bs1563917 PDF

Commission d’enquête sur le viaduc de la Concorde
CONFIDENTIEL
Inspection
Rédigé par :
Alexander M. Vaysburd, Ph.D.

Benoît Bissonnette, ing. Ph.D.
Mai 2007
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1
2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ........................................................................1
3. INSPECTION AND ROLE OF INSPECTORS ..................................................3
4. INSPECTION TECHNIQUES ...........................................................................3

4.1 Visual Examination...................................................................................3
4.2 Nondestructive Testing.............................................................................4
4.3 Semi-Destructive Testing .........................................................................6
4.4 Exploratory Removal ................................................................................6
4.5 Techniques Used in Practice....................................................................7
5. EVALUATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS AT MTQ ..................................7

5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................7
5.2 MTQ Documents and Inspection Manuals ...............................................8
5.2.1 The 1978 and 1984 Bridge Maintenance Guides ...................9
5.2.2 The 1987 Bridge Inspection Guide .........................................9
5.2.3 The 1993 Manual of Bridge Inspection .................................11
5.2.4 The 2004 Manual of Bridge Inspection .................................19
6. REVIEW OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS DEVELOPED BY OTHER

AGENCIES .....................................................................................................21
6.1 National Bridge Inspection Standards ....................................................21
6.1.1 General.................................................................................21
6.1.2 Personnel Qualification.........................................................21
6.1.3 Types of Inspections.............................................................22
6.1.4 Quality Control / Quality Assurance......................................22
6.2 AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges............................23
6.2.2 Types of Inspections.............................................................24
6.2.3 Inspection Procedures..........................................................25
6.2.4 Inspection of Bridge Girders .................................................26
6.2.5 Inspection of Bridge Decks ...................................................27
6.2.6 Inspection of Expansion Joints .............................................28
6.2.7 Quality Control......................................................................28
6.3 National Highway Institute Training Course, “Safety Inspection of In-

Service Bridges” ...................................................................................30
6.3.1 General.................................................................................30
6.3.2 Concrete...............................................................................31
6.3.3 Inspector Duties....................................................................31
6.3.4 Inspection Reporting.............................................................31
i
6.3.5 Inspection Procedures..........................................................33
6.4 Ontario Structures Inspection Manual ....................................................35
6.4.1 General.................................................................................35
6.4.2 Qualifications of Bridge Inspectors .......................................36
6.4.3 Post Inspection Actions ........................................................36
6.4.4 Material Condition States .....................................................37
6.4.5 Additional Investigations.......................................................39
7. BRIDGE DESIGN VS. INSPECTION..............................................................39
8. APPRAISAL OF THE QUALITY OF INSPECTIONS ON DE LA CONCORDE

BRIDGE BY MTQ ...........................................................................................41
8.1 General ...............................................................................................41
8.2 Inspection Reports between 1977 and 1980.......................................42
8.3 1985 Inspection Report.......................................................................42
8.11 Inspection Reports in 1977 and 1998 .................................................45
8.13 Inspection Reports in 2000 and 2001 .................................................45
8.17 Territorial Direction Request for Technical Assistance and MTQ’s
response in 2004 and 2005 ................................................................47
8.18 2005 Inspection Reports .....................................................................49
9. ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL INSPECTION ACTIVITIES PERTAINING

TO THE DE LA CONCORDE BRIDGE AND ITS COLLAPSE........................49
9.1 Background.........................................................................................49
9.2 General Comments on the Inspection System....................................50
9.3 Inspection Activities on the de la Concorde Bridge.............................51
9.4 Collapse of the Bridge.........................................................................52
9.5 Inspection Shortcomings.....................................................................53
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................56

10.1 MTQ Manual of Bridge Inspection ......................................................56
10.2 The de la Concorde Bridge Inspections ..............................................57
10.3 Recommendations ..............................................................................59
ii
11. REFERENCES .............................................................................................62
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................64
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................72
iii
1. INTRODUCTION
Following the collapse of the Boulevard de la Concorde bridge, the “Commission
d’enquête sur le viaduc de la Concorde (CEVC)” assigned to the authors the task
of reviewing and analyzing bridge inspection practices between 1969 and 2006
at the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ) and presenting
recommendations for their improvement.
To accomplish these objectives, the following tasks were performed:
• Examination of different versions of the inspection guidance documents

prepared by the MTQ over the past 30 years.
• Review of inspection guidance documents developed by other agencies in
North America.
• Review of the inspections performed on the de la Concorde bridge between
1977 and 2005.
• Analysis of the quality of inspections conducted on the de la Concorde bridge.
• Development of recommendations for improvement of inspection practices at
MTQ.
The conclusions and recommendations summarized in this report identify the

factors and the actions, or absence of such, which caused shortcomings and
mistakes in inspection of the de la Concorde bridge and offer recommendations
for practical improvements in these areas.
2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
During the course of this evaluation and review, one of the authors was provided
with translations of relevant sections of the documents. Discussions with other
experts, retained by the Commission, also provided valuable guidance and
assistance on the methods and procedures used by MTQ for inspection.
A list of the documents provided for this report includes:
• De la Concorde bridge drawings, Mr. Dupaul’s version (1969) - COM-19

pp. 13-16
• Inspection reports from de la Concorde bridge (1977-2005) - COM-31B
• Letters and documents related to technical assistance request (2004-2005) –

COM-31B pp. 140-178
1
• The “Étude d’opportunité” prepared by Mr. Bossé, including joint opening
measurements (2003) - CEVC002272
Excerpts from MTQ’s documentation:
• MTQ’s training courses outline – COM-52 pp. 129-142
• Guide d’entretien des structures (Bridge maintenance guide1 - BMG) (1978

updated until 1987) – COM-30B, COM-30C and COM-30C amendée
• Inspection des ouvrages d’art (Structures inspection) (1987) – COM-30C
• Manuel d'inspection des structures (Manual of bridge inspection2 - MBI) –

versions 1996, 2003 and 2005 (rév.)
• Manuel d'entretien des structures (Manual of bridge maintenance3 - MBM) –

versions 2001, 2004 and 2006 (rév.)
• Évaluation des dommages (Condition evaluation) (1993 updated in 1996,

2004) – COM-30N and COM-30D
• Instructions techniques (Technical advice) (2004) – COM-30E
• Critères pour l’évaluation des dommages (Criteria for damage evaluation)

(2005) – COM-30F
• Le nouveau système de gestion des structures du Ministère des Transports

du Québec, Guy Richard, MTQ, paper presented in Colloque sur la
progression de la recherche québécoise sur les ouvrages d’art (2006).
Other excerpts:
• Guide de la conservation des ponts (2003), Rapport à l’Assemblée Nationale

pour l’Année 2002-2003 Tome II, Vérificateur Général du Québec (Guide for
bridge preservation)
In addition, the authors met with Dr. Jacques Marchand and Dr. Denis Mitchell on
numerous occasions to discuss the outcome of their report on the causes for the
bridge collapse.
1
In the report, the Bridge maintenance guide will be referred to as the BMG manual
2
In the report, the Manual of bridge inspection will be referred to as the MBI manual
3
In the report, the Manual of bridge maintenance will be referred to as the MBM manual
2
3. INSPECTION AND ROLE OF INSPECTORS
Bridge inspection has played and will continue to play an increasingly important
role in providing and maintaining safe infrastructure. As bridge structures
continue to age and deteriorate, an accurate and thorough assessment of each
bridge’s condition is critical in maintaining a safe, functional and reliable highway
system. There are five basic responsibilities of the personnel involved in bridge
inspection and maintenance:
• maintain public safety and confidence;

• provide bridge inspection program support;
• provide accurate bridge records;
• protect public investment;
• fulfill legal responsibilities.
The primary roles of the bridge inspector are:
• to provide thorough inspections, identifying conditions and defects in the

bridge and its elements;
• to prepare condition reports documenting these deficiencies and alerting
supervisors or superior engineers of any findings which might impact on the
safety of the bridge or the integrity of the structure.
4. INSPECTION TECHNIQUES
Before reviewing the inspection programs implemented by MTQ and by other
organizations elsewhere, it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the
available tools for conducting a concrete structure inspection. Comprehensive
information can be found in MTQ’s Manuel d’entretien (2006), The American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee Report 364.1 R-94 (2003), Malhotra and
Carino (2003), Emmons (1993) and the Concrete Society Report No. 54 (2000).
4.1 Visual Examination
The visual examination is the basic operation of any concrete structure

inspection. It is carried out to document the extent and severity of any distress or
deterioration which could affect the load-carrying capacity or service life of the
structure. Previously repaired or modified portions of the structure also need to
be included in the inspection. The inspection records should be supplemented
with sketches, photographs, and videotapes, as appropriate. According to ACI
201.1R (2003) and the Concrete Society (1982), cracks, spalls, corrosion of
reinforcing steel, etc., should be identified as follows:
3
a) Cracks should be measured and recorded for width, depth, length, location,
and type (i.e., structural or nonstructural). Structural cracks should be
further identified, as flexure, shear, or direct tension, if known. Crack
patterns should be plotted. Results of crack monitoring or recommendations
for such monitoring should be considered.
b) Spalling, scaling, honeycombing, efflorescence, and other surface defects
should be measured and recorded.
c) Corrosion of reinforcing bars, including the extent and amount of lost cross
section, should be measured and recorded.
d) Loose, corroded, or otherwise defective connectors for precast concrete
elements, or ties to architectural elements should be noted.
e) Deformations, whether permanent or transient under loads, out-of-plumb
piers, and other misalignments, should also be measured and recorded.
Continuous monitoring should be considered, as appropriate.
f) Signs of foundation settlement or heave, and related distress, should be
noted.
g) Water leakage, ponding areas, areas of poor drainage, or other indications
of water problems should be noted.
h) Evidence of aggressive chemical deterioration such as sulfate attack and
acid attack should be noted. In general, the visual inspection should include
the measurement and assessment of three basic conditions: visible
damage, visible deviations and deformations, and foundation settlement.
Photographic records or videotapes are valuable aids in classifying and

communicating information on the conditions and problems observed in the field.
Where unusually severe deterioration or distress is observed, a photographic
record of this information is essential.
4.2 Nondestructive Testing
Limited nondestructive testing (NDT) can supplement observations and

measurements. Some of the techniques that can be used during ordinary
inspections are listed as follows:
• acoustic impact (hammer sounding, chain dragging) for detection of

delamination, debonding, voids, and other defects underneath the surface;
• magnetic detection instrument (cover meters) to detect and locate steel
reinforcement;
• rebound hammer to evaluate the concrete strength and quality on a
comparative basis;
• penetration resistance to evaluate the concrete strength and quality on a
4
comparative basis.
While all of these methods are unlikely to be used during a regular inspection,
the acoustic impact sounding is generally performed in combination with the
visual examination, as it is rather easy to carry out and it provides reliable
information on the presence of damage underneath the surface.
Besides, preliminary nondestructive testing can often help to identify locations

within a structure where more comprehensive nondestructive and semi-
destructive testing may be required. A number of NDT tests have been
developed over the years – and in fact, are still under development in most cases
– in view of improving the diagnosis of all types of defects present inside a
concrete structure or member. Among these, the most frequently used or at least
documented are the following:
• acoustic emission;
• electrical potential measurements;
• electrical resistance measurements;
• fiber optics;
• infrared thermography;
• load testing;
• nuclear moisture meter (American Society for Testing and materials
(ASTM D3017);
• pullout testing (ASTM C 900);
• pull-off testing
(International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI) Guideline #03739);
• ground penetrating radar (GPR);
• gamma radiography;
• ultrasonic pulse (ASTM C 597);
• ultrasonic pulse-echo.
For available NDT methods that may be used in the field to assess the properties
and physical conditions of structural materials are summarized in Table A.1
through A.7 of Appendix A, together with various tests performed in the
laboratory on specimens extracted from the structure. In the tables, each test is
briefly explained along with its requirements, advantages, and limitations.
It has to be stressed here that up to now, none of the aforementioned NDT tests
has shown to provide easily and readily interpretable information that is reliable
in all situations. Some of these tools show promise, but still require significant
development to assist adequate interpretation of data. A combination of tools, for
example, electrical potential and resistance measurements and chloride ion
content determination for corrosion-related problems, is often considered in order
to obtain a more reliable picture of a given problem.
5
In the event that serious distress or deficiencies are discovered during
inspection, monitoring of movements, cracks, and progressive distress should
follow immediately. If structural problems are suspected, special attention should
be given to connections, support regions, areas of abrupt geometric change, and
areas in the structure where load concentrations occur. Where cracks of
structural significance are found, consideration should be given to monitoring the
movements of the cracks.
4.3 Semi-Destructive Testing
Sampling generally consists of extracting cores or small specimens, or collecting

other readily obtainable samples for compressive strength testing and
petrographical examination. Other characterization tests to evaluate physical
properties such as absorption, density, permeability, air content and air void
spacing factor, etc. can also be performed on cores. Powder samples may be
extracted during sampling for chemical analysis and determination, for instance,
of chloride ion content. In addition to providing specimens for strength and
physical characterization tests, cores allow a deeper visual examination that may
help detecting or evaluating the following:
• asphalt / slab thickness;

• bond between asphalt layer and concrete slab;
• corrosion and delamination;
• previous repairs;
• extent of cracking (depth, width).
Besides, reinforcing steel samples may be taken and analyzed to determine

strength, hardness, and carbon content.
Sampling and sample analysis and testing are not usually performed during the
routine inspection. They are performed as part of the condition evaluation and
diagnosis. Before diagnosing the causes of deterioration/distress of a concrete
structure, a sound understanding of the physical, chemical and mechanical
actions that have lead to the defects is necessary.
4.4 Exploratory Removal
Exploratory removal can be used when there is substantial evidence of serious

deterioration or distress, when hidden defects are suspected, or when there is
insufficient information. Exploratory removals help to determine existing features
and to gain reliable information about the nature and extent of existing problems.
For regular inspections, selected exploratory removals are considered the
exception and not the rule. It is more common to defer removals until a
6
comprehensive condition evaluation is to be conducted.
4.5 Techniques Used in Practice
Although there is a rather wide range of available investigation techniques, many

agencies use only a few of them on a regular basis. This can be explained by the
fact that a number of those techniques are difficult to perform and provide results
with a significant degree of uncertainty. According to a survey by MTQ (MTQ’s
Manuel d’entretien des structures (2005)), the most commonly used techniques
are the following:
• visual examination;
• acoustic impact;
• determination of chloride content;
• determination of compressive strength;
• determination of the air-void characteristics;
• half-cell potential.
In Table 1, the investigation techniques accepted at MTQ and their relative

efficiency for detecting the most common types of deterioration are summarized.
Based on this table, it can be concluded that the most usual deterioration
problems are well covered with the following combination: visual examination,
acoustic impact, coring (compressive strength) and half-cell potential.
5. EVALUATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS AT

