Impressions of The Champlain Bridge With Photos, by Delcan

625 Cochrane Drive, Suite 500, Markham, ON Canada L3R 9R9
Tel: 905.943.0500 ● Fax: 905.943.0400

www.delcan.com
DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL
December 15, 2010 OUR REF: BO 2198

JCCBI Ref: Contract 61445
Mr.Glen Carlin
Directeur General
Les Ponts Jacques Cartier et Champlain Incorporée
1111 rue St. Charles O, bureau 600
Tour Ouest
Longueuil, Quebec
J4K 5G4
Dear Sir
Re: REPORT – IMPRESSIONS OF THE CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE
We are pleased to submit our draft Report on our Impressions of the Champlain Bridge.
We look forward to reviewing this report with you and to completing it to your entire
satisfaction.
Yours truly,
W. Victor Anderson, P.Eng.

Executive Vice President
WVA:fdk
J:\tor\bo2198\bt\docs\report 1 cover letter.doc
Enc. Report - Impressions of the Champlain Bridge

The Jacques Cartier and DRAFT
Champlain Bridges Incorporated
IMPRESSIONS OF THE CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 3
Section 5 ......................................................................................................... 4
Section 6 ......................................................................................................... 4
Section 7 ......................................................................................................... 5
2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 7
3. THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AND THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ................................. 7
4. BEDROCK ........................................................................................................ 7
5. DESCRIPTION OF THE CROSSING ....................................................................... 8
Section 5 ......................................................................................................... 8
Section 6 ......................................................................................................... 9
Section 7 ......................................................................................................... 9
Sections 5, 6 and 7 ......................................................................................... 10
6. CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE ...................................................................... 10
7. HISTORY OF REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS ...................................................... 11
8. CURRENT REHABILITATION PROGRAMME ........................................................... 14
9. CURRENT PROGRAMME OF DE-ICING THE BRIDGE .............................................. 21
10. CURRENT BRIDGE DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION .............................................. 21
Abutments..................................................................................................... 21
Pier Foundations on Approach Spans ................................................................. 21
Pier Stems on Approach Spans ......................................................................... 22
Pier Caps on Approach Spans ........................................................................... 23
Bearings on Approach Spans ............................................................................ 24
Concrete Girders on Approach Spans ................................................................. 24
Concrete Deck Panels on Approach Spans .......................................................... 24
Concrete Diaphragms on Approach Spans .......................................................... 24
Transverse Post-Tensioning on Approach Spans .................................................. 24
Barriers on Approach Spans ............................................................................. 25
Paving and Waterproofing on Approach Spans .................................................... 26
Wearing Surface on Approach Spans ................................................................. 26
Structural Steel Deck Truss Approach Spans....................................................... 26
Main Pier Foundations ..................................................................................... 26
Main Piers ..................................................................................................... 27
Structural Steel Through Truss Main Spans ........................................................ 27
Orthotropic Steel Deck and Wearing Surface....................................................... 28
Painting of Structural Steel .............................................................................. 28
11. STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING .................................................................. 29
Page i December 15, 2010

12. SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 29
13. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 30
Page ii December 15, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Delcan was retained in August 2010 by The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges
Incorporated to carry out a Structural Health Assessment Study of the Champlain Bridge.
The objective of this contract was the undertaking of a study in order to provide the
Corporation with an expert assessment of the current structural health of the Champlain
Bridge.
This Report – Impressions of the Champlain Bridge, records Delcan’s impressions of the
bridge based on work carried out by Delcan in 2010.
The work covered the deck, superstructure and substructure of the main sections of the
bridge, namely, Sections 5, 6 and 7 which include:
• Section 5, the section extending from Île des Soeurs to the steel structure of the bridge
and comprising prestressed concrete girders integrated with deck infill sections and
diaphragms which are transversely post-tensioned to the girders.
• Section 6, the bridge section spanning the St. Lawrence Seaway and including the main
span which consists of a cantilever-type through truss steel structure and the flanking
deck-truss approach (transition) spans, and
• Section 7, located between the steel structure of Section 6 and the abutment on the
South Shore and including prestressed concrete girders integrated with deck infill
sections and diaphragms which are transversely post-tensioned to the girders in a
fashion similar to that incorporated in Section 5.
This report is based upon works carried out by Delcan which include a review of the bridge
in the field, and a review of extensive records, reports and studies provided by the
Corporation as to the history of the various interventions on the bridge since its
construction.
Overall, our impression of the bridge is that it is in a condition which requires extreme
vigilance in order to maintain it safely in service over even a relatively short term. Some of
the deterioration which has been observed is very severe. Deterioration such as this tends
to progress exponentially, the rate of increase of deterioration increasing itself with time,
hence increasing concern with regard to this bridge. A number of repairs have been carried
out to the prestressed concrete girders with a view to compensating for known loss or
increasing the load-carrying capacity of the bridge both in bending and in shear. These,
however, must be considered to be measures which are not appropriate for long-term
service. Rather, they are intended to help secure the bridge in the short term until
something more substantive can be implemented. It has been recognized that there is a
risk of partial collapse of the bridge, or even the collapse of a span, given the structural
configuration of the prestressed concrete girder and diaphragm grillage which comprises the
superstructures in Section 5 and Section 7. This is combined with concerns with regard to
the condition and load-carrying capacity of the pier caps and the poor condition of some of
the pier stems as well as concerns with regard to the condition of the foundations. The
possibility that there will be a partial or complete collapse of one span given all of these
negative aspects of the bridge, cannot altogether be ruled out. It is a risk which is being
borne and managed at this time.
Page 1 December 15, 2010

The Champlain Bridge is considered to be a lifeline bridge from the perspective of seismic
loading. This means that the bridge should be capable of resisting the 475 year design
seismic event without being taken out of service, and of resisting the 1000 year large
earthquake event and being open immediately to emergency vehicles. However, the bridge
has not been designed to sustain significant seismic loading and we understand that
analyses have shown that it has no capacity to do so. In its current condition, this bridge
can be expected to collapse partially or altogether in a significant seismic event.
In summary, this bridge is not in a condition which is compatible with it continuing to serve
for an extended period of time as a major crossing of the St. Lawrence River under the
substantial vehicular, truck and bus loads which it must sustain, without some risk, which
cannot altogether be quantified.

1. INTRODUCTION
The Champlain Bridge is one of the major crossings of the St. Lawrence River in Montreal.
It opened to traffic on June 28, 1962, to provide a six-lane, 60 mile-per-hour highway
crossing of the St. Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and the
South Shore.
Starting from Montreal, the bridge includes the following sections:
Section 1: Montreal approaches west of Wellington Street.

Section 2: Approaches between Wellington Street and the west bank of the St. Lawrence
River.
Section 3: Crossing of secondary river channel to Île des Soeurs.
Section 4: Roadway and plaza on Île des Soeurs.
Section 5; Main river crossing between Île des Soeurs and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Section 6: Crossing of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Section 7: East approach structure.
Section 8: Approach roadways on the South Shore.
This report deals with Sections 5, 6 and 7.
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Champlain Bridge
Delcan was retained in August 2010 in accordance with a Request for Proposals issued by
The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated to carry out the Structural Health
Assessment Study of the Champlain Bridge, Contract Number 61445.
The objective of this contract is the undertaking of a study in order to provide the
Corporation with an expert assessment of the current structural health of the Champlain
Bridge. This assessment is to include a review of the known and potential modes of
material and structural degradation, an overview of the measures implemented and planned
by the Corporation to mitigate structural aging of the bridge, and a qualitative assessment
as to the technical feasibility and inherent risks on a structural basis associated with the
operation of this bridge for an extended period of time. As a part of this study, Delcan was
also to examine the Corporation’s 10-year $212 Million bridge rehabilitation programme

which was initiated in 2009 and determine if the bridge can continue to be sustained in this
interval and beyond, knowing that the structure and its components are likely to deteriorate
in a non-linear fashion over time.
The study is to cover the deck, superstructure and substructure of the main sections of the
bridge, namely Sections 5, 6 and 7 as noted above. They are described briefly hereafter.
Section 5
This section extends from Île des Soeurs to the main steel structure of the bridge. This is
the longest section of the bridge; it measures 2,050.4 m (7,053 feet 4 inches) and includes
40 spans measuring 53.7 m (176 feet 4 inches) each.
Figure 2 - Prestressed Concrete Girders in Section 5
The spans comprise prestressed concrete girders integrated with deck infill sections and
diaphragms which are transversely post-tensioned to the girders, hence forming a highly-
connected grillage whereby the top flanges of the girders and the deck infill sections
comprise the bridge deck.
Section 6
This section includes the bridge spanning the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Figure 3 – Cantilever-Type Through Truss

