STRUCTURAL CONDITION REPORT...Mr. Johann Human and Mr Ellery Marsh, Engineers from Xavier Knight, carried out the site inspection of Asset Number CR143, Reids Flat Road over the Lachlan

STRUCTURAL CONDITION REPORT 190608 – CR143, Reids Flat Road, NSW 2583

190608 – CR143 Structural Condition Report Issue Date: 20.08.2019

xavierknight.com.au 2 of 23

Contents

1 DOCUMENT SUMMARY 4

2 INTRODUCTION 5

3 SCOPE OF REVIEW 5

4 DESCRIPTION OF BRIDGE STRUCTURE 6

4.1 Current Traffic Loading Limits 7

5 INSPECTION AND REVIEW 8

5.1 Site Observations 8

5.2 Recommended Defect Rectification 12

5.3 Structural Analysis Methodology 12

5.4 Structural Assumptions 14

5.5 Results of Structural Analysis 15

5.6 Verifying Structural Assumptions 16

5.7 Potential Augmentation Strategies 16 5.7.1 Bridge Bearing Repair 16 5.7.2 Bridge Span Augmentation 17 5.7.3 Bridge Pile Augmentation 17

6 CONCLUSIONS 19



QUALITY CONTROL REGISTER This report has been prepared and checked as per below.

Name Signature Date

Report Author: 20.08.2019

Checked by: 20.08.2019

Authorised by: 20.08.2019



1 Document Summary

Project Number: Project Name: Prepared For: Date Prepared: XK Project Director:

190608 Upper Lachlan Shire Bridge Assessment Upper Lachlan Shire Council 20.08.2019

Status Issue Date Prepared By Approved By

Draft 1 09.08.2019

Final 2 20.08.2019



2 Introduction At the request of Upper Lachlan Shire Council, Xavier Knight was commissioned to undertake a review of the bridge structure CR143 at Reids Flat Road, over the Lachlan River. The purpose of the review was to inspect the general condition of the bridge and identify items which may require replacement, repair or maintenance found during the inspection of the accessible structural elements of the bridge and to form a professional engineering opinion as to the performance of the bridge structural elements observed and to evaluate the suitability of these for their intended use.

Furthermore, Xavier Knight is commissioned to explore the possible augmentation methods and propose a conceptual method to augment the current bridge capacity allowing for higher axle loading on the bridge. An analysis of the current bridge needs to be performed in order to establish a methodology to increase the current bridge capacity. The requirements to achieve this analysis are discussed herein.

All descriptions, references to conditions of the bridge current durability presented herein are a general guidance only and are given as our opinion, based on visual inspection and observations; any interested parties should not rely on them as statements or representations of fact and must satisfy themselves through non-destructive testing, sampling, etc as to the correctness, quantity, costs, etc of each of them.

The particulars set out in this report are for the exclusive use of Client and is copyright and the property of Xavier Knight Consulting Engineers. No responsibility or liability is accepted as a result of the use of this report by any other party and is not to be used for any other purpose.

3 Scope of Review In order to form our opinion on the elements we could view, the following level of review was undertaken:

• Bridge inspection visual and photographic of accessible areas• Existing structural documentation• Measurements of accessible structural elements• Potential augmentation strategy discussions

The level of review undertaken is limited to what is recorded in the following pages of this report and was not sufficient to certify that the bridge was constructed in accordance with the original design documents or structurally adequate in accordance with the design codes at the time of construction nor present codes.

Only visual assessment of accessible areas of the extent of defects were taken and this report does no cover detailed measurement of defects and as such as-designed reinforcement layouts were unable to be verified.

This report does not cover issues such as drainage, waterproofing and asbestos.



4 Description of Bridge Structure The current bridge structure consists of four spans of precast reinforced concrete or prestressed concrete planks, discontinuous between each span. The planks are interlocked perpendicular to the span with a layer of in-situ cast reinforced concrete topping. The three central supports are made up of reinforced concrete piers, supported on opposing four raked steel columns that we assume are founded deep below the riverbed and socketed into rock. The planks of the end-spans are supported on the reinforced concrete abutment walls with a bearing strip connection. The configurations and details of the structure are unknown. To our knowledge no historic structural design information or drawings are available for reference. In order to perform the required level of structural analysis we will require the structural composition to be verified on site through non-destructive testing. The known dimensions from the on-site survey are shown in Appendix A and are summarised in the table below.

