Content

1. INTRODUCTION
2. SALIENT FEATURES OF EXISTING BRIDGE
3. METHOD OF INSPECTION
4. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF BIDGE
5. VISUAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
5.1. GENERAL
5.2. CONDITION OF BRIDGE COMPONENTS
5.3. SUMMARY OF DISTRESS
6. NDT TESTS AND INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS
6.1. INTRODUCTION
6.2. NDT TEST AND ITS RESULTS
6.2.1 REBOUND HAMMER TEST
6.2.2 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST
6.2.3 CORE TEST
6.2.4 HALF CELL POTENTIAL TEST
6.3. INTERPRETATION OF NDT TEST RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION
6.3.1. SUMMARY OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST RESULT
6.3.2. DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF REBOUND HAMMER TEST VALUE AND
CONCRETE CORE TEST
6.3.3. CARBONATION TEST
6.3.4. HALF CELL POTENTIAL TEST
6.3.5 DESTRUCTIVE TEST OF CORE
6.4. PHOTOGRAPHS OF DIFFERENT TESTS PERFORMED AT SITE
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Annexure
 1. INTRODUCTION

The bridge (Old DVC Canal Bridge) is located at 4th KM of NH2 to Durgapur Barrage Road over DVC
canal under Durgapur Highway, Sub-Division of Asansol Highway Division, P.W.(Roads), in the district
of Paschim Burdwan, West Bengal. The structure is a balanced cantilever (64.7 meters) with simply
supported approach spans on both sides. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete (RC)
'box' girder with a concrete deck, but the substructure details have not been determined.

Latitude: 23°48'92"N
Longitude: 87°32'03"E

2. SALIENT FEATURES OF EXISTING BRIDGE

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE BRIDGE

Type of Structure: Balanced Cantilever & Simple supported RC Bridge
Length with Approach 81.9 m Approach Length 17.2 m [8.6x2]
[8.6x2+18.4*2+27.9]
Carriageway Width 8.4 m Total Width 9m
Waterway Width 64.7 m [18.4*2+27.9] Flow Direction LTR
Invert U/S Undetermined Invert D/S Undetermined
Footpath Width 2x1.5 RC Railing Present
Scour Protection Only at abutments Scour Protection Type Block with cement
location mortar grouting
Abutment Type RCC Foundation Type Undetermined
No of span 5 nos. Long Girder Dimension N/A
Type of span Balanced cantilever, Cross Girder Dimension N/A
Simple supported
No of Pedestal Undetermined Pedestal Dimension Undetermined
Deck Slab Thickness 0.2 m (approx.) Approach Slab Thickness 0.2 m (approx.)
No of Expansion Joint 4 nos Type of Expansion Joint Slab Seal joints
Type of Bearing Undetermined Drainage Spout Undetermined
3. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF BRIDGE

It is a technical drawing that shows the overall structural details, such as the pier, pier cap,
bearing, and superstructure. The GAD have been supplied by the department.

IMAGE TAKING FROM PROJECT DRAWING

4. METHOD OF INSPECTION

A) Visual Inspection
B) Non-Destructive test on different components of the bridge
i) Rebound Hammer Test
ii) Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test
iii) Carbonation Test
iv) Half-cell potential Test
C) Destructive test on concrete core samples

Enabling structures are temporarily erected to get access of the different structural elements for
inspection.

5. VISUAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT

5.1. GENERAL

The assessment or survey is a precursor to a formal inspection that would include a hands-on
inspection of each component of the bridge to gather information needed for an in-depth condition
and load rating evaluation. Inspection is aimed at identifying and quantifying deterioration, which may
be caused by applied loads and factors such as dead load, live load, wind load and physical/chemical
influences exerted by the environment. Routine inspection can also help to increase life of older
structure and in set-up of maintenance schedule of structure. An in-depth visual inspection was
carried out by a team of expert jointly with Client personnel to gather as much information as possible
and to evaluate the condition and repair needs of the bridge. The inspection through scaffolding and
staging used to identify additional defects which cannot be identified from physically accessible
locations and needed repairs and better facility to estimate the required rehabilitation works and
associated repair costs. The findings of visual inspections are summarized and recorded in systematic
manner as briefly explained in later section of this Chapter.
5.2. CONDITION OF BRIDGE COMPONENTS

A comprehensive inspection of the DVC Bridge was conducted in July 2024 to assess its structural
health, after ensuring access to all parts of the bridge through the use of staging and scaffolding. The
inspection included various methods, such as visual inspections, non-destructive testing (NDT), and
destructive tests, conducted in collaboration with the client. The outcome of the detailed visual
inspection is summarized below:

Location: Wearing Course

Distress: Distressed- Waned out bituminous

Description:
The Existing Bituminous Concrete has been
waned out.

