Compendium of Conduit Features 01

8/3/2019 Compendium of Conduit Features 01

1/125

WSAA C1

UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED

File Name: Compendium_01_Index_Overview Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 5

COMPENDIUM OF CONDUIT FEATURES

DEFECTS CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF OPERATING CONDUITS

BD_DV_1 (Broken Displaced_Deformation Vertical)

BM_VV_EX_1 (Broken Missing_Void Visible_Exfiltration)

BM_VV_1 (Broken Missing_Void Visible)

CLW_1 (Cracked Longitudinal Wall)

CLW_2 (Cracked Longitudinal Wall)

CNP_CXP_VV_1(Connection Poor_Connection Defective Position incorrect_VoidVisible)

CSW_1(Crack Simple Wall)

DBI_BS_DEZ_DH_1 (Displaced Brick Inwards_Brick Separation_Deposits Other-invert_Deformation Horizontal)

DEE_SAD_1 (Deposits Encrustation_Survey Abandoned Other)

DES_1(Deposits Sediments-fine)

DES_2 (Deposits Sediments-fine)

DV_BS_1 (Deformation Vertical_Brick Separation)

FM_2 (Fractures Multiple)

INGF_IR_ID_JDL_VV_GCU_1 (Ingress of soil Fine_Infiltration Runner_InfiltrationDripper_Joint Displaced Longitudinal_Void Visible_General Comment Urgent)

INGF_SH_GCU_1 (Ingress of soil Fine_Surface damage Hole_General CommentUrgent)

IR_MM_1 (Infiltration Runner_Mortar Missing)

JN_JXB_OBC_1(Junction_Junction Defective Blocked_Obstruction Object inJunction)

JN_JXBC_1 (Junction_Junction Defective Branch Cracked)

MBV_SS_FL_RF_1 (Missing Bricks more Visible_Surface damage Spalling_FractureLongitudinal_Roots Fine)

MM_MMYY_1 (Mortar Missing_Mortar Missing Suspected)


2/125

WSAA C1



PLRC_1 (Lining Defective Re-establishment of Connection done improperly)

PLWM_1 (Lining Defective Wrinkling Multiple)

RF_DEG_1 (Roots Fine_Deposit Grease)

RM_FS_JDL_SAR_1 (Roots Mass_Fracture Simple_Joint DisplacedLongitudinal_Survey Abandoned Roots)

RM_SAR_1 (Roots Mass Survey Abandoned Roots)

RPH_RXYY_CL_1 (Point Repair Hole_Defective Repair Suspected)

RPR_1 (Point Repair Pipe Replaced)

RPR_2 (Point Repair Pipe Replaced)

RPR_RXM_SV_ING_SCC_1 (Point Repair Pipe Replaced_Defective Repair Majorgaps_Soil Visible_Ingress of soil Gravel_Cross-section Change Circular)

RT_RF_1 (Roots Tap_Roots Fine)

SAM_1 (Surface damage Aggregate Missing)

SAM_2 (Surface damage Aggregate Missing)

SAM_SCP_1 (Surface damage Aggregate Missing_Surface damage CorrosionProducts)

SCP_JIRHH_SYY_DEG_1 (Surface damage Corrosion Products_Jointing IntrusionRing Hanging High_Surface damage Suspected_Deposits Grease)

SH_VV_SAM_1 (Surface damage Hole_Void Visible_Surface damage)

SRV_2 (Surface damage Reinforcement Visible)

ST_STMH_WLT_1 (Surface damage Tuberculation_Start inspection MaintenanceHole_Water Level Turbid)

X_SAD_1 (Collapsed_Survey Abandoned Other)

X_VV_1 (Collapsed_Void Visible)

DEFECTS ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION OF NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CONDUITS

BD_DV_SV_RF_1 (Broken Displaced_Deformation Vertical_Soil Visible_Roots Fine)

FC_RF_1 (Fracture Circumferential_Roots Fine)

FM_1 (Fractures_Multiple)

JDL_1 (Joint Displaced Longitudinal)

JIRB_1 (Jointing Intrusion Ring Broken)

SAP_1 (Surface damage Aggregate Projecting)

SRV_1 (Surface damage Reinforcement Visible)

SRVP_CLW_1 (Surface damage Reinforcement Visible Projecting_Crack LongitudinalWall)

GENERAL FEATURES OF CONDUITS

FHC_1 (Finish node major Connection)

LR_DEE_1 (Line deviates Right_Deposits Encrustation)


3/125

WSAA C1



GPFU_GC_1 (General Photograph Forward Up_General Comment)

RPL_CNG_1 (Point Repair Local Lining_Connection Good)

SH_VV_1 (Surface damage Hole_Void Visible)

SW_RF_MCVC_FHVD_1 (Surface Damage Wall roughened_Roots Fine_MaterialChange Vitrified Clay_Finish node Vertical Drop)

ESTIMATING FIGURES

DEFORMATION_SHEAR_DV_1

DEFORMATION_VERTICAL_DV_1

DEPOSITS_IN_INVERT_DE_1

DEPOSITS_ON_WALLS_AND_ROOTS_DE_R_1

INTRUDING_CONNECTION_CI_1

LEVEL_WL_IF_1


4/125

WSAA C1



OVERVIEW

This Compendium of photographs and video clips has been prepared to provide guidanceand instruction to users of the Conduit Inspection Reporting Code and to facilitate accuratereporting of features. The range of photographs and video clips is limited by the availabilityof suitable images. All features have been coded in accordance with WSA 052006 V2.1.

Usually several defects or features are reported from the same observation position. Youmay not find the same defects and features associated in your inspections.

The coding and abbreviated descriptions are listed for quick navigation to the example thatincludes the defects and/or features in which you are interested, or you can simply scrollthrough each section of the Compendium.

Many of the photographs are close-ups of features, which limits full coding that wouldoccur in a real life inspection. Not all sub-codes are given in the coding tables. Accordingto Clause 3.5.2 of WSA 05 each observation of a feature should be recorded using a maincode and sub-codes as shown in the example below.

