Procedures For Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks

.
'
Canadian Coast Guard

Harbours and Ports
PROCEDURES FOR INSPECTION AND ASSESSMENT OF FIXED TIMBER DOCKS
1994 September - 4th Edition
RG SEXSMITa LTD
C.-JIing Strodural Fngioeen
4715 High Way

West Vancouver Be
Canada V7W 1J6
phone/fax 604 926 6950

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 . Purpose and Scope 1

1.2 Application and Criteria 1
1.3 Reasons for Inspection or Assessment 2
2.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Pre-site Work 5
2.3 Verification of Arrangement and Type of Structural Components 6
2.4 Types of Damage 7
2.5 Remaining Useful Life 11
2.6 Floats 12
12
3.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 14
3.1 Introduction 14
3.2 Assumptions and Interpretations 14
4.0 REPORT 17
4.1 Introduction 17
4.2 Section Numbering 17
4.3 Table of Contents 17
5.0 REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX I - SAMPLE REPORT

APPENDIX II - SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX III - SUGGESTIONS FROM INTERVIEWS
I
I.
Report prepared by:
RG Sexsmith PEng RD Watts PEng

RG Sexsmith Ltd North Island Engineering Ltd
Acknowledgements
This revised edition was developed with the aid of comments from a number of individuals
experienced in assessment of timber docks. In particular we acknowledge the valuable input from
Murray Johnson PEng of Buckland and Taylor Ltd, Chris Henoch PEng, Jerry Chen PEng, and
Michael Liang PEng of Public Works Canada, Janine Toneff PEng and Gary Bouwman PEng of
Sand well Inc., Shannon King PEng and Derek Hodgkinson PEng of Transport Canada.
i I
l
Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 1

4th Edition - 1994 September
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since the production of the "Procedures for the Inspection and Assessmeht of Fixed
Timber Docks," 3rd edition, 1992, the procedures for inspecting and reporting have been
tested and refined by Harbours and Ports, Transport Canada. Floats, services, and use of
the facilities have been added to the scope of the inspections, and the format of the
reporting has evolved into a standard system which is comprehensive, while allowing for
the unusual situations that arise at some facilities. A number of problems of interpretation
of the applicable codes have been found common to the several engineers performing
assessments, leading to a need for some agreement on these issues.
The inspection, assessment, and reporting procedures outlined in this manual are intended
to provide a defined, consistent, cost-effective set of procedures, and a ,level of detail that
will document the information sufficiently to effect minor repairs without additional site
visits, and in the case of extensive repairs or alterations, will permit the initial development
of drawings and specifications, followed by a site visit by the designers only to review the
final package prior to tenders.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This document is to be used as a detailed guide to the planning, execution, calculations,

and reporting of inspections, and structural assessment of fixed timber dock structures and
their attached floats. The scope of inspections is limited to the portion of the structure
above low water. The inspector can identify conditions that indicate likely problems below
low water, but special methods, beyond the scope of this document, are required to
complete engineering assessment of timber piles below low water level.
1.2 Application and Criteria
The procedures apply to fixed Timber Dock Structures consisting of piles, timber bracing,
pilecaps, stringers, decking, and the attached floats. The intended loading is vehicular and
storage.
The design criteria, codes and standards that are expected to apply should be clearly
specified prior to the assessment. The criteria depend on reasons for the assessment.
Normally there will be existing criteria developed at the time of the design or the most
recent modification to the structure. In the event of a proposed change of use or upgrade
in capacity, new criteria may be specitied. The criteria should normally be chosen with
regard to the design standards commonly in use for the structure. These are:
a) CAN/CSA-S6, Design of Highway Bridges

Includes highway bridge loadings and timber design standards and is based on a
limit states approach.
,, ,

b) CAN/CSA-086.1, Engineering Design of Wood (Limit States Design)

Intended for wood structural design, generally buildings, but may be applicable to
some aspects of dock structures. Note that many of the connection types in this
standard are not suitable for exterior use or for the heavy timber construction
typical of docks.
Unless otherwise requested, S6 should be the standard used except as noted in Section 4.
1.3 Reasons for Inspection or Assessment
There is a number of reasons for inspection or assessment of dock structures. The type of
inspection, level of detail, site effort, calculation effort, level of supervision, and type of
documentation and reporting all depend on the purpose of the inspection or assessment.
The various purposes may be categorized as follows:
1.3.1 Initial Inspection
The purpose and methods of inspection have changed over the past few years, and the
design criteria with respect to standard loadings and behaviour of timber have also
changed. It has become necessary for Transport Canada Harbours and Ports to develop an
up-to-date data base of the inventory of dock structures with respect to documentation of
physical arrangement and timber dimensions, condition of the various elements in each
structure, and load capacity of each facility or portion. The initial inspection is therefore a
first comprehensive inspection, in which extensive documentation must be prepared,
existing documentation confirmed and engineering calculations for a load rating performed.
The inspection procedures and load rating are more thoroughly discussed in Sections 2 and
3, respectively.
1.3.2 Scheduled Comprehensive Inspection
A scheduled comprehensive inspection program should be carried out for all facilities. The
purpose is to ensure that appropriate ongoing maintenance is carried out and unforseen
conditions are provided for. During the first ten to fifteen years in the life of a well-
designed timber structure, it would be expected that such inspections would routinely
confirm that all is well, or that a few damaged items require repair. The kinds of damage
to be expected will depend on the location. The inspection, once complete, provides
assurance that surprises will not result in expensive repairs or maintenance. On occasion
such an inspection will raise questions regarding design criteria, inappropriate design
details, poor materials performance, unexpected loads, and others. When this occurs, it
should trigger an inspection procedure as in 1. 3.4 below.
Normally such inspections should be carried out by a qualified Professional Engineer who
can assess the need and priorities for any remedial measures on site, and, in the case of
minor repairs, prepare the necessary documentation to implement such repairs without the
i ,

necessity for return visits to the site. In the case of extensive repairs the documentation
should be sufficient to initiate the design of the repairs, subject to a site visit by the
designer prior to finalizing the tender documents.
The preparation of documentation in sufficient detail to prepare remedial measures later

depends on a good understanding in advance by the inspector as to the budgetary
possibilities for carrying out remedial measures. It is therefore essential that prior to
performing the inspection, the inspector be briefed on priorities and expectations with
regard to repairs.
Comprehensive inspections would usually be scheduled and incorporated into the normal
operations of the Department, based on the use and condition of the facility.
1.3.3 Quick Inspections
Quick inspections typically take a few hours, The two most common reasons for these
would be (1) to get a general overview of the condition when an inspector is in the area for
another reason; or (2) to look at a specific element (deck, handrails, etc.) that is nearing
the end of its useful life.
Generally, these inspections are not very detailed and no effort is made to match any
particular tide. In the case of a deck with a few bad planks or local deterioration to
bullrails, handrails, etc., these should be identified so a local contractor can replace them.
For other cases, the amount of information recorded will depend on the reason for the
inspection, the amount of time available and the extent of the damage.
1.3.4 Special Inspection Due to Report of Accidental Damage or Incident
When accidental events occur, or an unusual condition is reported or suspected, an

immediate inspection is required to assure protection of the remaining asset, establishment
of cause of the incident, and necessary repairs. There may be a need to protect the
position of the Department with respect to liability and to pursue compensation from others
who may be liable for the damages. In such cases, legal advice may be required.
When an accident or incident is reported, it is essential that rapid response be undertaken.

This would normally be a team approach, with rapid deployment to the site of qualified
technical staff and a qualified Professional Engineer.
Special inspections of this nature cannot be scheduled in advance but must take high
priority.
i ,

4th Edition - 1994 September .
1.3.5 Special Inspection Due to Change of Use, Sale, Transfer, or Requirement for Physical
Alterations
A change of use or loading requires an assessment to ensure that the new conditions, not
provided for in the original design, can be accommodated.
Efficiency demands that any proposed change of use be checked out before commitments
are made. Adequate notice of future plans will enable the Department to schedule the
necessary inspection or assessment conveniently, and provide advice 'regarding a proposed
change in time to negotiate cost allocations and make renovations if necessary.
The field inspection would normally be done by a Professional Engineer. Field inspections
may not be necessary if recent routine inspections and documentation provide confidence in
field conditions. A change of use involving increased loads, or construction of alterations,
must always include an office assessment by a qualified Professional Engineer.
1.3.6 Special Inspection Due to a Dispute
A dispute may arise regarding the design or use of the structure, or an alleged action by
someone where the facts are in dispute.
The inspection and assessment in this case should be under the direct supervision of a
qualified Professional Engineer, and legal advice may be required.
1. 3.7 Construction Inspection
During construction or reconstruction of a facil ity, part of the inspection duties should
include documentation of the as-built condition to establish the data base for future
inspection and maintenance.
The inspector should note any damage to the existing facility caused during construction,
and damaged elements that may have been missed during the earlier inspection or where
the condition has deteriorated since the earlier inspection. Depending on time, budget, and
contractual issues the damage may be repaired during the construction period or scheduled
for a later date.
The inspector shall record sufficient information to produce as-built drawings of the entire
facility. The information includes, but is not limited to, member sizes, layout, all typical
and all unusual details, date of original construction, and dates of installation of works
performed after the original construction. The objective should be a concise up-to-date
drawing for easy reference during future inspections and construction work.
Additional inspection duties related to contract compliance and administration are beyond
the scope of this document.
I _1

2.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES
2.1 Introduction
The various inspection and assessment activities noted here are based on the inspection
being an initial or comprehensive inspection as defined in sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2,
respectively. For other types of inspections, many of the same activities would apply.
The scope of work should be specified in advance to suit the specific circumstances.
Engineering judgement, and in some cases legal advice, is required to define the scope of a
specific inspection, particularly if it differs from the initial or comprehensive inspections.
There is a trade-off between the value of information derived from an inspection and the
cost of obtaining the information. In order to define the level of effort, a common
understanding should be reached by the parties concerned as to the anticipated actions that
would follow the inspection. For example, it should be established in advance whether or
not re-decking or similar actions would follow the inspection should the items be found
deficient.
The inspection includes items down to the low water level (LWL). Thisgenerally means
that the inspection includes piles down to LWL and bracing including its lower connection
points. It is therefore assumed that sufficient time is scheduled to examine the structure at
high tide, to gain close access to undersides of decking, pilecaps, etc., and at LWL, to
access the lower bracing connections. Appropriate dates for the inspection must be
scheduled to ensure that the required tidal variation is achieved.
2.2 Pre-site Work
All available design, construction, and inspection/assessment documentation should be

reviewed. Inspection should be treated as an ongoing process using the full resources
available from the past.
Documentation includes:
initial criteria requirements

design calculations, drawings, construction specifications
construction inspection reports
geotechnical reports
status re ice, scour, ship impact, wave forces, berthing forces, vehicle loads, storage
loads
previous inspection reports
description of past, present, and anticipated future use and performance.
Preparation should include familiarity with the physical situation, including details of
access to all parts of the structure, tidal references, and past inspections reporting
deviations from the drawings.
I ;

