CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF

DISTRESSED BUILDING
Condition Survey:
1. Definition:
Condition Survey is an examination of concrete for the purpose of
identifying and defining area of distress.
 Failure in column-beam joint (lack of stirrups)
Failure of a portion of building
(at expansion joint)
Column failure (absence of
Column top failure (bad joint detail)
tiers, buckling of longitudinal bars)
Corrosion in RC beam Corrosion in the RC Column
Corrosion in the RC slab (lack of control on the cover)
Condition Survey:
Assessment will determine, whether a distressed building should be
demolished to build back better or whether it will be cost-effective to
either repair or retrofit it, in the context of overall safety.
2. Objective:
The objective of Condition Survey of a building structure is

a) To identify:
 causes of distress and
 their sources.

b) To assess:
 the extent of distress occurred due to corrosion, fire, earthquake or
any other reason,
 the residual strength of the structure and its rehabilitability.

c) To prioritise the distressed elements according to seriousness for

repairs and

d) To select and plan the effective remedy.

3. Stages:
Condition Survey of a building/structure is generally undertaken in
four different stages to identify the actual problem so as to ensure that a
fruitful outcome is achieved with minimum efforts & at the least cost.

a) Preliminary Inspection,
b) Planning,
c) Visual Inspection,
d) Field and Laboratory testing

Preliminary Inspection:
The primary objective of the preliminary inspection is necessary
information for a thoughtful planning before a condition survey is
physically undertaken:
 Background history of the distressed structure
- from the Owners/Clients;
- from the occupants of building, general public, etc. based on personal
enquiries;
 Notes and records of earlier repairs, if carried out,

 All possible relevant data and information;

 Necessary site preparations including access scaffolds, working

platforms, etc, if any;
 The extent and quantum of survey work;
 The approx. time required for survey;
 The requirement of field-testing equipment and tools for sampling.

Basic Information Gathering:

Before undertaking a Condition Survey of a building/structure, the
following essential information is required and be obtained from the
clients/owners:
 Period of construction;

 Construction details including architectural, structural and as built

drawings;
 Exposure conditions of structure;

 Designed use vis-a-vis present use of structure;

 Previous changes in use, if any;

 Record of structural changes made, if any;

 Record of first occurrence of deterioration, if any;

 Details of repairs, if carried out in the past;

 Reports of previous investigations/condition surveys, if any;

 Apparent cause of distress, as could be ascertained from the

owner/client;

 Photographs of distressed portions of structure. [data sheet]

Planning Stage
Planning stage involves preparation of field documents, grouping of
structural members and classification of damage as under:
i) Preparation of Field Documents:
For condition survey, the following are required to be prepared:
a) Survey objective;
b) Scope of work;
c) Method of survey;
d) The field and laboratory testing requirements and field equipments &
tools required for the same;
e) List of tasks and their sequence for condition survey together with a
work schedule;
f) Required number of photo copy of available drawings;
g) Floor plans based on field measurements;
h) Work sheets and tables for recording in a logical manner all
information, test results including field data gathered;
i) Previous Condition Survey results and Investigation Reports, if any;
j) Maintenance and repair records.
ii. Grouping of the Structural members:
Soon after the preliminary site visit and on perusal of building plans,
the structural members shall be grouped as per their type and based
on similarity of exposure conditions for proper appreciation of the
cause of distress.

For example in a building subjected to normal environmental attack,

the grouping could be done as under:

a) External columns/beams would be subjected to more severe

environmental attack than the internal structural members of a
building and could be grouped in two broad groups.

b) Even from amongst the external columns, those at corners or

projected out are likely to be exposed more due to adjacent faces
being exposed than those not at corners or un-projected columns.
Hence to be grouped separately.
c) The members subjected to dampness/wetting/drying located in or
around the toilet shafts are likely to undergo similar class of distress
and be grouped separately.

d) Structural members with different protective finishes have to be

grouped separately.

iii) Classification of Damage :

