Revision P01 – Final for Comment Document Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Date: January 2016 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Level 3, Kings Orchard 1 Queen Street Bristol BS2 0HQ Tel: +44 (0) 1179 306 200 www.wspgroup.com www.pbworld.com Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 A40 Westway Information Centre – Concrete Investigation Special Inspection Transport for London
61
Embed
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 · 2020-01-28 · requirements of BS1881: Part 204:1988. Cover measurements were recorded using an electromagnetic cover meter at each
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Revision P01 – Final for Comment
Document Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701Date: January 2016
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
Executive SummaryWSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff was commissioned by TfL to undertake a Concrete InvestigationSpecial Inspection of the Westway Structure within the boundaries of the Westway InformationCentre premises.
The purpose of the Special Inspection was to gain an increased understanding of the overallcondition of the supports 121 – 125 and their bearings, along with the adjacent deck soffit.
The Special Inspection was undertaken on the 21st and 22nd October 2015 and comprised bothvisual inspection and concrete testing works. A total of sixteen test areas were conducted to thesupports 122 - 125, four to each support. At each support three test areas were located at thecrossheads with one located to the top of a pier wall. The Special Inspections identified thefollowing:
Concrete Testing:
The results of the concrete investigations indicate that chloride induced corrosion of reinforcementis likely at areas of the crossheads that are subjected to leakage. One area of leakage was foundto have reinforcement suffering from early stages of pitting corrosion, with only minor loss ofsection found.
Supports:
The supports, in particular the crossheads, are affected by localised areas of leakage, consideredto originate through the deck joints above. As discussed above, this has caused localisedchloride ion contamination of the concrete and subsequent initiation of pitting corrosion ofreinforcement.
It is a concern that areas of the supports have been cut out to facilitate access/services. Althoughthe surrounding areas are showing no signs of distress at this time, the effects of the removal ofthe concrete should be assessed to determine whether they are likely to be significant, or thepiers reinstated to their original condition.
Support Bearings:
Although minor defects were observed to a small number of bearings, including bulging andcompression, these defects are not considered to be significant or affecting their durability.
Deck Beams:
A small number of deck beams have been affected by leakage through weep pipes installedbetween the beams. It is possible that this has caused chloride contamination of the affectedconcrete, however this could not be determined during the investigations as concrete testing wasnot undertaken in these locations.
There are a number of fixtures and fittings attached to the deck beams. It appears that thesehave been hung from the top face of the bottom flanges and do not appear to be causing damageor distress to the beams.
ii
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
In order to maintain the serviceability of the supports, their bearings and the deck beams of theA40 Westway within the confines of the Information Centre premises, the followingrecommendations are made:
· Leaking deck joints above the supports are replaced to prevent further leakage andconcrete contamination.
· The current water management system should be reviewed with a view of removing theguttering that has been fixed to the crossheads. The matting and the adhesive should beremoved to enable a complete inspection of the obscured concrete. The weep pipesthrough the deck beams should be extended to clear the beams and should beincorporated into a new and effective water management system.
· All areas of the supports that have been cut out should be reinstated unless assessmentconfirms that they have not caused detrimental effects to the structure.
· Removal of obsolete and unnecessary fixtures and fittings from the deck beams.· Removal of birds’ nests and other debris from the top of the supports.
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
ContentsExecutive Summary ....................................................................................... i
2 Structure Information ........................................................................... 22.1 Location and General Description .................................................................... 2
3 Testing Criteria ...................................................................................... 33.1 Site Testing Criteria ......................................................................................... 3
Appendix II – Factual Testing Report and Laboratory Test Results 2015
Appendix III – Photographs
1
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
1 IntroductionWSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff were commissioned by TfL to undertake a Concrete InvestigationSpecial Inspection of the Westway Structure within the boundaries of the Westway InformationCentre premises.
The purpose of the Special Inspection was to obtain an increased understanding of the overallcondition of the supports 121 – 125 and their bearings, along with the adjacent deck soffit.
Concrete investigation works were undertaken in accordance with the requirements of HighwaysAgency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) standard BA 35/90 – Inspection andRepair of Concrete Highway Structures. The scope of concrete investigation works included;
The Special Inspection also included a visual inspection of all accessible parts of the structurewithin the confines of the Westway Information Centre premises including;
· Bearings;· Crossheads;· Piers;· Bridge soffit.
