Assessing Pre-Tensioned Reinforcement Corrosion Within The New Zealand Concrete PDF

Assessing pre-tensioned reinforcement
corrosion within the New Zealand concrete

bridge stock
March 2013
RA Rogers, M Al-Ani and JM Ingham

University of Auckland
NZ Transport Agency research report 502

ISBN 978-0-478-39495-5 (electronic)
ISSN 1173-3764 (electronic)
NZ Transport Agency
Private Bag 6995, Wellington 6141, New Zealand
Telephone 64 4 894 5400; facsimile 64 4 894 6100
research@nzta.govt.nz
www.nzta.govt.nz
Rogers, RA, M Al-Ani and JM Ingham (2013) Assessing pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion within the
New Zealand concrete bridge stock. NZ Transport Agency research report 502. 488pp.
This publication is copyright © NZ Transport Agency 2013. Material in it may be reproduced for personal
or in-house use without formal permission or charge, provided suitable acknowledgement is made to this
publication and the NZ Transport Agency as the source. Requests and enquiries about the reproduction of
material in this publication for any other purpose should be made to the Research Programme Manager,
Programmes, Funding and Assessment, National Office, NZ Transport Agency, Private Bag 6995,
Wellington 6141.
Keywords: Asset management, bridge, chloride, concrete, corrosion, deterioration, exposure

classification, precast, prestressed, pre-tensioned, pretensioned.
An important note for the reader
The NZ Transport Agency is a Crown entity established under the Land Transport Management Act 2003.
The objective of the Agency is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to an affordable,
integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system. Each year, the NZ Transport Agency
funds innovative and relevant research that contributes to this objective.
The views expressed in research reports are the outcomes of the independent research, and should not be
regarded as being the opinion or responsibility of the NZ Transport Agency. The material contained in the
reports should not be construed in any way as policy adopted by the NZ Transport Agency or indeed any
agency of the NZ Government. The reports may, however, be used by NZ Government agencies as a
reference in the development of policy.
While research reports are believed to be correct at the time of their preparation, the NZ Transport Agency
and agents involved in their preparation and publication do not accept any liability for use of the research.
People using the research, whether directly or indirectly, should apply and rely on their own skill and
judgement. They should not rely on the contents of the research reports in isolation from other sources of
advice and information. If necessary, they should seek appropriate legal or other expert advice.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the guidance and expertise provided by steering group members Campbell
Middleton, Tim Ibell, Ian Billings, Jason Ingham and Rudolph Kotze, and would like to express particular
thanks to Sheldon Bruce of Opus International Consultants and Michael Lawson of Construction
Techniques Ltd. Thanks are also given to peer reviewers James Mackechnie (Allied Concrete) and Rob
Gaimster (Cement and Concrete Association of New Zealand).
The expertise provided by Allan Scott (University of Canterbury), Nicholas Brooke and Liam Wotherspoon
(University of Auckland), Matthew Ing (Opus International Consultants Ltd), Dick Salter (Works
Infrastructure Auckland) and Bill Burrett (Burrett and Associates) is also acknowledged and greatly
appreciated.
The time and effort put in by Thibaut Willeman, Bilel Ragued, Simon Jackson, James Henderson and Paul
Dye is greatly appreciated, and the project would simply not have been possible without the efforts of
Lucas Hogan, who has shown tireless commitment to the cause above and beyond what could possibly
have been expected of him.
The authors would like to acknowledge the NZ Tranport Agency for funding this project and for providing
access to the Bridge Data System and to the physical bridges stock, and Opus International Consultants
Ltd and Bloxham Burnett & Olliver Ltd for providing bridge plans and access to historical bridge design
documents.
The Tiwai Point Bridge case study described in appendix A of this report was conducted on a Fulton Hogan
Ltd site with the permission of the Invercargill City Council and the assistance of Fulton Hogan staff and
equipment – particular thanks is given to Craig Cuthbertson for his input and experience.
Abbreviations and acronyms
ASR alkali silica reaction
AWS automatic weather station
BDS Bridge Data System
D&E tool New Zealand State Highway pre-tensioned bridge Distribution and Exposure Classification
Tool
h.t. high-tensile
Inf. infinity
Insig. insignificant
LTNZ Land Transport New Zealand

MHB Main Highways Board
MoW Ministry of Works
MWD Ministry of Works and Development
NRB National Roads Board
NZTA NZ Transport Agency
Pre-T pre-tensioned
PWD Public Works Department
RC reinforced concrete
SCM supplementary cementitious materials
SH state highway
TNZ Transit New Zealand

Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 15
1.2 Prevalent corrosion issues in pre-tensioned concrete bridges.................................................................. 16
1.3 Examples of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in New Zealand bridges ......................................... 18
1.3.1 Hamanatua Bridge ....................................................................................................................... 18
1.3.2 Tiwai Point Bridge........................................................................................................................ 19
1.3.3 Boundary Creek Bridge ................................................................................................................ 21
1.4 New Zealand pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock ................................................................................... 22
1.5 Outline of this research ............................................................................................................................. 23
2 Construction eras: classification of pre-tensioned concrete bridges by year of construction ......................... 24
2.1 Discussion of BDS data used for analysis .................................................................................................. 24
2.2 Design characteristics affecting resistance to corrosion........................................................................... 25
2.3 Identification of construction eras............................................................................................................. 26
2.3.1 Factors influencing structural design characteristics ................................................................. 26
2.3.2 Factors influencing concrete durability characteristics .............................................................. 27
2.4 Timeline of events influencing pre-tensioned concrete bridge design ..................................................... 27
2.4.1 Governmental entities responsible for state highway bridges ................................................... 30
2.4.2 Timeline of documents governing bridge design ....................................................................... 30
2.5 Identification and description of construction eras .................................................................................. 33
2.5.1 Era 1: pre-1953 – before pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction ...................................... 34
2.5.2 Era 2: 1953–1960 ........................................................................................................................ 34
2.5.3 Era 3: 1961–1965 ........................................................................................................................ 36
2.5.4 Era 4: 1966–1970 ........................................................................................................................ 38
2.5.5 Era 5: 1971–1977 ........................................................................................................................ 40
2.5.6 Era 6: 1978–1980 ........................................................................................................................ 42
2.5.7 Era 7: 1981–1987 ........................................................................................................................ 44
2.5.8 Era 8: 1988–1994 ........................................................................................................................ 46
2.5.9 Era 9: 1995–2003 ........................................................................................................................ 47
2.5.10 Era 10: 2004–2007...................................................................................................................... 50
2.5.11 Era 11: 2008–2011 (end of data) ................................................................................................ 52
2.6 Summary of construction eras ................................................................................................................... 54
3 Beam type classification ....................................................................................................................................................................... 56
3.1 Log beams .................................................................................................................................................. 56
3.2 T-beams...................................................................................................................................................... 59
3.3 I-beams ....................................................................................................................................................... 61
3.4 Single hollow core beams .......................................................................................................................... 70
3.5 Double hollow core beams ........................................................................................................................ 73
3.6 U-beams ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
3.7 Super-tee .................................................................................................................................................... 81
3.8 Uncommon and unspecified beam types................................................................................................... 81
7
3.8.1 Unspecified beam types: ‘other’ or blank ................................................................................... 82
3.8.2 Miscellaneous .............................................................................................................................. 82
3.9 Summary of beam types ............................................................................................................................ 82
4 Distribution analysis and exposure classification...................................................................................................................85
4.1 Development and use of the Distribution and Exposure Classification Tool (D&E tool) .......................... 85
4.1.1 Visualisation of bridge stock by beam type and construction era ............................................. 87
4.1.2 Remote assessment of individual bridges .................................................................................. 87
4.1.3 National analysis of wind direction ............................................................................................. 89
4.2 Regional distribution of beam types.......................................................................................................... 90
4.2.1 National distribution of log beam bridges.................................................................................. 90
4.2.2 National distribution of T-beam bridges..................................................................................... 91
4.2.3 National distribution of I-beam bridges...................................................................................... 92
4.2.4 National distribution of single hollow core beam bridges ......................................................... 93
4.2.5 National distribution of double hollow core beam bridges ........................................................ 94
4.2.6 National distribution of U-beam bridges .................................................................................... 95
4.2.7 National distribution of uncommon and unspecified beam types ............................................. 96
4.3 NZS 3101:2006 Exposure classifications .................................................................................................. 97
4.3.1 Exposure classification C ‘Tidal/splash/spray’........................................................................... 99
4.3.2 Exposure classification B2 ‘Coastal frontage’ or permanently submerged structures ............ 100
4.3.3 Exposure classification B1 ‘Coastal perimeter’......................................................................... 100
4.3.4 Exposure classification A2 ‘Inland exterior’ ............................................................................. 100
4.4 National coastal wind direction analysis.................................................................................................. 100
4.4.1 Wind roses ................................................................................................................................. 101
4.4.2 West Coast region ..................................................................................................................... 103
4.4.3 Central North Island .................................................................................................................. 104
4.4.4 Marlborough and North Canterbury regions ............................................................................ 106
4.4.5 Conclusions from national coastal wind direction analysis...................................................... 107
4.5 Exposure classification of state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges ............................................. 108
4.5.1 Coastal distance bands ............................................................................................................. 108
4.5.2 Exposure classification using NZS 3101:2006 ......................................................................... 109
4.5.3 Exposure classification using NZS 3101:2006 and assuming downwind ................................ 109
4.5.4 Exposure classification data types generated for pre-tensioned concrete bridges ................. 109
4.6 Exposure classification of pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock............................................................. 111
4.6.1 Limitations of remote exposure classification using the D&E tool .......................................... 111
4.6.2 Number of bridges in coastal exposures, using coastal distance bands ................................. 112
4.6.3 Number of bridges in coastal exposures, using NZS 3101:2006 and assuming that all bridges
are downwind from the coast ................................................................................................... 115
4.6.4 Number of bridges in coastal exposures, using NZS 3101:2006 ............................................ 116
4.7 Conclusions from exposure classification ............................................................................................... 118
5 National bridge inspections ............................................................................................................................................................. 120
5.1 Selection of bridges for inspection .......................................................................................................... 120
5.2 Bridge investigation methodology ........................................................................................................... 124
5.2.1 Concrete cover depth survey .................................................................................................... 124
5.2.2 Chloride ingress measurements ............................................................................................... 125
5.2.3 Service life prediction ................................................................................................................ 128
8
5.3 Bridge inspection results ......................................................................................................................... 132
5.3.1 McAnultys Stream Bridge (Rogers key 15) ................................................................................ 133
5.3.2 Lincoln Bridge No1 (Rogers key 38) .......................................................................................... 135
5.3.3 Kawaroa Stream Bridge (Rogers key 44) ................................................................................... 137
5.3.4 Wairotoroto Stream Bridge (Rogers key 50).............................................................................. 138
5.3.5 Westshore Bridge (Rogers key 58) ............................................................................................ 140
5.3.6 Rosebank Bridge No2 (Rogers key 72) ...................................................................................... 143
5.3.7 Boundary Creek Bridge (Rogers key 133) ................................................................................. 145
5.3.8 Pattens Creek Bridge (Rogers key 151) ..................................................................................... 147
5.3.9 Otohi Stream Bridge (Rogers key 162) ...................................................................................... 149
5.3.10 Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh) Bridge No 91 (Rogers key 223) .................................................... 151
5.3.11 Waimangaro Creek Bridge (Rogers key 224) ............................................................................ 152
5.3.12 Wilsons Creek Bridge (Rogers key 266) .................................................................................... 153
5.3.13 Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuka) Bridge (Rogers key 270) ................................................................. 155
5.3.14 Ovens Bridge No 147 (Rogers key 294) .................................................................................... 157
5.3.15 Washdyke Stream Bridge (Rogers key 303) .............................................................................. 158
5.3.16 Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge (Rogers key 391) ......................................................................... 159
5.3.17 Kowhai River Bridge (Rogers key 433) ...................................................................................... 160
5.3.18 Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 (Rogers key 442) ...................................................................... 163
5.3.19 Aongatete Stream Bridge (Rogers key 466) .............................................................................. 164
5.3.20 Saltwater Creek Bridge (Rogers key 493) .................................................................................. 165
5.3.21 Woodbank Stream Bridge (Rogers key 495).............................................................................. 167
5.3.22 Kaipara River Bridge (Rogers key 502) ...................................................................................... 169
5.3.23 Lambs Bridge No 192 (Rogers key 505) ................................................................................... 170
5.3.24 Nilssons Bridge No 280 (Rogers key 520) ................................................................................ 172
5.3.25 Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge (Rogers key 578) .......................................................................... 173
5.3.26 Fox River Bridge (Rogers key 613) ............................................................................................ 174
5.3.27 Ngakawau River Bridge (Rogers key 655) ................................................................................. 175
5.3.28 Omawhiti Stream Bridge (Rogers key 670) ............................................................................... 177
5.3.29 Puhoi River Bridge (Rogers key 689) ......................................................................................... 178
5.3.30 Kennedy Road Overbridge (Rogers key 757) ............................................................................ 180
5.4 Summary of bridge inspection results, by era ......................................................................................... 181
5.4.1 Era 2 (1953–1960) ..................................................................................................................... 183
5.4.2 Era 3 (1961–1965) ..................................................................................................................... 185
5.4.3 Era 4 (1966–1970) ..................................................................................................................... 186
5.4.4 Era 5 (1971–1977) ..................................................................................................................... 188
5.4.5 Era 6 (1978–1980) ..................................................................................................................... 189
5.4.6 Era 7 (1981–1987) ..................................................................................................................... 189
5.4.7 Era 8 (1988–1994) ..................................................................................................................... 191
5.4.8 Era 9 (1995–2003) ..................................................................................................................... 193
5.5 Discussion of bridge inspection results .................................................................................................. 193
5.5.1 Discussion of bridge inspection results by coastal distance .................................................... 195
5.5.2 Discussion of the chloride resistance of inspected bridges ..................................................... 197
5.6 Conclusions from bridge inspections ...................................................................................................... 199
9
6 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 202
6.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 204
7 References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 206
Appendix A Case study of Tiwai Point Bridge....................................................................................................................................... 210
A1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 210
A2 Tiwai Point Bridge .................................................................................................................................... 211
A 2.1 Design and construction ........................................................................................................... 212
A 2.2 Service life and inspection history ............................................................................................ 213
A3 Non-destructive testing............................................................................................................................ 214
A 3.1 Visual inspection ....................................................................................................................... 216
A 3.2 Cover depth survey ................................................................................................................... 216
A 3.3 Electro potential mapping (EPM) ............................................................................................... 216
A 3.4 Chloride ingress ........................................................................................................................ 217
A 3.5 Carbonation depth .................................................................................................................... 218
A 3.6 Concrete strength ..................................................................................................................... 219
A4 Condition assessment .............................................................................................................................. 219
A 4.1 Corrosion of a single strand ..................................................................................................... 219
A 4.2 Progression of corrosion in a beam .......................................................................................... 220
A 4.3 Condition assessment methodology ........................................................................................ 221
A5 Residual strength assessment ................................................................................................................. 222
A 5.1 Objectives and outcomes .......................................................................................................... 222
A 5.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 222
A 5.3 Residual strength assessment results ...................................................................................... 222
A6 Destructive testing ................................................................................................................................... 223
A 6.1 Test setup.................................................................................................................................. 223
A 6.2 Test rig construction ................................................................................................................. 224
A 6.3 Loading procedure .................................................................................................................... 225
A 6.4 Failure modes ............................................................................................................................ 225
A 6.5 Control tests and comparison of prestressing arrangements .................................................. 227
A 6.6 Twelve pre-tensioned strands without expansion joint............................................................ 228
A 6.7 Twelve pre-tensioned strands with expansion joint ................................................................. 228
A 6.8 Ten pre-tensioned strands, without expansion joint ................................................................ 229
A7 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 230
Appendix A references ........................................................................................................................................ 231
Appendix B 2008<2011 BDS dataset .......................................................................................................................................................... 233
Appendix C Exposure classification data ................................................................................................................................................ 282
Appendix D Bridge inspection reports...................................................................................................................................................... 328
10
Executive summary
Pre-tensioned concrete construction became a common bridge construction method in New Zealand in the
1950s and a large number of bridges of this type were constructed between the 1950s and the 1970s.
The designs of many of these early bridges do not meet today’s durability requirements and have a
number of design characteristics that predispose them to corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement.
This type of deterioration often leads to the replacement of the entire bridge superstructure because of
difficulties associated with both arresting corrosion and with assessing and restoring structural capacity
following corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement. Recent research indicates that many of New Zealand’s
pre-tensioned concrete bridge structures may already be in a dangerous state of deterioration even
though they pass a general inspection without causing alarm.
This study aimed to expand on previous research into the deterioration of pre-tensioned I-beam bridges in
New Zealand, to obtain an accurate assessment of the severity, prevalence and distribution of corrosion
damage to all of New Zealand’s pre-tensioned concrete bridge assets. The first step to achieving this was
to undertake an interrogation of the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) Bridge Data System (BDS).
The centralised control over bridge design held by a variety of central government agencies over time has
allowed efficiencies to be realised in the bridge construction industry, but has also resulted in similar
design characteristics being present in the majority of bridges that were constructed at a given point in
time. Therefore, reference to historical design documents provides reliable information about design
characteristics that are likely to be evident in bridges that were constructed at the time that the document
was in effect. Similarly, past research has suggested that an important factor when determining the
corrosion resistance of a bridge beam is the criteria used to design the concrete mix. Over time, the
criteria used in New Zealand to specify concrete for precast pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams have
varied considerably, with changing criteria imposed to govern aspects such as maximum water/cement
ratio and minimum cement content, and banning the use of calcium chloride as an admixture.
Considering the characteristics detailed above, the pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the BDS were divided
into 11 distinct construction eras, based on their year of construction. The construction eras were defined
in order to group bridges that have similar design characteristics relevant to their durability and
specifically to their resistance to chloride ingress. Entries were identified for pre-tensioned bridges listed
with 17 different beam types. After eliminating uncommon and ambiguous entries, seven beam types that
represented the majority of the bridge stock were selected for investigation. The popularity of each of the
seven beam types over time was assessed with reference to the construction eras identified, and the
evolution of the section geometry was discussed. Standard or typical cross sections were given for each of
the beam types for each of the eras in which they were commonly used.
A ‘Distribution and Exposure Classification Tool’ (D&E tool) was created by importing bridge data from the
BDS and other sources into the Google Earth GIS software. Google Earth is available online and provides a
visual representation of pre-tensioned concrete bridges throughout New Zealand. The D&E tool enabled
assessment of pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the New Zealand state highway network both from an
asset management perspective as an entire bridge stock, and as individual structures. The tool was
populated with three principal datasets: the New Zealand state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridge
stock data; the exposure classification maps and prevailing wind directions given in NZS 3101:2006; and
wind rose data from 23 climate stations located across New Zealand. The tool allowed state highway
bridges to be identified and visualised by beam type, construction era and exposure classification. The
tool also allowed individual structures to be assessed using geographical measurement tools, satellite
photography, road-level photography, regional wind patterns, and relevant bridge data both extracted
11
Assessing pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion within the New Zealand concrete bridge stock
from the BDS and generated in this project. An example is presented in the report to illustrate the use of
the D&E tool for remote investigation and exposure classification of an individual bridge.
An analysis was undertaken to establish the distribution of bridges with respect to the A2 exposure
classification boundary, for the various construction eras and their typical beam types. An analysis of
national coastal wind direction data demonstrated that the wind direction data reported in NZS 3101:2006
was frequently inconsistent with comprehensive wind information obtained from 23 climate stations.
Furthermore, the use of NZS 3101:2006 wind direction information in many cases led to non-conservative
predictions of corrosion hazard. The case of Hamanatua Bridge was reviewed to illustrate how use of the
NZS 3101 wind data can result in incorrect and non-conservative exposure classification. It was also noted
that in cases where accurate assessment of the environment is required, the wind rose data presented
here should be supplemented by environmental data recorded at the bridge site.
Three procedures for defining exposure classification were considered, using coastal distance bands, the
procedure in NZS 3101:2006, and a modified version of the NZS 3101:2006 procedure that assumed all
bridges are located downwind from the coast. The purpose of defining multiple criteria for the exposure
classification was to compensate for the inaccuracies and assumptions inherent when using a remote
assessment procedure instead of a physical site investigation. Compensation was achieved by varying the
degree of conservatism used in the different classification methods and considering the results of each
method to ensure that at-risk bridges are not discounted entirely, while allowing priority to be assigned to
those bridges that are most likely to be at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion.
From this analysis 137 pre-tensioned concrete bridges of any beam type and construction era were
identified as having a high likelihood of being at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, either now
or in the future. These bridges were defined as either being located within 1km of the coast (a total of 131
bridges) or being located over a body of saline water in which breaking waves may occur (a total of six
bridges). Of these 137 bridges, 103 were located within either the C or B2 exposure classification zone
defined by NZS 3101:2006 if they were assumed to be downwind from the coast, and 80 were located
within the C or B2 exposure classification zones when using the procedure specified by NZS 3101:2006
and the wind direction information that is provided in the standard.
A sample of 30 bridges was selected to represent each of the groupings according to beam type and
construction era. These 30 bridges were each subjected to a physical inspection to assess their current
condition, and to measure chloride ingress and concrete cover depths so that Fick’s diffusion models
could be used to estimate the remaining service life before initiation of corrosion for each bridge.
Twenty-nine of the inspected bridges were found to be affected by chloride ingress and 21 bridges were
found to have cast-in chlorides of varying concentrations. Eight of the 30 inspected bridges were predicted
to experience reinforcement corrosion as a result of chloride ingress within a 100-year service life.
Chloride build-up on different beams and on different faces of the same beam is not uniform for a given
structure in a given exposure environment. In the case of Ngakawau River Bridge, it was found that the
side of the beams was the most critical corrosion location, while in the case of Kaipara River Bridge, the
soffit was most critical. The most critical beam was also found to vary between bridges; for example, the
exterior beam on Fox River Bridge was less critical than the adjacent interior beam, while in many other
structures the exterior beams were found to be more critical than the interior beams. Consequently, it is
difficult to predict the critical location on a structure before obtaining chloride profiles, and therefore it is
unlikely that the measured chloride profile with the worst chloride ingress from any given bridge
inspection will be representative of the most critical location on the inspected structure.
12
Executive summary
It is recommended that all era 2 to 5 (1952–1977) bridges that are located in the C exposure classification
zone (within 100m of the coast or over a body of water where saline waves may occur) should be
inspected to identify existing corrosion of reinforcement, and have chloride profiles and concrete cover
depths measured so that predictions of the time to initiation of corrosion can be made.
It is also recommended that all of the bridges that were constructed in eras 2 to 5 and are located in the
B2 or B1 exposure zones (less than 10km from the coast and outside the NZS3101 A2 exposure zone
boundary) should be assessed to determine whether they contain cast-in chlorides. Those bridges that do
contain cast-in chlorides should have chloride profiles and concrete cover depths measured to enable life
predictions to be made.
Four of the 12 inspected bridges from eras 6 to 9 (1978–2003) were predicted to experience
reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life, and urgent action is required to enable two of these
(Fox River Bridge and Ngakawau River Bridge) to achieve a 100-year service life without major renovation.
Consequently, it is recommended that chloride ingress monitoring be undertaken for all bridges that were
constructed in era 9 or before, are located in the C exposure classification, and cannot be confirmed to
contain supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs).
The prediction of reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life was not exclusive to bridges
located within the B2 and C exposure classification zones; two of the 11 bridges inspected that were
located in the B1 zone (between 1km and 10km from the coast) were also predicted to experience
corrosion of reinforcement. The presence of cast-in chlorides is a major factor in the prediction of
corrosion in B1 zone bridges. Consequently, an effort to identify B1 zone bridges containing cast-in
chlorides should be made and chloride ingress in these structures should be monitored.
Only one of the 11 inspected bridges located in the B2 exposure zone (between 30m and 1km from the
coast) was predicted to experience reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life, and this bridge
also contained cast-in chlorides. This finding suggests that the severity of the environment in the B2
exposure classification zone may be similar to that of the B1 exposure classification zone.
Of the 11 inspected C exposure classification zone bridges, five were predicted to experience
reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life. It is recommended that all pre-tensioned concrete
bridges located in the C exposure zone, constructed in eras 2 to 9 (1953–2003), and which do not contain
SCMs, should be monitored for chloride ingress.
As a result of chloride-induced corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement, Fox River Bridge and
Ngakawau River Bridge can be expected to not achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation unless urgent and effective preventative measures are undertaken. Urgent action is required to
arrest imminent or existing pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in these bridges and to prevent further
corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement from initiating.
Appendix A provides an overview of a destructive and non-destructive testing programme that was
performed on Tiwai Point Bridge with the aim of assessing the residual strength of beams with corroded
pre-tensioned reinforcement. This bridge experienced chloride-induced corrosion as a result of sea spray,
which resulted in the superstructure being decommissioned and removed in 2009. The purpose of the
appendix is to illustrate the overall residual strength assessment procedure and the correlation between
recorded observations and measured beam strengths.
The research reported herein has led to a better understanding of the prevalence and severity of pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion in New Zealand concrete bridges. It is anticipated that the data and
recommendations reported will be used to identify at-risk bridges nationwide, so that inspection
schedules and mitigation or remediation works can be designed and performed effectively.
13
Abstract
Precast pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction became common in New Zealand in the 1950s and a
large number of pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed between 1953 and 1980. These bridges
do not meet today’s durability requirements and many are at risk of chloride-induced pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion. This deterioration can be difficult to detect in visual inspections and has
immediate structural implications, so prediction or early detection of at-risk structures is critical for
bridges to achieve their required service lives.
This report presents an assessment of the New Zealand pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock and identifies
bridges at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion. Construction eras based on evolving
construction practices are identified, and examples of typical beam types used in each era are presented.
The exposure classification of each pre-tensioned concrete bridge on the state highway network was
remotely estimated using a Google Earth-based tool developed for the purpose. A sample of 30 bridges
was selected for inspection, and chloride profiles and concrete cover depth surveys were obtained from
each structure. This data was used in diffusion models to predict the remaining service life before
initiation of chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion for each bridge, and the results were then applied
to other similar bridges in New Zealand.
14
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
New Zealand bridge managers conduct routine condition inspections on their reinforced concrete
structures and visually identify any corrosion of steel reinforcement, which can usually be rectified without
significant structural implications. However, current bridge inspection procedures are challenged by the
recent increase in the prevalence of corroding pre-tensioned reinforcement in concrete bridge beams.
Consequently, asset managers require assistance to understand how to predict, inspect, assess and
maintain prestressed concrete bridge assets. This research project aimed to increase understanding of the
prevalence and severity of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in New Zealand concrete bridges, and to
identify at-risk bridges.
Pre-tensioning is a common form of prestressing in precast concrete construction. Pre-tensioning is

applied to the concrete member by stressing the steel longitudinal reinforcement against the casting bed
before casting the concrete directly around the steel. The stress in the reinforcement is then released from
the casting bed and the bond strength between the concrete and the reinforcement is relied upon to
transfer the tensile stress in the longitudinal reinforcement to the concrete section and provide the
compressive prestressing force. The pre-tensioning method of prestressing concrete members differs
from post-tensioning, where the tensile stress is applied to the longitudinal reinforcement after the
concrete has hardened. Post-tensioning uses ducts cast into the concrete and anchors located at each end
of the section so that the compressive prestressing force is applied directly to the concrete member as the
reinforcement is stressed, because the member itself is used to provide the reaction for the stressing
operation.
As a result of the construction procedures used, post-tensioned reinforcement is encased in a duct, while
pre-tensioned reinforcement is directly embedded in the concrete member. In most cases the duct serves
to provide an additional barrier to the mechanisms that lead to the corrosion of reinforcement.
Recent research at the University of Newcastle in Australia into the failure of the Sorrell Causeway has
shown ‘that visual inspection may be quite misleading since extensive corrosion of strand has been found
even for beams with no obvious external distress’ (Pape and Melchers 2008). This finding indicates that
many of New Zealand’s pre-tensioned bridge structures may already be in a severely weakened state whilst
still passing a general inspection without detection of damage. Consequently, more thorough methods
and procedures for the identification of corrosion to pre-tensioned reinforcement in prestressed concrete
bridges are required in order to accurately and effectively assess corrosion damage.
Previous NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) research conducted by Bruce et al (2008) considered the condition
of the 1966 Hamanatua Bridge near Gisborne and found that corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement
had initiated. The occurrence of this corrosion was attributed to a number of durability weaknesses
inherent in the design, including low concrete cover and the pre-tensioned longitudinal reinforcement not
being fully confined by stirrups. The study also found that there were 117 I-beam bridges of similar design
on the New Zealand state highway network, and that all such bridges that were located in a B2 exposure
zone could be expected to experience pre-tensioned strand corrosion in the near future (Bruce et al 2008).
Several bridges in New Zealand have exhibited corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement. In the case of
Tiwai Point Bridge in Invercargill the identification of corroding pre-tensioned strands led to the entire
superstructure of the bridge being replaced (Thomas and Coles 2006). These recent examples of pre-
15
tensioned reinforcement corrosion in New Zealand and Australian bridges that are less than 50 years old
highlight a problem that is becoming increasingly prominent on the New Zealand roading network.
Prestressed concrete construction became a common bridge construction method in New Zealand in the
1950s and a large number of bridges of this type were constructed between the 1950s and the 1970s.
These bridges make up a significant proportion of the national bridge stock. These bridges are currently
between 40 and 60 years old and reaching the point in their design lives where durability issues are
becoming apparent. These early pre-tensioned concrete bridges do not meet today’s durability
requirements and the bridges also have a number of design characteristics predisposing them to
deterioration as a result of corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement. The Hamanatua and Tiwai Point
Bridges mentioned above had already deteriorated to the point where major rehabilitation works or
replacement was required. The bridges that have displayed corrosion damage to date are an early
indication of a much larger problem that will become more prevalent as the majority of New Zealand’s
prestressed bridge assets enter the later stages of their design life.
Current (2012) NZTA bridge design requirements specify a 100-year design life, but at the time that these
40- to 60-year-old bridges were constructed durability design was not explicitly considered and a design
life requirement not specified. It may therefore be argued that the 40- to 60-year-old bridges have
performed satisfactorily and have reached the end of their design lives. However, due to the boom in pre-
tensioned concrete bridge construction between the 1950s and 1970s, a large and increasing number of
bridges are reaching this point in their design lives and replacement of all of these structures would be
impractical and prohibitively expensive. The majority of the 40- to 60-year-old structures that are still in
service on the state highway network are performing adequately and many have been upgraded or
retrofitted to meet changing requirements, such as increased axle loadings and evolving earthquake
design philosophies. Extending the design lives of these structures wherever possible would be preferable
to replacement.
This research was conducted between 2008 and 2012 following previous New Zealand research into the
deterioration of pre-tensioned I-beam bridges (Bruce et al 2008). This study aimed to obtain an accurate
assessment of the severity, prevalence and distribution of corrosion damage to all of New Zealand’s pre-
tensioned prestressed concrete bridge assets. The prevalence and distribution of corrosion risk to pre-
tensioned concrete bridges were assessed following an interrogation of the NZTA Bridge Data System
(BDS). State highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges were grouped according to their corrosion resistance
and age, and then mapped to identify those bridges that were most at risk of corrosion damage. A sample
of 30 bridges was selected to represent each of the groupings and these bridges were subjected to an
inspection and non-destructive testing regime to assess their condition and to estimate their remaining
service life before initiation of chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion. Trends identified in the
inspections were applied back to the other bridges from the same construction era.
The research reported herein has led to a better understanding of the prevalence and severity of pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion in New Zealand concrete bridges. It is anticipated that the data and
recommendations contained in this report will be used to identify at-risk bridges nationwide, so that
inspection schedules and mitigation or remediation works can be designed and performed effectively.
1.2 Prevalent corrosion issues in pre-tensioned concrete

bridges
Corrosion of reinforcement is particularly dangerous for pre-tensioned structural elements. When
compared with conventional reinforced concrete (RC) structures, pre-tensioned elements are more
16
1 Introduction
susceptible to corrosion damage because of the higher strength of the steel reinforcement used for
prestressing. As pre-tensioned longitudinal reinforcement is between three and eight times stronger than
conventional reinforcement, a smaller proportional loss of steel cross-sectional area results in a greater
loss of flexural strength than would be the case in an equivalent RC member (Bentur et al 1997). The
smaller cross-sectional area of the strands and wires used for prestressing can also increase the rate of
steel loss because of the greater proportional surface area available for corrosion. In members pre-
tensioned with strands, the helical nature of the wires within each strand can cause corrosion that is
concentrated on one side of the strand to result in damage to all of the helical wires. This mechanism
affected the beams of Tiwai Point Bridge and is explained in more detail in chapter A.4 of appendix A,
both in the context of a single strand within a beam, and in the context of all of the strands within one
beam.
Corrosion of steel reinforcement is the result of an electro-chemical reaction that converts iron into
various iron oxides. These iron oxide corrosion products occupy a volume that is two to 10 times greater
than the volume of steel that they replace, and as a result these corrosion products induce tensile forces
in the surrounding concrete that can cause the concrete to crack (Broomfield 1997). Because prestressing
strand has a much higher yield capacity than mild steel reinforcement, the reinforcement ratio is smaller
in a pre-tensioned element than it would be in a similar RC element. The smaller cross-sectional area of a
typical pre-tensioned strand or wire means that for a given percentage of steel lost to corrosion, the
increase in the total cross-sectional area of the steel and corrosion products is smaller than it would be for
a mild steel reinforcing bar (which would usually have a much larger diameter). Because of this reduced
volume expansion due to corrosion products, a greater proportion of the steel section has to corrode
before the expanding corrosion products induce tensile stresses sufficient to cause the concrete to crack
and allow evidence of corrosion to become visible on the exterior surface of the bridge. Therefore a pre-
tensioned concrete member may have lost a significant amount of its structural capacity before corrosion
is detected by a visual inspection (Bruce et al 2008).
In pre-tensioned concrete members, the prestressing forces are transferred from the pre-tensioned steel
into the concrete section through the bond between the steel and concrete. Corrosion of the pre-tensioned
reinforcing steel causes a breakdown of the bond between steel and concrete and causes a reduction in
the prestressing force that is applied to the concrete. The loss of prestressing force affects the
performance of the member under serviceability loading conditions and impacts the future durability of
the structure through increased deflections and crack widths. The reduction in prestressing force due to
bond loss as a result of corrosion is a difficult parameter to quantify, and prestressing force is difficult to
restore because of the risk of overstressing the concrete if the loss of prestressing force is overestimated.
Prestressing reinforcement is between three and eight times stronger than mild-steel reinforcement. The
processes used to produce these high-strength steels, and the high stresses they are under while in
service, make them susceptible to brittle failures. Hydrogen embrittlement and stress corrosion cracking
are especially likely in prestressing steels in aggressive environments, and can lead to the sudden failure
of wires or strands (Singh et al 2000).
When compared with post-tensioned concrete structures, pre-tensioned concrete structures are more
susceptible to corrosion because the prestressing strand is not protected by a duct and also because the
pre-tensioning strands are generally concentrated near the soffit of the section, while post-tensioned
strands are usually located further from the exterior surface of the concrete. The extra protection for post-
tensioned reinforcement applies only in the case of bonded post-tensioning where ducts have been
properly grouted. Where ducts are poorly grouted or in the case of un-bonded post-tensioning, the ducts
can provide a conduit for water and oxygen to access the strands and corrosion can be accelerated
(Henriksen et al 1998).
17
Another notable durability weakness of pre-tensioned concrete bridges occurs in concrete cross sections
where longitudinal steel reinforcement is not fully enclosed by stirrups. While this problem is not specific
to pre-tensioned structures, it is exacerbated by the issues mentioned above. When longitudinal pre-
tensioned reinforcement is enclosed by stirrups, the ingress of chlorides causes the less critical mild-steel
stirrups to begin corroding first, causing spalling and rust staining on the concrete surface before
significant corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement occurs. This external damage can be detected in
a visual inspection and steps to arrest further damage can be taken before significant structural capacity
has been lost and substantial strengthening works are required. Because this early warning system does
not occur in concrete beams without longitudinal reinforcement that is fully enclosed by mild-steel
stirrups, by the time corrosion becomes externally visible it is often too late to remediate the structure
and replacement of the bridge superstructure is often the only viable option.
In concrete structures affected by chloride-induced corrosion, the combination of issues described in this
chapter result in corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement being a more critical deterioration mechanism
than the corrosion of unstressed mild-steel reinforcement. Corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement can
affect the serviceability and structural capacity of members from the time of corrosion initiation and
before cracking or staining become externally evident. Pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion can result in
the sudden failure of members and after the initiation of corrosion in pre-tensioned reinforcement the
remediation of structures is often not economically viable. Following the identification of pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion in bridge beams, the objective is usually to determine how long the structure can
be expected to last, rather than to restore the structure to a durable state. Early identification of structures
that are at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion is therefore critical so that the underlying causes
can be addressed and the initiation of corrosion can be avoided.
1.3 Examples of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in

New Zealand bridges
1.3.1 Hamanatua Bridge
The Hamanatua Bridge is located in the B2 exposure zone on State Highway (SH) 35 between Wainui and
Okitu, near Gisborne. The bridge was constructed in 1966 and consists of three 16.75m spans, each made
up of five precast pre-tensioned concrete I-beam sections. The I-beam sections are an example of a
standard Ministry of Works (MoW) design used between the 1950s and 1973. Several characteristics of this
design predisposed the bridge to pre-tensioned strand corrosion. The design specified only 25mm
concrete cover depth to the pre-tensioned reinforcement, which is much lower than the minimum cover
depth that is specified in NZS 3101:2006, even for inland areas. A 25mm cover depth is critically low for a
concrete bridge situated near the coast, as is the case with the Hamanatua Bridge. The second corrosion
durability weakness of this design is that the transverse reinforcement does not fully enclose the pre-
tensioned strands, as shown in figure 1.1.
18
1 Introduction
Figure 1.1 Standard pre-tensioned concrete I-beam cross section similar to the Hamanatua Bridge, with strand
not fully enclosed by stirrups (Bruce et al 2008)
Bruce et al (2008) concluded that the Hamanatua Bridge was representative of concrete I-beam bridges
distributed nationwide and designed by the MoW between the late 1950s and 1973. Bridges designed
during this period had insufficient cover concrete and the stirrups did not fully enclose the pre-tensioned
reinforcement. Consequently this class and age of concrete bridge is at a high risk of pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion. It was concluded that ALL bridges of this design that are exposed to chloride
ingress from their environment can be expected to require remediation in order to achieve a 100-year
design life, and that most such bridges could be expected to be exhibiting (or soon would exhibit)
evidence of corrosion. A search of the NZTA BDS with the criteria ‘pre1973 precast pre-tensioned I-beam
bridge’ returned 117 structures, of which 62 were found to be within 10km of the coast (Bruce et al 2008).
Analysis of the bridge database, as detailed in section 4 of this report, showed that approximately 13% of
all bridges on the New Zealand state highway network were likely to be classified as being located in either
the ‘Coastal frontage’ or the ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ exposure environment, according to the definitions used
in NZS 3101:2006.
1.3.2 Tiwai Point Bridge

Tiwai Point Bridge is located near Bluff in Southland and runs across Awarua Bay. The bridge is the main
road access to the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter, which accounts for a large portion of the region’s
economy. The bridge is approximately 500m long and was opened to traffic in 1969.
The original structure consisted of 27 spans that were each 18m in length. Each span consisted of nine
686mm deep T-beams positioned side by side and transversely post-tensioned together to form the
superstructure. The T-beams were precast and contained both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned strands,
19
as well as mild-steel shear reinforcement. As with the Hamanatua Bridge, the shear reinforcement did not
enclose the pre-tensioned strand, which led to the strand being the first reinforcement to experience
corrosion. The five central beams contained twelve 12.5mm prestressed strands, while the two beams
located on each of the outer edges contained 10 strands. Respectively, four or six of these prestressed
strands were de-bonded at the ends of the beams for between 10ft and 12ft (3.0m and 3.7m). The beams
were post-tensioned together longitudinally over four spans at a time, with one parabolic tendon
containing nine 12.5mm strands.
Pre-tensioned strand corrosion was identified in Tiwai Point Bridge during an inspection, evidenced by
longitudinal cracking along the sides of the beams at the level of the bottom layer of pre-tensioned
strands. After a thorough investigation, it was estimated that in the worst beams this cracking correlated
to a loss of up to 60% of the cross-sectional area of the bottom layer of pre-tensioned strands (Thomas
and Coles 2006). Several visual inspections were carried out to determine the prevalence of this damage,
with longitudinal cracking identified in 49 of the beams in 2004, and in 62 beams in 2007 (Thomas and
Coles 2008).
Figure 1.2 Spalling on Tiwai Point Bridge, caused by pre-tensioned strand corrosion
In the year 2000, measurements of the depth to bed level at each pile set of Tiwai Point Bridge
substructure were taken to check for changes in the bed profile or scour around the piles. During this
work extensive deterioration of the superstructure was noted and as a result, a full inspection of the
structure was undertaken by boat. The entire superstructure of Tiwai Point Bridge was replaced in 2009
and 2010, due to severe and widespread corrosion of the pre-tensioned strands.
An extensive destructive and non-destructive research programme was performed on decommissioned

beams removed from Tiwai Point Bridge, with the objective of assessing the residual strength of beams
with corroded pre-tensioned reinforcement. This research programme is detailed in appendix A.
20
1 Introduction
1.3.3 Boundary Creek Bridge

Boundary Creek Bridge is located on SH25 about 30km north of Thames, and was constructed in 1963
using a standard MoW design. The 14.5m long single-span bridge is constructed from seven precast pre-
tensioned concrete I-beams. The pre-tensioned reinforcement consists of 72 high-tensile (h.t.) 0.2”
diameter wires per beam. As can be seen in figure 1.3, the transverse reinforcement does not enclose the
pre-tensioned reinforcement, increasing the risk posed by corrosion (Bruce et al 2008).
Figure 1.3 Standard pre-tensioned concrete I-beam cross section, similar to Boundary Creek Bridge (Bruce et al
2008)
A recent inspection of the SH25 Boundary Creek Bridge identified severe corrosion of the longitudinal pre-
tensioned reinforcement within the I-beams, and in some beams the entire cross section of several wires
in the bottom layer of pre-tensioned reinforcement had been lost. Extensive remediation works to arrest
corrosion were undertaken in 2010. Immediately preceding the remediation, the bridge was inspected as
part of the national bridge inspection programme detailed in chapter 5 of this report. Evidence of pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion in the bottom flange can be seen in figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4 Evidence of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion on Boundary Creek Bridge
21
1.4 New Zealand pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock

In 2009 there were over 15,600 bridges and culverts on the New Zealand road network (Phillips 2009).
The ownership of the network and associated bridges is divided into two main groups, with bridges
located on the state highway network owned and managed by the NZTA, while bridges located on local
road networks are owned by their respective regional or city councils. The inspection and maintenance of
bridges in New Zealand is usually divided regionally and carried out by commercial consultants through
long-term contracts administered by bridge owners.
The NZTA maintains a Bridge Database System (BDS) that contains information on all of the bridges on the
state highway network. Bridges owned by regional authorities and councils are not included in the BDS,
but the majority of these bridges are similar in design to state highway bridges. The state highway
network has about 4200 ‘bridges and large culverts’ (NZTA 2009b). An interrogation of the BDS in 2011
returned 2639 entries with the structure type listed as ‘bridge’ and of these, 2127 were listed as having a
concrete superstructure (NZTA:BDS 2011). Interrogations of the BDS in 2008 and 2011 identified 814 pre-
tensioned concrete bridges in service on the state highway network (NZTA:BDS 2008<2011). Using these
numbers, approximately 20% of state highway ‘bridges and large culverts’ are pre-tensioned concrete
bridges, and if it is assumed that a similar proportion of the bridges and culverts managed by councils
and regional authorities are pre-tensioned concrete bridges, then approximately 3000 bridges on
1
New Zealand roads contain pre-tensioned concrete beams.
While the NZTA is directly responsible for only approximately one-quarter of New Zealand’s bridges, it is
responsible for the majority of bridge-related research and also for the development of standard bridge
plans. For these reasons local authorities have generally duplicated the practices of the NZTA and its
predecessors for matters associated with bridge design, construction and asset management strategies. It
is therefore expected that the outcomes of this research will be applicable to the majority of local council
bridges as well as those bridges located on the state highway network.
Eight hundred and fourteen bridge entries relevant to this study were extracted from the BDS in 2008 and
2011. The dataset included concrete bridges containing pre-tensioned reinforcement that were in service
on the New Zealand state highway network at either of the times when the data was extracted. The
construction dates of the qualifying bridges ranged from 1934 to 2011, but because the use of pre-
tensioned concrete construction did not begin in New Zealand until the early 1950s (Bruce et al 2008), the
pre-tensioned concrete bridges listed as being constructed before that date were most likely upgraded
after their initial construction with the addition of pre-tensioned beams.
The dataset extracted from the BDS contained pre-tensioned concrete bridges with 17 different beam
types, and the number of bridges of each type is displayed in figure 1.5. The ‘Misc’ category contains six
different beam types, each of which are used in two or fewer bridges; the ‘Other’ category contains
bridges with beam type listed in the BDS as ‘other’, as well as those with no specified beam type. Further
details of the beam types are presented in chapter 3 of this report.
1 There are approximately 15,600 bridges and culverts on the entire New Zealand road network, and 4200 bridges and
culverts on the state highway network. Hence if the BDS reports 814 pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the state
highway network, then the total number of pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the entire national road network is
approximately: (814/4200)*100% = 19.4%
15,600*19.4% = 3023 pre-tensioned concrete bridges.
22
1 Introduction
Figure 1.5 Beam types of pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the New Zealand state highway network
(NZTA:BDS 2008<2011)
1.5 Outline of this research

Land Transport NZ research report 337, entitled Deterioration of prestressed concrete bridge beams
(Bruce et al 2008), considered the corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement in pre-1973 concrete I-beam
bridges. The aim of this project was to extend the earlier research to apply to all of New Zealand’s pre-
tensioned concrete bridge assets, and to provide guidance for asset managers. This aim was achieved by
examining methods for the design and construction of pre-tensioned concrete structures, and how these
methods have evolved over time.
Construction eras were defined in order to group together pre-tensioned concrete bridges with similar
design characteristics that would influence durability, and the bridges constructed in each era were further
differentiated by their beam type. The number of structures in service on the state highway network that
were constructed in each of the eras and belonging to each of the different beam-type categories was
determined, and typical design characteristics relevant to the pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion
resistance were identified for each combination of era and beam type.
The exposure classification of all state highway bridges containing pre-tensioned reinforcement was
estimated based on the definitions provided in NZS 3101:2006, using Google Earth and satellite
photography to measure the distance from the high-tide mark to each bridge, and using wind data from
NIWA’s Cliflow database. This data was combined with each combination of construction era and beam
type to identify the number of bridges in each category that were at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement
corrosion, and hence to identify the most critical categories to assess for resistance to corrosion.
Non-destructive physical inspections were performed on 30 New Zealand bridges that were selected to
give a fair representation of the state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock, based on the
construction era and beam-type categories defined in this report. Their current condition was assessed
and the remaining service life before initiation of corrosion was estimated for each of the inspected
bridges. The results were then applied to all of the bridges from the corresponding category to provide an
assessment of the risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion for each of the construction era and
beam-type categories.
In addition, a methodology is presented for determining the durability characteristics and the corrosion
risk of an individual bridge based on its construction era and beam type.
23
2 Construction eras
2 Construction eras: classification of pre-

tensioned concrete bridges by year of
construction
The beginning of pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction in New Zealand coincided with a boom in
state highway bridge construction in the 1950s and 1960s. The earliest pre-tensioned concrete bridge
listed in the NZTA’s bridge database was constructed in 1953 from log beams. As the popularity of pre-
tensioned concrete bridge construction increased, a number of different pre-tensioned concrete beam
types were developed and used, and these are detailed in chapter 3.
In the mid-1960s pre-tensioned concrete bridges accounted for about half of all state highway bridges
constructed each year, and between 1965 and 2011 this bridge type accounted for 64% of all new bridges
on the state highway network. A frequency plot of the number of state highway bridges constructed each
year is given in figure 2.1. The solid black portion of each bar shows the number of pre-tensioned
concrete bridges constructed in each year while the combined black-and-white bar represents the total
number of bridges constructed in that year.
Figure 2.1 New Zealand state highway bridges constructed per year (NZTA:BDS 2011)
2.1 Discussion of BDS data used for analysis

The NZTA states that the BDS is ‘designed to assist with the effective management of bridge and culvert
structures on the state highway network’. The database is maintained online and contains entries for all
bridges and large culverts that are owned or managed by the NZTA (NZTA 2009a). Because the purpose of
the database is to assist with the management of assets, when a structure is demolished or modified the
corresponding entry is either removed or is updated with data reflecting the structure as it exists, and the
superseded information is lost. For this reason the analyses of the bridge stock detailed in this report
24
2 Construction eras
were performed using data from bridges that existed on the state highway network at the time that the
data was extracted from the BDS. As a result, the historical data on the number of bridges constructed in a
given year represents the number of bridges constructed in that year that were still in service at the time
the data was extracted, rather than the total number of bridges that were originally constructed in that
year.
Data was first extracted from the BDS in 2008 (NZTA:BDS 2008). All information for entries with
‘superstructure type’ listed as ‘Conc. Precast pre-tensioned’ or ‘Precast pre_post-tensioned’ was extracted.
This dataset included all structures that were on the state highway network in 2008 and contained pre-
tensioned reinforcement in the superstructure. Where this dataset was used it was referred to as the 2008
BDS.
In 2011 data was again extracted from the BDS (NZTA:BDS 2011). All information for entries with structure
type’ listed as bridge’ was extracted. This dataset included all structures with the type ’bridge’ that were
on the state highway network in 2011, and included structures that were not concrete or pre-tensioned.
The dataset did not include structures such as foot bridges and culverts, or those structures with no
structure type listed. The full dataset was used to describe the development of the New Zealand pre-
tensioned concrete bridge construction industry and to estimate the market share held by this bridge type
(see figure 2.1). Where this dataset was used it was referred to as the 2011 BDS.
Entries extracted in 2011 with ‘superstructure type’ listed as ‘Conc. Precast pre-tensioned’ or ‘Precast
pre_post-tensioned’ were also used to update the pre-tensioned concrete bridge entries that were
extracted in 2008. This updating was achieved by creating a new database with one unique entry for each
structure that was listed in either one or both of the 2008 BDS and 2011 BDS datasets. Entries that existed
in both datasets were listed only once and used the 2011 data when available, and entries that existed in
only one of the datasets were also listed. Fields were added to the new dataset to identify whether the
entry existed in the data extracted from the BDS in 2008, 2011, or in both. Another field was added to
detail any important changes that were made to the entry between 2008 and 2011, and to explain the
origin of any entries that did not exist in both of the original datasets. This dataset is referred to as the
2008<2011 BDS because data extracted from the BDS in 2011 took precedence over that extracted in
2008 for situations where data existed in both of the original datasets (NZTA:BDS 2008<2011). The
bridges included in the 2008<2011 BDS are listed in appendix B, table B.1, along with a selection of data
intended to enable identification of each bridge.
The dataset containing the combined 2008 and 2011 pre-tensioned concrete bridge entries was used for
the majority of the analyses detailed in this report.
2.2 Design characteristics affecting resistance to

corrosion
The primary cause of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in New Zealand concrete bridge beams is
chloride ingress caused by exposure to sea spray. Chloride ingress into concrete can be modelled using
an approximation based on ‘Fick’s laws of diffusion’. Critical factors influencing the durability of
structures in these durability models include:
• the chloride concentration at the surface of the concrete, which is determined by the exposure
environment
• the chloride concentration that will cause corrosion of reinforcement to initiate, which is dependent on
properties of the pre-tensioned reinforcement and the electro-chemical conditions present in the
concrete
25
• the concrete cover depth, which is a design parameter
• the diffusion rate, which is a property of the concrete that is affected by concrete microstructure,
placement, and curing conditions.
Of these factors, the design of the bridge has direct influence over cover depth, concrete quality, and type
of pre-tensioned steel reinforcement, so these design characteristics are critical for assessing the
durability of concrete bridge structures.
With the release of NZS 3101:1982 a requirement was introduced stating that stirrups must enclose the
longitudinal reinforcement. While the primary reason for this requirement was to ensure anchorage of the
stirrups in the tension and compression zones for shear strength, the requirement also provided indirect
benefits to the durability of pre-tensioned concrete beams. When stirrups enclose the pre-tensioned
reinforcement, the cover depth to the pre-tensioned steel reinforcement is usually increased to allow room
for the stirrups. Additionally, as the cover depth to the stirrups is less than the cover depth to the pre-
tensioned reinforcement, the stirrups tend to begin corroding first. This corrosion eventually results in
cracking and spalling of the cover concrete, which can be detected in a routine inspection, before
corrosion of the more critical pre-tensioned longitudinal reinforcement has initiated.
2.3 Identification of construction eras

The pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the BDS were divided into 11 distinct construction eras based on
their year of construction. The construction eras were defined in order to group bridges that have similar
design characteristics relevant to their durability, and specifically to their resistance to chloride ingress.
The Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) and its predecessors were directly responsible for the
design of the majority of bridges in New Zealand until the MWD was abolished in 1988 (Walrond 2010).
The MWD and its predecessors controlled government funding for road-related projects and also
performed the majority of bridge design work in-house. Consequently the MWD was able to achieve
efficiencies by standardising bridge design and construction methods through the development of bridge
design documents such as bridge manuals, design briefs, standard plans for bridge components, and
design standards (Gray et al 2003). After the abolition of the MWD in 1988, bridge design work was
competitively contracted out by the newly formed Transit New Zealand (TNZ), but bridge design
methodologies continued to be governed by the bridge design documents that were already in existence.
As design procedures evolved these documents were updated by TNZ, who either directly published
amendments and new documents, or specified the design standards to be used. The design effort and
expertise that went into these new publications was increasingly contracted out to private consultancy
firms.
2.3.1 Factors influencing structural design characteristics

The centralised control over bridge design held by the MWD and its equivalent organisations allowed
efficiencies to be realised in the bridge construction industry, and has also resulted in similar design
characteristics being present in the majority of bridges that were constructed at a given point in time.
Therefore, reference to historical design documents provides reliable information about design
characteristics that are likely to be evident in bridges that were constructed at the time that the document
was in effect.
While regional and city councils have been responsible for the construction and management of bridges
on their respective road networks, bridge designers have generally followed the lead of the MWD or its
equivalent to take advantage of the efficiencies provided through the use of bridge design manuals and
26
2 Construction eras
standard plans. Consequently, the majority of bridges on regional road networks can be expected to have
design characteristics similar to those on the state highway network that were constructed at the same
time.
The processes and equipment necessary for the production of pre-tensioned concrete components
essentially restrict their economic manufacture to established facilities with reusable stressing beds and
formwork. The reusable formwork systems were usually designed to produce beam sections that complied
with the standard bridge plans that were in effect at the time, so the construction era boundaries defined
in section 2.5 of this report were developed with close reference to the ongoing release and amendment
of standard bridge plans. These standard section geometries were widely used throughout New Zealand,
so the standard details provide a reasonable estimate of a bridge’s design characteristics based on its age
and beam type. The construction eras also take into account changes to bridge design manuals, loading
standards, concrete design codes and other factors influencing the bridge industry.
2.3.2 Factors influencing concrete durability characteristics

The purpose of classifying bridges by their year of construction was to identify changes to design and
construction techniques that affected the corrosion resistance of pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams
with respect to time. Research conducted in Australia suggested that an important factor when
determining the corrosion resistance of a bridge beam is the criteria used to design the concrete mix
(Chirgwin et al 2009). Over time, the criteria used in New Zealand to specify concrete for precast pre-
tensioned concrete bridge beams have varied considerably. The MoW (or its later equivalent) has at certain
points in time imposed various rules to govern mix designs, such as specifying the maximum
water/cement ratio and the minimum cement content, and banning the use of calcium chloride as an
admixture. These restrictions were implemented through the various concrete construction standards that
were in effect, most recently NZS 3109:1997 and NZS 3104:2003 (NZS 1997; NZS 2003); and also through
‘Specifications for materials and workmanship’, which are referred to in the standard drawings and bridge
manuals, one version of which forms appendix 3 of the 1956 Ministry of Works: bridge manual (MoW
1956).
However, regional variation in the type and quality of aggregates available for concrete production
required that these specifications allowed considerable freedom for mix designers, and concrete durability
properties can therefore vary significantly between regions, and even between precast yards in the same
region. These regional variations make it difficult to generalise about the effect of concrete characteristics
on the durability of bridges based on the date of construction. For this reason, factors affecting the
concrete mix design were given a lower priority in the development of construction eras, although major
industry-wide changes, such as the banning of calcium chloride as an admixture and the use of
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), have been taken into account.
2.4 Timeline of events influencing pre-tensioned concrete

bridge design
The construction eras identified in this section were defined by industry-wide events that influenced the
design and construction methods used in the production of pre-tensioned concrete bridges. Often these
changes were not uniformly adopted at one discrete point in time, but were gradually implemented by
different parts of the industry in the years before and after the event that resulted in the change in design.
For this reason the boundaries between construction eras are not distinct and in the years surrounding an
era boundary, some of the bridges constructed may have characteristics similar to the previous era while
other bridges are representative of the new design. In some cases bridges constructed in the years
27
surrounding an era boundary have a mixture of characteristics from each of the two adjacent construction
eras. The 1964 Kereu I-beam bridge described by Bruce et al (2008) is an example of an era 3 bridge that
used a beam arrangement and cross-section shape similar to era 2 I-beam bridges, but modified to use
the ⅜” strand common in era 3 rather than the 0.2” h.t. wire used in era 2.
Figure 2.2 on the next page provides a timeline of events that have influenced the design of pre-tensioned
concrete bridges. The timeline details the evolution of the government body responsible for the state
highway network and associated bridge stock, and the release of the various documents and standards
and their amendments that have influenced the design and construction of pre-tensioned concrete bridges
in New Zealand. Years are given down the left side and the first column shows the changes to the
government body, with the subsequent columns each representing a different type of design document.
The right column shows the construction eras that are identified in section 2.5.
28
2 Construction eras
Figure 2.2 Timeline of influences on pre-tensioned concrete bridge design
29
2.4.1 Governmental entities responsible for state highway bridges

Through the 20th century New Zealand’s state highway network was owned and managed by various
different boards, ministries and agencies. While the names of these organisations changed over time, the
general management of the network was effectively the same until the late 1980s, when reforms resulted
in the privatisation of most of the engineering capacity of central government. Before privatisation a board
was directly responsible for the network, and road users, local authorities and the responsible Minister
were represented on the board, along with members of the incumbent Ministry or Department, which had
significant in-house engineering design and construction capacity. Following the privatisation of the late
1980s a crown entity was responsible for funding roading projects, which were tendered out through a
competitive process. Changes to the government entities responsible for the bridge stock are shown over
time in the ‘Ministry’ column on the left of figure 2.2.
The Main Highways Act 1922, no. 47 legislated the formation of the Main Highways Board (MHB) to take
over the management of roads of national significance, which were designated main highways. The Public
Works Act 1928, no. 21 legislated the merger of the existing Public Works Department (PWD) and MoW
into a single entity under the MoW name, although the new Ministry was occasionally still referred to as
the PWD. The MHB remained in existence until 1954 when it was replaced by the National Roads Board
(NRB), which was chaired by the Minister of Works and had expanded powers. In 1959 the Roading
Division was established within the MoW to perform design and construction tasks for the NRB. In 1973
the MoW was renamed as the Ministry of Works and Development (MWD), and the Ministry operated under
that name until its abolition in 1988. Privatisation in 1989 saw the creation of Transit New Zealand (TNZ),
which was responsible for the allocation of government funding for roading projects, while the design and
construction arms of the former Ministry were transferred to the government-owned Works and
Development Corporation, which was forced to compete with private companies for public infrastructure
work. A crown entity called Transfund New Zealand was created in 1996 to divide government funding
between Transit New Zealand and regional authorities. Transfund New Zealand merged with the Land
Transport Safety Authority in 2004 to form Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ), which in turn merged with
TNZ in 2008 to form the NZTA (Davies 2000; Walrond 2010).
2.4.2 Timeline of documents governing bridge design

The 2003 Transit New Zealand Bridge manual lists superseded documents of a similar nature that date
back to 1933, and these documents have provided the primary resource governing bridge design in
New Zealand since that time. Figure 2.2 provides a timeline of the publication and amendment of these
documents in the third coloured column from the left.
Bridge manuals and design briefs have set out requirements for all aspects of bridge design and
construction, either directly in the text or by specifying other documents. As the prevalence and
comprehensiveness of design standards have improved over time, more recent bridge manuals have
increasingly referenced design standards rather than explicitly defining specifications. Where other
documents are specified, the manuals provide instructions for the interpretation and application of the
requirements of each standard to bridges. The MoW and MWD also periodically issued ‘Memorandums’
and ‘Engineering instructions’ to supplement and amend the bridge manual that was in effect at the time.
2.4.2.1 Ministry of Works – Bridge Manual – 1956 to 1970
The 1956 MoW Bridge manual was a comprehensive document that directly specified design and
construction details for timber, steel, and both reinforced and prestressed concrete. The document
specified the loadings given in AASHO H20-S16-44 Standard specifications for highway bridges (1944) and
directly provided all of the details required for design.
30
2 Construction eras
Prestressed concrete bridge construction was specifically covered in both the design and construction
sections of the 1956 MoW Bridge manual. While pre-tensioned concrete was not mentioned in these
chapters, reference was made to stressing of exposed wires and factory-placed concrete, which implies
that pre-tensioned construction was anticipated. Specifications were included for all aspects of the design
including: concrete mix design and placement; reinforcement and prestressing steel properties and
tolerances; reinforcement detailing and cover; design methodology; and construction considerations such
as safety (MoW 1956).
In 1961 the AASHTO H20-S16-T16 Loading standard replaced the previous loading standard (NZTA 2010),
and from this time forward New Zealand state highway bridges were designed to meet the new loading
standard while still referring to the 1956 Bridge Manual for other requirements. NZSS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:
‘Concrete design and construction’ was first published in 1964, but was related to buildings so the chapter
had little effect on bridge design, which continued to be governed by the 1956 Bridge Manual (NZS 1970,
1980; Fenwick and MacRae 2009). However, the requirements published in NZSR 32:1968, NZS 3101P:
1970, and NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A: 1970 are likely to have influenced bridge design (MoW 1972).
Standard drawings for pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams designed in accordance with the Bridge
Manual were first issued by the MoW in 1957 and were published as Standard plans for highway bridges
in 1959 (Bruce et al 2008). In the mid-1960s, further standard plans for different span lengths and
additional beam types were issued as an amendment of the 1959 document. An updated index for the
1959 document was issued in 1970, recording the issue dates and drawing numbers for all of the
standard drawings in use at the time (MoW 1970). In the same year the MoW issued Engineering
instruction 1970/1 part 2 – cover to reinforcement.
2.4.2.2 Ministry of Works – CDP 701/A, B, C: Highway bridge design brief – 1971 to 1977
The 1971 MoW Civil Division Publication CDP 701/A: Highway bridge design brief superseded the 1956
Bridge Manual. The new document referred to NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:1970 and the provisional
NZS 3101P:1970 for reinforced concrete design, and referred to NZSR 32:1968 for prestressed concrete
design. In addition to specifying the relevant design codes for different construction materials, CDP 701
provided additional requirements and modifications to the specified standards. These requirements
related to traffic and earthquake loading, ultimate strength design, and cover to reinforcement (MoW
1972; TNZ 2003).
In 1972 the HN-HO-72 Loading standard was adopted and incorporated into CDP 701/B:1972, which was
issued in the same year. In the following year the MoW became the MWD and reissued the Highway bridge
design brief as CDP 701/C:1973. The only changes from version B were that the updated CDP 701/C:1973
document had been converted to metric units and the MWD logo had been added (MWD 1973). The
standard beam plans used for pre-tensioned concrete bridges remained largely unchanged between 1970
and 1978.
2.4.2.3 Ministry of Works and Development – CDP 701/D: Highway bridge design brief – 1978 to
1988
In 1978 the MWD published a new edition of the Highway bridge design brief: CDP 701/D (MWD 1978a),
and a new document containing standard pre-tensioned concrete beam plans, entitled Standard plans for
highway bridge components (MWD 1978b). That same year saw the release of a new version of the
provisional Concrete structures standard NZS 3101P:1978 (NZS 1978; Bruce et al 2008), which had been
updated to include requirements for prestressed concrete design, and superseded NZSR 32. While
NZS 3101P was a provisional standard, MoW staff were involved in its preparation and so CDP 701/D
referred to NZS 3101P for both reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete design, even before the
removal of the provisional status that occurred with the publication of NZS 3101:1982 (NZS 1982).
31
While CDP 701/D still provided specific guidance on loadings for bridges, the clauses altering the
requirements set out in design standards that had been present in the earlier versions of the document (A,
B and C) were removed, and were now stipulated by the relevant standard – eg NZS 3101 for structural
concrete (MWD 1978a). MWD personnel were also involved in the development of the concrete
construction standard NZS 3109, which governed mix designs and was first issued in 1980 and then
reissued in 1987. NZS 3109:1980 specified the maximum water/cement ratio, permitted admixtures,
maximum concentration of cast-in chlorides, and minimum cover depth to reinforcement for both
reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete.
The standard bridge plans issued in 1978 were included in the MWD document CDP 901: Standard plans
for highway bridge components (MWD 1978b). This document contained standard drawings for double
hollow core, single hollow core, I-beam, and U-beam bridges containing pre-tensioned reinforcement for
spans ranging from 6m to 24m. The beams detailed in the document were designed in the mid-1970s and
the majority were approved in 1976. Another document was issued by the MWD in 1981, entitled Rural
bridges: part 1 – standard bridge plans (MWD 1981; Gray et al 2003). This document updated and
expanded on the 1978 standard plans and became known as the ‘Blue Book’. The Blue Book was in use
until 1988, when the bridge plans were revised and reissued as the ‘Red Book’.
2.4.2.4 Transit New Zealand (TNZ) Bridge Manuals – 1989 to 2012 (present)
Following the abolition of the MWD, Transit New Zealand was created in 1989 and the National Roads
Board: bridge manual was issued. Two years later in 1991 TNZ issued a draft of its own Bridge Manual,
which was officially published in 1994 (TNZ 1991, 1994). These documents covered design loadings for
traffic, earthquake and other loads, as well as details such as railings and the evaluation of existing
structures. For the design of structures both documents referred to New Zealand standards for the
relevant construction material, while making some provisos and substituting some clauses. Provisos
relevant to durability included requiring a design life of 100 years, and specifying maximum crack widths,
minimum concrete cover depths and that all parts of bridges were considered to be in either an external
or aggressive type of environment.
NZS 3104 is the New Zealand standard that governs concrete production, and the document was first
released in 1991. The document did not specify the maximum water/cement ratio or the minimum cement
content as had been the case in previous MoW documents. Instead, NZS 3104:1991 specified performance
criteria, testing frequency, tolerances for the certification of concrete production facilities, and methods
for establishing accurate mix design procedures on a plant-by-plant basis using the aggregates and other
concrete constituents in use at each facility (NZS 2003).
In 1995 a new version of NZS 3101 was issued, containing an entire chapter on durability design that
included definitions of exposure classifications that were similar but not identical to those defined in the
current version of NZS 3101 (NZS 2006). This new chapter in NZS 3101:1995 only applied to structures
with a design life of 50 years, which did not comply with the design life expectation laid out in the Bridge
Manual. However, in most cases bridges were designed according to the requirements of the chapter
anyway. The Red Book was last updated in the mid-1990s (Gray et al 2003), and it is likely that this update
was issued in order to comply with the requirements of NZS 3101:1995. NZS 3109 was reissued in 1997,
and is likely to have affected concrete mix design from this time onward.
The second edition of the TNZ Bridge Manual was issued in 2003, and amended in 2004 and 2005. This
document specified that all parts of bridges must be considered to be in an external type of environment
and included a table specifying concrete cover requirements to achieve the 100-year design life
expectation, with all other durability requirements as specified in NZS 3101:1995 (NZS 1995; TNZ 2003).
NZS 3109 was amended in 2003 and 2004 (NZS 1997).
32
2 Construction eras
In 2004 Transfund New Zealand merged with the Land Transport Safety Authority to form Land Transport
New Zealand (LTNZ), which existed in tandem with TNZ and controlled national transport funding.
NZS 3101 was reissued in 2006 with an updated durability chapter that included requirements for both
50-year and 100-year design lives. The chapter was also updated to cover curing conditions and cement
binder types, and the chapter also specified requirements for SCMs for the ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ (C) zone
(NZS 2006). Compared with the cover requirements for a 50-year design life given in NZS 3101:1995, the
requirements given in the 2006 version were reduced for the equivalent 50-year design life, although the
requirements for a 100-year design life were slightly higher than the 1995 cover values.
In 2008 Transit NZ and Land Transport NZ merged to form the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). A
new set of standard beam plans were released by the NZTA in 2008 following a review of current practice
both within the New Zealand bridge industry and internationally (Gray et al 2003; Beca and Opus 2008). In
the new document, plans for the less popular beam sections were removed, while plans for super-tee
beams were added and drawings for single hollow core beams, double hollow core beams and I-beams
were updated.
2.5 Identification and description of construction eras

The combined 2008<2011 BDS dataset was used for this section, so the statistics for the number of
bridges constructed in each era were generated from the number of pre-tensioned concrete bridges listed
in the BDS and meeting the criteria set out in section 2.1, for data retrieved in either 2008 or 2011. This
dataset represented a close approximation to the number of bridges constructed in each year that were
still in service on the New Zealand state highway network in 2008 or 2011.
The era boundaries were defined with reference to the timeline given in figure 2.2 and the publication
dates for documents governing bridge design that it details. It is important to note that many of the
changes to bridge design that were brought about by the evolving documents shown in figure 2.2 would
have been implemented by different parts of the bridge industry at different times in the years both before
and after the actual publication of the new document. As explained earlier, the era boundaries are not
discrete and in the years adjacent to a boundary some of the bridges constructed may have characteristics
similar to the previous era, while other bridges will be representative of the new era, and in some cases
bridges will have a mixture of characteristics from both eras.
The construction eras identified in this section are defined in table 2.1 and can also be identified on the
timeline of bridge design documents given in figure 2.2 as the black and white horizontal sections.
Reference to figure 2.2 allows the design documents affecting each era to be easily identified.
Table 2.1 Number of bridges constructed in each era
Era 1 Era 2 Era 3 Era 4 Era 5 Era 6 Era 7 Era 8 Era 9 Era 10 Era 11
Start year - 1953 1961 1966 1971 1978 1981 1988 1995 2004 2008
End year 1952 1960 1965 1970 1977 1980 1987 1994 2003 2007 2011
Average no. of new

- 8 24.2 26 17 15 16 11 9.7 4 7.5
bridges per year in era
Total bridges
9 64 121 130 119 45 112 77 87 16 30
constructed in era
The total number of new pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in each era is given in table 2.1
along with the average number of bridges constructed per year in each era, to provide an indication of the
33
rate of bridge construction at the time. The construction rates show that a marked boom period occurred
between the early 1960s (era 3) and the early 1980s (era 7), with a declining rate of bridge construction
since that time.
2.5.1 Era 1: pre-1953 – before pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction

Thirteen bridges are listed in the BDS with construction dates before 1953 or without construction dates
listed. Nine of these 13 bridges had construction dates listed in the 1930s, followed by a 15-year absence
of new pre-tensioned concrete bridges. In the 1930s prestressed concrete was in the process of being
developed by Eugene Freyssinet in Europe (Billington 2004), so it is unlikely that these bridges contained
pre-tensioned concrete beams when they were first constructed. Rather, these bridges were most likely
widened or upgraded with pre-tensioned concrete beams after their initial construction, and would
therefore merit having their recorded construction dates modified in the BDS for the purposes of condition
assessment of the pre-tensioned concrete beams. The bridges in this construction era were disregarded
for the purposes of this study.
2.5.2 Era 2: 1953–1960

Era 2 marks the beginning of pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction in New Zealand. As with the
bridges in era 1, it is possible that some of the bridges with construction dates listed in era 2 were not
originally pre-tensioned, but rather were upgraded by the addition of pre-tensioned concrete beams at a
later date and would therefore merit having their year of construction updated in the BDS.
The first pre-tensioned concrete bridge listed in the BDS after the 1930s was the Piraunui Stream Bridge in
the Hamilton region, which was constructed in 1953 using log beams. Pre-tensioned concrete bridge
construction increased rapidly in the following years, with the first pre-tensioned concrete I-beam bridge
listed in the BDS being constructed in 1956. Previous research into the corrosion resistance of pre-
tensioned concrete I-beams identified two ‘generations’ of early I-beam bridges, and the 1953–1960
construction era encompasses the first of these two generations. Two-lane bridges constructed from these
early I-beams are likely to have six or more beams per span and multiple diaphragms (Bruce et al 2008).
General design features relevant to the durability of these first-generation I-beams are expected to be
similar to those design features evident in other beam types from this construction era.
A total of 64 pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed between 1953 and 1960. Log beams were
the most common bridge type, with a significant number of T-beam and I-beam bridges also constructed.
A breakdown of the beam types constructed between 1953 and 1961 is given in figure 2.3.
34
2 Construction eras
Figure 2.3 Beam types constructed in era 2 (1953–1960)
2.5.2.1 Design documents in effect during era 2 (1953–1960)
The MoW was responsible for state highway bridges in this construction era, and bridges were designed
for the AASHTO H20-S16-44 Loading standard. The primary bridge design document in effect at the start
of this era was the PWD: Highway bridge design loadings and tentative preliminary code (1943), which was
superseded in 1956 with the issue of the MoW Bridge Manual. The first standard drawings for pre-
tensioned concrete bridge beams were issued by the MoW in 1957 and published in 1959. These standard
drawings detailed log beams for spans of 10 to 30ft (3 to 9m) although the drawings referred to them as
‘standard precast pre-tensioned bridge units’ (MoW 1970; Bruce et al 2008).
2.5.2.2 Typical reinforcement and cover depths for era 2 (1953–1960)
The 1956 Bridge Manual specified details for the wire to be used as reinforcement for prestressing,
including details of its manufacturing process, and quality-control requirements and procedures (MoW
1956). A table in chapter 4(b) 2.4.12 of the manual gave the maximum tensile strength range normally
2
available for wires that had a diameter 0.080 to 0.276” (2 to 7mm) as being between about 145ton/in
2
(1999MPa) and 100ton/in (1379MPa) respectively. Standard drawings for log beams and typical I-beams
used in this period specified that 0.2” dia. h.t. wire should be used as pre-tensioned reinforcement, while
drawings for a specifically designed pre-tensioned T-beam bridge specified 0.276” h.t. wire. Log beams
and standard I-beams constructed in era 2 were most likely pre-tensioned with 0.2” h.t. wire, while
specifically designed structures may have used wire of a different diameter. Strand is unlikely to be
encountered in pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams from this construction era.
Prescribed exposure categories did not exist during era 2, so minimum cover depths were similar
regardless of a bridge’s location. However the 1956 Bridge Manual specified a minimum of 1½” clear cover
depth to reinforcement for RC flexural members exposed to the action of sea water, and no alternative
requirements for cover depth in prestressed elements were given. It is evident that pre-tensioned concrete
bridge beams were not usually considered to be exposed to the action of sea water, because standard
beam plans from the time did not mention this requirement and instead specified a considerably lower
cover depth. In coastal regions the specified cover depth is likely to be well below current requirements,
with the first-generation I-beams described by Bruce et al (2008) having specified a clear cover depth of
0.9” (23mm) to the wires, and standard log beam plans dated 1957 having specified a 1.15” (29mm) clear
cover depth to the wires, and ¾” (19mm) clear cover depth to the stirrup (MoW 1970; Bruce et al 2008).
35
The 1956 Bridge Manual had a requirement for reinforced concrete structures that stirrups must surround
three sides of the tensile reinforcement, but this requirement was not explicitly stated for pre-tensioned
concrete structures and I-beam bridges were produced in this period with a pre-tensioned strand
arrangement that had the prestressed reinforcement surrounded on fewer than three sides. Unconfined
pre-tensioned reinforcement is likely in I-beams, T-beams and double hollow core beams from this
construction era, but is unlikely in era 2 log beams because their approximately square shape made it
more convenient to locate stirrups outside the longitudinal reinforcement. Typical reinforcement and
cover depth details that were in effect during construction era 2 are given in table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Typical reinforcement and cover depth details for era 2 (1953–1960)
Min clear cover depth to Typical min clear cover Pre-T enclosed by Most common pre-T type
pre-T depth to mild steel stirrup requirement (1” = 25.4mm)
0.9” (23mm) ¾” (19mm) No Mostly 0.2” dia. h.t. wire, some

(MoW 1970; Bruce et al 2008) (MoW 1970) (MoW 1956) between 0.080” & 0.276”
(MoW 1970)
2.5.2.3 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 2 (1953–1960)
Concrete mix requirements were specified in the 1956 Bridge Manual, both in the sections relating directly
to concrete and prestressed concrete design, and in an appendix. The appendix contained specified limits
for the maximum water/cement ratio and the minimum cement content, which applied to both reinforced
concrete and prestressed concrete. Concrete compressive strength was specified in the prestressed
concrete section as 5500psi (38MPa) for concretes with working stresses of 2000psi (13.8MPa), and the
standard noted that factory-placed concrete was permitted to have a slump of zero, which should allow
3 3
the required strength to be achieved with cement contents of between 600lbs/yd (356kg/m ) and
3 3
750lbs/yd (445kg/m ) in well-controlled conditions. The use of calcium chloride as a set accelerating
admixture was not forbidden for prestressed concrete, and in the reinforced concrete section of the
manual it was specifically allowed (with the Engineer’s approval) in concentrations of up to 2% of the
weight of cement. The limits mentioned above are given in table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 2 (1953–1960)
Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement content Allowance of calcium Supplementary

compressive water/cement ratio chloride as admixture cementitious
strength materials
5500psi (38MPa) 0.60, or 0.50 if 600 lbs/yd3 (356kg/m3) to Yes. Max 2% of the No
(MoW 1956) exposed to seawater 750 lbs/yd3 (445kg/m3) weight of cement
(MoW 1956) (MoW 1956) (MoW 1956)
2.5.3 Era 3: 1961–1965

The 1961 construction era boundary is based on the adoption of the AASHTO H20-S16-T16 Loading
standard (Bruce et al 2008). An important ramification is that the new loading standard resulted in a
gradual shift in the New Zealand pre-tensioned concrete bridge industry from the use of h.t. wire to the
use of strand. I-beams from this period were from the second generation, as described by Bruce et al
(ibid). These beams were deeper than the first-generation beams from construction era 2, and a typical
two-lane bridge of this design had only five beams per span and one midspan diaphragm. Bruce et al (ibid)
noted that some I-beam bridges that were constructed near the time of the release of H20-S16-T16 were
originally designed to H20-S16-44, and then altered to meet the new loading standard and be externally
similar to the era 2 bridges, but contain ⅜” strand rather than h.t. wire.
36
2 Construction eras
A total of 121 pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed between 1961 and 1965, the vast majority
of them using I-beams and log beams. The rate of pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction was triple
that of the previous era and the popularity of I-beams increased considerably, surpassing that of log
beams, whose construction rate also increased when compared to the previous era. The number of
bridges of each beam type constructed in era 3 is given in figure 2.4.
The MoW was responsible for state highway bridges in this construction era, and bridges were designed
for the AASHTO H20-S16-T16 Loading standard. The primary bridge design document in effect for the
duration of this era was the 1956 MoW Bridge manual. New Zealand standard NZS 1900 Chapter 9.3A:
Design and construction, concrete was published in 1964 and later versions of this standard were
referenced by the MoW in the Highway bridge design brief published in the 1970s, so it is likely that
NZS 1900:1964 may have superseded certain clauses in the 1956 Bridge Manual.
The MoW Standard plans for highway bridges document was originally published in 1959 but was
expanded in 1960 and 1961 with the addition of plans for 35ft (10m) and 40ft (12m) span log beams; in
1963 and 1965 with plans for 35ft to 60ft (10m to 18m) span I-beams; and in 1964 and 1965 with plans
for 20ft to 40ft (6m to 12m) double hollow core beams (MoW 1970). Because the standard plans were
being updated throughout era 3, bridges constructed in this era are expected to have been designed to
the same criteria as those used to develop the standard plans, but some differences are likely in bridges
designed before the standard drawings for that particular beam type were issued.
The standard plans issued during this construction era all specified ⅜” strand, with the exception of the
1965 I-beam plans, which specified ½” strand. The MoW specified in 1962 that all h.t. strand must be
stress-relieved (Bruce et al 2008), and an amendment to the MoW standard plan for log beams dated 1964
stated that ⅜” strands were to be used in preference to 0.2” h.t. wire and referred to a separate drawing
for the layout of ⅜” strand (MoW 1970). Beams cast in era 3 are likely to contain ⅜” (9.5mm) strand.
However, some beams constructed early in the era may have used h.t. wire, and some beams from late in
the era may have used ½” strand. The use of h.t. wire is particularly likely in the case of short-span log
beams constructed early in era 3.
37
As with the previous era, beams constructed in era 3 are likely to have stirrups that do not fully confine
the prestressing strand. Reference to beam plans from this era suggests that this design feature is
unlikely to apply to log beams, but is likely to apply to I-beams, T-beams, double hollow core units, and
may also apply to other beam types.
Exposure categories did not exist in era 3, so minimum cover depths were the same regardless of a
bridge’s location. However the 1956 Bridge Manual specified a minimum of 1½” clear cover depth to
reinforcement for RC flexural members exposed to the action of sea water, and no alternative
requirements for cover depth in prestressed elements were given. It is evident that pre-tensioned concrete
bridge beams were not usually considered to be exposed to the action of sea water, because standard
beam plans from era 3 do not mention this requirement and specify considerably lower cover depths.
Typical reinforcement details for bridges constructed in era 3 are given in table 2.4. In coastal regions the
specified cover depth is likely to be well below current requirements. The second-generation I-beams
identified by Bruce et al (2008) had a specified clear cover depth of 1⅛” (29mm) to the strand, and
standard log beam plans issued in era 3 specified a 15/16” (33mm) clear cover depth to the wires and 1”
(25.4mm) to the stirrups (MoW 1970; Bruce et al 2008).
Minimum clear cover Typical min clear cover Pre-T enclosed by Most common pre-T type
depth to pre-T depth to mild steel stirrup requirement (1 = 25.4mm)
1⅛” (29mm) 1” (25.4mm) No Mostly ⅜” strand, some 0.2”

(MoW 1970; Bruce et al (MoW 1970) (MoW 1956) h.t. wire, and ½” strand
2008) (MoW 1970)
The 1956 MoW Bridge Manual was the governing bridge design document for most of era 2 and the
duration of era 3, so concrete mix designs are expected to be similar for both construction eras. However,
it is possible that the release of NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A in 1964 had some impact on concrete mix
designs for bridges constructed late in the era. Typical limits from era 3 for concrete mix design are given
in table 2.5, although the required concrete strength is likely to have governed the water/cement ratio,
rather than the maximum water/cement ratio prescribed in the standard.
Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement content Allowance of Supplementary

compressive strength water/cement ratio calcium chloride as cementitious
admixture materials
5500psi (38MPa) 0.60, or 0.50 if 600lbs/yd3 (356kg/m3) to Yes. Max 2% of the No

(MoW 1956) exposed to seawater 750lbs/yd3 (445kg/m3) weight of cement
(MoW 1956) (MoW 1956) (MoW 1956)
2.5.4 Era 4: 1966–1970

The 1966 construction era boundary is based on the MoW Standard plans for highway bridges (1970) for
pre-tensioned concrete bridges. Although these plans were first published in 1959 they were expanded
through the early 1960s to include more beam types and a greater span range, with the last major
additions made in 1965. The vast majority of pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in era 4 are
expected to contain standard beams. I-beams constructed in this era are of similar design to those from
era 3, as they belong to the same ‘second generation’ as described by Bruce et al (2008).
38
2 Construction eras
A total of 130 pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed in era 4 and the distribution of beam
types is shown in figure 2.5. Close to half of all pre-tensioned concrete bridges in this era were
constructed using I-beams, while the popularity of log beams fell and the number of double hollow core
bridges increased with respect to previous eras. A large number of bridges constructed during this era
had a beam type listed in the BDS as ‘other’ or with the beam-type field left blank.
The primary bridge design documents in effect during era 4 were the MoW 1956 Bridge Manual and the
Standard plans for highway bridges (MoW 1970). The Bridge Manual was already 10 years old at the
beginning of this era, so it is expected that a considerable number of the clauses in that document had
been superseded by more recent documents. NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:1964 was in effect for the duration
of era 4, and NZSR 32 Prestressed concrete was issued in 1968. Both of these documents were referenced
in the 1971 MoW Highway bridge design brief, so it is likely that they were in use as soon as they became
available.
Beams constructed in this period are likely to contain ⅜” stress-relieved strand, but the use of ½” stress-
relieved strand was increasing, particularly in I-beams, and it is possible that a small number of log beams
were constructed with h.t. wire.
Minimum clear cover depths to the pre-tensioned reinforcement taken from the MoW standard plans in
this construction era are 29mm for I-beams, 29mm for log beams, and 40mm for double hollow core
beams. Clear cover depths to mild steel stirrups were 21mm for I-beams, 25mm for log beams, and 30mm
for double hollow core beams (MoW 1970; Bruce et al 2008).
As with the previous construction eras, beams constructed in era 4 are likely to have stirrups that do not
fully confine the prestressing strand. This design feature did not apply to log beams, but did apply to I-
beams, T-beams and double hollow core units, and may have applied to the other beam types.
A summary of typical reinforcement and cover depth details in effect in construction era 4 is given in table
2.6.
39
Typical min clear cover Typical min clear cover Pre-T enclosed by Most common pre-T type
29mm 21mm No Mostly ⅜” stress-relieved strand,

(MoW 1970) (MoW 1970) (Bruce et al 2008) some ½” strand
(MoW 1970)
At the beginning of era 4 concrete mixes were governed by a combination of the MoW 1956 Bridge Manual
and the more recent NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:1964, but in the final year of this era NZS 1900: Chapter
9.3A:1970 was issued and became the governing document for concrete mix designs. Some of the
requirements from the new document are likely to have been in use before its publication and therefore
for a considerable part of this era. Consequently, the concretes used in the early part of this construction
era are likely to have characteristics similar to those of era 3, while those from the later part will be similar
to concretes from era 5.
Calcium chlorides were allowed as admixtures in concrete throughout era 4, while the maximum
water/cement ratio decreased and the typical cement content increased. To be conservative, the typical
limits given in table 2.7 governing concrete mix design in era 4 apply to concretes from the earlier part of
the era and are similar to those from era 3. Concretes from later in the era may be more similar to those
from era 5.
Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement content Allowance of Supplementary

compressive strength water/cement ratio calcium chloride cementitious
as admixture materials
5500psi (38MPa) 0.60 or 0.50 if 600lbs/yd3 (356kg/m3) to Yes No

(MoW 1956) exposed to seawater 750 lbs/yd3 (445kg/m3) (NZS 1970)
(MoW 1956) (MoW 1956)
2.5.5 Era 5: 1971–1977

The 1971 construction era boundary is based on the release by the MoW of the first issue of
CDP 701:1971 Highway bridge design brief. This document superseded the 1956 MoW Bridge Manual and
became the primary document governing bridge design in New Zealand. CDP 701 was re-released as ‘Issue
B’ by the MoW in 1972 after being updated to incorporate the HN-HO-72 Highway loading standard), and
then again re-released by the newly formed MWD in 1973 as ‘Issue C’ after having been converted to
metric (MoW 1971 and 1972; MWD 1973).
A total of 119 pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed on the state highway network in era 5 and
the distribution of beam types is shown in figure 2.6. As with era 4, I-beams were the most commonly
used beam type in era 5, while the popularity of double hollow core beams increased significantly to
become the second most common beam type. Log beams had become rare, due in part to the increased
cover requirements of era 5 and also to the structural inefficiency inherent in their shape when compared
with double hollow core beams.
40
2 Construction eras
The governing bridge design documents in era 5 were CDP 701 issues A, B and C, as described in the
previous section. CDP 701 specified criteria for traffic, earthquake, and other types of loading, as well as
several miscellaneous design requirements, including concrete cover depth. For the majority of design
requirements relating to pre-tensioned concrete bridges, CDP 701 referred to NZSR 32:1968, and for
reinforced concrete structures it referred to NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:1970 and NZS 3101P:1970.
The standard plans for highway bridges remained largely unchanged from the previous era. However, the
beams produced in era 5 would have had increased cover depths when compared with those from earlier
eras as a result of the new cover depth requirements in CDP 701. Concrete mix design in era 5 was
governed by NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:1970.
Pre-tensioned reinforcement in bridges from era 5 is most likely to be ½” stress-relieved strand, although
some ⅜” strand was still used in the early part of the era. From the mid-1970s (following metrification), ½”
strand came to be referred to as 12.5mm strand.
Cover depths were directly specified in CDP 701/B:1972 for precast prestressed units manufactured under
factory conditions as 1½” (38mm) to all prestressing components and as 1¼” (32mm) to reinforcing steel
(MoW 1972). It is possible that these values were rounded to 40mm and 30mm following the 1973
metrification of the document. Due to the procedures and equipment requirements of pre-tensioned
concrete construction it is fair to assume that pre-tensioned beams were manufactured under factory
conditions.
As with the previous eras, there was no requirement for stirrups to enclose longitudinal reinforcement, so
beams constructed in this period may have had stirrups that did not fully confine the prestressing strand.
Typical concrete reinforcement and cover depth details for era 5 are given in table 2.8.
41
Typical min clear cover Typical min clear cover Pre-T enclosed by Most common pre-T type
38mm 32mm No Mostly ½” stress-relieved strand,

(MoW 1972) (MoW 1972) (Bruce et al 2008) some ⅜” strand
(MoW 1970)
Era 5 concrete mix designs were governed by NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:1970. Concrete of the strength
required for pre-tensioned structures was classified as ‘special grade’, for which a maximum
water/cement ratio was given. The maximum water/cement ratio for 5500psi (38MPa) concrete was given
as 0.48, which could be increased to 0.51 when only crushed, quarried aggregates were used and the
Engineer was satisfied that the other specified requirements were met.
The minimum allowable cement content for special-grade concrete that was exposed to sea water and had
3 3
a 1½” to 2½” cover depth was specified as 700lbs/yd (415kg/m ), but no value was given for other
exterior environments. However, special-grade concretes existed at much lower strengths than those
required for prestressed structures, and the majority of pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams constructed
in era 5 would not have been considered to be exposed to sea water, so it is likely that cement contents
present in pre-tensioned concrete beams were governed by strength requirements and the limits on the
water/cement ratio. Extrapolation from the minimum cement contents given for ‘high grade’ concretes
with strength up to 4000psi suggests that the typical minimum cement content for a 5500psi (38MPa)
3 3
concrete would be 752lbs/yd (445kg/m ). Typical concrete mix requirements for era 5 are given in table
2.9.
Specified 28 day Max water/cement Typical cement Allowance of Supplementary

compressive ratio content calcium chloride as cementitious
strength admixture materials
5500psi (38MPa) 0.48 752lbs/yd3 Yes No

(MoW 1970) (NZS 1970) (445kg/m3) (Bruce et al 2008)
(NZS 1970)
2.5.6 Era 6: 1978–1980

The 1978 construction era boundary is based on the release of issue D of the MWD CDP 701 Highway
bridge design brief, the issue of NZS 3101P:1978, and the release of the MWD Standard plans for highway
bridge components. NZS 3101P:1978 had been expanded and updated considerably from the previous
version to include prestressed concrete design requirements, thus superseding NZSR 32. CDP 701/D
referenced NZS 3101P:1978 for prestressed concrete design and concrete cover requirements.
A total of 45 pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed on the state highway network in era 6 and
the distribution of beam types is shown in figure 2.7. The small number of bridges constructed in this era
is largely due to the short length of the era, with the rate of bridge construction being comparable to that
of adjacent eras. In era 6, double hollow core beams took over from I-beams as the most popular beam
type, and U-beams also increased in popularity.
42
2 Construction eras
The governing bridge design document in effect during construction era 6 was CDP 701/D:1978, which
specified loading requirements for earthquake loads and the requirement to satisfy the HN-HO-72 Traffic
loading standard, but referred to NZS 3101P:1978 for both reinforced and prestressed concrete design
requirements, including cover depths.
In 1978 the MWD issued CDP 901 Standard plans for highway bridges (1978b), which contained new
standard plans for pre-tensioned concrete bridges. This document officially superseded the standard plans
that had first been issued in 1957, and contained plans for precast pre-tensioned double hollow core
beams, single hollow core beams, I-beams, and U-beams.
In 1980, NZS 3109 was issued and became the governing document for concrete mix designs. While
NZS 3109 did not supersede NZS 1900: Chapter 9.3A:1970, the new standard stated that it was a
technical revision of NZS 1900 and that compliance with NZS 3109 would satisfy both standards.
The standard drawings in the document published by the MWD in 1978 specified 12.5mm strand for all of
the pre-tensioned concrete beam types. Stressing limits were given for 12.5mm and 9.3mm strands in the
generic drawing notes, so it is possible that some 9.3mm strand was used in specifically designed beams.
Pre-tensioned concrete beams cast in construction era 6 are most likely to contain 12.5mm strand,
although some beams may have 9.3mm strand.
CDP 701/D specified that all parts of bridges must be considered as ‘external surfaces’ for determination
of allowable crack widths and cover concrete. NZS 3101P:1978 and the 1978 MWD standard drawings
specified the minimum cover depth to all prestressing components as 40mm, and the minimum cover
depth to all reinforcing steel as 30mm. However, all of the standard drawings specified 50mm cover depth
to the centreline of the strands in the soffit, so typical clear cover depths in the soffit are more likely to be
approximately 44mm.
While the requirement for stirrups to fully enclose longitudinal reinforcement was not explicitly stated
until the release of NZS 3101:1982, all of the pre-tensioned concrete beam types shown in the 1978
standard plans had stirrups that enclosed the pre-tensioned reinforcement for their entire length, with the
43
exception of I-beams. The cover depths to the pre-tensioned reinforcement in era 6 I-beams were
increased from that specified in previous eras, particularly on the top of the bottom bulb in the critical
strand location that Bruce et al (2008) identified for pre-1973 I-beams such as the Hamanatua Bridge. This
increase of cover depth meant that the reinforcement that was most critical to chloride ingress were the
mild steel stirrups in the soffit and thus these bars should corrode before the pre-tensioned
reinforcement, causing cracking or spalling of cover concrete and providing a visible warning of imminent
corrosion to pre-tensioning steel. Typical reinforcement and cover depth details for era 6 are given in table
2.10.
Typical min clear cover Typical min clear cover Pre-T enclosed by stirrup Most common
depth to pre-T depth to mild steel requirement pre-T type
40mm 30mm Not required but unlikely 12.5mm strand,

(MWD 1978b) (MWD 1978b) to be critical some 9.3mm strand
(MWD 1978b) (MWD 1978b)
Concrete mixes from era 6 are likely to be similar to those from era 5, apart from having a slightly higher
specified 28 day compressive strength (40MPa instead of 38MPa). NZS 3109 was released in 1980 and
specified that the maximum cast-in chloride content for prestressed elements was 0.06% by weight of
cement. This clause effectively banned the use of calcium chloride as an admixture. Typical concrete mix
requirements for era 6 are given in table 2.11.
Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement Allowance of Supplementary

compressive water/cement ratio content calcium chloride as cementitious
40MPa 0.48 752lbs/yd3 Yes, before 1980 No

(MWD 1978b) (NZS 1970) (445kg/m3) (NZS 1980; Bruce et
(NZS 1970) al 2008)
2.5.7 Era 7: 1981–1987

The 1981 era boundary is based on the release of new standard bridge plans in 1981 and the non-
provisional publication of NZS 3101 in 1982. The new standard bridge plans were officially titled:
CDP 903: Rural bridges: part 1 – standard bridge plans, but were referred to in the bridge industry as the
‘Blue Book’ (MWD 1981; Gray et al 2003). The Blue Book included drawings for single, double and triple
hollow core beams, I-beams, and U-beams (Gray et al 2003) and also included a section containing bridge
designs for spans of 6m to 16m on low-traffic rural roads and farm roads. The first editions of the two
primary concrete standards still in use today (NZS 3101 and NZS 3109) were published in the years
surrounding the start of era 7 and had a significant impact on the design of pre-tensioned concrete
bridges from this time forward.
A total of 112 pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed on the state highway network in era 7,
with the majority of these bridges constructed using double hollow core units. I-beams and U-beams were
also commonly used for bridge construction during this era. The distribution of beam types constructed in
this period is shown in figure 2.8.
44
2 Construction eras
The primary bridge design document in effect in era 7 was CDP 701/D, which detailed the AASHTO HN-
HO-72 Loading standard and referred to NZS 3101:1982 and NZS 3109 for both reinforced and
prestressed concrete design. NZS 3101:1982 introduced the requirement to consider ultimate limit state
design in addition to working stress design. In 1981 the MWD released CDP 903: Rural bridges standard
bridge plans, which became known as the Blue Book.
NZS 3109:1980 allowed the use of h.t. wire or seven-wire strands conforming to BS 5896. The use of h.t.
wire is expected to be rare in structures from this era, and most beams constructed in era 7 will contain
(seven-wire) 12.5mm strand with a characteristic strength of 165kN per strand. Mild steel for stirrups and
other reinforcement from this era is most likely grade 275. The Blue Book specified the minimum clear
cover depth to the outside of all prestressing components as 40mm, and the minimum clear cover depth
to stirrups as 30mm. As with era 6, NZS 3101:1982 did not explicitly require that the longitudinal pre-
tensioned reinforcement in beams be enclosed by stirrups. However, this detail is less critical to durability
than it was in earlier eras due to the increased cover depth for pre-tensioned reinforcement, which
resulted in stirrups in the soffit being the most critical steel reinforcement for corrosion. Typical
reinforcement and cover depth details for era 7 are given in table 2.12.
40mm 30mm Not required but unlikely Mostly 12.5mm strand, some
(NZS 1982) (NZS 1982) to be critical smaller-diameter strand
(NZS 1982) (MWD 1978b)
The 28 day compressive strength of concrete was specified in the Blue Book standard plans as 40MPa. A
maximum water/cement ratio or minimum cement content was not specified in the MWD Highway bridge
design brief, the standard drawings, nor NZS 3101 or NZS 3109. NZS 3109 made reference to NZS 3110,
45
which was never published but was a precursor to NZS:3104. It is therefore likely that no explicit limits
were set for concrete mix designs, but instead that criteria for certification of concrete plants and quality
control were specified.
The use of calcium chloride as an admixture was effectively not allowed by the 0.06% by weight of cement
cast-in chloride limit specified in NZS 3109:1980. These details are tabulated below in table 2.13.
Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement Allowance of calcium Supplementary

compressive strength water/cement content chloride as admixture cementitious
ratio materials
40MPa Not available Not available No No

(MWD 1978b) (NZS 1980; Bruce et al 2008)
2.5.8 Era 8: 1988–1994

The 1988 era boundary is based on a revision of the standard bridge plans contained in CDP 903: Rural
bridges: part 1 – standard bridge plans, with the revised document becoming known as the ‘Red Book’
(Gray et al 2003). The MWD was abolished in 1988 and replaced by TNZ in 1989, and CDP 701/D was
superseded in that same year by the NRB Bridge Manual, which was superseded in turn by the draft
version of TNZ’s own Bridge Manual in 1991. All of these documents used the HN-HO-72 Loadings
standard and referred to NZS 3101:1982 for prestressed concrete design requirements.
A total of 77 pre-tensioned concrete bridges were constructed on the state highway network in era 8,
more than half of which were constructed from double hollow core beams. I-beams and U-beams were also
used, and the only other bridges constructed had their beam type left blank or recorded as ‘other’ or
‘none’ (‘none’ is classed as ‘misc.’). The distribution of beam types constructed in this period is shown in
figure 2.9.
Four different primary bridge design documents were in effect during era 8; however, all of these
documents referenced NZS 3101:1982 for reinforced and prestressed concrete design, and referenced
46
2 Construction eras
NZS 3109 and NZS 3104 for materials and concrete requirements. The majority of pre-tensioned concrete
bridges constructed in era 8 are expected to be of the standard designs contained in the Red Book.
NZS 3109:1987 governed prestressing steel and allowed the use of either stress-relieved h.t. wire or
seven-wire strand conforming to BS 5896. The use of h.t. wire is expected to be rare in structures from
this era and most beams will contain (seven-wire) 12.5mm strand with a characteristic strength of 165kN
per strand. Mild steel for secondary reinforcement (including stirrups) is most likely to be grade 275.
Minimum concrete cover depths were specified in NZS 3109:1987 and NZS 3101:1982 for elements
exposed to the weather as being 40mm to prestressing components and 30mm to stirrups. While there
was no explicit requirement in the design documents in effect in era 8 for flexural reinforcement to be
enclosed by stirrups, it is unlikely that the lack of enclosure will have resulted in pre-tensioned
reinforcement corroding before mild steel reinforcement, because of the increased cover depth
requirement for pre-tensioned reinforcement. Typical reinforcement and cover details for era 8 are given
in table 2.14.
Typical min clear cover Typical min clear cover Pre-T enclosed by Most common
depth to pre-T depth to mild steel stirrup requirement pre-T type
40mm 30mm Not required but Mostly 12.5mm strand,

(NZS 1982) (NZS 1982) unlikely to be critical some 12.9mm ‘super’ strands,
(NZS 1982) some smaller-diameter strands
(MWD 1978b)
The specified concrete compressive strength is likely to have been 40MPa for the majority of beams
constructed in era 8. Limits on the water/cement ratio and cement content were not specified in the
standards of this era, and were determined by the required concrete compressive strength and the
properties of the other concrete constituent materials in use by individual concrete producers. Calcium
chloride was not permitted as an admixture and the maximum cast-in chloride concentration was 0.06% by
weight of cement (NZS 1987). Typical concrete mix requirements for era 8 are given in table 2.15.

compressive water/cement ratio content calcium chloride cementitious
strength as admixture materials
40MPa Not available Not available No No

(MWD 1978b) (NZS 1982, 1987, 2003) (NZS 1982, 1987, 2003) (NZS 1987)
2.5.9 Era 9: 1995–2003

The start of era 9 is defined by the issue of NZS 3101:1995. The majority of beams constructed in this era
were based on the standard plans from the Red Book, updated to the new requirements of
NZS 3101:1995.
The TNZ Bridge Manual was first issued in 1991 as a draft and was formally issued in 1994. For durability
criteria, this document referred to the appropriate materials standard, which for pre-tensioned concrete
47
bridges was NZS 3101:1995. The TNZ Bridge Manual specified that all parts of bridges should be
considered to be in an ‘external’ or ‘aggressive’ environment.
NZS 3101:1995 contained an entire chapter on durability. This chapter was similar in design to the
durability chapter that appears in the current NZS 3101:2006, but with a few key differences. For example,
the durability chapter in NZS 3101:1995 only contained criteria for a 50-year design life, and did not
account for the addition of SCMs. The definitions of exposure categories in the 1995 version of NZS 3101
were the same as for the 2006 version of the standard. Specified cover depths were higher for a 50-year
design life in NZS 3101:1995 than they are in the 2006 version, but requirements for a 100-year design
life were not specified. Although the 1995 TNZ Bridge Manual specified that most bridges should be
designed to have a 100-year service life, the requirements for a 50-year design life set out in
NZS 3101:1995 were usually followed.
A total of 87 pre-tensioned concrete bridges that are listed in the BDS were constructed in this era, with
almost half of these bridges having double hollow core beams. A range of the other beam types were also
used, with a significant number of U-beams and single hollow core beams constructed. The distribution of
beam types constructed in this period is shown in figure 2.10.
The primary bridge design document in era 9 was the TNZ Bridge Manual, which detailed HN-HO-72 traffic
loading and referred to NZS 3101:1995 for reinforced and prestressed concrete design. Cover depths and
limits for concrete mix design were specified in the durability chapter of NZS 3101:1995. As with era 8,
the standard bridge plans contained in the Red Book were in use during era 9, but these were updated in
the mid-1990s (Gray et al 2003), most likely to comply with the requirements of NZS 3101:1995.
While NZS 3101:1995 and NZS 3109 specified the standards that pre-tensioning steel must meet, these
documents did not specify the type of pre-tensioning reinforcement to be used. Standard plans for pre-
tensioned concrete bridge beams from era 9 gave the option for beam manufacturers to use either
12.5mm ‘normal’ or 12.9mm ‘super’ strands as pre-tensioned reinforcement, and to use grade 300 mild
steel for transverse reinforcement.
48
2 Construction eras
NZS 3101:1995 provided a table to determine the required concrete cover depth based on specified
compressive strength and exposure classification. For a bridge beam with 40MPa Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) concrete in the B2 ‘Coastal frontage’ exposure zone, 40mm cover to all reinforcement was
required by NZS 3101:1995. For the same concrete in the less critical B1 ‘Coastal perimeter’ zone, 30mm
minimum cover depth was required. Standard bridge beam plans from era 9 specified 40mm minimum
cover to prestressing components and 30mm to mild steel reinforcement, while the actual designs
provided approximately 44mm clear cover depth to the pre-tensioned strand for 12.5mm or 12.9mm
strands.
NZS 3101:1995 contained an explicit requirement that stirrups, ties or wires must enclose the longitudinal
reinforcement. This requirement was intended to ensure that this reinforcement would be effective in
resisting shear, but the requirement is also relevant to the durability of the concrete structures. Typical
reinforcement and cover details for era 9 are given in table 2.16.
Typical min clear cover Typical minimum clear Pre-T enclosed by stirrup Most common
depth to pre-T cover depth to mild steel requirement pre-T type
40mm 30mm Yes 12.5mm ‘normal’ or

(MWD 1978b; NZS 1995) (MWD 1978b) (NZS 1995) 12.9mm ‘super’ strand
(MWD 1978b)
The durability chapter of NZS 3101:1995 stipulated that the concrete must have a minimum OPC content
3
of 350kg/m and maximum water/cement ratio of 0.4, with OPC concrete defined as having no more than
5% mineral admixture. The commentary for NZS 3101:1995 suggested limits for the water/cement ratio,
and minimum cement contents for the different coastal exposure classifications. In order from least-
exposed to most-exposed, these limits were:
• B1 ‘Coastal perimeter’ 0.5 and 270kg/m

3
• B2 ‘Coastal frontage’ 0.4 to 0.45 and 320kg/m

3
• C ‘Tidal/splash’ <0.4 and 350kg/m .

