Champlain Bridge Design Report

Executive Summary
"Les Ponts Jacques Cartier et Champlain Incorpore" (PJCCI) requested that Buckland &
Taylor (B&T) study the overall condition of the approach span edge girders of the Champlain
Bridge to understand how the corrosion that is evident in the edge girders may affect the overall
behaviour of the bridge and how various strengthening techniques installed on the girders can
benefit their capacity. Documentation was provided by PJCCI to B&T which described the
condition of the edge girders; B&T did not perform on-site detailed inspection to verify this data.
Following our preliminary assessment of the girder demands in comparison to their capacity,
concerns were brought to the attention of PJCCI. Based on these concerns, six critical girders
were recommended to be strengthened, with the strengthening to be completed before the end
of September 2013. In order to allow traffic to continue to use the bridge while the repairs are
being implemented, the six girders must be inspected two times per week for any signs of
distress. At the time of writing this report, this strengthening is underway, and the twice per
week inspections have not identified any increased structural distress in the six girders.
In order to ensure that the safety of bridge users is not compromised, many factors were taken
into account during our analysis of the edge girders. This report details how we verified that the
bridge, in its current condition, provides an acceptable level of safety for bridge users,
consistent with the requirements of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.
Based on our final review of the demands, existing strengthening, capacities and observed
deterioration on the girders, mitigation measures are presented in this report to address the
risks and maintain a consistent level of safety in the coming years. These measures include
strengthening of the girders by fiber-reinforced plastic, queen-posts, and/or modular trusses.
Supplementary to the girder strengthening, additional recommendations to address the risk
environment include annual detailed inspections, and continued detailed structural assessments
of all the edge girders, centre girders and pier caps. Additional strengthening requirements may
result from the continued inspections and assessment activities. PJCCIs dedication to
inspection, maintenance and strengthening programs developed in their long-term planning
initiatives has provided significant durability benefits for the structure to date and will continue to
define the path forward in safely managing the ongoing deterioration of the bridge.
Due to the nature of the deterioration, we believe it is critical to complete the strengthening work
in a short timeframe; this places an immediate need to begin the inspection and assessment
work as soon as reasonably possible while still maintaining a strategic and planned approach to
risk mitigation. A preliminary budget estimate of $400 - $500M is proposed to address all the
future work to be done in the next 5 years for inspection and rehabilitation.
2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans

2013 September 26 Edge Girder Condition Assessment and
Rehabilitation Requirements
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2 Description of Structure ...................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Structural Components ............................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Main Girders ................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Diaphragms..................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Deck Slab ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Early Deep Post-Tensioned Girder Design ................................................................. 6
2.3 Design Impacts ........................................................................................................... 7
3 Observed Condition of the Girders ..................................................................................... 8
4 Engineering Assessment of Current Condition ..................................................................14

4.1 Assessment of Bending Capacity ..............................................................................14
4.2 Assessment of Shear Capacity ..................................................................................15
4.2.1 Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement ...........................................................15
4.2.2 Determination of Effective Internal Post-Tensioning Tendons ........................16
4.3 Remedies Installed to Date for Shear Deficiencies ....................................................17
4.3.1 Installation of Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) .................................................17
4.3.2 Installation of Queen-Posts ............................................................................18
5 How Consistent Safety is Maintained for Bridge Users ......................................................20

5.1 How the Level of Safety is Determined ......................................................................20
5.1.1 Demands .......................................................................................................20
5.1.2 Capacity .........................................................................................................21
5.1.3 Risk Factors ...................................................................................................21
5.2 Current Level of Safety ..............................................................................................23
5.3 Maintaining an Acceptable Level of Safety ................................................................24
6 Summary of Evaluation .....................................................................................................26
7 Rehabilitation Measures Required to Manage Risk ...........................................................28

7.1 Immediate Actions Required - Emergency Strengthening Measures .........................28
7.2 Short-Term Actions Required (Immediately to end of 2014).......................................29
7.3 Five-Year Action Plan (2014 - 2018) ..........................................................................32
7.4 Budget Estimate ........................................................................................................33
8 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................34
2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans i

1 Introduction
This report investigates the structural capacity of the post-tensioned concrete girders
of the Champlain Bridge approach spans, accounting for the deterioration identified
in previous inspection reports, known repair and strengthening projects, and recent
exploratory openings performed by Les Ponts Jacques Cartier et Champlain
Incorpore (PJCCI).
Buckland & Taylor (B&T) did not perform on-site inspection or detailed review of
components other than the approach span edge girders, adjoining diaphragms and
transverse deck post-tensioning. While B&T was on site for the opening of 19
exterior girder soffits as part of our Exploratory Openings Mandate, this work was
primarily performed at night and observations were localized to the condition of the
post-tensioning strands being uncovered. Detailed structural analysis and
conclusions were developed based on the documents provided by PJCCI
representing the condition of the structure.
Throughout this report, critical girders are identified based on demand-to-capacity
ratios for shear, flexure and tension in the reinforcement. Presence of severe
corrosion is identified through broken strands, reflective cracking and significant
changes in the observed girder conditions. Additionally, the presence/absence of
external strengthening (such as queen-posts) is accounted for within the analysis.
Recommendations regarding strengthening options are then presented for
immediate and short-term actions. Recommendations for a 5-year plan are also
presented.
This report is organized in the following sections:
Section 2 gives a brief description of the layout of the approach spans and
explains how the original allowable stress design approach to shear and bending
differs from the strut and tie and limit state design methods used today;
Section 3 summarizes the observed condition of the edge girders;
Section 4 presents an engineering assessment of the edge girders based on
their current condition, including existing strengthening such as external
longitudinal post-tensioning, queen-posts and also new remedies now being
utilized such as fibre reinforced plastics (FRP);
2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 1

Section 5 discusses evaluation of the reliability index for the bridge and identifies
the inspection, monitoring, strengthening and strategic planning activities
necessary to maintain at all times a reliability index value which is consistent with
the intent of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (S6 Code);
Section 6 provides a summary of our evaluation results; and
Section 7 establishes a prioritization sequence for rehabilitation measures in
order to systematically manage the risks to the structure as the severity of the
various structural defects increase with time.
2 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

