MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES

OFFICE OF TESTING AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

CORROSION TECHNOLOGY BRANCH

5900 Folsom Boulevard

Sacramento, California 95819

.
Corrosion Evaluation of Rejected Tendon E3E-C04S
SFOBB Skyway Seismic Replacement Project
(Post-Tensioning Strand - Phase I1 Report)

Robert A. Reis, P.E. - Corrosion Specialist

Senior Materials and Research Engineer
Corrosion Technology Branch

August 17,2007
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 6
CORROSION INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 6
General ............................................................................................................................. 6
Field Examination of Tendon Strands ........................................................................... 7
Borescope Examination of Tendon Duct ....................................................................... 9
Laboratory Evaluation of Tendon Strands ................................................................. 13
Laboratory Tensile Testing .......................................................................................... 17
Metallurgical Analyses .................................................................................................. 23
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 34
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 36

i
 LIST OF TABLES
Page
1: Pit Depth Measurements .............................................................................................................. 16

ii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1: Strand bundle removed from duct and laid out inside of box girder .......................................... 6
2: Strand bundle at Caltrans Laboratory showing east anchorage head ......................................... 7
3: View of strand bundle approximately 12 ½ feet from east anchorage head ............................... 7
4: View of strand bundle approximately 28 feet from east anchorage head ................................... 8
5: Strand bundle showing zinc oxide on some strands ................................................................... 9
6: Hard-point on the duct wall ...................................................................................................... 10
7: Close-up view of the hard-point on the duct wall ..................................................................... 11
8: Grout vent tube entry point into the galvanized duct ............................................................... 11
9: Interior view of duct with guide wire at 6 o’clock position tendon (D6S) ............................... 12
10: Picture set 1/1A PCI Journal ..................................................................................................... 13
11: Picture set 2/2A PCI Journal ..................................................................................................... 13
12: Picture set 3/3A PCI Journal ..................................................................................................... 14
13: Picture set 4/4A PCI Journal ..................................................................................................... 14
14: Picture set 5/5A PCI Journal ..................................................................................................... 14
15: Picture set 6/6A PCI Journal ..................................................................................................... 15
16: Sampling position of strands used for laboratory analyses ...................................................... 17
17: Breaking strength and EUL results for strand samples 9, 15, 16, and 22 ................................. 18
18: Elongation test results for strand samples 9, 15, 16, and 22 ..................................................... 18
19: Breaking strength and EUL results for strand samples 10A, 23D, 24B, and 25C .................... 19
20: Elongation test results for strand samples 10A, 23D, 24B, and 25C ........................................ 19
21: Breaking strength and EUL results for strand sample 15R ...................................................... 20
22: Elongation test results for strand sample 15R .......................................................................... 20
23: Wire fracture surface - Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 15 after strand tensile testing ...... 21
24: Wire fracture surface - Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 16 after strand tensile testing ...... 22
25: Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 15 after tensile testing ....................................................... 24
26: Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 16 after tensile testing ....................................................... 25
27: Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 16 - magnetic particle inspection ...................................... 25
28: Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 22 - magnetic particle inspection ...................................... 26
29: McKnight Sample 10B – Longitudinal cross-section showing microcrack ............................. 26

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page
30: McKnight Sample 10A showing ductile failure ....................................................................... 27
31: Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16 SEM image ............................................................................. 28
32: Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16 SEM image ............................................................................. 28
33: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................ 29
34: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................ 30
35: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................. 30
36: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................. 31
37: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................. 31
38: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................. 32
39: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................. 32
40: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................. 33
41: EDX Trace ................................................................................................................................. 33

iv
 BACKGROUND

This report documents the Phase II corrosion investigation, conducted between June
2006 and January 2007, of rejected Tendon E3E-C04S, removed from the eastbound
structure of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) skyway. An
observation made by Caltrans construction staff on June 1, 2006 of the east anchor
head of the tendon revealed loose wedges/strands on four strands of the installed
tendon prompted this investigation. The observation of the loose wedges and
strands was made after the tendon had been stressed and after mid-frame jacking
operations prior to the tendon being grouted.

Two other reports have been written documenting corrosion evaluations of post-
tensioning strands during the construction phase of the SFOBB skyway structures.
These include a Phase I preliminary report, regarding initial corrosion observations
and testing of strands in the eastbound structure (issued in September 2006), and a
Phase III corrosion investigation of strands in the westbound structure (issued
August 2007).

The objectives of the Phase II investigation of the rejected E3E-C04S tendon were
to (1) document information pertaining to the original installation of rejected
tendon, (2) document the condition of the tendon inspected at the time of removal,
and (3) investigate the mechanisms of failure that occurred during installation of the
rejected tendon.

Corrosion was observed on the rejected tendon due to exposure to moisture in the
tendon duct. Discussions regarding the cause of moisture entry into the ducts on the
SFOBB skyway structures are discussed to some extent in the Phase I and Phase II
evaluation reports. For the purpose of this evaluation, it should be noted that
moisture entry into the duct was from unsealed grout vent tubes prior to grouting.
In addition, the rejected tendon was held in a stressed and un-grouted state for a
period of approximately 9 months.

