcement
46

Effect of unsounded
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
…Strength of existing structure
47

As there is no effective top

reinforcement near the columns, d,
the distance from the extreme
compression fiber to the centroid of
the longitudinal reinforcement,
becomes very small (essentially the
distance between the bottom of
the slab and the bottom
reinforcement), substantially
reducing the slab shear capacity
and resulting in an unsafe condition,
as determined relative to 1961 UBC.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Strength of existing structure
48

• The owner was notified of the safety concerns.

• Shoring was promptly installed to support Slab Area 1 to address
the safety concern and to allow continued access to the garage
until repairs could be installed.
• Loose concrete was promptly removed from the underside of the
slabs.
• Substantial structural damage per ACI 562 commentary is defined
by the 2012 IEBC, which states that substantial structural damage
refers only to vertical elements in the gravity load-carrying system
or lateral force-resisting system; that is, the columns in this structure.
As the columns had only small localized concrete deterioration, it
was determined that there is no substantial structural damage
based on the 2012 IEBC.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Design Basis Code
49

• Based on the simplifying preliminary assumption made by the LDP

that the top slab reinforcement in Slab Area 1 is totally debonded
and ineffective, the slab was deemed unsafe.
• As no excessive cracking or deflections were noted, the slab is
apparently still performing satisfactorily in spite of the extensive
deterioration and therefore the preliminary assumption is
conservative particularly for areas with little to minimal deterioration.
• Structural elements outside of Slab Area 1 have some concrete
deterioration but were not considered by the LDP or the authorities
having jurisdiction as unsound or structurally deficient.
• Code changes in detailing and other requirements make it difficult if
not impossible to bring existing concrete structures into full
compliance with current code requirements.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Structural Evaluation
50

Concrete strength.
• Concrete core samples were extracted and tested in compression
to determine the slab concrete compressive strength. The strength
values were consistent with the strength assumed in the preliminary
analysis.
Reinforcing steel layout and strength.
• Reinforcing steel spacing and cover were determined with ground-
penetrating radar and confirmed at exposed bars and exploratory
openings. Exposed reinforcing bars were examined for identification
marks that might indicate the steel yield strength. No marks were
found.
• Coupons were removed from reinforcing bars and tested in tension
to determine the steel yield strength. The strength values were
consistent with the strength assumed in the preliminary analysis.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Analysis
51

• The repaired middle-level slab was analyzed as a two-

dimensional frame based on the in-place material
properties.
• The analysis considered the structural repair process,
including the effects of the sequence of load application
and material removal.
• It was also assumed that the replacement concrete
would be fully bonded to the existing concrete and,
hence, that there would be full composite action
between repair materials and existing materials.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Redistribution
52

• It was assumed that approximately 50 percent of the negative

moment capacity had been lost, and the increased steel and
concrete stresses in the positive moment region were calculated.
• It was then assumed that the shoring supported the slab during
construction, such that no loads from construction were resisted by
the slab.
• When the construction had been completed and the shoring
removed, it was assumed that the topping weight and the design
live load were supported by the repaired composite section.
• The capacity of the repaired section was examined and was
determined to have adequate strength to resist the design loads.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Punching Shear
53

• Newer codes, such as the ACI 318-05 referenced by the

current building code (2006 IBC), specified that a portion
of the unbalanced slab moments must be transferred into
the column by eccentricity of the shear, thus increasing
the maximum punching shear.
• A close visual inspection of the top and bottom surfaces
of the middle-level slab around the first interior columns,
where the unbalanced slab moments are greatest, did
not detect any cracking that might be indicative of
distress due to inadequate punching shear capacity.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Structural Repair & Durability
54

Slab repairs were designed according to the provisions of

the 1961 UBC. Two repair options for deteriorated concrete
on the top surface were discussed with the owner:
1. Removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete only on
the top slab surface.
2. Removal and replacement of the top 3 to 4 in. (75 to 100 mm)
of concrete in the entire area.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• Chloride-contaminated concrete around the top
reinforcing mat is removed and replaced with
uncontaminated concrete with low permeability,
improving durability and reducing future maintenance. 55
• The new concrete will have similar or slightly enhanced
properties compared to the existing concrete.

