DBEManual (English)

DETAILED BRIDGE SURVEY
MANUAL

Project : Highway Maintenance Management System Gulf
Client : Ministry of Transport, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Engineering House

CHAPTER 1

i


CHAPTER 1

ii


CHAPTER 1

iii

Preface

The purpose of this manual is to provide guidelines for personnel
responsible for Detailed Bridge Evaluation Survey of distress bridges on
Kingdom's Highway System. This manual is prepared as part of the
Highway Maintenance Management System Project commissioned
by the Ministry of Transport (MOT) & in association with Gulf
Engineering House (GEH) and to be carried out by the Detailed
Bridge Evaluation Team of GEH for comprehensive study of distress
condition of bridge elements. The manual is designed to provide the
Bridge Engineers the probable cause of distress, proper knowledge of
detailed bridge evaluation and testing procedures as well as
rehabilitation strategies to be taken on defects elements. Prioritisation
of maintenance work and repair methodology is also included in
rehabilitation strategies chapter. In addition to the above execution
specification requires during the restoration time is also furnished in
this manual. The manual is based on the Highway Maintenance
Management System manual.


CHAPTER 1

iv


CHAPTER 1

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Items Page no

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1 - 2
(a) Background
(b) Objective
(c) Purpose
(d) Review of Inventory Data

CHAPTER 2 Inspection Activities 3 - 11
(a) General
(b) Inspection Team
(c) Inspection Aids
(d) Inspection Equipment
(e) Testing Guidelines

CHAPTER 3 Test Manual 13 - 20
(a) CAPO Test
(b) BOND Test
(c) RCT Test
(d) Relative Humidity Test
(e) Crack Mapping
(f) Ultra-sonic Test
(g) Carbonation Test
(h) ECP Test
(i) Covermeter Test
(j) Break-up Test

CHAPTER 4 Evaluation Procedures 21 - 40
(a) General
(b) Evaluation of Distress
(c) Sample Photographs

CHAPTER 5 Rehabilitation Strategies 41 - 60
(a) General
(b) Remedial Measures


CHAPTER 1

vi
(c) Preventive Measures for Future
(d) Prioritisation of Maintenance Work
(e) Repair Methodology

CHAPTER 6 Standard Forms & Formats 61 - 67
(a) Condition Rating Matrix, Form CRM
(b) Detailed Inspection Form, Form DIF
(c) Check List Form, Form CLF
(d) Quantity Take-off Sheet, Form QTS
(e) Observation Sheet, Form OS
(f) Photo Log Sheet, Form PLS

CHAPTER 7 Technical Papers & Journals 68 - 125

REFERENCES 126


CHAPTER 1

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
(a) Background
Bridges provide a critical link for transportation systems and economic growth. In the
Kingdom highway network system there are more than 4500 bridges. During the past few
years, significant increases in legal loads as well as growth in the volume of traffic and
reductions in resources for bridge maintenance have contributed to the deterioration of
many of the bridges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Based on the requirement of Highway Maintenance Management System it is necessary to
employ an in-depth inspection program which covers the detailed inspection of selected
bridge elements & prepare remedial action plans. In order to effectively evaluate the
structural elements, mechanical & electrically operated equipments are to be engaged
followed by a conclusive result formulation. This in-depth inspection is to be supplement by
relevant test results. A uniform reporting system is essential in evaluating correctly and
efficiently the condition of a structure, determining the rehabilitation strategies, formulating
the test results and finally provides the evaluation report.
The manual provides guidance regarding the way of inspection is to be carried out and
give information about several techniques involved for bridge deterioration findings, type of
damage & its causes and the bridge engineering concepts. It describes how inspection is
to be planned and the equipment & plant needed. Working procedure in the field
comprising measurements and sampling are described from planning to completion.
(b) Objective
The objective of this inspection manual is to train inspection personnel and to develop
their competence in order that the quality requirements regarding bridge inspections
should be satisfied. The manual describes the way of inspections as an entity should be
performed and provides guidance in this respect. Also it will enhance the knowledge
about cause of distress and the structural need requires time to time. Furthermore it is a
valuable aid in establishing maintenance priorities and replacement priorities and in
determining structure capacity and the cost of maintaining the structures.
(c) Purpose
The purpose of this in-depth inspection is to
1. Establish a scientific approach towards detailed testing investigation on the bridge
elements existing in the highway network for which the Ministry is responsible
2. Assess the mode of severity of structural elements which may affect the function of
the structure or traffic safety in long term


CHAPTER 1

2
3. Provide the information to determine which structure requires maintenance work
and which needs major rehabilitation
4. Furnish the methodology of remedial measure for different distress condition
5. Develop the prioritization factor involved as part of the Highway Management
System
(d) Review of Inventory Data
The investigation will be based on data collected through visual inspection of the
different components of the bridges existing in the Highway network system. The
inventory data collected by the Contractor Engineer shall be reviewed randomly to
establish a consistent inventory report. Based on the existing condition reflecting in the
inventory table a detailed evaluation survey is to be performed. The selection of such
survey can be preferred if the following factors are observed.
1. Existing condition of the bridge elements are in a venerable state
2. Mode of severity is not identified and structural impact is not estimated correctly
3. Bridge is carrying excessive load due to increase in traffic volume at present
4. Ascertain the existing strength of structure from widening point of view


CHAPTER 2

3
CHAPTER 2: INSPECTION ACTIVITY
(a) General
The following are the main activities which the inspection teams are expected to perform
as part of the detailed bridge evaluation procedure:
1. Condition assessment which warrants minor structural repair
This activity includes the evaluation of structural components that exhibits minor
deterioration and the preparation of a report & recommendations addressing such
deterioration. Sufficient details, estimated quantities and method of repair will also
be prepared.
Typical type of defects and deterioration that are considered minor in nature and
will be noted as part of this activity are:
Leaking and repair of bearing
Movement in the approach slab
Roadway deck potholes
Minor concrete Spalling
Crack in Non-critical areas
Minor corrosion in steel elements
Erosion of soil slopes
Minor scour at footings
Slope failure near the bridge site
Damaged railing or guardrails
A report will be submitted describing the defects, its likely causes and
recommended remedies along with measured quantities, estimated costs and
detailed information on the standard forms and formats.
2. Condition assessment which warrants major rehabilitation
This activity includes the evaluation of structural component that exhibits major
defects and deterioration with possible safety related implications and the
preparation of a report and recommendations addressing the situation. This will be


CHAPTER 2

4
initiated as a result of the findings of the detailed bridge evaluation. The activity must
proceed only when the inspector recognises the defects are too extensive and
minor maintenance actions are not effective to upgrade the structural condition.
Typical defects and deterioration which may initiate are:
Damaged bridge joints warranting replacement
Uncontrolled movement of bearing system
Severe corrosion of bearings
Major concrete distresses
Cracks in critical elements
Severe corrosion in steel members
Fatigue cracking in steel members
Failure in back wall
Extensive deterioration of abutment
Movement or settlement of pier & abutments
Foundation settlement
Impact damage on structural elements
Any combination thereof warranting major rehabilitation
This activity will be accomplished through the following specific steps:
- Obtain sufficient information during visual inspection to evaluate the need for
major rehabilitation of the deteriorated bridge elements. The collected data
from the visual inspection such as problem type and location, safety relation,
dimension and measurement, sketches and photos as well as inventory data will
be evaluated by Ministry of Transport (MOT) in association with Gulf Engineering
House (GEH) and decision to be taken as to whether to proceed with this
activity.
- Upon acceptance of MOT, as-built plans, design computations and standard
design criteria will be obtained along with any other pertinent data relating to
the design, construction and maintenance of the structures from the MOT.


CHAPTER 2

5
- Conduct in-depth inspection of the deteriorated structural elements.
- Prepare report outlining the findings of the in-depth inspection as it relates to the
rehabilitation of the structure. For concrete structures whose as-built plan are not
available, a request will be made in the report to conduct field load test to
determine the capacity of the structure and field tests (destructive e.g., core tests
or non-destructive e.g., rebound hammer or ultrasonic techniques) to determine
existing elements condition. For all other structures a format for load capacity
analysis will be suggested.
- Upon approval of the MOT, perform all load and other testing, if required and
undertake structural analysis of bridges to determine load capacity.
- Prepare a report outlining the results of the structural investigation. The report will
include the recommendations to restore, if possible, the structure to its original
loading capabilities or demolishing the structure. In both the case method and
procedure along with necessary drawings, specification and all information will
be provided to enable a contractor to undertake the work.
(b) Inspection Team
(i) Team Composition
The detailed bridge survey team that inspect, test and evaluate the damage
condition of structural elements included in the scope of work shall be composed as
follows:
Bridge Engineer
Technician
Equipment Operator
Driver
(ii) Task & Responsibility
Inspection team should consist of individuals with proper training in bridge testing
and the ability to perform precise examination of structures in any environment and
condition. A qualified inspector must know the basic design criteria, distress pattern,
handling the equipment for testing and evaluate the elements and its structural
impact in future. A good inspector also must be able to prepare concise, specific,
detailed, quantitative and complete notes and sketches in the field in order to
prepare a through in section report at a later time.


CHAPTER 2

6
The primary responsibility of the Bridge Engineer is to maintain public safety; therefore
a thorough inspection must be performed to identify defects in details, testing on the
structural elements for distress findings followed by an accurate documentation of
these deficiencies as well as its remedial measure. The test data must be included
with the final bridge evaluation report which helps to establish and maintain a
structure history file to identify and assess bridge repair requirements and
maintenance needs. The inspector must be on guard for minor problems which can
be corrected before they can lead to major repairs.
(c) Inspection Aids
The inspection team will be given the following information to aid in the inspection process:
1. A map showing the area within the Kingdom where they will be performing
their inspection. The map will indicate the route numbers of all highways
which the team will travel to perform the surveys.
2. A list of inventory and condition survey data for locating the element which
undergone a defects. The list will serve as a guide for field testing and cause
of distress.
3. Sketches or photos obtained from visual survey
4. Sufficient additional data like maintenance history, note sheet and rating
forms to decide on the appropriate course of action
(d) Inspection Equipments
The standard tools which will be used for the inspection are as follows:

Sl. No. ITEM DESCRIPTION
1 Snooper
2 Sky J acker
3 Steel ladder
4 Drill Machine
5 Capo Test Instrument
6 Bond Test Instrument
7 Covermeter
8 Hum-meter
9 Half cell Potential Meter
10 Rapid Chloride Test Apparatus
11 Pundits Ultra-sonic Testing Apparatus


CHAPTER 2

7

Sl. No. ITEM DESCRIPTION
12 Digital camera
13 Crack measuring Template
14 Safety & First aid tools
15 Measuring tape
16 Marking crayon
17 Binocular
18 Thermometer
19 Wire brush
20 Paint Box
21 Schmidt rebound hammer
22 Traffic safety tools

All the instruments used for detailed bridge inspection are to be kept in a mobile
laboratory van. For the testing of bridges, the underside of the superstructure will be
examined by the use of ladder, sky J acker or Snooper type vehicle. In situations where
access to the underside of the superstructure is possible from ground, ladder will be used
for low clearance bridges and Sky J acker will be utilised for higher structures (height up
to 12m). On those bridges where access is not available from below (i.e., structures in
mountainous region and height is above 12m) a Snooper vehicle capable of reaching
underneath from the road way surface will be used.
(e) Testing Guidelines
The inspector shall have a good knowledge about the testing procedure. The detail
bridge evaluation should be carried out in three competent ways,
1 How to carry out the available methods of testing in practice, including the
operation of the equipments
2. How to select the right type of test method and the test location for
different types of damage
3. How to formulate the test results
The test methods can be divided into three categories which are non-destructive,
destructive and laboratory analysis respectively.
The Non-destructive survey methods are applicable where the defects are not in an
alarming stage and which needs only minor repairs. The destructive methods are used
where structural behavior of the elements are not known and the location is critical as
per whole structure is concerned. The laboratory analysis, which applied on the samples,
provides detailed and precise information about a specific cause of concern.
Generally, the combination of all three categories leads to very reliable conclusions on
mechanisms of deterioration, causes and the extent of damage. In most of the cases


CHAPTER 2

8
the first two categories of test are satisfactory to conclude upon the type and extent of
damage.
When the visual bridge inspection is completed, a Hypothesis for the cause of damage is
prepared and based upon those test methods and the location of the test will be
selected. All the data of the visual inspection must be registered and the test data to be
recorded on standard forms attached to the detailed inspection report. Recording of
data must refer to the unique system of numbering the elements of the structure.
When all planned tests are completed, the visual registrations and test results must be
evaluated to see if it serves a sufficient basis for concluding the cause, extent, and
possible development of damage. Otherwise, supplemental test must be chosen and
performed. If the test results do not confirm the hypothesis of cause of damage, the
hypothesis must be revised. It may be necessary to perform supplementary test.

Sl. No. Material Test Equipment
Compressive Strength CAPO Test Instrument
Tensile Strength BOND Test Instrument
RCT Test RCT Test Apparatus
Relative humidity Test Hum-meter
Delaminating test Hammer
Crack width Template Gauge
Homogeneousness Pundits Ultrasonic tester
1. Concrete
Carbonation Test Rainbow Indicator
ECP Test Half cell potential meter
Measurement of steel diameter Vernier calipers
2. Steel
Steel cover Covermeter
TEST PLAN CORROSION PROBLEM IN DECK WITH OVERLAY/WEARING COURSE
SELECTATRANDOM ATLEAST2 DAMAGED AND 1
UNDAMAGED AREAS TO CARRY OUT

1. BREAK-UP THROUGH THE OVERLAY IN EACH AREA
2. CHLORIDE PROFILES IN EACH AREA
3. RH % MEASUREMENTS

EVALUATE THE NEED OF
1. CUTTING OF CORES
2. CAPO TEST(3 IN DAMAGED & 3 IN UNDAMAGED AREAS)

CARRY OUTECP
MEASUREMENTS
FINAL REPORT
EVALUATE THE NEED FOR FURTHER BREAK-UPS TO ENLARGE
THE SIZE OF THE TESTAREA


CHAPTER 2

9

TEST PLAN CORROSION PROBLEM IN BEAMS, GIRDERS AND DECK WITH NO OVERLAY
SELECTATRANDOM APPROXIMATE 10% OF DAMAGED
AND 10% UNDAMAGED AREA. CARRY OUTECP
MEASUREMENTS
RANK THE AREAS ACCORDING TO THE ECP MANUAL. IN
BOTH DAMAGED AND UNDAMAGED AREA CARRY OUT

1. BREAK-UP
2. CHLORIDE PROFILES
3. RH % MEASUREMENTS
CORROSION ACTIVITY OR RISK OF CORROSION IN THE
UNDAMAGED AREA

ENLARGE THE SIZE
OF TESTSAMPLES.
CARRY OUTECP
MEASUREMENTS
EVALUATE THE NEED FOR FURTHER BREAK-UPS IN THE
DAMAGED AREAS
FINAL REPORT
EVALUATE THE NEED OF CAPO TEST, IF NEEDED, ATLEAST3
IN DAMAGED AND 3 IN UNDAMAGED AREAS


CHAPTER 2

10

RANK THE COLUMNS
ACCORDING TO THE ECP
MANUAL AND MAKE THE
NECESSARY NUMBER OF BREAK-
UP TO CONFIRM ECP
MEASUMENT
SELECT AT RANDOM 1 COLUMN,
CARRY OUT

1. BREAK-UP
2. CHLORDE PROFILE ABOVE GROUND
AND 1m BELOW
DAMAGED
COLUMN
ECP MEASUREMENT ON
ALL COLUMNS
FOR 2 COLUMNS CARRY
OUT CHLORIDE PROFILE
TEST PLAN CORROSION PROBLEM IN COLUMNS
UNDAMAGED
SELECT AT RANDOM 5
COLUMNS, CONDUCT
ECP MEASUREMENT ON
THE COLUMNS
FINAL REPORT


CHAPTER 2

11

HYPOTHESIS FOR THE CAUSE OF DAMAGE
VISUAL INSPECTION CORRECTION OF THE HYPOTHESIS
MEASUREMENT OF THE REMAINING
PART OF ELEMENT
ASSESSMENT OF CORROSION ACTIVITY
CARBONATION TEST
ECP MEASUREMENT
EVALUATE THE NEED FOR
1. CAPO TEST
2. CORE CUTTING
DETERMINATION OF AREAS
REQUIRING INVESTIGATION
MEASUREMENT OF COVER
BREAK-UP TO CONFIRM ECP
MEASUREMENT
DAMAGE MECHANISM
FINAL REPORT
FUTURE RISK OF
CORROSION
CONDITION OF CONCRETE
FINAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR REHABILITATION MEASURE
DETERMINATION OF AREAS
REQUIRING INVESTIGATION
MOISTURE
CONTENT
CHLORIDE
CONTENT
CORE CAPO MICRO MACRO


CHAPTER 3

13
CHAPTER 3: TEST MANUAL
The different types of test are as follows:
(a) CAPO Test
In general concrete compressive strength can be measured in-situ by CAPO test. With
CAPO test an 18mm hole is drilled perpendicular to a plane surface outside
reinforcement disturbance with a water cooled diamond bit. A router undercuts a 25mm
hole 10mm deep in a depth of 25mm from the surface. The folded ring is inserted in the
hole and expanded on a special tool in the undercut hole. The hydraulic equipment is
attached to the tool and activated by hand. Pull-out takes place until the CAPO test
failure occurs and the cone is fully dislodged. The cone hole may be repaired with a
polymer modified mortar.
The complete test equipment for CAPO test is contained in two small potable briefcases.
C100 CAPO test equipment
It consists of three units (a) drill unit, (b) milling cutter unit and (c) expansion unit.
Use of the C100 kit requires water supply and electrical or hydraulic power supply.
For these purposes following mobile equipment is available:
C151 water tank, C152 plastic tube and C153 electrical power supply
C105 pull machine
This precision light weight model with high pressure oil-rings are made of special
alloys corrosion resistant and manufactured with highest accuracy. Hydraulic
operated it only requires an easy hand pressure to reach maximum pull out force
at 60 Kn. The instrument accuracy is below 0.3% and the loading of pull force is
automatically governed by a special built-in valve system. Normally supply
gauges are filled with shock absorbing glycerin and have a range from 10 to 70
MPa.
In addition to the above C11O CAPO inserts are also available which can be reused two
or three times.
(b) BOND Test
It is only used for measured the tensile strength. Normally, the method is primarily used for
testing the bond strength of a newly cast concrete layer to the existing concrete. Further
it can be used for testing the tensile strength of the existing concrete surface when
certain strength is required before the new concrete layer and /or water proofing can


CHAPTER 3

14
be placed. Finally it can be used for testing the bond of a membrane to a concrete
surface. Before the standard testing procedure reinforcement is located and the test
location is selected. The top part of the surface is ground smooth and plane. Dust is
removed with a steel brush and a steel disc 75mm diameter is glued to the surface with
a quick setting epoxy. The CORECASE 75mm assembly is placed with the drill bit fitting
exactly around the steel disc and fastened to the surface by means of two clamping
pliers anchored to the concrete. Drilling takes place to a required depth using water as
a cooling media. The drill assembly is removed leaving the core standing perpendicular
to the surface. A counter pressure id fitted around the disc and center by means of a
centering piece. The pull machine is secured to the disc resting against the counter
pressure. Pulling takes place to failure of the weakest part of the core.
The peak load in kN pull force is calibrated to tensile strength or bond strength in MPa
from the calibration table following the equipment and the position of the failure is
recorded. Normally the minimum required tensile or bond strength is 1.5 MPa. Minimum
number of tests is five in a 10m x 10m area. If the basic material is sound and the bond
surface has been prepared by hydro demolition followed by sand blasting, the BOND
strength may be as high as 3.0 to 3.5 MPa. The normal BOND test deviation of uniform
bonding layers is about 5%.
The BOND-TEST equipment is supplied in three suitcases containing
Preparation kit for BOND-TEST
Six 75mm in diameter steel discs with thread (reusable)
GERMANNS rapid adhesive, box with component epoxy for non-acrylic
concrete or membrane
One set of two component Araldite for acrylic base concrete
Counter pressure, adjustable with Allen key
Centering piece
620 W grinder with carbide bit stone
Steel brush
CORECASE 75mm standard
Drill assembly, mechanical feed handle, coupling, water jacket with flange
containing rubber gasket
Standard diamond drill bit, 75mm in diameter 120mm long


CHAPTER 3

15
Two pairs of clamping pliers
Anchoring tools
Water dive pump
Pull Machine
Automatic type pull machine
Coupling
Pull bolts
Bolt handle
(c) RCTTest
The Rapid Chloride test, RCT, provides a fast method of determining the acid soluble
amount of chlorides of concrete in situ.
Powdered concrete obtained by hammer drilling of hardened concrete is mixed with a
chloride extraction liquid and shaken for five minutes. The amount of acid soluble
chlorides expressed as weight percent of concrete weight is determined directly by
means of a calibrated chloride sensitive electrode connected to the RCT electrometer.
Taking more samples at different depths in the same location usually in steps of 30mm,
60mm, and 90mm the Chloride profile is determined by testing each depth interval.
Examining the profile, the probable source of the chlorides and mechanism of
penetration can be detected.
The RCT test measures bonded as well as free chlorides, because the concrete sample is
dissolved in an acid that frees the bonded chlorides. An assessment of the content of
free chlorides can be made by carrying out the measurements in distilled water instead
of in the acid. The free chlorides will rapidly be dissolved in the water, while the bonded
will remain bonded.
The RCT equipment is contained entirely in a suitcase containing
Chloride sensitive electrode type RCT
Electrometer, digital readout with pH measurement option
Calibration liquids (clear, purple, green and pink)