Based on the preliminary data collected and site visit, the rehabilitation
engineer should freeze the interpretation rules and subdivide the repair
classification broadly in to five classes as „Class 0‟ to „Class 4‟ named
as Cosmetic Repair, Superficial Repair, Patch Repair, Principal Repair
and Major Repair.
Class of Repair General Observations on the Repair
Damage Classification Condition of Concrete Requirements
Class 0 Cosmetic Only final finishes disfigured. Redecoration, if
No structural distress observed. required
Final finishes/skin alone Superficial
damaged. No structural cracks repair of slight
Class 1 Superficial observed. Damage to non-
Carbonation depths not yet structural
reached reinforcement level. finishes.
Class 2 Patch Repair Minor structural cracks Non-Structural or
observed and /or carbonation minor
depths reached reinforcement Structural Repair
level. limited to crack
sealing, restoring
the lost cover
concrete, if any,
due to corrosion
of reinforcement.
Class of Repair General Observations on the Repair
Damage Classification Condition of Concrete Requirements
Class 3 Principal Spalling of cover concrete, Strengthening
Repair major structural cracks, like repair to
cracks along the reinforced
concrete in
reinforcement due to accordance with
corrosion. the load carrying
requirement of the
member. Make up
reinforcement
may have to be
provided in case
of deficiencies due
to deterioration.
Major structural loss Major
Class 4 Major necessitating replacement of Strengthening
Repair structural member. repair/ demolition
and recasting
Visual Inspection :
1. Visual examination of a structure is the most effective qualitative
method of evaluation of structural soundness and identifying the
typical distress symptoms together with the associated problems.

2. This provides valuable information to an experienced engineer in

regard to its workmanship, structural serviceability and material
deterioration mechanism.

3. It is meant to give a quick scan of the structure to assess its state of

general health.

4. Experienced engineers should carry out this work as this forms the
basis for detailing out the plan of action to complete the diagnosis
of problems and to quantify the extent of distress.
Leakage/Seepage due to Ineffective Drainage System :

1. Water stagnating areas in a structure attract dampness, leakage etc.

and are subjected to alternate wetting/drying cycle. Such areas are
more prone to early corrosion of embedded steel reinforcement.

2. Concealed water supply and drainage lines are the general source
attracting damage to the structure.

3. Particularly at terrace floors of the building, dampness due to

improper terrace treatment, its slope or inefficiency of rainwater
disposal system may not be noticeable to the eyes but damage
continues till spalling of cover concrete takes place.

4. Discolourations observations made during inspection should be

marked on drawings and also taken as photographic records .
Types of Cracks and their pattern :
1. It is generally easy to differentiate various types of cracks and
relate them with the cause of distress. The location of cracks and
their pattern, etc. give the first indications of the problem.

2. Cracking & spalling, cracking & rust staining or rust staining are
the visual indications of the corrosion of steel in concrete structures.

3. Rust staining in freshly laid concrete is indicative of honeycombed

concrete, which could result in severe rusting and deterioration of
concrete at a later date.

4. Cracks at right angle to main reinforcement are generally associated

with structural deficiency.

5. A mesh pattern of cracks suggests drying shrinkage, surface crazing,

frost attack or alkali-aggregate reaction
Field / Laboratory Testing:
1. It may neither be feasible nor is the practice to conduct
field/laboratory testing on every structural member in an existing
distressed building.

2. The field/laboratory testing of structural concrete and

reinforcement is to be undertaken, basically for validating the
findings of visual inspection.

3. These may be undertaken on selective basis on representative

structural members from each of the various groups based on
exposure conditions.

4. The programme of such testing has to be chalked out based on

the record of visual inspection.
NON DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION TESTS :
A number of non-destructive evaluation (NDE) tests for concrete
members are available to determine in-situ strength and quality of
concrete.

Some of these tests are very useful in assessment of damage to RCC

structures subjected to corrosion, chemical attack, and fire and due to
other reasons.

The term „non destructive‟ is used to indicate that it does not impair
the intended performance of the structural member being
tested/investigated.
These tests have been put under five categories depending on
the purpose of test as under :

