2017/2018 bridge deck condition surveys and miscellaneous … · 2017/2018 bridge deck condition...

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING, SOUTHERN INTERIOR REGION

2017/2018 BRIDGE DECK CONDITION SURVEYS AND MISCELLANEOUS TESTING/INSPECTION SERVICE

BRIDGE DECK EVALUATION REPORT FOR ATHALMER BRIDGE #0517

JANUARY 02, 2019

CONFIDENTIAL

WSP Canada Inc.

2017/2018 BRIDGE DECK CONDITION SURVEYS AND MISCELLANEOUS TESTING/INSPECTION SERVICE

BRIDGE DECK EVALUATION REPORT FOR ATHALMER BRIDGE #0517

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, GEOTECHNICAL AND

MATERIALS ENGINEERING, SOUTHERN INTERIOR REGION

CONFIDENTIAL

PROJECT NO.: 181-04790-00.01

DATE: JANUARY 02, 2019

WSP

SUITE 1000

840 HOWE STREET

VANCOUVER, BC, CANADA V6Z 2M1

T: +1 604 685-9381

F: +1 604 683-8655

WSP.COM

2017/2018 Bridge Deck Condition Surveys and Miscellaneous Testing/Inspection Service Project No. 181-04790-00.01 Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering, Southern Interior Region

WSP January 2019

Page iii

S I G N A T U R E S

PREPARED BY

[Original Signed and Sealed by D.O’Brien]

Damien O’Brien, P.Eng.

Project Engineer

Environment

Date

APPROVED BY

[Original Signed by O. Gepraegs]

Oliver Gepraegs, MASc., P.Eng.

Senior Materials Engineer

Environment

Date

WSP Canada Inc. prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering, Southern Interior Region, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. The content and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP Canada Inc. at the time of preparation. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP Canada Inc. does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report.

The original of this digital file will be conserved by WSP Canada Inc. for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP Canada Inc., its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP Canada Inc. does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient.


WSP January 2019

Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

1.1 Location .......................................................................... 1

1.2 Bridge Description ........................................................ 2

2 VISUAL REVIEW ............................................ 2

2.1 Deck Slab ....................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Deck Surface ........................................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Curbs, Railings, and Drains .................................................................... 2

2.1.3 Joints ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1.4 asphalt approaches ................................................................................. 3

2.2 Deck Underside ............................................................. 3

2.2.1 Deck Soffit ............................................................................................... 3

2.2.2 Steel Girders ............................................................................................ 3

2.2.3 Piers ......................................................................................................... 3

2.2.4 Abutments ................................................................................................ 4

3 FIELD TESTING/SURVEYING........................ 4

3.1 Delamination Survey ..................................................... 4

3.2 Half-Cell Survey ............................................................. 4

3.3 Rebar review/Extracted Cores ..................................... 5

3.4 Top Cover Measurements ............................................ 6

4 LABORATORY TESTING ............................... 6

5 SUMMARY .................................................... 10

5.1 Interpretation of Findings ........................................... 10

5.1.1 Concrete Deck ....................................................................................... 10

5.1.2 Substructure .......................................................................................... 10

5.2 Rehabilitation/Maintenance Recommendations ...... 11

5.2.1 Concrete Deck ....................................................................................... 11


WSP January 2019

Page v

TABLES

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF JOINT INFORMATION .......... 3 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF DELAMINATION DATA ......... 4 TABLE 3: REBAR REVIEW/CORE LOG ........................ 5 TABLE 4: TOP COVER MEASUREMENTS (MM) .......... 6 TABLE 5: WATER SOLUBLE CHLORIDE CONTENT ... 7

APPENDICES

A GENERAL DECK DRAWINGS

B PHOTOGRAPHS

C DELAMINATION SURVEY


WSP January 2019

Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Geotechnical and Materials Engineering, Southern Interior

Region has retained WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) to conduct a bridge deck condition evaluation of Athalmer Bridge on

Athalmer Road, located in Athalmer, BC. This work is part of Consulting Services Contract 860CS1346,

Assignment 2017, administered by Mr. John Braidford. The field investigation was conducted on September 20 and

21, 2018. The purpose of the assignment was to perform the necessary field investigation work required to:

— Evaluate the present condition of the bridge deck surface and underside;

— Provide interpretation of results and to relate results with visual observations;

— Provide commentary on specific deck conditions and related problems; and

— Provide recommendations for rehabilitation options.

