Bms Visual Assessment Manual

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
VISUAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL
SEPTEMBER 2002
Version 2.0
Prepared by:
CSIR, Transportek
SYNOPSIS
The aim of this Visual Assessment Manual for bridges is to assist bridge inspectors when doing
visual assessments of bridge structures. The manual consists of Part A with background
information for the assessor, Part B with examples of the various distress types and the degree,
extent, relevancy and urgency ratings and Part C, the visual assessment guide with photographs
illustrating typical defects on a bridge, with an example of the D E R rating for each defect. The
emphasis of the manual is to provide a benchmark for the rating of the D (degree) of various
defects in the DER rating system. Use of the manual should result in greater uniformity between
bridge inspectors and between similar defects on different bridges. This document is Version 2.0
of the Visual Assessment Manual for bridges. As in the case of Version 1.0, the intention of this
document is that road authorities and bridge inspectors evaluate it, comment on its usefulness and
appropriateness, and that an updated version with more defects be developed. Good electronic
photographs of relevant defects would be welcomed in order to improve the usefulness of the
manual, and should be E-mailed to Paul Nordengen at CSIR Transportek at
[email protected].
Visual Assessment Manual for Bridges – Version 2.0 – September 2002 (i)
CONTENTS
Page
SYNOPSIS …………………………………………………………………………… (i)
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION ………………………………………………………... 1
A1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………. 2
A1.1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE …………………………………………... 2

A1.2: LAYOUT OF THE MANUAL ………………………………………………… 2
A2. EVALUATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE ………………………... 2
A3. THE D E R RATING SYSTEM …………………………………………………….. 3
PART B: EXAMPLES OF D E R & U RATINGS ………………………………………….… 7
B1. TYPICAL BRIDGE DEFECTS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DEGREE (D)

RATINGS …………………………………………………………………………….. 8
B2. EXTENT (E) RATING ………………………………………………………………. 12
B3. RELEVANCY (R) RATING AND URGENCY (U) RATING ……………………… 13
PART C: VISUAL INSPECTION GUIDE …………………………………………………….. 25
C1. ITEM 1: APPROACH EMBANKMENT ……………………………………………. 26
C2. ITEM 2: GUARDRAILS ……………………………………………………………... 29
C3. ITEM 3: WATERWAY ………………………………………………………………. 32
C4. ITEM 4: PROTECTION WORKS ………………………………………………….. 35
C5. ITEMS 5, 6,7,10,11,13,14,18,19,20: CONCRETE ELEMENTS ……………….. 38
C5.1: DEFECT TYPE: CRACKING ……………………………………………….. 38

C5.2: DEFECT TYPE: SPALLING ………………………………………………… 44
C5.3: DEFECT TYPE: GENERAL ………………………………………………… 49
C6. ITEM 8: SURFACING ………………………………………………………………. 53
C7. ITEM 9: DRAINAGE ………………………………………………………………… 56
C8. ITEM 15: BEARINGS ………………………………………………………………. 59
C9. ITEM 17: EXPANSION JOINTS …………………………………………………… 62
C10 ITEM 21: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ……………………………………………… 69
Visual Assessment Manual for Bridges – Version 2.0 – September 2002 (ii)
PART A
GENERAL INFORMATION
Visual Assessment Manual for Bridges – Version 2.0 – September 2002 -1-
A1. INTRODUCTION
A1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
CSIR Transportek was appointed by the Bridge Management Systems (BMS) User Group
to develop a Visual Assessment Manual for Bridges (VIMB). The BMS User Group
consists of bridge authorities in South Africa and the SADC region that are using the CSIR
Bridge Management System. This document is version 2 of the Visual Assessment Manual
for Bridges and is an updated version of version 1 of the Visual Inspection Guide for
Bridges.
The aim of this Visual Assessment Manual for Bridges is to assist bridge inspectors when
doing visual assessments of bridge structures. The emphasis of the manual is to provide a
benchmark for the rating of the degree (D) of various defects in the D E R rating system.
Visual assessments can be used for determining:
• Condition indices
• Maintenance and rehabilitation needs
• Priorities at network level
This visual assessment manual is intended for visual assessors of the condition of bridge
structures for the bridge management system and can also be used for the training of
assessors.
A1.2 LAYOUT OF THE MANUAL
The manual comprises three parts:
Part A provides information to the assessor which should be studied as background to the
examples of D E R and U ratings given in Part B and the photographs of bridges
with various types of defects in Part C.
Part B provides examples of the various distress types and the description of the various
degree, extent, relevancy and urgency ratings.
Part C is the visual assessment guide with photographs of bridges illustrating various
distress types with different D E R and U ratings.
A2. EVALUATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE
Whatever type of organisational structure is adopted by an inspecting authority, an

essential requirement of a principle inspection is a written report of the condition of the
structure. Ease, uniformity and completeness of reporting can be enhanced by the use of a
prepared checklist or standard form, completed at the time of the inspection. The checklist,
referred to as the inspection sheet, should remain simple but at the same time cover the
important items and aspects of the bridges in the network. The main advantages are as
follows:
• Facilitate bridge inspections

• Reduce the possibility of items being overlooked
• Improve the uniformity of inspections
• Allow comparisons of results from inspections conducted by different personnel at
different times
The method chosen to inspect bridges is very important in that it is the only tangible record
that can be used for rating of bridges and for the repair budget predictions. Simple and
more precise inspections lead to better and more accurate analyses. The emphasis should
then be on more detailed inspections rather than superficial inspections for more accurate
budget predictions.
Given the complexity of the structural behaviour of bridges it is also very important that the
inspectors are suitably qualified. They should have adequate experience on the design,
construction and maintenance aspects of bridges. To understand the consequence of
defects on the serviceability and safety of the bridge is of vital importance to correctly and
accurately predict the future behaviour of bridge components.
The data collection during inspections is required to be systematic and as accurate as is

practically possible. The bridge is subdivided into major inspection items, as follows:
1. Approach embankments 12. Pier protection works

2. Guardrails 13. Pier foundations
3. Waterway 14. Piers & columns
4. Approach embankment protection work 15. Bearings
5. Abutment foundations 16. Support drainage
6. Abutments 17. Expansion joints
7. Wing/retaining walls 18. Longitudinal members in the
deck
8. Surfacing 19. Transverse members in the
deck
9. Superstructure drainage 20. Deck slab
10. Kerbs/sidewalks 21. Miscellaneous items not
11. Parapets/handrails covered under 1 to 20.
Under each of the above inspection items, a list of remedial work items is identified to
complete the standard checklist. These are referred to as remedial work activity lists, and
are used to record data for each bridge in an orderly way ensuring that all defects are
captured.
In general when rating the main components of a bridge the following important points
should be considered:
• Approaches: Smooth transition onto the bridge, stability of the fill and the probable
effects on the bridge.
• Waterway: Free flow of water under the bridge up to designed capacity, stability of the
waterway and the probable effects on the bridge.
• Superstructure: Structural integrity.
• Substructure: Structural integrity.
• Roadway: Smooth and safe passage over/under the bridge.
A3. THE DER RATING SYSTEM
The essence of a bridge inspection is to identify the defects on a bridge so that they may be
prioritised so that the available funds may be allocated effectively. It is thus important to
rate defects as opposed to giving the respective inspection items an overall condition
rating.
The rating system used during visual assessments of the bridges is called the DER rating
system. The system helps the inspector to focus on the defects on the bridge, and where
an inspection item has no defects the inspector is not required to give it a rating. In this
way, the visual assessment is shortened and it allows the inspector to concentrate on the
problem areas of the bridge. However it may be a requirement of the bridge authority for
the inspector to rate the good items so as to ensure that he has adequately assessed all
parts of the bridge.
A summarized description of the DER & U ratings (as seen on the inspection sheet) is
given below.
D degree of defect: How bad or severe is the defect.
E extent of defect: How common it is on the inspection item being inspected.
R relevancy of defect: The consequences of the defects as they are now with
regards the serviceability of the structure and the safety of the
motorist/ pedestrian.
U urgency to carry out the remedial work: Considers possible future events which
could adversely affect defects and provides
a way of applying direct time limits on the
requirement to do the necessary repair.
The most important rating is to identify the consequences of the defect with regards the
safety and serviceability of the bridge. This coerces the inspector to not just give a visual
rating of the defect but to look at the defect from a global point of view, understanding its
influence on the structural integrity and functionality of the bridge.
Because of the complexity of a bridge, the relevancy rating, “R”, is very important; two
defects that look the same may have significantly different influences on the bridge when
one considers the safety of the motorist.
It is possible to use one overall condition rating to combine the above three ratings but it is
very difficult to be consistent. By considering each of the above ratings separately one can
concentrate on each one without confusing one for the other and consequently obtain a
more accurate rating of defects. It also simplifies the rating procedure and provides a far
more precise picture of the true condition of the bridge to the bridge owner. With this
method, one can also produce more accurate budget predictions and maintenance, repair
and rehabilitation actions to be used for preliminary work schedules used to carry out the
work. In essence, the bridge owner has a clearer and more accurate picture of the
condition of the bridges in the network.
Rating the degree of the defect separately allows more accurate deterioration rate
calculations. One is able to obtain actual rates of deterioration by observing the degree
rating from one inspection to the next.
The rating which gives the consequences of the defect with regard to the safety of the road
user can also be used to optimise the budget on the reduction in risk to the road user,
should a repair with a high rating be carried out first.
More detailed reports can be obtained from the BMS. Whilst maintaining simplicity in
inspections, a high level of detailed information is entered into the computer and enables
the user, should he so desire, to obtain very detailed information on his bridges. Once the
required information has been entered into the system, the advantages are extensive.
D, E, R ratings are required for each inspection item, according to the following table:
Rating Degree Extent Relevancy Urgency
X Not applicable - - -
U Unable to inspect - - -
R - - - Record purpose only
0 None - - Monitor only
1 Minor Local Minimum Routine
2 Fair More than local Moderate < 5yrs
3 Poor Less than general Major < 2yrs
4 Severe General Critical A.S.A.P.
Degree Ratings
• A Degree rating of X is used to indicate that the inspection item is not applicable to
that structure.
• A Degree rating of U is used when it is not possible to inspect the inspection item,
such as a pier or abutment foundation that is below ground level.
• A Degree rating of 0 is used to indicate that there are no visible defects on the
inspection item.
Urgency Ratings
• An Urgency rating of R is used to indicate that the defect identification is for record
purposes only.
• An Urgency rating of 0 is used to indicate that the defect requires monitoring only.
• An Urgency rating of 1 is used to indicate that the remedial work activity is Routine,
but not urgent.
The above rating conventions are summarised in the following table:
Degree Extent Relevancy Urgency Monitor Interpretation