MTQ
5.1 Introduction
MTQ is responsible for the management of approximately 9,200 bridges, among

which they own a little more than half (source: Vérificateur Général du Québec,
2003). Organizationally, its bridge staff manages highway structures in fourteen
regions with their bridge staff.
It should be stressed that the duties assigned to the MTQ bridge inspectors are
complex and cumbersome. Not only are the inspectors assigned the supervision
of a fairly large number of structures (over 50 different types according to the
2004 MBI manual), but the variety of bridges/structural system they have to deal
with is quite impressive.
Furthermore, the highway structures in Quebec are subject to a very harsh

7
climate, for instance concrete elements are regularly exposed to freezing and
thawing cycles in presence of deicing chemicals. These conditions are known to
create all sorts of degradation problems both to concrete itself as well as to
reinforcing steel. Under these conditions, deterioration rating of concrete
structures remains an intricate task.
Table 1 – Summary of Investigation Techniques Used by MTQ and Relative

Efficiency for Detecting Damages Affecting Concrete Structures
(from MTQ’s Manuel d’Entretien des Structures (2005))
Type of deterioration / concrete characteristic
Investigation
-Cracking -Scaling -Disintegration -Corrosion -Delamination -Strength
technique
-Abrasion
-Spalling
Visual
examination G G G L L
Acoustic
impact G G L
Coring M M L M G
Absorption LP GP LP LP L
Cl- content MP LP
Air-void
characteristics GP GP
Petrographical M MP MP L
analysis (internal
cracking)
Pachometer L MP LP
IR
Thermography
L L M
GP Radar L M G
Half-cell
corrosion G MP
Existing damage: G: good; M: moderate; L: low. Potential damage: GP: good; MP: moderate; LP: low.
5.2 MTQ Documents and Inspection Manuals
MTQ has published several documents and manuals addressing issues of bridge
inspection. The Guide de l’entretien des structures, published in 1978, includes
Chapter 1 on Inspection. An updated and improved version of this guide was
8
published in 1984. A more comprehensive inspection document was issued in
January 1987. The MTQ Manuel d’inspection des structures was first published
in 1993 and an updated version was issued in 2004. All of the documents
provided information and guidance for bridge inspection and maintenance
personnel. A brief review of the inspection documents issued by the MTQ will
provide basic insight into inspection-related bridge problems.
5.2.1 The 1978 and 1984 Bridge Maintenance Guides
The inspection chapter of the BMG guide (Guide de l’entretien des structures)
published in 1978 and 1984 was prepared to serve as guide for all bridge
inspection personnel as a single source reference. The documents highlighted
the importance of bridge annual inspections to evaluate visually a structure’s
“weaknesses” which may affect its appearance, behavior, stability, etc.
The chapter on Inspection sets out main steps and elements to perform an
annual bridge inspection. The required frequency of annual inspections was once
a year. It was also indicated that some complex bridge structures must be
inspected in-depth (“inspection à caractère scientifique”) every 5 or 10 years. The
1984 BMG guide provided more detailed information and guidance concerning
inspections. It required for instance, that the in-depth inspection must be
performed by engineers with expertise in bridge design, construction and
maintenance. Both documents required the inspectors to complete a standard
“inspection and repair report V-2002 (76)”. The stated goal of these inspection
documents was to provide guidance and set minimum standards for acceptable
inspection practices. However, some aspects that were not adequately covered
are:
• basic problem identification and concerns;

• guidance on establishing problem diagnosis;
• actual and potential effects on overall bridge performance.
These documents contained little specific reference to identification of problems,

bridge maintainability, load carrying capacity and safety.
5.2.2 The 1987 Bridge Inspection Guide
A significant step forward in the development of inspection guidance was made

in Inspection des ouvrages d’art published in 1987. This document established
procedures to determine the physical conditions of bridge elements and
maintenance needs. Three types of inspections were defined:
9
Routine inspection (“Inspection sommaire”)
This is a visual inspection performed by a district (DT) employee (engineer,

technician, or a foreman) at least once a year. Defects observed during this
inspection are documented and forwarded to the manager for necessary actions
to be taken.
General inspection (“Inspection générale”)
This type of inspection is performed by an engineer or technician of the district

who has been specifically trained by a regional bridge engineer. This inspection
is more detail-oriented and, if necessary, requires special equipment to gain
access to the structural elements. It remains essentially a visual examination,
generally supplemented by hammer sounding, general dimension measurements
(defects, elements, etc.) and crack measurements. The frequency of general
inspections varies from 3 to 6 years depending on the bridge type; for concrete
box-girder bridges the inspection frequency is 5 years.
Special inspection (“Inspection spéciale”)
This type of inspection usually follows the general inspection where significant
deterioration/distress is discovered and for which the inspector has difficulties to
interpret, diagnose and propose remedial actions. Special inspection requires
participation of a structural engineer. This type of inspection is carried out as
requested. The 1987 Inspection document also spells out such important issues
as elements of bridge structures to inspect, inspectors tasks and responsibilities,
documentation of the defects and necessary training of inspectors.
The inspection guide highlights a number of items that needed to be verified for
concrete bridges during the course of an inspection, including:
• verify if concrete spalling is present, particularly at locations close to supports;

• verify if there are diagonal cracks, indicating a “weakness” in shear,
particularly near supports;
• verify if there is deterioration of the concrete close to expansion joints or at
drain locations;
• verify if there is any exposed reinforcement that could cause spalling of the
concrete, particularly reinforcement that is corroded by chlorides from deicing
chemicals;
• verify if there is presence of cracks, water infiltration or efflorescence in the
bridge deck, indicating that it is permeable and that there is concrete
deterioration.
This guide also indicated that if there is any serious doubt about the condition of
10
a bridge deck that cores had to be taken to perform an evaluation of the concrete
quality.
5.2.3 The 1993 Manual of Bridge Inspection
The 1993 MBI is a comprehensive document, with substantial improvements

over previously issued inspection guides.
The 1993 MBI manual includes guidelines for inspection and rating of bridges.
The manual has been prepared to serve as a standard and to provide uniformity
in the procedures and policies of determining the physical condition and
maintenance needs of highway bridges. The MBI manual provides standard
inspection forms to be used to record the findings of the inspection teams, and
provides guidance for condition ratings of the various bridge components. These
inspection reports not only document the existing conditions but also are
intended to assist in formulating corrective/remedial actions.
5.2.3.1 Types of Inspection
(a) Regular inspections:
• routine : walk-through inspection;

• general : detailed inspection using MTQ’s Damage rating system.
(b) Inspections per request:
• special inspection (as required);

• structural evaluation (as required);
• monitoring of most critical, weakest, or damaged elements (as required).
5.2.3.2 Routine Inspection
Routine inspection requires visual examination of the main bridge elements. The
inspection report should document defects that can affect the stability/capacity of
the structure, cause accidents, and visible forms of deterioration. The results of
the routine inspection are summarized in a typical form. Information to be
recorded include: presence of road signs (load limitation), evolution of defects
previously identified, new defects, photos, etc. The inspection is to be performed
on a yearly basis.
11
5.2.3.3 General Inspection
The main objectives of this inspection are:
• to provide a systematic examination of all elements of a bridge;

• to identify types and extent of distress/deterioration;
• to determine the influence of distress/deterioration on load-carrying capacity,
stability and service life;
• to evaluate the effect on public safety and comfort.
General inspection includes: evaluation of the materials condition and evaluation

of the element behavior. Again, it remains essentially a visual examination,
generally supplemented by hammer sounding, general dimension measurements
(defects, elements, etc.) and crack measurements.
Report protocol includes:
• typical forms (comments, damage rating index values);

• recommendations for remedial actions and related cost estimate;
• sketches (showing extent of damage) and photos;
• if required, request for:
¾ inspection of inaccessible elements;
¾ bridge deck condition evaluation;
¾ special inspection;
¾ monitoring inspection.
The condition evaluation system and data is managed according to MTQ’s

Système de gestion des structures (SGS – 5016):
• material index value CEM (“cote d’évaluation des matériaux“);

• behavior index value CEC (“cote d’évaluation du comportement“);
• index values range from 1 to 6, where 1 is the lowest value and 6 is the
highest (1-critical, 2-defective, 3-mediocre, 4-acceptable, 5-good, 6-
excellent);
• for non-accessible bridge elements, the index value is 9;
• for non-existent elements, the index value is 0.
Index values must account for the importance of the element in the structure. The
elements composing the bridge are subdivided into three categories:
1. Primary elements (P)

Structural/load-carrying members
2. Secondary elements (S)
Elements complementary to the primary elements
12
3. Accessory elements (A)
Index values cannot be used to evaluate the structural capacity of the element or
a structure. The index values serve the following purposes:
• general condition of the structure;

• evaluation of deterioration/distress;
• flag raising (safety issues).
An overall bridge behavior index value CECS (“cote d’évaluation du

comportement de la structure”) is determined based on the lowest CEC index
value attributed to either one of the primary (P) elements of the bridge.
Determination of the material index value (CEM) is shown in Figure 1.
Se verity o f d egrad atio n ind ex
none
low
moderate
important
very
important
Primary element
Se condary element
Accessory element
Fracti on of the cross section, s urfa ce or le ngth affected (%) 2
Figure 1 – Evaluation of Material Condition (from MTQ MBI manual)
Defects not addressed by the severity of degradation index (see Figure 1)

include:
• cracking;
• efflorescence.
The MBI manual provides detailed guidance for crack identification by type,
extent and possible causes, and provides the inspector with the crack
comparator (see Figure 2). The determination of the behavior index value (CEC)
is shown in Figure 3.
13
The most important purpose of the CEC Index is to asses the following:
• structure stability;
• structural capacity;
• public safety.
The Inspector assigns the CEC value based on experience and judgment. The
inspector has to draw special attention to the elements rated as mediocre,
defective or critical. For this task, more qualified, experienced
inspectors/engineers are necessary.
(figure not to scale)

Figure 2 – Crack Comparator (from MTQ MBI manual)
14
Evaluation of bridge elements behavior
Relative reduction
B ehavior index
of the element functionality
value appreciation primary secondary accessory

element element element
Good
M ediocre
Defective
Critical
Figure 3 – Evaluation of Element Behavior (from MTQ MBI manual)
Specific criteria are provided for defects for which it is difficult to determine the
reduction in serviceability in percentages (see Table 2), such as:
• element movements;
• structural cracks;
• defects affecting the users’ safety or comfort.
Table 2 – Specific Behavior Criteria Based on Defect Severity

Defect Behavior
Affecting slightly the behavior Acceptable
Affecting significantly the behavior Mediocre
Affecting importantly the behavior Defective
Affecting very importantly the behavior Critical
The MBI manual presents suggested remedial actions based on the CEM and
CEC indices (Table 3). The MBI manual also introduces suggested actions to be
implemented when public safety is of concern (based on the CECS index value)
(Table 4).
15
The need for performing a condition evaluation of the bridge deck and the
timeframe when it should be done are established depending on the CEM index
value (Table 5).
Table 3 – Suggested Actions Repair Work Timeline

CEM or CEC 1996 MBI manual
6 No action required
5 Within 6-10 years
4 Within 3-5 years
3 Within 1-2 years
2 Within a year
1 Urgent work
Table 4 – Suggested Measures to Maintain Public Safety

CECS Suggested Actions
6 and 5 No load limitation
4 No load limitation expected, special inspection if required
3 Load limitation might be necessary, special inspection required
Load limitation and signalization immediately required, special

2
inspection required
Load limitation and signalization immediately required or
1
closure to the traffic, special inspection ASAP
Table 5 – Requirement for Bridge Deck Condition Evaluation

(MBI manual 1996)
Bridge deck
Requirement for “Condition Evaluation”*
CEM
6 No condition evaluation required
5 Condition evaluation required within 5 to 8 years
4 Condition evaluation required within 2 to 4 years
3 Condition evaluation required within the next year
2 Urgent condition evaluation required
Suggested repair delay too short to perform bridge
1
deck condition evaluation
* Expertise is the French expression used in the MBI manual
The MBI manual also defines recommendations to be issued by the inspector,

such as:
16
• preventive maintenance (Code 1000);
• regular maintenance (Code 2000);
• repair (Code 3000);
• other necessary services (Code 4000);
• major rehabilitation (Code 5000).
The General inspection report should also include a cost estimate for
recommended actions.
The MBI manual establishes the frequency of general inspections:
1. The general inspections are to be performed every three years.

