brooklyn queens expressway (bqe-278) inspection nda load ...… · brooklyn queens expressway...

Brooklyn Queens Expressway (BQE-278I)Inspection and Load Rating Report

1. Cantilever Structures________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________1

Brooklyn Queens Expressway (BQE-278)Inspection and Load Rating Report

1. Cantilever Structures

BINs 2268517, 2268518, 2268497, 2268498 & 2268350

December 16, 2016

Redacted portions indicated by black box



_____________________________________________________________________________________2

Prepared For: New York City Department of TransportationDivision of Bridges

Prepared By: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.

Date: December 16, 2016

Location: New York, NY



_____________________________________________________________________________________3

Table of ContentsList of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 7

1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 8

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 Project Scope ......................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Description of Structures ........................................................................................................ 12

3. Inspection Description ................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Hands-on Inspection .............................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Coring Program including Testing ........................................................................................... 16

3.3 Non-destructive Investigation ................................................................................................ 19

3.4 Hazardous Material Sampling....................................................................................................... 20

4. Inspection Findings ........................................................................................................................ 22

4.1 BIN 2268517 – BQE SIB over Furman Street ............................................................................ 22

4.1.1 Pavement Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 22

4.1.2 Deck Slab Evaluation....................................................................................................... 23

4.1.3 Wall Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 24

4.1.4 Deck Underside Evaluation ............................................................................................. 25

4.1.5 Underground and Overhead Utilities .............................................................................. 26

4.2 BIN 2268518 – BQE QB over BQE SIB ...................................................................................... 27



4.2.3 Wall Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 28



4.3 BIN 2268497 BQE SIB over Furman Street .............................................................................. 30



4.3.3 Wall Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 31




_____________________________________________________________________________________4


4.4 BIN 2268498 – BQE QB over BQE SIB ...................................................................................... 34



4.4.3 Wall Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 35



4.5 BIN 2268350 – Brooklyn Promenade over BQE QB ................................................................. 38

4.5.1 Pavement Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 38


4.5.3 Wall Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 39

4.5.4 Cantilever Underside Evaluation ..................................................................................... 40


5. Load Rating & Posting Summary .................................................................................................... 42

5.1 Design Criteria........................................................................................................................ 42

5.1.1 Materials ............................................................................................................................... 42

5.1.2 Datum ................................................................................................................................... 42

5.1.3 Design Loads ......................................................................................................................... 42

5.1.4 Concrete Cover ..................................................................................................................... 48

5.2 Structural Analysis .................................................................................................................. 48

5.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressure Adjustment for Section 2 (between Joralemon St. and Old Fulton St.) 48

5.3 Load Rating Summary .................................................................................................................. 52

5.4 Load Posting Summary ................................................................................................................. 69

6. Flag Summary ................................................................................................................................ 71

7. Hazardous Material Investigation Results....................................................................................... 74

8. Fatigue Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 80

8.1 Fatigue Evaluation Criteria for Reinforcement Steel ..................................................................... 80

8.2 Fatigue Evaluation Results ...................................................................................................... 80

8.2.1 BIN 2268517 ......................................................................................................................... 80

8.2.2 BIN 2268518 ......................................................................................................................... 80



_____________________________________________________________________________________5

8.2.3 BIN 2268497 ......................................................................................................................... 80

8.2.4 BIN 2268498 ......................................................................................................................... 80

8.2.5 BIN 2268350 ......................................................................................................................... 81

9. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 82

Appendix A Drawings ................................................................................ 83

Appendix B Photographs ......................................................................... 126

Appendix C Access Opening Location Plan ............................................... 217

Appendix D Flags Issued .......................................................................... 235

Appendix E Load Rating Analysis Report .................................................. 268

Appendix F Load Rating & Calculations .................................................... 364

Appendix G Statement of Hazardous Materials & Laboratory Testing Reports........... 365

Appendix H Non-destructive Testing Procedure and Results .................... 442

Appendix I Plans – Non-destructive Test Results ...................................... 468

Appendix J Interim Repairs ...................................................................... 504

Appendix K Core Location Plan and Testing Reports ................................ 505



_____________________________________________________________________________________6

List of Figures

Figure 1 Project Scope Map ................................................................................................................... 11Figure 2 Section 1 Typical Section .......................................................................................................... 12Figure 3 Section 2 Typical Section .......................................................................................................... 13Figure 4 Furman Street QB Lane Closure for Inspection of BQE SIB Structure ......................................... 14Figure 5 Coring of Wall Access Opening ................................................................................................. 15Figure 6 Concrete Block Removed for Access Opening ........................................................................... 16Figure 7 Removal of Wall Concrete Block for Access Opening ................................................................ 16Figure 8 Concrete Coring Machine ......................................................................................................... 17Figure 9 Promenade Deck Core .............................................................................................................. 18Figure 10 Patched Area of Pavement over Spans 1 to 5 of BQE SIB over Furman Street ......................... 22Figure 11 Typical Wall Core from BIN 2268497 (Left to Right: Concrete Core, Mortar, Granite Panel) .... 32Figure 12 Brooklyn Heights Promenade Pavement ................................................................................ 38Figure 13 HS-20 Truck Load ................................................................................................................... 43Figure 14 HS-20 Truck + Lane Load ........................................................................................................ 44Figure 15 H-20 Truck Load ..................................................................................................................... 44Figure 16 Typical Legal Loads for Posting ............................................................................................... 45Figure 17 NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle ............................................................................................... 46Figure 18 Typical Triple Cantilever Cross Section .................................................................................... 50Figure 19 Lateral Earth Pressure, N=19 (All Upper Borings) .................................................................... 51Figure 20 Typical Cantilever Section Showing Load Rating Section E2 and Top Rebar Location ............... 54Figure 21 Area of Top Reinforcement along 50 ft Span with Heavier Reinforcement near Deck Joints .... 55Figure 22 Cantilever Plan showing Reinforcement Area and Longitudinal Spacing along 50ft Span......... 55Figure 23 Governing HS20 Inventory Load Rating along Span D4 - 2016 As-inspected ............................ 57Figure 24 Governing HS20 Inventory Load Rating along Span D4 - 2026 Predicted ................................. 57Figure 25 Load Rating Sections - BIN 2268517 & BIN 2268518 Sheet #24 ............................................... 58Figure 26 Load Rating Sections - BIN 2268517 & BIN 2268518 Sheet #28 ............................................... 59Figure 27 Load Rating Sections - BIN 2268517 & BIN 2268518 Sheets #25 to #27................................... 60Figure 28 Load Rating Sections - BIN 2268497 & BIN 2268498 ............................................................... 61Figure 29 Load Rating Sections - BIN 2268350 ....................................................................................... 62Figure 30 Load Rating Sections - Triple Cantilever Structure................................................................... 62Figure 31 Load Rating Sections - Sta N90+32 to Sta N97+27 ................................................................... 63Figure 32 Load Rating Sections - Sta S82+70 to Sta N85+21 ................................................................... 64Figure 33 Load Rating Sections - Sta S68+53 to Sta S69+14 .................................................................... 65Figure 34 Load Rating Sections - Sta N86+91 to Sta N90+32 ................................................................... 66Figure 35 Load Rating Sections - Sta. S78+92 to Sta. S79+52 .................................................................. 68Figure 36 Area of Broken Mesh Netting and Spalled Concrete Found in Deck Joint 53 ........................... 71



_____________________________________________________________________________________7

List of Tables

Table 1 Section 1 Structures .................................................................................................................. 12Table 2 Section 2 Structures .................................................................................................................. 13Table 3 Steel Reinforcement Section Losses and Condition States in BIN 2268517 Deck Slab ................. 23Table 4 Steel Reinforcement Section Losses and Condition States in BIN 2268497 Deck Slab ................. 30Table 5 Steel Reinforcement Section Losses and Condition States in BIN 2268497 Cantilever Soffit ....... 33Table 6 Steel Reinforcement Section Losses and Condition States in BIN 2268498 Deck Slab ................. 34Table 7 Steel Reinforcement Section Losses and Condition States in BIN 2268498 Cantilever Soffit ....... 36Table 8 Steel Reinforcement Section Losses and Condition States in BIN 2268350 Deck Slab ................. 39Table 9 Steel Reinforcement Section Losses and Condition States in BIN 2268350 Cantilever Soffit ....... 40Table 10 Design & Load Rating Material Properties................................................................................ 42Table 11 Dead Load Weights ................................................................................................................. 43Table 12 Load Combinations for Permit Vehicle Overload Rating ........................................................... 47Table 13 Concrete Cover........................................................................................................................ 48Table 14 Summary of Controlling As-built HS Ratings ............................................................................. 53Table 15 Summary of Controlling As-inspected HS Ratings 2016 ............................................................ 53Table 16 Summary of Controlling Predicted HS Ratings 2026 ................................................................. 53Table 17 Section 1 Posting Analysis - 2016 ............................................................................................. 69Table 18 Section 2 Posting Analysis - 2016 ............................................................................................. 69Table 19 Section 1 Posting Analysis - 2026 ............................................................................................. 69Table 20 Section 2 Posting Analysis - 2026 ............................................................................................. 70Table 21 Summary of Safety Flag Reports .............................................................................................. 73



_____________________________________________________________________________________8

1. Executive Summary

This report describes the findings of the in-depth inspection and load rating of the Brooklyn QueensExpressway between Atlantic Avenue and Old Fulton Street. The findings presented in this reportpertain to the Cantilever Structures. A companion report describes the findings for the BridgeStructures at Joralemon Street.