Frequency
Leave
X Leave blank N/A N/A Item not applicable
blank
Leave Item not able to
U Leave blank N/A N/A
blank inspect
Leave
0 Leave blank N/A N/A No defects visible
blank
Must be
1, 2 1 R N/A (1)
entered
1, 2, 3 Must be Must be Must be

0 (2)
or 4 entered entered entered
1, 2, 3 Must be Must be 1, 2, 3 or
Optional (3)
or 4 entered entered 4
(1) Remedial work on the identified defect is not envisaged and the defect identification
(i.e. the selection of a remedial activity) is for record purposes only. In cases where the
Urgency rating is rated as R, the Relevancy rating must be minimum (R=1) and the
Degree rating will generally either be minor or fair (D=1 or 2)
(2) Remedial work on the identified defect is not envisaged for the foreseeable future and
the defect identification (i.e. the selection of a remedial activity) is for defect
identification only, however monitoring at the specified interval (e.g. 6, 12, 24 months
or at the next Principal Inspection) is required.
(3) Remedial work on the identified object is required with an associated Urgency and the
selection of a remedial activity is therefore required. Monitoring at a specified interval
may also be required. All non-routine remedial activities must be given Urgency ratings
from 2 to 4 only. Remedial activities specified as Routine in the picklists, but regarded
by the inspector as urgent, should be given an Urgency rating of 4 and not 1 as would
normally be the case; the Make Safe box should be ticked if user safety is of concern.
In such cases, a comment in the comment column would be appropriate.
PART B
EXAMPLES OF D E R and U RATINGS
Visual Assessment Manual for Bridges – Version 2.0 - September 2002 -7-
B1. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL BRIDGE DEFECTS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DEGREE
(D) RATINGS
Degree (D) – the degree of severity of the defect of the check item under consideration
The possible values for D are given in the table below:
D - DEGREE
Not Unable None Minor Fair Poor Severe
Applicable to
inspect
X U 0 1 2 3 4
Examples of typical bridge defects and their respective degree (D) ratings are given in the table
below:
DEFECTS OBSERVATIONS D
Spalling a. Spalling is shallow and reinforcement is not visible. 1
(All loose concrete b. Spalling is shallow. Reinforcement is partly exposed. No signs of 2

must be broken corrosion.
away to expose
extent of spall) c. Reinforcement is fully exposed. No signs of corrosion. 3
Reinforcement is partly exposed and corroded.
d. Reinforcement is exposed and corroded. Prestress duct is exposed. 4

No signs of corrosion.
Scour or erosion of a. Scour or erosion is shallow. There is no possibility of local collapse. 1
embankment
b. Scour or erosion is shallow. Sides appear stable. There is a small 2
(A hole is possibility of local collapse.
considered deep if
is very difficult or c. Scour or erosion is deep. There is a possibility of local collapse. 3
almost impossible
to climb out of by d. Scour or erosion is deep. Sides are vertical or overhanging. Sides 4
one self) appear unstable. There is a real possibility of local collapse.
Scour of a. Local scour at pier foundation is shallow. Scour has not exposed 1
foundations base of foundation.
b. Local scour at pier foundation is shallow. Scour has partly exposed 2

base of foundation or piles of piled foundation.
c. Local scour at pier founded on piles has exposed not more than a 3
quarter of the pile length of all piles. Scour has exposed erodible
founding material of a spread footing on a small portion of the
perimeter of footing.
d. Scour has exposed erodible founding material of a spread footing. 4

Scour has exposed piles below a pile cap to more than a quarter of
its length.
Settlement of a. Settlement is not more than 50 mm. 1
approach fill
b. Settlement is greater than 50 mm but smaller than 100 mm. 2
c. Settlement is more than 50 mm but smaller than 100mm. There is an 3

abrupt step of the same magnitude in the riding surface at the
abutment bearing sill wall.
d. Settlement is greater than 100 mm. There is an abrupt step of the 4

same magnitude in the riding surface at the abutment bearing sill
wall.
Honeycombing a. Honeycombing is shallow and reinforcement is not visible. 1
(All areas of b. Honeycombing is shallow. Reinforcement is partly exposed. No 2

honeycombed signs of corrosion.
concrete must be
removed to c. Reinforcement is fully exposed, no signs of corrosion; or 3
exposed full extent reinforcement is partly exposed and corroded. Prestress duct is
of damage) partly exposed and no signs of reinforcement.
d. Reinforcement is exposed and corroded. Prestress duct is 4

exposed. No signs of corrosion.
Bending cracks a. Crack is of the order of 0,3 mm with no signs of water or corrosion 1
of reinforcement.
(Crack should be
cleaned. Its width b. Crack is greater than 0,3 mm but smaller or equal to 0,6 mm with 2
and if possible its no signs of water or corrosion of reinforcement.
depth ascertained)
c. Crack is of the order of 0,3 mm and there are signs of water passing 3
through crack and evidence of corrosion of reinforcement.
d. Crack is greater than 0,6 mm with no signs of water or corrosion of 4

reinforcement; or crack is of the order of 0,6 mm with signs of water
passing through crack and evidence of corrosion of reinforcement.
Shear cracks a. Crack is of the order of 0,2 mm and there are no signs of water or 1
corrosion of reinforcement.
(Crack should be
cleaned. Its width b. Crack is greater than 0,2 mm but smaller or equal to 0,3 mm. 2
and if possible its
depth ascertained) c. Crack is greater than 0,3 mm with no signs of water or corrosion of 3
reinforcement.
d. Crack is greater than 0,2 mm but smaller or equal to 0,3 mm and 4

there are signs of water passing through crack and/or evidence of
corrosion of reinforcement.
Defective drains a. Drain is partly silted up. Water flow is restricted but drain is still 1
functional.
b. Drain is in the order of 50% blocked. Water flow is restricted. 2
c. Drain is almost completely blocked. Water flow severely restricted. 3
d. Drain is completely blocked up. No water flow can take place. 4
Defective guardrail a. Bolts are loose and require tightening. 1
b. Precast concrete posts are slightly cracked; or steel posts are bent 2
but still provides support for rail.
c. Bolts are missing; or wood spacers are missing. 3
d. Rail is severely damaged and cannot be repaired; or posts are 4

broken and require replacement.
Lack of cover to a. There are sporadic signs of slight discolouration of concrete face 1
reinforcement indicating start of reinforcement corrosion due to lack of cover.
b. There are clear signs of discolouration of concrete face along length 2

of reinforcing bar.
c. Cracks are visible along the length of the reinforcement but are very 3
small.
d. Local spalling and extensive staining due to corrosion of 4

reinforcement.
Defective a. Potholes and/or surface failure smaller than 100 mm in diameter 1
surfacing and smaller than 15 mm in depth; or
cracks in the surfacing material smaller than 1 mm
b. Potholes and/or surface failure smaller than 150 mm in diameter 2

and smaller than 25 mm in depth; or
cracks in the surfacing material greater than 1 mm and less than 5
mm; or
sporadic loss of skid resistance because of flush binder and/or
polished aggregate; or
ravelling of surface material not exceeding 5 mm; or
depth of rutting not greater than 5 mm.
c. Pot holes or surface failure, 150 mm to 300 mm in diameter and 25 3

