projects.bre.co.uk/conrepnet A A A T T T H H H E E E M M M A A A T T T I I I C C C N N N E E E T T T W W W O O O R R R K K K O O O N N N P P P E E E R R R F F F O O O R R R M M M A A A N N N C C C E E E B B B A A A S S S E E E D D D R R R E E E H H H A A A B B B I I I L L L I I I T T T A A A T T T I I I O O O N N N O O O F F F R R R E E E I I I N N N F F F O O O R R R C C C E E E D D D C C C O O O N N N C C C R R R E E E T T T E E E S S S T T T R R R U U U C C C T T T U U U R R R E E E S S S C C O O N N R R E E P P N N E E T T NETWORK NEWSLETTER No.6 March 2006 Special Topic: Vision for Performance Concepts Index Vision for the Use of Performance Concepts The 5 th Members Workshop in Prague Concrete Repair – Solution or Problem? Madrid, November 2005 Forthcoming Events Building Research Establishement (Co-ordinator) Freyssinet International Instituto of Construction Science "Eduardo Torroja" CT Group Belgian Building Research Institute STU-K Gifford & Partners
Index Vision for the Use of Performance Concepts The 5th Members Workshop in Prague Concrete Repair – Solution or Problem? Madrid, November 2005 Forthcoming Events
Bui
ldin
g R
esea
rch
Est
ablis
hem
ent (
Co-
ordi
nato
r)
Fre
yssi
net I
nter
natio
nal
Inst
ituto
of C
onst
ruct
ion
Sci
ence
"Edu
ardo
Tor
roja
"
C
T G
roup
B
elgi
an B
uild
ing
Res
earc
h In
stitu
te
STU
-K
Giff
ord
& P
artn
ers
NEWSLETTER No.6
OVERVIEW OF
NETWORK ACTIVITIESNetwork Co-ordinator Dr Stuart Matthews (BRE)
Application of a Performance Based Approach (PBA) to preventative or remedial interventions upon concrete structures
Recent Network activities have focussed on the further development of performance concepts to achieve durable rehabilitation of concrete structures. This has involved the preparation of various documents includ-ing:
• Vision for the use of performance concepts, and • From vision to practice with performance concepts
As previous project discussions have explored, the principal intent of a PBA is for owners to describe their needs in terms of what is to achieved, not how it is to be done. Thus rather than managing the details of how contractors and the associated project professional team operate, the owner must define the objectives, set the standards to be achieved, define what constitutes acceptable performance and agree how these results can be measured or judged. The owner needs to give the contractor and the project professional team the freedom to achieve the requirements in the best way that is appropriate to those organisations. However this requires that the owner both understands what will be done and how it will be achieved, but also his trust that the required objectives will be met when the basis for judging how well these may have been achieved cannot necessarily be verified for years into the future. Thus drawing upon the work undertaken in the project and the outputs cited above, in a PBA the focus is in the intended results and not on the process itself. Table 1 presents a process map for making a Perform-ance Based Intervention (PBI) upon a concrete structure. The basic performance requirements are defined by the owner in the Management Strategy (Phase 0). The Condition Assessment (Phase 1) then gives input data for the Design phases (Phases 3-4), together with other requirements defined by owner or other enti-ties. Realization includes Selection of the best Solution and Contractor (Phase 5-7), the Execution phase and other related activities (Phase 8). As part of this Monitoring (Phase 9) assesses that the defined re-quirements have been fulfilled and gives feedback for future condition management of the structure. Feed-back from monitoring gives input to assess the need for subsequent preventive actions or corrective actions (repair, rehabilitation, remedial, etc). The final result (process output) of the intervention activities depends entirely on the effectiveness of the process. If the requirements are incorrectly specified, there will undoubtedly be a gap between the owners requirements, expectations and what is actually delivered to him. The effectiveness of a process is related to its controlling factors and the approaches adopted to matters such as materials and information, methods and procedures, the use of resources such as time, money, people, equipment, environment and other cir-cumstances.