1. In-situ Concrete Strength

2. Chemical Attack
3. Corrosion Activity
4. Fire Damage
5. Structural Integrity/Soundness
Sl No Test Method Details
A. Insitu Concrete Strength:
1 Rebound Hammer Test A qualitative field test method to measure surface
hardnessof concrete
2 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity A qualitative field test by measurement of Ultrasonic Pulse
Velocity (UPV)
3 Windsor Probe A qualitative field test for assessment of near surface
strength of concrete
4 Capo/Pull out test -do-
5 a. Core cutting/ sampling
b. Lab Testing of Cores Field cum lab test method for assessing quality of concrete
as under:
- strength
- density
- texture
-Permeability
6. Load Test A field test for assessing the load carrying capacity within
the limits of elastic deformations
B. Chemical Attack
1 Carbonation Test A field/lab test for assessment of pH of concrete and depth
of carbonation
2 Chloride Test A field/lab Test for assessment of total water/acid soluble
chloride contents
3 Sulphate Test A Lab Test for assessment of total acid/water soluble
sulphate contents of concrete
C. Corrosion Potential Assessment
1 Cover-Meter / Profo-meter A field method for measuring
measurement -thickness of cover concrete
(In-situ Test) -reinforcement diameter
-reinforcement spacing.
2 Half Cell Method A field method for Measuring/ plotting corrosion potential
for assessing probability of corrosion
3 Resistivity Meter A field method for assessing electrical resistivity of
concrete to determine its corrosion resistance
4 Permeability
a. Water
b. Air A field/Lab method for assessment of in-situ permeability
of concrete due to water and air.
D. Fire Damage Assessment
1. Thermo-Gravimetric A laboratory test for assessment of temperature
Analysis (TGA) range to which concrete was subjected to

2. Differential Thermal A laboratory Test for assessment of qualitative

Analysis (DTA) & quantitative composition of sample of concrete

3.X-ray Diffraction (XRD) To determine the extent of deterioration in concrete

subjected to fire

E. Structural Integrity/Soundness Assessment

1 Ultra-sonic Pulse velocity A field method for determination of
Method discontinuities, cracks and depth of cracks

2 Radiography For taking photographs showing details of inside of a

concrete member, where other NDE methods are not
suitable

3 Impact Echo Test A field/laboratory test method to detect hidden

damage and its extent.
Out of test methods listed above, the choice is usually Schmidt
Hammer and UPV for determining the in-situ quality of
concrete.

The uses of other methods like pull out test/ capo test, windsor
probe etc, being either time consuming &/or partially
destructive, have not become popular in India.

Hence UPV test has an edge over the Windsor Probe test & is
most commonly employed. This method gives substantially
reliable & adequate data for quality assessment of concrete.
Analysis of Results:
1. The standard charts supplied by manufacturers or available in
literature may not be valid for the site conditions.
2. Calibration curves for concrete strength assessment could be
prepared by testing cores of standard size at a few locations and
correlating the results of the other test methods with the core
strengths.
3. Characteristic strength of concrete shall thus, be calculated from
such calibration charts using statistical analysis. Minimum 50
readings are required for calculation of standard deviation.

The in-situ characteristic strength of the concrete may be obtained by

using the well known relationship
fck = f mean – 1.64 S Where, fck is the characteristic strength of
concrete, f mean is the mean strength and “S” is the standard
deviation.
The most commonly adopted NDT methods for assessment of
strength of concrete and their principles are given in the following:
Table 1: NDT methods and principles
Rebound Hammer Test
Rebound Hammer is also called as Schmidt‟s Hammer

When the plunger of rebound hammer is pressed against the

surface of concrete, a spring controlled mass with a constant
energy is made to hit concrete surface to rebound back.

The extent of rebound, which is a measure of surface hardness,

is measured on a graduated scale. This measured value is
designated as Rebound Number (a rebound index).

IS 13311 Pt-2-1992 as well as BS: 6089-81 and BS: 1881:Pt-

202 explains the standard procedure for test and correlation
between concrete cube crushing strength and rebound number.
The results are significantly affected by the following factors :
1. Mix characteristics :
a) Cement type,
b) Cement Content,
c) Coarse aggregate type :
2. Angle of Inclination of direction of hammer with reference to
horizontal
3. Member Characteristics,
a) Mass,
b) Compaction,
c) Surface type,
d) Age, rate of hardening and curing type,
e) Surface carbonation,
f) Moisture Condition,
g) Stress state and temperature.
Locations possessing very low rebound numbers will be
identified as weak surface concrete and such locations will be
identified for further investigations like corrosion distress, fire
damage and/or any other reason including original construction
defects of concrete.