Option 2
• After concrete removal work has been completed, the
exposed concrete surfaces will be cleaned and a suitable
bonding procedure will be used to attain the minimum
required bond strength and ensure composite behavior
under service loads.
• Existing reinforcing bars, except for those embedded in
columns, are removed and replaced with new epoxy-
coated reinforcing bars, replacing bars with reduced
cross-sectional area. Because the new bars are
uncontaminated and coated with epoxy, their resistance
to corrosion is much improved, improving durability and
reducing future maintenance of the slab system.
• Existing bars to remain are cleaned and coated with a
corrosion-inhibiting material.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• Top reinforcing bars with shallow cover can be relocated
downward in the slab for increased corrosion protection
cover, assuming that the slab still has adequate 56
calculated shear capacity with the decreased the
effective depth and that additional bars are added as

…Option 2
necessary to provide adequate calculated flexural
capacity.
• New reinforcing bars are fully encapsulated and
developed in the replacement concrete.
• The repaired slab will have similar or larger strength and
stiffness to the originally constructed sections.
• Due to the new uncontaminated concrete with low
permeability, and the epoxy-coated reinforcement, new
surface coatings such as a traffic-bearing elastomeric
coating or a surface sealer were not recommended,
reducing initial and maintenance costs.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Option 2 Disadvantages
57

• The perimeter of the partial-depth replacement area

must be located and detailed to account for shear and
moment transfer and reinforcing steel development.
• The slab will need to be shored prior to the slab removal
and remain shored until the new slab concrete has been
placed and cured.
• Cracks that may form in the replacement concrete
should be sealed.
• This repair option has a higher initial cost as compared to
Option 1.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• Only deteriorated concrete is removed and replaced, limiting repairs
and repair costs to current requirements.
• Re-entrant corners will be avoided in both the repair and existing
concrete. 58
• After concrete removal work has been completed, the exposed
concrete surfaces will be cleaned and a suitable bonding procedure
will be used to attain the minimum required bond strength and

approach repair
ensure composite behavior under service loads.
• Existing reinforcing bars that are exposed in removal areas will be
cleaned and coated with a corrosion-inhibiting material to reduce
ongoing corrosion in and around the replacement concrete areas.

Slab Area 2
• New epoxy-coated reinforcing bars will be lapped with existing bars
that are exposed in removal areas and have lost structurally
significant cross-sectional area.
• Discrete galvanic anodes will be installed around the perimeter of

Limited
slab concrete replacements to reduce corrosion in the existing
concrete around the concrete replacements. To function properly,
the anodes must be attached to uncoated portions of the
reinforcing bars in the removal areas before the bars are coated with
a corrosion-inhibiting material.
 …Disadvantages
59

• Except at repair locations, chloride-contaminated concrete will remain in

place, resulting in some ongoing corrosion activity and concrete and steel
deterioration requiring periodic maintenance repairs. The corrosion
reduction measures incorporated into the repair program should
significantly reduce ongoing corrosion activity and periodic repair
requirements.
• The LDP must establish limits for concrete removal and monitor the
removal work so that shoring can be installed before the limits are
exceeded.
• The LDP must monitor the concrete removal work for loss of reinforcing
steel development and possible short-term and long-term structural
implications, and for possible structurally significant loss of reinforcement
cross-sectional area, as determined by the LDP.
• The LDP must determine if unsafe conditions may exist and if temporary
shoring should be installed.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• The repair specifications included quality assurance and
control measures for material approvals and field
verification of quality. The specified quality control
measures and construction observations were performed 60
during the construction, including the following:
• Review of material submittals and reinforcement shop drawings

Quality Assurance
for Slab Area 1.
• Visual inspection of the work in progress.
• Sounding of concrete surfaces to remain to determine if all loose
concrete was removed prior to repair.
• Observation of the prepared concrete surfaces and of the
concrete placement and curing operations.
• Testing of repair concrete, including slump, temperature, and
compressive strength.
• Bond strength testing of in-place repair concrete to confirm that
the bond strength was at least 1.5 times greater than the
calculated design bond strength.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Project Close-out
61