CORROSION INVESTIGATION

General

The following information was obtained from David Wu, Senior Bridge Engineer,
Office of Structure Construction:

• Strands in Tendon E3E-C04S were installed on 10/27/05 and stressed on

10/31/05.
• Mid-frame jacking operations were performed on 5/31/06.

5
 • Loose wedges and strands were noticed by Construction field staff at the east
anchor head of the installed tendon on 6/1/06.
• Tendon E3E-C04S was rejected after inspection of the east anchorage head
by Construction revealed ruptured strands.
• Tendon E3E-C04S had been in-place and stressed without being grouted for
approximately 9 months.

Field Examination of Tendon Strands

The entire strand bundle was removed from the tendon duct of E3E-C04S on
September 25, 2006. Figure 1 shows a portion of the strand bundle laid out inside
the box girder of the bridge just after it was removed.

Figure 1 Strands from Tendon E3E-C04S just after it was removed. Contractor’s
staff are standing near where five of the 25 strands in the bundle failed.

Tendon E3E-C04S was a 25-strand continuity tendon. Corrosion was observed to

some extent on 12 of the 25 strands in the tendon bundle from the east anchor head
to a distance of about 24 feet measured along the strand length from the east anchor
head.

Four strands had complete strand fractures at a location of approximately 12 1/2 feet
from the east anchorage head. A fifth strand had a single wire fracture at a distance
of about 12 feet from the anchorage head. Based on the visual observations, the
fractures had been exposed to moisture in the ducts as evidenced by corrosion
products on the fractured surfaces. The length of exposure to moisture after fracture
was not known.

6
A portion of the tendon strands approximately 28 feet in length was removed
(including the anchor head) and transported to Caltrans’ Materials Engineering and
Testing Services (METS) Laboratory for further evaluation. The 28-foot length was
selected since beyond that distance, the strands were in good condition with little or
no corrosion evident on the strand surfaces. Figures 2 through 4 show the portion of
the strand bundle transported to the METS Laboratory.

Figure 2 Strand bundle from Tendon E3E-C04 showing the anchor head and a
portion of the cable strands away from the head.

Figure 3 Strand bundle from Tendon E3E-C04 showing the location on the
strands near the grout tube vent. The strand nearest the tape measure at
the bottom of the photo has broken wires at about the 12-foot mark.
When the strands were pulled straight and taunt, the broken strands
were at about a distance of 12 ½ feet measured from the end of the
anchor head.

7
Figure 4 Strand bundle from Tendon E3E-C04 sectioned at about 30 feet from
the anchor head. The strands at this location show little or no corrosion.
This was typical for the remaining length of the strands.

Twelve of the twenty-five strands in the tendon exhibited evidence of moderate

corrosion (condition where the strands and wires experienced a uniform distribution
of corrosion as evident by a high degree of discoloration over the strand surface
with some isolated areas showing darker corrosion products that are consistent with
pit initiation sites on isolated areas of strand wires) on a portion of their surface.
Some of the strands also showed signs of white, zinc oxide products due to contact
of the bare steel strands with the galvanized duct as shown in Figure 5. The
remaining length of strands exhibited minimal or no corrosion.

Borescope Examination of Tendon Duct

A borescope was used to enter the duct at the east anchorage on the afternoon of
September 26, 2006. The borescope video inspection revealed the presence of two
surface irregularities (hard-points) in the form of convex protrusions in the duct wall
at about the 4 o'clock position (facing west) inside the duct. Abrasions/impressions
on the duct wall at the points of the irregularities indicated that the strands were in
direct contact with the duct wall at the location of the hard-points. At the location
of the hard-points, the tendon duct directs the tendons down and to the right.

8
Figure 5 Strand bundle from Tendon E3E-C04 showing a strand with zinc oxide
(white) deposits on it. The deposits were likely caused by contact with
the zinc coated (galvanized) duct.

Figures 6 and 7 show the appearance of one of the hard-points in the duct. The duct
wall shows evidence of abrasion due to contact with the strand.

A grout vent tube was noted entering the tendon duct at a distance of about 10 feet
from the east anchor head. Borescope images indicated zinc oxide corrosion
products near the grout vent tube’s entrance to the tendon duct and on the duct wall
indicating a probable path of water entry into the duct through an open grout vent
tube. The assertion of water entry through open grout vent tubes is consistent with
observations made on other tendon duct locations (see Phase I evaluation report).

Figure 8 shows a view of the grout vent tube entry point into the duct.

The lower half of the duct interior wall from the anchor head to about 24 feet into
the duct exhibited signs of zinc oxidation that were consistent with water collecting
in the lower half of the duct toward the anchorage.

Figure 9 shows the second (smaller) hard-point and shows the degree of zinc
oxidation on the lower portion of the duct wall.

At the time of the borescope evaluation, the duct and the tendon strands were dry.