The findings of the concrete testing works are summarised in this report, in-situ and laboratorytest results can be found in Appendix II.
2
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
2 Structure Information2.1 Location and General Description
Figures 1 shows the location of the A40 Westway. The A40 Westway is a major structure on astrategic route into central London and is made up of 52 individual structures along 4.6km oflargely elevated road between Wood Lane Flyover to the west and Marylebone Flyover to theeast. The structures are predominately of concrete construction with a mixture of pre-stressedand post tensioned decks. The structures were built in the late 1960s and 70s.
The Westway Information Centre is located within Section 4, immediately east of Ladbroke Grove.
Figure 1 – Location plan
WestwayInformationCentre
3
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
3 Testing Criteria3.1 Site Testing Criteria
Concrete testing works to specified targeted crossheads and pier concrete locations on the A40Westway was undertaken in accordance with:
(i) TfL document titled “STIP 2 Westway – Stage 1, Scope of Work for TargetedInvestigations”, document reference ST130013-AMD-STR-ZZ-EP-KC-0001 datedJuly 2015.
(ii) TfL document titled “Scope for prioritisation of STIP2 Programme, Completion ofStage 1 & SI’s of Vacant Premises”, document reference ST130010-AMD-STR-ZZ-EP-KC-0006.
(iii) DMRB standard BA 35/90 – Inspection and Repair of Concrete HighwayStructures.
(iv) The following testing, analysis, and reporting criteria.
3.1.1 Reinforcement Cover Measurement
Cover meter surveys in accordance with the requirements of clause 7.3.1 of BA 35/90 and therequirements of BS1881: Part 204:1988. Cover measurements were recorded using anelectromagnetic cover meter at each node of a test panel grid with nodes set at regular intervals.The cover meter was checked by direct measurement to the reinforcement exposed for half-cellpotential connections.
3.1.2 Delamination (hammer tap) surveys
Delamination (hammer tap) surveys in accordance with the requirements of clause 5.2.5 of BA35/90. The survey areas included all areas of the piers and crossheads and the adjacent areas ofthe deck soffit (reachable from scaffold set up at pier locations).
3.1.3 Half-Cell Potential Measurements
Half-cell potential surveys in accordance with clause 7.3.3 of BA 35/90 and ASTM C876-09 -Standard Method for Half-cell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete. Thefollowing potential boundaries were considered in the testing works:
· Where potentials are less negative than -200 mV (CSE) there is less than 10 %probability that corrosion of reinforcement is occurring.
· Where potential measurements are in the range -200 mV and -350 mV (CSE)corrosion activity is uncertain.
· Where potential measurements are more negative than -350 mV (CSE) there is a90 %, or greater, probability that corrosion is occurring.
The results from the half-cell potential surveys were combined with the results of the chloride ioncontent testing to determine the likely corrosion risk at each test location, as Figure A1.1 of DMRBstandard BD 43/03.
4
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
3.1.4 Concrete Resistivity Measurements
Concrete resistivity surveys were undertaken using a Scribe 2 probe meter in accordance withclause 7.3.4 of BA 35/90 and Technical Guide 2 – Guide to Testing and Monitoring the Durabilityof Concrete Structures. Measurements record the magnitude of the corrosion current to identifythe corrosion potential in conjunction with results from half-cell potential measurements andchloride ion content testing. The following resistivity boundaries were considered in the testingworks:
a) If the resistivity is greater than 12 kΩ cm, corrosion is unlikely to occur.
b) If the resistivity is in the range 5-12 kΩ cm, corrosion will probably occur.
c) If the resistivity is less than 5 kΩ cm, corrosion is almost certain.
Results from the resistivity surveys were combined with the readings from the half-cell potentialsurveys to give an indication of the likelihood and rate of reinforcement corrosion
3.1.5 Depth of Carbonation
Measurement of depth of carbonation of the concrete, using phenolphthalein as an indicator, wasundertaken in accordance with clause 7.2.5 of BA 35/90 and Test Procedure TP/STRUCT 04(which is based on BRE Information Paper 6/81).
