National Academies Press: OpenBook

Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems (2005)

Chapter: Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)

« Previous: Appendix B - Statistical Analysis of Survey Results
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 179
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 180
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 181
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 182
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 183
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 184
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Responses to Questionnaire (PDF Only)." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13689.
×
Page 205

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

76 APPENDIX C Responses to Questionnaire

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Cochrane Africatown Questionnaire Results Alabama Survey performed in 2004 Cochrane Africatown State/Province: Alabama Agency: Alabama DOT Respondent: Fred Conway Span Length: 780 ft Year Built: 1991 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? N/A Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? yes—due to loosening of retainers, and yes— due to shearing off of retainers Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? yes Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? yes—misalignment Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes—minor damage Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? yes Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? ultrasonic and vibration-based force measurements Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? vibration monitoring Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? 77

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Cochrane Africatown Questionnaire Results Alabama Survey performed in 2004 yes—some neoprene boots were replaced Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? yes—thorough inspection performed. Selected cables were opened up where voids in grout were detected Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes—individual strands cannot be replaced but an entire stay can be replaced Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important Several non-destructive tests were run after an extreme oscillation event. Practically all the above were performed to determine if there was any loss of force in the stays. Geometric, physical and visual tests were performed. The only discoveries were deficiencies in the original construction which were corrected Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. We realigned stay pipes and replaced neoprene rings and keeper rings. Also external hydraulic dampers were installed on the longer stays Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Check with A.G. Lichtenstein Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Provide access on inside and outside of tower anchorage. Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? not known Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Stay anchors. (Access and rain–wind-induced oscillation.) Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 78

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sitka Harbor Bridge Sitka, Alaska Questionnaire Results Alaska Survey performed in 2004 Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska State/Province: Alaska Agency: Alaska DOT Respondent: Gary Scarbrough Span Length: 450 ft Year Built: 1970 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? other—galvanized bridge strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? not known Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes—other, liquid polymer sealer Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? not known Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? yes—area around each cable was filled with grease Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not known Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? vibration-based force measurements Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? 79

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sitka Harbor Bridge Sitka, Alaska Questionnaire Results Alaska Survey performed in 2004 no—during mid-1990s cables were removed, inspected, and replaced after no defects observed. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? not known—cables on both bridges were inspected during the mid-1990s. Cables on Captain William Moore were replaced due to an upgrade of the structure. Cables on the Sitka Harbor Bridge were removed, inspected, and reinstalled. No problems were reported with any of the cables during the mid-1990 inspection. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. The fundamental frequency of the cables was recorded. Alaska DOT&PF will monitor the cables and attempt to determine if the fundamental frequency of the cables has changed. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. N/A Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. N/A Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? N/A Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access to upper cable anchorage Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. N/A Additional comments? no answer 80

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway Questionnaire Results Alaska Survey performed in 2004 Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway State/Province: Alaska Agency: Alaska DOT Respondent: Gary Scarbrough Span Length: 300 ft Year Built: 1975 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? other—ASTM Desig A586-86 Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? not known Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? not known Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? yes—area around each cable was filled with grease. Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not known Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? vibration-based force measurements Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? 81

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway Questionnaire Results Alaska Survey performed in 2004 Bridge redesigned for higher load capacity. New cables were installed during mid-1990s. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? not known—cables on both bridges were inspected during the mid-1990s. Cables on Captain William Moore were replaced due to an upgrade of the structure. Cables on the Sitka Harbor Bridge were removed, inspected, and reinstalled. No problems were reported with any of the cables during the mid-1990 inspection. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. The fundamental frequency of the cables was recorded. Alaska DOT&PF will monitor the cables and attempt to determine if the fundamental frequency of the cables has changed. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. N/A Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. N/A Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? N/A Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access to upper cable anchorage Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. N/A Additional comments? no answer 82

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sacramento River (Meridian) Questionnaire Results California Survey performed in 2004 Sacramento River (Meridian) State/Province: California Agency: Caltrans Respondent: Erol C. Kaslan Span Length: 180 ft Year Built: 1977 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel wire Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other—main cables are swedged onto a steel conical threaded coupler that is attached to a threaded HS steel rod, which uses a spherical anchor socket and anchor nut to provide anchorage connection. This system appears to be uniquely designed. Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? yes Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? N/A Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested, not known Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? Cables utilize clamps near the saddles to retain separation of the cable groups—these may provide some unintentional damping. Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? N/A Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? N/A Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? N/A Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? The neoprene seals noted above that retain grease in the anchorage areas leak. Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? X-ray; primary inspection method is VT. "MINAC" radiographic inspection was used once in 1989 to inspect the swedged 83

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sacramento River (Meridian) Questionnaire Results California Survey performed in 2004 anchorage components as a demonstration of the technology. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? N/A Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes—as this swing bridge only fully utilizes the cables to support the spans in the open condition, cable replacement would be relatively straightforward. Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? not known Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Used radiographic testing once on this structure. It was costly and impractical, but did appear to give satisfactory results. Would not use this method for routine inspections on this bridge. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. no answer Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Acoustic monitoring appears to have great value and promise. Would recommend that this technology be fully developed. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Fiber optic strain gauges and redundant systems Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Inspection and condition evaluation of anchorages Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Engineering judgment and experience seem to prevail in determining appropriate inspection and maintenance strategies. Additional comments? 84

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Br. 1-902, SR1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware Questionnaire Results Survey performed in 2004 Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware State/Province: Delaware Agency: Delaware DOT Respondent: Douglas Finney Span Length: 750 ft Year Built: 1995 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not applicable Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grout Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? yes Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? steel pipe Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? not known—moisture infiltration is suspected however, due to the limitations of available inspection methods; definitive evidence of corrosion is not available. Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? yes—due to loosening of retainers; movement observed in outer neoprene ring of anchorage set. No retaining devices were present. Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not known—effloresence from anchorages as well as protective pipe splice sleeves leads inspectors to believe moisture is infiltrating the cable stay system. Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? yes, sheathing—cracking of the steel protective pipe has been noted on the upper- most stay cable of the north pylon. Cracking has been attributed to the position of a construction grout vent hole at a high stress location. Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? 85

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Br. 1-902, SR1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware Questionnaire Results Survey performed in 2004 Delaware not applicable—protective steel pipe is painted. Q4-24: Have any problem s associated with neoprene boots been noted ? yes—minor tearing of one neoprene boot has been observed. Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? other—borescope has been utilized to view the guidepipe area of select cable stays for moisture, fatigue, deterioration, and corrosion. An attempt was made to remove select anchorage caps; however, grout inside the anchorage caps made removal difficult. High-powered X-ray inspection of the cable stays was considered. This method has not been employed due to concerns for protection of the public and personnel during testing, access limitations, uncertainty of the results of such investigations due to the complicated geometry of the subject area. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? not performed. Vibration monitoring equipment has been installed on the cable stays by the FHWA. However, this equipment is currently not operating and data are not available. Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? yes—out of position neoprene dampers have been repositioned and set screws have been installed to secure the position of the outer neoprene damper rings on all cable stays. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no—limited investigation of the cable stay grout has been performed via the open construction grout vents in the saddle pipe area of the cable stay. Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes—The original design accounted for the replacement of the stay cables (one at a time). Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? no—use of the steel protective pipe limits the inspection methods available to investigate the condition of the stay cables. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. The presence of the steel protective pipe limits the effectiveness of many available testing methods, particularly magnetic based methods. As noted above, X-ray imaging of the cable stays was considered and dismissed. Several concerns were encountered with this method including protection of public and working personnel during the exposure, access and holding the equipment at the higher elevations of the cable stay, and scheduling of the equipment. Interpretation of the image was also a concern. It is believed that the multiple materials (steel, grout, steel strand) that comprise the cable stays combined with the chan ging geometry would make interpretation of the image difficult and would not allow for an accurate understanding of the conditions. Our understanding is that the X-ray imaging would only be able to detect gross section loss of the stay and is not precise enough to discern the onset or early stages of corrosion. Finally, when the X-ray imaging method was considered, it only allowed a view of a discrete section of the cable stay as opposed to a global or "traveling" operation whi ch would allow an investigation of the entire length of the cable stay. Implementation of laser-based cable stay force measurements are being 86

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Br. 1-902, SR1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware Questionnaire Results Survey performed in 2004 Delaware considered by the department to establish baseline force data for the cable stays. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The neoprene dampers of the C&D Canal Bridge appear to operating adequately, particul arly si nce the repositioning and installation of set screws into the outer neoprene rings. Excessive vibrations of the stay cables have not been noted. No other cable stay damping systems are present on the bridge. Grout spalls have been observed in the grout bedding (cable stays saddle area) where the upper stays (13 thru 16) enter the pylon. This spalling has been attributed to minor vibrations of the stays. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. The current sensor-based, long-term monitoring system installed on the bridge is not operable and therefore comment cannot be made. The department is considering the addition of force measurement (deck-based laser method) to the list of inspections items required for the bridge. Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? We would recommend the development of individual strand monitoring capabilities, which encompass the strands from anchorage to anchorage. Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Effective corrosion barriers that do not interfere with the ability to adequately inspect and assess the health of the cable stay system on a regular interval and within practical means. Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. No answer Additional comments? 87

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Dame Point Bridge Questionnaire Results Florida Survey performed in 2004 Dame Point Bridge State/Province: Florida Agency: Florida DOT Respondent: Rick Vallier Span Length: 1,300 ft Year Built: 1989 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel bar or threadbar Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? epoxy-coated on outside only Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? not known—a cement grout was used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grout Q4-9: Type of anchorage? wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? steel pipe Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? N/A Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? yes Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes—from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? yes—connections Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? N/A Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 88

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Dame Point Bridge Questionnaire Results Florida Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? no Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? not known Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Non-destructive testing is needed to determine the condition of tension bars inside the steel casing of the cables. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Cross cables are installed on the bridge and from time to time they sag and need to be retightened. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. none Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Not familiar with this Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Accessibility for inspection and maintenance Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Man-lift truck Additional comments? 89

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Talmadge Memorial Bridge, Savannah Questionnaire Results Georgia Survey performed in 2004 Talmadge Memorial Bridge, Savannah State/Province: Georgia Agency: Georgia DOT Respondent: Paul V. Liles, Jr. Span Length: 1,100 ft Year Built: 1991 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? N/A Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other—steel shot and epoxy Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other—American Stronghold system Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? yes—due to loosening of retainers, and yes— due to shearing off of retainers Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? yes—cracking Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? vibration-based force measurements Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 90

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Talmadge Memorial Bridge, Savannah Questionnaire Results Georgia Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? yes—some removal and inspection was done in 2002. Grout was found to be satisfactory . Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. Laser-based force measurements will give results that will indicate if a cable is deviating from the trending values of the other cables. It may not give you an accurate value of the force in a cable. It is relatively easy and inexpensive to perform. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. These methods are all effective in controlling free vibrations of the cables. Helical strakes formed in the cable neoprene sheathing are also effective. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. These are all effective but they are generally expensive and have not been used on Georgia's bridges. Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? For non-box bridges, an inspection traveller should be installed on the cable-stayed bridge. This should be done by the owner. Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Access to the cable anchorages Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Television endoscope type cameras for access to guide pipes at bridge deck level are helpful. Additional comments? 91

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick Questionnaire Results Georgia Survey performed in 2004 Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick State/Province: Georgia Agency: Georgia DOT Respondent: Paul V. Liles, Jr. Span Length: 1,250 ft Year Built: 2003 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? N/A Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grout Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 92

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick Questionnaire Results Georgia Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no answer Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Laser-based force measurements will give results that will indicate if a cable is deviating from the trending values of the other cables. It may not give you an accurate value of the force in a cable. It is relatively easy and inexpensive to perform. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. These methods are all effective in controlling free vibrations of the cables. Helical strakes formed in the cable neoprene sheathing are also effective Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. These are all effective but they are generally expensive and have not been used on Georgia's bridges Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? For non-box bridges, an inspection traveller should be installed on the cable-stayed bridge. The should be done by the owner. Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access to the cable anchorages Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Television endoscope type cameras for access to guide pipes at bridge deck levelares helpful. Additional comments? 93

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL Questionnaire Results Illinois Survey performed in 2004 Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL State/Province: Illinois Agency: Illinois DOT Respondent: Carl Puzey Span Length: 900 ft Year Built: 1986 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? epoxy-coated on outside only Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? not known Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? not known Q4-9: Type of anchorage? not known Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE contract in 2003 to wrap cables with elastomeric wrap Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? not known Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? yes Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? yes, sheathing Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? N/A—see comment above about wrapping in 2003 Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? acoustic wire break detection Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? 94

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL Questionnaire Results Illinois Survey performed in 2004 yes—previous intermittent wrapping. See comment above about complete wrapping in 2003. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? no Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Cross cables on the Clark Bridge have been effective. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. An acoustic monitoring system was installed (approximately a year and a half ago) on one- fourth of the stays of the Quincy Bayview Bridge. This was done due to concern over water in the cable anchorages and to evaluate the technology. The system appears to be functioning properly and so far has provided information on one "event" that has been classified as a wire break. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Uncertainty of cable condition and anchorages Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 95

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Clark Bridge at Alton, IL Questionnaire Results Illinois Survey performed in 2004 Clark Bridge at Alton, IL State/Province: Illinois Agency: Illinois DOT Respondent: Carl Puzey Span Length: 756 ft Year Built: 1994 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? epoxy-coated on outside only—with grit* Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? No, the ends of strands were sealed with flexible sealer and a flexible rubber cap.* Q4-7: Type of grout used? Bulk non-shrink grout mixed on site* Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes—grout with sand* Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges* Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? yes Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE* Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes—prior to installation of cross cables Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not known, some rust visible at a few anchorages Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not known Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes—minor damage* Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 96

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Clark Bridge at Alton, IL Questionnaire Results Illinois Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes, not included for security reasons Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? no Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Cross cables on the Clark Bridge have been effective. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. An acoustic monitoring system was installed (approximately a year and a half ago) on one- fourth of the stays of the Quincy Bayview Bridge. This was done due to concern over water in the cable anchorages and to evaluate the technology. The system appears to be functioning properly and so far has provided information on one "event" that has been classified as a wire break. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Uncertainty of cable condition and anchorages Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? *Answers provided subsequent to the initial submittal by Mr. Steve Putz, Illinois DOT. 97

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS 46-03-7495 EBL Questionnaire Results Indiana Survey performed in 2004 46-03-7495 EBL State/Province: Indiana Agency: Indiana DOT Respondent: Bill Dittrich Span Length: 466 ft Year Built: 1999 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? I think they are bare?? Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? not known Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? polyethylene stay pipes Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes, from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? N/A Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 98

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS 46-03-7495 EBL Questionnaire Results Indiana Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? not known—I would hope that they could be if needed. Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? no—We will be having these two bridges inspected and tested by a consultant in the next 1–2-year time frame. We are just beginning to get a good understanding of the possible problems that we may encounter on these bridges over the coming years. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. We have not yet done any testing on these two cable-stayed bridges, but probably will be doing so in the next 1–2 years. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The ones on the SR-46 bridge seem to be OK. There are also some on the new US-231 bridge over the Ohio River that we share with Kentucky (Kentucky is the lead state for this bridge). They seem to be OK also. However, I have not been at either of these bridges during bad weather. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not used any yet. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? ?? Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Inspection, access, testing, cost. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 99