Network Co-ordinator Dr Stuart Matthews of BRE
2/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
OOOVVVEEERRRVVVIIIEEEWWW OOOFFF NNNEEETTTWWWOOORRRKKK AAACCCTTTIIIVVVIIITTTIIIEEESSS The actual performance is inevitably linked to the determination and creativity of the people involved in deploying the most appropriate approaches throughout the process of managing the structure and under-taking the required intervention. Reference to the results obtained about the performance of past repairs to concrete structures (Work Package 2), most of the reasons for failure of earlier repairs appeared to be process related problems. In the case-histories examined in WP2 respondents attributed failures of repairs / interventions as being mainly due to the following, with the most significant factors cited first:
• Incorrect design of repair • Incorrect diagnosis of the underlying problem • Poor workmanship • Problems with the repair materials, and • Other factors.
Thus technical issues such as materials came well below ‘human’, decision-making and other process factors. Support and guidance for the PBA concepts and developments was obtained from CONREPNET Mem-bers, particularly by means of the valuable discussion sessions which formed part of Member Workshop (MW5) held in Prague in June 2005. The outcomes from these sessions are reviewed by Dr Vaclav Vimmr in an article in this newsletter. Recent Events In the last period (since Newsletter 5) we have also held another public event (Public Workshop PW3), which took place in Madrid during November 2005. Close to 100 people attended the event which pre-sented information on a wide range of topics which included discussions upon:
• best practices in the rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures • developments in rehabilitation methodologies & successful innovations in repair and maintenance • contemporary Spanish issues and recent experiences in the field • the results of the latest research on performance of past and current rehabilitation practices • new developments and visions for future performance based approaches
Forthcoming Events and Activities The CONREPNET project is now drawing towards a close with it being on its way to having completed the programme of activities that it set out to address. The thematic network has now been running for over three years since its launch in Madrid in February in 2003. It is time to take stock of what has been achieved and to look to the future. What aspirations should there be for the future development of the European concrete repair industry, what needs to be done and by whom. You will be receiving shortly an invitation to the final Members Workshop (MW6) which is concentrating on performance based rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures. The Workshop will last two days and is being held at BRE Watford, near London on 24 & 25 April 2006. We hope that you will be able to attend and obtain benefit from an interesting and diverse programme. We are keen that on the second day Members have an opportunity to present on their work and other matters, such as those likely to be of interest to other network members or on topics which would benefit from debate with peers.
3/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
OOOVVVEEERRRVVVIIIEEEWWW OOOFFF NNNEEETTTWWWOOORRRKKK AAACCCTTTIIIVVVIIITTTIIIEEESSS The first day of MW6 will focus on presentations and discussions of the main results of the CONREPNET project. The first morning session will very briefly review results of earlier reports for Members who have joined the Network recently, along with the valuable outcomes from the previous Member’s Workshop (MW5). The second session of the morning will focus on the work done and progress made in the devel-opment of performance concepts. After lunch the first afternoon session is given over to Members reflec-tions on these findings and their perspective on these matters. These will be given by invited member presentations representing owners, consultants & researchers and material suppliers. The last session of the day is reserved for parallel discussion groups and your contribution to this will be very important be-cause the topics to be discussed are central to future activities and the ongoing developments in the con-crete repair industry. The second day of MW6 has been reserved for Members’ presentations covering a wide range of concrete repair topics. A special guest from USA will describe current developments in their concrete repair industry. Of particular interest may be the steps they are taking to develop and progress, with the goal of enhancing technical performance and improving client satisfaction. It is hoped that a representative from the Euro-pean Commission will be present and speak about the latest news concerning the vision for FP7 and the European construction sector by means of the European Construction Technology Platform, the ECTP. The Commission recognise the need to extend the useful life of existing buildings and constructed assets, which is a major challenge for our urbanised society. Additionally several speakers from across the breadth of Europe have already offered presentations which will help widen our perspective on various concrete repair topics in their specialist fields and with reference to their particular geographic and climatic conditions. We are still seeking further presentations from CONREPNET members on interesting projects and new developments etc. There is so much going on in the field of concrete repair and the contribution it makes to extending the life of buildings and Europe’s infrastructure. What’s new and exciting ? Let us know what you wish to talk about by contacting either [email protected] or [email protected]. Hopefully you will be able to attend MW6 and join in the discussion on performance concepts and future development needs. We look forward to your contribution.