2. Inspection of elements with difficult access (requiring special equipment)
can be performed less frequently, but not less than one inspection every 6
years.
5.2.3.4 Special Inspection
Special inspection is performed by the MTQ Direction of Structures (Direction

des Structures) in response to the responsible engineer’s request. Inspection can
become necessary due to the following reasons:
• because of the bridge complexity;

• because of the severity of distresses on primary elements, observed in a
routine or general inspection.
Report protocol includes detailed sketches (showing extent of damage), photos

and recommendations with regards to:
• temporary load limitation or bridge closure;

• load-carrying capacity evaluation if needed;
• monitoring inspection needs;
• required remedial actions to restore the serviceability of the original bridge;
• cost estimate;
• any other relevant information.
The results of the special inspection in accordance with the protocol should be
forwarded to the Territorial Director.
For evaluation/monitoring of the most critical, weakest, or damaged elements,

follow-up monitoring inspections may be needed.
17
Monitoring inspections may be conducted for:
• structures with low safety factors for which minor defects were detected
during special inspection and for which no load-carrying capacity evaluation is
scheduled (in the short-term);
• structures requiring monitoring, established by the Direction of Structures,
after conducting a special inspection or a structural evaluation inspection.
5.2.3.5 Inspection Personnel Qualifications
The MBI manual describes the necessary qualifications of the personnel involved
in inspection of highway structures:
• a licensed engineer is required to be in charge of inspection;

• bridge inspectors are specified in three categories:
¾ Class A
A specialized engineer with minimum two years experience
and having successfully completed a training program at the
MTQ. A Class A Inspector can perform all kinds of
inspections.
¾ Class B
A structural engineer who has successfully completed a
training program at MTQ. A class B inspector can perform
general and monitoring inspections.
¾ Class C
A technician who has successfully completed a training
program at MTQ.
The training program to be followed by all inspectors is conducted by the

Direction of Structures. It consists of courses (all with reference documents) and
exams on the following topics:
• inspection program protocol;

• structural behavior of bridge elements;
• materials defects;
• effects of deficiencies on stability;
• damage evaluation system.
5.2.3.6 Bridge Components and Materials Defects
The MBI manual also describes and provides sketches of different structural
18
elements and components of bridges. Significant attention is given to the
description of materials defects, and specific criteria for material and behavior
defects for bridge structural elements and components.
The goal of these sections of the MBI manual was to provide education and
guidance for the proper identification of typical bridge elements and components,
and adequate recording of different types of deterioration/distress. It has to be
noted, however, that on the topic of materials defects there is very little, if any,
guidance on the diagnosis of the defect and the possible effect on performance.
5.2.4 The 2004 Manual of Bridge Inspection
The 2004 version of the MBI manual has undergone a few changes and
modifications. A new philosophy was adopted in establishing the frequency of
inspections. Inspection frequency is based on three parameters:
• type of structure;
• bridge condition index (IES4);
• virtual age of the structure.
Tables with maximum allowable time in years between the general inspections
based on the abovementioned parameters are provided.
The 2004 MBI manual also added a new section on bridge Classification in three
levels of complexity based on the following criteria:
• type of structure;
• inspection frequency;
• design load;
• functional classification;
• length of spans;
• continuity of the structural system.
The MBI manual also modifies the section which sets up the requirements for
minimum qualifications of the inspection personnel: A-1 and A-2 engineers and
B-1 and B-2 technicians. Depending on the qualification, courses on the following
topics are part of the training offered to the inspectors:
• bridge inspection (A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2);
• bridge design (A-1, B-1);
• bridge maintenance (A-1);
4
IES (“Indice d’état de la structure”): bridge condition index expressed in percentage. Information
on the calculation of this index, as well as for three others (functionality IFS, seismic vulnerability
IVS and combined ICS), was not available at the time of writing of this report.
19
• bridge construction and repair (A-1);
• small bridges and retaining walls (A-1, B-1);
• complementary concepts on steel bridges inspection (A-1).
Inspection team assignments based on qualifications (A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2) for
each of the three bridge levels of complexity are provided. The provided tables of
assignments are based on a team of two inspectors.
This section sets out a requirement that “all elements must be inspected by both
inspectors. All the recorded information must be cross-checked.”
There is a modification concerning the suggested actions based on the

inspection bridge behavior index value (CECS). It states that structures with a
CECS index of 4 and lower for a principal element must be reported to the
“responsible engineer” for necessary safety actions to be undertaken as soon as
possible.
The bridge deck diagnosis table of the 1996 MBI manual (Table 5), which
established condition evaluation actions to be taken based on the CEM deck
rating, was replaced in the 2004 MBI manual with the following requirement:
condition evaluation of the slab should be performed every other general
inspection. The authors also noticed that suggested time frame for actions to be
taken (repair work priority) were significantly increased in the 2004 MBI manual
compared to the 1996 MBI manual (Table 6).
Table 6 Suggested Actions (Repair Work Priority)

CEM or CEC 1996 MBI manual 2004 MBI manual
6 No action required No action required
5 Within 6-10 years Over 10 years
4 Within 3-5 years Within 6-10 years
3 Within 1-2 years Within 3-5 years
2 Within a year Within 1-2 years
1 Urgent work Urgent work
20
6. REVIEW OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS
DEVELOPED BY OTHER AGENCIES
6.1 National Bridge Inspection Standards

6.1.1 General
The bridge inspection practice in the U.S.A. is regulated by the National Bridge
Inspection Standards (NBIS), Code of Federal Regulations 23 CFR Part 650,
issued by Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA). The FHWA bridge
inspection program regulations were developed as a result of the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1968 that required the Secretary of Transportation to establish
NBIS to ensure the safety of the traveling public.
The latest revised NBIS was published in December 2004 and took effect on
January 13, 2005. The standards consist of nine sections:
1. Purpose.
2. Applicability.
3. Definitions.
4. Bridge inspection organization.
5. Qualification of personnel.
6. Inspection frequency.
7. Inspection procedures.
8. Inventory.
9. Reference manuals .
6.1.2 Personnel Qualification
The qualifications of personnel are provided only for two categories – Program
Manager and Team Leader.
Program Manager
The individual in charge of the program, that has been assigned or delegated the
duties and responsibilities for bridge inspection, reporting, and inventory. The
program manager provides overall leadership and is available to inspection team
leaders to provide guidance.
Team Leader
The individual in charge of an inspection team, who is responsible for planning,

21
preparing, and performing field inspections of bridges.
6.1.3 Types of Inspections
The standards include four types of inspections.
Routine inspection
Regularly scheduled inspection consisting of observations and/or measurements

needed to determine the physical and functional condition of the bridge, to
identify any changes from initial or previously recorded conditions, and to ensure
that the structure continues to satisfy present service requirements.
Each bridge is to be inspected at regular intervals, not to exceed twenty-four

months. The standard indicates that certain bridges may require routine
inspections at less than specified intervals, and authorities should establish
criteria to determine the level of frequency to which these bridges are inspected
considering such factors as age, traffic, characteristics, and known deficiencies.
The standards also anticipate some specialized inspections, such as: fracture,
inspection of critical members, damage inspection, in depth inspection and
special inspection
Damage inspection is defined as an unscheduled inspection to assess structural

damage resulting from environmental factors or human actions.
Special inspection is defined as an inspection scheduled at the discretion of the

bridge owner, used to monitor a particular known or suspected deficiency.
6.1.4 Quality Control / Quality Assurance
In the section Inspection procedures, in the specifications, among other quite

general requirements, a requirement is put forward for quality control (QC) and
quality assurance (QA). The subsection states:
“Assure that systematic quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA)
procedures are used to maintain a high degree of accuracy and
consistency in the inspection program. Include periodic field review of
inspection teams, periodic bridge inspection training for program
managers and team leaders, and independent review of inspection reports
and computations.”
This section also makes a statement/reference that each bridge is to be

inspected in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), “Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges.”
22
6.2 AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges
6.2.1 General
This Manual was first adapted by AASHTO in 1994. The version of this Manual,
which was revised in 2000, is reviewed in this report. The Manual establishes
procedures to determine physical conditions, maintenance needs, and load
capacity of bridges.
This Manual has been developed to assist bridge owners by establishing

inspection procedures and load rating practices that meet the National Bridge
Inspection Standards (NBIS). The Manual has been divided into seven sections,
with each section representing a distinct phase of an overall bridge inspection
and load rating program.
Section 1 contains introductory and background information on the inspection of

bridges as well as definitions of terms.
Section 2 defines key components of the comprehensive bridge inventory file.

The record in the bridge file provides the foundation against which changes in
physical condition can be measured. Changes in condition are determined by
field inspections.
The types and frequency of field inspections are discussed in Section 3, as well
as specific inspection techniques and requirements.
Successful bridge inspection is dependent on proper planning and techniques,

adequate equipment, and the experience and reliability of the personnel
performing the inspection. Inspections should not be confined to searching for
defects which may exist, but should include anticipating incipient problems. Thus,
inspections are performed in order to develop both preventive, as well as
corrective, maintenance programs.
The inspection plan and techniques should ensure that:
1. Unique structural characteristics and special problems of individual bridges

are considered in developing an inspection plan.
2. Current technology and practice are applied during the inspection.
3. The intensity and frequency of inspection is consistent with the type of
structure and details, and the potential for failure.
4. Inspection personnel are assigned in accordance with their qualifications, as
determined by the bridge owner.
23
6.2.2 Types of Inspections
The following types of bridge inspections are defined:
Initial Inspection – The first inspection of a bridge as it becomes a part of the

bridge file.
Routine inspections are regularly scheduled inspections consisting of

observations and/or measurements needed to determine the physical and
functional condition of the bridge, to identify any changes from “initial” or
previously recorded conditions, and to ensure that the structure continues to
satisfy present service requirements.
The routine inspection must fully satisfy the requirements of the National bridge
Inspection Standards with respect to maximum inspection frequency, the
updating of Structure Inventory and Appraisal data, and the qualifications of the
inspection personnel. These inspections are generally conducted from the deck
ground and/or water levels, and from permanent work platforms and walkways, if
present.
Special equipment, such as under-bridge inspection equipment, rigging, or

staging, is necessary for routine inspection in circumstances where its use
provides for the only practical means of access to areas of the structure being
monitored.
The areas of the structure to be closely monitored are those determined by

previous inspections and/or load rating calculations, critical to load-carrying
capacity.
The results of a routine inspection should be fully documented with appropriate

photographs and a written report that includes any recommendations for
maintenance or repair and for scheduling of follow-up inspections if necessary.
The load capacity should be re-evaluated to the extent that changes in structural
conditions would affect any previously recorded ratings.
In-depth inspection is a close-up, hands-on inspection of one or more members

above or below the water level to identify any deficiencies not readily detectable
using a routine inspection procedure.
Damage inspections are unscheduled inspections to assess structural damage

resulting from environmental factors or human actions.
Special inspections – an inspection scheduled at the discretion of the bridge

owner. It is used to monitor a particular known or suspected deficiency, such as
foundation settlement or scour, member condition, and the public’s use of a load-
24
posted bridge, and can be performed by any qualified person familiar with the
bridge and available to accommodate the assigned frequency of investigation.
The individual performing a special inspection should be carefully instructed
regarding the nature of the known deficiency and its functional relationship to
satisfactory bridge performance. In this circumstance, guidelines and procedures
on what to observe and/or measure must be provided, and a timely process to
interpret the field results should be in place.
The determination of an appropriate special inspection frequency should

consider the severity of the known deficiency. Special inspections usually are not
sufficiently comprehensive to meet NBIS requirements for biennial inspections.
Inspections forms and reports are required to contain sketches and notes. The
completed report should be clear and detailed to the extent that notes and
sketches can be fully interpreted at a later date. Photographs should be taken in
the field to illustrate defects and cross referenced in the forms and reports where
the various defects are noted. Sketches and photographs should be used to
supplement written notes concerning the location and physical characteristics of
deficiencies. The use of simple elevation and section sketches of deteriorated
members permits the drawing and dimensioning of defects clearly, without
resorting to lengthy written notes.
All signs of distress and deterioration should be noted with sufficient accuracy so
that future inspectors can readily make a comparison of condition. If conditions
warrant, recommendations for repair and maintenance should be included.
6.2.3 Inspection Procedures
In the section Procedures, a very important statement concerning the diagnosis

of the defects is made:
“Defects found in various portions of the structure will require thorough

investigation to determine and evaluate their cause. The cause of most
defects will be readily evident; however, it may take considerable time and
effort to determine the cause of some defects and to fully assess their
seriousness.
If possible, bridges should be observed during passage of heavy loads to

determine if there is any excessive noise, vibration, or deflection. If
detected, further investigation should be made until the cause is
determined. Careful measurement of line, grade, and length may be
required for this evaluation. Seriousness of the condition can then be
appraised and corrective action taken as required.
25
Unusual or unique bridges may require special considerations, and these
should be defined in the inspection plan for the bridge. Items common to
these procedures are discussed below.”
No condition rating guidelines are presented. The Manual requests that

guidelines for the condition rating of bridge components should be developed.
Coding systems, similar to the 0-9 numeric system used by FHWA, have proven
to be effective in establishing uniformity in condition evaluation.
An important subsection is devoted to the “critical deficiencies procedures.”
Critical structural and safety-related deficiencies found during the field inspection
and/or evaluation of a bridge should be brought to the attention of the bridge
owner immediately if a safety hazard is present. Bridge owners should implement
standard procedures for addressing such deficiencies, including:
1. Immediate critical deficiency reporting steps

2. Emergency notification to police and the public
3. Rapid evaluation of the deficiencies found
4. Rapid implementation of corrective or protective actions
5. A tracking system to ensure adequate follow-up actions
6. Provisions for identifying other bridges with similar structural details with
follow-up inspections.
Specific inspection techniques and requirements are provided for each bridge
element. For example, in the case of abutments, the inspection requires that they
should be checked for evidence of rotation of walls, lateral or longitudinal shifting,
or settlement of foundations as compared to previous records. Such movement is
usually evidenced by the opening or closing of cracks or joints, by bearings being
off center or at a changed angle, or by changes in measured clearances between
ends of girders and the abutment backwall.
6.2.4 Inspection of Bridge Girders
Following is a requirement for the inspections of reinforced and pre-stressed

beams and girders:
“All reinforced concrete superstructures should be inspected for cracking.

