2012-256 - Originals 6 - Burrard Bridge Evaluation Report - Levelton

Bridge Evaluation Report
Burrard Street Bridge
Prepared for:
Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.

300-4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, BC V5G 4M5
Attention: Mr. Shane Cook, P.Eng.
Prepared by:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.

150 - 12791 Clarke Place
Richmond, BC V6V 2H9
Reviewed by:
[Original signed by D.E.Smith]
[Original signed by N.A. Cumming]
D. E. Smith, MScE, P.Eng.

Associate
N. A. Cumming, FACI, P.Eng.

Executive Vice President
June 27, 2012
File: RI11-0844-00
Bridge Evaluation Report

Burrard Street Bridge
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................... 1

2.1
2.2
DECK SURFACE ...................................................................................................................... 2

3.1
3.2
3.3
VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5

LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Extracted Cores......................................................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content ......................................................................... 6
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 6

5.1
5.2
5.3
VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 3

CORROSION POTENTIAL MEASURMENTS .......................................................................... 4
CONCRETE PARAPETS .......................................................................................................... 5

4.1
4.2
VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1

2.2.2 Extracted Cores......................................................................................................... 2
DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 6

DECK SURFACE ............................................................................................................... 6
PARAPETS ...................................................................................................................... 7
REHABILITATION/MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 7
6.1
6.2
DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 7

DECK SURFACE ............................................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX A...PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B..CORE LOG
APPENDIX CPHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX D .GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FILE: RI11-0844-00
BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT
1 INTRODUCTION
As part of their contract with the City of Vancouver for the condition assessment and
development of rehabilitation strategies for the Burrard Street Bridge, Associated Engineering
Ltd. has engaged Levelton Consultants Ltd. to conduct the following:
A brief visual review of the visible concrete portions of the substructure and sampling
from select areas of the substructure to assess water-soluble chloride ion content, pH,
and the presence of alkali-silica reactivity (ASR). It is understand that Associated has
conducted a visual detailed survey of the structure, complete with recording size and
location of observed deterioration.
Visual review of the concrete parapet along the west side of the bridge and sampling at
select locations to determine water-soluble chloride ion content, pH, and the presence of
alkali-silica reactivity (ASR).
Sampling from the top side of the concrete deck in the north and southbound curb lanes,
and the southbound bike lane to assess the condition of the deck and to determine the
water-soluble chloride ion profile. The original scope of this sampling was to remove
three 2 m x 10 m strips of asphalt and conduct sampling, and delamination and half-cell
surveys on the exposed concrete deck. However, due to the prohibitive cost of removal
and disposal of the asbestos-impregnated asphalt the City requested that the survey be
conducted by extraction of a number of cores.
The following presents the findings of the investigation and recommendations for repairs and
rehabilitation with respect to the concrete portions of the structure.
2 DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE

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 A.
2.1
VISUAL REVIEW
Levelton conducted a visual review of the bridge deck soffit and substructure from the ground,
and from a man-lift at the south and north approaches, and from the MOTI snooper truck for the
under-deck truss spans and main span.
There is extensive transverse cracking in the soffits of the sidewalks on both sides of the bridge
deck. There is staining on the deck soffit adjacent to many of the cracks which indicates they
have been leaking (Photos 1 and 2). There are also several spalls which have exposed
reinforcing steel. Some of these areas have been coated with gray (likely zinc-rich) paint.
Levelton understands this is part of an annual maintenance program conducted by the City over
the years to attempt to mitigate the corrosion-related deterioration in the structure. However, this
approach to corrosion mitigation is relatively ineffective as it does nothing to arrest corrosion of
the steel in the concrete adjacent to the deteriorated area.
There are also several large spalls in the soffit of the outside girders which have exposed large
diameter bars (Photos 2 and 3). As with the spalls in the sidewalks, several of these areas have
been coated with gray paint. There are also large spalls throughout the soffit of the deck which
have exposed reinforcing steel (Photos 4 to 6)
FILE: RI11-0844-00