9
Figure 6 Borescope image, interior duct wall Tendon E3E-C04 showing the
larger hard-point on the duct wall. The hard-point is a surface
irregularity in the form of a convex deformation of the duct wall. The
deformation has likely been created due to reinforcement behind the
duct that has pushed the duct out of shape. Concrete has then filled in
behind the deformation. Indentations can be seen in the duct wall where
the strands have abraded against the duct during stressing and/or mid-
frame jacking. The image is inverted. The hard-point was actually
located at about the 4 o’clock position in the duct looking from the
opening at the anchorage head. The guide strand shown in the photo is
at the 6 o’clock position at the bottom of the duct.

10
Figure 7 Borescope image, interior duct wall, Tendon E3E-C04S. Image similar
to the one shown in Figure 6 showing the deformation at the region of
the hard-point.

Figure 8 Borescope image, interior duct wall, Tendon E3E-C04S showing the
entry of a grout vent tube into the galvanized duct. The duct wall
exhibited signs of zinc corrosion around the vent tube indicating water
entry from the tube.

11
Figure 9 Borescope image, interior duct wall, Tendon E3E-C04S. This view
shows a secondary hard-point at about the 4 o’clock position in the duct
(near where the photo date stamp is located). This hard-point, while
smaller than one shown in Figures 6 and 7, matched up to a single
broken wire on one strand of the tendon bundle. The photo also shows
zinc oxidation of the lower portion of the duct wall. The strand on the
bottom of the duct was added as a reference point (bottom of duct) for
the photo.

Laboratory Examination of Tendon Strands

Laboratory analyses included photographing the strands (before and after cleaning),
visual corrosion comparison evaluations with established visual corrosion guides for
prestressing steel, tensile testing, corrosion pit depth measurements, and
independent metallurgical analyses of the fracture surfaces of the strands.

The contract special provisions required that the prestressing strand comply with
ASTM Designation A416, Standard Specification for Steel Strand, Uncoated Seven-
Wire for Prestressed Concrete. Section 8 of ASTM A416, Workmanship, Finish
and Appearance, allows slight rusting provided that it is not sufficient to cause
(corrosion) pits that are visible to the unaided eye. An article written by Gus Sason
(published in a Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, June 1992),
which is referenced in ASTM A416, provides guidance to assess the degree of
rusting (assessment of pitting corrosion) on prestressing strand.

12
The cleaning and visual comparison methods outlined in the PCI article, referenced
in ASTM A416, were used to evaluate the corrosion condition of the strand
samples. Sason’s article provides a visual standard showing various degrees of
“rust” before and after hand cleaning for visual assessment of strands. Photographs
in the document are labeled as picture sets 1/1A through 6/6A with the suffix “A”
denoting “after cleaning”. The article notes that picture sets 1/1A through 3/3A
depict acceptable conditions, picture set 4/4A is borderline, and picture sets 5/5A
and 6/6A depict pitting that is considered to be unacceptable.

The picture sets referenced in Sason’s PCI article are shown in Figures 10 through
15. These picture sets were used as a guide to assess the appearance of E3E-C04S
strand.

Figure 10 Picture Set 1/1A. This strand shows little or no corrosion and is
acceptable. Source: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)
Journal, June 1992.

Figure 11 Picture Set 2/2A. This strand shows some amount of surface corrosion,
but is acceptable. Source: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)
Journal, June 1992.

13
Figure 12 Picture Set 3/3A. This strand shows some amount of surface corrosion
but is acceptable. Source: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)
Journal, June 1992.

Figure 13 Picture Set 4/4A. This condition indicates a borderline condition.

Source: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, June 1992.

Figure 14 Picture Set 5/5A. This condition indicates excessive corrosion with
visible pitting and is cause for rejection. Source: Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, June 1992.

14
Figure 15 Picture Set 6/6A. This condition indicates excessive corrosion with
visible pitting and is cause for rejection. Source: Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, June 1992.

Visual assessment of selected strands from the twelve strands identified as having
moderate corrosion appearance confirmed a corrosion assessment category of 6/6A
within the region of the anchor head and on portions of selected strands extending
from the east anchor head to about 24 feet along the strand.

Pit depths were measured on two strand samples in conjunction with the visual
assessment category to compare with pit depths provided in the Sason article.
Strands were cleaned and examined for signs of pitting corrosion in accordance with
procedures provided in ASTM Designation: G-1, Standard Practice for Preparing,
Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens, Designation C.3.5 in Annex
A1 of the standard.

Corrosion pit depths were measured with a Gardco 8400K digital optical
micrometer. Pit depths measured for the strand samples were compared with the pit
depth data included in Sason’s report to confirm the picture set corrosion assessment
category selected for each sample.

Table 1 lists the measured pit depths. Pit depth measurements confirmed the
presence of Category 6/6A.