Code Ch1 Ch2 Q1 Q2 Circ Locn Longl Cont Joint PhotoRef

VideoRef

VideoClip Ref

Remarks

F L - 2 - 10 - A S1 - A A A

DE E -


5/125

WSAA C1



Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Pipe Solutions

Rangedale Drainage Services

South East Water

Streamline Learning

Sydney Water

Underground Photographic Surveys

Veolia Environmental Services (Collex)

Yarra Valley Water

DISCLAIMER

This Compendium is produced by the Water Services Association of Australia Limited(WSAA) for use by members of WSAA and holders of WSAA Codes. WSAA and individualcontributors are not responsible for the results of any action taken on the basis ofinformation in the Compendium, nor any errors or omissions. WSAA and individual

contributors disclaim all and any liability to any person in respect of anything, and theconsequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by a person in reliance upon thewhole or any part of the Compendium. The Compendium does not purport to be acomprehensive statement and analysis of the subject matter, and if further advice isrequired, the services of a competent expert should be sought.

COPYRIGHT

This document is copyrighted. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act1968, and except where provided for below, no part of this document may be reproducedor transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose,without the express permission of the Water Services Association of Australia Limited.

Water Services Association of Australia will permit this document to be copied for use byholders of WSAA Codes without payment of a royalty or advice to Water ServicesAssociation of Australia Limited.

Copyright 2006 by Water Services Association of Australia Limited. All rights reserved.


6/125

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


7/125

WSAA C1


Code Ch1 Ch2 Q1 Q2 CircLocn Longl Cont Remarks

B D 900 12 12 14.8

D V 16-20 12 14.8

Commentary

This VC pipe has broken with the pieces of pipe being visibly displaced (B-D) which istypical for a rigid pipe undergoing structural failure. The length of the break is estimated tobe 900 mm and is described as occurring from 12 to 12 oclock i.e. the whole cross sectionis involved.

There is no need to report the nature of the original cracks and fractures.

In this case there is also significant deformation of the pipe cross section which is furtherrecorded with the code D-V, for deformation vertical, with an estimated 16-20% reductionin diameter. The apparent direction of maximum deformation is recorded as 12 oclock.

This defect could get worse and further deformation producing a reduction of diameter of25% or more would accord the defect the collapsed code, X.

The screen captured general comment in the photograph is misleading. The fracturing isnot important at this location and partially collapsed, although conveying the appearanceof the structural failure and progression towards collapse, conflicts with the codes which donot record partial collapse.

File Name: BD_DV_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


8/125



9/125

WSAA C1

Code Ch1 Ch2 Q1 Q2 Circ

Locn

Longl Cont Joint Remarks

B M 4 7 33.7 J

VV 7 33.7

EX 4 7 33.7

Commentary

The predominant defect at this location is breaking with a piece of conduit missing in theinvert, which is coded B-M. It also looks like the defect was influenced by or associated withthe joint so J is recorded in the joint field.

It appears that there is a void visible (VV) about 7 oclock. There may also be a void on theother side that may be reported, as well, after investigation.

With the flow in the pipe and the void at the water level, it appears that some flow is leavingthe conduit, that is, exfiltration (EX). Video clips of such observations are valuable.

The joint field is not completed for VV and EX observations because these features are notspecifically influenced in magnitude or nature by the presence of a conduit joint.


File Name: BM_VV_EX_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


10/125



11/125

WSAA C1


Locn

Longl Cont Remarks

B M 600 10 2 141.1

VV 10 2 141.1 Large void extendingabove the pipe

Commentary

The predominant defect at this location is a piece of pipe missing in the soffit. This could becoded as breaking, one or more pieces of the conduit are missing (B-M) or breaking,exceptional (B-E) if the break was related to an exceptional event such a damage from third-party intrusion e.g. a post hole digger. However, in this photograph it appears that theadjoining pipes are showing some deterioration suggesting that the breaking is notexceptional.

The length of the break appears to be a full pipe length and is estimated to be 600 mm.

There appears to be a significant void visible (VV) from 10 to2oclock. The soil visible neednot be recorded.

Regardless of the location of this defect it is important that the asset owner/manager beurgently advised of the location and extent of the void so that, depending on criticality, furtherinvestigation may be undertaken e.g. using ground penetrating radar.


File Name: BM_VV_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


12/125



13/125

WSAA C1

Incorrect description


Locn

Longl Cont Remarks

C L W


14/125



15/125

WSAA C1

Code Ch1 Ch2 Q1 Q2 CircLocn

Longl Cont Remarks

C L W 0.5 12 A S1

Commentary

The pipe has a longitudinal crack (C-L) at 12 oclock.

The crack is regarded as a wall crack (W), that is, it extends right through the pipe wall.While we cannot see the outside of the pipe this pattern of cracking is characteristic ofstructural cracking of rigid pipes which must extend through the full wall thickness.

The defect can also been seen continuing into the next two pipes so it has been reported asa continuous feature (S1).


File Name: CLW_2 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


16/125



17/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

CN P O 100 1 7.5CX P 21-50 1 7.5

VV 2 6 7.5

Commentary

The DN 100 connection at 1 oclock has been poorly constructed with gaps and misalignment(incorrect position) of the connecting pipe (CN-P). It appears to be open (O).

The connection is defective because of the misalignment of the connecting pipe with the holein the main pipe (CX-P), which could restrict flow down the connecting pipe into the sewer.

The loss of cross section in the connecting pipe is recorded in Q1 and is estimated to be inthe range of 21-50%.

There is a void visible (VV) because of the misalignment of the connecting pipe. This may bea serious problem if the void is a result of soil entering the sewer or not so serious if the voidis contained in some form of concrete encasement. In either case infiltration of groundwaterand exfiltration of sewage is possible.

Fine roots are also evident in around the connecting pipe and through the gap, althoughthere is no need to record this feature.


File Name: CNP_CXP_VV_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


18/125



19/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

C S W 11 1 25.3

Commentary

This defect is the classic simple crack (C-S-W) in a VC sewer where the crack appearsto start and return to the same joint between 11 and 1 oclock.