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS I65-68-7910 Questionnaire Results Indiana Survey performed in 2004 I65-68-7910 State/Province: Indiana Agency: Indiana DOT Respondent: Bill Dittrich Span Length: 197.5 ft Year Built: 1996 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? I think they are bare?? Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? not known Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? polyethylene stay pipes with pressure-sensitive PVF tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 100

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS I65-68-7910 Questionnaire Results Indiana Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? not known—I would hope that they could be if needed. Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? no—We will be having these two bridges inspected and tested by a consultant in the next 1–2 year time frame. We are just beginning to get a good understanding of the possible problems that we may encounter on these bridges over the coming years. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. We have not yet done any testing on these two cable-stayed bridges, but probably will be doing so in the next 1–2 years. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The ones on the SR-46 bridge seem to be OK. There are also some on the new US-231 bridge over the Ohio River that we share with Kentucky (Kentucky is the lead state for this bridge). They seem to be OK also. However, I have not been at either of these bridges during bad weather. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not used any yet. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? ?? Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Inspection, access, testing, cost. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 101

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Burlington, IA Questionnaire Results Iowa Survey performed in 2004 Burlington, IA State/Province: Iowa Agency: Iowa DOT Respondent: Dean Bierwagen Span Length: 660 ft Year Built: 1995 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand—epoxy-coated, 0.6-in. strand, in grouted polyethylene pipe Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? epoxy-coated on outside only—epoxy-coated seven-wire strand Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes Q4-7: Type of grout used? not known—grout was used but not sure of content Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other. Epoxy compound with zinc dust and steel ball Q4-9: Type of anchorage? “Hi-Am”-type—VSL Stay Cable System 250 Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? not known Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not known Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? yes, other—tie cables Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes, minor damage Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? vibration-based force measurements— vibration measurements were done during construction to determine amount of force in cables. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? 102

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Burlington, IA Questionnaire Results Iowa Survey performed in 2004 not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? no—need way to inspect cable Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Have not had experience with non-destructive test methods. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Have not had vibration problems since cross cables were installed. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not had experience with long-term monitoring. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? The inability to inspect the elements inside the cable and the anchorage areas. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 103

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS William Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY Questionnaire Results Kentucky Survey performed in 2004 William Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY State/Province: Kentucky Agency: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Respondent: Darrell K. Dudgeon Span Length: 1,200 ft Year Built: 2002 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? greased-and-sheathed Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes—tubes attached to the anchor block provide corrosion protection. Q4-7: Type of grout used? commercial prepackaged grouts Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes—grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? not known Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? yes—moisture was detected during construction when a cable slipped the wedge and had to be replaced, but not since. Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes—from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed 104

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS William Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY Questionnaire Results Kentucky Survey performed in 2004 Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes—cable only. Strand could not be replaced Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? no—there are technical limitations that prevent inspection of the stay cables, especially the anchorage area. Technical breakthrough is required. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. The only problem is the anchorage area. So far no method is available for inspection. ( PB ) I see additional problems with inspection of the grout-filled cables. ( DK D ) Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Wind damper is a high tech method that is very effective in most cases. However, the dampers are a delicate mechanism that need constant maintenance like any machine. Only the exterior dampers allow inspection and maintenance. Internal dampers are difficult to access for inspection. Any inspection and maintenanace and/or replacement will be a major project. Another major concern is that the method to determine the damper's condition is still not available. Therefore, after only a few years, no one will know whether the installed dampers are still working. On the other hand, the cross cables will work as long as they are in place. The condition of the cross cables can be easily observed from the deck. Replacement of the cross ties is not a major operation. Therefore, before the damper is improved, the cross cable is the better and sure solution. ( PB ) Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. There are two problems on the monitoring systems. First, who will analyze the large amount of data collected. Second, how long will the sensors and the computer system last? We are talking about 100-year life span. The reality is that the monitoring system will fail or become obsolete within approximately 10 years when the bridge is not expected to have any problems. ( PB ) Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? It seems not possible that the cable suppliers can do any more. ( PB ) Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes—resource does not exist so far. We (Parsons Brinkerhoff) are developing them right now. ( PB ) Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Inspecting the cable anchors. ( PB ) Inspecting grout-filled cables. ( DKD ) Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of 105

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS William Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY Questionnaire Results Kentucky Survey performed in 2004 stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. None Additional comments? Comments followed by (DKD) were made by Darrell Dudgeon of KYTC. Comments followed by (PB) were made by Ruchu Hsu, P.E. of Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Consulting Engineers who was the lead design engineer for the Owensboro Bridge. 106

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS William H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY Questionnaire Results Kentucky Survey performed in 2004 William H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY State/Province: Kentucky Agency: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Respondent: Darrell K. Dudgeon Span Length: 1,050 ft Year Built: 2000 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? greased-and-sheathed Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes—from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no answer Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 107

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS William H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY Questionnaire Results Kentucky Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? no—there are technical limitations that prevent inspection of the stay cables, especially the anchorage area. Technical breakthrough is required. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. The only problem is the anchorage area. So far no method is available for inspection. (PB) I see additional problems with inspection of the grout-filled cables. (DKD) Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Wind damper is a high tech method that is very effective in most cases. However, the dampers are delicate mechanisms that need constant maintenance like any machine. Only the exterior dampers allow inspection and maintenance. Internal dampers are difficult to access for inspection. Any inspection and maintenanace and/or replacement will be a major project. Another major concern is that the method to determine the damper's condition is still not avilable. Therefore, after only a few years, no one will know whether the installed dampers are still working. On the other hand, the cross cables will work as long as they are in place. The condition of the cross cables can be easily observed from the deck. Replacement of the cross ties is not a major operation. Therefore, before the damper is improved, the cross cable is the better and sure solution. (PB) Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. There are two problems on the monitoring systems. First, who will analyze the large amount of data collected. Second, how long will the sensors and the computer system last? We are talking about 100-year life span. The reality is that the monitoring system will fail or become obsolete within approximately 10 years when the bridge is not expected to have any problems. (PB) Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? It seems not possible that the cable suppliers can do any more. (PB) Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes—resource does not exist so far. We (Parsons Brinkerhoff) are developing them right now. (PB) Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Inspecting the cable anchors. (PB) Inspecting grout-filled cables. (DKD) Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. none Additional comments? Comments followed by (DKD) were made by Darrell Dudgeon of KYTC. Comments 108

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS William H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY Questionnaire Results Kentucky Survey performed in 2004 followed by (PB) were made by Ruchu Hsu, P.E. of Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Consulting Engineers who was the lead design engineer for the Owensboro Bridge. 109

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA Questionnaire Results Louisiana Survey performed in 2004 Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA State/Province: Louisiana Agency: Louisiana DOTD Respondent: Gill Gautreau Span Length: 1,222 ft Year Built: 1984 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel wire Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not applicable Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other Q4-9: Type of anchorage? “Hi-Am”- type—Each wire also passes through a plate and has a button head anchor Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE with PVF (Tedlar) tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no*—very infrequent, large amplitude motion observed, but not detected. Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? yes—see CTL report of July 2004 Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? yes—due to other reasons Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? yes—see July 2004 CTL report Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? yes, sheathing Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes—moderate damage—damaged areas of undetermined cause. Look to be impact, but very high off deck. Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? yes—not boots, washers—split neoprene washers are held in place by bolts and caulked. Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? vibration-based force measurements 110

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA Questionnaire Results Louisiana Survey performed in 2004 Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? vibration monitoring Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? yes—splits in early years repaired by heat welding, wrapped with Tedlar tape. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no—planned for next inspection contract phase with CTL Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes, not easily Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? not known—our vibration tests over time have indicated consistent cable loads; we are still unable to call the wires pristine. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Vibration-based cable load determination— effective and inexpensive; X-ray—expensive, slow, very questionable ability to detect wire defects; Magnetic inspection—used to rapidly, effectively inspect mine cables, but the cables move past the inspection unit, which would need to be reversed on a cable bridge; Impulse radar—good for detecting grout defects; Sonic methods—dampened to the point of being ineffective. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Luling has neoprene rings, but these are relatively very small considering the large diameter of the Luling cables and are there mainly to seal the anchors, but perhaps they also dampen the cables. CTL will check into this. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Vibration monitoring has been ongoing at Luling for 20 years in anticipation of a hurricane striking the bridge—no significant long duration winds have occurred. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? I like the idea of hermetically sealed, ungrouted cables with fiber optic sensors throughout or exposed wire that can be directly inspected. Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? The hidden nature of the system. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? no answer 111

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questionnaire Results Arkansas (Mississippi) Survey performed in 2004 State/Province: Arkansas (Mississippi) Agency: Arkansas/Mississippi DOT Respondent: Phil Brand/Mitchell Carr Span Length: ft Year Built: Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? Q4-7: Type of grout used? Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? Q4-9: Type of anchorage? Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? Not known—we are several years away from completion of the first cable-stayed bridge for which Arkansas will have responsibility for inspection/maintenance/not known Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. No comment/not known Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. No comment/we are currently constructing a cable-stayed bridge on US-82 over the 112

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questionnaire Results Arkansas (Mississippi) Survey performed in 2004 Mississippi River near Greenville, MS. Mississippi is responsible for overseeing the construction and Arkansas will be responsible for the maintenance. We are sharing the costs associated with both construction and maintenance. We are using cable ties and cable stay sheathing with a helical drip bead to control the cable vibration. We considered using dampners and a combination of dampners and cable ties. However, we were not comfortable with the reliability of dampners and felt the cable ties have a long - standing proven record. A visual inspection would show problems with the ties, whereas with the dampners it is not so easy to determine if they are working properly. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. No comment/not know n Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? No comment/no comment Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? Not known/yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? No comment/we do not have enough experience in this area to comment. Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. N/A–N/A Additional comments? 113

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA Questionnaire Results Massachusetts Survey performed in 2004 Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA State/Province: Massachusetts Agency: Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Respondent: Anthony Ricci Span Length: 745 ft Year Built: 2002 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? greased-and-sheathed Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes—sheathing removed in the anchorage zone Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other—wax Q4-9: Type of anchorage? wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no—internal dampers at deck level, stuffing box with HDPE drilled plate and compressive material at pylon Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes, from the beginning—internal dampers at deck level Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes—from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no—not applicable Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed 114

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA Questionnaire Results Massachusetts Survey performed in 2004 Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Have not yet used any NDT methods for stay cable inspection. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. It is our opinion that neoprene rings will not work as intended. Either internal or external viscous dampers are needed. Cross cables are not needed in shorter spans. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. none Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? transparent outer pipe, eliminate grout Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access for inspection Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Stay cable anchorage design should allow for accessibility for inspection. Inspection, maintenance, and replacement should be addressed during design. Additional comments? no answer 115

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge, Cape Girardeau Questionnaire Results Missouri Survey performed in 2004 Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge, Cape Girardeau State/Province: Missouri Agency: MoDOT Respondent: Greg Sunde Span Length: 1,150 ft Year Built: 2003 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? greased-and-sheathed Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes, from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? yes—splices were added to HDPE sheathing during construction of a couple of cables 116

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge, Cape Girardeau Questionnaire Results Missouri Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? not known—MoDOT has no related experience Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. MoDOT has no related experience Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Cross cables have been installed on this bridge as the most effective, positive method to eliminate cable vibrations. We understand that worldwide research is being conducted to maximize the efficiency of dampers and to determine, mathematically when they are and are not required Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. MoDOT has no related experience Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Perhaps a permanent load cell that would premit real-time readings of cable forces at any time during the life of the bridge Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? The integrity of the stays. Grouted cables are impossible to inspect with a non-destructive technique (i.e., one that does not require removal of sheathing and grout); thus, it is impossible to identify corrosion problems early. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. MoDOT has no related experience Additional comments? 117

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Maumee River Bridge Questionnaire Results Ohio Survey performed in 2004 Maumee River Bridge, Toledo, Ohio State/Province: Ohio Agency: Figg Bridge Engineers Respondent: W. Denny Pate Span Length: 2 stayed spans of 612.5' (single tower) ft Year Built: Currently under construction (2004) Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? epoxy-coated inside and outside Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? yes—This project actually uses a “cradle” that separates individual strands within the curved area, avoiding contact stress between them. In that respect, it is different than conventional “saddles.” Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? other, stainless steel Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes—from the beginning Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed 118

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Maumee River Bridge Questionnaire Results Ohio Survey performed in 2004 Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no answer Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes—while better methods may be developed in the future, the current methods are both effective and adequate. The most likely location of cable issues on all such bridges is at the anchor areas. By the nature of the anchor being embedded in massive concrete or steel areas, direct access to inspect the MTE is generally impractical. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Volumes can be written on this topic. The short version is that any actual “damping” added to the cable is highly effective since by its nature the cable has very little. Other control measures have had various degrees of success. In most cases, the success or lack of success has been related to the actual details, not so much in the selected approach to the issue. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. no answer Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Access is a very sharp two-edged sword. If you can more easily access the cable, so can corrosive elements (not to mention potential terrorist/security considerations). Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? not known—while information can be useful, it can also be misinterpreted. The best resource is direct contact with those who have hands-on knowledge related to the specific area that an individual may be making inquiries. Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? The largest “problem” with stay cables is that they are widely perceived as “a problem” rather than just another bridge member with specific needs and characteristics. Stay cables have been placed unnecessarily “on a pedestal.” While they are a very important bridge member, in current designs they are highly redundant, overtested, and (relatively) easily replaced. There is no other major bridge member that fits into all three of these categories. Let’s not promote the feeling that stays are “ a maintenance problem.” Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? no answer 119

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Cooper River Bridge Questionnaire Results South Carolina Survey performed in 2004 Cooper River Bridge State/Province: South Carolina Agency: South Carolina DOT Respondent: Charles T. Dwyer Span Length: 1546 ft Year Built: 2005 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? other—waxed and sheathed Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other Q4-9: Type of anchorage? wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? N/A Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? N/A Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? N/A Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? N/A Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? N/A Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? N/A Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes—from the beginning Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no—bridge not finished. A provisional feature if needed. Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? yes—external hydraulic dampers Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? N/A Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not known Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? N/A Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? not known Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? 120

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Cooper River Bridge Questionnaire Results South Carolina Survey performed in 2004 no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not known Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes—required submittal upon completion in 2005 Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no comment Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Viscous dampers for all cables and additional external dampers for the longest cables are in plans and will be installed. Cross cable dampers are a future consideration. Provisions for future installation of cross cables will be installed. If the system of viscous and external dampers is inadequate, the cross cables can be installed. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. none Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Include a maintenance manual with clear instructions for both specific wires or full cables. Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Provide end caps that are easily removed and fully protected against corrosion. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 121

