Bridge Inspection

Manual

Prepared by
Bridge Asset Management
Structures Division
Road Systems & Engineering
Bridge
Inspection
Manual

Second Edition, June 2004

Registration Number 80.640

Issued by the
Queensland Department of Main Roads
Road System and Engineering

For document content enquiries:- Principal Engineer

Bridge Asset Management
Phone: (07) 3834 2556
Facsimile: (07) 3834 2065

For document distribution enquiries:- Road System & Engineering

Technical Reference Centre
Phone: (07) 3834 5488
Facsimile: (07) 3834 2612

DC1 June 2004

Bridge Inspection Manual

First Published 2000

Second Published 2004

COPYRIGHT

© State of Queensland (Department of Main Roads) 2004

Copyright protects this publication. Except for the purposes permitted by and subject to
the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, reproduction by any means (including
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microcopying or otherwise) is prohibited without the
prior written permission of the Queensland Department of Main Roads. Enquiries
regarding such permission should be directed to the Road Network Management Division,
Queensland Department of Main Roads.

DISCLAIMER
This publication has been created for use in the design, construction, maintenance and
operation of road transport infrastructure in Queensland by or on behalf of the State of
Queensland.

The State of Queensland and the Department of Main Roads give no warranties as to the
completeness, accuracy or adequacy of the publication or any parts of it and accepts no
responsibility or liability upon any basis whatever for anything contained in or omitted from
the publication or for the consequences of the use or misuse of the publication or any parts
of it.

If the publication or any part of it forms part of a written contract between the State of
Queensland and a contractor, this disclaimer applies subject to the express terms of that
contract.

DC1 June 2004

 CONDITIONS OF USE

This manual is intended for use by Main Roads under the following conditions :-

1. Staff using the manual have appropriate training, experience and, where necessary,
supervision by a competent engineer

2. Decisions effecting the overall safety of the bridge or critical elements are made or
immediately reviewed by a senior structural engineer from Structures Division.

This manual may be used by Local Government for a similar purpose. They must ensure
their staff are also appropriately trained and experienced, and seek advice from competent
bridge engineers when decisions regarding public safety have to be made.
BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL

The economy of Queensland is based on the free movement of heavy loads. Bridges are a
key element in the road network, and it is essential that their condition is monitored and
essential repairs planned and completed to an appropriate timescale. This manual sets out the
process for ensuring that bridges have adequate strength for the safe movement of heavy
loads across our 2500 bridges and many thousands of major culverts.

This document establishes a statewide policy, systematic inspection and reporting procedures
and data management requirements for bridge inspections. It also identifies those
accountable for implementing the policy and the inspector's accreditation requirements for
the various levels of inspection.

It is intended that this manual will be improved over time with use and, to that end, it is
requested that users refer suggested improvements to Principal Engineer (Bridge Asset
Management) of Structures Division using the BAMANDSRS Advice Notes system.

J M Fenwick
Executive Director (Structures Division)
Project Sponsor

John Fenwick, Executive Director (Structures Division)

Project Manager

Peter Graham, Principal Engineer (Bridge Asset Management)

(Tel: (07) 3834 2556, Fax: (07) 3834 2065)
(E-mail: peter.x.graham@mainroads.qld.gov.au)

Project Team

John Best, Principal Engineer (Bridge Services)

Alan Carse, Principal Engineer (Concrete Technology)
David Cole, Computer Systems Officer (Design Systems)
Julie Keene, Typist

Acknowledgments

This manual is based on the "VicRoads - Bridge Inspection Manual" which has been modified
to reflect the bridge stock and operational requirements of the Department of Main Roads,
Queensland. Acknowledgment is hereby made of the use of that document and the generous
assistance provided by VicRoads in general and Mr Ken McGregor in particular.

Reproductions

Reproduction of extracts from this publication may be made subject to due acknowledgment of
the source.

Revision History

Version Date Prepared by Comments

1 May 1998 Bridge Asset Management Draft
(Transport Technology Division) (for trial use)
1 January 2000 Bridge Asset Management Release
(Transport Technology Division)
1 September 2000 Bridge Asset Management Amendment No. 1
(Structures Division)
2 June 2004 Bridge Asset Management
(Structures Division)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part One: Policy Page Nos

1.0 Bridge Management System ........................................................................1.2

1.1 Background and Objectives .........................................................................1.2

1.2 Scope...............................................................................................................1.3

1.3 Accountabilities .............................................................................................1.4

1.4 Bridge Information .......................................................................................1.5

1.5 Inspection Requirements..............................................................................1.5

1.5.1 - Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspection ......................................1.6

1.5.2 - Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspection .............................................1.8
1.5.3 - Level 3 - Detailed Structural Engineering Inspection..................1.11

Part Two: Deterioration Mechanisms

1.0 Material Defects ............................................................................................2.5

1.1 General...........................................................................................................2.5

1.2 Concrete .........................................................................................................2.5

1.2.1 Corrosion of reinforcement..............................................................2.5

1.2.2 Carbonation.......................................................................................2.6
1.2.3 Alkali - Silica Reaction (ASR).........................................................2.6
1.2.4 Cracking.............................................................................................2.6
1.2.5 Spalling...............................................................................................2.8
1.2.6 Surface Defects ..................................................................................2.9
1.2.7 Delamination ...................................................................................2.10

1.3 Steel ...........................................................................................................2.11

1.3.1 Corrosion .........................................................................................2.11

1.3.2 Permanent Deformations ...............................................................2.11
1.3.3 Cracking...........................................................................................2.12
1.3.4 Loose Connections ..........................................................................2.13

1.4 Timber..........................................................................................................2.14

1.4.1 Fungi.................................................................................................2.14
1.4.2 Termites ...........................................................................................2.15
1.4.3 Marine Organisms ..........................................................................2.16
1.4.4 Corrosion of Fasteners ...................................................................2.17
 1.4.5 Shrinkage and Splitting..................................................................2.17
1.4.6 Fire ...................................................................................................2.18
1.4.7 Weathering ......................................................................................2.19

1.5 Masonry .......................................................................................................2.20

1.5.1 Cracking...........................................................................................2.20
1.5.2 Splitting, Spalling and Disintegration ...........................................2.20
1.5.3 Loss of Mortar and Stones .............................................................2.20

1.6 Protective Coatings .....................................................................................2.21

2.0 Common Causes of Older Bridge Deterioration......................................2.22

2.1 Concrete Bridges.........................................................................................2.22

2.1.1 Monolithic and simply supported T-beams..................................2.22

2.1.2 Precast I beams ...............................................................................2.23
2.1.3 Precast prestressed inverted "T" beams ......................................2.23
2.1.4 Box Girder Bridges .........................................................................2.23
2.1.5 Prestressed Voided Flat Slab Bridges ...........................................2.24
2.1.6 Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs .....................................................2.24
2.1.7 Precast Prestressed Deck Units......................................................2.24
2.1.8 Precast Prestressed Voided "T" Slabs..........................................2.25
2.1.9 Decks and Overlays.........................................................................2.25
2.1.10 Diaphragms .....................................................................................2.26
2.1.11 Kerbs, Footways, Posts and Railing ..............................................2.26
2.1.12 Abutments........................................................................................2.27
2.1.13 Piers..................................................................................................2.28

2.2 Steel Bridges ................................................................................................2.29

2.3 Timber Bridges............................................................................................2.30

2.3.1 Timber Girders ...............................................................................2.30

2.3.2 Corbels .............................................................................................2.31
2.3.3 Decking (timber and steel trough).................................................2.31
2.3.4 Kerbs, Posts and Railing ................................................................2.33
2.3.5 Piles...................................................................................................2.33
2.3.6 Walings and Crossbraces ...............................................................2.34
2.3.7 Headstocks .......................................................................................2.35
2.3.8 Abutments........................................................................................2.35

2.4 Deck Joints...................................................................................................2.37

2.5 Bearings .......................................................................................................2.39

2.6 Other Structure Types................................................................................2.40

2.6.1 Box Culverts ....................................................................................2.40

 2.6.2 Pipe Culverts ...................................................................................2.40

2.7 Causes of deterioration not related to bridge materials..........................2.41

2.7.1 Damage due to Accidents ...............................................................2.41

2.7.2 Drainage...........................................................................................2.41
2.7.3 Debris ...............................................................................................2.42
2.7.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................2.42
2.7.5 Scouring of Foundations.................................................................2.42
2.7.6 Movement of the Structure ............................................................2.42
2.7.7 Condition of Approaches................................................................2.43

3.0 References....................................................................................................2.45

Part Three: Procedures

1.0 General.......................................................................................................... 3.3

1.1 Levels of Inspection.......................................................................... 3.3
1.2 Safety................................................................................................. 3.3
1.3 Bridge Component Designation...................................................... 3.4
1.4 Advice Notes ..................................................................................... 3.5

2.0 Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspections............................................... 3.6

2.1 Purpose.............................................................................................. 3.6
2.2 Scope.................................................................................................. 3.6
2.3 Frequency of Inspections................................................................. 3.5
2.4 Extent of Inspections........................................................................ 3.6
2.5 Inspector Accreditation ................................................................... 3.7
2.6 Inspection Procedure ....................................................................... 3.7
2.6.1 Preparation for Inspection .................................................. 3.7
2.6.2 Inspection.............................................................................. 3.7
2.7 Data Recording............................................................................... 3.10

3.0 Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspections.................................................... 3.12

3.1 Purpose............................................................................................ 3.12
3.2 Scope of the Inspection .................................................................. 3.12
3.3 Inspector Accreditation ................................................................. 3.13
3.4 Extent of Inspection ....................................................................... 3.13
3.5 Inspection Procedure ..................................................................... 3.14
3.5.1 Preparation for Inspection ................................................ 3.14
3.5.2 Inspection............................................................................ 3.15
3.6 Data Recording............................................................................... 3.16
3.7 Data Transfer ................................................................................. 3.16
3.8 Condition Rating............................................................................ 3.17
3.8.1 General................................................................................ 3.17
3.8.2 Compilation of the Component Inventory....................... 3.17
3.8.3 Condition State Criteria .................................................... 3.19
3.8.4 Component Condition Assessment................................... 3.19
3.8.5 Measurement ...................................................................... 3.20
3.8.6 Structure Condition Assessment ...................................... 3.22
 3.8.7 Exposure Classifications.................................................... 3.22
3.9 Inventory Data ............................................................................... 3.23
3.10 Timber Drilling Survey ................................................................. 3.24
3.11 Measurement of Scour................................................................... 3.25

4.0 Level 3 - Detailed Structural Engineering Inspection ............................ 3.26

4.1 Purpose............................................................................................ 3.26
4.2 Scope................................................................................................ 3.26
4.3 Inspector Accreditation ................................................................. 3.27
4.4 Frequency ....................................................................................... 3.27
4.5 Extent of Inspection ....................................................................... 3.27
4.6 Inspection Procedure ..................................................................... 3.28
4.7 Data Recording in the Field .......................................................... 3.28
4.8 Reporting ........................................................................................ 3.28
4.9 Load Capacity ................................................................................ 3.29

Appendix A: Inspection Report Forms - Proforms and Samples

Appendix B: Standard Component Schedule

Appendix C: Standard Component Identification Guidelines

Appendix D: Standard Component Condition State Guidelines

Appendix E: Inspector Accreditation Appraisal Procedure

Appendix F: Guidelines for the Management of Sub-Standard and

Defective Bridges

Appendix G: Breakdown of Complex and Non-Standard Structures

Appendix H: Advice Notes

LIST OF FIGURES

Part One: Policy

Figure 1.1 - Bridge Asset Management System Framework

Figure 1.2 - Bridge Asset Management Mechanisms

Figure 1.3 - Bridge Information System Overview

Table 1.5 - Summary of Structure Inspection Frequencies

Part Two: Deterioration Mechanisms

Figure 1.2.1 (a) - Corrosion of Headstock Reinforcement due to Chloride Ion
Penetration in a Marine Environment

Figure 1.2.1 (b) - Corrosion of Reinforcement in the Soffit of a Cast Insitu

Culvert due to Carbonation

Figure 1.2.1 (c) - Calcium Chloride Induced Corrosion of Suspended Slab

Soffit in an RCBC

Figure 1.2.1 (d) - Spalling due to Calcium Chloride Distress in an RCBC

Figure 1.2.1 (e) - Corrosion Of Reinforcement And Spalling Of Cantilever Soffit

Due To Poor Cover And Chloride Penetration

Figure 1.2.1 (f) - Corrosion Of Reinforcement And Spalling Of Deck Slab

Surface Due To Poor Cover And Chloride Attack

Figure 1.2.2 (a) - Carbonation Testing of a Freshly Broken Concrete Core

Figure 1.2.2 (b) - Carbonation Induced Corrosion

Figure 1.2.3 (a) - General View of Longitudinal Cracking due to ASR

in Prestressed Deck Units

Figure 1.2.3 (b) - View of Deck Unit Soffit Cracking due to ASR

Figure 1.2.3 (c) - View of Vertical Crack due to ASR in a Prestressed Pile

Figure 1.2.3 (d) - View of ASR Gel Exudations

Figure 1.2.4 (a) - Cracking of Structures

Figure 1.2.4 (b) - Severity of Cracking

Figure 1.2.4 (c) - Plastic Settlement/Shrinkage Cracking in a Bridge Deck

Figure 1.2.4 (d) - Plastic Cracking Passing Completely Through a Bridge Deck

Figure 1.2.4 (e) - Shear Crack In R.C. Headstock

Figure 1.2.4 (f) - Bursting Cracks In Anchorage Zone Of Post-Tensioned Girder

Figure 1.2.4 (g) - Accurate Measurement of Crack Widths

Figure 1.2.8 (a) - General View of Prestressed Pile

Figure 1.2.8 (b) - Water Wash Including Aggregate Particles Causing

Abrasion of Pile Surface
 Figure 1.3.3 - Common Crack Locations of Steel 1
Common Crack Locations of Steel 2

Figure 1.4.1 (a) - Fungal Fruiting Body and Decay of Girder

Figure 1.4.1 (b) - Rot Pocket in Girder

Figure 1.4.2 (a) - Termite damage in Deck Planks

Figure 1.4.2 (b) - Section of Pile Showing Termite Nest in Internal Pipe

Figure 1.4.2 (c) - Termite Galleries On Pile And Headstock

Figure 1.4.5 (a) - Splitting in Timber Girder

Figure 1.4.5 (b) - Splitting in Timber Pile

Figure 1.4.7 (a) - Weathered and Rotted Timber Deck Planks

Figure 1.4.7 (b) - Rotted Ends of Deck Planks

Figure 2.3.3 (a) - Corrosion of Joints Between Trough Sections

Figure 2.3.3 (b) - Cracking and Perforating of Steel Troughing

Figure 2.3.5 - Rotting of Abutment Pile Below Ground Level

Figure 2.4.1 (a) - Scour of Stream Bed and Significant Loss of Material Around
Pier Pilecaps and Piles

Figure 2.4.1 (b) - Localised Scour of Stream Bed and Debris Build-Up Around
Pier Piles

Figure 2.6.2 (a) - General View of Masonry Pipe Culvert, Showing Efflorescence
and Spalling of Base Brickwork

Figure 2.6.2 (b) - View of Efflorescence and Staining due to Chemical Leaching
of Mortar

Part Three: Procedures

Figure 1.0 - Standard Component Matrix

Figure 1.3 - Bridge Component Designation

Figure 1.4 - Culvert Component Designation

Figure 1.5 - General Terminology for Bridges

Figure 1.6 - General Terminology for Timber Bridges

Figure 1.7 - General Terminology for Masonry Bridges

Figure 1.8 - Terminology for Precast Crown Culverts

Figure 1.9 - Terminology for Slab Deck Culverts

Figure 1.10 - Terminology for Modular Culverts

Manual

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

January 2014
Copyright

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

© State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) 2014

Feedback: Please send your feedback regarding this document to: mr.techdocs@tmr.qld.gov.au

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014

Amendment Register

Issue / Reference
Description of revision Authorised by Date
Rev no. section
1 N/A Initial release DCE (Structures) June 2004
Asbestos Management and January
2 N/A DCE (Structures)
Removal content update 2014

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 i

Contents

1 Bridge Asset Management System (BAMS)................................................................................3

1.1 Background and Objectives............................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Scope.............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Accountabilities ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 General Accountabilities.................................................................................................4
1.3.2 Overview of Responsibility for WHS in Inspections .......................................................5
1.3.3 Safety .............................................................................................................................6
1.4 Bridge Information .......................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Inspection Requirements ................................................................................................................ 7
1.5.1 Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspections ...................................................................7
1.5.2 Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspections...........................................................................8
1.5.3 Level 3 – Inspection......................................................................................................11
1.5.4 Asbestos Control Measure Identification Inspection ....................................................13

Tables

Table 1.7 - Summary of structure inspection frequencies..................................................................... 26

Figures

Figure 1.1 - Bridge Asset Management System framework.................................................................. 19

Figure 1.2 - Bridge Asset Management mechanisms ........................................................................... 20

Figure 1.3 - Bridge Information System overview ................................................................................. 21

Figure 1.4 - Procedure for ACM identification inspection...................................................................... 23

Figure 1.5 - Asbestos hazard warning sign ........................................................................................... 24

Figure 1.6 - Procedure for Asbestos verification inspection.................................................................. 25

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 ii

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

1 Bridge Asset Management System (BAMS)

The BAMS has been developed to ensure that the bridge assets of the Department of Transport and
Main Roads (TMR) are managed effectively and efficiently. Bridge inspection and condition rating is
an integral component of the BAMS and its relationship with other principal components of the system
is shown in the system framework diagram (Figure 1.1) and in the mechanisms used to deliver desired
outcomes (Figure 1.2).

The primary objective of the BAMS is to establish an integrated and accessible information system for
bridge inventory, condition, load capacity and inspection and works history. The Bridge Information
System (BIS) has been developed for this purpose, as detailed in the BIS overview (Figure 1.3).

1.1 Background and Objectives

Inspection regimes had traditionally been established and managed independently by the various
Region and District offices within the constraints of other demands on limited resources. As a
consequence there had been a large variation in the extent and frequency of bridge inspections and
the format and consistency of the inspection results and records.

In order that the network may be managed effectively a systematic statewide inspection and condition
rating and monitoring system is required to enable managers to identify maintenance needs, assess
the effectiveness of treatments, model patterns of deterioration and forecast future maintenance,
rehabilitation and replacement budget needs. This document establishes statewide procedures for
inspection and condition rating and includes requirements for inspection scope and frequency,
documentation, data management and accreditation levels. It also identifies those responsible for
implementing the policy.

The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the condition of all structures is systematically monitored to
ensure that conditions which may lead to severe structural damage or collapse are identified as soon
as possible in order that the appropriate intervention or remedial action may be undertaken.

In addition, the data collected from the inspections may be used to:

 Develop inspection and maintenance programmes.

 Carry out load capacity assessments.

 Provide feedback to the design process.

 Monitor the health of the bridge assets and effectiveness of maintenance treatments on a local
or statewide basis.

 Update the TMR Asbestos Register in accordance with the BAM Advice Note # 139 on
Asbestos and provide information for the Bridge Asbestos Management Plan.

1.2 Scope

This policy applies to the following structures:

 All bridges.

 All culverts that have an opening span, height or diameter greater than 1.8 metres and a
waterway area in excess of 3.0 square metres.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 3

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

These structures have an opening large enough to:

 walk through and are therefore capable of being inspected relatively easily.

 close the road and create a significant safety hazard in the event of structural failure.

All structures complying with these criteria will be allocated a unique number in the Bridge Information
System (BIS) and in addition will be physically numbered to permit ready identification in the field.
However an additional, optional module has been included in the BIS which will permit Regions and
Districts to record data on "other" structures if desired. In this event the Regions and Districts can
adopt a local numbering system to locally manage these assets. It is anticipated that these smaller
structures shall be managed through the RMPC system.

The policy also identifies accountabilities for bridge management and establishes the requirements for
data management and a systematic inspection and condition rating programme. The latter is
achieved through a three level hierarchy of inspections comprising:

 Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspections

 Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspections and

 Level 3 - Detailed Structural Engineering Inspections

1.3 Accountabilities

1.3.1 General Accountabilities

Regional Directors are accountable for the management of all bridges on the State controlled road
network. These management responsibilities include:

 Development of uniform, consistent and cost effective inspection programmes; including

quality assurance systems, accreditation of inspectors and the co-ordination of joint services
among regions and districts.

 Monitoring the delivery of the bridge inspection programme.

 Ensuring that Routine Maintenance Inspections are carried out at least once every twelve
months, inspection data is monitored and recorded and recommendations are actioned.

 Ensuring that Bridge Condition Inspections are carried out at the required frequencies,
inspection data is monitored and recorded and recommendations are actioned.

 Ensuring that the required "Maintenance Activities" are recorded, entered in the BIS and
managed effectively.

 Commissioning Detailed Engineering Inspections, investigations and analysis when required,

and ensuring that recommendations are actioned.

 Ensuring that all inspection data is transferred to the Bridge Information System within 30 days
of its collection. However, in the event that a defective structure is detected, all inspection data
shall be entered into the BIS as soon as is practicably possible.

 Development of "Structure Management Plans" in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix

F. Plans are to be developed in conjunction with Structures Division, for all defective
structures.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 4

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Deputy Chief Engineer (Structures) through Director (Bridge Construction Maintenance &Asset
Management) is accountable for:

 Promulgating and monitoring the implementation of this policy.

 Developing, implementing and maintaining the Bridge Information System and providing the
necessary access and reporting mechanisms for all TMR personnel involved in bridge
management.

 Ensuring the technical adequacy of the specified inspection processes.

 Developing and supporting the technical procedures; including the preparation of the
supporting manuals and the training and accreditation programmes necessary to implement
this policy.

 Monitoring the delivery of the bridge inspection programme through a data and physical
auditing programme.

 Supplying the specialist resources to enable Director (BCM&AM) to develop, implement and
support the Bridge Inspection Manual and attendant procedures and processes. This includes
Bridge Asset Management Section arranging or carrying out detailed structural engineering
inspections for the Regions and Districts.

Executive Director (Road Network Management) through Director (Roads Information) is

accountable for:

 Providing resources to maintain and audit data that is held in the BIS.

 Providing resources to develop and maintain the BIS IT system through the ARMIS service
request (ASR) system.

 Providing resources to train and support BIS and mobile-BIS users.

 Ensuring that current bridge inspection forms are available on the BIS.

 Maintaining an accredited bridge inspectors register.

 Supporting the BIS Functional Manager – Director (Bridge Construction Maintenance & Asset
Management).

1.3.2 Overview of Responsibility for WHS in Inspections

All inspections must comply with the requirements of this manual, the TMR Structures Site Safety
Preparation Form ES018 and any applicable legislation, codes of practice, standards and TMR
policy/manuals including but not limited to:

 Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011

 Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011

 Bridge Asbestos Management Plan

All inspectors are responsible for their own personal safety and that of others impacted by inspections
at all times.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 5

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

TMR demonstrates part of its duty of care for those undertaking inspections and the general public by:

 Providing a generic list of hazards typical for many inspections.

 Providing known specific hazards for each structure in the structure information passed onto
inspectors (e.g. presence of possible/confirmed asbestos containing materials).

 Requiring a minimum of two people on site at any given time when inspecting.

 Requiring inspectors to provide and submit a Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) for each
inspection (or set of inspections) undertaken for review and comment before starting site
works.

 Conducting audit and surveillance to ensure the inspector carries out the inspections as per
the SWMS.

 Requiring inspectors to submit an update of the specific road structures inspection hazards to
TMR following site inspections.

1.3.3 Safety

As stated above, all inspection procedures shall comply with the relevant rules and regulations of the
Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 and Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, and all
associated Codes of Practice.

If the inspection is required from water, any vessel used for the purpose and its operation will be
required to satisfy the legal obligations of the Marine Act, other relevant Acts, and associated
regulations.

Where inspections are carried out on structures located over or under the assets of other Authorities,
the relevant regulations and Codes of Practice relating to work on or close to their assets must be
adhered to.

1.4 Bridge Information

Comprehensive bridge inventory and condition data will be recorded in the Bridge Information System
(BIS), which is maintained by the Executive Director (Road Network Management). This system
provides accessible and timely information to all TMR personnel involved in bridge management and
is integrated with ARMIS. This connects all related bridge and road data through a common location
reference system. Refer to Figure 1.3 for an overview of the system.

The Regional Director will act as an agent for Executive Director (Road Network Management) and is
responsible for entering and managing the inventory, inspection, condition and maintenance data at
the local level in accordance with the documented guidelines for the BIS and this manual.

Details of the data recording requirements for the various inspection levels are defined in the
inspection requirements section.

In the past it has not been possible to compare past bridge maintenance expenditure and condition
trends. The adoption of the unique numbering system for structural assets will permit the tracking of
all expenditure on the asset through the Financial Information Management System (FIMS).

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 6

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

The development of standard bridge maintenance activity costing procedures within the RMPC and
special maintenance and rehabilitation/strengthening programmes would greatly assist this objective.

1.5 Inspection Requirements

The safety and condition of bridges on the state road network is monitored through a three level
hierarchical bridge inspection regime that was introduced in March 1998. The overall requirements
are summarised in the Table 1.5 and the detailed requirements for each category of inspection are
listed independently. The frequency of inspections is related to the structure type, age and condition
depending on the assessed risk of deterioration or damage.

 Where annual inspections are specified, they shall be undertaken not less than 10 months nor
greater than 14 months after the previous inspection.

 In the case of biennial inspections, the range is 20-28 months after the previous inspection.

 If the inspection frequency is three years or greater, then the tolerance is plus or minus six
months.

1.5.1 Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspections

Purpose

A visual inspection to check the general serviceability of the structure, particularly for the safety of
road users, and identify any emerging problems.

Level 1 inspections may be carried out in conjunction with routine maintenance of the structure and
the adjacent pavement as part of the Road Maintenance Performance Contract. (RMPC)

Scope

The scope of a Routine Maintenance Inspection will include:

 Inspection of approaches, waterway, deck/footway, substructure, superstructure and attached

services to assess and report any significant visible signs of distress or unusual behaviour,
including active scours or deck joint movements.

 Check of miscellaneous inventory items, including the type, extent and thickness of the bridge
surfacing as well as details of existing services.

 Recommendation of a Bridge Condition Inspection if warranted by observed distress or

unusual behaviour of the structure.

 Identify maintenance work requirements, and record on the Structure Maintenance Schedule
form (M1).

 Verification of the “Structural Inventory” data held in the BIS as part of the initial inspection and
as required thereafter (standard forms can be produced from the BIS for this purpose)

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 7

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Procedures and Inspector Accreditation

Routine Inspections shall be carried out in accordance with the Bridge Inspection Procedures - Level 1
(Refer to part 3 of the Bridge Inspection Manual) by an accredited Bridge Inspector.

Frequency

Minimum frequency is generally one inspection per year for all structures, however frequencies may
be increased for defective structures as tabulated below or as stipulated in a specific "Structure
Management Plan" as per the guidelines in Appendix F. In addition, Routine Maintenance Inspections
will also be carried out immediately after flooding, fire or accident damage events. Level 1 inspections
are generally not required in the same year as a Level 2 or 3 inspection.

Condition State of Inspection Frequency

Structure Type
Structure (years)
Timber structures and steel culverts in wet 1-2 1*
environments 3-4 1**
1-2 1*
Other structures 3 1
4 1**
* Generally not required in same year as Level 2 or 3 inspection
** Level 1 and Level 2 inspection cycles to be staggered by six months to ensure that the structure is inspected
every six months

Data Recording

The inspection is conducted using the "Routine Maintenance Inspection Report" form included in
Appendix A.

The inspector shall forward a completed Routine Maintenance Inspection Report and, if applicable, a
completed Structure Maintenance Schedule form, to the Region / District Office and the Region /
District data control officer shall record inspection data and any relevant actions, including the need for
a condition or detailed engineering inspection or maintenance requirements, in the Bridge Information
System within 30 days of the inspection.

In addition the inspector shall forward a completed “Structural Inventory Verification Form” in order
that the current BIS data may be positively verified or amended within 30 working days of the first
Level 1 inspection

1.5.2 Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspections

Purpose

An inspection to assess and rate the condition of a structure (as a basis for assessing the
effectiveness of past maintenance treatments, identifying current maintenance needs, modelling and
forecasting future changes in condition and estimating future budget requirements).

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 8

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Scope

The scope of the Bridge Condition Inspection will include:

 Compiling, verifying and updating inspection inventory element items as appropriate.

 Visual inspection of the principal bridge components (including measurement of crack widths,
etc.) and an assessment of condition using a standard condition rating system as defined in
the inspection procedures.

 Visual inspection to identify any suspected asbestos containing material.

 The inspection of timber bridges will be supplemented by a drilling investigation, and will
also include the identification and reporting of undersized timber members.

 ‘Soundings’ to determine the presence of active scour.

 Reporting the condition of the principal bridge components and determining an aggregate
rating of the structure as a whole.

 Identifying and programming preventative maintenance requirements and recording on the

Structure Maintenance Schedule form (M1). If access equipment is required to conduct the
inspection, then routine / preventative maintenance may also be completed in conjunction with
the inspection.

 Requesting a detailed bridge inspection by a bridge engineer if warranted by apparent rapid

changes in structural condition and/or apparent deterioration to condition state 4.

 Development of "Structure Management Plans" in conjunction with Structures Division for all
defective structures. Refer to Appendix F for plan guidelines.

 Underwater inspections of those elements in permanent standing water at the specified

frequency.

 Recommending requirements for the next inspection and nominating components for closer
monitoring as appropriate.

 Recommending supplementary testing as appropriate.

 Completion of the “Design Inventory” data held in the BIS as part of the initial inspection and
as required thereafter (standard forms can be produced from the BIS for this purpose)

As these inspections may be carried out with the use of an Under Bridge Inspection Unit (UBIU), it is
recommended that on such occasions Region / District personnel take advantage of the availability of
the UBIU and conduct routine maintenance on those components not normally accessible, such as
bearings.

Condition Rating

The condition rating system shall reflect the performance, integrity and durability of the structure and
its principal components. The assessment of the nature and extent of defects shall be detailed in the
procedures as appropriate to each component type. The overall structure condition rating is based on
the condition of its principal load bearing components as described in Section 3.8.6 of Part Three. The
condition ratings have been developed to represent the easily discernible stages of deterioration as
tabulated below.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 9

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Subjective
Condition State Description
Rating
1 Good Free of defects
Free of defects affecting structural performance, integrity and
2 Fair
durability
Defects affecting the durability which require monitoring, detailed
3 Poor
structural engineering inspection or maintenance.
Defects affecting the performance and structural integrity of the
4 Very Poor structure which require urgent action as determined by a detailed
structural engineering inspection.
5 (whole
structure rating Unsafe Bridge must be closed.
only)

Procedures and Accreditation

Bridge Condition Inspections shall be carried out in accordance with Bridge Inspection Procedures -
Level 2 (Refer to Part Three of the Bridge Inspection Manual) by an experienced Bridge Inspector or
Bridge Engineer who has attended a Level 2 training course and who has fulfilled the accreditation
requirements stipulated in Appendix E.

Frequency

All new structures shall be given a Level 2 inspection prior to the end of the Defects Liability period for
the construction contract, and thereafter generally in accordance with the frequencies tabulated below.
The frequency of inspecting defective structures may be increased as stipulated in a specific
"Structures Management Plan"

Condition State of
Structure Type Inspection Frequency (years)
Structure
Timber or steel culverts in wet 1-2 2
environments 3 1**
1-2 5
Other
3 3
1-2 8
Components Under Water
3 1
1** with "Structures Management
All 4
Plan"
** Level 1 and Level 2 inspection cycles to be staggered by six months to ensure that the structure is inspected
every six months
These standard frequencies may be modified as a result of recommendations in a Detailed
Engineering Inspection Report, and as agreed in the "Structure Management Plan" (refer Appendix F).
Additional Level 2 inspections will be required when:

 Recommended in a Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspection Report;

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 10

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

 Major maintenance, rehabilitations or other modifications have been carried out; and

 Detailed Engineering Inspections are carried out.

Data Recording

The inspector shall provide a report of the condition of the principal components of the structure, by
defect and extent, in accordance with the standard components and report proforma defined in Part 3
- Procedures - Level 2. The completed report shall be downloaded from the data capture tool or
entered manually in the Bridge Information System within 30 working days of the inspections.
However, in the event that a defective structure is detected, all inspection data should be entered as
soon as is practicably possible.

The Regional data control officer shall ensure that the inventory and condition data are in the correct
format and compatible with existing entries. This data and any recommended actions including
inspection inventory amendments and the need for a Detailed Engineering Inspection or maintenance
requirements shall be entered in the BIS.

In addition, the inspector shall forward a completed “Design Inventory Verification Form” in order that
the current BIS data may be positively verified or amended within 30 working days of the first Level 2
bridge inspection.

If any bridge elements are suspected of containing asbestos, inspectors shall request that the regional
ARMIS operator or BAM record the possibility that the bridge contains asbestos hazard on the
“Structural Environment” screen of the “Structure Inventory” of the BIS by ticking the “contaminated
site” box and entering the “contamination description”.

The details will be automatically populated in the “Site Hazard” screen of the “Inspection Inventory” but
the entry must be updated on completion of any subsequent inspections (ACM Identification
Inspection or Asbestos Verification Inspection) to include findings.

1.5.3 Level 3 – Inspection

A Level 3 Inspection of a structure may be either an:

 Structural engineering investigation, or

 Structural engineering inspection

1.5.3.1 Structural Engineering Investigation

Purpose

An investigation to better understand and / or manage the structure.

Scope

The scope of an Investigation may be:

 Undertake numerical modelling or other calculations

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 11

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

 To prepare a Structural Management Plan based on Level 2 inspection data that the engineer
believes is comprehensive and adequately describes the structure. This occurs where it is
considered that the risk can be adequately managed with known data without visiting the site
again.

 Management of Potentially Structurally Deficient Bridges based on Level 2 inspection and

other data that the engineer believes is comprehensive and adequate to determine if the
theoretical deficiency is consistent with the observed condition of the bridge component. This
occurs where it is considered that the risk can be adequately managed with known data
without visiting the site again.

1.5.3.2 Structural Engineering Inspection

Purpose

An extensive inspection, which may include physical testing and structural analysis to assess the
structural condition and behaviour of a structure, to identify and quantify the current and projected
deterioration of the structure, and to assess appropriate management options.

Scope

The scope of a detailed Engineering Inspection and analysis will include one or more of the following:

 Auditing the performance of the Region / Districts Inspection Regime with respect to the
structure.

 Detailed inspection of all relevant bridge components, including measurement, testing and
analyses as necessary to supplement visual inspection.

 Reporting the condition, structural adequacy, evidence of distress, mode of deterioration and
projected deterioration.

 A detailed inspection to determine if the bridge has distress compatible with theoretical
deficiencies in a Potentially Structurally Deficient Bridge

 Structural Health Monitoring to better understand the actual performance of the structure

 To better understand a Level 2 report. A Level 3 Inspection may be triggered by a Level 2 -

Bridge Condition Inspection Report or ordered as part of other activities.

 Development of "Structure Management Plans" in conjunction with the Region / Districts as

required. Refer to Appendix F for plan guidelines.

 Recommendations of management actions and/or maintenance/rehabilitation treatment

options.

Procedures and Inspector Accreditation

Detailed Structural Engineering Inspections shall be carried out in accordance with Bridge Inspection
Procedures - Level 3, (Refer to Part 3 of the Bridge Inspection Manual) by or under the supervision of
an experienced RPEQ bridge engineer. Inspections must be arranged through the Director (Bridge

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 12

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Construction Maintenance and Asset Management) of Structures Division. Structures Division is the
preferred supplier of inspection services.

Frequency

Unlike a Level 1 and Level 2 that are undertaken at predetermined frequency, a Level 3 Inspection or
Investigation on a needs basis.

A detailed Engineering Inspection will be carried out in one of the following circumstances:

 In order to assess the condition of a structure prior to carrying out programmed works such as
rehabilitation, strengthening or widening.

 A Level 3 Inspection may be carried out in one of the following circumstance:

 As the result of recommendations in a Level 2 Bridge Condition Inspection Report which has
rated the structure condition as poor or a principal component in Condition State 3 or 4.

 To provide a Load Rating for the structure.

 To examine the difference between a theoretically structural deficient bridge to determine if

the bridge exhibits distress compatible with the calculations. In some circumstances, bridges
may be grouped in families of similar structures.

 To prepare SMP or other reports

Data Recording

The inspecting engineer shall provide a written report to the Regional Director with a copy to the
Director (Bridge Construction Maintenance and Asset Management) Structures Division, within 60
days of the inspection. This detailed engineering report shall include:

 Assessments of load capacity and condition (including a Level 2 report, where applicable)

 Recommendations for further investigation and testing, remedial action and future inspection
and monitoring regime as required.

 A "Structure Management Plan" if required (refer Appendix F).

The Regional Director shall consider the recommendations of the report and initiate the necessary
actions. If the Regional Director does not agree with the recommendations a response to that effect
shall be made in writing to the inspecting engineer and copied to the Director (Bridge Construction
Maintenance Asset Management) within 30 days of receipt of the inspection report.

A copy of the final report shall be forwarded to the Director (Bridge Construction Maintenance and
Asset Management) who shall be responsible for entering the Level 3 inspection into the Bridge
Information System (BIS) within 30 days of completion of the report.

1.5.4 Asbestos Control Measure Identification Inspection

Background

The hazards associated with exposure to airborne asbestos fibres are well documented and there are
numerous documents available relating to the management of asbestos. However, to effectively
mitigate any risks associated with potential asbestos exposure when inspecting/working on highway

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 13

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

structures, TMR has prepared the ‘Bridge Asbestos Management Plan’ (BAMP) which outlines the
roles, responsibilities and necessary steps required when working in the presence of asbestos
containing material (ACM).

In accordance with legislative requirements to prepare and maintain an asbestos register, the BIS has
been amended to register ACM in structures and is being maintained up to date by BCM&AM.

Asbestos may be present in highway structures constructed before 2003. Possible locations of ACM
include:

 Permanent/ sacrificial formwork between girders on concrete and steel girder constructed
bridges

 Deck unit constructed bridges with cast-in situ bridge decks (i.e. no post-tensioning)

 External and internal service mains pipelines such as stormwater and sewer pipes

 Service pits

 Internal service conduits

 Half pipes for drainage channels

 Drainage systems on bridges or in close proximity to bridge

 Asbestos bonded buried corrugated metal culverts.

It is almost certain that any compressed fibre products used on structures constructed and completed
prior to 1985 will contain asbestos. The probability that asbestos is impregnated in compressed fibre
products declines from 1986 – 2003. ACM is unlikely to be present in the following:

 Transversely stressed precast deck unit superstructures

 Concrete box girder superstructures.

Note: The presence of ACM does not in itself represent a hazard to the safety of employees or
the community at large. Inhalation of airborne fibres represents the safety concern and hence it
is only when ACM is disturbed either accidentally (e.g. vehicle impact) or intentionally through
activities such as strengthening, refurbishment or demolition that the ACM becomes a hazard.
No disturbance can reasonably be expected to occur through routine maintenance activities or
inspections (Level 1 and Level 2).

Purpose

The role of BCM&AM, through the Program Manager, Statewide Structures Management Project
(SSMP) is to facilitate the identification of structures with the potential for ACM.

The purpose is to identify the potential permanent/sacrificial inclusion of asbestos on TMR structures.
These inspections will be conducted to ensure that the TMR asbestos register is up to date with the
WHS counterpart.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 14

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Scope

For structures other than those where there are reasonable grounds to believe asbestos is not
present, the Program Manager will make arrangements for a visual inspection by an experienced
Level 2 TMR bridge inspector.

This is a one-off inspection undertaken on structures with the potential for ACM, as identified in the
TMR Bridge Asbestos Register, to visually confirm the presence of potential ACM. Under no
circumstances shall suspected ACM be disturbed during the inspection.

The inspection may be undertaken as part of programmed Level 1 or Level 2 inspections subject to
the inspector being made aware of this requirement prior to the inspection.

This inspection will not involve hands-on practices (i.e. using under bridge inspection unit (UBIU) or
similar equipment).

Procedures and Inspector Accreditation

ACM Identification Inspections shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures for ACM
Identification Inspections outlined in Part 3 of this manual and Technical Advice Notes 139.

The outline procedure to be followed is illustrated in Figure 1.4.

ACM Identification Inspections must be completed by a TMR accredited Level 2 inspector.

Frequency

The inspection will be undertaken once only, at the earliest available opportunity as part of the Level 1
(subject to experience/accreditation of person undertaking the inspection) or Level 2 inspection
program.

Data Recording

It is essential that the existence of a potential asbestos containing product at a bridge be identified to
ensure that TMR staff or contractors and consultants who may be engaged to work on the bridge are
aware of the hazard. The results and data obtained by the inspection shall be recorded in the Bridge
Information System (BIS) asbestos register managed by BCM&AM.

On completion of the ACM Identification Inspection the following actions shall be completed:

 If no elements, that may contain asbestos, are identified,

o the asbestos register shall be updated with the following statement: “There are
reasonable grounds to believe asbestos containing material is not present”

 If elements are identified that may contain asbestos:

o Advise WHS that a check has been conducted and potential asbestos containing
material has been identified.

o Place a minimum of six “Asbestos Present” signs on the structure (refer Figure 1.5).
One sign to be located at each corner of the structure and one on each abutment (or
equivalent) clearly visible from beneath the structure. Where access to any span of a

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 15

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

multi-span structure is feasible without sighting either abutment then signage shall
also be erected on the face of each pier facing the accessible span.

o Update the asbestos register with the following information captured during the
inspection:

 Date of inspection

 Date of data entry to asbestos register

 Location and representative photographs of elements suspected of containing

asbestos

 Approximate quantity of ACM and unit of measurement (m2, m, number)

 Does element appear friable? (yes/no answer based on visual assessment

only)

 Is ACM easily accessible by public? (yes/no answer)

 Is there a likelihood of damage or deterioration occurring (yes/no answer

based on judgment)

 Is there potential for disturbance of material during routine maintenance

activities? (yes/no answer)

 Access requirements for undertaking Asbestos Verification Inspection

 Exceptions report identifying areas of the structure with potential ACM that
were not inspected

 Is the presence of asbestos able to be confirmed based on the visual

inspection only? (e.g. testing already undertaken on similar components on
identical structures constructed on same length of highway under the same
contract).

o In addition, the asbestos register shall be updated with the date that “asbestos
present” warning signs were installed on site.

Asbestos Verification Inspection

Purpose

This requires the Program Manager, Statewide Structures Management Project (SSMP) to engage an
accredited National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) to conduct tests under ISO 17020.The
purpose of the Asbestos Verification Inspection is to confirm the presence of asbestos in suspected
ACM where the material may be disturbed through any proposed activity on the structure.

This procedure is in accordance with the relevant acts, regulations and codes of practice.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 16

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Scope

This inspection will involve hands-on practices (i.e. using under bridge inspection unit (UBIU) or similar
equipment) to gain access to the areas of concern and may involve the breaking back of limited areas
of concrete to facilitate removal of samples for testing by a National Association of Testing Authorities
(NATA) accredited laboratory under ISO 17020.

Procedures and Inspector Accreditation

Asbestos Verification Inspections shall be carried out on any structure with suspected ACM (as noted
in the asbestos register) where proposed activities may result in disturbance of the suspected ACM.

Inspections must be undertaken in accordance with the procedures for Asbestos Verification
Inspections outlined in Part 3 of this manual and Technical Advice Note 139.

The outline procedure to be followed is illustrated in Figure 1.6.

Asbestos Verification Inspections must be undertaken by a licensed asbestos assessor and testing
must be undertaken by a NATA accredited laboratory.

Frequency

The inspection will be undertaken once only, during the planning stage activities that may result in the
disturbance of the suspected ACM.

Data Recording

It is essential that presence of asbestos be identified to ensure that TMR staff or contractors and
consultants who may be engaged to work on the bridge are aware of the hazard and that appropriate
control measures can be implemented.

The results and data obtained by the inspection shall be recorded in the Bridge Information System
(BIS) asbestos register managed by BCM&AM.

On completion of the Asbestos Verification inspection the following actions shall be completed:

 Update the asbestos register with the following information captured during the inspection:

o Date of inspection.

o Name and license number of the licensed asbestos assessor.

o Is asbestos present (yes/no answer).

In addition, a copy of the inspection report shall be uploaded into the BIS.

 Where no traces of asbestos are found in the suspected ACM:

o update asbestos register with the following statement: “Laboratory testing of Element
Name undertaken on date of inspection confirms no asbestos. Refer report reference
number - XYZ”.

o If there are no other elements with suspected ACM in the structure, remove asbestos
warning signs from the structure.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 17

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

 If asbestos is detected in the suspected ACM:

o Advise WHS that a check has been conducted and asbestos has been confirmed.

o Update asbestos register with the following statement: “Laboratory testing of Element
Name undertaken on date of inspection confirms the presence of asbestos. Refer
report reference number - XYZ”.

o Update asbestos register with the condition of the ACM (e.g. “good condition, sealed
and coated” or “poor condition, cracked, not sealed” etc.).

o Advise person responsible for managing the proposed activities (resulting in

disturbance of the suspected ACM) of the inspection findings and the need to
implement appropriate control measures.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 18

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Figure 1.1 - Bridge Asset Management System framework

INSPECTION SYSTEM

 Bridge Inspection Manual

 Inspection frequencies
 Policy and accountabilities
 Inspector accreditation & auditing
 N.D.T. research
 Maintenance requirements
 Level 3 inspections
STRUCTURE CAPACITIES
 Competency training
 Inspector Handbook  Structure Equivalence Rating
MAINTENANCE SYSTEM methodology
 Specific bridge assessments for
 Whichbridge Maintenance Excess Mass Vehicle permits
Prioritisation tool
BRIDGE INFORMATION SYSTEM  Assessed Design Classes
 Timber Bridge Maintenance
 48t Crane Access Maps
Manual
 Structural Inventory (Location, Geometry, etc.)  Vulnerable Asset Maps
 MRS 11.87 – Timber Bridge
Materials Specification  Design Inventory (Design Data, Equivalence Ratings, etc.)  Timber bridge capacity
 Repair techniques  Inspection Inventory (Element Inventory, Condition, etc.) research
 Bridge Asbestos Inventory  Quickbridge – Rapid Analysis
Tool
 Maintenance Activities
 Technical input for Vehicle
 Bridge Maintenance Manual  Whichbridge Interface
Limits Manual
 Management of Defective  Standard Reports
and Sub-Standard Bridges  Mobile B.I.S.
 Region/District guidelines for
 Whole of Life Assessments assessing structures for permits
 Incorporation of Whichbridge  80t Crane Access Maps
 Bridge Sufficiency Analysis  HLP Access Maps
 Population of Equivalence
Ratings and Design Capacity

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

 Valuation (Bridges and Culverts)

ADVICE NOTES DATABASE
 Inspection Costs
 Operational Support KEY
 Maintenance Expenditure
 Currently operational
 Construction Costs
 To be implemented
 Pre-Construction Costs
 Road User Costs

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 19

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Figure 1.2 - Bridge Asset Management mechanisms

Whole of Government Current Policy, Procedure and Data BRIDGE INFORMATION SYSTEM (BIS)
Data analysis Outputs OUTCOMES
desired outcomes Collection database - see Figure 1.3

Bridge Inspection System 1. Structure Inventory WHICHBRIDGE Main Roads

- Key feature descriptors such as ID number, - An 'MS-Access' application that is driven by - Detailed asset inventory compiled in accordance with
- Bridge Inspection Manual (BIM) location, construction and material type data extracted directly from the BIS. It calculates BIS methodology - Cost savings through targeted maintenance
* Efficient and - Inspector accreditation / auditing - Hydraulic data relative risk scores by means of a multi-criteria - Known condition of structures delivered by accredited - Efficient management of structural assets
effective transport - Level 3 inspections - Deficiency inventory assessment of various structural, social, inspectors using the robust BIM methodology - Protection of assets
to support industry economic and traffic criteria. - Defects and maintenance activities identified for - Defensible maintenance programmes and
competitiveness 2. Design Inventory each structure access levels
and growth - Design capacity data DATABROWSER - Bridges with potential Asbestos Containing Materials - Safe working environment for bridge
Bridge Maintenance System - Vehicle-specific Equivalence Ratings Data querying tool that is used to develop specific identified for further asbestos management plan personnel
(accessible only by BAM) reports on demand. They are used to; - Management actions can be prioritised using Industry
- Timber Bridge Maintenance Manual (draft) - Prepare 'State of Network' reports for 'Whichbridge' and policy for the 'Management of
* Safer roads to - Timber material specification (MRS 11.87) 3. Inspection Inventory Senior Management Defective and Sub-Standard Structures' - Cost savings to transport industry through
support safer - Management of Defective and - Overall structure condition - Address specific district needs - Defensible programme development from non-feasance improved efficiency
communities Sub-Standard Structures - Individual element condition - Derive bridge details, such as design class and and risk perspectives - Provides the availability to construct major
- Defect photographs and sketches current condition, for excess mass applications - Consistent and practical quantification of bridge industrial complexes by delivering heavy
- Bridge Asbestos information - Access the 'Materialised views' tables capacity in terms of standard vehicle types. Allows plant items to mines, power stations, etc
rapid assessment of permit applications and - Equity of access for heavy loads
* Fair access and Structural Capacities 4. Maintenance Inventory MAPPING TOOLS appropriate asset protection measures. - No unnecessary restrictions
amenity to support - Maintenance activity backlog - Used to present data geographically. - Development of excess mass vehicle 'access' maps
liveable communities - Excess Mass Permit System - Cost estimate of programmed works to allow route planing by industry and protection
- Vehicle Limits Manual - Works and cost history STANDARD BIS OUTPUTS of assets Community
- Structural equivalence rating methodology - Series of standard reports - refer Figure 1.3 - Research projects to rationalise gap between
- 48t crane maps 5. Prioritisation (module) theoretical capacity and observed performance, and - No unnecessary restrictions to access
- Vulnerable Asset maps - Data extraction facility for use with QUICKBRIDGE quantify effects of deterioration in terms of capacity or deveopment
- Special Excess Mass Assessments 'Whichbridge' - An 'MS-Access' application which models - Guidelines and training for bridge management
by BAM bridges and analyses them under vehicular personnel
loads using a 'Spacegass' grillage

Updated information fed back into BIS and re-analysed on a continuous basis

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 20

 Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Figure 1.3 - Bridge Information System overview

Bridge Information System

H

• Inspection methodology is its ability to store and retrieve an image of the feature allows stewards to approve
• Inspection manual plans. activities and create maintenance jobs at
a bridge or group of bridges level. Actual
• Bridge Information System costs can be recorded to generate a
• Heavy vehicle assessment/ management Inspection inventory works history for the structure and
• Asset management reporting BAMS requires that all structures undergo estimate/costs comparisons. Several
periodic inspection. Details of the inspections reports are available to assist network
• Maintenance prioritisation. are managed by the inspection inventory managers maintain the bridge stock.
module. It caters for:
Introducing BIS • recording and reporting of three levels of Mobile BIS
The Bridge Information System or BIS is the inspection,
The core system is based on the ARMIS
computer system where records that support • printing of pre-printed or blank inspection (A Road Management Information
BAMS are stored, maintained and analysed. Its forms, System) architecture and servers and
What is a structure? main modules are: • recording of special inspection requires connection to the department’s
• All Transport and Main Roads owned • Structure Inventory requirements. data network. Another version has been
bridges or culverts with a diameter of more than • Design Inventory In addition to the ‘diary’ functions and standard developed which complements the core
1.8m and a waterway area in excess of 3m. • reports that are available to aid the inspection system. Known as mobile BIS, it allows
Inspection Inventory data to be replicated onto a laptop PC for
• Minor structures including pipes and scheduling process, the system maintains a full
• Maintenance Activities update in the field. The main database
culverts of smaller size. history of inspections and their results. These
• Load Capacity Inventory. may include photographs and/or sketches. can be synchronized with the updates
• Obstructions, i.e. any other feature over when staff return to the office. The Mobile
a State-owned road, e.g. overhead signs, Further development of the system will provide for The accredited inspector register is held and BIS allows inspectors to capture bridge
gantries etc. heavy vehicle routing and network performance managed in the BIS.
analysis.
In Queensland, this currently comprises some
3,000 bridges and over 10,000 major culverts Maintenance activities
that have a current replacement value in excess Structure inventory
of two billion dollars. This module provides a mechanism for
The inventory is the heart of BIS. It records the creating a backlog of maintenance activities
key features of the structure, including its unique to address defects identified in the
BAMS ID, its construction type, material, location and inspections and to compile a detailed
hydraulic data. estimate for the works. The "maintain jobs"
The system developed to manage structures
within Transport and Main Roads is the Bridge
Asset Management System (BAMS). It Design inventory
comprises a number of integrated processes
This area of BIS records the structure’s
covering:
construction details, its superstructure,
substructure, design details, component details
• Policy and services. An advanced feature of this module

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 21

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

inspection data, identify defects and compile the • Timber Drilling Survey Reports file extracted from detailed assessment and strategic
maintenance backlog and estimate in the field. • Bridge Asbestos Reports. • BIS to calculate bridge and bridge group analysis of the State- controlled
risk scores. structures and assists the Department in
A number of additional reports are prepared by the further development of the Road
Standard outputs the Bridge Asset Management section of the Network Strategy, the Roads
The number of standard reports available from Road Systems and Engineering Division of BIS data sources Implementation Plan and Asset
the system is indicated by the following list: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Valuation.
• Road Reference/Road Inventory (RR/RI)
Roads, based on data extracted from the BIS
for location information as well as other • Heavy vehicle management
using the data browser query tool or the
BIS reports prioritisation extract file. information such as date of last reseal. makes significant use of information in
• • Road Maintenance Performance BIS. Development of effective
Structure Listing management systems to ensure the
Contracts (RMPC) for maintenance activity
• Structure Details (overview, location, Asset management reports safety of road users, and to maximise the
details
geometry, environment, hydraulics, deficiencies, • Progress Report performance of the bridge asset, are
photographs) dependent on the quality and accuracy of
• Trends in Inspection
• Design Detail Summary the data in BIS.
• Outstanding Inspections • •
• Modified Structure BIS is an integrated suite of modules and The information is also used for a
• Progress of the Bridge and Culvert provides a complete view of the structures variety of external reporting requirements.
• Inspection Summary Inspection Program maintained by Transport and Main Roads. The
• Condition Rating • system architecture gives a solid foundation for
Trends in Bridge condition CONTACT
• Next Inspection current and anticipated needs
• Bridge and Culvert Inspection Status
• • It supports enhanced decision making by Bridge Asset Management Branch
No Inspection Data • Defective bridges by severity and trend
• providing timely and up to date information on Floor 13 Brisbane City - 313 Adelaide
Components in Poor Condition thereof the status of structure assets Street
• Completed Inspections • Mapping of the bridge data • Planning tools assist the districts in Brisbane City Qld 4000
• Maintenance Activities Detail Listing • Bridge Asbestos information planning structure maintenance
(bridge or job) • The system gives detailed insights into
• Bob Barrett
Bridge Asbestos Register Heavy vehicle management the capacity of the State-controlled road network
(SCRN) Principal Engineer (Structure
• Vulnerable Asset maps Stewardship) Structures
• BIS includes a comprehensive reporting
Inspection
ction reports • 48t Mobile Crane bridge crossing Phone: (07) 3066 8503
• facility that assists operational and head office
Structure Condition Inspection Report restrictions maps. staff manage the bridge assets Fax: (07) 3066 2065
• Defective Components Report • Data extracted from the BIS allows Email: bob.a.barrett@tmr.qld.gov.au
• Standard Procedure Exceptions Report Prioritisiation
• Photographic and Sketches Record • The "Whichbridge" software uses a data

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 22

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Figure 1.4 - Procedure for ACM identification inspection

Inspection Program

Is ACM identified in the No

No ACM Identification
Bridge Asbestos Register?

Yes

Has ACM Identification Yes No ACM Identification

Inspection been previously
Inspection required.
completed?

No

Undertake ACM
Identification Inspection

No Is suspected ACM visible in any of the Yes

structure components?

Update asbestos register with the following statement:

 “There are reasonable grounds to believe asbestos Advise Asbestos Controller that a check has been conducted and
containing material is not present.”
suspected asbestos containing material has been identified.

Install minimum six “asbestos present” signs on the structure

(additional signage to be installed where spans can be accessed
without sighting either abutment).

Update the asbestos registers with the following:

 Date of inspection
Note: The presence of ACM does not in itself represent  Date of data entry to asbestos register
a hazard to the safety of employees or the community  Location and representative photographs of suspected ACM
at large. Inhalation of airborne fibres represents the
safety concern and hence it is only when ACM is  Does ACM appear friable (yes/no)
disturbed either accidentally (e.g. vehicle impact) or  Is ACM easily accessible by public (yes/no)
intentionally through activities such as strengthening,  Is there likelihood of damage deterioration occurring (yes/no)
refurbishment or demolition that the ACM becomes a
hazard. No disturbance can reasonably be expected to  Is there potential for disturbance of ACM during routine
occur through routine maintenance activities or maintenance activities (yes/no)
inspections (Level 1 and Level 2).

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 23

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Figure 1.5 - Asbestos hazard warning sign

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 24

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Figure 1.6 - Procedure for Asbestos verification inspection

Start

No Are activities likely to disturb

suspected ACM planned?*
* Activities likely to result in
disturbance of ACM include:
 heavy maintenance
Yes  widening
 strengthening
 impact repair
Does BAR indicate if Asbestos  replacement of drainage
Yes systems or service ducts
Verification Inspection has previously
been undertaken?
 invert lining of asbestos bonded
culverts
No Asbestos Verification
Inspection required.
No

Undertake Asbestos
Verification Inspection

Is asbestos present in any of

No the suspected ACM Yes
components?

Advise Asbestos Controller that a check has Advise Asbestos Controller that a check has been conducted
been conducted and there is no asbestos and asbestos has been confirmed.
present.
Update the asbestos registers with the following information
captured during the inspection:
Update the asbestos registers with the following
information captured during the inspection:
 Date of inspection

 Date of inspection
 Name and license number of the licensed asbestos
assessor.
 Name and license number of the licensed
asbestos assessor.
 Update asbestos register with the following statement:
“Laboratory testing of ‘Component Name’ undertaken on
 Add the following statement: “Laboratory ‘date of inspection ‘confirms the presence of asbestos.
Refer report reference number - XYZ”
 Update asbestos register with the condition of the ACM
(e.g. “good condition, sealed and coated” or “poor
condition, cracked, not sealed” etc.).

Are there are any other

 Advise person responsible for managing the proposed
activities (resulting in disturbance of the suspected
elements with suspected ACM) of the inspection findings and the need to
ACM in the structure? implement appropriate control measures.

No

 Remove asbestos warning signs from the

structure.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 25

Part one - Bridge Inspection Policy

Table 1.7 - Summary of structure inspection frequencies

Inspection frequency in months

Inspection Category Structure Type
CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4
Timber or Steel Culverts# 12* 12* 12** 12**
Level 1: Routine Maintenance
Other 12* 12* 12* 12**
Timber or Steel Culverts# 24 24 12** 12** + SMP
Level 2: Condition Ratings Other 60 60 36 12** + SMP
Underwater Components## 96 96 12 12** + SMP
Level 3: Special All As required
* Routine Level 1 inspections are not generally required in the same year as a Level 2 or Level 3 inspection.
** Level 1 and Level 2 annual inspection cycles are to be staggered by six months to ensure that the structure is
inspected every six months.
# Only those steel culverts that are in permanent standing water.
## Only those components (other than steel culverts) that are in permanent standing water.

SMP: Structure Management Plan. A management plan shall be developed by regions and districts in
conjunction with Structures Division for all structures that have been rated in Condition State 4. This
shall define the required inspection regime, repair or replacement strategy and operational issues
such as load, width and vehicle mass limit restrictions. Refer to Appendix F for guidelines on the
development of management plans.

Notes:

1. A Level 1 inspection is required following major flooding events, fire or accident damage and
as recommended in a "Defective Structure Management Plan" or recommended by a Bridge
Engineer.

2. Where annual inspections are called for, they should be undertaken not less than 10 months
nor greater than 14 months after the previous inspection, for biennial inspections the range is
20 to 28 months, for frequencies of 36 months or greater the range is plus or minus 6 months.

Bridge Inspection Manual, Transport and Main Roads, January 2014 26

PART TWO
Deterioration
Mechanisms
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.1
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part Two: Deterioration Mechanisms

Page Nos

1.0 Material Defects ............................................................................................2.5

1.1 General...........................................................................................................2.5

1.2 Concrete .........................................................................................................2.5

1.2.1 Corrosion of reinforcement..............................................................2.5

1.2.2 Carbonation.......................................................................................2.6
1.2.3 Alkali - Silica Reaction (ASR).........................................................2.6
1.2.4 Cracking.............................................................................................2.6
1.2.5 Spalling...............................................................................................2.8
1.2.6 Surface Defects ..................................................................................2.9
1.2.7 Delamination ...................................................................................2.10

1.3 Steel ...........................................................................................................2.11

1.3.1 Corrosion .........................................................................................2.11

1.3.2 Permanent Deformations ...............................................................2.11
1.3.3 Cracking...........................................................................................2.12
1.3.4 Loose Connections ..........................................................................2.13

1.4 Timber..........................................................................................................2.14
1.4.1 Fungi.................................................................................................2.14
1.4.2 Termites ...........................................................................................2.15
1.4.3 Marine Organisms ..........................................................................2.16
1.4.4 Corrosion of Fasteners ...................................................................2.17
1.4.5 Shrinkage and Splitting..................................................................2.17
1.4.6 Fire ...................................................................................................2.18
1.4.7 Weathering ......................................................................................2.19

1.5 Masonry .......................................................................................................2.20

1.5.1 Cracking...........................................................................................2.20
1.5.2 Splitting, Spalling and Disintegration ...........................................2.20
1.5.3 Loss of Mortar and Stones .............................................................2.20

1.6 Protective Coatings .....................................................................................2.21

2.0 Common Causes of Older Bridge Deterioration......................................2.22

2.1 Concrete Bridges.........................................................................................2.22

2.1.1 Monolithic and simply supported T-beams..................................2.22
2.1.2 Precast I beams ...............................................................................2.23
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.2
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.1.3 Precast prestressed inverted "T" beams ......................................2.23

2.1.4 Box Girder Bridges .........................................................................2.23
2.1.5 Prestressed Voided Flat Slab Bridges ...........................................2.24
2.1.6 Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs .....................................................2.24
2.1.7 Precast Prestressed Deck Units......................................................2.24
2.1.8 Precast Prestressed Voided "T" Slabs..........................................2.25
2.1.9 Decks and Overlays.........................................................................2.25
2.1.10 Diaphragms .....................................................................................2.26
2.1.11 Kerbs, Footways, Posts and Railing ..............................................2.26
2.1.12 Abutments........................................................................................2.27
2.1.13 Piers..................................................................................................2.28

2.2 Steel Bridges ................................................................................................2.29

2.3 Timber Bridges............................................................................................2.30

2.3.1 Timber Girders ...............................................................................2.30

2.3.2 Corbels .............................................................................................2.31
2.3.3 Decking (timber and steel trough).................................................2.31
2.3.4 Kerbs, Posts and Railing ................................................................2.33
2.3.5 Piles...................................................................................................2.33
2.3.6 Walings and Crossbraces ...............................................................2.34
2.3.7 Headstocks .......................................................................................2.35
2.3.8 Abutments........................................................................................2.35

2.4 Deck Joints...................................................................................................2.37

2.5 Bearings .......................................................................................................2.39

2.6 Other Structure Types................................................................................2.40

2.6.1 Box Culverts ....................................................................................2.40

2.6.2 Pipe Culverts ...................................................................................2.40

2.7 Causes of deterioration not related to bridge materials..........................2.41

2.7.1 Damage due to Accidents ...............................................................2.41

2.7.2 Drainage...........................................................................................2.41
2.7.3 Debris ...............................................................................................2.42
2.7.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................2.42
2.7.5 Scouring of Foundations.................................................................2.42
2.7.6 Movement of the Structure ............................................................2.42
2.7.7 Condition of Approaches................................................................2.43

3.0 References....................................................................................................2.45
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.3
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.2.1 (a) - Corrosion of Headstock Reinforcement due to Chloride Ion

Penetration in a Marine Environment

Figure 1.2.1 (b) - Corrosion of Reinforcement in the Soffit of a Cast Insitu Culvert
due to Carbonation

Figure 1.2.1 (c) - Calcium Chloride Induced Corrosion of Suspended Slab

Soffit in an RCBC

Figure 1.2.1 (d) - Spalling due to Calcium Chloride Distress in an RCBC

Figure 1.2.1 (e) - Corrosion Of Reinforcement And Spalling Of Cantilever Soffit Due
To Poor Cover And Chloride Penetration

Figure 1.2.1 (f) - Corrosion Of Reinforcement And Spalling Of Deck Slab Surface Due
To Poor Cover And Chloride Attack

Figure 1.2.2 (a) - Carbonation Testing of a Freshly Broken Concrete Core

Figure 1.2.2 (b) - Carbonation Induced Corrosion

Figure 1.2.3 (a) - General View of Longitudinal Cracking due to ASR

in Prestressed Deck Units

Figure 1.2.3 (b) - View of Deck Unit Soffit Cracking due to ASR

Figure 1.2.3 (c) - View of Vertical Crack due to ASR in a Prestressed Pile

Figure 1.2.3 (d) - View of ASR Gel Exudations

Figure 1.2.4 (a) - Cracking of Structures

Figure 1.2.4 (b) - Severity of Cracking

Figure 1.2.4 (c) - Plastic Settlement/Shrinkage Cracking in a Bridge Deck

Figure 1.2.4 (d) - Plastic Cracking Passing Completely Through a Bridge Deck

Figure 1.2.4 (e) - Shear Crack In R.C. Headstock

Figure 1.2.4 (f) - Bursting Cracks In Anchorage Zone Of Post-Tensioned Girder

Figure 1.2.4 (g) - Accurate Measurement of Crack Widths

Figure 1.2.8 (a) - General View of Prestressed Pile

Figure 1.2.8 (b) - Water Wash Including Aggregate Particles Causing

Abrasion of Pile Surface
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.4
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.3.3 - Common Crack Locations of Steel 1 and Common Crack Locations of
Steel 2

Figure 1.4.1 (a) - Fungal Fruiting Body and Decay of Girder

Figure 1.4.1 (b) - Rot Pocket in Girder

Figure 1.4.2 (a) - Termite damage in Deck Planks

Figure 1.4.2 (b) - Section of Pile Showing Termite Nest in Internal Pipe

Figure 1.4.2 (c) - Termite Galleries On Pile And Headstock

Figure 1.4.5 (a) - Splitting in Timber Girder

Figure 1.4.5 (b) - Splitting in Timber Pile

Figure 1.4.7 (a) - Weathered and Rotted Timber Deck Planks

Figure 1.4.7 (b) - Rotted Ends of Deck Planks

Figure 2.3.3 (a) - Corrosion of Joints Between Trough Sections

Figure 2.3.3 (b) - Cracking and Perforating of Steel Troughing

Figure 2.3.5 - Rotting of Abutment Pile Below Ground Level

Figure 2.4.1 (a) - Scour of Stream Bed and Significant Loss of Material Around Pier
Pilecaps and Piles

Figure 2.4.1 (b) - Localised Scour of Stream Bed and Debris Build-Up Around Pier Piles

Figure 2.6.2 (a) - General View of Masonry Pipe Culvert, Showing Efflorescence and
Spalling of Base Brickwork

Figure 2.6.2 (b) - View of Efflorescence and Staining due to Chemical Leaching of
Mortar
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.5
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.0 MATERIAL DEFECTS

1.1 General

This section describes the defects that are normally found in concrete, steel, timber,
masonry and coatings. Each defect is briefly described and the causes producing it
are identified.

1.2 Concrete

Based on concrete defects described in Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario

Structure Inspection Manual (Ref. 1) and adjusted for Queensland conditions.

Concrete is used in structures as plain concrete, such as tremie and mass concrete; or,
it is combined with conventional steel reinforcement as reinforced concrete, or with
prestressing steel reinforcement as prestressed concrete.

