Draft Final Report PDF

GOVERNMENT OF ST.
LUCIA
MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE, PORT SERVICES AND

TRANSPORT
PREPARATION OF MAINTENANCE WORK PLANS

FOR LABORIE AND CANARIES JETTIES
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS REPORT – DRAFT
PREPARATION OF MAINTENANCE WORKS FOR THE JETTIES IN LABORIE AND CANARIES 1
Table of Contents
1 Review of Jetties .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Variations from Design during Construction ................................................................. 4
2 Condition Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Assessment of Jetty - Canaries .......................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Timber Fenders - Canaries ........................................................................................ 8
2.1.2 Fishermen’s Access Deck - Canaries...................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Timber Curbs - Canaries .......................................................................................... 10
2.1.4 Mooring Bitt - Canaries ............................................................................................ 11
2.1.5 Navigation Light - Canaries ..................................................................................... 12
2.1.6 Decks Slabs - Canaries ............................................................................................. 12
2.1.7 Pile Caps/Beams - Canaries .................................................................................... 13
2.1.8 Piles - Canaries........................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Assessment of Jetty at Laborie ........................................................................................ 16
2.2.1 Timber Fenders – Laborie ....................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Fishermen’s Access Deck - Laborie ....................................................................... 19
2.2.3 Timber Curbs - Laborie ........................................................................................... 20
2.2.4 Mooring Bitt - Laborie ............................................................................................. 21
2.2.5 Navigation Light - Laborie ...................................................................................... 22
2.2.6 Decks Slabs - Laborie ............................................................................................... 23
2.2.7 Pile Caps/Beams - Laborie ...................................................................................... 25
2.2.8 Piles - Laborie ............................................................................................................ 26
2.3 Summary of Findings and Recommendation of Surveys ............................................ 27
3 Schedule of Maintenance Activities........................................................................................ 29
3.1 Guidelines for Inspection of Jetties ................................................................................ 29
3.1.1 Visual Inspection ....................................................................................................... 29
3.1.2 Routine Detailed Inspection .................................................................................... 33
3.1.3 Special Inspection ..................................................................................................... 35
3.2 Maintenance Guidelines ................................................................................................... 39
3.2.1 Preventative Maintenance ........................................................................................ 39
3.2.2 Minor Maintenance ................................................................................................... 39

3.2.3 Emergency Repairs ................................................................................................... 39
3.2.4 Major Maintenance ................................................................................................... 39
3.2.5 Remedial Measure ..................................................................................................... 40
3.2.6 Cost of Maintenance ................................................................................................. 41
3.3 Forms of Deterioration and Repair Methods ............................................................... 42
3.3.1 Timber Construction ................................................................................................ 42
3.3.2 Concrete Construction ............................................................................................. 57
1 Review of Jetties
The review process for the jetties at Canaries and Laborie was conducted by comparing the
design drawings obtained from the MIPST and the findings of the Conditions Surveys
carried out at both sites.
The jetties were constructed at an elevation of +1.9m above mean sea level (MSL) which is
acceptable based on storm surge levels expected for the west coast of St. Lucia. Wave
heights and storm surge values for hurricane conditions with a return period of 50 years are
known for Balembouche, located between Canaries and Laborie, based on work conducted
for another project by Smith Warner International Ltd. Wave conditions from the west and
south-west were found to produce the two worst-case conditions at the project site. Waves
from the west were found to reach 2-2.5m in height and waves from the south-west 1.75-
2.25m. Storm surge levels, excluding the effect of wave run-up, can reach +1.1-1.15m when
coming from west and +1.1m-1.175m when coming from south-west (SWIL, 2009).
The same design was used for both jetties, which were found to be 4m wide and carried
lengths of 52m and 104m at Canaries and Laborie respectively. The design of the jetties was
considered to be structurally sound, although a design report was not available for review.
The sizes of the structural members; the beams/pile caps (1x 1.05m), concrete filled piles
(0.406m x 0.013m) and reinforced concrete slabs (0.3m) were deemed to be acceptable,
considering the wave forces to which they would be subjected.
However, the concrete cover of 65mm specified for the reinforcement in the pile was found
to be below the minimum of 75mm generally used for coastal structures. The concrete cover
is used to protect the reinforcement against corrosion and this cover becomes more
important for the portion of the jetties located in the intertidal and splash zones. Over the
ten (10) years that the jetties have been in existence, they have experienced:
 accelerated corrosion of the reinforcement,
 mechanical impact of waves
 shrinkage and swelling due to wetting and drying cycles and
 a continuous supply of moisture and salt through direct exposure to seawater.
All of these factors have contributed to damage and the state of disrepair observed during
the Condition Surveys of the structures. The lack of and/or insufficient construction quality
controls and construction supervision may have also contributed to the accelerated
deterioration of both jetties.
It was also noticed that the design drawings did not specify the specie of timber to be used,
nor did it specify the type of metal connectors. It should be noted that a copy of the Bill of
Quantities and Technical Specification documents was not available for review. Therefore, it
is not known whether the specie of timber and the type metal connectors were specified in
these documents. Further, the specie of timber used on the jetties could not be determined
by inspection and the metal from which the connectors were made could not be identified,
but it was concluded that they carried an anti-corrosion coating at the minimum.
1.1 Variations from Design during Construction

The review process revealed some variation between the design and the completed
structures. The timber fender system and the mooring bit/bollards varied from the design
for both jetties and a variation was observed for the location of the Fishermen’s Access
Deck at Canaries. Also, indicators were identified during the inspection of the jetties that
suggests that the deck slabs were pre-cast and then installed as opposed to an in-situ pour of
concrete. Additionally, there were indications that the aggregate used in the concrete was
from a foreign source instead of a local source.
As shown in Figure 1.1, the fender system was designed to have vertical members
(89x89mm) bolted on to the pile caps and four (4) horizontal members (64x264mm) would
then be bolted on to the vertical member using countersunk hex lag screws. However, the
fender was built using two (2)-76x76mm horizontal members with each bolted to the top
and bottom of the pile cap. Vertical members (76x76mm) were then bolted on to the
horizontal members at 300mm spacing using countersunk hex lag screws.
Figure 1.1: Comparison of timber fender built against design
The Fishermen’s Access Deck was built 12m seawards of the location shown on the design
drawing (see Figure 1.2). The fishermen’s Access Deck was not found attached to the jetty at
Canaries but the location where it was assumed to have been built was determined based on
the section of the jetty where timber curbs were not installed.
Figure 1.2: Variation in location of Fishermen's Access Deck
The type of mooring bitt used and its connection to the jetty varied from the design as can
be seen in Figure 1.3. According to the design, the mooring bitt was meant to carry a metal
cap and bolted to the deck of the jetty using 25mm bolts stemming from the pile beyond.
Instead, concrete filled pipes were used and they seem to have been connected to the deck
by an in-situ concrete pour and not the bolts specified on the design drawing.
Figure 1.3: Variation for Mooring Bitt

The decks of the jetties carried a seam down the middle which points to deck slabs being
pre-casted instead of being casted in-situ. The inspection of the decks suggested further that
the pre-casted slabs were tied together by an in-situ concrete pour of the upper 0.3m of the
pile cap, which is equivalent in thickness to the deck slab.
The aggregates shown in the spalled section of the underside of the deck slab in Figure 1.4
are light in colour, which suggests that the aggregate used is from a foreign source, not local.
Local aggregates are dark in colour and are generally basalts but the colour of the aggregate
used in the slab suggests that it is limestone, which would have come from a foreign source.
Figure 1.4: Seam down the middle of the deck slab (left), light coloured aggregate (right)
2 Condition Surveys
Condition Surveys were conducted for the jetties at Canaries and Laborie in order to fulfill
item no.2 of the services required under the Terms of Reference – “Determine the maintenance
requirements for each of the identified jetties via the necessary site visits and in consultation with the MIPST
staff”. The condition surveys were carried out by a Senior Coastal Engineer from Smith
Warner International and an Engineer’s Assistant from Amarna Consult Limited. During the
surveys, the jetties were mapped using a handheld GPS and the condition of the jetties were
recorded by taking photographs and field notes.
The jetties at both sites were found to be in need of maintenance repair works. The jetty at
Canaries was found to be in a greater state of disrepair when compared to the one at
Laborie. This is as a result of the benefit of greater sheltering provided by the bay and the
reefs offshore at Laboire which help to dissipate wave energy. The jetties had damage to
their timber fenders, timber curbs, mooring bitts/bollards, Fishermen’s Access Deck,
reinforced concrete slabs and pile caps/beams.
2.1 Assessment of Jetty - Canaries

The jetty at Canaries is oriented in a northwest direction and it is situated on a fairly open
stretch of shoreline on the west coast of St. Lucia (see Figure 2.1), approximately 160m
north of the Canaries River. The headland to the north of the jetty and the Canaries River
delta to the south create a small bay; however, these coastal features do not provide much
protection to the jetty against above normal sea conditions.
The jetty has extensive structural damage and it is in a state of extreme disrepair which could
have been minimized by regular inspections and maintenance works. All structural and non-
structural members on the jetty are either in need of repair or replacement. The following
sections outline the damages to the various components of the jetty and the remedial works
required for their restoration.
Canaries Jetty
Figure 2.1: Location of Canaries Jetty
2.1.1 Timber Fenders - Canaries