3
The definitions of the A2 and B1 exposure classifications were the same as they are in the current 2006
version of NZS 3101, but the distinction between the B2 and C zones has changed. Under the 1995
definition it is unlikely that bridge beams would have been classified in the C zone because the zone
applied to concrete affected by direct splashing of water but not salt spray, so the limits for the C
classification are not included in table 2.17.
In the late 1990s the use of SCMs became more common. Consequently, a significant change in concrete
properties is expected to have occurred during era 9. Typical mix requirements for this era are given in
table 2.17.
49

40MPa B1: 0.5 B1: 270kg/m3 No. Chloride content Available, but not
(MWD 1978b) B2: 0.4–0.45 B2: 320kg/m3 limited to 0.5kg/m3 required
(NZS 1995) (NZS 1995) (NZS 1995)
2.5.10 Era 10: 2004–2007

The start of era 10 is defined by the 2004 amendment to the second edition of the TNZ Bridge Manual,
which was originally released in 2003. The amendment contained a durability section that referred to
NZS 3101:1995 for the majority of requirements, but also contained cover depth requirements to satisfy
the 100-year design life that was expected for bridges for the exposure classifications defined in
NZS 3101. Bridges constructed in era 10 are expected to resemble the standard plans from the Red Book,
but to have been updated to meet the durability requirements of the 2004 TNZ Bridge Manual amendment
and later, of NZS 3101:2006.
In 2006 the current (2012) version of NZS 3101 was released, which extended the durability chapter of the
NZS 3101:1995 to include requirements for a 100-year design life, and refined the other requirements
that had been included in the 1995 iteration of NZS 3101. The definition of the C exposure classification
was expanded to include members affected by salt spray, and concrete structures in the C zone were
required to contain SCMs at prescribed concentrations.
In era 10, a total of 16 pre-tensioned concrete bridges listed in the BDS were constructed, 11 of which had
double hollow core beams. The other bridges listed in this era were two U-beam bridges, one I-beam
bridge, and two bridges containing both double hollow core beams and I-beams (listed as ‘misc.’). The
distribution of beam types constructed in this period is shown in figure 2.11.
50
2 Construction eras
The primary bridge design document in effect in era 10 was the 2003 TNZ Bridge Manual: second edition,
which referred to NZS 3101 for reinforced and prestressed concrete design. Durability requirements,
including cover depths and mix design limits, for bridges in this era were governed by the 2004
amendment to the Bridge Manual and by NZS 3101. The Red Book standard bridge plans were still in use
during era 10, but were adapted to meet the requirements of the new standards on a case-by-case basis.
2.5.10.2 Typical reinforcement and cover depths for era 10 (2004-2007)
While NZS 3101 and NZS 3109 specified the production standards that pre-tensioning reinforcement must
meet, these standards did not specify the type of pre-tensioned reinforcement to be used in concrete
bridges. Standard plans for pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams in use during era 10 gave the option for
beam manufacturers to use either 12.5mm ‘normal’ or 12.9mm ‘super’ strands as pre-tensioned
reinforcement, although 15.2mm ‘super’ strands were being used in adaptations of the standard plans
and for specific designs.
The cover depth charts in NZS3101:2006 took into account the effect of various SCMs. An example of a
40MPa beam in the B2 exposure zone constructed from a GP (Portland), GB (blended) or HE (High Early
strength) concrete would require 35mm cover for a 50-year design life and 50mm cover for a 100-year
design life (NZS 2006). Beams in the ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ exposure zone (C) were required to contain fly
ash, ground blast furnace slag, or amorphous silica and were also subject to more stringent requirements
for binder content and water/cement ratio. In the C and B2 exposure zones, NZS 3101:2006 allowed for
the use of durability models in place of the requirements of the standard.
NZS 3101:1995 contained an explicit requirement that stirrups, ties or wires must enclose the longitudinal
reinforcement. The purpose of the requirement was to ensure that the stirrups were effective in resisting
shear, but the requirement was also relevant to the durability of concrete structures. Typical reinforcement
and cover details for era 10, taken from the TNZ Bridge Manual 100-year design life table for 40MPa
concrete, are given in table 2.18. The requirements of NZS 3101:2006 specified an additional 10mm
minimum cover depth to those given in table 2.18 for a structure in the equivalent exposure
classifications.
Table 2.18 Typical reinforcement and cover depth details in era 10 (2004–2007)
A2: 25mm (40MPa) A2: 25mm (40MPa) Yes 12.5mm ‘normal’ or

B1: 30mm (40MPa) B1: 30mm (40MPa) (NZS 1995) 12.9mm ‘super’ strand
B2: 40mm (40MPa) B2: 40mm (40MPa) (MWD 1978b)
C: 70mm (50MPa) C: 70mm (50MPa)
(TNZ 2003) (TNZ 2003)
The majority of pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in era 10 are expected to have a specified
concrete strength of 40MPa. In some cases, particularly after the release of NZS 3101:2006, bridges in
highly exposed locations such as the C ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone are expected to have specified 28 day
concrete strengths of at least 45MPa. NZS 3101:2006 specifies a maximum limit for the water/binder
ratio, a minimum limit for binder content, and requirements for SCMs for concretes in the C exposure
classification; these requirements are given in table 2.19. Recommended limits for the B1 and B2 exposure
51
classification are not stated in NZS 3101:2006, so the values in table 2.19 are supplied as a guide, and
were taken from the commentary to NZS 3101:1995.
Table 2.19 Typical concrete mix requirements in era 10 (2004–2007)
Specified 28 day Maximum Typical binder Allowance of Supplementary

compressive water/binder ratio content calcium chloride as cementitious
40MPa B1: 0.5 B1: 270kg/m3 No. Chloride content Required for C
(MWD 1978b) B2: 0.4 – 0.45 B2: 320kg/m3 limited to 0.5kg/m3 exposures from 2006
C: 0.45 (>45MPa) C: 350kg/m3 (NZS 1995, 2006) (NZS 2006)
(NZS 1995, 2006) (>45MPa)
(NZS 1995, 2006)
2.5.11 Era 11: 2008–2011 (end of data)

In 2008 the NZTA issued a new set of standard bridge plans (Beca and Opus 2008) that were designed to
NZS3101:2006 and the 2003 TNZ Bridge Manual. These standard plans included designs for single hollow
core units, double hollow core units, I-beams and super-tee beams, covering a span range of 12 to 30m.
The majority of pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in era 11 are expected to have been
constructed according to the designs detailed in these standard plans. When beams were located in
particularly aggressive C classification environments, the specific durability design of beams was
undertaken and the additional chloride resistance was usually achieved through specification of increased
concrete compressive strength or through specific durability design and special modification of the
concrete mix, including by the use of self-compacting concrete.
A total of 30 pre-tensioned concrete bridges listed in the BDS were constructed in this era, eight of which
were of the new super-tee design. The distribution of beam types for era 11 is shown in figure 2.12. The
bridges in the ‘other’ category have blank beam type cells in the BDS, so it is expected that a large
proportion of these bridges were in the process of having their data entered into the BDS, and that they
actually had standard beam types. It is also likely that some bridges constructed in this era were not
entered into the BDS at all at the time when the latest data was extracted in 2011.
52
2 Construction eras
The primary bridge design document in effect in era 11 was the 2003 TNZ Bridge Manual (second edition),
which specified HN-HO-72 Highway loadings and referred to NZS 3101 for reinforced and prestressed
concrete design. Durability requirements, including cover depths and mix design limits, for bridges in this
era were governed by the requirements of NZS 3101:2006. The Standard precast concrete bridge beams
document published by the NZTA (Beca and Opus 2008) contained standard plans for pre-tensioned
concrete bridges, and the majority of bridges in era 11 are expected to be of this design except for
bridges in the C exposure classification, which are likely to have had increased concrete strengths to meet
durability requirements.
The standard bridge plans released in 2008 specified 15.2mm ‘super’ low relaxation, stress-relieved
seven-wire strands with a minimum breaking load of 250kN for use in the new super-tee beam sections.
The other standard beam types were to use 12.7mm ‘super’ seven-wire strands with a minimum breaking
load of 184kN.
Minimum cover was specified on the standard drawings as 40mm to both reinforcing and pre-tensioned
steel, but the requirement that stirrups enclose longitudinal reinforcement effectively increased the
minimum cover requirement for pre-tensioned reinforcement by the diameter of the stirrup. The standard
plans specified 65mm to the centreline of the strand in the soffit of super-tees, giving a clear cover depth
of 57mm, and 60mm to the centreline of the strand in the soffit of the other beam types, giving a clear
cover depth of 54mm. The strand with the lowest cover depth was the top corner strand in the bottom
bulb of I-beams, with a clear cover depth of 45mm. Typical reinforcement and cover depths for this era are
given in table 2.20.
Typ. 57mm (super-tee) Typ. 40mm Yes 15.2mm ‘super’ strand

Typ. 45mm (other) Min. 40mm (NZS 2006) (super-tees) or
Min. 40mm (Beca & Opus 2008) 12.7mm ‘super’ strand
(Beca & Opus 2008) (other beam types)
(Beca & Opus 2008)
Specified 28 day concrete compressive strength for each of the pre-tensioned concrete beams in the 2008
standard plans was specified as 50MPa. This concrete strength, combined with the minimum cover depths
specified, provides sufficient durability to meet the 100-year design life requirement for bridges in the A1,
A2, B1 or B2 exposure classification. For bridges in the C classification, NZS 3101 required that fly ash,
microsilica or blast furnace slag be used as an SCM at specified concentrations. The standard also set
limits on the water/binder ratio and minimum cement content. The typical cover depths specified for pre-
tensioned reinforcement in the standard plans were sufficient for the C classification, while those for mild
steel stirrups were not. However, NZS 3101 allowed the use of durability models in place of its own
requirements, so specific mix designs and special concretes (such as self-compacting concrete) were able
to provide the required durability. Typical concrete mix requirements for this era are given in table 2.21.
53

50MPa C: 0.45 C: 350kg/m3 No. Required for C

(Beca & Opus 2008) (NZS 2006) (NZS 2006) Chloride content exposure
limited to 0.5kg/m3 classifications
(NZS 2006) (NZS 2006)
2.6 Summary of construction eras

This chapter has defined the construction eras for pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the New Zealand
roading network. The bridges constructed in each era were designed and constructed using similar
procedures and to meet similar requirements, and are therefore likely to share similar design
characteristics. A discussion of the design criteria and construction practices present in each of the eras
has been provided and typical design characteristics relevant to durability have been given. For
convenience, the typical design characteristics relevant to durability for each of the eras are repeated in
the tables on the following pages. Typical reinforcement details are given in table 2.22, and typical
concrete mix requirements are given in table 2.23.
Table 2.22 Typical reinforcement and cover depth details for all construction eras
Typical min clear Pre-T enclosed

Typical min clear
Era Years cover depth to by stirrup Most common pre-T type
cover depth to pre-T
mild steel requirement
1953– 0.9” ¾” Mostly 0.2” dia. h.t. wire, some
Era 2 No
1960 (23mm) (19mm) between 0.080” & 0.276”
1961– 1⅛” 1” Mostly ⅜” strand, some 0.2” h.t.
Era 3 No
1965 (29mm) (25.4mm) wire, and ½” strand
1966– Mostly ⅜” stress relieved strand,
Era 4 29mm 21mm No
1970 some ½” strand
1971– Mostly ½” stress relieved strand,
Era 5 38mm 32mm No
1977 some ⅜” strand
Not required
1978– 12.5mm strand, some 9.3mm
Era 6 40mm 30mm but unlikely to
1980 strand
be critical
Not required
1981– 12.5mm strand, some smaller
Era 7 40mm 30mm but unlikely to
1987 dia. strands
be critical
Not required Mostly 12.5mm, some 12.9mm
1988–
Era 8 40mm 30mm but unlikely to ‘super’ strands, some smaller
1994
be critical dia. strands
1995– 12.5mm ‘normal’ or 12.9mm
Era 9 40mm 30mm Yes
2003 ‘super’ strand
A2: 25mm (40MPa) A2: 25mm (40MPa)
2004– B1: 30mm (40MPa) B1: 30mm (40MPa) 12.5mm ‘normal’ or 12.9mm
Era 10 yes
2007 B2: 40mm (40MPa) B2: 40mm (40MPa) ‘super’ strand
C: 70mm (50MPa) C: 70mm (50MPa)
Typ. 57mm (super-tee) 15.2mm ‘super’ strand (super-
2008– Typ. 40mm
Era 11 Typ. 45mm (other) Yes tees) or 12.7mm ‘super’ strand
2011 Min. 40mm
Min. 40mm (other beam types)
54
2 Construction eras
Table 2.23 Typical concrete mix requirements for all construction eras
Specified 28 day Maximum Allowance of Supplementary

Typical binder
Era Years compressive water/ calcium chloride cementitious
content
strength binder ratio as an admixture materials
600 lbs/yd3
0.60, or 0.50 if
1953– (356kg/m3) to Yes. Max 2% of the
Era 2 5500psi (38MPa) exposed to No
1960 750 lbs/yd3 weight of cement
seawater
(445kg/m3)
600 lbs/yd3
0.60, or 0.50 if
1961– (356kg/m3) to Yes. Max 2% of the
Era 3 5500psi (38MPa) exposed to No
1965 750 lbs/yd3 weight of cement
seawater
(445kg/m3)
600 lbs/yd3
0.60, or 0.50 if
1966– (356kg/m3) to
Era 4 5500psi (38MPa) exposed to Yes No
1970 750 lbs/yd3
seawater
(445kg/m3)
1971– 752lbs/yd3
Era 5 5500psi (38MPa) 0.48 Yes No
1977 (445kg/m3)
1978– 752lbs/yd3
Era 6 40MPa 0.48 Yes, before 1980 No
1980 (445kg/m3)
1981–
Era 7 40MPa Not available Not available Not allowed No
1987
1988–
Era 8 40MPa Not available Not available Not allowed No
1994
Not allowed.
1995– B1: 0.5 B1: 270kg/m3 Chloride content Available, not
Era 9 40MPa
2003 B2: 0.4–0.45 B2: 320kg/m3 limited to required
0.5kg/m3
B1: 0.5 B1: 270kg/m3 Not allowed.

Required for C
2004– B2: 0.4–0.45 B2: 320kg/m3 Chloride content
Era 10 40MPa exposures from
2007 C: 0.45 C: 350kg/m3 limited to
2006
(>45MPa) (>45MPa) 0.5kg/m3
Not allowed.
Required for C
2008– Chloride content
Era 11 50MPa C: 0.45 C: 350kg/m3 exposure
2011 limited to
classifications
0.5kg/m3
55
3 Beam type classification

This chapter provides an overview of the different beam types commonly used in the construction of pre-
tensioned concrete bridges in New Zealand. The BDS contains entries for pre-tensioned bridges listed with
17 different beam types, but after eliminating entries with the beam-type field left blank, the ambiguous
beam type ‘other’, rarely used beam types (inverted T-beams, box girders, triple hollow core beams,
‘none’, steel truss), and combining similar beam types listed with different names (eg ‘Super-tee’ and
‘Teeroff’), seven beam types were selected for investigation. The popularity of each of the seven beam
types over time is assessed with reference to the construction eras identified in chapter 2 of this report,
and the evolution of the section geometry is discussed. Standard or typical cross sections are given for
each of the beam types for each of the eras in which they were commonly used. In this chapter, figures
containing cross sections taken from standard plans are dated with the year that the standard plan was
issued, while cross sections taken from actual bridge plans are dated with the year of construction of the
bridge.
3.1 Log beams

Log beams were an early form of prestressed concrete bridge beam that were used extensively by the
MoW early in the development of pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction. The first pre-tensioned
concrete bridge on the New Zealand state highway network was constructed from log beams in 1953, and
this beam type was the most common form of pre-tensioned concrete bridge beam in era 2. The number
of bridges constructed in each era with beam type listed in the BDS as ‘log beams’ is shown in figure 3.1.
A significant number of log beam bridges were also constructed in eras 3 and 4, but the construction type
lost popularity from era 5 onwards because it had come to be considered inefficient and uneconomical,
due to both the structural inefficiency of the cross section and the large number of beams required in
each span. All but three of the 92 log beam bridges (11% of the New Zealand state highway pre-tensioned
concrete bridge stock) were built in eras 2, 3 or 4 and were therefore between 40 and 60 years old at the
time of writing.
Figure 3.1 Number of log beam bridges constructed in each era
56
The first standard plans in existence for pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams in New Zealand were issued
in 1957 for log beams, and these plans are expected to be representative of log beams produced in era 2.
The 1957 standard drawings covered spans ranging from 20 to 30ft, and specified 0.2” h.t. wire. The
drawings also specified no stirrups except for in the 19” at each end of the beam, presumably for
confinement, and no stirrups at all for the remainder of the span. The drawings specified ¾” (19mm) cover
depth to the stirrups and 1.15” (29mm) cover depth to the pre-tensioned wires in the soffit. Cross sections
taken from the 1957 drawings are given in figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 Typical cross sections for log beams: era 2 (1953–1960)
(a) 1957 MoW standard drawing (25ft span) (b) 1957 MoW standard drawing (30ft span)
(MoW 1970) (MoW 1970)
In 1962 an additional standard drawing was issued that expanded the span range for log beams to 40ft
(MoW 1970). This additional drawing also specified 1” cover depth to stirrups and 15/16” cover depth to the
strands, which was an increased cover depth with respect to the details specified in the 1957 drawings.
The new standard plans specified ⅜” strand instead of 0.2” h.t. wire, and the existing 1957 drawings were
updated in 1964 with an option to use ⅜” strand, with a note stating that ⅜” stand was to be used in
preference to wire where possible (MoW 1970). This update also increased cover depths to match the
1962 40ft standard drawing. The 1964 drawings still specify no stirrups except for in the 19” at each end
of the beams. Cross sections taken from the standard log beam drawings issued in era 3 are shown in
figure 3.3. Log beam bridges constructed in era 3 are likely to have been constructed with any one of the
designs shown in figure 3.2 and figure 3.3, and may contain either ⅜” strand or 0.2” h.t. wire.
57
(a) 1964 MoW standard drawing (30ft span), 1957 (b) 1962 MoW standard drawing (40ft span) as used on
design updated to use ⅜" strand in place of wire the 1964 Pattens Creek Bridge (43ft span) (MoW 1970)
(MoW 1970)
The last amendment to standard log beam plans contained in the MoW Standard plans for highway
bridges (1970) was made in 1965. However, the design of the beams did not change significantly after
1964 when the drawings were modified to contain strand. The log beam bridges constructed in eras 4 and
5 are expected to contain ⅜” strand, have 1” (25.4mm) cover depth to the stirrups and 33mm cover depth
to the strands, contain no stirrups except in the 19” at each end of the beams, and to have cross section
geometries similar to those shown in figure 3.3 and figure 3.4.
(a) 1964 MoW standard drawing (30ft span) (b) 1969 Ovens Bridge No 147 (40ft span)
(MoW 1970)
58
3.2 T-beams
T-beams are a common form of pre-tensioned concrete construction, and are often used as flooring units
for multi-storey buildings. The cross section shape is attractive because it has similar structural efficiency
to that of an I-beam while also providing a deck slab; furthermore, when compared with I-beam bridge
construction, T-beams also have better stability during construction before the deck is tied together, thus
reducing the need for on-site formwork. However, the popular use of T-beams for floor construction did
not extend into bridge design in New Zealand and only 32 T-beam bridges are listed in the BDS, making
up 4% of the New Zealand pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock.
The number of bridges constructed in each era with beam type listed in the BDS as ‘T beams’ is shown in
figure 3.5. T-beams have been occasionally used in most of the construction eras, and were most popular
in eras 2, 3 and 4. As a result the 23 T-beam bridges constructed in these eras are between 40 and 60
years old at the time of writing. Recent pre-tensioned concrete bridges have been constructed using
‘teeroff’ or ‘super-tee’ beams, which are discussed in detail in section 3.7 and are more similar in design
to U-beams than they are to the T-beams described in this sub-chapter.
Figure 3.5 Number of T-beam bridges constructed in each era
No standard plans were issued by the NZTA or its predecessors for pre-tensioned concrete T-beams, so
more variation in the design of T-beams in bridges from a given era is expected than for other beam types
that had standard designs. However, T-beam bridges from each era are expected to share similar
characteristics, because they were designed according to the same bridge and prestressed concrete
design documents. After accessing as-built drawings from bridge asset managers, it was found that at
least four of the T-beam bridges listed in the BDS as containing pre-tensioned reinforcement were
mislabelled and contain exclusively post-tensioned flexural reinforcement. In the case of Lincoln Bridge
No1, the T-beams were cast in segments and post-tensioned together on site.
Fourteen T-beam bridges were constructed in era 2. One such structure is Westshore Bridge in Napier, and
a typical beam cross section from this bridge is shown in figure 3.6(a) along with a close-up of the bottom
bulb containing the pre-tensioned reinforcement, as shown in figure 3.6(b). Westshore Bridge beams each
contain fifty 0.276” h.t. wires as pre-tensioned reinforcement, which is not enclosed by the stirrups.
59
Minimum cover depths were 1” (25.4mm) to the stirrups in the web and 15/8” to the pre-tensioned wires in
the sides of the bulb.
Figure 3.6 Typical cross sections for T-beams: era 2 (1966–1970)
(a) 1960 Westshore Bridge (66ft span) – full cross (b) 1960 Westshore Bridge (66ft span) – bulb showing
section (pre-tensioned reinforcement omitted) pre-tensioned reinforcement and stirrup
Tiwai Point Bridge was constructed in 1969, near the end of era 4, and contained both pre-tensioned and
post-tensioned reinforcement. Further details of this bridge are provided in appendix A, where a summary
is provided of a combined destructive and non-destructive testing programme conducted on T-beams that
were removed from Tiwai Point Bridge due to extensive corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement.
Despite cover depths that were higher than required in era 4, extensive corrosion of the pre-tensioned
strands was identified in a visual inspection in the year 2000 when the bridge was 31 years old.
A typical cross section of a Tiwai Point Bridge beam is shown in figure 3.7, where it can be seen that the
beams did not have a bottom bulb because the small number of pre-tensioned strands fit within the
profile of the web. The small number of strands was possible because more than 40% of the flexural
reinforcement was concentrated in the post-tensioned tendon. The beams contained nine ½” strands as
post-tensioned reinforcement, and either ten or twelve ½” (12.5mm) strands as pre-tensioned
reinforcement, which was not enclosed by stirrups. The beams had a specified clear cover depth of 57mm
to the pre-tensioned strands.
60
Figure 3.7 Typical cross sections for T-beams: era 4 (1966–1970)
(a) 1969 Tiwai Point Bridge (60ft span) as shown on (b) 1969 Tiwai Point Bridge (18m span) – midspan cross
original drawings section reproduced to scale and in metric
Pre-tensioned concrete T-beams that have bulbs at the bottom of the web and were produced in eras 2, 3
or 4 may have a similar reinforcement arrangement to those on Westshore Bridge, or they may be more
similar to I-beams from the same era but with a wider top flange. Except for short spans, pre-tensioned
concrete T-beams without a bulb at the bottom of the web are likely to contain post-tensioned
reinforcement because of the limited space near the bottom of the section for the required number of pre-
tensioned strands or wires, while allowing for adequate compaction of the concrete.
The MWD standard plans released in 1978 at the start of era 6 contained plans for pre-cast post-tensioned
T-beams, but these beams were pre-cast in segments and assembled on site (MWD 1978b). Consequently,
pre-tensioned T-beams from era 6 and later are expected to have more in common with pre-tensioned I-
beams constructed in the same era, than they are to the standard post-tensioned T-beams detailed in the
1978 MWD document.
3.3 I-beams
The earliest pre-tensioned concrete I-beam bridge listed in the BDS is the 1957 Waitaki River Bridge, which
was constructed in era 2. I-beams are one of the most common forms of pre-tensioned bridge beam, and
account for 29% of pre-tensioned concrete bridges listed in the BDS. I-beams were the most common beam
type used in pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in eras 3, 4 and 5. Standard plans for I-beams
have been in existence since 1957 and have been issued with each of the standard bridge plan
documents. Standard plans for pre-tensioned I-beams have previously been issued for 12 to 20m spans
and for combination pre-tensioned and post-tensioned I-beams for spans of 18 to 24m (Gray et al 2003).
The 2008 NZTA standard plans contain drawings for pre-tensioned concrete I-beams without post-
tensioned reinforcement for spans of up to 24m, with the super-tee section being preferred for longer
spans.
The number of bridges constructed in each era with beam type listed in the BDS as ‘I beams’ is shown in
figure 3.8. It is evident that the use of pre-tensioned concrete I-beams for bridge construction in
61
New Zealand has been in decline since era 6, due to designers’ preferences shifting to other beam types.
There are a number of reasons for this diminishing popularity, including the inefficiency of I-beams for
shorter spans, the large section depth requirement, and construction safety concerns associated with
construction stability and the erection of permanent formwork on widely spaced I-beams (Gray et al 2003).
The age of the majority of I-beam bridges in service on the New Zealand state highway network ranges
from 35 to 50 years, although there are a significant number of I-beam bridges that are younger.
Figure 3.8 Number of I-beam bridges constructed in each era
Construction era 2 encompasses the first generation of I-beams as described by Bruce et al (2008). Bridges
with beams of this design are likely to have six or more beams per span and to be shallower than similar-
span I-beams from later eras. Era 2 I-beams contain 0.2” h.t. wire as pre-tensioned reinforcement, which
was not enclosed by the stirrups, and the minimum specified cover depth to the h.t. wires was 0.9”
(23mm). A typical cross section of an era 2 I-beam is shown in figure 3.9(a).
I-beam bridges designed and constructed around the era 2 to era 3 boundary are likely to have had their
designs modified from those of era 2 I-beams in order to meet the newly issued H20-S16-T16 Highway
loadings standard (Bruce et al 2008), and will have similar cross sections to era 2 I-beams but contain ⅜”
strand instead of 0.2” h.t. wire. An example of an era 2 I-beam design that was modified to meet the H20-
S16-T16 Loading standard is the Pohue Stream Bridge. A typical cross section from this bridge, with visible
amendments to the pre-tensioned reinforcement arrangement, is shown in figure 3.9(b).
62
Figure 3.9 Typical cross sections for I-beams: era 2 (1953–1960)
(a) 1957 MoW standard drawing (45ft span) (b) 1962 Pohue Stream Bridge (50ft span)
Construction era 3 I-beams are of the design described as the ‘second generation’ by Bruce et al (2008).
Bridges with I-beams of this second-generation design have only four or five beams per span for a two-
lane deck width, compared with era 2 bridges, which have six or more beams per span (MoW 1970, Bruce
et al 2008). Era 3 I-beams are likely to contain ⅜” stress-relieved strand and have stirrups that do not
enclose the pre-tensioned reinforcement, with the minimum specified clear cover depth to the strand
being 1⅛” (29mm). Beams constructed early in era 3 may be more similar to the Pohue Stream Bridge,
shown in figure 3.9(b), which was an era 2 design modified to use ⅜” strand and meet the H20-S16-T16
Highway loading standard in use during era 3. An example of an era 3 standard I-beam cross section is
shown in figure 3.10. It is important to note that the angled stirrup legs enclosing the pre-tensioned
reinforcement in the bottom bulb were only present at the ends of the beam near the supports, and were
not present in the middle of the span. The full-height vertical stirrups in the web were regularly spaced
over the entire length of the beam.
63
(a) 1963 MoW standard I-beam plan (60ft span) – strand (b) 1963 MoW standard I-beam plan – stirrup
layout, stirrups not shown (MoW 1970) arrangement (MoW 1970)
As with era 3, era 4 I-beams are of the general design described by Bruce et al (2008) as second-
generation I-beams. However, the start of era 4 is defined by amendments to the MoW standard bridge
plans document (MoW 1970). This amendment included the issue of a new drawing for I-beams, with an
alternate prestressing arrangement using ½” diameter strands, while dimensions, stirrup arrangement and
all other details referred to the 1963 standard drawings. The 1965 standard ½” strand layout is shown in
figure 3.11(a), while figure 3.11(b) shows a cross section from the 1968 Kahutara River Bridge that used
the 1963 standard design with ⅜” strands. The majority of pre-tensioned concrete I-beam bridges
constructed in era 4 are expected to be of the standard designs shown in either figure 3.10 or figure 3.11.
64
(a) 1965 MoW standard I-beam plan (60ft span) (b) 1968 Kahutara River Bridge (50ft span)
– ½” diameter strand layout, stirrup
arrangement as shown in figure 3.10(b)
Following the release of the MoW Highway bridge design brief in 1971, I-beams produced in era 5 have
increased cover depths when compared with earlier beams, as the design brief specified 1.5” (38mm) for
prestressing components and 1.25” (32mm) for reinforcing steel. Era 5 I-beams are also more likely to be
prestressed with ½” strand than with ⅜” strand, as had been the case in previous construction eras. I-
beams from the Cobden Bridge, as shown in figure 3.12(a), contain both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned
reinforcement, which was a common feature in long-span precast beams with standard drawings for
‘precast combined pre&post tensioned I-beams’ produced in 1975 and published in the MWD document
Standard plans for highway bridges in the first year of era 6 (MoW 1970). Figure 3.12(b) shows an I-beam
cross section from the Kowhai River Bridge, which contains standard era 5 pre-tensioned I-beams without
any post-tensioned reinforcement.
65
(a) 1975 Cobden Bridge (80ft span) (b) 1977 Kowhai River Bridge (60ft span)
The beginning of era 6 is defined by the publication of Standard plans for highway bridge components
and issue D of the Highway bridge design brief by the MWD in 1978 (MWD 1978a and b). The new
standard bridge plans are expected to have been used in the majority of pre-tensioned concrete I-beam
bridges constructed in era 6. When compared with era 5, the required minimum cover depth to pre-
tensioned reinforcement was increased to 40mm, while cover depth for mild-steel reinforcement was
reduced to 30mm, which is most likely due to rounding after conversion to the metric system. Era 6 I-
beams had stirrups that did not fully enclose the pre-tensioned reinforcement for the entire length of the
beam, with the stirrups in the sides of the bottom bulb being present only near the ends of the beams
(see figures 3.12 and 3.13). Figure 3.13(a) shows a typical cross section for a standard pre-tensioned
concrete I-beam taken from the 1978 MWD standard drawings, while figure 3.13(b) shows a cross section
from the 1979 Aongatete Stream Bridge, which contains both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned
reinforcement.
66
(a) 1976 MWD standard I-beam plan (20m (b) 1979 Aongatete Stream Bridge (24m span)
span) – strand layout, stirrups not shown
The cross sections of era 7 I-beams are expected to be similar to those from era 6, as their designs were
largely influenced by standard plans that were republished at the beginning of era 7 as Rural bridges
standard bridge plans (MWD 1981). While the standard bridge plans were republished, issue D of the
Highway bridge design brief (MWD 1978a) was in effect in both eras 6 and 7, and the formal publication of
NZS 3101 in 1982 did not result in significant changes to beam design. However, the publication of
NZS 3109:1980 introduced a ban on the use of calcium chloride as an admixture, so concretes from era 7
onward should not contain high levels of cast-in chlorides. Era 7 I-beams had stirrups that did not fully
enclose the pre-tensioned reinforcement for the entire length of the beam, with the stirrups in the sides of
the bottom bulb being present only near the ends of the beams (see figure 3.14(b)). Figure 3.14 shows a
cross section of a typical era 7 I-beam containing both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned reinforcement.
67
(a) 1983 Hapuka River Bridge (20m span) – concrete (b) 1983 Hapuka River Bridge (20m span) – stirrup and
section dimensions prestressing reinforcement layout
The beginning of construction era 8 is defined by the revision of the MWD Blue Book, which subsequently
became known as the Red Book (Gray et al 2003). However, the requirements in NZS 3101 that governed
the design of the revised standard drawings had not changed since early in era 7. Consequently, minimum
cover depths and other design requirements are expected to be similar in I-beam bridges constructed in
eras 7 and 8. The majority of pre-tensioned reinforcement used in era 8 was 12.5mm strand, but some
12.9mm ‘super’ strands and some strands of smaller diameters were also in use in pre-tensioned I-beam
bridges, such as those shown in figure 3.15.
68
(a) 1988 northern Wairoa River Bridge (20m span) – (b) 1991 Hokitika River Bridge (20m span)
strand layout, stirrups omitted
The current NZTA Standard precast concrete bridge beams document published in 2008 (Beca and Opus
2008) contains standard plans for pre-tensioned concrete I-beam bridges with spans between 18m and
24m. The beams are either 1500mm or 1600mm deep and contain 12.7mm ‘super’ strands as pre-
tensioned reinforcement. Specified 28 day compressive strength is 50MPa and minimum clear cover depth
to pre-tensioned reinforcement is 40mm, while the actual specified clear cover depth to the most critical
strand in the beams is 45mm. The pre-tensioned reinforcement is enclosed by the stirrups for the length
of the beams. Cross sections for a standard 1500mm deep 20m span beam, and a standard 1600mm
deep 24m span beam, are given in figures 3.16(a) and (b) respectively.
69
Figure 3.16 Typical cross sections for I-beams: era 11 (2008–2011) and at the time of writing
(a) 2008 NZTA standard plan (20m span) (b) 2008 NZTA standard plan (24m span)
3.4 Single hollow core beams

The earliest pre-tensioned concrete single hollow core bridge listed in the BDS is the era 2, 1954 Ohura
Bridge in the Waikato. The number of bridges constructed in each era with beam type listed in the BDS as
‘Single hollow core units’ is shown in figure 3.17. A small number of single hollow core bridges were
constructed in most of the construction eras, and their usage peaked in era 9 with the construction of 11
bridges.
70
Figure 3.17 Number of single hollow core bridges constructed in each era
Single hollow core bridges constructed in eras 2 to 7 are likely to be significantly different to double
hollow core bridges. The beams of the former are widely spaced and require permanent formwork and a
deck slab to span between beams and form the bridge deck, while double hollow core beams are placed
immediately adjacent to one another and form the bridge deck directly (MWD 1978b). Single hollow core
beams are well suited to short-span bridges because of their low section height and their structural
efficiency, and are also well suited to bridges with a large angle of skew because of the smaller width of
each unit and the separation between beams when compared with double hollow core beams. The MWD
produced standard drawings for 8 to 14m single hollow core beams in 1974 (MWD 1978b) and the beam
type has been in use since that time. However, the limited span range and more complicated bridge
construction process (compared with double hollow core beam bridge construction) has restricted the
construction of single hollow core bridges to the special applications mentioned above.
A cross section taken from the 1974 standard plans is shown in figure 3.18. The standard drawings
specified a 28 day concrete strength of 40MPa, 12.5mm strands as pre-tensioned reinforcement, and
minimum cover depths of 44mm for pre-tensioned reinforcement and 30mm for stirrups. The cross
section shown in figure 3.18 was used in the 1977 Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 in Northland. It is
expected to be typical of pre-tensioned concrete single hollow core bridge beams constructed between era
5 and era 9, although factors such as cover depth and concrete mix design may vary in different eras to
comply with the other design documents in effect at the time (detailed earlier in table 2.22 and at the end
of chapter 2).
71
Figure 3.18 Typical cross sections for single hollow core beams: era 5 (1971–1977)
(a) 1974 MWD Standard plan as used in the 1977 (b) Stirrup layout for beam shown in (a)
Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 (10m) – strand layout
A study commissioned by the LTNZ in 2003 recommended that single hollow core beams of the type
shown in figure 3.18 should not be retained as a standard section (Gray et al 2003). However, the latest
NZTA standard plans include standard drawings for 650mm and 900mm deep single hollow core beams
with spans of up to 25m (Beca and Opus 2008). These new designs were wider than the earlier standard
single hollow core beams, and with one large rectangular void rather than the circular void used in earlier
standard drawings. Consequently, era 11 single hollow core beams designed using the 2008 NZTA
standard drawings are closer in design and function to the double hollow core beams described next in
chapter 3.5 than to the single hollow core beams shown in figure 3.18. The new single hollow core beams
are located immediately adjacent to one another in the bridge superstructure, thus eliminating the need
for a deck slab. Typical cross sections taken from the 2008 NZTA standard bridge plans document are
shown in figure 3.19 (Beca and Opus 2008). The 2008 standard plans specify 50MPa concrete, 12.7mm
‘super’ strands, and a minimum cover depth of 40mm to prestressing components and stirrups.
Figure 3.19 Typical cross sections for single hollow core beams: era 11 (2008–2011)
(a) 2008 NZTA standard plan (650mm deep 18m span) (b) 2008 NZTA standard plan (900mm deep 25m span)
72
3.5 Double hollow core beams

Double hollow core beams have regularly been used as a standard bridge section for spans of up to 18m
since standard plans were produced in 1964 by the MoW (MoW 1970). Double hollow core beam bridges
are the most common pre-tensioned concrete bridge and account for 32% of pre-tensioned concrete
bridges on the New Zealand state highway network, with a total of 264 bridges in service when data was
extracted from the BDS in 2008 and 2011. The number of bridges constructed in each era with beam type
listed in the BDS as ‘double hollow core units’ or ‘double core units’ is shown in figure 3.20, with the age
of most double hollow core bridges within the range of 10 to 40 years.
Figure 3.20 Number of double hollow core bridges constructed in each era
The design of the double hollow core beams has evolved considerably over time, particularly after the
development of economical cast-in steel and plastic void-formers, which allowed the voids to be enclosed
in the precast unit and reduced the need for on-site formwork. Failure of the shear keys between units in a
bridge deck is a common problem that has been identified in double hollow core bridges (Gray et al
2003). This problem manifests as longitudinal cracking that is visible in the road surface above the shear
keys and allows water to flow through the deck between units and sit on the soffit of the beams. This
water can carry chlorides and result in chloride ingress into the sides of the beams in the middle of a
span, as well as accelerate the ingress of chlorides upwards into the soffit by providing additional
chlorides and a wetting and drying mechanism on the soffit.
Figure 3.21 shows typical cross sections taken from the 1964 MoW standard drawings, with the drawings
labelled as standard precast pre-tensioned hollow bridge units. However, these 1964 cross sections are
examples of early double hollow core beams, and bridges from era 3 and some bridges from era 4 that
are listed in the BDS as double hollow core are expected to be of this design. The 1964 standard drawings
provided designs for spans ranging from 20 to 40ft (6 to 12m). Figure 3.21 shows standard cross sections
for a 20ft (6m) and a 40ft (12m) span.
73
Figure 3.21 Typical cross sections for double hollow core beams: era 3 (1961–1965)
(a) 1964 MoW standard plan (20ft span) (MoW 1970) (b) 1964 MoW standard plan (40ft span) (MoW 1970)
The 1964 standard drawings specified ⅜” (9.5mm) h.t. strand and ⅜” (9.5mm) stirrups at 12” (305mm)
centres, and 28 day concrete strength of 5500psi (38MPa). Cover depth was specified to the centreline of
the strand as 1¾” (44.5mm) for the soffit and the outer web, so clear cover depth to the strand was
39.7mm and clear cover depth to the stirrups was 30.2mm. A notable feature of this design is that the
stirrups do not enclose the outer strands on each side of the section.
The stirrup clear cover depth specified in the 1964 standard drawings satisfied NZS 3101:2006 for a 50-
year design life in the A2 or B1 exposure zones, but would provide a 100-year design life only for
structures in the A2 zone. According to NZS 3101:2006, a 38MPa concrete structure constructed with
general purpose (GP) cement in the B2 exposure zone would require 37mm cover for a 50-year design life
and 52mm cover for a 100-year design life, which indicates that era 3 double hollow core beams would be
at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion if they were to achieve their intended 100-year service
life.
Tarapatiki Stream Bridge in the Hamilton region and Washdyke Stream Bridge in the Canterbury region
were both constructed in era 4. Tarapatiki Stream Bridge used standard double hollow core beams from
the 1964 MoW Standard plans for highway bridges, while Washdyke Stream Bridge used a specific design
that was similar in general form to modern double hollow core beams. Typical beam cross sections from
these two era 4 bridges are shown in figure 3.22.
(a) 1968 Tarapatiki Stream Bridge (42ft span) (b) 1970 Washdyke Stream Bridge (31ft span)
74
The MWD produced new standard drawings for 6 to 12m span double hollow core beams in 1973, and for
14 to 16m spans in 1976, which were published in the 1978 Standard plans for highway bridge
components (MWD 1978b). The standard drawings are likely to have been in use during era 5 before their
formal publication, but a large number of double hollow core beam bridges are likely to have specific
designs with similar characteristics to the standard sections. The cross section shown in figure 3.23(a) is
from the 1973 MWD standard drawing, and the cross section in figure 3.23(b) is from a specifically
designed 1974 double hollow core beam bridge.
(a) 1973 MWD standard plans (12m span) (b) 1974 Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge (50ft span)
Following the publication of the 1978 Standard plans for highway bridges (MWD 1978), the majority of
double hollow core bridges constructed in eras 7, 8 and 9 are expected to have had standard designs
similar to those shown in figure 3.23(a) and figure 3.24(a). Figure 3.24(b) shows a cross section taken
from an era 6 double hollow core beam bridge, while figures 3.25 and 3.26 show cross sections from era
7 and era 8 bridges respectively. All of these bridges had 12.5mm strands, with the exception of the era 8
Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge shown in figure 3.26(b), where an option was provided for either 12.5mm
strands or 12.9mm ‘super’ strands.
The drawings from era 6 and era 7 bridges specified 32mm clear cover depth to the stirrups, while the era
8 drawings specified a clear cover depth to the stirrups of 30mm. The drawings from eras 6, 7, and 8
specified 50mm cover to the centreline of the strand in the soffit, resulting in 43 to 44mm clear cover
depth. Concrete strength from eras 6, 7, and 8 is likely to have a specified 28 day compressive strength of
40MPa and not contain high levels of cast-in chloride.
(a) 1976 MWD standard plan (16m span) (b) 1979 Bullock Creek Bridge (12m span)
75
(a) 1981 Saltwater Creek Bridge (16m span) (b) 1986 Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge (14m span)
(a) 1992 Mahinapua Creek Bridge (16m span) (b) 1993 Omawhiti Stream Bridge (12m span)
The start of era 9 was triggered by the release of NZS 3101:1995 and an update of the Red Book standard
bridge plans. Cross sections from two era 9 double hollow core bridges are shown in figure 3.27. These
era 9 cross sections both provide the option of either 12.5mm ‘standard’ strands or 12.9mm ‘super’
strands, and specify 30mm clear cover depth to stirrups everywhere except in the shear keys. The
minimum clear cover depth to strands is 43 to 44mm and the specified 28 day concrete compressive
strength is 40MPa.
(a) 1996 Puhoi River Bridge (18m span) (b) 1999 Oturu Stream Bridge (15m span)
76
The current NZTA Standard precast concrete bridge beams (2008) contains standard plans for pre-
tensioned concrete double hollow core bridges with spans of 12m and 14m, with the new type of single
hollow core beam with one large void preferred for longer spans. The beams are 576mm deep and contain
12.7mm ‘super’ strands as pre-tensioned reinforcement. Specified 28 day compressive strength is 50MPa
and minimum clear cover depth to pre-tensioned reinforcement is 40mm, while the actual specified clear
cover depth to the strands is 50mm in the shear key and 54mm in the soffit. The pre-tensioned
reinforcement is enclosed by the stirrups for the length of the beams. Cross sections for the 2008 NZTA
standard double hollow core beams are given in figure 3.28.
(a) 2008 NZTA standard plans (12m span) (b) 2008 NZTA standard plans (14m span)
3.6 U-beams
Pre-tensioned concrete U-beams have been in use in New Zealand since era 6, but have not been
frequently used as this beam type was deemed uneconomic for most situations and as a result 2003 NZTA
research recommended excluding U-beams from new standard sections (Gray et al 2003). Standard plans
existed in the Red Book for pre-tensioned concrete U-beams for spans of 16 to 26m, and U-beams are well
suited for use in urban situations, where a low section depth is often required.
The number of bridges constructed in each era with beam type listed in the BDS as ‘U beams’ is shown in
figure 3.29. Sixty pre-tensioned concrete U-beam bridges are listed in the BDS, accounting for 7.4% of the
New Zealand state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock. The first U-beam bridge was constructed
in 1972 but the next U-beam bridge to be constructed was in 1980, following publication by the MWD of
standard U-beam plans in 1978 (MWD 1978b). U-beams were the second most popular beam type in eras
8 and 9, but in each of these eras they were used in less than half as many bridges as double hollow core
beams. All except one U-beam bridge listed in the BDS is less than 35 years old and the majority of U-
beam bridges were constructed in eras 6, 7, 8 and 9 using the standard plans contained in the MWD Blue
Book and Red Book. As a result of the recommendation that U-beams be excluded from the 2008 NZTA
standard sections, it is expected that very few U-beam bridges will be constructed in future. Super-tee
beams are preferred because their design and function is similar to that of a U-beam, but the super-tee
has flange outstands on either side at the top of the section, which improve structural efficiency and
provide formwork for the bridge deck slab, thus simplifying construction.
77
Figure 3.29 Number of U-beam bridges constructed in each era
The single U-beam bridge that was constructed in era 5 was specifically designed, and was built in 1972.
The MWD produced standard plans for U-beams in 1976, published in the 1978 MWD publication
Standard plans for highway bridge components. However, the next state highway U-beam bridge was not
constructed until the final year of era 6 (1980), when six U-beam bridges are listed in the BDS as having
been constructed.
Typical U-beam cross sections taken from the 1978 MWD Standard plans for highway bridge components
are shown in figure 3.30. These standard plans are expected to have been used in the majority of U-beam
bridges in eras 6, 7 and 8, and also in era 9 with some modifications.
Figure 3.30 Typical cross sections for U-beams: era 5 (1971–1977)
(a) 1976 MWD standard plans (16m span) (MWD 1978b) (b) 1976 MWD standard plans (18m span) (MWD 1978b)
78
Cross sections from U-beam bridges constructed in eras 6 and 7 are shown in figure 3.31 and figure 3.32
respectively. These cross sections all specify 12.5mm strands, 40MPa 28 day concrete strength, and
minimum clear cover depth to the stirrups of 30mm, and to the strands of 44mm.
(a) 1980 Dive Crescent Rail Overbridge (17m span) (b) 1980 Little Totara River Bridge (20m span)
(a) 1981 Woodbank Stream Bridge (20m span) (b) Punakaiki River Bridge (16m span)
79
Cross sections of U-beam designs from eras 8 and 9 are shown in figure 3.33 and figure 3.34 respectively.
These cross section drawings provide options for the use of 12.5mm strands or 12.9mm ‘super’ strands,
specify 40MPa concrete strengths, and 30mm clear cover depth to stirrups and 43 to 44mm clear cover
depth to strands. The U-beam cross section from the 1994 Kennedy Road Overbridge shown in figure 3.34
was not actually constructed; instead, an alternative design using double hollow core beams was
preferred.
(a) 1992 Ngakawau River Bridge (20m span) (b) 1992 Rosebank Bridges (widening) (15m span)
Figure 3.34 Typical cross sections for U-beams: era 9 (1995–2003) – 1998 Kennedy Road Overbridge (not
constructed) (16m)
80
3.7 Super-tee
Super-tee beams are a recently developed section that is increasing in usage in both New Zealand and
Australia for long-span precast pre-tensioned concrete bridges. Super-tee beams are sometimes referred
to as ‘teeroff’ beams, although this latter design is understood to be a variant that was developed for a
specific Australian project (Gray et al 2003). Super-tee beams are significantly larger than traditional T-
beams and contain one large void. Their cross section is similar to the U-beams described in chapter 3.6,
except they have flange outstands on either side at the top of the section, which improve structural
efficiency and provide permanent formwork for the deck slab. The 2008 standard bridge plans issued by
the NZTA contain drawings for 1025mm and 1225mm deep super-tee beams for spans of 20 to 30m (Beca
and Opus 2008).
Eight bridges are listed in the BDS with the beam types ‘Super-tee’ or ‘Single cell box girder (Teeroff)’, all
of which were constructed in era 11. Cross sections taken from the 2008 NZTA standard plans are shown
in figure 3.35. The standard designs specify 15.2mm diameter ‘low relaxation stress relieved super’
strands and 50MPa concrete. The minimum required clear cover depth for all reinforcement is specified as
40mm.
Figure 3.35 Typical cross sections for super-tee beams: era 11 (2008–2011)
(a) 2008 NZTA standard plans (1025mm deep, 20m (b) 2008 NZTA standard plans (1225mm deep, 30m
span) (Beca & Opus 2008) span) (Beca & Opus 2008)
3.8 Uncommon and unspecified beam types

In addition to the beam types described in detail above, the BDS contains bridges with superstructure type
listed as pre-tensioned concrete, and has seven other entries in the ‘beam type’ field. The beam type
listings that have not been discussed in chapters 3.1 to 3.7 are listed in table 3.1, along with the number
of bridges constructed with that beam type in each era.
81
Table 3.1 Uncommon or unspecified beam types listed in the BDS constructed in each era
Uncommon or unspecified beam Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era
Total
types 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Blank 2 1 10 14 10 9 46
Other 1 2 3 11 3 1 4 5 30
inverted T beams 3 2 1 1 7
Box Girder 3 3
I Beam, Double Hollow Core Units 2 2
Triple Hollow Core Units 1 1
none 1 1
Open box girder 1 1
Steel Truss 1 1
3.8.1 Unspecified beam types: ‘other’ or blank

There are 76 pre-tensioned concrete bridge entries in the BDS with beam types either left blank or listed
as ‘other’, and these entries represent 9.3% of the total pre-tensioned concrete bridge inventory. It is likely
that some of these unspecified bridges are mislabelled and actually contain one of the more common
beam types, so the information contained in chapters 3.1 to 3.7 would be applicable to them. However,
the majority of the unspecified beam types are expected to consist of either some of the infrequently used
beam types that are discussed in this sub-chapter, other non-standard cross sections, or combinations of
more than one beam type. As such, corrosion risk assessment for these bridges should begin with an
identification of the actual beam types used in each bridge, and these details should be amended in the
appropriate categories in the BDS.
3.8.2 Miscellaneous
Sixteen of the pre-tensioned concrete bridges listed in the BDS have beam types that are significantly less
common. Seven inverted T-beams are listed, and the other beam types each account for three or fewer
bridges. ‘inverted T-beams’, ‘Box Girders’, ‘Open Box Girders’ and ‘Triple Hollow Core Units’ were popular
pre-tensioned concrete bridge sections overseas but were not widely adopted in New Zealand. Despite the
existence of standard plans for triple hollow core beams in the MWD Red Book, only one bridge with this
beam type is listed in the BDS. A total of six inverted T-beams were constructed in eras 5, 6 and 7, but
they subsequently lost popularity.
Two bridges are listed as containing both I-beams and double hollow core beams. These two entries are
most likely the result of existing bridges being widened by the addition of more beams, so when
assessing these structures it will be necessary to ascertain the construction year of the different parts of
the bridge in order for the construction eras of the different beam types to be identified. It is likely that
the bridges listed in the BDS with ‘none’ or ‘Steel Truss’ as beam types have errors in either their beam
type or superstructure type fields.
3.9 Summary of beam types

In this chapter the different pre-tensioned concrete bridge beam types in service on the New Zealand state
highway network have been detailed. The seven most common beam types have been investigated and the
popularity of each beam type has been assessed with reference to the construction eras defined in chapter
82
2. The evolution in design of each beam type has been discussed, and typical cross sections taken from
standard drawings and as-built bridge plans from construction eras in which the beam type was most
popular have been presented. Specific details of the design that was typical of bridges constructed using
each of the beam types from the construction era in question have been provided. The cross sections
provided in this chapter can be referred to in the assessment of other structures of the same beam type
and construction era, should no drawings be available, and are expected to provide a good estimate of the
design features present in these structures. A summary of all of the bridges listed in the BDS, grouped by
both beam type and construction era, is presented in figure 3.36.
Figure 3.36 Number of bridges constructed, grouped by beam type and construction era
From figure 3.36 it can be seen that the popularity of beam types has changed through the different
construction eras. Bridge construction in era 2 was dominated by log beams, T-beams and I-beams, with I-
beams becoming dominant through eras 3 and 4. Double hollow core beam bridges achieved some
popularity in era 4 and grew to become the most common beam type in eras 6 through 10, while U-beams
and I-beams were used in special situations during those eras. Era 11 saw a large number of bridges
constructed using the newly developed super-tee beams, surpassing the number of double hollow core
beams constructed in that era. This data is further investigated in chapter 4, where the environmental
exposure of each bridge is assessed and the number of bridges at risk of corrosion from each
construction era and beam type is estimated.
The beam type of bridges constructed in eras 2, 3, 4 and 5 is expected to have a significant influence on
the durability of the structures, as the different beam types had different cover depths and some beam
types had enclosed pre-tensioned reinforcement while others did not. Bridges with all beam types that
were constructed in or after era 5 had minimum cover depths specified by bridge design documents, so
minimum cover depths are expected to be similar for all of those bridges, regardless of beam type. In
bridges constructed in or after era 6, the specified minimum covers also mean it is unlikely that
unenclosed pre-tensioned reinforcement will be an issue in bridges of any beam type. However, the shape
of the superstructure varies for bridges constructed with different beam types, and this may affect the
build-up of chlorides on the surface of the different faces of the beams, so beam type is still likely to have
83
an effect on the durability of these structures. Typical reinforcement details for era 2 to 5 bridges with
common beam types are given in table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Minimum cover and enclosed pretensioned reinforcement details for common beam types
constructed in era 5 and before
Beam type Construction No. of bridges Enclosed pre-T Typical minimum clear cover to pre-T
era constructed reinforcement reinforcement
Era 2 30 No 29mm
Era 3 42 No 33mm (<30’ spans), 46mm (>35’ spans)

Log beams
Era 2 14 No 38mm (Westshore Bridge, others may be

similar to I-beams)
Era 3 4 No Unknown, may be similar to I-beams

T-beams
Era 4 5 No 57mm (Tiwai Point Bridge, others may be
similar to I-beams)
Era 5 1 No 38mm
Era 2 11 No 23mm
Era 3 57 No 29mm
I-beams
Era 4 61 No 29mm
Era 5 51 No 38mm
Era 2 1 No Unknown, may be similar to log beams

Double Era 3 4 No 40mm
hollow core
beams Era 4 21 No 40mm
Era 5 44 Yes 44mm
84
4 Distribution analysis and exposure classification
4 Distribution analysis and exposure

classification
The ‘Distribution and Exposure Classification Tool’ (D&E tool) was created by importing bridge data from
the BDS into the ‘Google Earth’ software (Google 2009). The location of every pre-tensioned concrete
bridge in service on the New Zealand state highway network was converted from New Zealand Map Grid
coordinates to the 1984 World Geodetic System (WGS84) and input into Google Earth. The bridges were
assigned icons based on beam type and colours based on construction era, thus allowing a large number
of bridge assets to be quickly evaluated based on year of construction, beam type, region, and proximity
to the coast.
The D&E tool enabled the assessment of pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the New Zealand state highway
network from both an asset management perspective as an entire bridge stock, and as individual
structures. The tool allowed state highway bridges to be identified and visualised by beam type,
construction era and exposure classification, and for individual structures to be assessed using
geographical measurement tools, satellite photography, road-level photography, and other relevant data
both extracted from the BDS and generated in this project. The tool was used to assess the regional
distribution of pre-tensioned concrete bridges throughout New Zealand with respect to their beam type
and construction era, and also to assess the exposure environment of each of the pre-tensioned concrete
bridge structures individually and estimate their exposure classification according to NZS 3101:2006. The
exposure classification data was then combined with the construction eras and beam types identified in
chapters 2 and 3 to estimate the number of bridge structures that are at risk of pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion.
4.1 Development and use of the Distribution and

Exposure Classification Tool (D&E tool)
The D&E tool was developed to analyse the risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in New Zealand
state highway concrete bridges. The tool is in the form of a Keyhole Markup Language file Pre-T Bridge
Distribution and Exposure Classification Tool (D&E tool).kml, which is opened using Google Earth (Google
2009). For the remainder of this report the file will be referred to as the ‘D&E tool’. After opening the D&E
tool the screenshot shown in figure 4.1 is displayed.
85
Figure 4.1 Start-up screen of Pre-T Bridge Distribution & Exposure Classification Tool.kml
All of the pre-tensioned concrete bridges listed in the BDS are displayed, along with a sample of the other
information types that are included in the D&E tool. The information is displayed in the map window, and
the display control toggles are displayed in the ‘Places’ window in the toolbar on the left side of the
screen. The D&E tool was developed to enable visualisation of the pre-tensioned state highway bridge
stock, using the construction eras and beam types developed in chapters 2 and 3, and to allow
assessments of individual structures, including basic visual inspection of the roadway and estimation of
the exposure environment, using climate data and the features native to Google Earth. This climate data
also allowed for a national analysis of wind patterns and comparison to the prevailing wind directions
given in NZS 3101:2006.
To achieve these objectives, the D&E tool contains three main types of data that can be toggled on and off
depending on the investigation being performed.
• The primary dataset is the New Zealand state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges, which can be
sorted and displayed on the map in a number of different ways as required by the investigation.
• The second dataset is used in the exposure classification of bridges and contains the boundary of the
A2 zone (indicated on the map as a bold white line) and the prevailing wind directions given in
NZS 3101:2006 (indicated on the map by a variety of yellow arrows of different forms and
orientations).
86
• The third dataset is made up of wind roses from 23 climate stations across the country, plotted using
data obtained from the CliFlo database developed by the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric
research (NIWA 2012). A brief discussion of wind roses is provided in chapter 4.4.1. The size and large
number of wind roses means that they can be difficult to arrange on the map, so these wind roses can
be displayed at two different sizes, and with or without visible labels.
4.1.1 Visualisation of bridge stock by beam type and construction era

As mentioned earlier, the primary function of the D&E tool was to visualise the pre-tensioned concrete
bridge data extracted from the BDS with respect to the construction eras and beam-type categories
developed in chapters 2 and 3. Each bridge was assigned a unique icon based on its beam type, and
assigned a colour based on its construction era. Legends are provided to the west of the North Island for
these icons and colours, which can be toggled on and off using the check boxes in the Legends folder in
the Places window. Each bridge was then plotted at its ‘Start location’ coordinates as listed in the BDS.
Using the radio buttons and expansion arrows in the BDS Pre-T bridges folder in the Places window, these
bridge icons can be toggled on and off, either individually or in groups by beam type, construction era,
and exposure classification as determined in chapter 4.3. Using these controls, it is easy to display all
bridges with a certain beam type and toggle them by construction era, or vice versa, and also to locate all
bridges of a certain type that are located in each exposure classification. As the map is zoomed in and out
using the mouse wheel, all of the icons stay the same size relative to the screen, so individual bridges and
other data types can be individually identified when the user zooms in to a region.
4.1.2 Remote assessment of individual bridges

Individual bridges can be selected and located either manually on the map, by finding them in the folder
tree, or by using the search box at the bottom of the Places window. Double clicking on a bridge icon
displays a pop-up window and zooms in to the close-up view, as shown in figure 4.2. The pop-up window
contains details about the specific bridge (eg location, age, structural details, environmental details, and
exposure classification as determined in chapter 4.3), which were extracted from the BDS or generated in
this research. Dragging the yellow ‘Street view’ icon onto the bridge deck zooms in to a 360-degree
panorama photograph taken from a vehicle on the roadway, as shown in the inset image.
87
Figure 4.2 Close-up of individual bridge showing structure information window and example street-view
photograph (inset)
The ruler tool within Google Earth can be used to measure the distance and bearing between two points
on the map. This feature was used to measure the coastal distance of all pre-tensioned concrete bridges
on the state highway network, which is information that is required for estimation of the exposure
classification of structures (from NZS 3101:2006). Use of the ruler tool is displayed in figure 4.3(a) to
demonstrate the process of measuring the coastal distance for a bridge in a coastal exposure
classification, where a fair estimate of the high-tide mark can be made, which is necessary to make the
distinction between the coastal exposure classifications. Figure 4.3(b) shows a coastal distance
measurement for a more distant bridge; in cases like this the view can be zoomed at either end of the
measurement line so that the end points can both be accurately located if necessary.
88
Figure 4.3 Coastal distance measurement using the D&E tool
(a) Coastal distance measurement for B2 or C bridge (b) Coastal distance measurement for B1 bridge
4.1.3 National analysis of wind direction

Wind direction and frequency data was obtained from the National Climate Database for 23 climate
stations located around New Zealand. This data was accessed using the ‘Climate explorer’ service located
on the NIWA website (NIWA 2012). Using this data, wind roses showing the frequency of wind direction
and speed measured at each site were plotted, and each wind rose was inserted into the D&E tool at the
location of the climate station that recorded its data.
Further information on the wind roses is given in chapter 4.4. Only a selection of these wind roses is
shown in figure 4.4, because if they are all displayed at a national zoom level they overlap and obscure
one another. As the map is zoomed, the wind roses stay the same size relative to the screen, and the D&E
tool allows each wind rose to be displayed at the size shown, or at double that size, and with or without
the name of the climate station. These options can be useful depending on the size of the region being
investigated. The prevailing wind directions given in NZS 3101:2006 can also be displayed on the map as
yellow arrows, for reference and comparison.
89
Figure 4.4 Wind direction analysis using the D&E tool
(a) South Island wind roses and NZS 3101:2006 winds (b) North Island wind roses and NZS 3101:2006
winds
4.2 Regional distribution of beam types

The regional distribution of each of the different beam types reported in chapter 3 was assessed using the
D&E tool that was documented in chapter 4.1. The location of each bridge was mapped with its
construction era indicated by colour, and each of the common beam types was displayed separately, while
bridges that contained inverted T-beams and super-tee beams were grouped with the other uncommon
and unspecified beam types because of the small number of bridges with each of these beam types. The
exposure classifications referred to in this section are defined in NZS 3101:2006 and are detailed in
chapter 4.3 of this report.
4.2.1 National distribution of log beam bridges

The distribution of log beam bridges is concentrated in the middle of the North Island, and scattered
across the South Island, as shown in figure 4.5. Roughly half of all log beam bridges in New Zealand fall
under the A2 exposure classification, while the other half are located in the coastal exposure zones B1, B2
or C. Because of the large proportion of log beam bridges constructed in the earlier construction eras and
their lack of stirrups to provide an early warning of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, log beam
bridges that were not categorised in the A2 exposure zone should be considered a high priority for
detailed corrosion assessment and further risk analysis. Figure 4.5(b) shows that the majority of era 2 log
beam bridges are located in the northern part of the central North Island, particularly on or near state
highway 2, between Auckland and Whakatane.
90
Figure 4.5 National distribution of log beam bridges
(a) South Island (b) North Island
4.2.2 National distribution of T-beam bridges

The majority of the 32 T-beam bridges on the state highway network are located in the North Island,
mainly in Auckland and Northland. Only six T-beam bridges in the BDS were within the A2 exposure
classification boundary, leaving 24 T-beam bridges located in coastal environments and two T-beam
bridges that did not have location data in the BDS. A large proportion of state highway T-beam bridges
were constructed in eras 2, 3 and 4, so they are now between 40 and 60 years old and are likely to have
unenclosed pre-tensioned reinforcement. The high proportion of T-beam bridges in coastal environments,
combined with their age and likely design details, indicate that these bridges should be considered a high
priority for further corrosion assessment.
91
Figure 4.6 National distribution of T-beam bridges
4.2.3 National distribution of I-beam bridges

The locations of all 234 I-beam bridges in service on the New Zealand state highway network are shown in
figure 4.7. I-beam bridges are well distributed throughout the country, with increased concentrations near
the coastline where many state highways exist, and in surrounding urban areas. The location of the pre-
1973 I-beam bridges investigated by Bruce et al (2008) can be identified as the high concentration of
bridges located on the coastline of the East Cape and eastern Bay of Plenty, and on SH2 between Gisborne
and Opotiki. This high concentration of I-beam bridges is indicated by a white circle in figure 4.7(b).
By comparison with the A2 exposure classification zone shown on the ‘Exposure classification maps’
found in NZS 3101:2006 and displayed in figure 4.7 as a white boundary, it is concluded that a large
proportion (72%) of I-beam bridges in the North Island and a significant proportion (38%) of I-beam
bridges in the South Island are located in the coastal exposure zones B1, B2, or C. The large number of I-
beam bridges constructed in the earlier construction eras and the high proportion of I-beam bridges
located in coastal exposure zones indicates that I-beam bridges should be considered a high priority for
further assessment of corrosion risk.
92
Figure 4.7 National distribution of I-beam bridges
4.2.4 National distribution of single hollow core beam bridges

Figure 4.8 shows that the majority of the 32 single hollow core beam bridges in service on the
New Zealand state highway network are located in the North Island, with only five such bridges listed in
the BDS with location data in the South Island, and three bridges from era 9 located close together in
Nelson. Single hollow core beam bridges are scattered throughout the North Island, with some minor
clusters in Northland and near Palmerston North. Twenty of the 32 single hollow core bridges were located
outside the A2 exposure classification zone boundary shown in figure 4.8 as white outlines. Four single
hollow core beam bridges were constructed in era 5, and nine in era 9. The era 2 bridge in Palmerston
North and the four coastal bridges from era 5 should be considered a high priority for corrosion
investigation due to their age and proximity to the coast. The nine coastal bridges constructed in era 9
may be allowed a medium priority because they are younger, although early identification of any tendency
for pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in these era 9 single hollow core bridges would allow cost-
effective corrosion-prevention measures to be employed before more expensive rehabilitation becomes
necessary.
93
Figure 4.8 National distribution of single hollow core beam bridges
4.2.5 National distribution of double hollow core beam bridges

Figure 4.9 shows the distribution of the 264 double hollow core bridges on the New Zealand state highway
network. While there is a scatter of double hollow core bridges across all of the North Island, there are
three notable concentrations: the Auckland region, the far north, and the Coromandel Peninsula. The
majority of these double hollow core bridges were in the coastal exposure classifications B1, B2 or C. In
the South Island there is a large concentration of double hollow core bridges along the West Coast, where
bridges also fall in the coastal exposure classifications.
The large number of double hollow core bridges located in coastal B1, B2 and C exposure classifications
throughout New Zealand means that this bridge type should be considered a high priority for further
assessment of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion. The young age of the majority of double hollow
core bridges (when compared with other beam types) may suggest that assessment and remediation of
bridges with this beam type is less urgent. However, the early identification of potential pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion will enable more effective and less expensive remediation, especially if corrosion
risk factors are identified before corrosion has initiated. Early identification of pre-tensioned corrosion risk
factors would be especially beneficial for double hollow core bridges because of the large number of
structures that are potentially at risk, and would allow significant cost savings to be achieved over the
entire bridge stock if at-risk bridges are identified before corrosion initiates and preventative measures are
employed.
94
Figure 4.9 National distribution of double hollow core beam bridges
4.2.6 National distribution of U-beam bridges

The 60 pre-tensioned concrete U-beam bridges on the state highway network are distributed over all of
New Zealand, with distinct concentrations in Auckland and on the east and west coasts of the South
Island, particularly north of Arthur’s Pass. Seventeen of these bridges were located inside the A2 exposure
zone, while the majority (72%) were in the coastal classifications B1, B2 or C. The strong westerly winds
common in the West Coast region of the South Island make it a particularly harsh environment for
concrete bridges, so bridges located there should be considered a high priority for corrosion assessment.
The U-beam bridges located in less extreme environments may be considered a more moderate priority,
due to their relatively young age (20 to 35 years).
95
Figure 4.10 National distribution of U-beam bridges
4.2.7 National distribution of uncommon and unspecified beam types

The national distribution of inverted T-beam bridges, super-tee beam bridges, bridges with beam types
listed as ‘other’ or left blank, and bridges with miscellaneous beam types used in three or fewer bridges,
is shown in figure 4.11.
96
Figure 4.11 National distribution of uncommon and unspecified beam types
Of the eight super-tee bridges listed in the BDS, only two had location data. They were constructed in
2009 as part of the Tauranga Harbour Bridge Duplication Project, and were both located in exposure
classification C. The other super-tee bridges were also constructed in era 11 and it is expected that their
location data will be added to the BDS in the near future.
Inverted T-beam bridges are located in Auckland, Tauranga, Mt Ruapehu, and on state highway 63 in the
Tasman region. The five bridges in Auckland and Tauranga were outside the A2 exposure zone, but were
all constructed in different eras, so their assessment priority should be determined on a case-by-case
basis.
The other uncommon beam type bridges, and those with unspecified beam types, are located throughout
the country and need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
4.3 NZS 3101:2006 Exposure classifications

The exposure classifications used in chapter 4 are defined in chapters 3.4 and C3.4 of NZS 3101:2006,
and apply to above-ground exterior environments. NZS 3101:2006 defines the exposure classifications but
allows for a site-specific evaluation to be performed as an alternative solution. The exposure
classifications are briefly described in table 4.1 (following), and figure 4.12 provides a diagram showing
their extents. More detailed definitions of the exposure classifications are given in the following sub-
chapters, in order from the most aggressive to the most benign. The boundary of the A2 exposure
97
classification and prevailing and common wind directions required to classify structures that fall outside
of the A2 zone are shown in figure 4.13, which was exported from the D&E tool.
Table 4.1 Exposure classification descriptions (NZS 2006)
Exposure
Description
classification
A2 Inland areas that are remote from the coast: The ‘Inland exterior’ environment is defined by maps
‘Inland given in NZS 3101:2006 and shown as white lines in the figures exported from the D&E tool.
exterior’
B1 Moderately aggressive environments: The ‘Coastal perimeter’ is defined as outside of the A2 zone,
‘Coastal but not in the B2 or C zones.
perimeter’
B2 Aggressive environments: The ‘Coastal frontage’ is defined as within 30 to 500m of the high-tide
‘Coastal mark for structures downwind of a prevailing or other common wind, or within 100m of the high-tide
frontage’, or mark for structures that are not downwind.
‘Submerged’ Submerged structures are defined as those that fall below the mean low-water level.
C The most aggressive chloride-based environment for which guidance is provided: The
‘Tidal/splash/ ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone is defined as above the mean low-water level and outside the high-tide
spray’ mark, or up to 30m inland of the high-tide mark in the direction of a prevailing or other common
wind. Any structures over the sea or body of saline water where breaking waves occur are in
classification C unless subjected to a site-specific evaluation.
Figure 4.12 NZS 3101: 2006 exposure classification extents relative to prevailing or common wind direction
(nts)
98
Figure 4.13 NZS 3101 wind directions and extent of A2 exposure classification
4.3.1 Exposure classification C ‘Tidal/splash/spray’

The C exposure classification is the most aggressive chloride-based environment for which
NZS 3101:2006 provides guidance. The expected design life of structures in this zone is determined by
the chloride resistance of the cover concrete. The C zone applies to structures that are exposed to wetting
and drying with salt water as a result of tidal movements, splashing of any kind (but usually due to wave
action), or significant salt spray carried by the wind. The C classification does not apply to permanently
submerged structures (defined as being below the mean low-water level), which are classified as B2.
Exposure to tidal, splash, or spray action is more aggressive than being permanently submerged in salt
water because the wetting and drying process can drive chlorides into the concrete, and additional
protection is provided for submerged structures by the formation of a carbonate layer and the lack of
dissolved oxygen available for the corrosion reaction.
The ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone is defined as being above the mean low-water level and outside the high-
tide mark, or up to 30m inland of the high-tide mark in the direction of a prevailing or other common
wind. For structures that are over a body of saline water, the boundary of the ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone
(classification C) with the ‘Submerged’ structure zone (classification B2) in the vertical direction is taken as
the mean low-water level.
The commentary to NZS 3101:2006 states that the C zone includes offshore environments, as well as
open sea frontages with rough seas, and surf beaches, where significant salt spray is carried by onshore
winds. The standard itself states that ‘structures over the sea or body of saline water where breaking
waves occur shall be classification C’. It is important to note that breaking waves can regularly occur as a
99
result of wind action in harbours, estuaries and wide tidal rivers, so bridges in or near those environments
should often be classified as C, as well as bridges that are located near open surf beaches.
NZS 3101:2006 allows a site-specific evaluation to be made as an alternative to the provided

recommendations for the extent of the C zone, and states that this evaluation should consider spray drift
by taking into account wind strength, wave action and local topography. The standard also suggests that
the wind-frequency data available from NIWA may further enhance site evaluations.
4.3.2 Exposure classification B2 ‘Coastal frontage’ or permanently submerged

structures
The B2 exposure classification applies to structures that are permanently submerged, defined as being
below the mean low-water level, and to structures located in the ‘Coastal frontage’ zone. The design life of
concrete structures in the B2 zone is based on the chloride resistance of the cover concrete.
The ‘Coastal frontage’ exposure classification is an aggressive environment where salt spray is carried by
onshore winds. The definition of the ‘Coastal frontage’ zone in NZS 3101:2006 varies depending on the
direction of common or prevailing winds relative to the nearest coast line. Structures that are downwind
from the coast are in the B2 zone if they are between 30m and 500m inland of the high-tide mark, while
structures that are not downwind from the coast are in the B2 zone if they are between 0m and 100m
inland from the high-tide mark. The wind directions for determination of the extent of the B2 exposure
zone are given in NZS 3101:2006 and were shown earlier in figure 4.13.
As an alternative to the definitions of the exposure classifications specified in NZS 3101:2006 the extent
of the ‘Coastal frontage’ zone may be determined by a site-specific evaluation that takes into account
winds, wave action and local topography. The standard gives the example of a tidal estuary situation as
one where a site-specific evaluation would be advisable. NZS 3101:2006 states that wind patterns in
relation to an open sea frontage are particularly important for determination of the extent of the ‘Coastal
frontage’ zone, and suggests that wind-rose analyses obtained from NIWA be used to enhance site-specific
evaluations.
4.3.3 Exposure classification B1 ‘Coastal perimeter’

The B1 ‘Coastal perimeter’ exposure classification is a moderately aggressive environment usually affected
by the close presence of the coast. Structures that are found to be in the B1 ‘Coastal perimeter’ zone are
those that do not fall into any of the other classifications. The design life for structures in this zone is
usually determined by the carbonation resistance of the cover concrete.
4.3.4 Exposure classification A2 ‘Inland exterior’

The A2 exposure environment applies to concrete structures in inland above-ground exterior
environments. The extent of the A2 zone is given in NZS 3101:2006 and shown in figure 4.13. The
commentary to NZS 3101 states that the boundary between the A2 and B1 exposure zones was
determined using the measured corrosion rates of exposed steel in different environments. The design life
for structures in the A2 exposure classification is usually determined by the carbonation resistance of the
cover concrete.
4.4 National coastal wind direction analysis

The distinction between the B1, B2 and C exposure classifications according to NZS 3101:2006 is heavily
dependent on the frequency and strength of winds blowing from the coast towards the structure in
100
question. The standard provides prevailing and common wind directions for strong winds and for winds of
all speeds, but this data can be misleading for coastal structures in some situations because from the
analyses performed in this chapter it was found that the prevailing or common wind directions can often
account for less than half of the total wind at a site.
For a structure on or near the coast, a prevailing wind that originates inland may come from a small range
of bearings (eg north-west) and account for 35% of the total wind, while winds that originate from the sea
might account for 50% of the total wind but vary in direction by up to 180o (ie the eastern half of a
compass, if the coast ran north to south). In this extreme example, the wind originating from inland would
be a prevailing wind because it originated from a small range of bearings, yet the coastal structure would
actually experience winds originating from the sea more regularly than the prevailing wind from inland.
This phenomenon can occur because winds originating from inland are often caused or affected by
topography such as mountains and valleys, so their direction is more regular than winds that originate
from the sea, which are affected by many less predictable influences. A structure in the situation described
above would be classified under NZS 3101:2006 using the ‘not downwind’ coastal limits shown in figure
4.12, while the structure was actually downwind of the coast 50% of the time.
The wind roses obtained from NIWA and the NZS 3101 wind directions contained in the D&E tool were
used to investigate coastal wind patterns throughout New Zealand and to determine a methodology for
remotely estimating the exposure classification of all of the pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the state
highway network. Coastal wind patterns were investigated in regions where the common and prevailing
wind directions provided by NZS 3101:2006 indicated that structures would not be downwind from the
coast and therefore may have been designed using the less conservative exposure classification limits for
the C and B2 zones described in chapter 4.3.
Whilst it is evident from the analyses reported here that the use of wind rose data from 23 climate stations
located across New Zealand provides superior information for the purposes of corrosion analysis, it is
equally recognised that many of these climate stations are located in regions of flat topography, such as at
airfields. By comparison, bridges by definition are frequently located in regions of steep topography,
where significant potential exists for the local wind conditions at the bridge site to differ from the data
recorded at a nearby climate station due to local funnelling effects. Consequently, it is acknowledged that
for an accurate assessment of the wind conditions at a specific bridge site, the wind data presented here
should be supplemented by further wind data obtained from the bridge site.
4.4.1 Wind roses

A wind rose graph is a meteorological tool depicting the distribution of wind direction and speed at a
given location over a given period of time. In the example shown in figure 4.14, a wind rose was produced
using hourly wind data collected between 1995 and 2012 by the Westport Aero AWS (automatic weather
station). The length of each spoke on the radial plot shows the percentage of time that the wind originated
from that direction, while the colour indicates the speed of the wind. The width and area of each spoke do
not signify anything. The averaged wind direction data provided by NIWA was grouped in 10o increments,
with the first increment being 1o to 10o. These increments were further grouped into 30o increments to
produce a wind rose on which it was easier to read frequency values. Each spoke represents wind
originating from 30o of bearing, and the gaps between spokes exist only to make the graph easier to read.
As an example, figure 4.14 shows that between 1995 and 2012 at the site of the Westport Aero AWS
weather station, the wind originated in the 30o centred about the south-west approximately 16% of the
time, and the red portion of the spoke indicates that approximately 3% of the time the wind originated
from the south-west and was between 21km/hr and 30km/hr (NIWA 2012).
101
Figure 4.14 Wind rose from Westport Aero AWS (NIWA 2012)
The Beaufort scale is used in seafaring to relate wind speed to sea conditions. The scale provides
observations relating to wave height and the presence of white caps and sea spray for 12 different bands
of wind speed. While the scale is specifically intended for use in the open sea that is remote from land,
and therefore the recommendations cannot be used to directly relate coastal wind speed to wave
conditions, it is stated that in enclosed waters, or when near land with an offshore wind, wave heights will
be smaller and the waves steeper. Steeper waves are more likely to break and cause salt spray, and two of
the factors resulting in reduced wave heights for near-shore locations are the duration and the ‘fetch’ of
the wind. Fetch is defined as the distance over which the wind has blown, and in the case of an onshore
wind that has originated over the sea and tends to blow salt spray onto coastal structures, the fetch of the
2
wind is affected less by the proximity to the coast than it is for an offshore wind (NMLA 2010).
It is proposed that the Beaufort scale be used to provide a rough relationship between wind speed and the
presence of waves and salt spray, which can be used with caution in the exposure classification of coastal
structures. Table 4.2 gives descriptions of open sea conditions for common wind speeds recorded by the
wind roses in the D&E tool.
2 National Meteorological Library and Archive, UK.
102
Table 4.2 Beaufort scale relating wind speed and open sea conditions (NMLA 2010)
Beaufort Wind speed at 10m Closest wind

Description Open sea conditions
force above sea level rose colour band
Large wavelets. Crests begin to break. Foam

Gentle 12.2km/hr to
3 Orange of glassy appearance. Perhaps scattered white
breeze 19.4km/hr
horses.
Moderate 19.8km/hr to Small waves, becoming longer, fairly frequent

4 Red
breeze 28.4km/hr white horses.
Moderate waves, taking a more pronounced

Fresh 28.8km/hr to
5 Purple long form. Many white horses are formed.
breeze 38.5km/hr
Chance of some spray.
4.4.2 West Coast region

The wind directions given in NZS 3101:2006 for the West Coast region in the South Island indicate that a
common wind, all speeds, originates in the south-west both on land and sea and runs roughly parallel to
the coast. Use of this wind direction for classification of coastal structures would find that most structures
were located across the wind from the coast, and thus the less conservative extents for the C and B2 zone
should apply. However reference to the wind roses shown in figure 4.15 indicate that winds with lower
speeds originating from inland are actually more common than south-westerly winds, and that winds with
higher speeds (21km/hr or greater) are likely to occur regularly, not just from the south-west but
originating from the sea, which is in all directions in the north-western half of the wind rose.
Figure 4.15 West Coast wind rose map
103
4.4.3 Central North Island

Figure 4.16 shows the locations of wind roses and NZS 3101:2006 wind direction indicators in the central
North Island. NZS 3101:2006 wind direction indicators are shown as yellow arrows in figure 4.16 and
generally agree with the most common wind directions shown on the wind roses, but also show significant
winds in other directions. The Hamanatua Bridge investigated by Bruce et al (2008) is shown with an
orange ‘I’ icon near the Gisborne AWS weather station.
Figure 4.16 Central North Island wind rose map
Hamanatua Bridge
Larger versions of the wind roses on the East Cape and in the Hawke’s Bay are provided in figure 4.17. The
Hicks Bay AWS weather station is near a north-westerly common wind, all speeds indicator in
NZS 3101:2006, and its wind rose shows strong winds originating from the west-north-west quarter
approximately 48% of the time, but also shows strong winds originating from the south-east and south-
south-east 27% of the time. The Gisborne AWS weather station agrees with the inland north-westerly
NZS 3101:2006 wind direction approximately 57% of the time, but also experiences sea winds from the
south-eastern quarter 19% of the time. The Mahia AWS weather station shows a strong prevailing wind
from the north-north-east, which is not suggested by NZS 3101:2006. The Napier Aero AWS weather
station shows a strong prevailing south-westerly wind, as suggested by NZS 3101:2006, but also
experiences wind from the seaward north-eastern quarter approximately 21% of the time and a similar
proportion of strong winds (greater than 21km/hr) from all quarters except the south-east.
104
Figure 4.17 East Cape and Hawke’s Bay wind roses
(a) Hicks Bay AWS wind rose (b) Gisborne AWS wind rose
(c) Mahia AWS wind rose (d) Napier Aero AWS wind rose
The Hamanatua Bridge near Gisborne was investigated by Bruce et al (2008) and was found to have pre-
tensioned steel corrosion in at least one of its beams. At the time the corrosion was first identified the
bridge was 38 years old. The Hamanatua Bridge is located near the coast, 8.5km away from the Gisborne
AWS weather station, and is shown as the orange ‘I’ icon in figure 4.16. The only NZS 3101:2006 wind
direction indicator in the vicinity of the bridge shows a prevailing north-westerly wind, suggesting that the
bridge is upwind from the coast and as a result should be classified using the coastal distance extents of
0m and 100m from the high-tide mark for the C and B2 classifications respectively. Figure 4.18 shows a
close-up of the Hamanatua Bridge, with the Google Earth ruler tool measuring the distance to the high-tide
mark, estimated as the highest point on the beach where breaking waves could occur. The distance to the
high-tide mark is approximately 120m, which would lead to an exposure classification of B1 using the
definitions and wind directions in NZS 3101:2006, although the bridge is near the boundary of the B2
105
zone. The nearby Gisborne AWS wind rose displayed in figure 4.17(b) shows that approximately 58% of the
winds originate inland in the north-western quarter, and that the strongest winds also originate from that
direction, as suggested by NZS 3101:2006. However, the 19% of winds originating from the sea in the
south-eastern quarter (the majority of which are of a moderate speed between 11km/hr and 20km/hr)
have been sufficient to cause chloride-induced corrosion in the pre-tensioned reinforcement after less than
40 years of service.
Figure 4.18 Satellite photograph of the Hamanatua Bridge, showing distance from the high-tide mark
4.4.4 Marlborough and North Canterbury regions

The nearest wind direction indicator given in NZS 3101:2006 for structures around Kaikoura in North
Canterbury suggests a strong prevailing north-westerly wind, but this suggestion is in disagreement with
the wind data from the Kaikoura AWS weather station. The Kaikoura AWS wind rose shows that the wind
originates from the north-western quarter approximately 16% of the time only, while it originates from the
south-western quarter 42% of the time, and from the north-eastern quarter 31% of the time. Strong
common winds originate in the south-western quarter and in the north-east. The southerly wind direction
arrow positioned near Blenheim is twice as far away as the wind direction arrow that is closest to Kaikoura,
but gives a representation of the coastal wind pattern that is more accurate but still incorrect.
106
Figure 4.19 Marlborough and North Canterbury wind rose map
Near Kaikoura the predominance of north-easterly and south-westerly winds, as opposed to the north-
westerly winds suggested by NZS 3101:2006, would not affect the application of the NZS 3101:2006
exposure classifications to most structures because of the north-east to south-west coastline in this area.
However, the use of the north-westerly wind direction for exposure classifications is likely to affect
structures located on peninsulas and headlands, and the discrepancy highlights the local variability of
coastal wind patterns and the risk inherent when applying a generalised national or regional wind pattern
to a discrete location.
Wind directions given in NZS 3101:2006 for the Blenheim region are a common westerly (all speeds) and a
common prevailing southerly. The Blenheim Aero AWS wind rose indicates that the wind originates in the
west and north-west approximately 56% of the time, and that strong winds most commonly originate from
the north-west. However, winds originating from the sea to the east and north-east are also common,
occurring approximately 23% of the time.
4.4.5 Conclusions from national coastal wind direction analysis

The national coastal wind analysis described in this chapter has shown that significant inaccuracies can
arise when using the wind directions specified in NZS 3101:2006 for assessing sea winds affecting
individual structures. Using the Hamanatua Bridge as a case study, it has been shown that the utilisation
of NZS 3101:2006 wind directions led to a non-conservative error in the exposure classification of the
structure. In most coastal regions, winds that originate from the sea are relatively common, even in
regions affected by the presence of a common or prevailing wind that originates from inland. This
increased likelihood for wind to originate offshore is particularly significant for structures located on or
near the coast, as winds from a wide range of bearings originate over the sea and can carry salt spray.
These salt-laden winds can account for a large proportion of the total wind, without having one wind
direction stand out as common or prevailing. It has also been concluded that where project conditions for
a specific bridge allow, the wind rose data provided in the D&E tool should be supplemented by additional
wind data recorded at the site, to allow for site topography factors that are not considered when using the
approach presented here.
107
4.5 Exposure classification of state highway pre-tensioned

concrete bridges
Using the D&E tool described in chapter 4.1, a range of data was gathered relating to the exposure
environment of each pre-tensioned concrete bridge on the New Zealand state highway network. This data
was used to estimate the exposure classification according to NZS 3101:2006. In addition, two modified
procedures were also investigated to define exposure classifications that provided additional
conservatism, in order to account for the inaccuracies and assumptions inherent in a remote evaluation.
Consequently, estimates of the exposure classification for each state highway pre-tensioned concrete
bridge were performed in three different ways with differing levels of conservatism, and data is presented
for each of these three methods. The first method involved simply grouping the bridges into bands based
on their distance from the high-tide mark; the second method involved classifying the bridges using the
criteria specified in NZS 3101:2006 and described in chapter 4.3; and the third method used the NZS 3101
criteria but assumed that all bridges were located downwind from the coast.
The primary data required for the exposure classification of bridges by any means is the distance from the
bridge to the high-tide mark. The high-tide mark is defined as the nearest location to the bridge where
breaking waves are likely to occur regularly, and can include waves that are caused by wind action on a
wide body of saline water such as an estuary, wide tidal river, or harbour, as well as those winds that
occur on an open sea frontage. For each pre-tensioned concrete bridge on the state highway network the
coastal distance was determined using the features of the D&E tool for remote assessment of individual
bridges, as described in chapter 4.1.2.
4.5.1 Coastal distance bands

The simplest method of exposure classification involves measurement of the distance from a bridge to the
high-tide mark, and then grouping bridges with similar coastal distances. The shortest distance to the
high-tide mark was measured and each bridge was assigned to a coastal distance band of 0m, 1 to 30m,
31 to 100m, 101 to 500m, 501 to 1000m, 1001 to 5000m, 5001m to 10km, or greater than 10km. There
are more bands than there are exposure classifications given in NZS 3101:2006, and these bands have the
advantage of providing a higher level of fidelity, which is particularly useful for analyses applying to a
large number of bridges. However, using coastal distance bands alone can be non-conservative for
structures that are located more than 100m from the coast but over wide bodies of saline water (such as
wide tidal rivers), where breaking waves may occasionally occur as a result of wind action. To overcome
this limitation these structures should be included with those bridges that are located in the most critical
coastal distance band (being 0m).
The specifications provided in NZS 3101:2006 classify any bridge that is located further than 500m from
the high-tide mark as being in the B1 or A2 zone, but Bruce et al (2008) suggest that bridges located
within approximately 1km of the coast should be considered to be in the B2 exposure classification. The
coastal distance bands can be used in place of the exposure classifications by increasing the extent of
each of the classification zones, effectively applying a factor of safety to predictions of corrosion
prevalence in a bridge stock when compared to predictions made using the NZS 3101:2006 classifications.
The coastal distance band method defines the ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone as less than 100m from (or over
any body of saline water) where breaking waves may occur, the ‘Coastal frontage’ zone as 100m to 1km,
the ‘Coastal perimeter’ as 1km to 10km, and ‘Inland exterior’ as greater than 10km.
108
4.5.2 Exposure classification using NZS 3101:2006

The exposure classification of each pre-tensioned concrete bridge listed in the BDS was determined using
the requirements specified in NZS 3101:2006. This classification required the coastal distance to be
determined in the same way as described in chapter 4.5.1, and for the orientation of the bridge to the
coast to be identified with respect to the direction of any common or prevailing winds at the bridge site.
Bridges located over wide bodies of saline water (eg estuaries, harbours and wide tidal rivers) were also
identified because breaking waves may (occasionally or regularly) be generated by wind action on these
bodies of water and consequently structures located over saline water bodies should be designated as
classification C, according to NZS 3101:2006.
The common or prevailing wind direction at a bridge site was determined from the maps given in
NZS 3101:2006 and shown in figure 4.13, and the orientation of the coast from the bridge was defined as
the bearing of the line used to measure the coastal distance. A bridge location that was ‘downwind’ from
the coast was defined as one where a common or prevailing wind originated from a bearing within 135o
centred on the line used to measure the coastal distance. A bridge location that was ‘upwind’ from the
coast was defined as one where a common or prevailing wind originated in the 45o angle centred on the
opposite bearing to that of the coastal distance line. A wind originating from any other direction was
considered a crosswind.
The orientation of the bridge to the coast was determined by calculating the included angle between the
bearing of the coast from the bridge and the bearing of the wind: if this bearing was less than 67.5o then
the bridge was said to be located ‘downwind’ from the coast; if this bearing was greater than 157.5o then
the bridge was said to be located ‘upwind’; otherwise the bridge was said to experience a crosswind.
4.5.3 Exposure classification using NZS 3101:2006 and assuming downwind

From the national coastal wind analysis described in chapter 4.4, it was found that significant inaccuracies
arose when using the wind directions specified in NZS 3101:2006 for assessing sea winds affecting
individual structures. It was also found that in the case of the Hamanatua Bridge, this inaccuracy led to a
non-conservative error in the exposure classification of the structure. For this reason a modified exposure
classification methodology was employed by using NZS 3101:2006 to determine exposure classifications,
but ignoring the specified common and prevailing wind directions, and assuming that all bridges were
located downwind from the coast. This procedure had the effect of fixing the extents of the C and B2
exposure classifications so that all bridges over the sea or a wide body of saline water where breaking
waves may occur, and those bridges within 30m of the high-tide mark, were designated as classification C,
while all bridges located between 30m and 500m of the high-tide mark were designated as classification
B2.
4.5.4 Exposure classification data types generated for pre-tensioned concrete

bridges
A summary of each of the data types collected or determined for each of the 814 pre-tensioned concrete
bridges in the 2008<2011 dataset is given in table 4.3, and the full data is provided in appendix C, table
C.1.
109
Table 4.3 Bridge environment data collected from the D&E tool
Data type Values Description

Rogers key 1 to 814 The bridges in the 2008<2011 BDS were sorted by year of
construction, then by latitude (south to north), then by name,
and numbered sequentially from 1 to 814.
Name Name of the bridge as listed Extracted from the BDS.
in the BDS
Landscape Farmland, Forest, Mountain, Describes the landscape surrounding the bridge.
Rural, Tundra, Urban, noLoc
Crossing type 36 options including River, Describes the purpose of the bridge and what it spans over (or
Braided river, Stream, Rail what spans over the roadway). Gives a rough idea of the
over road, Wide tidal river, environment and accessibility of the soffit.
River mouth (surf beach), etc
Description of coast Estuary, Firth of Thames, Description of nearest body of saline water where breaking waves
Harbour, Sound, Surf beach, are likely to occur regularly, and to where the coastal distance
Tidal estuary, Tidal river, measurement was taken.
Wide tidal river
Coastal distance Distance in metres Shortest distance from the bridge to the high-tide mark of the
nearest body of saline water where breaking waves are likely to
occur regularly. High-tide mark was estimated using satellite
photography, and coastal distance measured using the ruler tool.
GE elevation Elevation in metres Gives a rough estimate of the elevation of the bridge site taken
from Google Earth terrain data.
Bearing of coast from Bearing in degrees (0o to The bearing of the line used to measure the coastal distance,
bridge 359o) from the bridge to the coast.
NZS 3101:2006 wind 8-point compass direction The nearest NZS 3101:2006 wind direction indicator.
direction (N, NE, E, etc.)
NZS 3101:2006 wind Bearing in degrees (0o to As above, converted to a bearing.
bearing 359o)
View of open surf Yes, No, noLoc Is an open surf beach visible from the bridge deck? Determined
using Google street view photography.
Over tidal/ saline Yes, No, Maybe, noLoc Estimate of whether the bridge crosses a tidal/saline waterway.
waterway Judgement based on other data.
Over saline waves? Regularly, Occasionally, Estimate of whether the structure is over a body of saline water
Never, noLoc and if so, how often breaking waves are likely to occur under it.
Judgement based on other data.
Wind orientation of Upwind, Downwind, The orientation of the bridge relative to the nearest
bridge from coast Crosswind, noLoc NZS 3101:2006 prevailing or common wind. Calculated from the
included angle between the bearing of coast from bridge and the
bearing of the wind. If this bearing is less than 67.5o the value is
‘downwind’; if greater than 157.5o it is ‘upwind’; otherwise it is
‘crosswind’.
Coastal distance band 0m, 1m to 30m, 31m to Categories based on coastal distance.
100m, 101m to 500m,
501mm to 1km, 1km to
5km, 5km to 10km, over
10km
NZS 3101:2006 A2, B1, B2, C, noLoc Exposure classification of each bridge determined using the
exposure classification NZS 3101:2006 definitions given in chapter 4.3, and wind
orientation and coastal distance data.
NZS 3101:2006 A2, B1, B2, C, noLoc Exposure classification determined using the NZS 3101:2006
exposure classification definitions given in chapter 4.3, and coastal distance data, but
(downwind) assuming that all bridges are downwind from the coast.
110
4.6 Exposure classification of pre-tensioned concrete

bridge stock
The dataset described in chapter 4.5 was used to assess the exposure of the state highway concrete
bridge stock to corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement. The number of bridges in each of the exposure
classifications and coastal distance bands were identified and then tabulated for the more critical
exposure classifications. Table 4.4 gives the number of bridges in each coastal distance band, both
exclusive of the bands closer to the coast, and cumulative, including the total number of bridges closer to
the coast than the upper bound of the coastal distance band. Bruce et al (2008) suggest that site
investigations should be carried out on all pre-tensioned concrete I-beam bridges constructed before 1973
that are located within approximately 1km of the coast, to identify existing corrosion and to measure
concrete cover depths and chloride contamination. Table 4.4 shows that a total of 131 state highway pre-
tensioned concrete bridges of any age and beam type are located within 1km of the coast.
Table 4.4 Total number of pre-tensioned concrete bridges in each coastal distance band
1m to 31m to 101m to 501m to 1km to 5km to Total

0m >10km noLoc
30m 100m 500m 1km 5km 10km bridges
Exclusive total 22 9 18 46 36 172 102 368 41 814
Cumulative
22 31 49 95 131 303 405 773 814 814
total
Table 4.5 shows the total number of state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges in each of the exposure
classifications as defined in NZS 3101:2006. The exposure classifications were applied to the bridges in
the BDS in two ways: firstly, using the prevailing wind directions provided in the standard to determine if a
bridge is downwind from the coast; and secondly, more conservatively, assuming that all bridges are
downwind from the coast.
Table 4.5 Number of pre-tensioned concrete bridges in NZS 3101:2006 exposure classifications
C B2 C + B2 B1 A2 noLoc Total
NZS 3101:2006 exposure classification taking into

57 23 80 384 309 41 814
account common and prevailing wind directions
NZS 3101:2006 exposure classification assuming

58 45 103 361 309 41 814
all bridges are downwind from the coast
There are many more bridges in the C exposure classification than in B2. This is due, in part, to the large
number of bridges that are more than 30m or 100m (depending on wind direction) from the coast, and
that also cross saline estuaries, harbours or wide tidal rivers. In these locations it was considered that
breaking waves may occasionally occur directly beneath the structure as a result of wind action, and
therefore structures in these environments were designated as exposure classification C. In practice, many
B2 exposure classification bridges that are located between 30m and 500m from an open surf beach are
likely to be in a similar exposure condition and to experience a similar amount of salt spray as bridges
that are classified in the C zone because of the ‘over saline waves’ requirement.
4.6.1 Limitations of remote exposure classification using the D&E tool

The location of the coast for measurement of the coastal distances used in this report was defined in the
same way for the coastal distance bands as it is for exposure classification using NZS 3101:2006. The
111
location of the coast was defined as the high-tide mark at the closest location to the bridge where
breaking waves are likely to occur regularly. Bodies of water in which breaking waves are likely to occur
regularly and the location of the high-tide mark were estimated using the D&E tool. Remote assessment of
site-specific parameters such as the likelihood of breaking waves, the salinity of a body of water, or the
location of the high-tide mark provides, at best, an estimate of the site conditions because it requires
significant assumptions to be made regardless of the quality of the data and the tool used, and cannot
approach the accuracy of a physical site investigation.
While unusual site-specific conditions that cannot be identified remotely may affect the accuracy of the
assessment of any one structure, when assessments on a large number of structures are considered the
inferences made are more robust. The benefit of remote assessment is that the method can be performed
quickly for a large number of structures that are distributed over a large area, and as such it is a useful
tool for asset management applications as long as the limitations and accuracy of the results are
understood. Because of the inherent inaccuracies and assumptions that are necessary when assessing a
large number of structures (such as an entire asset inventory), a more conservative approach is required
for asset management tasks than for the assessment of individual structures. This means structures with
site-specific conditions that result in greater exposure than indicated by remote assessment are less likely
to be disregarded.
The satellite photography, Google Earth elevation data, and wind rose features of the D&E tool were used
to estimate whether regular breaking waves were likely to occur on a body of water. Large bodies of water
at or near sea level, particularly in areas prone to high winds, were considered to be likely to regularly
experience breaking waves. In general, water bodies such as beaches, harbours, estuaries, sounds or
fjords, and wide tidal rivers may experience breaking waves as a result of wind action. The high-tide mark
was estimated from satellite photography, and in river mouths the high-tide mark was estimated as the
furthest point inland where coastal surf was likely to occur.
4.6.2 Number of bridges in coastal exposures, using coastal distance bands

Using coastal distance bands to determine exposure classification is similar to the method for determining
the exposure classification of exterior structures in coastal areas described in NZS 3101:2006, except that
the extent of each band does not vary based on the local wind direction, and structures over saline bodies
of water where breaking waves occur are not automatically assigned to the most critical band. The effect
of this modification to the classification procedure is that structures that are over saline water where
breaking waves are estimated to regularly occur are assigned to the coastal distance band ‘0m’, while
those structures located over saline water where breaking waves are estimated to occur only occasionally
are assigned a coastal distance that is measured to the nearest location of regular breaking waves.
4.6.2.1 Bridges in ‘Coastal frontage’ zone, using coastal distance bands (<1km from the coast)
Bruce et al (2008) found that all pre-1973 pre-tensioned I-beam bridges located within 1km of the coast
were likely to experience pre-tensioned and reinforcing steel corrosion within a 100-year service life. In
order for these bridges to achieve a 100-year service life, the study recommended that site investigations
be performed on all pre-1973 I-beam bridges to identify existing corrosion and to measure chloride
ingress and concrete cover depths, so that appropriate interventions could be scheduled.
Following the recommendation of Bruce et al (2008) to investigate bridges within 1km of the coast, the
number of pre-tensioned concrete bridges of all beam types on the state highway network that are located
within 1km of the coast was determined. A total of 131 bridges were found to be within 1km of the coast,
accounting for 16% of the total pre-tensioned state highway bridge stock. These 131 bridges are tabulated
by beam type and construction era in table 4.6. Not included in table 4.6 are six bridges that are located
112
between 1km and 5km away from the coast, but are located over bodies of water where occasional
breaking waves were estimated to occur.
Table 4.6 Breakdown of pre-tensioned concrete bridges located within 1km of the coast
Beam type Era 1 Era 2 Era 3 Era 4 Era 5 Era 6 Era 7 Era 8 Era 9 Era 10 Era 11 Total
Log beams 3 10 13
T-beams 2 4 6
I-beams 1 16 6 7 2 1 3 2 38
Single hollow core