In general, the overall structure is in fair to poor condition. The most significant deficiencies identified todate are the roadway surface, roadway joints and underside where there is extensive spalling. ThePromenade structure is in generally good condition, and the presence of a waterproofing membranebelow the pavers appears to have been a benefit. No significant environmental hazards were found.

As part of the inspection, the sealed hollow areas of the structure were opened, entered into andinspected. It was discovered that, at a number of locations where the plans indicate unfilled spaces,these areas were in fact backfilled with gravel. This change has been incorporated into the ratingcalculations.

Of particular note with regard to the roadway is the buildup of asphalt surfacing. In many areas theasphalt overlay is 4 inches thick, and up to 7 – 8 inches where the original 4-inch thick concrete overlayhas been replaced. At the outer edges of the cantilevers, cores have included up to 8 inches of asphaltoverlay.

The compressive strength results for the cores obtained from the cantilever structure are high, rangingfrom 4350 to 9690 psi. Most cores exhibited type 3 failure, indicating good-quality concrete with well-segregated aggregate and good cement paste. Very high levels of chlorides were found in thecantilevered structures, which is to be expected as they have been subject to the application of roadsalts in the winter since they were originally constructed. The average chloride concentrations were2.08, 3.87 and 2.31 pounds per cubic yard in the top of the Promenade deck, BQE roadway decks, andBQE walls respectively. As a general guideline, corrosion can be expected to initiate in reinforcedconcrete when chloride content reaches 1.25 pounds per cubic yard.

The Promenade cores exhibited slight to minor cracking in the near surface region, generally above steelreinforcement. This cracking was typically due to a combination of damage induced by freeze-thawcycles, and slight alkali silica reaction (ASR) between micro-crystalline quartz within the dolomitic coarseaggregate and available alkalis in the concrete paste. Light corrosion of steel reinforcement wasobserved in a few cores, with only one core showing severe chloride-induced corrosion and corrosioninduced cracking.

The BQE Queens Bound core examination found slight corrosion of steel reinforcement in most of thecores with core 497-W31DI showing severe chloride induced corrosion resulting in fracture of the coreat the rebar.



_____________________________________________________________________________________9

The concrete was not air-entrained; therefore, it has poor ability to resist freeze-thaw damage.Petrography thus far has revealed some damage from freeze-thaw, but most of the samples do notexhibit it. As time goes on, more damage will occur to the structural elements. In general, the concretein the cantilevered structures has low to moderate permeability, with some high findings.

It will continue to be necessary to maintain the roadway surface and deck underside while any futuredesign planning is in progress.



_____________________________________________________________________________________10

2. IntroductionIn an Engineering Service Agreement Task Order issued by NYCDOT, it was noted that since opening in1954, the bridges that carry the Brooklyn Queens Expressway above Furman Street in Brooklyn Heightshave undergone deterioration over time, most notably in the form of scaling, efflorescence, cracking,spalling, and rebar corrosion in the concrete superstructures and substructures. Parsons Brinckerhoffhas been retained by NYCDOT to lead the in-depth inspection, non-destructive testing, materialsampling, laboratory testing, load rating, and fatigue analysis of the double and triple cantilever andsingle span bridge structures.

As the prime consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff was responsible for project management andcoordination, load rating and posting analysis, and a statement of hazardous materials. Subconsultantswere engaged to perform additional tasks, as follows:

WSP was responsible for in-depth inspection and flag reports.Lynch Consulting Engineers, DPC, was responsible for obtaining and testing concrete cores, andanalyzing laboratory and nondestructive testing data.Echem Consultants was responsible for the assessment of the bridge deck’s reinforcing steel bymeans of ground penetrating radar (GPR) testing, followed by linear polarization rate (LPR)testing of areas of suspected greatest degradation and risk.EPM assisted in the task of hazardous materials investigation.



_____________________________________________________________________________________11

2.1 Project ScopeThis report presents the criteria, methodology, and findings of the inspection and load rating of theBrooklyn Queens Expressway (BQE-278I) cantilever structures along two sections, as shown in Figure 1below. Section 1 extends from Atlantic Avenue to Joralemon Street. Section 2 extends from JoralemonStreet to Old Fulton Street.

Figure 1 Project Scope Map



_____________________________________________________________________________________12

2.2 Description of StructuresThe scope of the project within the Section 1 and Section 2 limits is further broken down into BINsaccording to the various levels of cantilever structures that make up each section. Table 1 and Table 2describe the components that correspond to each BIN.

Section 1: Atlantic Avenue to Joralemon Street

Table 1 Section 1 Structures

BINFeatureCarried

FeatureCrossed

Structure TypeNo. ofSpans

2268517 BQE SIB Furman StreetCantilevered CIP reinforced concrete slab,wall and footing founded on driven H piles

7

2268518 BQE QB BQE SIBCantilevered CIP reinforced concrete slaband reinforced concrete frames foundedon driven H piles

5

Figure 2 Section 1 Typical SectionNote: WB (Southbound) = Staten Island bound; EB (Northbound) = Queens bound



_____________________________________________________________________________________13

Section 2: Joralemon Street to Cadman Plaza (Old Fulton Street)

Table 2 Section 2 Structures

BINFeatureCarried

FeatureCrossed

Structure TypeNo. ofSpans

2268497 BQE SIBFurmanStreet

Cantilevered CIP reinforced concrete slab, wall (withdiaphragms in certain locations) and footingfounded on driven H piles

45

2268498 BQE QB BQE SIBCantilevered CIP reinforced concrete slab, wall(typically double wall with diaphragms) and footingfounded on driven H piles

69

2268350Brooklyn

PromenadeBQE QB

Cantilevered CIP reinforced concrete slab and wallsupported by heel of BQE QB structure

35

Figure 3 Section 2 Typical SectionNote: WB (Southbound) = Staten Island bound; EB (Northbound) = Queens bound



_____________________________________________________________________________________14

3. Inspection DescriptionThe purpose of the non-destructive testing and concrete laboratory testing conducted was to assessseveral factors which could impact the long-term durability and service life of the reinforced concretestructures. Our testing program allowed for the evaluation of the following:

Conditions that could promote material degradationPresent rate of material degradationRemaining service life span of embedded load-carrying steel reinforcingLong-term performance of structural elements based on existing levels of contamination, sectionloss, corrosion, and delamination

3.1 Hands-on InspectionEach BIN was inspected for issues affecting the overall condition and potential safety hazards in thepavement, deck slab, walls, and underground and overhead utilities.

Prior to initiating inspection and material sampling of each span, the inspection team was responsiblefor ensuring that all necessary measures were taken for maintenance and protection of traffic. Thisinvolved closing one lane at a time along the spans to be inspected, and using an attenuator truck tomaintain an adequate distance between the inspection workers and oncoming traffic.

Thirty-foot reach bucket trucks were used for the inspection of the walls and the underside of thecantilevers. Figure 4 shows a typical setup for simultaneous inspection within one lane closure by WSP,Lynch, EPM and Echem.

Figure 4 Furman Street QB Lane Closure for Inspection of BQE SIB Structure



_____________________________________________________________________________________15

Access to the interior areas for inspection was created by cutting openings in several locations along theexterior walls. Figure 5 through Figure 6 show the cutting of an access opening in a wall by coringaround the perimeter of the concrete block being removed. Prior to cutting an opening the wall wascored through, and in a number of locations, as indicated in Appendix C, areas that were indicated to beopen were found to be backfilled, in which case an opening was not cut. Appendix C summarizes thelocation of all of the openings and interior spaces that were inspected.

Figure 5 Coring of Wall Access Opening



_____________________________________________________________________________________16

Figure 7 Removal of Wall Concrete Block for Access Opening

3.2 Coring Program including TestingConcrete cores were obtained from a number of locations along the cantilever structures. A detailedcore plan and test results, including plans and elevations showing core locations, can be found inAppendix K. Cores were taken from areas of deterioration in order to evaluate existing defects. Inaddition, cores were taken from apparently structurally sound areas to determine the air void contentand other characteristics of the as-built concrete and its original mix design. Figure 8 shows the use of acoring machine to obtain a concrete core for testing.

Figure 6 Concrete Block Removed for Access Opening



_____________________________________________________________________________________17

Figure 8 Concrete Coring Machine



_____________________________________________________________________________________18

Figure 9 is a photo of a deck core recovered from the promenade.

Compressive Strength Testing (ASTM C42)The purpose of the compressive strength test was to test the strength of the concrete cores according toexisting ASTM standards, to evaluate both the existing structural integrity of the concrete as well as itsresistance to the strain that can be induced from repair procedures.

Acid-Soluble Chloride (ASTM C1152)Since roadway deicing salts can be the primary cause of corrosion in reinforcing steel, the extent ofchloride ingress from deicing salts needed to be measured in order to determine the potential forcorrosion onset as well as the rate of chloride ingress over time. This information was obtained bytesting the concrete cores at various depths and producing a profile of chloride content relative to thelocation of the reinforcing steel.

Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete (ASTM C856)Petrographic examinations were conducted as a means to obtain information about the original mixdesign of the concrete as well as the characteristics of the deteriorated concrete. The properties of thedeteriorated concrete are indicative of the extent of the defects present, and in most cases the causesof the deterioration.

Air Void Distribution in Hardened Concrete (ASTM C457)Air void distribution is an important indicator of the resistance of the concrete to damage from freeze-thaw cycles. ASTM C457 Procedure A: Linear Transverse Method was applied using RapidAir457 tomeasure such parameters as total air by volume and air-void spacing.