A naming/numbering system should be devised, with reference to the structural drawings,

so that any field comments can be made without ambiguity as to location. This system
should be preserved and used in subsequent inspections.
2.3 Verification of Arrangement and Type of Structural Components
This activity is performed to verify that layout, structural members and connections are as
described on the drawings, or to identify specific alterations.
Measurements are made of all member types. It is important that actual dimensions are
taken for both piles and decking, rather than nominal dimensions. For other members, the
dimensions should be used to identify the member, e.g., 6 x 12.
A sampling of piles should be measured at the top and near low water at a known elevation
in order to document the taper. Pile diameters are most easily measured by finding the
circumference. Where variation is evident, it is important to record the minimum pile
diameters and associated tapers.
Connectors should be measured on the threaded end to determine diameters. Presence and
type of washers should be identified. Shear plates and split rings cannot be easily seen,
and should not be assumed to be present unless specifically documented. End distances
beyond connectors are particularly critical.
Where adequate drawings are available, verification will normally be by spot checking a
few key and/or representative members and connections. Unless doubts are raised, the
drawings would then be accepted as accurate.
2.3.1 Wood Grades
Wood grades are difficult to determine once wood has been treated. For most structures,
it is reasonable to assume the wood is #1 grade Coast Douglas Fir, since this has
historically been the grade and species specified in the past. If there are indications that
the grade is less than # 1, it may be advisable to employ a professionally qualified lumber
grader. Lumber graders are specially trained, and licensed under the National Lumber
Grades Authority (NLGA). NLGA also publishes "Standard Grading Rules for Canadian
Lumber," which should be used as a reference document in any discussion of grades.
i ,
"

Where grades or other characteristics related to grade are required, the NLGA "Standard
Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber" may be consulted for guidance, and an experienced
technician or structural engineer may be able to verify the grade-related defect of interest.
Some of the factors that adversely affect the strength of wood and are observable in the
field include the following:
end splits,
holes, and
notches.
In the calculations it is assumed that the material meets the grading requirements of end
splits for select structural. The rules for the acceptance of end splits are as follows:
Beams and Stringers

Select Grade less than 112 the width
# 1 Grade less than the width and less than 116 the length
Posts and timbers

Select Grade less than 3/4 the width
# 1 Grade less than the width and less than 116 the length
Holes and notches should be measured. Measurements should include both size and
location.
2.3.2 Soundings
Soundings should be taken with a simple line and weight (leadline) to verify water depth
and pile lengths at key locations around the structure. Generally this is at every corner and
at every 4th to 5th bent along the approach and wharthead. Depth to ground should be
measured relative to deck elevation.
2.4 Types of Damage
There are three types of damage commonly found on timber wharves:
physical,
decay, and
borer.
While insect damage is possible, it is extremely rare to find it.

, ,

Physical damage may include:
abrasio.n by ice, vessels, traffic

broken bracing due to impact from vessels or floating debris
broken piles due to impact
decking and other superstructure elements damaged by overload, impact, collision, or
wear
damage during construction or repairs due to poor field practices or site supervision.
If the physical damage being assessed is related to a possible dispute, a qualified

Professional Engineer should supervise the work and have legal guidance. The
documentation may require special handling which a lawyer will define.
Decay due to fungal attack may be visible on the exterior of some wood, but is more likely
hidden and can be surprisingly extensive before it appears on the surface. Fungal growth,
hence eventual decay, will occur wherever oxygen and moisture can provide the
environment for growth.
The likely places for decay are:
at ends of decking, stringers, pilecaps, and piles, where tield cuts milY have occurred
or where end checking has breached the protective skin of creosote.
locations that have opened up due to checking.
connection regions, where holes provide entry for air and moisture.
where the end grain of wood butts against side grain (the end grain piece harbours
more moisture, both pieces can become infected). End framing connections, and tops
of piles are obvious locations for this.
where a wood member is supported over another, e.g., stringers upon pilecaps.
Marine borers are the last major source of damage to piles and bracing. There are two
distinct types of borers:
bankia, and
limnoria.
Bankia, commonly referred to as shipworms or teredos, are actually bivalves which bore
through timbers. Bankia start their lives as free swimming larvae, until they latch onto a
suitable substrate. Quickly developing teeth and siphons, they start boring. The siphons at
the entrance hole supply the borer with oxygen and part of its food supply, and expel its
wastes. As bankia bore in they quickly grow and can go from 0.2 mm at the entrance hole
to 12 mm in diameter. While creosote treated wood is toxic to the larvae, it is not to the
adults, which are capable of boring through one creosoted timber to another.
Limnoria are similar to sow bugs in many respects. They bore into wood but stay close to
the surface to breathe. The damage is created as the weak friable layer created is eroded
i
Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of' Fixed Timber Docks Page 9
and they attack successively deeper layers. Creosote treated pilings are adequate protection
provided the protective shell is not breached.
As both these borers will attack any untreated wood in the water, the most common places
to find this type of damage are at the following:
bolt holes. Most bolt holes are either not treated or poorly treated with a light coating
of creosote, which is quickly leached out.
fender piles, where the creosote skin has been abraded.
breaches in the protective coating due to nicks or cuts caused by rafting dogs, peeves,
collisions, etc.
ends of braces, where the creosote gets leached out.
2.4.1 Assessing Physical Damage
The tools required for assessing physical damage include access, light, measuring
equipment, and a procedure for constructing good notes (surveyor's notebook, camera and
flash, portable audio recording device, etc).
Physical damage should be carefully described and photographed, and located using the
numbering system previously established. Measurements that will permit design of repairs
should be made. Photographs should be staged to include numbers or other identifying
marks written with a bright coloured crayon on the timber components where possible.
The apparent cause of any physical damage should be noted along with the reasons for the
conclusions made.
While looking for physical damage, the inspector should note any construction errors that
need correcting, such as uneven bearing or loose connections.
2.4.2 Assessing Decay and Borer Damage
Assessment of decay begins with a determination of the decay prevention steps that should
have occurred at the original construction. The treatment specification should be
consulted. CSA Specification 080 has covered wood treatment for many years. The
specific version originally used should be consulted.
Creosote pressure treatment, full cell or empty cell, when properly done, will prevent
decay for several decades. Wood treated over 40 years ago can be found in some BC
structures in condition similar to the original. The treatment is most effective when not
exposed to direct sunlight or to extreme drying and wetting cycles.
The treatment provides only a thin (12mm or so) skin of treated wood. Furthermore,
where field cuts were made and painted over with creosote in the field, it is likely to
provide poor protection after a few years. Locations that have been abraded will breach
the protective skin of creosote. Holes drilled in the tleld, if not tilled with connectors and
thus effectively sealed, will also provide a breach of the protective skin.
Where treatment is by other than creosote, it is likely to be ACA (ammoniated copper

arsenate) or CCA (chromated copper arsenate). These are also covered by CSA 080.
They are similar in effect, providing a thin skin of protection. However, the lack of an
oily surface, while making the surface more attractive and cleaner, permits moisture access
and related drying checking .. Further, these waterborne salts are impregnated by a water
saturation treatment, thus the wood is extremely wet after treatment, and for many uses is
then kiln or air dried. Whether dried before construction or installed in the wet condition,
the wood is known to suffer from extensive checking in-situ. Checking results in entrance
of decay similar to that for checked creosote.
The search for decay and borer attack normally requires a few simple tools:
flashlight, hammer, crowbar