As shown in Error! Reference source not found., the fender system on the jetty is made of
timber and it consists of two (2) - 76x76mm horizontal members attached to reinforced
concrete beams by 25mm bolts. Also, there are 76x76mm vertical timber members at 0.3m
spacing connected to the horizontal members by 13mm screws. It should be noted that the
specie of timber used for the construction of the fender is not known and due to the
degradation of the timber, the specie of timber used could not be determined by comparison
with known species.
Figure 2.2: Jetty showing missing timber members, north side (top) and south side (bottom)
The damage to the fender is characterized mainly by missing timber members, primarily, the
vertical members. This damage was most pronounced at the seaward and lands ends of the
jetty as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The dislodgement of the timber
members is a result of connection failure caused by the corrosive environment and wave
induced loads. The depth of embedment of the screw connecting the horizontal members to
the vertical members was determined to be inadequate, as it was estimated to be only about
an inch (25mm).
The degradation of the timber on the fender system was most pronounced on the vertical
members, that is, the section which falls below the level of the pile caps and which gets wet
as a result of tides and waves. The fender members have degraded over time due to
biological attack stemming from fungal decay, marine borers and algal growth. Wave impact
and abrasion has contributed to the mechanical degradation of the timber. This has resulted
in the structural failure of the timber fibers and the erosion of the member. The timber
members have also experienced superficial forms of degradation over the years due to
chemical and photochemical attack. The combination of salt deposits and sunlight have
resulted in defibrillation and lightening of the wood fibers over time.
Given the extent of structural damage to the fender system and also, the extent to which the
timber members have degraded, it is recommended that the damaged fender system be
removed from the jetty and be replaced by a new one built according to design
specifications.
2.1.2 Fishermen’s Access Deck - Canaries

The Fishermen’s Access Deck has been dislodged from the Canaries jetty. Based on the
design drawing, the Fishmen’s Deck was 1.53 wide, 12.4m long and 0.77m below the deck of
the jetty (+1.13m). Comparisons between the existing jetty and the design revealed that the
Fishermen’s Access Deck was built seaward of its designed location by approximately 12m
(see Figure 1.2). This conclusion was drawn from the fact the design drawing specified
“Timber curbs not installed where Fishermen’s Access is constructed” and this area was found seaward
of its designed location. The variation from the design meant that the Access Deck was
constructed over deeper water and therefore, exposed to larger wave forces which
contributed to its dislodgement.
It is therefore recommended that the Fishermen’s Access Deck be re-constructed at the
design location shown in Figure 1.2.
2.1.3 Timber Curbs - Canaries

The timber curbs are 191x191mm rough sawn members which were generally found to be in
good condition. The degradations of the members observed were superficial and limited to
defibrillation and lightening of the wood fibers.
Figure 2.3: Timber curbs along jetty at Canaries

Since the structural integrity of the curbs is intact, replacement of these members is not
necessary. However, maintenance works are required and so they should be sanded down to
remove defibrillation and painted with a marine wood stain and sealer.
2.1.4 Mooring Bitt - Canaries

The installation of the mooring bitts was another variation from the design drawings. The
moorings seen on the jetty were 225mm metal pipes that were filled with concrete instead of
the pre-fabricated one (with a metal cap) shown on the drawing. The moorings installed on
the jetty also seem to have been casted into the deck slab instead of being bolted on to it.
This variation has complicated the approach to maintenance and the replacement of the
bitts. Their removal now requires them to be drilled out of the concrete instead of simply
being unbolted from the deck.
As shown in Figure 2.4, the Condition Survey revealed that all of the moorings have suffered
extensive corrosion and therefore, they should be replaced.
Figure 2.4: Corrosion of Mooring Bitts

2.1.5 Navigation Light - Canaries

A navigation aid was installed at the seaward end of the jetty, however, only its metal base
plate and stand remains in place. This implied that the unitized light system, marine lantern,
solar panel and battery and box would have to be replaced in order to get the navigational
aid back in working order.
The navigational aid technology has improved since the design of the jetties and so the
navigational aid specified on the design drawing is considered to be outdated. It is therefore
recommended that the navigational aid be replaced by a more modern and compact solar
LED light.
2.1.6 Decks Slabs - Canaries

The decks slabs are reinforced concrete members, 0.3m thick and spanning the width of the
jetty (4m) and all twelve (12) deck slabs inspected were found to be in need of repair.
Damage to the deck slabs were noticed only on the underside, while the upper side was
found to be in good condition. The disparity between the damage to the underside and the
deck side of the jetty can be attributed to the frequency with which the underside comes into
contact with seawater. As shown in Table 2.1, the condition of the slabs varied between
erosion of the concrete and spalling of the concrete to exposed and corroded
reinforcements. Further, the table below summarizes the conditions of the slabs which are
numbered in ascending order from the most landward one, progressing seaward.
Figure 2.5: Spalling Damage on underside of Deck Slabs
The damage to the slabs was dominated by spalling and this is thought to be a result of
inadequate cover for the reinforcement and inadequate quality controls and/or supervision
at the time of construction. As the decks seem to have been pre-casted instead of being
poured in-situ, an assumption is that this could have taken place offsite without supervision.
The cover was not specified on the drawing detail for the deck slab. However, since the
cover was specified (65mm, which is inadequate cover) for the upper 0.3m of the pile cap
which forms a part of the deck, the contractor may have assumed/used this cover for the
slabs.
Table 2.1: Condition of Slabs
Slab No. Condition Description of Damage Treatment/Action
1 Superficial Erosion of concrete – aggregate exposed Plaster concrete and repair
Damage and moss growth spalling cracks
2 Damaged Spalling on underside – reinforcement Remove corrosion from
exposed and corroded. steel and repair spalling.
4 Moderate concrete cracks on underside Repair concrete cracks.
Damage
Damage
9 Superficial Erosion of concrete – aggregate exposed Plaster concrete
Damage
Damage
Damage
2.1.7 Pile Caps/Beams - Canaries

The pile caps/ beams span the width of the jetty, therefore connecting the two piles driven
at either side of the jetty. The design section for the pile cap shows that it is 1m wide and has
a depth of 1.05m with the upper 0.3m of the pile cap also acting as the deck slab. The detail
for the pile cap was the only drawing which specified the cover for the reinforcement in the
concrete (65mm), except for the side wall abutment detail (75mm). The cover specified was
considered to be inadequate as a minimum cover of 75mm is generally specified for
reinforced concrete located in the coastal environment. The condition survey revealed that
all but one (1) of the twelve (12) pile caps inspected was damaged.
Figure 2.6: Spalling damage to Pile Caps/Beams
The damages observed on the pile caps are similar to those seen on the deck slabs and so,
inadequate cover of the reinforcement is therefore considered to be the reason for the
spalling damage on the pile caps. Also, the damage to the pile caps occurred mainly at its
base which would have come into contact with seawater more frequently than the rest of the
pile cap.
Table 2.2: Condition of Pile Caps/Beams

Pile Cap/ Condition Description of Damage Treatment/Action
Beam No.
2 Moderate concrete cracks at base Repair concrete cracks.
Damage
3 Damaged Spalling at base – reinforcement exposed Remove corrosion from
and corroded. steel and repair spalling.
4 Superficial Erosion of concrete – aggregate exposed Plaster concrete
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
2.1.8 Piles - Canaries

The piles supporting the jetty are steel encased concrete piles driven to a depth of 16m
below the seabed. The structural integrity of the piles is intact; however, there is evidence of
the corrosion of the steel located in the slash zone.
Figure 2.7: Corrosion of Piles
The corrosion of the steel is more pronounced for the pile location within the seaward half
of the jetty. The piles were installed with a modular corrosion prevention system covering
the upper 1.5m of the pipe but a number of them have been removed following failure of
their connectors due to corrosion and wave induced loads. Also, a pile was found to be out
of alignment as shown in Figure 2.8.
Modular Corrosion
Prevention System
Figure 2.8: Modular Corrosion Prevention System (left), Pile out of alignment (right)
The section of the pile between the seabed and water level is dominated by marine growth as
shown in Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9: Aquatic life on piles

In order to address the problem associated with the piles, it is recommended that all the
aquatic growth and corrosion be removed from the piles such that the steel is once more
exposed and this should be followed by the replacement the modular corrosion prevention
system.
2.2 Assessment of Jetty at Laborie

The jetty is located within Laborie Bay on the South-west coastline of St Lucia as shown in
Figure 2.10. Situated at the western end of the bay, the jetty has a west-southwesterly
orientation and is 104m long and 4m wide. There are a number of reefs offshore which
helps to reduce wave energy and as such, protects the jetty, the beach and provides a
sheltered anchorage for boats.
The jetty has structural damage caused by the corrosive environment in which it is located
and therefore, it is in need of repair works. The jetty at Laborie was found to be in a better
state of health than the one at Canaries. Similar to the findings of the condition survey at
Canaries, the extent of the repair works now required could have been minimized through
regular inspections and maintenance works. As a result, the components of the jetty are in
need of repair or replacement. The following sections outline the damages to the various
components of the jetty and the remedial works required for their restoration.
Laborie Jetty
Figure 2.10: Laborie Bay

Figure 2.11: Jetty at Laborie Bay
2.2.1 Timber Fenders – Laborie

The fender system constructed at Laborie is the same as the one built at Canaries. Since the
same structural design was used for both locations, this meant that the fender system
constructed at Laborie also varied from the design as described 2.1.1 Timber Fenders - Canaries.
Due to the level of degradation, the specie of timber used for the construction of the fender
system could not be determined for the Laborie jetty either.
Majority of the timber members on the fender system were found in place at time of the
Condition Survey. However, the number of the members (both horizontal and vertical) were
rotted or generally degraded, rotated out of aligned and their connectors had corroded to
point where the connection failed or was not providing much strength to the fender system
(see Figure 2.12). The rotted and the rotated members were seen over the length of the jetty
but the missing members were only seen close to the shoreline.
The contributing factors identified for the deterioration of the of the timber fender at
Canaries were identified once more as the reasons for the damage to the jetty at Laborie.
They included the biological, mechanical and chemical degradation of the timber as well as
corroded connections and the inadequate depth of embedment of connectors.
Because of the extent to which the fender has deteriorated, it is recommended that the
damaged fender system be removed from the jetty and be replaced by a new one built to
design specifications.
Figure 2.12: Damage to fender system - Laborie
2.2.2 Fishermen’s Access Deck - Laborie

