Alexander Newman, P.E.

Structural Renovation of Parking

Garages
ASCE Web Seminar
Presented by Alexander Newman, P.E.

Copyright © 2016 Alexander Newman.

All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this material without a written permission
of the copyright holder is a violation of the U.S. law

 Agenda
 Introduction
 Condition assessment
 Repairs of concrete framing
 Strengthening concrete and steel garage structures
 Final Q and A

1
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Selected References for Further Study

 International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI), Concrete Repair Guide
 ACI 562, Code Requirements for Evaluation, Repair, and Rehabilitation of
Concrete Buildings
 ACI guides (364.1R, Guide for Evaluation of Concrete Structures before
Rehabilitation; 201.1R, Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in
Service; 546R, Concrete Repair Guide; 224R, Control of Cracking in Concrete
Structures; 304R, Guide for the Use of Preplaced Aggregate Concrete; 506R
Guide to Shotcrete)
 ACI Concrete Repair Manual (2 vol.)
 Peter Emmons, Concrete Repair and Maintenance Illustrated, R.S. Means Co,
1993
 A. Newman, Structural Renovation of Buildings, McGraw-Hill, 2001
 2-day ASCE Continuing-education seminar Structural
Renovation of Buildings…
3

Introduction
 Common Structural Systems Used in Parking
Garages
 Concrete
 CIP (one or two-way slabs)

 Precast

 Structural steel
 Exterior walls
 Concrete: Precast or CIP

 Masonry

 One common complaint: looks too utilitarian

4

2
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Introduction
 What Makes Parking Garages Different
 Exposure to corrosive chemicals
 In northern climate, deicing salts in winter

 Near ocean, open sides allow moisture entry at all times

 Traffic wears out slabs, damages columns

 Garages are often procured on a lowest-cost basis
 Result: These tend to last far less than other buildings
 Life as short as 20 years in some cases?

Introduction
 General Options for Remediation
 Repair
 Replacement
 Strengthening techniques
 Some combination of these

3
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Condition Assessment
 Some Guidelines
 SEI/ASCE 11, Guideline for Structural Condition
Assessment of Existing Buildings
 SEI/ASCE 30, Guideline for Condition Assessment of the
Building Envelope
 For concrete garages, ACI 201.1R, Guide for Conducting a
Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
 Includes a lengthy checklist and many color illustrations
of various concrete defects
 ACI 364.1R, Guide for Evaluation of Concrete Structures
Before Rehabilitation

Condition Assessment
 Visual Survey Can Find…
 In steel: rusting, sagging
 In concrete:
 Cracking

 Spalling

 Creep

 Efflorescence

4
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Condition Assessment
 Is Distress Caused by Corrosion?
 If yes, a challenge (corrosion issues are discussed below)
 In steel-framed garages, visual observation is often sufficient
 In concrete, more complex assessment—see below

Condition Assessment
 Determination of Residual Capacity by Load
Testing
 Can be performed per governing (IBC) or trade code
 When: Proprietary structures, no drawings, deteriorated
framing, theoretical overstress.

Procedures are discussed in ASCE webinar Condition Evaluation of

Existing Structures, Part 1.

10

5
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Condition Assessment
 Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete

 Hydrated cement contains Ca(OH)2 ~ pH of 12.6 to 13.5

 Protection lost if pH reduced by chemical attack
 Most harmful are chlorides, esp. CaCl2, and sulfates

 Role of concrete cover

 Porous mill scale is no barrier

 Sources of chlorides
 In parking garages, mostly deicing salts

 Also, admixtures (esp. CaCl2), unwashed beach sand

11

Condition Assessment
 Concrete Carbonation
 Cause: Carbon dioxide CO2 reacts with Ca(OH)2 and forms Ca
carbonate CaCO3 + H2O, reduces pH to 8-9.
 Similar reaction between sulfur dioxide and cement.
 Slow process
 Might affect exterior of garages

12

6
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Condition Assessment
 Corrosion: Electrochemical Process
 Need O2,differential electric potential
 Electrolyte: water and chemicals in concrete pores
 Accelerates with increased potential and decreased resistance
 Remember:
 Sacrificial anode
 Protected cathode

13

Condition Assessment
 The Process of Rusting and Spalling
 Rust at anodic areas pushes concrete apart
 In slabs, often few visual clues

14

7
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Condition Assessment
 The Process of Rusting and Spalling, Cont’d
 Most vulnerable: congested tops of beams above columns
 Visual clues too late if Cl attack starts at top and bottom bars
are rusted.