Photographs No: 1

Location: Deck slab

Distress: Major Distress-Spalling of concrete
Description:
Spalling of concrete has been noticed at many
locations in the bridge.

Photographs No: 2

Location: RC Railing & utilities

Distress: Distress- Damaged
Description:
All railing is to be replaced as existing railing is
fully damaged.
Non-functional utilities to be removed.

Photographs No: 3
 Location: Abutment
Distress: Distress- Major crack & scaling
Description:
Major concrete cracks, along with concrete
scaling have been observed.

Photographs No: 4
Location: Deck slab
Distress: Distress-Highly corrosion
Description:
Severe corrosion of the exposed reinforcement
has been noticed at many locations in the
bridge.

Photographs No: 5
Location: Pier and Scour Protections
Distress: No Visible Distress
Description:
During the bridge inspection, it was noted that
scour protection is provided at the abutment
locations (A1 & A2), but no underwater
inspection was conducted at the pier locations
(P1,P2,P3 & P4) to gather information about
scour protection.

Photographs No: 6

5.3. SUMMARY OF DISTRESS

a) The wearing course is severely distressed.

b) Significant cracks, along with the separation of concrete in the abutment, have been detected.
c) The spalling concrete on the deck slab has been observed.
d) The handrail is nearly damaged due to poor maintenance.
e) Scour protection has been provided at the abutment locations (A1 & A2), but no underwater
inspection was conducted at the pier locations (P1, P2, P3, & P4) to gather information on
scour protection.
f) Severe corrosion of the reinforcement has been noticed at many locations in the bridge.
6. NDT TESTS AND INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS

6.1. INTRODUCTION

Visual condition survey of the Bridge can only record surface defects. In case of internal defects visual
survey have its own limitations and may depend on experience and judgement of Investigator. Non-
destructive testing (NDT) method has proved to be a noble solution on the issue where internal health
monitoring of the bridge is required without creating damage to the structure. It is widely used for
periodical inspection of bridges. The evaluation of engineering materials or structures without impairing
their properties is very important, such as the quality control of the products, failure analysis or
prevention of the engineered systems in service. The field of NDT is a very broad, interdisciplinary field
that plays a critical role in inspecting that structural component and systems perform their function in a
reliable fashion. Certain standards has been also implemented to assure the reliability of the NDT tests
and prevent certain errors due to either the fault in the equipment used, the miss-application of the
methods or the skill and the knowledge of the inspectors. Successful NDT tests allow locating and
characterizing material conditions and flaws. However, these techniques generally require considerable
operator skill and interpreting test results accurately may be difficult because the results can be
subjective. These methods can be performed on metals, plastics, ceramics, composites, and coatings in
order to detect cracks, internal voids, surface cavities, delamination, incomplete/ defective welds and
any type of flaw that could lead to premature failure. Commonly used NDT test methods are described
below in details:

6.2. NDT TEST RESULTS

Different NDT studies mentioned above have their specific applications. Some show structural flaws,
some show corrosion extent. But each test has its advantages and its limitations. Combined NDT
methods thus help to get more reliable diagnosis. The results of NDT Tests thus can help to predict the
expected life span of bridges and make provision for strengthening the existing bridges to maintain or
increase its service life Results of following tests are summarised below.
Rebound Hammer Test
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
Carbonation Test
Half Cell Potential Test

6.2.1. Rebound Hammer Test

Rebound Hammer test is done in different locations distributed along different components of the
structure. Rebound Number values are based on test results conducted on the concrete surfaces.
Statistical data explains about pattern of concrete quality of entire structure in terms of surface
hardness. In general, a rebound number value of more than 30 can be considered as good concrete
surface as per IS 13311-Part 2: 1992. Result of the same are summarized below.

