Kiserian-Isinya - Bridges - Report - Final Revised PDF

MTRD INTEX
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT,
INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
STATE DEPARTMENT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE
MATERIALS TESTING AND

RESEARCH DIVISION(MTRD)
DETAILED INSPECTION OF
BRIDGES ALONG KISERIAN -
ISINYA ROAD
FEBRUARY ,2018
CHIEF ENGINEER (MATERIALS ) INTEX CONSTRUCTION

P.O. BOX 11873 - 00400 P.O. BOX 60293 - 00100, IBC, EAST
NAIROBI GATE ROAD OFF MOMBASA ROAD,
NAIROBI
DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 0

MTRD INTEX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Scope of work ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 General On Scope Of Works ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Tests Done..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Test Method Principles ................................................................................................................. 3
2.3.1 Visual Inspection ................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.2 Schmidt Hammer Test........................................................................................................... 3
2.3.3 Electromagnetic Test ............................................................................................................ 3
2.3.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test ............................................................................................... 3
2.3.5 Carbonation Test. .................................................................................................................. 4
2.3.6 Reinforcement Corrosion Investigation (Resistivity potential method) ............................... 4
3.0 Bridge Test Results ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Test Results for bridge at Km 46+830 ........................................................................................... 6
3.2 Test Results for bridge at Km 44+070 ....................................................................................... 144
3.5 Test Results for bridge at Km 12+950 ......................................................................................... 42
3.6 Test Results for bridge at Km 11+920 ......................................................................................... 50
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 588
4.1 Conclusion On Condition Of Bridge At Km 46+830 ................................................................... 588
4.5 Conclusion On Condition Of Bridge At Km 12+950 ................................................................. 6060
4.6 Conclusion on bridge at Km 11+920…………………..………………………………………………………………….60
5.0 RECOMMENDATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………61
Appendix 1:Consultant’s(clients’) observations…………………………..……………………62
DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page i

MTRD INTEX
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Scope of work ............................................................................................................................... 2
Table 2.2: Inferences for ultrasonic pulse velocities..................................................................................... 4
Table 2.3: Evaluation of Carbonation Depth ................................................................................................. 4
Table 2.4: Resistivity Level vs Possible Corrosion Rate ................................................................................. 5
Table 3.1: Concrete Strength Tests Results for Bridge at Km 46+830 .......................................................... 7
Table 3.2: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) for Bridge at Km 46+830...................................... 8
Table 3.3: Resistivity Test Results for Bridge at Km 46+830 ......................................................................... 9
Table 3.4: Carbonation Test Results for Bridge at Km 46+830 ..................................................................... 9
Table 3.5: Cracks’ Details for Bridge at Km 46+830 ...................................................................................... 9
Table 3.6: Re - Bar Details for the Beams for Bridge at Km 46+830 ........................................................... 10
Table 3.7: Re - bar details for the deck slab for Bridge at Km 46+830........................................................ 10
Table 3.8: Concrete Strength Tests Results Bridge At Km 44+070 ............................................................. 16
Table 3.9: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) At Km 44+070 .................................................... 17
Table 3.10: Resistivity Test Results for Bridge At Km 44+070..................................................................... 17
Table 3.11: Carbonation Test Results At Km 44+070 .................................................................................. 18
Table 3.12: Rebar Details for Abutments and wing walls At Km 44+070 ................................................... 18
Table 3.13: Re - bar Details for Abutments and wing walls At Km 44+070 ................................................ 18
Table 3.14: Re - bar Details for the beams At Km 44+070 .......................................................................... 19
Table 3.15: Re - bar details for the deck slab At Km 44+070 ...................................................................... 19
Table 3.16: Concrete Strength Tests Results for Bridge At Km 37+140 ...................................................... 25
Table 3.17: Ultrasonic pulse velocity Test Results (Direct Transmission) At Km 37+140 ........................... 26
Table 3.18: Carbonation Test Results for bridge At Km 37+140 ................................................................. 26
Table 3.19: Re - bar for abutments and wing walls for bridge At Km 37+140 ............................................ 26
Table 3.20: Re - bar for abutments and wing walls for bridge At Km 37+140 ............................................ 27
Table 3.21: Re - bar Details for the beams for bridge At Km 37+140 ......................................................... 27
Table 3.22: Re - bar details for the deck slab for bridge At Km 37+140 ..................................................... 28
Table 3.23: Concrete Strength Tests Results for bridge At Km 32+800 ...................................................... 33
Table 3.24: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) for bridge At Km 32+800 ................................. 34
Table 3.25: Resistivity Test Results for bridge At Km 32+800………………………………………………………………...34
Table 3.26: Rebar Details for Abutments and Wing Walls for bridge At Km 32+800 ................................. 35
Table 3.27: Re - Bar Details for the beams for bridge At Km 32+800 ......................................................... 36
Table 3.35: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) For Bridge At Km 12+950................................. 43
Table 3.36: Resistivity Test Results For Bridge At Km 12+950 .................................................................... 44
Table 3.37: Re - bar details for the deck slab For Bridge At Km 12+950 .................................................... 44
Table 3.38: Carbonation Test Results For Bridge At Km 12+950 ................................................................ 44
Table 3.39: Rebar Details for Abutments, Pier Wall and Wing Walls For Bridge At Km 12+950 ................ 45
Table 3.40: Concrete Strength Tests Results for Bridge At Km 11+920 ...................................................... 50
Table 3.41: Ultrasonic pulse velocity Test Results (Direct Transmission) At Km 11+920 ........................... 51
Table 3.42: resistivity Test Results for bridge At Km 11+920 ..................................................................... 51
Table 3.43: carbonation test results for bridge At Km 11+920 .................................................................. 52
Table 3.44: Re – bar details for abutments and wing walls for bridge At Km 11+920 ............................... 52
Table 3.45: Re - bar Details for the beams for bridge At Km 11+920 ......................................................... 53
DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page ii

MTRD INTEX
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Detailed bridge inspection report is in response to a request made by M/S Intex
Construction of P.O. Box 60293 - 00100, IBC, East Gate Road off Mombasa Road,
Nairobi to undertake inspection of structures along the Kiserian - Isinya Road. The
project is under the Ngong - Kiserian - Isinya(D523) and Kajiado – Mashru - Ishara
Road(D524), Roads Contract No. RWC/LOT33/78.
A total of six structures had been targeted for detailed inspection as listed below.
i. Bridge at Km 46+830
ii. Bridge at Km 44+070
iii. Bridge at Km 37+140
iv. Bridge at Km 32+800
v. Bridge at Km 12+950
vi. Bridge at km 11+920
This report contains a description of the structures, visual observations and

description of testing methods, test results for various parameters based on different
NDT Testing methods, conclusions and recommendations. The report is factual and
dwells mainly on the status of structural elements and their material components.

