neilson road bridge detailed deck condition survey ... · bridge check canada limited was retained...

Neilson Road Bridge

Bridge No. 817

Detailed Deck Condition

Survey & Evaluation Report

Prepared for:

City of Toronto Engineering & Construction Services

October 2015

1 of 265

Neilson Road Bridge - Enhanced OSIM & Evaluation Report

MMM Group Limited | October 2015 | 3213038-304 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES ................................................................................................. II

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

2.0 STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 1

3.0 INSPECTION METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 2

4.0 SUMMARY OF CONDITION SURVEY .............................................. 3

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

4.2 Waterproofing ......................................................................................................................... 3

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

4.4 Deck Soffit ............................................................................................................................... 5

4.5 Approaches ............................................................................................................................. 5

4.6 Deck Drainage ......................................................................................................................... 6

4.7 Joints ....................................................................................................................................... 6

4.8 Abutments and Bearings ....................................................................................................... 6

4.9 Ballast Wall .............................................................................................................................. 6

4.10 Bearing Seats .......................................................................................................................... 7

4.11 Wingwalls ................................................................................................................................ 7

4.12 Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................... 7

4.13 Piers and Bearings ................................................................................................................. 7

4.14 Slopes ...................................................................................................................................... 7

5.0 STRUCTURE EVALUATION ............................................................. 8

2 of 265


MMM Group Limited | October 2015 | 3213038-304 ii

APPENDICES

Appendix A − Condition Survey Report

Appendix B − Structural Evaluation Report

3 of 265


MMM Group Limited | October 2015 | 3213038-304 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

MMM Group Limited has been retained by The City of Toronto to provide a detailed deck condition survey

and structural evaluation of the Neilson Road Bridge. As a part of the aforementioned work, the structure

was to be visually inspected for its current level of deterioration, forming the basis for the structural

evaluation. The detailed deck condition survey of the Neilson Road structure was completed by Bridge

Check Canada Limited as sub consultant to MMM Group Limited.

This report summarizes the key findings of the detailed condition survey and structural evaluation. A

complete deck condition survey and inspection report can be found in Appendix A. The structural evaluation

report can be found in Appendix B.

2.0 STRUCTURE

Originally constructed in 1979, the Neilson Road Bridge is a four span post-tensioned structure which

consists of two independent concrete decks. The Neilson Road Bridge has single span lengths of 14.6m,

18.9m, 18.9m and 14.6m with a total overall width of 28.4m. The structure is orientated in the east-west

direction and carries traffic in each direction over two CPR railway tracks.

The substructure consists of two sets of abutments and three sets of piers; According to the existing

structure drawings, the abutments and piers are supported on spread footings. The original construction

drawings do not indicate that the footings are supported on steel piles.

The bridge structure accommodates four lanes of traffic along Neilson Road over the CPR railway with

barriers running along the north andsouth edges of each bridge deck. Transverse expansion joints are

present at both ends of the bridge deck, directly above the abutments; the deck is continuous over its piers.

According to the available records, the structure has not undergone any rehabilitation work.

A Key Plan showing the structure location is provided in Figure 1.

4 of 265



Figure 1 – Key Plan

3.0 INSPECTION METHODOLOGY

Bridge Check Canada Limited was retained by MMM Group Limited to carry out a detailed bridge condition

survey of the Neilson Road Bridge. The field investigation was completed over three days between June 3

and 5, 2015.

The Neilson Road Bridge condition survey involved the observation and inspection of surface defects and

delaminated concrete, a corrosion potential survey and visual observation of sawn areas on the deck, as

well as the extraction of concrete cores from various locations in the structure. All condition survey

procedures used were those defined in the MTO Structure Rehabilitation Manual.

Standard practise included the following key methodologies:

• Delaminated concrete was detected by striking all vertical and overhead concrete surfaces with a

hammer and noting the sound emitted.

Bridge Site

5 of 265



• The locations of all concrete patches, spalled and or delaminated concrete, exposed reinforcement,

damp areas, scaled concrete, cracked concrete and other observed defects were recorded. A

standard 1.5m square grid was used for all deck-top and soffit observations.

• The corrosion potential survey was conducted for the asphalt covered bridge deck. All survey

procedures were performed in accordance with the requirements of STM C876 and the MTO

Structure Rehabilitation Manual.

• All sawn areas of the bridge deck were carefully examined for deterioration and were hammer

sounded. Photos of all sawn samples are on file for reference. Thirty (30) sawn samples were

taken at various locations on the bridge deck

• Thirty-seven (37) concrete cores were extracted from the bridge deck and one (1) from the east and

west approach, respectively.

4.0 SUMMARY OF CONDITION SURVEY

4.1 Asphalt Wearing Surface

The total width of the asphalt covered bridge deck between abutments is 22.56 m, with a total surveyed

area of 1,529.00 m2. The condition of the asphalt wearing surface on the bridge deck was identified through

visual field observations and review of cores and sawn asphalt samples. The asphalt wearing surface on

the concrete deck is generally in fair condition with unsealed transverse (82.0 m), longitudinal (65.0 m) and

random (584.0 m) cracking, sealed transverse (10.0 m), longitudinal (6.0 m) and random (79.0 m) cracking.

The measured asphalt thickness varied from 40 mm to 110 mm with an average thickness of 69 mm.

Three (3) samples of the asphalt wearing surface were tested for asbestos contaminations according to

EPA 600/R‐93/116 test method using Polarized Light Microscope. The results indicated 1.2‐1.3% asbestos

content in the samples.

4.2 Waterproofing

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

concrete deck, ranging in thickness from 7 to 9 mm with an average thickness of 8 mm. The condition of the

6 of 265



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

to the concrete was generally good.

4.3 Concrete Deck

The concrete deck consists of a four span cast‐in‐place concrete post tension thick slab, supported by piers

and abutments. The condition of the concrete deck was observed at thirty-seven (37) core locations and

thirty (30) sawn asphalt sample locations. The inside of the core holes and the exposed concrete surface at

the sawn asphalt sample locations were examined carefully for cracks and other defects. A review of the

concrete cores revealed cracking in one (1) core. Visual review of the exposed concrete surface at the

sawn asphalt samples did not reveal any defects.

The concrete cover to the upper rebar layer measured in the cores and sawn asphalt samples was found to

range from 30 to 109 mm with an average cover of 68 mm. The field cores identified 15M rebar imprint in

the deck. The reinforcement steel was found to be in good condition with no evidence of corrosion.

Corrosion potential values obtained from the half‐cell test carried out on the asphalt covered deck ranged

from –0.102 V to –0.476 V with an average value of –0.218 V. The half‐cell survey indicated that 56.0% 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 indicated uncertain low corrosion activity for 34.0% of the deck area, with values

ranging from ‐0.200 V to ‐0.349 V. Probable active corrosion was detected for 10.0% of the deck area with

corrosion potential values more negative than ‐0.350 V. Active corrosion potential was found adjacent to the

north sidewalk.