CHAPTER 3

16
10 RCT-1023 testing vials for hardened concrete
Hammer drill
400mm long 18mm twist drill
Dust collection pan & tools
Weight measuring ampoules
Calibration chart
(c) Relative Humidity Test
The test method measures the relative humidity in the pores of the concrete (usually the
outer 100mm. a 16mm hole is drilled into the area to be tested and a plastic sleeve,
which has a thin membrane enclosing one end, is inserted into the hole and left for
approximately one hour. This provides enough time for equalization of both relative
humidity and temperature. The test is conducted by breaking the enclosed end of the
sleeve with the probe of the measuring device, and recording the values.
(d) Crack Mapping
Mapping is normally used to provide an overview of the damage and for registering the
extent of damage. Investigation of structural crack pattern must be mapped indicating
the type (bending, shear) and corresponding extent distress. For Non- Structural crack
patterns, the areas must be mapped and the assume cause to be noted.
Spalling, scaling and rust/ rust stains should be indicated by area. Splitting cracks due to
corrosion must be mapped. When mapping specific cracks, Characteristic widths are
measured with a scale and the location indicated as a supplement to the visual
inspection of the surface. Regarding both structural and nonstructural cracks, the risk of
corrosion in the future should be evaluated. If there is a risk of corrosion, it should be
noted in the report. When corrosion damage to the reinforcement bars observed, note
the reduction in cross section area in percent of the undamaged cross section.
(e) Ultra-sonic Test
This test is performed to check the homogeneity of the material. Sometimes material
density in one part of the structure is not similar to the other part; in that case 50 KHz
ultrasonic unit is place on both the surface and measurement to be taken. If the
concrete surface is porous or having a sign of honeycombing the structural strength is
reduced due to insufficient density and for that particular circumstance ultra-sonic
technique is playing a key role to determine its density. The method used in this test is to
induce an ultra ray on the concrete surface and check the traveled time to the other


CHAPTER 3

17
face as well as percentage of absorbance.
(f) Carbonation Test
This test is performed by applying an indicator solution to concrete surface just fractured.
The color of the solution will change with corresponding changes in PH of the concrete.
The carbonation depth is then measured by means of a scale.
The two different indicator solutions are available in the mobile laboratory van are
Phenolphthalein (1%) - after application, the color of the alkaline concrete surfaces will
immediately turn red-violet indicates ph>9.5 & carbonated surface will remain colorless.
Rainbow Indicator - this solution, when applied, will produce a series of colors
corresponding to various ph levels, again distinguishing the alkalinity of the fractured
concrete surface.
(g) ECP Test
The purpose of the potential measurements is to map the electrochemical potentials in
order to locate areas with risk of corrosion. The potentials are measured either by the
path finder equipment or an ordinary multi-meter (voltmeter) and a referencing
electrode.
Following steps are to be followed.
1. Exposure of a rebar for the electrical connection
Normally go for stirrup locations. The most convenient areas are where the cover
often varies or on the edge beam
2. Check the circuit of the reinforcement
On columns, make a contact to the reinforcement of another column to check
the circuit by using the multi-meter. The potential differences must be zero to
have the circuit required. If that is the case, use the same connection during the
whole measuring. If the difference is not zero, first of all check the connection to
the rebar. If this connection is good, the internal connection of the reinforcement
is not sufficient and you have to make a contact to every column on both sides
of the joints.
3. Make a measuring grid on each part to be measured, noting the following
When making survey measurements on large areas, a mesh size of 500X500 mm
may be chosen. Prior to making the grid, survey measurements on large areas,


CHAPTER 3

18
random locations may help locating the areas to be mapped. When making
measurements in areas where corrosion is likely to occur (selected as a result of
survey measurements, experience or other test types), the mesh size must be
250X250mm or less. The grid size, location and orientation must be marked on
sketches of the structure. If the measurements are started in the upper left corner
of the grid and made one horizontal row at a time. The print out from the
pathfinder equipment will have the same orientation as the grid.
In many cases, e.g. on columns, it is more convenient to measure in vertical rows.
In this case, start at the lower left corner of the grid and make the measurements
of a vertical row from the bottom and upwards. Proceed to the right to the next
row (i.e. counterclockwise on the columns). In this case the print out must be
rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise to get the correct orientation.
4. Check the stability of the potential measurements
- Wet a single measuring point
- Place the electrode and note the potential measurements:
- Wait until the potential is stable. Note the potential and time .this time
difference is the necessary time required between the wetting and the
measuring. In very dry concrete, it is normally necessary to wet
continuously for a longer period. This means that one person is constantly
wetting the structure in front of the person doing the measuring.
5. Selection of the test area and evaluation of corrosion
It should be noted, that the potential measurement itself does not lead to a final
assessment of the condition. Supplementary testing has to be carried out. As a
first guide to an evaluation of the reliability of the measured potential values, the
measurements are normally divided into phases.
Immediately after completing the measurements, the measurements are printed
out on the printer and then evaluated according to a scale based on
experience, e.g.
Group-1 x>0 mv No corrosion
Group-2 -200mv <x<0 mv Corrosion in a very early phase. No sign in bars
Group-3: -300mv<x<-200 mv Corrosion in a phase where the first sign of
corrosion will be visible on the bars
Group 4: x,-300mv Corrosion in a phase where the corrosion is wide


CHAPTER 3

19
spread with evident corrosion signs on the bars
in some cases on the concrete too.
Note: use colors to distinguish between the groups, e.g.
Group-1 White
Group-2 Green
Group-3 Yellow
Group-4 Red
The above mentioned limits are based on measurements with a silver/silver chloride
electrode. If using another electrode, limits have to be corrected according to the
following table.
Type of Electrode constant
Copper Sulphate -80mv
Calomel -75mv
Local corrosion which does not cause Spalling of concrete cover shows lower potentials
than general corrosion with expanding rust products.
(h) Covermeter Test
The Covermeter is used to locate the reinforcement in the structure and to measure the
depth of the concrete cover. The Covermeter is often used to locate the rebars before
starting other investigations such as ECP measurements, core drilling, capo test,
inspection of cables etc.
The Covermeter measurement is based on changes in the magnitude field lines/eddy
current. The presence of nearby magnetic rebar will cause changes, which can be
measured by passing the measuring head over the surface above the rebar.
This measuring head is a rectangular encapsulated unit containing the search coil. As
the coil windings are directional, the head should always be used with its longitudinal
axis parallel to the expected line of the reinforcing bars. A lead from the head is
plugged into the battery operated Covermeter.
This method is generally suitable. Test has shown that the inaccuracy increases from 5-
10% at approx. 35mm depth to approx. 15-25% at 60-70%depth.
(i) Break-up Test


CHAPTER 3

20
A break up is a hole in the structure, made in order to see the condition of the interior
parts. Break ups provide in most cases a necessary supplement.
1. To register the general configuration of the concrete
2. To register the type of reinforcement, dimension, position and possible
corrosion damage
3. To provide a reference level for the electro-chemical potential (ECP)
measurements and to calibrate the measured corrosion activity indicated
by the ECP Measurements.
Break-ups are also necessary in cases where the concrete surface in consideration is not
visible because of the wearing course or in similar cases. Break-ups are a common part
of special inspection of concrete structures and usually performed with the help of
power tools. The back side of exposed rebar can be inspected by the use of a convex
lens or a dental mirror.
When performing the Break-up test take care not to weaken the structure to harmful
extent. The structure should be re- established immediately after making break-ups.


CHAPTER 4

21
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION PROCEDURES
(a) General
The evaluation procedures for bridges are presented in the following sequence: first the
structural component is described then the expected deficiencies are listed. The data
available through visual inspection and investigation have been analyzed to ascertain the
state of safety and condition of the structure. The reasons for damage to the components of
the bridges have been investigated and analyzed in the context of establishing remedial
measures. Based on above, the description of the component and expected deficiencies
noticed in the different components of the bridges has been taken up.
The bridge is divided into three primary groups: superstructure, substructure and
miscellaneous. The superstructure includes the expansion joint, the deck slab, the bearing,
the primary member and secondary member. The substructure includes the piers and the
abutments. In case of piers, it includes the pedestal, the cap beam, the column or wall and
the footing. In case of abutments, it includes the pedestal, the breast wall, the back wall,
wing wall and the footing, where as in case of miscellaneous part, it includes the wearing
surface, the railing/parapet, the side walks and the utility services. In this report the
presentation of the rehabilitation measures are given sequentially from the top part to the
bottom part of the bridge: starting from wearing surface to footing.
(b) Evaluation of Distress
1. Asphalt Wearing Surface
The top most layers or course of material applied upon the structural deck to provide
a smooth riding surface is the wearing surface. The wearing surface also serves the
function of protecting the deck from the effects of traffic, weathering and chemical
action. Prior to the placement of asphalt surface, a water proofing membrane is
usually installed to protect the concrete deck surface.
Common defects of asphalt wearing surfaces consist of cracking, distortion and
disintegration.
Cracking in asphalt surfaces can take many forms.
Alligator cracks are interconnected and forming a series of small blocks resembling
an alligators skin or chicken wire. It is generally caused by excessive deck deflection
or by the asphalt material drying out.
Edge cracks are transverse cracks near the edge of the deck, usually due to lack of
lateral support, the drying out of the asphalt or deterioration of the concrete deck.


CHAPTER 4

22
Lane joint cracks are longitudinal separations along the seam between two paving
lines, usually caused by a weak seam between adjoining asphalt pavement
applications.
Reflective cracks are observed in asphalt overlays which reflect the crack pattern in
the underlying deck.
Shrinkage cracks are interconnecting cracks forming a series of large blocks; it is
often difficult to determine whether the cracks are caused by volume change in the
asphalt or cracking of the underlying deck.
Slippage cracks are crescent shaped cracks caused by the lack of a good bond
between the surface course and the deck beneath.
Distortion can be defined as any change of the surface from its
original shape. Most frequently encountered types of distortions are:
Rutting are channelized depressions which usually develop on bridges along a wheel
tracks of an asphalt surface. It may result from consolidation or lateral movement of
the surface under traffic.
Corrugation & shoving are a form of plastic movement typified by ripples across the
asphalt surface, usually occurring in asphalt surfaces that lack stability. It may appear
as crescents with the curved portion pointing in the direction of traffic as in slippage
cracks or as actual bumps transverse to the direction of travel.
Grade depressions are localised low areas of limited size which may or may not be
accompanied by cracking. These defects also referred to as birdbaths are not only
a source of surface deterioration but are a hazard to motorists especially in areas
and seasons that freezing weather is to be expected.
Disintegration is the breaking up of a surface course into small loose
fragments. The two most common types are:
Potholes are bowl shaped holes varies sizes in the surface course resulting from
localised disintegration.
Ravelling is the progressive separation of aggregate particles in the surface course. It
is usually the result of poor construction techniques as well as low asphalt content in
the asphalt concrete mix.
2. Side walks
Side walks normally do not contribute to the structural strength of the bridge but may
be an integral part of the bridge by virtue of its construction. It is provided mainly for


CHAPTER 4

23
traffic safety. Side walks usually made of concrete or steel present the following
deficiencies:
Impact damage from vehicles
Sign of differential movement at the joints due to horizontal or vertical
movement of the supports
Material deterioration of side walks such as cracks, spalls and
delamination
3. Railing & Parapets
Railing & parapet normally do not add structural strength to the bridge. It should
have sufficient strength to prevent an out of control vehicle from going off the
bridge. Most of the railing in Saudi Arabia is made of concrete or steel. The most
common defects in this type of railings are associated with the same causes listed
under side walks.
4. Drainage System & Utility
Bridge drainage system is an important item and particularly in the areas of Saudi
Arabia where flush flood occur an effective system of drainage that carries the
water away as quickly as possible is essential to the proper maintenance of the
bridge. It is common for commercial and industrial utilities to use a highway right-of-
way to provide services to the bridge structures. These may be one or more of the
following: gas, electricity, water, telephone, sewage and liquid fuels. Almost all of
the drainage problems are caused by the clogging at inlets, corrosion of steel
drainage pipe or entrapped water due to insufficient drainage route. Most utility
lines or pipes are suspended from bridges between the beams or behind the facia
resulting spalling at support locations
5. Deck Slab
The primary function of the deck slab is to carry traffic and to transmit the traffic load
to the main structural systems. Bridge deck is particularly vulnerable to deterioration
because it is subjected to direct impact loads, corrosive actions and climatic
conditions. Deck deterioration is of utmost concern to maintenance personnel
because the safety of the travelling public may be jeopardised if the integrity of this
element is not maintained properly. From available bridge statistics nearly 80 percent
of the bridges in the Kingdom are made of reinforced concrete with concrete slab.
Common defects of concrete decks appear in three forms: scaling, cracking and
spalling. Also either independently or in association with spalling the corrosion of


CHAPTER 4

24
concrete deck reinforcement is encountered.
Scaling makes itself evident by a gradual decomposition of the cement paste,
beginning at the surface and progressive downward. It may be the result of the
expansive forces due to wet-dry cycles, poor drainage, poor materials, improper
construction or chemicals.
Cracking may be transverse, longitudinal, diagonal or random. Cracking occurs
when tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength of the concrete. There are as many
probable factors causing cracking, as there are types of cracking. Transverse cracks
usually occur over top rebar. Longitudinal cracks are common between pre-stressed
concrete box beams. Random cracks may be caused by load deflection, improper
curing methods, material defects, foundation movements or other related
phenomena.
Spalling is the breaking out of pieces of concrete, often starting at the top reinforcing
steel. It is usually proceed by cracking. Most authorities agree, however, that spalling
is related to the corrosion of reinforcing steel and that spalling is accelerated by the
presence of chlorides. The minimum effect of spalls on bridges is the increased
impact created by vehicles bouncing through the spalled area. Extensive spalling on
concrete deck may actually reduce the safe load carrying capacity of the bridge.
Corrosion of reinforcing steel embedded in concrete is a serious phenomenon
primarily related to the salt contaminated bridge decks. The corrosion of reinforcing
steel embedded in concrete is now recognised as an electro-chemical process. In
order for an electro-chemical cell to be established, there must be an anode and a
cathode electronically connected and contained in an ionic conductor or
electrolyte. If these components are present and if the free energy of the cell
reaction is negative, then a spontaneous electro-chemical reaction will occur. The
intrusion of the chloride ion penetrates the concrete cover of the reinforcing bars
embedded in the bridge deck and destroys the strength of steel.
6. Expansion Joints
Expansion joints are designed to provide for various rotational, translational and
transverse movements of the superstructure under live loading or thermal expansion
and contraction as well as to prevent leakage to the components below the deck.
The most common defects of expansion joints are listed by type. The types examined
are Finger, Strip-seal, Elastomeric and Modular joints.
Finger joints allow movement with essentially no stress concentration in the joint face
or the deck. Defects associated with this system consist of the following:
Failure of the drainage system causing debris and moisture to fall


CHAPTER 4

25
onto the elements of the structural members supporting the deck
Loosening of the beams and angles supporting the expansion device
causing deterioration of the joint assembly and cracking of the
adjacent concrete deck.
J amming or locking of the joint due to excessive movement of the
superstructure. This action usually causes damage to the concrete
curbs and side walks because of excessive forces being exerted by
the pavement expansion.
Strip-seal joints are one of the most common types of expansion joints. Defects
associated with this joint type consist of the following:
Leakage of joint and deterioration of bridge elements beneath the
joint
Wedging of debris in the joint preventing it from functioning properly
and causing spalling and crushing of joint edges
Loosening of the steel angle supports which is a hazard to motorists
Elastomeric joint is a sealed, waterproof joint system utilizing steel plates and angle
moulded into a neoprene covering. The neoprene serves as a protective cover for
the steel components, a water proof material to prevent water penetration through
the joint system. A cushion between the load transfer plates to prevent traffic
generated noise and due to its elastic properties permits expansion movement of the
bridge superstructure. Defects are usually prevalent with this joint are following:
Water leaking to the superstructure beneath the joint
Wearing of the neoprene material
Popping out of the neoprene plugs covering the anchor bolts resulting
in the corrosion of the bolts and nuts securing the system to the
concrete deck
Failure of the sealant between the outer edges of the joint and the
deck wearing surface resulting in contaminants leaking under the
joint
Loosening of the joint support system due to the impact and vibration
of the superstructure
Modular joint consist of a heavy duty neoprene gland snap locked into extruded


CHAPTER 4

26
steel members which are anchored onto the concrete deck. The defect commonly
associated with this type of joint is cold weather. In cold weather and at maximum
joint opening, the joint allows for the accumulation of roadway grit and materials in
the joint opening. During warm weather periods and maximum expansion, the joint
can not function properly because of the dirt that accumulated in the joint opening
resulting in spalling of concrete deck edges.
7. Primary Members
Primary members are defined as those structural elements which carry all
superstructure loads to the substructure below. In Saudi Arabia most primary
members are made of concrete. In cases of composite steel bridges the
superstructure consists of steel beams or girders with concrete slabs connected to
them by shear connectors. The common defects found in primary members of the
bridge superstructure are following:
Box beam may develop undetected deterioration of the bottom slab
due to water and chemical leaking of the top slab that cant drain
out. Such box top slab covered by asphalt at top and inaccessible
from bottom.
The beam & stringers of the structures used as overpasses are the most
vulnerable when stuck by over height loads. Damage can vary from
insignificant to large extend.
Cracks are very common in concrete members. It may be structural or
non-structural type. Damage can be spalling or exposed
reinforcement on the concrete surface.
Most common problem in steel bridge element is rust. Corrosion
causes a loss of cross sectional area resulting in a reduced load
capacity of the member.
Steel beams are essentially susceptible to cracking when joints or
connectors are welded or when certain types of design details such
as partial length cover plate sharp re-entrant corners or cantilever
brackets are used. Locations where flange plates change width or
thickness are also problem areas for fracture.
Rolled beam & girder bridges are often used for overpass. This makes
them subject to collision damage from over height loads attempting
to go under the bridge. This damage is often so severe that traffic over
the bridge must be restricted or may even have to be closed.


CHAPTER 4

27
8. Secondary Members
Secondary members are defined as those structural elements which aid in the
transfer of superstructure loads to the substructure and reduce the deflection of the
bridge. It is usually constructed of steel and concrete. The common defects
encountered in secondary member of the bridge superstructure are the following:
Failure of bridge drainage systems and deck joints eventually leads to
the deterioration of concrete elements due to the spalling of the
concrete and the eventual rusting of the reinforcing steel.
Exterior diaphragm and struts on overpasses are the most vulnerable
when stuck by over height vehicles.
Most common problem in steel bridge element is rust. Corrosion
causes a loss of cross sectional area resulting in a reduced load
capacity of the member.
Diaphragm and bracing are susceptible to cracking when joints or
connections are welded or when certain types of design details such
as re-entrant corners or cantilever elements are used.
9. Bearings
Bearings are normally used to transmit and distribute the superstructure loads to the
substructure while permitting the superstructure to undergo necessary movements
without developing overstress. The bearings deficiencies are as follows:
Roller bearing is used to transfer vertical loads and allow for superstructure rotation
and translation. The defects prevalent with this type of bearing are most commonly
due to the following causes:
Build-up debris
Loss of protection system such as paint or galvanizing
Corrosion and steel delamination due to corrosive action
Sheared and/or corroded anchor bolts and retainer plates
Disintegration and/or deterioration of the material under or
immediately adjacent to the bearing
Mis-positioning of the bearing during construction or operation in the
form of extension towards the edge, tipping of the bearing and


CHAPTER 4

28
misalignment etc.
Rocker bearing is used when either a large vertical load or a large amount of
superstructure translation or a combination of the two are anticipated. The most
common defects in this type of bearing are associated with the same causes listed
under roller bearing.
POTbearing is normally used where there is a large vertical reaction, a large amount
of anticipated translation in two directions or a combination of the two. The fixed pot
bearing is constructed of a carbon steel cylinder which confines and seals an
elastomer. Sliding pot bearing is similar in construction to the fixed type except that it
also incorporates the use of Teflon or stainless steel sliding plates to allow for
translation. The defects are similar to roller bearing.
Elastomeric bearing is normally used on prestressed concrete or steel girders of short
and moderate span length. These bearing are constructed of neoprene and carbon
steel moulded into a solid void free mass. This bearing is designed to accommodate
both horizontal and vertical movements by the distortion of the bearing itself. The
most common defects found in this type are associated with the following causes:
Build-up of debris
Disintegration of material under or immediately adjacent to bearing
Excess shearing which is normally considered to be longitudinal
displacement of more than 25% of the bearing height
Non-uniform compression at the four corners or twisting of the bearing
Ozone cracking or cuts in the bearing
Failure of the bond between elastomer element and wedge plates
Rounding of the edges of the elastomeric element due to wear
10. Bridge Seat & Pier Cap
This element is top of abutments, piers or bents upon which the bearing rest. Any
deterioration of this section could result in differential settlement of the superstructure
and unplanned stresses. The most common defects of bridge seats and pier caps are
general deterioration of the concrete can be the result of chemical or mechanical
attack, poor aggregates, poor concrete, wet-dry cycle damage or various
combinations of these. The damage is usually in the form of spalling, scaling, pop-outs
or sloughing off at the corners. The depth of the deterioration may vary from
superficial to large extent.


CHAPTER 4

29
11. Abutment & Pier
Abutments and piers transfer the loads of the superstructure to the foundation. The
defects usually encountered in abutments and piers are the following:
Settlement or movement
Vertical cracking caused by differential settlement
Surface deterioration cracking etc
Back wall undermining
Impact hit by passing vehicles or floating debris
12. Water Channel
The streamed bed and the banks of wadi in Saudi Arabia although not filled with
water are subjected to flash flood that may have more damaging effects than those
of river flow. Such flash floods are more dangerous in the coastal areas of the
Kingdom. The most common defects found in stream bed and banks are following:
Erosion may undermine the substructure and may cause differential or total
settlement.
Deposition may cause the restriction of flow at the bridge site and potential damage
of the superstructure. As flash flood depositions are also associated with the
accumulation of debris, the restricted flow causes flood water to rise at the level of
the superstructure and cause damage.
(c) Sample Photographs
Sample photographs include each distress element photo covering the appearance and
extent of defects, close-up view during testing time and type of testing is carrying out on the
elements. All photos are to be logged on standard forms for better control. These typical
sample photos are taken from previous database of HMMS.


