Inspection Guidelines for Bridge Post-Tensioning and Stay Cable Systems Using NDE Methods (2017)

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.

B-1 NDE Method Flowcharts for Identifying Defects A p p e n d i x B

B-2 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-1. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by GPR. No Yes Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: None No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (moderate) Water infiltration (low) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-3 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-2. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by IRT. No Yes Infrared Thermography (IRT) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None. Can locate the following conditions in the end caps of the anchorage region (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (high) Water infiltration (moderate) This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: None No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (high) Water infiltration (high) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-4 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-3. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by ECT. No Yes Electrical Capacitance Tomography (ECT) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: Not used to inspect anchorage regions in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (moderate) Water infiltration (low) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-5 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-4. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by MFL. No Yes Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: Not used to inspect anchorage regions in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (high) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (high) Note: Cannot differentiate between the various tendon defects. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (moderate) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (moderate) Note: Cannot differentiate between the various tendon defects. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-6 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-5. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by MMFM-Permanent. No Yes Magnetic Main Flux Method–Permanent Magnet (MMFM–Permanent) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: Not used to inspect anchorage regions in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (high) Section loss (moderate) Note: Cannot differentiate between the various tendon defects. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (moderate) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (moderate) Note: Cannot differentiate between the various tendon defects. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-7 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-6. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by MMFM-Solenoid. No Yes Magnetic Main Flux Method–Solenoid (MMFM–Solenoid) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: Not used to inspect anchorage regions in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (moderate) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (low) Note: Cannot differentiate between the various tendon defects. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (moderate) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (moderate) Note: Cannot differentiate between the various tendon defects. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-8 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-7. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by IE. No Yes Impact Echo (IE) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Void (moderate) Water infiltration (moderate) This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Water infiltration (moderate) No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: Not used to inspect external metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (moderate) Void (moderate) Water infiltration (moderate) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-9 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-8. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by UST. No Yes Ultrasonic Tomography (UST) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: None No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: Not used to inspect external metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect external nonmetal ducts in this study. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-10 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-9. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by USE. No Yes Ultrasonic Echo (USE) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (low) Water infiltration (moderate) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Void (low) Water infiltration (low) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (low) Water infiltration (low) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: Not used to inspect external metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect external nonmetal ducts in this study. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-11 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-10. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by SPV-UPV. No Yes Sonic/Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (SPV – UPV) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: Not used to inspect external metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect external nonmetal ducts in this study. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-12 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-11. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by LFUT. No Yes Low Frequency Ultrasound (LFUT) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: Not used to inspect anchorage regions in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: Not used to inspect external metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (moderate) Water infiltration (moderate) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and compromised grout. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-13 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-12. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by sounding. No Yes Sounding Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None. Can locate the following conditions in the end caps of the anchorage region (accuracy in parentheses): Water infiltration (high) Void (high) Compromised grout (high) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (moderate) Void (high) Water infiltration (high) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (high) Water infiltration (high) Note: Cannot differentiate between water infiltration and voids. No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-14 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-13. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by EIS. No Yes Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: Not used to inspect anchorage regions in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: Not used to inspect external metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-15 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-14. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by a combination of GPR and USE. No Yes Combination: GPR/USE Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (low) Water infiltration (moderate) This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Void (low) Water infiltration (low) This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (low) Water infiltration (low) No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (moderate) Water infiltration (low) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-16 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-15. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by a combination of GPR and IE. No Yes Combination: GPR/IE Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Void (moderate) Water infiltration (moderate) This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None. This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Water infiltration (moderate) No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: None. This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (moderate) Void (moderate) Water infiltration (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-17 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-16. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by a combination of MFL and sounding. No Yes Combination: MFL/Sounding Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts: Not used to inspect internal metal ducts in this study. This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None. Can locate the following conditions in the end caps of the anchorage region (accuracy in parentheses): Water infiltration (high) Void (high) Compromised grout (high) This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts: Not used to inspect internal nonmetal ducts in this study. No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (high) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (high) Compromised grout (moderate) Void (high) Water infiltration (high) This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (moderate) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (moderate) Compromised grout (low) Void (high) Water infiltration (high) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-18 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-17. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by a combination of MFL and IE. No Yes Combination: MFL/IE Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Void (moderate) Water infiltration (moderate) This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Water infiltration (moderate) No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (high) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (high) This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Corrosion (moderate) Section loss (moderate) Breakage (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No

B-19 Note: Accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method in identifying specific defect is indicated in parentheses. Figure B-18. Flowchart representing defects that can be detected by a combination of IRT and USE. No Yes Combination: IRT/USE Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal metal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (low) Water infiltration (moderate) This method can identify the following defect conditions in anchorage regions ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Void (low) Water infiltration (low) Can locate the following conditions in the end caps of the anchorage region (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (high) Water infiltration (moderate) This method can identify the following defect conditions in internal nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (low) Water infiltration (low) No This method can identify the following defect conditions in external metal ducts: None This method can identify the following defect conditions in external nonmetal ducts (accuracy in parentheses): Compromised grout (low) Void (high) Water infiltration (high) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No