3.2 Laboratory Testing Criteria
3.2.1 Chloride Ion Content Testing
Recovery of concrete dust samples was undertaken to enable off-site laboratory testing (by aUKAS accredited laboratory, Nicholls Colton) of the chloride ion content within the concrete.Testing concentrated on elements subjected to direct saturation with salt laden water i.e. thoseelements subject to direct run-off from defective expansion joints and highway drainageinfrastructure above. The recovery and testing of dust samples was undertaken in accordancewith clause 7.3.2 of BA 35/90 and BS 1881: Part 124:1998.
Dust samples were recovered from varying cover depths to measure the depth of contaminationof the concrete cover and whether the chloride ion content at the level of the reinforcement is acause for concern.
Results of the chloride ion testing are to be considered in conjunction with the results of the half-cell potential and concrete resistivity measurements to give an overall picture of the corrosion risk.Chloride ion contents of 0.3% by mass of cement is considered to be the threshold above whichpitting corrosion may be initiated.
5
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
4 Inspection Summary
4.1 OverviewThe Special Inspection was undertaken on the 21st and 22nd October 2015. Access within theWestway Information Centre premises was facilitated by ARJ Construction and access to thebridge crossheads and top of piers was achieved using mobile scaffold towers. A total of sixteentest areas were conducted to the supports 122 - 125, four to each support. At each support threetest areas were located at the crossheads with one located to the top of a pier wall.
The weather conditions during the inspections were typically dry with occasional light showers.See Appendix II for concrete investigation location plans.
A visual inspection was undertaken to all elements within the boundary of the WestwayInformation Centre premises, which included the deck beams of spans 72 – 75, supports 122 –125 and their bearings. Only the west face of support 125 was accessible due to the presence ofthe boundary wall with the neighbouring property. Support 121 was outside the boundary of theWestway Information Centre premises (Photograph 1) and therefore no works were undertakenon this.
4.2 Concrete Testing ResultsThe Factual Testing Report and the Laboratory Testing Results are included in Appendix II andare summarised below:
· Areas subjected to leakage to the west face of crossheads 123 & 124 (Test Areas T5 &T9) are currently considered to be in ‘FAIR’ condition in accordance with Figure A1.1 ofBD 43/03. Chloride content results for these areas were significantly above the thresholdlevel of 0.3% by mass of cement beyond the depth of reinforcement. A reinforcementexposure undertaken within Test Area T9 confirmed that the reinforcement had surfacecorrosion at worse, and there was no evidence of pitting corrosion (Photograph 3).
· A localised area of crosshead 125 (within Test Area T15) is considered to be in ‘POOR’condition in accordance with Figure A1.1 of BD 43/03. The chloride content valuesobtained ranged from 12.8% to 1.57% by mass of cement for the 4 incremental depths,where 0.3% is a conservative threshold level for the avoidance of pitting corrosion ofreinforcement. The sample demonstrated that the concrete contained very high chlorideion concentrations beyond the depth of reinforcement and half-cell potential resultsindicated there was a 90% probability that corrosion was occurring. A reinforcementexposure within this location confirmed the initiation of pitting corrosion - approximately10% loss of section was observed to the exposed bar (Photograph 4).
· The remaining areas tested are currently considered to be in ‘GOOD’ condition inaccordance with Figure A1.1 of BD 43/03, with all chloride levels below the thresholdlevel.
· Concrete resistivity measurements to all areas tested were well above the lower thresholdvalue for initiation of pitting corrosion indicating that active corrosion is currently unlikely.
· Concrete de-passivation due to carbonation had penetrated to a depth of less than 5mm,well short of the mean depth of reinforcement. Carbonation induced corrosion would notbe expected to occur in the crossheads in locations of un-cracked concrete.
6
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
· Cement content results were broadly in line with what might be expected for a structure ofthis type and age, and do not give rise for concern.
4.3 Visual inspectionThe visual inspection found the supports, bearings and deck beams to be in overall goodcondition with no signs of failure evident. Specific defects observed are discussed in more detailbelow with the defect location diagrams included in Appendix I.
4.3.1 Supports
There were drainage channels (guttering) fixed to the top of the crossheads. Above this is whatappeared to be a matting fixed to the concrete with a resin/adhesive (Photograph 5). It isassumed this had been fitted in order to divert the flow of leakage from the crosshead concreteinto the guttering. The presence of this matting, and the large areas of resin/adhesive above,concealed large areas of the crosshead concrete, potentially masking defective areas.