Defects in concrete can often be related to the lack of durability of the concrete,
resulting from the composition of the concrete, poor placement practices, poor quality
control or the aggressive environment in which it is placed.

The following defects which have occurred in the Queensland road infrastructure are
described. They have been listed in order of occurrence from most common to least
as found in our concrete road bridges to date:

(i) Corrosion of Reinforcement (v) Spalling

(ii) Carbonation (vi) Surface Defects
(iii) Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) (vii) Delamination
(iv) Cracking

1.2.1 Corrosion of Reinforcement

Corrosion is effected by the deterioration of reinforcement by electrolysis. The alkali

content in concrete protects the reinforcement from corrosion but when moisture,
oxygen and/or chloride ions above a certain concentration are dissolved in water and
penetrate through the concrete to reinforcement, this protection breaks down and
corrosion starts. In the initial stages, corrosion may appear as rust staining on the
concrete surface. In the advanced stages, the surface concrete above the
reinforcement cracks, delaminates and spalls off exposing heavily rusted
reinforcement. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.2.1 (a), (b), (e) and (f).

In Queensland, the most common example of reinforcement corrosion is found in the

square section reinforced concrete piles which were used extensively until the
introduction of prestressed octagonal piles.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.6
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Cracking typically follows the line of the corner reinforcement where the density of
the concrete is compromised by limited access for compaction. The severity of the
cracking increases until the cover concrete delaminates and ultimately spalls off
exposing the corroded reinforcement. In addition horizontal cracking caused by
driving stresses is often found in this type of pile.

1.2.2 Carbonation

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can dissolve in moisture within the concrete pores
and react with calcium hydroxide in the cement paste to form a neutral calcium
carbonate. Over a long period of time this gradually lowers the alkalinity of the
concrete cover to the steel reinforcement, thus reducing the passive oxide layer
around the steel and placing it in a more acidic environment whereby it is susceptible
to corrosion.

The depth of carbonation from the exterior surface can be estimated by using a pH
indicator, eg phenolphthalein dissolved in water. The carbonated zone remains clear
while the uncarbonated area turns pink when the solution is applied to a freshly
broken surface (see Figure 1.2.2 (a)). Carbonation induced corrosion is shown in
Figure 1.2.2 (b).

1.2.3 Alkali - Silica Reaction (ASR)

Some aggregates react adversely with the alkalies in cement to produce a highly
expansive alkali-silica gel. The expansion of the gel under moist conditions leads to
cracking and deterioration of the concrete. The cracking occurs through the entire
mass of the concrete. Alkali-Silica reactions are generally slow by nature, and the
results may not be apparent for 5-10 years. The appearance of prestressed concrete
affected by alkali-silica reaction is shown in Figures 1.2.3 (a), (b), (c) and (d).

1.2.4 Cracking

A crack is a linear fracture in concrete which extends partly or completely through the
member. Cracks in concrete occur as a result of tensile stresses introduced in the
concrete. Tensile stresses are initially carried by the concrete and reinforcement until
the level of the tensile stresses exceeds the tensile capacity of the concrete. After this
point the concrete cracks and the tensile force is transferred completely to the steel
reinforcement. The crack widths and distribution are controlled by the reinforcement
in reinforced and prestressed concrete, whereas in plain concrete there is no such
control.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.7
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

The buildup of tensile stresses and, therefore, cracks in the concrete may be due to
externally applied loads, external restraint forces, internal restraint forces, differential
settlements, differential temperature or shrinkage or corrosion of the reinforcement.
Externally applied loads generate a system of internal compressive and tensile
stresses, in the members and components of the structure, as required to maintain
static equilibrium. For example, prestressing generates bursting effects at anchorage
zones which will cause tensile cracks if the member is inadequately reinforced as in
Figure 1.2.4(f). Cracks resulting from externally applied loads initially appear as
hairline cracks and are harmless. However as the reinforcement is further stressed the
initial cracks open up and progressively spread into wider cracks. Of particular
concern is the development of shear cracks in structural members adjacent to supports
which may be indicative of incipient brittle failure as in Figure 1.2.4(e).

External restraint forces are generated if the free movement of the concrete in
response to the effects of temperature, creep and shrinkage is prevented from
occurring due to restraint at the member supports. The restraint may consist of
friction at the bearings, bonding to already hardened concrete, or by attachment to
other components of the structure. Cracks resulting from the actions of external
restraint forces develop in a similar manner as those due to externally applied loads.

Internal restraint forces are caused by the differential expansion or contraction of the
exterior surface of concrete relative to the interior mass of the concrete, as in plastic
shrinkage. The resulting surface cracks are normally shallow and appear as pattern
cracks. However, if a slab is significantly affected by plastic shrinkage cracking the
cracks may continue through the depth of the slab as in Figure 1.2.4 (d).

Differential movements or settlements result in the redistribution of external reactions

and internal forces in the structure. This may in turn result in the introduction of
additional tensile stresses and, therefore, cracking in the concrete components of the
structure. Movement cracks may be of any orientation and width, ranging from fine
cracks above the reinforcement due to formwork settlement, to wide cracks due to
foundation or support settlement.

The types and location of cracking that are the most likely to be observed are shown
in Figure 1.2.4 (a)

The severity of cracking is shown in Figure 1.2.4 (b) and is defined as:

Hairline up to 0.1mm
Minor 0.1 to 0.3mm
Moderate 0.3 to 0.6mm
Severe Greater than 0.6mm

Over time, the concrete surface deteriorates and spalling of the crack edges will
occur. When measuring crack widths, it is important to ensure that is it the actual
width of the crack that is measured, and not the width of the spalled area. The
difference between crack width and spalled width is illustrated in Figure 1.2.4 (g)
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.8
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figures 1.2.4 (c) and (d) show an example of severe plastic settlement/shrinkage
cracking in a reinforced concrete bridge deck. ASR cracking most commonly occurs
in prestressed deck units in Queensland (see Figures 1.2.3 (a) to (d)). In those
elements ASR is characterised by longitudinal cracking on the soffits and exposed
side faces. Vertical cracking has also been detected in some prestressed octagonal
piles which is the result of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR). The risk of this type of
cracking has been minimised in new piles by the use of an approved mass of fly ash
in the approved mix designs. In addition, the alkali-silica gel formed by the reaction
may often be seen in, or exuding from the cracks. This gel is a clear or translucent
viscous substance. Usually the gel absorbs calcium as it exudes through the paste and
deposits on the soffit of deck units as a white substance. It should be noted that
calcium carbonate is often found in and around cracks and usually forms white
stalactites on the soffit of deck units.

1.2.5 Spalling

A spall is a fragment, which has been detached from a larger concrete mass. Spalling
may be a continuation of the corrosion process whereby the actions of external loads
or pressure exerted by the corrosion of reinforcement and attendant expansion results
in the breaking off of the delaminated concrete. The spalled area left behind is
characterised by sharp edges.

Vehicular or other impact forces on exposed concrete edges, deck joints or

construction joints, may also result in the spalling or breaking off of pieces of
concrete locally.

Spalling may also be caused by overloading of the concrete in compression. This

results in the breaking off of the concrete cover to the depth of the outer layer of
reinforcement. Spalling may also occur in areas of localised high compressive load
concentrations, such as at structure supports, or at anchorage zones in prestressed
concrete.

The imposition of external loads may also cause spalling. Restraint forces generated
by seized bearings often cause spalling of the bearing support area on the front face of
the bearing shelf.

Spalling of concrete is shown in Figure 1.2.1 (b).

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.9
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.2.6 Surface Defects

The following surface defects in concrete are described herein:

- Segregation
- Cold Joints
- Deposits - efflorescence, exudation, encrustation, stalactite
- Honeycombing
- Abrasion
- Slippery Surface

Surface defects are not necessarily serious in themselves; however, they are
indicative of a potential weakness in concrete.

Segregation is the differential concentration of the components of mixed concrete

resulting in non-uniform proportions in the mass. Segregation is caused by concrete
falling from a height, with coarse aggregates settling to the bottom and the fines on
top. Another form of segregation occurs where reinforcing bars prevent the uniform
flow of concrete between them. Segregation is more likely to occur in higher slump
concrete.

Cold Joints are produced if there is a delay between the placement of successive
pours of concrete, and if an incomplete bond develops at the joint due to the partial
setting of concrete in the first pour.

Deposits are often left behind where water percolates through the concrete and
dissolves or leaches chemicals from it and deposits them on the surface.

Deposits may appear as the following:

• efflorescence: A deposit of salts, usually white and powdery.

• exudation: A liquid or gel-like discharge through pores or cracks in

the surface.

• encrustation: A hard crust or coating formed on the concrete surface.

• stalactite: A downward pointing formation hanging from the

concrete surface, usually shaped like an icicle.

Honeycombing is produced due to the improper or incomplete vibration of the

concrete which results in voids being left in the concrete where the mortar failed to
completely fill the spaces between the coarse aggregate particles.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.10
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Abrasion is the deterioration of concrete brought about by vehicles scraping against

concrete surfaces, such as decks, kerbs, barrier walls or piers or the result of dynamic
and/or frictional forces generated by vehicular traffic, coupled with abrasive influx of
sand, dirt and debris. It can also result from friction of waterborne particles against
partly or completely submerged members (see Figures 1.2.8 (a) and (b)). The surface
of the concrete appears polished.

A slippery surface may result from the polishing of the concrete deck surface by the
action of repetitive vehicular traffic where inadequate materials and processes have
been used.

1.2.7 Delamination

Delamination is defined as a discontinuity in the surface concrete which is

substantially separated but not completely detached from concrete below or above it.
Visibly, it may appear as a solid surface but can be identified as a hollow sound by
tapping. Delamination begins with the corrosion of reinforcement and subsequent
cracking of the concrete. However, in the case of closely spaced bars, the cracking
extends in the plane of the reinforcement parallel to the exterior surface of the
concrete.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.11
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.3 Steel

Based on Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Structure Inspection Manual

(Ref. 1)

The use of steel has progressed from cast iron, wrought iron, rivet steel and plain
carbon steel to notch tough low temperature steel.

The following defects commonly occurring in steel are described:

• Corrosion
• Permanent Deformations
• Cracking
• Loose Connections

1.3.1 Corrosion

Corrosion is the deterioration of steel by chemical or electro-chemical reaction

resulting from exposure to air, moisture, industrial fumes and other chemicals and
containments in the environment in which it is placed. The terms rust and corrosion
are used inter-changeably in this sense. Corrosion, or rusting, will only occur if the
steel is not protected or if the protective coating wears or breaks off.

Rust on carbon steel is initially fine grained, but as rusting progresses it becomes
flaky and delaminates exposing a pitted surface. The process thus continues with
progressive loss of section.

1.3.2 Permanent Deformations

Permanent deformation of steel members can take the form of bending, buckling,
twisting or elongation, or any combination of these. Permanent deformations may be
caused by overloading, vehicular collision, or inadequate or damaged intermediate
lateral supports or bracing.

Permanent bending deformation may occur in the direction of the applied loads and
are usually associated with flexural members; however, vehicular impact may
produce permanent deformations in bending in any other member.

Permanent buckling deformations normally occur in a direction perpendicular to the

applied load and are usually associated with compression members. Buckling may
also produce local permanent deformations of webs and flanges of beams, plate
girders and box girders.

Permanent twisting deformations appear as a rotation of the member about its

longitudinal axis and are usually the result of eccentric transverse loads on the
member.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.12
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Permanent axial deformations occur along the length of the member and are normally
associated with applied tension loads.

1.3.3 Cracking

Crack is a linear fracture of the steel. Cracks are mainly produced due to fatigue and
can, under certain conditions, lead to brittle fracture.

Brittle fracture is a crack completely through the component that usually occurs
without prior warning or plastic deformation. Brittle fracture may result at fatigue
prone details after initial fatigue cracking.

The primary factors leading to fatigue cracking are: the number of applied stress
cycles, which is a function of the volume of traffic; the magnitude of the stress range,
which depends on the applied live load; and the fatigue strength in the connection
detail. Cracks caused by fatigue usually occur at points of tensile stress
concentrations, at welded attachments or at termination points of welds. Cracks may
also be caused or aggravated by overloading, vehicular collision or loss of section
resistance due to corrosion. In addition, stress concentrations due to the poor quality
of the fabricated details and the fracture toughness of materials used are contributing
factors. Material fracture toughness will determine the size of the crack that can be
tolerated before fracture occurs.

Welded details are more prone to cracking than bolted or riveted details. Grinding off
the weld reinforcement to be smooth or flush with the joined metal surfaces improves
fatigue resistance. Once the cracking occurs in a welded connection, it can extend into
other components due to a continuous path provided at the welded connection, and
possibly lead to a brittle fracture.

Bolted or riveted connections may also develop fatigue cracking, but a crack in one
component will generally not pass through into the others. Bolted and riveted
connections are also susceptible to cracking or tearing resulting from prying action,
and by a build-up of corrosion forces between parts of the connection.

Common locations susceptible to cracking are illustrated in Figure 1.3.3. As cracks

may be concealed by rust, dirt or debris, the suspect surfaces should be cleaned prior
to inspection.

Cracks that are perpendicular to the direction of stress are very serious, with those
parallel to the direction of stress less so. In either case, cracks in steel should
generally be considered serious, as parallel crack may for a number of reasons turn
into a perpendicular crack. Any crack should be carefully noted and recorded as to its
specific location in the member, and member structure. The length, width (if
possible) and direction of crack should also be recorded.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.13
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.3.4 Loose Connections

Loose connections can occur in bolted or riveted connections; and, may be caused by
corrosion of the connector plates or fasteners, excessive vibration, overstressing,
cracking or the failure of individual fasteners.

Loose connections may sometimes not be detectable by visual inspection. Cracking

or excessive corrosion of the connector plates or fasteners, or permanent deformation
of the connection or members framing into it, may be indications of a loose
connection. Tapping the connection with a hammer is one method of determining if
the connection is loose.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.14
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.4 Timber

Based on Austroads 1991 "Bridge Management Practice" (ref. 2)

Timber was extensively used for bridges constructed up until the middle 1900's and
these constitute just under one quarter of the structures on the State Declared Road
network. The largest proportion of timber bridges occurs on roads of lesser
importance such as local roads, but many timber bridges are still in service on higher
class roads and are often required to carry heavy traffic loadings.

The major causes of deterioration in timber bridges are as follows:

(1) Fungal (rotting)
(2) Termites
(3) Marine organisms
(4) Corrosion of Fasteners
(5) Shrinkage and Splitting
(6) Fire damage
(7) Weathering

1.4.1 Fungi

References include Bootle (1983)

Severe internal decay of timbers used for bridges is caused mainly by "white rot" or
"brown rot" fungi. External surface decay, especially in ground contact areas, is
caused by "soft rot" fungi. Other fungi such as mould and sapstain fungi may
produce superficial discolourations on timbers but are not generally of structural
significance.

Fungal growths will not develop unless there is a source of infection from which the
plants can grow. Fungi procreate by producing vast numbers of microscopic spores
which may float through the air for long periods and can be blown for considerable
distances.

Although it is true to say that no timber components in service will be free from
decay because of an absence of infecting spores, these spores will not germinate and
develop unless there is:

• an adequate supply of food (wood cells).

• an adequate supply of air or oxygen. (prolonged immersion in water saturates
timber and inhibits fungal growth)
• a suitable range of temperatures. (optimum temperatures are 20o - 25oc for
soft rots, while their rate of growth declines above or below the optimum with
a greater tolerance of lower temperatures apparent)
• a continuing supply of moisture. (wood with a moisture content below 20% is
considered safe from decay, while many fungi require a moisture content
above 30%.)
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.15
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Once established, the decay fungi continue to grow at an accelerating rate as long as
favourable conditions prevail. Depriving the fungi of any one of these required
conditions will effectively curtail the spread of decay. Wood that is kept dry or
saturated will not rot. Moisture change can affect decay indirectly because drying
often leads to surface checks, which may expose untreated parts of timber or create
water trapping pockets. Proper preservative treatment effectively provides a toxic
barrier to the fungi's food supply, thus preventing decay. Figures 1.4.1 (a) and (b)
show rotting of members. The most common rotting areas in timber bridges are
internally in log girders, corbels and piles (piping), and in sawn decking at the
exposed ends and interface with kerbs.

1.4.2 Termites

References include Bootle (1983)

Australia has a large number of different species of termites (300) which are widely
distributed. Practically all termite damage to timber bridges occurs through
subterranean termites (especially Coptotermes acinaciformis and allied species)
which require contact with the soil or some other constant source of moisture. Some
dry wood termite species are found in coastal areas of Queensland, but minimal
damage is attributable to these types in bridges.

Termites live in colonies or nests which may be located below ground in the soil, or
above ground in a tree stump, hollowed out bridge member or an earth mound. Each
colony contains a queen, workers, soldiers and reproductives or alates. The workers,
who usually constitute the highest portion of the population, are white bodied, blind
insects some 3mm in length which have well developed jaws for eating timber.
However, in North Queensland, termites growing to 20mm or more in length
(Mastotermes darwiniensis) are found and these are capable of causing significant
damage in a short time compared to the most commonly distributed species. Attack
by subterranean termites originates from the nest, but may spread well above ground
level, either inside the wood or via mud walled tubes called galleries which are
constructed on the outside of bridge members. Reference should be made to Figure
1.4.2(c). These galleries are essential for termites as they require an absence of light,
a humid atmosphere and a source of moisture to survive. At least once a year the
alates develop eyes and wings and leave the nest under favourable weather conditions
to migrate up to 200m from the original nest. After migration, their wings fall off and
a few of these may pair to start new colonies.

Termite attack, once established, usually degrades timber much more quickly than
fungi, but termite attack in durable hardwoods normally used in bridge construction is
usually associated with some pre-existing fungal decay. This decay accelerates as the
termites extend their galleries through the structure, moving fungal spores and
moisture about with their bodies. Hence, although some of the material removed by
termites has already lost it structural strength because of decay, the control of termites
remains an extremely important consideration.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.16
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Basically, there are two main strategies in termite control:

• eradication of the nest (by either direct chemical treatment or by separation of

the colony from its sustaining moisture)
• installation of chemical and physical barriers to prevent termites from entering
a bridge or attacking timber in contact with the ground.

In practice it may be difficult to eradicate the nest because of the problem of locating
it. Refer to Figures 1.4.2 (a) and (b) showing termite attack in timber members.

1.4.3 Marine Organisms

References include Bootle (1983)

Damage to underwater timber in the sea or tidal inlets is usually caused by marine
borers, and is more severe in tropical and sub tropical waters than in colder waters.
The two main groups of animal involved are:

• molluscs (teredinindae) - this group includes various species of Teredo,

Nausitora and bankia. They are commonly known in Australia as teredo or
"shipworm". They start life as minute, free-swimming organisms and after
lodging on timber they quickly develop into a new form and commence
tunnelling. A pair of boring shells on the head grow rapidly in size as the
boring progresses, while the tail with its two water circulating syphons
remains at the original entrance. The teredine borers destroy timber at all
levels from the mudline to high water level, but the greatest intensity of the
attack seems to occur in the zone between 300mm above and 600mm below
tide level. A serious feature of their attack is that while the interior of the pile
may be eaten away, only a few small holes may be visible on the surface.

• crustaceans - this group includes species of Sphaeroma (pill bugs), Limnoria

(gribbles ), and Chelura. They attack the wood on its surface, making many
narrower and shorter tunnels than those made by the teredines. The timber so
affected is steadily eroded from the outside by wave action and the piles
assume a wasted appearance or "hourglass effect". Attack by Sphaemora is
limited to the zone between tidal limits, with the greatest damage close to
halftide level. They cannot survive in water containing less than 1.0 - 1.5 per
cent salinity, but can grow at lower temperatures than the teredines.

Many strategies have been developed for the control of marine borers but, assuming
that the piles have sufficient remaining strength, the most effective work by reducing
the oxygen content of water around the borers.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.17
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.4.4 Corrosion of Fasteners

References include Bootle (1983)

Corrosion of steel fasteners can cause serious strength reductions for two related
reasons. Firstly, the steel fastener reduces in size and weakens, and secondly a
chemical reaction involving iron salts from the rusting process can significantly
reduce the strength of the surrounding wood (this is not fungal decay but may
enhance corrosion of the fastener because of water ingress in the softened timber).

Galvanised fasteners in contact with timber which has been freshly treated with CCA
preservative may exhibit enhanced corrosion. However, for CCA treated timber that
has been cured for 6 weeks, normal corrosion rates for fasteners will apply.

1.4.5 Shrinkage and Splitting

References include Bootle (1983)

Moisture can exist in wood as water or water vapour in the cell cavities and as
chemically bound water within the cell walls. As green timber loses moisture to the
surrounding atmosphere, a point is reached when the cell cavities no longer contain
moisture, but the cell walls are still completely saturated with chemically bound
water. This point is called the "fibre saturation point". Wood is dimensionally stable
while its moisture content remains above the fibre saturation point, which is typically
around 30% for most timbers. Bridges are normally constructed from green timber
which gradually dries below its fibre saturation point until it reaches equilibrium with
the surrounding atmosphere. As it does so, the wood shrinks but because it is
anisotropic, it does not shrink equally in all directions. Maximum shrinkage occurs
parallel to the annular rings, about half as much occurs perpendicular to the annular
rings and a small amount along the grain.

The relatively large cross section timbers used in bridges loose their moisture through
their exterior surfaces so that the interior of the member remains above the fibre
saturation point while the outer layers fall below and attempt to shrink. This sets up
tensile stresses perpendicular to the grain and when these exceed the tensile strength
of the wood, a check or split develops, which deepens as the moisture content
continues to drop. As timber dries more rapidly through the ends of the member than
through the sides, more serious splitting occurs at the ends. Deep checks provide a
convenient site for the start of fungal decay. Figures 1.4.5 (a) and (b) show
longitudinal splitting of timber girders and piles.

Shrinkage also causes splitting where the timber is restrained by a bolted steel plate or
other type of fastening. This splitting can be avoided by allowing the timber to shrink
freely by using slotted holes. As timber shrinks, it tends to lose contact with steel
washers or plates, so the connection is no longer tight. Checking the tightness of nuts
in bolted connections is therefore a standard item of routine maintenance for timber
bridges.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.18
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.4.6 Fire

References include CSIRO (1975), Bootle (1983)

Wood itself does not burn. The effect of heat is firstly to decompose the wood (a
process known as 'pyrolysis') and it is some of the products of this decomposition that
burn if conditions are suitable. This concept is important in discussions on the action
of retardants.

In theory, wood decomposes even at temperatures as low as 20oc (at the rate of 1%
per century). At 93oc the wood will become charred in about 5 years.

When wood is heated, several zones of pyrolysis occur which are well delineated due
to the excellent insulating properties of wood (thermal conductivity roughly 1/300
that of steel). These zones can be described generally as follows:

ƒ zone A: 95oc - 200oc

water vapour is given off and wood eventually becomes charred.

ƒ zone B: 200oc - 280oc

water vapour, formic and acetic acids and glyoxal are given off,
ignition is possible but difficult

ƒ zone C: 280oc - 500oc

combustible gases (carbon monoxide, methane, formaldehyde, formic
and acetic acids, methanol, hydrogen) diluted with carbon dioxide and
water vapour are given off. Residue is black fibrous char. Normally
vigorous flaming occurs. If, however, the temperature is held below
500oc, a thick layer of char builds up and because the thermal
conductivity of char is only 1/4 that of wood, it retards the penetration
of heat and thus reduces the flaming.

ƒ zone D: 500oc - 1000oc

in this zone the char develops the crystalline structure of graphite,
glowing occurs and the char is gradually consumed.

ƒ zone E: above 1000oc

at these temperatures the char is consumed as fast as it is formed.

As the temperature of the wood is lowered, the above mentioned behaviour still holds,
eg, combustion normally ceases below 280oc.

Large section round timbers, as used in bridge construction, have good resistance to
fire, and, except during a severe bush fire, usually survive quite successfully.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.19
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.4.7 Weathering

Weathering is the gradual deterioration of sawn or log timber due to its exposure to
sun, wind and rain. Weathering can be a serious problem especially to the exposed
end grain of untreated or unprotected wood, where severe rotting can occur around
the connections. The exposed ends of transverse deck planks are susceptible to this
defect. Figures 1.4.7 (a) and (b) illustrate weathering and rotting in the ends of timber
deck planks.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.20
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.5 Masonry

Based on Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Structure Inspection Manual

(Ref. 1)

Masonry is made of stones or bricks bonded together by mortar. Although not a

common construction material today, masonry has been used in retaining walls,
abutments, piers or arches. Types of masonry construction are Ashlar masonry,
squared stone masonry and rubble masonry.

The following defects commonly occurring in masonry are described:

- Cracking
- Splitting, Spalling and Disintegration
- Loss of Mortar and Stones

1.5.1 Cracking

A crack is an incomplete separation into one or more parts with or without space in
between. Cracks develop in masonry as a result on non-uniform settlement of the
structure, thermal restraint and overloads.

Cracks develop either at the interface between the stone and mortar, following a
zigzag pattern, when the bond between them is weak; or, go through the joint and
stone in a straight line, when the mortar is stronger than the stone.

1.5.2 Splitting, Spalling and Disintegration

Splitting is the opening of seams or cracks in the stone leading to the breaking of the
stone into large fragments.

Spalling is the breaking or chipping away of pieces of the stone from a larger stone.

Disintegration is the gradual breakdown of the stone into small fragments, pieces or
particles.

The splitting, spalling and disintegration of masonry is caused by the actions of

weathering and abrasion; or, by the actions of acids, sulphates or chlorides, which
cause deterioration in certain types of stones, such as limestone.

1.5.3 Loss of Mortar and Stones

Loss of mortar is the result of the destructive actions of water wash, plant growth or
softening by water containing dissolved sulphates or chlorides. Once the mortar has
disintegrated it may lead to loss of stones. Excessive loss of mortar will also reduce
the load-carrying capacity of a structure.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.21
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

1.6 Protective Coatings

Coating defects are not necessarily serious but they are indicative of potential
weaknesses in the coating system and eventual loss of protection to the surface
coated.

It is rare for a protective coating to outlast the life of the structure.

Breakdown of paint or loss of galvanising is inevitable and should be anticipated.

The rate of breakdown is dependant on a number of interrelated factors, with "Time
of wetness" being the most important. This usually results from condensation and
may be increased by absorption of the moisture by windborne salts on areas not
subject to rain washing. Accumulation of debris, bird droppings, flaking paint, etc,
will all retain moisture and promote corrosion.

In addition to eventual failure of a coating system by weathering, premature failure

may result from:

• Loss of coating adhesion due to faulty specification or application.

• Incompatibility of successive coats.
• Subsurface rusting due to inadequate surface preparation and/or priming paint.
• Localised failure due to mechanical damage.
• Inadequate film-build on sharp edges, welds and paint "shadow areas".

In some cases, expert advice may be required to establish the cause and recommend
suitable remedial action.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.22
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.0 COMMON CAUSES OF OLDER BRIDGE DETERIORATION

2.1 Concrete Bridges

The following section lists the various types of reinforced and prestressed concrete
bridges and generally lists the main problems associated with each type.

2.1.1 Monolithic and simply supported T-beams

Most monolithic structures are T-beam bridges with the whole structure cast-in-situ.
Spans tend to be small but groups of as many as 5 continuous spans may be built this
way in a bridge. This puts strains on the columns of the piers and at the abutments
due to temperature movements, and it is not uncommon to see a crack and signs of
movement around the beam/wall joint at the abutment. There may also be signs of
tension cracking in the face of the columns of the furthest pier from the centre of the
span group, due to movements and temperature. These structures are often
overstressed in negative moment with cracking and staining observed at the underside
of deck at the beam/deck/pier diaphragm joints.

The T-beam bridges often have sufficient shear reinforcement near the supports and
diagonal shear cracking may be observed as far away as 1/3rd of the span from the
support. The abutments and wings were usually cast as one and heavy cracking,
spalling and movements may be observed at the wing joint especially where high
abutment walls were built.

The simply supported precast T-beam structures tended to be a later design with
improved shear reinforcement of the beams and hence shear cracking is not normally
seen. Some flexural cracking of the beams will normally be seen at midspan
especially on structures which carry a reasonable number of heavy loads. Some
beams had a locating dowel at one end of span which made that end of beam fixed
with the other end free to move. The allowance for movement was often lost, with
the consequence that the beam moved relative to the dowel, cracking and sometimes
spalling the ends of the beams. The support directly under the beams also tended to
spall due to friction, as a layer of malthoid was all that often separated the beam and
substructure.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.23
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.1.2 Precast I Beams

Precast "I" beam construction began in the early 1960's, using precast high strength
prestressed concrete beams with spans up to 22 metres approximately. These beams
have generally performed well over the years.

The NAASRA beam sections came into use in 1970 and Type 3 and Type 4 girders
have been used extensively for spans up to 25m and 31m respectively. Longer spans
have been accomplished by casting load bearing diaphragms at the piers which
encased the ends of the beams to create continuous spans. The beams were also
connected on the bottom flange by heavy steel bars welded together. In recent years a
"bulb tee" section has been used in place of the type 4 NAASRA beam for spans up to
36.5 metres.

The biggest problem associated with prestressed beams for large spans is the amount
of hog of the beam, especially as they continue to hog further after delivery until
loaded by the weight of the bridge deck. The beams can also crack towards the ends
due to stressing if insufficient end steel in provided.

2.1.3 Precast Prestressed Inverted "T" Beams

These beams were used during the 1970's to produce a flat undersurface to bridges
crossing the highways. This was done for aesthetic reasons as the flat bottom is more
appealing to the driver that the interrupted underside of an "I" beam bridge. Spans
were usually in the region of 10 metres. These beams were not an efficient section
and lost favour with designers. No problems have been encountered with these types
of structures. Top slab construction or concrete infill between beams have both been
used.

2.1.4 Box Girder Bridges

Box girder bridges have been used extensively on or over freeways in Queensland.
They are generally cast-in-place and then post-tensioned. Some box girders have
been precast in segments and post tensioned when erected in place. Problems can
regularly occur during construction and at post-tensioning.

The major maintenance concern for these bridges is where grouting around the post
tensioning is incomplete and does not adequately protect the steel tendons. Serious
concerns have been identified in some overseas countries where de-icing salts are
used on the deck but to date no evidence of tendon corrosion has been observed in
Queensland bridges.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.24
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.1.5 Prestressed Voided Flat Slab Bridges

A number of cast-in-place prestressed voided flat slab bridges have been built on or
over freeways and highways and these provide an attractive shallow depth
superstructure, ideal for very wide bridges and with spans to approximately 34
metres. Problems with flotation and distortion of the void formers have been
experienced during construction, but these structures are relatively cheap,
aesthetically pleasing, and have performed well up to now.

2.1.6 Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs

These structures are monolithic cast-in-place and have performed very well with the
slab providing considerable lateral load distribution. Structures can be continuous
over a number of spans, hence there is a possibility of cracking of the columns due to
movement.

The slabs themselves often have a shrinkage crack which runs almost directly down
the centreline of the slab. Provided this remains dry it is of no concern.

2.1.7 Precast Prestressed Deck Units

Introduced in 1954 these units are held together by transverse tensioning rods in cored
holes.

This has been the principal form of bridge superstructure constructed over the last
thirty years. These 596mm wide, rectangular section, voided planks cover the span
range from 8.0m to 27.0m varying in depth from 300mm to 900mm respectively.

Typically these elements are erected with a 20mm gap between adjacent units which
is subsequently filled with poured mortar. The mortar acts both as a shear key and a
means of providing an even bearing surface between units for the transverse
prestressing forces. The latter is applied by way of transverse stressing bars slotted
through cored holes in the units. Following the application of prestress force the gaps
around the bars and joints at the ends of units, at piers and abutments, are also filled
with mortar.

The mortar in the joints inevitably cracks as a consequence of shrinkage and girder
deflections and rotations. This permits water to penetrate from the surface to the unit
soffits and substructure elements. Recently there have been failures of the transverse
stressing bars which have corroded as a consequence of this. Additionally, in regions
where Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) is a problem that reaction is exacerbated by
water leaking through the deck. The extent and severity of cracking and the
production of reaction products are more pronounced in the wetter areas of the bridge.
That is, adjacent to the joints between units and spans and around the kerb unit. It is
imperative that deck drainage is efficient on those structures and that any cracking of
the surfacing around deck joints is sealed. Current designs detail waterproofing of the
longitudinal joints between units to avoid the problems discussed above.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.25
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Generally, the deck units alone comprise the superstructure however a reinforced
concrete deck slab acting compositely with the units is often adopted. In this case the
transverse prestressing is omitted. Currently the slab is made continuous at fixed pier
joints to improve the rideability and minimise the number of pier joints.

Erection of deck units on elastomeric bearings, especially at expansion joints, can be

compromised by excessively hogged units or lateral shearing on headstocks with
crossfall unless the unit is supported and braced adequately until the levelling layer of
epoxy has cured.

2.1.8 Precast Prestressed Voided "T" Slabs

These standard slabs span form 8 metres to 19 metres and were developed in 1986 by
VicRoads and have recently been introduced in Queensland. The slabs vary in depth
form 250 to 750 mm and have a 140 mm overlay on top. Width of the top flange of
the 'T' slab varies from 900 to 1500 mm to suit the width of bridge. These slabs are
now being used and are suitable for spans up to 19 metres.. The potential problems
identified include high neoprene bearings placed on sloping headstocks beneath the
T-slabs and loss of cover due to void formers floating during fabrication.

2.1.9 Decks and Overlays

Reinforced concrete decks are usually cast-in-place over the beams and generally
have a 50 millimetre or larger thickness of bituminous surface added on top. For high
structures or bridges over highways and railway lines, thin precast prestressed
concrete formwork slabs or sacrificial formwork is usually used to negate the need for
stripping after casting the deck.

Earlier concrete decks, however, were increased in depth by 12 millimetres allowing

for wear of the top surface. This practice was used in the past but now discontinued
due to temperature cracking of the surface which allowed moisture to penetrate into
the deck concrete.

The concrete beams have ligature bars which project into the deck for composite
action, whilst steel beams and girders have welded stud or other anchors at their top
to provide composite action. On some older bridges a bevelled concrete cap was cast
between the deck and beams. Cracking of the cap can occur along the fillet line a the
deck, or cracking coinciding with the location of the shear connectors may be visible.
Unless severe, this cracking is not serious.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.26
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.1.10 Diaphragms

At the ends of the deck a stiffening beam will be noticed joining the ends of the
beams. This diaphragm (crossgirder) may be the full depth of the beams, but on some
structures it will only be in the order of 200 to 250 mm in depth.

Diaphragms may also be found at midspan or at the third points to provide web
stiffening against debris loads and impact forces and aid in load distribution between
beams.

On precast prestressed 'I' beam bridges continuous for live load, a wide heavily
reinforced load bearing diaphragm can be found at the piers. This diaphragm is
required to support the full superstructure loads and transfer that load back to a pier or
to isolated columns which form the pier.

All these diaphragms should be checked for cracking.

2.1.11 Kerbs, Footways, Posts and Railing

Most of the old concrete bridges used either narrow kerbs (sometimes tapered in cross
section) or wider kerbs tapered (in plan) at the ends. These kerbs had a barrier facing
and were well in front of the railing causing a dangerous situation whereby errant
vehicles could "take-off" and land on top of the barrier rather than be redirected by it.
Where footways are constructed on bridges they should be inspected for pedestrian
safety, ie. ensure level of precast or cast-in-place footway slabs is good with no
depressions or rises which could trip pedestrians. Moisture will penetrate the footway
slabs and adequate drainage of the area under the footway is required. If drainage is
not adequate weed growth will form and the underside of deck will form
efflorescence with the dampness penetrating the deck.

Many different forms of post and railing have been used on concrete bridges ranging
from guideposts, timber posts and rails, reinforced concrete posts with precast
reinforced concrete rails, reinforced concrete posts with steel tube rails, steel channel
posts with steel guardrail, rectangular rolled hollow steel posts and rails, and
reinforced concrete new jersey barriers with steel posts and rail on top.

Pedestrian grillage is usually associated with footways, or on pedestrian bridges, and

should be inspected for damage and tightness of the attachment bolts.

For all bridges it is important for the steel guardrail on the approaches to attach to the
bridge endposts or to continue over the bridge. This will prevent the possibility of a
vehicle hitting the approach rail and being redirected directly into the endposts, or the
other situation of a vehicle hitting an unprotected endpost.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.27
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.1.12 Abutments

Abutments can vary considerable but will generally be of the following types;

(a) spill through abutments using a reinforced concrete headstock supported on driven
precast concrete piles or of a frame type with reinforced concrete columns supported
by a footing below ground; or

(b) wall type abutments either reinforced or mass concrete; or

(c) wall type consisting of straight columns and a headstock with infill wall panels
between the columns; or

(d) masonry walls; or

(e) sill beams behind a reinforced earth wall.

Spill through abutments are possibly the most common type to be found and usually
have little or no cracking of the headstock, except for shrinkage cracks. Frame type
headstocks are more highly stressed and some flexural cracking may be found at
midspan between the columns, or over the columns. Loss of retaining fill in front,
beneath and behind the headstocks is also a common problem which requires
correcting to retain the embankment fill behind the abutment.

The columns or piles are not usually a problem although cracking of the front face of
piles has been noticed where the superstructure has propped the abutment against
large movements of the embankment fill. This is only a problems if the cracking
becomes severe. The ballast walls will often crack if beams bear hard against them or
if an overhanging deck puts pressure of the top of the wall. This cracking is not
considered very important provided excess moisture is not allowed through the walls.

Wall abutments are usually in good condition with differential movement between
panels the only area of concern. Mass concrete walls are usually small in height and
have only movement problems or in some instances scour problems of fill in front of,
and beneath, the footing. Wall abutments consisting of columns with headstocks and
thin infill panels can have cracking from the effects of earth pressure and shrinkage.

The side wings on the high abutment walls often move relative to the abutment walls
due to earth pressure. The wings are not normally self-supporting and rely on a
concrete key or few bars of light reinforcement to hold them in place. Cracking and
differential movement between the wing and the abutment wall are quite common and
can be a problem if severe.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.28
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Highway and freeways structures are designed to have reinforced concrete approach
slabs which rest on top of the ballast walls. These are installed to eliminate live load
earth pressures behind the abutments and to provide a smooth transition onto and off
the bridge for fast moving and heavy traffic, thus reducing the impact loads on the
structure.

Stone masonry abutment walls have been constructed on older structures. Care
should be taken in assessing these walls for possible signs of settlement of the blocks,
settlement cracking or cracking of the wall especially under heavily loaded areas.
Where loadings on the wall are at isolated points such as girders rather than a
distributed load, a reinforced concrete cap may be cast on top of the wall to distribute
the stress.

If this cap overhangs the masonry for a bridge widening, particular attention should
be noted of the edge loading occurring on the masonry.

2.1.13 Piers

Piers of various types include headstocks supported on piles or columns, wall type
piers some of which consist of columns with a headstock and thin in full panels,
straight walls of constant or variable thickness, box type concrete piers and masonry
piers.

Cracking of these pier types will be similar to the cracking mentioned above for the
abutments. With the higher wall piers horizontal cracking may occur around the
construction joints.

With continuous superstructures and large movements occurring at the abutments,

horizontal cracking of the pier wall or column face can occur as bending pressure is
exerted on the wall.

Bending pressure can also be put on high slender columns or piles if the bridge is on a
large skew or a sharp circular curve, causing lateral cracking of the piers low down.

Long monolithic T-beam bridges often have split piers at the deck expansion joints.
Cracking and spalling is a problem with these piers due to the high moments on the
slender sections.

Many of the older structures have poor quality sandy concrete which can suffer
severely from the action of water, sand, pebbles and grit as they wash past. This can
significantly reduce the amount of cover concrete to the steel reinforcement and
guniting may have been used to reinstate the concrete surface.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.29
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.2 Steel Bridges

Composite steel beams with reinforced concrete decks were used in the past for
longer span structures but are seldom used today. The reasons for this were cost,
(fabricated plate girders are much more expensive than prestressed concrete beams)
and future maintenance problems with repainting.

These superstructures also tend to deflect substantially and continuous steel girders
vibrate with loading of adjacent spans. Because of this movement under load, the
reinforced concrete deck will often crack through at approximately the third points of
the spans. Moisture, corrosion and efflorescence at the cracks will normally be seen
on these type of structures.

Steel beams should be checked for signs of corrosion and the condition of the
paintwork noted. Simply supported beams should have steel angle crossframes or
concrete diaphragms at midspan to prevent lateral buckling and aid in stiffening the
beams. Continuous beams should have these at the supports and at midspan. Splice
plates on the web, top and bottom flanges should be inspected to ensure no weld
cracking or separation has occurred. All welded connections, splices and stiffeners
should be closely inspected for any signs of cracking of the weld or metal
immediately adjacent to it.

Bolted and riveted connections require inspection to check whether all connections
are tight, intact and the protective cover is in good order. Loose bolting can
sometimes be detected by cracks in the coating system, movement of the bracing or
by associated noises as transient loads cross the deck.

Any signs of excessive wear at pinned joints in trusses or other movement joints
should be observed and recorded.

Areas around the junction of members should be inspected for straightness as these
can be the first sign of permanent deformation resulting from buckling of
compression flange or member or a sign of inadequate bracing.

The thin steel sections are also susceptible to permanent deformation caused by
vehicle impact and if severe can significantly reduce the load carrying capacity of the
structure. This can be caused by impact from a high vehicle travelling under bridge
damaging the bottom flange or chord member, or by vehicles at deck level causing
damage to through girders and trusses.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.30
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.3 Timber Bridges

The following section is a general description of common defects found in timber

bridges. For a detailed description of element-specific defects, refer to Parts One and
Two of the Timber Bridge Maintenance Manual.

2.3.1 Timber Girders

Timber girders may be either round, hewn or sawn. Hewn or sawn girders will
generally not have any outer sapwood except in the case where CCA preservative
treatment has been applied.

Timber girders should be inspected for pipe or external rot at their maximum stress
location at midspan. Inspection at the girder ends should also be carried out as pipe
rotting is generally more severe at these locations. Girder ends are prone to crushing
failure when excessive loss of section has occurred.

The girders should also be checked at their ends for splitting (some timber girders
may have anti-split bolts at their ends to control any splitting), they should have full
bearing on corbels and they should be checked for end rot especially at abutments
where moisture or wet fill is prevalent.

Splitting of timber girders can effect their performance and working life considerably.
Much of the splitting will be along the grain and, unless severe, is not of significance
unless it allows considerable moisture into the splits. Spiking of the decking to the
timber girders can cause splitting at the top, and, with the presence of moisture and
vibration of the spikes under traffic, spike rot of the girders occurs. For this reason
spiking of decking directly to girders should be avoided. Generally, decking will be
spiked to a sacrificial spiking plank on the outer girders with no spike connection to
inner girders. Longitudinal cracking of girder ends, when combined with large pipe
size, will lead to the girder section being split into a number of discrete segments
which will reduce shear and crushing strength at the support ends.

If the girder is severely split in the vertical plane loading can tend to widen the splits
causing premature failure. By far the most dangerous splits are the fracture of the
timber due to overloading, and the split which starts from the bearing area and travels
diagonally across the timber grains towards the top of the girder. In both cases the
girders will require relieving or replacing, though steel banding could control the
diagonal splitting if load limits are placed on the structure.

Other problems which may occur with timber girders are the presence of rotting knot
holes (especially if at midspan), sagging of the girder at midspan, or excessive
deflection of the girder under live load due to poor lateral distribution of the decking,
or the member being too small for the span.

Loss of section due to termite attack can seriously effect the performance of timber
girders and care should be taken in searching for any evidence of their presence.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.31
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.3.2 Corbels

Corbels should be checked for splitting and pipe rot at their ends. If piping or
splitting is severe then crushing of the corbel can occur with subsequent excessive
vertical movement of the timber girder at the end. Many corbels have anti-splitting
bolts through their ends in an attempt to prevent crushing from occurring.

2.3.3 Decking (Timber and Steel Trough)

The most common form of decking consists of transverse planks spiked to the outer
girder spiking plank with no mechanical connection to the internal girders. The ends
are also restrained by the bolting down of the kerbs and jacking of internal girders
(cambering) is used to provide tightness to the whole superstructure. However, this
type of structure will always work loose due to shrinkage and creep in the members
and will require continual tightening of bolts and recambering. Timber running
planks are often used with transverse deck planks and these planks aid in load
distribution to the deck planks. The running planks are usually of a thin section
(about 50mm thick) and being usually spiked down, tend to work loose quite easily.
They tend to split quite easily, requiring constant replacement and form a moisture
trap which hastens rot of the decking beneath. Longitudinal timber distributor planks
are often bolted to the bottom of the decking to reduce differential movement between
the transverse deck planks under the action of wheel loads. Though distributors may
help with load support in deteriorated decking, they are of no benefit in improving the
distributing of loads to the girders. Most bridges have an asphalt or penetration
macadam wearing surface over the transverse decking, but the surface becomes quite
bumpy and cracked due to movement of the decking below, although it does offer
improved load distribution. It also tends to build up a reservoir of moisture which
rots out the timber at a quicker rate.

Transverse deck planks should be inspected for end and top rot (particularly in the
kerb region) bulging on top due to ingress of water, sagging at midspan due to
excessive span length, fracture and severe splitting. Severe splitting and top rot can
often be caused by spiking of decking and the practice should be discouraged except
at the outer edge connection.

The inspector must always be alert for signs of termite damage as the consequence on
these small sections can be severe.

CCA treated plywood is often used for deck replacement on timber bridges.
Differential movement of sheets under traffic loads and inadequate sealing of joints
can cause damage to the roadway surface. As well, the long term performance of the
ply in wet tropical area, or where submergence is common should be monitored to
check for delamination of the plys. The exposed outer ends of the sheets should also
be examined for evidence of delamination.

A relatively uncommon form of timber decking consisting of plank cross beams and
longitudinal decking has been used.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.32
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

The timber crossbeams should extend across a minimum of three beams unless
designed specially for simple spans. They should be firmly bolted to the beams and
all bolts should be regularly checked.

Longitudinal decking should be laid in long lengths and should be securely bolted to
the cross beams at their ends and at alternate intermediate crossbeams. This is done
to stop flexing of the longitudinal decking under load, and reducing the pulling
motion that shears the bolts through the ends of the longitudinal deckings planks,
which is a commonly occurring problem.

Longitudinal decking should be laid with the heartwood down to prevent it rotting
and splitting at the centre, or possibly curling up at the edges.

As the timber shrinks and dries out gaps will form between the planks and jacking of
the deck may be required to close up the gaps with insertions of thin sections. This is
especially important on bridges used by cyclists, and timber bridges should be signed
to warn cyclists of the possible dangers when crossing the bridge.

Many timber bridges now have steel trough decking replacing the timber decking.
The troughs were initially filled with premix asphalt or mass concrete to a level of
approximately 50 millimetres above the top of the trough sections. Neither of these
infills has performed well as both are porous, permitting water entry to the troughing.
Compaction of bituminous infill under traffic loads occurs and approximately 2 to 5
years after opening (depending on traffic volumes and loads), the infill should be
resurfaced to regain both longitudinal grade and lateral crossfalls. It is vital with this
type of decking to maintain a crack free surface with good drainage to remove all
surface water from the deck, so that it will not seep through the infill and lay in the
steel trough causing corrosion to occur. Some trough sections were tack welded
along their joints whilst others have been bolted or screwed together. A check should
be made of the joining arrangements in case the rough sections are tending to spread
under load. If this problem is occurring, it will normally be reflected in the road
surface above as an area of heaving, dips or even pot holes in the infill or areas of
heavy cracking. They are signs that the trough sections are deflecting excessively
under load or are not being effectively held down to the girders. Refer to Figures
2.3.3 (a) and (b) for commonly visible defects.

Concrete infill with mesh reinforcing over the troughing has been the most successful
infill material used. In addition, where troughing is in very poor condition, a number
of bridges have had a structurally reinforced deck poured, using the troughing as
formwork.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.33
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.3.4 Kerbs, Posts and Railing

Visual inspection should be conducted of the kerb condition and bolting to the
decking or beams. The kerbs should be firmly held in place as the barrier posts rely
on this for strength of support.

The endposts may be round timber and suffer from settlement, splitting, sap rot, base
rot, piping, and top rot due to weathering. If the post can be moved by hand it is
usually a sign that replacement is required, though in some cases this can be caused
simply by a lack of embedment in the fill.

Inspection usually consists of visually inspecting the bolting, paintwork and damage
caused by glancing blows from vehicles.

Standard timber rails are mainly use on timber bridges but steel guardrail is also
reasonably common. Connections need to be inspected for rigidity, and paintwork
inspected for traffic safety reasons. With timber rails, rot and splitting may require
early replacement of some sections.

2.3.5 Piles

Piles can be classified into two main groups; those which take vertical loads and
support headstocks, and those which take moments such as wingwall piles or stream
fender piles. Abutment piles are required to take both vertical loads and horizontal
earth pressure loads.

Areas where rot is most likely to occur are at ground level, normal water level
(usually 300 to 600 mm below walings) or around areas of numerous bolt holes such
as walings and crossbracing.

Piles which take moments are particularly susceptible at ground or normal water level
where maximum stress and suspected rot areas coincide. If pipe rot has been detected
in these critical areas the extent of the rottings needs to be defined so the length of
repair or replacement of the pile can be determined (refer Figure 2.3.5).

Care also needs to be taken in determining natural ground level as scour, filling or
siltation may have occurred. If filling or siltation has occurred, the pile may have
substantial pipe rot well below the current ground level. If the pile has rotted out
below ground and moving under load, a void will be seen around the pile. Under load
the pile will be seen to visually move. If this occurs in water, ripples will be seen to
emanate from the moving pile. In scoured areas the pile will need to be inspected
higher up at what was originally the ground level.

Piles should be visually checked for areas of rot or splitting in the loaded areas at the
top, especially splits originating beneath the headstocks (refer Figure 1.4.5 (b)).
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.34
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Where the bridge is submersible, the adequacy of the headstock/pile bolted

connection should be checked. Weakening of the piles above this section due to pile
rot may allow the superstructure to float off. The presence of the top pile strap bolt
should also be confirmed.

Termites are a continual problems with timber piles in all areas of the state. The
termites can enter the piles as low as 300 mm below ground, but usually enter via
splits in the timber. Their presence can be seen with their small covered runways in
the splits or along the outside of the pile. They may also be encountered stuck to the
probe when testing the pile for rot. The termites eat out runways within the timber
and when probing the test hole it feels as if you are scraping over a lot of thin timber
sections.

Piles can often wear away at ground level or at bed level due to the action of abrasive
gravels or sands and this should be checked. The abrasive gravels occur in the
mountainous regions and the wear can usually be seen, but abrasion by sands usually
occurs at the mouth of the rivers and is due to sand movement with the tides.
Structures in these locations should have the pile diameters at bed level checked by
divers to ascertain the loss of section.

Timber piles in marine situations can also suffer attack from teredo. This attack can
occur anywhere between bed level and mean low tide level. Presence of teredo can
be judged from either sacrificial oregon timber attached to the pile group, or by
smooth runways along the hardwood timber in the mean low tide area (they may
often only attack the softwood) or by small 5 to 10 mm diameter holes in the piles
below water. Teredo will eat out the timber similar to a swiss cheese with the damage
completely unnoticed until failure of the pile below water occurs, hence the
importance of early detection.

2.3.6 Walings and Crossbraces

Walings and cross bracing should be visually checked to ensure that the members are
adequately stiffening the piles and providing a rigid frame against the action of the
stream and possible debris and log impact forces. Walings are usually encountered
300 to 600 millimetres above normal water level and give a good guide as to the
relative water level at the time of inspection, ie. if the water level is too high then the
timber piles should be reinspected when the level drops to normal water level.
Walings can also be good guide as to whether scour or silting is occurring at the pier.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.35
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.3.7 Headstocks

Most headstocks on timber bridges consist of sawn timber approximately 300 x 180
mm in section and need only be visually inspected. Some bridges however have solid
hewn sections which require checking for pipe rot.

Inspection of headstocks should cover the following areas:

(a) check for presence of termites;

(b) check for top rot due to the presence of wet fill;
(c) check for weathering or end rot;
(d) check for splitting;
(e) check for any rot or separation of headstocks that are spliced at an inner pile;
(f) if the beams are not directly over the piles then the headstocks should be
checked for sagging, indicating they are being overloaded;
(g) check for any settlement of piles causing a sag in the headstocks;
(h) be especially wary of loaded timber overhangs;
(i) check that the headstocks have mechanical support on the piles and are not
purely relying on bolting to transfer their loads (headstock seating may have
been removed to allow placement of pile bracing);
(j) check all bolting is tight and in place. Severely corroded bolts are to be
replaced;
(k) check for loss of section due to excessive cuts in headstock (typically in the
vicinity of the bracing).

2.3.8 Abutments

Bedlogs and Props

Some timber bridges have bedlogs stacked on top of each other to form abutments,
whilst others have props resting on a bedlog to form a relieving abutment in front of
the original abutment.

Items to check for are:

(a) pipe rot in main load bearing areas;

(b) load bearing of the timber girders or props on the bedlogs;
(c) check for severe crushing of the bedlogs under loaded areas;
(d) check for excessive splitting or end rot of the bedlogs;
(e) check for leaning of the bedlogs.

Sometimes a timber bedlog may be placed in front of the other bedlogs to support the
fill on which the bedlogs bear. These bedlogs do not support the girders but are still
important in retaining the fill and preventing scour beneath the bearing bedlogs.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.36
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Props are used to aid in taking vertical load from suspect piles or suspect abutments
and usually bear on bedlogs or heavy sawn timbers. The props should be inspected
for rot if they consist of round or hewn timber which still has the heartwood within. If
the prop is of sawn timber there can be no pipe rot, but its condition such as end
bearing support, connection to bedlog, splitting etc should be noted.

The prop must be securely attached to the girder or relieving headstock, and capable
of taking the direct load. Stability of the props is also important and any leaning prop
listed for repair.

Headstock on Piles

The majority of abutments will be of this form. Refer to paragraphs 2.3.5 and 2.3.7.

Abutment Sheeting, Ballast Boards and Wing Sheeting

The abutment and wing sheeting and ballast boards are structural elements.
Abutment and wing sheeting may consist of timber planks or precast reinforced
concrete units, placed behind the piles to hold the embankment fill in place. The
inspector should check for rot, cracking, bulging and undermining by the stream.

Ballast boards can consist of timber sheeting or precast reinforced concrete units.
The inspector should again look for rot, cracking, bulging or breaking out of concrete.
Once again, the function of the member is to adequately retain the embankment fill,
and, provided the rot, cracking or bulging is not too extreme, these members are
usually adequate.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.37
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.4 Deck Joints

Various types of expansion joints have been used in the past to cater for movements
of the bridge superstructure. Early bridges had small simply supported spans and
hence only small movements needed to be catered for.

These joints included materials with small compressions such as cork, bituminous
impregnated fibreboard, butyl impregnated polyurethane foam, styrene and foam
strips. Asphalt, rubberised bitumen or polyurethane were often poured on top in an
effort to seal the joint from moisture penetration. Many of these joints failed to seal
due to the joint material debonding or being inelastic. If the sealant was placed too
high in the groove, traffic tended to crack the sealant and rip it out.

As spans increased, so did the width of expansion joint, and compression seals were
required to cater for the movements expect. The earliest seal used was the neoprene
hose but this product proved to be inelastic and often fell through the joint leaving it
completely open. "Wabo" compression seals were then used firstly between steel
angles, and currently between fibre reinforced concrete nosings. One problem with
this seal is that it can tend to debond from the concrete deck or steel and gradually
work its way to the top of the joint where traffic damages the seal or, in some cases,
rips the seal completely out. A problems can also occur with the steel angles which
take high impact loadings from the tyres, especially where dry packed mortar has
been rammed beneath the angle. This mortar breaks up under impact and loss of
support cracks the anchor bars into the deck. The angles then start rattling and
moving under load which cracks the bitumen at the edge of the angle.

"Alustrip" expansion joints are now commonly used and these consist of a thin
neoprene sheet anchored into aluminium blocks which in turn are bolted down to the
deck. These blocks can break loose if bolting was provided via cored holes rather
than bolts cast into the deck. The seals also can become damaged and require
resealing.

On large span bridges steel finger plates and steel sliding plate joints have been used.
These joints have never offered a seal to moisture penetration and the sliding plates
continually vibrate loose causing a danger to traffic. They have been superseded by
heavy duty rubber joints such as "Transflex", "Waboflex" and "Felspan". A problem
with these joints is possible debonding of the metal and rubber sections.

Epoxy mortar noses were used in the past to support the joints but these thin sections,
cast after the deck, only broke up under repeated impact loads.

On bridge decks with small movements and a large asphalt cover a product called
"ThormaJoint" has been use. This joint consists of a hot mix of selected stone and an
elastomer modified bitumen binder, and looks like a strip (approximately 500 mm
wide) of very dark asphalt. Performance is generally very good where it has been
used, and provides improved rideability over the joint.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.38
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

For small expansion joints a repair being used at present is to pour a polymer modi-
fied bitumen (Mobil N345 or "megaprene") into the joint with a thickness of ap-
proximately 20 mm. Care must be taken to ensure overfilling does not occur and a 6
to 10 mm depth from the top is required so that traffic will not rip the material out
when expansion of the deck occurs. This product has better elastic properties than the
previously used rubberised bitumen. Reasonable performance has been found though
it tends to expand greatly when heated, and a slightly stiffer and less elastic product
would be a better option.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.39
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.5 Bearings

The large number of different bearing systems have been used in the past and only the
more common types will be discussed here. The first precast and cast in situ beams
usually sat on the headstocks with the only form of bond breakers between the two
being a layer of clear grease, a sheet of malthoid or in some cases a sheet of lead.
Locating dowels from the headstock were used but these have simply tended to break
out the ends of the concrete beams, or in some instances, break out the top of the
crosshead beneath the beam due to movement and edge loadings.

Mortar pads have had considerable use in the past and are generally found in good
condition, though some rammed mortar pads beneath the beams tend to crack badly
and spall the mortar.

Also to be found on many bridges are steel base plates on which rest the smaller steel
bearing plates of the beams. Sometimes a phosphor bronze sliding plate may be
inserted between the steel plates to aid in longitudinal movement between them.

Cast iron bearing blocks with sliding plates or pins, mild steel rollers and rocker
bearings have also been used where large steel beam spans are present. Dirt, grit and
corrosion due to moisture are a continual problem with these type bearings, with
many rollers and rockers being completely seized up by corrosion.

Large span, heavy concrete bridges such as box girders can be supported on pot
bearings or bearings with a P.T.F.E. (teflon) sliding disc. These are specialised high
load bearings but the position of the P.T.F.E. strip should be noted, especially as it
can tend to be squeezed out by vibration. Excessive rotations of the bearings should
also be noted.

The most common bearing in use today is the elastomeric bearing in two different
forms; as a 25 mm thick neoprene pad, or as a larger depth bearing with metal shim
plates between elastomeric slices. The thinner bearing strips usually support small
span beams and have few problems although if the bearing pedestals are poorly
constructed then some areas of the pads may not carry load. The larger bearings can
suffer from irregular bulging and shearing of the elastomeric/metal shim surface if
poorly designed or manufactured. Rotation and shear of the bearings can occur with
bridge movement, and this can cause lift-off of the bearings at the edge, and hence
over-stressing at the opposite edge.

A common problem associated with large bearings is poor uneven pedestal

construction resulting in significant areas of the bearing pads being unstressed.

Creep, shrinkage and elastic shortening due to post-tensioning in some structures

cause shear stresses on the bearings. These bearings should be reset by jacking the
structure, but this is rarely done unless shear is excessive. Slippage of the bearings
can also occur in girder structures where retainers on the sole plates were not
provided, with bearings working their way forward from the support area.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.40
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.6 Other Structure Types

2.6.1 Box Culverts

The early type box culverts were cast-in-place and many suffer from cracking and
spalling due to lack of concrete cover or ingress of moisture. Once repairs are
required to these structures they tend to be ongoing problems as the other areas fail
due to general dampness through the porous concrete.

Precast concrete crown units have been used extensively and have generally been
found to perform satisfactorily. However, in many structures fabricated in the 1960's,
where calcium chloride was used as an accelerator, the reinforcement has corroded
severely leading to extensive spalling of the cover concrete.

Link slabs have been used on multi cell culverts to reduce construction costs and
time. The link slabs take the place of the intermediate row of precast crown units by
spanning across the gap between alternate rows of crown units. The link slabs may
be either precast in a casting yard, or cast on top of the culvert base slab and simply
lifted into position as required. No service problems have been noted with these slabs
at present.

In recent years a variety of proprietary modular culvert systems have been adopted
which comprise discrete wall and roof sections that are designed to be connected
through a combination of dowels and a series of fabricated bolted connections.

Construction tolerances have proven to be a problem and the jointing system should
be inspected for completeness, fit and tightness of bolts. In addition, the panel
alignment has also been compromised in some areas and the structure should be
checked for consequential damage such as cracking or spalling caused by bolts or
panels bearing excessively on the panel faces.

2.6.2 Pipe Culverts

Early pipe culverts were predominantly of masonry construction, formed from

engineering ‘red’ bricks or similar materials. Where conditions were found to be
suitable, the pipe was carved through solid rock.

The majority of these structures were built around the early 1900’s, and the ones
inspected to date appear to be performing satisfactorily, with no major defects found.
However, a number of minor defects have been identified, such as perished mortar,
groundwater infiltration (resulting in limescale leaching and the passing of fines
through the culvert lining) and spalled brickwork, which are attributable to general
deterioration over the life of the structure (refer Figures 2.6.2 (a) and (b)).

Modern pipe culverts are typically constructed from precast concrete segments or
corrugated steel sections, and may be circular or elliptical in shape.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.41
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.7 Causes Of Deterioration Not Related To Bridge Materials

A number of items need to be inspected which are not related to defects in

construction materials used in the bridge but which if not observed or maintained
could be a cause of future deterioration.

2.7.1 Damage due to accidents

The most common components affected by vehicular impact are barriers, kerbs,
footpath slabs and end posts which can be severely abraded, spalled or damaged.
Damage is usually self evident.

Other areas that can be affected are columns, outer beams or soffits of overpass
structures. Steel beams are particularly susceptible to damage from over-height
vehicles which can cause severe deformations to the bottom flange or web of the
member.

Bridges over navigable waterways may also have damage to pier columns and pile
caps due to impact of vessels. The damage may be sufficient to cause major
structural damage or movement of the column requiring an assessment of the
structural adequacy of the bridge, or cause abrasion and spalling of concrete which
can result in eventual corrosion of reinforcement.

2.7.2 Drainage

Ineffectual drainage may affect the bridge in several ways;

Flooding of the bridge deck which may create a serious traffic hazard.

Water flowing uncontrolled over concrete or steel surfaces or bearings below deck
level may result in corrosion or unsatisfactory performance of bearings.

Debris carried by drainage flows will build up in areas, retain moisture, and promote
corrosion.

Uncontrolled discharge from the deck can cause erosion of approaches, batters and
possibly undermine foundations.

Leakage from the bridge deck through joints and cracks will cause unsightly staining
of beams, piers and abutments.

Inadequate collection of drainage from the bridge approaches can also cause erosion,
piping and washout or scour of the approach embankment and batter slopes,
particularly in areas where flows are concentrated at the end of the bridge around the
end post and at ends of kerbs or service ducts. These areas should be inspected
particularly after heavy rain or flooding.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.42
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

2.7.3 Debris

The build up of debris on the upstream side of the bridge can cause the following
adverse affects on the bridge:-

(a) Impose loads on the bridge during flooding for which it was not designed.

(b) Cause blockage of the bridge waterway during flooding which can exacerbate
problems of scour, undermining of foundations, flooding and in extreme cases
total blockage and diversions of the watercourse.

The build up of debris is dependant on upstream catchment conditions and is usually

most severe in bridges with small openings or low freeboard.

Additionally, the build up of debris below a bridge may become a fire hazard,
increasing the risk of fire damage to piles and headstocks.

2.7.4 Vegetation

Uncontrolled and excessive growth of vegetation under or adjacent to the bridge does
not in itself cause damage to the bridge. It can however cause fire hazard, blockage
to the waterway and build up of debris and moisture around abutments and bearings,
and for these reasons should be reported.

2.7.5 Scouring of Foundations

Scouring of foundations caused by excessive stream flows or changes in the

alignment of the stream channel can result in progressive settlement or movement of
abutments and piers, which if not rectified may ultimately cause total failure of the
bridge. Figures 2.4.1 (a) and (b) illustrate the effects of significant localised scour.

Where evidence of scour, degradation or aggradation of the stream bed exists, the
inspector shall take ‘soundings’ at regular intervals across the upstream side of the
structure as a record of the existing condition, which then may be compared to past
and future inspections.

Adequacy of protection of batters at the abutment and stream bed around pier footing
shall also be noted as well as changes in conditions of the stream bed upstream and
downstream of the bridge.

2.7.6 Movement of the Structure

Movement of the piers and abutments of the structure may result from:

(a) General scour of the stream bed in the vicinity of the structure

(b) Local scour of the stream bed at piers or abutments

(c) Movement of the ground due to land slips at or around the bridge abutment
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.43
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

(d) Excessive earth pressure caused by movements or settlements of the approach

fill.

(e) Collisions, in the case of bridges over navigable waterways, roads, or

railways.

(f) "Freezing" up of bearings or expansion joints

Movements can usually be detected by observing:

(a) Total closures or excessive openings of deck expansion joints.

(b) Bearing or jamming up between the end of the superstructure and abutment
ballast wall with associated cracking and spalling that will occur.

(c) Cracking or excessive settlement of the approach embankments or heaving at

its toe.

(d) Scour causing undermining of the foundations.

(e) Out of verticality of columns or adjacent poles, fences etc.

Reporting any of these observations should be made as the movements of the

structure or approaches could continue over a period of time and comparisons with
past and future inspections is important to assess whether it is continuing, seasonal or
has ceased.

2.7.7 Condition of Approaches

The purpose of the embankment is to provide a stable road between the bridge and
surrounding ground. Often it is also required for providing horizontal, and sometimes
vertical support for the abutment foundation.

The most common defect of approach embankments is usually excessive settlement

adjacent to the bridge abutment which causes unsatisfactory riding quality and
possible damage to deck and expansion joints.

This can be caused by poorly compacted embankment, and or continuing settlement

of the underlying ground. Instability of ground and embankment can also be
observed in its early stages by excessive settlement or movement of the embankment.

It should be noted that while the subsidence behind bridge abutments is often
attributed to settlement of embankment fill the defect is often caused by defects in the
bridge substructure. Typically it is the consequence of the settlement or rotation of
walls which opens a crack or void that permits the loss of embankment material
generally as a result of leaching of fines. The settlement of infill panels or backing
slabs, which generally occurs as a result of softening of moisture susceptible founding
material or following scouring of the footing, is the usual source of the road
subsidence. Other defects commonly encountered are erosion, piping, washout and
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.44
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

scour of the embankment, particularly after heavy rain or flooding, or due to

inadequate or blocked drainage.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 2.45
Structures Division PART TWO June 2004
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

3.0 REFERENCES

1 Ministry of Transportation, Ontario 1989 - Highway Engineering Division. Ontario

Structure Inspection Manual.