Figure 9 Promenade Deck Core



_____________________________________________________________________________________19

Freeze-thaw Durability (Modified ASTM C666)In addition to the air void distribution measurements described above, the freeze-thaw durability of theconcrete was also evaluated by exposing concrete cores free of cracking or reinforcing steel to 25 rapidfreezing and thawing cycles while submerged in a sodium hydroxide solution.

Rapid Chloride Permeability (ASTM C1202)An assessment of the concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion penetration was performed by passing anelectrical charge through the concrete core and measuring its electrical conductance.

Volume of Permeable Voids (ASTM C642)The volume of permeable voids, which in turn indicates the extent to which chlorides can permeate theconcrete and corrode the embedded steel, was determined by evaluating the density, percentabsorption, and percent of voids in the specimen based on existing data from ASTM C642.

3.3 Non-destructive Investigation The following summary provides a brief explanation of the non-destructive testing procedure that wasused to arrive at the section loss data presented in Section 4 of this report. A detailed narrative of thecorrosion process and the testing protocol undertaken to obtain the section loss data is presented inAppendix H of this report.

The Non-destructive testing program consisted of a number of methods that are listed as follows:

Multi Array Surface Penetrating Analysis RadarHalf Cell PotentialCorrosion Rate MeasurementsElectrical Resistivity

The information collected was used to provide section loss calculations and a durability assessment. Theobjective was to use this information in understanding reduced load ratings now and for a ten yearprojection. This is regarded as a probabilistic approach as statistical degradation models are calculatedbased on current conditions, and are affected by deterioration mechanisms going forward.

The focus of the condition assessment work was on the roadway slabs and the exposed concrete tounderside of the cantilever.

The pavement slabs were surveyed by utilizing the Multi Array Surface Penetrating Analysis Radar.

Half-cell measurements were recorded on the soffits on approximately three-foot centers. The data hasbeen grouped in accordance with the ASTM C876 analysis and is included in Appendix H of this report.



_____________________________________________________________________________________20

In addition to this, Life 52™ models were utilized to convert half-cell data into potential gradients andsubsequently corrosion rates. This allows for the determination of reinforcing steel section loss and tothen provide long term deterioration models.

Field measurements of corrosion rates are slow, therefore selected areas are chosen based on Half-Celldata to validate the conversion of potential gradients to corrosion rates. After the gradient data isproduced, an algorithm is used within the Life 52™ model to produce the corrosion rate measurement.

Electrical resistivity measurements of the concrete were recorded at the same time corrosion ratesmeasurement were taken to enable a full picture of the corrosion cell to be understood.

3.4 Hazardous Material SamplingA sampling and testing of potentially hazardous materials was performed at each BIN structure.Specifically, the materials investigated included asbestos, lead paint, and PCB caulks. Soil sampling andtesting was not performed. Prior to the field inspections, record plans and biennial inspection reportswere reviewed to determine the potential locations of hazardous materials. The on-site inspectionsincluded visual inspections, bulk sampling of suspect hazardous materials, and quantification of suspecthazardous materials. In addition, inspectors observed deck coring and wall coring to determine ifwaterproofing membranes were present. All hazardous sample test results can be found in Appendix G.

The following bulk sampling protocol was used for each type of suspect material:

Asbestos Survey

The sampling strategy for suspect asbestos-containing materials included the delineation and groupingof homogeneous suspect materials. The delineation of homogeneous areas at the site was based onseveral criteria, including material type and location. Materials suspected of containing asbestos wereidentified for the areas inspected. When suspect ACM’s were found, representative bulk samples fromthe homogeneous material group (material that is uniform by color, texture, construction applicationdate, and general appearance) were collected. Three bulk samples were collected per homogeneousmaterial group from miscellaneous materials (such as caulking, mastics, etc.). No surfacing materials(such as plaster) and no thermal system insulation materials were identified for bulk sampling. If thesematerials are encountered at a later time, then the appropriate AHERA protocol will be used forsampling.

Lead Paint Survey

A visual inspection was conducted to identify any suspect lead-containing painted surfaces. The visualinspection was utilized to design an effective sampling strategy. Sample locations were selected toaccurately represent all areas and/or components with the potential to be affected or disturbed as aresult of the anticipated work. The delineation of homogeneous areas at the site was based on color ofpaint and location. One sample of suspect lead containing paint was collected from each homogeneous



_____________________________________________________________________________________21

area. In accordance with ASTM Designation: E 1729-05, “Standard Practice for Field Collection of DriedPaint Samples for Subsequent Lead Determination”, a 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm template was utilized to collectthe paint samples.

PCB Survey

The sampling strategy used for suspect PCB-containing caulks was similar to that of suspect asbestossampling whereby a representative of three bulk samples from the homogeneous material group(material that is uniform by color, texture, construction application date, and general appearance) wascollected. The laboratory was instructed to combine equal portions of the three sub-samples perhomogenous group into one composite sample for analysis.



_____________________________________________________________________________________22

4. Inspection Findings

4.1 BIN 2268517 BQE SIB over Furman Street

4.1.1 Pavement EvaluationThe asphalt wearing surface over spans 1 to 5 of BIN 2268517 has been patched in several locations oflocalized cracking. The overall patched area extends for approximately 300 ft and contains depressionsand rises of up to 1”, as evidenced by the photo below. The uneven roadway surface has led tocomplaints of elevated sound levels heard from an adjacent building, located at 360 Furman Street, dueto the rattling of truck traffic over the patched area.

Figure 10 Patched Area of Pavement over Spans 1 to 5 of BQE SIB over Furman Street

During subsequent lane closures on the BQE SIB roadway, sound level readings were taken at severallocations to verify whether they exceeded acceptable levels. At roadway level, the reading was 85 dB,which is the expected level for truck traffic. The average speed of traffic at the time of this reading is of



_____________________________________________________________________________________23

note – due to the lane closure, trucks were traveling at approximately 30-40 mph rather than the usual50-60 mph, which may have caused the reading to be lower than under normal traffic conditions.

Photos 1 through 3 in Appendix B show general views and current conditions observed at top of deckduring inspections.

4.1.2 Deck Slab Evaluation

4.1.2.1 Non-destructive EvaluationThe decks were surveyed using MASPAR over a number of separate occasions due to the trafficmanagement restrictions. First a survey of the inner two lanes was performed by taking measurementsfrom the curb line outwards and always going in a Staten Island bound direction. This was carried out atall BIN locations surveyed.

All of the detailed non-destructive evaluation results are shown as color contour maps on drawing X108with a statistical analysis on X181, in Appendix I.

For BIN 2268517, Spans 6 and 7 were tested out of a total surface area of 10,988 Square feet. Thesection losses that were calculated based on the measurements taken from the spans surveyed aresummarized in Table 3. The reinforcing steel loss estimates indicated an average section loss of 9% over25% of the deck area surveyed. The average section loss will grow to 18% in 10 years, provided that theoverlay is maintained, when it is anticipated that the structure will be rehabilitated or replaced. The lossestimates were consistent with the corrosion rate measurements.



_____________________________________________________________________________________24

4.1.2.2 Concrete Coring ResultsThe bridge deck cores often exhibited cracking at the top layer of steel, and sometimes came out of thedeck in three or four pieces. The concrete compressive strength of the deck core obtained from BIN2268517 was 5470 psi. Most cores obtained from exhibited type 3 failure, indicating good-qualityconcrete with well-segregated aggregate and good cement paste. Type 3 breaks (columnar failure) arenot unusual for higher strength drilled core samples, due to uneven core end surfaces, even aftercapping in the lab.

While the chloride permeability test results were very low to moderate, very high levels of chlorideswere found in the decks of the cantilevered structures, which is to be expected as they have beensubject to the application of road salts in the winter since they were originally constructed. As a generalguideline, corrosion can be expected to initiate in reinforced concrete when chloride content reaches1.25 pounds per cubic yard. For the bridge deck for BIN 2268517, the chlorides at the top of the sampleranged from 660 to 1500 parts per million, or between 2.51 and 5.70 pounds per cubic yard. Thisindicates that the steel reinforcement is exposed to extreme levels of chlorides and is actively corroding.

Five concrete cores from the deck of BIN 2268517 were subjected to petrographic examination. Thecores were generally in good or fair condition. Results indicated that the concrete was not air-entrainedfor freeze-thaw resistance, and evidence of alkali aggregate reaction was observed. Micro-cracking ofthe dense paste regions was common in the specimens and likely caused by shrinkage.

Information on each core, including asphalt cover thickness, depth of rebar, length of core, and testresults, is available in Appendix K.

4.1.3 Wall EvaluationThe wall exterior was clad in granite panels and could not be inspected. Photos 16 through 18 inAppendix B show general views and current conditions observed in the granite veneer duringinspections. Photos 19 through 23 in Appendix B show conditions observed on the wall interior and onthe columns supporting the back span.

The wall cores appeared to be in good condition and were extracted in one piece. The concretecompressive strength varied from 6500 to 7560psi.

The chloride concentration in the top of core samples obtained from the walls of BIN 2268517 rangedbetween 220 and 530 parts per million, or between 0.84 and 2.01 pounds per cubic yard. This indicatesthat some steel reinforcement in the walls is undergoing active corrosion.

One wall core from BIN 2268517 (517-F3W) was in poor condition. The core was fractured in severalplaces beginning at a depth of 7 inches. Alkali silica reaction (ASR) was detected at several concretepaste/aggregate interfaces on the fracture surfaces. It is unclear whether the ASR caused the fractures.Alternatively, the fractures may have formed prior to the ASR gel formation, leading to increased water



_____________________________________________________________________________________25

exposure to the interior concrete and promoting ASR. There is only slight evidence of ASR in the top 7inches of the core.

