Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
M.Levitt
PhD, FIQA, MICT
E & FN SPON
An Imprint of Thomson Professional
London Weinheim New York Tokyo Melbourne Madras
M.Levitt
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Preface
1 Concrete materials
1.1 OPC, strength gain and sulfate and frost resistance
1.2 OPC and curing
1.3 Aggregates and frost damage
1.4 Air-entraining agents and frost damage
1.5 Alkali-silica reaction
1.6 Calcium chloride
1.7 Aluminous cement
1.8 Steel reinforcement: additional requirements
1.9 Excess steel reinforcement
1.10 GRC and alkali-glass reaction
1.11 Fibre-reinforced sandwich panels
1.12 Delayed ettringite formation
3 Concrete on site
3.1 Covercrete d or k
3.2 Spacers for rebars
3.3 Tiling and moisture in floors
3.4 Flatness of floors
3.5 Flatness of formwork
3.6 Joints between precast paving and between kerbs
3.7 Tolerances
3.8 Rising damp and a chemical barrier
3.9 Cracking in the non-visual zone
4 Specification problems
4.1 The CE mark
4.2 Durability
4.3 Concrete quality
4.4 Specifying strength
5 Precast concrete
5.1 Hydration staining
5.2 Lime bloom
5.3 Colour variations
5.4 Cracking and slenderness ratio
5.5 Thermal cracking in pipes
5.6 Tunnel segment impact damage
5.7 Tesserae detachment
6 Testing
6.1 Labcrete or realcrete
6.2 Design or performance
6.3 Camouflage testing
6.4 Repeatability and reproducibility
6.5 Changes in testing
6.6 Testing fixation
6.7 Testing accuracy
Glossary
1.1.1 IDENTIFICATION
(d) Weathering
This is a dusting and softening of a 02mm depth of the surface, which
takes place over many years, and is noticeable on unsheltered surfaces.
1.1.2 REMEDIAL
Remove all suspect and degraded concrete, and patch or full repair using
(preferably) a polymer mortar (Concrete Society, 1984; Perkins, 1986).
1.1.3 AVOIDANCE
The cementitious content should be kept in the range 375450kg/m3.
1.2.1 IDENTIFICATION
(a) Thermal cracking
This is most noticeable when there is a maximum temperature gradient
through the section, which for thick (over 0.5m) plain OPC concrete occurs
typically at 4050 hours. Crack apertures up to 2mm wide are not
uncommon. However, as the temperature gradient becomes less steep,
these cracks largely close down to apertures of about 0.5mm. These crack
positions often coincide with the main rebars, and the cracks penetrate as
far as the steel. However, in an in-depth examination of marine-exposed
concrete I observed that the crack width tapered rapidly from the surface
down to about 10mm deep, where it kept to a consistent value of about
0.1mm. Chloride penetration from exposure to sea water did not occur
below this 10mm depth in the crack, and was marginal in all other areas.
Thermal cracks occurring at the junction of new and old concrete
interfaces (the old concrete being known as a heat sink) may generally be
seen to occur at right angles to the interface and horizontal and parallel
further up the wall.
1.2.2 REMEDIAL
0.2mm. The efficacy of the repair system used can be examined using the
initial surface absorption test (BS 1881 Part 208:1996). Repaired and
unrepaired areas can be compared to eliminate the effect of the absorption
characteristics of uncracked concrete.
1.2.3 AVOIDANCE
(a) Thermal cracking
Use formwork with built-in thermal insulation and/or leave thermally
insulating covers in place until both the concrete surface temperature and
the temperature gradient have reached acceptable levels. As far as is
known, no quantitative guidance is available on concrete surface
temperature, because much depends on air temperature, wind speed,
1.3.1 IDENTIFICATION
These are aesthetic defects in the form of pop-outs typically 1020mm in
diameter and 13mm deep, with the aggregate particle visible at the bottom
of the pop-out. In general the pop-outs occur only at the largest pieces of
aggregate. For example, if the aggregate maximum size is 20mm, pop-outs
would as a rule be observed at the near-surface 20mm particles.
1.3.2 REMEDIAL
This is a difficult matter to address because, provided the presence of pop-
outs can be accepted, no remedial action is necessary. Any attempt at
remedial work in the form of a paint or mortar coating could exacerbate
the occurrence of pop-outs, because moisture could become trapped or
inhibited from evaporation. A possible way of dealing with the aesthetic
problem of these pop-outs would be to feature the aggregate exposure
rather than try and hide it. This could be achieved by exposing the
aggregate over the whole of the visual face, possibly using a flame
treatment or another suitable method.
The use of de-icing salt can be minimised by ensuring well-maintained
drainage.
1.3.3 AVOIDANCE
Assuming that de-icing salts are likely to be used, and that efficient
drainage (including its maintenance) is unlikely to be installed, it can be
advantageous to select a coarse aggregate with a low specific heat, such as
limestone or sandstone. An alternative or addition to this precaution would
be to silicone (BS 6477:1992) the concrete on site, or to incorporate a water-
repellent admixture such as 12% m/m cement of stearic acid powder. If a
water-repellent admixture is being considered and another admixture is
also planned to be used, their compatibility needs to be assessed before
concrete production (see sections 5.2 and 5.3).
Some so-called limestones and sandstones are prone to frost attack
because they have a significantly high water retention capacity of their
own, and a study of their track history is recommended. Flint gravels with
a thick cortex surface coating (white, 13mm thick typical layer) can be
also prone to frost damage. Any such risk with these aggregates can be
indicated by a simple test. Take exactly 100 pieces of the largest aggregate
1.4.2 REMEDIAL
Remove all degraded material; wash the surface thoroughly, and reface
with a polymer mortar or a frost-resistant concrete overlay. Consider
complete concrete replacement only if there are doubts about the property
of the apparently unaffected material.
1.4.3 AVOIDANCE
If an air-entraining admixture is to be used it should comply with BS 5075
Part 2, and should be assessed on the actual concrete to be used in the
works, taking into account all the variables that are likely to occur on site.
The recommended method of assessment is by either microscopic or freeze-
thaw tests on representative hardened concrete samples.
The alternative to using an air-entraining agent is to use a well-mixed
and compacted and cured (thermal and/or moisture) concrete with a
cementitious content in the range 375450kg/m3.
The cost considerations of the selected path would need to be discussed.
1.5.1 IDENTIFICATION
On the few occasions that ASR damage has been observed it takes the form
of generally random cracking, with crack apertures up to 10mm. However,
the crack widths taper rapidly with depth. Secondary cracking often occurs
in the form of map cracking with crack apertures typically up to 1mm. A
gel-like exudation similar to egg-glass (waterglass) may be seen at the
apertures.
