feF* 0*1 Technical Report REMR-OM

September 1995

rS

US Army Corps

of Engineers

Construction Engineering

Research Laboratories

inu

'HJ

951 I

REMR Management Systems—Navigation

and Reservoir Structures, Condition Rating

Procedures for Concrete in Gravity Dams,

Retaining Walls, and Spillways

by Rupert E. Bullock

Engineering Consultant

Stuart D. Foltz

U.S. Army Construction Engineering

Research Laboratories

Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited.

Prepared for Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication,

or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an

official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized

documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED

DO NOT RETURN IT TO TEE ORIGINATOR
Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and

Rehabilitation Research Program

Technical Report REMR-OM-16

September 1995

REMR Management Systems—

Navigation and Reservoir Structures

Condition Rating Procedures for

Concrete in Gravity Dams, Retaining

Walls, and Spillways

by Rupert E. Bullock

Engineering Consultant

Stuart D. Foltz

U.S. Army Construction Engineering

Research Laboratories

PO Box 9005

Champaign, Illinois 61826-9005

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

Accession For /

NT 13 GMII

DTK: TAB

'ÜIHV.A bounced

Just if lent ICTL

D

D

By

Distribution/

Availability Coäes

Avail and/or

Special

Under Civil Works Research Work Unit 32672

Monitored by Maintenance Management and Preservation Division

US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories

PO Box 9005, Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Contents

Tables and Figures m

Preface i

y

Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement v

1 Introduction 1

Background 1

Purpose 1

Scope 2

Mode of Technology Transfer 3

Approach 3

2 Development 4

General 4

Cracking 4

Volume Loss 4

3 Methodology 6

Procedure 6

Distress Categories and Deduct Values 8

Calculating the Condition Index 17

4 Summary and Recommendations 19

References 20

Appendix A: Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service Al

Appendix B: Sample Monolith Inspection Forms Bl

Appendix C: Field Test Trip Reports and Comments Cl

Appendix D: Deduct Value Curves Dl
Tables

Table 1. Condition index scale 2

Table 2. General interpretation of the condition 2

Table 3. Distress categories 8

Table 4. Conduit erosion deduct values 15

Table 5. Example of manual calculation of the CI 18

Figures

Figure 1. Volume loss deduct values for vertical and near-vertical surfaces 5

Figure 2. Field inspection form 7

Figure 3. Simplified crack representations 11

Figure 4. Simplified crack representations 12

III
Preface

The study reported herein was authorized by Headquarters, US Army Corps of

Engineers (HQUSACE), as part of the Operations Management Problem Area of

the Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation (REMR) Research Program. The work was performed under Civil Works Research Work Unit 32672,

"Development of Uniform Evaluation Procedures/Condition Index for Deteriorated

Structures and Equipment," for which Stuart D. Foltz is Principal Investigator.

Mr. James E. Crews (CECW-O) is the REMR Technical Monitor for this study.

Mr. David B. Mathis (CERD-C) is the REMR Coordinator at the Directorate of

Research and Development, HQUSACE. Mr. Crews and Dr. Tony C. Liu (CECWEG) serve as the REMR Overview Committee. Dr. Anthony M. Kao was the

Problem Area Leader for the Operations Management problem area during this

study. Mr. David T. McKay is the current Problem Area Leader for the Operations

Management problem area.

This study was performed under the general supervision of Dr. Paul

Howdyshell, Chief of the Engineering and Materials Division (FM), Infrastructure

Laboratory (FL), US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories

(USACERL); and under the direct supervision of Dr. Anthony M. Kao. The

Program Manager for REMR is Mr. William F. McCleese, US Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station (CEWES). The USACERL technical editor was

Linda L. Wheatley, Technical Resources Center.

Permission to use the copyrighted material from Guide for Making a Condition

Survey on Concrete in Service was obtained from the American Concrete Institute.

The assistance of the following individuals is acknowledged and appreciated:

Mr. James McDonald, CEWES; Mr. Thomas Hugenberg, Ohio River Division

(CEORD-PE); Mr. Gerald Wickersham, Rock Island District (CENCR-ED-G); Mr.

William Heyenbruch, Sacramento District (CESPK-ED); and Mr. Glenn Smoak,

US Bureau of Reclamation.

COL James T. Scott is Commander and Acting Director, USACERL, and Dr.

Michael J. O'Connor is Technical Director.

IV
Conversion Factors, Non-SI to

SI Units of Measurement

Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI (metric)

units as follows:

Multiply Bv To Obtain

degrees (angle) 0.01745329 radians

feet 0.3048 meters

gallons (US liquid) 3.785412 liters

inches 25.4 millimeters
1 Introduction

Background

The US Army Corps of Engineers operates approximately 270 navigation dams,

usually with accompanying attachments and appurtenances, constructed of plain or

reinforced concrete. The Corps of Engineers also operates more than 350 reservoir

dams, most of which are either concrete gravity structures or embankment structures with accompanying attachments and appurtenances constructed of plain or

reinforced concrete. Many of these structures require or will require significant

repairs to ensure safe and efficient operations. A quantitative rating system for the

condition of concrete in gravity dams and attachments and appurtenances provides

objective information to aid in making the subjective decision of which dam, which

structural unit within a dam, and which deficiency within a structural unit most

merit repair. Successive ratings with time would provide a measure of the rate of

deterioration. The methodology for such a system was originally developed for

pavement (Shahin, Darter, and Kohn, 1976-1977) and has been used previously for

navigation locks (Bullock, 1989).

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to describe a proposed system for determining a

condition index (CI) value that numerically rates the condition of concrete in a

gravity dam, retaining wall, or spillway structural unit on a scale of 0 to 100

(Table 1) by evaluating each concrete deficiency. The deduct values for individual

structurally related distresses were developed based on expected performance under

extreme loading conditions. Most serviceability related distresses have only

nominal deduct values.

Table 2 groups the condition index values into three zones that are related to

engineering and management actions. The zone into which a structure's condition

rating falls cannot be used as an absolute determination of the required action. Final

determination of maintenance and repair needs will require engineering judgment or

a more detailed engineering investigation. For example, a structure with only deck

distresses would have a condition rating in zone 1 that calls for no further action;

however, the deck may require substantial repairs. Likewise, multiple wide cracks

through the structure would result in a zone 3 rating requiring further investigation.

Chapter 1 Introduction
Table 1. Condition index scale.

Value Condition Description

85 to 100 EXCELLENT No noticeable detects. Some aging or wear may be visible.

70 to 84 VERY GOOD Only minor deterioration or defects are evident.

55 to 69 FAIR Some deterioration or defects are evident, but function is not

significantly affected.

40 to 54 MARGINAL Moderate deterioration. Function should be adequate under

expected maximum loading.

25 to 39 POOR Serious deterioration in at least some portions of structure.

Function may be inadequate under maximum load.

10 to 24 VERY POOR Extensive deterioration. Function inadequate.

0to9 FAILED No longer functions. General failure or failure of a major

component is likely under maximum probable load.

Table 2. General interpretation of the condition.

Zone Cl Range Action

1 70 to 100 Immediate action is not required.

2 40 to 69 Economic analysis of repair alternatives is recommended to

determine appropriate maintenance action.

3 0to39 Detailed evaluation is required to determine the need for repair,

rehabilitation, or reconstruction.

This investigation may or may not result in a determination that maintenance and

repair is necessary.

Scope

The CI prescribed herein applies only to the concrete in gravity dams and

attachments or appurtenances such as retaining walls, spillways, and bridge piers.

Other factors that are not rated, such as foundation deterioration, also can affect the

safety of a dam or appurtenance. These unrated problems should be noted and a

more detailed investigation can be recommended. Other elements such as spillway

gates and machinery require a separate rating system. Under no circumstances

should the CI of the concrete be taken as the overall CI of the structural unit or

entire structure.

The rating system described herein allows the CI to be determined by visual

investigation using limited equipment. The rating is related primarily to structural

integrity and secondarily to serviceability. An expanded investigation including

Chapter 1 Introduction
engineering evaluations should be made when the CI is 40 or below. A CI greater

than 40 does not indicate that an expanded investigation is unnecessary.

Mode of Technology Transfer

It is recommended that the inspection procedures developed in this study of

concrete in gravity dam monoliths, retaining walls, and spillways be incorporated

into Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110-2-100, "Periodic Inspection and Continuing

Evaluation of Completed Civil Works Structures."

Approach

The concepts and ideas presented in this report for the maintenance management of concrete in gravity dams, spillways, and retaining walls rely heavily on

work in a similar project for concrete in lockwalls (Bullock, 1989). During that

earlier work, basic ideas such as structural considerations, condition indexes, safety

and serviceability, quantification of distresses by field measurements, repair and

maintenance alternatives, and others began to evolve. As these concepts were

applied, several enhancements and some new ideas have been used.

Using a tentative inspection procedure and a set of inspection rules, a panel of

Corps of Engineers experts were assembled to field test the system. The panel

conducted site visits and field investigations at diverse dams and met with Corps

personnel associated with these structures. At each site, improvements to the

inspection and rating procedures were made by the experts.

The goal of the inspection is to objectively determine deficiencies and calculate

a condition index with this data. A CI is a numerical measure of the current state of

a structure. One of the goals of this project is to define a CI that uniformly and

consistently describes and ranks the condition of the concrete in a gravity dam,

retaining wall, or spillway structural unit. The index should focus management

attention on those structures most likely to warrant immediate repair or further

evaluation. Second, the CI values can be used to monitor change in general

condition over time and can serve as an approximate comparison of the condition of

different structures. The CI, a numbered scale from 0 to 100, indicates the relative

need to perform REMR work because of deterioration of the general operating and

structural characteristics of the structure (Table 1).

Chapter 1 Introduction
2 Development

General

The CI procedure was developed by assigning specific deduct values to

concrete defects defined in Appendix A, "Guide for Making a Condition Survey of

Concrete in Service," American Concrete Institute (ACI) 201.1R-92. Other

distresses related to concrete in dams were added. Primary deduct values were

determined with the intent of obtaining a CI of 40 when the severity of an individual

distress caused the safety of that monolith to become questionable. Nominal deduct

values were assigned for most defects in serviceability. The deduct values are, in

part, subtracted from 100 to establish the CI. The exact method of calculating the

CI from the deduct values was determined by collecting subjective expert ratings

based on the condition descriptions in Table 1. The system is designed to be

independent of the inspector; however, field experience with different trained

inspectors rating the same structural units has shown that a variation of ±10 in the

CI for a structural unit can be expected. The variation can be greater if the inspectors have not received formal training in the use of this system.

Cracking

Since calculation of shear transfer across cracks in a structural unit subjected to

bending is impractical in the present state of the art, all deduct values for cracks

were set by judgment, recognizing that shear transfer would decrease as cracks

widen.

Volume Loss

Deduct values for distress categories that tend to result in loss of effective

concrete were determined both for units subject to lateral load and for units subjected primarily to axial load. For units subject to lateral load and distresses that

tend to result in loss of concrete from the structure (volume), and thus loss of

effective weight and cross section, deduct values were assigned by making approximations concerning safety, assuming (1) all sections were cracked so that no tension

or cohesion existed at the section and, (2) the total force tending to produce sliding

or total moment tending to produce overturning was constant. Although the first

assumption is conservative, the second may not be. Changes in ground-water level,

Chapter 2 Development
uplift pressures, or active pressure of backfill may result in some increase in force

or moment. However, as previously stated, a detailed investigation of such factors

and an engineering evaluation should be made when the CI is determined to be 40

or below. This practice will prevent excessive reduction in safety factors before

remedial action is taken.

Safety against both sliding and overturning was considered. The percentage of

cross section in compression was determined to be the critical consideration. If a

criterion of maintaining 75 percent of the undeteriorated cross section in compression is used, and it is assumed that the section was originally designed with the

resultant force at the kern boundary, then losses greater than a 12-percent reduction

in cross-section depth and weight on 100 percent of the wall width on that cross

section as a result of deterioration exceeds this criterion. A deduct value of 60 was

set for a depth reduction of 12 percent on 100 percent of wall width, and all other

deduct values were determined linearly (Figure 1). It may be more convenient to

use the equation below the figure to calculate the deduct value. For units subject

primarily to axial loads, such as pier stem columns supporting bridges, the deduct

value was set as 1.1 times the percentage of deteriorated cross-sectional area to

account for the possible development of eccentricities.

DEDUCT VALUE

Q /

* /

/

1/

1

V

7

y

^

•^^

ik J-——""

PERCENT OF SECTION DEPTH

% of wall width effected . , . _ ,

275 ; ) ( % of depth reduced )

Figure 2. Volume loss deduct values for vertical and near-vertical surfaces.

Chapter 2 Development
3 Methodology

Procedure

The CI is determined by visual inspection and recording the needed information

on the field inspection form (Figure 2) for computer input. Examples of completed

inspection forms are in Appendix B. The field inspection form provides space for

inspection details and accumulates data for input to a PC-based REMR Management System currently being developed at USACERL. A REMR Management

System typically consists of four modules: inventory and data management,

condition inspection and assessment, maintenance and repair alternatives, and life

cycle cost analyses. The condition assessment module will calculate the CI using

the algorithm developed in this report. The accumulation of such data using the

management system affords managers a quantitative means of comparing the

condition of concrete in one structure to the concrete in others. In time this accumulation of data also will provide curves yielding rates of concrete deterioration in

structural units. More details of the REMR Management System will be described

in a separate report.