Two (2) cores were tested for compressive strength of the hardened concrete in accordance with CSA

A23.2‐09‐14C. The compressive strength of the hardened concrete for these cores ranged from 38.7 MPa

to 68.9 MPa, with an average compressive strength of 53.8 MPa. This value is significantly higher than the

34.5 MPa (5000 psi) minimum specified strength on the original GA drawing.

The chloride ion content was determined for eight (8) cores using MTO LS‐417 “Method of Test for

Determination of Total Chloride Ion in Concrete – Acid Soluble”. These core samples were located at areas

prone to salt exposure (e.g. high corrosion potential areas, along construction joints, low points of the deck,

asphalt cracks). In addition, samples from other moderately exposed areas were also taken.

7 of 265



The chloride threshold value necessary to depassivate embedded steel and to allow the onset of corrosion

(in the presence of oxygen and moisture) is generally taken as 0.025% by mass of concrete. The corrected

chloride content, at the rebar level, was above the chloride threshold level of 0.025% in one (1) Core.

Overall, the results indicate that chloride contamination has extended to the upper rebar level in limited

areas of the deck. Based on the concrete removal policy outlined in the Structure Rehabilitation Manual, the

following comments can be made:

• Since 10% of the deck area is more negative than ‐0.350 V, the average chloride content at the

reinforcing level is calculated using the cores with corrosion potential values more negative than ‐

0.350 V. Therefore, the average adjusted chloride content at the reinforcing steel level is 0.011%.

• Based on the above, since the average adjusted chloride content at the top reinforcement level is

less than 0.05% by mass of concrete, concrete removal is recommended to include delaminated

areas only.

4.4 Deck Soffit

The bridge deck soffit, with a total surveyed area of 1,951.60 m2, is in fair condition with clean/stained

medium width cracking (100.0 m), delamination (75.90 m2), spalls (20.90 m

2), honeycombing (3.00 m

2), and

wet areas (47.40 m2). Deteriorations were predominantly observed within the westbound lanes and along

the centreline of the deck. Exposed corroded reinforcement was observed in the spalled areas. A concrete

cover survey was conducted on the deck soffit except for the area between Piers 1 and 2 (above the CPR

tracks). The concrete cover was found to range from 30 to 64 mm with an average cover of 44 mm.

4.5 Approaches

The asphalt wearing surface on the bridge approaches is generally in good condition with unsealed cracks.

Observation of a core hole located at the east approach confirmed the presence of a concrete approach

slab with 85 mm thickness. The measured asphalt thickness was 40 mm. Observation of a core hole

located at the west approach confirmed the presence of a concrete approach slab with 65 mm thickness.

The measured asphalt thickness was 50 mm.

8 of 265



4.6 Deck Drainage

Deck drains were not observed on this structure. Catch basins were observed at northeast and northwest

quadrants and in the median outside structure limits.

4.7 Joints

The expansion joints (strip seal joints) were generally in fair to poor condition with light rusting and missing

sections of the steel armoring angles. The seals were found to be damaged and covered with debris. Gap

dimensions varied from 20 to 40 mm. Leaking of the expansion joints was noted from dampness of the

deck soffit and abutments underneath. Cracking, scaling, and spalling were noted on the concrete end

dams. The east expansion joint was noted as being uneven at the north sidewalk.

4.8 Abutments and Bearings

The exposed surfaces of the abutments were inspected and sounded to check for delamination. The total

surveyed area for the east and west abutments were 126.57 and 41.50 m2, respectively. The abutments are

in fair to good condition. The field investigation of the east abutment revealed clean/stained medium width

cracking (35.0 m), pattern cracks (0.50 m2) and delamination (1.20 m

2). The field investigation of the west

abutment revealed clean medium width cracking (6.0 m), delamination (1.90 m2), and medium scaling (0.45

m2). The east abutment elastomeric bearings are in fair to good condition with cracks and bulging. The west

abutment laminated elastomeric bearings are in fair to good condition with cracks and bulging.

4.9 Ballast Wall

The east ballast wall is in fair to good condition whereas the west ballast wall is in fair condition. The east

abutment ballast wall had a total surveyed area of 7.00 m2 with spalls (0.15 m

2). The west abutment ballast

wall had a total surveyed area of 7.00 m2 with clean medium width cracks (2.0 m), delamination (0.30 m

2),

spalls (0.30 m2), and light scaling (0.10 m

2).

9 of 265



4.10 Bearing Seats

The bearing seats were generally in good condition. The east abutment bearing seat had a total surveyed

area of 16.50 m2, with no visible defects. The west abutment bearing seat had a total surveyed area of

16.50 m2 with no visible defects.

4.11 Wingwalls

The exposed areas of the wingwalls were inspected visually and hammer sounded. The wingwalls were in

good condition and had a total surveyed area of 14.64 m2, with clean/stained medium width cracks (5.0 m),

light scaling (0.15 m2), and wet areas (1.40 m

2). Wet areas were observed on the southwest wingwall.

4.12 Retaining Walls

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

were in good condition and had a total surveyed area of 55.84 m2, with clean/stained medium width cracks

(21.0 m).

4.13 Piers and Bearings

The bridge piers are in good condition with total surveyed area of 221.60 m2. Inspection of the piers

revealed clean medium width cracks (4.0 m) and medium scaling (0.60 m2). Medium scaling was found on

Pier #3. The expansion Andre Rota bearings at Piers #1 and #3 were found to be in fair to good condition

with light corrosion and rust jacking. The Fixed Andre Rota bearings at Pier #2 were in good condition.

4.14 Slopes

The east slope was found to be in fair condition with soil erosion. The west slope paving was in fair to good

condition with cracks.

10 of 265



5.0 STRUCTURE EVALUATION

A structural evaluation of the bridge was performed by MMM Group Limited in accordance with the 2006

Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The evaluation was based on the original construction

drawings supplied by The City of Toronto and took into consideration the condition of the structure at the

time of the evaluation.

Based on the original structural drawings the following material properties were used in the evaluation of the

structure:

Compressive strength of concrete - Deck (f’c) = 34.5 MPa

Yield strength of reinforcing steel (fy) =345 MPa

Yield Strength of stressing strand (fpu) = 1488 Mpa

According to the original structural drawings, the structure was originally designed for HS20-44 bridge

loading. The structure was analysed on SAP2000 using 2D frame elements, the live load model used was

CL-625-ON as specified in the CHBDC.

The evaluation indicated the following capacity to demand ratios (C/D) for the existing girders at their critical

locations:

TABLE 1 – C/D Ratios and Stresses for Existing Conditions

Westbound Structure

Location ULS

(Mr/Mf)

ULS

(Vr/Vf)

Stress - Top

SLS

(MPa)

Stress – Top

Allowable

(MPa)

Stress – Bot

SLS

(MPa)

Stress – Top

Allowable

(MPa)

Span 1 1.96 3.69 5.55 20.68 -0.08 -2.35

Pier 1 1.82 2.60 -0.38 -2.35 6.02 20.68

Span 2 1.82 - 6.12 20.68 -0.66 -2.35

Pier 2 1.90 2.66 0.21 20.68 5.40 20.68

Span 3 1.82 - 6.23 20.68 -0.78 -2.35

Pier 3 1.89 2.83 -0.06 -2.35 5.69 20.68

Span 4 1.92 3.36 5.56 20.68 -0.09 -2.35

11 of 265

12 of 265

AP

PE

ND

IX A

– C

on

ditio

n S

urv

ey R

ep

ort

13 of 265

200 Viceroy Road, Unit 4, Vaughan, ON L4K 3N8 Tel: 905‐660‐6608 Fax: 905‐660‐6609 www.Bridgecheckcanada.com [email protected]

BRIDGE CHECK CANADA Ltd.Pioneer in bridge inspection

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY REPORT Site No. 817 Neilson Road over CPR

City of Toronto, Ontario

Prepared For: MMM Group Limited

Prepared by: Bridge Check Canada Ltd.