1.5.2 REMEDIAL
If the problem is with the specification wording, which could be something
like Not more than 3kg Na Oequiv. per m3 concrete, draw the attention of
2
the parties concerned to the lowor zero-risk situation if that concrete has
already shown a good track record.
If the problem is an actual risk, and damage has occurred, then either
removal and replacement of the damaged concrete and/or a protective
waterproofing render will generally inhibit further damaging reaction.
1.6.1 IDENTIFICATION
This defect is seen as spalling and/or cracking, with cracks commonly
mirroring the rebar positions, together with rust staining marks at the crack
apertures. When pieces of concrete are broken off to expose rebars, a slimy
1.6.2 REMEDIAL
Following the Concrete Societys recommendations (Concrete Society,
1984), effect a repair after removing all degraded and suspect concrete and
applying a protective coating to the rebars. Even concrete where there is
no visible damage needs to be assessed, as those areas may have corrosion
occurring at the steel, and/or the quality of the covercrete might not be
acceptable.
1.6.3 AVOIDANCE
The answer is simple: do not use calcium chloride admixture. If excess
chloride is likely to find its way into the mix, either by deliberate addition
or by the use of contaminated materials, then the use of additives is
recommended. Where this is to be applied as a remedial action then the
cementitious content should lie in the range 375450kg/m3 and have 30%
PFA, 70% GGBS or about 7% MS cement replacement.
1.7.1 IDENTIFICATION
Problems with aluminous cement can be identified by:
1.7.2 REMEDIAL
Where (a) applies, stainless steel or equivalent brackets should be fixed to
the columns to extend the bedding lengths to an acceptable figure. Shims
of stainless steel or similar would probably need to be placed in the gaps
and grouted up to give continuity. Any shims used should not give rise to
bimetallic corrosion reaction with the brackets.
Where (b) applies, carry out remedial work to inhibit or preferably stop
condensation and/or leakage. Units may have their degraded surface
material removed if required and refaced with a polymer mortar.
1.7.3 AVOIDANCE
The best way of avoiding problem (a) is probably to design adequate
tolerances and to ensure in both precast and in-situ concrete work that
these tolerances are achieved.
Concerning (b), it is best to ensure that areas such as roof spaces,
kitchens, bathrooms and similar risk zones have their precast units in an
adequately ventilated and leak-and condensation-free environment.
1.8.1 IDENTIFICATION
The symptom is cracking in the design compression zone. This cracking
tends to exhibit a rather random pattern, generally unrelated to the drying
shrinkage and thermal cracking discussed in sections 1.1 and 1.2.
1.8.2 REMEDIAL
If the crack apertures remain nominally static, and crack depths are not
considered to be a corrosion risk, then consider a grinding to clean off
detritus at the crack apertures, followed by a silicone treatment. If there are
structural implications because of the cracking, seek the advice of a
chartered engineer concerning such actions as replacement, stitching in
extra steel, or other solutions.
1.9.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problems that occur from using excess reinforcement are numerous.
The list below highlights those that have been commonly experienced:
(a) pieces of tie wire and detritus on the soffit;
(b) cracking mirroring the main rebars, without steel corrosion;
(c) shrinkage cracking due mainly to the use of too much water and/or
too dusty an aggregate in the mix;
(d) honeycombing above the steel due to the close-packing of the rebars,
allowing fine material sole passage.
1.9.2 REMEDIAL
(a) Remove tie wires, detritus etc. from the face of the concrete as soon as
possible, and reface cut-out areas with mortar of the same mix as the
fine material in the substrate concrete.
(b) On the assumption that by the time the problem is observed most of
the hydration shrinkage considered responsible for the cracking will
have taken place, remove all unsound concrete and repair (Concrete
Society, 1984).
(c) Repair shrinkage cracking, if considered necessary, as described in
section 1.2.2(b).
(d) Cut out and replace honeycombed zones with concrete or mortar to
give a weathering match.
1.9.3 AVOIDANCE
The general way to avoid most of the problems listed is either to ensure
that no more reinforcement is put in than is needed and/or to distribute
1.10.2 REMEDIAL
Rub down with a fine-grade disc, carborundum stone or similar to
remove all softened material. Apply a silicate-based or polymer-based
paint system to give an approved finish. The silicate systems are preferred
as they have a track record of good performance exceeding 100 years,
and this thus avoids continuous maintenance apart, possibly, from
cleaning.
1.10.3 AVOIDANCE
If GRC is likely to be subject to the exposure risk mentioned above, the use
of a protective silicate-based or polymer-based paint would greatly
improve the performance. The alternative would be to apply a rich (e.g. 1/
1) fine mortar 12mm thick to the risk face before laying up the GRC
system. A protective coating, as described above, could also be considered
as an additional precaution.
1.11.1 IDENTIFICATION
The symptom is cracking at the face-web return junctions, sometimes
accompanied by a lime or carbonated lime leachate from the cracks.
Differential movement may also cause the panels to bow in a convex
manner. This could be assessed with a straightedge, but should not be
confused with any convexity that may have been there when the units
were made.
1.11.2 REMEDIAL
Although no remedial work was undertaken as far as is known on the sites
visited, it is difficult to recommend anything that can cater for such
cracking. If, as is likely, the cause is a thermal one, then the cracking is
likely to be live. Therefore, if a crack-filling material is to be used, this
should be a low-modulus material capable of moving with the changing
crack apertures. The repair should be effected when the cracking is at the
maximum opening so that the sealant used will generally be under
compression.
1.11.3 AVOIDANCE
Wherever possible, avoid the use of sandwich panels and consider using
single-skin cladding. If sandwich panels have to be used they could be
designed so that the web-face skin junction is hinged rather than rigid.
1.12.1 IDENTIFICATION
If this problem is ever found it is likely to be in the form of severe cracking
and/or spalling, with visible ettringite-rich white crystalline deposits at
the broken face. This is a prediction based upon a single observation in
laboratory samples and not from a site.
1.12.2 REMEDIAL
Not enough experience is available to address this point. If damage were
to occur on site in similar vein to that observed on the hydraulically pressed
kerb samples (assuming that it was due to DBF) then it is likely that major
remedial work or replacement would be necessary.
1.12.3 AVOIDANCE
Until actual site problems become documented and the mechanism is
understood and accepted it is not possible to take avoiding action. As far
as is known at present, there does not appear to be anything to avoid.