This survey is to be carried out on each identified member in a

systematic way by dividing the member into well-defined grid
points. The grid matrix should have a spacing of approximately
300 mm x 300 mm.
Average Rebound Quality of Concrete
>40 Very Good
30-40 Good
20-30 Fair
< 20 Poor and/or delaminated
0 Very Poor and/or delaminated
This test essentially consists of measuring travel time, ‘T‟ of
ultrasonic pulse of 50-54 kHz, produced by an electro-
acoustical transducer, held in contact with one surface of the
concrete member under test and receiving the same by a similar
transducer in contact with the surface at the other end.

With the path length, ‘L’ (i.e. the distance between the two
probes) and time of travel, T the pulse velocity (V = L/T) is
calculated.

Higher the elastic modulus, density and integrity of the

concrete, higher is the pulse velocity.

The ultrasonic pulse velocity depends on the density and elastic

properties of the material being tested.
The pulse velocity in concrete may be influenced by :
a) Path length
b) Lateral dimensions of the specimen tested.
c) Presence of reinforcing steel
d) Moisture content of the concrete.

The influence of path length will be negligible provided it is not

less than 100 mm when 20 mm size aggregate is used or less
than 150 mm for 40 mm size aggregate.

Pulse velocity will not be influenced by the shape of the

specimen, provided its least lateral dimension (i.e. its dimension
measured at right angles to the pulse path ) is not less than the
wavelength of the pulse vibrations.

For pulse of 50 Hz frequency, this corresponds to a least lateral

dimension of about 80 mm.
The velocity of pulses in a steel bar is generally higher than they
are in concrete.

For this reason, pulse velocity measurements made in the vicinity

of reinforcing steel may be high and not representative of the
concrete.

The influence of the reinforcement is generally small if the bars

run in a direction at right angles to the pulse path and the quantity
of steel is small in relation to the path length.

The moisture content of concrete can have a small but significant

influence on the pulse velocity.

In general, the velocity is increased with increased moisture

content, the influence being more marked for lower quality
concrete.
Measurement of pulse velocities at points on a regular grid on
the surface of a concrete structure provides a reliable method of
assessing the homogeneity of the concrete.

The size of the grid chosen will depend on the size of the
structure and the amount of variability encountered.
Pulse Velocity Concrete quality
> 4.0 km/s Very good to excellent
3.5-4.0 km/s Good to very good, slight porosity may exist.
3.0- 3.5 km/s Satisfactory but loss ofintegrity is suspected
< 3.0 km/s Poor and loss of integrity exist

To make a more realistic assessment of the condition of surface

concrete of a structural member, the pulse velocity values can
be combined with rebound number.
 Identification of Corrosion Prone Location based on Pulse
Velocity and Hammer Readings
Sl.No. Test Results Interpretations
1. High UPV values, high Not corrosion prone
rebound number
2. Medium range UPV Surface delamination, low quality of surface
values, low rebound numbers concrete, corrosion prone
3. Low UPV, high rebound Not corrosion prone, however, to be confirmed
numbers by chemical tests, carbonation, pH
4. Low UPV values, low Corrosion prone-requires chemical and

rebound numbers electrochemical tests.

Partially destructive tests
• These are surface zone tests, which require access to one exposed
concrete face and cause some localized damage.

• This damage is sufficiently small to cause no loss in structural

performance.

• The strength of concrete is estimated with the help of correlation charts,

which are sensitive to lesser number of parameters compared to the
surface hardness and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests.

•Hence reliability of these tests is higher.

•The advantage compared to core test is that these are faster and less
disruptive and damaging.

•Different tests in this category are based on penetration resistance, pull-

out pull-off and break-off.
Penetration Resistance
In this test a specially designed bolt is fired into concrete with the help of
a standardized explosive cartridge.
The equipment and testing procedure have been standardized by ASTM
C803.
A consistent correlation of the depth of the penetration with the strength of
concrete has been found.
Pull-out Testing
In pull-out testing, the force needed to pull a bolt or some similar device
embedded into concrete is measured and correlated with the strength of
concrete.
The bolt may be inserted at the time of casting of the concrete or it may be
epoxy grouted into a hole drilled into hardened concrete.
The testing has high reliability and it is accepted by a number of public
agencies in some countries as equivalent to cylinders for acceptance
testing.
Core tests
The core test provides the visual inspection of the interior of the
concrete and direct measurement of the compressive strength.

Other physical properties, such as, density, water absorption,

indirect tensile strength and expansion due to alkali-aggregate
reaction can also be measured.