For the purpose of data management, identification numbers are needed for

each unit being inspected. The structural unit or section numbers such as those in

construction drawings can and should be used. Construction or as-built drawings of

the structure also are necessary to determine such factors as physical dimensions,

reinforcing details, and so forth, which are needed for the inspection. If repairs

have been made, drawings of the repairs are necessary to determine the extent of the

repair and to provide other information such as the location of post-tension tendons.

During inspection, equipment to clean areas and remove debris from cracks and

equipment to estimate crack widths is required. Although all structural units should

be visually inspected if possible, it may not be advantageous to determine the CI of

all structural units. The CI should be determined on one of each type of unit and on

the more distressed structural units. It is recommended that a minimum of 20

percent of all monoliths and at least three of the structural units be rated.

Chapter 3 Methodology
PC

uo

fl)-H

inw

•a-d

aid)

W-P

o«

MM

oo

E&

Mo)

<Q0 0)

OP

Dm)

AM

01 tr

MC

-p-H

UIC

ora o ro

U3

tPO

«a

4JX

CO)

0)

UN

MCfflrt

U-P

MM

OO)

<wM

CO.

no

Ü1V

in*

oro

Mil

lid

&o>

UrH

yja

ao

*M

u

u

u

u

u

u

u

CD«

3

ÜT3

MC

MO £H

H

H

H

H E-i

H

UC QJffi

M

Q)0

ou

CQ0

0

u

Ü

o

o

o

in

tn

Ü

in

in

DU era i a

MkU0 fa fa

h fa fa fa a) u

fa a] M

aiHQ&

• 4J

. JJ

M-H

0)0)

.pJJ 1 1 c

.pr-irO0s

s

1

1

1

1

in in

Pi

w in

HC «J BIN PrH

« e; QJ 13 0) 13

&C a-u 14J 1 3

P-H rfp>, nM

w

w

w CO to

o

w 0) <Ho

w 01 *M0

1 euMU CP

En | 0)011-1 0)

n>HOB4J

D

o

Q

Q

a E-t

D

co

a

co

U MMOEC

H

H

ra>,w

hMT3 >U[KUB p- ft p. CU CU

o

& 4Jfl p.

p

a)« &il >iH pi

>

> ErtO CmdlrHIDQ (u tua

faa

fa fa a) fa a)

ßr-(»J HM-arac i fa fci £-4Q 4-> r4a +J >H

fllffl

X -rtCOtn

Q

Q fa £. 0) XX 0)

IJUH

U CO-HKQ

W

DD

1 cr

P i ra AN T3

1 1 w

faDfa fa •H 4J fa •H 4J

IflU-H MMOisUrw fa En

D

p 0) raD

0 ffl

g2

uai GPXn V]D

D

Ä —"

Ä —'

Ir-IO-H1

w

OM 1 O-H i cm c<

DO< 1 0 l rfl<Cntr>

UUJOc

w

< <<

<

<

<

M

<

<

faH

QfaB

Q >J -H t 0) 1 ICH

Ho

J K)

J hH

J

u

J

J 1 '0 NTIrffa Or-I fafl r*-H\DiJ-H (fl o

010 WN i -ua

a

U »J CTi «w

H

c

c fa XX XX

Ä J=

«J i-H trOJ N-P 1 M

e

c

-p -p 4-> -P

CnHrH CCH -Hft

u •H >H

&a

aa

rt« HOB >W

s

H 01 0) 01 0)

E3M *icemi -O TJ •a i3

ra <u ürf-WOUiO

u

OÜHJ UN'O'O I n

MCfl W3C>

p-rtJ

U 1 -PrtU

J3

s

•H

J3

•0

-H

WEt

1 <-HPä 1 tJi

Ä J3

£

DjHj K-tfDH ME 4J JJ +J fa >, >1 i -p

fa<L>"

OOJCZrvH 1 oS *H

0 13H •H

3: kH

M0D

1

M0

D^

DEÖC71 rjr-i toCU

o 0) J3 J3 a> XX XX ! C Q4N OW > 4J 4J 4-> u -p -p

S-H JJ -H 1

*d "0

« •än

•«o »Crl 01U [J

H -Hu

H -H

W It] WO« (OW

sa

3?

0)D <J)NU Ml

•O-H-H jam >1N >1 >1M0uu

>1M0

tn

<u

4->

rSV

in in

in

Ofl OMP <n

M

M 0)

r-tfl

UOM 1

sotm

0

D*

0

&1

Mp

inQ

"

M

a ..

CrHM

0-H3

•HOW

•PWO

to1><

MN11

WXJH

M1>n

Pu

inXu

0) mu

inu

«J o

V)

J<M

n) E

0) «

M

toe

0)

l/l M

inc in

vox M -H M

4J +J fl

Q

inc

a)o

M -H

4J 4J

tn^

ra !

(013

UHM

4->V1 WIN«

fl

g

e in

u£

•rl 1) HI •H 0)

O 4J

HM

! i Q H

0>

N

«

m -* in CÜ

H

QW«

M

DVK ! Eoo

0)

a.

0) 2

0)

CM

en

Chapter3 Methodology
The inspection and condition assessment procedure for determining the CI

described in this report is based on simple visual inspection techniques. If the

condition of the structure being inspected has deteriorated severely, e.g., the CIs

determined by the visual inspection are below 40, more detailed inspections are

warranted. More detailed inspections could include a number of actions, such as

(1) using divers, (2) drilling cores and using borehole cameras, (3) installing instruments to monitor crack width variation, (4) using soniscope surveys, and (5) making

dye tests. Additional details are given by Stowe and Thornton (1984).

Distress Categories and Deduct Values

Distress categories discussed in this section are listed in Table 3. Each category

discussion includes guidance on how to determine deduct values. Appendix A

reproduces ACI201.1R-92 and contains photographs illustrating types of concrete

defects. An inspector should be familiar with this guide before performing an

inspection to determine the CI.

Table 3. 1Distress categories.

Alignment

Cracking

21 CH Checking

22 DC D-cracking

23 PN Pattern

24 HZ Horizontal

25 VT Vertical and transverse

26 VL Vertical and longitudinal

27 DG Diagonal

28 RN Random

29 LF Longitudinal floor

Volume loss

31 AB Abrasion

32 CV Cavitation

33 HC Honeycomb

34 PO Popouts

35 SC Scaling

36 SP Spalling

37 DS Disintegration

Steel deterioration

41 CS Corrosion stains

42 RE Reintorcing

43 PS Prestressing

44 AR Armor

Leakage and deposits

51 LK Leakage

52 DP Deposits

Chapter 3 Methodology
Alignment

Alignment problems - misalignment or distortion - may result from such factors

as construction procedures, load deflection, foundation movement, and concrete

growth. Alignment problems do not have deduct values herein, although if present,

alignment problems limit the CI to a maximum of 40. Other effects that result from

the same causes as misalignment may have deducts, and any misalignment should be

examined for a pattern that would indicate a cause. Is there a deflection pattern that

would result from normal or abnormal loads? Is a structural unit(s) displaced uniformly, horizontally, or vertically, or does the displacement indicate a rotation? Is

there a variation in joint or crack openings? If possible, a deduct value from one of

the distresses herein should be assigned. If a foundation problem is indicated, a

foundation investigation should be initiated. Unexplained alignment problems should

be noted on the inspection form and brought to the attention of the proper official.

Cracking

For cracking distresses on decks no deduction is made unless cracks are

raveling, 5 points are deducted for a small amount of raveling, and 10 points are

deducted if disintegration or ponding is present. All surface defects on decks

(categories 21 to 23, 34 to 37, and raveling of other cracks) are to be considered

together so as to have only one deduct value for the deck. For volume loss distresses, 5 points are deducted for no more than 25 percent of the deck area affected

and 10 points for more than 25 percent. If volume-loss surface defects on decks

(categories 34-37) occur in combination with raveling cracks, only 5 points are

deducted unless more than 25 percent of the deck area is affected by distresses 34 to

37 or unless ponding is occurring. The maximum deduct for decks is 10 points.

A number of crack categories are provided. The first three, checking (21),

D-cracking (22), and pattern cracking (23), are generally shallow surface effects

that tend to result in loss of concrete. Deduct values are selected based on estimates

of depth and extent, similar to volume loss deterioration (31 to 37), rather than on

crack width. For these three cracking distresses (21-23), use the same methods of

calculating deduct values as for the volume loss distresses.

The other categories of cracking - horizontal (24), vertical and transverse (25),

vertical and longitudinal (26), diagonal (27), random (28), and longitudinal

floor (29) - have deduct values dependent on crack width. A table of deduct values

based on crack width is included with the description of the crack type. In addition,

Appendix D graphically shows the deduct values versus crack width. A crack's

width should be determined or estimated where it is widest, and measurement

should be to the nearest one-hundredth inch. Although measurement to the nearest

five-thousandth inch, especially for narrow cracks, may be beneficial for historical

Chapter 3 Methodology
comparison, it will have negligible effect on the deduct values or condition index.

Representative crack illustrations are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Two or more

cracks from base restraint generally join to form one wide crack at some distance

above the base. Some cracks do not easily fit into a specific category. For example,

a crack that is generally horizontal may slope upward to intersect a sloping face at

an approximate right angle. Such a crack would be evaluated as a horizontal crack.

Although a crack may be observed on more than one surface, it should be deducted

only once. If a crack has raveled at a surface, width should be estimated where

raveling has not enlarged the crack. Repairs to these types of cracks are generally

made by grouting and stitching and are effective as long as the grout does not crack

or debond or otherwise show distress. If a crack is stitched without grouting, it will

probably be necessary to do continuous monitoring of the crack width to determine

whether the repair is fully effective. Any relative shear displacement along a crack

of one part with respect to the part on the other side of the crack indicates a misalignment, and calculation of the condition index is limited to values no greater than

40. This concern is considered appropriate even though redistribution of loads may

have prevented collapse. Deduct values listed with each category allow for no

relative displacement along the crack. If a crack produces a spall with a deduct

value less than that of the crack, then the deduct for the spall should be used. This

should not be confused with spalling that occurs along a crack. Cracks in otherwise

sound, unbonded floor toppings do not have deduct values unless they are raveling.

Checking (category 21). Checking cracks are relatively shallow surface cracks

at closely spaced but irregular intervals.

D-cracking (category 22). D-cracks form progressively on a concrete surface

as a series of fine cracks at close intervals; they form randomly but parallel with

edges, joints, and major cracks. Exudations frequently form along the cracks. It is

usually advisable to core concrete exhibiting severe D-cracking to determine the

depth of deterioration and for examination by a petrographer to determine cause.

Pattern cracking (category 23). Pattern cracking results from a relative

volume change of interior and exterior concrete. Pattern cracking together with

distortion generally indicates a volume increase such as occurs from alkali-aggregate reaction. The effect is generally shallow, less than 1 ft. Extensive pattern

cracking makes coring advisable to determine depth and cause. Pattern cracking

may progress to disintegration. The effect of cycles of freezing and thawing also

contributes to further deterioration of concrete with pattern cracking.

|0 Chapter 3 Methodology
VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE

RANDOM

VERTICAL AND LONGfTUDINAL

a. Dam monoliths

TRANSVERSE

LONGITUDINAL

(USE DEDUCT VALUES

FOR HOR/Z. CRACK)

b. Conduits

DIAGONAL

VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE

LONGfTUDINAL FLOOR

c. Concrete spillway chutes

Figure 3. Simplified crack representations.

Chapter 3 Methodology 11
DIAGONALr

d. Retaining Wall

J

£

or

e. Piers

i

pMM muxuj-üjjjnij^r

Figure 4. Simplified crack representations.

12 Chapter 3 Methodology
Horizontal cracking (category 24). Horizontal cracks may be created by

thermal or other volume changes, and they may be at lift joints or may go to culvert

or gallery openings. Deduct values are assigned as follows for concrete under

lateral or axial loading:

Crack widths, in. Deduct values

Very fine <0.01 5

Fine >0.01, <0.04 width X 500

Medium >0.04, <0.08 20 + (width -.04) X 375

Wide >0.08 35

For cracks on only one side of a gallery in lateral loaded elements, deduct values are

one-half the above.

Vertical and transverse cracking (category 25). Vertical and transverse

cracks may initially be caused by thermal or other volume changes and may go to

machinery openings or anchorages. Deduct values are assigned as follows for

concrete under lateral or axial loading:

Crack widths, in. Deduct values -

Very fine <0.01 5

Fine >0.01, <0.04 width X 500

Medium >0.04, <0.08 20 + (width - .04) X 375

Wide >0.08 35

For cracks on only one side of a gallery in lateral loaded elements, deduct values are

one-half of the above.

Vertical and longitudinal cracking (category 26). Vertical and longitudinal

cracks may be initiated by thermal or other volume changes, go through machinery

openings or anchorages, or go to galleries or culverts.

