James Gichuru Bridge Report

MTRD REPORT NO.
1362-DECEMBER 2017
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT
STATE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE
MATERIALS TESTING AND RESEARCH DIVISION(MTRD)
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TESTS FOR JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE
REPORT NO.1362
DECEMBER,2017
CHIEF ENGINEER (MATERIALS )

MACHAKOS ROAD,INDUSTRIAL AREA
P.O. BOX 11873-00400
NAIROBI
INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 0

MTRD REPORT NO.1362-DECEMBER 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………....1
1.1 Scope of work……………………………………………………..…………..1
2.0 TESTS DONE………………………………………………………………………..…2
2.1 Overview of tests methods …………………………………………..…..……2
2.1.1 Visual Inspection……………………….............………….……..…2
2.1.2 Schmidt Hammer Test………………………………………..........2
2.1.3 Electromagnetic Test……………………………………..………….3
2.1.4 Ultrasonic Pulse velocity Test……………………………..……... 3
2.1.5 Carbonation Test………………………………………………....…..3
2.1.6 Reinforcement Corrosion Investigation………………..............4
3.0 TESTS RESULTS……………………………………………………………………..5
3.1 VISUAL INSPECTION……………………………………………..…………5
3.2 OTHER TESTS’ RESULTS……………………………………………….…7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………………………..24
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………..24
APPENDIX 1: BRIDGE LAYOUT DRAWINGS………………………………………….25
APPENDIX 2: PHOTOS………………………………………………………………....….26
INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page i

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Scope of work……………………………………………………………………………...1
Table 2: Inferences for ultrasonic pulse velocities………………………………………..…3
Table 3: Evaluation of Carbonation Depth………………………………………………….…3
Table 4: Resistivity Level vs. Possible Corrosion Rate………………………………………4
Table 5: Re-bar Details for the Abutment Wall 1-Waiyaki Way Side……..…………….7
Table 6: Re-bar Details for the Abutment Wall 2-Lavington Side………………….……..…7
Table 7: Re-bar Details for the Pier Wall……………………………………………………….7
Table 8: Re-bar details for the Deck Slab- Waiyaki Way Side…………………………….…8
Table 9: Re-bar details for the Deck Slab- Lavington Side…………………………………...8
Table 10: Ultrasonic Velocity Tests results ………………………………………….……...….8
Table 11: Concrete strength Test Results for Beams…………………………………....…...9
Table 12: concrete strength Test Results for Abutment Walls……………………………..10
Table 13: Concrete strength Test Results for Deck Slab………………………………...….10
Table 14: Carbonation Test Results for beams…………………………………………..……10
Table 15: Carbonation Test Results for Deck Slab………………………………….…….….11
Table 16: Carbonation Test Results for Abutments………………………………………….11
Table 17: Carbonation Test Results for Pier wall……………………………………………..11
Table 18: Resistivity Test Results for the Pier Walls………………………………………….11
Table 19: Resistivity Test Results for Abutment Walls………………………………….......11
Table 20: Resistivity Test Results for the Deck Slab…………………………………….......12
Table 21: Re-bar details for the lavington side beams…………………………………….…13
Table 22: Re-bar details for the Waiyaki Way Side Beams………………………………....15
Table 23: Chloride and Sulphate Contents in Concrete Matrix…………………………...17

Table 24: Ultrasonic Velocity Tests results for quality of concrete………………………..17
INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This bridge inspection report is in response to a request made by M/S Runji &
Partners Consulting Engineers of P.O Box 68053-00200, Nairobi to undertake
structural integrity tests for James Gichuru Bridge.
The report contains a description of the structure, visual observations,

description of testing methods and test results for various parameters based on
several Non-destructive testing methods. It mainly dwells on the status of
material components of the structural elements.
The primary results of the tests are given and the critical problems have been
highlighted.
1.1 Scope of work