Structural Detail Description

Overall Length 41.70m

Number of Spans 4

End Span 1 Length (eastern) 10.15m

Middle Span 2 Length 10.70m

Middle Span 3 Length 10.65m

End Span 4 Length (western) 10.20m

Overall Width 6.65m

Trafficable Width 6.15m

Number of Planks Per Span 11

Typical Span Overall Structural Depth 0.47m

Typical Plank Centre-to-Centre spacing 0.605m

Typical Precast Plank Width 0.600m

Typical Precast Plank Depth TBC

Typical Topping Thickness TBC

Bridge Skew 0°



4.1 CURRENT TRAFFIC LOADING LIMITS

The current traffic loading limits specified for the bridge are displayed on the approach signage shown below. The current limits are specified as follows:

Single Axle = 10t Tandem Axle = 13t Tri-Axle = 14t

Figure 1: Current bridge loading limits

Figure 2: Overall view of bridge asset CR143



5 Inspection and Review Mr. Johann Human and Mr Ellery Marsh, Engineers from Xavier Knight, carried out the site inspection of Asset Number CR143, Reids Flat Road over the Lachlan River (coordinates -34.129, 149.020) on 17/07/2019.

The following is a record of the general condition of the structure and identifies items which may require replacement, repair or maintenance as found during the inspection of the accessible structural elements of the bridge.

5.1 SITE OBSERVATIONS

During the visual inspection a number of observations around the existing structure were recorded. The bridge structure appears to be in good overall condition, however some of the defects identified below may compromise the durability of the structure in the future. All the defects below are recommended to have planned action taken against them to prolong the lifespan of the current structure. Our recommendations for rectifying the defects are given in Section 5.2.

There were several locations where the concrete wheel barrier has suffered damage, exposing the reinforcement. This was possibly due to impact damage on the barrier. However, the quality of the concrete may have contributed to this also. The mix appears to contain smooth surfaced stone aggregate, which may have a detrimental effect on the strength of the concrete.

Figure 3: Damage to the concrete wheel barrier and exposed reinforcement

Figure 4: Close-up of damage showing smooth-surfaced stone aggregates

shelleykn

Highlight

shelleykn

Highlight



Figure 5: Further damage to the concrete wheel barrier and exposed reinforcement

The supporting steel piles have been installed at raked angle, which we assume is to assist with lateral loading. It is unclear whether these columns have been core-filled with structural concrete or not. The piles are showing sign of moderate corrosion damage on their surface. This may have been accounted for in the original design, relying on the structural core to provide support to the bridge structure, but this needs to be investigated further. Without access to structural drawings of the bridge this must be verified on site through further investigation.

Figure 6: Steel piles on the eastern side of the bridge showing evidence of corrosion damage



Figure 7: Steel piles on the western side of the bridge showing evidence of corrosion damage

The joints between the bridge spans are protected by a steel armoured nosing at the edge of each concrete topping, shown below. This kind of detail is expected to provide a good level of protection to the sealant between the bridge spans. Despite this we have observed evidence that the sealant between the spans is failing and in need of replacement. Figure 9 shows signs of water penetration through the joint, staining the abutment below. This water penetration has the potential to affect the durability of the structure and should be replaced to prolong the service life of the bridge.

Figure 8: Bridge joint showing steel armoured nosing at the interface of the joint



Figure 9: Underside of the eastern bridge support showing signs of sealant failure

It was observed that a concrete corbel has been retrofit to the western side of central bridge. The bridge decks either side of this support differed slightly in surface level, indicating that there may have been some level of bearing failure to the western side of the bridge support. This may have been due to movements of the supports during service, or inaccuracies during construction. Our concern is that the piles supporting the span are now eccentrically loaded, which does not appear to be in line with the original design intent. It is therefore critical to understand the composition of these piles to check their structural capacity.