Periodic maintenance
• Periodic maintenance requirements were discussed with the owner
during the selection of the most appropriate repair concepts. A
schedule of recommended monitoring and possible maintenance
requirements was provided to the owner at the conclusion of the
repair construction, including the following:
• Periodic inspections every 3 to 5 years to monitor the condition of the garage.
• Limited concrete deck repairs every 5 years.
• Limited repair of the traffic-bearing elastomeric coating every 3 to 5 years to
address areas of high wear such as near the garage entrance/exit.
• Top coating the traffic-bearing elastomeric coating and restriping the garage
every 15 to 20 years.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 62

Example #4
Parking/Plaza Slab Strengthening
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Parking/Plaza
63

Description of Structure
• The facility consists of an 11-story office building over a two-story,
100,000 ft2 (9300 m2) parking structure supporting an open-air
plaza. The building is located in the northern U.S., and construction
was completed in 2013.
• The supported garage slab is a reinforced concrete flat plate, and
the plaza slab is a reinforced concrete flat slab with drop panels.
Project Initiation and Objectives
• Shortly after construction was completed and the certificate of
occupancy was obtained, excessive deflections and top surface
cracking were noted on the supported garage slab.
• The project was initiated to determine the causes of the cracking
and deflections and the overall safety of the as-built structure.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
Crack Map
64
 Governing Building Code
65

• Jurisdiction - Northern U. S. city.

• Original Building Code - 2009 International Building Code (2009
IBC).
• Current Building Code - 2012 International Building Code (2012
IBC).
Existing Building Code - The jurisdiction had not adopted the
International Existing Building Code (IEBC), thus repairs to
existing structures are covered in Chapter 34 of 2012 IBC. The
2012 IBC states that “Work performed in accordance with the
International Existing Building Code shall be deemed to comply
with the provisions of this chapter.” (3401.6 Alternative
Compliance). Accordingly, the 2009 IEBC is permitted to serve
as the existing building code.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Design Basis Code
66

• Based on a preliminary evaluation as described in the

Preliminary Evaluation section of this example and
considering the requirements of the existing building code,
the design basis code was determined to be the 2009 IBC
and, by reference, ACI 318-08.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• Document review - The design drawings, construction
documents, and various reports were available and reviewed
by the LDP. The construction documents and reports
confirmed that the concrete and reinforcing bars met the
specified material properties. 67

• Existing site conditions - Existing structural geometry. The

existing structural geometry, including typical dimensions and

Preliminary
member sizes, was measured on-site. The thickness of the drop

Evaluation
panels in the plaza slab was measured to be approximately 6
in. (150 mm) compared to the design thickness of 14 in. (355
mm).
• Existing concrete condition - The top surface cracks on the
supported garage slab were mapped and the top surface
elevations were surveyed to document the slab deflections.
• Reinforcement - The reinforcement layout was documented
using ground penetrating radar (GPR) supplemented by
exploratory chipping at isolated locations to expose
reinforcing bars and confirm the GPR findings. The investigation
revealed areas having over 4 in. (100 mm) of concrete cover
to the top reinforcing bars compared to the as-designed
cover of 3/4 in. (19 mm).
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Preliminary analysis
68

• A preliminary analysis was performed for a few locations

of the supported garage slab and the plaza slab to
estimate the decrease in the as-built strength compared
to the design strength due to the documented
construction deficiencies:
• Decreased drop panel thicknesses and
• Increased concrete cover over the top reinforcing bars.
The 2009 IBC was assumed to be the design basis code for
the purposes of the preliminary evaluation.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Effects of shallow drop panels
69

• The shallow drop panel condition on the plaza slab

decreased the effective depth of the slab reinforcement
d, the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the
centroid of the longitudinal tension reinforcement, from
the design value of 26 3/4 in. (680 mm) to the as-
constructed value of 18 3/4 in. (475 mm), a decrease of
approximately 30%.
• The slab flexural capacity is directly and indirectly related
to d. The measured decrease in d resulted in a calculated
flexural deficiency of 30 to 40%.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Slab
70