Crack widths, in. Deduct values

Very fine <0.01 10

Fine >0.01, < 0.04 2.5 + width X 750

Medium >0.04, <0.08 32.5 + (width - .04) X 687.5

Wide >0.08 60

All vertical cracks in axially loaded members are to be considered transverse. For

cracks on only the top side of an upper gallery or duct bank in a laterally loaded

element or in axially loaded concrete, deduct values are one-half of the above. The

longitudinal direction in a pier is to be considered the same as the longitudinal

Chapter 3 Methodology 13
direction in the body of a dam. For longitudinal cracks in closed conduits, use

deduct values for horizontal cracking regardless of orientation.

Diagonal cracking (category 27). Diagonal cracking usually results from an

overload, which may result from structural distortion. Such cracks may be through

an entire structural unit, a partial structural unit adjacent to shear keys between

structural units, a culvert wall or wall segment, or an anchorage. A crack bounding

a spall created by compressive forces at a contraction joint should be evaluated as a

spall. Deduct values are assigned as follows for concrete under lateral or axial

loading:

Crack widths, in. Deduct values

Very fine <0.01 15

Fine >0.01,<0.04 6.67 + width X 833

Medium >0.04, <0.08 40 + (width - .04) X 625

Wide >0.08 65

Random cracking (category 28). Random cracks may form in plastic or

hardened concrete. It is advisable to thoroughly investigate such cracks to ensure

that they are really random and not associated with embedded metal or trapped

water freezing. In such cases, deduct values for a spall (category 36) are to be used.

Deduct values are assigned as follows for concrete under lateral or axial loading:

Crack widths, in. Deduct values

Very fine <0.01 10

Fine >0.01, <0.04 5 + width X 500

Medium >0.04, ^0.08 25 + (width - .04) X 625

Wide >0.08 50

Longitudinal floor cracking (category 29). Longitudinal floor cracks are

evaluated only in reinforced U-Frame spillway chutes.

Crack widths, in. Deduct values

Very fine <0.01 10

Fine >0.01, <0.04 5 + width X 500

Medium >0.04, <0.08 25 + (width - .04) X 375

Wide >0.08 40

Volume Loss

A number of concrete volume-loss categories are listed in Table 3. Deduct

values depend on estimated depth, extent, and location of volume loss. For vertical

or sloping surfaces of laterally loaded elements, deduct values may be taken from

14 Chapter 3 Methodology
Figure 1 or calculated using the equation with that figure. The PC-based management system currently under development will accept entry of the percentage

volume loss and it will calculate the value. For volume losses on opposite sides of a

structural unit at the same elevation, add the deduct values for each volume loss to

get one deduct value for volume loss at that elevation. For volume loss that occurs

in a culvert or conduit wall, the percentage of depth is to be based on the thickness

of the wall except for abrasion and cavitation. Deducts for volume loss in conduits

and culverts apply not only to vertical surfaces but also to horizontal surfaces.

Volume-loss deterioration generally does not develop to a significant depth on

backfilled or always-submerged faces.

Repairs generally require removal of additional concrete before replacement.

Repairs are effective as long as they do not debond or otherwise deteriorate. When

repairs have debonded, a deduction should be calculated based on the volume loss

of the debonded repair.

Abrasion (category 31). Abrasion generally occurs when solid particles are

moved by water flow, and usually it can be limited by removal of debris. For

abrasion within conduits, deduct values in Table 4 should be used. Measurement

should be at the point of deepest abrasion.

Cavitation (category 32). Cavitation results from the collapse of vapor

bubbles in flowing water and is generally caused by high-velocity flow over abrupt

changes in surface alignment. Cavitation causes additional changes in alignment.

To prevent further damage, repairs should be made promptly and the cause of the

damage should be eliminated. Deduct values from Table 4 are used. Measurement

should be at the point of deepest cavitation.

Honeycomb (category 33). Honeycomb generally results from poor concreteplacing practices and most frequently occurs at lift joints. If honeycomb was poorly

repaired, the repair may have subsequently been easily removed by erosion.

Popouts (category 34). Popouts generally are caused by freezing of saturated

porous aggregate particles but may also result from alkali-aggregate reaction. They

are more aesthetically offensive than structurally serious.

Table 5. Condu t erosion deduct values.

Depth, in. Abrasion Cavitation

0to2 10 20

2 to 6 Depth X 5 Depth X 10

>6 30 60

Chapter 3 Methodology 15
Scaling (category 35). Scaling is the flaking or sloughing away of the nearsurface portion of concrete. It is usually caused by the development of osmotic and

hydraulic pressures during freezing.

Spalling (category 36). Spalling is the breaking away of a fragment, usually

wedge or conical shaped, by the action of pressure or a blow. Structural distortion

may apply sufficient pressure at contraction joints to cause spalls. Corrosion of

reinforcing steel or other embedded metal may spall the concrete cover. Also,

trapped water in voids may result in a spall. No deduction is made for a joint spall

less than 3 in. deep. A spall of less than 9 in. along a joint in a vertical surface is

considered light. If a spall on a vertical surface has a calculated volume-loss deduct

value that is larger than the applicable 5- or 10-point deduct value, use that value

instead.

Disintegration (category 37). Disintegration may result from cycles of

freezing and thawing, chemical attack, alkali-aggregate reaction, or other actions. It

usually proceeds from D-cracking, pattern cracking, or scaling. Core sampling is

essential for determining the actual depth of deterioration beyond the exposed

surfaces and to determine cause.

Steel deterioration (categories 41 to 44). Corrosion and overloading are the

two main causes of steel deterioration. Corrosion may be indicated initially by rust

stains on concrete surfaces (category 41); however, except for high-strength steels,

corrosion cannot be significant without the concrete cover delaminating or spalling.

Exposed steel (category 42) may have corroded sufficiently to have significantly

reduced cross section. Reinforcing bars with exposed or partially exposed ends may

not develop load. High-strength steel is susceptible to stress corrosion and may lose

load capacity with little corrosion. For delamination or exposure of any area of

reinforcing steel (category 42) serving a structural purpose, 30 points are deducted.

If over 50 percent of the steel at a cross section is exposed, or for any exposure or

indicated corrosion of prestressing steel (category 43), 60 points are deducted. For

compression faces of retaining wall surfaces, deduct 10 points for any exposure or

indicated corrosion and 20 points for exposure or indicated corrosion greater than

50 percent. For exposure or indicated corrosion between one reinforcing bar and 50

percent, the deduct value can be increased linearly from 30 to 60 points or from 10

to 20 points (see Appendix D). Five points are deducted for slight corrosion stains

and 10 points for more general corrosion stains from reinforcing steel. For a slight

amount of damaged armor (category 44), 5 points are deducted, and 10 points are

deducted for more general damage to armor. One or two missing or displaced

pieces that are not a hazard should be considered as slight damage. For more than

two pieces or any hazardous projections, the larger deduct is used.

)6 Chapter 3 Methodology
Leakage and deposits (categories 51 and 52). Leakage (category 51) through

cracks, joints, voids, and pores may affect the durability and function of a structure.

Seeping water may increase concrete saturation, thus accelerating damage from

cycles of freezing and thawing or producing mechanical failure during freezing.

Deposits (category 52) left by evaporating water are formed by ions that have

diffused out of the paste and weakened the concrete. Moving water may also erode

backfill or foundation material, requiring a foundation investigation. For seepage,

5 points are deducted. For leakage of up to approximately 10 gal/min, 10 points are

deducted, and for larger quantities a deduct of 20 points should be used. Leakage at

all locations throughout the monolith should be combined and the deduct should be

based on this total sum. Leakage sufficient to affect the operation of the dam has a

deduct of 40 points. It may be desirable to evaluate leakage at maximum head and

minimum temperature. When leakage is from a crack, there is a deduct value both

for the crack and the leakage; however, when leakage is from a joint, there is only a

deduct for the leakage. For deposits of less than approximately 0.1 in., 2 points are

deducted. For deposits up to approximately 0.5 in. thick, 5 points are deducted.

Larger quantities should use a deduct of 10 points.

Calculating the Condition Index

Once the distresses in each monolith to be rated are determined, the CI for

monoliths can be calculated. By inputting the distresses into the PC-based management system software, hand calculation of deduct values and the CI can be avoided.

The CI is based on the five largest deduct values (DV), with DV1 the largest value

and other values in descending order to the fifth largest, DV5. The calculation is

based on the following equation:

CI = 100 - [DV1 + 0.4(DV2) + 0.2(DV3) + 0.15(DV4) + 0.1(DV5)]

However, a deduct value sum above 100 is not to be used. Table 5 is an example

manual calculation of the CI. Manual calculation of the index can be avoided by

using the software developed to automate the storage of inspection-related information. Appendix C (trip reports) includes discussion of how this equation was chosen

(C24-C26 and also C10, 15, 16,19-21).

It is suggested that the overall condition of the dam be represented by the

lowest monolith CI and the average for the monoliths rated. Further investigation

of preferable methods of presenting overall structure condition rating information

will be made at a later date.

Chapter 3 Methodology 17
Table 5. Example of manual calculation of the Cl.

Step 1. Inspect monolith to determine distresses and quantities.

Step 2. Calculate deduct values for each distress.

Step 3. Rank the deduct values from largest to smallest. Only the five largest are used in the Cl

calculation.

DISTRESS and QUANTITY DEDUCT VALUE RANK

(STEP 1) (STEP 2) (STEP 3)

1. Horizontal crack, 0.09 in. 35 DV1

2. Deposits, 0.4 in. thick 5 DV4

3. Leakage, 6 gal/min 10 DV3

4. Vol. loss, 100% width, 0.5% depth (100)(0.5)/20 = 2.5 -

5. Diagonal crack, 0.03 in. 6.67+ (0.03)(833) = 31.66 DV2

6. Corrosion stains, light 5 DV5

Step 4. Calculate the Cl based on the ranked deduct values:

Cl = 100 - [ DV1 + (0.4)DV2 + (0.2)DV3 + (0.15)DV4 + (0.1)DV5 ]

Cl = 100 - [ 35 + (0.4)31.66 + (0.2)10 + (0.15)5 + (0.1)5 ] = 49.01

The monolith Cl is 49, which is "fair."

18 Chapter 3 Methodology
4 Summary and

Recommendations

The inspection and rating procedures described in this report have intentionally

been kept as simple as possible. The inspections require only simple tools such as a

crack comparator, wire brush, binoculars, tape measure, and ruler. An inspection

form has been developed to document distress information (distresses, measurements, locations, and so on).

While the tools and inspection procedures are relatively simple, preparation for

an inspection is not always as simple. For example, an inspection of a conduit may

require planning to avoid conflicts with operations. Some volume loss distresses

may require coring to accurately determine the depth affected if that information is

needed.

Once the data is obtained, software has been developed to compute the CI

directly from the inspection records. The CI is a numbered scale from 0 to 100 that

indicates the current state of the structure. It is primarily a planning tool that

indicates the relative need to perform REMR work. CIs below 40 indicate that a

more detailed inspection and analysis is required.

Distresses reduce the CI according to rules based on the opinion of Corps

experts. They involve at least two considerations: (1) structural integrity, or how, in

the judgment of expert engineers, the safety of the structure has been degraded by

various distresses, and (2) serviceability, or how the structure performs its function

on a day-to-day basis. A CI for each monolith is calculated by a weighted addition

of the five largest distresses.

Chapter 4 Summary and Recommendations 19
References

American Concrete Institute Committee 201. 1992. "Guide for Making a Condition

Survey of Concrete in Service," ACI201.1R-92. ACI Manual ofConcrete

Practice, Part 1, Detroit, MI.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5340-93, Standard Test

Methodfor Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys.

Bullock, R.E. 1989. A Rating Systemfor the Concrete in Navigation Lock Monoliths, Technical Report REMR-OM-4. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Shahin, M. Y., M.I. Darter, and S.D Kohn. 1976-1977. Development ofa Pavement

Maintenance Management System, Vol I-V. U.S. Air Force Engineering

Services Center (AFESC), Tyndall AFB.

Shahin, M. Y., D. M. Bailey, and D. E. Brotherson. 1987. Membrane and Flashing

Condition Indexesfor Built-Up Roofs, Volume II: Inspection and Distress

Manual, Technical Report M-87/13. US Army Construction Engineering

Research Laboratories, Champaign, IL.

Shahin, M.Y. and JA. Walther. 1990. Pavement Maintenance Managmentfor

Roads and Streets Using the PAVER System, Technical Report No. M-90/05,

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Laboratories, Champaign, IL.

Stowe, R. L., and H. T. Thornton, Jr. 1984. Engineering Condition Survey of

Concrete in Service, Technical Report REMR-CS-1. US Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

20 References
Appendix A

Guide for Making a Condition

Survey of Concrete in Service

(Reported by ACI Committee 201)

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A1
ACI 201.1R-92

Guide for Making a Condition Survey

of Concrete in Service

Reported by ACI Committee 201

Members of Committee 201 who voted on the 1992 revisions:

Cameron Maclnnis*

Chairman

Barry W. Butler

Ramon L. Carrasquillo*

Paul D. Carter

Kenneth C. Clear

Bernard Erlin

Emery Farkas

Per Fidjestol

John F. Gibbons

Eugene D. Hill, Jr.