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Veterans Memorial Bridge Questionnaire Results Texas Survey performed in 2004 Veterans Memorial Bridge State/Province: Texas Agency: Texas DOT Respondent: Keith Ramsey Span Length: 640 ft Year Built: 1991 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? N/A—grouted though entire length and anchorage Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other—grout Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? yes Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? yes—due to loosening of retainers Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations; presently being installed Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes, minor damage Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Vibration-based force measurements, used to aid in the design of viscous dampers for the bridge. Performed periodically to compare predampened response to post-dampened response. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? 122

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Veterans Memorial Bridge Questionnaire Results Texas Survey performed in 2004 acoustic wire break detection, vibration monitoring, other—Have long-term weather monitoring to associate with oscillation events. Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? yes—retightened the retainers for the neoprene rings Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes—owners are unable to non-destructively evaluate the condition of stay cables and anchorages. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. TxDOT has employed vibration-based force measurements to refine the model used for designing viscous dampers on each of the cable stay bridges. The technique seemed to give good correlation cable dimensions and damping requirements. The technique requires some traffic control and depending on the number of lanes carried by the structure could produce minor to significant traffic disruption. At least one lane and the shoulder will need to be closed, therefore if the bridge is narrow with a small number of lanes carrying two-way traffic the disruption could be considerable. This could last for several weeks if there are a large number of stays that need to be tested. The cost can run anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000 per bridge per test event depending on the size of the structure. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The only cable vibration control measures that Texas has experience with at this time are cross tie cables and neoprene rings. The neoprene rings do not appear to offer a measurable amount of dampening, and based on the department's experience should not be considered as a primary damping mechanism. The cross tie system that the department has employed has been effective in reducing the extreme vibration events, but vibrations of an amplitude that cause concern still occur. Texas is presently installing viscous damping systems of each of the cable stay bridges in the state. On the Fred Hartman Bridge these will be installed in conjunction with cross tie cables. It is hoped that this combination will effectively eliminate the occurrence and amplitude of any vibrations. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. The department has installed an acoustic monitoring system to identify possible wire breaks at the Fred Hartman Bridge. The system seems to work well and has identified several possible wire breaks. Prior to its installation, the system was tested on a cable mock-up at the Ferguson Structural Lab of the University of Texas at Austin, where research is underway to determine the effects of stay cable vibrations on the fatigue life of the cables. This allowed the department to test the monitoring system to see how accurately it could identify occurrence and location of wire breaks since numerous wire breaks were generated. The correl ation between the 123

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Veterans Memorial Bridge Questionnaire Results Texas Survey performed in 2004 monitoring system results and the autopsied cables was very good. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Current grouted and sheathed systems do not allow for visual inspection. New stay systems (perhaps ungrouted, unsheathed systems consisting of bare corrosion resistant tension members) need to be developed that allow for inspection of the entire stay length. Research is also needed to develop rapid, economical evaluation (NDE) methods to determine conditions of stay cables. Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Ability to determine the effectiveness and remaining life of corrosion protection systems for main tension elements. The configuration and construction techniques make evaluation and inspection using non-destructive tehniques almost impossible. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 124

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Fred Hartman Bridge Questionnaire Results Texas Survey performed in 2004 Fred Hartman Bridge State/Province: Texas Agency: Texas DOT Respondent: Keith Ramsey Span Length: 1,25 0 ft Year Built: 1995 Q4-4: Ty pe of main tension elem ent (MTE) ? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatm ent on main tension element within free length of cable? bar e Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone ? N/A—grouted through entire length and anchorag e Q4-7: Ty pe of grout use d? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone ? yes, other—grout Q4-9: Ty pe of anchorage ? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons ? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used ? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge ? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problem s been noted ? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and botto m anchorage s? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of m ovem ents of the rings out of their positions ? yes—due to shearing off of retainers Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal co mp onents of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas ? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other com ponents of stay cables been observed? yes—possible wire breaks have been detected by acoustic monitoring syste m Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dam pers installed at deck or tower levels? yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations; presently being inst alled Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them ? yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations; presently being inst alled Q4-20: Do cables have other dam pers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations ? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or mi salignm ent of the guide pipes been noted ? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes, minor damag e Q4-24: Have any problem s associated with neoprene boots been noted ? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Vibration-based force measurements, used to aid in the design of viscous dampers for the bridge. Performed periodically to compare predampened response to post-dampened response. 125

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Fred Hartman Bridge Questionnaire Results Texas Survey performed in 2004 Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? acoustic wire break detection, vibration monitoring, other—have long-term weather monitoring to associate with oscillation events. Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? yes—rewelded and stiffened guide pipe. Replaced initial restrainer system after fatigue and failure of original restrainer cables. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? yes—sheathing was removed to observe the condition of grout. Grout appeared to be in good/sound condition. Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes—owners are unable to non-destructively evaluate the condition of stay cables and anchorages. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. TxDOT has employed vibration-based force measurements to refine the model used for designing viscous dampers on each of the cable stay bridges. The technique seemed to give good correlation cable dimensions and damping requirements. The technique requires some traffic control and depending on the number of lanes carri ed by the structure could produce minor to significant traffic disruption. At least one lane and the shoulder will need to be closed, therefore if the bridge is narrow with a small number of lanes carrying two-way traffic the disruption could be considerable. This could last for several weeks if there are a large number of stays that need to be tested. The cost can run anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000 per bridge per test event depending on the size of the structure. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The only cable vibration control measures that Texas has experience with at this time are cross tie cables and neoprene rings. The neoprene rings do not appear to offer a measurable amount of dampening, and based on the department's experience should not be considered as a primary damping mechanism. The cross tie system that the department has employed has been effective in reducing the extreme vibration events, but vibrations of an amplitude that cause concern still occur. Texas is presently installing viscous damping systems of each of the cable stay bridges in the state. On the Fred Hartman Bridge these will be installed in conjunction with cross tie cables. It is hoped that this combination will effectively eliminate the occurrence and amplitude of any vibrations. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. The department has installed an acoustic monitoring system to identify possible wire breaks at the Fred Hartman Bridge. The system seems to work well and has identified several possible wire breaks. Prior to its installation, the system was tested on a cable mock-up at the Ferguson Structural Lab of the University of Texas at Austin, where research is underway to determine the effects 126

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Fred Hartman Bridge Questionnaire Results Texas Survey performed in 2004 of stay cable vibrations on the fatigue life of the cables. This allowed the department to test the monitoring system to see how accurately it could identify occurrence and location of wire breaks, since numerous wire breaks were generated. The correlation between the monitoring system results and the autopsied cables was very good. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Current grouted and sheathed systems do not allow for visual inspection. New stay systems (perhaps ungrouted, unsheathed systems consisting of bare corrosion resistant tension members) need to be developed that allow for inspection of the entire stay length. Research is also needed to develop rapid, economical evaluation (NDE) methods to determine conditions of stay cables. Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Ability to determine the effectiveness and remaining life of corrosion protection systems for main tension elements. The configuration and construction techniques make evaluation and inspection using non-destructive techniques almost impossible. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 127

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) Questionnaire Results Virginia Survey performed in 2004 I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) State/Province: Virginia Agency: VDOT Respondent: James M. Fariss Span Length: 63 0 ft Year Built: 1990 Q4-4: Ty pe of main tension elem ent (MTE) ? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatm ent on main tension element within free length of cable? bar e Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone ? N/A Q4-7: Ty pe of grout use d? cement–water admixtures Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone ? yes, grout Q4-9: Ty pe of anchorage ? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons ? yes Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used ? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge ? Not known—no such vibrations have been observed on the Varina–Enon Bridge. Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problem s been noted ? not know n Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and botto m anchorage s? yes—only at the bottom anchorages since the stays are continuous over the pylons Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of m ovem ents of the rings out of their positions ? yes—due to other reasons. Due to the misalignment of stay and guide pipes and no positive restraint was provided to keep neoprene ring from moving outward . Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal co mp onents of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas ? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other com ponents of stay cables been observed? no—forces obtained in the initial in-depth inspection indicated a good correlation with the designer's predicted forces. Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dam pers installed at deck or tower levels? no—details are included in the maintenance manual (Appendix F) as an alternate stay damper system . Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them ? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dam pers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations ? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or mi salignm ent of the guide pipes been noted ? yes, misalignment Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problem s associated with neoprene boots been noted ? yes—minor cracks and tears have been noted in 6 of the 52 neoprene boots. 128

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) Questionnaire Results Virginia Survey performed in 2004 Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Vibration-based force measurements. Tension force measurement tests were performed by Construction Technology Laboratory, Inc. (CTL) in April 1999. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not known Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Laser-based force measurements were utilized in the initial in-depth inspection of this bridge in 1999. The cost incurred was approximately $35,000, with minimum impact on traffic. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Neoprene rings were installed on the Varina– Enon Bridge as the primary stay damping system. This is a relatively cost-effective system, and appears to be performing satisfactorily on this bridge. We have experienced some difficulty in the installation and removal of these rings. Details of an alternate stay damping system utilizing shock absorbers have been included in the Manual for Inspection and Maintenance of the Varina–Enon Bridge. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. no comments Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no comments Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Lack of familiarity with this type of construction by the department's staff, which requires assistance from the consultant community in the inspection of these elements. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 129

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Gum Street—Kennewick, WA Questionnaire Results Washington Survey performed in 2004 Gum Street—Kennewick, WA State/Province: Washington Agency: Washington State DOT Respondent: David Bruce Span Length: 981 ft Year Built: 1978 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel wire Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? N/A Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? “Hi-Am” type Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? not known Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes, extensive damage Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? yes Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? magnetic Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 130

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Gum Street—Kennewick, WA Questionnaire Results Washington Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? not know n Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. N/A Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. N/A Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. N/A Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? unknown Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? none yet Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. N/A Additional comments? 131

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Thea–Foss Tacoma, WA Questionnaire Results Washington Survey performed in 2004 Thea–Foss Tacoma, WA State/Province: Washington Agency: Washington State DOT Respondent: David Bruce Span Length: 375 ft Year Built: 1996 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? bare Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? N/A Q4-7: Type of grout used? cement–water Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, grease Q4-9: Type of anchorage? wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no answer Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes, minor damage Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 132

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Thea–Foss Tacoma, WA Questionnaire Results Washington Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? not known Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. N/A Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. N/A Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. N/A Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? unknown Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? none yet Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. N/A Additional comments? 133

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay Questionnaire Results Wisconsin/Milwaukee Survey performed in 2004 Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay State/Province: Wisconsin/Milwaukee Agency: City of Milwaukee Respondent: Craig Liberto Span Length: 195 ft Year Built: 2003 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? greased-and-sheathed Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes—removed within anchor zone Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes—grease; greased at butt end and top end Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface, white co-extruded HDPE Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no—vibration not expected for this small cable-stayed bridge. Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no at top, yes at bottom Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? yes—misalignment; top guide pipes not concentric w/PE is the only misalignment Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Not performed. By requirements of supplier, full-scale stay cable fatigue tests by Construction Technology Laboratories in Skokie, Illinois and Technical University of Munich; no wire breaks during 2 million cycle fatigue tests. During reload and static tests, 134

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay Questionnaire Results Wisconsin/Milwaukee Survey performed in 2004 failed to meet minimum tensile force of 95% GUTS ( only 90% ). Therefore, added strands at all locations. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? not known, no previous experience with cable- stayed structur e Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. City inspection forces are neither qualified nor equipped for non-destructive testing. Four single strands are to be removed ( one at each pylon ) for inspection for rust every 10 years starting in year 2014 . Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. no vibrations noted Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. not applicable Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? no answer Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Cannot inspect cables without pulling strand every 10 years . Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Four strands ( one at each pylo n ) will be removed every 10 years starting in 2014 to check for corrosion/rusting. Additional comments? 135

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay Questionnaire Results Wisconsin/Milwaukee Survey performed in 2004 Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay State/Province: Wisconsin/Milwaukee Agency: City of Milwaukee Respondent: Craig Liberto Span Length: 195 ft Year Built: 2003 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? greased-and-sheathed Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes—removed within anchor zone Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes—grease; greased at butt end and top end Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface, white co-extruded HDPE. Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no—vibration not expected for this small cable-stayed bridge. Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no at top, yes at bottom Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? yes—misalignment, top guide pipes not concentric with PE is the only misalignment Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Not performed. By requirements of supplier, full-scale stay cable fatigue tests by Construction Technology Laboratories in Skokie, Illinois and Technical University of Munich; no wire breaks during 2 million cycle fatigue tests. During reload and static tests, 136

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay Questionnaire Results Wisconsin/Milwaukee Survey performed in 2004 failed to meet minimum tensile force of 95% GUTS ( only 90% ). Therefore, added strands at all locations. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? not known, no previous experience with cable- stayed structur e Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. City inspection forces are neither qualified or equipped for non-destructive testing. Four single strands are to be removed ( one at each pylon ) for inspection for rust every 10 years starting in year 2014 . Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. no vibrations noted Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. not applicable Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? no answer Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Cannot inspect cables without pulling strand every 10 years . Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Four strands ( one at each pylo n ) will be removed every 10 years starting in 2014 to check for corrosion/rusting. Additional comments? 137

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Prince's Island (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Prince's Island (Pedestrian) State/Province: Alberta/Calgary, Canada Agency: City of Calgary Respondent: Peter Wilson Span Length: 220 ft Year Built: 1972 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel wire Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? not known Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? not known Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? not known Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 138

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Prince's Island (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? no Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The installation of cross cables has greatly reduced the cable vibration. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only been used for short durations to determine frequency and magnitude, etc. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access for inspection and actual testing Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures; three over water and two over roadways. 139

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Carburn Park (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Carburn Park (Pedestrian) State/Province: Alberta/Calgary, Canada Agency: City of Calgary Respondent: Peter Wilson Span Length: 262 ft Year Built: 1982 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel bar or threadbar Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? not known Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other—threaded couplers Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? not known Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? not known Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? not known Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 140

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Carburn Park (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The installation of cross cables has greatly reduced the cable vibration. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only been used for short durations to determine frequency and magnitude, etc. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access for inspection and actual testing Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures; three over water and two over roadways. 141

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS McMahon (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 McMahon (Pedestrian) State/Province: Alberta/Calgary, Canada Agency: City of Calgary Respondent: Peter Wilson Year Built: 1987 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel bar or threadbar Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler other, threaded coupler Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing no Span Length: 154 ft Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? Q4-9: Type of anchorage? Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? not known Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes, from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? not known Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 142

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS McMahon (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The installation of cross cables has greatly reduced the cable vibration. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only been used for short durations to determine frequency and magnitude, etc. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access for inspection and actual testing Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures; three over water and two over roadways. 143

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) State/Province: Alberta/Calgary, Canada Agency: City of Calgary Respondent: Peter Wilson Span Length: 148 ft Year Built: 1996 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel bar or threadbar Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other, threaded coupler Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? yes Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? yes Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes, retrofitted to correct vibrations Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? magnetic, ultrasonic, and vibration-based force measurements Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? yes—Two bars failed and were replaced. One additional bar replaced due to corrosion. 144

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The installation of cross cables has greatly reduced the cable vibration. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only been used for short durations to determine frequency and magnitude, etc. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access for inspection and actual testing Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures; three over water and two over roadways. 145