The slab punching shear capacity is also directly

related to d. The measured decrease in d resulted
in a calculated shear deficiency of 30%.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
Structural sections – Drop Panel
71

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
Reinforcement Cover
72

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Effects of excessive cover
73

• The excessive cover for the top reinforcing bars in

the supported garage slab similarly decreased the
slab d from the as-designed dimension of 8 3/4 in.
(220 mm) to as little as 5 3/4 in. (145 mm), a
decrease of approximately 35%.
• Flexural and punching shear capacities were
adversely affected, with a calculated flexural
deficiency of 15 to 45% and a calculated shear
deficiency of 18 to 46%.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Safety Concerns
74

• The LDP determined that the cracking and deflections of the

supported garage slab and the gross deviations of the
construction from the design were significant safety concerns.
• The LDP determined that both slabs had sufficient calculated
capacity to support the estimated dead loads, but did not
have sufficient calculated capacity to support the estimated
dead loads and the design live loads, even if the strength
reduction factors for evaluation permitted by ACI 562 Section
5.4 were used.
• The LDP advised the owner that the supported garage slab
and the plaza should be immediately removed from service or
shored to grade.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
Effects of steel bracket or reinforced
concrete column capital 75

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Data
76

• Compliance method. For this project, the LDP elected to

use the prescriptive compliance method in the 2012 IEBC.
• Design basis code. The construction deficiencies do not
constitute substantial structural damage, as defined by
the 2012 IEBC. Therefore, the design basis code for the
required strengthening repairs was the 2009 IBC. (404.4,
2012 IEBC)
• Structural deficiency. A structural evaluation was
necessary due to the structural deficiencies determined in
the preliminary analysis.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Structural assessment
77

• Existing structural geometry. The existing structural

geometry was documented in more detail than was done
for the preliminary evaluation (4.2.1).
• All column spacings, column dimensions, and drop panel
dimensions were measured.
• The slab thickness was determined with GPR. The reliability
of the measurements was confirmed by physical
measurements at several holes drilled through the slab.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 … Structural assessment
78

Concrete strength.
• The concrete compressive strength was assumed to be the
design strength, as confirmed by the construction testing
laboratory reports that were available.
Reinforcing steel layout and strength.
• Reinforcing steel spacing and cover were determined at all
locations with GPR and confirmed at exploratory openings.
Bar sizes were also measured at the exploratory openings.
• The reinforcing steel tensile strength was assumed to be the
design strength, as confirmed by the mill certificates in the
construction records.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Strengthening concept 1
79

• At locations with excessive concrete cover. On the supported

garage slab, the top portion of the slab concrete would be
removed and reconstructed with new top bars correctly
placed and vertical shear connectors crossing the bond line
between the existing and new concrete.
• After the removal work, but before the reconstruction work,
the slab would be unloaded by jacking so that the entire slab
design load, including dead load and live load, would be
transferred to the new repaired slab after the repairs have
been installed, cured, and the jacks removed.
• This approach would restore the supported garage slab to its
as-designed configuration, thus restoring its design capacity.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Strengthening concept 1
80

• At locations with thin drop panels. For the plaza slab, steel
brackets would be installed on the columns at the
underside of the slab.
• The steel brackets would move the critical punching shear
section further from the column, increasing the perimeter of the
section, bo, and thus the punching shear capacity.
• The brackets also would move the critical negative moment
section further from the column, decreasing the design negative
moment to the moment capacity of the slab section with the
reduced drop panel thickness

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
…Strengthening concept 1
81

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Strengthening concept 2
82

• Reinforced concrete column capitals would be

constructed on the columns at the underside of both
supported slabs. At a few short span conditions where
there was no positive moment, of the supported garage
slab. supplemental drop panels would be constructed on
the underside
• At a few locations on the underside of the plaza slab,
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) strips would be
installed as supplemental flexural reinforcement to allow
some moment redistribution from the negative moment
regions at the columns.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
…Strengthening concept 2
83