For the samples that were not fractured, damage was minimal. Some exhibited slight to minor crackingin the near surface region, generally above steel reinforcement. This cracking was typically due to acombination of damage induced by freeze-thaw cycles, shrinkage cracking, and slight ASR between thecoarse aggregate and available alkalis in the concrete. The freeze-thaw loss in one core (517-F7W) was27%, far greater than the 3% accepted limit.

Information on each core, including depth of rebar, length of core, and test results, is available inAppendix K.

4.1.4 Deck Underside Evaluation

4.1.4.1 Hands-on Inspection FindingsThe underside of the cantilever exhibits a pattern of deterioration with spalling and hollow soundingalong the deck joints. Most of the spalled areas are also accompanied by exposed reinforcement thatexhibits up to 20% section loss. A steel mesh system has been installed along the joints to prevent debrisfrom falling onto the passing traffic. Safety flags have been issued to address deteriorated and brokenmesh. The remaining area of the underside of the cantilever exhibits hairline mapcracks withefflorescence, transverse cracks up to 1/8” wide, dampness and scaling. Isolated spalled locations arealso noted in areas away from the joint, with most of these spalled areas also covered by a steel meshsystem.

Photos 4 through 7 in Appendix B show general views and current conditions observed on the undersideof the cantilever during inspections.

For those areas of the back span slab where interior access was obtained, the inspection found theunderside of the deck concrete to be in very good condition, except at construction joints wherelocalized spalling and corrosion was found due to water seepage from the roadway above.

Photos 8 through 15 in Appendix B show general views and current conditions observed on theunderside of the back span slab during inspections.

4.1.4.2 Non-destructive EvaluationIn interpreting the data obtained from the non-destructive evaluation of the cantilever underside, it wasconcluded that the slab contains a significant amount of moisture that tends to cause half-cell potentialsto be more negative. It should also be noted that corrosion is occurring to the soffit at the span jointswhere oxygen is more readily available. In essence the joints provide a passage of oxygen from thesurface of the road when defects in the asphalt occur or directly from the soffit within the gap of thejoint. The corrosion is also exacerbated by chlorides that leak through the joints from the road deck.



_____________________________________________________________________________________26

All of the Half-cell detailed results for the cantilever and interior span slabs are shown as color contourmaps on drawings X107 and the statistics are detailed on drawing X181 in Appendix I.

4.1.4.3 Concrete Coring ResultsThe average measured soluble chlorides in the cantilever underside are 1.48 pounds per cubic yard and,due to lack of air entrainment, the concrete will continue to spall due to freeze-thaw effects.

4.1.5 Underground and Overhead UtilitiesWithin the wall adjacent to Furman Street, there is an embedded conduit that feeds power to roadwaylighting mounted on the underdeck of the roadway cantilever.

There are several major utilities below Furman Street as well as the Red Hook Interceptor Sewer thatruns the length of Furman Street.



_____________________________________________________________________________________27

4.2 BIN 2268518 BQE QB over BQE SIB

4.2.1 Pavement EvaluationThe curb on the left side exhibits spalls in several locations, some exposing the reinforcement. At thistime the reinforcing bars are not protruding onto the roadway, so no safety hazard to the passing trafficis present. This pattern of deterioration is repeated throughout the length of the right curb system.

Above the roadway, the deck joints have been paved over and most locations exhibit transverse cracksand isolated rough patches. The wearing surface shows isolated areas of rough patches with rises anddepressions up to 1”.



4.2.2.1 Non-destructive EvaluationThe reinforcing steel loss was not measured but should be consistent with BIN 2268517. The section lossvalues that were assumed for BIN 2268518 are the same as those presented in Section 4.1.2.1 of thisreport. All of the detailed non-destructive evaluation results are shown as color contour maps ondrawings X108 with a statistical analysis on X181, in Appendix I.

4.1.2.2 Concrete Coring ResultsThe bridge deck cores often exhibited cracking at the top layer of steel, and sometimes came out of thedeck in three or four pieces. The average deck compressive strength observed in BIN 2268518 is 7023psi. Most cores obtained from exhibited type 3 failure, indicating good-quality concrete with well-segregated aggregate and good cement paste. Type 3 breaks (columnar failure) are not unusual forhigher strength drilled core samples, due to uneven core end surfaces, even after capping in the lab.

While the chloride permeability test results were very low to moderate, very high levels of chlorideswere found in the decks of the cantilevered structures, which is to be expected as they have beensubject to the application of road salts in the winter since they were originally constructed. As a generalguideline, corrosion can be expected to initiate in reinforced concrete when chloride content reaches1.25 pounds per cubic yard. For the bridge deck for BIN 2268518, the chlorides at the top of the sampleranged from 840 to 2300 parts per million, or between 3.19 and 8.74 pounds per cubic yard. Thisindicates that the steel reinforcement is exposed to extreme levels of chlorides and is actively corroding.

Three concrete cores from the deck of BIN 2268518 were subjected to petrographic examination. Thecores were generally in good or fair condition. One sample, 518-E4DM, was fractured below the tworeinforcing steel bars in the core, but there was no steel corrosion product or other deposits in thefracture to indicate the cause. This fracture likely occurred during coring. Results indicated that theconcrete was not air-entrained for freeze-thaw resistance, and evidence of alkali aggregate reaction was



_____________________________________________________________________________________28

observed. Micro-cracking of the dense paste regions was common in the specimens and likely caused byshrinkage.


4.2.3 Wall EvaluationThe wall exterior was clad in granite panels and could not be inspected. Photos 39 through 41 inAppendix B show general views and current conditions observed in the granite veneer duringinspections. Photos 42 through 45 in Appendix B show conditions observed on the wall interior and onthe columns supporting the back span.

The wall cores appeared to be in good condition and were extracted in one piece. The concretecompressive strength varied from 5970 to 6860psi. The chloride concentration in the top of coresamples ranged between 230 and 2400 parts per million, or between 0.87 and 9.12 pounds per cubicyard. Some cores exhibited slight to minor cracking in the near surface region, generally above steelreinforcement. This cracking was typically due to a combination of damage induced by freeze-thawcycles, shrinkage cracking, and slight alkali silica reaction (ASR) between the coarse aggregate andavailable alkalis in the concrete. The average freeze-thaw loss was 62%, far greater than the 3%accepted limit.


4.2.4 Deck Underside EvaluationThe underside of the cantilever exhibits a pattern of deterioration with spalling and hollow soundingalong the deck joints. Most of the spalled areas are also accompanied by exposed reinforcement thatexhibits up to 20% section loss. A steel mesh system has been installed along the joints to prevent debrisfrom falling onto the passing traffic. Safety flags have been issued to address deteriorated and brokenmesh. The remaining area of the underside of the cantilever exhibits hairline mapcracks withefflorescence, transverse cracks up to 1/8” wide, dampness and scaling. Isolated spalled locations arealso noted in areas away from the joint, with most of these spalled areas also covered by a steel meshsystem.

Photos 27 through 29 in Appendix B show general views and current conditions observed on theunderside of the cantilever during inspections.




_____________________________________________________________________________________29


The average measured soluble chlorides are 0.91 pounds per cubic yard and, due to lack of airentrainment, the concrete will continue to spall due to freeze-thaw effects.

4.2.5 Underground and Overhead UtilitiesNone noted.



_____________________________________________________________________________________30

4.3 BIN 2268497 BQE SIB over Furman Street

4.3.1 Pavement EvaluationThe curb on the right side exhibits spalls in several locations, some exposing the reinforcement. At thistime the reinforcing bars are not protruding onto the roadway, so no safety hazard to the passing trafficis present. This pattern of deterioration is repeated throughout the length of the right curb system.




4.3.2.1 Non-destructive EvaluationThe decks were surveyed using MASPAR over a number of separate occasions due to the trafficrestrictions on the BQE. First a survey of the inner two lanes was performed by taking measurementsfrom the curb line outwards and always going in a Staten Island bound direction. On a separateoccasion, the deck was then surveyed from the outer lane to the middle lane.


The section losses that were calculated based on the measurements taken from the spans surveyed aresummarized in Table 4. The reinforcing steel loss estimates indicated an average section loss of 6% over44% of the deck area surveyed. The average section loss will grow to 16% in 10 years, provided that theoverlay is maintained, when it is anticipated that the structure will be rehabilitated or replaced. The lossestimates were consistent with the corrosion rate measurements.



_____________________________________________________________________________________31

4.3.2.2 Concrete Coring ResultsDuring the coring operations for BIN 2268497, it was noted that the outer lane of the roadway deck hasa thicker asphalt pavement layer than the interior lanes.

The bridge deck cores were in good to fair condition. The concrete compressive strength varied from4840 to 9620 psi. The cores exhibited slight corrosion of reinforcing steel in the cores except one corethat showed extreme chloride induced corrosion resulting in fracture of the reinforcing bar.

While the chloride permeability test results were very low to moderate, the average acid solublechlorides at the top of the deck were 3.62 pounds per cubic yard, well in excess of 1.25 pounds per cubicyard, which is associated with the initiation of corrosion.

The freeze-thaw loss in one core was over 30%, far greater than the 3% accepted limit. The petrographicexamination indicated that the concrete was not air entrained and evidence of alkali aggregate reactionwas observed.

As the deck has an overlay, it has a limited exposure to oxygen. Thus if the overlay is removed for aconsiderable length of time, extensive corrosion is anticipated.