15

Condition Assessment

 Assessing Corrosion Activity

 Visual clues: Cracking, rust stains
 Half-cell potential (ASTM C876)
 Finds electric potential of rebars by portable equipment at
grid points
 Copper/copper sulfate half-cell is connected to voltmeter
and rebar
 Corrosion probable if > 0.3 or 0.35V (less for exterior
concrete).
16

8
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Condition Assessment
 Assessing Corrosion Activity, Cont’d
 Rapid soluble-chloride test
 Trimmed ends of cores ground up

 Find acid-soluble chlorides as % wt of concrete

 Chloride thresholds:
Min. 1.2 lb/yd3 to initiate,
3 lb/yd3 to accelerate,
7 lb/yd3 - major loss of steel.
700 ppm = 2.6 lb/yd3 = 0.07% by weight

17

Condition Assessment
 Assessing Corrosion Activity, Cont’d
 Constructing chloride distribution through thickness
 Find depth of chloride penetration (or carbonation) by
using 1% phenolphthalein solution to a core. Concrete
section will be pink except for gray areas of reduced pH

Reduced
pH (< 8.6)
Fresh concrete
pH of 12.6 to 13.5
18 (indicator turns
purple if pH > 8.6)

9
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Condition Assessment
 Detecting Delamination
 Chain drag: Hollow sound indicates delamination
 Hammer strike
 Impact-echo: Sim. principle, but steel ball is tapped against
concrete; stress waves reflect internal flaws, recorded,
frequency content analyzed
 GPR: Radar emits electromagnetic impulses, reflected by
voids. Results influenced by moisture % and rebars.
 Pulse velocity: Ultrasonic waves generated by soniscope

For more discussion, see ASCE webinar Condition Evaluation of

19
Existing Structures, Part 1.

Condition Assessment
 Case Study: Informal Visual Assessment
 Parking garage in ME, c. 1927
 Steel framing, concrete slabs wrap, brick exterior
 Exterior conditions (pre-renovation)

20

10
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Case Study
 Case Study, Cont’d
 Steel framing

21

Case Study
 Case Study, Cont’d
 Precast concrete slabs
 Conclusion: Extensive
corrosion-related damage

22

11
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs of Concrete Framing

Code Provisions for Repairs
 Some Related Provisions of IEBC-15
 Cannot simply restore the building in all cases—provisions
depend on the extent of damage (and on the position of the
building official).

23

Repairs
 IEBC-15 Chapter 6, Repairs
 Chap. 2: “reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing
building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct
damage.” [changed in 2015]
 UNO, use materials permitted for new work, but can use ‘like
materials’, ex. hazardous [ e.g., asbestos, lead paint]
 Different provisions for ‘substantial’ vs. ‘less than substantial’
structural damage
 For ‘less than substantial’ structural damage can use orig.
materials and strengths, but design any new members,
connections per IBC
24

12
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Chapter 6, Repairs, Cont’d
 Meaning of IEBC Chap. 2, substantial structural damage:
1. In any story, vertical elements of LFRS* are damaged so
that LLCC** in any horizontal direction is reduced by > 33%
from predamage condition*** and/or
2. Capacity of any vertical gravity system component(s) that
support > 30% area of floors and roof is reduced by > 20%
of predamage condition and the remaining gravity-load
capacity of these elements is < 75% of IBC-required for new
structure
*LFRS = Lateral-Force-Resisting System
**LLCC = lateral load-carrying capacity of the structure
25 in any horizontal direction
***Was 20% in IEBC-06