There is evidence that many of the expansion joints are leaking, which has resulted in corrosionrelated deterioration on several of the concrete members adjacent to the joints and on the piers
below the joints. The extent of the deterioration indicates that there has been active corrosion
within the structure for several years.
Most of the onshore piers are in good condition with minor corrosion-related deterioration or
minor cracking which is most likely a result of expansion due to ASR.
2.2
2.2.1
LABORATORY TESTING
Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content
Concrete powder samples were collected from various locations throughout the deck soffit and
substructure. Samples were collected by drilling into the concrete with a 25 mm diameter drill bit.
At all locations, except Location 1, the water-soluble chloride ion content is below the corrosion
initiation threshold of 0.03 0.05% by mass of concrete.
New concrete generally has a pH greater than 12.0. When steel is in a highly alkaline
environment (pH >10.0) a passive layer forms on the steel surface which protects the steel from
aggressive corrosion (in the absence of chlorides). When atmospheric carbon dioxide diffuses
into the concrete a chemical reaction occurs which lowers the pH; when the pH drops below
about 10 the passive layer is no longer stable and the steel is no longer protected from
corrosion. The pH of the concrete powder samples at several of the locations is slightly lower
than that typically observed in new concrete, however, at all locations the pH is above the
generally accepted threshold for carbonation-induced corrosion. These results indicate that the
depth of carbonation is minimal.
Table C1 in Appendix C presents the sample locations and test results; Photos 7 through 15 also
show the sample locations on the structure. Please refer to the General Arrangement in
Appendix D for member locations.
2.2.2
Extracted Cores
Levelton extracted four cores from select locations in the substructure of the bridge. The cores
were then fractured longitudinally and sprayed with uranyl acetate in accordance with ASTM
C856 Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete, to detect the
presence of alkali-silica gel. Review of the cores extracted from the substructure indicates that
there is some reactive aggregate within the concrete; however, the relatively low amount of silica
gel in the samples indicates that the deterioration is still in the early stages, and has not yet
caused extensive damage.
3 DECK SURFACE
The presence of an asphalt overlay and bituminous membrane on the deck has precluded a
complete survey of delamination and corrosion potential. Instead, some 60 cores were extracted
throughout the deck to allow corrosion-potential measurements at those locations, and to allow
visual examination of concrete and rebar condition. At each of the core locations the asphalt
overlay was cored through and removed, a corrosion potential measurement taken on the
exposed concrete deck, and a core was extracted from the concrete deck. The core was then
visually reviewed in the laboratory and the chloride profile was determined.
For a complete summary of the observations and test results please refer to the Core Logs in
Appendix B and Table C2 in Appendix C.
FILE: RI11-0844-00

3.1
VISUAL REVIEW
The concrete deck is reinforced with undeformed round bars varying from 10 to 15 mm in
diameter, and square bars that are approximately 10 mm in section. Due to the layer of asphalt
on top of the concrete deck it was not always possible locate reinforcing steel and collect a
sample by coring.
Table 1 presents a summary of the condition of the extracted cores; the category Broken
applies to cores that Levelton had to break into several pieces to extract; these cores generally
correspond to the location where the half-cell equipment was grounded, so no reading could be
taken at this location. Table 2 presents a summary of the condition of the rebar sampled from the
deck.
As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2 the majority of the deterioration observed is in the two
under-deck truss spans and the north approach. It should be noted that the review of the deck
carried out under this program is quite limited given the size of the structure, however, it does
indicate that there has been some corrosion-related deterioration within the concrete deck and is
useful in targeting future surveys and repairs.
Table 1: Summary of Core Condition
Number of Cores
Span
South Approach
South Underdeck
Truss Span
Main Span
North Underdeck
Truss
North Approach
Total
FILE: RI11-0844-00
Lane
Good
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
8
8
2
1
5
4
3
2
2
1
36
Vertical
Crack
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3

Broken
Delamination
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
9
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
3
3
12
Table 2: Summary of Rebar Condition
Number of Cores
Span
South Approach
South Underdeck
Truss Span
Main Span
North Underdeck
Truss
North Approach
Lane
Good
Fair
Poor
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
Southbound
4
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
1
12
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
19
1
0
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
1
8
Total
3.2
None
Visible
4
4
1
0
5
3
2
1
1
0
21
CORROSION POTENTIAL MEASURMENTS
Corrosion potential values provide information about the probability of active corrosion of the
rebar embedded in concrete. Based on Leveltons experience, active corrosion of steel in bridge
decks is often observed when potential values are more negative than about -200 mVCSE and the
chloride levels at the rebar are elevated.
At most core locations corrosion potential measurements were taken on the exposed concrete
deck prior to extraction of the concrete portion of the deck. The remaining core locations were
used as grounds to connect the half-cell equipment to the deck reinforcing steel, therefore no
measurements could be taken at these locations. Table 4 presents a summary of the
measurements taken on the deck, and Table 3 presents the interpretation of the results using the
criterion recommended by ASTM C876 Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potential of
Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete.
As can be seen from the tables there are locations where the corrosion potentials indicate that
active corrosion is likely occurring, however, the majority of the readings indicate that there is a
low or uncertain probability of active corrosion within the deck.
Table 3: Probability of Corrosion (ASTM C876)
Ecorr vs. (mVCSE)
Probability of
Corrosion
More positive than -200 mVCSE
<10%
-200 to -350 mVCSE
Uncertain
More negative than -350 mVCSE
>90%
FILE: RI11-0844-00