1 3 4
beams
Double hollow
5 2 7 9 13 3 2 41
core beams
U-beams 3 4 6 2 15
Super-tee 2 2
Inverted T-beams 1 1 2
Misc. 1 1
Other or blank 1 2 2 2 1 1 9
Total 0 8 28 17 12 13 14 23 11 2 3 131
Bruce et al (2008) found that pre-1973 I-beam bridges located in the B2 zone were likely to experience
pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion within their service lives. The investigation into bridge design and
construction practices presented in chapter 2 did not identify 1973 as a construction era boundary, so the
cut-off point of 1977 (the end of era 5, marked by the release of the MWD Standard plans for highway
bridge components) was used in this research to discuss and expand on the findings of Bruce et al to
encompass bridges with different beam types. Thirty pre-tensioned concrete I-beam bridges that were
constructed in eras 2, 3, 4 and 5 (before 1977) are located within 1km of the coast and make up 12.9% of
the total number of pre-tensioned concrete I-beam bridges on the state highway network, and 3.7% of the
total state highway pre-tensioned bridge stock.
A total of 65 (50%) out of the 131 pre-tensioned state highway bridges located within 1km of the coast
were constructed in eras 2 to 5 (ie were more than 35 years old at the time of this research) and make up
8.0% of the total state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock. The most common beam type among
the pre-1977 bridges located within 1km of the coast are the I-beam bridges mentioned above, while the
remainder consist of 13 log beam bridges, 7 double hollow core beam bridges, 6 T-beam bridges, 1 single
hollow core beam bridge, 1 inverted T-beam bridge, and 7 bridges with unspecified beam types. Reference
to chapter 3 shows that most pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in eras 2 to 5 are likely to have
similar durability weaknesses to those identified in pre-1973 I-beam bridges, regardless of their beam
type. It is therefore recommended that all of the 65 pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in eras 2
to 5 also be subjected to site investigations to identify active corrosion and to measure chloride ingress
and concrete cover depths. The D&E tool was used to display the locations of all era 2 to 5 pre-tensioned
concrete bridges that are located within 1km of the coast, as illustrated in figure 4.20. A list of the 131
bridges that are within 1km of the coast, and the six bridges that are located over bodies of saline water
where occasional breaking waves are likely to occur, is provided in appendix C, table C.1. Of these 137
bridges, the 65 era 2 to 5 bridges that are located within 1km of the coast and the additional three that
are more than 1km from the coast but located over occasional saline waves are recommended for site
investigation and concrete cover depth and chloride ingress measurements as soon as possible. The list is
sorted by construction era and contains names, locations, state highway numbers and BSN numbers so
113
that these bridges can be identified and located for site investigations. The list also contains the estimated
exposure classification using each of the three methods described in chapter 4.5.
Figure 4.20 National distribution of era 2–5 pre-tensioned concrete bridges located within 1km of the coast
4.6.2.2 Bridges in ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone, using coastal distance bands (<100m from the coast)
From table 4.7 it may be established that 49 pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the state highway network
are located within 100m of the high-tide mark. This coastal distance band was selected for analysis
because it provides a more conservative estimate of the bridges that may be in the salt-spray zone than
that provided by NZS 3101:2006. The 49 bridges located within 100m from the coast, when combined
with the 18 bridges that are located more than 100m away from the coast but are likely to be above
occasional saline waves, are expected to include all of the state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges
that experience direct tidal, splash or salt spray. By comparing tables 4.6 and 4.7 it may be established
that of the 65 pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in eras 2 to 5 and located within 1km of the
coast, 25 bridges (38%) are located within 100m of the coast. Furthermore, it can be seen that of the 49
pre-tensioned concrete bridges located within 100m of the coast, 25 bridges (51%) were constructed
during eras 2 to 5, indicating that a significant proportion of all pre-tensioned concrete bridges located
within 100m of the coast are a high priority for corrosion assessment. Details of all of the bridges counted
in table 4.7, and of the 18 bridges that are located further than 100m from the coast but over occasional
saline waves, can be found in appendix C, table C.1, which also includes details of all pre-tensioned state
highway bridges within 1km of the coast and those over saline waves.
114
Table 4.7 Breakdown of pre-tensioned concrete bridges within 100m of the coast
Log beams 2 6 8
T-beams 1 2 3
I-beams 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 14
Single hollow core

0
beams
Double hollow
2 2 4 5 13
core beams
U-beams 1 1 2 1 5
Super-tee 2 2
Inverted T-beams 1 1
Misc. 0
Other or blank 1 1 1 3
Total 0 5 9 8 3 4 5 10 2 0 3 49
4.6.3 Number of bridges in coastal exposures, using NZS 3101:2006 and

assuming that all bridges are downwind from the coast
Exposure classification of exterior structures in coastal areas as defined by NZS 3101:2006 relies
predominantly on coastal distance. However, the standard varies the extent of each classification zone
based on the local wind direction, with the extent of the C and B2 zones being extended for structures
that are downwind from the coast. NZS 3101:2006 also stipulates that any structure over a body of saline
water where breaking waves occur is assigned a C exposure classification. Because of uncertainties
regarding the accuracy and fidelity of the wind direction data given in NZS 3101:2006, and the potential
for variance between wind rose data and actual wind conditions at a bridge site due to funnelling effects,
bridges were classified using a more conservative approach that neglected wind directions and assumed
that all structures were located downwind from the coast. This method of exposure classification is less
conservative than the coastal distance band method described in chapter 4.6.2, but more conservative
than using NZS 3101:2006 in its unmodified form. The bridge dataset considered for this analysis is a
subset of that used in chapter 4.6.2, so details of each of the bridges are included in appendix C, table
C.1. The bridges identified when adopting the assumption of being located downwind are more likely to
be at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion than those classified in chapter 4.6.2, and as such the
era 2 to 5 bridges should be given a higher priority for site investigation than those that were identified in
chapter 4.6.2 only.
4.6.3.1 Bridges in ‘Coastal frontage’ zone, using coastal distance bands (B2 and C) from
NZS 3101:2006 and assuming that all bridges are located downwind from the coast
Table 4.8 reports the analysis results for pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the B2 and C exposure
classification when assuming all bridges to be located downwind from the coast. From table 4.8 it is
evident that 56 bridges (54%) were constructed in eras 2 to 5, from a total of 103 bridges constructed in
all eras.
115
Table 4.8 Breakdown of pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the B2 or C exposure classification zone, according
to NZS 3101 and assuming that all bridges are downwind from the coast
Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era Era
Beam type Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Log beams 3 10 13
T-beams 2 4 6
I-beams 1 9 5 8 2 1 4 2 32
Single hollow core beams 2 2
Double hollow core beams 5 1 4 8 9 1 28
U-beams 1 4 3 1 9
Super-tee 2 2
Inverted T-beams 1 1 2
Misc. 0
Other or blank 1 2 2 2 1 1 9
Total 0 7 21 16 12 8 13 17 6 0 3 103
4.6.3.2 Bridges in ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone (C), using NZS 3101:2006 and assuming that all
bridges are located downwind from the coast
Repeating the analysis reported directly above, but addressing just those bridges located in exposure
classification C, it was found that 58 bridges (56% of the data reported in table 4.8) were identified, of
which 27 bridges (47%) were constructed during eras 2 to 5. The data from this analysis is reported in
table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Breakdown of pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the C exposure classification zone, according to
NZS 3101 and assuming that all bridges are located downwind from the coast
Beam type Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Log beams 2 4 6
T-beams 1 2 3
I-beams 1 7 5 5 1 1 4 2 26
Single hollow core beams 0
Double hollow core beams 2 3 3 3 11
U-beams 3 1 1 5
Super-tee 2 2
Misc. 0
Other or blank 1 1 1 1 4
Total 0 5 12 10 5 4 7 9 3 0 3 58
4.6.4 Number of bridges in coastal exposures, using NZS 3101:2006

The bridges determined to be in the B2 and C exposure classification zones when using the procedure and
wind direction dataset out in NZS 3101:2006 are presented below. This method to establish exposure
classification is the least conservative of the methods presented, and the bridges constructed in eras 2 to
116
5 that are identified below as being in the B2 or C exposure classifications should be given the highest
priority for site investigation.
4.6.4.1 Bridges in ‘Coastal frontage’ zone, using coastal distance bands B2 and C from
NZS 3101:2006
Table 4.10 reports the analysis results for pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the B2 and C exposure
classification, using the procedure and wind directions provided in NZS 3101:2006. From table 4.10 it is
evident that 80 bridges are located in the B2 and C exposure classifications and 45 (56%) of those bridges
were constructed in eras 2 to 5.
Table 4.10 Breakdown of pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the B2 and C exposure classification zone, using
the definitions and wind directions given in NZS 3101:2006
Beam type Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Log beams 3 10 13
T-beams 1 3 4
I-beams 1 8 5 7 1 1 4 2 29
Single hollow core beams 0
Double hollow core beams 3 1 4 6 5 19
U-beams 1 4 2 1 8
Super-tee 2 2
Misc. 0
Total 0 6 19 12 8 6 11 12 3 0 3 80
4.6.4.2 Bridges in ‘Tidal/splash/spray’ zone (C), using NZS 3101:2006
Using the unaltered NZS 3101:2006 exposure classification method it was identified that 57 state highway
pre-tensioned concrete bridges are located in the C exposure classification, of which 31 bridges (54%)
were constructed between era 2 and era 5.
117
Table 4.11 Breakdown of pre-tensioned concrete bridges in the B2 and C exposure classification zone, using
the definitions and wind directions given in NZS 3101:2006
Log beams 2 4 6
T-beams 1 2 3
I-beams 1 7 4 5 1 1 4 2 25
Single hollow core

0
beams
Double hollow core

2 3 3 3 11
beams
U-beams 3 1 1 5
Super-tee 2 2
Misc. 0
Total 0 5 12 9 5 4 7 9 3 0 3 57
4.7 Conclusions from exposure classification

A ‘Distribution and Exposure Classification Tool’ (D&E tool) that operates within the Google Earth software
(available on the internet) was created (Google 2009). The tool was populated with three principal
datasets:
• the New Zealand state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock data
• the exposure classification maps and prevailing wind directions given in NZS 3101:2006
• wind rose data from 23 climate stations from across New Zealand.
The tool allowed state highway bridges to be identified and visualised by beam type, construction era and
exposure classification, and for individual structures to be assessed using geographical measurement
tools, satellite photography, road-level photography, and other relevant data, either extracted from the
BDS or generated within this project. In this chapter example uses of the D&E tool have been given to
illustrate the use of the included datasets for remote investigation of individual bridge structures. These
demonstrations included a method to remotely estimate the exposure classification of an individual bridge
through the use of satellite photography, street-level photography and the ruler function to assess the
environment and to measure the coastal distance from the high-tide mark.
An analysis was undertaken to establish the distribution of bridges for the various construction eras
identified in chapter 2 and beam types considered in chapter 3, with respect to the A2 exposure
classification boundary.
An analysis of national coastal wind direction data demonstrated that the wind direction data reported in
NZS 3101:2006 was frequently inconsistent with the comprehensive wind information obtained from 23
climate stations, and furthermore, that the use of NZS 3101:2006 wind direction information in many
cases led to non-conservative predictions of corrosion hazard. The case of the Hamanatua Bridge
illustrated how the NZS 3101 wind data can result in incorrect exposure classification. It was also noted
118
that in cases where accurate assessment of the environment is required, the wind rose data presented
here should be supplemented by environmental data recorded at the bridge site.
Three procedures for defining exposure classification were considered: using coastal distance bands; the
procedure in NZS 3101; and a modified version of the NZS 3101 procedure that assumed all bridges were
located downwind from the coast. The purpose of defining multiple criteria for the exposure classification
was to compensate for any limitations inherent when using a remote assessment procedure instead of a
physical site investigation. Compensation was achieved by varying the degree of conservatism in each of
the different classification methods and considering the results of each method to ensure that at-risk
bridges are not discounted entirely, while allowing priority to be assigned to those bridges that are most
likely to be at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion.
From this analysis, 137 pre-tensioned concrete bridges of any beam type and construction era were
identified as potentially at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, either now or in the future.
These bridges were defined as either being located within 1km of the coast (a total of 131 bridges as
reported in table 4.6), or being located over a body of saline water in which breaking waves could occur
(an additional six bridges). Of these 137 bridges, 103 were located within either the C or B2 exposure
classification zone defined by NZS 3101:2006 if they were assumed to be downwind from the coast (see
table 4.8), and 80 were located within the C or B2 exposure classification zones when using the procedure
specified by NZS 3101:2006 and the wind direction information that is provided in the standard (see table
4.10). Figure 4.21 shows the number of bridges in each of the exposure zones as identified by the three
different classification methods described in chapter 4.5.
Figure 4.21 Number of bridges identified in each exposure zone by the three classification methods
Of the 137 bridges identified as being potentially at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, 68
bridges were constructed between era 2 and era 5, so are over 35 years old and are likely to have design
features that predispose them to pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion. These 68 bridges are included as
the first entries in appendix C, table C.1, and are recommended for site investigations, including concrete
cover depth and chloride ingress measurements as soon as possible.
119
5 National bridge inspections
5 National bridge inspections

Inspections were performed on 30 pre-tensioned concrete bridges located throughout New Zealand, with
the objective of collecting representative data that would enable estimation of the expected durability
performance of all pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the state highway network. The inspected bridges
were selected to give a fair representation of the larger bridge stock with reference to the construction
eras and beam types that were identified in chapters 2 and 3.
The present condition of the selected bridges was assessed using the methodology described in chapter
5.2, and the remaining service life before initiation of chloride-induced corrosion was estimated for each
bridge using chloride ingress modelling based on Fick’s second Law of Diffusion (Broomfield 1997). The
results of this service life analysis are discussed in this chapter and presented in their entirety in appendix
D. The bridge inspection results were combined with the construction eras, beam types, and exposure
classifications developed in chapters 2, 3 and 4 to identify at-risk bridge types, and the numbers of
bridges of each type that are in service on the state highway network was extracted from the BDS and
reported.
This study is an expansion of a similar study that was conducted by Bruce et al and published in 2008.
The 2008 study focused on pre-1973 I-beam bridges located in the East Cape and Bay of Plenty region and
was commissioned following the identification of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in the Hamanatua
Bridge, as discussed in chapter 1.3.1. As they had already been investigated, pre-1973 I-beam bridges
were therefore assigned a lower priority for inspection in this study than would otherwise have been the
case. This study used a similar inspection methodology to that employed by Bruce et al, and expanded the
scope to include bridges that were constructed at any time and with other common pre-tensioned concrete
beam types.
5.1 Selection of bridges for inspection

Table 5.1 gives the number of inspected bridges (in the top white cell) and the total number of bridges on
the state highway network (in the bottom grey cell) for each of the beam types and construction eras
established in chapters 2 and 3. The number of inspections conducted for each construction era and beam
type was intended to be roughly proportional to the total number of bridges on the state highway network
that had the corresponding characteristics, with the exception of I-beam bridges from eras 2 to 5, which
were given a lower priority because they had been investigated previously.
120
5 National bridge inspection
Table 5.1 Number of bridge inspections and the total number of bridges with each beam type and in each
construction era
Era Era
Era 2 Era 3 Era 4 Era 5 Era 6 Era 7 Era 8 Era 9 Total
10 11
Inspected 2 2 2 6
Log beams
Total 30 42 17 2 1 92
Inspected 2 2 4
T-beams
Total 14 4 5 1 1 3 3 31
Inspected 1 1 1 1 1 5
I-beams
Total 11 57 61 51 12 23 12 6 1 234
Single hollow Inspected 1 1 1 3

core beams Total 5 1 4 3 5 11 3 32
Double hollow Inspected 2 1 3 1 1 8

core beams Total 1 4 21 44 20 63 44 40 11 7 255
Inspected 3 1 4
U-beams
Total 1 6 17 16 16 2 2 60
Inspected 6 3 6 3 1 6 3 2 0 0 30
Total
Total 61 108 104 103 42 111 72 77 14 12 704
Each inspected bridge is listed in table 5.2 along with the associated details regarding construction era,
beam type, exposure classifications determined using each of the three methods described in section 4,
and the Rogers key unique identification number that allows additional information for each bridge
(detailed in appendices B, C and D).
Table 5.2 Pre-tensioned concrete bridges selected for corrosion inspection
Coastal
Rogers Construction NZS3101
Beam type Bridge name distance NZS3101
key era downwind
band
Single hollow
15 2 McAnultys Stream Bridge Over 10km A2 A2
core beams
1km to
38 2 T-beams Lincoln Bridge No1 B1 B1
5km
101m to
44 2 Log beams Kawaroa Stream Bridge B2 B2
500m
31m to
50 2 Log beams Wairotoroto Stream Bridge C C
100m
58 2 T-beams Westshore Bridge 0m C C
72 2 I-beams Rosebank Bridge No2 0m C C

1m to
133 3 I-beams Boundary Creek Bridge C C
30m
101m to
151 3 Log beams Pattens Creek Bridge B2 B2
500m
1m to
162 3 Log beams Otohi Stream Bridge C C
30m
Double hollow 101m to

303 4 Washdyke Stream Bridge B2 B2
core beams 500m
121
Coastal
Rogers Construction NZS3101
Beam type Bridge name distance NZS3101
key era downwind
band
Double hollow
270 4 Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuka) Bridge 0m C C
core beams
1km to
266 4 Log beams Wilsons Creek Bridge B1 B1
5km
1km to
294 4 Log beams Ovens Bridge No 147 B1 B1
5km
Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh) 101m to

223 4 T-beams B2 B2
Bridge No 91 500m
101m to
224 4 T-beams Waimangaro Creek Bridge B2 B1
500m

391 5 Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge B2 B2
core beams 500m
101m to
433 5 I-beams Kowhai River Bridge B2 B1
500m
Single hollow 1km to

442 5 Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 B1 B1
core beams 5km
1km to
466 6 I-beams Aongatete Stream Bridge B1 B1
5km

578 7 Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge B2 B2
core beams 100m

505 7 Lambs Bridge No 192 B2 B1
core beams 500m

493 7 Saltwater Creek Bridge B2 B2
core beams 500m
101m to
495 7 U-beams Woodbank Stream Bridge B2 B2
500m
520 7 U-beams Nilssons Bridge No 280 0m C C
5km to
502 7 U-beams Kaipara River Bridge B1 B1
10km
Double hollow 1m to
670 8 Omawhiti Stream Bridge C C
core beams 30m
613 8 I-beams Fox River 0m C C
655 8 U-beams Ngakawau River Bridge 0m C C
Double hollow 1km to

689 9 Puhoi River Bridge B1 B1
core beams 5km
Single hollow 1km to

757 9 Kennedy Road Overbridge B1 B1
core beams 5km
The collated exposure classification data reported in tables 5.1 and 5.2 are illustrated in figure 5.1, from
which it can be established that the three exposure classification of ‘Tidal/splash/spray’, ‘Coastal
frontage’ and ‘Coastal perimeter’ merit roughly comparable inspection attention, whereas bridges that
have an ‘Inland exterior’ exposure classification merit significantly less inspection attention because of the
more benign corrosion environment at these sites.
122
Figure 5.1 Number of bridges inspected from each exposure classification
The locations of the 30 inspected bridges are presented on the maps shown in figure 5.2. Twenty-one
bridges are located in the North Island, and the remaining nine bridges are located in the South Island.
Some of the bridges are located in close proximity to one another and their icons obscure each other. The
location of Tiwai Point Bridge, which is discussed in appendix A, is also shown here.
Figure 5.2 National distribution of inspected bridges
123
5.2 Bridge investigation methodology

Each bridge inspection consisted of a visual inspection of all of the bridge beams that were accessible
without a boat, in order to identify any obvious defects or signs of corrosion and to identify suitable sites
to perform a cover concrete survey and chloride profile sampling. Between one and seven (average of 4.3)
sites were identified on each bridge for chloride profile samples. Concrete cover surveys were usually
carried out on areas surrounding chloride profile sites, and in other areas as permitted by access and time
constraints. The primary aim of the visual inspection was to identify active sites of corrosion in both pre-
tensioned reinforcement and in mild steel stirrups. Key indicators that were identified were cracking,
spalling, rust staining and exposed reinforcement. Financial and time constraints did not allow the
effective use of other non-destructive test methods such as measurement of the carbonation front,
resistivity, electro-potential mapping, or corrosion rate measurements.
5.2.1 Concrete cover depth survey

A concrete cover depth survey was performed at a number of sites on each bridge, using an
electromagnetic cover meter to determine the depth of concrete cover depth to both the pre-tensioned
reinforcement and the mild steel reinforcement (see figure 5.3). A cover survey site was defined as one
face of one beam (eg soffit, web, side, or side of bottom bulb), and in most cases a number of readings
were taken for each type of reinforcement at each site. These readings were subsequently reduced to four
values: an average concrete cover depth and a minimum concrete cover depth, for both pre-tensioned and
mild steel reinforcement. The cover survey results from each site were recorded individually, and the
location of each site was recorded by documenting the face, the beam and the span. Subsequently the
global average and minimum concrete cover depths for each type of reinforcement were calculated for
each face of all of the surveyed beams on the bridge, using all of the measurements taken from different
beams but from the corresponding face. The bridge-wide average and minimum measured cover depths
for each face are presented on the first page of each bridge inspection report in appendix D, and the
beam-specific average and minimum concrete cover depths are presented, where they exist, for each
chloride profile site on the corresponding page in appendix D.
Figure 5.3 Using a cover meter on the underside of Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge
124
5.2.2 Chloride ingress measurements

Chloride content tests measure the ingress of chlorides into concrete. Chlorides from salt water diffuse
into the concrete and when the concentration at the depth of reinforcement reaches the threshold value,
corrosion can initiate. Chloride ingress is the principal cause of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in
New Zealand concrete bridges, so chloride sampling is a useful tool for assessing the likelihood that
reinforcement corrosion is occurring. In locations where corrosion is not yet occurring, chloride results
can be used for estimating the time to corrosion initiation.
Concrete dust samples were collected for chloride content testing by drilling into the concrete and
collecting drilling dust samples from measured depths. Chloride content by weight of concrete was then
plotted against concrete cover depth to give the chloride profile, and the chloride concentration at the
depth of reinforcement was determined. As the chloride concentration at the depth of reinforcement
increases, so does the probability that corrosion will initiate.
For prediction purposes a discrete threshold concentration is required as the point at which corrosion is
deemed to initiate. This threshold value is disputed in the literature and a range of values are suggested.
ACI 222R (ACI 2001) suggests values ranging from 0.026 to 0.060% by weight of concrete, and Naito and
Warncke (2008) suggests 0.032%. This study uses a threshold of 0.05%, which was suggested by the UK
Concrete Society (Concrete Society 1984) and was used by Bruce et al (2008), but also provides results
using a 0.03% threshold for comparison. For beams that had not begun to corrode, the chloride profile
and chosen chloride threshold were used to estimate the remaining time to initiation using a model based
on Fick’s second Law of Diffusion (Broomfield 1997).
5.2.2.1 Chloride sample collection
One hundred and twenty-nine chloride profiles were collected and analysed from the bridges listed in table
5.2, and the entire raw dataset is presented in appendix D, along with the modelling and analysis that is
discussed in the next sub-chapter. An average of four profiles were collected from each of the inspected
bridges, from sites that were accessible without the use of a boat but often requiring the use of ladders
(see figure 5.4), so chloride sampling sites tended to be in the abutment spans of multi-span bridges or
near the abutments of single-span bridges. The sites were selected to give a representation of the
different exposure conditions present on the bridge, as much as was possible without boat access, and so
samples were taken from outer beams and interior beams, different faces of beams (where these were
accessible), and where possible from more than one location along the length of the bridge.
Figure 5.4 Using a ladder to collect concrete dust chloride samples on Fox River Bridge
125
Chloride samples were collected for analysis and plotting of chloride ingress profiles by drilling
incrementally into the concrete to a depth greater than the reinforcement cover depth and collecting the
concrete dust from each increment, while taking care to not contaminate the samples, or to drill into
reinforcement (see figure 5.5). Increments were usually about 20mm and the chloride samples were
collected at each site from a single hole created using a rotary-impact drill with a 35mm or 38mm
diameter bit, which is larger than the expected maximum aggregate size in the concretes. This sampling
protocol ensured that a fair representation of the concrete matrix was obtained from the dust collected in
each profile increment, because the individual increments could not be dominated by a single aggregate
particle.
Figure 5.5 Methods used to collect concrete dust chloride samples when drilling
(a) Chloride sample collection from a vertical face (b) Chloride sampling from soffit
5.2.2.2 Chloride content analysis
The acid soluble chloride content of each of the concrete dust samples collected using the procedure
described above was determined using dynamic end point potentiometric titration against 0.1M silver
nitrate solution. The chloride analysis method used in this research is described below and was calibrated
against AS 1012.20:1992 (AS 1992). The analysis method used is briefly described below and was
developed by Mackechnie at the University of Cape Town (Mackechnie 1996). It is similar to (but not
identical to or in accordance with) the standard method described in ‘ASTM C114-11b method 20’ on
which AS 1012.20:1992 is based (ASTM C114-11b). Twelve concrete dust samples (taken from two sites
located on different structures) were each split into two portions and analysed using both the method
described in this chapter, and by an independent NATA-accredited laboratory that performed acid-soluble
chloride content analyses according to the requirements of AS 1012.20:1992. The results from the
different analysis methods are presented in table 5.3 for comparison. The greatest absolute difference in
the values obtained by each method was 0.014% by weight of concrete, and the average absolute
difference was 0.007% by weight of concrete.
126
Table 5.3 Comparison of chloride analysis method with the AS 1012.20:1992 method
Analysis Analysis
NATA- NATA-
method used Absolute method used Absolute
Hole accredited Hole accredited
in this difference in this difference
1 laboratory 2 laboratory
report % (wt. concr.) report % (wt. concr.)
% (wt. concr.) % (wt. concr.)
% (wt. concr.) % (wt. concr.)
Incr. 1 0.36 0.349 0.011 Incr. 1 0.33 0.334 0.004
Incr. 2 0.46 0.457 0.003 Incr. 2 0.14 0.137 0.003
Incr. 3 0.43 0.421 0.009 Incr. 3 0.05 0.049 0.001
Incr. 4 0.29 0.276 0.014 Incr. 4 0.02 0.032 0.012
Incr. 5 0.14 0.132 0.008 Incr. 5 0.01 0.004 0.006
Incr. 6 0.01 0.004 0.006
Incr. 7 0.01 0.005 0.006
After drilling, the concrete dust samples were collected in plastic zip-lock bags labelled with the start and
finish depths of the increment, and the location details for the chloride hole site. All of the samples from
one hole were stored in one larger zip-lock bag labelled with the location and site number, and were
transported to the laboratory in this condition while taking care to not to allow contamination of the
samples (see figure 5.6(a)).
Once samples were in the controlled laboratory, between 4g and 4.5g of sample dust was transferred from
the zip-lock bag into a clean beaker and the mass of the sample was recorded to an accuracy of 0.01g. A
small quantity of de-ionised water was added to cover the sample, then 2mL of 50% concentrated nitric
acid was added to the beaker and the sample was allowed to digest for 1 hour. 2.5mL of 50g/L sodium
acetate was added to the beaker as a buffer/stabiliser for the titration reaction, and the solution was made
up to approximately 80mL with de-ionised water. The sample was stirred with a glass rod to ensure that
no solid material was stuck to the bottom of the beaker and a clean magnetic stirrer bar was added.
Dynamic end point potentiometric titration was performed against a 0.1M silver nitrate solution using a
Metrohm 848 Titrino Plus equipped with an AgS-coated Ag Titrode (see figure 5.6 (b)). The solution was
stirred constantly while the Titrino titrated silver nitrate in dynamically controlled increments into the
solution, while constantly measuring the voltage output of the solution against the Titrode. Voltage was
plotted against the volume of silver nitrate and a point of contraflexure occurs on the graph at the point
when there was an equal quantity of silver ions and chloride ions. The volume of silver nitrate was
converted into the mass of chloride present in the solution, using the relative molecular weights and the
concentration of the silver nitrate. The chloride concentration by weight of concrete of the sample was
then obtained by dividing by the mass of the dry sample.
127
Figure 5.6 Method used for chloride content analysis
(a) Chloride sample dust in the laboratory (b) Dynamic end point potentiometric titration
apparatus
5.2.3 Service life prediction

The design working life requirement for bridges is assumed to be ‘100 years in normal circumstances’ by
the current Transit New Zealand bridge manual (TNZ 2003). The durability requirements of the Bridge
Manual state that ‘Structures shall be sufficiently durable to ensure that, without reconstruction or major
renovation, they continue to fulfil their intended function throughout their design life’. Major renovation is
defined as ‘maintenance work necessary to maintain the strength, ductility capacity, or serviceability of a
bridge to enable it to fulfil its functional requirements, which exceeds 20% of the replacement cost of the
bridge’.
Where pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion is identified in pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams,

rehabilitation of the structure usually constitutes a ‘major renovation’ because the structural capacity of
the members is significantly compromised soon after initiation of corrosion, as a result of a number of
factors specific to pre-tensioned concrete structures. The precise length of time between initiation of pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion and significant structural deterioration is dependent on many factors
and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, after corrosion has initiated, significant structural
deterioration is inevitable unless there is intervention, and the structural capacity of the member starts to
be affected as soon as corrosion initiates. By the time pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion is externally
evident, the strength of the affected member is significantly compromised. It is also necessary to consider
the number of members within the bridge that are affected by corrosion and their influence on the
capacity of the entire structure. It should be noted that if chloride-induced corrosion has been identified in
some members, it is highly likely to be present or imminent in others.
128
The deterioration mechanisms relevant to the capacity of concrete bridge beams with corroding pre-
tensioned reinforcement was discussed earlier in chapter 1.2, and is also detailed in appendix A, chapter
A.4. Based on the investigation presented in appendix A (associated with the corroded pre-tensioned
concrete beams from Tiwai Point Bridge), it is recommended that the contribution of any strand that is
affected by corrosion should be entirely discounted when assessing the residual ultimate strength of a
beam. Corrosion also influences the serviceability of members because the bond between the pre-
tensioned reinforcement and the concrete is damaged, thus reducing the transfer of prestressing force
into the concrete. The ductility of the pre-tensioned steel can also be reduced as a result of corrosion
through the process of hydrogen embrittlement.
As a result of the structural implications of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, a similar approach to

that employed by Bruce et al in the 2008 study on pre-1973 I-beam bridges was employed, and the time at
which corrosion initiates was taken as the end of service life for predictions using chloride ingress models.
5.2.3.1 Chloride diffusion theory
In the presence of moisture, chlorides that build up on the surface of concrete structures as a result of
environmental exposure penetrate into the concrete by a number of complex and interacting mechanisms,
including permeation, capillary suction, chloride binding and diffusion. The predominance of each of
these chloride transport mechanisms varies depending on many factors, including the concrete pore
structure, the moisture content of the concrete, and the exposure conditions (Costa and Appleton 1999;
Castellote and Andrade 2001).
Near the surface of the concrete, water can be absorbed and released through the pore structure and the
fine cracks in the concrete. This near-surface region is known as the washout zone because as water
travels into and out of the concrete in this region, the migrating water can take dissolved chlorides along
with it, and as a result the chloride concentration can vary in the washout zone depending on the chloride
content of the water present in the pores at the time of sampling.
Beyond the washout zone, chloride penetration into concrete is most heavily dependent on the diffusion
mechanism, and is commonly modelled using Crank’s solution to Fick’s second Law of Diffusion (Evans
and Richardson 2005). This model provides an approximation of the ingress of chlorides into concrete,
but it does not directly account for the other chloride transport mechanisms. The model also relies upon
the assumptions that the diffusion coefficient is constant, that the concrete has a homogeneous structure,
that the exposure is uniform over the surface of the element, and that corrosion initiates when a critical
chloride concentration exists at the depth of reinforcement (Costa and Appleton 1999; Bruce et al 2008).
The chloride ingress model is calibrated using the chloride concentrations obtained from samples
collected at known depths and after a known time of exposure. The model can then be used to estimate
the time at which the chloride concentration will reach a threshold value and allow corrosion to initiate at
the depth of reinforcement.
The chloride concentration at which corrosion can initiate is dependent on a large number of factors,
including the availability of water and oxygen for the corrosion reaction, and the properties of the steel
and concrete. For modelling purposes it is necessary to select a threshold chloride concentration over
which corrosion is deemed to be likely to initiate. As discussed in section 5.2.2, the appropriate threshold
concentration is disputed in the literature. This chapter uses an acid-soluble chloride concentration of
0.05% by weight of concrete as the threshold value, and also presents predictions of time to corrosion
initiation using 0.03% as the threshold concentration to provide a more conservative reference for
comparison.
129
5.2.3.2 Modelling the chloride profile
To obtain and calibrate a chloride ingress model, a chloride profile is obtained using the method
described earlier in chapter 5.2.2 and then a best-fit curve defined by Crank’s solution to Fick’s second
Law of Diffusion is calibrated to the chloride profile data. Crank’s solution to Fick’s second Law of
Diffusion is given in equation 5.1. The best-fit curve was obtained by varying the values of DC, Ci and CS
using the ‘Solver’ tool in Microsoft Excel to optimise the fit, using an iterative numerical analysis.
𝒙
𝑪𝒙,𝒕 = 𝑪𝒊 + (𝑪𝑺 − 𝑪𝒊 ) �𝟏 − 𝒆𝒓𝒇 � �� (Equation 5.1)
𝟐�𝑫𝑪 𝒕
where:
𝐶𝑥,𝑡 = chloride concentration at depth x and time t (% by weight of concrete)
𝐶𝑖 = initial (cast-in) chloride concentration (% by weight of concrete)
𝐶𝑆 = projected surface chloride concentration (% by weight of concrete)
𝑒𝑟𝑓 = the Gaussian error function
𝑥 = average depth of the chloride sample (mm)

2
𝐷𝐶 = the apparent chloride ion diffusion coefficient of the concrete (mm /year)
𝒕 = exposure time (year of inspection minus year of construction) (years).
The parameters DC, Ci and CS were determined by the Solver tool for each chloride profile in order to
define the chloride ingress model for the site where the samples were taken. These parameters can also
be used as indicators of specific conditions present at the site where the profile was taken.
CS represents the surface chloride concentration, which controls the rate of diffusion of chlorides into the
concrete and is a property of the microclimate present in the environment immediately surrounding the
surface of the concrete where the chloride samples were taken. CS may vary between beams from the
same bridge, between different faces on the same beam, and even at different locations on the same face
of the same beam.
Ci is a property of the concrete and represents the initial concentration of chlorides, before any ingress of
chlorides from the environment has occurred. The initial chlorides were usually introduced to the concrete
at the time of casting, either through the use of calcium chloride-based admixtures, chloride-contaminated
water or aggregates, or aggregates with naturally high chloride concentrations. These cast-in chlorides are
usually bound to the cement and as such may not be available to initiate corrosion, but in certain
conditions the bound chlorides can be released and may participate in the corrosion reaction. Recent
research has indicated that the corrosion risk presented by bound chloride may be very similar to that
presented by free chloride (Glass et al 2000).
DC represents the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient, which is also a property of the concrete. DC
determines the rate at which chloride ingress occurs, and is not a true diffusion coefficient as it takes into
account chloride transport by the other mechanisms discussed in the previous sub-chapter.
5.2.3.3 Prediction of time to initiation of reinforcement corrosion
Once the values for DC, Ci and CS have been obtained, equation 5.1 can be rearranged and used to
estimate the total time of exposure required for the chloride concentration at the depth of reinforcement
to reach the threshold value, and thus generate an estimate of the time for corrosion to initiate. The
rearranged equations are given in equations 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.
130
𝒙 𝟐
�𝟐∗𝒊𝒏𝒗𝑬𝑹𝑭(𝒌)�
𝒕= (Equation 5.2)
𝑫𝑪
𝑘+1
� �
2
𝑖𝑛𝑣𝐸𝑅𝐹(𝑘) = 𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐼𝑁𝑉 � � (Equation 5.3)
√2
𝐶𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠 −𝐶𝑖
𝑘 = �1 − � (Equation 5.4)
𝐶𝑠 −𝐶𝑖
where:
𝑡 = the total estimated service life before initiation of corrosion (years)
𝑥 = concrete cover depth (mm)

2
𝐷𝐶 = the apparent chloride ion diffusion coefficient of the concrete (mm /year)
𝑁𝑂𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐼𝑁𝑉 = returns the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution (with a mean
of 0 and a standard deviation of 1)
𝐶𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠 = chloride concentration at depth x and time t (% by weight of concrete)
𝐶𝑖 = initial (cast-in) chloride concentration (% by weight of concrete)
𝐶𝑠 = projected surface chloride concentration (% by weight of concrete).
The estimate of time to corrosion initiation is sensitive to the input concrete cover depth, so the
predictions of time to initiation of corrosion made using this model are presented using a range of
different cover depths, including average and minimum measured concrete cover depths to both stirrups
and pre-tensioned reinforcement. Presenting the estimated time to corrosion for a range of concrete cover
depths provides a gauge on the extent of reinforcement corrosion that can be expected at different times,
and also gives an indication of the sensitivity of the analysis.
It is recommended that the minimum measured concrete cover depth to pre-tensioned reinforcement be
used to estimate time to corrosion initiation for asset management tasks. For beams where the stirrups
enclose the longitudinal pre-tensioned reinforcement, use of the minimum measured concrete cover depth
to pre-tensioned reinforcement is made because this dimension is usually slightly greater than the average
concrete cover depth to the stirrups. When stirrups enclose the longitudinal pre-tensioned reinforcement,
widespread stirrup corrosion is likely to have initiated before the threshold chloride content reaches the
minimum pre-tensioned reinforcement cover depth. As a result, cracking and spalling of the concrete may
be imminent or evident, thus reducing the effectiveness of the concrete to protect the pre-tensioned
reinforcement from chloride-induced corrosion, and the chloride ingress model then becomes invalid. For
beams where the stirrups do not enclose the pre-tensioned reinforcement, the minimum cover depth to
the pre-tensioned reinforcement will be the minimum cover depth to any reinforcement for the majority of
the length of the span. As a result, corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement will be the first corrosion
to occur and may proceed unnoticed until significant reduction of the structural capacity of the bridge has
occurred. Due to the critical nature of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, a conservative approach is
warranted.
131
5.3 Bridge inspection results

An inspection report was produced for each bridge that was inspected, and these reports are presented in
appendix D. Each of the inspection reports contains a cover page giving details of the inspected bridge
including its construction era, beam type and exposure classifications (as determined in chapters 2, 3 and
4). The cover page also summarises each of the chloride models obtained from the bridge in question.
The bridge inspection reports each contain one page for each chloride hole that was taken on the bridge
in question. An example of a chloride hole report from Ngakawau River Bridge is given in figure 5.7. Each
chloride hole report contains details of:
• the span, the beam and the face into which the chloride hole was drilled, in the top left table
• the raw chloride analysis results, in the bottom left table
• the average and minimum concrete cover depths for the face of the beam in question, and the overall
average and minimum concrete cover depths taken on that face for all beams on the bridge, in the
second table down on the left.
The raw chloride concentration measurements were plotted against concrete cover depth (the white circles
and black crosses on the graph in the bottom right-hand corner of each report), and the minimum and
average measured concrete cover depths measured on the face of the beam in question are shown as
vertical black lines on the graph. Where cover depth values for the beam in question did not exist, the
average bridge-wide values for the face were used, and if these data did not exist either, then the typical
concrete cover depth for pre-tensioned reinforcement in the era that the bridge was constructed, as listed
earlier in table 2.22, was used.
Figure 5.7 Example of chloride profile analysis from appendix D
132
The middle bottom table on the left of figure 5.7 contains the input and output parameters for the Fick’s
diffusion model that is displayed as the curved line on the graph. The Fick’s diffusion profile was fit to the
2 2
chloride data using the Solver application in Excel, and the r value is shown in the table, where an r value
2
greater than 0.95 is defined as an acceptable fit. When the r value fell below 0.95, the data was checked
for outliers that reduced the accuracy of the mathematical model, and when these outliers were identified
the model was recalculated with these points omitted. The white circles shown on the graph represent
measured chloride concentrations that were included in the model, while black crosses represent
measured chloride concentrations that were omitted.
The output parameters from the Fick’s diffusion model: Cs (surface chloride concentration), Ci (initial or
‘cast-in’ chloride concentration), and Dc (apparent chloride-ion diffusion coefficient) are given on the right-
hand side of the third table down on the left side of the report. These parameters were used to calculate
the depth of the 0.03% and 0.05% corrosion threshold concentrations at the time of inspection, which are
presented in the top middle table, and the lower (more conservative) of the two thresholds is displayed on
the graph as the horizontal black line. The Fick’s diffusion model output parameters were used, along with
the concrete cover depths given in the second table down on the left, as inputs to the formula shown in
the centre of the page. This was used to estimate the remaining time until the chloride concentration in
the concrete would reach the 0.03% and 0.05% threshold values at a range of different measured cover
depths, as reported in the table located on the right side of figure 5.7.
In the remainder of this sub-chapter, a discussion of each of the inspected bridges is presented, with
reference made to the condition of the structure and with a description of the surrounding environment
provided. Observed damage is noted, the concrete cover depth survey and chloride profile data is
summarised, and estimates of the time to corrosion initiation are presented based on the Fick’s diffusion
modelling described earlier in chapter 5.2.3, with reference made to the full results and calculations
provided in appendix D.
5.3.1 McAnultys Stream Bridge (Rogers key 15)

McAnultys Stream Bridge was inspected on 17 May 2011 after 56 years in service. It is located in the North
Island, on state highway 2 west of Maungatawhiri. The bridge has a single span (see figure 5.8(a)) that is
composed of 17 single hollow core beams that are not pre-tensioned, although the BDS incorrectly reports
the beam type as ‘conc precast pre-tensioned’. Instead, each beam consists of six precast single hollow
core sections that are longitudinally post-tensioned together (see figure 5.8(b)). Because the sections are
precast, the concrete was expected to have a 28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa and to have
durability properties similar to those found in similar pre-tensioned beams constructed in era 2, justifying
inspection of this bridge in the context of the project scope.
133
Figure 5.8 Photographs of McAnultys Stream Bridge
(a) View of bridge from east bank (b) View of soffit from east abutment
The two end sections of McAnultys Stream Bridge are shorter than the four central sections and contain
anchor blocks for the post-tensioning. Beam sections have the word ‘stock’ and a date and month cast
into the surface of the concrete. The post-tensioned tendons are draped and run in between the precast
units, and the tendons are made up of 0.2” h.t. wires. The precast sections appear to contain stirrups but
minimal or no longitudinal reinforcement, and appear to contain a steel void former. The span-numbering
system used for the inspection was based upon the following:
• The northernmost beam (nearest to the Firth of Thames) was designated beam A.
• The narrow beams on either side of the bridge were not numbered and were referred to as the north
edge beam (Neb) and the south edge beam (Seb).
• Each section of each beam was suffixed with a number, with the easternmost beam being section 1.
• The short anchor block sections at each end of the beams were not numbered and were referred to as
the east anchor block (Eab) and west anchor block (Wab).
An example of the above coding is presented below, starting from the eastern abutment:
• Beam 1A was made up of sections 1A-Eab, 1A-1, 1A-2, 1A-3, 1A-4 and 1A-Wab.
• The narrow beam on the northern side of beam 1A was labelled Neb, and also contained sections with
the same suffixes.
During inspection, a wet patch of concrete was observed on the soffit of beam D in span 1 of McAnultys
Stream Bridge, mostly likely due to water run-off from the deck. Cover depths were not recorded on the
bridge because pre-tensioned reinforcement was not present, and readings could not be obtained for the
post-tensioned tendons because of the drape of the tendons and because the midspan region was
inaccessible by ladder.
Schmidt hammer readings were taken on the surface of the concrete at two locations on the precast
beams of McAnultys Stream Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and each
reading estimated the concrete strength to be 61MPa. However, these compressive strength values are
near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer readings should
be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because the surface concrete is
134
stronger and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these compressive strength values are
overestimates of the actual compressive strength and should not be used to estimate section properties.
Chloride samples were obtained from three sites on the bridge: two sites on the soffit and one site on the
northern side of the north edge beam. The data and analysis of these samples is presented in appendix D,
beginning on page D3.
The chloride analysis revealed that the precast segments of McAnultys Stream Bridge had not experienced
significant environmental chloride ingress. However, all of the sampled beam sections contained
significant concentrations of cast-in chlorides, which was indicated by the chloride concentration being
relatively constant with depth, implying that the chloride content was not a result of diffusion. The
average measured chloride concentration was 0.118% by weight of concrete from all of the samples
analysed from all depths.
This chloride concentration is consistent with the use of seawater or unwashed beach aggregates in
batching and is in excess of the corrosion initiation threshold, but because up to two-thirds of cast-in
chlorides tend to be bound to aluminates in the concrete they are usually unavailable for the corrosion
3
reaction. Consequently, the concentration of available chlorides may have been around 0.04% and thus
below the corrosion initiation threshold. In addition, the precast beam sections did not contain flexural
reinforcement, so corrosion of reinforcement in the precast beam sections did not present significant risk
to the structure.
5.3.2 Lincoln Bridge No1 (Rogers key 38)

Lincoln Bridge No1 was inspected on 20 May 2011 after 54 years in service. It is located over a tidal
mudflat (see figure 5.9(a)), approximately 2.5km from the Waitemata Harbour. The bridge was constructed
in era 2 and is composed of six long, single-span T-beams that are not pre-tensioned (see figure 5.9(b)).
The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa.
Each beam is made up of 11 short sections longitudinally post-tensioned together with an additional
section at each end containing post-tensioning anchors. The bridge is post-tensioned transversely through
diaphragms at five locations. The beams are listed in the BDS as ‘conc precast pre-tensioned’, but this
entry is an error as the beams are not pre-tensioned. Each section contains nominal longitudinal
reinforcement that does not contribute to the flexural strength of the beam. As the sections are precast,
the durability properties of the concrete were expected to be representative of that found in pre-tensioned
beams from the same era.
3 JR Mackechnie, pers comm, 2012: ‘Cast-in chlorides are never completely bound, regardless of the C3A content of the
cement, and typically one-third will be available to activate corrosion. Concrete cast with sea water or using unwashed
beach aggregates will typically have chloride contents above 0.1% by weight of concrete (chloride in batched seawater =
120 x 0.02 = 2.4kg, which is 0.1% by weight of one cubic metre of concrete at 2400kg.’
135
Figure 5.9 Photographs of Lincoln Bridge No.1
(a) View of bridge from SW bank (b) View of soffit, looking NE
Lincoln Bridge No1 is oriented north-west to south-east. The northernmost beam, located closest to the
harbour, was labelled beam A. The anchor blocks were suffixed Nab or Sab and the central sections were
suffixed 1 to 11, with 1 being at the northern end. When inspected, the beams appeared to be in good
condition, although many of the precast sections exhibited areas of poor concrete compaction, particularly
in the bottom flange. Red staining was observed on the north-eastern edge of the bottom flange of beam
A in span 1, while patches of damp moss were noted on the soffits of beams E and F of the same span.
Schmidt hammer readings were taken on the surface of the concrete at three locations on the precast
beams of Lincoln Bridge No1. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated the
concrete strength to be 57MPa, 53MPa and 52MPa. However, these compressive strength values are near
the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer readings should be
taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because the surface concrete is stronger
and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these compressive strength values are overestimates
of the actual compressive strength and should not be used to estimate section properties.
Only concrete cover depths to the stirrups were recorded on Lincoln Bridge No1 because pre-tensioned
reinforcement was not present. The average measured concrete cover depth to stirrups was 39mm in the
soffit, and 52mm in the side of the bottom bulb. The minimum measured concrete cover depth was 18mm
in the soffit and 47mm in the side of the bottom bulb.
Chloride samples were obtained from three sites on Lincoln Bridge No1: the soffit of beams 1A and 1C,
and on the angled top face of the bottom bulb on beam 1A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is
presented in appendix D, beginning on page D7. Cast-in chlorides were detected at all three sites, with
concentrations of 0.0235%, 0.010% and 0.0284% respectively. An insignificant amount of chloride ingress
was also detected at all three sites, with the depth of the 0.05% corrosion threshold measured on beam 1A
at 4mm and 5mm in the soffit and bottom bulb respectively. The projected chloride concentration in the
soffit of beam 1C was below the threshold at the surface of the concrete.
Life prediction calculations using the chloride models were invalid on Lincoln Bridge No1 because the
flexural strength of the beams is provided by the post-tensioned tendons, which are encased in ducts and
located in the interior of the concrete section. In most cases these ducts protect the post-tensioned
reinforcement from chloride ingress, but if poorly grouted these ducts can provide a conduit for water and
chlorides and accelerate corrosion. However, the chloride models can be used to estimate the time to
corrosion of the stirrups and to assess the chloride resistance of the concrete, which is expected to be
136
similar to that used in pre-tensioned beams produced in the same era. The chloride data and models can
also be used to assess the aggressiveness of the exposure at the site, which may be useful for assessment
of the adjacent pre-tensioned I-beam bridge named Lincoln Bridge No2.
Chloride ingress models based on the collected chloride samples indicated that chloride-induced
reinforcement corrosion would not be an issue during the service life of Lincoln Bridge No1. Using models
based on any of the three chloride holes and a chloride initiation threshold of 0.05%, the time to corrosion
of reinforcement located at the minimum measured stirrup cover depth of 18mm was in excess of 700
years. If corrosion was considered to initiate at a chloride concentration threshold of 0.03% by weight of
concrete, then stirrup corrosion in regions with minimum concrete cover was predicted to initiate in beam
1A in about 10 years.
5.3.3 Kawaroa Stream Bridge (Rogers key 44)

Kawaroa Stream Bridge was inspected in 2011 after 53 years in service. It is an era 2 log beam bridge
constructed with 29 beams (see figure 5.10). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day
specified compressive strength of 38MPa. The 29 beams were labelled A–AC, and as the harbour lies south
of the bridge, the southernmost beam was labelled beam A. The stream flows beneath the eastern span
(designated as span 1) and appeared to not be tidal.
Figure 5.10 Photographs of Kawaroa Stream Bridge
(a) View of bridge from east bank (b) View of soffit, looking north-west
The edge beams of Kawaroa Stream Bridge are not encased by in-situ concrete and transverse tie bolts are
visible, coated in grease for corrosion resistance (see figure 5.10(a)). Water trickling between the log
beams has caused some stalactites to form (see figure 5.10(b)), which were visible on the four or five
outer beams located on each side, and had been noted in a previous inspection. Other noted defects were
as follows:
• Beam 1O had a patch of poor compaction at the west ¼ point.
• Beam 1M had a small spall and an abraded area near the eastern ¼ point, which appeared to be
impact damage from construction.
• Beam 1A had small impact spalls along its outside edge.
137
The underside of the bridge was more uneven than encountered for the other log beam bridges inspected.
Some beams were about 20mm higher than the adjacent beams and there were gaps of approximately
10mm between some of the beams, with some infill visible between the beams.
Schmidt hammer readings were taken on the surface of the concrete at three locations on the pre-
tensioned beams of Kawaroa Stream Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
estimated the concrete strength to be 62MPa, 57MPa and 56MPa. However, these compressive strength
values are near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer
readings should be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because the surface
concrete is stronger and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these compressive strength
values are overestimates of the actual compressive strength and should not be used to estimate section
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Kawaroa Stream Bridge and the average and minimum values
were found for each face of each surveyed beam. These cover depth readings are provided in the bridge
inspection report in appendix D, following page D11. The global average measured concrete cover depth
to stirrups was 22mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 18mm in the
soffit. The average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement in the soffit were
31mm and 25mm.
Chloride samples were obtained from five sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1O, 1Z and 1AC,
and on the south side of beam 1A. The raw data and analysis of these samples is presented in the bridge
inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D11. Insignificant concentrations of cast-in
chlorides were detected in the profiles from sites 1A, 1O and 1Z, with concentrations of about 0.004%,
which is only slightly above the minimum detection limit. An insignificant amount of chloride ingress was
also detected in the soffit of beams 1A and 1Z, but the measured chloride concentration was below the
0.05% threshold at the surface of the concrete.
The chloride profiles that were collected indicated that chloride-induced corrosion would not impact the
design life of Kawaroa Stream Bridge.
5.3.4 Wairotoroto Stream Bridge (Rogers key 50)

Wairotoroto Bridge was inspected on 10 June 2011 after 52 years in service. It is a single-span era 2 log
beam bridge containing 39 beams (see figure 5.11). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a
28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa. The bridge has a small in-situ cap on each side and
beams were labelled A–AM from west to east. The Firth of Thames is on the west side, and the stream
under the bridge is tidal.
138
Figure 5.11 Photographs of Wairotoroto Stream Bridge
(a) View of bridge from north bank (b) View of soffit, looking south
The concrete in the soffit of the beams appeared to be mostly sound, but several beams had patches of
poor compaction (eg beam 1V). Beams 1G, 1H and 1I all had patch repairs from what appeared to be
spalling caused by strand corrosion. These patches were located near midspan and were starting to
delaminate, but had no corrosion staining. Beam 1D had a spall that was located about one metre from
the north abutment, exposing about 100mm of one longitudinal bar, which had corroded right through
(see figure 5.12(a) and (b)). This bar appeared to have originally been about 10–12mm in diameter and
seemed to end immediately after the patch. The bar was probably non-prestressed shear reinforcement
that had been placed on an angle. The in-situ caps on each side of the bridge both had spalls and exposed
reinforcing bars. Beams 1AG and 1AH both had small patches on the edges directly above the north
abutment. There were some white trails on the soffit of the central beams, indicating that water had
flowed through the deck between the beams.
Figure 5.12 Photographs of spalling on soffit of Wairotoroto Stream Bridge
(a) Spalling caused by corroding mild steel on soffit of (b) Spalling caused by corroding mild steel on soffit of
beam 1D beam 1D
Schmidt hammer readings were taken on the surface of the concrete at two locations on the pre-tensioned
beams of Wairotoroto Stream Bridge. These indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated the
concrete strength to be 65MPa and 57MPa. However, these values are near the upper limit of the accurate
139
range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer readings should be taken on a freshly cut concrete
surface at a depth of about 10mm because the surface concrete is stronger and harder than the internal
concrete. Consequently, these compressive strength values are overestimates of the actual compressive
strength and should not be used to estimate section properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Wairotoroto Stream Bridge and the average and minimum values
were found for each face of each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D, on the
chloride hole report sheets following page D17. The global average measured concrete cover depth to
stirrups was 18mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 15mm in the
soffit. The average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 29mm and
22mm in the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A and 1AM, and two
sites on the soffit of beam 1V. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge
inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D17. Insignificant quantities of cast-in
chlorides were detected in the profiles from sites on all of the sampled beams, with concentrations of
about 0.0045%, which is only slightly above the minimum detection limit. Chloride ingress was also
detected at three of the four sites, with the depth of the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at
11mm, 4mm and 3mm, on beam 1A, beam 1V site 1 and beam 1V site 2 respectively. The projected
chloride concentration in the soffit of beam 1AM was below the threshold at the surface of the concrete.
Assuming a chloride threshold of 0.05%, the chloride ingress models estimated that the earliest
reinforcement corrosion in Wairotoroto Stream Bridge would first initiate in 2054 in the stirrups in the
soffit of beam 1A, which had the highest measured chloride ingress. This first initiation of corrosion was
predicted to occur after the bridge had been in service for 95 years. The earliest pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion was predicted to occur in 2162 in the soffit of beam 1A, after 203 years in
service, assuming that the measured bridge-wide minimum concrete cover to pre-tensioned reinforcement
(22mm) also occurred on the soffit of beam 1A.
Wairotoroto Stream Bridge can be expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation, but some corrosion of stirrups can be expected to occur within that time. If the bridge is
expected to remain in service beyond its 100-year service life, some intervention will be necessary to
prevent or repair damage to the cover concrete caused by corroding stirrups.
5.3.5 Westshore Bridge (Rogers key 58)

Westshore Bridge was inspected in 2011 after 51 years in service. It is a three-span era 2 T-beam bridge
with 18 beams per span, which were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive
strength of 38MPa. The bridge is oriented north–south between Bay View and Napier, and spans a tidal
waterway leading to the harbour, which has a fairly gravelly riverbed (see figure 5.13(a)). There is an
approximate clearance of 1.5m between the bottom of the beams and the surface of the water at high
tide, with a tidal difference of about 1m. Each pier consists of a 700mm cap beam on top of 13 columns
of approximately 500mm diameter. The beams were numbered 1A–3R, with span 1 being the
northernmost (near Bay View). The easternmost beam, closest to the harbour, was labelled as beam A.
140
Figure 5.13 Photographs of Westshore Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south (b) Poor compaction and cracking on soffit of beam
Chloride samples were collected from beams 1A, 1I and 1R, on the northern span. The chloride hole on
beam 1A was drilled approximately 4–5m from the northern end, next to a 500mm crack running along
the eastern edge of the soffit. Poor compaction was also observed in that region of the soffit. There was
evidence of metal scraps cast into the soffit of most beams, based on both small rust stains and localised
low-cover readings (see figure 5.14(a)). Approximately 3.5m from the northern end of beam 1R there was
a cracking pattern that suggested the possibility of alkali silica reaction (ASR) on a narrow section of the
web on the west-facing side of the beam, as shown in figure 5.14(b). Beam 1A had an area of poor
compaction approximately 1m long that was visible on the soffit and bottom of the sides, which is partly
shown in figure 5.13(b). A 500mm longitudinal crack was visible on the soffit near the western side at
about 1/3 of the span from the northern end. Beam 1R displayed a crack pattern on the western side of
the web that may have been a result of ASR, but tests were not conducted to confirm this.
Figure 5.14 Photographs of stains and cracking on Westshore Bridge
(a) Rust stains on the soffit (b) Potential ASR cracking on web
tensioned beams of Westshore Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
141
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Westshore Bridge and the average and minimum values were
found for each face of each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D, on the
chloride hole report sheets following page D23. The beams on Westshore Bridge contain stirrups that do
not enclose the longitudinal reinforcement, and are only located near the surface in the web of the beams.
The average measured concrete cover depth to stirrups was 35mm in the web, and the minimum
measured cover depth to the stirrups was 31mm in the web. The average and minimum measured
concrete cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 40mm and 31mm in the side and angled top
face of the bottom bulb, and the specified cover depth to the pre-tensioned reinforcement was 44mm in
the soffit at midspan. Measurements of cover depths in the soffit were not made because only the
haunched regions of the beams were accessible and these locations had cover depths on the soffit of up
to 10” (254mm) to both stirrups and pre-tensioned reinforcement, which reduced to a specified cover
depth of 44mm in the middle of the span.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1I and 1R, and on
the side of the bottom bulb of beam 3A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the
bridge inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D23. Insignificant quantities of cast-
in chlorides were detected in the profiles from all sites; these readings had an average of 0.006%, which is
slightly above the minimum detection limit. Chloride ingress was also detected at all of the sites, with the
depth of the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at 22mm, 7mm and 14mm in the soffits of
beams 1A, 1I and 1R respectively, and at 15mm in the east side of the bottom bulb of beam 3A.
While no cover depth readings could be made in the soffit of Westshore Bridge, the specified concrete
cover depth in the soffit and the minimum measured cover depth in the side of the bottom bulb were
greatly in excess of the era-specified minimum cover depths identified in chapter 2. For this reason, the
predictions of time to corrosion initiation made using the era-specified concrete cover depths were likely
to be overly conservative for the chloride models, based on profiles obtained from the beam soffits. Time
to corrosion initiation predictions were therefore made for the soffit sites using the minimum specified
cover depth to pre-tensioned reinforcement in the beam soffit of 44mm.
The chloride ingress models estimated that pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion would first initiate in
Westshore Bridge in the soffit of beam 1A, which had the highest measured chloride ingress. Using the
specified pre-tensioned reinforcement cover depth in the soffit, initiation of corrosion in beam 1A was
predicted to occur after the bridge had been in service for 196 years. If the chloride ingress model
generated using the chloride profile from the soffit of beam 1A was used with the global minimum
measured concrete cover depth to pre-tensioned reinforcement on any face (31mm), then corrosion was
predicted to initiate in 2057, after a service life of 97 years.
Laboratory testing is recommended to determine the presence of ASR in the beams of Westshore Bridge, if
such testing has not been conducted already. If the effectiveness of the cover concrete is not reduced by
the presence of ASR or other means, then Westshore Bridge could be expected to achieve a 100-year
service life without the need for major renovation as a result of chloride-induced corrosion. If the bridge is
expected to exceed 100 years of service, then concrete cover depth readings should be taken in the soffit
of the beams near midspan in order to confirm that the specified cover to pre-tensioned reinforcement
was achieved. If the specified cover was not achieved, the predictions of time to corrosion initiation should
be adjusted to take into account the actual soffit cover depths.
142
5.3.6 Rosebank Bridge No2 (Rogers key 72)

Rosebank Bridge forms part of the Auckland North-western Motorway (see figure 5.15) and has been
widened twice. The original bridge (Rosebank Bridge No1) is a two-lane reinforced concrete T-beam
bridge. The first widening occurred in era 2 and involved the addition of two north-west-bound lanes of
pre-tensioned I-beams as a separate structure (Rosebank Bridge No2), forming the part of the bridge that
was inspected. The second widening occurred in 1992 and involved the addition of another lane and a
shoulder to each of the two existing bridges, using pre-tensioned U-beams. A double-tee cycle lane was
also added on the north-west side. The bridge joins two causeways across a tidal river with wide mudflats.
Water flows under all spans at high tide and flows under all but the end spans at low tide. The riverbed is
composed of mud and oyster-covered rocks. Both Rosebank Bridge No1 and No2 are five spans long. The
inspection targeted only the original I-beams of Rosebank Bridge No2, and was performed in 2011 when
the I-beams had been in service for 51 years.
Figure 5.15 Photographs of Rosebank Bridge No2
(a) View of bridge from the north-west bank (b) View of soffit of spans 2, 3 and 4 from the north-
west bank
The inspected I-beam bridge had nine I-beams per span, with the north-western span labelled 1 and the
north-eastern beam labelled A. The I-beams were pre-tensioned with 0.2” h.t. wire and the beams were
expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa. Figure 5.16(a) shows
corrosion stains on the soffit of beam 1D, which was caused by metal debris cast into the soffit of the
beam, indicating the presence of chloride ingress. Figure 5.16(b) shows evidence of chloride-induced
corrosion on the adjacent, 1955 non-prestressed T-beam bridge.
143
Figure 5.16 Photographs of corrosion on the Rosebank Bridges
(a) Corrosion stains on the soffit of beam 1D (b) Chloride-induced corrosion on adjacent, 1955 non-
prestressed T-beam bridge
beams of Rosebank Bridge No2. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated the
concrete strength to be 66MPa and 67MPa. However, these compressive strength values are near the
upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer readings should be taken
on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because the surface concrete is stronger and
harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these compressive strength values are overestimates of
the actual compressive strength and should not be used to estimate section properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on the Rosebank Bridge No2 I-beams, and the average and
minimum values were found for each face of each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in
appendix D, on the chloride hole report sheets following page D29. The global average measured concrete
cover depth to stirrups was 31mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was
30mm in the soffit. The average and minimum measured concrete cover depths to pre-tensioned
reinforcement were 29mm and 30mm in the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1E and 1I, and on
the web of beam 1A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection
report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D29. Significant concentrations of cast-in chlorides
were indicated by three of the four chloride profiles, but the three holes drilled into the soffit of the beams
terminated at the depth of reinforcement after striking steel, so these results do not give a reliable
indication of the chloride profile beyond that depth. However, the profile from the web of beam 1A
extended to 63mm, at which depth the chloride concentration was not greatly affected by ingress of
environmental chlorides. This profile indicated a cast-in chloride concentration of 0.02% by weight of
concrete. Significant chloride ingress was also detected at three of the four sites, with the depth of the
0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at 28mm and 21mm in the web and soffit of beam 1A, and at
15mm and 3mm in the soffits of beams 1E and 1I.
Cover depths in the web of Rosebank Bridge No2 were not recorded, so the era-specified concrete cover
depths for I-beams were assumed for the chloride ingress models. These assumed cover depth values
resulted in the prediction that corrosion was likely to have initiated up to 28 years ago in the stirrups, and
18 years ago in the pre-tensioned reinforcement in the web of beam 1A, which had the highest measured
chloride ingress. However, visual inspection evidence did not suggest that active reinforcement corrosion
had been occurring for 28 years, so it was expected that the assumed cover depths were flawed.
Reference to the cross section of an era 2 I-beam with 0.2” h.t. wire as pre-tensioned reinforcement,
144
shown in figure 3.9(a), revealed that specified stirrup cover in the standard beam was 1 and cover to the
unenclosed pre-tensioned wire was 1⅛” in the web. Measured cover depths in the soffit of Rosebank
Bridge No2 were about 5mm greater than those specified in figure 3.9(a), suggesting that cover depths
elsewhere in the beam could also be higher than suggested by the era-specified minimum. The cover
depth used for prediction was therefore factored up, using the ratio of specified cover depth to actual
cover depth to the stirrups in the soffit, which gave an estimated cover depth of 34mm for chloride
ingress modelling. Using a 34mm cover depth and the chloride profile obtained from the beam 1A web,
the first initiation of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion was predicted to occur in 2033, after the
bridge had been in service for 73 years.
Rosebank Bridge No2 is not expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation unless measures to prevent corrosion are implemented before it initiates in about 2033.
5.3.7 Boundary Creek Bridge (Rogers key 133)

Boundary Creek Bridge was inspected on 30 August 2011 after 48 years in service. It is an era 3 I-beam
bridge located on the west coast of the Coromandel Peninsula, immediately next to the beach on the Firth
of Thames (see figure 5.17(a)). The bridge superstructure was about to be repaired at time of inspection
(see figure 5.17(b)), with the repair work entailing:
• hydro-demolition of cover concrete in corroded areas
• break-out and removal of corroding reinforcing steel, including stirrups
• removal of corroding pre-tensioned strand (this was not to be reinstated)
• replacement of the removed concrete.
The bridge has a single span with seven beams and three diaphragms positioned at ¼ points. The beams
were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa and were a
‘first generation’ design that was updated to meet H20-T16-S16 and contained ⅜” strand rather than wire.
The westernmost beam, closest to the sea, was labelled beam A.
Figure 5.17 Photographs of Boundary Creek Bridge
(a) View of bridge and proximity to coast, from north (b) View of west side of bridge and scaffold, looking
bank north
Significant damage was observed in several beams of Boundary Creek Bridge. Concrete spalling caused by
stirrup corrosion was visible on the western haunch of beam 1A, as well as rust stains and delamination
145
on a 600mm patch repair on the soffit and side of the bottom flange of the same beam. There was a
400mm longitudinal crack in the north diaphragm near the soffit, with patch repairs in the region of the
transverse anchor. There were also spots of rust on the transverse anchor near midspan, with patch
repairs located around the anchor. A rust-stained longitudinal crack 100mm long was noted 10mm above
the soffit. The bottom flange of beam A exhibited regions of poor compaction near the southern
diaphragm, with patch repairs in that region. Near the northern end of beam 1A, large patch repairs were
observed on the eastern side of the beam and on the soffit, with long longitudinal cracks located in both
regions. In particular, a patch repair that contained rust staining spanned the full width of the soffit about
2m from the abutment. There was extensive evidence of stirrup corrosion along the full span of beam 1A,
including a broken stirrup exposing two severely corroded strands.
Beam 1B was in relatively good condition, with only three small rust spots at a ¼ span point at a formwork
join. Rusting was also present on the web of beam 1C, and on the soffit due to stirrup corrosion.
Longitudinal cracks, 500mm and 300mm in length, were observed on the bottom flange and on the soffit,
respectively. There was a 250mm longitudinal crack at the formwork join on the west side of the bottom
flange of beam 1D, with rust spots in the same region. A patch repair 200mm long was also noted on the
west of the soffit and bottom flange of beam 1D, while a region of concrete spalling 400mm long in the
top flange exposed 200mm of corroding longitudinal reinforcement.
There were two rust spots, each 15mm in diameter, on the soffit of beam 1E. A 500mm patch repair on
the west side and the soffit of the same beam contained rust staining and was delaminating. There was
concrete spalling and rust staining in the southern half span of beam 1E, caused by five corroding
stirrups, three of which had previously been patched. In the southern ¼ span there was a 1.5m length of
extremely corroded exposed strand on the west side and soffit of beam 1E, which is shown in figure 5.18,
and there was cracking in a 400mm patch repair in those regions.
Figure 5.18 Photographs of active pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion on Boundary Creek Bridge
(a) Corroding and exposed strand in beam 1E (b) Close-up of corroding pre-tensioned strand
Corrosion of stirrups had caused rust staining in the soffit of beam 1F. Concrete spalling, exposing a
stirrup, and a longitudinal crack 150mm long on the west side and the soffit of beam F were also noted,
as well as delamination of a patch repair 200mm long. Removal, by hand, of some of the delaminated
concrete exposed severely corroded strand. Finally, the soffit of beam 1G exhibited rust spots and
staining along the length of the beam, with moderate cracking. Patch repairs, 300mm and 50mm in
length, were also observed on the soffit of beam 1G, and poor compaction was evident on the eastern face
of the web.
146
Schmidt hammer readings were taken on the surface of the concrete at four locations on the pre-tensioned
beams of Boundary Creek Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated
the concrete strength to be 64MPa, 64MPa, 66MPa and 66MPa. However, these compressive strength
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Boundary Creek Bridge and the average and minimum values
stirrups was 37mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 7mm in the soffit
(soffit average was 21mm). The average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned
reinforcement were 34mm and 29mm in the soffit, and 34mm and 26mm in the top and side of the
bottom bulb.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1B and 1E, and on
the web of beam 1D. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection
report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D35. An insignificant concentration of cast-in chlorides
was detected in the profile from site 1B, with a concentration of 0.0016%, which is below the detection
limit and was calculated using the Fick’s diffusion model. Significant chloride ingress was also detected at
all of the sites, with the depth of the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at 43mm, 39mm, 31mm
and 28mm, on beams 1A, 1B, 1D and 1E respectively.
The chloride ingress models estimated that corrosion of both the stirrups and pre-tensioned
reinforcement had already initiated. Widespread stirrup corrosion in the three soffits was predicted to
have initiated between 23 and 37 years ago. The first pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion was
predicted to have initiated 20 years ago in the soffit of beam 1A, while at the other chloride profile sites it
is predicted to have initiated between 2005 and 2013. The prediction of widespread existing corrosion in
Boundary Creek Bridge correlates well with the observed condition of the structure, and serves to validate
the chloride ingress models. It is possible that the predicted initiation years at sites that have experienced
spalling or cracking may predict earlier corrosion initiation than actually occurred because of the
increased rate of chloride ingress through the damaged cover concrete.
5.3.8 Pattens Creek Bridge (Rogers key 151)

Pattens Creek Bridge was inspected on 1 July 2010 after 46 years in service. It is located in the West Coast
region of the South Island, north of Westport (see figure 5.19). The bridge contains 28 era 3 log beams
per span, which were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of
38MPa. The bridge soffit shown in figure 5.5(b) and the beams were labelled, with beam 1A located on the
west, nearest the sea.
147
Figure 5.19 View of Pattens Creek Bridge
(a) View of Pattens Creek Bridge from south bank, (b) View of Pattens Creek Bridge from south bank,
showing proximity to coast showing span
Spalling was identified in many places on the edges of the soffit of the individual beams. This spalling was
attributed to corroding steel rods that run vertically between the beams, which were possibly provided in
order to attach formwork for the infill. Concrete spalling was observed at eight separate locations on the
edge of the soffit of beam 1A, probably caused by the corrosion of pairs of vertical steel bars located in
the shear gaps between beams. The soffit of the southern end of the beam exhibited rust staining caused
by a runoff drain from the roadway. A number of instances of concrete spalling, rust staining and mould
were observed in beams 1A, 1B and 1Y.
tensioned beams of Pattens Creek Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Pattens Creek Bridge and the average and minimum values were
39mm in the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from five sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1F, 1L, 1Y and 1AB.
The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection report provided in
appendix D, beginning on page D41. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in any of the profiles obtained.
An insignificant amount of chloride ingress was detected at four of the five sites, with the surface
concentration determined to be below the 0.05% corrosion threshold at three of those sites, and
determined to be at a depth of 2mm in the soffit of beam 1A.
design life of Pattens Creek Bridge.
148
5.3.9 Otohi Stream Bridge (Rogers key 162)

Otohi Stream Bridge is a one-span bridge located on the west coast of the Coromandel Peninsula in the
North Island, and it was inspected on 8 June 2011 after 47 years in service. A view of the bridge is given in
figure 5.20 (a). The bridge originally consisted of a one-lane T-beam reinforced concrete bridge that was
widened to two lanes by the addition of 14 era 3 pre-tensioned concrete log beams. The 14 log beams
were identified as beams A to N and support the northbound lane, with beam 1A being the westernmost
beam and located closest to the Firth of Thames (see figure 5.20(b)). The older reinforced concrete beams
supporting the southbound lane were labelled O to R.
Figure 5.20 Photographs of Otohi Stream Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking west (b) View of soffit and Firth of Thames, looking west
There was a 100mm cast-in-situ lip on the outside edge of beam 1A of Otohi Stream Bridge, and the lip
and the soffit of the beam were covered in black and green moss. Corrosion of stirrups and longitudinal
bars had caused concrete spalling in the bottom corners and on the sides of the webs of the older RC
beams (ie beams O, P, Q and R, see figures 5.21(a) and (b)). Some of the areas of concrete spalling had
been patch repaired, while others had exposed steel reinforcement. The log beams appeared to be in
good condition at the time of inspection and are constructed from sound, well-compacted concrete that
was expected to have a 28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa.
149
Figure 5.21 Photographs of corrosion damage on older reinforced concrete beams of Otohi Stream Bridge
(a) Spalling of soffit and corrosion of longitudinal bar (b) Spalling of web exposing corroding stirrup
tensioned beams of Otohi Stream Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Otohi Stream Bridge and the average and minimum values were
27mm in the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from three sites on the soffits of the pre-tensioned log beams and from
one site on the soffit of one of the older reinforced concrete beams. It was hoped that the sample from the
older RC beam could be used to further assess the severity of exposure, but the age of the original
structure could not be ascertained, so the predictions of time to corrosion based on this chloride profile
were invalid. The raw data and analysis of all four chloride profiles is presented in the bridge inspection
report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D47. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in any of the
profiles. Chloride ingress was detected at all sites and this ingress was significant at two of the four sites,
with the depth of the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at 15mm, 3mm, 4mm and 22mm, on
beams 1A, 1H, 1N and 1Q respectively.
The chloride ingress models based on the chloride profiles taken from the log beam soffits estimated that
corrosion would first initiate in Otohi Stream Bridge in beam 1A, which had the highest measured chloride
ingress of the log beams sampled. This first initiation of corrosion was predicted to occur in the stirrups
of beam 1A after the bridge had been in service for 115 years. The earliest pre-tensioned reinforcement
corrosion was predicted to occur in beam 1A after 146 years in service.
150
The log beams forming the northbound lane of Otohi Stream Bridge are expected to achieve a 100-year
service life without the need for major renovation. The older reinforced concrete structure supporting the
northbound lane requires further investigation to confirm its expected remaining life.
5.3.10 Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh) Bridge No 91 (Rogers key 223)

Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh) Bridge was inspected in 2011 after 45 years in service. It is a three-span era 4
T-beam bridge with four beams per span (see figure 5.22). The bridge has wide precast flanges with
approximately 1.8m between beams, and there are many blow holes spread over the surface of all of the
beams. The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of
38MPa. The bridge spans a tidal estuary with a river running beneath all the spans. The north span was
labelled span 1, and the easternmost beam was labelled beam A.
Beams 3A, 3B and 3D had a spall on the edge of the soffit at about ⅓ span (south end), which appeared to
have been caused by impact damage. More than half of the beams had this form of damage at one or
other end, often seeming to coincide with a formwork join. Beam 3C appeared to have two holes near the
south end that had been patched, and were likely to be previous chloride holes. There were some large
patch repairs on the piles of the central piers. The stirrup spacing is approximately 200mm, the width of
the soffit is 202mm, and the height of the web is 525mm.
The beams appeared to have three ½” strands in the bottom layer and two layers of longitudinal
reinforcement. One of the posts for the W-section barrier on the west side of the bridge was unbolted from
both the bridge and the W-section at the time of inspection, and was just standing on the deck close to its
intended position.
Figure 5.22 Photographs of Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh) Bridge No 91
(a) View of bridge, looking north (b) View of soffit from south abutment
beams of Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh) Bridge No 91. These readings indicated sound high-strength
concrete and estimated the concrete strength to be 50MPa, 49MPa, 56MPa and 56MPa. However, these
compressive strength values are near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate
Schmidt hammer readings should be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm
because the surface concrete is stronger and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these
compressive strength values are overestimates of the actual compressive strength and should not be used
to estimate section properties.
151
Concrete cover depths were measured on Paneiraira Creek Bridge and the average and minimum values
31mm in the soffit, and 46mm and 34mm in the web.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1C, 3A, 3C and 3D. The
raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection report provided in appendix
D, beginning on page D53. Cast-in chlorides were detected in all of the profiles, with concentrations of
between 0.012% and 0.021%. These concentrations were below the selected corrosion threshold of 0.05%
but could contribute to chloride-induced corrosion when combined with environmental chloride ingress. A
small amount of chloride ingress was also detected at all of the sites, with the depth of the 0.05%
corrosion threshold determined to be at 4mm in beams 1C and 3D. The projected chloride concentration
in the soffit of beams 3A and 3C was below the threshold at the surface of the concrete.
design life of Paneiraira Creek Bridge.
5.3.11 Waimangaro Creek Bridge (Rogers key 224)

Waimangaro Creek Bridge was inspected in 2011 after 45 years in service. It is a single-span era 4 bridge
with four wide flange T beams (see figure 5.23). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28
day specified compressive strength of 38MPa and were labelled 1A to 1D, with beam 1A being on the
downstream side. The bridge is located over a tidal river surrounded by mud flats and mangroves,
although the ocean is not visible or audible from the bridge site. The width of the soffit is approximately
200mm, and although it was not possible to gauge the strand size from the chloride holes, it appeared
that there were three strands in the bottom layer. A small piece of wire 2mm in diameter had been cast
into the bottom of the web at the south end of beam 1C and showed some corrosion. Uniformly spaced air
bubbles were visible on all surfaces of the webs, with some concentrated patches on the soffit of beam 1B.
There were two large patch repairs on the south pier cap. Long, thin reddish stains were visible on the
side of beams 1B and 1C near the south end, but were not in line with longitudinal reinforcement and
there was no damage to the concrete.
Figure 5.23 Photographs of Waimangaro Creek Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south (b) View of soffit from north abutment
152
Schmidt hammer readings were taken on the surface of the concrete at five locations on the pre-tensioned
beams of Waimangaro Creek Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
estimated the concrete strength to be 54MPa, 57MPa, 44MPa, 57MPa and 56MPa. However, these
Concrete cover depths were measured on Waimangaro Creek Bridge and the average and minimum values
39mm in the soffit, and 46mm and 38mm in the web.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1B and 1D, and on
the east side of the web on beam 1A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the
bridge inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D59. Cast-in chlorides were detected
in all of the profiles, with concentrations of between 0.0128% and 0.0192%, which were below the selected
corrosion threshold of 0.05% but could contribute to chloride-induced corrosion when combined with
environmental chloride ingress. Chloride ingress was also detected in all of the profiles, but the projected
chloride concentration at the surface of the concrete was below the threshold value for corrosion initiation
(0.05%).
design life of Waimangaro Creek Bridge.
5.3.12 Wilsons Creek Bridge (Rogers key 266)

Wilsons Creek Bridge was inspected in 2011 after 43 years in service. It is a single-span era 4 bridge
containing 26 log beams that were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive
strength of 38MPa. The bridge has a high angle of skew to the river, with the beams skewed relative to the
abutments. The downstream beam was designated 1A, and the upstream beam 1Z. The river flows under
the entire width of the single span and appears to not be tidal, or has only a very slight tidal variation
(approximately 200mm). The river runs through farmland over a bed of 200–300mm diameter rocks, and
the coast is not visible from the bridge. The bridge has been retrofitted with galvanised brackets at the
abutments that hold the beams onto the abutments.
153
Figure 5.24 Photographs of Wilsons Creek Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south-east (b) View of soffit from north abutment
The concrete of Wilsons Creek Bridge appeared to be in a good condition. Almost the entire soffit of each
beam appeared to have been bag-rubbed and this was now falling off, with the concrete underneath being
a bit rough, but sound. Some greenish mould was growing on the underside of the bridge in places, but
there was no evidence of water running through the deck. Beam 1K had four small rust spots at the
northern end and beam 1F had a patch of poor compaction near midspan. Beam 1Z had some mould
growing on the side of the soffit from water run-off.
tensioned beams of Wilsons Creek Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Wilsons Creek Bridge and the average and minimum values were
chloride hole report sheets following page D65. The cover depth to stirrups was not measured, as stirrups
are not present for the majority of the span of the log beams, and near the ends of the beams where
stirrups are present, the cover meter readings were influenced by the presence of the steel brackets. The
average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 34mm and 28mm in
the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1L and 1Z, and two
sites from beam 1O because the first hole was terminated at 32mm after striking steel. The raw data and
analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning
on page D65. Cast-in chlorides were detected in all of the profiles, with concentrations of between 0.016%
and 0.023%, which is below the selected corrosion threshold of 0.05% but may contribute to chloride-
induced corrosion when combined with environmental chloride ingress. Chloride ingress was detected at
all of the sites, but this ingress was insignificant at three of the four sites. The depth of the 0.05%
corrosion threshold was determined to be 8mm on beam 1Z, and was projected to be below the threshold
at the surface of the concrete in the other three sampled beams.
154
The chloride ingress model produced using the chloride profile obtained from the soffit of beam 1Z, which
had the worst chloride ingress of the beams tested, indicated that chloride-induced corrosion would not
affect the service life of Wilsons Creek Bridge.
5.3.13 Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuka) Bridge (Rogers key 270)

Tarapatiki Bridge was inspected on 9 June 2011 after 43 years in service. It is a four-span era 4 double
hollow core bridge with 11 beams per span (see figures 5.25(a) and (b)). The beams were expected to
contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa. The bridge is located in the
North Island on the east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula and spans a river immediately adjacent to
Whitianga Harbour, which passes under span 3 at low tide and passes under spans 2, 3 and 4 at high tide.
A king tide would pass under all spans. The westernmost beam had moss growing over the entire soffit,
as can be seen in figure 5.25(b).
Figure 5.25 Photographs of Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuku) Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking north (b) View of soffit, looking south
The bridge is oriented approximately north–south and has a horizontal curve centred to the east. The
superstructure is banked by approximately 3° to 4°, resulting in several beams having trails running across
their soffits from water coming down through the shear keys between the beams. Some trails were visible
because they were overgrown with moss; some stains had a white colour that was possibly due to
dissolved chloride or calcium being left behind as the water evaporated; and other trails exhibited rust
stains, although these stains usually originated from drain holes, as shown in figures 5.26(a) and (b).
155
Figure 5.26 Photographs of Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuku) Bridge
(a) Corrosion stain on soffit (b) White and mossy trails from water running through
the deck between beams
The orientation of the bridge in relation to the harbour appears to result in waves breaking near the south
end of the bridge only, such that the north end of each span may receive some shelter from the weather.
Similarly the northern spans are probably slightly more sheltered than the southern spans. The
northernmost span was labelled span 1, and the easternmost beam, located closest to the sea, as beam A.
tensioned beams of Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuka) Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength
concrete and estimated the concrete strength to be 55MPa, 57MPa and 52MPa. However, these
Concrete cover depths were measured on Tarapatiki Stream Bridge and the average and minimum values
chloride hole report sheets following page D71. The average and minimum measured concrete cover
depths to stirrups in the soffit were 48mm and 35mm respectively. The average and minimum measured
cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 46mm and 41mm in the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 2A, 2K and 3G, and on
the east side of beam 2A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection
report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D71. Insignificant quantities of cast-in chlorides were
detected in the profiles from the soffit of beams 3G, 2K and 2A, and in the side of beam 2A, with
concentrations of 0.008%, 0.005%, 0.002% and 0.005% respectively. These concentration levels were
slightly above the minimum detection limit. Chloride ingress was also detected in all of the profiles, with
the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at a depth of 9mm, 4mm and 12mm, in the soffits of
beams 2A, 2K and 3G respectively. In the side of beam 2A the corrosion threshold was determined to be
at a depth of 10mm.
The chloride ingress models based on measured cover depths estimated that the earliest reinforcement
corrosion would occur in the year 2309 in the soffit of beam 3G. This date corresponds to a service life of
156
341 years. Consequently, it is expected that chloride-induced corrosion will not impact the design life of
Tarapatiki Stream Bridge.
5.3.14 Ovens Bridge No 147 (Rogers key 294)

Ovens Bridge No 147 was inspected in 2011 after 42 years in service. It is an era 4 single-span log beam
bridge with 28 beams (see figure 5.27). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day
specified compressive strength of 38MPa. The tide comes to within 1.5m of the soffit, with a tidal
difference of approximately 2m. The riverbed is mud and the surrounding area is farmland and
mangroves. The ocean is not visible from the bridge. The south to south-eastern side of the bridge is
closer to the coast, with beam 1A being the most downstream beam.
There was little apparent damage or corrosion evident on the bridge, except for a spall on beam 1B, which
appeared to have been caused by mechanical means as opposed to corrosion of reinforcement.
Figure 5.27 Photographs of Ovens Bridge No 147
(a) View of bridge, looking west (b) View of soffit from east abutment
tensioned beams of Ovens Bridge No 147. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Ovens Bridge No 147 and the average and minimum values were
found for each face of each surveyed beam. These concrete cover depths are provided in appendix D, on
the chloride hole report sheets following page D77. Cover depths to stirrups were not measured because
stirrups are not present in most of the length of the span. The average and minimum measured concrete
cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 48mm and 45mm in the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from three sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1L and 1Y. The
D, beginning on page D77. Cast-in chlorides were detected in the profiles from all three sites, with
concentrations of between 0.006% and 0.0126%. These concentration levels were below the selected
157
corrosion threshold of 0.05%, but may have contributed to chloride-induced corrosion when combined
with environmental chloride ingress. Chloride ingress was also detected at all of the sites, with the depth
of the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at 10mm, 2mm and 2mm, on beams 1A, 1Y and 1L
respectively. Corrosion initiation was not predicted to occur before the year 2900 in the pre-tensioned
reinforcement in beam 1A, which had the worst chloride ingress of the beams measured.
design life of Ovens Bridge No 147.
5.3.15 Washdyke Stream Bridge (Rogers key 303)

Washdyke Stream Bridge was inspected on 13 July 2010 after 40 years in service. It is located on the east
coast of the South Island, north of Kaikoura. The era 4 double hollow core bridge has two spans with 10
beams per span (see figure 5.28). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified
compressive strength of 38MPa. The north span was designated as span 1, with beam A being the
easternmost span located closest to sea. Interestingly, the bridge does not match the drawings, which
show a four-span double or triple hollow core bridge.
Figure 5.28 Photographs of Washdyke Stream Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking north (b) View of soffit, looking north
The overall condition of the beams of Washdyke Stream Bridge was good, with some minor concrete
spalling at various locations that did not appear to be caused by corrosion of reinforcement. Examples of
this spalling are shown in figures 5.29(a) and (b). The external beams had an in-situ concrete cap of about
50mm thickness on their outer sides. Specific noted defects were as follows:
• Span 2 beam D had spalling.
• Span 3 beam B had spalling near the midspan.
• Span 4 beam G had spalling near the midspan.
• Span 4 beam I had spalling near the south abutment.
158
Figure 5.29 Photographs of spalling damage on Washdyke Stream Bridge
(a) Localised spalling, possibly caused by impact (b) Minor spalling

damage
tensioned beams of Washdyke Stream Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
values were near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Washdyke Stream Bridge and the average and minimum values
chloride hole report sheets following page D81. The average measured concrete cover depth to stirrups
was 40mm in the soffit, and the minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 36mm in the soffit.
The average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 52mm and 43mm
in the soffit, and 52mm and 52mm in the side.
Chloride samples were obtained from five sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1F, 3A, 3F and 3J, and
on the east side of beam 3A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge
inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D81. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in
the profiles from Washdyke Stream Bridge. An insignificant amount of chloride ingress was detected at
two of the five sites, but the surface chloride concentration was projected to be below the 0.05% threshold
for corrosion initiation at the surface of the concrete.
design life of Washdyke Stream Bridge.
5.3.16 Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge (Rogers key 391)

Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge was inspected on 8 July 2010 after 36 years in service. It is located in the West
Coast region of the South Island, north of Hokitika (see figure 5.30). The era 5 double hollow core bridge
has a single span and the beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive
strength of 38MPa. The westernmost beam is closest to the sea and was designated as beam A.
159
Figure 5.30 Photographs of Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking north (b) View of soffit from south bank
Overall Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge appeared to be in good condition, but did show some compaction
defects on the edge of the beam soffits. A corrosion spot was observed on the soffit of beam 1A, in the
region of the drainage hole. Beam E of the same span of the bridge exhibited poor compaction and there
were calcium stalactites throughout.
beams of Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
estimated the concrete strength to be 65MPa and 67MPa. However, these compressive strength values
were near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer readings
should be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because the surface concrete
is stronger and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these compressive strength values are
Concrete cover depths were measured on Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge and the average and minimum
values were found for each face of each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D,
on the chloride hole report sheets following page D87. The average measured concrete cover depth to
stirrups in the soffit was 33mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 24mm
in the soffit. The average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were
45mm and 39mm in the soffit, and 67mm and 65mm in the side.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1E and 1K, and on
the west side of beam 1A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection
report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D87. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in the chloride
profiles from Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge. An insignificant amount of chloride ingress was detected at all
of the sampled sites, and the projected chloride concentration was below the threshold for corrosion
initiation at the surface of the concrete in all cases.
design life of Little Hou Hou Bridge.
5.3.17 Kowhai River Bridge (Rogers key 433)

Kowhai River Bridge was inspected on 12 July 2010 after 33 years in service. It is located south of Kaikoura
on the east coast of the South Island. The era 5 I-beam bridge has nine spans, with four beams per span
160
(see figures 5.32(a) and (b)). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified
compressive strength of 38MPa. The northernmost span was designated as span 1, with beam A being the
easternmost beam located closest to the sea. The bridge runs over the gravelly bed of a braided river. At
the time of inspection the river flowed under only one span, although the river does at times flow under all
spans. The beach and crashing waves are 270m away and visible from beneath the bridge.
Figure 5.31 Photographs of Kowhai River Bridge
(a) View of coast from bridge deck, looking south-west (b) View of soffit and river bed, looking north-east
Minor defects and repairs were observed during the inspection on Kowhai River Bridge. There was a patch
repair and large rust stain on beam 2C, and white staining and poor compaction on the soffits of many of
the beams, with some of the worst-affected regions having been previously patch repaired. Large areas of
the soffits and sides of the bottom bulbs appeared to have been extensively bag-rubbed or otherwise
doctored to rectify poor compaction or other issues, particularly along the edges of the soffit. The bottom
flange of beam 9D had been poorly patch repaired previously, and the patch repair was crumbling.
Representative examples of these defects are shown in figure 5.32.
161
Figure 5.32 Photographs of the damaged soffit on Kowhai River Bridge
(a) Beam soffit, showing repairs to bottom edge (b) Beam soffit, showing rust spots and edge repairs
(c) Cracked and crumbling edge of bottom bulb (d) Beam soffit, showing repair
Soffit of deck
Soffit of beam
tensioned beams of Kowhai River Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Kowhai River Bridge and the average and minimum values were
chloride hole report sheets following page D93. Cover depths were measured in the soffit of the beams
only and the global average cover to stirrups was 17mm, with the global minimum measured cover depth
to the stirrups being 13mm. Measured concrete cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were
consistently 35mm.
162
Chloride samples were obtained from five sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 5A, 5C, 5D, 6C and 7B.
appendix D, beginning on page D93. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in any of the profiles. An
insignificant amount of chloride ingress was also detected at all five of the sites, but the projected
chloride concentrations at the surface of the concrete were at or below the 0.05% threshold.
design life of Kowhai River Bridge.
5.3.18 Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 (Rogers key 442)

Waiotemarama Stream Bridge No 595 was inspected in 2011 after 34 years in service. It is an era 5 three-
span single hollow core beam bridge with 10 beams per span (see figure 5.33). The beams were expected
to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 38MPa. The bridge is oriented
approximately east to west at the bridge site, with the westernmost span designated as span 1. The
stream flows from north to south and the southernmost beam was designated as beam A. The river is not
tidal and there is no view of the river mouth from the bridge. The riverbed is composed of mud and the
west abutment is undercut (possibly by flooding) to expose the piles, with the east abutment being less
badly affected.
Figure 5.33 Photographs of Waiotemarama Bridge No 595
(a) View of bridge, looking north (b) View of soffit from west abutment
Visual inspection revealed that the bridge was in good condition, but identified some areas of poor
concrete compaction, particularly on the bottom corners and sides of the webs. Compaction was generally
good under the void in all beams except for beam 1F, and to a lesser extent beam 1A. Span 2 was
inaccessible by ladder so visual inspection was conducted from a distance and may have missed some
details.
tensioned beams of Waiotemarama Bridge No 595. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete
and estimated the concrete strength to be 60MPa, 60MPa and 59MPa. However, these compressive
strength values were near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt
hammer readings should be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because
the surface concrete is stronger and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these compressive
strength values are overestimates of the actual compressive strength and should not be used to estimate
section properties.
163
Concrete cover depths were measured on Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 and the average and minimum
values were found for each face of each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D,
on the chloride hole report sheets following page D99. The global average measured concrete cover depth
to stirrups was 29mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 20mm in the
soffit. The average and minimum measured concrete cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were
43mm and 39mm in the soffit, and 47mm and 43mm in the sides.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1F, 1J and 2A. The
D, beginning on page D99. Moderate concentrations of cast-in chlorides were detected in the profiles from
all of the sites, with concentrations of 0.029%, 0.026%, 0.026 and 0.024%. These concentration levels were
below the selected corrosion threshold of 0.05%, but could accelerate the initiation of chloride-induced
corrosion when combined with the effects of environmental chloride ingress or carbonation. Chloride
profiles were obtained by assuming that chlorides in the washout zone were ‘washed out’ at the time of
testing, and therefore selectively neglecting the measured chloride concentrations at the shallowest
increments that did not fit the Fick’s diffusion curve. In reality, it is possible that no chloride ingress was
occurring in Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 and that the small variations in the chloride concentration with
depth were random variations in the cast-in chloride concentration. If chloride ingress was assumed to be
occurring, then the projected concentration at the surface of the concrete exceeded the threshold value of
0.05% in only one of the four sample locations: the soffit of beam 1J, in which the chloride threshold
depth was 15mm. The chloride ingress model estimated that the first corrosion would initiate in stirrups
with minimum concrete cover depth in 2039, after 62 years of service. The first pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion is predicted in the soffit of beam 1J in 2212, after 235 years of service.
Corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement is not predicted in Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 during a 100-
year service life. However, monitoring of the structure for stirrup corrosion is recommended after 60
years, due to the presence of cast-in chlorides and the possibility of environmental chloride ingress.
5.3.19 Aongatete Stream Bridge (Rogers key 466)

Aongatete Stream Bridge was inspected in 2011 after 32 years in service. It is a two-span era 6 I-beam
bridge with four beams per span, and one diaphragm per span located at midspan (see figure 5.34). The
beams contained both pre-tensioned and post-tensioned reinforcement, and were expected to contain
concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 40MPa and contain two layers of pre-tensioned
strand at the bottom of the bulb. The northernmost span was labelled span 1, and the easternmost beam
was labelled beam A.
The river below the bridge is not tidal and the sea or harbour cannot be seen from the bridge. The river
bed is stony, with some concrete matting areas to control the channel, and is surrounded by farmland and
an orchard. The stream flows under both spans, but only for about one-third of each span. During
inspection it was noted that the concrete was in good condition, with scattered blow holes having a
diameter of less than 8mm, and mostly having a diameter of 1–2mm. There were no areas of poor
compaction.
164
Figure 5.34 Photographs of Aongatete Stream Bridge
(a) View of bridge from south-east bank (b) View of soffit from south-east abutment
tensioned beams of Aongatete Stream Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Aongatete Stream Bridge and the average and minimum values
chloride hole report sheets following page D105. Concrete cover depths were measured and the average
cover depth to stirrups was 21mm, with the minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups being 15mm.
The average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 44mm and 39mm
in the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from three sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 2A, 2C and 2D. The
D, beginning on page D105. Insignificant concentrations of cast-in chlorides were detected in the profiles
from all three sites, with concentrations of around 0.004%, which was just above the detection limit. An
insignificant amount of chloride ingress was also detected at all of the sampled sites, and the chloride
concentrations at the surface of the concrete were determined to be below the 0.05% threshold for
corrosion initiation at all three locations.
design life of Aongatete Stream Bridge.
5.3.20 Saltwater Creek Bridge (Rogers key 493)

Saltwater Creek Bridge was inspected on 7 July 2010 after 29 years in service. It is located south of
Greymouth in the West Coast region of the South Island. The era 7 double hollow core bridge has two
spans, with 16 beams per span (see figure 5.35). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28
day specified compressive strength of 40MPa. The northern span was designated span 1, with beam A
being on the western side and located closest to the sea.
165
Figure 5.35 Photographs of Saltwater Creek Bridge
(a) View of bridge from north bank, looking west (b) View of soffit from south abutment
During inspection it was noted that Saltwater Creek Bridge appeared to be in excellent condition, although
there was evidence of poor compaction in beam 2G.
beams of Saltwater Creek Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated
the concrete strength to be 58MPa and 56MPa. However, these compressive strength values were near the
Concrete cover depths were measured on the soffit of the beams and the average and minimum values
were found for each of the surveyed beams. These cover depths are provided in appendix D, on the
chloride hole report sheets following page D109. Average measured concrete cover depth to stirrups was
29mm, and the minimum measured cover depth to stirrups was 17mm. The average and minimum
measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 46mm and 39mm.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1K, 2A, 2G and 2P. The
D, beginning on page D109. Cast-in chlorides were detected in the profiles from all sites, with
concentrations ranging from 0.009% to 0.019%. These concentration levels were below the selected
corrosion threshold of 0.05%, but could contribute to chloride-induced corrosion when combined with
environmental chloride ingress. An insignificant amount of chloride ingress was also detected at three of
the four sites, but two of these sites (beams 2A and 2G) were only obtained by selectively excluding some
of the data points, so it is possible that no chloride ingress was occurring at these sites and that the
difference in measured chloride concentration with depth was attributed to small variations in the cast-in
chloride concentration. This supposition is less likely to be the case in beam 2A because the measured
concentrations were higher than in beam 2G, and the excluded points in the analysis of beam 2A could be
explained by the wash-out zone. The diffusion model estimated that the 0.05% chloride threshold was at a
depth of 17mm in beam 2A, and that the surface concentration in beam 2G was below the threshold
value. The chloride profile from beam 2P fit the model well but had a surface chloride concentration lower
than the 0.05% threshold for corrosion initiation.
166
The two exterior beams (beams 2A and 2P) appeared to have some chloride ingress, with beam 2A
(located closest to the sea) having higher measured concentrations, but the fit of the diffusion model was
not very good so predictions of time to corrosion initiation based on this data may have been overly
conservative. The model predicted that corrosion could have initiated in beam 2A in stirrups with
minimum cover in 2011 after only 30 years of service, but that corrosion of stirrups with the average
measured cover would initiate in 2065, after 84 years of service. The 30-year prediction related to only
one cover depth reading, which was considerably lower than any of the other readings, so any corrosion
initiating in or around 2011 is expected to be minor and localised. Pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion
was predicted in strands with minimum cover in 2138, after 157 years of service.
Saltwater Creek Bridge can be expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation, but some corrosion of stirrups may be expected to occur in the downstream beams within that
time, so some intervention may be necessary to prevent or repair damage to the cover concrete caused by
corroding stirrups.
5.3.21 Woodbank Stream Bridge (Rogers key 495)

Woodbank Stream Bridge was inspected on 14 July 2010 after 29 years in service. It is a single-span era 7
U-beam bridge located north of Kaikoura, on the east coast of the South Island. The bridge is shown in
figure 5.36 and has eight beams per span, which were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day
specified compressive strength of 40MPa. The easternmost span was labelled span 1, and the
southernmost beam (located closest to the sea) was labelled beam A.
Figure 5.36 Photographs of Woodbank Stream Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking east (b) View of soffit and abutment
As shown in figures 5.37(a) and (b), concrete spalling and damage was observed in a number of beams in
span 1 of Woodbank Stream Bridge, although the cause of this damage was most likely mechanical. Other
defects were as follows:
• Span 1 beams D–H had longitudinal staining on their soffits, which appeared to be scuff marks from
handling.
• Span 1 beam H had spalling on the external (west) face, which appeared to have been caused by
mechanical means.
• Span 3 beam B had a spall near midspan.
167
• Span 4 beam G had a spall near midspan.
• Span 4 beam I had a spall near the south abutment.
Figure 5.37 Photographs of Woodbank Stream Bridge
(a) Spalling due to impact (b) Damaged concrete
tensioned beams of Woodbank Stream Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Woodbank Stream Bridge and the average and minimum values
chloride hole report sheets following page D115. The concrete cover depths to stirrups were measured in
the soffit, with the bridge-wide average value being 33mm and the minimum value being 25mm. The
the soffit, and 61mm and 45mm in the side.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1D and 1H, and on
the side of beam 1A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection
report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D115. Chlorides were not detected in any of the
samples from the soffit of beam 1A, and very minor ingress was identified in the web of beam 1A and the
soffit of beam 1H. Cast-in chlorides were detected in the profile from beam 1D, with a concentration of
about 0.019%. The chloride concentrations detected in all of the beams were below the 0.05% threshold
for corrosion initiation, as were the projected surface concentrations for the beams with minor chloride
ingress.
design life of Woodbank Stream Bridge.
168
5.3.22 Kaipara River Bridge (Rogers key 502)

Kaipara River Bridge was inspected on 26 and 27 May 2011 after 30 years in service. It is located near
Helensville on state highway 16 in the North Island. The era 7 U-beam bridge has five spans, with 10
beams per span that were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of
40MPa. The bridge is located over a tidal mudflat approximately 3.5km from Kaipara Harbour (see figure
5.38). The north-western span, located furthest from Helensville in the direction of Auckland, was
designated as span 1 and the north-eastern beam located closest to Kaipara Harbour was designated as
beam A.
Figure 5.38 Photographs of Kaipara River Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south (b) View of soffit, looking north-west
During inspection it was noted that all but the outer beams of span 1 of Kaipara River Bridge contained
one or two 35mm diameter circular patches in the web, which were from previous drilling or coring
operations. Otherwise the beams appeared to be in good condition. Mould and tall grasses were observed
growing from the pier caps and around the ends of the beams. The concrete appeared to be well
compacted, with occasional blow holes (less than 6mm) visible on the beam sides. Beam D of span 1 also
exhibited poor concrete compaction in the soffit, near midspan. Rust spots were observed in beams 4A
and 2A, caused by rusting of cast-in pipes that were presumed to have been used to house formwork ties.
beams of Kaipara River Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated the
concrete strength to be 53MPa in the side of the web, and 70MPa, 68MPa, 67MPa and 68MPa in the soffit.
However, these compressive strength values were near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device.
Also, accurate Schmidt hammer readings should be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of
about 10mm because the surface concrete is stronger and harder than the internal concrete.
Consequently, these compressive strength values are overestimates of the actual compressive strength
and should not be used to estimate section properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Kaipara River Bridge and the average and minimum values were
38mm in the soffit, and 46mm and 40mm in the side.
169
Chloride samples were obtained from six sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1D, 1J and 4A, on
the west side of beam 1J, and on the east side of beam 4A. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is
presented in the bridge inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D121. Cast-in
chlorides were detected in the profiles from all sites with concentrations between 0.018% and 0.021%.
These concentration levels were below the selected corrosion threshold of 0.05%, but could contribute to
chloride-induced corrosion when combined with environmental chloride ingress. Chloride ingress was also
detected in all of the profiles, and reliable chloride ingress models were obtained from all but one of the
sites, with the exception being the profile from the soffit of beam 4A. The profile from the soffit of beam
4A predicted the earliest corrosion, but was based on only one measured chloride concentration, which
was elevated compared with background levels. The measured concentrations at the shallowest
increments had to be neglected because of ‘washed out’ chlorides in each of the profiles, except for the
one on the east side of beam 4A. The assumption that chlorides had washed out was made because the
concentrations in the shallowest readings were significantly lower than what was predicted by a Fick’s
diffusion model based on the readings from greater depths.
In concrete where chloride ingress has only progressed to a relatively small depth and the chloride profile
is defined by a small number of measured concentrations, neglecting the surface reading can lead to
overly conservative predictions of time to corrosion initiation, while including the surface reading can lead
to non-conservative predictions.
Overly conservative predictions were particularly likely from the chloride ingress model based on the
readings obtained from the soffit of beam 4A, which was predicted to have the highest surface chloride
concentration. Therefore predictions of time to corrosion initiation were given based on the profile from
the soffit of beam 1D, which had a similar maximum measured chloride concentration, but had a better fit
to the diffusion model and was thus expected to be more accurate. The depth of the 0.05% corrosion
threshold was determined to be at 12mm, 10mm, 8mm and 2mm, in the soffit of beams 4A, 1D, 1J and
1A respectively, while the projected chloride concentration in the side of beams 1J and 4A was below the
threshold at the surface of the concrete.
The chloride ingress model produced from the chloride concentrations measured in the soffit of beam 1D
estimated that corrosion would first initiate in the stirrups in the year 2286, after 305 years in service. Pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion in beam 1D is predicted to first initiate in 2386, after 405 years in
service.
Kaipara River Bridge can be expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation.
5.3.23 Lambs Bridge No 192 (Rogers key 505)