• Punching shear capacity. The column capitals move the critical

punching shear section further from the columns, increasing the
perimeter of the section and the punching shear capacity. The
supplemental drop panels increase the effective slab depth, further
increasing the punching shear capacity.
• Design negative moment. The column capitals also move the
critical negative moment section further from the columns,
decreasing the design negative moment (Fig. 15.6). The
supplemental drop panels increase the effective slab depth,
increasing the negative moment capacity (Fig. 15.8).
• Moment redistribution. The CFRP reinforcement on the underside of
the slab increases the positive moment capacity of the slab and
allows some redistribution of negative moments to the positive
moment regions.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 … Strengthening
84

concept 2
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Evaluation of strengthening
concepts 85

The preliminary details of the strengthening concepts were

determined based on the findings of structural analyses
performed in the Structural Evaluation section, and cost
estimates were obtained for both strengthening concepts.
Strengthening Concept 2 was estimated to cost approximately
20% of the estimated cost of Strengthening Concept 1.
Other factors such as construction scheduling and sequencing
were not substantially different for the two concepts on this
project. Using cost as the key differentiator, the owner elected
to pursue Strengthening Concept 2.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 86

Column Capital
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 87

Column Capital
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Structural Analysis
for Repair Design 88

• The effects of the repair process and the installed

repairs were analyzed using the two dimensional plate
models of the as-built slabs. The analysis considered
the current condition of the slabs, including the
cracking, the deflected shape, and the stresses in the
slab due to dead loads. The stress increases due to live
load in the repaired existing slabs were also evaluated.
The adequacy of the bond strength at the interface
between the repair material and the existing concrete
was evaluated based on 17.5.4 of ACI 318-11.
• The analysis assumed full composite action at the
repair material interface.
Shear transfer
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo @ interface
• The strengthening requirements of the repairs were
determined based on the findings of the analyses of the
original design, the as-built construction, and the repair
design. The stiffening effects of the repairs were also 89
evaluated. The repair design included the following
details and considerations.

Structural Repairs
• The column capitals were designed and detailed to integrate
and act compositely with the columns and the slab above.
• The column surfaces were intentionally roughened and hoop

and Durability
reinforcement was included in the capitals to transfer forces into
the columns by shear friction. Self-consolidating concrete (SCC)
was used to facilitate filling of the forms to the slab soffit.
• The supplemental drop panels were also designed and detailed

Design of
to integrate and act compositely with the columns and slab
above.
• Reinforcing steel extended between the column capitals and
the drop panels, and the capitals and drop panels were placed
monolithically. Epoxy-grouted dowels were installed in the slab
soffit to transfer the horizontal flexural shear by shear friction. SCC
was used to facilitate filling of the forms to the slab soffit.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• The CFRP strips were designed as a supplemental
strengthening measure, based on the
recommendations of ACI 440.2R.
90
• The structural strength of the repaired slab was
adequate to carry the factored loads specified in the
current building code without the CFRP strips.

Structural Repairs
• The CFRP strips were used to increase the calculated
slab positive moment capacity to account for the

and Durability
increased positive moments due to moment
redistribution that occurred before the repairs were
installed, and to limit further deflections from these

Design of
moments.
• The CFRP strips were detailed and bonded to the slab
soffit per the manufacturers recommendations and
ACI 440.2R. Bond pull off testing was performed to
verify the bond.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• The injection of epoxy into cracks on the top surface of
the supported garage slab was requested by the owner
and also served to increase the slab stiffness and seal the
cracks against intrusion of water and deicing salts into the 91
concrete, improving the durability of the slab.
• A traffic-bearing elastomeric coating was applied on the

Structural Repairs
top slab surface in the negative moment regions around
the columns on the supported garage slab to prevent the
intrusion of water and deicing salts into cracks that may

and Durability
not have been sealed and to minimize the intrusion of
water and deicing salts into the concrete and improve
the durability of the slab.