The evaluation included a full visual condition survey (including photograph logging), delamination (chain drag)

survey, determination of cover thickness to the top mat of rebar, and removal of concrete samples for laboratory

analysis of chloride ion content.

1.1 LOCATION

The bridge is located on Athalmer Road approximately 1.7 km west of the intersection with Highway 95 in the

Rocky Mountain District of the Southern Interior Region, and spans over the Columbia River at Windermere Lake.

Athalmer Bridge

#0517


WSP January 2019

Page 2

1.2 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

Built in 1987, this structure is curved, super-elevated, and slants downwards from east to west. The bridge deck

consists of one eastbound and one west bound lane with five spans supported on four piers and two abutments; east

and west. The concrete deck, reinforced with epoxy coated rebar for the top mat of reinforcing and black steel for

the bottom mat of reinforcing, is supported by four longitudinal steel girders with steel cross-bracing for lateral

support. The piers consist of three circular steel pipe piles and a concrete cap. The abutments consist of a ballast

wall, and bearing seat.

There is a concrete sidewalk along the south edge of the bridge, which is approximately 2.0 m wide and 0.3 m high,

and a concrete curb along the north edge, which is approximately 0.9 m wide and 0.3 m high. Along both sides of

the bridge are galvanized steel railings and posts which are connected to the top edge of the concrete curb and

sidewalk. There are deck drains present in eastbound lane of the deck.

The curved bridge has an outside length of 173.3 m (568’-7”) and a roadway width of 8.5 m (27’-11”), with a total

deck area of approximately 1470 m2 (15,823 ft2). The chainage and span numbering referenced in this report

increases from east to west; the stringer and the bearing numbering increases from north to south. Drawings showing

the deck details of the bridge is presented in Appendix A; Photos 1 to Photo 5 in Appendix B show standard deck

views and elevations.

2 VISUAL REVIEW The following comments are based on a visual inspection. Photographs showing standard site and component views,

typical and isolated defect and deterioration severity levels, and those of other noteworthy importance are logged in

Appendix B.

2.1 DECK SLAB

2.1.1 DECK SURFACE

The exposed concrete deck surface is in poor condition with a significant amount of concrete and asphalt patches,

delaminations, and delaminated/spalled patches (Photos 6 to 12). One area of spalled patching shows exposed

corroded rebar with debonded epoxy coating (Photos 13 and 14). The concrete deterioration is occurring primarily in

the westbound lane of the deck.

There is some surface paste loss visible on the deck, particularly in the wheel paths (Photo 15). The rideability of the

deck is generally fair due to spalled concrete and exposed rebar.

2.1.2 CURBS, RAILINGS, AND DRAINS

There is a concrete sidewalk along the south edge of the bridge and a concrete curb along the north edge. Along both

sides of the bridge are galvanized steel railings and posts which are connected to the top edge of the concrete curb

and sidewalk (Photo 16). The concrete curb and sidewalk are in fair to good condition with some minor transverse

cracking (Photo 17 to 19).

The galvanized steel posts and railings are in good condition with no broken, bent, or loose sections visible (Photo

20). The deck drains are in good condition with some minor debris at some locations (Photo 21).


WSP January 2019

Page 3

2.1.3 JOINTS

There are two visible transverse joints along the exposed concrete deck, above each of the abutments. The abutment

joints consist of armour and sealant. Joint details are presented in Table 1:

Table 1: Summary of Joint Information

CHAINAGE

(m)

JOINT WIDTH

(mm)

CONDITION OF

ARMOUR

CONDITION OF

SEAL PHOTO NO.

0.0 41 Good Fair – filled with

debris 22

173.3 44 Good Fair – filled with

debris 23

2.1.4 ASPHALT APPROACHES

The asphalt approaches at both ends of the bridge deck are in fair to good condition (Photos 24 and 25). Both

approaches have been re-paved since the original construction within approximately 10 m of the bridge deck and

exhibit some rutting and ravelling of the asphalt in the wheel paths of both lanes, and some transverse cracking

(Photo 26).

2.2 DECK UNDERSIDE

The components underneath the deck were reviewed from the accessible areas below the bridge; therefore, elevated

elements and elements located over Columbia River could not be reviewed closely.