Figure 10: Concrete corbel retrofitted to the central bridge support



5.2 RECOMMENDED DEFECT RECTIFICATION

The current traffic barrier is heavily dilapidated at in its current condition has the potential to affect the durability of the adjoining structural elements. The widespread damage is causing corrosion of the reinforcement, which has the potential to extend to other structural bridge elements. The current damage is repairable, but ongoing degradation of the barrier is likely given the condition and composition of the concrete. We recommend that the Shire evaluate the performance level they require from this barrier such as is outlined in AS 5100. From this assessment they can evaluate whether repair of the barrier is an option or whether complete replacement with a retrofit barrier system is required. If the barrier is deemed acceptable by the local authority a cost benefit analysis should be performed to consider replacement against consistent maintenance. Our recommendation is for complete replacement of the barrier and installation of a retrofit steel barrier system. However, if it is deemed beneficial to keep the existing barrier immediate and ongoing repair can be applied by treating the reinforcement local to the damaged areas with Nitoprime Zincrich Primer, and patch repair with Fosroc Renderoc HB25. Care should be taken to install this repair system in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. We also recommend that the entire bridge structure is treated with Sika Ferrogard 903. The application of this compound will provide re-alkalinity to the structural matrix and mitigate the risk of any further corrosion. For the replacement of the bridge sealant we recommend that all the joints between the bridge decks are retrofited with the Miska Zealseal 4000D system, which is compatible with the current steel armoured nosing arrangement (detailed in Appendix C). Advice on the installation and specification on this system should be sought directly with the manufacturer and installed strictly to their requirements. The system should be installed following any potential augmentation installation to mitigate any damage from movement of the bridge spans.

5.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

A structural analysis was performed based on the dimensions obtained from the survey (shown in Appendix A) and the structural layout assumed from the standard RMS prestressed concrete bridge plank design obtained from the RMS website (shown in Appendix B) as a means of estimation. The intent of the analysis was to compare the mathematically assessed structural capacity with the modern loading requirements for bridges. In this assessment we followed the directions of the RMS Corporate Circular - Bridge Technical Direction BTD2014/01; According to the stated direction, and our understanding and the Client’s feedback on the road usage, we believe that the road can be classified to have lesser traffic loading than the MS1600 loading; as such the use of the T44 truck model (depicted in Figure 8 below) to Appendix A, Section A2.2.2 of the bridge loading code AS 5100.7 – 2004, in lieu of the use of the current Code specified MS1600 is justified.



Figure 11: T44 loading requirements from AS 5100 -2004

The analysis of the bridge plank structure considered load sharing between the prestressed planks allowing the point loading of the wheels to be spread between a number of planks and allowing for a realist load sharing between structural support members. The loading case of a single T44 truck load, a 6-axle semitrailer at maximum regulatory mass under HML of 42.5-44.5 tonnes and a 9-axle B-double at maximum regulatory mass under GML of 62.5-63.1 tonnes will all be considered as acting anywhere on the bridge width during detailed design confirmation where every wheel arrangement below will be assessed as per the request from Upper Lachlan Shire Council. Based on our previous assessments the T44 loading arrangement will govern the capacity checks, which is what was considered in this preliminary analysis.

Figure 12: T44 analysis dimensional layout

Figure 13: 6-axle semi-trai ler analysis dimensional layout – arrangement 1



Figure 14: 6-axle semi-trai ler analysis dimensional layout – arrangement 2

Figure 15: 9-axle B-Double analysis dimensional layout – arrangement 1

Figure 16: 9-axle B-Double analysis dimensional layout – arrangement 2

5.4 STRUCTURAL ASSUMPTIONS

The structural analysis had to make number of assumptions due to incomplete information; the assumptions made are listed below. Material properties adopted for structural analysis: Steel reinforcement: Yield Stress (fy) = 500MPa Steel prestressing strands: Characteristic Minimum Breaking Strength (fpb) = 1870MPa Structural Concrete: Characteristic Compressive Strength (f’c) = 40MPa Concrete Density = 2450kg/m3 A steel reinforcement and strand layout has been adopted from that shown in the RMS standard drawing for 300mm deep PSC plank girders. This girder design matches the dimensioned measured on site and may provide the design details for the structure adopted on site. The assumed steel reinforcement layout is shown in the figure below with the full drawing shown in Appendix B.



Figure 17: Typical reinforcement layout adopted for structural design analysis

5.5 RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Comparison between the section capacity assessment and the required bending and shear force capacity was performed considering the following load factors: Dead Load factor = 1.2 (AS5100.7-2004 Table 7.3) Dynamic Load factor = 1.35 (based on modal analysis of the bridge –Natural Frequency = ~5 Hz) Live Load Factor = 1.8 (AS5100.7-2004 Table 7.3) The comparison of these bending moment actions against the existing bridge capacities are summarised in the table below for the following load case: Ultimate design actions = 1.2*(Dead load) + 2.43*(T44 loading)

Table 1: Summary of bridge loading against current capacity

CR143 beam location End spans Central spans

Assessed Capacity Assessed Loading Ratio of Capacity

Against Loading (%) Assessed Capacity Assessed Loading

Ratio of Capacity Against Loading (%)