to 50 mm in depth; or
cracks greater than 5 mm and smaller 10 mm; or
loss of skid resistance because of flush binder and/or polished
aggregate; or
ravelling of surface material by more than 5 mm and less than 10
mm; or
rutting in excess of 10 mm and less than 20 mm.
d. Potholes or surface failure greater than 300 mm in diameter and 4

deeper than 50 mm; or
cracks greater than 10 mm; or
cracks greater than 5 mm with significant spalling, secondary
cracking or deformation around open cracks; or
loss of skid resistance caused by flush binder and/or severely
polished aggregate; or
ravelling of surface material (aggregate loss) by more than 10 mm.
(When large aggregate are dislodged and there is loss of asphalt
binder, the loose stones become hazardous to passing traffic); or
rutting in excess of 20 mm (water accumulating in these depression
causes hydroplaning of vehicles)
Defective bearings a. Corrosion and debris on bearing and bearing plates that may impair 1
movement.
b. All of c. but to a lesser degree of severity. 2
c. Excessive bulging of sides of elastomeric bearing pads. No cracks 3

are visible due this overloading of bearing; or
excessive shear deforming beyond design limits of elastomeric
bearing pads; or
restriction in designed movements of uni and/or multi-directional
bearings for whatever the reasons; or
deformations in mechanical bearing bottom adapter plate caused by
inadequate grouting of the underside of plates; or
signs of mechanical bearings piston jamming in the pot restricting
vertical and rotational design capabilities of bearing.
d. Misalignment of unidirectional mechanical bearings causing 4

jamming; or cracking and signs of corrosion of internal plates
elastomeric bearing pads; or
deterioration and separation of bearing from bearing place
Defective a. Crack developing between joint and adjoining surfacing. 1
expansion joints
b. Spall in concrete nosing and synthetic nosing edges; or 2
holding down bolts loose; or
accumulation of debris in joint impairing its proper functioning
c. Compression seal loose; or 3

holding down bolts missing; or
cracking in surfacing material above buried joints; or
deterioration of elastomer element but still watertight.
d. Cracking of synthetic nosing material; or 4

complete closing up of expansion joint; or
compression seal fallen into expansion gap; or
elastomeric element torn; or
elastomeric element missing; or
metal runner has come away from nosing; or
cracking of synthetic nosing material.
Defects on a. Staining of concrete surface by water leaking from the deck; or 1
concrete surface discolouration of concrete surface by pollution.
b. Superficial pattern cracking due to alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR); 2

or
whitening of concrete showing evidence of sulphate attack; or
general softening of the concrete surface indicating chemical attack.
c. Severe pattern cracking due to AAR 3
d. More severe signs indicating one of the above defects. 4

Flood debris a. Loose debris accumulating on piers or bridge decks. 1
accumulation
b. Debris accumulation in the form of small branches on piers or on 2
bridge decks.
c. Debris accumulation in the form of large branches or small trees on 3

piers or on bridge decks.
d. Debris accumulation in the form of large trees on piers or on bridge 4

decks.
B2. EXTENT (E) RATING
EXTENT (E) – how common is the defect on the item being inspected
The possible values for E are given in the table below:
E - EXTENT
Local More than local Less than general General
1 2 3 4
A diagrammatical illustration of Extent (E) is given in the table below:
•
E=1 •
• •
• •
Description Local
• • • •
•
•
• •
E=2
• •
• • •
• • •
Description More than local

• • • • • • •
• • • • •
• • •
E=3 • • • •
• • • • •
• • • •
• • • • •
Description Less than general

• • • •• • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • •
• • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•• • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • •
E=4
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••
• • • • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • •• •
• •• •• • • • • • • •• •• • • • • •
Description General
B3. EXAMPLES OF RELEVANCY “R” RATING AND URGENCY “U” RATING
Relevancy (R) - Considers the consequences of defects as they are now with regards to the
serviceability of the bridge and the safety of the road user.
The possible values for R are given in the table below:
R - RELEVANCY
Minimum Moderate Major Critical
1 2 3 4
Urgency (U) - Considers possible future events which could adversely affect defects and provides a
way of applying direct time limits on the requirement to do the repairs
The possible values for U are given in the table below:
U -URGENCY
Record Monitor Routine < 5 yrs < 2 yrs ASAP
purposes only only
R 0 1 2 3 4
Examples of relevancy (R) and urgency (U) ratings are given in the following tables:
Inspection item Activity description Range Remarks U R