15
 Sample ID Measurement (inch) Visual Assessment Category
0.0035 5
0.0070 6
0.0030 5
0.0008 4
E3E-C04S
0.0008 4
Strand 4
0.0055 5
0.0055 5
0.0065 5
0.0003 4
0.0003 4
0.0090 6
0.0008 4
0.0030 5
0.0045 5
E3E-C04S
0.0045 5
Strand 10
0.0008 4
0.0003 4
0.0003 4
0.0035 5
0.0070 6
0.0070 6
Table 1 Measured pit depths of pits in strand samples and corresponding visual
assessment categories based on criteria in Sason’s, PCI article.

Laboratory Tensile Testing

Tensile testing was performed on 4-foot strand sections in accordance with ASTM
A416 using an Instron 120 kip Universal Material Testing Machine fitted with an
extensometer to determine the stress-strain characteristics, yield, and ultimate
strength of the samples.

Breaks on the laboratory-tested samples consisted of some cup/cone fractures, and

some shear mode fractures. Some of the shear fractures emphasize 45-degree shear
lines more than others. Diagonal ridges at or near the fracture surfaces were also
noted which is not unusual. All of these types of fractures and features are typical
of ductile type fractures.

Tensile testing of strands included the following samples:

• Four strand segments (Caltrans/McKnight samples 9, 15, 16 and 22) that

traversed the larger hard-point. The strand samples exhibited signs of
moderate corrosion, but did not show signs of visible wire failures when
viewed using normal vision (unaided eye).
• Four strand segments (Caltrans samples 10A, 23D, 24B, and 25C) each
removed from strands that experienced in-situ failures. Sampled strand

16
 segments were sectioned just outside the region where the in-situ failures
occurred. Strands exhibited signs of moderate corrosion.
• One strand segment (Caltrans sample 15R) removed from a portion of
strand that did not exhibit signs of moderate corrosion.

In addition to tensile testing, samples were obtained (McKnight samples 10A, 10B,
23A, 23B, 5, 9, and 22) for metallurgical examination. Figure 16 shows the
sampling position of strands used for detailed laboratory evaluations relative to the
longitudinal location of the hard-points in the tendon duct.

Location of smaller hard-point Location of larger hard-point

Duct Wall
4 ft 1-2 ft 2 ft 4 ft

McKnight Sample 10A McKnight 10B Caltrans Sample 10A

McKnight Sample 23A McKnight 23B Caltrans Sample 23D
Caltrans Sample 24B

McKnight Sample 5 1-2 ft 1-2 ft

4 ft Caltrans Sample 25C
Caltrans Sample 9
McKnight Sample 9 Caltrans/McKnight Sample 15

Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16
McKnight Sample 22 Caltrans Sample 22

Caltrans Sample 15R

Duct Wall
Figure 16 Drawing illustrating the sampling position of strands used for detailed
laboratory evaluations relative to the hard-points in the duct. The
strands were packed closely in the duct, but are separated here for
illustration. Not all strands are shown. McKnight samples 10A, 10B,
23A, and 23B were sectioned from the ends of strands that had broken
in-situ (in the duct). The strands exhibited signs of moderate corrosion.
Caltrans samples 10A, 23D, 24B, and 25C (removed for tensile testing)
were also from strands that had also broken in-situ. These strands were
sectioned just outside of the region of the hard-point but did not include
the fractured ends. The strands exhibited signs of moderate corrosion.

Tensile test results for the Caltrans samples are presented in Figures 17 through 22.

Breaking strength, as defined by ASTM A370, is the maximum load at which one or
more wires of the strand fractures. Load at EUL is the load at which 1% extension
was achieved. Per ASTM A416, 1% extension must be achieved at a minimum of
90% of the minimum required breaking strength for low relaxation strand.

17
 Breaking Strength and EUL Results
Tendon E3E-C04S
Strand Samples 9, 15, 16 and 22

65000
60000 Breaking Strength
Load (lbf)
Min Breaking
55000
Load at EUL
50000
Min Load at EUL
45000
40000
Strand 9 Strand 15 Strand 16 Strand 22

Sample ID

Figure 17 Breaking strength and EUL results for samples removed from tendon
E3E-C04S. These strand samples failed to meet the minimum breaking
strength. These samples included portions of strands that spanned
directly spanned over the hard-point. Although not visually apparent to
the unaided eye, microscopic observations revealed pre-existing
microcracks (cracks present prior to tensile testing) that likely reduced
the tensile capacity of the strand.

Elongation Test Results

Tendon E3E-C04S
Strand Samples 9, 15, 16 and 22

8.0
Elongation (%)

6.0 Elongation (%)

4.0 Elongation (%)

Minimum
2.0

0.0
Strand 9 Strand 15 Strand 16 Strand 22
Sample ID

Figure 18 Percent elongation results for strand samples removed from tendon
E3E-C04S. All samples tested in this group failed to meet the minimum
3.5% elongation requirement.