Steel Structure of Section 6

Clearance of 36.6m (120 feet) is maintained over the full width of the channel. This section
includes the main span which consists of a cantilever type through-truss steel structure
measuring 450.5 m (1,477 feet 9 inches) composed of three spans, including the central
one measuring 215 m (706 feet 9 inches) and comprised of cantilever arms and a
suspended central span.
Section 6 also includes flanking deck-truss approach (transition) spans. Both the cantilever
through truss and deck truss which make up this section of the bridge have steel orthotropic
decks.
Section 7
Located between the steel structure of Section 6 and the abutment on the South Shore,
Section 7 includes ten spans, with four spans measuring 53.7 m (176 feet 4 inches), two
measuring 51.4 m (168 feet 8 inches), three measuring 52.5 m (172 feet 4 inches) and one
span measuring 52.7 m (172 feet 10 inches), for a total length of 528.4 m (1,733 feet 1
inch). Section 7 contains subsection 7A and 7B which are slightly different in design. Like
Section 5, the top flanges of the post-tensioned girders in sections 7A and 7B also form part
of the bridge deck.
Figure 4 - Prestressed Concrete Girders in Section 7
The description of professional services in this study is included in the Request for Proposal
as follows:
The study shall examine the structural health of the bridge on the basis of the data and
documentation that is currently available as well as the Consultant’s own expertise in
matters relating to deterioration and rehabilitation of infrastructure, taking into account
without limitation, the following aspects and information concerning the bridge and its
condition:
• The structural configuration of the bridge, in particular, the unusual configuration of the
deck slab, a portion of which consists of the top flanges of the prestressed girder, and
the balance of which is comprised of a cast-in-place section sandwiched between the top
flanges and which relies entirely on transversal post-tensioning to support dead and live
loads.

• The Owner’s historical records of major repairs to most if not all of the concrete
(prestressed/cast-in-place) components of the bridge which include repairs to expansion
joints (several repair cycles), barriers, bearings, prestressed beams (several cycles of
repairs to flanges, web, and post-tensioning anchor ends), pier caps, pier shafts,
underwater repairs, main span pier columns and more recently, localized repair to deck
slab and observed structural damage to the diaphragms.
• The structural reinforcement undertaken and currently ongoing to pier caps, edge
girders (for example, the incorporation of a queen post system), to compensate for the
limited structural capacity of these important bridge components.
• Numerous reports (some of which are listed in Appendix 5A) pertaining to the annual
inspection and underwater inspection of the bridge.
• Reports and special studies (some of which are listed under Appendix 5A) regarding the
structural rating of the bridge under dead and highway live loads, special rating reports
concerning edge girders and pier caps, and structural rating of substructure components
under wind load.
• Reports and special studies (some of which are listed under Appendix 5A) regarding life
cycle costs, risk assessment and risk mitigation measures (stand-by emergency above
deck girder and modular support truss for example), remaining fatigue life of orthotropic
deck-sections, and special non-destructive test methods (magnetic survey of deck,
ultrasonic inspection of pins, half-cell potential survey of girders, concrete coring
programs and other).
• The Owner’s recent implementation of some form of structural-health monitoring

technology on a limited number of the beams of the Champlain Bridge.
• Limitations in current technology and knowledge in respect to the ability to accurately

diagnose and to predict future trends in regards to material degradation and structural
capacity of main load carrying components of the substructure, superstructure, deck and
accessory bridge devices and equipment.
• The high traffic demands, the limited available time to undertake works without
impacting negatively upon service to the users of the bridge and the capacity to
intervene in a timely manner given the size of the bridge and the available expertise and
capacity of contractors within the Greater Montreal construction market.
• Complications originating from the operation of the reserved bus line (contraflow traffic
with no divider) which makes rerouting of heavy trucks to interior lanes impractical
and/or problematic from a risk management perspective.
• Degree of uncertainty related to the level of performance of certain key components.
• Issues relating to seismic response and/or rehabilitation for seismic loading.
• Volume of traffic and percentage of heavy trucks that the bridge currently handles
annually and is likely to handle in the future.

• The integrated nature of the superstructure system within the approach spans due to
longitudinal and transversal post-tensioning which makes replacement of the deck and
girder components either very difficult if not impossible.
In addition to the works identified in Article 5.01.1 – Scope as well as the services and
considerations listed above, the Consultant shall review the Owner’s past and current
rehabilitation strategies and provide a qualitative statement in its report as to the risks
associated with this strategy, including an identification of the real and/or potential risks
and their manageability, considering the importance of the bridge and knowing that the
turnaround time to replace the structure may be on the order of ten (10) years.
2. BACKGROUND
A list of reports, reference drawings and other documents to be consulted was included in
Appendix 5A of the Request for Proposal.
Aerial photos of the Champlain Bridge were provided in Appendix 5B of the Request for
Proposal.
The overall layout of the Champlain Bridge was described in Appendix 5C of the Request for
Proposal.
The number of traffic lanes to be kept open was provided in Appendix 5D of the Request for
Proposal.
Additional information was made available comprising a number of reports and other
documentation.
The story of the construction of the bridge is well-described in a document entitled “The
Champlain Bridge – a Photographic Story” by Hans van der Aa, which was published in
1962. Reference is made to this and other documents in describing the construction of the
bridge in subsequent sections of this report.
3. THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AND THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
The bridge crosses the main channel of the St. Lawrence River though Section 5 and rises to
cross the St. Lawrence Seaway through Section 6, descending through Section 7 to the
connecting roads on the South Shore. The bridge spans the St. Lawrence River where its
widening forms the Laprairie Basin. The bridge is located in flat, open country and both
riverbanks are low. The bridge rises to provide a 120 foot clearance above the St. Lawrence
Seaway which skirts the bank of the river on the east side. Because the Laprairie Basin is
quite wide at this location, the river is relatively shallow.
4. BEDROCK
The bedrock is regular, nearly-horizontal shale strata. Some intrusions of igneous rocks and
very thin beds of clay were responsible for the depth of pier foundations varying from 2 to
10 feet under the surface of the rock in Sections 5 and 7A. Below the level of these
foundations, the rock is sound and the need for consolidation by injection was insignificant.
The rock, in its natural state, was generally covered with overburden 0 to 12 feet thick, of
alluvia of glacial origin.

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE CROSSING
Section 5
Section 5 is the main river crossing between Île des Soeurs and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
It comprises a length of 7103 feet. This section of the bridge includes 40 prestressed
concrete spans of approximately 176 feet each supported on T-shaped piers founded on the
shale bedrock. The original contract to construct this section represented the largest
application of prestressed concrete in Canada both in individual span length and quantity of
work up to that time. The contracting strategy involved consideration of prestressed
concrete, steel and reinforced concrete superstructure options, and the successful bid was
the lowest of 28 received. It came at a time when prestressed concrete was still a relatively
new construction method in Canada. Each span consists of seven precast beams, at 12 foot
2 ½ inch centres with two intermediate diaphragms and a transversely stressed slab. The
stressing of the beams, diaphragms and deck was performed with 12 wire Freyssinet cables.
The circular pier footings were poured in the dry inside sheet pile cofferdams and slip forms
were used for the shaft construction. The pier cap beams were poured in formwork
supported by steel trusses sitting on the tops of the pier shafts.
In the design of this bridge, extensive efforts were made to reduce ice forces on the piers
and foundations. Hence the piers and foundations are relatively small and the cantilevers
associated with supporting the roadway on the piers are relatively large. This was found at
the time to be the optimum solution in the context of a prestressed concrete superstructure
capable of carrying a 76 foot roadway and two 1 foot 6 inch curbs to accommodate the six
lanes of traffic required on the bridge.
A key feature of the design of this bridge section is that the superstructure comprises:
• Seven prestressed post-tensioned concrete girders.
• Six post-tensioned concrete deck infill sections.
• Post-tensioned concrete diaphragms interconnecting the girders and the deck.
• Deck post-tensioning running through the top flanges of the girders transversely to the
girders, across the full width of the deck.
• Simple spans, that is spans not connected to adjoining spans at the piers.
• Very long reinforced cantilevers supporting the superstructure on the stems of the piers.
• Pier stems shaped to reduce ice forces.
• Relatively compact circular foundations supported on the bedrock, with minimal

anchorages to the bedrock around the perimeters.
The six longitudinal spaces that separate the beams are approximately the same width as
the upper flanges of these beams. They are concreted at the same level and with the same
thickness as the flanges. The slab thus formed is prestressed transversely by means of
cables anchored on the two outside girders. No mild reinforcement was used to help
connect the infill strip sections to the girder flanges. Because of its unusual configuration,
the superstructure is highly integrated.