of "R"
1. Approach a. Down chutes - 1 & 2 If not renewed or cleaned it could lead to severe erosion of
Embankment renew embankment
b. Down chutes - 1
clean
1. Blocked up due to accumulation of silt or debris 1 1
2. Inadequate to cater for water flow 3 2
c. Inlets/outlets - 1 & 2 3. Same as 1. & 2. above - -
renew
d. Inlets/outlets - 1 4. Has undergone physical damage due to vehicular impact 2 2
clean
e. Drainage berm - 1 & 2 5. Same as 1. above - -
renew
f. Drainage berm - 1 6. Damaged by erosion 3 2
repair
g. Erosion and scour 1 to 4 7. Erosion and scour are unlikely to affect stability of 1 1
damage - backfill embankment.
8. Erosion and scour are highly likely to cause collapse in 3 2
embankments but will not affect safety of traffic.
9. Erosion and scour are highly likely to cause collapse 4 4
which will endanger the traffic on the approach
embankment.
h. Settlement - rectify 1 to 3 10. Minor settlement of road adjacent to abutment 1 1
11. Settlement of road may cause discomfort to user 3 2
12. Settlement of road may cause accidents 4 3
of "R"
2. Approach a. Align rails & tighten 1 1. Some bolts attaching the guardrails to the posts or bolts 3 1
Guardrail bolts joining guardrail lengths are loose and need to be
tightened.
2. Slight misalignment due to vehicular impact and guardrail 2 1
needs to be re-aligned
b. Replace rails 2 to 4 3. Rail badly dented and/or bent 3 2
4. Rail severed from post ie. no longer performing its function 4 3
but not protruding into the oncoming traffic
5. Same as 4. but protruding into oncoming traffic 4 4
c. Attach rail to end 2 & 3 6. No danger of oncoming traffic to collide with the end block 2 2
block 7. Danger of oncoming traffic to collide with the end block 3 3
d. Provide wood 2 8. Wood spacers are either damaged or missing 3 2
spacer blocks
e. Reseal wood 1 9. Protective maintenance needed on wooden spacers 1 1
spacer blocks
f. Replace broken 2 & 3 10. One post is broken at a location 3 2
posts 11. Two adjacent posts are broken at a location 4 2
12. Three or more posts are broken at a location 4 3
g. Replace missing 1 13. Some of the bolts are missing or damaged and need to 3 2
bolts be replaced
3. Waterway a. Clear 1 to 4 1. Flood debris needs to be cleared from piers for fear of 1 1
floods imposing excessive flood forces.
2. Waterway is overgrown with vegetation 2 2
3. Waterway has been reduced due to debris accumulation 3 3
or build up of sediment but overtopping will not occur
4. Waterway has been severely reduced due to debris 4 4
accumulation or build up of sediment which may cause
overtopping of the structure.
b. Repair scour 2 to 4 5. Erosion and scour is unlikely to affect stability of an 3 2
damage adjacent pier or abutment foundation.
6. Erosion and scour is highly likely to cause collapse of an 4 4
adjacent pier or abutment foundation.
4. Approach a. Renew/repair 1 to 3 1. Minor damage to protection works caused by settlement of 1 1
embankment protection works embankment, vegetation, vandalism etc.
protection (gabion boxes, 2. Portions of the protection works have been damaged, 4 2
works stone pitching etc.) displaced or removed locally by floodwaters
3. Large portions have been damaged, displaced or removed 4 3
by floodwaters
5. Abutment Specialist work is required when the foundation material under a base is to be re-instated.
foundations Because of the restricted space, it is difficult to obtain proper compaction, so mass concrete or
soilcrete is often used.
When considering the stability of the abutment it is important to establish whether the foundation
is piled or on spread footings and what the founding material is. The structural integrity of a pile
cap where the piles are founded on rock will be less affected with regards to undermining when
compared to a spread footing founded on sand
Settlements in foundations can be checked by visually sighting along railings and walls, noting
both the vertical and horizontal alignment.
a. Backfill/ underpin 2 to 4 1. The stability of the foundation is not endangered 3 2
of undermining 2. The stability of the foundation may be endangered 4 3
due to erosion or
3. The stability of the foundation is endangered 4 4
scour
b. Repair spalled 1 to 4 4. Spalling is local and will not affect the structural integrity 3 1
concrete (SI) of the abutment
5. Spalling is severe and SI of abutment will be affected 4 4
c. Seal, repair cracks 1 to 4 6. Cracks are 0,3 mm and there are no signs of leaching or - -
> 0,3 mm leakage
7. Cracks are > 0,3 mm, are local and will not affect the SI of 2 1
abutment
abutment but there are signs of corrosion of reinforcement
of "R"
9. Cracks are global and show signs of corrosion of 4 3
reinforcement but will not affect the SI of the abutment
10. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of the 4 4
abutment will be affected, ie. where there is possibility of
collapse and where there are clear signs of badly corroded
reinforcement
Honeycombed concrete occurs when there are water leakages from the formwork during placing
of concrete or from badly compacted concrete. They become evident immediately after striking
of formwork. They should be repaired by the contractor at the time of bridge construction. If left
unrepaired this could lead to corrosion of reinforcement or to the reduction in the load carrying
capacity of the bridge element concerned.
d. Repair 1 to 4 11. Honeycombing is superficial. Cover to the reinforcement 1 1
honeycombed is reduced but there are no signs of corrosion.
concrete 12. Reinforcement is exposed but there are no signs of 3 2
corrosion. The SI of the foundation will not be affected.
13. Reinforcement is exposed and there are clear signs of 4 3
corrosion. The SI of the foundation will be affected.
6. Abutments An abutment founded on spread footings and on compressible materials is likely to rotate because
of the following reasons:
a. Imbalance in forces acting behind and in front of wall
b. The material behind has a tendency to be compacted more than in front
c. If skidding, braking, temperature and earthquake forces are taken by the abutment, this will
aggravate the forward rotation of the abutment.
d.Triangular stress distribution under the abutment footing. The higher pressure being in the front
of the base.
For all of the above reasons it is important to look for tell-tales, which would indicate the forward
rotation. These could be the following:
a. Closing up of expansion joints at abutments.
b. The gap between the back wall and the deck has closed up.
c. Excessive movement of abutment bearings towards the abutment back wall. This could be
seen in mechanical as well as elastomeric bearings.
d. Locking in of locating keys in skew decks
e. Secondary stresses resulting in unusual cracks in adjacent deck.
f. Large rotations of skew decks.
It would largely depend on the severity of the above rotations and movements and whether it
would be found necessary to relieve stresses by demolishing the back wall.
a. Remove & 2 & 3 refer to the above notes 2 2
reconstruct 3 3
backwall
concrete (SI) of the abutment
2. Spalling is severe and SI of abutment will be affected 4 4
c. Seal, repair cracks 1 to 4 3. Cracks are < 0,2 mm and there are no signs of leaching or - -
> 0,2 mm ( refer to leakage
item 19 for notes 4. Cracks show signs of leaching or leakage, are local and 2 1
on cracks) will not affect the SI of abutment
5. Cracks show signs of leaching or leakage, are local and 3 2
will not affect the SI of abutment but there are signs of
corrosion of reinforcement
reinforcement but will not affect the SI of the abutment
7. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of the 4 4
abutment will be affected, i.e. where there is a possibility
of collapse and where there are clear signs of badly
corroded reinforcement
d & e. Repair and 1 to 4 8. Drainage holes are blocked or inadequate (no evidence of 1 1
clean drainage water at holes). Water build up behind wall is not possible
holes 9. Drainage holes are blocked and water build up behind wall 3 3
could render abutment unsafe with respect to stability
against overturning and sliding.
f. Repair bearing 2 to 4 10. Spalling of edges where bearings have been placed too 2 2
plinths close to edges.
of "R"
11. Vertical crack caused by the bursting forces as a result of 4 4
excessive bearing loads or inadequate strength (under
designed).
12. Corrosion of reinforcement caused by lack of cover. 3 2
13. Spalling of concrete in vicinity of holding down bolts, 3 3
caused by excessive horizontal forces or corrosion of
bolts.
g. Repair 1 to 4 14. Honeycombing is superficial. Cover to the reinforcement 1 1
corrosion. The SI of the abutment will not be affected.
corrosion. The SI of the abutment will be affected.
7. Wing/ retaining a. Repair spalled All of the notes and ratings for a to e and g on abutments are
walls concrete relevant for the wing and retaining walls.
b. Seal, repair cracks
> 0,2 mm
c & d. Repair and
clean drainage
holes
d. Replace joint 13. Sealant deteriorated and requires replacing 1 1
sealant
8. Surfacing The defects most commonly experienced are:
a. Cracking. This could be an indication of failure of the surfacing material, while in others it
indicates excessive movement or deterioration of the underlying deck. With time, crumbling of
the surfacing material along the edges of the cracks takes place and the ingress of water may
lead to loss of adhesion between the surfacing and the deck.
b. Excessive deformation. This will take place due to the combined effects of traffic and warm
weather or due to loss of adhesion at the interface with the deck or waterproofing membrane.
When the deformation becomes excessive, it impairs riding quality and in turn can substantially
increase the dynamic loading and vibration from moving vehicles.
c. Loss of skid resistance. Because of polishing under traffic, the surfacing will become more
slippery with time and re-treatment of the surface will be required to restore the resistance to
skidding. The standard of this resistance on bridges should be high because of the likely
serious consequences of skidding accidents on bridges.
a. Resurface/ patch 1 to 3 1. The defects in the surfacing will not be likely to cause an 1 1
deck 1 to 3 accident on the bridge
b. Resurface/ patch 2. The defects in the surfacing could be likely to cause an 3 3
approach accident on the bridge.
9. Super - Drainage is an important item for inspection, since trapped, ponded, flowing or splashing water
structure can cause a good deal of damage to the bridge over a long period and represent a safety hazard
drainage to traffic. The main defects to be checked include the following:
a. Water stains on beams, slabs, piers and abutments may indicate inadequate drainage systems
or leaking joints
b. Clogging or inadequate drainage gullies and pipes
c. Drain outlets should be checked to ensure that water is not discharged where it may be
detrimental to other components of the structure.
d. The accumulation of debris in drainage systems.
e. Blowing of water on structure
f. Falls on surfacing and deck. The drainage of water to drainage gullies over the surfacing should
be checked to ensure that the original levels are satisfactory and that they have not been
adversely affected by resurfacing operations.
g. Drain in void formers. In voided decks drains should be provided to remove water from the
lowest points of voids.
a. Clear blocked 1 to 3 1. Drainage defects do not represent a safety hazard to the 1 1
drainage outlets motorist
b. Repair damaged 1 to 3 2. Drainage defects represents a safety hazard to the 3 3
pipes motorist
10. Kerbs/side- a. Repair spalled 1 & 2 1.Spalling is local and will not affect the structural integrity 1 1
walls concrete (SI) of the kerbs
2. Spalling is severe and SI of kerb will be affected 3 2
of "R"
b. Seal, repair cracks 1 to 3 3. Cracks are < 0,3 mm and there are no signs of leaching or - -
> 0,3 mm leakage
kerb
kerb but there are signs of corrosion of reinforcement
reinforcement but will not affect the SI of kerb
7. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of kerb will be 3 3
affected, i.e. where there is possibility of collapse and
where there are clear signs of badly corroded
reinforcement
c. Repair 1 & 2 8. Honeycombing is superficial. Cover to the reinforcement 1 1
corrosion. The SI of the kerb will not be affected.
10.Reinforcement is exposed and there are clear signs of 3 2
corrosion. The SI of the kerb will be affected.
d. Clear vegetation 1 11.Side-walk overgrown with vegetation 1 1
e. Replace damaged 1 12.Defects in surfacing causes discomfort for the pedestrian 1 1
surfacing (formation of puddles etc.)
11. Balustrade a. Repair spalled 1 to 3 1. Spalling is local and will not affect the structural integrity 2 1
concrete (SI) of the balustrade
2. Spalling is severe and SI of balustrade will be affected 3 3
> 0,3 mm leakage
balustrade
balustrade but there are signs of corrosion of
reinforcement
reinforcement but will not affect the SI of balustrade
7. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of balustrade 3 3
will be affected, i.e. where there is possibility of collapse
and where there are clear signs of badly corroded
reinforcement.
c. Repair 1 to 3 8. Honeycombing is superficial. Cover to the reinforcement 1 1
corrosion. The SI of the balustrade will not be affected.
10.Reinforcement is exposed and there are clear signs of 3 3
corrosion. The SI of the balustrade will be affected.
d. Corrosion 1 11.Maintenance is required on the corrosion protection of the 1 1
protection to steel steel railing
railing
e. Repair steel 1 12.Steel rail has been damaged by vehicular impact and 1 1
railings requires repair
f. Replace NJ 3 13.Balustrade has been damaged beyond repair and needs 4 3
balustrades to be replaced
g. Repair inadequate 2 14.Cover to the reinforcement has been found to be 3 2
cover substandard on portions of the balustrade, this has led to
the corrosion of reinforcement and spalling of concrete
h. Replace missing 2 15.Some of the bolt/nuts at railing supports are missing or 3 2