Table 4: Summary of Corrosion Potential Measurements
Number of Readings
Corrosion Potential
(ASTM C876)
South
Approach
South
Under-deck
Truss
Main
Span
North
Under-deck
North
Approach
>10%
10
19
(>-200 mVCSE)
Uncertain
(-200 to -350 mVCSE)
<90%
<-350 mVCSE)
Total
3.3
3.3.1
LABORATORY TESTING
Of the 53 locations tested throughout the deck the majority of the test locations show that the
concentration of chlorides is low within the deck concrete which indicates that the membrane has
generally performed its function over the years. However, there are two locations in the south
under-deck truss span, and four locations in the north under-deck truss span where the chloride
ion content has reached or exceeded the corrosion initiation threshold.
4 CONCRETE PARAPETS
4.1
VISUAL REVIEW
Visually, the railings are in poor condition with approximately 80% of the members having some
sort of deterioration. There are spalls which have exposed reinforcing steel on the front, back,
and tops of the parapets (Photo 16 to Photo 22). The condition of the parapets is generally
consistent over the full length of the bridge on both sides of the roadway. While the majority of
the deterioration appears to be corrosion-related spalling, some cracking with white gel was
observed. Cores were taken at select cracks to assess the presence of ASR and are discussed
in the next section.
4.2
4.2.1
LABORATORY TESTING
Extracted Cores
Three cores were extracted from select locations in the west parapet and subjected to the same
testing as described in Section 2.2.2. Review of the uranyl-acetate treated cores under ultraviolet
light indicates that there is some reactive aggregate within the concrete, however, the
development of ASR is in the relatively early stages and is likely progressing at a relatively slow
rate considering the age of the structure.
FILE: RI11-0844-00

4.2.2
Levelton extracted concrete powder samples from five locations in the west parapet and tested
the samples for water-soluble chloride ion content and pH. At all locations the water-soluble
chloride ion content is below the generally accepted corrosion initiation threshold limit of 0.030.05% by mass of concrete and the pH of at all sample locations is greater than 10.0. Complete
test results are presented in Table C3 in Appendix C.
5 INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
In general, the concrete elements of the Burrard Bridge are in relatively good condition for their
age. The notable exception is the parapets, which are showing advanced deterioration in the
form of spalling. It is noted that the bridge was constructed prior to the use of air entrainment for
freeze-thaw protection, using what is likely to be relatively high-permeability concrete. Hence, the
observed deterioration is likely the result of freeze-thaw attack, ASR, and rebar corrosion acting
together.
Elsewhere, localized spalling and deterioration is observed, but generally the concrete is sound
and in good condition.
Some evidence of early-stage ASR is present. More extensive laboratory analysis, together with
in-situ monitoring is required to assess the future progression of this form of deterioration.
5.1
DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE
Throughout the deck soffit there are numerous spalled areas which have exposed the reinforcing
steel. Many of these spalls have been coated with a gray paint (presumably zinc-enriched).
Application of this paint this will provide limited protection to the exposed steel, and does nothing
to mitigate the corrosion of the steel adjacent to the spall.
The laboratory testing indicates that both the chloride ion concentration and the pH are at levels
at which widespread corrosion would not normally be induced. Nevertheless, is it is evident that
there is localized active corrosion at locations throughout the deck soffit and substructure.
There are several transverse cracks in the sidewalk soffit that appear to be leaking. Again,
laboratory tests indicate that both the chloride content and pH are at levels that would not
normally induce corrosion, however, isolated corrosion cells were observed.
It is evident from the leakage, staining, and deterioration of the concrete adjacent to the deck
joints that the joints are leaking and should be replaced. If left in their current state it should be
anticipated that the members adjacent to the joints will continue to deteriorate.
There are several areas where there are cracks with white gel at the surface, commonly
indicative of ASR. Laboratory testing indicated that there is some ASR within the structure,
however, it is in the early stages, and given the age of the structure, is likely advancing very
slowly. If no intervention is made, it is likely that these forms of deterioration will continue to
accumulate.
5.2
DECK SURFACE
The majority of the core sample locations indicate that the concrete deck is in fair to good
condition. Corrosion-induced delaminations were noted in a total of twelve of the 60 samples,
with the majority of these located in the north approach and the south under-deck truss span.
FILE: RI11-0844-00

