WH 0639804 0058817 79) a Standard Practice for Evaluating the Condition of Portland Cement Concrete Bridge Components AASHTO Designation PP23 95"? 1, Introduction - This practice provides a procedure for de voudition assessment of portland cement concrete bridge components. 2. Scope 2.1. The practice contains procedures concerning the acquisition and use of critical data for the evaluation of portland cement concrete bridge components. 2.2 ‘This procedure may involve hazardous matenals, operations, and equipment. It does not purport 10 ‘address all of the safety problems associated with its use. It isthe responsiblity of the user of this practice to consult and establish appropriate safety and health Practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 3. Referenced Documents 3.1 AASHTO Standards: R9 Acceptance Sampling Plans for Highway Construction’ TP11 Rapid Determination of Corrosion Rate of Uncoated Steel in Reinforced Concrete P16 Identification of Alkali-silica Reactivity TP20 Concrete Strength from Test Cylinders 724 Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete TP25 Determining the Chloride Coment in Concrete Using the Specific Ton Probe 7P26 Determining the Relative Permeability of Concrete by Surface Air Flow ‘TP35 Determining the Relative Effectiveness of Penetrating Concrete Sealers by the Electrical Resistance Method TP36 Assessing the Condition of Asphalt-Covered Bridge Decks Using Pulsed Radar TP37 Determining the Condition of Preformed Membranes on Concrete Bridge Decks Using Pulse Velocity ' This standard is based on SHRP Report S/FR 92-110, ‘TP50 Evaluating Penetrating Concrete Sealers by Water Absorption 3.2 ASTM Standards 457 Microscopical Determination of the Air-Vold Content and Parameters of the Air Void System in Hardened Concrete €597 Pulse Velocity Through Concrete C803. Penetration Resistance of Hardened Concrete C805 Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete C896 Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete C876 Half Cell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete €900 Pullout Strength of Hardened Concrete 13665 Random Sampling of Construction Materials 14580 Measuring Delaminations in Concrete Bridge Decks by Sounding 14788 Detecting Delaminations in Bridge Decks Using Infrared Thermography E105 Probability Sampling of Materials E122 Choice of Sample Size to Estimate the Average Quality of a Lot or Process E141 Acceptance of Evidence Based on the Results of Probability Sampling 3.3 Other Designations: ACI224.1R Assessment of cracking 4, Summary 4.1 This standard presents a procedure for the acquisition of critical data for assessing the condition of concrete bridge components. It incorporates the use of other available standards which are applicable to the accomplishment of this task. The procedure allows adjustments to accommodate the needs of individual agencies. 4.2. The procedure is given in three major parts as outlined in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.3. 2 Approved in December 1995, tis provisional standard was frst published in June 1996. PP23MB 0639804 0058818 b28 a 4.2.1 The initial (baseline) evaluation survey, consisting of the acquisition of initial property data (e-g., compressive strength, permesbility, sir-void characteristics, etc.), which will provide a relative ‘measure of initial overall quality. Most of this information should be routinely collected at the time of construction, or shortly thereafter. 4.2.2. Subsequent evaluation surveys are carried out periodically (see Annex A3) to monitor the condition Of the concrete bridge components. It is the data from these surveys, primarily, that define the condition and the rate of deterioration at any point in time. 4.2.3. Evaluation surveys for special conditions ‘which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, asphalt-covered decks, pretensioned and _post- tensioned prestressed concrete members, and rigid deck overlays. 5. Significance and Use 5.1 Life-cycle cost analyses of viable alternatives are required for the development of rational strategies for the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of concrete bridge components. This standard provides the necessary procedures for the acquisition of reliable information concerning. the level and rate of deterioration of these components. 5.2 This standard provides technical personnel with information and specific directions for a detailed. coordinated procedure for the assessment of the condition of concrete bridge components which may include being subjected to one or more of the conditions set forth in sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.7 5.2.1 Damage caused by ehloride-incnced corrosion Of the reinforcing steel Note 1 -- The primary cause for of concrete bridge components is the chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Wedging action resulting from the production of voluminous corrosion reaction products causes cracking and spalling of the concrete. Normally, reinforcing steel is in a passive (non- corroding) state due to the highly basic environment (pH greater than 12.5) in concrete, However, the presence of chloride ions at the concrete/steel interface in excess of the reaction threshold level P23 138 depassivates the steel, and corrosion usually ensues. On bridges, the source of the chloride ion is usually deicing chemicals applied in the snowbelt areas for winter wafficability or contact (diteetly ot by means of aerosols) with seawater in coastal areas. 