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) State/Province: Alberta/Calgary, Canada Agency: City of Calgary Respondent: Peter Wilson Span Length: 335 ft Year Built: 1998 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel bar or threadbar Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other, threaded couplers/nuts Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? not known Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? yes, from the beginning Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not known Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 146

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) Questionnaire Results Alberta/Calgary, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. no answer Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. The installation of cross cables has greatly reduced the cable vibration. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only been used for short durations to determine frequency and magnitude, etc. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Access for inspection and actual testing Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures; three over water and two over roadways. 147

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Alex Fraser Bridge Questionnaire Results British Columbia Survey performed in 2004 Alex Fraser Bridge State/Province: British Columbia Agency: Ministry of Transportation Respondent: Kevin Baskin Span Length: 1,526 ft Year Built: 1986 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? other—7.1 mm diameter galvanized wire to ASTM A586; ultimate strength = 1520 MPa; long lay strand assemblies with 109 to 283 wires per assembly. Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? greased-and-sheathed—galvanized; galvanized wire cable jacketed in polyethylene tube and filled with petroleum wax blocking compound. Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes—zinc-filled cast steel socket at end, grease discontinued in anchorages Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other—cast steel socket anchorage is filled with zinc. Q4-9: Type of anchorage? zinc-filled cast steel socket Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? yes—due to other reasons Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable—repairs used protective tape, no deterioration observed Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? yes, shifting and splitting Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed 148

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Alex Fraser Bridge Questionnaire Results British Columbia Survey performed in 2004 Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? Acoustic wire break detection—performed short term, now discontinued . Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? yes—boots replaced or repaired, sheaths repaired. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? yes Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. not use d Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Neoprene ring dampers alone do not prevent cable vibration. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. Acoustic monitoring may be cost-effective for older structures. For new structures, cost of monitoring outweighs benefits, and may be compromised by other noise (rehab, banging etc.) on the structure. Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? Our cables are reasonably accessible, inspectable. Possibly a closeable drain at the lower end of the cable to allow visual inspection, sample collection, testing for corrosion product of any water in the cable sheaths . Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? detecting corrosion in cables, maintenance of sheaths and boots Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no comment. Additional comments? Have had leakage of wax blocking compound at bottom anchorages during hot weather. 149

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Esplanade Riel Questionnaire Results Manitoba/Winnipeg, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Esplanade Riel State/Province: Manitoba/Winnipeg, Canada Agency: City of Winnipeg Public Works Department Respondent: Brad Neirinck Span Length: 348 ft Year Built: 2003 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? seven-wire steel strand Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel, further coated with high- density polyethylene Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? yes, HDPE coating is removed Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? yes, other—epoxy filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? conical socket with wedges Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes, these provide damping Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no—damping via neoprene rings Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? no Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Not performed. Vibration-based force measurements on selected MTE will be performed and continuously monitored using a permanent SHM system. Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? vibration monitoring 150

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Esplanade Riel Questionnaire Results Manitoba/Winnipeg, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? yes—extensions to permit additional thermal contraction capability of the HDPE sheathing installed. Warranty covered this. Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no—since this is a new bridge this should be an upcoming deliverable from our consultant. Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? Not known. We require training and awareness in the near future to properly maintain the one new bridge we have. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. We do not yet have enough experience to respond to this question at this time. We are aware of all the techniques you mention above. Force measurements on selected MTE will be performed as part of the SHM system with the use of uniaxial accelerometers to determine frequency of the cable and relate back to force. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. We have yet to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the control measures. We specified the requirement for damping at the anchorages. The supplier choose to do this via neoprene rings. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Not enough experience to comment at this time. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Different corrosion protection system at the anchorages that permits easier visual inspection. Removable sections of the HDPE and Vandal Tubes would make it easier to inspect strands near the anchorages. Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? corrosion at the anchorages Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 151

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Hawkshaw Questionnaire Results New Brunswick, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Hawkshaw State/Province: New Brunswick, Canada Agency: New Brunswick Department of Transportation Respondent: Ronald H. Joyce Span Length: 713.32 ft Year Built: 1967 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel wire—2-3/8-in. diameter galvanized steel cables. Located near Nackawic NB over the Saint John River between Rte 2 and Rte 105 Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel—cables are wrapped 5 ft above deck with galvanized wire; also in this area they are coated with Denso Paste and tape Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other—2-3/8-in. forged open strand socket Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no—pin connections at top of pylon Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations; wood clamps placed at 1/3 points of the six cables Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? yes—other dampers, wood clamps Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no answer Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed 152

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Hawkshaw Questionnaire Results New Brunswick, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? not known Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. None of this testing done on any of the three structures; probably there would be a significant cost to do these tests. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. See comments for Question 4-12 . Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. Monitoring of deflection of bridge by student at Nackawic . Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? no answer Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Migration of water into cable strands. Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 153

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Longs Creek #1 Questionnaire Results New Brunswick, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Longs Creek #1 State/Province: New Brunswick, Canada Agency: New Brunswick Department of Transportation Respondent: Ronald H. Joyce Span Length: 713.32 ft Year Built: 1966 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? No answer—located on Rte 102 west of Fredricton, NB Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes, retrofitted to correct vibrations Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? yes, other dampers Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? yes, minor damage Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 154

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Longs Creek #1 Questionnaire Results New Brunswick, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? not known Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. None of this testing done on any of the three structures; probably there would be a significant cost to do these tests. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. See comments for Question 4-12. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Monitoring of deflection of bridge by student at Nackawic. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Migration of water into cable strands. Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? Paper to be given in Japan I believe in 2004 by an engineer who worked for the National Research Council on the deflections of the Longs Creek Bridge caused by wind and the methods used to greatly reduce this problem. 155

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Nackawic River Questionnaire Results New Brunswick, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Nackawic River State/Province: New Brunswick, Canada Agency: New Brunswick Department of Transportation Respondent: Ronald H. Joyce Span Length: 216.01 ft Year Built: 1967 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? Located on Rte. 105 in the town of Nackawic Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? yes Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? not tested Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? yes, retrofitted to correct vibrations Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? yes, other dampers Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? no Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine 156

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Nackawic River Questionnaire Results New Brunswick, Canada Survey performed in 2004 condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? not know n Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. None of this testing was done on any of the three structures; probably there would be a significant cost to do these tests. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. See comments for Question 4-12. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. Monitoring of deflection of bridge by student at Nackawic . Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? no answer Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Migration of water into cable strands. Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 157

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Galipeault Questionnaire Results Quebec, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Galipeault State/Province: Quebec, Canada Agency: Ministry of Transportation Respondent: Martin, Talbot Span Length: 308 ft Year Built: 1963 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel wire—2 9/16-in. diameter bridge strand cable type = 1 x 140 wires Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other—closed and open socket Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? no sheathing Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? no Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? not applicable Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? not applicable Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? other—laser-based force measurements Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no 158

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Galipeault Questionnaire Results Quebec, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially rem oved on any of the cables to exam ine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? not applicable Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do yo u have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridg e? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate ? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. We have performed laser-based force on Galipeault bridge . Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. No long-term monitoring on our stay cable bridges at the present time. Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? no answer Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? fatigue Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? We have had a serious problem on Galipeault bridge no. 1—failure of an anchorage plate at one abutment (corrosion and fatigue failure). Emergency repairs were performed . 159

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Papineau Questionnaire Results Quebec, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Papineau State/Province: Quebec, Canada Agency: Ministry of Transportation Respondent: Martin, Talbot Span Length: 790 ft Year Built: 1969 Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? steel wire—strands 2 5/16-in. and 1 5/8-in. diameter. Strand fabricated from 0.192-in. diameter galvanized wire Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel—and polyethylene coating Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? no Q4-7: Type of grout used? not applicable Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? no filler Q4-9: Type of anchorage? other—cylindrical socket into which a threaded rod is screwed Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? yes Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? other—polyethylene coating Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? no Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? yes, corrosion on threaded rod Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? no, not known Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? no Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? not performed 160

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Papineau Questionnaire Results Quebec, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? no Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? no Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. We have performed laser-based force on Galipeault bridge. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. No long-term monitoring on our stay cable bridges at the present time. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? no answer Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? fatigue Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? We have had a serious problem on Galipeault bridge no. 1—failure of an anchorage plate at one abutment (corrosion and fatigue failure). Emergency repairs were performed. 161

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Price Questionnaire Results Quebec, Canada Survey performed in 2004 Price State/Province: Quebec, Canada Agency: Ministry of Transportatio n Respondent: Martin, Talbot Span Length: 45 0 ft Year Built: 1972 Q4-4: Ty pe of main tension elem ent (MTE) ? steel wire—galvanized bridge strands. 2.5-in. and 2.56-in. diameter. Q4-5: Coating/treatm ent on main tension element within free length of cable? galvanized steel—and polyethylene coating 0.209 in. thickness Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone ? no Q4-7: Ty pe of grout use d? grout not used Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone ? no filler Q4-9: Ty pe of anchorage ? other—cylindrical socket int o which a threaded rod is screwed Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons ? no Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used ? other—polyethylene coating Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge ? no, strong wind vibration Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problem s been noted ? no Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and botto m anchorage s? yes Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of m ovem ents of the rings out of their positions ? yes—due to shearing off of retainers Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal co mp onents of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas ? no Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other com ponents of stay cables been observed? yes, see Question 4-27 Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dam pers installed at deck or tower levels? no Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them ? no Q4-20: Do cables have other dam pers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations ? no Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? no Q4-22: Has cracking or mi salignm ent of the guide pipes been noted ? not applicable Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? not applicable Q4-24: Have any problem s associated with neoprene boots been noted ? no Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? not performed Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term m onitoring perfor me d on the cables ? not performed Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their co mp onents) been repaired ? 162

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Price Questionnaire Results Quebec, Canada Survey performed in 2004 yes—broken anchor bolt. Failure of two 5-in. anchor bolts in the anchorage zone Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? no Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? yes Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? no Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Neoprene rings have reduced cable vibrations on the Price Bridge (no. 3). Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Q9: What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Q10: Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? Q11: What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Q12: Please comment on any other methods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Additional comments? We also had a failure of an anchorage plate on Price Bridge (no. 3) during the 1988 Saguenay earthquake (ML = 6.0). It was the first documented structural damage to a steel bridge caused by an earthquake in Canada. 163

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questionnaire Results Freyssinet Survey performed in 2004 State/Province: Freyssinet Agency: Freyssinet LLC Respondent: Andrew Micklus Span Length: ft Year Built: Q4-4: Type of main tension element (MTE)? Q4-5: Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? Q4-6: Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? Q4-7: Type of grout used? Q4-8: Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? Q4-9: Type of anchorage? Q4-10: Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? Q4-11: Type of cable sheathing used? Q4-12: Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? Q4-13: Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? Q4-14: Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? Q4-15: If there are neoprene rings on the cables; have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? Q4-16: Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? Q4-17: Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? Q4-18: Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? Q4-19: Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? Q4-20: Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? Q4-21: Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? Q4-22: Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? Q4-23: If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? Q4-24: Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? Q4-25: Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Q4-26: Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? Q4-27: Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? Q4-28: Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? Q4-29: Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? Q4-30: Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? Q5: Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? yes. Freyssinet has installed its stay system on three projects: Bill Emerson Bridge over the Mississippi River at Cape Girardeau, Missouri I-93 over the Charles River in Boston, Mass. Cooper River Replacement Bridge in Charleston, S.C. The Cape Giraredeau Bridge was required to be grouted by the Owner and Engineer. Freyssinet proposed ungrouted stays but this was unacceptable for reasons unknown. The thought was the Owner and Engineer did not want to be the first in United States to allow ungrouted stays. The Charles River was designed to use grouted stays, but Freyssinet was able to convince the Owner and Engineer that ungrouted stays were superior, mainly due to the improved inspectability and replaceability but also to avoid the common problems associated with grouted cables (introduce moisture, increase local bending moments at the anchorages, more mass to 164

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questionnaire Results Freyssinet Survey performed in 2004 dampen potential damage to the HDPE stay pipe if high grouting pressures are used. Also during grouting everything gets warm (or very hot if grouted during the summer in warm or even moderate climates). When colder winter temperatures arrive, the pipes develop very high tensile stresses as the pipe tries to thermally contract but is restrained since the grout has a much lower thermal coefficient of expansion and contractio n. The cables on Cooper River Bridge are state of the art ungrouted stays with capacity to add approximately 5% strand in the future and the stays are fitted with engineered vibration suppression devices. Internal hydraulic and external hydraulic damping devices are being installed and provisions provide for the possible addition of cable ties (damping ropes) in the future on selected longer stays that have been identified as having the potential to experience parametric excitation. Q6: Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test me thods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not lim ited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurem ents, X-ray im aging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, im pact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider im po rtant. With ungrouted stays, individual strands may be detensioned, inspected, retensioned, or removed and/or replaced. Load cells may be left in place to monitor strands individually. Acoustic monitoring sytems can be installed to detect wire breakage and determine the break locations very accurately Q7: Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control m easures that yo u may be fam iliar with. Exam ples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. External helix placed on the surface of the stay pipes has been proven to eliminate rain – wind-induced cable vibrations. Freyssinet developed this on the Normandie Bridge in France. Freyssinet offered this on Cape Girardeau and Charles River Projects and both sites elected to add external helix via a change order due to the very real threat of serious rain–wind-induced vibrations and the high level of effectiveness offered by the external helix . Q8: Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic m onitoring, vibration m onitoring, force measurem ents, strain m easurements, etc. We believe acoustical monitoring is an effective method to record wire failures. Permanent load cells are good for monitoring loads, especially with unbonded monostrands when it can be established that the load is equal in all individual strands within reasonable tolerances such that by monitoring 1 strand, the load in cable is known. Q9: What would you reco mmend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables mo re accessible and inspectable ? Ability to de-tension, inspect, and retension individual strands, Ability to de-tension remove, and replace individual strands. Ability to add strands to each cable or cable group ( avg. 5% ). Q10: Do yo u believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool ? yes Q11: What do you see as the single most im portant proble m in stay cable maintenance ? Inspectability in the anchorage area Q12: Please comment on any other met hods for inspections, testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional meth ods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. no answer Additional comments? 165