BCC Project No: BCC15006 Report Date: August 20, 2015

14 of 265



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/ Drawings:

No. 1 – Surface Deterioration of Asphalt on Deck No. 2 –Asphalt Thickness of Deck No. 3 –Corrosion Potential of Deck No. 4 – Surface Deterioration of Soffit No. 5 – Concrete Cover of Soffit No. 6 – Surface Deterioration of Piers No. 7 – Surface Deterioration of Abutments, Winging Walls and Retaining Walls

15 of 265



1/ Structure Identification Sheet

16 of 265

17 of 265



2/ Key Plan

18 of 265



KEY PLAN

Site No. 817 Neilson Road over CPR

City of Toronto, Ontario

Site # 817

19 of 265



3/ Summary of Significant Findings

20 of 265



SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS Site ID # 817, Neilson Road Bridge over CPR, City of Toronto, Ontario

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Bridge Check Canada Ltd. was retained by MMM Group Ltd. to carry out detailed bridge condition survey under City of Toronto’s Work Assignment No. ECS‐BE‐C07‐15‐001. The assignment involved the investigation and reporting for a total of seven bridges within the City of Toronto. This report presents Bridge Check Canada’s findings, through the field investigations and laboratory testing, for Neilson Road Bridge over CPR (Site ID # 817). First time field investigations were carried out on June 3‐5, 2015. A Bridge Master was utilized to inspect and hammer sound the deck soffit and substructure components.

Site No. 817, constructed in 1979, is a four span cast‐in‐place concrete post tension thick slab, overlain with an asphalt wearing surface and carries two lanes of traffic per direction of Neilson Road. The bridge spans over CPR tracks. The slab thickness, shown on the original GA drawing, is 660 mm.

Total span length of the bridge is 67.06 m and the roadway width in each direction of Neilson Road is 11.28 m. The structure has an east‐west orientation. Outer limits of the structure have concrete parapet walls and concrete sidewalk. A concrete median separates southbound from northbound traffic. Photo P1 shows a view of the south elevation of Site No. 817. Photo P2 shows the north elevation.

South Elevation of Site No. 817, Neilson Road Bridge over CPR

Rehabilitation history of the bridge is not available.

2.0 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), concrete cores (100 mm diameter), corrosion potential survey, and physical testing of the concrete

21 of 265



cores. Inspection of the concrete sidewalks, parapet walls and median was not part of scope of this investigation.

The delaminations in the concrete were detected by striking the surface with a 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 hammer sounding method was used for all vertical and overhead surfaces inspected. The areas and locations of patches, spalls, delaminations, exposed reinforcement, honey‐combing, wet areas, scaling and other observed defects were recorded.

A corrosion potential survey was conducted for the asphalt covered bridge deck. The 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.

Thirty nine (39) cores (37 cores in the asphalt covered bridge deck and two cores in the approaches) and 30 sawn asphalt samples were extracted from this structure, in compliance with the requirements for selecting cores and sawn asphalt samples from deteriorated and sound areas. The inside of the core holes were examined carefully for cracks and the condition of the concrete. The exposed surface of the concrete at the sawn asphalt samples was carefully examined for evidence of deterioration. All the test holes were reinstated to their original condition using MTO‐approved products.

Enclosed with this report are detailed condition survey summary sheets, survey equipment and calibration procedures, core photos/sketches, core logs, sawn asphalt sample photos, sawn asphalt sample logs, site photos, laboratory test results, and drawings.

3.0 BRIDGE STRUCTURE

3.1 Asphalt Wearing Surface

The total width of the asphalt covered bridge deck between abutments is 22.56 m, with a total surveyed area of 1,529.00 m2. The condition of the asphalt wearing surface on the bridge deck was identified through visual field observations and review of cores and sawn asphalt samples. Drawing 1 shows the location of 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 is generally in fair condition with unsealed transverse (82.0 m), longitudinal (65.0 m) and random (584.0 m) cracking, sealed transverse (10.0 m), longitudinal (6.0 m) and random (79.0 m) cracking. The total asphalt thickness, measured in the drilled holes and the cores and sawn asphalt sample locations, varied from 40 mm to 110 mm with an average thickness of 69 mm (refer to Drawing No. 2). Three samples of the asphalt wearing surface were tested for asbestos contaminations according to EPA 600/R‐93/116 test method using Polarized Light Microscope. The results indicated 1.2‐1.3% asbestos content in the samples. Refer to IATL International laboratory test results.

22 of 265



3.2 Waterproofing

Evidence of a hot rubberized asphalt waterproofing system with protection board was detected over the concrete deck, ranging in thickness from 7 to 9 mm with an average thickness of 8 mm. The condition of the waterproofing membrane encountered in the test locations was generally good. The bond of waterproofing to the concrete was generally good.

3.3 Concrete Deck

The concrete deck consists of a four span cast‐in‐place concrete post tension thick slab, supported by piers and abutments. The condition of the concrete deck was observed at 37 core locations and 30 sawn asphalt sample locations. The inside of the coreholes and the exposed concrete surface at the sawn asphalt sample locations were examined carefully for cracks and other defects. A review of the concrete cores revealed cracking in core C36. Visual review of the exposed concrete surface at the sawn asphalt samples did not reveal any defects. Refer to the core and sawn asphalt sample logs and photos.

The concrete cover to the upper rebar layer measured in the cores and sawn asphalt samples was found to range from 30 to 109 mm with an average cover of 68 mm. The field cores identified 15M rebar imprint in the deck. The reinforcement steel was found to be in good condition with no evidence of corrosion. Refer to the core logs and photos.

Corrosion potential values obtained from the half‐cell test carried out on the asphalt covered deck ranged from –0.102 V to –0.476 V with an average value of –0.218 V. The half‐cell survey indicated that 56.0% 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 indicated uncertain low corrosion activity for 34.0% (25.1%+8.9%) of the deck area, with values ranging from ‐0.200 V to ‐0.349 V. Probable active corrosion was detected for 10.0% (6.3%+3.7%) of the deck area with corrosion potential values more negative than ‐0.350 V. Drawing 3 shows the corrosion potential readings on the deck. Active corrosion potential was found adjacent to the north sidewalk.

Corrosion potential distribution in the deck

Cores C2 and C37 were tested for compressive strength of the hardened concrete in accordance with CSA A23.2‐09‐14C. The compressive strength of the hardened concrete for these cores ranged from 38.7

56.0%25.1%

8.9%6.3%

3.7%

0 to ‐0.199 V‐0.200 to ‐0.299 V‐0.300 to ‐0.349 V‐0.350 to ‐0.449 V< ‐0.450

23 of 265



MPa to 68.9 MPa, with an average compressive strength of 53.8 MPa. This value is significantly higher than the 34.47 MPa (5000 psi) minimum strength specified on the original GA drawing.

The chloride ion content was determined for eight cores using MTO LS‐417 “Method of Test for Determination of Total Chloride Ion in Concrete – Acid Soluble”. These core samples were located at areas prone to salt exposure (e.g. high corrosion potential areas, along 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, at the average concrete cover or at rebar level are summarized below.