2 Austroads, 1991 - Bridge Management Practice

3 Transit New Zealand, 1991 - Bridge Inspection and Maintenance Manual

4 Austroads, 1991 - Guide to Bridge Construction Practice

5 Bootle K R, (1983) Wood in Australia, Types, Properties and Uses, McGrawHill,

Sydney

6 CSIRO, Division of Building (1975), Effect of fire on Timber Engineering.

Melbourne, Lectures given by Officers of CSIRO Div. of Building Research, Highett

7 McGregor K (1991) Guidelines for Timber Bridge Inspection, Maintenance & Repair,
VicRoads

8 McGregor K (1991) Guidelines for Concrete Bridge Inspection, Maintenance &

Repair, VicRoads
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.1 (a)

Corrosion Of Headstock Reinforcement Due To Chloride
Ion Penetration In A Marine Environment

Figure 1.2.1 (b)

Corrosion Of Reinforcement In The Soffit Of A Cast Insitu Culvert Due To
Carbonation
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.1 (c)

Calcium Chloride Induced Corrosion Of Suspended Slab Soffit In An RCBC

Figure 1.2.1 (d)

Spalling Due To Calcium Chloride Distress In An RCBC
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.1 (e)

Corrosion Of Reinforcement And Spalling Of Cantilever Soffit Due To Poor Cover And
Chloride Penetration

Figure 1.2.1 (f)

Corrosion Of Reinforcement And Spalling Of Deck Slab Surface Due To Poor Cover
And Chloride Attack
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.2 (a)

Carbonation Testing Of A Freshly Broken Concrete Core
Note Carbonated Zone Remains Clear While Uncarbonated
Zone Is Pink
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.2 (b)

Carbonation Induced Corrosion
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.3 (a)

General View Of Longitudinal Cracking
Due To ASR In Prestressed Deck Units

Figure 1.2.3 (b)

View Of Deck Unit Soffit Cracking Due To ASR
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.3 (c)

View Of Vertical Crack Due To ASR In A Prestressed Pile

Figure 1.2.3 (d)

View Of ASR Gel Exudations
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.4 (c)

Plastic Settlement/Shrinkage Cracking In A Bridge Deck

Figure 1.2.4 (d)

Plastic Cracking Passing Completely Through a Bridge Deck (Max Width 1.0mm)
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.4 (e)

Shear Cracks In R.C. Headstock

Figure 1.2.4 (f)

Bursting Cracks In Anchorage Zone OF Post-Tensioned Girder
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.2.8 (a)

General View of Prestressed Pile

Figure 1.2.8 (b)

Water Wash Including Aggregate Particles Causing
Abrasion of Pile Surface
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.4.1 (a)

Fungal Fruiting Body And Decay Of Girder

Figure 1.4.1 (b)

Rot Pocket In Girder
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.4.2 (a)

Termite Damage in Deck Planks

Figure 1.4.2 (b)

Section of Pile Showing Termite Nest in Internal Pipe
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.4.2 (c)

Termite Galleries On Pile And Headstock
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.4.5 (a)

Splitting In Timber Girder
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.4.5 (b)

Splitting In Timber Pile
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 1.4.7 (a)

Weathered And Rotted Timber Deck Planks

Figure 1.4.7 (b)

Rotted Ends Of Deck Planks
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 2.3.3 (a)

Corrosion Of Joints Between Trough Sections

Figure 2.3.3 (b)

Cracking And Perforation Of Steel Troughing
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Transport Technology Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 2.3.5
Rotting Of Abutment Pile Below Ground Level
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 2.4.1 (a)

Scour of Stream Bed and Significant Loss of Material Around Pier Pilecap and Piles

Figure 2.4.1 (b)

Localised Scour of Stream Bed and Debris Build-Up Around Pier Piles
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division PART TWO
DETERIORATION MECHANISMS

Figure 2.6.2 (a)

General View of Masonry Pipe Culvert, Showing Efflorescence and
Spalling of Base Brickwork

Figure 2.6.2 (b)

View of Efflorescence and Staining due to Chemical Leaching of Mortar
PART THREE
Procedures
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.1
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part Three: Procedures

Page Nos

1.0 General.......................................................................................................... 3.3

1.1 Levels of Inspection.......................................................................... 3.3
1.2 Safety................................................................................................. 3.3
1.3 Bridge Component Designation...................................................... 3.4
1.4 Advice Notes ..................................................................................... 3.5

2.0 Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspections............................................... 3.6

2.1 Purpose.............................................................................................. 3.6
2.2 Scope.................................................................................................. 3.6
2.3 Frequency of Inspections................................................................. 3.6
2.4 Extent of Inspections........................................................................ 3.6
2.5 Inspector Accreditation ................................................................... 3.7
2.6 Inspection Procedure ....................................................................... 3.7
2.6.1 Preparation for Inspection .................................................. 3.7
2.6.2 Inspection.............................................................................. 3.7
2.7 Data Recording............................................................................... 3.10

3.0 Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspections.................................................... 3.12

3.1 Purpose............................................................................................ 3.12
3.2 Scope of the Inspection .................................................................. 3.12
3.3 Inspector Accreditation ................................................................. 3.13
3.4 Extent of Inspection ....................................................................... 3.13
3.5 Inspection Procedure ..................................................................... 3.14
3.5.1 Preparation for Inspection ................................................ 3.14
3.5.2 Inspection............................................................................ 3.15
3.6 Data Recording............................................................................... 3.16
3.7 Data Transfer ................................................................................. 3.16
3.8 Condition Rating............................................................................ 3.17
3.8.1 General................................................................................ 3.17
3.8.2 Compilation of the Component Inventory....................... 3.17
3.8.3 Condition State Criteria .................................................... 3.19
3.8.4 Component Condition Assessment................................... 3.19
3.8.5 Measurement ...................................................................... 3.20
3.8.6 Structure Condition Assessment ...................................... 3.22
3.8.7 Exposure Classifications.................................................... 3.22
3.9 Inventory Data ............................................................................... 3.23
3.10 Timber Drilling Survey ................................................................. 3.24
3.11 Measurement of Scour................................................................... 3.25
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.2
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

4.0 Level 3 - Detailed Structural Engineering Inspection ............................ 3.26

4.1 Purpose............................................................................................ 3.26
4.2 Scope................................................................................................ 3.26
4.3 Inspector Accreditation ................................................................. 3.27
4.4 Frequency ....................................................................................... 3.27
4.5 Extent of Inspection ....................................................................... 3.27
4.6 Inspection Procedure ..................................................................... 3.28
4.7 Data Recording in the Field .......................................................... 3.28
4.8 Reporting ........................................................................................ 3.28
4.9 Load Capacity ................................................................................ 3.29
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.3
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Levels Of Inspection

The DMR Bridge Inspection Policy has identified the need for a systematic
programme of bridge inspections based on three levels of inspection.

The three levels of inspection are:-

(a) Routine Maintenance Inspections (Level 1) which are carried out to check the
general serviceability of the structure for road users, and may be carried out in
conjunction with routine pavement maintenance.

(b) Bridge Condition Inspections (Level 2) which are to be managed by the

District Director on a District basis to assess the condition of each structure
and its components.

(c) Detailed Engineering Inspections (Level 3) which are arranged by District

Directors through the Bridge Asset Management section of Structures
Division on a needs basis to assess the structural condition behaviour and
capacity of structures and appropriate management options.

1.2 Safety

All inspection procedures shall comply with the Workplace Health and Safety Act
(1995) and Amendment No. 162 (1996), Part 19 - Workplace Health and Safety Plans
and Workplace Inductions is of particular relevance to bridge inspection activities.
Under this amendment, an Employer is required to prepare a safety plan prior to
commencing "specified work". While investigations, inspections and maintenance
activities do not fall under the "specified work" category, Workplace Health and
Safety plans shall be prepared in order to:-

(a) reduce the risk to staff undertaking field work

(b) provide documentary evidence that the Department of Main Roads has
fulfilled its obligation as an employer under the Act.

If inspection is required from water, any vessel used for this purpose and its operation
will be required to satisfy the legal obligations of the marine Act 1988, other relevant
Acts, and associated regulations.

Where inspections are to be carried out on bridges located over or under the assets of
other Authorities, the relevant regulations and Codes of Practice relating to work on
or close to their assets must be adhered to, and where necessary, referred to in the
procedures developed for the inspection.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.4
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

1.3 Bridge Component Designation

The general terminology used to label bridge components is shown in Figure 1.5.
Figures 1.6 and 1.7 show specific terminology used in the labelling of timber and
masonry bridges.

The bridge component location shall be designated by status (if modified), group,
component and standard component reference in accordance with the following
principles.

(i) Principal groups of components comprising abutments (A), piers (P), spans or
culvert cells (S) and approach roads (AP) shall be progressively numbered in
the direction of the ascending through chainage of the road. In the case of a
footbridge or overbridge carrying a local road, component groups shall be
progressively numbered from left to right, facing the direction of ascending
through chainage of the road over which the structure passes. Refer to Figure
1.2 - Appendix G for an example.

(ii) Principal components comprising wingwalls (WW), piles (P), columns (C),
girders (G), bearings(B), joints (J), box culvert units (BC), etc. shall be
progressively numbered from left to right as viewed in the direction of
ascending chainage. For a complete listing of components, showing standard
component abbreviations and their relationship with component groups, refer
to Figure 1.0 - Standard Component Matrix

(iii) The standard component reference, as defined in Appendix C - Standard

Component Identification Guidelines, of this manual, must be assigned when
a Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspection is carried out. Where a component
observed during the inspection does not conform to one of the predefined
components its details shall be recorded on the Standard Procedure
Exceptions Report form, the component photographed and the details
forwarded to Bridge Asset Management (RS&E) for advice.

(iv) Components which form part of a modification shall be designated separately

from those of the original structure by the addition of a prefix indicating the
type of modification. For a widening, a prefix is used which indicates the
location and construction sequence of the widening as viewed in the direction
of chainage. Thus ‘WL2’ describes the second of two widenings on the left
hand side of the original structure.

Similarly for a lengthening, a prefix is used which indicates the location of the
added spans with respect to the direction of chainage. Thus ‘L1’ describes
any spans which have been added to the AP1 end of the structure, while any
spans added to the AP2 end of the structure will be described with the prefix
‘L2’. Also note that any abutments which are modified in the course of a
lengthening will thereafter be included in the lengthening modification and
removed from the original component listing.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.5
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

In addition, if a new deck has been constructed, the components involved shall
be attributed the ‘Re’ prefix to identify this modification. Similarly, to other
modifications, the overall condition of this group of components shall be rated
independently of the original structure.
In the event of the structure being raised the ‘Ra’ prefix shall be attributed to
those components involved. The overall condition of this group of
components shall be rated independently of the original structure.

In the event that spans are removed from a structure then the shortening prefix
"S" shall be used to describe substructure and approach groups modified by
the works. As before, "S1" and "S2" denote modifications at the "AP1" and
"AP2" ends respectively. Only components modified by the works shall be
assigned the "S" prefix. Naturally, any groups and components removed as
part of the works shall be deleted from the inspection inventory.

(v) The relationships between the various groups and elements are summarised in
Table 1.3 - Appendix B and illustrated in Figures 1.3 and 1.4.

(vi) In some instances, inspectors may encounter a structure with a configuration

that does not fit within the terminology described previously. Guidance on the
designation of bridge components for complex or non-standard structures has
been provided in Appendix G, but it is generally recommended that Bridge
Asset Management be contacted to provide advice on component breakdown
of the structure and other related issues.

1.3 Advice Notes

Bridge Asset Management have developed an Advice Notes system, allowing the
distribution of revised and new information to bridge inspectors without the
requirement of a formal update to the Bridge Inspection Manual. Formal amendments
to the Manual incorporating new Advice Notes shall be issued periodically.

These Advice Notes contain important information which is directly related to the use
of the Manual, and it is crucial that inspectors be familiar with current updates.
Inspectors who do not currently receive notification via e-mail of the release of new
Advice Notes should contact Bridge Asset Management and request to be included in
the Advice Notes register.

For further information on distribution and requirements, refer to Appendix H –

Advice Notes.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.6
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

2.0 LEVEL 1 - ROUTINE MAINTENANCE INSPECTION

2.1 Purpose

To check the general serviceability of the structure, particularly for the safety of road
users, and identify any emerging problems.

Level 1 inspections may be carried out in conjunction with routine maintenance of the
structure and the adjacent pavement.

2.2 Scope

• Inspection of approaches, waterway, deck/footway, substructure, superstructure and

attached services to assess and report any significant visible signs of distress or
unusual behaviour, including active scours or deck joint movements.
• Recommendation of an exceptional "Bridge Condition" or a "Detailed Structural
Engineerng" inspection if warranted by observed distress or unusual behaviour of
structure.
• Identify maintenance work requirements that fall outside the expertise and/or
available material and equipment resources at hand.
• Verification of the “Structural Inventory” data held in the BIS as part of the initial
inspection and as required thereafter (standard forms can be produced from the BIS
for this purpose).
• Identification of structures with components that are in permanent standing water.

2.3 Frequency Of Inspections

Routine Maintenance Inspections shall be carried out at the frequency specified in

Table 1.5 of Part One, or as stipulated in a specific “Structure Management Plan” as
per the guidelines in Appendix F.

2.4 Extent Of Inspections

The Routine Maintenance Inspection is a visual inspection which may be carried out
in conjunction with routine maintenance of the structure and adjacent pavement and
shall cover components above ground and water level listed in the procedure
checklist. Components that need not be inspected for level 1 inspections are:-

(i) Inside Box Girders.

(ii) Areas behind Abutments that are inaccessible.
(iii) Piles and Foundations below ground or water level.
(iv) Piers and Pier Crossheads located in permanent water.
(v) Concrete or steel beams located in spans over permanent water.

These components will be inspected as part of a level 2 or level 3 inspection.

However, a visual assessment of Items (iv) and (v) should be made using binoculars
where practical.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.7
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

2.5 Inspector Accreditation

Inspections shall be conducted by personnel who have extensive practical experience

in road and bridge routine maintenance. They shall be competent to judge the visual
condition of structures and the road approaches for visual defects. Accreditation
requirements for Level 1 bridge inspectors are detailed in Appendix E.

2.6 Inspection Procedure

2.6.1 Preparation for Inspection

Prior to commencing site inspections, the inspector shall ensure that he has all the
relevant documentation, inspection equipment and safety equipment to carry out the
inspection. Equipment requirements shall be restricted to that which would be carried
on a standard road patrol maintenance vehicle.

The following documentation is required on site for this level of inspection:

• Bridge Inspection Manual

• Level 1 Inspection Forms
• Workplace Health and Safety Plan.
• Structural Inventory Verification Forms from BIS, if required

All staff involved in routine bridge inspections must be familiar with this
documentation and their responsibilities under the Workplace Health and Safety Act.

The safety plans for the bridges to be inspected should be reviewed by the
maintenance crew and the major hazards clearly identified prior to the
commencement of the inspection.

While it is acknowledged that traffic control procedures may be covered under

generic road maintenance safety plans, the hazard of operating within the lateral
confines imposed by bridge barriers is significantly different to hazard posed whilst
operating on the "open" road.

Safety equipment shall include signage for traffic management purposes and, where
applicable, other safety equipment relevant to routine maintenance activities.

2.6.2 Inspection

The Site inspection may be carried out in conjunction with Routine Maintenance
activities.

When the Inspection is carried out as part of Routine Maintenance activities, the
Maintenance Contractor shall attend and rectify items requiring attention within the
scope and limitations specified in this procedure for plant, equipment and expertise.
Any major defects identified in the course of this inspection must be photographed
and / or sketched and recorded on the Photos and Sketches Record (B1/2).
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.8
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

At the site, the Inspector shall proceed in a systematic manner to check the following
inspection items:-

Approaches

• Signs and delineation for completeness, damage, cleanliness, orientation,

visibility to road user and loose and missing bolts;

• Road approach running surfaces for settlement, depressions, cracking and

other deterioration;

• Road drainage for accumulations of debris and growth inside drains, channels,
inlet and outlet pits and sumps which may obstruct free drainage and cause
ponding;

• Road and bridge drainage pits and other structures for leakage;

• Road and bridge drainage for scour, especially at road drainage offlets
adjacent to abutments, outlets to culverts and off deck drainage channels.

Bridge Surface

• Bridge bituminous surface for cracking and other deterioration;

• Footway (if any) for unevenness;

• Bridge drainage for accumulations of debris on the deck, in gutters, scuppers

and drains which may obstruct free drainage and cause ponding;

• Deck joints for leakage and loose, missing and damaged bolts and
components, dirt or objects which may impede free movement and proper
functioning or deterioration of nosings;

• Barriers for correct alignment and damaged posts and rails;

• Delineators for completeness, damage, cleanliness, orientation and visibility to

road user;

• Barriers for loose and missing bolts and clamps, missing and damaged spacer
blocks, corrosion, correct rail height and alignment. The approach barrier and
bridge barrier should preferably be interconnected. If not note in "Comments"
section of report form;

Embankments and Waterways

• Embankments for erosion and scour;

• Slope protection (beaching) for damage and undermining by scour or

embankment;
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.9
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

• Clear vegetation from within 2.0m of abutments and wingwalls. Waterway

under bridge for accumulations of debris, vegetation growth and silt and for
scour under and within 5 metres upstream or downstream of bridge;

Substructure

• Abutments, piers and wingwalls for looseness and major damage such as
cracking, splitting, distortion and excessive movement, particularly of recent
origin;

• Masonry elements for growth in joints between blocks and cracking in

masonry;

• Weepholes in abutments and retaining walls for free drainage.

• Pier and abutment crossheads and bearing pedestals and substructure drains for
accumulations of dirt and debris which may obstruct free drainage and cause
ponding or restrict bearing movement;

• Bridge bearings supporting beams for movement of bearing from under beam
or visual damage to the bearing;

Superstructure

• Deck, girders and bearings for obvious defects such as spalling, cracking,
staining, dampness, corrosion and excessive vibration particularly of recent
origin (changes must be reported so detailed or special inspection can be
made);

• Iron and steel elements for noticeable build up of deposits of aggressive salts,
silt, debris and bird or bat droppings;

• Ventholes in superstructures which prevent flotation of structures which are

subject to inundation by floodwater, for accumulation of dirt or debris which
may effectively seal the vents;

Timber Bridges

• Timber members for termite activity, rotting, marine borer and other insect
attack;

• Timber members for excessive member deflections;

• Timber girders and corbels for excessive sniping;

• Loose joints and fasteners;

• Propping for tightness of wedges in deck cambering or temporary works;

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.10
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

Miscellaneous

• Roadway under bridge for delineation, barriers and road drainage;

• Bridge generally for graffiti, damage to installed services and encroaching

vegetation and fire hazards;

• Location, extent and condition of services attached to, or in close proximity to,
the bridge.

2.7 Data Recording

All data obtained from the inspection shall be recorded on the Routine Maintenance
Inspection Report (B1/1). This form has been designed to meet the following
objectives.

• Assist the inspectors carry out and record an inspection within the scope of
and to the extent required for this level of inspection.

• Record the defects and;

a) where the inspection is being conducted in conjunction with routine

maintenance and rectification of the defect is covered by the RMPC
and is within the capabilities and resources available on the patrol
vehicle, record the associated remedial action, or;

b) where the inspection is not being conducted in conjunction with

routine maintenance or rectification of the defect is outside the scope
of the RMPC or the capabilities and resources available on the patrol
vehicle, nominate the required remedial action.

• Nominate the need for monitoring based on concerns regarding the visually
assessed condition of the bridge.

• Nominate the need for a higher level of inspection based on concerns

regarding the visually assessed condition of the bridge.

• Allow the inspector to expand on issues arising from the checklist items in
the comment boxes.

• Identify those structures with components that are in permanent standing

water (by ticking ‘Permanent Standing Water’ box)

The work order number should be recorded where appropriate, permitting the
allocation and tracking of inspection expenditure to a particular structure. Details of
maintenance activities that are carried out, or are scheduled to be carried out on the
structure should be recorded on the Structure Maintenance Schedule (M1). This
identifies the type, nature and cost of any maintenance work carried out and the
maintenance problem areas in a particular structure.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.11
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

It is intended that an entire inspection be carried out within the scope and to the extent
specified for this level of inspection and that all the required data fields in the Routine
Inspection Report Form are completed. If a partial inspection is effected then the
inspector must record those items that could not be inspected together with the
reasons for their omission.

In addition to the completion of the Routine Inspection Report the inspector should
photograph and / or sketch any major defects and record the relevant details on the
Photos and Sketches Record (B1/2)

The completed report shall be forwarded to the District Office within 30 working
days of the inspection, and the data should be entered in the Bridge Information
System, including:-

• Date of inspection
• Name of inspector
• Deficiencies flagged by Inspector and required actions
• Due date of next Routine Maintenance Inspection
• Programmed date for an extraordinary Bridge Condition or Detailed Structural
Engineering Inspection if nominated.
• Any limits on the extent of the inspection.

In addition, the inspector shall ascertain whether or not a “Structural Inventory

Verification Form” has been completed for the structure. If not, the inspector shall
forward a completed form, along with the inspection, to the District office within 30
working days of the Level 1 inspection.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.12
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

3.0 LEVEL 2 - BRIDGE CONDITION INSPECTIONS

3.1 Purpose

The purpose of this level of inspection is to rate the current condition of a structure.
This data will be utilised as a basis for:-

• Identifying and quantifying structural defects in the structure or its individual

components, and determining maintenance needs and/or other actions;

• Estimating budget requirements arising from the maintenance, rehabilitation or

replacement needs determined from the condition inspection.

• Determining the residual life of the structure and appropriate replacement strategy.

• Assessing the current load carrying capacity.

• Re-rating the structure and components after significant maintenance or remedial

works have been carried out.

When sufficient cycles of data have been collected this may be used as a basis for
modelling and forecasting future changes in condition. In addition the data could be
used to assess the effectiveness of maintenance and repair strategies.

3.2 Scope of the Inspection

The scope of the Bridge Condition Inspection will include:

• Compilation of an inspection inventory. In compiling the inventory, the bridge

component matrix shown in Figure 1.0 should be referred to. The matrix lists the
codes to be used to identify the bridge components. It also shows the relationship
between the component groups and the components.

• Visually inspecting the bridge components to assess their condition using a standard
condition rating system as specified herein.

• Reporting the condition and extent over which it applies, of each bridge component.

• Providing a general condition rating for the structure as a whole.

• Identifying bridges and/or components which warrant a Detailed Structural

Engineering Inspection because of a rapid change in structural condition or
deterioration of critical structural components to Condition Rating 4.

• Identifying components which require closer condition monitoring and observation at

the next inspection because they have deteriorated to Condition Rating 3, show rapid
deterioration or other features which warrant reporting.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.13
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

• Identifying supplementary testing as appropriate in accordance with the guidelines of

this manual.

• Identifying the exposure classification in the immediate proximity of each bridge

component.

• A photographic record of the bridge and any deficient or non-standard components

identified.

• Identifying, and quantifying selected components for Bridge Inventory records.

• Identifying maintenance requirements and/or deficient maintenance practices.

• Verification of the “Design Inventory” held in the BIS (standard forms can be
produced from the BIS for this purpose). Prior to the inspection, the inspector shall
ascertain whether or not a “Design Inventory Verification Form” has been completed
for the structure. If not, the inspector shall forward a completed form, along with the
inspection, to the District office within 30 working days of the Level 2 inspection.

As these inspections may be carried out with the use of an Under Bridge Inspection
Unit (UBIU), it is also recommended that on such occasions District personnel take
advantage of the availability of the UBIU and conduct routine maintenance on those
components not normally accessible, such as bearings.

3.3 Inspector Accreditation

Inspections shall be conducted by trained personnel who also have extensive

experience in the inspection, construction, design, maintenance or repair of road
structures. They shall have extensive practical experience, and be competent to judge
the condition of structures and the importance of visual defects. These inspectors
need not be qualified professional bridge engineers, but should have the backing of
such a person to aid in decision making or interpreting visual defects or unusual
structural action. These inspectors must attain accreditation through attending a Level
2 Training Course for Bridge Inspectors although partial exemption may be granted to
suitably experienced inspectors. In addition, it is a requirement that each inspector
must undertake 5 bridge inspections and submit these to Bridge Asset Management to
enable a desktop review to be carried out. In most cases as part of the assessment
process, this will then be backed up by a field audit, in the form of a Level 3
inspection, to ensure compliance with the Bridge Inspection Manual reporting
requirements. The inspector accreditation appraisal procedure and appraisal forms
have been included as Appendix E

3.4 Extent of Inspection

The Bridge Condition Inspection is to be a visual inspection only and shall cover all
components of the bridge above ground and water level. Additionally, if designated
as being an ‘underwater’ inspection, then those components below water level shall
also be inspected, with the inspection typically being conducted by suitably qualified
divers, who shall be briefed by the inspector as to what to look for, and shall also be
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.14
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

provided with a proforma of the components to be inspected. The individual

components of the bridge shall be inspected from within 3m of any surface of the
component, or equivalent using telescopic equipment. The surface of the component
shall be in good natural or artificial light sufficient to observe fine cracks in concrete.

All bearings at the abutments and piers shall be inspected, and bearings from at least
one pier shall be inspected at eye level.

Components that need not be inspected for Level 2 inspections are:-

(i) Inside box girders.

(ii) In areas behind abutments that are inaccessible.

(iii) Piles and foundations below ground or water, unless the inspection has been
designated as an ‘underwater’ inspection.

These components will be inspected as part of a Detailed Engineering Inspection.

The percentage of component in each condition state shall be based on the total
component that can be observed. Where it is estimated that only 25% or less of the
component is visible this fact shall be recorded on the Standard Procedure Exceptions
Report Form, stating the reason why it cannot be fully observed. Such items shall still
be assigned a condition state, which shall be based on the visible portion of the
component.

Photographs shall be taken at the site of all components with condition rating 4, and
of those components that do not fall within the defined component classification.
Photographs shall be taken within 3m of the surface of the component or equivalent
using a telephoto lens. In addition, a photographic record of the bridge is required,
and shall be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines in Section 3.9. In the case
where a photograph does not provide sufficient detail of a defect, a detailed sketch
should be produced which shows the defect and all relevant dimensions.

Inspection of components that are part of identified widenings shall be assessed and
recorded separately to those of the original bridge. Each widening shall be recorded
separately and designated as left or right as viewed from the start of the bridge. The
start of the bridge is defined as the end of the bridge closer to the start of the road
gazettal. Components which are part of other identified modification types (ie.
lengthenings) are to be assessed and recorded with the original structure, but are to be
located with the correct modification classification.

3.5 Inspection Procedure

3.5.1 Preparation for Inspection

Prior to commencing inspections the inspector shall ensure that he has all relevant
documentation, inspection equipment and safety equipment and has made the
appropriate arrangements with the relevant road, railway or other authorities for
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.15
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

temporary access as required to carry out the inspection. Safety plans must be
prepared and approved.

3.5.2 Inspection

At the bridge site the inspector shall carry out the inspection in a systematic manner
starting at the deck surface and approaches, proceeding from the start of the bridge
down through the superstructure and substructure to the waterway.

The inspector shall complete the following activities in accordance with this
procedure and the guidelines given in:

Appendix C: Standard Component Identification Guidelines

Appendix D: Standard Component Condition State Guidelines

The results of inspection shall be recorded on the appropriate Inspection Report form
from Appendix A.

(i) Compile an inspection component inventory, with attendant exposure

classifications, by designated group, component and unique reference number
on the Condition Inspection Report (B2/1 and B2/2) form.

(ii) Inspect and assess the condition of each standard component identified above
and the extent of the component to which the rating applies.

(iii) Assess the overall condition of the bridge and any widenings in accordance
with Section 3.8.

(iv) Record separately on the Defective Components Report (B2/3) all those
components that are in:

(a) Condition State 3 and require monitoring, further observation at the

next programmed inspection, urgent remedial action or a Detailed
Structural Engineering Inspection.

(b) Condition State 4 or have shown a rapid rate of deterioration since the
last inspection and require urgent remedial action and/or a Detailed
Structural Engineering Inspection.

The inspector is required to give a brief description of the condition and the
approximate quantity of the component affected. A photograph and/or sketch of
all condition 4 defects is also required. Each photograph and sketch is to be
given a reference number which should be recorded on the form.
(v) Record separately on the Standard Procedure Exceptions Report (B2/4) form.

(a) Components that could not be defined using the standard methodology.
A photograph of the non-standard components is also required. Each
photograph is to be given a reference number which should be stated
on the form.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.16
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

(b) Components that could not be inspected. Reasons must be stated for
these omissions.
(c) Components where less than 25% is accessible. The exposed
portion must still be rated on the "Bridge Condition Inspection Report".
(d) Any other observation or recommendation not covered by the other
forms
(vi) Record the relevant photographic and sketch details, including reference
numbers, locations and descriptions on the Photographic and Sketches Record
(B2/6) reports in accordance with the guidelines given in Section 3.4.
(vii) Record the results of the underwater inspection, when effected, on the forms
previously described.
(viii) Record the results of the timber drilling survey on the Timber Drilling Survey
Report (B2/5).

(ix) Record the results of the ‘soundings’ on the Bridge Scour Soundings Report
(B2/7).

A sample of a completed B2/7 form may be found in Advice Note 37. Completed
samples of all other standard forms have been included in Appendix A.

3.6 Data Recording

All information obtained from the site inspection shall be recorded on the following
forms:

(i) Bridge Condition Inspection Report (B2/1 and B2/2)

(ii) Defective Components Report (B2/3)
(iii) Standard Procedure Exceptions Report (B2/4)
(iv) Photographs and Sketches Record (B2/6)
(v) Timber Drilling Survey Report (B2/5)
(vi) Bridge Scour Soundings Report (B2/7)
(vii) Design Inventory Verification Forms from BIS (if required)
(viii) Structure Maintenance Schedule (M1) (if required)

It is intended that each bridge inspection should be carried out to the extent specified
for this level of inspection and all relevant data fields in these forms should be
completed.

3.7 Data Transfer

All data recorded at the bridge site shall be forwarded to the District Office within 30
working days of the inspection. This shall include all photographic records and
general descriptive information recorded on the relevant inspection forms.

The relevant data shall be downloaded from a data capture tool or entered manually in
the Bridge Information System (BIS) within 30 working days of the inspection.
Photographs may be taken using a normal zoom camera and flash and scanned at a
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.17
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

minimum of 100 dots per inch. Alternatively digital images generated by an

approved digital camera may be downloaded. Images shall be saved in the JPG file
format, and shall be no bigger than 150 kB.

The District data control officer shall ensure that the inventory and condition data are
in the correct format and are compatible with existing entries. This data and any
recommended actions including component inventory amendments and the need for a
Detailed Structural Engineering Inspection or maintenance action shall be entered in
the BIS.

Any structurally significant component which has been recorded on the "Defective
Components Report" form must be flagged on the Bridge Information System as a
deficiency, and must remain as such until it has been inspected by a structural
engineer and/or rectified.

In addition, the inspector shall ascertain whether or not a “Design Inventory

Verification Form” has been completed for the structure. If not, the inspector shall
forward a completed form, along with the inspection, to the District office within 30
working days of the inspection.

3.8 Condition Rating

3.8.1 General

A fundamental requirement of a systematic inspection procedure, that produces

consistent results, is the standardisation and rationalisation of the following variables.

(i) Components that comprise the bridge

(ii) Condition state descriptions, or level of deterioration pertaining to those
components.
(iii) Classification of the degree of aggressiveness of the environment affecting the
rate of deterioration of the component

3.8.2 Compilation of the Component Inventory

The inspector is required to compile a component inspection inventory by designated

status, group, component and unique component reference on the Bridge Condition
Inspection Report form.

The standard bridge components identified to date have been defined in Table 1.3 and
a series of figures representing the majority of structures likely to be encountered has
been included in Appendix C - Standard Component Identification Guidelines to
assist the inspector identify the standard components where necessary.

The inspection components are further divided into five material types comprising
"steel", "precast concrete", "cast-insitu concrete", "timber" and "other". The latter
comprises brickwork, masonry and aluminium while the steel grouping includes cast
and wrought iron members.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.18
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

Precast concrete members can generally be distinguished from cast-insitu concrete by

the smooth, uniform and dense surface and are typically whiter in colour.

Additionally, when compiling the component inventory for a bridge structure,

roadway items such as surfacing, kerbs, joints and bridge railing are typically defined
per span. With a culvert structure this approach is unfeasible due to the significantly
shorter span lengths and lack of definitive joints in the deck. For this reason, these
components shall be defined per culvert structure and recorded under the Span 1
group, with the corresponding quantities taken from the full length of the structure.
Approach items such as guardrail are not affected by this, and are still to be defined
separately for both approaches.

In some instances, inspectors may encounter a structure with a configuration that does
not fit within the terminology of the Manual. Guidance on the designation of bridge
components for complex or non-standard structures has been provided in Appendix
G, but it is generally recommended that Bridge Asset Management be contacted to
provide advice on component breakdown of the structure and other related issues.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.19
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

3.8.3 Condition State Criteria

The inspector shall make an assessment of the condition:-

• Each standard component

• The structure as a whole
• Any modification.

The condition ratings have been developed to reflect the discernible stages of
deterioration as tabulated below.

Condition Subjective
Description
State Rating
1 GOOD Free of defects with little or no deterioration evident
("as new")
2 FAIR Free of defects affecting structural performance, integrity and
durability. Deterioration of a minor nature in the protective
coating and/or parent material is evident.
3 POOR Defects affecting the durability/serviceability which may
(monitoring require monitoring and/or remedial action or inspection by a
required) structural engineer. Component or element shows marked
and advancing deterioration including loss of protective
coating and minor loss of section from the parent material is
evident. Intervention is normally required.
4 VERY POOR Defects affecting the performance and structural integrity
(Remedial which require immediate intervention including an inspection
Action by a structural engineer, if principal components are affected.
Required) Component or element shows advanced deterioration, loss of
section from the parent material, signs of overstressing or
evidence that it is acting differently to its intended design
mode or function.
5 UNSAFE This state is only intended to apply to the "whole structure"
(Immediate rating. Structural integrity is severely compromised and the
Remedial structure must be taken out of service until a structural
Action engineer has inspected the structure and recommended the
Required) required remedial action.

3.8.4 Component Condition Assessment

The inspector shall make an assessment of the condition of each standard element and
the extent over which that condition applies.

The inspector shall compare the defects observed on the face of the component with
the "Standard Component Condition State Guidelines" which comprise Appendix D
of this manual. These descriptions cannot possibly cover every situation and the
inspector is expected to exercise judgement based on his knowledge and experience
and the guidelines given in section 3.8.3 to identify the appropriate condition state
applying to each component viewed in the field.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.20
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

Establishing the mechanism responsible for cracking in concrete elements is crucial to

determining the severity of the defect and the corresponding condition of the element.
Cracks due to structural and non-structural mechanisms have been differentiated
accordingly in the Condition State guidelines in Appendix D. If the inspector is
unable to determine the mechanism responsible for or not completely confident as to
the cause of the crack, then they are to assume the most severe case.

3.8.5 Measurement

The proportion of the component in each condition state shall be determined on the
basis of the total visible portion of that component. That is, the portions in each
condition state (1, 2, 3 and 4) must add up to the total quantity of that element
observed at the site.

Each element to be assessed is quantified using one of the following units of

measurement.

(i) Number of units making up the element - Each (ea)

(ii) Length of element - Lineal metres (Lin m)
(iii) Area of element - Square metres (m2)

The unit of measurement to be used for each of the standard components and
associated materials has been indicated in Table 1.3.

In assessing the relative proportions of the component in the various condition states
the inspector should first determine the worst condition affecting the component and
its extent then progress through to the best condition pertaining to that component.

In addition, the inspector is required to expand the condition assessments determined

above by entering additional information in the comments box of the "Bridge
Condition Inspection Report Form". Information to be supplied includes:

• Crack widths, extent and location. CW 0.3/L0.3/G1 midspan soffit denotes a

0.3mm wide crack, 0.3m long in the soffit of girder 1 at midspan. Where a
number of cracks are present in a single element, this information is best
shown in a detailed sketch.

• The area, depth and location of any spalling or loss of concrete cover material.

• The length and condition of any exposed reinforcement.

• Residual dimensions of corroded or spalled sections.

• Lack of connection of guardrail to bridge.

• Presence of and rate of change of scour depths.

• Shear deflection or travel on expansion bearings.

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.21
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

• Magnitude of the forward movement of the top of retaining walls/abutments.

• Depth of subsidence behind abutments.

• Reference of sketches and/or photographs which detail the magnitude, extent

and location of defects.

Any component which is found to have defects that could compromise the strength or
stability of the component, or the structure as a whole, must be rated as condition 4
over the whole of the component. In this event, the defective component must be
recorded on the Bridge Information System. Immediate remedial action shall be
undertaken for this level of defect in all structures. If further advice is required, either
a Detailed Structural Inspection shall be commissioned, or sufficient information shall
be sent to Bridge Asset Management section to enable them to conduct a desk-top
assessment of the component or structure.

Typical defects of this nature include:-

• Fresh scour holes in excess of 4 metres deep at piled foundations or any scour
below base of spread footing foundations.

• Any shear cracks in concrete girders or headstocks.

• Flexural cracks in excess of 0.6mm wide in concrete members.

• Impact damage to concrete girders which has resulted in exposed

reinforcement or prestressing strands.

• Visible settlement or rotation of substructure elements.

• Displaced bearings.

• Pipe rot in timber girders exceeding 70% of the diameter at midspan and/or
50% of the diameter at the supports.

• Pipe rot exceeding 50% of the diameter of timber piles or corbels.

• Edge areas of rot in excess of 20% of the cross-sectional area of timber

headstocks, or piping rot with a diameter in excess of 90mm.

• Snipes in timber girders with a depth exceeding 30% of the diameter of the
girder, or snipes in a timber corbel with a depth exceeding 25% of the diameter
of the corbel.

• 10% loss of section due to corrosion in steel members, fasteners,

reinforcement or prestressing tendons at critical sections.

• Cracking in welds between plates or loss of rivets or bolts (or their

effectiveness) in steel connections.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.22
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

3.8.6 Structure Condition Assessment

When the inspection of the components has been completed, the inspector shall make
an assessment of the overall condition of the structure based on observations made at
the site in accordance with the condition rating descriptions tabulated in section 3.8.3.
The inspector is expected to exercise judgement based on his knowledge and
experience to determine the appropriate condition state.

The structure rating shall primarily be based on the condition of the principal
structural members such as girders, headstocks, columns, piles and foundations. Each
component type has been assigned a Significance Rating from 1-4, with a rating of 4
denoting a principal structural member, and a rating of 1 denoting those components
that are non-critical structural members. Refer to Figure 1.0 for a complete listing of
Significance Ratings for all standard components. If more than 25% of any principal
component (Significance Rating 4) in any component group are rated as being in
Condition State 4, then the structure must be given an overall rating of Condition
State 4.

A brief description of the defective members shall be recorded in the comments field.
In addition the inspector should also indicate the urgency of any required action.
Significant defects found in non-critical structural members which expose the road
user to risk and require urgent attention should be noted in the comments field. For
example, defective guardrail and connections to the bridge, damaged or defective
bridge railing or loose and insecure assembly joints.

Separate ratings for the original structure and any other modifications, comprising
widenings, lengthenings, raising or redecking, are required as the construction types
and respective conditions are often substantially different.

The results of these assessments shall be recorded on the Bridge Condition Inspection
Report Form.

3.8.7 Exposure Classifications

The exposure classification is a measure of the degree of aggressiveness of the local

environment in which the component is situated. If the actual exposure classification
is known, as opposed to that assumed in the design, it will assist the manager of the
bridge asset assess the rate of deterioration and/or the residual life of the component
or indeed the bridge.

At the design stage, broad exposure classifications are considered in order to

determine and specify the type and quality of materials, protective coating system
requirements or amount of cover to the reinforcement and prestressing strands.
However, if the quality or integrity of the materials or their protective coatings or
cover are compromised then vulnerable components will become exposed to the local
environment. The aggressiveness of that environment will affect the rate of
deterioration and hence influence the time for repair, rehabilitation or replacement of
the component or the bridge.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.23
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

Four exposure classifications which approximate those specified for concrete in the
Austroads Bridge Design Code have been adopted as tabulated below.

EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION
LOCATION OF COMPONENT
RATING ENVIRONMENT
1 Relatively Benign Interior of most structures and components
above ground on structures located more
than 50km from the coast.
2 Mildly Aggressive Components above ground in structures
located between 1km and 50km from the
coast or where components are in contact
with fresh water or soil.
3 Aggressive Components above ground within 1 km of
the coast not subjected to direct salt spray
(ie. components in very damp
environments such as the wet tropics or
rainforest areas), and all components
within 3m of permanent standing water.
4 Most Aggressive Components in tidal or splash zones or
those subject to direct salt spray or that are
in contact with aggressive, contaminated
or salt rich soils*.

* The assessment of the aggressiveness of the soil cannot be done accurately without
testing but generally can be assumed to be mildly-aggressive unless in salt prone areas,
marshes, mangroves, foul smelling soils, land fills or industrial areas. Removal of
material around the structure may reveal deterioration indicative of aggressive soils.

3.9 Inventory Data

The inspector is required to verify the current “Design Inventory” data held in the
BIS. If the information has not been verified, the inspector is to complete a “Design
Inventory Verification Form” as part of the Level 2 inspection and shall submit it to
the District office along with the completed inspection. Standard forms can be
produced from the BIS for this purpose.

The inspector is required to prepare a photographic record of each structure. The

purpose of this exercise is to:

• Maintain a chronological photographic record of the condition of the structure,

any widenings and the waterway.

• Provide the required structure images for the Bridge Information System.

The information required is as follows:-

(a) Photographic Record

(i) One general photograph from top of deck showing alignment, width,
kerbs and barriers.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.24
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

(ii) One photograph from side of bridge showing piers, abutments and
waterway or roadway.

(iii) Representative photographs of the main superstructure components (ie

girders), from underneath or side of the structure, used in:-

(a) The original structure.

(b) Any modifications (ie. widenings, lengthenings, etc.)

These photographs are in addition to those required to show the Condition Rating 4
defects.

3.10 Timber Drilling Survey

The purpose of the survey is to determine the residual amount of sound timber in a
member, normally ascertained by using a drill equipped with a 12-16mm diameter bit
to bore holes in timber components at critical and suspect locations. The extent and
severity of any piping or rot within the component is assessed by the inspector based
on the resistance to drilling as "felt", and is supplemented by examination of wood
shavings. This method relies on the experience and subjective judgement of the
inspector and provides information only at the selected drill location.

Drilling is carried out at the locations of maximum stress and/or for those areas most
susceptible to decay, namely:

• midspan and end of girders.

• ends of corbels.
• ends of headstocks.
• base and top of end posts.
• ground level, normal water level or around connections in piles.
• around bolted connections in general.

Obviously, those areas where maximum stress coincides with areas susceptible to rot,
such as piles at ground level, are particularly critical.

However, it should be noted that the test holes can expose the member to more rapid
decay and regular drilling can result in significant strength reduction, even if no decay
is found. Thus the frequency and extent of test drilling should be judiciously
controlled to minimise the risk of weakening the members through excessive loss of
section or accelerated deterioration.

Traditionally, it has been found that test holes drilled horizontally with a 12mm drill
bit cause the least damage to a member. However, the non-destructive and quasi-non-
destructive testing methods detailed in Advice Note No. 24 are preferred.

All test holes shall be plugged with wooden dowels, which have been treated with an
approved preservative, to reduce the potential for accelerated deterioration following
the survey.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.25
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

The details and results of the testing shall be recorded on the Timber Drilling Survey
Report form. Inspectors shall enter the drilling records of all members found to have
pipes or rot on Form B2/5 however records of drilling in sound timber is at the
inspector's discretion. Normally a note to the effect that the remaining timbers have
been "proved" to be sound will be sufficient.

Additional requirements for the drilling of timber members have been detailed in
Section 2 of Advice Note 24. Advice Notes 5, 23 and 34 also cover various aspects
of the detailing and rating of defects in timber members, and it is crucial that
inspectors be conversant with these Advice Notes prior to inspecting timber
structures.

3.11 Measurement of Scour

Some types of scour, such as that caused by gradual degradation of the stream bed
over a period of years or a number of flood events can be difficult to identify due to
factors such as vegetation regrowth. The reliable checking of the bridge waterway for
scour progression over time can only be made by a measurement of the stream bed
level from a permanent local reference point. The following process, referred to as
‘sounding’, shall be adopted as an integral part of a Level 2 inspection;

• If the stream bed is exposed, then the sounding height from the top of the kerb or
other convenient permanent feature (such as the top of a concrete parapet) is to be
measured down to the stream bed at midspan and at either end of each span on the
upstream side of the bridge, or;
• If there is standing water at a bridge site then the sounding height from the kerb or
other permanent reference feature on the bridge superstructure is to be measured
down to the water surface, and then down to the stream bed at midspan and at
either end of each span on the upstream side of the bridge.
• Where localised scour holes are identified, the inspector shall take stream bed
measurements at 1.0m intervals in the vicinity of the area in which the local scour
was identified. Measurements shall be taken until the extent of the localised scour
has been determined.

Measurements shall be taken using a standard measuring tape with a small weight
fastened to the end. Results of the ‘soundings’ shall be recorded on the Bridge Scour
Sounding Report form. The locations from which the ‘soundings’ are measured shall
be recorded on the form, with the precise locations marked discreetly on the structure,
if possible. Inspectors shall endeavour to take measurements from the same locations
at future inspections.

After the first round of ‘soundings’ has been completed, inspectors shall ensure that
they document stream bed ‘sounding’ depths from the previous inspection for
comparison with readings obtained during the current inspection.

Refer to Advice Note No. 37 for detailed examples of the process.

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.26
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

4.0 LEVEL 3 - DETAILED STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION

4.1 Purpose

An extensive inspection carried out by a structural engineer, which may include

physical testing and/or structural analysis, to assess:-

• current structural condition, behaviour and capacity;

• rate of deterioration and residual life expectancy;

• asset management strategies.

4.2 Scope

The scope of the detailed structural engineering inspection will include:-

• Review of any previous inspection and testing reports.

• Review of traffic counts, traffic studies, culway or WIM records and planning
reports which include the structure;

• Review of environmental factors (REF's) including contaminated site records;

• Determination and programming of equipment and resources required for the

inspection (in conjunction with the District) including preparation of a safety
plan;

• Detailed inspection of all relevant bridge components including such

measurements, testing and analyses as necessary to supplement the visual
inspection. A Level 2 - Bridge Condition inspection shall also be carried out.

• Determination of material properties and structural behaviour.

• Identification of components which are limiting the performance of the

structure due to their current condition and capacity or are likely to deteriorate
to such a level within the next five years.

• Identification of the probable causes and projected rate of deterioration and the
effects of continued deterioration on the performance, durability and residual
life of the structure.

• Identification of factors which will influence the dynamic load allowance to be

used in Load Rating. These factors include the geometry and quality of the
bridge approaches, surface discontinuities at deck joints and the dynamic
response of the bridge.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.27
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

• Examination of the hydraulic performance of the structure including any signs

of siltation, scour, debris impact or build-up, bank or embankment erosion and
tree and vegetation encroachment.

4.3 Inspector Accreditation

Level 3 inspections shall be conducted by a Professional Engineer who has corporate

membership of the Institution of Engineers Australia, or recognised equivalent, with
extensive and current bridge design and construction experience (minimum of 5
years).

Detailed Structural Engineering inspections must be arranged through the Principal

Engineer (Bridge Asset Management) of Structures Division.

4.4 Frequency

A Level 3 - Detailed Structural Engineering Inspection will be carried out under one
of the following circumstances:-

• If recommended in a Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspection Report as a

consequence of serious defects identified by the inspector.

• If a load capacity assessment is required, and previous Level 2 inspections do

not contain sufficient information to allow an assessment to be carried out.

• As part of the technical auditing programme.

4.5 Extent Of Inspections

The Detailed Structural Engineering Inspection comprises a visual examination of all

readily accessible components of the structure supplemented, where necessary, by
examinations, testing or analyses such as:

• Underwater inspection of submerged components;

• Geotechnical investigation including drilling, instrumentation and monitoring;

• Hydraulic investigation of dynamic flood effects including assessments of

flood forces, scour sedimentation, debris size, formation and impact, and
afflux;

• Structural analyses;

• Location of reinforcement using cover meter;

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.28
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

• Coring and testing concrete to assess strength and durability parameters

including compressive strength, density, aggregate reactivity and depth of
penetration of carbonation and chlorides;

• Measurement of half cell potential and resistivity of reinforced concrete

components;

• Examination of steel members using methods such as dye penetrant, magnetic

particle, radiographic, ultrasonic or x-ray;

• Measurement of corroded member dimensions;

• Static or dynamic load testing of the structure.

4.6 Inspection Procedure

A job specific brief for the Detailed Structural Engineering Inspection shall be
prepared by the District Director's delegate in consultation with a Principal Engineer
from Structures Division.

A Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspection, where required, shall also be carried out in
accordance with the specified procedures.

4.7 Data Recording In This Field

Data recording will be similar to that required for a Level 2 - Bridge Condition
Inspection with additional references to record the identification references, types and
locations of all testing and sampling conducted as part of the inspection. Component
designation and condition rating shall be identified in accordance with the Level 2 -
Bridge Condition Inspection procedures and the component designations given in
section 1.3.

4.8 Reporting

A written report shall be submitted to the District Director, with a copy to the
Principal Engineer (Bridge Asset Mangement) of Structures Division, within 60 days
of the inspection and shall include, where applicable, those inspection activities which
are listed in section 4.2 and recommendations such as:-

• Immediate remedial action;

• Access restrictions, including load and/or speed limits, vehicle paths or

number of lanes and detour details if applicable;

• Further investigation, testing and structural analyses;

• Future inspection and monitoring regime;

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.29
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

• Future asset management strategy including maintenance, rehabilitation,

strengthening or widening with associated costs and residual life assessments.

The District Director shall consider the recommendations of the report and generally
shall initiate the necessary actions. If the District Director does not agree with the
recommendations, a response to that effect shall be given in writing to the inspecting
engineer and copied to the Principal Engineer (Bridge Asset Management) within 30
days of receipt of the inspection report.

A copy of the final report shall be forwarded to the Principal Engineer (Bridge Asset
Management) who shall be responsible for entering the following salient details into
the Bridge Information System (BIS) within 30 days of completion of the report;

• An executive summary of the written report, including the distribution list.

• A summary of all other reports produced in order to supplement the Level 3

inspection, such as diving surveys and materials testing.

• Rating of all primary defects, identification of deterioration mechanisms and

determination of the overall condition of the structure.

• Results of any load capacity assessment conducted (desk top assessment, or

static and/or dynamic load testing). Such assessment is to be conducted in
accordance with Section 4.9.

• Bridge Equivalence Ratings (if calculated).

• A record of the photographs included in the written report. Photograph size

and quality is to be in accordance with Section 3.7.

4.9 Load Capacity

A load capacity assessment may be included in the brief to determine the repeated
live load capacity for the remaining service life of the structure. The assessment shall
be based on:

• Original design drawings and specifications;

• "As-built" construction records (including pile driving, material testing,

modifications, amendments and defect records);

• Material properties, workmanship, condition and loading determined by field

inspections, tests and direct measurement.

The report shall include:

• A rating in accordance with "AS 5100, Part 7: Rating of Existing Bridges";

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL 3.30
Structures Division PART THREE - PROCEDURES June 2004

• Live load bending moment and shear capacity at critical locations;

• Bridge Equivalence Ratings for a number of standard vehicles;

• Risk of sudden failure as a consequence of shear or over-reinforced concrete

sections;

• Factors influencing the dynamic load allowance used to determine the load
capacity.
 June 2004

FIGURE 1.0
STANDARD COMPONENT MATRIX
Codes Significance Abutments Piers Spans/Cells Approach
Rating A1,2 Pn Sn AP1,2
Abutment A 3 50
Abutment Sheeting ABS 2 52
Approach AP 2 70
Arch ARH 4 25
Batter Protection PRO 1 53 53
Bearings B 2 40-43 40-43
Bearing Pedestals PED 1 44 44
Bracing Wale WAL 3 57 57
Bridge Barriers BR 1 2 2
Columns C 4 56 56
Corbels COR 3 27 27
Cross Beam XB 3 28
Cross Girder** XG 3 31, 32
Deck D 3 20, 29, 30
Footing F 3 59 59
Footway FY 1 4 4
Girders G 4 21, 22
Guard Rails GR 1 72
Hanger HR 4 26
Headstock H 4 54 54, 55
Headwall HW 1 84 84
Joints* J 2 10-15, 20 10-15, 20 10,11,13-15
Kerb K 1 3 3
Mortar Pad MP 1 44 44
Pier Wall PW 3 58
Piles & Encasements*** P 4 56, 60 56
Pilecap CAP 3 59 59
Restraint Angle RA 2 45 45
Retaining Wall RW 3 51 51
Sill Log SL 3 59 59
Spiking Plank SP 1 33
Through Truss TT 4 23, 24
Waterway W 2 71
Wearing Surface/Fill WS 2 1
Wingwalls WW 3 51
Arch Culvert AC 2 83
Box Culvert BC 2 81
Modular Culvert MC 2 82
Pipe Culvert PC 2 80
Culvert Base Slab CBS 3 20

* Multiple joints may be entered for a Pier or Abutment group (if there is only one joint,
entry will default to J. Multiple joints will be numbered J1, J2 etc..)
** Load bearing diaphragms shall have a Significance Rating of 4
*** Wing piles shall have a Significance Rating of 3
 June 2004

TABLE 1.3 - STANDARD COMPONENT SCHEDULE

NO CATEGORY/COMPONENT MATERIAL
STEEL (S) PRECAST CAST-IN-SITU TIMBER (T) OTHER (O)
CONCRETE (P) CONCRETE (C)
Deck Surface (1-9)
1 Fill/Wearing Surface on Deck - - m2 - m2
2 Bridge Railing/Barriers Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m
3 Bridge Kerbs - Lin m Lin m Lin m -
4 Footways Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m
Deck Joints (10-19)
10 Pourable Joint Seal - - - - Lin m
11 Compression Joint Seal - - - - Lin m
12 Assembly Joint Seal - - - - Lin m
13 Open Expansion Joint Lin m - - - Lin m
14 Sliding Joint Lin m - - - -
15 Fixed/Small Movement Joints - - - - Lin m
Superstructure (20-39)
20 Deck Slab / Culvert Base Slab - Each m2 m2 -
21 Closed Web/Box Girders Lin m Lin m Lin m - -
22 Open Girders Each Each Each Each -
23 Through Truss Lin m - - - -
24 Deck Truss Lin m - - - -
25 Arches Lin m Lin m Lin m - Lin m
26 Cables/Hangers Each - - - -
 June 2004

STANDARD COMPONENT SCHEDULE (Cont)

NO CATEGORY/COMPONENT MATERIAL
STEEL (S) PRECAST CAST-IN-SITU TIMBER (T) OTHER (O)
CONCRETE (P) CONCRETE (C)
27 Corbels - - Each Each -
28 Cross Beams/Floor Beams Each - - Each -
2
29 Deck Planks - Each - m -
2
30 Steel Decking m - - - -
31 Diaphragms/Bracing (Cross Girders) Each - Each - -
32 Load Bearing Diaphragms - - Each - -
33 Spiking Plank - - - Lin m -
Bearings (40-49)
40 Fixed Bearings - - - - Each
41 Sliding Bearings - - - - Each
42 Elastomeric/Pot Bearings - - - - Each
43 Rockers/Rollers Each - - - -
44 Mortar Pads/Bearing Pedestals - - - - Each
45 Restraint Angles/Blocks Each - - - Each
Substructure (50-69)
50 Abutment - - Each - Each
51 Wingwall/Retaining Wall Each Each Each Each Each
2 2 2 2
52 Abutment Sheeting/Infill Panels m m m m m2
53 Batter Protection - m2 m2 - m2
54 Headstocks Each Each Each Each -
 June 2004

STANDARD COMPONENT SCHEDULE (Cont)

NO CATEGORY/COMPONENT MATERIAL
STEEL (S) PRECAST CAST-IN-SITU TIMBER (T) OTHER (O)
CONCRETE (P) CONCRETE (C)
55 Pier Headstocks (Integral) - - Each - -
56 Columns or Piles (Encasement*) Each Each Each Each Each
57 Pile Bracing/Wales Each - Each Each -
2
58 Pier Walls - - m - m2
59 Footing/Pile Cap/Sill Log - - Each Each -
60 Wing Piles Each Each - Each -
Miscellaneous (70-79)
70 Bridge Approaches - - - - Each
71 Waterway - - Each - Each
72 Approach Guardrail Each Each Each Each Each
Culverts (80-89)
80 Pipe Culverts Lin m Lin m - - Lin m
81 Box Culverts - Lin m Lin m - -
82 Modular Culverts - Lin m - - -
83 Arch Culverts Lin m Lin m Lin m - Lin m
84 Headwalls/Wingwalls - Each Each - Each

* Encasements are to be included in the component inventory as Strengthening items only

APPENDIX A
Inspection
Report Forms –
Proformas and
Samples
 June 2004

Structure Maintenance Schedule M1 Sheet

1 Of
Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................
Crossing .................................................................. Road Number...............................................................
Structure Type ....................................................... Owner ...........................................................................
Construction Type ................................................. District ..........................................................................
Construction Material ........................................... Local Authority ...........................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Overall Condition Rating ..........................................

Inspection Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Underwater

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to…………………………………….Road

Defect Location and Details (from B2 forms)

Component Location (Modification/Group/Component/Standard Number) / / / _

Component Description…………………………….. Significance 1 2 3 4
Defect Details Condition State 1 2 3 4

Maintenance Activity Schedule

Activity No.

Description

Completed
Unit Rate
Quantity

Amount

Priority
Unit

Sub-total $…………….
Inspector’s Comments

Steward’s Comments

Total Maintenance Backlog Amount for Structure $ ……………………

 June 2004

Structure Maintenance Schedule M1 Sheet

Of
Structure ID .................................................................. Bridge Name .......................................................................
Inspection Date ............................................................. Inspection Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Defect Location and Details (from B2 forms)

Component Location (Modification/Group/Component/Standard Number) / / / _
Component Description…………………………….. Significance 1 2 3 4
Defect Details Condition State 1 2 3 4

Completed
Description

Unit Rate
Quantity

Amount
Activity

Priority
Unit
No.

Sub-total $……………….
Defect Location and Details (from B2 forms)

Component Location (Modification/Group/Component/Standard Number) / / / _

Component Description…………………………….. Significance 1 2 3 4
Defect Details Condition State 1 2 3 4
Activity No.

Completed
Description
Unit Rate
Quantity

Amount

Priority
Unit

Sub-total $………………
Defect Location and Details (from B2 forms)

Component Location (Modification/Group/Component/Standard Number) / / / _

Component Description…………………………….. Significance 1 2 3 4
Defect Details Condition State 1 2 3 4
Activity No.

Completed

Description
Unit Rate
Quantity

Amount

Priority
Unit

Sub-total $………………
 June 2004
Sheet
Routine Maintenance Inspection Report B1/1 1 Of 3

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name................................................................

Crossing.................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Structure Type....................................................... Road Name ..................................................................
Construction Type................................................. Owner...........................................................................
Construction Material .......................................... District..........................................................................
Inspector................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Permanent Standing Water Programmed Exceptional

Date of Inspection.................................................. Date of Next Inspection ............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to ..........................................................Road

Inspection Elements Problem Location and Comments (include Rectified Maintenance Inspection
(tick) maintenance activity number) Required Required
(*Refer to bottom of form) Y N Y N Y N Y N
Approaches
1 Signs and Delineation
ƒ Missing, damaged, obscured
(includes ID plate)
2 Guardrail
ƒ Accident damage
ƒ Incorrect alignment
ƒ Connection to bridge
ƒ Delineators
3 Road Drainage
ƒ Blocked inlets/outlets
ƒ Scour of outlets/embankment
4 Road Surface
ƒ Material defects* - concrete
ƒ Material defects* - surfacing
ƒ Settlement, depressions
ƒ Rough joint transition
Bridge Surface
5 Bridge Surface
ƒ Material defects*: surfacing
ƒ Material defects*: concrete
ƒ Material defects*: timber
ƒ Scuppers
6 Footpaths
ƒ Clean
ƒ Even
7 Barriers
ƒ Impact Damage
ƒ Loose/damaged fixings
ƒ Loose post base
ƒ Material Defects*
ƒ Delineators
8 Expansion Joints
ƒ Loose/damaged fixings
ƒ Damaged/missing seals
ƒ Deck/nosing/ballast wall
damage
ƒ Obstructions in gap
 June 2004
Sheet
Routine Maintenance Inspection Report B1/1
2 Of 3

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name................................................................

Inspection Date……………………………………
Inspection Elements Problem Location and Comments (include Rectified Maintenance Inspection
(tick) maintenance activity number) Required Required
Y N Y N Y N Y N
Waterway
9 General
ƒ Trees or bushes under bridge
ƒ Debris against structure
ƒ Riverbank/Embankment
Erosion
ƒ Scour holes in bed
ƒ Damaged bed protection
Substructure
(Including culvert wingwalls)
10 Material Defects*
ƒ Piles
ƒ Footings
ƒ Walls/Stems
ƒ Headstocks
11 General
ƒ Forward movement of
abutments/wings
ƒ Blocked drains/weepholes
ƒ Debris on shelf/bearing
ƒ Scour/erosion of spillthrough
ƒ Dampness/leakage from
deck
ƒ Substructure protection
(over-bridges)
12 Bearings
ƒ Gap closed/decks in
contact/damaged
ƒ Bearing displaced/damaged
ƒ Poorly seated
ƒ Corroded/Seized/No
lubricant
Superstructure
13 Material defects* in:
ƒ Girders (including fasteners)
ƒ Cross Girders
ƒ Deck
ƒ Coatings

14 General
ƒ Debris/dirt build-up
ƒ Impact damage
ƒ Excessive
movement/vibration
ƒ Dampness
ƒ Ventholes
 June 2004
Sheet
Routine Maintenance Inspection Report B1/1
3 Of 3

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name................................................................

Inspection Date……………………………………

Inspection Elements Problem Location and Comments (include Rectified Maintenance Inspection
(tick) maintenance activity number) Required Required
Y N Y N Y N Y N
Miscellaneous
15 Damage to services
ƒ Fasteners / Brackets
ƒ Pipe / Conduit
ƒ Openings

16 Roadway under bridge

ƒ Delineation
ƒ Barriers
ƒ Road drainage

Culverts
17 Material Defects* in:
ƒ Walls
ƒ Roofs
ƒ Aprons
ƒ Wingwalls/Headwalls
ƒ Steel Culverts **

Material * Defects Description

Concrete Cracking, spalling, corrosion of reinforcement, drummy areas
Steel Bending, buckling, cracking, distortion, loose bolts, rivets, corrosion, coating damage
Timber Splitting, crushing, decay, infestation, loose bolts or pins
Masonry Cracking, opening joints, mortar loss, bulging
Bituminous Surfacing Cracking, crazing, breaking up, lifting off, rutting, pushing
Protective Coatings Cracked, peeling, weathered

** Steel Culverts Probe or sound culvert walls at normal water level, check for pitting or loss of culvert
material

General Comments
 June 2004

Level 1 - Photos and Sketches Record B1/2 Sheet

Of

Structure ID........................................................... Bridge Name................................................................

Crossing.................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Structure Type....................................................... Road Name ..................................................................
Construction Type................................................. Owner...........................................................................
Construction Material .......................................... District .........................................................................
Inspector................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Level 1 Inspection Programmed Exceptional

Date of Inspection.................................................. Date of Next Inspection ............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to ..........................................................Road

Location Description
Film/Exposure

ƒ Deck Surface (full width and alignment)

Modification

Component

ƒ
Sketch No.

Side View (waterway, spans, piers, etc)

ƒ
Number

Underside (deck and pier construction)

Group

ƒ Deficient Component and Major Defects

ƒ Undefined Elements
 June 2004

Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/1 Sheet

1 Of

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing .................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Structure Type ....................................................... Road Name...................................................................
Construction Type ................................................. Owner ...........................................................................
Construction Material........................................... District..........................................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Programmed Exceptional Underwater

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to…………………………………….Road
Component Location Quantity Comments
Per
ƒ Location of item/condition
Exposure Class

Condition

Maintenance
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

Req’d ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit

1 2 3 4

Overall Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 Comments

Original Structure (O)
Modification ( )
Modification ( )
Modification ( )
Widening (WLn, WRn), Lengthening (L1, L2), Raised (Ra), Redecked (Re), Shortening (S1, S2), Strengthening (St)
 June 2004

Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/2 Sheet

Of
Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................
Inspection Date………………………… Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Underwater

Component Location Quantity Comments

Maintenance Req’d
Per
Exposure Class Condition ƒ Location of item/condition
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit 1 2 3 4
 June 2004

Defective Components Report B2/3 Sheet

Of

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing .................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to.......................................................... Road
Component Location Description of Defect Required
Action (√)
ƒ Detailed Description

Level 3 Inspection
ƒ Estimated Quantity
Condition State
Exposure Class

ƒ "Other" action required

Modification

Component

ƒ Urgency of action (what, who, when, how)

Standard
Number

Monitor
ƒ Recommended Testing
Group

Other
ƒ Reference of sketches and photos (Roll / Exposure Nos)
 June 2004

Standard Procedure Exceptions Report B2/4 Sheet

Of

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing .................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to.......................................................... Road
Component Location Exception (√)
Comments

Comp. Inspected
Exposure Class

Less than 25%

Not Inspected
Modification

ƒ Description of undefined component

Component

Component
Component
Undefined

ƒ
Standard

Photograph/sketch reference
Number

ƒ
Group

Other
Reason component not inspected
ƒ Any other exceptions
 June 2004

Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet

Of

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing .................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to.......................................................... Road
Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments
(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Snipe Depth
Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot

Test Locations % Consumed

CS 2 CS 3 CS 4
Location (Abbreviation)
Component Defect E MS E MS E MS
(Describe Other (O) in comments)
Pile Pipe Top (T), Ground Level (GL), Other (O) 1-20 1-20 21-35 21-35 36-50 36-50
Girder Pipe End1 (E1), Midspan (MS), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1-20 1-30 21-35 31-50 36-50 51-70
Corbel Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1-20 1-20 21-35 21-35 36-50 36-50
Headstock1 Edge Area End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1-5 1-5 6-10 6-10 11-20 11-20
Headstock2 Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1 - 45mm 45 - 65mm 66 - 90mm
Other Component Enter relevant component code and describe location in comments field.
1. Area of headstock (%) for external loss of section (top, bottom or sides).
2. Maximum pipe diameter (mm) in headstock for internal piping defects.
3. Members in excess of CS4 deterioration are critical and should be replaced immediately
 June 2004

Photographic and Sketches Record B2/6 Sheet

Of

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing .................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to.......................................................... Road

Location Description
Film/Exposure

ƒ Deck Surface (full width and alignment)

Modification

Component

ƒ
Sketch No.

Side View (waterway, spans, piers, etc)

ƒ
Number

Underside (deck and pier construction)

Group

ƒ Deficient Component and Major Defects

ƒ Undefined Elements
 June 2004

Bridge Scour Soundings Report B2/7 Sheet

Of

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing .................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to.......................................................... Road
Sounding Permanent Sounding Depth (m) Comments
Location Reference
Feature Stream bed

Condition State
Water Surface
Modification

Top of kerb, deck

Difference
or concrete
Location

Previous

parapet Current
Group

Sounding Locations Depth (metres)

CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4
Group Location (Abbreviation)
Local scour

Local scour

Local scour

Local scour
Change in

Change in

Change in

Change in
depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

0.2 to 0.5 to 0.5 to

Span End1 (E1), Midspan (MS), End 2 (E2), Other (O) < 0.2 < 0.5 2 to 4 > 1.0 > 4.0
0.49 1.99 1.0
 Sheet
Routine Maintenance Inspection Report B1/1 1 Of 3

Structure ID……………7799 ............................... Bridge Name................................................................

Crossing………………...Barron River................ Road Number……..32A .............................................
Structure Type…………Bridge ........................... Road Name ..................................................................
Construction Type……..Girder / Beam .............. Owner……………..Department of Main Roads......
Construction Material…Steel .............................. District…………….Peninsula District ......................
Inspector………………..Phil Rae ........................ Local Authority…...Mareeba Shire Council ............

Level 1 Inspection Programmed Exceptional

Date of Inspection………03-SEP-2002................ Date of Next Inspection………03-SEP-2003 ............

Chainage…12.67….(km) on the …………….Cairns….…………to……………..Mareeba....................Road

Inspection Elements Problem Location and Comments (include Rectified Maintenance Inspection
(tick) maintenance activity number) Required Required
(*Refer to bottom of form) Y N Y N Y N Y N
Approaches
1 Signs and Delineation
ƒ Missing, damaged, obscured Clean
(includes ID plate)
2 Guardrail
ƒ Accident damage Impact, minor
ƒ Incorrect alignment Too low
ƒ Connection to bridge
ƒ Delineators Clean and replace
3 Road Drainage
ƒ Blocked inlets/outlets
ƒ Scour of outlets/embankment Clean high shoulders
4 Road Surface
ƒ Material defects* - concrete
ƒ Material defects* - surfacing
ƒ Settlement, depressions
ƒ Rough joint transition Abutment A relieving slab
Bridge Surface
5 Bridge Surface
ƒ Material defects*: surfacing
ƒ Material defects*: concrete Shrinkage cracking
ƒ Material defects*: timber
ƒ Scuppers Clean and clear
6 Footpaths
ƒ Clean Sweep
ƒ Even
7 Barriers
ƒ Impact Damage
ƒ Loose/damaged fixings Loose bolts on hand rails
ƒ Loose post base Loose rails
ƒ Material Defects*
ƒ Delineators Replace both sides
8 Expansion Joints
ƒ Loose/damaged fixings
ƒ Damaged/missing seals
ƒ Deck/nosing/ballast wall
damage
ƒ Obstructions in gap Requires cleaning
 Sheet
Routine Maintenance Inspection Report B1/1
2 Of 3

Structure ID……………7799 ............................... Bridge Name................................................................