Jens Holm

Robert D. Hooten

Gunnar M. Idorn

John M. Jaffe

Paul Klieger

Joseph F. Lamond*

Kenneth R. Lauer*

Stella L. Marusin

Timothy B. Masters

Katharine Mather*

Tarun R. Naik*

Michel Pigeon

Robert E. Price

Rasheeduzzafar

Thomas J. Reading

Hannah C. Schell

Charles F. Scholer

Jan P. Skalny

Mauro J. Scali

Secretary

Peter Smith

George V. Teodoru

J. Derle Thorpe

PJ. Tikalsky

Claude B. Trusty, Jr.

George J. Venta

Gary L- Vondran

David A. Whiting

J. Craig Williams

* Task group members who revised the guide.

This guide provides a system for reporting on the condition of concrete

in sen'ice. It includes a check list of the many details that may be considered in

making a report, and repeals the ACI 116 standard definitions of terms associated with the durability of concrete. Its purpose is to establish a uniform system

for evaluating the condition of concrete.

The guide was revised by a task group chaired by K.R. Lauer. The other

task group members are indicated by an asterisk.

Keywords: bridges (structures); buildings: concrete construction: concrete durability;

concrete pavements; concretes; corrosion; cracking (fracturing): deterioration; environments; freeze thaw durability; inspection; joints (junctions); popouts; quality control;

scaling; serviceability; spalling; strength; surveys.

CONTENTS

Chapter 1—Introduction, pg. 201.1R-1

Chapter 2—Check list, pg. 201.1R-2

Chapter 3—Definitions and photographs, pg. 201.1R-5

CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION

This guide presents a system for making a condition survey

of concrete in service. A condition survey is an examination

ACI Committee Reports, Guides. Standard Practices and

Commentaries are intended for guidance in designing, planning, executing, or inspecting construction, and in preparing

specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be

made in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents are intended to be part of the Project Documents,

they should be phrased in mandatory language and incorporated into the Project Documents.

of concrete for the purpose of identifying and defining areas

of distress. The system is designed to be used in recording

the history of a project from inception through construction

and subsequent life of the structure.

While it probably will be used most often in connection

with the survey of concrete that is showing some degree of

distress, its application is recommended for all concrete

structures. In any case, records of the materials and

construction practices used should be maintained because

they are difficult to obtain at a later date.

The committee has attempted to include pertinent items

that might have a bearing on the performance of the

concrete. Those making the survey should, however, not limit

their investigation to the items listed, thereby possibly

overlooking other contributing factors. Following the guide

does not eliminate the need for intelligent observations and

the use of sound judgement.

Those performing the survey should be experienced and

competent in this field. In addition to verbal descriptions,

numerical data obtained by laboratory tests and field tests

and measurements should be obtained wherever possible.

Photographs, including a scale to indicate dimensions, are of

great value in showing the condition of concrete.

Copyright & 1992. American Concrete Institute.

This report was approved by letter ballot of the commitlee and reported lo ACI

headquarters July, 1990.

All rights reserved including rights of reproduclion and use in any form or by nnv

means, including the making of copies by any pholo process or by any electronic or

mechanical device, prinied, wriltcn. or oral, or recording for sound or visual

reproduction or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless

permission in writing is obtained from the copyright proprielors.

201.1R-1

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A3
201.1R-2 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

The check list is provided to facilitate a thorough survey.

The definition of terms and associated photographs are an

attempt to standardize the reporting of the condition of the

concrete in a structure.

This guide should be used in conjunction with the following:

1. ACI Committee 116 "Cement and Concrete Terminology" (ACI 116R).

2. ACI Committee 311 "Recommended Practice for Concrete Inspection" (ACI 311.1R).

3. ACI Committee 201, "Guide to Durable Concrete" (ACI

201.2R).

CHAPTER 2—CHECK LIST

Personnel conducting the condition survey must select

those items important to the specific concerns relating to the

reasons for the survey. Other factors may be involved and

should not be overlooked during the survey.

CHECK LIST

1. Description of structure or pavement

1.1 Name, location, type, and size

1.2 Owner, project engineer, contractor, when built

1.3 Design

1.3.1 Architect and/or engineer

1.3.2 Intended use and history of use

1.3.3 Special features

1.4 Construction

1.4.1 Contractor—general

1.4.2 Subcontractors—concrete placement

1.4.3 Concrete supplier

1.4.4 Agency responsible for testing

1.4.5 Other subcontractors

1.5 Photographs

1.5.1 General view

1.5.2 Detailed close up of condition of area

1.6 Sketch map—orientation showing sunny and

shady and well and poorly drained regions

2. Present condition of structure

2.1 Overall alignment of structure

2.1.1 Settlement

2.1.2 Deflection

2.1.3 Expansion

2.1.4 Contraction

2.2 Portions showing distress (beams, columns,

pavement, walls, etc., subjected to strains and

pressures)

2.3 Surface condition of concrete

2.3.1 General (good, satisfactory, poor,

dusting, chalking, blisters)

2.3.2 Cracks

2.3.2.1 Location and frequency

2.3.2.2 Type and size (see definitions)

2.3.2.3 Leaching, stalactites

2.3.3 Scaling

2.3.3.1 Area, depth

2.3.3.2 Type (see definitions)

2.3.4 Spalls and popouts

2.3.4.1 Number, size, and depth

2.3.4.2 Type (see definitions)

2.3.5 Extent of corrosion or chemical attack,

abrasion, impact, cavitation

2.3.6 Stains, efflorescence

2.3.7 Exposed reinforcement

2.3.8 Curling and warping

2.3.9 Previous patching or other repair

2.3.10 Surface coatings

2.3.10.1 Type and thickness

2.3.10.2 Bond to concrete

2.3.10.3 Condition

2.3.11 Abrasion

2.3.12 Penetrating sealers

2.3.12.1 Type

2.3.12.2 Effectiveness

2.3.12.3 Discoloration

2.4 Interior condition of concrete (in situ and

samples)

2.4.1 Strength of cores

2.4.2 Density of cores

2.4.3 Moisture content

2.4.4 Evidence of alkali-aggregate or other

reaction

2.4.5 Bond to aggregate, reinforcing steel,

joints

2.4.6 Pulse velocity

2.4.7 Volume change

2.4.8 Ar content and distribution

2.4.9 Chloride-ion content

2.4.10 Cover over reinforcing steel

2.4.11 Half-cell potential to reinforcing steel

2.4.12 Evidence of reinforcement corrosion

2.4.13 Evidence of corrosion of dissimilar

metals

2.4.14 Delaminations

2.4.15 Depth of carbonation

2.4.16 Freezing and thawing distress (frost

damage)

2.4.17 Extent of deterioration

2.4.18 Aggregate proportioning and distribution

3. Nature of loading and detrimental elements

3.1 Exposure

3.1.1 Environment—arid, subtropical,

marine, freshwater, industrial, etc.

3.1.2 Weather—(July and January mean

temperatures, mean annual rainfall and

months in which 60 percent of it occurs

3.1.3 Freezing and thawing

3.1.4 Wetting and drying

A4 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
CONDITION SURVEY GUIDE 201.1R-3

3.1.5 Drying under dry atmosphere

3.1.6 Chemical attack—sulfates, acids, chloride

3.1.7 Abrasion, erosion, cavitation, impact

3.1.8 Electric currents

3.1.9 Deicing chemicals which contain chloride ions

3.1.10 Heat from adjacent sources

3.2 Drainage

3.2.1 Flashing

3.2.2 Weepholes

3.2.3 Contour

3.2.4 Elevation of drains

3.3 Loading

3.3.1 Dead

3.3.2 Live

3.3.3 Impact

3.3.4 Vibration

3.3.5 Traffic index

3.3.6 Other

3.4 Soils (foundation conditions)

3.4.1 Compressibility

3.4.2 Expansive soil

3.4.3 Settlement

3.4.4 Resistivity

3.4.5 Evidence of pumping

3.4.6 Water table (level and fluctuations)

4. Original condition of structure

4.1 Condition of formed and finished surfaces

4.1.1 Smoothness

4.1.2 Air pockets ("bugholes")

4.1.3 Sand streaks

4.1.4 Honeycomb

4.1.5 Soft areas (retarded hydration)

4.1.6 Cold joints

4.1.7 Staining

4.2 Defects

4.2.1 Cracking

4.2.1.1 Plastic shrinkage

4.2.1.2 Thermal shrinkage

4.2.1.3 Drying shrinkage

4.2.2 Curling

Materials of construction

5.1 Hydraulic cement

5.1.1 Class or classes—(portland, blended,

high alumina, ground granulated blast

furnace slag)

5.1.2 Type or types, and source

5.1.3 Chemical analysis (obtain certified test

data if available)

5.1.4 Physical properties

5.2 Aggregates

5.2.1 Coarse

5.2.1.1 Type, source and mineral

composition (representative

sample available)

5.2.1.2 Quality characteristics

5.2.1.2.1 Percentage of deleterious material

5.2.1.2.2 Percentage of potentially reactive

materials

5.2.1.2.3 Coatings, texture,

and particle shape

5.2.1.2.4 Grading, soundness, hardness

5.2.1.2.5 Other properties as

specified in ASTM

Designation C 33

(C 330 for lightweight aggregate)

5.2.1.2.6 Service record on

other projects

5.2.2 Fine

5.2.2.1 Type, source, and mineral

composition (representative

sample available)

5.2.2.2 Quality characteristics

5.2.2.2.1 Percentage of deleterious material

5.2.2.2.2 Percentage of potentially reactive

materials

5.2.2.2.3 Coatings, texture,

and particle shape

5.2.2.2.4 Grading, soundness, and hardness

5.2.2.2.5 Other properties as

specified in ASTM

Designation C33 (C

330 for lightweight

aggregate)

5.2.2.2.6 Service record on

other projects

5.3 Mixing water

5.3.1 Source and quality

5.4 Admixtures

5.4.1 Air entraining admixtures

5.4.1.1 Type and source

5.4.1.2 Composition

5.4.1.3 Dosage

5.4.1.4 Manner of introduction

5.4.2 Mineral admixtures

5.4.2.1 Class and source

5.4.2.2 Physical properties

5.4.2.3 Chemical properties

5.4.3 Chemical admixtures

5.4.3.1 Type and source

5.4.3.2 Composition

5.4.3.3 Dosage

5.4.3.4 Manner and time of introduction

5.5 Concrete

5.5.1 Mixture proportions

5.5.1.1 Cement content

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A5
201.1 R-4 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

5.5.1.2 Proportions of each size aggregate

5.5.1.3 Water-cementitious materials

ratio

5.5.1.4 Water content

5.5.1.5 Chemical admixture(s)

5.5.1.6 Mineral admixture(s)

5.5.1.7 Air entraining admixture

5.5.2 Properties of fresh concrete

5.5.2.1 Slump or other workability

measure

5.5.2.2 Bleeding

5.5.2.3 Air content

5.5.2.4 Unit weight

5.5.2.5 Temperature

5.5.3 Type

5.5.3.1 Cast-in-place

5.5.3.2 Precast

5.5.3.3 Prestressed (pre-tensioned or

post-tensioned)

5.5.4 Reinforcement

5.5.4.1 Type (bar, mesh or fibers)

5.5.4.2 Yield strength

5.5.4.3 Thickness and quality of

cover

5.5.4.4 Field or shop fabricated

5.5.4.5 Use of welding

5.5.4.6 Presence of coating

5.5.4.6.1 Type

5.5.4.6.2 Condition

5.5.5 Initial physical properties of hardened

concrete

5.5.5.1 Strength—compressive.flexural

5.5.5.2 Modulus of elasticity

5.5.5.3 Density and homogeneity of

microstructure

5.5.5.4 Percentage and distribution

of air

5.5.5.5 Volume change potential

5.5.5.5.1 Shrinkage or contraction

5.5.5.5.2 Expansion orswelling

5.5.5.5.3 Creep

5.5.5.6 Thermal properties

5.5.6 Field test results

5.5.6.1 Description of tests and frequency

5.5.6.2 Actual results for full project

5.5.6.3 Actual results for concrete

under survey

5.5.6.4 Evaluation of strength results

per ACI 214

Construction practices

6.1 Storage and processing of materials

6.1.1 Aggregates

6.1.1.1 Grading

6.1.1.2 Washing

6.1.1.3 Storage

6.1.1.3.1 Stockpiling

6.1.1.3.2 Bins

6.1.1.3.3 Moisture control/

prewetting

6.1.1.3.4 Cooling

6.1.1.3.5 Heating

6.1.2 Cement and admixtures

6.1.2.1 Storage

6.1.2.2 Handling

6.1.3 Reinforcing steel and inserts

6.1.3.1 Storage

6.1.3.2 Placement

6.2 Forming

6.2.1 Type

6.2.2 Bracing

6.2.3 Coating-type and time of application

6.2.4 Insulation

6.3 Concreting operation

6.3.1 Batching plant

6.3.1.1 Type—automatic, manual,

etc.

6.3.1.2 Condition of equipment

6.3.1.3 Batching sequence

6.3.1.4 Availability of computer

printouts

6.3.2 Mixing

6.3.2.1 Type—central mix, truck mix,

job mix, shrink mix, etc.

6.3.2.2 Condition of equipment

6.3.2.3 Mixing time

6.3.3 Transporting—trucks, buckets, chutes,

pumps, etc.