The cofferdams for the piers were made by driving steel sheet piles around a cylindrical
template. It was noted during construction that some time was wasted on account of
numerous water blowouts which made it necessary to re-drive the sheet piles and to repeat
the pumping operation. It was also necessary at times to drive a second concentric sheet
pile ring into the interior of the cofferdam in order to reduce the hydrostatic pressure on the
ground at the bottom of the sheet piles by draining half-way up the space between the two
sheets.
The pier cantilever sections supporting the superstructure were heavily reinforced as a
consequence of efficiencies gained by reducing the size of the pier stem to minimize ice
loads, and of the requirement to support a fairly heavy concrete superstructure.
Section 6
Section 6 is the crossing of the St. Lawrence Seaway. From Île des Soeurs the bridge
climbs up on a 0.85% grade for the long crossing of Laprairie Basin (Section 5) bringing the
bridge to a sufficient height in Section 6 to provide the 120 foot vertical clearance over the
Seaway channel which runs close to the east bank of the river. The 120 foot clearance is
maintained to the underside of the steel main span for the full 300 foot width of the Seaway
channel. Section 7 comes down to the South Shore on a 3% grade.
Section 6 was originally built with a steel superstructure and reinforced concrete roadway
slab. The main steel superstructure is a three span cantilever unit crossing the Seaway
channel. This is flanked by four 250 foot long simple truss spans, giving a total length of
2504 feet 9 inches. The 252 foot flanking spans are deck trusses with four trusses spaced
at 23 foot 4 inch centres in each span. The cantilever unit is a three truss design to provide
minimum depth of construction below road level over the Seaway and consists of three
trusses spaced at 43 foot 6 inch centres. The anchor arms have a 385 foot 6 inch span and
a central clear span of 706 feet 9 inches is made up of two cantilever arms of 160 feet 7.5
inches and a suspended span of 385 feet 6 inches. The trusses are fixed at the two main
piers and the 9 inch temperature movement for the central span is all taken up with an
expansion joint (originally a finger-type but later replaced by a strip-seal joint) at the east
end of the suspended span. The maximum truss depth of 104 feet occurs over the main
piers reducing to 35 feet at the ends of the suspended span. Extensive use was made of
high-strength low-alloy steel where there were heavily-loaded truss members. The three
truss layout for the main span is an unusual one. The structural steel is supported on
reinforced concrete substructures which are founded on bedrock.
Section 7
Section 7 carries the bridge from Section 6 down to the South Shore abutment. It
comprises the six spans of Section 7A which were constructed in the same contract and
using the same methodology as in Section 5 (described in detail above) and four spans
constructed in a separate contract.
The four spans which are at the southernmost end of Section 7 were constructed in Contract
7B where alternative prestressing methods were allowed in bidding on the 172 foot beams,
and the contractor elected to use GTM stranded cables instead of the Freyssinet parallel
wire cables shown on the tender drawings. This is the only contract on the bridge where
Freyssinet cables were not used. These girders, like those in Section 5 and 7A, include
intermediate diaphragms in greater number and a slab designed to be transversely stressed

to form a highly-integrated superstructure supported on reinforced concrete foundations

founded on bedrock.
Sections 5, 6 and 7
In summary, the segment of the bridge under consideration includes three sections built
under three separate contracts and including a total length of 11,340 feet 2 inches from
abutment to abutment.
6. CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE
Studies for the bridge began in 1955. Borings were made in the river in 1956. The
proposed location lines, profiles and clearances were approved in 1957, enabling final
designs and drawings to proceed. The full six-lane scheme was adopted in 1958.
Construction of Section 6 substructure components began before confirmation if the bridge
would comprise a four-lane or six-lane carriageway. The basic bridge width comprises two
37 foot roadways in each direction separated by a median divider.
Figure 5 - Champlain Bridge Under Construction
The first of many contracts for construction of the bridge was let in 1957. The major
structural contracts were all let in the summer of 1959. These included the contract for
construction of Sections 5 and 7A, and the contract for Section 6 steel superstructure and
reinforced concrete roadway slab. The contract for Section 7B was awarded in 1960. There
were many other contracts awarded as a part of the construction of the overall Champlain
Bridge crossing. The works were entirely completed and the bridge open to service on June
28, 1962, the sections of the bridge under consideration here (Sections 5, 6 and 7) having
been completed between June 1959 and the opening of the bridge some three years later.
It can be fairly said that the bridge was designed rapidly and constructed with a view to
efficiency, economy and speed of construction and included some innovative works such as

the prestressed concrete spans in Sections 5 and 7, and more traditional works such as the
cantilevered steel construction in Section 6.
7. HISTORY OF REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS
Significant rehabilitation measures carried out in the 1990s are described in detail in two
technical papers published in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. These papers are
as follows:
• Rehabilitation measures for Champlain Bridge, Montreal, Canada by G.P. Carlin, M.S.
Mirza, and M. Gaudreault, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 23, 1996.
• Replacement of Reinforced Concrete Deck of Champlain Bridge, Montreal, by Orthotropic

Steel Deck, by G.P. Carlin and M.S. Mirza, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume
23, 1996.
These papers note that The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated was
established by the Federal Government in 1978 and that it had a clear mandate as
custodians of the bridges to establish an appropriate maintenance policy. Activities are
prioritized through in-depth condition surveys of various components of the bridge and the
entire programme is renewed globally on an annual basis with priorities established most
importantly depending upon the severity and location of deterioration as it pertains to the
integrity of the bridge. Urgent temporary repairs are performed to protect severely
deteriorated members such as localized failure of the deck, and failed expansion joints, for
example.
Detailed inspection reports are prepared. The detailed inspection reports provide
recommendations based on the bridge condition for its regular inspection and maintenance,
special inspections and investigations and a rehabilitation programme. A ten year major
maintenance and capital plan including cost estimates for the entire bridge, and including all
rehabilitation projects recommended in order of priority, timing and the estimated budget
for each project, was proposed.
As part of the major maintenance and capital plan, a programme to repair the concrete
piers including the submerged segments was initiated in 1990. Also undertaken in 1990
and completed in 1993 was the replacement of the reinforced concrete slab at the cantilever
steel superstructure over the St. Lawrence Seaway and its immediate approaches, with a
lighter closed rib orthotropic steel deck.
The paper entitled Rehabilitation Measures for Champlain Bridge, Montreal, Canada (Carlin,
Mirza and Gaudreault) 1996 includes detailed descriptions of many aspects of the bridge
including the following:
• The unusual system used for construction of the bridge segments in Sections 5 and 7
whereby the top flanges of the precast prestressed beams do not support an
independent deck but rather there are infill, cast-in-place slabs between the precast
beam flanges, and the assembly of the precast flanges and the cast-in-place slabs at
each of the spans is transversely post-tensioned, hence constituting the deck.
• The use of de-icing salts over the past decades which had rendered susceptible to
corrosion the post-tensioned and prestressed cables of Sections 5 and 7 of the bridge.

• The further undermining of Sections 5 and 7 as a result of the deck drainage system in
place at the time, permitting salt-laden snow melt to run onto the exterior prestressed
beams. This has since been rectified with the installation of solid barriers incorporating
new galvanized steel drains.
• The nature of the original expansion joints which consists of an open sliding tooth design
which permitted salt water to drain onto the tops of the piers, attacking also the ends of
the prestressed beams. These were later retrofitted to strip-seal type joints.
• The condition survey and inspection of the bridge noting that detailed inspections were
carried out since the inception of The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges
Incorporated in 1978. In 1985, a four-year cycle detailed inspection programme was
initiated. The inspection manuals and guidelines developed specifically for the bridge
were also noted in this document. These inspections included many features such as
o Hammer sounding of deteriorated concrete