The locations of the cracks and their size should be carefully noted for
future reference and comparison. An effort should be made to determine
the probable cause of the cracking: shrinkage, overstress, settlement of
substructure, or possible chemical action.
26
Stems of members should be checked for abnormal cracking and any
disintegration of the concrete, especially over bearings. Diagonal cracks
radiating from the bearings toward the center of span indicate overstress
caused by shear. Vertical cracks extending upward from the girder soffit
near centerline of span indicate overstress in tension. High-edge pressure
at the bearings may cause spalling in the girder stems.
Examine the soffit of the lower slab in box girder structures and the
outside face of the girders for significant cracking. Examine the inside of
box girders for cracks and to see that the drains are open and functioning
properly. Check the diaphragms for cracks.
Prestressed concrete girders should be examined for alignment, cracking,

and deterioration of the concrete. Check for cracking or spalling in the
area around the bearings, and at cast-in-place diaphragms where creep
and humping of the girders may have had an effect. The location of any
cracks and their size should be carefully noted for future reference and
comparison. Evidences of rust at cracks can mean possible damage to
prestressing steel.”
6.2.5 Inspection of Bridge Decks
Requirements for inspection of bridge decks state that they must be checked for
cracking, leaching, scaling, pot-holing, spalling, and other evidence of
deterioration. Each item should be evaluated to determine its effect on the
structure and the need to restore the loss of structural integrity and maintain a
smooth riding surface. Evidence of deterioration in the reinforcing steel should be
examined closely to determine its extent. Decks which are treated with deicing
salts or are located in a salt air environment are likely to be affected.
The extent of spalling and/or delamination can be determined by tapping lightly

with a hammer or by dragging a chain across the deck in the vicinity of the spall.
A hollow sound indicates a separation or fracture plane in the concrete beneath
the surface. The hollow areas should be mapped and recorded. These are
examples of nondestructive field test methods.
The underside of the deck slab should always be examined for indications of
deterioration or distress. Any loose concrete which could fall and harm
individuals under the bridge is a critical condition and should be reported
immediately. Note any evidence of water passing through cracks in the slab.
When permanent stay-in-place forms have been used in the construction of the
deck, the inspector may recommend that some panels at random locations
should be removed to check the condition of the slab.
27
Asphaltic, or other type of wearing surface on a deck, may hide defects in the
deck until they are well advanced. The surfacing must be examined very carefully
for evidence of deterioration in the deck or the wearing surface. Such defects
may show as cracking or breaking up of the surfacing. In areas where deck
deterioration is suspected, the inspector may recommend the removal of small
sections of the wearing surface for a more thorough investigation.
6.2.6 Inspection of Expansion Joints
Quite strict requirements are placed on inspection procedures of expansion

joints. Expansion joints provide for thermal expansion of the deck and
superstructure. They should be checked for freedom of expansion. The clear
opening of the joint should provide for adequate expansion of the adjacent
superstructure elements considering the span lengths and temperature at the
time of inspection. The inspector should measure expansion joint openings and
ambient temperature at easily identifiable locations, so that future inspections
can establish a record of joint movement over time. Inspect for solid objects
(noncompressibles) which can become wedged in the joint and prevent joint
contraction.
Various testing methods are discussed in Section 4 of the Manual. The section
includes description of test procedures for concrete bridge components. A
comparison of the test methods in terms of their capability of detecting defects in
concrete components is shown in Table 7 (Table 4.2.1 of the Manual).
Section 5 describes field load testing to supplement analytical procedures in

determining the live load capacity of a bridge and for improving the confidence in
the assumptions. Section 6 discusses the load rating of bridges and includes
optional rating methods. The evaluation of fatigue and other special conditions
are discussed in Section 7.
6.2.7 Quality Control
The Commentaries provided as an Appendix to the Manual include the following

requirements for quality measures in bridge inspection.
28
Table 7 – Capability of Investigating Techniques for Detecting Defects in
Concrete Structures in Field Use
(AASHTO Manual for Conditions Evaluation of Bridges)
The Quality Control Plan for bridge maintenance inspection and evaluation
should contain at least these basic elements:
1. Level and frequency of reviews for each major activity performed.

Procedures should be established for preparing and checking calculations,
preparing and checking drawings.
2. Elements of structures or specific types of structures which require special
quality control or emphasis. Approved practices should be described,
including the situations in which outside experts (design, construction, and
materials) should be consulted.
3. Responsibilities and authorities within the project team and for the entire
unit. The routes for approvals and for dispute resolution should be identified.
Organization charts and decision trees are helpful.
4. Documentation requirements: number of copies, routing and filing
procedures.
5. Timetable: types of activities matched to appropriate response and
completion time periods.
29
6.3 National Highway Institute Training Course, “Safety
Inspection of In-Service Bridges”
6.3.1 General
The most important guiding educational document in bridge inspection field in the
U.S.A. is the National Highway Institute Publication No. NHI 03-004, “Safety
Inspection of In-Service Bridges,” (Revised October 2004). This document is
issued in support of the National Bridge Inspection Program with the goal to
further educate bridge inspectors in the hands-on inspection and evaluation of in-
service bridges.
Following are some of the objectives of this training document:
1. Evaluate a variety of bridges and determine the critical areas for inspection,
including fracture prone details, common points of deterioration and
distress, and fracture critical members.
2. Recognize the various deficiencies that can exist on a bridge and discuss
the cause of the deficiencies.
3. Understand the consequences of lack of inspections or inadequate
inspection and discuss the responsibilities of an inspector.
4. Evaluate the general and specific condition of a bridge and its components
by using a variety of inspection procedures and equipment.
5. Evaluate the severity of material deterioration and member distress and
assign ratings according to coding guidance as developed by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and/or the highway agency. Determine
when it is necessary to close the bridge (or recommend closure to the
appropriate authority) because of imminent danger.
6. Discuss the equipment requirements for complete inspection and
demonstrate the proficiency in its use.
7. Recognize when further inspection (e.g. NDT) is required beyond the usual
visual and hand tool inspection and decide what type of inspection should
be conducted.
8. Successfully complete an exhaustive examination based on the contents of
the course. A mid term and final written exam will be given.
9. Satisfy the requirements for training described in the National Bridge
Inspection Standards (NBIS) for individuals in charge of the organizational
unit that have been delegated bridge inspection responsibilities and for
individuals in charge of a bridge inspection team.
The educational manual covers the following sections:
• responsibilities of the bridge inspector;

30
• bridge materials.
6.3.2 Concrete
In the materials section, the topic of “Concrete” covers:
a) Common methods of construction (reinforced and prestressed concrete).

b) Types of reinforcement.
c) Physical and mechanical properties of concrete.
d) Types of concrete deterioration.
e) Types and causes of cracking.
In this subsection, the structural and non-structural types of cracks, their causes
and inspections, are discussed. The description provided, if not entirely
comprehensive, consists of adequate information for inspectors:
• bridge components;
• bridge mechanics;
• duties of the bridge inspection team.
6.3.3 Inspector Duties
This section spells out, and describes in detail, five basic duties of the bridge
inspection team:
1. Planning the inspection.

2. Preparing for the inspection.
3. Performing the inspection.
4. Preparing the report.
5. Identifying the items for repair and maintenance.
It also discusses the types of bridge inspection as per the AASHTO Manual for
Condition Evaluation of Bridges.
The inspection equipment section covers considerations used to determine the

equipment needed and also identifies and explains the function of common
inspection tools and equipment, including description of methods of access.
6.3.4 Inspection Reporting
In section Record Keeping and Documentation, along with requirements for

31
proper identification of defects by their specific types, special attention is given to
defects qualification, quantification, and location. Following are examples of the
requirements:
Defect Qualification
Documenting of defects by the inspector must describe the seriousness of a

defect. For example:
• crack sizes – record lengths, widths, and depth;

• section loss – record the remaining section dimensions;
• deformation – record amount of misalignment.
Defect Quantification
The inspector must also describe the quantity of a defect. For example:
• spalling – 2’ x 3’ x 2’’deep;
• scaling – 4’ high by full abutment width;
• delamination – 1’ x 6’;
• decay – 2’ x 2’ x 3’’ deep.
Defect Location
The exact position of the defect on the element or member is required if load
capacity analysis is to be performed.
The accuracy of the load capacity analysis depends on precise location

information for defects:
• bending moment;
• shear;
• axial compression members – the capacity of the member to resist
compressive forces is reduced by and deformation or change in cross
section;
• axial tension members – these members experience a reduction in capacity
through loss of section or from cracking;
• combinations – inspectors should identify the exact position of defects in all
members using reference points, regardless of the forces acting on the
member.
Locating a defect may include tying it to an established permanent reference.

Avoid using references that can change over time.
Some examples of proper referencing include:

32
• 2210 mm (7’-3’’) from fixed bearing on Beam 3 at Abutment 1;
• 940 mm (3’-1’’) from west corner of Abutment 2;
• 760 mm (2’-6’’) below bridge seat on south face of Column 1, Pier 2.
6.3.5 Inspection Procedures
Section 5 covers the various bridge structural elements. The bridge deck topic
includes:
(a) common types of concrete decks;

(b) emerging types of concrete decks;
(c) wearing surfaces and protection systems;
(d) inspection procedures for concrete decks (visual, physical and advanced
techniques).
Attention is to be directed to inspection of high stress zones, which include:
• bearing zones – where loads are transferred from deck to stringers, floor
beams and girders;
• high shear zones – areas adjacent to connection points between the deck to
the stringers, floor beams and girders;
• high moment regions – the middle third of the deck between support for
positive moment, and the end fourths of the deck at intermediate supports for
negative moment.
Special attention is directed to inspection of areas previously repaired. The topic

of deck joint addresses the basic design characteristics of joints and lists
procedures and locations for inspection.
Section 7 of the document describes the basic design characteristics of

prestressed concrete box beams and provides description of inspection
procedures and locations. High stress zones include:
• bearing zones – where loads are transferred from box beams to substructure
units;
• high shear zones – areas adjacent to box-beam supports and at points of
concentrated loads;
• high moment regions – the middle third of members for positive moment, and
when spans are continuous, the end fourths of members at intermediate
supports for negative moment.
Note that bending moment regions exist along the entire length of the box-beam
but at varying magnitudes. Examine bearing areas for:
33
• thermal movement, considered when expansion and contraction is prevented
and causes significant frictional stresses;
• horizontal or vertical cracks, found on the top of beam ends;
• spalls, indicating corrosion of steel or restriction of thermal movement;
• rust stains, indicating corroding reinforcement;
• longitudinal cracks, found on the bottom of beams and due to unbalanced
transfer of prestressed force.
Inspect the fixed diaphragms for spalling of diagonal cracking. Intermediate

diaphragms should be inspected for spalling or flexure and shear cracks.
Determine if previous repairs are in place and functioning properly.
Section 9 addresses the bridge bearings, including basic characteristics and key
inspection procedures.
The two functions of fixed bearings are:
• to transmit loads from the superstructure to the substructure;

• to allow rotation caused by dead load and live load deflection.
The three functions of expansion bearings are:
• to transmit loads from the superstructure to the substructure;

• to permit longitudinal movement of the superstructure due to thermal
expansion and contraction;
• to allow rotation caused by dead load and live load deflection.
When inspecting a bearing, the inspector must first determine if the bearing was
initially intended to be a fixed or expansion bearing. It is critical that the inspector
assess whether expansion bearings still allow for translation or movement. In
addition to identifying whether the bearing is fixed or expansion, the bearing must
have a suitable support. Clearance between the bearing edge and supporting
member’s edge should be documented along with any loss of section to the
supporting member near the bearing (e.g., spalling of a concrete bridge seat).
Also, the temperature during the bearing inspection should be recorded.
Neoprene bearings are one type of elastomeric bearing. During the inspection of
bearings, the temperature should be recorded.
They should be inspected for excessive bulging (approximately greater than

15 % of thickness.) The bearing pad should be inspected for any splitting or
tearing also. Improper manufacturing can sometimes cause a failure in the area
where the neoprene and interior steel shims are bonded together.
34
Close attention should be given to the area where the pad is bonded to the sole
and masonry plates. This is where a neoprene bearing frequently fails.
Sometimes the pad tends to “walk out” from under the beam or girder. The pad
length and width at the front and back of the bearing should be measured and
compared.
Section 10 specifically addresses bridge substructure elements including

abutments. It describes the primary function of abutments, identifies basic
components, lists inspection procedures and locations, and defect
documentation.
Inspection for concrete materials defects in abutments should include:
• bearing seats for cracking and spalling;

• bearing seats for presence of debris and standing water;
• deteriorated concrete in areas exposed to drainage;
• backwall for cracking and possible movement;
• construction joint between backwall and abutment.
This section presents photos to illustrate various abutment deterioration/distress

types and examples regarding how such defects have to be documented in the
inspection report.
The reviewed “Safety Inspection of Highway Bridges” document is

unquestionably the most comprehensive educational and instructive document in
its field, in North America. It may be very useful to utilize it not only as a
mandatory educational program for bridge engineers, as required in the U.S.A.,
but also as a working handbook in addition to the bridge inspection standards
and manuals. It would be useful for structural engineers, to supplement their
knowledge in the field of materials and concrete technology.
6.4 Ontario Structures Inspection Manual
6.4.1 General
The Ontario Structures Inspection Manual (OSIM) has been used for bridge
inspections since 1985. The version reviewed in this report is dated October
2000. According to the introductory statement, this version of the Manual is
based on the “severity and extent” philosophy for describing deterioration and
defects.
35
The Manual consists of five parts:
• Part 1 - Technical Information, gives general details of inspection

procedures, bridge components, materials defects, and performance
defects;
• Part 2 - Detailed Visual Inspections, sets out requirements for detailed
visual inspection and condition rating of structures and their components;
• Part 3 - Additional Investigations, provides guidelines for the need to carry
out further investigations and special studies;
• Part 4 - Material Condition Survey, describes various types of procedures
and equipment for the non-destructive testing of materials and provides
guidelines and requirements for carrying out these tests;
• Part 5 - Underwater Inspections, provides guidelines and requirements for
underwater investigations.
While the 2000 OSIM requirements for inspection are similar to many of the
requirements in the 2004 MTQ Inspection Manual, there are some important
differences, as discussed in the sections below.
6.4.2 Qualifications of Bridge Inspectors
The Manual includes the following requirements for qualification of bridge

inspectors:
“Detailed visual inspections of structures should be carried out by:

- Professional Engineers with a background in inspections, design, and
construction of bridges, or
- Trained bridge inspectors reporting to, or under the supervision of, a
Professional Engineer.”
6.4.3 Post Inspection Actions
The Manual clearly identifies requirements for the post inspection procedures,
some of which are as follows:
• ensure the appropriate follow-up action is taken for any suspected

performance deficiencies noted during the inspection;
• submit maintenance needs list to maintenance crew for action;
• ensure additional investigations are initiated in the timeframe recommended;
• write all necessary follow-up correspondence and reports.
36
6.4.4 Material Condition States
Material Condition States are used to categorize the condition of an element

based on the severity of materials defects. Four Material Condition States have
been defined for bridge elements, namely, Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor. The
condition of bridge elements is defined to be in any one or more of these
Condition States. At any given time, areas within a bridge element may be in
different Condition States, or the whole of the element may be in the same
Condition State. For each bridge element, the inspector assesses and records
the proportion (noted by area, length, or unit, as appropriate) of the element in
each of the four Condition States. This assessment is based predominately on
visual observations, however, some non-destructive testing, such as hammer
tapping of concrete for delamination, will be required to determine or verify areas
in poor condition. Where an area in poor condition is noted, the area is to be
measured (if practicable), or estimated.
The importance of recording quantities of defects is emphasized more explicitly

in the OSIM manual than in the MTQ Manual. Using rough percentages without
some sort of verification will usually lead to a grossly inaccurate estimation of
rehabilitation needs. This is especially true in the “poor” condition state. Although
the extent of defects is still based on visual observations, studies have shown
that the recording of actual quantities (square meter or meter) leads to a better
estimation of rehabilitation needs.
The Manual provides tables and figures to assist the inspectors in the calculation
of dimensions (length, width, height) and quantities for the various types of
elements. The purpose of the element quantity calculations is to be able to
compare the recorded defect quantity to the overall quantity of the element.
Importantly, the Manual assists the inspection team by providing Material

Condition State Tables. As a general rule of thumb, the following philosophy is
used for most condition state tables:
(I) Excellent:
• this refers to an element (or part of an element) that is in “brand new” (as
constructed) condition;
• no visible deterioration type defects are present and remedial action is not
required;
• minor construction defects do not count as visible deterioration type defects;
• examples:
¾ “bug holes” in concrete barrier walls;
¾ well-formed patina in atmospheric corrosion resistant (ACR) steel
girders.
37
(II) Good:
• this refers to an element (or part of an element) where the first sign of “light”
(minor) defects are visible;
• this usually occurs after the structure has been in service for a number of
years;
• these types of defects would not normally trigger any remedial action since
the overall performance of the element is not affected;
• examples:
¾ light corrosion (no section loss);
¾ light scaling;
¾ narrow cracks in concrete.
(III) Fair:
• this refers to an element (or part of an element) where medium defects are
visible;
• these types of defects may trigger a “preventative maintenance” type of
remedial action (e.g. sealing, coating, etc.) where it is economical to do so;
• examples:
¾ medium corrosion (up to 10 % section loss);
¾ medium cracks in concrete.
(IV) Poor:
• this refers to an element (or part of an element) where severe and very
severe defects are visible. in concrete, any type of spalling or delamination
would be considered “poor” since these defects usually indicate more serious
underlying problems in the material (e.g. corroding reinforcing steel)
• these types of defects would normally trigger rehabilitation or replacement if
the extent and location affect the overall performance of that element;
• examples:
¾ severe corrosion (greater than 10 % section loss);
¾ spalling, delaminations, etc.
For concrete elements, a general progression through the various condition

states occurs over time. The difference between the “excellent” and “good”
condition states is not always obvious from a distance. However, minor defects
can be detected upon close visual inspection of elements more than five years
old (depending on the exposure environment). The following general guidelines
may be used by the inspector to supplement visual inspection data in order to
determine when a concrete element should progress from “excellent” to “good”
(these times can be increased by 50 % for precast elements):
(I) Severe environment – 5 years to downgrade from “excellent” to “good”.