5.2.2. Freezing and thawing damage due to inadequately air-entrained concrete or frost-susceptible aggregate materials 5.2.3 Alkali-silica and alkali carbonate reactivity for certain aggregate materials 5.2.4 Use of an excessive amount of water in the concrete mixture 5.2.5. Improper concrete placement, finishing, or curing practices 5.2.6 Accidental damage from collision or fire 5.2.7. Design practices that fail to properly consider drainage requirements, stresses due to live and dead loads, shrinkage, or expansion 5.3. Use of assessment data obtained in accordance with this standard allows the formulation of rational decisions regarding repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of concrete bridge components. 6. Apparatus 6.1 Field operations requirements: 6.1.1 All apparatus required by the standard used for a particular test or procedure 6.1.2. Traffic control system, when applicable, in accordance with the requirements of the MUTCD 6.1.3. Personal safety equipment required by the Agency and OSHA for work on bridges and on roadways open to traffic 6.1.4 An interactive video system using video laser dises for pictorial/graphics as well as numerical/descriptive data storage is the most useful type of recording equipment for bridge component evaluation. Alternatively, the minimum required is 8 video system suitable for recording and indexing ‘the visible condition of each bridge component that will undergo testing and evaluation.W™ 0639804 0058819 Sy mm Note 2 — A single laser disc can contain up to 50000 high-resolution images or 300000 pages of text that can be accessed in less than 0.5 seconds and viewed on a computer monitor. Note 3 -- The interactive video system allows visual records of conditions during initial and subsequent evaluations to be compared with each other at any time by using storage, retrieval, and comparison techniques that are adaptable to continuing tehnological advancemnets and are economical to maintain and operate. 6.1.5 As an alternative to section 6.1.4, the bridge owner may use other types of visual records, when video is called for herein, which have provided a satisfactory means for comparison with subsequent evaluations. 62 Laboratory operations requirements - All apparatus required by the standard used for a specific test 7, Hazards - Observe the safety procedures required by the Agency and OSHA for field and laboratory operations. 8. Sampling 8.1 Determine the number of measurements to be performed based on the requirements of this standard and other standards used for particular tests. 8.2 Locate the site for sample retrieval or in situ tests using a stratified random sampling procedure. Note 4 - ASTM D3665 contains a table of random numbers, including instructions for use. AASHTO R9 and ASTM E105, E122, and E141 contain additional information concerning sampling practices. 8.3 When using a standard for a particular test or procedure, follow the sampling requirements Contained therein. 9. Preparations 9.1 Determine and record from construction and maintenance records the test data obtained during PP23 139 construction and subsequent maintenance activities, 9.2 Determine and record any other factors concerning design, construction, and/or maintenance procedures that the evaluating agency feels may significantly affect performance of the concrete bridge components. 10. Procedure - Initial Evaluation Survey 10.1 Determine the compressive strength of each concrete bridge component in accordance with T24. Use a minimum of 5 cores per lot of components (excluding prestressed or posttensioned members) for bridges of all ages. Strength data obtained in accordance with TP20 or ASTM C900 may be used to supplement data obtained from cores when coring is not feasible due to. prestressing or posttensioning. 10.2. Determine the air void characteristics of the concrete bridge components in accordance with ASTM C457. Use a minimum of 5 cores per lot of components (excluding prestressed or posttensioned members) for bridges not more than 6 years old, 10.3 Conduct a petrographic determination of the characteristics of the hardened concrete in the concrete bridge components in accordance with ASTM C856, Use 2 minimum of 5 cores per lot of components (excluding prestressed or posttensioned members) for bridges not more than 6 years old. Use @ minimum of 3 cores per lot of components (excluding prestressed of posttensioned members) for bridges more than 6 years old. 10.4 Conduct alkali-silica reactivity tests for the concrete bridge components in accordance with TP. 10.5 Conduct relative permeability tests on the concrete bridge components in accordance with TP26. 10.6 Conduct reinforcement cover depth tests on the concrete bridge components using the covermeter specified in TP11. Use a minimum of 40 tests per bridge component for bridges of all ages, or, at the option of the bridge owner, other numbers of tests ‘based on the surface area of the bridge component under evaluation may be used. Note 5 - Data on certain parameters that should not change with time and service need to be obtained only during the initialWH 0639804 0058820 266 mm evaluation survey. Tests for these parameters should be carried out as part of the accepiance testing of new concrete bridge components, While these characteristics will not change with time, their significance relative to the condition of the concrete does, and therefore testing benefits/needs will vary depending on when tests are carried out. Thus, air-void analyses would have greater potential benefit when obtained immediately after fabrication and final curing than air-void analyses performed on a structure with more than 5 ‘years of service. One reason for this is that unless the air-void system is adequate to prevent freezing and thawing damage, such damage would already be evident in the condition of the structure, unless environmental conditions during that particular period of time were such that the structure was not exposed to the normally expected conditions. Similar reasoning could be applied to petrographic examination, However, alkali-carbonate reactivity may take up to fifteen years to develop. _Alkali-silicareactivity(ASR), which can be detected at very early stages by TP16, would not likely be evident in bridges less than one year old. Obvious ASR deterioration may take up to 15 years to develop. 11. Procedure - Subsequent Evaluation Surveys 11.1 Observe and record by visual and video inspection any obvious signs of deterioration on each bridge component. Categorize observed deterioration as (1) spalling of the layer of concrete between the surface and the reinforeing bars, (2) scaling and/or popouts, (3) concrete disintegration, (4) cracking, or (5) wheel path wear (rutting). 11.2 If no visible deterioration, or only spalling, 1s observed in the visual and video inspection conducted in accordance with Section 11.1, proceed in accordance with Sections 11.3 through 11.4.3. 11.3 Conduct delamination tests. Delamination, one precursor of spalling, results from chloride-induced ‘corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Use either ASTM. 4580 or D4788 for bridge decks. Use the sounding method with a hammer or a steel rod in accordance with the applicable parts of procedure B in ASTM D4580 for vertical and overhead surfaces. P23 140 11.4 Conduct a corrosion potential survey in accordance with ASTM C876, 11.4.1 If 10 percent or less of the corrosion potential results are more negative than -0.20 V relative to the copper-copper sulfate half-cell (CSE), establish chloride profiles (perpendicular to the surface of the component under evaluation) in accordance with ‘TP25 for each 12 mm thick increment of concrete from the surface of the concrete to the depth of the reinforcement steel. Note 6 -- Chloride profiles at this time provide information for evaluation when chloride contamination is at a relatively early stage. 11.4.1.1 When a penetrating sealer has been applied to the surface of the concrete, determine the effectiveness of the sealer in accordance with TP39 or TPSO. 11.4.2 If more than 90 percent (or some other percentage selected by the bridge owner) of the corrosion potential results are more negative than 0.20 V (CSE), prepare an equipotential contour map of the concrete surface as described in ASTM C876. 11.4.3. At the locations of the peak negative values, as indicated by the equipotential contours, determine corrosion rates in accordance with TPI1. At the option of the owner, corosion rates may be determined on other contours to provide additional data for evaluation. Note 7 -- Corrosion potential and corrosion rate tests should not be carried out on bridge components wherein epoxy-coated or hot-dip Zine-coated (galvanized) reinforcing steel is used. See Annex A2 for additional discussion concerning corrosion of epoxy- coated reinforcement. 11,5 If scaling and/or popouts are detected during the visual and video examination of the concrete bridge components, proceed in accordance with Section 11.5.1. 11.5.1 Conduct air-void analyses in accordance with C457 and petrographic examinations in accordance ‘with C856 on drilled core specimens to pinpoint the cause and estimate the severity of the problem. ‘The indicated cause of this type of deterioration is freezing and thawing due to inadequately air- entrained concrete or frost-susceptible coarseMB 0639804 005882) 112 mm aggregate particles. If such tests were conducted and complete test information recorded during the intial evaluation, @ review of the initial data may be adequate to verify the cause without further tests. Note 8 - When types of deterioration listed in sections 11.6.2.1 through 11.6.2.4 are observed during the visual examination, the emphasis on reinforcement corrosion is dropped. The rationale is that other types of deterioration result from conditions existing within the concrete mass, are progressive, and may not be amenable to corrective ‘Therefore, the corrosion problem, can be combatted in several possible ways, may he irrelevant in the presence of the other progressive forms of deterioration, 11.6 If deterioration in the form of concrete disintegration is detected during visual and/or video examination of the concrete bridge components, proceed in accordance with sections 11.6.1 through 1.6.2.4. 11.6.1 General concrete disintegration may be caused by any one or a combination of the following six materials related problems (1) freezing and thawing deterioration, (2) alkali-silica reactive aggregates, (3) alkali-carbonate reactive aggregates, (4) sulfate attack, (5) expansive oxidation/hydration reactions involving aggregates (¢.g., pyrite/marcasite, periclase, gypsum, zeolites, clay minerals), or (6) D- (a freeze-thaw related mechanism usually found in bridge substructure elements). 11.6.2 Proceed in accordance with Sections 11.6.2.1 through 11.6.2.4, as applicable, to identify the problem and to define its extent. 11,6.2.1 Conduct air-void analyses in accordance with ASTM C457 and petrographic examinati accordance with ASTM C856 on drilled core specimens to assist im idemification of the problem, If such tests were conducted and complete test information recorded during the initial evaluation, a review of the initial data may be adequate to identify the problem without further tests, 11.6.2.2 When susceptible aggregates may have been used in the concrete, conduct alkali-silica reactivity tests in accordance with the TP16. 11,6.2.3 Determine the extent of the damage to the concrete in accordance with ASTM C597. PP23 14 11.6.2.4 When a relative strength assessment is needed, data may be obtained in accordance with ASTM C805 or C803. However, when a quantitative measure of strength is needed for the current ‘condition of the concrete, conduct tests on drilled core specimens in accordance with ASTM C42. 11.7 If deterioration in the form of cracking is detected during visual examination of the concrete bridge components, proceed in accordance with Section 11.7.1. 11.7.1 Cracking may be caused by any one or a combination of the following four materials related problems: (1) drying shrinkage cracking, (2) plastic shrinkage cracking. (3) stress-related cracking. or (4) thermal cracking. Proceed in accordance with ACI ‘224.18 to identify the problem and define it's extent 11.8 If deterioration in the form of wheel path wear (rutting) is detected during visual and video examination of the concrete bridge components, conduct tests to determine the cross-sectional and longitudinal dimensions of wheelpath ruts. 12, Procedure - Evaluation Surveys for Special Conditions 12.1 Asphalt-covered decks: 12.1.1 When the asphalt overlay was placed in conjunction with a membrane protective system, determine membrane integrity in accordance with ‘TP37. If test data from TP37 indicates the condition of the membrane to be suspect, determine the condition of the conerete deck in accordance with, TP36. Note 9 -- Membranes are usually installed during the original deck construction or reconstruction and are intended to provide a barrier against chloride intrusion. Therefore, the primary concern is the condition’ of the membrane. If the membrane is still functioning as intended, fuer fests on the Concrete deck ate not usually needed. 12.1.2. When the asphalt overlay was placed to provide an acceptable traffic surface, determine the condition of the concrete deck in accordance with TP36. Note 10 - Asphalt overlays on bare decks are usually applied to provide acceptableM™ 0639604 o058822 059 mm traffic surfaces on deteriorated concrete decks, Since the asphalt concrete will not prevent further deterioration, and may even exacerbate problems by trapping deicing salt and moisture, such installations need to be monitored on a periodic basis to prevent the development of major undetected safety hazards. 12.2. Pretensioned and Post-Tensioned Prestressed Concrete Members - Observe and record by visual and video inspection any rust stains, cracks, or other signs of deterioration in each pretensioned and post- tensioned prestressed concrete member. When any of these signe of distress are detected, conduct damage assessment tests in accordance with ASTM C597. Note 11 — Condition assessment of prestressed concrete members is a critical issue. There are still no completely effective, non-invasive testing techniques for this task. When cracking is involved, ACI 224.1R may provide valuable guidance. 12,3. Rigid Deck Ovetlays - Observe and revord by visual and/or video inspection any cracking, spalling, wear, or other signs of deterioration in rigid deck overlays. Conduct tests for delamination/debonding In accordance with ASTM D4580 or D4788. 13. Calculations and Worksheets 13.1 Use formulas and worksheets for each test in accordance with the requirements of the test standard. 13.2. When previous bridge component condition tests have been performed, plot the final test results from each evaluation versus time, using an appropriate scale, to establish the rate of deterioration determined by each test. PP23 142 13.3 Using the data obtained from the current, and any previous bridge component condition testing, coupled with procedures and worksheets compatible with the agency’s bridge management system, determine as a minimum the estimated remaining life under existing conditions of each concrete bridge component until repair, rehabilitation, or replacement will be required. 14, Report - Prepare a cummary report that contains, 25 a minimum, the following information: 14.1. Bridge identification data 14.2. Bridge location data 14.3. Summary of visual inspection observations for each bridge component 14.4 Video second, with suitable indexing information, showing the condition of each bridge ‘cumpouent 14,5 Final (est results from tests performed on each bridge component, including the rate of deterioration plots constructed in Section 13.2. 14.6 The estimated remaining life of each bridge component prior to repair, rehabilitation, or replacement, as determined in Section 13.3. 14.7 Any other information that the agency feels will be beneficial to the bridge management system for current or future decisions relating to the bridge being evaluated. 15. Key Words - Concrete bridges, bridge management system, bridge component condition evaluation, deterioration of concrete bridge components, condition assessment, cycle evaluation.mm 0639804 0058823 T95 mm Annexes (Mandatory Information) Annex Al - Planning Evaluations for a Specific Bridge Al.1 Preparation of a check list will be beneficial in selecting the testing procedures in this standard that are applicable to the bridge scheduled for evaluation. Questions and actions resulting therefrom, typical of those which may be considered, are indicated in sections A1.1.1 through ALLS. AL.1.1 Is there a potential for reactive aggregate in all of a part of the bridge components? If so, plan for alkali-silica or alkali-carbonate reactivity testing ‘AL.1.2 Is the bridge subject to freezing and thawing conditions? If so, plan for air-void analysis. AL.1.3 Is the bridge 1) constructed with reinforcing steel that is not epoxy coated or galvanized, and 2) subject to chloride exposure, either from deicing activities or from a coastal environment? If so, plan for corrosion potential, corrosion rate, and chloride content testing. AL.L.4 Have bridge components heen treated with penetrating sealers? If so, plan for sealer effectiveness testing ALLS Has a protective membrane heen installed on the bridge deck? If so, plan for membrane integrity testing AL.1.6 Has the bridge deck been overlaid with asphalt concrete? If so, plan for radar evaluation testing. AL.1.7 Has a rigid overlay been installed on the bridge deck? If so, plan for tests to determine the ‘condition of the rigid deck overlays, AL.1.8 Is concrete deterioration anticipated in some of the bridge components? If so, plan for testing to determine the extent of the deterioration. ‘Annex A2~- Members Containing Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement 2.1 The development of epoxy-coated reinforcing Steel at first indicated that corrosion of steel in PP23 143 concrete due to chloride penetration would no longer be a problem. However, this is not the case in all applications. ‘There is extensive evidence that in severe chloride environments, such as marine exposure, corrosion sometimes occurs. The epoxy coating in these instances appears to disbond from the steel at imperfections, but the exact mechanism of this disbondment is not known. A2.2. Since the possibility exists for corrosion in epoxy-coated steel, provisions should be made for routine inspection. The procedure should involve a visual inspection to locate any cracking, which may be associated with corrosion activity. It also should involve sounding of the concrete to locate any delaminations. These are the only two actions that are recommended, since any other tests performed might not provide information that is useful or conclusive, A2.3. Chloride ion profile tests are not suggested because the locations of the imperfections cannot be predicted and any profiles determined will most likely be in areas not likely to corrode. Potential surveys and corrosion rate measurement require connection to the reinforcement and electrical continuity among all reinforcement in the concrete, Since the epoxy coating acts as an electrical insulator, electrical continuity is prevented, In order to use potential surveys and corrosion rate devices, connection would have to be made to every reinforcing bar. This is not feasible due to high costs, and would provide numerous sites for the initiation of corrosi Annex A3 - Frequency of Conerete Bridge Component Evaluations 3.1. The frequency of testing and evaluation in accordance with this standard could be incompatible with the agency’s bridge management system. It is, however, desirable to perform this evaluation once every five years unless a record has been established which demonstrates that a longer time interval between evaluations for a particular bridge is appropriate.