Lambs Bridge No 192 was inspected in 2011 after 30 years in service. It is a two-span era 7 double hollow
core bridge with 10 beams per span (see figure 5.39). The beams were expected to contain concrete with
a 28 day specified compressive strength of 40MPa. An eleventh double hollow core beam is present in
each span to provide a footbridge that is supported on the same pier and abutments but is not touching
the main bridge. A tidal river flows under both spans of Lambs Bridge No 192, with the bridge located
approximately 100m upstream from the river mouth to the harbour, although a bend blocks direct view.
The riverbed is composed of sand and gravel, and two old piers from a previous single-lane bridge are
adjacent to the new bridge, each with three octagonal precast piles. The northernmost span was
designated as span 1, and the easternmost beam (when ignoring the footbridge beam) was designated as
beam A.
170
Figure 5.39 Photographs of Lambs Bridge No 192
(a) View of bridge, looking south (b) View of soffit of span 2, looking north
During inspection of Lambs Bridge No 192 it was noted that the underside of beams 2A and 2J had
previously had water running down through the deck between the beams and sitting on the soffit,
resulting in mould in some areas and white trails in others. It was also noted that beam 2C had a spall
from lifting, on the western edge of the soffit near the north end, and that beam 2D had a spall at the
south end near the abutment, probably from mechanical damage during construction. Beams 1D and 2A
had small corrosion stains on the soffit, which appeared to have been caused by small pieces of wire or
other ferrous debris cast into the soffit of the beams. The outside edges of the soffits of beams 1A and 1J
had evidence of water running down the sides and sitting on the soffit.
tensioned beams of Lambs Bridge No 192. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Lambs Bridge No 192 and the average and minimum values
were found on the soffit of each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D, on the
chloride hole report sheets following page D129. The average soffit cover depth to stirrups was found to
be 28mm, and the minimum measured stirrup cover depth was 14mm. The average and minimum
measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 43mm and 19mm, although the minimum of
19mm may have been an error caused by interference in the reading due to ferrous debris cast into the
soffit of one of the beams, as was identified in beams 1D and 2A during the visual inspection.
Chloride samples were obtained from seven sites on this bridge, being the soffit of beams 1D, 1J and 2A,
and two from each of beams 2D and 2J following early termination of the first holes after striking steel.
appendix D, beginning on page D129. Insignificant concentrations of cast-in chlorides were detected in all
of the profiles, with concentrations lower than 0.006%, which was just above the minimum limit of
detection. An insignificant amount of chloride ingress was also detected at four of the seven sites, but the
surface chloride concentration was projected to be below the 0.05% threshold for initiation of corrosion.
171
Lambs Bridge No 192 can be expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation.
5.3.24 Nilssons Bridge No 280 (Rogers key 520)

Nilssons Bridge No 280 was inspected in 2011 after 29 years in service. It is an era 7 eight-span curved U-
beam bridge with eight beams per span (see figure 5.40). The beams were expected to contain concrete
with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 40MPa. The bridge is surrounded by mud flats and
mangroves and spans a tidal river estuary that passes under all spans at high tide, and passes under
spans 2–7 at low tide. The ocean and harbour are not visible from the bridge. The westernmost span was
labelled span 1, and the northernmost beam as beam A. The beams have ‘BUSCK’ labels attached, which is
a Whangarei-based prestressed concrete company that has been in business since 1945.
Figure 5.40 Photographs of Nilssons Bridge No 280
(a) View of bridge from the west bank (b) View of soffit of span 1, looking east
Only spans 1, 2 and 8 of Nilssons Bridge No 280 were accessible without a boat, with spans 1 and 8 being
much more sheltered by the surrounding mangroves than the central spans. Span 2 was partly sheltered
but the area tested for chlorides was from just outside the sheltered area. During inspection it was noted
that the concrete appeared to be sound and well compacted, with some blow holes visible in the sides of
the webs having a diameter of less than 5mm. The outer beams had a much larger concrete cover depth to
the stirrups than the inner beams.
beams of Nilssons Bridge No 280. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated
the concrete strength to be 67MPa, 65MPa, 64MPa, 61MPa and 62MPa. However, these compressive
strength values were near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt
hammer readings should be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because
the surface concrete is stronger and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently, these compressive
strength values are overestimates of the actual compressive strength and should not be used to estimate
section properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Nilssons Bridge No 280 and the average and minimum values
chloride hole report sheets following page D137. The average measured concrete cover depth to stirrups
in the soffit of all beams was 36mm, and the minimum cover depth was 24mm. The average and minimum
172
measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 47mm and 37mm in the soffit, and 63mm
and 47mm in the side.
Chloride samples were obtained from six sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1D, 1H and 2A, and
two from beam 2F after striking steel in the first hole. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is
presented in the bridge inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D137. Cast-in
chlorides were detected in the profiles from all of the sites, with concentrations of between 0.011% and
0.023%, which was below the selected corrosion threshold of 0.05% but could contribute to chloride-
induced corrosion when combined with environmental chloride ingress. An insignificant amount of
chloride ingress was also detected at five of the six sites, but the projected surface chloride concentration
was below the 0.05% threshold for corrosion initiation.
design life of Nilssons Bridge No 280. However due to the length of the structure and the shelter afforded
to the regions that were tested, further chloride sampling is recommended in the central spans to confirm
this conclusion.
5.3.25 Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge (Rogers key 578)

Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge was inspected on 6 July 2011 after 24 years in service. It is located south of
Westport in the West Coast region of the South Island. The single-span era 7 double hollow core bridge
has 10 beams per span (see figure 5.41). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day
specified compressive strength of 40MPa. During inspection it was noted that there was some erosion of
the southern abutment, with corrosion of some of the piles. The beam located closest to the sea was
labelled beam A. During inspection it was noted that the pre-tensioned beams of Fourteen Mile Creek
Bridge appeared to be in excellent condition.
Figure 5.41 Photographs of Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking east (b) View of soffit, looking north
beams of Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
estimated the concrete strength to be 54MPa and 59MPa. However, these compressive strength values
173
Concrete cover depths were measured on the soffit of Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge and the average and
minimum values were found for each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D, on
the chloride hole report sheets following page D145. The average measured concrete cover depth to
stirrups on the bridge was 48mm, and the minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 34mm. The
the soffit.
Chloride samples were obtained from five sites on this bridge: near midspan on the soffit of beams 1A, 1J
and 1E, on the soffit near the north abutment of beam 1E, and on the side of beam 1A. The raw data and
analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning
on page D145. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in any of the profiles from Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge.
An insignificant amount of chloride ingress was detected at three of the five sites, with the depth of the
0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at 2mm in the side of beam 1A, and the projected chloride
concentrations at the surface of the concrete being below the threshold for corrosion initiation.
Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge is expected to achieve a 100-year design life without the need for major
renovation as a result of chloride-induced corrosion.
5.3.26 Fox River Bridge (Rogers key 613)

Fox River Bridge was inspected on 3 July 2010 after 21 years in service. It is located south of Westport in
the West Coast region of the South Island. The six-span I-beam bridge was constructed in era 7 and has
four beams per span, which were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified compressive
strength of 40MPa. The northernmost span was labelled span 1, and the westernmost beam, located
closest to the sea, was labelled beam A. The bridge is situated in an exposed location directly on an open
surf beach, with waves breaking underneath the bridge and spans 3 to 6 being above the water at high
tide (see figure 5.42). During inspection it was noted that the bridge was generally in good condition.
Figure 5.42 Photographs of Fox River Bridge
(a) View of bridge from south bank, looking north-west (b) View of soffit from north bank, looking south
beams of Fox River Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated the
concrete strength to be 69MPa and 68MPa. However, these compressive strength values were near the
174
Concrete cover depths were measured on Fox River Bridge and the average and minimum values were
40mm in the soffit, and 46mm and 43mm in the side and angled top face of the bottom bulb.
Chloride samples were obtained from seven sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 3A, 3B, 4C and 4D, on
the west side of the bottom bulb of beams 3A and 3B, and on the west side of the web of beam 3B. The
D, beginning on page D151. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in any of the profiles collected. Chloride
ingress was detected at all seven of the sites, with the depth of the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined
to be at 17mm, 16mm and 20mm, in the soffit of beams 3B, 4C and 4D respectively. The 0.05% threshold
was determined to be at a depth of 7mm and 33mm on the west side of the bottom bulb of beams 3A and
3B, and at 21mm in the west side of the web of beam 3B. The projected chloride concentration in the
soffit of beam 3A was below the threshold at the surface of the concrete. It should be noted that the
multiple chloride profiles taken from the same span (spans 3 and 4) and from the same beams (3A and 3B)
on Fox River Bridge showed that significant differences in chloride ingress occurred on different beams,
and also on different faces of the same beam, so care must be taken when selecting sites for chloride
sampling to ensure that samples are obtained from the most critical locations.
The chloride ingress models estimated that corrosion would first initiate in Fox River Bridge in the side of
the bottom bulb of beam 3B, which had the highest measured chloride ingress. This first initiation of
corrosion is predicted to occur in the stirrups of this beam in 2012, after the bridge has been in service
for 23 years. The earliest pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion is predicted to occur in beam 3B in 2024,
after 35 years in service. Stirrup corrosion is also predicted by the models in beams 4D and 4C in 2022
and 2038, after 33 and 49 years in service respectively. Pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion is predicted
to initiate in beam 4D in 2078, after 89 years in service, and in beam 4C in 2115, after 126 years in
service.
As a result of chloride-induced corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement, Fox River Bridge CANNOT be
expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major renovation unless urgent and
effective preventative measures are undertaken. Corrosion of stirrups with the average cover depth of
35mm is predicted to initiate in the sides of the bottom bulbs in 2012, and in pre-tensioned reinforcement
in 2024.
URGENT ACTION IS REQUIRED to prevent corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement from initiating in Fox
River Bridge and to enable it to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major renovation. It is
recommended that the structure be thoroughly assessed as soon as possible to determine the best course
of remedial action.
5.3.27 Ngakawau River Bridge (Rogers key 655)

Ngakawau River Bridge was inspected on 2 July 2010 after 18 years in service. It is located north of
Westport in the West Coast region of the South Island. The five-span era 8 U-beam bridge is shown in
figure 5.43 and has seven beams per span that were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day specified
compressive strength of 40MPa. The northernmost span was labelled span 1, and the westernmost beam,
closest to the sea, was labelled beam A.
175
Figure 5.43 Photographs of Ngakawau River Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south (b) View of soffit, looking north
During inspection it was identified that Ngakawau River Bridge appeared to be in excellent condition.
Patch repairs from previous drilling of chloride holes were noted in beam G of span 5, and a small rust
spot was identified on the side of the web. Corrosion was observed in the steel brackets of the road
barrier.
tensioned beams of Ngakawau River Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and
estimated the concrete strength to be 57MPa in the web, and 68MPa and 67MPa in the soffit. However,
these compressive strength values were near the upper limit of the accurate range of the device. Also,
accurate Schmidt hammer readings should be taken on a freshly cut concrete surface at a depth of about
10mm because the surface concrete is stronger and harder than the internal concrete. Consequently,
these compressive strength values are overestimates of the actual compressive strength and should not be
used to estimate section properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on Ngakawau River Bridge and the average and minimum values
stirrups was 37.5mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 37mm in the
40mm in the soffit, and 47mm and 43mm in the side.
Chloride samples were obtained from six sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1D, 4A, 4D and 4G, and
on the west side of beams 4D and 5G. The raw data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the
bridge inspection report provided in appendix D, beginning on page D159. Insignificant concentrations of
cast-in chlorides were projected using the profiles from beams 4D and 4G, which had concentrations
below 0.0094%. This concentration level was slightly above the minimum detection limit. Chloride ingress
was also detected at all of the sites, with the depth of the 0.05% corrosion threshold determined to be at
50mm, 18mm, 9mm and 4mm in the soffit of beams 1D, 4A, 4D and 4G respectively, and at 28mm and
32mm in the west side of the web in beams 4D and 5G respectively.
The chloride ingress models indicated that corrosion of both stirrups and pre-tensioned reinforcement had
already initiated in beam 1D and would initiate soon in beams 4D and 5G. In the soffit of beam 1D,
corrosion of stirrups with the minimum cover depths is predicted to have initiated 10 years ago, corrosion
in pre-tensioned reinforcement with the minimum cover depth is predicted to have initiated six years ago,
176
and corrosion in pre-tensioned reinforcement with the average cover depth is predicted to have initiated
four years ago. It is possible that corrosion that had been occurring for 10 years at the time of the
inspection would not have progressed sufficiently to cause cracking or spalling of the cover concrete, thus
explaining why corrosion damage was not visually observed.
Corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement is also predicted to occur in 2024 and 2034, in the side of
beams 4D and 5G, and in 2102 in the soffit of beam 4A.
As a result of chloride-induced corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement, Ngakawau River Bridge

CANNOT be expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major renovation unless
urgent and effective preventative measures are undertaken. Corrosion of stirrups and pre-tensioned
reinforcement is predicted to have already initiated in at least one beam and is predicted to initiate within
20 years in at least two other beams.
URGENT ACTION IS REQUIRED to arrest imminent or existing pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, and
to prevent further corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement from initiating in Ngakawau River Bridge, to
enable it to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major renovation. It is recommended that
the structure be thoroughly assessed as soon as possible to determine the best course of remedial action.
5.3.28 Omawhiti Stream Bridge (Rogers key 670)

Omawhiti Stream Bridge was inspected on 31 August 2010 after 18 years in service. It is a single-span era
8 double hollow core bridge with 10 beams per span that were expected to contain concrete with a 28 day
specified compressive strength of 40MPa. The bridge is located on the west coast of the Coromandel
Peninsula, immediately next to a beach on the Firth of Thames (see figure 5.44). The westernmost beam,
located nearest to the Firth of Thames, was labelled beam A. Figure 5.44 Photographs of Omawhiti Stream
Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south-west (b) View of soffit of beam 1F
During inspection it was noted that the beams of Omawhiti Stream Bridge appeared to be in good
condition. However, most beams showed some evidence of minor poor compaction, identified by fine air
bubbles in the concrete on the soffit, concentrated near the edges.
beams of Omawhiti Stream Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated
the concrete strength to be 62MPa, 51MPa, 61MPa and 48MPa. However, these compressive strength
177
properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on the soffit of Omawhiti Stream Bridge and the average and
minimum values were found for each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D, on
the chloride hole report sheets following page D167. The average measured concrete cover depth to
stirrups was 33mm, and the minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 30mm. The average and
minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 42mm and 39mm.
Chloride samples were obtained from three sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 1A, 1F and 1J. The raw
data and analysis of these profiles is presented in the bridge inspection report provided in appendix D,
beginning on page D167. Insignificant quantities of cast-in chlorides were detected in all of the profiles,
with a maximum detected concentration of 0.007%, which was slightly above the minimum limit of
detection. Chloride ingress was also detected at all of the sites, with the depth of the 0.05% corrosion
threshold determined to be at 6mm and 5mm, on beams 1A and 1J respectively. The projected chloride
concentration at the surface of the concrete in beam 1F was below the threshold for corrosion initiation.
The chloride ingress models and the chloride profiles that were collected predicted that chloride-induced
corrosion would not affect the design life of Omawhiti Stream Bridge. However, due to the young age of
the structure at the time of inspection it is recommended that the chloride profile be measured again after
the structure has been in service for 50 years, to check the accuracy of the chloride ingress models
presented here and to ensure that the concrete is still able to adequately resist chloride ingress.
5.3.29 Puhoi River Bridge (Rogers key 689)

Puhoi River Bridge was inspected in 2011 after 15 years in service. It is a six-span era 9 double hollow core
bridge with 11 beams per span (see figure 5.45). The beams were expected to contain concrete with a 28
day specified compressive strength of 40MPa. The bridge is surrounded by farmland and crosses Puhoi
River, which is tidal with about 1.8m tidal difference at the bridge site, although the coast or harbour
cannot be seen from the bridge. The riverbed is muddy, with a few mangroves located at the side of the
bridge, and the river runs under spans 3, 4 and 5, and under one corner of span 2. The bridge deck is
banked steeply down towards the east. The northernmost span was labelled span 1, and the easternmost
beam, closest to the sea, was labelled beam A.
178
Figure 5.45 Photographs of Puhoi River Bridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south (b) View of soffit, looking south
During inspection of Puhoi River Bridge the following issues were noted:
• Water was running down between beams in many places, leaving mould and stains on the soffit of the
beams and on the pier caps.
- Beams with extensive water staining were 1B, 1C, 1D, 1G, 1I, 2E, 2J, 3E, 3I and 3J.
- Beams with minor water staining were 1A, 1F, 1J, 1K, 2F, 2G, 2I, 2K, 3A and 3H.
• There was some poor compaction on the bottom corners of many beams and under voids.
• Small (50mm) gaps between the beams had not been infilled.
• Small rust spots were observed throughout the soffits of beams A, B and C of span 1, although the
cause was deemed to be accidental casting of small metal debris into the beams during construction.
• Some concrete spalling was observed in beam E of span 1, deemed to be impact damage during
construction.
• There were retrofitted tie bolts running down between the beams, with seven pairs of tie bolts located
in each gap between beams, with a bearing plate on the soffit.
• Light posts had been retrofitted on alternate abutments.
beams of Puhoi River Bridge. These readings indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated the
concrete strength to be 64MPa, 65MPa, 62MPa and 59MPa. However, these compressive strength values
Concrete cover depths were measured on the soffit of Puhoi River Bridge and the average and minimum
values were found for each surveyed beam. These cover depths are provided in appendix D, on the
179
stirrups was 28mm, and the global minimum measured cover depth to the stirrups was 24mm. The
average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement were 37mm and 35mm.
Chloride samples were obtained from four sites on this bridge: the soffit of beams 2A, 2E, 2J and 3J. The
D, beginning on page D171. Cast-in chlorides were detected in the profiles from sites 2A, 2E and 2J, with
concentrations of 0.020%, 0.023% and 0.023% respectively. These concentration levels were below the
selected corrosion threshold of 0.05% but could contribute to chloride-induced corrosion when combined
with environmental chloride ingress. Chloride ingress was also detected at all of the sites, although this
ingress was insignificant at three of the four sites, with projected surface chloride concentrations being
below the 0.05% threshold for corrosion initiation. At the fourth site (beam 2J), the depth of the corrosion
threshold was determined to be 12mm.
The chloride ingress model from beam 2J estimated that corrosion would first initiate in the stirrups with
minimum cover in 2059, after 63 years and in stirrups with average cover in 2082, after 86 years. Pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion is predicted to initiate in 2130, after a service life of 134 years.
Puhoi River Bridge can be expected to achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation, but some corrosion of stirrups can be expected to occur within that time. Some intervention is
likely to be necessary to prevent or repair damage to the cover concrete caused by corroding stirrups.
5.3.30 Kennedy Road Overbridge (Rogers key 757)

Kennedy Road Overbridge was inspected in 2011 after 8 years in service. It is an era 9 four-span bridge
with nine double hollow core beams per span (see figure 5.46). The beams were expected to contain
concrete with a 28 day specified compressive strength of 40MPa. The plans for this bridge are incorrect
and show a design for a U-beam bridge at the same location. The actual bridge contains beams that are
externally similar to the other double hollow core bridges inspected, but the beams may contain only one
void and be similar to the later standard single hollow core beam designs from the 2008 NZTA standard
bridge plans (Beca and Opus 2008), because the bridge is listed in the BDS as single hollow core. The
bridge has a road below it but no waterway. The sea cannot be seen from the bridge.
A scaled-back inspection was carried out for this bridge, to enable comparison with Puhoi River Bridge,
which is from the same construction era. The northernmost span was designated as span 1, and the
easternmost beam as beam A. The bridge has three columns in each pier and has an anti-graffiti coating
applied over half of the span of the beams located closest to the abutments.
180
Figure 5.46 Photographs of Kennedy Road Overbridge
(a) View of bridge, looking south (b) View of soffit of span 1, looking south-west
A Schmidt hammer reading was taken on the surface of the concrete at one location on a pre-tensioned
beam of Kennedy Road Overbridge. This reading indicated sound high-strength concrete and estimated
the concrete strength to be 64MPa. However, this compressive strength value was near the upper limit of
the accurate range of the device. Also, accurate Schmidt hammer readings should be taken on a freshly
cut concrete surface at a depth of about 10mm because the surface concrete is stronger and harder than
the internal concrete. Consequently, this compressive strength value is an overestimate of the actual
compressive strength and should not be used to estimate section properties.
Concrete cover depths were measured on the soffit of Kennedy Road Overbridge and the average and
minimum values were found for each surveyed beam. The overall average and minimum cover depths
from the bridge are provided in appendix D, on the chloride hole report sheet on page D177. The average
measured concrete cover depth to stirrups was 40mm, and the minimum measured cover depth to the
stirrups was 33mm. The average and minimum measured cover depths to pre-tensioned reinforcement
were 53mm and 49mm.
Chloride samples were obtained from one site on this bridge: the soffit of beam 4A. The raw data and
analysis of the samples collected is presented in the bridge inspection report provided in appendix D,
beginning on page D177. Cast-in chlorides were not detected in the profile. An insignificant amount of
chloride ingress was detected, with the projected chloride concentration at the surface of the concrete
determined to be below the 0.05% corrosion threshold.
design life of Kennedy Road Overbridge.
5.4 Summary of bridge inspection results, by era

The methodology and results from the 30 bridge inspections conducted on pre-tensioned concrete
bridges on the New Zealand state highway network have been discussed in this chapter. Bridges that were
expected to experience corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement are identified in the right column of
table 5.4, which also gives the exposure classification (as defined by each of the methods detailed in
chapter 4) for each of the inspected bridges. Table 5.4 also identifies the bridges that were determined to
181
have chloride ingress or cast-in chlorides. The results of the bridge inspections are summarised in greater
detail in chapters 5.4.1 to 5.4.8 for each construction era, with reference to the exposure classification of
the inspected bridges.
Table 5.4 Presence of chloride ingress, cast-in chlorides and prediction of corrosion for all inspected bridges
(Insig. = Insignificant)
Coastal distance group
NZS 3101 (downwind)
Corrosion predicted
within 100-year life
Year constructed
(wind directions)
Cast-in chlorides
Construction era
Chloride ingress
Bridge name
Beam group
Rogers key
NZS 3101
Single hollow
15 McAnultys Stream Bridge 2 1955 A2 A2 A2 No Yes No
core beams
38 Lincoln Bridge No. 1 T-beams 2 1957 B1 B1 B1 Insig. Yes No
44 Kawaroa Stream Bridge Log beams 2 1958 B2 B2 B2 Insig. Insig. No
Stirrups
50 Wairotoroto Stream Bridge Log beams 2 1959 C C C Yes Insig.
only
58 Westshore Bridge T-beams 2 1960 C C C Yes Insig. No
72 Rosebank Bridge No2 I-beams 2 1960 C C C Yes Yes Yes
133 Boundary Creek Bridge I-beams 3 1963 C C C Yes No Corroding
151 Pattens Creek Bridge Log beams 3 1964 B2 B2 B2 Insig. No No
162 Otohi Stream Bridge Log beams 3 1964 C C C Yes No No
Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh)

223 T-beams 4 1966 B2 B2 B2 Yes Yes No
Bridge No. 91
224 Waimangaro Creek Bridge T-beams 4 1966 B2 B2 B1 Insig. Yes No
266 Wilsons Creek Bridge Log beams 4 1968 B1 B1 B1 Yes Yes No
Double
Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuka)
270 hollow core 4 1968 C C C Yes Insig. No
Bridge
beams
294 Ovens Bridge No 147 Log beams 4 1969 B1 B1 B1 Yes Yes No
Double
303 Washdyke Stream Bridge hollow core 4 1970 B2 B2 B2 Insig. No No
beams
Double
391 Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge hollow core 5 1974 B2 B2 B2 Insig. No No
beams
433 Kowhai River Bridge I-beams 5 1977 B2 B2 B1 Insig. No No
182
Coastal distance group
NZS 3101 (downwind)
Corrosion predicted
within 100-year life
Year constructed
(wind directions)
Cast-in chlorides
Construction era
Chloride ingress
Bridge name
Beam group
Rogers key
NZS 3101
Waiotemarama Bridge No Single hollow Stirrups
442 5 1977 B1 B1 B1 Yes Yes
595 core beams only
466 Aongatete Stream Bridge I-beams 6 1979 B1 B1 B1 Insig. Insig. No
Double
Stirrups
493 Saltwater Creek Bridge hollow core 7 1981 B2 B2 B2 Yes Yes
only
beams
Yes, 1
495 Woodbank Stream Bridge U-beams 7 1981 B2 B2 B2 Insig. No
beam
502 Kaipara River Bridge U-beams 7 1981 B1 B1 B1 Yes Yes No
Double
505 Lambs Bridge No 192 hollow core 7 1981 B2 B2 B1 Insig. Insig. No
beams
520 Nilssons Bridge No 280 U-beams 7 1982 C C C Insig. Yes No
Double
578 Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge hollow core 7 1986 C B2 B2 Insig. No No
beams
613 Fox River Bridge I-beams 8 1989 C C C Yes No Yes
655 Ngakawau River Bridge U-beams 8 1992 C C C Yes Insig. Yes
Double
670 Omawhiti Stream Bridge hollow core 8 1993 C C C Yes Insig. No
beams
Double
Stirrups
689 Puhoi River Bridge hollow core 9 1996 B1 B1 B1 Yes Yes
only
beams
Single hollow
757 Kennedy Road Overbridge 9 2003 B1 B1 B1 Insig. No No
core beams
5.4.1 Era 2 (1953–1960)

Six era 2 bridges were inspected. Three of these were located in the C exposure zone and one was located
in each of the B2, B1 and A2 exposure zones (as defined by all three of the exposure classification
methods described in chapter 4). Full details of these inspections are provided in chapter 5.3 and
appendix D. Chloride ingress was identified in five of the six inspected era 2 bridges, with the exception
being the A2 exposure zone bridge. Chloride ingress was insignificant in the bridges in the B1 and B2
183
zones and was more significant in the C exposure zone bridges. Of the three C exposure zone bridges,
one bridge was predicted to experience stirrup and pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, one bridge
was predicted to experience stirrup corrosion only, and one bridge was not predicted to experience
reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year design life. A summary of each of the chloride profiles taken
from era 2 bridges is provided in table 5.5, including the depth of the 0.05% chloride threshold at the time
of inspection and the predicted year of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion initiation.
Table 5.5 Chloride threshold depth and predicted pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion year for era 2
bridges (Insig. = Insignificant; Inf. = Infinity)
Depth of chloride threshold
Predicted year of corrosion

initiation in pre-tensioned
NZS 3101:2006 (downwind)
Chloride ingress present
Beam (A is nearest coast)
Location of chloride hole
Pre-T cover depth (mm)

Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
(mm)
Beam type
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
A Soffit 23 0.117% cast-in chloride

Single
McAnultys
No
No
15 hollow core A2 1 I Soffit 23 0.156% cast-in chloride

Stream Bridge
beams
NEB Side 23 0.08% cast-in chloride
Bottom
23 5 17 3207 2054
bulb
A
Insig.
Lincoln Bridge
No
38 T-beams B1 1
No. 1 Soffit 23 4 17 3488 2059
C Soffit 23 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Side 23 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

A
Soffit 33 <0 0 Inf. Inf.
Insig.
Kawaroa
No
44 Log beams B2 1 AC Soffit 25 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Stream Bridge
O Soffit 25 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Z Soffit 25 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
184


Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
(mm)
Beam type
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
A Soffit 30 11 14 2337 2204
Stirrups only AM Soffit 25 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Wairotoroto
Yes
50 Log beams C 1
Stream Bridge
Soffit 22 4 7 3815 2422
V
Soffit 22 3 7 4184 2408
A Soffit 44 22 26 2156 2102
1 I Soffit 44 7 11 4269 2848

Westshore
Yes
No
58 T-beams C
Bridge R Soffit 44 14 21 2452 2193
Bottom
3 A 31 15 18 2170 2111
bulb
Soffit 29 21 37 2053 1991

A
Web 23 28 35 1993 1982
Rosebank
Yes
Yes
72 I-beams C 1
Bridge No2
E Soffit 29 15 22 2140 2051
I Soffit 29 3 28 6607 2015
5.4.2 Era 3 (1961–1965)

Three era 3 bridges were inspected. Two were located in the C exposure zone and one was located in the
B2 exposure zone (as defined by all three of the exposure classification methods described in chapter 4).
Full details of these inspections are provided in chapter 5.3 and appendix D. Chloride ingress was
identified in all three of the inspected era 3 bridges. Chloride ingress was insignificant in the bridge in the
B2 zone and was more significant in the C exposure zone bridges. Of the two C exposure zone bridges,
one bridge was observed to have existing pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, and the other bridge
was predicted to not experience stirrup or pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year design
life. A summary of each of the chloride profiles taken from era 3 bridges is provided in table 5.6, including
the depth of the 0.05% chloride threshold at the time of inspection and the predicted year of pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion initiation.
185

Beam (A is closest to coast)

Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
A Soffit 33 43 48 1991 1986

Corroding
B Soffit 38 39 44 2008 2000

Boundary
Yes
133 I-beams C 1
Creek Bridge
D Web 29 31 36 2005 1994
E Soffit 29 28 33 2013 2001
A Soffit 39 2 6 Inf. 3818
AB Soffit 41 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Insig.
Pattens Log
No
151 B2 1 F Soffit 39 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Creek Bridge beams
L Soffit 39 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Y Soffit 39 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
A Soffit 27 15 18 2110 2072
H Soffit 27 3 7 5918 2762

Otohi Stream Log
Yes
No
162 C 1
Bridge beams
N Soffit 27 4 8 3802 2499
Q Soffit 27 22 32 2034 1998
5.4.3 Era 4 (1966–1970)

Six era 4 bridges were inspected. One was located in the C exposure zone, two were located in the B2
exposure zone and three were located in the B1 exposure zone (as defined by all three of the exposure
classification methods described in chapter 4). Full details of these inspections are provided in chapter 5.3
and appendix D. Chloride ingress was identified in all six of the inspected era 4 bridges, but the ingress
was insignificant in one bridge in the B2 zone and one bridge in the B1 zone. Chloride ingress was more
significant in the other four bridges. However, stirrup or pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion was not
predicted in any of the inspected era 4 bridges within a 100-year design life. A summary of each of the
chloride profiles taken from era 4 bridges is provided in table 5.7 and includes the depth of the 0.05%
chloride threshold at the time of inspection and the predicted year of pre-tensioned reinforcement
corrosion initiation.
186


Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
1 C Soffit 31 4 9 4140 2504

Paneiraira
A Soffit 31 <0 5 Inf. 3796
Creek
Yes
No
223 T-beams B2
(Oakleigh) 3 C Soffit 34 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Bridge No. 91
D Soffit 43 4 11 7795 2717
Soffit 39 <0 7 Inf. 3481

A
Web 38 <0 1 Inf. Inf.
Insig.
Waimangaro
No
224 T-beams B2 1
Creek Bridge B Soffit 41 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
D Soffit 44 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
L Soffit 28 <0 4 Inf. 4363
Wilsons Log Soffit 28 <0 6 Inf. 2820

Yes
No
266 B1 1 O
Creek Bridge beams Soffit 28 <0 <0 inf. Inf.
Z Soffit 37 8 10 2838 2510
Side 29 10 14 2304 2165

Tarapatiki Double A
2 Soffit 41 9 14 2912 2326
Stream hollow
Yes
No
270 C
(Ohuka) core K Soffit 45 4 8 6924 3226
Bridge beams
3 G Soffit 41 12 16 2436 2255
A Soffit 47 10 13 2994 2559

Ovens Bridge Log
Yes
No
294 B1 1 L Soffit 47 2 8 Inf. 3521

No 147 beams
Y Soffit 45 2 6 Inf. 4068
1 F Soffit 43 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Double Side 52 <0 4 Inf. 8172

A
Insig.
Washdyke hollow
No
303 B2 Soffit 43 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Stream Bridge core 3
beams F Soffit 45 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
J Soffit 44 <0 3 Inf. Inf.
187
5.4.4 Era 5 (1971–1977)

Three era 5 bridges were inspected. Two were located in the B2 exposure zone and one was located in the
B1 exposure zone (as defined by all three of the exposure classification methods described in chapter 4).
Full details of these inspections are provided in chapter 5.3 and appendix D. Chloride ingress was
identified in all of the inspected era 5 bridges, but was insignificant in the two bridges in the B2 zone.
Chloride ingress in Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 in the B1 zone was significant due to the presence of
cast-in chlorides. Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 was predicted to experience stirrup and pre-tensioned
reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year design life. A summary of each of the chloride profiles taken
from era 5 bridges is provided in table 5.8, including the depth of the 0.05% chloride threshold at the time
of inspection and the predicted year of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion initiation.


Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%

A
Double Soffit 43 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Insig.
Little Hou Hou

No
391 hollow core B2 1

Creek Bridge
beams E Soffit 39 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
K Soffit 41 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
A Soffit 35 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
5 C Soffit 35 0 5 Inf. 3873

Insig.
Kowhai River
No
433 I-beams B2 D Soffit 35 <0 0 Inf. Inf.

Bridge
6 C Soffit 35 <0 4 Inf. 4314
7 B Soffit 35 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Stirrups only
Single 1 F Soffit 43 <0 21 Inf. 2124

Waiotemarama
Yes
442 hollow core B1

Bridge No 595
beams J Soffit 41 15 35 2237 2023
2 A Soffit 39 <0 26 Inf. 2056
188
5.4.5 Era 6 (1978–1980)

Only one era 6 bridge was inspected, located in the B1 exposure zone (as defined by all three of the
exposure classification methods described in chapter 4). Full details of this inspection are provided in
chapter 5.3 and appendix D. Insignificant chloride ingress was identified in the bridge, and it was not
predicted to experience stirrup or pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year design life. A
summary of each of the chloride profiles taken from the era 6 Aongatete Stream Bridge is provided in
table 5.9, including the depth of the 0.05% chloride threshold at the time of inspection and the predicted
year of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion initiation.
bridges ((Insig. = Insignificant; Inf. = Infinity)


Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%

Aongatete
Insig.
No
466 Stream I-beams B1 2 C Soffit 43 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Bridge
5.4.6 Era 7 (1981–1987)

Six era 7 bridges were inspected. One was located in the C zone (as defined by all three definitions given
in chapter 4); one was located within 100m of the high-tide mark and in the B2 zone (as defined by both
NZS 3101:2006 definitions); two were located in the B2 zone (as defined by all three definitions); one was
located in the B2 zone (as defined by two definitions); and one was located in the B1 zone (as defined by
the definition given in NZS 3101:2006 if the wind direction is taken into account). Full details of these
inspections are provided in chapter 5.3 and appendix D. Chloride ingress was identified in all of the six
inspected era 7 bridges but was insignificant in all except Saltwater Creek Bridge and Kaipara River Bridge,
which were in the B2 and B1 zones respectively, as defined by all three definitions given in chapter 4. Of
these two bridges, only Saltwater Creek Bridge in the B2 zone was predicted to experience stirrup
corrosion within a 100-year design life. A summary of each of the chloride profiles taken from era 7
bridges is provided in table 5.10, including the depth of the 0.05% chloride threshold at the time of
inspection and the predicted year of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion initiation.
189
bridges ((Insig. = Insignificant; Inf. = Infinity)


Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
1 K Soffit 39 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Stirrups only
Double
A Soffit 45 17 33 2190 2034
Saltwater hollow
Yes
493 B2
Creek Bridge core
2 G Soffit 39 <0 4 Inf. 4811
beams
P Soffit 44 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

A
Woodbank Soffit 45 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Insig.
No
495 Stream U-beams B2 1

Bridge D Soffit 46 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
H Soffit 44 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
A Soffit 38 2 18 Inf. 2116
D Soffit 38 10 24 2386 2054

1
Kaipara River
Yes
No
502 U-beams B1 J
Bridge
Soffit 38 8 20 2613 2088
Side 48 <0 5 Inf. 4696

4 A
Soffit 43 12 19 2389 2137

1
J Soffit 43 <0 1 Inf. Inf.
Double A Soffit 19 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Lambs
Insig.
hollow
No
505 Bridge No B2 37 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

core
192 D Soffit
beams 2 37 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
38 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

J Soffit
38 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
190


Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
1 D Soffit 37 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Nilssons H Soffit 57 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

Insig.
No
520 Bridge No U-beams C

280 A Soffit 37 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
2 42 <0 3 Inf. 7692

F Soffit
42 0 3 Inf. 6703
Side 40 2 9 Inf. 2426

A
Double Soffit 63 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Fourteen
Insig.
hollow
No
578 Mile Creek B2 1 40 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

core
Bridge E Soffit
beams 40 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
J Soffit 41 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
5.4.7 Era 8 (1988–1994)

Three era 8 bridges were inspected, all of which were located in the C exposure zone (as defined by all
three of the exposure classification methods described in chapter 4). Full details of these inspections are
provided in chapter 5.3 and appendix D. Chloride ingress was identified in all of the inspected era 8
bridges, with this ingress being moderate in Omawhiti Stream Bridge and severe in the Ngakawau and Fox
River Bridges. These were both predicted to currently or imminently be affected by stirrup and pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion, and to require major renovations to achieve a 100-year design life
unless urgent preventative measures are taken to prevent corrosion. A summary of each of the chloride
profiles taken from era 8 bridges is provided in table 5.11, including the depth of the 0.05% chloride
threshold at the time of inspection and the predicted year of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion
initiation.
The imminent corrosion of pre-tensioned corrosion initiation in the Fox River and Ngakawau River Bridges
is particularly concerning considering the young age of the structures (23 and 20 years at time of
publication). However, it is important to note that the two bridges are located only 60kms apart on open
surf beaches in the West Coast region of the South Island, which provides a particularly harsh environment
for concrete structures. The proximity of the structures also highlights the possibility that they may have
come from the same precast yard. Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) were not required for
191
bridges in the C classification zone before era 10, and their inclusion was unlikely before era 9 (based on
the findings of chapter 2 and Australian practice (Chirgwin et al 2009)). These bridges are therefore
unlikely to contain SCMs, and other bridges from era 8 in the C exposure classification should be
considered to be at similar risk of corrosion in the near future, particularly those that may have been
produced by the same precast yard as (either or both of) the Fox River and Ngakawau River Bridges.
bridges (Inf. = Infinity)


Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
Bottom
43 7 14 2905 2200
Bulb
A
Soffit 40 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
3 Bottom
43 33 40 2024 2013
Bulb
Fox River
Yes
Yes
613 I-beams C B
Bridge Soffit 40 17 24 2108 2048
Web 40 21 29 2065 2029
C Soffit 40 16 22 2115 2059

4
D Soffit 41 20 25 2078 2046
1 D Soffit 40 50 70 2004 1998
A Soffit 45 18 33 2102 2025
Side 40 28 37 2028 2013

Ngakawau
Yes
Yes
655 U-beams C 4 D
River Bridge
Soffit 40 9 36 2311 2014
G Soffit 44 4 26 4260 2043
5 G Side 40 32 45 2020 2007
Double A Side 40 6 11 2930 2230

Omawhiti
hollow
Yes
No
670 Stream C 1 F Soffit 43 <0 2 inf. 7754

core
Bridge
beams J Soffit 39 5 6 3167 2766
192
5.4.8 Era 9 (1995–2003)

Two era 9 bridges were inspected. Both of them were located in the B1 exposure zone (as defined by all
three of the exposure classification methods described in chapter 4). Full details of these inspections are
provided in chapter 5.3 and appendix D. Chloride ingress was identified in both of the inspected era 9
bridges. Chloride ingress was insignificant in the one profile from Kennedy Road Overbridge but was more
significant in Puhoi River Bridge, which was predicted to experience corrosion of stirrups within a 100-year
design life. A summary of each of the chloride profiles taken from the two era 9 bridges is provided in
table 5.12, including the depth of the 0.05% chloride threshold at the time of inspection and the predicted
year of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion initiation.



Corrosion predicted
reinforcement
Span (1 is North)
Bridge name
Rogers key
Beam type
(mm)
0.05% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03%
A Soffit 36 <0 0 Inf. Inf.

Stirrups only
Double
2 E Soffit 35 <0 17 Inf. 2058
Puhoi River hollow
Yes
B1
689
Bridge core
J Soffit 35 12 40 2130 2008
beams
3 J Soffit 35 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.
Single
Kennedy
Insig.
hollow
No
757 Road B1 4 A Soffit 49 <0 <0 Inf. Inf.

core
Overbridge
beams
5.5 Discussion of bridge inspection results

A total of 30 bridge inspections were performed on bridges from a range of different construction eras,
beam types and exposure classifications as identified in chapters 2, 3 and 4. The inspections focused on
collecting data for chloride ingress models to predict the time to initiation of chloride-induced corrosion in
the bridge beams, and in particular to predict the time to corrosion in the pre-tensioned reinforcement.
Table 5.13 shows the number of inspected bridges predicted to experience corrosion of reinforcement,
the number of bridges inspected, and the total number of bridges from each of the construction eras and
beam types.
193
Table 5.13 Inspected bridges predicted to experience corrosion within 100-year service life
Era Era
Era 2 Era 3 Era 4 Era 5 Era 6 Era 7 Era 8 Era 9 Total
10 11
Predicted
1 1
corrosion
Log beams
Inspected 2 2 2 6
Total 30 42 17 2 1 92
Predicted
corrosion
T-beams
Inspected 2 2 4
Total 14 4 5 1 1 3 3 31
Predicted
1 1 2
corrosion
I-beams
Inspected 1 1 1 1 1 5
Total 11 57 61 51 12 23 12 6 1 234
Predicted
1 1
corrosion
Single hollow
core beams Inspected 1 1 1 3
Total 5 1 4 3 5 11 3 32
Predicted
1 1 2
corrosion
Double hollow
core beams Inspected 2 1 3 1 1 8
Total 1 4 21 44 20 63 44 40 11 7 255
Predicted
1 1
corrosion
U-beams
Inspected 3 1 4
Total 1 6 17 16 16 2 2 60
Predicted
2 1 1 2 1 7
corrosion
Total
Inspected 6 3 6 3 1 6 3 2 30
Total 61 108 104 103 42 111 72 77 14 12 704
Twenty-one bridge inspections were performed on bridges identified in chapter 4 as being within 1km of
the coast (137 bridges total). Chloride ingress of varying degrees was identified in all of these 21
inspected bridges, but was determined to be insignificant in 10 of them. Of the 11 remaining bridges that
had significant chloride ingress, nine were located in the C exposure classification zone and two were
located in the B2 exposure classification zone according to all three of the exposure classification
methods described in chapter 4. Corrosion of reinforcement was predicted within a 100-year service life in
six of the 11 bridges, of which five were in the C zone and one was in the B2 zone.
Bridge inspections were also conducted on nine bridges more than 1km from the coast, of which eight
were in the B1 exposure zone according to all three methods described in chapter 4, and one was in the
A2 zone. Chloride ingress was not detected in the bridge in the A2 zone and was determined to be
insignificant in three of the eight bridges in the B1 zone. All five of the inspected B1 zone bridges with
significant chloride ingress were determined to also contain cast-in chlorides, with concentrations between
0.01% and 0.026%. Two bridges in the B1 exposure zone were predicted to experience chloride-induced
corrosion of stirrups within a 100-year design life, with both of these bridges located between 1km and
5km from the coast.
Bridges constructed in eras 2 to 5 were identified in chapter 4 as being at high risk of chloride-induced
corrosion due to their age and potential deficiencies in their durability design. Of the 30 inspected
194
bridges, 18 were constructed in eras 2 to 5. Of these 18 bridges, one was in the A2 zone and had high
levels of cast-in chlorides but no chloride ingress; four were in the B1 zone as defined by all three
definitions given in chapter 4; and one was located in either the B1 exposure zone or the B2 exposure
zone as defined by all three classification methods. Corrosion was predicted within a 100-year design life
in only one of the era 2 to 5 B1 exposure zone bridges.
Two of the inspected era 2 to 5 bridges were located in the B2 zone as defined by all three definitions; one
was located in either the B1 or the B2 exposure zone depending on the definition adopted; and one was
located in either the B2 or the C exposure zone depending on the definition adopted. Only one of the four
B2 zone bridges from eras 2 to 5 was predicted to experience corrosion of reinforcement within a 100-
year service life as a result of chloride ingress.
Four of the inspected era 2 to 5 bridges were in the C zone as defined by all three classification methods.
One was located in either the B2 or the C exposure zone, depending on the definition adopted. Of the five
era 2 to 5 classification C bridges, two were predicted to experience pre-tensioned reinforcement
corrosion within a 100-year service life, and the other three were not predicted to experience corrosion of
any reinforcement.
One bridge from era 6 was inspected. It was in the B1 zone and was not predicted to experience
reinforcement corrosion.
Six bridges from era 7 were inspected. One was in the B1 zone as defined by all three definitions; one was
in either the B1 or B2 zones; two were in the B2 zone as defined by all three definitions; one was in either
the B2 or the C zone; and one was in the C zone as defined by all three definitions. Of the era 7 bridges,
only Saltwater Creek Bridge (B2 zone, by all three definitions), was predicted to experience corrosion (to
stirrups only) within a 100-year service life.
Three bridges from era 8 were inspected, all of which were in the C exposure classification by all three
definitions given in chapter 4. One of them was not predicted to experience corrosion within a 100-year
service life, but corrosion of both stirrups and pre-tensioned reinforcement in the other two (Fox River
Bridge and Ngakawau River Bridge) was predicted to initiate imminently or to have already initiated. This
finding is particularly alarming considering the relatively young age of the structures (23 years and 20
years).
Two bridges from era 9 were inspected, both of which were located in the B1 zone as defined by all three
definitions given in chapter 4. Chloride ingress was evident in both of these bridges and reinforcement
corrosion was predicted within a 100-year service life for one of these structures.
5.5.1 Discussion of bridge inspection results by coastal distance

The highest surface chloride concentration determined from the chloride profiles taken from each of the
inspected bridges is plotted in figure 5.47 against the coastal distance of each bridge. Bridges with a
coastal distance greater than zero, but that are over bodies of saline water where breaking waves may
occur, are plotted with a coastal distance of 0m. The bridges that were predicted to experience corrosion
of reinforcement within a 100-year service life are plotted as black dots and their names are shown. The
Wilsons Creek Bridge was not predicted to experience corrosion but is also named because it is an outlier
caused by a poorly fitting chloride model. McAnultys Stream Bridge is not plotted because of its large
coastal distance, high cast-in chloride concentration, and lack of significant chloride ingress.
195
Figure 5.47 Highest surface chloride concentration for each inspected bridge against coastal distance
Figure 5.47 shows the following:
• All four of the bridges predicted to experience pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion had a coastal
distance of zero or were located over a body of saline water where breaking waves occur.
• The three bridges that had a coastal distance greater than 0m and were predicted to experience
reinforcement corrosion all contained cast-in chlorides.
• Four bridges with coastal distances of 0m and chloride concentrations similar to bridges predicted to
experience reinforcement corrosion were not predicted to experience corrosion.
• A large number of inspected bridges with coastal distances between 0m and 500m had surface
chloride concentrations below 0.1%. Only one of these was predicted to corrode, and the beams from
that bridge contained cast-in chlorides.
It is possible that the low surface chloride concentrations of some of the bridges that were near the coast
were not representative of the most critical location on the structure, due to the relatively small number of
chloride profiles taken from each structure and the fact that they were taken from land-accessible spans.
structure in a given exposure environment. In the case of Ngakawau River Bridge it was found that the side
of the beams was the most critical corrosion location, while in the case of Kaipara River Bridge, the soffit
was most critical. The most critical beam was also found to vary between bridges. For example, the
exterior beam 3A on Fox River Bridge was less critical than the adjacent interior beam (beam 3B), while in
many other structures the exterior beams were found to be more critical than the interior beams.
Consequently, it is difficult to predict the critical location on a structure before obtaining chloride profiles,
and therefore it is unlikely that the measured chloride profile with the worst chloride ingress from any
given bridge inspection will be representative of the most critical location on the inspected structure.
A standard protocol should be established to determine the most appropriate locations on a structure for
chloride profiles to be obtained during a bridge inspection. This protocol should take into account:
196
• local environments caused by the differing shape of the underside of bridges constructed using
different beam types (beams with or without bottom bulbs, or bridges with flat soffits)
• wind patterns and exposure conditions specific to the bridge site;
• the (usually) increased levels of shelter afforded to abutment spans compared with central spans
• the additional effort and expense required to obtain samples from spans away from the abutments,
which may require boat access or elevated working platforms.
If it is possible, a way to relate the profiles obtained from the sites identified using the standard protocol
to the theoretical profile from the most critical location on the bridge should be determined. This
relationship may include a method of scaling up the obtained profile by a factor that is determined based
on the perceived severity of the chloride ingress at the sample site to the perceived severity at the most
critical site.
It is recommended that a future study be undertaken to investigate the large number of bridges near the
coast that have low surface chloride concentrations. This study should aim to find criteria that would allow
other bridges near the coast that are likely to have low surface chloride concentrations to be easily
identified. The surface chloride concentration is primarily a property of the exposure environment, so is
expected to be largely independent of the concrete properties and age of the individual structure. These
criteria may allow some bridges to be assigned a lower exposure classification than would be suggested
by coastal distance and wind direction alone.
5.5.2 Discussion of the chloride resistance of inspected bridges

In figure 5.48, the diffusion coefficient taken from each of the Fick’s diffusion models obtained from
chloride profiles is plotted against the age of each inspected bridge. The apparent diffusion coefficient is
primarily a property of the concrete, and indicates the resistance of the concrete to chloride ingress (lower
values have better resistance). Only one profile from one bridge constructed between eras 2 and 6 (before
2
1981) had an apparent chloride diffusion coefficient greater than 11mm /year, while 15 profiles taken
from seven different bridges constructed between eras 7 and 9 (1981 to 2003) had apparent diffusion
2
coefficients greater than 11mm /year. From the inspected era 7 to 9 bridges, 10 profiles from six different
2
bridges had diffusion coefficients greater than 20mm /year, and four of those profiles from three different
2
bridges had apparent diffusion coefficients higher than 40mm /year.
197
Figure 5.48 Apparent diffusion coefficient for each chloride profile against year of construction
These findings suggest that concretes from eras 7 to 9 may have a lower resistance to chloride ingress
than older concretes, and as a result bridges from these eras may experience a faster rate of chloride
ingress than older structures. Consequently, these structures may be vulnerable to chloride-induced
corrosion at a much younger age than similar structures from earlier eras. The increased concrete cover
depth requirements of the later eras are expected to counteract this vulnerability in some cases, but in the
cases of Fox River Bridge, Ngakawau River Bridge and Puhoi River Bridge, the cover depths were predicted
to be insufficient to provide a 100-year service life before initiation of corrosion.
Bridges constructed before era 10 are unlikely to contain SCMs, which are known to improve the chloride
resistance of concrete. A view also exists that changes to cement composition may have resulted in
modern concretes being inherently less chloride resistant than older concretes, and further, that concrete
construction and precasting practices such as curing are increasingly being ignored, resulting in poor-
quality cover concrete in modern structures
There is a view that modern cements with more C3S and less C3A are inherently less chloride
resistant and construction/precast practice such as curing is increasingly ignored. That
results in poor-quality cover concrete. (JR Mackechnie, pers comm, 2012)
It is recommended that a study be made of the poor chloride resistance of bridges constructed in eras 7 to
9, with the aim of assessing the causes of the problem and the number of structures that are affected.
Four of the 11 inspected bridges from eras 7 to 9 were predicted to experience reinforcement corrosion
within a 100-year service life. These four bridges are located in the B1, B2 and C exposure classification
zones. As evident by the large number of high apparent diffusion coefficients and the poor performance
of the Fox River and Ngakawau River Bridges, bridges that do not contain SCMs (ie most bridges from era
9 and before) may have low resistance to chloride ingress. Consequently, it is recommended that all pre-
tensioned concrete bridges that were constructed in eras 6 to 9 (1978 to 2004), are located in the C
exposure classification zone, and cannot be confirmed to contain SCMs, be inspected and have chloride
profiles and cover depths measured so that predictions of the time to corrosion initiation can be made.
198
Era 6 is included in this recommendation because only one bridge from this era was inspected, so there
was insufficient data to say that era 6 bridges would perform better than the era 7 to 9 bridges.
An effort should be made to identify bridges in the B2 or B1 exposure classification zone that were
constructed between era 2 and era 9, contain cast-in chlorides, and do not contain SCMs; chloride ingress
in these structures should be monitored. Bridges with cast-in chlorides may be identified by an
assessment of precast yards over time, specifically looking at individual practices that may have resulted
in cast-in chlorides, or by collecting chloride profiles from individual bridges, which would also allow
assessment of chloride ingress. It should be noted that in some cases, cast-in chlorides may be present in
some beams but not in others, as was the case in the era 7 Woodbank Stream Bridge.
5.6 Conclusions from bridge inspections

In general, the bridge inspections suggested that the pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock as a whole was
performing well with respect to chloride ingress. Eight of the 30 inspected bridges were predicted to
experience chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life. Of these eight bridges,
only four were predicted to experience corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement within a 100-year service
life. However, the inspections also identified chloride ingress problems in bridges that had a variety of
beam types, were constructed in a variety of different eras, and were located in each of the C, B2 and B1
exposure classification zones. The inspections also identified bridges that were performing adequately,
even though they had similar designs and were located in similar exposure classification zones as bridges
that did have chloride ingress problems. This highlighted the difficulty in predicting which coastal bridges
(B1, B2 or C zone) are at risk of chloride-induced corrosion without obtaining physical chloride profiles
from each structure.
Four of the 18 bridges from eras 2 to 5 were predicted to experience reinforcement corrosion within a
100-year service life. Of these four bridges, one was located in the B1 zone and contained cast-in
chlorides; the other three were located in the C exposure zone as defined by all three definitions given in
chapter 4. It is recommended that all era 2 to 5 bridges that are located in the C exposure classification
zone, and all of those bridges that are located in the B2 or B1 exposure classification zones and contain
cast-in chlorides, should be inspected. For each of these bridges, chloride profiles and concrete cover
depth surveys should be obtained so that predictions of time to corrosion initiation can be made.
within a 100-year service life. These four bridges were located in the B1, B2 and C exposure classification
zones. As illustrated by the poor performance of the Fox River and Ngakawau River Bridges, bridges
located in the C exposure classification zone that do not contain SCMs (most bridges from era 9 and
before) may have low resistance to chloride ingress. Consequently, it is recommended that all pre-
tensioned concrete bridges that are located in the C exposure classification zone and cannot be confirmed
to contain SCMs should be inspected and have chloride profiles and cover depths measured so that
predictions of time to corrosion initiation can be made (ie most C zone bridges that were constructed
before 2004).
located within the B2 and C exposure classification zones. Two of the 11 inspected bridges in the B1 zone
were predicted to experience corrosion of reinforcement. The presence of cast-in chlorides is a major
factor in the prediction of corrosion in B1 zone bridges. Consequently, an effort to identify B1 bridges
containing cast-in chlorides should be made and chloride ingress in these structures should be monitored.
Bridges with cast-in chlorides may be identified by an assessment of precast yards, specifically looking at
the changing construction practices in individual yards that may have resulted in cast-in chlorides in
199
certain eras, or by collecting chloride profiles from individual bridges, which would also allow assessment
of chloride ingress. It should be noted that in some cases, cast-in chlorides may be present in some beams
but not others, as was the case in the era 7 Woodbank Stream Bridge.
Of the 11 inspected bridges located in the B2 exposure zone (by any of the three definitions given in
chapter 4), only one was predicted to experience reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life,
and this bridge also contained cast-in chlorides. This finding suggested that the severity of the
environment in the B2 exposure classification zone may be similar to that of the B1 exposure classification
zone (using any of the three definitions given in chapter 4).
structure in a given exposure environment. In the case of Ngakawau River Bridge, it was found that the
side of the beams was the most critical corrosion location, while in the case of Kaipara River Bridge, the
soffit was most critical. The most critical beam was also found to vary between bridges. For example, the
exterior beam 3A on Fox River Bridge was less critical than the adjacent interior beam (beam 3B), while in
many other structures the exterior beams were found to be more critical than the interior beams.
Consequently, it is difficult to predict the critical location on a structure before obtaining chloride profiles,
and therefore it is unlikely that the measured chloride profile with the worst chloride ingress from any
given bridge inspection will be representative of the most critical location on the inspected structure.
A large number of inspected bridges with coastal distances between 0m and 500m had surface chloride
concentrations below 0.1%. Only one of these was predicted to corrode, and that also contained cast-in
chlorides. These low surface chloride concentrations may be a result of chloride profiles being taken in
sub-critical locations, or of other factors that reduce the severity of the exposure environment for some
bridges. Further study is recommended to investigate these low surface chloride concentrations in some
coastal bridges. This may allow non-critical coastal bridges to be easily identified and therefore avoid the
need for more expensive techniques such as chloride profiling.
Concretes from bridges constructed in eras 6 to 9 may have a lower resistance to chloride ingress than
older concretes, and as a result, bridges from these eras may experience a faster rate of chloride ingress
than older structures. Consequently, these structures may be vulnerable to chloride-induced corrosion at a
much younger age than similar structures from earlier eras. The increased concrete cover depth
requirements of the later eras are expected to counteract this vulnerability in some cases, but in the cases
of Fox River Bridge, Ngakawau River Bridge and Puhoi River Bridge, the cover depths were predicted to be
insufficient to provide a 100-year service life before the initiation of reinforcement corrosion.
Bridges constructed before era 10 are unlikely to contain SCMs, which improve chloride resistance. It is
recommended that a study be made of the poor chloride resistance of bridges constructed in eras 6 to 9,
with the aim of assessing the causes of the problem and the number of structures that are affected.
within a 100-year service life. These four bridges are located in the B1, B2 and C exposure classification
zones. As is evident from the large number of chloride profiles with high apparent diffusion coefficients
and the poor performance of the Fox River and Ngakawau River Bridges, bridges that do not contain SCMs
(ie most bridges from era 9 and before) may have low resistance to chloride ingress. Consequently, it is
recommended that all pre-tensioned concrete bridges that are located in the C exposure classification
zone and either do not contain SCMs or were constructed in eras 6 to 9 (1978 to 2004) should be
inspected and have chloride profiles and cover depths measured so that predictions of the time to
corrosion initiation can be made.
200
An effort should be made to identify coastal bridges in the B2 or B1 exposure classification zone that were
constructed between era 2 and era 9, contain cast-in chlorides, and do not contain SCMs, and chloride
ingress in these structures should be monitored. Bridges with cast-in chlorides may be identified by an
assessment of construction practices in precast yards over time, specifically looking at individual practices
that may have resulted in cast-in chlorides in specific eras, or by collecting chloride profiles from
individual bridges, which would also allow assessment of chloride ingress. It should be noted that in some
cases, cast-in chlorides may be present in some beams but not in others, as was the case in the era 7
Woodbank Stream Bridge.
201
6 Conclusions and recommendations

Construction eras for pre-tensioned concrete bridges on the New Zealand roading network were defined in
chapter 2. The bridges constructed in each era were designed and constructed using similar procedures
and to meet similar requirements, and are therefore expected to share similar design characteristics. A
discussion of the design criteria and construction practices present in each of the eras was provided in
chapter 2 and typical design characteristics relevant to durability were given. For convenience, the years
included in each of the identified construction eras, and the typical reinforcement details and typical
concrete mix requirements for each era, were given in tables 2.22 and 2.23.
Chapter 3 detailed the different pre-tensioned concrete bridge beam types in service on the New Zealand
state highway network. The seven most common beam types were investigated and the popularity of each
beam type was assessed with reference to the construction eras defined in chapter 2. The evolution in
design of each beam type was discussed and typical cross sections taken from standard drawings and as-
built bridge plans were presented from construction eras in which the beam type was most popular.
Specific design details from selected bridges that were deemed to be typical for bridges constructed using
each of the beam types for a given era were provided. The cross sections provided in chapter 3 are
expected to provide a good estimate of the design features present in all corresponding structures, and
hence may be referred to in the assessment of other structures of the same beam type and construction
era if no drawings are available for the specific bridge being investigated. A summary of all of the bridges
listed in the BDS, grouped by both beam type and construction era, was presented in figure 3.36.
The beam type of bridges constructed in eras 2, 3, 4 and 5 is expected to have a greater influence on
durability characteristics than in later eras because of the introduction of specified minimum cover depths
in era 5. Log beam, T-beam and I-beam bridges constructed between eras 2 and 5, and double hollow core
beam bridges constructed in or before era 4, are expected to contain unenclosed pre-tensioned
reinforcement. Consequently, bridges of these types are at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion
initiating before corrosion damage is able to be detected by visual inspection. Beam types from eras 2, 3,
4 and 5, which are expected to have particularly low covers, are log beams and I-beams. Log beams are
expected to have cover depths in the soffit of 29mm if they were constructed in era 2, and 33mm if they
were constructed in eras 3, 4 or 5 and have a span of less than 30ft. I-beam bridges are expected to have
minimum clear cover depths of 23mm if constructed in era 2, or 29mm if constructed in eras 3 or 4.
A ‘Distribution and exposure classification tool’ that operates within the Google Earth software was
presented (Google 2009). The tool allowed state highway bridges to be identified and visualised by beam
type, construction era and exposure classification, and for individual structures to be assessed using
geographical measurement tools, satellite photography, road-level photography, and other relevant data
extracted from the NZTA’s BDS, as well as data generated in this project. An example was presented to
show how to use the tool’s included datasets for remote investigation of an individual bridge structure,
including the use of the road-level photography and the ruler function for assessment of the environment,
and measurement of the coastal distance from the high-tide mark. This data was used to remotely
estimate the exposure classification for the bridge under investigation.
An analysis of national coastal wind direction data demonstrated that the wind direction data reported in
NZS 3101:2006 was frequently inconsistent with the comprehensive wind information obtained from 23
NIWA climate stations, and that the use of NZS 3101:2006 wind direction information can lead to non-
conservative predictions of corrosion hazard. The case of Hamanatua Bridge was reviewed to illustrate
how the NZS 3101 wind data can result in incorrect and non-conservative exposure classification. It was
202
also noted that in cases where accurate assessment of the environment is required, the wind rose data
presented here should be supplemented by environmental data recorded at the bridge site.
A total of 137 pre-tensioned concrete bridges of any beam type and construction era were identified as
potentially at risk of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion, either now or in the future. These bridges
were defined as either being located within 1km of the coast (a total of 131 bridges, as reported in table
4.6) or being located over a body of saline water in which breaking waves may occur (an additional six
bridges). Of these 137 bridges, 103 were located within either the C or B2 exposure classification zone
defined by NZS 3101:2006 if they are assumed to be downwind from the coast (see table 4.8); 80 were
located within the C or B2 exposure classification zones when using the procedure specified by
NZS 3101:2006 and the wind direction information that is provided in the standard (see table 4.10).
In general, the bridge inspections suggested that the pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock as a whole was
performing well with respect to chloride ingress. Eight of the 30 inspected bridges were predicted to
experience chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life. Of these eight bridges,
only four were predicted to experience corrosion of pre-tensioned reinforcement within a 100-year service
life. However, the inspections also identified bridges with chloride ingress problems that had a variety of
beam types, which were constructed in a variety of different eras, and were located in each of the C, B2
and B1 exposure classification zones. The inspections also identified bridges that were performing
adequately even though they had similar designs and were located in similar exposure classification zones
as bridges that did have chloride ingress problems. This highlighted the difficulty in predicting which
coastal bridges (B1, B2 or C zone) are at risk of chloride-induced corrosion without obtaining physical
chloride profiles from each structure.
within a 100-year service life. These four bridges were located in the B1, B2 and C exposure classification
zones. As illustrated by the poor performance of the Fox River and Ngakawau River Bridges, which are
unlikely to contain SCMs, bridges that are located in the C exposure classification zone and do not contain
SCMs may have low resistance to chloride ingress (ie most bridges from era 9 and before).
located within the B2 and C exposure classification zones. Two of the 11 inspected bridges in the B1 zone
were predicted to experience corrosion of reinforcement. The presence of cast-in chlorides is a major
factor in the prediction of corrosion for bridges located in the B1 exposure zone.
Of the 11 inspected bridges located in the B2 exposure zone (as defined by any of the three definitions
given in chapter 4), only one was predicted to experience reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year
service life, and this bridge also contained cast-in chlorides. This finding suggests that the severity of the
environment in the B2 exposure classification zone may be similar to that of the B1 exposure classification
zone (using any of the three definitions given in chapter 4).
Of the 11 inspected C exposure classification bridges (as defined by any of the three definitions given in
chapter 4), five were predicted to experience reinforcement corrosion within a 100-year service life.
structure in a given exposure environment. The most critical location for chloride ingress was found to
vary between bridges, both in terms of the critical beam location (interior or exterior), and in terms of the
critical face of each beam (soffit or side of beam). Consequently, it is difficult to predict the critical
location on a structure before obtaining chloride profiles, and therefore it is unlikely that the measured
chloride profile with the worst chloride ingress from any given bridge inspection will be representative of
the most critical location on the inspected structure.
203
A large number of inspected bridges with coastal distances between 0m and 500m had surface chloride
concentrations below 0.1%. Only one of these was predicted to corrode, and that also contained cast-in
chlorides. These low surface chloride concentrations may be a result of chloride profiles being taken in
sub-critical locations, or of other factors that reduce the severity of the exposure environment for some
bridges. Further study is recommended to investigate these low surface chloride concentrations in some
coastal bridges.
As a result of chloride-induced corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement, Fox River Bridge and
Ngakawau River Bridge can be expected to not achieve a 100-year service life without the need for major
renovation unless urgent and effective preventative measures are undertaken. URGENT ACTION IS
REQUIRED to further assess the extent of chloride ingress and to arrest imminent or existing pre-
tensioned reinforcement corrosion in these bridges, to prevent further corrosion of pre-tensioned
reinforcement from initiating.
Waiotemarama Bridge No 595, Puhoi River Bridge, Saltwater Creek Bridge, Wairotoroto Stream Bridge and
Rosebank Bridge No2 were all predicted to experience corrosion of either stirrups or pre-tensioned
reinforcement within a 100-year service life. These structures should be individually assessed to determine
the appropriate course of action to enable their desired service lives to be achieved.
6.1 Recommendations
1 All bridges that were constructed between era 2 and era 5 and are located in the C exposure
classification zone (within 100m of the coast or over a body of water where saline waves may occur)
should be inspected to identify existing corrosion of reinforcement, and their chloride profiles and
concrete cover depths should be measured so that predictions of time to initiation of corrosion can be
made.
2 All bridges that were constructed between era 2 and era 5 and are located in the B2 or B1 exposure
zones (less than 10km from the coast and outside the NZS 3101 A2 exposure zone boundary) should
be assessed to determine whether they contain cast-in chlorides. Any of these bridges that do contain
cast-in chlorides should have chloride profiles and concrete cover depths measured to enable
predictions of the time to corrosion initiation to be made.
3 All pre-tensioned concrete bridges constructed in eras 6 to 9 (1978–2003) that are located in the C
exposure classification and cannot be confirmed to contain SCMs should have chloride profiles taken
and concrete cover depths measured to enable predictions of time to corrosion initiation to be made.
4 An effort should be made to identify bridges in the B2 or B1 exposure classification zone that were
constructed between era 2 and era 9, contain cast-in chlorides and do not contain SCMs, and chloride
ingress in these structures should be monitored. Bridges with cast-in chlorides may be identified by an
assessment of construction practices in precast yards that may have resulted in cast-in chlorides in
specific eras, or alternatively, by collecting chloride profiles from individual bridges, which would also
allow assessment of chloride ingress. It should be noted that in some cases, cast-in chlorides may be
present in some beams but not in others, as was the case in the era 7 Woodbank Stream Bridge.
5 A standard protocol should be established to determine the most appropriate locations on a structure
for chloride profiles to be obtained during a bridge inspection. This protocol should take into account:
- local environments caused by the differing shape of the underside of bridges constructed using
different beam types (beams with or without bottom bulbs or bridges with flat soffits)
- wind patterns and exposure conditions specific to the bridge site
204
- the (usually) increased levels of shelter afforded to abutment spans compared with central spans
- the additional effort and expense required to obtain samples from spans away from the
abutments, which may require boat access or elevated working platforms.
If it is possible, a way to relate the profiles obtained from the sites identified using the standard
protocol to the theoretical profile from the most critical location on the bridge should be determined.
This relationship may include a method of scaling up the obtained profile by a factor that is
determined based on the perceived severity of the chloride ingress at the sample site to the perceived
severity at the most critical site.
6 Waiotemarama Bridge No 595, Puhoi River Bridge, Saltwater Creek Bridge, Wairotoroto Stream Bridge
and Rosebank Bridge No2, which were all predicted to experience corrosion of either stirrups or pre-
tensioned reinforcement within a 100-year service life, should be individually assessed to determine
the appropriate course of action to enable them to achieve their desired service lives.
7 Urgent action is required to assess and address imminent or existing pre-tensioned reinforcement
corrosion in Fox River Bridge and Ngakawau River Bridge. These structures had severe chloride
ingress despite their relatively young age, and can be expected to require major renovation to achieve
a 100-year service life if the problem is not addressed urgently. It is recommended that the structures
should be thoroughly assessed as soon as possible to determine the best course of remedial action.
8 The poor chloride resistance of Fox River Bridge and Ngakawau River Bridge should be further
investigated to determine the cause and extent of the problem. Other bridges that may be affected by
the same issue should have chloride profiles taken, so that the time to corrosion initiation can be
predicted.
9 A cracking pattern was observed in the web of a beam from Westshore Bridge (Rogers key 58), which
may be a result of alkali silica reaction (ASR). Laboratory testing is recommended to determine the
presence of ASR in the beams of Westshore Bridge, if such testing has not been conducted already.
10 A future study should investigate the large number of bridges near the coast that have low surface
chloride concentrations. This study should aim to find criteria that would allow other bridges near the
coast that are likely to have low surface chloride concentrations to be easily identified. The surface
chloride concentration is primarily a property of the exposure environment, so it is expected to be
largely independent of the concrete’s properties and the age of the individual structure. If suitable
criteria can be identified, they may allow some bridges to be assigned a lower exposure classification
than would be suggested by coastal distance and wind direction alone.
11 An investigation into bridges constructed in eras 6 to 9 is recommended, with the aim of assessing
the causes of the poor chloride resistance of the concrete when compared with earlier bridges, and
the number of structures that are affected.
205
7 References
7 References
Beca and Opus (2008) Standard precast concrete bridge beams. NZ Transport Agency research report 364.
70pp.
Bentur, A, S Diamond and NS Berke (1997) Steel corrosion in concrete: fundamentals and civil engineering
practice. London: E & FN Spon.
Billington, DP (2004) Historical perspective on prestressed concrete. PCI Journal, 50th Anniversary Edition
January–February: 14–30.
Broomfield, JP (1997) Corrosion of steel in concrete: understanding, investigation and repair. London; New
York: Taylor and Francis.
Bruce, SM, PS McCarten, SA Freitag and LM Hasson (2008) Deterioration of prestressed concrete bridge
beams. Land Transport NZ research report 337. 72pp.
Castellote, M and C Andrade (2001) Round-robin test on chloride analysis in concrete – part 1: analysis of
total chloride content. Materials and Structures 34, no.9: 532–549.
Chirgwin, G, P Manamperi and M Moore (2009) A global study of chloride induced corrosion within the
RTA’s reinforced concrete bridge stock. 7th Austroads Bridge Conference, Sky City Convention Centre,
Auckland, 2009.
Concrete Society, UK (1984) Repair of concrete damaged by reinforced corrosion. UK Concrete Society
Technical Report 26.
Costa, A and J Appleton (1999) Chloride penetration into concrete in marine environment – part I: main
parameters affecting chloride penetration. Materials and Structures 32, no.4: 252–259.
Davies, R (2000) History of Public Works Acts in New Zealand, including compensation and offer-back
provisions. Land Information New Zealand. www.linz.govt.nz/docs/miscellaneous/pwahistory.pdf
Evans, C and MG Richardson (2005) Service life of chloride-contaminated concrete structures. Concrete
Research in Ireland Colloquium 2005, Ireland.
Fenwick, R and G MacRae (2009) Comparison of New Zealand standards used for seismic design of
concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 42, no.3: 187–203.
Glass, GK, B Reddy and NR Buenfeld (2000) The participation of bound chloride in passive film breakdown
on steel in concrete. Corrosion Science 42, no.11: 2013–2021.
Google (2009) Google Earth (Google Earth is software that provides an interactive three-dimensional model
of the Earth, constructed from satellite imagery. Accessed 2 March 2009. http://earth.google.com/
Gray, A, P Gaby, G Brown, D Kirkcaldie, R Cato and P Sweetman (2003) Stage 1 – Identification of new
standard beam shapes. Transfund New Zealand research report 252. 68pp.
Henriksen, CF, A Knudsen and MW Braestrup (1998) Cable corrosion: undetected? Concrete International
20, no.10: 69–72.
Mackechnie, JR (1996) Predictions of reinforced concrete durability in the marine environment. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Ministry of Works (MoW) (1956) Ministry of Works: bridge manual. Wellington: Hutcheson, Bowman and
Stewart Ltd.
206
7 References
Ministry of Works (MoW) (1970) Standard plans for highway bridges. Wellington: Ministry of Works.
Ministry of Works (MoW) (1970) Engineering instruction 1970/1: part 2 – cover to reinforcement.
Wellington: Ministry of Works.
Ministry of Works (MoW) (1971) CDP 701/A: Highway bridge design brief. Wellington: Ministry of Works,
Office of the chief designing engineer (Civil).
Ministry of Works (MoW) (1972) CDP 701/B: Highway bridge design brief. Wellington: Ministry of Works,
Office of the chief designing engineer (Civil).
Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) (1973) CDP 701/C: Highway bridge design brief. Wellington:
Ministry of Works, Office of the chief designing engineer (Civil).
Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) (1978a) CDP 701/D: Highway bridge design brief. Wellington:
Ministry of Works and Development, Civil Engineering Division (Research Development section).
Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) (1978b) CDP 901: Standard plans for highway bridge
components. Wellington: Ministry of Works and Development, Civil Design Office.
Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) (1981) CDP 903: Rural bridges: part 1: standard bridge plans.
Wellington: Ministry of Works and Development (Civil Engineering Division).
Naito, C and J Warncke (2008) Inspection methods & techniques to determine non visible corrosion of
prestressing strands in concrete bridge components: task 1 – literature review. Pennsylvania: National
Center for Engineering Research on Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS) –
Lehigh University. Accessed 14 February 2011. www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/163798.aspx
NIWA (National Institute of Weather and Atmospheric Research) (2012) Climate explorer. Accessed 25 May
2012. http://climate-explorer.niwa.co.nz
NMLA (National Meteorological Library and Archive) (2010) Fact sheet 6 – the Beaufort Scale. Accessed 25
May 2012. www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/4/4/Fact_Sheet_No._6_-_Beaufort_Scale.pdf
NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) (2009a) Bridge data system structural guide. Accessed 28 June 2010.
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/bridge-data-system-structural-guide/
NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) (2009b) Our bridges and structures. Accessed 15 November 2011.
www.nzta.govt.nz/network/maintaining/bridges-structures.html
NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) (2010) Vehicle dimensions and mass rule amendment 2010: funding and
investment guidelines. Accessed 9 May 2011.
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/vdam-funding-guidelines/docs/funding-investment-guidelines.pdf
NZTA:BDS (2008) Bridge data system. Wellington: NZ Transport Agency.
NZTA:BDS (2008<2011) Combined 2008 and 2011 BDS pre-tensioned bridge entries. Wellington: NZ
Transport Agency.
NZTA:BDS (2011) Bridge data system. Wellington: NZ Transport Agency.
Pape, T and RE Melchers (2008) Projects in the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, The
University of Newcastle, Australia. Australasian Corrosion Association Corrosion & Materials Journal
33, no.1: 39–40.
Phillips, J (2009) Bridges and tunnels. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Accessed 6 April 2010.
www.teara.govt.nz/en/bridges-and-tunnels
207
Public Works Department (PWD) (1943) Highway bridge design loadings and tentative preliminary code –
technical memorandum no.8. Wellington: Public Works Department.
Singh, SK, PS Sidkey, MG Hocking and J Boran (2000) Hydrogen embrittlement stress cracking in
prestressing steel wires. In Proceedings of EUROCORR-2000, London. Accessed 1 October 2009.
www.cix.co.uk/~useberg/docs/00020501.PDF
Thomas, C and G Coles (2006) Tiwai Bridge options study (MWH New Zealand Ltd study). Invercargill:
Invercargill City Council.
Thomas, C and G Coles (2008) Tiwai Bridge visual inspection (MWH New Zealand Ltd study). Invercargill:
Transit NZ (TNZ) (1991) Bridge manual: design and evaluation – draft for comment. Wellington: Transit NZ.
Transit NZ (TNZ) (1994) Bridge manual. Wellington: Transit NZ.
Transit NZ (TNZ) (2003) Transit New Zealand bridge manual. Accessed 28 August 2008.
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/bridge-manual/bridge-manual.html
Walrond, C (2010) Roads – centralised road funding. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Accessed
25 July 2011. www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/roads/6
Standards
AASHO H20-S16-44:1944. Standard specifications for highway bridges. Washington DC: American
Association of State Highway Officals.
AASHTO H20-S16-T16:1961 Standard specifications for highway bridges. Washington DC: American
Association of State Highway Transport Officials.
American Concrete Institute
ACI 222R:2001. Protection of metals in concrete against corrosion. Accessed 26 July 2010.
www.concrete.org/BookstoreNet/ProductDetail.aspx?ItemID=22201
ASTM International
ASTM C114-11b. Standard test methods for chemical analysis of hydraulic cement. Accessed 26 July 2010.
www.astm.org
New Zealand
NZS 1900:9.3A:1970. Model building bylaw: chapter 9.3A: concrete-design and construction.
NZS 3101P:1978. Code of practice for the design of concrete structures.
NZS 3101:1982. Code of practice for the design of concrete structures.
NZS 3101:1995. Concrete structures standard: part 1: the design of concrete structures; part 2:
commentary on the design of concrete structures.
NZS 3101:2006. Concrete structures standard: part 1: the design of concrete structures.
NZS 3104:2003. Specification for concrete production.
NZS 3109:1980. Specification for concrete construction. Accessed 28 May 2012.

http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009645787
NZS 3109:1987. Specification for concrete construction.
208
7 References
NZS 3109:1997. Concrete construction.
NZSR 32:1968. Recommendations for prestressed concrete design.
NZSS 1900:9.3A:1964. New Zealand standard model bylaw: chapter 9.3. design and construction,
concrete.
Australia
AS 1012.20:1992. Methods of testing concrete: method 20: determination of chloride and sulfate in
hardened concrete and concrete aggregates. Accessed 16 January 2012.
http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store2/Details.aspx?ProductID=204870
209
Appendix A Case study of Tiwai Point Bridge

This appendix provides an overview of the residual strength assessment that was performed on Tiwai
Point Bridge, and the associated destructive testing of decommissioned concrete beams that contained
corroded pre-tensioned reinforcement. The purpose of this appendix is to illustrate the overall residual
strength assessment procedure and the correlation between recorded observations and measured beam
strengths. It is not intended to provide in-depth detail of the collected information, as this was deemed to
be outside the scope of the current project.
Nineteen destructive tests were performed on decommissioned pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams that
contained corroded pre-tensioned reinforcement. The beams were obtained from the 1969 Tiwai Point
Bridge in Southland, New Zealand, which experienced chloride-induced corrosion caused by sea spray that
resulted in the superstructure being decommissioned and removed in 2009. Destructive flexural testing
results were compared with thorough non-destructive condition assessments and with post-test breakouts
of reinforcement. The condition of the beams tested ranged from good-condition beams to those with
severe corrosion in four of the 21 prestressed strands. The most severely corroded beam sustained 68% of
the load of an equivalent good-condition beam.
A methodology for the assessment of residual strength of beams with corroded pre-tensioned
reinforcement was put forward and shown to provide an effective means of estimating the number of
corroded strands that should be disregarded in calculation of the residual strength.
A1 Introduction
Recent deterioration of prestressed concrete bridge beams in New Zealand and around the world has
highlighted an escalating problem (Bruce et al 2008; Pape 2008; Harries 2009). Corrosion of pre-tensioned
reinforcement is especially critical because of the highly stressed nature of these structures: a small
amount of corrosion of a pre-tensioned strand results in a considerable reduction in the structural capacity
of the member.
Tiwai Point Bridge is located in a highly aggressive coastal environment in the South Island of
New Zealand. The structure was opened in 1969 and was replaced in 2009–2010 due to severe corrosion
of the pre-tensioned reinforcement. Nineteen of the 42-year-old beams were set aside as test specimens
for a destructive and non-destructive testing programme.
Opportunities to measure the capacity of full scale beams that contain corroded pre-tensioned
reinforcement are relatively rare, and while a number of testing programmes have been conducted around
the world, each study provided only a small number of actual destructive-test data points (Pape 2008;
Harries 2009). The deconstruction of Tiwai Point Bridge allowed for a large number of destructive tests to
be performed on identical beams that had varying degrees of corrosion damage. The large number of
related destructive test data points will be used to develop and assess the accuracy of non-destructive
residual strength evaluation methodologies in later parts of the larger study.
A summary of non-destructive corrosion assessment procedures used is presented here, along with results
from the destructive testing programme. The measured flexural capacity of each beam is correlated to
observed corrosion damage and compared with the measured flexural capacity of beams of the same
design but with no reinforcement corrosion. A non-destructive methodology for estimation of the residual
strength of the corroded beams was proposed, but no attempt to verify this model is presented here.
Future work will aim to develop this methodology so that it can be used to reliably assess the residual
210
strength of corroding pre-tensioned bridge beams of other designs. The accuracy of the methodology will
be verified, both numerically and by applying it to the destructive test results from this study and to those
found in the literature.
A2 Tiwai Point Bridge

Tiwai Point Bridge is located at latitude S46o 34’ near the southern tip of the South Island of New Zealand.
The bridge was constructed specifically to serve the New Zealand Aluminium Smelter and provides the
only road access to the facility. The smelter is one of the largest single industrial operations in the country
and accounts for a large proportion of the local region’s economy (Thomas and Coles 2006a).
An electronic weather station located on Tiwai Point, approximately 4km from the bridge site, recorded
daily climate data for the entire service life of the structure (NIWA 2012). The absolute minimum and
maximum temperatures recorded between 1969 and 2010 were -5.2oC and 32.1oC respectively. The
monthly average of daily minimum temperatures recorded over the life of the structure was lowest in July
(2.9oC) and highest in January and February (10.9oC). An average of 12 days per year were recorded as
screen frost days, defined as a day on which the air temperature dropped below zero inside a standard
Stevenson screen enclosure located 1.3m above the ground.
The bridge site is 3.5km away from the nearest open surf beach. However, the structure itself is 500m
long and with adjoining causeways, crosses a 1km wide section of Awarua Bay, which is affected by strong
prevailing south-westerly winds. The soffit of the superstructure was 3.7m above mean sea level (Opus
International Consultants Ltd 2007) and the mean tidal range in the bay varies from 1.5m to 2.21m (Inglis
-1
et al 2005). Average monthly wind speeds recorded during the life of the structure varied from 4.5ms in
-1
July to 6.9ms in November, and the annual average number of days with wind gusts in excess of
-1
12.3ms was 222 (NIWA 2012). The Beaufort scale describes sea conditions for given wind speeds. It does
not directly apply to harbours or estuaries, but it can be used to give an indication of the conditions that
-1
can be expected on a wide body of water affected by the wind. The scale reports that in winds of 3.4ms
-1 -1 -1
to 5.4ms , scattered whitecaps can be expected. In winds of 10.8ms to 13.8ms , white foam crests are
4
extensive, large waves begin to form, and some spray can probably be expected (NMLA 2010). These
conditions provided a highly aggressive environment due to the regular presence of wind-blown salt spray,
which resulted in chloride build-up on the structure.
While Tiwai Point Bridge is on a public road, the bridge leads only to the aluminium smelter and a small
picnic area, so the regular traffic volume is low and easily defined. A count in 2005 recorded 30 heavy
vehicles per day (Thomas and Coles 2006b) the majority of which were semi-articulated trucks carrying the
maximum allowable load of smelted aluminium to the domestic market. Raw material for smelting and
product bound for the international market were transported by sea directly from the wharf adjoining the
smelter. Other regular traffic included three buses in and out of the plant twice a day, carrying staff
members, and a small number of light vehicles carrying staff and contractors. Occasionally the bridge was
subjected to overloads because no alternative land route was available, particularly during construction
and maintenance operations at the smelter.
4 National Meteorological Library and Archive, UK.
211
A 2.1 Design and construction

The bridge was originally designed for the worst of two loading cases: the H20-S16-T16 design loading
standard, or a single 100-ton (9072kg) truck load restricted to travel over the central five beams
(Consulting Engineers: Powell Fenwick & Partners 1968). The H20-S16-T16 loading cases encompassed
traffic loads experienced during normal service of the bridge, while the 100-ton overload case allowed for
the delivery of supplies and equipment required for construction and maintenance of the aluminium
smelter.
The bridge consisted of twenty-seven 18m long spans and contained nine 686mm deep precast T beams
transversely post-tensioned together. The beams were precast concrete and contained both pre-tensioned
and post-tensioned longitudinal reinforcement, as well as unstressed mild steel transverse reinforcement.
No additional corrosion protection was provided to the stressed or unstressed reinforcement other than
that from the 57mm specified concrete cover. The specified 28 day compressive strength of the concrete
was approximately 38MPa, but no other information on the concrete mix was available (Consulting
Engineers: Powell Fenwick & Partners 1968).
Each of the five central beams contained 12 pre-tensioned strands 12.7mm in diameter, while each of the
two outside beams on both sides contained 10 pre-tensioned strands. All beams contained one draped
post-tensioned tendon with nine 12.7mm strands. Each post-tensioned tendon extended four spans
between anchors and served to provide some continuity between spans, and expansion joints were located
between spans with anchors. The beams with an expansion joint at one end had a shallower parabolic
drape to accommodate the anchor and a different bending moment envelope. The difference between the
highest and lowest points of the parabolic drape was 454mm for beams with an expansion joint at one
end and 489mm for those without.
The different pre-tension and post-tension arrangements resulted in four beam types on the bridge, each
with different longitudinal pre-tensioning configurations and thus considerably different ultimate limit
state behaviours. In order from strongest to weakest, the four beam types were identified as: 12 pre-
tensioned strands without an expansion joint; 12 pre-tensioned strands with an expansion joint; 10 pre-
tensioned strands without an expansion joint; and 10 pre-tensioned strands with an expansion joint.
Figure A.1(a) shows a typical cross section of a beam. An important feature of the design was that the
transverse reinforcement did not enclose the pre-tensioned strands, which allowed the more critical pre-
tensioned longitudinal reinforcement to corrode before the mild steel transverse reinforcement (Bruce et
al 2008). This resulted in a greater loss of structural capacity at the time when corrosion caused cracking
of the concrete and became visible on the surface.
212
Figure A.1 Tiwai Point Bridge construction
(a) Typical beam cross section, post-tensioning duct (b) Tiwai Point Bridge launcher in operation, 1967
shown at lowest point of parabolic drape (Image courtesy of Ray Price)
Tiwai Point Bridge was constructed as part of the development of the New Zealand Aluminium Smelter,
which also included the construction of a dedicated wharf. The wharf structure consists of a pier head and
a single-lane access bridge. The superstructure of the access bridge was of similar design to Tiwai Point
Bridge. Both structures were constructed using the steel launcher and gantry system shown in figure
A.1(b).
A 2.2 Service life and inspection history

During its service life Tiwai Point Bridge was subjected to routine inspections on a two- to four-year cycle.
These inspections involved visual assessment of the bridge and fixtures from the roadway and abutments.
As a result of these inspections, several maintenance operations were conducted on the railings and other
fixtures when issues with these elements were identified. The regular inspection procedure allowed only
for cursory inspection of the underside of the deck and beams as no means of access was available.
Measurements of the depth-to-bed level at each pile set were taken in 2000 to check for changes in the
bed profile and for scour around the piles. During this work extensive deterioration of the structure was
noted and as a result a full inspection of the structure by boat was performed.
The inspection revealed reinforcement corrosion, which was a result of chloride ingress and was evidenced
by longitudinal cracking along the sides of the beams at the level of the bottom layer of pre-tensioned
strands. After a thorough investigation, it was estimated that in the worst cases this cracking correlated to
a loss of up to 60% of the cross section of the bottom layer of pre-tensioned strands (Thomas and Coles
2006a). Several visual inspections were conducted to determine the prevalence of this damage. The most
recent inspection in 2007 revealed longitudinal cracking in 55 of the 243 beams (Thomas and Coles
2008).
Figure A.2 shows evidence of longitudinal cracking and rust staining in three beams from the same span,
and similar cracking in one beam. The maximum measured width for this type of crack was 5mm, and the
cracking was consistently at the level of the bottom layer of pre-tensioned reinforcement.
213
Figure A.2 Examples of corrosion induced longitudinal cracking
(a) Corrosion-induced cracking in three beams from (b) Close-up of corrosion crack in one beam
one span
After initial detection of the damage, overloads were no longer permitted on the bridge, and weight and
speed limits of 80% Class 1 loading and 30kph were applied to heavy traffic in 2004. After replacement
was scheduled in 2006 the limits were relaxed to 100% Class 1 and 30kph, because consideration of the
long-term effects from overstressing the bridge was no longer required (Thomas and Coles 2006b).
The original superstructure of the bridge was decommissioned and replaced in 2009 and 2010 because
widespread and severe corrosion of the pre-tensioned strands was identified in the beams. The piers and
pile caps were also in a deteriorated state, but these elements were rehabilitated and reused.
A3 Non-destructive testing
The aim of the non-destructive testing programme was to identify and quantify the corrosion in the pre-
tensioned strands within each concrete beam. This information was used to estimate the amount of
effective pre-tensioned reinforcement for comparison with the destructive test results. This section gives
an overview of the non-destructive testing techniques employed, and a brief summary of the results
correlated with post-failure breakout inspections is displayed in table A.1.
214
Table A.1 Summary of non-destructive testing results compared with post-failure breakout
Electro Electro
Visual inspection potential potential Post-failure breakout
mapping west mapping east
Dominant failure mode

Maximum crack width
Maximum crack width

visible on side of web
Longitudinal cracking
Average over 0.5m in
Average over 0.5m in
Number of corroded
Maximum in failure
Maximum in failure
Failure location, m
(from centreline)
Peak load, kN
failure zone
failure zone
Beam label
Beam type
easta , mm
westa, mm
strandsb
zone
zone
14G Neither 0 0 282 254 272 246 346 0 4.5 north Shear
12 strands, no expansion joint
3C Neither 0 0 187 177 205 184 338 0 4.5 north Shear
18E Both >2 >2 621 526 573 532 266 4 2 north Flexural
21F Both 2 3 577 526 494 449 260 3 1.5 south Flexural
3D Both 5 4 555 452 577 445 246 3.29 1.3 south Flexural
2C Both 3 3 572 442 509 430 233 4 1.4 south Flexural
13F Neither 0 0 189 177 174 163 317 0 Reached max stroke
12 strands, expansion joint
1D Neither 0 0 171 124 190 178 310 0 2 north Flexural
4D West 3 0 483 414 430 384 290 2.43 1.7 south Flexural
Both,
not at
16G >2 >2 401 348 344 330 288 2.14 1.5 south Flexural
same
section
16F Both >2 >2 476 418 460 389 215 4 1.5 south Flexural
10 strands, no joint
3B Neither 0 0 182 172 210 197 311 0 1.5 south Flexural
2B Neither 0 0 201 175 188 177 300 0 2 south Flexural
21I West 5 0 461 415 340 280 270 1 1.4 south Flexural
a) Beams that underwent testing early in the programme did not have accurate crack width measurements.
b) The whole number represents completely corroded strands. The number after the decimal point represents partial
damage to one strand, expressed as the number of corroded wires divided by 7. No beam had partial damage to
more than one strand.
215
A 3.1 Visual inspection

A detailed visual inspection was performed and any identified defects were mapped and photographed.
Details specific to each beam were recorded, such as the width of flanges, pull-in of cut post-tensioning
tendons, and hog in beams.
Visual inspection resulted in identification of small patch repairs on some of the beams from remedial
work to address corrosion of stirrups and metal debris cast into the concrete. These repairs were
concentrated in the haunches and in the soffit of the webs. Small areas of poor compaction were evident
in many of the beams, but these locations did not reliably coincide with areas of visible corrosion damage.
A high proportion of beams had some minor cracking and spalling evident on the sides of the haunches,
consistent with corrosion of stirrups, which had lower design cover in this region. In 8 of the 19 tested
beams, longitudinal cracks along the sides of the web were evident at the elevation of the pre-tensioned
reinforcement. This cracking was often accompanied by rust staining and was caused by corrosion of the
pre-tensioned reinforcement.
Following destructive testing of the beams, a survey of the corrosion damage was taken in the area of
broken concrete around the failure plane. The survey identified varying degrees of corrosion of the pre-
tensioned strands, almost exclusively occurring in those strands located in the bottom layer of
reinforcement. No damage to the strands or duct making up the post-tensioned tendons was found, and
the duct was well grouted in all inspected areas. In several cases some light surface corrosion was noted
on the post-tensioned strands; however, in these cases it was confirmed that there was no loss of cross
section on any of the strands or wires in the tendon.
A 3.2 Cover depth survey

A cover survey was performed using an electromagnetic cover meter to determine the depth of cover to
the pre-tensioned reinforcement and stirrups. The results indicated that the average cover to the pre-
tensioned strands was 59mm. The minimum measured cover to strands was 38mm and the average of the
minimum strand cover measured in a given beam was 50mm. External evidence of strand corrosion was
not found in the areas with the lowest cover depth readings.
Cover to stirrups was measured only in the haunches, as this was the only area where stirrups were nearer
to the surface of the concrete than pre-tensioned reinforcement. The average measured cover to stirrups
was 39mm, the lowest measured cover depth was 14mm, and the average of the minimums was 24.5mm.
Low cover depth correlated strongly to external evidence of stirrup corrosion.
A 3.3 Electro potential mapping (EPM)

Electro potential mapping (EPM) measures the difference in potential between the reinforcement
embedded in the concrete and a copper/copper sulphate reference electrode embedded in a handheld
sensor. The measured potential is considerably more negative in areas of active corrosion of the
reinforcement (Broomfield 1997). EPM was performed on the sides of the web and the soffit to identify
sites of active corrosion that were not visible on the surface of the concrete. While no strand corrosion was
identified in areas without cracking, EPM assisted in the location of fine longitudinal cracks that had gone
unnoticed in the visual inspection. Neither the corrosion rate nor the extent of deterioration can be
determined using this method (Naito et al 2010).
EPM results were analysed and showed a strong correlation with visual signs of corrosion such as
longitudinal cracking in the sides of the web. Regions identified as corroding by EPM correlated closely
with regions of strand failure. Figure A.3 gives an example of an electro potential map of the web of a
216
beam. The beam was cut into four sections so that the entire length could be shown in one figure. Each
column represents five readings at one section of the beam, two readings from each side of the web, and
one from the soffit. Red cells indicate areas with a high likelihood of corrosion, yellow and orange indicate
some likelihood, and green cells indicate low likelihood. In this case there was an area of active corrosion
just south of midspan, and some likelihood of corrosion at the south end of the beam. In the destructive
test, beam 2C displayed flexural failure in the red EPM region, and breakout of the concrete after the test
confirmed that all four of the bottom pre-tensioned strands were severely corroded and unable to carry
load. While the electro potential maps had a strong correlation with sites of active corrosion, in this study
they did not provide significantly more insight than a thorough non-destructive visual inspection would
have.
Figure A.3 EPM results from beam 2C – red regions indicate a high likelihood of corrosion (Note:
measurements are in mm, measured from the end of each haunch towards midspan)
A 3.4 Chloride ingress

Chloride content tests measure the ingress of chlorides into concrete. Chlorides from salt water diffuse
into the concrete and when the concentration at the depth of reinforcement reaches the threshold value,
corrosion can initiate. Chloride ingress was the principle cause of reinforcement corrosion on Tiwai Point
Bridge.
Concrete dust samples were collected for chloride content testing by drilling into the concrete and
collecting drilling dust samples from measured depths. The acid-soluble chloride content of these samples
was determined using dynamic end point potentiometric titration against 0.1M silver nitrate solution. The
analysis method was calibrated against results from a commercial laboratory that were obtained using the
method given in AS1012.20 (AS 1992). Chloride content by weight of concrete was then plotted against
depth to give the chloride profile, and the concentration at the depth of reinforcement was determined. As
the chloride concentration at the depth of reinforcement increases, so does the probability that corrosion
will initiate.
For prediction purposes a discrete threshold concentration is required as the point at which corrosion is
deemed to initiate. This threshold value is disputed in the literature and a range of values are suggested.
ACI 222R (ACI 2001) suggests values ranging from 0.026% to 0.06% by weight of concrete, and Naito and
Warncke suggest 0.032% (2008). This study uses a threshold of 0.05%, which was suggested by the UK
217
concrete society (Concrete Society 1984) and used by Bruce et al (2008). For beams that had not begun to
corrode, the chloride profile and chosen chloride threshold were used to estimate the remaining time to
initiation using a model based on Fick’s Laws of Diffusion (Broomfield 1997).
More than 100 chloride profiles were collected and analysed from Tiwai Point Bridge beams. The profiles
were collected from beams removed from different areas of the bridge, and from three to six locations on
each beam so that critical areas of chloride build-up could be identified. This data is not presented here
but in a future study will be used to assess the exposure conditions at the bridge site, with an emphasis
on identifying the effects of the different microclimates existing in different parts of the structure. Any
observed trends will be used to predict critical locations on other structures so that bridge inspectors can
more effectively target chloride analyses. It may also allow economies to be found in the design of new
structures by optimising durability design criteria throughout the structure.
Figure A.4 gives an example of chloride ingress in the soffit of three beams. A considerable difference in
chloride content at the depth of reinforcement was observed between the good-condition beam in and the
two corroding beams. Chloride ingress testing is a useful tool for assessing the likelihood that corrosion
of steel is occurring in a given beam and for estimating the time to initiation, but is not useful for
assessing the extent or location of corrosion in a beam that is known to be corroding. Full chloride ingress
results are therefore excluded here, as they do not aid in the assessment of the residual strength of
members.
Figure A.4 Preliminary chloride ingress results for three Tiwai Point Bridge beams of varying conditions
A 3.5 Carbonation depth

Carbonation is another cause of reinforcement corrosion and occurs when airborne carbon dioxide
penetrates the concrete and causes the pH to decrease to the level where the alkalinity of the concrete no
longer provides passivation for the reinforcing steel. Carbonation depth was measured by spraying a
solution of phenolphthalein pH indicator onto a freshly cut concrete surface and measuring the depth of
the colour change.
Carbonation measurements were performed on 10 beams, and carbonation levels were found to be
insignificant, with the average carbonation depth being less than 5mm.
218
A 3.6 Concrete strength

Rebound hammer readings were taken on all beams to assess concrete strength. These readings were
calibrated against a total of six cores taken from four different beams. Typical average rebound hammer
readings taken from the vertical face of the web were around 62. This is near to the upper limit for the
device and converts to a compressive strength of greater than 58MPa (8.4ksi). Calibration of the rebound
hammer values against measured compressive strength results from collected core samples is yet to be
performed. However, the compressive strength of core samples was measured to be 66.5MPa (9.64ksi) in
a 2004 inspection (Thomas and Kensington 2004) and 69MPa (10ksi) and 56.7MPa (8.22ksi) on cores
taken during destructive testing.
A4 Condition assessment
Assessment of the condition of each beam requires an understanding of the process by which a single
strand corrodes and the progression of the corrosion of strands within each beam. The beams with 12
pre-tensioned strands displayed a similar corrosion progression, which was different from that observed in
beams with 10 pre-tensioned strands.
A 4.1 Corrosion of a single strand

There are a number of different mechanisms by which corrosion of a strand can occur (Bruce et al 2008).
These mechanisms are predominantly influenced by existing conditions in the surrounding concrete.
In the case of Tiwai Point Bridge, corrosion was initiated by chloride ingress resulting from seawater being
deposited on the surface of the concrete. Chloride-induced corrosion usually first initiates in a corner
strand, as these are exposed to chloride ingress from two sides. In sound concrete, corrosion of a strand
will manifest either uniformly over the surface of the steel or as a concentrated pit. Both processes were
observed on beams from Tiwai Point Bridge and are shown in figure A.5. As corrosion progresses, the
expansion of the corrosion product eventually causes a longitudinal crack to form at the level of the
corroding steel (Broomfield 1997). This crack causes a change in the surrounding concrete and thus in the
corrosion process.
Figure A.5 Examples of corroded pre-tensioned strands
(a) Broken out strands with uniform corrosion (b) Individual wires with pitting damage
After longitudinal cracking of the concrete has occurred, seawater and oxygen are more readily available
to the corroding steel and the process accelerates. The cracking usually causes debonding of the lower
part of the strand because the concrete is less stiff in the direction of the soffit. This debonding forms a
void below the strand where seawater collects, as shown in figure A.6. The presence of seawater around
the bottom of the strand causes the strand to corrode uniformly upward towards the top of the strand.
219
This type of corrosion was widespread in cracked regions of the corroded test beams (see figure 7(c)).
Because strands are comprised of six helical wires wrapped around a seventh straight central wire, all six
of the helical wires rotate past the bottom of the strand in a length of less than 200mm. Combined with
the compromised bond in corroded and cracked regions, it is not overly conservative to assume that 85%
of the capacity of a strand is lost when corrosion has progressed to one-third of the height of the strand,
which correlates to a loss of approximately 30% of the strand’s cross-sectional area. When corrosion has
progressed to two-thirds of the height of the strand, 100% of the capacity is lost.
Figure A.6 Upward strand corrosion
(a) Corrosion progression in wires in a single (c) Evidence of strand corrosion

strand
(b) Corrosion-induced crack allowing water and

air to the bottom surface of the corner strand
Because strands are made up of small wires, they corrode faster than conventional reinforcement bars.
The corrosion is accelerated for three main reasons:
The voids between the wires allow moisture and chlorides to build up and propagate easily.
Corrosion attacks the available steel surface and strands have a high surface area relative to their
cross-sectional area.
the high level of stress in the steel may increase the rate of corrosion when compared with
conventional reinforcing.
The combination of processes described in this section results in the load-carrying ability of a strand
being rapidly reduced to effectively zero once a crack reaches it and debonding occurs. For this reason,
any strand that is determined to be intersected by a longitudinal crack should be assumed to be
ineffective and should be neglected in the calculation of residual strength of the beam. This approach is
only slightly conservative and is more accurate than estimating the percentage of cross section lost and
assuming that the remaining cross section is effective.
A 4.2 Progression of corrosion in a beam

As corrosion in a corner strand progresses from the situation shown in figure A.7(b), the crack widens and
propagates in a horizontal direction across the beam soffit. In the beams with 12 pre-tensioned strands,
four strands were present in the bottom layer. In these beams the crack intersected the adjacent strand in
220
the bottom layer, where the debonding and upward corrosion process began again. Because both sides of
each beam’s web were subjected to similar exposure environments and concrete conditions, many of the
beams had this process occurring concurrently on both sides of the web.
This process repeats until the crack reaches the entire width of the web and the soffit concrete is
completely delaminated. Figures A.7(a) and (b) show this sequence diagrammatically. Figure A.7(c) shows
a beam with a delaminated soffit, which had fallen away during the destructive test. Evidence of strand
corrosion is visible on the spalled concrete section.
Figure A.7 Progression of cracking and delamination due to corrosion of strands in a beam
(a) Cracks progressing from both sides (c) Evidence of soffit delamination during a destructive test
(b) Delamination of soffit
In the beams with 10 pre-tensioned strands there were only two strands on the edges of the bottom layer,
so the crack did not intersect another strand but instead propagated downward to the soffit and caused
the corner concrete to spall. This exposed the corroding strand to the atmosphere, allowing chloride
ingress to occur on the freshly exposed concrete surface and reducing the time to initiation for the next
strand.
A 4.3 Condition assessment methodology

The proposed methodology for assessing the condition of the corroded beams is based on assessing
which stage of the cracking and debonding progression a given beam has reached. As explained in the
previous sections, once a crack has intersected a strand it is assumed that the strand has lost its load-
carrying ability at the affected section.
The presence of a longitudinal crack on one side of a web implies that at least the nearest strand is
corroding and has been intersected by the crack. The width of the crack and the EPM results taken from
areas surrounding the crack can indicate the severity of the corrosion and thus can be used to assess the
likelihood that the crack has propagated and intersected the second and third strands.
By the time the crack has propagated to intersect the fourth strand only a small amount of sound concrete
remains, so it is likely that delamination of the soffit will have occurred due to tensile forces caused by
opening of the crack. For this reason, if a longitudinal crack is only visible on one side of the web it is fair
to assume that at least one strand on the opposite side is intact.
221
The presence of longitudinal cracks on both sides of the web at a given section implies that at least the
shallowest strand on both outside edges is corroding, and at worst, that the soffit has delaminated,
exposing the entire layer of strands. The soffit should be checked for delamination by sounding with a
hammer. If delamination has occurred, all four strands are intersected by the crack and should be
neglected in the calculation of residual strength. If delamination has not occurred, it is likely that at least
one of the two central strands is not corroding, so one strand can be assumed to be effective. However, it
is expected that a beam in this condition will quickly deteriorate to full delamination.
A5 Residual strength assessment