Mid-span bending moment (kNm)

557 342 163 557 376 148

Shear force at end (kN) 193 133 145 193 135 143



5.6 VERIFYING STRUCTURAL ASSUMPTIONS

In order to make a final structural assessment of the capacity of the current bridge we will need the detailed information about the current structural composition of the structural elements to be verified on site to confirm the composition that we have assumed in our assessment. This information could be obtained from the information obtained from a survey scan which includes high resolution ground penetrating radar (GPR) but may need to be further proven and tested with strain gauge vehicle deflection testing. It is our understanding that access to a deflection testing vehicle may have a reasonable delay, so we will endeavour to perform our structural analysis with only the information obtained from a detailed structural scan. This information gaining process should be undertaken in the following order:

1. Structural scanning consultant appointed to undertake detailed structural scan incorporating the following techniques: High resolution GPR of bridge span element from above and below Assessment of the size and depth of prestressed steel strands and reinforcing steel Identification of size and location of any voids within the depth of the span Measurement of the depth of in-situ concrete layers and precast concrete layers, including any upturns or webs

in the precast Assessment of the existing steel piles (access-restricted) for existing steel skin thickness, core fill of piles or void

and any information possible for reinforcing bars inside the steel piles 2. The information is provided to Xavier Knight to assess the level of detail that was obtained from site scanning process.

From here this information can be evaluated against our current survey information, to understand if we can confidently assess the structural capacity of the current structure.

3. If the level of information obtained from the site scan is not sufficient to give us a confident picture of the current structural system, we will request that a vehicle deflection test be carried out on existing structure.

4. Detailed structural analysis will be undertaken on the existing structure to prove that the current capacity is sufficient for the demands of the Shire, or otherwise

5. Should the capacity of the bridge fall short of the capacity that is required we will recommend a number options for augmentation. These options can be adopted to bring the current bridge capacity up to a level that satisfies the loading patterns outlined in Section 5.4.

5.7 POTENTIAL AUGMENTATION STRATEGIES

Our structural analysis results show that the existing structure may have the structural capacity to resist the loading requirements of the local Council. However, should the bridge structure fall short of the capacity requirements of the Shire, Xavier Knight will explore several options to upgrade the current loading capacity of the bridge structure. The goal with these strategies is to provide a cost-efficient solution that can be installed to the bridge with minimal disruption to the existing carriageway and traffic flow. Our solutions are limited by the condition of the existing bridge structure and we will endeavour to provide a solution that would be compatible with the existing structure given its current condition and layout.

5.7.1 Bridge Bearing Repair

From the survey completed on site it has been observed that there have been several structural defects relating to bearing of the structural planks onto their supports. As a part of the repair works we will be recommending new bearings and bearing supports to be installed to the current bridge structure. This can be achieved using retrofit steel brackets and elastomeric bearing strips. The steel brackets will be fixed to the existing structure with the use of high-tension roads or epoxy bolted fixings. These brackets can be used for the temporary jack-lifting of the bridge decks for the installation of the bearing strips. This bracket will also support the bearings in the permanent case. An indicative layout of this is shown below.



Figure 18: Indicative layout of bridge bearing replacement strategy

5.7.2 Bridge Span Augmentation

We have explored several potential options for augmentation of the bridge structure if the capacity is inadequate following detailed assessment. Options for supplementing the current structure are outlined below:

Adhering carbon fibre to the existing planks, providing additional tensile capacity to the underside of the existing structure and increasing the overall bending strength

Pouring an additional structural topping to the bridge decks, increasing the size of the level-arm and improving the bending strength – although it is noted that this will require additional civil works on both approach roads

Core-drilling and installing post-tensioned strands, anchoring into a post-installed slab above the current bridge deck level – this is also likely to require additional civil works on both approach roads

5.7.3 Bridge Pile Augmentation

Following detailed analysis of the bridge structure it is possible that the eccentrically loaded central piles from new bearing locations and previous structural works, or the dilapidated piles throughout, could lack the required structural capacity. Should this be the case we will need to look at strengthening strategies to bring these elements up to the required strength. This could include:

Stabilising the overturning moments with the use of tension cables fixing to the piers and abutments (as shown in Figure 18 above and Figure 19 below).