38
(II) Moderate environment – 15 years to downgrade from “excellent” to “good”.
(III) Benign environment – 25 years to downgrade from “excellent” to “good”.
The presence of materials defects usually triggers further, more detailed

investigations. The most common types of investigations are related to concrete
elements (e.g., bridge deck condition survey, substructure condition survey, etc.).
Additional investigations are usually triggered when a pre-determined percentage
is exceeded in the “poor” condition state. In some cases, the first sign of a
material defect would trigger a more detailed investigation.
In addition, materials defects often lead to performance deficiencies, which would

trigger other follow-up actions, such as a strength evaluation. Performance
deficiencies and corresponding follow-up actions are described in Section 5 of
the Manual.
6.4.5 Additional Investigations
The Manual pays considerable attention to the additional investigations of the

deterioration/distress of critical bridge elements. The presence of severe
materials defects or performance deficiencies may necessitate additional
investigations to be done. Material Condition Surveys are addressed, which
involve the detailed measurement and documentation of areas of defects and
deterioration that exist on a structure. Procedures that are more precise than
visual inspection techniques are usually employed. This section provides, as a
general guide, a table of materials defects which would trigger a detailed
condition survey to be performed. It also addresses load-carrying capacity
evaluation.
It should be noted that the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario requires that the
engineers carrying out bridge inspections provide, at the end of the inspection
season, a signed memo listing all bridges they have inspected and confirming
that the inspections have been carried out according to the requirements of the
Manual. This invokes some degree of responsibility for the quality of the bridge
inspection.
7. BRIDGE DESIGN VS. INSPECTION

Experience has led the authors to believe that design-related problems and
deficiencies concerning accessibility and maintainability of critical bridge
elements are of paramount importance for the service life and safety of the
bridge structure.
39
Currently, quality design should determine what is required for inspection, repair,
and replacement without removal of structural elements. Lack of access to some
critical bridge elements can substantially affect the reliability of inspection, the
accuracy of the engineering judgment, the bridge maintainability, and therefore,
the service life of the bridge and the public safety.
A number of critical elements of the de la Concorde bridge, such as beam

seats/joints, box girders, and diaphragms, were not accessible for inspection and
maintenance.
The bridge design incorporated a problem-prone beam seat/joint detail. Even

adequately designed bridge joints are a problem. The data in the United States,
based on discussions with the engineers directly associated with bridge
inspection, indicate that more than half of the problems reported on concrete
deck bridges are related to expansion joints, or are caused by leakage through
the joints5. This problem is not restricted to Canada and the United States. In
Italy, the 1981 Report on bridge Maintenance states that:
“79 percent of special maintenance and repair operations on bridges arise

due to poor sealing of the expansion joints,” (Manning, D.G., and Ryell, J.,
“Decision Criteria for the Rehabilitation Bridge Decks,” Transportation
Research Record No. 762, 1981, pp. 1-9).
Trends in the contemporary literature reviewed for this report indicate that the
performance levels of expansion joints are much lower than expected.5-6 In some
case, this means that the bridge joints require frequent detailed inspection,
maintenance, and rehabilitation during its service life.
Bridge expansion joints must accommodate all superstructure movements and

carry high impact loads while being exposed to severe weather conditions.
Moreover, they are contaminated with water, dirt, and all manner of debris that
collects on the roadway surface, and are subject to salt-induced corrosion. The
joints must also sustain all traffic using the bridge and seasonal snowplow
operations. These severe service conditions and rigorous desired characteristics
make expansion joints the most challenging design, inspection, and maintenance
problem.
The desirable characteristics of an expansion joint are water-tightness, smooth

reliability, low noise level, wear-resistance, and resistance to damage caused by
snowplow blades. When subjected to traffic and bridge movements, they usually
fail in one or more important aspects, notably water-tightness.6 The joint design
5
Purvis, R.L., and Berger, R.H. (1983) “Bridge Joint Maintenance,” Transportation Research Record, No.
899, pp. 1-9.
6
Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, Research Report AW089-327-
046, “Bridge Deck Joint Rehabilitation or Retrofitting,” 1988.
40
used for the de la Concorde bridge has historically been shown to perform poorly
(Vaysburd, A.M., “Deterioration and Rehabilitation of the Elevated Roadway
bridge at Baltimore / Washington International Airport,” Paul Klieger Symposium
on Performance of Concrete, ACI Publication SP-122, 1990, 401-426).
The de la Concorde bridge joint leaked, with water and contaminants passing
through the opening after they have permeated the joint seal. The major problem
of the bridge’s combined expansion joint/beam seat design is that it exposes
critical bridge structural elements, which are not accessible for inspection and
maintenance, to the water and aggressive agents. The joint becomes a conduit
by which moisture, deicing salts, abrasives, chemicals, and other debris are
deposited on the superstructure and substructure below the joint, thereby
causing extensive damage. This situation is amplified by poor drainage.
Moisture, deicing salts, and debris that spill through the joints tend to accumulate
and pile up on the beam seat, and over the years slowly permeate through the
full depth of the beam seat concrete. This debris holds moisture, which keeps the
area constantly damp. The result is that moisture, salt and freeze-thaw
deteriorate concrete at an accelerated rate and penetrate to the reinforcing steel.
This causes the bearing area, which is also the end of the abutment cantilever
slab, to be damaged by disintegration of the concrete.
Due to the special features of this bridge, special considerations for inspection
and maintenance needed to be developed by the bridge owner.
8. APPRAISAL OF THE QUALITY OF INSPECTIONS

ON DE LA CONCORDE BRIDGE BY MTQ
8.1 General
This appraisal attempts to give a summarized but complete statement of facts

and conditions related to the inspections of the de la Concorde bridge as they are
available in documents reviewed, as well as the authors’ interpretation and
analysis of these facts and conditions.
A summary of the inspections performed on the de la Concorde bridge between

1977 and 2005 is presented in Appendix B.
41
8.2 Inspection Reports between 1977 and 1980
The bridge inspection reports for 1977 (CEVC002189) and 1978 (CEVC004776)
did not document any deficiencies, except for the necessity of the rip-rap repair.
The inspection report in 1980 (CEVC004776) indicates the leakage of the bridge
expansion joint and presents an estimate for repair of this problem.
8.3 1985 Inspection Report
A general inspection was performed for the first time in 1985 (CEVC02170) and
included the following findings:
• the report documents that a bridge drainage system does not exist;
• leakage of both expansion and fixed joints is documented; the report
indicates that this deficiency “will cause concrete damage”;
• broken curb at the North sidewalk is documented;
• joint and sidewalk photographs are attached;
• the estimate for necessary repairs is included, in the amount of $ 39,200.
A Routine Inspection Report dated November 1986 (CEVC002172) first

documents the “deterioration of the concrete deck,” and the estimate for all
bridge repairs was $ 300,000.
The “deterioration” of concrete is a broad and generic term; the report does not
specifically indicate the type of deterioration (cracking, spalling, disintegration,
delamination, etc.). The report does not mention where the deficiencies occurred
in the bridge deck. The inspector did not describe the quantity of defects. The
goal of the inspection reporting is to document the quality, quantity, and location
of the defect for future reference and comparison. The report fails to meet this
goal. Also, the 1986 estimated cost of repairs exceeds, by about ten times, the
cost estimate documented in the 1985 inspection report. Such a dramatic change
in just one year demonstrates a possible inconsistency in reporting.
The General Inspection Report of 1988 (CEVC002169) once again indicates the
same problems and with the same inadequate descriptions of the defects as the
previous inspection of 1986.
42
The Routine Inspection Report of 1989 (CEVC002165) documents severe

deterioration of concrete adjacent to the joints (photos attached). It also
documents the “concrete damage” to the underside of the deck slab, damage to
the sidewalk, and “cracked asphalt”. There are no specifics and locations
assigned to the damages.
The Routine Inspection Report of 1990 (CEVC002164) indicates, for the first
time, the “disintegration” of concrete at the cantilever part of the abutment. No
quantities and locations are mentioned.
In the Routine Inspection Report of 1991 (CEVC002163), more problems are

discovered: a “broken joint,” sidewalk concrete that is disintegrated, and the
disintegrated concrete underside of the deck and abutment cantilever part.
Cracking under the bridge longitudinal joint is documented over an area of 2,5
m2. There is no indication of crack widths, lengths, and possible causes of the
cracks. In spite of the amount of defects discovered, the overall condition was
still judged as “good.”
The latest MTQ MBI was implemented in 1993. The 1995 General Inspection
Report (CEVC002152), which followed the major repairs performed on the bridge
in 1992, was the first one to follow the new requirements. This is where the good
quality of the inspection of the bridge members, and requests by the new manual
for further actions, if necessary to be taken, could be implemented. It is noted
that lack of access to the very critical bridge components substantially affected
the accuracy of inspection, and the condition judgments.
The special features of the initial bridge design should have been documented in
the General Inspection Report, because they did not allow for good quality
inspection of all bridge members. A CEM-9 (no access) rating is assigned
followed by a very subjectively assigned high CEC, and an overall bridge
condition was judged “good.” The only recommendation provided in this report is
“plan to clean the abutment.”
43
There is a section in the standard General Inspection Form where the inspection
team can request certain actions be taken, such as: special inspection, deck slab
condition evaluation, inspection of inaccessible elements, etc. No additional
inspections were requested in the report.
In the 1997 routine inspection (CEVC002144), a lot of problems are documented.
“Many” vertical and diagonal cracks in the west abutment and “few” vertical and
diagonal cracks in the east abutment are noted. No exact crack locations, no
length, no width, and no attempt to characterize the type of crack.
It is indicated that repairs under the bridge deck in the joint areas are of
“questionable quality” (“de qualité douteuse”). The repairs are documented for
the first time in this bridge report. However, it is not mentioned what exactly was
repaired, what repair material was used and what was the size of the repairs.
Besides, what does “questionable quality” mean? It is the inspectors’
responsibility to describe and judge the quality.
At the East abutment expansion joint, it was indicated that “concrete placed
under the joint at the North and South sidewalk and under the deck slab North
corner is preventing the joint free movement (the Municipality was notified on
09/19/1996).”
It is not clear why the Municipality was notified if the bridge joint, which was
designed to be an expansive joint, acts as a fixed one? This situation indicates a
joint failure, and immediate action must be taken by the inspector to fix the
problem – to free the joint from the concrete and allow it to move.
In the field of forensic engineering, the term “failure” is used to denote an

unacceptable difference between levels of expected and observed performance
(Carper, K., “Failure Information: Dissemination Strategies,” Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 1, No. 1, Feb. 1987).
Appropriate actions should have been taken to address the problem. When
bridge movement is restrained, destructive forces may occur in bridge
components. These forces can cause damaging bridge movement, jamming of
expansion devices, displacement of bearings, damage to rail and curb sections,
damage to abutments, and even damage to beams. (U.S. Transportation
Research Board, NCHRP Report 123, “Bridge Designs to Reduce and Facilitate
Maintenance and Repair,” Washington, D.C., 1985, p. 24)
44
The pavement near the joints is cracked and deteriorated.
After all of the bridge problems listed in this report, and probably many others not
inspected due to the absence of access, the general condition of the structure is
again judged as “good.”
8.11 Inspection Reports in 1977 and 1998
The Routine Inspection Forms of 1997 (CEVC002143) and 1998 (CEVC002142)

documented a few more areas of concrete deterioration without any qualifications
and quantifications.
The general inspection of 1999 (CEVC002123) states, for the first time, that the
beam seat concrete at the North-East corner is disintegrated, and because of this
visible problem, the entire beam seat’s CEC rating is 3.
The condition of the beam seat is critically important in bridge performance and
its load-carrying capacity. The bridge seat has a purpose to transfer the loads
from the superstructure to the foundation. Conventional abutments provide
support for the ends of the superstructure, retain the approach embankment, and
are usually massive concrete structures. This bridge has a unique type of
abutment and beam seat. The beam seat is a cantilever slab, and, therefore, any
concrete deterioration and cantilever section loss may be critical.
8.13 Inspection Reports in 2000 and 2001
The Routine Inspection Forms of 2000 (CEVC002122) and 2001 (CEVC002120)

both indicate the presence of vertical cracks in the abutment “walls”. There is no
indication of the diagonal cracks, and no attempt to address the fact that they
were present in previous inspection reports.
The General Inspection Report of 2002 (CEVC002102) reports on a few changes