6.3.4 Placing

6.3.4.1 Methods—conventional,

underwater, slipform, etc.

6.3.4.2 Equipment—buckets, elephant trunks, vibrators, etc.

6.3.4.3 Weather conditions—time of

year, rain, snow, dry wind,

temperature, humidity, etc.

6.3.4.4 Site conditions—cut, fill, presence of water, etc.

6.3.4.5 Construction joints

6.3.4.6 Contraction and isolation

joints

6.3.5 Finishing

6.3.5.1 Type—slabs, floors, pavements, appurtenances

6.3.5.2 Method—manual or machine

6.3.5.3 Equipment—screeds, floats,

trowels, straightedge, belt,

etc.

6.3.5.4 Hardeners, water, dust coat,

coloring, etc.

6.3.6 Curing

A6 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
CONDITION SURVEY GUIDE 201.1R-5

6.3.6.1 Type (water, covering, curing

membrane, forms in place)

6.3.6.2 Application

6.3.6.3 Duration

6.3.6.4 Efficiency

6.3.7 Form removal (time of removal)

6.3.7.1 Vertical

6.3.7.2 Shoring

CHAPTER 3—DEFINITIONS AND

ASSOCIATED PHOTOGRAPHS

Distress manifestations have been categorized and illustrated by photographs. Their severity and extent of occurrence have been quantified where possible. Their purpose is

to attempt to standardize the reporting of the condition of

the concrete in a structure. Those performing the survey

should be thoroughly familiar with the various types of distress and the rating scheme before starting the survey.

A.l Crack—A complete or incomplete separation, of either

concrete or masonry, into two or more parts produced by

breaking or fracturing.

A.l.l Checking—Development of shallow cracks at

closely spaced but irregular intervals on the surface of plaster,

cement paste, mortar, or concrete.

A.1.2 Craze cracks—Fine random cracks or fissures in a

surface of plaster, cement paste, mortar, or concrete.

Crazing—The development of craze cracks; the

pattern of craze cracks existing in a surface.

A.1.3 D-cracking—A series of cracks in concrete near

and roughly parallel to joints, edges, and structural cracks.

A.1.4 Diagonal crack—In a flexural member, an inclined

crack caused by shear stress, usually at about 45 deg to the

axis; or a crack in a slab, not parallel to either the lateral or

longitudinal directions.

A. 1.5 Hairline cracks—Cracks in an exposed concrete

surface having widths so small as to be barely perceptible.

A.1.6 Pattern cracking—Fine openings on concrete surfaces in the form of a pattern; resulting from a decrease in

volume of the material near the surface, or increase in

volume of the material below the surface, or both.

A.1.7 Plastic cracking—Cracking that occurs in the surface of fresh concrete soon after it is placed and while it is

still plastic.

A.1.8 Shrinkage cracking—Cracking of a structure or

member due to failure in tension caused by external or internal restraints as reduction in moisture content develops, or as

carbonation occurs, or both.

A.1.9 Temperature cracking—Cracking due to tensile failure, caused by temperature gradient in members subjected to

external restraints or by temperature differential in members

subjected to internal restraints.

A.l.10 Transverse cracks—Cracks that develop at right

angles to the long direction of the member.

A.2 Deterioration— 1) Physical manifestation of failure of

a material (e.g., cracking, delamination, flaking, pitting,

scaling, spalling, straining) caused by environmental or internal autogenous influences on hardened concrete as well as

other materials; 2) Decomposition of material during either

testing or exposure to service.

Disintegration—Reduction into small fragments and

subsequently into particles.

A.2.1 Abrasion damage—Wearing away of a surface by

rubbing and friction.

A.2.2 Blistering—The irregular raising of a thin layer,

frequently 25 to 300 mm in diameter, at the surface of placed

mortar or concrete during or soon after completion of the

finishing operation; blistering is usually attributed to early

closing of the surface and may be aggravated by cool temperatures. Blisters also occur in pipe after spinning or in a finish

plastic coat in plastering as it separates and draws away from

the base coat.

A.2.3 Cavitation damage—Pitting of concrete caused by

implosion, i.e., the collapse of vapor bubbles in flowing water

which form in areas of low pressure and collapse as they

enter areas of higher pressure.

A.2.4 Chalking—Formation of a loose powder resulting

from the disintegration Of the surface of concrete or of

applied coating, such as cement paint.

A.2.5 Corrosion— destruction of metal by chemical, electrochemical, or electrolytic reaction with its environment.

A.2.6 Curling—The distortion of an originally essentially

linear or planar member into a curved shape such as the

warping of a slab due to creep or to differences in temperature or moisture content in the zones adjacent to its opposite

faces.

A.2.7 Deflection—Movement of a point on a structure or

structural element, usually measured as a linear displacement

transverse to a reference line or axis.

A.2.8 Deformation—A change in dimension or shape.

A.2.9 Delamination—A separation along a plane parallel

to a surface as in the separation of a coating from a substrate

or the layers of a coating from each other, or in the case of

a concrete slab, a horizontal splitting, cracking or separation

of a slab in a plane roughly parallel to, and generally near,

the upper surface; found frequently in bridge decks and other

types of elevated reinforced-concrete slabs and may be

caused by the corrosion of reinforcing steel; also found in

slabs on grade caused by development, during the finishing

operation, of a plane of weakness below the densified surface; or caused by freezing and thawing, similar to spalling,

scaling, or peeling except that delamination affects large

areas and can often be detected by tapping.

A.2.10 Distortion—See Deformation.

A.2.11 Dusting—The development of a powdered material at the surface of hardened concrete.

A.2.12 Efflorescence—A deposit of salts, usually white,

formed on a surface, the substance having emerged in solution from within either concrete or masonry and subsequently

been precipitated by evaporation.

A.2.13 Erosion—Progressive disintegration of a solid by

the abrasive or cavitation action of gases, fluids, or solids in

motion.

A.2.14 Exfoliation—Disintegration occurring by peeling

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A7
201.1R-6 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

off in successive layers; swelling up and opening into leaves

or plates like a partly opened book.

A.2.15 Exudation—A liquid or viscous gel-like material

discharged through a pore, crack, or opening in the surface

of concrete.

A.2.16 Joint spall—A spall adjacent to a joint.

A.2.17 Pitting—Development of relatively small cavities

in a surface; in concrete, localized disintegration, such as a

popout; in steel, localized corrosion evident as minute cavities

on the surface.

A.2.18 Peeling—A process in which thin flakes of mortar

are broken away from a concrete surface, such as by deterioration or by adherence of surface mortar to forms as forms

are removed.

A.2.19 Popout—The breaking away of small portions of

a concrete surface due to localized internal pressure which

leaves a shallow, typical conical, depression.

A.2.19.1 Popouts, small—Popouts leaving holes up to

10 mm in diameter, or the equivalent.

A.2.19.2 Popouts, medium—Popouts leaving holes between 10 and 50 mm in diameter, or the equivalent.

A.2.19.3 Popouts, large—Popouts leaving holes greater

than 50 mm in diameter, or the equivalent.

A.2.20 Scaling—Local flaking or peeling away of the

near-surface portion of hardened concrete or mortar; also of

a layer from metal.

A.2.20.1 Scaling, light—Loss ofsurface mortar without

exposure of coarse aggregate.

A.2.20.2 Scaling, medium—Loss of surface mortar 5

to 10 mm in depth and exposure of coarse aggregate.

A.2.20.3 Scaling, severe—Loss of surface mortar 5 to

10 mm in depth with some loss of mortar surrounding aggregate particles 10 to 20 mm in depth.

A.2.20.4 Scaling, very severe—Loss of coarse aggregate

particles as well as mortar, generally to a depth greater than

20 mm.

A.2.21 Spall—A fragment, usually in the shape of a

Hake, detached from a larger mass by a blow, by the action

of weather, by pressure, or by expansion within the large

mass.

A.2.21.1 Small spall—A roughly circular depression

not greater than 20 mm in depth nor 50 mm in any

dimension.

A.2.21.2 Large spall—May be roughly circular or oval

or in some cases elongated, more than 20 mm in depth and

150 mm in greatest dimension.

A.2.22 Warping—A deviation of a slab or wall surface

from its original shape, usually caused by either temperature

or moisture differentials or both within the slab or wall.

A.3 TexturaI features and phenomena relative to their development.

A.3.1 Air void—A space in cement paste, mortar, or

concrete filled with air; an entrapped air void is characteristically 1 mm or more in size and irregular in shape; an

entrained air void is typically between 10 pni and 1 mm in

diameter and spherical or nearly so.

A.3.2 Bleeding—The autogenous flow of mixing water

within, or its emergence from, newly placed concrete or mortar; caused by the settlement of the solid materials within the

mass; also called water gain.

A33 Bugholes—Small regular or irregular cavities,

usually not exceeding 25 mm in diameter, resulting from entrapment of air bubbles in the surface of formed concrete

during placement and consolidation.

A.3.4 Cold joint—A joint or discontinuity resulting from

a delay in placement of sufficient time to preclude a union of

the material in two successive lifts.

A.3.5 Cold-joint lines—Visible lines on the surfaces of

formed concrete indicating the presence of joints where one

layer of concrete had hardened before subsequent concrete

was placed.

A.3.6 Discoloration—departure of color from that which

is normal or desired.

A.3.7 Honeycomb—Voids left in concrete due to failure

of the mortar to effectively fill the spaces among coarse

aggregate particles.

A.3.8 Incrustation—A crust or coating, generally hard,

formed on the surface of concrete or masonry construction or

on aggregate particles.

A.3.9 Joint—A physical separation in concrete, whether

precast or cast-in-place, including cracks if intentionally made

to occur at specified locations; also the region where structural members intersect such as a beam-column joint.

A.3.10 Laitance—A layer of weak and nondurable

material containing cement and fines from aggregates,

brought by bleeding water to the top of overwet concrete; the

amount is generally increased by overworking or over-manipulating concrete at the surface by improper finishing or by

job traffic.

A.3.11 Sand pocket—A zone in concrete or mortar containing fine aggregate with little or no cement.

A.3.12 Sand streak—A streak of exposed fine aggregate

in the surface of formed concrete, caused by bleeding.

A.3.13 Segregation—The differential concentration of the

components of mixed concrete, aggregate, or the like, resulting in nonuniform proportions in the mass.

A.3.14 Stalactite—A downward-pointing deposit formed

as an accretion of mineral matter produced by evaporation of

dripping water from the surface of concrete, commonly

shaped like an icicle.

A.3.15 Stalagmite—At upward-pointing deposit formed

as an accretion of mineral matter produced by evaporation of

dripping water, projecting from the surface of concrete,

commonly conical in shape.

A.3.16 Stratification—The separation of overwet or

overvibrated concrete into horizontal layers with increasingly

lighter material toward the top; water, laitance, mortar, and

coarse aggregate tend to occupy successively lower positions

in that order; a layered structure in concrete resulting from

placing of successive batches that differ in appearance;

occurrence in aggregate stockpiles of layers of differing

grading or composition; a layered structure in a rock foundation.

A.3.17 Water void—Void along the underside of an

aggregate particle or reinforcing steel which formed during

the bleeding period; initially filled with bleed water.

A8 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
CONDiTION SURVEY SU IDE 201.1H-7

/'»£ A. 1,1-~Chechns

.Fig. A. 1.4 Dhipmal crin'Lt

•v-r! liSllt

iSÜlit

«iflliijjSjS

-

/ >v A.12 ( uizt' irat'ks

,*>. *

ft ssp^piii^^#ii?i

s^i^is^xSjjp

1i§!

i-

*! «< •" "":

1%. AJJht—Pattern iracking (fine)

!r'i

tt

3

.- •

IV.

[•>> »i

r * ' •

/%. ,4-I.J D-crmkme {fine Fig, A. 1.6b—Pattern cracking (medium)

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A9
201.1R-8 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

? ..-"

i ' .. ..*... J

V

KC." V..

\

\

i'T-^yy «*&-j

i.- i

;•*»'.

£

/':,i,'. /I./.(W—Pattern tracking (alkidt-siik« reactum)

Fig, AJ.de—Pattern crocking (rtstrtiini ofwhtme dumgei

Fie. AJ.fif—PafMV trucking (ttikati-carlxxutie reaction.

I ig. 4.i.? Mastic crttckmx

A10 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
CONDtTION SURVEY GUIDE 20I.1H-9

^8ssr**.N _^*Ä^

fig t.l.H—Shrinkage cracking

t .— • .5 *•«'*•..-.. ,. . .

* * * . i *

Ä*~ .^Üö^äIL^,^

Fig. A.2.1—-Abrasion damage

Fig, A.LIO'—Tnmsverse cracking (wide) Fig. A.2.2—Blistering

HÜ

5 .•••-»;*.)..,

fig. ,0 —Dimih'gmtioH Fig. A.2.3—Caviiaiion damage

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A11
201.1R-10 AC» COMMITTEE REPORT

h- • **i#tMfoafcri ^??ft?i

!