18
 Breaking Strength and EUL Results
Tendon E3E-C04S
Strand Samples 10A, 23D, 24B, and 25C

65000
Breaking Strength
Load (lbf) 60000 Min Breaking
55000 Load at EUL

50000 Min Load at EUL

45000
40000
Strand Strand Strand Strand
10A 23D 24B 25C
Sample ID

Figure 19 Breaking strength and EUL results for strand samples removed from
Tendon E3E-C04S. These samples achieved passing test results.
Segments of these strands that had spanned directly over the hard-point
exhibited failures (broken wires). However, the segments selected for
tensile testing did not include areas that spanned directly over the hard-
point. Examination of these strands with and without the unaided eye
(microscopically) did not exhibit any obvious signs of broken wires.

Elongation Test Results

Tendon E3E-C04S
Strand Samples 10A, 23D, 24B, and 25C

8.0
Elongation (%)

6.0
Elongation (%)
4.0
Elongation (%)
2.0 Minimum

0.0
Strand Strand Strand Strand
10A 23D 24B 25C
Sample ID

Figure 20 Percent Elongation results for strand samples removed from Tendon
E3E-C04S. These test results indicate passing results.

19
 Breaking Strength and EUL Results
Tendon E3E-C04S
Strand Sample 15R

65000
Breaking Strength
Load (lbf) 60000 Min Breaking
55000 Load at EUL
Min Load at EUL
50000
45000
40000
Strand
15R
Sample ID

Figure 21 Breaking strength and EUL results for a strand sample removed from
Tendon E3E-C04S at a location that did not exhibit signs of corrosion.
As can be seen, the sample had passing breaking strength and EUL.

Elongation Test Results

Tendon E3E-C04S
Strand Sample 15R

8.0
Elongation (%)

6.0
Elongation (%)
4.0
Elongation (%)
2.0 Minimum

0.0
Strand
15R
Sample ID

Figure 22 Percent Elongation results for strand samples removed from Tendon
E3E-C04S. The sample exceeded the minimum elongation of 3.5%.

20
Passing breaking strength and elongation results were obtained per ASTM A416 for
five of the nine strand samples tested. Four strand samples (Caltrans samples 9, 15,
16, and 22) failed to meet the ASTM A416 criteria for minimum breaking strength
and 3.5% minimum elongation. Of the four samples that failed to meet these
requirements, three (Caltrans samples 9, 15, and 16) also failed the minimum
requirement of yield by EUL method per the ASTM A416 standard. All of these
samples spanned the hard-point, exhibiting moderate corrosion but had no apparent
failure in the duct. In comparison, samples removed from strands corresponding to
strands that had visible wire/strand breaks in the duct (Caltrans samples 10A, 23D,
24B, and 25B) achieved passing breaking strength, EUL, and %elongation test
results even though they too exhibited signs of moderate corrosion. In addition, the
single strand sample with only minor corrosion that spanned the hard-point area also
met the minimum breaking strength criteria.

Two of the laboratory tensile tested samples (strand samples 15 and 16) revealed
corrosion products partially on what should have been clean fracture surfaces
immediately after tensile testing (Figures 23 and 24). These observations prompted
additional investigation that revealed the existence of pre-existing microcracks that
likely contributed to the reduced load carrying capability of the laboratory tested
strands as explained in the following discussion.

(a)

(b)
Figure 23 (a). Wire from Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 15 after tensile
testing. The arrow points to a fracture surface. (b). Oxides are present
on what should have been a clean (fresh) fracture surface indicating that
a microcrack was present on the wire surface prior to testing. Corrosion
in the microcrack likely took place while the wire (tested as a strand)
was in the duct in the presence of moisture.

21
 (a)

(b)
Figure 24 (a). Wire from Caltrans/McKnight Strand Sample 16 after tensile
testing. The arrow points to a fracture surface. (b). Close-up of
fracture surface. Similar to the photo shown in Figure 23, oxides are
present on a portion of what should have been a clean (fresh) fracture
surface indicating that a microcrack was present on the wire surface
prior to tensile testing. Corrosion in the microcrack likely took place
while the wire (tested as a strand) was in the duct in the presence of
moisture.

Metallurgical Analyses

Strand samples were sent to McKnight Laboratory, Inc. for metallurgical analyses.
Samples sent to McKnight Laboratory, Inc were as follows:

1. McKnight samples 10A, 10B, 23A, and 23B: These samples were cut from
in-situ fractures as found in the tendon duct.

22
 2. Caltrans/McKnight samples 15 and 16. These strand samples traversed the
hard-point in the duct, but were intact (with no wire fractures). They were
removed and laboratory tested to failure at the Caltrans’ METS Laboratory
prior to being inspected at McKnight Laboratory.
3. McKnight samples 5, 9 and 22. These samples did not traverse the hard-
point, but were cut from an area within 1 to 2 feet of the hard point and were
tested by McKnight Laboratory, Inc. without any tensile testing.

Samples with in-situ wire fracture surfaces had been exposed to moisture in the duct
(likely after fracture) for an extended period of time (potentially months) based on
the time of mid-frame jacking (5/31/06) and time of actual extraction of the tendon
strands (9/25/06). This was evident by the extent of corrosion that existed on the
fracture surfaces.