Core No. C3 C5 C11 C17 C28 C33 C36 C39 Corrected Chloride

Content (%)* 0.027 0.013 0.021 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.010 0.012

Corrosion Potential (V) ‐0.143 ‐0.131 ‐0.307 ‐0.166 ‐0.455 ‐0.161 ‐0.354 ‐0.459 * Background chloride ion content was assumed to be 0.010% for the parent concrete The chloride threshold value necessary to depassivate embedded steel and to allow the onset of corrosion (in the presence of oxygen and moisture) is generally taken as 0.025% by mass of concrete. The background chloride content is the lowest chloride content value for all of the cores tested for chloride content. The “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% in Core C3. Overall, the results indicate that chloride contamination has extended to the upper rebar level in limited areas of the deck.

Based on the concrete removal policy outlined in the Structure Rehabilitation Manual, the following comments can be made:

• Since more than 10% of the deck area is more negative than ‐0.350 V, the average chloride content at the reinforcing level is calculated using the cores with corrosion potential values more negative than ‐0.350 V. Therefore, the average adjusted chloride content at the reinforcing steel level is 0.011%.

• Based on the above, since the average adjusted chloride content at the top reinforcement level is less than 0.05% by mass of concrete, concrete deck removal is recommended to include delaminated areas only.

Cores C4, C10, and C22 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 below:

24 of 265



Core No. Air Content

(%) Specific Surface

(mm‐1) Spacing Factor

(mm) C4 6.1 33.4 0.090 C10 4.8 37.4 0.117 C22 4.3 36.6 0.119

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 for all three tested cores is considered air entrained.

3.4 Deck Soffit

A detailed visual inspection of deck soffit was carried out utilizing a Bridge Master. The deteriorations are shown on Drawing 4 and in Photos P7 to P24.

The bridge deck soffit, with a total surveyed area of 1,951.60 m2, is in fair condition with clean/stained medium width cracking (100.0 m), delaminations (75.90 m2), spalls (20.90 m2), honeycombing (3.00 m2), and wet areas (47.40 m2). Deteriorations were predominantly observed within the westbound lanes and along the centreline of the deck. Exposed corroded reinforcement was observed in the spalled areas. A concrete cover survey was conducted on the deck soffit except for the area between Piers 1 and 2 (above the CPR tracks). The concrete cover was found to range from 30 to 64 mm with an average cover of 44 mm, as shown on Drawing 5.

3.5 Bridge Approaches

The asphalt wearing surface on the bridge approaches is generally in good condition with unsealed cracks. Photos P25 and P26 show the general pavement condition on the east and west approaches, respectively. Observation of corehole C12, located at the east approach, confirmed presence of concrete approach slab beneath the asphalt. Asphalt thickness measured in core C12 was 40 mm. Observation of corehole C27, located at the west approach, confirmed presence of concrete approach slab beneath the asphalt. Asphalt thickness measured in core C27 was 50 mm. Photo P95 shows the inside of corehole C12.

3.6 Deck Drainage

Deck drains were not observed on this structure. Catch basins were observed at northeast and northwest quadrants and in the median outside structure limits (Photos P27 to P30).

3.7 Deck Joints

The expansion joints (strip seal joints) were generally in fair to poor condition with light rusting and missing sections of the steel armoring angles. The seals were found to be damaged and covered with debris. Gap dimensions varied from 20 to 40 mm. Leaking of the expansion joints was noted from dampness of the deck soffit and abutments underneath. Cracking, scaling, and spalling were noted on

25 of 265



the concrete end dams. Photos P31 and P37 show general condition of the joints. Unevenness of the east expansion joint was observed in the north sidewalk (Photo P34).

3.8 Concrete Parapet Walls

Inspection of the concrete parapet walls was not part of scope of this investigation. Photos P38 and P39 show typical condition of the parapet walls. Concrete parapet walls have 0.25 m width and 0.61 m height. Photo P92 shows a utility box inside south parapet wall. The ducts were PVC and not containing any asbestos contaminations.

3.9 Concrete Sidewalks

Inspection of the concrete sidewalks was not part of scope of this investigation. Photos P38 and P39 show typical condition of the sidewalks. Concrete sidewalks have 1.87 m width and 0.26 m height. Photo P93 shows a utility box inside north sidewalk. GA Drawing shows 8 PVC Bell Canada Ducts in the north sidewalk and 6 H.PC Ducts in the south sidewalk.

3.10 Concrete Median

Inspection of the concrete median was not part of scope of this investigation. Concrete median has 1.13 m width and 0.25 m height. Photo P40 shows typical condition of the median.

3.11 End Posts and Guide Rails

The concrete end posts are generally in fair to good condition with cracks and delaminations (Photos P41 to P44). The steel beam guiderail system at southwest corner of the bridge is in good condition (Photo P45).

4.0 SUBSTRUCTURE COMPONENTS

The abutments, piers, retaining walls, and wingwalls were inspected and hammer sounded, where accessible, to check for delaminations. Field measurements are presented in the field summary sheets. 4.1 Abutments and Bearings The exposed surfaces of the abutments were inspected and sounded to check for delaminations. The total surveyed area for the east and west abutments were 126.57 and 41.50 m2, respectively. The deteriorations are shown on Drawing 7. General views of the abutments and bearings are shown in Photos P46 to P67. The abutments are in fair to good condition. The field investigation of the east abutment revealed clean/stained medium width cracking (35.0 m), pattern cracks (0.50 m2) and delaminations (1.20 m2). The field investigation of the west abutment revealed clean medium width cracking (6.0 m), delaminations (1.90 m2), and medium scaling (0.45 m2).

26 of 265



The east abutment elastomeric bearings are in fair to good condition with cracks and bulging (Photos P49 to P56). The west abutment laminated elastomeric bearings are in fair to good condition with cracks and bulging (Photos P60 to P67).

4.2 Ballast Walls The east ballast wall is in fair to good condition whereas the west ballast wall is in fair condition. The deteriorations are shown on Drawing 7. The east abutment ballast wall had a total surveyed area of 7.00 m2 with spalls (0.15 m2). Photos P46 to P48 show typical condition of the east ballast wall. The west abutment ballast wall had a total surveyed area of 7.00 m2 with clean medium width cracks (2.0 m), delaminations (0.30 m2), spalls (0.30 m2), and light scaling (0.10 m2). Photos P57 and P58 show typical condition of the west ballast wall.

4.3 Bearings Seats The bearing seats were generally in good condition. The deteriorations are shown on Drawing 7. The east abutment bearing seat had a total surveyed area of 16.50 m2, with no visible defects. The west abutment bearing seat had a total surveyed area of 16.50 m2, with no visible defects.

4.4 Wingwalls

The exposed areas of the wingwalls were inspected visually and hammer sounded. The wingwalls were in good condition and had a total surveyed area of 14.64 m2, with clean/stained medium width cracks (5.0 m), light scaling (0.15 m2), and wet areas (1.40 m2). The deteriorations are shown on Drawing 7 and in Photos P68 and P69. Wet areas were only observed on the southwest wingwall.