;

iy,. .4,2.5- Ctwrmion <ktttut%e

illilliillli I" r

i***£fcM

! '(}!. A.2JI1--Dtsti»ihm

\'i "" *;

{ilpiBllliilljlllilp

'W

I.-'*.» -'". ; *••»?•#<• ■■- .<' .:,- •

'.i ' > • --,...- *, ;•. ,'• . . •?*/•-'''

/•>,!>. A.2.9- -DeliViiittaiioiis tip.. A,2. II—!>usiutft

A12 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
CONDITION SURVEY GUIDE 201.1R-11

/-'<>. A.2.12—Eß'ßorescetice

Fig, A.2.I6a~-Mftt spall

big. A.2J3—Erasitm Fig. A.lAtib--Joint qmli

—«ill lf-:

KvBW'E ll

1 *•*"?&

i w. A.2 15 Exudation

LUi

-y

ptillly

&2iy& «if.'• 'i-.-s» S'-- ,.' /■■. .:.M« *• , -*<

l

;

ig. A.2.17-Pitting

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A13
201.18-12 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

Fin. A.2.l$a—IW.!mg

i^^^^K^ ;.,

i

Vi%, A.USb—Peeling (close-up,

ri%. /i.i.

H8mfa.

/•'/#. AJ.Fli -i'opoui (smtdl)

A14 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
CONDITION SURVEY GUIDE 201.1K-13

I >4>. .4.2,19.2—Popout (medmm'}

*-f-»3-*"" t .! -_? ••*»

Up A.2.}(JJ—Papon! {Urge}

Fig. A2.20.lb—Close-up .seating {!H;!)S;

r.'SJ

I .>,*«=.;= mjugi

I

\ «.."" \ » . ^k.

/;>,'. A.2.20.1a—Scaling (light)

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A15
S0i.1R.14 AC! COMMITTEE REPORT

i -5 • ^n*;?W+*rri«ft ? • * ** r' ;i f 1

i'/t'. A.2.2^.2U ('Säe-up M,-.i!mx nnedhum /-'/;>. /1.2 :.'-'.*,•• • .V,'.-/.•>((.< fr

/'*«>. A,2.20,3ti~-St'idhiv tsnwrei

p-sii P^:HS. mmm""W%m^m^mmm m^«mß-m?wm

;;^^-::v]:::>:^-. ':':;> ■■■yjy-^ :-#!&""^';,;&':'

;

:£"'''yJ!?^"'

!iiBi|iiiBpi|ilsÄliili4illfciÄ

;

;^ii:

Fii>. A.2.2f>,4b -Cii,.,,:-iit> M-almi; fvcn H

/';,s.'. A.2.203b—("iiixv-ui> scaling he,er<:

A16 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
CONDITION SURVEY GUIDE 201.1R-1S

***

SäJ

^flaN *' '■■* • *:*.•.• ■■*>

\i\

*•, *.~]

! ,.. - -••« •• v. $ . •

Fig. A.3.S—Cold joint

wnmsm Itlllijll;

iii:!ii::i:::p:||l

WS'Mz'esa

-ft

/'#- /1.13 --IfliglwU'A Fig, ,4,3.6~~DI$eoloraiUm

Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service A17
2Ö1.1R-16 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

m ».».* '' m m "jm m m \

**•*. .

i> *#&*.!

[;* •'• i>i/ ' .1" .I

..?.?—Honeycomb

■■•'•»fr:----.

'* i £*

Si

i ., «5 _» _•_ J

,XM Stalactite

Fig. AJ. 12—Sand simik

A18 Appendix A Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service
Appendix B

Sample Monolith Inspection

Forms

Appendix B Sample Monolith Inspection Forms B1
DAM MONOLITH FIELD INSPECTION FORM

Dam: K T, ^ i Monolith/: Id

Date: 8/2.&p4- Inspector: "RE'S

Are there any indications of misalignment? Yes /(No

Location Codes: UF-Upstream Face DF-Downstream Face P-Pier D-Deck

S-Spillway RW-Retammg Wall F-Floor G-Gallery T-Tunnel C-Conduit

Structural Loading: L-Lateral Loads A-Axial Loads

Distress Codes: 21-CH-Checking 2 2-DC-D-Cracking 23-PA-Pattern

24-HZ-Horizontal 24A-HZA-One Side Gallery 25-VT-Vertical&Transverse

2 6-VL-Vertical & Longitudinal 26A-VLA-One Side Gallery 27-DG-Diaqonal

,28-RN-Random 29-LF-Longitudinal Floor

31-AB-Abrasion 3 2-CV-Cavitation 3 3-HC-Honeycomb 34-PO-Popouts

35-SC-Scalmg 36-SP-Spalling 37-DS-Disintegration

CRACKING DISTRESSES

Category: 2. *f Width: ,0^/(in.) L (A) UF DF tj RW

Remarks: £fl— 4-&cL

Category: Width: (in. ) L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Remarks:

Category: Width: (in.) L A

Remarks:

UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Category: Width: (in.) L A

Remarks:

Category: Width: (in.; L A

Remarks:

VOLUME LOSS TYPE CRACKING / DETERIORATION

Distress Category: L A UF DF D RW

Distress:

Section:

Remarks:

width

width

depth

depth

height elevs.

(at elevation of distress)

Distress Category: L A UF DF RW

Distress:

Section:

Remarks:

width

width

depth

depth

height elevs.

(at elevation of distress)

UF DF P D S RW F G T C

UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Appendix B Sample Monolith Inspection Forms B3
Monolith/: |^

LOCATION CODES: UF-Upstream Face DF-Downstream Face P-Pier D-Deck ,

S-Spillway RW-Retaining Wall F-Floor G-Gallery T-Tunnel C-Conduit

STEEL

42-Reinforcing (percentage of bars exposed at X-section)

43-Prestress (any exposure or indicated corrosion)

42 43

42 43

42 43

UF DF P D S RW F G T C

UF DF P D S RW F G T C

UF DF P D S RW F G T C

% Remarks:

OTHER

6-Spalled Joint 41-Corrosion Stain 44-Damaged Armor 51-Leakage

2-Deposits (Moderate Leakage <10 gpm. Moderate Deposit <l/2" thick)

36 41(44J 51 52

36 41 44,<>>

36 41 44 51 52

36 41 44 51 52

36 41 44 51 52

UF DFlPJS RW G T C

UF DFmS RW G T C

UF DF P S RW G T C

UF DF P S RW G T C

UF DF P S RW G T C

LITJMOD HVY CRIT

LIT MOD HVY CRIT

LIT MOD HVY CRIT

LIT MOD HVY CRIT

Remarks:

Sketches or Comments (Include any indications of foundation or alignment

problems) -

DAMAGED

ARMPS

CRACK,

-5E6PAÖE-

* REMARKS: In all instances describe distress locations as completely

as possible. Use the monolith's deck, faces or joints as datums. When

applicable, as in volume loss, distress width and depth may be expressed

as percentages of section width or depth at given elevation. For volume

loss in decks, indicate the percentage of the deck area that is affected.

B4 Appendix B Sample Monolith Inspection Forms
DAM MONOLITH FIELD INSPECTION FORM

Dam:

Date:

>"

QlZ<ol<W Inspector: 2 r

Monolith/: \3

Are there any indications of misalignment? Yes //No

Location Codes: UF-Upstr

S-Spillway RW-Retamin

Structural Loading:. L-La

earn Face DF-Downstream Face P-Pier D-Deck

q Wall F-Floor G-Gallery T-Tunnel C-Conduit

teral Loads A-Axial Loads

Distress Codes: 21-CH-Checking 22-DC-D-Crackmg 23-PA-Pattern

24-HZ-Horizontal 24A-HZA-One Side Gallery 25-VT-Vertical&Transverse

2 6-VL-Vertical & Longitudinal 26A-VLA-One Side Gallery 27-DG-Diagonal

28-RN-Random 29-LF-Longitudinal Floor

31-AB-Abrasion 3 2-CV-Cavitation 3 3-HC-Honeycomb 34-PO-Popouts

35-SC-Scaling 36-SP-Spalling 37-DS-Disintegration

CRACKING DISTRESSES

1 Category: p/\ Width: (in.) L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Remarks: rcdVern cracks have. raVe_\e-d.

2 Category: Width: (in.) L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Renlarks:

3 Category: Width: (in.) L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Renlarks:

4 Category: Width: (in.) L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Renlarks:

5 Category: Width: (in.) L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Renlarks:

VOLUME LOSS TYPE CRACKING / DETERIORATION

1 Distress Category: L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Distress: width depth

depth

height elevs.

Sec

Ren

;tion: width

larks:

(at elevation of distress)

2 Distress Category: L A UF DF P D S RW F G T C

Distress: width depth

depth

height elevs.

Sec

Ren

:tion: width

narks:

(at elevation of distress)

Appendix B Sample Monolith Inspection Forms B5
oMonolith#:

LOCATION CODES: UF-Upstream Face DF-Downstream Face P-Pier

S-Spillway RW-Retaming Wall F-Floor G-Gallery T-Tunnel D-Deck

C-Conduit

STEEL

42-Reinforcmg (percentage of bars exposed at X-section) 43-Prestress (any exposure or indicated corrosion)

5243 IETF

42 43

42 43

UF DF S RW F G T C

UF DF P D S RW F G T C

UF DF P D, S RW F G T C

G© %

%

Remarks: feb&r corfOSlftn K°-S~

SpaVleA cover. gemnAmn3 a^crefc

is 5Qun<l

OTHER

36-Spalled Joint 41-Corrosion Stain 44-Damaged Armor 51-Leakage

52-Deposits (Moderate Leakage <10 gpm, Moderate Deposit <l/2" thick)

36 41 44 UF DF P S RW<^f)r C

36 41 44 51 UFVDE» P S RW

ngp'44 51 52

36 41 44 51 52

36 41 44 51 52

RW G

3B>

G T

UF DF P S RW G

LIT MOD HVY2E32

MOD HVY CRIT

/LIT^MOD HVY CRIT

LIT MOD HVY CRIT

LIT MOD HVY CRIT

Remarks: ,.

Operations' ift gafc

/»löckn m roomSketches or Commants (Include any indications of foundation or alignment

problems) -

£L M^ NQh^ Wa-h'bnj

* REMARKS: In all instances describe distress locations as completely

as possible. Use the monolith's deck, faces or joints as datums. When

applicable, as in volume loss, distress width and depth may be expressed

as percentages of section width or depth at given elevation. For volume

loss in decks, indicate the percentage of the deck area that is affected.

B6 Appendix B Sample Monolith Inspection Forms
Appendix C

Field Test Trip Reports and

Comments

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C1
Memorandum to Files

Subject: Trip Report to Mississippi River Dam No. 24

Date: September 1992

Background

1. A concrete dam condition index system has been developed as a modification

of a concrete lockwall system. The purpose of this trip was to test the dam

condition index system at an old concrete dam to determine what adjustments or

modifications to the system were desirable.

Objective

2. The objective was to evaluate the system for rating the concrete in the dam and

appurtenances and to obtain field input on the system. Factors to be considered

were:

a. Does the system produce consistent results that are independent of the

inspector?

b. Does the system consider all types of deficiencies in all the different

elements?

c. Are the deficiencies properly weighted?

Evaluation

3. The evaluation took place September 15-17, 1992. (A list of participants is

provided as enclosure 1.) An orientation meeting took place at the St. Louis District

office on the afternoon of September 15. Participants had previously been provided

a copy of the report. This meeting was to provide a brief overview and answer

questions.

4. The dam was visited on September 16. Participants traveled from St. Louis to

the dam, inspected the dam, compared results, and returned to St. Louis. Each of

the selected monoliths was inspected and each inspector was requested to calculate

a condition index for the monoliths. Table 1 (attached) lists the condition index

numbers reported. Two numbers are listed for monoliths 2 and 9. The first number

omits the pier stem columns subject primarily to axial load; these columns were

severely deteriorated. The second number includes the columns even though the

system did not provide guidance for doing so. Monoliths 15 and 16 had the same

condition index with or without the columns. The lower condition index numbers

by some raters for ratings without piers were obtained by considering incipient

spalls on downstream noses of the monoliths as wide cracks.

C2 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
5. A meeting was held at the St. Louis District office on the morning of September

17 to discuss the results of the dam visit and to recommend items for further

consideration.

Conclusions

6. The system needs to be expanded to include elements that are subject primarily

to axial load.

7. Clarification needs to be added so that cracks tending to produce spalls are

evaluated as spalls if that will produce a smaller deduct.

Rupert E. Bullock

Consultant

2 Ends

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C3
Evaluation Team

Mississippi River Dam No. 24

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE

1. Rupert Bullock

2. Ed Demsky

3. Stuart Foltz

4. Jerry Hawkins

5. Thomas L. Hugenberg

6. Tony Kao

7. Michael G. Kruckeberg

8. Lee Lenzner

9. BillMcCleese

10. Jim McDonald

11. Jim Mills

12. Jerry Wickersham

Consultant

CELMS-ED-GE

CECER-FMM

CELMS-ED-GI

ORD-PE-G

CECER-FMM

CELMS-OD-NL

CELMS-ED-GE

WES

WES

CELMS-ED-DA

CENCR-ED-G

615-458-1152

314-331-8426

217-398-5499

314-331-8412

513-684-3038

217-398-5486

314-331-8588

314-331-8425

601-634-2512

601-634-3230

314-331-8233

309-788-6361

Table 1

Mississippi River Dam No. 24

Condition Index of Dam Monoliths

Monolith No.