CALL FOR PAPERS /
PRESENTATIONS
Final Members Workshop THEMATIC NETWORK ON PERFORMANCE BASED REHABILITATION OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURES CON REP NET
24&25 April 2006
Building Research Establishment Ltd
BRE Watford UK
4/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
OOOVVVEEERRRVVVIIIEEEWWW OOOFFF NNNEEETTTWWWOOORRRKKK AAACCCTTTIIIVVVIIITTTIIIEEESSS Progress with Technical Deliverables and Preparation of Published Outcomes To date the CON REP NET Thematic Network has now produced 11 complete / draft main technical outputs [NB. 13No technical outputs were planned for the project overall]. The current status of these is detailed below. We have now also held 6No meetings for Network members and 3No for the public [11No planned for project overall].
CON REP NET - Current Status of Technical Deliverables Completed or where an advanced draft has been prepared Deliver-able
Title Status
D10 Web-based catalogue of durability issues, past performance and case histories
Completed
D11 Catalogue of past performances and review of problems of achiev-ing durable repairs
Completed
D12 Methodology for monitoring and assessing performance of rehabili-tated concrete structures
Completed
D13 Current European practice and benchmarks in rehabilitation of concrete structures
Completed
D14 Research state-of-the-art in rehabilitation of concrete structures Completed D15 Best practice and benchmarks in rehabilitation of concrete struc-
tures Completed
D16 Client aspirations for durable rehabilitation of concrete structures and their wider implications
Completed
D17 Discussion paper on the use of performance concepts to achieve durable rehabilitation of concrete structures
Completed
D18 Industry response to meeting client aspirations Completed D19 Vision and drivers for the use of performance concepts to achieve
durable rehabilitation of concrete structures Final draft
D20 Performance Concepts for Durable Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures – From Vision to Practice
Second draft
D21 RTD Needs to Deliver Performance Concepts for Durable Rehabili-tation of Concrete Structures: This is being incorporated within an extended version of D20
Under development
D22 Performance Concepts for Durable Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures - Implications for Construction Products Directive and European Standardisation: This is being incorporated within an extended version of D20
As part of the final stages of these activities we are currently seeking to liaise with UEATC and CEN Committees to draw attention to the project activities and findings, as well as to attempt co-ordination with their future activi-ties and goals. The intention is for the CONREPNET project to fund publication of the two documents detailed below, which will provide an overview of the project outcomes.
• Publication A: CONREPNET: Findings of the project enquiries. Overview of the findings of the project enquiries undertaken into the performance of repaired concrete structures, current European practices, research state-of-the-art and contemporary best practice and benchmarks in the rehabilitation of concrete structures. Note: This will provide an overview of the findings of the enquiries undertaken during the CONREPNET project. This document will be based upon previous internal project reports D10 & 11, D13 & D14 - and will possibly also include information from D15.
• Publication B: CONREPNET: Performance concepts to achieve durable rehabilitation of concrete structures – Vision and on to practice and application. Note: It is intended that this document draws together the work done on the development of the per-formance based approach, the evolution of concepts and how in outline they might potential be applied. This document will be based upon previous internal project reports D12, D19, D20, D21 & D22 (but with D21 & D22 now incorporated into an extended version of D20).
The intention (subject to EC agreement) is to provide copies of these documents freely distributed to Project Partners and Members, as a more accessible and enduring record of the findings and achievements of the CONREPNET project. The documents will be in the form of soft-cover books which subsequently will become available for purchase by members of the public / construction profession. Previous Electronic Newsletters As a Network member you should previously have received the four electronic newsletters describing progress with the work and future activity plans – please remember to let us know if you are expecting to / you have changed your email or job in your organisation. Concluding Remarks: Forthcoming Events and Some Financial Matters To conclude, important future Network activities are planned. Currently these are expected to include meetings in the following locations:
• BRE Watford, London on 24 & 25 April 2006 at BRE for the final Members Workshop, MW6 • St Malo, France on 28 June 2006. This is being held in conjunction with the international Concrete Solu-
tions Conference (27 – 29 June 2006), at which CONREPNET is mounting a one day parallel session on 28 June 2006 (effectively our Public Workshop PW4).
