Alupe River Bridge Draft Report-2

INSPECTION OF ALUPE RIVER BRIDGE AT KM 6+ 700 ALONG BUSIA MALABA ROAD (B13)
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT,
INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
STATE DEPARTMENT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE
MATERIALS TESTING AND

RESEARCH DIVISION(MTRD)
INSPECTION OF ALUPE RIVER

BRIDGE AT KM 6+ 700 ALONG BUSIA
MALABA ROAD(B13)
REPORT NO.1309
APRIL,2017
CHIEF ENGINEER (MATERIALS )

MACHAKOS ROAD,INDUSTRIAL AREA
P.O. BOX 11873-00400
NAIROBI
MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.1
1.1 Scope of work..2
2.0 TESTS DONE .3
2.1Test Method Principles..3
2.1.1 Visual Inspection.3
2.1.2 Schmidt Hammer Test.3
2.1.3 Electromagnetic Test3
2.1.3.1 Limitations of electromagnetic method...4
2.1.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test.4
2.1.5 Carbonation Test..4
2.1.6 Resistivity potential method.5
3.0 DETAILED RESULTS...6
3.1 Visual Inspection..6
3.2 Other Tests Results.9
3.2.1 Abutments...9
3.2.2 Deck Slab.9
3.2.3 Wing Walls...9
3.2.4 RC Beams...10
3.3 Detailed Results Data Sheets.11
3.3.1 Abutments.11
3.3.2 Deck Slab..12
3.3.3 Wing Walls...13
3.3.4 RC BEAMS ..14
4.0 CONCLUSIONS...17
5.0 RECOMMENDATION.17
Appendix: Photos Showing Testing Activities18
MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This bridge inspection report is in response to a request made by the Regional
Manager Kenya National Highways Authority Western Region to Undertake Non-
destructive tests Alupe River bridge Crossing. The structure is at km 6+700 along
the Busia Malaba Road (B13).
This is a single span structure with a reinforced concrete deck, abutment walls
and wing walls. Its 13.5 meters long and 8.5 meters wide.
This report contains a description of the structure, visual observations, and
description of testing methods, test results for various parameters based on
different Non-Destructive Testing methods, conclusions and recommendations.
The report dwells mainly on the status of structural elements and their material
components.
The primary results of the inspection are given and the critical problems have
been highlighted.

1.1 Scope of work

The scope of work as shown below involved testing of structural elements in the
superstructures and substructures for the three bridges for several parameters
using various Non-Destructive Testing methods.
Table 1: Scope of work
Item
no. Structural Parameters tested Inspection details/methods
element
Appearance Carry out visual inspection
Re-bar details Carry out electromagnetic
tests
Insitu Concrete strength Carry out Schmidt hammer
Abutments tests
(Inner Side) Deterioration status of the Carry out:
1 concrete matrix Resistivity potential
Corrosion tests
Remaining effective Carbonation depth
good covers tests
quality of concrete, Carry out ultrasonic pulse

homogeneity and internal velocity tests
defects of concrete matrix
3 Deck slab Ditto Ditto
(top and bottom)
4 Beams Ditto Ditto
5 Ancillary Fixtures Appearance Carry out visual inspections
bearings

2.0 TESTS DONE
Six non-destructive tests were carried out namely:

i. Visual Inspection to ascertain the extent of wear and tear of the structure.
ii. Electromagnetic and radar tests to establish the steel reinforcement
details for reinforced concrete.
iii. Schmidt Hammer Test to determine the concrete strength insitu.
iv. Low frequency ultrasonic pulse velocity test for homogeneity and internal
defects in the concrete matrix.
v. Carbonation test to determine the effective good cover to the
reinforcement.
vi. Resistivity potential to determine the probability of corrosion of the re-
bars.
2.1 Test Method Principles