Repairs
 Repair of Substantial Structural Damage to
Vertical Elements of LFRS
 IEBC Sec. 606.2.2: Need structural evaluation – whether
restored structure complies with IBC, using full IBC wind
forces and reduced EQ forces (e.g., 75% of IBC)
 If evaluation finds predamage building OK, can restore to
predamage state, using original construction
 If not, repair and upgrade (next)
 Exceptions:
 Structures in SDC A, B, C with substantial damage not

26 caused by EQ need not consider EQ

13
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Substantial Damage to Vertical Elements of
LFRS, Cont’d
 If evaluation finds predamage building NG, upgrade per IBC,
using wind/EQ as follows:
 Use wind load per original-construction code (unless
damage is from wind, then use the IBC wind loads).
 EQ: The greater of original code loads or reduced IBC EQ
forces (e.g., 75% IBC).

27

Repairs
 Repair of Substantial Structural Damage to
Gravity Load-Carrying Components
 Sec. 606.2.3: Upgrade to comply w/ IBC DL and LL (incl.
undamaged supporting elements), but may use original LL
 Consider snow loads if damage related to snow effects
 But if the damage was caused primarily by wind or EQ,
evaluate (and retrofit) for wind/EQ, as above
 Except need not consider EQ in
 Buildings in SDC A, B, C where damage was not caused
by EQ

28

14
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs

Damage Not Caused by Corrosion

 Types
 Patching
 Crack filling
 Partial replacement

 Patching
 How much concrete to remove?
 For techniques and methods, see ASCE webinar Deterioration
and Repair of Concrete
29

Repairs
 Patching, Cont’d
 Preparing the surface
 When to add bars
 Coat bars?
 Going bare

 Coating w/cement slurry

 Epoxy

 Zinc-rich

30

15
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Patching, Cont’d
 Patching columns?
 Using bonding agent or not?
 Cement slurry

 Epoxy

 Example of small patch

31

Repairs
 Patching, Cont’d
 Repairing large areas
 Replace damaged

concrete & bars.

 Anchor with dowels,

SS tie wires,
or SS eye bolts & rods.

32

16
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Patching, Cont’d
 Methods of placement
 CIP concrete

 Repair mortars

 Shotcrete

 Pressure grouting

 Preplaced aggregate.

33

Repairs
 Materials for Concrete Repair
 New formulations proliferate…
 Important: Rate of shrinkage, coefficient of thermal
expansion, tensile strength.
 PC-based materials rely on protective alkalinity of cement,
synthetic resins - on protective barrier against O2 & moisture

For additional discussion, see ASCE webinar

34 Deterioration and Repair of Concrete

17
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Portland Cement-Based Materials
(+) Proven, compatible w/ existing, familiar to installers
(-) Shrink, permeable, slow setting time

 Overcoming Disadvantages:
 Speed up setting by using Type III cement
 Reduce shrinkage: Type K cement or SRA admixtures
 Consider using preplaced aggregate

35

Repairs
 Overcoming Disadvantages of PC, Cont’d
 Reduce permeability by low w/c, good curing, adding
pozzolans
 But: Need careful curing; limit dose
 Also, a study* has found that replacement of only 20% of
cement:
 Retarded hydration “for a very long period of time” and…

 Made it “extremely difficult to predict the field performance

of concrete.”
*Hugh Wang, et al, “Interaction of Materials Used in Concrete,” Concrete International, April
2006, pp. 47-52
36

18
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Materials for Concrete Repair, Cont’d
 Polymer-modified concrete: Latex, acrylic, polyvinyl acetate
(PVA)
 Latex-modified for slab overlays; acrylic & PVA for vertical.
 Prepackaged polymer-based trowel-on patching mortars
 (+) Rapid curing, convenient, used neat for < 1” or
extended w/ pea gravel, high Fc.
 (-) In many, high shrinkage. If expansive alkalis &
aluminates added => ASR?

