International Concrete Abstracts Portal

The responsibilities for parties involved in a repair project may be significantly different than those traditionally encountered in new concrete construction. The new ACI 562 Code Requirements for Assessment, Repair and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings and corresponding ACI 563 Specifications for Repair of Concrete in Buildings identify requirements for the Licensed Design Professional and the contractor’s Specialty Engineer during repair programs. Differing lines of authority in repair are presented through industry practice recommendations and case studies, along with identification of industry needs, informing parties engaged in concrete evaluation and repair projects.

Evaluation of an existing structure is a task commonly performed by licensed design professionals. An evaluation can be required by a façade inspection ordinance, as part of a due-diligence process prior to the purchase of a structure, or prior to the development of rehabilitation or repair measures. Each of these project types will have differences in the evaluation protocol and portion of the structure to be examined – but in each example, the licensed design professional is expected to provide a minimum “standard of care” to the client and to protect the public. Therefore, in developing the evaluation protocol, a critical question facing the licensed design professional is how much investigative effort is required to complete the evaluation and ensure the evaluation provides a minimum standard of care. The standard of care for an evaluation of existing structures can broadly be defined as the level of effort that a reasonable and prudent licensed design professional would be expected to provide under similar circumstances. Given the range of structure types that can be encountered and the varying levels of damage and exposure conditions, determination of the scope of evaluation can be a difficult task for a licensed design professional. The following sections examine approaches used in industry codes and ordinances to help define a minimum standard of care for the evaluation of existing structures. Industry codes and ordinances to be examined will include the ACI 562-16 Code for Assessment, Repair and Rehabilitation of Existing Structural Concrete, FHWA bridge inspection requirements and building façade inspection standards and ordinances. Based upon these documents, items to be considered in establishing a “Standard of Care” in the evaluation of existing structures will be summarized.

A successful concrete repair project requires a close coordination of efforts between the three major parties involved: the owner, the licensed design professional (LDP), and the contractor. Lack of coordination and clear understanding of the professional and contractual responsibilities, as well as the expectations, of each party involved in a concrete repair project, could result in long legal disputes to attempt to sort out the responsibilities of each party. The greatest victim of the dispute is usually the structure itself. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) has led the effort to develop responsibility guidelines in concrete construction. ACI 132 identifies and suggests the allocation of responsibilities to various parties involved in concrete construction. ACI 132 document is applicable to general concrete construction, and it does not consider the particularities of evaluating and repairing existing concrete structures. ACI 562 provides minimum requirements for assessment, repair and rehabilitation of existing distressed concrete structures, including a discussion on the responsibilities of the licensed design professional for the evaluation and repair of concrete structures. This paper discusses the responsibilities of the licensed design professional, the contractor, and the owner through a repair case study. The paper demonstrates the need to expand ACI 132 and/or ACI 562 to include responsibility guidelines for concrete repair projects.

This is a case study involving an aging parking structure that deteriorated to the point where the structural floor slab failed. The lines of responsibility between parties involved with owning, managing and repairing the existing, exposed structures are not always clear, based on contractual language. This case ended in litigation to determine who was responsible for repair costs when the structural slab reached the end of its service life, taking into account the root cause of the slab failure. In this case study, we review the field and background information obtained for this case as well as the court interpretation of lines of responsibility and contract language regarding parking structure maintenance and normal wear and tear.

Reinforced Concrete has been a material of choice and is the second most consumed material per capita in the world after water. The Indian Construction Industry is set to rise from a value of US$ 428.1 billion today to US$ 563.4 billion in 2020. Exponential growth in Indian concrete construction over the past 40 years has concurrently created very sizeable need as well as a market for repair-related activities.