the beach surrounding the ramp had recently diminished in and around the ramp. this revealed distress to piles at their interface with the superstructure. great ocean road coast and parks authority (gorcpa) engaged sureside to attend site to review the distress during the potentially small window whilst these piles would be exposed.

gorcpa had drawings available for the structure which was of great assistance to refer to. the distress was found to be extraordinary with no intuitive source which is a very rare occurrence. to an experienced assessor, cues are normally able to be picked up that explain the distress that is evident. our two key initial findings were that the piles appeared to have been reused from elsewhere owing to their surface attributes. secondly, and presumably a result of the first observation, is that the connection detailing differed from the drawings.

Gorcpa followed up with those involved in construction who confirmed that the concrete piles had been reused. this was a highly unusual occurrence for concrete piles to be reused.

sureside’s findings were that the change in detailing could have an impact upon structure performance. However, given the stability considerations should have been well understood at the time of design and construction, that it was reasonable to assume that such stability considerations had already been taken into account by the designer. it was also noted that the original drawings indicated that stability considerations had been identified and understood, having been integrated into the design. our concern was that observations on site identified that the original drawings were probably not constructible as they had been shown and the contractors would be faced with a challenge to amend the design to meet minimum stability requirements. Options were presented to gorcpa for consideration including detailed monitoring and analysis versus minor intervention works to augment the structure’s capability to remain stable. a significant consideration in all options were the absence of knowledge of foundation considerations (acknowledging that pile driving records were unavailable).

works were nominated with design being delivered by sureside under a separate engangement. the works were nominated as a cautionary measure to mitigate potential distress in the structure and also to augment stabilising the structure if it were the case that changes had been made without due consideration to instability risks.

sureside’s capability proved invaluable for its skills in diagnosing the issues with this structure. these were not defects that could be found in a condition assessment manual. there were multiple outcomes from diagnosis that were possible given the distress that was apparent. having an experienced assessor attend site meant that changes to the structure from the drawings were able to be identified on site. additionally, being able to interpret the site and identifying the highest risks to successful implementation of the design on site also proved very valuable. the assessor identified that the highest risk to construction was a requirement on the drawings, which when observing the site was highly unlikely to be achievable. this would likely have presented challenges on site and meant that the changes to the structure that occured during construction would have been of much greater consequence than if the design requirements had been achievable.

project client: gorcpa

sureside client: gorcpa

services: diagnostic analysis & condition Assessment

time period: 2024