37

Repairs
 Materials for Concrete Repair, Cont’d
 Epoxy mortars
 (+) Strength, good bond, chem. res., speed, applied at
below-freezing T and w/ small cover.
 (-) High exotherm, up to 5 times higher coeff. of thermal
expansion (less if extended).
 (-) Strength and stiffness < at high T, creep >. Need FP.

38

19
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Epoxy Mortars, Cont’d
 Also…
 (-) Creep under sustained loading. Limit stress to 15% of
Fc?
 (-) Poor bond with wet and moist surfaces, need
meticulous surface prep.
 (-) Pot life short

=> Best for small-scale repairs and w/small cover.

39

Repairs
 Choosing a Repair Material
 Need: Low rate of shrinkage, E, coefficient of thermal
expansion.
 High tensile strength.
 USACE comparison of lab & field performance of 12 materials
 Quality of application is as important as material

40

20
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Patching Concrete Suffering from Popouts?
 Popouts – pockmarks on the surface
 Caused by absorptive or chemically reactive (ASR)
aggregate near surface

41

Repairs
 Crack Repair
 Eliminate the cause of distress first, do not mask problems.

 “Dormant” vs. “Active” Cracks

 How to tell: plaster, paint over
 Are there any true dormant cracks?
 …Perhaps shrinkage cracks, if old

42

21
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs

 Drying vs. Plastic Shrinkage Cracks

 Drying shrinkage: Often hairline and cosmetic, but can also
become wide and full-depth
 May take months to develop: Some say 75% shrinkage in
3 mo., 90% in 1 year

43  Plastic shrinkage

Repairs
 Which Types of Cracks to Repair?
 When structural capacity or stiffness is reduced
 Leaking cracks (but cracks < 0.012” may heal by themselves)
 In northern climates, repair all cracks in slabs?

 Minor cracking in flexural members is expected

44

22
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 How Wide a Crack to Repair?
 Cracks 0.035 to 0.04” wide may affect aggregate interlock
 Previous editions of ACI 318: 0.013” exterior, 0.016” interior
 ACI 224R, Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures, lists
max width as a function of exposure:
 Dry air or protected membrane: 0.016”
 Humidity, moist air, soil: 0.012”
 Deicing chemicals: 0.007”
 Even tighter for exposed to seawater & water-ret. structures

45

Repairs

 Repair of “Dormant” Cracks

 “Glue” these with epoxy injection

46

23
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Repair of “Active” Cracks
 “Caulk” them with a flexible sealant to stop water and debris
 “Stitching” with dowels
 Inject leaking cracks
 No single solution for all cases…

47

Repairing Corrosion-Related Damage

 Is Patching Worthwhile in This Case?

 No easy method of permanent repair
 Removal and replacement vs. patching
 Corrosion inhibitors: The elixir of youth?
 Ca Nitrite

 MCI

 Best in early stages…

48

24
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Repairing Corrosion-Related Damage, Cont’d
 Cl’s and N’s compete?
 Will they stay in patch?
 “Inhibitors” not “stoppers”

Embedded galvanic anode units -- Corr-Stop CM by

ThoRoc – place 30” o.c. at patch perimeter. Protects 12-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Dept of Commerce 18” beyond patch (‘anodic ring’)
49

Repairs
 Cathodic Protection and Chloride Extraction

 Cathodic protection
 Current flows in opposite direction through wire mats.

 Cannot restore damage, best at early corrosion stages.

 Active systems need external power, $, maintenance.

 Passive: sacrificial Zn rolls, mats, attached to rebars.

 Chloride extraction: external power drives chlorides away
from bars; neutralizes, raises pH near steel
by generating hydroxyl ions (OH-) near steel
(> $40/sf?)

50

25
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Avoiding Failures of Patching Concrete
 Properly diagnose underlying problem: Corrosion or not?
 Patches in chloride-contaminated concrete are short-lived
 Educate the owner!

51

Repairs
 Avoiding Failures of Patching Concrete, Cont’d

 But why would a patch fail?