Epoxy encasement of the current steel piles, providing protection to the current structure and increasing the bending resistance of the piles

Applying a carbon fibre and epoxy wrapping will give the piles additional capacity through a new structural skin, which may prove an effective method of augmentation

Providing a new concrete encasement around the piles will add durability and additional capacity, making it a viable option to improve the current structural capacity

Figure 19: Plan view of proposed pier stabilisation with tension cables



6 CONCLUSIONS Our structural analysis has demonstrated that the current bridge structure may have the capacity required to support the loading required by the Shire. Through detailed investigation using standard RMS details we have established that the capacity of the standard section is adequate to support the required truck loading patterns. To confirm our assumptions, we recommend that a detailed structural scan is undertaken. We expect the scan to use techniques including ground penetrating radar to identify the structural elements within the bridge decks and confirm the arrangement outline in Appendix B.

Independent of the bending and shear capacity of the girders, we recommend that new bearings and bearing supports are installed to the existing structure to prolong its service life and assist with supporting the required loading. The bearing details proposed in this report will also assist in verifying the bridge capacity by providing a reduction to the bridge span. We consider this work necessary in verifying the required capacity of the bridge.

Several minor repair items have also been identified as needing to be completed in addition to any upgrade works that may be required. These items will increase the durability of the existing structure and are considered necessary to prolong the overall working life of the bridge structure. Although the patch repair and corrosion protection techniques listed herein should be applied at the earliest convenience of the Shire.

The condition of the structure reviewed during the inspection will deteriorate with time, making the observations in this report out of date. If the client doesn’t act on the recommendations within 12 months, then the report cannot be relied upon as an accurate record of the actual conditions of the structure. A new inspection should be undertaken prior to commissioning rectification works.

If the client does not act on the recommendations contained in this report, Xavier Knight cannot accept responsibility for any liability arising from a failure relating to the recommendations contained herein.

This report was completed for and on behalf of the Xavier Knight team. Kind regards,

Ellery Marsh

Structural Engineer BE (Civil)(Hons)

shelleykn

Highlight

APPENDIX A: Dimensional Survey Sketch

APPENDIX B: RMS Standard Drawing: B0304 PSC Plank Girder

APPENDIX C: National Heavy Vehicle Regulator Classes of Vehicles

Description Maximum Length (metres)Maximum Regulatory Mass under GML (tonnes)

Maximum Regulatory Mass under CML (tonnes)

Maximum Regulatory Mass under HML (tonnes)

1. COMMON RIGID TRUCKS - GENERAL ACCESS

(a)6.0t 9.0t

2 Axle Rigid Truck ≤ 12.5 15.0 CML does not apply -

(b)6.0t 16.5t

3 Axle Rigid Truck ≤ 12.5 22.5 23.0 -

(c)6.0 20.0t

4 Axle Rigid Truck ≤ 12.5 26.0 27.0 -

(d)10.0t* 16.5t

4 Axle Twinsteer Rigid Truck ≤ 12.5 26.5 27.0 -

(e)10.0t* 20.0t

5 Axle Twinsteer Rigid Truck ≤ 12.5 30.0 31.0 -

2. COMMON SEMITRAILER COMBINATIONS - GENERAL ACCESS

(a)6.0t 9.0t 9.0t

3 Axle Semitrailer ≤ 19.0 24.0 - -

(b)6.0t 9.0t 16.5t

4 Axle Semitrailer ≤ 19.0 31.5 32.0 32.0

(c)6.0t 9.0t 20t


(d)6.0t 16.5t 16.5t


(e)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t


3. COMMON RIGID TRUCK AND TRAILER COMBINATIONS (General access when complying with prescribed mass and dimension requirements)