A knowledge gap currently exists surrounding the assessment of the strength of concrete beams that have
experienced pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion. One factor contributing to this gap is a shortage of
destructive test data from corroded pre-tensioned concrete bridge beams. This lack of data makes
accurate assessment of the residual strength of beams difficult and often leads to bridges being replaced
rather than rehabilitated. The strength assessment of corroded pre-tensioned beams is more complicated
than for conventionally reinforced concrete beams, because corrosion can cause relaxation of the steel
and also causes the integrity of the bond between the steel and concrete to be compromised. Both of
these effects reduce the amount of prestress that is transferred to the concrete, and thereby weaken the
structure considerably.
The bond between the steel and concrete is a difficult parameter to measure accurately even on a strand-
by-strand basis, let alone for an entire beam or bridge. The difficulty of accurately assessing bond
characteristics makes assessment of the residual strength of a corroded pre-tensioned beam difficult, and
makes strengthening operations to restore lost prestressing force dangerous, due to the risk of
overstressing the concrete member.
A 5.1 Objectives and outcomes

The major objective of the residual strength assessment was to provide a correlation between non-
destructive assessment methods and the measured strength of corroded pre-tensioned concrete bridge
beams. This correlation was achieved by generating a large number of data points that related the
findings of a variety of non-destructive bridge assessment techniques to the measured flexural
performance of decommissioned concrete bridge beams.
The secondary objective was to generate information for a direct comparison tool that will be used by
bridge consultants in the assessment of beams that have experienced pre-tensioned reinforcement
corrosion. The information to be included in the tool is summarised here.
A 5.2 Scope
The assessment consisted of destructive and non-destructive testing of 19 beams that had experienced
different degrees of corrosion to the pre-tensioned strand. Beams were selected for testing based on their
prestressing design, location on the bridge, and degree of corrosion as assessed visually.
A 5.3 Residual strength assessment results

Non-destructive testing results are summarised, along with data observed after breaking out concrete
following destructive testing. The results of EPM provided a good correlation with corrosion damage and
failure location, although in most cases the corrosion damage and failure location were also identified by
visual inspection. No strand corrosion was detected with EPM in areas that had not experienced cracking,
222
which was consistent with the behaviour of the beams during destructive testing, as no strand breakages
were detected outside of areas that had been identified as corroded using non-destructive means.
Comparison of the crack patterns present on each beam with the number of corroded strands identified
after breakout correlated well with the condition assessment methodology described in the previous
section. All of the beams with cracking visible on both sides of the web had corrosion damage to either
three or four of the strands in the bottom layer, while those beams with cracking on only one side (or on
both sides but not at the same section) had damage to between one and three strands.
A6 Destructive testing
Destructive testing was performed on beams with three of the four prestressing arrangements (as
described in chapter A2.1), and the results from each of the groups were analysed independently.
Selection of beams for each group was performed by grading based on the amount of longitudinal
cracking evident on the sides of the web. The condition of each test beam was confirmed after testing by
breaking out areas of concrete to expose reinforcement. Table A.2 gives a summary of the 19 destructive
tests.
Table A.2 Summary of destructive tests
Good Corroded pre-

Description of beam type Total tests
condition tensioning
12 pre-tensioned, without expansion joint 2 4 6
12 pre-tensioned, with expansion joint 2 3 5
10 pre-tensioned, without expansion joint 2 1 3
No expansion joint and cut pre-tensioning 1 0 1
Expansion joint and cut pre-tensioning 1 0 1
10 pre-tensioned and cut post-tensioning 1 0 1
Data requires further post-processing 1 1 2
A 6.1 Test setup

The beams were tested in a simply supported state using a four-point loading system. Due to the remote
location of the bridge, the large size of the test specimens, and the extensive testing regime, the cost to
transport and test the beams at a laboratory was prohibitive. The testing was therefore performed on-site
using a purpose-built self-reacting load frame constructed from four of the decommissioned bridge
beams, a steel yoke, and tension ties. The rig was designed to cause flexural failure in the specimens and
to approximate an axle loading condition. Figure A.8 shows the test set-up.
223
Figure A.8 Picture of self-reacting loading frame and instrumentation for destructive testing
The destructive testing phase commenced after the non-destructive testing phase and was concurrent with
deconstruction of the second half of the bridge. As the deconstruction of the bridge continued, the final
test beams were selected and the remaining non-destructive tests were performed on those beams.
Load was applied to the asphalt surfacing on the test beams through two 100mm wide line loads oriented
across the width of the flange. The line loads were located 1.5m either side of midspan and were applied
through a simply supported spreader beam by a single 1000kN hydraulic ram located at midspan. Load
was measured using a load cell on the ram, and deflections were measured relative to the ground below
each of the line loads. Deflection of the end supports was also measured relative to the ground and the
beam deflections were adjusted to account for this support deflection. Load readings did not take into
account the self-weight of the beams.
Acoustic emissions monitoring equipment was used to detect damage during the destructive testing. The
acoustic emissions system was deployed to identify and locate prestressing strand breakage during the
destructive tests so that this data could be compared with corrosion sites identified with non-destructive
testing. The acoustic emissions data was time stamped and recorded concurrently with load and deflection
data. Failure of reinforcement, both stressed and non-stressed, was only detected in strands that
experienced severe corrosion. Failed strands were located exclusively in the bottom or second layer of pre-
tensioned reinforcement, with the majority being in the bottom layer. Failed strands were only detected in
areas that exhibited external evidence of corrosion.
A 6.2 Test rig construction

The tests were performed in a number of stages scheduled to fit into the deconstruction programme. The
first stage involved the construction of the components required for the destructive loading frame. This
process involved the manufacture of four heavy steel beams that, along with several high-tensile rods,
formed the central part of the frame. Four of the bridge beams were prepared to form the longitudinal
reaction beams and end supports. The three bridge beams selected to be used as reaction beams were
rolled upside down and positioned, with care taken to ensure that they were supported near midspan to
maintain a similar gravity load profile and counteract the prestress moment. The fourth beam was cut into
sections and positioned across the ends of the reaction beams to form the supports. The lower part of the
224
central tower was then assembled, the end support beam sections were located and fixed, and the first
test unit was positioned on the rig. The spreader beam was placed on top of the test unit. The top part of
the tower and actuator was assembled on the ground and then lifted onto the test rig and attached using
couplers on the vertical high-tensile rods and ratchet strops for stability. Figure A.9 shows the completed
test rig.
Figure A.9 Test rig and deflected good-condition beam
A 6.3 Loading procedure

The loading procedure for the beams was complicated by the limited stroke of the hydraulic ram. The
stroke capacity of the jack was approximately 250mm, and the beams failed at deflections of
approximately 400mm. For this reason the beams were loaded to full stroke and then propped using
timber struts (see figure 11). The hydraulic ram was then retracted and a packer inserted, allowing the
load to be reapplied through the packer once the timber struts were removed. This process was repeated
until sufficient deflection capacity was made available. This loading procedure resulted in the load cell
reading dropping to zero as the load was transferred to the timber struts, while the beam remained under
load. This portion of the data has been removed from the load-deflection graphs to reduce clutter, but is
evident from the two small drops in load at approximately 225mm and 250mm deflection.
A 6.4 Failure modes

The load-deflection response of all three beam types was similar. Good-condition beams deflected evenly
and displayed regularly spaced vertical flexural cracks located over the middle third of the span. Some
good-condition beams also displayed a pure web shear crack approximately 2m (6.6ft) from the support
point, just outside the haunch of the beam. The shear cracks coincided with the end of the debonding of
the bottom four to six pre-tensioned strands. In all but two cases the good-condition beams failed at one
of the loading points, with a flexural shear crack extending from outside the loading point and
penetrating into the flange, followed by crushing of the concrete in the compression zone. In the two
exceptional cases the beam displayed a shear failure beginning 2m from the end of the beam and
spreading to the nearest load point. Figure A.10 shows an example of the typical failure mode for the
good-condition beams. Concrete crushing was evident under the loading point, and the longitudinal
reinforcement was intact and visible where the cracked concrete in the tension zone fell away during
225
failure of the beam. The acoustic emissions system detected no strand breakage during the good-
condition beam tests, and this result was confirmed by post-test breakout and inspection around the
failure plane.
Figure A.10 Typical failure crack in a good-condition beam
The curvature of deflected beams with corrosion damage was typically concentrated around the damaged
area. Flexural cracking would extend up and outward from the original corrosion crack and the soffit
would spall off at a small deflection. The acoustic emission system did not detect any strand failures
outside of the corroded area that ultimately failed. Figures A.11(a) and (b) show a typical cracking pattern
for a corroded beam. Failure would usually occur at a loading point, with the failure crack extending from
the corroded area to meet the loading point, as shown in figures A.11(c) and (d). If the corroded area was
too far away from the loading point, the strands would fail at the corroded section and then pull through
to a separate failure crack closer to the loading point, as shown in figure A.11(d).
Figure A.11 Typical corroded beam cracking and failure
(a) Delamination of soffit in corroded region (b) Typical cracking pattern emanating from corroded
area
226
(c) Failure crack location emanating from corroded (d) Corroded strands failed and pulled through to
area to loading point separate failure crack at loading point
A 6.5 Control tests and comparison of prestressing arrangements

Destructive testing was performed on three of the four different prestressing arrangements existing on
the bridge. Figure A.12 shows a comparison between good-condition beams that contained each of the
three different prestressing arrangements that were subjected to testing. These beams displayed similar
ductility characteristics and a 12% difference in ultimate load between the strongest and weakest of those
tested, with the fourth prestressing type expected to be the weakest.
Figure A.12 Control test results and prestressing arrangement comparison
Three control tests were also conducted to isolate the two differing post-tensioned tendon drapes and the
pre-tensioned reinforcement. The control tests were performed by cutting all of either the pre-tensioned
or the post-tensioned reinforcement, to isolate the other. The reinforcement was cut as close as possible
to the failure locations displayed by full-strength beams. Figure A.12 gives load-deflection plots from the
control tests, showing that the strength contribution from the pre-tensioned strand was considerably
greater than that from the post-tensioned tendon, and that the two different drapes resulted in a small
difference in strength.
227
A 6.6 Twelve pre-tensioned strands without expansion joint

Six tests were performed on beams with 12 pre-tensioned strands and no expansion joint, with two tests
on good-condition beams and four tests on beams displaying corrosion damage to the pre-tensioned
reinforcement. Figure A.13 displays the six load-deflection plots. The average ultimate strength of the
beams of this design with no pre-tensioned strand corrosion was 342.5kN, whereas the weakest of the
corroded beams supported only 68% of this load. Post-test inspection revealed that the weakest beam (2C)
had corrosion damage to all four strands in the bottom layer of pre-tensioned reinforcement, evidenced by
a 1200mm crack 1.5m (4.9ft) from midspan, which was visible on both sides of the web. As stated in table
A.1, beams 18E and 3D also had corrosion damage to all four bottom strands, while 21F had corrosion
damage to three.
Figure A.13 Load v deflection: 12 pre-tensioned strands, no expansion joint
A 6.7 Twelve pre-tensioned strands with expansion joint

Five tests were performed on beams with 12 pre-tensioned strands and an expansion joint. Two tests were
on good-condition beams and three tests were on beams displaying corrosion damage to the pre-
tensioned reinforcement. Figure A.14 displays load-deflection plots from these five. The average ultimate
strength of the good-condition beams was 313.5kN, whereas the weakest of the corroded beams
supported only 69% of its good-condition counterpart. Post-test inspection revealed that the weakest beam
(16F) had corrosion damage to all four strands in the bottom layer of pre-tensioned reinforcement, which
was evidenced by cracking and spalling of the lower part of the web and soffit over a length of 2.2m
(7.3ft) extending outward from near to midspan. The other corroded beams (4D and 16G) had corrosion
damage to three of the four strands in the bottom layer.
228
Figure A.14 Load v deflection: 12 pre-tensioned strands with expansion joint
A 6.8 Ten pre-tensioned strands, without expansion joint

Three tests were performed on beams with 10 pre-tensioned strands and no expansion joint. Two tests
were on good-condition beams and one test was on a beam displaying corrosion damage to the pre-
tensioned reinforcement. Figure A.15 displays load-deflection plots of these three tests. The average
ultimate strength of the good-condition beams was 301kN, whereas the corroded beam sustained 90% of
its good-condition counterpart. This weaker beam (21I) had corrosion damage to one of the two pre-
tensioned strands in the bottom layer of reinforcement, which was evidenced by a crack 800mm long
visible on only one side of the web.
Figure A.15 Load v deflection: 10 pre-tensioned strands, no expansion joint
229
A7 Conclusions
Accurate assessment of the residual strength of concrete bridge beams with corroding pre-tensioned
reinforcement is a complex problem and few data points from full-scale destructive tests exist in the
literature. This project provided a comparatively large number of data points relating destructive and non-
destructive condition assessments to measured flexural strength for beams of similar design with varying
degrees of corrosion damage. These data points will be used in a later study for the development and
assessment of general methods for evaluating the residual strength of in-service structures with corroding
pre-tensioned reinforcement.
Nineteen destructive tests were conducted on beams with three different designs from Tiwai Point Bridge.
Good-condition beams of the same design displayed similar load-deflection behaviour. All beams that
displayed corrosion of the pre-tensioned reinforcement had reduced capacity, with strength loss being
approximately proportional to the number of strands affected by corrosion. The worst-condition beams
had damage to all four strands in the bottom layer and achieved strengths of 68% and 69% of their good-
condition counterparts.
The actual damage to the reinforcement assessed by breakouts after destructive testing was compared
with the condition assessment methodology that was developed for the assessment of the beams using
non-destructive testing methods. Using only the data from the non-destructive tests, the methodology was
shown to provide an effective means of estimating the number of corroded strands that should be
disregarded in calculation of the residual strength of a damaged beam. All of the beams with cracking
visible on both sides of the web had corrosion damage to either three or four of the strands in the bottom
layer, while those beams with cracking on only one side (or on both sides but not at the same section) had
damage to between one and three strands.
230
Appendix A references
Broomfield, JP (1997) Corrosion of steel in concrete: understanding, investigation and repair. London; New
York: Taylor and Francis.
Bruce, SM, PS McCarten, SA Freitag and LM Hasson (2008) Deterioration of prestressed concrete bridge
beams. Land Transport NZ research report 337. 72pp.
Concrete Society, UK (1984) Repair of concrete damaged by reinforced corrosion. UK Concrete Society
Technical Report 26.
Consulting Engineers: Powell Fenwick & Partners (1968) Tiwai Bridge alternative. Drawing number
2771/S.I. or ICC 5946/2B. Invercargill: Invercargill City Council.
Harries, KA (2009) Structural testing of prestressed concrete girders from the Lake View Drive Bridge.
ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering 14, no.2: 78–92.
Inglis, G, N Gust, I Fitridge, O Floerl, C Woods, B Hayden and G Fenwick (2005) Port of Bluff: baseline
survey for non-indigenous marine species. Accessed 13 March 2012.
www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/salt-freshwater/2005-07-port-of-bluff.pdf
Naito, C, L Jones and I Hodgeson (2010) Inspection methods & techniques to determine non visible
corrosion of prestressing strands in concrete bridge components: task 3 – forensic evaluation and
rating methodology. Pennsylvania: National Center for Engineering Research on Advanced Technology
for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS) – Lehigh University. Accessed 14 February 2011.
www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/163798.aspx
Naito, C and J Warncke (2008) Inspection methods & techniques to determine non visible corrosion of
prestressing strands in concrete bridge components: task 1 – literature review. Pennsylvania: National
Center for Engineering Research on Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS) –
Lehigh University. Accessed 30 September 2009. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=924782
NIWA (National Institute of Weather and Atmospheric Research) (2012) Climate explorer. Accessed 25 May
2012. http://climate-explorer.niwa.co.nz
NMLA (National Meteorological Library and Archive) (2010) Fact sheet 6 – the Beaufort Scale. Accessed 25
May 2012. www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/4/4/Fact_Sheet_No._6_-_Beaufort_Scale.pdf
Opus International Consultants Ltd (2007) Tiwai Bridge superstructure replacement. Design drawing
6/584/22-3604. Invercargill: Invercargill City Council.
Pape, T (2008) Investigating the correlation between pre- and post-demolition assessments for precast,
post-tensioned beams in service for 45 years. PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
University of Newcastle, Australia.
Thomas, C and G Coles (2006) Tiwai Bridge options study (MWH New Zealand Ltd study). Invercargill:
Thomas, C and G Coles (2006b) Tiwai Bridge posting review (MWH New Zealand Ltd study). Invercargill:
Thomas, C and G Coles (2008) Tiwai Bridge visual inspection (MWH New Zealand Ltd study). Invercargill:
Thomas, C and D Kensington (2004) Tiwai Bridge evaluation and repair design (MWH New Zealand Ltd
study). Invercargill: Invercargill City Council.
231
Standards
ACI 222R:2001. Protection of metals in concrete against corrosion. Accessed 26 July 2010.
www.concrete.org/BookstoreNet/ProductDetail.aspx?ItemID=22201
AS 1012.20:1992. Methods of testing concrete: method 20: determination of chloride and sulfate in
hardened concrete and concrete aggregates. Accessed 16 January 2012.
http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store2/Details.aspx?ProductID=204870
232
Appendix B 2008<2011 BDS dataset

Appendix B contains a list of 814 pre-tensioned concrete bridges that were extracted from the BDS database. These bridges are maintained by the NZ Transport
Agency (NZTA) in the manner described in chapter 2.1 of the report. This dataset accounts for approximately all of the pre-tensioned concrete bridges in service
on the New Zealand state highway network at the time the data was extracted.
Table B.1 2008<2011 BDS New Zealand state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridge dataset
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
1 30 1520 Waingaehe Bridge 1934 1 Other or blank -38.1235 176.3101
Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong

2 16 679 Waitangi River Bridge 1934 1 T-beams -36.5558 174.4719
and signposted name is ‘Waitangi Stream’
3 7 1389 One Mile Creek Bridge 1935 1 Double hollow core beams -42.3806 172.3116
4 30 2196 Te Rahu Canal Bridge 1935 1 Double hollow core beams -37.9924 176.9001
5 7 723 Camp Stream Bridge 1936 1 Double hollow core beams -42.5772 172.7357
6 7 1186 Dans Creek Bridge 1936 1 Double hollow core beams -42.4844 172.3901
7 7 1233 Riordans Creek Bridge 1936 1 Double hollow core beams -42.4446 172.4034
8 6 2344 Doctors Creek Bridge 1936 1 Double hollow core beams -41.7478 172.3949
9 7 993 Nathans Stream Bridge 1937 1 Double hollow core beams -42.5918 172.4396
Piraunui Stream (Increasing)

10 26 426 1953 2 Log beams -37.5806 175.6646
Bridge
11 4 378 Ohura (Tapuiwahine) Bridge 1954 2 Single hollow core beams -38.6540 175.2080
12 1N 4415 Trenwith St Overpass 1954 2 T-beams -36.9428 174.8544 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
233
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
13 3 958 Mangakowhai Stream Bridge 1955 2 Log beams -38.4492 175.0411
14 2 25 Grahams Bridge 1955 2 Single hollow core beams -37.2201 175.0457
15 2 29 McAnultys Stream Bridge 1955 2 Single hollow core beams -37.2179 175.0489
16 16 268 Kumeu No. 1 Bridge 1955 2 T-beams -36.7775 174.5628
Pekepeke Rail Overbridge (over Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011. No
17 MIS 1955 2 Double hollow core beams
SH38) location in BDS
18 1S 5690 Waitaki River Bridge 1956 2 I-beams -44.9247 171.1009
19 33 79 Okere Bridge (Kaituna River) 1956 2 T-beams -38.0168 176.3461
20 23 150 Johnstones Bridge 1956 2 Log beams -37.8061 175.1161
Two different bridges in BDS with this name

21 26 391 Waitoa River Bridge 1956 2 Log beams -37.5984 175.6323
(this is the northernmost)
22 26 935 Warahoe Stream Bridge 1956 2 Log beams -37.2005 175.5925
23 1N 3512 Hoteo River Bridge 1956 2 T-beams -36.3346 174.5512
24 1S 6670 Waikouaiti River Bridge 1957 2 I-beams -45.6043 170.6508
25 1S 4887 Temuka River Bridge 1957 2 T-beams -44.2531 171.2765
26 1N 7481 Waiotaka Flood Bridge No. 1 1957 2 Log beams -38.9582 175.8396
27 1N 7480 Waiotaka Stream Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -38.9574 175.8400
28 1N 7478 Waiotaka Flood Bridge No. 2 1957 2 Log beams -38.9552 175.8405
29 1N 7468 Mangakoura Stream Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -38.9498 175.8491
30 1N 7466 Waimarino Flood Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -38.9477 175.8503
234
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
31 3 1685 Rapanui Stream Bridge 1957 2 Other or blank -38.8005 174.5929
32 30 520 Waimiha Stream No. 2 Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -38.5086 175.5305
33 2 2769 Mottrams Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -38.1258 177.1289
34 2 1244 Tuapo Stream Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -37.6012 175.9190
35 26 522 Omahu Waharau Stream Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -37.5116 175.6992
36 26 664 Rotokohu Canal Bridge 1957 2 Log beams -37.4011 175.6588
Ohinemuri River (Mataura)

37 25 2386 1957 2 T-beams -37.3733 175.8669
Bridge
38 16 136 Lincoln Bridge No. 1 1957 2 T-beams -36.8464 174.6291
39 16 920 Te Pahi Creek (Tauhoa) Bridge 1957 2 T-beams -36.3759 174.4535
Raumanga Stream (Otaika)

40 1N 2664 1957 2 T-beams -35.7354 174.3110
Bridge No. 81
41 10 1031 Kareponia Bridge No. 230 1957 2 T-beams -35.0440 173.2829
42 4 906 Owhango Overbridge 1958 2 I-beams -38.9907 175.3788
43 33 41 Mourea Bridge (Ohau Channel) 1958 2 T-beams -38.0444 176.3313 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
44 31 470 Kawaroa Stream Bridge 1958 2 Log beams -38.0446 174.8916
45 2 1240 Waitekohe Stream Bridge 1958 2 Log beams -37.5992 175.9157
46 31 169 Turitea Stream Bridge 1959 2 Log beams -38.0918 175.1619
47 30 2115 Knights Bridge (Ngakaroa Creek) 1959 2 Log beams -38.0243 176.8283
Location corrected. BDS location significantly

48 29 1601 Maungatapu Bridge 1959 2 Log beams -37.7090 176.1883
wrong
235
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
49 2 667 H Drain Bridge 1959 2 Log beams -37.3534 175.6294
50 25 580 Wairotoroto Stream Bridge 1959 2 Log beams -36.9223 175.4510
51 1N 1433 Busbys Bridge No. 64 1959 2 Other or blank -35.2066 173.5144
Not included in 2011 BDS data because

52 MIS 4213 Exmouth St Footbridge (over 1N) 1959 2 I-beams
structure type is not 'bridge'. No location in BDS
Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011. No

53 OB1D 4220 Onewa Rd Underpass (over 1N) 1959 2 I-beams
location in BDS
54 MIS 4209 Shoal Bay Twin No. 4 (adj 1N) 1959 2 T-beams No location in BDS
55 MIS 4208 Shoal Bay Twin No. 4a (adj 1N) 1959 2 T-beams No location in BDS
56 80 510 Lagoon Stream Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -43.7932 170.1176
57 3 4717 Rangitikei Line Rail Overbridge 1960 2 Single hollow core beams -40.3416 175.5992 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
58 2 6484 Westshore Bridge 1960 2 T-beams -39.4825 176.8889
59 3 2389 Te Henui Bridge 1960 2 Single hollow core beams -39.0548 174.0923
60 2 3830 Waikohu Bridge No. 1 1960 2 I-beams -38.4152 177.5606
61 31 312 Te Kauri Stream Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -38.0773 175.0412
62 2 2336 Omeheu Drain Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -37.9628 176.8027
63 29 617 Mangawhero Stream Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -37.8860 175.7679
64 2 1832 Parawhenuamea Stream Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -37.7904 176.3495
65 2 1800 Ohineangaanga Stream Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -37.7819 176.3164
66 29 162 Waimapu Stream Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -37.7391 176.1424
236
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
67 26 205 Motumaoho Stream Bridge 1960 2 Log beams -37.6870 175.4720
68 1N 4501 Puhinui Stream Bridge No. 2 1960 2 I-beams -37.0069 174.8984
69 1N 4500 Puhinui Stream Bridge No. 1 1960 2 I-beams -37.0069 174.8987
Ellerslie-Penrose Interchange No.

70 MIS 4355 1960 2 I-beams -36.9039 174.8120 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
2 (over 1N)
Ellerslie-Penrose Interchange
Bridge No.1 (over 1N)
72 16 85 Rosebank Bridge No2 1960 2 I-beams -36.8719 174.6931
73 1N 1412 Goose Camp Bridge No. 65 1960 2 Other or blank -35.1987 173.4986
74 83 160 Waikoura Creek Bridge 1961 3 Log beams -44.9373 170.8887

75 1S 5090 Saltwater Creek Bridge 1961 3 I-beams -44.4177 171.2426
(this is the southernmost)
76 47 260 Te Whaiau Stream Bridge 1961 3 I-beams -39.0446 175.6062
77 35 12 Otara River Bridge 1961 3 I-beams -38.0042 177.2909
Mangarewarewa Stream Bridge

78 39 500 1961 3 Log beams -38.0389 175.1826
(Te Tahi)
79 29 582 Waihou River Bridge 1961 3 Log beams -37.8845 175.7962
80 35 1114 Waitawake Bridge 1961 3 Log beams -37.5885 177.9833
81 25 11 Waitakaruru River Bridge 1961 3 Log beams -37.2708 175.3533
82 1N 4531 Papakura Stream Bridge 1961 3 I-beams -37.0323 174.9101 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
237
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Alfriston Road Underpass (over

1N)
Orams Road Underpass (over

1N)
Redoubt Road Overpass

85 20 2 1961 3 I-beams -36.9920 174.8878 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
(Westbound over 1N)
86 25 628 Waimana Stream Bridge 1961 3 Log beams -36.8874 175.4260
Royal Road Underpass (over

Sh16)
88 16 748 Araparera Stream Bridge 1961 3 Other or blank -36.5066 174.4569
89 1S 6460 Shag River Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -45.4728 170.7732
90 80 555 Black Birch Stream Bridge 1962 3 Log beams -43.7554 170.1175
91 73 760 Kowai Bridge No. 2 1962 3 Log beams -43.3238 171.7844
92 6 3158 Hawks Crag Half Bridge 1962 3 Log beams -41.8647 171.7787
93 3 4014 Wanganui River (Cobham) Bridge 1962 3 Other or blank -39.9444 175.0454
94 3 3840 Kai Iwi Stream Bridge 1962 3 Other or blank -39.8463 174.9267
95 50 48 Meeanee Drain Bridge 1962 3 T-beams -39.5073 176.8827
Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011.

96 3 2736 Te Popo Stream Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -39.2872 174.2640 Northbound and southbound lanes of same
bridge
Te Popo Stream Bridge (Left Northbound and southbound lanes of same

97 3 2736 1962 3 Other or blank -39.2872 174.2640
Half) bridge
238
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Wanganui River (Matapuna)

98 4 744 1962 3 T-beams -38.8819 175.3049
Bridge
99 32 949 Mangaongoki Stream Bridge 1962 3 Log beams -38.8706 175.6851
100 35 2933 Mangakuri Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -38.5090 178.2340
101 2 3933 Waihuka No.1 Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -38.4630 177.6509 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
102 2 2479 Waioho Stream Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -38.0091 176.9447
103 35 110 Waiaua River Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -37.9891 177.3887
104 2 2352 Omeheu Adjunct Drain Bridge 1962 3 Log beams -37.9706 176.8168
105 2 2347 Omeheu Canal Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -37.9680 176.8121
106 35 1900 Mangaiwi Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -37.8224 178.3464
107 2 2149 Pikowai Stream Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -37.8565 176.6628
108 2 2120 Hauone Stream Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -37.8450 176.6337
109 2A 1539 Hairini River Bridge 1962 3 Log beams -37.7164 176.1651
110 2 1274 Whatakao Stream Bridge 1962 3 Log beams -37.6128 175.9472
111 2 1160 Tahawai River Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -37.5337 175.9148
Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011.

112 1N 4535 Great Sth Road Bridge No. 1 1962 3 I-beams -37.0368 174.9102

113 1N 4537 Great Sth Road Bridge No. 2 1962 3 I-beams -37.0367 174.9101
Sparton Rd Off-Ramp Bridge

114 MIS 4534 1962 3 I-beams -37.0363 174.9108
(adj.SH1N)
239
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
115 25 446 Pohue Stream Bridge 1962 3 I-beams -37.0231 175.5143
116 25 628 Paparata Stream Bridge 1962 3 Log beams -36.8865 175.4260
117 1N 1292 Traceys Bridge No. 2043 1962 3 I-beams -35.1572 173.4237
118 1N 1033 Awanui River Bridge No. 78 1962 3 I-beams -35.0444 173.2564 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
119 74 218 Horotane Valley Overpass No. 2 1963 3 I-beams -43.5726 172.6947 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
120 74 217 Horotane Valley Overpass No. 1 1963 3 I-beams -43.5725 172.6948 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
121 74 215 Port Hills Rd Overpass No. 1 1963 3 Log beams -43.5711 172.6934 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
122 74 216 Port Hills Rd Overpass No. 2 1963 3 Log beams -43.5710 172.6932 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
123 74 210 Railway Overbridge 1963 3 I-beams -43.5676 172.6933
124 74 195 Heathcote River Bridge 1963 3 I-beams -43.5548 172.6913
125 7 280 Hurunui River Bridge 1963 3 I-beams -42.8743 172.7674
126 65 188 Bluff Creek Bridge 1963 3 Log beams -41.9184 172.2246
127 1N 10172 Waikanae River Bridge 1963 3 Other or blank -40.8820 175.0631
128 3 4804 Stoney Creek Bridge (SH 3) 1963 3 I-beams -40.3261 175.6789
Porewa Stream (Rata Station)

129 1N 9010 1963 3 Other or blank -39.9982 175.5115 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Bridge
130 1N 8390 Hautapu River Bridge (Taihape) 1963 3 Other or blank -39.6426 175.7679
131 35 730 Kereu River Bridge 1963 3 I-beams -37.7118 177.7210
132 26 225 Waitakaruru Stream Bridge 1963 3 Log beams -37.6707 175.4823
240
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN

133 25 527 Boundary Creek Bridge 1963 3 I-beams -36.9585 175.4866
134 1N 1303 Thompsons Bridge No. 2041 1963 3 I-beams -35.1626 173.4333
135 1N 1296 Traceys Bridge No. 2042 1963 3 I-beams -35.1586 173.4270
New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011. No

136 MIS Tunnel Admin Bridge (adj.SH74) 1963 3 Double hollow core beams
location in BDS
137 99 289 Riverton Overbridge 1964 3 Log beams -46.3440 168.0229
138 94 1500 Ewe Burn 1964 3 Log beams -45.3423 167.7735

139 94 1549 Boundary Creek Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -45.3020 167.7903
140 85 249 Happy Valley Creek Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -45.3110 170.5546
141 83 958 Otamatapaio River Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -44.5579 170.0919
142 8 1269 Maryburn Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -44.1748 170.3230
143 79 92 Upper Orari River Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -44.0438 171.2707
144 75 759 Takamatua Creek Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -43.7821 172.9704
145 77 769 Wairiri Stream Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -43.4910 171.9105
146 73 900 Porter River Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -43.2454 171.7253
147 6 5322 Bonar Creek No. 1 Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -43.0822 170.6250
148 7 379 Pahau River Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -42.7981 172.8288
149 73 2014 Grahams Creek Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -42.7392 171.2992
150 6 4019 Granite Creek Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -42.2432 171.3267
241
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
151 67 460 Pattens Creek Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -41.5494 171.9231
152 6 61 Fairhall Diversion River Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -41.5113 173.8869
153 6 125 Gibson Creek Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -41.5048 173.8187
154 1S 6 Waitohi Stream Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -41.2936 174.0050
155 4 718 Taumarunui Overbridge 1964 3 I-beams -38.8822 175.2757
156 37 15 Mangapu River No. 3 Bridge 1964 3 T-beams -38.2494 175.1649
157 3 573 Waipa Bridge 1964 Extension 1964 3 Log beams -38.1916 175.2086 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
158 31 7 Waipa River Bridge (SH31) 1964 3 I-beams -38.1864 175.2020
159 31 19 Waitomo Stream Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -38.1812 175.1918
160 1N 4608 Slippery Creek Bridge No. 1 1964 3 Log beams -37.0956 174.9441 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
161 1N 4609 Slippery Creek Bridge No. 2 1964 3 Double hollow core beams -37.0957 174.9439 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
162 25 384 Otohi Stream Bridge 1964 3 Log beams -37.0699 175.5191

163 1N 4555 Pahurehure Inlet Bridge No. 1 1964 3 Log beams -37.0520 174.9181
164 1N 4556 Pahurehure Inlet Br No. 2 1964 3 Log beams -37.0521 174.9179 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
165 1N 4293 Maungawhau Rd Overpass No. 1 1964 3 I-beams -36.8696 174.7712 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
166 16 714 Kakanui Stream Bridge 1964 3 I-beams -36.5316 174.4555
167 16 762 Wainui Stream Bridge 1964 3 Other or blank -36.4956 174.4486
168 96 300 Makarewa Flood Channel Bridge 1965 3 I-beams -46.2138 168.4993
169 93 239 Kaiwera Stream Bridge 1965 3 I-beams -46.2024 169.0929 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
242
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN

170 1S 7355 Taieri River Bridge 1965 3 I-beams -45.9549 170.1978
171 94 1630 Henry Creek 1965 3 I-beams -45.2358 167.8131
172 8 1828 Ahuriri River Bridge 1965 3 I-beams -44.4695 169.9882
173 80 538 Sawyers Stream Bridge 1965 3 Log beams -43.7692 170.1230
174 7 1213 Boakes (Dorothy) Creek Bridge 1965 3 Double hollow core beams -42.4617 172.4022
175 7 1225 Duggans Creek Bridge 1965 3 Double hollow core beams -42.4509 172.4035
176 6 2377 Buller River (Longford) Bridge 1965 3 Other or blank -41.7731 172.3786
177 54 506 Taonui Stream Bridge 1965 3 Single hollow core beams -40.2852 175.5614
178 2 6590 Ngaruroro Bridge (Waitangi) 1965 3 I-beams -39.5659 176.9219
179 49 290 Whangaehu River Bridge 1965 3 I-beams -39.4671 175.5764
180 2 6315 Pakuratahi Stream Bridge 1965 3 I-beams -39.3490 176.9097
181 32 690 Waihaha River Bridge 1965 3 Log beams -38.6998 175.6828
182 32 480 Tererengaongaio Stream Bridge 1965 3 I-beams -38.5621 175.7903
183 30 1104 Mangaharakeke Stream Bridge 1965 3 Log beams -38.3472 176.0116
184 2 2545 Pekatahi Flood Channel Bridge 1965 3 Log beams -38.0520 176.9921
185 30 2247 Kopeopeo Canal No. 1 Bridge 1965 3 Log beams -37.9545 176.9305
Drury Off-Ramp Rail Overbridge

186 MIS 4624 1965 3 Log beams -37.1095 174.9463
( adj. SH1N)
Drury Rail Overbridge

187 1N 4622 1965 3 Log beams -37.1090 174.9465
Southbound
243
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
188 1N 4300 Newmarket Viaduct 2 1965 3 Other or blank -36.8728 174.7748
189 1N 4298 Gillies Ave Overpass No. 2 1965 3 Other or blank -36.8726 174.7743 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
190 1N 4297 Gillies Ave Overpass No. 1 1965 3 Other or blank -36.8721 174.7739 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Te Atatu Rd Underpass (over

191 MIS 112 1965 3 Other or blank -36.8575 174.6520 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
SH16)
Totara Creek (Mangapai) Bridge

192 1N 2801 1965 3 I-beams -35.8405 174.3365
No. 93
193 14 192 Prices Bridge No. 114 1965 3 I-beams -35.7970 174.1393
194 11 68 Whangae River Bridge 1965 3 T-beams -35.3373 174.0918
195 1S 7133 Carnforth St Overbridge 1966 4 I-beams -45.9004 170.4388 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
196 1S 7134 Carnforth Street Overbridge (2) 1966 4 I-beams -45.9003 170.4386 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011

197 87 115 Taieri River Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -45.8530 170.2414
198 87 850 Heeney Creek Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -45.3823 170.2115
199 85 933 Wedderburn Overbridge 1966 4 Log beams -45.0234 169.9961
200 94 2200 Eglinton River 1966 4 I-beams -44.8580 168.1029
201 7 1244 Pattersons (Mauds) Creek Bridge 1966 4 Double hollow core beams -42.4359 172.4028
202 65 654 Reid Creek Bridge 1966 4 Log beams -42.2821 172.2114
203 63 920 Black Valley Stream Bridge 1966 4 Other or blank -41.8011 172.8528
204 6 2390 Mangles River Bridge 1966 4 Other or blank -41.7870 172.3693
205 67 230 Waimangaroa River Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -41.7106 171.7642
244
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
206 62 13 Murphys Bridge 1966 4 Misc. -41.4586 173.9487

207 6 494 Racecourse Creek Bridge 1966 4 Log beams -41.2911 173.6750 Two different bridges in BDS with this name
208 6 670 Alfred Stream Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -41.2326 173.5816
209 3 4237 Makirikiri Stream Bridge 1966 4 Other or blank -40.0621 175.2218
210 1N 8252 Hihitahi Overbridge 1966 4 Other or blank -39.5578 175.6991
211 4 1215 Erua Overbridge 1966 4 Log beams -39.2422 175.3917
212 47 64 Whakapapaiti Stream Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -39.1752 175.4723
213 47 110 Whakapapanui Stream Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -39.1469 175.5070
214 3 2425 Junction Rd Overbridge 1966 4 Other or blank -39.0771 174.0939
215 35 3210 Hamanatua Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -38.6777 178.0802

216 32 464 Swampy Stream Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -38.5550 175.8065
217 3 578 Mangapu River No. 1 Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -38.1951 175.2058 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
218 5 428 Ngongotaha Stream Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -38.0857 176.1901
219 5 414 Tupapakurua Stream Bridge 1966 4 Other or blank -38.0763 176.1811
220 2 1771 Atuaroa Stream Bridge 1966 4 Log beams -37.7666 176.3063

221 27 527 Waitoa River Bridge 1966 4 I-beams -37.6518 175.6552
245
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Mangapai River (Springfield)

222 1N 2786 1966 4 T-beams -35.8362 174.3213
Bridge No. 92
Paneiraira Creek (Oakleigh)

223 1N 2781 1966 4 T-beams -35.8339 174.3170
Bridge No. 91
224 11 123 Waimangaro Creek Bridge 1966 4 T-beams -35.3079 174.1018
225 1S 7134 Walton Park Rail Overbridge 1967 4 Log beams -45.9007 170.4359
226 94 1729 Retford Stream 1967 4 I-beams -45.1868 167.8750
Waimakariri River Bridge

227 1S 3271 1967 4 I-beams -43.4130 172.6460
(Northbound)
Waimakariri River Bridge

228 1S 3270 1967 4 I-beams -43.4129 172.6462
(Southbound)
229 1S 2801 Home Creek Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -43.0457 172.7866
230 7A 52 Percival River Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -42.5536 172.8062
231 63 1090 Howard River Bridge 1967 4 Other or blank -41.7221 172.6869
232 60 754 Lindsay Bridge - Takaka River 1967 4 I-beams -40.9880 172.8200
233 46 18 Mangahouhounui Stream Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -39.0830 175.7916
Waipunga No. 2 Bridge

234 5 1900 1967 4 I-beams -38.9986 176.5412
(Ruawhiti)
235 2 3505 Gibsons Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -38.2896 177.3796 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
236 30 20 Waitete Rail Overbridge 1967 4 Log beams -38.3489 175.1824
237 2 3450 Omaukoro Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -38.2716 177.3393 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
246
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
238 2 3264 Owhiritoa Stream Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -38.1740 177.2815
239 35 2380 Mangahauini Bridge No. 1 1967 4 I-beams -38.1272 178.3172
240 1N 6360 Whakauru Stream Bridge 1967 4 Log beams -38.2135 175.8701
241 2 3180 Omoko Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -38.1238 177.2788
242 2 3170 Aro Aro Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -38.1221 177.2844
243 2 Waihou River (Ngahina) Bridge 1967 4 I-beams -37.3561 175.6462
244 1N 4621 SH 22 Overpass No. 2 1967 4 Other or blank -37.1073 174.9460
245 1N 4620 SH 22 Overpass No. 1 1967 4 Other or blank -37.1073 174.9462
Khyber Pass Viaduct 2

246 1N 4288 1967 4 Other or blank -36.8652 174.7671
(Northbound)
247 25 1270 Taputapuatea Stream Bridge 1967 4 Double hollow core beams -36.8147 175.6986
248 1N 2955 Lagoon Bridge No. 2124 1967 4 I-beams -35.9191 174.4529
249 6 11483 Tothills Creek Bridge 1968 4 Double hollow core beams -46.1683 168.3331

250 87 45 Mill Stream Bridge 1968 4 T-beams -45.8596 170.3280
251 87 1015 Cap Burn Bridge 1968 4 I-beams -45.2597 170.2687
252 94 1770 Dunton Creek 1968 4 Double hollow core beams -45.1608 167.8951
253 94 2027 Kiosk Creek 1968 4 Double hollow core beams -44.9754 168.0167
254 94 2218 Windy Point Creek 1968 4 Double hollow core beams -44.8444 168.1102
Te Moana River (Speechlys

255 79 192 1968 4 I-beams -44.1162 171.2102
Bridge)
247
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN

256 6 5978 Red Jacks Creek Bridge 1968 4 Log beams -43.3095 170.2196
257 6 5976 Mapourika Creek Bridge 1968 4 Log beams -43.3076 170.2221
258 1S 1670 Kahutara River Bridge 1968 4 I-beams -42.4327 173.5885
259 60 310 Moutere Inlet Bridge 1968 4 Double hollow core beams -41.1438 173.0093
Pukehou (Manakau South)

260 1N 9950 1968 4 Other or blank -40.7331 175.2008
Overbridge
Tapuata Stream (Stanley St)

261 2 7763 1968 4 I-beams -40.2138 176.0893
Bridge
262 50 99 Tutaekuri River Bridge 1968 4 I-beams -39.5492 176.8580
263 4 1449 Makara Stream Bridge 1968 4 Other or blank -39.3999 175.2865
264 2 3538 Sandys Bridge 1968 4 I-beams -38.3084 177.3941 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
265 2 2289 Awakaponga Canal Bridge 1968 4 Log beams -37.9344 176.7631
266 2 2269 Wilsons Creek Bridge 1968 4 Log beams -37.9186 176.7566

267 2 1460 Wairoa River Bridge 1968 4 I-beams -37.6993 176.0938
268 2 1214 Te Rerereatukahia River Bridge 1968 4 I-beams -37.5770 175.9108
269 22 7 Ngakoroa Stream Bridge 1968 4 I-beams -37.1097 174.9432 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
Tarapatiki Stream (Ohuka)

270 25 1256 1968 4 Double hollow core beams -36.8070 175.7015
Bridge
271 1N 4211 Tank Farm Lagoon Bridge 1968 4 Other or blank -36.8041 174.7605
248
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
272 12 464 Omanaia River Bridge No. 555 1968 4 I-beams -35.4456 173.5048
Reids Bridge No. 184 (Te Awhia

273 1N 536 1968 4 Double hollow core beams -34.7079 173.0340
Stream)
274 87 250 Lee Stream Bridge 1969 4 I-beams -45.8009 170.1286
275 1S 6830 Careys Creek Bridge 1969 4 I-beams -45.7158 170.5689
276 94 2154 Cascade Creek 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -44.8947 168.0839 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
277 85 1050 Hills Creek Bridge 1969 4 Other or blank -44.9447 169.9139
278 6 7685 Gunboat Creek Bridge 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -43.9641 169.1607
279 6 7683 Dizzy Creek Bridge 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -43.9623 169.1581
280 6 7682 Dismal Creek Bridge 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -43.9619 169.1576
281 6 7670 Joe Creek Bridge 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -43.9538 169.1497
282 77 546 Camping Gully Stream Bridge 1969 4 I-beams -43.5270 171.6720

283 7 2496 Red Jacks Creek Bridge 1969 4 Log beams -42.4024 171.4372
284 7 2149 Adamstown Creek Bridge 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -42.2101 171.7141
285 2 8832 Waipoua No. 2 Bridge 1969 4 Other or blank -40.9458 175.6683
Manawatu River (Ashhurst)

286 3 4883 1969 4 I-beams -40.3053 175.7577
Bridge
287 49 220 Waitaiki Stream 1969 4 Other or blank -39.4629 175.5046
288 3 Waiongana Bridge Right Half 1969 4 Other or blank -39.1538 174.1901
289 43 803 Waiau Stream No. 2 Bridge 1969 4 Other or blank -39.0294 174.8035
249
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
290 2 2310 Tarawera Western Drain Bridge 1969 4 Log beams -37.9490 176.7779
291 35 280 Hawai River Bridge 1969 4 I-beams -37.9204 177.5310
292 1N 4179 Wairau Road Overpass No. 2 1969 4 I-beams -36.7798 174.7474 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
293 1N 4178 Wairau Road Overpass No. 1 1969 4 I-beams -36.7797 174.7476 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
294 12 1862 Ovens Bridge No 147 1969 4 Log beams -36.1192 174.0751
295 11 136 Haumi River Bridge 1969 4 T-beams -35.2985 174.0994
296 1N 1391 Graysons Bridge No. 67 1969 4 I-beams -35.1924 173.4831
297 1N 997 Waipapakauri Bridge No. 204 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -35.0249 173.2330 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
298 1N 994 Waipapakauri Bridge No. 203 1969 4 Double hollow core beams -35.0247 173.2298 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong

299 MIS 7128 Burnside Underpass (over SH1S) 1969 4 Other or blank -45.9021 170.4466
location in BDS (found and added manually)
300 99 780 Waiau River (Tuatapere) Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -46.1308 167.6871
301 78 2 Timaru Port Access Overbridge 1970 4 Other or blank -44.3929 171.2501
302 1S 3228 Kaiapoi Railway And River Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -43.3772 172.6456
303 1S 1079 Washdyke Stream Bridge 1970 4 Double hollow core beams -42.0840 173.9368
304 67 215 Rapid Creek Bridge 1970 4 Double hollow core beams -41.7205 171.7544
305 63 590 Branch River Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -41.6741 173.1823
306 67 312 Little Ditch Bridge 1970 4 Double hollow core beams -41.6585 171.8202
307 6 1500 Wai-Iti River Bridge (Foxhill) 1970 4 I-beams -41.4279 172.9916
250
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN

308 1N 8929 Porewa Stream Bridge (Ross's) 1970 4 Other or blank -39.9527 175.5655
309 50 700 Chestermans Bridge 1970 4 Log beams -39.8839 176.4260
310 49 113 Mangateitei Clyde St. 1970 4 Other or blank -39.4196 175.4030
311 3 2617 Piakau North Bridge Left Half 1970 4 Other or blank -39.1870 174.2224
312 1N 7654 Poutu Canal Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -39.0972 175.8091
313 46 26 Poutu Canal Sh46 Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -39.0824 175.7819
Waipunga No. 3a Bridge

314 5 1902 1970 4 I-beams -38.9998 176.5426
(Torowhiti)
Waipunga River (Ohinekuku)

315 5 1887 1970 4 I-beams -38.9842 176.5389 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Bridge
316 5 1880 Okoeke Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -38.9804 176.5328
317 2 4068 Waikohu Bridge No. 3 1970 4 I-beams -38.4549 177.7790
318 29 665 Stanfords Bridge 1970 4 Other or blank -37.8872 175.7162
319 35 1800 Poroporo River Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -37.7859 178.3897
320 27 46 Waikumete Stream Bridge 1970 4 I-beams -37.3210 175.4041
321 26 888 Puriri Stream Bridge 1970 4 Double hollow core beams -37.2268 175.6337
322 12 1468 Bradburns Bridge No. 1460 1970 4 Log beams -35.9357 173.8397
Kirikiri Stream (Nurses Home)

323 14 9 1970 4 Other or blank -35.7341 174.3008
Bridge
324 1N 723 Raio Bridge No. 193 1970 4 I-beams -34.8340 173.1313
251
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
325 94 2047 Smithy Creek 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -44.9579 168.0183
326 8 2140 Longslip Creek No. 3 Bridge 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -44.5651 169.6612
327 8 2110 Mclays Creek Bridge 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -44.5577 169.6906
330 79 605 Opihi River (Allandale) Bridge 1971 5 I-beams -44.0963 170.8348
331 77 431 Dry Creek Bridge 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -43.5742 171.5816
332 6 5510 Poerua River Bridge 1971 5 I-beams -43.1567 170.5047
333 1S 2844 Waipara River Bridge 1971 5 I-beams -43.0690 172.7550
334 73 1941 Harringtons Creek Bridge 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -42.7610 171.3693
335 1S 523 Starborough Creek Bridge 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -41.6721 174.0740
336 2 9378 Pakuratahi Bridge 1971 5 Other or blank -41.0792 175.2030
337 1N 9377 Makowhai Stream No. 2 Bridge 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -40.2067 175.4041 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
338 43 292 Mangaotuku No. 2 Bridge 1971 5 Other or blank -39.2840 174.5589
339 2 4018 Waihuka Bridge No. 3 1971 5 I-beams -38.4632 177.7334
340 31 449 Oparau River Bridge 1971 5 I-beams -38.0523 174.9123
341 2 2318 Awaiti Canal Bridge 1971 5 Log beams -37.9530 176.7853
342 25 1140 Waitaia Road Bridge 1971 5 Double hollow core beams -36.7321 175.7292
343 85 1480 Chatto Creek Bridge 1972 5 U-beams -45.1409 169.5089
344 6 9921 Shotover River Bridge 1972 5 Other or blank -45.0010 168.7601
252
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
345 8 435 Tengawai River Bridge 1972 5 I-beams -44.2044 170.8693
346 8 1140 Tekapo-Pukaki Canal Crossing 1972 5 I-beams -44.0704 170.3592
347 6 7701 Dancing Creek Bridge 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -43.9690 169.1781
348 8 1050 Fork Stream Bridge 1972 5 I-beams -44.0004 170.4121
349 6 7830 Gout Creek Bridge 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -43.9515 169.3092
350 1S 3201 Cam River Bridge 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -43.3552 172.6598
351 6 5485 La Fontaine Stream Bridge 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -43.1482 170.5345
352 7 1430 Jacksons Creek Bridge 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -42.3711 172.2663
353 69 206 Boatmans Creek Bridge 1972 5 I-beams -42.0227 171.8686
354 67 195 Whareatea River Bridge 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -41.7355 171.7406
355 6 340 Kaituna River Bridge 1972 5 I-beams -41.3352 173.7640 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
356 48 37 Whakapapanui No.1 Bridge 1972 5 Inverted T-beams -39.1816 175.5253
357 30 1472 Puarenga Bridge (Decreasing) 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -38.1504 176.2671
358 31 202 Moakurarua Stream Bridge 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -38.1011 175.1323
359 1N 4281 Grafton Interchange Bridge 3a 1972 5 Other or blank -36.8605 174.7627 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
Sunnynook Road Underpass

360 MIS 4157 1972 5 T-beams -36.7621 174.7380 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
(Over 1N)
Weiti River (Wade Bridge)

361 OB17 3968 1972 5 I-beams -36.6204 174.6747 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Northbound
Taita Stream Diversion Bridge

No. 2136
253
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
363 1N 666 Waterfalls Bridge No. 190 1972 5 Double hollow core beams -34.7935 173.1018
364 1N 207 Waitiki Landing Bridge No 167 1972 5 I-beams -34.5205 172.8366
365 80 243 Jacks Stream Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -43.9895 170.1291
366 6 7890 Chelsea Creek Bridge 1973 5 Double hollow core beams -43.9646 169.3725
367 80 467 Freds Stream Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -43.8273 170.1085
Birch Hill Stream (Worryline)

368 80 495 1973 5 I-beams -43.8025 170.1135
Bridge
369 77 670 Hororata River Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -43.5173 171.8037
370 1S 2126 Leader River Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -42.6883 173.3027
371 1S 825 Waima River Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -41.9016 174.1127
Thorndon Overbridge –
372 1N 10703 1973 5 I-beams -41.2613 174.7909
Southbound
373 1N 10704 1973 5 I-beams -41.2612 174.7907
Northbound
374 43 251 Mangaotuku No. 1 1973 5 Other or blank -39.2891 174.5212
Name changed and location corrected between

375 4 701 Ongarue Bridge (Eastbound) 1973 5 I-beams -38.8835 175.2556
2008 and 2011
376 4 122 Mapara Stream Bridge 1973 5 Double hollow core beams -38.4878 175.1863
377 5 880 Wharepapa Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -38.4003 176.3316 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong

378 2 3064 Mill Stream Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -38.0329 177.2907
254
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
379 35 1720 Maraehara River Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -37.7306 178.3591
380 25 1609 Whenuakite Stream Bridge 1973 5 I-beams -36.9444 175.7999
381 12 477 Oue Creek Bridge No. 556 1973 5 Double hollow core beams -35.4560 173.4984
382 1N 800 Yerkovichs Bridge No. 194 1973 5 Double hollow core beams -34.8918 173.1643
383 1N 612 Waihopo Landing Bridge No. 188 1973 5 Double hollow core beams -34.7600 173.0762
384 1N 611 Kimberly Creek Bridge No. 187 1973 5 Double hollow core beams -34.7593 173.0758
Whakatereohao Stream Bridge

385 1N 256 1973 5 I-beams -34.5516 172.8658
No. 173
386 1N 243 Thoms Landing Bridge No 172 1973 5 Double hollow core beams -34.5431 172.8569
Hakataramea River (Sandhurst

387 82 686 1974 5 I-beams -44.7267 170.4910
Bridge)
388 79 219 Nelsons Creek Bridge 1974 5 Double hollow core beams -44.1181 171.1790
389 6 7785 Mossy Creek Bridge 1974 5 Double hollow core beams -43.9434 169.2634
390 80 281 Whale Stream Bridge 1974 5 I-beams -43.9562 170.1296
391 6 4666 Little Hou Hou Creek Bridge 1974 5 Double hollow core beams -42.6879 170.9990 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
392 69 170 Larrys Creek Bridge 1974 5 I-beams -41.9972 171.8952

393 6 3424 Mountain Creek Bridge 1974 5 I-beams -41.8535 171.5540
Tokomaru River (Makerua)

394 56 3 1974 5 I-beams -40.5117 175.4516
Bridge
395 3 4202 Turakina River Bridge 1974 5 Other or blank -40.0334 175.2086
255
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
396 45 996 Waingongoro River Bridge 1974 5 Other or blank -39.5762 174.2098
397 5 2514 Lucky Hill Bridge 1974 5 I-beams -39.3625 176.7861
398 45 548 Oaonui Stream Bridge 1974 5 Other or blank -39.3955 173.8159
399 43 212 Makuri Stream Bridge 1974 5 Other or blank -39.2965 174.4939
400 2 5714 Mohaka River Bridge 1974 5 I-beams -39.0748 177.1308
401 86 6 Taieri River Bridge (Allanton) 1975 5 I-beams -45.9147 170.2597
402 6 4293 Cobden Bridge (Grey River) 1975 5 I-beams -42.4458 171.2168
403 6 2644 Little Deep Creek Bridge 1975 5 I-beams -41.7732 172.1466
404 63 1170 Hope River Bridge 1975 5 Inverted T-beams -41.6949 172.6175
405 50 732 Onga Onga Stream Bridge 1975 5 Double hollow core beams -39.9101 176.4119
406 35 2128 Kopuaroa No. 2 Stream Bridge 1975 5 I-beams -37.9749 178.2558
407 2 2295 Tarawera River Bridge 1975 5 Double hollow core beams -37.9390 176.7676
408 29 323 Ngamuwahine River Bridge 1975 5 I-beams -37.8174 176.0157
409 29 269 Ruahihi Bridge (Wairoa River) 1975 5 I-beams -37.7810 176.0513
Ararimu Road Underpass (over

1N)
Te Atatu Underpass Dup (over

SH16)
Te Atatu Pedestrian Overbridge

412 16 113 1975 5 Other or blank -36.8574 174.6519 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
(adj SH16)
413 12 2118 Te Pahi Stream Bridge No. 154 1975 5 Single hollow core beams -36.1202 174.3205
256
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
414 1N 2392 Waiariki River Bridge 1975 5 Single hollow core beams -35.5387 174.2370
415 1S 5323 Horseshoe Bend Bridge 1976 5 Double hollow core beams -44.5975 171.1477
416 8 1455 Lake Pukaki Spillway Bridge 1976 5 I-beams -44.1878 170.1496
417 6 6144 Gibbs Creek Bridge 1976 5 Double hollow core beams -43.3849 170.1354
418 7A 19 Hanmer River Bridge 1976 5 I-beams -42.5783 172.7880
419 7 2080 Casoli Creek Bridge 1976 5 Double hollow core beams -42.1592 171.7458
420 67 47 Buller River Bridge 1976 5 I-beams -41.7665 171.5942
421 63 170 Marchburn Creek Bridge 1976 5 Double hollow core beams -41.5340 173.6462
422 63 91 Waihopai Bridge 1976 5 I-beams -41.5282 173.7338
423 5 2538 Marshalls Crossing Bridge 1976 5 Double hollow core beams -39.3729 176.8085
424 35 490 Waihapokopoko Bridge 1976 5 I-beams -37.8386 177.6063
425 35 577 Haparapara River Bridge 1976 5 I-beams -37.8001 177.6692
Quarry Road Underpass (over

1N)
427 1N 2382 Waiotu River Bridge 1976 5 Single hollow core beams -35.5324 174.2286
428 99 912 Waiau River (Clifden) Bridge 1977 5 I-beams -46.0305 167.7175 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
429 94 1920 Mackay Creek 1977 5 Double hollow core beams -45.0644 167.9921
430 8 2710 Lindis River Bridge 1977 5 Double hollow core beams -44.8805 169.3547
431 79 146 Upper Waihi River Bridge 1977 5 Double hollow core beams -44.0861 171.2450
432 6 5777 Matanui Creek Bridge 1977 5 Double hollow core beams -43.2625 170.3587
257
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
433 1S 1627 Kowhai River Bridge 1977 5 I-beams -42.4156 173.6333
434 6 2440 Matakitaki River Bridge 1977 5 I-beams -41.8001 172.3202
435 48 69 Whakapapanui No. 2 Bridge 1977 5 I-beams -39.2060 175.5418 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
436 2 5741 Bluegum Flat Overbridge 1977 5 Double hollow core beams -39.0611 177.1073
437 5 502 Utuhina Str. (decreasing) 1977 5 Log beams -38.1360 176.2350
438 35 1447 Waimate Bridge 1977 5 Double hollow core beams -37.6049 178.2639
439 MIS 127 Rimu Rd Underpass (over 20) 1977 5 Inverted T-beams -36.9405 174.7907 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
440 16 854 Hoteo River (Mangakura) Bridge 1977 5 I-beams -36.4261 174.4473
441 12 1421 Babylon Bridge No. 1458 1977 5 Double hollow core beams -35.9044 173.8104
442 12 737 Waiotemarama Bridge No 595 1977 5 Single hollow core beams -35.5576 173.4332
443 MIS 4272 Newton Ramp A (not in use) 1977 5 Other or blank No location in BDS
444 8 4366 Waitahuna River Bridge 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -45.9838 169.7548
445 97 27 Irthing Stream Bridge 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -45.6119 168.4316
446 8 2383 Lindis River (Black) Bridge 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -44.6810 169.4819
447 6 6893 Doughboy Creek Bridge 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -43.6812 169.5461
448 6 6546 Scotts Bridge (Border Creek) 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -43.5423 169.8358 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
449 6 4973 Totara River Bridge 1978 6 I-beams -42.8832 170.8464
450 6 3478 Big Totara River Bridge 1978 6 I-beams -41.8726 171.4980
451 6 2690 Eight Mile Creek Bridge 1978 6 I-beams -41.7885 172.1156
452 2 9460 Mangaroa River Bridge 1978 6 I-beams -41.0943 175.1263
258
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
453 3 2375 Waiwhakiho River Bridge 1978 6 I-beams -39.0514 174.1073
454 35 3118 Turihaua Bridge 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -38.6287 178.1592
455 2 3582 Gerrards Bridge 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -38.3323 177.4181 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
456 2 2800 Ryans Bridge (Nukuhou River) 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -38.1002 177.1397
457 35 382 Houpoto Stream Bridge 1978 6 I-beams -37.8689 177.6018
458 25 281 Kauaeranga River Bridge 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -37.1506 175.5507
Sylvia Park Ramp A Overbridge

459 MIS 4389 1978 6 Inverted T-beams -36.9203 174.8425
(adj. SH1N)
460 12 586 Pakanae Bridge No. 587 1978 6 Double hollow core beams -35.4959 173.4131
461 6 5359 Evans Creek Bridge 1979 6 Double hollow core beams -43.1143 170.6338
462 7 358 Dry Stream Bridge 1979 6 Double hollow core beams -42.8140 172.8162

463 6 3843 Bullock Creek Bridge 1979 6 Double hollow core beams -42.1005 171.3418
Buller River (Harleys Rock)

464 63 1128 1979 6 I-beams -41.7025 172.6576
Bridge
465 35 890 Pirikaraka Stream Bridge 1979 6 I-beams -37.6631 177.8288
466 2 1265 Aongatete Stream Bridge 1979 6 I-beams -37.6070 175.9412
Sylvia Park Ramp B Overbridge

467 MIS 4386 1979 6 Inverted T-beams -36.9198 174.8427
(adj. SH1N)
Tristram Ave Overpass

468 1N 4169 1979 6 T-beams -36.7719 174.7426 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
(northbound)
259
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Mangatoa Stream Bridge No.

469 12 205 1979 6 Single hollow core beams -35.4601 173.7259
573
470 10 487 Webers Bridge No. 659 1979 6 Double hollow core beams -35.0848 173.7206
471 8 1590 Lake Ruataniwha Spillway Bridge 1980 6 Single hollow core beams -44.2857 170.0878
472 1S 2170 Waiau River Bridge 1980 6 I-beams -42.7195 173.2860
473 1S 2145 Parnassus Railway Overbridge 1980 6 I-beams -42.7045 173.2991
474 6 4283 Coal Creek No.1 Bridge 1980 6 Double hollow core beams -42.4433 171.2274
475 6 3510 Little Totara River Bridge 1980 6 U-beams -41.8826 171.4751
Shell Gully Overbridge

476 1N 10732 1980 6 Other or blank -41.2820 174.7738 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
(southbound)
477 60 960 Waitapu Bridge 1980 6 I-beams -40.8309 172.7931
478 3 4896 Dropout Bridge 1980 6 Double hollow core beams -40.3100 175.7774
479 2 5995 Matahorua Half Bridge (south) 1980 6 Double hollow core beams -39.1700 176.9504 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
480 1N 5464 Avalon Drive Rail Overbridge 1980 6 U-beams -37.7521 175.2343
481 2 1555 Dive Crescent Rail Overbridge 1980 6 U-beams -37.6758 176.1690
482 20 29 Wiri Station Rd Overbridge 1980 6 Single hollow core beams -37.0034 174.8625
483 16 82 Great North Rd Bridge No. 1 1980 6 U-beams -36.8723 174.7052
484 16 83 Great North Rd Bridge No. 2 1980 6 U-beams -36.8721 174.7053
Carrington Rd Underpass (over

485 OB1J 77 1980 6 U-beams -36.8715 174.7099 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
16)
486 25 1305 Weiti Stream Bridge (Wades) 1980 6 Double hollow core beams -36.8410 175.6647
260
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
487 12 1724 Bascombes Bridge No. 144 1980 6 Double hollow core beams -36.0840 173.9827
Waiwhatawhata Stream Bridge

No. 596
489 6 8526 Camp Creek Bridge 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -44.3979 169.1879

490 1S 4899 Opihi River Bridge 1981 7 I-beams -44.2623 171.2694
491 1S 2263 Caroline Stream Bridge 1981 7 U-beams -42.7915 173.2682
492 7 1058 Poplars Fan Bridge 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -42.5750 172.3740

493 6 4385 Saltwater Creek Bridge 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -42.5124 171.1676

494 7 2686 Racecourse Creek Bridge 1981 7 U-beams -42.4652 171.2575
495 1S 1062 Woodbank Stream Bridge 1981 7 U-beams -42.0702 173.9460
496 63 963 Upper Buller River Bridge 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -41.7867 172.8125
Argyle Stream Bridge (Branch

497 63 568 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -41.6650 173.2043 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Power)
498 6 98 Omaka River Bridge 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -41.5134 173.8426
Makaretu River (Thompsons)

499 50 888 1981 7 I-beams -40.0150 176.3233
Bridge
500 50 790 Tukituki River Bridge 1981 7 I-beams -39.9354 176.3533
501 35 1259 Mangapurua Bridge 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -37.5765 178.1148
502 16 470 Kaipara River Bridge 1981 7 U-beams -36.6737 174.4418
261
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
503 14 491 Okakapu Creek Bridge No. 131 1981 7 Single hollow core beams -35.8839 173.8885
504 12 890 Wairau Stream Bridge No. 616 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -35.6027 173.5317
505 1N 692 Lambs Bridge No 192 1981 7 Double hollow core beams -34.8111 173.1162
506 97 61 Cromel Stream Bridge 1982 7 I-beams -45.6216 168.3908
507 97 18 Mid Dome Creek Bridge 1982 7 Double hollow core beams -45.6175 168.4368
508 8 3674 Reservoir Creek Bridge 1982 7 Double hollow core beams -45.5366 169.3085
509 6 6950 Paringa River Bridge 1982 7 I-beams -43.7118 169.4927
510 6 5437 Harold Creek Bridge 1982 7 Double hollow core beams -43.1535 170.5925
511 73 1563 Big Slip Creek Bridge 1982 7 Double hollow core beams -42.8631 171.5580
512 7 1066 Rough Creek Bridge 1982 7 Double hollow core beams -42.5709 172.3655
513 3 Dam Inner Bridge 1982 7 U-beams -40.3082 175.7738
514 50 670 Waipawa River Bridge 1982 7 I-beams -39.8616 176.4452
515 3 2268 Waiongana Stream Bridge 1982 7 I-beams -39.0186 174.2030
516 3 2232 Waitara River Bridge 1982 7 I-beams -39.0075 174.2420
Western Springs Underpass (over

517 MIS 63 1982 7 U-beams -36.8688 174.7259 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
16)
518 1N 3776 Hikauae (Hungry Creek) Bridge 1982 7 Single hollow core beams -36.4915 174.6590 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
519 11 1 Waiomio Stream Bridge 1982 7 Single hollow core beams -35.3800 174.0716
520 10 710 Nilssons Bridge No 280 1982 7 U-beams -35.0108 173.5575
521 93 25 Kuriwao Stream No. 1 Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -46.2179 169.3552 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
262
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
522 97 100 Acton Stream Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -45.6344 168.3461
523 8 2866 John Bull Creek Bridge 1983 7 U-beams -44.9916 169.2431
524 8 2852 Devils Creek Bridge 1983 7 U-beams -44.9819 169.2543
525 74A 7 Rutherford Street Bridge 1983 7 T-beams -43.5531 172.6856
526 6 6175 Kiwi Jacks Creek Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -43.4029 170.1180
527 6 6146 Docherty Creek Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -43.3850 170.1326
528 6 6024 Potters Creek Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -43.3475 170.2087
529 6 5960 Macdonalds Creek Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -43.2948 170.2261
530 6 5307 Camerons Creek Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -43.0694 170.6274
Brandy Jack Bridge (Duffers

Creek)
532 1S 1451 Hapuka River Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -42.3100 173.7203
533 6 3849 Porarari River Bridge 1983 7 U-beams -42.1054 171.3396
534 69 270 Waitahu River Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -42.0699 171.8445
535 63 684 Wairau River (Wash) Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -41.7177 173.0956
536 63 105 Bankhouse Stream Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -41.5269 173.7172
537 3 4939 Windy Inner Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -40.3213 175.8149
538 2 7604 Mangatewai-Iti Stream 1983 7 I-beams -40.1052 176.1754
539 1N 7912 Waikato Stream Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -39.2815 175.7433
540 30 1471 Puarenga Bridge (increasing) 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -38.1502 176.2672
263
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
541 35 977 Wairuru Stream Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -37.6476 177.8753
542 35 1561 Karakatuwhero River Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -37.6260 178.3349
543 35 1160 Whangaparaoa River Bridge 1983 7 I-beams -37.5746 178.0186
544 1N 4125 Rosedale Rd Bridge 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -36.7399 174.7197
View Road Underpass No. 2169

545 MIS 2490 1983 7 Double hollow core beams -35.5941 174.2812 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
(SH1N)

546 97 183 Oreti River Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -45.6594 168.2491
547 82 530 Penticotico Stream Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -44.8160 170.6369
548 8 2470 Lindis River (Elliotts) Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -44.7477 169.5096

549 8 700 Opihi River Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -44.0316 170.7074

550 6 6405 Bullock Creek Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -43.4950 169.9493
551 6 6049 Stony Creek Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -43.3666 170.2017
552 6 5666 Vines Creek Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -43.2456 170.4309
553 1S 1950 Conway River Bridge 1984 7 I-beams -42.5994 173.4186 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
554 6 3983 Canoe Creek Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -42.2116 171.3307
555 6 2935 Dee Creek Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -41.8556 171.9692
556 6 1448 88 Valley Stream Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -41.4085 173.0346
557 60 420 Riwaka River Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -41.0660 172.9849
264
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
558 1N 8441 Taihape South Overbridge 1984 7 I-beams -39.6838 175.8011
559 2 6081 Mahiaruhe Stream Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -39.2083 176.8816 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
560 2 5990 Matahorua Half Bridge (North) 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -39.1679 176.9526 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
561 25 2170 Otahu River Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -37.2474 175.8536
562 25 1492 Kapowai River Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -36.9178 175.7054
563 1N 3270 Kaiwaka River Bridge 1984 7 Double hollow core beams -36.1621 174.4434

564 99 92 Waianiwa Stream No. 1 Bridge 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -46.3163 168.2428
2008 and 2011

565 94 632 Oreti River Bridge 1985 7 I-beams -45.7165 168.4313
566 6 5690 Mcculloughs Creek Bridge 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -43.2644 170.4173
567 73 1396 Greyneys Creek Bridge 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -42.9906 171.5895
568 73 1422 Halpin Creek Bridge 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -42.9734 171.5807
569 6 3880 Punakaiki River Bridge 1985 7 U-beams -42.1230 171.3324
570 3 Rapids Bridge 1985 7 I-beams -40.3120 175.7831
571 2 7789 Tamaki River Bridge 1985 7 I-beams -40.2290 176.0687
Firewood Stream (Hikurangi)

572 2 1013 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -37.4528 175.8923 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Bridge
573 25 2062 Otuwheti Stream Bridge 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -37.1711 175.8501

574 1N 3267 Mountain Creek Bridge 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -36.1602 174.4427
265
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
575 15A 17 Ruakaka River Bridge 1985 7 Double hollow core beams -35.8772 174.4368
576 6 6207 Omoeroa River Bridge 1986 7 U-beams -43.4047 170.0972
577 1S 1502 Harnetts Creek Bridge 1986 7 U-beams -42.3442 173.6885
578 6 4077 Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge 1986 7 Double hollow core beams -42.2899 171.2900
579 63 658 Shingly Creek 1986 7 Double hollow core beams -41.7083 173.1188
580 2 9548 Moonshine Bridge 1986 7 U-beams -41.1228 175.0380
581 3 Section 5/2 Bridge 1986 7 Double hollow core beams -40.3136 175.7894
582 3 Section 5/1 Bridge 1986 7 Single hollow core beams -40.3131 175.7872
583 3 1605 Mohakatino River Bridge 1986 7 Double hollow core beams -38.7313 174.6144
584 25 2205 Waiharakeke Stream Bridge 1986 7 U-beams -37.2659 175.8804
Mill Access Overbridge (over Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011. No
585 MIS 1986 7 Double hollow core beams
SH34 ) location in BDS
586 6 6319 Rocky Creek Bridge 1987 7 Double hollow core beams -43.4623 170.0262
587 7 2696 Omotumotu Creek Bridge 1987 7 Double hollow core beams -42.4653 171.2458
588 3 4959 Twin Tunnels Bridge 1987 7 I-beams -40.3377 175.8200
589 3 4958 Twin Tunnels Half Bridge 1987 7 Single hollow core beams -40.3371 175.8192
590 2 7720 Mangatera Stream Bridge 1987 7 U-beams -40.1864 176.1179
591 2 4645 Maraetaha Bridge No. 3 1987 7 U-beams -38.8079 177.9017
592 2 Aerodrome Bridge (Westbound) 1987 7 Double hollow core beams -37.6690 176.1801 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
593 25 2260 Whiritoa Stream Bridge 1987 7 Double hollow core beams -37.2912 175.9008
266
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Location corrected. BDS location significantly

594 26 800 Hikutaia River Bridge 1987 7 Double hollow core beams -37.2980 175.6578
wrong
595 25 1997 Wharekawa River Bridge 1987 7 Double hollow core beams -37.1360 175.8426
Parakau Stream (Stoney Creek

Bridge)
597 MIS 27 Grafton Bridge 4 (over SH16) 1987 7 T-beams -36.8610 174.7640 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
598 MIS 25 Grafton Bridge 5 (Ramp SH16) 1987 7 T-beams -36.8607 174.7641 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Tristram Ave Overpass

599 1N 4168 1987 7 Inverted T-beams -36.7718 174.7429 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
(southbound)
600 10 526 Kahoe River Bridge No. 630 1987 7 Double hollow core beams -35.0558 173.7009
601 6 6257 Hare Mare Creek Bridge 1988 8 Double hollow core beams -43.4409 170.0741
602 69 73 Inangahua River (Landing) Bridge 1988 8 I-beams -41.9091 171.8977
603 6 1660 Norris Stream Bridge 1988 8 Double hollow core beams -41.4731 172.8445
604 6 1147 Maitai River Bridge 1988 8 I-beams -41.2657 173.2811
605 2 8413 Makakahi River (Newman) Bridge 1988 8 I-beams -40.6314 175.7141 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
606 44 12 Huatoki Stream Bridge 1988 8 Double hollow core beams -39.0561 174.0733
607 43 1048 Heao Stream Bridge 1988 8 Double hollow core beams -38.9542 174.9461 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
608 1N 4564 Pahurehure Inlet Control Stream 1988 8 Double hollow core beams -37.0594 174.9230
Northern Wairoa River Bridge

No. 133
610 14 337 Kirikopuni River Bridge No. 120 1988 8 Double hollow core beams -35.8330 174.0114
267
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
611 93 35 Kuriwao Stream No. 2 Bridge 1989 8 I-beams -46.2240 169.3459 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
612 7 2606 Kiwi Half Bridge 1989 8 Other or blank -42.4380 171.3337
613 6 3740 Fox River 1989 8 I-beams -42.0315 171.3837
614 6 2592 Whites Creek Bridge 1989 8 Double hollow core beams -41.7672 172.1927
615 63 259 Church Stream Bridge 1989 8 Double hollow core beams -41.5596 173.5461
Mungavin Roundabout – South

Bridge
Mungavin Roundabout – North

Bridge
Kenepuru Stream Off Ramp

618 MIS 10542 1989 8 Double hollow core beams -41.1362 174.8451
Bridge
Kenepuru Stream Bridge –

Southbound
Kenepuru Stream Bridge – On

620 MIS 10541 1989 8 Double hollow core beams -41.1361 174.8446
Ramp
Kenepuru Stream Bridge –

northbound

622 2 5334 Wairoa River Bridge 1989 8 I-beams -39.0310 177.4189
623 25 1933 Boom Creek Bridge 1989 8 Double hollow core beams -37.0994 175.8186
Woody Stream (Bennets Hole)

Bridge
268
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
625 20 148 Beachcroft Ave Ft/Br (over SH20) 1989 8 U-beams -36.9232 174.7712 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Location corrected. BDS location wrong (not

626 16 32 Hob-West Bridge 1989 8 U-beams -36.8549 174.7573
100% sure of correction)
627 11 39 Taumarere Bridge 1989 8 Double hollow core beams -35.3590 174.0909
Waipahi River (East Branch)

Bridge
629 1S 7120 Burnside Overbridge 1990 8 Double hollow core beams -45.9001 170.4546
630 1S 7107 Meatworks Overbridge 1990 8 Double hollow core beams -45.8998 170.4561
Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011

631 73 33 Heathcote River (Opawa) Bridge 1990 8 I-beams -43.5529 172.6672
632 73 2060 Harris Bridge (Blake Creek) 1990 8 U-beams -42.7275 171.2502
633 65 357 Lesters Creek Bridge 1990 8 Double hollow core beams -42.0436 172.2520
634 6 1633 Two Way Creek Bridge 1990 8 Double hollow core beams -41.4791 172.8755
635 2 7832 Oruakeretaki Stream Bridge 1990 8 U-beams -40.2526 176.0322
636 4 2331 Tipai Street Half Bridge 1990 8 Double hollow core beams -39.9057 175.0630 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
637 35 1647 Awatere Bridge 1990 8 I-beams -37.6742 178.3477
Pokeno Rail Overbridge

638 1N 4801 1990 8 U-beams -37.2507 175.0293
(northbound)
639 MIS 4715 Mill Rd Bridge (over 1N) 1990 8 Double hollow core beams -37.1924 174.9826 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Redoubt Road Overpass Name changed and location corrected between

640 20 3 1990 8 U-beams -36.9921 174.8878
(eastbound over 1N) 2008 and 2011
269
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
641 25 1368 Ounuora River Bridge 1990 8 Double hollow core beams -36.8808 175.6685
642 94 No. 165 Creek 1991 8 Double hollow core beams -44.6718 167.9289
643 6 4710 Hokitika River Bridge 1991 8 I-beams -42.7211 170.9632
644 1S 526 Seddon Overbridge 1991 8 Double hollow core beams -41.6744 174.0760
645 MIS 10536 Porirua Ramp Bridge 1991 8 Other or blank -41.1316 174.8443
646 2 8888 Waingawa Bridge 1991 8 U-beams -40.9640 175.6103
647 25 1835 Tairua River Bridge 1991 8 Double hollow core beams -37.0739 175.7825
648 1N 3015 Ahuroa River Bridge 1991 8 Double hollow core beams -35.9706 174.4412
649 1N 3008 Pohuenui River Bridge 1991 8 Double hollow core beams -35.9649 174.4455
650 73 971 Broken River Bridge 1992 8 I-beams -43.1964 171.7340
Mahinapua Creek
(Tuwharewhare) Bridge
652 1S 1795 Oaro River Bridge 1992 8 U-beams -42.5149 173.5020
653 65 395 Rappahannock Bridge 1992 8 Double hollow core beams -42.0767 172.2411
654 6 3224 Ohikanui River Bridge 1992 8 U-beams -41.8455 171.7132
655 67 387 Ngakawau River Bridge 1992 8 U-beams -41.6073 171.8762
656 58 84 Pearce Bridge 1992 8 Double hollow core beams -41.1163 174.9289
657 3 4611 Oroua River (Awahuri) Bridge 1992 8 Double hollow core beams -40.2763 175.5210 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
658 1N 7770 Oturere Stream Bridge 1992 8 Double hollow core beams -39.1824 175.7585
659 1N 7737 Mangatawai Stream Bridge 1992 8 Double hollow core beams -39.1563 175.7652
270
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011

660 MIS 4769 SH2 Underpass (over SH1N) 1992 8 Double hollow core beams -37.2308 175.0167
Razorback Road Underpass (over

1N)
662 1N 166 Waitiki Stream Bridge 1992 8 Double hollow core beams -34.5007 172.8062

663 MIS 4769 SH 2 Underpass (over 1N) 1992 8 Double hollow core beams
location in BDS
664 6 1386 Pitfure Stream Bridge (Brady's) 1993 8 Double hollow core beams -41.3788 173.0948
665 60 394 Overflow No. 3 Bridge 1993 8 Misc. -41.0783 172.9973
666 2 Opoho Bridge (extension) 1993 8 Double hollow core beams -39.0466 177.6370 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
667 35 2386 Waiotu Stream Bridge 1993 8 Double hollow core beams -38.1316 178.3129
668 35 2250 Makarika No. 1stream Bridge 1993 8 Double hollow core beams -38.0514 178.2965

669 25 1772 Swampy Stream Bridge 1993 8 Double hollow core beams -37.0404 175.8290
670 25 589 Omawhiti Stream Bridge 1993 8 Double hollow core beams -36.9154 175.4450
Pedestrian Overbridge No. 1 Not included in 2011 BDS data because

671 MIS 1993 8 Other or blank
(over SH2A) structure type is not 'bridge'. No location in BDS
Pedestrian Overbridge No. 2 Not included in 2011 BDS data because

672 MIS 1993 8 Other or blank
(over SH2A) structure type is not 'bridge'. No location in BDS
673 87 1 Quarry Road Bridge 1994 8 U-beams -45.8903 170.3562
674 6 6507 Havelock Creek Bridge 1994 8 Double hollow core beams -43.5205 169.8630
675 5 390 Tarukenga Overbridge 1994 8 Double hollow core beams -38.0748 176.1563
271
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
676 30 2269 Kopeopeo Drain No. 2 Bridge 1994 8 U-beams -37.9512 176.9496

677 MIS 5064 Church St Underpass (over SH1S) 1994 8 U-beams
location in BDS
678 6 8491 Sheepskin Creek Bridge 1995 9 U-beams -44.3688 169.1799
679 6 2596 Browns Creek Bridge 1995 9 U-beams -41.7672 172.1881
680 60 OConnors D/S Widening 1995 9 U-beams -41.2994 173.1072 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
681 53 142 Jenkins Dip Floodway Bypass 1995 9 Single hollow core beams -41.1933 175.4348 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
682 3 Waterfall Str Br and Ret Walls 1995 9 Double hollow core beams -40.3180 175.7950
683 1N 5604 Tamahere Overbridge 1995 9 Double hollow core beams -37.8284 175.3577
Mangatawhiri River Bridge

684 1N 4811 1995 9 U-beams -37.2630 175.0434
(northbound)
Mangatawhiri River Bridge

685 1N 4810 1995 9 U-beams -37.2630 175.0437
(southbound)
686 73 1210 Cass River Bridge 1996 9 U-beams -43.0283 171.7475
687 3 Tutaenui Stream Bridge 1996 9 Double hollow core beams -40.1620 175.3813
688 1N 9181 Greatford Overbridge 1996 9 Double hollow core beams -40.1277 175.4184
689 1N 3807 Puhoi River Bridge 1996 9 Double hollow core beams -36.5142 174.6692

690 58 90 Pauatahanui Stream Bridge No. 7 1996 9 U-beams
location in BDS
691 1S 6582 Watkins Creek Bridge 1998 9 Double hollow core beams -45.5433 170.7043
692 73 1070 Craigieburn Stream Bridge 1998 9 Double hollow core beams -43.1380 171.7582
272
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Nayland Road Overbridge (over

693 6 1224 1998 9 Single hollow core beams -41.3021 173.2360 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
SH6)
Te Rapa Dairy Factory Vehicle

Underpass
South Eastern Arterial Overpass

695 1N 4379 1998 9 T-beams -36.9170 174.8348 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
(Seart)
696 MIS 4089 Lonely Track Underpass 1998 9 U-beams -36.7101 174.7070 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
697 MIS 4043 Bawden Road Underpass 1998 9 Double hollow core beams -36.6753 174.6847 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
698 6 5647 Littleman River Bridge 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -43.2293 170.4364
699 73 1537 North Gully Bridge 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -42.8836 171.5560
Songer Street Overbridge (Over

700 MIS 1239 1999 9 Single hollow core beams -41.3071 173.2217 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
SH6)
Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011

701 6 1216 Gracefield St Overbridge 1999 9 Single hollow core beams -41.2986 173.2454
702 50A 41 Raupare Stream Bridge 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -39.6000 176.8452
703 50A 33 Ngaruroro River Bridge 1999 9 I-beams -39.5932 176.8485
Tutaekuri-Waimate Stream
704 50A 8 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -39.5710 176.8498
Bridge
705 25 1759 Oturu Stream Bridge 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -37.0292 175.8297
706 1N 4118 Greville Road Bridge 1999 9 U-beams -36.7344 174.7173
707 MIS 4107 Mcclymonts Road Underpass 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -36.7243 174.7146 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
708 1N 4102 Oteha Valley Road Bridge 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -36.7185 174.7126 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
273
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
709 1N 4099 Lucas Creek Bridge 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -36.7175 174.7120 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
710 1N 4060 Awanohi Brdge No. 2 N/B 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -36.6836 174.6989
711 1N 4061 Awanohi Bridge No. 1 S/B 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -36.6835 174.6990
712 MIS 4009 Wilks Road Underpass 1999 9 Double hollow core beams -36.6516 174.6633 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Silverdale Underpass (over

SH1N)
714 OB17 3937 Orewa River Bridge 1999 9 U-beams -36.6008 174.6962
Ngakarapu Stream Bridge No.

177

716 OB17 3980 Silverdale Underpass 1999 9 Double hollow core beams
location in BDS
717 74 119 Anzac Drive Bridge 2000 9 Double hollow core beams -43.5011 172.7011 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
Hope River Bridge (Glenhope

718 6 2029 2000 9 Single hollow core beams -41.6490 172.6508
Station)

719 MIS 9658 Ken Everett Cycleway (adj. SH1N) 2000 9 Single hollow core beams -40.5035 175.2828
720 45 674 Taungatara Stream Bridge 2000 9 I-beams -39.4809 173.8915 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Whanganui River (Headwaters)

721 47 238 2000 9 I-beams -39.0556 175.5860
Bridge
722 3 2053 Urenui River Bridge 2000 9 Double hollow core beams -38.9939 174.4014
Waihi Road Overbridge No. 2 Name changed and location added to BDS
723 MIS 1525 2000 9 Single hollow core beams -37.6973 176.1537
(over SH 2) between 2008 and 2011
274
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Etcart Motorway Underpass

724 MIS 4471 2000 9 Single hollow core beams -36.9857 174.8846 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
(SH1N)
Station Road Overbridge (over

SH1N)
726 1N 2527 Mangahahuru Stream Bridge 2000 9 Other or blank -35.6252 174.2931
727 1S 7158 Abbotts Creek Bridge 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -45.9029 170.4126
728 MIS Bill Auld Underpass 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -45.9021 170.3937 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
729 1S 7150 Abbottsford Overpass 2001 9 U-beams -45.9024 170.4226
730 1S 7186 Saddlehill Overpass Bridge 2001 9 U-beams -45.9012 170.3771
731 73 1484 White Bridge (Bealey River) 2001 9 I-beams -42.9249 171.5571
732 73 1541 Candys Creek Bridge 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -42.8807 171.5569
733 73 1542 Candys Half Bridge 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -42.8803 171.5571
734 73 1543 Cantilever Half Bridge 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -42.8792 171.5571
735 73 1546 Propped Half Bridge 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -42.8777 171.5563
736 65 170 Pea Soup Creek 2001 9 Misc. -41.9072 172.2398
737 63 1045 Homestead Creek Bridge 2001 9 T-beams -41.7511 172.7296
738 63 740 Six Mile Stream Bridge 2001 9 T-beams -41.7312 173.0331
739 58 103 Pauatahanui Stream Bridge 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -41.1078 174.9163
Porewa Stream (Bruce Park)

740 1N 8965 2001 9 Double hollow core beams -39.9667 175.5226 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Bridge
741 3 1551 Mokau River Bridge (SH3) 2001 9 I-beams -38.6989 174.6276
275
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
742 3 1465 Ladies Mile Bridge 2001 9 Other or blank -38.6660 174.6484 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
743 3 1468 Manganui Bridge 2001 9 Other or blank -38.6632 174.6464
Cambridge Rd Overbridge (over

744 MIS 1498 2001 9 Misc. -37.6995 176.1318 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
SH2)
745 1N 4848 Teoteo Bridge 2001 9 U-beams -37.2933 175.0588 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Tramway Gully Stream

(Duggans) Bridge
Not included in 2011 BDS data because

747 MIS 1545 Rock Shelter ( SH73 ) 2001 9 Log beams
structure type is not 'bridge'. No location in BDS
748 1S 284 Taylor River Bridge 2002 9 Double hollow core beams -41.5120 173.9596
749 2 8242 Makakahi River (Konini) Bridge 2002 9 Double hollow core beams -40.5040 175.7924
Whakatane River (Landing Road)

750 30 2290 2002 9 I-beams -37.9562 176.9723
Bridge

751 2A 1514 Takitimu Drive Overbridge 2002 9 Misc. -37.7027 176.1425
752 2 1506 Kopurererua Stream Bridge 2002 9 Single hollow core beams -37.7024 176.1396 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Waihi Rd Overbridge No. 1 (over Name changed and location added to BDS
753 MIS 1493 2002 9 Single hollow core beams -37.6971 176.1273
SH2) between 2008 and 2011
754 16 16 Grafton Road Underpass 2002 9 Other or blank -36.8544 174.7711 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
McEwan Road Overbridge (over

SH15A)
276
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
Wairoa River Bridge

(southbound)
757 50 56 Kennedy Road Overbridge 2003 9 Single hollow core beams -39.5166 176.8780
758 27 184 Waikaka Stream Bridge 2003 9 Double hollow core beams -37.4081 175.4774

759 1N 4837 Te Puea Bridge 2003 9 Double hollow core beams -37.2844 175.0519 Location corrected. BDS location wrong (not
100% sure of correction)
Flooks Stock Overbridge (over

760 MIS 878 2003 9 Misc. -37.2356 175.6399 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
SH26)
Puhinui Road Overpass Bridge Location corrected. BDS location significantly

761 20 53 2003 9 U-beams -36.9936 174.8435
No. 1 northbound wrong

Puhinui Road Overpass Bridge
762 20 53 2003 9 U-beams -36.9936 174.8437 Location corrected. BDS location significantly
No. 2 southbound
wrong

763 MIS 1507 K Overbridge (over SH2) 2003 9 Misc.
location in BDS
Otira Railway Underpass (over

764 MIS 1592 2003 9 Other or blank -42.8494 171.5579 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011
SH73)
765 6 2250 Owen River Bridge 2004 10 Double hollow core beams -41.6852 172.4509

766 16 17 Wellesley St Underpass 2004 10 Double hollow core beams -36.8555 174.7696
2008 and 2011
767 2 9428 Kaitoke Bridge 2005 10 I-beams -41.0876 175.1483 Location corrected. BDS location slightly wrong
768 1N 2778 Oakleigh Rail Overbridge 2005 10 Double hollow core beams -35.8319 174.3149
277
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN
769 1N 2773 Katetoke Stream Bridge 2005 10 Double hollow core beams -35.8281 174.3121

770 74 22 Styx Overbridge No. 2 2006 10 Double hollow core beams -43.4695 172.6175
771 MIS 10753 Buller St Underpass 2006 10 Double hollow core beams -41.2936 174.7712 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
772 2 9033 Waiohine Bridge 2006 10 Double hollow core beams -41.0580 175.4951
773 1N 10303 Queen Elizabeth Park Underpass 2006 10 Double hollow core beams -40.9709 174.9831 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
774 1N 10300 Mackays Rail Overbridge 2006 10 Double hollow core beams -40.9687 174.9843 BDS location corrected between 2008 and 2011
Hautapu River (Turangaarere)

775 1N 8288 2006 10 Misc. -39.5802 175.7204
Bridge
776 1N 8283 Hautapu River (Hihitahi) Bridge 2006 10 Misc. -39.5784 175.7156

777 MIS 10753 Vivian St Underpass 2006 10 Double hollow core beams
location in BDS
778 1S 504 Awatere River Bridge 2007 10 U-beams -41.6583 174.0770 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
779 50 87 Meeanee Road Overbridge 2007 10 Double hollow core beams -39.5392 176.8613 Location added to BDS between 2008 and 2011
Awatere Rail Overpass (over Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011. No
780 MIS 2007 10 U-beams -41.6620 174.0766
SH1S) location in BDS (found and added manually)
781 1N 5982 Waitoa Stream Bridge 2008 11 Double hollow core beams -37.9731 175.6940 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011

782 MIS 9719 Dowse South Bridge 2008 11 Super-tee
location in BDS
Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011

Koheroa Road Overbridge (over
783 MIS 4830 2008 11 Double hollow core beams -37.2193 175.1139 and construction date changed. No location in
SH1N)
BDS (found and added manually)
278
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN

784 3 2662 Mangamawhete Stream Bridge 2008 11 Single hollow core beams
location in BDS

785 MIS 185 May Rd Underpass (over SH20) 2008 11 Other or blank
location in BDS
Onewa Southbound Offramp New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011. No
786 OB1D 4221 2008 11 Other or blank
Bridge location in BDS
Onewa Southbound Onramp New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011. No
787 OB1D 4216 2008 11 Other or blank
Bridge location in BDS
Orewa Interchange Bridge (over New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011. No
788 MIS 3896 2008 11 Other or blank
SH1N) location in BDS

789 3 2670 Waipuku-Iti Stream Bridge 2008 11 Single hollow core beams
location in BDS

790 3 2647 Waitepuke Stream Bridge 2008 11 Single hollow core beams
location in BDS
Chapel Street Eastbound

791 MIS 1553 2009 11 Super-tee -37.6760 176.1653 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Offramp
792 2 1558 Harbour Bridge (eastbound) 2009 11 Super-tee -37.6750 176.1749 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
793 2 1571 Aerodrome Bridge (eastbound) 2009 11 Inverted T-beams -37.6691 176.1802 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011.

Wrong location in BDS. Location is duplicated
794 36 Weld Road Overpass 2009 11 Double hollow core beams
from ‘ALBANY HIGHWAY UNDERPASS (Over
SH18)’.
279
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN

795 2 1550 Chapel Street Viaduct 2009 11 Super-tee
location in BDS

796 MIS 9718 Dowse East Bridge 2009 11 Super-tee
location in BDS

797 MIS 9717 Dowse North Bridge 2009 11 Super-tee
location in BDS

798 18 137 Hobsonville Underpass 2009 11 U-beams
location in BDS

799 MIS 9729 Korokoro Overbridge (over SH2) 2009 11 Super-tee
location in BDS

800 MIS 9733 Park And Ride Overbridge 2009 11 Double hollow core beams
location in BDS

801 36 Pyes Pass Bypass Bridge 2009 11 Super-tee
location in BDS
1N-
802 Broadlands Road Bridge 2010 11 Double hollow core beams -38.6828 176.1148 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
ETA
1N-
803 Centennial Drive Bridge 2010 11 U-beams -38.6687 176.1043 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011.
ETA

804 1N 3876 Nukumea Viaduct 2010 11 Other or blank
location in BDS
Ohaupara Stream Bridge New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011. No
805 36 2010 11 Double hollow core beams
(Mangaorewa Gorge) location in BDS
280
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Year constructed
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
Beam group
Note
Rogers key
BSN

806 1N 3859 Otanerua Viaduct 2010 11 Other or blank
location in BDS

807 1N 9949 Waiauti Stream (Manakau) Bridge 2010 11 Double hollow core beams
location in BDS

808 1N 3837 Waiwera Viaduct (northbound) 2010 11 Other or blank
location in BDS

809 1N 3836 Waiwera Viaduct (southbound) 2010 11 Other or blank
location in BDS

810 2 Matahorua Rail Overbridge 2011 11 Other or blank
location in BDS
811 93 119 Willowburn Bridge 1 Double hollow core beams -46.2205 169.2458 Name changed in BDS between 2008 and 2011
812 3 Section 3 Bridge 1 Other or blank -40.3113 175.7804 New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
Albany Highway Underpass (over New entry in BDS between 2008 and 2011
813 OB1D 1 Other or blank -36.7574 174.7035
SH18) Location is correct for this bridge
GDC1 Removed from BDS between 2008 and 2011. No

814 2015 Barrons Bridge 1 Double hollow core beams
003 location in BDS
281
Appendix C Exposure classification data

Appendix C provides the full exposure classification dataset that was produced and described in chapter 4
using the Distribution and Exposure Classification Tool (D&E tool).
Table C.1 identifies all of the 137 state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges estimated in chapter 4 to
be at risk of exposure to chloride ingress. The table provides identification, location and exposure data to
allow the 137 structures to be easily identified and scheduled for site investigations. The data is sorted by
era from earliest to most recent, with the first 68 entries corresponding to the bridges constructed in eras
2–5 and being identified in chapter 4 as requiring most immediate site investigations.
Table C.2 presents the exposure classification data generated for all of the 814 pre-tensioned concrete
bridges on the state highway network. This data is referenced using the ‘Rogers key’ unique identification
number to appendix B table B.1, which contains basic name and location data for each bridge entry.
Table C.1 State highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges within 1km of the coast
Saline waves under structure

NZS 3101: 2006 expos. class

Coastal distance band
Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
(downwind)
Rogers key
Inspected
BSN
12 2 Trenwith St Overpass 1N 4415 -36.9428 174.8544 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
31 2 Rapanui Stream Bridge 3 1685 -38.8005 174.5929 No 31m to 100m C C Occasionally
44 2 Kawaroa Stream Bridge 31 470 -38.0446 174.8916 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
48 2 Maungatapu Bridge 29 1601 -37.7090 176.1883 No 0m C C Regularly
Wairotoroto Stream
50 2 25 580 -36.9223 175.4510 Yes 31m to 100m C C Occasionally
Bridge
58 2 Westshore Bridge 2 6484 -39.4825 176.8889 Yes 0m C C Regularly
59 2 Te Henui Bridge 3 2389 -39.0548 174.0923 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
72 2 Rosebank Bridge No2 16 85 -36.8719 174.6931 Yes 0m C C Regularly
80 3 Waitawake Bridge 35 1114 -37.5885 177.9833 No 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
86 3 Waimana Stream Bridge 25 628 -36.8874 175.4260 No 1m to 30m C C Occasionally
Wanganui River
93 3 3 4014 -39.9444 175.0454 No 0m C C Occasionally
(Cobham) Bridge
103 3 Waiaua River Bridge 35 110 -37.9891 177.3887 No 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
107 3 Pikowai Stream Bridge 2 2149 -37.8565 176.6628 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
108 3 Hauone Stream Bridge 2 2120 -37.8450 176.6337 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
109 3 Hairini River Bridge 2A 1539 -37.7164 176.1651 Yes 0m C C Regularly
111 3 Tahawai River Bridge 2 1160 -37.5337 175.9148 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Great Sth Road Bridge

112 3 1N 4535 -37.0368 174.9102 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
No. 1
282


Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
(downwind)
Rogers key
Inspected
BSN
Great Sth Road Bridge
No. 2
Sparton Rd Off-Ramp
114 3 MIS 4534 -37.0363 174.9108 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Bridge (adj. SH1N)
115 3 Pohue Stream Bridge 25 446 -37.0231 175.5143 Yes 1m to 30m C C Occasionally
116 3 Paparata Stream Bridge 25 628 -36.8865 175.4260 No 1m to 30m C C Occasionally
123 3 Railway Overbridge 74 210 -43.5676 172.6933 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
124 3 Heathcote River Bridge 74 195 -43.5548 172.6913 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
131 3 Kereu River Bridge 35 730 -37.7118 177.7210 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
133 3 Boundary Creek Bridge 25 527 -36.9585 175.4866 Yes 1m to 30m C C Occasionally
137 3 Riverton Overbridge 99 289 -46.3440 168.0229 No 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
144 3 Takamatua Creek Bridge 75 759 -43.7821 172.9704 No 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
151 3 Pattens Creek Bridge 67 460 -41.5494 171.9231 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
154 3 Waitohi Stream Bridge 1S 6 -41.2936 174.0050 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
162 3 Otohi Stream Bridge 25 384 -37.0699 175.5191 Yes 1m to 30m C C Occasionally
Pahurehure Inlet Bridge

163 3 1N 4555 -37.0520 174.9181 No 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
No. 1
164 3 Pahurehure Inlet Br No. 2 1N 4556 -37.0521 174.9179 No 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
Ngaruroro Bridge
178 3 2 6590 -39.5659 176.9219 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
(Waitangi)
180 3 Pakuratahi Stream Bridge 2 6315 -39.3490 176.9097 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
Te Atatu Rd Underpass
191 3 MIS 112 -36.8575 174.6520 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
(over SH16)
Totara Creek (Mangapai)

192 3 1N 2801 -35.8405 174.3365 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
Bridge No. 93
215 4 Hamanatua Bridge 35 3210 -38.6777 178.0802 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
Mangapai River
222 4 (Springfield) Bridge No. 1N 2786 -35.8362 174.3213 No 0m C C Occasionally
92
Paneiraira Creek
223 4 1N 2781 -35.8339 174.3170 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
(Oakleigh) Bridge No. 91
Waimangaro Creek
224 4 11 123 -35.3079 174.1018 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
Bridge
Mangahauini Bridge No.

239 4 35 2380 -38.1272 178.3172 No 31m to 100m C C Occasionally
1
283


Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
(downwind)
Rogers key
Inspected
BSN
Taputapuatea Stream
247 4 25 1270 -36.8147 175.6986 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
Bridge
248 4 Lagoon Bridge No. 2124 1N 2955 -35.9191 174.4529 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
258 4 Kahutara River Bridge 1S 1670 -42.4327 173.5885 Yes 1m to 30m C B2 Never
259 4 Moutere Inlet Bridge 60 310 -41.1438 173.0093 No 0m C C Regularly
Tarapatiki Stream
270 4 25 1256 -36.8070 175.7015 Yes 0m C C Regularly
(Ohuka) Bridge
Tank Farm Lagoon

Bridge
275 4 Careys Creek Bridge 1S 6830 -45.7158 170.5689 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
291 4 Hawai River Bridge 35 280 -37.9204 177.5310 No 31m to 100m C C Occasionally
295 4 Haumi River Bridge 11 136 -35.2985 174.0994 No 0m C C Regularly
Timaru Port Access

301 4 78 2 -44.3929 171.2501 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
Overbridge
303 4 Washdyke Stream Bridge 1S 1079 -42.0840 173.9368 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
306 4 Little Ditch Bridge 67 312 -41.6585 171.8202 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
340 5 Oparau River Bridge 31 449 -38.0523 174.9123 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
Waterfalls Bridge No.

190
371 5 Waima River Bridge 1S 825 -41.9016 174.1127 No 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
Southbound
Northbound
Little Hou Hou Creek

391 5 6 4666 -42.6879 170.9990 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
Bridge
Te Atatu Underpass Dup

(over SH16)
Te Atatu Pedestrian
412 5 16 113 -36.8574 174.6519 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
Overbridge (adj SH16)
424 5 Waihapokopoko Bridge 35 490 -37.8386 177.6063 No 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
433 5 Kowhai River Bridge 1S 1627 -42.4156 173.6333 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
Rimu Rd Underpass
(Over 20)
Hoteo River (Mangakura)

440 5 16 854 -36.4261 174.4473 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Bridge
284


Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
(downwind)
Rogers key
Inspected
BSN
454 6 Turihaua Bridge 35 3118 -38.6287 178.1592 No 31m to 100m C C Occasionally
458 6 Kauaeranga River Bridge 25 281 -37.1506 175.5507 No 501m to 1km C C Occasionally
460 6 Pakanae Bridge No. 587 12 586 -35.4959 173.4131 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
463 6 Bullock Creek Bridge 6 3843 -42.1005 171.3418 Yes 31m to 100m C C Occasionally
465 6 Pirikaraka Stream Bridge 35 890 -37.6631 177.8288 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
470 6 Webers Bridge No. 659 10 487 -35.0848 173.7206 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
474 6 Coal Creek No. 1 Bridge 6 4283 -42.4433 171.2274 No 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
Shell Gully Overbridge

476 6 1N 10732 -41.2820 174.7738 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
(southbound)
477 6 Waitapu Bridge 60 960 -40.8309 172.7931 No 0m C C Occasionally
Dive Crescent Rail

481 6 2 1555 -37.6758 176.1690 Yes 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
Overbridge
Great North Rd Bridge

483 6 16 82 -36.8723 174.7052 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
No.1
Great North Rd Bridge

484 6 16 83 -36.8721 174.7053 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
No. 2
Bascombes Bridge No.