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.4 Type of main tension element (MTE)? Q4.5 Coating/treatment on main tension element within free length of cable? Q4.6 Are the coatings/treatments on main tension element discontinued or removed within the anchorage zone? Responses: State Bridge Q4.4 Q4.5 Q4.6 Alabama Cochrane Africatown seven-wire steel strand bare NA Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska other—galvanized bridge strand galvanized steel not known Alaska Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway other—ASTM Desig A586-86 galvanized steel not known California Sacramento River (Meridian) steel wire galvanized steel no Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware seven-wire steel strand bare not applicable Florida Dame Point Bridge steel bar or threadbar epoxy-coated on outside only not known Georgia Talmadge Memorial Bridge, Savannah seven-wire steel strand bare NA Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick seven-wire steel strand bare N/A Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL seven-wire steel strand epoxy-coated on outside only not known Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL seven-wire steel strand epoxy-coated on outside only not known Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL seven-wire steel strand I think they are bare?? not known Indiana I65-68-7910 seven-wire steel strand I think they are bare?? not known Iowa Burlington, IA seven-wire steel strand—epoxy-coated, 0.6-in. strand in grouted polyethylene pipe epoxy-coated on outside only—epoxy- coated seven wire strand yes Kentucky William Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY seven-wire steel strand greased-and-sheathed Yes—tubes attached to the anchor block provide corrosion protection Kentucky William H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY seven-wire steel strand greased-and-sheathed yes Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA steel wire bare not applicable Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA seven-wire steel strand greased-and-sheathed Yes—sheathing removed in the anchorage zone Missouri Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge, Cape Girardeau seven-wire steel strand greased-and-sheathed yes Ohio Maumee River Bridge, Toledo seven-wire steel strand epoxy-coated inside and outside yes South Carolina Cooper River Bridge seven-wire steel strand other-waxed and sheathed yes Texas Veterans Memorial Bridge seven-wire steel strand bare N/A—grouted though entire length and anchorage Texas Fred Hartman Bridge seven-wire steel strand bare N/A—grouted though entire length and anchorage 166

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.4 Q4.5 Q4.6 Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) seven-wire steel strand bare N/A Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA steel wire bare N/A Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA seven-wire steel strand bare N/A Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay seven-wire steel strand greased-and-sheathed yes—removed within anchor zone Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay seven-wire steel strand greased-and-sheathed yes—removed within anchor zone Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) steel wire galvanized steel not known Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) steel bar or thread bar galvanized steel not known Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) steel bar or threadbar galvanized steel no Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) steel bar or threadbar galvanized steel no Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) steel bar or threadbar galvanized steel no British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge Other—7.1- mm diam eter galvanized wire to ASTM A5 86; ult. strength = 1520 MPa; long lay strand asse mb lies with 109 to 283 wires per assem bly Greased-and- sheathed—galvanized; galvanized wire cable jacketed in polyethylene tube and filled with petroleum wax blocking com pound Yes—zinc-filled cast steel socket at end; grease discontinued in anchorages Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel seven-wire steel strand Galvanized steel, further coated with high density polyethylene yes, HDPE coating is removed New Brunswick Hawkshaw Steel wire—2-3/8-in. diam eter galvanized steel cables. Located near Nackawic NB over the Saint John River between Rte 2 and Rte 105 Galvanized steel— cables are wrapped 5 ft above deck with galvanized wire, also in this area they are coated with Denso Paste and tape no New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 Located on Rte 102 west of Fredricton, NB galvanized steel no New Brunswick Nackawic River Located on Rte. 105 in the town of Nackawic galvanized steel no Quebec, Canada Galipeault Steel wire—2 9/16-in. diam eter bridge strand cable type = 1 x 140 wires galvanized steel no Quebec, Canada Papineau Steel wire—strands 2 5/16-in. and 1 5/8- in. diam eter. Strand fabricated from 0.192- in. diam eter galvanized wire Galvanized steel—and polyethylene coating no Quebec, Canada Price Steel wire—galvanized bridge strands. 2.5-in. and 2.56-in. diam eter Galvanized steel—and polyethylene coating 0.209-in. thickness no 167

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.7 Type of grout used? Q4.8 Are filler materials used in the anchorage zone? Q4.9 Type of anchorage? Responses: State Bridge Q4.7 Q4.8 Q4.9 Alaba ma Cochrane Africatown ce me nt–water ad mi xtures yes, other conical socket with wedges Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska not known yes, other—liquid polym er sealer conical socket with wedges Alaska Captain Willia m Moore Bridge, Skagway not known yes, grease conical socket with wedges California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) grout not used yes, grease Other —m ain cables are swedged onto a steel conical threaded coupler that is attached to a threaded HS steel rod, which uses a spherical anchor socket and anchor nut to provide anchorage connection. This system appears to be uniquely designed Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware cem ent–water ad mi xtures yes, grout conical socket with wedges Florida Dam e Point Bridge not known—a cement grout was used yes, grout wedges Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah cem ent–water yes, other—steel s hot and epoxy other—A me rican Stronghold system Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick cem ent–water yes—grout conical socket with wedges Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL not known not known not known Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL not known not known not known Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL cem ent–water ad mi xtures not known conical socket with wedges Indiana I65-68-7910 cem ent–water ad mi xtures not known conical socket with wedges Iowa Burlington, IA not known—grout was used but not sure of content yes, other—epoxy com pound with zinc dust and steel ball “Hi-Am ” type—VSL Stay Cable System 250 Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY co mmercial prepackaged grouts yes, grease wedges Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY cem ent–water ad mi xtures yes, grease conical socket with wedges Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA cem ent–water yes, other “Hi-Am ” type—each wire also passes through a plate and has a button head anchor Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA grout not used yes, other—wax wedges Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau cem ent–water ad mi xtures yes, grease wedges Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo grout not used yes, grease wedges South Carolina Cooper River Bridge grout not used yes, other wedges 168

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.7 Q4.8 Q4.9 Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge cem ent–water ad mi xtures yes, other—grout conical socket with wedges Texas Fred Hartm an Brid ge cem ent–water ad mi xtures yes, other—grout conical socket with wedges Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) cem ent–water ad mi xtures yes, grout conical socket with wedges Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA ce me nt–water yes, grease “Hi-A m” -type Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA ce me nt–water yes, grease wedges Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay grout not used yes, grease, greased at butt end and top end conical socket with wedges Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay grout not used yes, grease, greased at butt end and top end conical socket with wedges Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) grout not used no filler conical socket with wedges Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) grout not used no filler other—threaded couplers Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) grout not used no filler other—threaded coupler Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) grout not used no filler other—threaded coupler Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) grout not used no filler other—threaded couplers/nuts British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge grout not used yes, other—cast steel socket anchorage is filled with zinc zinc-filled cast steel socket Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel grout not used yes, other, epoxy f iller conical socket with wedges New Brunswick Hawkshaw grout not used no filler other—2-3/8-in. forged open strand New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 grout not used no filler other New Brunswick Nackawic River grout not used no filler other Quebec, Canada Galipeault grout not used no filler other—closed and open socket Quebec, Canada Papineau not applicable no filler other—cylindrical socket into which a threaded rod is screwed Quebec, Canada Price grout not used no filler other—cylindrical socket into which a threaded rod is screwed 169

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.10 Do cables go over “saddles” on the pylons? Q4.11 Type of cable sheathing used? Q4.12 Have rain–wind-induced cable vibrations been observed on this bridge? Responses: State Bridge Q4.10 Q4.11 Q4.12 Alabam a Cochrane Africatown no HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape yes Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska no no sheathing not known Alaska Captain Willia m Moore Bridge, Skagway no no sheathing not known California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) yes no sheathing no Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware yes steel pipe no Florida Dam e Point Bridge no steel pipe no Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah no HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape yes Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick no HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape no Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL no UV-resistant HDPE. Contract in 2003 to wrap cables with elasto me ric wrap no Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL yes No answer, plans gave contractor option of steel or HDPE yes—prior to installation of cross cables Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL no polyethylene stay pipes no Indiana I65-68-7910 no polyethylene stay pipes with pressure sensitive PVF tape no Iowa Burlington, IA no HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape yes Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface no Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface no Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA no HDPE with PVF (Tedlar) tape no—very infrequent, large am plitude motion observed, but not detected Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface no Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface no Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo Yes—This project actually uses a “cradle,” which separates individual strands within the curved area, avoiding contact stress between the m. In that respect, it is different than conventional “saddles” other—stainless steel no 170

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.10 Q4.11 Q4.12 South Carolina Cooper River Bridge no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface N/A Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge yes HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape yes Texas Fred Hartm an Brid ge no HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape yes Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) yes HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape Not known. No such vibrations have been observed on the Varina–Enon Bridge Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA no HDPE with PVF Tedlar tape no Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA no no answer no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface, white co-extruded HDPE no—vibration not expected for this sm all cable-stayed bridge Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface, white co-extruded HDPE no—vibration not expected for this sm all cable-stayed bridge Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) no no sheathing yes Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) no no sheathing not known Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) no no sheathing no Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) no no sheathing yes Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) no no sheathing not known British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge no UV-resistant HDPE yes Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel no UV-resistant HDPE with spiral on surface no New Brunswick Hawkshaw no no sheathing yes New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 no no sheathing yes New Brunswick Nackawic River no no sheathing yes Quebec, Canada Galipeault no no sheathing no Quebec, Canada Papineau yes other—polyethylene coating no Quebec, Canada Price no other—polyethylene coating no, strong wind vibration 171

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.13 Have MTE corrosion problems been noted? Q4.14 Do cables have neoprene rings near the top and bottom anchorages? Q4.15 If there are neoprene rings on the cables, have there been any reports of movements of the rings out of their positions? Responses: State Bridge Q4.13 Q4.14 Q4.15 Alabam a Cochrane Africatown no yes yes—due to loosening of retainers, and yes— due to shearing off of retainers Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska no no not applicable Alaska Captain Willia m Moore Bridge, Skagway no no not applicable California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) no no N/A Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware Not known—m oisture infiltration is suspected; however, due to the lim itations of available inspection me thods, definitive evidence of corrosion is not available yes yes—due to loosening of retainers. Movem ent observed in outer neoprene ring of anchorage set. No retaining devices were present Florida Dam e Point Bridge no no N/A Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah no yes yes—due to loosening of retainers, and yes—- due to shearing off of retainers Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick no yes no, not known Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL not known yes no, not known Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL no yes no, not known Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL no yes no, not known Indiana I65-68-7910 no yes no, not known Iowa Burlington, IA not known yes no, not known Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY not known yes no, not known Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY no no not applicable Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA yes—see CTL rep ort of July 2004 yes yes—due to other reasons Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA no no—internal dampers at deck level, stuffing box with HDPE drilled plate and co mp ressive ma terial at pylon not applicable Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau no yes no, not known Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo no no not applicable South Carolina Cooper River Bridge N/A N/A N/A Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge no yes yes—due to loosening of retainers Texas Fred Hartm an Brid ge no yes yes—due to shearing off of retainers 172

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.13 Q4.14 Q4.15 Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) not known yes—only at the botto m anchorages, since the stays are continuous over the pylons yes—due to other reasons. Due to the mi salignm ent of stay and guide pipes and no positive restraint was provided to keep neoprene ring from m oving outward Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA no not known no, not known Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA no yes no, not known Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay no no at top, yes at botto m no, not known Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay no no at top, yes at botto m no, not known Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) not known no not applicable Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) not known no not applicable Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) not known no not applicable Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) yes no not applicable Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) no no not applicable British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge no yes yes—due to other reasons Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel no yes—these provide dam ping no, not known New Brunswick Hawkshaw no no not applicable New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 no no not applicable New Brunswick Nackawic River no no not applicable Quebec, Canada Galipeault no no not applicable Quebec, Canada Papineau yes—corrosion on threaded rod yes no, not known Quebec, Canada Price no yes yes—due to shearing off of retainers 173

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.16 Has moisture been found in any of the internal components of stay cables such as the bottom anchorage areas? Q4.17 Has fatigue of MTE or other components of stay cables been observed? Q4.18 Do the cables have viscous dampers installed at deck or tower levels? Responses: State Bridge Q4.16 Q4.17 Q4.18 Alaba ma Cochrane Africatown yes no yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska yes—a rea around each cable was filled with grease no no Alaska Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway yes—a rea around each cable was filled with grease no no California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) not tested, not known no no Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware Not known— efflorescence fr om anchorages as well as protective pipe splice sleeves leads inspectors to believe mo isture is infiltrating the cable stay syste m no no Florida Dam e Point Bridge yes no no Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah no no no Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick no no no Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL yes no no Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL Not known—so me rust visible at a few anchorages no no Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL not tested no no Indiana I65-68-7910 not tested no no Iowa Burlington, IA not known no no Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY yes—moisture was detected during construction when a cable slipped the wedge and had to be replaced, but not since no no Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY no no no Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA yes—see July 2004 CTL report no no Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA no no yes, fr om the beginning—internal da mp ers at deck level Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau no no no Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo no no yes—fr om the beginning South Carolina Cooper River Bridge N/A N/A yes—fr om the beginning 174

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.16 Q4.17 Q4.18 correct vibrations— presently being installed Texas Fred Hartman Bridge no yes—possible wire breaks have been detected by acoustic monitoring system yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations; presently being installed Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) no no—the forces obtained in the initial in-depth inspection indicated a good correlation with the designer's predicted forces no—details are included in the maintenance manual (Appendix F) as an alternate stay damper system Washington Gum Street—Kennewick, WA no no no Washington Thea–Foss Tacoma, WA no no no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay no no no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay no no no Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) not tested not known no Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) not tested no no Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) not tested no no Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) no yes no Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) no no no British Columbia Alex Fraser Bridge no no no Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel no no no—damping via neoprene rings New Brunswick Hawkshaw not tested no yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations. Wood clamps placed at 1/3 points of the six cables New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 not tested no yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations New Brunswick Nackawic River not tested no yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations Quebec, Canada Galipeault no no no Quebec, Canada Papineau no no no Quebec, Canada Price no yes—see question no. 4-27 no Texas Veterans Memorial Bridge no no yes—retrofitted to 175

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.19 Do the cables have cross cables installed between them? Q4.20 Do cables have other dampers (other than viscous or neoprene rings) to control vibrations? Q4.21 Has cracking of the cable sheathing or sheathing connections been noted? Responses: State Bridge Q4.19 Q4.20 Q4.21 Alabam a Cochrane Africatown no no no Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska no no not applicable Alaska Captain Willia m Moore Bridge, Skagway no no not applicable California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) no Cables utilize cla mps near the saddles to retain separation of the cable groups; these ma y provide so me unintentional dam ping N/A Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware no no yes, sheathing— cracking of the steel protective pipe has been noted on the upper - mo st stay cable of the north pylon. Cracking has been attributed to the position of a construction grout vent hole at a high stress location Florida Da me Point Bridge yes—fro m the beginning no yes—connections Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah no no no Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick no no no Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL no no yes—sheathing Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations no not known Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL yes—fr om the beginning no no Indiana I65-68-7910 no no no Iowa Burlington, IA yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations yes, other—Tie cables no Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY yes—fro m the beginning no no Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY yes—fro m the beginning no no answer Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA no no yes—sheathing Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA yes—fro m the beginning no no Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau yes—from the beginning no no Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo no no no South Carolina Cooper River Bridge no—bridge not finished. A provisional feature if needed yes—external hydraulic dam pers N/A Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge no no no 176