2.2.1 DECK SOFFIT

The concrete deck soffit is generally in poor condition with many areas of deterioration throughout, particularly

below areas where the top surface was patched (Photos 27 to 38). The soffit exhibits large areas of efflorescence and

cracking below areas of top-surface deterioration, with spalls present within many of the areas of efflorescence.

Areas of spalling due to top-surface patching work (blow-throughs) are visible in some areas. The majority of these

blow-throughs have not been repaired as full thickness repairs.

The curb and sidewalk soffits on both sides of the deck are in fair to good condition with some minor cracks visible.

2.2.2 STEEL GIRDERS

The concrete deck of the bridge is supported by four longitudinal steel girders with steel cross bracing. The

longitudinal steel appears to be weathering steel, while the cross-bracing appears to be galvanized steel. The

elements are generally in good condition with no deterioration visible (Photos 39 to 41). Deck run-off from drains is

generally diverted away from the steel elements by pipes (Photo 42).

2.2.3 PIERS

The concrete caps and steel pipe piles of the four piers supporting the deck are generally in good condition with no

visible deterioration (Photos 43 to 47). The bearings, from accessible locations, appear to be in good condition, with

the exception of localized leakage staining on Pier 4, there is no major evidence of leakage.


WSP January 2019

Page 4

2.2.4 ABUTMENTS

The two abutments supporting the bridge deck are generally in fair to good condition (Photos 48 to 54). Each

abutment has five cracks marked by others and minor signs of water leakage through the joints above. The bearings

appear to be in good condition.

3 FIELD TESTING/SURVEYING

3.1 DELAMINATION SURVEY

The delamination survey was performed in accordance with ASTM D4580 using the Chain Drag Method as outlined

in Procedure B. The survey was performed over the entire deck surface; the results are listed in Table 2 and

graphically presented in Appendix C.

The delamination survey indicates that approximately 19% of the deck surface is currently delaminated or has been

patched, and the locations of deterioration are mostly located at the joints at either end of the bridge deck.

It should be noted that the majority of deterioration is located in the westbound lane with 30% of delaminations and

patches compared to 9% in the eastbound lane.

Table 2: Summary of Delamination Data

DECK

AREA

DELAMINATIONS

(EXCLUDING

PATCHES)

DELAMINATED

PATCHES

SOUND

PATCHES

TOTAL

DELAMINATIONS

(INCLUDING

DELAMINATED

PATCHES)

TOTAL PATCHES

AND

DELAMINATIONS

Lane (m²) Count Area

(m²) Count

Area

(m²) Count

Area

(m²) Area (m²) % Area (m²) %

Eastbound 743.9 86 36.8 7 3.2 40 28.3 40.0 5.4 68.3 9.2

Westbound 726.6 114 55.3 18 15.2 94 143.2 70.5 9.7 213.7 29.4

Total 1470.5 200 92.1 25 18.4 134 171.5 110.5 7.5 282.0 19.2

3.2 HALF-CELL SURVEY

ASTM C 876 indicates that the half-cell technique is not suitable for structures built with epoxy-coated rebar;

therefore WSP did not conduct half-cell testing on the concrete deck.


WSP January 2019

Page 5

3.3 REBAR REVIEW/EXTRACTED CORES

As previously mentioned, the concrete deck is reinforced with epoxy coated rebar on the top mat of reinforcing.

WSP exposed the top mat of rebar at four locations by coring and or chipping to visually review the condition of the

epoxy coated rebar (Photos 56 to 60). The core location is shown in Appendix C. The observations are summarized

in Table 3.

Table 3: Rebar Review/Core Log

CORE

NO. LANE

CHAINAGE

(m)

OFFSET

FROM

SOUTH

CURB (m)

REBAR

DEPTH

(mm)

DIRECTION

OF REBAR

SIZE OF

REBAR

(mm) REBAR CONDITION

CONCRETE

CONDITION AT

CORE

LOCATION

1 Westbound 27.7 1.1 47 T 15 Fair: Debonded

epoxy

Area of

delaminated

concrete

2 Westbound 67.0 1.4 34 T 15

Poor: Debonded

epoxy and corrosion

product visible

Delaminated

patch

3 Westbound 96.0 1.2 48 T & L 15

Poor: Debonded

epoxy and corrosion

product visible

Spalled patch

4 Westbound 119.5 2.7 34 T 15

Poor: Debonded

epoxy and corrosion

product visible

Sound concrete in

close proximity to

delaminations and

patches


WSP January 2019

Page 6

3.4 TOP COVER MEASUREMENTS

Clear concrete cover thickness to the top mat of rebar was measured at select locations throughout the bridge deck;

the results of this survey are presented in Table 4. The concrete cover to the rebar ranges from 35 mm to 56 mm,

with an average value of approximately 47 mm.