2.1.1 IDENTIFICATION
The symptoms of cement eczema are irritation of the contact area, probably
accompanied by discoloration and a blotchy appearance. If the effect of
cement burns is occurring at the same time (see section 2.2), skin irritation
is unlikely to be felt because of the damage to nerve ends.
2.1.2 REMEDIAL
Wash affected areas immediately with copious quantities of water, and
remove cement-stained clothing. Seek medical advice as soon as possible
2.1.3 AVOIDANCE
Most people are relatively insensitive to the risk of cement eczema, and so
it is advisable to question all personnel at the pre-employment or
deployment stages. Has the person and/or any member of that persons
family ever been prone to allergic skin reactions or complaints? The 1965
study reported earlier indicated that hereditary factors can play a role in a
persons proneness to a reaction. For adequate documentation, the posing
of these questions and the answers received need to be accurately recorded.
As far as protective handwear is concerned, only waterproof gloves
known to be unreactive to chromates should be used. Handcreams only
prevent the skin from drying out; they do not offer resistance to the
chromate salt.
2.2.1 IDENTIFICATION
The symptoms are soreness experienced after some hours, followed,
usually the following day, by severe pain and ulceration, with a flesh colour
varying from green to purple and, generally, an accompanying discharge.
2.2.2 REMEDIAL
It is possible to ameliorate the situation slightly by immediate washing
of the affected area with copious quantities of water, coupled by the
removal of all affected clothing. This clothing should be washed or
discarded. The US articles referred to earlier advise not to cover the area
nor to apply any form of dressing. Immediate hospitalisation is advised
with, preferably, a department qualified to deal with cement burns. The
patients contact with cement and caustic alkalis needs to be mentioned
to the hospital staff.
2.3.2 REMEDIAL
Ask the supplier for written instructions on how to deal with pressure line
blockages. If a coupling in the pressure line has to be undone because of a
blockage, and no instructions are available, run the pump with the tap in
approximately the midway position between the recirculation and
pressurising positions. Ensure that the operatives wear full eye and hand
protection at all times, and that there is a convenient optical douche nearby.
2.3.3 AVOIDANCE
Use grout pumps only where there are distinct instructions on how to
relieve pressure in the feed line should a blockage occur. Wear only
approved eye and hand protection, and ensure that there is a convenient
optical douche station.
3.1 COVERCRETE d OR k
Although covercrete d and k are defined in the Glossary, some qualification
may be useful. Concentration on the depth of cover, d, is universal; there is
3.1.1 COVERCRETE d
Why have a d in the specification? The simplest answer might be to protect
the steel from corrosion. Unfortunately, this reasoning seems tacitly to
admit an inability to qualify the answer. What is not apparently designed
is whether d maintains its protective property over the planned lifetime, or
whether it gradually loses it.
From site experience, it seems that the underlying philosophy of a d
specification is defer the fatal date. In effect, we could well assume that d
should be maximised, because the cover will lose its protectiveness with
time. However, there are drawbacks to having too much cover:
Fig. 3.1 Difference between strirpup and main rebar cover (all dimesions in mm).
3.1.2 COVERCRETE k
It is commonplace to specify minimum cement or cementitious contents;
there seems to be a growing tendency to control k with little knowledge of
what it actually is. At the same time, it could well be an admission that
there will be variations in the actual steel covers being achieved, but that
even when these are at their minima the concrete left as covercrete will still
give good performance over the planned lifetime.
The main problem with k is that knowledge already exists on how to
measure permeability, but it takes too long (at least 3 months) before useful
test data emerge. It can be argued that d can be easily confirmed by
covermeter tests or similar, but there are errors involved in such testing (as
with any testing). More importantly, if the concrete has hardened, what
action can be taken to deal with non-complying areas?
A strict mix design specification, which can be easily verified by
supervision, can generally give compliance with a k requirement. This
applies whether the k design is for general weathering durability
requirements or for protection when chlorides are present.
Long-term research can establish how the permeability characteristics
of concrete can be controlled under a variety of durability hazards. It thus
follows that a contractually viable solution to producing the optimum k
for any risk situation lies in the area of mix design.
3.1.3 IDENTIFICATION
The problem is manifested as non-compliance with minimum cover
requirements (assuming that the parties concerned are agreed on what is
meant by minimum cover) coupled with the covercrete being potentially
good enough to give adequate performance: in effect, a low d but
accompanied by a low k.
3.1.4 REMEDIAL
Illustrate by such means as the history performance of similar concrete
and/or by agreed testing of the covercrete that a deemed-to-satisfy
situation exists. Proposed action, such as protective coatings or other
surface treatments, may have an apparently remedial effect, but it is almost
certain to be a waste of resources if the k value is too low.
3.1.5 AVOIDANCE
For carbonation, chloride attack or fire resistance a logical appreciation of
both d and k would seem to be essential.
The carbonation advance with the square root of time, mentioned above,
is a general rule, which appears to apply to concretes whose cementitious
content is below about 375kg/m3. Above this content, carbonation is
generally a few millimetres deep after many years. Therefore, if carbonation
is the sole risk, the solution seems to be a minimum cementitious content of
the order of 375kg/m3.
When chlorides and other corrosion-promoting chemicals are additional
(to carbonation) risks, then the mix to be used needs strict specification
and control. For example, in marine or de-icing salt exposure, the suggested
375kg/m3 minimum cementitious content needs to be supplemented by
specifying that the cementitious content have 30% PFA, 70% GGBS or 7%
MS cement replacement.
If fire resistance is the only requirement then d is almost certainly the only
variable that needs to be specified. Design factors such as secondary mesh-
type holding reinforcement in the covercrete zone may also need to be
considered.
The most difficult recommendation to make for carbonation and
corrosion-promoting chemical hazards is what the minimum value of d and
the maximum for k should be. For the present, assuming that the minimum
cementitious content has been achieved and that it has the right ingredients,
then a few millimetres of cover seem to be all that is required. However, in
order to allow for workmanship and the risk of ingress of aggressive material
at the interfaces between mortar and aggregate facets, the minimum cover
should logically be twice the maximum aggregate size. This would cater for
there being a rebar-aggregate-aggregate path to the exposed face.
The definition of minimum cover still remains to be established. This
possibly needs to be resolved at Eurocode level, but for a single meaning
the wording actual minimum cover to any steel might suffice. This form
of wording does not have any obvious interpretative modes.
3.2.1 IDENTIFICATION
(a) Reinforcement cage dislodged with the spacer in the wrong
configuration or lying loose on the soffit. Detection of this problem
could be by a simple visual inspection or, more commonly, by means
of a covermeter survey.