Edge Girder Condition Assessment and
2013 September 26
2 Description of Structure
This report studies the behaviour of the approach spans in Sections 5 and 7 of the
Champlain Bridge. The spans in Section 5 are analyzed since their span is the
longest (53.475 m) which results in the highest demands in the different components
of the bridge. This is a slightly conservative approach; however, the shortest span in
these sections is only 51.410 m so the difference is insignificant. A general view of
the bridge is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: General view of Champlain Bridge Section 5 and 7

Each span of the approaches is a simply supported system and has a cross-section
of seven precast post-tensioned (PT) girders. The approaches accommodate six
traffic lanes. The deck slab between the top flanges of the girders at deck level is
made up of cast-in-place infill strips. Two diaphragms are present at the bearing
centrelines and two intermediate diaphragms are located 17.984 m from either
bearing centreline. The deck is post-tensioned in the transverse direction in the slab
and the diaphragms. The top flanges of the girders together with the cast-in-place
infill strips constitute the deck over which an asphalt riding surface is installed. This
results in a structure that is highly integrated in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions. The deck cross-section is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Layout of a Typical Approach Span
2.1 Structural Components
2.1.1 Main Girders

As shown in Figure 3, each girder has 24 inclined post-tension tendons anchored
either at the ends or the top flange of the beam. Each tendon is made of 12 strands
of 7 mm (0.276") in diameter.
The transverse reinforcement of the girders consists of alternating #4 and #5 stirrups
spaced at 800 mm (31.5") in the span and #5 stirrups spaced at 267 mm (10.5") near
the supports.
Considering the light amount of mild reinforcement in the girders, the tendons
contribute significantly to the shear and bending capacity.
The nominal material properties were considered as follows:
Concrete compressive strength, f'c = 34.5 MPa
Mild steel reinforcement yield strength, fy = 275 MPa
PT tendons ultimate strength, fpu = 1,627 MPa
The compressive strength was determined, as outlined by the S6 Code, and by the
information provided on the as-built drawings. Data from cores previously taken by
PJCCI has demonstrated that, in general, the concrete strength of the girders is
higher than assumed. However, in consideration of the deterioration observed and

2013 September 26
since concrete compressive strength has limited influence on the shear capacity of a
girder (which was determined to be the governing load condition), the as-designed
compressive strength was used for the analysis.
Edge Infill 3.07 m

3.72 m
Girder Strip
Figure 3: Girder Longitudinal Post-Tensioning and Deck Section
The cross-section of a girder at mid-span is shown in Figure 4. A detail of the tendon

layout at a cross-section at mid-span is also shown in Figure 4. Tendons 1 to 14 that
are anchored at the face of the girder are on the exterior of the bottom flange and
tendons 15 to 24 anchored at the top are located in the middle part of the bottom
flange.
PT Tendon
PT Tendon Layout at Midspan
Figure 4: Precast Girder Section Geometry

2.1.2 Diaphragms
There are four diaphragms in each span: two end diaphragms and two intermediate
diaphragms. Each post-tensioning tendon in the diaphragms consists of 12-7 mm
(0.276") diameter strands.
The end diaphragms are 1220 mm deep, 203 mm wide and contain two PT tendons;
one in the deck slab and one at the bottom of the diaphragm. The intermediate
diaphragms are 2840 mm deep, 203 mm wide. The diaphragm post-tensioning
consists of six 12 strands tendons.
2.1.3 Deck Slab

The deck slab between the top flanges of the girders at deck level is composed of
cast-in-place infill strips. The slab and the girders are connected using transverse
post-tensioning. The typical slab thickness is 216 mm. The transverse post-
tensioning tendons are 12-7 mm (0.276") diameter strands spaced at 1016 mm.
2.2 Early Deep Post-Tensioned Girder Design

At the time when the Champlain Bridge was designed, the Codes were still using the
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) approach, as opposed to the Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) method used today.
The understanding of shear behaviour, in particular, was not as developed as it is
today. The original calculation notes from H.H.L Pratley (dated 1960) show that the
shear design was based on the calculation of principal stresses in the web under
service loads. Although the effects of the post-tensioning tendons were considered,
the designer concluded that "principal stresses are acceptable with no
reinforcement." Therefore, only the minimum amount of transverse shear
reinforcement was specified in the girders (alternating #4 and #5 bars at 800 mm
spacing).
The design codes at the time did not account for durability, modes of failure or shear
design of deep girders. All these considerations have since been included in the
modern-day design codes; for example the use of factored loads and capacities, the
limitations on the spacing of the stirrups, the minimum amount of shear
reinforcement and the strut-and-tie methods developed for the calculation of the
shear capacity in deep girders.
Therefore, there are significant differences in how a prestressed girder would be
designed now as opposed to the original design of the Champlain Bridge.

2013 September 26
2.3 Design Impacts
In managing the risk to the public, the original design of the Champlain Bridge plays
a role in understanding its vulnerability to deterioration. It is through understanding
these vulnerabilities that we can appropriately assign factors to relate the inherent
risk in the structure to a level considered acceptable for continued use of the
structure for the public.
The deck system in its current condition is considered vulnerable to deterioration and
potential failure for the following reasons:
Reduced potential for load redistribution in the case of a girder failure;
Possible water infiltration from the top of the deck into the inclined PT tendons,
with water collecting at the low point near mid-span;
Poor water drainage system allowing de-icing chemicals to deteriorate the edge
girders for the first 30 years of the bridge life (until drains were added to the
bridge in the 1990s);
Low amount of longitudinal non-prestressed reinforcement in the girders, making
them rely almost entirely on PT tendons for flexural capacity;
Large spacing of the vertical stirrups (800 mm) in the girders, making them rely
more on the concrete and PT tendons for shear capacity than is typically found in
new design today; and
Generally unknown precise condition of the internal PT tendons except at a few
locations where exploratory openings have been performed.
Instrumentation installed on the Champlain Bridge girders will provide details

regarding their changing conditions over time, particularly for flexural failures. In the
case of a shear failure, the instrumentation response time may limit its effectiveness.
However, potential developments of structural cracking and the associated load
redistribution will be captured and recorded to become part of the overall monitoring
program to continue assessing the structures condition.
While the current risk environment is considered acceptable for continued use of the
structure, it is dependent on a continued, up-to-date understanding of the structural
condition (known through detailed inspections), on-going strengthening programs to
address the girders with higher levels of deterioration, and a continued commitment
to firm, strategic planning to ensure adequate strengthening is implemented to
address the risk of further deterioration.