Table 4: Top Cover Measurements (mm)

CHAINAGE (m)

WESTBOUND

CURB

WESTBOUND

CENTRE CENTRE LINE

EASTBOUND

CENTRE

EASTBOUND

CURB

0 35 44 44 48 47

25 45 48 47 45 46

50 45 49 47 50 49

75 45 41 42 44 46

100 55 55 56 53 52

125 48 45 47 44 48

150 50 47 49 51 48

175 48 45 47 46 48

4 LABORATORY TESTING Samples for the determination of water-soluble chloride ion content were obtained by coring. The cored specimens

were sliced into 20 mm increments excluding the top 5 mm from the deck surface and crushed into powder samples,

which were analyzed for water-soluble chloride ion content in accordance with CSA A23.2-4B. The chloride ion

content test results are shown as a percentage of the concrete mass, which was converted to a percentage of the mass

of the cementitious materials in the concrete assuming that 14 percent of cementitious material by weight was used

in the concrete mix. Actual mix design properties are not known. Sampling locations are graphically presented in

Appendix C and the test results are summarized in Table 5.

The chloride ion concentrations at the depth of the top mat of reinforcement at all 12 sample locations are greater

than the generally accepted corrosion initiation threshold of 0.03% to 0.05% by mass of concrete. The threshold

value is presented as a range as it varies and is dependent on several conditions such as moisture, temperature, and

pH of surrounding concrete. None of the twelve sample locations are greater than the generally accepted corrosion

initiation threshold at the depth of the bottom mat of reinforcing.


WSP January 2019

Page 7

Table 5: Water Soluble Chloride Content

CORE

NUMBER REBAR COVER (mm) SAMPLE DEPTH (mm)

WATER-SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE IONS CSA

A23.2-4B

(% MASS OF CONCRETE)

WATER-SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE IONS CSA

A23.2-4B

(% MASS OF

CEMENTITIOUS

MATERIAL)

1 Top 47

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.553 3.950

20 – 40 0.327 2.336

40 – 60 0.130 0.929

60 – 80 0.034 0.243

80 – 100 <0.010 <0.071

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

2 Top 73

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.450 3.214

20 – 40 0.316 2.257

40 – 60 0.112 0.800

60 – 80 0.011 0.079

80 – 100 <0.010 <0.071

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

3 Top 64

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.342 2.443

20 – 40 0.207 1.479

40 – 60 0.119 0.850

60 – 80 0.030 0.214

80 – 100 <0.010 <0.071

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

4 Top 34

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.531 3.793

20 – 40 0.418 2.986

40 – 60 0.169 1.207

60 – 80 0.083 0.593

80 – 100 0.051 0.364

100 – 120 0.018 0.129

120 - 140 0.011 0.079

Notes: 1. Rebar depth obtained with the use of Pachometer/GPR unless noted otherwise. 2. **The bottom mat of rebar is at an approximate based on a soffit concrete cover of 50 mm and a bottom mat of reinforcement

consisting of 15M bars. 3. Chloride ion concentrations greater than the corrosion initiation threshold are shown in bold.


WSP January 2019

Page 8

Table 5: Water Soluble Chloride Content (Continued)

CORE


WATER-SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE IONS CSA

A23.2-4B


WATER-SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE IONS CSA

A23.2-4B

(% MASS OF

CEMENTITIOUS

MATERIAL)

5 Top 53

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.344 2.457

20 – 40 0.236 1.686

40 – 60 0.152 1.086

60 – 80 0.061 0.436

80 – 100 <0.010 <0.071

100 – 120 0.024 0.171

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

6 Top 44

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.581 4.150

20 – 40 0.395 2.821

40 – 60 0.184 1.314

60 – 80 0.092 0.657

80 – 100 0.031 0.221

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

7 Top 52

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.504 3.600

20 – 40 0.334 2.386

40 – 60 0.158 1.129

60 – 80 0.075 0.536

80 – 100 0.014 0.100

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

8 Top 49

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.645 4.607

20 – 40 0.616 4.400

40 – 60 0.299 2.136

60 – 80 0.131 0.936

80 – 100 0.018 0.129

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071




WSP January 2019

Page 9

Table 5: Water Soluble Chloride Content (Continued)

