detailed condition survey report bridge no. 044, eglinton … · 2020-03-16 · a corrosion...

351 Steelcase Road West, Unit 10 & 12, Markham, Ontario L3R 4H9 Tel: 905-475-0065 Fax: 905-475-0045 www.splconsultants.ca Email: [email protected]

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY REPORT

Bridge No. 044, Eglinton Avenue Bridge over Etobicoke Creek

Toronto/Mississauga, Ontario

Prepared For:

City of Toronto / City of Mississauga C/O G.D. Jewell Engineering Inc.

Prepared by:

SPL Consultants Limited

Project: 10001609

December, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1/ Structure Identification Sheet

2/ Key Plan

3/ Summary of Significant Findings

4/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets – Asphalt Covered Deck

5/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets – Exposed Concrete Components

6/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheet – Expansion Joints

7/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheet - Drainage

8/ Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures

9/ Core Photographs and Sketches

10/ Core Logs

11/ Sawn Asphalt Sample Photographs

12/ Sawn Asphalt Sample Logs

13/ Site Photographs

14/ Laboratory Test Results

15/ General Arrangement Drawing

16/ ACAD Drawings:

No. 1 - Surface Deterioration of Asphalt on Deck, Concrete Sidewalk and Parapet Wall

No. 2 - Asphalt Thickness of Deck and Concrete Cover of Parapet Wall and Sidewalk

No. 3 - Corrosion Potential of Deck, Parapet Wall and Sidewalk

No. 4 - Surface Deterioration of Soffit, Girders and Diaphragms

No. 5a, b - Surface Deterioration of Girders between West Abutment and West Pier

No. 5c, d, e, f - Surface Deterioration of Girders between West Pier and East Pier

No. 5g, h - Surface Deterioration of Girders between East Abutment and East Pier

No. 6a - Surface Deterioration of West Pier

No. 6b - Surface Deterioration of East Pier

No. 7 - Surface Deterioration of Abutments, Abutment Diaphragms and Retaining Walls No. 8 - Concrete Cover of Abutments and Retaining Walls

Structure Identification Sheet

Key Plan

KEY PLAN

Bridge No. 044, Eglinton Avenue over Etobicoke Creek

Toronto/Mississauga, Ontario

Bridge No. 044

Summary of Significant Findings

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

BRIDGE NO. 044, EGLINTON AVENUE BRIDGE OVER ETOBICOKE CREEK, TORONTO/MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

3. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1. Field Work ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3

3.2. Laboratory Work ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

4. BRIDGE STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3

4.1. Asphalt Wearing Surface ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.2. Waterproofing .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

4.3. Concrete Deck ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.3.1. Concrete Cover and Reinforcement ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

4.3.2. Corrosion Potential..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.3.3. Compressive Strength ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

4.3.4. Chloride Ion Content .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

4.3.5. Air Void System .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

4.4. Deck Soffit, Girders and Diaphragms ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.4.1. Deck Soffit .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.4.2. Girders ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.4.3. Diaphragms ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

4.5. Approach Slabs ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

4.6. Deck Joints ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

4.7. Deck Drains ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.8. Concrete Sidewalk ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

4.8.1. Concrete Cover ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8


4.9. Concrete Parapet Wall and Steel Handrail ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

4.9.1. Concrete Cover ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9


4.10. Guide Rails ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

5. SUBSTRUCTURE COMPONENTS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.1. Abutments ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

5.1.1. Abutment Walls.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.1.2. Ballast Walls ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

5.1.3. Bearing Seats ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

5.1.4. Bearings ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

5.2. Piers ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

5.2.1. Bearings ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

5.3. Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

5.3.1. Concrete Cover ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

5.4. Embankments ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

5.4.1. Abutment Slope Protection and Retaining Walls ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

5.4.2. Sidewalks.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

6. CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

1

Bridge No. 044, Eglinton Avenue Bridge over Etobicoke Creek Project: 10001609 Toronto/Mississauga, Ontario

1. INTRODUCTION

SPL Consultants Ltd. was retained by G.D. Jewell Engineering Inc. to carry out a detailed bridge condition

survey and reporting for the accessible areas of Eglinton Avenue Bridge over Etobicoke Creek (Bridge

No. 044) in Toronto/Mississauga, Ontario. This report presents SPL Consultants’ findings, through field

investigations and laboratory testing. Field investigation was carried out on April 14 & 16, 2015

(substructure) and April 23 & 24, 2015 (deck).

Bridge No. 044, constructed in 1962 under Contract C61-36, is a three-span cast-in-place concrete slab

on concrete I girders, overlain with an asphalt wearing surface and carries four lanes of traffic along

Eglinton Avenue East and two lanes for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The deck cross section consists of

twelve girders.

The overall span length of the bridge is 59.10 m. The current roadway width is 15.60 m at Eglinton

Avenue East and 9.73 m at the BRT roadway, separated by a jersey barrier. The structure has a west-east

orientation. The structure has a concrete parapet wall and sidewalk on the south side, and a barrier wall

on the north side. Photo 1 shows a view of the north elevation of Bridge No. 044.

Photo 1 – North Elevation of Bridge No. 044, Toronto/Mississauga, Ontario

The bridge was originally constructed in 1962 with 9.14 m pavement width and sidewalks on both sides.

The structure was a cast-in-place concrete T beam deck. In 1978 under Contract 76-123, it was widened

to the south with concrete I girders for the deck on two new piers and extension of the abutments. The

north sidewalk was removed and replaced with a wider sidewalk.