CHAPTER 4

30
Core cutting process is carrying out
Positioning of core cutter on the concrete deck


CHAPTER 4

31
Core is extracting from the concrete deck
Extracted core sample to be used finding compressive strength


CHAPTER 4

32
C100 CAPO test equipment & its accessories
Hole is drilled by diamond bit


CHAPTER 4

33
Insertion of folded ring into the hole and fastening the head
Pull-out the core by milling cutter unit


CHAPTER 4

34
Core sample has been extracted by milling cutter
CAPO test location has been marked by paints


CHAPTER 4

35
Break-up test has been performed
Applying rainbow indicator for carbonation test


CHAPTER 4

36
Test location has been cleaned for carbonation test
Carbonation test has been performed at breast wall bottom


CHAPTER 4

37
Reinforcement section is measuring by Vernier calipers
Grid lines are mapped for ECP test by Half Cell Potential Meter


CHAPTER 4

38
ECP test is carrying out on cantilever slab
Mapping of cracks by crayons


CHAPTER 4

39
Width of crack is measuring by crack template
Slab panel reinforcement is corroded and severe spalling is observed


CHAPTER 4

40

Compression cracks resulting heavy spalling on column bottom
Diagonal shear cracks are observed at end diaphragm wall


CHAPTER 5

41
CHAPTER 5: REHABILITATION STRATEGIES
(a) General
The corrective actions on bridges are normally divided into two categories: remedial
(action taken after the deficiency has occurred) and preventive (action taken to prevent
the deficiency). In this chapter rehabilitation strategies for bridges are presented in the
following sequence: first the remedial measures of each distress are illustrated and then the
preventives for each deficiency in future are described.
The remedies and or preventive measures to be adopted can avoid untimely
damage/distress of the structure. Accordingly, repair proposals have been framed keeping
in view the following aspects.
- To bring back the structures to the original design values of safety and serviceability
- Cost effectiveness and least time consuming with latest know how of materials and
construction technology indigenously available
- Causing minimum disturbance to the traffic
(b) Remedial Measures
The remedial actions for asphalt surface defects mentioned in the previous chapter
are as follows:
Alligator and slippage crack repair involves removal of the surface course down to
the deck and laterally into the sound surface course. Make the cut square or
rectangular with faces straight and vertical. To repair the deck first apply tack coat
to the exposed deck and vertical faces. Patch with a dense graded plant mix hot
asphalt and compact to the same elevation as the surrounding surface. To repair
edge, lane joint and reflective cracks, clean out cracks with stiff bristled broom and
compressed air. Fill with emulsion slurry or liquid asphalt mixed with sand. When
cured, seal and treat with liquid asphalt and sprinkle the surface with saw dust or dry
sand to prevent pick-up the traffic. Shrinkage crack repair should fill cracks with
asphalt emulsion slurry followed by a surface treatment or slurry seal over the entire
surface.
Prior to channel and grade depression repair, determine the limits of channels or
depressions with a straight edge. Apply a light tack coat and spread dense graded
asphalt concrete in the channels with a paver. Be sure that the material is feathered
at the edges. Compact with a pneumatic tired roller and then place a sand seal


CHAPTER 5

42
over the area to prevent the seepage of water. Corrugation and shoving should be
repaired similar to alligator cracks.
Potholes should be repaired similar to alligator cracks. To correct ravelling, sweep the
surface free of all dirt and loose aggregate. Apply a fog seal of asphalt emulsion.
After the seal has cured apply a surface treatment.
2. Side walks
The remedial actions recommended for repairing the side walks are the following:
The loss of structural ability will be restored depending on the type of distress found
(crack, deterioration, loss of section and reinforcement corrosion). Material
deterioration of side walks will be restored (cracks, spalls and delamination). The
differential movement at the joints may require as simple a remedial action. Impact
damage will be restored as required.
The remedial measure apply on raining is same as side walks. In addition to the
above yielding fender system is used near the bridge abutment. Stuck fender system
shall be restored either by partial or total replacement. The damage portion of a
yielding fender system must be repaired or replaced otherwise the system can not
be expected to function properly.
For the drainage system and utilities the following remedial actions are
recommended:
Most effective remedial action is the cleaning and flushing of the drainage system
particularly from wind blown sand accumulation and debris. Corroded metal pipe
must also be replaced and restored to the extent required. Short scupper pipes
must be extended so as to prevent drainage from blowing onto bridge members.
The maintenance team must report to relevant authority for proper maintenance
as required. Loose or suspended utility lines must be restored to a safe operating
state until the agency responsible for its maintenance assumes its full restoration to
sound condition.
5. Deck Slab
The remedial actions for the scaling, cracking, spalling and corrosion of
reinforcement of concrete deck are described as follows:


CHAPTER 5

43
Scaling, where it occurs may be corrected by using a thin epoxy mortar patch to
the waterproof the area and prevent penetration of water to the reinforcing steel.
Quick setting cement as well as low slump and high cement content are also
adaptable for this repair.
Cracking of concrete deck is corrected by evaluating whether to repair a cracked
or not and the method of repair depend on the nature of the crack. Where stresses
are relieved and a stabilised condition exists, crack may be repaired simply injecting
low viscosity epoxy mortar. The detailed repair methodology is discussed in
subsequent paragraph.
Spalling can be corrected by patching, overlays or replacement. For small spalled
areas, polymer modified concrete and non-shrink cement mortar can be used as
deck patching. Somewhere along the patching process a decision is made to cover
the entire deck bottom with a durable overlay which will serve as a moisture barrier.
The most important objective of using an overlay must be to exclude water from the
deck, of all the factors contributing to the deterioration of deck, water is the most
important factor. Dissolved oxygen in the water set up an oxidation process which
leads corrosion in reinforcing steel. Based on the economical point of view
sometimes replacement is the other alternative of overlay which gives more
durability and less maintenance cost in future.
Corrosion of reinforcing steel can be prevented by cathodic protection. Cathodic
protection via the use of electro-chemical techniques insures that oxidation
reactions do not occur at the reinforcing steel. This is accomplished be embedding
in the concrete deck a supplemental anode in the form of a metal mesh which is
capable of sustaining oxidation reactions without suffering any physical damage.
The anode is connected to the positive terminal of a power supply and the
reinforcing cage to become cathodic to stop oxidation.
6. Expansion Joints
The remedial measures associated with the expansion joints are as follows:
Finger joint rusting should be regularly cleaned, repaired or replaced based on the
existing condition. In addition, frequent flushing of all exposed horizontal surfaces
beneath the joint opening to remove accumulated debris will prevent rusting of
steel support members. If the expansion device is loose, repairs can normally be
accomplished by removing the loose or faulty bolts, repositioning the device and
bolting. If the adjacent deck concrete is broken, damaged concrete should be
removed and replaced with a low shrinkage concrete mix. If the joints are broken, or
locked then relieve the pressure at the joint location, if any and remove the entire
joint system and reinstall.


CHAPTER 5

44
Strip-seal joint leakage problem can be repaired by removing the debris form the
joint opening and install a preformed compression joint sealant to water proof the
joint. Flush all contaminants from the bridge elements beneath the joint. If localised
crushing of the deck edges has occurred open deck joints can be readily repaired
by removing and replacing the damaged concrete.
Elastomeric joint leakage and damage can be repaired by replacing the neoprene
material. Areas with loose anchorage or broken bolts can be repaired by removing
broken bolts and re-establishing the joint device using the J bolts instead of
expansion anchor bolts.
Modular joint sealants that have been whipped out of the joint by traffic may be
repaired by cleaning all debris from the joint opening, repairing the joint edges, if
needed and installing a new sealant. If an accumulation of debris in the joint
opening has resulted in transverse movement of the deck, then repositioning of the
deck should be accomplished or provision be made to prevent additional
movement.
7. Primary Members
The remedial actions to be applied to primary members of the bridge superstructure
are the following:
Exposed reinforcement in lower slab of concrete box girder can be repaired by
partial depth cement repair to re-bond the loosened reinforcing bar. If repair
procedure requires the unbonding of all bars, it is obvious that false work will be
required under the structure while the repair is in progress.
Concrete T-beam or stringer can result in significant damage due to over height
vehicles. Usually surface need only be patched with high grade concrete to restore
proper cover. Cracked beam with no broken reinforcement can usually be repaired
by epoxy injection. There are various methods available for repair of cracks in
concrete. Application of these methods depends on the cause of cracks, extent
and location of cracks.
Concrete structures can also be externally strengthened by adding reinforcing
plates, stitching reinforcing bars or post tensioning.
Any crack or fracture in a steel beam should be considered a sign of serious distress
and immediate remedial action must be taken. If the crack is large or in a critical
location, it may be necessary to restrict or even close the bridge until the member
can be replaced.


CHAPTER 5

45
The remedial action to be applied to secondary members of the bridge
superstructure is similar to the primary member.
9. Bearings
For Roller bearing, the following remedial actions are recommended:
Clean off debris frequently to prevent build-up
Clean and repair the deteriorated protection system in accordance
with accepted painting or galvanizing procedures
If corrosion is severe enough to prohibit the bearing from functioning
properly, bearing replacement will be necessary and needs
temporary support system for jacking up the superstructure
Replace sheared or heavily corroded anchor bolts and retainer
plates if shearing is taken place
Remove defective concrete from under and around the bearing and
replace it with new
Appropriate MOT unit must be notified if unusual movement or stress
cracks are observed
Where bearing is immobilised, clear the bearing and the area around
the bearing. Repair or replace the protective system. Lubricate the
bearing, if appropriate.
For Rocker bearing the same remedial action recommended.
For POTbearing the same remedial action recommended.
For Elastomeric bearing the following remedial actions are recommended.
Clean the debris to prevent build-up
Remove defective material from under and around the bearing and
replace it with new.
For problems relating to excess shearing, non-uniform compression,
ozone cracking, bond failures and excessive wear, no immediate
corrective measure must be taken unless there is danger of collapse.
The appropriate MOT unit must be notified to conduct a study of the
condition which would include the probable cause of the situation.


CHAPTER 5

46
The remedial actions for bridge seats and pier caps are the followings:
Where deterioration has occurred under the bearing temporary bents must be
erected that will transfer the load of the superstructure off the bearing.
All rust and deterioration must be removed by sand blasting or chipping. Any
significant loss of section must be replaced by plating with welds. The surface must
then be primed and the best coatings available applied. Fractured welds must be
chipped away and replaced with high quality welds. Loose or broken rivets and pins
must be removed and replaced.
11. Abutment & Pier
For the abutments & piers the following remedial actions are recommended:
Settlement problem should be determined and corrected. This could be due to
inadequate bearing capacities of the supporting soil or due to subsurface sliding.
Vertical cracking caused by differential settlement can be corrected by sealing with
epoxy mortar or shotcrete. If the back wall moved to such an extent as to block the
structural member, demolish and reconstruct the back wall again.
The first step in the repair of concrete deterioration is to completely remove all
defective concrete using various types of air tools. The method of bonding the new
concrete to the old will depend upon the depth and volume of the repair. Using
shotcrete method for bonding of new concrete to the old has favourable results.
The loss of soil adjacent to the back wall is usually caused by a deteriorated deck
joint which is allowing roadway drainage to enter behind the back wall and wash
the soil away. The problem can be solved by replacing the joint after back filling
behind the wall and compacting as required.
12. Water Channel
For the stream bed and bank defects the following remedial actions are
recommended:
Where erosion is experienced, carefully map the affected area and determine the
extent through a scour analysis. Based on the above analysis, determine the
earthwork volume or requirement of gabion baskets, rip-rap or concrete lining to
restore the stream bed to its original shape.
Deposition is somewhat associated to erosion. However, when found, it requires


CHAPTER 5

47
removal and transportation of soil or debris to areas beyond the active wadi bed.
(c) Preventive Measures for Future
The early detection and repair of minor defects in asphalt surface is the most
important part in bridge rehabilitation. Cracks and other defects, which in its
initiation phase are almost unnoticeable, may develop into serious defects if not
repaired early. For these reason frequent close inspection of the wearing surface
should be made.
2. Side walks
The following preventive measures are recommended for side walks:
The loss of structural ability and material deterioration may be prevented by good
construction technique and control of overweight vehicle.
Impact damage may be mitigated by providing adequate lateral clearance and
sufficient curb and sidewalks marking.
The preventive measures for future are similar as side walks.
Frequent inspection is to be performed to check the adequacy of drainage system.
Sometimes painting is to be done to prevent the corrosion of metal pipe. Short
scupper pipes must be extended to prevent drainage from blowing onto bridge
members.
The maintenance team must report in advance to the relevant agencies for proper
maintenance of the utility service to avoid sudden collapse of suspended pipes.
5. Deck Slab
Scaling may be prevented by the use of high quality materials, proper construction
methods and maintaining good drainage especially in the spout areas. A regular
program of flushing the deck may reduce the occurrence of scaling.
Cracking may be prevented by taking the same precaution as spalling. Provisions for
adequate expansion of the approaches will eliminate cracking at the deck joints
associated with pavement thrust. Structural cracking can be prevented by good


CHAPTER 5

48
design & construction and avoiding overloads of structures.
Spalling as well as cracking may be considerably reduced by eliminating following
factors contributing to the corrosion of reinforcement.
Coating of reinforcing bar
Using better and more impermeable concrete
Providing a protective waterproofing system for the deck at the time of
construction
Providing adequate cover over the rebar
Designing properly to reduce excessive live load vibration and deflection
Providing cathodic protection
Using proper construction technique and quality control
Using polymer impregnated concrete
For the corrosion of reinforcement on bridge decks, cathodic protection acts as
both a remedial and a preventive action.
6. Expansion Joints
Finger Joint - An adequate drainage system of sufficient slope which may be easily
cleaned is essential. If the deck kept clean a minimum amount of debris will enter
the drainage system eliminating the need for frequent cleaning. An adequately
designed and adequately anchored expansion device is the best prevention
against looseness of the device or broken expansion fingers. Routine observation
and corrective actions are the best prevention against damage from roadway
vehicles.
Strip seal joint The use of a sealing material such as a poured-in-place
polyurethane joint sealant used in conjunction with a backup material will prevent or
deter the effects of water and debris passing through the joint. However, a program
to reseal these joints on a regular basis is necessary.
Elastomeric joint The most effective prevention for elastomeric joint is close
supervision during the construction phase so that the joint system is properly aligned
and installed as recommended by the manufacturer and warranted by good
construction practice.


CHAPTER 5

49
Modular Joint Proper installation of the joint material, along with good
maintenance methods after installation will prevent many problems associated with
joint material ravelling, joint spalling, leakage at the joints and transverse movement
of the superstructure. Keeping the joint clean and properly sealed to prevent the
intrusion of sand and dirt is the best method of preventing transverse movement of
the superstructure. Once movement has occurred further movement may be
prevented by properly cleaning and resealing the joint and bracketing the span in
place to help resist further movement or by securing the deck to the stringers to resist
transverse movement of the deck with respect to the stringers on the non-composite
structures.
7. Primary Members
The preventive measures to be used for primary members of the bridge
superstructure are the following:
A waterproof membrane on a deck of box girder would prevent water and
chlorides passing through the lower slab. Proper maintenance of hole through the
bottom slab will prevent entrapment of water.
Careful attention should be given to the accuracy and proper placement of
advance warning system of vertical clearance to prevent collision damage of T-
beam or girder.
Extending floor drains below the bottom of beams or girders will minimize the
deterioration of concrete and possible corrosion of reinforcing steel damage deck
drains.
The common method of protecting structural steel from rust and resultant corrosion is
to keep it covered with paint.
A regular program of flushing chemicals from the structure seats, pier tops, lower
flange of through girders and other areas where dirt or debris may collect on
structural members will prolong the life of a paint system. Periodic cleaning and spot
painting of leaky joint areas will also prevent corrosion and prolong its life.
The only feasible method to prevent cracks or fractures is to avoid as much as
possible the use of design details that are likely to cause high fatigue stress. Since
cracks are usually associated with weld, wrong welding must be discouraged
without analysis of stress condition in the beam.
The remedial action to be applied to secondary members of the bridge


CHAPTER 5

50
superstructure is similar to the primary member. In addition, all vertical clearances
should be checked after resurfacing of the roadway below.
9. Bearings
For roller bearing the following preventive action are recommended:
Have a program to clean dirt and debris off bridge seats at frequent regular
interval
The surface must be sloped to allow for proper drainage of surface near the
bearing
Have a program to clean and repair protection system at regular interval in
accordance with accepted painting or galvanizing procedures
Construct pressure relief joints if approach pavement pressure is determined
to be the cause of distress
Have a program to routinely lubricate the appropriate areas of bearing
For rocker bearing, similar to roller bearing prevention action should be applied.
For POTbearing same preventive actions should be applied.
For elastomeric bearing the following preventive actions are recommended:
Have a program to clean dirt & debris off bridge seats and bearings at
regular intervals
Connect a drainage trough channel under strip seal joint to prevent moisture
and debris coming from top.
The first step in the prevention of damage to the bridge seats and pier caps are to
reduce the amount of leakage from joint or through scupper in the deck. The debris
and chemical laden dirt should not be allowed to accumulate on these surfaces. It is
important that theses be flushed annually after the end of the season that includes
rainfall. The surface should be coated with a material that resists the effects of water
and chemicals.
11. Abutment & Pier
The following preventive actions are recommended for abutments and piers:


CHAPTER 5

51
The best prevention of abutment or pier cracking is to insure that no differential
settlement occurs. This is best realised by careful soil investigation & evaluation and
careful design & construction of the bridge foundation.
To prevent deterioration above the water line, concrete waterproofing compounds
can be used. Additionally the concrete may be protected at the waterline by non-
corrosive fender construction.
Where excessive debris is anticipated, a barricade in front of the upstream edge of
the abutment may be necessary. Damage at the water line can also be prevented
by protecting the concrete with a steel plate. This plate should be of sufficient
thickness and fastened in such a way as to be able to protect against the type of
debris that is expected to be encountered. Navigational piers are to be protected
fenders against mechanical damage caused by ships or barges.
12. Water Channel
In major wadi, where flash floods are known to occur, a careful study of the
hydrology is necessary. The only actual prevention of stream bed and bank defects
is adequate protection during design and construction. Remedial measures are
usually many times costlier than preventive measure.
(d) Prioritisation of Works
There are many factors that can lead to a need for prioritisation such as:
Policy decision to prioritise a certain type of maintenance
Policy decision to prioritise maintenance on a particular route
Policy decision to provide insufficient funding to carry out the optimal
maintenance strategy
The last factor is by far the most common reason for prioritisation since the demand for
public expenditure always seems to exceed the supply of revenue. The limitation of
maintenance budget is in effect a constraint on the optimisation process and it can be
dealt with in this way although it complicates the algorithm and requires more computer
time. In practice simpler methods have been adopted. One simple approach has the
objective of minimising the number of bridges that have outstanding optimal
maintenance work. This would involve ranking bridges in order of increasing
maintenance cost so the one with lower cost have higher priority and the bridges with
high maintenance cost would be deferred for sometime. The consequence of this
approach is that bridges with high maintenance cost may never be maintained. Clearly
this approach is unsatisfactory even though the objective on which it is based is
reasonable. A prioritised maintenance program is by its nature sub-optimal and will result


CHAPTER 5

52
in increased lifetime costs and traffic disruption. A better approach to prioritisation is to
minimise these consequences. The steps involved in such an approach are as follows:
In a given year form a subset of the bridge stock containing only those brides
requiring maintenance according to the optimal maintenance program
Assume for each bridge in the subset that the optimal maintenance work is
deferred and call the resulting cost saving for a bridge the benefit
Produce a new optimal maintenance program for each bridge based on the
previous assumption
Calculate the increase in lifetime cost and traffic disruption for each bridge
resulting from applying the previous assumption and call this the cost of
prioritisation for the bridge
Calculate the cost benefit ratio for each bridge and rank the bridges in the
subset in order of increasing value of this ratio
The bridge with the lowest cost and highest benefit will have the smallest ratio
value and thus the highest priority for maintenance; this bridge will be selected for
maintenance in the given year and remove from the subset
Repeat the last step until the maintenance budget is consumed
The bridge remaining in the subset when the budget is consumed will have its
maintenance work deferred and will be considered for maintenance when it
becomes optimal
In practice the above prioritisation process would only apply to bridges requiring
non-essential maintenance. All bridges requiring strengthening or replacement would
have the highest priority and this work would be carried out before the non-essential
work was prioritised.
This prioritisation procedure is useful because it is objectively based. It does not
consider subjective factors such as the environment, sociology, sustainability,
aesthetics or historical value. These should be considered qualitatively by engineers
using engineering judgement to decide if the ranking of bridges should be modified.
Another approach to prioritisation is to consider all factors affecting the priority and
to combine those in some way to produce a priority index that can be used to rank
the bridges. This is a much simpler approach but suffers from subjectivity and hence
possible bias concerning the values of some parameters and in the formula
combining them. Subjective factors include the importance of road, historical value
and aesthetics. Objective factors include condition state, cost of maintenance, life
of maintenance, life required and safety index.