Inspection Date…………03-SEP-2003.…………
Inspection Elements Problem Location and Comments (include Rectified Maintenance Inspection
(tick) maintenance activity number) Required Required
Y N Y N Y N Y N
Waterway
9 General Clear trees and vegetation.
ƒ Trees or bushes under bridge Excessive litter. Noxious weeds –
ƒ Debris against structure Singapre Daisy
ƒ Riverbank/Embankment
Erosion
ƒ Scour holes in bed
ƒ Damaged bed protection
Substructure
(Including culvert wingwalls)
10 Material Defects*
ƒ Piles
ƒ Footings
ƒ Walls/Stems
ƒ Headstocks
11 General
ƒ Forward movement of
abutments/wings
ƒ Blocked drains/weepholes
ƒ Debris on shelf/bearing
ƒ Scour/erosion of spillthrough
ƒ Dampness/leakage from
deck
ƒ Substructure protection
(over-bridges)
12 Bearings
ƒ Gap closed/decks in
contact/damaged
ƒ Bearing displaced/damaged
ƒ Poorly seated
ƒ Corroded/Seized/No
lubricant
Superstructure
13 Material defects* in:
ƒ Girders (including fasteners)
ƒ Cross Girders
ƒ Deck Minor cracking on kerb, exposed
ƒ Coatings reo midstream LHS
14 General
ƒ Debris/dirt build-up
ƒ Impact damage
ƒ Excessive
movement/vibration
ƒ Dampness
ƒ Ventholes
 Sheet
Routine Maintenance Inspection Report B1/1
3 Of 3

Structure ID……….7799 ...................................... Bridge Name................................................................

Inspection Date……03-SEP-2003..………………

Inspection Elements Problem Location and Comments (include Rectified Maintenance Inspection
(tick) maintenance activity number) Required Required
Y N Y N Y N Y N
Miscellaneous
15 Damage to services
ƒ Fasteners / Brackets
ƒ Pipe / Conduit Remove old bracket LHS
ƒ Openings
16 Roadway under bridge
ƒ Delineation
ƒ Barriers
ƒ Road drainage

Culverts
17 Material Defects* in:
ƒ Walls
ƒ Roofs
ƒ Aprons
ƒ Wingwalls/Headwalls
ƒ Steel Culverts **

Material * Defects Description

Concrete Cracking, spalling, corrosion of reinforcement, drummy areas
Steel Bending, buckling, cracking, distortion, loose bolts, rivets, corrosion, coating damage
Timber Splitting, crushing, decay, infestation, loose bolts or pins
Masonry Cracking, opening joints, mortar loss, bulging
Bituminous Surfacing Cracking, crazing, breaking up, lifting off, rutting, pushing
Protective Coatings Cracked, peeling, weathered

** Steel Culverts Probe or sound culvert walls at normal water level, check for pitting or loss of culvert
material

General Comments
Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/1 Sheet
1 Of 4

Structure ID……………7799 ............................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………. ………..Barron River................ Road Number……32A................................................
Structure Type………….Bridge........................... Road Name...................................................................
Construction Type………Girder/Beam .............. Owner…………….Department of Main Roads .......
Construction Material….Steel.............................. District……………Peninsula District…...................
Inspector………………...Roy West ..................... Local Authority…..Mareeba Shire Council..............

Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Programmed Exceptional Underwater

Date of Inspection………03-SEP-2001 ................ Date of Next Inspection……..03-SEP-2004...............

Chainage…12.67…(km) on the ……………Cairns….…………to……….…Mareeba……………….Road
Component Location Quantity Comments
Per
ƒ Location of item/condition
Exposure Class

Condition

Maintenance
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

Req’d ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit

1 2 3 4

O AP1 AP 70O 2 1 Each 1

O AP1 GR 72S 2 2 Each 2 Single bolt connection to bridge only. Photo 4_07

O AP1 PRO 53O 2 180 m2 177 3 Side 1 – slight scour at relieving slab. Photo 4_04

O A1 J1 14S 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Loose plate, rattles, leaks water onto headstock. Photos 4_02,
4 08
O S1 BR 2S 2 86 Lin m 86 All posts and rail bolts are loose. Refer to comments.

O S1 K 3C 2 73 Lin m 73 Hairline shrinkage cracks to soffits. Photo 1_01

O S1 WS 1C 2 310 m 2
310 Slightly wavy surface, craze cracked, missing stone. Photo
4 09
O A1 J2 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5

O P1 J1 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 First joint in deck after P1

O P1 J2 11O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Choked with gravel. Photo 4_10

O P1 J3 14S 3 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Choked with dirt and grass. Leaks onto bearings. Photo 4_11

O P1 J4 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Last joint in deck before P2

O S2 BR 2S 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 All post and rail bolts are loose. Refer to comments.

O S2 K 3C 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 Minor shrinkage cracks below on deck soffits.

2
O S2 WS 1C 2 388 m 388 Craze cracked and wavy

O P2 J1 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 First joint in slab after P2

O P2 J2 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Last joint in slab before P3

O S3 BR 2S 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 All post and rail bolts are loose. Refer to comments.

Overall Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 Comments

Poor condition due to rusting bearings/bolts. At all spans, all bridge
Original Structure (O) rail bolts are loose and the rails rattle. All bolts are lock nutted and
set to be loose. The bolt holes are in the post to rail connectors are
Modification ( ) slotted. This seems to cater for the amount of movement and bounce
under heavy traffic
Modification ( )
Modification ( )
Widening (WLn, WRn), Lengthening (L1, L2), Raised (Ra), Redecked (Re), Shortening (S1, S2), Strengthening (St)
Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/2 Sheet
2 Of 4
Structure ID………7799 ....................................... Bridge Name ................................................................
Inspection Date……03-SEP-2001…… Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Underwater

Component Location Quantity Comments

Maintenance Req’d
Per
Exposure Class Condition ƒ Location of item/condition
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit 1 2 3 4
O S3 K 3C 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 Minor shrinkage cracks below on deck soffits
2
O S3 WS 1C 2 388 m 388 2 Craze cracked and wavy

O P3 J1 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 First joint in slab after P3

O P3 J2 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Last joint in slab before P4

O S4 BR 2S 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 All posts and rail bolts are loose. Refer to comments.

O S4 K 3C 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 Minor shrinkage below on deck soffit

2
O S4 WS 1C 2 388 m 388 Craze cracked and wavy. Photo 4_12

O P4 J1 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 First joint in deck after P4

O P4 J2 14S 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Choked with dirt and grass. Leaks water and rubbish on to
bearings. Photo 4 13
O P4 J3 11O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Choked with dirt and grass. Leaks water and rubbish on to
bearings. Photo 4 15
O P4 J4 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Last joint in slab before P5

O S5 BR 2S 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 All post and rail bolts are loose. Refer to comments.

O S5 K 3C 2 91.2 Lin m 91.2 Minor shrinkage cracks below on deck soffits.

O S5 WS 1C 2 388 m2 388 Craze cracked and wavy

O P5 J1 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 First joint in slab after P5

O P5 J2 15O 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5

O S6 BR 2S 2 74 Lin m 74 All post and rail bolts are loose. Refer to comments.

O S6 K 3C 2 74 Lin m 74

O S6 WS 1C 2 310 m2 310 Craze cracked and wavy surface

O A2 J1 14S 2 8.5 Lin m 8.5 Concrete WS breaking away at joint. Photo 4_15

O A2 PRO 53O 2 120 m2 120

O AP2 GR 72S 2 2 Each 2 GR1 – panels 2 & 4 slight traffic damage. Photo 4_18. Both
sides have damaged/loose drum ends.
O AP2 AP 70O 2 1 Each 1

O A1 B 43S 2 4 Each 2 2 B4 – blistering rusty baseplates. Photo 1_02. A1 rust coming

out of bearings
O A1 A 50O 2 1 Each 1 Badly stained by water from leaky deck joint

O A1 F 59C 2 1 Each X X X X Buried

O A1 WW 51C 2 2 Each 2
2
O A1 PRO 53O 2 64 m 63 1 Scoured by water pipe outlet. Photos 4_01-02

O S1 G 22S 2 5 Each 5
2
O S1 D 20C 2 354 m 353 1
Hairline shrinkage cracks to soffits D1, D5. Photos 1_01, 1_08 (typical). See Note. D2 - 0.16m2 spalled area. Photo 3_21. D1 – All scuppers blistering and
rusting. Photo 3 23 is typical of whole bridge.
O S1 XG 31C 2 1 Each 1
Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/2 Sheet
3 Of 4
Structure ID………7799 ....................................... Bridge Name ................................................................
Inspection Date……03-SEP-2001…… Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Underwater

Component Location Quantity Comments

Maintenance Req’d
Per
Exposure Class Condition ƒ Location of item/condition
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit 1 2 3 4
O S1 XG 31S 2 4 Each 4

O P1 B 43S 2 4 Each 4
B1 – hold down bolt on outside rusting badly. Photos 3_18, 3_20. B1 – Bearing through bolt head very badly rusted. Photos 3_19–20. B2 is fixed hinge
bearing in Span 2. G1 rocker hold down bolt almost rusted away. Girder and bearing blistering badly. Photos 1_09, 1_11, 3_09-10. Expansion hinge bearings
in span 2 rusty hold down bolts and rockers. Photos 1_12-13
O P1 H 54C 2 1 Each 1

O P1 C 56C 2 1 Each 1

O P1 F 59C 2 1 Each X X X X Buried

O S1 W 71O 2 1 Each 1 Scrubby

O S2 G 22S 2 4 Each 4
Rust coming through paint on bottom flanges. Photo 1_22. Ends of girders and top flange rusting at mid-span joint. Photos 1_18, 1_21. Travelling stage rails
are rusting. Photos 1 15, 3 12.
O S2 D 20C 2 442 m2 441 1 D1 soffit spalled at finger joint plate. Photo 3_11. Shrinkage
cracks D1-D5 soffits.
O S2 XG 31S 2 8 Each 8

O P2 B 43S 2 4 Each 3 1 Bearing No. 1 hold down bolt rusting badly. Photo 3_08

O P2 H 54C 2 1 Each 1

O P2 C 56C 2 1 Each 1

O P2 F 59C 2 1 Each X X X X Underwater

O S2 W 71O 2 1 Each 1

O S3 G 22S 2 4 Each 4 G1-G4 rust coming through paint on lower flanges.

2
O S3 D 20C 2 442 m 442 Numerous shrinkage cracks to soffits D1-D5

O S3 XG 31S 2 6 Each 5 1 XG1 rusting over Pier 2.

O P3 B 43S 2 4 Each 4 All 4 bearings, pedestals, bolts rusting. Photos 2_01-02.

O P3 H 54C 2 1 Each 1

O P3 C 56C 2 1 Each 1

O P3 F 59C 2 1 Each X X X X Underwater. Photos 2_08-09

O S3 W 71O 2 1 Each 1

O S4 G 22S 2 4 Each 4 Rust spots coming through paint on all lower flanges. G4
rusting on ribs inner side at P3. Photo 2 15
O S4 D 20C 2 442 m2 441 1 D5 – small spall to soffit. Photo 2_11.

O S4 XG 31S 2 6 Each 5 1 XG1 is rusting over P3.

O P4 B 43S 2 4 Each 4
B1-B4 rusting at base plates and bolts. Photos 2_04-06. B1 badly rusted nut on anchor bolt No. 1. Photo 3_05 (O/P4). B2/G2 expansion hinge, girder to
bearing bolt head rusting badly. Photo 3_06. B2/G1 Rocker bolt rusted away. Photo 3_03. Bearing through bolt and anchor bolt rusting badly. Photos 2_16.
3_04. B3/G1, Fixed hinge, Bearing through bolt nut rusting away. Photo 3_01. B3/G1 Bearing ledge rusting. Photo 3_02. Photo 2_21 is outer face. Rusty
gussets. Photo 2_20 is under side of G3 bearing ledge.
O P4 H 54C 2 1 Each 1
Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/2 Sheet
4 Of 4
Structure ID………7799 ....................................... Bridge Name ................................................................
Inspection Date……03-SEP-2001…… Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Underwater

Component Location Quantity Comments

Maintenance Req’d
Per
Exposure Class Condition ƒ Location of item/condition
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit 1 2 3 4
O P4 C 56C 2 1 Each 1

O P4 F 59C 2 1 Each X X X X Underwater

O S4 W 71O 2 1 Each 1

O S5 G 22S 2 4 Each 4 Gussets and bearing ledges rusting. Photos 3_02, 2_25.

O S5 D 20C 2 442 m2 440 2 D3-D5 spalled soffit at finger joint. Photos 2_17-19.

O S5 XG 31S 2 8 Each 8

O P5 B 43S 2 4 Each 2 2 B1 bearing hold down bolt rusting badly. Photo 2_24. B4
bearing hold down bolt head rusting away. Photo 2 23.
O P5 H 54C 2 1 Each 1

O P5 F 59C 2 1 Each X X X X Buried

O S5 W 71O 2 1 Each 1 Scrubby bank.

O S6 G 22S 2 4 Each 2 2 G3-G4 rust coming through paint on bottom flange.

2
O S6 D 20C 2 354 m 354

O S6 XG 31S 2 4 Each 4

O S6 XG 31C 2 1 Each 1

O A2 B 43S 2 4 Each 4 All bearing through bolts and base plates rusting. Photos 4_19-
20, 4 22, 4 24
O A2 A 50C 2 1 Each X X X X

O A2 F 59C 2 1 Each X X X X

O S6 W 71O 2 1 Each 1 Scrubby banks

Defective Components Report B2/3 Sheet
1 Of 2

Structure ID……7799 ........................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing…………Barron River ........................... Road Number……….32A...........................................
Inspector………...Roy West ................................. Local Authority……..Mareeba Shire Council..........

Date of Inspection……..03-SEP-2001 .................. Date of Next Inspection…….03-SEP-2004................

Chainage……12.67……(km) on the ……………Cairns…..………to………….Mareeba ..................... Road
Component Location Description of Defect Required
Action (√)
ƒ Detailed Description

Level 3 Inspection
ƒ Estimated Quantity
Condition State
Exposure Class

ƒ "Other" action required

Modification

Component

ƒ Urgency of action (what, who, when, how)

Standard
Number

Monitor
ƒ Recommended Testing
Group

Other
ƒ Reference of sketches and photos (Roll / Exposure Nos)

O AP1 GR 72S 2 3 Single bolt connection to bridge only. Photo 4_07. Not to standard. Inform ID of need
to fund guardrail improvement program. 3
O AP1 PRO 53O 2 3 Side 1 – slight scour at relieving slab. Photo 4_04. RMPC contractor to repair 3
O A1 J1 14S 2 3 Loose expansion plate, rattles, leaks water onto headstock. Photos 4_02, 4_08. Put on
program for funding and schedule repair. 3
O P1 J3 14S 3 3 Finger plate joint in Span 2 choked with dirt and grass. Leaks water and rubbish onto
bearings. Photo 4 11. Put on program for funding to be cleaned with other works. 3
O P4 J2 14S 2 3 Finger plate joint in Span 5 choked with dirt and grass. Leaks water and rubbish onto
bearings. Photo 4 13. Put on program for funding to be cleaned with other works. 3
O A2 J1 14S 2 3 Concrete WS breaking away at joint. Photo 4_15. To be repaired with other joints. 3
O AP2 GR 72S 2 3 GR1 – panels 2 & 4 slight traffic damage. Photo 4_18. Both sides have damaged/loose
drum ends. Photo 4 15. Put on program for funding. 3
O A1 B 43S 2 3 B4 – blistering rusty baseplate. Photo 1_02. A1 rust coming out of bearing. 3
O A1 PRO 53O 2 3 Scoured by water pipe outlet. Photos 4_01-02. RMPC contractor to repair. 3
O S1 D 20C 2 3 3
Hairline shrinkage cracks to soffits D1-D5, this is typical. Photos 1_01, 1_08 (typical). D2 – 0.16m2 spalled area. Rusty reo. Photo 3_21. Clean reo, patch spall.
D1 – All scuppers blistering and rusting. Photo 3 23 is typical. Remove and have galvanised when other major work is done.
O P1 B 43S 2 3 3
B1 – hold down bolt on outside rusting badly. Photos 3_18, 3_20. B1 – Bearing through bolt head very badly rusted. Photos 3_19-20. B2 is fixed hinge bearing
in Span 2. G1 rocker hold down bolt almost rusted away. Girder and bearing blistering badly. Photos 1_09, 1_11, 3_09-10. B3 – Expansion hinge bearings in
Span 2 rusty hold down bolts and rockers. Photos 1 12-13. To br brought to attention of ID for funding outside normal maintenance.
O S2 G 22S 2 3 Rust coming through paint on bottom flanges. Photo 1_22. Ends of girders and top
flanges rusting at mid-span joint. Photos 1 18, 1 21. Travelling stage rails rusty. 3
O S2 D 20C 2 3 D1 spalled soffit at finger joint plate. Photo 3_11. Shrinkage cracks D1-D5 soffits.
Repair with other major works. 3
O P2 B 43S 2 3 B1 hold down bolt rusting badly. Photo 3_08. Bring to attention of ID for funding
outside of normal maintenance. 3
O S3 G 22S 2 3 G1-G4 rust coming through paint on lower flanges. To be brought to attention of ID for
funding outside of normal maintenance. 3
O S3 XG 31S 2 3 XG1 rusting over Pier 2. To be brought to attention of ID for funding outside normal
maintenance. 3
O P3 B 43S 2 3 All 4 bearings, pedestals, bolts rusting. Photos 2_01-02. To be brought to attention of
ID for funding outside of normal maintenance. 3
O S4 D 20C 2 3 D5 – small spall to soffit. Photo 2_11. Clean reo. and patch when other major work is
carried out. 3
O S4 XG 31S 2 3 XG1 is rusting over P3. To be brought to attention of ID for funding outside normal
maintenance. 3
O P4 B 43S 2 3 3
B1-B4 rusting at base plates and bolts. Photos 2_04-06. B1 badly rusted nut on anchor bolt No 1. Photo 3_05. (O/P4) B2/G2 expansion hinge, girder to bearing
bolt head rusting badly. Photo 3_06. B2/G1 Rocker bolt rusted away. Photo 3_03. Bearing through bolt and anchor bolt rusting badly. Photos 2_16, 3_04.
B3/G1, Fixed hinge, bearing through bolt nut rusting away. Photo 3_01 Bearing ledge rusting. Photo 3_02. Photo 2_21 is outer face. Photo 2_20 is underside of
G3 bearing ledge. To be brought to attention of ID for funding outside normal maintenance.
O S5 G 22S 2 3 Gussets and bearing ledges rusting. Photos 3_02, 2_25. To be brought to attention of ID
for funding outside normal maintenance. 3
O S5 D 20C 2 3 D3-D5 spalled soffit at finger joint. Photos 2_17-19. To be brought to attention of ID
for funding outside normal maintenance. 3
Defective Components Report B2/3 Sheet
2 Of 2

Structure ID……7799 ........................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing…………Barron River ........................... Road Number……….32A...........................................
Inspector………...Roy West ................................. Local Authority……..Mareeba Shire Council..........

Date of Inspection……..03-SEP-2001 .................. Date of Next Inspection…….03-SEP-2004................

Chainage……12.67……(km) on the ……………Cairns…..………to………….Mareeba ..................... Road
Component Location Description of Defect Required
Action (√)
ƒ Detailed Description

Level 3 Inspection
ƒ Estimated Quantity
Condition State
Exposure Class

ƒ "Other" action required

Modification

Component

ƒ Urgency of action (what, who, when, how)

Standard
Number

Monitor
ƒ Recommended Testing
Group

Other
ƒ Reference of sketches and photos (Roll / Exposure Nos)

O P5 B 43S 2 3 3
B1 bearing hold down bolt rusting badly. Photo 2_24. B4 bearing hold down bolt head rusting away. Photo 2_23. To be brought to attention of ID for funding
outside normal maintenance.
O A2 B 43S 2 3 3
All bearing through bolts and base plates rusting. Photos 4_19-20, 4_22, 4_24. To be brought to attention of ID for funding outside normal maintenance.
Standard Procedure Exceptions Report B2/4 Sheet
1 Of 1

Structure ID…….7799 .......................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing…………Barron River ........................... Road Number…….32A...............................................
Inspector………...Roy West ................................. Local Authority…..Mareeba Shire Council..............

Date of Inspection……..03-SEP-2001 .................. Date of Next Inspection………03-SEP-2004.............

Chainage…12.67.…(km) on the …………….Cairns…….…………to…………..Mareeba ................... Road
Component Location Exception (3)
Comments

Comp. Inspected
Exposure Class

Less than 25%

Not Inspected
Modification

ƒ Description of undefined component

Component

Component
Component
Undefined

ƒ
Standard

Photograph/sketch reference
Number

ƒ
Group

Other
Reason component not inspected
ƒ Any other exceptions

O A1 F 59C 2 3 Buried.

O P1 F 59C 2 3 Buried.

O P2 F 59C 2 3 Underwater.

O P3 F 59C 2 3 Underwater. Photos 2_08-09.

O P4 F 59C 2 3 Underwater.

O P5 F 59C 2 3 Buried.

O A2 A 50C 2 3 Buried. Photo 4_21.

O A2 F 59C 2 3 Buried.
Photographic and Sketches Record B2/6 Sheet
1 Of 35

Structure ID…….7799 .......................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing…………Barron River ........................... Road Number………32A............................................
Inspector………...Roy West ................................. Local Authority…….Mareeba Shire Council...........

Date of Inspection……..03-SEP-2001 .................. Date of Next Inspection……..03-SEP-2004...............

Chainage……12.67……(km) on the …………….Carins…….…………to………..Mareeba ................ Road

Location Description
Film/Exposure

ƒ Deck Surface (full width and alignment)

Modification

Component

ƒ
Sketch No.

Side View (waterway, spans, piers, etc)

ƒ
Number

Underside (deck and pier construction)

Group

ƒ Deficient Component and Major Defects

ƒ Undefined Elements

1_01 O S1 D Hairline cracking D5 soffit and kerb

1_02 O A1 B B4 – Blistering to bearing base plate

1_03 O S1 D D5 – Hairline cracking and exposed reo.

1_04-05 O P1 PW General layout pier 1 from span 1.

1_06 O S1 D D5 – Hairline cracking, rusty scupper.

1_07 O S1 D D5 – Close-up of rusty scupper No. 3

1_08 O A1 A Layout / general view of A1 from P1. Note travelling stages.

1_09 O P1 B B2 – Midspan bearing

1_10 O S2 D Waterstained soffit midspan deck joint

1_11 O P1 B D2 – Rusty rocker and bolt

1_12 O P1 B B3 – Rusty rocker and bolt

1_13 O P1 B B3 – Rusty rocker anchor bolt

1_14 O S2 G G3 – Rust starting on girder end at midspan joint

1_15 O S2 G G3 – Rust on rail of travelling stage

1_16 O P1 B B3 – Rusty rocker bolt

1_17 O P1 J1 J3 – Rusty rocker anchor bolt (G4)

1_18 O S2 G G4 – Rust coming through paint on bottom flange.

1_19 O S2 G G4 – Rusty top flange at D5

1_20 O P1 B B4 – Rusty main rocker bolt

1_21 O S2 G G4 – Rusty girder ends, stained soffit, rusty bolts in top flange G5

1_22 O S2 G G4 – Rust coming though paint, bottom flange, also of cross bracing.

1_23 O P2 B B4 – Rusty main bolt and rocker through bolt

2_01 O P3 B G3 – B3 rusting bearing pedestals

2_02 O P3 B G4 – B4 blistering rust on bearing base and rocker bolts.

2_03 O S3 G G4 – Rust starting on under bridge gantry rail

2_04 O P4 B B1 – Blistering rust on base plate and bolts

2_05 O P4 B B2 – Rusting bolt on girder flange and through bolt

 Sheet
Level 2 Inspection Report - Photos & Sketches Record B2/6 6 Of 35

Structure Id 7799 Name

Inspection Date 03-SEP-2001 Inspection Level 2 9 Level 3 Underwater

Pictures

Id 1100006726 Date 03-SEP-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

1_04-05

Description
P1/S1 - General layout pier 1 from span 1.

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O P 1 PW

Id 1100006727 Date 03-SEP-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

1_06

Description
S1/D5 - Hairline cracking, rusty scupper.

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O S 1 D
 Sheet
Level 2 Inspection Report - Photos & Sketches Record B2/6 14 Of 35

Structure Id 7799 Name

Inspection Date 03-SEP-2001 Inspection Level 2 9 Level 3 Underwater

Pictures

Id 1100006750 Date 03-SEP-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

2_06

Description
P4/B3 - Blistering rust on base plate, bolts, bracing and lower
flange.
Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No
O P 4 B

Id 1100006751 Date 03-SEP-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

2_07

Description
S5/XG1 - Starting to rust

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O S 5 XG

Id 1100006752 Date 03-SEP-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

2_08-09

Description
P3/c - Layout of pier from span 4.

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O P 3 C
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
1 Of 7

Structure ID…7388 ............................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………Black Waterhole Creek.............. Road Number…….33B...............................................
Inspector……...Frederick Doyle .......................... Local Authority…..Mirani Shire Council .................

Date of Inspection……..11-MAR-2003................ Date of Next Inspection………11-MAR-2004 ..........

Chainage……46.79……(km) on the …………….Nebo…….…………to………….Mackay ................. Road
Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments
(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot

O A1 H1 54 180 E1 12 H 180 2
O A1 H1 54 180 O3 12 H 180 2 Drilled at pile 3

O A1 H1 54 180 E2 12 H 0 180 100 4 Headstock completely rotted out at end two. Photos 1_27-28

O A1 P1 56 390 T 12 H 390 1
O A1 P2 56 470 T 12 H 470 1
O A1 P3 56 370 T 12 H 370 1
O A1 P4 56 340 T 12 H 340 1
WR1 A1 P1 56 470 T 12 H 470 1
O S1 G1 22 350 E1 12 H 300 50 14 2
O S1 G1 22 480 MS 12 H 480 1
O S1 G1 22 460 E2 12 H 460 1
O S1 G2 22 420 E1 12 H 370 50 12 2
O S1 G2 22 430 MS 12 H 430 1
O S1 G2 22 420 E2 12 H 420 1
O S1 G3 22 435 E1 12 H 245 190 44 4
O S1 G3 22 450 MS 12 H 450 1
O S1 G3 22 415 E2 12 H 415 1
O S1 G4 22 440 E1 12 H 440 1
O S1 G4 22 470 MS 12 H 470 1
O S1 G4 22 420 E2 12 H 390 30 7 2
O S1 G5 22 430 E1 12 H 410 20 5 2
Test Locations % Consumed
CS 2 CS 3 CS 4
Location (Abbreviation)
Component Defect E MS E MS E MS
(Describe Other (O) in comments)
Pile Pipe Top (T), Ground Level (GL), Other (O) 1-20 1-20 21-35 21-35 36-50 36-50
Girder Pipe End1 (E1), Midspan (MS), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1-20 1-30 21-35 31-50 36-50 51-70
Corbel Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1-20 1-20 21-35 21-35 36-50 36-50
Headstock1 Edge Area End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1-5 1-5 6-10 6-10 11-20 11-20
Headstock2 Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 1 - 45mm 45 - 65mm 66 - 90mm
Other Component Enter relevant component code and describe location in comments field.
1. Area of headstock (%) for external loss of section (top, bottom or sides).
2. Maximum pipe diameter (mm) in headstock for internal piping defects.
3. Members in excess of CS4 deterioration are critical and should be replaced immediately
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
2 Of 7

Structure ID…...7388 ............................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………..Black Waterhole Creek............ Road Number………33B............................................
Inspector……….Frederick Doyle ........................ Local Authority…….Mirani Shire Council..............

Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments

(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot
O S1 G5 22 470 MS 12 H 470 1 O
O S1 G5 22 405 E2 12 H 405 1 O
O S1 G6 22 280 E1 12 H 0 280 100 4 O
Drilled solid, but excessive snipe has caused splitting to occur at snipe chamfer to 20mm wide at side 1 (Photo 1_30) and 30mm wide along bottom (Photo 1_31)
see Sketch 1. Note that Side 1 crack opens up to 25mm wide under load !!!!
O S1 G6 22 370 MS 12 H 370 1
O S1 G6 22 320 E2 12 H 320 1
WR1 S1 G1 22 410 E1 12 H 410 1
WR1 S1 G1 22 470 MS 12 H 470 1
WR1 S1 G1 22 395 E2 12 H 395 1
WR1 S1 G2 22 450 E1 12 H 450 1
WR1 S1 G2 22 480 MS 12 H 480 1
WR1 S1 G2 22 450 E2 12 H 450 1
O P1 COR1 27 400 E1 12 H 400 1
O P1 COR1 27 400 E2 12 H 400 1
O P1 COR2 27 460 E1 12 H 375 85 18 2
Badly split E2 and bottom of side 1 crack 20mm wide. Photo
O P1 COR2 27 460 E2 12 H 360 100 22 3
1_26
O P1 COR3 27 420 E1 12 H 420 1
O P1 COR3 27 420 E2 12 H 420 1
O P1 COR4 27 440 E1 12 H 440 1
O P1 COR4 27 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O P1 COR5 27 430 E1 12 H 430 1
O P1 COR5 27 430 E2 12 H 410 20 5 2
O P1 COR6 27 365 E1 12 H 365 1
O P1 COR6 27 365 E2 12 H 365 1
WR1 P1 COR1 27 475 E1 12 H 475 1
WR1 P1 COR1 27 475 E2 12 H 475 1
WR1 P1 COR2 27 360 E1 12 H 360 1
WR1 P1 COR2 27 360 E2 12 H 360 1
O P1 P1 56 450 T 12 H 300 150 33 3
O P1 P1 56 450 GL 12 H 450 1
O P1 P2 56 360 T 12 H 260 100 28 3
O P1 P2 56 400 GL 12 H 400 1
O P1 P3 56 370 T 12 H 240 130 35 3
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
3 Of 7

Structure ID…...7388 ............................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………..Black Waterhole Creek............ Road Number………33B............................................
Inspector……….Frederick Doyle ........................ Local Authority…….Mirani Shire Council..............

Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments

(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot
O P1 P3 56 360 GL 12 H 280 80 22 3
O P1 P4 56 350 T 12 H 300 50 14 2
O P1 P4 56 360 GL 12 H 280 80 22 3
WR1 P1 P1 56 430 T 12 H 430 1
WR1 P1 P1 56 440 GL 12 H 440 1
O S2 G1 22 455 E1 12 H 455 1
O S2 G1 22 480 MS 12 H 460 20 4 2
O S2 G1 22 460 E2 12 H 460 1
O S2 G2 22 410 E1 12 H 410 1
O S2 G2 22 460 MS 12 H 460 1
O S2 G2 22 420 E2 12 H 420 1
O S2 G3 22 410 E1 12 H 310 100 24 3
O S2 G3 22 460 MS 12 H 400 60 13 2
Signs of structural distress, some longitudinal splitting to crack width of 12mm, extending from E1 to midpoint of bottom of side 2 (Photo 1_13-14)

O S2 G3 22 420 E2 12 H 420 1
O S2 G4 22 420 E1 12 H 420 1
O S2 G4 22 450 MS 12 H 450 1
O S2 G4 22 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O S2 G5 22 420 E1 12 H 420 1
O S2 G5 22 450 MS 12 H 450 1
O S2 G5 22 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O S2 G6 22 420 E1 12 H 420 1
O S2 G6 22 450 MS 12 H 450 1
O S2 G6 22 440 E2 12 H 440 1
WR1 S2 G1 22 400 E1 12 H 350 50 13 2
WR1 S2 G1 22 460 MS 12 H 460 1
WR1 S2 G1 22 400 E2 12 H 400 1
WR1 S2 G2 22 450 E1 12 H 450 1
WR1 S2 G2 22 480 MS 12 H 480 1
WR1 S2 G2 22 360 E2 12 H 360 1
O P2 COR1 27 400 E1 12 H 400 1
O P2 COR1 27 400 E2 12 H 300 100 25 3
O P2 COR2 27 440 E1 12 H 360 80 18 2
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
4 Of 7

Structure ID…...7388 ............................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………..Black Waterhole Creek............ Road Number………33B............................................
Inspector……….Frederick Doyle ........................ Local Authority…….Mirani Shire Council..............

Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments

(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot
O P2 COR2 27 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O P2 COR3 27 420 E1 12 H 420 1
O P2 COR3 27 420 E2 12 H 420 1
O P2 COR4 27 485 E1 12 H 485 3 CS 3 – Vertical split E1 4mm wide, anti-splitter bolts required

O P2 COR4 27 485 E2 12 H 485 1

O P2 COR5 27 440 E1 12 H 430 10 2 2 Note: 10mm in ‘pipe’ refers to 10mm split at E1

O P2 COR5 27 440 E2 12 H 440 1

O P2 COR6 27 380 E1 12 H 380 1
O P2 COR6 27 380 E2 12 H 380 1
WR1 P2 COR1 27 490 E1 12 H 460 30 6 2
WR1 P2 COR1 27 490 E2 12 H 390 100 20 2 100mm rot visible in end of corbel (Photo 1_17)

WR1 P2 COR2 27 380 E1 12 H 310 70 18 2

WR1 P2 COR2 27 380 E2 12 H 380 1

CS 3 – Lateral longitudinal cracking 5mm wide face 1 between
O P2 H1 54 180 E1 12 H 180 3
Piles 1 and 2 (Photos 1_15-16)
Drilled vertically under; longitudinally cracked between G1 &
O P2 H1 54 300 O 12 V 300 3
2. Suspect active termites in this end of headstock
O P2 H1 54 180 E2 12 H 180 2 Rated CS 2 due to age

O P2 H2 54 180 E1 12 H 180 2
O P2 H2 54 180 E2 12 V 180 2 Rated CS 2 due to age

O P2 P1 56 370 T 12 H 270 100 27 3 Active termites

O P2 P1 56 350 GL 12 H 270 80 23 3
O P2 P2 56 400 T 12 H 300 100 25 3
O P2 P2 56 370 GL 12 H 340 30 8 2
O P2 P3 56 350 T 12 H 250 100 29 3
O P2 P3 56 360 GL 12 H 360 1
O P2 P4 56 370 T 12 H 370 1
O P2 P4 56 330 GL 12 H 300 30 9 2
WR1 P2 P1 56 380 T 12 H 380 1
WR1 P2 P1 56 380 GL 12 H 380 1
O S3 G1 22 450 E1 12 H 450 1
O S3 G1 22 470 MS 12 H 470 1
O S3 G1 22 470 E2 12 H 470 1
O S3 G2 22 400 E1 12 H 400 1
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
5 Of 7

Structure ID…...7388 ............................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………..Black Waterhole Creek............ Road Number………33B............................................
Inspector……….Frederick Doyle ........................ Local Authority…….Mirani Shire Council..............

Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments

(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot
O S3 G2 22 440 MS 12 H 440 1
O S3 G2 22 410 E2 12 H 360 50 12 2
O S3 G3 22 400 E1 12 H 390 10 3 2
O S3 G3 22 480 MS 12 H 480 1
O S3 G3 22 400 E2 12 H 400 1
O S3 G4 22 440 E1 12 H 440 1
O S3 G4 22 490 MS 12 H 490 1
O S3 G4 22 400 E2 12 H 330 70 18 2 Drilled at point just past corbel E1

O S3 G5 22 390 E1 12 H 390 1
O S3 G5 22 480 MS 12 H 480 1
O S3 G5 22 400 E2 12 H 400 1
O S3 G6 22 320 E1 12 H 320 1
O S3 G6 22 350 MS 12 H 350 1
O S3 G6 22 310 E2 12 H 110 200 65 4
WR1 S3 G1 22 400 E1 12 H 350 1
WR1 S3 G1 22 460 MS 12 H 460 1
WR1 S3 G1 22 380 E2 12 H 380 1
WR1 S3 G2 22 460 E1 12 H 460 1
WR1 S3 G2 22 490 MS 12 H 490 1
WR1 S3 G2 22 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O P3 COR1 27 390 E1 12 H 310 80 21 3 Badly split at E1 – crack 30mm wide (Photo 1_25)
CS 3 – Drilled solid but split at E2, crack 15mm wide (Photo
O P3 COR1 27 390 E2 12 H 375 15 4 3
1_24). Install anti-splitter bolts and collars
O P3 COR2 27 420 E1 12 H 420 1
O P3 COR2 27 440 E2 12 H 440 1
Drilled solid but excessive snipe over h’stock 165mm
O P3 COR3 27 480 E1 12 H 315 165 34 3
(Photo 1_23)
O P3 COR3 27 480 E2 12 H 315 165 34 3
O P3 COR4 27 430 E1 12 H 430 1
O P3 COR4 27 430 E2 12 H 430 1
O P3 COR5 27 430 E1 12 H 430 1
O P3 COR5 27 430 E2 12 H 430 1
O P3 COR6 27 380 E1 12 H 300 80 21 3
O P3 COR6 27 380 E2 12 H 380 1
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
6 Of 7

Structure ID…...7388 ............................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………..Black Waterhole Creek............ Road Number………33B............................................
Inspector……….Frederick Doyle ........................ Local Authority…….Mirani Shire Council..............

Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments

(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot
WR1 P3 COR1 27 480 E1 12 H 480 1
WR1 P3 COR1 27 480 E2 12 H 480 1
WR1 P3 COR2 27 360 E1 12 H 360 1
WR1 P3 COR2 27 360 E2 12 H 360 1
O P3 H1 54 180 E1 12 H 180 2
O P3 H1 54 180 E2 12 H 180 2 Drilled under girder 5. Solid

O P3 H2 54 180 E2 12 H 180 2 Drilled under girder 5

O P3 H2 54 180 E1 12 V 180 2
O P3 P1 56 340 T 12 H 325 15 4 2
O P3 P1 56 290 GL 12 H 290 1
O P3 P2 56 360 T 12 H 255 105 29 3
O P3 P2 56 300 GL 12 H 270 30 10 2
O P3 P3 56 450 T 12 H 450 1
O P3 P3 56 410 GL 12 H 375 35 9 2
O P3 P4 56 400 T 12 H 270 130 33 3
O P3 P4 56 380 GL 12 H 360 20 5 2
WR1 P3 P1 56 450 T 12 H 450 1
WR1 P3 P1 56 450 GL 12 H 435 15 3 2
O S4 G1 22 420 E1 12 H 420 1
O S4 G1 22 500 MS 12 H 500 1
O S4 G1 22 430 E2 12 H 430 1
O S4 G2 22 440 E1 12 H 440 1
O S4 G2 22 480 MS 12 H 480 1
O S4 G2 22 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O S4 G3 22 430 E1 12 H 430 1
O S4 G3 22 470 MS 12 H 470 1
O S4 G3 22 440 E2 12 H 390 50 11 2
O S4 G4 22 400 E1 12 H 400 1
CS 2 – Drilled solid – active termite trails on outside bottom of
O S4 G4 22 460 MS 12 H 460 1
girder
O S4 G4 22 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O S4 G5 22 400 E1 12 H 400 1
O S4 G5 22 450 MS 12 H 450 1
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
7 Of 7

Structure ID…...7388 ............................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………..Black Waterhole Creek............ Road Number………33B............................................
Inspector……….Frederick Doyle ........................ Local Authority…….Mirani Shire Council..............

Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments

(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Undersize
Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number
Group

(mm)

Solid

Pipe
Rot
O S4 G5 22 440 E2 12 H 440 1
O S4 G6 22 440 E1 12 H 360 80 18 2 Active termites

O S4 G6 22 480 MS 12 H 340 140 29 2 CS 3 – Active termites in test hole

O S4 G6 22 420 E2 12 H 420 1
WR1 S4 G1 22 410 E1 12 H 410 1
WR1 S4 G1 22 490 MS 12 H 490 1
WR1 S4 G1 22 420 E2 12 H 420 1
WR1 S4 G2 22 420 E1 12 H 460 1
WR1 S4 G2 22 460 MS 12 H 490 1
WR1 S4 G2 22 490 E2 12 H 440 1
O A2 H2 54 300 E2 12 V 300 2
O A2 H2 54 300 E1 12 V 300 2
WR1 A2 H2 54 300 E1 12 V 300 2
WR1 A2 H2 54 300 E2 12 V 200 100 33 4
Photo 2_1 – view of rot E2: Photo 2_2 – view of rot in face 1 between WR1 G1 & G2:
Photo 2_3 – view of headstock crushing down up to 30mm over original pile 4 (shoulder 2)
O A2 P1 56 380 T 12 H 380 1
O A2 P1 56 380 GL 12 H 380 1
O A2 P2 56 370 T 12 H 370 1
O A2 P2 56 370 GL 12 H 370 1
O A2 P3 56 450 T 12 H 310 140 31 3
O A2 P3 56 450 GL 12 H 140 310 69 4 Back section of pile at GL rotted out

O A2 P4 56 410 T 12 H 290 120 29 3

O A2 P4 56 410 GL 12 H 290 120 29 3
WR1 A2 P1 56 480 T 12 H 480
WR1 A2 P1 56 480 GL 12 H 480
WR1 A2 P2 56 480 T 12 H 480
WR1 A2 P3 56 320 GL 12 H 320 Wing pile

WR1 A2 P3 56 320 T 12 H 320

WR1 A2 P4 56 320 GL 12 H 320
Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/1 Sheet
1 Of 2

Structure ID……………13167 ............................. Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing……….. .................................................... Road Number……13H ...............................................
Structure Type………….Culvert ......................... Road Name...................................................................
Construction Type………Slab Deck.................... Owner………….Department of Main Roads ...........
Construction Material….Concrete ...................... District…………North-West District…...................
Inspector…………Warren McEvoy .................... Local Authority…..McKinlay Shire Council............

Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Programmed Exceptional Underwater

Date of Inspection………21-NOV-2001............... Date of Next Inspection……..21-NOV-2004 .............

Chainage…78.44…(km) on the ……………Kynuna….…………to……….…Cloncurry…………….Road
Component Location Quantity Comments
Per
ƒ Location of item/condition
Exposure Class

Condition

Maintenance
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

Req’d ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit

1 2 3 4

O AP1 AP 70O 1 1 Each 1 Moderate bumps, depressions. Longitudinal cracking in seal to

10mm depth (Photo #2). Generally smooth transition.
O AP1 PRO 53O 1 30 m2 30

LHS – 10m x 1.5m = 15m2 – minor to moderate cracking of grout; RHS – 10m x 1.5m = 15m2 – minor to moderate cracking of grout

O S1 WS 1O 1 26 m2 26 Minor bumps
2
O S2 WS 1O 1 26 m 26 Minor bumps

O AP2 AP 70O 1 1 Each 1 Moderate bumps, depressions. Longitudinal cracking in seal to

10mm depth (Photo #2 typical). Generally smooth transition.
O AP2 PRO 53O 1 30 m2 30

LHS – 10m x 1.5m = 15m – minor to moderate cracking of grout; RHS – 10m x 1.5m = 15m2 – minor to moderate cracking of grout
2

O A1 A 50C 1 1 Each 1 Previous patch repairs to cracking (Photo #5 and Sketch #1)

O A1 WW 51C 1 2 Each 2
WW1 – Forward movement to 90mm, gap to 45mm, loss of fill material, weepholes blocked by silt (Photo #5, Sketch #1)
WW2 – Slight forward movement, weepholes blocked by buildup of silt, top of wingwalls repaired with concrete capping (Photo #6)
O S1 D 20C 1 15.5 m2 15.5 Good condition

O S1 CBS 20C 2 15.5 m2 X X X X Not visible – build up of silt to 300mm (Photo #7)

O S1 HW 84C 1 2 Each 2 Headwalls – minor cracking: Aprons – not visible

O S1 W 71O 1 1 Each 1 Build up of silt to 300mm (Photo #7)

O P1 PW 58C 1 14.5 m2 14.5 Cracked through in one location to CW 1.0mm (Photo #8),
fine to minor shrinkage cracking, span 2 side rendered over.
O S2 D 20C 1 15.5 m2 15.5 Good condition

O S2 HW 84C 1 2 Each 2 As S1 / HW1

Overall Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 Comments

1. Monitoring of cracking in pier wall and abutments required
Original Structure (O) 2. Waterway requires desilting
Modification ( )
Modification ( )
Modification ( )
Widening (WLn, WRn), Lengthening (L1, L2), Raised (Ra), Redecked (Re), Shortening (S1, S2), Strengthening (St)
Structure Condition Inspection Report B2/2 Sheet
2 Of 2
Structure ID………13167 ..................................... Bridge Name ................................................................
Inspection Date……21-NOV-2001…… Inspection Level 2 Level 3 Underwater

Component Location Quantity Comments

Maintenance Req’d
Per
Exposure Class Condition ƒ Location of item/condition
ƒ Description of defects by location type,
Modification

State
Component

magnitude, extent
Standard

Quantity
Number

ƒ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Group

Exposure Nos)
Unit 1 2 3 4
O S2 CBS 20C 2 15.5 m2 X X X X As S1 / CBS

O S2 W 71O 1 1 Each 1 As S1 / W

O A2 A 50C 1 1 Each 1 Cracking to CW 1.0mm (Photo #9, Sketch #2), fine to minor
shrinkage cracking.
O A2 WW 51C 1 2 Each 1 1
WW1 – Forward movement to 60mm, gap to 20mm, loss of fill material, mortar cracked and breaking out (Photo #10)
WW2 – Severe cracking with forward movement to 100mm of broken sections (Photos #11, 12 & 13, Sketch #3). No loss of fill evident – CS 4 weepholes of
both wingwalls blocked by buildup of silt / debris
Defective Components Report B2/3 Sheet
1 Of 1

Structure ID……13167 ......................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing………… .................................................. Road Number……….13H ..........................................
Inspector………...Warren McEvoy ..................... Local Authority……..McKinlay Shire Council........

Date of Inspection……..21-NOV-2001................. Date of Next Inspection…….21-NOV-2004 ..............

Chainage……78.44……(km) on the ……………Kynuna…..………to………….Cloncurry ................ Road
Component Location Description of Defect Required
Action (√)
ƒ Detailed Description

Level 3 Inspection
ƒ Estimated Quantity
Condition State
Exposure Class

ƒ "Other" action required

Modification

Component

ƒ Urgency of action (what, who, when, how)

Standard
Number

Monitor
ƒ Recommended Testing
Group

Other
ƒ Reference of sketches and photos (Roll / Exposure Nos)

O A1 A 50C 1 3 Cracking and spalling has had mortar patch repair. Monitor at 6 monthly intervals for
any changes in crack patterns (Photo #5, Sketch #1) 3
O A1 WW 51C 1 3
WW1 – Gap to 45mm with loss of fill material. Seal gap with Renderoc or similar
(Photo #5, Sketch #1). Both wingwalls require silt to be removed to expose weepholes, 3
monitor forward movement of WW1
O S1 W 71O 1 3 Build up of silt to 300mm. Waterway requires desilting – approx 50m3 (Photos #3-4) 3
O P1 PW 58C 1 3 Cracked through in one location to CW 1.0mm. Monitor at 6 monthly intervals for any
changes in crack patterns (Photo #6) 3
O S2 W 71O 1 3 Build up of silt to 300mm. Waterway requires desilting – approx 50m3 (Photos #3-4) 3
O A2 A 50C 1 3 Cracking to CW 1.0mm. Monitor at 6 monthly intervals for any changes in crack
pattern (Photo #9, Sketch #2) 3
O A2 WW 51C 1 3 WW1 – Gap to 20mm with some loss of fill material (Photo #10). Break out and
remove existing mortar and seal gap with Renderoc or similar 3
WW2 – Severe cracking with forward movement to 100mm along cracks. (Photo #11,
O A2 WW 51C 1 4 12, 13 and Sketch #1). No loss of fill evident. Monitor at 6 monthly intervals for any
changes in forward movement of broken sections.
3
Standard Procedure Exceptions Report B2/4 Sheet
1 Of 1

Structure ID…….13167 ........................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing…………. ................................................. Road Number…….13H ..............................................
Inspector………...Warren McEvoy ..................... Local Authority…..McKinlay Shire Council............

Date of Inspection……..21-NOV-2001................. Date of Next Inspection………21-NOV-2004 ...........

Chainage…78.44.…(km) on the …………….Kynuna…….…………to…………..Cloncurry .............. Road
Component Location Exception (√)
Comments

Comp. Inspected
Exposure Class

Less than 25%

Not Inspected
Modification

ƒ Description of undefined component

Component

Component
Component
Undefined

ƒ
Standard

Photograph/sketch reference
Number

ƒ
Group

Other
Reason component not inspected
ƒ Any other exceptions

O S1 CBS 20C 2 3 Covered by silt to 300mm

O S2 CBS 20C 2 3 Covered by silt to 300mm

Photographic and Sketches Record B2/6 Sheet
1 Of 9

Structure ID…….13167 ........................................ Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing…………. ................................................. Road Number………13H ...........................................
Inspector………...Warren McEvoy ..................... Local Authority…….McKinlay Shire Council.........

Date of Inspection……..21-NOV-2001................. Date of Next Inspection……..21-NOV-2004 .............

Chainage……78.44……(km) on the …………….Kynuna….…………to………..Cloncurry ............... Road

Location Description
Film/Exposure

ƒ Deck Surface (full width and alignment)

Modification

Component

ƒ
Sketch No.

Side View (waterway, spans, piers, etc)

ƒ
Number

Underside (deck and pier construction)

Group

ƒ Deficient Component and Major Defects

ƒ Undefined Elements

01 O AP1 AP Alignment AP1 to AP2

02 O AP1 AP Longitudinal crack to 10mm

03 O Side view from upstream

04 O Side view from downstream

05 O A1 A Previous crack and spall repair

06 O A1 A WW2 – Crack along concrete capping

07 O S1 W Debris / Silt

08 O P1 PW S1 side – crack to CW 1.0mm

09 O A2 A Cracking to CW 1.0mm

10 O A1 WW WW1 – Cracking in top of wing

11 O A2 WW WW2 – Cracking, forward movement of sections

12 O A2 WW WW2 – Movement to 100mm

13 O A2 WW WW2 – Movement at top of WW

01 O A1 A Cracking in abutment, gap between A1/A and A1/WW

02 O A2 A Cracking to CW 1.0mm

03 O A2 WW WW2 – Cracking, forward movement of broken sections.

 Sheet
Level 2 Inspection Report - Photos & Sketches Record B2/6 3 Of 9

Structure Id 13167 Name

Inspection Date 21-NOV-2001 Inspection Level 2 9 Level 3 Underwater

Pictures

Id 1000001198 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

04

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O

Id 1000001199 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

05

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O A 1 A

Id 1000001200 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

06

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O A 1 A
 Sheet
Level 2 Inspection Report - Photos & Sketches Record B2/6 5 Of 9

Structure Id 13167 Name

Inspection Date 21-NOV-2001 Inspection Level 2 9 Level 3 Underwater

Pictures

Id 1000001204 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

10

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O A 1 WW

Id 1000001205 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

11

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O A 2 WW
 Sheet
Level 2 Inspection Report - Photos & Sketches Record B2/6 7 Of 9

Structure Id 13167 Name

Inspection Date 21-NOV-2001 Inspection Level 2 9 Level 3 Underwater

Pictures

Id 1000001208 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

S1 01

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O A 1 A
 Sheet
Level 2 Inspection Report - Photos & Sketches Record B2/6 8 Of 9

Structure Id 13167 Name

Inspection Date 21-NOV-2001 Inspection Level 2 9 Level 3 Underwater

Pictures

Id 1000001209 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

S2 02

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O A 2 A
 Sheet
Level 2 Inspection Report - Photos & Sketches Record B2/6 9 Of 9

Structure Id 13167 Name

Inspection Date 21-NOV-2001 Inspection Level 2 9 Level 3 Underwater

Pictures

Id 1000001210 Date 21-NOV-2001

Film / Exposure Number Sketch No

S3 03

Description

Mod Category Number Comp Code Comp No

O A 2 WW
APPENDIX B
Standard
Component
Schedule
 June 2004

TABLE 1.3 - STANDARD COMPONENT SCHEDULE

NO CATEGORY/COMPONENT MATERIAL
STEEL (S) PRECAST CAST-IN-SITU TIMBER (T) OTHER (O)
CONCRETE (P) CONCRETE (C)
Deck Surface (1-9)
1 Fill/Wearing Surface on Deck - - m2 - m2
2 Bridge Railing/Barriers Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m
3 Bridge Kerbs - Lin m Lin m Lin m -
4 Footways Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m Lin m
Deck Joints (10-19)
10 Pourable Joint Seal - - - - Lin m
11 Compression Joint Seal - - - - Lin m
12 Assembly Joint Seal - - - - Lin m
13 Open Expansion Joint Lin m - - - Lin m
14 Sliding Joint Lin m - - - -
15 Fixed/Small Movement Joints - - - - Lin m
Superstructure (20-39)
20 Deck Slab / Culvert Base Slab - Each m2 m2 -
21 Closed Web/Box Girders Lin m Lin m Lin m - -
22 Open Girders Each Each Each Each -
23 Through Truss Lin m - - - -
24 Deck Truss Lin m - - - -
25 Arches Lin m Lin m Lin m - Lin m
26 Cables/Hangers Each - - - -
 June 2004

STANDARD COMPONENT SCHEDULE (Cont)

NO CATEGORY/COMPONENT MATERIAL
STEEL (S) PRECAST CAST-IN-SITU TIMBER (T) OTHER (O)
CONCRETE (P) CONCRETE (C)
27 Corbels - - Each Each -
28 Cross Beams/Floor Beams Each - - Each -
2
29 Deck Planks - Each - m -
2
30 Steel Decking m - - - -
31 Diaphragms/Bracing (Cross Girders) Each - Each - -
32 Load Bearing Diaphragms - - Each - -
33 Spiking Plank - - - Lin m -
Bearings (40-49)
40 Fixed Bearings - - - - Each
41 Sliding Bearings - - - - Each
42 Elastomeric/Pot Bearings - - - - Each
43 Rockers/Rollers Each - - - -
44 Mortar Pads/Bearing Pedestals - - - - Each
45 Restraint Angles/Blocks Each - - - Each
Substructure (50-69)
50 Abutment - - Each - Each
51 Wingwall/Retaining Wall Each Each Each Each Each
2 2 2 2
52 Abutment Sheeting/Infill Panels m m m m m2
53 Batter Protection - m2 m2 - m2
54 Headstocks Each Each Each Each -
 June 2004

STANDARD COMPONENT SCHEDULE (Cont)

NO CATEGORY/COMPONENT MATERIAL
STEEL (S) PRECAST CAST-IN-SITU TIMBER (T) OTHER (O)
CONCRETE (P) CONCRETE (C)
55 Pier Headstocks (Integral) - - Each - -
56 Columns or Piles (Encasement*) Each Each Each Each Each
57 Pile Bracing/Wales Each - Each Each -
2
58 Pier Walls - - m - m2
59 Footing/Pile Cap/Sill Log - - Each Each -
60 Wing Piles Each Each - Each -
Miscellaneous (70-79)
70 Bridge Approaches - - - - Each
71 Waterway - - Each - Each
72 Approach Guardrail Each Each Each Each Each
Culverts (80-89)
80 Pipe Culverts Lin m Lin m - - Lin m
81 Box Culverts - Lin m Lin m - -
82 Modular Culverts - Lin m - - -
83 Arch Culverts Lin m Lin m Lin m - Lin m
84 Headwalls/Wingwalls - Each Each - Each

* Encasements are to be included in the component inventory as Strengthening items only

APPENDIX C
Standard
Component
Identification
Guidelines
APPENDIX D
Standard
Component
Condition State
Guidelines
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 1C CONCRETE WEARING CAST-INSITU

SURFACE CONCRETE

Units of Measurement: Square Metres

This applies to concrete decks which form the running surface for traffic. This element also
includes reinforced concrete overlays placed over deteriorated timber decks (note that such
use is not recommended for the reinstatement of sub-standard timber decks). Also included
are unreinforced concrete wearing surfaces (often coloured) placed non-compositely over T-
beam bridge decks

Condition State 1

The concrete surface is in good condition and may have minor shrinkage or plastic settlement
cracks. The surface texture is pronounced and the aggregate is not worn and there is adequate
crossfall or grade to efficiently drain any surface water. All scuppers are clear.

Condition State 2

Shrinkage or plastic settlement cracks are of moderate width and there may be minor cracking
and spalling due to corrosion of reinforcement. Some wear or polishing of aggregate is
evident but there is only a marginal loss of surface texture and skid resistance. There may be
surface irregularities which hold surface water and the ability to shed and drain surface water
has been slightly impaired. Some scuppers may be blocked with debris and isolated patches
of weed are growing at the kerbs.

Condition State 3

Shrinkage and plastic settlement cracks are moderate to severe and the deck has a crazed
appearance but there is no differential movement between honeycomb sections. Patches of
cover concrete less than 0.5m2 have delaminated exposing reinforcement which may have lost
up to 20% of its sectional area. The surface matrix is worn. Aggregate may be polished with
surface mortar being continually scaled over irregular areas. There may be significant
depressions or other surface irregularities which are impairing the surface drainage, ie lack of
crossfall or gradient. Deck drainage is not functioning efficiently as a result of obstructions at
or in kerbs and/or scuppers or inadequate provision for drainage.

Condition State 4

The surface matrix is worn and the aggregate polished to the extent that skid resistance is
compromised. The deck has extensive crazed honeycomb cracking with differential
movement between sections. Patches of cover concrete in excess of 1.0m2 have delaminated
as a result of corrosion of reinforcement and/or defective concrete. Whole patches of concrete
to full overlay depth may be completely missing. Reinforcement may have lost in excess of
20% of the sectional area. Deck drainage has not been provided or has ceased to function as a
result of blocked scuppers and channels. Excessive weed is growing on the surface at the
kerbs.

1C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 1O FILL / WEARING SURFACE OTHER

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes those structures with fill, gravel or asphalt over the deck. This element
includes asphalt overlays which have been reinforced with fibreglass mesh or polypropylene
geogrid mesh. Also included is the pavement on masonry arch bridges in which the fill forms
the road surface.

Please note that if the depth of the asphalt overlay exceeds the depth shown on the design
drawings by more than 40mm, the actual depth should be entered into the Design Inventory
of the Bridge Information System. The details of the structure should also be forwarded to
Structures Division for the purpose of assessing the impact that the additional surfacing may
have on the load-carrying capacity of the structure. This also applies to concrete decks /
wearing surfaces which have been subjected to an asphalt overlay.

Condition State 1

The asphalt surface is in good condition with no cracking, pot holes, rutting, bumps or
depressions. The surface has adequate crossfall or gradeline to efficiently drain surface water
from it. A fine transverse crack may have opened in the asphalt over fixed or buried
expansion joints.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking, rutting, small bumps or depressions. These irregularities cause
a minor hindrance to drainage of the deck. Potholes may be beginning to form in cracked
areas. Ride qualities are beginning to be affected. A moderate crack may have opened in the
asphalt over fixed or buried expansion joints.

Condition State 3

Potholes, cracking, rutting, bumps or depressions are holding moisture on the deck and
allowing it to penetrate the fill. Ride qualities have been affected to a moderate extent.
Asphalt surface may not extend across the full width of the bridge or deck drainage systems
may be poor or inadequate. Severe cracks may have opened in the asphalt over fixed or
buried expansion joints. Crazing of the adjacent asphalt may be evident but there is no
differential movement between sections and asphalt is bonded to deck.

Condition State 4

Potholing, cracking, rutting, bumps or depressions are having a marked effect on the drainage
and rideability of the asphalt surface. Asphalt surface may not extend full width of the bridge
and may have excessive weed or grass growth, or no deck drainage has been catered for. The
asphalt surfacing over fixed joints, buried expansion joints or joints between ply deck sheets
may be cracked and crazed and sections are acting independently and have debonded from
the deck. Sections of asphalt may have been lost.

1O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 2S BRIDGE RAILING/BARRIERS STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This item defines all types of steel or iron railings including tubes, water pipes, rolled hollow
sections, rolled shapes or beams. Also included in this item are the posts and end posts which
support the railings regardless of material type. Common post types used are RHS, precast
and reinforced concrete, steel channels and timber. It also includes steel girders used to
support the edge of the deck, electrification barriers and pedestrian grilles attached to the
barrier.

Condition State 1

The paint or galvanising on the rails and/or posts is in good condition with no rust spotting.
Posts are in good condition with no splitting of timber, corrosion of steel or cracking of
concrete members. No accident damage is visible.

Condition State 2

The protective system is no longer effective and spot rusting has occurred on the rails and/or
posts. There may be minor splitting of timber posts, minor cracking in concrete posts or spot
rusting of steel posts but all bolting and joint supports are tight. Any accident damage is
minor and of no consequence.

Condition State 3

The protective system may have broken down and there is surface pitting in a number of
locations on the rails and/or posts but there is minimal effect on strength or serviceability.
There may be some corrosion of steel posts, split timber posts or moderate cracking and
spalling of concrete posts. Bolted connections to rails may be loose but there is no cracking
of welds. Nuts and bolts may be corroding. The anchor bolts or sockets for the posts are
tight. Accident damage has only a minor effect on strength or serviceability of the barrier.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced and some loss of section has occurred in the rails and/or posts
which is affecting both strength and serviceability. Bolted connections are extremely loose
and bolts may be missing altogether, or rails may have broken free from mountings. The
anchor bolts or sockets of posts may be loose and the containment capacity is significantly
reduced. Nuts and bolts may be corroding significantly and/or welds may be cracked.
Timber posts are severely split or decayed, concrete posts are badly cracked and spalled, and
steel posts are badly corroded. Accident damage is severe with posts knocked out of line,
loss of rail or badly damaged posts and anchorages. Packers between rails and posts may be
missing.

2S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 2P BRIDGE RAILING/BARRIERS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres

This item defines all types and shapes of barriers where the principal component is precast
concrete. It includes any RC terminals, steel safety rails or traffic barriers mounted on top
and holding down bolts. Inspectors should use the state descriptions for Component 2C Cast-
In-Situ Concrete Barriers in addition to the descriptions given below for the fasteners.

Condition State 1

Mortar seating is continuous and sound and there is no evidence of moisture ingress into the
base joint. Alignment is true to line and level and all bolts are tight.

Condition State 2

Mortar seating is substantially intact with a few isolated failures. Some moisture may be
penetrating the bedding joint but there is no rust staining evident. There are visible
discontinuities in alignment of panels but barrier is fit for purpose.

Condition State 3

Mortar seating is missing or crumbling out of significant portions of the bedding joint and
surface water run-off is freely passing through some sections of the joint. Rust stains are
evident on the kerb/plinth and anchor bolts may show signs of active corrosion. There may
be visible discontinuities in alignment of panels but the containment capacity is substantially
intact.

Condition State 4

The mortar seating may be missing over large areas and the anchor bolts are significantly
corroded such that the containment capacity has been significantly reduced. Severe rust
staining and leakage through the joint is evident.

2P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 2C BRIDGE RAILING/BARRIERS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres

This item defines all cast-in-situ concrete bridge barriers and includes terminals and any steel
safety rails or traffic barriers mounted on top. The item also includes cast-in-situ concrete
portion constructed to join precast concrete parapets to the deck.

Condition State 1

Barrier is in good condition with only minor cracking due to shrinkage or corrosion of
reinforcement. The correct traffic face profile has been constructed. Steel rails are in good
condition with no rust spotting and bolted and welded connection show no signs of
deterioration. No accident damage is evident.

Condition State 2

There is minor cracking and spalling due to corrosion of the reinforcement. The correct
traffic face profile has been constructed with no overlays affecting the upstand. Steel railings
on top of the parapet may have rust spotting and bolted connections are tight and in good
condition. There are no cracked welds. Accident damage is slight and of no consequence.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling is evident with in excess of 20% loss of reinforcement area.
The steel barrier may be pitted on the surface and connections slightly loose. Post
anchorages may have minor cracking due to vehicle impact. The traffic face profile may
have been constructed incorrectly or a surfacing overlay placed which reduces the height of
the vertical upstand and barrier. Accident damage has only a minor effect on strength and
serviceability.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking may be visible due to advanced corrosion of the reinforcement which may
have lost in excess of 20% of its sectional area. Corrosion may be well advanced in the steel
barrier, bolts may be loose or rails may have broken free from their mountings. The
anchorage area of the steel barrier posts may be cracked and spalled. Strength and
serviceability of the barrier is adversely affected. The traffic face profile may have been
constructed incorrectly on surfacing overlays placed such that the upstand height is
significantly reduced. Accident damage may be severe with serious cracking and spalling of
the concrete barrier or loss of sections of the railing.

2C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 2T BRIDGE RAILING/BARRIERS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those rails constructed using timber either from a sawn section or glued
laminated sections. This element includes also the supporting posts.

Timber railing is considered to be inappropriate and represents a significant hazard to road

users. The presence of barriers of this type are to be noted in the comments field in the
"overall rating" section of the "Bridge Condition Inspection Report - Form B2/1".

Condition State 1

The element shows only minor deterioration and all the bolting is tight. No accident damage
is visible.

Condition State 2

The element shows signs of minor decay, splitting or cracking but does not affect the strength
or serviceability. Bolting of the posts and rails is generally tight. Accident damage is only
minor with no effect on strength or serviceability.

Condition State 3

Medium decay, splitting, cracking or crushing may be present affecting the strength and
serviceability of the railing to a minor extent. Bolting may be loose in a number of areas.
Accident damage may have a minor effect on the strength or serviceability of the railing. The
paint system on rails and posts may have broken down.

Condition State 4

Heavy decay, splitting, cracking, crushing or termite damage may be present affecting the
strength and serviceability of the railing. Bolting may be quite loose, corroded or missing
completely, affecting the strength of the railing. Major accident damage is affecting the
serviceability of the railing.

2T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 2O BRIDGE RAILING/BARRIERS OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines all types of shapes and barrier materials other than those already
covered. Included in this element are masonry parapets, aluminium rails with steel
tensioning cables inside, G.W.I. pipe, post and rails, wire mesh fencing panels, wire or chain
cables. The element covers any posts required to support the railing system or cables.

Condition State 1

The element shows only minor signs of deterioration with minor cracking between masonry
blocks or rusting of steel work. No accident damage is visible.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking, spalling, loss of mortar between masonry blocks, surface or spot rusting has
occurred but having little or no affect on strength or serviceability. Accident damage is very
minor with no effect on strength or serviceability.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking, spalling, loss of mortar between masonry block, or corrosion of metal is
occurring but having a minor affect on strength or serviceability. Accident damage may have
a minor effect on the strength or serviceability of the railing.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking, spalling, loss of mortar or corrosion has a large affect on rail strength or
serviceability. Accident damage is major affecting the strength or serviceability of the
railing.

2O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 3P BRIDGE KERBS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres

This item defines those upper portions of precast concrete deck units which form an upstand
at the edge of the bridge and/or carriageway. Bridge barriers are normally mounted on these
members.

Condition State 1

The precast kerbs and any cast-in-situ connections are in good condition with no cracking or
spalling.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking or spalling at the joints or face of kerb due to corroding reinforcement. The
repairs to lifting lugs or holes may be cracked or spalled. If ASR is prevalent in the area then
minor map cracking may be evident around the repairs and on the front and top face of the
kerb.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking at joints or on the face of the kerb due to corroding reinforcement.
Cracking and spalling may also be occurring at fixed joints filled with mortar due to bearing
pressures caused by deck flexing. There may be moderate cracking at the base of barrier
posts as a consequence of vehicle impact but containment is still effective. Moderate map
cracking due to ASR may be evident.