REBOUND HAMMER TEST RESULTS (CH:106+327)

SL. DETAILS COMPRESSIVE
NO. MEMBER SAMPLE LOCATION STRENGTH (N/mm2)
1 PIER P-4AN 20
2 PIER P-4BN 20
3 PIER P-4CN 14
4 PIER CAP PC-1FA 27
 REBOUND HAMMER TEST RESULTS (CH:106+327)
SL. DETAILS COMPRESSIVE
NO. MEMBER SAMPLE LOCATION STRENGTH (N/mm2)
5 PIER CAP PC-1FB 24
6 PIER CAP PC-1FC 23
7 PIER CAP PC-2NA 30
8 PIER CAP PC-2NB 22
9 PIER CAP PC-2NC 30
10 PIER CAP PC-3FB 34
11 PIER CAP PC-3FC 34
12 DECK SLAB DS-A-1 44
13 DECK SLAB DS-A-2 37
14 DECK SLAB DS-A-3 39
15 DECK SLAB DS-B-1 47
16 DECK SLAB DS-B-2 39
17 DECK SLAB DS-B-3 47
18 DECK SLAB DS-C-1 42
19 DECK SLAB DS-C-2 39
20 DECK SLAB DS-C-3 40
21 DECK SLAB DS-D-1 44
22 DECK SLAB DS-D-2 42
23 DECK SLAB DS-D-3 40
24 DECK SLAB DS-E-1 36
25 DECK SLAB DS-E-2 44
26 DECK SLAB DS-E-3 40
27 DECK SLAB DS-F-1 33
28 DECK SLAB DS-F-2 36
29 DECK SLAB DS-F-3 50
30 DECK SLAB DS-G-1 14
31 DECK SLAB DS-G-2 26
32 DECK SLAB DS-G-3 20
33 DECK SLAB DS-H-1 14
34 DECK SLAB DS-H-2 34
35 DECK SLAB DS-H-3 40
36 DECK SLAB DS-I-1 47
37 DECK SLAB DS-I-2 50
38 DECK SLAB DS-I-3 44
39 DECK SLAB DS-J-1 44
40 DECK SLAB DS-J-2 44
41 DECK SLAB DS-J-3 39
42 DECK SLAB DS-K-1 39
43 DECK SLAB DS-K-2 53
44 DECK SLAB DS-L-1 45
45 DECK SLAB DS-L-2 54
46 DECK SLAB DS-M-1 54
47 DECK SLAB DS-M-2 54
48 DECK SLAB DS-M-3 50
49 DECK SLAB DS-N-1 25
50 DECK SLAB DS-N-2 34
51 DECK SLAB DS-N-3 29
52 DECK SLAB DS-O-1 40
 REBOUND HAMMER TEST RESULTS (CH:106+327)
SL. DETAILS COMPRESSIVE
NO. MEMBER SAMPLE LOCATION STRENGTH (N/mm2)
53 DECK SLAB DS-O-2 34
54 DECK SLAB DS-O-3 42
55 DECK SLAB DS-P-1 34
56 DECK SLAB DS-P-2 50
57 DECK SLAB DS-P-3 53
58 DECK SLAB DS-Q-1 44
59 DECK SLAB DS-Q-2 47
60 DECK SLAB DS-Q-3 34
61 DECK SLAB DS-R-1 37
62 DECK SLAB DS-R-2 33
63 DECK SLAB DS-R-3 34
64 DECK SLAB DS-S-1 39
65 DECK SLAB DS-S-2 44
66 DECK SLAB DS-S-3 37
67 DECK SLAB DS-T-1 42
68 DECK SLAB DS-T-2 39
69 DECK SLAB DS-T-3 31
70 DECK SLAB DS-M-2 54
71 DECK SLAB DS-M-3 50
72 DECK SLAB DS-N-1 25
73 DECK SLAB DS-N-2 34

5.2.2. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

USPV test is done in different locations distributed along different components of the structure. USPV
makes possible an examination of material homogeneity. By analysing the ultrasonic velocity wave
propagation variations, it is possible to verify the concrete compactness of the or detect heterogeneous
regions. The ultrasonic test methodology in concrete is based on the fact that the propagation time
expresses the density of the material. Histogram of USPV test results is analysed in same pattern as
rebound hammer is done but basic difference is that USPV results are interrelated in terms of density and
rebound hammer results are interrelated in terms of surface hardness. There is no indication of
honeycombing, air-pockets, voids etc. inside the concrete as seen from USPV test results as per IS 516 (Part
- S/Sec 1) 2018. Result of the same are summarized below.
 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST RESULTS