The cracking in this case is one continuous crack with no branches. In other examples

the crack may branch to create a few separate pieces of pipe. Cracking with this patternis indicative of a wall crack, that is, it extends all the way through the pipe wall.

This type of cracking will most commonly occur on the downstream side of joints as it isassociated with damage of the VC pipe socket as illustrated in the diagram below.


File Name: CSW_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


20/125



21/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

DB I 200 75 01 A

BS 10-20 08 A C1

DE Z 5-20 06 A Sediment and rags

D H 5-10 04 A

Commentary

There are several defects in this brick oviform (ovoid) sewer to report.

There is a brick at 1 oclock that has been displaced inwards (DB-I) by about 75 mm.Only one brick is involved over a length of about 200 mm.

The separated jointing (BS) at 8 oclock is estimated in the range of 10 to 20 mm and isa continuous feature. Although there is no sign of mortar in the joint the brick separationis the more significant defect to report. The same defect may be observed at 4 oclockbut the position of the camera and the debris in the invert does not allow confirmation ofsuch an observation. If further investigation also revealed similar brick separation at 4oclock it would be appropriate to code the defect as a dropped invert (DI).

The debris in the invert appears to be sediment build-up and rags, which has beencoded DE-Z with an explanation in the remarks field. The debris reduces the crosssection by about 5 to 20%.

At 4 oclock there appears to be some minor horizontal deformation (D-H) in the range of

5 to 10% of the horizontal diameter.


File Name: DBI_BS_DEZ_DH_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


22/125



23/125

WSAA C1



Longl Cont Remarks

DE E 51-75 8 4 30.2

SA D 30.2 Heavy encrustation

Commentary

The deposits at the obvert of the conduit can be classified as encrustation ( DE-E) from8 to 4 oclock. It is the result of water seeping through a defect (which cannot bedetermined from this photograph) leaving an accumulation of minerals on the wall of theconduit. The build-up of encrustation reduces the cross section by about 40% - in the21-50% reporting range.

In this case the encrustation does not permit the camera to pass. The inspection has tobe abandoned (SA-D) due to the heavy encrustation which is reported in the remarksfield.

The reflected light on the encrustation is a sign of infiltration. Encrustation of this typewill often have seepage, dripping or running infiltration associated with it. In this case itis not necessary to code this feature given that conduit should be cleaned, after whichthe extent of infiltration and other defects will become clearer.

File Name: DEE_SAD_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


24/125



25/125

WSAA C1


Locn

Longl Cont Remarks

DE S 5-20 5 7 5.0 S1 Sand

Commentary

Sand has been deposited in the invert of this conduit (DE-S). The sand is estimated toreduce the cross sectional area available by 5 to20%.

It appears to continue beyond one metre and S1 has been noted in the continuous column,assuming that it starts at this location.

Further investigation to determine the source of the sand is the responsibility of the assetowner, although the operator should record any probable sources in general comment

GC.


File Name: DES_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


26/125



27/125

WSAA C1


Longl

Cont Remarks

DE S 21-50 4 8 36.9 S1 Predominantly silt/sandwith some unidentifiedcoarse material at 8 oclock

Commentary

Silt or sand has been deposited in the sewer (DE-S). There is some coarse material thatcannot be identified at 8 oclock and this is noted in the remarks field, rather than using aseparate code.

The silt/sand obviously extends beyond one metre so S1 is entered in the continuous field.

The silt/sand is present from 4 to8 oclock approximately, and reduces the cross sectionalarea by 5 to20%.

Further investigation to determine the source of the sand is the responsibility of the assetowner, although the operator should record any probable sources in general commentGC.


File Name: DES_2 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


28/125



29/125

WSAA C1



Longl Cont Remarks

D V 11-15 12 A A Arching support lost

BS


30/125



31/125

WSAA C1

Fracturing

Cracking


Longl Cont Remarks

F M 2 12 12 A Extensive complexcracking as well

Commentary

This conduit exhibits multiple/complex fractures with other cracking/fracturingorientations (longitudinal, circumferential and diagonal) evident at particular locationsaround the conduit wall. There is no point to recording every individual crack andfracture.

Since the cracking and fracturing are all manifestations of the same failure mechanismthe situation should be reported according to the worst feature i.e. fractures multiple (F-M) from 12 to 12 oclock since this attracts the highest score for grading purposes. Thewidth at the fractures is estimated at 2 mm .

Some slight spalling on some of the fracture lines is also evident. In this examplespalling has not been reported but, if significant, would warrant investigation andreporting by the operator.


File Name: FM_2 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


32/125



33/125

WSAA C1

See the video clip for details of defects.


Longl Cont Remarks

ING F 11 15.8 Small lumps of clayobserved falling

I R 11 15.8

I D 12 15.8

JD L L 15.8

VV

GC U Urgent repair required

Commentary

The multiple observations at this location could have been missed if the operator had notexamined the longitudinal joint displacement (JD-L) in detail. The displacement is

estimated to be greater than 30 mm (L). The joint appears to be a butt joint with nocollar or socket visible. Alternatively the socket may have been broken and dislodged.

Ingress of soil, probably clay (ING-F), associated with an infiltration runner (I-R) anddripper (I-D), has been recorded separately.

Through the joint soil is visible (SV) but beyond the conduit there is a void clearly visible(VV). The void has been reported as the more serious defect.

The active ingress of soil and the growing void outside the conduit may present asubstantial risk for the asset owner and must be reported as soon as possible by theoperator as well as using the GC-U code to alert the asset owner.


File Name: INGF_IR_ID_JDL_VV_GCU_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1
http://ingf_ir_id_jdl_vv_gcu_1vid.mp4/http://ingf_ir_id_jdl_vv_gcu_1vid.mp4/


34/125



35/125

WSAA C1

See the video clip for details of defects.


Longl Cont Remarks

ING F 2 7.9 Clayey soil oozing incontinuously

S H 2 7.9

GC U Urgent investigationrequired

Commentary

Inspection of this concrete sewer revealed the pipe to be in relatively poor condition. Atthe start of the inspection surface damage, aggregate projecting was obvious above thewaterline. Further along this deteriorated to aggregate missing.