to the bridge condition, indicating a worsening condition, that was documented
after the general inspection of 1999 (CEVC002123). The CEM and CEC for the
East abutment cantilever end changed from CEM-4 and CEC-5 to CEM-3 and
CEC-5.
45
Another alarming sign of progressive deterioration and distress documented in
the report are concrete delamination and spalling at the bottom of the cantilever.
The problem had progressed to such an extent that, “pieces of concrete are
about to fall.” The process of concrete delamination at the level of the cantilever
slab bottom reinforcement does not happen suddenly. It is quite an evolutional
process from delamination to cracking, to spalling, and to pieces of concrete
falling.
Why did inspectors not detect such an extensive delamination in earlier

inspections simply by sounding the surface with a hammer? Before concrete
pieces start to fall, the delaminated concrete crust cracks to produce these
pieces. The cracking at the bottom of the abutment cantilever slab was also
never detected and documented.
The notice was sent to remove “falling concrete pieces in 2002.” Another
recommended action was to ask the Direction of Structures for guidance on the
abutment repair “methods”. The overall bridge condition this time was found
“acceptable”.
In 2003, the inspection crew updated index values of the 2002 General
Inspection Report (CEVC002086). The routine inspection performed in 2003
(CEVC002067) documented the following deficiencies:
• cracked pavement;
• leaking joints;
• concrete delamination at the North corner of the West abutment;
• shotcrete repairs under the cantilever part of the abutments and the deck slab
in the joint area is of “questionable quality”;
• beam seat concrete at the north-east corner is severely deteriorated;
• delaminated and spalled concrete, “about to fall,” has been removed from
under the cantilever part of the abutment in 2002;
• under the exterior side, concrete is delaminated in “some areas”.
The locations of the “some areas” are not provided, nor is the size and number of
these defects. The inspection document reports that suggested abutment repair
is “included in planning.”
This inspection report, as well as previous inspections, documented severe

deterioration and possible structural distress of the inaccessible bridge elements,
46
which are very important for bridge performance and safety. These include the
deck slab, the diaphragms, interiors of the box girders, and beam seats which
are not easily accessible for inspection and their condition is unknown after more
than thirty years in aggressive service conditions. A detailed condition evaluation
of the bridge could have been performed to find out what is wrong and what
remedial actions, strengthening, or even bridge replacements, should be
undertaken.
This report finds that the bridge is in “good overall condition.”

Deterioration/distress continues, but the overall condition of the bridge, in the
inspector’s view, is improving, and successfully changed from “acceptable” in the
2002 General Inspection Report (CEVC002102) to “good” in 2003.
The routine inspection performed on June 10, 2004 (CEVC002065) discovers

and documents more problems such as:
• concrete delamination at the North corner of the West Abutment;

• curb “in bad condition in many areas”;
• concrete delamination “under the longitudinal joint”.
The general bridge condition is reported as “good”.
8.17 Territorial Direction Request for Technical Assistance and

MTQ’s response in 2004 and 2005
It was recognized by the bridge engineer/inspector that the condition of the

bridge elements, abutments in particular, were not good at all. On June 17, 2004,
Mr. Gilbert Bossé, the engineer responsible for the bridge inspection, sent a letter
to the MTQ maintenance service director, Mr. Claude Leclerc, with a request for
technical assistance (CEVC004654).
The letter states that, “in the last general inspections, damages were observed
and are worthy of particular attention” because the beam seat condition cannot
be “precisely defined” due to the “configuration” which does not allow for visual
inspection. “Observed damages located close to the lateral faces let us suspect
an important problem of beam seat disintegration.” The presence of “large” shear
cracks on the abutment overhang also seems alarming.” Drawings and pictures
were attached.
Mr. Bossé was asking for assistance in the evaluation of the “alarming” situation
and for further direction.
47
According to the letter sent by Mr. Christian Mercier, engineer of the
Maintenance Section, to Mr. Leclerc on March 1, 2005, 8.5 months after Mr.
Bossé’s letter expressing alarm, He and Mr. Bossé examined on July 15, 2004
the condition of the beam seat portion of the east abutment.
Disintegration was noticed in the beam seat concrete on the side, “more than 120
mm (…) around the elastomeric bearing pad.” They also observed, “signs of old
concrete repair,” spalling, and delamination of concrete under the bridge deck
slab and on the lateral faces on each side of the expansion joint. Mr. Mercier
writes that the joints were replaced a “few years ago,” and concludes that,
“Based on our observations, we do not believe it is necessary to proceed with a
more detailed inspection at this time. In fact, the origin of the defects is still
related to leaking of the joints.” It is noted that the disintegration of the concrete
around the bearing pads on the beam seats, having a measured depth of more
than 120 mm, which is a “very important” defect according to the MTQ’s Manuel
d’inspection (2003).
The recommendation was to continue routine inspections, “to monitor the

evolution of deterioration” and wait for, “more important damages” to appear in
the abutment seat areas (active cracking or subsidence of the beams at support)
before proceeding with the repairs. Mr. Mercier recommends future beam seat
remedial concepts, including temporary support of the bridge superstructure. The
cost estimate of the repair actions is included in the letter.
On March 3, 2005 Mr. Leclerc of the MTQ sent a letter to Mr. Bossé
(CEVC002237) stating that no short term “interventions are recommended to
correct the observed defects.” He also recommends to follow-up on the evolution
of damages at the time of next inspections until, “more important damage will
occur (…) to wait and monitor until it gets worse.” But what does “worse” mean?
And how do you monitor the beam seat condition which is not accessible for
monitoring?
The very important reason for Mr. Bossé’s alarm was the observation of the
diagonal cracks in the abutment cantilever – an indication of shear overstress.
This manifestation of structural distress was completely ignored in Mr. Mercier’s
letter and Mr. Leclerc’s response.
In the view of the authors, the appropriate response to Mr. Bossé’s alarm would
be to conduct an immediate in-depth condition evaluation of the bridge
abutments.
48
8.18 2005 Inspection Reports
The March 8, 2005 report (CEVC002005) is an update of the 2002 General

Inspection Report (CEVC002102). The update is based on the letters of Mr.
Mercier and Mr. Leclerc.
The General Inspection Report of 2005 (CEVC002047) assigns CECS-3 to the

condition of the bridge, which qualifies for a less than acceptable overall
condition, but it still appraises the condition as “acceptable” with the reference to
Mr. Leclerc’s letter. It should be noticed that only the sidewalks of the bridge
received deserved, or maybe even lower than deserved, index values of CEM-1
and CEC-1.
9. ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL INSPECTION

ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DE LA CONCORDE
BRIDGE AND ITS COLLAPSE
9.1 Background
In 2003, the Vérificateur Général of Québec issued a report on the preservation

of bridges under MTQ’s jurisdiction. This report emphasized a number of key
facts that are relevant to this study.
In recent years, ageing and deterioration of public infrastructure has been a

increasing concern and efforts have been made to halt the deterioration by
implementing appropriate maintenance programs. Nevertheless, between 1998-
99 and 2002-03, the relative number of deficient bridges in the Province of
Québec has increased from 36 % to 42 %.
Adequate file keeping is fundamental in order to keep pace with the increasing
maintenance and repair needs. Bridge files must contain all the relevant
information and documents and they need to be updated regularly (e.g., bridge
condition, history of repair works). In that respect, the Auditor was pointing out
some serious flaws in MTQ’s bridge file keeping such as:
“4.87 In addition to affecting adequate preparation of drawings and

specifications for future repair work and causing surprises on the jobsite,
unavailability of the full technical history of the bridge does not warrant
that bridges with special features are identified. Such identification would
be helpful in anticipating special maintenance and repair needs associated
for instance with the use of a material which proves to be less durable
49
than others. At this time, it is quite dependent on the personnel’s collective
memory.
4.88 Finally, it should be emphasized that the information retained by

MTQ is filed disorderly. In other words, it is disseminated in various
locations, which prevents its integration when undertaking a project.”
9.2 General Comments on the Inspection System
It was mentioned previously that the inspection protocol given in the MTQ
documents is rather comprehensive. Nevertheless, there are some important
aspects to be addressed, such as its general applicability, the definition of some
types of inspection, the training provided (or required) and the recent relaxation
of some of the original MBI manual requirements.
The objective of inspection should not be confined to searching for existing

defects, but should include anticipating incipient problems. The inspections
should be performed in order to develop and implement both preventive, as well
as corrective maintenance programs.
The typical inspection forms required by the MBI manual are adequate tools to
ensure uniformity and completeness of the information collected during the
inspection. However, it lacks the flexibility to address the bridges with special
features.
Unusual and unique portions of a bridge require special considerations,

approaches and reporting formats. This will allow the responsible engineer(s) to
tailor an adequate inspection report form for a complex or unique bridge
element(s) with appropriate structural classification (primary, secondary or
accessory).
The routine and general inspections are well defined in the MBI manual. A
special inspection might be appropriate when specific problems are reported.
The special inspection, however, is not clearly defined and protocol for reporting
the results is not provided. The MBI manual has to provide detailed protocol
(guidelines) for performing special inspections, including a timely process to
interpret and report the inspection results. The individual(s) performing the
special inspections should be qualified not only to recognize the nature of the
particular deficiency, but also to realize its functional relationship to satisfactory
bridge performance.
In comparison with the regular inspections, how far should the special inspection
go? If no additional investigation means are used (apart from visual examination
and hammer sounding), can a substantial increase in the understanding of the
50
problems be expected? Should field assistance from the Direction of Structures
be differentiated from a special inspection?
A sound system has been set in place at MTQ for inspectors’ duties based upon
qualifications. As outlined previously, in accordance with this system, MTQ has
developed a training program intended to educate and update both the engineers
and technicians specialized in inspection. Although the overall content of the
various training sessions is relevant and comprehensive, there certainly appears
to be a lack of knowledge with regards to materials science. In the past, materials
science has often been disregarded in civil engineering, but its importance is now
being recognized, especially when it comes to concrete behavior, maintenance
and rehabilitation. Inspector training in that area must be enhanced.
Another aspect relating to the quality of inspections that needs to be

reconsidered is the fact that in practice, the same individuals can often be
assigned the same structures for long periods of time. In order to improve the
overall inspection system efficiency and prevent oversights associated with
repetitive tasks, inspection crews should alternate. In addition, a regular (e.g.,
every 5 years) external verification of each bridge file would be highly desirable,
most likely by the Direction of Structures.
The framework of the current MTQ inspection system was first implemented in
1993 and was updated a few times since then. As already mentioned, the 2003
MBI manual allows much more time to take action for a given state of
deterioration (based on CEM and CEC indices). How can such a change be
justified, given the increase in the rate of deficient bridges reported in the 2003
General Auditor’s report?
9.3 Inspection Activities on the de la Concorde Bridge
The de la Concorde bridge has been inspected regularly between 1977 and
2005, as records show, with at least 23 filed reports (routine or general
inspections) during that period. In general, it complied with the frequency
requirements set out in the Guides/Manuals over time. Based on the review and
appraisal that were performed, some noteworthy trends can be identified,
especially with regards to the investigation means that were used and the
recorded information.
Of all the investigation techniques accepted by MTQ and listed in the MBM (rev.
2006), there are references only to visual examination and crack width
measurements found in the inspection reports. Even though there were no
records of the concrete characteristics at the time of construction, there was
apparently never any attempt over a more than 35-year maintenance period to
51
evaluate the actual concrete properties (strength, porosity, air-void
characteristics, etc.) in the superstructure and abutments.
The reports reveal some misunderstanding, confusion and, to some degree,

contradiction relating to way the unusual abutments of the de la Concorde bridge
were addressed. Until 1999, the structure described in the report was a single
span bridge, without special consideration to the cantilever parts of the abutment.
From 1999, it started being described in the reports as a three-span bridge, the
cantilevers being treated as a slab/full web beam deck (forms E and F). In the
most recent inspection report in 2005, the cantilevers are being considered as
slabs (form E only). During that period, the abutments switched from being
described as single members (form C) to a combination of an end abutment and
an inclined pier (forms C and D). In all cases, although the cantilevers were
addressed as beams or slabs, the seats were still being rated in the standard
abutment forms.
It was appropriate to consider the cantilevers as primary structural members,

however their ends should not have been treated as ordinary abutment seats,
which are considered to be secondary elements in the MTQ’s inspection rating
system.
In addition to the inconsistent way some of the key elements of the bridge were
addressed, there is a general lack of precision and details in the reported
information. Contrary to what is stated in the Manuals, the defects and
deficiencies were rarely sketched and the exact locations and extent of
distresses are almost never provided. This prevented an accurate evaluation of
the evolution of damages with time.
The regular use of inadequate terms (e.g., “delamination” for “spalling”) or the
misuse of qualitative terms (e.g., overall condition being qualified as “good” when
the actual rating of the bridge is “acceptable”) also affects the quality and
accuracy of the inspection.
Finally, it must be stressed again that the file was incomplete. In particular, the
important file on the joint replacement and related repair works carried out on the
bridge in 1992 was not provided to the inspector of the bridge.
9.4 Collapse of the Bridge
There are various factors that can contribute to the deterioration and even failure
of highway bridges, including the detrimental effect of weather, deicing salts,
traffic, ageing, fatigue, material failure, design and construction faults, and
inadequate inspection and maintenance.
52
In their report,7 Mr. Jacques Marchand and Mr. Denis Mitchell have shown that
the southeast portion of the de la Concorde bridge collapsed due to a brittle
shear and bond splitting failure in the east cantilever. The shear failure is due to
the development of a horizontal crack, which was initiated in a zone of weakness
just above the hooks of the #8 hanger reinforcing bars in the top portion of the
member, near the beam seat. This horizontal crack propagated slowly from the
joint area inwards due to a combination of effects, including dead and cyclic
loads on the beam seat, impact on the expansion joint due traffic, detrimental
effects associated with the expansion joint replacement in 1992, and the
cumulative effects of freeze-thaw cycles in the presence of de-icing salts.
The MTQ’s general inspection protocol has provisions for an inspector to

request, if found necessary, inspection of inaccessible elements, special
inspection, and monitoring inspection, or in-depth condition evaluation, including
structural analysis. No records indicating that more comprehensive evaluations
were performed during the life of the bridge could be found.
It is the opinion of the authors that if the necessary condition evaluation of the
bridge element experiencing significant deterioration/distress had been
performed on a timely basis, it is likely that the problems which led to the bridge
collapse, as described in Mr. Marchand and Mitchell’s report, could have been
detected.
9.5 Inspection Shortcomings
Although the de la Concorde bridge was inspected regularly, no condition

