Obtained by Bob Mackin via Freedom of Information

2010goldrush@gmail.com
twitter.com/bobmackin



Bridge Evaluation Report
Burrard Street Bridge









Prepared for:


Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.
300-4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, BC V5G 4M5



Attention: Mr. Shane Cook, P.Eng.



Prepared by:



Levelton Consultants Ltd.
150 - 12791 Clarke Place
Richmond, BC V6V 2H9




Reviewed by:


[Original signed by D.E.Smith] [Original signed by N.A. Cumming]



D. E. Smith, MScE, P.Eng. N. A. Cumming, FACI, P.Eng.
Associate Executive Vice President


June 27, 2012 File: RI11-0844-00


Bridge Evaluation Report
Burrard Street Bridge





Levelton Consultants Ltd.








FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
2 DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................... 1
2.1 VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 1
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1 Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content ......................................................................... 2
2.2.2 Extracted Cores ......................................................................................................... 2
3 DECK SURFACE ...................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 3
3.2 CORROSION POTENTIAL MEASURMENTS .......................................................................... 4
3.3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 5
3.3.1 Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content ......................................................................... 5
4 CONCRETE PARAPETS .......................................................................................................... 5
4.1 VISUAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Extracted Cores ......................................................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content ......................................................................... 6
5 INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 6
5.1 DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 6
5.2 DECK SURFACE ............................................................................................................... 6
5.3 PARAPETS ...................................................................................................................... 7


s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.13(1); s. 15(1)(l) and s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f)





FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


1

1 INTRODUCTION
As part of their contract with the City of Vancouver for the condition assessment and
development of rehabilitation strategies for the Burrard Street Bridge, Associated Engineering
Ltd. has engaged Levelton Consultants Ltd. to conduct the following:
A brief visual review of the visible concrete portions of the substructure and sampling
from select areas of the substructure to assess water-soluble chloride ion content, pH,
and the presence of alkali-silica reactivity (ASR). It is understand that Associated has
conducted a visual detailed survey of the structure, complete with recording size and
location of observed deterioration.
Visual review of the concrete parapet along the west side of the bridge and sampling at
select locations to determine water-soluble chloride ion content, pH, and the presence of
alkali-silica reactivity (ASR).
Sampling from the top side of the concrete deck in the north and southbound curb lanes,
and the southbound bike lane to assess the condition of the deck and to determine the
water-soluble chloride ion profile.


the City requested that the survey be
conducted by extraction of a number of cores.
The following presents the findings of the investigation and recommendations for repairs and
rehabilitation with respect to the concrete portions of the structure.
2 DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE
The following comments are based on a visual inspection.


2.1 VISUAL REVIEW
Levelton conducted a visual review of the bridge deck soffit and substructure from the ground,
and from a man-lift at the south and north approaches, and from the MOTI snooper truck for the
under-deck truss spans and main span.
There is extensive transverse cracking in the soffits of the sidewalks on both sides of the bridge
deck. There is staining on the deck soffit adjacent to many of the cracks which indicates they
have been leaking There are also several spalls which have exposed
reinforcing steel. Some of these areas have been coated with gray (likely zinc-rich) paint.
Levelton understands this is part of an annual maintenance program conducted by the City over
the years to attempt to mitigate the corrosion-related deterioration in the structure. However, this
approach to corrosion mitigation is relatively ineffective as it does nothing to arrest corrosion of
the steel in the concrete adjacent to the deteriorated area.
There are also several large spalls in the soffit of the outside girders which have exposed large
diameter bars As with the spalls in the sidewalks, several of these areas have
been coated with gray paint. There are also large spalls throughout the soffit of the deck which
have exposed reinforcing steel
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)9b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)
(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and
s.19(1)(b)





FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


2

There is evidence that many of the expansion joints are leaking, which has resulted in corrosion-
related deterioration on several of the concrete members adjacent to the joints and on the piers
below the joints. The extent of the deterioration indicates that there has been active corrosion
within the structure for several years.
Most of the onshore piers are in good condition with minor corrosion-related deterioration or
minor cracking which is most likely a result of expansion due to ASR.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
2.2.1 Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content
Concrete powder samples were collected from various locations throughout the deck soffit and
substructure. Samples were collected by drilling into the concrete with a 25 mm diameter drill bit.
At all locations, except Location 1, the water-soluble chloride ion content is below the corrosion
initiation threshold of 0.03 ÷ 0.05% by mass of concrete.
New concrete generally has a pH greater than 12.0. When steel is in a highly alkaline
environment (pH >10.0) a passive layer forms on the steel surface which protects the steel from
aggressive corrosion (in the absence of chlorides). When atmospheric carbon dioxide diffuses
into the concrete a chemical reaction occurs which lowers the pH; when the pH drops below
about 10 the passive layer is no longer stable and the steel is no longer protected from
corrosion. The pH of the concrete powder samples at several of the locations is slightly lower
than that typically observed in new concrete, however, at all locations the pH is above the
generally accepted threshold for carbonation-induced corrosion. These results indicate that the
depth of carbonation is minimal.


.
2.2.2 Extracted Cores
Levelton extracted four cores from select locations in the substructure of the bridge. The cores
were then fractured longitudinally and sprayed with uranyl acetate in accordance with ASTM
C856 Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete, to detect the
presence of alkali-silica gel. Review of the cores extracted from the substructure indicates that
there is some reactive aggregate within the concrete; however, the relatively low amount of silica
gel in the samples indicates that the deterioration is still in the early stages, and has not yet
caused extensive damage.
3 DECK SURFACE
The presence of an asphalt overlay and bituminous membrane on the deck has precluded a
complete survey of delamination and corrosion potential. Instead, some 60 cores were extracted
throughout the deck to allow corrosion-potential measurements at those locations, and to allow
visual examination of concrete and rebar condition. At each of the core locations the asphalt
overlay was cored through and removed, a corrosion potential measurement taken on the
exposed concrete deck, and a core was extracted from the concrete deck. The core was then
visually reviewed in the laboratory and the chloride profile was determined.
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)





FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


3

3.1 VISUAL REVIEW
The concrete deck is reinforced with undeformed round bars varying from 10 to 15 mm in
diameter, and square bars that are approximately 10 mm in section. Due to the layer of asphalt
on top of the concrete deck it was not always possible locate reinforcing steel and collect a
sample by coring.
Table 1 presents a summary of the condition of the extracted cores; the category "Broken¨
applies to cores that Levelton had to break into several pieces to extract; these cores generally
correspond to the location where the half-cell equipment was grounded, so no reading could be
taken at this location. Table 2 presents a summary of the condition of the rebar sampled from the
deck.
As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2 the majority of the deterioration observed is in the two
under-deck truss spans and the north approach. It should be noted that the review of the deck
carried out under this program is quite limited given the size of the structure, however, it does
indicate that there has been some corrosion-related deterioration within the concrete deck and is
useful in targeting future surveys and repairs.
Table 1: Summary of Core Condition
Number of Cores
Span Lane Good
Vertical
Crack
Broken Delamination
South Approach
Northbound 8 2 1 0
Southbound 8 0 1 1
South Underdeck
Truss Span
Northbound 2 0 1 0
Southbound 1 0 1 3
Main Span
Northbound 5 0 1 0
Southbound 4 0 1 0
North Underdeck
Truss
Northbound 3 1 1 1
Southbound 2 0 2 1
North Approach
Northbound 2 0 0 3
Southbound 1 0 0 3
Total
36 3 9 12














FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


4

Table 2: Summary of Rebar Condition
Number of Cores
Span Lane Good Fair Poor
None
Visible
South Approach
Northbound 4 2 1 4
Southbound 2 4 0 4
South Underdeck
Truss Span
Northbound 0 1 1 1
Southbound 2 1 2 0
Main Span
Northbound 0 1 0 5
Southbound 1 1 0 3
North Underdeck
Truss
Northbound 0 2 2 2
Southbound 1 2 1 1
North Approach
Northbound 1 3 0 1
Southbound 1 2 1 0
Total
12 19 8 21

3.2 CORROSION POTENTIAL MEASURMENTS
Corrosion potential values provide information about the probability of active corrosion of the
rebar embedded in concrete. Based on Levelton's experience, active corrosion of steel in bridge
decks is often observed when potential values are more negative than about -200 mV
CSE
and the
chloride levels at the rebar are elevated.
At most core locations corrosion potential measurements were taken on the exposed concrete
deck prior to extraction of the concrete portion of the deck. The remaining core locations were
used as grounds to connect the half-cell equipment to the deck reinforcing steel, therefore no
measurements could be taken at these locations. Table 4 presents a summary of the
measurements taken on the deck, and Table 3 presents the interpretation of the results using the
criterion recommended by ASTM C876 Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potential of
Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete.
As can be seen from the tables there are locations where the corrosion potentials indicate that
active corrosion is likely occurring, however, the majority of the readings indicate that there is a
low or uncertain probability of active corrosion within the deck.
Table 3: Probability of Corrosion (ASTM C876)
E
corr
vs. (mV
CSE
)
Probability of
Corrosion
More positive than -200 mV
CSE
<10%
-200 to -350 mV
CSE
Uncertain
More negative than -350 mV
CSE
>90%








FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


5

Table 4: Summary of Corrosion Potential Measurements
Number of Readings
Corrosion Potential
(ASTM C876)
South
Approach
South
Under-deck
Truss
Main
Span
North
Under-deck
North
Approach
>10%
(>-200 mVCSE)
6 0 4 2 3
Uncertain
(-200 to -350 mVCSE)
10 3 1 6 6
<90%
<-350 mVCSE)
3 4 4 1 0
Total 19 7 9 9 9

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING
3.3.1 Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content
Of the 53 locations tested throughout the deck the majority of the test locations show that the
concentration of chlorides is low within the deck concrete which indicates that the membrane has
generally performed its function over the years. However, there are two locations in the south
under-deck truss span, and four locations in the north under-deck truss span where the chloride
ion content has reached or exceeded the corrosion initiation threshold.
4 CONCRETE PARAPETS
4.1 VISUAL REVIEW
Visually, the railings are in poor condition with approximately 80% of the members having some
sort of deterioration. There are spalls which have exposed reinforcing steel on the front, back,
and tops of the parapets The condition of the parapets is generally
consistent over the full length of the bridge on both sides of the roadway. While the majority of
the deterioration appears to be corrosion-related spalling, some cracking with white gel was
observed. Cores were taken at select cracks to assess the presence of ASR and are discussed
in the next section.
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING
4.2.1 Extracted Cores
Three cores were extracted from select locations in the west parapet and subjected to the same
testing as described in Section 2.2.2. Review of the uranyl-acetate treated cores under ultraviolet
light indicates that there is some reactive aggregate within the concrete, however, the
development of ASR is in the relatively early stages and is likely progressing at a relatively slow
rate considering the age of the structure.
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)





FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


6

4.2.2 Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content
Levelton extracted concrete powder samples from five locations in the west parapet and tested
the samples for water-soluble chloride ion content and pH. At all locations the water-soluble
chloride ion content is below the generally accepted corrosion initiation threshold limit of 0.03-
0.05% by mass of concrete and the pH of at all sample locations is greater than 10.0.