bolts/nuts damaged and need to be replaced
12. Pier a & b. Renew/repair 1 to 3 1. Minor damage to protection works caused by settlement, 1 1
protection protection vegetation, vandalism etc.
works works (gabion 2. Portions of the protection works have been damaged, 4 2
boxes, stone displaced or removed locally by floodwater
pitching etc.) 3. Large portions have been damaged, displaced or removed 4 3
by floodwater
13. Pier Scour damage will not affect Structural Integrity (SI) of structure in the following cases:
of "R"
foundations a. Where spread footing are founded directly onto competent rock and the design allows for the
flood forces to act on the full height of the pier and superstructure and overturning is resisted
by the mass of the structure.
b. Foundations on piles where piles are founded on or in component rock and the design has
taken account of realistic scour depths under the action of corresponding hydrodynamic forces.
Structural Integrity (SI) may be affected in the following cases:
a. Spread footings founded on erodible material such as a boulder layer.
b. Piled foundations which depend partly or fully on friction rather than fully end bearing.
c. Piled foundations which have been designed as end bearing piles founded on erodible material
such as a boulder layer.
Other important aspects to be aware of when inspecting foundations in a river
a. The effect of scour will be greatest on pier foundations located on the outside of a bend.
b. Should a second bend exists just upstream of the bend at the bridge but is in the opposite
direction scouring will be further increased.
c. A very sandy river bed will be more susceptible to scour.
d. The location, lateral dimensions and depth of scour holes should be noted and, if possible,
recorded photographically.
e. Scouring is often aggravated by changes in the river's regime due to natural and man-made
causes, such as earth slippage, property development and removal of sand from the river just
upstream of the bridge.
f. Walled type piers designed for a given direction of flow will become more susceptible to scour
should the river change its flow path
a. Backfill/ underpin 2 to 4 General scour across bridge waterway or local scour around
of undermining piers where:
due to erosion or 1. The Structural Integrity (SI) of the pier is not affected 3 2
scour 2. The SI of the pier will become affected should there be a 4 3
further significant increase in scour
3. The SI of the pier is affected and there is danger of 4 4
collapse
concrete (SI) of the pier foundation
5. Spalling is severe and SI of pier foundation will be affected 4 4
c. Seal, repair cracks 1 to 4 6. Cracks are < 0,3 mm and there are no signs of leaching or - -
> 0,3 mm leakage
pier foundation
pier foundation but there are signs of corrosion of
reinforcement
reinforcement but will not greatly affect the SI of the pier
foundation
10. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of the pier 4 4
foundation will be affected, i.e. where there is possibility of
collapse and where there are clear signs of badly corroded
reinforcement
Shallow pile caps have a tendency to develop vertical
tension cracks between two adjacent piles. These cracks
sometimes extend into the columns. They must be
monitored and if the reinforcement begins to corrode they
could cause the collapse of the pier and the bridge.
d. Repair 1 to 4 11. Honeycombing is superficial. Cover to the reinforcement 1 1
corrosion. The SI of the foundations will not be affected.
corrosion. The SI of the foundations will be affected.
14. Piers & a. Repair spalled 1 to 4 1. Spalling is local and will not affect the structural integrity 3 1
columns concrete (SI) of the pier
2. Spalling is severe and SI of pier will be affected 4 4
b. Seal, repair cracks 1 to 4 3. Cracks are < 0,3 mm and there are no sign of leaching or - -
> 0,3 mm leakage
of "R"
pier
pier but there are signs of corrosion of reinforcement
reinforcement but will not greatly affect the SI of the pier
7. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of the pier will 4 4
be affected, i.e. where there is possibility of collapse and
where there are clear signs of badly corroded
reinforcement
corrosion. The SI of the pier will not be affected.
corrosion. The SI of the pier will be affected.
15. Bearings a. Clean 1 1. Dirt and debris may impair movement 1 1
b. Corrosion 1&2 2. Touching up of paint-work needed 1 1
protection 3. Corrosion causing excessive frictional forces between 3 2
substructure and superstructure
c. Reset 1 to 3 4. Minor adjustment needed in bearing alignment 2 1
5. Key ways and thrust plates are not properly engaged and 3 2
are binding causing large forces to be transmitted to
substructure
6. Bearing at limit of movement capacity and further 4 3
movement expected
7. Tearing, cracking or splitting of exposed edges 2 2
d. Replace 2 8. Excessive bulging and distortion indicating under-design 2 2
elastomeric 9. Very badly corroded bearing where the movement and 3 3
bearing support capabilities have been impaired
e. Replace 3 10. Distortions in top or bottom adapter plates causing 3 3
mechanical restrictions in the movement capabilities of bearing
bearing 11. Anchor bolts badly corroded 2 1
f. Reinstate horizontal 1 to 3 12. Relative movement between the bearing seating and the 3 3
force capacity of supporting structure
bearing 13. Shear keys have either failed or caused spalling of 3 3
concrete to reduce their capacity to provide restraint to the
structure
g. Tighten anchor 1 14. Anchor bolts loose 1 1
bolts
16. Support a. Clear blocked 1 to 3 1. Drainage defects do not represent a safety hazard to the 1 1
drainage drainage pipes and road user and would not cause damage to the structure
outlets
b. Repair damaged 1 to 3 2. Drainage defects could cause damage to components of 2 2
pipes the structure
3. Drainage defects represents a safety hazard to the 3 3
motorist
17. Longitudinal a. Spalled concrete in the vicinity of bearings could indicate high edge pressures.
members b. The outermost beams in overpasses of beam and slab construction are particularly vulnerable
to damage from high vehicles. The minimum clearance should be checked at these points.
c. A map of cracking of the main members should be produced, so that the implications in terms
of strength and durability can be carefully examined. Diagonal cracks close to supports could
indicate an incipient shear failure, whereas evenly spread vertical cracks at centre of span
could indicate normal flexural cracks. All reinforced concrete members under tension action
are likely to crack. The size and penetration of cracks need to be investigated to determine if
the cracking is severe.
d. The effects of temperature differences should be considered at an early stage in investigations.
e. Prestressed concrete bridges should be given special attention and checked for the following
additional defects:
1. Longitudinal cracks in the flanges close to the supports may indicate insufficient transverse
reinforcement, while transverse cracks in beams could indicate serious loss of prestress or
the incorrect original positioning of the prestressing cables.
of "R"
2 Spalling or cracking of concrete may also occur near bearings or cable anchorages often
due to inadequate design
f. In box girders with access openings, the interior faces of flanges and webs need to be examined
for signs of cracking.
a. Repair spalled 1 to 4 1. Spalling is local and will not affect the structural integrity 3 1
concrete (SI) of the beam
2. Spalling is severe and SI of beam will be affected 4 4
b. Seal, repair cracks 1 to 4 3. Cracks are < 0,3 mm and there are no sign of leaching or - -
> 0,3 mm leakage
beam
beam but there are signs of corrosion of reinforcement
reinforcement but will not greatly affect the SI of the beam
7. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of the beam 4 4
will be affected, i.e. where there is possibility of collapse
and where there are clear signs of badly corroded
reinforcement
corrosion. The SI of concrete member will not be affected.
corrosion. The SI of concrete member will be affected.
d. Apply protective 1 11. After repairs to extend the life of the concrete member 1 1
coating 12. Cover to reinforcement is substandard over extensive 1 1
areas. To improve the durability of the beam a protective
coating is applied
13. Concrete found to be very porous. A protective coating 2 1
is used to protect the reinforcing from chloride attack
and/or carbonation
18 Transverse a. Repair spalled a. Similar to longitudinal members except that the relevancy
members concrete of the defects is likely to be lower. This is because of
b. Seal, repair cracks transversal members being treated as secondary to the
> 0,3 mm longitudinal members in the design of decks. Should a
c. Repair failure occur in transversal members the loads would
honeycombed transfer to the longitudinal members and the deck would
concrete be saved.
d. Apply protective b. Where the transverse members are being used as the
coating main structural member, such as in the case of supports to
bearings or end blocks to external prestress cables, they
are to be treated similarly to the longitudinal members.
19. Deck slab Check the following:
a. Cracking - structural, restrained shrinkage and temperature, material (bad mix or chemical
attack) and workmanship (construction)
b. Scaling - loss of mortar and aggregate on horizontal surfaces exposed to the weather and
traffic and on other surfaces caused by frost or chloride damage
c. Spalling - loss of concrete between fracture surfaces
d. Corrosion of reinforcement - leads to discolouration of surfaces and in extreme cases to
cracking and spalling
e. Leakage - occurs at construction joints, where there is risk of cracking in thin component
sections of the deck, e.g. at kerbs and in in-situ concrete topping over or between prestressed
beams.
f. Leaching - Seepage of water through cracks and voids in the hardened concrete may dissolve
out calcium hydroxide and other constituent materials in the concrete. Most evident on the
soffit of decks and take the form of staining, efflorescence or encrustation at cracks. It can
present a corrosion threat to reinforcement, because of the gradual loss of alkalinity of the
concrete.
g. Porous or pervious concrete - Ingress of water leads to corrosion of reinforcement. More
susceptible to chemical attack. Occurs where good compaction of concrete is difficult, as in
densely reinforced slabs and in corners of formwork.
of "R"
h. Wear of deck surface - Where deck forms the running surface for traffic.
i. Excessive deformation, deflection or vibration - Deck too slender and under-designed.
j. Accidental damage - Most common is from damage to over bridges by high vehicles.
k. Chemical attack - Occurs in aggressive industrial environments or in coastal regions. Causes
surface crumbling.
a. Repair spalled 1 to 4 1. Spalling is local and will not affect the structural integrity 3 1
concrete (SI) of the slab
2. Spalling is severe and SI of slab will be affected 4 4
> 0,2 mm leakage
will not affect the SI of slab
will not affect the SI of slab but there are signs of corrosion
of reinforcement
reinforcement but will not affect the SI of the slab
7. Cracks are local or global and where the SI of the slab will 4 4
be affected, i.e. where there is possibility of collapse or
punching through and where there are clear signs of badly
corroded reinforcement
honeycombed is reduced but their are no signs of corrosion.
concrete 9. Reinforcement is exposed but their are no signs of 3 2
corrosion. The SI of the deck slab will not be affected.
corrosion. The SI of the deck slab will be affected.
d. Apply surface 1 & 2 Protective coatings are used for the following:
sealer/ paint 11. To lengthen the life of a structure and will usually be 2 2
applied after extensive repair to a structure.
12. If concrete is found to be very porous and where there is 2 2
concern for the protection of reinforcement against future
corrosion.
13. Where concrete is found to be under-strength and there 1 1
is a need to increase its durability
e. Repair wear in 1 to 3 14. Rutting due to vehicular traffic
riding surface if < 10 mm local and global - 1
deck is unsurfaced > 10 mm local 2 2
> 10 mm global 3 3
This depends on percentage loss in depth thickness and its
effect on the ultimate capacity of the section
15. Evidence of reflection cracking or deformation of the 2 2
surfacing material which could indicate slip between the
asphalt layer and a waterproofing material if present
f. Waterproof top 2 & 3 16. Clear evidence of chemical attack to concrete i.e. where 3 2
surface ingress of water will cause rapid deterioration of the
concrete such as in AAR
17. Evidence of leaching and leaking causing corrosion to 4 2
reinforcement
20. Expansion The main defects to be considered are:
joints a. Loosening or movement of the joint and its components.
b. Freedom of movement, clearance and alignment for the joint to function under the prevailing
temperatures.
c. Irregularity of vertical profile. One part of the joint may become vertically displaced relative to
the other.
d. Leakage of water through joints.
e. Cracking of surfacing at buried joints.
The relevancy of defects is most likely to be equal to one because defective joints will not affect
the serviceability and safety of the bridge with respect to the motorist. Should part of the steel
edging protrude into the traffic or loose pieces in bolt down joints become hazardous to traffic then
the relevancy would increase, but this is unlikely.
of "R"
a. Repair concrete 1
nosing
b. Replace concrete 1
nosing
c. Repair synthetic 1
nosing
d. Replace synthetic 1
nosing
e. Refit elastomer 1
element
f. Replace elastomer 1
element
g. Replace sealant 1
h. Replace existing 1
joint with an
asphaltic plug joint
i. Replace 1
modular/steel joint
j. Clean joint of all 1
loose material and
debris
The following remedial work items are specifically for steel bridges
INSPECTION ACTIVITY RANGE REMARKS U R