2.1.1 Visual Inspection
Visual Inspection is used in maintenance of facilities, inspection of equipment
and structures using either or all of human senses such as vision, hearing, touch
and smell. Visual Inspection typically means inspection using human senses
and/or any non-specialized inspection equipment.
2.1.2 Schmidt Hammer Test
This method is based on the principle that the rebound of an elastic mass
depends on the hardness of the surface that it strikes. The rebound number
obtained from the Schmidt Hammer is correlated with concrete cube crushing
strength.
2.1.3 Electromagnetic Test
This method is employed for locating steel in concrete using an Electromagnetic
Cover meter. The principle method of test is by electromagnetic induction. When
a probe carrying an alternating field is brought close to steel, eddy magnetic
fields are generated by the steel, which reduces the primary field of the probe. At
maximum induction level depicted by audio signals and reduction in minimum
cover measurement, the location and orientation of a reinforcement bar can be
established. After appropriate calibration, the technique can be used for:
Electromagnetic cover meters can be used for:
i. Quality control to ensure correct location and cover to reinforcing bars
after concrete placement.
ii. Investigation of concrete members for which records are not available or
need to be checked.
iii. location of reinforcement as a preliminary to some other form of testing in
which reinforcement should be avoided or its nature taken into account,
e.g. extraction of cores, ultrasonic pulse velocity measurements or near to
surface methods
iv. Location of buried ferromagnetic objects other than reinforcement, e.g.
water pipes, steel joists, lighting conduits.

The accuracy of reinforcing bar size estimation range from 2% to 15%.

An electromagnetic cover meter can be complimented with a concrete radar
where radar grams are interpreted to indicate the re-bar details.
2.1.3.1 Limitations of electromagnetic method

The limitations of the method are:
i. It is very slow and labor intensive.
ii. The results are affected by the presence of more than one reinforcing bar
in the test area by laps, by second layers, by metal tie wires and by bar
supports.
iii. The method is unsuitable in the case of closely packed bar assemblies.
iv. The accuracy is reduced if rough or undulating surfaces are present, e.g.
exposed aggregate finishes. The effect on the indicated cover will be similar
in magnitude to the surface irregularities within the area of the search
head.
2.1.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test
The velocity of ultrasonic pulses traveling through a solid material depends on
the density and the elastic properties of that material. Ultrasonic pulse velocity
testing using low frequency pulses of 20 to 150 kHz is employed as a Non
Destructive testing technique to determine the quality and homogeneity of
concrete. This is given by the velocity at which the pulses will travel through the
concrete. Regions of cracks or damaged material will have a corresponding
reduction in the pulse velocity due to their high acoustic impedance.
In this case direct transmission mode was used to determine the pulse
velocity in km/s hence the quality of concrete.
2.1.5 Carbonation Test.
The drilling method is used to determine the depth of carbonation. The drilled
out material at prescribed depth is then analyzed for carbonation using
phenolphthalein reagent. Presence of carbonation is depicted by no color change
while the color changes to pink in the absence of carbonation.
A deterioration degree is judged based on the balance of carbonation depth as
shown in the table below.
Based on this table, the degree of reinforcement corrosion is None for the
results of tests having more than 30 mm depth for the balance of carbonation
depth.
Table 1: Evaluation of Carbonation Depth
Balance of Carbonation Degree of reinforcement
Deterioration degree
Depth corrosion
High T < 0 mm Large
Medium 0 mm T < 10 mm Medium
Low 10 mm T < 30 mm Low
None 30 mm T None
Note: Balance of Carbonation Depth = Cover Carbonation depth

2.1.6 Reinforcement Corrosion Investigation (Resistivity potential

method)
The time at which corrosion of steel may commence and the rate at which it may
proceed is dependent upon the properties of the cement paste and the
permeability of the concrete. Since the electrical conductivity of concrete is an
electrolysis process, which takes place by ionic movement in the aqueous pore
solution of the cement matrix, it follows that a highly permeable concrete will
have a high conductivity and low electrical resistance.
The knowledge of the electrical resistance of concrete can provide a measure of
the possible corrosion of steel embedded in it as shown below.
Table 2: Resistivity Level vs Possible Corrosion Rate
Resistivity Level(k ohm cm) Possible Corrosion Rate
<5 Very high
5-10 high
10-20 moderate to low
>20 insignificant

3.0 DETAILED RESULTS

3.1 Visual Inspection
This is a single span structure comprising an RC deck with 4 no.RC beams, wall
type RC abutments and wing walls.
Photo 3.1: A side view of the bridge
Upon visual inspection of the structure, the following observations were made
i. The bridge deck soffit was generally in good condition with no visible
structural defects.
Photo 3.2: The deck soffit
ii. There were exposed re-bars on the deck top due to scoured concrete surface
along the RHS pedestrian walkway
Photo 3.3: exposed re-bars on the RHS walkway

iii. The concrete surface of the LHS head wall at the Malaba side support was
also worn out exposing some re-bars.
iv. There was pooling of water on the RHS of the deck, however there was no
evidence of any ingress upon observation of the deck soffit.
Photo 3.4: water pooling on the RHS of the deck
v. There was scouring on the lower part of both abutments up to a height of

approximately 500mm.
Photo 3.5: scouring on the lower part of the abutment
vi. No bridge bearings were found upon inspection of the abutment caps
Photo 3.6: No evidence of presence of a bridge bearing

vii. There were overgrown bushes at both approaches
Photo 3. 7: Overgrown bushes
Fig 1: The Bridge Cross Section-All measurements in mm
250
900
750
2200 2200 2200

