ANNEXURE A

Bridge Inspection Format, following IRC: SP 52- 1999

Name of the Bridge: Rampur R.C.C. Bridge over New Arapanch Branch Canal at Ch. 435.00 m
Date of Inspection 20/07/2021

1. Road Surface near the Bridge.

Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks
Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Bumpy Road Surface. √
Badly built road drainage. √
Blocked/ damaged road drains. √
Water on deck. √ √ √

2. Wearing Course: No wearing course is laid upon the slab of the bridge.
Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks
Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Cracking
Spalling
Reinforcement exposed
Poor concrete

3. Kerb, footpath, railing: No kerb and footpath are provided in the bridge. Brick made side railing is in partially damaged condition.
Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks
Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Damaged/ loose kerb in impact
Damaged footpath
Vertical post damaged √ √ √
Hand rail damaged
Reinforcement exposed in post/ hand rail

4. Expansion Joint: No expansion joint is provided.

Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks

Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Damaged to concrete
Debris\Vegetation to join
Loose\Damaged fixtures
Damage\corrosion to metal parts
Damage to rubber water seal

5. Superstructure Deck/ Girder.

Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks

Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Deck concrete cracked √ √ √
Water coming through deck √
Vegetation on superstructure √ √ √
Girder spalled
Soffit reinforcement exposed √ √ √
Insufficient vertical clearance above HFL √

6. Bearing. No bearing is provided.

Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks

Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Debris\vegetation around bearings
Bad drainage
Not seated properly
Bearing damage
Not enough room for bridge span to move
Bridge span not seated properly
 7. Abutment, Wing Wall, Pier. There was no abutment provided in the bridge. 300 x 300 R.C. Column acting as pier. Foundation was not
accessible.

Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks

Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Cracking
Spalling
Not enough weep holes
Weep hole blocked
Excessive scour
Water leaking
Corrosion to reinforcement √
Foundation damaged

8. River/ Channel. Bottom of pier was not accessible because of standing water

Possible Problem Problem How Bad? How much? Remarks

Yes No Not so bad Bad Very Bad Not much Some A lot
Debris against abutment/ pier √
Remains of old bridge near new bridge √
Trees bushes growing under bridge √
Bed/ side protection of bridge damaged √
Deep scour near abutment/ pier

9. Observation:

No. of spans of the bridge are 4. The central and end span length are respectively 4.0 m and 4.5 m having a end to end length of the bridge 17 m.
R.C. Slab structures are laid directly upon 300 mm x 300 mm R.C. column acting as pier. There was 2 nos. of column at each pier without any
bracing. Slab depth also varies through length of one central span The bridge is a footbridge having 1.85 m clear roadway. The bridge is in
structurally wrong configuration as there was no abutment, inadequate pier section, randomly varying slab section etc.