10mm drill bits and a cordless electric drill
o wood plugs 1lmm diameter, soaked in hot creosote
core drill to take core samples about lOmm diameter, and plugs appropriate to plug
the core holes
small plastic sample bags or straws to retain cores.
There are four common methods of detecting damage: (1) visual, (2) hammering, (3)
drilling and (4) coring. The first two methods have the advantages of being both fast and
non-destructive. The latter two give better information at a particular location but are
slower, damage the structure, and provide potential locations for rot or borer entry.
Visual examination of the wood is the first method of decay detection. There may be light
coloured streaks on the wood surface. These are part of the fungal growth, but if
observed, the actual mycelia will be well established below the surface. Crazing at the top
of piles is caused by brown rots and it is usually well decayed at that point.
Limnoria damage is visible as tine tunnels or striations in the wood or, if the infestation is
heavy, as an hourglass shape in the intertidal zone.
Bankia damage is visible if the borers tunnel out to the surface or very close to it and
subsequent mechanical damage reveals the tunnels.
The second method of inspection is to use a hammer to tind areas that sound soft or
hollow. While this method is fast, it does not detect decay in all cases, including cases
where over 50% of the member had rotted, and can indicate decay when none is present.
Despite its limitations it is still useful in finding many areas of decay.
The third method of inspection is drilling. Due to the problems with hammering, it will be
necessary to make at least a few holes to contlrm that the visible inspection and hammering
are giving an accurate indication of the condition of the structure. Drill holes should be
made at the most decay-prone details or where hammering indicates decay. Drilling will
weaken the structure, and in particular the tension face of bending members should be
avoided. To avoid spreading decay, the bit should be dipped in a solution of at least 70%
rubbing alcohol between each use and the hole treated with creosote and plugged with a
creosoted dowel.
With drilling, excessive moisture can easily be detected, because chisel drill bits jam up in
the wood fibres when they are wet. The shavings should also be examined. Fine or
powdery shavings indicate decay. It is also easy to discern soft spots where decay has
started. Where the wood is wet but apparently sound it may be suspect. Shavings can be
retained for further analysis and as a record.
Coring is the fourth method and while it provides the most information it is also the
slowest. A few cores can be taken and retained. Cores should be taken at the same
locations as drilling and the same precautions apply. Laboratories can identify fungus,
moisture content, and species of wood, although presently no laboratories are doing this
type of work commercially. For moisture content, the core sample would have to be
stored in a moisture proof sample container or measured on site with a moisture meter.
Systematically identify each member that has some decay or borer damage. The
combination of hammer blows, drill holes, and cores provides an efficient way to get a
picture of potential decay problems.
Timber in the intertidal zone may have to be scraped clear of growth (mussels, seaweed,
barnacles) to hammer the surface or obtain access for drilling. Marine growth helps
protect pilings from borers and should not be removed except as required.
2.4.3 Hardware
Inspection of steel connections and other hardware is normally a simple visual operation.
Bent or corroded steel, missing bolts, loose nuts, etc., should be noted.
Ladders should be inspected for bent or missing rungs and to check that the anchors are
still attached. This last item can be simply tested by just trying to pick the ladder up.
2.S Remaining Useful Life
The inspection report should note estimated remaining useful life of the various
components of the structure. This is an essential part of the long term planning process.
Where creosote- or salt-treated wood has been examined for presence of decay and found
sound, an estimated life in excess of 8 to 10 years is appropriate.
Where some evidence of decay has been found, but very limited in extent, the element can
be assumed to have a residual life on the order of 3 to 6 years on the southwest coast, 5 to
7 years on the north coast and interior.
Where an element has a weakened cross-section due to decay, based on visual observation
or hammering, and confirmed by drilling, the residual life should be taken as negligible,
and the element should be considered unreliable for structural loads.
Where individual bracing members are damaged and the system is redundant, the
importance of the damaged member should be taken into account in assessing residual life
of the system.
Residual life should be established for each major class of elements in the system, i.e.,
deck, bullrail, hand railings, stringers, pilecaps, piles, and bracing, and for individual
elements within these classes where replacement of the deficient individuals is practical.
2.6 Floats
The top of the floats and any visible support timbers should be inspected in a similar
manner to the wharf. As well, the freeboard and water depth should be measured at all
four corners, along with the tide.
The gangway and its roller and hinges should be visually inspected for wear, rust or
damage. The movement of the roller should be verit1ed.
, I
Mooring piles and rub boards should be examined for physical wear, decay or borer
damage. Anchor blocks, if visible, should be examined.
2.7. Services
A cursory inspection of the services should be done, noting such items as leaking
waterlines, broken doors, dented walls, etc.
2.8 Miscellaneous Information
2.8.1 Access
The inspection report should note access information such as presence of ladders, location
of useful equipment (e.g., boat rentals), difficult access problems, and preferred tides for
best accessibility to the various elements of the structure. Cross bracing can be a real
impediment to a small boat.
Other facilities which may be useful to future inspections should also be noted, such as
boat ramps, hardware stores, and hotels.
2.8.2 Use of Facility
The types and frequencies of use of the facility are important determiners of the priorities
for maintenance and the load capacities that should be provided for. While it is recognized
i I

that the inspector is only present for a very short time, it is still possible to acquire useful
information on the use of the facility.
The inspection shall include a detailed description of the use of the facility as observed
during the time the inspection is carried out. This includes a description of the connection,
if any, with the local road system so that the possibility of highway vehicle loadings can be
established. In addition, the types of boats and their purpose should be noted. Presence of
nearby fish packing or similar enterprises should be noted insofar as it may indicate off-
loading or loading of cargoes. The possibility of seasonal activities should be noted. It is
recognized that the observations regarding usage are over a brief time span, and additional
use description is not first hand. Transport Canada will undertake to get usage reports
directly from the various local harbour officials in order to establish a detailed usage
record for the facility.
3.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
Cases requiring engineering analysis for a structural assessment include initial inspections,
changes of use, and changes in the codes. The analysis consists of the application of
engineering judgement and calculations taken to the degree necessary under the
circumstances. In some situations the calculations may be of a survey nature, intended to
provide confidence or an order-of-magnitude idea of a situation. In any case, they should
be organized to provide a record of what was examined, what the results were, and any
conclusions derived from them.
The engineering analysis possible on a wharf can consider a variety of forces including:
Vertical Loads - Truck loads

Forklift loads
Small distributed loads
Widespread distributed loads
Lateral Loads - Berthing

Wind
Earthquake and others
These loads could be considered either singly or in various combinations.
To keep the computational effort, and hence costs, to a reasonable level, the analysis is
generally limited to the two most common vertical load cases: truck loads and small
distributed loads. Forklift loads are taken as a proportion of the truck axle load. Lateral
loads and widespread distributed loads are usually only considered if there are indications
of a problem. Examples would include
the wharf is leaning,

minimal or no bracing, or
reported or observed widespread loads, such as full fish pallets.
In such cases, the problems should be noted in the report, so Harbours and Ports can
assess the situation and take appropriate action.
The analysis is done for the approach and whartbead independently and for the worst part
of each. If this area is small and could be easily isolated or upgraded, then the next worst
area should also be done.
3.2 Assumptions and Interpretations
The analysis requires both a number of assumptions and interpretations of S6 to provide a

meaningful management tool. Without a consistent method of analysis, it is difficult and
L j

time consuming to make comparisons between various reports; however, if an engineer

disagrees with any of the assumptions or interpretations, he/she should put his/her own
numbers in a separate column.
The key assumptions are as foIlows:
1. The structure is in good condition. No reductions are applied for decay, but the deck
thickness may be assumed ~educed to correct for deck wear. Where there has been
significant decay, the structural value of the wood should be taken as negligible.
2. Use the nominal dressed sizes for lumber except as noted for the deck. While this
may be a little conservative for rough timbers, it greatly simplifies the field
measurements, as they only need to identify the member size and not locate the
smallest one. It also avoids a number of problems including whether the rough face is
really effective in resisting loads and volume changes due to moisture.
3. Truck axles shall be assumed parallel or perpendicular to the decking, except where
the deck is less than 6m wide, in which case the truck direction may be taken only in
the long direction. Forklift axles shall be assumed to act in both directions.
4. The wheel load for aCS600 truck is 90 kN. S6 (Clause 5.3.6.1) permits 60 kN and a
shorter axle spacing for some members. The 90 kN load was adopted for simplicity
and to avoid discontinuities when the spacing limits were exceeded. The wheel
footprint for purposes of distributing wheel loads to decking shall be assumed to be
0.25m in the truck direction, O.6m across the truck direction.
5. The rating for forklifts on decking or stringers is 0.3 of the truck axle loading for
these elements. For other elements, it is 0.7 of the truck axle loading.
6. The impact factor should be 1.2. S6 allows 1.4 x 0.7 or 1.28, but with the slower
speeds typical on wharves, it was felt that 1.2 was more reasonable.
7. The specified strength for the deck should be 20 MPa for all thicknesses. The code
specifies 20 MPa for thicknesses greater than 89 mm and 10 MPa for less. These
values were obtained from tests on joists, not deck planks. Clearly such a steep
discontinuity makes no sense.
8. The shear factor for members should be taken as 45/-1d unless large end splits are
noted. While most of the timbers will be nominally #1 grade, end splits and shear
failures are rare.
9. The distribution factor for shear in stringers should be taken as 0~5 for a stringer
spacing less than 610 mm, and I for greater than 810 mm, with a straight line
transition. While S6 indicates the factor should be 1, this leads to very conservative
shear designs.
4th Edition - 1994 September .
10. Reductions for notches should be in accordance with CSA Standard 086.1, Clause
5.5.5.1 for shear and using net section properties for bending. Members with large
holes in the tension face should be tlagged for possible replacement.
11. Application of the slenderness limit of kIlr < 120 of CSA S6 results in many piles
requiring bracing, and very low load limits. This limit is more restrictive than the
limits in effect when most timber docks were constructed. Application of excessive
amounts of bracing to mitigate the slenderness results in difficult access, bracing
vulnerable to driftwood impact, and more damaged braces. At the present time
Transport Canada requests engineers to adopt suitable slenderness provisions from
reputable codes and standards and their engineering experience. The slenderness
depends on ground conditions in addition to pile dimensions. Further studies are
needed to establish appropriate standards for treatment of the pile slenderness
problem.
i I

4.0 REPORT
4.1 Introduction
The report format for the initial and routine inspections has evolved to a standardized
format for a variety of reasons, including:
completeness. By using a standard layout it is easier to ensure all the information is

included.
cost. Once a standard format is set up it can be re-used at a lower cost than unique
formats for each inspection. The standard format also saves additional time when the
reports are reviewed and drawings produced.
accuracy. It is easier during drawing preparation to get all the information needed
without having to fumble through the reports, decreasing errors.
An abridged sample report is include in Appendix I.
All copies of the report should signed by the author(s).
4.2 Section Numbering
To keep a consistent format, it was decided to adopt consistent section numbers in all the
reports for the standard items. These section numbers are given in Appendix I. If an item
does not appear for a specitic facility, the section should be included with the note that it is
not applicable.
Tables should be numbered to match the appropriate section of text, e.g., Table 3.2.1
should correspond to the text of Section 3.2.1. Tables are only included as required.
4.3 Table of Contents
The table of contents for the report is as follows:
Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Geometry
Section 3 Inspection Results
Section 4 Estimated Load Ratings
Section 5 Residual Life Estimates
Section 6 Recommendations
Appendix A General Information