DETAILS DISTANCE TIME VELOCITY CONCRETE

SL. MODE
B/W TWO (T) (V) QUALITY
NO. OF TEST
SAMPLE POINTS (L) (μ sec) (V=L/T) GRADING
MEMBER LOCATION (mm) (Km/Sec)
1 PIER P-4AN INDIRECT 400 289.44 1.382 Poor
2 PIER P-4BN INDIRECT 400 188.59 2.121 Poor
3 PIER P-4CN INDIRECT 400 119.87 3.337 Doubtful
4 PIER CAP PC-3FA INDIRECT 400 117.03 3.418 Doubtful
5 PIER CAP PC-3FB INDIRECT 400 152.61 2.621 Poor
6 PIER CAP PC-3FC INDIRECT 400 117.3 3.41 Doubtful
DECK SLAB
7 DS-A1 INDIRECT 400 164.41 2.433 Poor
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
8 DS-A2 INDIRECT 400 122.89 3.255 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
9 DS-A3 INDIRECT 400 94.81 4.219 Good
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
10 DS-B1 INDIRECT 400 107.9 3.707 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
11 DS-B2 INDIRECT 400 98.91 4.044 Good
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
12 DS-B3 INDIRECT 400 110.9 3.607 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
13 DS-C1 INDIRECT 400 86.39 4.63 Excellent
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
14 DS-C2 INDIRECT 400 78.8 5.076 Excellent
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
15 DS-C3 INDIRECT 400 96.9 4.128 Good
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
16 DS-D1 INDIRECT 400 102.3 3.91 Good
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
17 DS-D2 INDIRECT 400 80.4 4.975 Excellent
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
18 DS-D3 INDIRECT 400 117.89 3.393 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
19 DS-E1 INDIRECT 400 118.91 3.364 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
20 DS-E2 INDIRECT 400 108.52 3.686 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
21 DS-E3 INDIRECT 400 110.9 3.607 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
22 DS-F1 INDIRECT 400 98.3 4.069 Good
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
23 DS-F2 INDIRECT 400 107.9 3.707 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
24 DS-F3 INDIRECT 400 112.61 3.552 Doubtful
(SPAN-1)
DECK SLAB
25 DS-G1 INDIRECT 400 315.46 1.268 Poor
(SPAN-2)
DECK SLAB
26 DS-G2 INDIRECT 400 114.91 3.481 Doubtful
(SPAN-2)
DECK SLAB
27 (SPAN-2) DS-G3 INDIRECT 400 123.27 3.245 Doubtful
 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST RESULTS

DETAILS DISTANCE TIME VELOCITY CONCRETE

SL. MODE
B/W TWO (T) (V) QUALITY
NO. OF TEST
SAMPLE POINTS (L) (μ sec) (V=L/T) GRADING
MEMBER LOCATION (mm) (Km/Sec)
DECK SLAB
28 DS-H1 INDIRECT 400 283.09 1.413 Poor
(SPAN-2)
DECK SLAB
29 DS-H2 INDIRECT 400 89.41 4.474 Excellent
(SPAN-2)
DECK SLAB
30 DS-I1 INDIRECT 400 78.4 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 5.102
DECK SLAB
31 DS-I2 INDIRECT 400 92.81 Good
(SPAN-2) 4.31
DECK SLAB
32 DS-I3 INDIRECT 400 93.81 Good
(SPAN-2) 4.264
DECK SLAB
33 DS-J1 INDIRECT 400 86.39 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 4.63
DECK SLAB
34 DS-J2 INDIRECT 400 86.9 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 4.603
DECK SLAB
35 DS-J3 INDIRECT 400 75.8 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 5.277
DECK SLAB
36 DS-K1 INDIRECT 400 90.4 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 4.425
DECK SLAB
37 DS-L1 INDIRECT 400 186.31 Poor
(SPAN-2) 2.147
DECK SLAB
38 DS-L2 INDIRECT 400 183.07 Poor
(SPAN-2) 2.185
DECK SLAB
39 DS-M1 INDIRECT 400 130.42 Doubtful
(SPAN-2) 3.067
DECK SLAB
40 DS-M2 INDIRECT 400 88.4 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 4.525
DECK SLAB
41 DS-M3 INDIRECT 400 83.11 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 4.813
DECK SLAB
42 DS-N1 INDIRECT 400 139.42 Poor
(SPAN-2) 2.869
DECK SLAB
43 DS-N2 INDIRECT 400 96.9 Good
(SPAN-2) 4.128
DECK SLAB
44 DS-N3 INDIRECT 400 74.91 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 5.34
DECK SLAB
45 DS-O1 INDIRECT 400 153.91 Poor
(SPAN-2) 2.599
DECK SLAB
46 DS-O2 INDIRECT 400 81.1 Excellent
(SPAN-2) 4.932
DECK SLAB
47 DS-O3 INDIRECT 400 119.62 Doubtful
(SPAN-2) 3.344
DECK SLAB
48 INDIRECT 400 96.9 Good
(SPAN-3) DS-P1 4.128
DECK SLAB
49 INDIRECT 400 179.61 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-P2 2.227
DECK SLAB
50 INDIRECT 400 248.29 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-P3 1.611
DECK SLAB
51 (SPAN-3) INDIRECT 400 109.41 Doubtful
DS-Q1 3.656
 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST RESULTS