evaluation was ever performed. The differences between general inspection and
condition evaluation are defined in the MTQ’s Manuel d’entretien des structures
(2006) (Table 4.1-1 from the 2006 MBM manual) as follows:
• the general inspection is a continuous process; the condition evaluation is a

one-time event;
• the general inspection is limited mostly to visual observations; the condition
evaluation employs all necessary means;
• the general inspection requires all significant damage manifestations to be
recorded; the condition evaluation requires all damages to be evaluated in-
depth;
• the General Inspection Report is filed in the system; the condition evaluation
requires a written report;
7
Marchand, J. and Mitchell, D. (2007) «Rapport sur les causes techniques de l’effondrement du
viaduc de la Concorde», Rapport principal, Commission d’enquête sur le viaduc de la
Concorde, 199 p.
53
• the general inspection requires all elements of the bridge to be addressed;
the condition evaluation is being conducted only for bridge elements to be
repaired.
Since 1992, the year when the joints were replaced and repairs were performed,
condition evaluation should have been requested on quite a few occasions.
• The 1992 repairs should have been preceded by a thorough condition

evaluation, especially given the significant signs of deterioration/distresses
(cracks, efflorescence, spalling, etc.) observable near the joints (see Fig. 4
a)), both on the central span and on the cantilevers (ref. photos provided by
MTQ). Instead, it appears that only a visual inspection was conducted.
• The bridge deck CEM index was assigned a value of 4 as early as 1995.
According to the MBI manual in use at that time, a condition evaluation was
required within 2 to 4 years, thus no later than 1999.
• A photograph of the North-West cantilever in 1999 (see Figure 4 b)) actually

shows a rather large diagonal crack in the cantilever. Again, no monitoring of
the crack evolution (width, length) was found in any of the reviewed
documents. Accurate information on cracking evolution probably would have
stressed the necessity for conducting a condition evaluation.
• In the 2003 version of the MBI manual, the requirement for bridge deck
condition evaluation frequency was changed. Instead of being based on the
CEM index value, the requirement became the following: condition evaluation
of the bridge deck should be performed every other general inspection. The
next general inspection on the bridge was carried out in 2005. Taking into
account the fact that no condition evaluation of the bridge deck was ever
performed and given its CEM rating of 4, the opportunity should have then
been taken to investigate the bridge deck.
• The bridge deck CEM and CEC index were assigned values of 4 as early as
1995. According to the MBI manual in use at that time, repairs should have
been planned within 3 to 5 years, thus no later than 2000. Prior to repair, a
condition evaluation of the bridge deck would have been required. This was
apparently never considered.
54
a) S-E joint (1992)
(COM-1C p. 46)
b) N-W cantilever (1999)
(COM-1C p. 106)
c) S-E joint (2004)
(COM-1C p. 126)
Figure 4 – Evolution of degradation in the joint areas
55
• The ends of the cantilever slab abutments were addressed as ordinary
abutment seats, whereas they should have been rated as slab or beam ends,
i.e. primary elements. The bridge behavior index value (CECS) would thus
have been lowered to 3 as early as 1999, which would have required, in
accordance with the MBI manual, a special inspection and consideration for
possible load limitation.
• A request for assistance from the Direction of Structures by the Laval DT in

2004 was another missed opportunity to investigate the condition of the
bridge structure (see Fig. 4 c)). At that time, instead of recommending that a
detailed condition evaluation be performed, the response transmitted to the
DT was to take no action until further deterioration had taken place.
Strictly based on the requirements set out in the MBI manuals, there were a
number of opportunities to perform an in-depth condition evaluation and establish
causes of distress in the bridge. Further investigation was necessary:
• to determine the significance of the diagonal cracks;

• to determine if the cracks were growing with time and whether they are active;
• to investigate the extent of concrete deterioration.
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 MTQ Manual of Bridge Inspection
The 2004 “Manuel d’inspection des structures (rev. 2005)” (MBI Manual) is a
document which sets up adequate standards and guidance for inspection and
maintenance of bridges. The Manual unquestionably serves the goal of
improving inspection and rating procedures and identifying problem areas.
It has been pointed out that some of the 2004 MBI Manual requirements are less
stringent than those found in the 1996 Manual, the repair work priorities based on
the CEM and CEC index values being downgraded about two levels. This
definitely did not contribute to improving the bridge management practices.
The MTQ MBI manual, in general, has a quality and comprehensiveness

comparable to that of similar documents in North America. However, this review
recommends improvements in several areas to make this document more
meaningful, instructive, and to improve bridge inspection and maintenance
practices at MTQ.
56
Issues related to lack of accessibility and maintainability of bridge elements and
component parts, due to deficiencies in the bridge design, must be addressed.
Many studies, research reports, and articles have been written describing bridge
deficiencies and failures. Lack of access to component parts often deters routine
maintenance. The inspector needs more definitive guidance on what to do in
such cases.
The issue of inspection of bridge members that have a poor performance history
has to be addressed. Unusual and unique portions of the bridge require special
considerations and inspection approach.
Special inspections, including in-depth condition evaluation and load-carrying

structural analysis, must be a requirement for any bridge in “questionable”
condition.
Special attention must be given to the requirements for the expert(s) performing
special inspections and condition evaluation prior to the remedial action(s). Such
individuals should be fully knowledgeable and experienced in structural
engineering, concrete technology, and material behavior, and should be able to
make the judgments regarding the nature of known deficiencies and their
possible functional relationship to satisfactory bridge performance and safety.
The MBI manual, which very appropriately gives detailed guidance on various
types of visual manifestations of deterioration/distress, however, falls short in
requiring, as a critical necessity, the analysis and guidance for establishment of
causes of deterioration/distress. The underlying causes of defects must be
identified so that clear remedial strategy can be determined – a strategy which
will address causes and not symptoms. The very important topic of identifying
and monitoring active vs. dormant cracks must be addressed. The critical
distress descriptions must be more detailed and focused.
The MTQ bridge inspection practices could be improved if the MBI manual, along
with well-presented requirements and guidance on “what to do” and “how to do”,
would also explain to the inspector “why to do”. This would allow for a better
understanding and appreciation of some of the requirements and procedures,
and would allow for rational decisions to be made, ending up with much better
quality of inspections and bridge performance.
10.2 The de la Concorde Bridge Inspections
The MTQ MBI manual has been developed to improve bridge inspection
procedures and to identify and address the problem areas. However, this review
concludes that the inspection procedures, judgments, and reporting exercised on
57
the de la Concorde bridge did not always satisfy the standards and requirements
set out in the MBI manual protocol. These deficiencies are described below.
The general inspection protocol requires detailed identification of the defects and
distresses, including description of the type and extent of the defects. The
description of type of distress on several occasions was inaccurate, and extent
and locations of the distress and different types of deterioration were missing.
Without such information, careful monitoring of the evolution of the damages and
their effect on the serviceability and safety of the bridge is impossible.
The judgments exercised in the evaluation of the material condition (CEM index
value) and the bridge element behavior (CEC index value), and overall bridge
condition appraisal was, on several occasions, inconsistent, and did not reflect
the real conditions.
The general inspection protocol indicates that inspectors request, if found

necessary, an inspection of inaccessible elements, special inspection, and
monitoring inspection. Only in 2004, was it found necessary to request any of
these special inspections. Critical bridge structural members were fully or
partially inaccessible for inspection, no information on material properties was
available, and no effects of detected damage on load-carrying capacity of the
bridge elements and the bridge were known.
Over the 35+ year history of the bridge, no attempt was made for testing the
concrete’s compressive strength, frost resistance, chloride ion contamination,
depth of carbonation, permeability, corrosion activity, etc. Nothing was done at
the cantilever slab beam seat location, even when conditions did require more
elaborate condition evaluation including material testing. It appears that no
actions were requested when pieces of spalled concrete had fallen off from the
underside of the cantilever slab and reinforcing bars were exposed.
The MTQ MBI includes a Table of suggested actions to be taken based on the
bridge behavior index value CECS determined by the General Inspection
Report. With CECS-4, “no load limitation expected, special inspection if
required.” With CECS-3, “load limitation might be necessary, special inspection
required.” The last bridge General Inspection Report of May 5, 2005 assigned to
the bridge a rating of CECS-3, however, no request for a special inspection was
made, and no load limitation was considered.
In his letter to the Direction of Structures, in June of 2004, the bridge inspector,
Mr. Bossé, expressed concerns with the severe deterioration of the beam seat
concrete and, in addition, mentioned that the presence of “large” shear cracks on
the abutment cantilever were just as troubling (“tout aussi inquétantes”), and
asked for “assistance” to identify what action to take.
58
Based on the special inspection performed by the Direction of Structures’
engineer, Mr. Mercier, and his conclusions and recommendations, the
Maintenance Service Manager, Mr. Leclerc, in his response letter of March 3,
2005 advised that, “no short term particular interventions are recommended to
correct the observed defects,” and to wait until, “more important damages will
appear.” Also, monitoring was recommended.
This review concludes that such a response to the alarm by the bridge inspector
and his request for special inspection and recommendations for further actions
did not result in appropriate actions. Also, the beam seat area was not accessible
for inspection and therefore impossible to monitor.
The lack of adequate documentation and record keeping from previous

inspections and repairs put the MTQ inspectors and engineers at a disadvantage
in monitoring the evolution of the bridge condition and in taking appropriate
remedial actions.
10.3 Recommendations
The MTQ communication policy and organizational system for efficient bridge
management must ensure that concerns of serious deficiencies are getting to the
right level, in a timely fashion and getting an appropriate and timely response.
Deferred special inspections and condition evaluations and deferred effective
actions become expensive repairs, reconstructions, and safety problems.
Critical structural and safety-related deficiencies found during the field inspection
and/or evaluation of a bridge should be brought to the attention of the bridge
owner/MTQ immediately, if a safety hazard is present. Bridge owners/MTQ
should implement standard procedures for addressing such deficiencies,
including:
1. Immediate critical deficiency reporting steps.

2. Emergency notification to police and the public.
3. Rapid evaluation of the deficiencies found.
4. Rapid implementation of corrective or protective actions.
5. A tracking system to ensure adequate follow-up actions.
6. Provisions for identifying other bridges with similar structural details with
follow-up inspections.
It is recommended that, regardless of the organizational structure, regardless of

the existing decentralization, bridge adequacy and safety must be the ultimate
responsibility of MTQ’s Direction of Structures. Measures should be taken to
ensure accountability in the system.
59
The General Inspection Report forms shall incorporate special requirements for
identifying bridge design deficiencies. Potential problems and deficiencies due to
the original design or problems during construction should be clearly identified
and defined for each existing bridge to provide guidance to the inspectors (e.g.
inaccessible beam seats).
It is recommended that MTQ provide the bridge inspection teams with

instructions specifically related to inspection and maintenance of individual bridge
primary members with accessibility problems.
The successful application of the MBI manual is directly related to the

organizational structure established by the bridge owner. Such a structure should
be both effective and responsive, so that the unique characteristics and special
problems of an individual bridge are considered in developing an appropriate
inspection, and, if necessary, condition evaluation procedures and load-carrying
capacity determination.
In order to assure the accuracy and consistency of inspections, MTQ should

implement appropriate quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA)
measures, including the review of reports and computations by a qualified person
other than the originating individual. Quality assurance measures may include
the periodic field review of inspection teams and field work.
It is not enough to update inspection reports at prescribed intervals. The

inspection shall meet appropriate quality standards. An implemented MTQ quality
assurance program (QA) will help provide and document the level of quality
necessary to maintain public confidence in bridge safety.
People make mistakes and this is why bridge inspection cannot be delegated to
one person; it should be performed by a team. Members of a team check behind
each other. They review each others sketches or descriptions and they check for
consistency of descriptions and measurements. This is QC. QA is administrated
from outside the inspection team.
As a way to improve the quality of the inspections at the MTQ is to have rotating
teams. It seems that the impact on inspection quality and on safety will be
reduced if the same team does not inspect the same bridge on consecutive
inspections, year by year. There may be some advantage in viewing the bridge
and its problems from another perspective.
The engineers delegated the responsibilities of addressing special deficiencies

and performing special inspections requested by inspectors have to be qualified
trouble-shooters. They should be knowledgeable and experienced in design,
60
maintenance, material behavior, and construction of bridges. They should be
able to:
• Recognize the various deficiencies that can exist on a bridge and recognize
the possible cause of deficiencies.
• Evaluate the general and specific conditions of the bridge and its components
by using a variety of inspection procedures and equipment.
• Evaluate the severity of material deterioration and member distress.
• Determine when it is necessary to close the bridge or recommend closure to
the appropriate authority due to the necessity of an in-depth condition
evaluation or due to imminent danger.
It is recommended that designers be included in the more complex general and

special inspections on selected bridges. Inspectors could learn about load
capacity, overstress, and fatigue issues from them, and have a better idea of
where inspection should be concentrated. At the same time, designers will
become aware of problems and deficiencies in bridges they design.
The quality and efficiency of bridge inspections are largely influenced by the
inspectors’ knowledge of how the bridge works, what controls its strength and
stability, knowledge of material behavior, deterioration mechanisms, and critical
areas where potential problems could occur. Knowledge in identifying materials
deficiencies, their causes, and potential negative effects can be achieved only by
special education at universities where the engineering curriculum provides
growing emphasis on disciplines and techniques most concerned with material
behavior, concrete technology, repair, and maintenance of infrastructure.
Measures need to be taken to ensure the integrity and completeness of the

dossier (documentation and record keeping) for each bridge with regard to the
as-built design drawings, specifications, construction records, inspection,
maintenance and repairs. Complete records must be kept for the entire life of a
bridge.
Alexander M. Vaysburd, Ph.D. Benoît Bissonnette, ing., Ph.D.
61
11. REFERENCES
AASHTO (2000) “AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges,” (1994
revised by the 2000 Interim Rev.), American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (CEVC032038)
ACI (2005) ACI Committee Report 228.2 R-98, “Nondestructive Test Methods for
Evaluation of Concrete in Structures,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI.
ACI (2003) ACI Committee Report 364.1 R-94, “Guide for Evaluation of Concrete
Structures Prior to Rehabilitation,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI.
ACI (2003) ACI Committee Report 201.1R, “Guide for making a Condition Survey
of Concrete in Service,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI, BRE, CONCRETE SOCIETY, ICRI (2003) “Concrete Repair Manual (2nd
Edition),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2093 p.
Carper, K. (1987) “Failure Information: Dissemination Strategies,” Journal of

Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Concrete Society (2000) “Diagnosis of Deterioration of Concrete Structures –