4.5 Retaining Walls

The exposed areas of the retaining walls were inspected visually and hammer sounded. The retaining walls were in good condition and had a total surveyed area of 55.84 m2, with clean/stained medium width cracks (21.0 m). The deteriorations are shown on Drawing 7 and in Photos P70 and P71.

4.6 Piers and Bearings

The bridge piers are in good condition with total surveyed area of 221.60 m2. Inspection of the piers revealed clean medium width cracks (4.0 m) and medium scaling (0.60 m2). Deteriorations are shown on Drawing 6 and in Photos P72 to P89. Medium scaling was found on Pier #3. The expansion Andre Rotaflon bearings at Piers #1 and #3 were found to be in fair to good condition with light corrosion and rust jacking. The Fixed Andre Rota bearings at Pier #2 were in good condition.

4.7 Slopes

The east slope was found to be in fair condition with soil erosion (Photo P90). The west slope paving was in fair to good condition with cracks (Photo P91).

27 of 265

28 of 265



4/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets – Asphalt Covered Deck

29 of 265

Site No. #817

Width between E abutment curbs 22.56 m Width between W abutment curbs 22.56 mLength between abutment joints 67.06 m Area of deck riding surface 1529.00 m²

* Asphalt potholes/patches = 0.00 m²* Asphalt Alligator Cracks = 0.00 m²* Asphalt Ravelling = 0.00 m²

Transverse 82.0 10.0 mLongitudinal 65.0 6.0 mRandom 584.0 79.0 m

Min Max AvgF 40 110 69 mm

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

Min Max AvgHot rubberized

asphalt with protection board

G G 7 9 8 mm

* G – Good, F – Fair, P – Poor, V - Variable Good to Poor** Report only thickness of waterproofing membrane but note presence of protection board

RemarksDeck dimensions

were taken from the structural drawings

Remarks

Remarks

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET Page 1 of 4ASPHALT COVERED DECK

DECK RIDING SURFACE

Orientation Unsealed Sealed

1. Dimensions and Area of Survey

Condition * Conc. Bond *

2. Asphalt Surface Cracks

Depth3. Asphalt Depth

Condition *

4. WaterproofingThickness (mm) **Type

30 of 265

Site No. #817

5. Concrete Cover – Cores and Sawn SamplesMinimum Maximum Average

30 109 68 mm

Note: Only include covers for upper layer of rebars.

6. Corrosion ActivityMinimum Maximum Average

-0.102 -0.476 -0.218 V

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 < -0.45 V856.2 383.8 136.1 96.3 56.6 m2

56.0 25.1 8.9 6.3 3.7 %

7. Defective Cores and Sawn Samples

No. m2 % No. m2 %0 to -0.20 35 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

-0.20 to -0.30 14 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0-0.30 to -0.35 10 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0-0.35 to -0.45 3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

<-0.45 5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

Remarks

Cores and Sawn Samples

Total in Each Area


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.

Delaminated, Spalled, Severe Scaling and Disintegration * Medium Scaling *Corrosion

Activity (Volts)

Remarks

Remarks

31 of 265

Site No. #817

8. Adjusted Chloride Content Profile *Background (parent concrete) chloride content = 0.010

0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ≤-0.350-10 mm 0.023 0.034 0.02020-30 mm 0.020 0.029 0.01540-50 mm 0.018 0.028 0.01460-70 mm 0.016 0.021 0.01180-90 mm 0.011 0.017 0.009

100-110 mm 0.017 ‐ ‐

Core No. C3 C5 C11 C17 C28 C33 C36Chloride Content* 0.027 0.013 0.021 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.010

Corrosion Potential -0.143 -0.131 -0.307 -0.166 -0.455 -0.161 -0.354

Core No. C39Chloride Content* 0.012

Corrosion Potential -0.459

Core No.Chloride Content*

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

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5G1 N/A - - - - -G2 - N/A - - - -G3 - - N/A - - -G4 - - - N/A - -G5 - - - - N/A -

Table # 10 is Not Applicable.

Remarks

RemarksMeasured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC

Resistance Connection #1Connection #2

10. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar

* 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

Chloride Content*

9. Chloride Content at Rebar Level

Corrosion Potential

32 of 265

Site No. #817

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


12. Concrete Air EntrainmentYes No Marginal

Concrete Air Entrained?C4 YesC10 YesC22 Yes

13. Compressive Strength

Average Compressive Strength 53.8 MPa

RemarksTable # 11 is Not

Applicable.

* 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)Connection #2 (negative)

33 of 265



5/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets – Exposed Concrete Components

34 of 265

Site No: #817

Component Type & Location: Soffit OSIM Identifier: Decks

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth 28.34 m Length 67.67 m Height 0.25 m x 2Diameter - Total Area Surveyed 1951.60 m²

2. Cracks (medium and wide)Transverse Longitudinal Other Total

Clean 0.0 15.0 25.0Stained 12.0 33.0 15.0Clean 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0

3. Alkali Aggregate ReactionArea of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction 0.0 m²

Minimum Maximum Average30 64 44 mm

0.0 1424.7 m2

0.0 73.0 %521.1 5.9 m2

26.7 0.3 %over 60 mm

Type

100.0

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET Page 1 of 4EXPOSED CONCRETE COMPONENTS (Exposed Deck, Deck Soffit, Curbs, Medians, Sidewalks, Barrier/Parapet Walls, etc.): Use separate form for each component

0 – 20 mm

20 – 40 mm

mWide Width

Medium Width

RemarksDimensions were taken

from the structural drawings & site measurements

Remarks

m

40 – 60 mm

0.0

4. Concrete Cover

35 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: Soffit OSIM Identifier: Decks

Minimum Maximum Average- - - 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 = 47.40 m²Area (m2) 75.90 20.90 0.00

96.80 m² 5.0 % N/A N/A

Light Medium Severe to Very Severe

0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 3.00 m²

Remarks

5. Corrosion Activity

Remarks

7. Scaling

Total Delaminations and Spalls

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET Page 2 of 4 EXPOSED CONCRETE COMPONENTS

Total Delaminations and Spalls in Areas ≤-0.35 V


Remarks

36 of 265


9. Adjusted Chloride Content Profile0 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 - - -

10. Chloride Content at Rebar LevelCore No. - - - - - -

Chloride Content* - - - - - -



Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC

Resistance Connection #1

Remarks


Corrosion Activity at Core Location (volts)


Remarks


Table # 9 and 10 are Not Applicable.

11. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar

Connection #2


Chloride Content*

37 of 265




13. Concrete Air Entrainment

Concrete Air Entrained: not tested


Average Compressive Strength: not tested


Connection #2 (negative)


Connection #1 (positive)

True Half Cell

Potential *


Applicable.

IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2

38 of 265

Site No: #817

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

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth 29.23 m Length - Height Avg. 1.42 mDiameter - Total Area Surveyed 41.50 m²

2. Cracks (medium and wide)Vertical Horizontal Diagonal Total


Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0


Minimum Maximum Average- - - mm

- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm


Applicable.


Type

Medium Width 6.0 m

Wide Width 0.0 m



39 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: West Abutment Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



1.90 m² 4.6 % N/A N/A


0.00 0.45 0.00 m2

0.0 1.1 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks




7. Scaling


40 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -




RemarksTable # 9 and 10 are

Not Applicable.


Applicable.