Design of
• As the column capital and drop panel repairs and the
CFRP reinforcement were all installed on the undersides of
the slabs, the repairs are not directly exposed to the harsh
top slab surface service environment and the repairs were
judged to be durable.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Construction
92

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Construction
93

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 …Construction
94

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 CFRP installation
95

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 96

Epoxy Injection of
cracks
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Contract Documents
97

• The LDP prepared contract documents that specified

repair materials that satisfied governing regulatory
requirements and conveyed necessary information to
perform the work.
• The contract documents included the minimum
requirements for shoring and bracing for all phases of the
repair project,
• It included requirements for the contractor to submit
shoring documents that were signed and sealed by an
LDP.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Construction
98

• The contract documents required the contractor to

monitor the construction for any conditions that were not
consistent with the available information or that might
affect the short-term or long-term safety of the structure,
including the possible need for additional temporary
shoring or bracing.
• Requirements for environmental issues, such as allowing
water with debris to flow into floor drains or off of the site
and disposal of construction debris, were specified in
conformance with local ordinances.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Quality Assurance
99

• The repair specifications included quality assurance and

control measures for material approvals and field verification
of quality. The specified quality control measures and
construction observations were performed during the
construction, including the following:
• Review of material submittals and reinforcement shop drawings.
• Visual inspection of the work in progress at critical stages of the repair.
• Observation of the prepared concrete surfaces and comparison with
ICRI concrete surface profiles (ICRI No. 310.1R-08) to verify that
minimum roughness had been achieved.
• Observation of the installed reinforcement.
• Periodic inspection and pullout testing of epoxy-grouted dowels in the
slab soffit in accordance with ACI 355.4.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
• Observation of the concrete placement and curing
operations.
• Testing of repair concrete, including slump flow, air content,
temperature, and compressive strength. 100
• Impact-echo testing to verify the continuity between the slab
soffit and the new capitals.

Assurance
• Observation of the surface preparation and installation of the
CFRP strips.

…Quality
• Bond strength testing of installed CFRP strips (ASTM
D7522/D7522M-15, “Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength
for FRP Laminate Systems Bonded to Concrete Substrate”).
• Impact-echo testing was performed on the top slab surface
over drop panel and capital repairs to detect possible gaps
between the slab soffit and the repairs.
• Some areas with gaps were detected.
• Open joints between the slab soffit and drop panel and
capital repairs were injected with epoxy to fill the joints and
bond the repairs to the soffit. Continuity was confirmed by
impact-echo testing.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 101

Impact Echo
testing
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 102

Impact Echo
testing
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Epoxy Leakeage
103

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Load Test
104

• After the repairs had been installed, a representative

portion of the repaired supported garage slab was
evaluated by load testing to demonstrate the strength of
the repaired slab.
• The test area was selected based on typical repairs in the
area and ease of setting up and running the test.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Test procedure
105

• ACI 562 references ACI 437-13 for load testing, which is meant to read as
ACI 437.2-13. The 2009 IBC, the design basis code, references ACI 318-08,
which includes Chapter 20, Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures.
• Based on ACI 562 Section 1.1.7, ACI 562 governs for all matters pertaining
to evaluation and shall govern when in conflict with other referenced
standards.
• Accordingly, the monotonic load test procedure described in ACI 437.2-
13 was used for the evaluation.
• The monotonic load test was selected after consultation with the
Contractor’s available means, methods, and familiarity with the
monotonic test.

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Monotonic load test
106

• Monotonic load test protocol has been used for several

decades for the structural evaluation of concrete structures.
The procedure basically involves loading the structure in a
monotonic manner by gradually applying the load until
reaching the test load magnitude, which is maintained for 24
hours.
• Measurements are recorded before any load is applied, after
each load increment, when the maximum load is achieved,
after 24 hours of sustained loading, and 24 hours subsequent
to the removal of the test load.
• The structure is evaluated based on the maximum recorded
deflection and the amount of deflection recovery. Monotonic
loading can be achieved using dead weights or hydraulic
jacks.
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 Arrangement of jacks
107

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 108

Load Test
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 109

Test Setup
ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo
 FIN 110

ACI 352 & GUIDE ‐ 2016 Beca Dr. Ramón Carrasquillo