There were localised areas of leakage with associated corrosion staining to the crossheads(Photograph 6). In certain locations this had emanated below the matting, indicating a localisedfailure of this retrospectively fitted protection system. It appears that this leakage originated at theend of the deck beams, suggesting failure of the deck joints above (Photograph 7).
It was evident that sections of the pier had been cut out to facilitate installation of emergencyaccess doors and ducting for services (Photograph 8, Photograph 9, Photograph 10 andPhotograph 11). A doorway appeared to have been cut out of support 122 and subsequentlybricked up, with only a small opening remaining, presumably for services (Photograph 12 andPhotograph 13).
A number of disused birds’ nests were present to the top of the crossheads (Photograph 14).
4.3.2 Support Bearings
The bearings appeared to be relatively new and the vast majority were found to be in goodcondition. However there were a small number of bearings that showed minor signs of slightdistress, including minor bulging and localised compression (Photograph 15, Photograph 16) –these observations do not give rise to concerns for the overall performance of the bearings and itis not considered necessary to replace these in advance of any other bearing replacementscheme.
Some of the concrete bearing plinths have corrosion staining. These are located at areas ofleakage mentioned above (Photograph 17).
Vertical cracking was observed to four concrete bearing plinths, with the cracking extending intothe pier crossheads. These were located to supports 122, below beams 9 & 12 east face; andsupport 124 below beam 17 west face and beam 14 east face. (Photograph 18, Photograph 19,Photograph 20). It is considered likely that the cracking originated due to drying shrinkage and isno indication of overstress or structural inadequacy of the bearing arrangement / plinth.
Many of the concrete bearing plinths appeared to be poorly compacted or constructed, withirregularly formed edges. It is likely that the plinths were formed by hand using proprietary mortarat the time of bearing pad placement, the surface finish to the edges of the plinths would not be astructurally important issue provided that the edges of the bearings were adequately supported.(Photograph 21, Photograph 22).
7
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
Timber shuttering has been left in place on top of the supports behind many of the bearings. Thisappears to be wet in places, indicating leakage through the deck joints. (Photograph 23).
There were areas of debris to the top of the supports. This was observed to be worse to the westside of support 122 (Photograph 24).
From floor level it appeared that there is corrosion staining around a number of bearings, howevercloser inspection found it to be adhesive, or similar, assumed to be used during the bearinginstallation. (Photograph 18, Photograph 20).
4.3.3 Deck Beams
There were a number of localised areas of water leakage and staining onto the deck beamsoriginating from the weep pipes located between the beams. Some of the pipes are intended todrain directly into guttering hung from the beams, however the length of the weep pipes were insome locations too short to clear the beams. (Photograph 25, Photograph 26, Photograph 27,Photograph 28).
There are a number of fixtures and fittings attached to the deck beams (Photograph 28). Itappears that these have been simply lodged onto the top face of the bottom flanges, however thisarrangement could not be confirmed for all fixings during the inspection.
8
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
5 Conclusion5.1 Concrete Testing
The results of the concrete investigations, discussed in Section 4.2, indicate that chloride inducedcorrosion of reinforcement is likely at areas of the crossheads that are subjected to leakage. Onearea of leakage was found to have reinforcement suffering from pitting corrosion however onlyminor loss of section was observed at this time.
5.2 SupportsThe supports, in particular the crossheads, are affected by localised areas of leakage, consideredto originate through the deck joints above. As discussed in Section 5.1, this has caused localisedchloride ion contamination of the concrete and subsequent initiation of pitting corrosion ofreinforcement in certain locations. The corrosion of reinforcement was not severe at the time ofinspection.
It is a concern that areas of the support piers have been cut out to facilitate access/services.Although the surrounding areas are showing no signs of distress at this time (cracking adjacent tothe openings etc.), the removal of sections from the leaf piers could affect the overall stability ofthe structure under full loading. The effects of the modifications to the substructure should beassessed.
The cracking observed in the substructure is considered likely to be related to drying shrinkageand consequently is not cause for concern.
5.3 Support BearingsAlthough minor defects were observed to a small number of bearings, these defects are notconsidered to be significant or affecting their durability.