CHAPTER 5

53
This prioritisation process can have a profound influence on the maintenance
program and necessitates considerable care in order to minimise lifetime cost and
disruption of traffic.
The proposed methodology (refer Figure) is divided into three levels which are
described as follows:
The first level of prioritisation is a ranking of bridges based on their condition
rating. The purpose is to select the most damaged bridges having a condition
rating above a given critical value. If enough funds a re available, the bridges
with a condition rating above the given critical value are repaired. In most of
the cases the bridge is limited and it is not possible to maintain all those
bridges so a second level of prioritisation is necessary.
The second level of prioritisation is a priority ranking function RA which takes
into account the condition of bridge (RC), the safety index of the bridge (),
the remaining service life (SL) and the impact of the bridge on the highway
road network (IF). The impact factors take into account the importance and
the functionality of the bridge, road classification, traffic, location and
historical value. The estimation of the remaining service life is based on
engineering judgement.
The model for ranking is therefore usually based on a function of the four
parameters:
RA =f (RC, , SL, IF)
A database containing sufficient empirical data id needed on a finite sample
of ranked bridges in order to initiate the process. At the end of the process, a
priority ranking of all the bridges is obtained but engineering judgement is still
needed because all the constraints may not be considered.
The third level of prioritisation is based on a maintenance optimisation for
different selected maintenance strategies, taking into account the cost for
each selected strategies. The optimisation is made for a particular bridge and
then for the whole stock. The stock of bridges studied may be limited to the
selected number of bridges resulting from the second level of prioritisation.
Project level optimisation involves an economic evaluation of each maintenance
option and should take into account the total cost including both direct cost of
repair and indirect cost such as administrative costs, user delay cost etc. the
optimal maintenance strategy for a bridge over a period (t t0), is the one for
which the amount of money saved by deferring maintenance work in current
year is comparatively high compared with the long term cost due to the
additional deterioration occurring during the period. This method is also called


CHAPTER 5

54
cost-benefit analysis and the cost-benefit ratio, R is expressed for a given bridge
for a chosen period (t t0),
Lifetime cost + cost due to additional deterioration
R = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money saved by deferring maintenance work
The lower the ratio, the higher is priority for maintenance.
Network level optimisation uses the different values of the cost-benefit ratio
obtained for all bridges to produce a ranking of bridges at the network level. This
network level optimisation is an iterative process which includes such factors as:
Available funds for maintenance of the whole bridge stock
Co-ordination of maintenance work for group of bridges
Co-ordination of maintenance work on bridges with the maintenance
work on the road
Political decision
Natural disaster such as floods, earthquakes etc.
The first two levels descried above are used to select a subset of the bridge stock on
which maintenance prioritisation is to be carried out. Limitation of knowledge on the
subject makes it difficult to give a preference between the global cost analysis and
the cost-benefit ratio method in order to choose the best maintenance program for
a given bridge. An examination of the two methods shows that the first seems easier
to apply and has the advantage of considering the whole life of the bridge. The
second is intended to be used over a certain period of time and introduces the
difficulty of needing to know the cost due to the additional deterioration which
requires the evaluation of the deterioration process to be known with enough
accuracy.


CHAPTER 5

55

Figure - Scheme for Prioritisation of Bridge Maintenance
Condition Rating
of Bridge
Condition Rating
Prioritisation
L
E
V
E
L

1
Condition Rating: R
C

Safety Index:
Remaining Service Life: S
L

Impact of Bridge: I
F

Priority Ranking
L
E
V
E
L

2
Cost-benefit Ratio

Amount saved by deferring
maintenance work
>
long term cost due to additional
deterioration
Available funds
Coordination of maintenance work
Policy
Natural disaster
Maintenance Optimisation
Project Level
Optimisation
Network Level
Optimisation
L
E
V
E
L

3


CHAPTER 5

56
(e) Repair Methodology
1. Cracks
Cracks in concrete shall be repaired if the evaluation determines that it will
reduce the strength, stiffness and durability of the structure to an unacceptable
level or the function of the structure is seriously impaired. Cracks shall also be
repaired if the engineer determines that the improvement of concrete surface is
required. Based on the careful evaluation of the extent and cause of cracking
one or more repair methods may be applied to repair cracks.
Epoxy injection
Cracks as narrow as 0.05 mm can be bonded by epoxy injection. This process
has been successfully used in repair of cracks in bridges and water retaining
structures. This method can be applied to repair most of the structural and
non-structural cracks with the limitation that the cracks are required to be
dormant or causes of cracking shall be removed before application of this
method. This method is not applicable for the cracks that are actively leaking
or can not be dried out. This method requires high degree of skill for
satisfactory execution.
Sealing
This method shall be used on cracks that are dormant and of no structural
significance. This method involves enlarging the crack along its exposed face
and filling & sealing it with a suitable joint sealant. It is not suitable for active
cracks and cracks subjected to hydrostatic pressure. This is the simplest of the
repair methods and can be executed with relatively untrained labour. This
method is applicable for sealing both fine pattern cracks and large isolated
cracks.
Stitching
This method may be used when tensile strength must be re-established across
major cracks. Stitching a crack tends to stiffen the structure causing the
problem to mitigate elsewhere in the structure. Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate and strengthen the adjacent section, if required. This procedure
requires drilling holes on both sides of the crack, cleaning the holes, anchoring
the legs of the stitching bar in the holes with either a non-shrink grout or epoxy
resin based bonding system. The stitching bar shall be variable in length and
orientation and it should be located so that the tension transmitted across the
crack is not applied to a single plane within the section but is spread over an
area.


CHAPTER 5

57
Drilling & Plugging
Drilling & plugging a crack consists of drilling down the length of the crack and
grouting it to form a key. This technique is only applicable when cracks run in
reasonably straight lines and are accessible at one end. This method is most
often used to repair vertical cracks in the retaining walls.
Flexible Sealing
Active crack can be routed out; cleaned by sand blast or water jet and filled
with a suitable field moulded flexible sealant. A bond breaker should be
provided at the bottom of the slot to allow the sealant to change shape with
a concentration of stress on the bottom. The bond breaker may be a
polyethylene strip, pressure sensitive tape or other material which will not bond
to the sealant before or during cure.
Grouting
a. Cement grouting
Wide cracks particularly in gravity structures and thick wall concrete walls
may be repaired by filling the Portland cement grout. The procedure
consists of cleaning the concrete along the crack, installing built-up seats
at intervals across the crack, sealing the crack between the seats with a
cement paint/sealant/grout, flushing the crack to clean it and test then
grouting the whole area. For small volumes a manual injection gun may be
used, for larger volumes a pump should be maintained for several minutes
to ensure good penetration.
b. Chemical grouting
Chemical grouts consists of solutions of two or more chemicals that
combine to form a gel, a solid precipitate or a foam as opposed to
cement grouts that consist of suspensions of solid particles in a fluid. The
advantages of chemical grouts include its applicability in moist
environments, wide limits of control of gel time and its application in very
fine fractures.
Dry-packing
Dry-packing is the hand placement of a low water content mortar followed
by tamping of the mortar into place, producing intimate contact between
the mortar and the existing concrete. Due to low water-cement ratio of the
material there is a little shrinkage and to patch remains tight and is of good
quality with respect to durability, strength and watertightness. Dry-packs can
be used for filling narrow slots cut for the repair of dormant cracks. The use of
dry-pack is not advisable for filling the active cracks.


CHAPTER 5

58
Crack Arrest
During construction of massive concrete structures, cracks due to surface
cooling or other causes may develop and propagate into new concrete as
construction progresses. Such cracks may be arrested by blocking the crack
and spreading the tensile stress over a larger area. A piece of bond breaking
membrane or a grid of steel mat may be placed over the crack as concreting
continues. A semicircular pipe placed over the crack may also be used.
Polymer Impregnation
A polymer system is a liquid that consists of small organic molecules capable
of combining to form a solid plastic. Polymers have varying degree of volatility,
toxicity and flammability and do not mixed with water. These are very fluid
and soak into dry concrete, filling of cracks same water does. Polymer systems
used for impregnation contain a catalyst and a basic polymer. When heated,
the polymers join together to become a tough, strong and durable plastic
that greatly enhances a number of concrete properties. It is not used for fine
crack repair.
Surface Treatment
Cracks in deck slabs may be repaired using bonded overlays if the slabs are
not subjected to movement. Slabs with numerous dormant fine cracks caused
by drying shrinkage can be effectively repaired by the use of overlay. Bridge
slab bottoms may be sometimes effectively coated using a heavy coat of
epoxy resin. In highway bridges a minimum overlay thickness of 40mm is
recommended for successful application.
Healing
The inherent ability of concrete to heal cracks within itself is termed as
autogenously healing. It is suitable for sealing dormant cracks in a moist
environment as found in mass concrete structures. The mechanism of healing
occurs through the carbonation of calcium hydroxide in the cement paste by
carbon dioxide in the surrounding air and water.
2. Scaling & honeycombing
The repair of scaling or minor spalling of concrete shall be low permeability
polymer modified cementitious repair mortar. All defective areas shall be
delineated and marked out on site. Concrete on the damaged, loose or
honeycombed areas shall be chipped off up to the reinforcement level or up to
the level of good parent concrete or up to the point on the reinforcement. Before
commencing the application of concrete mortar, the prepared concrete


CHAPTER 5

59
substrate shall be thoroughly soaked with water and the free surface water shall
be removed before priming.
The well-mixed polymer cement slurry (Polymer to cement slurry) 1:2 shall be
applied over the well soaked but surface dry concrete and steel rebar for
adhesion of fresh cement and sand mortar.
The repair mortar of 1 cement : 3 smooth silica sand shall be applied over the
freshly applied polymer cement slurry. If the depth of scaling is large wire mesh of
mild steal may be used prior to application of cement sand mortar. The polymer
modified cement sand mortar in proportions of 1 polymer : 2 cement : 6 sand shall
then be applied and finishing smooth up to the existing surface of concrete.
3. Spalling
The spalled areas are cleaned first and then coating of the exposed
reinforcement by a primer to prevent corrosion. Cover up the exposed
reinforcement by a suitable PMC mortar making good the spalled area of
concrete. Two-component epoxy zinc primer is to be used as anti-corrosion
coating. The primer shall actively resist corrosion within the confines at the repair
location and avoid generation of incipient anode in immediate adjacent
location.
4. Corrosion
Repair of corroded reinforcement (where corrosion has reduced the diameter of
the bar by more than 20%) shall be done by providing new reinforcements, which
are to be firmly secured with the old reinforcement by a suitable method.
Steel to be used as additional reinforcement where the diameter of existing main
reinforcement has been reduced to 80% of the original. However, the BRC fabric,
which is to replace/strengthen the corroded stirrups or tie bar shall also be used.
The exposed reinforcement showing signs of corrosion shall be cleaned by grit
blasting. If the diameter of the reinforcement is found to be reduced to 80% of the
original then additional reinforcement of equivalent diameter, free from rust shall
be firmly secured to the old reinforcement by any appropriate method with a
suitable lap.
5. Repair/replacement of Bearing
The appropriate MOT unit should be notified if any major distress is found. The unit
team should investigate the cause of distress and depending on that a decision
will have to be made on either repair/ replacement. The contractor shall provide


CHAPTER 5

60
oil and grease in the bearing after repairing/replacing the shear lug of the
existing bearing. Pedestals also may be repaired, if required.
6. Repair/Replacement of expansion joint
The appropriate MOT unit should be notified if any major distress is found. The unit
team should investigate the cause of distress and depending on that a decision
will have to be made on either repair/ replacement.
7. Repair/Reconstruction of Wearing Surface
The potholes are filled up with bituminous dust & debris with uneven surface and
a few of the cracks are repaired with bituminous material. All these distressed
spots need to be repaired with an aim to prevent ingress of water up to deck slab
and to improve riding quality.
8. Repair of railing
The isolated cracks and spalling of concrete in members of railing shall be taken
up in the similar line as indicated before in cracks paragraph.
The railings components significantly damage has to be rebuilding. This can
involve the railing posts where the damaged posts have to be removed retaining
the existing reinforcements without damage. In case the reinforcements are
corroded with loss of section more than 10%, then new reinforcements will be
welded to existing reinforcements and additional reinforcements as per existing
shall be installed. The loose existing concrete shall be removed and the face
cleaned thoroughly. Reinforcements and formwork shall be placed in position.
Before placing new concrete the old concrete face shall be wetted with water
and the face covered with cement slurry.
9. Drainage spouts
In maximum locations, drainage spouts have to be installed by drilling holes in
concrete wearing coat, and by reaming of existing holes in concrete deck slab.
The work includes supply and installation of drainage spouts with top grating as
well as scupper pipes.
There are some locations where few nos. of existing drainage spouts are present
but that is not extended up to the required depth. Those pipes have to be
extended up to bottom of girder. To avoid the possibility of leakage of water at
the junction of extension inside diameter of new pipe will be having bit of larger
diameter.


CHAPTER 6
61
CHAPTER 6: STANDARD FORMS & FORMATS

The following forms to be used for the detailed inspection of bridges.

Sl. No. Form No. Title
1 CRM CONDITION RATING MATRIX
2 DIF DETAILED INSPECTION FORM
3 QTS QUANTITY TAKE-OFF SHEET
4 CLF CHECK LIST
5 OS OBSERVATION SHEET
6 PLS PHOTO-LOG SHEET


CHAPTER 6
62
FORM CRM : CONDITION RATING MATRIX
Bridge No: Date:

Rating Code and Description
Element Type Action Check Point
Rate 7 Rate 6 Rate 5 Rate 4 Rate 3 Rate 2 Rate 1 Rate 0


CHAPTER 6
63
FORM DIF : DETAILED INSPECTION
Bridge No: Date:

Priority Ranking
Distress
Location
Traffic
Distress
Mode
Functional
Type of Distress Type of Test Cause of Distress Remedial Action Remarks


CHAPTER 6
64
FORM QTS : QUANTITY TAKE-OFF SHEET
Bridge No: Date:

Basic Parameter Quantity
Distress
Type
Distress
Location
Specification
Reference
L B H Diameter Area Volume Weight
Remarks

Note: Measurement shall be recorded for cracks in meter, scaling in sqm, spalling in cum and corrosion of steel in Kg. Other distresses shall be as per the standard mode
of measurement


CHAPTER 6
65
FORM CLF : CHECK LIST

Bridge No: Date:

Test Method Planned Actual
General
Visual inspection
Orientation & location of element
Condition rating matrix
Air temperature
Corrosion problem
Sketch of damage pattern
Measurement of concrete cover
ECP test
Break-up test
Measurement of rebar diameter
Carbonation test
Humidity test

RCT test

Structural problem
Crack mapping
Measurement of crack width
CAPO test
Carbonation in CAPO fracture
Reinforcement geometry
Miscellaneous
Ultra-sonic test
BOND test
Delaminating test
Elcometer test
Magnetic particle flux crack detection
Endoscope inspection


CHAPTER 6
66
FORM OS : OBSERVATION SHEET

Bridge No: Date:

Test method Test Location Test Results


CHAPTER 6
67
FORM PLS : PHOTO LOG SHEET

Bridge No: Date:
Roll/Disc no:
Sl No Test Type Test Location Photo Description

CHAPTER 7: TECHNICAL PAPERS & J OURNALS
The following technical papers and J ournals are referred during the preparation of this
manual.
A system of bridge inspection & data management in developing countries Condition
Evaluation of concrete bridges relative to reinforcement corrosion Bridge inspection
manual (Texas dept. of transportation)

BMS - Extended review of existing systems and outline framework for a European System

CHAPTER 7

TRANSPORT RESEARCHLABORATORY
DFID
Department For
International
Development

TITLE: A system of bridge
inspection and data
management in developing
countries
by:
J Parry

O

Overseas Centre
Transport Research Laboratory
Crowthorne
Berkshire RG45 6AU
United Kingdom PA1222/90

A SYSTEM OF BRIDGE INSPECTION AND
DATA MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

BY

J D PARRY, Overseas Unit, TRRL

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a system of bridge inspection designed
to assist a District Engineer, who may not be abridge specialist but
nevertheless has a number of structures in his charge. This situation has
been shown to exist in developing and industrialised countries. Overseas
Road Note 7, Volumes 1 and 2 (1988) describe the system and give
guidance on the management of bridge inspection procedures, reports
and.other bridge data in the forms of the bridge inventory and drawings.

The main features of this publication are:

i.
A manual for the engineer in charge,
ii. _
An instruction and reference book for technician inspectors and
iii.
A comprehensive check-list to be used as the inspection report
form.

The system was given field trials in several countries
before publication, the most extensive being in Malaysia with the co-
operation of J abatan Kerja Raya.

INTRODUCTION

1
In most countries it is now well recognised by those involved with
highways that timely, appropriate maintenance is cost effective, from the point of
view of the maintenance organisation as well as that of the road user and the
national economy. It is also clear that the maintenance problem is larger now
than ever before, because of the large increase in the size of national networks
over recent decades and because of deterioration due to age and wear. Good
maintenance management is the aim of all highway departments but highway
maintenance is universally under-financed and under-staffed.
2
In order to meet the demand for efficient use of maintenance
resources, highway departments are now employing maintenance management
systems of varying complexity, all claiming to improve the efficiency of the
maintenance process, and all based on detailed inspection of the road network.
However, these systems tend to concentrate on the road carriageway and give
little or no attention to the structures, which form a small but none-the-less
essential part of the network.

3 When road structures deteriorate, extensive sections of the road
network may be affected by weight, height or width restrictions on vehicles,
and road closure in cases of bridge failure. The result is a large and often

preventable expense to the road users and the highway department. The
problem is extensive in both developing and industrialised countries.

4 It its fifth annual report to the US Congress, the Federal Highway
Administration (1984) rated about 45 percent of the existing bridges in the
United States as either functionally or structurally deficient.

5
It is a false economy to assume that bridges are in good condition
until faults become apparent to the road user, because by then the damage may be
extensive and difficult to repair. One of the main purposes of a regular bridge
inspection system is to detect faults when they are still minor and relatively
cheap to rectify.

6 This paper describes a system of bridge inspection and management
of bridge data, which can be incorporated into a road maintenance management
system, or operated by a highway department independently of any such
system.

7 The efficient maintenance of roads and bridges alike is dependent on
frequent inspections of the stock, and then interpretation of inspection data,
followed by appropriate remedial treatment. In industrialised as well as
developing countries there are rarely enough engineers to perform the first
stage, i.e. bridge inspection. In practice the bridge engineers at highway
department headquarters show little interest in maintenance and are too few to
take on the task of regular inspection nationwide. The engineers responsible for
highways in the separate districts are rarely experienced in bridges and either
reluctant, or too busy, to inspect personally all the bridges in their charge.

8 There is, therefore, in many countries, a requirement that bridges
should be inspected more frequently than at present.

TRRL OVERSEAS ROAD NOTE 7 (1988)

9 - This is a further publication in the series of practical guides
published by the Overseas Unit at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in
the UK, primarily for developing countries. It is entitled, "A Guide to Bridge
Inspection and Data Systems for District Engineers." In this subject as in many
others, there is no simple division between industrialised and developing
countries, and although this guide was written primarily for the latter, it has
been well received in the United States as well as in countries of varying
development in Asia and Africa.

10 There are two fundamental problems addressed by ORN 7. The first
is the organisation and use of the various bridge records and the second is the
management of bridge inspection. This corresponds with the basic requirements for
the maintenance management of any commodity, i.e. (1) a complete record of the
stock and (2) regular bulletins of current condition.

Bridge Records

11
These are divided into four categories:

i.
The bridge inventory.
ii.
Drawings and calculations.
iii.
Inspection reports.
iv.
Maintenance records.

12
The guide recommends that the Bridge Inventory should take the
form of one A3 size card for each bridge. A sample layout is shown in Figures
1
and 2.

13 As well as showing all the basic information about each bridge or
culvert, the cards contain information used in the inspection process.

14 Two sides of an A3 size card provide sufficient space for
photographs, location sketch, plan, elevation, and cross-section of the
structure, construction drawing and calculation references and notes, as well as use
restrictions which may be in force. It is recognised that such detailed
information may not be available in all cases but the engineer is encouraged to
obtain as much data as possible to enable him to assess the importance of faults
subsequently recorded.

15
The guide contains a detailed description of each item of data on the
bridge record card with recommendations for a bridge numbering system, based on
route number and distance to the bridge from the road origin. Advice is given
on methods which may be used to establish a new inventory.

16 It is rare that a full set of Drawings and Calculations is available for
bridges more than a few years old. The types of drawings and calculations
commonly found are described as:
i.
Standard - drawings that may be suitable for a number of sites,
without specific site details.
ii.
Original design drawings not marked "as built." These will not
include changes made during construction.
iii.
As-built drawings. These will not record modifications made since
construction, such as widening, strengthening, etc.

iv.
As-built with all modifications shown and dated, with any
calculations made in connection with the passage of unusual loads.

17
It is important that Inspection Reports should be clearly understood
by all who refer to them. ORN 7 includes a standard format for an inspection
form that covers all common types of bridge design and commonly used
materials. It is simple to complete and to read, and allows for more detailed
reporting in the form of further notes or sketches.

18
One advantage of using a standard format is that consecutive reports
may be easily compared to detect small, progressive deterioration which can

lead to serious problems if not remedied at an early stage. Maintenance may be
commissioned using these reports and they are also consulted when preparing
maintenance budgets for future years.

19 It is recommended that individual Maintenance Records are kept for
each bridge. When repair works affect the structure significantly, these should be
recorded on the bridge inventory card and also be copied to the headquarters
bridge division.

Use of Computers

20
Bridge records are only partially suitable.for.recording on.computer.
Data most suitably recorded in the pictorial form are usually more efficiently
stored as hard copy drawings or on micro-fiche. However, much of the
information is in the numerical form and this is often useful to retrieve or
process using a micro computer.

21
A bridge inventory may contain a large amount of data, and a
variety of organisations may need information derived from it. Computers are a
powerful tool for assisting in the handling of data. Proprietary database systems
exist for most modern computers. Such a system could form the basis of a
bridge record system but would still require additional software development It
must be stressed that all software development is both expensive and difficult
22 The costs and benefits of implementing a computer-based system
should be evaluated before its introduction. Proprietary systems, if available,
are likely to provide the cheapest solution, but the assistance and advice of
professional consultants should always be sought at a very early stage.

23 In planning such a bridge record system, it is necessary to decide
which bridge data are to be included. Possible alternatives are:

i. The inventory only (bridge record cards).
ii.
The inventory and inspection reports.
iii.
The inventory, inspection reports and maintenance records.

24
The ultimate file sizes and software required should be estimated
initially, to enable decisions concerning appropriate development and/or
equipment to be made.

25 Two principal systems exist for computer equipment:

i. A central computer with links to district offices.
ii. A microcomputer at headquarters and in each district office.

26 A central computer is the best option in terms of general access to
one central file. It resolves the problem of ensuring that all users are dealing
with current and consistent data. Microcomputers, however, may be cheaper,
and are less vulnerable to unreliable electricity supplies, telecommunications
problems, and hardware failure.

The Inventory (Bridge Record Cards)

27 This is the simplest and possibly the most useful element of the
bridge records to record on computer. An inventory data base has a wide variety
of potential users with widely different requirements. Some examples of queries
received from users might be:

i. `List all bridges with load limits less than 10T.'

ii.
`List all bridges on the N23 road which are too narrow for a 4.5
metre wide load.'

iii. `List all bridges in the National Park'

iv. `List all bridges under the control of the `Ilam' maintenance
authority.'

v. `List all bridges built by `Barton Construction' between 1970 and
1976.'

vi. `List all bridges in an area bounded by the following map
references.'