Chloride Content*



11. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated RebarMeasured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated

AC Resistance Connection #1

Connection #2


41 of 265














Remarks

42 of 265

Site No: #817

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

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth 29.23 m Length - Height -Diameter - Total Area Surveyed 7.00 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm


Applicable.


Type

Medium Width 2.0 m

Wide Width 0.0 m



43 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: West Ballast Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



0.60 m² 8.6 % N/A N/A


0.10 0.00 0.00 m2

1.4 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks




7. Scaling


44 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -





Not Applicable.


Applicable.



Chloride Content*





Connection #2


45 of 265














Remarks

46 of 265

Site No: #817

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

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth 0.61 m Length 29.23 m Height -Diameter - Total Area Surveyed 16.50 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %


Applicable.

Dimensions were taken from the

structural drawings & site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm


Type

Medium Width 0.0 m

Wide Width 0.0 m

Remarks

47 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: West Abutment Bearing Seat OSIM Identifier: Abutments


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks





7. Scaling

48 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -




Table # 9 and 10 are Not Applicable.


Applicable.



Chloride Content*





Connection #2

Remarks


49 of 265














Remarks

50 of 265

Site No: #817

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

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth 29.23 m Length - Height Avg. 4.33 mDiameter - Total Area Surveyed 126.57 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0Pattern cracks= 0.5 m²



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm


Applicable.


Type

Medium Width 35.0 m

Wide Width 0.0 m



51 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: East Abutment Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



1.20 m² 0.9 % N/A N/A


0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks




7. Scaling


52 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -





Not Applicable.


Applicable.



Chloride Content*





Connection #2


53 of 265














Remarks

54 of 265

Site No: #817

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

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth 29.23 m Length - Height -Diameter - Total Area Surveyed 7.00 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm


Applicable.


Type

Medium Width 0.0 m

Wide Width 0.0 m



55 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: East Ballast Wall OSIM Identifier: Abutments


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



0.15 m² 2.1 % N/A N/A


0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²


Applicable.

Remarks

Remarks




7. Scaling


56 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -





Not Applicable.


Applicable.



Chloride Content*





Connection #2


57 of 265














Remarks

58 of 265

Site No: #817

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

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth 0.61 m Length 29.23 m Height -Diameter - Total Area Surveyed 16.50 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %


Applicable.

Dimensions were taken from the

structural drawings & site measurements

4. Concrete Cover

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm


Type

Medium Width 0.0 m

Wide Width 0.0 m

Remarks

59 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: East Abutment Bearing Seat OSIM Identifier: Abutments


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

Remarks7. Scaling






Applicable.

Remarks

60 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: East Abutment Bearing Seat OSIM Identifier: Abutments


0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -





Not Applicable.


Applicable.



Connection #2




Chloride Content*



61 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: East Abutment Bearing Seat







Connection #1 (positive)

Connection #2 (negative)

OSIM Identifier: Abutments





Potential *

Remarks

62 of 265

Site No: #817

Component Type & Location: Wingwalls OSIM Identifier: Abutments

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth - Length 3.66 m x 2 Height Avg. 2.00 mDiameter - Total Area Surveyed 14.64 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %



Remarks

m


0.0

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Wide Width

4. Concrete Cover


Type

Medium Width m5.0

63 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: Wingwalls OSIM Identifier: Abutments


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


0.15 0.00 0.00 m2

1.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

Remarks


Applicable.

Remarks

7. Scaling





64 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -






Not Applicable.

Remarks


AC Resistance




Chloride Content*


Connection #1Connection #2


65 of 265








Remarks







66 of 265

Site No: #817

Component Type & Location: Piers OSIM Identifier: Piers

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth - Length - Height -Diameter - Total Area Surveyed 221.60 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %




Applicable.

m

4. Concrete Cover

Type

Medium Width m4.0

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Wide Width 0.0


67 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: Piers OSIM Identifier: Piers


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


0.00 0.60 0.00 m2

0.0 0.3 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

Remarks

Remarks


Applicable.



7. Scaling



68 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -





Applicable.


Not Applicable.

Chloride Content*



11. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated RebarMeasured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2




Calculated AC


69 of 265














Applicable.

70 of 265

Site No: #817

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

1. Dimensions and AreaWidth - Length Avg. 13.36 m x 2 Height Avg. 2.09 mDiameter - Total Area Surveyed 55.84 m²



Stained 0.0 0.0 0.0



- - m2

- - %- - m2

- - %




Applicable.

m

4. Concrete Cover

Type

Medium Width m21.0

0 – 20 mm 40 – 60 mm

20 – 40 mm over 60 mm

Wide Width 0.0


71 of 265

Site No: #817Component Type & Location: Retaining Walls OSIM Identifier: Retaining Walls


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

- - - - - m2

- - - - - %



0.00 m² 0.0 % N/A N/A


0.00 0.00 0.00 m2

0.0 0.0 0.0 %

8. Honeycombing

Total Area 0.00 m²

Remarks

Remarks


Applicable.



7. Scaling



72 of 265



0-10 mm - - -

20-30 mm - - -

40-50 mm - - -

60-70 mm - - -

80-90 mm - - -

100-110 mm - - -





Applicable.


Not Applicable.

Chloride Content*



11. AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated RebarMeasured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2




Calculated AC


73 of 265














Applicable.

74 of 265



6/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheet – Expansion Joints

75 of 265

CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET EXPANSION JOINTS Site No. 817 EBL

Dimension

Abutments Intermediate

Remarks

Joint 1

Joint 2

Joint 3

Joint 4

E W

a (mm) 254+1876 254+1876 - -

b (mm) 260 245 - -

b' (mm) 265 250 - -

c (mm) 11278 11278 - -

d (mm) 250 250 - -

d' (mm) 255 255 - -

e (mm) 762 762 - -

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

1 (mm) 45 50 - - - -

2 (mm) 50 40 - - - -

3 (mm) 55 75 - - - -

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) 20 40 - -

2 (mm) 20 40 - - 3 (mm) 20 40 - -

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 10ºC Ambient 10ºC

N JOINT DIMENSIONSS

Typical Sections at Joints: E - W

STEEL ANGLE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

STRIP SEAL

DECK

140mm

70mm

STEEL ANGLE85mm

220mm

STEEL ANGLE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

STRIP SEAL

EAST APPROACH SLAB

DECK

120mm

90mm

STEEL ANGLE90mm

210mm

WEST APPROACH SLAB

76 of 265

CONDITION SURVEY SUMMARY SHEET EXPANSION JOINTS Site No. 817WBL

Dimension

Abutments Intermediate

Remarks

Joint 1

Joint 2

Joint 3

Joint 4

E W

a (mm) 762 762 - -

b (mm) 250 245 - -

b' (mm) 255 250 - -

c (mm) 11278 11278 - -

d (mm) 250 265 - -

d' (mm) 255 270 - -

e (mm) 254+1876 254+1876 - -

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

1 (mm) 75 85 - - - -

2 (mm) 40 80 - - - -

3 (mm) 75 80 - - - -

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) 20 40 - -

2 (mm) 20 40 - - 3 (mm) 20 40 - -

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 10ºC Ambient 10ºC

N JOINT DIMENSIONSS

Typical Sections at Joints: E - W

STEEL ANGLE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

STRIP SEAL

DECK

140mm

70mm

STEEL ANGLE85mm

220mm

STEEL ANGLE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

EXPOSED CONCRETE

STRIP SEAL

EAST APPROACH SLAB

DECK

120mm

90mm

STEEL ANGLE90mm

210mm

WEST APPROACH SLAB

77 of 265



7/ Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheet – Drainage

78 of 265

DRAINAGE Site No. 817

Deck Drains

Number

Type Length Angle Depth *

- - - - -

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

Catch Basins

Yes N/E, N/W, S/E (median), S/W (median)

