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

When preparing ready-mix concrete for private applications, it is typically recommended that owners and contractors collaborate with suppliers and concrete specialists to understand the possibilities and limitations of concrete in their applications. Here, we describe a situation in which a homeowner took direct control over the exact specifications of concrete and admixtures, and ultimately resulted in an unsatisfactory concrete slab. The owner subsequently sued and settled with the concrete supplier outside of the court, which raises important questions regarding who maintains responsibility for concrete mixtures, their installation, and the final slab results. Suggestions are provided to help mitigate this problem.

The increase in litigations in the design and construction industry over the years has restrained professionals in many fields from proposing or implementing innovative solutions. Since the major beneficiary of the innovative solution implementation is the OWNER, it is essential that the owner is intimately involved in the design process, and is not only aware of the risks and benefits associated with the proposed innovative solution, but is also willing to provide a written consent in sharing the risks associated with the proposed solution. This paper presents a case history where innovative engineering solutions were proposed and implemented, with full participation of the owner in recognizing and sharing the risk associated with the proposed solutions. The project involved the investigation of cracking and repair of the Guastavino Dome at the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in New York City. The dome, designed and built in 1909 by Rafael Guastavino (Jr), has a 135ft (41M) span, is 155ft (47M) above the floor, and was constructed using his patented system of interlocking tiles and layers of mortar in 15 weeks. The dome was intended to be a temporary structure to last no more than ten (10) years when it was to be replaced by a high central tower. In the late 1960s, pieces of tile and mortar fell from the underside of the dome. As a result, the dome was rated to be unsafe and recommended for replacement. This paper briefly summarizes the original design, the structural evaluation, the recommended innovative solutions, and the owner’s participation in implementing these solutions, to ensure the safety and prolonged life of the dome. The dome is fully operational at present.

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

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