5.4 Deck BeamsA small number of deck beams are affected by leakage through weep pipes between the beams.It is possible that this has caused chloride contamination of the affected concrete, however thiscould not be determined during the investigations as concrete testing was not undertaken in theselocations.
The fixtures and fittings attached to the deck beams do not appear to be causing damage ordistress to the beams.
9
Structure and Tunnels Investment Portfolio 2 WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffTransport for London Report Ref: ST130010-WSP-STR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701 Rev P01
January 2016
6 RecommendationsIn order to maintain the serviceability of the supports, their bearings and the deck beams of theA40 Westway within the confines of the Information Centre premises, the followingrecommendations are made:
· Leaking deck joints above the supports are replaced to prevent further leakage andconcrete contamination.
· The current water management system should be reviewed with a view of removing theguttering that has been fixed to the crossheads. The matting and the adhesive should beremoved to enable a complete inspection of the obscured concrete. The weep pipesthrough the deck beams should be extended to clear the beams and should beincorporated into a new and effective water management system.
· All areas of the supports that have been cut out should be reinstated unless assessmentconfirms that they have not caused detrimental effects to the structure.
· Removal of obsolete and unnecessary fixtures and fittings from the deck beams.· Removal of birds’ nests and other debris from the top of the supports.
It would be prudent to monitor the following defects during future inspections:
· Cracking to the crossheads.· Minor defects to the bearings including bulging and localised compression.
Appendix ISKETCHES INCLUDING;Referencing DrawingDefect sketchesTest area locations
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 1 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
Client: Transport for London (TfL)Client Address: Palestra House, 197 Blackfriars House, London, SE1 8NJReport No: WSP|PB/3514594A-SSR/FTR/01Project: Westway Information Centre Pier Crosshead Special InspectionDate of Site Works: 21 & 22 October 2015Report Date: November 2015
Parsons Brinckerhoff Limited were instructed by Transport for London to undertake a SpecialInspection of Westway Viaduct in accordance with the requirements of BA 35/90 - 'Inspection andRepair of Concrete Highway Structures'
Results are obtained in accordance with the procedures included in PB’s scope of accreditation asfollows:
Cover Measurements - BS 1881:Part 204:1988 - Recommendations on the use ofElectromagnetic Cover Meters.
Half-Cell PotentialMeasurements
- ASTM C876-09 (2009) - Standard Test Method for CorrosionPotentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete.
NB. – Half-cell Potential measurements have been obtainedusing a digital Half-cell Unit (DHC) with a separate Silver/SilverChloride/Sat KCI electrode. The DHC unit converts readings toCSE equivalent values.
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 2 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 3 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 4 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 5 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 6 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
A1 0.84 0.51 0.43 0.41 0-5 42.3
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 7 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
E2 0.07 0.06 0.21 0.06 0-5 132.1
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 8 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
A2 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.06 0-5 129.8
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 9 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 10 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
A5 0.98 0.57 0.35 0.17 0-5 42.2
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 11 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
B2 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0-5 66.7
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 12 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
C2 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0-5 69.1
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 13 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 14 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 15 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 16 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