4.3.3 Wall EvaluationThe wall exterior was clad in granite panels and could not be inspected visually. Figure 11 is a photo of atypical wall core from BIN 2268497. Photos 67 through 77 in Appendix B show general views and currentconditions observed in the granite veneer during inspections. Photos 78 through 82 in Appendix B showconditions observed on the wall interior and on the columns supporting the back span.



_____________________________________________________________________________________32

Figure 11 Typical Wall Core from BIN 2268497 (Left to Right: Concrete Core, Mortar, Granite Panel)

The wall cores appeared to be in good condition and were extracted in one piece. The concretecompressive strength varied from 4550 to 9690 psi.

The average freeze-thaw loss was 39%, far greater than the 3% accepted limit. The petrographicexamination indicated that the concrete was not air entrained and evidence of alkali aggregate reactionwas observed.









_____________________________________________________________________________________33

4.3.4.2 Non-destructive EvaluationThe data provided in Table 5 for BIN 2268497 accounts for 80% of the area of the cantilever undersidethat was surveyed and indicates that corrosion is likely occurring to the soffit at the span joints whereoxygen is more readily available. In essence the joints provide a passage of oxygen from the surface ofthe road when defects in the asphalt occur or directly from the soffit within the gap of the joint. Thecorrosion is also exacerbated by chlorides that leak through the joints from the road deck.

All of the Half-cell detailed results are shown as color contour maps on drawing X101 and the statisticsare detailed on drawing X122, in Appendix I.

4.3.4.3 Concrete Coring ResultsThe average measured soluble chlorides are 1.39 pounds per cubic yard and, due to lack of airentrainment, the concrete will continue to spall due to freeze-thaw effects.

For those areas of the back span slab where interior access was obtained, the inspection found theunderside of the deck concrete to be in very good condition except at construction joints wherelocalized spalling and corrosion was found due to water seepage from the roadway above.

4.3.5 Underground and Overhead UtilitiesWithin the wall adjacent to Furman Street, there is an embedded conduit that feeds power to roadwaylighting mounted on the underdeck of the roadway cantilever. At spans 34 and 35 there is an NYCTAventilation structure that is integral with the wall and above structure.

There are several major utilities below Furman Street including 4 NYCTA subway lines that transect thealignment as well as the Red Hook Interceptor Sewer that runs the length of Furman Street.



_____________________________________________________________________________________34

4.4 BIN 2268498 BQE QB over BQE SIB

4.4.1 Pavement EvaluationThe curb on the left side exhibits spalls in several locations, some exposing the reinforcement. At thistime the reinforcing bars are not protruding onto the roadway, so no safety hazard to the passing trafficis present. This pattern of deterioration is repeated throughout the length of the right curb system.




4.4.2.1 Non-destructive EvaluationThe decks were surveyed using MASPAR over a number of separate occasions due to the trafficrestrictions on the BQE. First a survey of the inner two lanes was performed by taking measurementsfrom the curb line outwards and always going in a Staten Island bound direction. On a separateoccasion, the deck was then surveyed from the outer lane to the middle lane.


The section losses that were calculated based on the measurements taken from the spans surveyed aresummarized in Table 6. The reinforcing steel loss estimates indicated an average section loss of 7% over35% of the deck area surveyed. The average section loss will grow to 16% in 10 years, provided that theoverlay is maintained, when it is anticipated that the structure will be rehabilitated or replaced. The lossestimates were consistent with the corrosion rate measurements.



_____________________________________________________________________________________35

4.4.2.2 Concrete Coring ResultsDuring the coring operations for BIN 2268498, it was noted that the outer lane of the roadway deck hasa thicker asphalt pavement layer than the interior lanes.

The bridge deck cores often exhibited cracking at the top layer of steel, and sometimes came out of thedeck in three or four pieces. The concrete compressive strength varied from 4440 to 8860 psi.

While the chloride permeability test results were very low to moderate, the average acid solublechlorides at the top of the deck were 3.91 pounds per cubic yard, well in excess of 1.25 pounds per cubicyard, which is associated with the initiation of corrosion.

4.4.3 Wall EvaluationThe wall exterior was clad in granite panels and could not be inspected. Photos 116 through 121 inAppendix B show general views and current conditions observed in the granite veneer duringinspections. Photos 122 through 126 in Appendix B show conditions observed on the wall interior andon the columns supporting the back span.


While the chloride permeability test results were 11.05%, the average acid soluble chlorides at the topof the wall was 2.59 pounds per cubic yard, exceeding the threshold of 1.25 pounds per cubic yard,which is associated with the initiation of corrosion.

The average freeze thaw loss was over 40%, far greater than the 3% accepted limit. The petrographicexamination indicated that the concrete was not air entrained and evidence of alkali aggregate reactionwas observed.


4.4.4.1 Hands-on Inspection FindingsIn general, the concrete surface exhibited little to no deterioration within the spans. However, severedeterioration was observed at several pier joint locations between adjacent spans. At these locations,large areas of the concrete surface were spalled due to corrosion in the reinforcing steel. The exposedreinforcing steel is now more susceptible to corrosion. The wire mesh that was in place to protect the



_____________________________________________________________________________________36

concrete surface has also undergone widespread deterioration, and has broken off at the locationswhere spalling has occurred, creating a potentially hazardous condition whereby debris can fall onpassing vehicles on the roadway below. A safety flag has been issued for each case in which the steelwire mesh has broken and the deteriorated material above it has the potential to fall and harmmotorists below. All safety flag reports are included in Appendix D.




4.4.4.2 Non-destructive EvaluationThe data provided Table 7 for BIN 2268498 accounts for 44% of the area of the cantilever underside thatwas surveyed and indicates that corrosion is likely occurring to the soffit at the span joints where oxygenis more readily available. In essence the joints provide a passage of oxygen from the surface of the roadwhen defects in the asphalt occur or directly from the soffit within the gap of the joint. The corrosion isalso exacerbated by chlorides that leak through the joints from the road deck.

All of the Half-cell detailed results are shown as color contour maps on drawing X103 and the statisticsare detailed on drawing X132, in Appendix I.



_____________________________________________________________________________________37

4.4.4.3 Concrete Coring ResultsThe average measured soluble chlorides are 1.34 pounds per cubic yard and, due to lack of airentrainment, the concrete will continue to spall due to freeze thaw effects.

For those areas of the back span slab where interior access was obtained, the inspection found theunderside of the deck concrete to be in very good condition except at construction joints wherelocalized spalling and corrosion was found due to water seepage from the roadway above.

4.4.5 Underground and Overhead UtilitiesWithin the wall adjacent to Furman Street, there is an embedded conduit that feeds power to roadwaylighting mounted on the underdeck of the roadway cantilever. At spans 34 and 35 there is an NYCTAventilation structure that is integral with the wall and structure.

There are several major utilities below Furman Street including 4 NYCTA subway lines that transect thealignment as well as the Red Hook Interceptor Sewer that runs the length of Furman Street.

The bridge railing on the left consists of three horizontal bars – the top is a corrugated bar, and thebottom two are square bars penetrated and welded to the steel posts, which are spaced atapproximately 8 feet and anchored to the bridge's safety walk. The left bridge steel railing exhibitsimpact damage at several locations throughout the bridge, showing the railing bars bent outwards butfor the most part still connected to the posts.

A conduit system runs at the left fascia and is connected to the railing posts via a bracket system. Asafety flag was issued to address the railing damage and broken conduit support brackets in severallocations throughout the bridge.



_____________________________________________________________________________________38

4.5 BIN 2268350 Brooklyn Promenade over BQE QB

4.5.1 Pavement EvaluationThe deck slab of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade is paved with hexagonal pervious pavementinterspersed with areas of large rectangular stone pavers, as shown in the photo below. Hands-oninspection of the promenade revealed that the overall condition of the pavement is good, with theexception of a few areas of heaved or sunken pavement, missing pavement, and scaling paver stones.Heaved pavement was observed specifically at the bridge joints.

Photos 127 through 139 in Appendix B show general views and current conditions observed at top ofdeck during inspections.

Figure 12 Brooklyn Heights Promenade Pavement


4.5.2.1 Non-destructive EvaluationAll of the detailed non-destructive evaluation results are shown as color contour maps on drawing X106and the statistics are detailed on drawing X152.

The section losses that were calculated based on the measurements taken from the spans surveyed aresummarized in Table 8. The reinforcing steel loss estimates indicated an average section loss of 4% over68% of the deck area surveyed. The average section loss will grow to 13% in 10 years, provided that thewaterproofing is maintained, when it is anticipated that the structure will be rehabilitated or replaced.The loss estimates were consistent with the corrosion rate measurements.



_____________________________________________________________________________________39

4.5.2.2 Concrete Coring ResultsWhile the chloride permeability test results were low to moderate, the average acid soluble chlorides atthe top of the deck were 2.08 pounds per cubic yard, well in excess of 1.25 pounds per cubic yard, whichis associated with the initiation of corrosion.

The freeze thaw loss in one core was 2%, within the 3% accepted limit. The petrographic examinationindicated that the concrete was not air entrained and evidence of alkali aggregate reaction wasobserved.

As the promenade deck has a waterproofing membrane, it has a limited exposure to oxygen, ascompared to the underside of the deck where there is extensive corrosion. Thus if the membrane isremoved for a considerable length of time, extensive corrosion is anticipated.

4.5.3 Wall EvaluationPhotos 144 and 145 in Appendix B show general views and current conditions observed on the wallexterior during inspections.


While the average chloride permeability test results were 13%, the average acid soluble chlorides at thetop of the wall were 1.54 pounds per cubic yard.