The purpose of the metallurgical analyses at McKnight Laboratory was to determine

(if possible) the extent that stress factors due to the interaction of the wires/strands
with the hard-point in the duct contributed to the wire failures, to rule out modes of
corrosion related failure such as intergranular type corrosion and stress corrosion
cracking.

Evaluation by McKnight included fluorescent magnetic particle inspection (MPI) of

strands to determine the presence of microcracks on the surfaces of strand wires,
inspection of fracture surfaces by scanning electron microscope (SEM), and
evaluation of fracture surfaces by Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX) testing.

MPI was accomplished by applying a magnetic field over individual strand samples
in the presence of an oil suspension concentrated with fine magnetic particles coated
with a fluorescent material enabling them to be viewed under a UV lamp. The fine
magnetic particles, attracted to the flaws (microcracks) on the wire surfaces due to
distortions in the magnetic flux at or near the flaws create a visible indication of the
flaw when viewed under a UV (black) light.

As previously noted, oxides were observed on partial fracture surfaces of two

laboratory tensile tested samples (strand samples 15 and 16). The presence of the
oxides on what should have been fresh (clean) fracture surfaces indicates that
microcracks existed at the fracture locations prior to the laboratory tensile testing.
The presence of microcracks would have likely contributed to the reduced breaking
strength capacity observed in the laboratory tested strand samples.

In addition to the microcrack observed on strand sample 16, microcracks were also
observed on strand samples 9 and 22. Strand sample 15 was only partially
evaluated near a single broken wire (broken after laboratory testing), but no
microcracks were noted.

23
Microcracks were also noted near the ends of fracture surfaces from strands 10A,
and 23D. These samples were not obtained from the laboratory-tested strands, but
were obtained from corresponding strands that failed at the hard-point in the duct.
The mating laboratory tested strands likely passed the minimum breaking strength
requirements since microcracks did not form within the length of strand tested.
Instead, the portion of strand at the hard-point experienced increased stress (likely
under tensile and bending) in addition to corrosion and failed, thereby relieving the
load from the remaining portion of strand.

Figures 25 through 28 show some views of strand samples that were sent to
McKnight Laboratory, Inc. for magnetic particle inspection. Figure 29 shows a
longitudinal cross-section of a microcrack.

(a)

(b)
Figure 25 Caltrans/McKnight Sample 15. (a) View of wires after tensile testing at
the Caltrans Laboratory. All wires pulled to failure in this test. (b).
View of strand fitted together.

24
Figure 26 Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16 after tensile testing at the Caltrans
Laboratory.

(a)

(b)
Figure 27 (a). Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16 after immersion in magnetic flux
solution with induced magnetic field. The arrow in the photo points to
an observed microcrack that could be seen when viewed under a UV
(black) light. (b). Image as viewed under a black light.

25
 (a)

(b)
Figure 28 (a). McKnight Sample 22 after immersion in magnetic flux solution
with induced magnetic field. The arrow in the photo points to an
observed microcrack that could be seen when viewed under a UV
(black) light. (b). Image as viewed under a black light.

Figure 29 McKnight Sample 10B. Longitudinal cross-section showing a

microcrack with a depth of 0.015 inch. The sample has been etched and
magnified 100X.

26
SEM evaluation was performed on selected fracture surfaces to obtain high-
resolution images to characterize the nature of the fractures. Energy Dispersive X-
Ray (EDX) testing was performed in conjunction with the SEM analyses of both
fractured surfaces and exterior wire surfaces to verify that chloride and sulfur were
not present. Chloride, if present in large quantity could contribute to chloride-
induced stress corrosion cracking. Sulfur present in large quantity could indicate a
concern for microbiologically induced corrosion. PhotoMetrics, Inc., a materials
characterization laboratory under subcontract through McKnight Laboratory, Inc.,
performed this work.

Figures 30 through 32 show selected SEM images.

(a)

(b)
Figure 30 (a). McKnight Sample 10A sectioned from a wire of a strand that failed
in-situ in the duct at the larger hard-point while under load. The wire
shows signs of necking and cup/cone fracture indicating a ductile failure
mode. (b). SEM image of Image of the fracture surface showing cup
cone fracture.

27
Figure 31 Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16. SEM view of fracture surface that was
cleaned with Micro 90 cleaning solution, a mild alkaline cleaning
solution (pH 9.5) used to remove insoluble oxides, oil, grease, tar, wax,
and biological materials.

Figure 32 Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16. SEM Magnified area of sample shown

in Figure 31. View shows dimple rupture indicating ductile failure.

28
Examination of the fracture surfaces revealed ductile type failure modes.
Transverse cracking was noted on some samples. Iron oxides were present in some
of the transverse cracks. Scanning Electron Micrograph examination of in-situ
fracture surfaces revealed dimple rupture fracture modes in all cases indicating as
noted prior a ductile fracture extension. Based on this observation, the fractures
were identified as not typical of intergranular stress corrosion type failure.