See page 18 for further details. Please put these dates in your diary. We really hope that as CONREPNET Members you can be there with us, to hear about what has been achieved with you the information provided through your co-operation. Your contributions have been invaluable so far and we are extremely grateful to those that have been able to support us in this way. Thank you.
6/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
OOOVVVEEERRRVVVIIIEEEWWW OOOFFF NNNEEETTTWWWOOORRRKKK AAACCCTTTIIIVVVIIITTTIIIEEESSS Please note that CONREPNET Members’ travel and subsistence costs for one representative attending the final Mem-bers Workshop MW6 at BRE Watford, London on 24 & 25 April 2006 are reimbursable (up to an overall limit of 1200 Euros) by the European Commission by means of end of year Cost Statements. On the topic of financial issues, there are a number of matters that BRE as project co-ordinator has been trying to re-solve with the European Commission on behalf of Network Partners and Members. Often these difficulties arise be-cause the relevant parties have not supplied the information requested by the European Commission and, very impor-tantly, correctly completed the standard EC forms to allow the Commission officials to be able to approve payments. Please note that if there are errors or any of the requested information is missing, the Commission officials will refuse to authorise payment of the sums requested. Even when we have got the agreement of the European Commission to make payments of the sums requested, BRE as project co-ordinator still needs certain basic information (such as a valid bank account number (IBAN) defining the account which is to receive the payment) to complete the transaction. So please assist us and respond promptly and accurately to any request for such information, otherwise nothing pro-gresses and all parties become extremely frustrated.
Table 1: A process map for making a Performance Based Intervention (PBI).
7/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
5th Members Workshop
Prague, June 2005Dr Vaclav Vimmr (STU-K)
With regard to positive response of members to break out sessions, during the kick-off meeting in Madrid similar strategy was adopted for the Session 3. The title of the Session 3 “Next practice in concrete repair – a way forward?” seemed pretty attractive but still rather wide. To establish a suitable platform for deeper discussions the Session 3 was basically divided into 2 Workshops. Members created 3 groups in which they could discuss topics in greater detail. Workshop 1 W 1.1: Can Performance Based Approach (PBA) improve “things”? W 1.2: Changing procurement – How can suppliers better align with client objectives and requirements? W 1.3: Technical innovation – Making a difference? Workshop 2: W 2.1: Performance concepts – From vision to practice W 2.2: Performance gap analysis – Research and technical development needs W 2.3: Performance concepts – Construction Product Directives & EN implications Each group was moderated by a facilitator and notes from the discussions were made by a recorders allocated among partners. The roles of facilitators were performed by Dr Stuart Matthews (BRE), Jean-Philippe Fuzier (Freyssinet) and Prof Carmen Andrade (IETcc) while recording was done by Tomas Vimmr (STU-K), Dr. John Morlidge (BRE) and Josse Jacobs (BBRI). Report back to Plenary Group was conducted by Prof Graham Tilly (Gifford) from Workshop 1 and Dr Vaclav Vimmr (STU-K) from the Workshop 2. Let us look what kind of discussion was going on in individual discussion groups.