CORE


WATER-SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE IONS CSA

A23.2-4B


WATER-SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE IONS CSA

A23.2-4B

(% MASS OF

CEMENTITIOUS

MATERIAL)

9 Top 47

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.526 3.757

20 – 40 0.476 3.400

40 – 60 0.309 2.207

60 – 80 0.140 1.000

80 – 100 0.017 0.121

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

10 Top 52

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.539 3.850

20 – 40 0.417 2.979

40 – 60 0.316 2.257

60 – 80 0.108 0.771

80 – 100 0.016 0.114

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

11 Top 46

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.382 2.729

20 – 40 0.420 3.000

40 – 60 0.317 2.264

60 – 80 0.141 1.007

80 – 100 0.035 0.250

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071

12 Top 48

Bottom 130**

5 – 20 0.599 4.279

20 – 40 0.458 3.271

40 – 60 0.296 2.114

60 – 80 0.128 0.914

80 – 100 0.045 0.321

100 – 120 <0.010 <0.071

120 - 140 <0.010 <0.071




WSP January 2019

Page 10

5 SUMMARY

5.1 INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

5.1.1 CONCRETE DECK

The concrete deck is in poor condition with approximately 19% of the deck currently delaminated or patched, with

most of the deterioration exhibited in the westbound lane, with 30% of delaminations and patches compared to 9%

in the eastbound lane. Visual review of the epoxy coated rebar at four select locations shows debonding of the epoxy

coating with corroded rebar in most locations, including in areas of the deck considered sound (Core Location 4).

Laboratory testing indicates that the chloride ion concentrations at the depth of the top mat (not epoxy coated) of

reinforcement at all twelve sample locations are greater than the generally accepted corrosion initiation threshold of

0.03% and 0.05% by mass of concrete, however, the chloride ion concentrations at the depth of the bottom mat of

reinforcement is below the threshold in all test locations.

The galvanized steel railings, concrete curb, and concrete sidewalk are good condition no major deterioration. The

concrete soffit of the deck is in poor condition with many areas of efflorescence and spalling below the areas of top

surface deterioration. It is estimated that, 3% to 6% of the deck soffit exhibits some level of deterioration.

Considering the results of the visual review, field testing, and laboratory testing it is evident that corrosion-related

deterioration has been ongoing for some time and that the extent of deterioration is likely to progress at an

accelerated rate. Although the majority of deterioration of the concrete deck is currently in the form of sound

patches, it should be expected that these patches and likely the areas around the patches will continue to deteriorate

leading to an increase in the number of full thickness repairs required.

Although the epoxy coating present on the rebar offers protection against corrosion; holidays in the coating

(production standards allow for a certain number of holidays per unit length) and localised damage result in

localised areas of corrosion. Corrosion rates at these locations are typically higher than general corrosion of

uncoated bars. This is referred to as pitting corrosion that occurs as micro-cell corrosion causes considerable

localised section loss. In addition, the coating itself deteriorates over time while it is embedded in concrete. This

deterioration results in debonding and increased porosity of the epoxy, allowing moisture in a chloride ingress below

the coating. Patching of areas of deteriorated concrete containing epoxy coated rebar can similarly accelerate the

corrosion of rebar as field repairs of the coating are difficult and typically not effective. Based on the evidence

viewed on site, repairs to the epoxy coating during patch repairs have not been conducted. In addition, it is likely

that localised corrosion is occurring that has not resulted in delaminations.

WSP completed a review for MOTI to assess the performance of epoxy coated rebar and the findings were

comparable to the observations made for this structure. While the coating provides some level of protection, it is

relatively short-term (less than five years when compared to conventional rebar). In addition, section loss of the

rebar may not be detected as corrosion is concentrated and as such may result in loss of structural capacity that may

remain undetected.

5.1.2 SUBSTRUCTURE

The two concrete abutments are in fair to good condition, with some vertical cracks marked by others. The girders

and cross bracing are generally in good condition with no notable deterioration. The steel pipe piles and concrete

caps of the piers are also in good condition with no visible deterioration.