3 Observed Condition of the Girders
The deterioration of girders, especially edge girders, has been documented in
several inspection reports performed on behalf of PJCCI by various consulting
engineers over the years. The critical component affecting the structural capacity of
the girders is the longitudinal post-tensioning, which has to be effective and reliable
in order for the structure to function as intended. Corrosion loss of the PT tendons
directly impacts the girder strength.
The first signs of corrosion showed up in the mid 1980's and, over the last 30 years
increasing signs of corrosion have been observed on the edge girders. As shown in
Figure 5 to Figure 8, corrosion signs are visible for inclined tendons in the web and
for bottom tendons near the mid-span region. Strands loss and severe corrosion was
also observed through exploratory openings located near mid-span.
In most cases, it is difficult to assess the degree of corrosion because only localized
openings or surface observations are possible. Therefore, there is a general
uncertainty about the actual loss of tendon section and as a result, the shear and
bending capacity of the girders. This progressive loss of reliability means that we
have had to apply conservative assumptions concerning the condition of the PT
strands in order to retain confidence in the structural integrity of the girders.
Six edge girders in particular show signs of advanced deterioration and strand loss,
but have not yet received any strengthening. These six critical girders require
immediate action (at the time of this report, strengthening was underway):
1) 6W-7W P1 4) 27W-28W P7
2) 8E-9E P7 5) 32W-33W P7
3) 26W-27W P7 6) 42W-43W P1
Some corrosion of the vertical mild reinforcing has been noted around the regions of
moisture at the girder soffits. However, there are no indications of reflective cracking
in line with the vertical steel, nor do the most current inspection reports record any
significant issues on the visual inspection drawings.
It should be noted that, for the majority of these girders, structural cracking and
indications of overloading have not been observed. In the few cases, the cracking
observed has typically been hairline in width. These cracked girders were re-
inspected by PJCCI and found to have no evidence of change since the previous
inspections. The absence of indications of overloading plays a significant role in the

2013 September 26
decision to allow the lanes to remain open while these short and medium term
repairs are undertaken. Detailed visual inspections of all the edge girders are being
undertaken by PJCCI yearly. Following each inspection, any changes to previously
known conditions are reviewed and strengthening options reconsidered.
Inclined tendon with

signs of corrosion and
reflective cracking

reflective cracking
Inclined tendon with Inclined tendon with

signs of corrosion and reflective cracking and
reflective cracking grout injected crack

spalling
Figure 5: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Web of Edge Girders

Bottom
tendons with
signs of
corrosion
and spalling
Bottom tendons with

spalling
Bottom tendons with Delamination

signs of corrosion and of girder soffit
spalling
Figure 6: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Soffit of Edge Girders

2013 September 26
Figure 7: Typical Damage Report for Edge Girder from Detailed Visual
Inspection (42W- 43W P1 shown)
Figure 8: Typical Damage Report for Edge Girder from Detailed Visual
Inspection (27W-28W P7 shown)

Figure 9 shows typical observed signs of deterioration on the soffit of deck infill
strips. At some locations, there is evidence of corrosion of the transverse post-
tensioning tendons in the deck. As described in Section 2 these tendons are
essential to ensure the transverse integrity of the deck slab.
Transverse post-tensioning tendon
Transverse post-
tensioning tendon Deck
with signs of infill
corrosion and spalling strips
Transverse post-
tensioning tendon
with signs of
corrosion and spalling
Figure 9: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Soffit of Deck Slab

2013 September 26
Figure 10 shows typical observed signs of deterioration on intermediate diaphragms.
At some locations, corrosion of reinforcement and concrete spalling were observed.
The diaphragms provide load sharing between girders under traffic, and deterioration
to these components increases the exterior girder demands and, in turn, the risk.
Intermediate Diaphragm
Intermediate Intermediate
diaphragm diaphragm
with signs of with signs of
corrosion corrosion
and spalling and spalling
Figure 10: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Intermediate Diaphragms

4 Engineering Assessment of Current Condition
4.1 Assessment of Bending Capacity
The bending capacity of the girders depends on the amount of mild steel longitudinal
reinforcement and internal post-tensioning tendons. The amount of mild steel
longitudinal reinforcement in the girders is minimal and was not considered in the
calculation of the bending capacity. Only the internal post-tensioning tendons were
considered as contributing to the bending capacity of the girders.
Any deterioration of the post-tensioning tendons therefore plays a major role in the
bending capacity of the girders. The capacity of the girders was evaluated based on
the observed deterioration of the post-tensioning tendons and the concrete as
documented in previous inspection reports. The reports gave details on the
exploratory openings at mid-span and the reflective cracking along the inclined
tendons.
For girder capacity calculations, tendons at the exploratory openings were
considered fully lost if 50% or more of their sectional area was observed as missing
due to corrosion. The extent of tendon loss along the length of the edge girders for
calculation of the bending capacity was determined according to the S6 Code,
Clause 14.14.3 which states that:
"If a prestressing tendon is significantly corroded, the contribution of the entire
tendon to the strength of a component shall be neglected."
As a mitigation measure for the loss of section in the internal tendons, PJCCI has
installed external post-tensioning tendons near the bottom flange of all the edge
girders of the approach spans. The external tendons are located on each side of the
bottom flange and anchored close to the bearings locations with prestressing bars.
Installation of the external post-tensioning tendons started in 1986 on girders
showing signs of corrosion based deterioration. To date, all of the 100 edge girders
of the Champlain Bridge approaches have been retrofitted with external post-
tensioning tendons. The number of strands in each external tendon and their jacking
stress were originally designed as a function of the level of deterioration in each
edge girder, but this strategy quickly moved into preventive design where the
maximum amount was added.
The objective of adding the external post-tension was to compensate for any loss of
bending capacity resulting from the corrosion of the internal post-tensioning tendons.