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

- Void

Drains -

No No

North-East Catch Basin

79 of 265



8/ Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures

80 of 265

SURVEY EQUIPMENT AND CALIBRATION PROCEDURES Component Type: Asphalt‐Covered Bridge Deck Site No: 817 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: 64 mm Reading Each 30 min During Test: 64 mm

Reading End of Test: 64 mm

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 18 gauge

Deck Temp: Start of Test: 10°C End of Test: 10°C

Ambient Temp: Start of Test: 10°C End of Test: 10°C

Battery Check: OK Ground Check: Method of Connection: Self‐tapping screw Ground Location: C1, C13, C21, C29 Check Location: C8, C15, C26, C38

Measured Resistance: 2.2, 2.9, 2.6, 2.3 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: 0.4, 1.1, 0.8, 0.5 Ω (C) Resistance Reversed: 0.4, 1.1, 0.8, 0.5 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/I1/J1/R1 -0.318/-0.322/-0.325/-0.457 -0.317/-0.323/-0.327/-0.455 -

A2/I2/J2/R2 -0.268/-0.237/-0.282/-0.454 -0.267/-0.235/-0.284/-0.453 -

A3/I3/J3/R3 -0.264/-0.255/-0.220/-0.461 -0.265/-0.256/-0.222/-0.462 -

A4/I4/J4/R4 -0.152/-0.275/-0.245/-0.452 -0.153/-0.274/-0.244/-0.450 -

A5/I5/J5/R5 -0.134/-0.344/-0.210/-0.428 -0.135/-0.345/-0.211/-0.427 -

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

81 of 265



9/ Core Photographs and Sketches

82 of 265

Bridge 817 Neilson Road over CPR, Toronto, Ontario


CORE C1

100mm

75m

mA

SPH

ALT

85m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

W/P Membrane (7 - 9mm)

Rebar imprint @ 80mm(Longitudinal)

83 of 265



CORE C2

100mm


60m

mA

SPH

ALT

160m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

84 of 265



CORE C3

100mm


70m

mA

SPH

ALT

170m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

85 of 265



CORE C4

100mm

70m

mA

SPH

ALT

140m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


86 of 265



CORE C5

100mm


70m

mA

SPH

ALT

145m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

Asphalt core damagedupon removal

87 of 265



CORE C6

100mm


80m

mA

SPH

ALT

150m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

88 of 265



CORE C7

100mm

80m

mA

SPH

ALT

150m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


89 of 265



CORE C8

100mm


45m

mA

SPH

ALT

165m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

15M-Rebar @ 70mm(Longitudinal)

90 of 265



CORE C9

100mm


65m

mA

SPH

ALT

180m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

91 of 265



CORE C10

100mm

40m

mA

SPH

ALT

205m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


92 of 265



CORE C11

100mm


55m

mA

SPH

ALT

95m

mC

ON

CR

ETE 15M-Rebar @ 60mm

(Longitudinal)

PTD imprint @ 80mm

93 of 265



CORE C12

100mm

40m

mA

SPH

ALT

85m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

Rebar imprint @ 80mm(Longitudinal)

94 of 265



CORE C13

100mm

50m

mA

SPH

ALT

70m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


Rebar imprint @ 65mm(Transverse)

95 of 265



CORE C14

100mm


60m

mA

SPH

ALT

145m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

PTD imprint @ 130mm

96 of 265



CORE C15

100mm


70m

mA

SPH

ALT

140m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

15M-Rebar @ 60mm(Transverse)

97 of 265



CORE C16

100mm

110m

mA

SPH

ALT

95m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


98 of 265



CORE C17

100mm


75m

mA

SPH

ALT

115m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

99 of 265



CORE C18

100mm


55m

mA

SPH

ALT

180m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

100 of 265



CORE C19

100mm

45m

mA

SPH

ALT

115m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


PTD imprint @ 100mm

101 of 265



CORE C20

100mm


75m

mA

SPH

ALT

115m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

102 of 265



CORE C21

100mm


60m

mA

SPH

ALT

85m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


103 of 265



CORE C22

100mm

55m

mA

SPH

ALT

130m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


PTD imprint @ 120mm

104 of 265



CORE C23

100mm


50m

mA

SPH

ALT

130m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


105 of 265



CORE C24

100mm


70m

mA

SPH

ALT

155m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


106 of 265



CORE C25

100mm

45m

mA

SPH

ALT

150m

mC

ON

CR

ETE



107 of 265



CORE C26

100mm


80m

mA

SPH

ALT

145m

mC

ON

CR

ETE 15M-Rebar @ 80mm

(Longitudinal)

108 of 265



CORE C27

100mm


50m

mA

SPH

ALT

65m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

109 of 265



CORE C28

100mm

85m

mA

SPH

ALT

135m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


110 of 265



CORE C29

100mm


65m

mA

SPH

ALT

80m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


111 of 265



CORE C30

100mm


80m

mA

SPH

ALT

120m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

112 of 265



CORE C31

100mm

70m

mA

SPH

ALT

80m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

W/P Membrane (4 - 6mm) 15M-Rebar @ 30mm(Longitudinal)

113 of 265



CORE C32

100mm


70m

mA

SPH

ALT

130m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


114 of 265



CORE C33

100mm


75m

mA

SPH

ALT

115m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

115 of 265



CORE C34

100mm

90m

mA

SPH

ALT

125m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


116 of 265



CORE C35

100mm


65m

mA

SPH

ALT

155m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

117 of 265



CORE C36

100mm


65m

mA

SPH

ALT

155m

mC

ON

CR

ETE


15M-Rebar @ 95mm(Longitudinal)

Vertical Crack

Core damaged upon removal

118 of 265



CORE C37

100mm


80m

mA

SPH

ALT

335m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

119 of 265



CORE C38


75m

mA

SPH

ALT

100m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

100mm


120 of 265



CORE C39

100mm


55m

mA

SPH

ALT

95m

mC

ON

CR

ETE

121 of 265



10/ Core Logs

122 of 265

of 13 Site: #817

Total Corrected Total Corrected Total Corrected 0-10 mm 0.039 0.02920-30 mm 0.038 0.02840-50 mm 0.038 0.02860-70 mm 0.037 0.02780-90 mm 0.034 0.024

100-110 mm 0.027 0.017AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY

Waterproofing (W/P) Type

Condition of W/P (1)

W/P Thickness, mmBond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete

Chloride Content % Chloride by Weight of Concrete

BCCBARE

Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point

Defects in Concrete (2)

Thickness of Concrete, mmFull Depth (yes/no)Condition of Asphalt (1)

C1Core No.Location (between gridlines)Diameter, mmThickness of Asphalt, mm

Air Content,%Spec. Surf.,mm2/mm3Spacing Factor, mm

G7 to 9 mm

G-

Condition of Rebar (3)

Corrosion PotentialCompressive Strength, MPa

Rebar imprint @ 80mm (Longitudinal).