The structure was rehabilitated in 1999 including the following treatments:

Replacement of concrete deck, girders & diaphragms at north structure,

30 mm scarification of deck at south structure & 65 mm overlay placement,

2


Modification of pier caps,

Installation of new deck drain,

Replacement of parapet wall,

Replacement of guiderail,

Removal and reconstruction of ballast wall,

Replacement of all abutment bearings,

Repair of concrete slope protection,

Replacement of girders with CPCI girders at north structure, and

Replacement of diaphragms at north structure.

The structure was rehabilitated in 2013 for BRT widening including the following treatments:

Removal of existing sidewalk, parapet wall & railing, light poles, pole bases and portion of deck from

the north side of structure,

Modification of top of wingwalls at the north side of structure,

Widening of approach slabs,

Replacement of asphalt and waterproofing system at the busway portion of structure,

Widening of deck at the north side of structure by 740 mm,

Removal of existing deck drain at the north side of structure,

Install new expansion joint at busway portion of structure,

Installation of new asphalt drainage tube on north side, and

Relocation of conduit at the north side of structure.

2. METHODOLOGY

In general, the procedures followed to conduct the condition survey and delamination survey were

those defined in Part 1 of the MTO Structure Rehabilitation Manual (2007). This assignment involved the

observation and recording of surface defects, delamination detection, grid layouts (1.5 m x 1.5 m), sawn

asphalt samples (minimum 300 mm x 300 mm), concrete cores (100 mm diameter), corrosion potential

survey, and physical testing of the concrete cores.

The delaminations in the concrete were detected by striking the surface with a chain or heavy hammer

and noting the type of sound being emitted. It should be mentioned that while this method is quite

reliable, it may not detect delaminations at a depth greater than 100 mm. The chain drag method was

used for all inspected horizontal surfaces and the hammer sounding method was used for all inspected

vertical and overhead surfaces. The areas and locations of patches, spalls, delaminations, exposed

reinforcement, honeycombing, wet areas, scaling and other observed defects were recorded.

The corrosion potential survey was performed in accordance with the requirements of ASTM C876 and

the MTO Structure Rehabilitation Manual. A positive ground connection was made directly to the

reinforcing steel at the locations shown on the accompanying drawings.

3


3. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

3.1. Field Work

Fifteen (15) cores (eleven (11) in the south portion of deck, two (2) in the north portion of deck, one (1)

in the west approach and one (1) in the soffit on the south portion) and fourteen (14) sawn asphalt

samples (twelve (12) in the south portion of deck and two (2) in the north portion of deck) were

extracted from deteriorated and sound areas of the structure. The inside of the core holes as well as the

concrete surface in the sawn asphalt samples were examined carefully for cracks and other concrete

defects. All test holes were reinstated to their original condition using MTO-approved products.

Due to a contractor conflict with Dufferin Construction, SPL was not granted access to the BRT

portion by the City of Toronto/Mississauga.

A corrosion potential survey was conducted for the asphalt covered bridge deck, south concrete parapet

wall and south sidewalk.

Enclosed with this report are the detailed condition survey summary sheets, survey equipment and

calibration procedures, core photos/sketches, core logs, sawn asphalt sample photos, sawn asphalt

sample logs, site photographs, laboratory test results, and drawings.

3.2. Laboratory Work

One (1) core was selected for compressive strength testing (C2 on south portion), two (2) cores for air

void systems (C9 and C11 on south portion) and nine (9) cores for Chloride Ion Content on the concrete

deck (C1, C4, C5, C7, C8, C12 and C15 (soffit) on south portion, C10 and C13 on north portion).

4. BRIDGE STRUCTURE

4.1. Asphalt Wearing Surface

The width of the asphalt covered bridge deck is 15.60 m on Eglinton Avenue portion and 9.73 m on the

BRT portion, which is currently under construction. The total surveyed area of the deck was 918.84 m2,

which only includes the accessible Eglinton Avenue portion at the time of field work. The condition of

the asphalt wearing surface on the surveyed area of bridge deck was identified through visual field

observations and review of cores and sawn asphalt samples. Drawing No. 1 shows the location of the

cores and sawn asphalt samples. The general pavement surface condition is shown in Photos P3 to P6.

The asphalt wearing surface on the concrete deck was generally in good condition with unsealed

transverse (39.3 m) and longitudinal (60.6 m) cracking, asphalt patches (1.20 m2) and asphalt ravelling

(101.50 m2). The total asphalt thickness, measured at the cores and sawn asphalt sample locations,

varies from 60 mm to 135 mm with an average depth of 92 mm (refer to Drawing No. 2). Thinner asphalt

was observed near the south deck drain.

4


4.2. Waterproofing

Evidence of a hot poured rubberized asphalt waterproofing system with protection board was detected

over the concrete deck, ranging in thickness from 4 mm to 6 mm with an average thickness of 5 mm.

The condition of the waterproofing membrane encountered in the test locations was generally in good

condition. The bond of waterproofing to the concrete was generally in good condition.

4.3. Concrete Deck

The condition of the concrete deck was observed at thirteen (13) core locations and fourteen (14) sawn

asphalt samples. A review of the concrete cores revealed a delamination plane in core C6 (Photo P115)

and vertical cracking in cores C3 (Photo P113) and C13 (Photo P117). A review of the exposed concrete

surface in the sawn asphalt samples revealed a rough surface in sawn asphalt samples SS2, SS3, SS6, SS7,

SS10 and SS12. A review of the concrete cores revealed a concrete overlay in all cores with a thickness

ranging from 45 mm to 70 mm. Refer to the core and sawn asphalt sample logs and photos.

Full depth core C2 revealed a 235 mm thickness for the concrete deck (Photo P114).

4.3.1. Concrete Cover and Reinforcement

The concrete cover on the upper rebar layer on the south portion of deck was found to range from 54

mm to 120 mm with an average of 96 mm. 30 mm of the south portion of deck was scarified in 1999,

and 65 mm of overlay was placed, therefore increasing the average concrete cover. Refer to the core

and sawn asphalt sample logs.

