See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298178705

Cracks of concrete and repair works & case study

Technical Report · January 2006

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12299.95522

CITATION READS
1 11,992

1 author:

Yaseen Srewil
Technische Universität Dresden
24 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trans_IND View project

BridgeCloud View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yaseen Srewil on 14 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

Cracks of concrete and repair works & case study

Eng. Yaseen Srewil.

Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn

Abstract.

This report will discuss the common reason of steel reinforcement

concrete cracks, rack repair method and the material, which inject
into this cracks. In addition, will be applied the repair principle on
real projects (Deira– Shindagah tunnel in Dubai).
1. Common reason of steel reinforced concrete cracks.
Corrosion and freeze/thaw cycles may damage poorly designed or constructed
reinforced concrete. When rebar corrodes, the oxidation products (rust) take more
space than the original steel and tend to flake, cracking the concrete and unbonding
the rebar from the concrete.

1.1 Carbonation

The water in the pores of the cement is normally alkaline, this alkaline environment is
one in which the steel is passive and does not corrode. According to the pourbaix diagram
for iron, the metal is passive when pH is above 9.5[6] . The carbon dioxide from the air
reacts with the alkali in the cement and makes the pore water more acidic, thus lowering
the pH. Carbon dioxide will start to carbonate the cement in the concrete from the
moment the object is made, this process will start at the surface and slowly move deeper
and deeper into the concrete. If the object is cracked, the carbon dioxide of the air will be
more able to penetrate deep into the concrete. When designing a concrete structure it is
normal to state the concrete cover for the rebar (the depth within the object that the rebar
will be). The minimum concrete cover is normally regulated by design or building codes.
If the reinforcement is too close to the surface, then an early failure due to corrosion may
occur.

1
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

One method of testing a structure

For carbonation is to drill afresh hole

in the surface and then treat the

surface) with phenolphthalein, this
will turn pink when in contact with
alkaline cement. It is then possible to
see the depth of carbonation. An
existing hole is no good, as the
surface will already be carbonated.
As we see in the figure (1.1)

Figure (1.1) Carbonations affect [5]

1.2 Chlorides

Chlorides, including sodium chloride, promote the corrosion of steel rebar. For this
reason, in mixing concrete only fresh water may be used, and the use of salt for deicing
concrete pavements is strongly discouraged. As illustrated in figure (1.2).

1.3 Alkali silica reaction

This is found when the cement is too alkaline;

It is due to a reaction of the silica

with the alkali. The silica (SiO2)
reacts with the alkali to form a
silicate in the Alkali silica reaction
(ASR), this causes localized swelling
which causes cracking. [5][4]

Figure (1.2) Alkali silica reaction affects [5]

1.4 Conversion of high alumina cement

Resistant to weak acids and especially sulfates, this cement cures quickly and reaches
very high durability and strength. It was greatly used after World War Two for making
precast concrete objects. However, it can lose strength with heat or time (conversion),
especially when not properly cured. With the collapse of three roofs made of prestressed

2
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

concrete beams using high alumina cement, this cement was banned in the UK in 1976.
Subsequent inquiries into the matter showed that the beams were improperly
manufactured, but the ban remained.

1.5 Sulfate attack

Sulphates in soil or

Groundwater can react with

Portland cement causing
expansive products, e.g. ettringite
or thaumasite, which can lead to
early failure. Fig (1.5).

Figure (1.5) intringite affect[5]

1.6. Cracking caused by Physical Processes.

Dead and live loads induce stresses in a concrete structure. Depending on type of
structure element and on type of loading compression, tension or shear stress occurs. If
these stresses exceed the respective strength of concrete the structure fails caused by
cracking.

2. Crack repair methods

2. 1 General

Cracks must be repaired for the following reasons:

• To reduce or prevent ingress of adverse agents, e.g. water, other liquids, vapour, gas,
chemicals and biological agents. Principle 1 According to Principles and Methods related
to reinforcement corrosion).[3]
• To increase or restore the structural load-bearing capacity of an element of the concrete
structure. Principle 4 According to Principles and Methods related to reinforcement
corrosion.[3]

3
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

While crack injection agents are usually applied, other measures can or must be taken
occasionally in order to repair a crack. In deciding upon the method to be applied, much
depends on which function must be restored and whether or not the cause of cracking is
still present and may be reactivated. In the case of live cracks, one must be aware that
completely filling up those cracks by injection will always lead to new cracking within
the crack filler, on the interface with the cracked concrete or within the old concrete [1] .
In such cases, increasing or restoring the structural bearing capacity is not possible using
the methods described in this section and structural strengthening with tendons or plate
bonding must be considered.