487 6 12 1724 -36.0840 173.9827 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
144
493 7 Saltwater Creek Bridge 6 4385 -42.5124 171.1676 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
495 7 Woodbank Stream Bridge 1S 1062 -42.0702 173.9460 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B2 Never
505 7 Lambs Bridge No 192 1N 692 -34.8111 173.1162 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
520 7 Nilssons Bridge No 280 10 710 -35.0108 173.5575 Yes 0m C C Regularly
533 7 Porarari River Bridge 6 3849 -42.1054 171.3396 Yes 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
541 7 Wairuru Stream Bridge 35 977 -37.6476 177.8753 No 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
Karakatuwhero River
542 7 35 1561 -37.6260 178.3349 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Bridge
569 7 Punakaiki River Bridge 6 3880 -42.1230 171.3324 Yes 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
573 7 Otuwheti Stream Bridge 25 2062 -37.1711 175.8501 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
Fourteen Mile Creek

578 7 6 4077 -42.2899 171.2900 Yes 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
Bridge
583 7 Mohakatino River Bridge 3 1605 -38.7313 174.6144 No 0m C C Regularly
Aerodrome Bridge
592 7 2 -37.6690 176.1801 No 0m C C Regularly
(Westbound)
593 7 Whiritoa Stream Bridge 25 2260 -37.2912 175.9008 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
285


Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
(downwind)
Rogers key
Inspected
BSN
Kahoe River Bridge No.
600 7 10 526 -35.0558 173.7009 No 501m to 1km C C Occasionally
630
604 8 Maitai River Bridge 6 1147 -41.2657 173.2811 No 1m to 30m C C Occasionally
606 8 Huatoki Stream Bridge 44 12 -39.0561 174.0733 No 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
Pahurehure Inlet Control

608 8 1N 4564 -37.0594 174.9230 No 0m C C Regularly
Stream
613 8 Fox River 6 3740 -42.0315 171.3837 Yes 0m C C Regularly
Mungavin Roundabout –
South Bridge
Mungavin Roundabout –
North Bridge
Kenepuru Stream Off

Ramp Bridge
Kenepuru Stream Bridge

– southbound

– On Ramp

– northbound
Beachcroft Ave Ft/Br

625 8 20 148 -36.9232 174.7712 No 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
(over SH20)
626 8 Hob-West Bridge 16 32 -36.8549 174.7573 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
636 8 Tipai Street Half Bridge 4 2331 -39.9057 175.0630 No 1m to 30m C C Never
642 8 No. 165 Creek 94 -44.6718 167.9289 No 31m to 100m B2 B2 Never
643 8 Hokitika River Bridge 6 4710 -42.7211 170.9632 Yes 0m C C Regularly
645 8 Porirua Ramp Bridge MIS 10536 -41.1316 174.8443 No 101m to 500m C C Occasionally
Mahinapua Creek
651 8 6 4750 -42.7470 170.9314 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
(Tuwharewhare) Bridge
652 8 Oaro River Bridge 1S 1795 -42.5149 173.5020 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
655 8 Ngakawau River Bridge 67 387 -41.6073 171.8762 Yes 0m C C Regularly
Opoho Bridge
666 8 2 -39.0466 177.6370 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
(extension)
667 8 Waiotu Stream Bridge 35 2386 -38.1316 178.3129 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
669 8 Swampy Stream Bridge 25 1772 -37.0404 175.8290 No 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
670 8 Omawhiti Stream Bridge 25 589 -36.9154 175.4450 Yes 1m to 30m C C Occasionally
286


Longitude (WGS84)
Latitude (WGS84)
Construction era
State highway
Bridge name
(downwind)
Rogers key
Inspected
BSN
680 9 OConnors D/S Widening 60 -41.2994 173.1072 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Nayland Road
693 9 6 1224 -41.3021 173.2360 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Overbridge (over Sh6)
Songer Street Overbridge

(over SH6)
705 9 Oturu Stream Bridge 25 1759 -37.0292 175.8297 Yes 101m to 500m B2 B1 Never
OB1
714 9 Orewa River Bridge 3937 -36.6008 174.6962 No 0m C C Regularly
7
Taungatara Stream
720 9 45 674 -39.4809 173.8915 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Bridge
722 9 Urenui River Bridge 3 2053 -38.9939 174.4014 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Waihi Road Overbridge

No. 2 (over SH 2)
Pauatahanui Stream
739 9 58 103 -41.1078 174.9163 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Bridge
741 9 Mokau River Bridge (SH3) 3 1551 -38.6989 174.6276 No 0m C C Occasionally
Takitimu Drive
751 9 2A 1514 -37.7027 176.1425 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Overbridge
768 10 Oakleigh Rail Overbridge 1N 2778 -35.8319 174.3149 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
771 10 Buller St Underpass MIS 10753 -41.2936 174.7712 No 501m to 1km B1 B1 Never
Chapel Street Eastbound

791 11 MIS 1553 -37.6760 176.1653 No 0m C C Regularly
Offramp
Harbour Bridge
792 11 2 1558 -37.6750 176.1749 No 0m C C Regularly
(eastbound)
Aerodrome Bridge
793 11 2 1571 -37.6691 176.1802 No 0m C C Regularly
(eastbound)
267 4 Wairoa River Bridge 2 1460 -37.6993 176.0938 No 1km to 5km C C Occasionally
Cobden Bridge (Grey

402 5 6 4293 -42.4458 171.2168 Yes 1km to 5km C C Occasionally
River)
420 5 Buller River Bridge 67 47 -41.7665 171.5942 No 1km to 5km C C Occasionally
516 7 Waitara River Bridge 3 2232 -39.0075 174.2420 No 1km to 5km C C Occasionally
622 8 Wairoa River Bridge 2 5334 -39.0310 177.4189 No 1km to 5km C C Occasionally
Whakatane River
750 9 30 2290 -37.9562 176.9723 No 1km to 5km C C Occasionally
(Landing Road) Bridge
287
Table C.2 Exposure classification data for New Zealand state highway pre-tensioned concrete bridges
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
1 1 Stream 290 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 38k Over 10km A2 A2
2 1 Stream 15 No No Never Downwind Harbour 2600 1km to 5km B1 B1
3 1 Stream 560 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 84k Over 10km A2 A2
4 1 Stream 0 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 8700 5km to 10km B1 B1
5 1 Stream 317 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 56k Over 10km A2 A2
10 2 Stream 19 No No Never Upwind Harbour 23k Over 10km A2 A2
12 2 Motorway over road 4 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 216 101m to 500m B2 B1
14 2 Stream 14 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 24k Over 10km A2 A2
17 2 No loc No loc No loc No loc No loc No loc No loc No loc No loc
18 2 Braided river 16 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 3900 1km to 5km B1 B1
20 2 Stream 31 No No Never Downwind Harbour 13k Over 10km B1 B1
288
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
21 2 River 19 No No Never Upwind Harbour 26k Over 10km A2 A2
22 2 Stream 9 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 5835 5km to 10km B1 B1
23 2 River 37 No No Never Downwind Harbour 14k Over 10km B1 B1
24 2 River 16 Maybe No Never Crosswind Surf beach 2000 1km to 5km B1 B1
25 2 Braided river 246 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 6300 5km to 10km B1 B1
26 2 Flood channel 360 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 102k Over 10km A2 A2
31 2 Stream mouth (surf beach) 4 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Surf beach 100 31m to 100m C C
33 2 Stream 31 No No Never Downwind Harbour 9700 5km to 10km A2 A2
34 2 Stream 18 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 2200 1km to 5km B1 B1
36 2 Stream 0 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 25k Over 10km B1 B1
37 2 River 110 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 6300 5km to 10km B1 B1
38 2 Motorway stream 2 Yes No Never Upwind Harbour 3100 1km to 5km B1 B1
40 2 Stream 5 Maybe No Never Downwind Harbour 2050 1km to 5km B1 B1
289
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
42 2 Road over rail 427 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 71k Over 10km A2 A2
44 2 Stream 11 Maybe No Never Downwind Harbour 500 101m to 500m B2 B2
46 2 Stream 36 No No Never Downwind Harbour 22k Over 10km A2 A2
48 2 Causeway bridge (harbour) 0 Yes No Regularly Downwind Harbour 0 0m C C
49 2 River 0 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 22k Over 10km B1 B1
Stream mouth (Firth of

50 2 11 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Firth Of Thames 40 31m to 100m C C
Thames)
51 2 Stream 33 No No Never Downwind Estuary 7300 5km to 10km B1 B1
57 2 Road over rail 37 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 31k Over 10km B1 B1
58 2 Harbour bridge 0 Yes No Regularly Downwind Surf beach 0 0m C C
59 2 Stream 6 Maybe No Never Downwind Surf beach 550 501m to 1km B1 B1
61 2 Stream 335 No No Never Downwind Harbour 12k Over 10km B1 B1
290
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
63 2 Stream 77 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 33k Over 10km A2 A2
64 2 Stream 19 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 6800 5km to 10km B1 B1
66 2 Stream 14 Maybe No Never Crosswind Harbour 1600 1km to 5km B1 B1
68 2 Motorway stream 36 No No Never Downwind Harbour 4060 1km to 5km B1 B1
70 2 Motorway under road 30 No No Never Downwind Harbour 2950 1km to 5km B1 B1
73 2 Stream 58 No No Never Downwind Estuary 8570 5km to 10km B1 B1
75 3 River 17 Yes No Never Crosswind Surf beach 1330 1km to 5km B1 B1
77 3 River 5 Yes No Never Downwind Surf beach 1400 1km to 5km B1 B1
79 3 River 60 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 33k Over 10km A2 A2
80 3 Stream 5 Maybe Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 330 101m to 500m B2 B2
81 3 River 12 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 6580 5km to 10km B1 B1
291
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)

Thames)
87 3 Motorway under road 58 No No Never Upwind Harbour 2200 1km to 5km B1 B1
89 3 River 0 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 3300 1km to 5km B1 B1
91 3 Meandering stream 572 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 72k Over 10km A2 A2
92 3 River 25 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 17k Over 10km B1 B1
93 3 Wide tidal river 24 Yes Yes Occasionally Crosswind Wide tidal river 0 0m C C
96 3 Stream 336 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 31k Over 10km B1 B1
98 3 River 180 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 65k Over 10km A2 A2
292
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
103 3 Stream 6 Yes No Never Downwind Estuary 497 101m to 500m B2 B2
106 3 Stream 50 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 7300 5km to 10km A2 A2
107 3 Stream 14 Yes Yes Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 150 101m to 500m C C
108 3 Stream 10 Yes Yes Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 130 101m to 500m C C
111 3 River 13 Yes No Never Upwind Harbour 610 501m to 1km B1 B1
112 3 Motorway over road 14 No No Never Downwind Harbour 833 501m to 1km B1 B1
114 3 Offramp over road 14 No No Never Downwind Harbour 900 501m to 1km B1 B1

Thames)

Thames)
117 3 Stream 80 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 16k Over 10km B1 B1
118 3 River 2 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 4570 1km to 5km B1 B1
119 3 Motorway over road 5 No No Never Downwind Estuary 1125 1km to 5km B1 B1
293
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
123 3 Road over rail 0 No No Never Downwind Estuary 800 501m to 1km B1 B1
124 3 River 2 Yes No Never Downwind Estuary 927 501m to 1km B1 B1
125 3 Braided river 182 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 27k Over 10km A2 A2
127 3 Meandering river 27 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 3920 1km to 5km B1 B1
128 3 Stream 47 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 38k Over 10km B1 B1
129 3 River 195 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 32k Over 10km A2 A2
131 3 Tidal river 16 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Surf beach 470 101m to 500m C C

Thames)
137 3 Drain 9 No No Never Downwind Harbour 310 101m to 500m B2 B2
138 3 Stream 241 No No Never Downwind Fjord 48k Over 10km A2 A2
139 3 stream 218 No No Never Downwind Fjord 45k Over 10km A2 A2
141 3 Braided stream 383 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 95k Over 10km A2 A2
294
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
143 3 Braided river 152 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 24k Over 10km A2 A2
144 3 Stream 12 No No Never Downwind Harbour 260 101m to 500m B2 B2
150 3 Stream 55 Maybe Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 1420 1km to 5km B1 B1
151 3 Stream 10 No Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 180 101m to 500m B2 B2
152 3 River 23 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 13k Over 10km A2 A2
154 3 Stream 0 No No Never Downwind Fjord 570 501m to 1km B1 B1
155 3 Motorway over rail 161 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 60k Over 10km A2 A2
156 3 River 39 No No Never Downwind Harbour 30k Over 10km A2 A2
162 3 Stream mouth (surf beach) 5 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Firth Of Thames 28 1m to 30m C C
295
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
163 3 Motorway stream 8 Yes No Never Downwind Harbour 100 31m to 100m B2 B2
164 3 Motorway stream 8 Yes No Never Downwind Harbour 83 31m to 100m B2 B2
165 3 Motorway over road 80 No No Never Upwind Harbour 1910 1km to 5km B1 B1
166 3 Stream 10 Maybe No Never Downwind Harbour 2300 1km to 5km B1 B1
170 3 River 6 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 6500 5km to 10km A2 A2
173 3 Braided stream 660 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 43k Over 10km A2 A2
178 3 Wide tidal river 0 Yes Yes Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 370 101m to 500m C C
180 3 Stream 3 Yes Yes Never Crosswind Surf beach 160 101m to 500m B2 B1
296
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
184 3 Flood channel 8 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 7600 5km to 10km B1 B1
185 3 Canal 0 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 3880 1km to 5km B1 B1
186 3 Motorway over rail 10 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 5440 5km to 10km B1 B1
187 3 Motorway over rail 10 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 5440 5km to 10km B1 B1
Motorway viaduct over

188 3 61 No No Never Upwind Estuary 1880 1km to 5km B1 B1
land
189 3 Motorway over road 75 No No Never Upwind Estuary 1880 1km to 5km B1 B1
191 3 Motorway under road 20 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 430 101m to 500m B2 B1
192 3 Causeway bridge (harbour) 2 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Harbour 130 101m to 500m C C
194 3 River 8 Yes No Never Downwind Estuary 1050 1km to 5km B1 B1
195 4 Motorway over road 21 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 2600 1km to 5km B1 B1
199 4 Road over road 566 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 72k Over 10km A2 A2
200 4 River 492 No No Never Downwind Fjord 27k Over 10km A2 A2
297
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
206 4 Stream 5 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 6650 5km to 10km B1 B1
207 4 Stream 6 Maybe No Never Downwind Fjord 7200 5km to 10km A2 A2
210 4 Road over rail 756 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 74k Over 10km A2 A2
215 4 River mouth (surf beach) 12 Yes Yes Occasionally Upwind Surf beach 110 101m to 500m C C
221 4 River 25 No No Never Upwind Harbour 25k Over 10km A2 A2
222 4 Causeway bridge (estuary) 0 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Estuary 0 0m C C
223 4 Stream 0 Yes No Never Downwind Harbour 365 101m to 500m B2 B2
224 4 Stream 3 Yes No Never Crosswind Harbour 400 101m to 500m B2 B1
298
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
225 4 Motorway over rail 23 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 2590 1km to 5km B1 B1
231 4 Stream 408 No No Never Upwind Estuary 60k Over 10km A2 A2
232 4 Meandering river 63 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 16k Over 10km A2 A2
236 4 Road over rail 86 No No Never Downwind Harbour 38k Over 10km A2 A2
239 4 River mouth (surf beach) 3 Yes Yes Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 80 31m to 100m C C
244 4 Motorway over road 8 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 5200 5km to 10km B1 B1
299
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
247 4 Stream 0 Yes Yes Never Crosswind Surf beach 160 101m to 500m B2 B1
248 4 Stream 19 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 700 501m to 1km B1 B1
253 4 Braided stream 356 No No Never Downwind Fjord 35k Over 10km A2 A2
256 4 Stream mouth (lake) 89 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 11k Over 10km B1 B1
257 4 Stream mouth (lake) 89 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 11k Over 10km B1 B1
258 4 River mouth (surf beach) 12 No Yes Never Crosswind Surf beach 23 1m to 30m C B2
259 4 Causeway bridge (estuary) 0 Yes Yes Regularly Downwind Surf beach 0 0m C C
260 4 Road over rail 60 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 6500 5km to 10km B1 B1
265 4 Canal 0 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 5210 5km to 10km B1 B1
300
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
267 4 Wide tidal river 19 Yes No Occasionally Crosswind Harbour 1575 1km to 5km C C
268 4 Stream 16 No No Never Upwind Harbour 1200 1km to 5km B1 B1
270 4 Stream mouth (surf beach) 10 Yes Yes Regularly Crosswind Surf beach 0 0m C C
271 4 Motorway tidal river 3 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Harbour 100 31m to 100m C C
272 4 River 0 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 3250 1km to 5km B1 B1
275 4 Stream 10 No No Never Downwind Estuary 537 501m to 1km B1 B1
276 4 Braided river 495 No No Never Downwind Fjord 28k Over 10km A2 A2
301
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
291 4 River mouth (surf beach) 0 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Surf beach 50 31m to 100m C C
292 4 Motorway over road 22 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 2300 1km to 5km B1 B1
293 4 Motorway over road 22 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 2300 1km to 5km B1 B1
294 4 River 23 Yes No Never Downwind Harbour 5000 1km to 5km B1 B1
295 4 River mouth (harbour) 0 Yes Yes Regularly Downwind Harbour 0 0m C C
296 4 Stream 79 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 9575 5km to 10km B1 B1
297 4 River 0 No No Never Upwind Harbour 3000 1km to 5km B1 B1
299 4 Motorway under road 38 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 2200 1km to 5km B1 B1
301 4 Road over rail 9 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 500 101m to 500m B2 B1
302 4 River 1 Maybe No Never Downwind Surf beach 5200 5km to 10km B1 B1
303 4 Stream mouth (surf beach) 6 Yes Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 270 101m to 500m B2 B2
305 4 Braided river 348 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 38k Over 10km A2 A2
306 4 Stream 0 Maybe No Never Crosswind Surf beach 490 101m to 500m B2 B1
307 4 River 95 No No Never Downwind Estuary 19k Over 10km A2 A2
302
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
312 4 Canal 571 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 99k Over 10km A2 A2
313 4 Canal 571 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 101k Over 10km A2 A2
319 4 Braided stream 25 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 6300 5km to 10km B1 B1
320 4 Stream 20 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 12k Over 10km B1 B1
321 4 Stream 2 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 11k Over 10km B1 B1
303
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
332 5 Braided river 60 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 14k Over 10km B1 B1
333 5 Braided river 57 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 8800 5km to 10km A2 A2
336 5 Meandering stream 207 No No Never Downwind Harbour 25k Over 10km A2 A2
340 5 Tidal river 12 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Harbour 325 101m to 500m C C
344 5 Braided river 318 No No Never Downwind Fjord 78k Over 10km A2 A2
346 5 Canal 688 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 78k Over 10km A2 A2
348 5 Braided stream 759 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 77k Over 10km A2 A2
304
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
355 5 River 19 No No Never Downwind Fjord 5550 5km to 10km B1 B1
356 5 Stream ## No No Never Downwind Surf beach 91k Over 10km A2 A2
360 5 Motorway under road 29 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 2500 1km to 5km B1 B1
361 5 River 20 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 2050 1km to 5km B1 B1
363 5 Stream 11 Yes No Never Upwind Estuary 717 501m to 1km B1 B1
370 5 Meandering river 46 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 9350 5km to 10km A2 A2
371 5 Braided river 2 No Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 470 101m to 500m B2 B2
305
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
372 5 Stream 3 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Harbour 50 31m to 100m C C
373 5 Stream 3 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Harbour 65 31m to 100m C C
391 5 Stream 3 Yes Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 180 101m to 500m B2 B2
306
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
394 5 River 15 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 20k Over 10km B1 B1
397 5 Stream 34 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 9300 5km to 10km A2 A2
398 5 Stream 36 No Yes Never Crosswind Surf beach 2400 1km to 5km B1 B1
400 5 River 23 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 7400 5km to 10km A2 A2
401 5 River 15 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 6050 5km to 10km A2 A2
402 5 Wide tidal river 8 Yes No Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 1800 1km to 5km C C
408 5 River 139 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 15k Over 10km A2 A2
410 5 Motorway under road 40 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 9760 5km to 10km B1 B1
411 5 Motorway under road 20 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 413 101m to 500m B2 B1
Motorway under foot

412 5 19 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 440 101m to 500m B2 B1
bridge
307
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
416 5 Dam bridge (lake) 519 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 79k Over 10km A2 A2
418 5 Meandering stream 282 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 53k Over 10km A2 A2
420 5 Tidal river 9 Yes No Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 3550 1km to 5km C C
425 5 Stream 13 Maybe Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 1100 1km to 5km B1 B1
433 5 Meandering river 5 No Yes Never Crosswind Surf beach 250 101m to 500m B2 B1
308
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
435 5 Stream ## No No Never Downwind Surf beach 93k Over 10km A2 A2
436 5 Road over rail 159 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 9570 5km to 10km A2 A2
439 5 Motorway under road 5 No No Never Upwind Harbour 162 101m to 500m B2 B1
440 5 River 2 Yes No Never Downwind Harbour 820 501m to 1km B1 B1
448 6 Braided stream 40 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 9700 5km to 10km B1 B1
454 6 River mouth (surf beach) 5 Yes Yes Occasionally Upwind Surf beach 75 31m to 100m C C
309
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
456 6 Stream 27 No No Never Downwind Harbour 6500 5km to 10km A2 A2
458 6 Wide tidal river 3 Yes No Occasionally Crosswind Firth Of Thames 950 501m to 1km C C
459 6 Motorway over rail 14 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 1060 1km to 5km B1 B1
460 6 Stream 15 No No Never Downwind Harbour 650 501m to 1km B1 B1
463 6 Tidal river 18 Yes Yes Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 80 31m to 100m C C
464 6 River 381 No No Never Upwind Estuary 60k Over 10km A2 A2
465 6 Stream 47 No Yes Never Crosswind Surf beach 145 101m to 500m B2 B1
467 6 Motorway over rail 14 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 1060 1km to 5km B1 B1
468 6 Motorway over road 17 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 2300 1km to 5km B1 B1
470 6 Stream 0 Yes No Never Crosswind Harbour 1000 501m to 1km B1 B1
471 6 Dam bridge (lake) 487 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 87k Over 10km A2 A2
472 6 Braided river 29 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 9350 5km to 10km A2 A2
473 6 Road over rail 39 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 8950 5km to 10km A2 A2
474 6 Tidal stream 1 Yes No Never Downwind Wide tidal river 253 101m to 500m B2 B2
310
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
Motorway viaduct over
land
477 6 Tidal river 0 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Wide tidal river 0 0m C C
480 6 Road over rail and road 55 No No Never Downwind Harbour 24k Over 10km A2 A2
481 6 Road over rail and road 5 No No Never Upwind Harbour 100 31m to 100m B2 B2
482 6 Road over rail 25 No No Never Downwind Harbour 3000 1km to 5km B1 B1
486 6 Stream 3 Yes No Never Crosswind Estuary 1186 1km to 5km B1 B1
487 6 Stream 8 Yes No Never Downwind Harbour 788 501m to 1km B1 B1
489 7 Stream mouth (lake) 283 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 56k Over 10km A2 A2
494 7 Stream 1 Maybe No Never Downwind Surf beach 5660 5km to 10km B1 B1
311
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
496 7 River 597 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 60k Over 10km A2 A2
497 7 Canal 348 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 37k Over 10km A2 A2
502 7 River 0 Yes No Never Crosswind Harbour 6250 5km to 10km B1 B1
505 7 Stream 10 Yes No Never Crosswind Estuary 150 101m to 500m B2 B1
509 7 Braided river 3 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 9960 5km to 10km B1 B1
510 7 Braided stream 66 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 16k Over 10km B1 B1
516 7 Tidal river 4 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Surf beach 2350 1km to 5km C C
312
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
520 7 Wide tidal river 2 Yes No Regularly Crosswind Wide tidal river 0 0m C C
522 7 Meandering river 258 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 85k Over 10km A2 A2
523 7 Stream mouth (lake) 198 No No Never Downwind Fjord 111k Over 10km A2 A2
524 7 Stream mouth (lake) 198 No No Never Downwind Fjord 111k Over 10km A2 A2
525 7 River 2 Yes No Never Downwind Estuary 1400 1km to 5km B1 B1
529 7 Stream mouth (lake) 43 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 9700 5km to 10km B1 B1
533 7 Tidal river 5 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Surf beach 245 101m to 500m C C
535 7 Braided river 420 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 44k Over 10km A2 A2
313
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
539 7 Stream ## No No Never Upwind Surf beach 98k Over 10km A2 A2
542 7 Braided river 1 No Yes Never Crosswind Surf beach 850 501m to 1km B1 B1
544 7 Motorway over road 38 No No Never Downwind Harbour 4000 1km to 5km B1 B1
545 7 Road over road 126 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 18k Over 10km B1 B1
546 7 Braided river 287 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 77k Over 10km A2 A2
550 7 Braided stream 108 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 12k Over 10km B1 B1
553 7 Meandering river 22 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 4400 1km to 5km A2 A2
554 7 Braided stream 29 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 1380 1km to 5km B1 B1
556 7 Stream 60 No No Never Downwind Estuary 15k Over 10km A2 A2
557 7 River 0 Yes No Never Crosswind Surf beach 1380 1km to 5km B1 B1
314
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
561 7 River 16 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 3050 1km to 5km B1 B1
562 7 River 14 Maybe No Never Crosswind Estuary 4400 1km to 5km B1 B1
565 7 Meandering river 200 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 74k Over 10km A2 A2
569 7 Wide tidal river 8 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Surf beach 230 101m to 500m C C
578 7 Stream mouth (surf beach) 9 No Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 40 31m to 100m B2 B2
579 7 Stream 414 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 42k Over 10km A2 A2
315
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
583 7 Wide tidal river 2 Yes Yes Regularly Downwind Estuary 0 0m C C
587 7 Stream 5 Maybe No Never Downwind Surf beach 4700 1km to 5km B1 B1
592 7 Harbour bridge 0 Yes No Regularly Downwind Harbour 0 0m C C
593 7 Stream 8 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 520 501m to 1km B1 B1
595 7 River 1 No No Never Upwind Estuary 2300 1km to 5km B1 B1
600 7 Tidal river 1 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Harbour 762 501m to 1km C C
316
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
604 8 Tidal river 0 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Estuary 30 1m to 30m C C
606 8 Stream mouth (surf beach) 5 Yes Yes Never Downwind Surf beach 40 31m to 100m B2 B2
613 8 River mouth (surf beach) 1 Yes Yes Regularly Crosswind Surf beach 0 0m C C
615 8 Stream 153 No No Never Crosswind Fjord 34k Over 10km A2 A2
317
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
622 8 Tidal river 34 Yes No Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 3400 1km to 5km C C
624 8 Stream 5 Maybe No Never Upwind Estuary 2350 1km to 5km B1 B1
Motorway under foot

bridge
626 8 Motorway under road 39 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 1000 501m to 1km B1 B1
627 8 River 12 Maybe No Never Downwind Harbour 3700 1km to 5km B1 B1
631 8 River 6 Maybe No Never Downwind Estuary 2887 1km to 5km B1 B1
636 8 River 3 Yes No Never Downwind Wide tidal river 16 1m to 30m C C
638 8 Road over rail 19 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 26k Over 10km A2 A2
639 8 Motorway under road 180 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 19k Over 10km A2 A2
641 8 River 0 Yes No Never Upwind Harbour 1360 1km to 5km B1 B1
318
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
642 8 Stream mouth (sound) 5 Yes No Never Downwind Fjord 50 31m to 100m B2 B2
643 8 Causeway bridge (estuary) 6 Yes Yes Regularly Upwind Surf beach 0 0m C C
644 8 Road over rail 99 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 6940 5km to 10km B1 B1
645 8 Tidal river 4 Yes No Occasionally Downwind Harbour 150 101m to 500m C C
647 8 River 15 Maybe No Never Upwind Estuary 5800 5km to 10km B1 B1
319
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
664 8 Stream 27 No No Never Downwind Estuary 8950 5km to 10km A2 A2
669 8 Stream 5 Yes No Never Upwind Estuary 300 101m to 500m B2 B1

Thames)
673 8 Motorway under road 22 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 5200 5km to 10km B1 B1
675 8 Road over rail 385 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 39k Over 10km A2 A2
676 8 Canal 0 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 2840 1km to 5km B1 B1
678 9 Stream mouth (lake) 880 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 53k Over 10km A2 A2
680 9 Stream 16 No No Never Downwind Estuary 1000 501m to 1km B1 B1
681 9 Flood channel 20 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 31k Over 10km A2 A2
320
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
683 9 Motorway over road 40 No No Never Downwind Harbour 35k Over 10km A2 A2
684 9 River 14 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 26k Over 10km A2 A2
685 9 River 14 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 26k Over 10km A2 A2
688 9 Road over rail 102 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 19k Over 10km B1 B1
689 9 River 14 Yes No Never Crosswind Estuary 2170 1km to 5km B1 B1
693 9 Motorway under road 5 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 1000 501m to 1km B1 B1
694 9 Motorway over road 26 No No Never Downwind Harbour 23k Over 10km A2 A2
695 9 Motorway under road 19 No No Never Upwind Estuary 1500 1km to 5km B1 B1
697 9 Motorway under road 38 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 2300 1km to 5km B1 B1
700 9 Motorway under road 3 No No Never Crosswind Estuary 170 101m to 500m B2 B1
701 9 Road over road 19 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 1780 1km to 5km B1 B1
703 9 Meandering river 5 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 7400 5km to 10km A2 A2
321
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
709 9 Motorway stream 33 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 3350 1km to 5km B1 B1
713 9 Motorway under road 20 No No Never Upwind Estuary 3360 1km to 5km B1 B1
718 9 River 385 No No Never Upwind Estuary 56k Over 10km A2 A2
720 9 Stream 25 Maybe No Never Crosswind Surf beach 967 501m to 1km B1 B1
722 9 River 2 Maybe No Never Downwind Surf beach 800 501m to 1km B1 B1
723 9 Motorway over road 11 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 150 101m to 500m B2 B1
322
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
728 9 Motorway under road 40 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 3165 1km to 5km B1 B1
739 9 Stream 11 Yes No Never Downwind Harbour 679 501m to 1km B1 B1
741 9 Wide tidal river 2 Yes Yes Occasionally Downwind Estuary 0 0m C C
745 9 River 8 No No Never Upwind Firth Of Thames 26k Over 10km A2 A2
323
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
746 9 Stream 10 No No Never Upwind Estuary 6300 5km to 10km B1 B1
748 9 River 2 Maybe No Never Crosswind Estuary 6233 5km to 10km B1 B1
750 9 Wide tidal river 0 Yes No Occasionally Crosswind Surf beach 2470 1km to 5km C C
751 9 Motorway under road 20 No No Never Crosswind Harbour 650 501m to 1km B1 B1
755 9 Road over road 7 No No Never Downwind Surf beach 1550 1km to 5km B1 B1
756 9 River 26 No No Never Downwind Estuary 7350 5km to 10km A2 A2
759 9 Valley 15 No No Never Upwind Firth Of Thames 27k Over 10km A2 A2
760 9 Road over road 20 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 13k Over 10km B1 B1
764 9 Rail over road 427 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 46k Over 10km A2 A2
324
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
768 10 Road over rail 15 No No Never Downwind Harbour 771 501m to 1km B1 B1
771 10 Motorway under road 27 No No Never Downwind Harbour 916 501m to 1km B1 B1
772 10 Meandering river 54 No No Never Upwind Surf beach 40k Over 10km A2 A2
780 10 Rail over road 62 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 6750 5km to 10km B1 B1
783 11 Motorway under road 19 No No Never Crosswind Firth Of Thames 19k Over 10km B1 B1
325
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
791 11 Motorway estuary 0 Yes No Regularly Downwind Harbour 0 0m C C
794 11 Motorway under road 72 No No Never Downwind Harbour No loc No loc No loc
802 11 Motorway over road 445 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 99k Over 10km A2 A2
803 11 Motorway over road 419 No No Never Crosswind Surf beach 101k Over 10km A2 A2
326
Construction era
Wind orientation
Coastal distance
Coastal distance
GE elevation (m)
NZS 3101:2006
NZS 3101:2006
of bridge from
Description of
Crossing type
View of open
(downwind)
Rogers key
Over saline
Over saline
waterway
waves
coast
coast
band
surf
(m)
327
Appendix D Bridge inspection reports
Appendix D Bridge inspection reports

For each bridge that was inspected, an inspection report was produced containing the chloride ingress and
cover data obtained and the service life prediction calculations. These results have been discussed in
chapter 5 of the report. The inspection reports presented here are sorted by Rogers key number and a
table of contents is provided overleaf.
Each of the inspection reports has a cover page giving details of the inspected bridge including its
construction era, beam type, and exposure classification as determined in chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the
report. The cover page also summarises the results from each of the chloride profiles obtained from the
bridge in question. Each bridge inspection report contains one page for each chloride hole that was taken
on the bridge in question, which contains the raw data, the chloride ingress model data, and the service
life prediction calculations and results based on that chloride profile.
328
329
0123457895

qr 4515
!
=2457895
&(s;%87$4#7#1589012345@/49
+]e,0e+,&+
"7#1$%#53
&'(()7*5%#53
+,&& -581./*53
(0 123 Z,e,0e+,&+
0589#*5
274455446%15$72# 058941$*
7274458446"159589 Oc2KUQTbU_1HaOJ_aOUHISKQN2UKOdu
"8#8432#87%5
+:(,,9 ;8/29$9*25155245#
,9 ./*$15%482?2%8#27 v18*515?5157%54275
hihth [Le6#%7%M
78
+ <873%8 *5
=8194873>2 5 6 ?
*57
$1?
7 )7%@
62 73 A+ "541 235
35 #5%#
2742
92 #

hihht [Le6#%7%M
07B
+' "1274#*5
7#1589 CD518427568#5168
7 ./%@6273 A+ )72#28#27#515543&
hih!h [Le6#%7%M
"8#E5%12*#27
=21#5C?F5895CD518427568D5
B5D51 "E9873 D51&,G9 )72#28#27#515543+
hihth [Le6#%7%M
o1 O p
T_N O1 Q
H11KS O SQb_c O21dQ_ _dQ O 21dQ_
1HaPOT_NO1 HLIH JKJ NO12PO1
99M L99M
23
QRSHT2U
VJJW dHTHIc2TO_c T_NO1HI TbU_1HaO 2NO12PO O2d1Qd12QIa 2NO12PO
0123458D51845
L[%7%15#5ML[%7%15#5M L99+e1M fO2J c2TO Qb1Odb_Ua dQH11KS T_11_dH_I dQ12Ia
7??2# X15YF +Z L99M L99M L99M T_11_dH_I T_11_dH_I
7#211$* &' 927 8D5 927 ,@,([ ,@,Z[ ,@,([ ,@,Z[ ,@,([ ,@,Z[ ,@,([ ,@,Z[
235e X15YF +Z 8D51845 ,@&:,\ ,@&&\' ]@Z:+( +Z +Z &'
659 7#211$* &' 7#35D ,@,::( ,@,Z&& +@Z::, , , ,
0##9 X15 Y
F +Z 927 ,@,],+ ,@,],+ (@
,+\0 +Z +Z &' , , , , , ,
9$49 7#211$* &' 98/ ,@&](\ ,@&(0Z &,@,,,, +Z +Z &' , , , , , ,
OdQ_T2QH_Id bU_1HaOJ_aOUS212JOQO1d O2JT_NO1d dQHJ2QOa1OJ2HIHIPUHcOV3h W
QH11KS OSQb_c O21dQ_2NOiO21dQ_dQO21dQ_2NOi
^_UO` O2J _T2QH_I HaO OIPQb _aOUcHQ dHTo1
13 L[%7% OpT_NO1T_N
O1HI TbU_1HaO dQH11KS dQ12Ia dQ12Ia
15#5ML[%7%15#5M L99+e1M L99M f1HaPOQb1 Odb_Ua
L99M L99M T_11_dH_I T_11_dH_I T_11_dH_I
927 8D5 8D5 ,@,([ ,@,Z[ ,@,([ ,@,Z[ ,@,([ ,@,Z[ ,@,([ ,@,Z[
& 235 71#5 B195 #55345 "55%G=2#g hihhhh ,@,],+ ,@,],+ &,@,,,, +Z +Z &'
89
58#&e(#5*87
+ ??2# L54957#&Aj "55%G=2#g hiklkm ,@&](\ ,@&&\+ (@,+\0 +Z +Z &'
A&M
.8#&e(#5*87
Z ??2# L54957#0;
)j "55%G=2#g hihhhh ,@&(0Z ,@&(0Z &,@,,,, +Z +Z &'
AM
: 7*1?245n O11_1 +Z +Z &'
( 7*1?245n O11_1 +Z +Z &'
0 7*1?245n O11_1 +Z +Z &'
\ 7*1?245n O11_1 +Z +Z &'
330
kKSlmnopA@AoIFSk@qIr<sFt@K?4LBMH6@?L46@/
a8Z6e6 01`648985%58 0211345689
658 00645 6 Z[68[[8\86%5 4
K?4LBMH6@?L46@/@4LN3>MLG@H6>3M45 KLBBL5MLG@N?4LBMH6@NLG>6G>@>?B65?L4H5 A6BTMN6@4MQ6@=B6HMN>MLG5
dZ6^_]$`$aâ
3b

545864
50$
68[dd6 5 $854[ a64Z
8!6 6d
40 1\58 00 6456d[96[9600
11
4085685
64 4646556845 50 1 Y_^- 64
]8458d68\6c 5 Y_^- 1 1
d685
]6Z5 856dZ6c64 Ú Ü "6#$8!6 4!6
Ù¾ ØÛÈÉÊÝËÌÍÎ
Þ
½Ï
½×¿
c64
6
KLT6B@H6=>?5@MG@>?M5@Q3N6 ÈÉÊËÌÍÎ½Ï¾ÐÑÒÓÔÕÐÖ Ø Ø
"6#$8!6 4!6
$c64 dZ6 cdZ6
"6#$ 5% "6#$ 5% ÁÂ
ÃÄ
½¾ ¿À ÁÆÀÁÇ ÅÆÀÁÇ 6
^64%6d
!664%6d Ùßßßßßßßßßß¾ ]9664 5% 8!6 4!6
Úßßßßßßßßß¾ [648!6d6 5 cdZ6
4 696d 02 02 6 02
2MNfi5@HMQQj5MLG@DLH64@=3B3D6>6B5 & z®¯°±y±²³ý²µ¶·³yy³ý}~y̧¹ºy{|y{|y»yº¼
^8d6[ %5 ^8d6[8%5 %5
`646h 86d '( ) &*&&&& 6+,5- uvuu
+Z8+) )&*&.&/(0 18656

Z8605 23456
¡¢£¤¥ ¦ §
)&*&.&/(0 18656
K?6Nf@2M>g
uvuuu
~y|y{|
3)/&*&&&&/(7/ 8
y|y{|
3)&*9/:&7.;'( 0#08
uvuuu
<6=>?@ <6=>?@ I3J@K?4LBMH6@ P@MQ@H3>3@ ST6@<6=>?@QLB@ K?4LBMH6@
A>3B>@ FGH@ NLGN6G>B3>MLG@ =LMG>@ AL4T6B NLGN*@QLB@
CDDE CDDE CO@NLGNB6>6E MRGLB6H AL4T6B uvuuu
0 U1V U1 U1V
0 W 2W 1 2W uvuuu uvuwxyz{||{}~{y~~~~{y
W X 1 VU1 1V1 VU1 |}{
X 1 1 WXUU XW1 WXUU
1 WU W0XW U21 W0XW uvuuu
Y8 Y8
Y8 Y8 uvuuuu
Y8 Y8 u u u wu u u u u u u uu
Y8 Y8 ¨ © ª« ¡¬¬§
Y8 Y8
331
[TQ\]^5_S?S5G`Q[?aGb;c`d?T>JK6LF8?>KJ8?9
e8f6g6 01h648985%58 0211345689
658 00645 6 fi68ii8j86%5 4
T>JK6LF8?>KJ8?9?JKIA=LKE?F8=ALJ@ TK66K@LKE?I>JK6LF8?IKE=8E=?=>68@>KJF@ S86RLI8?JLO8?<68FLI=LKE@
Zf6klm$h$eke
3n

545864
50$
68iZZ6 5 $854i
8!6 e64f
40 4j58 00 664Z56Zi96i9600
14
4085685
64 4646556845 50 1 Ylk0 64
m84588995 5 Ylk0 1 1
Z6
m6f56450:15 46f650t0 v "6#$8!6 4!6
w p64
vx 6
TKR86?F8<=>@?LE?=>L@?OAI8
$p64 Zf6
vw
"6#$8!6 4!6
pZf6
"6#$ 5% "6#$ 5% 6
k64%6Z vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz

!664%6Z w m9664 5% 8!6 4!6
pZf6
4 696Z 02 02 w i648!6Z6 5 6 02
qLIrs@?FLOO7@LKE?CKF8J?<A6AC8=86@ ª°ÑÒÓÔÕÕÖ×°ªØÖÙÚÛ×µÑ×Ø¡¢©§ÜÝ§Þ£ ¤¦Ñ ¤¦§©ß§Þ§¥à
k8Z6i %5 k8Z6i8%5 %5
h646o 86Z &' ( )*+,+- 6./50 ±
.f8.( ()*12&'+)'+3 48656 µ´

f8605 5678 ()*11-1&9&)3 48656 ¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ¼ÃÄÀÃÄÁÅÆÁÇÈÁÉÄÊÁÂ¼ÃÂ½ÀÄÀË
T>8Ir?qL=u
µ³
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§
3(&*)9-&2&3++ :
3()*1&+,93'2- 0#0: µ²
;8<=>? ;8<=>? GAH?I>JK6LF8? N?LO?FA=A? QR8?F8<=>?OK6? T>JK6LF8?
µ±
@=A6=? 8EF? IKEI8E=6A=LKE? <KLE=? SKJR86 IKEI*?OK6? µ
BCCD BCCD BM?IKEI68=8D LPEK68F SKJR86
U1 000V W1 # ´
U1 01 XV 0W1 01 XV ³
W 0 U0W X 0 U0W
W W2 00XXV W01 00XXV ² ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
¤¦ §¡¦¨©
W2 X 0 1 121 0 1
Y: Y: ±
Y: Y:
Y: Y: µ ± ² ¶ ³ · ´ ¸ µ
Y: Y: ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
Y: Y:
332
eROfghijQ?QiFkOe?lFm;nko?R>5I@JE7?>I57?:
p8`6q6 01^648985%58 0211345689
658 00645 6 `]68]]8r86%5 4
R>5I@JE7?>I57?:?5IH4=JID?E7=4J56 RI@@I6JID?H>5I@JE7?HID=7D=?=>@76>I5E6 Q7@PJH7?5JM7?<@7EJH=JID6
\`6[sc$^$p[p
3t

545864
50$
68]\\6 5 $854]
8!6 p64`
40 2r58 00 6\5
6\
]
96
]9600
12
4085685 64
64
4646556845 50 1 W3
b9- 64
c84588995 5 W3
b9- 1 1
\6
c6`5450915 46`65[
d v "6#$8!6 4!6
w a64
vx 6
RIP7@?E7<=>6?JD?=>J6?M4H7 vw "6#$8!6 4!6

$a64 \`6 a\`6
"6#$ 5% "6#$ 5% z
vw xy zyz{|}~yz 6
[64%6\
!664%6\ w c9664 5

% 8!6
4!6
a\`6
4 696\ 02 02 w ]648!6\6 5 6 02
3JHXY6?EJMMZ6JID?BIE75?<4@4B7=7@6 ª°ÑÒÓÔÕÕÖ×°ªØÖÙÚÛ×µÙ¡ÜÜ¢¤×¥¡¤µÝ¶¤¦¡«¥£Þ¡§ßà§£¤ØªáÙâ°ã
[8\6] %5 [8\6]8%5 %5
^646_ 86\ &' ( )*)))) 6+,5- ±
+`8+( ()*.&'/0'''1 28656 µ´
¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ¼ÃÄÀÃÄÁÅÆÁÇÈÁÉÄÊÁÂ¼ÃÂ½ÀÄÀË
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§

`8605 34567 ()*.&'/0'''1 28656
R>7HX?3J=u
µ³
3(.)*))))/800 9
3()*:.1)800'1 0#09 µ²
;7<=>? ;7<=>? F4G?H>5I@JE7? L?JM?E4=4? OP7?E7<=>?MI@? R>5I@JE7?
µ±
6=4@=? 7DE? HIDH7D=@4=JID? <IJD=? QI5P7@ HIDH*?MI@? µ
ABBC ABBC AK?HIDH@7=7C JNDI@7E QI5P7@
S1 0T U1 0T ´
S1 02 0T1V 0 T1 0T1V ³
02 0T1T 11 0T1T ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
1 U 0V2TT 11 0V2TT ² ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
U 1U 01VU0 UT 01VU0
1U VS 0U 02 V0 0U 02 ±
W9 W9
W9 W9 µ ± ² ¶ ³ · ´ ¸ µ
W9 W9 ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
W9 W9
333
0123457895

o 4515

f2457895
5Yp;27!47012345@,49
(Yc):c()"(
71!53
"#$%&7'5!53
()"" *581+,'53
$- ./0 ")c)%c()"(
0589'5
12589 058941 '
132589 Oa/JUQTÙ\.G_OI\_OUGHSJQN/UJObq
8843287!5
5"))9 68,29 9'25175247
)9 + ,' 15 ! 4
8 2
?2
!827 r18 '7 15?5157!54275
ghgg ZKc>!7!L
89
": ;873!8'5
<1287=25>?'57 1?
7 &7!@>273 0" 741235355!274292
ghgg ZKc>!7!L
08A
"5: 1274'5
61>81589 BC5184275>851>8
5 +,!@>273 0" &722827715743"
ghgjg ZKc>!7!L
8D5!12'27
9812 1BC5184275>8C5
A5C51 D2873 "E9$E9 &722827715743(
ghgg ZKc>!7!L
t.OusT\NO. ^QG..JS OSQ`\a nO/.bQ\ \bQ nO /.bQ\
.G_POT\NO. FGKHG IJIMNO./PO./0
99L K99L
QRSGT/U
VIIW bGTGHa/TO\a T\NO.GH TÙ\.G_O /NO./PO nO/b.Qb./QH_ /NO./PO
0123458C51845
KZ!7!155L KZ!7!155L K99(c1L dO/I a/TOQ`.Ob`\U_ bQG..JS T\..\bG\H bQ./H_
8??2 8X1215131' (5 K99L K99L K99L T\..\bG\H T\..\bG\H
"Y 5# "# 927 8C5 927 )@)$Z )@)5Z )@)$Z )@)5Z )@)$Z )@)5Z )@)$Z )@)5Z
235c X1531 (5 8C51845 )@)-#: )@)()% "@)"-# (5 (5 (# $ # $E 55: "E -$ "E -$
>52 8211' "# 835C )@)"#( )@))%Y )@5"Y: ) ) "5 ) "( ##) ")" "-) ( "-) (
09 X1531 (5 927 )@)((% )@)")" )@:$:$ (5 (5 "# - "% -E (5: "E -5 "E -5
2 42 8211' -% $( "# 98, )@)::5 )@)(Y- "@-5): (5 (5 $( $ "% :E -5% "E -Y "E -Y
sObQ\T/QG\Hb Ù\.G_OI\_OUS/./IOQO.b O/IT\NO.b bQGI/QO_.OI/GHGHPUGaOV0gW
^QG..JS OSQ`\a nO/.bQ\/NOhnO/.bQ\bQnO/.bQ\/NOh
[\UO] O/I \T/QG\H ^G_O OHPQ` F\_OUaGQ b

G
.0

T

t.

Ous
T\NO.

TO.GH TÙ\.G_O bQG..JS bQ./H_ bQ./H_
\N
KZ!7!155L KZ!7!155L K99(c1L K99L d.G_POQ`. Ob`\U_
K99L K99L T\..\bG\H T\..\bG\H T\..\bG\H
927 8C5 8C5 )@)$Z )@)5Z )@)$Z )@)5Z )@)$Z )@)5Z )@)$Z )@)5Z
87573
" ??2 K549578+ f2B ghijjg )@)((% )@)")" )@#$%: (5 (5 5# 3Y 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@
e0L
( M ??2 e"" f2B ghikii )@)$## )@)(5$ "@-5): (5 (5 5# - "% -E (5: "E -Y "E -Y
5 M 292 42 e"" f2B ghiilg )@)::5 )@)(Y- )@:$:$ (5 (5 $( $ "% :E -5% "E -5 "E -5
87445
- 7'1?245m O..\. (5 (5 "#
$ 7'1?245m O..\. (5 (5 "#
: 7'1?245m O..\. (5 (5 "#
% 7'1?245m O..\. (5 (5 "#
334
fghMZfhBiKg>jHBhZ3kBMA8NDOJ:BAN8:B3
n_9
09 01\97

8'8 23456789

98 2297
89 &
p97 7
MA8NDOJ:BAN8:B3B8NP7@ONIBJ:@7O89 MNDDN9ONIBPA8NDOJ:BPNI@:I@B@AD:9AN8J9 C:DVOP:B8OS:B?D:JOP@ONI9
878
97
^_9o /o
n 6r
/2 8
&

9b^
^98

&87b
n97_
72 5
q8
22
#9
9^
9789^
b9
b

9
22
"45
7
2

898
97 7
!

9798
89
78 8
2 "4 Ylam 97

o788 8
"0 %1 "4 "0 "4 "0

^9
o9_8 8
9^
9_98

! × Ù $9%&
#9

7#9
Ö» ÕØÅÆÇÚÈÉÊË
Û
ºÌ
ºÔ¼
p97
0 " 9" " " " "
MNV:DBJ:?@A9BOIB@AO9BS7P: ÅÆÇÈÉÊËºÌ»ÍÎÏÐÑÒÍÓ Õ Õ
$9%&
#9

7#9
&
p97
^_9
p^_9
a"
97'9^
$9%& 8' $9%& 8' º» ¼½¾¿¾ÀÁÃÂ½¾
Ã½¾Ä
Ä
0 " 9" " " " "
21 21 " " " " "
!#9"
97'9^ 03 ÖÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ» o9
97 8'
#9

7#9
03 " " " " "
×ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ» b97
#9
^98
p^_9
7
99^ 0 23 0 23 23 " 9" " " " "
6OPcd9BJOSSe9ONIBFNJ:8B?7D7F:@:D9 ( «¬x®«w̄°¬±²³w®wwxw{y´´|~wµ~w}w¶{·¸}~wxwµ³w¯¹
a^9b
'8 a^9b
'8'8
\97
9]9^ )*

+ (,-))(.8
/0 stsus
`_

`
+ "0
+ (,(1121)34 5
989 stsuvwxyzzy{|y}w|}|~|~|y}w
stsuss ~z{y
¡¢£¤¥
_9
28
" 6789:
+ (,(3((;1)24 5
989
6O@BZ[
|}wzwyz
wzwyz
6
+ (,-)2);44(3 <
6
+ (,(4(4=*2=2 2%2
< stss
>:?@AB >:?@AB K7LBMA8NDOJ:B RBOSBJ7@7B UV:B>:?@ABSNDB MA8NDOJ:B stsss
C@7D@B HIJB PNIP:I@D7@ONIB ?NOI@B CN8V:D PNIP,BSNDB
EFFG EFFG EQBPNIPD:@:G OTIND:J CN8V:D
22 "2542 4"4 "2542 stss
22 0 "22W2 25 "22W2
0 04 "32X 3 "32X stsss
04 4 "3X3 W0"4 "3X3
4 52 "2W X2"4 "2W stsss
52 11 "22 53"4 "22
Y<! Y<!
Y<! Y<! stssss
Y<! Y<! s s s us s s s s s s ss
Y<! Y<! ¦§¨©ªª¥
335
:ijZ\:jFkOiAl<Fj\?mFZERSITNBFESRBF=
na9
49 01b97

!8)8 23456789

98 2297
89 (
_97 7
ZERSITNBFESRBF=FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG ;BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
878
97
â9` !3`
n 6o
32 !8
2
(

9h^
^98

(87h
n97a
72 7
p8
22
!#9
9^8
9^
h
9

h

9
22
"47
7
2

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
2 "4 % 97
`788 !8
"0 25 "4 "0 "4 "0
^9
`9a8 22 | }~q &9'(
#9

7#9
r _97
qs 9" 0 $ 2 2$ %1 0%11
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB |}~qr
&9'(
#9

7#9
(
_97
â9
_â9
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) uv
wxyztu{ 9" 0 $ 2 2$ %1 0%11
d"
97)9^ 21 qr st uztu{ 21 301 * 11% 1 134
#9"
97)9^ 03 r `9
97 8
)
#9

7#9 03 %$ 3 %$ 0* *02
_â9
7
99^ 0 23 0 23 r !h97
#9
^98
9" 23 2$ *3 332 24 0
8TQefGFNTWWgGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÌÍÎÏÌÎÐÑÍÒÓÔÎÏ¬¬ÕÕÖ¡¢¤×¢ØÙ¢ÖÔ«ÐÚ
d^9h
)8 d^9h
)8)8
b97
9c9^ +, ±

- ./010028
34
$a

$
- "0 !
- ./.+0566.,5 7
989 ´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½·¾¿»¾¿¼ÀÁ¼ÂÃ¼Ä¿Å¼½·¾½¸»¿»Æ °
a9
28
" 89:;<
¥¦¢§¨©ª¢
!
- ./.=>+>5?+> 7
989
8TDF\]
«ª¢¦¢§¨©ª¢
6
- ?/,>.+566+1 @ ¯

6
- ./.,+>1>1, 2'2
@
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF 9YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ®
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF ;SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN ;SRYBI ¡¢¡£¤
22 "%5%5 4"4 "%5%5
22 0 "3*1 25 "3*1
0 01"4 "%00 0"54 "%00
01"4 40 "%54 %4"54 "%54
40 ** "% 43"4 "% ¬
** 51 "4 5 "4
[@ [@
[@ [@
¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ¬
[@ [@
[@ [@ Ç»¾»¿¸È¿¹·¾¼É»Ê¿µ¼ÀËËÆ
336
;ghZ];hFiOgAj=Fh]?kFZERSITNBFESRBF7
ca9
39 01l97

!8)8 23456789

98 2297
89 (
_97 7
ZERSITNBFESRBF7FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG <BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
878
97
à9b !2b
c 6d
22 !8
2
(

9f̀
`98

(87f
c97a
72 8
e8
22
!#9
9`8
9`
f
9

f

9
22
"48
7
2

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
2 "4 4 97
b78_88
_)f_ !8
"0 25 "4 "0 "4 "0
`9
b9a8 22
} ~r &9'(
#9

7#9
s _97
rt 0 9" 2$ 35 2$ %0 05
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB }~rs
&9'(
#9

7#9
(
_97
à9
_à9
m"
97)9`
&9'( 8) &9'( 8)
%5
rs tuvwvxy{zuv{uv|
|
0
%5
9"

2$
4$
35
%4
2$
4$
%0
042
05
5255
#9"
97)9` 4 s b9
97 8)
#9

7#9
4 *$ %32 *$ %05 113
_à9
7
99` 0 23 0 23 s !f97
#9
`98
23 9" 140 ** 533 2 12
9TQnoGFNTWWpGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÍÎÏÐÍÏÑÒÎÓÔÕÏÐ¬Ö ×ÖØ¤Ö¬
m`9f
)8 m`9f
)8)8
l97
9q9` +, ²

- ./00,.18
23
$a

$
- "0 !
- ./.445+4467 8
989
¦§£¨©ª«£
¬«£§£¨©ª«£
±
a9
28
" 9:;<= !
- ./.5>,50666 8
989 µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç
9TDF]^ 6
- ./4+4+7>?,0 @
6
- ./.5.>?>4>> 2'2
@
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF :YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF
°
¯
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF <SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF ¡
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN <SRYBI ¢£¢¤¥
2% "%051 5 "%051
2% 5 "32 "4 "32
5 01 "545 0"4 "545 ®
01 42 "115 %%"4 "115
42 *4 "11% 41 "11%
*4 54 "0%5% [ 5 \@
\@ \@
\@ \@
® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´
\@ \@
\@ \@ È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
337
0123457895

tu 4515

:2257895
??v8<818815890123457-29
)&e*Ze)*#)
71!"53
#$%&'7(5"53
)*## +581,-(53
%. /01 #*e*@e)*#)
0589(5
243589 058941!(
443589 Kb0GQMPaQ]/D`KF]`KQDEOGMJ0QGKdx
8823287"5
%**9 58-29!9(25165246
.7.9 , -( !1 5 " 2
8 2
=2
"8 27 y18(615=5157"52275
hihoh YHe< "7"I
89
.# 4873"8(5
:8192873;25<=(57!1=
7 '7"7<273 0) 621235355"272292
hihho YHe< "7"I
08>
?@* 1274(5
81589 AB5182275<851<8
9835 ,-"7<273 0) '722827615623#
hihwh YHe< "7"I
8C5"12(27
9813!1AB5182275<8B5
>5B51 C3873#*#9%**9 '722827615623)
hihoh YHe< "7"I
q/KrP]JK/ MD//GO KOMa]b sK0/dM] ]gdM sK 0/dM]
/D`LKP]JK/ DHED FGFJK/0LK/01
99I H99I
MNODP0Q
RFFS cdcDPDEb0PK]b P]JK/DE PaQ]/D`K 0JK/0LK sK0d/Md/0ME` 0JK/0LK
0123458B51845
HY"7"155I HY"7"155I H99)e1I fK0F b0PKMa/Kda]Q` dMD//GO P]//]dD]E dM/0E`
8==2 8T12151U!(
V WX .# ). H99I H99I H99I P]//]dD]E P]//]dD]E
#& )) #$ 927 8B5 927 *7*%Y *7*.Y *7*%Y *7*.Y *7*%Y *7*.Y *7*%Y *7*.Y
235e T15UV ). 8B51845 *7*#@) *7**.@ .7..$% )% )@ )* UZ U. )%&[ Z*&[ Z?%[
<53 8211!( #$ 835B *7**$$ *7***$ .7&@Z? . ? # * ? * * *
0 9 T15UV ). 927 *7**@) *7**)# *7.)$% ). ). #$ * * )%&[ * Z*&[ * Z?%[
3!23 8211!( #$ 98- *7*.## *7**?% #*7**** .. .? )) UZ * * )%&[ * Z*&[ * Z?%[
KdM_]P0MD]Ed caQ]/D`KF]`KQO0/0FKMK/d K0FP]JK/d dMDF0MK`/KF0DEDELQDbKR1hggS
MD//GO KOMa]b sK0/dM]0JKisK0/dM]gdMsK0/dM]0JKi
\]QK^ K0F _]P0MD]E D`K _KELMa ]`KQbDM cd

/1
cD

P

q/

Kr
P]JK/

PK/DE PaQ]/D`K dMD//GO dM/0E` dM/0E`
]J
HY"7"155I HY"7"155I H99)e1I H99I f/D`LKMa/ Kda]Q`
H99I H99I P]//]dD]E P]//]dD]E P]//]dD]E
927 8B5 8B5 *7*%Y *7*.Y *7*%Y *7*.Y *7*%Y *7*.Y *7*%Y *7*.Y
# g ==2 :2A hijjk1 *7*.## *7**?% *7.)$% .. .? )) UZ * 27=7 )%&[ 27=7 Z*&[ 27=7 Z?%[
) gl ==2 :2A hijjmm *7*))) *7**?# #7?#.@ )% .# )) U@ 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7
. g 235 8!6 65"[:2n hiokj *7**@) *7**)# #*7**** ). ). #$ 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7
? g ==2 :2A hijjo1 *7**&% *7**.$ #7Z#?@ )% .# )) 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7
% gc ==2 8828"2576 7(1=225p K//]/ )% ). ))
235(87#
Z 7(1=225p K//]/ ). ). #$
@ 7(1=225p K//]/ ). ). #$
338
gWlWMfWDEmMJWnDoMp@qJrDOC:PFQL<DCP:<D5
`
\8 48 00d86

7)7
12345678
87
1186 78 [
\ ]86 6
OC:PFQL<DCP:<D5D:PR9BQPKDL<B9Q:; OPFFP;QPKDRC:PFQL<DRPKB<KBDBCF<;CP:L; E<FXQR<D:QU<DAF<LQRBQPK;
767
86
c\84_`3 (à `5b 7
1 (
8
[c c87 (
76[ `86 \
6 1 7 e7
11
%8 8c
8678c
[8 [ 8 11
!37
6 1
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !3 '# 86
^
67

7 7
!" !3 !" !3 !"
c8 "" ! #4$ ! #4$ !
^8 \7 Ó Õ &8'(
%8 6%8 "0 ! #03$ ! #03$ !
Ò· ÑÔÁÂÃÖÄÅÆÇ
×
¶È
¶Ð¸
]86
8! " ! 23$ ! 23$ !
OPX<FDL<ABC;DQKDBCQ;DU9R<
( ]86 c\8 ÁÂÃÄÅÆÇ¶È·ÉÊËÌÍÎÉÏ ÑÑ
&8'(
%8 6%8
3
"1
!
!
"02$
3$
!
!
"02$ !
3$ !
]c\8
a ! 86)8c
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) ¶· ¸¹º»º¼½¿¾¹º
¿¹ºÀ
À
8! " ! 23$ ! 23$ !
"" 3 3 14 14 ! 141$ ! 141$ !
%8! 86)8c "0 3 "1 ÒØØØØØØØØØØ· ^8 86 7)
%8 6%8 ! 34$ ! 34$ !
ÓØØØØØØØØØ· [86
%8 c87 ]c\8
6 88c " 12 " 12 8! 12 ! $ ! $ !
8QRij;DLQUUk;QPKDHPL<:DA9F9H<B<F; * «¬®w̄°w±²³´°www{yµµ|~
a
c8[ )7 a
c8[
)7)7
d86 8h
8c +, - *.//01 27 34 stsus
$\
$ - !" - *.*,55*016, 7
878 stsuvwxyzzy{|y}w|}|~|~|y}w
stsuss ~z{y
¡¢£¤¥
\
8 17 ! 89:;< - *.**==/651/ 7
878
8QBDfg
|}wzwyz
wzwyz
5 - *.,1/=61>// ?
5 - *.*5*==>6,5 1'1 ? stss
@<ABCD @<ABCD M9NDOC:PFQL<D TDQUDL9B9D WX<D@<ABCDUPFD OC:PFQL<D stsss
EB9FBD JKLD RPKR<KBF9BQPKD APQKBD EP:X<F RPKR.DUPFD
GHHI GHHI GSDRPKRF<B<I QVKPF<L EP:X<F
1" !11Y #!3 !11Y stss
1" "!3 !033 14!3 !033
"!3 "#!3 !0#4 " !0#4 stsss
"#!3 33 !03 03!Y3 !03
33 Y"!3 !0"3 #0!3 !0"3 stsss
Y"!3 43 !0Y Y2!3 !0Y
Z? Z?
Z? Z? stssss
Z? Z? s s s us s s s s s s ss
Z? Z? ¦§¨©ªª¥
339
]9^9M_9D;`M<9aDbMc?d<eDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D3
f
g8 28 00h86
!
7(7
12345678
87
1186 78 i
g j86 6
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D3DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE ;@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
767
86
\g82 k f1 'f l f5m !7 1 '
8
i\ \87 '
76i f86 g
6 1 7 n7
11 !
$8 8\7
8\
i
8
i 8 11
"37
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 1 "3 [olp 86
q
67

7 !7 "# &Z "3 "# "3 "#
\8
q8 g7 w %8&'
$8 6$8
x j86
wy 8" # " " " " "
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ wx 3
%8&'
$8 6$8 #1
" " " " "
' j86 \g8 j\g8 " " " " "
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( {|
}~z{ 8" # " " " " "
l " 86(8\ 3 14 wx yz {z{ 14 " " " " "
$8" 86(8\ #1 x q8 86 7
(
$8
6$8 " " " " "
j\g8
6 88\ # 12 # 12 x !i86
$8 \87 8" 12 " " " " "
8ROtuEDLRUUvERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE Ò±Ó±ÔÕ±Ö®Ô×±«ØÔÙÚÛ×³±¢ ÜÜ£¥
l
\8i (7 l
\8i
(7(7
h86 8r
8\ )* ²
+ ,-..// 07 12 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
sg
s + "# ! + ,-,334536/6 7
878 º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃ½ÄÅÁÄÅÂÆÇÂÈÉÂÊÅËÂÃ½ÄÃ¾ÁÅÁÌ ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
g
8 17 " 89:;<
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
! + ,-,,=4*),,6 7
878
8RBD_]
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
5 + 4-=4*6./)/= > ´²
5 + ,-,==535,)6 1&1 >
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 9W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D ´
EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD ;QPW@G OQKO-DUQGD
HIIJ HIIJ HSDOQKOG@B@J RVKQG@L ;QPW@G
1"3 "131# Y"3 "131# ³²
1"3 #"3 "YZ0 14 "YZ0
#"3 #Z "012 #"3 "012 ³
#Z 3 "#20 00"3 "#20
3 Y1 "03# 3Y"3 "03# ²
Y1 Z1 "01 YY "01
Z1 4# "01 ZZ "01
[> [>
³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
[> [>
[> [> ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
340
h7i7Lj7C9kL:7lCmLn>o:pCWBOPFQK?CBPO?C)
q
[8 r8 00c86

7'7
12345678
87
1186 78 b
[ Z86 6
WBOPFQK?CBPO?C)COPNEAQPJCK?AEQOD WPFFPDQPJCNBOPFQK?CNPJA?JACABF?DBPOKD 9?FVQN?COQT?C@F?KQNAQPJD
767
86
a[8rsqt &q` q5u 7
1 &
8
ba a87 &
76b q86 [
6 1 5 e7
11
#8 8a7
8a
b
8
b 8 11
!35
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !3 \f`2 86
g
67
a8= e8Z 7
!" \f`2 !3 !" !3 !"
a8
'7
g8 [7 w $8%&
#8 6#8
x Z86
wy 8! " ! ! ! ! !
WPV?FCK?@ABDCQJCABQDCTEN?
& Z86 a[8
wx
$8%&
#8 6#8
Za[8
` ! 86'8a
$8%& 7' $8%& 7' wx yz{|{}~z{z{

8! " !

! ! ! !
#8! 86'8a x g8 86 7'
#8 6#8
Za[8
6 88a " 12 " 12 x b86
#8 a87 8! 12 ! ! ! ! !
6QN]^DCKQTT_DQPJCHPK?OC@EFEH?A?FD Ò±Ó±ÔÕ±Ö®Ô×±«ØÔÙÚÛ×³±¢£ª¨ÜÝ¨ÞÖ ß¥§
`
a8b '7 `
a8b
'7'7
c86 8d
8a () ²
* +,)-./ 80 172 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
0[
0 * !" * +,++34).)/4 5
878 ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡

[
8 17 ! 6789: * +,++4;;<.; 5
878 º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃ½ÄÅÁÄÅÂÆÇÂÈÉÂÊÅËÂÃ½ÄÃ¾ÁÅÁÌ
WB?N]C6QAv 5 * /,/////.+/; =
5 * +,);3+/33/. 1%1 =
>?@ABC >?@ABC LEMCNBOPFQK?C SCQTCKEAEC 7V?CK?@ABCTPFC WBOPFQK?C
´²
´
DAEFAC ?JKC NPJN?JAFEAQPJC @PQJAC 9POV?F NPJN,CTPFC
GHHI GHHI GRCNPJNF?A?I QUJPF?K 9POV?F
11 !334 3!3 !334 ³²
11 !X3 1Y!3 !X3
"Y Z[ 2 !" ³
"Y 3" Z[ \= \=
3" Y Z[ \= \= ²
\= \=
\= \=
\= \=
³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
\= \=
\= \= ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
341
fRgRIhRBTiIjRkBlIm>njoBUA9LCMH;BAL9;B3
p
X8 18 00b86
!
7(7
12345678
87
1186 78 a
X W86 6
UA9LCMH;BAL9;B3B9LK8@MLGBH;@8M9: ULCCL:MLGBKA9LCMH;BKLG@;G@B@AC;:AL9H: T;CSMK;B9MP;B?C;HMK@MLG:
767
86
`X81 q p 'p _ p5r !7 1 '
8
à `87 '
76a p86 X
6 1 6 s7
11 !
$8 8`7
8`
a
8
a 8 11
"36
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 1 "3 Zt_u 86
e
67

7 !7 "# Zt_u "3 "# "3 "#
`8
e8 X7
v %8&'
$8 6$8
w W86
vx 8" # " " " " "
ULS;CBH;?@A:BMGB@AM:BP8K; vw 3 " " " " "
' W86 `X8 %8&'
$8 6$8 #1 " " " " "
W`X8
_ " 86(8`
%8&' 7( %8&'
3
7(
14 vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz

8" #
14
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
7(
$8 6$8
$8" 86(8` #1 w e8 86 W`X8 " " " " "
6 88` # 12 # 12 w !a86
$8 `87 8" 12 " " " " "
7MK\]:BHMPP^:MLGBELH;9B?8C8E;@;C: Ñ°Ò°ÓÔ°ÕÓÖ°ª×ÓØÙÚÖ²Ô¡ÛÛ¢¤
_
`8a (7 _
`8a
(7(7
b86 8c
8` )* ±
+ ,-..*/ 07 1 ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
dX
d + "# ! + ,-,,23)4)/5 6
878 ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
°¯§« §¬®¯§
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
X
8 17 " 789:; ! + ,-,,*./*,5) 6
878
7M@Bhf 5 + 5-<534**/)2 =
5 + ,-,)5/,/2)< 1&1 =
>;?@AB >;?@AB I8JBKA9LCMH;B OBMPBH8@8B RS;BH;?@ABPLCB UA9LCMH;B
³±
³
:@8C@B ;GHB KLGK;G@C8@MLGB ?LMG@B TL9S;C KLGK-BPLCB
DEEF DEEF DNBKLGKC;@;F MQGLC;H TL9S;C
11 "V24 3"3 "V24 ²±
11 4 "030 12"3 "030
4 0# WX Y #3"3 Z= ²
0# 34 "#2 3"3 "#2
34 [0"3 "#[[ VV"3 "#[[ ±
[0"3 2# "04 4#"[3 "04
Z= Z=
Z= Z=
² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
Z= Z=
Z= Z= ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
342
d2e2Cf2;4gC52h;iCj7k5l;M:F-,GB+;:-F+;(
]
R8 [8 00W86

7'7
12345678
87
1186 78 .
R P86 6
M:F-,GB+;:-F+;(;F-E=9G-A;B+9=GF< M-,,-<G-A;E:F-,GB+;E-A9+A9;9:,+<:-FB< 4+,LGE+;FGJ+;8,+BGE9G-A<
767
86
QR8[\]^ &]V ]5_ 7
1 &
8
.Q Q87 &
76. ]86 R
6 1 0 `7
11
#8 8Q7
8Q
.
8
. 8 11
!30
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !3 OaZbc 86
Z
67

7 7
!" OaZbc !3 !" !3 !"
Q8
Z8 R776.6778 7 Q8 6 1 y z{|}~n $8%&
#8 6#8
o P86
np " 8!
M-L+,;B+89:<;GA;9:G<;J=E+ yz{|}~no 3
& P86 QR8 "1 $8%&
#8 6#8
PQR8
no pqrsrtuwvqr
wqrx
$8%& 7' $8%& 7' " 8!
V ! 86'8Q 3 14 x 14
#8! 86'8Q "1 7'
#8 6#8
o Z8 86 PQR8
6 88Q " 12 " 12 o .86
#8 Q87 12 8!
1GEST<;BGJJU<G-A;?-B+F;8=,=?+9+,< É¨Ê¨ËÌ¨Í¥ËÎ¨¢ÏËÐÑÒÎª¨ÓÓÍ ¦¡£ª
V
Q8. '7 V
Q8.
'7'7
W86 8X
8Q () ©
* +,,-,

.8/
¨§£¤¥¦§
¡
¢£¤¥¦§
YR
Y * !" * 0
878
R
8 17 ! 12345 * 0
878 ±²³́µ¶·¸¹º´»¼¸»¼¹½¾¹¿À¹Á¼Â¹º´»ºµ¸¼¸Ã
A-;8,-JGF+m 5 *
5 *
7+89:; 7+89:; C=D;E:F-,GB+; I;GJ;B=9=;
6
1%1 6
«©
«
<9=,9; +AB; E-AE+A9,=9G-A; 8-GA9; 2L+;B+89:;J-,; EM:F -,GB+;
-AEN;J-,;
>??@ >??@ >H;E-AE,+9+@ GKA-,+B 4-FL+, 4-FL+,
!304 !304 ª©
O6 O6
O6 O6 ª
O6 O6
O6 O6 ©
O6 O6
O6 O6
O6 O6
ª « ¬ © ® ¯ ° ª
O6 O6
O6 O6 Ä¸»¸¼µÅ¼¶´»¹Æ¸Ç¼²¹½ÈÈÃ
343
0123457895

pq 4515

?2057895
%)rs821161589012345;,09
(=d)Yd()#(
71!"53
#$%$&7'5"53
()## *581+,'53
%( -./ #)d)Xd()#(
0589'5
041589 058941!'
241589 Ka.IQMP`Q\-F_KH\_KQFGOIMJ.QIKcu
8803287"5
3)9 48,29!9'25155245
)9 + ,' !1 5 " 0
8 2
:2
"8 27 v18'515:5157"50275
gt W>d9 "7"A
67
(% 2873"8'5
!1808259:'57!1:
5 &7";9273 501235355"270292
gt W>d9 "7"A
06<
%=) 1274'5
615899!5>?215:@5895ABC5180275985198
5 +,";9273 &722827515503#
g W>d9 "7"A
8D5"12'27
?215B:@5895BC518027598C5
B""827800 D1873E#9#))9 &722827515503(
gt W>d9 "7"A
m-KnP\JK- MF--IO KOM`\a oK.-cM\ \fcM oK .-cM\
-F_LKP\JK- F>GF HIHJK-.LK-./
99A >99A
MNOFP.Q
RHHS bcbFPFGa.PK\a P\JK-FG P`Q\-F_K .JK-.LK oK.c-Mc-.MG_ .JK-.LK
0123458C51845
>W"7"155A >W"7"155A >99(d1A eK.H a.PKM`-Kc`\Q_ cMF--IO P\--\cF\G cM-.G_
6::2 6T12151U!'
@ VV ($ (E >99A >99A >99A P\--\cF\G P\--\cF\G
#% #= #$ 927 8C5 927 );)%W );)EW );)%W );)EW );)%W );)EW );)%W );)EW
235d T15U@ (E 8C51845 );)$$3 );))3% );X)E3 (3 (Y #$ # X $E# #=X #Z EE3 (Z %(Y
951 6211!' #$ 635C );)X3% );)))3 );)%#= E E ) $ % Y)% #)% X$= #)) #Z (#E
0 9 T15U@ (E 927 );)(== );))E= );Y(E% (( (E #= E X == E$ E(Y #$E EXX ((Y
1!01 6211!' #$ 98, );((3= );))%) );X%3) E) E( #$ ## #3 #Z (YX (Z 3## 3Z Y=X
KcM^\P.MF\Gc b`Q\-F_KH\_KQO.-.HKMK-c K.HP\JK-c cMFH.MK_-KH.FGFGLQFaKR/ffS
MF--IO KOM`\a oK.-cM\.JKgoK.-cM\fcMoK.-cM\.JKg
[\QK] K.H ^\P.MF\G F_K ^KGLM` \_KQaFM bc

-/

bF

P

m-

Kn
P\JK-

PK-FG P`Q\-F_K cMF--IO cM-.G_ cM-.G_
\J
>W"7"155A >W"7"155A >99(d1A >99A e-F_LKM`- Kc`\Q_
>99A >99A P\--\cF\G P\--\cF\G P\--\cF\G
927 8C5 8C5 );)%W );)EW );)%W );)EW );)%W );)EW );)%W );)EW
# f ::2 ?2B ghhhi );((3= );))E= );X%3) E) E( #= ## #3 == E$ E(Y #$E EXX ((Y
( fj ::2 505# ?2B fg );)X3% );))%) );Y(E% (( (= #= 3 X #Z (YX (Z 3## EZ Y=X
E fj ::2 505( ?2B ghhk );)Y$3 );))3E );X33( (( (= #= E X #Z (%X (Z E$X 3Z YY%
3 f ::2 ?2B ghhh );)(== );))3= );Y$#X (% (Y #= U#E U# 27:; 27:; 27:; 27:; 27:; 27:;
% 7'1:205l K--\- (E (E #$
Y 7'1:205l K--\- (E (E #$
X 7'1:205l K--\- (E (E #$
344
lWmMeneMeneDEnMJWoDpMm@qJrDOC9PFQL;DCP9;D=
_9Z7 37 01c759
9 6)69 230345679
769 1227567 \9ZY75 5
OC9PFQL;DCP9;D=D9PR8BQPKDL;B8Q9: OPFFP:QPKDRC9PFQL;DRPKB;KBDBCF;:CP9L: E;FXQR;D9QU;DAF;LQRBQPK:
656975
bZ7^_2(2_2(2(_`_4a 6 2(
7 9\bb76 (965\ _75Z
52 6d69 122 9%77b
7567 b
\
7\
7122
1106
52 9679 6
75 5 757 66795 6 6 2 1101 22 75
]9569 9
6 6 11 1 2# 110 11 110 11

b7 1 !" #0 $ 23 !
]7Z6 Ò Ô &7'(9%7 5%7 #3 !" !! $ ""
Ñ¶ ÐÓÀÁÂÕÃÄÅÆ
Ö
µÇ
µÏ·
Y75
7 2## 2!1 3 2"2
OPX;FDL;ABC:DQKDBCQ:DU8R;
( Y75 bZ7 ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆµÇ¶ÈÉÊËÌÍÈÎ ÐÐ
&7'(9%7 5%7

3
1
#$
2
#
202
3#
"1
2!
2$
10
YbZ7
`75 )7b
&7'( 6) &7'( 6) µ¶ ·¸¹º¹»¼¾½¸¹
¾¸¹¿
¿
7 2## 2!1 3 2"2
1 20 20 30 $2 # 3 10#
%775 )7b 3 2" Ñ××××××××××¶ ]
775 6)9%7 5%7 2" 2#1 32 "" 3 133
Ò×××××××××¶ \759%7b76 YbZ7
5 7
7b 23 23 7 23 20 3" 211 #$ 222
7QRij:DLQUUk:QPKDHPL;9DA8F8H;B;F: * «¬®®®®w̄°w±¬²³°www{y´´|~
`9b7\)6 `9b7\9)6)6
c75 7g9 7b +, - *.///0 1623 stss
hZ9h- 111 - *.,,044,*5, 69767
¡¢£¤¥
Z972 6 789:; - *.**<5<,4=5 69767
7QBDef
|}wzwyz
stsss
wzwyz
4- *.4+0*,45<, >
4- *.*,</=**?? 21'2>
@;ABCD @;ABCD M8NDOC9PFQL;D TDQUDL8B8D WX;D@;ABCDUPFD OC9PFQL;D stss
EB8FBD JKLD RPKR;KBF8BQPKD APQKBD EP9X;F RPKR.DUPFD
GHHI GHHI GSDRPKRF;B;I QVKPF;L EP9X;F
1 210 12$1# 00 12$1#
210 1 113" 200 113" stsss
1 3 YZ #0 111
3 " 111#32 0 111#32
" 0 111##0 #0 111##0 stsss stsuvwxyzzy{|y}w|}|~|~|y}w
0 $$ 111#!! 03 111#!! ~z{y
$$ "" YZ !! 111
[> [> stssss
[> [> s s s us s s s s s s ss
[> [> ¦§¨©ªª¥
345
]:Ô_`_O_`_F<Ò=:aFbOÂc=dFZERSITNBFESRBF-
e9f7 47 01g759
9 6+69 230345679
769 1227567 h9fi75 5
ZERSITNBFESRBF-FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG <BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
656975
\f7je3*3e3*3*eke4l 6 2*
7 9h\\76 *965h e75f
52 8m69 122 9&77\6
7\
h

7
h
7122
1108
52 9679 6 75
75 5 757 66795 6 6 2 1101 # 75
n9569 9
6 6 11!1 ' 110 11! 110 11!

\7 " #$! " #22 !%20
n7f69h72 t (7)*9&7 5&7 % !" '!3 !" $%' #3#
u i75
tv 7 ! " 01$ " #0# !3%%
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB tu
(7)*9&7 5&7 3
" #$! " #22 !%20
* i75 \f7 i\f7 !" '%3 !" '!' 02
(7)* 6+ (7)* 6+ xy
z{|}wx~ 7 ! " 01$ " #0# !3%%
k75 +7\ 20 tu vw x}wx~ 20 %$! 20 %22 2$! %
&775 +7\ % 3 2% u n
775 6
+9&7
5&7 2% 2" !23 2" $' !!$
i\f7
5 7
7\ ! 23 ! 23 u h759&7\76 7 23 2" !#0 2" 3! !!#!
9TQpqGFNTWWrGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 1 Ï®ÐÑÒ«ÒÑÒ«ÒÓ«ÑÔ®¨ÕÑÐÖ×Ô¯®ØØ ¢
k9\7h+6 k9\7h9+6+6
g75 7o9 7\ ,- µ
. /01111 2634
"f9". 111! . 10156,/,-7, 89767 ·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀºÁÂ¾ÁÂ¿ÃÄ¿ÅÆ¿ÇÂÈ¿ÀºÁÀ»¾Â¾É ´
f972 6 9:;<=
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
. 10116>5761, 89767
9TDF_s
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
4. 107-?,->>5? @ ³
4. 101/>55-117 21)2@ ²
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF <SRYBI QSMQ0FWSIF ±
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN <SRYBI ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
1 20 11!0#! $0 11!0#! ¢¤¥¤¦§
2 !0 111$%% 2''0 111$%%
!0 !# 1110 %'0 1110
[@ [@ °
[@ [@
[@ [@ ¯
[@ [@
[@ [@
¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ ¯
[@ [@
[@ [@ Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
346
h;iPjkjPjkjG=kP>;lGmPiBn>oG[FSTJUOCGFTSCG7
p9]7 57 01e759
9 6+69 230345679
769 1227567 d9]\75 5
[FSTJUOCGFTSCG7GSTRIEUTNGOCEIUSH [TJJTHUTNGRFSTJUOCGRTNECNEGEFJCHFTSOH =CJZURCGSUXCGDJCOUREUTNH
656975
c]7qp4*4p4*4*pbp4r 6 2*
7 9dcc76 *965d p75]
52 9s69 122 9&77c6
7c
d

7
d
7122
1109
52 9679 6 75
75 5 757 66795 6 6 2 1101 ! 75
g9569 9
6 6 11!1 $ 110 11! 110 11!

c7 " ##3 " !3$ #2%#
g7]69d7 u (7)*9&7 5&7 % #" $2$ #" ''0 002!
v \75
uw 7 ! " #32 " #!3 #!32
[TZCJGOCDEFHGUNGEFUHGXIRC
* \75 c]7
uv
(7)*9&7 5&7

3
"
#"
##3
$'0
"
#"
!3$
$2!
#2%#
0$02
\c]7
b75 +7c
(7)*

6+ (7)*

6+
20
uv wxyzy{|~}xy~xy

7

!
20
"
2"
#32
13
"
3%
#!3
20$
#!32
33!
&775 +7c % 3 2% v g
775 6+9&7 5&7 2% " !13 2" 0$ !#31
\c]7
5 7
7c ! 23 ! 23 v d759&7c76 7 23 " !!0 " %! !'23
:UR_H̀GOUXXaHUTNGLTOCSGDIJILCECJH 1 Ð¯ÑÒÓ¬ÓÒÓ¬ÓÔ¬ÒÕ¯©ÖÒÑ×ØÕ°Ù ÚÚ¡£¥§¦±
b9c7d+6 b9c7d9+6+6
e75 7f9 7c ,- ¶
. /0112/ 3645
"]9". 111! . /0/617,1,28 99767 µ
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
]972 6 :;<=> . /0//8771,22 99767 ¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁ»ÂÃ¿ÂÃÀÄÅÀÆÇÀÈÃÉÀÁ»ÂÁ¼¿Ã¿Ê
:UEGjt 4. /0288?1?1?8 @
4. /0/-7,1A?2? 21)2@
BCDEFG BCDEFG PIQGRFSTJUOCG WGUXGOIEIG ;ZCGOCDEFGXTJG [FSTJUOCG
´
³
HEIJEG CNOG RTNRCNEJIEUTNG DTUNEG =TSZCJ RTNR0GXTJG ²
KLLM KLLM KVGRTNRJCECM UYNTJCO =TSZCJ ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
1 22 11!%3 00 11!%3 £¥¦ ¥§¨
22 $ 111'!' 23 111'!'
$ #1 \] !!0 111!
#1 0#0 111#$0 #$0 111#$0 ±
0#0 $ 1110' '!0 1110'
^@ ^@ °
^@ ^@
^@ ^@
° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · °
^@ ^@
^@ ^@ Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
347
eSfJghgJghgCUhJiSjCkJf?limCVB7MDNI9CBM79C:
n9`7 17 01a759
9 6'69 230345679
769 1227567 ^9`_75 5
VB7MDNI9CBM79C:C7ML6ANMHCI9A6N78 VMDDM8NMHCLB7MDNI9CLMHA9HACABD98BM7I8 U9DTNL9C7NQ9C@D9INLANMH8
656975
]`7on0&0n0&0&nn4p 6 2&
7 9^]]76 &965^ n75`
52 4q69 122 9"77]6
7]
^

7
^
7122
1104
52 9679 6 75
75 5 757 66795 6 6 2 1101 %2! 75
d9569 9
6 6 11!1 %2 110 11! 110 11!

]7 0

d7`6 ~

s $7%&9"7 5"7 #

t _75
su 7 !

VMT9DCI9@AB8CNHCABN8CQ6L9 ~st

& _75 ]`7 $7%&9"7 5"7 3

_]`7
75 '7]
$7%&
0
6' $7%&

6'
20 st uvwxwyz|{vw
|vw}
}
7 !
20

6'9"7 5"7 2(
"775 '7] # 3 2( t d
775 _]`7

5 7
7] ! 23 ! 23 t ^759"7]76 7 23

5NLZ[8CINQQ\8NMHCFMI97C@6D6F9A9D8 1 ÎÏÐÑªÑÐÑªÑÒªÐÓ§ÔÐÏÕÖÓ¯§××¡
9]7^'6 9]7^9'6'6
a75 7b9 7] )* ®
+ ,-...) /601 ¡¢¡
c`9c+ 111! + ,-,*23)))*2 49767 ¡£¤£¥¦
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
¶·¹̧º»¼½¾¿¹ÀÁ½ÀÁ¾ÂÃ¾ÄÅ¾ÆÁÇ¾¿¹À¿º½Á½È
`972 6 56789 + ,-,,:3),):3 49767
5NACgr 4+ ,-;.<;2<)2< =
4+ ,-,*<.>>,3. 21%2=
?9@ABC ?9@ABC J6KCLB7MDNI9C PCNQCI6A6C ST9CI9@ABCQMDC VB7MDNI9C
°®
°
8A6DAC 9HIC LMHL9HAD6ANMHC @MNHAC UM7T9D LMHL-CQMDC
EFFG EFFG EOCLMHLD9A9G NRHMD9I UM7T9D
1 220 112#W 0W0 112#W ¯®
220 0 111002 2(0 111002
0 !X 111X#2 30 111X#2 ¯
!X 0 111X3 X! 111X3
0 W1 111X(2 #2 111X(2 ®
W1 (2 111X#W W00 111X#W
Y= Y=
Y= Y=
¯ ° ± ® ² ³ ´ µ ¯
Y= Y=
Y= Y= É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
348
0123457895

tu 4515

i2357895
,@vw55150123456+39
(@f%$f(%"(
71!53
"#$%&7'5!53
(%"" )581*+'53
," -./ X%f%$f(%"(
0589'5
01589 058941 '
021589 Mc.HSORbS^-EaMGâMSEFQHOL.SHMex
8833287!5
%9 48+29 9'25155245
,6(9 *+' 15!382=2!827 y18'515=5157!53275
lklhl YIf<!7!J
78
( 9873!8 '5
:1187;2 5 < =
'57
1
=
7 &7!6
<2 73 531 235
35 5!
2732
92

lkllh YIf<!7!J
07>
$?@? 1274'5
8811 1112345AB5183275<851<8
5 *+!6<273 &722827515533"
lkll YIf<!7!J
8C5!12'27
7 1=058!5AB5183275<8B5
54 3813 C1873 %9 &722827515533(
lklhl YIf<!7!J
q- M r
R^L M- O
E--HQ M QOb^c sM.-e O
^ ^jeO sM .-eO^
-EaNMR^LM- DEIFE GHGKLM-.NM-
99J I99J
./
OPQER.S
TGGU dedEREFc.RM^c R^LM-EF RbS^-EaM .LM-.NM sM.e-Oe-.OFa .LM-.NM
0123458B51845
IY!7!155JIY!7!155J I99(f1J gM.G c.RM Ob-Meb^Sa eOE--HQ R^--êE^F eO-.Fa
7==2 V1520 WW ?? (X I99J I99J I99J R^--êE^F R^--êE^F
7211' "# 927 8B5 927 %6%,Y %6%XY %6%,Y %6%XY %6%,Y %6%XY %6%,Y %6%XY
235f V1520 (X 8B51845 %6($?X %6%%$% "6,##% XX X? "# ", "# "%@ (( Z,% X%( Z@X X($
<51 7211' X" X, "# 735B %6",@$ %6%%%Z %6Z$"" "% "% % $ $ ",@ ,? @Z@ X"% @,@ (#Z
09 V1520 [\ ?% (X 927 %6%#?Z %6%%,% %6
@Z,# (X (X "# Z "" (@ $ "?, #" "?, #"
1 31 7211' "# 98+ %6?X(% %6%%Z" (6Z(@X ?? ?? "# (( ($ XZ# "", (] @XZ (] @XZ
MeO`^R.OE^Fe dbS^-EaMGâMSQ.-.GMOM-e M.GR^LM-e eOEG.OMa-MG.EFEFNSEcMT/ljjU
OE--HQ MQOb^c sM.-eO^.LMksM.-eO^jeOsM.-eO^.LMk
^SM_ M.G `^R.OE^F EaM `MFNOb DâMScEO dedERq-
-/ IY!7! MrR^LM-R^L
M-EF RbS^-EaM eOE--HQ eO-.Fa eO-.Fa
155JIY!7!155J I99(f1J I99J g-EaNMOb- Meb^Sa
I99J I99J R^--êE^F R^--êE^F R^--êE^F
927 8B5 8B5 %6%,Y %6%XY %6%,Y %6%XY %6%,Y %6%XY %6%,Y %6%XY
" hK 191 31 *8 75"f,'87 i2A jkllll %6?"X% %6%%Z" %6@Z,# X" ?% "# ", "@ (@ $ ",# "%% (#% "#,
B512!83
( jK ==2 >5"f?'87 i2A lkmmn %6?X(% %6%%$" "6@$(# ?? ?? "# (( ($ 2", 2(? "?, #" "?, #"
X j ==2 >5"f?'87 i2A lkmmo %6""Z, %6%%,Z (6Z(@X ?? ?? "# "? (" ?" 2@ ??" "@( ??" "@(
? j ==2 >5"f?'87 i2A lkmmm %6%#?Z %6%%,% %6#(@@ ?? ?? "# Z "" XZ# "", (] @XZ (] @XZ
, 7'1=235p M--^- (X (X "#
$ 7'1=235p M--^- (X (X "#
Z 7'1=235p M--^- (X (X "#
349
lIDmDndLICoLp?qIrCNB;OEPK=CBO;=C,
]`9
19 01b97

!8)8 23456789

98 52297
89 (
Y97 7
NB;OEPK=CBO;=C,C;OQ:APOJCK=A:P;< NOEEO<POJCQB;OEPK=CQOJA=JACABE=<BO;K< D=EWPQ=C;PT=C@E=KPQAPOJ<
_`9[(\0]
] 6^
878
97
!8
2
(

9a_
_98

(87a
]97`
!#9
9_
7 8
c8
522
9789_
a9
a

9
522
5"508
7
2

898
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
2 5"505 20 97
Z78Y88
Y)aY !8
5"55 21 5"50 5"5 5"50 5"5
_978
Z9`8 8
2>0
7 Ö Ø &9'(
#9

7#9
Õº Ô×ÄÅÆÙÇÈÉÊ
Ú
¹Ë
¹Ó»
Y97
9" 220 1 4$ 5%0
NOW=ECK=@AB<CPJCABP<CT:Q= ÄÅÆÇÈÉÊ¹ËºÌÍÎÏÐÑÌÒ Ô Ô 2 25
&9'(
#9

7#9 $5 $2
202 203 255 2%5
(
Y97
_`9
Y_`9 $4 35 230 52
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) ½¾
¿À
¹º »¼ ½Â¼½Ã ÁÂ¼½ Ã 9" 220 1 4$ 5%0
h"
97)9_ 2
#9"
97)9_ $5 ÕÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº Z9
97 8)
#9

7#9
ÖÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº !a97
#9
_98
Y_`9
7
99_ 23 23 9" 23 %3 0% 1 4 53
9PQij<CKPTTk<POJCGOK=;C@:E:G=A=E< * «¬®¯°¬w±°²³´¬wuwwµy~~y¶wµ·µw¬{~w~w¸w{}
h_9a
)8 h_9a
)8)8
b97
9f9_ +,

- ,.**** /8
01 stss
g`

g
- 5"55 !
-*.2,3445675 8
989
`9
28
" 9:;<= stsss
¡¢£¤¥
!
-*.**5*76232 8
989
9PACde
|}wzwyz
6
-*.75+4*4424 > stuss
wzwyz
6
-*.*35552433 25'2
>
stusss
?=@ABC ?=@ABC L:MCNB;OEPK=C SCPTCK:A:C VW=C?=@ABCTOEC NB;OEPK=C stss
DA:EAC IJKC QOJQ=JAE:APOJC @OPJAC DO;W=E QOJQ.CTOEC
FGGH FGGH FRCQOJQE=A=H PUJOE=K DO;W=E
stsss
5 2 5"5440 4"0 5"5440
2 0 5"50 23 5"50 stss
0 "0 5"55%2 1"%0 5"55%2
"0 $2 5"55%2% 4"%0 5"55%2% stsss
$2 $1"0 5"55%14 $$"%0 5"55%14 stsuvwxyzzy{|y}w|}|~|~|y}w
X> X> stsss ~z{y
X> X> stssss
X> X> s s s us s s s s s s ss
X> X> ¦§¨©ªª¥
X> X>
350
\=<]<^_N=E`Na@b=cEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE7
de9
49 01f97

8(8 23456789

98 52297
89 '
g97 7
YDQRHSMAEDRQAE7EQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF <AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
[e9h'i3d
d 6j
878
97
8
'

9l[
[98

72 8
k8
522
#9
'87l
d97e
9[89[
l9
l

9
522
5!508
7
2

898
97 7

9798
89
78 8
2 5!505 97 97

m788 8
5!5"5 4 5!50 5!5" 5!50 5!5"

[9
m9e88
2>%
7 u &9$'
#9

7#9
v g97
uw 9! " 0" "3 $2 52"
YRXAHEMABCDFESLECDSFEVGPA uv %% 234
&9$'
#9

7#9 %% 234
2% 2%0 32 204
'
g97
[e9
g[e9 2% 2%0 32 204
&9$' 8( &9$' 8( yz
{|}~xy 9! " 0" "3 $2 52"
p!
97(9[ %% uv wx y~xy
#9!
97(9[ %% v m9
97 8
(
# 9

7#9
g[e9
7
99[ " 23 " 23 v l97
#9
[98
9! 23 "4 ) $20 $% 2334
9SPqrFEMSVVsFSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF 5 ÐÑÒ¬ÒÓÔÕÑÖÕ×ØÙÑ¯Ú££ÛÚÜ§ÚÑ¤ £Ò£¥±Ý° ª¤¢
p[9l
(8 p[9l
(8(8
f97
9n9[ *+

, -.//01 28
34 °
oe

o
, 5!55"
,-.567-6157/ 8
989 ³°
e9
28
! 9:;<=
,-.--1+-// 8
989 ¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁ»ÂÃ¿ÂÃÀÄÅÀÆÇÀÈÃÉÀÁ»ÂÁ¼¿Ã¿Ê
9SCE_t
³
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
6
,+.017/7-516 >
6
,-.-*/-?707 25$2
> °
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE :XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE

FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE <RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE ²°
IJJK IJJK ITEPRLPHACAK SWLRHAM <RQXAH
5 22 5!"52) 0!0 5!"52) ²
22 23!0 5!2202% 20!0 5!2202% ±°
23!0 "2 5!5%44 0!0 5!5%44
"2 %0!0 5!551%1 "1!0 5!551%1 ±
%0!0 01 5!55%%4 02!)0 5!55%%4 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
01 ) 5!550"" 40 5!550"" ° £¥¦ ¥§¨
) 14 5!55%4% )3 5!55%4%
Z> Z> ± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
Z> Z> Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
Z> Z>
351
h;:i:jkN;ElNm@n;oEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE<
e9
39 01b97

!8)8 23456789

98 52297
89 (
f97 7
YDQRHSMAEDRQAE<EQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF :AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
è9p(q2
6r
878
97
!8
2
(

9à
`98

(87a
!$9
97e
72 6
s8
522
9`8
9`
a
9

a

9
522
5"506
7
2

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
2 5"505 2% 97
g788 !8
5"5#5 2 5"50 5"5# 5"50 5"5#
`9
g9e88
2?%
7 u &9'(
$9

7$9
v f97
uw 9" # 2#0 4% 1% 2# 530
YRXAHEMABCDFESLECDSFEVGPA uv %%
&9'(
$9

7$9 %%
%3 ## %%2 21 %0
(
f97
è9
fè9 %3 ## %%2 21 %0
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) y
uv wx y~xyz{|}~xy 9" # 2#0 4% 1% 2# 530
_"
97)9` %%
$9"
97)9` %% v g9
97 8
)
$ 9

7$9
fè9
7
99` # 23 # 23 v !a97
$9
`98
9" 23 3 %# %2 '1 50
7SP\]FEMSVV^FSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF 5 ÐÑÒ¬ÒÓÔÕÑÖÕ×ØÙÑ´Õ ÚÚ¡£Û£¥´Ü± ª¤¢
_`9a
)8 _`9a
)8)8
b97
9c9` *+

, -.//0* 18
23 ´±
de

d
, 5"55# !
,-.++0*44045 6
989
¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁ»ÂÃ¿ÂÃÀÄÅÀÆÇÀÈÃÉÀÁ»ÂÁ¼¿Ã¿Ê
´°
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
e9
28
" 789:; !
,-.--*0<+==> 6
989
7SCEkt 6
,>.0>5<<-5<4
6
,-.-5=*+45-<
?
25'2
? ´
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE 8XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE ³

FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE :RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE
IJJK IJJK ITEPRLPHACAK SWLRHAM :RQXAH
²
5 25"0 5"513% 0"0 5"513%
25"0 % 5"5%21 2Z"0 5"5%21 ± ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
% #1"0 5"5530# #2"0 5"5530# £¥¦ ¥§¨
#1"0 0#"0 5"5544 %4 5"5544
0#"0 41"0 5"55030 42 5"55030 °
41"0 1"0 5"55012 Z0"0 5"55012
1"0 30 5"55Z% 11"Z0 5"55Z%
[? [? ´ ° ± µ ² ¶ ³ · ´
[? [? Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
[? [?
352
fgWhWijLgEkLlAmgnEXD:OFPK<EDO:<E4
ob9
39 01c97

8*8 23456789

98 52297
89 )
a97 7
XD:OFPK<EDO:<E4E:ON9CPOJEK<C9P:; XOFFO;POJEND:OFPK<ENOJC<JCECDF<;DO:K; W<FVPN<E:PS<EBF<KPNCPOJ;
_b9p)q2o
o 6r
878
97
8
)

9`_
_98

72 7
s8
522
#9
)87`
o97b
9_89_
`9
`

9
522
5!507
7
2

898
97 7

9798
89
78 8
2 5!505 & 97 97

e788 8
5!5"5 22 5!50 5!5" 5!50 5!5"

_9
e9b88
2?$
7 u '9()
#9

7#9
v a97
uw 9! " 4"2 $" 015 23 032
XOV<FEK<BCD;EPJECDP;ES9N< uv $$ % 111 % 1"& $43
)
a97
_b9
'9()
#9

7#9 $$ % 111 % 1"& $43
a_b9
'9() 8* '9() 8* yz
{|
uv wx y~xy }~xy 9! " 4"2 $" 015 23 032
^!
97*9_ $$
8*
#9

7#9
#9!
97*9_ $$ v e9
97 a_b9
7
99_ " 23 " 23 v 9̀7
#9
_98
9! 23 $"5 244 "&3 220 "35
8PN[\;EKPSS];POJEHOK<:EB9F9H<C<F; 5 ÐÑÒ¬ÒÓÔÕÑÖÕ×ØÙÑ°× ÚÚ¡£Û£¥°Ü² ª¤¢
^_9`
*8 ^_9`
*8*8
c97
9d9_ +,

- ./000+ 18
23 °
%b

%
- 5!55"
-./.0456445, 7
989 ·
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
b9
28
! 89:;<
-./..+.=066 7
989
8PCEjt
¶
6
-./0=>>,5065 ?
6
-./.=04+=+0@ 25(2
? µ
A<BCDE A<BCDE L9MEND:OFPK<E REPSEK9C9E UV<EK<BCDESOFE XD:OFPK<E
´
;C9FCE <JKE NOJN<JCF9CPOJE BOPJCE WO:V<F NOJN/ESOFE ³
GHHI GHHI GQENOJNF<C<I PTJOF<K WO:V<F
5 22 5!504"2 0!0 5!504"2 ² ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
22 1!0 5!5511" 23!&0 5!5511" £¥¦ ¥§¨

1!0 $!0 5!5503 "0!0 5!5503
$!0 04 5!5504 $3!0 5!5504 ±
04 43 5!55$" 4!0 5!55$"
43 1" 5!502 Y &4 Z? °
Z? Z?
Z? Z? ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · °
Z? Z? Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
Z? Z?
353
0123457895

q 4515

h2157895
Y(r5/87Z0123455+19
(?d%$d(%"(
71!53
"#$%&7'5!53
(%"" )581*+'53
," -. 6%d%$d(%"(
0589'5
&/589 058941 '
&0/589 Ka.IQMP`Q\-F_KH\_KQFGOIMJ.QIKct
8813287!5
%9 28+29 9'25135243
4569 *+' 15!182=2!827 u18'315=5157!51275
ijisi X@d<!7!A
78
"$ 9873!8 '5
:1/87;2 5 < =
'57
1
=
7 &7!5
<2 73 311 235
35 5!
2712
92

ijiis X@d<!7!A
07>
?, 1274'5
8 5<8/12345@881/ 1ABC5181275<851<8
5 *+!5<273 &722827315313"
ijili X@d<!7!A
8D5!12'27
881/ 1BC5181275<8C5
54 1811 D/873 %9 &722827315313(
ijisi X@d<!7!A
w- K xv
P\J K- M
F--IO K OM`\a pK.-cM\ \fcM pK .-cM\
-F_LKP\JK- EF@GF HIHJK-.LK-
99A @99A
.
MNOFP.Q
RHHS bcbFPFGa.PK\a P\JK-FG P`Q\-F_K .JK-.LK pK.c-Mc-.MG_ .JK-.LK
0123458C51845
@X!7!155A@X!7!155A @99(d1A eK.H a.PK M`-Kc`\Q_ cMF--IO P\--\cF\G cM-.G_
7==2 T150U VW 6% (6 @99A @99A @99A P\--\cF\G P\--\cF\G
7211' 6% 6( "# 927 8C5 927 %5%,X %5%6X %5%,X %5%6X %5%,X %5%6X %5%,X %5%6X
235d T150U (6 8C51845 %5(%6# %5%"(6 #56#4( ($ ($ (, "Y 6" "Z Y "Z 0" "Z (
<5/ 7211' "# 735C %5"YY6 %5%%?% ?5#?#6 6 6 $ # $ (Z 6$ (Z (Y (Z 6%
09 T150U (6 927 %5%,($ %5%%%% "5
4$4Y (6 (6 "# 6 (( $6 "$ 4( 4 4$ $
/ 1/ 7211' "# 98+ %5,%"$ %5%(%, (65?,6, (# 6% 6( (? 6Y $Z $" ,Z 4% ,Z 4#
vKcM^\P.MF\Gc b`Q\-F_KH\_KQO.-.HKMK-c K.HP\JK-c cMFH.MK_-KH.FGFGLQFaKRiffS
MF--IO KOM`\a pK.-cM\.JKjpK.-cM\fcMpK.-cM\.JKj
[\QK] K.H ^\P.MF\G F_K ^KGLM` E\_KQaFM bcbFPw-
- @X!7! KxvP\JK-P\J
K-FG P`Q\-F_K cMF--IO cM-.G_ cM-.G_
155A@X!7!155A @99(d1A @99A e-F_LKM`- Kc`\Q_
@99A @99A P\--\cF\G P\--\cF\G P\--\cF\G
927 8C5 8C5 %5%,X %5%6X %5%,X %5%6X %5%,X %5%6X %5%,X %5%6X
" f g5/ >13 h2B ijkklm %5,%"$ %5%(%, (5(,?$ (6 (6 "# (? 6, 0(? 06$ 0"? 0(# 0"? 0(#
( f ==2 h2B ijkkn %5%,($ %5%%%% (65?,6, (# 6% 6( 6 (? $Z "$ ,Z 4 ,Z $
6 f ==2 h2B fjiiii %5"Y(% %5%"?4 "54$4Y (# 6% 6( ", (( "$# $" "(# 4% "4Y 4#
4 f 7==2 h2B fjiiii %5%?#6 %5%"%, "%5%%%% (# 6% 6( (" 6Y $6 0"6 4( 0(% 4$ 0"?
, 7'1=215o K--\- (6 (6 "#
$ 7'1=215o K--\- (6 (6 "#
Y 7'1=215o K--\- (6 (6 "#
354
K[CHgVh\BgKi>jHBh[:kBMANO7PJ9BAON9B+
l`9
29 01]97