(b) Spacer feet protruding from the concretes surface, with holes in
relatively soft formwork and minute spalling possible for concrete
formed against steel or similar hard, unyielding material.
(c) Unsightly protrusion of spacer feet or bases in abrasion-blasted
finishes.
(d) Corrosion rusting, either in lines at the interface between spacer and
concrete boundaries or fairly uniformly over the spacer base.
(e) A blackened hole of easily removed carbon, giving direct access to the
steel. If the steel has suffered a phase change because of the heat,
additional deflection may also have occurred.
(f) An approximately conical-shaped spall, exposing the spacer base and,
generally, the rebar; the rebar has no corrosion on it at the time that
spalling took place.
3.2.2 REMEDIAL
(a) Treat as in section 3.1.4 in attempting to achieve a reduced-cover
deemed-to-satisfy agreement, or undertake remedial work, such as
applying extra cover (Concrete Society, 1984).
(b) Knife-cut protruding spacer feet and make good holes in the formwork.
The use of heat to remove these protrusions is not recommended
because carbon staining could occur, and it is also possible that
3.2.3 AVOIDANCE
(a) Use only trestle-type spacers on horizontal bars in contact with the base
of the form or mould. Wheel-type spacers can be used in all applications,
bearing in mind that some types are not strong enough for use on the
bottom steel. Wheel-type spacers can be prevented from slipping down
vertical and other non-horizontal rebars by holding each spacer in place
with an elastic band, which is then left in the concrete.
(b) Ensure that the load distribution on spacers is such that the tendency
to punch into formwork is minimised. At the same time ensure that
not too many spacers are used, because they can encourage planes of
possible weakness in the concrete.
(c) Avoid using plastics spacers for exposed-aggregate finishes. Mortar
spacers are preferred with spacers having aggregate exposure by the
same process planned for the concrete.
(d) Mortar spacers should be made with a sand/cement ratio between
1.5 and 2.0, preferably of the same fine aggregate (sand) planned for
the concrete. Curing of the spacers under damp conditions for at least
the first 48 hours is recommended.
(e), (f) Ensure that the seating area of both trestle-type and wheel-type
spacers is pierced to at least 25% of its section. This permits concrete,
under the action of compaction, to interweave with the plastics and
cause each spacer to act compositely rather than as an individual piece
of material. This caters both for the thermal expansion differential and
for degradation under the action of fire.
3.3.1 IDENTIFICATION
This is the discovery that a 75% RH limit has been specified for laying floor
coverings, but that this cannot be met within the site limits as laid down in
a bar chart.
3.3.2 REMEDIAL
The only possible avenues that may be worth pursuing are either to get the
specifier to accept the risk situation, or possibly to allow a variation
resulting in the use of a more expensive adhesive that can tolerate high
levels of water in the floor.
3.3.3 AVOIDANCE
The use of plasticising or superplasticising admixtures in the concrete is
worth examining as an interim measure and, possibly, as a long-term one
pending the findings of the CSTR in 1999. Specifiers should have their
attention drawn to the problems generated by the 75% specification, and
should be told inter alia that there is no cheap way of getting over the
problem.
3.5.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem is identified by stepping or lipping at formwork joints, as
well as convexity or concavity, discernible by the naked eye, by a
3.5.2 REMEDIAL
Grind down lips and other unacceptable high areas. If the appearance of
the ground areas is a problem, then grinding the whole area could be
considered, because a patchy terrazzo-like effect would result from
grinding solely at the joints.
3.5.3 AVOIDANCE
Use good-quality timber formwork with known relatively stable moisture
and temperature behaviour. Protect formwork from the effects of the weather
as much as possible, as well as from direct timber contact with concrete and
mould-release agents. For the latter in-use protection, seek the formwork
suppliers views on the suitability of painting. If no information can be
obtained on a suitable paint, a pigmented paint (Levitt, 1982) could be
applied to both the inside and the outside of the forms. The type of paint
selected would depend upon how many reuses are planned. Whichever
active ingredient base is used in the paint, performance has been found to be
more a function of the presence of a pigment than of the base.
Consideration could also well be given to improved setting-out of panels
of formwork. It is reasonable to assume that with each use there will be
some movement. Therefore jig-setting before each use, with the necessary
adjustment of soldiers, whalings and shims, could well promote an
improved planeness of finish.
3.7 TOLERANCES
The main problems encountered on site with tolerances seem to have been
associated with a general lack of appreciation that, although building loci
are never at exact and predictable points in space, their variations and
catering for these variations are both within the realms of the designer,
builder and/or manufacturer. In general, the problems investigated fell
into two broad categories:
positive and negative tolerances;
matching tolerances.
Example 1
A prestige building had a canopy of single-skin GRC cladding panels fixed to
a stainless steel subframe. It had apparently been assumed that the specialist-
manufactured subframe would be made to strict tolerances because, possibly,
of the use of an expensive alloy. Unfortunately, this did not turn out to be the
case; and, probably worse than that, the whole frame was under-dimensioned,
and great difficulty was experienced in fixing the GRC panels in their
designated positions. Much of the excess negative tolerance was countered by
the use of large numbers of stainless steel shims at the fixings. In some cases as
many as 12 shims, 3mm thick, were used. The only thing found right on this
contract was that, in the other two space dimensions, the fixing points were
found to be within an acceptable tolerance.
Example 2
The problem concerned rain penetration around the window details of an
office block gable end constructed of cast stone ashlar cladding, sill and
Example 3
This was an instance of troubleshooting at the design stage, and concerned
matching tolerances. Precast concrete units were to be fixed using
proprietary cast-in stainless steel slots in the units to locate with floor bolts
cast into the in-situ concrete. The problem was that the site, being a
refurbishment in a busy metropolis, had no storage room and could not
tolerate any delay. Fixing had to be direct from the delivery vehicle onto
the facade, and had to be timed for when the tower crane was available.
It was agreed that, in order to correlate the precast unit dimensions and
the tolerances for the positions of both the site and unit fixing points, the
opening (the gap to receive the unit) centre lines rather than column centres
would be used for location. Precast units were dimensioned from the centre
vertical and horizontal lines, both for their overall sizes and for the cast-in
fixing slots. Few problems were encountered on site.
Figure 3.10 illustrates how this system was used.
3.7.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem shows itself as difficulty or inability in putting parts of a
construction together.
3.7.2 REMEDIAL
This is difficult to address, because each case probably needs to be
considered individually. Fortuitously, the 1980s and 1990s have seen the
advent of many new types of proprietary fixing, which can be used, for
instance, as single or double locking or expansion devices. In addition,
3.7.3 AVOIDANCE
Most of the problem areas mentioned above can be avoided by applying
realistic detailing and dimensioning, always bearing in mind that
tolerances are important all the way from material to product to completed
construction. Buildability could possibly be improved by aiming to keep
positive tolerances as small as possible and allowing variations to be
catered for in the negative tolerance range.
