PSI - Issue 52

Sairam Neridu et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 267–279 Sairam Neridu/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

277

11

Fig. 8. Execution of Concrete encasement (a) Extraction of V groove along crack; (b) V groove filling; (c) chipping the surface and applying the bond coat; (d) Drilling holes to support main bars; (e) placing of additional reinforcement connecting to the shear connectors; (f) fixing special watertight centring and shuttering. 6. Conclusion The visual inspection of the bridge revealed vertical cracks in the pier wall, indicating the poor or doubtful quality of concrete used in the construction. The subsequent UPV tests, Rebound Hammer tests, and compressive strength tests on extracted core samples further confirmed the insufficient strength of the pier wall to withstand design live loads. This can pose a significant safety concern and lead to bridge failure under the design loads. To address this issue, the FEM analysis and NDT testing data suggested strengthening the pier wall with concrete encasement on either side. This would provide additional strength and stiffness to the pier wall, reducing the stresses and deformations experienced by the pier wall under existing loads, and distributing the loads more evenly across the pier wall. The thickness and strength of the concrete encasement should be carefully determined based on the ANSYS analysis, and construction should be closely monitored to ensure proper bonding and curing. The poor quality of the concrete used in the construction of the bridge highlights the importance of assessing and retrofitting distressed bridges. Through this study, we have identified the challenges of assessing and retrofitting distressed bridges and recommended a feasible solution for this particular bridge. However, it is important to consider