Condition State 4

Kerbs are severely cracked and spalled as result of corrosion, ASR, bearing at kerb joints or
the effects of vehicle impact on the barrier. Containment capacity of the barrier may be
reduced to unsafe levels. The reinforcement in the kerb may be exposed and more than 20%
of the sectional area may have been lost.

3P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 3C BRIDGE KERBS CAST-INSITU

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres

This item defines kerbs that are constructed of cast-in-situ concrete on deck units or deck
slabs which form an upstand at the edge of the bridge and/or carriageway. Bridge barriers are
normally mounted on these members. Also included are concrete kerbs cast on timber bridge
decks, with or without attached barriers.

Condition State 1

Kerbs are in good condition with only minor cracking due to shrinkage or corrosion of
reinforcement.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking or spalling at the joints or on faces due to movement restraint, shrinkage or
corrosion of reinforcement. Bolts to timber girders may be slightly loose.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking or spalling at the joints or on faces due to movement restraint, shrinkage
or corrosion of reinforcement. The reinforcement may have lost up to 20% of its section.
Some minor flexural cracking may be evident on the top face over piers on continuous joints.
There may be moderate cracking at the base of barrier posts as a consequence of vehicle
impact but containment is not impaired. Bolts to timber girders may be moderately loose.

Condition state 4

Severe cracking and spalling is evident as a result of movement restraint at joints, corrosion
of reinforcement or the effects of vehicle impact on the barrier. Containment capacity may
be reduced to unsafe levels. The reinforcement may have suffered a loss of section in excess
of 20%. Bolts to timber girders may be very loose, severely corroded or missing completely.

3C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 3T BRIDGE KERBS TIMBER

Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres

This item defines kerbs that are constructed of timber which form an upstand at the edge of
bridge and/or carriageway. Kerbs may be formed from either hardwood or plywood
construction.

Condition State 1

The timber is in good condition and firmly bolted, nailed or screwed in place. There is little
or no evidence of rot or decay. Minor splits and cracks may be evident, however these will
have no effect on member strength.

Condition State 2

Minor decay, splitting or cracking may be present but not sufficient to affect the strength or
serviceability of the member.

Condition State 3

Medium decay, splitting or crushing may be present affecting the component’s serviceability,
including containment capacity if barrier attachment capacity is reduced. In most instances
timbers will have loosened considerably. There may be an active termite presence but with
only minimal damage sustained. The paint system on the kerb may have broken down.

Condition State 4

Heavy decay, splitting or crushing may be present, affecting the serviceability of the
component. Timbers will be loose or may in fact be missing. There may be an active termite
infestation causing severe damage. The paint system on the kerb may have broken down.
Attachment bolts may be very loose, missing completely or heavily corroded. Unsleeved
attachment bolts may be severely corroded due to contact with preservative treatment in
stress-laminated decks. With ply kerbs, bolt heads may be punching into the kerb if
insufficient washer sizes are used.

3T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 4S FOOTWAYS STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element describes those footways which are constructed of steel plates. Any thin layer
of surfacing material should be included with this element as it greatly influences the action
and rate of deterioration of the steel decking.

Condition State 1

The steel is in good condition with no evidence of any corrosion. The plates are rigidly
bolted to supports and are good and tight. The surfacing is in good condition with no
evidence of cracking, pop-outs or delaminations.

Condition State 2

Minor pitting of the surface due to corrosion may be evident but there is no loss of section.
Plates remain firmly bolted to supports and are good and tight. There may be minor cracking
of the surfacing.

Condition State 3

Moderate corrosion may have occurred, occasioning a loss of section of up to 10%. The hold
down connections may be slightly loose, permitting excessive flexing or vibration or rattling
of the plates. The surfacing may exhibit moderate cracking and some local loss of material.

Condition State 4

Severe corrosion may have occurred, occasioning significant loss of section. The hold down
connections may be loose and the plates are rattling up and down under load. Bolts or edge
material of the plates may have sheared under this action. The surfacing is breaking up and
delaminating from the plates.

4S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 4P FOOTWAYS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element describes those kerbs constructed using precast concrete RC kerb units
connected by small cast-in-situ infills, or footways which are constructed using precast RC
slabs spanning between cast-in-situ road and outer kerbs and includes all components making
up the footway.

Condition State 1

The precast kerbs and their cast-in-situ connections are in good condition with no cracking or
spalling. Footway slabs are in good condition with only minor superficial cracking, and all
units are at the same level.

Condition State 2

Precast kerb units may have minor cracking or spalling at the joints or in the face of kerb due
to corroding reinforcement. Minor cracking and/or steps of less than 10mm between footway
units may exist but present no danger to pedestrians.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling at the kerb joints may exist. Steps in excess of 10mm
between footway slabs may present some danger to pedestrians. Some precast slabs may be
badly cracked or broken.

Condition State 4

Kerb joints are heavily cracked and spalled affecting their operation. Large stepping between
footway slabs with numerous broken slabs presents a danger to pedestrians.

4P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 4C FOOTWAYS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those kerbs or footways which are fully constructed from cast-in-situ
concrete.

Condition State 1

The slabs are in good condition with no cracking or spalling. Footway slabs may have minor
superficial cracks of no importance.

Condition State 2

Kerbs may have minor cracking or spalling due to movements or corrosion of steel
reinforcement. Footway slabs may also have minor cracks or spalls due to shrinkage,
temperature, relative movement or corroding reinforcement. Differential vertical movement
between footway slabs should be less than 10mm to present minimal danger to pedestrians
tripping over.

Condition State 3

Kerbs and footways may have moderate cracking and spalling due to movement or steel
reinforcement corrosion. Differential movement between footway slabs may have caused
broken edges and vertical displacements greater than 10 mm, presenting a danger of tripping
to pedestrians.

Condition State 4

Kerbs and footways may have severe cracking and spalling. Footway slabs may be badly
broken and uneven in areas or have large vertical displacements causing major danger to
pedestrians.

4C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 4T FOOTWAYS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those kerbs or footways constructed of timber.

Condition State 1

The timber is in good condition and firmly bolted, nailed or screwed in place. There are no
large gaps between footway timbers and ends of timbers are at a similar level.

Condition State 2

Minor decay, splitting or cracking may be present but not affecting the strength or
serviceability of the timber. A few planks may be loose but do not cause a danger
topedestrians. Gaps or uneven timbers are small enough not to be a danger to pedestrians.

Condition State 3

Medium decay, splitting or crushing may be present affecting the components serviceability.
Planks are generally loose and along with gaps and uneven ends of timbers present a danger
of tripping to pedestrians. Non-slip surfacing on ply decks may be starting to delaminate.

Condition State 4

Heavy decay, splitting or crushing may be present affecting the serviceability of the
component. Planks may be broken, missing or very loose presenting a major danger to
pedestrians. Non-slip surfacing on ply decks may be missing in substantial areas. Acute
termite infestation and damage may have occurred. The exposed ends of ply decking may be
badly weathered and delaminated.

4T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 4O FOOTWAYS OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those kerbs or footways constructed with a gravel or asphalt or sprayed
seal surface, brick or masonry blocks. The surface of asphalt-filled steel decking is also
included in this element. The steel trough sections shall be covered under Item. No. 30S
Kerbs may also be in a steel plate with gravel or asphalt behind, or simply be a built up
mound of asphalt.

Condition State 1

The element is in good condition with only minor superficial cracking of the surface, minor
rusting of the steel kerb face plate or edge plate or broken masonry blocks.

Condition State 2

The asphalt surface may have some minor cracking, but no broken-up areas. Steel kerb face
plate or edge plate may be rusty but no corrosion pitting. Masonry kerb blocks may be
cracked or have minor edge spalls but still basically in fair condition.

Condition State 3

The kerb face plate or edge plate may have moderate corrosion but still be effectively holding
the footway material in place. Masonry kerb blocks may be heavily cracked and broken up
but still be effectively holding the footway material in place. Asphalt surfacing may have
moderate cracking or small broken up areas.

Condition State 4

Asphalt surface may be heavily cracked and broken up in large areas. Steel kerb face plate or
edge plate may be severely corroded with holes or loss of edges. Masonry kerb blocks may
be completely broken with sections missing.

4O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 10O POURABLE JOINT SEALS OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those joints filled with pourable joint sealant or asphalts, and includes
buried expansion joints.

Materials used in pourable joints are bitumen, polyurethanes, 2 part pack polyester
polyurethanes, rubberised bitumen, megaprene and polymer modified bitumens. Epoxy or
fibre reinforced concrete nosings are also included.

Asphalt joints encompass normal asphalt, rubberised asphalts and polymer modified asphalts,
such as the Thormajoint or SAMIfilla HM bridge joint systems.

Condition State 1

The seal shows little or no deterioration and completely seals the joint against moisture
penetration. There is no cracking of the nosings or fretting of the surrounding asphalt.
There are no adhesion cracks along the sides of the joint or any cohesion cracks due to
elongation of the sealant.

Condition State 2

There may be minor fine adhesion and/or cohesion cracks allowing minor leakage of the
joint. The deck or asphalt adjacent to the joint may have minor spalling. Overfilled sealer
may be flowing out of the joint or may be impacted by traffic. Thin asphalt surfacing over the
joint may be cracked. Minor cracking may be evident in the nosings but there is no loss of
adhesion to deck.

Condition State 3

Adhesion and/or cohesion cracking may be moderate allowing reasonable leakage of

moisture through the joint. The adjacent deck or asphalt may have medium spalling.
Overfilled sealer may be heavily impacted by traffic and tending to rip the sealer out. Thin
asphalt surface over the joint may be breaking up with minor areas lost. The nosings may be
badly cracked but there is no differential movement between sections and there is no loss of
adhesion to deck. The asphalt is beginning to fret at the edges.

Condition State 4

The joints have completely failed allowing extensive moisture penetration. Pourable joint
sealant may be almost completely lost. Bitumen/cork filler may be broken up and being
ripped out in chunks by traffic. The nosings may be excessively cracked and sections are
delaminating from the deck. The surrounding asphalt is fretting and some material may be
lost from the margins.

10O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 11O COMPRESSION JOINT SEALS OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element describes all joints using preformed compression type seals such as plastic foam
strips, rubber based hose joints, Wabo seals or Hercules/Honel seals. Epoxy or fibre
reinforced concrete nosings are also included.

Condition State 1

The joint seal and its armouring (if any) are in good condition with no movement of the
armouring visible, and no adhesion or sealing problems with the compression seal. There is
no cracking of the nosings or fretting of the surrounding asphalt.

Condition State 2

The joint may have lost adhesion with the deck or armouring in small areas allowing minor
leakage of moisture. The adjacent deck may have minor spalls or the armouring may be
moving slightly with cracks developing between the asphalt surface and the steel. Minor
cracking may be evident in the nosings but there is no loss of adhesion to the deck.

Condition State 3

The joint may have lost adhesion over a long length allowing excessive moisture penetration.
The seal may have worked to the road surface and may be suffering damage due to traffic
impact. The adjacent deck may have moderate spalling or the armouring may be moving with
the asphalt surface breaking away from the steel. The nosings may be badly cracked but
there is no differential movement between sections and there is no loss of adhesion to the
deck. The asphalt may be fretting at the edges.

Condition State 4

The joint may have completely lost adhesion and is no longer operative or may be lost. Steel
armouring may be moving considerably and breaking free. The joint seal may be impacted by
traffic to the extent that the seal has suffered extensive damage.

The nosings may be excessively cracked and sections are delaminating from the deck. The
surrounding asphalt is fretting and some material may be lost from the margins.

11O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 12O ASSEMBLY JOINT SEAL OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those joints which have an assembly mechanism which consists of end
dams bolted down to the deck with a gland or gland type seal between. Common joints
which are included in this element are products such as Transflex, Alustrip, Felspan, Wabo
Maurer gland seals, Cipec and Firmsec (small) joints.

Condition State 1

The seal and anchorages are in good condition and there is no cracking of the surrounding
deck, concrete nosings or asphalt.

Condition State 2

There may be minor splits of the seal or gland. Some rubber may be peeling from the end
dams. Anchorages may be slightly loose and surrounding deck or concretenosings may be
cracked. Asphalt nosings may be breaking away from the end dams which may also be
slightly higher than the approach asphalt due to slight rutting in the wheel paths.

Glands may be pulling out of their housing due to traffic impacting or poor installation.

Condition State 3

The glands may be severely split or pulled out of their housings allowing moisture and road
grit to penetrate. Rubber may have peeled from the end dams exposing steel shims which
may be damaged by traffic. Some anchorages may be quite loose allowing excessive
movement of the end dams. Surrounding concrete or concrete nosings may be badly cracked.
Asphalt nosings may be badly rutted or cracked.

Condition State 4

Glands may be severely damaged or completely out of their housings. End dams may be
severely damaged by traffic, or have broken loose due to anchorage failure. Concrete nosings
may be completely broken up or asphalt nosings are potholing next to the joint.

12O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 13S OPEN EXPANSION JOINT STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those open expansion joints constructed with steel edge armouring and
designed to allow moisture and grit to penetrate the deck, to be removed by specially
designed substructure elements. This element does not include those expansion joints where
the expansion seals have been completely lost. Those joints should be considered under their
original element with the seal in place.

Condition State 1

The element shows no deterioration with the steel armouring firmly in place. There is no
cracking of the concrete block around the steel armouring. The joint width is sufficiently
wide to pass any road grit without it jamming in the joint.

Condition State 2

The steel armouring may have rust staining and/or minor corrosion but it is firmly in place.
The deck may have very minor cracking in the vicinity of the joint. Width of the joint is
sufficient.

Condition State 3

The steel armouring is showing advanced corrosion and there may be moderate cracking in
the deck around the joint indicating the armouring is loose due to traffic impact. Width of
joint may be small allowing road grit to jam in the joint, or joint width may be excessive
allowing high traffic impact forces onto the armouring.

Condition State 4

The steel armouring may be loose due to excessive traffic impact. The deck may be heavily
cracked and spalled due to the loose or broken anchorages of the armouring. The deck joint
may have closed up allowing dirt and grit to be trapped in the joint.

13S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 13O OPEN EXPANSION JOINT OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element defines those expansion joints constructed without armouring and designed to
allow moisture and grit to penetrate the deck into drainage systems on the substructure
elements. This element does not include those expansion joints where the expansion seals
have been completely lost. These joints are to be considered under their original element
with the seal in place.

Condition State 1

The ends of the deck slab are intact and the joint width is sufficiently wide to pass any road
grit without it jamming the joint.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking of the deck slab adjacent to the joint. Width of the deck joint
gap is adequate.

Condition State 3

The ends of the deck slab adjacent to the joint may show moderate cracking and/or minor
spalling due to traffic impact. Width of deck joint gap may be small allowing grit to jam in
the joint or joint width may be excessive allowing high traffic impact forces onto the ends of
the deck slabs.

Condition State 4

The ends of the deck slabs may be severely cracked and spalled as a result of excessive traffic
impact loading caused by an excessively wide gap or uneven deck slabs. Alternatively, the
deck joint may have closed up or the gap has been blocked with dirt and grit, and the
consequential restraint of movement has generated the cracking and spalling.

13O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 14S SLIDING JOINT STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element describes those joints constructed mainly of steel which move or slide over or
within a mating element on the other side. The joints may have a compression seal, gland,
membrane or catch drain beneath, which should be considered as part of the joint element.

Joints included in this element are steel sliding plates, steel finger joints, PSC FT joints,
CIPEC and FIRMSEC (large) joints.

Condition State 1

The element is in good condition with only minor rusting. All hold down bolts are in good
condition with no movement of the anchorages. The joint shows no moisture penetration.

Condition State 2

Minor corrosion may be showing on the steel and there may be some slight loosening of the
anchorage bolts. The adjacent asphalt may have minor cracking at the joint. The joint may
show signs of medium moisture penetration.

Condition State 3

Heavy corrosion of the steel plates may be present, and some bolts may have failed allowing
the anchorages to move. Cracking and minor breaks in the asphalt may be occurring. The
joint may show signs of heavy moisture penetration. Catch drains may be full of grit etc. and
may not be functioning or catch membranes may have badly deteriorated. Steel fingers may
be rubbing due to side movement or fingers may be raised well above the mating fingers, or
widening of the gap may only have the ends of the fingers in line.

Condition State 4

Advanced corrosion of the steel may be present and a number of bolts may have failed
allowing excessive movement of the anchorages. The asphalt around the joint may be badly
cracked and pieces breaking out. Steel fingers may be broken or completely apart due to
excessive movement, or rotations. Catch drains or membranes may have completely failed or
are missing.

14S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 15O FIXED JOINT OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element describes those joints which are basically fixed but may allow very small
movement of 1 or 2 mm. Deck joints, with or without a sprayed seal on top, where the decks
are cast against each other or with a thin separator such as cork, bitumen impregnated
fibrebord, styrene sheets or malthoid sheets are included in this element.

If fill or surfacing has been placed over the joints, any defect in the road surface resulting
from the joint should be considered under item number 1 Fill/Wearing Surface on Deck. As
the actual joint material will not be visible, the joint should be rated on the basis of observed
moisture leakage through the joint (typically evident from the degree of water staining on the
headstock).

Condition State 1

The element shows no deterioration and the joint material is held firmly in place by the
surrounding concrete. There is no moisture penetration of the joint.

Condition State 2

Minor deterioration of the material may have occurred allowing slight moisture leakage of
the joint through the fine crack.

Condition State 3

Moderate deterioration of the material has occurred due to weathering, pressure or movement
of the surrounding concrete. Moderate leakage is occurring as the joint material pulls away
from the surrounding concrete.

Condition State 4

Severe deterioration has occurred and the joint material has pulled well apart from the
surrounding concrete, or the joint material has badly weathered or been lost. Heavy leakage
is occurring through the joint and may be affecting the surrounding concrete.

15O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 20 P DECK SLABS PRECAST

CONCRETE

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all contiguous precast concrete superstructure units forming both the
span and the deck. These units include:

• Transversely stressed deck units. (Deck units with a composite slab are considered as
components 21P:Closed Web Girders and 20C:RC Deck Slab.

• T-Slabs: A trapezoidal beam with an integral top flange developed by VicRoads. A

reinforced concrete in situ slab is cast over the top flange.

• U-Slabs: (Sunshine coast only) Units are transversely stressed through cast insitu
diaphragms.

• Inverted T Slabs: Bottom flanges are contiguous. Voids between units may be filled
with insitu concrete, alternatively a conventional deck slab may be cast over the top
flanges.

Separate condition states have been defined for the U slabs while the remaining types are
covered under a single category.

U-SLABS

Condition State 1

The units are in good condition with no moisture or staining between the units though there
may be minor efflorescence powder under the slab section of the beams. The units may have
faint flexural cracking at midspan but there is no spalling. Bolts between high strength U-
Slabs are all tight.

Condition State 2

The U-Slabs may have fine flexural cracking of the legs and there may be other minor
cracking or spalling due to corroding steel reinforcement. Moderate moisture andstaining
between the units indicates the shear key concrete is cracked in high strength U-Slabs bridges
and there may be longitudinal cracking of the asphalt on top of the slabs. Bolts between the
units are generally tight though there may be a few loose. If the bearings are badly positioned
at the ends of the U-Slabs, there may be minor cracking in the bearing areas. Impact damage
has not exposed reinforcement.

20P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

Condition State 3

Medium flexural cracking may be noticed in the U-Slab legs with moderate moisture staining
between the units. The asphalt surface will be moderately cracked and U-Slab bolts will be
loose between these units. The shear key concrete between the tops of the units will be badly
cracked. There may be moderate cracking and spalling of the U-Slab legs due to corroding
reinforcement. If bearings are badly positioned at the ends of the U-Slabs there may be
moderate cracking in the bearing areas of the U-Slab legs. Impact damage comprising spalls
of cover concrete of less than 0.5m2 with no significant damage to reinforcement or
prestressing strands.

Condition State 4

Medium flexural cracking may be seen in the U-Slab legs at midspan with heavy moisture
staining between the units. The asphalt surface may be heavily cracked with some areas
completely broken out. The shear key concrete between the high strength U-Slabs may be
badly cracked and sections may be broken out. U-Slab bolts will be loose, many with nuts
completely missing, or they may have been retightened and badly cracked the top of the slab.
There may be severe cracking and spalling of the U-Slab legs with heavy corrosion of the
reinforcement with section loss of 20% or greater.

There may be severe cracking of the ends of the U-Slab legs due to badly positioned
bearings. Impact damage comprising spalls of cover concrete in excess of 0.5m2 and
damaged or severed prestressing strands.

PRESTRESSED SLABS (Includes Deck Units)

Condition State 1

The units are in good condition with minor moisture staining and white efflorescence powder
in the joints between units. The units may have minor faint cracking but no spalling. The
transverse tensioning rods are in good condition, and show no signs of corrosion.

Condition State 2

The units may have moderate moisture staining with stalactite growths and efflorescence
powder visible but no rust staining due to corrosion of the transverse rods. There may be
minor cracks and spalls but no exposure of the stressing strands. Impact forces have caused
minor damage but has not exposed reinforcement. Fine longitudinal cracking of the soffit
and edges of the units near the supports may be evident as a result of ASR in deck units. The
transverse tensioning rods may have minor surface corrosion.

20P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

Condition State 3

The units may have medium moisture staining and efflorescence powder in the joints, along
with heavy rust staining due to corrosion of transverse tensioning rods. The asphalt surface
may have moderate cracking due to differential movement between the units or loss of
tensioning force in the transverse rods. However the anchorages are still tight in the
recesses. There may be moderate cracking and spalling with minor loss of section of the
stressing strands due to corrosion. Non-prestressed reinforcement may be heavily corroded
with up to 20 % section loss. Impact damage comprising spalls of cover concrete less than
0.5m2 with no significant damage to reinforcement or prestressing strands.

Condition State 4

The units may have heavy moisture staining and efflorescence powder in the joints with
heavy rust staining due to corrosion of the transverse tensioning rods. The asphalt surface
may be badly cracked or broken along the lines of the precast units. There may be severe
cracking and spalling with substantial loss of section of the non-prestressed reinforcement.
Stressing strands may be broken or have lost up to 10% of section due to corrosion.
Transverse tensioning may be loose and the bar anchorages may have popped clear of the
recess. Impact damage comprising spalls of cover concrete in excess of 0.5m2 and damaged
reinforcement or severed prestressing strands.

20P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 20C DECK/SLABS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes all reinforced concrete decks cast-in-situ, including overlays cast non-
composite with precast units beneath. It also includes thin slabs cast over the top of defective
timber deck planks, however such use is not recommended for the reinstatement of
deteriorated timber decks. Cantilevers in excess of 1.0m long on closed web girders,
Component Number 21, shall also be included in this item.

Condition State 1

The deck shows little or no deterioration though there may be some dampness and
efflorescence. Minor cracking due to corroding reinforcement may be present. The
characteristic shrinkage crack down the centre of flat slab bridges is fine and dry.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking and spalling may be present with corroding reinforcement visible. Dampness
patches and efflorescence powder may be more prominent. The characteristic shrinkage crack
along the centre of flat slab bridges is fine and dry.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking due to structural mechanisms, or moderate to severe cracking and spalling
due to non-structural actions such as corrosion of the reinforcement, with loss of section up to
20 % in areas. Patches of dampness and efflorescence may be large with numerous stalactites
and lime flows visible. The characteristic shrinkage crack along the centre of flat slab bridges
may be medium with some moisture and staining around the adjacent crack. Deck has
extensive crazed cracking but no differential movement between sections.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking due to structural mechanisms or advanced corrosion of the reinforcement

over large areas, with loss of section of reinforcement greater than 20% (and any cracking or
spalling associated with it). The characteristic shrinkage crack along the centre of flat slab
bridges may be severe with excessive moisture penetration and heavy staining around the
crack. Deck has extensive crazed cracking with differential movement between sections of
the deck ie lateral load distribution has been greatly affected.

20C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 20T DECK/SLABS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes all types of timber decks constructed using fully treated timber and
acting as a plate deck. Included in this element are stress laminated timber decks and glued
laminated timber sheet (plywood) decks either as a longitudinal decking or transverse
decking replacement or as a span replacement. Distributor members are also covered.

Condition State 1

The timber may have minor cracks, splits or checks but is fully protected by the
preservatives, with no untreated heartwood exposed. The decks are well bolted to the
supports. Tensioning rods have adequate stressing and there is no damage to the timber at the
stressing plates. Distributor members are connected tightly.

Condition State 2

Preservative protection may be beginning to dissipate with minor leaching of preservative

salts (white powder on underside of deck) and with minor weathering and rot of timber.
Bolting of the deck may be slightly loose with fine reflective cracks through the asphalt on
top. Tensioning rods should still have adequate stressing and there should be no damage to
the timber at the stressing plates. There may be minor corrosion on the protruding ends of
tensioning rods. Distributor members may be slightly loose or held down at the ends only,
and decking surfacing at joints is mostly intact.

Condition State 3

Further leaching of the preservative is occurring with the timber looking well weathered and
rot pockets forming. The exposed ends of ply sheeting may be starting to delaminate. Bolting
of the decks' may be loose and there may be minor bolt corrosion, with medium reflective
cracking through the asphalt on top. With transverse sheeting, reflective cracking may also be
occurring due to differential movement between the slabs under loading, or due to inadequate
bolting and/or joint treatment. Tensioning rods may be losing stress with minor movement or
separation of the laminations beginning to occur. There may be moderate corrosion on the
protruding ends of tensioning rods. There may be noticeable squashing of timber behind
stressing plates. Distributor members may be deteriorated with possible loss of section or
member connections may be loose, allowing minor movement under traffic and resulting in
cracking of surfacing at decking joints.

Condition State 4

Deterioration of the timber may be well advanced with substantial loss of the preservative
protection. Weathering and rot of the timber is severe with some laminations almost rotted
out. The exposed ends of ply sheeting may be badly delaminated and there may be substantial
impact damage to the ends. With transverse sheeting the surfacing material may be breaking
up as a result of differential movement between the slabs under loading or due to inadequate
bolting and/or joint treatment.

20T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

Bolting of the decks is very loose with excessive movement of the decking, and there may be
severe corrosion of the bolts. If small washers were used, the bolts may have punched
through the decking. Tensioning rods may be loose with movement and separation of the
laminations. Longitudinal cracking in the asphalt above the laminations will be seen if this is
occurring. The decking will also deflect excessively under load, particularly beneath the
wheel paths of heavy vehicles, as the lateral distribution has been severely affected. There
may be severe corrosion on the protruding ends of tensioning rods. There may be substantial
squashing of timber behind stressing plates. Distributor members are broken or have
experienced complete loss of section, and members may be moving significantly under
traffic, resulting in significant cracking of surfacing at decking joints.

20T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 21S CLOSED WEB/BOX GIRDERS STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all closed web steel box girder bridges with concrete or steel deck
closing the top of the box or boxes. The steel may be painted. The element does not include
the deck.

Condition State 1

The paint system is generally sound with minor chalking, peeling or curling but no exposure
of the metal. All welds or bolts in good condition with no corrosion, cracking or loose bolts.

Condition State 2

Rust spotting of the paint system is occurring and the paint system is no longer effective. No
corrosion or section loss has occurred. All welds or bolts are in good condition with no
cracking, corrosion or loose bolts.

Condition State 3

Paint system has completely broken down with surface pitting present in a number of
locations. Active corrosion is occurring in isolated areas, but no significant loss section is
occurring to affect the strength of the member as a whole. Nuts and bolts may be corroding
but are still tight and no cracking of welds has occurred. Any evidence of vehicular impact
damage to webs/soffit.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced and significant loss of section has occurred which may have a
detrimental affect on the strength of the member ie, severe corrosion of webs or top flange
over support or bottom flange at midspan. Welds may be cracked. Nuts or bolts are severely
corroded and possibly no longer functioning to full capacity. Gross distortion of webs/soffit
as a result of vehicular impact. Buckling or distortion of webs, flanges or stiffeners.

21S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 21P CLOSED WEB/BOX GIRDER PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all closed web or box girder bridges constructed of precast units and
includes segmental post tensioned box girders and precast prestressed "U" beams with a cast-
in-situ deck to form the closed box shape. This element includes the deck whether precast
with the box or cast-in-situ at a later date. Deck cantilevers in excess of 1.0m long will be
assessed as deck/slab component No 20.

Condition State 1

There may be only minor cracking of the units due to a lack of distribution reinforcement but
definitely no spalling or cracking of a structural nature. Some minor discolourationor white
efflorescence powder may be visible at the former lifting hole locations.

Condition State 2

There may be a few minor cracks or spalls due to corroding reinforcement in isolated areas
but there should be no exposure of any stressing tendons or stressing ducts. Some minor
discolouration or white efflorescence powder may be visible at a few joints between the
precast units. Minor transverse cracking may be evident on the box soffit at midspan or on
the deck surface over supports. Impact damage to box that has not exposed reinforcement.

Condition State 3

There may be some delamination or spalling in isolated areas with the stressing tendons or
stressing ducts exposed but with little or no corrosion occurring. Other exposed
reinforcement may have corrosion up to 20% of the area of the bars in isolated areas.
Moderate transverse cracking may be evident on the box soffit at midspan or on the deck
surface over supports. Impact damage comprising spalls of less than 0.5m2 of cover concrete
with no significant damage to reinforcement or prestressing strand/duct.

Condition State 4

Delamination or spalling is present in large areas with heavy corrosion of reinforcing bars.
Stressing tendons exposed in the spalled areas may have corrosion up to 10 % of their area.
Some strands may also be broken or there may be severe cracking or failure at the
anchorages. There may also be severe transverse cracking of the underside of the box at the
midspan or severe cracking in the deck above the supports. Any evidence of failure of glued
or cast-insitu joints between segments. Impact damage comprising spalls of more than 0.5m2
of cover concrete and damaged or severed prestressing strand/ducts.

21P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 21C CLOSED WEB/BOX GIRDER CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all cast-in-situ, post tensioned concrete box girder and voided slab
bridges, and includes the deck as part of the element. Voided slab bridges can be recognised
by their shallow depth compared to a box girder. These structures are generally built on, or
over freeways and are well suited to spans of 34 to 40 metres. Voided slabs greater than 35
metres will generally have a variable depth due to their massive dead load compared with box
girders. Deck cantilevers in excess of 1.0m long will be assessed as deck/slab component No
20.

Condition State 1

There may be minor cracking of the girder or deck due to corroding reinforcement or a lack
of distribution reinforcement, but there should be no structural cracking or spalling. Minor
discolouration of efflorescence powder may be visible in a few locations. Minor longitudinal
cracking on soffit under void formers.

Condition State 2

There may be a few minor cracks or spalls due to corroding reinforcement in locations but
there should be no exposure of the stressing ducts. Some minor discolouration or white
efflorescence powder may be visible in a few locations. Minor cracking on soffit
transversely at midspan, longitudinally under void formers and on deck over supports.
Impact damage to box that has not exposed reinforcement.

Condition State 3

There may be some delaminations or spalling in isolated locations with stressing ducts
exposed but with little or no corrosion occurring. Other exposed reinforcement may have
corrosion up to 20 % of the area of the bars in isolated areas. Moderate cracking on soffit
transversely at midspan, longitudinally under void formers and on deck over supports.
Impact damage comprising spalls of less than 0.5m2 of cover concrete but no significant
damage to reinforcement or prestressing strand/ducts.

Condition State 4

Delamination or spalling is present in large areas with heavy corrosion of reinforcing bars.
Stressing ducts may be exposed in areas with active corrosion of the ducts and tendons
within. Some strands within the tendons may have up to 10% loss of section or be broken.
Severe cracking or failure may have occurred at the anchorages. There may also be major
transverse cracking of the underside of the box at midspan, or the top of the deck above the
supports. Impact damage comprising spalls of more than 0.5m2 of cover concrete and
damaged or severed reinforcing bars or prestressing strand/ducts.

21C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 22S OPEN GIRDERS STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all girders constructed of wrought iron or steel. The girders may be
rolled sections, welded plate girders, riveted girders constructed of plates and angles, or
lattice girders using flat sections crossing each other to form the vertical web/webs. Metal
may be painted or galvanised.

Condition State 1

The paint or galvanising system is generally sound with only minor chalking, peeling or
curling, but with no exposure of metal. All welds, bolts or rivets are in good condition with
no movement of plates or sections in the element.

Condition State 2

Spot rusting of the paint or galvanising system is occurring and the paint system is no longer
effective. No corrosion of the section has occurred. All member lines are true. All welds,
bolts or rivets are in good condition with no movement of plates or sections in the element.

Condition State 3

The paint or galvanising system has completely broken down with surface pitting in
locations. Active corrosion occurring in isolated areas but no loss of section area has
occurred which would affect the strength of the member. Nuts and bolts may be corroded but
are still tight and no cracking of welds has occurred. Riveted plates may have very minor
movements of 1 to 2 mm but rivets are generally sound. For structures without a composite
concrete deck the top flanges of the girders should be effectively braced at no more than 5m
centres such that no lateral bowing of girders occurs under load. Minor deviations in member
line. There may be some evidence of excessive deflection or movement under load.
Significant permanent distortion of members as a result of impact damage.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced and loss of section has occurred having a detrimental affect on
the strength of the member, ie, severe corrosion of webs or top flange over supports or
bottom flange at midspan. Bracing may be ineffective or missing forcing the girder to visibly
bow under traffic loading. Permanent bowing of girders may be evident. Girders may also
exhibit excessive vertical deflections under load. Buckling or distortion of webs, flanges or
stiffeners. Gross distortion of members as a result of impact damage.

There may be some cracking of the welds between the plates. Rivets or bolts may be
severely corroded and no longer carrying full load or functioning as intended. Rivets may be
broken or missing allowing excessive movement of plates of fabricated girders. Splice bolts
may be missing. Cracking of tension flanges may have occurred as a result of impact or
unsatisfactory welding procedures.

22S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 22P OPEN GIRDERS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes a variety of girders developed over the years using reinforced and
prestressed concrete. The vast majority are pretensioned, prestressed concrete members
however post tensioned girders, including some segmental constructions, have also been
adopted. This component description includes:

• Non standard "I" girders (including segmental constructions)

• Standard NAASRA "I" and "U" sections
• Bulb-T (basically a thickened I section with a 1.2m wide top flange. Some units have
been constructed segmentally.
• Super-T (a trapezoidal beam with an integral 2.0m wide top flange developed by
VicRoads)

Condition State 1

The girders are in good condition with only very minor cracking due to corroding
reinforcement, shrinkage, lack of curing or prestressing (longitudinal cracks in webs of ends
of girder).

Condition State 2

The girders may have minor cracking due to corrosion of reinforcement but there is no rust
staining in cracks. There are a few minor spalls but stressing strand is not exposed. Impact
damage has not exposed reinforcement (some minor discolouration or efflorescence powder
may be visible at joints between segments).

Condition State 3

Crack widths are moderate and a few spalls may have occurred which has exposed stressing
strands. The stressing strands should not show any evidence of corrosion whilst reinforcing
bars may exhibit a 20% loss of section. Minor flexural cracks may be evident in girders at
midspan or in the deck over supports if girders are continuous. Impact damage comprising
spalls of less than 0.5m2 of cover concrete with no significant damage to reinforcement on
prestressing strands. (Heavy staining and/or cracking occurring at joints between girder
segments)

Condition State 4

Delaminations, spalls and corrosion of reinforcement is prevalent with loss of reinforcement

section is excess of 20%. Exposed prestressing strands may have lost up to 10% of their
section. Severe cracking or failure of anchorages may have occurred. Heavy flexural
cracking may be present in girders or in the deck above supports. Impact damage comprising
spalls in excess of 0.5m2 of cover concrete and damaged or severed prestressing strand/ducts.
(evidence of opening of segmental girder joints)

22P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 22C OPEN GIRDERS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all reinforced concrete beams cast in situ, generally prior to 1950
though a few structures were built as late as 1955 using varying depth beams continuous over
pier supports with a larger central span.

These structures were called RC T-beam or grillage bridges and are generally continuous
monolithic small span bridges with the longest span being approximately 13 metres. (beam
shape is always rectangular).

Condition State 1

The girders have minor cracking due to corroding reinforcement but there should be no shear
cracking or spalling of the concrete. Minor cracking may exist at the built-in supports or fine
vertical shrinkage cracks may appear in the beams due to the locked up movements of the
structure.

Condition State 2

The girders may have fine flexural and/or shear cracking. Vertical shrinkage cracks and
cracking at built-in supports may be fine. Longitudinal cracking along the bottom of the
beams due to reinforcement corrosion may be of fine size with a few minor spalls.The ends
of simply supported beams may have minor cracking in the bearing areas due to the bearings
or locating dowels.

Condition State 3

Flexural cracking and shear cracking may be medium sized with minor cracking along the
beam deck joint. Vertical shrinkage cracks and cracking at built-in supports may be medium
in size. Longitudinal cracking may be medium along the bottom of the beams due to
reinforcement corrosion and there may be large spalls with delaminated cover concrete.
Exposed reinforcement may have heavy corrosion with section loss up to 20% in areas. The
beams may have moderate cracking in the bearing areas at the ends of the beams.

Condition State 4

Flexural and shear cracking may be heavy with moderate cracking along the beam/deck joint.
Vertical shrinkage cracks and cracking at built-in supports may be heavy in size. Severe
spalling or delamination of the underside of the beams may be occurring, with advanced
corrosion of the reinforcement. The beams may have severe cracking in the bearing area with
severe loss of bearing support.

22C
 ! "##$

""

% & '

!
" ! #$
% & ! ' (

) ! *

"

* ! + ) $,-
+ #,- ! .
)
% /,-
*

* ! + ) 0,- +
$0- ! )
&
%
/,- /0-
. *

! 1 ! + ) 2,- +
0,- ! &
! 1
3 %
/4- $,- ! .
* !
!

5 6 7 + )+ 1 !
8 & 9

""
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 23S THROUGH TRUSS STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all steel (or wrought iron) trusses that are above the deck level of the
roadway. The element includes all truss chords (top and bottom), verticals, crossbraces,
windbracing or arch braces. This element does not include the floorbeams supporting the
roadway

Condition State 1

The steelwork is in good condition with no rust spotting of the paint system, though there
may be minor chalking, peeling or curling. All welds, bolts and rivets are in good condition
with no corrosion, cracking or looseness. There is no accident damage to the trusses or
bracing.

Condition State 2

Rust spotting of the paint system is occurring and the paint system is no longer effective. No
corrosion or section loss has occurred. All welds or bolts are in good condition with no
cracking, corrosion or loose bolts. Minor accident damage of no consequence.

Condition State 3

Paint system has completely broken down with surface pitting present in a number of
locations. Active corrosion is occurring in isolated areas, but no significant loss of section is
occurring to affect the strength of the member as a whole.

Nuts and bolts may be corroding but are still tight and no cracking of welds has occurred.
Accident damage to truss or overhead bracing has a minor effect on the stiffness of the
trusses. Minor distortion of members is evident.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced and some loss of section has definitely occurred which may have
a detrimental affect on the strength of the member, ie, flanges, webs or gussets badly
corroded over much of its length. Welds may be cracked. Nuts or bolts are severely
corroded and possibly no longer functioning to full capacity. Accident damage to trusses is
of major concern affecting strength of the trusses. Gross distortion of webs, flanges,
stiffeners, gussets, etc. as a result of overstressing due to loss of member or connector section
or as a result of accident damage.

23S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 24S DECK TRUSS STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all steel or wrought iron trusses that are below the deck level of the
roadway. The element includes all truss chords, verticals, crossbraces and windbracing. This
element does not include crossbeams or floorbeams supporting the roadway.

Condition State 1

The paint system is generally sound with minor chalking, peeling or curling but no exposure
of the metal. All welds or bolts in good condition with no corrosion, cracking or loose bolts.

Condition State 2

Rust spotting of the paint system is occurring and the paint system is no longer effective. No
corrosion or section loss has occurred. All welds or bolts are in good condition with no
cracking, corrosion or loose bolts.

Condition State 3

Paint system has completely broken down with surface pitting present in a number of
locations. Active corrosion is occurring in isolated areas, but no loss of section is occurring
that will affect the strength of the member as a whole. Nuts and bolts may be corroding but
are still tight and no cracking of welds has occurred.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced and some loss of section has definitely occurred which may have
a detrimental affect on the strength of the member ie a flange badly corroded over much of its
length. Welds may be cracked. Nuts or bolts are severely corroded and possibly no longer
functioning to full capacity.

24S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 25S ARCHES STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all large corrugated multi-plate arches, Superspans, Nova spans or
multi-plate underpasses used to pass road or rail traffic through. Smaller units or units used
specifically to allow water or cattle traffic through shall be considered as culverts.

Condition State 1
The element shows no corrosion of the metal. Any concrete at the base of the arch is in good
condition with no cracking or spalling. No evidence of plate buckling or seam shearing. All
bolts connecting the multiplates are in good condition and are tight. No distortion of arch
shapes with attendant change in dimensions is evident. There is no damage to the element
from vehicular traffic.

Condition State 2
The element may show minor spot rusting. All bolts are tight with no movement of the
plates. No evidence of plate buckling or seam shearing. There is no damage to the element
from vehicular impact. Any concrete at the base of the arch may have minor cracking or
spalling due to corroding reinforcement but there should be no cracking due to settlement of
the foundations. No distortion of the arch shape is discernible however there may be a minor
change in dimensions.

Condition State 3
The element may show rusting and areas of minor corrosion. Some bolts may be a little loose
and some plates may have slipped slightly. The plate around some bolts may be damaged or
torn allowing distortion to occur. The arch may be developing a small discernible flat spot
due to movement of a footing. The arch span may have increased by more than 25 mm since
last inspection. If cover is small then there may be a deflection at the crown under live load.
Plates adjacent to thrust blocks have buckled or compressed and connections are shearing the
plates. Accident damage from vehicles is minor and does not affect the structure. Any
concrete at the bottom of the arch may have moderate cracking and spalling due to corroding
reinforcement or it may have minor cracking due to minor differential settlement of the
foundations.

Condition State 4
The element may have heavy rusting and corrosion. Some bolts may have pulled loose and
plates have moved or bolts have pulled through the plates. Plates may have crinkled at the
bolt line or may have bulged due to earth pressures. The arch span may have increased by
more than 50mm since the last inspection and gross distortion of the arch shape is evident.
The arch may have a large flat spot at the top due to movement of a footing. Plates adjacent
to thrust blocks are badly buckled and compressed and the connections have sheared.
Accident damage may be severe and have a definite effect on the structure.

Concrete at the base of the arch may have severe cracking and spalling due to corroding
reinforcement or moderate cracking due to differential settlement.

25S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 25P ARCHES PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes precast concrete arches such as Bebo, Techspan, Humes and other
three pinned arches.

Condition State 1

The element shows little or no deterioration with only minor efflorescence or minor fine
superficial cracking of no consequence. Shape, line and level of the arch units is good and
straight. The concrete footing and base slab are in good condition with no cracking or
spalling.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking and spalling may be evident due to corroding reinforcement in isolated areas.
There may be minor cracking or moisture penetration around the hinge areas with moderate
efflorescence powder visible. Shape, line and level of the arch units should be good and
straight. The footing may have minor cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement,
but no cracking due to movement or differential settlement.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking due to structural mechanisms, or moderate to severe cracking and spalling
due to non-structural actions such as corrosion of the reinforcement may be evident, with up
to 20% loss of section of exposed reinforcement. The shape and line of the arch may show
some deviation due to movement or differential settlement, with minor spalling at the hinge
points. The footing may show fine cracking due to movement pressures or differential
settlement.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking due to structural mechanisms or advanced corrosion of the reinforcement

may be evident, with loss of section of reinforcement greater than 20% and associated
cracking and spalling, with large delaminated areas. The shape and line of the arch may
show a dip due to movements and differential settlements with medium to heavy spalling
around the hinge points. The footing may have moderate cracking due to movement
pressures or differential settlement.

25P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 25C ARCHES CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all cast-in-situ reinforced concrete arches and small portal bridges built
pre 1950. Large freeway "portal" bridges may be considered as monolithic structures built
according to their superstructure type ie flat slab, box girder or voided slab bridges.

Condition State 1

The element shows only minor superficial cracking, scaling or efflorescence having no effect
on strength.

Condition State 2

The element may have minor cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement, or there
may be a fine horizontal crack in the portal wall at the thickening due to earth pressures on
the walls or simply a construction joint opening up. Scaling of the concrete surface may be in
larger patches with an increase in white efflorescence powder on the surface.

Condition State 3

The element may have moderate to severe cracking and spalling due to corroding
reinforcement, with loss of section of reinforcement no greater than 20%. There may be a
medium size horizontal crack in the portal wall at the thickening. In arches there may be
leakage, staining and spalling at the arch/side wall joint due to wet fill inside the arch.
Scaling and efflorescence may be prevalent. The arch may be beginning to loose shape with
a flat spot at the top due to movement of a footing, or there may be cracking due to slight
differential movement of the foundations.

Condition State 4

There may be severe horizontal cracking in the portal wall at the thickening. Corrosion of the
reinforcement may be severe, with loss of section of the reinforcement in excess of 20% and
associated cracking, spalling and delamination. Scaling and efflorescence may be prevalent
and leakage at the arch/side wall joint may be excessive. The arch may have lost shape with
a large flat spot due to movement of a footing, or there may be severe cracking due to
differential settlement of the foundations. Accident damage may be severe and having a
definite effect on the structure.

25C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 25O ARCHES OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all arch bridges constructed of masonry which have earth fill inside.
The condition of the road surface should be considered under Component Number 1 and is
not included as part of this item. The arch sidewalls however should be included as part of
this item.

Condition State 1

The element shows little or no deterioration with no cracking of mortar or loss of mortar
between the blocks. There may be small areas of dampness and efflorescence.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking of the mortar or minor loss of mortar between the blocks, but
not sufficient to affect the strength of the arch. The shape of the arch is still good and there is
no cracking or bulging of the sidewalls. There may be large areas of dampness and
efflorescence.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking or loss of mortar between blocks which has a minor affect
on the strength of the arch. Some soffit blocks may have slipped slightly due to the loss of
mortar. Minor settlements, movements, loss of arch shape, or cracking and minor bulging of
the sidewalls may be present, but not of sufficient magnitude to cause concern.

Condition State 4

There may be severe cracking or loss of mortar between blocks which has a significant effect
on the strength of the arch. Some soffit blocks may have slipped significantly and some
blocks may have cracked through or edges broken off. Abutments or piers may have settled
or moved significantly causing a loss of shape of the arch. Differential settlement of the
foundations may have also caused severe cracking along the arch soffit. Earth pressure on
the sidewall may have caused severe cracking, movement or large bulging of the blocks to
occur.

25O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 26S CABLES/HANGERS STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all steel cables or hangers used to support the deck. The cables may be
galvanised, painted, coated or wrapped in grease with a protective outer wrapper, but are not
embedded in concrete.

Condition State 1

There is no evidence of rusting or corrosion and any paint system or protective wrapping is in
good condition. There are no signs of distress at anchors, sockets or saddles.

Condition State 2

The cables or hangers may show signs of rust or the protective wrapping may be broken or in
poor condition. There are no signs of distress at anchors or sockets but the saddles may be
rusty and in need of lubrication.

Condition State 3

The cables or hangers may be rusty with signs of minor corrosion. Any paint system,
coating or protective wrapping has been lost or is in very poor condition.Anchors may have
minor cracking, sockets may be a little loose or saddles may have fine cracks in the metal.
The cables may have slackened off slightly or the hangers are slipping on the cable. Cables
may be beginning to abrade but there are no wire breakages.

Condition State 4

The cables or hangers are badly corroded or the hangers are loose and are sliding along the
cables. The cables may have slackened noticeably. Anchorages may have severely cracked or
anchorages have moved or slipped. Sockets may have loosened or saddles are badly
damaged. Cables may be severely abraded with a number of broken wires.

26S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 27C CORBELS REINFORCED

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element covers discrete reinforced concrete corbels built out from reinforced concrete
substructures to support timber girders.

Condition State 1

The corbel is in good condition with minimal deterioration and no cracking. Bolted
connections to girders are tight.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking and minor spalling may be evident as a result of edge loading or corrosion of
the reinforcement. There is no significant loss of bearing area. Bolted connections to girders
may be slightly loose or corroded.

Condition State 3

A significant loss of bearing area may be evident. Moderate spalling and cracking as a result
of edge loading, or moderate to severe cracking and spalling due to corrosion of the
reinforcement may have occurred, with loss of section of reinforcement up to 20%. Rust
staining is evident in the cracks and under connections. Bolted connections to girders are
loose and girders move slightly under load. Bolts may have lost up to 20% of their sectional
area as a result of corrosion.

Condition State 4

Corbels are severely cracked and spalled as a result of edge loading or impact loading caused
by loose connections to the girders which move markedly under load. Severe corrosion of the
reinforcement may have occurred, with loss of section of the reinforcement greater than 20%
and associated cracking, spalling and delamination. Bolted connections may have lost more
than 20% of their sectional area. The bearing area is significantly reduced and the capacity of
the corbel is significantly compromised.

27C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 27T CORBELS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all timber corbels whether they be round or octagonal hewn or sawn
log, or sawn timber blocks. Note: Pipe rot is quoted as a percentage of the diameter of the
member, while snipe depth is quoted as a percentage of the depth of the corbel (which is
essentially the diameter of the corbel minus the depth of the contact flat or ‘benching’ on the
upper face of the corbel).

Condition State 1

The corbels are in good condition with no termite attack or decay though there may be minor
splits or checks having no effect on strength. The ends of the corbels show no pipe rot and
connections to the substructure and girders are tight.

Condition State 2

The corbels may have minor termite attack, decay, splitting, checking or crushing but not of
sufficient magnitude to affect their strength. The corbels may have up to 20% pipe rot at the
ends. Connections to the substructure or girders may be slightly loose. Depth of snipes is less
than 10% of the depth of the corbel.

Condition State 3

Corbels may have moderate termite attack, rot or decay, splitting, checking or crushing which
may have a minor effect on strength. Corbels may have up to 35% pipe rot at the ends.
Connections to the substructure or girders may be quite loose and the corbels rock slightly
under load. Depth of snipes may range from 10% to 18% of the depth of the corbel. Bolts
may be moderately corroded.

Condition State 4

Heavy rot, termite attack, decay, splitting, or crushing have a marked effect on the strength
and serviceability of the corbel. Corbels may have up to 50% pipe rot at the ends.
Connections to the substructure or girders are very loose and the corbels rock noticeably
under load. Depth of snipes may range from 19% to 25% of the depth of the corbel. Bolts
may be severely corroded.

NOTE: Members with pipe rot/termite attack/snipes in excess of the values shown in
Condition State 4 are critical and should be strengthened or replaced immediately.

27T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 28S CROSSBEAMS/FLOORBEAMS STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all steel crossbeams or truss floorbeams whether painted, galvanised or
unpainted.

Condition State 1

The paint system is generally sound with only minor chalking, peeling or curling with no
exposure of the metal. All welds or bolts are in good condition

Condition State 2

Rust spotting is occurring and the paint system is no longer effective, though corrosion has
not yet commenced. All welds or bolts are in good condition, though a few of the bolts may
be slightly loose. All member lines are true.

Condition State 3

The paint system has completely broken down and minor corrosion and pitting is occurring
but the member strength is not affected. Minor deviations in member line may be occurring.
There may be some evidence of girder deflection or movement under load. Nuts and bolts
may be corroded and may be loose. Welds to RSJ's are in good condition.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced with significant loss of section which may affect member
strength. Webs, flanges or stiffeners may be buckled or distorted. Girders may be exhibiting
excessive deflection or movement under load. Nuts and bolts may be heavily corroded and
no longer functioning properly. Bolts may also be very loose or welds may be cracked.

28S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 28T CROSSBEAMS/FLOORBEAMS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all crossbeams or floorbeams constructed using sawn timber sections
which do not include the centre of the original log (ie no pipe rot).

Condition State 1

The timber is in good condition with only minor splits or checks having no effect on strength.
All bolted connections are tight and in good condition.

Condition State 2

The timber shows signs of minor decay, splitting and checks but does not affect the strength
of the members. The tops of the member may have some moisture ingress and be wet and
slightly spongy. Bolted connections may be slightly loose.

Condition State 3

Medium decay, splitting and checking may be present. Moisture ingress into the top of the
member has caused a softness with indentations and slight bulging from the deck planks. The
strength of the member has been affected to a minor extent. Bolted connections may be loose
allowing the member to move excessively when loaded.

The member may have cracked due to overloading, ineffective support, or supports being too
far apart or crossbeams being non-continuous, ie only two supports.

Condition State 4

The member is heavily decayed, split or rotted, with large indentations at the top along with
excessive bulging due to the top being very wet and spongy. Bolted connections are very
loose and the member is moving excessively when loaded causing deterioration of the
member. The member may be cracked through due to overloading, ineffective support or
crossbeams being non-continuous. The strength of the member has been significantly
affected.

28T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 29P DECK PLANKS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement Each

This item covers precast concrete deck planks which are placed transversely over girders.
Distributor members which connect the planks are also covered.

Condition State 1

The units are in good condition with only minor faint cracking or minor edge chipping of the
units. Minor efflorescence powder may be visible. Distributor members are connected tightly

Condition State 2

Minor cracks or spalls may be present with only minor reinforcement corrosion. Some of the
hold down bolts for the precast deck slabs may be loose. Edge spalling of the units may have
exposed some reinforcement. Distributor members may be slightly loose or held down at the
ends only, and decking surfacing at joints is mostly intact.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling may be present with up to 20% loss of section of the non-
prestressed reinforcement in areas or minor loss of stressing strand due o corrosion. Many of
the hold down bolts are loose or missing and the units are moving when loaded, causing edge
spalling of the units. There may be moderate edge spalling due to stones and debris in the
joints. Distributor members may be deteriorated with possible loss of section or member
connections may be loose, allowing minor movement under traffic and resulting in cracking
of the surfacing at decking joints.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking, heavy spalling and advanced corrosion may be present, or the precast deck
units are completely loose and moving excessively under load. Heavy edge spalling or
delaminated concrete may be present. There may be advanced corrosion of non-prestressing
reinforcement over large areas. Stressing strands may be broken or have lost up to 20% of
section due to corrosion. Distributor members are broken or have experienced complete loss
of section, and members may be moving significantly under traffic, resulting in significant
cracking of the surfacing at decking joints.

29P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 29T DECK PLANKS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes both transverse deck planks and the less common longitudinal deck
planks with or without thin longitudinal running planks on top or distributor planks on the
underside. Spiking planks which are used at the abutment ends of skewed decks to act as
trimming beams are also included in this item. The cross members supporting longitudinal
decking are listed under Item No. 28T, Cross Beams.

Condition State 1

The timber is in good condition with minor splits, checks or weathering which have no effect
on strength.

Transverse planks are securely spiked to outer spiking planks and kerb fasteners are tight.
The cambering of the internal girders is tight with no deterioration evident at the interface.

On skewed decks, the bevelled ends of transverse planks are securely bolted or screwed to the
end spiking planks.

Running planks and/or distributor planks are tight.

Longitudinal decking planks are tightly bolted at the ends and at each alternate crossbeam
and are continuous over at least three (3) crossbeams.

Condition State 2

The timber shows minor signs of decay, weathering, splitting or checks having no effect on
member strength. There may be active termite presence at interfaces, but only minor
apparent damage.

Transverse planking may be slightly loose as a result of decay of the spiking planks, kerbs,
cambering wedges or at the interface between the internal girders and the planks. Running
planks/distributor planks may be slightly loose or held down at ends only.

Bolted connections to longitudinal planks may be slightly loose or only held down at the
ends.

Bolted or screwed connections to end spiking planks on skewed decks may be slightly loose.

Condition State 3

The timber shows moderate decay, weathering, splitting or checks which affect the strength
of the member to a minor extent. There may be moderate termite damage, whether from
active or past infestation.

29T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

Transverse planking may be loose as a result of loss of fixity at the outer girders/kerb and/or
loss of cambering of the internal girders. Planks may be rocking or deflecting vertically over
internal girders under traffic. Planks may be rotting under the kerbs or running planks.

Running and distributor planks may be split with sections broken away or planks split in half.
Bolts are loose allowing planks to move under traffic. Bolted connections to longitudinal
planks may be loose or the planks may only have two supports.

On skewed decks, the connectors to the end spiking plank may have loosened sufficiently to
allow movement of the supported end of the deck planks under traffic.

Condition State 4

The members are severely damaged, weathered, split or rotted which significantly affects the
strength. There may be severe termite damage, whether from active or past infestation.

Transverse planking is excessively loose and rotates or flaps or deflects vertically over
internal girders readily under traffic as a result of loss of fixing at the outer girders/kerbs or
loss of cambering. Kerbs, spiking planks, bolts and cambering wedges may have deteriorated
markedly. Planks are rotted at these interfaces and under running planks.

Running and distributor planks are split, broken or completely loose. Planks may be flapping
up and down under traffic.

Ends of longitudinal planks may be in poor condition and bolting may be completely loose
allowing members to flap up and down when loaded. Cross decking under the planks may be
rotted or completely loose.

On skewed decks, the old spiking plank may have rotted and connections loosened, resulting
in lack of vertical support and excessive movement of the supported end of the deck planks
under traffic.

29T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 30S STEEL DECKING STEEL

Units of Measurement: Square metres

The most common form adopted is heavy gauge steel corrugated decking units spanning
transversely over steel or timber girders. Infill material includes weak cast insitu concrete,
asphalt and more recently reinforced concrete. Decking sheets have also been placed
longitudinally over cross beams with similar infills. This element also includes a number of
deck support plates made of steel or wrought iron. Included are buckle plates, usually held to
the beams and braces by riveted connections, with a weak concrete and asphalt seal placed on
top or light gauge steel trough decking generally with asphalt infill. Not included in this
element is corrugated iron sheets which are only used as formwork support and not as a
structural element.

The infill or decking material should be included with this element as it greatly influences the
action and rate of deterioration of the steel decking.

Condition State 1
The steel is in good condition with only minor rusting at the joints. The surfacing or infill is
in good condition with no cracking, rutting or potholes. The decking units are well bolted to
the support, or all rivets are good and tight. Connections between the units are in good
condition with no separation.

Condition State 2
There is rusting and minor corrosion at the joints but all bolting, tap screw connections, welds
or rivets are good and tight. There may be minor cracking and rutting of the asphalt surface.

Condition State 3
Medium corrosion is occurring at the joints. Buckle plates show moderate leakage at the
joints with small stalactites forming. With trough decking the welds between the units may
have minor cracking or some tap screws may be loose or sheared off with minor separation of
the units. The hold down connections of the units may be slightly loose allowing too much
flexing of the sections. The asphalt surface may have moderate cracking, rutting, small
broken up areas or small potholes. Concrete infill may be breaking up allowing excessive
moisture penetration.

Condition State 4
Heavy corrosion is occurring with holes appearing in the trough decking and concrete or
asphalt fill above. Trough decking units may be separating with many of the joining
tapscrews broken or missing. Hold down bolts may be completely loose and the sections are
flexing up and down under load. The asphalt surfacing is severely cracked, rutted, or has
large badly broken areas and potholes. Rivets holding the buckle plates in position may have
sheared or the edge material of the buckle plates may have sheared. The buckle plates may
have severely corroded with holes appearing. Large stalactite growths indicates excessive
moisture penetration of the severely cracked weak concrete above. Deck troughing may be
cracked transversely to the ribs. Holding down bolts and/or channels may be severely
corroded.

30S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 31S DIAPHRAGMS/BRACING STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all stiffening devices for the ends of the deck and between steel girders
and includes wind bracing of large girder bridges. The diaphragms may have stud connectors
into the deck to support and stiffen the ends of the deck. Bracing may be simple steel rods,
straps or small angles crossing between the girders, or be heavy channel connectors between
the beam webs. Wind bracing may be by steel angles or steel rods.

Condition State 1

The paintwork is generally sound with only minor chalking, peeling or curling, but no
exposure of the metal. All welds, bolts and rivets are in good condition. Distance between
bracing is no more than 5 metres unless the RSJs have a composite reinforced concrete deck.

Condition State 2

Spot rusting of the paint system is occurring and the system is no longer effective. No
corrosion has occurred as yet. No cracking of welds has occurred, but there may be some
minor rusting of nuts or bolts. Bracing may be too far apart to adequately stiffen girders, or
bracing may be too light if deck is not solid.

Condition State 3

The paint system has completely broken down with corrosion and pitting in areas. Nuts and
bolts may be corroded with minor loss of tension in bolt. Welds may be cracked with minor
loss of effectiveness. Bracing is far too light or inadequate, offering little effect in stiffening
of the superstructure, especially if deck is not concrete. Lateral bowing of girders may be
evident under load.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced having a definite detrimental effect on the strength of the
element. Braces are inadequate or have broken loose or buckled and the girders are bowing
noticeably under load. There may be no transverse distribution of wheel loads and the girders
are acting independently. Bolts or rivets may be missing.

31S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 31C DIAPHRAGMS/BRACING CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes cast-in-situ reinforced concrete end of deck stiffening and deep
diaphragms between girders. In monolithic cast-in-situ flat slab bridges this element includes
the deck thickening beam at the pier supports.

Condition State 1

The elements are in good condition with only very minor cracking visible. There may be
minor dampness or efflorescence powder visible in a few locations.

Condition State 2

There may be a few minor cracks or spalls due to corroding reinforcement. End of deck
stiffener may be damp and stained due to excessive moisture penetration of the deck joints,
and efflorescence powder may be visible in numerous areas. In monolithic structures there
may be cracking of the tops of the columns or at the bearing areas of expansion type piers.

Condition State 3

Moderate to severe cracking and spalling may be present along with possible delaminated
areas due to corroding reinforcement. Exposed reinforcement may have section loss up to
20% in isolated areas. Local spalling or cracking may have occurred as a result of
obstructions being trapped in expansion joint gaps or insufficient gap provision for free
expansion. In monolithic structures there may be moderate cracking or spalling in the
bearing areas of expansion type piers, or at the column/diaphragm joint of fixed type piers.

Condition State 4

Heavily corroded steel may be visible, with loss of section of reinforcement in excess of 20%
and associated cracking, spalling and delamination of concrete. Entire sections of end
diaphragms may have spalled as a result of obstructions trapped in expansion joint gaps or
insufficient gaps for free expansion. Monolithic structures may have heavy spalling in the
bearing areas with loss of bearing area greater than 40%.

31C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 32C LOAD BEARING DIAPHRAGMS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those load bearing diaphragms constructed using reinforced or pre-
stressed concrete which are integral with the superstructure beams and visible to the
inspector. These diaphragms are used as a means of joining precast beams to provide
continuity over the pier supports, and the diaphragm is used to support the beams on the pier
or columns below. Those load bearing diaphragms built-in to box girders or voided slab
bridges and are not visible should be considered as part of the superstructure and are not to be
included in this element.

Condition State 1

The load bearing diaphragm is in good condition with only minor cracking due to corroding
reinforcement. The crossheads should have no moment or shear cracking.

Condition State 2

The load bearing diaphragms may have minor cracking and spalling due to corroding
reinforcement. There may be some very fine moment or shear cracks. No stressing strands
should be exposed. Minor cracking at prestressing anchorages may be evident.

Condition State 3

Moderate to severe sized cracks, spalls and possible delaminations may be present with
exposed reinforcement being corroded with up to 20% section loss. Stressing strands may be
exposed with only minor corrosion. Moment cracking may be medium sized but shear cracks
should only be fine. Moderate cracking or spalling may be evident at prestressing
anchorages.

Condition State 4

Reinforcement may be heavily corroded with loss of section greater than 20% and associated
cracking, spalling and delamination of concrete. Moment cracking may be severe but shear
cracks should only be of moderate size. Exposed stressing strands may have up to 10%
section loss. Anchorage efficiency is materially compromised by severe cracking and
spalling.

32C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 33T SPIKING PLANKS TIMBER

Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres

This item defines the spiking planks that are seated on the outer girders and to which
transverse decking is spiked.

Condition State 1

The timber is in good condition and firmly bolted in place. There is little or no evidence of
rot or decay. Minor splits and cracks may be evident, however these will have no effect on
member strength.

For spans up to 7.6m, the spiking plank shall be the full length of the span. For longer spans,
the spiking plank may be butt joined adjacent to the piers. No joints are permitted in the
middle third of the span.

Condition State 2

Minor decay, splitting or cracking may be present but not sufficient to affect the
serviceability of the member.

Condition State 3

Medium decay, splitting, crushing or termite attack may be present affecting the component’s
serviceability. Attachment bolts to the girders may have loosened due to rotting of member
and deck planks may have started to loosen.

Condition State 4

Heavy decay, splitting, crushing or termite attack may be present, affecting the serviceability
of the component. Decking may be loose due to rotting and crushing of the member.

33T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 40O FIXED BEARINGS OTHER

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those bearings that may provide for deflection or rotation and includes
steel plates bearing on concrete with or without locating pins or lugs, concrete bearing on
malthoid, lead sheet or a bond breaking layer of colourless grease.

Condition State 1

The element shows minimal deterioration with the paint system in good condition protecting
the steel plates and any material allowing minor movements is in good condition and
functioning properly.

Condition State 2

Minor movement may have caused faint cracking in the ends of the beams due to pressure on
the locating dowels. Protective paint systems may be failing allowing rusting of the metal
plates. Malthoid or lead sheets may be deteriorating or beginning to be squeezed out from
beneath the beams. Bearing support may be cracked but still basically sound.

Condition State 3

Moderate movement may have caused moderate cracking or minor spalling of the ends of the
beams. Protective paint systems may have failed causing medium corrosion of the metal
plates. Malthoid or lead sheets may well be deteriorated or up to 50% extruded from beneath
the beams. Bearing supports may show severe cracking, crumbling of mortar or have sizeable
spalling with some reduction of bearing support area.

Condition State 4

Large movements may have caused heavy spalling of the ends of the beams. Steel plates
may be heavily corroded due to complete loss of protective paint. Malthoid or lead sheets
may be totally deteriorated or almost completely extruded beneath the beams. Bearing
supports may have badly crumbled mortar or heavily spalled concrete with extensive
reduction in bearing support area with possible cracking having occurred.

40O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 41O SLIDING BEARINGS OTHER

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those bearings that provide for movement by the use of a sliding
mechanism. They also may have thin elastomer strips which will allow for some deflection
and rotation, but the main mechanism is to allow for sliding of one surface over another with
the use of copper or phosphor bronze plates, Teflon (PTFE) discs or coated sliding plates.
The bearing may simply be greased surfaces with the sliding plate moving between guides in
a steel base plate.

Condition State 1

The element is in good condition with minimal deterioration. The paint system is in good
condition and sliding elements are in their correct positions and appear to be working as
normal. There is minimal debris in the bearing. Bearing support is sound with mortar or
concrete uncracked and in good condition.

Condition State 2

Protective paint systems may be failing, allowing rusting of the metal plates. Sliding elements
may have moved excessively but the joint is still moving correctly. Debris in the bearing or
corrosion may be having a minor effect on the movement capabilities of the bearing. Bearing
support may be cracked but still basically sound.

Condition State 3

Protective paint systems may have failed causing medium corrosion of the metal plates.
Sliding elements may have moved excessively and are being extruded between the steel
plates. The PTFE coating is delaminating from its base plate and is buckled and being
destroyed. The lubricating system may have failed and the joint is failing to operate normally.
Bearing support may show severe cracking, crumbling of mortar or sizeable spalling with
some reduction of bearing support area.

Condition State 4

Steel plates may be heavily corroded due to complete loss of protective paint. Sliding
elements may have slipped out and are no longer functional or the PTFE coating has
completely delaminated, buckled and destroyed. The lubricating system may have failed and
the joint has seized and is no longer functional. Bearing support may have badly crumbled
mortar or heavily spalled concrete with extensive reduction in bearing support area, with
possible crushing having occurred.

41O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 42O ELASTOMERIC/POT BEARINGS OTHER

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those bridge bearings constructed primarily of elastomers, with or
without metal shims reinforcing the elastomer. The bearings may be free to move or have
anti-sliding containment or be fully contained in pot bearings.

Condition State 1

The element shows minimal deterioration. Shear deformations are correct for the
temperatures and structural movements. Bearing support surfaces are flat and sound with no
cracking of the mortar or concrete.

Condition State 2

The element may have faint cracking, splitting or signs of weathering. Shear deformations
may be large but not excessive, and the bearing is functioning normally. Bearing support
surfaces may not be flat with only partial support to the bearings, or the bearing support may
be cracked but still basically sound.