3.8.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem is characterised by dampness and mildew growth to a height
of 1.01.5m above ground, and chemical injection remedial work is of little
apparent benefit.
3.8.3 AVOIDANCE
Take special care when installing mechanical damp-proof courses and
trays. Many problems found on site have been associated with damaged
membranes, as well as with mortar bridging dpm lines. The masonry code
of practice (BS 5628 Part 3:1985) recommends that something like 5mm of
membrane should be left protruding from the face of the masonry. This is
not as common as it probably ought to be, and membranes tend to get
bridged by mortar, allowing a path for rising damp.
A non-concrete case of dealing with rising damp was studied at the
installation date and again just over a year later. It concerned a building
that was 150 years old, with a single skin of clay brickwork 320mm thick.
(a) Water and air can access the rebar and initiate corrosion.
(b) Dirt can collect at the apertures, giving the surface an unsightly
appearance.
(c) Structural distress may be occurring.
(d) The crack may be static or dynamic.
Fig. 3.12 Various crack geometries surface crack widths in mm (not to scale).
The structural and crack mobility factors referred to in (c) and (d) fall
within the province of an engineering assessment rather than being a
material problem. There is little point in dealing with cracks from any of
the points of view of identification, remedy or avoidance without a
reasonably clear picture of the mechanism(s) that caused the cracking, and
of the crack geometry.
The two common types of crack-measuring device used on site are
transparent plastics cards with different thicknesses of lines for laying
alongside cracks, and the crack microscope. Both of these measure crack
aperture and not crack width. The crack microscope is possibly too precise
a tool, because the need to measure crack aperture beyond a 0.05mm
accuracy (which can fairly easily be judged with the human eye against a
reference line on the card) is debatable. Furthermore, site conditions and
ergonomics need to be considered. There are attractions to using a cheap
card that is pocket sized (100mm40mm, say), sufficiently accurate, and
virtually unbreakable. However, whichever measuring device is used, the
information it provides has been shown to have little value.
3.9.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem is identifiable in one of two forms: either there is some
wording in the specification limiting crack apertures, or visual cracks are
observed whose position, crack apertures or times of occurrence are not as
expected.
3.9.2 REMEDIAL
For static cracks that are not considered to be a corrosion risk, rub down to
remove all dirt, and apply a flood coat of silicone water-repellent to the
recommendations of BS 6477:1992. Static cracks that are considered to be a
corrosion risk may be amenable to repair by injecting an epoxide resin. The
3.9.3 AVOIDANCE
Although good design and workmanship minimise the occurrence of
cracks, it is essentialboth at specification stage and during the work-not
to raise problems when the risks are insignificant or unfounded. The best
approach is probably for the parties to agree at a preliminary stage which
crack apertures necessitate further investigation and possible action, as well
as which cracks do not need attention.
3.10.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem would cause large areas of scaling up to 3mm deep of surface
layer, exhibiting little air entrainment but with a weak interface of coagulated
laminar bubble plates also showing laminar cracking. The remaining
substrate concrete from the same batch of concrete would tend to exhibit
fairly uniform air bubble distribution. The surface planarity would not
change significantly over the scaled areas. The scaling observed, and
illustrated in Fig. 3.14, could not have been misdiagnosed as the familiar
blistering or small-area scaling, about which much has been published.
3.10.2 REMEDIAL
Depending upon the degree of unsound material, a decision may be taken
to cut out the top layer to a depth of, say, 1020mm and resurface with new
concrete if the underlying substrate is acceptable. If there are more serious
doubts (as there were with the case mentioned) then complete replacement
may have to be considered.
3.10.3 AVOIDANCE
All admixtures should be used in accordance with known and acceptable
good practice. Those added at the plant or works should be fed in with the
mixing water. Superplasticising admixtures added on site should be fed in
only after the concrete in the drum has been uniformly mixed and is as
close as possible to the required discharge position.
3.11 SILANES
The problem encountered on site was with large concrete units precast on
site for placement in and above tidal water. The specification required that
virtually all concrete be treated with silane according to government
recommendations (DoT, 1990). The nature of the problem was twofold.
First, the concrete was too impermeable to absorb more than a marginal
amount of the two coat specified silane applications. Second, what little
managed to get into the concrete penetrated only about 1mm deep.
As far as was known at that time (and probably at the time of preparation
of this book), silanes had little or no track history in the UK. In contrast, the
long-established silicones have had a proven performance over at least 40
years. It is of interest to note that the superseded 1984 edition of the current
standard on masonry water repellents (BS 6477:1992) replaced a standard
(BS 3826:1969) that referred to silicone only in its title. The aim of these
types of treatment is to impregnate (not coat) concrete with a chemical that
has or endows the concrete with water-repellent properties. With silanes,
one has to wait for a significant amount of time to obtain this property.
Therefore the concrete or other material being treated must be capable of
being impregnated to a depth that will give an acceptable performance:
that is, not so shallow as to be at risk of losing its efficacy too quickly
because of wear or weathering. In addition, what impregnates the concrete
must be designed to act as a water repellent and not be subject to nor
designed for water under more than a nominal pressure.
Only silicones, usually based in a volatile solvent such as white spirit,
act immediately as water repellents by lining the sides of voids and
capillaries with a hydrophobic layer. Silanes have much lower viscosities
3.11.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem is flagged by a silane application requirement in the
specification.
3.11.2 REMEDIAL
Advise the specifier of the following:
The concrete will have to be of mediocre or poor quality for the silane
to be able to penetrate to a significant depth.
3.11.3 AVOIDANCE
Pre-tender discussion is advised. The contractual aims may well be
achievable by better-known and tried means.
4.1.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem arises when the CE mark appears in the contract documentation
without the parties concerned knowing to which Harmonized Standard or
equivalent specification the product is specified, or how all this relates to the
required performance of the product in the works.
4.1.2 REMEDIAL
Advise the party or parties concerned of the limitations of having only
part of the knowledge necessary for the construction.
4.1.3 AVOIDANCE
CE marked products should be specified only when it is clear which are
the supporting documents, and what their relevance is to the job
requirements. The better-tried route of invoking relevant codes of practice
coupled with supporting standards and adequate supervision on site might
be more cost-effective.