WSP January 2019

Page 11

5.2 REHABILITATION/MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

5.2.1 CONCRETE DECK

Considering the findings of the review, it is WSP’s opinion that a new concrete overlay should be placed to below

the top mat of rebar within the next two to three years; as part of the overlay construction, the existing deck joints

should be replaced. All work should be carried out in accordance with the Ministry of Transportations construction

specifications. It is anticipated that approximately 3% to 6% of the deck will require full thickness repairs as part of

the overlay repairs. If the concrete overlay is not installed within the next two to three years, the amount of full

thickness repairs should be expected to increase.

Deck surface patch repairs should be completed to maintain rideability until the new overlay is installed. For patch

repairs to the deck, curbs, and abutments, WSP recommends the following patch repair procedure:

— Remove areas of deteriorated concrete by chipping with light-duty chipping hammers (maximum 15 lbs) until

sound concrete and clean rebar is identified. Care should be taken to avoid unnecessary damage to the epoxy

coating during chipping. In all areas chipping should be undertaken to at least 20 mm around the entire bar to

provide a mechanical anchor (i.e. enough for a worker to wrap his hand around the exposed bars);

— Remove all corrosion residue from rebar, if applicable;

— Augment rebar with greater than 15% cross-sectional area loss with new bars;

— Pressure wash the concrete surface and rebar (minimum 5,000 psi) to remove any debonded epoxy coating and

to remove micro-cracks in the substrate concrete occurring from chipping;

— Repair areas of epoxy coating damage by patching with compatible epoxy material in accordance with ASTM A

775M Section 12;

— Saw-cut the perimeter of the chipped concrete to a depth of nominally 20 mm to provide a square shoulder for

the repair patch, care should be taken to avoid cutting of rebar;

— Pressure wash the repair area to remove any dust and bring the substrate concrete to a saturated surface-dry

condition; and

— Reinstate repair patches with a high strength cementitious repair mortar. Use vibrators with non-metal heads to

avoid damage to epoxy coating.

WSP recommends that concrete removal for the overlay extends at least to below the top mat of steel, with the

existing epoxy coating completely removed from all locations of the top mat of rebar by high pressure hydro

demolition. This will ensure that the top mat of rebar is encased in new, uncontaminated concrete. This will give the

added benefit of a good mechanical bond to prevent the overlay from debonding from the substrate. If the existing

concrete is not removed to below the top mat of rebar, the longevity of the rehabilitation will be significantly

reduced as the reinforcing steel will remain in chloride contaminated concrete and will, therefore, continue to

corrode. The required surface preparation of the existing rebar during overlay placement should be addressed in the

specifications.

APPENDIX

A GENERAL DECK

DRAWINGS

APPENDIX

B PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX

Photo 1: South elevation

Photo 2: North elevation

APPENDIX

Photo 3: North elevation

Photo 4: Bridge deck looking westbound

APPENDIX

Photo 5: Bridge deck looking eastbound

Photo 6: Typical deck deterioration

APPENDIX



APPENDIX

Photo 13: Spalled patch with exposed rebar at Chainage 96 in westbound lane

Photo 14: Exposed corroding rebar with debonded epoxy coating at Chainage 96 in westbound lane