Contrary to what occurred at Canaries, the Fishermen’s Access Deck at Laborie was
constructed in its designed location and although damaged, it found attached to the jetty.
The Fishmen’s Access Deck is 1.53 wide, 12.4m long and 0.77m below the deck of the jetty
(+1.13m). The condition survey of the Fishermen’s Deck revealed the following damages:
 Missing deck planks
 Missing planks for stairs
 Degraded timber members
 Corroded and missing connectors
It is therefore recommended that the existing Fishermen’s Access Deck be removed and a
new one re-constructed in its place. If the budget allocated for the repair of the jetties does
not allow for its replacement, then at the minimum, the missing planks, corroded connectors
and rotted members should be replaced.
Broken Connection Pile Cap/Beam
Figure 2.13: Damage to Fishermen's Access Deck
2.2.3 Timber Curbs - Laborie

The timber curbs on the deck of the jetty at Laborie were in a far more advance state of
degradation than those at Canaries and as a result, ten (10) of them were determined to be in
need of replacement. The other curbs showed superficial signs of degradation in the form of
defibrillation and lightening of the wood fibers and therefore, they should be sanded down
to remove defibrillation and painted with a marine wood stain and sealer.
Figure 2.14: Sample of Damaged Timber Curbs
2.2.4 Mooring Bitt - Laborie

The variation from the design for the mooring bitt installed at Canaries was repeated at
Laborie. As a result; their removal will require the moorings to be drill out of the concrete
instead of simply being unbolted from the deck. In general, the mooring bitts at Laborie
were in better condition than those at Canaries but nevertheless, the extent to which they
have corroded warrants their replacement (see Figure 2.15). If limited by budgetary
constraint, then the corroded steel must be removed from the mooring and then, the
mooring should be coated with an anti-corrosion paint.
Figure 2.15: Corrosion of Mooring Bitts
2.2.5 Navigation Light - Laborie

The condition of the navigation aid at Laborie were the same as the one at Canaries, as only
the metal base plate and stand remained in place. It is recommended that the navigational aid
specified on the design drawing be replaced by a more modern and compact solar LED light
as the previous one is considered to be outdated.
Frame for Navigational Aid
Figure 2.16: Frame for Navigational Aid
2.2.6 Decks Slabs - Laborie

In keeping with the observation made at Canaries, only the undersides of the deck slabs at
Laborie were damaged. However, the deck slabs at Laborie were in much better condition
than those at Canaries. While all of the deck slabs at Canaries were found to be in need of
repair, only nine (9) of the twenty-six (26) slabs inspected at Laborie required repair works.
Once more, there were spalling damage to the slabs but most of the damaged slabs carried
cracks.
Figure 2.17: Spalling Damge to Slab no.1 (left) and Slab no. 2 (right)
The two (2) deck slabs closest to the shoreline and shown in Figure 2.17 were damaged to
the extent where they have lost their structural integrity and therefore, they need to be
replaced. The table below summarizes the conditions of the slabs which are numbered in
ascending order from the shoreline to the seaward extent of the jetty.
Table 2.3: Condition of Slabs

Slab No. Condition Description of Damage Treatment/Action
1 Damaged Spalling on underside – reinforcement Replace slab.
exposed and corroded.
2 Damaged Spalling on underside – reinforcement Replace slab.
exposed and corroded.
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
2.2.7 Pile Caps/Beams - Laborie

The damages observed on the pile caps are similar to those seen for the jetty at Canaries and
once more, inadequate cover for the reinforcement is considered to be the reason of the
spalling damage and cracks in the concrete on the pile caps. A total of fifteen (15) of the
twenty six (26) pile caps inspected were damaged and they were subjected to mainly spalling
cracks. The table below summarizes the damages to the pile caps which are number in
ascending order from the shoreline to the seaward end of the jetty.
Table 2.4: Damage to Pile Caps/Beams

Pile Cap/ Condition Description of Damage Treatment/Action
Beam No.
4 Moderate concrete cracks at base Repair concrete cracks
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
Damage
and corroded. steel and repair spalling
22 Moderate Spalling cracks at base Repair spalling cracks
Damage
Damage
Damage

Damage
2.2.8 Piles - Laborie

In general, the piles supporting the jetty are in good condition and are structurally sound.
Only two (2) piles were found to be in an advanced stage of corrosion due the displacement
of the modular corrosion prevention system from around the pile. As shown in Figure 2.18,
this corrosion took place on the section of the piles between water level and the base of the
pile cap. Remedial works for the piles should result in the corrosion being removed and the
corrosion prevention system being replaced.
Figure 2.18: Corrosion of Piles

The removal of the growth of marine growth seen on section of the pile between the seabed
and the water level in Figure 2.9 is also recommended.
Figure 2.19: Aquatic life on piles

2.3 Summary of Findings and Recommendation of Surveys

The jetties located at Canaries and Laborie are both in need of maintenance repair works as
all structural and non-structural members have deteriorated due to the corrosive
environment in which they are located. The jetties had damage to their timber fenders,
timber curbs, mooring bollards, Fishermen’s Access Deck, reinforced concrete slabs, pile
caps/beams and piles. In general, the jetty at Canaries was found to be in a more advanced
state of deterioration than the one at Laborie.
The fender on the jetties needs to be replaced due to the degree of degradation of its
structural members and the amount of connection failures identified throughout the fender
system. The specie of timber used for the construction of the fender could not be
determined neither from the design drawing nor by inspection. The damage to the fender
system was characterized mainly by missing timber members, primarily, the vertical members
at both locations. The factors contributing to the deterioration of the fenders were cited as
biological, mechanical and chemical degradation of the timber as well as the inadequate
depth of embedment of connectors. Wave impact and abrasion contributed significantly to
the mechanical degradation of the members, resulting in the structural failure of the timber
fibers and the erosion of the member.
The Fishermen’s Access Deck at Canaries was constructed 12m seaward of the location in
which it should have been built; this resulted in it being exposed to greater wave forces and
this contributed to the Access Deck being dislodged from the jetty. On the other hand, the
jetty at Laborie was constructed at its designed location but it was found with damages in the
form of missing deck and stairs planks, degraded timber and corroded and missing
connectors. It was recommended that the Fishermen’s Access Deck at Canaries be re-
constructed at the designed location, while, the jetty at Laborie should be either rebuilt or
repaired, depending on the available budget for the repair works.
The timber curbs at Canaries were generally found to be in good condition as the
degradations of the members observed were superficial and limited to defibrillation and
lightening of the wood fibers. However, ten (10) of the curbs inspected at Laborie were
determined to be in need of replacement. As a result, it was recommended at all the curbs on
the jetty should be sanded down to remove the defibrillation and painted with a marine
wood stain and sealer.
The installation of the mooring bitts at Canaries varied from the design and this variation
was repeated at Laborie. This variation has complicated the approach to the maintenance
and the replacement of the bitts as their removal will require the moorings to be drill out of
the concrete instead of simply unbolted from the deck. The replacement of the mooring
bitts was recommended for the Canaries jetty. A similar recommendation was made for
moorings at Laborie; however, if limited by budgetary constraint, then the corroded steel
should be removed from the moorings and the mooring coated with an anti-corrosion paint.
The condition of the navigation aid at Laborie and Canaries were found to be the same as
only the metal base plate and stand remained in place. The recommendation was made for
the navigational aid to be replaced by a more modern and compact solar LED light as the
previous one is considered to be outdated.
All twelve (12) deck slabs inspected on the jetty at Canaries were found to in need of repair,
while only nine (9) of the twenty-six (26) slabs inspected at Laborie required repair works.
Damage to the deck slabs on both jetties was noticed only on the underside, while the upper
deck side was found to be in good condition. The disparity between the damage to the
underside and the upper side of the jetties can be attributed to the frequency with which the
underside comes in contact with seawater. The damage to the slabs was dominated by
spalling and this was thought to be a result of inadequate cover for the reinforcement and
inadequate quality controls and/or supervision at the time of construction. The repair of the
spalling damage was the general recommendation for the deck slabs expect for the two (2)
deck slabs closest to the shoreline at Laborie, which will require replacement.
The detail for the pile cap was the only drawing that specified the cover for the
reinforcement in the concrete (65mm), except for the side wall abutment detail (75mm). The
cover specified was considered to be inadequate as a minimum cover of 75mm is generally
specified for reinforced concrete located in the coastal environment. The condition survey
revealed that all but one (1) of the twelve (12) pile caps inspected at Canaries was damaged.
However, a total of fifteen (15) of the twenty six (26) pile caps inspected at Laborie were
damaged and they were subjected to mainly concrete cracks. The damages observed on the
pile caps are similar to those seen on the deck slabs and so, inadequate cover for the
reinforcement was therefore considered to be the reason of the spalling damage. The repair
of the spalling damage was recommended for the pile caps.
The structural integrity of piles at the location of both jetties was found to be intact;
however, there is evidence of the corrosion of the steel located in the splash zone. The
corrosion observed was more severe at Canaries than it was at Laborie. The piles were
installed with a modular corrosion prevention system covering the upper 1.5m of the pipe
but a number of them have been removed due to corrosion failure of the connectors and
wave induced loads. Remedial works for the piles should result in the corrosion being
removed and the corrosion prevention system being replaced. The removal of the marine
growth seen on section of the pile between the seabed and the water level was also
recommended.
3 Schedule of Maintenance Activities

3.1 Guidelines for Inspection of Jetties
The inspection of coastal structures is divided into three main categories, namely Visual
Inspection, Routine Detailed Inspection and Special Inspection. The level of effort to be
expended in each category, frequency of inspections and the procedures are defined in this
section.
3.1.1 Visual Inspection