(a)6.0t 9.0t 9.0t** 9.0t**

2 Axle Truck and 2 Axle Dog Trailer ≤ 19.0 30.0 - -

(b)6.0t 9.0t 15.0t

2 Axle Truck and 2 Axle Pig Trailer ≤ 19.0 30.0 CML does not apply -

(c)6.0t 16.5t 9.0t 9.0t

3 Axle Truck and 2 Axle Dog Trailer ≤ 19.0 40.5 41.0 -

(d)6.0t 16.5t 15.0t


(e)6.0t 16.5t 9.0t** 16.5t**


(f)6.0t 16.5t 18.0t


(g)6.0t 16.5t 16.5t** 16.5t**


(h)10.0t* 16.5t 9.0t 16.5t


(i)10.0t* 16.5t 16.5t** 16.5t**


4. COMMON B-DOUBLE COMBINATIONS - CLASS 2

(a)6.0t 16.5t 16.5t 16.5t

7 Axle B-double ≤ 19.0 55.5 57.0 57.0

(b)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 16.5t

8 Axle B-double ≤ 26.0 59.0 61.0 62.5

(c)6.0t 16.5t 16.5t 20.0t

8 Axle B-double ≤ 26.0 59.0 61.0 62.5

(d)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t

9 Axle B-double ≤ 26.0 62.5 64.5 68.0

5. COMMON TYPE 1 ROAD TRAINS - CLASS 2

(a)6.0t 16.5t 16.5t 16.5t 16.5t

9 Axle A-double ≤ 36.5 72.0 74.0 74.0

(b)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 16.5t 20.0t

11 Axle A-double ≤ 36.5 79.0 81.0 85.0

(c)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

12 Axle A-double ≤ 36.5 82.5 84.5 90.5

(d)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

12 Axle Modular B-triple ≤ 35.0 82.5 84.5 90.5

(e)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

12 Axle B-triple ≤ 36.5 82.5 84.5 90.5

(f)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t

14 Axle AB-triple ≤ 36.5 99.0 101.0 107.5

(g)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

15 Axle AB-triple ≤ 36.5 102.5 104.5 113.0

(h)6.0t 16.5t 16.5t 16.5t 16.5t 16.5t

11 Axle Rigid Truck and 2 Dog Trailers ≤ 36.5 88.5 90.5 91.0

6. COMMON TYPE 2 ROAD TRAINS - CLASS 2

(a)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 16.5t 20.0t 16.5t 20.0t

16 Axle A-triple ≤ 53.5 115.5 117.5 124.5

(b)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

18 Axle A-triple ≤ 53.5 122.5 124.5 135.5

(c)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

15 Axle AB-triple ≤ 44.0 – Classified by the NHVR as Type 1 when L ≤ 36.5m 102.5 104.5 113.0

(d) 6.0t 16.5t 16.5t 20.0t 16.5t 20.0t

13 Axle Rigid Truck and 2 Dog Trailers ≤ 47.5 – Classified by the NHVR as Type 1 when L ≤ 36.5m 95.5 97.5 102.0

(e)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t

17 Axle BAB-Quad ≤ 53.5 119.0 121.0 130.0

(f)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

18 Axle BAB-Quad ≤ 53.5 122.5 124.5 135.5

(g)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

17 Axle ABB-Quad ≤ 53.5 119.0 121.0 130.0

(h)6.0t 16.5t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t 20.0t

18 Axle ABB-Quad ≤ 53.5 122.5 124.5 135.5

*Add one tonne if twinsteer axle group is load sharing.**The mass of a dog trailer shall not exceed the mass of the towing vehicle under Schedule 1, Part 1, section 2(4) of the Heavy Vehicle (Mass, Dimension and Loading) National Regulation.Please note, additional limits are allowed for steer axles under Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Heavy Vehicle (Mass, Dimension and Loading) National Regulation. © Copyright National Heavy Vehicle Regulator 2018, creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/au

National Heavy Vehicle RegulatorCommon Heavy Freight Vehicle Configurations

Disclaimer: This diagram shows some of the common heavy vehicle combinations used in Australia. Other heavy vehicle configurations may not be represented. The mass and length limits shown are from the Heavy Vehicle (Mass, Dimension and Loading) National Regulation (the MDL Regulation) and are provided for general guidance only. These limits are available only to vehicles that comply with all other regulatory requirements (e.g. width and height limits, tyre width, vehicle standards, load restraint, suspension type etc). In some circumstances, other mass concessions and length limits may also be available. The NHVR website provides links to the MDL Regulation and to national and state Notices which may apply, depending on individual circumstances. For further information, contact the NHVR at 1300 MYNHVR (1300 696 487) or [email protected] or www.nhvr.gov.au/contact-us

APPENDIX D: Miska Zealseal 4000 System

Pictured: Gateway Motorway Brisbane

Zealseal™ 4000 System

Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication is intended to give a fair description of the products and their capabilities. No responsibility or liability by the manufacturers will be accepted for misuse, misreading or deviation from the recommended guidelines of these products. As new technology is introduced, or industry standards are altered, Miska reserves the right to alter the information without notice.