Table 1
Item
no. Structural Parameters tested Inspection details/methods
element
Appearance Carry out visual inspection
Re-bar details Carry out electromagnetic
tests
Insitu Concrete strength Carry out Schmidt hammer
tests
Homogeneity,internal Carry out ultrasonic pulse
1 Abutments defects and quality of velocity tests
concrete
Deterioration status of the i. Carry out resistivity
concrete matrix potential tests
i. Corrosion ii. Carry out carbonation
ii. Remaining effective depth tests
good covers iii. carry out chlorides
and sulphates
contents in the
concrete
2 Pier Wall Ditto Ditto

3 RC Beams Ditto Ditto
4 Deck slab Ditto Ditto

2.0 TESTS DONE
Seven tests were done namely:

i) Visual Inspection to ascertain the extent of wear and tear of the
structure;
ii) Electromagnetic and concrete radar tests to establish the steel
reinforcement details;
iii) Schmidt Hammer Test to determine the concrete strength insitu;
iv) ultrasonic pulse velocity tests for internal defects, homogeneity and
quality of concrete;
v) Carbonation test to determine the effective good cover to the
reinforcement;
vi) Resistivity potential to determine the probability of corrosion of the re-
bars and
vii) Chlorides & sulphates content analysis.
2.1 Overview of Tests Methods

2.1.1 Visual Inspection
Visual Inspection is used in maintenance of facilities, inspection of equipment
and structures using either or all of human senses such as vision, hearing,
touch and smell. Visual Inspection typically means inspection using human
senses and/or any non-specialized inspection equipment.
2.1.2 Schmidt Hammer Test
This is a rebound hammer method based on the principle that the rebound of
an elastic mass depends on the hardness of the surface that it strikes.
The method can be useful in supplementing core testing by locating areas of

potential weakness or variability and avoiding destructiveness.
The rebound number obtained from a Schmidt Hammer is correlated

with concrete cube crushing strength. This method is used for insitu
concrete strength tests in various structural elements.
2.1.3 Electromagnetic Test

This method is employed for locating steel in concrete .The principle method of
test is by electromagnetic induction. When a probe carrying an alternating field
is brought close to steel, eddy magnetic fields are generated by the steel, which
reduces the primary field of the probe. At maximum induction level depicted by
audio signals and reduction in minimum cover measurement, the location and
orientation of a reinforcement bar can be established. After appropriate
calibration, the technique can be used for: Electromagnetic cover meters can be
used for:

i. Quality control to ensure correct location and cover to reinforcing bars

after concrete placement.
ii. Investigation of concrete members for which records are not available or
need to be checked.
iii. location of reinforcement as a preliminary to some other form of testing
in which reinforcement should be avoided or its nature taken into
account, e.g. extraction of cores, ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements
or near to surface methods.
The accuracy of reinforcing bar size estimation range from ±2% to ±15%.
2.1.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

The velocity of an ultrasonic pulse is influenced by those properties of concrete
which determine its elastic stiffness and mechanical strength. The variations
obtained in a set of pulse velocity measurements made along different paths in
a structure reflect a corresponding variation in the state of the concrete. When
a region of low compaction, voids or damaged material is present in the
concrete under test, a corresponding reduction in the calculated pulse velocity
occurs and this enables the approximate extent of the imperfections to be
determined.
As concrete matures or deteriorates, the changes, which occur with time in its
structure, are reflected in either an increase or a decrease, respectively, in the
pulse velocity.
Table 2: Inferences for ultrasonic pulse velocities

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Inference
(km/s)
> 4.5 Excellent Quality Concrete
3.5-4.5 Good Quality Concrete
3.0- 3.5 Satisfactory
2.0-3.0 Poor Quality Concrete
< 2.0km/s Very Poor Quality Concrete
2.1.5 Carbonation Test.

The phenolphthalein test is a simple and cheap method of determining the
depth of carbonation in concrete and provides information on the risk of
reinforcement corrosion taking place.
The drilling method is used to determine the depth of carbonation. The drilled
out material at prescribed depth is then analyzed for carbonation using
phenolphthalein reagent. Presence of carbonation is depicted by no color
change while the color changes to pink in the absence of carbonation.
Deterioration degree is judged based on the balance of carbonation depth as
shown in the table below.