Ring of corrosion

Fresh
patch

52 Existing concrete

26
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Repairing Post-Tensioned Concrete Slabs

 Main types of PT systems used in the U.S.*:

 Unbonded (greased and wrapped)—typ. for slabs

 Bonded (grouted)—often, for beams and joists

 A common problem: corrosion of unbonded tendons because
of water infiltration into ducts
 High strength steel under stress can be more susceptible
to corrosion than conventional rebar

53 *For detailed discussion on renovation of PT structures, see Chap. 7

of A. Newman, Structural Renovation of Buildings, McGraw-Hill, 2001

Repairs
 Case Study: Repairing Failed PT Concrete
 MO hospital garage: Built 1986, approx. 800’x130’, with EJs
 Three elevated PT decks (6” slabs, beams, girders)
 Owner discovered a broken PT cable tendon protruding from
slab bottom (next) and retained SE to investigate

Temp., shrinkage
tendons EJ N

Main tendons

Stressing anchors at EJ

54
Case study courtesy Richard McGuire, Structural Engineering Associates, Inc., Kansas City, MO.

27
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Case Study: Investigation
 Invasive exploratory observations of all live PT anchors
 Testing, evaluation of slabs, tendons
 Used GPR to locate each tendon
 Chain-drag survey of slabs for delamination
 Tendons were in plastic push-through type (stuffed) w/grease
 Susceptible to having voids within grease
 Specific steps discussed next

55
Erupted tendon

Repairs
 Case Study: Investigation, Cont’d
 Phase 1: Investigation near the failed tendon, as above
 Also, screwdriver penetration tests at mid-span (can
penetrate only if one or more wires are broken)
 Result: many tested tendons were broken; corrosion of
live anchors at leaking EJ
⟹ Expand testing program

56
Screwdriver test

28
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Case Study: Investigation, Cont’d
 Phase 2: Evaluation and testing of tendons at other EJs
 Measured moisture inside tendons; structural analysis for 40
psf LL; visual inspection; sounding
 Result: some corrosion damage in most tested tendons
 Chloride profile testing: > 400 ppm at 1” depth (sufficient
to initiate corrosion for high strength steel under stress)

57
Severe corrosion and degraded grease

Repairs
 Case Study: Investigation, Cont’d
 Phase 2, Cont’d
 Corrosion potential testing along EJs: 30% had high
probably of active corrosion (< -350 mV vs CSE*)
 Almost all tendons had excessive moisture levels
 Phase 3: Same as Phase 2, expanded to all tendons
 Most had degraded grease, almost all high moisture levels
 A few tendons were broken or had missing strands
 Also, corrosion at many grout pockets

*CSE = copper sulfide electrode test

58
Corrosion at beam end grout pockets

29
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Case Study: Finding the Cause of Corrosion
 A gutter system had been installed below the leaking EJs. It
trapped debris, moisture, and chlorides from deicing salts
beneath the failed joints ⟹ promoted corrosion at anchors.
 Voids between the sheath and strand + a lack of protective
tendon grease allowed water and chloride ingress from
leaking EJs.

59
Corrosion at slab grout pockets

Repairs
 Case Study: Repair Program
 Replaced all (206) live stressing anchorages at EJs and 20’ of
strands in bays adjacent to expansion joints
 Locked off tendon segments to maintain tension
 Installed galvanic anodes within repaired areas
 Repaired 29 broken tendons and replaced 3000’ of
monostrand tendons
 Repaired other damaged concrete
areas

60
Post-tension splicing with center stressing chuck

30
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Repairs
 Case Study: Repair Program, Cont’d
 Replaced all EJs and gutters w/ watertight elastomeric
winged EJs; re-caulked hor. and vert. construction joints
 Applied heavy duty traffic bearing membrane to all levels
 Then, dehumidified all slab tendons to remove moisture ….