_____________________________________________________________________________________40

The petrographic examination indicated that the concrete was not air entrained and evidence of alkaliaggregate reaction was observed.

4.5.4 Cantilever Underside Evaluation



4.5.4.2 Non-destructive EvaluationThe data provided in Table 9 indicates that corrosion is occurring to the soffit of BIN 2268350, especiallyat the deck joints where oxygen is more readily available. In essence the joints provide a passage ofoxygen from the surface of the road when defects in the asphalt occur or directly from the soffit withinthe gap of the joint. The corrosion is also exacerbated by chlorides that leak through the joints from thepromenade.

In interpreting this data it was concluded that this slab contains less moisture than the bridge decks,primarily due to the waterproofing membrane on the promenade.

All of the half-cell detailed results are shown as color contour maps on drawing X105 and the statisticsare detailed on drawing X152 in Appendix I.



_____________________________________________________________________________________41

4.5.4.3 Concrete Coring ResultsThe average measured soluble chlorides in the cantilever underside are 1.0 pounds per cubic yard and,due to lack of air entrainment, the concrete will continue to spall due to freeze thaw effects.

4.5.5 Underground and Overhead UtilitiesNo significant utilities noted.



_____________________________________________________________________________________42

5. Load Rating Posting Summary

5.1 Design Criteria

5.1.1 MaterialsThe material properties used in the load rating are tabulated in Table 10 below, and were defined basedon the following references:

AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation Tables 6B.5.2.3-1, 6B.5.2.4.1-1Record Plans Contract # 3D sheets 19-28 and Contract #4 sheets 46-57, 67, presented in Appendix Aof this reportEngineering News-Record, May 27, 1948, pp 78-81, New York Builds an Expressway on Shelves,presented in Appendix E of this reportThe Municipal Engineers Journal Vol. 34, 1948, Paper 229, Development and Construction ofBrooklyn-Queens Connecting Highway, E. J. Clark, presented in Appendix E of this reportConcrete strength and reinforcing steel yield strength results obtained from testing of concrete corefield specimens, presented in Appendix K of this report

Table 10 Design & Load Rating Material Properties

As-Designed As-Built

Concrete Strength, f’c 2.9 ksi (fc =650 psi) *4.5 ksi (fc – inventory = 1.6 ksi)

Reinforcing Steel YieldStrength, Fy

33 ksi (Fs = 18.0 ksi) *40 ksi (Fs – inventory = 20.0 ksi)

Modular Ratio, n 10 8

*Based on testing findings

5.1.2 DatumAll elevations used in the analysis model were defined with respect to a datum of 2.56’ above mean sealevel at Sandy Hook, as established by the US Coast and Geodetic Survey and used by the BrooklynHighway Department.

5.1.3 Design LoadsThe load rating analysis model considered the load cases described in detail in the following sections.

5.1.3.1 Dead and Superimposed Dead LoadDead load is composed of the self-weight of the structure and non-structural attachments, utilities,earth cover, and existing and future wearing surface. The following weights were used in the dead loadcalculations.



_____________________________________________________________________________________43

Table 11 Dead Load WeightsDescription Weight

Concrete, plain or reinforced (kip/ft3) 0.150

Structural Steel (kip/ft3) 0.490

Loose Sand, Earth, and Gravel (kip/ft3) 0.100 – 0.120

Concrete Pavement (kip/ft3) 0.150

Utilities (kip/ft2) Varies

1’-7” Safety Shape Concrete Fascia Barrier (kip/ft) 0.465

Metal Railing at Fascia (kip/ft) 0.150

5.1.3.2 Vehicular Live LoadVehicular live load was considered in accordance with the AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, section6B.6.2. The following cases were evaluated:

HS-20 Truck: Total weight of 72 kips configured as shown in Figure 13 below, where W = 40 kips andV is variable from 14 ft to 30 ft.

Figure 13 HS-20 Truck Load



_____________________________________________________________________________________44

HS-20 Truck + Lane Load: Uniformly distributed 0.64 kip/ft lane load, in addition to a concentratedload of either 18 kips for moment or 26 kips for shear, placed for maximum effect.

Figure 14 HS-20 Truck + Lane Load

H-20 Truck Load: Total weight of 40 kips configured as shown in Figure 15 below.

Figure 15 H-20 Truck Load



_____________________________________________________________________________________45

Typical Legal Posting Loads: Typical legal loads, shown in Figure 16 below, were used in the loadratings.

Figure 16 Typical Legal Loads for Posting



_____________________________________________________________________________________46

NYSDOT Permit Vehicle: Applied to a single lane concurrently with HS-20 load applied to all otherlanes, in accordance with the NYCDOT Blue Pages, Article 3.6.1.2.4a.

Figure 17 NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle



_____________________________________________________________________________________47

Under NYSDOT permit vehicle loading, as stipulated by AASHTO Standard Specifications 3.22.5, the D/Cratio was evaluated according to combination 1B shown in Table 12 below.

Table 12 Load Combinations for Permit Vehicle Overload Rating

5.1.3.3 Pedestrian LoadWhere pedestrian or bicycle traffic exists simultaneously with vehicular loads, a pedestrian live load of85 psf was considered in accordance with AASHTO Standard Specifications clause 3.14.1.3.

At the Promenade, a pedestrian live load of 100 psf was considered in accordance with 2008 NYCBuilding Code Section 1607.9.13 Special Occupancy. An H-10 maintenance vehicle load was alsoconsidered separately, without impact allowance.

5.1.3.4 Live Load SurchargeIn the evaluation of retaining walls and abutments where traffic exists within a horizontal distance fromthe top of the wall equal to one-half the wall height, a live load surcharge equal to a minimum of 2 feet



_____________________________________________________________________________________48

of earth was added to the lateral earth pressure, in accordance with AASHTO Standard Specificationsclauses 3.20.3 and 5.14.2.

In the evaluation of the Promenade wall, a live load surcharge of 100 psf was applied.

5.1.3.5 Earth PressureLateral earth pressure was considered per AASHTO Standard Specifications clause 3.20.1. Lateral earthpressure coefficients and pile spring stiffnesses for analysis were provided by the Geotechnical Engineer.

5.1.3.6 Load FactorsLoad factors were applied in accordance with AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation 6B.4 and AASHTOStandard Specifications clause 3.22.1.

5.1.4 Concrete CoverThe minimum clear concrete cover to reinforcement was taken as follows, unless otherwise noted in therecord plans.

Table 13 Concrete CoverDescription Cover (in)

Deck Top Reinforcement 1.5 in

Bottom Reinforcement 2.0 in

Wall Reinforcement 2.0 in

5.2 Structural AnalysisA 3D finite element model was created in STAAD Pro for the structural analysis of each of the cantileverstructures rated, using a combination of 2D beam elements for beams and columns and 3D plateelements for slabs and walls. The results obtained from the analysis models were then exported to in-house Excel spreadsheets for the load rating calculations. For a detailed description of the analysis andload rating of each BIN, refer to Appendix E of this report.

5.2.1 Lateral Earth Pressure Adjustment for Section (between Joralemon St. and Old FultonSt.)Based on the available geotechnical data as well as the original design drawings of the triple cantileverstructure, the lateral earth pressure calculations for the load rating were adjusted to produce a highervalue than assumed in the original design.

The lateral earth pressure calculation is mainly within the upper fill materials. The soil parameters of thefill materials were estimated based on an average of boring B-15, which is close to the majority of theSection 2 structure, and a number of other borings drilled from the upper level, including B-10, B-11, B-



_____________________________________________________________________________________49

14 and B-16. A boring location plan and profile, showing all of the borings used for this calculation, canbe found in Appendix E. The resulting soil parameters and the corresponding active earth pressuresbased on boring B-15 and all borings considered were calculated as follows.

Boring B-15, average N = 9 bpf:Unit Weight = 110 pcfFriction Angle = 30 degActive Earth Pressure = 36.7 psf per foot depth

All upper borings, average N = 19 bpf:Unit Weight = 120 pcfFriction Angle = 33 degActive Earth Pressure = 35.4 psf per foot depth

Based on the Surface Investigation Report, the loose material as shown in Boring B-15 might beindicative of a sinkhole in that area. Therefore, the more representative soil parameters and thecorresponding active earth pressure were used in the calculations.

The typical cross section shown in Figure 18 was used to develop lateral earth pressure profiles for thetwo sets of parameters above. An important consideration that was made in the adjusted calculationswas the effect of the QB deck on the soil pressure below. The soil above the QB deck slab wasconsidered as a surcharge, thus reducing the lateral pressure directly underneath the slab to zeroaccording to Boussinesq theory. Hence, the lateral earth pressure was assumed to increase linearly fromground level down to the bottom of the QB deck slab, and again from bottom of deck slab to bottom ofpile cap, as shown in Figure 19. Note that the green line in the right-hand graph represents the pressureassumed in the original design.



_____________________________________________________________________________________50



_____________________________________________________________________________________51

Figure 19 Lateral Earth Pressure, N=19 (All Upper Borings)



_____________________________________________________________________________________52

5.3 Load Rating SummaryA Level 1 load rating of the Cantilever Structures was performed in accordance with NYSDOT EI 05-034.A summary of the results obtained from the HS-20 load rating of the cantilever structures is presented inTable 14 through Table 16, by section, structural component, and time period. Time periods include As-Built, As-Inspected 2016, and Predicted 2026.



_____________________________________________________________________________________53



_____________________________________________________________________________________54

Both an Inventory and an Operating Rating were calculated for each of the following truck loads: HS-20,H-20, Type 3, Type 3-S2, Type 3-3, and the NYSDOT permit vehicle. All HS and H ratings include both theequivalent H and HS truck and the total load in tons. The full analysis and load rating reports for theCantilever Structures are found in Appendix E.