DETAILS DISTANCE TIME VELOCITY CONCRETE

SL. MODE
B/W TWO (T) (V) QUALITY
NO. OF TEST
SAMPLE POINTS (L) (μ sec) (V=L/T) GRADING
MEMBER LOCATION (mm) (Km/Sec)
DECK SLAB
52 INDIRECT 400 149.81 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-Q2 2.67
DECK SLAB
53 INDIRECT 400 253.97 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-Q3 1.575
DECK SLAB
54 INDIRECT 400 90.83 Excellent
(SPAN-3) DS-R1 4.404
DECK SLAB
55 INDIRECT 400 272.29 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-R2 1.469
DECK SLAB
56 INDIRECT 400 321.8 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-R3 1.243
DECK SLAB
57 INDIRECT 400 364.3 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-S1 1.098
DECK SLAB
58 INDIRECT 400 178.57 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-S2 2.24
DECK SLAB
59 INDIRECT 400 160.77 Poor
(SPAN-3) DS-S3 2.488
DECK SLAB
60 INDIRECT 400 121.62 Doubtful
(SPAN-3) DS-T1 3.289
DECK SLAB
61 INDIRECT 400 88.3 Excellent
(SPAN-3) DS-T2 4.53
DECK SLAB
62 INDIRECT 400 90.09 Excellent
(SPAN-3) DS-T3 4.44

6.2.3. Carbonation test of core

Core tests have been done in different locations. This test is carried out to determine the depth of
concrete affected due to combined attack of atmospheric carbon dioxide and moisture causing a
reduction in level of alkalinity of concrete. A spray of 0.2% solution of phenolphthalein is used as pH
indicator of concrete. The change of colour of concrete to pink indicates that the concrete is in the
good health, where no changes in colour take place; it is suggestive of carbonation-affected concrete.
The test is conducted by drilling a hole on the concrete surface to different depths up to cover
concrete thickness, removing dust by air blowing, spraying phenolphthalein with physician’s injection
syringe and needle on such freshly drilled broken concrete and observing change in colour. The depth
of carbonation is estimated based on the change in colour profile. The pH value can also be
determined by analysing samples of mortar collected by drilling from the site, dissolving the same in
distilled water and thereby titrating in laboratory.

6.2.4. Half Cell Potential Test

The half-cell potential test is a commonly used method for assessing the corrosion risk of reinforcing
steel in concrete. This technique involves measuring the electrical potential difference between a
reference electrode and the reinforcement embedded within the concrete. The potential value is
influenced by the corrosion state of the rebar—negative potentials typically indicate a higher likelihood
of corrosion, while more positive potentials suggest a lower risk.
 HALF CELL POTENTIAL CORROSION MEASUREMENT TEST
SL. LOCATION TEST POTENTIAL PHASE OF INTERPRETA
NO. COORDINATES (mV) CORROSION TION
OF GRID ACTIVITY
LOCATION MEMBER IDENTI. X Y
ID ID (mm) (mm)
1 D1 SPAN 1 HP-1 0 0 95.4 Low
2 D1 SPAN 1 HP-1 0 0 99.1 Low
3 D1 SPAN 1 HP-1 200 0 102.3 Low
4 D1 SPAN 1 HP-1 0 0 98.9 Low
5 D1 SPAN 1 HP-1 0 200 101.8 Low
6 D2 SPAN 2 HP-2 200 200 96.2 Low
7 D2 SPAN 2 HP-2 0 200 104.8 Low
8 D2 SPAN 2 HP-2 0 0 98.1 Low
9 D2 SPAN 2 HP-2 200 0 99.5 Low
10 D2 SPAN 2 HP-2 0 0 100.3 Low
11 D3 SPAN 3 HP-3 200 0 110.2 Low
12 D3 SPAN 3 HP-3 200 200 107.3 Low
13 D3 SPAN 3 HP-3 0 0 99.9 Low
14 D3 SPAN 3 HP-3 0 200 97.5 Low
15 D3 SPAN 3 HP-3 200 200 100.4 Low