A visual inspection is performed:
 As part of a routine program of inspections,
 After natural hazard or emergency, such as hurricane, and
 If any significant new defect or damage requiring early action is reported by on-site
personnel.
As part of the routine program, visual inspections involve a survey of the structure that is
accessible without the aid of a boat or other equipment. In response to an emergency, a
visual inspection is the first level of survey, providing basic information about the type and
extent of damage so that decisions can be made as to further action.
3.1.1.1 Scheduling
Inspections forming part of a routine program should be conducted roughly every six
months. These inspections should coincide with the beginning and the end of the hurricane
season, which are June and November respectively. During this period, inspections should
also be conducted immediately after the passage of a hurricane or tropical storm that has
affected the island.
3.1.1.2 Inspection Team
One Inspector is required to conduct a visual inspection. The Inspector does not necessarily
need to have technical qualifications, but should have a good working knowledge of the
facilities and their operation.
3.1.1.3 Preparation for Inspection
A site survey of the facilities should be obtained, or conducted if an inspection is being
carried out for the first time. Thereafter, preparations forming a part of the routine program
should include a review of previous inspection records for indications of areas that may
require particular attention The Inspector should be aware of the areas and forms of
deterioration that can occur at structure and should therefore refer to 3.1.1.4 Identification of
Deterioration.
3.1.1.4 Identification of Deterioration
To assist the inspector in the identification of deficiencies Table 3.1and Table 3.2 identify
common areas and symptoms of deterioration in structures
Table 3.1: Areas of Deterioration
STRUCTURE COMPONENT AREA TO CHECK SOME THINGS TO

CHECK FOR
JETTY/ PIER General Deck Vertical surfaces, sign Plumbness
posts, lamp standards.
Face Close to dock face, Ponding, Cracks,
Around bollards, In Settlement
areas of heavy loading.
At joints.
Hardware Splash zone and tidal Corrosion, Spading,
zone. Face beam or Abrasion
cope wall.
General Fender System. Missing Parts, Corrosion,
Bollards and anchor Distortion
bolts. Ladders.
Table 3.2: Common Symptoms of Material Deterioration
MATERIAL DETERIORATION SYMPTOMS

STEEL Coating Failure Worn, cracked, weathered or scraped.
Blistered or peeled, particularly around
welds.
Metal Loss Corrosion such as rust spots, flaking and
pitting.
Member Deformation Bent, twisted, buckled and broken.
Connection Loose, broken bolts and rivets. Broken
Deterioration welds.
CONCRETE General Cracks
Concrete Loss Chips, spalling, swelling and general

disintegration of surface, abrasion due to
floating debris. Lime deposits, staining.
Corrosion of Rust stains on surface, cracks, spalling

Reinforcing Steel with reinforcing steel visible.
TIMBER Rot Discoloration, organic growth,

disintegration.
Waterlogging Loss of buoyancy.
Timber Loss Smooth surface from wearing by vessels
and vehicle tires.
Member Deformation Twisted, broken, cracked, split and
splintered.
Connection Loose or misaligned
Deterioration
3.1.1.5 Inspection Procedure
The basic approach to routine visual inspection is to conduct a general visual survey tour of
the coastal structure, recording areas of new or progressive deterioration. A visual inspection
should be carried out when failure of the structure, a boat collides with the structure or any
significant new defect occurs. Particulars should be recorded and photographs should also
be taken highlighting the affected area.
3.1.1.6 Inspection Reports
Observations from the inspection should be recorded in the Visual Inspection Field Report
together with the Inspector's comments and recommendations, if any. A sample report is
shown on Figure 3.1 to indicate the degree of detail to be entered into. Field reports should
be submitted promptly for Preliminary Evaluation.
The routine reports, when reviewed sequentially will give a general indication of the
deteriorating condition of the structure over time. In addition, observations are used to
define the extent of maintenance to be carried out on the structure.
In the case of Emergency reports, they should be communicated for Preliminary Evaluation
by telephone, initially, followed by prompt transmittal of the written report. The observation
of the emergency should follow the same format as the Visual Inspection Field Report.
3.1.1.7 Preliminary Evaluation
The Visual Inspection Field Report should be evaluated to determine if a technical
evaluation is required.
Table 3.3: Visual Inspection Field Report

VISUAL INSPECTION FIELD REPORT SHEET OF
REGION: LOCATION: NAME:
STRUCTURE TYPE: CONSTRUCTION:
NO
WEATHER: TIDE LEVEL: TEMP. HI: LO: CREW:
REASON FOR INSPECTION: DATE OF

INSPECTION:
MEMBER LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTO
NO.
COMMENTS:
DISTRIBUTION: BY: DATE:
3.1.2 Routine Detailed Inspection

This is the second level of inspection involving a complete, systematic examination of
structures, their foundations and components. It may include, depending on the nature of
the facility and previous inspections, underwater surveys, soundings, core sampling of timber
and other physical sampling. However, the routine detailed inspection would exclude work
requiring specialist assistance or the mobilization of special or heavy equipment which would
be covered by special inspections.
3.1.2.1 Scheduling
Detailed inspections of all facilities should be carried out within the first year of completion
of construction or major rehabilitation while the contractual guarantee period is still in
effect. This identifies deficiencies to be repaired under the terms and conditions of the
construction contract and establishes the base condition of the structure against which the
results of succeeding inspections can be measured.
The frequency of inspection should be determined by the rate of deterioration of a structure.
A rapidly deteriorating structure requires more frequent inspections than a structure that
shows little change with time. Factors such as wave conditions, water quality, abuse and how
well protective measures have been designed and constructed have a major influence on
structure life. In addition, rehabilitation of a structure has the effect of reducing the rate of
deterioration, consequently increasing the required interval between inspections.
At the time of evaluation of an inspection report, it is necessary to decide the timing of the
next inspection, based on the structure's condition. If a greater number of defects requiring
repairs than anticipated are identified during inspection, the subsequent inspection should be
scheduled at a shorter frequency than either the previous frequency or the frequency derived
from Table 3.4. Conversely, if few defects are identified during inspection, the subsequent
inspection may be postponed.
Table 3.4: Suggested Frequency of Routine Detailed Inspection
USEFUL RESIDUAL TO LIFE SUGGESTED FREQUENCY OF
OF STRUCTURE INSPECTION*
>25 Years Every 5 years
16 to 25 years Every 4 years
* All structures to be inspected within one year of completion of construction or major

rehabilitation.
Inspections undertaken for site specific reasons or required as a result of the findings of
previous surveys are classified as special inspections, which are described in Section 3.4.
A master schedule should be prepared, identifying due dates for detailed inspections of each
coastal structure over a five year period, which is updated annually.
The team comprises at least two persons, the leader being an engineer or senior technician.
Additional personnel may be required depending on the size and complexity of the structure.
The following procedures should be followed to identify documentation and assist in the
provision of hand tools and equipment required to perform a detailed inspection.
The latest as-constructed drawings of the structure should be reviewed and the suitable
drawings selected for orientation purposes and the identification of construction materials
and special characteristics in the field.
 Records of previous inspections and maintenance records of the
structure to be inspected should be reviewed in order to obtain an overview of
findings and the extent of previous and currently planned repair and replacement
work.
 Table 3.1and Table 3.2 should be reviewed for guidelines of identification of
common areas and symptoms of deterioration in structures.
 Where applicable, the on-site personnel or user representatives should be advised of
the impending inspection to obtain any suggestions for maintenance and
operating improvements.
 A detailed itinerary of the proposed inspection tour should be prepared.
The purpose of the routine detailed inspection is to indicate the general condition of the
structure to the engineer who will evaluate its condition from the inspector's field
observations. Attempts should be made to record the approximate location and dimensions
of defects. It is usually sufficient to indicate rough dimensions and location of a deteriorated
area, judged by eye, with measurements where necessary.
In less accessible areas or where a structure has many similar components, such as the piles
of the jetties, it is only necessary to record the general condition of the varying degrees of
deterioration of typical members and not identify the condition of each and every one. It
may be necessary, particularly when examining a substructure, to remove marine growth to
permit observation of deterioration. Global aspects of the structure such as line, grade and
true plane of its various components should be noted.
Observations are recorded on the Detailed Inspection Field Report (which should take a
similar format to that of the Visual Inspection Report, see Table 3.3) and representative
photographs taken and listed.
Field observations should be transferred from the Field Reports to general layout plans of
the structure and the photographs should also be assembled and labeled. A general summary
of the inspector's findings should be prepared.
3.1.2.6 Further Action
The inspection report should be reviewed by an engineer to determine if a Special Inspection
is required to provide more definitive information.
If not, the engineer should complete the report by estimating the useful residual life of the
major components of the structure and:
 recommend the need for remedial work,
 recommend that no remedial work is required, in which case the date of the
next inspection is scheduled.
The report should be submitted for evaluation.
3.1.3 Special Inspection

A Special Inspection is performed:-
 in the event of serious damage or collapse of a structure, due to grounding,
storm or other causes,
 in conjunction with a routine detailed inspection when deterioration of
inaccessible elements such as piles is to be monitored and when any work
or testing requiring special equipment is required, or
 when evaluation of visual and routine detailed inspections determines that
more definitive information is required.
Special inspections include sampling and testing of materials beyond the scope of routine
detailed inspections.
3.1.3.1 Scheduling
Special inspections are not necessarily conducted in accordance with any schedule.
The team should be similar to that used for the routine detailed inspections, complemented
by specialist assistance in diving, concrete coring, sonic testing, geotechnical investigations
and the like.
The following procedures should be followed in the preparation for inspection:
 Review Previous Visual and Routine Detailed Inspection Reports of the
structure.
 Review maintenance and construction records of the structure.
 Review as-constructed drawings of the structure and select suitable drawings
for orientation purposes and identification of construction materials and
special characteristics.
 Prepare inspection scope of work and procedures and organize specialist
assistance.
 Contact on-site personnel or user representative to arrange inspection time
to minimize interruption to operations.
Special inspection procedures used on various structures and materials are listed in Table 3.5.
Field observations should be recorded on the Special Inspection Field Report which is
similar in format to the Visual Inspection Report and representative photographs taken
should also be listed.
Observations should be transferred from field reports to general layout plans of the
structure. Additional information such as core sample locations should be recorded and
photographs should be assembled and labeled.
Other specialist field information such as geotechnical borehole information and echo
soundings should be recorded in the traditional format by the relevant specialist.
3.1.3.6 Further Action
The inspection information should be reviewed by an engineer who should complete the
report by estimating the useful residual life of the major components investigated and
recommend the appropriate remedial action, if required.
Table 3.5: Special Inspection procedures for different forms of deterioration in structural materials
MATERIAL FORM OF INSPECTION METHOD
DETERIORATION
Concrete Breakage Record shape, orientation location. Obtain impact
or overload report from caretaker/user.
Core or saw to check concrete quality.
Ultrasonic testing.
Load testing.
Cracking, Record shape, orientation and location.
Spalling Measure crack/spall length, width and depth. Core
or saw to check concrete quality and settlement of
underlying fill.
Pulse velocity measurements to check strength.
Remove loose concrete and expose rebar if spalling
has reached that level.
Measure rebar diameter.
Use millivolt meter to detect stray currents.
Ultrasonic testing.
Load testing.
Disintegration of matrix Measure affected area for loss of cross-section.
Probe to determine extent.