In core testing, the determination of core size and location is a

crucial factor.

The test should be taken at points where minimum strength and

maximum stress are likely to coincide.

But, at the same time, the core cutting causes some damage to the
member and may impair the future performance of the member.
Cores are usually cut by means of a rotary cutting tool with
diamond bits. In this manner, a cylindrical specimen is obtained.

The core should then be soaked in water, capped with molten

sulpher to make its ends plane, parallel, at right angle and then
tested in compression in a moist condition as per BS 1881: Part 4:
1970 or ASTM C 42-77.

The core samples can also be used for the following:

a) Strength and density determination
b) Depth of carbonation of concrete Chemical analysis
c) Water/gas permeability
d) Petrographic analysis
e) ASHTO Chloride permeability test
Chemical Tests:
Chemical analysis of concrete can provide extremely useful
information regarding the cause of causes of failure of concrete.

The tests most frequently carried out are listed below :

1. Depth of carbonation 4.Sulphate content
2. Chloride content 5.Type of cement
3. Cement content 6. Alkali content

Carbonation Test
This test is carried out to determine the depth of concrete
affected due to combined attack of atmospheric carbon dioxide
and moisture causing a reduction in level of alkalinity of
concrete.
A spray of 0.2% solution of phenolphthalein is used as pH
indicator of concrete.

The change of colour of concrete to pink indicates that the

concrete is in the good health, where no change in colour takes
place, it is suggestive of carbonation-affected concrete.

The pH value can also be determined by analyzing samples of

mortar collected by drilling from the site, dissolving the same
in distilled water and thereby titration in laboratory.
Chloride Content
Chloride content can be determined from broken samples or
core samples of concrete.

Primarily, the level of chloride near the steel-concrete interface

is of prime importance.

Chlorides present in concrete are fixed (water insoluble) as

well as free (water soluble).

Though it is the water soluble chloride ions, which are of

importance from corrosion risk point of view, yet total acid
soluble (fixed as well as free) chloride contents are determined
and compared with the limiting values specified for the
concrete to assess the risk of corrosion in concrete.
One recent development for field testing of chloride content
includes the use of chloride ion sensitive electrode.

This is commercially known as “Rapid chloride test kit-4”.

The test consists of obtaining powdered samples by drilling and

collecting them from different depths (every 5 mm), mixing the
sample (of about 1.5 gm weight) with a special chloride
extraction liquid, and measuring the electrical potential of the
liquid by chloride-ion selective electrode.

With the help of a calibration graph relating electrical potential

and chloride content, the chloride content of the samples can be
directly determined.
 Based on the chemical analysis, corrosion-prone locations can
be identified
Sl.No. Test Results Interpretations

1. No corrosion
High pH values greater than 11.5 and very low
chloride content
2. High pH values and high chloride content greater Corrosion prone
than threshold values (0.15 percent

by weight of cement)
3. Low pH values and high chloride content increased risk of
(greater corrosion prone than threshold values of corrosion
chloride 0.15 percent by weight of cement
Corrosion Potential Assessment:
The necessity to provide adequate cover thickness to control
corrosion needs no emphasis.

A cover thickness survey is useful to determine existing cover

thickness in a specific location, where a damage has been
identified and elsewhere, for comparison on the same structure.

The cover meters are also used to identify the location and
diameter of rebar.

COVERMASTER and PROFOMETER are the commercially

available instruments, which are used to measure the cover
thickness and rebar size.
 Interpretation of Cover Thickness Survey
Sl.No. Test Results Interpretations
1. Required cover thickness and good Relatively not corrosion prone
quality concrete
2. Required cover thickness and bad Corrosion prone
quality cover concrete
3. Very less cover thickness, yet good Corrosion prone
Quality cover concrete
Half cell potential survey
Corrosion being an electrochemical phenomenon, the electrode
potential of steel rebar with reference to a standard electrode
undergoes changes depending on corrosion activity.

The common standard electrodes used are:

a) Copper - Copper sulphate electrode (CSE)

b) Silver - Silver chloride electrode (SSE)
c) Standard Calomel electrode (SCE).

The measurement consists of giving an electrical connection to

the rebar and observing the voltage difference between the bar
and a reference electrode in contact with concrete surface.
Generally, the voltage potential becomes more and more
negative as the corrosion becomes more and more active.