2013 September 26
The effects of the tendon deterioration and the presence of external post-tension
were considered in the calculation of the bending capacity of the edge girders in their
current condition. Our calculations show that the demand-to-capacity ratio in bending
for the all the edge girders is below 1.0, with a maximum value around 0.95 in the
most critical cases.
Therefore, the edge girders in their current condition, as a consequence of the
addition of the external post-tensioning tendons by PJCCI, have an adequate level of
safety according to the Code with regard to their bending capacity.
4.2 Assessment of Shear Capacity

The shear capacity was calculated according to the general method outlined in the
S6 Code Clause 8.9.3 as the sum of the contributions from the concrete, the mild
steel transverse reinforcement and the vertical component of the post-tensioning
tendons.
The following sections outline two situations where, based on sound engineering
judgement and staying within the intention of the code requirements, the shear
capacities were calculated using concepts not specifically described in the S6 Code.
4.2.1 Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement

The transverse reinforcement of the girders consists of 16 mm (#5) stirrups spaced
at 267 mm (10.5") from the bearings to 6.553 m into the span and alternating 12 mm
(#4) and 16 mm (#5) stirrups spaced at 800 mm (31.5") in the rest of the span.
The stirrup spacing of 800 mm away from the support zones does not meet the
requirements of the S6 Code Clause 14.14.1.6.2 for a section with minimum
reinforcement. This requirement is considered to be for evaluation purposes only and
is intended to provide some amount of crack control at the service limit state.
Based on our understanding of this requirement of Section 14, it was determined that
the spacing requirement is appropriate for shallow girders, and not necessarily for
the deep girders on Champlain Bridge. In a deep girder, more shear reinforcement
would be available to intercept an inclined shear crack. Assuming a typical crack
angle of 35o, a potential shear crack in the 3 m deep girder would still be intercepted
by at least 4 rows of stirrups spaced at 800 mm.

For the above reasons, and given that the girders have the minimum area of
transverse reinforcement according to S6 Code Clause 8.9.1.3, the shear capacity
was calculated assuming that the girders have the minimum amount of transverse
shear reinforcement and the minimum 600 mm spacing requirement was waived.
4.2.2 Determination of Effective Internal Post-Tensioning Tendons

The shear capacity of the girders relies heavily on the vertical component of the
parabolic post-tensioning tendons. Consequently, deterioration of the post-tensioning
tendons has a major impact.
The capacity of the girders was evaluated based on the observed deterioration of the
post-tensioning tendons and concrete as documented in previous inspection reports.
The reports provided details on the findings at the exploratory openings at mid-span
and the reflective cracking along the inclined tendons.
For locations where the strands were individually observed through exploratory
openings, a strand was considered being ineffective if 50% or more of its sectional
area was noted as missing due to corrosion. The extent of tendon loss along the
edge girders was initially determined according to the S6 Code Clause 14.14.3 which
states that:
"If a prestressing tendon is significantly corroded, the contribution of the entire
tendon to the strength of a component shall be neglected."
Following these criteria as defined in the S6 Code, the demand-to-capacity ratio in
shear for some girders was found to be greater than 1.0, up to a maximum value of
1.6 in the most critical case (additional information on how the demand-to-capacity
ratios were determined is outlined in Section 5.2). However, detailed visual
observations did not support this finding as the minor amount of structural based
cracking did not correlate to these high demand-to-capacity ratios. It was evident that
the actual shear strength of the girders was much higher than shear strength values
calculated based on the strict requirements of the S6 Code and further assessment
was needed to appropriately define the capacity of the girders.
Tendon losses due to corrosion appeared to be most serious at their low point at
mid-span where water collects. As the strand parabola climbs away from the mid-
span low point, the corrosion is less severe and after a short bond length the grouted
strand is able to retain its full originally installed tension. The grouted strand tension
in the upwardly curving parabola provides the major part of the girder shear capacity.

2013 September 26
The tendon losses along the length of the edge girders were determined as follows:
Tendons with 50% or more section loss at exploratory opening = Loss of tendon
over the observed broken length + bonding length (1.5 m on each side of
opening); and
Reflective cracking along tendon = Loss of tendon over its full length.
Reflective cracking along the tendon resulted in assuming a loss of the tendon over
its full length as the cracking indicates the corrosion and presence of moisture is not
confined to the low-point of the strands at the girder mid-points.
Using these criteria, the shear demand-to-capacity ratios for most edge girders were
found to be lower than 1.0, with maximum values around 1.1 for the most critical
girder.
4.3 Remedies Installed to Date for Shear Deficiencies

In this section, shear strengthening systems installed to date on the girders are
presented. The effects of already installed strengthening programs were taken into
account when assessing the capacities of each girder. These solutions include
installation of fiber-reinforced plastics (FRP), and installation of queen-posts.
4.3.1 Installation of Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (FRP)

FRP consist generally of carbon or glass fibers embedded in an epoxy matrix. As
shown in Figure 11, some edge girders on the bridge have already been reinforced
for shear by installing vertical strips of carbon FRP glued to the concrete faces of the
web. These strips act as passive shear reinforcement in the same way as the steel
stirrups inside the concrete girders. A minimum clear spacing of 100 mm was
specified between the FRP strips, to allow for inspection of the concrete underneath
for signs of cracks or other deterioration.
Horizontal FRP strips running along the top and bottom of the vertical FRP strips
were also added on some of the strengthened girders to serve as anchorages for the
vertical strips. Vertical FRP strips alternating with bare concrete sections of girder
web will permit observation of any development of shear cracks. FRP strips will
control the width of such shear cracks.

The installation of FRP strips is an efficient way to provide emergency shear
strengthening to girders, to address both original design deficiencies and
deterioration issues. However, it is considered more as a short-to-medium term
solution until the long-term durability of the FRP attached to the girder webs (which
may still have active corrosion) can be confirmed by future inspection.
FRP strip
Figure 11: Installation of FRP Strips on Web of an Edge Girder
4.3.2 Installation of Queen-Posts

As illustrated in Figure 12, queen-post strengthening is already underway at several
locations and installation of queen-posts on 17 of the 50 spans is expected to be
completed prior by the end of 2013.
Two types of queen-posts are currently installed on the bridge. Type QP 1.0 as
shown in Figure 12 was designed by B&T and has been used where there is
sufficient vertical clearance underneath the girders, usually over water. For spans
over land and underpasses where clearance is an issue, shallower Type QP 2.0 has
been installed. The latter system was designed by AECOM.