6.3. INTERPRETATION OF NDT TEST RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATION

6.3.1. Summary of Non-Destructive and Destructive Test Result

Following NDT has been done on the structure.
 Rebound Hammer Test – 73 Locations
 Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test – 62 Locations
 Core Test – 5 Location
 Carbonation Test – 15 Location
 Half Cell Potential Test- 15 Location

6.3.2. Discussion and interpretation of Rebound Hammer Test value and Concrete Core test

Rebound Hammer Test was carried out on different structural components of the bridge to assess the
in-situ strength of the concrete. Surface preparation has been carried out prior to carrying out the
Rebound Hammer Test on the structural components.
Comparative results are given in following table.

IN-SITU COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Recommended
COMPONENT REBOUND HAMMER in-situ strength
MIN MAX MEAN (MPa)

SUPER STRUCTURE 14 54 34 NOT

DETERMINED
SUB STRUCTURE 14 34 24 NOT
DETERMINED
The grade of the concrete as stated in the table.
Substructure: Rebound Hammer Test carried on the substructure indicates the value ranging from 14
to 42 MPa. Arithmetic mean of the data which is 25.27 MPa.

Superstructure: Though the value of Rebound hammer strength tested on deck slab varies between
14 to 54 MPa. Hence, from a conservative point of view we can assess the strength of concrete as
39.47 MPa from Rebound Hammer Test.

USPV tests have also been performed in 62 different locations. As per the report produced soundness
of concrete is poor and doubtful in range in most of the locations, wherever USPV tests have been
performed.

6.3.3. Carbonation Test

A spray of 0.2% solution of phenolphthalein was spread into the concrete core and it was observed
that no colour has been changed in some of the cores which indicate that the carbonation of concrete
has occurred.

6.3.4. Half-cell potential Test

According to the half-cell potential test investigation, it was observed that steel corrosion in the
concrete (with a 90% chance) did not occur at the tested location on the deck slab. However, severe
corrosion of the exposed steel on the deck slab was noted.

6.3.5. Destructive test of Core

A core destructive test is a partially destructive testing method that involves extracting a core sample
from a structure, typically concrete, to analyse its internal composition and physical properties. This
test provides valuable data about the material’s strength, durability, and overall integrity, which is
essential for evaluating its performance in various conditions. The results of the core destructive test
are satisfactory and are included in Annexure 1.

6.4. PHOTOGRAPHS OF DIFFERENT TESTS PERFORMED AT SITE

REBOUND HAMMER TEST PHOTOGRAPH: DVC BRIDGE

ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST PHOTOGRAPH:DVC BRIDGE

CONCRETE CORE CUTTING PHOTOGRAPH: DVC BRIDGE

CARBONATION TEST PHOTOGRAPH: DVC BRIDGE

HALF CELL POTENTIAL TEST PHOTOGRAPH: DVC BRIDGE

 7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

a) Result of NDT and destructive test

Based on the results of the above NDT and destructive tests, it is evident that the compressive strength
values obtained from the rebound hammer and core destructive tests are correlated. However, the
results from the UPV test indicate mixed findings. In some locations, the test shows excellent results,
but in most areas, the readings are either doubtful or poor, suggesting that the concrete is unsound.
This condition is also observed in the core samples of the concrete. Ultimately, the results indicate that
the concrete contains voids and honeycombing. The repairing work shall be carried out as outlined
below.

References:

1. IS 516:PART 5-SEC-2- Guidelines for Half cell potential test of concrete bridge
2. IRC: SP: 40 – 2019 - Guidelines on Repair, Strengthening and Rehabilitation of Concrete Bridges
3. IRC: SP: 60 – 2002 - An Approach Document for Assessment of Remaining Life of Concrete Bridges
4. IRC: SP: 80 – 2008 - Guidelines for Corrosion Prevention, Monitoring and Remedial Measures for
Concrete Bridge Structures
5. IRC: SP: 18 – 1978 - Manual for Highway Bridge Maintenance Inspection
6. IRC: SP: 52 – 1999 - Bridge Inspector's Reference Manual
7. IRC: SP: 54 – 2018 - Project Preparation Manual for Bridges

REBOUND TEST AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS

PIER CAP ABUTMENT

DEK SLAB DECK SLAB

 ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY TEST AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS

ABUTMENT PIER CAP

DECK SLAB DEK SLAB

ANNEXURE-1