Condition State 3

The bearing may have slight bulges between the shims and the elastomer may have minor
cracking or splitting. Rotation or shear deformations may be excessive with rollover of the
edges of the bearing. Bearing is still functioning but is being overstressed. Bearing support
may have sizeable irregularities or spalling with loss of bearing support area. Pot bearings
may have faint cracking of the container. Bearing may have large rotation or sliding
elements are showing large movements. Elastomer may be beginning to be extruded from the
top of the container.

Condition State 4

The bearing may have excessive bulging with cracking or splitting at the shims which have
delaminated from the elastomer. Shear or rotation deformations may be excessive with a
sizeable reduction in the bearing contact surface area and load transfer properties. Bearing
support may have heavily spalled concrete with some crushing possible. Pot bearing
container may be cracked with elastomer being extruded from the crack or through the top of
the container. Bearing may show excessive rotation or sliding elements may have excessive
movement and no longer functioning correctly.

42O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 43S ROCKERS/ROLLERS STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those bearings that may provide for rotation and movement by means
of steel rollers or rocker mechanisms.

Condition State 1

The element shows minimal deterioration. The paint system is in good condition with the
bearing well lubricated and functioning correctly. Bearing support is sound with no cracking
of the mortar or concrete.

Condition State 2

Protective paint systems may be failing allowing rusting of the metal. Debris has lodged in
the bearing hampering the movement or rotation of the bearing. Rocker has rotated correctly,
but not excessively, for the temperature and movements of the bridge. Bearing support may
be cracked but still basically sound.

Condition State 3

Protective paint systems may have failed causing medium corrosion of the metal. Debris is
preventing the movement of the bearing and its correct operation. Rockers may have rotated
to their tolerance limits. Bearing support may show severe cracking, crumbling of mortar or
sizeable spalling with some reduction of the bearing support area.

Condition State 4

The steel may be heavily corroded due to complete loss of protective paint. Lubrication
systems have completely failed and excessive debris has seized the bearing. Rockers may
have rotated to their tolerance limit and the shear key may have cracked off. Bearing support
may show badly crumbled or heavily spalled concrete with extensive rotation in bearing
support areas with possible crushing having occurred.

43S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 44O MORTAR PADS/ OTHER

HIGH BEARING PEDESTALS

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those bearings consisting entirely of dry pack or wet boxed mortar, or
high concrete pedestals greater than the nominal 50 mm thickness, unreinforced or reinforced
with distribution steel. This section does not cover the packing mortar placed under a steel
bearing base plate. That mortar is covered under the relevant bearing on top of the base plate.

Condition State 1

The element is in good condition with minimal deterioration and no cracking.

Condition State 2

The mortar pads may show signs of minor dampness and leaching. The pedestals may have
some minor cracking due to bearing movement or edge loading, but the strength of the
bearing has not been affected.

Condition State 3

Heavy leaching due to excessive dampness is exhibited by the mortar pads. The pads may
also show cracking, crumbling or minor crushing of the mortar, with minor loss of bearing
area.

Condition State 4

The mortar is crushing or has been lost with large subsequent loss of bearing area. The high
concrete pedestals may have severe cracking with large spalls and subsequent loss of bearing
area.

44O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 45O/S RESTRAINT ANGLES OTHER

Units of Measurement: Each (per girder)

This component includes the restraint angles, holding down bolts and anchor blocks used to
locate and secure precast concrete girders.

Condition State 1
The steelwork is in good condition with no rust spotting of the protective coating. Angles
have been installed correctly to the correct level and location and there is sufficient travel in
the slotted holes to permit free thermal movement of the structure. All bolts and welds are in
good condition with no signs of corrosion, cracking or looseness.

Concrete anchor blocks are in good condition with only minor cracking due to corrosion.

Condition State 2
The protective system is no longer effective and rust spotting may be occurring. No
corrosion or section loss of the parent metal has occurred. All welds and bolts are in good
condition with no signs of corrosion, cracking and looseness. The installation may be
imperfect or there may be minor bending of angles but system is still fit for purpose and there
is no restriction to thermal movements.

Concrete anchor blocks may have minor cracking and spalling due to corrosion or girders
bearing directly on the blocks.

Condition State 3
The protective system may have broken down and there is surface pitting in a number of
locations. Active corrosion may be occurring but there is no significant loss of section that
affects the strength of the member. Nuts and bolts may be corroding but they are still tight
and no cracking of welds has occurred. There may be lack of fit, distortion of angles or
anchor bolts against end of slotted holes due to faulty installation or overstressing and there is
some loss of function and/or strength. However there is no consequential damage to girders
or bearing shelf as a result of the movement being restricted.

Anchor blocks may be moderately cracked and/or spalled as a consequence of corrosion of

the reinforcement or girders bearing on the blocks.

Condition State 4
Corrosion is well advanced and some loss of section has occurred which may affect the
strength of the members. Welds may be cracked and nuts or bolts may be severely corroded
and possibly no longer functioning to full capacity. There may be a lack of fit with gross
distortion of angles and anchor bolts may be bearing hard against end of slotted holes due to
faulty installation or excessive movements of the structure.

The ends of girders, bearing shelf and anchor blocks may be severely cracked and spalled as
a consequence of these movements.

45O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 50C ABUTMENTS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all abutments constructed of reinforced concrete and includes the short
integral return walls which support the barrier end posts or terminals, ballast walls and side
keeper walls. Wingwalls whether integral, attached or independent are considered separately
under item No 51. Damage to seating areas caused by faulty bearings is covered under the
bearing items.

Condition State 1

The abutment and ballast walls are in good condition with only minor cracking due to
corroding reinforcement. There is no flexural cracking due to earth pressures or differential
settlement of foundations. The bearing shelf/headstock are reasonably dry and clean. No
forward movement of abutment should be discernable, ie bearings shearing towards ballast
wall or subsidence of the road surface behind the abutment.

Condition State 2

The abutment wall may have minor cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement,
earth pressure, beam friction on differential movements. The bearing shelf/headstock should
be reasonably clean and dry. Forward movement of wall is less than 10mm. Headstocks may
have fine moment, ASR or shear cracking. The ballast wall may be cracked or spalled as a
result of earth pressure, girders bearing on it or corrosion of reinforcement. Minor
subsidence of the road surface may be evident behind the abutment.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling may be visible due to earth pressure, beam friction, edge
bearing or differential movements. Reinforcement may be corroded, with loss of section up to
20% and associated moderate to severe cracking, spalling and delamination of concrete. The
bearing shelf/headstock may be damp but there is no heavy staining or evidence of water
being retained on the shelf. Forward movement of the abutment is less than 20mm.
Headstocks may have medium ASR or moment cracks or fine shear cracks. The ballast wall
may be severely cracked or spalled. The road surface behind the bridge has subsided
noticeably.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking and spalling due to structural mechanisms is evident in abutment and ballast
walls. Corrosion of the reinforcement is well advanced with section loss in excess of 20%.
The bearing shelf/headstock may be very wet, heavily stained or have excessive water resting
on top. Severe moment cracks or moderate shear cracks may be evident. The ballast wall
has failed, is bearing against the girders and embankment material is being lost. Forward
movement of the abutment wall is in excess of 20mm. There may be severe subsidence of
the road surface behind the abutment.

50C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 50O ABUTMENTS OTHER

Units of measurement: Each

This element describes all abutment types other than concrete or timber, and includes stone
masonry walls, red brick walls or grouted rubble walls. The element does not include any
reinforced concrete cap on top of the walls. If masonry blocks are used to cap the walls, the
sill cap should be considered as part of this element. Foundations, if visible should be
considered as part of this element.

Condition State 1

The wall is in good condition with only minor fine cracks in the mortar between bricks,
stones or masonry blocks. There should be no cracking due to differential settlement of the
foundations, or bulging due to earth pressures on the walls. There should be no loss ofmortar
between the blocks. The wall and sill cap should be reasonably dry with no staining.

Condition State 2

The wall may have a number of fine cracks in the mortar but no cracking of the blocks. There
may be minor loss of mortar of no concern. Fine cracks may exist due to differential
settlement of the foundations or minor bulging due to earth pressures. The wall and sill cap
should be reasonably dry. Minor subsidence of the road surface may be evident behind the
abutment.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking of the mortar or moderate mortar loss may be occurring due to water
wash. There should be only minor mortar loss beneath any masonry sill caps. Moderate
cracking may exist due to differential settlement of the foundations. Abutment walls may
have moderate bulging due to earth pressure. Moderate subsidence of the road surface may
be evident behind the abutment.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking of the mortar or heavy loss of mortar may be occurring in the wall. There
may be medium loss of mortar beneath the masonry sill caps. Severe cracking may exist due
to differential settlement of the foundations or bulging of the walls due to earth pressures.
Moderate subsidence of the road surface may be evident behind the abutment.

50O
 ! "##$

%& ' ' (

'

) *

&

"

" #

$
"
%$

%&
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 51C WINGWALLS/ CAST-INSITU

RETAINING WALLS CONCRETE

Units of Measurement Each

This element includes all bridge wingwalls and retaining walls constructed using cast-insitu
reinforced or plain concrete. Wingwalls whether integral, attached or independent are
included.

Condition State 1

The wall is in good condition with no cracking, spalling, rotation, movement or moment
cracking. Independent wingwalls are hard up against the abutment walls.

Condition State 2

There may be some cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement or earth pressures.
Any joint with the abutment may be cracked as a result of differential movement.
Independent walls may be rotating or moving forward by up to 10mm but there is no loss of
embankment material.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement or earth

pressures. Any joints with the abutment may be cracked and spalling of the adjoining edges
may be evident. Retaining walls and independent wingwalls may show moderate rotations or
movements of up to 40mm. There is some loss of fill but little effect on serviceability as a
result of differential movements.

Condition State 4

There may be heavy cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement or earth pressures.
Any joint with the abutment is cracked and badly spalled as a result of differential
movements. The water bar may be torn and fill escaping through the gap. Retaining walls
and independent wingwalls may show large rotations or movements in excess of 40mm due
to earth pressure causing excessive loss of fill material from behind.

51C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 51T WINGWALLS/ TIMBER

RETAINING WALLS

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all bridge wingwalls and retaining walls consisting of timber sheeting
spanning between the wing piles. Note that wing piles should be covered under Item No.
60T.

Condition State 1

The timber may have minor decay, splits or checks but is generally in good condition.

Condition State 2

Timber units may have moderate decay, splits or checks, but are generally in good condition.

Condition State 3

Timber units may be heavily decayed with sheeting planks rotted out or attacked by white
ants. Settlement of sheeting units may be occurring or a loss of fill may be occurring due to
water wash beneath the sheeting or due to sheeting rotting out, and subsidence of the
embankment may be evident.

Condition State 4

Timber units may be severely decayed and whole areas may have rotted out or been eaten out
by white ants. Loss of embankment fill or wingwall fill is occurring due to earth pressure or
the material is being lost due to water wash at the base of the wingwalls, and severe
subsidence may be evident.

51T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 51S WINGWALLS/ STEEL

RETAINING WALLS

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes all wingwalls and retaining walls where the main embankment support
material consists of corrugated steel/iron sheeting or steel sheet piles between the wing piles.

Condition State 1

The steel is in good condition with only minor rusting at the ends of streets. Soil retention is
effective and there is no bulging of sheets between supports.

Condition State 2

There is minor corrosion at the sheet ends but no corrosion of the main body of the sheeting.
Soil retention is substantially effective and there is only minor bulging of sheets between
supports.

Condition State 3

Moderate corrosion is evident in the sheeting, bulging of sheets between supports is

significant and some of the joints between sheets may have sprung. Soil retention has been
compromised and there may be evidence of subsidence of the road surface behind the
abutment.

Condition State 4

Severe corrosion is evident in the sheeting, bulging of sheets is excessive and joints in the
sheeting have sprung.

Loss of embankment fill or wingwall fill is occurring due to earth pressure or the material is
being lost due to water wash at the base of the wingwalls. Severe subsidence of the road
surface in the vicinity of the wingwall or retaining wall may be evident.

51S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 51O WINGWALLS/ OTHER

RETAINING WALLS

Units of Measurement: Each

This item includes all bridge wingwalls and retaining walls constructed using ashlar blocks,
rubble masonry or brickwork.

Condition State 1

The wall is in good condition with only fine cracks in the mortar joints. There should be no
cracking due to differential settlement of foundations or bulging due to earth pressure. There
should be no loss of mortar between blocks, the wall should be dry and no forward rotation or
movement is evident.

Condition State 2

There may be a number of fine cracks in the mortar joints but no cracking of the blocks or
there may be minor loss of mortar of no concern. Fine cracks may exist due to differential
settlement of the foundations or minor bulging due to earth pressures. The wall is reasonably
dry and there is only a slight forward movement or rotation but no loss of fill.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking of mortar or loss of mortar may be evident. Moderate cracking due to
differential footing settlement and moderate bulging due to earth pressure may be seen.
Walls have rotated or moved forward by up to 40mm causing some loss of fill material.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking or loss of mortar is occurring. Severe cracking is evident as a result of

differential settlement or bulging due to earth pressures. Walls have rotated or moved
forward in excess of 40mm causing excessive loss of fill material from behind.

51O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 52P ABUTMENT SHEETING/ PRECAST

INFILL PANELS CONCRETE

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element describes all precast concrete elements used in abutments. Included in this
element are precast RC sheeting planks, precast RC earth retaining slabs, precast RC facing
panels for reinforced soil walls and precast RC crib walls. Wingwalls and retaining walls are
covered by Item No. 51P

Condition State 1

The units are in good condition with only minor cracking of no consequence. There should
be no settlement of units or gaps between units allowing loss of embankment fill to occur.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking or minor spalling of the units due to corroding reinforcement or
earth pressure. There may be minor bulging or settlement of units but allowing only minor
loss of embankment fill from behind. Minor subsidence of the road surface may be evident
behind the abutment.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking or spalling of the units due to corroding reinforcement or
earth pressures. Moderate bulging, settlement or separation of units may be allowing
medium loss of the embankment fill. The road surface behind the abutment may have settled
noticeably.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking and spalling of the units may be occurring due to reinforcement corrosion or
earth pressure. Excessive bulging, settlement or separation of the units may be allowing
heavy loss of embankment fill. There may be severe subsidence of the road surface behind
the abutment.

52P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 52C ABUTMENT SHEETING/ CAST-IN-SITU

INFILL PANELS CONCRETE

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes abutments where the main embankment support material consists of
mass concrete wall panels between the piles and / or acting as a ballast wall. Wingwalls and
retaining walls are covered by Item No. 51C

Condition State 1

The panels are in good condition with only minor cracking of no consequence. There should
be no discernable settlement or forward rotation of the panels or gaps at the substructure
interfaces which would permit the loss of fine material from the retained fill. The movement
of the panels should be isolated from the substructure by compressible filler interfaces and
there should be no evidence of any cracking or spalling thereof. Sufficient weepholes have
been provided and are all functioning correctly.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking or spalling of the panels at the joint interfaces and / or some
minor degree of settlement or forward rotation of the panels as a consequence of earth
pressure and / or inadequate foundation capacity. Marginal gaps may have opened at the
substructure interfaces allowing a minor loss of the retained fill. Minor subsidence of the
road surface behind the abutment of less than 20mm may also be evident. Some weepholes
may be blocked but otherwise drainage is adequately provided for.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking or spalling of units at the joint interfaces and / or there may
be significant settlement or forward rotation of the panels as a consequence of earth pressure
and / or inadequate foundation capacity. Significant gaps (10-25mm wide) may have opened
at substructure interfaces allowing the loss of retained embankment material. Panels may be
heavily stained as a consequence. Moderate subsidence of road surface behind the abutment
of up to 30mm may be evident. Weepholes may be blocked or inadequate.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking or spalling may be occurring at joint interfaces and / or there may be
excessive settlement or forward rotation of the panels as a consequence of earth pressure and
/ or inadequate foundation capacity. Gaps in excess of 25mm wide may have opened at the
substructure interfaces allowing severe loss of the retained fill material. Significant
subsidence of the of the road surface behind the abutment in excess of 30mm may be evident.
Weepholes have either not been provided or have ceased to function.

52C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 52T ABUTMENT SHEETING/ TIMBER

INFILL PANELS

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes abutments where the main embankment support material consists of
timber sheeting between the piles or acting as a ballast wall. Timber piles and headstocks at
timber abutments will be considered under other substructure elements because of their
uniqueness. Timber sill beams resting on a concrete footing may be considered in this
element as well as timber bedlogs embedded in the embankment. Wingwalls and retaining
walls are covered by Item No. 51T

Condition State 1

The timber may have minor decay, splits or checks but is generally in good condition.

Condition State 2

Timber units may have moderate decay , splits or checks, but are generally in good condition.

Condition State 3

Timber units may be heavily decayed with sheeting planks rotted out or attacked by termites.
Settlement of sheeting units may be occurring or a loss of fill may be occurring due to water
wash beneath the sheeting or due to sheeting rotting out. Subsidence of the road surface
behind the abutment may be evident.

Condition State 4

Timber units may be severely decayed and whole areas may have rotted out or been eaten out
by termites. Loss of embankment fill is occurring due to earth pressure or the material is
being lost due to water wash at the base of the abutment. Severe subsidence of the road
surface behind the abutment may be evident.

52T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 52S ABUTMENT SHEETING/ STEEL

INFILL PANELS

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes abutments where the main embankment support material consists of
corrugated steel/iron sheeting or steel sheet piles between the piles or acting as a ballast wall.
Wingwalls and retaining walls are covered by Item No. 51S.

Condition State 1

The steel is in good condition with only minor rusting at the ends of streets. Soil retention is
effective and there is no bulging of sheets between supports.

Condition State 2

There is minor corrosion at the sheet ends but no corrosion of the main body of the sheeting.
Soil retention is substantially effective and there is only minor bulging of sheets between
supports.

Condition State 3

Moderate corrosion is evident in the sheeting, bulging of sheets between supports is

significant and some of the joints between sheets may have sprung. Soil retention has been
compromised and there may be evidence of subsidence of the road surface behind the
abutment.

Condition State 4

Severe corrosion is evident in the sheeting, bulging of sheets is excessive and joints in the
sheeting have sprung.

Loss of embankment fill is occurring due to earth pressure or the material is being lost due to
water wash at the base of the abutment. Severe subsidence of the road surface behind the
abutment may be evident.

52S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 52O ABUTMENT SHEETING/ OTHER

INFILL PANELS

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes abutments where the main embankment support material consists of
(grouted or ungrouted) rock or stone or rock filled cages such as gabions. Wingwalls and
retaining walls are covered by Item No. 51O

Condition State 1

The infill protection is in good condition with no damage, differential settlement or gaps
which would allow the loss of embankment fill to occur.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking of the infill due to a buildup of earth pressure. There may be
minor bulging or settlement of the infill but allowing only minor loss of embankment fill
from behind. Minor subsidence of the road surface may be evident.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking in the case of the grouted rock infill while for the gabions
wire cages may be broken, resulting in the consequential loss of the infill material. Moderate
bulging and settlement may be allowing medium loss of the embankment fill and subsidence
of the road surface.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking of the rock infill may be occurring due to earth pressures. Excessive bulging
or settlement may be allowing for the heavy loss of embankment material. Severe subsidence
of the road surface may be occurring behind the abutment.

52O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 53P BATTER PROTECTION PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element defines those bridge abutment batters protected by precast concrete units placed
either separately or locked together to prevent loss of embankment fill. Small walls at the toe
of the batter may be included in this item even if constructed of a different material, but high
vertical or near vertical walls with an abutment on top or behind should be included under the
item for abutments. The area of batter protection shall normally be the actual area, however
in cases where protection extends considerably beyond the abutments at approaches then the
extent of the component should generally be no more than 20m behind the abutment. The
actual length considered shall be noted in the comments field for this item.

Condition State 1

The precast concrete units are in good condition with no damage, differential settlement
between units or scour beneath the toe of the units.

Condition State 2

There may be local minor damage to units or minor differential movement between units.
Minor local scour may be beginning to uncover the toe of the batter protection, most likely at
the upstream corner of the abutment due to the acceleration of flow at these locations.

Condition State 3

Local damage is beginning to be more pronounced and spreading to larger areas. Differential
settlement between units is more pronounced with possible loss of batter fill material from
between the units. Scouring is beginning to become a problem with the toe of the batter being
eroded over a reasonable length, most likely at the upstream corner of the abutment
protection and extending downstream under the bridge over a sizeable length and with some
possible loss of batter material from beneath the batter units. A few units may have been
lost or severely damaged.

Condition State 4

Failure of the units, extensive differential movement between units or scour of the toe of the
batter has resulted in loss of whole areas of the protection. Severe scour has undermined the
toe of the protection and batter fill has eroded away from beneath the units.

53P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 53C BATTER PROTECTION CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element defines those bridge abutment batters protected by cast-in-situ concrete.
Concrete may be cast in forms, pumped into a nylon fabric mattress, or sprayed on the batter
with or without anchorage rods into the fill material. Small retaining walls may be used at
the toe of the batter and these should be considered as part of the batter protection. The area
of batter protection shall normally be the actual area, however in cases where protection
extends considerably beyond the abutments at approaches then the extent of the component
should generally be no more than 20m behind the abutment. The actual length considered
shall be noted in the comments field for this item.

Condition State 1

The batter is in good condition with no cracking or spalling noticed. The embedded toe of the
batter is in good condition with no scouring.

Condition State 2

Minor local cracking or spalling may have occurred or separation or movement at casting
joints. Minor local scour may be beginning to uncover the toe of the batter protection, most
likely at the upstream corner of the abutment protection due to the acceleration of flow at
these locations.

Condition State 3

Local cracking and spalling is more pronounced with small areas broken and possibly
missing. Movement at casting joints is more pronounced with possible loss of batter material
from beneath the concrete. Scouring is becoming a problem with the toe of the batter being
eroded over a reasonable length, most likely at the upstream corner of the abutment
protection and extending downstream under the under the bridge over a sizeable length, and
possible erosion of batter material beneath the toe.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking and spalling with large broken areas or areas of missing concrete are
providing erosion of batter material from beneath the concrete batter. Movements at the
casting joints are excessive and batter material has been eroded away. Severe erosion has
undermined the toe of the batter with loss of batter material below the concrete.

53C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 53O BATTER PROTECTION OTHER

Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element includes those batters either unprotected, grassed, protected with stone or rocks
(grouted or ungrouted), stone filled cages or mattresses, stone with reinforcing mesh tied
down on top, or placed fabric tied down by light wire mesh. Small retaining walls may be
used at the toe of the batter and these should be included as part of the batter protection. The
area of batter protection shall normally be the actual area, however in cases where protection
extends considerably beyond the abutments at approaches then the extent of the component
should generally be no more than 20m behind the abutment. The actual length considered
shall be noted in the comments field for this item.

Condition State 1

The batters and protective elements are in good condition with no damage, differential
settlement or movements, and no scour beneath the toe of the protection.

Condition State 2

There may be local damage to the protective system or minor differential settlement or
movement of cages or mattresses. Some wires may be damaged or broken with minor loss of
the stone filling. Minor local scour may be beginning to uncover the toe of the batter
protection, most likely at the upstream corner of the abutment protection due to acceleration
of flow at these locations.

Condition State 3

Damage to the protection is more pronounced and spreading to larger areas. Wire cages are
broken and heavy loss of stone filling is occurring. The batter material is being eroded from
beneath the protective system or unprotected banks are beginning to be erodedaway. The toe
of the protection is exposed over a reasonable distance, most likely at the upstream corner of
the abutment protection and extending downstream under the bridge over a sizeable length,
and with some possible loss of the batter material occurring.

Condition State 4

Failure of the protection has allowed erosion and scouring of the banks to occur. Severe scour
has undermined the toe of the protection and batter fill material is being eroded away.
Settlement or movement of the protection has exposed the underside of the abutments with
loss of fill material in the road embankment.

53O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 54S HEADSTOCKS STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all pier headstocks which are constructed of steel and are separate from
the superstructure above. The steel may be painted or galvanised.

Condition State 1

The headstock has sufficient size to adequately carry the load of the superstructure and
distribute it to the supporting piles or columns. Painted surfaces should be generally sound
with only minor chalking, peeling or curling, but no exposure of metal. All welds, bolts or
rivets are in good condition.

Condition State 2

Spot rusting is occurring and the paint system is no longer effective but no corrosion has
occurred as yet. Welds are in good condition but there may be minor rusting of nuts or bolts.

Condition State 3

The paint system has completely broken down, and minor pitting corrosion is occurring.
Nuts and bolts may be corroded with only minor loss of tension in the bolt. Welds may have
faint cracking with only minor loss of effectiveness. Headstocks may be too light to carry the
loads imposed on them and may have minor bows or buckles in them.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced having a definite detrimental affect on the strength of the
element. Connecting bolts or nuts may have corroded severely, broken loose or are missing.
Headstocks size may be inadequate with large bows or buckling occurring.

54S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 54P HEADSTOCKS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all precast reinforced or prestressed concrete pier headstocks which are
independent of the superstructure. The headstocks will have blockouts above the columns to
allow for cast-in-situ full connections for transfer of load and moment to the columns or piles
beneath. Damage to bearing support areas by faulty bearings will be covered under the
bearing items.

Condition State 1

There is no deterioration of the elements except for very minor fine cracks around the cast-in-
situ connections.

Condition State 2

The crossheads may have a few minor fine cracks or minor spalls due to corroding
reinforcement. No stressing strands should be exposed in any spall. There should be no
moment cracking in the stressed crossheads. Reinforced headstocks may have fine moment
cracking.

Condition State 3

Moderate to severe cracking or spalling as the result of non-structural mechanisms may exist
and there may be some rust staining in the cracks. Exposed reinforcement may have up to
20% section loss in isolated areas. Exposed stressing strands may have only minor corrosion.
Stressed headstocks may have fine flexural cracking but not shear cracking. Reinforced
headstocks may have medium flexural cracks and/or fine shear cracks.

Condition State 4

Corrosion of the reinforcement is at an advanced state, with loss of section of reinforcement

greater than 20% (and any spalling or cracking associated with it). Stressing strands may
have loss of section of up to 10%. Flexural cracking in reinforced headstocks may be heavy
but in stressed headstocks the flexural cracking should only be medium. Shear cracks may be
of medium size in reinforced headstocks, or fine in stressed headstocks.

54P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 54C HEADSTOCKS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those pier headstocks constructed of cast-in-situ concrete and includes
the concrete capping on top of masonry or brick walls at both piers and abutments. Damage
to bearing support areas caused by faulty bearings will be covered under the bearing items.

Condition State 1

The headstocks are in good condition with only minor cracking due to shrinkage or
reinforcement corrosion. The headstocks should have no moment or shear cracking.

Condition State 2

The headstocks may have minor spalling due to corroding reinforcement or due to beam
friction or the girder bearing directly on the headstock edges. Some minor fine cracks due to
moment or shear may exist.

Condition State 3

Medium sized cracks caused by structural mechanisms, or moderate to severe cracking or

spalls and possible delaminations may exist as the result of non-structural mechanisms, with
exposed corroding reinforcement having up to 20% loss of section. Moment cracking may be
medium sized but any shear cracks should only be fine.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking due to structural mechanisms or advanced corrosion of the steel bars, with
loss of section of reinforcement greater than 20% (and any spalling or cracking associated
with it). Moment cracking may be heavy whilst shear cracks may be medium sized.

54C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 54T HEADSTOCKS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes those headstocks constructed of sawn timber sections which do not
include the centre pipe rot affected area of the original log. Timber headstocks at the
abutments should also be included in this element due to their importance and susceptibility
to deterioration. Note that members with pipe rot/termite attack in excess of the values shown
in Condition State 4 are critical and should be replaced immediately.

Condition State 1

The headstocks are in good condition with only minor weathering, splits or cheeks having no
effect on strength. All bolted connections are tight and in good condition with at least half the
headstock having good bearing support on the piles

Condition State 2

The headstocks show signs of minor decay, weathering, splits and checks not affecting
member strength. There may be minor sags in the headstocks beneath loaded girders. Bolted
connections may be slightly loose or the headstock may have less than half width bearing on
the piles. Headstocks may have rot/termite attack, resulting in up to 5% external loss of
section or an internal pipe no greater than 45mm in diameter. There may be evidence of
termite activity, but no damage evident. Preservative treatment of headstock ends may be
ineffective.

Condition State 3

The headstock may have moderate decay, weathering, termite attack or crushing at supports,
which may have a minor effect on member strength. There may be moderate splitting present,
particularly over supports or within the ends of the headstock. The headstocks may be sagged
beneath the girders with minor moment cracks. Bolted connections may be loose and there
may be minor corrosion of bolts. Headstocks may have no bearing support at the piles. Bolt
holes are oversized, and may be up to 50% larger than standard. The top of the piles may be
severely rotted offering little bearing support to the headstock bolted connections, and the
headstocks may be pulling off piles. Headstocks may be spliced and the splice is in poor
condition and pulling apart. Significant rot/termite attack has resulted in up to 10% external
loss of section or an internal pipe no greater than 65mm in diameter. Preservative treatment
of headstock ends may be ineffective. Headstocks may be sagging or moving under load at
pile locations.

Condition State 4

The headstocks may be heavily decayed, weathered, termite damaged or cracked, and may
have crushing at the supports. There may be severe splitting present, particularly over
supports or within the ends of the headstock. Large sagging may be evident under girders and
the headstock may have moment cracking. Bolted connections may be completely loose and
bolts may be badly corroded or missing. Headstocks may have pulled off or almost pulled off
the supporting piles. Bolt holes are significantly oversized, and may be up to 100% larger

54T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

than standard. Headstock splices may have broken apart with loading on the unsupported
cantilever headstock section. Excessive rot/termite attack has resulted in up to 20% external
loss of section or an internal pipe no greater than 90mm in diameter. There may be a
significant sag or movement under load at pile locations.

54T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 55C HEADSTOCKS (INTEGRAL) CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those pier headstocks using reinforced concrete cast-in-situ which is
integral with both the superstructure beams and with the substructure walls or columns,
especially in old monolithic "T" beam bridges and the built-in RSJ's on old steel girder
bridges.

Condition State 1

The element is in good condition with only very minor cracking visible. There may be minor
dampness or efflorescence powder visible in a few locations.

Condition State 2

There may be a few minor cracks or spalls due to corroding reinforcement but no structural
cracking is visible. There may be fine cracks at the construction joints at the undersides of the
beams.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking due to structural mechanisms or moderate to severe cracking and spalling
may exist as a result of non-structural mechanisms, and there may be minor cracking beneath
supported beams. Minor cracking may exist at the headstock/deck or headstock/girder joints
with moisture, staining and/or efflorescence visible.

Condition State 4

Reinforcement may be heavily corroded, with loss of section of up to 20% (and any spalling
or cracking associated with it). Medium sized cracking may exist beneath supported beams.
Medium or heavy cracks may exist at the deck/crosshead joint due to lack of moment steel,
and heavy moisture staining and efflorescence may be visible.

55C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 56S COLUMNS OR PILES STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all columns or protruding piles manufactured from steel at either
abutments or piers. The steel may be painted, galvanised or unpainted and should encompass
ties and braces which may be used to stiffen the columns or piles and to distribute loads.

Condition State 1

The paintwork is generally in good condition with only minor chalking, curling or peeling,
but no metal exposure. The piles are adequately braced and all connections are in good
condition. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive
inspections is less than 0.2m. Overall depth of localised scour holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

Painted steelwork has spot rusting and the protective coating is no longer effective. The piles
or columns may not be effectively braced or the connections may be slightly loose or
corroded. Unpainted steel piles may be rusted. The difference between soundings measured
to the stream bed in successive inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m. Overall depth of
localised scour holes ranges from 0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

Steelwork has medium corrosion and the paint system has completely failed. Surface pitting
may be evident but section loss is less than 10%. Bracing may be ineffective or non-existent
and connections may be heavily corroded or loose. The difference between soundings
measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is between 0.5m and 0.99m. Overall
depth of localised scour holes ranges from 2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Steelwork is heavily corroded with up to 20% loss of section. Connections may be very
loose or bracing may be missing or totally ineffective. The difference between soundings
measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is 1.0m or greater. Overall depth of
localised scour hole is in excess of 4m.

56S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 56P COLUMNS OR PILES PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all columns or protruding piles manufactured from precast concrete at
either abutments or piers. The precast units may be prestressed or reinforced concrete, and
the element should encompass ties and braces which may be used to stiffen the columns or
piles and to distribute the load. Prestressed concrete piles may exhibit longitudinal cracking
as result of ASR from around ground level to the standing water mark.

Condition State 1

The piles or columns are in good condition with only minor cracking due to reinforcement
corrosion. There should be no moment cracking in the piles or columns. The piles are
adequately braced with unsupported height less than 3.5 metres. The difference between
soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is less than 0.2m. Overall
depth of localised scour holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

The piles or columns have minor cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement. Fine
moment cracking may be visible. Stressing strands should not be exposed and the piles or
columns may not be effectively braced. Prestressed piles may have fine longitudinal cracks
caused by ASR. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive
inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m. Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from
0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking caused by structural mechanisms, or moderate to severe cracking and

spalling due to non-structural actions such as corroding reinforcement, with up to 20% loss of
section of the bars. Exposed stressing strands should only have minor surface corrosion.
Flexural cracking may be medium sized especially if bracing or ties are ineffective or non-
existent. Prestressed piles may have moderate to severe longitudinal cracking caused by
ASR. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive
inspections is between 0.5m and 0.99m. Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from
2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking caused by structural mechanisms, or advanced corrosion of the

reinforcement with loss of section greater than 20% (and any spalling and cracking associated
with it). Any exposed stressing strands may have up to 10% section loss. Flexural cracking
may be heavy, with bracing or ties totally ineffective or missing. The difference between
soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is 1.0m or greater. Overall
depth of localised scour holes is in excess of 4m.

56P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 56C COLUMNS OR PILES CAST IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all cast-in-situ columns or cast-in-situ extensions on top of driven
piles, and reinforced concrete pile encasements. This element should also encompass ties and
braces which may be used to stiffen the columns or piles and to distribute loads.

Condition State 1

The piles, columns or encasements show only minor cracking due to reinforcement corrosion.
There should be no moment cracking in the piles or columns. The piles are adequately
braced with unsupported height less than 3.5 metres. The difference between soundings
measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is less than 0.2m. Overall depth of
localised scour holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

The piles, columns or encasements have minor cracking or spalling due to corroding
reinforcement. Fine moment cracking may be visible and the piles or columns may not be
effectively braced. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in
successive inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m at the pile cap. Overall depth of localised
scour holes ranges from 0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

The piles, columns or encasements have moderate cracking caused by structural mechanisms,
or moderate to severe cracking due to non-structural actions such as corrosion of
reinforcement, with up to 20% loss of section in the steel bars. Flexural cracking may be
medium sized, especially if the bracing or ties are ineffective or non-existent. The difference
between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is between 0.5m and
0.99m at the pile cap. Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from 2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking due to structural mechanisms or advanced corrosion of the steel bars, with
loss of section of reinforcement greater than 20% (and any spalling or cracking associated
with it). Flexural cracking may be heavy with bracing or ties totally ineffective or missing.
The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is
1.0m or greater at the pile cap. Overall depth of localised scour holes is in excess of 4m.

56C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 56T COLUMNS OR PILES TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all potted timber piles or columns as well as driven timber piles at both
piers and abutments. Bracing and fender piles are also included in this element. If the
abutment piles have been relieved by props or potted piles then these supports should be rated
rather than the original piles.

Condition State 1

The piles or props are in good condition with little or no pipe rot, termite attack or decay,
though they may have minor cracks, splits or checks having no affect on the strength of the
element. Relieving props are well braced and have wedges or other systems of adjustment to
account for any settlement of the bedding or footing. This is required, especially on soft
ground, to provide full support to the superstructure. Pier piles over 3 m high are to be well
braced and all connections in good condition. The difference between soundings measured to
the stream bed in successive inspections is less than 0.2m. Overall depth of localised scour
holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

Piles or props are in good condition though they may have pipe rot of up to 20 % of the
diameter. They may also have medium decay, termite attack, splitting or checking but not of
sufficient magnitude to affect the strength of the member. Relieving props may be in good
condition but are poorly braced or have settled slightly from beneath the beams. Pier piles
may be in good condition but may have ineffective braces or the connections may be slightly
loose. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive
inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m at the pile cap. Overall depth of localised scour holes
ranges from 0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

Piles or props have a reasonable amount of pipe rot up to 35% of the diameter. They may
also have large splits, especially under load bearing areas, heavy decay, termite attacks or
checks which may cause a reduction in strength of the member. Relieving props may be
completely unbraced and subject to being knocked out easily, or they may have settled well
away from the beam they are supposed to be supporting with load being still carried by the
original pile or crosshead until very heavily loaded. Bracing connections may be heavily
corroded or be reasonably loose having little effectiveness. The difference between
soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is between 0.5m and 0.99m
at the pile cap. Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from 2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Piles or props have heavy pipe rot up to 50 % of the diameter. Splitting, termite attack or
decay may be severe with a definite reduction in the strength of the member. Relieving props
may be completely ineffective and offer no resistance even under heavy load. Bracing may
be missing or totally ineffective due to very loose connections. The difference between

56T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is 1.0m or greater at the pile
cap. Overall depth of localised scour hole is in excess of 4m.

NOTE: Members with pipe rot/termite attack in excess of the values shown in Condition
State 4 are critical and should be replaced immediately.

56T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 56O COLUMNS OR PILES OTHER

Units of Measurement: Each

This element includes all pile encasements constructed using composite materials, such as
fibreglass-coated carbon fibre wraps. These elements may also be known as Fibre
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wraps.

As these encasement systems are relatively new, deterioration mechanisms have not been
identified for these material types. For this reason, the encasements shall be rated in either
Condition State 1 or Condition State 4, based on the criteria shown below. Please note that
any encasement found to be in a state other than Condition State 1 should also be reported
immediately to Alan Carse of Concrete Technology section.

Condition State 1

The encasements are in good condition, with no splits, bulges or other obvious defects in the
encasement material. The fastenings are in good condition.

Condition State 4

Any observable defects or deterioration of the encasement material or fastenings.

56O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 57S PILE BRACING/WALES STEEL

Units of Measurement: Each

This element includes all bracing and wales constructed using cast iron, wrought iron or steel.
The bracing may comprise rolled or plate sections, or simple steel rods. Metal may be
painted, unpainted or galvanised

Condition State 1

The paintwork is generally sound, with only minor chalking, peeling or curling, but no
exposure of the metal. All welds, bolts and rivets are in good condition.

Condition State 2

Spot rusting of the paint system is occurring and the system is no longer effective. No
corrosion has occurred as yet. No cracking of the welds has occurred, but there may be some
minor rusting of nuts or bolts.

Condition State 3

The paint system has completely broken down with corrosion and pitting in areas. Nuts and
bolts may be corroded with minor loss of tension in bolts. Welds may be cracked with minor
loss of effectiveness.

Condition State 4

Corrosion is well advanced having a detrimental effect on the strength of the element. Braces
have broken loose or bolts and rivets are missing. Rivets or bolts may be severely corroded
and no longer carrying full load or functioning as intended. In some instances the braces may
have broken loose

57S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 57C PILE BRACING/WALES CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Each

This element includes all cast-in-situ reinforced concrete bracing members constructed
between piles or columns to provide resistance to lateral forces and / or buckling of the
vertical members.

Condition State 1

The elements are in good condition with only very minor cracking visible due to corroding
reinforcement. The braces should have no flexural or shear cracking.

Condition State 2

There may be a few minor cracks or spalls due to corroding reinforcement and there may be
some minor flexural cracking.

Condition State 3

Structural cracking should be of minor to moderate severity. Moderate to severe non-

structural cracking, spalls and possible delaminations may be present with exposed
reinforcement being moderately corroded with up to 20% section loss.

Condition State 4

Flexural cracking may be severe and shear cracking may be evident. Reinforcement may be
heavily corroded with section loss in excess of 20%, with associated cracking, spalling or
delamination of concrete.

57C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 57T PILE BRACING/WALES TIMBER

Units of Measurement: Each

This element includes all bracing and wales constructed using sawn timber sections which do
not include the centre of the original log (ie, no pipe rot).

Condition State 1

The timber is in good condition with only minor weathering splits or checks having no effect
on strength. All bolted connections are tight and in good condition.

Condition State 2

The timber shows signs of minor weathering, decay, splitting and checking but does not
affect the strength of the members. All bolts are in good condition though a few bolts may be
slightly loose.

Condition State 3

Moderate weathering, decay, splitting and checking may be present and the strength of the
member has been affected to a minor extent. Bolted connections may be loose allowing the
member to move excessively when loaded. The member may have cracked due to
overloading or ineffective support or connections.

Condition State 4

The member is severely decayed, split or cracked and the strength of the member has been
significantly reduced. Bolted connections are very loose and the member is moving
excessively when loaded causing further deterioration of the member.

57T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 58C PIER WALL CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Square Metres

This element describes pier walls constructed using cast-in-situ concrete and includes any
thickening at the top of the wall to accommodate the superstructure bearings. If, however,
this thickening cantilevers out from the walls, it shall be considered under the item for
headstocks. If the pier is of a hammerhead type with large overhangs, the wall shall be
considered as a column and included under that item. Damage to bearing support areas
caused by faulty bearings is covered under the bearing items. Piers which have thin infill
panels between columns are not considered under this item. These piers shall be considered
as headstock and column as the infill panels serve no structural purpose.

Condition State 1

The wall is in good condition with only minor cracking due to corroding reinforcement.
There is no cracking due to differential settlement of the foundations.

Condition State 2

The wall may have minor cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement. Tops of the
walls may have minor cracking due to friction or edge loading of beams. The wall may have
minor cracking due to differential settlement of the foundations.

Condition State 3

Moderate to severe non-structural cracking and spalling may be visible with loss of
reinforcement section up to 20%. Top of walls may have moderate cracking or spalling due
to friction or edge loading of beams. The walls may have moderate cracking due to
differential settlement of the foundations. Moderate structural cracking may be evident.

Condition State 4

Severe structural cracking may be visible. Advanced corrosion of the reinforcement may
have occurred, with loss of section greater than 20% and associated cracking, spalling or
delamination. Tops of walls may have severe cracking and spalling due to friction or edge
loading of the beams. The walls may have severe cracking due to differential settlement of
the foundations.

58C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 58O PIER WALL OTHER

Units of Measurement: Square Metres

This element describes all wall types other than concrete and includes stone masonry walls,
red brick walls or grouted rubble walls. The element does not include any reinforced
concrete cap on top of the walls. If masonry blocks are used to cap the walls, those blocks
can be considered in this element. Foundations, if visible should be included in this element.

Condition State 1

The wall is in good condition with only a few very minor fine cracks in the mortar between
the bricks, stones or blocks. There is no cracking due to differential settlement of the
foundations. There should be no loss of mortar between the blocks.

Condition State 2

The wall may have a number of fine cracks in the mortar between brick or blocks, but no
cracking of the masonry. There may be minor loss of mortar of no concern. There may be
minor cracking due to differential settlement of the foundations.

Condition State 3

Moderate Cracking of the mortar between the blocks may be occurring or moderate mortar
loss may be occurring due to water wash. There should be, however, be only minor mortar
loss beneath any masonry capping blocks. Moderate Cracking may exist due to differential
settlement of the foundations.

Condition State 4

The mortar and blocks may have severe cracking through them. Mortar loss may be severe
requiring pressure repointing. Loss of mortar below masonry capping blocks may be
moderate. Differential settlement of the foundations may have caused severe cracking.

58O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 59C FOOTING/PILE CAP CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Each

This item covers all foundations constructed in cast-in-situ concrete such as pile caps and
spread footings. It also covers the concrete pedestal footings used to support timber pile bases
at piers and abutments.

SPREAD FOOTINGS

Condition State 1

The footing is in good condition with only minor cracking due to shrinkage or corroding
reinforcement. There is no cracking due to differential settlement of footings or scouring
under spread footings.

Condition State 2

There is a minor cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement or differential

settlement of footings. There is no scour beneath the spread footing base.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking or spalling due to differential settlement or log impact may have occurred.
Moderate to severe cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement may be evident.
There is up to 20% loss of reinforcement section. There is no scour beneath the spread
footing base.

Condition State 4

Footings are severely cracked and spalled due to differential settlement of foundations or log
impact. There may be advanced reinforcement corrosion, with loss of section in excess of
20% and associated cracking and spalling. Spread footings may have been undercut by scour
action.

PILE CAPS

Condition State 1

The pile cap is in good condition with only minor cracking due to shrinkage or corroding
reinforcement. There is no cracking due to differential settlement of piles and the difference
between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is less than 0.2m at
the pile cap. Overall depth of scour holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

There is a minor cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement or differential

settlement of piles. Piles have adequate edge clearances and have been placed within the
specified tolerances. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in

59C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

successive inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m at the pile cap. Overall depth of localised
scour holes ranges from 0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking or spalling due to log impact or differential settlement may have occurred.
Moderate to severe cracking and spalling due to corrosion of reinforcement may be evident.
There is up to 20% loss of reinforcement section due to corrosion. Piles have been driven
significantly out of positional tolerance but the structural strength and serviceability are
adequate. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in successive
inspections is between 0.5m and 0.99m at the pile cap. Overall depth of localised scour holes
ranges from 2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Pile caps are heavily cracked and spalled due to differential settlement of foundations or log
impact. There may be advanced reinforcement corrosion, with loss of section in excess of
20% and associated cracking and spalling. Edges of pile caps may be spalling due to lack of
edge clearance of piles. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in
successive inspections is 1.0m or greater at the pile cap. Depth of localised scour holes is in
excess of 4m.

59C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 59T SILL LOGS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes timber sill logs used to support timber pile bases at piers and
abutments.

Condition State 1

The sill log is in good condition with little or no pipe rot or decay. There may be minor splits
or checks having no effect on member strength.

Scouring of the stream bed has not caused any exposure of the member.

Condition State 2

The sill log is in good condition and may have minor decay, splitting, checking or crushing
but not of sufficient magnitude to affect the strength of the member.

Scouring of the stream bed has not caused any exposure of the member.

Condition State 3

The sill log has a reasonable amount of pipe rot or decay and may have large splits or checks
which may reduce the strength or serviceability of the member. Splits may be separating
under load causing crushing of the member, or crushing may be due to water ingress
softening the load bearing areas of the timber.

Scouring of the foundation has occurred and the sill log is visible but there is still adequate
support for the sill log.

Condition State 4

The sill log may have excessive pipe rot or decay, accompanied by severe splitting or
crushing. Strength and serviceability of the member has been severely affected and may have
significant crushing at the pile support area, resulting in settlement of the bridge structure.

Scour of the foundations has undermined the sill log, resulting in settlement of the bridge.

Bolted connections on the outer upstream and downstream piles may be severely corroded.

59T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 60S WING PILES STEEL

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all columns or protruding piles manufactured from steel at abutment
wingwalls. The steel may be painted or unpainted.

Condition State 1

The paintwork is generally in good condition with only minor chalking, curling or peeling,
but no metal exposure. All connections are in good condition. The difference between
soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment in successive inspections is less than
0.2m. Overall depth of localised scour holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

Painted steelwork has spot rusting and the protective coating is no longer effective. The
connections may be slightly loose or corroded. Unpainted steel piles may be rusted. The
difference between soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment in successive
inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m. Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from
0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

Steelwork has medium corrosion and the paint system has completely failed. Surface pitting
may be evident but section loss is less than 10%. Connections may be heavily corroded or
loose. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment in
successive inspections is between 0.5m and 0.99m. Overall depth of localised scour holes
ranges from 2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Steelwork is heavily corroded with up to 20% loss of section. Connections may be very
loose. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment in
successive inspections is 1.0m or greater. Overall depth of localised scour holes is in excess
of 4m.

60S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 60P WING PILES PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all protruding piles manufactured from precast concrete at abutment
wingwalls. The precast units may be prestressed or reinforced concrete. Prestressed concrete
piles may exhibit longitudinal cracking as result of ASR from around ground level to the
standing water mark.

Condition State 1

The piles are in good condition with only minor cracking due to reinforcement corrosion.
There should be no moment cracking in the piles. The difference between soundings
measured to the stream bed/embankment in successive inspections is less than 0.2m. Overall
depth of localised scour holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

The piles have minor cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement. Fine moment
cracking may be visible. Stressing strands should not be exposed and the piles may not be
effectively braced. Prestressed piles may have fine longitudinal cracks caused by ASR. The
difference between soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment in successive
inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m. Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from
0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking caused by structural mechanisms, or moderate to severe cracking and

spalling due to non-structural actions such as corroding reinforcement, with up to 20% loss of
section of the bars. Exposed stressing strands should only have minor surface corrosion.
Flexural cracking may be medium sized. Prestressed piles may have moderate to severe
longitudinal cracking caused by ASR. The difference between soundings measured to the
stream bed/embankment in successive inspections is between 0.5m and 0.99m. Overall depth
of localised scour holes ranges from 2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking caused by structural mechanisms, or advanced corrosion of the

reinforcement with loss of section greater than 20% (and any spalling and cracking associated
with it). Any exposed stressing strands may have up to 10% section loss. Flexural cracking
may be heavy. The difference between soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment
in successive inspections is 1.0m or greater. Overall depth of localised scour holes is in
excess of 4m.

60P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 60T WING PILES TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all potted or driven timber piles at abutment wingwalls.

Condition State 1

The piles are in good condition with little or no pipe rot, termite attack or decay, though they
may have minor cracks, splits or checks having no affect on the strength of the element. The
difference between soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment in successive
inspections is less than 0.2m. Overall depth of localised scour holes is less than 0.5m.

Condition State 2

Piles are in good condition though they may have up to 20% pipe rot of the diameter. They
may also have medium decay, termite attack, splitting or checking but not of sufficient
magnitude to affect the strength of the member. The difference between soundings measured
to the stream bed/embankment in successive inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m. Overall
depth of localised scour holes ranges from 0.5m to 1.99m.

Condition State 3

Piles have a reasonable amount of pipe rot up to 35% of the diameter. They may also have
large splits, heavy decay, termite attacks or checks which may have a reduction in strength of
the member. The piles may be leaning slightly forward due to earth pressure. The difference
between soundings measured to the stream bed/embankment in successive inspections is
between 0.5m and 0.99m. Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from 2m to 4m.

Condition State 4

Piles have heavy pipe rot up to 50% of the diameter. Splitting, termite attack or decay may
be severe with a definite reduction in the strength of the member. Piles may be leaning
forward excessively as a result of earth pressure. The difference between soundings measured
to the stream bed/embankment in successive inspections is 1.0m or greater. Overall depth of
localised scour holes is in excess of 4m.

60T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 70O BRIDGE APPROACHES OTHER

Units of Measurement: Each

This item defines the carriageway immediately behind the abutments and includes such items
as wearing surface on the approach pavement, relieving slabs and drainage. The length of
approach considered shall be at the discretion of the inspector but generally should be no
more than 20m. The actual length considered should be noted in the comments field for the
item.

Condition State 1

The pavement surface is in good condition with no cracking, pot holes, rutting, bumps or
depressions and the transition between the road and bridge is smooth with a level difference
of less than 10mm. The relieving slabs are in good condition and have not settled. The
pavement surface has adequate crossfall and gradient to efficiently drain surface water to
drainage outlets which are well clear of the bridge and fully functional.

Condition State 2

There may be minor rutting, cracking, bumps and depressions or minor depressions due to
embankment movement which are marginally hindering pavement drainage. The approaches
may have settled slightly (as a result of embankment settlement/consolidation or loss of
material through substructure) but transition is generally smooth with a level difference less
than 20mm. Settling relieving slabs have caused a small height difference and opened up the
expansion joint slightly. Drainage offlets may be blocked or badly positioned causing water
to discharge too close to the bridge abutment but erosion is insignificant.

Condition State 3

Pavement surface defects are trapping surface water and/or allowing it to penetrate into the
fill. Potholes may be forming in cracked areas. Rutting, bumps and potholes are affecting
rideability and settlement of approaches is advancing with a level difference of up to 30mm.
Relieving slabs may have settled substantially and rotated causing an opening of the
abutment expansion joints but without failure of joint. Surface water outlets may be blocked,
inadequate or badly positioned causing water to discharge over the embankment face to close
to the bridge. There may be significant erosion of the embankment face or abutment spill-
through but the stability of the road on bridge has not been compromised.

70O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

Condition State 4

Potholing, cracking, rutting, bumps or depressions are having a marked effect on the drainage
and rideability of the approaches. Settlement of the approaches is pronounced with a drop in
level in excess of 30mm. These surface irregularities greatly increase the dynamic wheel
loading on the bridge and the deck surface may also show signs of deterioration. Relieving
slabs may have settled dramatically causing rotation at the expansion joint sufficient to cause
total failure at the joint. Surface water drainage outlets may be inadequate, blocked or badly
positioned and the embankment faces, and abutment spillthrough are severely eroded with
deep gulleys evident on those faces. Footings of the abutment or wingwalls may be exposed
and better drains undercut. Fill material may have been lost from the embankment behind the
abutment. Immediate action may be required to maintain embankment or structural stability.

70O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 71C WATERWAY CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element defines the condition of stream or channel banks and/or bed in the vicinity of
the structure which have been lined with cast-in-situ reinforced concrete or mortar pumped
into a nylon mattress. The element shall be given a single rating only, and this rating should
report the worst condition state applicable to the span.

Please note:- Flood debris should be removed under the Routine Maintenance Inspection and
RMPC cycles, however excessive build-up of debris should be reported under this item.

Condition State 1

There is little or no change in channel shape or bed level at the site. The reinforced concrete
channel or aprons are undamaged with no differential settlement between slabs.

Condition State 2

Channel shape and bed level is unchanged but there may be cracking of the concrete or minor
differential movement between the slabs.

Accumulated flood debris or bed deposits representing up to 10% of the designed waterway
area in any span.

Condition State 3

Differential settlement or movements have caused concrete edges to break away allowing
water behind the concrete. Some loss of fill material may have occurred.

Accumulated flood debris or bed deposits representing up to 20% of the designed waterway
area in any span.

Condition State 4

Large settlements or movements have severely damaged the concrete allowing large
washouts beneath the concrete banks or bed.

Accumulated flood debris or bed deposits representing in excess of 20% of the designed
waterway area in any span.

71C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 71O WATERWAY OTHER

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines the condition of unprotected or protected stream banks and bed in the
vicinity of the structure. Protected banks and bed may be constructed of brick, masonry,
stone filled cages or mattresses, a geotextile layer with grass, or rocks held down by wire
mesh. The element should be given a single rating only, and this rating should report the
worst condition state applicable to the span.

Please note:- Flood debris should be removed under the Routine Maintenance Inspection and
RMPC cycles, however excessive build-up of debris should be reported under this item.

Condition State 1

There is little or no change in the stream shape and the difference between soundings
measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is less than 0.2m. Overall depth of
localised scour holes is less than 0.5m. Protective works (if any) are in good condition with
no damage visible.

Condition State 2

Minor scour has only a minor effect on the stream shape and the difference between
soundings measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is between 0.2m and 0.49m.
Overall depth of localised scour holes ranges from 0.5m to 1.99m. Minor settlement may
have occurred or there may be minor cracking of the mortar between stones. Rock gabions or
mattresses may have lost their shape slightly but only minor loss of rock fill may have
occurred. Accumulated flood debris or bed deposits representing up to 10% of the designed
waterway area in any span.

Condition State 3

Scour of the banks has altered the stream shape and the difference between soundings
measured to the stream bed in successive inspections is between 0.5m and 0.99m. Overall
depth of localised scour holes ranges from 2m to 4m. Settlement may have badly cracked
mortar between blocks and a few blocks may be missing with possible loss of fill material.
Gabions or mattresses may be badly distorted with some wires broken and a moderate loss of
rock filling may have occurred. Accumulated flood debris or bed deposits representing up to
20% of the designed waterway area in any span.

Condition State 4

Large settlements or movements may have severely damaged the protection with loss of large
areas of rocks. Gabions or mattresses may be completely broken with almost total loss of
rock filling. Unprotected banks and beds may be severely scoured with loss of approach
embankment occurring, and the difference between soundings measured to the stream bed in
successive inspections is 1.0m or greater. Overall depth of localised scour holes is in excess
of 4m. Accumulated flood debris or bed deposits representing in excess of 20% of the
designed waterway area in any span.

71O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 72C GUARDRAILS/BARRIERS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Each

This item defines all cast-in-situ concrete bridge approach barriers and includes terminals and
any steel safety rails or traffic barriers mounted on top. The item also includes cast-in-situ
concrete portion constructed to join precast concrete parapets to the deck. The length of the
approach barrier is at the discretion of the inspector but generally should be no more than
20m. The actual length considered should be noted in the comments field for the item.

Condition State 1

Barrier is in good condition with only minor cracking due to shrinkage or corrosion of
reinforcement. The correct traffic face profile has been constructed. Steel rails are in good
condition with no rust spotting and bolted and welded connection show no signs of
deterioration. No accident damage or rotation of the barriers is evident.

Condition State 2

There is minor cracking and spalling due to corrosion of the reinforcement. The correct
traffic face profile has been constructed with no overlays affecting the upstand. Steel railings
on top of the parapet may have rust spotting and bolted connections are tight and in good
condition. There are no cracked welds. Accident damage is slight and of no consequence.
The barrier may have rotated slightly on the footing with the resultant movement of the top
edges not exceeding 20mm.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling is evident with in excess of 20% loss of reinforcement area.
The steel barrier may be pitted on the surface and connections slightly loose. Post
anchorages may have minor cracking due to vehicle impact. The traffic face profile may
have been constructed incorrectly or a surfacing overlay placed which reduces the height of
the vertical upstand and barrier. Accident damage has only a minor effect on strength and
serviceability. The barrier may have rotated moderately on the footing with resulting
movement of the top edges not exceeding 40mm.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking may be visible due to advanced corrosion of the reinforcement which may
have lost in excess of 20% of its sectional area. Corrosion may be well advanced in the steel
barrier, bolts may be loose or rails may have broken free from their mountings. The
anchorage area of the steel barrier posts may be cracked and spalled. Strength and
serviceability of the barrier is adversely affected. The traffic face profile may have been
constructed incorrectly on surfacing overlays placed such that the upstand height is
significantly reduced. Accident damage may be severe with serious cracking and spalling of
the concrete barrier or loss of sections of the railing. The barrier has rotated excessively on
the footing with the resultant movement of the top edges exceeding 40mm.

72C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 72P GUARDRAIL/BARRIERS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Each

This item defines all types and shapes of approach barriers where the principal component is
precast concrete. It includes any RC terminals, steel safety rails or traffic barriers mounted
on top and holding down bolts. Inspectors should use the state descriptions for Component
72C Cast-In-Situ Concrete Barriers in addition to the descriptions given below for the
fasteners. The length of the approach barrier is at the discretion of the inspector but generally
should be no more than 20m. The actual length considered should be noted in the comments
field for the item.

Condition State 1

Mortar seating is continuous and sound and there is no evidence of moisture ingress into the
base joint. Alignment is true to line and level and all bolts are tight.

Condition State 2

Mortar seating is substantially intact with a few isolated failures. Some moisture may be
penetrating the bedding joint but there is no rust staining evident. There are visible
discontinuities in alignment of panels but barrier is fit for purpose.

Condition State 3

Mortar seating is missing or crumbling out of significant portions of the bedding joint and
surface water run-off is freely passing through some sections of the joint. Rust stains are
evident on the kerb/plinth and anchor bolts may show signs of active corrosion. There may
be visible discontinuities in alignment of panels but the containment capacity is substantially
intact.

Condition State 4

The mortar seating may be missing over large areas and the anchor bolts are significantly
corroded such that the containment capacity has been significantly reduced. Severe rust
staining and leakage through the joint is evident.

72P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 72T GUARDRAILS/BARRIERS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines those rails constructed using timber either from a sawn section or glued
laminated sections. This element includes also the supporting posts.

Timber railing is considered to be inappropriate and represents a significant hazard to road

users. The presence of barriers of this type are to be noted in the comments field in the
"overall rating" section of the "Bridge Condition Inspection Report - Form B2/1".

Condition State 1

The element shows only minor deterioration and all the bolting is tight. No accident damage
is visible.

Condition State 2

The element shows signs of minor decay, splitting or cracking but does not affect the strength
or serviceability. Bolting of the posts and guardrails is generally tight. Accident damage is
only minor with no effect on strength or serviceability.

Condition State 3

Medium decay, splitting, cracking or crushing may be present affecting the strength and
serviceability of the railing to a minor extent. Bolting may be loose in a number of areas.
Accident damage may have a minor effect on the strength or serviceability of the guardrail.

Condition State 4

Heavy decay, splitting, cracking or crushing may be present affecting the strength and
serviceability of the guardrail. Bolting may be quite loose affecting the strength of the
guardrail. The guardrail may not be connected to the bridge endposts. Major accident
damage is affecting the serviceability of the guardrail.

72T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 72O GUARDRAILS/BARRIERS OTHER

Units of measurement: Each

This element defines all types of shapes and barrier materials other than those already
covered. Included in this element are masonry parapets, aluminium rails with steel
tensioning cables inside, G.W.I. pipe, post and rails, wire mesh fencing panels, wire or chain
cables. The element covers any posts required to support the railing system or cables. The
length of the approach barrier is at the discretion of the inspector but generally should be no
more than 20m. The actual length considered should be noted in the comments field for the
item.

Condition State 1

The element shows only minor signs of deterioration with minor cracking between masonry
blocks or rusting of steel work. No accident damage or rotation of the barriers is evident.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking, spalling, loss of mortar between masonry blocks, surface or spot rusting has
occurred but having little or no affect on strength or serviceability. Accident damage is very
minor with no effect on strength or serviceability. The barrier may have rotated slightly on
the footing with resultant movement of the top edges not exceeding 20mm.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking, spalling, loss of mortar between masonry block, or corrosion of metal is
occurring but having a minor affect on strength or serviceability. Accident damage may have
a minor effect on the strength or serviceability of the railing. The barrier may have rotated
moderately on the footing with resultant movement of the top edges not exceeding 40mm.

Condition State 4

Severe Cracking, spalling, loss of mortar or corrosion has a large affect on rail strength or
serviceability. Accident damage is major affecting the strength or serviceability of the
railing. The barrier has rotated excessively on the footing with resultant movement of the top
edges exceeding 40mm.

No Barriers

In the event that no barriers have been constructed then this is considered as a serious
deficiency and a note should be added to the comments field in the "overall rating" section of
the "Bridge Condition Inspection Report - Form B2/1".

72O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 72S GUARDRAILS/BARRIERS STEEL

Units of Measurement: Each

This element defines any approach guardrails or barriers leading up to the bridge endposts
and/or bridge railing, including pedestrian barriers.

Condition State 1

The approach railing is in good condition with no accident damage, and is well connected to
the endpost or bridge railing.

Condition State 2

The approach railing is generally in good condition with only minor rusting and/or minor
accident damage. The railing is well connected to the endposts or bridge railing and has
sufficient strength, i.e. posts closer than 1m centres in the 10m before the bridge and 2m
centres elsewhere.

Condition State 3

The approach railing may be moderately damaged due to vehicular impact or the guardrail is
poorly connected to the end posts of the bridge. The railing may be heavily rusted or the
guardrail may not have insufficient strength, i.e. post spaces may be greater than 1m
immediately prior to the endposts.

Condition State 4

The approach railing has been severely damaged, demolished, not connected to the endposts
or is non existent. The guardrail may have insufficient strength with posts greater than 2m
apart or may be rusted through due to corrosion of the metal.

72S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 80S PIPE CULVERTS STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all steel pipes, painted or galvanised, circular, elongated or elliptical.

Condition State 1

There is no evidence of rust or corrosion and the paintwork or galvanising is in good

condition. The line and invert of the pipe is straight with no water being retained in the pipe.

Condition State 2

Surface or spot rusting may be evident and the paint system is no longer effective. There is no
corrosion of the metal occurring. The line of the pipe is straight, but minor settlement may be
allowing some water to be retained in the pipe. There may be a minor and insignificant
change in pipe dimensions.

Condition State 3

The paint system has failed and pitting corrosion is prominent especially at normal water
level. Loss of section has occurred but there is still adequate section left to not affect
serviceability of the pipe. There may be some deviation of the line of the pipes due to local
buckling, or moderate settlement of the pipe may be allowing a significant amount of water to
be retained in the pipe. There may be a difference between the measured horizontal and
vertical diameters of up to 40mm.

Condition State 4

Heavy corrosion is occurring and the pipe may have corroded out in areas, particularly at the
invert or the normal water level. There may be large deviation of line of the pipe due to
buckling of plates or plates may have crinkled at the bolt line in large diameter pipes. An
excessive amount of water may be retained in the pipe. Bolts may have torn through the
plates or split the plate edges allowing differential movement and buckling of plates. There
may be a difference between measured horizontal and vertical diameters in excess of 40mm.

80S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 80P PIPE CULVERTS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all precast concrete pipes and includes the jointing arrangements
between them.

Condition State 1

The element may show only minor superficial cracking of no consequence. The line and
invert of the pipe is straight with no water being retained within the pipe.

Condition State 2

The element may show minor cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement in isolated
areas. The line of the pipe is straight but minor settlement of some units may be allowing a
minor pool of water to be retained in the pipe.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking, spalling or delaminated areas may be present having a minor effect on
strength and serviceability of the pipe. Deviation of the line of the pipes may be occurring or
moderate separation and settlement of units may be allowing a significant amount of water to
be retained in the pipe or to leak out at the separated joints. A minor amount of surrounding
fill material may have been lost at separated joints.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking, spalling or delaminated areas may be present having a pronounced effect on
the strength and serviceability of the pipe. Pipe line deviation, separation or settlement may
be excessive allowing a significant amount of water to be retained in the pipe, or to leak out
at separated joints. A significant amount of surrounding fill material may have been lost at
separated joints.

80P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 80O PIPE CULVERTS OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all pipes of circular or elliptical construction consisting of masonry,
red bricks or plastic.

Condition State 1

The element shows little or no deterioration with only minor areas of dampness or
efflorescence. There is no cracking or loss of mortar between the blocks. Pipe shape, line
and invert level are good and straight. No water is retained in the pipe.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking or loss of mortar between blocks but not sufficient to affect the
strength of the pipe. Minor cracking or spalling of the brickwork / blocks may be evident.
The plastic may have a few superficial splits of no importance. Shape of the pipe is good and
the line of the pipe is straight. Minor settlement of the pipe may be allowing a small pool of
water to be retained in the pipe.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking or loss of mortar between the blocks may have occurred. Moderate
cracking or spalling of the brickwork / blocks may be evident, but not of a sufficient
magnitude to affect the strength of the pipe. Minor loss of pipe shape or bulging of the walls
may have occurred, with splitting of the plastic. The line of the pipe may have minor
deviations, or moderate settling may be allowing a significant amount of water to be retained
in the pipe.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking or loss of mortar has occurred between blocks and some blocks may have
slipped. Severe cracking or spalling of the brickwork / blocks may have occurred, having a
pronounced effect on the strength of the pipe. Loss of shape, bulging of walls, splitting of
plastic, deviation of pipe line or settlement of the invert are excessive and are affecting the
strength and serviceability of the pipe. An excessive amount of water is retained in the pipe
or is leaking out through the joints.

80O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 81P BOX CULVERTS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres (per cell)

This item includes box culverts, crown units and link slabs between crown units. Wingwalls,
aprons and headwalls are generally classified under Item No. 84 however inspectors may
cover large wingwalls under Item No. 51. Base slabs are to be covered under Item No. 20.
Modular culverts, such as the "Lincrete" system, are covered under Item No. 82.