Appendix B Photographs
Appendix C Field Notes
Specifically the following information should be included in each of the sections:
Section 1: Introduction
The name of the facil ity, the date of the inspection, the name of the inspector, the
purpose of the inspection, the scope of work and reference materials.
The scope of work should clearly indicate which parts of the facility were inspected
and which were not. .
All reference materials should be listed and obsolete drawings noted.
Section 2: Geometry
The information on the geometry should include concise but complete information on
the layout of the wharf and its structural arrangement. In particular, it should clearly
identify all member sizes and spans so an engineering analysis can be performed.
Included should be a copy of the transfer plan, with any errors noted and a simple
sketch which shows the locations of the bent lines, the extent of the whartbead, if it is
not clear, and any adjacent t10ats.
For scheduled comprehensive inspections, it is not necessary to repeat all this

information; just reference the initial inspection and note any discrepancies or
changes.
Section 3: Inspection Results
The inspection results are basically divided into two parts. The first part includes a
very brief description of the condition of the various elements of the wharf along with
the information on soundings and services. The description should summarize the
overall condition of that type of member. If only one or two members are damaged,
the details can be included here.
The second part of the report includes the tables, which itemize damaged elements
along with recommended repair options.
Section 4: Estimated Load Ratings
The estimated load ratings should be given for each individual member and the
governing member summarized. Load ratings for trucks should be given as axle
loads. The axle load is 0.3 x CS rating.
Any key information required to calculate these ratings and not included in the
geometry section should be summarized here.
For routine inspections, just reference the initial inspection if it is still applicable.
Section 5: Residual Life Estimates
Estimate remaining useful life of the various components of the structure, as this is an
essential part of the long term planning process.
Section 6: Recommendations
The recommendations should include an introduction and then the repairs broken
down into the following categories:
Mobilization, which should include the cost of mobilizing for major works, minor
works and fumigation if applicable.
Approach - Minor, for repairs less than $15,000'.
Approach - Major, for repairs of $15,000 plus
Wharthead - Minor, for repairs less than $15,000.
Wharthead - Major, for repairs of $15,000 plus
Total cost without mobilization
Under each of the four major categories, the repairs should have the following:
a number;
a description, with appropriate section and table references;
a recommended date for replacement by the fiscal year that the repair should be
done; and
an estimated cost to a nominal Class C level ( 25%).
Appendix A - General Information
The topics that should be covered in this appendix include the following:
weather,
tides,
access,
use of facilities, and
corrections to the transfer plan.
For routine inspections, only additional information needs to be recorded.
As in the main body of the report, items which are not applicable should be noted.
Appendix B - Photographs
A representative set of photographs showing the general layout of the facilities and all
the key types of damage to the various elements should be included. For all major
recommendations, there should be at least a representative photograph included to

support the recommendation.
The rest of the photographs should be labelled and included in a separate report or
folder. These photographs do not need to be mounted, but can be placed in sleeves or
envelopes.
The entire set of photographs should be comprehensive in nature as they provide

valuable information for both management purposes and for producing the plans and
specifications.
The photographs should include the following if possible:
an aerial view;
general views from all sides, at both low and high tide;
a view of the topsides;
some views from underneath;
condition of the fender piles at the top;
damage to the structure; and
details of the structure.
Appendix C - Field Notes
A copy of thetleld notes should be !ncluded.

; ,

5.0 REFERENCES
Transport Canada, Guidelines, Inspection and Maintenance Marine Facilities, Ottawa,

1985
Canadian Standards Association, CAN/CSA-S6-88 Design of Highway Bridges, Rexdale,

Ont., 1988
Canadian Standards Association, CAN/CSA-080 Wood Preservation, Rexdale, Ont., 1989
Canadian Standards Association, CAN/CSA-086.1 Engineering Design in Wood (Limit

States Design), Rexdale, Ont., 1989
Society of Wood Science and Technology, Proceedings, Structural Use of Wood in Adverse
Environments, Edited by Robert Meyer and Robert Kellogg, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York, 1982
Madsen, Borg, Structural Behaviour of Timber, Timber Engineering Ltd, North

Vancouver, 1992.
National Lumber Grading Authority, NLGA Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber,
Burnaby, B.C., September 1, 1993.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Standard

Specifications for Highway Bridges, Washington D.C., Various years.
Quayle, D.B., Marine Borers in British Columbia, Canadian Special Publication of

Fisheries and Aquactic Sciences 115, Ottawa, Ontario, 1992.
APPENDIX I
SAMPLE INSPECTION REPORT
Notes: 1. This report has been abridged and modified to suit the new format.
2. Appendix C has been expunged.

I ,
Transport Canada
PORT HARDY WHARF INSPECTION
Abridged 1st Edition

22 August 1994
North Island Engineering Ltd.

1833 Robb Avenue
Comox, B.C.
V9M 2C9
Phone/Fax 339-2243
Prepared by Ralph Watts, P.Eng.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 GEOMETRY 2
2.1 Reference System 2

2.2 Approach 2
2.3 Wharfhead 3
2.4 Services 3
2.5 Floats 4
3.0 INSPECTION RESULTS 7
3.1 Approach 7
3.2 Wharfhead 8
3.3 Soundings 10
3.4 Floats 10
3.5 Services
11
TABLE 3.1.1 APPROACH - TOPSIDES 12
TABLE 3.1.5 APPROACH - PILE CAPS DAMAGE 12
TABLE 3.1.6 APPROACH - BEARING PILE DAMAGE 12
TABLE 3.1.8.A APPROACH - BRACING DAMAGE 13
TABLE 3.1.8.B APPROACH - WALE DAMAGE 13
TABLE 3.2.1 WHARFHEAD - TOPSIDES DAMAGE 14
TABLE 3.2.3 WHARFHEAD - STRINGER DAMAGE 14
TABLE 3.2.4 WHARFHEAD - PILECAPS DAMAGE 14
TABLE 3.2.5 WHARFHEAD - CORBELS AND SUBCAPS 14
TABLE 3.2.6 WHARFHEAD - BEARING PILE DAMAGE 15
TABLE 3.2.8 WHARFHEAD - FENDER PILE DAMAGE 15
TABLE 3.2.9.A WHARFHEAD - BRACING DAMAGE 16
TABLE 3.2.9.B WHARFHEAD - WALE DAMAGE 16
TABLE 3.4 FLOAT B - DECK PLANKS 16
4.0 MODIFICATIONS TO ESTIMATED LOAD RATINGS 17
5.0 RESIDUAL LIFE ESTIMATES 18
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 19
APPENDIX A - GENERAL INFORMATION

APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C - FIELD NOTES
i ,
Port Hardy Wharf Inspection 21-22 July 1994

Abridged 1st Edition - 22 August 1994 . Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Facility: Port Hardy Wharf
Inspected by: North Island Engineering Ltd. (Ralph Watts)

Transport Canada (Derek Hodgkinson) - 16 June 1994 only
Dates: 16 June 1994

21-22 July 1994
Purpose of Inspection
The purpose of the inspection was to assess the condition of the wharf and two floats at
Transport Canada's Port Hardy facility.
Scope of Work
The inspection of the approach and wharf were by the method outlined in "Procedures for
Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks," 4th Edition by RG Sexsmith Ltd. The
services were given a quick general inspection. Only the two adjacent f10ats to the south
were inspected. The floats on the north side owned by Small Craft Harbours were not
inspected.
Reference Materials
The following reference materials were available prior to the inspection:
Transfer Plan
Port Hardy Bracing Installation, Project 704121,3 sheets.
PW Inspection Reports from Site Construction 1993
RG Sexsmith Ltd. Inspection Report, 1992
Abridged 1st Edition - 22 August 1994 Page 2
2.0 GEOMETRY
The geometry of the facility is divided into two sections: the approach and wharfhead. The
approach and wharfhead are both timber structures on wooden pilings. The general layout of
the wharf is shown on the transfer plan (Figure 1) and in Photographs 1 to 8 in Appendix B.
2.1 Reference System
The reference system used for pile locations is the same as PWC Drawings 704121 and as
shown in Figure 2; there is no bent I. Batter piles are referenced from the closest pile at the
top end and by the direction the tip points. Braces are referenced starting at the top and
going down the brace.
There are hydrographic survey markers by 5C and between 14F and 15F.
2.2 Approach
The approach consists of a wooden deck supported on stringers, pilecaps and bents. The
geometry is summarized below:
Deck 4 x 12 spanning 18 inches max.

Stringers 6 x 14 spanning 10 feet max.; butted over pileca:ps
Pilecaps 12 x 14 spanning 8 feet.
Pile Bents 12- to 14-in diameter piles, pile taper I" (dia.)/12 1h' ,
Braces/Wales 6 x 8 from Bent 12 on, 3/4" (old braces) or 1" (new braces) diameter
bolts. The washers are malleable iron (old) and plate (new).
The bracing on the approach varies as follows:
Bents 1-11 None

Bents 12-25 Transverse C-D, F-E
Bents 26-40 Transverse C-E, F-D
Bents 1-29 None longitudinally
Bents 30-40 Longitudinal braces/wales
The piles are on concrete footings up to ,Bent 19. There are extra piles at 29E and where the
ramps are attached at roughly 34F and 37C.
The abutment for the approach is at Bent 1. Due to very poor access, we were not able to
determine the type or condition of the abutment. Along the south side of the approach to
roughly Bent 15 and along the north side to Bent 5, the earth is retained by untreated logs.
The topsides consist of three bullrails (8 x 10) without risers. The wooden handrails are
standard Public Works design.
I i

2.3 Wharfhead
The structure consists of a wooden deck supported on stringers, pilecaps and bents. The
decking and pilecaps are transverse to the wharfhead and the stringers are parallel, where the
longitudinal axis of the wharthead is east-west. The key geometric information is summarized
below:
Deck 4 x 12 spanning 18 inches

Stringers 6 x 14 spanning 10 feet east-west; butted over the pilecaps
Pilecaps 12 x 14 spanning 8 feet north-south
Corbels 12 x 14 x 4 feet at Bent E (odd bents) and Bent F (even bents)
Piles 12- to 14-in butt diameter piles (mostly 13); pile taper 1"(dia.)/15'
Batter Piles 13-in butts, 7/8" diameter bolts with malleable iron washers
Braces/Wales 6 x 8 in both directions, 3/4" or 1" diameter bolts
The piles are on an approximately eight by ten foot grid. Public Works Drawing 704121, 1
of 3, shows this grid accurately, although the extra piles in the NE corner are not shown.
Figure 2 summarizes the basic layout.
Bull rails are lOx 12 without risers.
2.4 Services .
The following services were noted:
Buildings - Coast Guard station in the center of the wharthead, which measures roughly 29'
by 101' (8.8 x 30.8 m). In a little extension near 40A to 39C there is a small
tidal gauge shed.
Lights - Numerous on approach and wharfhead; see transfer plan.
Cleats - On east, north and south faces.
Ladders - Chain ladders on east, south and north faces of the wharfhead. They are located
as follows: Bent A - 44-45, 51-52, 55-56; Bent 60 - B-C, H-J; Bent K - 45-46,
49-50, 54-55.
Water Line - Down north side of approach.
Sewer Line - Some form of sewerage is provided and it appears as if there is a grease trap
under the Coast Guard building.
Garbage Disposal - A dumpster is provided neal' Bent 41A.
Lights and water are provided to the floats.