ITEM DESCRIPTION OF "R"
17. Longitudinal Cracks
members 1.Cracks are generally the most serious defects in steel members and early detection is of great
importance. Visual inspections will usually be adequate but in hidden areas behind gusset or cover
18. Transversal plates devices such as audio crack detectors can be installed if a crack is suspected. This would
members obviate the need for expensive removal and replacement of the covering plates.
2.Cracks in steel structures once detected need to be monitored frequently to assess growth rate and
19. Deck prevent unexpected failure. This could be carried out concurrently with final repair analysis and
superstructure planning.
3.Crack propagation can often be arrested by drilling a hole at the end of a crack..
Rivets
1.Loose rivets can be identified by discolouration i.e. a loose rivet will develop a dull colour compared to
its sound neighbour. By tapping with a light hammer, it can be confirmed whether it is in fact loose.
"Tell-tale" rust coloured water seeping from the interface of the rivet head and the parent material
will also indicate looseness.
2.If a rivet in a group of rivets becomes loose it is advisable to remove all rivets and replace with
precision bolts. This is to ensure that each joint behaves as a homogeneous entity.
The reasons for using bolts are:

a.Qualified rivetters are unlikely to be available and site rivetting under traffic conditions is
often of suspect quality resulting in rivets working loose soon after installation.
b.Bolts are readily available and easy to install. It is recommended that holes be reamed to a
suitable size fractionally larger than the original hole to achieve a snug fit for the replacement
bolts.
Huck fasteners are viable alternatives to precision bolts if access for the installation tools is possible.
e. Gouging out of 1 to 4 The value of "R" chosen shall depend on whether a delay
weld & re-welding in carrying out a repair will or will not lead to a possible
f. Retorque bolts safety hazard to the motorist. A steel structure requires a
h. Monitoring of detailed inspection. It is important that the inspector has a
cracks thorough understanding of the structural significance of the
i. Clear debris defects. It would be impossible to deal in this section with
j. 20% paint system all the possible consequences of defects because of the
k. 100% paint many different types of steel structures. Although, it must
system be mentioned that chain reactions of failures can result
l. Sand blast to from what may appear to be a very insignificant defect.
white metal One must be aware of such possibilities.
m. Replace bolts
n. Remove all rivets
& replace with
bolts
o. Strengthen main
long member
p. Strengthen
secondary long
member
q. Strengthen main
trans member
r. Strengthen
secondary trans
member
s. Replace main
long member
t. Replace
secondary long
member
u. Replace main
trans member
v. Replace
secondary trans
member
PART C
VISUAL INSPECTION GUIDE
Visual Assessment Manual for Bridges – Version 2.0 – September 2002 - 25

-
Item 1: Approach Embankment
D=1
DER-U: 111-1 DER-U: 121-0

Notes Embankment erosion Approach settlement
WC B2421_S04 WC C10282_S01
D=2
DER-U: 211-1 DER-U: 213-3

Notes Embankment erosion Erosion at down chute
SW MR 18-10.83_S04 NRA B1366A_S20
D=2
DER-U: 221-2 DER-U: 222-4

Notes Settlement behind abutment Approach settlement
WC B4786_S03 SW MR 8-46.84_S11

-
D=3
DER-U: 322-1 DER-U: 322-1

Notes Approach embankment erosion Embankment erosion
WC B3014_S06 WC C10054_S04
D=3
DER-U: 343-3 DER-U: 332-1

Notes Approach settlement Down chute inlet blocked
WC B3018_S06 WC B4735_S06
D=3
DER-U: 322-3
Notes Settlement behind abutment
NRA B102_S20

-
D=4
DER-U: 443-4 DER-U: 443-4

Notes Erosion and scour damage Slip failure of approach embankment
MP 1050_S01 MP 2325_S05
D=4
DER-U: 442-4 DER-U: 443-3

Notes Erosion and scour damage Settlement at abutment
MP 2747_S01 MP 3048_S05

-
Item 2: Guardrails
D=1
DER-U: 111-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Damaged guardrail Twisted guardrail block
WC B2421A_S01 WC B4986_S01
D=1
DER-U: 111-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Dented guardrail Corroded guardrail cover plate
WC B4986_S02 WC B4744_S04
D=1
DER-U: 122-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Loose guardrail connection to post Loose and misaligned bolts
WC C10282_S02 NRA B1364_S01

-
Item 2: Guardrails
D=2
DER-U: 212-1 DER-U: 212-2

Notes Damaged guardrail posts Missing wood spacer blocks
WC B2421A_S03 MP 2241_S07
D=2
DER-U: 212-1
Notes Missing guardrail bolts
NRA B1294_S02
D=3
DER-U: 312-1 DER-U: 313-1

Notes Damaged guardrail Guardrail not attached to end block
WC B2420A_S01 WC B2424A_S02

-
Item 2: Guardrails
D=3
DER-U: 313-1 DER-U: 333-1

Notes Guardrail not attached to parapet Rotten post requires replacing
NRA B1293_S05 NRA B1366A_S01
D=4
DER-U: 412-1 DER-U: 423-4

Notes Missing posts and erosion Missing guardrail section
NRA B1294_S03 MP 2154_S02
D=4
DER-U: 444-4 DER-U: 433-4

Notes Broken hand rails and missing guardrail Damaged guardrail
SW MR 103-52.56-S05 SW MR 103-40.76-S03

-
Item 3: Waterway
D=1
DER-U: 121-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Debris and siltation Vegetation in waterway
WC B0596_S05 WC C10282_S03
D=1
DER-U: 111-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Debris accumulation on pier Debris accumulation and siltation
SW MR 19-11.72-S02 SW MR 9-47.50-S03
D=1
DER-U: 111-1
Debris on piers
NRA B1366A_S33