The suggested mode of failure of the wires/strand was that of crack initiation at the
surface propagated under induced tensile stresses and bending stresses as a result of
the hard-point in the duct (See McKnight Report No. MAC061011).

Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX) test results performed to obtain the elemental
composition of selected surfaces of wires removed from strand samples indicated no
evidence of either chlorides or significant amounts of sulfur present on any surfaces
of the samples examined. This was consistent with test results of water obtained
from tendon ducts (see Phase I Investigation report).

The results of the Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX) testing are presented in Figures
33 through 41.

Figure 33 EDX trace from wire fracture surface (McKnight Sample 10B)
indicating elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron and
oxygen. This wire was found fractured in the tendon duct.

29
Figure 34 EDX trace from wire fracture surface (McKnight Sample 23A)
indicating elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron and
oxygen.

Figure 35 EDX trace from surface of wire (McKnight Sample 23A) indicating
elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron, calcium, and
oxygen.

30
Figure 36 EDX trace from surface of wire (McKnight Sample 10B) indicating
elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron, silicon, oxygen,
and some trace amount of sulfur.

Figure 37 EDX trace from surface of wire (Caltrans/McKnight Sample 15)

indicating elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron and
oxygen.

31
Figure 38 EDX trace from surface of wire (Caltrans/McKnight Sample 16)
indicating elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron and
oxygen.

Figure 39 EDX trace from surface of wire (McKnight Sample 23A) indicating
elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron, silicon, oxygen,
and some trace amount of sulfur.

32
Figure 40 EDX trace from surface of wire (McKnight Sample 23A) indicating
elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron and oxygen.

Figure 41 EDX trace from surface of wire (McKnight Sample 23B) indicating
elemental signature spectra consistent with that of iron, aluminum,
calcium, and oxygen.

33
 CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are based on extensive field and laboratory evaluations
and in-depth testing of post-tensioning strands used in the construction of the
SFOBB skyway project, and are consistent with observations made at 4,328 grout
vent tube locations on the westbound structure, representing 1,635 tendons (79%) of
a total of 2,076 tendons reported by construction as ungrouted and available for
inspection.

• Corrosion was observed on the rejected tendon due to exposure to moisture in

the tendon duct. From the borescope evaluation of the tendon duct near the east
anchorage, water apparently entered into the duct at least through one location
that included the grout vent tube located at approximately 10 feet west of the
east anchor head. Water entry at the grout tube was identifiable due to the
presence of some oxide around the tube entry into the duct.

• Although the tendon duct was dry at the time of our evaluation, water apparently
collected in the duct to a depth of at least one third the diameter of the tendon
duct to about a distance of 24 feet from the east anchorage head as evident by the
presence of zinc corrosion products on the lower portion of the tendon duct.

• Twelve of the twenty-five strands in the tendon exhibited evidence of moderate

corrosion (condition where the strands and wires experienced a uniform
distribution of corrosion as evident by a high degree of discoloration over the
strand surface with some isolated areas showing darker corrosion products that
are consistent with pit initiation sites on isolated areas of strand wires) on a
portion of their surface. Some of the strands also showed signs of white, zinc
oxide products due to contact of the bare steel strands with the galvanized duct.
The remaining length of strand exhibited minimal or no corrosion.

• Two surface irregularities (hard-points) in the form of convex protrusions in the

duct wall at about the 4 o'clock position (facing west) inside the duct were found
during a borescope inspection of the tendon duct. The borescope inspection was
performed after the tendon was rejected and the strands were removed as a result
of the discovery by Caltrans construction staff of four loose wedges and strands
at the east anchorage. The loose wedges and strands were discovered after mid-
frame jacking operations had been performed.

• Abrasions/impressions on the duct wall at the hard-points indicated that the

strands were in direct contact with the duct wall where at the location of the
hard-points.

34
• Visual assessment of selected strands from the twelve strands exhibiting
moderate corrosion against picture sets presented in Gus Sason’s article
published by the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, June 1992,
confirmed a corrosion assessment category of 6/6A identifying the strands as
experiencing an unacceptable degree of corrosion. Pit depth measurements
performed on two strand samples (cleaned in accordance with procedures
provided in ASTM Designation G-1) confirmed pit depths provided in the Sason
article for Category 6/6A. This provided a check against the visual assessment.

• Four strand samples (Caltrans samples 9, 15, 16, and 22) failed to meet the
ASTM A416 criteria for minimum breaking strength and 3.5% minimum
elongation. Of the four samples that failed to meet these requirements, three
(Caltrans samples 9, 15, and 16) also failed the minimum requirement of yield
by EUL method per the ASTM A416 standard. All of these samples spanned the
hard-point, exhibiting moderate corrosion but had no apparent failure in the duct.
In comparison, samples removed from strands corresponding to strands that had
visible wire/strand breaks in the duct (Caltrans samples 10A, 23D, 24B, and
25B) achieved passing breaking strength, EUL, and %elongation test results
even though they too exhibited signs of moderate corrosion. In addition, the
single strand sample with only minor corrosion that spanned the hard-point area
also met the minimum breaking strength criteria. It is believed that the hard-
point produced increased bending stresses in some wires and strands near the
hard-point that assisted in failure in conjunction with corrosion.

• Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX) test results performed to obtain the elemental
composition of selected surfaces of wires removed from strand samples
indicated no evidence of either chlorides or significant amounts of sulfur present
on any surfaces of the samples examined. This was consistent with test results
of water obtained from tendon ducts (see Phase I Investigation report).

35
 REFERENCES

1. Corven, John., and Alan Morenton (2004) “Post-Tensioning Tendon

Installation and Grouting Manual” FHWA May 2004.

2. Florida DOT (2002) “New Directions for Florida Post-Tensioned Bridges”.

Florida Department of transportation. Post-Tensioning in Florida Bridges. By
Corven Engineering, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida., February 2002.

3. Gangloff, Richard P. (2003) “Hydrogen Assisted Cracking of High Strength

Alloys”. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia., Charlottesville, VA.,
Elsevier Science, New York, NY, April 2003.

4. Hartt, William H., S. Charvin., and S.K. Lee (1999) “Influence of

Permeability Reducing and Corrosion Inhibiting Admixtures in Concrete Upon
initiation of Salt Induced Embedded Metal Corrosion”, Center for Marine
materials Department of Ocean Engineering Florida Atlantic University – Boca
Raton, Florida., June 1999.

5. Hartt, William H., and S. Venugopalan (2002) “Corrosion Evaluation of Post-

Tensioned Tendons on the Mid Bay Bridge in Destin, Florida”, Department of
Ocean Engineering Florida Atlantic University – Sea Tech Campus, Florida.,
April 2002.

6. Iyer, Shivprakash., Andrea J. Schokker., and Sunil Sinha (2002) “Ultrasonic

Imaging – A Novel Way to Investigate Corrosion Status in Post-Tensioned
Concrete Members” Civil & Environmental Engineering Department The
Pensylvania State University, University Campus, PA, December 2002.

7. McKnight, Larry E. (2007) “Metallurgical Evaluation of Selected Post Tension

Strands From a Rejected Tendon Removed from the SFOBB Skyway
Replacement Project”, (Report No. MAC061011), McKnight Laboratory, Inc.,
Santa Fe Springs, CA.

8. McKnight, Larry E. (2007) “Supplemental Report on Metallurgical Evaluation

of Selected Post Tension Strands from the SFOBB Skyway Replacement
Project”, (Report No. MAC061011B), McKnight Laboratory, Inc., Santa Fe
Springs, CA.

9. Nurnberger., Ulf (1998) “Corrosion Induced Failures in Prestressed Concrete

Structures and Preventative Measures”, Otto-Graf Journal Vol 9, 1998.

36
10. Salas., R.M., A.J. Schokker., J.S.West., J.E.Breen, and M.E.Kreger. (2004)
“Conclusions, Recommendations and Design Guidelines for Corrosion
Protection of Post-Tensioned Bridges”, Research Report 0-1405-9, Center for
Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin., February 2004.

11. Salas., R.M., A.L. Kotys., J.S.West., J.E.Breen, and M.E.Kreger. (2002)
“Final Evaluation of Corrosion Protection for bonded Internal Tendons in
Precast Segmental Construction” Research Report 0-1405, Center for
Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, October 2002.

12. Sason, Auguston S., (1992) “Evaluation of Degree of Rusting on Prestressed

Concrete Strand”, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Vol 37 No 3 May-June
1992.

13. Staehle, R.W., and B.J. Little (2002) “Corrosion and Stress Corrosion
Cracking of Post Tension Cables Associated with Fungal Action”, NACE
Corrosion Journal 2002.

14. Stauder, Anne-Laure, and William H. Hartt. (1998) “Cathodic Protection of

Pre-Tensioned Concrete: Part I – Brittle Fracture Propensity of Corrosion
Damaged Prestressing Tendon Wire”, Paper No. 635 NACE International.

15. Stroe, Mioara Elvira, (2006) Hydrogen Embrittlement of Ferrous Materials”,

Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of
Matter and Materials, Materials Science and Electrochemistry Group, Belgium,
January 2006.

16. Treadaway, K.W. J., (1970) “Corrosion of Prestressing Steel Wire in

Concrete”, Building Research Station, Department of the Environment, Garston,
Herts., NACE Corrosion Journal Volume 6, March 1971.

17. Uhlig, Herbert H (edited by Winston Revie 2000). Uhlig’s Corrosion

Handbook, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 2000.

18. Wang. H., and A.A. Sagues (2005) “Corrosion of Post-Tensioning Strands”
Contract No. BC353 RPWO#33 Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, November 2005.

19. West, J.S., C.J. Larosche., BD. Koester., J.E. Breen., and M.E. Kreger.
(1999) “State-of-the-Art Report About Durability of Post-Tensioned Bridge
Substructures” Research Report 1405-1, Center for Transportation Research,
The University of Texas at Austin., October 1999.

37