Inspection Reports and Maintenance Records

28 If inspection and maintenance data are computerised, it will still be
necessary to keep copies of inspection and maintenance reports. Some of the
data on these reports cannot readily be computerised (sketch maps, references
etc.) These systems. have a narrower application than the basic bridge record
system, as the data are concerned mostly with maintenance. The system could
provide the basis for a series of regularly updated reports, which would be a
valuable management tool for the district engineer. Reports could include:
i. Regular summaries of urgent work highlighted by inspections.

ii. Summaries, defect by defect, which may highlight incorrect
mainten-ance techniques, inappropriate materials, etc.

iii. A maintenance diary of work needed and work carried out, listing
for example, bridges inspected this month, bridges to be inspected
next month, etc.

iv. Work schedules for different gangs, provided either on an area by
area basis, or a work type by work type -basis.

29 The inspection report form, shown as Appendix C in Overseas
Road Note 7 Part 1 (1988) was designed so that the inspection data may be
easily transfered onto a computer disc.

Computer Field Recording

30 Microcomputer-based data loggers are not recommended for bridge
inspection. When an inventory is very well established and all inspectors are
very familiar with its operation, it is possible that such a system could be
considered, provided suitable training is available and equipment can be
maintained. Even then, such a system could not fully replace the manual one
recommended here.

BRIDGE INSPECTION

31 There are may text books and manuals available written for bridge
engineers, that give excellent guidance on bridge inspection. This guide,
although it contains parts that will be of interest to bridge specialists, is written
specifically for highway engineers who are not bridge specialists, but
nevertheless have responsibility for a number of road structures.

32 Four types of inspection are identified:

i. Informal
ii. General
iii. Major
iv. Special

33 The Informal inspections are performed when highways staff cross
a bridge and take a cursory look at the structure. No expense is involved, but
-,defects may be detected long before a general inspection becomes due. Road
foremen etc. should be encouraged to make brief examinations of bridges they
cross, particularly the more remote ones that the district engineer is unlikely to
see.

34 The General inspection should take place regularly and at least once
a year on every bridge. It should include the structure, road approaches and
river bed, and is demanding in inspection time.
35 The Major inspection takes place every five to ten years according to
type of structure, and concerns a detailed examination by a bridge specialist.

36 Special inspections are commissioned because of unusual
circumstances, such as a recent overload or a flood-damaged bridge carrying
restricted traffic. The frequency and extent of these inspections vary greatly
according to the need.

37 The check list is intended to ease the task of bridge inspection for
the engineer responsible, and it is recommended that the general inspection
should be performed by an engineer whenever possible, but there are not
always enough engineers for this work. Where this situation exists, the
engineer in charge has two alternatives open:

i. his bridges are inspected only infrequently or
ii. the bridges are inspected by inspectors who are not engineers.

38
The requirement for engineers to inspect bridges regularly can be re-
written in two parts:

i. The requirement for regular, frequent inspections.
ii.
An engineer's assessment of bridge defects.

39 By careful reading of inspection reports prepared by others and
comparing them with previous ones, a district engineer should be able to decide
which bridges require his personal attention and visit only those. Further, he
will be motivated to leave his office and go to such bridges, when he sees a
report that suggests that they have problems. The advantages of this system are
clear:

i.
A saving of engineering time.

ii. Motivation for- an engineer to examine damaged bridges that he
might otherwise neglect.

40
Should this alternative system of inspection be adopted, it is
important that the following restrictions be observed:

i.
The engineer must remain in control and retain responsibility, as
before.

ii. He must select suitable inspectors from among his staff.

iii. He must train these inspectors or arran ge training for them at a
ministry school.

iv.
Routine annual inspections may be carried out in this way - not
major or special inspections.
v. Only small and medium size bridges of common construction
should be inspected by non-engineers. This will, however, include
most or all the bridges that are the responsibility of a district
engineer.

vi. The engineer must examine and retain all the reports submitted to
him and act upon any suggestion of structural defect in a report.
Routine or minor works may be commissioned without his personal
attendance, such as clearing debris, parapet repairs, etc.
vii.
It is helpful if the first report on each bridge is completed by the
engineer and his inspectors together, so that the inspectors can learn
how the engineer classes the defects and the engineer has personal
experience of each bridge that will be reported on. -

THE BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S HANDBOOK (ORN 7 VOL 2)

41
This 250 page book was written specifically for technician grade
inspectors or junior engineers, who may have a limited command of English as
a second language. For this reason, vocabulary and sentence construction have
been kept as simple as was possible, for a technical subject, and maximum use
has been made of photographs, line drawings and water-colours to illustrate the
functions of bridge components and defects that should be reported.

42
It was considered that a technician or junior engineer, who has. no
previous experience of bridge inspection, requires help in three possible ways:

i. Training in bridge materials, basic design and modes of failure,

ii. A simple but comprehensive check list to lead him through the entire
inspection process and

iii. A reference book, for help when he is not sure how to report a fault
or make a measurement.

43 The handbook is in two Parts. Part 1 acts as a basic text book and
may be used for private study or as a classroom aid for more formal tuition.
Types and parts of bridges are described and illustrated here, movement and
problems at bearings are explained, damage by water below and on the deck is
shown with methods of protection, and bridge materials are described with their
susceptibilities.

44 The inspection report form which is described in detail below,
presents a series of questions and Part 2 of the Bridge Inspector's Handbook
follows the sequence of this form, offering guidance and comment on each
question with an instruction or illustration of the problem. Because this part of
the Handbook follows the report form exactly, a completed report is included in
Appendix D as an example to the inspector and to serve as an index. Column 1
of the form contains the relevant page numbers in Part 2 of the book for help in
answering each question on the form. Other appendices cover safety during
bridge inspections, a list of inspection equipment and a list of technical words
used, simply defined.

45 The Bridge Inspector's Handbook is published as Volume 2 of
Overseas Road Note 7 (1988).

THE BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT FORM

46 The purpose of this report from is to lead an inspector through a
thorough examination of any small to medium sized bridge of normal
construction and to record in a clearly read manner all defects that the inspector
may find. It has been designed for use by technician inspectors, with simple
three-grade categories of severity and extent of defects, but it can also be used
by engineers of experience to record problems in a way that facilitates data
retrieval and comparison of reports from previous inspections and from other
similar structures.

47 Page 1 of the form contains basic data about the bridge copied from
the bridge inventory in order to identify the one to be inspected; a sketch to be
completed by the inspector showing any piers, river works, etc; a place for
instructions from the engineer in charge to the inspector and space for urgent
comments from the inspector to the engineer. Page 2 is concerned with basic
dimensions for checking and services carried by the, bridge.
48 The main body of the form should contain only those pages
appropriate to the structure to be inspected, in terms of materials and design; eg.
two concrete piers with steel girder and concrete deck. It is suggested that the
page numbers and the number required of each.page should be listed on the
Bridge Record Card at the bottom of side'2 (Figure 2.) Using these pages, an
inspector is led through a logical sequence covering the whole task, starting
with the road approaches and signs; the deck surface, drainage; underside of the
deck, bearings, abutments, piers, retaining walls; the river bed and river
training works: Bailey bridges and masonry arches have separate sections.

49 A typical page from the main part of the report form is shown as
Figure 3. On this page the inspector is required to identify the abutment, usually with
a name or compass point, and then, consider each question in turn. After each
question he must tick YES or NO stating if a problem exists, then how bad the
problem is and how much there is.

50 The first question on this page is, "Erosion or scour near the
abutment?" The inspector has answered with a tick, "Yes, there is a problem." He
has decided under the "How bad?" to tick "Very Serious", and under "How much",
"A lot." He has also written a note on a separate sheet, which may comment
on loss of gabions or include a relevant sketch.
51 Under the heading `Concrete Abutments' near the bottom of the
page, the first question is "Cracking?" If he is not sure how to answer this
question the inspector can refer to the relevant page for guidance, which is
shown to be page 89 in Part 2 of the Handbook. This is reproduced as Figure
4. Here the inspector can find instructions on what to report and an illustration of a
crack in a place considered to be important
52 It is essential that the engineer should know that all parts of the
bridge have been examined so at the end of each section is the question, "All
Checked? YES or NO." If the inspector has been prevented from examining any part
of the structure, he is expected to tick the NO box and write a brief note to say
why. The engineer can then send him back with appropriate equipment, such as
a boat, to complete the inspection.

53 When all the relevant pages have been completed, the inspector
should collect them together with any additional notes and sketches, write the
number of sheets on page 1, fill in any special remarks, then sign and date the
report. It should then be returned*to the engineer in charge without delay.
54 If the engineer in charge reads the reports as they come in and
demonstrates respect for them, the morale of the inspectors is kept high and the
quality of their work benefits accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

55 As with road pavements, the management of road structures
requires:

i. A complete record of the stock.
ii. Regularly updated reports on stock condition.
56 The inspection and data management system presented in
Overseas Road Note 7 is designed for use by a highway engineer, who has
in- his charge a number of structures and insufficient specialist engineers
to inspect them. It gives guidance on the management of bridge records
and practical help with bridge inspection. Volume 1 of the publication is
addressed to District Engineers and includes a comprehensive inspection
check list. Volume 2 is written for technicians, who have only a limited
command of English, the first part being for instruction on bridges and the
second part for reference until familiarity is achieved with the inspection
process.
57 This system has been adopted in whole or in part by a
number of highway authorities and parts are currently being translated
into two further languages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
58 ORN 7 is based on a draft commissioned from Rendell,
Palmer and Tritton, consulting engineers in the U.K The main writer and
collaborator during the field trials in Malaysia was Mr ' R Blakelock.
59 Further tribute must be paid to the late Mr D M Brooks,
who as Head of the Overseas Unit's Pavement Management Section, was
largely responsible for initiating the work and contributed so much to its
successful completion before his untimely death.
60 This paper is published with the permission of the Director
of TRRL, Mr D F Cornelius.

REFERENCES

1. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, 1984. Fifth annual
report to congress: Highway bridge replacement program.
Washington DC: US Department of Transportation.
2. TRRL Overseas Unit, 1988. Vol 1 A Guide to Bridge Inspection
and Data Systems for District Engineers, Vol 2 Bridge Inspectors
Hand-book. Overseas Road Note 7.
Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

SHRP-S/FR-92-103

Condition Evaluation of
Concrete Bridges Relative to
Reinforcement Corrosion
Volume 1: State of the Art
of Existing Methods

Edward J. Gannon
Philip D. Cady
The Pennsylvania Transportation Institute
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA

Strategic Highway Research Program
National Research Council
Washington, DC 1992

Executive Summary

This volume reviews and summarizes the existing methods and equipment for evaluating the
condition of concrete bridge components. The purpose is to identify viable techniques that can
be combined with the new techniques described in Volumes 2 through 7 of this report in order
to provide the "toolbox" for an integrated approach to the condition assessment of concrete
bridges (Volume 8 of this report).
This volume discusses methods for detection of damage resulting from corrosion of steel in
concrete, poor quality or deteriorated concrete, and damage to prestressed/posttensioned
tendons embedded in concrete. The discussion covers only the methods or procedures that
are currently used for field evaluations. The discussion of each method includes any
experiences with the method/procedure as reported in available literature sources and in
interviews with state and provincial department of transportation inspection and maintenance
personnel. An appendix summarizes comments from these engineers.
The selection of techniques and procedures is based on several criteria. The most important is
the ability of the method to carry out the required function at an acceptable performance level.
Simplicity of operation is another important criterion. The method or procedure must be field-
ready, rugged, and possess a high degree of reliability.

The recommendations are:

Delamination Detection: Sounding of concrete surfaces is recommended. Methods
using stress waves may be economical if used concurrently to detect other types of
damage or deterioration.

Corrosion Detection: Half-cell potential measurement is recommended.
Structural Damage: Stress wave (impact-echo and pulse velocity) methods are
recommended.

3

Reinforcing Cover and Location: Magnetic flux methods are recommended.

Deteriorated Concrete and Voids: Stress wave methods are recommended.

Moisture Content: Neutron methods are recommended.

Strength Assessment: Rebound Hammer or penetration methods, backed up by
compressive strength of drilled cores, are recommended.
Prestressed and Posttensioned Structures: At this time, only visual methods can be
recommended; no quantitative methods are field-ready.
Petrography: This is recommended only when conditions related to concrete
quality are involved and data cannot be obtained by any other method.

4

4

Summary

Conclusions
The ideal nondestructive testing procedure for reinforced or prestressed concrete structures
would provide information about the existence and location of deterioration, corrosion, and
structural damage. Rates of corrosion are important as well in order to project service lives.
Given the variables of exposure, geometry, and materials that are present on a bridge, there is
no procedure that can provide all the desired information. However, the methods covered here
can provide a good picture of the condition of a structure.
The purpose of this review is to determine which methods warrant consideration for bridge
evaluation. These methods are combined with the methods developed in Volumes 2 through 7
of this report in an integrated bridge evaluation procedure (Volume 8).

Recommendations

The selection of the techniques and procedures to be considered for the development of the
"Procedure Manual" (Volume 8) is based on several criteria. Obviously, the most important
of these is the ability of a method to carry out the required function at an acceptable
performance level, and in this regard, the experiences of the department of transportation
engineers carry considerable weight. Simplicity of operation is another criterion: the
method should not be highly labor-intensive. Further, it must be field-ready and rugged and
possess a high degree of reliability. The levels to which these criteria can be met will
vary

41

considerably, and a degree of subjectivity may be incurred in the decision process. Note that the
criterion of need, relative to specific applications, is not included here since this factor falls into
the purview of Volume 8 of this report.

Delaminations

Based on the criteria set forth above, the recommended method of determining delaminations
is sounding (refer to page 17, "Sounding," for operator health considerations) (ASTM
D4580) (11). This method has been used extensively in the field, and it quickly provides
accurate and precise information on the location of delaminations. It does not provide
information on the depth of delamination. This can. be provided by use of impact-echo or
pulse velocity methods, but the equipment required is expensive and the methods are labor-
intensive. However, if these techniques are going to be used at a given site to find
deteriorated concrete, voids, and other structural damage, then they could also be used for
delamination detection. The standard method for pulse velocity is ASTM C597 (29).

Corrosion Detection

The only field-ready method capable of providing information on the presence of corrosion is
the measurement of half-cell potentials. ASTM C876 gives the procedure and equipment
required to perform the measurement of the half-cell potentials and determine the corrosion
activity of the reinforcing steel. There are a number of commercially available devices that
ai; n the collection and analysis of this data. One such device is the potential wheel (44),
br.. :iufficient field experience has not been presented to date, and it should still be considered
experimental.

It is recognized that this method provides only half the information required; it does not
provide the rate of corrosion. However, techniques for the evaluation of corrosion rate are
covered in Volume 2 of this report.

Structural Damage

The only methods that are field-ready and have shown that they are capable of determining
the extent of structural damage are the stress wave techniques, in particular the pulse velocity
and impact-echo methods. The pulse velocity method is standardized under ASTM
C597
(29).

42

Other methods, such as acoustic emission and radiography, have been explored theoretically
and in limited field testing. However, at this time, these are not considered to be viable
methods for incorporation into field procedures.

Reinforcing Cover and Location

Magnetic flux methods have been shown to quickly and accurately locate and determine
reinforcement depth and location. It is important to determine the accuracy required of the
meter so that the appropriate instrument can be chosen. Other important features are the
instrument weight, time of operation with fully charged battery, battery charging time,
operating temperature range, maximum and minimum rebar size for which the device is
calibrated, maximum depth of cover at which a bar can be located, and bar diameter gauging
accuracy.
Other methods, such as ground penetrating radar and radiography, have not been fully
developed or have had only limited field experience.

Deteriorated Concrete and Voids

While the results from radar and radiography have been promising, they are not the most
feasible method for detecting deteriorated concrete and voids, particularly for bridge elements
other than decks. It is recommended that stress wave methods be used, i.e. sounding, echo,
or surface wave (depending on the location, accessibility, and depth of the defect in
question).

Resistivity

Resistivity measurements are not recommended for determining the presence or possibility of
corrosion in reinforced concrete. The half-cell potential tests provide a more accurate
indication of the presence of corrosion. The technique described in ASTM D3633 (58) might
provide information regarding membranes for asphalt-covered decks and the effectiveness of
sealers. However, more appropriate means of evaluating these conditions are discussed in
Volumes 4 and 5 of this report.

43

Moisture Content

Moisture content has a significant influence on the deterioration of concrete, and it is
recommended that the neutron methods be used to determine the moisture content. These
methods have had success in soil applications and can provide information on moisture
content to about the rebar depths. The other methods are partially destructive or are not
developed to the extent required for field use.

Strength Assessment

For new construction, the pullout method, ASTM C900 (66), is recommended. For
evaluating existing structures, the rebound ("Schmidt Hammer"--ASTM C805) (63) or
penetration ("Winsor Probe"--ASTM C803) (71) methods should be used as screening tests,
with compressive strength testing of drilled core specimens (ASTM C42) (75) conducted at
critical locations or where the results of rebound or penetration readings are inconclusive.

Pretensioned and Post-tensioned Prestressed Concrete Structures

Except for visual methods, no other method is recommended for detecting deterioration in
prestressed and post-tensioned structures at this time. However, it seems that radiography,
stress waves, and magnetic field disturbance have potential applications. The most
encouraging work involves the magnetic field disturbance (MFD) method.

Petrography

Petrographic examinations are expensive and time-consuming. A high level of technical
expertise is required to perform the examinations, and sample acquisition is destructive
(coring). Therefore, the decision to use petrographic examinations should be employed very
judiciously, limiting it only to instances where the data needed to adequately assess the
condition of a concrete bridge component cannot be -acquired by other means.

44

Bridge Inspection Manual
Revised July 2002
by Texas Department of Transportation
(512) 416-2055 all rights reserved

Chapter 4 Field Inspection Requirements Section 5 In-Depth Inspections
Section 5
In-Depth Inspections

Reasons for In-Depth Inspections
In-Depth Inspections are usually performed as a follow-up inspection to an Initial, Routine, or
Damage Inspection to better identify any deficiencies found.
Underwater Inspections and Fracture-Critical Inspections are both types of In-Depth
Inspection. These are described in more detail below.
Load testing may also sometimes be performed as part of an In-Depth Inspection. However,
load testing for determining bridge load capacity is costly and interpretation of the results are
sometimes open to question.

Underwater Inspections
Underwater Inspections are a type of In-Depth Inspection. These are regularly performed
every five years. The frequency can be less than five years if conditions warrant.
A majority of the bridge structures in the United States, some 86 percent in the National
Bridge Inventory, are over some type of waterway. The lower elements and foundations of
many of these bridges are permanently inundated, so there is no opportunity to view the
effects of scour or damage to the structure. If the condition of these bridge foundation
elements is to be determined and the safety of the traveling public ensured, Underwater
Inspections must be performed on some regular basis. As a result of several bridge
collapses during the 1980s, the National Bridge Inspection Standards
3
(NBIS) were revised to
require the development of a master list of bridges requiring Underwater Inspections, and an
inspection frequency not to exceed five years.
The master list of bridges needing Underwater Inspections is compiled and updated during
Routine Inspections. Once a bridge is added to the master list, it will remain there until it is
no longer in use. Some bridges must be inspected at intervals more frequent than the
required five years due to the susceptibility to scour or other factors such as the age of the
bridge, configuration of the substructure, environment, adjacent features, or existing
damage. The frequency, type, and level of inspection are left up to the owner.

Underwater Inspection Methods
There are currently three methods used to conduct Underwater Inspections. These are:
Wading -- The most basic of the three methods, wading requires only a probing rod and
wading boots to be effective.
Scuba diving -- A method that allows a more detailed examination of substructure
conditions at the mudline. The diver has freedom of movement and may carry a variety of
small tools with which to probe or measure.

Bridge Inspection Manual 4-7 TxDOT 12/2001

Hardhat diving -- Involves the use of sophisticated diving equipment and a surface
supplied air system. This inspection method is well suited when adverse conditions will be
encountered, such as high water velocity, pollution, and unusual depth or duration
requirements.
The choice of which method to employ depends largely on accessibility and the required
inspection detail.

Levels of Underwater Inspection
Standard levels of inspection originated in the U.S. Navy. Three levels of inspection have
been established as the result of the process through time. These are:
Level I -- Consists of a simple visual or tactile (by feel) inspection, without the aid of
tools or measuring devices. It is usually employed to gain an overview of the structure
and will precede or verify the need for a more detailed Level II or III inspection.
Level II -- A detailed inspection which involves physically cleaning or removing
growth from portions of the structure. In this way, hidden damage may be detected and
assessed for severity. This level is usually performed on at least a portion of a structure,
supplementing a Level I.
Level III -- A highly detailed inspection of an important structure which is warranted if
extensive repair or replacement is being considered. This level requires extensive
cleaning, detailed measurements, and testing techniques that may be destructive or non-
destructive in nature.

Underwater Structural Elements
The elements of a bridge structure that may be located below the water line are abutments, bents,
piers, and protection systems. Bents are distinguished from piers in that they carry the loads
directly to the foundation, rather than using a footing.
Abutments normally do not require an Underwater Inspection, but in rare instances may be
continuously submerged. Although usually founded on piles or drilled shafts, abutments
occasionally rest on spread footings in rock. Scour is almost always the primary
consideration when an underwater abutment inspection is being conducted. Local scour is
often detectable during diving inspections, although sediment will eventually refill a scour
hole between the events that cause the scour. More general scour, or channel degradation,
will usually be undetectable to the diver and must be determined from known channel cross
sections or historical data.

Underwater Inspection Devices
There are several types of sounding or sensing devices available for use by divers in
underwater investigations. Most common is the black and white fathometer, which uses
sound waves reflected from the channel bottom and records the depths continuously on a
strip chart. It provides an inexpensive, effective means of recording channel depths but will


not detect a refilled scour hole. Other methods are color fathometers, which use different
colors to record different densities and in this way can often detect scour refill; ground
penetrating radar, which works well for shallow water but has limited usefulness in murky
water; and fixed instrumentation, which is reliable but requires periodic monitoring and
resetting to be effective.