MTRD INTEX
2.0 Scope of work

2.1 General on Scope of Works
The scope of work as shown below involved testing of structural elements in the
superstructures and substructures for each of the six bridges for several parameters
using various NDT Testing methods.
Table 2.1: Scope of work
No. Structural element Parameters tested Inspection details/methods
Appearance Carry out visual inspection
Re - bar details Carry out electromagnetic
tests
In-situ Concrete Carry out Schmidt hammer
strength tests
Quality, homogeneity Carry out ultrasonic pulse
1 Abutments and internal defects of velocity tests
concrete matrix
Deterioration status of i. Carry out resistivity
the concrete matrix tests
i. Corrosion ii. Carry out carbonation
ii. Remaining depth tests
effective good covers
Crack profiling i. Use of crack width
microscope to measure
crack widths
ii. Carry out ultrasonic
tests to measure crack
depths
2 Piers Ditto Ditto
3 Deck slabs Ditto Ditto
5 Ancillary Fixtures Appearance Carry out visual inspections
2.2 Tests Done

Six tests were done namely:
i) Visual Inspection to ascertain the extent of wear and tear of the structure.
ii) Ultrasonic Test to determine the homogeneity, quality, and internal defects
in the concrete matrix.
iii) Electromagnetic Test to establish the steel reinforcement details for
reinforced concrete.
iv) Schmidt Hammer Test to determine the concrete strength In-situ.
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.

MTRD INTEX
2.3 Test Method Principles

2.3.1 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.
2.3.2 Schmidt Hammer Test

This is a rebound hammer method based on the principle that the rebound of an
elastic mass depends on the hardness of the surface that it strikes. The method can
be useful in supplementing core testing by locating areas of potential weakness or
variability and avoiding destructiveness. The rebound number obtained from a
Schmidt Hammer is correlated with concrete cube crushing strength. This
method is used for In-situ concrete strength tests in various structural
elements.
2.3.3 Electromagnetic Test

This method is employed for locating steel in concrete .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.
The accuracy of reinforcing bar size estimation range from ±2% to ±15%.
2.3.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

The velocity of an ultrasonic pulse is influenced by those properties of concrete
which determine its elastic stiffness and mechanical strength. The variations
obtained in a set of pulse velocity measurements made along different paths in a

MTRD INTEX
structure reflect a corresponding variation in the state of the concrete. When a region
of low compaction, voids or damaged material is present in the concrete under test, a
corresponding reduction in the calculated pulse velocity occurs and this enables the
approximate extent of the imperfections to be determined. As concrete matures or
deteriorates, the changes, which occur with time in its structure, are reflected in
either an increase or a decrease, respectively, in the pulse velocity.
Table 2.2: Inferences for ultrasonic pulse velocities

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (km/s) Inference
> 4.5 Excellent Quality Concrete
3.5 - 4.5 Good Quality Concrete
3.0 - 3.5 Satisfactory
2.0 - 3.0 Poor Quality Concrete
< 2.0km/s Very Poor Quality Concrete
2.3.5 Carbonation Test.

The phenolphthalein test is a simple and cheap method of determining the depth of
carbonation in concrete and provides information on the risk of reinforcement
corrosion taking place. 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.
Deterioration degree is judged based on the balance of carbonation depth as shown
in the table below.
Table 2.3: 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
2.3.6 Reinforcement Corrosion Investigation (Resistivity potential method)

Resistivity measurement is a fast and simple In-situ NDT method to obtain
information related to the corrosion hazard of embedded reinforcement. 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

MTRD INTEX
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 2.4: 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

MTRD INTEX
3.0 Bridge Test Results

3.1 Test Results for bridge at Km 46+830
Visual Inspection
The following observations were made: -
i. This is a double span structure with reinforced concrete structural members
ii. A deformed deck soffit and exposed wire mesh from underneath the deck slab

MTRD INTEX
BRIDGE AT Km 46+830
iii. Vertical cracks on the RHS girder. The cracks mainly appeared on the webs of
the beams - they had not propagated to the soffits (tension side).They appear
regularly along the length of the girder at approximate intervals of 1200-
1500mm.
iv. There were no bearings –bituminous sheets had been used instead
v. Damaged guardrails
vi. Honeycombs appeared on all wing walls
vii. Damaged Protection Works
Table 3.1: Concrete Strength Tests Results for Bridge at Km 46+830

Structural Test Location Average Rebound Average Concrete
Element Number Strength (N/Mm2)
Abutment 1 - LHS 41.1 28.7
Kiserian side Centre 37.8 26.5
RHS 37.6 26.3
Isinya side Centre 35.0 24.5

MTRD INTEX
RHS 40.4 28.3

2ndRHS interior side 38.8 27.2
2ND RHS centre 41.2 28.8
Wing wall Isinya 2ND RHS exterior side 36.4 25.5
Side 2nd LHS interior side 37.8 26.5
2ND LHS centre 40.0 28.0
2ND LHS exterior side 44.6 31.2
1ST LHS interior side 42.6 29.8
1ST LHS centre 44.6 31.2
1ST LHS exterior side 41.8 29.3
Wing wall 1ST RHS interior side 35.4 24.8
Kiserian side 1ST RHS centre 36.4 25.5
1ST RHS exterior side 34.2 23.9
Pier 1 L.HS 50.0 35.0
Centre 41.4 28.9
RHS 43.4 30.4
1st 48.4 33.6
Girders Kiserian 2nd 55.4 38.8
Side 3rd 50.8 35.6
4th 54.0 35.2
1st 38.0 26.6
Girders Isinya 2nd 38.2 26.7
Side 3rd 34.6 34.2
4th 39.6 27.7
Cross Girder Middle 540 37.8
Deck slab LHS panel 26.5 18.8
Kiserian Side Middle panel 33.2 23.3
RHS panel 44.6 31.2
Deck slab LHS 50.2 35.1
Isinya Side MIDDLE 47.6 33.3
RHS 43.4 30.4
Table 3.2: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) for Bridge at Km 46+830
Test Location Distance Transit Time Velocity Remarks
(mm) (ms) (km/s)
Beam 1 455 140.1 3.2 Satisfactory
Beam 3 470 134.7 3.5 good quality
Pier wall 390 106.5 3.7 Satisfactory

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.3: Resistivity Test Results for Bridge at Km 46+830

Structural Element Location Resistivity (kΩcm) Remarks
Abutment wall - Kiserian side LHS 109.6
Abutment wall - Isinya side RHS 109.9
Wing wall - Kiserian side LHS 109.0
RHS 108.3 probability of
Wing wall - Isinya side LHS 108.3 corrosion activity
RHS 54.6 is insignificant
Beams - Isinya Side Beam 1 109.8
Beams - Kiserian Side Beam 4 110.9
Deck slab - Isinya Side LHS 110.8
Deck slab - Kiserian side 3 s - RHS
RD 110.9
Table 3.4: Carbonation Test Results for Bridge at Km 46+830
Test element Test Carbonati Least Cover Effectiv Remarks/ Degree
location on Depth Recorded e Cover of deterioration
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Abutment wall - LHS 12.6 80 67.4 None
Kiserian side
Abutment wall - RHS 5.25 64 58.5 None
Isinya side
Wing wall - Kiserian LHS 9.0 52 43 None
side
Wing wall - Isinya LHS 3.75 80 76.2 None
side
Beams - Isinya Side Beam 1 4.45 31 26.5 Low
Deck slab - Isinya Side LHS 11.55 5 - 6.5 High
Deck slab - Kiserian 3RD RHS 3.65 5 1.3 High
side
Table 3.5: Cracks’ Details for Bridge at Km 46+830

Crack no. Crack length (mm) Max. Crack width ( mm) Crack depth (mm)
Cr1 on B1 1000 0.40 208.5
Cr2 on B1 1000 0.50 237.1
Cr3 on B1 1000 0.30 111.9
Cr1 on B3 1000 0.40 256.7
Cr2 on B3 1000 0.50 208.0
Cr1 on B4 1000 0.35 226.1
Cr2 on B4 1020 0.60 350.9
Cr3 on B4 1010 0.40 200.3
Cr4 on B4 1010 0.38 235.1

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.6: Re - Bar Details for the Beams for Bridge at Km 46+830
Test Member Size (mm),No of Re - Bars & Re - Average Links
Location Spacing(mm) bar covers details
size (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Deck Slab 200
Beam 4 Side A: Spacing:

RHS 23
1070 32 180
Side B:
42 Size: 10
B
90
Mesh Wire 450

BA
Table 3.7: Re - bar details for the deck slab for Bridge at Km 46+830
Test Location Re - bar spacing Average covers Re - bar size Deck slab
(mm) (mm) (mm) Thickness
(mm)
DS1 The rebar details could not be resolved due to presence
DS2 of wire mesh netting on the soffits of the decks 200

MTRD INTEX
Bridge AT Km 46+830
Ultrasonic pulse velocity tests results for Homogeneity of concrete matrix
Test Location: Abutment –Kiserian Side LHS
Time(μs) Distance(mm)
0 0
150 66.1
300 161.1
450 264.6
600 320.3
750 414
Distance vs. Time Graph

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Abutment –Kiserian Side RHS
0 0
150 42.4
300 160.7
450 238.7
600 349.8
750 641.1
900 918

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Test Location: Pier Wall (center)
0 0
150 69.5
300 143.5
450 197.7
600 221.6
750 312
900 359.3

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side LHS
0 0
150 43.9
300 88.8
450 166.5
600 270.9
750 369.1

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Test Location: Abutment 2 –Isinya Side RHS
0 0
150 169.4
300 278.3
450 365.2
600 519.5
750 704.1

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX

Visual Inspection: This is a single span RCC structure
i. Spalling of concrete on the LHS deck soffit exposing corroded wire mesh
netting. Similar scenario on the RHS.
ii. Guardrails are intact

iii. No bearings - bituminous sheets used instead

MTRD INTEX
iv. Honeycombing on some areas of the beams

v. Minor vertical cracks on the beams appearing on the webs
vi. Damaged Protection works

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.8: Concrete Strength Tests Results Bridge at Km 44+070

Kiserian Side Centre 46.6 32.6
RHS 45.6 31.9
Isinya Side Centre 42.6 29.9
RHS 48.8 34.2
Wing wall Isinya RHS interior side 45.6 31.9
Side RHS RHS centre 47.4 33.2
RHS exterior side 47.8 33.5
LHS interior side 49.8 34.8
LHS centre 47.6 33.3

MTRD INTEX
LHS exterior side 43.4 30.4

Wing wall Kiserian LHS interior side 48.6 34.0
side LHS LHS centre 51.6 36.1
RHS interior side 44.8 31.4
RHS centre 45.0 31.5
Beams Kiserian 1st 57.6 40.3
Side 2nd 50.8 35.6
3rd 41.4 29.0
4th 53.4 37.4
Beams Isinya Side 1st 65.8 46.1
2nd 54.4 38.1
3rd 45.4 31.8
4th 60.0 42.0
Deck slab - LHS panel 55.6 38.9
RHS panel 59.6 41.7
Deck slab - Isinya LHS 59.4 46.1
Side MIDDLE 52.2 36.5
RHS 54.6 38.2
Table 3.9: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) At Km 44+070

Test Location Distance Transit Velocity Remarks
(mm) Time (µs) (km/s)
Beam 1 455 131.8 3.5 Good quality
Table 3.10: Resistivity Test Results for Bridge At Km 44+070

Structural Element Test Location Resistivity (kΩcm) Remarks
Abutment wall - Kiserian LHS 109.7
side
Abutment wall - Isinya RHS 110.7 Probability
side of corrosion
Wing wall - Kiserian side LHS 108.6 activity is
Wing wall - Isinya side RHS 110.8 insignificant
Beams Beam 4 109.8
Deck slab 3RD slab from 110.7
LHS

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.11: Carbonation Test Results At Km 44+070

Test element Test Carbonati Least Effective Remarks/
location on Depth Cover Cover Degree of
(mm) Recorded (mm) deterioration
(mm)
Abutment wall - LHS 2.2 41 38.8 None
Kiserian side
Isinya side
Wing wall - Kiserian LHS 1.7 58 56.3 None
side
side
Beams Beam 4 2.0 27 25.0 Low
Deck slab Midspan 2.0 8.0 6.0 Medium
Table 3.12: Rebar Details for Abutments and wing walls At Km 44+070
Test location Orientation Average Spacing Rebar Size
cover (mm) (mm) (mm)
Wing wall - Kiserian Vertical 69 200 16
side - RHS Transverse 67 250 12
Abutment 1 - Kiserian Vertical 87 200 20
Abutment 1 - Kiserian Vertical 45 200 20
Side - LHS Transverse 53 250 16
Table 3.13: Re - bar Details for Abutments and wing walls At Km 44+070
Abutment2 - Isinya Vertical 56 200 20
Abutment 2 - Isinya Vertical 67 150 20
side - Centre Transverse 62 250 16
side - LHS Transverse 48 250 16
Wing wall 2 - Isinya Vertical 59 150 16

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.14: Re - bar Details for the beams At Km 44+070

size (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Deck Slab 200

RHS 23
1070 32 180
Side B:
42 Size: 10
B
90
Mesh Wire 450

BA
NOTE: Not possible to resolve the bottom bars for Beam due to presence of the mesh wire. The
rebar details could only be determined from the web.
Table 3.15: Re - bar details for the deck slab At Km 44+070

Test Location Re - bar spacing Average Re - bar size Deck slab
(mm) covers (mm) Thickness
(mm) (mm)
DS1 The rebar details could not be resolved due to
presence of wire mesh netting on the soffits of the 200
decks

MTRD INTEX
SLAB THICKNESS MEASUREMENT
Head wall
250
450
200

MTRD INTEX
Ultrasonic pulse velocity tests results for Homogeneity of concrete matrix for
bridge At Km 44+070
Test Location: Abutment 1–Kiserian Side RHS
0 0
150 62.7
300 127.9
450 181.6
600 233.9
750 319.8
900 353.4

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side RHS
0 0
150 52.2
300 143.3
450 292.9
600 351
750 438.4
900 531.2

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
BRIDGE AT Km 44+070
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side (centre)
0 0
150 53.1
300 108.3
450 283.1
600 363.2
750 545.4

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX

Visual Inspection: Type of structure - This is a single span RCC structure
i. Road fixtures are still intact
ii. No protection works and signs of erosion of the backfills are starting to show.

MTRD INTEX
Visual inspection – visible distress
iii. Vertical crack on the Isinya side (middle of the abutment wall
iv. There were no bearings
v. Vertical cracks are appearing on the webs of the LHS girders at approximately
halfway between the mid cross beam support and the abutments supports.
However the cracks do not appear on the tension side of the beams

MTRD INTEX
Visual inspection – Visible Distress

vi. Spalling on the RHS deck soffit - near the RHS edge exposing corroded wire
mesh

Structural Test Location Average Rebound Average Concrete Strength
Element Number (N/Mm2)
Abutment LHS 64.4 32.5
RHS 44.2 30.9
Abutment LHS 43.5 30.5
RHS 46.2 32.3
Wing wall RHS interior side 45.0 31.5
Isinya Side RHS centre 40.2 38.1
RHS RHS exterior side 39.2 27.4
Wing wall LHS interior side 51.4 35.0
Kiserian side LHS centre 51.2 35.8
LHS LHS exterior side 49.8 35.8
Beams - 1st 54.0 37.8
Kiserian Side 2nd 45.2 31.6
3rd 42.8 30.0
4th 43.1 30.2
RHS panel 58.6 41.0

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.17: Ultrasonic pulse velocity Test Results (Direct Transmission) At Km

37+140
Test Location Distance Transit Time Velocity (km/s) Remarks
(mm) (µs)
B1 455 195.2 2.3 Poor quality
B2 455 140.1 3.2 Satisfactory
Table 21: Resistivity Test Results for bridge At Km 37+140

Abutment wall - Isinya side RHS 110.9 Probability
Wing wall - Kiserian side LHS 110.9 of corrosion
Wing wall - Isinya side LHS 109.4 activity is
RHS 109.4 insignificant
Deck slab - Isinya Side 2nd from LHS 107.6
Table 3.18: Carbonation Test Results for bridge At Km 37+140

Test element Test Carbonat Least Effectiv Remarks/
locatio ion Cover e Cover Degree of
n Depth Recorded (mm) deteriorati
(mm) (mm) on
Abutment wall - Kiserian LHS 1.4 24 22.6 Low
side
Abutment wall - Isinya RHS 4.5 28 23.5 Low
side
Wing wall - Kiserian side LHS 2.5 64 61.5 None
Wing wall - Isinya side LHS 4.2 46 31.8 None
Beams - Isinya Side Beam 2 3.0 23 20.0 Low
Deck slab - Isinya Side 2nd - 7.5 10 2.5 High
LHS
Table 3.19: Re - bar for abutments and wing walls for bridge At Km 37+140
Test location Orientation Average Spacing Rebar Size
cover (mm) (mm) (mm)
Wing wall 1 - Kiserian side - RHS Vertical 68 150 16
Transverse 73 250 12
Abutment 1 - Kiserian side - LHS Vertical 29 150 20

MTRD INTEX
Abutment 1 - Kiserian Side - RHS Vertical 37 150 20

Table 3.20: Re - bar for abutments and wing walls for bridge at Km 37+140
Abutment 2 - Isinya side - Vertical 42 150 20
Centre Transverse 48 250 16
LHS Transverse 38 250 16
Wing wall 2 - Isinya side - Vertical 53 150 16
Table 3.21: Re - bar Details for the beams for bridge At Km 37+140
Test Member Size (mm),No of Re - Bars & Bar Average Links
Location Spacing(mm) size covers details
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Deck Slab 200

27
1080 25 250
Side B:
A B 49 Size: 10
460

MTRD INTEX
Deck Slab 250
Beam 3 Side B: Spacing:

44
1080 25 250
Side C:
C 55 Size: 10
460
BA
Table 3.22: Re - bar details for the deck slab for bridge At Km 37+140
(mm)
of wire mesh netting on the soffits of the decks 250
Slab Thickness Measurement
200
450
250

MTRD INTEX
BRIDGE AT Km 37+140
Test Location: Abutment 1–Kiserian Side (LHS)
0 0
150 63.4
300 124.5
450 165
600 223.1
750 349.1
400
DI STA NCE VS. T I ME G RA PH
350
300
DISTANCE(MM)
250
200
150
100
50
0
TIME(ΜS)
-50 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Test Location: Abutment 1–Kiserian Side (RHS)
0 0
150 65.1
300 145.5
450 210.4
600 288.5
750 315.4
900 453.1

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Bridge at Km 37+140
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side (centre)
0 0
150 76.6
300 155.7
450 229
600 338.3
750 630
900 766.4

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side (LHS)
0 0
150 61.5
300 102.3
450 195.3
600 239
750 306.6
900 396.9

MTRD INTEX

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX

Visual Inspection: Type of structure - This is a single span all RCC structure
i. LHS protection works damaged (Isinya bound). Same for RHS
ii. Overgrown bushes at the approaches

MTRD INTEX
Visual Inspection – Visible distress
iii. Damaged guardrails on the RHS - Isinya bound side
iv. The protection works on the Kiserian side approach was ok.
v. Minor vertical cracks on the beam web
Table 3.23: Concrete Strength Tests Results for bridge At Km 32+800

Abutment - LHS 33.8 23.7
RHS 44.6 31.2
Abutment - LHS 39.0 27.3
RHS 47.0 32.9
Wing wall - RHS interior side 52.4 36.7

MTRD INTEX
Isinya Side RHS centre 48.8 34.2

Wing wall - LHS interior side 45.2 31.6
Beams - 1st 56.2 39.4
Kiserian Side 2nd 59.4 41.6
3rd 64.2 44.9
4th 60.8 42.6
Beams - Isinya 1st 60.0 42.0
Side 2nd 64.6 45.2
3rd 63.2 44.2
4th 66.0 46.2
RHS panel 62.2 43.5
Table 3.24: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) for bridge At Km 32+800
Test Location Distance Transit Time Velocity Remarks
(mm) (ms) (km/s)
Table 3.25: Resistivity Test Results for bridge At Km 32+800

side
Abutment wall - Isinya RHS 109.1 Probability
side of corrosion
Wing wall - Isinya side LHS 107.4 activity is
RHS 110.6 insignificant
Base wall - Kiserian Side LHS 109.7
Deck slab Midspan 110.9

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.26: Carbonation Test Results
Test element Test Carbonat Least Effectiv Remarks/

locati ion Cover e Cover Degree of
on Depth Recorded (mm) deteriorati
(mm) (mm) on
Abutment wall - Kiserian LHS 3.2 39.0 35.8 None
side
Abutment wall - Isinya RHS 14.6 32.0 17.4 Low
side
Wing wall - Isinya side LHS 9.0 43.0 34.0 None
RHS 6.5 41.0 34.5 None
Beams - Isinya Side Beam 2.2 27.0 25.8 Low
4
Base wall – Kiserian Side LHS 7.7 50.0 42.3 None
Deck slab Mid 1.0 10.0 9.0 Medium
span
Table 3.26: Rebar Details for Abutments and Wing Walls for bridge At Km 32+800
Test location Orientation Average Spacing Rebar
cover (mm) (mm) Size (mm)
Wing wall 1 - LHS Vertical 34 150 16
Abutment 1 - Vertical 43 150 20
Kiserian side - RHS Transverse 42 250 16
side - Centre Transverse 40 250 16

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.27: Re - Bar Details for the beams for bridge At Km 32+800
size (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Deck Slab 200
Beam 4 Side B: Spacing:

32
1010 25 250
Side C:
A C Size: 10
58
410
BB
Deck Slab 200

52
1030 250
Side B:
C 25 Size: 10
32
A
Side C:
43
400
BA

MTRD INTEX
Re - Bar Details for the beams

size (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Deck Slab 200

41
1000 250
Side B:
A C 25 Size: 10
27
Side C:
43
410
BB
Deck Slab 200

50
1000 250
Side B:
C 25 Size: 10
25
A
Side C:
47
400
BA

MTRD INTEX
Table 32: Re - bar details for the deck slab
(mm)
of wire mesh netting on the soffits of the decks 200
Slab Thickness Measurement
200
400
200

MTRD INTEX
Bridge at Km 32+800
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya side centre
0 0
150 69.3
300 156.7
450 199.7
600 263.1
750 312.5
900 612.8

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya side LHS
0 0
150 56.6
300 100.3
450 158.6
600 193.5
750 253.6
900 287.1

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Test Location: Wing wall 1 - Kiserian Side LHS
0 0
150 83.5
300 170.9
450 302.7
600 370.5

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
0 0
150 58.1
300 124.7
450 177.5
600 302.9
750 514.2
Distance vs.Time Graph

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Test location:Deck slab

Time(µs) Distance(mm)
55 150
180 300
203 450
283 600
402 750
441 900
Distance VS Time Graph

1000
800
600
Distance(mm)
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Transit Time(micro.sec)

MTRD INTEX

Visual inspection: Type of structure -This a double span all RCC structure
i. There were no bearings
Table 40: Concrete Strength Tests Results for Bridge at Km 12+950

Abutment Kiserian LHS 45.6 31.9
Side Centre 42.0 29.4
RHS 50.8 35.6
Abutment Isinya LHS 38.8 27.2
Side Centre 39.2 27.4
RHS 40.0 28.0
Pier L.HS 48.4 33.9
Centre 38.8 27.2

MTRD INTEX
RHS 50.4 35.3

Wing wall - Isinya RHS interior side 40.2 28.2
Side RHS centre 42.8 29.9
Wing wall - LHS interior side 49.2 34.4
Beams Kiserian 1st 42.8 29.9
Side LHS 2nd 54.6 38.2
3rd 43.4 30.4
4th 30.8 21.6
Beams Isinya Side 1st 43.0 30.1
RHS 2nd 45.6 31.9
3rd 51.6 36.1
4th 46.2 32.3
Deck slab Kiserian 1ST 46.0 32.2
Side LHS 2ND 42.6 29.8
3RD 54.6 38.2
Deck slab Isinya 1ST 53.0 37.1
Side RHS 2ND 55.2 38.6
3RD 63.6 44.5
Table 3.28: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) For Bridge at Km

12+950
(mm) Time (ms) (km/s)
Beam 1 - 1st span 450 128.5 3.5 Good quality
Beam 3 - 1st span 450 139.3 3.2 Satisfactory
Beam 1 - 2nd span 455 191.4 2.4 Poor quality
Beam 2 - 2nd span 450 166.4 2.7 Poor quality
Beam 3 - 2nd span 450 145.9 3.1 Satisfactory

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.29: Resistivity Test Results For Bridge At Km 12+950

Abutment wall - Isinya side RHS 110.6
Wing wall - Kiserian side LHS 107.2
RHS 89.4
Wing wall - Isinya side LHS 110.6 Probability
RHS 109.8 of corrosion
Beams Beam 2 109.4 activity is
Beam 3 109.4 insignificant
Deck slab - Isinya Side 1st - LHS 110.9
Deck slab - Kiserian Side 2nd - RHS 110.7
Base wall - Kiserian Side LHS 67.9
Pier Middle 108.7
Table 3.30: Re - bar details for the deck slab For Bridge At Km 12+950
(mm) (mm) (mm) Thickness (mm)
decks
Table 3.31: Carbonation Test Results For Bridge At Km 12+950

Test element Test Carbonati Least Effecti Remarks/
location on Depth Cover ve Degree of
(mm) Recorded Cover deteriorati
(mm) (mm) on
Abutment wall - LHS 15.4 43 27.6 Low
Kiserian side
Abutment wall - Isinya RHS 24.7 30 5.3 Low
side
Wing wall - Kiserian LHS 16.4 35 18.6 Low
side RHS 6.7 33 26.3 Low
Wing wall - Isinya side LHS 8.8 43 34.2 None
RHS 4.8 43 38.2 None
Beams Beam 2 12.7 24 11.3 Low
Beam 3 4.7 23 18.3 Low
Deck slab - Isinya Side 1ST LHS 2.3 5.0 2.7 Medium
Deck slab - Kiserian 2nd LHS 2.0 6.0 4.0 Medium
Side
Base wall - Kiserian Side LHS 3.0 55.0 52.0 None
Pier Middle 23.8 50.0 26.2 Low

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.32: Rebar Details for Abutments and Wing Walls for Bridge At Km 12+950
Test location Orientation Average cover Spacing Rebar Size
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Wing wall - Kiserian side - Vertical 38 150 16
Abutment 1 - Kiserian side - Vertical 60 150 20
RHS Transverse 51 250 16
Abutment 1 - Kiserian Side - Vertical 43 150 20
Abutment2 - Isinya side - Vertical 62 150 20
Centre Transverse 44 250 16
Wing wall 2 - Isinya side - Vertical RHS 47 150 16
Test Location: Abutment 1–Kiserian Side LHS
0 0
150 85.2
300 141.6
450 211.8
600 274.8
750 302.1
900 344.6

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Bridge at Km 12+950
0 0
150 54.4
300 127
450 171.4
600 246.6
750 322.9
900 616.1

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Pier Wall RHS
0 0
150 69.7
300 99.6
450 187.1
600 257.7
750 381.2
900 494.5

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Bridge at Km 12+950
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side LHS
0 0
150 70.9
300 134.5
450 202
600 454.6
750 754.3
Distance vs.Time Graph

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side Centre
0 0
150 88.2
300 163.6
450 319.2
600 394
750 643.4
900 866.1
Distance Vs. Time Graph

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Bridge at Km 12+950
Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side RHS
0 0
150 46.7
300 140.1
450 205.4
600 373.4
750 389.5
900 432.5

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)
Test Location: Wing Wall 2 - Isinya Side RHS
0 0
150 102.4
300 200
450 264.9
600 367.7
750 536
900 567.9

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
Bridge at Km 12+950
Test Location: Wing Wall 2 - Kiserian Side LHS
0 0
150 63.3
300 136.7
450 238.6
600 327.1
750 413.9
900 542.8

Distance(mm)
Time(μs)

MTRD INTEX
3.6 Bridge at Km 11+920
Visual Inspection
i. A view of the structure-A single span all RCC structure
ii. Spalling of the deck soffit on the RHS edge-Isinya bound
iii. Minor hairline cracks on the beams which appear near the mid span

MTRD INTEX

Element Number Strength (N/mm2)
RHS 39.0 31.2
RHS 38.5 30.8
Wing wall Isinya RHS 45.4 36.3
Side LHS 39.0 31.2
Wing wall Kiserian LHS 37.0 29.6
side RHS 34.0 27.2
1st 46.5 37.2
Beams 2nd 43.8 35.0
3rd 37.0 29.6
4th 42.0 33.6
RHS panel 43.1 34.5
Deck slab - Isinya LHS 44.1 35.3
Side Middle 45.2 36.2
RHS 43.6 34.9
Table 3.41: Ultrasonic Test Results (Direct Transmission) At Km 11+920

(mm) Time (µs) (km/s)
Table 3.42: Resistivity Test Results for Bridge at Km 11+920

side
Abutment wall - Isinya RHS 110.9
side
Wing wall - Kiserian side LHS 109.9 Probability
Wing wall - Isinya side RHS 108.0 of corrosion
Beams Beam 4 111.2 activity is
Deck slab 3RD slab from 110.8 insignificant

MTRD INTEX
LHS
Table 3.43: Carbonation Test Results at Km KM11+920
Test element Test Carbonation Least Effective Remarks/
location Depth (mm) Cover Cover Degree of
Recorded (mm) deterioration
(mm)
Abutment wall - LHS 2.2 21 18.8 Low
Kiserian side
Isinya side
Wing wall - Kiserian LHS 6.5 34 27.5 Low
side
side
Beams Outer 2.1 32 39.9 None
Inner 3.7 42 38.3 None
Deck slab 3rd slab 2.1 10 7.9 Medium
LHS
Table 3.44: Re - bar Details for Abutments and wing walls At Km 11+920
Test location Re-bar orientation Average Re-bar Re-bar
cover(mm) spacing(mm) size(mm)
Abutment1 - Isinya Vertical 35 150 16
side Horizontal 45 250 12
Abutment 2 – Vertical 20 170 16
kiserian side Horizontal 30 220 12
Wingwall 1 - Isinya Vertical 62 200 12
side -RHS Horizontal 74 250 12
Wing wall 1 - Vertical 40 150 12
Kiserian side - LHS Horizontal 51 250 12

MTRD INTEX
Table 3.45: Re - bar Details for the beams At Km11+920

size (mm) (mm)
(mm)
Deck Slab 200
Beam 4 Side Spacing:

RHS A:80
1070 32 200
Side
B:32 Size: 10
B
90
Mesh Wire 460

BA
NOTE: Not possible to resolve the bottom bars for Beam due to presence of the mesh wire. The
rebar details could only be determined from the web.
Table 3.46: Re - bar details for the deck slab at KM 11+920

Test Location Re - bar spacing Average Re - bar size Deck slab
(mm) covers (mm) Thickness
(mm) (mm)
decks

MTRD INTEX
SLAB THICKNESS MEASUREMENT
Head wall
250
450
200

MTRD INTEX
Ultrasonic pulse velocity tests results for Homogeneity of concrete matrix for
bridge At Km 11+920
Test location:Abutment-Kiserian
side
118 150
229 300
372 450
471 600
649 750
892 900
Distance VS Time Graph

1500
1000
Distance(m
m) 500
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time(µs)
Test location:Abutment-Isinya side

77 150
112 300
265 450
369 600
482 750
643 900
Distance VS Time Curve

1000
800
600
Distance(mm)
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800
time (micro.sec.)

MTRD INTEX
Test location:Wing wall Kiserian

side
99 150
198 300
310 450
481 600
597 750
633 900
Distance vs Time Graph

1000
800
600
Distance(mm)
400
200
0
0 200 400 600 800
Transit time (micro.sec.)
Test location:Wing wall Isinya side

72 150
122 300
283 450
336 600
443 750
549 900
Distance vs Time Curve

1000
800
600
Distance(mm)
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Transit time(micro.sec)

MTRD INTEX
Test location:Deck slab

109 150
188 300
300 450
450 600
548 750
633 900
Distance vs Time Curve

1000
900
800
700
600
Distance(mm) 500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Transit time(micro.sec.)

MTRD INTEX
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Conclusion On Condition Of Bridge At Km 46+830
From visual condition, there is visual evidence of surface defects as indicated by
cracks on beams, deformed deck soffits and honeycombed wing walls. Ancillary
fixtures (bearings and expansion gaps) are lacking.
Carbonation tests results show that there is adequate effective good cover to
reinforcement hence no risk of re - bar corrosion for most of the reinforced concrete
members except for the deck slab soffit where the risk is high. Resistivity tests
indicate insignificant corrosion activity for the reinforced members.
As concrete matures or deteriorates, the changes, which occur with time in its
structure, are reflected in either an increase or a decrease, respectively, in the pulse
velocity. For this structure medium level ultrasonic pulse velocities were recorded for
the sampled areas, an indication of satisfactory quality of concrete. There were cases
of slight inhomogeneities, an indication of internal imperfections for the sampled
members.
The strengths obtained from the sampled elements indicate design class 25 of
concrete. Test results for re - bar details should be looked at in assessing their
adequacy in the structure as built. The re - bar details for the deck slab cannot
determined due to wire mesh netting on the soffit that inhibits resolution for the re -
bars details.

There is visual evidence of surface defects as indicated by spalling of concrete on
some locations on the deck soffits and lack of protection works leading to erosion of
backfills. Ancillary fixtures (Bearings) are lacking.
Carbonation tests results show that there is adequate effective good cover to
reinforcement hence no risk of re - bar corrosion for reinforced concrete members.
Resistivity tests indicate insignificant corrosion activity for the reinforced members.
velocity. For this structure higher level ultrasonic pulse velocities were recorded for
the sampled areas, an indication of good quality of concrete. There were cases of
slight inhomogeneities, an indication of internal imperfections for some of the
sampled members.
adequacy in the structure as built. The re - bar details for the deck slab cannot
MTRD INTEX
determined due to wire mesh netting on the soffit that inhibits resolution for the re -
bars details.

There is visual evidence of surface defects as indicated by cracks on beams and
deformed deck soffits. Ancillary fixtures (Bearings) are lacking. The carbonation tests
results show that there is adequate effective good cover to reinforcement hence no
risk of re - bar corrosion for all the reinforced concrete members. Resistivity tests
velocity. For this structure high level ultrasonic pulse velocities were recorded for the
sampled areas, an indication of good quality of concrete. There were cases of slight
inhomogeneities, an indication of internal imperfections for the sampled members.
adequacy in the structure as built.

There is visual evidence of surface defects as indicated by damaged protection works.
Ancillary fixtures (Bearings) are lacking. The carbonation tests results show that
there is adequate effective good cover to reinforcement hence no risk of re - bar
corrosion for the reinforced concrete members. Resistivity tests indicate insignificant
corrosion activity for the reinforced members.
members.

MTRD INTEX

Ancillary fixtures (Bearings and expansion joints) are lacking. The carbonation tests
results show that there is adequate effective good cover to reinforcement hence no
risk of re - bar corrosion for all the reinforced concrete members. Resistivity tests
members.
4.6 Conclusion on Condition of Bridge At Km 11+920

There is visual evidence of minor surface defects as indicated by spalling of concrete
on the deck soffit-RHS.
The carbonation tests results show that there is adequate effective good cover to
reinforcement hence no risk of re -bar corrosion for the reinforced concrete members.
Resistivity tests indicate insignificant corrosion activity for the reinforced members.
the sampled areas, an indication of good quality of concrete. There were cases of
slight inhomogeneities, an indication of internal imperfections for the sampled
members.
The strengths obtained from the sampled elements were varying from 1 element to
another and the design classes cannot be discerned. Test results for re -bar details
should be looked at in assessing their adequacy in the structure as built.

MTRD INTEX
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
All the bridges are one span RCC structure except bridge at Km 12+950 which is a
double span RCC structure. The project Structural Engineer is advised to make
further judgment as to the suitability of the structures for the intended use based on
the results presented herein as a guide with attention to the following:
i. Cracking of beams, slabs and wing walls;

ii. Damaged protection works;
iii. Lack of ancillary fixtures such a expansion joints and bearings;
iv. Spalling of concrete on deck slab soffits;
v. Damaged or vandalized road furniture such as guard and hand rail
Most structures have a hydraulic design life of 50 years. The road section between
Kiserian and Isinya was constructed in 1992. Hence structures have been in service
for about 25-years. The structures require the following:
i. Sealing of cracks on beams, slabs and wing walls
ii. Repair spalled locations on slab soffits to ensure effective cover for the re-
bar;
iii. Place the appropriate expansion joints and bearings;
iv. Repair and extend protection works where necessary;
v. Replace damaged guardrails and clear bushes at approaches;
vi. Have a monitoring regime on bridge performance

MTRD INTEX
APPENDIX1: CONSULTANTS’(CLIENTS’) OBSERVATIONS ON THE REPORT

Consultant’s queries from MTRD Report
1. On pg. 6 of report, the visual inspection for bridge 46+830 resulted into a point where the deck slab is
stated as deformed. Whereas in the conclusion given on pg. 55, instead of bridge at Ch. 46+830, the
deformed deck slab is mentioned for bridge at Ch. 44+070. Please clarify.
2. For Bridge 44+070 in Clause.3.2, Page No.-15 Shown Photo is the same photo in Clause 3.1, Page-6 for
46+830.
3. In all the bridges, location of vertical cracks in girders, to be mentioned.
4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity test result parameters seems to have altered. Since we have predetermined
distance between emitter and receiver, the distance should have value shown under the time column.
Please check.
5. Size of honeycomb patch should be mentioned.
6. Please provide the carbonation test results for deck slab of bridge 44+070.
7. Ultrasonic pulse Velocity test, resistivity test and carbonation test to be provided for deck slab of bridge
32+800
Suggestions from Design Consultant
In all the bridges it is observed that ancillary fixtures such as expansion joints and bearings are missing or
buried. Further road furniture such as guard and hand rails are vandalized or damaged and needs to be
replaced.
Most structures have a hydraulic design life of 50 years. The road section between Kiserian and Isinya was
constructed in 1992. Hence structures have been in service for about 25-years and can serve for intended
service life with following recommendations:
Bridge at 46+830
1. Since the deck slab is deformed and wire mesh is exposed, we propose reconstruction of deck slab.
2. From Visual inspections it is found that girders have vertical cracks. However they mainly appear on the
web of the beam and do not propagate to the soffit level. We propose jacketing of all girders.
3. As per Table-1 of BS5400-Part- 4, page no-7 maximum permissible design crack width is 0.25mm for
moderate environment condition. For this bridge all measured crack widths are more than permissible
(Clause.3.1, Table-3.5, and Page No.-9). Also measured crack depth is significant.
4. From resistivity test result, the probability of corrosion activity is insignificant. However from
carbonation test, the degree of deterioration for deck slab is high. Hence the deck slab is proposed to
be replaced.
5. Appropriate rehabilitation method to be adopted for protection work in accordance with engineer-in-
charge.
Bridge at 44+070
1. The visual inspection test states the swelling of concrete exposing corroded wire mesh. Further deck
soffit is uneven with honeycomb in some area of deck soffit. Hence it is proposed for reconstruction.
3. From resistivity test result, the probability of corrosion activity is insignificant. However the carbonation
test results for deck slab are absent.

MTRD INTEX
charge.
Bridge at 37+140
1. The visual inspection test states the swelling of concrete exposing corroded wire mesh on the RHS of
deck soffit. Since there are no sign of deformation, the deck can be retained with appropriate
retrofitting and repair methodology.
2. In Clause.4.3, Page No.-56, 2.5mm shall not be considered as adequate effective good cover & shall be
modified from no risk to Medium risk of re-bar corrosion (Refer Page-25).
carbonation test, the degree of deterioration for deck slab is high. Hence jacketing of deck slab is
suggested.
charge.
Bridge at 32+800
2. Since Ultrasonic pulse Velocity test, resistivity test and carbonation test are not available for deck slab,
the condition of same cannot be evaluated.
charge.
Bridge at 28+450
1. The visual inspection test states the swelling of concrete exposing corroded wire mesh on the RHS of
deck soffit. Since there are no sign of deformation, the deck can be retained with appropriate
retrofitting and repair methodology.
carbonation test, the degree of deterioration for deck slab is high. Hence jacketing of deck slab is
suggested.
charge.
Bridge at 12+950
1. From the resistivity test results, the probability of corrosion activity is insignificant in all the
components. However from carbonation test the degree deterioration is medium for deck slab. Hence
jacketing of deck slab is suggested.
2. In Clause.4.6, Page No.-57, 2.7mm,4.0mm shall not be considered as adequate effective good cover &
shall be modified from no risk to Medium to Low risk of re-bar corrosion (Refer Page-49).
3. Ultrasonic test results for beam 1-2nd span and beam 2-2nd span has pulse velocity less than 3 km/sec,
which states that the concrete quality is poor. Hence appropriate rehabilitation method should be
adopted for the same.
charge.

MTRD INTEX
APPENDIX 2: PHOTOS
BRIDGE AT Km 46+830 PHOTOS
Photo 1: a side view of the bridge
Photo 2: Scanning for re - bars on a pier wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 3: Ultrasonic pulse velocity test on a beam
Photo 4; Drilling For Carbonation Test on an Abutment Wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 5: drilling for resistivity test on a pier wall
Photo 6: measurement of carbonation depth

MTRD INTEX
Photo 7: Color change at carbonation depth
Photo 8: Resistivity test on an abutment wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 9: Schmidt hammer test on a beam
Photo 10: crack width measurement

MTRD INTEX
Photo 11: a side view of the structure
Photo 12: scanning of an abutment wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 13: Schmidt hammer on an abutment wall
Photo 14: Drilling of an abutment wall for carbonation test

MTRD INTEX
Photo 15: change of color at carbonation depth

MTRD INTEX
Photo 17: scanning for re - bars on a beam
Photo 18: ultrasonic pulse velocity test on a beam

MTRD INTEX
Photo 19: a side view of the structure
Photo 20: Schmidt hammer test on a wing wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 21: drilling for carbonation on a wing wall
Photo 22: Scanning for re - bars on a beam

MTRD INTEX
Photo 23: ultrasonic pulse velocity tests on a beam
Photo 24: ultrasonic pulse velocity on a wing wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 26: scanning for re - bars on an abutment wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 27: Schmidt hammer test on an abutment wall
Photo 28: ultrasonic pulse velocity tests on an abutment wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 29: carbonation test on an abutment wall
Photo 30: resistivity test on an abutment wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 32: color change at carbonation depth

MTRD INTEX
Photo 34: a view of the bridge soffit

MTRD INTEX
Photo 35: various testing activities
Photo 36: scanning for re - bars on an abutment wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 37: a view of the bridge
Photo 38: scanning for re - bars on the pier wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 39: measuring of re - bar spacing
Photo 40: carbonation test on a beam

MTRD INTEX
Photo 41: Schmidt hammer test on the pier wall

MTRD INTEX
Photo 42: Carbonation test on the deck slab

Kiserian-Isinya - Bridges - Report - Final Revised PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kiserian-Isinya - Bridges - Report - Final Revised PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kiserian-Isinya - Bridges - Report - Final Revised PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MTRD INTEX

MATERIALS TESTING AND

CHIEF ENGINEER (MATERIALS ) INTEX CONSTRUCTION

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 0

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page i

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page ii

This report contains a description of the structures, visual observations and

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 1

2.0 Scope of work

2.2 Tests Done

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 2

2.3 Test Method Principles

2.3.2 Schmidt Hammer Test

2.3.3 Electromagnetic Test

2.3.4 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 3

Table 2.2: Inferences for ultrasonic pulse velocities

2.3.5 Carbonation Test.

Table 2.3: Evaluation of Carbonation Depth

2.3.6 Reinforcement Corrosion Investigation (Resistivity potential method)

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 4

Table 2.4: Resistivity Level vs Possible Corrosion Rate

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 5

3.0 Bridge Test Results

The following observations were made: -

i. This is a double span structure with reinforced concrete structural members

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 6

Table 3.1: Concrete Strength Tests Results for Bridge at Km 46+830

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 7

RHS 40.4 28.3

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 8

Table 3.3: Resistivity Test Results for Bridge at Km 46+830

Table 3.5: Cracks’ Details for Bridge at Km 46+830

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 9

Deck Slab 200

Beam 4 Side A: Spacing:

Mesh Wire 450

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 10

Ultrasonic pulse velocity tests results for Homogeneity of concrete matrix

Test Location: Abutment –Kiserian Side LHS

Distance vs. Time Graph

Test Location: Abutment –Kiserian Side RHS

Distance vs. Time Graph

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 11

Test Location: Pier Wall (center)

Distance vs. Time Graph

Test Location: Abutment 2–Isinya Side LHS

Distance vs. Time Graph

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 12

Test Location: Abutment 2 –Isinya Side RHS

Distance vs. Time Graph

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 13

3.2 Test Results for bridge at Km 44+070

ii. Guardrails are intact

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 14

iv. Honeycombing on some areas of the beams

vi. Damaged Protection works

DETAILED INSPECTION REPORT FOR BRIDGES KISERIAN-ISINYA ROAD Page 15

Table 3.8: Concrete Strength Tests Results Bridge at Km 44+070