APPENDIX

Photo 15: Deck surface paste loss

Photo 16: Typical view of curb and railing

APPENDIX

Photo 17: Transverse cracking of curb

Photo 18: Transverse cracking of curb

APPENDIX

Photo 19: Transverse cracking of sidewalk

Photo 20: Sidewalk and railing

APPENDIX

Photo 21: Typical deck drain

APPENDIX

Photo 22: Joint at Chainage 0.0

APPENDIX

Photo 23: Joint at Chainage 173.3

APPENDIX

Photo 24: Westbound approach

Photo 25: Eastbound approach

APPENDIX

Photo 26: Transverse crack in eastbound approach

Photo 27: Typical view of deck soffit

APPENDIX

Photo 28: Spalling of deck soffit


APPENDIX

Photo 30: Efflorescence and spalling of deck soffit


APPENDIX



APPENDIX

Photo 34: Blow-through on deck soffit from patch repair above

Photo 35: Efflorescence and cracking of deck soffit

APPENDIX



APPENDIX


Photo 39: Typical view of steel elements

APPENDIX



APPENDIX

Photo 42: Drain standpipe

Photo 43: Pier 1

APPENDIX

Photo 44: Pier 1 bearing

Photo 45: Pier 2

APPENDIX

Photo 46: Pier 3

Photo 47: Pier 4

APPENDIX

Photo 48: Typical view of west abutment

Photo 49: Cracking marked by others on west abutment

APPENDIX

Photo 50: Bearings of west abutment

Photo 51: Wing wall of west abutment

APPENDIX

Photo 52: Typical view of east abutment, showing cracks marked by others

Photo 53: Typical view of east abutment, showing cracks marked by others

APPENDIX

Photo 54: Bearings of east abutment

Photo 55: Core location 1

APPENDIX

Photo 56: Core location 1 showing exposed rebar

Photo 57: Core location 2

APPENDIX



APPENDIX

C DELAMINATION

SURVEY

LEGEND:

DELAMINATED CONCRETE

DELAMINATED PATCH

SOUND PATCH

NOTES:

BRIDGE SCALE: METERS

YEAR BUILT: 1987

DATE TESTED: SEPT , 2018

30 40 50 604535 6555105 2015 250

MA

TC

H L

IN

E 1

CORE 1

Cl¯1

Cl¯2

Cl¯7

Cl¯8

Cl¯9

Centerline

EASTBOUND

LANE

TO HWY 95

WESTBOUND

LANE

7065 8075 9085 10095 110105 120115 130125

MA

TC

H L

IN

E 1

MA

TC

H L

IN

E 2

CORE 2

CORE 3

CORE 4

Cl¯3

Cl¯4

Cl¯10

Cl¯11

Centerline

EASTBOUND

LANE

TO HWY 95

WESTBOUND

LANE

ATHALMER BRIDGE #0517

DELAMINATION SURVEY

SOUTHERN INTERIOR REGION

ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISTRICT

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

EL

DOB

IN

1:200

SEPT 2018

181-04790-00.01

DWG-1

Check and verify all dimensions before proceeding with the work. Do not scale drawings.

840 HOWE STREET SUITE 1000,


www.wsp.com FAX: 604.683.8655PHONE: 604.685.9381

© 2019 WSPGROUP

UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED

DELAMINATION SURVEY

SCALE: 1:200

N

Lane

Deck Area

Delaminations (excluding

patches)

Delaminated Patches Sound Patches

Total Delaminations (including

delaminated patches)

Total Patches and Delaminations

(m²)

Count

Area (m²)

Count

Area (m²)

Count

Area (m²) Area (m²)

%

Area (m²)

%

Eastbound Lane 743.9 86 36.8 7 3.2 40 28.3 40.0 5.4 68.3 9.2

Westbound Lane 726.6 114 55.3 18 15.2 94 143.2 70.5 9.7 213.7 29.4

Total 1470.5 200 92.1 25 18.4 134 171.5 110.5 7.5 282.0 19.2

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CLIENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DWG. No.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT N0.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

APP.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CH.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRWN.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DES.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVISIONS/ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BY

AutoCAD SHX Text

No.

LEGEND:

DELAMINATED CONCRETE

DELAMINATED PATCH

SOUND PATCH

NOTES:

BRIDGE SCALE: METERS

YEAR BUILT: 1987

DATE TESTED: SEPT , 2018

130 140135 150145 160155 170165 173.3

TO ATHALMER

JOINT

173.3

MA

TC

H LIN

E 2

Cl¯5

Cl¯6

Cl¯12

Centerline

EASTBOUND

LANE

TO HWY 95

WESTBOUND

LANE

ATHALMER BRIDGE #0517

DELAMINATION SURVEY

SOUTHERN INTERIOR REGION

ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISTRICT

BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

EL

DOB

IS

1:200

SEPT 2018

181-04790-00.01

DWG-2

Check and verify all dimensions before proceeding with the work. Do not scale drawings.

840 HOWE STREET SUITE 1000,


www.wsp.com FAX: 604.683.8655PHONE: 604.685.9381

© 2019 WSPGROUP

UNAUTHORIZED USE IS PROHIBITED

DELAMINATION SURVEY

SCALE: 1:200

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CLIENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

DWG. No.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT N0.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

APP.

AutoCAD SHX Text

CH.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRWN.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DES.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVISIONS/ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BY

AutoCAD SHX Text

No.

2017/2018 bridge deck condition surveys and miscellaneous … · 2017/2018 bridge deck condition...

Documents