Underwater Structural Materials
Piers and bents, if located in a navigable waterway area, are often subject to material defects or
collision damage as well as scour. Concrete is the most common type of material
encountered in Underwater Inspections, followed by timber, steel, and masonry. Common
defects in concrete substructures include cracking, spalling, laitance, and honeycombing. Minor or
even moderate damage to concrete can be tolerated if it does not endanger the reinforcing.
Corrosion of the reinforcing can lead to serious difficulties.
Timber has frequently been used for piles, especially in fenders or protection systems. The
most common type of damage to timber members is from biological organisms, such as
fungus, insects, and marine borers. In order to control infestations, timber is usually treated
to poison the wood to block a food source for organisms. In time the treatment may leach
out of the wood or the treatment layer may be penetrated. Particular attention should be
directed to the area of the waterline and the vicinity of connectors, where this type of
damage may occur.
Steel substructures are very susceptible to corrosion near the waterline or between the high and
low water levels. In this area, the presence of oxygen and frequent wet/dry cycles
promote deterioration at an accelerated rate and steel should be measured to determine the
possibility of section loss.
Masonry substructures are rare and if present are almost always on very old bridges. These
elements are subject to much the same type of damage as concrete, plus the loss of joint mortar
and individual pieces.

Fracture-Critical Inspections
Fracture-Critical Inspections are a type of Special Inspection. These inspections are usually
limited to non-redundant tensile stress areas. They are regularly performed every five years. The
frequency can be less than five years if conditions warrant. Methods of inspection may include
dye penetrant, magnetic particle, or ultrasonic techniques.

History of Fracture Critical Considerations
Early development of modern steel design focused on stress and strain; little was known or
recognized about the potential adverse effects of multiple stress cycles. Early materials such as
wrought iron were not capable of great unit strength. Early designs lacked the
sophistication that would require a designer to closely address details. Even after the
introduction of electric arc welding in the 1880s, most steel bridges were simple-span,
composed of built-up and riveted members.


Design of continuous beam highway bridges began after welding technology was improved.
Some of the first welded steel beam bridges were in Texas. Railroads were reluctant (some
still are) to use continuity and welding. The result of the use of continuity was more flexible
structures that were more subject to deflections and rotations. The result of the use of
welding, particularly in Texas, was simpler bridges and more consistent construction
quality.
As steel production and availability improved, along with higher strength steels, design
engineers were quick to accept the obvious benefits. However, no material is perfectly
homogenous, and the fact that steel could have hidden flaws was essentially ignored by
designers. After World War II, there was a massive expansion of highway bridge
construction. The popularity of personal motor vehicles increased as a result of more
highways and thus more highways and bridges were needed. The construction material of
choice was initially steel throughout much of the country. However, Texas designed many
smaller structures with concrete, which is still serving well in many locations. Steel bridges,
particularly trusses, were used for longer crossings, usually for streams and rivers.

Fatigue Failures
A number of steel structures failed in the 1950s and 1960s due to various causes, but the failure
that got national attention was that of the Silver Bridge at Point Pleasant, West
Virginia in 1967. This truss collapsed suddenly due to the brittle fracture of an eyebar link,
resulting in the loss of 46 lives and closure of a major route. The immediate result was the
impetus for the National Bridge Inspection Standards
4
(NBIS) as part of the Federal-Aid
Highway Act
5
of 1968 . In addition, after the failure, significant additional research efforts were
initiated in fracture mechanics. As a result, the effects of multiple stresses at less than yield of
the materials were understood more thoroughly.
The first recognition of redundant and non-redundant members was presented in the twelfth
edition of the AASHTO Bridge Specifications
6
in 1977 . The first guide specifications for
fracture critical bridge members was issued by AASHTO
7
in 1978 .

Fracture-Critical Members
After design engineers began to recognize the problems associated with multiple stresses at
less than allowable values, further information was developed to assist in the design process
and in evaluation of existing structures. After notable failures, it was recognized that many
existing bridges may be nearing failure due to fatigue. Fracture-Critical (FC) members were
recognized and defined as a member or component whose failure in tension would result in
the collapse of a bridge. These are commonly referred to as non-redundant members.
Methods were developed to help determine which structures must be further evaluated by
designers for susceptibility to fatigue problems. Designers began to include Fracture Control
Plans (FCP) in bridge design details.
Most common types of FC members are tension flanges and sometimes parts of webs of
flexural members such as beams and girders. Tension members of trusses, particularly
eyebars, which commonly make up the lower chords of old trusses, can also be FC. Other
tension members of trusses, such as diagonals, are also FC. Concrete members are not often

used in tension. The design of flexural concrete members with multiple reinforcing bars
precludes possibility of abrupt failure due to their internal redundancy.
The following rules-of-thumb usually determine FC members:
Two-girder bridges are defined as FC. Fracture of lower flanges in positive moment
areas (mid spans) and upper flanges in negative moment areas (over supports) can be
expected to lead to collapse of the structure. However, cracks over interior supports
sometimes lead to subsequent higher positive stresses in the spans with no catastrophic
collapse. Therefore, these FC components receive more frequent periodic In-Depth
Inspections.
All steel caps are defined as FC. While this statement is bold, an exception is difficult
to imagine.
Lower chords of trusses are FC. This determination is based on the fact that most truss
bridges employ only two trusses and most are simple span.
Secondary members such as diaphragms and stiffeners are not FC. They are rarely used
in a manner where failure would lead to structure collapse. However, caution must be
observed in evaluating certain truss members that may appear to be secondary when in
fact their attachment to main FC members can provide a starting place for the main
member failure.

Redundancy
The concept of structural redundancy is well known. Any statically indeterminate structure may
be said to be redundant, to varying degrees, depending upon its supports. A two-span straight
girder is redundant. However, a two-span curved girder is also redundant, but the support
reactions are determinate. These definitions of redundancy are of little value to the field
inspector who must make a determination of FC potential for various members in a bridge.
There are two types of redundancy that concern the FC inspector:
Load Path Redundancy. Superimposed traffic loads are supported directly by the deck,
which in turn is supported by longitudinal stringers or beams. A bridge with a single
box girder would therefore be non-redundant since a failure in the box would collapse
the bridge. Likewise, a two-girder bridge is non-redundant since one girder cannot
assume all of the load for which two are designed. However, it can be argued that a
continuous two-girder bridge is structurally redundant since a girder failure would not
cause collapse, but the structure would sag excessively. Three or more girders will
usually have enough load capacity due to inherent design factors of safety to avoid
collapse. The failure of one girder will immediately cause the loads to be shared by the
other girders. However, the FHWA considers three-girder bridges with more than 15-
foot girder spacing to be FC. The strength of the deck system should be considered for
this case. Some deck systems for wide beam spacings are two-way slabs and others
have stringer and floor beam systems with one-way slabs. Those with two-way slabs
will still have a load-path redundancy, while those with stringers and floor beams will
be more unstable after failure of one girder in a three-girder system.
Internal Redundancy. This term refers primarily to built-up members, such as riveted
plate girders. A single plate or shape in the built-up member might fail without causing


collapse. However, even members such as this must sometimes be considered
nonredundant, since like two-girder structures, failure of one portion of the member can
overload the remaining portions such that there is not sufficient remaining capacity to
prevent total failure. Usually, if the cross-sectional area of the largest shape or plate in a
built-up member is less than about 30 to 40 percent of the total member area, then the
member may be considered to be have internal redundancy.

Inspection Procedures for FC Members
Inspection procedures begin with proper advance planning. The more important planning
aspects, usually based on an office review of the structural plans, are:
Identify possible FC members.
Note the particular members in the structure that may require special field attention,
such as built-up tension members composed of few individual pieces.
Pre-plan necessary access to the members, including special equipment needs such as
ladders, bucket truck, or climbing gear.
Many FC members are a result of structures designed for urban situations with
necessary complex alignment geometries. Proper inspection of these bridges may
require closing a traffic lane. Safe traffic control must be coordinated in advance with the
local district and Area Engineer offices and their Safety Review Team.
If the structure involves a railroad, a railroad flagger must be coordinated with the
proper railroad company.
Identify and make available any necessary special tools and equipment that may be
required in addition to the normal inspection gear. A high-pressure washer is often
useful in cleaning areas where a large accumulation of debris might obscure view of FC
areas. Non-destructive test equipment such as ultra-sonic devices may be advantageous
in some areas, particularly inspection of box-type bent caps and pin-and-hanger
connections.
The actual field inspection of all FC members consists of several steps. The most important step
is a visual inspection. The inspector notes any:
Visual cracks and their direction and location
Evidence of rust, which may form at a working crack
Weld terminations in a tension area
Interrupted back-up-bars used for built-up-member fabrication
Arc strikes, scars from assembly cables or chains, or other physical damage
Cross-section changes which may cause a sudden increase in the stress pattern


Fatigue and Fatigue Fracture
Members subjected to continued reversal of stress, or repeated loading such that a range of change
in stress occurs, are subject to a behavior called fatigue. Members that have a
relatively constant, steady stress are not subject to fatigue. The term has been in use for
almost a century and is currently defined by the American Society of Testing Materials
8
(ASTM 1823-96e1) as the process of progressive localized permanent structural change
occurring in a material subjected to conditions that produce fluctuating stresses and strains at
some point or points and that may culminate in cracks or complete fracture after a sufficient
number of fluctuations. Fatigue can result in:
Loss of strength
Loss of ductility
Reduced service life
Fatigue fractures are the most difficult to predict since conditions producing them are often not
clearly recognizable. Fatigue occurs at stress levels well within the elastic range, that is, less
than the yield point of the steel, and is greatly influenced by minor imperfections in the structural
material and by fabrication techniques.
Fatigue fracture occurs in three distinct stages:
Local changes in atomic structure, accompanied by sub-microscopic cracking
Crack growth
Sudden fracture

Fatigue-Prone Details
Fatigue fracture almost always begins at a visible discontinuity, which acts as a stress-raiser.
Typical examples are:
Design details such as holes, notches, or section changes
Flaws in the material such as inclusions or fabrication cracks
Poor welding procedures such as arc strikes
Weld terminations
Certain structural details have been long recognized as stress-raisers and are classified as to their
potential for damage. These details appear in the current AASHTO Bridge
Specifications,
9
and other technical publications. Most of these common details should be
familiar to the fracture critical bridge inspector.
Proper consideration of member detail and sizing during design will help control stress level and
thus control crack growth. The stress range, or algebraic difference in the maximum and
minimum stress, also becomes important. The most effective way to control cracking and
eventual fracture is sensible detailing. Details such as out-of-plane bending in girder webs and
certain weld configurations can cause crack propagation and fracture.


Design for fatigue also includes observing a fracture control plan (FCP). The FCP identifies
the person responsible for assigning fracture-critical designations. It establishes minimum
qualification standards for welding personnel and fabrication plants. It also sets forth
material toughness and testing procedures. The specific members and affected sections are
also identified in the FCP. During fabrication, these members are subject to special
requirements.
Fatigue failure is always an abrupt fracture, called a brittle fracture. A brittle fracture is
distinguished from a ductile fracture by absence of plastic deformation and by the direction of
failure plane, which occurs normal to the direction of applied stress. Other failure
surfaces due to high stress are usually at an angle to the direction of the stress and are often
accompanied by a narrowing or necking of the material. Brittle fracture failures have no
narrowing or necking present.
The three main contributing factors to brittle fracture are:
Stress level
Crack size
Material toughness, sometimes called fracture toughness
Small, even microscopic cracks can form as a result of various manufacturing and
fabrication processes. Rate of propagation, or growth, of cracks also depends on the stress
level and the material toughness. Material toughness is the ability of a material to resist brittle
fracture. This resistance is primarily determined by chemical composition and to some extent
by the manufacturing processes.
Usually, higher strength steels are more susceptible to brittle fracture and have lower
toughness. Toughness can be improved by techniques such as heat treatment or by
quenching and tempering.

Weld Details
Inspectors concerned with FC inspections must acquaint themselves with the characteristics of
good and poor structural details and be able to identify those details in the field. Welding creates
the details most susceptible to fatigue and fracture. Therefore, it is imperative to recognize
features prone to FC failure.
Major FC problem areas are at weld discontinuities or changes in geometry such as:
Toes of fillet welds
Weld termination points
Welds to girder tension flanges from other connections such as stiffeners or diaphragms
Ends of welded cover plates
Welded cover plates on rolled beams were a very common detail until fatigue failures began to
be recognized by bridge engineers. Whether the weld is terminated or continued around the end
of the cover plate, the condition is at best Category E.


Weld attachments to a girder web or flange can reduce fatigue strength as the length of the
attachment increases. Welds two inches or less fall in Category C and those greater than four
inches in length reduce to Category E. Such details are commonly used to attach diaphragms
and wind bracing to main structural members, either at the flange or web. Details such as run-
off tabs and back-up bars may also provide possible stress riser
discontinuities if not smoothed by grinding after removal.
Inspectors should familiarize themselves with acceptable and unacceptable fillet weld
profiles in order to recognize potential problem areas in the field.

Fatigue in Secondary Members
Secondary members may also have fatigue problems. For instance, main girder stress
reversal may induce vibrations in lateral bracing or diaphragms. In many cases the number of
stress reversals in the secondary member is a magnification of those stresses in the main member.
The attachment of plates to a girder web may cause out-of-plane bending in the web, a situation
not usually considered by the designer.
In general, secondary members themselves are not subject to a FC inspection. However,
some secondary members, even though designed only as secondary members, such as lateral wind
bracing in the lower plane of a girder system, will act as primary members. These
cases generally occur in curved or heavily skewed structures. A curved bridge will have
twisting or torsional effects due to the live loads that are partially resisted by the diagonal
lateral wind bracing. These braces, particularly those near supports, should be inspected for
possible fatigue cracks.

Proper Welding and Repair Techniques
Proper welding of structural steel members is a tedious process under the very best of
conditions, which are usually found in the fabrication shop. Any field welding, whether it is
a welded girder splice, retrofit detail, or repair, should be closely examined for visible
problems. Many shop splices are accomplished by automatic welding machines under
controlled conditions and can be smoothly ground to eliminate surface discontinuities. Field
splicing operations are subject to exposure to the elements and difficulties in stabilizing the
pieces to be joined. In addition, the welding is usually done by hand and therefore subject to
human error. Fortunately, welded field splices for bridges constructed with state supervision
in Texas have always been subject to careful inspection and must be done by certified
welders. The welded field splices for these bridge are usually of the same quality as shop
splices and are often further inspected by radiographic (X-ray) techniques.
The inspector should also be aware of problems that may arise from the use of improper
field repair processes. Often a well-intentioned repair can actually make a member even
more susceptible to brittle fracture.


FC Inspection Techniques
FC inspection techniques may include non-destructive testing to determine the condition of
a structural member. There are several types available, including radiographic, ultrasonic,
dye penetrant, and magnetic particle inspection. All are acceptable methods, but each has
limitations and may not be suitable for a particular situation. One single technique may not
be sufficient to assess damage and a combination of more than one may be advisable.
Usually these types of inspection are best left to personnel who have undergone the proper
training.
The selection of the type of non-destructive testing method for a particular location is
usually a function of the detail. For instance, potential cracks at the ends of welded cover plates
are often inspected by the use of radiographic methods. Cracks in pins are best
inspected by ultrasonic techniques. Subsurface defects such as inclusions may be found by
magnetic field irregularities, and cracks adjacent to fillet welds at tee-joints are usually
inspected by dye penetrant. These methods are all described in more detail in The Bridge
Inspectors Training Manual 90.
10


Deliverable D13
Bridge Management Systems: Extended Review of Existing Systems
and Outline framework for a European System

Status (C, R, P)

BRIME
PL97-2220

Project
Coordinator: Dr R J Woodward, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)

Partners: Bundesanstalt fuer Strassenwesen (BASt)
Centro de Estudios y Experimentacion de Obras Publicas (CEDEX)
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses (LCPC)
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA)
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute (ZAG)

Date:
PROJECT FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION UNDER THE TRANSPORT
RTD. PROGRAM OF THE
4th FRAMEWORK PROGRAM

3 FRAMEWORK FOR A BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
3.1 BACKGROUND
This section brings together the findings from the other workpackages to develop a
framework for a bridge management system.
A bridge management system has as its heart a relational database for storing all the
information required to carry out the management functions; this is called the bridge
inventory. Much of this data already exists albeit in paper records. However, it should
be appreciated that a considerable effort is required to compile and verify this existing
data, collect missing data and thereafter to enter data modifications promptly to ensure
that the data base provides a reliable and up to date record. The main functions of the
BMS are best catered for in separate modules that are attached to each other via the
inventory. These modules consist of mathematical models, algorithms and data
processing tools. The modules needed to manage bridge maintenance efficiently and
effectively have been discussed in previous workpackages and are:

condition appraisal (Workpackage 1)
assessment of load carrying capacity (Workpackage 2)
rate of deterioration (Workpackage 4)
assessment of load carrying capacity of deteriorated structures (Workpackage 3)
deciding maintenance strategies and methods (Workpackages 5 & 6)
prioritising maintenance work (Workpackage 6)
The modules also correspond with the main activities associated with managing
bridges:
various types of inspection
testing
assessment of bridges in different conditions
preventative maintenance
repair work
strengthening
replacement
Management systems sometimes exist for road pavements, lighting columns, retaining
walls and embankments and street furniture such as sign gantries and signposts. In
theory all these elements of road infrastructure could be combined to form an all
embracing infrastructure management system which would have some potential
benefits. At the present time, however, it is considered that significant operational
difficulties would arise because the operations at the site level are not yet sufficiently
well integrated. The approach taken here is to produce the framework of a
management system for bridges while taking account of the long-term objective of
combining this with management systems for other types of infrastructure. The first
step to full integration would be to link the inventories for different types of
infrastructure through their location on the road network using GPS.

17

The application of these modules generates a maintenance programme that indicates:
the maintenance work needed each year on each bridge in the stock and
the recommended maintenance method and its estimated cost

that are necessary to keep all the bridges in the stock open to the full range of normal
traffic at a minimum overall lifetime cost subject to any constraints that may be
imposed from time to time such as a maximum annual budget for maintenance work.
Where it is necessary to impose constraints the BMS should evaluate the
consequences of imposition in terms of reduced life, increased lifetime cost and
increased disruption to bridge users. The following sections discuss the background
to each module and summarise the work described in previous workpackages before
describing the BMS framework and interconnections between the modules. Particular
attention is given to the data requirements of each module and to applications at both
network and project levels.

3.2 GENERAL APPLICATIONS OF THE BRIDGE INVENTORY
Typically bridge inventories contain a few hundred data fields which cover aspects
such as:

bridge identifiers - name / number
bridge location - map reference, road name, route number, obstacle crossed
bridge elements and components
bridge dimensions
bridge materials
forms of construction
year built and required life
traffic data
load assessment history
inspection history
test history
maintenance history
bridge owner, maintenance agent, region, services

Queries and associated reports relating to this data can be carried out using normal
database operations. An almost unlimited variety of queries can be posed using logical
operators and criteria on selected data fields. A few examples of queries follow which will
illustrate the possibilities:

Example 1: List the name, bridge number and age of all bridges in region A where
the principal bridge inspection is overdue by more than 1 year.

Example 2: List the name, bridge number and location of all bridges using deck
waterproofing membrane type B on roads subject to winter
maintenance with rock salt de-icer.

18

Example 3: List the name, bridge number, location, inspection history and
maintenance history of all bridges in region C that are classified as
ancient monuments.
Example 4: List the name, bridge number and location of any bridge on the route
M1 that has a weight restriction imposed.

The first part of each example indicates the information from the inventory that is
required and the second part specifies the criteria that should be applied to ensure that the
data reported only relates to bridges satisfying the criteria.
The first example is one that would be used regularly to check that the principal
inspections of bridges are not being overlooked by mistake, an event that is quite
possible on a few bridges when the stock contains, typically several thousand
bridges.

Example 2 may arise if problems have been identified with a particular type of deck
waterproofing membrane and it is required to identify the other bridges with this type of
membrane especially if de-icers are used since these may penetrate into the deck and
cause latent corrosion of the reinforcement.

The third example may arise if the heritage authority requests information on the
condition and maintenance of bridges classified as ancient monuments.
The fourth example may arise during investigations into the effect of a load restriction on
one bridge on traffic movements on its route.
These queries usually only take a few minutes to compose and can be saved for future
use if necessary. The reports can be viewed on screen, printed or saved to file for
electronic transmission.

This function of a BMS is very flexible and has numerous applications associated
with day to day management activities.

3.3 CONDITION APPRAISAL
Bridges are usually designed and constructed to achieve a life of about 100 years
hence it is important to monitor their condition periodically throughout their life in
order to ensure that:

they remain fit for purpose
the level of deterioration is consistent with achieving the design life
there are no obvious defects that affect the safety of the public.

These checks are the purpose of bridge inspection and the results can be used to
provide information on the condition of a bridge. The term condition is quite general and
means different things to different people. Guidelines for condition assessment based
on a review of methods used in Europe and the United States are described in
Deliverable D2. In general it is based on the results of superficial, general and major
bridge inspections. A fourth type of inspection, an in-depth inspection, is sometimes
carried out on bridges that have to be repaired and comprises extensive measurements on
site and investigations in the laboratory.

19

The review found that there are two concepts of condition assessment of the whole
structure. The first is based on a cumulative condition rating obtained from a weighted
sum of the condition states of each element of the bridge. The second is based on a
condition rating class where the condition of the bridge is considered to be equivalent to
the condition state of the element in the poorest condition. The first concept enables
bridges to be ranked in terms of condition.
More advanced methods of condition assessment are also reviewed in Deliverable D2.
These include artificial intelligence methods such as neural networks, fuzzy logic and
genetic algorithms and an example is given of the use of neural network model to
categorise condition state of bridges suffering from reinforcement corrosion. It was
found that the prediction of future condition remains a challenge, even when these
advanced methods are employed. Further research is therefore needed on deterioration
models and on the development of a database in order to be able to predict the future
condition of bridges.