2.5 Floats
There are two wood floats owned by Harbours and Ports on the south side of the approach
(Figure 2). The floats are tied together and anchored by three groups of mooring piles. Float
A has one group of 4 piles at the south end. Float B has. two groups of six piles along the
west side of the float and at roughly the quarter points.
The member sizes are as follows:
Deck 2 x 12
Bullrails 4 x 6 on 6 x 6 risers
I I

LOCAl! ON CHARTS
s:u; l;z(QlfJXt SCN.E: truro
SITE PLAN
SCJ,I.D 1: 1()))
Figure 1. Transfer Plan

Port Hardy Wharf Inspection
Abridged 1st Edition - 22 Augu.q 1994 21-22 July 1994
Page 6
- ... z
i
@-~ \
-@
Figure 2.
3.0 INSPECTION RESULTS
The results are mainly based on visual observations and hammering. While neither is
particularly effective in determining the early stages of rot or borer attack, they are fast and
do not damage the protective coating. As well, the presence of moisture can produce hollow
sounds similar to those caused by rotlbankia without either being present, although in this
case the conditions necessary for rot or bankia attack are there and the member will likely be
degraded in the near future.
A few drill holes and cores were taken to confIrm the results, but because of time constraints
and the detrimental effects of these methods their numbers were limited.
For the piles, this type of inspection is quite limited for the following reasons:
Bankia (and teredos) are very difficult to detect visually as only a small part of the borer
is exposed.
The piles can only be inspected above LLW; however, bankia concentrations increase
with depth.
Marine fouling prevents sounding over much of the piles, but should not be removed as
it provides valuable protection.
Time and access are limited, which prevents a thorough inspection.
For these reasons, this sort of inspection should not be solely relied upon, and other methods
are recommended at periodic intervals.
The general condition of the various elements are as indicated below. For specific
information see tables'as indicated.
3.1 Approach
3.1.1 Topsides
The handrails and bull rails are in fair to poor condition (Table 3.1.1). When the deck is
replaced the bullrails should be put on 2" risers.
3.1.2 Abutment
The abutment is in an unknown condition. Access was not safe due to the low height and
layer of debris.
3.1.3 Deck
The deck is in poor condition (Photograph 9). It will need to be replaced.
3.1.4 Stringers
The stringers appear to be in reasonably good condition. The coring did not indicate any
problems.
3.1.5 Pilecaps
The pilecaps appear to be in good condition (Table 3.1.5).
3.1.6 Bearing Piles
The piles are in fair to good condition (Table 3.1.6).
3.1.7 Fender Piles
N/A
3.1.8 Braces/ Wales
The braces and wales are in fair condition (Table 3.1.8 A and B). The connections on the
old braces and wales are generally in poor condition and will need to be replaced.
3.2 Wharfhead
3.2.1 Topsides
The bullrails are 10 x 12 without risers. The members are in fair condition with a couple of
sections requiring replacement, although all should have risers installed when the deck is
replaced.
The cleats and ladders are generally in good condition. A few of the ladders had bent rungs
which should be replaced (Table 3.2.1).
3.2.2 Deck
The deck is in poor condition (Photographs 10 and 11) and will need to be replaced, except
under the Coast Guard Station.
, ,,

3.2.3 Stringers
The stringers appear to be in good condition (Table 3.2.3), although our visual inspection on
the night of the 21st indicated some problems in the vicinity of 41C. Some cracked stringers
were noted near bent 60. However, working at night with limited visibility the true extent of
the decay was hard to determine.
There is some untreated formwork between the stringers in the NE corner that should be
removed.
3.2.4 Pilecaps
The pilecaps appear to be in good condition (Table 3.2.4).
3.2.5 Corbels and Subcaps
These appear to be in good condition with the exception of 60F (Table 3.2.5).
3.2.6 Bearing Piles
The individual bearing piles vary considerably in condition, and on average appear to be in
fair condition. The condition of doubtful piles is summarized in Table 3.2.6.
3.2.7 Batter Piles
A considerable number of batter piles is under the whartbead. Their connections are in poor
condition and should be replaced. A number of piles are missing caps, at least 5, and these
should be done when access is good.
3.2.8 Fender Piles and Chocks
The fender piles are in poor condition. They almost all have rot at the top and a few have
bankia attack, although most could not be inspected well at low tide due to access problems.
While the chocks are in better condition,a number have been damaged (Table 3.2.8).
3.2.9 Braces/ Wales
The older braces and wales are in poor condition while the new ones are generally in good
condition (Tables 3.2.9A and 3.2.9B). The connections of the older members are in poor
condition and need to be replaced.
I '

3.3 Soundings
Soundings were taken on the approach and the wharthead.
Approach To top of deck and on the south side (Bent F)
Bent 15 9' 8/1 (To top of concrete)

Bent 20 20' 3/1
Bent 30 23' 6"
Bent 37 27' I"
Wharthead To top of deck
North Side - Bent A South Side - Bent K
Bent 41 32' 5" 31' 2"

Bent 47 35' 2" 36' 7"
Bent 51 40' 2" 37' 9"
Bent 54 41' 3" 38' 8"
Bent 60 47' 7" 40' II"
Converting the soundings to LLW (assumed to be 23.5' below deck) gives the following
drafts (note: our calculations indicate this is only 22.6'):
East Side - Bent A West Side - Bent G
Bent 41 8' II" (2.7 m) 7' 8" (2.3 m)

Bent 47 II' 8" (3.6 m) 13' I" (4.0 m)
Bent 51 16' 8" (5.1 m) 14' 3" (4.3 m)
Bent 54 17' 9" (5.4 m) 15' 2" (4.6 m)
Bent 60 24' I" (7.3 m) 17' 5" (5.3 m)
3.4 Floats
The t10ats appear to be in reasonably good condition, although there were a few problem
areas:
there are three deck planks that are broken and need replacing (Table 3.4),
the paint on the gangway is going and it is starting to rust (Photograph 8),
the hinge pins could use some more grease, and
the guides (2x4xl0') for the roller tracks should be replaced.
The freeboard on the floats was as follows:
Float A
NE 420 mm SE 495 mm
NW 420 mm SW 495 mm
Float B
NE 445 mm SE 495 mm
NW 470 mm SW 445 mm
Soundings were taken and the draft at a zero tide estimated as follows:
Float A
NE 1.2 m SE 1.2 m
NW 1.0 m SW 0.9 m
Float B
NE 2.0 m SE 1.3 m
NW 1.8 m SW 1.8 m
3.5 Services
The services are generally in good condition with the following exceptions:
The chain ladder between 45K and 46K has two bent rungs (Photograph 7) and the one
between 60H and 60J has one bent rung.
Port Hardy Wharf Inspection 21~22 July 1994
TABLE 3.1.1 APPROACH - TOPSIDES
All items referenced to north handrail posts starting at the west end, which are spaced at 8 foot centers,
~ so 8 - 11 is 24' long.
ITEM LOCATION DAMAGE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION

Handrail 5th Post Rot Replace
Post
Handrail N Side 8 - 11 Rot Replace
Top Rail
Bull rail South side of Rot Roughly 82 Replace
ped. walkway meters
TABLE 3.1.5 APPROACH - PILE CAPS DAMAGE
LOCATION DAMAGE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION

23C-23F Check Full length, Monitor
drilled - solid
28C-28F Check Full length Monitor
TABLE 3.1.6 APPROACH - BEARING PILE DAMAGE
PILE DAMAGE LOCATION COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION
OBH - Open Bolt Elev - Elevation

Hole ITZ - Intertidal
Zone
MDL - Mudline
10C Cracked Sounds ok Treat
22D Bankia MDL Solid I" shell, Replace
Bankia inside
23D Sounds marginal MDL Drilled - good Monitor
27C Sounds marginal Top Monitor

Zone
MDL - Mudline
29E-S Sounds marginal; Top Pile 29E-N -
Bankia ITZ sounds okay
31C Sounds marginal Top Drilled - good Monitor
32C Only bearing on 4"; Top Photograph 12 Replace
drift pin knocked
out
TABLE 3.1.8.A APPROACH - BRACING DAMAGE
BENTIDIR DAMAGE LOCATION COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION

(pile at top
first)
15F-15E Rot Top Photograph 13 Treat & Cap
26C-26E Bankia ITZ Photograph 14 Replace
29C-29E Not attached @ 29E-N Bolted to Bolt
29E-S, which
has bankia.
32F-32D Bankia Photograph 15 Replace
Sounds okay
TABLE 3.1.8.B APPROACH - WALE DAMAGE
BENT/DIR DAMAGE LOCATION COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION

(pile at top
first)
38C-39C Bankia For tide Replace
gauge
39C-40C Broken @ Bolt @ 39C Photograph 16 Replace
, ,
!