WP Leader Dr Vaclav Vimmr of STU-K
8/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
W 1.1 Can Performance Based Approach improve things? CON REP NET Goal The goal of CON REP NET is to outline certain vision for Performance Based Approach. There is a gap between practical and theoretical performance. It is important to make a clear PB specification on functional basis. But func-tionality issues exist in various scales (for instance material, structure). How to get it into practice? There are certain aspects that directly or indirectly influence the success of the whole process of conversion from current practice into PBA. Education Owner needs to understand to be able to control the process. Furthermore, owners expectations must be based upon realistic judgement. Systematic training is needed throughout the whole supply chain. Partnering Partner provides guarantee and subscribes insurance. There should be schedule of rates and cost limitations. Records on site concerning time and work done. Competent contractor is an essential condition. Familiarity with material will help to overcome many difficulties. Contract has to include definitions based on PB approach. Results verification How much the structure has been improved? It is hard to mesure. Different measurement methods. Calibration standards are missing, especially at European level. How to interprete the results – professional experience re-quired. Gap between theoretical and practical. Models of relationships Current or traditional relationship on Fig. 1 Proposed relationship is illustrated by Fig. 2
contractor advisor
Owner
supplier
responsibility
Advisor supplier
Owner
guarantee contractor
Fig. 1 – Current or traditional relationship Fig 2. – Proposed relationship
9/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
WWW 111...111 CCCaaannn PPPeeerrrfffooorrrmmmaaannnccceee BBBaaassseeeddd AAApppppprrroooaaaccchhh iiimmmppprrrooovvveee ttthhhiiinnngggsss??? Issues of these related to where responsibilities lie information flows guarantees– time dimension decisions by whom best to make them relationships which are very important to delivery of value
(no gaps) Goal – Deliver better value what does this mean how is value defined (safety, durability, functionality, aesthetics, ..) how is value measured (first value/whole life value) what is value to different parties in the supply chain who benefits from value how the parties gain reward
To conclude - getting PBA into practice means: Translate - Performance Team Approach To translate - Relationships with no gaps Requirements definition – Various levels Client aspiration – to Engineering Requirement Owner requirements → into supply chain Supply chain involved with interpretation and development of requirements Learn from current partnering experiences (Process to capture + develop) Contractual definitions of requirements Contractors reward (time payment for durability, financial benefit for both the contractor and the client) Certification – Firm + certificated operatives Learn from so far elaborated guidelines experiences Analysis of difficulties → to identification of actions and measures needed to PBA implementation Options Evaluation Focus on repair specialist Competence of consultants/advisors
theory field / lab experience
Wider knowledge/experience Training – for concrete repair and test equipment Interpretation of Results of Tests Acceptance tests (compare like with like, performance specification based on ENV 1504 available 2 months) Performance in service → link to lab tests
10/18
Members Workshop Prague June 2005
NEWSLETTER No.6
W1.2 Changing procurement – How can suppliers better
align with client objectives and requirements? Partnering is requested for PBA to better align with client objectives and more effectively meet client require-ments. It is also important to create confidence among different actors of the supply chain. Use of new materials There is a need to develop new materials to better meet the requirements of the client. There is reluctance to use new materials. Another problem is a pressure to use cheap products. It is rather difficult to prove that a more expensive product has a better quality and will be cheaper in long term. Products should be developed in co-operation created among contractors, material suppliers, researchers and consultants. Durability Concerning durability of repairs, focus should be on assessment of durability of a whole structure and system and not focus on a single product only. There should be established co-operation among researchers/ consult-ant/ contractor and other actors. Durability should not be a responsibility of material supplier only. Material sup-pliers should co-operate and co-ordinate with others in this respect. Client is not necessarily capable to transfer requirements to product properties. In this respect large manufacturers are in better position compared to small ones, who don’t have often so large product range. In general suppliers have a full range of products to deal with all eventualities. Additionally suppliers are constantly developing new products. Education and training Sufficient education, training and know-how are very important. In this respect, material suppliers should train contractors how to use materials correctly. Repairers should train and employ certified operatives. Repairers should also be given full responsibility for carrying out the repairs. Strong partnership is required particularly between contractor and client. The whole chain should be looked at, including research as a team. There is still too little specialisation for repair. Short term commitments A problem is a short-term commitment to repairs. Repairs need to be done during less and less time. Clients and consultants need to change their attitudes and move away from short-term solutions. Concerning this there’s also a need for special education.