In order to use condition to monitor the deterioration of a bridge throughout its life it is
necessary to make the definition more restrictive and precise and in particular it
should be quantified. The work described in Deliverable D2 identified two main
approaches for quantifying condition:

a) To make visual observations and simple tests to subjectively assess the condition
on an arbitrary scale ranging, for example, from 1 (good condition) to 5 (very poor
condition).
b) To measure physical/chemical parameters such as concrete strength, thickness of
steel section, concrete resistivity and chloride content using more sophisticated
tests.

Both approaches have significant disadvantages. The chief disadvantage of physical/
chemical measurements is that each measurement technique only takes account of one
mode of deterioration and each element of the bridge may experience different
deterioration mechanisms at different stages of their life.
The main causes of deterioration of construction materials and components are
corrosion, freeze-thaw effects, alkali silica reaction and sulphate attack (Deliverable
D11). Each cause will require different tests to establish its presence, find the extent of
the deterioration, determine its rate of development and assess the consequences.
Consideration of corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete demonstrates the
difficulties. The following sequence of tests would be needed to monitor the condition
throughout the life of the bridge:

a) determine the cause of corrosion (chloride or carbonation) using sampling
methods
b) having diagnosed the cause of corrosion determine the extent of the problem over
the surface of the structure by more extensive sampling to ensure statistical
significance; for example measure the area and location of de-bonded concrete
(spalled, cracked, delaminated) in regions of general corrosion
c) establish the consequences of chloride contamination or carbonation by measuring
the depth of cover, depth of carbonation, chloride depth profile, the threshold

20

chloride concentration for corrosion, and the time since corrosion initiation or the
time to corrosion initiation
d) find where the reinforcement is already corroding by half cell potential
measurements
e) establish the type of corrosion (localised or general) that is taking place by
measuring the electrical potential gradient
f) measure the corrosion current density to estimate the rate of corrosion
g) expose the reinforcement to measure the remaining cross section of the steel bars
in regions of localised corrosion
If these measurements were repeated periodically throughout the life of a bridge
suffering from reinforcement corrosion the condition would be thoroughly monitored
although it would still be difficult to express the condition in a concise quantitative
form. The condition would be best represented by a multi-dimensional vector of the
individual test results. In order to achieve satisfactory coverage of the bridge it would
be necessary to carry out the measurement set at several locations. The high variance
of results for several of the measurement techniques means that uncertainties would
exist about how well the sample of measurement locations represents the condition of
an element or the bridge. Real variations in the value of these measurements at
different locations in the bridge lead to further confusion about the meaning of
condition. Where measurements differ at different locations, suggesting variations in
condition, it is debatable how the condition should be represented. Possibilities are:

(i) to take the average, medium or mode of the measurements at different points
on an element
(ii) to take the worst case to represent the condition of the element.
The first case is appropriate if an overall assessment of the condition of the element is
required or if the variance is small. More often, however, the earliest occurrence of
defects at some point on an element is required and in this situation the worst case
approach is more appropriate. This draws attention to a fundamental point - why do
we need to know the condition? It would evidently be interesting to know the average
condition of a bridge especially for network management purposes. However average
values are misleading at the project level because it is possible for part of an element
to have some measurements indicating the presence of defects where the average of
the measurements indicates no defects. This is especially likely due to the high
variance of some types of measurement. The element may therefore require
maintenance work even though the average condition appears to indicate no defects.

Even for network level management the worst case approach is more likely to give a
better representation of condition since it reflects the need for maintenance more
reliably. The above discussion about the interpretation of the condition of a bridge
suggests that the need for different levels of maintenance may provide a simple and
relevant measure of condition.
The cost of physical/ chemical testing as a general method for determining condition
could easily exceed the cost of maintenance and hence this approach is only likely to
be used in exceptional circumstances. Traffic management could be required in order
to carry out these tests on some bridge elements and the associated traffic disruption
would further count against the physical/ chemical test approach to assessing

21

condition. Returning to the discussion relating to the question why do we want to
know the condition of a bridge or its elements? there are a few additional answers:
to provide the opportunity to carry out simpler, cheaper and less disruptive
maintenance procedures before further deterioration necessitates more complex,
expensive and disruptive work.
To provide a global view of the condition of the stock of bridges.
To provide feedback to designers and builders about durability of construction
materials and components so that work on improvements can be effectively
targeted.

These potential benefits of assessing bridge condition must be compared with the costs
of undertaking the testing work. It appears that in most circumstances the benefit:
cost ratio will not be high enough to support the testing approach. Testing would
however be necessary prior to maintenance work to establish the best method and the
extent of the work required to achieve a durable repair. The amount of testing needed prior
to maintenance would be much reduced if the testing approach had been adopted for
assessing condition and this would clearly count in favour of this approach. The
results from testing are also often required in order to carry out the assessment of load
carrying capacity of deteriorated structures.

An important advantage of the testing approach is that it increases knowledge of
deterioration mechanisms that will provide feedback to designers and managers to help
them improve durability and lower deterioration rates.

Another way of limiting the amount of the testing work needed which is described in
Deliverable D2 is to use neural networks to try and derive a relationship between the test
results and visual observations made by an inspector. After the neural network has been
trained by supplying data on both visual observation and test results, it should be possible to
just carry out the visual observation and to have this data improved by the neural network
relationship. This should provide a more reliable condition assessment than that achieved
with visual observations alone.

The main disadvantages of the subjective assessment of condition based on visual
observations are:
the subjectivity of the assessment can make the results vulnerable to bias
visual observations cannot detect latent defects or the early stages of deterioration.

The first disadvantage can be largely overcome by developing a set of definitions for
each condition state that are clearly discrete in the sense that there are distinct
differences between the definitions for adjacent condition states. Discreteness limits
the number of states that can be used to four or five in most cases. The effectiveness
of a set of condition state definitions can be tested by arranging for a number of
bridge inspectors to independently assess the condition state of a group of bridges in a
statistically designed trial. A considerable amount of thought and iteration may be
required to establish a satisfactory set of definitions and a number of sets may be
needed to embrace different construction materials such as steel and concrete, and
different forms of deterioration such as corrosion of steel and sulphate attack of
concrete. The small number of states in a condition state system means that each
state

22

is associated with a maintenance strategy such as do nothing, preventative
maintenance, minor repair work, major repair work, strengthening or replacement.
This link between the condition state and maintenance strategy supplies a unifying
theme for the BMS.
Condition state systems based on visual observations usually take account of both the
severity and extent of deterioration. The severity of a defect is, however, usually of
more significance than the extent in terms of maintenance needs. The extent of
deterioration has more significance than severity in terms of the quantity and cost of
maintenance work. Therefore in terms of the condition assessment the severity of
deterioration is more significant whereas in terms of optimising maintenance costs the
extent of deterioration is more significant. The limitation of condition assessment to
visual observations of the severity and extent of deterioration usually means that is
difficult to establish more than about three discrete condition states and this is barely
adequate.

The second disadvantage relating to the limitations of visual observations for
assessing condition is more important. Some defects that occur on bridges provide no
visual indications and are classed as latent defects. Some latent defects ultimately
produce secondary effects with observable indications when the primary latent defect
becomes severe, but this usually occurs too late to prevent the necessity for major
strengthening and refurbishment. Most defects only become visible when they have
developed significantly. This means that more complex, costly, disruptive and
extensive maintenance is needed than would have been the case if the deterioration
had been detected sooner. In these circumstances the preventative maintenance
strategy becomes, in effect, a disallowed option although systematic investigations are
recommended to confirm the presence of latent defects. Preventative maintenance is
often applied initially as part of the construction process but it generally has a limited
life, which is short compared with the design life, and needs to be reapplied regularly
if the protection is to be maintained. If the early stages of deterioration and
breakdown of the protection provided by preventative maintenance are not detected,
due to the limitations of visual inspection, then the time window for the effective
reapplication will be missed, with the consequences described above.
The main advantage of the visual observation approach to assessing the condition of a
bridge is operational. It can be carried as part of a bridge inspection without the
requirement for additional access and traffic management and hence with little
additional cost or disruption to traffic. The other main advantages are its simplicity and
links with maintenance strategies.
The disadvantages associated with the two approaches to assessing condition
discussed above suggest an approach comprising the best features of both. An
approach based on the assessment of condition state by bridge inspectors can be
recommended, but with the incorporation of sufficient non-destructive testing to
enable latent defects to be detected and diagnosed in most circumstances. This
approach will also permit more discrete condition states to be defined. It will not
however evaluate the extent of deterioration of the area requiring maintenance.
Further tests would be required if repair work becomes necessary although the
preferred maintenance philosophy is to maintain the effectiveness of preventative
measures applied during bridge construction so that the concrete remains undamaged.

23

Preventative maintenance is generally applied to entire elements so there is no need
for tests to determine the area requiring maintenance. An example of a condition state
system for concrete bridges vulnerable to reinforcement corrosion is provided in
Table 4.
The assessment of condition is usually carried out for each element of a bridge. This
gives rise to questions about if and how the condition assessments should be
combined to give an overall condition for the bridge. For project level management of a
particular bridge it is probably best not to combine the condition assessments for each
element since these relate most closely to the maintenance requirements. For network
level management where the overall condition of a stock of bridges may be wanted,
some type of aggregation of condition states must take place. Possible methods of
aggregation are:

the mean value of the condition states for all the elements of a bridge
the median value of the condition states for all the elements of a bridge
the mode value of the condition states for all the elements of a bridge
a frequency distribution of condition states of the different elements comprising
the bridge
a weighted mean value
worst case value.

The assessment of condition is primarily associated with the inspection module of the
BMS. There are four levels of inspection that are generally adopted - superficial,
general, principal and special. Superficial inspections take place annually and consist
of a brief visual examination to elicit any serious defects, but no condition assessment
is made. This type of inspection is often combined with the annual visit for basic
routine maintenance to carry out activities such as cleaning drains and controlling the
growth of vegetation. The results of superficial inspections are not usually recorded
in the BMS. General inspections are carried out about every 2 years and consist of
visual observations made without special access arrangements. An assessment of
condition is made of those elements that can be observed, but some elements will be
obstructed from view and hence cannot be inspected. A condition assessment will not
be possible in these elements. Principal inspections are carried out about every six
years and involve detailed visual observations supplemented by some non-destructive
testing and sampling. Provision is made to enable the inspector to gain close access to
all parts of the bridge and a condition assessment is made for each element of the
bridge. Special inspections are carried out as required and not at a regular frequency.
They are used to establish the cause and extent of the deterioration and are usually
carried out prior to repair work so that it can be correctly specified. Special
inspections involve the extensive application of non-destructive testing and material
sampling. Condition assessments made during general and principal inspections are
normally stored in the BMS. The results of special inspections are not always stored
in the BMS. It is however recommended that test results are stored in the BMS since
this will help when assessing the rate of deterioration.

24

The main purpose of bridge inspections can be summarised as:
to decide if a more detailed inspection is needed
to assess maintenance needs and strategy
to assess the safety of users and to decide if a structural assessment is needed
to reduce the risk of unexpected failure
to comply with regulations
to assess the condition of a bridge element.

Information about condition is stored in the inventory database and can be combined
with other data in the inventory. For example the frequency distributions of the
condition of different elements of a bridge can be aggregated to include only
bridges

in a given region or
in a given age range or
on a particular route or
in a particular type of environment or
within a given range of span length.

Alternatively the condition of elements that satisfy various limitations can be
aggregated. Examples include:
bridge decks with a particular type of waterproofing membrane
bridge decks with a particular type of expansion joint
bridge piers on roads treated with de-icing salt.

The above examples of criteria defining the selection of bridges or elements from the
entire stock are very simple and it is possible to combine simple criteria to form a
complex criterion using logical operators such as AND, OR, and NOT.
The discussion of condition assessment has been detailed because the information is of
crucial importance and is used for all the other modules of the BMS, ie

assessment of load carrying capacity
rate of deterioration
optimisation of maintenance costs
deciding the maintenance strategy
prioritising maintenance work.

3.4 ASSESSMENT OF LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY
The previous section discussed the assessment of condition which is one factor that
decides whether or not maintenance is necessary. Maintenance needs, based on
condition assessment are usually decided by considering the lifetime economics of the
bridge. In other words maintenance is carried out if it leads to a reduction in whole
life cost. Maintenance work can also be sanctioned for aesthetic, political, social or
environmental reasons, but these are too unpredictable to be included in the BMS at
present and hence must be left to the judgement of local engineers. Another factor
that plays an important role in deciding on maintenance needs is the load carrying

26

capacity and whether it is sufficient to sustain the applied loads. The maintenance
needs arising from an inadequate load carrying capacity are essential in nature. In
other words if the load carrying capacity is inadequate, load restrictions must be
imposed until the bridge is strengthened to maintain safety. The only exception to this
rule occurs when there is compelling evidence that any failure would be gradual such
that inspection and monitoring would permit loads to be reduced prior to an
anticipated failure. Thus maintenance required because of inadequate load carrying
capacity is more important than that needed because of poor condition and normally
has a higher priority as a result. There is, however, a strong interaction between
condition and load carrying capacity since deterioration of condition almost invariably
reduces the load carrying capacity. In the last section it was seen that when the
condition becomes sufficiently poor the recommendation was to carry out a structural
assessment to check the capacity. The situation regarding the link between condition
and load carrying capacity is less straight forward than it appears. The significant
parameter is actually the difference between the actual capacity of a bridge at a given
time and the required capacity based on the possible loads carried at that time; the
condition only affects the actual capacity. Some bridges have considerable reserves
of strength and can undergo substantial deterioration before their capacity becomes
substandard. In these cases the need for maintenance is more likely to depend on the
condition rather than the load carrying capacity. For example spalling concrete may
become a hazard for users or the poor aesthetics of a deteriorated bridge may lead to a
loss of public confidence before the capacity becomes inadequate. In other cases the
difference between the actual and required load carrying capacity may be quite small
and relatively small amounts of deterioration could make the bridge substandard.
There are less reserves of strength in some parts of a bridge than in others and it is
important to know the location of these structurally critical areas, because more
attention should be given to condition assessment in these locations (Deliverable D1).

The above discussion explains the necessity for structural assessments to establish a
measure of load carrying capacity and the location of structurally critical areas on a
bridge. Recommendations for methods of assessment of load carrying capacity are
described in Deliverable D10. These methods are based on a review of current
assessment procedures used in the countries participating in BRIME, including details
of the characteristics of existing structures, the standards used in design and
assessment, and the experimental assessment methods. The aim is to show how
suitable and realistic assumptions for material, and structural properties and traffic
loads can be obtained and implemented in a structural assessment.

To assess adequately the resistance properties of structural elements, data and models of
loads and material strength need to be gathered. With regard to loading, the work
described in Deliverable D5 covers traffic loads, and increases in traffic loading are
taken into account by the application of extreme traffic situations and the definition of a
sufficient safety level. With regard to material strength, summaries of
timeindependent statistical properties are referenced for reinforced and
prestressed concrete, steel, masonry and timber structures.

Bridge assessment in the partner countries generally is based on classical structural
calculations in which the load effects are determined by structural analysis. The rules
used are provided mainly by design standards with additional rules relating to testing
methods, including load testing. Bridge assessment is usually based on either a

27

deterministic or a semi-probabilistic approach; partial safety factors are used in the
semi-probabilistic approach. These methods are sometimes considered to be
conservative. A new approach taking into account the uncertainties of variables is
emerging and reliability calculations are beginning to be introduced. The target
reliability index is becoming the governing factor for assessment.

Deliverable D10 recommends an assessment methodology based on five assessment
levels going from a method using simple analysis and codified requirements (level 1)
to a sophisticated assessment using a full probabilistic reliability analysis (level 5).
The review of current practice for assessing load carrying capacity was the starting
point for the modelling of deteriorated structures that is described in Deliverable D11.

The assessment of bridge strength is also an important input for the cost evaluation of
various maintenance strategies and the decision making process (Deliverable D7) and
for the priority ranking (Deliverable D12). A knowledge of bridge strength is essential
for the routing of exceptional load vehicles and for the safe management of traffic.

A pass/fail outcome to a structural assessment is only barely sufficient because its use is
limited to a particular point in time and it provides only a crude assessment of the age at
which a bridge may become substandard. An estimate of the date for the next
assessment of capacity cannot therefore be made.

The evaluation of the variation of load carrying capacity with time remains a
challenge and requires further investigation. Methods for quantifying the structural
effects of material deterioration so that they can be incorporated into the assessment of
the load carrying capacity of bridges are described in Deliverable D11. The
methodology followed is divided into 3 stages.

i) identification and diagnosis of the common forms of deterioration present in
the European bridge stock. From this survey, it is apparent that corrosion of
steel due to carbonation and chloride contamination is the most common
problem, and that ASR, sulphate attack and freeze-thaw action also occur at a
significant frequency.
ii) evaluation of the existing methods for incorporating deterioration in
assessment e.g. reduced cross-sectional area, modified stress-strain
relationship and modified bond properties.

iii) investigation of straight-forward methods of taking account of deterioration in
the determination of structural strength of components. This is carried out for
deterioration caused by corrosion, ASR and freeze-thaw action.

Models to predict deterioration are often based on experiments using laboratory
specimens, and need to be calibrated by comparison with site measurements and non-
destructive tests. Only those site measurements that can be carried out reasonably
quickly and minimise the disruption to site operations can be realistically used for
predicting deterioration. Deterioration processes do not develop at a linear rate due to
specific conditions on site and this complicates the methods used for making
predictions.

28

For bridge management purposes structural assessments are required in order to:

determine the reserves of strength of different parts of a bridge at different ages
and conditions
estimate the date for the next structural assessment
estimate the date at which any part of a bridge will become substandard.

These estimates will be derived from a knowledge of the rate of deterioration and the
reserves of strength measured at the last structural assessment. The reserves of
strength will also depend on changes in loading although these are not predictable.
Changes in loading will therefore generate a need for an assessment when they take
place. At present the algorithms linking strength and rate of deterioration are very
approximate with the result that the estimated dates above will be conservative. An
improved understanding of the strength of deteriorated bridges and the factors
affecting the rate of deterioration should lead to improved algorithms and estimates.
This should permit bridges to be strengthened or replaced before they become
substandard thereby avoiding loading restrictions and the disruption that usually
results. Improved algorithms should also enable a reasonable estimate of remaining
life up to assessment failure to be obtained. The aggregation of residual lives for the
bridges in a stock would enable the BMS to determine the number and location of
bridges requiring strengthening or replacement each year and to adjust the level of
preventative maintenance to reduce the rate of deterioration if necessary.
The major factor holding up the calculation of reasonable estimates of remaining life
is establishing how deterioration influences the strength of a structure (Deliverable
D11). Deterioration can result from environmental influences and from faults
associated with design and construction. Usually deterioration results from a
combination of different problems and this makes it a difficult process to model. For
example reinforcement corrosion in bearing shelves and cross-heads usually results
from the failure of an expansion joint which leaks, allowing saline water to fall onto
the concrete element which has insufficient falls and drainage. The salt water then
ponds allowing chloride ions to rapidly penetrate the concrete causing corrosion,
especially if construction practices resulted in the formation of cracks in the concrete
surface. Many physical processes are involved and it is easy to see the modelling
difficulties. In a similar way the effect of a known level of deterioration on the
strength of an element is difficult to estimate because it also depends on:

the location of deterioration
the number or area of defects
the severity of defects.

and condition only really accounts for severity. The real problem is the non-
uniformity of deterioration. For example if a reinforcing bar was uniformly corroded
over its entire surface, a reasonable estimate of its strength could be obtained from the
cross section of steel remaining. In practice, however, reinforcement corrosion is
never uniform and is often in the form of pits which represent an extreme non-
uniform situation. For steel corrosion the effect on strength may not be limited to
reduced dimensions, but may also involve the ductility which is known to be reduced
by corrosion and especially pitting corrosion. The situation is further complicated

29

because the strength depends on a number of different load effects namely: flexure,
shear, bond, bearing and deflection. To assess the strength of deteriorated concrete
necessitates a knowledge of the tensile strength, bearing strength and elastic modulus
as well as the compressive strength. The composite action between steel and concrete
in reinforced concrete depends on the bond between these two materials and the
mechanism by which corrosion affects the bond is not well understood. In undamaged
concrete the bond depends on the bar type and compressive strength of the concrete
but it is not known how levels of corrosion insufficient to fracture the concrete affect
the bond. When corrosion causes the concrete to fracture leading to spalls, cracks and
delamination it is clear that the bond is significantly reduced, but the extent is not
known. These uncertainties and shortcomings to knowledge mean that any attempt to
relate deterioration and strength is based largely on the engineering judgement of
experts and is inevitably likely to be very conservative. The current practice of
measuring the compressive strength of concrete and the tensile strength of steel to
take account of deterioration in structural assessments is necessary but not sufficient.
More extensive testing is, however, not justified until there is a better understanding
of how the non uniform variation of physical properties of steel and concrete affect
the strength of these materials; this can only be achieved by fundamental research.

At the present time, the only effective ways in which a BMS can use information from
structural assessments is to:
determine the reserves of strength assuming no deterioration
locate the critical structural areas on a bridge
assess the condition particularly in the critical areas
use engineering judgement to take account of strength and deterioration, and
decide whether strengthening is needed.

Another problem is to evaluate the effect of strength deficiencies in one element on the
strength of the whole bridge. The stresses in one element are often redistributed into
other elements so that the strength of the bridge is greater than would be expected from
the strength of the individual elements. The combination of all these
uncertainties means that in order to maintain the risk of failure at an acceptable level the
assessment of the effect of deterioration on strength will have to be conservative.
Bridges with low reserves of strength will probably need to be strengthened if they
suffer any significant deterioration in critical areas.

The prediction of the load carrying capacity in the future and the relationship between
strength and condition remain some way from being achieved.