2013 September 26
The queen-posts (Q.P. 1.0) consist of four 46 mm diameter prestressing bars each.
The nominal jacking load in the PT bars is 1,900 kN for each queen-post and the
vertical posts are located below the intermediate diaphragms. At mid-span, the
horizontal PT bars are located below the bottom flange of the exterior girder. The
anchorage working point of the prestressing bars is located near the bearing along
the girder (inside the span). Bracings are located between the queen-post legs and
the adjacent girder.
As the prestressing bars are tensioned, the system acts to lift the girders at the
diaphragm/vertical post locations. This counteracts the shear load effects and
reduces the overall demand-to-capacity ratio in much of the shear zone.
The effect of the queen-posts on the shear was determined by superposing the
shear demands from the queen-posts to the other dead and live load demands. This
resulted in a reduction of the net shear demands on the edge girders.
The queen-posts also contribute to improve the bending behaviour of the girders and
this effect was taken into consideration in the calculations as a reduction in the net
bending moments applied to the girders.
Edge Girder
Queen-Posts
Figure 12: Queen-Posts Installed Underneath the Edge Girders

5 How Consistent Safety is Maintained for Bridge
Users
The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (S6 Code) provides a framework in
Section 14 for evaluating the required level of safety for bridges. The main
parameters in setting this level, often referred to as the reliability index, are the
behavior of the element being considered, the behavior of the structural system of
which the element is a part, and the level of inspection of the bridge. Through
understanding and using sound engineering judgment in our evaluation of these
parameters, we have shown that the current reliability index of the Champlain Bridge
approach spans is consistent with the target reliability indices defined in the
S6 Code. The details of how a consistent and acceptable level of safety is currently
in place on the Champlain Bridge and recommendations for how to maintain it, with
consideration to the anticipated future deterioration, are described in the following
sections.
5.1 How the Level of Safety is Determined

Through the use of engineering principles, a commonly acceptable means of
describing the level of safety is to discuss demand-to-capacity ratios. What these are
is a ratio between the imposed loads on a structure (the Demands) and the ability of
the structure to withstand those loads (Capacity). When the demand-to-capacity ratio
is one or less, this signifies that the capacity can meet the requirements of the
demands, based on agreed upon load factors. The load factors used to calculate
demand-to-capacity ratios presented in this report are calculated according to
S6 Code Clause 14.15, in the Evaluation section of the Code. The load factors used
for Evaluation in S6 Code Section 14 are typically lower than the load factors used
for a new bridge because Section 14 takes into account the actual state of the
bridge.
Many factors must be considered when evaluating the risk environment for each
bridge. It is through the application of the S6 Code and using sound engineering
judgment that these factors are determined.
5.1.1 Demands
The demands on a structure are determined by an understanding of the types and
number of highway trucks and passenger vehicles crossing the structure, the natural
wind and snow environment, and the inherent dead load (self-weight) of the various

2013 September 26
components. Factors are then applied to each of these demands based on how
confident we are in our understanding of these loads. Both the loads and the factors
applied to them are defined and supported by the S6 Code and are considered
appropriate within Canada.
5.1.2 Capacity
The capacity of the structure is determined primarily through the application of the
S6 Code engineering equations; taking into account size of components, material
strengths, geometry and an overall consideration for how confident we are in the
available information. For example, variability in the strength of concrete is taken into
account by applying a factor which reduces its effective strength. These factors
(called Resistance Factors) are determined and applied as per the code
requirements, developed through years of testing and S6 Code developments.
The capacity of items, such as the PT strands, is also defined in the code. However,
the S6 Code permits engineers to use sound engineering judgment to justify
alternate means of determining the capacity if supported by acceptable engineering
practices and the observed condition of the structure.
5.1.3 Risk Factors

Many of the load and capacity factors referenced in the previous two sections are
determined, in part, based on an understanding how the structure works and where
its vulnerabilities may be. This understanding is based on the following four criteria.
System Behaviour (S6 Code Clause 14.12.2)

The system behaviour accounts for the effect of a failure of an element on the overall
integrity of the structure.
For evaluation of shear and bending effects, Category S2 was considered where
element failure is not expected to lead to a total collapse. If an edge girder were to
fail in shear, our review of the structural system indicated that the rest of the span
would likely not collapse because of bonded transverse tendons in the deck slab,
insuring partial structural integrity of the remaining girders. However, it is important to
note that the original design, as discussed in Section 2.3, leaves the structure more
vulnerable than is typically desired.

Element Behaviour (S6 Code Clause 14.12.3)
Within this criterion, the composition of the structure is considered and its
vulnerability to element failure based on demands is taken into account.
For evaluation of shear effects, Category E2 was considered where the element is
subject to sudden failure with little or no warning but will retain post-failure capacity.
The shear ductility is guaranteed by the fact that girders have the minimum amount
of stirrups and, in some cases, external FRP. While only the minimum amount of
transverse shear reinforcement was specified in the girders (alternating #4 and #5
bars at 800 mm spacing), due to their large depth (more than 3 m), a sufficient
number of them will cross a potential crack, reducing the risk of brittle failure.
For evaluation of bending effects, Category E3 was considered where the element is
subject to gradual damage with warning of probable failure. There would be warning
signs of a bending collapse: increase in deflection in the beam, sag in the deck,
extensive cracking, etc.
Inspection Level (S6 Code Clause 14.12.4)

A benefit is realized from the detailed visual inspections performed for PJCCI in
recent years. Based on these inspections (and their continuation), a greater
confidence in the performance of the structure to date is achieved. Without these
inspections, the assumptions on the contribution of corroded tendons to the girder
shear capacity would be more difficult to justify as there would be limited physical
evidence that the concrete was not cracked along the entire length of the tendon.
For evaluation of shear and bending effects, Category INSP2 was considered where
inspection is to the satisfaction of the evaluator (B&T). B&T used inspection reports
prepared by others to assess deterioration in the girders.
In the future, the inspection category could be increased to INSP3 if the evaluator
becomes more closely involved in the inspection process. Increasing the inspection
category does not reduce the D/C ratio based on reducing the demands or
capacities; rather it assumes a higher level of confidence in what the information
assessment is based on, so slightly lower load factors may be used.