11/18
Members Workshop Prague June 2005
NEWSLETTER No.6
W1.3 Technical Innovations – Making a difference Active design Change repair method in function of site conditions (not detected in inspection). Problem: does change improves or makes cheaper All criteria must be fulfilled Guarantee period must be respected Active design allows correcting bad diagnosis. PBD has defined requirements for final result. Criteria for repair materials must be adapted to the quality of the substrate. It may enhance its durability. Use of ordinary concrete as repair material. Improved thin layers can only be used if extra load is not allowed. Use of stainless steel in high corrosion risk areas LCA shows interest in stainless steel if replacement of ordinary steel is expected. Total lifetime is key factor for this choice. Increasing cover gives better results.
Innovative repair of steel beams? What test can determine the quality of a repair? Technical innovation enhances risks. Can risk management provide an answer? Designer is asked for 1 solution. Is this the best?
With PBA the contractor provides the best. PBA may offer greater choice of possible solutions. What skills will be used for the evaluation. Great gap between on site testing methods and the required criteria. Public owners must respect standards. Intelligent customers are indispensable for correct interpretation.
It allows also correct discussions with other partners. European Standards: should allow exceptions for best solution (intelligent partners) PBA may allow innovations on site. “Push of creativity” Difference between realising and doing a job.
The first see the result, the second see the action Creative climate on the site makes a difference.
Examples of bad innovations Northern building techniques in tropical areas. Actual standards should be respected (years of experience). New material is not always effective in all situations. Aggressivity of suppliers: need results in short time. Are aging tests realistic? Compatibility of materials? CEN-standards do not examine corrosion behaviour in repaired structures. EN 1504-7 not severe for brittle
epoxy.
12/18
Hans Bohman (Swed-ish National Road Administration) and Mike Threadgold (De-gussa) Members Workshop Prague June 2005
NEWSLETTER No.6
W2.1 Performance concepts – From vision to practice Monitoring performance of a contractor. Checking whether the contractor fulfils the specification.
Process measurement What is process? How to set: Criteria Thresholds
How to do? Time scales Organisation Competence Equipment Material Documentation Survey References
o certification of a company Performance measures Performance of structures, performance of repairs Owner’s problem is to define what he wants.
Shall be defined in Levels 1, 2, 3. Technical requirements to be defined by engineering team Level 3 – PBA – Structure functionality (safety, serviceability eq. to ultimate limit states?) Level 2 – PBA – Details of Performance / Repair functionality Level 1 – Prescriptive
Process Choice / option evaluation / Trade offs Model / Scientific needed - not really available. Owner should see what impact of decisions taken will be. Empirical Behaviours
o knowledge / action o guarantees / insurance
Technical innovations enhance certain risk.
13/18
Repairs on Chunnel Tunnel. Photo: Freyssinet Int.
NEWSLETTER No.6
WWW222...111 PPPeeerrrfffooorrrmmmaaannnccceee cccooonnnccceeeppptttsss ––– FFFrrrooommm vvviiisssiiiooonnn tttooo ppprrraaaccctttiiiccceee Tasks Clarifying concepts, move on to next stages, look at options and evaluations in realistic manner Provide empirical models which would help to clarify what best practice would be. Development of new methods of performance based specifications. Carry out more research on assessment and inspection.
Way forward Concept criteria / thresholds maintenance preventive / curative guarantees / insurance inspection Owner definition / Requirements Decisions now made on first cost Better options / interactions Understanding Plan to delivery value Performance indicators → criteria Evaluate current approaches Benchmarking Availability
o direct cost o indirect cost
Case histories Demonstration project Procurement issues / Contractual relationship Demonstrate best value / Methodology
14/18
Repairs on Chunnel Tunnel. Photos: Freyssinet Int.