At the location pictured a hole (S-H) through the wall of the pipe is evident. This mayhave been formed by the progressive spalling action of concrete corrosion or it could

have been caused by an external event.

Through the hole fine clayey soil is entering continuously (ING-F).

The same feature was observed in several locations along the length inspected and thesewer or any infrastructure above it could be at risk of collapse. The general commentrecords the urgency of the situation (GC-U) and a recommendation for urgentinvestigation by the asset owner.


File Name: INGF_SH_GCU_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1
http://ingf_sh_gcu_1vid.mp4/http://ingf_sh_gcu_1vid.mp4/


36/125



37/125

WSAA C1



Longl Cont Remarks

I R 10 A

MM S 9 3 A A

Commentary

There is an infiltration runner (continuous flow) (I-R) in this conduit at 10 oclock.

The brick part of the conduit appears to be in good condition with only mortar missing(MM) of less than 15 mm (S), worth reporting. This defect occurs continuously andacross all of the brick part of the conduit from 9 to 3 oclock.

The interesting feature of this conduit is the composite structure. The invert is mostlikely concrete which may or may not be reinforced. Less likely, in this case, is that the

invert is cement mortar rendered.

Although the type of construction should be known by the asset owner it is important thatthe operator takes particular notice of the invert and identifies any features that wouldconfirm the type of construction. The type of construction (materials) should be reportedin the header materials field as Z (other) and the composite construction explained inthe header remarks field.

File Name: IR_MM_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


38/125



39/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

JN 150 9 A Cannot tell if it is open orclosed

JX B >75 9 A

OB C 5-20 7 10 A Unidentifiable masscompletely filling junctioninlet to main sewer

Commentary

There is some object or growth protruding from the junction connecting pipe to a VC sewer.It could be mass roots covered with some yeast growth, concrete covered with slimes orsomething else. Whatever the material, it is creating a major obstruction greater than 75%

of the cross section in the connecting pipe (JX-B) and also in the main sewer (OB-C). Theobstruction in the main sewer is estimated to be 20% of the cross section of the sewer. Theobstruction in the connecting pipe has been described as unidentifiable mass completelyfilling junction inlet to main sewer.

The junction (JN) is estimated to have a DN 150 lateral at 9 oclock.

It is not possible to report whether the junction is open or closed so Characterisation 2 hasnot been filled.

There is an apparent longitudinal crack at 4 oclock that the operator would need toinvestigate further before making a judgment on whether to code the observation.


File Name: JN_JXB_OBC_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


40/125



41/125

WSAA C1


Locn

Longl Cont Remarks

JN O 150 9 9.2

JX BC 9.2 Repair required

Commentary

This is a junction fitting which appears to be open (JN-O) with an estimated lateral(connecting pipe) diameter of 150 mm at 9 oclock.

The connecting pipe or junction lateral has a large circumferential fracture near the joint withthe main part of the fitting (JX-BC).

If this junction was below the water table or subjected to surcharge conditions for periods ofits operation, infiltration and/or soil entry and/or exfiltration could occur. Depending on thelocation of the sewer e.g. in an environmentally sensitive area, a remark suggesting thatrepair is required could be warranted.


File Name: JN_JXBC_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


42/125



43/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

MB V 400 1 A

S S 1 A

F L 5 2 AR F 1 2 A

Commentary

There are missing bricks at 1 oclock in this brick conduit. Close inspection reveals thatthere is another layer of bricks (MB-V) behind the missing bricks.

Also associated with the missing bricks is spalling of the adjacent brickwork (S-S) andsome longitudinal fracturing (F-L) i.e. the fracturing occurs through the brick.

Fine roots (R-F), less than 10 mm diameter, are growing through the roof from 1 to 2

oclock.


File Name: MBV_SS_FL_RF_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


44/125



45/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

MM M 8 4 A A

MM YY M 4 8 A A

Commentary

This interesting photograph, inside a brick ovoid sewer, shows a still camera and flash uniton a float system.

The brick conduit appears to be in reasonably good condition except that there appears to besignificant loss of mortar (MM) which is continuous and estimated at 16 to 50 mm (M) abovethe water level between 8 and 4 oclock.

It is likely that the mortar missing defect continues below the water level but that cannot bereported as observed. There are two options to report a likely defect that cannot be directly

observed.

In this example it has been reported as MM between 4 and 8 oclock with the YY code inCh1 field to indicate the defect is suspected. The alternative approach is to note that themissing mortar may exist under the water in the remarks.

Either approach is acceptable.


File Name: MM_MMYY_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


46/125



47/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

PL RC 10 12 36.4

Commentary

This is a spiral wound liner that has been inserted to rehabilitate an older sewer (not visible).

There is supposed to be a property connection sewer entering at about 12 oclock at thislocation, which is not present. In instances where the distance to the connection or junctionswas not accurately determined and/or replicated, such cut-outs were inevitable.

Cutting to locate and reinstate the property connection sewer has been done roughly with noreinstatement and sealing such as depicted in RPL_CNG_1. Such rough cut-outs arecommon in early lining work when equipment was not as refined as currently used.

This situation is reported at this stage as lining defective - improper re-establishment ofconnection (PL-RC).

There is no sign of the connecting sewer and there appears to be a void outside the linerwhich should also be reported once the inspection proceeds a little further and allows abetter interpretation of the situation.


File Name: PLRC_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


48/125



49/125

WSAA C1


PL W M


50/125



51/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

R F


52/125



53/125

WSAA C1



R M 5-20 2 4 71.4

R M 21-50 8 11 71.4

F S 5 6 9 71.4

JD L M 71.4 J

SA R 71.4

Commentary

The two distinct root masses (R-M) are reported separately. One is from 2 - 4 oclock andreduces the cross section by about 10% i.e. 5 20% range. The other is from 8 - 11 oclockreduces the cross section by 35% i.e. 21 - 50% range.

There appears to be a simple fracture from 6 oclock to probably 9 oclock based on theshape of the fracture that can be seen. The width of the fracture is estimated to be 5 mm .

There is longitudinal displacement at the joint of about 21 30 mm noted by M in theQuantification 1 field. If root cutting had taken place, this defect could be reported moreaccurately.