4.2 DURABILITY
The problem is to define the word durability. It has been used for many
years in relation to concrete and concrete structures, but all too often it can
mean any of the following:
strength, usually with respect to the cube results;
sulfate resistance, usually for concrete placed in the ground;
4.2.5 IDENTIFICATION
Look out for the words durable or durability appearing in documents
with no qualification, risk description or assessment/control.
4.2.6 REMEDIAL
Probably the best way to deal with this is to ask for the qualification. When
it comes to dealing with durability as defined in 4.2.1, there appear to be
two camps. The first is the cater camp, which accepts that something is
going to go wrong and caters for it either by repair or by replacement. The
second is the apparently rarer cure camp, which ensures that the concrete
needs no maintenance apart, possibly, from occasional cleaning.
4.2.7 AVOIDANCE
Pre-contract liaison between the members of the construction team seems
to be the best way to promote an understanding of the relevant durability
considerations, and of the best way to deal with them in each specific case.
4.3.5 IDENTIFICATION
Look out for the use of the word quality in any context without the parties
concerned knowing in unambiguous terms what the word implies in terms
of product and/or service.
4.3.6 REMEDIAL
Ensure that what is under consideration is qualified by a full description.
If this is not forthcoming, explain why a problem area still exists, and how
this may affect the work.
5.1.1 IDENTIFICATION
The symptom is dark glossy area(s) on the surface, usually accompanied
by difficulty in demoulding or stripping. This staining typically penetrates
1030mm into the concrete. Weathering, if anything, tends to emphasise
the contrast between stained and unstained areas. Hydration staining has
been found to have no similarity to the staining caused by leavesplanks
of timber used for stacking after the concrete is a few days oldwhere
saponification by the lime in cement generally causes such stains to fade or
disappear.
5.1.2 REMEDIAL
Once hydration staining has occurred there is no direct remedial action
that can be taken. The areas affected can be cut out and made good, but
5.1.3 AVOIDANCE
Avoid the use of gloss-finish moulds or formwork. Where paints are used
they should be matt finish and pigmented, with the pigment colour
changed if more than one coat is to be applied. The pigment in paint is
more significant in promoting wear resistance than the type of paint used
(Levitt, 1982), and changing the colours of subsequent coats facilitates the
assessment of paint wear rates.
Where the mould or formwork has a high gloss finish, two or three
consecutive daily mortar applications and removals help to weather the
surface into a consistent use behaviour. The alternative is to sandblast the
surface lightly so as to produce a matt finish.
Where stacking pieces are to be used they should not be deployed until
the concrete is 48 hours old. Even after this time, for visual faces, the
stacking items used should preferably allow part-air ingress. For example,
expanded polystyrene blocks would be preferable to polythene-wrapped
pieces of timber.
The associated experience of the concretes sticking to the mould or
formwork can often be alleviated by incorporating a valve into which
compressed air is blown during demoulding or stripping. The sticking would
be due to the van der Waals attraction forces, which at a simulated total
vacuum suction level could reach 0.1MPa. Over an area of concrete of say,
0.1m2, the force required to release this area of adhesion would be 1 tonne.
5.2.1 IDENTIFICATION
Lime bloom consists of a white powdery deposit on the surface, which is
insoluble in water but soluble in dilute hydrochloric acid with the
formation of bubbles. (Note: The person carrying out this test would not
be expected to identify the bubbles as being carbon dioxide.)
5.2.2 REMEDIAL
Lime bloom can either be removed by dry brushing, or left to the slow
dissolution process described previously. Although brushing will remove
most of the bloom there is still an abundant source of lime from the cement
hydrates waiting to go into a very dilute lime solution and replace the
5.2.3 AVOIDANCE
Use a water-repellent admixture such as stearic acid in wet-cast concrete,
or calcium or aluminium stearate in earth-moist products such as most
cast stone production. Do not use this type of admixture with any other
admixture unless representative tests have shown that the two admixtures
are compatible in all properties. The alternative would be to use a silicone
as in section 5.2.2 as soon as possible after manufacture. In this case care
would be needed to avoid spillage onto bedding faces. Provided other parts
of the construction are adequately protected, site application can have its
attractions, most obviously the fact that mortar joints would be siliconed
at the same time.
Fig. 5.2 Lime bloom on tiles pigmented with iron oxide and with carbon.
5.3.1 IDENTIFICATION
There is an apparent lightening in colour with age, and a variation in colour,
texture, shade and reflectance, both within distances as small as a few
centimetres within a unit and from location to location and unit to unit.
The lightening with age tends to promote an eventual uniformity, which
can occur after only a few months on a south or west unprotected face, and
after several months or a year or two on other faces.
5.3.2 REMEDIAL
Either apply a silicone to BS 6477 after any remedial work, or do nothing.
Any other form of surface treatment, including acid etching, might seem
to be beneficial in the short term, but nearly always makes matters worse.
5.3.3 AVOIDANCE
In addition to exercising the best manufacturing control, any concrete
(pigmented or otherwise) will generally benefit from the use of stearic acid in
wet-cast mixes, or aluminium or calcium stearate in earth-moist mixes. Both
these admixtures endow the concrete with water-repellent properties, and
therefore, if control is mediocre or poor, there will be minimal lightening due
to weathering, and defects in colour variation will be visible for a long time.
Consideration could also be given to using pigments in pre-blended
form, where the pigment and the water-repellent admixture are mixed with
the cement in a powder disperser, as illustrated in Fig. 5.3. The advantages
of this quickly offset the cost of the blender, because not only can the
pigment content be reduced by up to 50% for the same staining power as if
it had been added to the mixer, but the blend containing the water repellent
becomes a hydrophobic cement. During storage it would not be subject to
the typical caking or sack-hardening associated with untreated cement.
Mixes containing water-repellent admixtures need to be mixed by direct-
action as in pan-type mixers. Drum mixers generally do not have enough
energy to mix effectively when stearine-type admixtures are used.
structure. The cause was almost certainly the specification of units that
had a large z length dimension compared with the x and y section
dimensions. This is also related to the false expectation that a product
having a cube strength in the range 3040MPa is as structural as a 40
60MPa wet-cast concrete unit.
As far as the product is concerned, cast stone, especially the common
moist-mix design products, is generally a mortar mix and not a typical
concrete mix. The bending strength of concrete is about 1014% of the
compressive strength. For the mortar-mix cast stone this ratio has been
found to concentrate at the 10% end of the range. Therefore, if a cast stone
with 40MPa compressive cube strength is being made, the highest bending
strength will be about 4MPa. However, this assumes that the compaction
and strength of the unit are the same as the cube, but this is rarely likely to
be the case. The safety factor that can be ostensibly applied has not been
specified, and it is only in the standard for cast stone (BS 1217:1997) that
maximum limits for z have been specified compared with the x and y
dimensions. This part of the cast stone specification is based upon x and y
being represented by an inscribed or superscribed circle in the xy section,
depending both on shape and on whether x or y is vertical when the
product is handled.