Sound by striking with hammer.
Core sound and affected concrete to check quality.
Test samples in laboratory for chemical

composition and physical properties.
Ultrasonic testing.
Load testing.
Steel Breakage, Crimp, Buckling Record shape, location and orientation.
Obtain impact or overload report from caretaker,
user.
Obtain sample to check quality. Load testing.
Load testing.
Corrosion Remove growth, debris, blistered coating and rust
scale.
Record form of corrosion (dust, flaking, pitting).
Measure depth of pitting, perforation.

Measure remaining section using calipers, ultrasonic
methods.
Use millivolt meter to test effectiveness of cathodic
protection.
Load testing.
Timber Breakage Record shape, orientation and location.
Obtain impact or overload report from
caretaker/user.
Probe, drill or core to check quality.
Load testing.
Cracking Record shape, orientation and location.
Measure crack length, width and depth. Sonic
testing.
Rot Load testing.
Check pile tops, caps, bolt hole openings and
contact surfaces.
Uncover suspect surfaces. Probe, drill or core.
Sound with hammer.

Sonic testing.
Load testing.
Weathering Probe, drill or core.
Load testing.
Marine Borer Attack Probe, drill, core or saw.
Sound with hammer.
Sonic testing.
Load testing.
3.2 Maintenance Guidelines

This section identifies four levels of maintenance, namely, Preventative Maintenance, Minor
Maintenance, Major Maintenance and Emergency Repairs. It also defines accuracy of cost
estimating for the various stages of the maintenance procedure.
3.2.1 Preventative Maintenance

Preventative maintenance involves the regular replacement of component parts of an
installation or equipment, even before signs of deterioration occur. This practice safeguards
against unexpected structural failure and in some cases costly repair that could have been
avoided.
This type of maintenance, when related to marine facilities, is usually limited to the
replacement of parts of electrical and mechanical equipment, done according to the
manufacturers' recommendations. Sand blasting and painting may be considered a form of
preventative maintenance, and goes a long way in extending the useful life of the structure.
Most preventive maintenance can be carried out under minor maintenance.
3.2.2 Minor Maintenance

Minor maintenance is classified as general repairs that are carried out on a regular basis to
keep a structure in good operating condition and in some cases for aesthetic reasons.
This form of maintenance may be carried out based on the results of visual inspections,
which in turn can be a part of a routine program of inspections.
3.2.3 Emergency Repairs

Emergency repairs are temporary measures taken to:
 remove a safety hazard,
 regain effectiveness of an essential structure, or
 stabilize a structure's condition to prevent rapid spreading of deterioration
Emergency repairs generally require design and technical input as well as construction
expertise. When effectively combined, the resulting solution should be a safe cost- effective
structure, that can be easily adapted and in the quickest possible time. Having stabilized the
potential danger, subsequent permanent repairs can be planned and executed in a planned
orderly fashion, either as minor or major maintenance.
3.2.4 Major Maintenance

Major maintenance to structures includes all repairs and remedial works not classified as
Preventative Maintenance, Minor Maintenance, or Emergency Repairs.
3.2.5 Remedial Measure

3.2.5.1 Procedures
In determining the appropriate emergency action for emergency repairs and major
maintenance, the following steps may be adopted:
 technical evaluation of inspection observation,
 identification of the cause of damage or deterioration,
 preparation of appropriate repair alternatives and cost estimates, and
 selection of an optimum solution
3.2.5.2 Determination of Causes of Damages or

Deterioration
It is essential to determine the cause of damage or deterioration in a structure to be able to
select appropriate remedial measures.
Consider for example the failing of a fender system on the jetties located at the Canaries and Laborie. In the
assessment of this particular problem, it would have to be ascertained whether the fender design was
inadequate (as it relates to the specie of timber and the type of connectors used) or had it deteriorated below
design capacity, or whether a combination of these factors was involved.
In cases where structural damage cannot be attributed to a normal deterioration process, the
expertise of a qualified engineer should be employed. Measures to prevent its re-occurrence
should also be included in the recommendations.
3.2.5.3 Remedial Actions and Cost Estimates
Several factors are to be weighed in studying alternative methods of repair. These include:
 The length of time emergency repairs will remain effective before safety and
operations are affected again. For example, emergency measures may be adequate
during the dry season but may not be able to withstand hurricane force winds during
the hurricane season.
 The location of the defective area and its impact on operations. Remedial work may
have to be carried out piecemeal to minimize the disruption of day-to-day activities.
 The residual structural capacity of a defective area and the capacity required under
service load. Frequently, the cross section of components such as piles are selected
on the basis of the most heavily loaded member, although many will not be stressed
to design capacity in service.
 The adequacy of the original design.
 The carrying out of major repairs in stages to defer costs.
 The cost of repair versus replacement.
During evaluation of the report on a Detailed or Special Inspection, it might be necessary to
carry out a feasibility study on remedial alternatives which would include a general cost
estimate. If it is decided that major maintenance is required, a more detailed study of

alternative remedial options and cost should be carried out. This might range from a brief
exercise in comparison of alternatives and cost to a more comprehensive study involving
staged repairs, assessment of the impact of repair methods on useful residual life and
estimates of the cost of structure replacement.
At the project assignment stage, preliminary designs and cost estimates are produced to
permit selection of the optimum solution. This is followed by the preparation of the final
design and tender documents.
3.2.6 Cost of Maintenance

For the purpose of budgeting, cost relating to the upkeep of coastal structures may be
divided into two categories:
(a) Maintenance works that would normally be charged to the operating and
maintenance account. These include all preventative and minor maintenance
as defined above, periodic maintenance such as replacement of damage curbs,
painting, most emergency repairs, and any other remedial measures that
would not extend the useful residual life of the structure.
(b) Additions or improvements that would normally be charged to the capital cost
account. These would include new equipment, extensions to civil works and
major rebuilding, rehabilitation or refitting which would extend the scope or
life of the structure or a major component of it.
Capital costs under (b) above are estimated when the possible need for such works can be
foreseen and are included in the budget, after economic analysis justifying the expenditure.
Maintenance costs under (a) above must be budgeted for in advance on a planned basis.
Some of these costs, such as those for maintenance dredging, are best based on site specific
experience. Otherwise, costs can be based on general experience of maintaining similar
structures under similar operating and environmental conditions, if adequately detailed
records of costs have been maintained over a sufficient period of time. Except for dredging,
these maintenance costs will normally involve those portions of coastal structures which are
above low water level and which can be maintained relatively easily.
Computerized data files of maintenance expenditures should be subdivided into convenient
categories which would allow maintenance costs to be assessed from historical data, possibly
as a percentage of capital replacement cost in relation to the age of structure.
3.3 Forms of Deterioration and Repair Methods

This section outlines many of the common forms of deterioration which affect different
types of materials and structures.
Considerable attention is given to methods of detection as it is considered imperative that
the inspection accurately identifies the cause of deterioration so that the most effective
remedial or repair method be undertaken. Emphasis is also placed in the preventative aspect
of maintenance because of the important role it can play in reducing overall maintenance
costs.
Discussion and illustrative sketches of a number of common repair schemes are also
provided.
3.3.1 Timber Construction

3.3.1.1 Rot
Rot is a form of decay which causes the physical deterioration of wood cells. Rot is
commonly found in the end grain of piles and caps.
3.3.1.1.1 Causes
Rot causes the physical breakdown of timber due to attack by fungus whose growth is
encouraged by moist environment and favourable climatic conditions.
3.3.1.1.2 Methods of Detection
(1) Look for visual evidence of discolouration, material breakdown and organic growth.
(2) Expose suspect members for inspection.
(3) Tap the timber members with a hammer and listen for a hollow sound, different
from the sound associated with a similar solid member.
(4) Take core samples in suspect piles. The samples will identify the presence of
unsound portions of wood as cores can reach the center of most members. The
length of penetration is measured against the length of core retrieval to confirm the
extent of rot.
(5) Probe cracks, hollows or bolt holes with a knife, ice pick or other pointed object.
Rotten wood is soft and spongy and allows easy penetration.
(6) Employ specialist to undertake sonic testing.
3.3.1.1.3 Preventative measures
(1) Wherever possible, use select dry timber which is relatively free from splits and
checks. Employ "C"or "S" irons, spiral pins and through bolts to control checking in
timber members.
(2) Orient the timber so that the checks are not exposed to water entry.
(3) Use treated lumber, or paint the completed structure.
(4) Keep the structures free from accumulations of dirt and debris which retain
moisture.
(5) Avoid construction details which expose timber to frequent wetting.
(6) Pay particular attention to details at connections and openings provided for
hardware. These should be treated with mastic or creosote if exposed.
(7) Avoid sawing treated timber by ordering materials to the required length. Treating
the end grain of sawn timbers with creosote or mastic sealant is the minimum
requirement. For best results, drill holes into the ends of the timber and apply hot
creosote oil and a trowel coat of Bituminous mastic.
3.3.1.1.4 Methods of Repair
(1) Decks
If in the case of timber decks the rot is contained in a localized area, the affected
section should be promptly replaced to prevent spreading of the fungus. Care should
be taken to locate splices properly over a support member when replacing stringers.
For extensively damaged decks, consideration should be given to total replacement

of the deck. The underlying pile caps and stringers should be carefully inspected as
well and if necessary treated with protective coatings.
See Figure 3.1 for splice details when repairing isolated timber deck members and
Figure 3.2 for the replacement of a timber deck and caps when the tops of the pile
must be cut back.
Figure 3.1: Typical Splice Detail