The corrosion potential measurements at many of the sample sites indicate an uncertain
probability of corrosion, and review of the condition of rebar exposed during sampling indicates
that the steel is generally in good condition at most locations. Chloride ion concentrations at
most locations are quite low, which indicates that the waterproofing membrane and the
asbestos-modified asphalt have done a reasonably good job of protecting the concrete deck.
The samples were taken from the northbound curb lane, and the current southbound curb and
bike lanes; until recently the current southbound bike lane was the curb lane for vehicular traffic.
These lanes were chosen as they are where the most advanced deterioration would be expected
to occur. However, it should be noted that this is a very small sample size, particularly given the
size of the structure and it is difficult develop a complete assessment of the condition of the
deck.
In general, the deck was found to be in sound condition with localized deterioration. If left in its
current state, the corrosion-related deterioration will continue to accumulate, eventually
necessitating extensive repairs.
5.3
PARAPETS
The parapets are generally in poor condition with extensive spalling throughout, which has
exposed the reinforcing steel extensively. At several locations these spalls have been coated
with paint, however, as with the deck soffit, this method provides only minimal protection to steel,
and it is likely that the spalls will continue to expand.
Laboratory testing indicated that the chloride concentrations and pH levels have not reached the
generally accepted corrosion initiation thresholds; however, it is obvious that there are active
deterioration mechanisms within the parapets. The deterioration is likely the result of
simultaneous freeze-thaw attack, ASR, and corrosion.
The amount of accumulated damage is significant, and it is not expected that durable repairs can
be implemented, particularly at a reasonable cost. It is likely that replacement is the only viable
option for the parapets.
6 REHABILITATION/MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE
The deck soffit and substructure elements have been locally damaged by deterioration. It is
considered feasible to repair the damage using localized patch repairs; however, the same form
of damage is likely to occur over the years in other areas. Hence, the need for significant
patching programs periodically in future years should be expected.
Levelton recommends that for the spalls and delaminations noted in the deck soffit and concrete
substructure a typical patch repair procedure be followed. This procedure would include the
following:
Remove all deteriorated concrete by mechanically chipping or hydromilling until a sound
substrate and uncorroded rebar is reached. Where rebar is exposed provide a 20 mm
clear space around the bar to provide proper encapsulation of the reinforcement.
Rebar with section loss greater than 15% should be reinstated with additional rebar at
the direction of the structural engineer.
Sawcut the perimeter of the patch area to a depth of 20 mm avoid cutting any rebar.
FILE: RI11-0844-00

Prepare the substrate surface and rebar by sandblasting or hydromilling to removed