This is obviously the end of the inspection as the camera can progress no further. Theinspection has to be abandoned due to the mass root blockage (SA-R).


File Name: RM_FS_JDL_SAR_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


54/125



55/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

R M 51-75 8 4 62.3 Suspect roots are fromlarge willow tree at approx60 m along line of sewerfrom MH 013 & 4 m north ofline of sewer

SA R 62.3

Commentary

This root mass (R-M) from 8 to 4 oclock at the joint has been measured to reduce the cross

section by 70% i.e. 51 75% range. The example illustrates the nature of mass roots withthe interwoven small roots which form into a tough clump which in this case is impassable fora normal camera.

In some inspections it may be possible to provide details of trees or other plants causingobstructions in which case record the findings in the remarks code. Details may includecommon name, species, location, distance from conduit etc.

This is obviously the end of the inspection as the camera can progress no further. Theinspection has to be abandoned due to the mass root blockage (SA-R).


File Name: RM_SAR_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


56/125



57/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

RP H 12 21.7 Hole covered withplastic lid

RX YY 217 Suspected of beingdefective no sign ofconcrete or sealing

GC U 21.7 Check out repair

C L W 1 12 A Cracking from hole

C L W 1 1 A Cracking from hole

Commentary

It appears that someone has attempted to make a hole in this VC conduit for a connection orhas carelessly damaged the pipe i.e. third-party intrusion. In the process the pipe has beendamaged with two longitudinal cracks (C-L-W) propagating from the hole. Possibly reportedbefore this point but are included in this observation with distance A.

A poorly executed attempt has been made to repair the hole (RP-H). There does notappear to be any concrete or other sealing agent visible. The repair is suspected of beingdefective (RX-YY).

While the repair does not appear to be affecting the serviceability of the conduit, itnevertheless should be brought to the attention of the asset owner using the generalcomment (GC-U).


File Name: RPH_RXYY_CL_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


58/125


59/125

WSAA C1


Locn

Long

l

Cont Remarks

RP R 600 A Split collar repair/coupling

Commentary

This photograph shows a feature that can be best described as a point repair - pipe replaced(RP-R). It is not a defect.

The fitting pictured was a specially produced double socketed VC pipe, most commonlyDN 150 and about 300 mm long. It was wire cut in half (longitudinally) before firing. Thefitting was used as a coupling during repair of sewers and insertion of junctions, usually onthe downstream side of the repair, where the two halves were reassembled around the two

spigot pipe ends. The fitting and joints were then concrete encased.

In this example, the repair is being viewed from the VC junction that was inserted in aconcrete sewer. The whole length including the junction should be regarded as a point repair pipe replaced, with a total length of approximately 600 mm reported at the start of thereplacement pipes. The junction of course should also be reported.

More often than not some concrete dags, like those at the longitudinal joint at 3 oclock, willbe obvious. In this case the concrete does not protrude significantly and the repair alignsreasonably with the existing pipe.

The repair has been executed in a workmanlike manner, particularly given the limitations ofthe technique. Moreover there is no need for the asset manager to take any action given that

the repaired section is not affecting serviceability.


File Name: RPR_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


60/125



61/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

RP R 300 A Repair/spacer pipe

Commentary

The feature in this VC sewer should not be recorded, since there is no evidence that it isaffecting the operational performance of the sewer.

It is most likely a feature of the initial construction where a short spacer or make up pipewas required. If it was to be recorded it would be coded as a point repair - pipe replaced(RP-R).

It is not a circumferential fracture.

Close inspection of the joint may show some spalling and irregularity. Such features weretypical of pipe cutting technologies used prior to the advent of power cutting saws.


File Name: RPR_2 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


62/125



63/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

RX M 900 41.9 DN 150 PVC pipe insertedin DN 225 pipe

SSSVVV 444111...999

ING G 10 7 41.9

SC C 150 41.9

Commentary

A DN 150 PVC pipe has been inserted into a DN 225 PVC pipe in what looks like a defectiverepair. It is best reported as repair with major or irregular gaps or both in the conduit wall atthe transition between existing and inserted conduit segments or pipes (RX-M). The lengthof the replacement pipe is estimated to be 900 mm.

Soil is visible (SV) at the large gap between the original pipe and new pipe. The soil appearsto be granular bedding material that is gradually flowing into the pipe (ING-G).

Both these features (SV and ING-G) are normally associated with some other defect e.g. inthis case a defective repair. The score at this location is taken to be the score arising fromthat/those other defects, or 60, whichever is the greater. Thus the operator should recordING-G only since adding SV does not provide additional information or score.

To further describe this feature the code SC-C has been used to indicate that the repair hasresulted in a change of cross section, still circular, but with now with a diameter of DN 150.

The longitudinal distance indicated above is what appears on the photograph. The actualdistance at which the repair pipe starts would need to be established using the same

consistent protocol used by the operator for the whole inspection.


File Name: RPR_RXM_SV_ING_SCC_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


64/125



65/125

WSAA C1



R T 5-20 9 2 42.9 J

R F


66/125



67/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

S AM A A 2.7 ?

Commentary

Surface damage of this concrete conduit has gone beyond aggregate projecting and is bestdescribed by surface damage - aggregate missing (SAM) above the normal flow line. This islikely to be a continuous defect, although the panned view does not allow us to confirm suchan interpretation.

The description recorded on the photograph moderate erosion walls is misleading. Thedefect is not moderate and could constitute a significant risk for the asset owner. Some

aggregate has been lost and the aggregate that is clearly visible is about to fall into the pipeas well.

As this is a close up detail of a problem at a specific location the extent of the defect has notbeen indicated in this example. The full report observation would include clock referencesand indicate any continuity of the defect/s.

Photographs of the condition of the pipe wall, showing this level of detail, are particularlyimportant in concrete conduits to enable asset owners to assess the condition of the conduit.


File Name: SAM_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


68/125



69/125

WSAA C1


S AM 4 8 11.8 S1

Commentary

There is severe surface damage in the invert of this concrete conduit. The damage has gonebeyond surface damage, aggregate projecting and it is now surface damage, aggregatemissing (S-AM) from 4 to8 oclock.