o Scraping of corroded materials
o Hammering suspect rivet heads
o Measures to verify expansion bearing performance under extreme weather
conditions
o Monitoring of structurally significant cracks
o Hands-on inspection
o Hammer sounding of structural concrete components which were not easily
accessible and areas where serious defects were suspected
o Chipping and hands-on inspection of deteriorated concrete in distressed
prestressed concrete beams
o Coring and testing of concrete
o Measurement of steel cross-sectional area to detect any significant loss of metal
o Ultrasonic and dye-penetrant testing of pin connections
o Ultrasonic testing of significant cracks in the substructure
o Surveying of structures when abrupt structural movements were suspected
o Deck condition surveys including visual survey and coring and testing
deteriorated deck components for chloride content and compression strength
An underwater inspection of all bridge piers carried out in 1988 revealed that the surface of
each pier had a typical network of horizontal and vertical cracks which were characterized
as narrow (0-5 mm wide), and wide (larger than 5mm in width). Underwater repair works
were carried out.
In 1990 an annual programme to inject cracks and repair concrete surfaces in the
submerged sections in tidal zones of selected piers was initiated. The work was performed
in the area extending from the river and up to a height of 0.5 to 1m above the water level.
Repairs included drilling of cracks, injection of cracks, repair of honeycombing and spalling,
and repair of porous concrete. Importantly, it is noted that inadequate quality control
during original construction is believed to be responsible for some of the major horizontal
cracking in the substructures. Most of the cracks were believed to be resulting from the
alkali reactive aggregates present in the concrete mix, and it was noted that early test
results supported this hypothesis, while some of the cracking was considered to be related
to thermal effects.
Repairs were carried out to the piers and beam ends as the bridge piers are susceptible to
continuous accumulation of salt-bearing water dripping from open drains (since replaced)

which resulted in considerable deterioration of the concrete and corrosion of the steel
reinforcement. Similar deterioration was noted at the beam ends as well as at the
underside of the deck where spalling of concrete had occurred exposing reinforcing steel.
Initiated in 1988, the repairs performed in 1990 involved rehabilitating concrete in many
areas to effect rehabilitation of the piers at that time. The underside of the deck,
diaphragms located on top of the piers, the underside of the beams, the beam ends were
also repaired in various locations at that time (1990).
Repairs were also carried out to the prestressed beams at that time. Importantly, it was
noted that the exterior post-tensioned girders of the bridge had been subjected to severe
chloride attack. Tests in the concrete from these exterior girders showed that the chloride
ions had contaminated the exterior surface of the concrete, although the chloride ion
content was found to decrease significantly with depth. Longitudinal cracking in the lower
web and bottom flange of these exterior beams results in open passageway for the salt
water to attack the prestressing cables. To alleviate this, a 1.5mm thick impervious
membrane coat was applied to the lower regions of the girders, which helped reduce the
rate of deterioration of the girders until an adequate drainage system could be installed and
other protection measures considered. Cathodic testing was also tested at that time.
Alternate cathodic protection systems (zinc, zinc-aluminium sprayed anode) were also
explored in the late 90’s.
A new active drainage system was installed in 1995. The effects of vehicular splashing onto
the exterior beams were handled by installing a new parapet containment barrier wall which
replaced the previously corroded steel railing. A wire mesh cathodic protection system was
planned and pilot-tested.
Consideration was given to the possibility of replacing exterior beams but, because the top
flanges of the prestressed girders form part of the deck, and all of the beams are integral
with the cast-in-place filler sections between the flanges and with the diaphragms as a
result of transverse post-tensioning, this is a very difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. It
was noted that the deterioration of the exterior girders, if taken to excess, makes the entire
deck vulnerable and jeopardizes the integrity of the spans.
The following general repairs were also carried out:
• Repairs to the underside of the beam.
• Repairs to the diaphragms.

• Application of protective water-proofing membrane to the bottom part and along the
cracks of the outside face of both upstream and downstream beams in Section 7 and of
all beams in Section 5.
• Addition of external prestressing to the exterior beams of the Champlain Bridge. The
paper published in 1996, noted then that typically the severe corrosion in some areas of
the prestressed beams had resulted in spalling of the concrete, exposing of the
reinforcing steel and exposing of the prestressing stands. On some exterior girders,
several strands were found to have ruptured and many were close to failure. Additional
external prestressing was used to remedy this situation. At that time, typical damage to
the Champlain Bridge exterior girders was limited to the central portion to strands that
had little curvature, with anchors in the lower part of the beams. Therefore, at that
time, loss of shear capacity was slight and only bending capacities were investigated and

restored (later, shear capacity became an issue as deterioration progressed, and it was
necessary to take steps to restore shear capacity in some instances).
• An impressed current type cathodic protection system was tested in 1989, and a second
test initiated in 1991, but it is understood that extensive similar protection has not been
implemented on the bridge. The testing of the cathodic protection system raised some
questions as to its performance and consideration was also given to zinc anode spray to
examine its feasibility.
The issue of hydrogen embrittlement of prestressing tendons caused by hydrogen produced

from the impressed currents used for cathodic protection, was also investigated.
A corrosion protection strategy was developed in the context of a Value Engineering Study
for Sections 5 and 7 of the Champlain Bridge. Section 6 was excluded as it was then
undergoing deck replacement. This Value Engineering study was very extensive and was
carried out by a committee of many experts from all disciplines directly related to the
proposed technical solutions. It resulted in a range of recommendations on a priority basis
for protecting the bridge from corrosion.
External post-tensioning ducts made of PVC had to be replaced by HDPE (high density
polyethylene) ducts. In some cases, the external post-tensioning had to be replaced
altogether.
Also at this time, the molded elastomer expansion bearings of the bridge were replaced by
new molded rubber and steel expansion bearings.
The above discussion is derived from the 1996 paper, Rehabilitation Measures for Champlain
Bridge, Montreal, Canada by Carlin, Mirza and Gaudreault.
In addition to all of the works noted therein, the replacement of the reinforcement of the
concrete deck of the Champlain Bridge by an orthotropic steel deck was also implemented.
This is described in the paper by Carlin and Mirza entitled “Replacement of Reinforced
Concrete Deck of Champlain Bridge, Montreal, by Orthotropic Steel Deck” noted previously.
This paper noted that Section 6 of the bridge includes a three span steel span
superstructure supported on concrete piers which, at that time, supported the original
reinforced concrete deck. The deck was replaced by a new orthotropic steel deck which had
the effect of greatly extending the service life of the deck, reducing the dead load on the
steel superstructure, improve the rigidity of the bridge, and increasing the live load carrying
capability of the steel superstructure. Field erection work commenced in the Fall of 1990
and the works were completed in the Fall of 1993.
This was a major programme of bridge strengthening and rehabilitation which resolved the
issues then existing as to the original reinforced concrete deck of the main span.
The programme of inspection, investigation, testing, repair and rehabilitation has continued
to the present day, at ever-increasing effort and expenditure.
8. CURRENT REHABILITATION PROGRAMME
A 10-year major maintenance and capital plan including cost estimates for the entire bridge,
and including all rehabilitation projects in order of priority and timing, and the estimated
budget, is now in place for 2009-2019.

Some of the key elements of this current rehabilitation programme include the following:
• An on-going programme of local/partial waterproofing and paving the bridge.
• Repairs to the pier shafts, caps and cross-beams, generally by full encapsulation.
• Repairs to the prestressed beams, diaphragms and the concrete deck.
• A recent strengthening of the prestressed girders by the addition of external vertical

shear reinforcement.
Figure 6 – Repairs to Prestressed Concrete Girders

including External Posttensioning
• Strengthening of the prestressed concrete girders by the addition of external post-

tensioning below the soffits of the prestressed concrete girders, a methodology effected
by queen posts and anchorage of this new additional external post-tensioning to the
girders.
Figure 7 - External Post-tensioning including the use of

Queen Posts on Prestressed Concrete Girders
Figure 7 – External Posttensioning of Prestressed