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.19 Q4.20 Q4.21 Texas Fred Hart ma n Bridge yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations; presently being installed no no Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) no no no Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA no no no Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA no no no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay no no no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay no no no Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) no no not applicable Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) no no not applicable Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) yes—fr om the beginning no not applicable Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) yes—retrofitted to correct vibrations no not applicable Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) yes—fro m the beginning no no British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge no no no Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel no no no New Brunswick Hawkshaw no yes—other da mp ers, wood clam ps not applicable New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 no yes—other da mp ers not applicable New Brunswick Nackawic River no yes—other da mp ers not applicable Quebec, Canada Galipeault no no not applicable Quebec, Canada Papineau no no no Quebec, Canada Price no no no 177

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.22 Has cracking or misalignment of the guide pipes been noted? Q4.23 If there is protective tape wrapped around the cable sheathing; have there been reports of deterioration of the tape? Q4.24 Have any problems associated with neoprene boots been noted? Responses: State Bridge Q4.22 Q4.23 Q4.24 Alaba ma Cochrane Africatown yes— mi salign me nt yes— mi nor da ma ge yes Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska not known not applicable no Alaska Captain Willia m Moore Bridge, Skagway not known not applicable no California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) N/A N/A The neoprene seals noted above that retain grease in the anch orage areas leak Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware no not applicable—the protective steel pipe is painted yes—minor tearing of one neoprene boot has been observed Florida Dam e Point Bridge no N/A no Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah yes—cracking no no Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick no no no Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL no N/A—see co mm en t above about wrapping in 2003 no Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL no no no Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL no N/A no Indiana I65-68-7910 not applicable no no Iowa Burlington, IA no yes— mi nor dam ag e no Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY no no no Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY no not applicable no Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA no yes—moderate dam age—dam aged areas of undeterm ined cause. Look to be im p act but very high off deck yes—not boots, washers—split neoprene washers are held in place by bolts and caulked Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA no not applicable no—not applicable Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau no no no Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo no not applicable no South Carolina Cooper River Bridge not known N/A not known Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge no yes—minor damage no Texas Fred Hartm an Brid ge no yes—minor damage no Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) yes— mi salign me nt no yes—minor cracks and tears have been noted in 6 of the 52 neoprene boots Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA no yes—extensive dama ge yes Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA no yes— mi nor dam ag e no 178

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.22 Q4.23 Q4.24 Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay yes—misalignment, top guide pipes not concentric with PE is the only mi salign me nt no no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay yes—misalignment, top guide pipes not concentric with PE is the only mi salign me nt no no Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) not applicable not applicable not known Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) not applicable not applicable not known Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) not applicable not applicable not known Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) not applicable not applicable no Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) no not known no British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge not applicable not applicable—repairs used protective tape, no deterioration observed yes—shifting and splitting Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel no not applicable no New Brunswick Hawkshaw not applicable no New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 not applicable yes— mi nor dam ag e New Brunswick Nackawic River not applicable no Quebec, Canada Galipeault not applicable not applicable no Quebec, Canada Papineau not applicable not applicable no Quebec, Canada Price not applicable not applicable no 179

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.25 Types of non-destructive tests that any of the cables on this bridge have been subjected to? Q4.26 Types of sensor-based, long-term monitoring performed on the cables? Q4.27 Have the cables on this bridge (or any of their components) been repaired? Responses: State Bridge Q4.25 Q4.26 Q4.27 Alaba ma Cochrane Africatown Ultrasonic and vibration-based for ce me asure m ents vibration m onitoring yes—some neoprene boots were replaced Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska Vibration-based force me asure m ents not perform ed no—during mid-1990s cables were re m oved, inspected, and replaced after no defects observed Alaska Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway Vibration-based force me asure m ents not perform ed Bridge redesigned for higher load capacity. New cables were installed during mi d- 1990s California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) X-ray, pr im ary inspection me thod is VT. "MINAC " Radiographic inspection was used once in 1989 to inspect the swedged anchorage com ponents as a dem onstration of the technology not perform ed no Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware Other—a borescope has been utilized to view the guidepipe area of select cable stays fo r mo isture, fatigue, deterioration, and corrosion. An attempt was ma de to re mo ve select anchorage caps; however, grout inside the anchorage caps ma de rem oval difficult. High-powered X-ray inspection of the cable stays was considered. This method has not been em ployed due to concerns for protection of the public and personnel during testing, access lim itations, and uncertainty of the results of such investigations due to the complicated geom etry of the subject area Not perform ed. Vibration m onitoring equipm ent has been installed on the cable stays by FHWA. However, this equipm ent is currently not operating and data are not available. yes—the out of position neoprene dam pers have been repositioned and set screws have been installed to secure the position of the outer neoprene dam per rings on all cable stays Florida Dam e Point Bridge not perform ed not perform ed no Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah Vibration-based force me asure m ents not perform ed no 180

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.25 Q4.26 Q4.27 Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick not perform ed not perform ed no Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL not perform ed acoustic wire break detection yes—previous interm ittent wrapp ing. See comm ent above about co mp lete wrapping in 2003 Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL not perform ed not perform ed no Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL not perform ed not perform ed no Indiana I65-68-7910 not perform ed not perform ed no Iowa Burlington, IA Vibration-based force me asure m ents. Vibration me asure m ents were done during construction to determ ine am ount of force in cables not perform ed no Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY not perform ed not perform ed no Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY not perform ed not perform ed no Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA Vibration-based force me asure m ents vibration m onitoring yes—splits in early years repaired by h eat welding, wrapped with Tedlar tape Mississippi Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA not perform ed not perform ed no Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau not perform ed not perform ed yes—splices were added to HDPE sheathing during construction of a couple of cables Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo not perform ed not perform ed no South Carolina Cooper River Bridge not perform ed not perform ed no Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge Vibration-based force me asure m ents, used to aid in the design of viscous dam pers for the bridge. Perform ed periodically to co mp are predam pe ned response to post-dam pened response Acoustic wire break detection, vibration m onitoring, other. Have long-term weather m onitoring to asso ciate with oscillation events yes—retightened the retainers for the neoprene rings Texas Fred Hartm an Brid ge Vibration-based force me asure m ents, used to aid in the design of viscous dam pers for the bridge. Perform ed periodically to co mp are predam pe ned response to post-dam pened response Acoustic wire break detection, vibration m onitoring, other— have long-term weather m onitoring to asso ciate with oscillation events yes—rewelded and stiffene d guide pipe. Replaced initial restrainer syste m after fatigue and failure of original restrainer cables Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) Vibration-based force me asur em ents. Tension force m easure m ent tests were perform ed by Construction Technology Laboratory, Inc. (C TL) in April 1999 not known no Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA ma gnetic not perform ed no 181

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.25 Q4.26 Q4.27 Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA not perform ed not perform ed no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay Not perform ed. By requirements of supplier, full-scale stay cable fatigue tests by Construction Technology Laboratories in Sk okie, IL and Technical University of Munich; no wire breaks during 2 mi llion cycle fatigue tests. During reload and static tests, failed to me et mi n. tensile force of 95% GUTS (only 90%). Therefore, added strands at all locations not perform ed no Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay Not perform ed. By requirements of supplier, full-scale stay cable fatigue tests by Construction Technology Laboratories in Sk okie, IL and Technical University of Munich; no wire breaks during 2 mi llion cycle fatigue tests. During reload and static tests, failed to me et mi n. tensile force of 95% GUTS (only 90%). Therefore, added strands at all locations not perform ed no Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) not perform ed not perform ed no Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) not perform ed not perform ed no Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) not perform ed not perform ed no Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) ma gnetic, ultrasonic, and vibration-based force m easure m ents not perform ed yes—two bars failed and were replaced. One additional bar replaced due to corrosion Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) not perform ed not perform ed no British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge not perform ed Acoustic wire break detection—perform ed short term , now discontinue d yes—boots replaced or repaired, sheaths repaired Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel Not perform ed. Vibration-based force me asur em ents on selected MTE will be perform ed and continuously m onitored using a perm anent SHM syste m vibration m onitoring yes—extensions to perm it additional ther ma l contraction capability of the HDPE sheathing installed. Warranty covered this New Brunswick Hawkshaw not perform ed not perform ed no New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 not perform ed not perform ed no New Brunswick Nackawic River not perform ed not perform ed no Quebec, Canada Galipeault other—laser-based force m easure m ents not perform ed no Quebec, Canada Papineau not perform ed not perform ed no Quebec, Canada Price not perform ed not perform ed yes—broken anchor bolt. Failure of two 5- in. anchor bolts in the anchorage zone 182

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q4.28 Has the sheathing been partially removed on any of the cables to examine condition of grout (if applicable) and/or the MTE? Q4.29 Can the strands or cables be replaced if needed? Q4.30 Do you have an inspection and maintenance manual for this bridge? Responses: State Bridge Q4.28 Q4.29 Q4.30 Alabam a Cochrane Africatown yes—thorough inspection perform ed. Selected cables were opened up where voids in grout were detected yes—individual strands cannot be replaced, but an entire stay can be replaced yes Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska not applicable yes no Alaska Captain Willia m Moore Bridge, Skagway not applicable yes no California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) N/A yes—as this swing bridge only fully utilizes the cables to support the spans in the open condition, cable replace me nt would be relatively straightforward no Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware no—limited investigation of the cable stay grout has been perform ed via the open construction grout vents in the saddle pipe area of the cable stay yes—the original design accounted for the replace me nt of the stay cables (one at a time) yes Florida Dam e Point Bridge no no yes Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah yes—some removal and inspection was done in 2002. Grout was found to be satisfactory yes yes Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick no answer yes yes Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL no yes no Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL no yes yes, not included for security reasons Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL no Not known—I would hope that they could be if needed yes Indiana I65-68-7910 no Not known—I would hope that they could be if needed yes Iowa Burlington, IA no yes yes Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY no yes—cable only. Strand could not be replaced yes Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY no yes yes Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA no—planned for next inspection contract phase with CTL yes—not easily no Mississippi 183

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q4.28 Q4.29 Q4.30 Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA no yes yes Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau no yes no Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo no yes no answer South Carolina Cooper River Bridge not known yes yes—required subm ittal upon co mp letion in 2005 Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge no yes yes Texas Fred Hartm an Brid ge yes—sheathing was removed to observe the condition of grout. Grout appeared to be in good/sound condition yes yes Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) no yes yes Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA no not known yes Washington Thea–Foss Taco ma, WA no not known yes Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay no yes yes Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay no yes yes Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) not applicable no no Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) not applicable yes no Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) not applicable yes no Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) not applicable yes no Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) no yes no British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge no yes yes Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel no yes no—since this is a new bridge this should be an upcom ing deliverable from our consultant New Brunswick Hawkshaw not applicable not known no New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 not applicable not known no New Brunswick Nackawic River not applicable not known no Quebec, Canada Galipeault not applicable yes no Quebec, Canada Papineau no no no Quebec, Canada Price no yes no 184

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q5 Based on your experience and in general, do you believe that the current inspection, testing, monitoring, and repair methods available to you for stay cables are effective and adequate? Q6 Please comment on the effectiveness of any non-destructive test methods for inspections of stay cables that you may be familiar with. These methods include (but are not limited to) ultrasonic testing, magnetic inspections, laser-based force measurements, X-ray imaging, etc. If possible, please comment on issues such as practicality, cost, duration, impact on traffic, and any other factors that you consider important. Q7 Please comment on the effectiveness of any cable vibration control measures that you may be familiar with. Examples include installation of cross cables, viscous dampers, neoprene rings, etc. Responses: State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 Alabam a Cochrane Africatown yes Several non- destructive tests were run after an extre me oscillation event. Practically all the above were perform ed to determ ine if there was any loss of for ce in the stays. Geo m etric, physical, and visual tests were perform ed. The only discoveries were deficiencies in the original construction, which were corrected We realigned stay pipes and replaced neoprene rings and keeper rings. Also, external hydraulic da mp ers were installed on the longer stays Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska Not known—the cables on both bridges were inspected during the mi d- 1990s. Cables on Captain Willia m Moore were replaced due to an upgrade of the structure. Cables on the Sitka Harbor Bridge, were re m oved, inspected, and reinstalled. No problem s were reported with any of the cables during the mi d-1990 inspection The fundam ental frequency of the cables was recorded. Alaska DOT&PF will mo nitor the cables and atte mp t to determ ine if the fundam ental frequency of the cables has changed N/A Alaska Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway Not known—the cables on both bridges were inspected during the mi d- 1990s. Cables on Captain Willia m Moore were replaced due to an upgrade of the structure. Cables on the Sitka Harbor Bridge were re m oved, inspected, and reinstalled. No problem s were reported with any of the cables during the mi d-1990 inspection The fundam ental frequency of the cables was recorded. Alaska DOT&PF will mo nitor the cables and atte mp t to determ ine if the fundam ental frequency of the cables has changed N/A 185

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) not known Used radiographic testing once on this structure. It was costly and im pr actical, but did appear to give satisfactory results. Would not use this me thod for routine inspections on this bridge no answer Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware no— the use of the steel protective pipe limits the inspection me thods available to investigate the condition of the stay cables The presence of the steel protective pipe lim its the effectiveness of ma ny available testing me thods, particularly ma gnetic- based me thods. As noted above, X-ray im aging of the cable stays was considered and dism issed. Several concerns were encountered with this me thod including protection of public and working personnel during the exposure, access, and holding the equipm ent at the higher elevations of the cable stay, and scheduling of the equipm ent. Interpretation of the im age was also a concern. It is believed that the mu ltiple ma terials (steel, grout, steel strand) that co mp rise the cable stays co mb ined with the changing geom etry would ma ke interpretation of the im age difficult and would not allow for an accurate understan ding of the conditions. Our understanding is that the X-ray im aging would only be able to detect gross section loss of the stay and is not precise enough to discern the onset or early stages of corrosion. Finally, when the X-ray im aging me thod was considered, it only allowed a view of a discrete section of the cable stay as opposed to a global or "traveling" operation, which would allow an The neoprene dampers of the C&D Canal Bridge appear to operating adequately, particularly since the repositioning and installation of set screws into the outer neoprene rings. Excessive vibration of the stay cables has not been noted. No other cable stay da mp ing system s or grout spalls have been observed in the grout bedding present on the bridge (cable stays saddle area) where the upper stays (13 thru 16) enter the pylon. This spalling has been attributed to mi nor vibrations of the stays 186