Condition State 1

The element shows little or no deterioration with only a few fine superficial cracks of no
importance. There may be minor efflorescence especially on the soffit of the roof slab or
near the joints. The culvert has been well constructed, structure lines are true, joints between
legs have been plugged, joints between units taped, weepholes installed in the headwalls and
shoulders sealed. Restraint bolting is complete and intact.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking and spalling may be evident in legs and roof at joints along with moderate
efflorescence and damp stains due to ingress of moisture through the joints. There may be
minor level differentials of up to 5mm between units in the inverts. Shrinkage cracks may be
evident in the legs and roofs.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling may be particularly evident in legs and roof edges at joints
along with damp patches and rust stains. Lime deposits may be evident in cracks. Active
corrosion is occurring in the reinforcement at these locations and up to 20% of the bar area
may have been lost. Minor cracking and spalling is evident elsewhere. Edge spalling of units
may be more prominent and level differentials may be up to 10mm in inverts. The structure
may have been poorly constructed with; misaligned panels; leaking joints; partly plugged
joints between abutment legs; weepholes in headwalls omitted; and unsealed shoulders. The
serviceability of the structure has been compromised but strength/stability is holding. A
minor amount of surrounding fill material may have been lost at separated joints.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking and spalling may be evident with the delamination of large areas of cover
concrete. The reinforcement is severely corroded having lost more than 20% of its section.
Edge spalling may be severe as well as large differential settlement between box units. There
is a substantial reduction in capacity. The structure may have been extremely poorly
constructed with, unplugged joints between abutment legs, untaped roof joints, omitted or
blocked weepholes and unsealed shoulders. If cut off walls are not constructed at each end of
the base slab then erosion of the sub base material may have occurred with some flow
beneath the base slab. In this case the base slab may sound hollow when struck with a
hammer or piece of timber. A significant amount of surrounding fill material may have been
lost at separated joints.

81P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 81C BOX CULVERTS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres

This element includes all monolithic cast-in-situ reinforced concrete box culverts usually
built pre 1950. Wingwalls, aprons and headwalls are generally classified under Item No. 84
however inspectors may cover large wingwalls under Item No. 51. Base slabs are to be
covered under Item No. 20.

Cast-in-situ culverts in which the piers, abutments and deck are made up of distinctly
separate elements are classified as slab deck culverts, and should be covered in accordance
with Figure 1.5 in Appendix C.

Condition State 1

The element shows little or no deterioration with a few minor fine superficial cracks and
minor efflorescence.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking and spalling may be evident along with a moderate amount of efflorescence
in areas. Construction joints at the top of the walls may be opening up slightly or weathering
at the joint.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling may be evident. Excessive efflorescence may be noticed
with areas of delamination of the concrete cover in the underside of roof or outer walls
especially. Corroded steel may have up to 20 % section loss in areas.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking and spalling may be evident with large areas of delamination. If cut off
walls are not constructed at each end of the base slab then erosion of the sub base material
may have occurred with some flow beneath the base slab. In this case the base slab may
sound hollow when struck with a hammer or piece of timber.

81C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 82P MODULAR CULVERTS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Lineal Metres (per cell)

This item covers precast modular culverts such as the "Lincrete System". These systems
comprise precast concrete flat panels which are bolted together using proprietary mechanical
jointing systems. Wingwalls, aprons and headwalls are generally classified under Item No. 84
however inspectors may cover large wingwalls under Item No. 51. Base slabs are to be
covered under Item No. 20.

Condition State 1

The culvert has been constructed within the manufacturers tolerances and all joints are tight
with no evidence of overstressing of the surrounding concrete. There is little or no
deterioration with only minor efflorescence or minor fine superficial cracking.

Condition State 2

There is some lack of fit of units and there may be some cracking or spalling around joints as
a result. Some moisture penetration and efflorescence powder may be evident at these
locations. Minor cracking and spalling may be evident in the panels due to corrosion of the
reinforcement. The serviceability of the structure is acceptable.

Condition State 3

There is a significant lack of fit between units and there is moderate cracking and spalling of
the concrete surrounding the mechanical joints. Some bolts may have been omitted or only
partly installed due to the lack of fit. Water and rust staining may be evident at these
locations. Moderate cracking and spalling may have occurred in the panels with up to 20%
loss of section of the exposed reinforcement. The serviceability is severely compromised but
the strength/stability is adequate.

Condition State 4

Construction tolerances may be unacceptable with many missing bolts in the mechanical
joints, misaligned panels and the severe cracking and spalling of the concrete surrounding the
joints. The joints may be heavily water or rust stained. Severe cracking and spalling may be
evident with large delaminated areas. Concrete sounds drummy when tapped by a hammer.
The stability of the structure is in question.

82P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 83S ARCH CULVERTS STEEL

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres (per cell)

This element includes all arches used for stream flow or cattle underpasses and constructed of
galvanised steel with concrete strip footings. If a cast-in-situ concrete floor has been
constructed, it should be considered as part of this element. Wingwalls, aprons and
headwalls are generally classified under Item No. 84 however inspectors may cover large
wingwalls under Item No. 51. Base slabs in large culverts may be covered under Item No.
20.

Condition State 1

The element shows no sign of deterioration of the metal or galvanising. Bolts connecting the
multiplates are tight and in good condition. The concrete at the base of the arch is in good
condition with no cracking or spalling. Shape, line and level of the arch are good.

Condition State 2

Spot rust may be occurring but all connecting bolts are tight and in good condition. Concrete
footing may have minor cracking or spalling of no concern, though there should be no
cracking due to differential settlement of the footing. Shape, line and level of the arch are
good.

Condition State 3

Rusting and minor corrosion may be occurring in areas having only a minor effect on the
strength or serviceability of the member. The plate around some bolts may be damaged or
torn allowing some looseness in the bolts. The arch may have developed a small flatspot due
to movement or differential settlement of the foundations. Foundations may have moderate
cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement or have cracking due to movement or
settlement of the footing.

Condition State 4

Heavy rusting and corrosion may be occurring to the extent they are having an effect on the
strength or serviceability of the arch, especially at the joint to the foundations. Plates may
have moved and bolts may have torn or pulled through the plates. Plates may have crinkled at
the bolt line or badly bulged due to earth pressure, with the shape of the arch badly distorted.
The concrete footings may have severe cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement
or may have moderate cracking due to movement or differential settlement.

83S
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 83P ARCH CULVERTS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres (Per Cell)

This element includes precast concrete arches such as Bebo arches, Techspan and other 3
hinged arches. If cast-in-situ concrete floors have been constructed, they should be
considered as part of this element. Wingwalls, aprons and headwalls are generally classified
under Item No. 84 however inspectors may cover large wingwalls under Item No. 51. Base
slabs in large culverts may be covered under Item No. 20.

Condition State 1

The element shows little or no deterioration with only minor efflorescence or minor fine
superficial cracking of no consequence. Shape, line and level of the arch units is good and
straight. The concrete footing and base slab are in good condition with no cracking or
spalling.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking and spalling may be evident due to corroding reinforcement in isolated areas.
There may be minor cracking or moisture penetration around the hinge areas with moderate
efflorescence powder visible. Shape, line and level of the arch units should be good and
straight. The footing may have minor cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement,
but no cracking due to movement or differential settlement.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling may be evident with up to 20% loss of section of exposed
reinforcement. The shape and line of the arch may show some deviation due to movement or
differential settlement, with minor spalling at the hinge points. The footing may show fine
cracking due to movement pressures or differential settlement.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking and spalling may be evident with large delaminated areas. The shape and
line of the arch may show a dip due to movements and differential settlements with medium
to heavy spalling around the hinge points. The footing may have moderate cracking due to
movement pressures or differential settlement.

83P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 83C ARCH CULVERTS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of Measurement: Lineal Metres (Per Cell)

This element includes all cast-in-situ concrete arches and includes the footings and any
concrete floor in the culvert. Wingwalls, aprons and headwalls are generally classified under
Item No. 84 however inspectors may cover large wingwalls under Item No. 51. Base slabs in
large culverts may be covered under Item No. 20.

Condition State 1

The element shows little or no deterioration with only minor fine superficial cracks and minor
areas of efflorescence. Shape, line and level of the arch units is good and straight. The
concrete footing and base slab have no cracking or spalling.

Condition State 2

Minor cracking and spalling may be evident due to corroding reinforcement along with
moderate efflorescence due to moisture penetration of the concrete. Shape, line and level of
the arch should be good and straight. The footing should have no cracking due to movement
or differential settlement.

Condition State 3

Moderate cracking and spalling may be evident due to corroding reinforcement with up to
20% loss of steel section in isolated areas. Efflorescence and scaling of the concrete surface
may be prevalent along with small delaminated areas. The shape and line of the arch may
show some deviation due to movement of differential settlement. The footing may have
minor cracking due to movement or differential settlement.

Condition State 4

Severe cracking and spalling is evident with large delaminated areas. Heavy scaling of the
concrete surface and efflorescence may be noticed. The shape and line of the arch may show
a dip and the footing may have moderate cracking due to movement pressures or differential
settlement.

83C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 83O ARCH CULVERTS OTHER

Units of measurement: Lineal Metres (Per Cell)

This element includes those arch culverts constructed using brick or masonry, with or without
a base slab which should be considered as part of the element. Wingwalls, aprons and
headwalls are generally classified under Item No. 84 however inspectors may cover large
wingwalls under Item No. 51. Base slabs in large culverts may be covered under Item No.
20.

Condition State 1

The element show little or no deterioration with no cracking or loss of mortar. There may be
small areas of dampness or efflorescence. The shape, line and invert of the arch are good and
straight.

Condition State 2

There may be minor loss of mortar or cracking of the mortar between the blocks. Minor
cracking or spalling of the brickwork / blocks may be evident. The shape, line and invert of
the arch should be in good condition. Large areas of dampness and efflorescence may be
present. There should be no differential settlement of the arch footings.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate loss of mortar or cracking of the mortar between the blocks. There
may also be cracking due to minor differential settlement of the foundations and some blocks
may have slipped slightly due to the movement and loss of mortar. Moderate cracking or
spalling of the brickwork / blocks may be evident, but not of a sufficient magnitude to affect
the strength of the arch. There may be some minor loss of arch shape, line or level, but not of
sufficient magnitude to cause concern for the strength or serviceability of the culvert.

Condition State 4

There may be heavy loss of mortar and/or cracking between and through the blocks, with
some blocks having slipped significantly. Severe cracking or spalling of the brickwork /
blocks may have occurred, having a pronounced effect on the strength of the pipe. There may
be moderate cracking due to differential settlement of the foundations, with significant loss of
shape, line and level of the arch, causing some concern as to the strength or serviceability of
the culvert.

83O
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 84P HEADWALLS/WINGWALLS PRECAST

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all culvert headwalls, wingwalls and concrete aprons associated with
culverts and constructed using precast reinforced concrete.

Condition State 1

The elements are in good condition with no cracking or spalling noticed. There should be no
movement or movement cracking in the headwalls or wingwalls.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement or due to earth
pressures. The headwalls or wingwalls may show minor movements of up to 10 mm which
are of no consequence.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement or due to earth
pressures. The headwalls or wingwalls may show moderate movements of up to 40mm but
having little effect on serviceability.

Condition State 4

There may be severe cracking or spalling due to corroding reinforcement or due to earth
pressures. The headwalls or wingwalls may show large movements or the wingwalls may be
leaning due to earth pressure on them, with possible loss of embankment fill behind.

84P
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 84C HEADWALLS/WINGWALLS CAST-IN-SITU

CONCRETE
Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all culvert wingwalls, headwalls and concrete aprons associated with
the culverts and constructed using cast-in-situ reinforced or mass concrete.

Condition State 1

The elements are in good condition with no cracking, spalling, movement or movement
cracking in the headwalls or wingwalls.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement or due to earth
pressures. The headwalls or wingwalls may show cracking or movements up to 10 mm
which are of no consequence.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement or due to earth
pressures. The headwalls or wingwalls may show moderate movements of up to 40 mm but
having little effect on serviceability.

Condition State 4

There may be severe cracking and spalling due to corroding reinforcement or due to earth
pressures. The headwalls or wingwall may show large movements or may be leaning over
due to earth pressure on them, resulting in loss of embankment fill from behind.

84C
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D June 2004

COMPONENT 84O HEADWALLS/WINGWALLS OTHER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all culvert wingwalls, headwalls and concreted aprons associated with
the culverts and constructed using masonry, rubble, brick, or rock filled cages.

Condition State 1

The elements are in good condition with little or no deterioration. There is no movement of
the headwall or wingwalls.

Condition State 2

There may be minor cracking of the mortar between blocks due to slight movements of up to
10mm, or earth pressure. Ungrouted masonry or rubble should be well stacked and quite
stable with only minor movements of the stones. Rock filled cages may have minor
settlement or loss of stone or a few broken wires.

Condition State 3

There may be moderate cracking of the mortar due to movement of up to 40 mm or due to

earth pressure. Ungrouted masonry or rubble may have moved with loss of some stones and
minor loss of embankment fill. Rock filled cages may have distorted with moderate loss of
stone and broken or corroded wires.

Condition State 4

There may be severe cracking of the mortar due to excessive movements or earth pressure,
with loss of embankment fill. Ungrouted masonry or rubble walls may have moved
appreciably, lost numerous rocks or generally be in a very poor condition. Rock filled cages
may be badly corroded, lost substantial filling or have numerous broken wires.

84O
APPENDIX E
Inspector
Accreditation
Appraisal
Procedure
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.1
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Objectives

(1) To establish the minimum standard of knowledge the Department considers an inspector
should possess to ensure uniform and accurate assessment of the condition of bridges.

(2) To prepare a standard appraisal system for inspectors applying for;

• Level 1 - Routine Maintenance Inspection Accreditation, and;
• Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspection Accreditation.

Appraisal System – Level 1

Applicants for Level 1 – Routine Maintenance Inspection Accreditation must be able to

demonstrate that they have attained the necessary knowledge and proficiency. Form A3 -
Bridge Inspector Accreditation – Level 1 has been devised in order to ensure a uniform
approach.

The applicant is required to demonstrate:-

(1) Extensive practical experience in road and bridge routine maintenance. They shall be
competent to judge the visual condition of structures and the road approaches for visual
defects.

(2) Satisfactory completion of an approved briefing session on Level 1 Bridge Inspection

procedures and be familiar with the Bridge Condition Ratings in the Bridge Inspection
Manual

Appraisal System – Level 2

Applicants for Level 2 - Bridge Condition Inspection Accreditation must be able to

demonstrate that they have attained the necessary knowledge and proficiency. Forms A1 -
Bridge Inspector Accreditation and A2 - Bridge Inspection Accreditation/Report Assessment
have been devised in order to ensure a uniform approach.

The applicant is required to demonstrate:-

(1) Extensive experience in the inspection, construction, design or maintenance of bridges.

Generally a minimum of 5 years experience in a position of responsibility will be
required.

(2) Satisfactory completion of the Level 2 Training Course for Bridge Inspectors.

(3) Technical knowledge and competency with respect to bridge structures and construction
materials. The applicant must have the ability to correctly identify and interpret the
severity and nature of structural and material defects, assess their criticality and make the
appropriate recommendations with respect to required action. Applicants should submit
inspection reports covering a range of structure types which include a number of
defective components. General accreditation is preferred, however accreditation in a
specific bridge category, such as timber, concrete or steel is permissible. Inspectors shall
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.2
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

specify which type of accreditation they are applying for with their initial submission.

(4) Conversance with the bridge inspection methodology defined in the Department’s Bridge
Inspection Manual. This will be appraised by the evaluation of at least five bridge
inspections carried out and submitted by the applicant to Bridge Asset Management.
The Inspections must be completed and reports submitted for appraisal within four
months of attendance at the Level 2 Training Course. This appraisal will generally
include a field audit of the applicant’s submission. Standard forms A1 and A2 shall be
used by an assessor from Bridge Asset Management to conduct the appraisal and record
the findings. It is recommended that an inspector initially submits a single inspection
and awaits feedback from the review prior to making further submissions, as it has been
found previously that inspectors tend to make the same mistakes throughout their first
series of inspections. Ensuring that all subsequent inspections are corrected accordingly
will reduce both the time and cost involved in the accreditation process.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.3
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Minimum Requirements

Measure Minimum Requirements

1. Safety Plan A comprehensive safety plan which correctly identifies hazards
defined in the workplace health and safety legislation and the
measures taken to mitigate these hazards must be compiled prior
to each and every bridge inspection. Inspectors should ensure that
hazards are added to the BIS.

Rating Guidelines

Safety is regarded as the responsibility of local management and

as such shall not be considered in the course of an assessment.

2. Inventory General
The inspection inventories must be compiled in accordance with
the bridge inspection methodology defined in the Bridge
Inspection Manual as itemised below. References quoted
hereafter relate to Part Three - Procedures of the Bridge
Inspection Manual.

Bridge Component Designation

Components must be correctly designated by status (if widened),
group, component and standard component in accordance with
Section 1.3. Standard components must be compiled in
accordance with Section 3.8.2 and Appendix C: Standard
Component Identification Guidelines.

Exposure Classification
The appropriate exposure classification must be correctly
interpreted from the Table in Section 3.8.7.

Data Recording
The inventory must be compiled on Forms 2/1 & 2: Bridge
Condition Inspection Report.

Rating Guidelines

Satisfactory: > 90% of items correctly identified.

Improvement Required: 80-90% of items correctly identified.

Unsatisfactory: < 80% of items correctly identified.

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.4
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Measure Minimum Requirements

3. Structure The condition of the overall structure and any associated
Rating widenings must be correctly assessed in accordance with the
guidelines given in Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.6.

Rating Guidelines

Satisfactory: Correct structure rating.

Improvement Required: Not applicable.

Unsatisfactory: Incorrect structure rating. In particular

failure to correctly identify major
deficiencies which significantly affect
safety, load capacity or serviceability.
4. Condition General
Rating The current condition of each component in the inspection
inventory must be ascertained in accordance with Section 3.8.4
and Appendix D: Standard Component Condition State
Guidelines. It is imperative that the proportion of the component
in each condition state is correctly rated in order that the
criticality of the defects can be accurately determined. In
particular, deficient structural (load bearing) members must be
correctly identified. Further guidelines to assist the identification
of Condition State 4 defects are given in Section 3.8.5.

Commentary
The inspector must be able to demonstrate the ability to accurately
and concisely record salient descriptions and measurements to
supplement the numerical rating of defective members.
Guidelines for such commentary are given in Section 3.8.5.

In addition references to any photographs, sketches or testing (eg.

timber drilling) relating to a component must be recorded in the
comments box and Form B2/6: Photographic and Sketches
Record.

Timber Drilling
Timber drilling will normally be carried out as part of a Level 2
inspection of timber bridges in order that the current condition
state of timber members may be determined. Details of the
testing should be recorded on Form B2/5: Timber Drilling
Survey Report and tests on individual members referenced in the
comments field Form B2/1 & 2: Bridge Condition Inspection
Report. Inspectors must be able to interpret the correct condition
state of a member from the drilling records.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.5
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Measure Minimum Requirements

Rating Guidelines

Satisfactory: > 80% of components in state 1 or 2

correctly rated.
>90% of components in state 3
correctly rated.
100% of components in state 4
correctly rated.

Improvement Required: > 70% of components in state 1 or 2

correctly rated.
> 80% of components in state 3
correctly rated.
100% of components in state 4
correctly rated.

Unsatisfactory: < 70% of components in state 1 or 2

correctly rated.
< 80% of components in state 3
correctly rated.
< 100% of components in state 4
correctly rated.

5. Defective General
Components Defective components in condition states 3 and 4 must be
correctly identified (in accordance with the guidelines given in
Sections 3.8.4 and 3.8.5 and Appendix D: Standard Component
Condition State Guidelines) and recorded on Form B2/3:
Defective Components Report. The inspector is required to
assess the criticality of the defects and recommend the appropriate
actions. Details of the defects must be described in the comments
box and supplemented with photographs, sketches or test results
as appropriate. This field should also record details of
recommended actions other than monitoring or level 3 inspection.
The inspector must be able to demonstrate the ability to
consistently identify defective components and the appropriate
remedial actions. In addition, he must have the ability to
accurately communicate the extent, severity and criticality of
member defects through photograph, sketch and written records.

Rating Guidelines

Satisfactory: (i) Clear and accurate recording

of defects.
(ii) Appropriate actions
recommended.
(iii) Criticality of defects accurately
and clearly communicated.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.6
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Measure Minimum Requirements

Improvement Required: Minor departures from (i) - (iii)

Unsatisfactory: (i) Inability to record extent, severity

or criticality of defects.
(ii) Failure to define the appropriate
actions.

6. Procedure General
Exceptions It is expected that inspectors will carry out inspections fully in
accordance with the methodology defined in the Bridge
Inspection Manual. However, it is recognised that physical or
operational restraints may restrict the extent of the inspection or
perhaps components are detected that cannot be identified from
the standard list of components. Inspectors must complete Form
B2/4: Standard Procedure Exceptions Report if there is any
departure from the standard methodology.

Undefined Component
The appropriate box should be ticked and a detailed description of
the component together with sketches and/or photographs
references must be entered in the comments fields.

Partial Inspections
The appropriate box should be ticked and the reasons why the
inspection is incomplete must be recorded in the comments field.

Rating Guidelines

Satisfactory: (i) All exceptions must be recorded on

Form B2/4.
(ii) Reasons for partial inspections
must be defined.
(ii) Undefined components must be
accurately described and
supplemented with photographs
and/or sketches as appropriate.

Improvements Required: Minor departures from the

satisfactory rating with respect to
comments. All exceptions must be
recorded.

Unsatisfactory: Failure to record exceptions or

incorrect exceptions recorded.
Inadequate or incorrect description of
exceptions.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.7
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Measure Minimum Requirements

7. Photographic An appropriate photographic and sketch record must be compiled
and Sketch for each inspection covering:-
Record
(i) Mandatory inventory photographs. (Deck surface, side view
and underside).
(ii) Deficient components and major defects.
(iii) Undefined Components.

All photographs and sketches must be given a reference and

details of the subject matter recorded on form B2/6. These
references should also be recorded against the relevant component
and included in the following forms as appropriate:

B2/1 & 2: Bridge Condition Inspection Report

B2/5: Timber Drilling Survey Report
B2/3: Defective Components Report
B2/4: Standard Procedure Exceptions Report

Rating Guidelines

Satisfactory: Appropriate photographic and sketch

record has been compiled and cross-
referenced on the appropriate forms.

Improvement Required Minor departure from satisfactory

rating.

Unsatisfactory: Failure to compile mandatory

photographic record or to document
records correctly.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.8
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Measure Minimum Requirements

8. Technical Technical competency is a fundamental requirement for
Competency accreditation at this level. Inspectors must have a minimum of
five years experience in at least one aspect of bridge engineering
to be considered for Level 2 accreditation and must have an
extensive knowledge of bridge structures and construction
materials.

An applicant must be able to demonstrate an ability to identify

structural and material defects, causal mechanisms, the criticality
of the defect and the appropriate corrective action. Implicit in this
is the ability to communicate this information to supervisors by
means of commentary, sketches and photographs to ensure
remedial works are prioritised accordingly.

For example, with respect to concrete elements, the inspector

must be able to distinguish the structural mechanisms causing
cracks in members and quantify the severity and criticality of
these defects. In addition, the inspector must record the date,
crack widths and crack terminations in permanent ink on the
structure.

Rating Guidelines

Satisfactory: The inspector must demonstrate the ability

to consistently:-

(i) Identify defect mechanisms.

(ii) Quantify and record defects
accurately.
(iii) Determine the criticality of defects.
(iv) Recommend the appropriate
corrective action.

Improvement Required: Marginal departure from the satisfactory

standard.

Unsatisfactory: Significant departure from the satisfactory

standard or any incorrect finding or
interpretation that places road users at
risk.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL E.9
Structures Division APPENDIX E June 2004

Measure Minimum Requirements

9. Field Field audit of items 1-8 above. At least one of the submitted
Assessment inspections should be subject to a field review. An assessor may
use existing Level 3 reports as the basis for review.

10. Overall Satisfactory: A satisfactory rating must be achieved

Assessment for six of the eight categories and
must include items (5). “Defective
Components” and (8) “Technical
Competency”. The remaining two
categories must be rated as
Improvement Required.

Unsatisfactory: An “unsatisfactory” rating on any

category or an “improvements
required” rating for (5) “Defective
Components” or (8) “Technical
Competency.

Award or Denial of Accreditation

The result of the assessment should be documented on Form A1:

“Bridge Inspector Accreditation Appraisal” and forwarded to the
applicant and their direct supervisor.
• If the submission has been found to be satisfactory a
memorandum or letter acknowledging the same shall be
despatched with the form. The individual's details shall be
added to the relevant inspector's register with Bridge Asset
Management and updated accordingly on the BIS.
• In the event of an unsatisfactory rating this letter should
include detailed feedback with respect to deficiencies
detected in the submission and constructive advice as to
how these deficiencies might be addressed.
 BRIDGE INSPECTOR ACCREDITATION - LEVEL 2 A1
Inspector ................................................... Inspection Authority .......................................................
Bridge Documents Received (3)
No Name Type 1/1 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 S/P Date

Mandatory Training:
Awareness Session Location ............................................................................... Date ......................
Level 2 Training Course Location ...................................................................... Date .....................
Note: Inspections must be completed and reports submitted for appraisal within 4 months of training.
Bridge Construction/Inspection Experience (submission)
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
Report Assessment Summary
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
Accreditation Awarded/Denied (delete as applicable)
Assessor ...................................................... Position ............................................................................
Signature ..................................................... Date ..................................................................................

June 2004
BRIDGE INSPECTOR ACCREDITATION/REPORT ASSESSMENT A2
Bridge ID ...................................................... Bridge Name .......................................................................
Inspector ....................................................... Inspection Authority...........................................................
Date of Inspection ........................................ Date Received ......................................................................
Type of Bridge .............................................. Assessment Type ................................................................
Measure Comments Rating
*(S,I,U)
* (S: Satisfactory; I: Improvement required; U: Unsatisfactory)
1. Safety Plan
Š Conversance with legislation
Š Ability to identify & mitigate
hazards
Š Evidence of implementation

2. Inventory
Š Conversance with methodology
- bridge component designation
- exposure class
- widenings
Š Ability to compile inventory on
Forms B2/1 & B2/2
- widenings rated separately

3. Structure Rating
Š Conversance with methodology
Š Ability to determine appropriate
rating for structure & widenings
Š Ability to determine appropriate
action
Š Ability to complete Form B2/1
correctly

4. Condition Rating
Š Conversance with methodology
Š Ability to quantify extent, severity
& criticality of defects
- Appropriate commentary
- Photos & sketches referenced
- Timber drilling report
referenced & attached
Š Ability to complete Forms B2/1,
B2/2 & B2/5 correctly

5. Defective Components
Š Conversance with methodology
Š Ability to identify serious defects
- appropriate commentary, photos
& sketches
Š Ability to determine appropriate
action
Š Ability to complete Form B2/3
correctly
6. Procedure Exceptions
Š Conversance with methodology
Š Ability to identify exceptions on
Form B2/4
- Undefined components
- Partial component inspection
- Components not inspected
- Appropriate commentary &
actions

7. Photograph and Sketch Record

Š Ability to compile appropriate
records
- Inventory
- Defective Components
- Undefined Components

8. Technical Competency
Š Conversance with technology
- Bridge construction & materials
Š Ability to identify defects, causal
mechanisms & defect criticality
Š Ability to measure and record
defects
- Notes, sketches, photos
Š Ability to identify appropriate
actions

9. Field Assessment
Š Confirmation of data (1-8)

10. Overall Rating

Š Conversance with methodology
Š Technical competence
Š Ability to implement methodology
Š Quality of records
Š Quality of recommendations

Improvements Required/Further Comments

............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................................
Assessor ................................................................................... Position .......................................................................................
Signature ................................................................................. Date ..........................................................................................…

June 2004
 BRIDGE INSPECTOR ACCREDITATION - LEVEL 1 A3
Inspector Name Inspection Authority
(Consultant, District, Bridge Engineer, RTCS)

Contact Address Phone No.

Mandatory Training (Awareness Session)

Location Date
Qualifications
(e.g., Foreman, Bridge Inspector, Engineer)

Bridge Construction/Routine Maintenance Experience

...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................

Head Office Use

Accreditation Awarded Yes No

Assessor Position
Signature Date
Assessor Comments
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................

Details updated in BIS ? Yes Date

June 2004
APPENDIX F
Guidelines for the
Management of
Sub-Standard and
Defective Bridges
 Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL F.1
Structures Division APPENDIX F June 2004

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The corporate bridge inspection programme that commenced in 1997 has identified large numbers
of defective bridges; amounting to some 260 in December 2003. These structures have been
classified as being defective as a consequence of severe material degradation in principal load
bearing members, overstressing, deficient design, construction or maintenance works or the
substitution of undersized timber components in lieu of the specified member sizes when the
bridge was constructed or in subsequent maintenance.
Additionally, almost two thirds of the department's bridges have been designed to now obsolete
bridge loading design standards that are grossly inferior to contemporary standards and represent
some 33-75% of the T44 design loading. As a point of reference, the T44 design vehicle produces
a design load effect some 25% greater than the general access 42.5t semi-trailer. It should be
noted that the department is already designing new structures to the proposed SM1600 loading
standard that produces a design load effect approximately 200% greater than the 42.5t semi-trailer.
Theoretical load capacity assessments, conducted in accordance with current Australian
Standards, have found that the department's timber bridge stock, with the exception of A-Class
bridges in good condition, are overstressed when crossed by the general access 42.5t semi-trailer.
Accordingly, these sub-standard timber bridges represent a significant risk to road users when
principal load bearing members are allowed to deteriorate. Conversely, many non-timber
structures that have been designed to obsolete standard have been assessed and found to have
significant reserves of strength and are able to carry current loadings without undue distress.
These defective and sub-standard bridges are vulnerable due to their sensitivity to increasing axle
loads, numbers of freight vehicles, changing vehicle configurations and vehicle dynamics. These
increasing demands tend to accelerate deterioration of the structural condition and load carrying
capacity with a corresponding increase in risk to road users and maintenance expenditure. The
safety of the public is paramount and, while the costs and risks to the public must be assessed
along with other network priorities, these defective and sub-standard structures must be actively
managed.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to detail the corporate procedures to manage defective and sub-
standard bridges safely through a corporate approval and certification mechanism. This will
ensure that thorough operational and structural assessments are conducted and a detailed
management plan is developed and approved for all sub-standard and defective structures that are
identified. This management plan will consider the need for one or more "Interim Management
Measures" from structural engineering inspection and material investigation, load testing, load,
lane, speed or vehicle restrictions, propping of defective load bearing members, temporary closure
or emergency repairs pending replacement or rehabilitation.

Although these guidelines are primarily intended for use within Main Roads, the advice provided
herein is transferable to LGA and private bridge owners.
 Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL F.2
Structures Division APPENDIX F June 2004

1.3 Scope
These guidelines cover the safe management of bridges, or structural groups such as abutments,
piers and spans comprising a bridge, that are found to be defective or sub-standard during or
pursuant to an inspection or load capacity assessment. In particular, guidance is provided on the
following topics.
• Definitions of defective and sub-standard bridges or structural groups.
• Structure Management Plans - Interim management measures pending rehabilitation,
strengthening or replacement.
• Immediate Risk Structures
• Low risk defective bridges
• Monitoring
• Approvals and certification process
• Departures
• Prioritisation of rehabilitation, strengthening or replacement.

1.3 Implementation
These guidelines shall be used forthwith for any structures that are found to be defective or sub-
standard.

1.4 Definitions
The following definitions apply to terms used in this document.
Condition State – The assessed rating of a component based on a whole number scale of 1-4
made by an accredited inspector in accordance with the condition state guidelines stated in the
DMR Bridge Inspection Manual. Condition state 1 represents the "as new" condition while
condition state 4 denotes a component with severe defects that compromise its structural integrity.
Significance Rating – A whole number rating on a scale of 1-4, determined by Bridge Asset
Management, which reflects the structural criticality of an individual component type. A ranking
of 4 represents a critical load bearing member such as a girder or a pile while a kerb has a rating of
1. The rankings for all standard components are detailed in Appendix A.
Principal Components – Standard structural components that have a "Significance Rating" of 3
or 4.
Risk - The MR "Whichbridge" risk assessment methodology/software generates a numerical
score, which can be used to rate and rank the risk exposure of structures. It should be noted that
the risk scores generated represent a relative ranking of risk rather than an absolute quantification
of risk. The value is specific to a set of criteria applied at a specific point in time and is defined by
the following relationship.
Risk = Probability (of failure) x Consequence (of failure)
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA and STANDARDS NEW ZEALAND (1999)
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL F.3
Structures Division APPENDIX F June 2004

It is currently considered that a risk score between 750 and 1500 should represent the threshold for
intervention. Currently this represents 408-260 defective bridges respectively.

Defective Structures – One or more of the following criteria may define a defective structure.
1. Structures where more than 25% of the principal components have been rated in Condition
State 4 within a single abutment, pier or span group by an accredited bridge inspector. For
example, two girders out of five in a span meet this criterion.
2. Timber structures where more than 25% of the principal components are undersized in a
single abutment, pier or span group when compared with the relevant specified member
sizes for that class of bridge.
3. Structures with a risk rating in excess of 1500.
4. Structures with an overall condition rating of 4 or 5.

Sub-Standard Structures – One or more of the following criteria may define a sub-standard
structure.
1. Timber bridges other than A class. (A-modified, B and B-modified class structures are
theoretically overstressed under legally loaded semi-trailers.)
2. Bridges of unknown design class.
3. Bridges that have been assessed by Structures Division and found to be deficient in load
carrying capacity. Typically, a structural engineer, pending rehabilitation or replacement of
a structure, will have recommended formal interim measures.

Low Risk Sub-Standard Structures- Any structure, not covered in the previous definition, that
has been designed to a standard inferior to the T44 design class and has not been assessed by a
structural engineer.

Immediate Risk Structures- Structures which are considered to represent an immediate and
unacceptable risk to the public.

Structure Management Plan- Formal interim measures that have been certified by the
department to manage a defective or sub-standard structure pending its rehabilitation or
replacement. This requires the submission of Form SMP1 to Structures Division (Appendix B)
and the relevant Regional Director for certification and approval.

Departures (Other Interim Measures) - Measures short of or different from the "Structure
Management Plan" These must be in the form of monitoring alone or monitoring in conjunction
with other measures.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL F.4
Structures Division APPENDIX F June 2004

Monitoring-suitable Structures- Structures which are considered to be suitable for monitoring as

an interim measure by virtue of their predictable and gradual mode of failure.

2.0 INSPECTION AND ASSESSMENT

The processes of inspection, assessment and the preparation and implementation of appropriate
management plans are of crucial importance for ensuring that all highway structures remain in a
safe and serviceable state. The department's policies, methodologies and guidelines must be
applied rigorously and in a consistent manner. If inspection ratings and assessments are unduly
conservative, then structures will be unnecessarily strengthened or maintenance conducted
prematurely. This consumes scarce resources and causes traffic, social and economic disruptions.
Conversely, if these processes are not regulated effectively then some structures may be operating
with an unacceptable margin of safety.
The required bridge management processes are illustrated in the Management Actions Flow Chart
in Appendix C. Form SMP1- Structure Management Plan (Appendix B) shall be used to document
the inspection and assessment findings and the required interim management measures.

3.0 STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Whenever a "defective structure", as defined in Paragraph 1.4, is detected then a "Structure
Management Plan" detailing the proposed interim measures should be prepared and submitted for
certification and approval. Operational managers may elect to seek advice about the management
of "sub-standard bridges" from Structures Division. In this event, a "Structure Management Plan"
will be developed for these bridges. Districts will normally agree interim management measures
with Structures Division pending the development of the formal Structure Management Plan.
Interim measures may consist of one or more of the following:
1. Close the structure and establish a side track;
2. Close the structure, advertise the fact, and direct traffic to an alternative crossing;
3. Deny access to Excess Mass Vehicles;
4. Impose one or more of mass, width, lane or speed restrictions and advertise the fact;
5. Install height bars on each approach and advertise the fact to reinforce restrictions to vehicle
height;
6. Raise an "Issues Alert" to the DDG when an Immediate Risk Structure is detected;
7. Install temporary propping or other strengthening;
8. Carry out partial or full rehabilitation of the structure; and
9. Initiate a bridge replacement scheme.
10. Increasing the frequency of Level 1 / 2 inspections.

4.0 IMMEDIATE RISK STRUCTURES

Districts are required to quickly inform Structures Division and the relevant Regional Executive
Director pursuant to an inspection or assessment finding that a structure poses an immediate and
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL F.5
Structures Division APPENDIX F June 2004

unacceptable risk to public safety. In assessing the immediate risk to public safety, relevant factors
such as the nature of structural weakness, any corresponding signs of distress, the recent load
history of the structure and the level of inspection and assessment completed to date should be
taken into account.
Once emergency interim measures are agreed and confirmed with Structures Division, a
"Structure Management Plan" detailing the formal interim measures should be prepared, certified
and implemented as soon as is practically possible. These structures are to be termed "Immediate
Risk Structures".
In the event that the structural integrity is considered to be severely compromised, a temporary
emergency closure should be ordered until a bridge engineer from Structures Division has
inspected the structure and/or reviewed available reports and recommended the necessary interim
measures for the "Structure Management Plan". This shall only be effected where there is likely to
be a delay in developing and implementing the "Structure Management Plan" and the risk of
keeping the structure in service in the interim period is considered to be unacceptable.

5.0 LOW RISK DEFECTIVE BRIDGES

Certain structures that meet the defective or sub-standard bridge criteria may be considered to be
of low risk and do not warrant interim measures other than monitoring while further investigations
are carried out. These structures must be performing normally under traffic with no signs of
significant distress (no excessive deflections of components or progressive development of
observed defects under traffic loading) and the consequences of failure must be extremely low.
Additionally, managers must be certain that the potential failure mechanism will be gradual over
time and capable of detection through the monitoring regime. For example, increases in crack
width severity, extent and length. Individual cases shall be discussed with Structures Division to
confirm whether monitoring is an appropriate management mechanism. It should be recognised
that monitoring in its self will not prevent damage from occurring and the probability of damage
will generally increase with the duration of monitoring. For example, increased loading cycles
and/or increased probability of an overloaded vehicle crossing the structure and/or further material
deterioration. For these reasons, it is recommended that a detailed assessment of the monitoring
strategy be undertaken every six months. Ensuring the safety of a structure through monitoring is
a complex process and requires in-depth knowledge of the techniques, potential problems
structural behaviour and material properties. This should not be undertaken in a casual manner and
must be controlled by professional engineers.

6.0 APPROVALS AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS

1. District to discuss interim management measures with Structures Division immediately
following the detection of a defective structure. (This may include the commissioning of a
Level 3 Detailed Engineering Inspection and structural analysis of the structure);
2. Emergency interim measures to be agreed pending development of the Structure
Management Plan;
3. Structures Division completes Structure Management Plan with recommended interim
management measures pending rehabilitation or replacement and forwards copy signed by
Executive Director (Structures) to the district;
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL F.6
Structures Division APPENDIX F June 2004

4. District Director accepts and signs the Structures Management plan and forwards it to the
Regional Executive Director for information and approval;
5. If the District Director disagrees with or cannot comply with the recommended interim
measures then a departure as described below may be sought;
6. Regional Executive Director forwards certified copies of the Structures Management Plan
or Departure to the District Director, Executive Director (Structures) and the Deputy
Director General.
7. The interim management measures detailed in the Structures Management Plan are
implemented.

7.0 DEPARTURES
It is a general principle of these guidelines that Structure Management Plans shall be developed
for all defective structures and the interim measures certified by the relevant District Director,
Regional Executive Director and the Executive Director (Structures Division). However, it is
acknowledged that on occasion, the operational areas may elect to adopt measures that fall short
of or are different from those specified by Structures Division. In this event, the Regional
Executive Director and the District Director must detail the reasons for the departure, complete
and certify an amended Structures Management Plan and forward a copy to the Executive Director
(Structures) and the Deputy Director General. The minimum interim measures stated therein shall
be a monitoring regime, that has been approved by Structures Division, generally in conjunction
with one or more of the other previously stated interim measures.

8.0 PRIORITISATION FOR REHABILTATION AND REPLACEMENT

In most cases, the rehabilitation or replacement of defective and sub-standard bridges will take a
number of years to effect. These works will have to be prioritised along with other network
demands, while ensuring the safety of the structures in service by maintaining the appropriate
Structure Management Plans. Prioritisation should take account of the following factors:
1. The relative risks of the structures to which the management plans apply as calculated by
the "Whichbridge" methodology;
2. The effectiveness of the interim measures detailed in the Structures Management Plan in
controlling these risks. As stated previously, monitoring is a passive measure and does not
positively control risk;
3. The reserves of strength, traffic loading, probability of overloading, failure mode and
consequences of failure;
4. Traffic delays and associated costs caused by the implementation of the Structures
Management Plan;
5. Other social, environmental and economic consequences to business and the community
associated with the Structures Management Plan;
6. The availability of alternative routes or feasibility of constructing a sidetrack including wet
season considerations, excess mass and dimension restrictions and other route related
considerations;
 Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL F.7
Structures Division APPENDIX F June 2004

7. The cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation or strengthening compared with the replacement

structure costs taking account of the ratio of costs and benefits;
8. Other benefits that will result from the work such as improvements to parapet and guardrail
containment, scour resistance, pedestrian access and bridge geometry.

To ensure the currency and effectiveness of the interim measures adopted, the Structure Management
Plan shall be reviewed every six months until such time as the structure is rehabilitated or replaced.
 Appendix A
Significance Ratings
 Appendix A : Significance Ratings
COMPONENT
Standard Significance
Component Description Rating
No (SR)
1 Fill/Wearing Surface 2
2 Bridge Barriers 1
3 Bridge Kerbs 1
4 Footways 1
10 Pourable Joint Seal 2
11 Compression Joint Seal 2
12 Assembly Joint Seal 2
13 Open Expansion Joint 2
14 Sliding Joint 2
15 Fixed/Small Movement Joint 2
20 Deck Slab/Culvert Base Slab Joints 3
21 Closed Web/Box Girders 4
22 Open Girders 4
23 Through Truss 4
24 Deck Truss 4
25 Arches 4
26 Cables/Hanger 4
27 Corbels 3
28 Cross Beams/Floor Beams 3
29 Deck Planks 3
30 Steel Decking 3
31 Diaphragms/Bracing (Cross Girders) 3
32 Load Bearing Diaphragms 4
33 Spiking Plank 1
40 Fixed Bearings 2
41 Sliding Bearings 2
42 Elastomeric/Pot Bearings 2
43 Rockers/Rollers 2
44 Mortar Pads/Bearing Pedestals 1
45 Restraint Angles/Blocks 2
50 Abutment 3
51 Wingwall/Retaining Wall 3
52 Abutment Sheeting/Infill Panels 2
53 Batter Protection 1
54 Headstocks 4
55 Pier Headstocks (Integral) 4
56 Columns, Piles or Pile Encasements 4
57 Piles Bracing/Walls 3
58 Pier Walls 3
59 Footing/Pile Cap/Sill Log 3
60 Wing Piles 3
70 Bridge Approaches 2
71 Waterway 2
72 Approach Guardrail 1
80 Pipe Culverts 2
81 Box Culverts 2
82 Modular Culverts 2
83 Arch Culverts 2
84 Headwalls/Wingwalls 1
 Appendix B
Structure Management Plan
Form SMP1
 June 2004 Sheet
Structures Management Plan SMP1
1/2
Structure Id ........................................... Name ......................................................................
Crossing Name ........................................... Alt. Name ......................................................................
Structure Type ........................................... Owner ......................................................................
Construction Type ........................................... District ......................................................................
Construction Material ........................................... LGA Id ......................................................................

Defective Components Form B2/3 Attached Date ...............................

Interim Plan Final Plan Departure

Road Number .................................................... Road Name ....................................................................................

Chainage................................(km) on the .......................................... to......................................................... Road

Deficiencies
Location Details (Nature, Extent, Severity)
Superstructure
...................................... ................................................................................................................................................
...................................... ................................................................................................................................................
...................................... .............................................................................................................................................
Substructure
...................................... ................................................................................................................................................
...................................... ..............................................................................................................................................
Bridge Function
...................................... ................................................................................................................................................
...................................... ..............................................................................................................................................
Programmed Remedial Measures (Repair, Rehabilitate, Strengthen or Replace)
Substructure Superstructure Bridge Estimate($) Fin. Year

Interim Management Measures - Yes No Attachments

Comments

Weight Restriction
Lane Width Restriction
One Way Working
Prop Structure
Close Structure
Construct Sidetrack
Sign Detour
Install Height Bars
Monitor Structure
Load Testing
Other (eg. Inspection Freq.)
Approval of Structures Management Plan

....................................................................... District Director ( ) Date .......................................

....................................................................... Regional Exec. Director ( ) Date .......................................
...................................................................... Executive Director (Structures) Date ........................................
 June 2004 Sheet
Structures Management Plan SMP1
2/2
Structure Id ...................................... Name ...........................................................................
Departures
Reasons

........................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................

Alternative Interim Measures Yes No Attachements

Comments
Weight Restriction

Lane Width Restriction

One Way Working

Prop Structure

Close Structure

Construct Sidetrack

Sign Detour

Install Height Bars

Monitor Structure

Load Testing

Other (eg. Inspection Freq.)

Approval of Departures
Comments

............................................................ District Director ( ) Date ...................................................

Comments

............................................................ Regional Executive Director ( ) Date ...................................................

Copy forwarded to DDG Date .............................................

Copy forwarded to ED (Structures) Date ..............................................

 Appendix C
Management Actions Flow Chart
 Appendix C
Management Actions Flow Chart

DEFECTIVE BRIDGE
IDENTIFIED

DISTRICT NOTIFIES DD
IMMEDIATE RISK TO SUB-STANDARD
& ED (STRUCTURES) PUBLIC? BRIDGE
Y
IDENTIFIED

N
AGREE EMERGENCY
INTERIM MEASURES
DISTRICT DISCUSSES
WITH ED
INTERIM MEASURES
(STRUCTURES)
WITH ED
(STRUCTURES)

IMPLEMENT
MEASURES

DEVELOP
STRUCTURES
FURTHER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ASSESSMENT (SMP)

SMP APPROVED?
DEPARTURE
N DD, RED, ED(S)

Y
DISTRICT DEVELOPS
INTERIM MEASURES

IMPLEMENT SMP

DEPARTURE
APPROVED BY RED

COPY TO DDG & ED (S)

PRIORITISE &
PROGRAMME
REHABILITATION /
IMPLEMENT STRENGTHENING /
MEASURES REPLACEMENT
APPENDIX G
Breakdown of
Complex and
Non-Standard
Structures
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL G.1
Structures Division APPENDIX G June 2004

The details and processes described in the manual provide a standardised system for the component
breakdown of the various types of bridges and culverts commonly found in Queensland; however,
there are a number of structures within the state that are not easily definable, either due to the
complexity of their design or the uniqueness of the structure. The purpose of this Appendix is to
provide guidance on the component breakdown of these non-standard structures.

The drawings in this Appendix detail those non-standard structures for which advice has previously
been issued. Figure 1.1 denotes the component designation for those structures that have suspended
spans, and will thus have the deck joints located away from the piers. Figure 1.2 shows the
breakdown of a pedestrian bridge that runs in a number of different directions. Figure 1.3 gives some
guidance on the determination of appropriate modification type for widened structures that share
components with adjacent structures.

Due to the recent introduction of road tunnels in South East Queensland, details have been added to
the Bridge information System to facilitate the inclusion of these structures into the system. Figure
1.4 gives a general overview of the different tunnel types. Such structures should have maintenance
and inspection plans developed during construction, as part of the contractor’s responsibilities, and
should be inspected and maintained in accordance with these plans. In the event that these
documents are not available, Bridge Asset Management should be contacted to provide advice on
inspection procedures and requirements.

Most large, complex structures (such as steel truss bridges) will require more detailed reporting than
the standard Level 2 inspection report allows for. In such cases, it is recommended that the following
process is adopted;

• A specific and detailed inventory of the elements making up each component shall be
compiled by an engineer from Structures Division.
• Standard condition state descriptions shall be used to rate each element where appropriate
and unique condition state descriptions shall be developed where necessary.
• Component ratings shall be in accordance with the Bridge Inspection Manual, based on an
assessment of the elements making up each component.
• The detailed inventory and inspection report shall be appended to the Level 2 or Level 3
report. Word documents may be saved directly into the Photographic and Sketches Record.

Figure 1.5 shows an extract from a detailed inspection of the Burnett River Bridge. The extract
shows the breakdown of a complex component (23S – Through Truss) into individual elements, and
the rating of each element in accordance with the Bridge Inspection Manual.
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX G June 2004

Above Bridge Inspection

CS = Condition State
C = Compression Member
T = Tension Member
BC = Bottom Chord
TC = Top Chord
N = Node
TIC = Tie Chord
BA = Bracing Angle

Group Component Exposure CS Comments

Class
S 1 (U/S) TC (N4) 3 4 Surface corrosion over an area of 100x20 mm. Refer to figure 7-26.
TIC1 3 4 Electrical conduit had broken and become loose. It was removed
during the inspection refer to figure 7-27.
Crevice corrosion of the latticework where they connect to the T
member, refer to figure 7-28 and figure 7-29.
TIC 1-2 3 4 Crevice corrosion of the BA where the two angles intersect. The
electrical conduit used zinc-plated clamps and these should be
replaced with stainless steel clamps. Refer to figure 7-30.
TIC 2 3 4 Crevice corrosion of the latticework where they connect to the T
member, refer to figure 7-33. The T member has a 5mm loss of
section. The measurement was taken at node 3.
TC (N8) 3 4 Crevice corrosion of the angled splice of the top chord lower
flange.
TC (N9) 3 3 Corrosion where the old power line brace attached to the TC.
TIC 3 3 4 A timber post has been attached to the centre of the TIC for the
lighting of the bridge. This timber post is causing the TIC to
corrode, refer to figure 7-34 and 7-36.
TC (N9) 3 4 Damage to the protective coating has occurred during the
installation of the new power line clamp.
TC (N10) 3 4 Surface corrosion at the splice plate to cover plate interface.
TIC 4 3 4 Crevice corrosion of the latticework at node 2, where it connects to
the T member. The T member has a 5mm loss of section in
localised areas.
TC (N12) 3 4 Surface corrosion at the splice plate interface with the cover plate.
TIC 5 3 4 Surface corrosion where the TIC connects to the TC. Serve loss of
section and nodes 6 and 7 where the section has lost 5mm over an
area of 150x65mm. Refer to figure 8-1.
TC (N12-13) 3 4 Crevice corrosion of the angled splice of the top chord lower
flange.
S 2 (U/S)
TC (N3) 3 4 Surface corrosion at the splice plate interface with the cover plate.
TC (N4) 3 4 Surface corrosion at the splice plate interface with the cover plate.
TIC 1 3 4 Crevice corrosion of the latticework at node 2, where it connects to
the T member. There is a 5mm loss of section, refer to figure 8-7.
Serve corrosion where the BA connects to the centre of the TIC.
Refer to figure 8-8.
TC (N5) 3 4 Surface corrosion of the TC cover plate.

FIGURE 1.5 – EXTRACT FROM BURNETT RIVER BRIDGE INSPECTION

APPENDIX H
Advice Notes
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL H.1
Structures Division APPENDIX H June 2004

INTRODUCTION

The BAMANDSRS Notes Database was introduced in 2002 to provide a centralised storage and
access point for user queries from Corporate, District and Commercial users of Bridge Asset
Management applications and products within Main Roads. A number of these queries related
directly to usage of the Bridge Inspection Manual, and owners of the manual were recommended
to include a copy of these Advice Notes in their manual for future reference.

In order to formalise the process, this Appendix was created to offer a specific storage location for
Advice Notes within the manual. It is intended that Manual owners will obtain a hardcopy of
relevant Advice Notes, insert them into their copy of the Manual and update the register
accordingly. As specific Advice Notes will be referred to in the main body of the manual, it is
critical that this Appendix be kept up to date.

Please note that access to the BAMANDSRS database is restricted to Department of Main Roads
personnel, and thus external owners of the Manual will not have access to these Advice Notes.
Formal amendments to the Bridge Inspection Manual, incorporating new Advice Notes into the
body of the manual, shall be issued periodically.
 ADVICE NOTES REGISTER

DATE NO. TITLE

13/8/2002 2 Culvert Headwalls, Wingwalls & Concreted Aprons (HW-84)
28/8/2002 5 Entering Timber Girder Inspection Data – Recording Defects in Sniped Ends
26/11/2002 7 Timber Headstocks 54T – Condition States
26/11/2002 8 Revised Overall Structure Condition Rating
1/12/2003 22 Component Breakdown for roadway items over culverts
17/12/2003 23 Guidelines for Sniping (Notching Seatings) of Timber Girders
Non-Destructive Identification & Quantification of Defects in Timber
23/12/2003 24
Components
Recording of Defects in Culverts and Culvert Joints (and other Segmental
20/1/2004 28
Components)
5/7/2004 32 Rating of cracked concrete members
7/8/2004 34 Recording of Timber Drilling in Accordance with Advice Note no. 24
25/8/2004 37 Measurement of Scour
28/4/2005 39 Review of Allowable Snipe Depth Bands for Condition State Guidelines
15/8/2005 46 Review of Rating of Timber Headstocks and Piles
27/7/2006 58 Component Code for Culvert Wingwalls
 ADVICE NOTES REGISTER

DATE NO. TITLE

 Culvert Headwalls, Wingwalls & Concreted Aprons
(HW-84)
BAM Advice Note No 2
Category: Bridge Inspection - Defect Identification Recording & Rating (Link to Request
- )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the development of the Standard Components, consideration was given to the relative numbers of
bridges and culverts owned by Main Roads, hence the Standard Components for Culverts as detailed
in the Bridge Inspection Manual (BIM) have been kept to a minimum to reduce the need to collect
superfluous data.

The culvert Headwalls and Aprons are not considered to be principle structural components and
therefore BAM consider that it is adequate to record the condition states of the Headwalls and Aprons
under a single component HW-84. As noted in the description of components 81, 82 and 83,
"Inspectors may cover large wingwalls under Item No. 51".

BAM recommend that the condition states of Headwall and Apron components are recorded as
detailed below and illustrated on the attached inspection form.
If the condition states of all Headwalls and Aprons are determined, the condition states are all
recorded against the component; or
If the condition states of only some items are determined i.e. the condition states of the
Headwalls are determined but the Aprons are not inspected, the condition states of the
Headwalls should be recorded against the component and a note should be included in the
comments field to record that the Aprons were not inspected and why; or
If the condition states of the Headwalls and Aprons are not determined, then the component
should be recorded as an exception.

Advice Note 2 attachment.doc

BAM believe that the condition states of culvert headwalls, wingwalls and aprons can be adequately
recorded under the components available. However BAM are open to discussion and comments from
Inspectors and other users of the Inspection Data.

Owners of Bridge Inspection Manuals may wish to include a copy of this advice note in their manuals
for future reference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 13/08/2002 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
5. Peter Graham 13/08/2002 12:34:50 AM
4. Stacy J Bale 12/08/2002 15:35:16
3. Stacy J Bale 08/08/2002 10:22:43
2. Stacy J Bale 08/08/2002 09:42:58
1. Stacy J Bale 01/08/2002 16:26:25
* Only past five edits are shown
 Sheet
Bridge Condition Inspection Report B2/1 1 Of
Structure ID ……………………….. Bridge Name ……………………………………..
Crossing ……………………….. Road Number …………………………………….
Chainage ………………. (km) on the…………............................... To ………………………………. Road
District ……………………………… Local Authority ………………………………….
Inspector ……………….. Inspection Date …………………………………..
Programmed or Exceptional ……………………….. Underwater ………………….
Next Inspection Date ………………………………….
Component Location Quantity Comments
Per { Location of item/condition
Exposure Class

Condition { Description of defects by location type,

Modification

Component

State magnitude, extent

Standard

Quantity

{ References of sketches and photos (Roll /

Number
Group

1 2 3 4 Exposure Nos)
Unit

O S1 HW 84O 2 4 EA 3 1 HW1-CS4, severe cracking of mortar due to

excessive movements
HW2-CS2, minor movement away from
structure
Minor cracking in both aprons - CS2

O S2 HW 84O 2 2 EA 1 1 HW1-CS4, severe cracking of mortar due to

excessive movements
HW2-CS2, minor movement away from
structure
NOTE: Both aprons covered by silt

O S3 HW 84O 2 4 EA X X X X No headwalls or wingwalls inspected

Overall Ratings 1 2 3 4 5 Comments

Original Structure (O)
Modification ( )
Modification ( )
Widening (WLn, WRn), Lengthening (L1, L2), Raised (Ra), Redecked (Re), Shortening (S1, S2)
 ! "##$

""

% & '

!
" ! #$
% & ! ' (

) ! *

"

* ! + ) $,-
+ #,- ! .
)
% /,-
*

* ! + ) 0,- +
$0- ! )
&
%
/,- /0-
. *

! 1 ! + ) 2,- +
0,- ! &
! 1
3 %
/4- $,- ! .
* !
!

5 6 7 + )+ 1 !
8 & 9

""
 Timber Headstocks 54T - Condition States
BAM Advice Note No 7
Category: Bridge Inspection - Defect Identification Recording & Rating (Link to Request
- )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Wide Bay Districts query requesting advice and clarification regarding the measurement
of defects in headstocks and confirmation of the condition state guidelines described in the BIM, BAM
have reviewed the condition state guidelines for timber headstocks, standard component 54T.

BAM confirm that the loss of external area is quoted as a percentage of the cross-sectional area of the
headstock. The condition state guidelines have been amended to describe the allowable percentage
loss of external area from the top, bottom or either side of the headstock. In addition the allowable
diameter of any internal pipe defects in the headstocks has been defined and included in the condition
state guidelines.

Amended copies of the Condition State Guidelines for timber Headstocks, standard component 54T
and the Timber Drilling Survey Report form B2/5 are attached. The attached amendments will be
included in the BIM when a formal review is carried out, however it is recommended that owners of
Bridge Inspection Manuals include copies of the attached documents in their manuals for future
reference.

Headstocks 54T 25 Nov 2002.pdf Form B2_5 25 Nov 2002.doc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 26/11/2002 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
1. Peter Graham 26/11/2002 08:36:42 AM
0. Stacy J Bale 25/11/2002 17:34:18

* Only past five edits are shown

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Road System & Engineering APPENDIX D November 2002

COMPONENT 54T HEADSTOCKS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes those headstocks constructed of sawn timber sections. Timber
headstocks at the abutments should also be included in this element due to their importance
and susceptibility to deterioration. Note: Loss of external area is quoted as a percentage of
the cross-sectional area of the headstock and pipe defects are quoted as the actual diameter of
the pipe.

Condition State 1

The headstocks are in good condition with only minor weathering, splits or checks having no
effect on strength. All bolted connections are tight and in good condition with at least half the
headstock having good bearing support on the piles.

Condition State 2

The headstocks show sign of minor decay, weathering, splits and checks not affecting the
member strength. There may be minor sags in the headstocks beneath loaded girders. Bolted
connection may be slightly loose or the headstock may have less than half width bearing on
the piles. The headstock may have up to 5% loss of external section (top, bottom or sides) or
a central pipe up to 45mm diameter.

Condition State 3

The headstock may have moderate decay, weathering, crushing at supports or splitting which
may have a minor effect on member strength. The headstocks may be sagged beneath the
girders with minor moment cracks. Bolted connections may be loose or headstocks may have
no bearing support at the piles. The top of the piles may be severely rotted offering little
bearing support to the headstock bolted connections, and the headstocks may be pulling off
piles. Headstocks may be spliced and the splice is in poor condition and pulling apart. The
headstock may have up to 10% loss of external section (top, bottom or sides) or a central pipe
up to 65mm in diameter.

Condition State 4

The headstocks may be heavily decayed, weathered, severely split or cracked, and may have
crushing at the supports. Large sagging may be evident under girders and the headstock may
have moment cracking. Bolted connections may be completely loose and the headstocks may
have pulled off or almost pulled off the supporting piles. Headstock splices may have broken
apart with loading on the unsupported cantilever headstock section. The headstock may have
up to 20% loss of external section (top, bottom or sides) or a central pipe up to 90mm in
diameter.

54T
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
1 Of 1
Structure ID................................... Bridge Name .....................................................
Crossing.......................................... Road Number ...................................................
Chainage...................(km) on the ....................................................to ...............................................Road
District............................................ Local Authority ................................................
Inspector......................................... Date of Inspection.............................................
Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments
(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number

(mm)
Group

Solid

Pipe
Rot

% Consumed
* Test Locations CS 2 CS 3 CS 4
Component Defect Location (Abbreviation) (Describe Other (O) in comments) E MS E MS E MS
Pile Pipe Top (T), Ground Level (GL), Other (O) 20 20 35 35 50 50
Girder Pipe End1 (E1), Midspan (MS), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 20 30 35 50 50 70
Corbel Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 20 20 35 35 50 50
Headstock1 Edge Area End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 5 5 10 10 20 20
Headstock2 Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 45mm 45mm 65mm 65mm 90mm 90mm
Other Component Enter relevant component code and describe location in comments field.
1. Area of headstock (%) for external loss of section (top, bottom or sides).
2. Maximum pipe diameter (mm) in headstock for internal piping defects.
 Revised Overall Structure Condition Rating
BAM Advice Note No 8
Category: Bridge Inspection - Procedures (Link to Request - )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND

Both timber headstocks of a pier recently failed under an excess mass vehicle that was crossing the
bridge under a locally issued permit. There were no injuries or damage to the cargo but the bridge
was immediately closed pending repairs.

Examination of the inspection records held in the BIS revealed that the bridge in question had been
given an overall rating of 3 despite 5 of 8 headstocks being rated in condition state 4 (CS4). If the
current "Bridge Inspection Manual" guidelines, "3.8.6 Structure Condition Assessment", had been
followed the bridge should have been rated in CS4. The clause states that the overall rating "shall be
primarily based on the condition of its principal structural members such as girders, headstocks,
columns, piles and foundations".

AUDIT OF NETWORK

An audit of the BIS inspection data has returned some 119 timber bridges and 19 non-timber with
principal components in CS4 whereas the recorded overall rating is CS3. A memo has been issued to
all Districts requesting them to review the overall ratings for their bridges and make any required
changes to the records in the BIS.

EXCESS MASS MANAGEMENT

As you are aware, this information is used to assess excess mass permit applications thus accurate,
current overall condition ratings are essential to minimise the potential for overloading defective
bridges.

REVISED OVERALL STRUCTURE CONDITION RATING

BAM have reviewed the overall structure condition rating methodology with a view to reducing the
subjective nature of the assessment and the following guideline should be adopted in determining the
overall rating.

If more than 25% of any principal load bearing component (Significance Rating 4) in any substructure
or span group are in CS 4 then the overall rating must be CS 4. The principal components are girders
(21, 22), trusses (23, 24), arches (25), cables/hangers (26), load bearing diaphragms (32),
headstocks (54, 55) and columns/piles (56). The other subjective aspects of the overall rating still
apply.

AMENDMENT No 1 - 24th July 2006

Also note that if more than 25% of any principal load bearing components are in CS 3, then the overall
rating for the structure will be at least CS 3. The presence of more serious defects elsewhere may
result in a higher overall rating.

The above-mentioned amendments will be included in the BIM when a formal review is carried out,
however it is recommended that owners of Bridge Inspection Manuals include copies of this advice
note in their manuals for future reference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 26/11/2002 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
 Component breakdown for roadway items over
culverts
BAM Advice Note No 22
Category: Bridge Inspection - Standard Component Identification (Link to Request -
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When compiling the component inventory for a bridge, roadway items such as the surfacing, kerbs and
rails are typically defined per span. With culverts, this approach is unfeasible due to the significantly
shorter span lengths and lack of definative joints in the deck.

For this reason, these components are to be defined per culvert structure. They are to be located in
the Span 1 group, with the corresponding quantites taken from the full length of the structure.

This does not include Approach items (such as guardrail), which are still to be defined seperately for
both approaches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 01/12/2003 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
1. Peter Graham 01/12/2003 04:17:52 PM
0. Shane P Crawford 01/12/2003 02:33:55 PM

* Only past five edits are shown

 Guidelines for Sniping (Notching Seatings) of
Timber Girders
BAM Advice Note No 23
Category: Bridge Maintenance - Treatments & Repairs (Link to Request - )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
Through the implementation of the Bridge Inspection System it has been found that
excessive snipes are being cut into replacement girders. This practice is occurring as
timber girders are often ordered through standing arrangements and consequently
timber bridge crews may only have access to one size of girder. As such, large
diameter girders are being used to replace smaller girders and consequently large
snipes are required to enable the girder to “fit” the bridge.

Increasing Girder Shear Capacity

From reviewing literature on notching (sniping) of timber girders the majority of
findings are based on either glulam beams or rectangular sawn sections. Numerous
different testing arrangements have been explored in the literature however the
majority of findings limited notch depths to:
· 10% in glulam beams; and
· 25% in solid sawn sections.

The majority of the research undertaken on notching in beams has been on rectangular
shaped softwoods in regions other than Australia. As such Bridge Asset Management
have modified the findings of these investigations to base the limiting factors of
notching on a percentage of the total area of the girder. To ensure that the capacity of
the girder is not exceeded in the notched region anti-splitter bolts are to be installed on
girders with a loss of section (due to notching) of 10% to 25%. This loss of area
correlates to approximately 15% to 29% of the depth of the girder.

Snipes can cause stress concentrations at the region where the girder changes cross
section and as such care should be taken to limit the likelihood of a split forming in
the region of the notch. It is therefore important to avoid over cutting at the root of
the snipe. One possible method to limit over cutting is to drill a hole in the member at
the root of the notch. This hole provides a stop point for cutting while giving a
rounded edge to minimise stress concentrations.

In addition to avoiding over cutting at the snipe it is recommended that a depth to

length ratio of the snipe be cut at 1:4 when a new girder is installed. The addition of
this gradient theoretically increases the capacity of the girder to shear by
approximately 3 times that of a “square” notch when evaluated using AS1720.1 -
1997.
 To aid in determining the depth of allowable sniping before anti-splitter bolts are
required and details on snipe slopes, BAM have provided reference tables and
schematic diagrams in the attached documentation.

Bridge Asset Management is conducting testing on timber girders to evaluate the

effect of snipes. Further information regarding maximum snipe depths and gradients
will be distributed as it becomes available.

Owners of Bridge Inspection Manuals may wish to file a copy of this advice note and
the attachments for future reference.

Notching tables and diagrams.docNotching references.doc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 17/12/2003 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
5. Peter Graham 17/12/2003 08:38:04 AM
4. Kym L Francey 17/12/2003 08:22:56 AM
3. Peter Graham 16/12/2003 04:16:15 PM
2. Kym L Francey 16/12/2003 02:25:25 PM
1. Kym L Francey 02/12/2003 03:02:43 PM
* Only past five edits are shown
Timber Girders / Corbels – Notching

Inner Girder
X1 = 4” (101.6mm)
D Y1 Y2

mm mm mm
inch mm mm No remedial work
Anti splitting bolts Replace
required

16 406.4 6.5 ≤ 63 63 < Y2 ≤ 121 > 121

17 431.8 6.1 ≤ 67 67 < Y2 ≤ 128 > 128

18 457.2 5.7 ≤ 71 71 < Y2 ≤ 136 > 136

19 482.6 5.4 ≤ 75 75 < Y2 ≤ 144 > 144

Outer Girder
X1 = 8” (203.2mm)
D Y1 Y2

mm mm mm
inch Mm mm No remedial work
Anti splitting bolts Replace
required

14 355.6 31.9 ≤ 54 54 < Y2 ≤ 103 > 103

15 381 29.4 ≤ 58 58 < Y2 ≤ 111 > 111

16 406.4 27.2 ≤ 62 62 < Y2 ≤ 119 > 119

17 431.8 25.4 ≤ 66 66 < Y2 ≤ 126 > 126

17 December 2003
C:\temp\Notching tables and diagrams.doc
Snipe at Abutments Snipe at Piers
17 December 2003
C:\temp\Notching tables and diagrams.doc
 Non-Destructive Identification & Quantification
of Defects in Timber Components
BAM Advice Note No 24
Category: Bridge Inspection - Defect Identification Recording & Rating (Link to Request
- )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attached document details the assessment and validation of the "Lixi Profiler" and "Resistograph"
non-destructive testing methods following investigations conducted by Bridge Asset Mangement
section and provides corporate guidelines for the implementation of the NDT and conventional drilling
methods.