Table 3: Evaluation of Carbonation Depth

Balance of Carbonation Degree of reinforcement
Deterioration degree
Depth corrosion
High T < 0 mm Large
Medium 0 mm ≤ T < 10 mm Medium
Low 10 mm≤ T < 30 mm Low
None 30 mm≤ T None
Note: Balance of Carbonation Depth = Cover – Carbonation depth
2.1.6 Reinforcement Corrosion Investigation (Resistivity potential
method)
Resistivity measurement is a fast and simple in situ non-destructive method to
obtain information related to the corrosion hazard of embedded reinforcement.
The time at which corrosion of steel may commence and the rate at which it
may proceed is dependent upon the properties of the cement paste and the
permeability of the concrete. Since the electrical conductivity of concrete is an
electrolysis process, which takes place by ionic movement in the aqueous pore
solution of the cement matrix, it follows that a highly permeable concrete will
have a high conductivity and low electrical resistance.
The knowledge of the electrical resistance of concrete can provide a measure of
the possible corrosion of steel embedded in it as shown below.
Table 4: Resistivity Level vs Possible Corrosion Rate
Resistivity Level(k ohm cm) Possible Corrosion Rate
<5 Very high
5-10 high
10-20 moderate to low
>20 insignificant

3.0 TESTS RESULTS

3.1 Visual Inspection
This is a double span structure comprising an RC deck with 6 no.RC beams in
each span, wall type RC abutments, and pier and wing walls.
Photo 1: A side view of the bridge
The following observations were made

I. Vertical regularly spaced cracks on the L.H.S( Lavington bound) beam

II. Spalling of concrete exposing corroded re-bars on the RHS slab edge.
III. Multiple cracks on the R.H.S pier edge at the beam support
IV. Vertical cracks on the pier wall

V. There were no side drains

3.2 Other Tests’ Results

Table 5: Re-bar Details for the Abutment Wall 1-Waiyaki Way Side
Test Element/Location Average Re-bar spacing Average covers Re-bar size
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Vertical:250 Vertical:45 Vertical:20

L.H.S Horizontal:300 Horizontal:64 Horizontal:16
CENTRE Horizontal:300 Horizontal: 65 Horizontal:16
R.H.S Horizontal:300 Horizontal: 60 Horizontal:16
Table 6: Re-bar Details for the Abutment Wall 2-Lavington Side

Test Element/Location Average Re-bar spacing Average covers Re-bar size
(mm) (mm) (mm)

L.H.S
Horizontal:300 Horizontal:65 Horizontal:16
CENTRE
Horizontal:300 Horizontal: 65 Horizontal:16
R.H.S Horizontal:300 Horizontal: 56 Horizontal:16
The re-bar details are for the inner side. The outer side details could not be determined due to
inaccessibility because of backfill
Table 7: Re-bar Details for the Pier Wall

Test Average Re-bar Average covers Re-bar size Pier wall
Element/Location spacing (mm) (mm) Thickness
(mm) (mm)
Vertical:250 Vertical:64 Vertical:20 310
L.H.S
Horizontal:300 Horizontal:86 Horizontal:16
CENTRE
R.H.S
The re-bar details are for the inner side. The outer side details could not be determined due to
inaccessibility because of backfill

Table 8: Re-bar details for the Deck Slab- Waiyaki Way Side
Test Location Re-bar spacing Average covers Re-bar size Deck slab
(mm) (mm) (mm) Thickness
(mm)
DS1 Longitudinal:340 Longitudinal:24 Longitudinal:16
Transverse:105 Transverse:30 Transverse:12
DS3 Longitudinal:276 Longitudinal:30 Longitudinal:16 200
Table 9: Re-bar details for the Deck Slab- Lavington Side
Test Location Re-bar spacing Average covers Re-bar size Deck slab
(mm) (mm) (mm) Thickness
(mm)
DS3 Longitudinal:290 Longitudinal:31 Longitudinal:16 200
Table 10: Ultrasonic Velocity Tests results
Transit Pulse
Distance/Diameter
Test Location Time Velocity
(mm) Remarks
(µs) (km/s)
B1 380 106 3.6 Good Quality
Concrete
B2 380 99.1 3.8 Good Quality
Concrete
Waiyaki
Concrete
Way Side
B4 380 109.4 3.5
Beams
B5 380 114 3.3
Satisfactory
B6 380 116.6 3.3
B3 169 53.5 3.2
Good Quality
Lavington B4 380 106 3.6
Concrete
Side
Beams
Good Quality
B6 380 106 3.6 Concrete
Satisfactory
Pier Wall L.H.S 310 89.9 3.4