-
Item 3: Waterway
D=2
DER-U: 232-1 DER-U: 222-1

Notes Debris & vegetation blocking waterway Blocked waterway
WC C10121_S01 WC B3017_S04
D=2
DER-U: 222-1 DER-U: 222-1

Notes Vegetation and siltation Vegetation blocking opening
WC B2421_S09 MP 1737_S01
D=2
DER-U: 232-1
Siltation at downstream side
WC C10054_S06

-
Item 3: Waterway
D=3
DER-U: 334-3
DER-U: 334-3
Notes Waterway overgrown with trees and
Debris on pier and erosion of waterway
vegetation MP 2930_S01
MP 1167_S05
D=3
DER-U: 333-1 DER-U: 332-1

Notes Blocked waterway Debris and siltation
WC C10124_S01 WC B0599_S09
D=4
DER-U: 444-3 DER-U: 433-4

Notes Debris blocking openings Debris blocking opening
MP 2322_S04 WC C10035_S02

-
Item 4: Approach Embankment Protection Works
D=1
DER-U: 141-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Damage by vegetation Eroded embankment protection
SW D10-_S06 MP 2946_S01
D=2
DER-U: 232-1 DER-U: 232-1

Notes Damaged embankment protection Damaged embankment protection
WC B0120_S04 WC B3018_S07
D=2
DER-U: 221-2
Notes Damaged stone pitching
NRA B1290A_S05

-
D=3
DER-U: 322-2 DER-U: 313-3

Notes Stone pitching damaged by vegetation Stone protection works eroded away
MP 2330_S21 SW MR 1-62.94_S05
D=3
DER-U: 332-4 DER-U: 312-1

Notes Damaged and undermined by erosion Damaged gabion mattresses
SW MR 8-46.84_S01 SW MR 8-99.54_S04
D=3
DER-U: 332-2
Notes Eroded embankment
MP 1056_S03

-
D=4
DER-U: 433-4
DER-U: 433-4
Notes Protection works and embankment eroded
Damaged and undermined by erosion
MP P127-2_S05 away
SW MR 9-47.50_S04
D=4
DER-U: 442-2
Damaged protection works
SW MR 19-11.72_S10

-
Items 5-7, 10,11,13,14,18-20: Concrete elements - Defect type: Cracking
D=1
DER-U: 111-R DER-U: 111-R

Notes Crack on side of deck Crack in wing-wall
WC B0586_S05 WC B0601_S02
D=1
DER-U: 111-R DER-U: 121-2

Notes Crack in wing-wall AAR cracking in wing-wall
WC B2054_S01 WC B2420_S01
D=1

Notes Horizontal crack in wing-wall Crack between abutment & wing-wall
WC B2596_S05 WC C10273_S04

-
D=2
DER-U: 221-2 DER-U: 211-2

Notes Crack in underside of deck Vertical crack in pier wall
WC B0586_S03 WC B4986_S04
D=2
DER-U: 241-2 DER-U: 232-2

Notes AAR cracking in return wall Seepage through crack in underside of deck
WC C10001_S14 WC B3018_S05
D=2
DER-U: 231-2 DER-U: 222-2

Notes AAR cracking in wing-wall Seepage through crack in underside of deck
WC B4744_S01 WC B1689_S04

-
D=2
DER-U: 212-2 DER-U: 222-2

Notes Crack in deck soffit
Crack in deck slab >0.3mm WC C10058_S05
D=3
DER-U: 332-2 DER-U: 332-2

Notes
AAR cracking on abutment Wing wall AAR
D=3
DER-U: 322-2 DER-U: 322-2

Notes
Map cracking on abutment Map cracking on abutment

-
D=3
DER-U: 332-2 DER-U: 322-2

Notes AAR cracking in wing-wall AAR cracking in wing-wall
WC B2420_S02 WC B4987_S07
D=3
DER-U: 312-2 DER-U: 322-2

Notes Vertical crack in abutment AAR cracking in wing-wall
WC B1689_S02 WC C10127_S05
D=3
DER-U: 312-2
Notes Crack in beam soffit
WC B3185_S02

-
D=4
DER-U: 432-3 DER-U: 412-3

Notes AAR cracking in wing-wall Cracks in top of pier
WC C10127_S11 WC B3018_S03
D=4
DER-U: 423-3 DER-U: 422-3

Notes Vertical crack in abutment Vertical crack in pier nose
WC B3018_S10 WC B3018_S17
D=4
DER-U: 421-2 DER-U: 432-2

Notes Horizontal crack in parapet
WC B4735_S01
Severe AAR on Wing Retaining Wall

-
D=4
DER-U: 433-3
DER-U: 433-3
Notes Severe AAR on pier
Severe AAR on wing-wall
Notes
Notes

-
Items 5-7, 10,11,13,14,18-20: Concrete elements - Defect type: Spalling
D=1
DER-U: 111-2 DER-U: 111-2

Notes Spalling on side of deck Spalling around deck scupper
WC B0586_S06 WC B0611A_S04
D=1
DER-U: 111-2 DER-U: 111-2

Notes Spalling on balustrade Spalling on side of deck
WC B5044_S01 WC B2917_S07
D=1
DER-U: 121-R
Notes Spalling on wing-wall
WC B4740_S08

-
D=2
DER-U: 211-2 DER-U: 211-2

Notes Spalling on wing-wall Spalling on parapet
WC B2420_S04 WC B2420_S05
D=2
DER-U: 221-2 DER-U: 232-2

Notes Spalling on parapet Spalling at abutment seating
WC B2420A_S04 WC B3018_S11
D=2
DER-U: 222-2 DER-U: 222-2

Notes Spalling on deck soffit Spalling on parapet
WC C10054_S02 WC B4786_S04

-
D=2
DER-U: 211-2 DER 222-2

Notes
Spall on abutment Reinforcement exposed on parapet
D=2
DER-U: 211-2
Notes Spalling on side of deck
WC B0611A_S03
D=3
DER-U: 312-3 DER-U: 323-3

Notes
Deck reinforcement corroded Pedestrian ramp-piers badly spalled

-
D=3
DER-U: 312-3 Spalling on pier and lack of cover

Notes Spalling on culvert headwall
WC C10129_S02
DER 311
D=4
DER-U: 422-3 DER-U: 423-3

Notes Spalling on top on parapet wall Spalling on deck soffit
WC B4042_S02 WC C10051_S06
D=4
DER-U: 423-3 DER 423-2

Notes Spalling on deck soffit Spalling on parapet
WC C10130_S02

-
D=4
DER-U: 423-4 DER-U: 423-3

Notes Spalling on longitudinal beam Spalling on deck soffit
WC C10035_S12 WC C10058_S08
D=4
DER-U: 423-2 DER-U: 444-3

Notes
Spalling on wing-wall Reinforcement corroded
D=4
Notes

-
Items 5-7, 10,11,13,14,18-20: Concrete elements - Defect type: General
D=1
DER-U: 111-R DER-U: 111-2

Notes Exposed binding wire Scupper pipe too short
WC B0611_S07 WC B2424_S07
D=1
DER-U: 111-2 DER-U: 121-2

Notes Exposed reinforcement on sidewalk Erosion of pier nose concrete
WC B2963A_S05 WC B2962A_S12
D=1
DER-U: 111-1
Notes Vegetation at pier head
WC B3014_S12

-
D=2
DER-U: 211-0 DER-U: 231-R

Notes Wall leaning over Wing-wall too low
WC B0597_S03 WC B0611A_S05
D=2
DER-U: 242-2 DER-U: 211-1

Notes Scupper pipes too short Missing kerb
WC B2963A_S09 WC B3014_S07
D=2
DER-U: 241-2 DER-U: 231-2

Notes Abutment concrete erosion Abutment concrete erosion
WC C10035_S07 WC C10061_S03

-
D=2

Notes Honeycombing at bottom of pier Concrete surface erosion
WC C10273_S03 WC B4740_S02
D=2
DER-U: 232-2 DER-U: 221-2

Notes Backfill leaching through vertical joint Concrete surface erosion on wing-wall
WC B5150_S02 WC C10267_S02
Notes

-
D=3
DER-U: 312-3 DER-U: 342-1

Notes Damaged parapet post Parapet wall too low – add guardrail
WC B2596_S04 WC B2421_S01
D=3
DER-U: 313-3
Notes Broken parapet wall
WC B3012_S01
D=4
DER-U: 434-4 DER-U: 444-4

Notes Missing parapets Scour/erosion at pier foundation
WC B0611A_S01 WC B0327_S01

-
Item 8: Surfacing
D=1
DER-U: 131-1 DER-U: 131-1

Notes Vegetation at edge of surfacing Vegetation at edge of surfacing
WC B2421_S08 WC B5106_S02
D=1
DER-U: 111-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Pothole in surfacing Pothole in surfacing
WC B5043_S02 WC B5106_S01
D=1
DER-U: 121-1
Notes Cracks in surfacing
WC B3018_S01