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 investigation of the entire length of the cable stay. Im ple m entation of laser-based cable stay force m easure m ents are being considered by the depar tm ent to establish baseline force data for the cable stays Florida Dam e Point Bridge not known Non-destructive testing is needed to determ ine the condition of tension bars inside the steel casing of the cables Cross cables are installed on the bridge and fro m ti me to time they sag and need to be retightened Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah yes Laser-based force me asure m ents will give results that will indicate if a cable is deviating from the trending values of the other cables. It ma y not give you an accurate value of the force in a cable. It is relatively easy and inexpensive to perform These methods are all effective in controlling free vibrations of the cables. Helical strakes form ed in the cable neoprene sheathing are also effective Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick yes Laser-based force me asure m ents will give results that will indicate if a cable is deviating from the trending values of the other cables. It ma y not give you an accurate value of the force in a cable. It is relatively easy and inexpensive to perform These methods are all effective in controlling free vibrations of the cables. Helical strakes form ed in the cable neoprene sheathing are also effective Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL no no answer Cross cables on the Clark Bridge have been effective Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL no no answer Cross cables on the Clark Bridge have been effective Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL no—we will be having these two bridges inspected and tested by a consultant in the next 1–2 year ti me fr am e. We are just beginning to get a good understanding of the possible problem s that we ma y encounter on these bridges over the com ing years We have not yet d one any testing on these two cable-stayed bridges, but proba bly will be doing so in the next 1–2 years The ones on the SR-46 bridge seem to be OK. There are also so me on the new US-231 bridge over the Ohio River that we share with Kentucky (Kentucky is the lead state for this bridge). They seem to be OK also. However, I have not been at either of these bridges during bad weather Indiana I65-68-7910 no—we will be having these two bridges inspected and tested by a consultant in the next 1–2 year ti me fr am e. We are just beginning to get a g ood understandin g of the We have not yet d one any testing on these two cable-stayed bridges, but proba bly will be doing so in the next 1–2 years The ones on the SR-46 bridge seem to be OK. There are also so me on the new US-231 bridge over the Ohio River that we share with Kentuck y ( Kentuck y is 187

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 possible problem s that we ma y encounter on these bridges over the com ing years the lead state for th is bridge). They seem to be OK also. However, I have not been at either of these bridges during bad weather Iowa Burlington, IA no—need way to inspect cable Have not had experience with non- destructive test me thods Have not had vibration problem s since cross cables were installed Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY no—there are technical lim itations that prevent inspection of the stay cables, especially the anchorage area. Technical breakthrough is required The only problem is the anchorage area. So far no me thod is available for inspection. (PB) I see additional problem s with inspection of the grout-filled cables. (DKD) Wind damper is a high tech me thod that is very effective in most cases. However, the dam pers are delicate me chanis m that needs constant ma intenance like any m achine. Only the exterior da mp ers allow inspection and ma intenance. Internal da mp ers are difficult to access for inspection. Any inspection and ma intenance and/or replace me nt will be a ma jor project. Another ma jor concern is that the me thod to determ ine the damper's condition is still not available. Therefore, after only a few years, no one will know whether the installed da mp ers are still working. On the other hand, the cross cables will work as long as they are in place. The condition of the cross cables can be easily observed from the deck. Replace me nt of the cross ties is not a ma jor operation. Therefore, before the dam per is im proved, the cross cable is the better and sure solution. (PB) Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY no—there are technical lim itations that prevent inspection of the stay cables, especially the anchorage area. Technical breakthrough is required The only problem is the anchorage area. So far no me thod is available for inspection. (PB) I see additional problem s with inspection of the grout-filled cables. (DKD) Wind damper is a high tech me thod that is very effective in most cases. However, the dam pers are delicate me chanis ms that need constant ma intenance like any m achine. Only the exterior da mp ers allow inspection and ma intenance. Internal da mp ers are difficult to access for ins p ection. 188

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 Any inspection and maintenance and/or replacement will be a major project. Another major concern is that the method to determine the damper's condition is still not available. Therefore, after only a few years, no one will know whether the installed dampers are still working. On the other hand, the cross cables will work as long as they are in place. The condition of the cross cables can be easily observed from the deck. Replacement of the cross ties is not a major operation. Therefore, before the damper is improved, the cross cable is the better and sure solution. (PB) Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA Not known—our vibration tests over time have indicated consistent cable loads; we are still unable to call the wires pristine Vibration-based cable load determination— effective and inexpensive; X-ray— expensive, slow, very questionable ability to detect wire defects; Magnetic inspection— used to rapidly, effectively inspect mine cables—but the cables move past the inspection unit, which would need to be reversed on a cable bridge; Impulse radar—good for detecting grout defects; Sonic methods— dampened to the point of being ineffective Luling has neoprene rings, but these are relatively very small considering the large diameter of the Luling cables and are there mainly to seal the anchors, but perhaps they also dampen the cables. CTL will check into this Mississippi Not known—we are several years away from completion of the first cable-stayed bridge for which Arkansas will have responsibility for inspection/maintenance/not known No comment/not known No comment—we are currently constructing a cable-stayed bridge on US-82 over the Mississippi River near Greenville, MS. Mississippi is responsible for overseeing the construction and Arkansas will be responsible for the maintenance. We are sharing the costs associated with both construction and maintenance. We are 189

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 using cable ties and cable stay sheathing with a helical drip bead to control the cable vibration. We considered using dam pners and a co mb ination of dam pners and cable ties. However, we were not co mf ortable with the reliability of dam pners and felt the cable ties have a long standing prove n record. A visual inspection would show proble ms with the ties, where with the dam pners it is not so easy to determ ine if they are working properly Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA yes Have not yet used any NDT me thods for stay cable inspection It is our opinion that neoprene rings will not work as intended. Either internal or external viscous dam pers are needed. Cross cables are not needed in shorter spans Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau Not known—MoDOT has no related experience MoDOT has no related experience Cross cables have been installed on this bridge as the mo st effective, positive me thod to elim inate cable vibrations. We understand that worldwide research is being conducted to ma xi mi ze the efficiency of da mp ers and to determ ine, ma the ma tically, when they are and are not required Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo yes—while better methods ma y be developed in the future, the current me thods are both effective and adequate. The mo st likely location of cable issues on all such bridges is at the anchor areas. By the nature of the anchor being em bedded in ma ssive concrete or steel areas, direct access to inspect the MTE is generally im pr actical no answer Volu me s can be written on this topic. The short version is that any actual "damping" added to the cable is highly effective since by its nature the cable has very little. Other control m easures have had various degrees of success. In mo st cases, the success or lack of success has been related to the actual details, not so mu ch in the selected approach to the issue South Carolina Cooper River Bridge yes no comm ent Viscous dam pers for all cables and 190

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 additional external dam pers for the longest cables are in plans and will be installed. Cross cable dam pers are a future consideration. Provisions for future installation of cross cables will be installed. If the syste m of viscous and external da mp ers is inadequate, the cross cables can be installed Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge yes—owners are unable to non-destructively evaluate the condition of stay cables and anchorages TxDOT has emplo yed vibration-based for ce me asure m ents to refine the m odel used for designing viscous da mp ers on each of the cable stay bridges. The technique seem ed to give good correlation cable dim ensions and dam ping requir em ents. The technique requires so me traffic control and depending on the nu mb er of lanes carried by the structure could produce mi no r to significant traffic disruption. At least one lane and the shoulder will need to be clo sed; therefore, if the bridge is narrow with a sm all nu mb er of lanes carrying two-way traffic the disruption could be considerable. This could last for several weeks if th ere are a large nu mb er of stays that need to be tested. The cost can run anywhere fr om $50,000 to $75,000 per bridge per test event depending on the size of the structure The only cable vibration control me asures that Tex as has experience with at this ti me are cross tie cables and neoprene rings. The neoprene rings do not appear to offer a m easurable am ount of dam pening and based on the departm ent's experience should not be considered as a prim ary da mp ing me chanis m. The cross tie syste m that the departm ent has em ployed has been effective in reducing the extrem e vibration events, but vibrations of an am plitude that causes concern still occur. Texas is presently installing viscous dam ping syste ms of each of the cable stay bridges in the state. On the Fred Har tm an Bridge th ese will be installed in conjunction with cross tie cables. It is hoped that this co mb ination will effectively elim inate the occurrence and am plitude of any vibrations Texas Fred Hartm an Brid ge yes—owners are unable to non-destructively evaluate the condition of stay cables and anchorages TxDOT has emplo yed vibration-based for ce me asure m ents to refine the m odel used for designing viscous da mp ers on each of the cable stay bridges. The technique seem ed to give good correlation cable dim ensions and dam p in g re q uir em ents. The only cable vibration control me asures that Tex as has experience with at this ti me are cross tie cables and neoprene rings. The neoprene rings do not appear to offer a m easurable am ount of dam pening, and based on the 191

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 The technique requires so me traffic control and depending on the nu mb er of lanes carried by the structure could produce mi no r to significant traffic disruption. At least one lane and the shoulder will need to be clo sed; therefore, if the bridge is narrow with a sm all nu mb er of lanes carrying two-way traffic the disruption could be considerable. This could last for several weeks if th ere are a large nu mb er of stays that need to be tested. The cost can run anywhere fr om $50,000 to $75,000 per bridge per test event depending on the size of the structure departm ent's experience should not be considered as a prim ary da mp ing me chanis m. The cross tie syste m that the departm ent has em ployed has been effective in reducing the extrem e vibration events, but vibrations of an am plitude that causes concern still occur. Texas is presently installing viscous dam ping syste ms of each of the cable stay bridges in the state. On the Fred Har tm an Bridge th ese will be installed in conjunction with cross tie cables. It is hoped that this co mb ination will effectively elim inate the occurrence and am plitude of any vibrations Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) yes Laser-based force me asure m ents were utilized in the initial in-depth inspection of this bridge in 1999. The cost incurred was approxim ately $35,000 with mi ni mu m im pact on traffic Neoprene rings were installed on the Varina–Enon Bridge as the pri ma ry stay dam ping system . This is a relatively cost- effective syste m a nd appears to be perform ing satisfactorily on this bridge. We have experienced so me difficulty in the installation and removal of these rings. Details of an altern ate stay da mp ing system utilizing shock absorbers have been included in the Manual for Inspection and Maintenance of the Varina–Enon Bridge Washington Gu m Street—Kennewick, WA yes N/A N/A Washington Thea–Foss Tacoma, WA yes N/A N/A Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay Not known—no previous experience with cable- stayed structure City inspection forces are neither qualified nor equipped for non- destructive testing. Four single strands are to be rem oved (one at each pylon) for inspection for rust every 10 years starting in year 2014 no vibrations note d Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, Not known—no previous Cit y ins p ection forces no vibrations noted 192

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 South Cable Stay experience with cable- stayed structure are neither qualified nor equipped for non- destructive testing. Four single strands are to be removed (one at each pylon) for inspection for rust every 10 years starting in year 2014 Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) yes no answer The installation of cross cables have greatly reduced the cable vibration Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) yes no answer The installation of cross cables have greatly reduced the cable vibration Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) yes no answer The installation of cross cables have greatly reduced the cable vibration Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) yes no answer The installation of cross cables have greatly reduced the cable vibration Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) yes no answer The installation of cross cables have greatly reduced the cable vibration British Columbia Alex Fraser Bridge yes not used Neoprene ring dampers alone do not prevent cable vibration Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel Not known—we require training and awareness in the near future to properly maintain the one new bridge we have We do not yet have enough experience to respond to this question at this time. We are aware of all the techniques you mention above. Force measurements on selected MTE will be performed as part of the SHM system with the use of uniaxial accelerometers to determine frequency of the cable and relate back to force We have yet to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the control measures. We specified the requirement for damping at the anchorages. The supplier choose to do this via neoprene rings New Brunswick Hawkshaw yes None of this testing done on any of the three structures. Probably there would be a significant cost to do these tests See comments Question 4-12 New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 yes None of this testing done on any of the three structures. Probably there would be a significant cost to do these tests See comments Question 4-12 New Brunswick Nackawic River yes None of this testing done on any of the three structures. Probably there would be a significant cost to do these tests See comments Question 4-12 193

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 Quebec, Canada Galipeault yes We have perform ed laser-based force on Galipeault Bridge Quebec, Canada Papineau yes We have perform ed laser-based force on Galipeault Bridge Quebec, Canada Price Neoprene rings have reduced cable vibrations on the Price bridge (no. 3) Freyssinet Yes—Freyssinet has installed its stay syste m on three projects. Bill Em erson Bridge over the Mississippi River at Cape Girardeau, MO; I-93 over the Charles River in Boston, MA; and Cooper River Replacem ent Bridge in Charleston, SC. The Cape Girardeau Bridge was required to be grouted by the Owner and Engineer. Freyssin et proposed ungroute d stays but this was unacceptable for reasons unknown. The thought was the Owner and Engineer did not want to be the first in U.S. to allow ungrouted stays. The Charles River was designed to use gr outed stays, but Freyssinet was able to convince the Owner and Engineer that ungrouted stays were superior, ma inly due to the im pr oved inspectability and replaceability, but also to avoid the common problem s associated with grouted cables (introduce mo isture, increase local bending mo me nts at the anchorages, mo re ma ss to dam pen, potential dam age to the HDPE stay pipe if high grouting pressures are used). Also, during grouting everything gets war m (o r very hot if grouted during the summ er in war m or even moderate clim ates). When colder winter te mp eratures arrive, the pipes develop very high-tensile stresses as the pipe tries to ther mally contract, but is restrained since the grout has a mu ch lower ther ma l coefficient of expansion and contraction. The cables on the Cooper River Bridge are state of the art With ungrouted stays, individual strands ma y be detensioned, inspected, retensioned, or re m oved and/or replaced. Load cells ma y be left in place to m onitor strands individually. Acoustic m onitoring systems can be installed to detect wire breakage and determ ine the break locations very accurately External helix placed on the surface of the stay pipes has been proven to elim inate rain–wind-induced cable vibrations. Freyssinet developed this on the Norm andie Bridge in France. Freyssinet offered this on Cape Girardeau and Charles River projects and both sites elected to add external helix via a change order due the very real threat of serious rain–wind- induced vibrations and the high level of effectiveness offered by the external helix 194

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q5 Q6 Q7 ungrouted stays with capacity to add approximately 5% strand in the future and the stays are fitted with engineered vibration suppression devices. Internal hydraulic and external hydraulic damping devices are being installed and provisions provide for the possible addition of cable ties (damping ropes) in the future on selected longer stays that have been identified as having the potential to experience parametric excitation 195

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q8 Please comment on the effectiveness of any sensor-based, long-term monitoring systems for stay cables that you may be familiar with. Examples include acoustic monitoring, vibration monitoring, force measurements, strain measurements, etc. Q9 What would you recommend that the cable suppliers incorporate into their systems to make cables more accessible and inspectable? Q10 Do you believe that an up-to-date resource such as a national database of information on stay cable inspection methods, repairs, and testing would be a useful tool? Responses: State Bridge Q8 Q9 Q10 Alabama Cochrane Africatown Check with A.G. Lichtenstein Provide access on inside and outside of tower anchorage not known Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska N/A N/A yes Alaska Captain William Moore Bridge, Skagway N/A N/A yes California Sacramento River (Meridian) Acoustic monitoring appears to have great value and promise. Would recommend that this technology be fully developed Fiber optic strain gauges and redundant systems yes Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware The current sensor- based, long-term monitoring system installed on the bridge is not operable and therefore comment cannot be made. The department is considering the addition of force measurement (deck-based laser method) to the list of inspection items required for the bridge We would recommend the development of individual strand monitoring capabilities which encompass the strands from anchorage to anchorage yes Florida Dame Point Bridge none Not familiar with this yes Georgia Talmadge Memorial Bridge, Savannah These are all effective, but they are generally expensive and have not been used on Georgia's bridges For non-box bridges, an inspection traveler should be installed on the cable-stayed bridge. This should be done by the owner yes Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick These are all effective, but they are generally expensive and have not been used on Georgia's bridges For non-box bridges, an inspection traveler should be installed on the cable-stayed bridge. This should be done by the owner yes Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL An acoustic monitoring system was installed (approximately a year and a half ago) on one- fourth of the stays of the Quincy Bayview Bridge. This was done due to concern over water in the cable no answer yes 196