A1 See T15 (SG) for results
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 17 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
* INDICATES VALUES OBTAINED USING UKAS PROCEDURES.** VALUES OBTAINED BY NICHOLLS COLTON, A UKAS ACCREDITED TESTING LABORATORY- INDICATES UNOBTAINABLE READINGS.FOR TEST AREA LOCATIONS REFER TO DRAWING NUMBER ST130010-WSPSTR-ZZ-RP-ST-1701-04 Sheets 2 TO 5
Page 18 of 18
G:\Projects\SIG\STIP 2\Westway Information Centre Testing\Report stuff\App II - 1 FTR SC reviewed.docx
**CHLORIDE ION CONCENTRATIONS(% BY MASS OF CEMENT)
CARBONATIONMEASUREMENTS
* RESISTIVITYMEASUREMENTS
5-30 30-55 55-80 80-105 mm Kohm cm
C2 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.30 0-5 135.7
Issued by JG 03.12.13; Authorised by MS UNCONTROLLED DOCUMENT IF PRINTED G:\Nicholls Colton Analytical\Controlled Documents\Report Templates\1881\1881 Cement.doc
Order reference: PB86195 Date of testing: 03 to 06/11/2015
Date of receipt: 02/11/2015 Date of issue: 11/11/2015
NCA sample reference:
Client sample identification:
Client sample ref/location:
Sample type Sample depth
(mm)
Chloride Ion Content
(% by mass of concrete)
Chloride Ion Content
(% by mass of cement)
1 Bag 1
WW T1 D1
Concrete Dust 5-30 0.041 0.25
2 Bag 2 Concrete Dust 30-55 0.015 0.09
3 Bag 3 Concrete Dust 55-80 0.020 0.12
4 Bag 4 Concrete Dust 80-105 0.015 0.09
5 Bag 5
WW T2 D3
Concrete Dust 5-30 0.021 0.13
6 Bag 6 Concrete Dust 30-55 0.018 0.11
7 Bag 7 Concrete Dust 55-80 0.013 0.08
8 Bag 8 Concrete Dust 80-105 0.015 0.09
9 Bag 9
WW T3 B2
Concrete Dust 5-30 0.018 0.11
10 Bag 10 Concrete Dust 30-55 0.013 0.08
11 Bag 11 Concrete Dust 55-80 0.015 0.09
12 Bag 12 Concrete Dust 80-105 0.038 0.23
13 Bag 13
WW T4 B4
Concrete Dust 5-30 0.017 0.10
14 Bag 14 Concrete Dust 30-55 0.015 0.10
15 Bag 15 Concrete Dust 55-80 0.011 0.07
16 Bag 16 Concrete Dust 80-105 0.015 0.10
Issued by JG 03.12.13; Authorised by MS UNCONTROLLED DOCUMENT IF PRINTED G:\Nicholls Colton Analytical\Controlled Documents\Report Templates\1881\1881 Cement.doc
Issued by JG 03.12.13; Authorised by MS UNCONTROLLED DOCUMENT IF PRINTED G:\Nicholls Colton Analytical\Controlled Documents\Report Templates\1881\1881 Cement.doc
Issued by JG 03.12.13; Authorised by MS UNCONTROLLED DOCUMENT IF PRINTED G:\Nicholls Colton Analytical\Controlled Documents\Report Templates\1881\1881 Cement.doc
NOTES: 1. Testing was in accordance with BS 1881: Part 124: 1988 Clause 10.2 using potentiometric titration. 2. A cement content of 16.1% was used in the calculation of chloride ion content. 3. Samples received were smaller than required by Clause 3.2 BS 1881 : Part 124 : 1988. 4. Samples were not passed over the 150micron BS Test Sieve before testing. 5. Quality control samples are tested with each batch of samples.
......................... Parsons Brinkerhoff
The Forum Barnfield Road
Nicholls Colton Analytical Exeter EX1 1QR
RT - 1881 CaO, Page 1 of 1, Issued by LH 07.01.11 G:\Nicholls Colton Analytical\Commercial\Current Reports\2015\L15\PBK - Parsons Brinkerhoff\L15-2220-PBK\L15-2220-PBK-002.doc
Order reference: PB86195 Date of testing: 03 to 06/11/2015
Date of receipt: 02/11/2015 Date of issue: 11/11/2015
NCA sample reference:
Client sample identification:
Sample type Cement content by
SiO2 content (% m/m)
Cement content by CaO content
(% m/m)
Mean / Preferred Cement Content
(% m/m)
15-30640 Bag 65 Concrete Dust /
Lumps 15.9 18.9 15.9 (P)
15-30641 Bag 66 Concrete Dust /
Lumps 15.6 17.0 15.6 (P)
15-30642 Bag 67 Concrete Dust /
Lumps 16.6 17.7 17.2 (M)
15-30643 Bag 68 Concrete Dust /
Lumps 16.0 18.0 16.0 (P)
15-30644 Bag 69 Concrete Dust /
Lumps 17.0 16.4 16.7 (M)
15-30645 Bag 70 Concrete Dust /
Lumps 15.0 22.3 15.0 (P)
NOTES: 1. Testing was in accordance with BS 1881: Part 124: 1988 Clause 5 by ICP. 2. Cement content has been calculated assuming the presence in the concrete of Ordinary Portland Cement, containing 20.2% and 64.5% by mass of soluble silica and calcium oxide respectively. 3. Samples of the original constituents of the mix were not submitted. 4. Samples received were smaller than required by Clause 3.2, BS 1881: Part 124: 1988. 5. Quality control samples are tested with each batch of samples. 6. Samples were identified as being part of a batch and therefore the results are from a single analysis only.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd
The Forum
Barnfield Road
Exeter
EX1 1QR
.........................