8(8 23456789

98 152297
89
n97 7 1
MANO7PJ9BAON9B+BNOQD@POIBJ9@DPNf MO77OfPOIBQANO7PJ9BQOI@9I@B@A79fAONJf C97WPQ9BNPT9B?79JPQ@POIf
_`9l12
l 6p
11
878
97
8
2
'

9c_
_98

'87c
l97`
#9
9_
72 5
o8
1522
9789_
c9
c

9
1522
55!5
7
2

898
97 7

9798
89
78 8
2 55!5 1% 97
m78_9<
o9n 8
1 55"5 "! 55! 55" 55! 55"
_98
m9`8 Ó Õ &9$'
#9

7#9
×
¶È
¶Ð¸
n97
9 1" "" 11 $2% $13 233"
MOW97BJ9?@AfBPIB@APfBTDQ9 ÁÂÃÄÅÆÇ¶È·ÉÊËÌÍÎÉÏ Ñ Ñ
&9$'
#9

7#9
'
n97
_`9
n_`9
&9$' 8( &9$' 8( º»
¼½
¶· ¸¹ º¿¹ºÀ ¾¿¹ºÀ 9 1" "" 11 $2% $13 233"
b
97(9_
#9
97(9_ ÒØØØØØØØØØØ· m9
97 8(
#9

7#9
ÓØØØØØØØØØ· c97
#9
_98
n_`9
7
99_ 1" 23 1" 23 9 23 1" 2! $1% $"4 23%"
ZPQdefBJPTT8fPOIBFOJ9NB?D7DF9@97f ) ©ª«¬®¯u©°±²¬u®ªuuuyz³úµu®wx|~
b_9c
(8 b_9c
(8(8
]97
9^9_ *+
1
, )-..*/ 08
12 qrqqq
a`

a
, 555"
,)-*)+/3+4.3 5
989
`9
28
6789
¡¢£

,)-):)3/.;)+ 5
989
ZP@B[\
qrqqq
z{uxuwx
6
,:-:*4*4;333 1<
uxuwx
6
,)-)=+/+.:++ 25$21
1<
qrqqq
>9?@AB >9?@AB KDLBMANO7PJ9B SBPTBJD@DB VW9B>9?@ABTO7B MANO7PJ9B
C@D7@B HIJB QOIQ9I@7D@POIB ?OPI@B CONW97 QOIQ-BTO7B
EFFG EFFG ERBQOIQ79@9G PUIO79J CONW97 qrsqqq
5 3 52%34! X! $
3 2!! 511X%3 211! 511X%3 qrqqq
2"! 1X 522030 2%0! 522030
1X "! 55!133 13! 55!133
"! X4 5510"4 X5! 5510"4 qrqqq
X4 !0 5523"! !2! 5523"! qrqstuvwxxwyzw{uz{z|z}|zw{u
|~xy~w
!0 05 552!X! 4"! 552!X! qrqqqq
Y< Y< q q q sq q q q q q q qq
Y< Y< ¤¥¦§¨¨£
Y< Y<
355
P]<=j:k^GjPlBm=Gk]6nG[FSTJUOCGFTSCG6
ob9
59 01c97

8*8 23456789

98 152297
89
`97 7 1
[FSTJUOCGFTSCG6GSTRIEUTNGOCEIUSH [TJJTHUTNGRFSTJUOCGRTNECNEGEFJCHFTSOH <CJZURCGSUXCGDJCOUREUTNH
_b9o45
o 6p
41
878
97
8
2
)

9i_
_98

)87i
%9
o97b
72 8
q8
1522
997_89_
i9
i

9
1522
55!8
7
2

898
97 7

9798
89
78 8
2 55!5 " 97
a788 8
1 55"5 1& 55! 55" 55! 55"
_9 13 !# !! !# $ 4450
a9b8 } ~r (9')
%9

7%9 "5 !# !0 !# 4 4&1$
s `97
rt 9 1" "# "$ "# '20 $&&"
[TZCJGOCDEFHGUNGEFUHGXIRC
)
`97
_b9

}~rs
(9')
%9

7%9
13
"5
!#
!#
!!
45
!#
!#
$
3
4450
05&1
`_b9
(9') 8* (9') 8* 9 1" "# "$ "# '20 $&&"
e
97*9_ 13 "5 13 "5 rs tuvwvxy{zuv
{uv|
| "5 !# !3 !# & 43""
%9
97*9_ "5 "2 "5 "1 s a9
97 8*
%9

7%9 "1 4# 40 4# 24 04!5
`_b9
7
99_ 1" 23 1" 23 s i97
%9
_98
9 23 1# 1" 1# '1& "3!!
9URfgHGOUXXhHUTNGLTOCSGDIJILCECJH 5 ÍÎÏÐÑ¬ÒÓÑÍÔÕÖÐÒÎ®¬¥£×Ø£ÙÒ ¢
e_9i
*8 e_9i
*8*8
c97
9d9_ +,
1
- ./0012 38
45 ±
#b

#
- 555"
-./.+6+1.7.6 8
989
b9
28
9:;<=
->/2,206=?.+ 8
989 µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç °
9UEG]^
¦§£¨©ª«£
¬«£§£¨©ª«£
6
-6>/1+>@7@@> 1A
6
-./2+7>11>0+ 25'21
1A ¯
BCDEFG BCDEFG PIQGRFSTJUOCG WGUXGOIEIG :ZCGOCDEFGXTJG [FSTJUOCG ¡
HEIJEG CNOG RTNRCNEJIEUTNG DTUNEG <TSZCJ RTNR/GXTJG ¢£¢¤¥
KLLM KLLM KVGRTNRJCECM UYNTJCO <TSZCJ
5 0 55$3"& "! 55$3"&
0 24 55$""1 22! 55$""1 ®
24 11! 55"4$& 231! 55"4$&
11! "2 55"5&4 140! 55"5&4
\A \A
\A \A
\A \A
\A \A ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´
\A \A È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
\A \A
356
K[WefUg\CfKh?ieCg[5jCXBNO8PJ:CBON:C;
`_9
19 01k97

8)8 23456789

98 152297
89
]97 7 1
XBNO8PJ:CBON:C;CNOMEAPOICJ:AEPND XO88ODPOICMBNO8PJ:CMOIA:IACAB8:DBONJD W:8VPM:CNPS:C@8:JPMAPOID
^_9`01
` 6a
01
878
97
8
2
(

9c^
^98

(87c
#9
`97_
72 6
b8
1522
9^8
9^
c
9

c

9
1522
55!6
7
2

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 8
2 55!5 2! 97
d788 8
1 55"5 11 55! 55" 55! 55"
^9
d9_8 | }~ q &9'(
#9

7#9
r ]97
qs 9 1" 22" !0 41 4 150"
XOV:8CJ:@ABDCPICABPDCSEM: |}~qr
&9'(
#9

7#9
13 2$5 32 213 %5 12%5
(
]97
^_9
]^_9 "5 23$ 255 2%0 %3 12!$
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) u
qr st uztu{vwxyztu{ 9 1" 22" !0 41 4 150"
l
97)9^ 13 "5 "5 231 30 2%2 %4 12!1
#9
97)9^ "5 "1 r d9
97 8
)
# 9

7#9 "1 115 221 243 42 12$5
]^_9
7
99^ 1" 23 1" 23 r c97
#9
^98
9 23 00 "3 14 '21 15"0
ZPMmnDCJPSS9DPOICGOJ:NC@E8EG:A:8D 5 ÌÍÎÏÐ«ÑÒÐÌÓÔÕÏÑÍ¬°ÏÖÖ
l^9c
)8 l^9c
)8)8
k97
9o9^ *+
1
, +-.... /8
01 ¬
p_

p
, 555"
,.-+2+34+.53 6
989 °¯
´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½·¾¿»¾¿¼ÀÁ¼ÂÃ¼Ä¿Å¼½·¾½¸»¿»Æ
¥¦¢§¨©ª¢
«ª¢¦¢§¨©ª¢
_9
28
789:
,.-.+4;*.5+4 6
989
ZPAC[\
°®
6
,+-<=<2+=5*+ 1>
6
,.-.<=<<*4<4 25'21
1> °
?:@ABC ?:@ABC KELCMBNO8PJ:C RCPSCJEAEC UV:CJ:@ABCSO8C XBNO8PJ:C
°¬
DAE8AC :IJC MOIM:IA8EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV:8 MOIM-CSO8C °
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM8:A:H PTIO8:J WONV:8
5 25 55!4$" ! ' ¯
25 23! 55!""1 2%0! 55!""1 ®
23! 10! 551401 1"! 551401
10! "1! 5515!" "5 5515!" ¡¢¡£¤
Y> Y>
Y> Y> ¬
Y> Y>
Y> Y> ° ¬ ± ® ² ¯ ³ °
Y> Y> Ç»¾»¿¸È¿¹·¾¼É»Ê¿µ¼ÀËËÆ
Y> Y>
357
K[WabUc\CbKd?eaCc[5fCXBNO;PJ=CBON=C8
g_9
19 01h97

8)8 23456789

98 152297
89
^97 7 1
XBNO;PJ=CBON=C8CNOMEAPOICJ=AEPND XO;;ODPOICMBNO;PJ=CMOIA=IACAB;=DBONJD W=;VPM=CNPS=C@;=JPMAPOID
`_9g01
g 6i
01
878
97
8
2
(

9k̀
`98

(87k
%9
g97_
72 9
j8
1522
997`89`
k9
k

9
1522
55!9
7
2

898
97 7

9798
89
78 8
2 55!5 12 97
]788 8
1 55"5 "0 55! 55" 55! 55"
`9 13 3" "2 #1 $15 15!"
]9_8 | } ~q '9$(
%9

7%9 "5 30 "" #4 $2& 15!0
r ^97
qs 9 1" !& 15 0 $"2 152&
XOV=;CJ=@ABDCPICABPDCSEM=
(
^97
`_9

|}~qr
'9$(
%9

7%9
13
"5
3"
251
"2
"!
#1
!2
$15
$24
15!"
1541
^`_9
p
97)9`
'9$(
13
8)
"5
'9$(
13
8)
"5 qr stuvuwxzytu
ztu{
{
9

1"
"5
!&
33
15
"#
0
#&
$"2
$20
152&
15!3
8)
%9

7%9
%9
97)9` "5 "2 "5 "1 r ]9
97 ^`_9 "1 22# "& 4" $2" 150#
7
99` 1" 23 1" 23 r k97
%9
`98
9 23 #5 2" $22 $"& 1555
ZPMnoDCJPSS<DPOICGOJ=NC@E;EG=A=;D 5 ÌÍÎÏÐ«ÑÒÐÌÓÔÕÏÑÍ¬«ÖÖ
p`9k
)8 p`9k
)8)8
h97
9l9` *+
1
, +-.... /8
01 ¬
m_

m
, 555"
,.-.23456378 9
989 ³
´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½·¾¿»¾¿¼ÀÁ¼ÂÃ¼Ä¿Å¼½·¾½¸»¿»Æ
¥¦¢§¨©ª¢
«ª¢¦¢§¨©ª¢
_9
28
:;<=
,.-.+.*+625+ 9
989
ZPAC[\
²
6
,3-333332.6* 1>
6
,.-4+7.372*2 25$21
1> ±
?=@ABC ?=@ABC KELCMBNO;PJ=C RCPSCJEAEC UV=CJ=@ABCSO;C XBNO;PJ=C
°
DAE;AC =IJC MOIM=IA;EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV=; MOIM-CSO;C ¯
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM;=A=H PTIO;=J WONV=;
5 ! 55#4&" 1! $ ®
! 15 554!"" 21! 554!"" ¡¢¡£¤

15 "5! 55##"# 1!1! 55##"#
Y> Y>
Y> Y>
Y> Y> ¬
Y> Y>
Y> Y> ¬ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ¬
Y> Y> Ç»¾»¿¸È¿¹·¾¼É»Ê¿µ¼ÀËËÆ
Y> Y>
358
0123457895

q 4515

C2557895
$''r0"7381155s012345?.59
*0g+&g*+$*
7!1"#!53
$%&'(7)5#!53
*+$$ ,581-.)53
/0 12 '+g+&g*+$*
0589!)5
(3589 058941")
(43589 Od2MUQTcU^1JbOL^bOUJKSMQN2UMOft
8!8532!87#5
$+9 68.29"9)25175247!
+9 -.)"15#582>2#8!27 u18)715>5157#55275
ijii [Bg=!#7#E
89
*: ;873#8 )5
"1 85<2 5 = >
)57
"1>
5 (7#?
=2 73 751 235 35!5#!
2752
92 !
ijii [Bg=!#7#E
08@
:*A 1274!)5
8!15899"!7BC21!7>D7895EFG5185275=8!51=8
5 -.#?=273 (72!28!27!715753$
ijini [Bg=!#7#E
8!H5#12)!27
C21!7F>D7895FG5185275=8G5
F##827855 H3873 $9!'+9 (72!28!27!715753*
ijii [Bg=!#7#E
w1 O xv
T^N O1 aQ
J11MS O SQc^d O21f
Q^ ^fQ O 21fQ^
1JbPOT^NO1 IJBKJ LMLNO12PO1
99E B99E
2
QRSJT2U
VLLW fJTJKd2TO^d T^NO1JK TcU^1JbO 2NO12PO O2f1Qf12QKb 2NO12PO
0123458G51845
B[#7#15!5EB[#7#15!5E B99*g1E hO2L d2TO Qc1OfcÛb fQJ11MS T^11^fJ^K fQ12Kb
8>>2! X154D YZ '/ *% B99E B99E B99E T^11^fJ^K T^11^fJ^K
8!211") A *$ *: 927 8G5 927 +?+:[ +?+'[ +?+:[ +?+'[ +?+:[ +?+'[ +?+:[ +?+'[
235g X154D *% 8G51845 +?A*:* +?+++: /?$A$' '$ '$ */ '& /+ 4** 4*0 4A 4$& 4/ 4$/
=53 8!211") '+ '' *: 8!35G +?*%%: +?+++A +?AA// ' ' / & & $0 $' 0 & $$ 0
0!!9 X15 4
D Y\ '/ *% 927 +?/+0A +?+++' '?
*+'' *% *% *$ *0 '' A + * + $* +
3"53 8!211") *: 98. $?$'%& +?++$& :?':&* '0 '0 '' /' /0 A 4A * 4$+ $* 4'
vOfQ`^T2QJ^Kf cU^1JbOL^bOUS212LOQO1f O2LT^NO1f fQJL2QOb1OL2JKJKPUJdOVeiW
aQJ11MS OSQc^d O21fQ^2NOjO21fQ^fQO21fQ^2NOj
]ÛO_ O2L `^T2QJ^K aJbO ÒKPQc I^bOUdJQ fJTw1
1e B[#7# OxvT^NO1T^N
O1JK TcU^1JbO fQJ11MS fQ12Kb fQ12Kb
15!5EB[#7#15!5E B99*g1E B99E h1JbPOQc1 OfcÛb
B99E B99E T^11^fJ^K T^11^fJ^K T^11^fJ^K
927 8G5 8G5 +?+:[ +?+'[ +?+:[ +?+'[ +?+:[ +?+'[ +?+:[ +?+'[
$ =53 "!7 7581923)87 C2!F ijklmn +?/+0A +?++++ /?$%*% *% *% '' '$ '& A 4A 4& 4$A 4& 4$A
!7$g/)87
* >>2! B7!"1583"! C2!F ijkll +?/A': +?+++' '?*+'' *% '* *$ *0 '' 4*' 4*% * 4$+ $* 4'
>>2!E
@!7$g0)87
' >>2! B7!"1583"! C2!F ijkklk $?$'%& +?++$& '?%'*A '0 '0 *$ '% // 4': 4'A 4' 4$$ 4' 4$$
>>2!E
!7$g/)87
/ >>2! B7!"1583"! C2!F ijkkoo +?0A%+ +?++++ :?':&* '' '/ *$ /' /0 4'A 4'% 4*+ 4*: 4$% 4*:
>>2!E
: 7)1>255p O11^1 *% *% *:
& 7)1>255p O11^1 *% *% *:
A 7)1>255p O11^1 *% *% *:
359
fZgh@WMiDOMJJ[DfMj@kJlDOC:PFQL<DCP:<D=
m9_7 47 011\759
9 6(69 023145679
769 007567 o75 5 1
OC:PFQL<DCP:<D=D:PR9BQPKDL<B9Q:; OPFFP;QPKDRC:PFQL<DRPKB<KBDBCF<;CP:L; E<FXQR<D:QU<DAF<LQRBQPK;
^_73q4m\m4m4r
656975
6 0'
7 9b^^76 '965b m75_
9"77^
50 7p69 00 7567^b
7b
700
!7
50 9679 6
754 5 757 66795 6 6 0 ! 10 75
n9569 ^7?p7o 6 1 13 ! 1 ! 1
^7 9(6
n7_6 75^ 5 Ø Ú &7$'9"7 5"7
×¼ ÖÙÆÇÈÛÉÊËÌ
Ü
»Í
»Õ½
o75
7 2 # 10 $3 $0% !
OPX<FDL<ABC;DQKDBCQ;DU9R< ÆÇÈÉÊËÌ»Í¼ÎÏÐÑÒÓÎÔ Ö Ö
&7$'9"7 5"7
' o75 ^_7 o^_7
&7$' 6( &7$' 6( ¿À
ÁÂ
»¼ ½¾ ¿Ä¾¿Å ÃÄ ¾¿Å 7 2 # 10 $3 $0% !
a75 (7^ 1 1 #! 11 $1 $0! )
"775 (7^ 11 ×ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ n
775 6(9"7 5"7 11 !! #0 % $% 0)
ØÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ b759"7^76 o^_7
5 7
7^ 2 ! 2 ! 7 ! 1 # $03 $# 022!
8QRcd;DLQUUe;QPKDHPL<:DA9F9H<B<F; * «¬®¯°±wx°²²³w«°´¯µ²ww̄w{|¶w·¸w{y¹~w}zwº|{}
a9^7b(6 a9^7b9(6(6
\75 7]9 7^ +, - *./,01 2634 stss
`_9`- 1 -*.+*,566155 79767
_970 6 89:;< stsss
¡¢£¤¥
-* 79767
8QBDZ[
|}wzwyz
4-+.=/6,,6/>0 ? stuss
wzwyz
4-*.=>6/11++0 0$0?
stusss
@<ABCD @<ABCD M9NDOC:PFQL<D TDQUDL9B9D WX<D@<ABCDUPFD OC:PFQL<D stss
GHHI GHHI GSDRPKRF<B<I QVKPF<L EP:X<F
stsss
0 13#! 3 13#!
0 3 030)3 02 030)3 stss
3 1) 1#! 1 1#!
13 !0 #%# #1! #%# stsss
!0 !2 #03 !! #03 stsuvwxyzzy{|y}w|}|~|~|y}w
3! )0 ! %1 ! stsss ~z{y
Y? Y? stssss
Y? Y? s s s us s s s s s s ss
Y? Y? ¦§¨©ªª¥
Y? Y?
360
i[jk@:NlEYN==\EiNm@n=oEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE7
p9`7 37 011a759
9 6(69 023145679
769 007567 ^75 5 1
YDQRHSMAEDRQAE7EQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF <AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
]`72q4pap3p4r
656975
6 0'
7 9h]]76 '965h
9$7 p75`
50 8s69 00 775]67]h
7h
700
!8
50 9679 6
75 5 757 66795 6 6 0 ! " 75
_9569 9
6 6 1 11 ! 1 ! 1

]7 2 ! 1" #0 01
_7`6 60?% 596 (75^9(6 9
6 t &7#'9$7 5$7 1 3 %! 0 #1 1

u ^75
tv 7 2 ! 1" #0 01
YRXAHEMABCDFESLECDSFEVGPA
' ^75 ]`7
tu
&7#'9$7 5$7
2
1%
!
3"
1"
!

#0
%
01
10
^]`7
&7#' 6( &7#' 6( 7 2 ! 1" #0 01
d75 (7] 2 ) 2 ) tu vwxyxz{}|wx
}wx~
~ ) 1 #%! #%3 0233
$775 (7] 1 0 1% 0 u _
775 6(9$7 5$7 0 ! 02 #1 #2 02""
^]`7
5 7
7] 2 ! 2 ! u h759$7]76 7 ! 1" 2 #0 #02 0
9SPefFEMSVVgFSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF ÏÐÑÒÓ®ÔÕÔÖÖ×ÏÔØÓÙÖ°Ó §¥ÚÛ¥ÜÝ¢¤¡¥£Þ §©£¡
d9]7h(6 d9]7h9(6(6
a75 7b9 7] *+ , -./++0 1623 ¯
c`9c, 1 ,-.*45*6*+*7 89767 ²¯
`970 6 9:;<= ,-.---766566 89767 ·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀºÁÂ¾ÁÂ¿ÃÄ¿ÅÆ¿ÇÂÈ¿ÀºÁÀ»¾Â¾É
9SCE[\
²
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
4,5.7-576*4>/ ?
4,-.0-0>4*+>/ 0#0? ¯
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE :XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE

FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE <RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE ±¯
IJJK IJJK ITEPRLPHACAK SWLRHAM <RQXAH
0% 1) ) 1) ±
0% ! 0%!" 02! 0%!" °¯
! % %3% 1! %3%
% !! 3!! %)! 3!! °
!! ) %"1 3! %"1 ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
) "3 30 )" 30 ¯ ¢¤¥¤¦§
Z? Z?
Z? Z? ° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
Z? Z? Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
Z? Z?
361
g[hi?UKjCXKkk\CgKl?mknCXBNO:PJ<CBON<C4
a9_7 27 011b759
9 6)69 023145679
769 007567 ]75 5 1
XBNO:PJ<CBON<C4CNOMEAPOICJ<AEPND XO::ODPOICMBNO:PJ<CMOIA<IACAB:<DBONJD W<:VPM<CNPS<C@:<JPMAPOID
^_71`4aba2a4c
656975
6 0(
7 9e^^76 (965e
9&7 a75_
50 8d69 00 7^6
7^
e

7
e
700
!8
50 9679 6 75
75 5 757 66795 6 6 0 ! 12 75
f9569 9
6 6 1 ## ! 1 ! 1

^7 1" #! 1$ %1 %00 "
f7_660>" 596 )75]9)6 9
6 t '7%(9&7 5&7 1" #! 1$ %1 %00 "

u ]75
tv 7 2 3 0 % %$ 02"2
XOV<:CJ<@ABDCPICABPDCSEM< tu 2
'7%(9&7 5&7 1#
3 0 % %$ 02"2
( ]75 ^_7 ]^_7 1! 2 %01 %02 022"
'7%( 6) '7%( 6) x
tu vw x}wx~yz{|}wx~ 7 2 3 0 % %$ 02"2
o75 )7^ 1" 2 $ $ 0 %#3 %#$ 023!
&775 )7^ 1" $ 1# 0 u f
775 6
)9& 7
5&7 0 01 00 %1! %1$ 02$3
]^_7
5 7
7^ 2 ! 2 ! u e759&7^76 7 ! 03 %" %1 02"1
ZPMpqDCJPSS;DPOICGOJ<NC@E:EG<A<:D ÏÐÑÒÓ®ÔÕÔÖÖ×ÏÔØÓÙÖ³ÏÚÚ ¢Ò¢¤³Û²©£¡Ü¡¢Ý¥£ÞÝ¢ÚÚ ¢ß
o9^7e)6 o9^7e9)6)6
b75 7r9 7^ *+ , -.//+/ 0612 ³¯
s_9s, 1 ,3.34/5667++ 89767
·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀºÁÂ¾ÁÂ¿ÃÄ¿ÅÆ¿ÇÂÈ¿ÀºÁÀ»¾Â¾É
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
_970 6 9:;< ,-.--3=446/3 89767 ³
ZPAC[\ 4,4./4764*=7+
4,-.37*6-=3/6
>
0%0> ²
?<@ABC ?<@ABC KELCMBNO:PJ<C RCPSCJEAEC UV<CJ<@ABCSO:C XBNO:PJ<C
DAE:AC <IJC MOIM<IA:EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV<: MOIM.CSO:C ±
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM:<A<H PTIO:<J WONV<:
0 #3$3! 3 %
0 3 1$#! 02 1$#! °
3 # 03!2 11 03!2
# !$ 321 #"! 321
!$ 32 !00 31 !00 ¯
32 "$ !2 $" !2 ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
Y> Y>
¢¤¥¤¦§
Y> Y>
³ ¯ ° ´ ± µ ² ¶ ³
Y> Y> Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
Y> Y>
362
b\cd?UKeCXKff]CbKg?hfiCXBNO8PJ:CBON:C*
j9`7 37 011k759
9 6)69 023145679
769 007567 _75 5 1
XBNO8PJ:CBON:C*CNOMEAPOICJ:AEPND XO88ODPOICMBNO8PJ:CMOIA:IACAB8:DBONJD W:8VPM:CNPS:C@8:JPMAPOID
a`72l4jkj3j4m
656975
6 0(
7 9oaa76 (965o
9$7 j75`
50 6n69 00 775a67ao
7o
700
!6
50 9679 6
75 5 757 66795 6 6 0 ! %1 75
^9569 9
6 6 1 %" ! 1 ! 1

a7 11 " 1 # #! 0220
^7`6 60>% 596 )75_9)6 9
6 u '7#(9$7 5$7 1% 2 1 #02 #! 022

v _75
uw 7 2 0& #3 #10 02"!
XOV:8CJ:@ABDCPICABPDCSEM:
( _75 a`7
uv
'7#(9$7 5$7
2
1%

1
0&
%
#3
#0"
#10
#%
02"!
0221
_a`7
t75 )7a
'7#(
11
6)
0%
'7#(
2
6)
& uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy

7

2
&

0
0&
0
#3
#%&
#10
#%&
02"!
023%
6)9$7 5$7
$775 )7a 1% 03 1% 0 v ^
775 _a`7 0 00 2 #1& #12 02&%
5 7
7a 2 ! 2 ! v o759$7a76 7 ! 0& 01 #10 #1! 02"
[PMrsDCJPSS9DPOICGOJ:NC@E8EG:A:8D ÐÑÒÓÔ¯ÕÖÕ××ØÐÕÙÔÚ×°¯ ÛÛ¡£ £¥°Ü² ª¤¢Ý¢£ Þ¦¤ßÞ£ ÛÛ¡£à
t9a7o)6 t9a7o9)6)6
k75 7p9 7a *+ , -.//00 1623 °
q`9q, 1 ,-.+0/--4+*5 69767 ·
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
`970 6 789: ,- 69767
[PAC\]
¶
4,;.<;=455=+; >
4,-.5=/+**<;+ 0#0> µ
´
DAE8AC :IJC MOIM:IA8EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV:8 MOIM.CSO8C ³
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM8:A:H PTIO8:J WONV:8
0 %00!% 3 # ²
0 & 1%0! 02! 1%0!
& % 00"02 1%! 00"02
% 30 "%2 !0! "%2 ±
30 &% %10 3&! %10 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
& "! 13% Y &"! Z> ° £¥¦ ¥§¨
Z> Z>
Z> Z> ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · °
Z> Z>
363
0123457895

lo 4515

;2257895
$D$pV8!!57155]012345?.29
*5g+&g*+$*
7!1"#!53
$%&'(7)5#!53
*+$+ ,581-.)53
'& /01 [+g+&g*+$*
0589!)5
243589 058941")
443589 Md0ISORcS_/FbMH_bMSFGQIOL0SIMfq
8!8232!87#5
$5+9 68.29"9)25175247!
+9 -.)"15#282>2#8!27 r18)715>5157#52275
kjk1k \Jg=!#7#K
89
&: 4873#8 )5
;8192 873<2 5 = >
)57
"1>
5 (7#?
=2 73 0* 721 235
35 !5#!
2722
92 !
kjkk1 \Jg=!#7#K
08@
'&+ 1274!)5
8!1589 AB5182275=8!51=8
7 -.#?=273 0* (72!28!27!715723$
kjkk \Jg=!#7#K
8!C5#12)!27
8"1>058#7AB5182275=8B5
@5B51 C3873$+$9!D++9 (72!28!27!715723*
kjk1k \Jg=!#7#K
/ M s
R_L M/ O
F//IQ M QOc_d nM 0/f
O_ _fO nM 0/fO_
/FbNMR_LM/ EFJGF HIHLM/0NM/
99K J99K
01
OPQFR0S
THHU fFRFGd0RM_d R_LM/FG RcS_/FbM 0LM/0NM nM0f/Of/0OGb 0LM/0NM
0123458B51845
J\#7#15!5KJ\#7#15!5K J99*g1K hM0H d0RM Oc/Mfc_Sb fOF//IQ R_//_fF_G fO/0Gb
8>>2! V15WX YZ '* *% J99K J99K J99K R_//_fF_G R_//_fF_G
8!211") [D [D *D 927 8B5 927 +?+D\ +?+[\ +?+D\ +?+[\ +?+D\ +?+[\ +?+D\ +?+[\
235g V15WX *% 8B51845 +?+*$' +?+++5 D?['5' [& [& [* * & $$] $] $'] *] $&] *]
=53 8!211") *D 8!35B +?+*'$ +?++$[ '?$&D% D & ' + + + + + + + +
0!!9 V15 W
X *% 927 +?++D[ +?++++ +?
:*+& *% *% *D * & $$] $] $'] *] $&] *]
3"23 8!211") *D 98. +?+&[+ +?++[+ %?%D*5 '$ '* [D * & $$] $] $'] *] $&] *]
MfOa_R0OF_Gf cS_/FbMH_bMSQ0/0HMOM/f M0HR_LM/f fOFH0OMb/MH0FGFGNSFdMTekkU
OF//IQ MQOc_d nM0/fO_0LMjnM0/fO_fOnM0/fO_0LMj
^_SM` M0H a_R0OF_G FbM aMGNOc E_bMSdFO fFR/
/e J\#7# Ms R_LM/R_L
M/FG RcS_/FbM fOF//IQ fO/0Gb fO/0Gb
15!5KJ\#7#15!5K J99*g1K J99K h/FbNMOc/ Mfc_Sb
J99K J99K R_//_fF_G R_//_fF_G R_//_fF_G
927 8B5 8B5 +?+D\ +?+[\ +?+D\ +?+[\ +?+D\ +?+[\ +?+D\ +?+[\
$ 8A;;(X @-i6(C8Vi@ ;2!A jkkkk +?+&[+ +?++[+ +?:*+& [% '* [D * & $$] $] $'] *] $&] *]
* l 8A;;(X 8X9-@C ;2!A jkkkk +?+$+5 +?+++$ $?&%%[ [% '* [D 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>?
[ a 8A;;(X 7581923)87 7)1>225m M//_/ [% '* [D
' n 8A;;(X 8X9-@C ;2!A jkkkk +?++D[ +?++++ %?%D*5 [% '* [D 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>?
D 8A;;(X 7581923)87 ;2!A jkkkk +?++&& +?++++ %?+*+: '$ *% [D 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>?
& 7)1>225m M//_/ *% *% *D
: 7)1>225m M//_/ *% *% *D
364
gXhhKiFEPNKK]EjNkAlKmEPD;QGRM=EDQ;=E/
n
a8 38 010^86
!
7*7
02345678
87
086 78 c
a p86 6
PD;QGRM=EDQ;=E/E;QS:CRQLEM=C:R;< PQGGQ<RQLESD;QGRM=ESQLC=LCECDG=<DQ;M< F=GYRS=E;RV=EBG=MRSCRQL<
à8' )) !n3 n5Z
767
86
!7 0 )
8
c̀ `87 )
76c n86 a
!
#8 8`
6 0 8 q7
0 8678` c8 c 8 0
"18
6 0
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 0 "1 86
o
67

7 !7 " 3 "1 " "1 "
`8
o8 a7 n b5' Ò Ô '8()
#8 6#8
Ö
µÇ
µÏ·
p86
8" 2 $% 0% $% 2&2 2&
PQY=GEM=BCD<ERLECDR<EV:S= ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆµÇ¶ÈÉÊËÌÍÈÎ Ð Ð 2 04%
'8()
#8 6#8 4 03%
% 04% % 03%
) p86 à8 pà8 % 03% % 0$%
'8() 7* '8() 7* ¹º
»¼
µ¶ ·¸ ¹¾¸¹¿ ½¾¸¹¿ 8" 2 $% 0% $% 2&2 2&
b " 86*8` 2 1 1 00% 0% 00% 0% 0%
#8" 86*8` 4 1 Ñ××××××××××¶ o8 86 7*
#8 6#8 1 00% 0% 00% 0% 0%
Ò×××××××××¶ !c86
#8 `87 pà8
6 88` 2 1 2 1 8" 1 3% &$3 3% &4 &24
9RSde<EMRVVf<RQLEIQM=;EB:G:I=C=G< + ª«¬vw®««¯v°®±²³«vvvzx´´{}v¬«®v±²ª¬
b
`8c *7 b
`8c
*7*7
^86 8_
8` ,- . /0++++ 17 23 rsrrr
%a
% . " ! .+0+-4564,-7 8
878
a
8 07 " 9:;<=
¡¢£¤
! .+0++45>>4/5 8
878 rsrrr
9RCE\]
{|vyvxy
5 .+0>4+-+5-4 ?
vyvxy
5 .+0+44@6+7@/ 0(0 ? rsrrr
A=BCDE A=BCDE N:OEPD;QGRM=E UERVEM:C:E XY=EA=BCDEVQGE PD;QGRM=E rsrrr
FC:GCE KLME SQLS=LCG:CRQLE BQRLCE FQ;Y=G SQLS0EVQGE
HIIJ HIIJ HTESQLSG=C=J RWLQG=M FQ;Y=G rsrtuvwxyyxz{x|v{|{}{~}{x|v
rsrtrr }yzx
1 "4$1 "1 "4$1
1 "$$ 0"1 "$$
3 3Z 2 " rsrrr
3 1 3Z [? [?
1 34 3Z [? [? rsrrr
34 & 3Z [? [?
[? [? rsrrrr
[? [? r r r tr r r r r r r rr
[? [? ¥¦§¨©©¤
[? [?
365
n6oo9p8DXM99^DqMr?s9tDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D<
u
b8 08 010g86
"
7(7
02345678
87
086 78 m
b `86 6
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D<DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE 8@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
_b8%!'' "u0 u5[
767
86
"7 0 '
8
m_ _87 '
76m
"
$8 u86 b
6 0 4 v7
0 886_78_ m8 m 8 0
#14
6 0
78
7
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 0 #1 \def 86
a
67

7 "7 # \def #1 # #1 #
_8
a8 b7'c 5 w %8&'
$8 6$8
x `86
wy 2 # 8# # # # #
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ wx 2 #
%8&'
$8 6$8
# # # #
' `86 _b8 4 # `_b8 # # # #
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( 2 # 8# # # # #
e # 86(8_ 2 1 wx yz{|{}~z{
z{
1 # # # # #
!$8# 86(8_ 4 1 x a8 86 1 # 7(
$8 6$8 # # # #
`_b8
6 88_ 2 1 2 1 x "m86
$8 _87 1 # 8# # # # #
5ROjkEDLRUUlERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE Ò±®®ÓÔÕÖÓÓ×ØÖÙÚÛÓ³±¢ ÜÜ£¥ÔÓ±Ö«ÙÚÕÒ±Ô
e
_8m (7 e
_8m
(7(7
g86 8h
8_ )* + ,-.... 7 /0 ²
ib
i + # " +.-.,.1231)* 4
878 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃ½ÄÅÁÄÅÂÆÇÂÈÉÂÊÅËÂÃ½ÄÃ¾ÁÅÁÌ
b
8 07 # 56789
" +:-:;<1:9=.; 4
878
5RBD]^
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
5 +,-*332);311 >
5 +.-.;211;3.1 0&0 > ´²
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 6W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D ´

EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD 8QPW@G OQKO-DUQGD
HIIJ HIIJ HSDOQKOG@B@J RVKQG@L 8QPW@G
³²
Y#1 #Z #Y1 #Z
Y#1 0[ 0#Y1 # ³
0 0[ \>! \>!
0 4Y \>! \>!
4Y 3 \>! \>! ²
3 Y \>! \>!
\>! \>!
\>! \>! ³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
\>! \>! ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
\>! \>!
366
^3__6`5<ND66a<bDc8d6e<N;G.-HC,<;.G,<X
Y
W8 P8 010f86
"
7(7
02345678
87
086 78 /
W U86 6
N;G.-HC,<;.G,<X<G.F>:H.B<C,:>HG= N.--.=H.B<F;G.-HC,<F.B:,B:<:;-,=;.GC= 5,-MHF,<GHK,<9-,CHF:H.B=
VW8%!'' "YP Y5Q
767
86
"7 0 '
8
/V V87 '
76/
"
$8 Y86 W
6 0 1 Z7
0 8V7
8V
/
8
/ 8 0
#11
6 0
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 0 #1 R[! \] 86

67

7 "7 # R[! \] #1 # #1 #
V8 2
8 W7 86 V6 x yz{|}~ m %8&'
$8 6$8 4
n U86
mo 8# 2
N.M,-<C,9:;=<HB<:;H=<K>F, xyz{|}~mn 2
%8&'
$8 6$8 4
' U86 VW8 UVW8
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( qr
mn op qvpqwstuvpqw 8# 2
g # 86(8V 2 1 2 1 1
!$8# 86(8V 4 1 4 1 n 8 86 7
(
$ 8
6$8 1
UVW8
6 88V 2 1 2 1 n "/86
$8 V87 8# 1
2HFhi=<CHKKj=H.B<@.C,G<9>->@,:,-= È§¤¤ÉÊËÌÉÉÍÎÌÏÐÑÉ©ÒÓÓÔ ¢
g
V8/ (7 g
V8/
(7(7
f86 8k
8V )* + ,--.-

/80 ¨
lW
l + #
" + 1
878
°±²³´µ¶·¹̧³º»·º»¸¼½¸¾¿¸À»Á̧¹³º¹´·»·Â

¡¢£¤¥¦
§¦¢£¤¥¦
W
8 07 # 23456 " + 1
878
B.<9-.KHG,T 5 +
5 +
7
0&0 7 ª¨
8,9:;< 8,9:;< D>E<F;G.-HC,< J<HK<C>:>< 3M,<C,9:;<K.-< N;G.-HC,< ª

=:>-:< ,BC< F.BF,B:->:H.B< 9.HB:< 5.GM,- F.BFO<K.-<
?@@A ?@@A ?I<F.BF-,:,A HLB.-,C 5.GM,-
©¨
2 PQ 4#1 R7!
2 S PQ R7! R7! ©
S 4 PQ R7! R7!
4 42 R7! R7!
42 33 R7! R7! ¨
33 S4 R7! R7!
R7! R7!
R7! R7! © ª « ¨ ¬ ® ¯ ©
R7! R7! Ã·º·»´Ä»µ³º¸Å·Æ»±¸¼ÇÇÂ
R7! R7!
367
cRddefTBUIeeZBgIh>iejBUA:LCMH<BAL:<B)
k
`8 18 010 86
"
7(7
02345678
87
086 78 l
` _86 6
UA:LCMH<BAL:<B)B:LK9@MLGBH<@9M:; ULCCL;MLGBKA:LCMH<BKLG@<G@B@AC<;AL:H; T<CSMK<B:MP<B?C<HMK@MLG;
b`8%!'' "k1 k5W
767
86
"7 0 '
8
lb b87 '
76l
"
$8 k86 `
6 0 7 m7
0 886b78b l8 l 8 0
#17
6 0
78
7
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 0 #1 X[\] 86
^
67

7 "7 # X[\] #1 # #1 #
b8
^8 `7'a 5 ~ s %8&'
$8 6$8
t _86
su 2 8# # # # # #
ULS<CBH<?@A;BMGB@AM;BP9K< ~st 2 # # # # #
' _86 b`8 4 %8&'
$8 6$8 # # # # #
_b`8
\ # 86(8b
%8&' 7( %8&'
2
7(
1 st uvwxwyz|{vw
|vw}
}
2
1
8#

#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
7(
$8 6$8
!$8# 86(8b 4 1 t ^8 86 1 _b`8 # # # # #
6 88b 2 1 2 1 t "l86
$8 b87 1 8# # # # # #
8MKpq;BHMPPr;MLGBELH<:B?9C9E<@<C; ÎªªÏÐÑÒÏÏÓÔÒÕÖ×Ï¯ØÙÙ¡ÑªÚÏÐÖ
\
b8l (7 \
b8l
(7(7
86 8n
8b )* + ,-.... /7 01 ®
¡¢¡
o`
o + # " +.-..2345)36 7
878 ¡£¤£¥¦

§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
`
8 07 # 89:;< " +. 7
878
8M@BYZ 5 +5-5246,5.** =
5 +.-3,2*.,644 0&0 = °®
><?@AB ><?@AB I9JBKA:LCMH<B OBMPBH9@9B RS<BH<?@ABPLCB UA:LCMH<B °

;@9C@B <GHB KLGK<G@C9@MLGB ?LMG@B TL:S<C KLGK-BPLCB
DEEF DEEF DNBKLGKC<@<F MQGLC<H TL:S<C
¯®
2 #4V 4#1 #4V
2 3 1W 0V#1 # ¯
3 44 1W X=! X=!
44 30 X=! X=!
30 V X=! X=! ®
X=! X=!
X=! X=!
X=! X=! ¯ ° ± ® ² ³ ´ µ ¯
X=! X=! É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
X=! X=!
368
^6__9`8DXM99]DaMb?c9dDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D1
e
f8 08 010g86
!
7'7
02345678
87
086 78 h
f i86 6
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D1DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE 8@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
jf8$ && !e0 e5Y
767
86
!7 0 &
8
hj j87 !
#8 &
76h e86 f
6 0 4 o7
0 8j7
8j
h
8
h 8 0
"14
6 0
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 0 "1 Zklm 86
n
67

7 !7 " Zklm "1 " "1 "
j8 40 " " " " "
n8 f7 86 j6
u $8%&
#8 6#8 4 " " " " "
v i86
uw 8" 2 " " " " "
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ uv 2 " " " " "
& i86 jf8 $8%&
#8 6#8 4 " " " " "
ijf8
$8%& 7' $8%& 7' y xy
uv wx zy{|~}xy
~ 8" 2 " " " " "
l " 86'8j 40 1 2 1 1 " " " " "
#8" 86'8j 4 1 4 1 7'
#8 6#8 1 " " " " "
v n8 86 ijf8
6 88j 2 1 2 1 v !h86
#8 j87 8" 1 " " " " "
5ROpqEDLRUUrERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE Ð¯¬¬ÑÒÓÔÑÑÕÖÔ×ØÙÑ±¯Ö ÚÚ¡£¢¦¤Û¡¨ ª¤¢
l
j8h '7 l
j8h
'7'7
g86 8s
8j () * +,---- .7 /0 °
tf
t * " ! *-,--)12-(-3 4
878 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
£¥¦ ¥§¨
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
f
8 07 " 56789
! *+,:11::9;-1 4
878
5RBD\] 5 *<,-3-)1:1-<
5 *-,3>)-(:-()
=
0%0 = ²°
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 6W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D ²

EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD 8QPW@G OQKO,DUQGD
±°
0 "14 3"1 "14
0 0Y 0"1 " ±
41 0Y Z= Z=
41 14"1 Z= Z=
1[ [3 Z= Z= °
Z= Z=
Z= Z=
Z= Z= ± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
Z= Z= Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
Z= Z=
369
0123457895

ko 4515

G2357895
$&*pD!829!1589012345?.39
*6e+&e*+$*
7!1"#!53
$%&'(7)5#!53
*+$$ ,581-.)53
'/ 012 A+e+&e*+$*
0589!)5
344589 058941")
544589 Nb1LTPSaT]0I`NK]`NTIJRLPM1TLNdr
8!8332!87#5
*69 78.29"9)25185248!
+9 -.)"15#382>2#8!27 s18)815>5157#53275
ghg2g [Be=!#7#C
9:
*; 5873#8 )5
"1 83<2 5 = >
)57
"1>
5 (7#?
=2 73 831 235
35 !5#!
2732
92 !
ghgg2 [Be=!#7#C
09@
A6' 1274!)5
9!15899"!8B9"1>058#8CDE5183275=8!51=8
5 -.#?=273 (72!28!27!815833$
ghgqg [Be=!#7#C
8!F5#12)!27
G21!8D>H8895DE5183275=8E5
D##827833 F4873 $9!A+9 (72!28!27!815833*
ghg2g [Be=!#7#C
t0 N u
S]M N0 P
I00LR N RPa]b nN 10d
P] ]dP nN 10dP]
0IÒNS]MN0 IBJI KLKMN01ON0
99C B99C
12
PQRIS1T
UKKV cdcISIJb1SN]b S]MN0IJ SaT]0I`N 1MN01ON nN1d0Pd01PJ` 1MN01ON
0123458E51845
B[#7#15!5CB[#7#15!5C B99*e1C fN1K b1SN Pa0Nda]T` dPI00LR S]00]dI]J dP01J`
9>>2! W15XH YZ A$ *% B99C B99C B99C S]00]dI]J S]00]dI]J
9!211") *' *' *; 927 8E5 927 +?+;[ +?+A[ +?+;[ +?+A[ +?+;[ +?+A[ +?+;[ +?+A[
235e W15XH *% 8E51845 +?$6/' +?++'; $?6*;% *6 A+ *; $$ $& $\ *;+ $\ A** *\ '*'
=54 9!211") *A *& *; 9!35E +?$&$/ +?++;' $?&6;* $ $ $ 6 $+ $\ *;A *\ A$A *\ '++
0!!9 W15 X
H *% 927 +?+&6% +?++++ +?
/;++ */ *% *' A / % '+ *A &$ '* %$
4"34 9!211") *; 98. +?'&A& +?+$A* '?/'*& *% A$ *; ** A* A\ ;%/ '\ /;$ ;\ %/A
NdP_]S1PI]Jd caT]0I`NK]`NTR101KNPN0d N1KS]MN0d dPIK1PN`0NK1IJIJOTIbNUgV
PI00LR NRPa]b nN10dP]1MNhnN10dP]dPnN10dP]1MNh
]TN^ N1K _]S1PI]J I`N _NJOPa ]`NTbIP cdcISt0
0 B[#7# NuS]MN0S]M
N0IJ SaT]0I`N dPI00LR dP01J` dP01J`
15!5CB[#7#15!5C B99*e1C B99C f0IÒNPa0 Nda]T`
B99C B99C S]00]dI]J S]00]dI]J S]00]dI]J
927 8E5 8E5 +?+;[ +?+A[ +?+;[ +?+A[ +?+;[ +?+A[ +?+;[ +?+A[
$ >>2! 7581923)87 G2!D ghiiji +?'&A& +?++'% +?%$;6 */ A$ *' $; $6 /+ '+ %% &$ $A% %$
* 9>>2! G2!D hgggg +?+&6% +?++++ +?/;++ */ A$ *' A / A\ ;%/ '\ /;$ ;\ %/A
A k >>2! 7581923)87 G2!D hgggg +?+/6' +?++++ +?6%;+ */ A$ *' ' 6 $\ A6' *\ '66 *\ &A&
' l 9>>2! G2!D hgggg +?$A6/ +?+$A* '?/'*& */ A$ *' ** A* % X$% *A X$A '* XA
; 7)1>235m N00]0 *% *% *;
& 7)1>235m N00]0 *% *% *;
/ 7)1>235m N00]0 *% *% *;
370
\g\hiDEgMJWjDkMi@lJmDOC:PFQL<DCP:<D=
n
Z8 38 012^86

7)7
03145678
87
20086 78 c
Z Y86 6
OC:PFQL<DCP:<D=D:PR9BQPKDL<B9Q:; OPFFP;QPKDRC:PFQL<DRPKB<KBDBCF<;CP:L; E<FXQR<D:QU<DAF<LQRBQPK;
`Z82(2q (nb n5r
767
86
7
0 (
8
c̀ `87 (
76c n86 Z
6 0 7 p7
200
%8 8`
8678` c8 c 8 200
!"7
6 0
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7 0 !" 0" 86
o
67

7 7 2 ! 0$ !" ! !" !
`8 2# 041 0$ 33 10 200
o8 Z7 86 `6 Ó Õ &8'(
%8 6%8 0 0$1 0$ 03 30 20"
×
¶È
¶Ð¸
Y86
8! 23 01$ 024 020 ## 202
OPX<FDL<ABC;DQKDBCQ;DU9R< ÁÂÃÄÅÆÇ¶È·ÉÊËÌÍÎÉÏ Ñ Ñ 2#
&8'(
%8 6%8 0
041 0$ 33 10 200
( Y86 `Z8 Y`Z8 0$1 0$ 03 30 20"
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) º»
¼½
¶· ¸¹ º¿¹ºÀ ¾¿¹ºÀ 8! 23 01$ 024 020 ## 202
b ! 86)8` 2# 2# 24 24 00" $" 1$ $ 2#3
%8! 86)8` 0 0 24 ÒØØØØØØØØØØ· o8 86 7)
%8 6%8 24 00# $# # 4 2$0
ÓØØØØØØØØØ· c86
%8 `87 Y`Z8
6 88` 23 2" 23 2" 8! 2" 023 3" $2 4$ 23
8QRde;DLQUUf;QPKDHPL<:DA9F9H<B<F; * ««¬w®¯°w±¯²³°www{y´´|~w}zwµ|{}
b
`8c )7 b
`8c
)7)7
^86 8_
8` +, 2 - *.//0/ 17 23 stsss
aZ
a - ! -*.+4545406+ 7
878 stss
Z
8 07 ! 89:;<
¡¢£¤¥
-*.**+/564+ 7
878
8QBD\] stsss
|}wzwyz
5 -*./=>,004>6 2?
wzwyz
5 -*.*6/*5/+40 0'02 2? stuss
@<ABCD @<ABCD M9NDOC:PFQL<D TDQUDL9B9D WX<D@<ABCDUPFD OC:PFQL<D stusss
GHHI GHHI GSDRPKRF<B<I QVKPF<L EP:X<F stss
01!" !0#144 $!2" !0#144 stsss
01!" 2"!" !0"$# 20 !0"$#
2"!" 3!" YZ 2!" ! stss
3!" " !$30 44!#" !$30 stsss
" 1!" YZ ""!2" ! stsuvwxyzzy{|y}w|}|~|~|y}w
1!" #!" YZ [? [? stsss ~z{y
[? [? stssss
[? [? s s s us s s s s s s ss
[? [? ¦§¨©ªª¥
[? [?
371
`k`lmH>kQ?<nHoQmCp?qH\GTUKVPDHGUTDH7
r
^8 48 012d86
!
7+7
03145678
87
20086 78 j
^ ]86 6
\GTUKVPDHGUTDH7HTUSJFVUOHPDFJVTI \UKKUIVUOHSGTUKVPDHSUOFDOFHFGKDIGUTPI >DK[VSDHTVYDHEKDPVSFVUOI
b^83*3 *r f r5s
767
86
!7 0 *
8
jb b87 *
76j
!
$8 r86 ^
6 0 : t7
200 886b78b j8 j 8 200
"#:
6 0
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 0 "# 86
c
67

7 !7 2 " ' "# " "# "
b8
c8 ^7 u (8)*
$8 6$8
v ]86
uw 23 8" #% 320 #% &'4 1#2#
\U[DKHPDEFGIHVOHFGVIHYJSD uv 2'
(8)*
$8 6$8
4% '3& 4% '#0 #30&
* ]86 b^8 0 ]b^8 #% 0% #% 3' '0#
(8)* 7+ (8)* 7+ 23 8" #% 320 #% &'4 1#2#
f " 86+8b 2' 24 uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy
24 % 10 % #&4 #&&
$8" 86+8b 0 24 v c8 86 24 7+
$8 6$8 % 144 % #3' #0#
]b^8
6 88b 23 2# 23 2# v !j86
$8 b87 2# 8" % '' % 11 #41
;VSghIHPVYYiIVUOHMUPDTHEJKJMDFDKI Ð¬ÐÑÒÓ¬ÔÕ¯©ÖÔÒ×ØÕ°¯ ÙÙ¡£¢¦¤Ú¡¨ ª¤¢
f
b8j +7 f
b8j
+7+7
d86 8e
8b ,- 2 . /01111 27 34 ¶
%^
% . " ! .10156657869 :
878 µ
^
8 07 " ;<=>? ! .,05/,-,?@18 :
;VFHà
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
5 .10-811,516, 2A ´
5 .1017B-6B618 0)02 2A
³
CDEFGH CDEFGH QJRHSGTUKVPDH XHVYHPJFJH <[DHPDEFGHYUKH \GTUKVPDH
IFJKFH DOPH SUOSDOFKJFVUOH EUVOFH >UT[DK SUOS0HYUKH ²
LMMN LMMN LWHSUOSKDFDN VZOUKDP >UT[DK ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
00 "#0 #"# "#0 £¥¦ ¥§¨
00 2 ]^ 0' "
2 2"# ]^ _A _A ±
2"# 1 ]^ _A _A
4 4& ]^ _A _A °
4& 10 ]^ _A _A
10 '"# ]^ _A _A
_A _A ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · °
_A _A Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
_A _A
372
^hîjF:hO;8kFlOjAm;nFZERSITNBFESRBF5
b
\8 38 012o86

7*7
03145678
87
20086 78 f
\ [86 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF5FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG :BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
`\82)2a )bc b5d
767
86
7
0 )
8
f̀ `87 )
76f b86 \
6 0 6 e7
200
#8 8`7
8`
f
8
f 8 200
!"6
6 0
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7 0 !" 4 86
g
67

7 7 2 ! & !" ! !" !
`8
g8 \7 86 `6 t '8()
#8 6#8
u [86
tv 8! 23 2$ 10% 2$ "% 4&"
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB tu 2%
'8()
#8 6#8 0
2$ "" 2$ 4&& &2
) [86 `\8 [`\8 2$ 1& 2$ 11 40
'8() 7* '8() 7* x
tu vw x}wx~yz{|}wx~ 8! 23 2$ 10% 2$ "% 4&"
c ! 86*8` 2% 24 24 0$ 422 0$ %" 40%
#8! 86*8` 0 24 u g8 86 7
*
# 8
6#8 24 0$ 40 0$ &4 44%
[`\8
6 88` 23 2" 23 2" u f86
#8 `87 8! 2" 2$ 4% 2$ 421 "30
7TQpqGFNTWWrGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG Ï«ÏÐÑÒ«ÓÔ®¨ÕÓÑÖ×Ô¯ØÙÙ ¢¡¥£Ú §©£¡
c
`8f *7 c
`8f
*7*7
o86 8s
8` +, 2 - ./0000 17 23 ¶
$\
$ - ! -0/0,454+,+4 6
878 µ
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
\
8 07 ! 789:; -0 6
878
7TDF^_ 5 -0/4<=0044<5 2>
5 -0/0?4540=+@ 0(02 2>
´
³
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF 8YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ²
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF :SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN :SRYBI ±
&!" !"3 4!2" !"3 ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
¢¤¥¤¦§
&!" 0" !0"& 00!%" !0"&
0" 22!" [\ 0&!%" !
22!" 2 [\ ]> ]> °
]> ]> ¯
]> ]>
]> ]>
]> ]> ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ ¯
]> ]> Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
]> ]>
373
]9]cdDX9LeVfDgLd@heiDYCOP:QK<DCPO<D+
j
a8 38 012k86
!
7*7
03145678
87
20086 78 l
a `86 6
YCOP:QK<DCPO<D+DOPNFBQPJDK<BFQOE YP::PEQPJDNCOP:QK<DNPJB<JBDBC:<ECPOKE X<:WQN<DOQT<DA:<KQNBQPJE
ba82)2m )j n j5o
767
86
!7 0 )
8
lb b87 )
76l
!
$8 j86 a
6 0 8 p7
200 886b78b l8 l 8 200
"#8
6 0
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 0 "# 22 86
_
67

7 !7 2 " 2 "# " "# "
b8
_8 a7 u (8&)
$8 6$8
v `86
uw 23 8" % 3 &% 244
YPW<:DK<ABCEDQJDBCQEDTFN< uv 2' ' 4 2 &0 24
) `86 ba8 0 (8&)
$8 6$8 %3 44 42 & 2#
`ba8
n " 86*8b
(8&) 7* (8&)
2'
7*
24 uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy

23
24
8"

%
##
3
2'

%
&%
&2
244
203
7*
$8 6$8
$8" 86*8b 0 24 v _8 86 24 `ba8 #1 2% 3 &03 22
6 88b 23 2# 23 2# v !l86
$8 b87 2# 8" 12 0# &0' 221
\QNstEDKQTT;EQPJDHPK<ODAF:FH<B<:E Ð¬ÐÑÒÓ¬ÔÕ¯©ÖÔÒ×ØÕ´Ù ÚÚ¡£
n
b8l *7 n
b8l
*7*7
k86 8q
8b +, 2 - ./0000 17 23 ´²
ra
r - " ! -0/.4565766+ 8
878 ´±
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
a
8 07 " 9:;< ! -0/0.4=.=5,5 8
878
\QBD]^ 5 -+/,+=6+++77
5 -0/.?0455=,.
2>
0&02 2>
´°
´
@<ABCD @<ABCD LFMDNCOP:QK<D SDQTDKFBFD VW<DK<ABCDTP:D YCOP:QK<D
EBF:BD <JKD NPJN<JB:FBQPJD APQJBD XPOW<: NPJN/DTP:D ³
GHHI GHHI GRDNPJN:<B<I QUJP:<K XPOW<:
00 "41#0 #"# & ²
00 2"# "1#01 0'"2# "1#01
2"# % "044 "'# "044 ± ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
% #1 "014% 4' "014% £¥¦ ¥§¨
#1 ' "4# Z 1 [> °
' %4 "43%3 Z '' [>
[> [>
[> [> ´ ° ± µ ² ¶ ³ · ´
[> [> Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
[> [>
374
r
0123457895
451!5"
##$
j2;57895
..<s[87515218%155`012345?2;9
.Hh/+h./).
%7 &1'(&53
)*++,7 -5(&53
./)) 058112- 53
34 567 </h/+h./).
0589&"-5
89589 058941'-
8:9589 Tf6PZVYeZa5MdTOadTZMNXPVS6ZPTgt
%8 &8;32&87(5
<+49 =8229'9-251>524>&
4?@9 12- '15(;8 2G2(8&27 u18->15G5157(5;275
klk$k ^QhF&(7(R
AB
)C D873 (8 -5
'18;E2 5 F G
-57'1G
7 ,7(?
F2 73 0. %>;1 235
35 &5(&
27;2
92 &
klkk$ ^QhF&(7(R
0AC
.@H) %1 274&"-5
A&1589 IJ518;275F8&51F8"
"5 12(?F273 0. ,72&28&27&>15 >;3)
klkmk ^QhF&(7(R
%8 &K5 (12-&27
B819'1IJ518;275F8J5
C5J51 %K9873)/)9&4//9 ,72&28&27&>15 >;3.
klk$k ^QhF&(7(R
5 T wv
YaS T5 cV
M55PX T XVeaf qT65g
Va agV qT 65gVa
5MdUTYaST5 LMQNM OPOST56UT5
99R Q99R
67
VWXMY6Z
OO gMYMNf6YTaf YaST5MN YeZa5MdT 6ST56UT qT6g5Vg56VNd 6ST56UT
Q^(7(15&5RQ^(7(15&5R Q99.h"1R iT6O f6YT Ve5TgeaZd gVM55PX Ya55agMaN gV56Nd
0123458J51845
AGG2& [15:8 \] 3. .* Q99R Q99R Q99R Ya55agMaN Ya55agMaN
A&211'- )@ <. .) 927 8J5 927 /?/4^ /?/<^ /?/4^ /?/<^ /?/4^ /?/<^ /?/4^ /?/<^
235h [15:8 _ 3+ .* 8J51845 /?/4/H /?/)4+ )?)44+ <. <+ .@ :. 4 <` *<+ 3` **4 4` .`
F59 A&211'- </ <* .) A&35J /?/.)3 /?//<< /?4<<. 4 + 4 * + 34+ +*/ .` 4++ *4+ )`
0&&9 [15 :
8 .* 927 /?/.3H /?/).< /?
+*+4 .* .* .) 3 4 .` <@) .` 3*< 3` @)3
9';9 A&211'- .) 982 /?/@@/ /?/.)) .?/.@+ 3< 3< <. 3 )) <` .` +` .` +` <`
vTgVaY6VMaNg eZa5MdTOadTZX656OTVT5g T6OYaST5g gVMO6VTd5TO6MNMNUZMfT#k
cVM55PX TXVeaf qT65gVa6STlqT65gVagVqT65gVa6STl
aZTb T6O aY6VMaN cMdT TNUVe LadTZfMV gMY5
5# Q^(7( TwvYaST5YaS
T5MN YeZa5MdT gVM55PX gV56Nd gV56Nd
15&5RQ^(7(15&5R Q99.h"1R Q99R i5MdUTVe5 TgeaZd
Q99R Q99R Ya55agMaN Ya55agMaN Ya55agMaN
927 8J5 8J5 /?/4^ /?/<^ /?/4^ /?/<^ /?/4^ /?/<^ /?/4^ /?/<^
) $d GG2& A&>)h<-87 j2&I! klmn /?/+4* /?/.)) /?@3H/ 3< 3< <. 3 )) <` <@) +` @/+ +` @)3
. $ GG2& A&>)h<-87 j2&I! kl7# /?/<4@ /?/)44 .?/.@+ <) 3) <. :)3 4 27G? .` 27G? .` 27G? <`
< GG2& j2&I! kl$ /?/@@/ /?/)<@ /?+*+4 <) 3. <. 3 * .` 4.* .` 3*< 3` *3)
3 $ GG2& &>)h<-87 j2&I! klo$m /?/.3H /?/).< )?)4/< <3 3. <. :+ 27G? 27G? 27G? 27G? 27G? 27G?
4 7-1G2;5p T55a5 .* .* .)
+ 7-1G2;5p T55a5 .* .* .)
@ 7-1G2;5p T55a5 .* .* .)
375
fYgLhOYhOYFQOLL]FI\Y]iLhjkKFlOhBjLFg\F1?mFQE<RHSN>FER<>F?
n
`8 58 001^86
!
7+7
23445678
87
02286 78 * p86 6
QE<RHSN>FER<>F?F<RT;DSRMFN>D;S<= QRHHR=SRMFTE<RHSN>FTRMD>MDFDEH>=ER<N= G>HZST>F<SW>FCH>NSTDSRM=
`8( n n !n5 4 5ors n5r 4 32
767
86
!7 2 *
8
b 87 *
76b n86 `
!
&8 8
6 1 9 q7
022 8678 b8 b 8 022
"#9
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "# 86
o
67

7 !7 0 "1 22 "# "1 "# "1
8 1 4$ %#2 4$ %4 %%3#
o8 `7 7 2A1 6 Ú Ü (8)*
&8 6&8 1 4$ %#3 4$ %2 %'41
Ù¾ ØÛÈÉÊÝËÌÍÎ
Þ
½Ï
½×¿
p86
8" 03 1$ 12 1$ 034 42%
QRZ>HFN>CDE=FSMFDES=FW;T> ÈÉÊËÌÍÎ½Ï¾ÐÑÒÓÔÕÐÖ Ø Ø 12
(8)*
&8 6&8 0
1$ 13 1$ 1# 33#
* p86 `8 p`8 4$ %2# 4$ 4% %#0
(8)* 7+ (8)* 7+ ÁÂ
ÃÄ
½¾ ¿À ÁÆÀÁÇ ÅÆÀÁÇ 8" 03 1$ 12 1$ 034 42%
a " 86+8 1 14 12 2% 2% 322 22% '44 %0 0'%%
&8" 86+8 1 13 0 10 Ùßßßßßßßßßß¾ o8 86 7+
&8 6&8 10 1$ 24 1$ 1%2 #23%
Úßßßßßßßßß¾ !b86
&8 87 p`8
6 88 03 02 03 02 8" 02 2$ 2%3 2$ 21 11#4
:STcd=FNSWWe=SRMFJRN><FC;H;J>D>H= , ¬®°̄°̄xy°®®±x²³±´®µ̄¶·x̧°¹̄µ®x³xxvxx|zºº}x»x¼vx|~
a
8b +7 a
8b
+7+7
^86 8_
8 -. 0 / ,011.2 37 45 tuttt
$`
$ / "1 ! /,0,6.17,.68 9
878
`
8 27 " :;<=>
¡¢£¤¥¦
! /,0,7?,.781- 9
878 tuttt
:SDF\]
}~x{xz{
5 /,02-8,?.7@2 0A
x{xz{
5 /,0,7@2?1-,8 2)20 0A tuttt
B>CDEF B>CDEF O;PFQE<RHSN>F VFSWFN;D;F YZ>FB>CDEFWRHF QE<RHSN>F tuttt
GD;HDF LMNF TRMT>MDH;DSRMF CRSMDF GR<Z>H TRMT0FWRHF
IJJK IJJK IUFTRMTH>D>K SXMRH>N GR<Z>H tutvwxyz{{z|}z~x}~}}}z~x
tutvtt {|z
2 "#1' # "#1'
2 0"# "013 2#"0# "013
0"# 03"# "03 0# "03 tuttt
0#"# 1%"# "000# 12"# "000#
1%"# 4"# "0'' 0 "0'' tuttt
4"# #' "04# #0"0# "04#
[A [A tutttt
[A [A t t t vt t t t t t t tt
[A [A §¨©ª ««¦
[A [A
376
i;j>kO;kO;FZO>>]FJ\;]<>klmLFnOkAl>Fj\F07oFZERSITNBFESRBF1
p
a8 48 001b86

7(7
23445678
87
02286 78 ' _86 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF1FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG =BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
â8%pp p4 34`qr p5q 3 32
767
86
7
2 '
8
h^ ^87
6 1 9 s7
022
$8 '
76h p86 a
8^78^ h8 h 8 022
!"9
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7
2 !" &2 86 86
`
67

7 7
0 !1 " !" !1 !" !1
^8 12 ! 0# ! 0# !
`8 a77 2@1 6 t %8&'
$8 6$8 2 ! 1# ! 1# !
u _86
tv 8! 03 ! 0# ! 0# !
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB
' _86 â8
tu 12 ! 0# ! 0# !
%8&'
$8 6$8 0 ! 1# ! 1# !
_â8
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( 8! 03 ! 0# ! 0# !
d ! 86(8^ 12 2) 12 2) tu vwxyxz{}|wx
}wx~
~ 2) ! "" ! "" !
$8! 86(8^ 2 12 0 10 u `8 86 7(
$8 6$8 10 ! 0# ! 0# !
_â8
6 88^ 03 02 03 02 u h86
$8 ^87 8! 02 ! * ! )3" !
:TQefGFNTWWgGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG Ï®ÐÑÒÓ®ÒÓ®ÓÑÑÔÕÖ®Ô×ÑÒØÙÚÛÓÒÜØÑÐÖ¶°§ÝÝ ¢Þ¢¤°ß©£¡
d
^8h (7 d
^8h
(7(7
b86 8c
8^ +, 0 - ./00+1 27 34 ²
#a
# - !1 -./.5,6,6768 9
878 ¯
a
8 27 ! :;<=> -./.7,,1866 9
878 ·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀºÁÂ¾ÁÂ¿ÃÄ¿ÅÆ¿ÇÂÈ¿ÀºÁÀ»¾Â¾É ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
:TDF\]
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
¢¤¥¤¦§
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
5 -1/.1?6+?17+ 0@
5 -./.6+1061?7 2&20 0@
±¯
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF ;YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF =SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF ±
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN =SRYBI
23 !0"00 3!" !0"00 °¯
23 03 !2)2" 0 !2)2"
03 !2"0 14!" !2"0 °
") !2"32 "!" !2"32
[@ [@ ¯
[@ [@
[@ [@
[@ [@ ° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
[@ [@
377
g9h<iO9iO9FZO<<]FJ\9]:<ijkLFlOiAj<Fh\F0=mFZERSITNBFESRBF1
a
`8 48 001n86

7*7
23445678
87
02286 78 ) ^86 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF1FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG ;BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
_`8' a a a4 3 4bcd a5c 3 32
767
86
7 2 )
8
f_ _87 )
76f

#8 a86 `
6 2 7 e7
022 8_7
8_
f
8
f 8 022
!"7
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 !" 86
b
67

7 7 0 !1 3 !" !1 !" !1
_8
b8 `7 t '8()
#8 6#8
u ^86
tv 8! 03 0$ %2 0$ 04 1&4&
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB tu 12 0$ "1&
'8()
#8 6#8 0 $ 3&4
0$ 31 2
) ^86 _`8 ^_`8 $ 32 "3"2
'8() 7* '8() 7* x
tu vw x}wx~yz{|}wx~ 8! 03 0$ %2 0$ 04 1&4&
o ! 86*8_ 0& 12 2% 2% 4" 240 43 22% 040
#8! 86*8_ 1" 0 10 u b8 86 7
*
# 8
6#8 10 0$ "% 0$ "03 0&"
^_`8
6 88_ 03 02 03 02 u f86
#8 _87 8! 02 33% 0% 3"0 00 0341
8TQpqGFNTWWrGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG Ï®ÐÑÒÓ®ÒÓ®ÓÑÑÔÕÖ®Ô×ÑÒØÙÚÛÓÒÜØÑÐÖ¶¯¯ÝÝ ¢
o
_8f *7 o
_8f
*7*7
n86 8s
8_ +, 0 - ./0001 27 34 ¶
$`
$ - !1 -./.55.+166+ 7
878 µ
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
`
8 27 ! 89:;< -./.=16>?.51 7
878
8TDF\] 5 -./606,+,>5+
5 -./.??.>51?,
0@
2(20 0@
´
³
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN ;SRYBI ±
& !"0" !"0" ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
¢¤¥¤¦§
& 2% !022 20!" !022
2% 0" !21%% 02 !21%%
0" 1%!" !210 12!0" !210 °
1%!" 4!" !21&" 0 !21&" ¯
4!" " !2101 "!0" !2101
[@ [@
[@ [@ ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ ¯
[@ [@
378
bScdeJSeJSCVJddZCEYSZfdeghGCiJe?gdCcYC.<jCVB9MDNI;CBM9;C)
k
`8 38 001l86

7'7
23445678
87
02286 78 & _86 6
VB9MDNI;CBM9;C)C9ML8ANMHCI;A8N9: VMDDM:NMHCLB9MDNI;CLMHA;HACABD;:BM9I: U;DTNL;C9NQ;C@D;INLANMH:
a`8$ k k k3 2 3^mn k5m 2 32
767
86
7 2 &
8
pa a87 &
76p

#8 k86 `
6 1 6 o7
022 886a78a p8 p 8 022
!"6
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 !" X[\] 86
^
67

7 7 0 !1 %4 !" !1 !" !1
a8 1 ! ! ! ! !
^8 `77 2>1 6 v $8%&
#8 6#8 0 ! ! ! ! !
w _86
vx 8! 03 ! ! ! ! !
VMT;DCI;@AB:CNHCABN:CQ8L;
& _86 a`8
vw
$8%&
#8 6#8
12
0
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
_a`8
\ ! 86'8a
$8%&
1
7'
23
$8%&
12
7'
2( vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz

8!

03
2(
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
7'
#8 6#8
#8! 86'8a 0 0 0 10 w ^8 86 _a`8 10 ! ! ! ! !
6 88a 03 02 03 02 w p86
#8 a87 8! 02 ! ! ! ! !
7NLst:CINQQu:NMHCFMI;9C@8D8F;A;D: Ñ°ÒÓÔÕ°ÔÕ°ÕÓÓÖ×Ø°ÖÙÓÔÚÛÜÝÕÔÞÚÓÒØ¸²¡ßß¢¤¡¤¦²à¡«¥£
\
a8p '7 \
a8p
'7'7
l86 8q
8a )* 0 + ,-./0* 17 23 ±
¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
r`
r + !1 +,-,4)5*4)/) 6
878 ¤¦ §¡¦¨©

ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§
`
8 27 ! 789:; +,-,<4004/.* 6
878
7NACYZ 5 +<-<*,4/0=,/
5 +,-,0/)5)/4/
0>
2%20 0> ³±
?;@ABC ?;@ABC J8KCLB9MDNI;C PCNQCI8A8C ST;CI;@ABCQMDC VB9MDNI;C ³

:A8DAC ;HIC LMHL;HAD8ANMHC @MNHAC UM9T;D LMHL-CQMDC
EFFG EFFG EOCLMHLD;A;G NRHMD;I UM9T;D
²±
2!" !23W" "!0" !23W"
2!" 0 !21"1 2(!0" !21"1 ²
0 14 !224 1 !224
14 4 !2234 2 !2234
4 "( !201" "2!" !201" ±
"( 44 !211" 42!" !211"
X> X>
X> X> ² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
X> X> ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
X> X>
379
0123457895

u 4515

;2557895
)).vw82987481155\012345?-59
)[f*&f)*$)
7!1"#!53
$%&&'7(5#!53
)*$$ +581,-(53
./ 01 $*f*Zf)*$)
0589!(5
23589 058941"(
243589 Ld1HRNQcR^0EbLG^bLREFPHNK1RHLex
8!8532!87#5
.**9 68-29"9(25175247!
*9 , -( "1 5 # 5
8 2
>2
#8!27 y18 (7 15>5157#55275
ijini XIf=!#7#J
89
$$ :873#8(5
;15!<25=>(57"1>
7 '7#?=273 0$ 75123535!5#!275292!
ijiin XIf=!#7#J
08@
$)A 1274!(5
8!1589 BC5185275=8!51=8
5 ,-#?=273 0) '72!28!27!715753$
ijioi XIf=!#7#J
8!D5#12(!27
9813"1BC5185275=8C5
@5C51 D3873$*$9!/**9 '72!28!27!715753)
ijini XIf=!#7#J
q0LrsQ^KL0 aNE00HP LPNc^d tL10eN^ ^heN tL 10eN^
0EbMLQ^KL0 EIFE GHGKL01ML01
99J I99J
NOPEQ1R
SGGT eEQEFd1QL^d Q^KL0EF QcR^0EbL 1KL01ML tL1e0Ne01NFb 1KL01ML
0123458C51845
IX#7#15!5J IX#7#15!5J I99)f1J gL1G d1QLNc0Lec^Rb eNE00HP Q^00êE^F eN01Fb
8>>2! 8U!121514"(
2 VW .. )% I99J I99J I99J Q^00êE^F Q^00êE^F
)$ A) )$ 927 8C5 927 *?*/X *?*AX *?*/X *?*AX *?*/X *?*AX *?*/X *?*AX
235f U1542 VY .& )% 8C51845 *?*A*/ *?*$/& A?/Z*[ A& AZ )[ 4Z ) A$\ A[\ /$\
=53 8!211"( A* A. )$ 8!35C *?**&) *?**). A?Z)ZZ & Z & * . A*\ A&\ .%\
0!!9 U1542 )% 927 *?*)A) *?*$)[ *?[Z)% )% )% )$ $ * %%& * $\ * )\
3"53 8!211"( )$ 98- *?*.*$ *?*$%) $*?**** .. .& A. 4Z Z * &$\ * Z.\ * $**\
sLeN`^Q1NE^Fe cR^0EbLG^bLRP101GLNL0e L1GQ^KL0e eNEG1NLb0LG1EFEFMREdLSihhT
aNE00HP LPNc^d tL10eN^1KLjtL10eN^heNtL10eN^1KLj
]^RL_ L1G `^Q1NE^F aEbL `LFMNc ^bLRdEN e

0

E

Q

q0

Lrs
Q^KL0

QL0EF QcR^0EbL eNE00HP eN01Fb eN01Fb
^K
IX#7#15!5J IX#7#15!5J I99)f1J I99J g0EbMLNc0 Lec^Rb
I99J I99J Q^00êE^F Q^00êE^F Q^00êE^F
927 8C5 8C5 *?*/X *?*AX *?*/X *?*AX *?*/X *?*AX *?*/X *?*AX
$ h >>2! ;2!B ijklh *?*.*$ *?*$&* $?&.*. A% .* A) 4Z Z 27>? %%& 27>? $\ 27>? )\
) h >>2! ;2!B ijkmkn *?*)Z& *?*$.. *?[Z)% .. .& A) 4) 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>?
A h =53 58! ;2!B ijkllo *?*A$$ *?*$)[ $?ZZ** A[ .. A. $ 27>? &$\ 27>? Z.\ 27>? $**\
. h >>2! ;2!B hjiiii *?*)A) *?*$%) $*?**** .$ .A A) 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>?
/ 7(1>255p L00^0 )% )% )$
& 7(1>255p L00^0 )% )% )$
Z 7(1>255p L00^0 )% )% )$
380
mXnoXpqXNgEPNKKhErNnAqKsEPD=QGRM?EDQ=?E3
a
c8 68 001e86

7*7
23445678
87
02286 78 ) \86 6 1
PD=QGRM?EDQ=?E3E=QS<CRQLEM?C<R=> PQGGQ>RQLESD=QGRM?ESQLC?LCECDG?>DQ=M> F?GYRS?E=RV?EBG?MRSCRQL>
767
86
bc8^_à5 a6 a5` 7 2 )
8
db b87 )
76d a86 c
6 2 : f7
022
$8 8b
8678b
d8 d 8 022
!:
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 ! (& 86
]
67

7 7 0 " & ! " ! "
b8 "3 0# 2#
]8 c7 Ô Ö '8()
$8 6$8 1 0# 0#
Ó¸ ÒÕÂÃÄ×ÅÆÇÈ
Ø
·É
·Ñ¹
\86
8 03 %"% &3"
PQY?GEM?BCD>ERLECDR>EV<S?
) \86 bc8 ÂÃÄÅÆÇÈ·É¸ÊËÌÍÎÏÊÐ ÒÒ
'8()
$8 6$8
"3
11

0#
0#

2#
0#
\bc8
_ 86*8b
'8() 7* '8() 7* ·¸ ¹º»¼»½¾À¿º»
Àº»Á
Á
8 03 %"% &3"
"3 02 "3 02 02 1"3 "31
$8 86*8b 1 03 11 "0 ÓÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ¸ ]8 86 7*
$8 6$8 "0 2# 334
ÔÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ¸ d86
$8 b87 \bc8
6 88b 03 02 03 02 8 02 1"3 "31
;RSjk>EMRVVl>RQLEIQM?=EB<G<I?C?G> + ¬®¯°±xy°²²³x́°µ¯²xxx|z¶¶}
_
b8d *7 _
b8d
*7*7
e86 8i
8b ,- 0 . +/0123 47 56 tutt
#c
# . " . +/+,+378978 :
878 tuttt
¡¢£¤¥¦
c
8 27 ;<=>? . +/+3-08832 :
878
;RCEgh
}~x{xz{
x{xz{
5 . 3/9,+,737+7 0@ tutvt tutvwxyz{{z|}z~x}~}}}z~x
5 . +/+-2+3117- 2(20 0@ tutvtt {|z
A?BCDE A?BCDE N<OEPD=QGRM?E UERVEM<C<E XY?EA?BCDEVQGE PD=QGRM?E
FC<GCE KLME SQLS?LCG<CRQLE BQRLCE FQ=Y?G SQLS/EVQGE tutt
HIIJ HIIJ HTESQLSG?C?J RWLQG?M FQ=Y?G
3! "04 1&! "04 tuttt
3! 23! 00!0 21! 00!0
23! 03! 2!0% 01! 2!0% tutt
03! 12 04&& Z "!0! [@ tuttt
12 !0 2&1 14! 2&1
[@ [@ tuttt
[@ [@
[@ [@ tutttt
[@ [@ t t t vt t t t t t t tt
[@ [@ §¨©ª ««¦
381
\:]^:_`:MaDXM==bDcM]?`=dDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D4
e
f8 38 001g86

7'7
23445678
87
02286 78 & h86 6 1
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D4DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE <@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
767
86
[f8ijke2 e3 e5k 7 2 &
8
m[ [87 &
76m e86 f
6 2 8 l7
022
#8 8[7
8[
m
8
m 8 022
!8
6 2
78
7 86
865 6 8687 78
67 7 2 ! Znjo 86
p
67

7 7 0 " %0 ! " ! "
[8 11
p8 f7 v $8%&
#8 6#8 14
w h86
vx 8 03
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ vw "3
$8%&
#8 6#8 11

& h86 [f8 h[f8
$8%& 7' $8%& 7' z{
|}~yz 8 03
j 86'8[ 11 0! "3 02 vw xy zyz 02
#8 86'8[ 14 "( 11 "0 w p8 86 7
'
#8
6#8 "0
h[f8
6 88[ 03 02 03 02 w m86
#8 [87 8 02
9ROstEDLRUUuERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE Ñ°Òª°ÓÔ°ÕÖÕ××ØÙÕÒÚÔ×²°¡ÛÛ¢¤
j
[8m '7 j
[8m
'7'7
g86 8q
8[ )* ±
0 + ,-./.0 17 23 ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
rf
r + " + ,-,45644744 8
878 ¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ¼ÃÄÀÃÄÁÅÆÁÇÈÁÉÄÊÁÂ¼ÃÂ½ÀÄÀË ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
f
8 27 9:;<=
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
+ ,-,7)066044 8
878
9RBDab
°¯§« §¬®¯§
5 + ,-/54.070,0 0> ³±
5 + ,-,456/,)5 2%20 0>
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD :W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D ³
EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD <QPW@G OQKO-DUQGD
HIIJ HIIJ HSDOQKOG@B@J RVKQG@L <QPW@G
2 023! ! 023! ²±
2 23! 2!(2 21(! 2!(2
23! "2! 2"Y4 0!! 2"Y4 ²
"2! 11 21(" "((! 21("
11 !! 21! 1(0! 21! ±
Z> Z>
Z> Z>
Z> Z>
² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
Z> Z>
Z> Z> ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
382
i:jk:lm:OnFZO==oFpOjAm=qFZERSITNBFESRBF5
r
e8 48 001c86

7*7
23445678
87
02286 78 ) f86 6 1
767
86
ae8s`tr3 r4 r5t 7 2 )
8
ba a87 )
76b r86 e
6 2 8 g7
022
&8 8a7
8a
b
8
b 8 022
!8
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 ! \u`v 86
h
67
a8@ g8f 7 0 " 2 ! " ! "
a8867 "# $1% $1%
h8 e7 w '8()
&8 6&8 11 2% 2%
x f86
wy 8 03 1"% 1"%
) f86 ae8
wx
'8()
&8 6&8
"#
14

$1%
2#%

$1%
2#%
fae8
` 86*8a
'8()
"#
7*
"
'8()
"#
7*
"
wx yz{|{}~z{z{

8

03
"

1"%
14%

1"%
14%
&8 86*8a 11 "" 14 "1 x h8 86 7*
&8 6&8 "1 42% 42%
fae8
6 88a 03 02 03 02 x b86
&8 a87 8 02 0"% 0"%
9TQ]^GFNTWW_GTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG Ò±Ó«±ÔÕ±Ö×ÖØØÙÚÖÓÛÕØ³±¢£ª¨ÜÝ¨Þ¨¦¢¥
`
a8b *7 `
a8b
*7*7
c86 8d
8a +, ²
0 - ./011, 27 34 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
%e
% - " - ./.56.76+1+ 8
878 ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡

e
8 27 9:;<= - ./.6>1,?>56 8
9TDFno 5 - 6/1?00,6?61 0@
5 - ./.,?6>+107 2(20 0@
´²
´
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF <SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN <SRYBI
$! 04!0 "$! 04!0 ³²
$! 2$ 23$! 200! 23$!
2$ "2 200! 01 200! ³
"2 14! 2"24 "#$! 2"24
12! 42 2"00 !20! 2"00 ²
42 $4 13" [ 4#! \@
$4 30 20#! #1 20#!
\@ \@
³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
\@ \@
\@ \@ ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
383
gShiSjkSIlAVImmnAoIh=kmpAV@LM9NH;A@ML;A(
q
b8 08 001c86

7'7
23445678
87
02286 78 & a86 6 1
V@LM9NH;A@ML;A(ALMKC?NMGAH;?CNLB VM99MBNMGAK@LM9NH;AKMG?;G?A?@9;B@MLHB U;9TNK;ALNQ;A>9;HNK?NMGB
767
86
_b8r^sq/ q0 q5s 7 2 &
8
`_ _87 &
76` q86 b
6 2 7 t7
022
#8 8_7
8_
`
8
` 8 022
!7
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 ! Xu^v 86
f
67

7 7 0 " Xu^v ! " ! "
_8 12
f8 b7
w $8%&
#8 6#8 1"
x a86
wy 8 03
VMT;9AH;>?@BANGA?@NBAQCK; wx "3
& a86 _b8 $8%&
#8 6#8 11
a_b8
^ 86'8_
$8%&
12
7'
04
$8%&
"3
7'
02 wx yz{|{}~z{
z{

8 03
02

7'
#8 6#8 "0
#8 86'8_ 1" "2 11 "0 x f8 86 a_b8
6 88_ 03 02 03 02 x 8̀6
#8 _87 8 02
[NK\]BAHNQQ:BNMGAEMH;LA>C9CE;?;9B Ò±Ó«±ÔÕ±Ö×ÖØØÙÚÖÓÛÕØ³Ú¢ ÜÜ£¥
^
_8` '7 ^
_8`
'7'7
c86 8d
8_ () ²
0 * +,---- .7 /0 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
eb
e * " * -,-12+32456 7
878 ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
b
8 27 89:; * -,-+3112214 7
878
[N?Aln 5 * +-,-----3-+ 0<
5 * -,2+4-351-6 2%20 0<
=;>?@A =;>?@A ICJAK@LM9NH;A PANQAHC?CA ST;AH;>?@AQM9A V@LM9NH;A
´²
´
B?C9?A ;GHA KMGK;G?9C?NMGA >MNG?A UMLT;9 KMGK,AQM9A
DEEF DEEF DOAKMGK9;?;F NRGM9;H UMLT;9
22 2401 !! % ³²
22 0 2!12 W 2!! X<
0 " 0Y" 0! 0Y" ³
" 12! 02! "!Z! 02!
" 12! 2Y"4 W "!Z! X< ²
X< X<
X< X<
X< X<
³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
X< X<
X< X< ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
384
0123457895

s 4515

;2457895
*&&tu247155D012345?.49
*'f+&f*+$*
7!1"#!53
$%&'(7)5#!53
*+$$ ,581-.)53
/0 123 0+f+&f*+$*
0589!)5
445589 058941")
645589 Od2JUQTcU`1GbOI`bOUGHSJQN2UJOew
8!8432!87#5
0&*+9 78.29"9)25185248!
+9 -.)"15#482>2#8!27 x18)815>5157#54275
klkok ]Kf=!#7#L
9:
* 6873#8 )5
;8194 873<2 5 = >
)57
"1>
7 (7#?
=2 73 0$ 841 235
35 !5#!
2742
92 !
klkko ]Kf=!#7#L
09@
**&% 1274!)5
9!1589 AB5184275=8!51=8
7 -.#?=273 0$ (72!28!27!815843$
klkvk ]Kf=!#7#L
8!C5#12)!27
9"1>058#8AB5184275=8B5
@5B51 C5873 $D9!ED9 (72!28!27!815843*
klkok ]Kf=!#7#L
z1 O {y
T`N O1 Q
G11JS O SQc`d rO 21e
Q` `heQ rO 21eQ`
1GbPOT`NO1 FGKHG IJIMNO12PO1
99L K99L
23
QRSGT2U
VIIW eGTGHd2TO`d T`NO1GH TcU`1GbO 2NO12PO rO2e1Qe12QHb 2NO12PO
0123458B51845
K]#7#15!5LK]#7#15!5L K99*f1L gO2I d2TO Qc1OecÙb eQG11JS T`11èG`H eQ12Hb
9>>2! X15YZ [\ 0/ *% K99L K99L K99L T`11èG`H T`11èG`H
9!211") *$ 927 8B5 927 +?+E] +?+0] +?+E] +?+0] +?+E] +?+0] +?+E] +?+0]
235f X15YZ *% 8B51845 +?$++E +?+$%* *?'/+$ 0+ 0* *$ $ $ *0^ &*/ '*^ $D '%% *D
=55 9!211") *$ 9!35B +?$+'^ +?++0$ /?$0/% 0 0 + E $$ + /%^ + '$+ + %$E
0!!9 X15 Y
Z *% 927 +?+*^' +?+$E' +?
00E0 *' *% *$ ' / *0^ $0* '*^ /%% '%% E//
5"45 9!211") *$ 98. +?*''/ +?+*0* $+?++++ 0^ 0% *$ ' $+ *0^ $D '*^ *D '%% 0D
yOeQ `T2QG`He cU`1GbOI`bOUS212IOQO1e O2IT`NO1e eQGI2QOb1OI2GHGHPUGdOVkhhW
QG11JS OSQc`d rO21eQ`2NOlrO21eQ`heQrO21eQ`2NOl
_ÙOa O2I `T2QG`H GbO OHPQc F`bOUdGQ eGTz1
1 K]#7# O{yT`NO1T`N
O1GH TcU`1GbO eQG11JS eQ12Hb eQ12Hb
15!5LK]#7#15!5L K99*f1L K99L g1GbPOQc1 OecÙb
K99L K99L T`11èG`H T`11èG`H T`11èG`H
927 8B5 8B5 +?+E] +?+0] +?+E] +?+0] +?+E] +?+0] +?+E] +?+0]
@!8573K6#?
$ hi >>2! 72!555=174j ;2!A klmmm3 +?*''/ +?+$E' +?00E0 0^ 0% *$ ' $+ *0^ $0* '*^ /%% '%% E//
#85#D
* h >>2! @!8573 ;2!A klmnoo +?+/$% +?+$&E +?/$^0 *' 0+ *$ Y* / 27>? $D 27>? *D 27>? 0D
0 h >>2! 845* ;2!A klmpkh +?+/0' +?+*$/ +?&+^% *' 0/ *$ Y0 & 27>? /0& 27>? '+% 27>? $D
/ h >>2! 845$K82!!554L ;2!A hlkkkk +?+*^' +?+*0* $+?++++ *' 0/ *$ Y$' 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>?
E 7)1>245q O11`1 *% *% *$
& 7)1>245q O11`1 *% *% *$
^ 7)1>245q O11`1 *% *% *$
385
ghiF[jFEPNKK\EkNhAlKmEPD;QGRM=EDQ;=E7
n
`8 38 011]86
!
7*7
23145678
87
02286 78 c
` p86 6
PD;QGRM=EDQ;=E7E;QS:CRQLEM=C:R;< PQGGQ<RQLESD;QGRM=ESQLC=LCECDG=<DQ;M< F=GYRS=E;RV=EBG=MRSCRQL<
_`8so2 !n3 n5t
767
86
!7 2 )
8
c_ _87 )
76c n86 `
!
&8 8_
6 2 8 q7
022 8678_ c8 c 8 022
"#8
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "# 4 86
o
67

7 !7 0 "$ 2 "# "$ "# "$
_8 $% 4% #0 40% 33 04$4
o8 `7 7 8 _ o
" b78 p8 q
`r 8a p6`@p
a à â '8()
&8 6&8 $3 30 #4% 433 # 032
ßÄ ÞáÎÏÐãÑÒÓÔ
ä
ÃÕ
ÃÝÅ
p86
8" 03 #$# $$$ 30 03 0#$
PQY=GEM=BCD<ERLECDR<EV:S= ÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÃÕÄÖ×ØÙÚÛÖÜ Þ Þ 04
'8()
&8 6&8 $
34 $2 ## 01% 011
) p86 _`8 p_`8 %3 11 %1 0$ 0%2%
'8() 7* '8() 7* ÇÈ
ÉÊ
ÃÄ ÅÆ ÇÌÆÇÍ ËÌÆÇÍ 8" 03 #$# $$$ 30 03 0#$
b " 86*8_ $% 04
&8" 86*8_ $3 $ ßååååååååååÄ o8 86 7*
&8 6&8
àåååååååååÄ !c86
&8 _87 p_`8
6 88_ 03 02 03 02 8" 02 04 2%# 0$% 2$0 004
9RSde<EMRVVf<RQLEIQM=;EB:G:I=C=G< + ®¯°±²°yz³´´µy¶³®·¸ýy¹y}{ºº~y²yy»¯{vy~y¼y½|{¾¿yÀy¼¾Á¼{{ÀÂ
b
_8c *7 b
_8c
*7*7
]86 8^
8_ ,- 0 . +/000, 17 23 uvwuu
a`
a . "$ ! .+/455,+6+75 8
878
`
8 27 " 9:;<=
¡¢£¤¥ ¦ §
! .+/+7>6>6?4? 8
878 uvwuuu
9RCE[\
~y|y{|
5 .+/-->-7?+?> 0@
y|y{|
5 .+/+7+?-45+- 2(20 0@ uvuu
A=BCDE A=BCDE N:OEPD;QGRM=E UERVEM:C:E XY=EA=BCDEVQGE PD;QGRM=E uvuuu
FC:GCE KLME SQLS=LCG:CRQLE BQRLCE FQ;Y=G SQLS/EVQGE
HIIJ HIIJ HTESQLSG=C=J RWLQG=M FQ;Y=G
20 "4%% 1 "4%% uvuu
20 0# "2#32 24"# "2#32
0# "2##$ $0"# "2##$ uvuuu
#0"# "21#1 1"0# "21#1
#0"# 11 "2% #3"0# "2% uvuuu uvuwxyz{||{}~{y~~~~{y
11 %3 "21#0 %0"# "21#0 |}{
%3 41 "2#4 40"# "2#4 uvuuuu
Z@ Z@ u u u wu u u u u u u uu
Z@ Z@ ¨ © ª« ¡¬¬§
Z@ Z@
386
jk;<^l<FZO==_FmOkAn=oFZERSITNBFESRBF?
p
b8 48 011c86
!
7*7
23145678
87
02286 78 i
b a86 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF?FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG <BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
`b8q3 !p4 p5r
767
86
!7 2 )
8
ì `87 )
76i
!
&8 p86 b
6 2 8 s7
022 886`78` i8 i 8 022
"#8
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "# (0 86

67

7 !7 0 "$ "# "$ "# "$
`8 04 " 0% " 0% "
8 b77 8 ` t '8()
&8 6&8 $ " $% " $% "
u a86
tv 8" 03 " $% " $% "
) a86 `b8
tu
'8()
&8 6&8
04
$
"
"
0%
%
"
"
0% "
% "
a`b8
'8() 7* '8() 7* 8" 03 " $% " $% "
e " 86*8` 04 04 tu vwxyxz{}|wx
}wx~
~
&8" 86*8` $ $ u 8 86 7*
&8 6&8
a`b8
6 88` 03 02 03 02 u !i86
&8 `87 02 " 2% " 2% " 8"
9TQfgGFNTWWhGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÏÐÑÒÓÔÒÕÖÖ×ØÕÐÙÚÖ°ÛÜÜ ¢Ô¢¤¥¡§ÝÑ¬¨ ¢¥Þ¥ß¡àá¬¤¥¬âÞ£àãÞâä
e
`8i *7 e
`8i
*7*7
c86 8d
8` +, 0 - ./01,, 27 34 ²¯
%b
% - "$ ! -./.+5167+17 8
878 ²
b
8 27 " 9:;<= ! -./.57>+70,+ 8
878 ·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀºÁÂ¾ÁÂ¿ÃÄ¿ÅÆ¿ÇÂÈ¿ÀºÁÀ»¾Â¾É
9TDF^_
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
¯
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
5 -./+56?01.,0 0@ ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
5 -./.5,?,?+,+ 2(20 0@ ¢¤¥¤¦§
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF :YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ±¯
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN <SRYBI ±
3 "042 "# "042
3 2[ "2[$2 2$ "2[$2 °¯
2[ 0["# "21$[ 00"0# "21$[
0["# "# "2300 \ $ ]@ °
"# #2"# "212 1 "212 ¯
#2"# 1"# "21# #4 "21#
1"# [4 "21 [2"0# "21
[4 44 "2[[ 4$ "2[[ ° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
]@ ]@ Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
]@ ]@
387
hi:;]j;FZO<<^FkOiAl<mFZERSITNBFESRBF-
d
a8 58 011n86
!
7+7
23145678
87
02286 78 g
a _86 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF-FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG ;BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
à8bc !d5 d5e
767
86
!7 2 *
8
g̀ `87 *
76g
!
%8 d86 a
6 2 7 f7
022 8`7
8`
g
8
g 8 022
"#7
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "# )$ 86
c
67

7 !7 0 "$ 1 "# "$ "# "$
`8
c8 a7
g8 0 t (8)*
%8 6%8
u _86
tv 8" 03 " 32 " 4&2 "
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB tu 04
(8)*
%8 6%8 $
" 4#0 " 43 "
* _86 à8 _à8 " 2' " 2' "
(8)* 7+ (8)* 7+ x
tu vw x}wx~yz{|}wx~ 8" 03 " 32 " 4&2 "
o " 86+8` 04
%8" 86+8` $ u c8 86 7
+
% 8
6%8
_à8
6 88` 03 02 03 02 u !g86
%8 `87 8" 02 " &3 " $1 "
8TQpqGFNTWWrGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÏÐÑÒÓÔÒÕÖÖ×ØÕÐÙÚÖ°ÓÛÛ ¢¤¦¥±
o
`8g +7 o
`8g
+7+7
n86 8s
8` ,- 0 . /012/3 47 5 ¯
'a
' . "$ ! ./0/,-22-6,, 7
878 ²¯
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
a
8 27 " 89:;< ! ./0/=3,/-6>2 7
878
8TDF]^
²
5 ./06/21,-13> 0?
5 ./0/31=2222@ 2)20 0? ¯ ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
¢¤¥¤¦§
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF 9YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF

GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF ;SRYBI QSMQ0FWSIF ±¯
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN ;SRYBI
20"# "$& 1"0# "$& ±
20"# 01"# "02#1 23"# "02#1 °¯
01"# 0 "0&$ $"0# "0&$
0 1 "00# #2 "00# °
1 &2 "034 1#"# "034
&2 44 "0$$ [ &3"# \? ¯
\? \?
\? \? ° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
\? \? Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
\? \?
388
defUZgUCVJhh[CiJe?jhkCVB9MDNI;CBM9;C*
l
a8 18 011m86
!
7)7
23145678
87
02286 78 b
a `86 6
VB9MDNI;CBM9;C*C9ML8ANMHCI;A8N9: VMDDM:NMHCLB9MDNI;CLMHA;HACABD;:BM9I: U;DTNL;C9NQ;C@D;INLANMH:
ca8n_ !l1 l5o
767
86
!7 2 (
8
bc c87 (
76b
!
%8 l86 a
6 2 6 p7
022 886c78c b8 b 8 022
"#6
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "# Y\]^ 86
_
67

7 !7 0 "$ '24 "# "$ "# "$
c8
_8 a7
b8 2 7 788b v &8'(
%8 6%8
w `86
vx 03 " 8" " " " "
VMT;DCI;@AB:CNHCABN:CQ8L; vw 04 " " " " "
( `86 ca8 $ " &8'(
%8 6%8 " " " "
`ca8
] " 86)8c
&8'( 7) &8'(
04
7) vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz

03 " 8"

" " " "
7)
%8 6%8
%8" 86)8c $ w _8 86 `ca8
6 88c 03 02 03 02 w !b86
%8 c87 02 " 8" " " " "
7NLst:CINQQu:NMHCFMI;9C@8D8F;A;D: ÑÒÓÔÕÖÔ×ØØÙÚ×ÒÛÜØ²Õ¡ÝÝ¢¤¦¨§²Þ¦¢¤¡¤§§ß̈
]
c8b )7 ]
c8b
)7)7
m86 8q
8c *+ 0 , -.//// 07 1 ±
¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
ra
r , "$ ! ,/./234-35*- 6
878 ¤¦ §¡¦¨©

ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§
a
8 27 " 789:; ! ,/./2+-5<4+2 6
878
7NACZ[ 5 ,-/.////-*/3
5 ,/.+-3/>4+<<
0=
2'20 0= ³±
?;@ABC ?;@ABC J8KCLB9MDNI;C PCNQCI8A8C ST;CI;@ABCQMDC VB9MDNI;C ³

:A8DAC ;HIC LMHL;HAD8ANMHC @MNHAC UM9T;D LMHL.CQMDC
²±
2$ "0W 1"# "0W
2$ 0 "233 X 24"# Y=
²
0 $0 "0W 04 "0W
Y= Y=
Y= Y= ±
Y= Y=
Y= Y=
Y= Y= ² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
Y= Y= ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
Y= Y=
389
rs
0123457895
4515!
"#$
i2:57895
/A0tZ818.8&2^2B&1589012345@3:9
/,g0+g/0)/
%7&1'(&53
)*+,-7.5(&53
/0)) 158123.53
45 678 )0g0Ag/0)/
0589&!.5
3'9:5;::<(15'72& 058941'.
='9:5>::<%159589 Qd7OWSVcW_6LbQN_bQWLMUOSP7WOQfv
%8&8:32&87(5
09 ?8329'9.251;524;&
5@A9 2 3. '1 5 ( :
8 2
F2
(8&27 w18 .; 15F5157(5:275
$j$m$ ]Hg<&(7(I
B>
/C D873(8.5
'18:E25<F.57'1F
!5 -7(@<273 % %;:123535&5(&27:292&
$j$$m ]Hg<&(7(I
0BG
)/C+ %1274&!.5
B&15899'&;HB'1F058(;IJK518:275<8&51<8!
!5 23(@<273 % -72&28&27&;15;:3)
$j$u$ ]Hg<&(7(I
%8&=5(12.&27
B'1F058(;JK518:275<8K5
54':81:! %=9873 09 -72&28&27&;15;:3/
$j$m$ ]Hg<&(7(I
6QpV_PQ6 SL66OU QUSc_d qQ76fS_ _nfS qQ 76fS_
6LbRQV_PQ6 LHML NONPQ67RQ678
99I H99I
STULV7W
NN efeLVLMd7VQ_d V_PQ6LM VcW_6LbQ 7PQ67RQ qQ7f6Sf67SMb 7PQ67RQ
0123458K51845
H](7(15&5I H](7(15&5I H99/g!1I hQ7N d7VQSc6Qfc_Wb fSL66OU V_66_fL_M fS67Mb
BFF2& BX&12151Y'.
Z [\ 4+ /* H99I H99I H99I V_66_fL_M V_66_fL_M
5C 4, /) 927 8K5 927 0@0C] 0@05] 0@0C] 0@05] 0@0C] 0@05] 0@0C] 0@05]
235g X15YZ /* 8K51845 0@)5+0 0@004* )@5C,, 5C 5+ 55 * )5 /^ C+, /^ 4,/ /^ C5*
<59 B&211'. /) B&35K 0@0C40 0@00)* 0@C5+5 A , )5 5 5 /^ C04 /^ 4/A /^ 445
0&&9 X15YZ /* 927 0@0A4* 0@00/) 0@*+*5 /* /* /) 4 , )55 +0 /*5 )C4 /*5 )C4
9':9 B&211'. /) 983 0@/04/ 0@00AC /@/A,4 4C 4+ 4, )/ )+ +^ )^ C^ )^ C^ )^
QfSa_V7SL_Mf ecW_6LbQN_bQWU767NQSQ6f Q7NV_PQ6f fSLN7SQb6QN7LMLMRWLdQ"$nn
SL66OU QUSc_d qQ76fS_7PQjqQ76fS_nfSqQ76fS_7PQj
_WQ` Q7N a_V7SL_M LbQ aQMRSc _bQWdLS ef

6"

eL

V

6

Qp
V_PQ6

VQ6LM VcW_6LbQ fSL66OU fS67Mb fS67Mb
_P
H](7(15&5I H](7(15&5I H99/g!1I H99I h6LbRQSc6 Qfc_Wb
H99I H99I V_66_fL_M V_66_fL_M V_66_fL_M
927 8K5 8K5 0@0C] 0@05] 0@0C] 0@05] 0@0C] 0@05] 0@0C] 0@05]
) " BFF2& i2&J $jkk#8 0@0A4* 0@004C 0@*+*5 4C 4+ 4, 4 , +^ )^ C^ )^ C^ )^
/ " BFF2& i2&J $jkklk 0@0*// 0@00/) /@/A,4 4) 4+ 4, * )4 )^ 4C5 *0) 5)C )^ 5**
5 m BFF2& i2&J nj$$$$ 0@/04/ 0@00AC )@)A5C 4) 4+ 4, )/ )+ +0C 5CC 4/C /44 C5+ 5)/
4 " 235 58& i2&J nj$$$$ 0@)A/, 0@00C4 )@0)4) /* /* /) )0 )4 )55 +0 /*5 )C4 /*5 )C4
C 7.1F2:5o Q66_6 /* /* /)
+ 7.1F2:5o Q66_6 /* /* /)
A 7.1F2:5o Q66_6 /* /* /)
390
lWMWmWlngnDElMJWoDGfpqgWIDrMn@sJtDOC;PFQL=DCP;=D>
`Z

