Mapping Voids, Debonding, Delaminations, Moisture, and Other Defects Behind or Within Tunnel Linings (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M RepoRt S2-R06G-RR-1 Mapping Voids, Debonding, Delaminations, Moisture, and Other Defects Behind or Within Tunnel Linings Andrew wimsAtt, JoshuA white, Chin Leung, And tom sCuLLion Texas A&M Transportation Institute stefAn hurLebAus, dAn ZoLLinger, And ZAChAry grAsLey Texas A&M University soheiL nAZAriAn, hodA AZAri, And deren yuAn The University of Texas at El Paso PArisA shokouhi The German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing timo sAArenketo Roadscanners Oy fuLvio tonon The University of Texas at Austin

Subscriber Categories Bridges and Other Structures Construction Highways

SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-R06G-RR-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27291-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014937961 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Reena Mathews, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by Dr. Monica A. Starnes, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Renewal. The research documented in this report was performed under Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Project R06G by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) in College Station, Texas. TTI was the contractor for this study, and the Research Foundation of Texas A&M University served as fiscal administrator. Andrew J. Wimsatt, P.E., Research Engineer with TTI, was the project director and principal investigator. The other authors of this report are Joshua White, Tom Scullion, and Chin Leung, graduate students at Texas A&M University; Stefan Hurlebaus, P.E., Associate Professor, Zachary Grasley, Associate Professor, and Dan Zollinger, P.E., Professor, Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University; Soheil Nazarian, P.E., Professor, Department of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at El Paso; Deren Yuan, Researcher, The University of Texas at El Paso; Ms. Hoda Azari, graduate student at The University of Texas at El Paso; Parisa Shokouhi, Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow at the German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing; Timo Saarenketo, Managing Director of Roadscanners Oy; and Fulvio Tonon at The University of Texas at Austin. The project team thanks Robert Johnson and Eddie Black of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, Mike Salamon and Stephen Quick of the Colorado Department of Transportation, and Ms. Gail Miller of Harris County, Colorado, for allowing the team to test in their tunnel facilities and for their assistance. The team also thanks the expert panel for this project. The panel members were Helmut Ernst, P.E., former Chief Engineer, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority; Bernard Yostpille, P.E., Assistant Chief Structural Engineer, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Blake D. Rothfuss, P.E., D.WRE, Jacobs Associates; Robert E. Johnson, Director of Maintenance, Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel District; Michael J. Abrahams, P.E., Senior Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.; Mike Salamon, Colorado Department of Transportation Superintendent for the Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel; John S. Popovics. Associate Professor, University of Illinois; and Frank Jalinoos, Federal Highway Administration.

The Big Dig ceiling collapse in Boston in 2006 and the 2012 collapse event in Japan’s Sasago Tunnel, where numerous people lost their lives, illustrate that timely detection and reme- diation of problems within tunnel linings are central to ensuring road user safety. Periodic monitoring of tunnel conditions and deterioration rates is the answer to determining the appropriate schedule of maintenance or rehabilitation activities to remedy structural prob- lems that could lead to rapid deterioration and unexpected tunnel failures. The aggressive environmental conditions in which tunnels exist, as well as the need to keep tunnels open to traffic, make their inspection a challenge. Nondestructive testing (NDT) methods that are automated, quantitative, and rapid, and that provide complete coverage compared with conventional visual inspections, could solve this dilemma. This report presents the findings of SHRP 2 Renewal Project R06G—High-Speed Non- destructive Testing Methods for Mapping Voids, Debonding, Delaminations, Moisture, and Other Defects Behind or Within Tunnel Linings. The study was divided into two phases to (1) establish testing criteria and prioritize the techniques to be developed and evaluated under the project on the basis of tunnel operators’ requirements and (2) conduct the neces- sary technology development for those techniques recommended. This project benefited from the expertise of numerous NDT and tunnel experts from the United States, Germany, and Finland, starting with the members of the research team. The list of experts directly involved with the research team also included the DOT and NDT experts who volunteered to be part of the advisory expert panel. In addition to conducting technology development, the project was charged with per- forming proof-of-concept and field testing. The Finnish Transport Agency, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, and Harris County in Colorado graciously provided access to the tunnels and additional help during the field test- ing stages of the project. Beyond this report, the deliverables for this project include two products that will be published separately: 1. A user’s manual, which provides information on three NDT technologies for inspection of tunnels; and 2. A brief manual to the analysis software Tunnelcheck, which was developed under this project. The Tunnelcheck software is available for download here: http://www.trb.org/Main/ Blurbs/168768.aspx. F O R EWO R D Monica A. Starnes, PhD, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Renewal

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 3 CHAPTER 1 Background 3 SHRP 2 Background 3 Problem Statement 3 Research Objectives 4 CHAPTER 2 Research Approach 4 Introduction 4 Research and Development Plan 5 Test Specimens 8 Tunnels Tested in the Study 11 NDT Devices and Techniques Used in the Study 18 CHAPTER 3 Findings and Applications 18 An Investigation for Detecting Delaminations, Voids, and Water Intrusion 20 Field Validation Testing of NDT Devices by Using Actual Tunnels 27 An Investigation for Detecting Loose Tiles and Moisture Underneath Tiles 28 Developing NDT for Measuring Concrete Permeability 30 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Recommended Research 33 Appendix A. Air-Coupled Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing Criteria 35 Appendix B. Ground-Coupled Ground-Penetrating Radar Testing Criteria 36 Appendix C. Handheld Thermal Camera Testing Criteria 38 Appendix D. Ultrasonic Tomography Testing Criteria 41 Appendix E. Ultrasonic Echo Testing Criteria 43 Appendix F. Ultrasonic Surface Waves and Impact Echo Testing Criteria 47 Appendix G. Field Testing with Acoustic Sounding 52 Appendix H. Vehicle-Mounted Thermal Camera Testing Criteria 53 Appendix I. Survey of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel 66 Appendix J. Tunnel Tests in Finland 2010–2011 91 Appendix K. Air-Coupled Ground-Penetrating Radar Field Tests 98 Appendix L. Evaluation of Texas A&M Transportation Institute Test Specimens with the Handheld Infrared Camera 109 Appendix M. Ultrasonic Tomography Field Tests in the United States 146 Appendix N. Ultrasonic Tomography Test Summaries

205 Appendix O. Evaluation of Tiled Tunnel Linings by Using Acoustic Sounding 209 Appendix P. Portable Seismic Property Analyzer Field Tests in the United States 238 Appendix Q. BAM Testing in U.S. Tunnels 290 Appendix R. Estimated Depths to Defects from Nondestructive Testing 293 Appendix S. Concrete Permeability Laboratory Study 312 Appendix T. Radar Specifications for Air-Coupled Ground-Penetrating Radar Antennae 315 Appendix U. Portable Seismic Property Analyzer Slab Tests 358 Appendix V. Analysis of SPACETEC Data 379 Appendix W. Findings and Applications of the BAM 387 Appendix X. Digital Photogrammetry