Rev 02April 2011

Key Features • Capacity for 60% compression (percentages based on initial seal width selection) • Capacity for 100% horizontal and vertical shear • Whilst Zealseal has a capacity for 30% tension, this “must not” be used in movement calculations when selecting sizing for Road and Bridge applications. It is recommended that this capacity be kept for a safety factor should a movement calculation exceed the expected +movement. • Does not support flame and is self extinguishing • Large temperature operating range with no thermal shrinkage. • Manufactured in such a way that it is free of toxins, non reactive and chemically inert. • Weather and UV resistant • On site welding of joins, intersections, upturns and different seal sizes. (A monolithic waterproof system) • Quick and easy installation •Enhanced bond line design increases bond strength to all surfaces. Supplied with approximate 3mm x 3mm bond surface grooves @ 10mm centres. • Bonded using Zealbond™. (See overleaf for details) • Cleanup with Zealcleaner™

ZealsealTM is a nitrogen blown, closed cell, cross linked polyethylene material which conforms to ASTM D-1056, Type 2 Class B, Grade 3 specifications. It is a preformed, low density, resilient material that is UV stabilized. Manufactured in such a way that it is free of toxins, non reactive and chemically inert. Zealseal™ is also compatible with other construction materials and combined with its resistance to abrasion, oxidation and most chemicals, is ideal as a waterproof, expansion joint material

For Bridge & Road Applications. (For carpark, public space and architectural applications see Miska ZealSeal™ 2000 data sheet).

The Miska Zealseal™ System provides a waterproof, trafficable seal utilizing Zealcrete LV™ epoxy elastomeric concrete as the armor nosing to support the Zealseal™ expansion foam.

Zealseal™

Key Advantages - ZealsealTM has a minimum controlled depth of 50mm giving a guaranteed bond line that is not subject to the diligence of the installer. - Zealseal™ has a operating system which is active across the full depth and width of the seal as opposed to the varying depths in some sealant systems. - Zealseal™ has a homogeneous uniform structure and maintains its shape irrespective of the width or its position in the movement range. - Zealseal™ is nitrogen blown and therefore is chemically inert providing higher heat resistance and UV stability than EVA chemically formed products.

System Applications - Asphalt on Concrete Deck Installations Zealseal™ 4000 A - Concrete Rebate Installations Zealseal™ 4000 C - Steel Armor Nosing and Cold Applied Zealseal™ 4000 R Sealant with Backer Rod Retrofits

ITW Construction Systems (A division of ITW Australia P/L)

Tel: 1300 663 521 Web: www.miska.com.au

Seal Seal Width

Seal Height

Nominal Gap Size

mm

Minimum Gap mm

Maximum Gap mm

ZS25 25 50 19 10 25 ZS30 30 50 23 12 30 ZS35 35 50 26 14 35 ZS40 40 50 30 16 40 ZS45 45 50 34 18 45 ZS50 50 50 38 20 50 ZS55 55 50 41 22 55 ZS60 60 75 45 24 60 ZS65 65 75 49 26 65 ZS70 70 75 52 28 70 ZS75 75 75 56 30 75 ZS80 80 75 60 32 80 ZS85 85 75 64 34 85

Zealbond™ ZealbondTM is a 100% solids, moisture insensitive, two component, modified epoxy adhesive designed for bonding Zealseal™ to construction materials including Zealcrete LV™ concrete, steel, wood and other construction materials. ZealbondTM meets ASTM C-881, Type 1 & 11, Grade 2, Class B & C.

ZealcleanerTM

Zealcleaner™ is a Zero-VOC Clean up solvent designed to be an industrial grade cleaner that is environmentally friendly. Zealcleaner™ is a low viscosity, water soluble cleaner and degreaser that is an alternative to flammable cleaners and solvents. It will dissolve and aid clean up of most uncured epoxies, urethanes, paints, and other difficult to remove substances. The low evaporation rate allows the product to remain on the surface rather than flashing off into the air, minimizing the required amount for the job. *use white cotton rags.

Zealcrete LV™ is a Fast Setting, , moisture insensitive, 100% solid, low viscosity two-component Epoxy elastomeric concrete. Zealcrete LV™ is designed as an expansion joint header and high impact nosing for Bridge and Roads applications. Zealcrete LV™ is designed to preserve and protect concrete decks and substructures by absorbing impact, preventing water absorbsion and ingress of chemicals and eliminating spalled edges on joint lines. Note: New Concrete must cure for 10 Days prior to Installing Zealcrete™ LV.