Identification of Defects, Evaluation and Development of Remedial Action,”
Concrete Society Technical Report no.54, Century House, Berkshire, United
Kingdom.
Emmons, P.H. (1993) “Concrete Repair and Maintenance Illustrated,”

Construction Publishers and Consultants, Kingston, MA, 295 p.
Malhotra, V.M., and Carino, N.D. (2003) “Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of

Concrete,” 2nd Edition, CRC Press, 392 p.
Manning, D.G., and Ryell, J. (1981) “Decision Criteria for the Rehabilitation
Bridge Decks,” Transportation Research Record No. 762, pp. 1-9.
Maryland Department of Transportation, (1988) Report AW089-327-046, “Bridge

Deck Joint Rehabilitation or Retrofitting,” State Highway Administration,
Research.
62
NBIS (2004) “Questions and Answers on the National Bridge Inspection
Standards 23 CFR 650 subpart C,” National Bridge Inspection Standards.
(CEVC032366)
NBIS (2002) “National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) - Code of Federal

Regulations 23 CFR Part 650”, Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA),
Washington, DC. (CEVC031932)
NCHRP (1985) Report 123, “Bridge Designs to Reduce and Facilitate

Maintenance and Repair,” U.S. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 24 p.
NHI (2004) Publication No. NHI 03-004, “Safety Inspection of In-Service

Bridges,” National Highway Institute, (CEVC029898).
OSIM (2000) “Ontario Structure Inspection Manuel,” Ontario Ministry of

Transportation, Policy, planning & standards division, Engineering standard
branch, Bridge office, 380 p.
Purvis, R.L., and Berger, R.H. (1983) “Bridge Joint Maintenance”, Transportation
Research Record, No. 899, pp. 1-9.
Vaysburd, A.M. (1990) “Deterioration and Rehabilitation of the Elevated

Roadway Bridge at Baltimore/Washington International Airport,” Paul Klieger
Symposium on Performance of Concrete, ACI Publication SP-122, pp. 401-426.
63
APPENDIX A
Investigation techniques.
Summary from the ACI Repair Concrete Manual (2003)
64
Table A.1 - Advantages and limitations of investigation techniques
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
APPENDIX B
Chronological summary of inspections performed on

de la Concorde bridge between 1977 and 2005.
72
Date of General
Document Inspected Inspection
Inspection Observed Defects Structure Recommended Actions
CEVC No. By Type
(Day/Month/YR) Condition
002189 11/11/1977 Jacques C. Structure Rip-rap damage - Rip-rap repair

Inspection and
Repair Report
002187 24/11/1978 Prepared by Structure Rip-rap damage - Rip-rap repair
B. D. Inspection and
Approved by Repair Report
A. Laurier
004776 3/10/1980 A. Laurier Structure Leakage of expansion joint - Waterproofing the joint
Inspection and
Repair Report
002170 15/11/1985 D. Simic General - Beam Support seats - light concrete Good (1) Fix joints before 1988
Inspection spalling caused by leaking joints. Nothing (2) Repair the Rip-rap
(bridges) serious at the moment (3) Curb repair
- Curb missing over 4m.
002183 15/11/1985 D. Simic Structure - Fixed and Expansion Joints are leaking. Estimate for recommended
Inspection and - Eroded Rip-rap actions photographs of joint
Repair Report - Damaged curb North side and curb are attached
Total Repair Estimate

$ 39,200
002172 18/11/1986 D. Simic Structure - Fixed and Expansion Joints are leaking. Total Repair Estimate
Inspection and - Damaged curb North side changed to $ 300,000
Repair Report - Deteriorated deck concrete
- Cracked asphalt pavement
002169 15/08/1988 General - Joint leaking (West) Good -

- Broken sidewalk curb (4m)
- Rip-rap erosion East abutment.
73
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002165 19/07/1989 D. Simic Routine - Concrete girder deterioration. (1m2) Good

Broken curb (4m)
002164 6/06/1990 M. Dupius, Routine - Concrete deterioration at the cantilever of Good

District Chief the abutment at the joint area slab.
D. Simic - Concrete deterioration underside of the
deck around the joints
- Deteriorated concrete along the joints
- The joint steel angles damaged and the
seal broken.
- Sidewalk concrete deteriorated
- Asphalt pavement cracked
002163 27/09/1991 D. Simic Routine - Possible deterioration of the beam seats Good
(non visible) because of leaking joints.
- Joints are covered with asphalt
- Concrete deterioration and spalling
underside of the joints
- Cracking under longitudinal joint. (25 m2)
74
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002152 29/05/1995 P. Roussy General Form C-1 Abutment No Gen Index Cleaning of the abutment
G. Bossé - Seat and pads: CEM 9, CEC 5 Value walls
Form E-1 Deck Slab

-Underside CEM 4, CEC 4 along the joints. Good
Form F-1 Box Girder Exterior

-Beam ends CEM 4, CEC 4
-Beam Cuter CEM 5, CEC 5
Form M-1 Expansion Joint East and West

- Elastomeric element: CEM 5, CEC 3
- Adjacent concrete CEM 4, CEC 5
75
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002144 7/8/1997 G. Bossé Routine - West Abutment: Many vertical and Summary of the
diagonal cracks. lowest recorded
- East Abutment: Few vertical and marks CEM
diagonal cracks. and CEC
- Sidewalks: Water and de-icing salts are provided.
leaking through at numerous locations.
At the abutment sidewalk is damaged CECS-4
and may cause risk for pedestrians.
- Pavement near the joints starts to crack Good.
and deteriorate.
- Repair under the bridge deck in the joint
areas is of questionable quality.
- Joints are leaking
- East Expansion Joint: concrete placed
under the joint at the north and south
sidewalk and under the slab North corner
is preventing the joint free movement.
(Municipality was notified on 19/09/96)
002143 10/4/1997 P. Roussy Routine - Deteriorated concrete at many locations Good
G. Bossé Inspection of sidewalks. (The municipality was
Form notified in 1996)
- Concrete deteriorated at the side of the
slab at the north-east joint.
002142 6/5/1998 P. Roussy Routine - Concrete delamination and exposed Good
Inspection rebars at many locations of the sidewalks.
Form - North side of the deck slab water and de-
icing salts are allowed to go through at
certain locations.
76
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002149 29/01/1999 P. Roussy Repair work CECS 4 Plan the cleaning of the
G. Bossé estimate Good abutment walls.
based on the
updated
inspection
data
002123 12/05/1999 P. Roussy General Form D-1 Pier or Intermediate Column
G. Bossé (Abutment)
- Foundation: CEM 9, CEC 5
- Wall, Columns, etc.: CEM 5, CEC 5
- Seat: CEM 9, CEC 3
- Bearings: CEM 9,CEC 5
Note: The index value attributed to the seats
is based on the condition of the concrete
observed at the North-East corner.
Form M-1 Expansion Joint

-Angle/joint assembly CEM 5, CEC 5
-Elastomer element CEM 5, CEC 3
-Adjacent concrete CEM-4, CEC 5
Form F-1 Full Web Beam (Abutment

Cantilevers) Span 01 and 03
-Beam end East: CEM 4, CEC-5
-Middle of the beam: CEM-5, CEC-5
-Beam End West: CEM 4, CEC-5
-Diaphragms: CEM 9, CEC 5
Form G-1 Box Girder

-Beam End West: CEM 9, CEC 4
-Midspan: CEM 9, CEC 5
-Beam End East: CEM 9, CEC 4
Note: The inspection done with a pod.
77
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002122 24/02/2000 P. Roussy Routine - Water leaks through expansion joints a Good "Included in the planning"
Inspection little. (?)
Form - Deteriorated sidewalks
- Vertical cracks in the abutment walls.
002120 2/02/2001 P. Roussy Routine - Many vertical cracks in the Abutment Good “Included in Planning”
Inspection walls (?)
Form - Spalled concrete underside of the slab
at the east side, near the joint about 4m
long because the joint opening is
blocked by concrete
- Shotcrete repairs under the slab, in the
abutment cantilever are of questionable
quality
78
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002102 28/10/2002 P. Roussy General Forms D-1 and M-1 are the same as in CECS 4 Ask the structural direction
G. Bossé General Inspection Report 12/05/99 (002123) Acceptable on the beam extremity
repair methods.
Form F-1 Full Web Beam (Abutment
Cantilevers)
Bay 01 and 03
- Beam West end: CEM 4, CEC 5
- Middle of the beam: CEM 5, CEC 5
- Diaphragms: CEM 9, CEC 5
- Beam East end: CEM 3, CEC-4
Form G-1 Box Girder

-Beam end West CEM 4, CEC 4
-Midspan CEM 5, CEC 5 -
Beam end East CEM 4, CEC 4
Note: The index value 3 because of deep

concrete delamination. Need to remove
pieces of deteriorated and ready to fall
concrete under the abutment cantilever in
2002 by MTQ.
Notice sent on 29-10-2002.
79
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002067 26/05/2003 P. Roussy Routine - Pavement is cracked Good "Included in planning"

Inspection - Leaking of the joints (?)
Form - Concrete delaminations at the North corner
of the West abutment
- Shot Crete repairs under the cantilever part
of the abutments and the slab in the joint area
is of questionable quality.
- Beam seat in the north-east corner shows
highly deteriorated concrete.
-Spalled and delaminated concrete ready to
fall has been removed from under the
cantilever part of the abutment in 2002.
-Under the exterior side concrete is
delaminated in certain places (?)
002065 6/10/2004 P. Roussy Routine Mostly the same as 002067. Good "Included in planning"
Inspection In addition the following is observed: (?)
Form -delamination under longitudinal joint
80
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002069 8/03/2005 P. Roussy Updated Acceptable Planned repair estimate of

G. Bossé inspection $ 328,600
report
(002102)dated
28/10/2002
with the
subjected
activities
based on the
letters by
Mercier and
Leclerc
81
Date of General
CEVC No. By Type
002047 18/05/2005 P. Roussy General Form D-1 Pier or Intermediate Column CECS 3
G. Bossé (Abutment) Acceptable
- Foundation: CEM 9, CEC 5 (See letter from
- Wall, columns, pier, etc.: CEM 5, CEC 5 C. Leclerc
- Seat: CEM 9, CEC 3 dated March
- Bearings: CEM 9, CEC 5 2005)
Note: (?)
- One of the seats (North East Corner)
concrete deteriorated
- The index value attributed to the seats is

based on the condition of the concrete
observed at the north east corner.
Form G-1 Box Girder

-Beam end West: CEM 3, CEC 3
-Beam end East: CEM 3, CEC
-Midspan: CEM 4, CEC 4
-Diaphragm W & E: CEM 9, CEC 4
-Diaphragm intermediate: CEM 9,
CEC 5
Form N-1 Sidewalk

-Sidewalk South: CEM 1, CEC 1
-Central barier: CEM 5, CEC 5
-Sidewalk North: CEM 1, CEC 1
NOTE: Concrete spalling and exposed rebars

at numerous locations of the sidewalks.
82

bs1563917 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

bs1563917 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commission d’enquête sur le viaduc de la Concorde

Alexander M. Vaysburd, Ph.D.

2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ........................................................................1

3. INSPECTION AND ROLE OF INSPECTORS ..................................................3

4. INSPECTION TECHNIQUES ...........................................................................3

5. EVALUATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS AT MTQ ..................................7

6. REVIEW OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS DEVELOPED BY OTHER

6.3 National Highway Institute Training Course, “Safety Inspection of In-

7. BRIDGE DESIGN VS. INSPECTION..............................................................39

8. APPRAISAL OF THE QUALITY OF INSPECTIONS ON DE LA CONCORDE

9. ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL INSPECTION ACTIVITIES PERTAINING

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................56

To accomplish these objectives, the following tasks were performed:

• Examination of different versions of the inspection guidance documents

The conclusions and recommendations summarized in this report identify the

A list of the documents provided for this report includes:

• De la Concorde bridge drawings, Mr. Dupaul’s version (1969) - COM-19

• Inspection reports from de la Concorde bridge (1977-2005) - COM-31B

• Letters and documents related to technical assistance request (2004-2005) –

Excerpts from MTQ’s documentation:

• MTQ’s training courses outline – COM-52 pp. 129-142

• Guide d’entretien des structures (Bridge maintenance guide1 - BMG) (1978

• Inspection des ouvrages d’art (Structures inspection) (1987) – COM-30C

• Manuel d'inspection des structures (Manual of bridge inspection2 - MBI) –

• Manuel d'entretien des structures (Manual of bridge maintenance3 - MBM) –

• Évaluation des dommages (Condition evaluation) (1993 updated in 1996,

• Instructions techniques (Technical advice) (2004) – COM-30E

• Critères pour l’évaluation des dommages (Criteria for damage evaluation)

• Le nouveau système de gestion des structures du Ministère des Transports

• Guide de la conservation des ponts (2003), Rapport à l’Assemblée Nationale

• maintain public safety and confidence;

The primary roles of the bridge inspector are:

• to provide thorough inspections, identifying conditions and defects in the

4.1 Visual Examination

The visual examination is the basic operation of any concrete structure

Photographic records or videotapes are valuable aids in classifying and

4.2 Nondestructive Testing

Limited nondestructive testing (NDT) can supplement observations and

• acoustic impact (hammer sounding, chain dragging) for detection of

Besides, preliminary nondestructive testing can often help to identify locations

4.3 Semi-Destructive Testing

Sampling generally consists of extracting cores or small specimens, or collecting

• asphalt / slab thickness;

Besides, reinforcing steel samples may be taken and analyzed to determine

4.4 Exploratory Removal

Exploratory removal can be used when there is substantial evidence of serious

4.5 Techniques Used in Practice

Although there is a rather wide range of available investigation techniques, many

In Table 1, the investigation techniques accepted at MTQ and their relative

5. EVALUATION OF INSPECTION PROGRAMS AT

MTQ is responsible for the management of approximately 9,200 bridges, among

Furthermore, the highway structures in Quebec are subject to a very harsh

Table 1 – Summary of Investigation Techniques Used by MTQ and Relative

5.2 MTQ Documents and Inspection Manuals

5.2.1 The 1978 and 1984 Bridge Maintenance Guides

• basic problem identification and concerns;

These documents contained little specific reference to identification of problems,

5.2.2 The 1987 Bridge Inspection Guide

A significant step forward in the development of inspection guidance was made

This is a visual inspection performed by a district (DT) employee (engineer,

General inspection (“Inspection générale”)

This type of inspection is performed by an engineer or technician of the district