Table 10: Concrete strength Test Results for Beams
Test Element/Test Average Concrete

Average Rebound No.
Location Strength
(N/mm2)
B1 43.6 30.5
B2 42.6 29.8
Waiyaki Way B3 46.8 32.7

Side B4 44.2 30.9
B5 43.1 30.2
B6 39.6 27.7
B1 50.3 35.2
Lavington B2 50.9 35.6

Side B4 53.8 37.7
B5 54.2 38.0
L.H.S 43.2 30.2
Mid-Span Middle 43.0 29.9
R.H.S 44.3 31.1
Table 11: Concrete strength Test Results for Abutment Walls
Test Element/Test Average Concrete

Average Rebound No.
Location Strength
(N/mm2)
Abutment L.H.S 43.2 30.2
Wall 1-
Middle 41.2 28.8
waiyaki way
side R.H.S 40.5 28.2
Abutment L.H.S 48.7 34.1

Wall 2-
MIDDLE 47.4 33.2
lavington
side R.H.S 42.3 29.6

Table 12: Concrete strength Test Results for Deck Slab
Test Element/Test
Average Rebound No. Average Concrete Strength
Location (N/mm2)
DS1 51.2 35.8
Waiyaki Way
DS2 51.6 36.1
Side
DS5 54.8 38.4
Lavington DS1 54.1 37.8

Side DS4 46.5 32.6
Table 13: Carbonation Test Results for beams
Test Element/Location Carbonation Least cover Balance of

depth recorded carbonation Remarks
(mm) (mm) depth
(mm)
B4 2.5 10 7.5 deterioration
Lavington side
degree:
B1 2 10 8 Medium
B2 3 15 12 deterioration
degree: Low
degree:
Waiyaki way B4 12 15 3 Medium
side
degree: Low
Depth deterioration
B6 beyond 20 <0 degree: High
rebar/no
color change
Table 14: Carbonation Test Results for Deck Slab
Test Element/Location Carbonation Least cover Balance of

(mm) (mm) depth
(mm)
Lavington DS2 1 20 19 deterioration
side degree: Low
Waiyaki way DS1 1 26 25 deterioration

side degree: Low

Table 16: Carbonation Test Results for Abutments
Test Element Location Carbonation Least cover Balance of

(mm) (mm) depth
(mm)
Abutment R.H.S 34 39 5 deterioration
Wall 1 degree:
Medium
Centre 25 46 21 deterioration
degree: Low
Abutment Centre 21 48 27
Wall 2
Table 17: Carbonation Test Results for Pier wall
Test Carbonation Least cover Balance of

Element/Location depth recorded carbonation Remarks
(mm) (mm) depth
(mm)
L.H.S 12.5 61 48.5 deterioration
degree: None
Centre 40 53 13 deterioration
degree: Low
R.H.S 49 44 -5 deterioration
degree: High
Table 18 : Resistivity Test Results for the Pier Walls

Test Resistivity Remarks
Element/Location (kΩcm)
L.H.S 110.4 Possible Corrosion Rate:

R.H.S 97.2 Insignificant
Table 19: Resistivity Test Results for Abutment Walls

Test Element/Location Resistivity Remarks
(kΩcm)
Abutment 1 R.H.S 110.0 Possible Corrosion

Rate: Insignificant
Abutment 2 Centre 109.9 Possible Corrosion
Rate: Insignificant

Table 20: Resistivity Test Results for the Deck Slab

Test Resistivity Remarks
Element/Location (kΩcm)
Deck slab 111.3 Possible Corrosion Rate:

Insignificant

Table 21: Re-bar details for the lavington side beams
Test Beam Size(mm),No of Re-Bars & Spacing(mm) Re-bar Average Links