2013 September 26
Important Structures (S6 Clause 14.12.5)
Where structures are located such that they can affect the life or safety of people
under the bridge, are essential to the local economy, or are designated as
emergency response routes, a higher level of safety is expected of them. Therefore,
the S6 Code builds additional conservatism into the analysis for these critical
structures.
In this particular case, the Champlain Bridge qualifies as an Important Structure
because of the high-traffic volume and the socio-economic importance of the bridge
to the Montreal area. To take into account the importance of the bridge, the Target
Reliability Index ( factor) was increased by 0.25.
Target Reliability Index (S6 Code Clause 14.12.1)

The target reliability index was calculated from S6 Code Table 14.5 for normal
traffic.
For evaluation of bending effects, the factor was calculated as 3.25.
For evaluation of shear effects, the factor was calculated as 3.50.
These values are slightly less than the factor of 3.75 used in the design of a new
bridge with a 75 year service life.
It was discussed internally within B&T and agreed that a higher probability of failure
(higher D/C ratio resulting in a lower effective reliability index) would be acceptable
considering the ongoing inspection and monitoring programs on the bridge and the
ongoing strengthening of the deteriorated girders.
5.2 Current Level of Safety

The current level of safety has been verified as being acceptable for maintaining
traffic on the bridge based on the following criteria:
Confidence in Visual Inspections

The absence of indications of overloading plays a significant role in the decision to
allow the traffic lanes to remain open while short and medium term strengthening
projects are undertaken, additional details on the strengthening projects is found in
Section 7. Detailed visual inspections of the edge girders are being undertaken by
PJCCI yearly. Following each inspection, any changes to previously known
conditions are reviewed.

To date, only limited, hairline shear cracking has been observed on the girders and
the evaluation of past inspection reports indicates limited significant changes in these
cracks during the last five years.
Until the FRP is fully installed on the six critical girders, the frequency of inspection
for these locations has been increased to twice per week. Based on our experience,
we believe this frequency is acceptable.
On-going Application of Strengthening to Girders
Strengthening is an on-going task for the exterior girders on this bridge, identified in
Section 3. PJCCIs commitment to continue inspecting, strategically planning and
implementing the strengthening options demonstrates that, as the deterioration
continues, so does the strengthening, meaning that consistent safety can be
achieved, making it acceptable for traffic to remain in place.
5.3 Maintaining an Acceptable Level of Safety

In looking to the future deterioration of the structure, the following criteria need to be
met for an acceptable level of safety to be maintained:
Detailed Visual Inspections

As discussed in Section 5.2, detailed visual inspections play a key role in the
understanding of the structural condition. PJCCIs commitment to inspect the exterior
girders at least once a year, as a detailed visual inspection, permits the engineering
judgment utilized in our current assessment (described above in Section 5.1.3
Inspection Level) to remain appropriate.
Additional Exploratory Openings

Further certainty regarding the condition of the PT strands can be determined
through additional exploratory openings, similar to the 19 performed in 2013. Some
girders have never been opened to determine the condition of the strands, while
others were opened more than 30 years ago. This form of investigation will help
determine the actual condition of the bottom layer of PT strands and will enable
engineers to better define each girders unique condition for selection of
strengthening or monitoring.

2013 September 26
Application of Strengthening to the Girders
As deterioration continues, it can be expected that the assumed shear contribution of
the PT strands may become less reliable. As noted in Section 7, we are
recommending that some strengthening be planned and implemented prior to the
end of 2014 and significant strengthening be planned for the next five years. While
the risk associated with the observed conditions of the girders is currently acceptable
to maintain traffic on the structure, deterioration and degradation will continue with
time. The short time frame recommended for budgeting for the strengthening
projects is based on the uncertainty that can surround concrete corrosion.
A detailed load evaluation and engineering assessment is also recommended to
determine where PJCCI should focus the strengthening projects in order to best
manage the risks.
Real-Time Monitoring Systems

PJCCI has implemented real-time monitoring systems on many of the more
deteriorated girders to monitor for signs of overload. This information, along with the
detailed visual inspections allows engineers to maintain a higher degree of
understanding of the behavior and condition of structure than is typically found on
older bridges across Canada.
Continued Strategic Planning

Over and above the shear strengthening and detailed inspections, PJCCIs
continued commitment for high level strategic planning and conservative budgeting
(as described later in Section 7) for ongoing strengthening results in a confidence
that, if new issues or concerns arise, appropriate programs and personnel are in
place and available to address the issues.

6 Summary of Evaluation
An evaluation was performed to determine the individual demand-to-capacity ratios
(D/C) for each exterior girder; the results are presented in Table 1. The table shows
the results for shear only, as this effect was found to be governing over the bending
and reinforcement tension results.
The results show the current D/C based on the condition of the structure, and does
not include the effects of the queen-posts and FRP strengthening currently being
applied to the six critical girders. This table demonstrates that the exterior girders
have D/C ratios generally near or less than 1.0 based on our engineering
assessment and evaluation following the S6 Code requirements (described in
Section 4.2).
For the purposes of our analysis, a D/C of 0.85 was set as the threshold, after which
repairs would be recommended to take place prior to the end of 2014. We selected
the threshold ratio of 0.85 based on our experience working with the code
requirements, engineering judgment. It was set lower than 1.0 due to the significant
amount of uncertainty regarding the extent of deterioration and its rate of change.
The selection of the six critical girders was based on a review of the existing D/C
ratios in combination with risks identified through significant deterioration effects
noted in the previous visual inspection reports. While some of the six critical girders
have D/C ratios higher than 0.85, the degree of over-stress is considered acceptable
for the short-term based on the current visual observations and plans for continued,
bi-weekly inspections, as discussed in Section 5.2 and the emergency strengthening
measures being implemented.
Additional girders were noted to also have D/C ratios higher than the 0.85 threshold
but were judged to be acceptable since our review of the visual inspection reports
confirmed there was a limited indication of deterioration which may affect the critical
sections of the girder and minimal change in the deterioration in the past five years.
The girders will be re-inspected during annual detailed visual inspections to confirm
these findings and monitor for any change to the girders conditions.
As the recommended strengthening programs (presented in Section 7) are
implemented and new information from the exploratory openings and detailed visual
inspections become available, the D/C of the girders will be updated. The changes in
the D/C ratios based on the recommended immediate and short-term actions are
presented in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 respectively.