Concrete Girders using Queen Posts

• The addition of prestressing to the pier caps which were considered to be a high risk as
there was not enough development length in the reinforcing steel in these caps in
accordance with modern codes, and hence the conventional reinforcement, although
very heavy, is not capable of developing its full strength under load.
• Repairs to the piers of the main span (in Section 6).
• There is in place a pre-purchased modular truss which has been stored nearby to the
bridge and which would be intended to support an exterior girder in the case of an
emergency; i.e., significant loss of load-carrying capacity and/or deformation of such an
exterior girder. In addition, a pre-purchased plate girder is available which can be
installed from above the deck in order to add additional security if a girder shows signs
of failing.
These are major rehabilitation efforts and they are being carried out on a programmed
basis. In this context, in January 2009 a budget of $212 Million was announced in the
Federal Government budget to enable the Champlain Bridge to be maintained in service as
to its function and security over a 10-year period to 2019. This, we understand, was in
accordance with the programme prepared by The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges
Incorporated to best assure the safety and security of the bridge under traffic operations for
a 10-year period. This major investment was based on internal estimates prepared in 2008
and supported by inspections reported in 2007 and earlier.
The 10-year programme was also developed to account for results stemming from structural
evaluations and live load ratings carried out in the period 2000-2007.
The programme of inspection, investigation, repair and rehabilitation has continued in

conjunction with the maintenance programme until the present day, and it is ongoing. The
most recent annual inspection was carried out in 2010 by AECOM and it is reported in for
volumes entitled “Volume S-1 Sommaire des inspections et recommandations”, “Volume S-2
Notes d’inspections, tableaux de cotation et mesures de dilatation”, “Volume S-3
Photographies des inspections générales”, and “Volume S-4A Inspections détaillés”.
These are very detailed reports on what is clearly a substantial inspection and consideration
of appropriate recommendations, and it is one step in the programme of annual inspections
carried out by AECOM. The 2010 report has resulted in 10 prioritized recommendations.
Very briefly, the 2010 Annual Inspection Report finds that the general state of the
structures of the Champlain Bridge and its approaches are variable depending upon the
sections, the works and the elements considered. In general the structures are deemed to
be in a passable state but certain elements are in a condition which ranges from mediocre
to deficient.
Of the 10 recommendations judged to be the highest priority amongst the ensemble of

recommendations presented in the 2010 report, the following apply to Sections 5, 6 and 7.

These recommendations are reproduced following:
PRIORITÉ SECTION ACTION

A1 5 Effectuer les travaux d’inspection détaillée du platelage à
l’intrados, incluant expertise de dalle et une étude de capacité
résiduelle de la dalle.
A2 7 Effectuer les travaux d’inspection détaillée du platelage à
l’intrados, incluant expertise de dalle et une étude de capacité
résiduelle de la dalle.
A3 5 Supporter les zones de béton endommagé exposant des fils de
précontrainte transversale à l’intrados de la dalle.
A4 7 Supporter les zones de béton endommagé exposant des fils de
précontrainte transversale à l’intrados de la dalle.
A8 5 Remplacer les joints de tablier qui montrent de délaminage et
de l’éclatement très important au platelage (partie sous le
joint entre les diaphragmes d’extrémités) ou autres
déficiences majeures au niveau des profilés et épaulements.
Inclure l’ajout d’une membrane d’étanchéité de part et d’autre
des joints.
A9 7 Remplacer les joints de tablier qui montrent de délaminage et
de l’éclatement très important au platelage (partie sous le
joint entre les diaphragmes d’extrémités) ou autres
déficiences majeures au niveau des profilés et épaulements.
Inclure l’ajout d’une membrane d’étanchéité de part et d’autre
des joints.
A10 6 Réparer les zones de béton endommagé sur les semelles, les
fûts, les chevêtres et les assises ayant un CMI de 12.5 % et
plus.
We reproduce here as well the comments which AECOM has made in their Executive
Summary as to Sections 5, 6 and 7 as these give a good sense of their perspective of these
sections, having inspected them in detail very recently (in April to August 2010).
Sections 5 et 7
Les section 5 et 7 sont l’objet d’un programme de réfection majeur depuis 1987 dont
plusieurs éléments principaux (piles, chevêtres, poutres et joints) sont réparés, remplacés
et renforcis. La continuité de ce programme est essentielle pour conserver l’intégrité de la
structure et en améliorer son état général en attendant son éventuel remplacement
complet. Dans cet esprit, plusieurs recommandations prioritaires concernent ces deux
sections.
On observe la progression de la détérioration des câbles de précontrainte transversale au

niveau de l’intrados du tablier où des zones de délaminage, d’éclatement de béton avec
câbles corrodés accompagnés parfois de fils coupés, sont observés en 2010 dans presque
toutes les travées des sections 5 et 7. Considérant la progression exponentielle de ces
défauts dans le platelage qui a une épaisseur de 225 mm, un programme de réfection de la
précontrainte transversale doit être mis de l’avant dès 2011 afin d’éviter la perte de
compression nécessaire à la bonne tenue de l’élément de dalle situé entre les semelles
supérieures de poutre. Également, des réparations devront être prévues pour éviter tout
problème de poinçonnement local du tablier après perte des matériaux (recommandation
prioritaire).

Section 6
La superstructure d’acier de la section 6 est dans un bon état général. L’entretien régulier
(peinturage) semble avoir permis de conserver l’intégrité structurale malgré quelques
défauts localisés de matériaux. Les joints d’expansion modulaires montrent cependant des
signes d’usure et de comportement déficient sous l’effet des impacts et des charges
cycliques (vibration des pièces métalliques).
Une recommandation prioritaire est attribuée aux éléments de fondation de la section 6, qui
se composent de huit piles de béton. Peu de travaux et d’études ont été réalisés sur ces
piles aux cours des dernières années, ce qui augmente la nécessité de procéder à des
études supplémentaires et de poursuivre le programme majeur de réfection.
In their conclusion in the Executive Summary, AECOM notes, amongst other things, that the
damage has a tendency to increase year-over-year in an exponential fashion, something
which we bear in mind given the long history of repairs and rehabilitation to this bridge, the
continuing rehabilitation and repair programme and the observations which AECOM has
reported in their 2010 Annual Inspection. The serious concerns which AECOM has as a
result of their annual inspection works, including the most recent inspection, are evident in
the cases of Sections 5 and 7.
Some of the key observations with regard to the current condition of the bridge include the
following:
• Prestressed concrete girders split at post-tensioning.
• Web concrete split away from one side of concrete girders.
• Significant rehabilitation works underway on the pier caps including removal of

deteriorated concrete and the addition of post-tensioning together with the restoration
of the pier cap concrete.
• Paving works being carried out on the bridge.
• Installation of queen posts and external post-tensioning anchored to the prestressed

concrete girders.
• Removal of concrete repairs and restoration of the main piers for the main span of the
bridge in Section 6.
• Loss of transverse post-tensioning in the deck.
• Variable condition in the precast prestressed concrete girders.
• Some patches on the bridge deck. There have been some repairs carried out to the
underside of the bridge deck. Generally it is considered that the deck is in relatively
good condition compared to the other concrete in the bridge, probably as a result of
there being transverse post-tensioning in the deck on the concrete girders.
• The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated would have replaced the edge
beams but they really cannot because of the prestress in the deck and diaphragms

which makes the replacement of the edge beams difficult if not really impossible,
particularly in the context of maintaining traffic on the bridge.
• There have been efforts to restore the shear capacity of the girders including the
introduction of inclined external post-tensioning and vertical external reinforcement.
There has been significant corrosion inside the prestressed concrete girders which has
resulted in the partial or complete loss of some of the prestressing. There is a degree of
uncertainty with regard to what these losses have been, but in at least one case 9 out of
24 post-tensioning parallel wire cables or stranded cables have been lost, leaving a
severe deficiency in the capacity of the girders compared to the original design intent.
• Impressed current type cathodic protection of the bridge girder has not been
implemented, taking into consideration the results of pilot testing carried out several
years ago, and the findings of international experts mandated by the Corporation to
study the feasibility and risks of using cathodic protection on prestressed concrete. Bid
results in the late nineties when cathodic protection was attempted, resulted in costs of
about $350,000 to protect just one beam. Hence cathodic protection was far too
expensive particularly when, in protecting the prestressing, its effectiveness could not be
assured.
• Sacrificial zinc anodes have been put in place on pier caps.
• The records of chloride ion penetration to the concrete demonstrate that this penetration
is very significant compared to typical benchmark levels.
• Expansion joints in the bridge are leaking.
• It was not possible to remove all of the deteriorated concrete from the pier caps without
compromising the integrity of the bridge altogether so some deteriorated concrete
remains encased within the pier caps even after repairs.
• Chloride extraction is not possible at this site as the chlorides have penetrated to such a
depth and to such an extent and intensity that it is not practical.
• Chloride extraction applied to the girders implies current densities so high that hydrogen
embrittlement of prestressing would most certainly occur
• It is believed that water has reached into the ducts and the grouting in the tendons is
considered to have been deficient based on review of the history of the bridge and
observations as to current performance. It is possible that the grout may have frozen as
a result of the original contractor having used too much water in the grout.
• The concrete in the concrete beams has been recorded as being 70-80 MPa in strength
on recent testing, which is a very high strength.
• Theoretically, it is considered, based on investigations carried out by others, that some

of the beams should have failed, but the fact is they are not yet apparently failing. They
may, however, be quite close to failing and, indeed, might have failed if restorative
measures had not been applied previously. Earlier investigations have shown that in
order to prevent a failure in flexure, 16 of the original 24 longitudinal post-tensioning
tendons are necessary to be in service in order for the concrete girders to survive
(whereas, it is noted above that in at least one case only 15 of the 24 cables have

