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.
A-1 Condition Assessment Flowcharts A p p e n d i x A
A-2 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-1. Flowchart for detecting corrosion with Scenario 1 weights. No Yes Start corrosion condition assessment for Scenario 1 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For corrosion in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For corrosion in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For corrosion in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For corrosion in external metal ducts. 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (high) 2. MFL (TP04), (high) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (high) For corrosion in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 2. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 3. EIS (TP13), (moderate) 4. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-3 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-2. Flowchart for detecting section loss with Scenario 1 weights. No Yes Start section loss condition assessment for Scenario 1 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For section loss in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For section loss in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For section loss in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For section loss in external metal ducts: 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 2. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) For section loss in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 2. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-4 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-3. Flowchart for detecting breakage with Scenario 1 weights. No Yes Start breakage condition assessment for Scenario 1 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For breakage in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For breakage in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For breakage in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For breakage in external metal ducts: 1. MFL (TP04), (high) 2. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (low) For breakage in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 2. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-5 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-4. Flowchart for detecting compromised grout with Scenario 1 weights. No Yes Start compromised grout condition assessment for Scenario 1 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For compromised grout in internal metal ducts: 1. USE (TP09), (low) For compromised grout in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For compromised grout in end cap of anchorage region: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (low) For compromised grout in internal nonmetal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (low) 2. USE (TP09), (low) No For compromised grout in external metal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (moderate) For compromised grout in external nonmetal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (low) 2. IRT (TP02), (low) 3. GPR (TP01), (low) 4. LFUT (TP11), (low) 5. IE (TP07), (moderate) 6. ECT (TP03), (low) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-6 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-5. Flowchart for detecting voids with Scenario 1 weights. No Yes Start void condition assessment for Scenario 1 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For voids in internal metal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (moderate) 2. USE (TP09), (low) For voids in anchorage system: 1. USE (TP09), (low) For voids in end cap of anchorage region: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (high) For voids in internal nonmetal ducts: 1. USE (TP09), (low) No For voids in external metal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) For voids in external nonmetal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (high) 3. GPR (TP01), (moderate) 4. IE (TP07), (moderate) 5. LFUT (TP11), (moderate) 6. ECT (TP03), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-7 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-6. Flowchart for detecting water infiltration with Scenario 1 weights. No Yes Start water infiltration condition assessment for Scenario 1 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For water infiltration in internal metal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (moderate) 2. USE (TP09), (moderate) For water infiltration in anchorage system: 1. USE (TP09), (low) For water infiltration in end cap of anchorage region: Stand-alone methods: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (moderate) For water infiltration in internal nonmetal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (moderate) 2. USE (TP09), (low) No For water infiltration in external metal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) For water infiltration in external nonmetal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (high) 3. GPR (TP01), (low) 4. IE (TP07), (moderate) 5. LFUT (TP11), (moderate) 6. ECT (TP03), (low) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-8 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-7. Flowchart for detecting combination of corrosion/section loss/breakage and compromised grout/voids/water infiltration defects with Scenario 1 weights. No Yes Start combined corrosion/section loss/breakage and compromised grout/voids/water infiltration condition assessment for Scenario 1 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For tendon and grout defects in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For tendon and grout defects in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For tendon and grout defects in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For tendon and grout defects in external metal ducts. 1. MFL/Sounding (TP16) For tendon and grout defects in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MFL/Sounding (TP16) 2. MFL/IE (TP17) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-9 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-8. Flowchart for detecting corrosion with Scenario 2 weights. No Yes Start corrosion condition assessment for Scenario 2 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For corrosion in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For corrosion in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For corrosion in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For corrosion in external metal ducts: 1. MFL (TP04), (high) 2. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (high) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (high) For corrosion in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 2. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) 4. EIS (TP13), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-10 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-9. Flowchart for detecting section loss with Scenario 2 weights. No Yes Start section loss condition assessment for Scenario 2 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For section loss in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For section loss in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For section loss in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For section loss in external metal ducts: 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 2. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) For section loss in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 2. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-11 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-10. Flowchart for detecting breakage with Scenario 2 weights. No Yes Start breakage condition assessment for Scenario 2 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For breakage in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For breakage in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For breakage in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For breakage in external metal ducts: 1. MFL (TP04), (high) 2. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (low) For breakage in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MMFM Permanent (TP05), (moderate) 2. MFL (TP04), (moderate) 3. MMFM Solenoid (TP06), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-12 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-11. Flowchart for detecting compromised grout with Scenario 2 weights. No Yes Start compromised grout condition assessment for Scenario 2 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For compromised grout in internal metal ducts: 1. USE (TP09), (low) For compromised grout in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For compromised grout in end cap of anchorage region: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (low) For compromised grout in internal nonmetal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (low) 2. USE (TP09), (low) No For compromised grout in external metal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (moderate) For compromised grout in external nonmetal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (moderate) 2. Sounding (TP12), (low) 3. IRT (TP02), (low) 4. LFUT (TP11), (low) 5. ECT (TP03), (low) 6. GPR (TP01), (low) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-13 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-12. Flowchart for detecting voids with Scenario 2 weights. No Yes Start void condition assessment for Scenario 2 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For voids in internal metal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (moderate) 2. USE (TP09), (low) For compromised grout in anchorage system: 1. USE (TP09), (low) For compromised grout in end cap of anchorage region: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (high) For voids in internal nonmetal ducts: 1. USE (TP09), (low) No For voids in external metal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) For voids in external nonmetal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (high) 3. IE (TP07), (moderate) 4. GPR (TP01), (moderate) 5. LFUT (TP11), (moderate) 6. ECT (TP03), (moderate) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-14 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-13. Flowchart for detecting water infiltration with Scenario 2 weights. No Yes Start water infiltration condition assessment for Scenario 2 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For water infiltration in internal metal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (moderate) 2. USE (TP09), (moderate) For water infiltration in anchorage system: 1. USE (TP09), (low) For water infiltration in end cap of anchorage region: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (moderate) For water infiltration in internal nonmetal ducts: 1. IE (TP07), (moderate) 2. USE (TP09), (low) No For water infiltration in external metal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) For water infiltration in external nonmetal ducts: 1. Sounding (TP12), (high) 2. IRT (TP02), (high) 3. IE (TP07), (moderate) 4. LFUT (TP11), (moderate) 5. ECT (TP03), (low) 6. GPR (TP01), (low) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
A-15 Note: Testing Procedure (TP) # and overall accuracy (low=0-30%, moderate= 30-70%, and high = 70-100%) of the method indicated in parentheses. Figure A-14. Flowchart for detecting combination of corrosion/section loss/breakage and compromised grout/voids/water infiltration defects with Scenario 2 weights. No Yes Start combined corrosion/section loss/breakage and compromised grout/voids/water infiltration condition assessment for Scenario 2 Location of interest: internal duct? Collect bridge structure files Yes Is duct metal? Location of interest: external duct / stay cable? For corrosion in internal metal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For corrosion in anchorage system: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. For corrosion in internal nonmetal ducts: No applicable NDE method was identified based on this study. No For corrosion in external metal ducts: 1. MFL/Sounding (TP16) For corrosion in external nonmetal ducts: 1. MFL/Sounding (TP16) 2. MFL/IE (TP17) No Yes Yes Is duct metal? No