2013 September 26
The installation of additional queen-posts is recommended to be based on
continuous monitoring of the girders and if a girder strengthened with FRP shows
signs of deterioration of the FRP, or a girder shows advanced signs of deterioration
that requires both the FRP and a queen-post.
Table 1: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios Prior to Emergency Strengthening

7 Rehabilitation Measures Required to Manage
Risk
The following sections describe B&T's recommendations to PJCCI in order to
address the current condition of the bridge and maintain an acceptable level of risk to
the structure. These actions include:
Immediate actions, (already started), to install FRP on the six critical girders and
to be completed before the end of September 2013;
Short-term actions, starting immediately and completed prior to the end of 2014;
and
Actions of the five-year plan to be completed by the end of 2018.
7.1 Immediate Actions Required - Emergency Strengthening

Measures
As outlined in Section 3, B&T has identified the following six most critical edge
girders that require immediate attention:
1) 6W-7W P1 4) 27W-28W P7
2) 8E-9E P7 5) 32W-33W P7
3) 26W-27W P7 6) 42W-43W P1
For these girders, the following actions must be taken immediately (this has been
communicated to PJCCI and at the time of writing this report, the work is already
underway):
Implement emergency contracts to install carbon FRP shear strengthening on the
six edge girders that have no strengthening. Assign crews to allow completion
prior to the end of September 2013 (this installation is weather dependent and
may not be practical after September);
Visually inspect all six girders on a continuous basis (minimum twice per week)
for signs of structural distress until all the FRP reinforcing is installed; and
Install queen-posts on the six spans (twelve girders). On three spans, the queen-
post installations were already prior to the emergency strengthening and work is
underway.

2013 September 26
Table 2 shows the D/C ratios for each of the six critical girders and two additional
spans following installation of the queen-post and the FRP, at the end of December
2013.
Table 2: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios following Emergency FRP and Planned
Queen-Posts
7.2 Short-Term Actions Required (Immediately to end of 2014)

The short-term actions outlined in this section will require a significant engineering
effort. It is recommended that this begin immediately to allow construction of the
strengthening measures to begin in the spring of 2014.
While the risk associated with the observed conditions of the girders is currently
acceptable to maintain traffic on the structure, the deterioration and degradation will
continue with time. To address this changing risk environment and maintain the level
of safety required by the S6 Code, some actions are therefore required in the short-
term, these are:
Assess the condition of all of the edge girders, centre girders, pier caps and
foundations by visual inspections, paying particular attention to the durability of
the FRP, reflective cracking and overall signs of corrosion;
Start planning and engineering the on-going strengthening and monitoring

program in 2013 and complete implementation of strengthening where the D/C
ratio is more than 0.85 prior to the end of 2014, staging the most critical items
first;
Perform additional exploratory openings on girders with limited or obsolete data
(approximately 20 locations);

Install FRP on 20 25 additional edge girders, over and above the six critical
girders addressed in Section 7.1 and 7.2 (some of the girders to be reinforced
with FRP are presented in Table 3, however we anticipate additional locations
following the 2014 visual inspection results); and
Add an asphalt-based waterproof membrane above the top flange of the edge
girders to help prevent water from entering the post-tensioning anchors, and
apply breathable waterproofing coatings to the outside faces of the exterior girder
and at the girder ends beneath expansion joints;
Based on our current understanding, we believe that all of this work can be
performed while keeping full traffic running on the bridge. However, due to the nature
of the deterioration, we believe it is critical to complete the strengthening work prior
to the end of 2014.

2013 September 26
Table 3: Demand-to-Capacity Ratios following 2014 FRP Installations

7.3 Five-Year Action Plan (2014 - 2018)
The level of deterioration of the approach spans of the Champlain Bridge is expected
to increase significantly each year. In spite of the measures outlined in Sections 7.1
and 7.2, we recommend that PJCCI update their current 10-year maintenance
program to respond to the rapidly increasing levels of deterioration. Specifically, we
recommend an extensive 5-year plan be developed and implemented to keep the
bridge safe for its users. This plan is contingent on assessment of the annual
inspection results and incorporation of appropriate revisions in the strength and
safety analyses. As the bridge condition deteriorates, we recommend that PJCCI be
prepared to adjust their rehabilitation plans in order to deal with changed risk
situations as they arise.
Specific items that we recommend to be included in the 5-year plan are as follows:
Expand significantly the scope of the inspections. Perform ongoing, rigorous and
detailed inspections of all the edge girders and other critical components
annually;
Monitor progress of all deterioration in a continuous manner with regularly
scheduled inspections and other monitoring techniques;
Identify where deterioration has increased significantly from previous inspections;
Expand the scope of the evaluation to address ongoing deterioration of the
bridge. Update analysis and re-evaluate the level of safety of components based
on observations made during the ongoing inspections; and
Implement a strengthening program for components that have deteriorated
significantly. These options may include FRP strengthening, installation of
queen-posts and/or installation of modular trusses.
Based on the current condition of the bridge and the uncertainties involved in
predicting future deterioration, we believe that it is possible that all 100 edge girders
will require FRP, that an additional 30 queen-posts (15 spans) will be required, and
that 15 modular trusses will be required within the next five years. We believe that
this estimate is likely conservative but that it is appropriate for budgeting purposes.
It is our recommendation that the process of strengthening critical elements be
tailored to the structural needs of the bridge based upon up-to-date information from
the annual detailed visual inspections. This requires a good understanding of the
state of deterioration of the bridge and continuous monitoring of its condition. The

2013 September 26
projected budget over the next five years shall include provisions for continued
inspections, as well as maintenance and strengthening tasks due to the accelerated
rate of deterioration anticipated until replacement.
7.4 Budget Estimate