2.2 Crack injection agents

Requirements for concrete crack injection products are specified in EN 1504, Part 5. The
product used depends not only on the function to be discharged, but also on the
conditions of the crack, notably the presence or absence of water. The type of crack must
be distinguished; it can be dry, humid, water transporting without pressure or water
transporting under pressure. Under the more complicated conditions of water pressure,
water ingress at the crack is closed off first, for instance by a polyurethane resin that
forms a foam in contact with water. Subsequently, the crack is filled up with a massive
resin. Table 1.2 presents a survey of the injection agents applied.[4]

Table 1.2 Survey of crack injection agents in relation to crack condition and application [4]

Concrete condition.a Water transporting

Application
Dry Humid Without pressure With pressure
Load bearing
EPb
capacity EPbc EPbcd EPbcd

Prevent ingress EP EPC - -

EP/PUR EP/PUR EP/PUR EP/PUR
PUR PUR PUR PUR
- GELe GEL GEL
CC CC CC CC

- Not applicable
EP Epoxy
EP/PUR Mixture of Epoxy and Polyurethane.
PUR Polyurethane.
GEL Water gel bound by Polyurethane or acryl amide.
CC Cement suspension
Index a To be determined by visual observation
Index b Only applicable when crack is not ‘live’
Index c Non-watersensitive epoxy
Index d Only applicable after water ingress has ceased by applying a foaming
polyurethane or other similar agent
Index e To be applied only if the conditions remain wet, for instance under water

4
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

2.3 Other methods that prevent ingress through cracks

In the case of cracks that have to be sealed off to reduce or prevent ingress of adverse
agents, the following methods can be used to seal off the joints:
• Applying elastic sealants. Cracks can be widened at the surface to reduce the stresses in
the sealant due to movements of the concrete, as shown in Fig. (2.3.1)

Figure (2.3.1) widening up the live crack at the surface before filling it up
with a sealant to reduce stresses.

• Sealing at the surface with flexible rubber strips, as shown in Fig. (2.3.2)

Figure (2.3.2) Closing off live crack to prevent adverse agent ingress.

3. Protective surface treatments

3.1 General

A survey of concrete surface protection systems is given in this section. Such issues as
why and how to protect the surface, the general requirements regarding surface protective
agents and commercially available agents are considered.

5
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

3. 2 Types

The following types of surface protection can be distinguished according to

EN 1504, Part 2, Surface Protection Systems and as illustrated in Fig. (3.2.1)
• Hydrophobic impregnation.
• Impregnation that partially or completely fills up the pores.
• Coating.

Figure (3.2.1) Types of surface protection.[5],[1]

In practice, hydrophobic impregnation and coating are the most important. When
concrete is made water-repellent by hydrophobing, the walls of the concrete pores are
lined with a hydrophobic agent by means of the suction of the agent into the concrete.
This process is sometimes aided by previous artificial drying. Hydrophobing does not
significantly influence transport of water vapour, but can considerably reduce water
absorption.
In cases of impregnation and filling up of pores, the concrete surface is penetrated by an
agent that fills up the pores. Impregnation can be performed by making use of the
absorptive capacity of concrete, which can be promoted by drying the surface and/or
evacuating the air. A distinction can be made between agents that fill up the pores by
reacting with constituents of concrete and agents that do not react with concrete.
At locations where the pores of the concrete surface layer become totally filled up by
impregnation, the process is referred to as sealing. By applying a coating, the concrete
protection based on the layer which covering the concrete.
Coatings distinguish by thickness:
• Thin coatings: layers less than 100mm thick.
• Thick coatings: layers between 100 and 500mm thick.
• Plasters both with an organic and an inorganic basis that have thicknesses of between
500mm and 5mm.