Location size covers details
(mm) (mm) (mm)
DECK
SLAB 200
B2 From Φ:10
Sides:21 Spacing
750 32 :150
From
Soffit:12
380
DECK
SLAB 200
32
B3 From Φ:10
Sides:16 Spacing
750 :180
From
Soffit:19
380
The top re-bars for the beams could not be resolved due to ac cover and interference of deck slab reinforcement

Table 21: Re-bar details for the lavington side beams Contin’d

(mm) (mm) (mm)
DECK
SLAB 200
B4 32 From Φ:10
Sides:25 Spacing
750 :180
From
Soffit:20
380
DECK
SLAB 200
From
B5 32 Sides:21 Φ:10
Spacing
750 From :200
Soffit:20
380

Table 22: Re-bar details for the Waiyaki Way Side Beams

(mm) (mm) (mm)
DECK
SLAB 200
B1 From Φ:10
32 Sides:26 Spacing
750 :150
From
Soffit:11
380
DECK
SLAB 200
From
B2 32 Web:18 Φ:10
Spacing
750 From :150
Soffit:17
380

Table 22 : Re-bar details for the Waiyaki Way Side Beams Contin’d

(mm) (mm) (mm)
DECK
SLAB 200
B3 From Φ:10
Sides:17 Spacing
750 32 :150
From
Soffit:20
380
DECK
SLAB 200
From Φ:10
B4 32 web: 15 Spacing
:
750 From
Soffit:19
380

Table 23: Chloride and Sulphate Contents in Concrete Matrix

Test point Chlorides as Cl-, % m/m Sulphates as SO3, % m/m
Pier wall 0.025 0.186
Abutment 1 0.071 0.222
Abutment 2 0.004 0.156
Beam1 0.028 0.250
Table 24: Ultrasonic Velocity Tests results for quality of concrete
Transit Pulse
Distance
Test Location Time Velocity
(mm) Remarks
(µs) (km/s)
B1 380 106 3.6 Good Quality
Concrete
Concrete
Concrete
B4 380 109.4 3.5
Waiyaki
Way Side
B5 380 114.0 3.3
Beams Satisfactory
B6 380 116.6 3.3

Concrete
Good Quality
B6 380 106.0 3.6
Concrete
Pier Wall L.H.S 310 89.9 3.4 Satisfactory

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Tests Results for Homogeneity of Concrete
ABUTMENT 1 R.H.S
Transit Time(µs) Distance(mm)
54.5 150
113.3 300
210.9 450
225.5 600
320.9 750
385.3 900
Distance Against Transit Time Curve

1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Transit Time (µs)
Remarks: concrete matrix is slightly inhomogeneous

ABUTMENT 1 CENTRE
43.1 150
92.3 300
134.5 450
271.5 600
342.8 750
372.6 900

1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Transit Time(µs)

ABUTMENT 1 L.H.S
58.6 150
109.4 300
192.9 450
209.5 600
237.1 750
361.8 900

1200
1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Transit Time(µs)
PIER WALL- CENTRE

53.2 150
96.2 300
195.8 450
260.7 600
387.3 750
468.8 900

1000
800
Distance (mm)
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Transit Time(µs)

WAIYAKI WAY SIDE DECK SLAB DS1

53.7 150
109.9 300
149.5 450
219.3 600
286.3 750
450.7 900

1200
1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Transit Time(µs)

46.8 150
76.7 300
126.3 450
177.3 600
336.9 750
501 900

1200
1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Transit Time(µs)


42 150
81.5 300
114.3 450
187.9 600
292 750
330.5 900

1000
800
Distance (mm)
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Transit Time(µs)
ABUTMENT 2 L.H.S
60.5 150
146.3 300
180.9 450
310.3 600
396.5 750
487.1 900

1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Transit Time(µs)

ABUTMENT 2 CENTRE
41.9 150
94.8 300
149.2 450
242.5 600
362.6 750
505.7 900

1200
1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Transit Time(µs)
ABUTMENT 2 R.H.S
48.3 150
102.9 300
154.1 450
209.1 600
235.6 750
287.4 900

1000
Distance (mm)
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Transit Time(µs)

DECK SLAB LAVINGTON SIDE

52.5 150
155.9 300
218.7 450
256.1 600
306.5 750
388.7 900

1000
800
Distance (mm)
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Transit Time(µs)