5 INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
In general, the concrete elements of the Burrard Bridge are in relatively good condition for their
age. The notable exception is the parapets, which are showing advanced deterioration in the
form of spalling. It is noted that the bridge was constructed prior to the use of air entrainment for
freeze-thaw protection, using what is likely to be relatively high-permeability concrete. Hence, the
observed deterioration is likely the result of freeze-thaw attack, ASR, and rebar corrosion acting
together.
Elsewhere, localized spalling and deterioration is observed, but generally the concrete is sound
and in good condition.
Some evidence of early-stage ASR is present. More extensive laboratory analysis, together with
in-situ monitoring is required to assess the future progression of this form of deterioration.
5.1 DECK SOFFIT AND SUBSTRUCTURE
Throughout the deck soffit there are numerous spalled areas which have exposed the reinforcing
steel. Many of these spalls have been coated with a gray paint (presumably zinc-enriched).
Application of this paint this will provide limited protection to the exposed steel, and does nothing
to mitigate the corrosion of the steel adjacent to the spall.
The laboratory testing indicates that both the chloride ion concentration and the pH are at levels
at which widespread corrosion would not normally be induced. Nevertheless, is it is evident that
there is localized active corrosion at locations throughout the deck soffit and substructure.
There are several transverse cracks in the sidewalk soffit that appear to be leaking. Again,
laboratory tests indicate that both the chloride content and pH are at levels that would not
normally induce corrosion, however, isolated corrosion cells were observed.
It is evident from the leakage, staining, and deterioration of the concrete adjacent to the deck
joints that the joints are leaking and should be replaced. If left in their current state it should be
anticipated that the members adjacent to the joints will continue to deteriorate.
There are several areas where there are cracks with white gel at the surface, commonly
indicative of ASR. Laboratory testing indicated that there is some ASR within the structure,
however, it is in the early stages, and given the age of the structure, is likely advancing very
slowly. If no intervention is made, it is likely that these forms of deterioration will continue to
accumulate.
5.2 DECK SURFACE
The majority of the core sample locations indicate that the concrete deck is in fair to good
condition. Corrosion-induced delaminations were noted in a total of twelve of the 60 samples,
with the majority of these located in the north approach and the south under-deck truss span.
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a);
and s.19(1)(b)





FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


7

The corrosion potential measurements at many of the sample sites indicate an uncertain
probability of corrosion, and review of the condition of rebar exposed during sampling indicates
that the steel is generally in good condition at most locations. Chloride ion concentrations at
most locations are quite low, which indicates that the waterproofing membrane and the
asbestos-modified asphalt have done a reasonably good job of protecting the concrete deck.
The samples were taken from the northbound curb lane, and the current southbound curb and
bike lanes; until recently the current southbound bike lane was the curb lane for vehicular traffic.
These lanes were chosen as they are where the most advanced deterioration would be expected
to occur. However, it should be noted that this is a very small sample size, particularly given the
size of the structure and it is difficult develop a complete assessment of the condition of the
deck.
In general, the deck was found to be in sound condition with localized deterioration. If left in its
current state, the corrosion-related deterioration will continue to accumulate, eventually
necessitating extensive repairs.
5.3 PARAPETS
The parapets are generally in poor condition with extensive spalling throughout, which has
exposed the reinforcing steel extensively. At several locations these spalls have been coated
with paint, however, as with the deck soffit, this method provides only minimal protection to steel,
and it is likely that the spalls will continue to expand.
Laboratory testing indicated that the chloride concentrations and pH levels have not reached the
generally accepted corrosion initiation thresholds; however, it is obvious that there are active
deterioration mechanisms within the parapets. The deterioration is likely the result of
simultaneous freeze-thaw attack, ASR, and corrosion.
The amount of accumulated damage is significant, and it is not expected that durable repairs can
be implemented, particularly at a reasonable cost. It is likely that replacement is the only viable
option for the parapets.
s.13(1); s. 15(1)(l) and s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f)




FILE: RI11-0844-00

BURRARD STREET BRIDGE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT


8

s.13(1); s. 15(1)(l) and s.17(1)(c), (d), & (f)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)
s.15(1)(l); s.18(a); and s.19(1)(b)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful