Post on 03-Aug-2020
transcript
1-50 Grant Timmins Drive Kingston, Ontario
K7M8N2
Tel: (343) 266-0002
Fax: (343) 266-0028
NORTH RIVER BRIDGE
2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey
Site No.: 046001
(MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
AG Project No.: 17523-1
July 2017
Prepared For:
County of Peterborough, Public Works 310 Armour Road Peterborough, Ontario K9H 1Y6
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 Structure Identification Sheet ........................................................................................... 1
2.0 Key Plan .......................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Summary of Significant Findings ..................................................................................... 3
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Wearing Surface .......................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Concrete Deck Slab ..................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Deck Soffit ................................................................................................................... 5
3.5 Other Components....................................................................................................... 6
3.5.1 Barrier System ...................................................................................................... 6
3.5.2 Curbs & Sidewalks ................................................................................................ 6
3.5.3 Abutment Walls ..................................................................................................... 7
3.5.4 Wingwalls ............................................................................................................. 8
3.5.5 Embankments and Slope Protections ................................................................... 8
3.5.6 Approach Guiderail ............................................................................................... 8
4.0 Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets ................................................................... 9
4.1 Asphalt Covered Deck / Deck Riding Surface .............................................................. 9
4.1.1 Dimensions and Area ............................................................................................ 9
4.1.2 Asphalt Surface Cracks ........................................................................................ 9
4.1.3 Asphalt Condition and Depth ................................................................................ 9
4.1.4 Waterproofing ......................................................................................................10
4.1.5 Concrete Cover – Core and Sawn Samples .........................................................10
4.1.6 Corrosion Activity .................................................................................................10
4.1.7 Defective Cores and Sawn Samples ....................................................................11
4.1.8 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile ........................................................................11
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page ii
4.1.9 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar ......................................................................12
4.1.10 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A) ......................................12
4.1.11 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar
(N/A)………………………………………………………………………………………………...12
4.1.12 Concrete Air Entrainment .....................................................................................13
4.1.13 Compressive Strength .........................................................................................13
4.2 Exposed Concrete Components – South Barrier (EBL) ...............................................14
4.2.1 Dimensions and Area ...........................................................................................14
4.2.2 Cracks (medium and wide) ..................................................................................14
4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction ....................................................................................14
4.2.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................14
4.2.5 Corrosion Activity .................................................................................................15
4.2.6 Delamination and Spalls ......................................................................................15
4.2.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................15
4.2.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................15
4.2.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile ........................................................................16
4.2.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar ......................................................................16
4.2.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A) ......................................16
4.2.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar
(N/A)…… ...........................................................................................................................17
4.2.13 Concrete Air Entrainment .....................................................................................17
4.2.14 Compressive Strength .........................................................................................17
4.3 Exposed Concrete Components – North Barrier (WBL) ..............................................18
4.3.1 Dimensions and Area ...........................................................................................18
4.3.2 Cracks (medium and wide) ..................................................................................18
4.3.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction ....................................................................................18
4.3.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................18
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page iii
4.3.5 Corrosion Activity .................................................................................................19
4.3.6 Delamination and Spalls ......................................................................................19
4.3.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................19
4.3.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................19
4.3.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile ........................................................................20
4.3.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar ......................................................................20
4.3.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A) ......................................20
4.3.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar
(N/A)…… ...........................................................................................................................21
4.3.13 Concrete Air Entrainment .....................................................................................21
4.3.14 Compressive Strength .........................................................................................21
4.4 Exposed Concrete Components – West Abutment Wall..............................................22
4.4.1 Dimensions and Area ...........................................................................................22
4.4.2 Cracks (medium and wide) ..................................................................................22
4.4.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction ....................................................................................22
4.4.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................22
4.4.5 Corrosion Activity .................................................................................................23
4.4.6 Delamination and Spalls ......................................................................................23
4.4.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................23
4.4.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................23
4.4.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile ........................................................................24
4.4.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar ......................................................................24
4.4.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A) ......................................24
4.4.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar
(N/A)…… ...........................................................................................................................25
4.4.13 Concrete Air Entrainment .....................................................................................25
4.4.14 Compressive Strength .........................................................................................25
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page iv
4.5 Exposed Concrete Components – East Abutment Wall ..............................................26
4.5.1 Dimensions and Area ...........................................................................................26
4.5.2 Cracks (medium and wide) ..................................................................................26
4.5.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction ....................................................................................26
4.5.4 Concrete Cover ....................................................................................................26
4.5.5 Corrosion Activity .................................................................................................27
4.5.6 Delamination and Spalls ......................................................................................27
4.5.7 Scaling .................................................................................................................27
4.5.8 Honeycombing .....................................................................................................27
4.5.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile ........................................................................28
4.5.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar ......................................................................28
4.5.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A) ......................................29
4.5.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar
(N/A)……. ..........................................................................................................................29
4.5.13 Concrete Air Entrainment .....................................................................................29
4.5.14 Compressive Strength .........................................................................................29
4.6 Exposed Concrete Components – West Wing Walls (N/A) ..........................................30
4.7 Exposed Concrete Components – East Wing Walls (N/A) ...........................................30
4.8 Expansion Joints (N/A) ...............................................................................................31
4.9 Drainage .....................................................................................................................33
5.0 Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures ..............................................................34
5.1 Delaminations .............................................................................................................34
5.2 Concrete Cover ...........................................................................................................34
5.3 Corrosion Activity ........................................................................................................35
6.0 Core Logs – Asphalt Covered Bridge Decks ...................................................................36
7.0 Core Photographs and Sketches ....................................................................................40
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page v
8.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Logs ............................................................................................47
9.0 Core Log for Exposed Concrete .....................................................................................49
10.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Photographs ...............................................................................51
11.0 Site Photographs – 5/24/2017 ........................................................................................53
12.0 Drawings .........................................................................................................................
12.1 Corrosion Potential Contours .......................................................................................
12.2 Delamination Survey ....................................................................................................
12.3 Asphalt Cover and Concrete Cover ..............................................................................
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group
1.0 Structure Identification Sheet
GENERAL INFORMATION
STRUCTURE NAME: North River Bridge
MTO SITE NUMBER: MTO-026-0034 DISTRICT NUMBER:
HIGHWAY ABOVE: County Road 46
TYPE OF STURCTURE: Single Span Rigid Frame
NUMBER OF SPANS: 1 SPAN LENGTHS: 9.14 m
ROADWAY WIDTH: 7.32 m YEAR BUILT: 1966
DIRECTION OF STRUCTURE: E/W
SEQUENCE NUMBER: TOWNSHIP NUMBER:
LHRS NUMBER: BRIDGE NUMBER (MUNIC.): 046001
LOCATION: 1.3 km East of CR 47 JURISDICTION:
INSPECTOR’S NAME: Ramin Rameshni PhD , P.Eng
PARTY MEMBERS: Adam Reczek; Bill Harvey; Josh Charlton
DATE OF INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 24, 2017
TEMPERATURE: 24oC WEATHER: Sunny Clear
MTO REGION: Eastern AADT: 1700
DECK RIDING SURFACE: Asphalt
YEAR LAST REHABILITATED:
ENGINEER’S STAMP:
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 2
2.0 Key Plan
North River Bridge
Site No. 046001 / MTO-026-0034
County Road 46
County of Peterborough, ON
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 3
3.0 Summary of Significant Findings
3.1 Introduction
Ainley Graham & Associates (Ainley Group) was retained by the County of Peterborough to
conduct a detailed bridge condition survey for North River Bridge (Site No. 046001). The scope
of investigation include corrosion potential survey for the bridge deck and abutment walls.
North River Bridge is located in the Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, on County Road
46, approximately 1.3 km east of County Road 47. The structure is a single span, concrete rigid
frame bridge with an asphalt wearing surface carrying two lanes of traffic in east-west direction.
The structure has a span of 9.14 m and accommodates a roadway width of 7.32 m. There are
no expansion joints for the structure. North River Bridge was constructed in 1966, and there is
no history of major rehabilitation undertaken for this structure.
Fieldwork for this assignment was completed on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 by Ainley Group,
under supervision of a Professional Engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario. The laboratory
testing associated with this assignment was carried out by Golders Associates Ltd. The number
of cores and sawn samples extracted for this assignment, is in accordance with the
requirements of the MTO Structural Rehabilitation Manual (2007) for an “updated” Detailed
Bridge Condition Survey. The last Detailed Condition Survey was completed in 2014. This
report conforms to the standard format for MTO Detailed Bridge condition Survey.
3.2 Wearing Surface
The bridge riding surface is comprised of asphalt pavement placed over the existing concrete
deck. The asphalt riding surface over the bridge deck and approaches was observed to be in an
overall fair to poor condition with numerous sealed and unsealed, wide and medium cracks.
Localized depression, potholes and other bottom-up defects were observed on the asphalt
wearing surface (Section 11.0, Photos 3 to 5)
The cores and sawn samples reveal that there is no waterproofing system in place across the
entire bridge deck. The core taken from approach confirms that there is no approach concrete
slab for this structure. The asphalt thickness, measured at the cores and sawn samples, ranges
from 85 mm to 111 mm with an average thickness of 97 mm. The 2014 Bridge Detailed Deck
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 4
Condition Survey report indicated that the asphalt thickness ranged from 90 mm to 110 mm with
an average thickness of 98 mm (Section 12.3).
3.3 Concrete Deck Slab
The condition of the concrete deck was identified through visual observation at cores and sawn
sample locations. The concrete deck was found to be in an overall poor condition. Medium to
severe scaling and delamination was observed at all cores and sawn sample locations (Section
10.0). The core samples taken from the bridge deck reveal that the reinforcing steel is in fair to
good condition, evidencing localized light rust.
The concrete deck drain system comprises of six (6) 75 mm diameter pipes. Three (3) of the
drains were obstructed with debris, mud and asphalt, and were not functioning as designed. The
rest are placed with an approximate 35 mm recess to the asphalt riding surface. Accessible
deck drains exhibited severe corrosion with no extension below the soffit (Section 11.0, Photos
6 and 7) This has contributed to the significant concrete delamination and spall with exposed
corroded rebar around the drain outlets on the soffit, resulted from salt-laden runoff water.
Concrete cover readings were taken at all sawn sample locations. The measured concrete
cover ranged from 91 mm to 110 mm with an average of 98 mm. The 2014 Bridge Detailed
Deck Condition Survey report indicated that the concrete cover ranged from 65 mm to 85 mm
with an average thickness of 75 mm (Section 12.3).
The scope of work did not include any concrete testing for compressive strength or air
entrainment level. The 2014 Bridge Detailed Deck Condition Survey report indicated that the
concrete compressive strength was determined to be 36 MPa. It also indicated that the concrete
was marginally air entrained with an air content of 7.1%, specific surface of 17.43, and spacing
factor 0.167.
A corrosion potential survey was completed for the bridge deck with readings ranging from -
0.422 V to -0.620 V with an average reading of -0.587 V. This indicates that 100% of the bridge
deck has a 90% probability that the reinforcing steel is corroding (Section 12.1). It is noteworthy
that the 2014 Bridge Detailed Deck Condition Survey report indicated that only 93% if the deck
has a 90% probability of corrosion occurring in reinforcing steel, with an average corrosion
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 5
potential reading of -0.438 V. This indicates there has been significant increase in the corrosion
potential on the deck since last detailed inspection in 2014.
The chloride ion content of concrete in deck was measured in one (1) core sample (C5). The
chloride ion content profile at core C5 followed the expected pattern for a bridge deck; having
the highest chloride ion content at the top of the concrete and decreasing at every horizon
tested. However, from the fourth horizon (60 mm – 70 mm) to the fifth horizon (80 mm - 90 mm)
the chloride ion content increased from 0.058% to 0.115%. The abrupt change in chloride
content may be due to the potential change in the aggregate to paste ratio in that level. A higher
percentage of aggregate would result in lower chloride ion content since aggregate does not
absorb chloride as easy as the cementitious paste. Further testing is, however, required to
confirm this. Nonetheless, the chloride ion content at core C5 did not level off and, therefore, no
background value was obtained from the core to adjust the readings.
The chloride content measurement for the core C5 ranges from 0.058% to 0.317% by mass of
concrete. In accordance with MTO Rehabilitation Manual, the chloride threshold value
necessary to depassivate embedded steel and permit corrosion (in the presence of oxygen and
moisture) is 0.025% by mass of concrete. The chloride content in Core C5 was tested to a depth
90 mm. The average cover to the top of steel reinforcement is found to be 98 mm and therefore
there is no reading available at the rebar level. Nevertheless, regression of the data obtained for
lower depths indicates that the chloride content at the level of top rebar will most likely be above
the 0.025% threshold.
3.4 Deck Soffit
The condition of the deck soffit and fascia was in fair to poor condition, evidencing extensive
localized medium to severe spalling, delamination, corrosion of reinforcement, medium to wide
cracks, and efflorescence along the middle and exterior edges of the deck soffit (Section 11.0,
Photos 8 to 10)
The fascia on both the north and south sides of the bridge showed light scaling throughout with
light corrosion of reinforcement and medium alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) (Section 11.0,
Photos 11 and 12).
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 6
3.5 Other Components
3.5.1 Barrier System
North River Bridge features a concrete post and railing barrier system and safety curb on both
the north and south sides of the roadway. The exposed concrete surfaces of the barrier system
were sounded for delamination. The general condition of the barrier on both sides was fair to
poor, with medium to severe scaling, spalling, delamination, disintegration, AAR and corrosion
of reinforcement (Section 11.0, Photos 13 to 17).
Concrete cover survey was carried out for both north and south barrier systems. Concrete cover
for the north barrier ranged from 48 mm to 67 mm, with an average of 56 mm. The concrete
cover for the south barrier ranged from 21 mm to 37 mm, with an average of 26 mm (Section
12.3).
Corrosion potential survey was completed for both north and south barriers. The half-cell
readings for the north barrier ranged from -0.399 V to -0.601 V with an average of -0.520 V. The
half-cell readings for the south barrier ranged from -0.422 V to -0.609 V, with an average of -
0.497 V. The half-cell readings indicate that 100% of both barrier walls has a 90% probability
that corrosion of the steel reinforcement is occurring (Section 12.1).
3.5.2 Curbs & Sidewalks
There is no side walk on the bridge.
The concrete safety curbs were found to be in an overall fair to poor condition. Light to medium
scaling, spalling, corrosion of reinforcement and AAR were observed throughout the north and
south curbs (Section 11.0, Photo 18)
One core was taken from the north safety curb to investigate the bond between the curb and
concrete deck. The extracted core (CB-1) did not reveal of evidence of construction cold joint or
crack at the expected depth for construction joint. The concrete cover to the rebar found to be
75 mm with no evidence of rust on the rebar.
The original drawings do not indicate existence of any embedded utility ducts or other potential
sources of hazardous material.
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 7
3.5.3 Abutment Walls
The exposed surfaces of the concrete abutment walls were inspected and sounded to check for
delamination. Both east and west abutment walls were found to be in fair condition with
localized light to medium scaling, delamination, and spalling. Abutment walls also evidence
narrow to medium cracks with surface rust stain (Section 11.0, Photos 19 and 20).
Concrete cover survey was measured for both east and west abutment walls. Concrete cover
readings for east abutment wall range from 85 mm to 115 mm, with an average of 99 mm.
Cover readings for west abutment wall range from 79 mm to 116 mm, with an average of 97 mm
(Section 12.3).
Corrosion potential survey was completed for both abutment walls. The half-cell readings for the
east wall ranged from -0.396 V to -0.609 V, with an average of -0.476 V. West wall half-cell
readings ranged from -0.350 V to -0.589 V, with an average of -0.432 V. The half-cell readings
indicate that 100% of both abutment walls has a 90% probability that corrosion of the steel
reinforcement is occurring (Section 12.1).
The chloride ion content of concrete in abutment walls was measured in one (1) representative
core (EA-1) taken from east abutment wall. The chloride ion content profile at core EA-1 shows
that the chloride ion content increased from the first horizon to the second horizon and followed
the typical decreasing pattern after the second horizon. A crack was observed in the subject
core extended to the horizon depth of 20 mm to 30 mm which could explain the observed
anomaly in the chloride ion content profile. The lower chloride content in the outer surface of the
abutment could therefore be attributed to potential washing effect of run-off water through the
crack. The chloride ion content at core EA-1 did not level off; as such, no background value was
obtained from the core to adjust the reading.
The chloride content measurement for the core EA-1 ranges from 0.168% to 0.5% by mass of
concrete. In accordance with MTO Rehabilitation Manual, the chloride threshold value
necessary to depassivate embedded steel and permit corrosion (in the presence of oxygen and
moisture) is 0.025% by mass of concrete. The chloride content in Core EA-1 was tested to a
depth 90 mm. The average cover to the top of steel reinforcement is found to be 99 mm and
therefore there is no reading available at the rebar level. Nevertheless, regression of the data
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 8
obtained for lower depths indicates that the chloride content at the level of top rebar will most
likely be above the 0.025% threshold.
3.5.4 Wingwalls
The exposed surfaces of the concrete wingwalls were inspected and sounded to check for
delamination. They were found to be in an overall fair condition evidencing narrow to medium
mapping cracks and medium AAR (Section 11.0, Photos 21 to 24).
3.5.5 Embankments and Slope Protections
The condition of the embankments were found to be fair to good for all four quadrants
evidencing minor erosion on the northeast and northwest embankments. (Section 11.0, Photos
21 to 24).
Masonry retaining wall (or potential old bridge abutments) exist to the north of bridge located
approximately 3 m from the bridge. They both show evidence of erosion with loose material at
the base of the wall.
3.5.6 Approach Guiderail
Protection on the bridge approaches was provided by steel beam guiderail (SBGR) with wooden
posts and buried end treatments at all quadrants. The condition of the guiderail is fair to poor,
evidencing local collision damage at numerous locations, as well as a longitudinal split of the
steel railing at its connection to concrete end post on the southeast quadrant. The wooden posts
found to be in overall fair condition evidencing localized minor erosion at the base of the posts
and skewed offset blocks (Section 11.0, Photos 28 and 29).
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 9
4.0 Detailed Condition Survey Summary Sheets
4.1 Asphalt Covered Deck / Deck Riding Surface
Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No. 026-0034)
OSIM Identifier: Decks
4.1.1 Dimensions and Area
Width between N/E abutment curbs: 7.32 m.
Width between S/W abutment curbs: 7.32 m.
Length between abutment joints: 10.36 m. Area of deck riding surface: 75.8 m2.
4.1.2 Asphalt Surface Cracks
Orientation Unsealed Sealed
Remarks
Transverse 28.0 7.5 m Medium to wide cracks were used to determine quantity.
Longitudinal 30.0 7.0 m
Random 2.5 0 m
4.1.3 Asphalt Condition and Depth
Condition*
Depth
Remarks
Min Max Avg.
F to P 85 111 97 mm
* G - Good F - Fair P - Poor V - Variable Good to Poor
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 10
4.1.4 Waterproofing
Type Condition* Conc. Bond* Thickness (mm) **
Min Max Avg. Remarks
- - - - - - No waterproofing on bridge deck based on sawn samples and cores.
* G - Good F - Fair P - Poor V - Variable Good to Poor
** Report only thickness of waterproofing membrane but note presence of protection board
4.1.5 Concrete Cover – Core and Sawn Samples
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
91 110 98 mm
Note: Only includes covers for top upper layers of rebar.
4.1.6 Corrosion Activity
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
-0.422 V -0.620 V -0.587 V V Readings were taken at core and sawn sample locations
0.00 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 <-0.45 V Remarks
0 0 0 6.75 66.75 m2 Quantities are based on the actual surveyed area. 0 0 0 9.2 90.8 %
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 11
4.1.7 Defective Cores and Sawn Samples
Corrosion Activity (Volts)
Cores and Sawn Samples
Total in Each Area
Delaminated, Spalled, Severe Scaling and
Disintegration * Medium Scaling *
No. m² % No. m² %
0 to -0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0.20 to -0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-0.35 to -0.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
< -0.45 9 4 29.4 40.0 5 37.35 50.8
* The percent calculation should be of the entire deck area investigated. The
values should be used with caution as large errors may occur when a small number of samples are used for the calculation or when the samples are not randomly distributed over the entire deck area.
4.1.8 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile
Corrosion Activity at Core Locations (volts)
0 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.35 ˂ -0.35
Remarks
The chloride ion content at core C5 did not level off, as such, no background value was obtained from the core.
Chloride Content *
0-10 mm - - 0.317
20-30 mm - - 0.220
40-50 mm - - 0.184
60-70 mm - - 0.058
80-90 mm - - 0.115
100-110 mm - - N/A
* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides for all taken in range of corrosion potential
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 12
4.1.9 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar
Core No. C5 Remarks
The reading for the depth of 60-70 mm was considered as an outlier
Chloride Content *
0.115
Corrosion Potential
-0.527 V
* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides
4.1.10 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC Resistance *
Connection #1 Connection #2
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar
4.1.11 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half Cell
Potential *
Connection #1 (Positive)
Connection #2 (negative)
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 13
* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection
4.1.12 Concrete Air Entrainment
Remarks
Concrete Air Entrained? Yes No Marginal Based on 2014 Detailed Deck Condition Survey.
4.1.13 Compressive Strength
Remarks
Average Compressive Strength: 36.0 MPa N/A Based on 2014 Detailed Deck Condition Survey.
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 14
4.2 Exposed Concrete Components – South Barrier (EBL)
Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
OSIM Identifier: Barriers
Component Type & Location: South Concrete Safety Curb, Railing and Posts (Interior)
4.2.1 Dimensions and Area
Width: 0.3 m Length: 9.14 m
Height: 0.8 m Void Area: 3.1 m²
Total Area Surveyed: 4.2 m2
4.2.2 Cracks (medium and wide)
Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total Remarks
Medium Width
Clean 1.0 1.0 2.5 9.5 m
A half-cell and delamination survey was carried out on the interior face of the concrete railing and posts.
Stained 1.0 1.0 3.0
Wide Width
Clean 0 0.5 1.5 4 m
Stained 0 0.5 1.5
4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction
Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 3.2 m2
4.2.4 Concrete Cover
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
21 37 26 mm
0- 20 mm 0
40- 60 mm 0 m2
0 0 %
20- 40 mm 4.2
Over 60 mm 0 m2
100 0 %
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 15
4.2.5 Corrosion Activity
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
-0.422 -0.609 -0.497 V
0.00 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 <-0.45 V Remarks
0 0 0 0.2 4.00 m2
0 0 0 4.8 95.2 %
4.2.6 Delamination and Spalls
Defect Type Delaminations Spalls Patches
Area (m²) 1.0 2.0 0
Total Delaminations and Spalls Total Delaminations and Spalls
in Areas < -0.35 V
3.0 m² 71.4 % 3.0 m² 71.4 %
4.2.7 Scaling
Light Medium Serve to Very
Serve Remarks
1.7 2.5 0 m2
40.0 60.0 0 %
4.2.8 Honeycombing
Total Area: 0 m2
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 16
4.2.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile
Corrosion Activity at Core Location (volts)
0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks
Chloride Content *
0-10 mm - - -
20-30 mm - - -
40-50 mm - - -
60-70 mm - - -
80-90 mm - - -
100-110 mm - - -
* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides for all cores taken in each range of corrosion potential.
4.2.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar
Remarks
Core No. - - - - - - - -
Chloride Content * - - - - - - - -
* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides
4.2.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC
Resistance * Connection #1
Connection #2
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 17
G5
N/A
* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar
4.2.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half
Cell Potential *
Connection #1 (Positive)
Connection #2 (negative)
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection
4.2.13 Concrete Air Entrainment
Concrete Air Entrained? Yes No Marginal Unknown
4.2.14 Compressive Strength
Average Compressive Strength: Click here to enter number. MPa Unknown
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 18
4.3 Exposed Concrete Components – North Barrier (WBL)
Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
OSIM Identifier: Barriers
Component Type & Location: North Concrete Safety Curb, Railing and Posts (Interior)
4.3.1 Dimensions and Area
Width: 0.3 m Length: 9.14 m
Height: 0.8 m Void Arear: 3.1 m²
Total Area Surveyed: 4.2 m2
4.3.2 Cracks (medium and wide)
Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total Remarks
Medium Width
Clean .5 2.5 1.0 10 m
A half-cell and delamination survey was carried out on the interior face of the concrete safety curb, railing and posts. Refer to Photo's 16 and 17 in Section 5.0
Stained 1.0 1.5 3.5
Wide Width
Clean 0 0.5 1.0
3.5 m Stained 0 0.5 1.5
4.3.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction
Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 3.2 m2
4.3.4 Concrete Cover
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
48 67 56 mm
0- 20 mm 0
40- 60 mm 0 m2
0 0 %
20- 40 mm 4.2
Over 60 mm 0 m2
100 0 %
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 19
4.3.5 Corrosion Activity
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
-0.399 -0.601 -0.52 V
0.00 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 <-0.45 V Remarks
0 0 0 0 4.2 m2
0 0 0 0 100 %
4.3.6 Delamination and Spalls
Defect Type Delaminations Spalls Patches
Area (m²) 0.5 1.3 0
Total Delaminations and Spalls Total Delaminations and Spalls
in Areas < -0.35 V
1.8 m² 42.9 % 1.8 m² 42.9 %
4.3.7 Scaling
Light Medium Serve to Very
Serve
Remarks
1.4 2.8 0 m2
33.3 66.7 0 %
4.3.8 Honeycombing
Total Area: 0 m2
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 20
4.3.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile
Corrosion Activity at Core Location (volts)
0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks
Chloride Content *
0-10 mm - - - No cores were test for chloride content in the north the barrier system.