However, less negative potential values may also indicate the

presence of corrosion activity, if the pH values of concrete are
less.
The general guidelines for identifying the probability of
corrosion based on half-cell potential values as suggested in
ASTM C 876
Probability of Corrosion Half Cell Potential Reading Range
being active Cu-CuSO4 Silver-Silver
Electrode Chloride Electrode

>95 percent More negative than More negative than – 700

– 350 mV mV
50 percent - 200 to - 350 mV - 500 to - 700 mV
<5 percent More positive than More positive than
– 200 mV – 500 mV
Resistivity Measurement:
The electrical resistance of concrete plays an important role in
determining the quality of concrete from the point of view
„corrosion susceptibility potential‟ at any specific location.

This parameter is expressed in terms of “Resistivity” in ohm-cm.

If resistivity values fall below 5,000 ohm-cm, corrosion must be
anticipated at a much earlier period (possibly within 5 years) in
the life of a structure.

The method essentially consists of using a 4- probe technique in

which a known current is applied between two outer probes 100
mm apart and the voltage drop between the inner two elements
at 50 mm spacing, is read off allowing for a direct evaluation of
resistance R.

Using a mathematical conversion factor, resistivity is calculated

as per principle of four probe resistivity testing
Resistivity ohm cm. Corrosion Probability

Greater than 20,000 Negligible

10,000 – 20,000 Low
5,000- 10,000 High
Less than 5,000 Very High
Factors causing Building Distress:
 The lack of maintenance of the building which results in
deterioration/aging of materials and structural components
leading to corrosion and cracking.

 Buildings or structures are damaged when they are subjected to

extreme loading conditions like in severe earthquakes or cyclonic
storms for which they are not designed.

 The buildings may also fail if the foundation is not properly

designed and constructed by not following the standard Codes of
practice.

 Inadequacy of design and poor quality of construction and

maintenance are the main reasons for the distress seen in buildings
during service or under natural hazards.
Repair: Restoration of structure to a good or sound condition

Rehabilitation: Returning to a normal or healthy conditions of

concrete structure.

Retrofit: Renovation or restoration with the creative application of

scientific principles.
Proforma For Planning Condition Survey Of Structure
Data- sheet
date :

Important
For proper investigation & selection of correct repair systems, it
is desirable to furnish all possible information in detail as
correctly as possible.

A. DATA
1. Name of the Project :
a) Estimated cost :
b) Location :
c) Plinth area of Building :

2. Year of Construction :
3. Use of the Building
a) Designed Use :
b) Present Use :
c) Any other change in Bldg use :
d) Brief background history,
if change in building use is involved:

4. a. Structural changes made in the past :

b. If so, details of Changes carried out :

5. Year of first distress noticed :

6. Nature of distress noticed

a) Any previous investigation done in the past :
b) If so, copy of results of such investigation :
7. Any repair to concrete undertaken in the past. :
a) If so, provide details
a) Year of carrying out repairs
b) Type of repairs
c) Efficacy of repair
d) Cost of repairs

8. Any investigation done in past

a) If so, copy of the results of such investigation :

9. Type of cement used (OPC/PPC)/ :

SRC/ any other in original construction)

10.Type of steel reinforcement used (Mild steel/Cold twisted

steel/TMT/any other steel ) :
11. Source of water used for original construction (Municipal
water/Local bore well / Any other source) :

12. Chemical analysis results of water used for construction :

pH Value :
Chloride ppm :
Sulphate ppm :

13. Source of sand and chemical analysis, if any, in regard to

Chloride/ Sulphate contents :

14. Source of coarse aggregate including type of rock

15. Photo of defective portions, if any :

16. Set of architectural drawings
(to be enclosed) :

17. Set of structural drawings : (to be enclosed)

18. Details of any protective treatment used ( during or after

construction) :
Conclusion
In majority of cases, the causes of particular problem could be traced
to the following, singly or in combination
1) Lower cover thickness over steel
2) Permeable cover concrete
3) High chloride levels
4) Alternate wetting and drying

It will be thus clear that the approach that should be adopted to control
the future deterioration of concrete will depend on which of the above
causes (or combination of causes) applies.

The range of remedial solutions can vary from the minimal (patch
repair of areas actually spalling) to the drastic (crust out completely &
reinstate)
THANK YOU