Figure 3.2: Timber Deck and Pile Cap Replacement

(2) Piles
Badly damaged piles should be replaced. Compression piles can be repaired in a
number of ways:
1. Replace in whole or drive in a new pile next to a damaged pile (see Figure
3.3).
2. Cut out the affected area and splice in a new section of timber (see Figure
3.4).
3. Install a concrete jacket around the pile (see Figure 3.5).
4. Band in the case of a split pile (see Figure 3.6).
Tension piles can be repaired by splicing and by using concrete jackets, but require
the use of steel plates or other means to transfer the load across the bridging piece
(see Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.7).
In certain cases where rot has only partially damaged a pile, further deterioration can
be prevented by sealing the affected portion of the pile with a PVC pile wrap.
Gunnite can also be applied to protect new or existing piles and other members
exhibiting early signs of deterioration. Wire mesh must first of all be wrapped around
the pile to help secure the gunnite (Figure 3.8).
(3) Bracing
Rotten timber bracing members should be replaced, as splicing is generally not
worthwhile.
3.3.1.2 Marine Borer Attack
Marine borers are aggressive organisms which attack timber in the zone between the mud
line and the high water mark. Marine borers can greatly reduce the service life of timber piles
unless suitable preventive measures are taken.
3.3.1.2.1 Causes
Borer attack is caused by the activity of marine organisms which feed their way into wood
and destroy the member through a reduction of its cross-sectional area. There are two main
families of the common marine borer each with its own particular characteristics, namely
Teredinideae and Limnoria.
The Teredinidea family, which includes the common Bankia and Teredo species, is a family
of internal borers. Attaching themselves to the wood surface in the larvae stage they soon
develop into adults which grow as they bore and fill the holes they create. An adult borer
which resembles a worm in appearance can attain 2.5 cm in diameter and a length of 1 to 2
metres. A heavy infestation of the animals can essentially destroy an unprotected timber pile
in as little as six months’ time.
Figure 3.3: New Vertical Pile to Existing Pile Cap

Figure 3.4: Compression Pile Repairs – Timber

Figure 3.5: Concrete Jacket

Figure 3.6: Split Pile Repair

Figure 3.7: Typical Tension Pile Repair

Figure 3.8: Pile Protection Methods

The Limnoria family which includes Limnoria lignorum and the creosote resistant Limnoria
tripunctata is a family of borers which attacks wood at its surface. Resembling dams, they are
generally no longer than 8cm in length and 1.8 cm. in diameter. These borers begin attacking
the wood as soon as they are hatched, tunnelling just below the surface in a honey comb
pattern of main and auxiliary tunnels. The weakened wood surface is erode away by wave
action and abrasion from floating debris, thereby exposing new wood to further borer attack.
The rate of attack by Limnoria is considerably slower than that of the Teredinideae borer.
The rate of attack of borers can be greatly accelerated when Limnoria tripunctata exposes
wood to Teredinideae attack and the two types of borers become active at the same time.
(1) Underwater Inspection
Visual diver inspections of timber piles are generally only marginally effective in
detecting marine bore activity. Poor visibility and coatings of marine growth can make
detection very difficult and the extent of the damage cannot be accurately determined
simply from the appearance of the wood surface.
Underwater inspection can also help detect Teredinideae borers properly while they are
still active. When alive and boring the borers two posterior siphons extend slightly
beyond the wood surface at the entry hole. Detection can be difficult when the
siphons are retracted as the only evidence of their presence then are the borers pinhole
size entry holes.
Limnoria attack can generally be more readily detected than Teredinideae attack
because it begins at the surface and progress inward. The extent of surface attack is not
a reliable gauge for assessing damage caused by Limnoria. Limnoria can enter wood
through a breach in the surface layer and through knot and bolt holes which cannot be
detected when covered with marine growth. Limnoria, which gains access to the wood
interior in this manner can destroy a member by cavity attack which is not visible from
the surface.
Further, a pile exhibiting signs of fairly minor surface attack by Limnoria can be
riddled in its core with bore holes generated by Teredinideae borers.
(2) Sonic Testing
Sonic testing provides a reliable method of detecting and evaluating the extent of
damage caused by marine borer attack.
Sonic testing is a method of employing electronic instruments, to provide an ultrasonic

scan of the inspected member. A direct meter read-out can be provided to indicate the
percentage of sound material remaining, thereby facilitating calculations to rate the
residual strength of the members.
A probe is used to scan the surface of the wood and this can be performed without the
need to remove marine growth. For underwater work this is usually performed by a
two man testing crew consisting of a scuba diver and a surface technician who can
together test approximately 100 piles per day "under average conditions.
3.3.1.2.3 Preventive Measures
(1) Treatment of timber piles and bracing members with pressure impregnated creosote or
other preservatives in combination with toxic salts can effectively protect them against
borer attack.
Teredinideae borers cannot penetrate a well creosoted pile; however, they can follow
behind the attack of the creosote-resistant Limnoria tripunctata borer which can expose
untreated wood.
Creosote treatment can fail to protect timber for any of the following reasons:
 Initial penetration of the creosote may have been inadequate due to improper
preparation of the wood and quality control during treatment.
 Dense woods including that found in knots do not absorb creosote well.
 Creosote leaches out of the wood with time. This occurs slowly; however,
where the creosote penetration is weak, failure can occur within the first two
years of service.
 Abrasion by debris can wear off the surface layer of the wood and with it the
creosote protection.
(2) During construction, care must be taken to avoid the following:
 Overdriving of timber piles to the point where cracks develop through the
surface.
 Leaving bolt-holes open and untreated.
 Using untreated bracing members.
 Trimming of timber members and leaving untreated areas exposed.
All of the above can expose untreated timber to borer attack and can contribute to the
premature failure of timber members within the first few years of construction.
(3) Testing of timber piles at appropriate intervals will help in the early detection of borer
activity. Once detected, protection from further borer attack can be provided by the
following jacketing systems:
1. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) sheeting over a polyethylene wrap (creosote can

soften PVC) cuts off oxygen to the borers. Care must be taken to provide a
watertight gasket between the PVC and the pile. The PVC jackets are flexible
and can withstand impacts and bending.
2. Neoprene and nylon jackets similar to the PVC system above.

3. Concrete jackets which offer effective protection provided they are not
damaged by impact and bending (refer to Figure 3.5).
4. Metallic jackets fabricated of copper, copper-zinc and copper-nickel alloys are
also effective although they can be relatively expensive.
5. Gunniting of the surface piles can also be effective in preventing further borer
activity.
There exists a number of innovating techniques for repairing damaged or destroyed timber
piles. The method employed will employed will depend upon specific conditions at the site
and economic factors.
A few of the more common techniques are listed below. A number of these repair methods
have been patented and further information can be obtained by contacting the firms
involved.
(1) Concrete Jackets

This process can be used to stop borer attack as well as to restore strength to piling. It
is generally used when 20% or more of the pile cross-section has been effectively lost.
A fabric sock is installed around the length of the damage pile inside the sock and the
sock is pumped full of lean concrete. The encasement is relatively flexible and has been
successful on piling subjected to considerable lateral bending. Timber, steel pipe and
culverts and other materials can also be used as formwork for the jacket (see Figure 3.8
and Figure 3.9).
(2) Posting Method

This process which is also used to strengthen a load bearing pile consists of exposing
the pile at the mud-line or at a point just below the area of deterioration, and removing
the damaged section. A pin is driven into the exposed sound stump and a new section
of pile installed to the underside of the existing cap. Shims are used to close the gap
between the pile top and the underside of the cap. (See Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9: Pile Stubbing Methods

(3) Oil Drum Method

This is another effective repair method. The damaged section of pile is first of all
removed and replaced with a treated section of timber pile. An oil drum containing a
hole the size of the pile is fitted around the joint and filled with concrete. This method
can be modified by using additional drums as required and by adding reinforcing. (see
Figure 3.9).
3.3.2 Concrete Construction