2 9 15 16

Inspector

Bullock 80 40 85 70 90 90

Kao 70 65 70 65 - -

Foltz 70 0 80 70 - 70

McCleese 80 40 80 55 80 70

McDonald 70 0 75 69 70 70

Hugenberg 70 0 75 69 70 70

Wickersham 70 55 70 55 70 70

Lenzner 40 0 - 70 50 30

Hawkins 50 0 50 50 50 -

Mills 35 0 0 45 65 45

C4 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
Comments on Trip to Mississippi River Dam No. 24, by Stuart Foltz

The condition index numbers which the panel members were asked to

calculate have little significance as a set of data. There is only one concern that can

be directly addressed by these numbers. "Are the raters coming up with similar

ratings through application of these procedures?" On this trip the answer was no,

but that is in part due to the axially loaded columns that are not yet addressed in the

procedures. Another reason is the spalls that were recorded as cracks by some

raters; this also will be clarified in the documentation. Estimating crack width

results in variations that are difficult to eliminate, especially for raveled cracks.

Variance can be minimized by ensuring that raters do not include raveling in the

width estimation. Measuring the ravel width might be why the participants from the

St. Louis District had larger crack width estimates. Finally, modification of the

procedure by raters who disagree with some part of the method, an individual

deduct, or the final rating is a managerial problem that is beyond the scope of this

work.

Appendixe Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C5
Memorandum to Files

Subject: Trip Report to Center Hill Dam

Date: December 17, 1992

Background

1. A concrete dam condition index system has been developed as a modification

of a concrete lockwall system. The purpose of this trip was to test the dam

condition index system at another concrete dam to determine what adjustments or

modifications to the system were desirable.

Objective

2. The objective was to evaluate the system for rating the concrete in the dam and

appurtenances and to obtain field input on the system. Factors to be considered

were:

a. Does the system produce consistent results that are independent of the

inspector?

b. Does the system consider all types of deficiencies in all the elements,

including the powerhouse and the pylon?

c. Are the deficiencies properly weighted?

Evaluation

3. The evaluation took place December 9-10, 1992. (The list of participants is

provided as enclosure 1.) Monoliths to be inspected were selected in an overview

meeting.

4. First, the downstream faces of some of the monoliths were inspected from the

powerhouse roof, then upstream faces were inspected from a boat. Crack widths

could be only roughly estimated. The top of the dam and the grouting and operating

galleries were then walked as were the pylon stairs. Each inspector was requested

to calculate a condition index for the selected monoliths and the pylon. Table 1 lists

the condition index numbers reported. The following day a walkthrough inspection

of the powerhouse was conducted.

5. A meeting was held to discuss results and to recommend further actions. Tony

Kao objected to the zero ratings on monolith 6 and pointed out that such a rating did

not fit the condition descriptions in Figure 1 of the proposed report. Tom

Hugenberg objected to the deduct values for deposits on the basis that the concrete

C6 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
was not damaged to the extent indicated. There was discussion of the adequacy of

the post-tensioning repair to the horizontal lift joint in monolith 11 since the joint

was still leaking under a low head and there was no method for inspecting the

tendons. Also, there was discussion of the deck deduct values as to whether they

represented damage to a monolith or they were to indicate only a possible repair

requirement for serviceability. Discussion of the powerhouse noted that other, more

distressed powerhouses may require separation into divisions smaller than those

between expansion joints to properly represent the condition indices. Also, it was

pointed out that it may be difficult to distinguish abrasion and cavitation.

Requirements for a future inspection trial also were discussed.

Conclusions

6. Stuart Foltz is to circulate information about a condition index calculation

method developed in the ROOFER Engineered Management System.

7. The deduct values for deposits are to be decreased.

8. There will be an attempt to locate a dam with an intake tower for inspection.

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C7
Evaluation Team

Center Hill Dam

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE

1. Rupert Bullock

2. Stuart Foltz

3. Bill Heyenbruch

4. Tom Hugenberg

5. Ken Hull

6. Tony Kao

7. BillMcCleese

8. Jerry Wickersham

Consultant

CECER-FMM

Sacramento Dist.

CEORD-PE-G

CEORN-EP-D

CECER-FMM

CEWES

CENCR-ED-G

615-458-1152

217-398-5499

916-557-6610

513-684-3038

615-736-5617

217-398-5486

601-634-2512

309-788-6361

Table 1

Center Hill Dam

Condition Index of Dam Monoliths and Pylon

Monolith No.

Inspector 6 7 11 16 19 Pvlon

Bullock 0 40 60 60 65 50

Foltz 0 40 70 85 75 10

Heyenbruch 13 53 50 70 95 25

Hugenberg 15 55 88 80 95 20

Kao 55 40 70 80 70 -

McCleese 10 40 70 60 60 20

Wickersham 0 45 70 60 85 20

C8 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
Comments on Trip to Center Hill Dam, by Stuart Foltz

It became apparent to me during this trip that straight addition of the deducts to

determine the condition rating was inaccurate. The reason for this follows: On a

unit with little distress, the small distresses should have a significant effect on the

rating. As the unit deteriorates over time, these smaller distresses may become

larger, or new distresses with large deduct values may develop. In either case, any

small distresses approach insignificance in the presence of larger distresses. As an

example, the presence of deposits may reduce the condition of a unit from Excellent

to Very Good, but in the presence of major cracking or some other large distress,

the deposits do not make a Poor structure a Very Poor structure. I proposed a

nomographic method (ASTM D5340-93; Shahin, Bailey, and Brotherson, 1987; and

Shahin and Walther, 1990) of calculating the rating as one possible method to

achieve the expected result and illustrated the effect to the panel members. The

method finally used to calculate the index should be based on subjective ratings by

the panel members. I also thought the distress deduct values should be based on

subjective ratings by the panel members.

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C9
Memorandum to Files

Subject: Trip Report to Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams

Date: May 19, 1993

Background

1. A concrete dam condition index system has been developed as a modification

of a concrete lockwall system. The purpose of this trip was to further test the dam

condition index system to determine what adjustments or modifications were

desirable.

Objective

2. The objective was to evaluate the system for rating the concrete in the dams and

to obtain field input on the system. Factors to be considered were:

a. Does the system produce consistent results that are independent of the

inspector?

b. Does the system consider all types of deficiencies in all the elements

selected?

c. Are the deficiencies properly weighted?

Evaluation

3. Elements in Chief Joseph Dam were inspected on May 4. Elements of the dam

and two powerhouses at Grand Coulee were inspected on May 5. (A list of

participants is provided in enclosure 1.)

4. Table 1 lists the condition index numbers reported for Chief Joseph Dam. The

numbers for monoliths SI, S2, and 12 reported by R. Bullock and B. Heyenbruch

include' 10 points deducted for pattern cracking over 100 percent of the deck that the

other inspectors did not deduct since serviceability was not affected. Other

variations resulted from judgments concerning deposits and cracks in the concrete

encasing the penstocks.

5. Table 2 lists the condition index numbers reported for Grand Coulee Dam and a

section each from two powerhouses. The numbers for monoliths 81 and 82 reported

by B. McCleese include 5 points deducted for slight raveling of some pattern

cracking on the deck that was ignored by others. The numbers reported for

monolith 118 by R. Bullock and B. Heyenbruch include 5 points for a downstream

face construction joint spall ignored by others.

C10 AppendixC Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
6. Discussion indicated that decks were of less importance to dams than to locks

and that it would be appropriate to delete division C and make cracking on decks

deductable only if cracks were raveling or causing ponding. It was decided that no

deduction should be made for a joint spall less than 3 in. deep. It was decided to

add a category for leakage sufficient to affect the operation of the dam.

Conclusions

7. R. Bullock is to revise the report so that it can be distributed for comments.

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C11
Evaluation Team

Chief Joseph Dam and Grand Coulee Dam

NAME ORGANIZATION

1. Rupert Bullock

2. Stuart Foltz

3. Bill Heyenbruch

4. TonyKao

5. Bill McCleese

6. Jan Shrader

7. Ken Sondergard

8. Jerry Wickersham

Consultant

CECER-FMM

CESPK-ED

CECER-FMM

CEWES-SC

Bureau of Reclamation

CENPS-EN-GT-GI

CENCR-ED-G

Table 1

Chief Joseph Dam

Inspector Unit Number

Si S2 12 15

Bullock 68 55 60 78

Heyenbruch 60 70 65(13) 60

Kao 75 65 73 80

McCleese 75 73 83 68

Wickersham 78 73

Table 2

68 78

Grand Coulee Dam

Inspector Unit Number

63 81 82 118 OPHse NPHse

Bullock 80 83 78 68 - 75

Heyenbruch 83 78 63 68 68 73

Kao 93 73 65 78 - -

McCleese 88 68 65 78 83 73

Wickersham 88 75 73 78 88 75

C12 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
Comments on Trip to Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams, by Stuart Foltz

In my notes after the last trip I mentioned getting subjective ratings from the

panel members on the individual distresses and the unit rating. The idea of

collecting subjective ratings to compare to the objective rating method did not have

much support by the panel. Because there were so few distresses present at Chief

Joseph and Grand Coulee (and almost all of those were minor), I did not consider it

worthwhile to pursue the idea further during the trip.

AppendixC Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C13
Memorandum to Files

Subject: Trip Report to Friant Dam, et al.

Date: July 29, 1993

Background

1. A concrete dam condition index system has been developed as a modification

of a concrete lock wall system. The purpose of this trip was to test the dam

condition index system at additional concrete dams to determine what adjustments

or modifications were desirable.

Objective

2. The objective was to evaluate the system for rating the concrete in the dam and

appurtenances and to obtain field input on the system. Factors to be considered

were:

a. Does the system produce consistent results that are independent of the

inspector?

b. Does the system consider all types of deficiencies in all the elements?

c. Are the deficiencies properly weighted?

Evaluation

3. The evaluation took place from June 29 to July 1, 1993. (The list of participants

is provided in enclosure 1.) Four monoliths in Friant Dam were inspected on June

29. The control towers and outlet conduits on Hidden Dam and Buchanan Dam

were inspected on June 30. An outlet conduit on Pine Flat Dam was inspected on

July 1.

4. Table 1 lists the condition index numbers reported for Friant Dam. The

numbers in parentheses are subjective numbers based on the descriptions in Figure

1 of the report. Inspection results from other trips have shown that procedures were

not being followed and it is especially apparent here. Blocks 36 and 42 were being

distorted into the spillways by alkali-aggregate expansion. This has interfered with

gate operation and has initiated cracking. A wide diagonal crack has formed in

block 36, but this is not apparent in some condition index numbers.

5. Condition index numbers were not collected on the other structures. The outlet

conduit at Hidden Dam appeared to have a slight chemical attack that had exposed

the aggregate. A wall at the outlet had pattern cracking in the top, probably from

C14 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
alkali aggregate expansion. The pattern joined together such that some inspectors

judged it a vertical and longitudinal crack. The outlet conduit at Buchanan Dam

had a number of narrow cracks. The outlet conduit at Pine Flat Dam had small

amounts of both abrasion and cavitation.

6. A meeting was held to discuss results. It was pointed out that the condition

index numbers are generally too low to fit the descriptions in Figure 1 of the report.

McDonald suggested that Division B be reduced as Division A gets larger. I stated

that Division A deduct values for cracks could be reduced by approximately 20

percent. Foltz suggested a nomograph to combine a number of defects. Kao stated

that a deduct value of 60 was being used for any misalignment in navigation locks.

Liu suggested

a. Reinforced concrete be separated from plain concrete.

b. That a crack not have a deduct if it does not leak or have relative movement

along the crack, or that deduct values be multiplied by a number less than 1

if there is no leakage or relative movement along the crack.

c. That deduct values be reduced and multipliers greater than 1 be used for

related effects such as leaking or relative movements.

d. That the extent of a crack affect the deduct value.

e. That the area of abrasion or cavitation affect the deduct value.

When I pointed out that relative movement along a crack in an element constituted a

failure of the element, Liu asserted that this was not true.

Conclusions

7. Foltz will prepare a nomograph for the next inspection.

8. I will prepare a new calculation form reducing deducts for cracks and reducing

Division B as Division A increases.

Rupert E. Bullock

Consultant

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C15
Evaluation Team

Friant Dam

NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE

1. Rupert Bullock

2. Stuart Foltz

3. Bill Heyenbruch

4. Tom Hugenberg

5. George Hunter

6. Tony Kao

7. Tony Liu

8. Jim McDonald

9. Glenn Smoak

Consultant

CECER-FMM

CESPK-ED

CEORD-PE-G

USBR Friant

CECER-FMM

CECW-EG

CEWES-SC

D-3731.USBR

615-458-1152

217-398-5499

916-557-6610

513-684-3038

209-822-2211

217-398-5486

202-272-0222

601-634-3230

303-236-6103

Table 1

Friant Dam

Condition Index of Dam Monoliths

Monolith No.