NEWSLETTER No.6
W2.2 Performance gap analysis – RTD needs Discussion to cover 5 main points: durability, repair materials, inspection +assessment + monitoring, maintenance and strengthening. Repair or demolishing The discussion covered issues like demolishing. It was stated that funding is more easily available for demolishing but not for repair and that demolishing is considered sometimes to be cheaper than repair. There was no knowledge any projects were focused on demolishing. It was stated that demolishing is increasing and there is a question: is RTD needed for reuse of materials? Diagnostics and assessment of repairs It was agreed that RTD is needed for diagnostic of concrete structures and on assessment of quality of concrete repairs. Also there’s a need for development of equipment for inspection and assessment. Test method and equip-ment for use on site need development as well. It was commented that some repairs have failed due to insufficient procedure of monitoring. Deterioration mechanism Referring to the presentation by John Riding of British Nuclear Group in the same morning, it was stated that more knowledge on deterioration mechanisms is needed. New materials Development of repair materials considered to be needed. It was stated that industry should work more on applied research and not so much with fundamental basic research. Especially materials durability testing regarding PBA is needed.
15/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
W2.3 Performance concepts – CPD & EN implications
Introduction PBA can be developed in private organisations. Public application must respect CPD and EN. Products with or without standards Certification according to harmonised standards or to EOTA-Guides CEN: repair materials for concrete in commission CEN/TC 104 Not process as a whole. Only UEAtc, a voluntary organisation could address this CPD Surprisingly well known by all participants Tries to be performance based No conflicts with PBA are expected Procurement rules Are requirements for best solutions available? Objective PR: all bidders are treated in the same way. Foreign bidders are more difficult to examine objectively Should not be in conflict with PBA? Rules still new. Implications difficult to estimate. Experiences must confirm this. Specifications must be adapted (no product names are allowed). CPD and ENs How can PBA be implemented in CPD and ENs? Complete implementation may be difficult. Is it valuable to have a set of standards for an execution or is 1 overall document better? The same tests need the same test procedure and evaluation. Allocation of work in CEN not always clear. Cath. Prot. Is not treated within a framework of CEN/TC 104. Difficulties to keep awareness of new regulations and the modifications. More co-ordination is needed. It is
particularly difficult for small organisations.
16/18
NEWSLETTER No.5
Concrete Repair – Solution or Problem? 3rd public Network Seminar
In Madrid, November 2005
The 3rd public CON REP NET seminar was hold in Madrid inNovember 3rd 2005. Close to a hundred participants joined the event mostly from Spain or neighbouring countries. Network partners presented latest results of TN CON REP NET and supporting presentations on other topics of interest like successful innovations, post tension-ing issues and corrosion inhibitors. Special attention was paid to the current Spanish topics and experiences in the field. Experiences of repairs in Spain were presented by representatives of Freyssinet Spain and Sika Spain. Rüdiger Spengler from Geocisa presented Spanish concrete repair manual Repcor and as an invited speaker Prof Paul Lambert from UK told about cathodic protection and sacrificial anodes. The final public CON REP NET supported seminar will be organised in the connection of Concrete Solutions Conference in St-Malo on 28th June 2006. The session is a full day special session focussing more on current French topics and also presenting final outputs of the Network. A special rate for one day participation for CON REP NET Special Session is available. More information and registration can be found on Concrete Solutions Conference website http://www.concrete-solutions.info/Conference.html
Concrete Repair – Solution or Problem? Seminar at the Institute of “Eduardo Torroja” Madrid, November 2005.
Prof Paul Lambert (UK) Ramon Martinez (E) Jean-Philippe Fuzier (F)
17/18
NEWSLETTER No.6
Your contributions to this newsletter are most welcome! If you have anything to communicate through this newsletter please don't hesti-tate to contact us. Dr. John Morlidge / BRE e-mail: [email protected] Project Co-ordinator: Dr Stuart Matthews / BRE e-mail: [email protected] Newsletter Editor and dissemination matters: Minna Sarkkinen / CT Group e-mail: [email protected]
Next issue: July 2006
More information about the CON REP NET Network, can be obtained from the website http://projects.bre.co.uk/conrepnet
Forthcoming Events 6th and the final Members Workshop 24&25
April 2006, BRE, Garston, UK Final public project event CON REP NET Spe-
cial Session (28 June) in the connection of Con-crete Solutions Conference 27-29 June 2006, St-Malo, Brittany, France. See more infromation on www.concrete-solutions.info
18/18
Final Members Workshop
THEMATIC NETWORK ON PER-FORMANCE BASED REHABILITA-