6
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

A survey of the various methods of surface protection is given in Table 3.2.1[1]

Treatment Effect Substrate conditions

Water-repelling/water
vapour permeable; not
Fine pores
Hydrophobing resistant to
chemical loading

Decrease water absorption

and increase water and
Impregnate/fill water
Fine pores
up pores vapour resistance; not
resistant to chemical
loading

Water and water vapour

tight; sensitive to
Thin coatings mechanical Smooth surface, free from
loading; restricted chemical large pores and cracksa
and thermal resistance

Water and water vapour

tight; fine
Thick coatings Smooth surface, non-living
more resistant than thin
cracks allowed
coatings

Fairly watertight, water

vapour Free of large macro pores
permeable; no chemical (air bubbles, honeycombs)
Inorganic plasters
resistance (excluding Non-living
special Fine cracks alloweda
types)

Water and water vapour

Organic plasters/high built tight;
Free of macro pores,
coatings resistant to chemical
Non-living,
loading;
Fine cracks allowed
less resistant to mechanical
loading

Water and water vapour

tight Smooth surface
Film membranes
resistant to chemical Cracks to 3mm width
loading, allowed
less resistant to mechanical
loading

7
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

Water and water vapour

tight,
resistant to chemical
Rubber lining Smooth
loading,
temperature and mechanical
loading

Water and water vapour

Lining with tight,
thermoplastic resistant to chemical
Smooth
sheeting or loading,
pipes temperature and mechanical
loading

Resistant depending on kind

Tiling of tiles, adhesive and joint Smooth
filler

Index (a) Crack bridging ability can be increased by fibre reinforcement.

4. Study cases of repair

“Repair of the Deira–Shindagha tunnel in Dubai”[1]

4.1 Case description

A sea arm cuts off Dubai from the Arabian Gulf and, in 1975, a 561 m long tunnel
crossing the Dubai Creek was completed. A cross-section of the tunnel construction is
shown in Fig. 4.1.1.The concrete was cast in place and consisted of a sulphate-resistant
Portland cement, porous limestone, coarse aggregate, beach sand with occasional
chloride fractions, and tap water. The free water/cement ratio varied and could be as high
as 0.6. The concrete structure was built in sections with a rubber water stop in the dilation
joints and construction joints. The space in the dilations joints was filled up with
bituminized cork and finished with a Neferma strip. The exterior of the tunnel was
covered with Bitu-Thene sheets that were to act as a water and salt ingress barrier. A
latex-cement (PC) coating with an aesthetic function was applied on the concrete inner-
wall.
During construction, the cofferdam on top of the already constructed tunnel section
slipped away under water pressure and damaged the water impermeable Bitu-Thene
layers. Although repairs were carried out, this may have caused permanent damage.

8
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

Longitudinal section

Cross section A-A

Figure (4.1.1) Schematic view of the Deira–Shindagha tunnel in Dubai.

4.2 Causes of Damage

Soon after completion, water leakage of Creek water through the joints was observed and
reinforcement corrosion was reported within a few years. Obviously, this was due to the
local presence of chloride-contaminated beach sand and to the highly permeable
character of the concrete applied with respect to chloride ingress.

In 1983, Municipality of Dubai asked Nedeco (a Dutch joint venture of consulting

engineers) to assess the damage and to advice on the possibilities of repair. Later on,
Nedeco was also appointed resident engineer for the repair works. The author was the
senior expert of the Nedeco team for material and corrosion aspects. On inspection,
serious cracking and spalling of concrete observed. Concrete adjacent to joints was often
pushed away from the reinforcement for several centimetres and 80mm diameter rebar
had completely corroded in some locations. Although the leakage rate was not
substantially higher than leakage rates in similar tunnels in the Netherlands, the effect in
this particular case proved to be highly detrimental. Obviously, this was due to the
presence of the salty Creek water, the low resistance to chloride ingress of the concrete,
and the high ambient temperatures. Previous repair work with epoxy repair mortars had
failed. Rebars beneath the repaired sections had continued to corrode and corrosion had
probably been aggravated where it was next to the repair work. A structural design check
showed that there was no immediate structural safety problem due to substantial over
design. Most of the concrete appeared to be in compression.