REMARKS- orientation of rebars and cover- presence of overlay, patch and thickness- other observed defects

1. Condition-G=Good, F=Fair, P=Poor.2. Defects-C= Cracked, D= Delamination, R= Rough, Sc= Scaling, S= Spalling3. Condition Rebar-LR= Light Rust, SR= Severe Rust, N/A= No rebar exposedCondition of Epoxy Coating – ECG=Good, ECF=Fair, ECP=Poor-rusted & debonded areas

100.070.0

G

NoF to G

-

F to GNo

GG

C3

75.075.085.0

60.060.0160.0

100.0

C2

100.0

Hot rubberized asphalt with

protection board

7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mm

F to GNo

G--

G

CORE LOG ASPHALT COVERED BRIDGE DECKS

-

68.9

70.0

‘F’ and ‘10’‘D’ and ‘6’‘A’ and ‘1’

-0.143-0.318 -0.111


protection board


protection board

170.0

123 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS 6.1

33.40.090

TEST LABORATORY BCC BCC


Asphalt core damaged upon removal.

Corrosion PotentialCompressive Strength, MPa



-0.166-0.131-0.178

- -Condition of Rebar (3) - - -Defects in Concrete (2) -

G G

Location (between gridlines)100.0

Core No. C4

Diameter, mm‘E’ and ‘20’

F to G F to GNo No

145.0

100.070.070.0

100.080.0

C6


70.0Thickness of Asphalt, mm


protection board


protection board


protection board


150.0



7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mmBond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete GW/P Thickness, mm 7 to 9 mm

70.0

Full Depth (yes/no) NoCondition of Asphalt (1) F to G

Thickness of Concrete, mm 140.0Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point

‘C’ and ‘12’ ‘A’ and ‘17’

G G

80.0

G

C5

124 of 265

of 13 Site: #817

Total Corrected Total Corrected Total Corrected 0-10 mm20-30 mm40-50 mm60-70 mm80-90 mm

AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY




15M-Rebar @ 70mm (Longitudinal).

Condition of Rebar (3) - G -Corrosion PotentialCompressive Strength, MPa

-0.150

Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete G G GDefects in Concrete (2) - - -

Condition of W/P (1) G G GW/P Thickness, mm 7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mm

Condition of Asphalt (1) F to G G G



protection board


protection board


protection board

Thickness of Concrete, mm 155.0 165.0 180.0Full Depth (yes/no) No No No

Thickness of Asphalt, mm 80.0 45.0 65.0Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point 80.0 45.0 65.0



Core No. C7 C8 C9Location (between gridlines)Diameter, mm 100.0 100.0 100.0

‘E’ and ‘29’ ‘B’ and ‘33’‘B’ and ‘24’

-0.134 -0.127

125 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS 4.8

37.40.117

TEST LABORATORY



BCC BCC


Condition of Rebar (3) - G GCorrosion PotentialCompressive Strength, MPa

Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete G GDefects in Concrete (2) - - -

Condition of W/P (1) G GW/P Thickness, mm 7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mm

Condition of Asphalt (1) F to G F to G G



protection board


protection boardN/A


Thickness of Asphalt, mm 40.0 55.0 40.0Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point 40.0 55.0


‘E’ and ‘41’


East Approach

Rebar imprint @ 80mm (Longitudinal).


15M-Rebar @ 60mm (Longitudinal).PT cable imprint @ 80mm.

‘A’ and ‘45’

-0.148 -0.307

126 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY



-0.327 -0.163


Rebar imprint @ 65mm (Transverse).

PT cable imprint @ 130mm.

15M-Rebar @ 60mm (Transverse).

Condition of Rebar (3) G - GCorrosion PotentialCompressive Strength, MPa



Condition of Asphalt (1) F to G F to G F to G



protection board


protection board


protection board

70.0Thickness of Concrete, mm 70.0 145.0 140.0Full Depth (yes/no) No No No

60.0

100.0Thickness of Asphalt, mm 50.0 60.0 70.0

‘G’ and ‘9’‘H’ and ‘1’Core No. C13 C14 C15


Location (between gridlines)Diameter, mm


Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point 50.0

‘G’ and ‘15’

-0.165

100.0 100.0

127 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY



BCC


Condition of Rebar (3) - - -Corrosion PotentialCompressive Strength, MPa

-0.166



Condition of Asphalt (1) F to G F to G F to G



protection board


protection board


protection board


Thickness of Asphalt, mm 110.0 75.0 55.0

‘I’ and ‘23’

Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point 110.0 75.0 55.0


‘F’ and ‘26’



‘G’ and ‘35’

-0.135-0.233

128 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY

-0.288Compressive Strength, MPa

Condition of Rebar (3)

Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete



Rebar imprint @ 75mm (Transverse).

--


G GW/P Thickness, mm

G7 to 9 mm



protection board

G

Condition of Asphalt (1) F to G F to G

Defects in Concrete (2)



-Corrosion Potential

G-


Thickness of Asphalt, mm 45.0 75.0 60.0Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point 45.0 75.0 60.0


‘K’ and ‘39’



-

‘J’ and ‘44’

-0.314 -0.309

F to G

G G


protection board


protection board

7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mm

‘I’ and ‘44’

129 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS 4.3

36.60.119

TEST LABORATORY

C23 C24Location (between gridlines) ‘L’ and ‘29’ ‘K’ and ‘22’ ‘J’ and ‘14’


Core No. C22

Thickness of Asphalt, mm 55.0 50.0 70.0Diameter, mm 100.0 100.0 100.0

Thickness of Concrete, mm 130.0 130.0 155.0Thickness of Asphalt @ Nearest Grid Point 55.0 50.0 70.0

Condition of Asphalt (1) F to G F to G F to GFull Depth (yes/no) No No No

Condition of W/P (1) G G G



protection board


protection board


protection board

Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete G G GW/P Thickness, mm 7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mm 7 to 9 mm

Condition of Rebar (3) - G GDefects in Concrete (2) - - -

Compressive Strength, MPaCorrosion Potential -0.184 -0.250 -0.240







BCC


130 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY

Location (between gridlines) ‘L’ and ‘6’ ‘J’ and ‘1’ West Approach


Core No. C25 C26 C27



Condition of Asphalt (1) F F FFull Depth (yes/no) No No No




protection board


protection board


protection board


Condition of Rebar (3) G G -Defects in Concrete (2) - - -

Compressive Strength, MPaCorrosion Potential -0.190 -0.325



15M-Rebar @ 80mm (Longitudinal).




131 of 265

of 13 Site: #817


AIR VOIDS

TEST LABORATORY

Location (between gridlines) ‘Q’ and ‘1’ ‘P’ and ‘6’ ‘R’ and ‘10’


Core No. C28 C29 C30



Condition of Asphalt (1) F F FFull Depth (yes/no) No No No




protection board


protection board


protection board


Condition of Rebar (3) - G -Defects in Concrete (2) - - -

Compressive Strength, MPaCorrosion Potential -0.455 -0.254 -0.458


Rebar imprint @ 65mm (Tranverse).



BCC


132 of 265

neilson road bridge detailed deck condition survey ... · bridge check canada limited was retained...

Documents