As far as handling, transport and storage are concerned, it is obvious
that if a long unit is being lifted at its ends and x is larger than y, then it is
Fig. 5.4 Cast stone lintel with slenderness ratio (not to scale).
5.4.1 IDENTIFICATION
Look for one or more cracks near the centre of the unit, tending to narrow
or disappear towards the top of the section. End-lifting a sill or lintel in its
upside position rather than its design installation position would result in
severer cracking, as there would probably not be any reinforcement in the
tensile zone created during the lifting.
5.4.2 REMEDIAL
A polymer-based system is often suitable, provided that an engineer has
advised on the suitability for repair rather than rejection. The selection
depends upon whether or not the cracks are dead or live. Whichever type
of repair is selected, it is an aesthetic advantage to cut a trench along the
crack about 10mm wide and deep, and to make this good after attending
to the crack. The epoxide-based resins are suitable for dead cracks in many
cases, and the copolymer emulsions for live cracks. The trench repair can
be undertaken for the two types of repair material with a polymer matching
(after weathering) mortar or a sealant respectively. These are broad
recommendations, but each case has to be treated individually. There are
many geometrical variations with concrete and cast stone sills and lintels,
which make it difficult to generalise.
5.4.3 AVOIDANCE
Units should be designed and manufactured with limiting slenderness
ratios. Cast stone units need to be designed to the specified clause of BS
1217, and the conditions laid down therein could well be good starting
be all that much cooler on a summers day than grey concrete. It would
therefore follow, if research supported this prediction, that thermal
protection covers or enclosures/containers should be silver-coloured rather
than white or light in colour.
5.5.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem shows up as a single crack at one or both of the inverts, with
crack apertures in the range 0.20.5mm. The cracks are common in the top
row of pipes and in those stored with their main axes in a north-south
direction.
5.5.2 REMEDIAL
Subject to an engineers acceptance of remedial action, repair the cracks
with an epoxide or polyester resin system, and re-store pipes with their
axes in an east-west orientation. If the pipes cannot be stored in this way,
protect them from direct sunlight with a suitable covering.
5.5.3 AVOIDANCE
Store pipes with their main axes in an east-west orientation. If this is not
possible, protect them from direct sunlight with a suitable covering.
5.6.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem shows up as spalling and cracking occurring during handling
or installation, especially when high-strength concrete is being used.
5.6.2 REMEDIAL
Subject to an engineers consideration, repairs can be undertaken following
the general principles of CSTR26 (Concrete Society, 1984).
5.6.3 AVOIDANCE
Where concrete, precast or in situ, is at impact risk and has not been fibre-
reinforced for that risk, characteristic strengths are probably best kept
within the range 3040MPa.
Note: A failure due to (c) alone would be a design failure, not a mater ial
failure.
5.7.1 IDENTIFICATION
The symptom is detached tesserae found on the pavement, ground or
subroofs. Hollowness may also be present, and can be detected by tapping.
This form of testing is best concentrated at the edges or joints of precast
units and at random areas on in-situ concrete with, possibly, concentration
at discontinuities such as windows, doors and corners.
5.7.2 REMEDIAL
With reference to the above five reasons for probable bond failure, the
following remedies are generally effective:
(a)(e) Remove tesserae from suspect or hollow areas. The use of heat
in the form of a propane gas torch is very effective over large areas.
The heat debonds the mosaic much more quickly than mechanical
methods do. Take precautions to protect personnel and the building
from falling hot tesserae.
(a), (b) and (c) For (b) and (c) remove all mortar, and for all three treat
the substrate mechanically, by grit-blasting, mechanical tooling or
by heat calcination of the aggregate, to produce an exposed
aggregate finish. At this stage or before aggregate exposure the
substrate concrete could usefully be surveyed for the depth of cover
of the steel, depth of carbonation and other properties. This would
confirm that the concrete was suitable to receive remedial mosaic
work without the possible later risk of failure due to rebar corrosion
or other mechanisms. Once the surface has been prepared, apply
an SBR mortar in areas no bigger than can be mosaic-applied
without the mortar becoming dry or stiffening. All these activities
should be undertaken by specialists.
(d) and (e) Remove affected tesserae and mortar and prepare the
substrate surface, preferably by mechanical means, to produce an
exposed-aggregate finish. For (e) cut the joint to give an opening
of 510mm and point up with a suitable sealant. For both (d) and
5.7.3 AVOIDANCE
This can be usefully set out as a number of dos and donts in a format
similar to a code.
Do not:
(a) design or apply mosaic right up to a joint or edge;
(b) allow tesserae to butt across a joint.
Do:
(c) have a mortar margin about 50mm wide beside a joint or edge;
(d) for mosaic to be applied to a hardened concrete face, expose the
aggregate either by the use of a suitable retarder or by mechanical or
thermal methods;
(e) use polymer mortars in preference to plain mortars for sticking or
casting against mosaics (the SBR-based systems have a good track
record);
(f) for glass mosaic apply an epoxide resin followed by a sand blinding
to the adhesion face, and allow to harden before sticking onto the
concrete as in (e);
(g) in the rare case of using net-backed (as distinct from paper-faced)
mosaic, follow the same procedure as in (f), ensuring compatibility
between the epoxide and the glue used in the net.
Note: Mosaics have a good track record, going back over two millennia.
These ancient structures (the mosaic floor in the Roman villa at Bignor
near Bognor Regis is a good example) indicate that good workmanship is
the significant factor.
6.1.1 MEANINGFUL
It would be logical to assume that the purpose of carrying out a test is to
produce data that relate either directly or, in a constant manner, indirectly
to a necessary or desirable performance characteristic. If strength
(compressive, tensile or shear) is in question, then it would be simple to
assume that a cube or prism result is sufficient. This is difficult to accept,
because a labcrete-realcrete test usually gives maximum potential strength
and little else. The use of the cube or prism density figures (specified to be
calculated and reported) generally gives misleading information. This is
because nominal cubes are tested, and these are not necessarily
geometrically true cubes: up to 1% deviations are permitted on all
dimensions. Thus nominal cubes, all from the same concrete and virtually
equally compacted, with a true density of 2350kg/m3, can have nominal
densities in the range 22802420kg/m3.