3.3.2.1 Corrosion of Reinforcement
Concrete structures can deteriorate due to the corrosion of reinforcing steel. Corrosion can
occur wherever the conditions are favourable and is perhaps most common in the marine
environment.
3.3.2.1.1 Causes
Corrosion damage to concrete structures can be caused by the following:
(1) Rusting (Chemical Corrosion)
Rusting of steel components is a result of iron being exposed to oxygen and water.
The rusting or oxidation of the steel brings about a volume increase which exerts
enormous pressures on the concrete covering, eventually causing cracks to develop.
This process progresses to a point where the fractured concrete falls away from the
reinforcement leaving it open to further attack. If left unchecked, this situation can
lead to a reduction of the structural capacity of the affected member.
(2) Electrolytic Attack
Electrolytic attack results from the exposure of reinforcing steel in a damp and saline
environment to undetected stray electric currents. Electrolytic action on the steel,
aided by the presence of carbonates, chlorides and sulphates, can quickly deteriorate
concrete structures.
(1) Visual inspection of concrete surfaces can help identify the extent of deterioration
caused by the chemical corrosion of reinforcement. The deterioration typically exhibits
the following physical characteristics:
 Initially, small cracks develop parallel to the direction of the reinforcement.
These are found on both sides of the reinforcement and are the result of
stresses caused by expansion of the steel through the rusting process.
 As corrosion of the steel continues there is evidence of a distinct wedge of
concrete developing. Rust stains which also appear along the cracks are also
clearly evident at this time. This suggests that the concrete cover has been
broken, usually in the shape of a wedge, and that corrosion of steel is
accelerating as a result of increased exposure to oxygen. (Removing the
loosened concrete will generally expose rusted reinforcing.)
 Finally, the concrete cover spalls off leaving the surface of the reinforcement
totally exposed to the environment. If corrosion of the reinforcing steel is the
cause of the problem, a check of the area beyond the plane of the steel will
yield sound concrete.
(2) Deterioration of concrete resulting from the electrolytic corrosion of reinforcing steel
has its own distinct characteristics. Exposing the reinforcement is necessary in order to
confirm a condition of electrolytic corrosion. Corrosion will be typically limited to
isolated sections and will be in the form of localized pitting with obvious
concentrations of the conditions at points of intersection of reinforcing bars.
(1) Avoid design details that would result in consistent exposure of concrete surfaces to
moisture. Positive drainage should be provided.
(2) Ensure the use of dense, low porosity concrete. Air entrainment of concrete can
improve its resistance to chemical corrosion of rebar due to the presence of non-
connected air bubbles in the mix which provide a far better barrier against the
absorption of moisture than found in regular non air-entrained concrete.
(3) Provide adequate concrete cover over embedded steel and reinforcement.
(4) Where the costs can be justified, the durability of the concrete can be improved by
employing water resisting surface coatings. This can consist of applications of linseed
or petroleum oil, silicones and epoxies to the surface of the concrete.
(5) Employ reinforcement which is of uniform grade and composition and preferably
from the same mill.
(6) Avoid the use of sulphates, carbonates and chlorides in the concrete design mix and
when specifying admixtures.
(7) Provide proper crack control.
(8) Provide good distribution of the reinforcing steel.
(9) Use epoxy-coated reinforcing steel where feasible.
3.3.2.1.4 Method of Repair
The disintegration of concrete resulting from the corrosion of reinforcing steel can result in
a loss of structural strength in the affected member.
The methods of repair used for disintegrated and spalled concrete are designed either as a
surface restoration and barrier to further attack or to strengthen a structure which has been
weakened by severe deterioration. For both cases, the repair methods described below
require the following essential preparatory work:
 All unsound concrete should be removed from the affected area and reinforcing bars
exposed where necessary.
 Where practical, the concrete cavity should be carefully cutback in order to help lock
the repair into place.
 The surface of the concrete should be cleaned and moistened prior to applying the
repair techniques. It is preferable to use an epoxy bonding agent between old and
new concrete.
 Existing corroded reinforcing steel should be sandblasted clean and where required
new bars added by the use of lap splices.
 Materials selected for the repairs should be compatible to the existing construction in
terms of thermal properties, shrinkage characteristics, moisture absorption and
modulus of elasticity. The effectiveness of the repair work can be greatly reduced
when these properties differ greatly between the old and new concrete.
(1) Jacketing
Jacketing is a repair method commonly used to restore the strength of vertical
structural members such as columns and piles. The method involves the use of an
oversized jacket positioned around the affected member and designed as formwork to
received pumped-in grout, tremie or pre-packed concrete. Reinforcement can also be
added if necessary in rebar or mesh form.
The jackets (refer back to Figure 3.5) can be fabricated from a variety of materials
including timber, steel and concrete and they can be either temporary or permanent in
nature. Leaving the forms on can help provide an additional protective layer for the
finished work. For concrete jacket repairs to damaged concrete piles, see Figure 3.10.
Spacers are provided between the form and the member to obtain the minimum cover
specified. If grout is used to fill the form it should be applied in a smooth, continuous
operation using air pressure. The form should be vibrated and the grout allowed to
settle for an appropriate period of time before topping up. The top of the jacket
should be finished with a concrete collar sloped sufficiently to permit water to drain
off.
Pre-packed concrete can also be effectively used in jacketing repairs. This method
involves the use of coarse aggregates which are first of all introduced into the form
and followed by a pumped in sand cement grout which fills the voids.
Tremie concrete can also be used to fill the form.
Figure 3.10: Concrete Jacketing

(2) Shotcrete
Shotcrete (or gunnite) are common names used to describe pneumatically applied
mortar. Shotcrete consists of a mixture of sand, cement and water pumped into place
using compressed air. The mixture when properly prepared adheres well to the
surfaces to be coated.
This repair method can be used to restore concrete surfaces where the damage is fairly
shallow (such as due to spalling) and when applied in thin coatings not exceeding 100
mm, they can be effective on overhead, vertical and horizontal surfaces. Where
practical, reinforcing mesh and anchor bolts should be provided to control cracking
and to provide a good interface between the old and new concrete (see Figure 3.11).
The effectiveness of Shotcrete repair work can vary considerably as it is a function of
its suitability for use in certain applications, the skill of the workers applying it, the
level of the initial surface preparation, and the selection of the right mix.
In some applications the use of an epoxy adhesive to coat the original work can help
improve the bond.
Shotcrete is fairly porous by nature and is not an appropriate repair method where a
moisture resistant barrier is required or where physical appearances are a consideration.
Shotcrete can be used to repair slabs, however, due to its relatively rough texture;
considerable effort may be required in order to obtain a smooth surface finish (see
Figure 3.12).
(3) Protective Overlays

The overlay of a damaged concrete surface with mortar, epoxies and bituminous
compounds can be an effective method of protecting the affected area from further
deterioration where the cause is environment related. Overlays are used for extending
the life of a damaged section of concrete and generally not suitable for structural
repairs. Depending upon the extent of the damaged area, the use of overlays might
represent the most economical repair alternative to use at a site (see Figure 3.11). For
repairs to damage cope walls, see Figure 3.13.
(4) Reconstruction
Depending upon the extent of deterioration and the associated cost of repairs to
restore a damaged concrete structure, the option of pouring new concrete should be
considered. (see Figure 3.14).
As an example, it may be more expensive to repair a deck exhibiting an extensive level
of deterioration than it would be to pour a new slab over it. If a new slab is poured
over an existing deck the impact of the additional dead load on the structure must be
carefully assessed.
Figure 3.11: Protective Overlays

Figure 3.12: Slab Repair Using Gunnite

Figure 3.13: Typical Copewall Repair Detail for a Concrete Wharf

3.3.2.2 Chemical Attack
Chemical reactions caused by aggressive materials found in the concrete mix or present in
the marine environment can lead to concrete deterioration.
3.3.2.2.1 Causes
Chemical reactions involving volume changes, leaching and acid attack can cause concrete to
deteriorate rapidly. Possible causes of these conditions include the following:
 The presence of chlorides, sulphates and alkalis in poor quality cement and
aggregates,
 Sulphate attack of concrete in seawater,
 Acidic content of groundwater,
 Concentration of salts due to evaporation, and
 High levels of chemical pollution in the water.
Chemical attack on concrete can be identified as follows (see Figure 3.15):
(1) Look for a general condition of disintegration, cracking and spalling on the surface of
the concrete.
Deterioration typically begins as a result of swelling of the affected members caused by
an alkali-aggregate reaction. This leads to the formation of fine cracks and eventually
to spalling of the concrete surface layer.
To distinguish this damage from that caused by the corrosion of reinforcing steel, a
sample of the damage concrete should be removed and tested for strength. Chemical
attack will typically reduce the concrete to a soft mass in which the aggregate is no
longer firmly bonded to the sand cement matrix. When struck with a hammer it will
yield a dull thud instead of a clear solid ring. Also, in concrete damaged by chemical
attack, the reinforcing steel, where it is still embedded, is generally not corroded, and
the concrete therefore does not exhibit deep cracks and rust stains.
(2) Look for evidence of concrete spalling in the submerged zone. Typically occurring in
polluted waters, the sand-cement matrix deteriorates due to sulphate attack which
leaves the more resistant concrete aggregates unaltered and protruding beyond the
surface of the concrete.
Figure 3.14: New Concrete Slab Over Old Construction

Figure 3.15: Symptoms of Chemical Attack -Concrete Pile

If there is no evidence of abrasion and if the spalled condition is fairly uniform

throughout, this would tend to confirm that the deterioration is related to a chemical
reaction between the water and the sand-cement matrix. This can be further
confirmed by taking samples of both sound and deteriorated concrete and testing
them in a laboratory for sulphate contamination.
Inspection of a number of structures at the same site and/or at nearby locations will
help in determining whether the deterioration is progressive, site specific, or due to
poor quality concrete.
(1) Good quality concrete should be used for all construction. Aggregate and cement
materials should conform to specified standards.
(2) Use protective surface coatings where feasible to provide resistance to acid attack by
sealing cracks in the concrete.
(3) Use air-entrained concrete where possible to reduce the extent of swelling normally
resulting from chemical attack.
3.3.2.2.4 Method of Repair
Repairs to concrete structures damaged by chemical attack can be effectively carried out by
using the jacketing, shotcrete and overlay methods described above.
The effectiveness of these methods will depend upon the aggressiveness of the environment
and the compatibility of the old and new concrete materials employed.
The cost of replacing the damaged members with new construction should also be
investigated as it may warrant serious consideration in cases where damage is extensive and
the repairs proposed risk being only temporary solutions.
3.3.2.3 Abrasion
Abrasion is a form of erosion commonly found in hard use structures.
3.3.2.3.1 Causes
(1) Submerged areas of structure can be abraded by the movement of suspended solids
around them. This can be extreme in the surf zone where breaking waves are the
driving force.
(2) In the tidal zone, and impacts from floating debris can abrade the surface of a
structure.
The following should be investigated to identify damage by abrasion:
 The location and nature of the damage. Typically the damaged condition will be very
localized and other concrete surfaces near the affected area will be sound.
3.3.2.3.3 Preventive Maintenance
The following measures can be taken to reduce or prevent damage caused by abrasion:
 The use of sound, high-strength concrete, and
 the provision of adequate concrete cover over reinforcing steel.
A number of the methods described in Section 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 would be appropriate to
repair structures damaged by abrasion.
3.3.2.4 Cracking
The development of cracks resulting from some source of structural distress is a common
form of deterioration of concrete structures.
3.3.2.4.1 Causes
Cracks that develop in concrete can be caused by any of the following factors.
(1) Poor design details
(2) Poor construction practices
(3) Temperature stresses
(4) Over-stress
The orientation and location of cracks in concrete construction will provide clues as to the
cause of the condition.
Figure 3.16: Common areas of Abrasion