TABLE 3.2.1 WHARFHEAD - TOPSIDES DAMAGE
ITEM LOCATION DAMAGE COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION

Bullrail @54K towards Rot 5 feet long Replace
55K
Bullrail Between 60B Rot 6 feet long Replace
and 60C
Ladder 45K-46K 2 bent rungs Replace rungs
TABLE 3.2.3 WHARFHEAD - STRINGER DAMAGE
NEAREST LOCATION DAMAGE COMMENTS RECOMMENDA TION

PILE(S)
41C 3rd to south Rot? Photograph 17 Replace
41C 4th to south Rot? Photograph 17 Replace
60D 1st to north Crack Treat
TABLE 3.2.4 WHARFHEAD - PILECAPS DAMAGE

51A-51E Crack on underside Monitor
60A-60F Mechanical Probably as a Monitor
result of hard
berthing along this
face.
TABLE 3.2.5 WHARFHEAD - CORBELS AND SUBCAPS

60F Split Photograph 18 Replace
i i

TABLE 3.2.6 WHARFHEAD - BEARING PILE DAMAGE

Zone
MDL - Mudline
45A Large crack Top Photograph 19 Treat/band
45K 5' Crack Top Drilled @ Treat/band
bottom of
crack - seems
okay
51A OBH 4'-5' from top 112 to 5/8 Treat
inch dia.
511 OBH; 4'-5' from top Replace
Bankia at OBH ITZ
51K OBH ITZ Sounds okay Fill/wrap
60C OBH; Bankia ITZ Outer shell Replace
still okay
60D Smashed; not Top Photograph 20 Replace
bearing
TABLE 3.2.8 WHARFHEAD - FENDER PILE DAMAGE
"Trim" in the table means to cut the top foot or so off the top of .the pile and a few inches above the
chocks. "Recap" includes treating the tops of the piles with creosote prior to applying an aluminum cap.
PILES/ CONDITION LOCATION COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION

CHOCK
42A Bankia ITZ Photograph 7 Replace outer pile
44A Bankia ITZ Photograph7 Replace outer pile
45A Rot Top Trim 3, Recap 3
60F Outer pile Top Photograph 21 Replace 3
gone, inner
piles rot
i ,

TABLE 3.2.9 WHARFHEAD - BRACING DAMAGE
BENTI DAMAGE LOCATION COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION

DIRECTION
41C-41A Crazed Top Cap
Never bolted @A Bolt
41C-41E Missing spacer; ITZ Add spacer
OBH Fill
41G-411 Bankia ITZ Photograph 22 Replace
TABLE 3.2.9.B WHARFHEAD - WALE DAMAGE
BENTIDIR DAMAGE LOCATION COMMENTS RECOMMENDA TION

(pile at top
first)
46E-46F Bankia Replace
47B-48B Not attached @47 Bolt
47C-49C Cracked, Bankia Replace
SOG-S2G Bankia Photograph 19 Replace
TABLE 3.4 FLOAT B - DECK PLANKS

South End Cracked Only need to Replace
replace 4' 6" at W
end
South End - one Broken 8' 6" Replace
plank to N
South of lamp post Cracked ' Replace
by 1
4.0 MODIFICATIONS TO ESTIMATED LOAD RATINGS
A load rating was run on the approach and wharfhead using our spreadsheet. The governing
member for the approach is the pilecaps in shear and for the wharfhead is either the pilecaps in
shear or the piles depending on the assumptions. For the approach, it gives an axle load rating of
152 kN and for the wharfhead of 77 or 127 kN. An axle load rating of 180 kN is equivalent to a
CS 600. Forklifts should be limited to less than 44 kN (GVW). The sets of values given reflect
the range of pile sizes from 12 to 14.
TYPE OF FORCE AXLE RATING (kN)

APPROACH
Deck Bending 342
Stringers Bending 256
Shear 177
Bearing 162
Pilecaps Bending 158
Shear 152
Bearing 217-295
Piles Compression/bending 179-325
WHARFHEAD
Deck Bending 341
Stringers Bending 211
Shear 177
Bearing 147
Pilecaps Bending 127
Shear 152
Bearing 295
Piles Compression/bending 77-159
Port Hardy Wharf' Inspection 21-22 July 1994
5.0 RESIDUAL LIFE ESTIMATES
The residual life estimates are based on Section 2.5 of "Procedures for Inspection and Assessment
of Fixed Timber Docks," 4th Edition by RG Sexsmith Ltd. These are rough estimates as rot and
bankia can spread very quickly if the conditions are favourable for them.
Approach
Handrails/bullrails - 0-5 years, average 2

Deck - 0 years
Stringers - 8 to 10 years
Pilecaps - 8 to 10 years
Piles - 3 to 10 years, average 7
Bracing - 2 to 10 years, average 5
Wharfhead
Bullrails - 0 to 2 years
Deck -0 years
Stringers - 8 to 10 years, except as noted
Pilecaps - 8 to 10 years
Bearing Piles - 3 to 10 years, average 7
Batter Piles - 2 to 10 years, average 5
Bracing - 0 to 10 years, average 5
Fender Piles - 0 to 4 years, average 2
Chocks - 3 years
Float
Float - 5 years
Gangway - 10 years
Services
Derrick - 10 years
Coast Guard Station Shed - 10 years
Tidal Gauge Shed - 10 years .
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations are listed by minor and major for the approach and wharfhead along with the
recommended date and an estimated cost (94/95 dollars). The costs are a nominal Class C estimate
25%, although in a location like this the bids are typically not very consistent. Engineering/site
supervision are not included. Engineering and site supervision is highly dependent on its thoroughness
and the number of contracts involved; it is estimated in the order of $15,000.
Although some of the bracing is in extremely poor condition, most of the repairs to the bracing have been
delayed until the next fiscal year, for two reasons:
1. The best tides for the year have already gone, so the contractor would likely have to use the low
winter tides and would need to mobilize again, but would end up working at night during the stormy
time of the year.
2. The pile results from S6 seem too conservative. The delay of a year might provide some more
information in this area, but in any event more information should be learnt about the fixity of the
piles at this particular site. Do the piles penetrate 5', 10' or 15'?
Some of the braces associated with pile replacements should be done this year as the old pile will have to
at least be unbolted to place the new pile.
6.1 Mobilization
1. Mobilization/demobilization (minor) 94/95 $ 3,000
2. Mobilization/demobilization (major) 94/95 $ 20,000
6.2 Approach - Minor
1. Replace handrail post (Table 3.1.1) 96/97 $ 200
2. Replace rails (Table 3.1.1) 96/97 $ 650
3. Add risers to bull rails (Sec 3.1.1) 94/95 $ 1,200
4. Replace bullrail (Table 3.1.1) 94/95 $ 3,200
5. Monitor pilecaps (Table 3.1.5) 96/97 $ 500
6. Band 2 piles (Table 3.1.6) 94/95 $ 150
7. Cap 1 pile (Table 3.1.6) 94/95 $ 200

8. Replace 3 piles (Table 3.1.6) 94/95 $ 4,500
Note: The piles used for replacement should be 14".

~
9. Shim 4 piles (Table 3.1.6) 94/95 $ 200
10. Treat 2 piles where they are cracked (Table 94/95 $ 800
3.1.6)
11. Wrap 1 pile (Table 3.1.6) 94/95 $ 200
12. Pack footing of 15C (Sec. and Table 3.1.6) 96/97 $ 500
13. Fill 1 open bolt hole (Table 3.1.6) 94/95 $ 25
14. Treat 4 open bolt holes in piles (Table 3.1.6) 94/95 $ 100
15. Bolt 1 brace to newer pile (Table 3.1. 8A) 95/96 $ 100
16. Replace 9 braces (Table 3.1.8A) 95/96 $ 4,500
17. Treat and cap tops of 8 braces (Table 3.1.8A) 94/95 $ 400
18. Replace approximately 130 corroded bolts 95/96 $ 6,500

(Sec.3.1.8A)
19. Fill 2 open bolt holes in piles (Table 3.1.8A) 94/95 $ 50
20. Bolt 1 wale (Table 3.1.8B) 94/95 $ 100
21. Coat end of wale with mastic and cap (Table 94/95 $ 200
3.1.8B)
22. Replace 2 wales (Table 3.1.8B) 94/95 $ 1,000
6.3 Approach - Major
1. Replace deck (Sec.3.2.2) 94/95 $ 140,000
6.4 Wharfbead - Minor
1. Replace bullrails (Table 3.2.1) 94/95 $ 200
2. Install risers under bullrails (Sec. 3.2.1) 94/95 $ 900

I ,

3. Replace 3 bent ladder rungs (Table 3.2.1) 94/95 $ 300
4. Replace 2 stringers (Table 3.2.3) 94/95 $ 2,000
5. Treat 1 stringer (Table 3.2.3) 94/95 $ 50
Note: The true extent of stringer damage is probably underestimated, and an allowance should be
made for additional members to be replaced.
6. Treat one pilecap (Sec. and Table 3.2.4) 94/95 $ 100
7. Replace 1 corbel (Sec. and Table 3.2.5) 94/95 $ 400
8. Band 10 bearing piles (Table 3.2.6) 94/95 $ 750
9. Replace 3 bearing piles (Table 3.2.6) 94/95 $ 4,500
Note: The piles used for replacement should 14". Given the large number of bolts and braces to
be changed, some additional piles that are deficient will be found and allowance should be made
for this.
10. Shim 2 bearing piles (Table 3.2.6) 94/95 $ 100
11. Treat 12 bearing piles (Sec. and Table 3.2.6) 94/95 $ 2,400
12. Wrap 3 bearing piles (Table 3.2.6) 94/95 $ 600
13. Fill 10 open bolt holes in bearing piles (Table 94/95 $ 250
3.2.6)
14. Treat 5 open bolt holes in bearing piles (Table 94/95 $ 150
3.2.6)
15. Fresh head 4 fender piles (Table 3.2.8) 94/95 $ 2,000
16. Reset bolts 16 fender piles (Table 3.2.8) 94/95 $ 4,000
17. Re-cap 57 fender piles (Table 3.2.8) 94/95 $ 3,000
18. Replace 2 fender pile (Table 3.2.8) 94/95 $ 2,500
19. Trim 27 fender piles (Table 3.2.8) 94/95 $ 5,500
20. Re-attach 2 fender piles (Table 3.2.8) 94/95 $ 500
21. Add 1 spacer block to bracing (Table 3.2.9) 94/95 $ 150

I I

22. Bolt 5 braces (Table 3.2.9) 94/95 $ 500
23. Cap 1 brace (Table 3.2.9) 94/95 $ 50
24. Fill 1 brace with mastic (Table 3.2.9) 94/95 $ 50
25. Fill 29 open bolt holes in braces (Tables 3.2.9) 94/95 $ 800
26. Add 1 wale (Table 3.2.9B) 94/95 $ 500
27. Bolt 3 wales (Table 3.2.9B) 94/95 $ 300
28. Cap 1 wale (Table 3.2.9B) 94/95 $ 50
29. Replace 9 wales (TableJ.2.9B) 95/96 $ 4,500
30. Replace 30 bolts in wales (Sec. 3.2.9) 95/96 $ 1,500
31. Fill 4 open bolt holes in wales (Table 3.2.9B) 94/95 $ 100
6.5 Whartbead - Major
1. Replace deck (Sec. 3.2.2) 94/95 $ 140,000
2. Replace 37 braces (Table 3.2.9) 95/96 $ 20,000
Note: It is likely that during construction some other braces will be found that require
replacement. Some allowance should be made for this.
3. Replace approx. 350 brace boIts Cfable 3.2.9) 95/96 $ 18,000
6.6 Floats - Minor
1. Replace 2 gangway guides (Sec. 3.4.1) 94/95 $ 200
2. Replace 3 deck planks (Table 3.4.1) 94/95 $ 200
3. Repaint gangway (Sec. 3.4.1) 96/97 $ 500

i ,

6.7 Floats- Major
N/A
6.8 Total Without Mobilization $ 383,000

i \
APPENDIX A (to Sample Report)
GENERAL INFORMATION
I ,

Abridged 1st 'Edition - 22 August 1994 Page A-I
APPENDIX A - GENERAL INFORMATION
Weather: Sunny Date: 16 June 1994 Insp. Time: 12:30 - 18:30