bruised concrete and corrosion product.
Reinstate the concrete using class C-1 concrete as specified in CSA-A23.1-09, or using
a suitable proprietary repair product. Alternatively, concrete can be reinstated using an
appropriate wet-mix shotcrete.
The cracks noted in the sidewalk soffits are likely due to shrinkage of the concrete shortly after
construction. It appears that there is some leakage through these cracks, however, there is
minimal corrosion-related deterioration associated with the cracks.
To repair the cracks it would be possible to inject them with epoxy resin, however, it may be
more advantageous to apply a waterproofing membrane on the top surface of the sidewalks to
prevent moisture migration. If this approach is taken, existing spalls and delaminations would
need to be repaired as described above, however, there would be no need to inject the cracks.
The choice of repair technique will depend on the Citys plans for the sidewalk in the future.
Other than protecting the structure from exposure to moisture, little can be done to mitigate the
progression of the ASR noted in the structure. However, lab testing indicates that the reaction is
not advanced and, given the age of the structure it is likely that the rate of the reaction is quite
slow. Further analysis and monitoring over several years is required in order to determine a
prognosis for the ASR.
6.2
DECK SURFACE
While the extent of the deck survey is not sufficient to estimate the quantity of deterioration
throughout the deck surface, it does indicate that in some locations there has been a failure of
the waterproofing membrane which has allowed chlorides to build up to, and exceed, the
corrosion initiation threshold. Levelton recommends that a more extensive survey of the deck,
particularly the north approach and the south underdeck truss span, be conducted during the
next asphalt repaving operations. This will allow for a more accurate assessment of the extent of
the deterioration within the deck. It should be anticipated that there will be the need for some
concrete repair, however, Levelton does not expect that a complete overlay will be needed at
that time.
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B
Photo 1: South Approach, East Elevation
Photo 2: Soffit of South Approach
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 1
Photo 3: Deterioration in Girder Soffit in Span 21
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 2
Photo 4: Corrosion Deterioration in Deck Soffit
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 3
Photo 5: Corrosion-Related Deterioration in Deck Soffit
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 4
Photo 6: Corrosion-Related Deterioration in Deck Soffit
Photo 7: Sample Locations at North Abutment
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 5
Photo 8: Sample Locations in Span 31
Photo 9: Sample Locations in Bent 24
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 6
Photo 10: Sample Locations on Pier 6
Photo 11: Sample Location on Pier 5
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 7
Photo 12: Sample Locations on Span 14
Photo 13: Sample Location at Pier 1
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 8
Photo 14: Sample Locations Near Bent 13
Photo 15: Sample Location at Bent 13
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 9
Photo 16: West Parapet Looking South
Photo 17: Deterioration in West Parapet
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 10
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 11
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 12
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 13
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX A - 14
APPENDIX B
CORE LOG
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B
Core 1
Length = 76 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Condition of Core = Minor
corrosion staining
Size of Rebar = 15M
undeformed bar
Direction of Rebar = L
Condition of Rebar = Good
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 1
Core 2
Length = 75 to 90 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Condition of Core = Good
Size of Rebar = 10M
Undeformed bar
Direction of Rebar = T
Condition of Rebar = Fair, some
surface corrosion
Core 3
Length = 58 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Direction of Rebar = NV
Condition of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 2
Core 4
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M
Underformed bar
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 3
Core 5
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Condition of Core = Core
broken into pieces
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 4
Core 6
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 45 mm
Condition of Core = 0.5 mm
wide vertical crack.
Size of Rebar = 15M
surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 5
Core 7
Length = 80 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 8
Length = 107 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 6
Core 9
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M
Undeformed bar /15M
Direction of Rebar = T/L
Condition of Rebar = Both bars
are in poor condition with
significant surface corrosion
Core 10
Length = 110 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Condition of Core = Minor
vertical crack
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 7
Core 11
Length = 50 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 45 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M bar with
square cross section
Condition of Rebar = Good with
minor surface corrosion
Core 12
Length = 68 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 8
Core 13
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M square
/10M undeformed
Condition of Rebar = Poor,
significant corrosion spots on
both bars
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 9
Core 14
Length = 30 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Condition of Core = Core broke
in pieces
Size of Rebar = 10M
square/10M undeformed
are in fair condition with some
surface corrosion
Core 15
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 16
Length = 75 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 10
Core 17
Length = 73 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 40 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 18
Length = 45 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M
square/10M underformed
are in fair condition with some
surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 11
Core 19
Length = 60 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 20
Length = 80 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 45 mm
in two pieces
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 12
Core 21
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Condition of Core = Good,
minor honeycombing
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 22
Length = 60 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 35 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 13
Core 23
Length = 115 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
Direction of Rebar = L:
surface corrosion
Core 24
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Condition of Core =
Delamination at depth of rebar
and corrosion staining. Core
broke in three pieces
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 14
Core 25
Length = 90 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Condition of Core = Core
located over a vertical crack in
asphalt. Two vertical cracks
extend to depth of rebar and
delamination at the level of
rebar. Corrosion staining visible
on core.
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
Condition of Rebar = Poor, lots
of surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 15
Core 26
Length = 78 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
in three pieces
surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 16
Core 27
Length = 98 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
Core 28
Length = 98 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 17
Core 29
Length = 65 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
Condition of Core = Core in
pieces and delamination at the
level of rebar
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
corrosion
Core 30
Length = 82 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 35 mm
level of rebar
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
Condition of Rebar = Good,
minor corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 18
Core 31
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
level of rebar
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
minor corrosion
Core 32
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
at level of rebar
Size of Rebar = 15M
undeformed bar
minor corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 19
Core 33
Length = 30 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
level of rebar.
Size of Rebar = 15M
undeformed bar
of surface corrosion
Core 34
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
at level of rebar
Size of Rebar = 15M
undeformed bar
surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 20
Core 35
Length = 55 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = 15M
undeformed bar
Core 36
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
at level of rebar
Size of Rebar = 10M
square/10M undeformed bar
Condition of Rebar = Poor, both
bars have lots of surface
corrosion
Core 37
Length = 50 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 21
Core 38
Length = 60 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 39
Length = 30 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = mm
into multiple pieces
Size of Rebar = 15M
square/15M
Condition of Rebar = Fair, both
bars have some surface
corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 22
Core 40
Length = 20? mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = mm
into multiple pieces
Size of Rebar = 15M
surface corrosion
Core 41
Length = 64 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 23
Core 42
Length = 55 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 40 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 43
Length = 45 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
into two pieces
surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 24
Core 44
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Condition of Rebar = ???
Core 45
Length = 85 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 15 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 46
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
in two pieces
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 25
Core 47
Length = 65 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Condition of Core =
Delamination at the level of
rebar and significant corrosion
staining
of corrosion visible
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 26
Core 48
Length = 25 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
Condition of Core =
Delamination at level of rebar
and corrosion staining
Condition of Rebar = Poor,
significant corrosion visible
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 27
Core 49
Length = 70 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 15 mm
Condition of Core =
Delamination at the level of
rebar
Size of Rebar = 10M
square/10M square
Direction of Rebar = T/T
Condition of Rebar = Good/Fair,
few corrosion spots
Core 50
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 28
Core 51
Length = 60 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Condition of Core = Good.
Size of Rebar = 15M
undeformed/15M undeformed
Direction of Rebar = L/L
Condition of Rebar =
Good/Good
Core 52
Length = 80 mm
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Size of Rebar = 10M
undeformed bar
surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 29
Core 53
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
Size of Rebar = 15M
undeformed bar
surface corrosion
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 30
Core 54
Diameter = 75 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Size of Rebar = 15M
Direction of Rebar = L/L
Condition of Rebar = Good/Fair,
many corrosion spots
Core 55
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 40 mm
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 31
ore 56
Length = 70 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 30 mm
into pieces
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 57
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
into multiple pieces.
Delamination at a depth of 23
mm. There appears to be an
overlay.
Size of Rebar = NV
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 32
Core 58
Length = 60 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 25 mm
Condition of Core =
Size of Rebar = NV
Core 59
Length = 115 mm
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 20 mm
Size of Rebar = 15M
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 33
Core 60
Diameter = 100 mm
MSA. = 40 mm
Size of Rebar = 15M
Condition of Rebar =
Transverse bar is in fair
condition with some surface
corrosion. Longitudinal bar is
generally in good condition with
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX B - 34
APPENDIX C
WATER-SOLUBLE CHLORIDE ION CONTENT TEST RESULTS
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX C
Table C1: Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content