For budgeting purposes, we recommend that PJCCI plan for between $400 and
$500 million in the next five years, and then for an increasing amount of annual
maintenance each year until the bridge is replaced. We believe that this is an
appropriate budget number given the importance of the structure and its current
condition. This budget was established based on the following information, found in
Table 4.
Table 4: Recommended Five Year Budget Estimate
Item Number Unit cost Estimate
Carbon Fibre
Immediate 6 Edge Girders 6 $ 600,000 $ 3,600,000
Other 94 Edge Girders 94 $ 600,000 $ 56,400,000
Interior Girders 30 $ 600,000 $ 18,000,000
Exploratory Openings 40 $20,000 $ 800,000
Queen-Posts 30 $ 1,200,000 $ 36,000,000
Modular Trusses 15 $ 2,500,000 $ 37,500,000
Diaphragms allowance $ 30,000,000
Piers and Pier Caps allowance $ 50,000,000
Coating Ends/Sides of Edge Girders allowance $ 10,000,000
Sealing Top of Edge Girders allowance $ 10,000,000
Traffic Control allowance $ 25,000,000
Other Unknown Items allowance $ 100,000,000
Contingency 20% $ 75,460,000
Engineering 5% $ 22,638,000
QA/QC 5% $ 22,635,000
TOTAL $ 498,036,000
Many components of the bridge will continue to require significant intervention in the
next five years, and will become more difficult to deal with in time. Therefore, an
allowance was also planned for repairs on diaphragms, piers and pier caps and
waterproofing of the edge girders. Even with the recommended interventions over
the next five years, temporary and permanent lane closures become more likely the
longer the bridge is in operation.

8 Conclusions
Buckland & Taylor was retained by PJCCI to study the overall condition of the edge
girders of the approach spans to Champlain Bridge and to review the influence of
those edge girder conditions on the ability of the structure as a whole to remain
functional. This report summarizes the results of that study.
The study examined the current condition of the edge girders, including loss of post-
tensioning tendons to corrosion, reflective cracking along inclined tendons, effects of
the existing supplementary horizontal post-tension installed on the bottom flange of
all edge girders, cracking due to shear and bending demands, load transfer to
adjacent girders through the deck and diaphragms, and spalling of concrete cover.
Documentation was provided to B&T which described the conditions of the approach
span edge girders; B&T did not perform on-site inspection to verify this data.
The first stage of the study addressed the current condition of all the edge girders. It
was found that the previous installation by PJCCI of supplementary horizontal post-
tension on all edge girders currently provided adequate bending capacity to resist the
applied loads. However, some of the edge girders were not able to develop the level
of shear resistance required by the 2010 Edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (S6 Code). The six edge girders with the most significant deficiencies
in shear capacity were identified and FRP shear reinforcement was designed for
them. Installation of FRP shear reinforcement for these six girders is now in progress
as part of the PJCCI 2013 rehabilitation program for Champlain Bridge. B&T is
providing some field inspection assistance for this work.
In order to ensure that the safety of bridge users is not compromised by the
deterioration of the edge girders, it was necessary to verify that the bridge in its
present condition provides a reliability index consistent with the requirements of the
S6 Code. This report documents how this verification was carried out, following the
detailed requirements outlined in Section 14 of the S6 Code, to reach the conclusion
that appropriate reliability indices in both bending and shear are currently achieved,
reflecting an acceptable level of safety for bridge users.

2013 September 26
There are a total of 100 edge girders in the Champlain Bridge Approach Spans and
there is a high degree of variability of existing condition and rehabilitation status
within those 100 girders. Based on the most recent field inspection data, B&T has
classified the current condition of each edge girder and has calculated its shear and
bending capacities. In addition, revised shear and bending capacities for each girder
have been calculated for various rehabilitation strategies.
To ensure a consistent and appropriate level of safety is maintained for the traveling
public, this report details a 5-year plan, including immediate and short-term actions.
A budget of $500M is recommended for the next five years, with strengthening
projects based on the observed condition of the structure and strategic planning by
PJCCI. However, even with this level of expenditure, the bridge is quickly
approaching the end of its useful life. As such, replacement of the bridge must be
expedited to ensure continuous use of the crossing.


Champlain Bridge Design Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Champlain Bridge Design Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Executive Summary

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans

2 Description of Structure ...................................................................................................... 3

3 Observed Condition of the Girders ..................................................................................... 8

4 Engineering Assessment of Current Condition ..................................................................14

5 How Consistent Safety is Maintained for Bridge Users ......................................................20

6 Summary of Evaluation .....................................................................................................26

7 Rehabilitation Measures Required to Manage Risk ...........................................................28

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans i

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 1

2 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

Figure 1: General view of Champlain Bridge Section 5 and 7

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 3

2.1 Structural Components

2.1.1 Main Girders

4 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

Edge Infill 3.07 m

Figure 3: Girder Longitudinal Post-Tensioning and Deck Section

The cross-section of a girder at mid-span is shown in Figure 4. A detail of the tendon

PT Tendon Layout at Midspan

Figure 4: Precast Girder Section Geometry

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 5

2.1.3 Deck Slab

2.2 Early Deep Post-Tensioned Girder Design

6 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

Instrumentation installed on the Champlain Bridge girders will provide details

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 7

8 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

Inclined tendon with

Inclined tendon with

Inclined tendon with Inclined tendon with

Inclined tendon with

Figure 5: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Web of Edge Girders

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 9

Bottom tendons with

Bottom tendons with Delamination

Figure 6: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Soffit of Edge Girders

10 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 11

Figure 9: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Soffit of Deck Slab

12 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

Figure 10: Observed Signs of Deterioration on Intermediate Diaphragms

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 13

14 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

4.2 Assessment of Shear Capacity

4.2.1 Spacing of Transverse Reinforcement

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 15

4.2.2 Determination of Effective Internal Post-Tensioning Tendons

16 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

4.3 Remedies Installed to Date for Shear Deficiencies

4.3.1 Installation of Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (FRP)

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 17

Figure 11: Installation of FRP Strips on Web of an Edge Girder

4.3.2 Installation of Queen-Posts

18 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

Figure 12: Queen-Posts Installed Underneath the Edge Girders

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 19

5.1 How the Level of Safety is Determined

20 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 2038-RPT-GEN-001-0

5.1.3 Risk Factors

System Behaviour (S6 Code Clause 14.12.2)

2038-RPT-GEN-001-0 Champlain Bridge Approach Spans 21

Inspection Level (S6 Code Clause 14.12.4)