The defect is clearly continuous so S1 is shown in the continuous field.

The operator and reviewer of the inspection DVD are likely to notice bumpy progress of the

camera throughout the inspection.

It is not clear why the invert is so damaged but there are some possible explanations thatshould be considered by the asset owner:

Discharge from industry upstream with low pH.

Ingress of groundwater with a low pH.

Poor quality concrete may have contributed to a more rapid deterioration than wouldotherwise has occurred.

Further deterioration of the invert could result in a hole right through the conduit wall.


File Name: SAM_2 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


70/125



71/125

WSAA C1

Corrosion product layer


Longl Cont Remarks

S AM A A 22.3 A

S CP 7 5 22.3 F1

Commentary

This photograph shows a concrete sewer that has undergone sulphuric acid attack(corrosion) along the soffit of the pipes. Sulphuric acid forms on the surfaces above thenormal flow (water) level as a result of oxidation of hydrogen sulphide and sulphurcompounds by bacteria present on the walls of the sewer. Corrosion of the cementitiousmatrix of the concrete leads to exposure and removal of the aggregate reducing the wallthickness and structural integrity of the pipe.

The principal defect visible is surface damage, aggregate missing, (S-AM).

As this is a close up detail of a problem at a specific location the extent of the defect has notbeen indicated in this example. The full report observation would include clock referencesand indicate any continuity of the defect/s.

The feature in the foreground at the soffit is corrosion products ( S-CP) that is typical ofconcrete pipes. When the cementitious material has been removed from this layer throughacid attack, it becomes friable and can easily be removed often in discrete sheets. If thesewer was cleaned before inspection most of this material would be removed to reveal thetrue condition of the concrete substrate.

For illustrative purposes the extent of the corrosion products is assumed to be from 7 to 5

oclock and that it is finishing at this point with a notation of F1 in the continuous column.


File Name: SAM_SCP_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


72/125



73/125

WSAA C1


Locn


S CP 7 5 30.6 C1

JI R HH 10 1 30.6 J Ring has falleninside

S YY 7 5 30.6 C2 Recommendinspection aftercleaning

DE G


74/125

WSAA C1

the pipe joint has disintegrated allowing the ring to float unsupported at the soffit. Theobservation of several rings like the one in the photograph would confirm this explanation.

In addition, there appears to be continuos fat deposits (DE-G).along the normal water level at4 and8 oclock reducing the cross sectional area of less than5% in each location.

Description of defects in this photograph would not be complete without providing otherdetails of the sewer. It was constructed in 1976 at a grade of 7.9%. Two pressure mainsdischarge into an upstream MH.

As a result of severe deterioration of the concrete the full length was rehabilitated with PVCin 1999.


File Name: SCP_JIHH_SYY_DEG_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 2 of 2


75/125

WSAA C1


Locn

Longl Cont Remarks

S H 5 28.2

VV 5 28.2

S AM A A A

Commentary

The predominant defect at this location is a hole from surface damage, (SH) at the 5 oclockposition. Through the hole you can see a void (VV), but without further examination youcannot tell the extent of the void.

It is not clear if there is exfiltration or infiltration occurring at the hole but either (or both

depending on water table or flow levels) is highly likely and should be investigated andreported.

Also evident is surface damage aggregate missing, (SAM). This defect would probably becontinuous.

As this is a close up detail of a problem at a specific location the extent of the defect has notbeen indicated in this example. The full report observation would include clock references,indicate any continuity of the defect/s and report on the condition of the pipe not visible inthis photograph.


File Name: SH_VV_SAM_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


76/125



77/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

S RV 8 10 64.7 S1 No corrosion ofconcrete obvious

Commentary

This concrete pipe appears to be in reasonable condition except for the circumferential andlongitudinal steel reinforcement which is visible (S-RV) and slightly corroded between 8 and10 oclock. It appears that the defect could extend over one pipe length but in concrete pipethis will normally exceed one metre so S1 is recorded in the continuous field.

Normally exposed reinforcement is associated with loss of concrete through corrosion or

some other process(es). In this case there is no obvious corrosion and a remark to thateffect helps to explain the observation.

The reason for the visible steel reinforcement seems to be a manufacturing fault that hasresulted in the reinforcement having negligible concrete cover.

The defect has not been recorded as surface damage corroded reinforcement because it isnot associated with corroded concrete and the corrosion of the reinforcement is judged to beslight.


File Name: SRV_2 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


78/125



79/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

S T 5-20 8 4 0.0 S1

ST MH 254597 0.0

WL T 30 0.0

Commentary

At the start of this inspection of a cast iron sewer it is clear that it exhibits classictuberculation. The defect, which is continuous (S1), is recorded as surface damage tuberculation (S-T). The loss of cross section is estimated to be in the range of 5 to 20%.

In this case the sewer was cleaned prior to inspection to remove the worst of thetuberculation nodules to allow the camera to travel through the pipe. Where the noduleshave been removed the pipe wall varies from orange-red iron oxide to black iron oxide.

The inspection start node is a maintenance hole (ST-MH) with the asset number of 254597.

Flow (water) level, which is recorded at the start of the inspection, is estimated at 30%. Theturbidity of the flow is also assessed and recorded as turbid (WL-T).


File Name: ST_STMH_WLT_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


80/125



81/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

X 600 6.9

SA D 6.9 Conduit collapsed

Commentary

The conduit has collapsed (X). Individual pieces of conduit have dropped to reduce thediameter by more than 25%. The collapse distance is estimated at 600 mm.

This is obviously the end of the inspection as the camera can progress no further. The

inspection has to be abandoned due to the collapse (SA-D). Conduit collapsed is recordedin the remarks field.


File Name: X_SAD_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


82/125



83/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

X 900 A Collapsed conduit

length undamagedand repairable

VV 9 5 A

Commentary

The defect at this location is a massive radial displacement at a joint. It appears that thewhole conduit length has been displaced and that the displacement is so large a void visible(VV) outside the conduit. This defect has gone beyond joint displaced, radial as well asbeyond broken - displaced conduit.