Zealseal™ Sizing (For Road & Bridge applications) The table across is a guide to the sizing and recommended movement ranges. For full details on selecting the correct Zealseal™ size, refer to the Miska data sheet:

Zealseal Guide to Sizing

Zealcrete LV™

Key Features • Low viscosity for ease of mixing • Moisture insensitive • Fast setting, Gel time 15-20 minutes • Excellent load bearing characteristics • Excellent thermal shock resistance • Waterproof and Chemical Resistant • High abrasion resistance • Excellent adhesion to various substrates • Resistant to UV and ozone exposure • Resistant to freeze-thaw changes

Zealseal™ 4000 System For Bridge & Road Applications. (For carpark, public space and architectural applications see Miska Zealseal™ 2000 data sheet).


Rev 02April 2011



Sizing for Asphalt on concrete deck application

When the Zealcrete™ LV elastomeric concrete nosing “sits on” the concrete Decking or when the upper surface of the Zealcrete™ is above the upper surface of the concrete decking the nosing aspect ratio, width: depth, must be taken into consideration. Although the top surface of the nosing will be level with the top surface of the asphalt after the installation, the depth of the asphalt and therefore the level of support behind the nosing is a factor that must be considered when sizing the material for the particular project.

Asphalt on Concrete Deck Installation


Rev 01April 2011

Pictured: Gateway Motorway Brisbane

Zealseal™ 4000A

Zealcrete™ LV Sizing Guides

ASPHALT

CONCRETE DECK

Asphalt Depth mm Nosing Depthmm

Nosing Widthmm

Volume of Zealcrete per meter (Litres)

Both sides of Block Out

90 90 150 27.0

100 100 170 33.4

125 125 210 52.5

150 150 250 75.0

Example Sizing Chart: Aspect Ratio - 0.6 = (e.g. 75mm/0.6 = 125mm)

150

90

Asphalt Depth at minimum of 50mm In cases where the asphalt is at a depth of 50mm or less, Miska recommends that the depth of the Zealcrete™ nosing should be maintained at 50mm and the minimum width should be maintained at 150mm wide. Zealcrete™ sizing at minimum = 50mm Deep x 150mm Wide Asphalt Depth > 50mm up to 90mm

Zealcrete™ nosing should be maintained at 150mm. Zealcrete™ sizing = 90mm Deep x 150mm Wide

Aspect Ratio (Depth: Width) of 0.6 should be maintained at all times.



Zealseal™ 4000C Concrete Blockout Installion


Miska (Aust) P/L (A business unit of ITW Australia)

P.O. Box 1021 Archerfield, Queensland, 4110.Telephone: 61 7 3277 7077 Facsimile: 61 7 3277 8858

Web: www.miska.com.au

Rev 01April 2011

Sizing for Concrete Blockout Installations

When the Zealcrete™ Nosing is fully supported by concrete on both sides of the rebate, with height of the concrete being level with the trafficable surface of the road Miska recommends an aspect ratio (width: height) of 0.5 be maintained.

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete Blockout, Zealcrete LV will be supported by concrete on both sides of the blockout

Minimum blockout size = 50mm Deep x 100mm wide per side. (An Aspect ratio of 0.5 must be retained) 50mm/0.5 = 100mm

Concrete

Zealseal™ 4000R Retrofit Installations

Pictured: William Jolly Bridge Brisbane (Oct 2010)

Retrofit Applications

- Retrofit Existing Steel Armour Nosing Joint Systems - Retrofit Existing Cold Applied Sealant with Backer Rod Joint Systems

The Zealseal™ seal itself is ideally suited to the repair of existing Steel Armour or Cold Applied Sealant Joint Systems where the armour is structurally sound but the existing seal is leaking causing joint failure and degradation bridge bearings and support structure. Zealseal™ is well suited as a direct replacement for Compression Seals, Water Stops and existing Cold Applied sealant and Backer Rod Systems. The Zealbond™ bonder is formulated to bond the Zealseal™ to Concrete, Steel, Elastomeric Concrete and many other types of substrates given the correct preparation.

General- Repair procedures of existing Steel or Elastomeric Concrete armoured joint systems consists of removal of joint seal between armour edges, sandblasting the armour, priming the armour, and installing new Zealseal™ joint seals.

Documents

STRUCTURAL CONDITION REPORT...Mr. Johann Human and Mr Ellery Marsh, Engineers from Xavier Knight, carried out the site inspection of Asset Number CR143, Reids Flat Road over the Lachlan