survived). The integrated nature of the bridge has likely prevented a complete failure,
so far. However, this is a very serious concern.
• More recent investigations have pointed to a potential failure in shear if restoration

measures are not undertaken. In this latter case, the precise location of a damaged
cable can have an important impact on the residual strength of a beam.
• In situ measurements of precompression in the concrete girders have been carried out
by means of coring and testing in order to attempt to assess how much prestress has
been lost in individual girders. The precompression which exists in the exterior girders
based on this testing turned out to be less than it was expected to be, particularly for
the edge girders.
• There are spalls in the webs of the prestressed concrete beams and in at least one case
a girder has developed a hole. Local repairs and local external post-tensioning to
account for the major loss of the web concrete and of the loss of prestressing as a result
of corrosion, have been carried out in some cases.
• The shear forces in the girders are high and there are concrete material losses in the
webs in some cases which clearly compromise the shear carrying capacity of the girders.
This has been dealt with by means of repairs to some extent and the addition of external
shear reinforcement, and by the addition of inclined stressed cables. The shear capacity
is considered by analysis to be provided approximately 1/3 by the concrete, 1/3 by the
stirrups (which are quite sparse), and 1/3 by the inclined stressed cables at the critical
location. The relative contribution of each component varies along the length of the
beam.
• There have been issues with the asphalt in the orthotropic steel deck on Section 6, but
we understand that they are not currently a concern.
• The orthotropic steel deck in Section 6 is considered to be in good condition. There have
been concerns with regard to the fatigue life of the orthotropic steel, partly as a result of
traffic having run on the bridge by necessity prior to the bridge being completely paved,
and this has been considered by calculation to understand the residual life of the
orthotropic steel deck. A range of estimated fatigue lives was provided by the analysis
depending on whether the confidence was, for example, 95 % or 50% in terms of the
prediction of when fatigue cracks would appear or cause problems. There is a certain
amount of judgment involved in such calculations. The orthotropic deck is, however,
5/8” (16mm) thick generally, and up to 3/4” (20mm) in the truck lanes. This is
considered compatible with reasonable performance of an orthotropic steel deck
(whereas a thinner steel plate would almost certainly create premature problems).
In summary, a rehabilitation programme is currently being carried out in the context of a

continuing methodical programme of inspections, investigations, testing, repairs,
rehabilitation and maintenance, and also in conjunction with many specialist studies to
report at length on the nature and condition of the bridge and its deficiencies, as well as on
ways of rectifying them so that the bridge can continue, for the moment, in service with an
appropriate degree of safety and security as well as comfort, although not without some
unknown level of risk.

9. CURRENT PROGRAMME OF DE-ICING THE BRIDGE
A very considerable amount of the damage caused to the bridge has clearly been caused by
the application of salt to the bridge with a view to making the bridge safe for traffic during
the wintertime. In this, it has a common issue with many bridges in Canada and the United
States. It is this single fact more than any other which causes deterioration to most
highway/roadway bridges in Canada. It is understood that the original design took no
account of the possibility of salt being applied to the bridge as it was a part of the design
criteria that salt would not be applied to the bridge. After only a few years of operation,
however, salt began to be applied to the structure and the deterioration is now evident.
One of the Value Engineering Study recommendations was that consideration be given to
eliminating the use of salt on the bridge. However, this has proved not to be possible as
the issue of safety of vehicular traffic is paramount and the decision has been made to
continue with the salting of the bridge1. The deterioration of the bridge, therefore,
continues unabated and, in fact, as noted in the recent 2010 AECOM Annual Inspection
Reports, it is increasing at an exponential rate, as is common with deterioration of this type.
10. CURRENT BRIDGE DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
The current condition of the bridge is described in detail in the recent 2010 Annual
Inspections Reports produced by AECOM, as is the condition of the bridge based on their
most recent inspection in 2010 and as illuminated by their previous experience on previous
annual inspections.
We have visited the bridge and discussed its history and current condition with The Jacques
Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated staff and have observed repairs being carried
out to the bridge on site on Sections 5, 6 and 7. Brief summary observations as to the
condition of the bridge derived from all of these inputs is as follows:
Abutments
The abutments are substantial reinforced concrete structures founded on the bedrock. They
have suffered some deterioration. Tieback anchors were installed as a retrofit measure to
mitigate against apparent movement of the abutment wall.
Figure 8 - Bridge Abutment
Pier Foundations on Approach Spans
The pier foundations on the approach spans are in some case below grade, and in other
cases below water. The pier foundations are cylindrical concrete structures anchored into
1
The importance of being able to deliver a high traction road surface in both summer and
winter months is dictated in part by the high traffic volumes, the operation of contraflow bus
lane with no divider and a rather steep East approach with high truck volumes.

the bedrock by means of steel rock anchors around their preimeters and also generally
keyed into the bedrock.
With regard to the foundations that are below grade and the sections of underwater
foundations which are below grade, the condition is unknown.
Figure 9 - Bridge Pier in Water
The underwater portions of the foundations are known to have suffered from cracking and
other deterioration. This cracking has been attributed to possible issues which arose during
construction. Repairs have been carried out to these underwater foundations in the 1990s.
Observations made recently at the pier base of Pier 39W show a considerable amount of
deterioration at this pier. The deterioration includes mostly large spalls and significant loss
of concrete, splitting, cracking and delaminations. It is not possible to reasonably
extrapolate the observations made very recently at Pier 39W to all of the underwater piers
on the bridge but based on that report and observations made 20 years ago, it appears
reasonable to assume that the foundations in the water may have sustained further
damage. Underwater inspections are made on a periodical basis.
Pier Stems on Approach Spans
The pier stems on the approach spans are variable in condition. Such defects as cracking,
splitting, concrete deterioration, delaminations and degradation of concrete, as well as
concrete erosion have been observed on many of the pier stems despite extensive repairs
and crack sealing in the past. A new programme of rehabilitation for these pier stems was
initiated in 2010. Some of the deterioration on the pier stems is very deep, reaching to and
into the areas enclosed by reinforcing steel. The possibility that there is concrete in the pier
stems which is subject to alkali aggregate reaction cannot be discounted at this time,
although test results carried out to date have been somewhat inconclusive in this regard
generally on this bridge as to the degree to which the bridge is affected by this
phenomenon. The pier stems require a considerable amount of significant rehabilitation
involving the removal of concrete, cleaning the reinforcing steel and encasement of the pier
stems, for example, in order to restore them to reasonable condition.

Figure 10 - Bridge Piers and Pier Stems
Pier Caps on Approach Spans
The pier caps on the approach spans have similarly suffered considerable damage. A great
deal of this damage is attributable to the flow of water through expansion joints which are
located above each of the pier caps. This flow of water was made worse by the fact that the
bridge has been for many years subject to the application of salt on the bridge deck and this
has led, together with the original finger joint design and subsequent leakage of the joints,
to the accumulation of significant damage to the pier caps as well as the ends of the girders
which are supported by the pier caps and the diaphragms at these locations. This damage
and contaminated concrete is reported to be so deep in some instances that it is not
possible to remove all of the degraded / chloride contaminated concrete which exists in
some of the pier caps without the risk of compromising to an unacceptable degree the
interim load carrying capacity of the pier caps as they are being repaired. This means that
in a repair which involves encasement, some degraded or substandard concrete (chloride
contaminated) is being encased within the new concrete, something which, short of
temporarily supporting the bridge spans, cannot be avoided. It has also been noted that the
pier caps are a concern from the perspective of structural design in that the reinforcing steel
which supports the loads in cantilever (beyond the pier stems) is not capable of developing
itself entirely given the length of concrete embedment available, and in the context of the
current condition of the concrete or possible simple concrete material repair. Also, the
structural effectiveness of conventional repair to delaminated concrete was also of concern.
Therefore, structural repairs have been carried out which involved adding post-tensioning to
the pier caps to increase the load-carrying capacity of these structures in cantilever and
hence to support the bridge superstructure.
Figure 11 - Bridge Pier with External Post-Tensioning

Post-tensioning and encasement works are being carried out in conjunction with careful
removal of as much deteriorated concrete as is reasonably possible, to improve the load-
carrying capacity and durability of these pier caps.
Bearings on Approach Spans
We understand that the bearings on the approach spans are being replaced in conjunction
with the repairs being carried out on the pier caps.
Concrete Girders on Approach Spans