The conduit can be considered as collapsed (X) because there is less than 75% of the

diameter of the pipe available. The length affected by the collapse appears to be oneconduit length estimated to be 900 mm and which appears to be undamaged. For thisreason it is worthwhile noting to the asset owner that the collapse is repairable.


File Name: X_VV_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


84/125



85/125

WSAA C1



B D 0 7 21.6 J Not acceptable

D V 16-20 7 J Not acceptable

SV 10 3 21.6 J

R F


86/125



87/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

F C 3 A A 18.1 Not acceptable

R F


88/125



89/125

WSAA C1

Cracking

Fracturing


Locn

Longl Cont Remarks

F M 2 11 1 2.6 Not acceptable

Commentary

This photograph is from the acceptance inspection of a new reinforced concretestormwater drain. The above reporting is in accordance with Appendix F.

The damage to the pipe in the photograph has gone beyond multiple or complex

cracking. There is clear separation along the original crack lines and the damage isdescribed as multiple or complex fractures (F-M). This pattern of fracturing, as far as wecan tell, extends from 11 to 1 oclock. Typical gap at the fracture is estimated to be 2mm.

For acceptance inspection the note not acceptable is required in the remarks field.

It is not clear what the cause of the damage is but it may be from poor handling duringtransportation to site or from excessive external loading through poor installation or sitemanagement practices. Regardless, it is an unacceptable defect in a new asset.


File Name: FM_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


90/125



91/125

WSAA C1



JD L M 1.4 J 30 mm gap (see note)

NOTE: Refer to applicable code, standard or specification to determine jointing acceptance tolerance

Commentary

This photograph is from the acceptance inspection of a newly constructed reinforcedconcrete stormwater drain. The above reporting is in accordance with Appendix F.

At this joint there is a longitudinal displacement (JD-L) estimated to be in the range 21 to30 mm (M). The gap seems unacceptably large for a new asset; however, the joint maystill be sound, still retaining a significant sealing margin if some movement occurred.

Although WSA 052006 has simplified the recording of joint displacements with S, M and Lit is useful for acceptance inspections to record the measured or estimated displacement inthe remarks. In this example we have indicated that the gap has been measured at 30mm.

In cases like this it is essential to refer to applicable codes, standards and the assetowners specification to determine acceptance limits for longitudinal joint displacement.

However, where the displacement is within the jointing tolerance and the seal is visible inthe joint (JI-R-N), it would be not acceptable. Close examination of all such joints isrequired to determine if the seal ring is visible or not.


File Name: JDL_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


92/125



93/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

JI R B 9 2 3.2 Not acceptable

Commentary

This photograph is from the acceptance inspection of a new reinforced concrete stormwaterdrain. The above reporting is in accordance with Appendix F.

During pipelaying the rubber ring seal has been displaced/dislodged and is now intrudingfrom each side of the pipe joint (JI-R-B) at 9 and 2 oclock. It is not necessary to report two

observations of the defect.


In addition, there appears to be fracturing and spalling across the invert. However the detailin the photograph is not sufficient to determine the precise nature and extent of this likelydefect. The operator should investigate and report.


File Name: JIRB_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


94/125



95/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

S AP 5 7 13.7 S1 Not Acceptable

Commentary

This photograph is from the acceptance inspection of a newly constructed reinforcedconcrete stormwater drain. The above reporting is in accordance with Appendix F.

The surface damage aggregate projecting (S-AP) in the invert of this new concrete pipe is

unusual and surprising. It is obviously continuous and is assumed to start at this point so S1has been recorded in the continuous field.

The cause of such a defect in a new pipe is not clear except to note that it is poorlycontrolled manufacture.

Regardless of the cause it is not acceptable and for acceptance inspection the note notacceptable is required in the remarks f ield.


File Name: SAP_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


96/125



97/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

S RV A A 17.6 Circumferential andlongitudinal reinforcementvisible - Not acceptable

Commentary

This photograph is from the acceptance inspection of a new reinforced concrete stormwater

drain. The above reporting is in accordance with Appendix F.

Surface damage reinforcement visible (S-RV) is evident on the wall of this new concretepipe. Clearly the cover to the steel reinforcement is zero in some places with the rustedreinforcement clearly visible in the circumferential and longitudinal directions. As this is aclose up view it is not possible to determine the full extent of the defect circumferentially orlongitudinally. The operator would report such information and describe the defect inremarks.

The reason for such a feature in a new pipe is not clear but most likely has resulted frompoor control of reinforcement placement and/or insufficient concrete during casting to coverthe reinforcement.

Regardless of the cause it will shorten the life of a new asset and is not acceptable. Foracceptance inspection the note not acceptable is required in the remarks field.


File Name: SRV_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


98/125



99/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

S RVP 2 64.5 Not acceptable

C L W 1 2 64.5 Not acceptable

Commentary

This photograph is from the acceptance inspection of a new reinforced concrete stormwaterdrain. The above reporting is in accordance with Appendix F.

Several defects are obvious and of these the surface damage - reinforcement visible andprojecting from the surface (S-RVP) is most notable.


In addition, there is a longitudinal crack propagating from the root of the reinforcement, towardsthe joint. It appears to be a wall crack (C-L-W) with a width of about 1 mm.

Cracking is generally not acceptable but the Code allows the asset owner to review thesedefects for final determination of acceptance. However, in this case, the projectingreinforcement is the determining factor for rejecting the drain.


File Name: SRVP_CLW_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


100/125



101/125

WSAA C1

(253545)


FH C 50.0 Entry to 1295 oviform

Commentary

The camera is approaching the entry to a larger 1295 mm oviform sewer. This entry point isregarded as a node and is the end of the inspection at the red arrow in the asset plan (aboveright). It is coded as FH-C which is the finish node - major connection without amaintenance structure. The remark Entry to 1295 oviform is recorded to explain the endof the inspection.

The difference between the recorded distance and that on the photograph is to effectivelyillustrate the entry point to the larger sewer and also document the correct distance at whichthat feature actually occurs.