The concrete cover on the upper rebar layer on the north portion of deck was found to range from 83

mm to 105 mm with an average of 90 mm. Refer to the core and sawn asphalt sample logs.

The field cores identified 10M, 15M and 20M rebar imprints in the south portion of deck. Evidence of

light corrosion was observed on the reinforcement in core C7 (Photo P116). Refer to the core and sawn

asphalt sample logs and photos.

4.3.2. Corrosion Potential

Corrosion potential values obtained from the half-cell tests carried out on the asphalt covered deck

ranged from –0.058 V to –0.670 V with an average value of –0.179 V. The half-cell survey indicated that

75.2% of the deck area likely had no corrosion activity, with corrosion potential values between 0.000 V

and -0.199 V. The half-cell survey identified uncertain low corrosion activity for 16.8% (13.6%+3.2%) of

the deck area, with values ranging from -0.200 V to -0.349 V. Probable active corrosion was detected for

8.0% (3.0%+5.0%) of the deck area with corrosion potential values more negative than -0.350 V. Areas

with high corrosion potential were located along the east and west expansion joints, and isolated areas

near the south deck drain, near the south curb above the east pier and near the center line of Eglinton

Ave. just east of the west pier. Drawing No. 3 shows the deck corrosion potential readings.

5


Chart 4.3.2 – Corrosion Potential Distribution in the Deck

4.3.3. Compressive Strength

Core C2 extracted from the south portion of deck was tested for compressive strength in accordance

with CSA A23.2-09-14C. The compressive strength of the concrete for core C2 was 31.6 MPa. This value

is higher than the design compressive strength of 27.6 MPa shown on the original contract drawing

(Contract No. 76-123).

4.3.4. Chloride Ion Content

The chloride ion content was determined using MTO LS-417 “Method of Test for Determination of Total

Chloride Ion in Concrete – Acid Soluble” on nine (9) cores. These core samples were located at areas

prone to salt exposure (e.g. along expansion joints, construction joints, low points of the deck, asphalt

cracks). In addition, samples from other moderately exposed areas were also taken. The chloride ion

content values are summarized as shown in Table 4.3.4 and also shown in the core logs and laboratory

test results.

Table 4.3.4 – Chloride Ion Content at Rebar Level and Corrosion Potential

Location Deck - South Portion

(1979)

Deck - North

Portion (1999)

Core No. C1 C4 C5 C7 C8 C12 C10** C13**

Corrected Chloride

Content (%)* 0.045 0.033 0.014 0.016 0.005 0.013 0.030 0.024

Corrosion Potential (V) -0.600 -0.285 -0.185 -0.400 -0.320 -0.125 -0.174 -0.191

* Background chloride ion content was assumed to be 0.053% for parent concrete on the south portion of deck.

Background chloride ion content was assumed to be 0.042% for overlay concrete on the south portion of deck.

** Background chloride ion content was assumed to be 0.042% for parent concrete on the north portion of deck.

The chloride threshold value necessary to depassivate embedded steel and to onset corrosion (in the

presence of oxygen and moisture) is generally taken as 0.025% by mass of concrete. Background

chloride content is the lowest chloride content value for all of the cores tested for chloride content. The

75.2%

13.6%

3.2%

3.0%

5.0%

0.000 to -0.199 V

-0.200 to -0.299 V

-0.300 to -0.349 V

-0.350 to -0.449 V

< -0.450 V

6


“background” chlorides do not contribute to corrosion, and thus the results are corrected for the

background chloride content. The corrected chloride content, at the rebar level, was above the chloride

threshold level of 0.025% for cores C1 and C4 on the south portion of deck and C10 on the north portion

of deck.

The corrosion potential data for cores C1 and C7 indicate probable active corrosion. Review of the reinforcement revealed light corrosion in core C7. Overall, the results indicate that chloride contamination has extended to the upper rebar level in limited areas of the deck tested.

Based on the concrete removal policy outlined in the Structure Rehabilitation Manual, the following

comment can be made:

• For decks with less than 10% of the total deck area more negative than -0.35 V, the average

chloride content shall be calculated using all the cores tested (0.021% on the south portion,

0.007% on the north portion).

• Concrete removal for decks with average chloride content at the top reinforcement level

(using average cover) less than 0.05% by mass of concrete shall include delaminated

concrete only.

4.3.5. Air Void System

Cores C9 and C11 from the south portion of deck were tested to determine the air void system of the

hardened concrete in accordance with ASTM C457 using the Modified Point Count Method. Test results

are summarized as shown in Table 4.3.5 and are also shown in the core logs and laboratory test results.

Table 4.3.5 – Air Void System

Location Core No. Air Content

(%)

Specific Surface

(mm-1)

Spacing Factor

(mm)

South Portion

(1979)

C9 3.0 22.04 0.275

C11 4.3 24.26 0.200

Concrete is normally considered to be properly air entrained if the air content exceeds 3.0%, the specific

surface exceeds 24 mm-1, and the average spacing factor is less than 0.200 mm. Therefore, the air void

system in core C9 is considered marginal, and the air void system in core C11 is considered properly air

entrained.

4.4. Deck Soffit, Girders and Diaphragms

4.4.1. Deck Soffit

A visual inspection of the deck soffit was carried out. A detailed inspection was also carried out at soffit

ends and where accessible for hammer-sounding, to check for delaminations. The bridge deck soffit,

with a total surveyed area of 1,429.93 m2, was in good condition with clean and stained medium width

cracking (149.1 m), delaminations (1.00 m2), spalls (0.19 m2) and patches (13.78 m2). The majority of

cracking was observed on the north portion of deck (1999). Surface deteriorations are shown on

7


Drawing No. 4 and in Photos P79, P84 to P88, P91, P92, P99 and P100.