20-30 mm - - -
40-50 mm - - -
60-70 mm - - -
80-90 mm - - -
100-110 mm - - -
* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides for all cores taken in each range of corrosion potential.
4.3.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar
Remarks
Core No. CB-1 - - - - - - -
Chloride Content * - - - - - - - -
* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides
4.3.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC
Resistance * Connection #1
Connection #2
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 21
G5
N/A
* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar
4.3.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half
Cell Potential *
Connection #1 (Positive)
Connection #2 (negative)
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection
4.3.13 Concrete Air Entrainment
Concrete Air Entrained? Yes No Marginal Unknown
4.3.14 Compressive Strength
Average Compressive Strength: Click here to enter number. MPa Unknown
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 22
4.4 Exposed Concrete Components – West Abutment Wall
Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
OSIM Identifier: Abutments
Component Type & Location: West Abutment Wall
4.4.1 Dimensions and Area
Width: 8.32 m Length:
Height: 2.44 m Total Area Surveyed: 20.3 m2
4.4.2 Cracks (medium and wide)
Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total
Remarks Pattern cracking localized on outer edges of wall.
Medium Width
Clean 1 1 2.0 11 m
Stained 0 1 6.0
Wide Width
Clean 0 0 0 0 m
Stained 0 0 0
4.4.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction
Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 0 m2
4.4.4 Concrete Cover
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
78 116 97 mm
0- 20 mm 0
40- 60 mm 0 m2
0 0 %
20- 40 mm 0
Over 60 mm 20.3 m2
0 100 %
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 23
4.4.5 Corrosion Activity
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
-0.350 -0.582 -0.467 V
0.00 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 <-0.45 V Remarks
0 0 0 5.28 15.02 m2
0 0 0 26.0 74.0 %
4.4.6 Delamination and Spalls
Defect Type Delaminations Spalls Patches
Area (m²) 1.5 1.0 0
Total Delaminations and Spalls Total Delaminations and Spalls
in Areas < -0.35 V
2.5m² 12.3 % 2.5 m² 100 %
4.4.7 Scaling
Light Medium Serve to Very
Serve Remarks
Medium scaling localized along the bottom length of the wall. Light scaling throughout the remaining area of the wall.
16.4 4.6 0 m2
79.5 20.5 0 %
4.4.8 Honeycombing
Total Area: 0 m2
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 24
4.4.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile
Corrosion Activity at Core Location (volts)
0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks
Chloride Content *
0-10 mm - - - No cores were taken from the west abutment wall. 20-30 mm - - -
40-50 mm - - -
60-70 mm - - -
80-90 mm - - -
100-110 mm - - -
* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides for all cores taken in each range of corrosion potential.
4.4.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar
Remarks
Core No. - - - - - - - -
Chloride Co * - - - - - - - -
* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides
4.4.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC
Resistance * Connection #1
Connection #2
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 25
* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar
4.4.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half
Cell Potential *
Connection #1 (Positive)
Connection #2 (negative)
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection
4.4.13 Concrete Air Entrainment
Concrete Air Entrained? Yes No Marginal Unknown
4.4.14 Compressive Strength
Average Compressive Strength: Click here to enter number. MPa Unknown
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 26
4.5 Exposed Concrete Components – East Abutment Wall
Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
OSIM Identifier: Abutments
Component Type & Location: East Abutment Wall
4.5.1 Dimensions and Area
Width: 8.32 m Length:
Height: 2.44 m Total Area Surveyed: 20.3 m2
4.5.2 Cracks (medium and wide)
Type Transverse Longitudinal Other Total
Remarks Pattern cracking localized on outer edges of wall.
Medium Width
Clean 0 0 2.0 8 m
Stained 0 0 6.0
Wide Width
Clean 0 0 0 0 m
Stained 0 0 0
4.5.3 Alkali Aggregate Reaction
Area of component with severe to very severe aggregate reaction: 0 m2
4.5.4 Concrete Cover
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
89 115 103 mm
0- 20 mm 0
40- 60 mm 0 m2
0 0 %
20- 40 mm 0
Over 60 mm 20.3 m2
0 100 %
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 27
4.5.5 Corrosion Activity
Minimum Maximum Average Remarks
-0.396 -0.61 -0.476 V
0.00 to -0.20 -0.20 to -0.30 -0.30 to -0.35 -0.35 to -0.45 <-0.45 V Remarks
0 0 0 2.59 17.71 m2
0 0 0 12.8 87.2 %
4.5.6 Delamination and Spalls
Defect Type Delaminations Spalls Patches
Area (m²) 1.0 1.0 0
Total Delaminations and Spalls Total Delaminations and Spalls
in Areas < -0.35 V
2.0 m² 9.9 % 2.5 m² 9.9 %
4.5.7 Scaling
Light Medium Serve to Very Serve Remarks
Medium scaling localized along the bottom length of
the wall. Light scaling throughout the remaining
area of the wall.
17.0 3.3 0 m2
83.7 16.3 0 %
4.5.8 Honeycombing
Total Area: 0 m2
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 28
4.5.9 Adjusted Chloride Content Profile
Corrosion Activity at Core Location (volts)
0 to -.20 -.20 to -.35 < -.35 Remarks
Chloride Content *
0-10 mm - - 0.234 The chloride ion
content at core
EA-1 did not level
off, as such, no
background value
was obtained
from the core.
20-30 mm - - 0.500
40-50 mm - - 0.346
60-70 mm - - 0.247
80-90 mm - - 0.168
100-110 mm - - -
* Average chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides for all cores taken in each range of corrosion potential.
