Nondestructive Testing of Bridge Decks: Case Study and Suggestions

International Concrete Abstracts Portal

The International Concrete Abstracts Portal is an ACI led collaboration with leading technical organizations from within the international concrete industry and offers the most comprehensive collection of published concrete abstracts.

  


Title: Nondestructive Testing of Bridge Decks: Case Study and Suggestions

Author(s): Yail J. Kim and Jun Wang

Publication: Structural Journal

Volume: 120

Issue: 2

Appears on pages(s): 3-17

Keywords: bridge decks; delamination; evaluation; ground-penetrating radar (GPR); nondestructive testing

DOI: 10.14359/51734822

Date: 3/1/2023

Abstract:
This paper presents a case study on the evaluation of bridge decks using various nondestructive test methods. In consultation with a local transportation agency, five representative bridges are selected and assessed by qualitative/empirical (visual inspection and chain drag) and quantitative (ground-penetrating radar [GPR] and rebound hammer) approaches. The primary interest lies in quantifying delaminated areas in deck concrete, which has been a major problem in the bridge engineering community because conventional GPR contours provide a wide range of deterioration that differs from the amount of actual repair. A consistent condition rating of 7 has been assigned to all decks over a decade old, aligning with the outcomes of chain drag: delamination of less than 3.31% of the entire deck area. The variable scanning rates of GPR (4 to 20 scans/ft [13 to 66 scans/m]) influence contour mapping, whereas mutual correlations associated with these rates are insignificant. A tolerable range of ±20% is suggested for interpreting GPR contour maps at a 95% confidence interval. The performance threshold limit of 20% used to identify degraded concrete in rebound hammering exhibits a coefficient of correlation of 0.967 against GPR-based deterioration; however, the results of these methods deviate from the areas of actual repair. For practical implementation, analytical and computational models are formulated to decompose the intensity of GPR scales into two categories: initiation and progression of corrosion (0 to 39%) and delamination of deck concrete (40 to 100%), which show good agreement with the repaired areas. Parametric investigations emphasize the significance of reinforcing bar spacing and concrete cover in determining the extent of delamination in the concrete decks.

Related References:

1. ASCE, “Infrastructure Report Card,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2020.

2. The White House, “Deliver 21st Century Infrastructure,” The Executive Office of the President of the United States, Washington, DC, 2019.

3. El Maaddawy, T., and Soudki, K., “A Model for Prediction of Time from Corrosion Initiation to Corrosion Cracking,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 29, No. 3, Mar. 2007, pp. 168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.004

4. ACI, “ACI Concrete Terminology (ACI CT-18),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2018.

5. Wong, P. T. W.; Lai, W. W. L.; Sham, J. F. C.; and Poon, C.-S., “Hybrid Non-Destructive Evaluation Methods for Characterizing Chloride-Induced Corrosion in Concrete,” NDT & E International, V. 107, Oct. 2019, Article No. 102123. doi: 10.1016/j.ndteint.2019.05.008

6. Meng, D.; Lin, S.; and Azari, H., “Nondestructive Corrosion Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks with Overlays: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, V. 48, No. 1, 2020, pp. 516-537. doi: 10.1520/JTE20180388

7. ACI Committee 228, “Report on Nondestructive Test Methods for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures (ACI 228.2R-13),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 82 pp.

8. Gucunski, N.; Imani, A.; Romero, F.; Nazarian, S.; Yuan, D.; Wiggenhauser, H.; Shokouhi, P.; Taffe, A.; and Kutrubes, D., “Nondestructive Testing to Identify Concrete Bridge Deck Deterioration,” SHRP 2 Report S2-R06A-RR-1, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2013, 85 pp.

9. Hasan, M. I., and Yazdani, N., “Ground Penetrating Radar Utilization in Exploring Inadequate Concrete Covers in a New Bridge Deck,” Case Studies in Construction Materials, V. 1, 2014, pp. 104-114. doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2014.04.003

10. Sultan, A. A., and Washer, G. A., “Comparison of Two Nondestructive Evaluation Technologies for the Condition Assessment of Bridge Decks,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, V. 2672, No. 41, Dec. 2018, pp. 113-122. doi: 10.1177/0361198118790835

11. Rhee, J.-Y.; Park, K.-E.; Lee, K.-H.; and Kee, S.-H., “A Practical Approach to Condition Assessment of Asphalt-Covered Concrete Bridge Decks on Korean Expressways by Dielectric Constant Measurements Using Air-Coupled GPR,” Sensors (Basel), V. 20, No. 9, May 2020, Article No. 2497. doi: 10.3390/s20092497

12. Russell, H. G., “Concrete Bridge Deck Performance (NCHRP Synthesis 333),” Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2004, 109 pp.

13. FHWA, “National Bridge Inventory (NBI),” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2020.

14. Vu, K.; Stewart, M. G.; and Mullard, J., “Corrosion-Induced Cracking: Experimental Data and Predictive Models,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 719-726.

15. ASTM D6087-08, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating Asphalt-Covered Concrete Bridge Decks Using Ground Penetrating Radar,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, 6 pp.

16. Scott, M.; Rezaizadeh, A.; Delahaza, A.; Santos, C. G.; Moore, M.; Graybeal, B.; and Washer, G., “A Comparison of Nondestructive Evaluation Methods for Bridge Deck Assessment,” NDT & E International, V. 36, No. 4, June 2003, pp. 245-255. doi: 10.1016/S0963-8695(02)00061-0

17. Yehia, S.; Abudayyeh, O.; Nabulsi, S.; and Abdelqader, I., “Detection of Common Defects in Concrete Bridge Decks Using Nondestructive Evaluation Techniques,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 12, No. 2, Mar. 2007, pp. 215-225. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:2(215)

18. ASTM C805/C805M-18, “Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, 4 pp.

19. Teodoru, G. V., “The Use of Simultaneous Nondestructive Tests to Predict the Compressive Strength of Concrete,” Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, SP-112, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989, pp. 137-152.

20. ASTM D4580/D4580M-12, “Standard Practice for Measuring Delaminations in Concrete Bridge Decks by Sounding,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 4 pp.

21. Benedetto, A., and Benedetto, F., “Remote Sensing of Soil Moisture Content by GPR Signal Processing in the Frequency Domain,” IEEE Sensors Journal, V. 11, No. 10, Oct. 2011, pp. 2432-2441. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2011.2119478

22. Giannopoulos, A.; Macintyre, P.; Rodgers, S.; and Forde, M. C., “GPR Detection of Voids in Post-Tensioned Concrete Bridge Beams,” Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, V. 4758, 2002, pp. 376-381. doi: 10.1117/12.462217

23. AASHTO, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” eighth edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2017.

24. Shin, H., and Grivas, D. A., “How Accurate is Ground-Penetrating Radar for Bridge Deck Condition Assessment?” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, V. 1845, No. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 139-147. doi: 10.3141/1845-15

25. Hing, C. L. C., and Halabe, U. B., “Nondestructive Testing of GFRP Bridge Decks Using Ground Penetrating Radar and Infrared Thermography,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, V. 15, No. 4, July 2010, pp. 391-398. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000066

26. Hema, J.; Guthrie, W. S.; and Fonseca, F. S., “Concrete Bridge Deck Condition Assessment and Improvement Strategies,” Report No. UT-04-16, Utah Department of Transportation, Taylorsville, UT, 2004, 151 pp.

27. Meeker, W. Q.; Hahn, G. J.; and Escobar, L. A., Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners and Researchers, second edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2017.

28. Montgomery, D. C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, eighth edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2013.

29. Nowak, A. S., and Collins, K. R., Reliability of Structures, second edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2013.

30. Elmenshawi, A., and Brown, T., “Hysteretic Energy and Damping Capacity of Flexural Elements Constructed with Different Concrete Strengths,” Engineering Structures, V. 32, No. 1, Jan. 2010, pp. 297-305. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.09.016

31. Elwood, K. J.; Matamoros, A. B.; Wallace, J. W.; Lehman, D. E.; Heintz, J. A.; Mitchell, A. D.; Moore, M. A.; Valley, M. T.; Lowes, L. N.; Comartin, C. D.; and Moehle, J. P., “Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 23, No. 3, Aug. 2007, pp. 493-523. doi: 10.1193/1.2757714

32. Guo, Y.-C.; Zhang, J.-H.; Chen, G.-M.; and Xie, Z.-H., “Compressive Behaviour of Concrete Structures Incorporating Recycled Concrete Aggregates, Rubber Crumb and Reinforced with Steel Fibre, Subjected to Elevated Temperatures,” Journal of Cleaner Production, V. 72, June 2014, pp. 193-203. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.036

33. FHWA, “Recording and Coding Guide for Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1979.

34. Barnes, C. L., and Trottier, J.-F., “Effectiveness of Ground Penetrating Radar in Predicting Deck Repair Quantities,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, V. 10, No. 2, June 2004, pp. 69-76. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2004)10:2(69)

35. Thoft-Christensen, P., “Stochastic Modeling of the Crack Initiation Time for Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering: Proceedings of Structures Congress 2000, M. Elgaaly, ed., Philadelphia, PA, 2000, 8 pp.

36. ACI Committee 209, “Guide for Modeling and Calculating Shrinkage and Creep in Hardened Concrete (ACI 209.2R-08),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 45 pp.

37. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19) (Reapproved 2022),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 624 pp.

38. Thoft-Christensen, P.; Jensen, F. M.; Middleton, C. R.; and Blackmore, A., “Assessment of the Reliability of Concrete Slab Bridges,” Reliability and Optimization of Structural Systems: Proceedings of the Seventh IFIP WG 7.5 Working Conference, D. M. Frangopol, R. B. Corotis, and R. Rackwitz, eds., Boulder, CO, 1996, pp. 1-8.

39. Stewart, M. G., and Rosowsky, D. V., “Time-Dependent Reliability of Deteriorating Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks,” Structural Safety, V. 20, No. 1, 1998, pp. 91-109. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4730(97)00021-0

40. Elsener, B. and Angst, U., “Corrosion Inhibitors for Reinforced Concrete,” Science and Technology of Concrete Admixtures, P.-C. Aïtcin and R. J. Flatt, eds., Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK, 2016, pp. 321-339.

41. Bažant, Z. P., “Physical Model for Steel Corrosion in Concrete Sea Structures,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 105, No. 6, June 1979, pp. 1137-1166.

42. Cady, P. D., and Weyers, R. E., “Deterioration Rates of Concrete Bridge Decks,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, V. 110, No. 1, Jan. 1984, pp. 34-44. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1984)110:1(34)

43. Wilensky, U., “NetLogo: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling,” Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 1999.

44. Maser, K., “Active Heating Infrared Thermography for Detection of Subsurface Bridge Deck Deterioration,” Final Report for Highway IDEA Project 101, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2004, 35 pp.

45. Hopper, T.; Manafpour, A.; Radlińska, A.; Warn, G.; Rajabipour, F.; Morian, D.; and Jahangirnejad, S., “Bridge Deck Cracking: Effects on In-Service Performance, Prevention, and Remediation,” Final Report No. FHWA-PA-2015-006-120103, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA, 2015, 267 pp.

46. Li, V. C., Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC): Bendable Concrete for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, Springer-Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany, 2019.


ALSO AVAILABLE IN:

Electronic Structural Journal



  

Edit Module Settings to define Page Content Reviewer