Effect of concrete removal equipment and methods on the condition of deck concrete left in place.
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Effect of concrete removal equipment and methods on the condition of deck concrete left in place.

Filetype[PDF-1.44 MB]


  • English
    • Details You May Also Like

    Details:

    • Creators:
      Sprinkel, M. M.
    • Corporate Creators:
      Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)
    • Subject/TRT Terms:
    • Publication/ Report Number:
      VTRC-01-TAR1
    • Resource Type:
      Tech Report
    • Geographical Coverage:
      Virginia
    • Edition:
      Technical assistance report. Aug. 1999-April 2000
    • Corporate Publisher:
      Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)
    • Abstract:
      This report describes the evaluation of the condition of concrete samples taken from sections of a five-span bridge in which the concrete in the parapet and deck along the exterior beam was removed using six different methods. Deck and parapet concrete was removed with 30-lb (14-kg) hammers, 90-lb (41-kg) hammers, a 750 ft-lb (104 m-kg) hoe ram, and a Universal Processor 50 concrete crusher. Parapet concrete was also removed with a hoe ram and a concrete crusher. A seventh test section served as an undisturbed control. Four tests of concrete samples taken adjacent to the exterior beams and approximately 4 ft (1.2 m) from the beams did not indicate that the concrete was damaged by any of the removal methods. The tests involved (1) determining the compressive strength of cores, (2) determining the tensile bond pullout strength of transverse bars in cores, (3) determining the permeability to chloride ion of cores, and (4) microscopically examining specimens to determine if the bond between the concrete and the reinforcing bar was damaged. Compared to the use of the 30-lb hammer, the use of the hoe ram and crusher to remove the deck and parapet concrete provided a reduction in time of 94 percent and a reduction in cost of 59 and 58 percent, respectively. In view of the much higher efficiency and lower cost associated with highly mechanized techniques of concrete removal, the Virginia Department of Transportation should employ the use of alternatives to the 30-lb hammer more frequently.
    • Format:
      PDF
    • Funding:
      00015633
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • Download URL:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov

    Version 3.26