4.5.10 Chloride Content at Level of Rebar
Remarks
Core No. EA-1 - - - - - - -
Chloride Content * 0.168 - - - - - - -
* Chloride content as % chloride by weight of concrete after deducting background chlorides
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 29
4.5.11 AC Resistance Test Data of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
Measured AC Resistance between Connection #1 and #2 Calculated AC
Resistance * Connection #1
Connection #2
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
* See Appendix 1E for calculating AC resistance contributed by individual rebar
4.5.12 IR Drop and True Half Cell Potential Measurements of Epoxy Coated Rebar (N/A)
IR Drop Between Connection #1 and #2 True Half
Cell Potential *
Connection #1 (Positive)
Connection #2 (negative)
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
G1 N/A
G2
N/A
G3
N/A
G4
N/A
G5
N/A
* Half cell reading taken on the same rebar with the ground connection
4.5.13 Concrete Air Entrainment
Concrete Air Entrained? Yes No Marginal Unknown
4.5.14 Compressive Strength
Average Compressive Strength: Click here to enter number. MPa Unknown
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 30
4.6 Exposed Concrete Components – West Wing Walls (N/A)
4.7 Exposed Concrete Components – East Wing Walls (N/A)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 31
4.8 Expansion Joints (N/A)
Site No.: Click here to enter number.
Dimensions
Abutments Intermediate Remarks
Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 Joint 4
N E S W
a (mm)
b (mm)
b' (mm)
c (mm)
d (mm)
d' (mm)
e (mm)
Depth of Asphalt @ Deck Side N/E S/W N/E S/W
1 (mm)
2 (mm)
3 (mm)
Width: Top of Ballast Wall and End Dams
N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W N/E S/W
1 (mm)
2 (mm)
3 (mm)
Gap Dimensions
1 (mm)
2 (mm)
3 (mm)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 32
Misc. Joint Details Skew Angle Click here to enter skew
angle. o Remarks
Exp.
Fixed
Type
Leaking
Angle Size
Temp ˚C Deck Ambient
Typical Sections at Joints
X-X Y-Y
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 33
4.9 Drainage
Deck Drains
Number Type Length Angle Depth Remarks
6 Steel 864
35
Deck drains in poor condition. Three of the six drains are obstructed with debris and all visible drains severely corroded. Deck drains do not extend below soffit.
* For asphalt covered decks, recess depth in mm between top of
asphalt and top of drain. Remarks
Catch Basins Yes * *
No * *
* Identify location of catch basins as N/E, N/W, S/E etc. using the same direction of north as shown in the drawings
Remarks
Drainage Tubes
Yes Void Drains
Yes
No No
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 34
5.0 Survey Equipment and Calibration Procedures
Component Type: Deck, Abutment walls and Barrier Systems
Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
Date of Survey: May 24, 2017
5.1 Delaminations
Weight of Chain: 2.2 kg/m
Other Equipment: Hammer
5.2 Concrete Cover
Covermeter Make & Model: Elcometer 331 Battery Check: Reading at Start of Test: OK
Reading at End of Test: OK. Concrete Cover Check: Location of Check: Exposed rebar on north barrier.
Actual Depth & Rebar Dia.: 50 mm & 20 mm Reading before Test: 51 mm Readings Each 30 min During Test: 51 mm Reading End of Test: 51 mm
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 35
5.3 Corrosion Activity
Half Cell Make & Model: Giatec
Multimeter Make & Model: Mastercraft Digital Multimeter 052-0060-2
Length and Gauge of Lead Wires: 30 m and 18 Guage
Deck Temp: Start of Test: 21 oC End of Test: 31 oC
Ambient Temp: Start of Test: 20 oC End of Test: 28 oC
Battery Check: Good
Ground Check: Method of Connection: Alligator Clip
Ground Location: C3 Check Location: C5
Lead Resistance: Voltage Drop (mV’s): #Ω
Resistance c: 0.7 Ω Resistance Reversed: #Ω
Grid Point Potential Readings Check- See Table Below
Location Initial Reading Check Readinga
Check Reading
– Latex Concrete Overlayb
Bridge Deck (C3) -0.614 V -0.610 V N/A
Bridge Deck (C4) -0.575 V -0.579 V N/A
Bridge Deck (C1) -0.467 V -0.469 V N/A
Bridge Deck (C2) -0.616 V -0.611V N/A
a Check at least 5 readings at beginning of test and each change in ground.
b On decks with latex modified concrete overlay, check at least 5 locations by drilling holes through the latex concrete overlay into the original concrete substrate.
c Resistance is the net resistance after deducting the lead resistance.
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 36
6.0 Core Logs – Asphalt Covered Bridge Decks
Page 1 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
Core No. C1 C2 C3
Location D7 B2 C5
Diameter, mm 98 97 94
Thickness of Asphalt, mm 104 86 96
Thickness of Asphalt at nearest grid point
104 86 96
Thickness of Concrete, mm 110 103 96
Full Depth, (yes/no) No No No
Condition of Asphalt (1) F F F
Waterproofing (W/P) type No No No
Condition of W/P (1) N/A N/A N/A
W/P Thickness, mm N/A N/A N/A
Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete
F F F
Defects in Concrete (2) None None None
Condition of Rebar (3) LR LR LR
Corrosion Potential -0.569 V -0.616 V -0.614 V
Compressive Strength, Mpa N/A N/A N/A
Chloride Content
Total Corrected Total Corrected Total Corrected
0 - 10mm - - - - - -
(% Chloride by Weight of Concrete)
20 - 30mm - - - - - -
40 - 50mm - - - - - -
60 - 70mm - - - - - -
80 - 90mm - - - - - -
100-110mm - - - - - -
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 37
Page 2 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
Air Voids
Air Content, % N/A N/A N/A
Spec. Surf.,mm²/mm³
N/A N/A N/A
Spacing Factor, mm
N/A N/A N/A
Test Laboratory N/A N/A N/A
Remarks
Orientation of rebars and cover
Presence of overlay, patch, and thickness
Other observed defects
E-W rebar orientation
1. Condition - G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor.
2. Defects - C = Cracked, D = Delamination, R = Rough, Sc = Scaling, S = Spalling
3. Condition of Rebar - LR = Light Rust, SR = Severe Rust, N/A = No rebar exposed.
Condition of Epoxy Coating - ECG = Good, ECF = Fair, ECP = Poor - rusted & debonded areas
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 38
Page 1 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
Core No. C4 C5 C6
Location D2 E7
Diameter, mm 96 95 94
Thickness of Asphalt, mm 87 111 125
Thickness of Asphalt at nearest grid point
87 111 N/A
Thickness of Concrete, mm 91.0 92.0 N/A
Full Depth, (yes/no) No No Yes
Condition of Asphalt (1) F F F
Waterproofing (W/P) type No No No
Condition of W/P (1) N/A N/A N/A
W/P Thickness, mm N/A N/A N/A
Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete
F F N/A
Defects in Concrete (2) None L Sc N/A
Condition of Rebar (3) LR LR N/A
Corrosion Potential -0.575 V -0.542 V N/A
Compressive Strength, Mpa N/A N/A N/A
Chloride Content
Total Corrected Total Corrected Total Corrected
0 - 10mm - - 0.317 - - -
% Chloride by Weight of Concrete
20 - 30mm - - 0.220 - - -
40 - 50mm - - 0.184 - - -
60 - 70mm - - 0.058 - - -
80 - 90mm - - 0.115 - - -
100-100mm - - - - -
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 39
Page 2 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No.: 026-0034)
Air Voids
Air Content, % N/A N/A N/A
Spec. Surf.,mm²/mm³
N/A N/A N/A
Spacing Factor, mm
N/A N/A N/A
Test Laboratory N/A Golders
Associates N/A
Remarks
Orientation of rebars and cover
Presence of overlay, patch, and thickness
Other observed defects
E-W rebar orientation
The chloride ion content at core C5
did not level off, as such, no
background value was obtained from
the core.
Used to confirm the presence of
approach slab. No approach slab
exists.
1. Condition - G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor.
2. Defects - C = Cracked, D = Delamination, R = Rough, Sc = Scaling, S = Spalling
3. Condition of Rebar - LR = Light Rust, SR = Severe Rust, N/A = No rebar exposed.
Condition of Epoxy Coating - ECG = Good, ECF = Fair, ECP = Poor - rusted & debonded areas
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 40
7.0 Core Photographs and Sketches
Core C1
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 41
Core C2
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 42
Core C3
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 43
Core C4
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 44
Core C5
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 45
Core CB-1
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 46
Core EA-1
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 47
8.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Logs
Sample No. S1 S2 S3
Location D6 D4 B5
Size, mm X mm 300 x 300 340 x 280 420 x 330
Thickness of Asphalt, mm 100 110 90
Thickness of Asphalt at Nearest Grid Point 100 110 90
Condition of Asphalt (1) F F F
Waterproofing (W/P) Type No No No
W/P Thickness, mm N/A N/A N/A
Condition of W/P (1) N/A N/A N/A
Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete F F F
Concrete Cover to Reinf., mm (Note orientation of rebar)
N/A 105 80
Defects in Concrete Surface (2) Sc (Severe) D, Sc
(Severe) Sc (Medium)
Corrosion Potential at Nearest Grid Point -0.569 V -0.574 V -0.618
Remarks
No Waterproofing
No Waterproofing
No Waterproofing
1. Condition - G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor.
2. Defects - C = Cracked, D = Delamination, R = Rough, Sc = Scaling, S = Spalling
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 48
Sample No. S4
Location B2
Size, mm X mm 340 x 350
Thickness of Asphalt, mm 85
Thickness of Asphalt at Nearest Grid Point 86
Condition of Asphalt (1) F
Waterproofing (W/P) Type No
W/P Thickness, mm N/A
Condition of W/P (1) N/A
Bond of Asphalt or W/P to Concrete F
Concrete Cover to Reinf., mm (Note orientation of rebar)
N/A
Defects in Concrete Surface (2) Sc (Medium)
Corrosion Potential at Nearest Grid Point - 0.487 V
Remarks
No Waterproofing
1. Condition - G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor.
2. Defects - C = Cracked, D = Delamination, R = Rough, Sc = Scaling, S = Spalling
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 49
9.0 Core Log for Exposed Concrete
Page 1 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No. 026-0034)
Core No. CB-1
(North Safety Curb) EA-1
(East Abutment Wall)
Location
B2
Diameter, mm 40.0 71.0
Length, mm 265.0 133.0
Full Depth (Yes/No) Yes No
Defects in Concrete (2) None Sc
Condition of Rebar (3) LR LR
Corrosion Potential (At Closest Grid Point)
- 0.553 V - 0.500 V
Chloride Content
Total Corrected Total Corrected
0 - 10mm - - 0.234 -
(% Chloride by Weight of Concrete)
20 - 30mm - - 0.500 -
40 - 50mm - - 0.346 -
60 - 70mm - - 0.247 -
80 - 90mm - - 0.168 -
Air Voids
Air Content, % - -
Spec. Surf.,mm²/mm³
- -
Spacing Factor, mm
- -
Test Laboratory - Golder Associates
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 50
Page 2 of 2 Site No.: 046001 (MTO Site No. 026-0034)
Remarks
Orientation of rebars and cover
Presence of overlay, patch, and thickness
Other observed defects
The chloride ion content
at core EA-1 did not level
off, as such, no
background value was
obtained from the core.
1. Condition - G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor.
2. Defects - C = Cracked, D = Delamination, R = Rough, Sc = Scaling, S = Spalling
3. Condition of Rebar - LR = Light Rust, SR = Severe Rust, N/A = No rebar exposed.
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 51
10.0 Asphalt Sawn Sample Photographs
Sawn Sample S1
Sawn Sample S2
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 52
Sawn Sample S3
Sawn Sample S4
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 53
11.0 Site Photographs
Photo 1: North Elevation
Photo 2: South Elevation
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 54
Photo 3: Asphalt Wearing Surface - Typical
Photo 4: Approach and Asphalt Deck Wearing Surface – Typical (Light to Server
Longitudinal Cracking)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 55
Photo 5: Asphalt Wearing Surface – Typical (Light to Severe Alligator Cracking)
Photo 6: Deck Drain - Typical
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 56
Photo 7: Deck Drain – Obstructed With Mud and Debris
Photo 8: Southeast Exterior Soffit – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling,
Delaminations and Corrosion of Reinforcement)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 57
Photo 9: North Exterior Soffit – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling, Delaminations
and Corrosion of Reinforcement)
Photo 10: South Exterior Soffit – Typical (Light to Very Severe Delaminations, Spalling,
Scaling and Corrosion of Reinforcement)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 58
Photo 11: Interior Soffit – Typical (Light to Medium Scaling, Delaminations, Efflorescence
and Corrosion of Reinforcement)
Photo 12: North Interior Concrete Parapet Wall – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling AAR
and Corrosion of Reinforcement)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 59
Photo 13: Steel Beam Guide Rail Connection to a Concrete Parapet Wall (Exterior) -
Typical (Light to Medium Scaling and AAR)
Photo 14: South Concrete Barrier Railing – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling,
AAR and Medium Corrosion of Reinforcement)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 60
Photo 15: South Concrete Barrier Railing – Typical (Light to Severe Scaling, Spalling,
AAR and Medium Corrosion of Reinforcement)
Photo 16: North Concrete Barrier – Severe Delamination, Disintegration and Corrosion of
Reinforcement
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 61
Photo 17: North Concrete Barrier – Typical (Severe Scaling and Spalling)
Photo 18: South Concrete Barrier Curb – Typical (Light to Medium Scaling, AAR and
Corrosion of Reinforcement)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 62
Photo 19: East Abutment Wall – Typical (Light to Medium AAR, Scaling, Spalling and
Corrosion of Reinforcement)
Photo 20: West Abutment Wall and Soffit – Typical (Typical (Light to Medium AAR,
Scaling, Spalling and Corrosion of Reinforcement)
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 63
Photo 21: Southwest Wingwall - Typical
Photo 22: Southwest Wingwall - Typical
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 64
Photo 23: Northwest Wingwall – Typical (Medium AAR)
Photo 24: Northeast Wingwall - Typical
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 65
Photo 25: West Approach – Typical (Narrow to Wide Longitudinal, Transverse and
Alligator Cracking)
Photo 26: East Approach – Severe Depression
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 66
Photo 27: East Approach – Typical (Narrow to Wide Longitudinal, Transverse and
Alligator Cracking)
Photo 28: SBGR Connection to Parapet Wall – Longitudinal Split
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group Page 67
Photo 29: SBGR End Treatment - Typical
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group
12.0 Drawings
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group
12.1 Corrosion Potential Contours
S4
C2
S3
C3
C4S2
S1C1
C5
Connection
Point
Connection
Point
Deck Corrosion Potential Contours
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
Bridge Deck and Curb Contours
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1425mm
1400mm
9975mm
10375mm
7000mm 7300mm
150mm
4321 5 6 7 8
B
C
A
D
E
F
North Barrier Corrosion Potential Contours
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
North Barrier Wall
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1425mm
400mm
200mm
250mm
150mm
10375mm
9975mm
800mm
2
A
3 4 5 6 7 8
B
C
1
South Barrier Corrosion Potential Contours
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
South Barrier Wall
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1425mm
400mm
200mm
250mm
150mm
10375mm
9975mm
800mm
2
A
3 4 5 6 7 8
B
C
1
Deck Drain
50mm
Deck Drain
50mm
Half-Cell
Connection
East Abutment Corrosion Potential Contours
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
East Abutment Wall
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1000mm
1000mm
200mm
8000mm
8500mm
2000mm 2400mm
32
A
4 5 6 7 8 9
B
C
1
Deck Drain
50mm
Deck Drain
50mm
Half-Cell
Connection
West Abutment Corrosion Potential Contours
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
West Abutment Wall
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1000mm
1000mm
200mm
8000mm
8500mm
2000mm 2400mm
32
A
4 5 6 7 8 9
B
C
1
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group
12.2 Delamination Survey
Deck Drain
- Severe Spalling/Scaling - Delamination - Wide Crack
Soffit Delamination Survey
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
Soffit Delamination Survey
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9140mm
9000mm
900mm
1000mm
70mm
7000mm 7300mm
150mm
EA-1
- Severe Spalling/Scaling - Delamination - Wide Crack
East Abutment Delamination Survey
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
East Abutment Delamination Survey
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1000mm
1000mm
200mm
32
A
4 5 6 7 8 9
B
C
1
Light to moderate
scaling and spalling
throughout
abutment.
- Severe Spalling/Scaling - Delamination - Wide Crack
West Abutment Delamination Survey
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
West Abutment Delamination Survey
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1000mm
1000mm
200mm
32
A
4 5 6 7 8 9
B
C
1
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group
12.3 Asphalt Cover and Concrete Cover
104 mm
110 mm
100 mm110 mm87 mm
91 mm
85 mm 86 mm
103 mm
90 mm
96 mm
96 mm
111 mm
92 mm
Asph. Thickness
Conc. Thickness
(TYP.)
Asphalt and Concrete Cover
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
Asphalt and Concrete Cover
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1425mm
1400mm
417.5mm
9975mm
9140mm
7000mm 7300mm
150mm
4321 5 6 7 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
57 mm
69 mm
79 mm
50 mm
61 mm
49 mm
52 mm
71 mm
53 mm
70 mm
74 mm
52 mm
72 mm
65 mm
59 mm
69 mm
57 mm
50 mm
62 mm
63 mm
67 mm
68 mm
75 mm
61 mm
North Barrier Wall Cover
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
North Barrier Wall Cover
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1425mm
400mm
2
A
3 4 5 6 7 8
B
C
1
44 mm
55 mm
35 mm
55 mm
51 mm
37 mm
38 mm
39 mm
18 mm
51 mm
56 mm
21 mm
60 mm
55 mm
22 mm
66 mm
63 mm
27 mm
71 mm
70 mm
22 mm
75 mm
73 mm
21 mm
South Barrier Wall Cover
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
South Barrier Wall Cover
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1425mm
400mm
2
A
3 4 5 6 7 8
B
C
1
112 mm
101 mm
113 mm 108 mm 115 mm 110 mm 103 mm 102 mm 105 mm 115 mm
92 mm 100 mm 90 mm 93 mm 101 mm 94 mm 89 mm 110 mm
EA-1
105 mm 98 mm 101mm 108 mm 109 mm 105 mm 100 mm 110 mm96 mm
East Abutment Concrete Cover
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
East Abutment Cover
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1000mm
1000mm
200mm
32
A
4 5 6 7 8 9
B
C
1
79 mm
86 mm
91 mm
92 mm 88 mm 89 mm 110 mm 107 mm 105 mm 108 mm
94 mm 90 mm 106 mm 105 mm 115 mm 116 mm 110 mm
86 mm 78 mm 83 mm 79 mm 89 mm 84 mm 107 mm
96 mm
106 mm
110 mm
West Abutment Concrete Cover
Date: AG File# :
Project # : 1704
17523-1
05/30/2017
West Abutment Cover
North River Detailed Deck
Condition Survey
1000mm
1000mm
200mm
32
A
4 5 6 7 8 9
B
C
1
North River Bridge – 2017 Detailed Bridge Condition Survey County of Peterborough AG Project No. 17523-1
Ainley Group
Yours truly,
AINLEY GRAHAM AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Ramin Rameshni, Ph.D, P.Eng.
Senior Structural Engineer