NDT of Timber Components.PDF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 23/12/2003 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
4. Peter Graham 23/12/2003 04:31:40 PM
3. Stacy J Bale 23/12/2003 04:35:44 PM
2. Lyall R McLean 18/12/2003 08:41:13 AM
1. Stacy J Bale 16/12/2003 02:54:59 PM
0. Stacy J Bale 16/12/2003 12:36:03 PM
* Only past five edits are shown
Non-Destructive Identification & Quantification
of Defects in Timber Components

1 Background _________________________________________________________________ 1
1.1 Timber Structure_________________________________________________________ 2
1.2 Timber Deterioration _____________________________________________________ 3
2 Guidelines for Timber Drilling __________________________________________________ 4
3 Investigation of the "Lixi Profiler" (nuclear densometer) NDT Method _________________ 7
3.1 Background _____________________________________________________________ 7
3.2 Assessment & Validation __________________________________________________ 9
3.2.1 Typical Investigation and Results _________________________________________ 9
3.2.2 Investigations in June 2002 _____________________________________________ 13
3.2.3 Investigations in March 2003 ___________________________________________ 13
3.2.4 Discussion __________________________________________________________ 13
3.2.5 Health and Safety ____________________________________________________ 14
3.3 Recommendations _______________________________________________________ 15
4 Investigation of the "Resistograph" (resistance drilling), NDT method _________________ 15
4.1 Background ____________________________________________________________ 15
4.2 Assessment & Validation _________________________________________________ 17
4.2.1 Typical Investigation and Results ________________________________________ 17
4.2.2 Discussion __________________________________________________________ 20
4.3 Recommendations _______________________________________________________ 22
5 Recommendations for Implementation of the "Lixi Profiler" and "Resistograph" NDT
methods ________________________________________________________________________ 23
5.1 Application of the "Lixi Profiler" and the "Resistograph" or Conventional Drilling 23
5.2 Application of the "Resistograph" only _____________________________________ 24
5.3 Application of "Lixi Profiler" only _________________________________________ 25
1 Background

The current method of identification and quantification of defects in timber components as detailed in
the Bridge Inspection Manual (BIM) is visual inspection and drilling investigation of principal
components.

Inspectors carry out conventional drilling investigations using a 12-16mm diameter bit to bore holes in
timber components at critical and suspect locations. The extent and severity of any piping or rot
within the component is assessed by the inspector based on the resistance to drilling as "felt". This
method relies on the experience and subjective judgement of the inspector and provides information
only at the selected drill location.

The BIM defines the locations of maximum stress and/or those most susceptible to decay, where
drilling tests should be carried out. It also highlights the issue that test holes can expose the member
to more rapid decay and regular drilling can result in significant strength reduction, even if no decay is
found. It states that all test holes shall be plugged with wooden dowels, which have been treated with
an approved preservative, to reduce the potential for accelerated deterioration following the survey.
Although it is generally accepted practice within the Department to conduct initial drilling tests on a
bridge at the locations detailed in the BIM and probe these locations at subsequent inspections, recent
inspections of the bridges have identified that some members have had significant numbers of holes
drilled in them, which can expose the member to more rapid decay or strength reduction.

Bridge Asset Management section (BAM) have found that supplementary drilling in addition to the
Level 2 inspection is often required to locate and quantify defects to the required level of detail when
conducting bridge capacity assessments, thus highlighting deficiencies in the current inspection
practices. The need for supplementary drilling is costly in terms of re-establishment, diversion of
resources from other tasks and is detrimental to bridge members. Despite supplementary drilling,
there has not been a marked improvement in confidence in testing results being representative of
member condition.

In response to the identified need to improve the accuracy and reliability in identification and
quantification of defects within timber components, BAM have assessed and validated two non-
destructive testing (NDT) methods, namely the "Lixi Profiler" (nuclear densometer) and the
"Resistograph" (drill resistance testing). The following sections summarise the assessment and
validation of the NDT methods and detail corporate guidelines for the implementation of the NDT and
conventional drilling methods.

Non-destructive identification and quantification of defects in timber components as detailed in the

following sections should be conducted in conjunction with Level 2 Bridge Condition Inspections as
defined in the BIM for the Timber Drilling Survey. In addition it is recommended that material
species and stress grading be determined as part of the Level 2 Bridge Condition Inspection. An
advice note will be released in January 2004 detailing the requirements for species identification and
visual stress grading. At this time Main Roads have engaged either the Department of Primary
Industries or a Consultant to conduct all inspection and testing required.
23 December 2003 Page 1 of 27
1.1 Timber Structure

As a natural building material, timber has evolved unique material properties which dictate and
influence use and also maintenance strategies. In the growing tree, the trunk acts as a structural
member, anchored by the root system, to support the leaf and branch system. This ability to support
both tree mass and wind induced loads makes timber a practical material for our structural component
requirement such as for girders, piles and decking.

The structure of timber is essentially a collection of longitudinally oriented cellulose cells, cemented
together by lignin, a complex polymer compound which also strengthens the cell walls. Figure 1
shows magnified structures for hardwood and softwood timbers and is included to show the general
assemblage of wood cells. The structure of hardwoods is more complex than those of softwoods.

Because timber is essentially composed of longitudinal cells, its properties are anisotropic, ie strength
and stiffness properties are much higher along the grain than across the grain. Another property that
varies between tangential, radial and longitudinal directions in a log is shrinkage, which occurs as
timber moisture content gradually reduces. Shrinkage is greatest in the tangential direction and results
in the formation of longitudinal checks or oracles in the timber due to its weakness in tension across
the grain.

Figure 1 - Wood Structure

23 December 2003 Page 2 of 27

1.2 Timber Deterioration

The major causes of deterioration in timber bridges, as described in part 2, section 1.4 of the BIM
include: Fungal (rotting); Termites; Marine organisms; Corrosion of Fasteners; Shrinkage and
Splitting; Fire damage; and Weathering. Fungal and termite attack, and shrinkage and splitting are the
causes of deterioration which are of particular interest with regard to the investigations detailed in this
advice note. The sketches shown below in Figure 2 illustrate typical deterioration of girder members.
It should be noted that visual inspection of the member may not identify the presence of internal
deterioration.

DEFECTS
NOTE: Sides of girder may not indicate deterioration

ELEVATION SECTION
PIPING (CLEAN)
Result of internal rot or termite attack

Termite nest

ELEVATION SECTION
PIPING (INFILLED)
Heavier, wet debris - possible termite mud for nest
(density greater than timber)

ELEVATION SECTION
DOZEY
Lower density reduced strength timber due to partial rot

ELEVATION SECTION
PIPING (UNDER SPIKING PLANK)
Piping / rot beneath spiking plank at top of girder

Figure 2 – Typical deterioration of timber girder members.

23 December 2003 Page 3 of 27

2 Guidelines for Timber Drilling

The guidelines for timber drilling tests currently documented in the BIM provide a general standard
for investigation. However, several additional requirements documented below should improve the
reliability and consistency of the reporting and determination of condition states, and thus improve the
accuracy of capacity assessments.

The requirements for conducting the timber drilling survey are detailed in part 3, section 3.10 (BIM).
The key points are included in the following extract from the manual.
The purpose of the survey is to determine the residual amount of sound timber by drilling a hole in
a member. The respective extent of any pipe, rotted and solid portions is determined by gauging
the resistance to drilling supplemented by examination of wood shavings.

Drilling is carried out at the locations of maximum stress and/or for those areas most susceptible
to decay, namely:
• Midspan and end of girders.
• Ends of corbels.
• Ends of headstocks.
• Base and top of end posts.
• Ground level, normal water level or around connections in piles.
• Around bolted connections in general.

All test holes shall be plugged with wooden dowels which have been treated with an approved
preservative, to reduce the potential for accelerated deterioration following the survey.

Accepted practice within the Department is to conduct initial drilling tests on a bridge at the
recommended locations with a 12mm drill bit and probe these locations at subsequent inspections.
Where internal deterioration is evident at the test location additional drilling tests are conducted at
locations along the member (typically 500mm intervals) until a solid section is identified.

Typical deterioration mechanisms in standard timber bridge components and guidance on the
inspection of these members is detailed in part 2, section 2.3 of the BIM. For example an extract from
the section on timber girders states.
Timber girders should be inspected for pipe or external rot at their maximum stress location at
midspan. Inspection of the girder ends should also be carried out as pipe rotting is generally
more severe at these locations. Girder ends are prone to crushing failure when excessive loss of
section has occurred.

23 December 2003 Page 4 of 27

The following guidelines for drilling tests are provided in addition to the current guidelines detailed in
the BIM, and should be read in conjunction with Figure 3. These guidelines have been developed by
BAM based on typical deterioration of timber bridge members, critical locations for assessment of
member capacity and guidelines developed by Road Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA) and
Western Australia Department of Main Roads.

ƒ At the initial inspection the drilling test holes should be made at the locations illustrated in
Figure 3 and these holes should be plugged and probed at subsequent inspections to monitor
and quantify progressive deterioration.
ƒ Test holes should be plugged with wooden dowels, which have been treated with an approved
preservative to reduce the potential for accelerated deterioration.
ƒ Care should be taken to avoid drilling completely though the members, and horizontal drills
should be inclined slightly upwards to allow drainage.
ƒ It is recommended that drill holes be made perpendicular to the face of the member such that
the recorded deterioration is relative to the section size.
ƒ Two test holes are required to be made through the cross section of girder and corbel members
to identify deterioration in the centre of the section and also v-shaped deterioration in the top
of member.
ƒ Where deterioration is identified in the girders from the drilling tests at the locations
illustrated in Figure 3, then additional drilling tests should be carried out at 500mm intervals
along the member until a sound section is identified.
ƒ Where deterioration is recorded in the drilling test at the pile/headstock connection, an
additional drill should be made approximately 500mm along the headstock from the centreline
of the pile.
ƒ It is recommended that material samples be taken and submitted to BAM for species
identification as detailed in an Advice Note on Timber Species Identification and Visual
Grading, to be released by BAM in January 2004.

23 December 2003 Page 5 of 27

 DRILLING REQUIREMENTS
Corbel length (varies)
¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

100
SECTIONS - DRILL LOCATIONS

ELEVATION OF GIRDERS / CORBELS

GIRDERS / CORBELS
Denotes locations for horizontal drilling

HEADSTOCK / PILES
Denotes critical drill hole location for piles
Denotes critical drill hole location for headstocks

Natural surface

ELEVATION OF HEADSTOCK / PILES

Figure 3 – Guidelines for Drilling Timber Members

23 December 2003 Page 6 of 27

3 Investigation of the "Lixi Profiler" (nuclear densometer)
NDT Method

3.1 Background

The "Lixi Profiler" is a real time density measuring system, which produces a graph showing the net
thickness of the timber section. The "Lixi Profiler" is illustrated in Figure 4 below. It uses a
radioactive isotope, Gadolinium-153 (Gd-153) and generates a highly collimated beam of radiation
that penetrates through the timber section. The amount of radiation that reaches the detector opposite
the source is proportional to the total thickness and average density of the material it passes through.
The "Lixi Profiler" is calibrated against a solid section of girder timber and thus calculates and reports
the thickness of the timber.

Figure 4a : "Lixi Profiler" Inspection system, Figure 4b : "Lixi Profiler" in operation

consisting of an isotope (A), a micro channel-
plate (MCP) detector (B), a laptop computer (C)
running MS windows based proprietary software
(Intico Pty Ltd).

Intico Pty Ltd was engaged by BAM to provide inspection and assessment services for trials using the
"Lixi Profiler". Intico Pty Ltd is the sole importer of the "Lixi Profiler" into Australia. Lixi Inc of
Illinois USA manufactures the "Lixi Profiler". "Intico" have two "Lixi Profiler" units and provide an
inspection service which includes the "Lixi Profiler" and a trained technician and a report of the
condition of the members. Intico's head office is in Melbourne, and they also have an office in
Brisbane. All trials with the "Lixi Profiler" conducted to date have been provided from the Melbourne
office on a cost plus basis.

The "Lixi Profiler" was developed as an inspection tool to assess the condition of steel piping systems,
in response to the problem of examining insulated piping for blockage and corrosion. The objective
was to provide a method which could quickly scan along the length of the insulated pipe to locate
areas of poor condition without having to take the pipes out of service. The difference with the
application of the "Lixi Profiler" to the inspection and assessment of timber members is the material
and deterioration characteristics of timber compared to steel.

23 December 2003 Page 7 of 27

Intico's standard operating procedure for "Lixi Profiler" scanning is attached for reference and several
points are highlighted below.
ƒ Applicable codes and specifications are: Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Radiation
Gauges (1982); and Intico Procedure TP1 RT 17.
ƒ Personal performing scanning covered by the Procedure shall be the holder of current
radiation license and have relevant experience as specified in AS 3998 and other relevant
Specifications which may apply to the specific project.
ƒ Equipment shall be registered as a Radiation Gauge as per Code of Practice for Safety Use of
Radiation Gauges (1982).
ƒ Source of radiations shall be collimated 90-110 keV activity Gadolinium – 153 (Gd-153)
isotope, housed in stainless steel / tungsten source head.
ƒ Safe operating instruction detailed in the procedure should be adhered to.
ƒ The "Lixi Profiler" shall be calibrated using a range of thickness using sample material of the
same density of the item under test.

As detailed in Intico's standard operating procedure the operator is also required to be the holder of a
current radiation license and have relevant experience as specified in AS 3998 and other relevant
Specifications which may apply to the specific project.

"Intico" have been engaged to provide testing and data analysis services for the trials using the "Lixi
Profiler" conducted to date. Based on the unit rates "Intico" have provided and BAM's experience
with regard to the time taken to complete inspections conducted to date, BAM provide the following
cost estimates for inspections using the "Lixi Profiler". "Intico" have indicated that they intend to
mobilize from Brisbane for work requested by Main Roads, however if "Intico" are required to
mobilize from Melbourne the associated air fares and accommodation costs will be charged at
cost+10%.

ƒ Inspection of all members on a typical 4 span timber bridge which is easily accessible, should
take approximately 8 hours. The cost for the inspection is estimated at $4700 which includes
the "Lixi Profiler", 1 technician, 1 assistant technician and associated reporting. It is possible
that the District or RoadTek provide an assistant which would reduce the estimated cost to
$4000. Additional costs are dependant on the location of the bridge and any associated travel
and accommodation costs incurred by "Intico", these costs will be charged as follows :
o $80 / night for each member of crew (living away from home including meals and
other inconveniences)
o accommodation at cost + 10%
o car hire at cost + 10%
o consumables (such as fuel, etc) at cost

ƒ Inspection of all members on a typical 4 span timber which requires access equipment such as
the UBIU and where access is also limited due to requirements on duration of traffic
disruptions, should take approximately 2 days (16 hours). The cost for the inspection is
23 December 2003 Page 8 of 27
 estimated at $8400 which includes the "Lixi Profiler", 1 technician, 1 assistant technician and
associated reporting. It is possible that the District or RoadTek provide an assistant which
would reduce the estimated cost to $7000. Additional costs are dependant on the location of
the bridge and any associated travel and accommodation costs incurred by "Intico", these costs
will be charged as detailed above.

It is noted that the cost of any access equipment such as the UBIU and any associated traffic control is
additional to the costs detailed above.

3.2 Assessment & Validation

The "Lixi Profiler" can scan the length of the member and identify the locations of deterioration. This
is considered a significant advantage over conventional drilling and "Resistograph" methods, which
provide information at a specific location only. Typical deterioration mechanisms in timber members
as illustrated in section 1, indicate that the deterioration is not generally evident from a visual
inspection of the member. Thus the location of drilling investigations as detailed in section 2 is
typically determined based on expected deterioration and critical locations identified by structural
capacity assessments. Accordingly defective zones within the member may be missed entirely.

BAM have conducted two trials in June 2002 and March 2003 to investigate the application of the
"Lixi Profiler" to the inspection of timber bridge members following an initial demonstration of the
equipment in April 2002.

3.2.1 Typical Investigation and Results

The "Lixi Profiler" is required to be calibrated for the inspection of each member section. Calibration
of the "Lixi Profiler" is dependant on the outside dimension of the member and density of the section.
The "Lixi Profiler" may be calibrated against a sample section of material in the laboratory or based on
material densities stated in the Australian Standard for Timber Structures AS1720.1 if the member
species is known. Alternatively the "Lixi Profiler" may be calibrated in the field on members where
the thickness of the section can be measured and the internal condition can be verified, such as at the
ends of corbels and headstocks. This calibration is essential for the thickness measurement to be
considered valid as an absolute measure of sound material in the member. It is also possible to utilise
the results from investigations with the "Lixi Profiler" to provide a relative measure of the
deterioration within the section by reviewing the percentage loss. The percentage loss of material is
illustrated on the records of the scans reported by "Intico" and can be determined on site by reviewing
the real-time scan record.

23 December 2003 Page 9 of 27

For the purpose of the trials conducted to date the "Lixi Profiler" has been mounted in a U-shaped
bracket and in some cases an extension arm has been attached to provide access to the girders from the
ground level as illustrated in Figures 4b and 5a.

Figure 5a – General view of scanning with the

Figure 5b - Real-time results of the scan
"Lixi Profiler" (Intico Pty Ltd)

Initially the member is scanned longitudinally along the centreline of the cross section, to identify
locations of deterioration in the centre of the member. Additional longitudinal scans at 50-100mm
above the centreline of girders are also carried out to identify any deterioration in the top of the girder.

In the field the real-time results of the scans are shown on the screen of the laptop computer as a
determined material thickness in millimetres as illustrated in Figure 5b. In the trials conducted to date
the thickness measurements have been recorded against the time of the scan. The real-time record of
the scan allows areas of identified deterioration to be marked on the member for further investigation.

The services provided by "Intico" for the trials conducted to date have included production of a report
of the test scans. The records of the scans have indicated the determined material thickness and
corresponding percentage loss of thickness against the time taken to complete the scan as illustrated in
Figure 6. It has therefore been necessary to mark the location of deterioration on the member when it
is identified. If the record of the scan is to be referenced at future inspections the location of
deterioration needs to be adequately detailed on the record, thus it would be beneficial if the
equipment was modified to provide a distance based record of the scan.

23 December 2003 Page 10 of 27

 Evidence of
deterioration in the
highlighted regions
which requires
further investigation

Figure 6 – Typical record illustrating the results of scans along a timber girder plotted against time and
actual deterioration within the girder.

23 December 2003 Page 11 of 27

Additional testing is required to provide more detailed information of the deterioration identified in the
longitudinal scans or to verify the condition of areas which appear suspect in the visual inspection.
This additional testing may include a transverse scan with the "Lixi Profiler" and/or drilling with the
"Resistograph" or conventional drilling.

The results of a transverse scan with the "Lixi Profiler" are illustrated below in Figure 8. It is
important that the outer dimensions of the member at the scan location are recorded and plotted (black
line). The plot of the scan (red line) shows the recorded thickness through the member. Thus the
change in thickness due to deterioration can be measured through the section and the location of the
deterioration within the section identified.

300 400

Figure 7 - Transverse scans showing recorded deterioration and actual member cross section.

23 December 2003 Page 12 of 27

3.2.2 Investigations in June 2002
Analysis of the results from the trials conducted on the 7th June 2002 concluded that, in the case of
deterioration in the girders where the cavities were filled with rotted material and debris, the severity
of the loss of section identified by the "Lixi Profiler" was reduced by up to 30%. However, loosely
packed debris in the cavity had a minimal effect on the loss of thickness recorded by the "Lixi
Profiler".

In addition to identifying pipe defects in timber components it is believed that a member which is
dozey through the entire cross section can also be identified using the "Lixi Profiler". Where the "Lixi
Profiler" reading shows a constant thickness which is less than the thickness of the solid girder, a
transverse scan should allow the determination as to whether the girder is dozey. If the girder is dozey
the reduction in recorded thickness compared to that of a solid girder should be constant for the entire
transverse scan. The accuracy of this methodology relies on the calibration of the "Lixi Profiler" to
the actual material and the control of the orientation of the scan.

3.2.3 Investigations in March 2003

Review of the results from investigations at Bremer River bridge highlighted the following:
ƒ The importance of calibrating the "Lixi Profiler" for the specific members being investigated.
ƒ The need for distance based measurement and recording of the investigations to provide an
accurate record of the location of any defects for analysis and future reference.
ƒ The importance of aligning the source with the centreline of the member and square to the
face of the member, or at 100mm above the centreline of the member as required and as close
to the surface as possible.
ƒ The "Lixi Profiler" underestimates the size of deterioration within a member when the
member is filled with material, such as rot, because the reported thickness is based on the
measurement of the density of the material scanned.
ƒ The size variation along the length of the member.

3.2.4 Discussion
There is some variability, typically in the order of 5% to 10% in recorded thickness on a longitudinal
scan of a member with no significant defects. The main reasons for this variation are likely to be due
to, variation in size of the member and the effect of surface imperfections such as small splits. The
condition state limits for girders as detailed in the BIM are CS 3 ≤35% piping at ends or ≤50% piping
at midspan and CS 4 ≤50% piping and ≤70% piping at midspan. Based on the deterioration limits for
the various condition states as detailed in the BIM and noted above for girders, the variation of 5% to
10% is not considered to be of concern with regard to identifying defective components in condition
state 3 or 4.

The present arrangement of moving the "Lixi Profiler" manually, and presenting the data on a time
scale (approximating a distance) limits its accuracy in mapping out areas of piping or dozey
deterioration, as the location of defects must be manually recorded on site. In addition to errors which
may occur in the manual location of the defect, the speed of recording along the member is not

23 December 2003 Page 13 of 27

automated and does not provide a record of deterioration which can be used for future reference.
"Intico" is presently developing an alternative system of data recording that will allow a more accurate
position-based assessment of the longitudinal and transverse scans. It is noted that this sophistication
is only required to provide a permanent record of the deterioration along the length of the member. It
is acceptable to scan the member, mark the location of defects as they are identified during the scan,
record the location of the deterioration by measuring along the member and conducting further
investigations such as a transverse scan or drilling to quantify the deterioration.

It is recommended that a centralizing jig is developed to ensure that the centre of the source is aligned
with the centre of the member and as close to the surface as possible. It is noted that the use of a
centralising jig is a requirement for testing pipes in Intico's Testing Procedure for the "Lixi Profiler".
The current bracket arrangement the "Lixi Profiler" is mounted on limits the access along the girder to
approximately 300mm from the end of the corbel. "Intico" are aware of the issues associated with the
current arrangement of the equipment and have indicated that they would modify the mounting bracket
should the "Lixi Profiler" be included as an inspection method within Main Roads inspection regime,
however the modifications were not considered economic in the evaluation phase.

Extracts from reports provided by "Intico" are included to illustrate the information provided. The
report is concise and provides the results of all scans. The percentage loss is included on the vertical
axis of the plots produced in addition to the recorded material thickness, and the condition state
criteria defined in the BIM can then be applied to the results to determine the condition of the member.
It is noted that the girder sizes are required to be measured and the measurements shown on the record
of the scan to illustrate the percentage loss of section.

The time taken to investigate a timber bridge member using the "Lixi Profiler" is typically 2 minutes
per longitudinal scan of a member such as a girder or pile. Inspection of bridges less than 3m high and
over dry waterways, can be conducted from the ground as illustrated in section 3.2.1. However, if the
bridge is higher and/or there is water under the bridge, then the under bridge inspection unit (UBIU) or
similar equipment is required as for a conventional drilling inspection and the time and cost of the
inspection is increased accordingly.

3.2.5 Health and Safety

As noted above, the "Lixi Profiler" technology utilizes low-level gamma radiation and therefore the
health and safety of staff must be considered with regard to any recommendation for the use of such
equipment within the Departments inspection regime. Documentation provided by "Intico" states the
following. "The technology utilizes low-level gamma radiation, which has been approved by the QLD
Health Department. It is safe for the operators as well as for the members of public. There are no
safety requirements to restrict access to the area while scanning is in progress."

23 December 2003 Page 14 of 27

3.3 Recommendations

The accuracy of the "Lixi Profiler" is considered appropriate for determining the deterioration of
timber bridge members, based on the results of investigations conducted to date and the condition state
levels defined in the Bridge Inspection Manual.

Based on the health and safety information obtained on the "Lixi Profiler", the equipment is
considered to be safe. However, BAM will continue to monitor research, developments and
requirements associated with the health and safety issues of the equipment.

BAM recommends that the "Lixi Profiler" is used in conjunction with either conventional drilling or
"Resistograph" inspection methods, however the "Lixi Profiler" may be used as the sole NDT method
if additional investigations are conducted as detailed in section 5.1.3.

It is recommended that modifications be made to the "Lixi Profiler" equipment to ensure that the
centre of the source is aligned with the centre of the member and as close to the surface as possible
and the thickness of the member along the scan is recorded against distance.

Where "Intico" are engaged by Districts or RoadTek to conduct investigations using the "Lixi
Profiler", it is recommended that BAM are informed to monitor the performance, service,
implementation and cost of the inspections. The contacts at "Intico" are listed below.
ƒ "Intico" Melbourne, Wolfgang Mika, Manager, Power Generation Division and Vladimir
Kurbalija, "Lixi Profiler" Technician, phone 03 9350 4366.
ƒ "Intico" Brisbane, Keith Langdon, Manager Queensland, phone 07 3216 7771.

4 Investigation of the "Resistograph" (resistance drilling),

NDT method

4.1 Background

The "Resistograph" is a quasi non-destructive testing method, which measures the resistance of the
timber to the advancement of a small 1.4mm diameter drill bit. The "Resistograph" is illustrated in
Figure 2 below. The drill is advanced at a constant speed through the timber and the recorded
resistance provides a measure of the density of the material through the sample. The "Resistograph"
produces a real-time graph of the relative magnitude of the torque required by the drill to keep the bit
moving at a constant speed, against the depth of penetration. This graph is also stored in the onboard
computer.

23 December 2003 Page 15 of 27

Tree Testing Australia (TTA) was engaged by BAM to inspection and assessment services for trials
using the "Resistograph". The "Resistograph" is made in Germany by IML. "TTA" is division of
IML Australia and are the sole distributor of the "Resistograph" in Australia and New Zealand. TTA's
office is located near Toowoomba.

Information provided by "TTA" also states that, "Resistograph assessments have the advantage of
being less invasive (the 2mm hole is self sealing on withdrawal of the probe) and more accurate than
core sampling and ultra-sound." The back sealing of the test hole, limits the opportunity for moisture
ingress or the initiation of decay and the effect of the drilling on the overall structural system.

The inspections conducted to date have been at a contract rate of $550 per day. "TTA" have indicated
that there are several options available to Main Roads including purchase or lease of equipment, or an
inspection service contract. The F300S "Resistograph" unit costs $10,550 plus GST, and additional
costs for training. A lease plan is also available at a cost of $650 per month for a F300S
"Resistograph" unit over a 24 month period, including full warranty and training.

The investigations at Bremer River Bridge included drilling 37 test holes using the "Resistograph" and
took 1 day to complete in the field and 1½ days to prepare the report at a cost of $1375 plus GST. The
testing at Bremer River Bridge drilled only defective locations identified by the "Lixi Profiler" and the
time taken was increased due access limitations which required the use of the UBIU while minimising
traffic delays to 15 minutes on a single lane bridge.

Investigations using the "Resistograph" take approximately 5 minutes, which allows for changing of
batteries, paper indicators, computer identification codes and drill bits. Based on the rates provided by
"TTA" and BAM's experience with regard to the time taken to complete inspections conducted to date,
BAM provide the following cost estimate for inspections using the "Resistograph".

ƒ Inspection of all members on a typical 4 span bridge with 4 girders per span and 3 piles per
pier group will require approximately 126 drill holes using the "Resistograph" to drill at the
locations illustrated in Figure 14. For a bridge which is easily accessible, it is estimated that it
will take 2 days in the field to complete the inspection and cost approximately $2000+GST.
This cost includes the "Resistograph", 1 technician and associated reporting, and assumes that
the District or RoadTek provide an assistant.

ƒ Inspection of all members on a typical 4 span bridge which requires access equipment such as
the UBIU and where access is also limited due to requirements on duration of traffic
disruptions, is estimated to take 3½ days. The cost for the inspection is estimated at
$3000+GST. This cost includes the "Resistograph", 1 technician and associated reporting,
and assumes that the District or RoadTek provide an assistant.

It is noted that the cost of any access equipment such as the UBIU and any associated traffic control is
additional to the costs detailed above.

23 December 2003 Page 16 of 27

4.2 Assessment & Validation

BAM have conducted two trials to investigate the application of the "Resistograph" to the inspection
of timber bridge members following initial testing conducted by Southern Region in August 2002.
The trials conducted by BAM included investigation of individual girders in conjunction with
laboratory testing and the investigation of the Bremer River timber bridge.

4.2.1 Typical Investigation and Results

Initial investigations with the "Resistograph" were carried out using the 500mm model, however it was
found that the 300mm model was more appropriate for timber bridge inspections. "Resistograph"
investigations conducted by BAM in the laboratory and at Bremer River were completed using the
300mm model. Standard timber bridge members are less than 600mm in diameter and therefore the
300mm "Resistograph" penetrates more than half the thickness of the member as required.

The "Resistograph" drilling produces a real time print out and also stores the test results electronically.
"TTA" processes the electronic data to highlight the deteriorated regions and provide comments on the
assessment of the test.

Figure 8- The "Resistograph" being loaded with paper to record the test.

23 December 2003 Page 17 of 27

Each drill test is identified by a unique code, which is programmed into the "Resistograph". This code
is in a number in the format ## / ##, and the corresponding span and girder number, drill location
along the member and the orientation of the "Resistograph" were recorded for each drill test.

The "Resistograph" was aligned with the girder in accordance with the timber drilling guidelines.

Figure 9a - Horizontal test using the "Resistograph" Figure 9b - Vertical test using the "Resistograph"

At the end of each test the unique code was written on the paper printout. Any comments regarding
possible problems with the reading were recorded on the printout. At the end of each day the
electronic file was downloaded to a computer for storage of the data.

Analysis of the drilling data was undertaken by "TTA" and electronic records of the tests were
provided. The electronic record includes a summary of the section and test details and highlights the
areas of deterioration identified by the test.

Several test members were cut into sections to verify the section properties. The correlation of the
"Resistograph" test printout to the timber section is illustrated in Figures 10 and 11.

23 December 2003 Page 18 of 27

 Decay / rot at
centre of girder

Line of "Resistograph" drill Splitting / cracking

(girder 500mm diameter) from edge of girder

Figure 10 –Correlation between reduction in resistance and deterioration of section, in particular

splitting/cracking from edge of girder and decay/rot in the centre of the section.

Line of "Resistograph" drill Knot / defect in girder

Decay / rot / pipe at

centre of girder

Figure 11 – Correlation between reduction in resistance and deterioration of section, in particular

identification of knots/defects and decay/rot/pipe in the centre of the section.

23 December 2003 Page 19 of 27

A typical processed drill report is shown in Figure 12. In general the results are presented clearly with
both a visual and numerical interpretation of the degree of piping in the member. The use of this
colour coding system provides the client with a detailed understanding of the state of the member.

Figure 12 - "Resistograph" processed drill record

4.2.2 Discussion

The "Resistograph" provides significant advantages over traditional drilling methods. The 1.4mm drill
bit is smaller than the standard 12mm drill bit and has a negligible effect on the overall structural
system. The drill is advanced at a constant speed through the timber and the density of the material is
determined from the recorded resistance and therefore does not rely on the operators experience or
judgement. A real-time graph is produced which illustrates resistance against depth of penetration,
hence the location of deterioration within the member is evident from the printout.

Initial tests conducted using the "Resistograph" identified problems with the drill bits breaking,
however there have been no such problems with the more recent testing conducted at Bremer River
bridge. Two drill bits were broken during the laboratory testing conducted by BAM, however these
occurred when the "Resistograph" battery failed and the drilling had to be restarted with the drill
embedded in the member. There were no problems with the "Resistograph" battery during the testing
conducted at Bremer River bridge.

23 December 2003 Page 20 of 27

Testing conducted in the laboratory on members with significant cracking defects, identified the
importance of ensuring that the drill is not positioned directly on a crack or within 20mm of the crack
to reduce the likelihood of the "Resistograph" following the path of least resistance, along the crack.
This also highlighted the importance of conducting a visual inspection of the girder at the drill location
and recording this information for use in conjunction with the "Resistograph" results, to ensure that
cracks are correctly identified and not misinterpreted as pipe or rot defects within the member.

Figure 13 – Processed "Resistograph" test result with cracking in the outer 90mm of the section.

The red line on the picture of the girder in Figure 13 indicates the approximate "Resistograph" test
path. Examination of the photo indicated that there are no voids in the first 1-9cm of the girder which
were initially predicted from the "Resistograph" tests record. However, further examination of the
cross-section revealed cracking extending towards the heart of the girder. Hence it was concluded that
due to the timber being softer in the location around the cracks that the resistance is lower in the outer
region of the girder.

The recorded depth of penetration of the "Resistograph" was 210mm to 280mm through girders
355mm to 435mm in diameter, which is over half the section thickness but did not penetrate
completely through the section. Where the initial horizontal drill identified defects a second drill
perpendicular to the first was completed to provide further information on the size and location of the
defect. The West Australian Main Roads Department specify three drill holes at any timber section
one vertically and two horizontally from each side of the member, to enable the size and location of
the deterioration to be accurately determined. It is also considered necessary to include at least one
additional horizontal drill at a location 100mm above the girder centreline to ensure v-shaped rot
deterioration in the top of the girder can be identified or quantify the deterioration if identified by the
"Lixi Profiler".

The "Resistograph" has a small contact area and no anchoring system. Since the girder surfaces are
curved the stability of the equipment during drilling may be compromised. It is recommended that a
mounting bracket similar to that used on concrete coring units be adapted for the "Resistograph" to
lock the unit into location for the drilling test.

23 December 2003 Page 21 of 27

A benefit of determining the material properties of members investigated using the "Resistograph" is
that the information may be used to assess the correlation between the measured resistance and the
various material species. This knowledge may enable material species to be determined from the
"Resistograph" tests in the future.

4.3 Recommendations

The accuracy of the "Resistograph" is considered appropriate for determining the deterioration of
timber bridge members, based on the results of investigations conducted to date and the condition state
levels defined in the Bridge Inspection Manual.

BAM recommend that the "Resistograph" is used in conjunction with the "Lixi Profiler", however the
"Resistograph" may be used as the sole NDT method as detailed in section 5.

It is recommended that a mounting bracket similar to that used on concrete coring units be adapted for
the "Resistograph" to lock the unit into location for the drilling test to improve the stability during
drilling.

It is recommended that the 300mm long drill bit recommended for testing of timber bridge members,
to reduce the likelihood of the drill bit breaking during the investigations.

An adequate power source for the "Resistograph" is required to be provided for all investigations to
reduce the likelihood of problems during testing. "TTA" can provide guidance on the appropriate
power source required.

Where "Tree Testing Australia" is engaged by Districts or RoadTek to conduct investigations using
the "Resistograph", it is recommended that BAM are informed to monitor the performance, service,
implementation and cost of the inspections.

The contact at "TTA" is Peter Blank, phone 0418 709 846.

23 December 2003 Page 22 of 27

5 Recommendations for Implementation of the "Lixi
Profiler" and "Resistograph" NDT methods

BAM recommend that the "Lixi Profiler" and "Resistograph" NDT methods be used in conjunction to
produce consistent and reliable condition data on the condition of timber bridge members. This
information in conjunction with member species and stress grade can then be applied to determine
accurate bridge capacities based on generic code values and assist in the efficient management of
heavy vehicle movements.

Where "Intico" or "Tree Testing Australia" are engaged by Districts or RoadTek to conduct
investigations using the "Lixi Profiler" or "Resistograph", it is recommended that BAM are informed
to monitor the performance, service, implementation and cost of the inspections.

Guidelines for the implementation of the "Lixi Profiler" and "Resistograph" non-destructive testing
methods provided in the following sections and guidelines for conventional drilling are provided in
section 2.

In addition to the requirements for Level 2 inspection detailed in the BIM, the information listed
below is required to provide a comprehensive record for capacity assessment of timber members.
ƒ All bridge components are to be numbered in accordance with the requirements of the BIM.
ƒ It is recommended that the material species and stress grading of all members be determined. The
requirements for these investigations will be detailed in an Advice Note to be released January
2004.
ƒ The thicknesses of the members at the end and middle and test locations along the member are
required to be measured and recorded.
ƒ Locations of all NDT and conventional drilling investigations are to be recorded and numbered for
reference.

5.1 Application of the "Lixi Profiler" and the "Resistograph" or

Conventional Drilling

ƒ The "Lixi Profiler" is required to be calibrated if the thickness measurement is to be used as an

absolute measure of sound material in the member. Alternatively the results from the
investigations with the "Lixi Profiler" may be used as a relative measure of the deterioration
within the section by reviewing the percentage loss.
o The "Lixi Profiler" may be calibrated against a sample section of material in the
laboratory or based on the material densities stated in the Australian Standard for Timber
Structures AS1720.1 if the member species is known; or
o The "Lixi Profiler" may be calibrated in the field on members where the thickness of the
section can be measured and the internal condition can be verified, such as the ends of
corbels and headstocks.
23 December 2003 Page 23 of 27
ƒ The thickness of the members at end and middle locations along the line of the scan should be
measured using callipers or similar measuring device to verify the calibration of the equipment
and assist in identification of any dozey areas within the member.
ƒ The "Lixi Profiler" is required to be mounted in a centralizing jig/bracket and it is recommended
that the record of the scan is distance-based.
ƒ The recommended investigations using the "Lixi Profiler" and the "Resistograph" are described
below and illustrated in Figure 14.
ƒ It is recommended that the "Lixi Profiler" be used to carryout longitudinal scans along the
centreline of the section of all components in the bridge including girders, corbels, headstocks and
piles to determine defective regions. Additional longitudinal scans at 100mm above centreline of
girders are also required to identify any deterioration in the top of the girder.
ƒ Additional testing is required to quantify the size and location of the deterioration identified by the
longitudinal scans using either the "Resistograph" or Conventional Drilling methods.
o Additional testing is also recommended at critical locations as illustrated in Figure 14 and
at locations which appear suspect from visual inspection but were recorded as sound by
the longitudinal scan, or any locations which were inaccessible with the "Lixi Profiler".
o All drilling should be conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines for either the
"Resistograph" or Conventional Drilling methods as detailed within this document.

5.2 Application of the "Resistograph" only

ƒ The thickness of the members at end and middle locations along the members is required to be
recorded.
ƒ It is recommended that the 300mm long drill bit recommended for testing of timber bridge
members, to reduce the likelihood of the drill bit breaking during the investigations.
ƒ An adequate power source for the "Resistograph" is required to be provided for all investigations
to reduce the likelihood of problems during testing.
ƒ The recommended investigations using the "Resistograph" are described below and illustrated in
Figure 14.
ƒ Drilling tests with the "Resistograph" should be carried out at critical locations described in the
BIM in addition to any areas which appear suspect.
o Care should be taken to avoid drilling completely though the members, and horizontal
drills should be inclined slightly upwards to allow drainage.
o "Resistograph" drills should be made from both faces of girder and corbel members at
each cross section to quantify the location and extent of the deterioration in the member,
as the 300mm long drill bit will only provide information just past the centre of a typical
timber bridge member.
o It is recommended that drill holes be made perpendicular to the face of the member such
that the recorded deterioration is relative to the section size.
o Four test holes are required to be made through each cross section of girder and corbel
members to identify deterioration in the centre of the section and also v-shaped
deterioration in the top of member. These test holes should be located along the centreline
23 December 2003 Page 24 of 27
 of the section and at 50 to 100mm above the centreline of the section as illustrated in
Figure 14 and the "Resistograph" drills should be made from both faces of the member at
each cross section as noted above.
o Where deterioration is identified in the girders from the drilling tests at the locations
illustrated in Figure 3, then additional drilling tests should be carried out at 500mm
intervals along the member until a sound section is identified.
o Where deterioration is recorded in the drilling test at the pile/headstock connection, an
additional drill should be made approximately 500mm along the headstock from the
centreline of the pile.
ƒ It is recommended that the "Resistograph" is not positioned directly on a crack or within 20mm of
a crack to reduce the likelihood of the "Resistograph" following the path of least resistance along
the crack.
ƒ It is recommended that a mounting bracket similar to that used on concrete coring units be adapted
for the "Resistograph" to lock the unit into location for the drilling test to improve the stability
during drilling.

5.3 Application of "Lixi Profiler" only

ƒ The "Lixi Profiler" is required to be calibrated if the thickness measurement is to be used as an

absolute measure of sound material in the member. Alternatively the results from the
investigations with the "Lixi Profiler" may be used as a relative measure of the deterioration
within the section by reviewing the percentage loss.
o The "Lixi Profiler" may be calibrated against a sample section of material in the
laboratory or based on the material densities stated in the Australian Standard for Timber
Structures AS1720.1 if the member species is known; or
o The "Lixi Profiler" may be calibrated in the field on members where the thickness of the
section can be measured and the internal condition can be verified, such as the ends of
corbels and headstocks.
ƒ The thickness of the members at end and middle locations along the line of the scan should be
measured using callipers or similar measuring device to verify the calibration of the equipment
and assist in identification of any dozey areas within the member.
ƒ The "Lixi Profiler" is required to be mounted in a centralizing jig/bracket and it is recommended
that the record of the scan is distance-based.
ƒ The recommended investigations using the "Lixi Profiler" are described below and illustrated in
Figure 14.
ƒ The "Lixi Profiler" should be used to carryout longitudinal scans as detailed above in section
5.1.1.
ƒ Additional testing required to quantify the size and location of the deterioration identified by the
longitudinal scans may include transverse scans with the "Lixi Profiler".
o Additional testing is also recommended at critical locations as illustrated in Figure 14 and
at locations which appear suspect from visual inspection but were recorded as sound by
the longitudinal scan.
23 December 2003 Page 25 of 27
 o The limitation of using the "Lixi Profiler" to conduct the transverse scans compared to a
drilling method is that no information can be obtained for locations which are inaccessible
with the "Lixi Profiler".

23 December 2003 Page 26 of 27

 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
Corbel length (varies)
¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

100
SECTION - DRILL LOCATIONS

ELEVATION OF GIRDERS / CORBELS

SECTION - TRANSVERSE LIXI SCAN

ALL MEMBERS
Denotes Lixi profiler paths - longitudinal scans and
transverse scans at critical locations and identified
defects

GIRDERS / CORBELS
Denotes locations for horizontal drilling

HEADSTOCK / PILES
Denotes critical drill hole location for piles
Denotes critical drill hole location for headstocks

Natural surface

ELEVATION OF HEADSTOCK / PILES

Figure 14 – Inspection Requirements

23 December 2003 Page 27 of 27

 Rating of cracked concrete members
BAM Advice Note No 32
Category: Bridge Inspection - Defect Identification Recording & Rating (Link to Request
- )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A query was raised regarding the rating of a concrete component which was subject to cracking due to
corrosion of the reinforcement. The rating of the defect was dependant on how it was considered, (ie.
considered as cracking, or as spalling and loss of reinforcement due to corrosion). Some clarification
was sought over this issue, and in response the following modifications to the Condition State
descriptions have been made for all concrete members;

Condition State 3:
Moderate cracking caused by structural mechanisms, or;
Moderate or Severe cracking due to non-structural mechanisms, such as corrosion of
reinforcement or ASR, or;
Loss of section of reinforcement due to corrosion of up to 20%

Condition State 4:
Severe cracking caused by structural mechanisms, or;
Loss of section of reinforcement due to corrosion greater than 20% (and the resultant cracking
and spalling this may cause)

The intention is to separate cracking due to structural mechanisms (ie. bending or shear) from
cracking due to non-structural mechanisms (ie. corrosion of reinforcement, or ASR). Please note that
if the inspector is unable to determine the cause of the cracking, or is not 100% confident as to the
cause of the cracking, they are to assume the worst case (ie. cracking caused by structural
mechanisms)

These changes will be incorporated into the Condition State Guidelines as part of the review of the
Bridge Inspection Manual. In the meantime, owners of the manual may wish to include a copy of this
Advice Note in their manuals for future reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 05/07/2004 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
3. Peter Graham 05/07/2004 08:29:25 AM
2. Shane P Crawford 02/07/2004 02:44:09 PM
1. Shane P Crawford 29/06/2004 03:40:51 PM
0. Shane P Crawford 28/06/2004 02:02:57 PM

* Only past five edits are shown

 Recording of Timber Drilling in Accordance with
Advice Note no. 24
BAM Advice Note No 34
Category: Bridge Inspection - Defect Identification Recording & Rating (Link to Request
- )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of queries have been received regarding the drilling methodology outlined in Advice
Note no. 24, and the recording of associated drilling records.

Advice Note no. 24 outlines a required series of drilling locations for timber bridges, and also
specifies that where deterioration is identified, additional test drills should be carried out at
500mm intervals along the member until a sound section is located, allowing the inspector to
determine the extent of the deterioration in the girder.

There has been some discussion of appropriate intervals for determining the extent of rot within a
member. The following drilling process should be followed;

Take the standard required drills (i.e. E1, MS, E2 for a girder), in accordance with BIM
and issued advice notes.
If rot or piping is found at one of these locations, go back and take drills at 500mm
intervals until the extent of the rot has been determined
If rot or piping is found in a similar location at two or more of these areas, it may be
prudent to take the additional drills at the quarter points of the member to determine continuity
of the rot.

The table shown below gives some guidance as to additional drilling requirements for a given
situation

! "

The objective of drilling is to determine presence, extent and magnitude of any internal
defects. Additional drilling should be minimised where possible.

Recording of this information is to be as follows;

 Drill information from required locations is to be detailed fully on the Timber Drilling
Survey Report (B2/5).
Information from additional test drills is to be entered into the relative ‘Comments’ field

The example shown below indicates the desired format in accordance with the drilling
requirements as outlined in Advice Note no 24.

A girder is test drilled at three locations (each end and midspan). The horizontal drill (H) is
taken at the middle of the girder, and another drill (O) is taken at the same location,
approximately 100mm above the horizontal drill. End 1 and Midspan drill solid, but rot is found
at End 2. Test drills are taken at 500mm intervals, moving towards midspan, until solid sections
are located.

# $ # $%

Note that for the second horizontal drill, the ‘diameter’ shall be the width of the member in the
direction of drilling, at the point at which the drill is taken. The ‘diameter’ and amounts of solid
and consumed material at this point shall be entered into the Timber Drilling Survey as per usual.

Condition State Ratings for the member shall be adopted from the existing consumption
percentages for the relevant members (i.e. for a girder, 21-35% at the End location). However,
should the inspector observe movement under load of the decking planks / spiking planks
relative to the girders (as a result of lack of support from the girder due to significant ‘canoeing’)
the then the member shall be automatically rated as CS 4.

Please also note that it shall be deemed unnecessary to drill new timber elements for up to 2-4
years after they are installed, provided they show no indication of deterioration within that time.
Such indicators might be;

Noticeable excessive deflection relative to adjacent members

Evidence of crushing at girder ends
Presence of fruiting bodies on the member
Evidence of termite nests in the vicinity, or wet patches on the member
Signs of new / developing splits in the member (indicative of overstress due to loss of
section)

This information will be incorporated into the Bridge Inspection Manual as part of the current
review. In the interim, it is recommended that owners of Bridge Inspections Manuals include a
copy of this Advice Note in their manuals for future reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 08/07/2004 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
3. Shane P Crawford 13/10/2004 05:03:08 PM
2. Shane P Crawford 13/10/2004 05:02:53 PM
1. Peter Graham 08/07/2004 11:50:02 AM
0. Shane P Crawford 08/07/2004 11:56:07 AM
Timber Drilling Survey Report B2/5 Sheet
1 Of 1
Structure ID................................... Bridge Name .....................................................
Crossing.......................................... Road Number ...................................................
Chainage...................(km) on the ....................................................to ...............................................Road
District............................................ Local Authority ................................................
Inspector......................................... Date of Inspection.............................................
Component Location Test Details Test Results Comments
(mm)

Condition State
% Consumed
(H, V, Other)
Modification

Orientation
Component

Standard

Diameter

Diameter
Location
Number

(mm)
Group

Solid

Pipe
Rot
O S1 G1 22 480 E1 12 H 480 0 1
O S1 G1 22 320 E1 12 O 320 0 1 100mm above horizontal drill
O S1 G1 22 490 MS 12 H 490 0 1
O S1 G1 22 330 MS 12 O 330 0 1 100mm above horizontal drill
O S1 G1 22 480 E2 12 H 300 180 38 4 Test drills taken as follows;
500mm - 400S, 80R: 1000mm - 480S
O S1 G1 22 320 E2 12 O 260 60 23 3 100mm above horizontal drill
Test drills taken as follows; 500mm - 320S

% Consumed
* Test Locations CS 2 CS 3 CS 4
Component Defect Location (Abbreviation) (Describe Other (O) in comments) E MS E MS E MS
Pile Pipe Top (T), Ground Level (GL), Other (O) 20 20 35 35 50 50
Girder Pipe End1 (E1), Midspan (MS), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 20 30 35 50 50 70
Corbel Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 20 20 35 35 50 50
Headstock1 Edge Area End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 5 5 10 10 20 20
Headstock2 Pipe End1 (E1), End 2 (E2), Other (O) 45mm 45mm 65mm 65mm 90mm 90mm
Other Component Enter relevant component code and describe location in comments field.
1. Area of headstock (%) for external loss of section (top, bottom or sides).
2. Maximum pipe diameter (mm) in headstock for internal piping defects.
 Measurement of Scour
BAM Advice Note No 37 Draft
Category: Bridge Inspection - Procedures (Link to Request - )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scour is the result of flowing water eroding material from the bed and banks of a stream and is
the cause of the majority of bridge failures. Scour can occur as a general degradation of the
stream bed, or can be a localised scour directly attributable to the presence of the bridge.
Localised scour can occur as either constriction scour, where the bridge and it’s approaches
constrict the flow leading to an increase in flow velocities through the bridge opening, or as
localised scour at piers and abutments. Scour may occur dramatically during a significant flood
event or gradually over a period of several years.

The mechanics of flow and erosion in mobile bed open channels is not well understood. Scour at
bridge crossings in a riverine environment is a result of a complex interaction between river flow,
highly variable channel materials, and bridge structure configuration. It is important to
appreciate that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the estimation of bridge scour and in the
parameters affecting bridge scour such as river hydrology and sediment transport estimates.

Therefore, the reliable measurement of scour during bridge inspections is important in the
consideration of the long-term structural integrity of bridges. It is felt that the process of tracking
and recording of scour is not covered sufficiently in the Bridge Inspection Manual, and
consequentially is not consistently quantified in the field.

The current practice is essentially a qualitative assessment with the aim of detecting and
reporting emerging scour issues. However, without reference to a control level this is difficult
when scour occurs as a gradual degradation of the stream bed resulting from a number of flood
events taking place over several years, and assessment taking place intermittently during bridge
inspections.

Therefore, the reliable checking of the bridge waterway for either stream bed degradation or
aggradation can only be made by the measurement of the stream bed level to a permanent local
reference point. The following process, referred to as ‘sounding’, shall be adopted as an integral
part of a Level 2 inspection;

If the stream bed is exposed, then the sounding height from the top of the kerb or other
convenient permanent feature (such as the top of a concrete parapet), is to be measured down
to the stream bed at midspan and at either end of each span on the upstream side of the
bridge, or;
If there is standing water at a bridge site then the sounding height from the kerb or other
permanent reference feature on the bridge superstructure is to be measured down to the water
surface, and then down to the stream bed at midspan and at either end of each span on the
upstream side of the bridge;
Where localised scour holes are identified, the inspector shall take stream bed measurements
 at 1.0m intervals each side from the reference point at which the local scour was identified.
Measurements shall be taken until the extent of the localised scour has been determined.

Measurements shall be taken using a standard 30m measuring tape with a small weight (1-2 kg
approx.) fastened to the end. The measurements and sounding locations shall be recorded on the
Bridge Scour Soundings Report (B2/7). If possible, the location from which the measurement
was taken shall be marked discretely on the structure. Inspectors shall endeavour to take
measurements from these same locations at future inspections, to aid the repeatability of the
process.
After the first round of ‘soundings’ has been completed, inspectors shall ensue that they
document stream bed ‘sounding’ depths from the previous inspection on the B2/7 form for
comparison with readings obtained during the current inspection.

Refer to the attached diagram and completed B2/7 form for further guidance on this process.

This information (and inclusion of a blank proforma of Form B2/7) will be incorporated into the
Bridge Inspection Manual as part of the current review. In the interim, it is recommended that
owners of the Bridge Inspection Manual include a copy of this Advice Note in their manuals for
future reference.

Scour - Level B2_7 form.docAdvice Note No 37.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
0. Shane P Crawford 25/08/2004 02:33:20 PM

* Only past five edits are shown

Bridge Scour Soundings Report B2/7 Sheet
Of

Structure ID ........................................................... Bridge Name ................................................................

Crossing .................................................................. Road Number ..............................................................
Inspector ................................................................. Local Authority ..........................................................

Date of Inspection .................................................. Date of Next Inspection .............................................

Chainage…………(km) on the …………….………….…………to .......................................................... Road
Sounding Permanent Sounding Depth (m) Comments
Location Reference
Feature Stream bed

Condition State
Water Surface

Top of kerb, deck

Modification

or concrete

Difference
Location

Previous

parapet Current
Group

O S1 E1 Top of kerb - 6.2 6.2 0 1

O S1 MS Top of kerb 7.1 7.7 7.8 0.1 1
O S1 E2 Top of kerb 7.1 8.6 8.4 0.2 2
O S2 E1 Top of kerb 7.1 8.8 8.9 0.1 1
O S2 MS Top of kerb 7.1 9.5 8.9 0.6 3 Possible accumulation of material at midspan; monitor
O S2 E2 Top of kerb 7.1 8.8 8.7 0.1 1
O S3 E1 Top of kerb 7.1 8.8 8.8 0 1
O S3 MS Top of kerb 7.1 8.5 8.2 0.3 2
O S3 E2 Top of kerb 7.1 8.1 10.4 2.3 4 Possible localised scour; 1m back = 11.2m;
2m back = 11.1m; 3m back = 8.6m; 1m forward = 8m
Void approx. 4m wide, may have undercut footing.
Footing to be rated CS4, underwater inspection req’d
O S4 E1 Top of kerb 7.1 7.6 7.5 0.1 1
O S4 MS Top of kerb - 6.3 6.3 0 1
O S4 E2 Top of kerb - 5.7 5.6 0.1 1

Sounding Locations Depth (metres)

CS 1 CS 2 CS 3 CS 4
Group Location (Abbreviation)
Local scour

Local scour

Local scour

Local scour
Change in

Change in

Change in

Change in
depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

depth

0.2 to 0.5 to 0.5 to

Span End1 (E1), Midspan (MS), End 2 (E2), Other (O) < 0.2 < 0.5 2 to 4 > 1.0 > 4.0
0.49 1.99 1.0
 Bridge Inspection Manual - Interim Advice Note #1
Review of allowable snipe depth bands for Condition
State Guidelines
BAM Advice Note No 39
Category: Bridge Inspection - Defect Identification Recording & Rating (Link to Request -
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the course of discussions with Roadtek regarding the current allowable snipe depths for timber
components 22T and 27T, it was determined that the lack of a Condition State 1 category for snipes
was causing some problems for inspectors.

In response, the allowable snipe depth bands have been revised to incorporate a snipe limit which
enables those members with a snipe depth up to 5% of the depth of the member to be rated as
Condition State 1. This alteration is unlikely to have a significant impact on existing ratings, but allows
for the aggradation of Condition State due to the increase in sinpe depth, which is more in line with the
philosophy of the Bridge Inspection Manual. Updated Condition State descriptions for components
22T and 27T have been attached below, the the modified portions shown in red. Also attached below
is a nomograph developed by Dave Dreier, showing the Condition State snipe bands for girders of
various diameters.

The current Condition State bands related to snipe depth are based on the structural limits of
rectangular timber test members in accordance with the Australian Standard. The round Queensland
hardwood members commonly used in DMR timber bridges may have reserves of strength in excess
of the rectangular test members, but until this can be verified, BAM have a duty of care and a
professional obligation to conform to the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard.

Research into the capacity of Queensland hardwood members is in progress, and there is some
indication that excessive sniping has an adverse effect on the capacity of a member, but due to the
inherent variability of timber as a material, we have been unable to confirm the extent of this effect.

It is hoped that, over time, and through the collection of timber member data in accordance with the
Bridge Inspection Manual, the department shall eventually have sufficient information to determine the
degree of relevance of snipe depth to the capacity of round timber members.

22T and 27T.doc Condition State Calculation_Snipes in Timber Gird

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 27/04/2005 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
3. Shane P Crawford 15/08/2005 08:47:38 AM
2. Shane P Crawford 15/08/2005 08:47:30 AM
1. Peter Graham 27/04/2005 11:19:45 AM
0. Shane P Crawford 27/04/2005 10:03:16 AM

* Only past five edits are shown

Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D April 2005

COMPONENT 22T OPEN GIRDERS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all timber stringers such as round or octagonal hewn timber logs and
saw cut timber sections. Note: Pipe rot is quoted as a percentage of the diameter of the
girder, while snipe depth is quoted as a percentage of the depth of the girder (which is
essentially the diameter of the girder minus the depth of the contact flat or ‘benching’ on the
upper face of the girder). Please note that where snipes have been treated in accordance with
the recommendations in Advice Note No. 23, they may be ignored for the purpose of rating
the member (but their presence should be noted on the Timber Drilling Survey Report). If
the treatment is not performing as desired, the member must be repaired or replaced.

Condition State 1

The girders are in good condition with little or no pipe rot or decay. There may be minor
splits or checks having no effect on member strength. Girder to corbel bolts are tight. Depth
of snipes may be up to 5% of the depth of the girder.

Condition State 2

Girders are in good condition and may have pipe rot/termite attack (including the depth of the
end snipe) of up to 30% of the diameter at midspan and/or 20% at the supports. They may
also have minor surface or non-central decay, fire damage, splitting, checking or crushing but
not of sufficient magnitude to affect the strength of the member. Depth of snipes may range
from 6% to 10% of the depth of the girder. Girder to corbel bolts are slightly loose.

Condition State 3

Girders have a reasonable amount of pipe rot/termite attack (including the depth of the end
snipe) of up to 50% at midspan and/or 35% at the supports. They may have large splits or
checks which may reduce the strength of the member. Splits may be separating under load
causing crushing of the member, or crushing may be due to water ingress softening the load
bearing areas of the timber. Depth of snipes may range from 11% to 15% of the depth of the
girder. There may be a medium amount of surface or non-central decay or fire damage
present. Girder to corbel bolts are loose or corroding.

Condition State 4

The timber girders may have excessive pipe rot/termite attack (including the depth of end
snipes) of up to 70% at midspan and/or 50% of the supports, accompanied by severe splitting
or crushing. Strength of the member has been severely affected and failure may be imminent.
Depth of snipes may range from 16% to 30% of the depth of the girder. There may be severe
surface or non-central decay, fire damage or possibly large rot holes present. Girder to corbel
bolts may be very lose, with threads or nuts severely corroded.

NOTE: Members with pipe rot/termite attack/snipes in excess of the values shown in
Condition State 4 are critical and should be replaced immediately.

22T
Bridge Asset Management BRIDGE INSPECTION MANUAL
Structures Division APPENDIX D April 2005

COMPONENT 27T CORBELS TIMBER

Units of measurement: Each

This element includes all timber corbels whether they be round or octagonal hewn or sawn
log, or sawn timber blocks. Note: Pipe rot is quoted as a percentage of the diameter of the
member, while snipe depth is quoted as a percentage of the depth of the corbel (which is
essentially the diameter of the corbel minus the depth of the contact flat or ‘benching’ on the
upper face of the corbel).

Condition State 1

The corbels are in good condition with no termite attack or decay though there may be minor
splits or checks having no effect on strength. The ends of the corbels show no pipe rot and
connections to the substructure and girders are tight. Depth of snipes may be up to 5% of the
depth of the corbel.

Condition State 2

The corbels may have minor termite attack, decay, splitting, checking or crushing but not of
sufficient magnitude to affect their strength. The corbels may have up to 20% pipe rot at the
ends. Connections to the substructure or girders may be slightly loose. Depth of snipes may
range from 6% to 10% of the depth of the corbel.

Condition State 3

Corbels may have moderate termite attack, rot or decay, splitting, checking or crushing which
may have a minor effect on strength. Corbels may have up to 35% pipe rot at the ends.
Connections to the substructure or girders may be quite loose and the corbels rock slightly
under load. Depth of snipes may range from 11% to 18% of the depth of the corbel. Bolts
may be moderately corrosion.

Condition State 4

Heavy rot, termite attack, decay, splitting, or crushing have a marked effect on the strength
and serviceability of the corbel. Corbels may have up to 50% pipe rot at the ends.
Connections to the substructure or girders are very loose and the corbels rock noticeably
under load. Depth of snipes may range from 19% to 25% of the depth of the corbel. Bolts
may be severely corroded.

NOTE: Members with pipe rot/termite attack/snipes in excess of the values shown in
Condition State 4 are critical and should be strengthened or replaced immediately.

27T
 SNIPE DEPTH (mm)

200
185
190
195
170
175
180
160
165
145
150
155
130
135
140
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

115
120
125
45
50
55
60
65
70
75

105
110
80
85
90
95
100
300 25 3 5 7 8 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 43 45 47 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 60 62 63 65 67
310 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 13 15 16 18 19 21 23 24 26 27 29 31 32 34 35 37 39 40 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 53 55 56 58 60 61 63 65
320 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 13 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 31 33 34 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 53 55 56 58 59 61 63
330 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 29 30 32 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 44 45 47 48 50 52 53 55 56 58 59 61
340 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 18 19 21 22 24 25 26 28 29 31 32 34 35 37 38 40 41 43 44 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 56 57 59
350 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 33 34 36 37 39 40 41 43 44 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 56 57
360 1 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 15 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 26 28 29 31 32 33 35 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 56
370 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 14 15 16 18 19 20 22 23 24 26 27 28 30 31 32 34 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 51 53 54
380 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 22 24 25 26 28 29 30 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 51 53
390 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 49 50 51
GIRDER DIAMETER (mm)

400 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 48 49 50
410 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 48 49
420 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 48
430 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 47
440 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
450 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
460 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
470 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43
480 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42
490 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
510 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
520 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38
530 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
540 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
550 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36
560 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
570 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35
580 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 34
590 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 34
600 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 33

08/08/2006 Condition State Calculation_Snipes in Timber Girders.xls Page 1 of 1

 Bridge Inspection Manual
Interim Amendment 2
BAM Advice Note No 46
Category: Bridge Inspection - Other (Link to Request - )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the release of the Bridge Inspection Manual, users of the document have identified areas within
the manual requiring corrections, improvements, or further clarification. Until such time as a formal
amendment to the Manual is issued, the Advice Notes system shall be used to issue the relevant
information to Manual users. Manual holders should include a copy of this Advice Note in Appendix H
of their copy of the Bridge Inspection Manual

This Advice Note covers additional Rating advice for Timber Headstocks and Piles - please find
attached the corrected Condition State Descriptions for the relevant components, with the additional
portions shown in red

56T.doc 54T.doc

BIM - IA 2.1: Supplementary Rating Advice for Timber Headstocks

The following rules shall apply when rating a timber headstock;

z If any part of the Headstock has a CS4 defect, then the entire member is
rated as CS4 (ie. a CS4 defect at one end of a headstock = entire headstock
rated as CS4)

z If 3 or more CS3 defects are found within the same area of a member then
the area (and therefore the member) shall be rated as being CS4

z The inspector may still deem an area with 2 defects of CS3 to be of

sufficiently poor condition to rate the area (and member) as CS4 - this shall
be left to the discretion of the inspector

Deterioration factors that shall be considered in addition to ‘rot’ when

determining the condition state of a timber headstock, are;

z termite attack;
z crushing at supports;
z moderate splitting over supports or in ends - the TBMM says if the split over
a bearing support is half depth of member its capacity is reduced by 50%;
z sagging beneath girders with minor moment cracks;
z loose bolted connections - no need to replace - simply tighten;
z corrosion of bolts;
z no bearing support (on pile) - hanging off the bolts;
z oversized bolt holes;
z condition of pile heads - little support to bolted connections;
z headstock splice in poor condition - pulling apart;
z up to 10% loss of section - caused by weathering or notching or rot at pile
interface;
z preservative treatment ineffective;
z headstocks sagging or moving under load at pile locations.

Timber Headstocks with End Rot /Defects

The determination of Condition State for timber headstocks with rot or defects in
the ends of the headstock will depend on the dimension ‘D’, which refers to the
length of ‘defect-free’ headstock (free from rot, splits and other defects)
measured from the outer face of the outer pile (refer Figure 1 below);

z Where the end of the headstock is completely free of rot or other defects, it
shall have no bearing on the Condition State of the member;
z Where defects are present, but the ‘D’ is greater than 100mm, the headstock
end (and thus the entire headstock) shall be rated as Condition State 3;
z Where defects are present, and ‘D’ is less than or equal to 100mm, the
headstock shall be rated as Condition State 4

A Condition State 3 defect may be repaired by cutting off the defective portion of
the headstock and treating the exposed end with a suitable preservative and
covering with a tin cap and nail plate, as per the Routine Maintenance specified
on Page 2.111 in the Timber Bridge Maintenance Manual. Please note that this
treatment should be programmed in for all unprotected headstock ends.

FIGURE 1 - Distance 'D'

BIM - IA 2.2: Supplementary Rating Advice for Timber Piles

When the amount of headstock seating on the pile is less than the standard
amount, the chance of vertical splitting occurring below the seating area and
subsequent failure is increased. The following criteria shall be used to
determine the Condition State of the piles based on the amount of headstock
seating;

z Where the following criteria are satisfied, the width of the headstock seating
will have no bearing on the Condition State rating for the pile;
o For 17" diameter piles, where the width of the headstock seating is 70%
of the width of the headstock or greater;
o For 16" diameter piles, where the width of the headstock seating is 60%
of the width of the headstock or greater.
z Where the width of the headstock seating is within the following bands, the
pile seating shall be rated as Condition State 3;
o For 17" diameter piles, where the width varies from 50% - 69%;
o For 16" diameter piles, where the width varies from 50% - 59%.
z Where the width of seating at the pile is less that 50% of the width of the
headstock this is deemed as insufficient headstock seating and the pile
seating shall be rated as Condition State 4.

In order to achieve additional support for CS3 and CS4 piles, the following
remedial actions may be used;
z Where the residual pile thickness is greater than 178mm (as shown in Figure
10.1(a) on Page 2-107 of the Timber Bridge Maintenance Manual),
additional headstock seating may be cut into the pile. A minimum pile width
of 178mm must be maintained.
z Where this is unfeasible, supplementary supports must be added to the
headstock as per Figure 11.1(f) on page 2-143 of the Timber Bridge
Maintenance Manual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 15/08/2005 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
3. Peter Graham 15/08/2005 03:36:58 PM
2. Shane P Crawford 15/08/2005 03:31:07 PM
1. Shane P Crawford 15/08/2005 03:29:09 PM
0. Shane P Crawford 15/08/2005 03:20:27 PM

* Only past five edits are shown

 Component Code Designation for Culvert Wingwalls
BAM Advice Note No 58
Category: Bridge Inspection - Standard Component Identification (Link to Request - )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Condition State Description for culverts (Item Numbers 81, 82 and 83) state that wingwalls are
normally to be covered under Item Number 84, but that inspectors may cover large wingwalls under
Item Number 51. However, no specific criteria is given for determining the correct item number for a
particular structure, leaving the decision up to the judgement of the inspector.

In response to a query from Roadtek personnel, and for the sake of consistency, the following criteria
is provided;

z For culvert wingwalls less than or equal to 2 metres in height, Item Number 84 should be used to
record the condition of the element
z For culvert wingwalls greater than 2 metres in height, Item Number 51 should be used to record
the condition of the element.

This amendment will be included in the BIM when a formal review is carried out, however it is
recommended that owners of Bridge Inspection Manuals include copies of this advice note in their
manuals for future reference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Date : 27/07/2006 Approved by : Peter Graham
Edit History
Rev. Editor Edit Date/Time
1. Peter Graham 27/07/2006 02:13:10 PM
0. Shane P Crawford 24/07/2006 03:11:18 PM

* Only past five edits are shown