Deck Soffit and Substructure
Sample
Sample Location
North Abutment
East side of East Girder in

Span 31
3
4
Soffit of East Girder in

Span 31
Soffit of East Sidewalk in
Span 31
East Column in Bent 24
Soffit of Diaphragm at
Bent 24
Top of Bearing Seat in

Bent 23
West Column in Bent 23
Cross beam in Bent 21
10
Cross Beam in Bent 13
11
Deck Soffit in Span 14,

Adjacent to Spalls
12
Cross Beam in Bent 13
13
Soffit of East Sidewalk in

Span 14, Near Crack
14
East Side of East Girder in

Span 21
15
Diaphragm Over Bent 13,

Near Extensive Cracking
FILE: RI11-0844-00
Test
Increment
(mm)
Water-Soluble
Chloride Ion
Content (%
mass of
Concrete)
pH
0-20
40-60
60-80
0-20
20-40
40-60
0-20
20-40
0-20
20-40
0-20
40-60
60-80
0-20
20-40
0-20
20-40
40-60
0-20
50-70
70-90
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
0-20
20-40
40-60
0-20
20-40
0-20
40-60
60-80
0-20
20-40
0-20
30-50
50-70
0-20
20-40
40-60
0.202
0.232
0.159
0.053
0.011
<0.005
0.018
0.006
0.014
<0.005
0.030
<0.005
<0.005
0.113
0.005
0.012
0.006
0.008
0.070
<0.005
0.012
0.014
0.008
0.007
<0.005
0.028
0.006
<0.005
0.009
<0.005
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
0.012
<0.005
0.161
0.015
0.005
0.017
0.006
<0.005
11.7
11.9
11.8
10.7
11.9
12.1
12.1
12.0
10.7
12.0
11.9
12.2
12.2
11.6
12.0
12.2
11.8
12.3
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
12.2
11.7
12.0
11.7
12.1
12.0
11.7
12.2
11.7
12.0
12.0
11.5
12.1
11.5
11.8
12.1
10.8
12.4
12.4

APPENDIX C - 1
TABLE C2: Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content Deck Surface
Span
Core
Chainage
from South
Abutment
Rebar
Depth (mm)
South Approach Span
(m)
Half-Cell
Potential
(mVCSE)
28.2
72
Ground
50.0
75
-172
8704
38
-307
125.2
42
-198
135.7
154
-359
167.5
60
-305
204.6
125
-385
250.0
126
-263
318.2
57
-487
10
350.0
-95
FILE: RI11-0844-00
Test
Increment
(mm)
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-76
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-90
0-20
20-40
40-58
0-20
20-40
40-59
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-75
0-20
20-40
40-63
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-107
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-73