61
Application of waterproofing membrane

Case Study
 Case Study: PT Cable-Drying Process

 Installed input and exit ports for each slab tendon

 Transported dry air to and through each tendon via temp.
pipes under controlled flow and pressure.
 Monitored the exhaust at exit ports until moisture reduced to
sufficient levels
 After tendons were dried, injected anticorrosion grease inside

62
Manifold system and input air ports for PT cable drying

31
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Case Study
 Slab Replacement
 Might be unavoidable for heavy chloride contamination
 But what about supporting beams?
 Columns?
See “Downtown Parking Revitalized,”
Concrete Repair Bulletin, July/August
2014 for a case study

Temp. shoring

63

Case Study
 Repairing Corroded Steel?
 Depends on the extent

Replaced deck Existing deck

Edward P. Ryan Consulting Engineering

64

32
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Strengthening Concrete and Steel

Garage Structures

 General Methods of Strengthening

 Passive vs. active methods
 Shortening the span
 Adding members
 Replacement
 Post-tensioning (external prestressing)
 Enlarging section

65
For additional discussion, see ASCE webinar
Strengthening Concrete Buildings

Strengthening
 Strengthening Concrete
 Example of adding members
 Rigid through-bolted channels
(passive) vs. flexible pre-deflected
attached only at the ends (active)
 Channels laterally braced by concrete
 Watch out for pipes, conduits at sides

66

33
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Strengthening Concrete

 Strengthening Concrete
 Enlarging section
 Not for corrosion-damaged concrete
 Use if a look of concrete or if fireproofing is desired
 Unload the beam; roughen surface, remove contaminants
 Shrinkage issues

67

Strengthening

 Careful: Strengthening
Deteriorated Concrete Columns
 Same problems as above
 Biggest problem: drying shrinkage
 Shrinkage-comp. cement

 Preplaced aggregate
See ACI 304.1 Guide for Use of
Preplaced Aggregate Concrete

68

34
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Strengthening
 Adding Bottom Plates
 Calculate forces, depth of compression stress block “a” and
Mnom in existing section using phi = 0.9
 Find Mreq = Mmax - Mnom (all factored)
 Mreq is between plate and compression block below existing one
 Use phi of, say, 0.5 to account for lesser reliability of drilled-in
anchors

69

Strengthening

 Strengthening Deteriorated Concrete Framing

 Another solution

70

35
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Strengthening
 Strengthening Structural Steel Garages
 Same general methods of strengthening as listed above

For additional discussion and design

71 examples, see ASCE webinar Strengthening
Structural Steel Beams

Strengthening
 Reinforcing Structural Steel Column Bases
 Add steel brackets, replace...

72

36
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Strengthening
 Reinforcing Structural Steel Columns
 …Or use concrete encasement (resists LL)
 Base only

 Entire column

73
FEMA 547

Final Case Study

 Case Study: Concrete Repair and Strengthening
 Parking garage in FL, apartment building above
 2 separate buildings: Each 366’ long, 3 stories, no EJs
 Signs of cracking and distress in columns and girders

74
Simplified Drawing: A. Newman
Case study courtesy Hal K. Cain, Mobile AL

37
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Final Case Study

 Case Study, Cont’d: Investigation
 Piles were also columns
 Girders had no slide plates or expansion devices
 Fixed piles provided sole resistance in long direction
 Calculated friction loads from temp. movement: 6-10 kips
 Seasonal temp. range: 20-102oF

75
Simplified Drawing: A. Newman

Final Case Study

 Case Study, Cont’d: Remediation
 Option 1: Introduce new joints, jack up girders, add slide
plates
 Judged too risky (could damage finishes above)
 Option 2: Repair and strengthen damaged columns and
girders, strengthen joints ⟹ selected

76

38
Alexander Newman, P.E.

Final Case Study

 Case Study, Cont’d
 More on remediation
 Repaired all cracked columns and girders with high-
strength mortar, injected cracks with epoxy + carbon fiber
wrap
 Added columns in some areas

77

Q&A
Alexander Newman, P.E.

[email protected]

78

39