Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Environment Agency : Flood Defence Asset Survey Form
Surveyed By
Date
Sub
Area
Sub
reach
L R or
B
Tidal
or NT
Area
004
17
Watercourse
4020
Reach
01
02
L
T
Defence
Code
No of
pipes
02
River Idle : Flood Bank with landward SSP wall)
Outfalls Only
Structure
Code
Height
Shape
DS NGR
L02
478958 394810
US NGR
478895 394881
Width
Length
Height of
Defence
Length
90
3.5
Major / Minor
Major
Sub
Type
Type
Mat
Revet
Cond
Slope
Width
FC
R
E
CB
FO
FI
FI
R
E
T
2
32
CS
B
E
T
2
32
FI
CS
CS
CB
CB
B
E
T
2
0
3
FC
FO
B
E
T
2
27
4020-01-02-
Embankment
Recommendations
Fig. 6.1
A completed asset inspection form with condition grades assigned.
.
Assesses condition of individual defence ele-
ments only. Asset performance may be linked to
the condition of a number of elements or to spe-
cific features within key elements. The grading
of elements is a practical solution to the visual
inspection process but has no scientific basis in
the determination of overall asset condition.
.
There is no direct link under the current method
between the visual condition and likely perfor-
mance and reliability of the asset. In some in-
stances, the current guidance produces
condition grading at odds with the likely perfor-
mance of an asset.
.
The contribution of individual elements to over-
all condition under the current system is treated
simplistically or not at all. There is some use of
a criticality score for elements but this is not
implemented consistently across regions of the
Environment Agency and is not used to produce
an overall condition grade for the asset itself.
.
Overall condition grades for assets, where used,
are poorly defined and based on the weakest ele-
ment or an average of the elements. The inspec-
tion itself produces a list of condition grades for
individual elements of an asset only.
.
The guidance provided for condition grading of
elements is too generic in many instances and
covers a broad range of features. For example,
condition grade 3 given to an embankment slope
could indicate poor quality of grass cover, minor
cracking or slipping of slope, or the presence of
vermin infestation.
.
The low range of potential condition grades
produces high variability in assessments where
the state of the element is a borderline value.
In addressing the weaknesses of the current
method itmust be emphasized that these are often
intrinsically linked to its positive features and
great care must be taken in the development of
a revised method. This could easily produce a