4.0 CONCLUSIONS
From the results obtained, the following conclusions can be made:
i. The structure has some visible minor structural defects in form of
vertical cracks some beams and pier wall.
ii. Carbonation effect has not reached the re-bars implying no risk of
corrosion
iii. The probability of corrosion activity is insignificant.
iv. All the concrete elements are steel reinforced.
v. The concrete strengths are fairly consistent from one structural element
to the other and the design classes can be discerned to have been class
30.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
The Structural Engineer is advised to make a decision on the overall structural
integrity and adequacy of the three structures whereby this report may be a
guide.

APPENDIX 1: BRIDGE LAYOUT DRAWINGS

APPENDIX 2: PHOTOS
Photo 1: a side view of the structure
Photo 2: scanning for re-bars on the deck slab

Photo 3: rebound hammer tests on the deck slab
Photo 4;an radar gram image for re-bars on the pier wall

Photo 5: scanning for re-bars on the pier wall
Photo 6: scanning for re-bars on a beam

James Gichuru Bridge Report

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

James Gichuru Bridge Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MTRD REPORT NO.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND URBAN

STATE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

MATERIALS TESTING AND RESEARCH DIVISION(MTRD)

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TESTS FOR JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE

CHIEF ENGINEER (MATERIALS )

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 0

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page i

Table 4: Resistivity Level vs. Possible Corrosion Rate………………………………………4

Table 6: Re-bar Details for the Abutment Wall 2-Lavington Side………………….……..…7

Table 7: Re-bar Details for the Pier Wall……………………………………………………….7

Table 9: Re-bar details for the Deck Slab- Lavington Side…………………………………...8

Table 10: Ultrasonic Velocity Tests results ………………………………………….……...….8

Table 11: Concrete strength Test Results for Beams…………………………………....…...9

Table 12: concrete strength Test Results for Abutment Walls……………………………..10

Table 13: Concrete strength Test Results for Deck Slab………………………………...….10

Table 14: Carbonation Test Results for beams…………………………………………..……10

Table 15: Carbonation Test Results for Deck Slab………………………………….…….….11

Table 16: Carbonation Test Results for Abutments………………………………………….11

Table 17: Carbonation Test Results for Pier wall……………………………………………..11

Table 18: Resistivity Test Results for the Pier Walls………………………………………….11

Table 19: Resistivity Test Results for Abutment Walls………………………………….......11

Table 20: Resistivity Test Results for the Deck Slab…………………………………….......12

Table 21: Re-bar details for the lavington side beams…………………………………….…13

Table 23: Chloride and Sulphate Contents in Concrete Matrix…………………………...17

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page ii

The report contains a description of the structure, visual observations,

1.1 Scope of work

2 Pier Wall Ditto Ditto

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 1

2.0 TESTS DONE

Seven tests were done namely:

2.1 Overview of Tests Methods

The method can be useful in supplementing core testing by locating areas of

The rebound number obtained from a Schmidt Hammer is correlated

2.1.3 Electromagnetic Test

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 2

i. Quality control to ensure correct location and cover to reinforcing bars

2.1.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

Table 2: Inferences for ultrasonic pulse velocities

2.1.5 Carbonation Test.

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 3

Table 3: Evaluation of Carbonation Depth

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 4

3.0 TESTS RESULTS

Photo 1: A side view of the bridge

The following observations were made

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 5

IV. Vertical cracks on the pier wall

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 6

3.2 Other Tests’ Results

Vertical:250 Vertical:45 Vertical:20

Table 6: Re-bar Details for the Abutment Wall 2-Lavington Side

Vertical:250 Vertical:54 Vertical:20

Table 7: Re-bar Details for the Pier Wall

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 7

Table 9: Re-bar details for the Deck Slab- Lavington Side

Table 10: Ultrasonic Velocity Tests results

B3 169 53.5 3.2

INSPECTION OF JAMES GICHURU BRIDGE Page 8

Table 10: Concrete strength Test Results for Beams

Test Element/Test Average Concrete

Waiyaki Way B3 46.8 32.7

Lavington B2 50.9 35.6