4.4.2. Girders

A visual inspection of the concrete girders was carried out. A detailed inspection was also carried out at

girder ends at the abutments and where accessible for hammer-sounding, to check for delaminations.

The concrete girders, with a total surveyed area of 2121.52 m2, was in fair to good condition with

delaminations (8.55 m2), spalls (0.88 m2), patches (1.44 m2) and wet areas (0.82 m2). The majority of

defects and rust stains were observed on the ends near the abutments and piers. Surface deteriorations

are shown on Drawing Nos. 4, 5a to 5h and in Photos P79 to P83, P88 to P90 and P92 to P98.

4.4.3. Diaphragms

A visual inspection of the concrete diaphragms was carried out. A detailed inspection was also carried

out at the abutment diaphragms for hammer-sounding, to check for delaminations. The concrete

diaphragms, with a total surveyed area of 169.32 m2, was in fair condition with clean medium width

cracking (0.2 m), delaminations (2.65 m2), and (patches 2.33 m2). All noted defects were observed at the

abutment diaphragms. No visual defects were observed on the intermediate diaphragms. Surface

deteriorations are shown on Drawing Nos. 4, 7 and in Photos P25 to P27, P45 and P47.

4.5. Approach Slabs

The asphalt wearing surface on the approach slabs was in good condition with unsealed cracks and

ravelling. Minor scrape damage was observed on the east approach wearing surface (Photo P7). Photos

P7 and P8 show the general pavement condition on the bridge approaches. Observation of core C14,

extracted from the west approach, confirmed the presence of a concrete approach slab beneath the

asphalt. The asphalt thickness on the approach, measured in core C14, was 135 mm. Photo P119 shows

the inside of core C14.

4.6. Deck Joints

The expansion joint seals (strip seal joints) are in poor condition. The seals were covered with debris.

Cracking and scaling were observed on the concrete end dams. A damaged section of steel armoring was

observed on the west expansion joint (Photo P12). Leakage of the seals was evident due to the wet

areas of the abutments and ballast walls. The gap dimensions varied from 40 mm to 50 mm. Refer to

Photos P9 to P12.

4.7. Deck Drains

One (1) 135 mm x 80 mm rectangular deck drain pipe (1490 mm length) was observed under a basin on

the center span. The deck basin is partially blocked and needs cleaning (Photo P19). Catch basins were

observed at the southeast and southwest quadrant outside the structure limits (Photos P22 and P23).

4.8. Concrete Sidewalk

The exposed surface of the south concrete sidewalk was inspected and sounded to check for

delaminations. The south concrete sidewalk, with a total surveyed area of 189.66 m2, is in good

condition with clean medium width cracks (130.8 m). See Photos P13 to P15 and Drawing No. 1 for

8


surface deteriorations.

4.8.1. Concrete Cover

Concrete cover was found to range from 66 mm to 113 mm with an average of 90 mm. Refer to Drawing

No. 2


Corrosion potential values obtained from the half-cell tests carried out on the south concrete sidewalk

ranged from –0.189 V to –0.527 V with an average value of –0.276 V. The half-cell survey indicated that

2.5% of the south sidewalk area likely had no corrosion activity, with corrosion potential values between

0.000 V and -0.199 V. The half-cell survey identified uncertain low corrosion activity for 85.0%

(65.0%+20.0%) of the south sidewalk area, with values ranging from -0.200 V to -0.349 V. Probable

active corrosion was detected for 12.5% (10.0%+2.5%) of the south sidewalk area with corrosion

potential values more negative than -0.350 V. Areas with high corrosion potential were generally located

above and near the east and west pier. Drawing No. 3 shows the corrosion potential readings.

Chart 4.8.2 – Corrosion Potential Distribution in the South Concrete Sidewalk

4.9. Concrete Parapet Wall and Steel Handrail

The exposed surface of the south concrete parapet wall, southeast and southwest end posts were

inspected and sounded to check for delaminations. The south concrete parapet wall and end posts, with

a total surveyed area of 63.29 m2, are generally in good condition with clean medium width cracks (35.0

m), delaminations (1.94 m2) and spalls (0.18 m2). A large section of delamination with exposed corroded

rebar was observed near the west corner of the south parapet wall (Photo P16). See Photos P13 to P15

and Drawing No. 1 for surface deteriorations.

The steel handrails on top of the parapet walls are in good condition (Photo P13).

The Junction Boxes at the south parapet wall were opened to observe the ducts inside. PVC ducts were

observed (Photo P124). The Junction Boxes are missing screws and need to be fixed (Photo P123). A

lighting pole is missing a cover plate on the south side of the structure (Photo P125).

2.5%

65.0%

20.0%

10.0%

2.5%

0.000 to -0.199 V

-0.200 to -0.299 V

-0.300 to -0.349 V

-0.350 to -0.449 V

< -0.450 V

9



Concrete cover was found to range from 30 mm to 89 mm with an average of 57 mm. Refer to Drawing

No. 2


Corrosion potential values obtained from the half-cell tests carried out on the south concrete parapet

wall ranged from –0.219 V to –0.507 V with an average value of –0.344 V. The half-cell survey identified

uncertain low corrosion activity for 60.0% (18.8%+41.2%) of the south parapet wall area, with values

ranging from -0.200 V to -0.349 V. Probable active corrosion was detected for 40.0% (37.5%+2.5%) of

the south parapet wall area with corrosion potential values more negative than -0.350 V. Drawing No. 3

shows the corrosion potential readings.

Chart 4.9.2 – Corrosion Potential Distribution in the South Concrete Parapet Wall

4.10. Guide Rails

The steel beam guide rails attached to the southeast and southwest concrete end posts on the approaches are in good condition (Photos P20 and P21).