35 36 38 42

Inspector

Bullock 55 (60) 0 (20) 40 (50) 25 (40)

Foltz 45 0 40 20

Heyenbruch 10 (45) 10 (30) 45 (50) 25 (35)

Hugenberg 40 (85) 10 (50) 20 (95) 40 (75)

Kao 40 (40) 20 (30) 40 (30) 40 (40)

Liu 40 (40) 40 (40) 40 (50) 40 (50)

McDonald 55 (55) 0 (40) 45 (60) 45 (60)

Smoak 40 (45) 45 (40) 45 (50) 50 (55)

C16 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
Comments on Trip to Friant Dam, et al., by Stuart Foltz

Friant Dam had some major cracks in a few monoliths and I thought useful

information could be generated by collecting subjective ratings. At the time, this

met some resistance but the information was collected. When meeting after the

inspection there was a definite change in attitude of nearly all group members, and

that is when it was agreed that I should again address the nomographic calculation

method. It was agreed that on the next trip we should calculate condition indices by

both methods (nomographic and straight addition with an upper limit on

serviceability deducts) and compare each to subjective ratings. I'm not sure if this

change was due to the lack of correlation between the subjective and calculated

ratings or if it was due to the influence of Tony Liu, who had a large effect on

discussions. We decided to return to Center Hill Dam, if possible, because we knew

there were numerous distresses that would provide a good test of the two calculation

methods.

AppendixC Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C17
Memorandum to Files

Subject: Trip Report to Center Hill Dam

September 27,1993

Background

1. A concrete dam condition index system has been developed and modified after

a number of inspection trips. The purpose of this trip was to test the system at a

previously inspected dam.

Objective

2. The objective was to evaluate the system for rating the concrete in the dam and

to obtain field input. Specifically, it was to be determined if the modified deduct

values produced CIs more consistent with the descriptions in Figure 1 of the report.

Evaluation

3. The evaluation took place September 14-15, 1993. (The list of participants is

provided in enclosure 1.)

4. The upstream faces of the selected monoliths were first inspected from a boat.

Since crack widths could only be estimated, the diagonal crack in block 6 was

assigned a width of 0.06". The top of the dam and operating and grouting galleries

were then walked. Each inspector was requested to calculate a condition index

number for the selected monoliths and to make a subjective judgment for each

monolith in accordance with the descriptions in Figure 1 of the report. Table 1 lists

the calculated CIs and Table 2 lists the subjective CIs reported.

5. A discussion was then held of the calculated versus the subjective CIs. It was

noted that the subjective CIs were smaller than the calculated for blocks 6 & 7. The

calculated CIs from the December 1992 inspection were referred to and it was noted

that the widths for the diagonal cracks in block 6 were probably estimated to be

greater than .08" at that time. I questioned the validity of the subjective ratings

since there were such large disparities. Hugenberg stated that the district had posttensioning tendon repairs designed for block 6 (and some other blocks) because it

would fail under design probable maximum flood (PMF), but that the district was

not restricting pool elevation until the tendons were installed. I stated that in my

judgment the new deduct values produce CIs that are too large because they should

have indicated a more serious condition for blocks 6 & 7.

Q-|8 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
6. A discussion was then held on Figure 1 of the report. It was stated that the

condition descriptions should indicate they applied to the probable condition after

application of the maximum probable load.

7. Foltz made a presentation on a nomograph solution to reduce CIs for more than

one defect. I stated that secondary defects did not make a failure more probable;

however, they may modify the extent of a failure. Kao objected to the nomograph

solution on the basis that it did not continuously reduce a CI as the number of

defects increased.

8. It was noted that any type of crack in a deck that was raveling should have a

"deck deduct" and that provision should be made for combining raveling cracks

with popouts or other defects for an overall deck deduct.

Conclusions

9. I am to prepare a final report for distribution.

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C19
NAME

Evaluation Team

Center Hill Dam

ORGANIZATION PHONE

1. Rupert Bullock

2. Stuart Foltz

3. TomHugenberg

4. TonyKao

5. BillMcCleese

6. Jerry Wickersham

Consultant

CECER-FMM

CEORD-PE-G

CECER-FMM

WES

CENCR-ED-G

Center Hill Dam

615-458-1152

217-398-5499

513-684-3038

217-398-5486

601-634-2512

309-794-5713

Table 1

Condition Index of Dam Monoliths

Monolith No.

5 6 7 8 11 14 15 16 19

Inspector

Bullock 90 40 60 95 60 65 60 80 85

Foltz 85 50 65 100 64 64 74 69 85

Hugenberg 40 40 45 85 60 70 40 60 70

Kao 90 45 70 100 70 70 80 75 70

McCleese 80 45 45 100 65 70 60 75 75

Wickersham 70 45 55 95 60 80 60 75 90

AVERAGE 76 44 57 96 63 70 62 72 79

Table 2

Subjective Condition Index of Dam Monoliths

Monolith No.

5 6 7 8 11 14 15 16 19

Inspector

Bullock 80 20 40 80 60 70 50 80 80

Hugenberg 95 50 50 100 95 100 95 100 99

Kao 80 50 55 100 80 75 75 75 80

McCleese 80 35 35 100 80 80 75 80 80

Wickersham 84 39 39 84 84 84 54 84 80

AVERAGE 84 39 44 93 80 82 70 84 84

C20 Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
Comments on Second Trip to Center Hill Dam, by Stuart Foltz

We collected subjective ratings for the monoliths reported. Overnight, I

calculated everyone's ratings using the nomographic procedure and using deducts

for all cracks, not just the largest single crack deduct. The nomographic ratings

closely tracked the subjective ratings for monoliths with both high and low indices.

The originally proposed method of simple addition with a limit on serviceability

deducts did not track the subjective ratings as well. When subjective ratings were

high, simple addition tended to calculate lower ratings than subjective opinion. As

the subjective ratings went down, the calculated ratings did not decrease as fast and

tended to be higher than low subjective ratings. The table that follows includes

statistical information that confirms the supposition, based on the limited data. The

correlation coefficient is much closer to 1 and the standard deviation is much

smaller for the nomographic and implemented calculation methods. Rupert Bullock

was the only panel member who strongly objected to the nomographic calculation

results or the inclusion of all crack deducts instead ofjust the largest. He stated that

secondary cracks did not matter because the unit would fail by the major distress.

Other members had smaller objections. Tony Kao disliked the fact that the rating

did not continuously decrease as distresses were added. Tom Hugenberg did not

think the accuracy improvement was worth the added complication of the

calculation process.

After the trip the nomographic calculation method was replaced with the

current method, which is a slight modification of a method proposed by Tom

Hugenberg. This was done to remove Tony Kao's objection. (The nomographic

method did not result in the rating sometimes improving with the addition of

distresses because the lowest value is always used; however, sometimes these

distresses had no effect on the rating.) Ratings calculated by this method differ by a

statistically insignificant amount from those calculated using the nomographs,

considering the limited data.

Table 1 provides a comparison of the three methods considered for calculating

the CI. Method 1 is proposed by Rupert Bullock and he discusses this method in

the trip reports. Method 2 is a nomograhic method of determining the CI. Method

3 is based on the equation on page 28 of this report. The CIs shown are the average

of the five raters for the identified monolith and calculation method or subjective

ratings. Below the monolith ratings are the average CIs of all monoliths for each

calculation method and the subjective rating. Methods 2 and 3 were purposely

made conservative relative to the subjective rating average. The standard deviations

and correlation coefficients (correlation to subjective ratings) both indicate that

methods 2 and 3 are substantial improvements over method 1. The correlation

coefficients for each rater were also better for methods 2 and 3 than for method 1.

AppendixC Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C21
Subjective ratings for individual distresses were not recorded. This was for two

reasons: First, any resultant changes would be unlikely to impact the monolith

rating. Second, it would be difficult to collect enough data to base the deducts on

subjective ratings. Although we had changed the deducts for cracking distresses

after the last trip, there was little disagreement on the proposed deducts on the field

trips and no change in cracking distresses relative to each other. Further, cracking

distresses largely determine the final rating, so our subjective monolith ratings

basically determine how the cracking distresses and deducts are transformed into

the condition rating. Noncracking distresses are all relatively small with the

exception of critical leakage, and subjective ratings are difficult to make when the

distresses are always in the Excellent or the top of the Very Good categories.

Throughout development and field testing of the condition index, cracking

deducts were based on ranges of crack widths, similar to the method used for

lockwalls (Bullock, 1989). The deduct value was the same over the entire range.

This was a necessary simplification in order for the index to be easily hand

calculated. With the switch to a more complex calculation method, the deduct

values should change in proportion to any change in crack width and the step

function should be removed. Using the step function could result in large

differences in deduct value between raters. If the crack width is near the step, one

rater could determine the deduct value to be at a different step from another rater.

Without the step, a small deviation between raters can only have a small impact on

the deduct value.

C22 Appendixe Field Test Trip Reports and Comments
Table 1

Condition Index Ratings for Center Hill Dam

Method 1* Method 2* Method 3* Subjective

Monolith 5 82 87 85 84

Monolith 6 43 43 37 39

Monolith 7 55 48 47 44

Monolith 11 63 75 73 80

Monolith 14 71 76 74 82

Monolith 15 60 65 61 70

Monolith 16 73 80 80 84

Monolith 19 78 82 80 84

AVG. 66 69 67 71

Std. Dev. 6.16 3.48 4.11 -

Corr. Coeff. 0.897 0.980 0.975 -

*Method 1 - Simple addition of deducts with limit on serviceability deducts.

*Method 2 - Calculation of ratings based on nomographs.

*Method 3 - Implemented method, using smaller percentage of each additional

smaller deduct.

y

Appendix C Field Test Trip Reports and Comments C23
Appendix D

Deduct Value Curves

Appendix D Deduct Value Curves D1
HORIZONTAL CRACKING

100.00 -i

80.00 H

CD

° 60.00 -

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Crack width (in)

0.10

VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE CRACKING

100.00

80.00

CD

a 60.00 -

O

3 40.00

"D

CD

Q

20.00 -

0.00

0.00

i 1 1 i ' r

0.02 0.04 0.06

Crack width (in)

1 r

0.08 0.10

D2 Appendix D Deduct Value Curves
VERTICAL AND LONGITUDINAL CRACKING

100.00

80.00

Z5

O 60.00

>

-+->

o

Z3 40.00

-a

CD

Q

20.00 -

0.00

0.00

I 1

r

0.02 0.04 0.06

Crack width (in)

0.08 0.10

DIAGONAL CRACKING

100.00 -|

0.00 0.02

Crack width (in)

Appendix D Deduct Value Curves D3
RANDOM CRACKING

100.00 -i

80.00

CD

^ 60.00 -

O

=3 40.00 H

CD

Q

20.00

0.00

0.00

"i r~

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Crack width (in)

"i 1

0.10

LONGITUDINAL FLOOR CRACKING

100.00 -i

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06

Crack width (in)

0.08 0.10

D4 Appendix D Deduct Value Curves
ABRASION FOR CONDUITS

100.00 -i

80.00 -

CD

g 60.00 -

O

=s 40.00 "Ö

Q

20.00

0.00 "i—r "i I i 1 r

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I r

5.00 6.00

i > r 1

7.00 8.00

Depth (in)

CAVITATION FOR CONDUITS

100.00

80.00

CD

~g 60.00 -

O

=J 40.00 H

"Ö

CD

Q

20.Co

0.00 1| I | l | i | i |—

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

Depth (in)

Appendix D Deduct Value Curves D5
REINFORCEMENT CORROSION

100.00

80.00

0)

O 60.00 -

20.00 -

0.00

20 40 60 80

Percentage Affected

n 1 1 I

100

RETAINING WALL REINFORCEMENT

100.00

80.00 —

<D

Z5

O

>

60.00 —

-+-' -

o -

D 40.00 —

U _

CD _

O

20.00

0.00

0

-i 1 r

20 40 60 80

Percentage Affected

100

D6 Appendix D Deduct Value Curves
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE

September 1995

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Condition Rating Procedures for Concrete in Gravity Dams, Retaining Walls, and

Spillways

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Civil Works Research Unit 32672

6. AUTHOR(S)

Rupert Bullock, Stuart Foltz

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL)

P.O. Box 9005

Champaign, IL 61826-9005

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

REMR-OM-16

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE)

ATTN: CECW-0

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20314-1000

10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The purpose of this report is to describe a proposed system for determining a condition index (CI) that numerically rates the

condition of the concrete in a gravity dam monolith, retaining wall, or spillway on a scale of 1 to 100 by evaluating each

concrete distress objectively. The rating system described herein allows the CI to be determined by the use of a visual

investigation with limited equipment. The rating is related primarily to structural integrity and secondarily to serviceability.

The CI procedure was developed by assigning deduct values to defects which include the following distress categories:

alignment, cracking (checking, D-cracking, pattern, horizontal, vertical and transverse, vertical and horizontal, diagonal,

random, and longitudinal floor), deposits, leakage, steel deterioration (corrosion stains, reinforcing, prestressing, and armor),

and volume loss (abrasion, honeycomb, pop-outs, scaling, spalling, and disintegration). The deduct values are, in part,

subtracted from 100 to establish the CI. Primary deduct values were determined with the intent of obtaining a CI of 40 when

deterioration of a concrete monolith caused the safety of that monolith to become questionable. Nominal deduct values were

assigned for defects in serviceability. The CI should be determined on at least one of each type of monolith and the more

distressed monoliths. At least 20 percent of the monoliths should be rated.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

condition rating maintenance and repair

condition indexes

navigation structures

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

82

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

SAR

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18

298-102