9
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

4.3 Repair principle

It was recommended to repair the tunnel by applying various repair principles. It was
considered that the recommended combination of principles [3].
1. Stop leakage (Principle 1).
Concrete around the rubber waterstop in the joints was injected with an epoxy injection
agent, as schematically shown in Fig (4.3.1). This appeared to stop effectively most of the
leakage.

Figure(4.3.1) Rubber waterstop injected in porous concrete using a low

Viscosity epoxy injection agent.

2. Removal of the affected concrete and areas severely contaminated with chloride
(Principle 7, Method 7.2).This occurred up to a 50 mm distance behind the reinforcement
but on locations that were in a critical structural area, this had to be restricted to the
reinforcement level.

Figure (4.3.2)
Cleaning and coating of concrete
in ramp walls during repair of
the Deira-Al Shindagha tunnel in
Dubai.

10
Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

3. Cleaning or replacing reinforcing steel bars (Principle 4, Method 4.1).[3]

4. Coating the cleaned reinforcement and replacing the rebars with an epoxy barrier
coating (Principle 11, Method 11.2)[3]. Fig (4.3.2) shows the cleaning and coating
operation of concrete walls in the ramps.
5. Replacing the removed concrete (Principle 7, Method 7.2)[3]. Initially, a polymer-
modified shotcrete with blast furnace slag cement CEM III/B as the cementations binder
was applied (called SPCC). Later on, the polymer was replaced by silica fume for
operational reasons.
6. The reinforcement cover was extended by 20 mm (Principle 7, Method 7.1)[3] with the
same shotcrete.
7. An airtight coating was applied limiting oxygen flow to the reinforcement (Principle 9,
Method 9.1)[3]. An oxygen-diffusion resistance of the coating system of 4000 m was
required. In general, cutting off oxygen ingress in concrete is difficult to achieve in repair
works. In the actual case of the submerged tunnel, however, it considered feasible if
taken in conjunction with other measures.
The coating system consisted of two epoxy coatings and a polyurethane topcoat. The
topcoat showed better resistance to UV radiation, which was a specific requirement for
the tunnel, ramps, and had a crack-bridging ability. Prior to applying the coating, the
surface smoothed with epoxy-based equalization slurry.

Repair using cathodic protection had also been considered. There were, however, two
reasons for rejecting this method. In the first place, experience with cathodic protection
systems in concrete structures was limited in the 1980s. In addition, electro-continuity of
the reinforcement was difficult to achieve. Rebars were placed in an irregular fashion and
sometimes even absent.

4.4 Execution of the works

The repairs started with a trial repair, which led to modifications in the specifications. An
extensive survey of the concrete was made, including crack mapping and chloride
profiles. Repairs started in 1986 and were completed in 1988. During the whole
operation, repairs were guided by calculations on the structural safety of the sections
where concrete was removed and where rebars were replaced. Quality control was very
strict and regarded as essential to repair work success.
Part of the contract consisted in drafting a maintenance manual for the tunnel and it was
regarded essential to maintain the tunnel according to strict rules. Obviously, not all
affected areas could be repaired due to structural reasons and renewed cracking in these
areas could not be excluded. A thorough inspection regime would therefore take
immediate action if defects were observed so as to avoid progressive deterioration. In
2002 when this book was drafted, the tunnel appeared to be in excellent condition. No
major repairs have been necessary since the completion of the tunnel wall repairs in
1988.

11
 Eng. Yaseen Srewil. Module G-4 Dresden Seminar „Rehabilitation Engineering“
Supervision. Prof. Dr.Ing. Harald Schorn Institutes für Baustoffe

Reference

[1]Bijen J, Durability of engineering structures. Hong Kong and

England 2003.
[2]home page
www.cementindustry.co.uk/main.asp?page=272 website of
the cement industry.
[3]Principles and Methods related to reinforcement corrosion
(EN 1504 Part 9).
[4]Measures to Prevent Damage Due to Alkali–Silica Reaction,
CUR Recommendation 89 (in Dutch) Gouda, 2002
[5]Schorn H, lecture note “Building material” Master course of
Rehabilitation Engineering. TU Dresden 2006.
[6]Silverman DC: Presence of Solid Fe(OH)2 in EMF-pH Diagram
for Iron. Corrosion 1982;38:453-455.

12

View publication stats