Ratings were performed at the transverse sections shown in Figure 25 through Figure 35. These sectionswere chosen based on their potential to govern the ratings as a result of the combination of theirstructural capacity and load effects. Slab ratings were calculated at each of the transverse sectionsshown in the figures and at three longitudinal locations in each span. The transverse slab moments arerelatively constant throughout the span while live load moments are greatest at the edges. It should benoted that the slabs typically have significantly heavier reinforcement near the deck joints as shown inFigure 20 through Figure 22 to resist this additional live load. The longitudinal rating locations werechosen at midspan and five feet from each joint, which is near the transition in reinforcement area.Capacity at the five foot location was conservatively based on lighter reinforcing at transition areas. Ifthis location controlled the HS-20 rating for the BIN, then an average capacity was used to recalculatethe rating at this transition location and that was compared to adjacent locations for determining thecontrolling rating.



_____________________________________________________________________________________55

Figure 21 Area of Top Reinforcement along 50 ft Span with Heavier Reinforcement near Deck Joints



_____________________________________________________________________________________56

Each member rating was calculated for As-Built conditions, 2016 As-Inspected conditions, and 2026Predicted conditions. As-Built Ratings are based on the condition of the structures at the time ofcompletion of construction. Information defining this condition was obtained from the original designplans, historical records and material strength testing for the concrete and reinforcing steel. 2016 As-Inspected Ratings include additional dead load currently on the structures and reinforcement sectionloss as measured by NDT methods previously discussed in Section 3.3. Reinforcement loss amountswere obtained by using the MASPAR Contour Condition Maps provided in Appendix I. These maps weregenerated by averaging the tightly spaced readings to produce a color coded contour plan that providesthe average reinforcement loss percentage in a given area of the span. Loss percentages were thenapplied to the section capacities and rating calculations at the transverse deck sections and at multiplelongitudinal locations, as previously discussed, in each span. 2026 Predicted Ratings include an increasein reinforcement section loss predicted to occur in the next ten years based on corrosion progressionmodels discussed in Appendix H.

The governing ratings presented in the previous tables can be misleading as they can sometimes seemto indicate that the structures have lower Live Load capacities than actually exist. It is important to notethat the controlling ratings represent only one location in one span and are not necessarily indicative ofthe entire span or the entire structure.



_____________________________________________________________________________________57

Figure 23 Governing HS20 Inventory Load Rating along Span D4 - 2016 As-inspected* This area within 5 ft of the deck joint has significantly heavier reinforcement, as shown in Figure 20 through Figure 22.Capacity at locations within 5 ft of the deck joints was conservatively based on lighter reinforcing at transition areas. If thislocation controlled the HS-20 rating for the BIN, then an average capacity was used to recalculate the rating at this transitionlocation.** This location at 7.5 ft from the deck end joint now controls the HS-20 rating compared to the average rating used in thetransition area described in (*) above.

Figure 24 Governing HS20 Inventory Load Rating along Span D4 - 2026 Predicted

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Ratin

g

Span

2016 Section E2 - Span D4: HS20-44 Unit Load Rating - Inventory

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Ratin

g

Span

2026 Section E2 - Span D4: HS20-44 Unit Load Rating - Inventory

*

**



_____________________________________________________________________________________58



_____________________________________________________________________________________59


1. Cantilever Structures_____________

_____________________________________________________________________________________60

Based on the analysis and load rating results presented herein, it was concluded that the governingratings are due to bending in the transverse frame girders and the cantilever slabs.



_____________________________________________________________________________________61



_____________________________________________________________________________________62



_____________________________________________________________________________________63



_____________________________________________________________________________________64



_____________________________________________________________________________________65



_____________________________________________________________________________________66



_____________________________________________________________________________________67

High concrete strength (which has been recorded in various locations of the BQE)may resist tension stress along with the rebar if the concrete condition is good in the tension zone.However, this cannot be verified with inspection as the tension zone is at bottom of slab which is incontact with the soil.

BINs 2268497, 2268498 and 2268350(Sta. S78+92 to Sta. S79+52)

The sections that were selected for load rating are shown in Figure 35.

STAAD analysis and load rating results show that the critical elements are the SIB cantilever slab sectionslocated next to supporting columns. Stress concentration occurs in the slab area because of the rigidityof the slab to column and beam connection.



_____________________________________________________________________________________68



_____________________________________________________________________________________69

5.4 Load Posting SummaryA load posting analysis was performed in accordance with NYSDOT Engineering Instruction EI 05-034,Load Rating/Posting Guidelines for State–owned Highway Bridges, Section 5. The analysis wasperformed for the As-Inspected condition (2016) and the 10-year Predicted condition (2026). LoadPosting is required if the Safe Load Capacity (SLC) for a given span is less than the H Equivalent rating ofthe Legal Load as defined in the guidelines.

Table 17 through Table 20 present the results of the posting analysis. In all cases the Safe LoadingCapacity (SLC) for controlling main members is greater than H Equivalent Legal Load. Therefore LoadPosting is currently not required and is not predicted to be necessary within the next decade.



_____________________________________________________________________________________70



_____________________________________________________________________________________71

6. Flag SummaryDuring the hands-on inspection of the BQE cantilever structures, a number of safety flags were issuedover areas of potential hazard to motorists, particularly those traveling on the roadways underneath.The majority of these areas of concern were found on the underside of the reinforced concretecantilever at joint locations, as in the photo below.

Figure 36 Area of Broken Mesh Netting and Spalled Concrete Found in Deck Joint 53



_____________________________________________________________________________________72

Table 21 is a summary of the conditions observed for which safety flag reports were issued. The full setof flag reports is available in Appendix D.



_____________________________________________________________________________________73

Table 21 Summary of Safety Flag ReportsBIN Spans/Joints Feature Condition Observed

2268517 None

2268518 None

2268497

Span 9 Cantilever Underside Cracking, delamination, and hollow soundingconcrete was observed adjacent to a spalled areawith exposed rebar. This rebar exhibits a section lossof 10-25% with minimal loss of bonding. Any fallingmaterial due to spalling poses a potential hazard tomotorists traveling on Furman Street.

2268498

Joints 2, 3,7, 10, 15, 22,26-28, 30,34, 47, 51 &53

Cantilever Underside Protective steel wire mesh netting is broken orseverely deteriorated. Holes in the netting can allowdebris from spalling concrete and corroded steelreinforcement to fall onto the roadway below, whichposes a potential hazard to motorists traveling onBQE SIB.

Span 58 Top of Deck – RightSide Light Pole

One light pole shows extensive deterioration at thebase, which has caused the pole to lean away fromthe roadway at an angle of approximately 15 degrees.With this inclination, a 1” gap has formed at thebottom of the base, which is likely to be inducingoverstress in the anchor bolts on that side.

Spans 2 to66

Top of Deck – LeftSide Railing andConduit Support

The left side steel railing elements, along with theattached brackets which support the conduitsrunning along the left fascia, were found to bebroken in several locations. The damaged railing andsupport bracket elements pose a hazard to the traffictraveling on BIN 2268498 and on the traffic below, onBIN 2268497.

2268350 None



_____________________________________________________________________________________74

7. Hazardous Material Investigation ResultsThe following bulk samples were collected during the on-site inspections. These samples weresubmitted for the appropriate laboratory analysis and the results of the analysis are discussed below.

BIN 2268497: Staten Island Bound BQE and Furman Street

Asbestos Survey

Bulk samples were collected from various suspect materials and submitted for laboratory analysis asfollows:

Black joint filler observed within wall vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.Brown joint filler observed within wall vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.Hard gray caulk observed within wall vertical joint 2/1 – Asbestos containing.Soft light gray caulk observed around door frames on Furman Street – Not asbestos containing.Soft light gray caulk observed top of deck on curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Black tar observed top of deck on curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Waterproofing membrane within road deck – Not asbestos containing.Hard dark gray caulk observed top of deck within curb joints – Asbestos containing.Spilled bituminous aggregate observed top of deck on curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Brown joint filler observed top of deck within curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Membrane tar observed within Span 15 opening on fiberglass along south wall – Not asbestoscontaining.Green/yellow joint caulk observed within Span 16-29 opening within wall vertical joints – Notasbestos containing.

PCB Caulk Survey


Hard gray caulk observed within wall vertical joint 2/1 - no PCBs detected above RCRA limit.Soft light gray caulk observed around door frames on Furman Street – no PCBs detected.Translucent silicone observed around metal frames at span 35 – no PCBs detected.Soft light gray caulk observed top of deck on curb joints – no PCBs detected.Hard dark gray caulk observed top of deck within curb joints - no PCBs detected above RCRAlimitGreen/yellow joint caulk observed within Span 16-29 opening within wall vertical joints – NoPCBs detected.

Lead Paint Survey




_____________________________________________________________________________________75

Brown paint observed on wall – lead containing.Brown over gray paint observed on metal door on Furman Street – lead containing.Blue over silver/orange paint observed on metal electrical box on Furman Street – leadcontaining.Yellow paint observed on granite face of wall – no lead detected.Black paint observed on granite face of wall – no lead detected.Yellow paint observed on roadway (lane striping) – no lead detected.White paint observed on roadway (lane striping) – no lead detected.Green/light green paint (over brown) observed top of deck on west fascia – lead containing.Green/light green paint (over brown) observed top of deck on steel rail – lead containing.