Nicholls Colton Analytical
Appendix IIIPHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS1
Photograph 1 – Ladbroke Grove entrance to Westway Information Centre, at Support 121.
Photograph 2 – General view
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS2
Photograph 3 – Reinforcement exposure to support 124, west face at test area T9. Reinforcement hassurface corrosion at worse with no evidence of pitting corrosion.
Photograph 4 – Reinforcement exposure to support 125, west face at test area T15. Reinforcement hasthe initiation of pitting corrosion with approximately 10% loss of section.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS3
Photograph 5 – Example of matting material fixed to support crosshead with a resin/adhesive. Support124, west face shown.
Photograph 6 – Leakage with associated corrosion staining to the top of the crossheads. Leakage alsoemanating behind matting. Support 123, west face shown. Test area T5 visible to crosshead.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS4
Photograph 7 – Active leakage appears to originate behind the end of the deck beams suggesting failureof the deck joints above. Example shown is support 124, beam 9.
Photograph 8 – Section of pier cut out to facilitate the passage of services. Support 123 shown, similarsection has been cut out of support 124.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS5
Photograph 9 – Close up of section of pier cut out to facilitate the passage of services.
Photograph 10 – Section of support 124 removed to facilitate doorway/fire exit, west face. Test area T12also visible.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS6
Photograph 11 – Section of support 123 removed to facilitate doorway/fire exit, east face. Test area T8also visible.
Photograph 12 – A doorway (marked with red box) appears to have been cut out of support 122 andsubsequently bricked up with only a small opening remaining, presumably for services.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS7
Photograph 13 – Small opening remaining within bricked up doorway within support 122.
Photograph 14 – Birds’ nest to top of support 124, between beams 12 & 13.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS8
Photograph 15 – Minor compression and bulging to bearing below beam 17 of support 123, west side.
Photograph 16 – Minor compression and bulging to bearing below beam 4 of support 124, west side.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS9
Photograph 17 – Corrosion staining and dampness to concrete bearing plinth below beam 11 of support123, west side.
Photograph 18 – Vertical cracking to concrete bearing plinth and the top of pier 122, below beam 9, eastface. Adhesive (or similar) to beam soffit around bearing – appears to be corrosion staining when viewedfrom floor level.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS10
Photograph 19 – Vertical cracking to concrete bearing plinth and the top of pier 124, below beam 15, westface. Leachates emanating through cracking at the top of pier.
Photograph 20 – Vertical cracking to concrete bearing plinth and the top of pier 124, below beam 14, eastface. Adhesive (or similar) to beam soffit around bearing – appears to be corrosion staining when viewedfrom floor level.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS11
Photograph 21 – Concrete bearing plinth poorly formed below beam 8 of support 122, east side.
Photograph 22 – Concrete bearing plinth poorly formed below beam 14 of support 123, east side. Overallthe bearing is supported but the corners are not contributing to load distribution.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS12
Photograph 23 – Example of timber shuttering left in place behind bearing beam 10 of support 122, eastside. Timber appears wet, indicating leakage through deck joint.
Photograph 24 – Example of debris to top of support 122, west side.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS13
Photograph 25 – Leakage and staining either side of beam 10, to the west of support 122 (span 72).
Photograph 26 – Leakage and water staining between beams 9 & 10, to the east of support 123 (span 74).
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS14
Photograph 27 – Close up of photograph 26. Weep pipe too short to clear beams resulting in leakage andstaining onto beam.
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS15
Photograph 28 – Leakage and staining either side of beam 11, to the west of support 124 (span 74).Fixtures and fittings fixed between beams.
Photograph 29 – Fixtures and fittings fixed between beams 16 & 17, to the east of support 122 (span 73).
APPENDIX III – PHOTOGRAPHS16
Photograph 30 – Fixtures and fittings fixed between beams 15 & 16, to the east of support 122 (span 73).