Also seeLR_DEE_1for the start of the curve of the 840 mm oviform sewer.


File Name: FHC_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


102/125



103/125

WSAA C1


(253545)


LocnLongl Cont Remarks

L R 26.2 S1

DE E 5-20 7 5 26.2

Commentary

This concrete oviform sewer is beginning to curve to the right (L-R). This location coincidesapproximately with the tangent point (TP) shown with a red arrow on a copy of the asset plan(above right). The curve to the right obviously extends beyond 1 metre so S1 is recorded inthe continuous features column.

There are deposits encrustation (DE-E) on the wall at the joint, which in this case is aconstruction joint in the concrete. The deposit is most significant between 1 and 5 oclockbut it is visible from 7 to 5 oclock so it is better to report it as a single defect. Theencrustation is estimated to reduce the cross section by between 5 and 20%.

Also seeFHC_1for the end of the curve.

File Name: LR_DEE_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


104/125



105/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

GP F U Brick conduit constructedwithout mortar

GC A A A A Brick conduit constructedwithout mortar

CommentaryThe interesting feature of this brick construction is the close fitting of bricks without a layer ofmortar obvious. This is unusual and may indicate that bricks were dry placed on formworkand the joints mortar filled from the outside. In the bottom part of the conduit theconstruction is not obvious but investigation by the operator could provide useful informationfor the asset owner.

Nevertheless, the total absence of mortar between the bricks should be reported using thegeneral photograph (GP) and the general comment (GC) codes. The absence of mortarshould not be coded as a defect.

The defect or feature appears to be continuous and probably started some distance before25.7 m so A (applicable) has been recorded in the continuous field. The circumferentialextent of the defect cannot be determined in this example and A has again been entered toindicate that clock references would normally be reported.

The oddly shaped brick at 12 oclock at distance 25.7 m is probably from rough cutting to getit to fit as a keystone and not from damage.

Some bricks may have moved inwards, or they may have been constructed that way. Furtherinvestigation would be required to confirm before reporting this feature.


File Name: GPFU_GC_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


106/125



107/125


108/125



109/125

WSAA C1


Longl Cont Remarks

S H 8 4 A S1 Pipe not thereVV 8 4 A S2 Nothing above it either

Commentary

This photograph is not the usual vision seen by CCTV operators. However, if required tocode it from an inspection it could be surface damage, hole (S-H) from 8 to 4 oclock withvoid visible (VV) above for the same clock reference. Both of these would be continuous withS1 and S2 in the continuous field.

The invert remains functional.

Some other details of this pipe and the discovery of this extreme defect can provide guidance

for operators and asset managers.

The pipe was DN 300 concrete in service for eight years. Two pumping stations dischargedin the system upstream. The pipe was inspected with mirrors from manholes about every twoyears and in one of these inspections it was noticed that the rubber rings were hanging downfrom the soffit. This could have been coded as (JI-R-HH).

The explanation for the ring falling through the pipe wall is that the typical spigot and socket joint allows corrosion to occur on both sides of the pipe up to the ring. This accelerates thedeterioration of the concrete at this location more quickly than the rest of the pipe.

Also noticeable would have been the presence of corrosion products, aggregate missing andpossibly corroded reinforcement.

The pipe was exhumed to reveal the situation in the photograph. Fortunately there was nocollapse because the trench backfill was well compacted and arched over the pipe space.


File Name: SH_VV_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


110/125



111/125

WSAA C1


Locn


S W 7 5 A F1

R F 5-20 8 10 A J

R F 5-20 2 5 A J

MC VC A Junction fitting atvertical

FH VD A

Commentary

This photograph shows a feature that is unusual. The camera

is approaching a vertical drop which will be a finish node (FH-VD). This feature is illustrated in the diagram to the right.

In the foreground is concrete pipe with surface damage, wallroughened (S-W) which most likely has been a continuouscode. It will terminate at the joint, so it is necessary to finishwith an F1 notation in the continuous column.

Roots are observed at the joint between the concrete and VCjunction fitting. These are judged to be fine roots (R-F) at thisstage and two occurrences have been reported.

For completeness, the material changed from concrete to VC

(MC-VC) is also recorded.


File Name: SW_RF_MCVC_FHVD_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


112/125



113/125

WSAA C1

Application

The following figures provide a guide to estimating the magnitude of sheardisplacement which is also coded as deformation to indicate the reduction in diameter.

The applicable code is DV_.

Where shear displacement is associated with a joint it should be recorded as adisplaced joint, radial displacement JDR (Refer to Clause 3.7.5.1). Further, whereradial displacement at a joint is such that a void or soil is visible, the defect shall berecorded as broken displaced or collapsed depending on the magnitude of thedisplacement. (Refer to Note 3 of Clause 3.7.5.1).


File Name: DEFORMATION_SHEAR_DV_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


114/125



115/125


116/125



117/125

WSAA C1

Application

The following figures provide a guide to estimating the magnitude of an obstruction fromdeposits in the invert measured as a percentage reduction in cross sectional area of theconduit. The applicable code is DE_.


File Name: DEPOSITS_IN_INVERT_DE_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


118/125



119/125

WSAA C1

Application

The following figures provide a guide to estimating the magnitude of an obstruction fromdeposits (encrustation) on the walls and roots measured as a percentage reduction incross sectional area of the conduit. The applicable codes are DE_and R_.


File Name: DEPOSITS_ON_WALLS_AND_ROOTS_DE_R_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 1


120/125



121/125

WSAA C1

Application

The following figures provide a guide to estimating the magnitude of intrusion (obstruction)where a connecting conduit is projecting into the conduit being inspected. The applicablecode is CI.


File Name: INTRUDING_CONNECTION_CI_1 Copyright 19 October 2006Doc Name: Compendium of Conduit Features Issue 1 Page 1 of 3


122/125

WSAA C1




123/125

WSAA C1




124/125



125/125

WSAA C1

Application

The following figures provide a guide to estimating the level of flow and infiltration in theinvert of a conduit. Applicable codes include:

WL_

IF__

Compendium of Conduit Features 01

Documents

Transcript of Compendium of Conduit Features 01