3.2 Other Tests Results

3.2.1 Abutments
The distribution of the reinforcement bars in the abutment walls on either side
of the bridge was uniform in the Vertical (main) and horizontal.
The vertical re-bars were 20 mm diameter at an average spacing of 180 mm while
the horizontal were 16 mm diameter at an average spacing of 250 mm.
The tests recorded strengths between 20.3 N/mm2 to 27.0 N/mm2 for three test
points on each abutment.
The highest carbonation depth recorded was 15 mm indicating a remaining
effective good cover of 8 mm (least cover recorded was 20 mm).This was an
indication of medium level deterioration.
Probability of corrosion activity was insignificant as indicated by a resistivity

potential of 22.4 kcm.
3.2.2 Deck Slab
The distribution of the reinforcement bars in the deck slab was uniform at the
sampled locations .The longitudinal re-bars were 12 mm diameter at an average
spacing of 250 mm while the transverse were 16 mm diameter at an average
spacing of 200 mm.
The concrete strength tests recorded an average strength of 31.4 N/mm2 for
three test locations.
The highest carbonation depth recorded was 6.0 mm indicating a remaining
effective good cover of 24mm (least cover recorded was 30 mm).This was an
indication of low level deterioration.
Probability of corrosion activity was insignificant as indicated by a high resistivity
potential 108.6kcm.
3.2.3 Wing Walls
The distribution of the reinforcement bars in the abutment walls on either side
of the bridge was uniform in the Vertical (main) and horizontal.
The vertical re-bars were 16 mm diameter at an average spacing of 250 mm while
the horizontal were 12 mm diameter at an average spacing of 300 mm.
points.
The highest carbonation depth recorded was 9.0 mm indicating a remaining
effective good cover of 23 mm (least cover recorded was 32mm).This was an

potential of 110.8 kcm.

3.2.4 RC Beams
For re-bar details of the RC beams see sketches in table 3.3.4.1.
points.
The highest carbonation depth recorded was 16 mm indicating a remaining
effective good cover of 14 mm (least cover recorded was 21 mm).This was an

potential 111.4 kcm.

3.3 Detailed Results Data Sheets

3.3.1 Abutments
Table 3.3.1.1: Re-bar Details for the Abutments
Average Re- Average Re-bar size
Test Element/Location bar spacing covers (mm)
(mm) (mm)
LHS Vertical:180 Vertical:45 Vertical:20
Horizontal:250 Horizontal55: Horizontal:16
Centre Vertical:160 Vertical:33 Vertical:20
A1-Malaba Side
Horizontal:250 Horizontal:55 Horizontal:16
RHS Vertical:180 Vertical:35 Vertical:20
Centre Vertical:160 Vertical:20 Vertical:20
A2-Busia Side
Table 3.3.1.2: Concrete Strength Test Results for the Abutments

Average concrete strength
Test Element/Location (N/mm2)
LHS 21.3
A1-Malaba Side Centre 22.6
RHS 21.2
LHS 26.8
A2-Busia Side Centre 27.0
RHS 20.3
Table 3.3.1.3: Carbonation Test Results for the Abutments

Test Carbonation Least Balance of Remarks/deterioration
Element/Location depth cover carbonation degree
(mm) recorded depth
(mm) (mm)
A1-Malaba Side 15 33 18 Low Degree
A2-Busia Side 12 20 8 Medium degree
Table 3.3.1.4: Resistivity Test Results for the Abutments

Test Resistivity Remarks
Element/Location (kcm)
A1-Malaba bound 112.1 Probability of corrosion is

A2-Busia bound insignificant
(Done in a wet area) 22.4

Table 3.3.1.5: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Results for the Abutments

Test Element/Location Homogeneity of concrete matrix
LHS Homogeneous
Malaba Side Centre Homogeneous
RHS Homogeneous
LHS Homogeneous
Busia Side Centre Homogeneous
RHS Homogeneous
3.3.2 Deck Slab

Table 3.3.2.1:Re-bar Details for the Deck Slab
Deck slab
Test Location Re-bar spacing Average covers Re-bar size Thickness
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Bottom re-bars
DS1-B Longitudinal: 250 Longitudinal:40 Longitudinal:12
Transverse: 200 Transverse:30 Transverse:16
Top re-bars 250
DS1-T Longitudinal:260 Longitudinal:45 Longitudinal:12
Transverse:200 Transverse:35 Transverse:16
Table 3.3.2.2: Concrete Strength Test Results for the Deck Slab
Test Location (N/mm2)
DS1 Malaba side 31.3
DS2 Busia side 31.5
Table 3.3.2.3: Carbonation Test Results for the Deck Slab

Test Carbonation Least cover Balance of Remarks/degre
Element/Location depth recorded carbonation e of
(mm) (mm) depth deterioration
(mm)
DS1-Malaba side 6.0 30 24 Low degree
DS2-Busia side 5.0 30 25
Table 3.3.2.4: Resistivity Test Results for the Deck Slab

DS1 Malaba side 108.6 Probability of corrosion is
DS2 Busia side 110.4 insignificant

Table 3.3.2.5: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Results for the Deck Slab
DS1-Malaba Side Homogeneous

DS2-Busia Side Homogeneous
3.3.3 Wing Walls

Table 3.3.3.1:Re-bar Details for the Wing Walls
Re-bar spacing Average
Test Element/Location (mm) covers Re-bar size
(mm) (mm)
Malaba side Horizontal:300 Horizontal:55 Horizontal:12
Busia side Horizontal:300 Horizontal:45 Horizontal:12
Table 3.3.3.2: Concrete Strength Test Results for the Wing Walls
Malaba side RHS 28.9
LHS 24.9
Busia side LHS 26.4
RHS 24.8
Table 3.3.3.3: Carbonation Test Results for the wing walls

(mm) recorded depth
(mm) (mm)
RHS 9.0 35 26
LHS 9.0 32 23 Low Degree
Table 3.3.3.4: Resistivity Test Results for the Abutments

RHS 111.9 Probability of corrosion is

LHS 110.8 insignificant

Table 3.3.3.5: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Results for the Wing Walls
LHS Homogeneous
Malaba Side RHS Homogeneous
LHS Homogeneous
Busia Side
RHS Homogeneous
3.3.4 RC BEAMS
Table 3.3.4.1: Steel Reinforcement Details for the RC Beams

Test Beam Size(mm), Re-bar Average Link
Element No. & Arrangement of re-bars size covers Details
/location (mm) (mm) (mm)
Slab
Deck
250
B1
Bottom:32 From the
RHS web:30 Spacing
Along the :200
300
web:25 From the

Size:12
soffit:39
890
400
400
Slab
Deck
250
B2
Bottom:32 From the
RHS web:35 Spacing
Along the :200
300
web:25 From the

Size:12
soffit:30
890
400
400
scanning was done from underneath the deck

Table 3.3.4.1 Contind

Test Beam Size(mm), Re-bar Average Link
Element No. & Arrangement of re-bars size covers Details
/location (mm) (mm) (mm)
Slab
Deck
250
B2
Bottom:32 From the
LHS web:30 Spacing
Along the :150
300
web:25 From the

Size:12
soffit:20
910
370
400
Slab
Deck
250
B1
Bottom:32 From the
LHS web:30 Spacing
Along the :200
330
web:25 From the

Size:12
soffit:30
930
390
400
scanning was done from underneath the deck

Table 3.3.4.2: Concrete Strength Results for the RC Beams

B1 LHS 34.0
B2 LHS 31.5
B1 RHS 33.6
B2 RHS 36.4
Table 3.3.4.3: Carbonation Test Results for the RC Beams

(mm) recorded depth
(mm) (mm)
B1 LHS 16 30 14 Low Degree
B2 RHS 10 30 20
Table 3.3.4.4: Resistivity Test Results for the RC Beams

B1 LHS 111.4 Probability of corrosion is
B2 RHS 111.6 insignificant
Table 3.3.4.4: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Results for the RC Beams

B1 LHS Homogeneous
B2 LHS Homogeneous
B2 RHS Homogeneous
B1 RHS Homogeneous

4.0 CONCLUSIONS
From the test results obtained, the following conclusions can be made:-
i. The structure has no major visible structural defects;
ii. All the concrete members are steel reinforced;
iii. Carbonation effect has not reached the re-bars implying no risk of
corrosion;
iv. The probability of corrosion activity is insignificant and
v. The concrete strengths are varying from one structural element to the
other and the original design classes cannot be discerned.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
The Project Structural Engineer is advised to make a decision on the overall
structural integrity and adequacy of the three structures whereby this report
may be a guide with consideration of the following:
1. That the test results-for re-bar details and concrete strengths should be
looked at in assessing the adequacy of the structure as built for:
i. The type of traffic for which the bridge was originally designed.
ii. The expected loading in the new traffic designs if any.
2. That the carbonation tests results show there is still some effective good cover
to reinforcement remaining hence no risk of corrosion.
3. That the Resistivity tests results also indicate insignificant corrosion activity
even for areas of the abutment which are usually submerged.
4. That the Ultrasonic pulse velocity results indicate the concrete matrix to be
homogeneous, inferring that no significant cracking, spalling and debonding
has taken place over the time.
5. That the wearing out of the top surface could be attributed to physical effects
of vehicular traffic.

Appendix: Photos Showing Testing Activities
Photo 1 : The testing team engaging in different testing activities
Photo 2: Ultrasonic pulse velocity test on an abutment wall

Photo 3: Ultrasonic pulse velocity test on a beam
Photo 4: Electromagnetic re-bar mapping on an abutment wall

Photo 5: Electromagnetic re-bar mapping on a beam
Photo 6: Electromagnetic re-bar mapping on a deck slab

Photo 7: Concrete radar mapping of re-bars on the deck slab top
Photo 8: Concrete radar re-bar mapping on the deck slab to-a wider view

Photo 9: Schmidt hammer testing on an abutment wall
Photo 10: Schmidt hammer testing on a deck slab

Photo 11: Drilling and spraying for carbonation test on a wing wall
Photo 12: measurement of carbonation depth

Photo 13: Purple coloration at carbonation depth
Photo 14: Resistivity potential testing on an abutment wall
Photo 15: A radar gram of deck slab to scanning for re-bars

Alupe River Bridge Draft Report-2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Alupe River Bridge Draft Report-2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INSPECTION OF ALUPE RIVER BRIDGE AT KM 6+ 700 ALONG BUSIA MALABA ROAD (B13)

MATERIALS TESTING AND

INSPECTION OF ALUPE RIVER

CHIEF ENGINEER (MATERIALS )

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 0

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page i

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 1

1.1 Scope of work

quality of concrete, Carry out ultrasonic pulse

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 2

2.0 TESTS DONE

Six non-destructive tests were carried out namely:

2.1 Test Method Principles

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 3

The accuracy of reinforcing bar size estimation range from 2% to 15%.

2.1.3.1 Limitations of electromagnetic method

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 4

2.1.6 Reinforcement Corrosion Investigation (Resistivity potential

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 5

3.0 DETAILED RESULTS

Photo 3.1: A side view of the bridge

Photo 3.2: The deck soffit

Photo 3.3: exposed re-bars on the RHS walkway

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 6

Photo 3.4: water pooling on the RHS of the deck

v. There was scouring on the lower part of both abutments up to a height of

Photo 3.5: scouring on the lower part of the abutment

Photo 3.6: No evidence of presence of a bridge bearing

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 7

vii. There were overgrown bushes at both approaches

Photo 3. 7: Overgrown bushes

Fig 1: The Bridge Cross Section-All measurements in mm

2200 2200 2200

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 8

3.2 Other Tests Results

Probability of corrosion activity was insignificant as indicated by a resistivity

Probability of corrosion activity was insignificant as indicated by a high resistivity

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 9

Probability of corrosion activity was insignificant as indicated by a high resistivity

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 10

3.3 Detailed Results Data Sheets

Table 3.3.1.2: Concrete Strength Test Results for the Abutments

Table 3.3.1.3: Carbonation Test Results for the Abutments

Table 3.3.1.4: Resistivity Test Results for the Abutments

A1-Malaba bound 112.1 Probability of corrosion is

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 11

Table 3.3.1.5: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Results for the Abutments

3.3.2 Deck Slab

Table 3.3.2.3: Carbonation Test Results for the Deck Slab

Table 3.3.2.4: Resistivity Test Results for the Deck Slab

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 12

DS1-Malaba Side Homogeneous

3.3.3 Wing Walls

Table 3.3.3.3: Carbonation Test Results for the wing walls

Table 3.3.3.4: Resistivity Test Results for the Abutments

RHS 111.9 Probability of corrosion is

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 13

Table 3.3.4.1: Steel Reinforcement Details for the RC Beams

web:25 From the

web:25 From the

scanning was done from underneath the deck

MTRD REPORT NO.1309, APRIL, 2017 Page 14

Table 3.3.4.1 Contind

web:25 From the