21 July 1994 05:30 - 10:00
12:00 - 15:00
23:30 - 24:00
22 July 1994 00:00 - 03:00
06:00 - 11 :30
Tides (all in Daylight Savings time, all at Alert Bay)
Date: 16 June 1994 21 July 1994 22 July 1994
01:05 6.5 ft 07:20 1.3 ft 00:50 15.9 ft

06:40 12.1 ft 13:40 13.2 ft 08:05 0.9 ft
12:55 4.6 ft 19:00 6.2 ft 14:20 13.8 ft
19:45 13.8 ft 19:50 5.7 ft
Location
The facilities are located in Port Hardy at the foot of Granville Street adjacent to the Seagate Hotel.
Access
Access to the facility is from Granville Street. A small boat can be launched off one of the floats,
provided room can be found. If the boat is to be left in the water for any period of time, it is
recommended to remove all valuables and lock the boat to the float. Children have been reported to be
stealing items from boats and taking boats for joy rides.
From a standard small aluminum boat, high tides in mid 13-foot range (at Alert Bay) are just high
enough for access, although IS-foot tides provide much better access.
With the tight bracing a fairly small boat is required for good access, and we used a 10' aluminum
punt. With it we were able to access all the bearing piles under the wharthead except the ones in the
extreme NE corner, where extra piles where added for a derrick. Given the tight spacing it is doubtful
if almost any boat would be able to slip through, and these can only be inspected poorly from the
outside if access permits.
In addition to the bracing there is a wooden platform under the wharfhead between bents 49 and 50, at
roughly elevation 13.5 feet for access to some of the base's plumbing.
Weather
Port Hardy is subject to regular afternoon winds in the summer time. The afternoon winds start at
about 11 am and build until 3 or 4 in the afternoon, when they start to abate. These winds which are
I

Abridged 1st Edition - 22 August 1994 Page A-2
in the 10-15 knot range produce a rough chop on the water. It is not safe to do high tide inspections in
unsheltered areas although some work can be done if moored boats provide a sufficient breakwater.
Fog is sometimes experienced in the summer. On the 22 July, it developed at about 9 am and started
lifting around 11 am.
Contacts
Coast Guard Station Phone: 949-9099

Fax: 949-8509
Use of Facility
The facility was heavily used by fish boats and they were rafted three deep along many of the wharf
faces. We noted fish being unloaded twice.
Corrections to Transfer Plan
None
Accommodations
There are numerous motels in Port Hardy, but many of these can get booked up the nights the ferry
from Prince Rupert comes in, which is three times a week in the summer.
We experienced problems at the Port Hardy Inn with a lotof loud mechanical noises during the day
when we were trying to sleep.
I i
APPENDIX B (to Sample Report)
PHOTOGRAPHS
Port Hardy Wharf inspectiolll 21-22 July 1994, Page B-1
Photograph 1
Approach
Photograph 2
Approach
Port Hardy Wharf Inspection 21-22 July 1994, Page B-2
Photograph 3
Whartbead - South Side
Photograph 4
Wharfbead - North Side
Photograph 5
Wharfhead - South East Corner
Photograph 6
View under Approach
Photograph 7
Whartbead - North Side
Bents 40-47
Photograph 8
Floats
Photograph 9
Deck on Approach
Note: Decay at Nail
Photograph 10
Deck on North Side of Wharfuead
Photograph 11
Deck on Wharfhead
Awl has 4" Blade
Photograph 12
Pile 32C
Photograph 13
Brace 15F-15E
Photograph 14
Brace 26C-26E
Port Hardy Wharf Inspection 21-22 July 1994, Page :8-8
Photograph 15
Brace 32F-32D
Photograph 16
Brace 39C-39D; Wale 39C-40C
Photograph 17
Stringer 41C-4
Port Hardy Wharf Inspection 21-22 July 1994, Page B-I0
Photograph 18
Corbel 60F - Split
Photograph 19
Pile 45A - Cracked at Top
Port Hardy Wharf Inspection 21-22 July 1994, Page B-ll
Photograph 20
Pile 60D
Split; Not Bearing
Photograph 21
Fender Piles
Rot at top of piles
Photograph 22
Brace 41G-41J
Hanging Loose, Bankia
Photograph 23
Wale SOG-S2G
Bankia
APPENDIX C (to Sample Report)
FIELD NOTES
Note: Not Included in this Sample Report

i j
APPENDIX II
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
I ;
NORTH ISLAND ENGINEERING LTD. PROJECT 1018
PORT HARDY 17-Sep-94

APPROACH 02:00 PM
SUMMARY OF WHARF CAPACITIES - Based on S6 and RG Sexsmith Ltd Report 1992 ; See manual for limitations
Revised 16 Sept. 1994
FI LE: CGUARD\WHARCAL. WQ1 (NOT RUN I NDEPENDENTl Y, USE AHWH, I PWH, and QZWH)
INPUT
ROADWAY WIDTH 25.91 ft RW 7.898 m Measured between curbs

PARALLEL/PERPENDICULAR N PPER N Y if truck axles can be perpendicular a
Ped if pedestrian only
ACTUAL
DECK WIDTH 12 in OW 292 mm @ROUNDF18-@IF(F18<8,0.5,0. 75) )*25.4,0
DEPTH 4 in DO 89 mm
SPAN 18 in OS 457 mm
GRADE DG 1
STRINGERS WIDTH 6 in Sw 140 mm

DEPTH 14 in SO 343 mm
SPAN 10 ft SS 3.0 m
GRADE 1 S,1,2 SG 1 NOTE: SEL IS VERY UNCOMMON; TYP. #1
END SPLITS N SES N Should be no unless inspection has show
BEAR. LENGTH 5.5 in SBL 140 mm Should be verified; assumed same as PI.'
PILECAPS WIDTH 12 in PI.' 292 mm

DEPTH 14 in PO 343 mm
SPAN 8 ft PS 2.4 m
GRADE 1 PG 1 NOTE: SEL IS VERY UNCOMMON; TYP. #1
END SPLITS N PES N Should be no unless inspection has show
CORBELS NR CORB NR Y/N/NR Yes/No/Not required
PILES BUTT DIA. 14 in PBDIA 356 mm

TIP DIA 10 in PTDIA 254 mm
LENGTH 50 ft PL 15.24 m
L. TO MUDLINE 30 ft LTMUD 9.14 m
UN BRACED L LONG 20 ft UBLL 6.10 m
UN BRACED L TRAN 20 ft UBLT 6.10 m
BRACING LONG. X X
BRACING TRANS. OK OK
CALCULA TI ONS
CAPACITIES Based on S6-88 and Timbers being Dfir-L #1 or better and decking #2 or better
Impact 1.2 1+0.7*0.4 (not used - used rgs ltd. estimate) Cl. 5.2.11
DECK
Section Modulus DSM 385489 mm"3 1/6*01.'*00"2

Load Sharing Factor DKM 1.1 @IF(OW>89,1.1,1.2) Table 37
'pecified Strength DSS 20 Mpa @IF(DO<89#or#DW<89,10,20) Table 32 0
Moment capacity OMR 11.45 kNm 0.9*DSM*OSS*DKM/1E6*@VLOOKUP(DD,KS,1) Tables 36,
CS(mom.)-Pl. deck trans to DCSPT 6.02 kNm (1.6*1*(90/0.6)*(DS/1000)"2/10) Dist Wheel
;- ,
-Pl. deck par. to tDCSPL 6.04 kNm .(1.6*I*(60/2)*(DS/2-250/4-SW/4)/1000*0

-vlam. deck trans. Dcsvt 3.97 kNm (1.6*I*(90/2)*DW/400*(DS/2-600/4)/1000
-vlam. deck par. toDCsvl 4.87 kNm (1.6*I*(90/2)*DW/(600+DD)*(DS/2-250/4)
CS(moment) DCS 6.02 kNm @IF(DW>89,@IF(PPER="Y",@MAX(DCSPL,DCSP
CS LOAD RATING DCSM 1141 +DMR/DCS*600
STRINGERS - Assumes stringers lapped at pilecaps
Load Sharing Factor SKM 1.1 @if(ds<610, 1.1,1.0) Table 37

Section Modulus SSM 2745143 mm"3 1/6*SW*SD"2
Specified Strength SSS 20 @IF(SG="S" ,@IF(SD<80, 17.5,24) ,@IF(SD<8 Tables 32,
Size Factor for Flexure SKS 0.9 @VLOOKUP(SD,KS, 1)
Moment Capacity SMR 49 kNm 0.9*SSM*SSS*SKM*SKS/1E6 Tables 36,
Stringer Area SA 48020 mm"2 SW*SD

Shear Factor SKY 2.43 @I F(SG="S"#OR#SES="N" , 45/@SQRT(SD) ,@I F Cl 10.11.5
Shear Capacity SVR 75 kN 0.8*1.1*SA*1*SKM*SKV/1000/1.5 cl 10.10.2
Bearing Capacity SBR 78 kN 1*SW*SBL*3.6*1*1*SKM/1000 Cl.l0.l0.5
Loads to Stringers
'D i st Factor Moment SDFM 0.26 DS/(@IF(RW<10,1.75,1.85/1000 cl. 5.3.2.