Water-Soluble
Chloride Ion
Content (% mass of
Concrete)
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.037
0.050
0.034
0.022
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.024
0.017
0.013
0.012
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.029
0.018
0.015
0.012
DID NOT TEST
APPENDIX C - 2
TABLE C2: Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content Deck Surface (continued)
Span
Core
Chainage
from South
Abutment
Rebar Depth
(mm)
Half-Cell
Potential
(mVCSE)
South Approach Span
(m)
51
384.6
51
-186
52
360.9
71
-250
53
332.4
63
-220
54
300.7
33
-223
55
269.7
135
-170
56
220.9
90
-160
57
156.0
-265
58
106.8
119
-245
59
71.5
138
-243
FILE: RI11-0844-00
Test
Increment
(mm)
Water-Soluble
Chloride Ion Content
(% mass of
Concrete)
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-85
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-90
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-82
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-70
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.012
0.011
0.012
0.008
0.056
0.032
0.016
0.008
<0.005
0.015
0.014
0.012
0.007
DID NOT TEST
0-20
0.060
20-40
0.030
40-60
0.022
20-May
<0.005
20-40
<0.005
40-60
<0.005
60
<0.005
80
<0.005
80-100
<0.005
110-115
<0.005

APPENDIX C - 3
Main Span
South Under-deck Truss Span
South
Approach
Span
Span
Core
60
Chainage
from South
Abutment
(m)
20.
Rebar Depth
(mm)
72
Half-Cell
Potential
(mVCSE)
Test
Increment
(mm)
-345
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-110
12
460.0
32
-217
13
483.1
20
-383
14
500.0
46
472.2
19
-356
47
453.3
-302
48
436.9
10
-465
49
423.8
10
-306
50
405.6
34
-392
Ground
15
517.2
11
-374
16
526.1
115
-369
17
540.0
100
-131
18
556.2
40
Ground
FILE: RI11-0844-00
0-20
20-40
40-68
0-20
20-48
0-20
20-40
40-60
0-20
20-40
40-65
0-25
0-20
20-40
40-70
0-20
20-40
Water-Soluble
(% mass of
Concrete)
0.014
0.020
0.012
0.077
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.019
0.008
DID NOT TEST
0.011
0.012
<0.005
0.160
0.162
0.083
0.022
0.030
<0.005
0.011
0.043
0.046
40-68
0.027
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-77
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-75
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-73
0-20
20-45
0.009
0.006
0.006
<0.005
0.012
0.007
0.006
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.050
0.033

APPENDIX C - 4
Main Span
Span
Core
Chainage
from South
Abutment
(m)
Rebar Depth
(mm)
82
Half-Cell
Potential
(mVCSE)
Test
Increment
(mm)
-192
0-20
20-40
40-60
19
580.0
20
613.1
-369
41
605.6
-239
42
593.1
-131
43
569.2
Ground
44
548.5
-154
45
527.3
-413
0-20
20-40
40-65
0-20
20-40
40-60
0-20
20-40
40-70
0-20
20-40
40-60
North Under-deck Truss Span
60-90
21
622.3
117
-393
22
640.0
96
-225
23
668.2
110
Ground
24
687.8
31
-350
25
706.4
47
-225
FILE: RI11-0844-00
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-78
0-20
20-40
40-60
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-115
0-20
20-40
40-65
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-87

Water-Soluble
(% mass of Concrete)
0.006
0.005
<0.005
DID NOT TEST
0.021
0.017
0.011
0.006
<0.005
<0.005
DID NOT TEST
0.012
0.006
<0.005
0.014
0.008
0.006
<0.005
0.066
0.058
0.039
0.017
0.065
0.049
0.032
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.037
0.031
0.023
0.163
0.156
0.155
0.124
APPENDIX C - 5
North Approach Span
North Under-deck Truss Span
Span
Core
Chainage
from South
Abutment
(m)
Rebar Depth
(mm)
Half-Cell
Potential
(mVCSE)
26
741.6
30
-132
36
732.3
20
Ground
37
720.5
30
-145
38
688.6
10
-312
39
656.9
-250
0.012
0.017
0.032
0.030
0.026
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.007
<0.005
<0.005
DID NOT TEST
40
631.8
-213
DID NOT TEST
27
760.8
73
Ground
28
810.3
138
-275
29
826.5
13
-335
30
842.0
48
-113
31
855.8
85
-307
32
818.8
30
-216
33
780.7
14
-124
FILE: RI11-0844-00
Test
Increment
(mm)
0-20
20-40
0-20
20-40
40-59
0-20
20-40
40-50
0-20
20-40
40-60
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-98
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-95
0-20
20-40
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-82
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-90
0-20
20-40
40-65
0-30

Water-Soluble
0.033
0.024
0.011
<0.005
<0.005
0.008
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.008
0.007
<0.005
<0.005
0.011
0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.025
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
APPENDIX C - 6
Span
Core
Chainage
from South
Abutment
(m)
Rebar Depth
(mm)
Half-Cell
Potential
(mVCSE)
34
769.3
86
-217
35
748.8
39
-278
FILE: RI11-0844-00
Test
Increment
(mm)
Water-Soluble
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-103
0-20
20-40
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.007
<0.005
40-55
<0.005