Concrete Deck Panels on Approach Spans
Concrete Diaphragms on Approach Spans
Transverse Post-Tensioning on Approach Spans
The concrete girders are longitudinally prestressed. Following their erection they were
integrated with cast-in-place diaphragms and cast-in-place infill panels, both of which were
transversely post-tensioned to integrate them with the longitudinal girders. This is an
unusual configuration which results in a highly-integrated structural behaviour where loads
on any one element of the bridge superstructure affect loads everywhere else on that
superstructure panel. The exterior girders have suffered some severe deterioration
including significant spalling of concrete, concrete degradation, chloride ion intrusion,
deterioration of the grout which originally secured the tendons in place, and corrosion and
loss of prestressing tendons. To this deterioration can be added deterioration at the ends of
the girders and deterioration of the end diaphragms as well as some deterioration of the
deck which has suffered some spalling, for example. More recently, some deterioration of
the interior diaphragms has also been noted.
Figure 12 - Cracks in Prestressed Concrete Girder
Figure 13 - Deck Soffit Deterioration

Because of the highly integrated nature of these deck superstructures, we have found it
virtually impossible to envisage a scheme whereby the more deteriorated elements of the
bridge could be replaced. We gather that significant efforts have been made in this regard
by others and that it has been decided that it is more practical instead to strengthen the
deteriorated members where this is possible, by adopting such measures as augmenting the
prestressing in the girders by post-tensioning them with new steel, and by adding additional
shear reinforcement where the shear capacity of the girders has been degraded. Concrete
repairs have also been undertaken with a view to restoring the protection of the steel
reinforcement and ducts within the girders to some extent. Because there are so many
girders in the bridge which have been adversely affected to a greater or lesser extent by the
types of deterioration noted here, it is not possible to effect comprehensive strengthening
measures to all these girders at the same time and hence a staged programme is being
carried out on a priority basis. This means that some risk is being borne as some of the
girders which are in service have suffered severe deterioration, and the extent to which the
addition of external post-tensioning has altogether replaced the lost prestressing, for
example, must be a matter of judgment and, to some extent, guesswork. The Corporation
has made significant efforts to estimate and calculate the loss of prestress but all the
uncertainties associated with this issue cannot be eliminated without effectively dismantling
the entire bridge.
Experimental post-tensioned and prestressed cable investigation was carried out in 2009
using the Post-Tech Cable Break Detection System which uses remanent magnetism to
identify broken, damaged or unsafe high-strength individual or bundled strands. This is a
magnetic non-destructive testing method. Later in 2009, a remanent magnetization test
was carried out on the deck of the Champlain Bridge to determine the condition of the
transverse post-tensions laterally reinforcing the bridge deck. These test results gave some
indication of cable breaks, some of which were verified by observation of the actual cable
breaks themselves. Nevertheless, doubt necessarily remains as to the extent of cable
breaks and wire breaks in the post-tensioning systems in the bridge.
Analyses carried out by others have suggested that, if there were to be a failure of one of
the external girders, it could cause a progressive collapse of an entire span. This would not
necessarily be the case with a conventional bridge where the deck is more typically
supported on top of the girders and the deck does not necessarily rely for its integrity
altogether upon transverse post-tensioning.
The fact that the original superstructure is relatively heavy with a high dead to live load
ratio contributes to this risk (i.e., it would be difficult for an interior beam to carry its own
weight and that of a failed edge girder for example).
It is clear that this is one of the serious situations confronting this bridge and efforts to
maintain it safely in service.
Barriers on Approach Spans
The barriers on the approach spans have replaced the original open steel barriers with a
view to containing water spray from the deck and hence to minimize in particular the
deterioration of the external prestressed concrete girders which is of such significant
concern on this bridge. In conjunction with that, the drainage system on the bridge has
been improved for the same reason. Nevertheless, deterioration of the type which has been
observed some 20 years ago, for example, on the edge girders of this bridge, once initiated,
tends to proceed at an increasing rate with time. It can be reasonably assumed that the

improved drainage and the barriers have slowed the progression of deterioration to some
extent but, nevertheless, the deterioration is clearly more severe than it was 20 years ago.
Although the barriers have been helpful, they have not altogether been a solution to the
problems which arose at the edge girders.
Paving and Waterproofing on Approach Spans
The bridge was paved in about 2000 and parts in 2010 with a polymer modified asphalt and
polymer modified tack coat providing some waterproofing.
We understand that some local waterproofing membrane has been applied to some of the
approach spans and this can only be helpful to them. We understand, too, that the top
surface of the deck on the approach spans is in relatively good condition. This may be
attributed in part to the transverse post-tensioning which causes many issues when it is
wished to replace a part of the deck, for example, but which, in and of itself provides pre-
compression in the concrete, hence tending to inhibit cracking, chloride ion penetration and
deterioration.
Wearing Surface on Approach Spans
There is an asphalt wearing surface on the approach spans and it is currently the subject of
a paving programme to replace it, we understand.
Structural Steel Deck Truss Approach Spans
We are not aware of any significant issues which have arisen to the structural steel deck
truss approach spans which form a part of Section 6.
Figure 14 - Steel Trusses and Orthotropic Steel Deck
Main Pier Foundations
The main pier footings are variously in water and underground. AECOM comment on these
foundations in their 2010 Inspection Report to the effect that these structures require
further study and a major programme of repair.
There are four main piers in Section 6 which support the main span. Three of these are in
water and one is on land. Based on the observations of which we are aware, it is believed
that the foundations for the main piers in the water may have some deterioration. The
condition of the main pier foundation below grade is not known.

Figure 15 - Foundation of Main Pier
Main Piers
The main piers are massive reinforced concrete structures which support the main
suspended span cantilever arms and the anchor arms which comprise the main structural
steel bridge crossing the St. Lawrence Seaway in Section 6. These structures have suffered
some significant deterioration including cracking, spalling, concrete degradation, erosion
and corrosion of reinforcing steel. It is possible that the concrete in these structures is
subject to alkali aggregate reaction, although this seems to be uncertain based on the
investigations of which we are aware. Repairs are currently ongoing in respect of these
main piers.
As part of the 10 year programme, a special inspection of the piers in Section 6 was just
recently completed.
Figure 16 - Main Pier
Structural Steel Through Truss Main Spans
The documentation which we have reviewed suggests that the structural steel main truss
spans are in good condition and that there are no serious concerns with regard to the basic
integrity of these structures. Tests have been carried out over a period of time to verify the

integrity of the pins which connect certain truss members and heavy steel assemblies which
support the bridge on the piers. Our understanding is that these tests have resulted in no
unresolved serious concerns with these elements of the bridge. A factor which can curtail
the expected lifetime of a major bridge such as this is structural steel fatigue. We are not
aware of any evidence to the effect that this is an issue on this bridge. Similar riveted
structures have lasted for many decades more than this bridge has been in service.
Orthotropic Steel Deck and Wearing Surface
An important feature in the consideration of the integrity and durability of the structural
steel main span structure in Section 6 is the replacement of the original reinforced concrete
deck by a new orthotropic closed rib steel deck in the 1990s. This had several positive
effects on the bridge including reducing the dead-load on the bridge, increasing the live-load
capacity of the bridge, increasing the rigidity of the bridge, and extending the overall
lifetime of the bridge. Orthotropic steel decks have been known to be prone to fatigue
cracking and this has been the subject of study on this structure, a study which has taken
into account the actual service condition which the bridge has experienced (in terms of
whether or not a wearing surface was on the bridge during period when traffic was riding on
the deck). The wearing surface on an orthotropic steel deck tends to act compositely with
the deck and reduce stresses and hence increase fatigue life and it distributes wheel loads
as well.
This bridge has a substantial structural steel deck plate thickness and a similarly substantial
and conventional 40mm thick wearing surface, two factors which suggest that the fatigue
life of the orthotropic steel plate system will be reasonable. Buckland & Taylor has reported
on this at considerable length noting uncertainties associated with the fatigue behaviour and
expected service life of orthotropic steel decks. There were issues with the adherence of
the wearing surface to the orthotropic steel deck in hot weather. It seems clear that with
the wearing surface being “pushed” along the deck at that time, composite behaviour
between the deck and the wearing surface was very limited, if it existed at all under those
conditions, but we understand that these issues have been resolved and that the wearing
surface on the orthotropic steel plate is currently performing well.
Furthermore, all heavy trucks are routed to the exterior lanes. This has the effect of
increasing the number of heavy load cycles to deck components supporting the outer lanes.
Painting of Structural Steel
The corrosion protection system on the main span structural steel and on the structural
steel deck trusses has generally been successful in protecting the structural steel from
severe corrosion. We understand that the bridge trusses and bracing systems have been
completely painted in the period 1994 to 2005.

11. STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING
Some Structural Health Monitoring has been applied to the bridge with a view to obtaining
some early warning as to incipient problems with the structural integrity of the bridge.
Because the Structural Health Monitoring is localized, at this time the system can currently
monitor specific areas of the bridge only. While it is a helpful additional diagnostic tool and
is able to monitor specific areas of the bridge on a continuous round-the-clock basis,
incorporating an alert system and intervention protocol we understand, it is not developed
or implemented to the point where it could be used to predict remaining bridge life.
12. SUMMARY
Based on the review of the available data and a visit to the bridge site, our impression of
the bridge is that it includes some serious deficiencies in the context of short term and long
term service.
Section 5
The prestressed concrete spans of Section 5, including the substructures, piers and
foundations, include many deficiencies, some of them serious. They are, in fact, serious
enough that The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated has caused
emergency support standby structures to be fabricated and to be in place near the bridge
site in the event of the anticipated loss of an edge girder, for example. This is a very
unusual step and speaks to a lack of confidence in these edge girders. The loss of
prestressing in some of the girders is a serious concern. The deterioration of these edge
girders is extreme. Analysis by others has suggested that, if an edge girder were to fail, it
could cause the loss of an entire span as the grillage of girders, diaphragms, in-fill deck
panels, longitudinal prestressing, and transverse post-tensioning is so integrated that the
loss of one edge girder could provoke the progressive collapse of a span, particularly when
one considers the relatively high dead load of the superstructure. At the same time, many
elements of the substructures including the pier caps, the pier stems, and the foundations
include very considerable deterioration, spalling, cracking, concrete degradation and
erosion. It has been suggested that alkali aggregate reaction may be taking place in some
of this concrete. Similarly, the lack of capability of the reinforcing in the pier caps to fully
develop their tensile strength is another concern, particularly in the context of the
degradation of concrete quality in the areas at the pier caps.
Section 6
The structural steel which comprises Section 6 is in better overall condition than the
prestressed concrete superstructure in Section 5. The replacement of the reinforced
concrete deck in the 1990s by the orthotropic steel deck reduced the dead load on the
bridge and increased the load-carrying capacity of the structural steel main cantilevered
truss section of the bridge to a considerable degree. With the triple truss configuration,
there is a degree of redundancy in the bridge and there are multiple load paths available to
carry loads should local difficulties develop. However, there is no indication that there are
any such local difficulties which have not been resolved, and testing has confirmed the
integrity of some of the elements of the bridge including the main pins. There do not
appear to be any causes for immediate concern with regard to the structural steel which
comprises Section 6 of the bridge. The substructures in Section 6 are undergoing repair as
they have sustained a considerable amount of damage and display cracking, spalling,
degradation of concrete, possible alkali aggregate reaction, corrosion of reinforcing steel,

and local loss of concrete to spalling. The foundations of the bridge are partly underground
and their condition is unknown. The substructures for Section 6 are considered to be in fair
condition but require a considerable amount of work to restore them to a condition
appropriate to carrying a massive steel superstructure such as is in place at this bridge.
AECOM has suggested further study and rehabilitation works for the foundations of Section
6.
Section 7
Section 7 displays all of the deterioration which has been noted in Section 5, although the
substructures are in even worse condition than are the substructures of Section 5. The
foundations in Section 7 are partly below grade and their condition is unknown.
13. CONCLUSION
In summary, our impression of the bridge is that it is in a condition which requires extreme
vigilance in order to maintain it safely in service over even a relatively short term. Some of
the deterioration which has been observed is very severe. Deterioration such as this tends
to progress exponentially, the rate of increase of deterioration increasing itself with time,
hence increasing concern with regard to this bridge. A number of repairs have been carried
out to the prestressed concrete girders with a view to compensating for known loss or
increasing the load-carrying capacity of the bridge both in bending and in shear. These,
however, must be considered to be measures which are not appropriate for long-term
service. Rather, they are intended to help secure the bridge in the short term until
something more substantive can be implemented. It has been recognized that there is a
risk of partial collapse of the bridge, or even the collapse of a span, given the structural
configuration of the prestressed concrete girder and diaphragm grillage which comprises the
superstructures in Section 5 and Section 7. This is combined with concerns with regard to
the condition and load-carrying capacity of the pier caps and the poor condition of some of
the pier stems as well as concerns with regard to the condition of the foundations. The
possibility that there will be a partial or complete collapse of one span given all of these
negative aspects of the bridge, cannot altogether be ruled out. It is a risk which is being
borne and managed at this time.
This is considered to be a lifeline bridge from the perspective of seismic loading. This
means that the bridge should be capable of resisting the 475 year design seismic event
without being taken out of service, and of resisting the 1000 year large earthquake event
and being open immediately to emergency vehicles. However, the bridge was not designed
to sustain significant seismic loading and we understand that analyses have shown that it
has no capacity to do so. In its current condition, this bridge can be expected to collapse
partially or altogether in a significant seismic event.
In summary, this bridge is not in a condition which is compatible with it continuing to serve
as a major crossing of the St. Lawrence River under the substantial vehicular, truck and bus
loads which it must sustain, without some risk, which cannot altogether be quantified.

Impressions of The Champlain Bridge With Photos, by Delcan

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

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

Impressions of The Champlain Bridge With Photos, by Delcan

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

625 Cochrane Drive, Suite 500, Markham, ON Canada L3R 9R9

Tel: 905.943.0500 ● Fax: 905.943.0400

December 15, 2010 OUR REF: BO 2198

Re: REPORT – IMPRESSIONS OF THE CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE

W. Victor Anderson, P.Eng.

Enc. Report - Impressions of the Champlain Bridge

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1

Page i December 15, 2010

Page ii December 15, 2010

Page 1 December 15, 2010

Page 2 December 15, 2010

Starting from Montreal, the bridge includes the following sections:

Section 1: Montreal approaches west of Wellington Street.

This report deals with Sections 5, 6 and 7.

Figure 1 - Aerial View of Champlain Bridge

Page 3 December 15, 2010

Figure 2 - Prestressed Concrete Girders in Section 5

Figure 3 – Cantilever-Type Through Truss

Page 4 December 15, 2010

Figure 4 - Prestressed Concrete Girders in Section 7

Page 5 December 15, 2010

• The Owner’s recent implementation of some form of structural-health monitoring

• Limitations in current technology and knowledge in respect to the ability to accurately

• Degree of uncertainty related to the level of performance of certain key components.

• Issues relating to seismic response and/or rehabilitation for seismic loading.

Page 6 December 15, 2010

3. THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER AND THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

Page 7 December 15, 2010

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE CROSSING

• Seven prestressed post-tensioned concrete girders.

• Six post-tensioned concrete deck infill sections.

• Post-tensioned concrete diaphragms interconnecting the girders and the deck.

• Pier stems shaped to reduce ice forces.

• Relatively compact circular foundations supported on the bedrock, with minimal

Page 8 December 15, 2010

Page 9 December 15, 2010

to form a highly-integrated superstructure supported on reinforced concrete foundations

6. CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE

Figure 5 - Champlain Bridge Under Construction

Page 10 December 15, 2010

7. HISTORY OF REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS

• Replacement of Reinforced Concrete Deck of Champlain Bridge, Montreal, by Orthotropic

Page 11 December 15, 2010

o Hammer sounding of deteriorated concrete

Page 12 December 15, 2010

The following general repairs were also carried out:

• Repairs to the underside of the beam.

• Repairs to the diaphragms.

Page 13 December 15, 2010

The issue of hydrogen embrittlement of prestressing tendons caused by hydrogen produced

8. CURRENT REHABILITATION PROGRAMME

Page 14 December 15, 2010

• An on-going programme of local/partial waterproofing and paving the bridge.

• Repairs to the prestressed beams, diaphragms and the concrete deck.

• A recent strengthening of the prestressed girders by the addition of external vertical

Figure 6 – Repairs to Prestressed Concrete Girders

• Strengthening of the prestressed concrete girders by the addition of external post-

Figure 7 - External Post-tensioning including the use of

Figure 7 – External Posttensioning of Prestressed

Page 15 December 15, 2010

• Repairs to the piers of the main span (in Section 6).

The programme of inspection, investigation, repair and rehabilitation has continued in

Of the 10 recommendations judged to be the highest priority amongst the ensemble of