The most common causes of cracking in concrete structures include the following:
(1) Poor Design Details
 Comers and Openings
Cracks which develop around openings and at corners indicate inadequate provisions
against lateral stresses.
 Composite Construction
Cracks can appear in composite construction because of inadequate attention to the
differences in the thermal and elastic properties of the two materials.
 Expansion Joints
Insufficient provisions to handle movements (lateral, rotational or vertical) lead to
concrete cracking.
Where insufficient room is provided for expansion or where joints are not kept dear
of dirt or debris, there will be evidence of compressed joint filler materials and
possibly spelling of abutting concrete along its edges.
(2) Poor Construction Practices
Cracks in concrete most commonly occur as the result of the following:
 Settlement
Where concrete is poured on poorly compacted soil, localized cracks can
develop where hollows develop in the subgrade. These cracks will appear soon
after the concrete has been poured.
Similarly, where subgrade conditions vary along the length of a structure,
differential settlement can lead to cracking.
 Disturbance of Formwork
The displacement of formwork and vibrations induced prior to final set can
cause both surface and interior cracks to develop in concrete.
Careful inspection of formwork, before and after the concrete pour, can help
identify problems of this nature.
 Insufficient Vibration
Concrete aggregates form the heaviest component of the concrete matrix
somewhat prior to the concrete achieving full set. Mats of reinforcing steel can
impede this process thereby causing a void to develop below the rebar level
eventually resulting in the appearance of fine cracks at the surface. Upon
removal of formwork, the presence of voids or honeycombs in the concrete
indicates that there was insufficient vibration during the pour.
 Premature Removal of Formwork
If formwork is removed prematurely before the concrete attains sufficient

strength, cracking can develop and will generally appear almost immediately.
 Inadequate Curing
If curing is delayed or is inadequate, differential volume changes will occur
between the exterior surface and interior mass of the concrete resulting in
shallow surface cracks.
(3) Temperature Stresses
Variations in internal or atmospheric temperature can generate thermal stresses causing
the expansion and contraction of concrete. Cracks develop when insufficient
provisions are made to handle the movements associated with these stresses.
(4) Overstress
Overstress resulting from overloading or under design can cause cracks to develop in
concrete structures. The appearance of the cracks can provide clues as to the cause and
often the following holds true:
 Tension Overstress causes limited cracking and is generally not accompanied
by spalling.
 Compression overstress leads to cracks which are often accompanied
by spalling.
 Torsion and shear overstress can exhibit both cracking and spalling.
 Shear is taken in the webs of a structural element whereas compression and
tension are taken in the flanges. The location of the cracks should therefore be
compatible with the theoretical points of high stress and the location of cut-
offs and bend in rebar.
 Tension cracks are typically orientated perpendicular to the line of stress. Shear
cracks run diagonally in the web.
It is also important to determine the extent of the cracking observed and to
determine whether the cracks are active. This can be monitored over a period
of time and duly recorded. A thin sharp object such as a knife blade or pin can
be caused to establish the depth of a crack. The depth of cracks usually extends
to the level of the reinforcing steel.
The width of a crack can be measured using a feeler gauge, calipers or a line
thickness card.
A line drawn across a continuous crack can be used to detect differential
movement along a crack.
Strain gauges or caliper measurements referenced to fixed points can also be
employed.
The following measures can be taken to prevent the cracking described above:
(1) Design Details
Provide a wider distribution of reinforcing steel at corners and use diagonal bars
around openings to counter lateral forces.
Provide additional steel and transition concrete in areas where there are abrupt changes
in section thickness and where concrete structures contain embedded steel sections.
Project expansion or construction joints details through to the finished surface level
and allow sufficient play to handle expected movements.
Avoid the use of dissimilar materials at junction points.
(2) Construction Practices

Apart from the obvious need to select qualified contractors to carry out the work, an
effective way to prevent construction related defects from occurring is the selection of
experienced technical personnel to inspect, monitor and record the work itself.
Close supervision of the construction operations is necessary to ensure that proper

practices are followed such as the following:
 The subgrade must be well compacted and localized soft spots eliminated.
 Check for segregation of fill during transport and if necessary, reestablish the
required particle distribution by remixing at site.
 Provide adequate concrete cover over rebar.
 Forms must be secured and capable of holding up under the pressures
imposed by the wet concrete. When forms have moved during pouring ensure
that the concrete is re-vibrated and refinished.
 Take test samples to verify that the concrete employed is of the specified
mixture, consistency strength.
 Ensure that the concrete is properly vibrated to ensure the even distribution of
the concrete matrix and uniform penetration to fill the forms.
 Ensure the proper curing methods are followed.
(3) Temperature Provisions

Where concrete contraction and expansion is expected due to changes in temperature
apply the following practices;
 Control the size of mass pours to prevent excessive internal temperatures from
developing,
 Provide adequate expansion joints at appropriate locations in the work,

 Use temperature reinforcement to control cracking.
(4) Overstress
Cracks can develop as a result of overloading or under designing of a concrete
structure.
Close scrutiny of design details and of equipment operations at the user level are two
obvious means of reducing cracks of this nature.
Although several effective methods exist for repairing cracks in concrete, the following
guidelines should be considered in order to choose the most effective repair:
(1) Identify and eliminate the cause
Often cracks which are active are patched without careful consideration of their cause
and soon new cracks re-appear along the repair work or at different locations.
Where inadequate provisions have been made to handle thermal expansion and
contraction, the associated stresses can be eliminated by introducing "sawcut” control
joints at suitable locations in the concrete. When cracks do appear they should be
routed out and sealed with a suitable material.
In cases where cracking has been identified as being caused by structural overloading
the situation can be stabilized by stiffening the structure (by external stressing or by
upgrading the structure) or by imposing load restrictions at the structure.
(2) Epoxy Injection

Epoxy injection is an effective method for restoring the strength of cracked concrete
members. The repair will, however, only provide a long-term solution when applied to
cracks that are inactive.
This repair method involves the pressure injection of epoxy compounds into the crack
thereby re-bounding the concrete surfaces. Available as a one or two-component
system the epoxy-resin compound is introduced through nipples inserted into drill
holes positioned along the cracks. Extensive penetration of the compound into all
regions of the cracks is assured by selecting an appropriate nipple spacing and by
maintaining the proper pressure during the application.
(3) Overlays
The application of high-early-strength grouts to cracks either by gravity or pressure

injection can be an effective method of re-bonding concrete surfaces. The use of
epoxy-resin compounds is even more effective and should be considered.
(4) Jacketing
For repairs to badly cracked concrete piles, jacketing can be quite effective. A timber,
concrete or steel form can be used to encase the pile and reinforcement can be added
around the pile as necessary.

Draft Final Report PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Draft Final Report PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GOVERNMENT OF ST.

MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE, PORT SERVICES AND

PREPARATION OF MAINTENANCE WORK PLANS

3.2.2 Minor Maintenance ................................................................................................... 39

1.1 Variations from Design during Construction

Figure 1.1: Comparison of timber fender built against design

Figure 1.2: Variation in location of Fishermen's Access Deck

Figure 1.3: Variation for Mooring Bitt

2.1 Assessment of Jetty - Canaries

Figure 2.1: Location of Canaries Jetty

2.1.1 Timber Fenders - Canaries

2.1.2 Fishermen’s Access Deck - Canaries

2.1.3 Timber Curbs - Canaries

Figure 2.3: Timber curbs along jetty at Canaries

2.1.4 Mooring Bitt - Canaries

Figure 2.4: Corrosion of Mooring Bitts

2.1.5 Navigation Light - Canaries

2.1.6 Decks Slabs - Canaries

Figure 2.5: Spalling Damage on underside of Deck Slabs

2.1.7 Pile Caps/Beams - Canaries

Figure 2.6: Spalling damage to Pile Caps/Beams

Table 2.2: Condition of Pile Caps/Beams

2.1.8 Piles - Canaries

Figure 2.7: Corrosion of Piles

Figure 2.9: Aquatic life on piles

2.2 Assessment of Jetty at Laborie

Figure 2.10: Laborie Bay

Figure 2.11: Jetty at Laborie Bay

2.2.1 Timber Fenders – Laborie

Figure 2.12: Damage to fender system - Laborie

2.2.2 Fishermen’s Access Deck - Laborie

Broken Connection Pile Cap/Beam

Figure 2.13: Damage to Fishermen's Access Deck

2.2.3 Timber Curbs - Laborie

Figure 2.14: Sample of Damaged Timber Curbs

2.2.4 Mooring Bitt - Laborie

Figure 2.15: Corrosion of Mooring Bitts

2.2.5 Navigation Light - Laborie

Frame for Navigational Aid

Figure 2.16: Frame for Navigational Aid

2.2.6 Decks Slabs - Laborie

Table 2.3: Condition of Slabs

2.2.7 Pile Caps/Beams - Laborie

Table 2.4: Damage to Pile Caps/Beams

25 Moderate Spalling cracks at base Repair spalling cracks

2.2.8 Piles - Laborie

Figure 2.18: Corrosion of Piles

Figure 2.19: Aquatic life on piles

2.3 Summary of Findings and Recommendation of Surveys

3 Schedule of Maintenance Activities

3.1.1 Visual Inspection

STRUCTURE COMPONENT AREA TO CHECK SOME THINGS TO

Table 3.2: Common Symptoms of Material Deterioration

MATERIAL DETERIORATION SYMPTOMS

Concrete Loss Chips, spalling, swelling and general

Corrosion of Rust stains on surface, cracks, spalling

TIMBER Rot Discoloration, organic growth,

Table 3.3: Visual Inspection Field Report

WEATHER: TIDE LEVEL: TEMP. HI: LO: CREW:

REASON FOR INSPECTION: DATE OF

3.1.2 Routine Detailed Inspection

* All structures to be inspected within one year of completion of construction or major