5. SUBSTRUCTURE COMPONENTS

The substructure of the bridge included abutments on both ends of the deck, piers and retaining walls

that were inspected and sounded to check for delaminations. The field measurements are presented in

the field summary sheets.

5.1. Abutments

5.1.1. Abutment Walls

The exposed surfaces of the abutments were inspected and hammer sounded to check for

delaminations.

The total surveyed area of the east abutment is 20.68 m2. The east abutment is in fair to good condition

with clean medium width cracks (8.6 m), patches (0.93 m2), light scaling (7.60 m2) and medium scaling

0.0%

18.8%

41.2%

37.5%

2.5%

0.000 to -0.199 V

-0.200 to -0.299 V

-0.300 to -0.349 V

-0.350 to -0.449 V

< -0.450 V

10


(2.81 m2). The surface deterioration is shown on Drawing No. 7 and in Photos P24 to P28.

The total surveyed area of the west abutment is 16.63 m2. The west abutment is in fair to good

condition with clean medium width cracks (3.5 m), spalls (0.08 m2), light scaling (4.47 m2), medium

scaling (4.33 m2) and severe scaling (0.42 m2). The surface deterioration is shown on Drawing No. 7 and

in Photos P44 to P47.

5.1.1.1. Concrete Cover

Concrete cover in the east abutment was found to range from 35 mm to 98 mm with an average of 71

mm. Refer to Drawing No. 8

Concrete cover in the west abutment was found to range from 50 mm to 90 mm with an average of 67


5.1.2. Ballast Walls

The total surveyed area of the east abutment ballast wall is 14.50 m2. The east abutment ballast wall is

in good condition with clean and stained medium width cracks (2.8 m2) and patches (0.59 m2). The

surface deterioration is shown on Drawing No. 7 and in Photos P24 and P28 to P30.

The total surveyed area of the west abutment ballast wall is 18.16 m2. The west abutment ballast wall is

in good condition with clean medium width cracks (1.9 m). The surface deterioration is shown on

Drawing No. 7 and in Photos P44 and P47.

5.1.3. Bearing Seats

The total surveyed area of the east abutment bearing seat is 21.60 m2. The east abutment bearing seat

is in good condition with clean medium width cracks (11.4 m2) and patches (1.94 m2). The surface

deterioration is shown on Drawing No. 7 and in Photo P31.

The total surveyed area of the west abutment bearing seat is 21.60 m2. The west abutment bearing seat

is in good condition with clean medium width cracks (7.7 m) and delamination (0.26 m2). The surface

deterioration is shown on Drawing No. 7 and in Photo P48.

5.1.4. Bearings

The east abutment laminated elastomeric bearings are in good condition with narrow cracks (Photos

P32 to P43).

The west abutment laminated elastomeric bearings are in good condition with narrow cracks (Photos

P49 to P60).

5.2. Piers

The exposed surfaces of the piers were inspected and hammer sounded at accessible areas to check for

delaminations. The bridge piers have a total surveyed area of 629.25 m2. The concrete at the piers is in

11


fair to good condition with clean medium width cracks (9.9 m), delaminations (6.93 m2), spall (0.05 m2).

patches (0.69 m2), light scaling (6.05 m2) and wet areas (7.00 m2) as identified on Drawing Nos. 6a and

6b and shown in Photos P66 to P70 and P72 to P77.

5.2.1. Bearings

The pier elastomeric bearings are generally in good condition (Photos P71 and P78).

5.3. Retaining Walls

The exposed areas of the concrete retaining walls were inspected visually and hammer sounded. The

total surveyed area is 17.85 m2. The retaining walls are generally in good condition with clean and

stained medium width cracks (5.9 m), delaminations (0.23 m2), spalls (0.05 m2), patches (0.50 m2) and

medium scaling (1.50 m2). The surface deterioration is shown on Drawing No. 7 and in Photos P61 to

P65.


Concrete cover in the retaining walls was found to range from 42 mm to 97 mm with an average of 60


5.4. Embankments

5.4.1. Abutment Slope Protection and Retaining Walls The east and west slope protection (slope pavings) and retaining walls at the slope protection are in fair condition with wide cracks and gaps, settlement, moderate to severe damage and scattered vegetation. Severe erosion was observed under some of the slabs below the concrete sidewalks on both embankments, exposing the bottom portion of the sidewalk slabs. A disconnected drain was observed on the west embankment below the sidewalk slab. Refer to Photos P101 to P104 and P107 to P110. Moderate to severe erosion was observed on the south-west embankment, exposing the bottom of approach sidewalk (Photo P122).

5.4.2. Sidewalks

The sidewalks at the east and west embankments exhibited cracks, scaling and ponding. Refer to Photos P105 and P112. The steel handrails along the embankment sidewalks are in good condition. Spalling and delamination was observed on the concrete below the railing base at one location for each steel handrail (Photos P106 and P111).

Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets – Asphalt Covered Deck

Site No. 044

Width between E abutment curbs 15.60 m Width between W abutment curbs 15.60 m

Length between abutment joints 58.90 m Area of deck riding surface 918.84 m²

* Asphalt potholes/patches = 1.20 m²

* Asphalt Alligator Cracks = 0.00 m²

* Asphalt Ravelling = 101.50 m²

Transverse 39.3 0.0 m

Longitudinal 60.6 0.0 m

Random 0.0 0.0 m

Min Max Avg

G 60 135 92 mm

* G – Good, F – Fair, P – Poor, V - Variable Good to Poor

Min Max AvgHot rubberized

asphalt with

protection board

G G 4 6 5 mm

* G – Good, F – Fair, P – Poor, V - Variable Good to Poor

** Report only thickness of waterproofing membrane but note presence of protection board

Deck dimensions

were taken from the

structural drawings.

Total area surveyed

includes a portion of

the north (1999) and

does not include the

BRT portion.

Condition * Conc. Bond *

2. Asphalt Surface Cracks

Depth

3. Asphalt Depth

Condition *

4. Waterproofing

Thickness (mm) **

1. Dimensions and Area of Survey

Unsealed Sealed

Type

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET Page 1 of 4

ASPHALT COVERED DECK

DECK RIDING SURFACE

Orientation

Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Site No. 044

5. Concrete Cover – Cores and Sawn Samples

Minimum Maximum Average

54 120 96 mm (south portion of deck)

83 105 90 mm (north portion of deck)

Note: Only include covers for upper layer of rebars.

*North Portion of deck

6. Corrosion Activity


-0.058 -0.670 -0.179 V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

691.0 125.0 29.4 27.6 45.9 m2

75.2 13.6 3.2 3.0 5.0 %

7. Defective Cores and Sawn Samples

No. m2 % No. m

2 %

0 to -0.20 17 1 40.6 4.4 0 0.0 0.0

-0.20 to -0.30 2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

-0.30 to -0.35 2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

-0.35 to -0.45 2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

<-0.45 4 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

Corrosion

Activity (Volts)

Remarks

Remarks

Medium Scaling *



DECK RIDING SURFACE

* The percent calculation should be of the entire deck area investigated. The values obtained should be used with

caution as large errors may occur when a small number of samples are used for the calculation or when the samples

are not randomly distributed over the entire deck area.

Cores and Sawn Samples

Total in Each

Area

Delaminated, Spalled, Severe Scaling

and Disintegration *

Remarks

Site No. 044

8. Adjusted Chloride Content Profile *South Portion Background (parent concrete) chloride content = 0.053

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤-0.35

0-10 mm 0.031 0.024 0.028

20-30 mm 0.028 0.022 0.014

40-50 mm 0.031 0.028 0.022

60-70 mm 0.024 0.022 0.033

80-90 mm 0.020 0.019 0.031

100-110 mm 0.020

Core No. C1 C4 C5 C7 C8 C12

Chloride

Content*0.045 0.033 0.014 0.016 0.005 0.013

Corrosion

Potential-0.600 -0.285 -0.185 -0.400 -0.320 -0.125

Core No.**C10 (North

Portion)

**C13 (North

Portion)

Chloride

Content*0.030 0.024

Corrosion

Potential-0.174 -0.191

Core No.

Chloride

Content*

* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides.

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

Chloride

Content*

9. Chloride Content at Rebar Level

Corrosion

Potential

* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar.

* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting

background chlorides for all cores taken in each range of corrosion potential.



DECK RIDING SURFACE

Corrosion Activity at Core

Calculated

AC

Resistance Connection #1

Connection #2

10. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar

Table # 10 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

**North Portion

Background (parent

concrete chloride

content = 0.042

Remarks

*South Portion Background (overlay concrete) chloride content = 0.042

Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2

Site No. 044

11. IR Drop and Truce Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

12. Concrete Air Entrainment

Yes No Marginal

Concrete Air Entrained?

C9 Marginal

C11 Yes

13. Compressive Strength

Average Compressive Strength 31.6 MPa

Connection #2 (negative)

* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection.



DECK RIDING SURFACE

IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half

Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets – Exposed Concrete Components

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: Soffit OSIM Identifier: Decks

1. Dimensions and Area

Width 23.40 m Length 59.93 m Height 0.23 m

Diameter - Total Area Surveyed 1429.93 m²

2. Cracks (medium and wide)

Transverse Longitudinal Other Total

Clean 24.2 1.4 7.3

Stained 101.3 10.1 4.8

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

3. Alkali Aggregate Reaction

Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction 0.0 m²


- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %


EXPOSED CONCRETE COMPONENTS (Exposed Deck, Deck Soffit, Curbs, Medians, Sidewalks,

Barrier/Parapet Walls, etc.): Use separate form for each component

Type

Medium Width149.1

m

Wide Width0.0

m

Remarks

Dimensions were taken

from the

structural drawings &

site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %

6. Delaminations and Spalls

Defect Type Delaminations Spalls Patches *Wet areas = 0.00 m²

Area (m2) 1.00 0.19 13.78

1.19 m² 0.1 % N/A N/A

Light MediumSevere to

Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


EXPOSED CONCRETE COMPONENTS


Total Delaminations and

Spalls

Total Delaminations and Spalls

in Areas ≤-0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044


9. Adjusted Chloride Content Profile

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -




Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*





Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated

AC


Connection #2


Remarks

Table # 9 and 10 are

Not Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -


Concrete Air Entrained: not tested


Average Compressive Strength: not tested





Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: Girders OSIM Identifier: Beams


Width 0.55 m x 12 Length 59.93 m Height 1.20 m x 24




Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %

0.0

4. Concrete Cover

Medium Width

Remarks


from the


site measurements

Remarks

m

40 – 60 mm

Type

0.0




0 – 20 mm

20 – 40 mm

mWide Width

over 60 mm

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 8.55 0.88 1.44

9.43 m² 0.4 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

Remarks



7. Scaling


Spalls

Remarks

Remarks


Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

Chloride

Content*


Remarks




Not Applicable.


Connection #2

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks




Location (volts)



AC


Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -






Cell

Potential *

Remarks

Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.





Connection #1

(positive)

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: Abutment Diaphragms OSIM Identifier: Beams


Width - Length - Height -



Vertical Horizontal Diagonal Total

Clean 0.0 0.2 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %




0.2

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Wide Width0.0

4. Concrete Cover

Type

Medium Width m

Remarks


from the


site measurements

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

m

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 2.65 0.00 2.33

2.65 m² 1.6 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

7. Scaling


Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V



5. Corrosion Activity Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

Calculated

AC


Connection #2






Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*





Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks


Not Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -





Remarks

Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.





Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: South Sidewalk OSIM Identifier: Sidewalks/curbs


Width 3.05 m Length 58.90 m Height Avg. 0.17 m




Clean 130.8 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




66 113 90 mm

0.0 0.0 m2

0.0 0.0 %

0.0 189.7 m2

0.0 100.0 %

Wide Width

40 – 60 mm

4. Concrete Cover

over 60 mm20 – 40 mm

Medium Width130.8

0.0




Type

m

m

0 – 20 mm

Remarks


from the


site measurements

Remarks

Site No: 044



-0.189 -0.527 -0.276 V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

4.7 123.3 37.9 19.0 4.7 m2

2.5 65.0 20.0 10.0 2.5 %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 m² 0.0 % 0.0 m² 0.0 %


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²




7. Scaling


Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

Remarks

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -



Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*





AC


Connection #2


Remarks

Remarks


Not Applicable.



Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -







Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Connection #1

(positive)


Remarks



Cell

Potential *

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: South Parapet Wall OSIM Identifier: Barriers


Width 0.25 m Length 61.45 m Height 0.78 m




Clean 34.5 0.0 0.5

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




30 89 57 mm

0.0 36.4 m2

0.0 57.5 %

3.2 23.7 m2

5.0 37.5 %

0.0

4. Concrete Cover

Medium Width

Remarks


from the


site measurements

Remarks

m

40 – 60 mm

Type

35.0




0 – 20 mm

20 – 40 mm

mWide Width

over 60 mm

Site No: 044



-0.219 -0.507 -0.344 V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

0.0 11.9 26.1 23.7 1.6 m2

0.0 18.8 41.2 37.5 2.5 %



Area (m2) 1.94 0.18 0.00

2.12 m² 3.3 % 1.3 m² 2.1 %


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

Remarks



7. Scaling


Spalls

Remarks

Remarks


Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

Chloride

Content*


Remarks




Not Applicable.


Connection #2

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks




Location (volts)



AC


Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -






Cell

Potential *

Remarks

Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.





Connection #1

(positive)

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: West Abutment Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


Width 30.00 m Length - Height Avg. 0.55 m




Clean 3.5 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




50 90 67 mm

0.0 3.7 m2

0.0 22.4 %

0.0 12.9 m2

0.0 77.6 %




Type

Medium Width3.5

m

Wide Width0.0

m

Remarks


from the


site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.08 0.00

0.08 m² 0.5 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

4.47 4.33 0.42 m2

26.9 26.0 2.5 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²





Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -




Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*






AC


Connection #2


Remarks


Not Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -









Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: West Ballast Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


Width 30.00 m Length - Height 0.48 m




Clean 1.9 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %




Type

Medium Width1.9

m

Wide Width0.0

m

Remarks


from the


site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.26 m²





Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -




Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*






AC


Connection #2


Remarks


Not Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -









Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: West Abutment Bearing Seat OSIM Identifier: Abutments


Width 30.00 m Length 0.72 m Height -




Clean 7.1 0.6 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %




Type

Medium Width7.7

m

Wide Width0.0

m

Remarks


from the

structural drawings & site

measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 0.26 0.00 0.00

0.26 m² 1.2 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²





Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

Remarks




Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*






AC


Connection #2


Not Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.


Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -





Remarks

Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.





Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: East Abutment Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


Width 30.00 m Length - Height Avg. 0.69 m




Clean 8.6 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




35 98 71 mm

0.0 3.9 m2

0.0 18.9 %

0.4 16.4 m2

1.9 79.2 %




Type

Medium Width8.6

m

Wide Width0.0

m

Remarks


from the


site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.00 0.93

0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

7.60 2.81 0.00 m2

36.8 13.6 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²





Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -




Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*






AC


Connection #2


Remarks


Not Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -









Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: East Ballast Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


Width 30.00 m Length - Height 0.48 m




Clean 0.9 0.0 0.0

Stained 1.9 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %




Type

Medium Width2.8

m

Wide Width0.0

m

Remarks


from the


site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.00 0.59

0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²





Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -




Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*






AC


Connection #2


Remarks


Not Applicable.

Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -









Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: East Abutment Bearing Seat OSIM Identifier: Abutments


Width 30.00 m Length 0.72 m Height -




Clean 9.0 2.4 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %




Type

Medium Width11.4

m

Wide Width0.0

m

Remarks

Dimensions were

taken from the


site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 0.00 0.00 1.94

0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

Remarks





Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

7. Scaling

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -






Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*



Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.



AC


Connection #2

Remarks


Not Applicable.

Remarks

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: East Abutment Bearing Seat


G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -





Remarks





Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


OSIM Identifier: Abutments

Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: Piers OSIM Identifier: Piers


Width 30.00 m Length 1.12 m Height Varies




Clean 9.9 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




- - - mm

- - m2

- - %

- - m2

- - %




9.9

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Wide Width0.0

4. Concrete Cover

Type

Medium Width m

Remarks


from the


site measurements

Remarks

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

m

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 6.93 0.05 0.69

6.98 m² 1.1 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

6.05 0.00 0.00 m2

1.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

7. Scaling


Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V




Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

Calculated

AC


Connection #2






Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*





Remarks

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks


Not Applicable.

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -





Remarks

Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.





Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Site No: 044

Component Type & Location: Retaining Walls OSIM Identifier: Retaining Walls


Width Varies Length - Height Varies




Clean 4.0 1.1 0.5

Stained 0.3 0.0 0.0

Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0




42 97 60 mm

0.0 9.6 m2

0.0 53.8 %

0.0 8.2 m2

0.0 46.2 %




Type

Medium Width m5.9

0.0

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Wide Width

4. Concrete Cover

Remarks


from the


site measurements

Remarks

m

Table # 4 is Not

Applicable.