BIN 2268498: Queens Bound BQE over Staten Island Bound BQE

Asbestos Survey


Brown joint filler observed on top of deck curb joints – Not asbestos containing.White caulk observed top of deck curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Black joint filler observed on top of deck curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Light gray soft caulk observed on top of deck curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Black tar observed top of deck in roadway – Not asbestos containing.Dark gray joint filler observed on top of deck curb joints – Asbestos containing.Waterproofing membrane with roadway deck – Not asbestos containing.Ebony board and white cloth observed within a NYC electrical box (these materials not sampleddue to “live” box) – Assumed asbestos containing.

PCB Caulk Survey


White caulk observed top of deck curb joints - no PCBs detected above RCRA limit.Light gray soft caulk observed on top of deck curb joints - no PCBs detected above RCRA limit.

Lead Paint Survey


White paint observed on roadway (lane striping) – no lead detected.Green/light green paint (over orange) observed top of deck on west fascia – lead containing.



_____________________________________________________________________________________76

Yellow paint observed on roadway (lane striping) – no lead detected.Green/light green paint (over orange) observed top of deck on steel rail – lead containing.

BIN 2268350: Brooklyn Promenade over Queens Bound BQE

Asbestos Survey


Caulk observed on top of deck between paving stones – Not asbestos containing.Caulk observed top of deck running along fence at balcony/overlook – Not asbestos containing.Caulk observed top of deck around rotunda structure and globe pedestal – Not asbestoscontaining.Waterproofing membrane within promenade deck – Not asbestos containing.Brown joint filler observed within wall vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.Black joint filler observed within wall vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.

PCB Caulk Survey


Caulk observed on top of deck between paving stones – no PCBs detected.Caulk observed top of deck running along fence at balcony/overlook – no PCBs detected.Caulk observed top of deck around rotunda structure and globe pedestal – no PCBs detected.

Lead Paint Survey


Dark grey/black paint (over green) observed on top of deck fencing – lead containing.Grey over black paint observed on top of deck railings – lead containing.Brown paint observed on wall – no lead detected.

BIN 2268517: BQE Staten Island Bound over Furman Street

Asbestos Survey


Black joint filler observed within wall and abutment vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.



_____________________________________________________________________________________77

Light gray brittle caulk observed within wall vertical joints – Asbestos containing.Black joint filler observed within span 3/2 vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.Light gray soft caulk observed within top of deck curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Black tar observed on top of deck roadway – Not asbestos containing.Light gray brittle caulk observed within retaining wall vertical joints (75 feet south of Beginabutment) – Asbestos containing.Brown joint filler observed within retaining wall vertical joints (75 feet south of Beginabutment) – Not asbestos containing.Dark brown joint filler observed within vault vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.

PCB Caulk Survey


Light grey brittle caulk observed within wall vertical joints -no PCBs detected above RCRA limit.Light gray soft caulk (white caulk) observed within top of deck curb joints - no PCBs detected.Light gray brittle caulk (hard white) observed within retaining wall vertical joints (75 feet southof Begin abutment) - no PCBs detected.

Lead Paint Survey


Green/light green paint observed on west fascia girder – lead containing.Green/light green paint (over orange) observed on top of deck parapet railing – leadcontaining.White road paint observed on roadway asphalt – no lead detected.Yellow road paint observed on roadway asphalt – no lead detected.Paint observed on metal vent duct hanging from ceiling under deck vault – lead containing.Black paint observed under deck vault on south end wall – no lead detected.

BIN 2268518: BQE Queens Bound over BQE Staten Island Bound

Asbestos Survey

Bulk samples were collected from various suspect materials and submitted for laboratory analysis asfollows

Black tar observed at top of deck, safety walk curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Light gray soft caulk observed at top of deck, safety walk curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Brown adhesive on black foam observed on retaining wall vertical joints – Not asbestoscontaining.



_____________________________________________________________________________________78

Black joint filler observed at top of deck, safety walk curb joints – Not asbestos containing.Black joint filler observed within underdeck vault vertical joints – Not asbestos containing.Black coating observed within underdeck vault on south wall – Not asbestos containing.

PCB Caulk Survey


Light gray soft caulk observed at top of deck, safety walk curb joints - no PCBs detected.

Lead Paint Survey


Dark Green/light green paint (over orange) observed on top of deck railing - lead containing.White road paint observed on roadway asphalt – no lead detected.Yellow road paint observed on roadway asphalt – no lead detected.Light green paint observed on west fascia girder – lead containing.Dark Green/light green gray paint (over orange) observed on top of deck railing - leadcontaining.Light Green/light gray paint observed underdeck vault, old pump house room wall – leadcontaining.Brown paint (over white) observed underdeck vault, column 3A, on old emergency hose box –lead containing.Blue/dark green paint (over dark gray) observed underdeck vault, old pump house room wall –lead containing.Black paint observed under deck vault on south end wall – no lead detected.

Summary of Findings:

Asbestos Survey

Based on the laboratory analysis results and EPM’s assessment, asbestos containing materials arepresent at the BIN 2268497, BIN 2268498, and BIN 2268517 structures. The following materials weredetermined to be asbestos containing:

BIN 2268497:Hard gray caulk observed within wall vertical joint 2/1;Hard dark gray caulk observed top of deck within curb joints.

BIN 2268498:Dark gray joint filler observed on top of deck curb joints;



_____________________________________________________________________________________79

Ebony board and white cloth observed within a NYC electrical box (these materials notsampled due to “live” box and are presumed asbestos containing).

BIN 2268517:Light gray brittle caulk observed within wall vertical joints;Light gray brittle caulk observed within retaining wall vertical joints (75 feet south of Beginabutment)

All asbestos containing materials with the potential to be impacted by this rehabilitation/reconstructionproject shall be abated in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations. Theabatement shall be conducted in accordance with NYSDOT Item Numbers, NYS ICR 56, and NYCDEP Title15 regulations and any variances thereof.

Lead Paint Survey

Based on laboratory analysis results and EPM’s assessment, all of the BIN structures have paints thatcontain detectable levels of lead.

Impacts to lead coated surfaces, as a result of this rehabilitation/reconstruction project will need toinclude OSHA Lead In Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.62) requirements, Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) requirements, as well as general health and safety issues with regard to protectionof employees and the general public. Any contractor who performs future demolition/rehabilitationwould need to establish their means and methods for protecting the employees and the general publicduring demolition. In addition, lead removal shall be in accordance with Section 832 of the NYCDOTspecifications.

PCB Survey

No caulks with PCBs detected above the RCRA limit were identified during the investigation at any of theBIN structures.



_____________________________________________________________________________________80

8. Fatigue Evaluation

8.1 Fatigue Evaluation Criteria for Reinforcement SteelFatigue for reinforced concrete is as per AASHTO Standard Specification 8.16.8.3.

8.2 Fatigue Evaluation Results

8.2.1 BIN 2268517The maximum tensile stress range found in the cantilever section top bars was 10,000 psi and is wellbelow the allowable stress range for reinforcing bars found in both AASHTO and the literature. In areaswhere there is significant loss of section of the reinforcing steel, the live load stress range will increaseand thus loss of section could reduce the overall service life if a significant number of bars are affected.



8.2.4 BIN 2268498The maximum tensile stress range found in the cantilever section top bars was 9,100 psi and is wellbelow the allowable stress range for reinforcing bars found in both AASHTO and the literature. In areas



_____________________________________________________________________________________81

where there is significant loss of section of the reinforcing steel, the live load stress range will increaseand thus loss of section could reduce the overall service life if a significant number of bars are affected.

8.2.5 BIN 2268350A Fatigue Evaluation is not appropriate for BIN 2268350, the Promenade cantilever deck slab and wall,as this structure is subject mainly to pedestrian loading with an occasional maintenance vehicle. Themaintenance vehicle, considered to be an H10 truck, will result in a very low live load stress range in thereinforcement and the number of cycles will be inconsequential. Therefore fatigue will not affect theservice life of this structure.



_____________________________________________________________________________________82

9. RecommendationsIn general, the overall structure is in fair to poor condition. The most significant deficiencies identified todate are the apparently inadequate lateral load capacity, lack of deck capacity that will continue todegrade, as well as the deteriorated roadway surface, roadway joints and underside where there isextensive spalling.

Based on the inspection and rating analysis it will continue to be necessary to maintain the roadwaysurface and deck underside while any future design planning is in progress. It is noted that the continuedmaintenance of the asphalt overlay will allow oxygen to reach the reinforcing steel and that dependingupon the duration of the exposure, the reinforcing steel rate of section loss may be accelerated fromthat reported in the analyses.

The 72-year old concrete deck is in relatively poor condition and may require major reconstruction orreplacement in the future. Major reconstruction would involve removal of the asphalt overlay andconcrete overlay below the asphalt on the structures carrying the BQE, removal of pavers, sand andwaterproofing on the Promenade, removal of the netting and spalling concrete below the cantilever,repair of deteriorated reinforcing steel, installation of a cathodic protection system to address theextensive chloride contamination, rebuilding all expansion joints, repairs to the drainage system,replacement of the roadway barrier, and installation of a new low permeable overlay and shotcretereplacement of the cantilever underside. This alternative requires the use of staged construction withconsiderable impact to traffic and would not address the inadequate vertical and horizontal clearances.

Replacement would involve removal and replacement of the deck and would require temporarydiversion of traffic onto a temporary structure. This approach would provide a structure with adequatevertical and horizontal clearances that could be designed and detailed to provide a 100 year service life.

brooklyn queens expressway (bqe-278) inspection nda load ...… · brooklyn queens expressway...

Documents