Therefore, apart from an indication of the maximum potential strength,
there is a risk of sacrificing the target of meaningful on the altar of
traditionalism and the attractive cheapness of the cube test. The codes of
practice, such as BS 8110 Part 1:1985, generally apply safety factors to the
cube data to cater for structural design purposes. It could be argued, with
hindsight, that if the rebound hammer had been invented before the
crushing machine this problem would not exist.
This leads to the interim conclusion that, wherever possible, preference
should be given to realcrete testing, if there is any way in which it can be
shown to be of use.
If realcrete testing is the preference for producing meaningful data, then
the next question is: which of the durability hazards listed in section 4.2
are relevant to the concrete being tested? It follows that the parties
concerned with the test regime as well as the testers need to set up a matrix
of properties versus tests so that a sensible application of the available tests
to the concrete can be made.
6.1.2 ACCEPTABILITY
Scientific and technical development of labcrete and realcrete in the
construction industry will proceed only when three factors are addressed:
(a) The test methods (included as costed bill items) are agreed in the
specification.
(b) Test limits or ranges are agreed. If interpretation is likely, this wording
should also be agreed at a preliminary stage.
6.1.4 IDENTIFICATION
The problem reveals itself in the form of contract data invoking labcrete,
labcrete-realcrete and/or realcrete tests that have little or no relation to the
6.1.5 REMEDIAL
No remedy appears to be possible; the situation would be a
contemporaneous one, and not one that occurs at the tender or pre-tender
stage. A contract review could perhaps be undertaken, in order to deal
with possible problems to come, but this is in the contractual field and
hence outside the remit of this book.
6.1.6 AVOIDANCE
The main thing to avoid is a contractual dispute over any of the items in
sections 6.1.16.1.3. One way to achieve this might be for the tendered
parties to adopt a more proactive role, coupled with strong liaison between
all members of the construction team. The setting up of a properties-versus-
tests matrix, mentioned earlier, could well have much to commend it.
6.2.1 IDENTIFICATION
Look for any documentation in which design testing should have been
specified instead of performance testing, or vice versa, as well as a lack of
consideration of any one or more of (a)(e) listed above.
6.2.2 REMEDIAL
The only possible remedy for a current situation is to try and obtain a
contractual variation or instruction to cater for the obstructing matters.
6.2.3 AVOIDANCE
Pre-contract discussions or comments at tender stage seem to be the way
to address specific cases. In general, the properties versus materials matrix
proposed in section 6.1 could be used and qualified by method statements
and test data limits. The benefits of having standard contract clauses
addressing each of the construction targets could also be discussed.
6.3.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem reveals itself in the inclusion of a test requirement (method
and/or limits) that is completely irrelevant to a property that should be
under consideration.
6.3.2 REMEDIAL
Unless the requirement is deleted or altered, no remedy is possible.
6.3.3 AVOIDANCE
As with so many of the other problems described earlier, a sensible
discussion between the construction team members at pre-tender or tender
stage is suggested.
Example 1
This example concerned the use of the Brinel hardness pistol to assess the
strength of prestressed concrete units in a factory. The pistol used to be in
common use as a hand-held test tool for hardness testing of metals and
alloys. Its principle was to impact a hardened steel ball against the surface
under test; the hardness of the metal was assessed by the diameter of the
spherical impression. (The same principle is now used for metal testing,
but a diamond with strict geometry to its facets is used. All modern test
equipment is in the form of a composite machine.)
Example 2
The problem relates to the recently issued recommendation for non-
destructive testing of concrete using initial surface absorption (BS 1881 Part
208:1986). The standard refers to the omission of precision data, as there
was not enough information to hand when the standard was prepared.
The ISAT, by its nature, generally measures only the surface voidage
property, and at a relatively short interval from the start of the test.
Observation of a typical concrete surface drying out after rain would
reveal a patchy appearance over distances as small as a few millimetres,
caused by variations in the absorption properties. The sensitivity of the
ISAT would be expected to reflect this variation, and experience has shown
this to be so.
ISAT units are specified to be recorded in units of mL/m2.s, and the
apparatus has minimum and maximum range limits of 0.01 and 3.0 of these
units respectively. At the lower end, the result can be read to an accuracy of
0.01, and at the higher end to 0.2.
In practice it has been found that, taking readings at 10 minutes as
examples, concrete averaging 0.01 will vary from zero to 0.03. The more
permeable example would vary from 2.6 to too fast to measure. This, in
my opinion, indicates that precision data will be difficult to obtain for the
ISAT, and that it is unrealistic to expect ideal repeatability and
6.4.1 IDENTIFICATION
There may be pressure to ask for precision data when they are either not
justified or irrelevant, as well as the use or tabulation of data based upon a
small number of results.
6.4.2 REMEDIAL
In a current situation there would appear to be no remedy apart, possibly,
from a review of or amendment to the conditions of application.
6.4.3 AVOIDANCE
The recipients of precision documentation in standards, specifications and
regulations preparation should take a proactive role. A defensive, reactive
response to the receipt of such data is not constructive.
6.5.1 IDENTIFICATION
The problem reveals itself as a reliance on inappropriate or misplaced tests,
often coupled with a resistance to consider or accept anything new or
different.
6.5.2 REMEDIAL
Apart from discussing the possibility of variations to the test requirements
there seems to be little that can be done to remedy a current problem.
6.5.3 AVOIDANCE
Refer to section 6.4.3 for a nominally identical approach. BSI publications
such as BSI News provide a monthly update on the progress of British,
European and international standards. In addition, any person can
purchase a draft at the public comment stage and submit their opinion to
the relevant secretariat.
6.6.1 IDENTIFICATION
Someone will insist on the presence of a test and/or call up a property,
whether relevant or not, so as to have a test to address that property.
6.6.2 REMEDIAL
If discussion is possible, and logic can be applied, a change in the wording
to the testing or property documentation should be attempted.
6.6.3 AVOIDANCE
The most fruitful approach would seem to be full discussion at committee,
institution or authority levels before requirements are put into formal
documents.
6.7.3 IDENTIFICATION
Look for an unreasonable or impossible accuracy specified or an unjustified
accuracy in the data reported.
6.7.4 REMEDIAL
In the first example, the specifier should be advised of the impossibility or
inapplicability of the requirement; in the second example, the report should
be returned to the issuing activity. The corrected replacement report should
have the same report reference number as the superseded one but be
marked Rev or Superseding Report No...... or similar, and the superseded
report should be marked as such.
6.7.5 AVOIDANCE
Both specifiers and testers should be aware of the problems that can be
generated, and should take appropriate steps to avoid them. Other
members of the construction team should also draw the attention of the
specifier or the testing authority to any cases that come into their remits.