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q8 Q9 Q10 anchorages and to evaluate the technology. The system appears to be functioning properly and so far has provided inform ation on one "event" that has been classified as a wire break Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL An acoustic m onitoring syste m was installed (approximately a year and a half ago) on one- fourth of the stays of the Quincy Bayview Bridge. This was done due to concern over water in the cable anchorages and to evaluate the technology. The system appears to be functioning properly and so far has provided inform ation on one "event" that has been classified as a wire break no answer yes Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL Have not used any yet. ?? yes Indiana I65-68-7910 Have not used any yet. ?? yes Iowa Burlington, IA Have not had experience with lo ng- term m onitoring no answer yes Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY There are two problems on the m onitoring syste ms . First, who will analyze the large am ount of data collected ? Second, how long will the sensors and the com puter syste m last? We are talking about 100-year life span. The reality is that the m onitoring syste m will fail or beco me obsolete within approxim ately 10 years when the bridge is not expected to have any problem s. (PB) It does not seem possible that the cable suppliers can do any mo re. (PB) yes—the resource does not exist so far. We (Parsons Brinkerhoff) are developing them right now. (PB) Kentucky Willia m H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY There are two problems on the m onitoring syste ms . First, who will analyze the large am ount of data collected ? Second, how long will the sensors and the com puter syste m last? We are talking about 100-year life span. The reality is that the m onitoring syste m will fail or b eco me obsolete within It does not seem possible that the cable suppliers can do any mo re. (PB) yes—the resource does not exist so far. We (Parsons Brinkerhoff) are developing them right now. (PB) 197

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q8 Q9 Q10 approxim ately 10 years when the bridge is not expected to have any problem s. (PB) Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA Vibration m onitoring has been ongoing at Luling for 20 years in anticipation of a hurricane striking the bridge—no significant long duration winds have occurred I like the idea of herm etically sealed, ungrouted cables with fiber optic sensors throughout or exposed wire that can be directly inspected yes Mississippi No comm ent/not known No comm ent/no co mm ent Not known/yes Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA none Transparent outer pipe, elim inate grout yes Missouri Bill Em erson Me morial Bridge, Cape Girardeau MoDOT has no related experience Perhaps a per m anent load cell that would perm it real-ti me readings of cable forces at any ti me during the life of the bridge yes Ohio Ma um ee River Bridge, Toledo no answer Access is a very sharp two-edged sword. If you can mo re easily access the cable, so can corrosive ele m ents (not to me ntion potential terrorist/security considerations) Not known—while inform ation can be useful, it can also be mi sinterpreted. The best resource is direct contact with those who have hands-on knowledge related to the specific area th at an individual ma y be ma king inquiries South Carolina Cooper River Bridge none Include a maintenance ma nual with clear instructions for both specific wires or fu ll cables yes Texas Veterans Me mo rial Bridge The department has installed an acoustic m onitoring system to identify possible wire breaks at the Fred Har tm an Bridge. The syste m see ms to work well and has identified several possible wire breaks. Prior to its installation, the syste m was tested on a cable mo ck-up at the Ferguson Structural Lab of the University of Texas at Austin, where research is underway to determ ine the effects of stay cable vibrations on the fatigue life of the cables. This allowed the departm ent to test the m onitoring system to see how accurately it could identify occurrence and location of wire breaks since nu me rous wire breaks Current grouted and sheathed syste ms do not allow for visual inspection. New stay syste ms (perhaps ungrouted, unsheathed syste ms consisting of bare corrosion-resistant tension me mb ers) need to be developed that allow for inspection of the entire stay length. Research is also needed to develop rapid, econo mi cal evaluation (NDE) me thods to determ ine conditions of stay cables yes 198

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q8 Q9 Q10 were generated. The correlation between the monitoring system results and the autopsied cables was very good Texas Fred Hartman Bridge The department has installed an acoustic monitoring system to identify possible wire breaks at the Fred Hartman Bridge. The system seems to work well and has identified several possible wire breaks. Prior to its installation, the system was tested on a cable mock-up at the Ferguson Structural Lab of the University of Texas at Austin, where research is underway to determine the effects of stay cable vibrations on the fatigue life of the cables. This allowed the department to test the monitoring system to see how accurately it could identify occurrence and location of wire breaks since numerous wire breaks were generated. The correlation between the monitoring system results and the autopsied cables was very good Current grouted and sheathed systems do not allow for visual inspection. New stay systems (perhaps ungrouted, unsheathed systems consisting of bare corrosion resistant tension members) need to be developed that allow for inspection of the entire stay length. Research is also needed to develop rapid, economical evaluation (NDE) methods to determine conditions of stay cables yes Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) no comments no comments yes Washington Gum Street—Kennewick, WA N/A unknown yes Washington Thea–Foss Tacoma, WA N/A unknown yes Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay not applicable no answer yes Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay not applicable no answer yes Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only been used for short durations to determine frequency and magnitude, etc. no answer yes Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only been used for short durations to determine frequency and magnitude, etc. no answer yes Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) Have not used vibration monitoring on a long- term basis. Has only no answer yes 199

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q8 Q9 Q10 been used for short durations to deter mi ne frequency and ma gnitude, etc. Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) Have not used vibration m onitoring on a long- term basis . Has only been used for short durations to deter mi ne frequency and ma gnitude, etc. no answer yes Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) Have not used vibration m onitoring on a long- term basis . Has only been used for short durations to deter mi ne frequency and ma gnitude, etc. no answer yes British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge Acoustic m onitoring ma y be cost-effective for older structures. For new structures, cost of m onitoring outweighs benefits, and ma y be co mp ro mi sed by other noise (rehab, banging, etc.) on the structure Our cables are reasonably accessible, inspectable. Possibly a closeable drain at the lower end of the cable to allow visual inspection, sa mp le collection, testing for corrosion product of any water in the cable sheaths yes Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel Not enough experience to co mm ent at this ti me Different corrosion protection system at the anchorages that perm its easier visual inspection. Rem ovable sections of the HDPE and Vandal Tubes would ma ke it easier to inspect strands near the anchorages yes New Brunswick Hawkshaw Monitoring of deflection of bridge by student at Nackawic no answer yes New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 Monitoring of deflection of bridge by student at Nackawic no answer yes New Brunswick Nackawic River Monitoring of deflection of bridge by student at Nackawic no answer yes Quebec, Canada Galipeault No long-term m onitoring on our stay cable bridges at the present ti me no answer yes Quebec, Canada Papineau No long-term m onitoring on our stay cable bridges at the present ti me no answer yes Quebec, Canada Price Freyssinet We believe acoustical m onitoring is an effective me thod to record wire failures. Perm anent load cells are good for m onitoring loads, especially with unbonded m onostrands when it can be established that the load Ability to detension, inspect, and retension individual strands Ability to detension, remove, and replace individual strands. Ability to add strands to each cable or cable group (avg. 5%) yes 200

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q8 Q9 Q10 is equal in all individual strands within reasonable tolerances such that by monitoring one strand, the load in cable is known 201

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS Questions: Q1 1 What do you see as the single most important problem in stay cable maintenance? Q1 2 Please comment on any other methods for inspections , testing, monitoring, and repair of stay cable (including conventional methods) that you have found beneficial and are not listed above. Additional Comments ? Responses: State Bridge Q11 Q12 Additional Comments Alaba ma Cochrane Africatown Stay anchors. (Access and rain–wind-induced oscillation) no answer Alaska Sitka Harbor Bridge, Sitka, Alaska Access to upper cable anchorage N/A no answer Alaska Captain Willia m Moore Bridge, Skagway Access to upper cable anchorage N/A no answer California Sacra m ento River (Meridian) Inspection and condition evaluation of anchorages Engineering judg me nt and experience see m to prevail in deter m ining appropriate inspection and ma intenance strategies Delaware Br. 1-902, SR-1 over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, St. Georges, New Castle County, Delaware Effective corrosion barriers that do not interfere with the ability to adequately inspect and assess the health of the cable stay system on a regular interval and within practical me ans Florida Da me Point Bridge Accessibility for inspection and ma intenance Man-lift truck Georgia Talmadge Me mo rial Bridge, Savannah Access to the cable anchorages Television endoscope- type ca me ras for access to guide pipes at bridge deck level is helpful Georgia Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick Access to the cable anchorages Television endoscope- type ca me ras for access to guide pipes at bridge deck level is helpful Illinois Quincy Bayview Bridge at Quincy, IL Uncertainty of cable condition and anchorages no answer Illinois Clark Bridge at Alton, IL Uncertainty of cable condition and anchorages no answer Indiana 46-03-7495 EBL Inspection, access, testing, cost no answer Indiana I65-68-7910 Inspection, access, testing, cost no answer Iowa Burlington, IA The inability to inspect the elem ents inside the cable and the anchorage areas no answer Kentucky Willia m Natcher Bridge, Owensboro, KY Inspecting the cable anchors. (PB) Inspecting grout-filled cables. (DKD) none Comm ents followed by (DKD) were ma de by Darrell Dudgeon of KYTC. Comm ents followed by (PB) were ma de b y Ruchu Hsu, 202

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q11 Q12 Additional Comments P.E. of Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Consulting Engineers who was the lead design engineer for the Owensboro Bridge Kentucky William H. Harsha Bridge, Maysville, KY Inspecting the cable anchors. (PB) Inspecting grout-filled cables. (DKD) none Comments followed by (DKD) were made by Darrell Dudgeon of KYTC. Comments followed by (PB) were made by Ruchu Hsu, P.E. of Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Consulting Engineers who was the lead design engineer for the Owensboro Bridge Louisiana Mississippi River Bridge at Luling, LA The hidden nature of the system no answer no answer Mississippi No comment/we do not have enough experience in this area to comment N/A and N/A Massachusetts Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, Boston, MA Access for inspection Stay cable anchorage design should allow for accessibility for inspection. Inspection, maintenance, and replacement should be addressed during design no answer Missouri Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge, Cape Girardeau The integrity of the stays. Grouted cables are impossible to inspect with a non- destructive technique (i.e., one that does not require removal of sheathing and grout) thus, it is impossible to identify corrosion problems early MoDOT has no related experience Ohio Maumee River Bridge, Toledo The largest "problem" with stay cables is that they are widely perceived as “a problem" rather than just another bridge member with specific needs and characteristics. Stay cables have been placed unnecessarily "on a pedestal.” While they are a very important bridge member, in current designs they are highly redundant, overtested, and (relatively) easily replaced. There is no other major bridge member that fits into all three of these categories. Let's not no answer no answer 203

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q11 Q12 Additional Comments promote the feeling that Stays are “a maintenance problem” South Carolina Cooper River Bridge Provide end caps that are easily removed and fully protected against corrosion no answer Texas Veterans Memorial Bridge Ability to determine the effectiveness and remaining life of corrosion protection systems for main tension elements. The configuration and construction techniques make evaluation and inspection using non- destructive techniques almost impossible no answer Texas Fred Hartman Bridge Ability to determine the effectiveness and remaining life of corrosion protection systems for main tension elements. The configuration and construction techniques make evaluation and inspection using non- destructive techniques almost impossible no answer Virginia I-295 over James River (Varina–Enon Bridge) Lack of familiarity with this type of construction by the department's staff which requires assistance from the consultant community in the inspection of these elements no answer Washington Gum Street—Kennewick, WA none yet N/A Washington Thea–Foss Tacoma, WA none yet N/A Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, North Cable Stay Cannot inspect cables without pulling strand every 10 years Four strands (one at each pylon) will be removed every 10 years starting in 2014 to check for corrosion/rusting Wisconsin Sixth Street Viaduct, South Cable Stay Cannot inspect cables without pulling strand every 10 years Four strands (one at each pylon) will be removed every 10 years starting in 2014 to check for corrosion/rusting Alberta/Calgary Prince's Island (Pedestrian) Access for inspection and actual testing no answer The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures. Three over water and two over roadways Alberta/Calgary Carburn Park (Pedestrian) Access for inspection and actual testing no answer The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures. Three over water and two over roadways Alberta/Calgary McMahon (Pedestrian) Access for inspection and actual testing no answer The five bridges identified are all 204

NCHRP SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-07—INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BRIDGE STAY CABLE SYSTEMS State Bridge Q11 Q12 Additional Comments pedestrian structures. Three over water and two over roadways Alberta/Calgary Fox Hollow (Pedestrian) Access for inspection and actual testing no answer The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures. Three over water and two over roadways Alberta/Calgary Stoney Trail (Pedestrian) Access for inspection and actual testing no answer The five bridges identified are all pedestrian structures. Three over water and two over roadways British Colu mb ia Alex Fraser Bridge Detecting corrosio n in cables, ma intenance of sheaths and boots no comm ent Have had leakage of wax blocking com pound at bottom anchorages during hot weather Manitoba/Winnipeg Esplanade Riel Corrosion at the anchorages no answer New Brunswick Hawkshaw Migration of water into cable strands no answer New Brunswick Longs Creek #1 Migration of water into cable strands no answer New Brunswick Nackawic River Migration of water into cable strands no answer Quebec, Canada Galipeault Fatigue no answer We have had a seri ous problem on Galipeault bridge no. 1—failure of an anchorage plate at one abutm ent (corrosion and fatigue failure). Em ergency repairs were performed Quebec, Canada Papineau Fatigue no answer We have had a seri ous problem on Galipeault bridge no. 1—failure of an anchorage plate at one abutm ent (corrosion and fatigue failure). Em ergency repairs were performed Quebec, Canada Price We also had a failure of an anchorage plate on Price bridge (no. 3) during the 1988 Saguenay earthquake (ML = 6.0). It was the first docum ented structural dam age to a steel bridge caused by an earthquake in Canada Freyssinet Inspectability in th e anchorage area no answer 205

Next: Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications »
Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 353: Inspection and Maintenance of Bridge Stay Cable Systems identifies and explains various inspection and maintenance techniques for bridge stay cable systems. It discusses both short- and long-term approaches. The report information on methods for inspections and assessments, including nondestructive testing and evaluation procedures; repair and retrofit; methods for control of cable vibrations, including rain–wind vibrations; stay cable fatigue and failure; effectiveness of various inspection and repair methods; limitations of available technologies; and trends and recommendations for future study.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!