Dist Factor Moment -Trans SDFMT 0.5 @IF(SS<2.7,0.8,0.5) Assumption
Dist Factor Shear SDFS 0.5 @IF(DS<610,O.5,@IF(DS>810,1,0.5+(DS-61 Assumption
Fact Moment - Parallel SFM1 34 kNm 1.6*90*I*SDFM*SS/4
Fact Moment - Transverse SFM2 42 kNm @IF(SS<3.1,SDFMT*1.6*60*I*(SS-(PW/1000 Considers
Factored Moment SFM 34 kNm @IF(PPER=IY",@MAX(SFM1,SFM2),SFM1)
,Factored Shear SFV 77 kN 1.6*90*I*SDFS*(SS-(SD)/1000)/SS Shear at d
Factored Bearing SFB 86 kN 1.6*90*I*SDFS
CS RATINGS
Moment SCSM 853 600*SMR/SFM

Shear SCSV 589 600*SVR/SFV
Bearing SCSB 539 600*SBR/SFB
PILECAPS
Section Modulus PSM 5725585 mm"3 1/6*PW*PD"2

Specified strength PSS 20 @IF(PG=IS",24,20) Tables 32,
Moment capacity PMR 92.8 kNm 0.9*PSM*PSS*1.0/1E6*@VLOOKUP(PD,KS,1) Tables 36,
Pi lecap Area PA 100156 mm"2 PW*PD

Shear Factor PKV 2.43 @I F(PG="S"#OR#PES="N" , 45/@SQRT(PD) ,@I F Cl 10.11.5
Shear Capaci ty PVR 143 kN 0.8*1.1*PA*1*PKV/1000/1.5 Cl 10.10.2
Bearing cap. on pile area BCP 358 kN @PI*PBDIA"2/4*3.6/1000

Bearing Capacity PBR 358 kN @IF(CORB=IYI#OR#CORB=INR",BCP,@MIN(3.6
Loads to Pilecaps - considers that two wheels from the same axle could be on the same cap
Factored Moment- long. PFM1 105 kNm @IF(PS<3.1,1.6*90*I*PS/4,1.6*90*(PS-0.

Factored Moment- trans PFM2 179 kNm 2*0.85*1.6*90*I*PS/4 0.85 from
Factored Moment PFM 105 kNm @IF(PPER=IY",@MAX(PFM1,PFM2),PFM1)
3hear factor PSF 0.86 (PS-(PD)/1000)/PS
Factored Shear PFV 169 kN @MAX(1.6*90*I*PSF,1.6*90*I*(PSF+(1-(PD
Factored Bearing PFB 218 kN 1.6*90*I*(1+(PS-1.8)/PS)
I '
CS RATINGS
Moment PCSM 528 600*PMR/PFM

Shear PCSV 506 600*PVR/PFV
Bearing PCSB 984 600*PBR/PFB
PILES
Unbraced length max. LUNBRM 6.1 m @MAX(UBLL,UBLT)

Butt Size BS 6 @VLOOKUP(PBDIA+1,BSIZE,1) Not diamet
Tip Size TS 5 @VLOOKUP(PTDIA+1,TSIZE,1)
Pile Penetration PEN 6.10 m PL-LTMUD
Unbraced Length LU 7.0 m @IF(PEN<0.1*LTMUD,LUNBRM+PEN,LUNBRM+0. clause 10.
Ratio of Unbr./Pile Length KU 0.46 LU/PL
~nd Eccentricity EB 18 mm 0.05*PBDIA Cl 10.12.5
Pi[ e type PTVP 15 @INDEX(PILETVPE,TS-.99,BS-.99)
Basic Eo Value EOBASI 36 mm @VLOOKUP(PTVP,EOTABLE,(KU+.0001)/0.1-2) Cl 10.12.8
Differential Eo value DELTAE 11 mm @VLOOKUP(PTVP,EOTABLE,(KU+.001)/0.1+6)
Eccentricity EO 43 mm EOBASIC+DELTAEO*(KU*10-@INT(KU*10 Table 42
Combined Eccentricity ECC 60 mm EO+EB cl 10.12.8
Effective Diameter DE 310 mm @IF(PEN<0.1*LTMUD,PTDIA+(PBDIA-PTDIA)*
Effective Area EFFA 75270 mm"2 @PI*DE*DE/4
Effective Section Modulus EFFSM 2912718 mm"3 @PI*DE*DE*DE/32
Effective Inertia EFFI 4.5E+08 mm"4 @PI*DE"4/64
Radius of Gyration PRG 77.4 mm @SQRT(EFFI/EFFA)
Effective Length Factor K 1 1
Euler capacity PCR 774 KN 0.9*@PI"2*9500*EFFI/(K*LU*1000)"2/1000 Cl. 10.12.
Slenderness KLR 91 K*LU*1000/PRG
Resistances
Axial PR 1761 KN O.9*EFFA*26/1000 cl. 10.10.

Moment MR 68 KNM 0.9*26*EFFSM/1000/1000 cl 10.10.1
A A 7.3E-07 1/PR/PCR Terms in q
B B -0.0027 (-1*(1/pr+1/pcr+ECc/1000/MR cl. 10.12.
C C 1 1
PaLL PPR 409 KN +(-b-(@sqrt(b*b-4*a*c)/2/A Max P with
Loads to Piles
Factored compression PFCP 218 kN 1.6*90*1*(1+(PS-1.8)/PS) Accts for

Factored Deadload FDL 15 kN 1.2*7.5*(DD/1000*PS*SS+SA/1000*SS*PS/D
CS RATINGS
compression PC SA 1083 600*(PPR'FDL)/PFCP Piles CS A

Slenderness klr 91 OKAY
i ,
SUMMARY OF RATINGS
Truck
(Axle Rating) - The axle rating is 0.3 * the CS Rating
Deck Bending AXLE 342 UDL 1000 8*DMR/1.5/DS~2/DW*1

Stringers Bending AXLE 256 UDL 201 8000*SMR/1.5/SS~2/S
Shear AXLE 177 UDL 108 2*SVR/SS/DS*1000
Bearing AXLE 162 UDL 56 SBR/SS/DS*1000
Pi lecaps Bending AXLE 158 UDL 285 8000*PMR/1.5/PS A2/P
Shear AXLE 152 UDL 26 2*PVR/SS/PS/1.5
Bearing AXLE 295 UDL 32 PBR/SS/PS/1.5
Piles Axial/Bending AXLE 325 UDL 35 (PPR-fdl)/1.5/SS/PS
Minimum MINAX 152 @MIN(OAX)

Equivalent Local UDL ELUDL 25.6 kN/m"2 @MIN(UDLR) Based on direct calculations
12.2 kN/mA2 +minax/180*90*1.2/PS/SS Based on min axle *pile load
KL/R 91 OKAY
i ;
, APPENDIX III
SUGGESTIONS FROM INTERVIEWS

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 111-1
APPENDIX III - SUGGESTIONS FROM INTERVIEWS
During the interviews a number of comments were made regarding the inadequacy of various details
that are commonly found on the wharves. The following are suggestions made to overcome these
deficiencies:
Member Problem Suggestion
Deck Rotting at ends. Gap planks properly.

Put chock down at top of stringers.
Put bullrails on 2" risers.
Treat ends of members with creosote.
Cupping causing checking and Lay sapwood down. While this has less
premature rotting. decay resistance than heartwood, it will
reduce cupping and may result in less
decay.
Dirt holding moisture against Hose down the decks to remove debris
the deck. from members. A fire hose does the job
well.
Piles Improper treatment; premature Treat tops of piles thoroughly by a)

rot pouring hot creosote into steel rings set in
the tops of the piles and letting the
creosote soak in or b) drill a ring of holes
and fill these with hot creosote. Top with
mastic and aluminum cap.
Open bolt holes Fill with pressure treated dowels or plastic

pipe sleeves.
Bracing/piles Improper treatment of bolt These are hard to treat well, so the options
holes. are as follows:
Avoid by using larger piles.
Treat and use steel/plastic sleeves.
Fill gaps around bolts with foam or
caulk to get a seal.
I '
Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 111-2
4th Edition ~ 1994 September
Fender Piles Premature rot at top. Same as for piles plus the following;
Use a pile penetration of 4.6 meters to
permit fresh heading.
Leave piles a bit high to permit trimming
off the top and re-treating.
Develop a treating or protection system
that is both cost effective and difficult to
vandalize.
Handrails Premature rot. Put a 5 % slope on the top of the posts

and rails to prevent ponding.
Use treated timbers if rot and not
mechanical damage is the prime cause of
replacement.

Procedures For Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Procedures For Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

.

Canadian Coast Guard

PROCEDURES FOR INSPECTION AND ASSESSMENT OF FIXED TIMBER DOCKS

1994 September - 4th Edition

4715 High Way

phone/fax 604 926 6950

1.1 . Purpose and Scope 1

2.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES 5

3.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 14

APPENDIX I - SAMPLE REPORT

Report prepared by:

RG Sexsmith PEng RD Watts PEng

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope

This document is to be used as a detailed guide to the planning, execution, calculations,

1.2 Application and Criteria

a) CAN/CSA-S6, Design of Highway Bridges

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 2

b) CAN/CSA-086.1, Engineering Design of Wood (Limit States Design)

1.3 Reasons for Inspection or Assessment

The various purposes may be categorized as follows:

1.3.1 Initial Inspection

1.3.2 Scheduled Comprehensive Inspection

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 3

The preparation of documentation in sufficient detail to prepare remedial measures later

1.3.3 Quick Inspections

1.3.4 Special Inspection Due to Report of Accidental Damage or Incident

When accidental events occur, or an unusual condition is reported or suspected, an

When an accident or incident is reported, it is essential that rapid response be undertaken.

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 4

1.3.6 Special Inspection Due to a Dispute

1. 3.7 Construction Inspection

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 5

2.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES

2.2 Pre-site Work

All available design, construction, and inspection/assessment documentation should be

initial criteria requirements

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 6

A naming/numbering system should be devised, with reference to the structural drawings,

2.3 Verification of Arrangement and Type of Structural Components

2.3.1 Wood Grades

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 7

Beams and Stringers

Posts and timbers

2.4 Types of Damage

There are three types of damage commonly found on timber wharves:

While insect damage is possible, it is extremely rare to find it.

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 8

Physical damage may include:

abrasio.n by ice, vessels, traffic

If the physical damage being assessed is related to a possible dispute, a qualified

The likely places for decay are:

2.4.1 Assessing Physical Damage

2.4.2 Assessing Decay and Borer Damage

Where treatment is by other than creosote, it is likely to be ACA (ammoniated copper

flashlight, hammer, crowbar

2.S Remaining Useful Life

2.8 Miscellaneous Information

2.8.2 Use of Facility

Procedures for Inspection and Assessment of Fixed Timber Docks Page 13

3.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Vertical Loads - Truck loads