3.5 RATE OF DETERIORATION
It is important to know the rate of deterioration of bridge elements because it allows
future maintenance to be planned. This enables the bridge manager to assess the best
time to carry out maintenance work. There are significant costs involved in carrying out
maintenance work too soon or too late. The cost of maintenance is sensitive to the time
when it is carried out for two reasons:

30

(i) in the calculation of whole life cost the cost of maintenance work shows a
reduction by a factor of (1.06)
-n
, where the discount rate is 6% and n is the age
of the bridge when maintenance is carried out, to give the net present value
(NPV).
(ii) maintenance costs change disproportionately for each unit increase in
condition state as the complexity of maintenance operations increase; the level of
disruption to users resulting from the maintenance work often mirrors the
increased cost.
It appears that the best time to carry out maintenance is just before a transition occurs
between one condition state and the next poorer condition state. This is because a
large step increase in cost occurs at the time of transition whereas costs increase only
slowly during the interval spent within a particular condition state. The current
knowledge of how condition varies with time is not sufficient to estimate this ideal
time for maintenance more than approximately, but it seems like a worthwhile venture
nevertheless. It can be seen that the consequences of carrying out maintenance too
late are more serious than doing the work too soon so it is best to err toward early
maintenance. There have, however, been cases where the assessment of condition has
been incorrect and maintenance work appropriate for a higher condition state has been
carried out unnecessarily and wastefully. This emphasises that it is essential to carry
out the condition assessment properly and demonstrates the serious waste of money
that can occur if maintenance work is carried out much too soon.

The situation regarding disruption to users as a result of maintenance work is also
influenced to some extent by whether the work is carried out too soon or too late.
When account is taken of the growth of traffic each year there may be less disruption if
maintenance is carried out too soon, but if early maintenance has the result of
requiring an extra maintenance treatment during the life of the bridge then the whole life
disruption will probably be increased. Carrying out maintenance too late will usually
result in more disruption because the more complex maintenance treatment required will
generally result in more extensive traffic management over a longer time period. Traffic
management and delay costs increase when maintenance work is deferred as shown in
Figure 1 because further deterioration increases the duration of repairs and traffic growth
leads to higher traffic flows.

31

A knowledge of the rate of deterioration also enables the bridge manager to

estimate the residual life or time till the poorest condition state is reached
decide on a suitable maintenance strategy for a bridge at different ages
prioritise maintenance (rapidly deteriorating bridges have a higher priority
because there is more chance maintaining too late)
calculate a budget for bridge maintenance from information about how many
bridges need maintenance each year.

One of the most important applications of deterioration rates is to determine the cost and
disruption consequences of deferring maintenance work and less frequently of
advancing maintenance work. It is often necessary for maintenance to be carried out at a
non-optimal time for operational reasons such as:

budget limitations that mean some work has to be deferred
to complete maintenance work on a bridge and avoid a return for a long period,
the work on some bridges may need to be advanced or delayed
to allow bridges on the same road to be maintained simultaneously to limit traffic
disruption.

Deterioration is a natural process that should be expected to occur since it is
unrealistic to expect a bridge or any other structure to remain serviceable forever. The
bridge managers objective is to control the rate of deterioration so that the required
serviceable life of the bridge is achieved. This objective can be satisfied by an
appropriate design using durable materials or by applying maintenance at appropriate
ages during the life of the bridge. In practice a combination of these two approaches
is adopted in most cases.

32

The condition of a stock of bridges usually decreases as the average age of the stock
increases. When the number of new bridges built during a period of time significantly
exceeds the number demolished the average condition of the bridge stock tends to
improve. If the average condition of a bridge stock is shown to be deteriorating too
quickly it will be necessary to undertake a special programme of maintenance and
replacements to retard the rate of deterioration and improve the average condition of
the stock. The average condition and its rate of change give only an approximate
measure of the rate of deterioration and its consequences. A better approach is to use
the area enclosed by a graph of average condition versus age for the bridge stock as a
measure of stock condition and the rate of change of this area as the rate of
deterioration (Figure 2). This approach also indicates the rate of deterioration for
bridges in particular age ranges and can therefore help in targeting maintenance work.
Another useful procedure is to measure the rate of deterioration of groups of bridges
that were in particular condition states a set period ago, say five years. This will
indicate if the rate of deterioration is unusually high for groups of bridges in a
particular condition state. The age and condition of bridges are the two factors that
most influence the rate of deterioration of the bridge stock.

The level of maintenance is the other factor that influences the rate of deterioration of the
bridge stock although the effect it has on the rate of deterioration of particular bridges
is even more marked. The condition of a bridge usually decreases until some
maintenance work is carried out. Maintenance can have two effects:
slowing the rate of deterioration
improving condition.

Preventative maintenance has the first effect whereas repair work or rehabilitation
should have both effects. A graph of condition state versus age for a bridge therefore
consists of a number of discontinuous sections often leading to a saw tooth shape.
The discontinuities occur at the ages when maintenance is carried out and result in a
change of numeric value of gradient for preventative maintenance and a change in
both sign and value of the gradient for repair/rehabilitation work. It should be noted

33

that normally repair/rehabilitation work produces only a partial improvement in
condition so that the condition when initially built is not recovered. Strengthening
work on the other hand can raise the load carrying capacity to a value greater than that
when built. In terms of its effect on the load carrying capacity of a bridge
deterioration is most significant when it takes place in structurally critical parts of the
bridge. However, it is unlikely, given the current state of knowledge, that it will be
possible to estimate the rate of reduction in load carrying capacity from the rate of
deterioration in the near future. The rate of deterioration may nevertheless be used to
indicate when it is necessary to carry out a structural assessment.
To use information about the rate of deterioration to predict the condition state at a
future age a procedure must be found to take account of the effect of maintenance
work. One procedure is based on two factors:

the immediate improvement in condition resulting from the maintenance work
the change in gradient of the condition - time graph following the maintenance
work.
Types of bridge or element with a high rate of deterioration can be identified and
provide an indication as to whether the cause is poor design/materials or insufficient
maintenance. This feedback can then be used to eliminate problems in the future.
Deterioration of bridges has a number of possible effects:

reduces the strength
makes it unsafe for users, for example due to falling masonry
reduces the life
impairs the appearance

It is the extent of these effects at different ages which largely determines the type of
maintenance required. Although deterioration reduces strength this may not be
significant; it will depend on the location of deterioration and the reserves of strength.
A defect may or may not affect the safety of users. For example spalling concrete
from the soffit of a bridge over a small river may have little effect on the safety of
users whereas a similar defect in a bridge spanning a busy road or railway could have
a serious effect on users. Deterioration generally results in a reduction in life although the
magnitude will vary and will not always be significant. The appearance of a bridge
is often impaired by deterioration and this can sometimes lead to a loss of public
confidence in the structure.

It is difficult to generalise about the rate at which bridge elements deteriorate because
different bridges and even different parts of bridges are exposed to different macroand
micro-climates. Even bridge elements of nominally similar construction and
materials can have variations in concrete mix, cover depth and latent defects which
can significantly influence the type of pathology and the deterioration rate. The two
main approaches to determining rate of deterioration, physical and stochastic
modelling are described in Deliverable D8.
The approach described in detail in Deliverable D8 is physical modelling applied to a
particular deterioration process namely the ingress of chloride ions into concrete

34

bridge elements. This has a limited goal in terms of the bridge management system as it
deals with only a single deterioration mechanism; it is limited to the initiation
phase of the corrosion process although it also deals with monitoring corrosion within a
bridge and it proposes a durability surveillance system. It does however illustrate the
difficulties in attempting to predict the rate of future deterioration.

The chloride ingress model has at present serious limitations as far as BMS is
concerned. The model can predict when there will be a risk of corrosion initiation, but
it cannot predict the corrosion rate of reinforcement. It can be useful for forecasting
possible maintenance actions, but not for assessing deterioration and structural
capacity.
Further research is therefore necessary to improve knowledge of chloride ion
penetration models through the constitution of a database collecting measurements on site
and in the laboratory, and most importantly to develop models for the propagation phase
of corrosion.

3.6 DECIDING MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The primary decisions associated with the maintenance requirements for a bridge are:
the maintenance strategy
the maintenance method
the extent of maintenance
the age when maintenance is carried out.

The maintenance strategy for the network is often a policy decision. It is particularly
important to select the appropriate strategy to minimise costs and maximise the
effectiveness of maintenance. The options for maintenance strategy include:
(a) do nothing until a bridge becomes unsafe or substandard, when some form of
strengthening or traffic restriction will be needed
(b) do nothing until the condition deteriorates to a benchmark value, when repair
work will be needed to improve the condition
(c) carry out regular preventative maintenance to reduce the rate of deterioration
thereby avoiding or delaying the need for repair work, strengthening or traffic
restrictions.

Replacement of bridges when they become unsafe or substandard is an alternative to
strengthening and the decision between the two strategies is usually based on
economics.

The main advantages of strategy (a) are:
no maintenance is necessary until a bridge becomes unsafe or substandard thereby
deferring expenditure and traffic disruption to later in the life of the bridge
the avoidance of maintenance costs and traffic disruption on bridges that do not
become unsafe or substandard during their required life.

Both of these advantages will help to reduce the whole life cost.

35

The main disadvantages of strategy (a) are:
the cost of strengthening work and the associated traffic disruption are high
leading to increases in the whole life cost
it is possible that large numbers of bridges may need strengthening at certain times
reflecting the non uniform rate of bridge construction in the past. Industry has
difficulty reacting to markedly non-uniform maintenance requirements leading to
delays in carrying out the work and a significant number of bridges with traffic
restrictions, resulting in serious disruption to the movement of vehicles.
defects may arise due to deterioration which although not affecting safety may
increase the rate of deterioration and seriously detract from the appearance of the
bridge. This can result in the need for strengthening at a lower age and a loss in
public confidence about the safety of the bridge.
This strategy may be suitable for a very small number of bridges on which the optimal
decision is to replace them and to let them last as long as possible.
The main advantages of strategy (b) are:
no maintenance is needed until a bridge reaches the benchmark condition value
thereby deferring expenditure and traffic disruption to later in the life of the bridge
to retard the rate of deterioration thereby reducing the chance that strengthening
work will be needed
the avoidance of maintenance work and its associated costs and traffic disruption
on some bridges where the rate of deterioration is low with the result that the
benchmark condition value is not reached during the lifetime of the bridge.
These three advantages should help to reduce lifetime costs and traffic disruption.
The main disadvantages of strategy (b) are:
The cost of repair work and the associated traffic disruption can be substantial.
In years when large numbers of bridges need repair work the industry may not be
able to react quickly enough leading to delays in carrying out the work. The
increased rate of deterioration on these bridges will advance the time when
strengthening is needed.
If the benchmark condition triggering repair work is set at too poor a condition,
the rate of deterioration can be increased and the visual appearance can be
significantly affected before the benchmark value is reached.

The main advantages of strategy (c) are:

Preventative maintenance is cheap in comparison with repairs and strengthening
and can usually be carried out with little disruption to traffic.
The rate of deterioration is retarded substantially, especially if the preventative
maintenance is applied from new, and will delay or avoid the need for repairs and
strengthening.

These two advantages will tend to reduce lifetime costs and traffic disruption.

36

The main disadvantages of strategy (c) are:
More frequent maintenance is required; typically preventative maintenance
requires re-application about every 20 years although further development work
could result in longer intervals between preventative maintenance events.
Preventative maintenance by its nature is applied to all the bridges in the stock
before it is known whether or not it is necessary. Some bridges may deteriorate
very slowly or have substantial reserves of strength and hence may not need repair
or strengthening even without preventative maintenance. For these bridges
preventative maintenance work would be wasteful, but our current state of
knowledge is not sufficient to be able to identify them. It is therefore necessary to
apply preventative maintenance to all bridges in the stock, although there may be
scope for limiting the application to structurally critical zones and to areas
vulnerable to deterioration such as areas exposed to salt spray or under leaking
expansion joints.
These disadvantages will tend to increase lifetime costs.

The choice of strategy depends on many factors but the preventative maintenance
strategy is usually preferred when:
it can be applied from new
a maintenance life of more than 20 years can be achieved
the majority of the bridge stock is likely to require more than one session of repair
work or strengthening work resulting from deterioration during its life.
In practice, in the past, the maintenance strategy has not been considered until defects
were observed at which point preventative maintenance is no longer an appropriate
maintenance strategy. The condition state of a bridge generally determines which
maintenance strategies are possible.
The choice of maintenance method will be considered in some detail later in this
deliverable although it is pertinent to say here that the number of maintenance options
from which a decision has to be make are substantially reduced when the maintenance
strategy is pre-determined.
The extent of maintenance work should be decided on the basis of achieving a durable
result with a life of at least 40 years. Partial repair work can only be regarded as a
short-term measure that is rarely justified on economic grounds. The correct extent of
maintenance work is normally decided on the basis of a thorough survey and tests
carried out on the bridge.

The time at which maintenance is carried out can have a significant bearing on the
efficiency and effectiveness of the strategy. Two possible approaches to deciding the
best time to carry out maintenance are:
a) to consider the best maintenance option at a particular time, for example when
funds become available (Deliverable 7)
b) to consider the best maintenance option at regular intervals, say 5 years, in the
future.

37

Approach (a) develops decision criteria that help to choose the best maintenance
option for a given bridge at a particular time and is described in Deliverable D7. It is
based on a global cost analysis that includes safety, durability, functionality and
socio-economic factors, and considers all the costs involved in construction,
inspection, maintenance, repair, failure, road usage, and replacement. The strategy
consists of minimising the global cost while keeping the lifetime reliability of the
bridge above a minimum allowable value.

Three difficulties are encountered with respect to the application of this methodology.
The first concerns the constitution of a database containing costs, especially indirect
costs and failure costs. The second is related to the necessity of predicting the future
behaviour of bridges and the probability of failure for the various alternatives. It is
clear that, as indicated in previous sections, additional research work is needed for
predicting the future deterioration of both structural elements and non-structural
components, when the option involves deferring maintenance work for a significant
period of time. The third is the difficulty of determining the best time to carry out
maintenance: it may, for example, be better to delay the proposed maintenance work
if the rate of deterioration is sufficiently low to avoid a transition in condition state. In
some cases, it could be preferable to permit deterioration to continue for some time,
incurring a transition in condition state, and then to carry out more extensive
maintenance. Early maintenance is not necessarily the best and to determine the
optimum time the following factors need to be considered:

the current condition
the rate of deterioration
the future life required
the maintenance cost
the discount rate for calculating whole life cost
the type of road and the traffic management needed for the maintenance work
the current traffic flow rate and rate of traffic growth.

The second approach (b) does take account of these factors and hence determines the
optimum time for maintenance in order to minimise lifetime costs and traffic
disruption. The disadvantage of this approach is the complexity of the algorithms
needed, although with the power of modern computers this should not be
overemphasised.

An optimisation process involves the minimisation or maximisation of an objective
function. It may also involve a number of constraints. For optimising bridge
maintenance a typical objective function is the whole life cost, which requires
minimisation. The whole life cost should include engineering, traffic management and
traffic delay costs because on busy roads the latter can be a major contribution to the
overall cost. Possible optimisation constraints are:
(i) a benchmark value for probability of failure
(ii) a benchmark value for condition
(iii) no constraint.

38

The first constraint implies that bridges will be maintained in a safe condition
throughout their life. The second constraint implies that the condition of the bridge
will not be allowed to deteriorate beyond the benchmark value. The no constraint
option is the least restrictive. It does not imply that unsafe bridges can continue in
service because this is not permitted. If a bridge became substandard the maintenance
options would be between strengthening/replacement or traffic restriction, the
decision being based on the relative increases in whole life costs associated with the
two options. On a busy road the cost of strengthening/replacement is almost certain to
be less than the costs associated with continuous traffic restrictions. On lightly
trafficked roads the cost of traffic restrictions may be less than
strengthening/replacement, although site specific factors are likely to play a
significant part in assessing costs. The no constraint option would result in traffic
restrictions being imposed on some bridges, although the consequences of the
restrictions would be small.
The first constraint would by comparison result in no long term traffic restrictions
being imposed on any bridge. In practical terms it is usually difficult to use the first
constraint because the probability of failure is not known unless detailed structural
assessments are made at regular intervals. Furthermore it would be necessary to know
how the probability of failure changes with increasing age. This will depend on the
rate of deterioration in structurally critical areas. However such relationships are not
properly understood and it is unrealistic to expect the probability of failure to be
predicted with any degree of accuracy in the short term, except for some deterioration
mechanisms such as fatigue of steel. Condition values are however often available
from inspections allowing the second constraint to be adopted. This constraint
provides some assurance that the condition of individual bridges and the bridge stock
will not deteriorate too far. This assurance is achieved at some cost compared with
the no constraint option because the imposition of constraints will lead to a higher
value of the minimum whole life cost.
Maintenance work clearly has to take account of both the load carrying capacity and
probability of failure and the condition. In view of the current limitations of
knowledge a pragmatic approach would be:

(a) to predict how the condition will change with time in the structurally critical
zones
(b) to recommend a structural assessment when the condition deteriorates to a
state consistent with a reduction of strength
(c) to either strengthen/replace or impose traffic restrictions if the assessment
criterion is failed
(d) to consider carrying out repairs if these will reduce the whole life cost and
carry out a further structural assessment at a suitable interval if the assessment
criterion is passed.

Thus the need for strengthening or replacement is linked indirectly to the condition via a
structural assessment.
In most cases on major roads and sometimes on relatively minor roads the cost of
bridge maintenance is dominated by the contribution of traffic management costs and

39

traffic delay costs. Major savings can be made by maintaining traffic movements
during maintenance work and by minimising the duration of restrictions even if this
means providing temporary support to the bridge. There will of course be some parts
of bridges on busy roads that can be maintained without implications for the traffic.
Decisions about maintenance options pertain to the circumstances associated with
particular bridges such as the condition and extent of maintenance needed and hence are
especially associated with project level bridge management. Decisions about the
maintenance strategy can be policy led and are therefore more closely associated with
network level bridge management. Network level management algorithms can be
developed to predict the number of bridges requiring different degrees of maintenance
each year but these algorithms cannot identify the particular bridges needing
maintenance. This information can only be obtained from project level algorithms
using bridge specific information. Network level information can be obtained by the
aggregation of project level information and this can be employed to test the
effectiveness of network level algorithms.
Ideally decisions about maintenance methods should involve aspects of safety,
durability, functionality, economy, environment and sociology. Environmental and
social factors are difficult to represent in monetary terms and have therefore not been
considered by existing bridge management systems.
The followings costs should be evaluated when calculating the whole life cost of a
bridge: design, construction, inspection, assessment, testing, preventative
maintenance, repair, strengthening, replacement, demolition, traffic management,
traffic delay and salvage value.
The ideal situation is for the spend on each of preventative maintenance, repairs and
strengthening/replacement to be constant. This can only be achieved if there is
sufficient money spent on preventative maintenance and repairs to control the
deterioration rate at a reasonable level. If deterioration occurs too quickly the
numbers of bridges requiring strengthening/replacement will increase to consume the
entire maintenance budget resulting in further increases in deterioration rate and the
number of substandard bridges (Figures 3a and 3b).

40

The optimisation process outputs an optimal maintenance programme that specifies
what, if any, maintenance is needed on each element of every bridge in the stock each
year in the future for the period of optimisation. The period of optimisation is not
critical and can range from as little as 10 years to the bridge design life. All
predictions are approximations and the further into the future that predictions are

41

made the greater the errors. This is not however a major problem since maintenance
planning is normally limited to about 10 years in the future where errors should be
small. Regular updating of the data and regular re-application of the optimisation
algorithm should ensure the reliability of predictions at least up to 10 years ahead.
Optimisation algorithms can only take account of predictable processes such as
natural deterioration. They cannot respond to events such as accidental damage,
vandalism, natural disasters and political factors. Engineering judgement will still be
necessary to deal with maintenance work arising from these events. Optimisation is
primarily a project level management tool and while aggregation of the results for
individual bridges provides a maintenance programme for the network that is optimal in
some sense at the network level it cannot take account of the following actions that could
reduce traffic management and delay costs:
maintaining a group of adjacent bridges on a route in a single contract
combining pavement and bridge maintenance
combining several maintenance jobs on a bridge so that they can be done at the
same time, involving the deferral of some work and the advancement of other
work.
A broad outline of the main steps involved in bridge maintenance management is
given in Figure 4. It involves two main algorithms:

(a) to optimise maintenance costs taking account of the rate of deterioration
(b) to calculate the rate of deterioration and predict future condition

Possible algorithms for (b) will be discussed in section 3.8 of this deliverable. A
possible algorithm for (a) is discussed here. The first step is to decide the maintenance
strategy because this will substantially reduce the number of possible maintenance
options. The approach is best explained by considering the tree diagram shown in
Figure 5. Starting at year 0, which can correspond to any bridge age and condition,
there will be a number of maintenance options (2 are shown in Figure 5) one of which
is always do nothing. Each maintenance option will have an associated cost so each
branch of the tree will have a cost. The nodes at either end of a branch will have
condition values representing the condition state before and after the maintenance
work represented by the branch. These condition states are obtained using algorithm
(b). Thus every node will have a condition state and a number of possible
maintenance options represented by branches emanating to the right (increasing time).
The optimisation process calculates the cost of each pathway through the tree and
finds the pathway representing the lowest total cost. The cost of each pathway is
simply the sum of the costs of each branch in the pathway discounting according to
the time associated with each branch. In practice the number of pathways is very high
(a three-option tree over 20 years would have 3
20
pathways) and although the
calculations are simple a large amount of computer time would be needed. Dynamic
programming can be used to eliminate redundant pathways in order to reduce the
number that need to be costed and thereby to reduce the computer time to a reasonable
value.

42

Inspection

Determine
current
condition

Determine
maintenance
strategy

Possible
maintenance
options

Optimisation

Optimal
maintenance
programme

Budget
constraint

Prioritisation

Revise
optimisation

Optimal
prioritised
maintenance
programme

Figure 4: Main steps involved in bridge maintenance management

43

REFERENCES:

1. AASHTO. AASHTO Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1992.

2. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Structure Rehabilitation Manual. Ronen House, Toronto, 2002.

3. Shepard, R. W., and M.B. Johnson. California Bridge Health Index. In International Bridge
Management Conference, Volume 2, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.

4. . .

5. - . .

6. -
.

DBEManual (English)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DBEManual (English)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DETAILED BRIDGE SURVEY

You might also like