Site No: 044



- - - V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



Area (m2) 0.23 0.05 0.50

0.28 m² 1.6 % N/A N/A


Very Severe

0.00 1.50 0.00 m2

0.0 8.4 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²





Spalls


in Areas ≤-0.35 V

7. Scaling

Remarks

Table # 5 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks

Site No: 044



0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤ -0.35

0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -


Core No. - - - - - -

Chloride

Content* - - - - - -

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -

Connection #2




AC

Resistance





Location (volts)

Chloride

Content*



Connection #1

Table # 11 is Not

Applicable.

Remarks


Not Applicable.

Remarks

Site No: 044



G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

G1 N/A - - - - -

G2 - N/A - - - -

G3 - - N/A - - -

G4 - - - N/A - -

G5 - - - - N/A -





Remarks





Cell

Potential *

Connection #1

(positive)


Table # 12 is Not

Applicable.

Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheet – Expansion Joints

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET

EXPANSION JOINTS Bridge No. 044

Dimension

Abutments

Intermediate

Remarks

Joint 1

Joint 2

Joint 3

Joint 4

*width of sidewalk + parapet

wall **width of roadway + median

barrier wall + busway E W

a (mm) *3050 + 254 *3050 + 254 - -

b (mm) 150 160 - -

b' (mm) 155 165 - -

c (mm) **15600 + 800 + 9730 **15600 + 800 + 9730 - -

d (mm) - - - -

d' (mm) - - - -

e (mm) 254 254 - -

Depth of Asphalt @ Deck Side N/E S/E N/E S/W

1 (mm) 80 85 - - - -

2 (mm) 85 95 - - - -

3 (mm) 90 90 - - - -

Width: Top of Ballast Wall and End Dams

N/E

S/W

N/E

S/W

N/E

S/W

N/E

S/W

1 (mm) - - - - - - - -

2 (mm) - - - - - - - -

3 (mm) - - - - - - - -

Gap Dimensions

1 (mm) 40 50 - -

2 (mm) 40 50 - - 3 (mm) 40 50 - -

Misc. Joint Details

Skew Angle 00º 00’ 00”

Exp YES YES - -

Fixed NO NO - -

Type STRIP SEAL JOINT -

Leaking YES YES - -

Angle size - - - -

Temp C

Deck

7ºC Ambient 7ºC

S JOINT DIMENSIONS N

Typical Sections at Joints: E - W

Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheet – Drainage

DRAINAGE Bridge No. 044

Deck Drains

Number

Type

Length

Angle

Depth *

1

622 mm X 650 mm Basin with

135 mm X 80 mm Rectangular Steel Pipe

1490 mm - -

* For asphalt covered decks, recess depth in mm between top of asphalt and top of drain.

Catch Basins

Yes S/E, S/W

No

* Identify location of catch basins as N/E, N/W, S/E etc. using the same direction of north as shown on the drawings.

Drainage Tubes

Yes Void

Drains

-

- No

South Deck Drain (basin partially covered in dirt

and debris)

South-East Catch Basin

Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures

SURVEY EQUIPMENT AND CALIBRATION PROCEDURES

Component Type: Asphalt-Covered Bridge Deck Bridge No: 044 1. Delaminations:

Weight of Chain: 2.2 Kg/m Other Equipment: Hammer

2. Concrete Cover:

Covermeter Make & Model: Elcometer Protovale 331

Battery Check: Reading at Start of Test: OK Reading at End of Test: OK

Concrete Cover Check: Location of Check: SS2

Actual Depth & Rebar Dia: -

Reading Before Test: 94mm Reading Each 30 min During Test: 94mm

Reading End of Test: 94mm

3. Corrosion Activity:

Half Cell Make & Model: MC MILLER Electrode RE - 3A (3” Dia)

Multimeter Make & Model: Mastercraft Digital Multimeter 3 R93

Length and Gauge of Lead Wires: 150 m of 20 gauge

Deck Temp: Start of Test: 7°C End of Test: 7°C

Ambient Temp: Start of Test: 7°C End of Test: 7°C

Battery Check: OK Ground Check: Method of Connection: Self-tapping screw Ground Location: C7, C12 Check Location: C3, C10

Measured Resistance: 2.5, 2.4 Ω (A))) ,

Measured resistance is the circuit resistance of deck, including the resistance of the leads

Lead Resistance: 1.8 Ω (B) Voltage Drop (mV’s): 0.1

Net Resistance: 0.7, 0.6 Ω (C) Resistance Reversed: 0.7, 0.6 Ω (C = A – B)

Grid Point Potential Readings Check – See Table Below

Location Initial Reading Check Reading ¹ Check Reading – Latex

Concrete Overlay ²

A1/K1 -0.530 / -0.460 -0.529 / -0.460 -

A2/K2 -0.218 / -0.265 -0.220 / -0.264 -

A3/K3 -0.206 / -0.248 -0.208 / -0.246 -

A4/K4 -0.152 / -0.259 -0.153 / -0.260 -

A5/K5 -0.131 / -0.209 -0.133 / -0.208 -

1 Check at least five readings at beginning of test and each change in ground 2 On decks with latex modified concrete overlay, check at least five locations by drilling holes

through the latex concrete overlay into the original concrete substrate

Core Photographs and Sketches

Project No: 10001609

Core Photographs & Sketches

Bridge No. 044, Eglinton Avenue Bridge over Etobicoke Creek, Toronto/Mississauga, Ontario

CORE C1




CORE C2




CORE C3




CORE C4




CORE C5




CORE C6




CORE C7




CORE C8




CORE C9




CORE C10




CORE C11




CORE C12




CORE C13




CORE C14




Core C15

detailed condition survey report bridge no. 044, eglinton … · 2020-03-16 · a corrosion...

Documents