-
Item 8: Surfacing
D=2
DER-U: 231-1 DER-U: 222-1

Notes Vegetation at edge of surfacing Slip crack in surfacing
WC B2421A_S05 MP 1749_S01
D=2
DER-U: 221-1
Notes Longitudinal crack in surfacing
WC B3018_S02
D=3
DER-U: 332-1 DER-U: 322-1

Notes Stripped surfacing Crocodile cracks
WC B0599_S07 MP P256-12_S06

-
Item 8: Surfacing
D=3
DER-U: 313-4
Notes Severe pothole
MP 3911_S03
D=4
DER-U: 443-4 DER-U: 443-4

Notes Distressed patching Surface failure/potholes
MP 2747_S02 MP 2747_S03
Notes

-
Item 9: Drainage
D=1
DER-U: 111-1 DER-U: 121-1

Notes Slightly blocked inlet Blocked inlets
MP 2176_S10 SW MR 19-11.72_S05
D=1
DER-U: 111-1 DER-U: 111-1

Notes Vegetation growth in inlet Inlet clogged by litter
SW MR 19-11.72_S04 SW MR 103-_S05
D=2
DER-U: 232-1 DER-U: 242-1

Notes Inlet blocked by vegetation Inlet blocked by debris
MP 2944_S02 MP 2130_S06

-
Item 9: Drainage
D=2
DER-U: 222-1 DER-U: 232-1

Notes Inlet blocked by silt Blocked inlet pipe
MP 3765_S12 WC B0327_S06
D=3
DER-U: 311-1 DER-U: 342-2

Notes Drainage path blocked by vegetation Drainage blocked by vegetation
SW MR 1-87.53_S05 MP 1050_S04
D=4
DER-U: 441-1 DER-U: 442-3

Notes Drainage blocked by silt Blocked drain
SW MR 18-24.92_S02 MP 1051_S03

-
Item 9: Drainage
D=4
DER-U: 432-1 DER-U: 442-2

Notes Siltation of drainage Drainage blocked by silt and vegetation
WC B0601_S01 SW MR 1-64.12_S02

-
Item 15: Bearings
D=1
DER-U: 141-1 DER-U: 122-1

Notes Debris that can impair movement Debris that can impair movement
SW MR 103-52.56_S01 SW MR 1-84.93_S07
D=1
DER-U: 132-1
Notes Mud on bearing pads that can impair
movement
MP 4592_S01
D=2
DER-U: 231-1
Notes Birds nests, mud on bearing pads that can
impair movement
MP 4594_S01

-
Item 15: Bearings
D=2
Notes
D=3
DER-U: 342-2 DER-U: 342-2

Notes Corroded bearing plates Corroded sliding bearing
WC B2963A_S14 WC B3183_S03
D=3
Notes

-
Item 15: Bearings
D=4
DER-U: 424-3
Notes
Cracking at bearing seating on pier
Notes

-
Item 17: Expansion joints
D=1
DER-U: 122-2 DER-U: 121-2

Notes
Leaking expansion joint Sealant de-bonding
D=1
Showing the underside of the deck due to DER-U: 141-2

Notes Covered joint – cut open and seal
leaking joint above WC B4042_S03
D=1
DER-U: 131-1
Notes Showing the pier to leaking joint above Joint requires cleaning
WC B0327_S09

-
D=1
Notes
D=2
DER-U: 241-2 DER-U: 231-2

Notes Failed joint sealant
SW MR 1-84.93_S04
Failed elastomer element
D=2
DER-U: 232-2
Notes Joint failure
WC B2963A_S08

-
D=2
DER-U: 242-2 DER-U: 242-2

Notes
Damaged nosing Damaged synthetic nosing
D=2
Staining on the underside of deck

Notes
due to above defect
D=2
DER-U: 232-2
Notes Staining on pier due to leaking joint
Defective synthetic nosing

-
D=2
DER-U: 242-2 DER-U: 233-2

Notes Leaking joint sealant Sealed joint – cut open and seal
WC B3011_S08 MP 1660_S04
D=2
DER-U: 232-2 DER-U: 232-2

Notes Failed elastomer element No elastomer element
WC B2917_S02 WC B5150_S03
D=3
DER-U: 332-2 DER-U: 342-2

Notes No elastomer element
MP 1105_S01
Failed joint – drop in span roadway

-
D=3
DER-U: 342-2 DER-U: 332-2

Notes Joint distorted due to creep and cover plates Failed elastomer element
missing
D=3
DER-U: 342-2
Notes
Covered joint – cut open and seal
D=3
Notes

-
D=4
DER-U: 442-2 DER-U: 444-2

Notes Failed elastomer element Joint buried and leaking
MP 3765_S11
D=4
Staining on underside of deck due to leaking

Notes joint above Underside of deck and pier
MP 3765_S07
D=4
DER-U: 442-4
Replace nosing and provide elastomer Stained abutment
element
SW MR 103-52.56_S05

-
D =4
DER-U: 432-2 DER-U: 442-2

Notes
Replace existing joint Replace existing joint
D=4
DER-U: 442-2
Notes Nosing cracked and elastomer element
damaged
Notes

-
Item 21: Miscellaneous
D=1
DER-U: 111-1
Notes Loose pipe bracket
WC B2963A_S02
D=3
Notes
D=4
DER-U: 442-4 DER-U: 413-4

Notes Missing manhole cover Damaged hazard sign
WC B4744_S02 WC B3017_S03

-

Bms Visual Assessment Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bms Visual Assessment Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bms Visual Assessment Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

VISUAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION ………………………………………………………... 1

A1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………. 2

A1.1: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE …………………………………………... 2

A2. EVALUATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE ………………………... 2

A3. THE D E R RATING SYSTEM …………………………………………………….. 3

PART B: EXAMPLES OF D E R & U RATINGS ………………………………………….… 7

B1. TYPICAL BRIDGE DEFECTS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DEGREE (D)

B2. EXTENT (E) RATING ………………………………………………………………. 12

B3. RELEVANCY (R) RATING AND URGENCY (U) RATING ……………………… 13

PART C: VISUAL INSPECTION GUIDE …………………………………………………….. 25

C1. ITEM 1: APPROACH EMBANKMENT ……………………………………………. 26

C2. ITEM 2: GUARDRAILS ……………………………………………………………... 29

C3. ITEM 3: WATERWAY ………………………………………………………………. 32

C4. ITEM 4: PROTECTION WORKS ………………………………………………….. 35

C5. ITEMS 5, 6,7,10,11,13,14,18,19,20: CONCRETE ELEMENTS ……………….. 38

C5.1: DEFECT TYPE: CRACKING ……………………………………………….. 38

C6. ITEM 8: SURFACING ………………………………………………………………. 53

C7. ITEM 9: DRAINAGE ………………………………………………………………… 56

C8. ITEM 15: BEARINGS ………………………………………………………………. 59

C9. ITEM 17: EXPANSION JOINTS …………………………………………………… 62

C10 ITEM 21: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ……………………………………………… 69

A1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Visual assessments can be used for determining:

A1.2 LAYOUT OF THE MANUAL

The manual comprises three parts:

A2. EVALUATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE

Whatever type of organisational structure is adopted by an inspecting authority, an

• Facilitate bridge inspections

The data collection during inspections is required to be systematic and as accurate as is

1. Approach embankments 12. Pier protection works

A3. THE DER RATING SYSTEM

D degree of defect: How bad or severe is the defect.

E extent of defect: How common it is on the inspection item being inspected.

R - - - Record purpose only

0 None - - Monitor only

1 Minor Local Minimum Routine

2 Fair More than local Moderate < 5yrs

3 Poor Less than general Major < 2yrs

4 Severe General Critical A.S.A.P.

The above rating conventions are summarised in the following table:

Degree Extent Relevancy Urgency Monitor Interpretation

1, 2, 3 Must be Must be Must be

EXAMPLES OF D E R and U RATINGS

The possible values for D are given in the table below:

(All loose concrete b. Spalling is shallow. Reinforcement is partly exposed. No signs of 2

d. Reinforcement is exposed and corroded. Prestress duct is exposed. 4

b. Local scour at pier foundation is shallow. Scour has partly exposed 2

d. Scour has exposed erodible founding material of a spread footing. 4

c. Settlement is more than 50 mm but smaller than 100mm. There is an 3

d. Settlement is greater than 100 mm. There is an abrupt step of the 4

(All areas of b. Honeycombing is shallow. Reinforcement is partly exposed. No 2

d. Reinforcement is exposed and corroded. Prestress duct is 4

d. Crack is greater than 0,6 mm with no signs of water or corrosion of 4

d. Crack is greater than 0,2 mm but smaller or equal to 0,3 mm and 4

b. Drain is in the order of 50% blocked. Water flow is restricted. 2

c. Drain is almost completely blocked. Water flow severely restricted. 3

d. Drain is completely blocked up. No water flow can take place. 4