APPENDIX C - 7
TABLE C3: Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content Parapets
Sample
FILE: RI11-0844-00
Test
Increment
(mm)
Water-Soluble
Chloride Ion
Content (% mass
of Concrete)
pH
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
0.025
0.020
0.016
0.013
0.007
0.006
<0.005
0.012
0.013
0.008
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.012
0.012
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.005
0.018
0.014
0.015
0.012
0.009
0.018
0.020
0.023
0.015
0.012
0.009
0.008
0.011
11.9
12.3
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.5
11.2
11.8
12.0
11.8
11.9
11.8
11.8
11.0
12.2
12.0
12.0
11.8
12.2
12.4
11.2
12.1
11.8
12.2
12.2
12.1
12.2
11.6
12.2
12.3
12.2
12.2
12.3
12.3

APPENDIX C - 8
APPENDIX D
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FILE: RI11-0844-00

APPENDIX D
SOUTH ABUTMENT
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
U2
U8
U1
U8
U6
U4
U2
U0
U0
U2
U4
U6
U8
U0
U10
L0
U6
L6
U8
L8
U10 U0
L10
L0
U2
L2
L8
L6
L4
L2
L0
L0
U4
U6
U8
L4
L6
L8
L2
L4
L6
L8
U9
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
NORTH ABUTMENT
U4
L2
L4
L10
L0
L10
U2
WEST SIDEWALK
WEST BIKE LANE
EAST BIKE LANE

EAST NO-POST
BARRIER
WEST NO-POST
BARRIER
BRIDGE DECK
EAST EXTERIOR
PARAPET
CONTINUOUS EDGE
FASCIA BEAM
EAST BIKE LANE

EAST NO-POST
BARRIER
BRIDGE DECK
WEST EXTERIOR
PARAPET
CONTINUOUS EDGE
FASCIA BEAM
EAST EXTERIOR
PARAPET
CONTINUOUS EDGE
FASCIA BEAM
K
STRINGERS, TYP.
FLOOR BEAM
WEST BIKE LANE
WEST NO-POST
BARRIER
WEST EXTERIOR
PARAPET
CONTINUOUS EDGE
FASCIA BEAM
A
WEST SIDEWALK
WEST OUTRIGGER
WEST
DIAPHRAGM
EAST
DIAPHRAGM
WEST GIRDER
EAST OUTRIGGER
EAST GIRDER
EAST TOP CHORD
WEST TRUSS
VERTICALS, TYP.
DIAGONAL
BRACINGS, TYP.
WEST
EAST TRUSS
VERTICALS, TYP.
EAST
WEST
WEST BOTTOM
CHORD
BOTTOM BRACINGS,
TYP.
EAST
EAST BOTTOM
CHORD
WEST COLUMN
MIDDLE COLUMN
EAST COLUMN

2012-256 - Originals 6 - Burrard Bridge Evaluation Report - Levelton

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2012-256 - Originals 6 - Burrard Bridge Evaluation Report - Levelton

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bridge Evaluation Report

Burrard Street Bridge

Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.

Attention: Mr. Shane Cook, P.Eng.

Levelton Consultants Ltd.

[Original signed by D.E.Smith]

[Original signed by N.A. Cumming]

D. E. Smith, MScE, P.Eng.

N. A. Cumming, FACI, P.Eng.

June 27, 2012

Bridge Evaluation Report

Levelton Consultants Ltd.

DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................... 1

DECK SURFACE ...................................................................................................................... 2

VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5

INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 6

VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 3

CONCRETE PARAPETS .......................................................................................................... 5

VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1

DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 6

DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 7

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

2 DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Table 2: Summary of Rebar Condition

CORROSION POTENTIAL MEASURMENTS

Ecorr vs. (mVCSE)

More positive than -200 mVCSE

-200 to -350 mVCSE

More negative than -350 mVCSE

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Table 4: Summary of Corrosion Potential Measurements

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content

DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Prepare the substrate surface and rebar by sandblasting or hydromilling to removed

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 1: South Approach, East Elevation

Photo 2: Soffit of South Approach

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 3: Deterioration in Girder Soffit in Span 21

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 4: Corrosion Deterioration in Deck Soffit

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 5: Corrosion-Related Deterioration in Deck Soffit

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 6: Corrosion-Related Deterioration in Deck Soffit

Photo 7: Sample Locations at North Abutment

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 8: Sample Locations in Span 31

Photo 9: Sample Locations in Bent 24

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 10: Sample Locations on Pier 6

Photo 11: Sample Location on Pier 5

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE

Photo 12: Sample Locations on Span 14

Photo 13: Sample Location at Pier 1

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE