Group 4 :

Christy Jesurajah, Lloyd Linton 260429440

Masi, Michael 260379971

Moradi, Milad 260399628

Pakpour, Farbod 260298074

Torikian, Aram 260429332

Structure : 81-5159 : Clark Street/ Van Horne Tunnel underpass

Ownership/Responsibility: City of Montreal (Municipal)

Major and minor Structural components: 36 Beams : single span, running along the width of the underpass

Walls

Deck

Retaining walls

Overpass

Elevated Sidewalk

Parapets

Drainage Systems : middle of the tunnel near the side walls.

Bike Path

NJ barrier

Lights on side walls.

Materials Used: Concrete

Asphalt

Steel

How is the structure used: 2 lanes for traffic

2 lanes for bikes

1 pedestrian elevated sidewalk

No weight restrictions

Height restriction of 4.40m

Conditions exposed to: Car exhaust

De-icing salts

Freeze-thaw

Vandalism: Graffiti

Water runoff

Water accumulation due to inadequate drainage

DATE COTE DE DÉTÉRIORATION RANKING

February 13 2007 18.7[1] ---

October 3 2011 53.0[2] # 41[4]

October 3 2012 108.0[3] # 13[5]

History of Inspections:

Deteriorated very quickly

over the past couple of

years!

Recommendations after 2012 inspection [6]

• Prior records

81-5159 Pont d’étagement

Avenue Van

Horne/ Rue Clark

108 Critique (1) Passées

-Correction les éléments de dispositif de retenue (Debut 2013)

En Cours

- Aucune action en cours

Future

- Élbaoration d’un projet de réfection de la structure

High Priority Concern #1 : Retaining Wall

Video :

Exposed Rebar

Extreme Corrosion of rebar

Softening of Cement paste

High Priority Concern #2 : Wide Cracks on Ceiling

Exposed steel reinforcement

Severe concrete spalling

High Priority Concern #3 :

Excessive rebar exposure and corrosion

Severe exposed Steel Reinforcement

Visible corrosion damage

Efflorescence

Damage at joints

Damage to the pave way

Concrete Spalling and Exposed Steel Reinforcement Miscellaneous visible corrosion damage

Findings confirm the inspection report.

The tunnel is in critical condition.

Three regions that require immediate

attention:

Retaining Walls

Wide Cracks on Ceiling

Excessive rebar exposure and corrosion

Three possible Non-Destructive Testing Methods

Schmidt Rebound Hammer

Windsor Pin

Windsor Probe

The group recommends using the

Schmidt Rebound hammer,

as it is the easier one to use.

Furthermore, The Windsor Pin and Probe are sensitive to

carbonation (which the structure is exposed to from daily

traffic)

The group recommends using

coring as a cored sample may be

tested for its compressive strength

from which the flexure, tensile and

shear strength can then be

determined.

From the non-destructive tests, the

relative difference in strength

between multiple points of interest

will be obtained.

Locations with the highest relative

strengths will then be selected for

coring purposes.

Using the measured strength of the

cored samples, a correlation can be

developed which will allow a better

estimation of the strength at

different locations.

Possible Destructive Methods: Coring, Pullout and Break-out Tests

Half Cell Electrode and

Pachometer These methods are

recommended as they

determine the location and

assess the condition of the

existing steel reinforcement as

well as the corrosion potential.

Impact Echo Less prone to human errors

No transmitters required

No need to determine

shape/support factors

No need for expensive

radioactive methods

http://www.injectionsolutions.com/Impact%20echo%20ph

otos%20001cropped.jpg Half Cell Electrode

Phenolphthalein Test

Determines acidity and

carbonation via color change

Help determine potential

Acid Attack and/or

Carbonation

Uranyl Acetate

Florescence Detects Alkali-Silicate

Reaction (ASR)

The chemical solution

bonds with the ASR gel

and glows under UV light

Moisture Content Meter Affected by chlorides

Surface Resistivity Meter Sensitive to chlorides

Sensitive to carbonation

Initial Surface Absorption Properties and Figgs absorption

Poroscope Semi-destructive

As the underpass is exposed

to CO2 and chlorides, these

two are eliminated as the

results from these test may

be misleading.

Requires a lot of preparation (lab + field)

Despite being semi-destructive, the

group suggests using a Poroscope .

Method Justification Affected

Members

Partial Depth Removal using 15#

Pneumatic Chipping Hammer of

Concrete.

•Extensive cracking and corrosion

of the steel rebar and its affect on

surrounding concrete

•15# Hammer is light enough to be

used on overhead surfaces.

•Practical for removal of sulphate

attacked concrete.

•Tunnel Ceiling

•Retaining Walls

Replace corroded steel

reinforcement •Extensive corrosion damage

Overhead Concrete replacement

using Form and Pump Technique

•Efficient pumping

•Good for overhead repair

Tunnel Ceiling

Side wall concrete replacement

using Form + Cast-in place

Technique

•Simple method

•Common construction practice

•Good for vertical surfaces

Retaining Walls

Most of the deterioration damage of the underpass is caused by Sulphate or Corrosion

Preventive Measures

Installation of sacrificial anodes to prevent future corrosion damage.

Use concrete with low C3A to minimize future sulphate attack

Method Justification Affected Members

Concrete removal :

Pneumatic

Chipping Hammer

•Simple and cost effective

•Easy to use

•Ceiling

•Side walls

Concrete Patching:

Trowel

•Use to patch small

affected areas (pop-outs)

•Easy and Efficient for

small areas

Patching of Concrete in ASR deteriorated areas.

Preventive Measures

Lithium treatment is not recommended due to cost.

Inspect and monitor patch work instead

Type of Repair Remediation

Method

Justification Affected Members

Crack Repair Rout and Seal •Simple

•Cost and labour

effective

•Beams

•Side walls

Type of

Repair

Potential

Remediation

method

Advantages Disadvantages Final

Recommendations

Carbonate

Damage

Repair

Realkalinization

•Restores pH

balance of the

concrete

•Extends service life

•Requires

specialised labour

force

•High cost of

material

•Since the cost of

renovation exceeds

the risks of damage,

we recommend

withholding any

remediation

techniques.

•However, actions will

be taken if the

situation changes.

Chlorides

Damage

Repair

ECE

•Restores

passivation film

•Extends service life

Preventive Measures : Annual inspection to monitor

and assess damage.

Inspection strategy

Continue Annual Inspections

City of Montreal

Interim Inspection

Inspections on repaired members

Chloride and carbonation damage

1) Inspection report from 2007

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/transport_v2_fr/media/documents/81_5159_

Inspection_generale_2007_02_13_web.pdf

2) Inspection report from 2011

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/transports_fr/media/documents/81-

5159_inspection_generale_2011-10-03.pdf

3) Inspection report from 2012

http://www.ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/M_CHANTIER_FR/MEDIA/DOCUME

NTS/PONTS_ET_TUNNELS/PONTS_ETAGEMENT/81-

5159_inspection_generale_2012-10-03.pdf

4) Ranking 2012

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/transport_v2_fr/media/documents/2012_Tabl

eau_587_structures.pdf

5) Ranking 2013

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/m_chantier_fr/media/documents/statut_fonct

ionnel_589_structures.pdf

6) Tableau Synthese

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/m_chantier_fr/media/documents/tableau_sy

nthese_24_structures.pdf

7) CIVE 527 Lecture Notes, McGill University, Fall 2013

8) Impact-Echo

http://www.injectionsolutions.com/Impact%20echo%20photos%20001cropped.jpg