012e
8 "9+9 3456789

9 0233
89
\+Y]
]]^
+9 8
OC;PFQL=DCP;=D>D;PR:BQPKDL=B:Q;< OPFFP<QPKDRC;PFQL=DRPKB=KBDBCF=<CP;L< E=FXQR=D;QU=DAF=LQRBQPK<
989
8
\Z
*!`!(!**`!a4bc !`7d "93*

]\\
9 *98] `
8Z
80 8^9 0233 "'

\

89
\
]
]
0233
2#2$8
839
9

8 8!
8
99
89 "93 2#2$2
8
_89 9 "90 2#2%2 6 2#2$ 2#2% 2#2$ 2#2%
\
$ $& 3& $& 3& 540
_
Z9 Ù Û (
)*'
8'
5 $& 3& $& 3& 100%
Ø½ ×ÚÇÈÉÜÊËÌÍ
Ý
¼Î
¼Ö¾
Y
8

# 04 0& $0% 0& 62 205
OPX=FDL=ABC<DQKDBCQ<DU:R=
*Y
8 \Z
ÇÈÉÊËÌÍ¼Î½ÏÐÑÒÓÔÏÕ ××
(
)*'
8'
3
5
&
$&
3&
3&
&
$&
3&
3&
5260
12$
Y\Z
a#
8+
\
(
)* 9+ (
)* 9+ ¼½ ¾¿ÀÁÀÂÃÅÄ¿À
Å¿ÀÆ
Æ

# 04 0& $0% 0& 62 205
$ %$ 3 %$ %$ %& 153 %& 136 455
!'
#
8+
\ 5 %1 5 6 ØÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ½ _

8 9+'
8'
6 5& 3& 5& 3& 1555
ÙÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ½ "]
8'
\
9 Y\Z
8

\ 04 03 04 03
# 03 3& 01 3& 0%3 %21
9QRij<DLQUUk<QPKDHPL=;DA:F:H=B=F< , ®°̄ȳ±²y³´µ¶°·y̧¹̄º²yy°y}{»»~
a\
]+9 a\
]+9+9
e
8
h
\ -. 0/ ,0112-394 uvuuu
&Z&/ 2#22% "/ ,0,2-15,-67 8
9
uvuuu
¡¢£¤¥ ¦ §
Z
39# 9:;<= "/ ,0,,--72,71 8
9

9QBDfg
~y|y{|
y|y{|
7/ ,0161.>5>7- 0? uvuuu
7/ ,0,.,2.6677 32)300?
@=ABCD @=ABCD M:NDOC;PFQL=D TDQUDL:B:D WX=D@=ABCDUPFD OC;PFQL=D uvuuu
EB:FBD JKLD RPKR=KBF:BQPKD APQKBD EP;X=F RPKR0DUPFD
GHHI GHHI GSDRPKRF=B=I QVKPF=L EP;X=F uvuuu
2 32 2#2$50 $ 2#2$50 uvuwxyz{||{}~{y~~~~{y
32 0 2#2266 31 2#2266 uvuwuu |}{
0 %%#$ 2#22$%$ 06#1$ 2#22$%$
%%#$ $ 2#22$06 %#1$ 2#22$06 uvuuu
$ 12 YZ 50 2#22%
12 62 YZ [?! [?! uvuuu
[?! [?!
[?! [?! uvuuuu
[?! [?! u u u wu u u u u u u uu
[?! [?! ¨ © ª« ¡¬¬§
391
_:O:`:_abaF<_O=:cFJdefb:LFgOaAh=iFZERSITNBFESRBF5
j\
4
012k
8 !9*9 3456789

9 0233
89
^*[l
llm
*9 8
989
8
^\
) j ' )4)j n3op4 j7q !93)

l^^
9 )98l j
8\
80 8m9 0233 !%

^9

^
l

l
0233
2"2#8
839
9
8

8 8
8
99
89 !93 2"2#2 4
8
r89 9 !90 2"2$2 3 2"2# 2"2$ 2"2# 2"2$
^

r
\9 w '
()%
8%
x [
8
wy
" 04 10 314 04 3$5 02
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB wx 3 4
'
()%
8%
5 3&
$#6 423 $3# 0430
)[
8 ^\
[^\
0 3& $44 $3$
'
() 9* '
() 9* {|
}~z{
" 04 10 314 04 3$5 02
n"
8*
^ 3 $# wx yz {z{ $# 566 053 5# 036 05#5
%
"
8*
^ 5 6 x r

8 9
*%

8%
6 3& 45 3& #$ $01#
[^\
8

^ 04 03 04 03 x !l
8%
^
9
" 03 06 4 02# #3 0035
9TQtuGFNTWWvGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 2 ®±Ò±Ó±®ÔÕÔÖ®Ò×±«ØÙÚÛÕ±ÜÝÒÔÞß×³Õ¢ àà£¥
n^
l*9 n^
l*9*9
k
8
s
^ +, ²
0- ./00102934
&\&- 2"22$ !- ./.05607677 8
9
¹
\
39" 9:;<= ¸
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
!- ./..5.11.10 8
9

9TDFdb
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
7- 5/5>7+5,+71 0? ·
7- ./.>55+7,,@ 32(300?
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF :YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ¶
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF <SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF µ
2 4 2"25464 "# 2"25464 ´
6 36 2"2$00 3$ 2"2$00 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
36 01 2"23$40 00"# 2"23$40 ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
06 $5 [\ $0 2"22$ ³
$6 1"# [\ ]? ]?
1"# 53 [\ ]? ]? ²
53 1$ [\ ]? ]?
1$ 66"# [\ ]? ]?
² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ ²
]? ]?
]? ]? ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
392
h;O;i;hjkjF=hO>;lFJmnok;LFpOjAq>rFZERSITNBFESRBF,
se
3
012b
8 #9*9 3456789

9 0233
89
`*fa
aat
*9 8
ZERSITNBFESRBF,FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG =BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
989
8
è
)"s"'")3)s"_2uv3"s7! #93)

à`
9 )98a s
8e
8 839
9 9t9 0233 #&

`9

`
a

a
0233

8
2$2%9

8! 8"
8
99
89 #93 2$2%2 30
8
g89 9 #90 2$22 35 2$2% 2$2 2$2% 2$2
`

g
e9 w '
()&
8&
x f
8
wy 04 0
$ 3 343 323 0020
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB wx 3 56
'
()&
8&
061 0% 0 05

)f
8 è
5 %14 fè
%% %5 30 0%1
_$
8*
`
'
() 9* '
()
3
9*
%
wx yz{|{}~z{
z{

04 0
% 3

$

3
032
343
046
323
351
0020
024
"&
$
8*
` 5 6 x g

8 6 56 9*&
8&
46 52% %% 0535
fè
8

` 04 03 04 03 x #a
8&
`
9 03 30
$ 1% 62 0 0243
:TQ\]GFNTWW^GTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 2 ®±Ò±Ó±®ÔÕÔÖ®Ò×±«ØÙÚÛÕ±ÜÝÒÔÞß×ß¢ àà£¥
_`
a*9 _`
a*9*9
b
8
c
` +, ´²
0- ./00001923
ded- 2$22 #- 0/40+.56768 9
9
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
e
39$ :;<=> #- 0/00?+54+5 9
9
º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃ½ÄÅÁÄÅÂÆÇÂÈÉÂÊÅËÂÃ½ÄÃ¾ÁÅÁÌ ´
:TDFmk 7- ./.?,+?7885 0@
7- 0/0,?4.0?7, 32(300@
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF ;YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ³²
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF =SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF
2 33 2$3005 %$% 2$3005 ³
33 00 2$201 35$% 2$201
00 % 2$22623 06$% 2$22623
% 6 2$221 3$% 2$221 ² ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
4 5 2$221%4 %5 2$221%4 ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
5 60$% 2$2216% 10$1% 2$2216%
[@" [@"
[@" [@"
³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
[@" [@"
[@" [@" ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
393
dSJSeSdfgfCUdJhSiCEjklgSGCmJf?nhoCVB9MDNI;CBM9;C*
p_
2
012`
8 !9)9 3456789

9 0233
89
\)^]
]]q
)9 8
VB9MDNI;CBM9;C*C9ML8ANMHCI;A8N9: VMDDM:NMHCLB9MDNI;CLMHA;HACABD;:BM9I: U;DTNL;C9NQ;C@D;INLANMH:
989
8
\_
( p & (2(p [1rs2 p7t !93(

]\\
9 (98] p
8_
80 6q9 0233 !%

\9

\
]

]
0233
2"2#6
839
9
8

8 8
8
99
89 !93 2"2#2 32
8
c89\
>q
^ !90 2"2$2 3 2"2# 2"2$ 2"2# 2"2$
\

89
c
_9
u &
'(%
8%
v ^
8
uw
" 04 $$5 341 04$ 3# 0$2
VMT;DCI;@AB:CNHCABN:CQ8L; uv
(^
8 \_
&
'(%
8%
^\_
["
8)
\
&
'( 9) &
'( 9) uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy

" 04 $$5 341 04$ 3# 0$2

9)%
8%
%
"
8)
\ v c

8 ^\_
8

\ 04 03 04 03 v !]
8%
\
9
" 03 315 32$ 3$$ 52 03
7NLXY:CINQQZ:NMHCFMI;9C@8D8F;A;D: 2 ¬¯Ð¯Ñ¯¬ÒÓÒÔ¬ÐÕ¯©Ö×ØÙÓ¯ÚÛÐÒÜÝÕ°¯ ¡¨¦Þß¦à¦¤ £
[\
])9 [\
])9)9
`
8
a
\ *+ °
0, -.////0912
b_b, 2"22$ !, /.-34335*/5 6
9
´³
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
_
39" 789:; !, /.//<+55**= 6
9
´²
7NACjg 7, -./-*-/3343 0>
7, /./+4-<3-*< 32'300>
?;@ABC ?;@ABC J8KCLB9MDNI;C PCNQCI8A8C ST;CI;@ABCQMDC VB9MDNI;C
´±
´°
:A8DAC ;HIC LMHL;HAD8ANMHC @MNHAC UM9T;D LMHL.CQMDC ´
2 3# 2"215 1"# 2"215 ³
3# 00 2"23$$0 36"# 2"23$$0
00 $5 2"22#60 04 2"22#60 ²
$5 #3 2"22#03 $"# 2"22#03 ± ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
#3 5 2"22#$# #1"# 2"22#$# £¥¦ ¥§¨
5 16 2"22#0 13 2"22#0 °
W> W>
W> W>
´ ° ± µ ² ¶ ³ · ´
W> W>
W> W> Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
394
0123457895

o 4515

92157895
)%.pA@57012345=-19
)?g*&g)*$)
7!1"#!53
$%&%'7(5#!53
)*$$ +581,-(53
.) /0 \*g*&g)*$)
0589!(5
142589 058941"(
342589 Md0HSORcS_/EbMG_bMSEFQHOL0SHMfr
8!8132!87#5
4***9 58-29"9(25165246!
*9 ,-("15#182<2#8!27 s18(615<5157#51275
ijiqi [Ig;!#7#J
78
$) 3873#8 (5
981918 73:2 5 ; <
(57
"1<
7 '7#=
;2 73 0$ 611 235
35 !5#!
2712
92 !

ijiiq [Ig;!#7#J
07>
$?&) 1274!(5
2@51A@5181275;8!51;8
5 ,-#=;273 0$ '72!28!27!615613$
ijimi [Ig;!#7#J
8!B5#12(!27
8812"1A@5181275;8@5
>5@51 B2873 $C9!4C9 '72!28!27!615613)
ijiqi [Ig;!#7#J
u/ M vt
R_L M/ O
E//HQ M QOc_d kM0/f
O_ _fO kM 0/fO_
/EbNMR_LM/ DEIFE GHGKLM/0NM /
99J I99J
0
OPQER0S
TGGU efeEREFd0RM_d R_LM/EF RcS_/EbM 0LM/0NM kM0f/Of/0OFb 0LM/0NM
0123458@51845
I[#7#15!5JI[#7#15!5J I99)g1J hM0G d0RM Oc/Mfc_Sb fOE//HQ R_//_fE_F fO/0Fb
7<<2! V15WX YZ .? )% I99J I99J I99J R_//_fE_F R_//_fE_F
7!211"( )$ 927 8@5 927 *=*4[ *=*\[ *=*4[ *=*\[ *=*4[ *=*\[ *=*4[ *=*\[
235g V15WX )% 8@51845 *=*%\% *=*$*) *=?.\* \& \] )$ . % .C )4\ )*C $C )$C $C
;52 7!211"( )$ 7!35@ *=*4$) *=**)% *=$.]? % % * . \ \C $\% $.C &). $4C ]*%
0!!9 V15 W
X )% 927 *=*4]] *=**&* *=
&.*$ )% )% )$ ) & $&\ ]& %?\ 4.? $C 4]\
2"12 7!211"( )$ 98- *=$&&\ *=*$)& *=%?]? .] .? )$ $* $\ ]C .$4 \.C )C \?C )C
tMfOa_R0OE_Ff ecS_/EbMG_bMSQ0/0GMOM/f M0GR_LM/f fOEG0OMb/MG0EFEFNSEdMTiU
OE//HQ MQOc_d kM0/fO_0LMjkM0/fO_fOkM0/fO_0LMj
^_SM` M0G a_R0OE_F EbM aMFNOc D_bMSdEO efeERu/
/ I[#7# MvtR_LM/R_L
M/EF RcS_/EbM fOE//HQ fO/0Fb fO/0Fb
15!5JI[#7#15!5J I99)g1J I99J h/EbNMOc/ Mfc_Sb
I99J I99J R_//_fE_F R_//_fE_F R_//_fE_F
927 8@5 8@5 *=*4[ *=*\[ *=*4[ *=*\[ *=*4[ *=*\[ *=*4[ *=*\[
$ K 7<<2! 92!A iji *=$&&\ *=**&* *=%*$$ .] .? )$ $* $\ $&\ ]& %?\ 4.? $C 4]\
) k 7<<2! 92!A ijlm *=*4]? *=*$)& *=&.*$ .4 .? )$ ) & ]C .$4 \.C )C \?C )C
\ a <<2! 58!$g\(87 92!A ij *=*4]] *=*$$% *=%?]? .] .? )$ ) ? 4C )&? )4C )C )4C )C
. 7(1<215n M//_/ )% )% )$
4 7(1<215n M//_/ )% )% )$
& 7(1<215n M//_/ )% )% )$
] 7(1<215n M//_/ )% )% )$
395
]gKhFEiNjAkKEh]E5,1lEPD;QGRM=EDQ;=E5
m
[8 48 012_86

7*7
31415678
87
03386 78 c
[ Z86 6 2
PD;QGRM=EDQ;=E5E;QS:CRQLEM=C:R;< PQGGQ<RQLESD;QGRM=ESQLC=LCECDG=<DQ;M< F=GYRS=E;RV=EBG=MRSCRQL<
a[83p m5q 3 32#
767
86
7 3 )
8
ca a87 )
76c m86 [

&8 8a
6 3 8 o7
033 8678a c8 c 8 033
!8
6 3
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7 3 ! 3 86
n
67

7 7 0 " 3" ! " ! "
a8 2# 3$ !1 1%" !2% 0112
n8 [7 Ò Ô '8()
&8 6&8 2% 3$ 43! 3$ !#" ""%
Ö
µÇ
µÏ·
Z86
8 01 "1 00! "2% 3%" 0"!1
PQY=GEM=BCD<ERLECDR<EV:S= ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆµÇ¶ÈÉÊËÌÍÈÎ Ð Ð
'8()
&8 6&8
2! 12 !23 %1% 211 011
) Z86 a[8 Za[8 2% 3$ 4! 3$ !4" "03
'8() 7* '8() 7* ¹º
»¼
µ¶ ·¸ ¹¾¸¹¿ ½¾¸¹¿ 8 01 "1 00! "2% 3%" 0"!1
b 86*8a 2# 2!
&8 86*8a 2% 2% Ñ××××××××××¶ n8 86 7*
&8 6&8
Ò×××××××××¶ c86
&8 a87 Za[8
6 88a 01 03 01 03 8 03 0! 33% 34" #4 03#2
9RSde<EMRVVf<RQLEIQM=;EB:G:I=C=G< + ª«¬®v̄°±²³¬vªvvvvzx´´{}
b
a8c *7 b
a8c
*7*7
_86 8`
8a ,- 0 . +/001+ 27 34 rsrr
$[
$ . " .+/566770,,1 8
878
[
8 37 9:;<= rsrr
¡¢£¤
.+/++6+,>?0 8
878
9RCE]^
{|vyvxy
5 .+/0+5+?-01, 0@ rsrr
vyvxy
5 .+/+->?1--+- 3(30 0@
rsrr
A=BCDE A=BCDE N:OEPD;QGRM=E UERVEM:C:E XY=EA=BCDEVQGE PD;QGRM=E rsrrr
FC:GCE KLME SQLS=LCG:CRQLE BQRLCE FQ;Y=G SQLS/EVQGE
HIIJ HIIJ HTESQLSG=C=J RWLQG=M FQ;Y=G
rsrrr
%! 3402 20! 3402
%! 0! 03!4 32! 03!4 rsrrr
0! "2! Z[ 0#! " rsrtuvwxyyxz{x|v{|{}{~}{x|v
"2! 2# Z[ \@ \@ rsrrr }yzx
2# !# 13% !0 13%
\@ \@ rsrrr
\@ \@ rsrrrr
\@ \@ r r r tr r r r r r r rr
\@ \@ ¥¦§¨©©¤
\@ \@
396
]i@j?GkPlBm@Gj]G4,8nG[FSTJUOCGFTSCG-
o
b8 78 01286

7+7
31415678
87
03386 78 h
b `86 6 2
[FSTJUOCGFTSCG-GSTRIEUTNGOCEIUSH [TJJTHUTNGRFSTJUOCGRTNECNEGEFJCHFTSOH ?CJZURCGSUXCGDJCOUREUTNH
_b86p o5q 6 32'
767
86
7
3 *
8
h_ _87
6 3 ; r7
033
$8 *
76h o86 b
8_78_ h8 h 8 033
!";
6 3
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7
3 !" 0 86 86
a
67

7 7
0 !# 4 !" !# !" !#
_8
a8 b7 ~ s (8)*
$8 6$8
t `86
su 8! 01 32% &'0 32% &# 34%
[TZCJGOCDEFHGUNGEFUHGXIRC ~st
(8)*
$8 6$8
2" #2% 0% #2% 0% #4%
* `86 _b8 `_b8 2& #&% 0% #&% 0% 2%
(8)* 7+ (8)* 7+ wx
yz{|vw} 8! 01 32% &'0 32% &# 34%
d ! 86+8_ 2" st uv w|vw}
$8! 86+8_ 2& t a8 86 7
+
$ 8
6$8
`_b8
6 88_ 01 03 01 03 t h86
$8 _87 8! 03 '% 2"' '% 23" 10&"
<URefHGOUXXgHUTNGLTOCSGDIJILCECJH ÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ÐÑÎ®°³®ØØ¡
d
_8h +7 d
_8h
+7+7
86 8c
8_ ,- 0 . /01234 57 67 ³
%b
% . !# ./0/388329:1 ;
878
b
8 37 ! <=>?@ ²
./0/4-319228 ;
878
<UEG]^
§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
5 ./09,//3/1:: 0A
5 ./0/-/-1322- 3)30 0A ±
BCDEFG BCDEFG PIQGRFSTJUOCG WGUXGOIEIG =ZCGOCDEFGXTJG [FSTJUOCG °

HEIJEG CNOG RTNRCNEJIEUTNG DTUNEG ?TSZCJ RTNR0GXTJG ¡¢¡
KLLM KLLM KVGRTNRJCECM UYNTJCO ?TSZCJ ¡£¤£¥¦

& !#1# 2 !#1#
& 31 !3"43 3#!" !3"43 ¯
31 #0!" !3"# 0"!'" !3"#
#0!" 2' !3021 #1!'" !3021
2' 4 !30&1 "#!" !30&1 ®
4 '4 !30#' 4& !30#'
'4 13 !324& &#!" !324&
\A \A ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ®
\A \A É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
\A \A
397
]g>h=GiPjBk>Gh]G?,2lG[FSTJUOCGFTSCGA
c
a8 58 012m86

7+7
31415678
87
03386 78 f
a _86 6 2
[FSTJUOCGFTSCGAGSTRIEUTNGOCEIUSH [TJJTHUTNGRFSTJUOCGRTNECNEGEFJCHFTSOH =CJZURCGSUXCGDJCOUREUTNH
à84b c5d 4 32$
767
86
7
3 *
8
f̀ `87 *
76f c86 a
6 3 9 e7
033
&8 8`7
8`
f
8
f 8 033
!"9
6 3
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7 3 !" 0 86

67

7 7 0 ! # ' !" !# !" !#
`8 2$ 0"% 0% 0"% 0% 0$%
8 a7867 3@# 6 ~ s (8)*
&8 6&8 2' 04% 0% 0"% 0% 0$%
t _86
su 8! 01 3% "13 1% "21 33%
[TZCJGOCDEFHGUNGEFUHGXIRC ~st 2"
(8)*
&8 6&8 2'
0#% 3% 0#% 3% 0"%
* _86 à8 _à8 04% 0% 04% 0% 0'%
(8)* 7+ (8)* 7+ w
st uv w|vw}xyz{|vw} 8! 01 3% "13 1% "21 33%
n ! 86+8` 2$ 2"
&8! 86+8` 2' 2' t 8 86 7
+
& 8
6&8
_à8
6 88` 01 03 01 03 t f86
&8 `87 8! 03 "% #3 "% 04' 41"'
:URopHGOUXXqHUTNGLTOCSGDIJILCECJH ÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖ×ÐÑÎ®°³®ØÙÙ¡¤¢¡®Ú¨¢
n
`8f +7 n
`8f
+7+7
m86 8r
8` ,- 0 . /01112 37 45 ³
%a
% . !# ./0/6272787, 9
878
²
§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
a
8 37 ! :;<=> ./0/??86?-,1 9
878
:UEG]^ 5 ./01828?/?6-
5 ./0/A?A-A-6,
0@
3)30 0@ ±
BCDEFG BCDEFG PIQGRFSTJUOCG WGUXGOIEIG ;ZCGOCDEFGXTJG [FSTJUOCG °

HEIJEG CNOG RTNRCNEJIEUTNG DTUNEG =TSZCJ RTNR0GXTJG ¡¢¡
KLLM KLLM KVGRTNRJCECM UYNTJCO =TSZCJ ¡£¤£¥¦

3 !#'"$ " !#'"$
3 03!" !3"$ 3"!$" !3"$ ¯
03!" #" !33'# 0'!0" !33'#
#" "0 !304 2#!" !304
"0 44 !3310 "1 !3310 ®
44 $' !33"3 $0 !33"3
$' 1 !300 '2 !300
\@ \@ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ®
\@ \@ É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
\@ \@
398
0123457895

qmr 4515

=2457895
:(:st853^5;"1589012345@.49
+_i(Zi+(%+
!7"1#$"53
%&'()7*5$"53
+(%( ,581-.*53
/( 012 :(i(Zi+(%+
0589"*5
3#3455446$15#72" 058941#*
7#3458446!153589 Le1JRNQdR`0GcLI`cLRGHPJNK1RJLhv
!8"8432"87$5
+'(9 98.29#9*25155245"
:9 -.*#15$482?2$8"27 w18*515?5157$54275
l [Bi6"$7$C
;8
%; <873$8 *5
=8194 873>2 5 6 ?
*57
#1?
5 )7$@
62 73 0+ !541 235
35 "5$"
274292"

l [Bi6"$7$C
0;A
%('& !1274"*5
;"15899#"5B;#1?058$5CDE518427568"5168
5 -.$@6273 0+ )72"28"27"515543%
lu [Bi6"$7$C
!8"75$12*"27
;#1?058$5DE518427568E5
A5E51 !73873%(%9"F((9 )72"28"27"515543+
l [Bi6"$7$C
x0 L y
Q`K L0 N
G00JP L PNdè L10h
N` `khN L 10hN`
0GcMLQ`KL0 GBHG IJIKL01ML0
99C B99C
12
NOPGQ1R
SIIT ghgGQGHe1QLè Q`KL0GH QdR`0GcL 1KL01ML L1h0Nh01NHc 1KL01ML
0123458E51845
B[$7$15"5CB[$7$15"5C B99+i1C jL1I e1QL Nd0Lhd`Rc hNG00JP Q`00`hG`H hN01Hc
;??2" U15VW XY F+ +& B99C B99C B99C Q`00`hG`H Q`00`hG`H
;"211#* :Z /( +% 927 8E5 927 (@(F[ (@(:[ (@(F[ (@(:[ (@(F[ (@(:[ (@(F[ (@(:[
235i U15VW \] F+ +& 8E51845 (@(%&/ (@((%: F@(FF% /% /+ :+ V/ : F^ &^ %%^
653 ;"211#* +% ;"35E (@(%Z' (@((%+ :@:++Z _ %+ %( % % /^ +^ F^
0""9 U15 V
W +& 927 (@((/F (@((%( %@
:::% +& +& +% : ( &'+ ( Z^ ( Z^
3#43 ;"211#* +% 98. (@(/+/ (@((+& %(@(((( F+ F: /( V: / ( &^ ( %%^ ( %F^
LhNb`Q1NG`Hh gdR`0GcLI`cLRP101ILNL0h L1IQ`KL0h hNGI1NLc0LI1GHGHMRGeLSf k T
NG00JP LPNdè L10hN`1KLlL10hN`khNL10hN`1KLl
`RLa L1I b`Q1NG`H GcL bLHMNd `cLReGN ghgGQx0
0f B[$7$ LyQ`KL0Q`K
L0GH QdR`0GcL hNG00JP hN01Hc hN01Hc
15"5CB[$7$15"5C B99+i1C B99C j0GcMLNd0 Lhd`Rc
B99C B99C Q`00`hG`H Q`00`hG`H Q`00`hG`H
927 8E5 8E5 (@(F[ (@(:[ (@(F[ (@(:[ (@(F[ (@(:[ (@(F[ (@(:[
% ;??2" 7581923*87 =2"D kl (@(('( (@(((( Z@/%FF /: F+ /( 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@
+ km ;D==)W A"5%i/*87 =2"D kl (@((/F (@((%( %(@(((( /: F+ /( 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@
: 1 235 -n;W 7581923*87 =2"D kl (@(/+/ (@((+& %@:::% F+ F+ +% V: / 27?@ &'+ 27?@ Z^ 27?@ Z^
/ m ;D==)W 7581923*87 =2"D kl (@((F_ (@(((( Z@%_+F /F F: /( 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@ 27?@
F o ;D==)W 7581923*87 =2"D kl (@(:Z& (@((+Z %@://: // +& /( VF : 27?@ &^ 27?@ %%^ 27?@ %F^
Z 7*1?245p L00`0 +& +& +%
' 7*1?245p L00`0 +& +& +%
399
fVDg?h[ICDiLIVjCkLl?mInCNB7OEPK9CBO79C-
q
_8 18 010\86

7'7
23415678
87
12186 78 ^
'sb8
bb
t
8 ' 7 6
NB7OEPK9CBO79C-C7OQ6APOJCK9A6P78 NOEEO8POJCQB7OEPK9CQOJA9JACABE98BO7K8 D9EWPQ9C7PT9C@E9KPQAPOJ8
^_8uv5\1 &qa q5X
767
86
7
2 &
8
b^ ^87 &
76b q86 _
6 0 4 t7
121
#8 8^
8678^ b8 b 8 121
1!1"4
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 1!1"1 Yoap 86
r
67

7 7 1! 101 Yoap 1!1" 1!10 1!1" 1!10
^8 0 ! ! ! ! !
r8 _7 86 ^6 Ù Û $8%&
#8 6#8 " ! ! ! ! !
Ý
¼Î
¼Ö¾
s86
8! 3 ! ! ! ! !
NOW9ECK9@AB8CPJCABP8CT6Q9 ÇÈÉÊËÌÍ¼Î½ÏÐÑÒÓÔÏÕ × × 0
$8%&
#8 6#8 "
! ! ! ! !
& s86 ^_8 s^_8 ! ! ! ! !
$8%& 7' $8%& 7' ÀÁ
ÂÃ
¼½ ¾¿ ÀÅ¿ÀÆ ÄÅ¿ÀÆ 8! 3 ! ! ! ! !
a ! 86'8^ 0 0( 0 0( 0( ! ! ! ! !
#8! 86'8^ " 0) " 1 ØÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ½ r8 86 7'
#8 6#8 1 ! ! ! ! !
ÙÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ½ b86
#8 ^87 s^_8
6 88^ 3 2 3 2 8! 2 ! ! ! ! !
5PQcd8CKPTTe8POJCGOK97C@6E6G9A9E8 * ¯°±²³´µ{°¶µ{·¶²̧¹µ{y{{}ºº{~{»
a
^8b '7 a
^8b
'7'7
\86 8]
8^ +* , -.**** /7 01 wxwyw
`_
` , 1!110 ,*.**2*32*+3 4
878 wxwyz{|}~~}}{}{
_
8 27 ! 56789 ~}
¡¢¡¢£¤¥¦§¢¨ ¡ ¢©
,* 4
878 wxwyww
5PACZ[
{~{}~
5 ,:.+-;;<;=<: >
{~{}~
5 ,*.3*<+<;<*2 21%2 > wxww
?9@ABC ?9@ABC L6MCNB7OEPK9C SCPTCK6A6C VW9C?9@ABCTOEC NB7OEPK9C wxwww
DA6EAC IJKC QOJQ9JAE6APOJC @OPJAC DO7W9E QOJQ.CTOEC
FGGH FGGH FRCQOJQE9A9H PUJOE9K DO7W9E
1 21 1!11") " 1!11") wxww
21 ( 1X 2) 1!110
( 1X Y> Y> wxwww
(2 1X Y> Y>
(2 4) 1X Y> Y> wxwww
Y> Y>
Y> Y> wxwwww
Y> Y> w w w yw w w w w w w ww
Y> Y> ª¡¢«¢¡¬¢£®®©
Y> Y>
400
k79l?m_:D9nM:7oDpMq?r:sDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D2
t
[8 08 010e86
!
7(7
23415678
87
12186 78 `
(Yj8
jj
u
8 ( 7 6
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D2DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE 9@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
`[8v w5e0 't c t5x
767
86
!7 2 '
8
j̀ `87 '
76j
!
$8 t86 [
6 2 5 u7
121 886`78` j8 j 8 121
1"1#5
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 1"1#1 \bcd 86
a
67

7 !7 1"101 \bcd 1"1# 1"10 1"1# 1"10
`8
a8 [77 2= 6 y %8&'
$8 6$8
z Y86
y{ 3 " 8" " " " "
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ yz 0 "
%8&'
$8 6$8
" " " "
' Y86 `[8 # " Y`[8 " " " "
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( 3 " 8" " " " "
c " 86(8` 0 0) yz {|}~}|}
|}
0) " " " " "
$8" 86(8` # 1 z a8 86 1 " 7(
$8 6$8 " " " "
Y`[8
6 88` 3 2 3 2 z !j86
$8 `87 2 " 8" " " " "
6ROghEDLRUUiERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE 1 Ô³ÕÖ×ØÙÚ Õ°ÛÚ³ ÜÛÝ×ÞÚ ³ ¤¢ßß¥§ ¦ª¨£ à¥¬¤®¨¦
c
`8j (7 c
`8j
(7(7
e86 8f
8` *+ , -.++++ 7 /0 ´
Z[
Z , 1"110 ! ,+.++*1*23-4 5
878 ¡¢££¢¤¥¢¦ ¥¦¥§¥̈§¥¢¦
§©£ª¤©¢«¬
¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÅ¿ÆÇÃÆÇÄÈÉÄÊËÄÌÇÍÄÅ¿ÆÅÀÃÇÃÎ
[
8 27 " 6789:
! ,+.++-+;3+<1 5
878
6RBD^_
¥¦ ®£ª¯° ±¢²ª£
³²ª ®£ª¯° ±¢²ª£
5 ,3.33333123< =
5 ,+.;->+3>>>- 21&2 = ¶´
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 7W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D ¶

EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD 9QPW@G OQKO.DUQGD
µ´
1 3 1"112 "# 1"112
3 YZ[ 2)"# 1"110 µ
04 YZ[ \= \=
04 # \= \=
# 42 \= \= ´
42 4] \= \=
\= \=
\= \= µ ¶ · ´ ¸ ¹ º » µ
\= \= ÏÃÆÃÇÀÐÇÁ¿ÆÄÑÃÒÇ½ÄÈÓÓÎ
\= \=
401
i9;j?k^<D;lM<9mDnMo?p<qDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D5
c
[8 18 010b86

7)7
23415678
87
12186 78 _
)Zg8
gg
f
8 ) 7 6
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D5DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE ;@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
_[8à5b1 (cd c5e
767
86
7
2 (
8
g_ _87 (
76g c86 [
6 0 7 f7
121
%8 8_7
8_
g
8
g 8 121
1!1"7
6 2
78
7 86
866 6 8687 78
67 7 2 1!1"1 '0 86
h
67
_8> f8Z 7 1! 101 1!1" 1!10 1!1" 1!10
_8( " ! #$ ! #$ !
h8 [7 86 _6 v &8'(
%8 6%8 " ! #$ ! #$ !
w Z86
vx 8! 3 ! $ ! $ !
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ vw "
&8'(
%8 6%8 "
! #$ ! #$ !
( Z86 _[8 Z_[8 ! #$ ! #$ !
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) z
vw xy zyz{|}~yz 8! 3 ! $ ! $ !
d ! 86)8_ " "
%8! 86)8_ " " w h8 86 7
)
% 8
6%8
Z_[8
6 88_ 3 2 3 2 w g86
%8 _87 8! 2 ! 2$ ! 34 !
8ROrsEDLRUUtERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE 1 Ñ°ÒÓÔÕÖ×ÒØ×°ªÙØÚÔÛ×¥¡¢©§ÜÝ§Þ×°Ò£§¥ ß¢©¡«¥£
d
_8g )7 d
_8g
)7)7
b86 8u
8_ *+ , -.++++ /7 01 ´±
$[
$ , 1!110 ,+.+*2*23456 7
878 ´
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§
[
8 27 ! 89:;< ,+.++24=-2+* 7
878
8RBD]^ 5 ,-.555+6636-
5 ,+.+*226-=-2
>
21'2 >
±

¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
¤¦ §¡¦¨©
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 9W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D ³±
EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD ;QPW@G OQKO.DUQGD
HIIJ HIIJ HSDOQKOG@B@J RVKQG@L ;QPW@G ³
1 Y 1!101" 1!101"
Y 2 1!113 2!" 1!113 ²±
2 1 Z[ 01!" 1!110
1 "3 Z[ \> \> ²
"3 4 \> \> ±
\> \>
\> \>
\> \> ² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
\> \> ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
\> \>
402
cTVd@e]fDVgKfThDiKj@kflDWC9NEOJ;DCN9;D+
m
Z8 18 010n86
!
7(7
23415678
87
12186 78 b
(Xo8
oo
p
8 ( 7 6
WC9NEOJ;DCN9;D+D9NM8BONIDJ;B8O9: WNEEN:ONIDMC9NEOJ;DMNIB;IBDBCE;:CN9J: V;EUOM;D9OR;DAE;JOMBONI:
bZ8q r5n1 'm _ m5s
767
86
!7 2 '
8
ob b87 '
76o
!
$8 m86 Z
6 0 6 p7
121 886b78b o8 o 8 121
1"1#6
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 1"1#1 [^_` 86
a
67

7 !7 1"101 [^_` 1"1# 1"10 1"1# 1"10
b8 # " " " " "
a8 Z7 86 b6 x %8&'
$8 6$8 #0 " " " " "
y X86
xz 8" 3 " " " " "
WNU;EDJ;ABC:DOIDBCO:DR8M;
' X86 bZ8
xy
%8&'
$8 6$8
0
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
XbZ8
_ " 86(8b
%8&'
#
7(
0)
%8&'
0
7(
0* xy z{|}|~{|
{|

8"

3
0*
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
7(
$8 6$8
$8" 86(8b #0 0 # 1 y a8 86 XbZ8 1 " " " " "
6 88b 3 2 3 2 y !o86
$8 b87 8" 2 " " " " "
7OMuv:DJORRw:ONIDGNJ;9DA8E8G;B;E: 1 Ó²ÔÕÖ×ØÙÔ¯ÚÙ²¬ÛÚÜÖÝÙÞ£¡ßß¤¦¥©§¢à¤«£§¥
_
b8o (7 _
b8o
(7(7
n86 8t
8b +, - ./,,,, 7 01 ³
¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
YZ
Y - 1"110 ! -,/,,234.4,5 6
878 ¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄ¾ÅÆÂÅÆÃÇÈÃÉÊÃËÆÌÃÄ¾ÅÄ¿ÂÆÂÍ

¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
Z
8 27 " 789:; ! -, 6
878
7OBD\] 5 -</.3=+24.,= >
5 -,/.?<,++4,= 21&2 > µ³
@;ABCD @;ABCD K8LDMC9NEOJ;D QDORDJ8B8D TU;DJ;ABCDRNED WC9NEOJ;D µ

:B8EBD ;IJD MNIM;IBE8BONID ANOIBD VN9U;E MNIM/DRNED
FGGH FGGH FPDMNIME;B;H OSINE;J VN9U;E
´³
1 ) 1"11# 1"11#
) 2 XYZ 2"# 1"110 ´
2 03 XYZ [> [>
03 #0 [> [>
#0 *4 [> [> ³
#0 )1 [> [>
[> [>
[> [> ´ µ ¶ ³ · ¸ ¹ º ´
[> [> ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
[> [>
403
a8:bAc`;F:dO;8eFfOgAh;iFZERSITNBFESRBF=
j
]8 28 010k86
!
7*7
23415678
87
12186 78 l
*\m8
mm
n
8 * 7 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF=FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG :BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
l]8p q5k2 )j r j5s
767
86
!7 2 )
8
ml l87 !
%8 )
76m j86 ]
6 0 6 n7
121 8l7
8l
m
8
m 8 121
1"1#6
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 1"1#1 (# 86
o
67

7 !7 1"101 0 1"1# 1"10 1"1# 1"10
l8 " 22$ " 22$ "
o8 ]7 86 l6
x '8()
%8 6%8 # " 2#$ " 2#$ "
y \86
xz 8" 3 " #$ " #$ "
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB xy 0 " 22$ " 21$ "
) \86 l]8 '8()
%8 6%8 # " 2&$ " 2&$ "
\l]8
'8() 7* '8() 7* | {|
xy z{ }|~{|
8" 3 " #$ " #$ "
r " 86*8l 04 0 0& 0& " 4$ " 4$ "
%8" 86*8l # 1 # 1 7*
%8 6%8 1 " 3$ " 3$ "
y o8 86 \l]8
6 88l 3 2 3 2 y !m86
%8 l87 8" 2 " 0$ " $ "
7TQtuGFNTWWvGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 1 Ó²ÔÕÖ×ØÙÔ¯ÚÙ²¬ÛÚÜÖÝÙÞ£¡ßß¤¦¥©§¢à¤«£§¥
r
l8m *7 r
l8m
*7*7
k86 8w
8l +, - ./,,,, 07 12 ¶
$]
$ - 1"110 ! -,/,3453.,54 6
878
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
³
]
8 27 " 789:; ! -,/,,<=>?<,= 6
878 ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
7TDF_` 5 -./3++3.>=,3
5 -,/,+<4<?,<?
@
21(2 @

µ³
¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«

GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF :SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF µ
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN :SRYBI
1 3 1"1# "# 1"1# ´³
3 24 1"113[ 20 1"113[
24 0# \$] & 1"110 ´
0# #1 \$] ^@ ^@
#1 &# ^@ ^@ ³
&# 4[ ^@ ^@
^@ ^@
^@ ^@ ´ µ ¶ ³ · ¸ ¹ º ´
^@ ^@ ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
^@ ^@
404
0123457895

qr 4515

?2657895
0&%s>2""65:#:#!155t012345B/69
+;g,1g+,%+
!7"1#$"53
%&'()7*5$"53
+,%, -581./*53
01 234 %,g,'g+,%+
0589"*5
3#5657668$15#72" 058941#*
9#565:668!155589 Pd3KVRUcV_2HbPJ_bPVHITKRO3VKPfu
!8"8632"87$5
%;,9 <8/29#9*25175247"
,9 . /* #1 5 $ 6
8 2
A2
$8"27 v18 *7 15A5157$56275
jijj ^Lg8"$7$M
=:
1 >873$8*5
?8196873@258A*57#1A
5 )7$B8273 0+ !76123535"5$"276292"
jijj ^Lg8"$7$M
0=C
(111 !1274"*5
="1589 DE518627588"5188
5 ./$B8273 0+ )72"28"27"715763%
jij4j ^Lg8"$7$M
!8"95$12*"27
=#1A058$7DE518627588E5
C5E51 !95873%,%9"F,,9 )72"28"27"715763+
jijj ^Lg8"$7$M
w2Px U_OP2 aRH22KT PTRc_d pP32fR_ _fR pP 32fR_
2HbQPU_OP2 GHLIH JKJNOP23QP234
99M L99M
RSTHU3V
WJJX fHUHId3UP_d U_OP2HI UcV_2HbP 3OP23QP pP3f2Rf23RIb 3OP23QP
0123458E51845
L^$7$15"5M L^$7$15"5M L99+g1M hP3J d3UPRc2Pfc_Vb fRH22KT U_22_fH_I fR23Ib
=AA2" =Y"12151Z#*
[ \] (F 0; L99M L99M L99M U_22_fH_I U_22_fH_I
+( 00 0+ 927 8E5 927 ,B,F^ ,B,0^ ,B,F^ ,B,0^ ,B,F^ ,B,0^ ,B,F^ ,B,0^
235g Y15Z[ 0; 8E51845 ,B,%(1 ,B,,,+ 'B;1(0 0& (% 0' Z0% Z%'
855 ="211#* 1F 1' 0+ ="35E ,B,,;& ,B,,,+ +B+(F+ + ( %+ , %F
0""9 Y15Z[ 0; 927 ,B,,F' ,B,,,% (B11&F 0; 0; 0+ , , , , , ,
5#65 ="211#* 0+ 98/ ,B,+;F ,B,,,1 %,B,,,, (0 (1 1' Z0% Z+ , , , , , ,
PfR_U3RH_If cV_2HbPJ_bPVT323JPRP2f P3JU_OP2f fRHJ3RPb2PJ3HIHIQVHdPWej jX
aRH22KT PTRc_d pP32fR_3OPipP32fR_fRpP32fR_3OPi
_VP` P3J _U3RH_I aHbP PIQRc G_bPVdHR f

H

2e

U

w2

Px
U_OP2

UP2HI UcV_2HbP fRH22KT fR23Ib fR23Ib
_O
L^$7$15"5M L^$7$15"5M L99+g1M L99M h2HbQPRc2 Pfc_Vb
L99M L99M U_22_fH_I U_22_fH_I U_22_fH_I
927 8E5 8E5 ,B,F^ ,B,0^ ,B,F^ ,B,0^ ,B,F^ ,B,0^ ,B,F^ ,B,0^
% =AA2" ="7%g(*87 ?2"D ijjjj ,B,,;% ,B,,,, (B11&F 0& (F 00 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
+ =AA2" ="7%g(*87 ?2"D ijjjj ,B,,F' ,B,,,1 %,B,,,, (% (1 00 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
0 N 235 k5" ="7%g(*87 ?2"D jilm ,B,+;F ,B,,,% &B&(;' 0; 0; 1' Z0% Z+ 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
( N =AA2" ="7%g(*87 ?2"D jiln4 ,B,%1+ ,B,,,+ 1B;0;& (0 (1 00 Z00 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
F 7*1A265o P22_2 0; 0; 0+
1 7*1A265o P22_2 0; 0; 0+
' 7*1A265o P22_2 0; 0; 0+
405
ijkkiICl^mCl^mCNLII_CnLj?oIpCNB;OEPK=CBO;=C-
Z
]8 18 012`86
!
7(7
21345678
87
286 78 b
(\e8
ee
t
8 ( 7 6
NB;OEPK=CBO;=C-C;OQ:APOJCK=A:P;< NOEEO<POJCQB;OEPK=CQOJA=JACABE=<BO;K< D=EWPQ=C;PT=C@E=KPQAPOJ<
767
86
b]8s''s u0q u0q !Z1 Z5Y !7 2 '
8
eb b87 '
76e Z86 ]
6 2 8 t7
2 !
#8 8b
8678b
e8 e 8 2
"8
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " [qdr 86
s
67

7 !7 "0 [qdr " "0 " "0
b8 01 " " " " "
s8 ]7 7 2>4 6 Ù Û %8&'
#8 6#8 4 " " " " "
Ý
¼Î
¼Ö¾
\86
8" 0$ " " " " "
NOW=ECK=@AB<CPJCABP<CT:Q=
' \86 b]8 ÇÈÉÊËÌÍ¼Î½ÏÐÑÒÓÔÏÕ ××
%8&'
#8 6#8
01
4
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
\b]8
d " 86(8b
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( ¼½ ¾¿ÀÁÀÂÃÅÄ¿À
Å¿ÀÆ
Æ
8" 0$ " " " " "
01 3 01 4 4 " " " " "
#8" 86(8b 4 0 4 00 ØÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ½ s8 86 7(
#8 6#8 00 " " " " "
ÙÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞÞ½ !e86
#8 b87 \b]8
6 88b 0$ 0 0$ 0 8" 0 " " " " "
9PQfg<CKPTTh<POJCGOK=;C@:E:G=A=E< ) ®¯®°z±²³z±²³z{´°°µz¶´¯·¸°zz°z~|¹¹zºz»z~
d
b8e (7 d
b8e
(7(7
`86 8a
8b *+ , -.))))/7 01 vwvxv
c]
c , "0 ! , ).))2-34567 8
878 vwvxyz{|}}|~|z|z
vwvxvv }~|
¡ ¡¢£¤¥¦¡§ ¡¨
]
8 27 " 9:;<= ! , ) 8
878
9PAC^_
z}z|}
z}z|}
5 , 3.++4364++ >
5 , ).-32)+5646 2&2 > vwvv
?=@ABC ?=@ABC L:MCNB;OEPK=C SCPTCK:A:C VW=C?=@ABCTOEC NB;OEPK=C vwvvv
DA:EAC IJKC QOJQ=JAE:APOJC @OPJAC DO;W=E QOJQ.CTOEC
FGGH FGGH FRCQOJQE=A=H PUJOE=K DO;W=E
2 "X4 "X4 vwvv
2 0 YZ 2X" "0
0 01 YZ [> [> vwvvv
01 1 YZ [> [>
1 31 \] [> [> vwvvv
[> [>
[> [>
[> [> vwvvvv
[> [> v v v xv v v v v v v vv
[> [> © ¡ª¡ «¬¡¢¨
406
:mnn:<Eo]pEo]pEYN<<ÊqNm@r<sEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE4
[
b8 8 012f86
"
7*7
21345678
87
286 78 _
*`l8
ll
t
8 * 7 6
YDQRHSMAEDRQAE4EQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF ;AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
767
86
_b8a))a u2c u2c "[ [5Z "7 2 )
8
l_ _87 )
76l [86 b
6 2 7 t7
2 "
$8 8_7
8_
l
8
l 8 2
#7
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 2 # \cde 86
a
67

7 "7 #0 \cde # #0 # #0
_8 42 # # # # #
a8 b77 2>4 6 v '8()
$8 6$8 4% # # # # #
w `86
vx 8# 0& # # # # #
YRXAHEMABCDFESLECDSFEVGPA vw 01
'8()
$8 6$8 4
# # # # #
) `86 _b8 `_b8 # # # # #
'8() 7* '8() 7* z{
|}~yz 8# 0& # # # # #
d # 86*8_ 42 02 01 4 vw xy zyz 4 # # # # #
!$8# 86*8_ 4% 04 4 00 w a8 86 7
*
$8
6$8 00 # # # # #
`_b8
6 88_ 0& 0 0& 0 w "l86
$8 _87 8# 0 # # # # #
8SPijFEMSVVkFSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF ÑÒÑÓÔÕÖÔÕÖ×ÓÓØÙ×ÒÚÛÓ²Ó¡ÜÜ¢¤Ý¤¦²Þ́¡«¥£
d
_8l *7 d
_8l
*7*7
f86 8g
8_ +, ±
- ./000017 2 ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
hb
h - #0 " - 0/003,34+56 7
878 ¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ¼ÃÄÀÃÄÁÅÆÁÇÈÁÉÄÊÁÂ¼ÃÂ½ÀÄÀË ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
b
8 27 # 89:;<
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
" - 0/0003,465= 7
878
8SCE]^
°¯§« §¬®¯§
5 - 5/555556+. > ³±
5 - 0/+.?05??+5 2(2 >
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE 9XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE ³
FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE ;RQXAH PRLP/EVRHE
IJJK IJJK ITEPRLPHACAK SWLRHAM ;RQXAH
2 #41 #41 ²±
2 & Z[ 21 #0
& 44 Z[ \>! \>! ²
44 % Z[ \>! \>!
% 3% Z[ \>! \>! ±
\>! \>!
\>! \>!
\>! \>!
² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
\>! \>!
\>! \>! ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
407
;ijj;=Fk^lFk^lFZO==_FmOiAn=oFZERSITNBFESRBF*
d
\8 38 012p86
!
7(7
21345678
87
286 78 `
([g8
gg
f
8 ( 7 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF*FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG <BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
767
86
`\8a''a b2c b2c !d3 d5e !7 2 '
8
g̀ `87 '
76g d86 \
6 2 8 f7
2 !
#8 8`7
8`
g
8
g 8 2
"8
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " &02 86
a
67
`8@ f8[ !7 "0 & " "0 " "0
`8h87
a8 \77 2@4 6 w %8&'
#8 6#8
x [86
wy 0$ " " 8" " " "
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB wx
%8&'
#8 6#8
' [86 `\8 [`\8
q " 86(8`
%8&' 7(
)
%8&' 7(
)
wx yz{|{}~z{z{

0$ " "
) " "
8"

"
"
" "
" "
#8" 86(8` )3 )3 x a8 86 7(
#8 6#8
)3 " " " " "
[`\8
6 88` 0$ 0 0$ 0 x !g86
#8 `87 0 " " 8" " " "
9TQrsGFNTWWtGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÒÓ®®ÒÔÕÖ×ÕÖ×ØÔÔÙÚØÓÛÜÔ³±¢£ª¨ÝÞ¨ßà¨¢¥á¥§³Ýµ¢¬¦¤
q
`8g (7 q
`8g
(7(7
p86 8u
8` *+ ²
, -./0+*17 23 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
v\
v , "0 ! , -.-40544567 8
878 ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡

\
8 27 " 9:;<= ! , >.-+467=?-5 8
9TDF^_ 5 , /./60>46>+7 @
5 , -.*756>7//* 2&2 @
´²
´
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF <SRYBI QSMQ.FWSIF
1 ") 4" ") ³²
1 $ "24 2$" "24
$ 4 "0 0 "0 ³
4 [\ 4$" "0
32 [\ ]@ ]@ ²
32 $) [\ ]@ ]@
]@ ]@
]@ ]@
³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
]@ ]@
]@ ]@ ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
408
bcddbeDf[gDf[gDWKee\DhKc@iejDWC;NEOJ=DCN;=D1
k
Y8 58 012l86
!
7)7
21345678
87
286 78 a
)Xm8
mm
n
8 ) 7 6
WC;NEOJ=DCN;=D1D;NM:BONIDJ=B:O;< WNEEN<ONIDMC;NEOJ=DMNIB=IBDBCE=<CN;J< V=EUOM=D;OR=DAE=JOMBONI<
767
86
aY8`((` o4] o4] !k5 k5p !7 2 (
8
ma a87 (
76m k86 Y
6 2 8 n7
2 !
#8 8a7
8a
m
8
m 8 2
"8
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " Z]^_ 86
`
67

7 !7 "0 '00 " "0 " "0
a8 40 " " " " "
`8 Y77 2?4 6
v &8'(
#8 6#8 4$ " " " " "
w X86
vx 8" 0% " " " " "
WNU=EDJ=ABC<DOIDBCO<DR:M= vw 01 " " " " "
( X86 aY8 &8'(
#8 6#8 4 " " " " "
XaY8
^ " 86)8a
&8'(
40
7)
4
&8'(
01
7)
4 vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz

8" 0%
4
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
7)
#8 6#8 00
#8" 86)8a 4$ 0 4 00 w `8 86 XaY8 " " " " "
6 88a 0% 0 0% 0 w !m86
#8 a87 8" 0 " " " " "
9OMst<DJORRu<ONIDGNJ=;DA:E:G=B=E< ÑÒÑÓÔÕÖÔÕÖ×ÓÓØÙ×ÒÚÛÓ²°¡ÜÜ¢¤Ý¤¦²Þ́¡«¥£
^
a8m )7 ^
a8m
)7)7
l86 8q
8a *+ ±
, -./01237 45 ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
rY
r , "0 ! , -.-6+7717* 8
878 ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
°¯§« §¬®¯§
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
Y
8 27 " 9:;<= ! , -.---62>-+* 8
878
9OBD[\ 5 , +.0*0/6067+ ?
5 , -.76+0+-+>6 2'2 ?
@=ABCD @=ABCD K:LDMC;NEOJ=D QDORDJ:B:D TU=DJ=ABCDRNED WC;NEOJ=D
³±
³
<B:EBD =IJD MNIM=IBE:BONID ANOIBD VN;U=E MNIM.DRNED
FGGH FGGH FPDMNIME=B=H OSINE=J VN;U=E
1 "24 4" "24 ²±
1 4 "$3 2$" "$3
4 4 XY 0 "0 ²
4 3 XY Z? Z?
3 34 XY Z? Z? ±
Z? Z?
Z? Z?
Z? Z?
² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
Z? Z?
Z? Z? ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
409
0123457895

st 4515

<2357895
\--u>6822A510123457,39
(Yg)8g()#(
71!"53
#$%%&7'5"53
()#) *581+,'53
-- ./0 #)g)%g()#(
0589'5
&1589 058941!'
&21589 Lc/HRNQbR].EaLG]aLREFPHNK/RHLfv
8833287"5
(4)9 58,29!9'25165246
-789 + ,' !1 5 " 3
8 2
?2
"8 27 w18'615?5157"53275
lkll ZIg> "7"J
9:
#9 ;873"8'5
<8193873=25>?'57!1?
5 &7"7>273 0# 631235355"273292
lkll ZIg> "7"J
09@
#8(% 1274'5
558735127412A51BA5183275>851>8
7 +,"7>273 0( &722827615633#
lkl0l ZIg> "7"J
8C5"12'27
9!1?058"6BA5183275>8A5
@5A51 C1873#)#94))9 &722827615633(
lkll ZIg> "7"J
o.LpqQ]KL. `NE..HP LPNb]c rL/.fN] ]jfN rL /.fN]
.EaMLQ]KL. DEIFE GHGKL./ML./0
99J I99J
NOPEQ/R
SGGT efeEQEFc/QL]c Q]KL.EF QbR].EaL /KL./ML rL/f.Nf./NFa /KL./ML
0123458A51845
IZ"7"155J IZ"7"155J I99(g1J hL/G c/QLNb.Lfb]Ra fNE..HP Q]..]fE]F fN./Fa
9??2 9U121512!'
V WX -4 -Y I99J I99J I99J Q]..]fE]F Q]..]fE]F
#- #% -( 927 8A5 927 )7)4Z )7)-Z )7)4Z )7)-Z )7)4Z )7)-Z )7)4Z )7)-Z
235g U152V -Y 8A51845 )7)-(- )7)))) (7-4#Y -8 -8 (( 24 ( #$5 #8[ %85 8\[ %85 8\[
>51 9211!' -( 935A )7)#(8 )7)))) )7Y%(4 # # % 4 - ) (([ ) YY[ ) YY[
0 9 U152V -Y 927 )7)#\# )7)))# #7#88$ -4 -4 #% ) ) #$5 \-Y %85 ([ %85 ([
1!31 9211!' -( 98, )7)4)# )7)))# -7%)#- -Y -Y -( ) 4 #$5 \%[ %85 #YY[ %85 #YY[
qLfN_]Q/NE]Ff ebR].EaLG]aLRP/./GLNL.f L/GQ]KL.f fNEG/NLa.LG/EFEFMREcLSdljlT
`NE..HP LPNb]c rL/.fN]/KLkrL/.fN]jfNrL/.fN]/KLk
]RL^ L/G _]Q/NE]F ÈaL _LFMNb D]aLRcEN ef

eE

.d

Q

o.

Lpq
Q]KL.

QL.EF QbR].EaL fNE..HP fN./Fa fN./Fa
]K
IZ"7"155J IZ"7"155J I99(g1J I99J h.EaMLNb. Lfb]Ra
I99J I99J Q]..]fE]F Q]..]fE]F Q]..]fE]F
927 8A5 8A5 )7)4Z )7)-Z )7)4Z )7)-Z )7)4Z )7)-Z )7)4Z )7)-Z
# i ??2 7581923'87 <2B jkllll )7)#\# )7)))) -7%)#- -4 -4 #% 27?7 27?7 27?7 27?7 27?7 27?7
( me 9B<<&V 7581923'87 <2B jkllll )7)\#8 )7)))# (7)\%$ -4 -4 #% 2- \ 27?7 4\Y 27?7 ([ 27?7 ([
- 0e 9B<<&V 7581923'87 <2B jkllll )7)4)# )7)))) #7#88$ -4 -4 #% ) 4 #$5 \-Y %85 ([ %85 ([
\ 0 9??2 7581923'87 <2B jkllll )7)(\Y )7)))) #7$-() -4 -4 #% 2- 27?7 27?7 27?7 27?7 27?7 27?7
4 0 9B<<&V 7581923'87 <2B jkllll )7)-)Y )7)))) (7$#)% -4 -Y #% 2#( ) 27?7 \%[ 27?7 #YY[ 27?7 #YY[
8 7'1?235n L..]. -Y -Y -(
% 7'1?235n L..]. -Y -Y -(
410
ihopUqBKqrHKBsKq>tHuBMA8NDOJ:BAN8:B,
^
Y8 08 011f86
!
7(7
23445678
87
286 78 X86 6
MA8NDOJ:BAN8:B,B8NP7@ONIBJ:@7O89 MNDDN9ONIBPA8NDOJ:BPNI@:I@B@AD:9AN8J9 C:DVOP:B8OS:B?D:JOP@ONI9
767
86
aY80/\] ^_^ ^5` !7 2 '
8
ba a87 '
76b ^86 Y
6 4 5 g7
2 !
#8 8a
8678a
b8 b 8 2
"5
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " Zcde 86
[
67

7 !7 "1 Zcde " "1 " "1
a8 1 " " " " "
[8 Y7 86 a6 Ø Ú %8&'
#8 6#8 1 " " " " "
Ü
»Í
»Õ½
X86
8" 1$ " " " " "
MNV:DBJ:?@A9BOIB@AO9BS7P:
' X86 aY8 ÆÇÈÉÊËÌ»Í¼ÎÏÐÑÒÓÎÔ ÖÖ
%8&'
#8 6#8
1
1
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
XaY8
d " 86(8a
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( »¼ ½¾¿À¿ÁÂÄÃ¾¿
Ä¾¿Å
Å
8" 1$ " " " " "
1 24 1 21 21 " " " " "
#8" 86(8a 1 2$ 1 24 ×ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ [8 86 7(
#8 6#8 24 " " " " "
ØÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ !b86
#8 a87 XaY8
6 88a 1$ 1 1$ 1 8" 1 " " " " "
6OPlm9BJOSSn9ONIBFNJ:8B?7D7F:@:D9 ) ®¯°±²z³²́µ³z¶³²·¸µzz¶z~|¹¹z}zº~
d
a8b (7 d
a8b
(7(7
f86 8j
8a ** + ,-)))).7 /0 vwvxv
kY
k + "1 ! + )-),1,213*4 5
878 vwvxyz{|}}|~|z|z
vwvxvv }~|
¡ ¡¢£¤¥¦¡§ ¡¨
Y
8 27 " 6789: ! + ) 5
878
6O@Bhi
z}z|}
z}z|}
5 + *-4),*24*23 ;
5 + )-,,4*<=*2 2&2 ; vwvv
>:?@AB >:?@AB K7LBMA8NDOJ:B RBOSBJ7@7B UV:B>:?@ABSNDB MA8NDOJ:B vwvvv
C@7D@B HIJB PNIP:I@D7@ONIB ?NOI@B CN8V:D PNIP-BSNDB
2 "33 W "33 vwvv
2 4 XY 23" "1
4 0 XY Z; Z; vwvvv
0 XY Z; Z;
W XY Z; Z; vwvvv
W 43 XY Z; Z;
Z; Z;
Z; Z; vwvvvv
Z; Z; v v v xv v v v v v v vv
Z; Z; © ¡ª¡ «¬¡¢¨
411
abcd9eGPef<PGgPeBh<iG[FSTJUOCGFTSCG6
j
]8 28 011k86
!
7*7
23445678
87
286 78 \86 6
[FSTJUOCGFTSCG6GSTRIEUTNGOCEIUSH [TJJTHUTNGRFSTJUOCGRTNECNEGEFJCHFTSOH ;CJZURCGSUXCGDJCOUREUTNH
767
86
`]821lm" jnj j5o !7 2 )
8
q̀ `87 )
76q j86 ]
6 6 2
78
7 7 p7
2 !
$8 8`7
8`
q
8
q 8 2
86
#7
86! 6 " 8687 78
67 !7 2 # (1 86
r
67

7 !7 #1 0 # #1 # #1
`8
r8 ]7 86 `6 x '8()
$8 6$8
y \86
xz 8# 1% # 1& # 1& #
[TZCJGOCDEFHGUNGEFUHGXIRC xy 1
'8()
$8 6$8 1
# & # & #
) \86 `]8 \`]8 # & # & #
'8() 7* '8() 7* |}
~{| 8# 1% # 1& # 1& #
t # 86*8` 21 1 21 xy z{ |{| 21 # 1 # %3 #
"$8# 86*8` 20 1 24 y r8 86 7
*
$8
6$8 24 # %2 # 0% #
\`]8
6 88` 1% 1 1% 1 y !q86
$8 `87 8# 1 # & # & #
8URuvHGOUXXwHUTNGLTOCSGDIJILCECJH ÓÔÕÖ²×Ø×ÙÚØÛØ×ÜÝÚ¸Û£¡ÞÞ¤¦¥©§¢ß¤«£§¥
t
`8q *7 t
`8q
*7*7
k86 8s
8` ++ ¶³
, -.////07 12
&]
& , #1 ! , /./3-4-566- 7
878 »¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄ¾ÅÆÂÅÆÃÇÈÃÉÊÃËÆÌÃÄ¾ÅÄ¿ÂÆÂÍ ¶
]
8 27 # 89:;<
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
! , 5.5-3/=<>/5 7
878
8UEGba
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
³ ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
5 , 6./3?@5-5@4 A ¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
5 , /./43=+4=3@ 2(2 A
BCDEFG BCDEFG PIQGRFSTJUOCG WGUXGOIEIG 9ZCGOCDEFGXTJG [FSTJUOCG µ³
HEIJEG CNOG RTNRCNEJIEUTNG DTUNEG ;TSZCJ RTNR.GXTJG
KLLM KLLM KVGRTNRJCECM UYNTJCO ;TSZCJ µ
21 #0 # #0
21 3 \] 2 #1 ´³
3 0 \] Â" Â"
0 1 \] Â" Â" ´
1 _ \] Â" Â"
Â" Â" ³
Â" Â"
Â" Â"
´ µ ¶ ³ · ¸ ¹ º ´
Â" Â"
Â" Â" ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
412
fghi8jFOjk;OFlOjAm;nFZERSITNBFESRBF,
o
\8 38 011c86

7+7
23445678
87
286 78 [86 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF,FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG :BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
767
86
a\832pq! oro o5s 7
2 *
8
ba a87 *
76b o86 \
6 6 t7
2
#8 8a7
8a
b
8
b 8 2
"6
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 7
2 " 86
e
67

7 7
"1 " "1 " "1
a8
e8 \7 86 a6 u (8)*
#8 6#8
v [86
uw 1$ $3% 8" & $3% & $3%
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB uv 1 4'%
(8)*
#8 6#8
& 4'% & 4'%
* [86 a\8 1 4'%
[a\8 & 4'% & 4'%
% " 86+8a
(8)* 7+
2$
(8)*
1
7+
21
uv wxyzy{|~}xy~xy

1$ $3%
21 2%
8"

&
'
$3%
2%
&
3
$3%
2%
!#8" 86+8a 23 1 24 v e8 86 7+
#8 6#8
24 23% 042 23% 01$ 23%
[a\8
6 88a 1$ 1 1$ 1 v b86
#8 a87 1 '1% 8" & '1% & '1%
7TQ^_GFNTWW`GTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÐÑÒÓ¯ÔÕÔÖ×ÕØÕÔÙÚ×³ ÛÛ¡£¢¦¤Ü¡¨ ª¤¢
%
a8b +7 %
a8b
+7+7
c86 8d
8a ,, ´
- ./000017 23
&\
& - "1 - 0/040.04..5 6
878
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
\
8 27 " 789:; - 0 6
878 ³
7TDFgf 5 - ./.<<=04>.? @

5 - 0/0,500>,>> 2)2 @
²
¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF :SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF £¥¦ ¥§¨
2 "$ "$
2 1 [\ 2'" "1 ±
0 0 [\ ]@! ]@!
0 0' [\ ]@! ]@!
0' ' [\ ]@! ]@! °
' 40 [\ ]@! ]@!
]@! ]@!
]@! ]@!
° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · °
]@! ]@!
]@! ]@! Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
413
defgRhBIhijIBkIh>ljmBUA8LCMH:BAL8:B2
n
X8 08 011`86
!
7(7
23445678
87
286 78 W86 6
UA8LCMH:BAL8:B2B8LK7@MLGBH:@7M89 ULCCL9MLGBKA8LCMH:BKLG@:G@B@AC:9AL8H9 T:CSMK:B8MP:B?C:HMK@MLG9
767
86
^X80/op nqn n5r !7 2 '
8
_^ ^87 '
76_ n86 X
6 5 s7
2 !
#8 8^7
8^
_
8
_ 8 2
"5
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " Yt]u 86
c
67

7 !7 "1 &1 " "1 " "1
^8 1 " " " " "
c8 X7 86 ^6
v %8&'
#8 6#8 1 " " " " "
w W86
vx 8" 1$ " " " " "
ULS:CBH:?@A9BMGB@AM9BP7K: vw 1 " " " " "
' W86 ^X8 %8&'
#8 6#8 1 " " " " "
W^X8
] " 86(8^
%8&'
1
7(
2$
%8&'
1
7(
21 vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz

8" 1$
21
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
7(
#8 6#8 24
#8" 86(8^ 1 23 1 24 w c8 86 W^X8 " " " " "
6 88^ 1$ 1 1$ 1 w !_86
#8 ^87 8" 1 " " " " "
6MKZ[9BHMPP\9MLGBELH:8B?7C7E:@:C9 ÑÒÓÔ°ÕÖÕ×ØÖÙÖÕÚÛØ±°¡ÜÜ¢¤£§¥ Ý¢©¡«¥£
]
^8_ (7 ]
^8_
(7(7
`86 8a
8^ )) ±
* +,----.7 /0 ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
bX
b * "1 ! * -,-1234431+ 5
878 ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
°¯§« §¬®¯§
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
X
8 27 " 6789: ! * - 5
878
6M@Bed 5 * +,;)1-)3311 <
5 * -,-4+142=+2 2&2 <
>:?@AB >:?@AB I7JBKA8LCMH:B OBMPBH7@7B RS:BH:?@ABPLCB UA8LCMH:B
³±
³
9@7C@B :GHB KLGK:G@C7@MLGB ?LMG@B TL8S:C KLGK,BPLCB
DEEF DEEF DNBKLGKC:@:F MQGLC:H TL8S:C
2 "2V1 "2V1 ²±
2 WX 24" "1
0 WX Y< Y< ²
0 $ WX Y< Y<
$ 4 WX Y< Y< ±
4 $0 WX Y< Y<
Y< Y<
Y< Y<
² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
Y< Y<
Y< Y< ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
414
lmno7pENpq:NErNp@s:tEYDQRHSMAEDRQAEu
h
[8 28 011c86
!
7)7
23445678
87
286 78 Z86 6
YDQRHSMAEDRQAEuEQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF 9AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
767
86
][821fg hih h5j !7 2 (
8
b] ]87 (
76b h86 [
6 5 k7
2 !
%8 8]7
8]
b
8
b 8 2
"5
6 2
78
7 86
865 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " '2 86
e
67

7 !7 "1 " "1 " "1
]8 1 " 2##$ " 2##$ "
e8 [7 86 ]6 v &8'(
%8 6%8 1 " 2##$ " 2##$ "
w Z86
vx 8" 1# " $ " $ "
( Z86 ][8
vw
&8'(
%8 6%8
1
1
"
"
2##$
2##$
"
"
2##$ "
2##$ "
Z][8
vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) 8" 1# " $ " $ "
a " 86)8] 1 2# 1 21 21 " *$ " *$ "
%8" 86)8] 1 2# 1 24 7)
%8 6%8 24 " 04$ " 04$ "
w e8 86 Z][8
6 88] 1# 1 1# 1 w !b86
%8 ]87 8" 1 " 24$ " 24$ "
6SP^_FEMSVV`FSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF ÑÒÓÔ°ÕÖÕ×ØÖÙÖÕÚÛØ±Ú¡ÜÜ¢¤£§¥ Ý¢©¡«¥£
a
]8b )7 a
]8b
)7)7
c86 8d
8] ++ ±
, -.////07 12 ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
°¯§« §¬®¯§
¤¦ §¡¦¨©
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
$[
$ , "1 ! , /./+/344+- 5
878
[
8 27 " 6789: ! , / 5
878 ¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ¼ÃÄÀÃÄÁÅÆÁÇÈÁÉÄÊÁÂ¼ÃÂ½ÀÄÀË
6SCEml 5 , 4.;-/<-3=+3 >
5 , /./;44;34<? 2'2 >
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE 7XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE
³±
³
FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE 9RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE
IJJK IJJK ITEPRLPHACAK SWLRHAM 9RQXAH
21 "234 *" "234 ²±
21 11 Z[ 1 "1
11 0* Z[ \> \> ²
0* * Z[ \> \>
* #0 Z[ \> \> ±
\> \>
\> \>
\> \>
² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
\> \>
\> \> ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
415
0123457895

n 4515

<2357895
00*rs82"5981898012345?.39
*9h+]h*+%*
!7"1#$"53
%&''(7)5$"53
*+%% ,581-.)53
/0 12 /+h+]h*+%*
0589")5
274354335$15#72" 058941#)
6274357335!158589 Me2ISORdS_1FcMH_cMSFGQIOL2SIMgu
!8"8332"87$5
/&9+9 :8.29#9)25145244"
09 -.)#15$382>2$8"27 v18)415>5157$53275
mlmtm [Jh5"$7$K
67
%* ;873$8 )5
<8193 873=2 5 5 >
)57
#1>
7 (7$?
52 73 0% !431 235 35"5$"
2732
92 "
mlmmt [Jh5"$7$K
06@
'/' !1274")5
6"1589 AB518327558"5158
7 -.$?5273 0% (72"28"27"415433%
mlmm [Jh5"$7$K
!8"C5$12)"27
6#1>058$4AB518327558B5
@5B51 !C8873 %D9"ED9 (72"28"27"415433*
mlmtm [Jh5"$7$K
w1 M x
R_L M1 bO
F11IQ M QOd_e qM21g
O_ _jgO qM 21gO_
1FcNMR_LM1 FJGF HIHLM12NM1
99K J99K
2
OPQFR2S
THHU fgfFRFGe2RM_e R_LM1FG RdS_1FcM 2LM12NM qM2g1Og12OGc 2LM12NM
0123458B51845
J[$7$15"5KJ[$7$15"5K J99*h1K iM2H e2RM Od1Mgd_Sc gOF11IQ R_11_gF_G gO12Gc
6>>2" V15WX YZ 0/ /9 J99K J99K J99K R_11_gF_G R_11_gF_G
6"211#) *+ *9 /* 927 8B5 927 +?+E[ +?+/[ +?+E[ +?+/[ +?+E[ +?+/[ +?+E[ +?+/[
235h V15WX \Y 0' /9 8B51845 +?+0'0 +?+*]* '?&&*] /& 0% /+ W' *' &+ 9 **] E] *E+ ]9
558 6"211#) *0 /+ /* 6"35B +?+%90 +?++*% *?0E%E * / * %] ] + %' + 0* + 0E
0""9 V15 W
X /9 927 +?+*&0 +?+*/] E?
%+'0 /9 /9 *9 %E *% &+ ' **] %* *E+ %'
8#38 6"211#) /* 98. +?+'9% +?+*&0 %+?9+9/ 0/ 0E /* %E /E &+ /+ **] %%/ *E+ %*E
MgOa_R2OF_Gg fdS_1FcMH_cMSQ212HMOM1g M2HR_LM1g gOFH2OMc1MH2FGFGNSFeMTmjjU
bOF11IQ MQOd_e qM21gO_2LMlqM21gO_jgOqM21gO_2LMl
^_SM` M2H a_R2OF_G bFcM aMGNOd _cMSeFO 1 fgfFRw1
MxR_LM1R_L
M1FG RdS_1FcM gOF11IQ gO12Gc gO12Gc
J[$7$15"5KJ[$7$15"5K J99*h1K J99K i1FcNMOd1 Mgd_Sc
J99K J99K R_11_gF_G R_11_gF_G R_11_gF_G
927 8B5 8B5 +?+E[ +?+/[ +?+E[ +?+/[ +?+E[ +?+/[ +?+E[ +?+/[
% jk >>2" <2"A jlmmmm +?+'9% +?+*E] ]?+E0E 0% 0/ *9 %E /E &+ W%* **] %* *E+ %'
* >>2" <2"A ml +?+0** +?+*/] %+?9+9/ /& 0/ *9 W%E *] 27>? ' 27>? 0E 27>? ]%
/ jn >>2" <2"A ml +?+/&& +?+*]0 E?%+'0 0/ 0E *9 W*% *% 27>? /+ 27>? %%/ 27>? %*E
0 j >>2" !45$D<2"o mlmmmm +?+*&0 +?+*&0 %+?++++ /& 0% *9 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>? 27>?
E 7)1>235p M11_1 /9 /9 /*
] 7)1>235p M11_1 /9 /9 /*
' 7)1>235p M11_1 /9 /9 /*
416
iXj]8JkXMXkXDlMj@mJDn]D6?6oDOCPQ9RL;DCQP;D/
p
b8 38 001_86
!
7*7
23445678
87
12286 78 be8
ee
s
8 * 7 6
OCPQ9RL;DCQP;D/DPQSFBRQKDL;BFRPh OQ99QhRQKDSCPQ9RL;DSQKB;KBDBC9;hCQPLh E;9YRS;DPRV;DA9;LRSBRQKh
ab8t 2)d p d p5u 2 3
767
86
!7 2 )
8
ea a87 )
76e p86 b
!
%8 8a
6 2 7 s7
122 8678a e8 e 8 122
"7
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " 2 86
q
67

7 !7 1 "# # " "# " "#
a8 02 1$ 0$ 11$ 21 11#4
q8 b7 Ö Ø '8()
%8 6%8 0# 1&0 2 1 24 11$2
Ú
¹Ë
¹Ó»
r86
8" #& 11# 0 2&3 $ 11
OQY;9DL;ABChDRKDBCRhDVFS; ÄÅÆÇÈÉÊ¹ËºÌÍÎÏÐÑÌÒ Ô Ô #3
'8()
%8 6%8 0#
1# 01 12 & 1121
) r86 ab8 rab8 1&0 2 1 24 11$2
'8() 7* '8() 7* ½¾
¿À
¹º »¼ ½Â¼½Ã ÁÂ¼½Ã 8" #& 11# 0 2&3 $ 11
d " 86*8a 02 1& #3 1 1 $1 22 1& (1# 1#3
%8" 86*8a 0# # 0# 1& ÕÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº q8 86 7*
%8 6%8 1& 210 11 3 (21 122
ÖÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº !e86
%8 a87 rab8
6 88a #& #1 #& #1 8" #1 2& 1& 210 ($ 12#
\RSfghDLRVV:hRQKDHQL;PDAF9FH;B;9h + ®°̄±²z³²¯´µ±z¶°zzz·z~|¸¸
d
a8e *7 d
a8e
*7*7
_86 8`
8a ,- 1 . /0++++ 17 23 vwvvv
cb
c . "# ! .+0+45+5+6,6 7
878
b
8 27 " 89:; vwvvv
¡ ¡¢£¤¥¦¡§ ¡¨
! .+0+<6=<+,64 7
878
\RBD]^
z}z|}
5 .=0+6-6,6<66 1> vwvvv
z}z|}
5 .+0/?/?55+6- 2(21 1>
vwvvv
@;ABCD @;ABCD MFNDOCPQ9RL;D UDRVDLFBFD XY;D@;ABCDVQ9D OCPQ9RL;D vwvvv
EBF9BD JKLD SQKS;KB9FBRQKD AQRKBD EQPY;9 SQKS0DVQ9D
GHHI GHHI GTDSQKS9;B;I RWKQ9;L EQPY;9
vwvvv vwvxyz{|}}|~|z|z
2 "120 ( }~|
2 1# "1&41 Z 2$" [> vwvxvv
1# #4" "#14$ #"1 "#14$
#4" # "1$34 0"1 "1$34 vwvvv
# 41 "14# $1" "14#
[> [> vwvvv
[> [> vwvvvv
[> [> v v v xv v v v v v v vv
[> [> © ¡ª¡ «¬¡¢¨
[> [>
417
iUj\7klUKUlUCmKj?nkCo\C4/4pCXBNO8PJ:CBON:C3
q
a8 28 001b86

7)7
23445678
87
12286 78 ah8
hh
r
8 ) 7 6
XBNO8PJ:CBON:C3CNOMEAPOICJ:AEPND XO88ODPOICMBNO8PJ:CMOIA:IACAB8:DBONJD W:8VPM:CNPS:C@8:JPMAPOID
â8s1(eqe q5t 1 3
767
86
7
2 (
8
h^ ^87
6 1 6 r7
122
#8 (
76h q86 a
8^78^ h8 h 8 122
!6
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7
2 ! '2 86 86
`
67

7 7
1 !" 1% ! !" ! !"
^8
`8 a7 u &8'(
#8 6#8
v _86
uw 8! "$ ! 4 ! 02 !
XOV:8CJ:@ABDCPICABPDCSEM: uv "3
&8'(
#8 6#8 0"
! 43 ! 0 !
( _86 â8 _â8 ! 3 ! %2 !
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) yz
{|}~xy 8! "$ ! 4 ! 02 !
e ! 86)8^ "3 1 uv wx y~xy 1 ! 12 ! '2" !
#8! 86)8^ 0" 1$ v `8 86 7
)
# 8
6#8 1$ ! 02 ! 4 !
_â8
6 88^ "$ "1 "$ "1 v h86
#8 ^87 8! "1 ! " ! 23 !
[PMfgDCJPSS9DPOICGOJ:NC@E8EG:A:8D Ð¯ÑÒ¬Ó©¯Ô¯©¯ÕÔÑÖ×ÓØÒ°·°±Ù ÚÚ¡£
e
^8h )7 e
^8h
)7)7
b86 8c
8^ *+ 1 , -.//++ 07 12 ³°
da
d , !" ,-.-+3334+54 6
878 ³
a
8 27 ! 789: ,-.-3*4;+/3* 6
[PAC\]
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
°
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
5 ,5-.;-;*+*<+ 1= ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
5 ,-.*+3>*-*3/ 2'21 1= £¥¦ ¥§¨
?:@ABC ?:@ABC KELCMBNO8PJ:C RCPSCJEAEC UV:CJ:@ABCSO8C XBNO8PJ:C ²°
DAE8AC :IJC MOIM:IA8EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV:8 MOIM.CSO8C
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM8:A:H PTIO8:J WONV:8 ²
$! !"0 0!1 '
$! 12 !1%"1 Y 20!4 Z= ±°
12 "4 !1$$4 13 !1$$4
"4 03 !1$2 0" !1$2 ±
03 %"! !10% %!1 !10% °
%"! 41 !1"3 %4!4 !1"3
Z= Z=
Z= Z= ± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
Z= Z=
418
hUi\9jkUKUkUClKi?mjCn\C101oCXBNO:PJ<CBON<C+
c
`8 38 001p86
!
7*7
23445678
87
12286 78 `f8
ff
e
8 * 7 6
XBNO:PJ<CBON<C+CNOMEAPOICJ<AEPND XO::ODPOICMBNO:PJ<CMOIA<IACAB:<DBONJD W<:VPM<CNPS<C@:<JPMAPOID
_`8a 2)b c b c5d 2 3
767
86
!7 2 )
8
f_ _87 )
76f
!
$8 c86 `
6 2 8 e7
122 8_7
8_
f
8
f 8 122
"8
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 " (12 86
g
67

7 !7 1 "# 12 " "# " "#
_8 0# " 204 " 22# "
g8 `7 u '8()
$8 6$8 0 " 23 " 21 "
v ^86
uw 8" #% " 220 " % "
XOV<:CJ<@ABDCPICABPDCSEM< uv #3
'8()
$8 6$8 0#
" 212 " %4 "
) ^86 _`8 ^_`8 " 20& " 221 "
'8() 7* '8() 7* y
uv wx y~xyz{|}~xy 8" #% " 220 " % "
b " 86*8_ 0# # #3 1 1 " #1 " (1 "
$8" 86*8_ 0 #2 0# 1% v g8 86 7
*
$ 8
6$8 1% " &0 " # "
^_`8
6 88_ #% #1 #% #1 v !f86
$8 _87 8" #1 " %2 " 04 "
[PMqrDCJPSS;DPOICGOJ<NC@E:EG<A<:D Ð¯ÑÒ¬Ó©¯Ô¯©¯ÕÔÑÖ×ÓØÒ°·°±Ù ÚÚ¡£
b
_8f *7 b
_8f
*7*7
p86 8s
8_ +, 1 - ./0011 7 23 ³°
t`
t - "# ! -./.+004567+ 8
878 ³
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
`
8 27 " 9:;< ! -./.45+05=6, 8
878
[PAC\] 5 -1/=.7+6,.5
5 -./=5=01,.65
1>
2(21 1>
°

¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
£¥¦ ¥§¨
?<@ABC ?<@ABC KELCMBNO:PJ<C RCPSCJEAEC UV<CJ<@ABCSO:C XBNO:PJ<C ²°
DAE:AC <IJC MOIM<IA:EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV<: MOIM/CSO:C
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM:<A<H PTIO:<J WONV<: ²
22 "1414 " (
22 11" "#2#3 2&"4 "#2#3 ±°
11" #" "1% 13 "1%
#" " "1%&3 Y 0# Z> ±
" &" "1&&1 % "1&&1 °
&" % "1&12 41"4 "1&12
Z> Z>
Z> Z> ± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
Z> Z>
419
`QabcdeQGQeQ>fGa9gd>hb>727i>T=JKALF:>=KJ:>*
j
^8 k8 001l86

7(7
23445678
87
12286 78 ^m8
mm
n
8 ( 7 6
T=JKALF:>=KJ:>*>JKI@<LKE>F:<@LJ? TKAAK?LKE>I=JKALF:>IKE<:E<><=A:?=KJF? S:ARLI:>JLO:>;A:FLI<LKE?
_^8op'[j[ j5q p 3
767
86
7
2 '
8
m_ _87
6 2 4 n7
122
#8 '
76m j86 ^
8_78_ m8 m 8 122
!4
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7
2 ! VZ[0 86 86
\
67

7 7
1 !" VZ[0 ! !" ! !"
_8 "3 ! ! ! ! !
\8 ^7 u %8&'
#8 6#8 02 ! ! ! ! !
v ]86
uw 8! "$ ! ! ! ! !
TKR:A>F:;<=?>LE><=L?>O@I:
' ]86 _^8
uv "3 ! ! ! ! !
%8&'
#8 6#8 0" ! ! ! ! !
]_^8
[ ! 86(8_
%8&'
"3
7(
1
%8&'
"3
7(
1 uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy

8! "$ ! ! ! ! !
1 ! ! ! ! !
7(
#8 6#8 1$ ! ! ! ! !
#8! 86(8_ 02 10 0" 1$ v \8 86 ]_^8
6 88_ "$ "1 "$ "1 v m86
#8 _87 8! "1 ! ! ! ! !
XLIWs?>FLOOt?LKE>CKF:J>;@A@C:<:A? Ð¯ÑÒ¬Ó©¯Ô¯©¯ÕÔÑÖ×ÓØÒ°·°±¯ ÙÙ¡£
[
_8m (7 [
_8m
(7(7
l86 8r
8_ )* 1 + ,-,,,, 8. /70 °
¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
.^
. + !" +,-,12)3212) 4
878 £¥¦ ¥§¨

©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
^
8 27 ! +,-,12)5,12) 4
878
T=:IW>XL<Y 5 +6,-,,,,,371
5 +,-)63,25675
18
2&21 18 ²°
9:;<=> 9:;<=> G@H>I=JKALF:> N>LO>F@<@> QR:>F:;<=>OKA> T=JKALF:> ²

?<@A<> :EF> IKEI:E<A@<LKE> ;KLE<> SKJR:A IKEI->OKA>
BCCD BCCD BM>IKEIA:<:D LPEKA:F SKJR:A
±°
3 !1$00 0! !1$00
3 10! !"1U 2U!4 !"1U ±
10! "U! !"22 "! !"22
"U! !"$ 0"!1 !"$
U0 !1U$ 4 !1U$ °
U0 4 !"3 U3! !"3
V8 V8
V8 V8 ± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
V8 V8 Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
V8 V8
420
0123457895

o 4515

92257895
X55pq7485561589012345=,29
(Ze)5e()#(
71!"53
#$%$&7'5"53
()## *581+,'53
-( ./ #)e)%e()#(
0589'5
&0589 058941!'
&10589 Ka/GQMP`Q\.D_KF\_KQDEOGMJ/QGKdr
8823287"5
#$#)9 38,29!9'25145244
59 + ,' !1 5 " 2
8 2
<2
"8 27 s18'415<5157"52275
ghgkg YHe; "7"I
67
( 8873"8'5
98192873:25;<'57!1<
7 &7"=;273 0# 421235355"272292
ghggk YHe; "7"I
06>
#(5? 1274'5
61589 @A5182275;851;8
7 +,"=;273 0# &722827415423#
ghglg YHe; "7"I
8B5"12'27
7810!1@A5182275;8A5
>5A51 B0873 #C9?C9 &722827415423(
ghgkg YHe; "7"I
u.KvP\JK. MD..GO KOM`\a nK/.dM\ \tdM nK /.dM\
.D_LKP\JK. DHED FGFJK./LK./
99I H99I
MNODP/Q
RFFS cdcDPDEa/PK\a P\JK.DE P`Q\.D_K /JK./LK nK/d.Md./ME_ /JK./LK
0123458A51845
HY"7"155I HY"7"155I H99(e1I fK/F a/PKM`.Kd`\Q_ dMD..GO P\..\dD\E dM./E_
6<<2 6T121511!'
U VW XX X) H99I H99I H99I P\..\dD\E P\..\dD\E
#? (# -) 927 8A5 927 )=)?Y )=)-Y )=)?Y )=)-Y )=)?Y )=)-Y )=)?Y )=)-Y
235e T151U X) 8A51845 )=)(#X )=))X( )=$Z?( X# X( (5 1Z 1-
;50 6211!' -) 635A )=))?% )=)))( )=X??( # - ? ) -
0 9 T151U X) 927 )=)#XZ )=))X) )=XZZ# -$ X) (# ) ) ) ) ) )
0!20 6211!' -) 98, )=)(Z5 )=))XX #=?Z%$ X- X% -) 1Z 1) ) ) ) ) ) )
KdM^\P/MD\Ed c`Q\.D_KF\_KQO/./FKMK.d K/FP\JK.d dMDF/MK_.KF/DEDELQDaKRbgttS
MD..GO KOM`\a nK/.dM\/JKhnK/.dM\tdMnK/.dM\/JKh
[\QK] K/F ^\P/MD\E D_K ^KELM` \_KQaDM cd

.b

cD

P

u.

Kv
P\JK.

PK.DE P`Q\.D_K dMD..GO dM./E_ dM./E_
\J
HY"7"155I HY"7"155I H99(e1I H99I f.D_LKM`. Kd`\Q_
H99I H99I P\..\dD\E P\..\dD\E P\..\dD\E
927 8A5 8A5 )=)?Y )=)-Y )=)?Y )=)-Y )=)?Y )=)-Y )=)?Y )=)-Y
# bc <<2 92@ ghijik )=)#XZ )=))X# #=?Z%$ X- X5 (# 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<=
( b <<2 92@ ghiiij )=)(Z5 )=))X) )=XZZ# -$ X) (# 1Z 1) 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<=
- b <<2 92@ ghiilk )=)()$ )=))XX )=Z%$5 X( X% (# 15 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<=
X 7'1<225m K..\. X) X) -)
? 7'1<225m K..\. X) X) -)
5 7'1<225m K..\. X) X) -)
% 7'1<225m K..\. X) X) -)
421
VZfgVhIhICDhLIViCjLk?gIlCNB9OEPK;CBO9;C3
o
_8 28 011\86

7(7
23435678
87
2286 78 q86 6 1
NB9OEPK;CBO9;C3C9OQ8APOJCK;A8P9: NOEEO:POJCQB9OEPK;CQOJA;JACABE;:BO9K: D;EWPQ;C9PT;C@E;KPQAPOJ:
767
86
^_8 1s '' 'o a o5s 7 2 '
8
b^ ^87 '
76b o86 _
6 6 r7
22
$8 8^
8678^
b8 b 8 22
!"6
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 !" Yman 86
p
67

7 7 !# Yman !" !# !" !#
^8 0# ! ! ! ! !
p8 _7 Ó Õ %8&'
$8 6$8 01 ! ! ! ! !
×
¶È
¶Ð¸
q86
8! 0 ! ! ! ! !
NOW;ECK;@AB:CPJCABP:CT8Q;
' q86 ^_8 ÁÂÃÄÅÆÇ¶È·ÉÊËÌÍÎÉÏ ÑÑ
%8&'
$8 6$8
#3
00
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
q^_8
a ! 86(8^
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( ¶· ¸¹º»º¼½¿¾¹º
¿¹ºÀ
À
8! 0 ! ! ! ! !
0# 2" #3 2" 2" ! ! ! ! !
$8! 86(8^ 01 2 00 2 ÒØØØØØØØØØØ· p8 86 7(
$8 6$8 2 ! ! ! ! !
ÓØØØØØØØØØ· b86
$8 ^87 q^_8
6 88^ 0 # 0 # 8! # ! ! ! ! !
7PQcd:CKPTTe:POJCGOK;9C@8E8G;A;E: ) ¬®¯¯x°±¯x²±³́®¯xxyx|zµµ}
a
^8b (7 a
^8b
(7(7
\86 8]
8^ *+ , )-./.* 07 12 tutvt
`_
` , !# , )-)34553)+3 6
878 tutvwxyz{{z|}z~x}~}}}z~x
tutvtt {|z
¡¢£¤¥¦
_
8 27 ! 789:; , )-))43)<34< 6
878
7PACZ[
}~x{xz{
x{xz{
5 , 3-=/5.4*33/ >
5 , )-)=)*=**4< 2&2 > tutt
?;@ABC ?;@ABC L8MCNB9OEPK;C SCPTCK8A8C VW;C?;@ABCTOEC NB9OEPK;C tuttt
DA8EAC IJKC QOJQ;JAE8APOJC @OPJAC DO9W;E QOJQ-CTOEC
FGGH FGGH FRCQOJQE;A;H PUJOE;K DO9W;E
X!" !22X 0!" !22X tutt
X!" 23 !"33 2#!4" !"33
23 # !022 0!" !022 tuttt
# 04 !#X4 #X!" !#X4
04 12 !0# "0 !0# tuttt
12 41 !#3" 1X!" !#3"
41 X4 !04 X2!" !04
Y> Y> tutttt
Y> Y> t t t vt t t t t t t tt
Y> Y> §¨©ª ««¦
422
8[ij8k;k;D:kM;8lDmMn?j;oDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D*
p
`8 28 011a86

7(7
23435678
87
2286 78 ^86 6 1
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D*DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE :@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
767
86
]`81q'' 'pd p5q 7
2 '
8
h] ]87 '
76h p86 `
6 6 r7
22
$8 8]7
8]
h
8
h 8 22
!"6
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7
2 !" &Y 86
_
67

7 7
! # !" !# !" !#
]8 #3 ! ! ! ! !
_8 `7 ~ s %8&'
$8 6$8 0 ! ! ! ! !
t ^86
su 8! 0 ! ! ! ! !
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ ~st #3
%8&'
$8 6$8 00
! ! ! ! !
' ^86 ]`8 ^]`8 ! ! ! ! !
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( wx
yz{|vw} 8! 0 ! ! ! ! !
d ! 86(8] #3 24 #3 2" st uv w|vw} 2" ! ! ! ! !
$8! 86(8] 0 23 00 2 t _8 86 7
(
$8
6$8 2 ! ! ! ! !
^]`8
6 88] 0 # 0 # t h86
$8 ]87 8! # ! ! ! ! !
7ROefEDLRUUgERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE ÎÏÐªÑªÑÒªÓÑ§ÔÓÕÖÐÑ°××¡
d
]8h (7 d
]8h
(7(7
a86 8b
8] )* ®
+ ,-.../ 07 12 ¡¢¡
c`
c + !# + ,-,*/3)4)54 6
878 ¶·¹̧º»¼½¾¿¹ÀÁ½ÀÁ¾ÂÃ¾ÄÅ¾ÆÁÇ¾¿¹À¿º½Á½È ¡£¤£¥¦
`
8 27 ! 789:;
§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
+ ,-,,<,)).=< 6
878
7RBD[\
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
5 + ,-<//4,*4,4 > °®
5 + ,-,4=<55343 2&2 >
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 8W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D °
EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD :QPW@G OQKO-DUQGD
HIIJ HIIJ HSDOQKOG@B@J RVKQG@L :QPW@G
2 !2#21 " !2#21 ¯®
2 0 !03 24 !03
0 #Y!" !022 #2!" !022 ¯
#Y!" "#!" !#3" 01 !#3"
"#!" 14!" !0Y 1!" !0Y ®
14!" Y2!" !0 40!" !0
Z> Z>
Z> Z>
¯ ° ± ® ² ³ ´ µ ¯
Z> Z>
Z> Z> É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
423
8Zgh8i;i;C:iL;8jCkLl>h;mCWBOPFQK?CBPO?C)
`
^8 28 011n86

7(7
23435678
87
2286 78 \86 6 1
WBOPFQK?CBPO?C)COPNEAQPJCK?AEQOD WPFFPDQPJCNBOPFQK?CNPJA?JACABF?DBPOKD :?FVQN?COQT?C@F?KQNAQPJD
767
86
]^81_'' 'à `5_ 7
2 '
8
c] ]87 '
76c `86 ^
6 6 b7
22
$8 8]7
8]
c
8
c 8 22
!"6
6 2
78
7 86
865 6 8687 78
67 7
2 !" Ydae 86
f
67

7 7
!# &1 !" !# !" !#
]8 0 ! ! ! ! !
f8 ^7 t %8&'
$8 6$8 04 ! ! ! ! !
u \86
tv 8! 0 ! ! ! ! !
WPV?FCK?@ABDCQJCABQDCTEN?
' \86 ]^8
tu
%8&'
$8 6$8
#3
00
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
\]^8
a ! 86(8]
%8&'
0
7(
2"
%8&'
#3
7(
2"
tu vwxyxz{}|wx}wx~
~
8!

0
2"
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
$8! 86(8] 04 00 2 u f8 86 7(
$8 6$8 2 ! ! ! ! !
\]^8
6 88] 0 # 0 # u c86
$8 ]87 8! # ! ! ! ! !
7QNopDCKQTTqDQPJCHPK?OC@EFEH?A?FD ®ÏÐÑ®«Ò«ÒÓ«ÔÒ®¨ÕÔÖ×ÑÒ±×ØØ ¢
a
]8c (7 a
]8c
(7(7
n86 8r
8] )* ¯
+ ,-../) 07 12 ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
s^
s + !# + ,-,*,.3/453 6
878 ¢¤¥¤¦§
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥

^
8 27 ! 789:; + ,-,,55,4.)3 6
878 ·¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀºÁÂ¾ÁÂ¿ÃÄ¿ÅÆ¿ÇÂÈ¿ÀºÁÀ»¾Â¾É
7QACZ[ 5 + ,-4<.//3)</ =
5 + ,-,*<4.,).3 2&2 =
>?@ABC >?@ABC LEMCNBOPFQK?C SCQTCKEAEC 8V?CK?@ABCTPFC WBOPFQK?C
±¯
±
DAEFAC ?JKC NPJN?JAFEAQPJC @PQJAC :POV?F NPJN-CTPFC
GHHI GHHI GRCNPJNF?A?I QUJPF?K :POV?F
22 !21 "!" !21 °¯
22 #!" !041 24!" !041
#!" #1 !04 3!4" !04 °
#1 "!" !0"1 00!" !0"1
"!" 14!" !02# 1 !02# ¯
14!" X4 !0# 44!" !0#
Y= Y=
Y= Y=
° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
Y= Y=
Y= Y= Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
424
0123457895

uvw 4515

h2357895
;&8x<83"58"51!155]012345:.39
*'f+=f*+%*
!7"1#$"53
%&'%(7)5$"53
*+%+ ,581-.)53
*& /01 %+f+[f*+%*
0589")5
3#2354335$15#72" 058941#)
6#2357335!152589 Mc0ISORbS_/FaMH_aMSFGQIOL0SIMey
!8"8332"87$5
*'89 98.29#9)25145244"
8:;9 - .) #1 5 $ 3
8 2
@2
$8"27 z18 )4 15@5157$53275
kjk k \Jf5"$7$K
<7
= >873$8)5
#183?255@)57#1@
5 (7$:5273 0* !43123535"5$"273292"
kjkk \Jf5"$7$K
0<A
;8'B !1274")5
<"1589 CD518327558"5158
5 -.$:5273 0* (72"28"27"415433%
kjkqk \Jf5"$7$K
!8"65$12)"27
<#1@058$4CD518327558D5
A5D51 !62873%+%9"B++9 (72"28"27"415433*
kjk k \Jf5"$7$K
o/MsR_LM/ OF//IQ MQOb_c tM0/eO_ _ieO tM 0/eO_
/FaNMR_LM/ EFJGF HIHLM/0NM/01
99K J99K
OPQFR0S
THHU eFRFGc0RM_c R_LM/FG RbS_/FaM 0LM/0NM tM0e/Oe/0OGa 0LM/0NM
0123458D51845
J\$7$15"5K J\$7$15"5K J99*f1K gM0H c0RMOb/Meb_Sa eOF//IQ R_//_eF_G eO/0Ga
<@@2" <V"12151W#)
X YZ ;= ;+ J99K J99K J99K R_//_eF_G R_//_eF_G
%[ *& 8+ 927 8D5 927 +:+B\ +:+8\ +:+B\ +:+8\ +:+B\ +:+8\ +:+B\ +:+8\
235f V15WX ;+ 8D51845 +:+8=[ +:+%88 %=:=8*8 ;% ;8 *& %[ %& BB [;* %'+ %] %'; *]
552 <"211#) 8+ <"35D +:+*B8 +:++8' %[:+B[; * 8 % + %B + [;& + %] + *]
0""9 V15WX ;+ 927 +:+%B& +:++&; 8:;*'+ 8& ;+ *& %[ ; BB %] %'+ *; %'; *B
2#32 <"211#) 8+ 98. +:+[&+ +:+%'B ;B:;88B ;B ;[ 8+ %[ 88 BB %] %'+ 8] %'; ;]
MeO _R0OF_Ge bS_/FaMH_aMSQ0/0HMOM/e M0HR_LM/e eOFH0OMa/MH0FGFGNSFcMTdkikU
OF//IQ MQOb_c tM0/eO_0LMjtM0/eO_ieOtM0/eO_0LMj
^_SM` M0H _R0OF_G FaM MGNOb E_aMScFO e

F

/d

R

o/

Ms
R_LM/

RM/FG RbS_/FaM eOF//IQ eO/0Ga eO/0Ga
_L
J\$7$15"5K J\$7$15"5K J99*f1K J99K g/FaNMOb/ Meb_Sa
J99K J99K R_//_eF_G R_//_eF_G R_//_eF_G
927 8D5 8D5 +:+B\ +:+8\ +:+B\ +:+8\ +:+B\ +:+8\ +:+B\ +:+8\
% d <@@2" 7581923)87 h2"C ijkkkk +:+[&+ +:+%B8 %8:*%%; ;B ;B *& %[ 88 BB W[ %'+ *; %'; *B
* i <Chh(X A-l9(6<VlA !45$]h2"m kjidn +:+%B& +:+%++ ;B:;88B 8& ;= *& 27@: 27@: 27@: 27@: 27@: 27@:
8 d <Chh(X A-l9(6<VlA h2"C ijkkkk +:+888 +:+%'B 8:;*'+ 8& ;; *& ; 27@: %] 27@: 8] 27@: ;]
; do <Chh(X A-l9(6<VlA h2"C kjpqk +:+%'' +:++&; ;:;B=* ;; ;[ *& 27@: 27@: 27@: 27@: 27@: 27@:
B 7)1@235r M//_/ ;+ ;+ 8+
= 7)1@235r M//_/ ;+ ;+ 8+
[ 7)1@235r M//_/ ;+ ;+ 8+
425
DWn9oW9ILCNLIIhCpLq?rIsCNBOP:QK<CBPO<C.
a
c8 28 012e86
!
7)7
31435678
87
386 78 [
)\]8
]]
^
8 ) 7 6
NBOP:QK<CBPO<C.COPREAQPJCK<AEQOd NP::PdQPJCRBOP:QK<CRPJA<JACAB:<dBPOKd D<:XQR<COQU<C@:<KQRAQPJd
767
86
[c8 _(` (a !a2 a5b !7 3 (
8
][ [87 (
76] a86 c
6 8 ^7
3 !
$8 8[
8678[
]8 ] 8 3
"#8
6 3
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 3 "# 3 86
_
67

7 !7 "2 22 "# "2 "# "2
[8 0# 1 #2 34 0 31
_8 c7 86 [6 Õ × &8'(
$8 6$8 0# 32 #0 340 # 310
Ô¹ ÓÖÃÄÅØÆÇÈÉ
Ù
¸Ê
¸Òº
\86
8" 0 3%# 0 32% 32 30%
NPX<:CK<@ABdCQJCABQdCUER<
( \86 [c8 ÃÄÅÆÇÈÉ¸Ê¹ËÌÍÎÏÐËÑ ÓÓ
&8'(
$8 6$8
21
0%
3#
3%
0
##
34
34
33
%
324
31
\[c8
k " 86)8[
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) ¸¹ º»¼½¼¾¿ÁÀ»¼
Á»¼Â
Â
8" 0 3%# 0 32% 32 30%
0# 3 21 3 3 2 4 3 '3 33
$8" 86)8[ 0# 22 0% 1 ÔÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ¹ _8 86 7)
$8 6$8 1 40 ## ' %#
ÕÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ¹ !]86
$8 [87 \[c8
6 88[ 0 2 0 2 8" 2 12 0 %0 '# 0
fQRlmdCKQUU;dQPJCGPK<OC@E:EG<A<:d * ¬®¯°xy°¯¯±x²°³́µ¯xxx|z¶¶}x~{x·}|~
k
[8] )7 k
[8]
)7)7
e86 8i
8[ +, - ./**** 07 12 tuttt
jc
j - "2 ! - */*34,53674 8
878 tuttt
¡¢£¤¥¦
c
8 37 " 9:;< ! - */*.=+,,+4. 8
878
fQACgh
}~x{xz{
x{xz{
5 - .7/+..74.=, > tuttt
5 - */6.4,7*.5+ 3'3 > tuttt
?<@ABC ?<@ABC LEMCNBOP:QK<C TCQUCKEAEC WX<C?<@ABCUP:C NBOP:QK<C
DAE:AC IJKC RPJR<JA:EAQPJC @PQJAC DPOX<: RPJR/CUP:C tuttt
FGGH FGGH FSCRPJR:<A<H QVJP:<K DPOX<:
3 "1 # ' tuttt tutvwxyz{{z|}z~x}~}}}z~x
3 # "4# Y 3"# Z>
tutvtt {|z
# 0 "1 22"# "1
0 %3 "312 #3"# "312 tuttt
%3 # "3% %4 "3%
Z> Z> tuttt
Z> Z>
Z> Z> tutttt
Z> Z> t t t vt t t t t t t tt
Z> Z> §¨©ª ««¦
426
<:;^_:^=OFZO==`FaObAc=dFZERSITNBFESRBF+
e
f8 8 012g86
"
7*7
31435678
87
386 78 ]
*hi8
ii
j
8 * 7 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF+FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG <BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
767
86
]f8!k)l!)e "e e5m "7 3 )
8
i] ]87 )
76i e86 f
6 3 8 j7
3 "
%8 8]7
8]
i
8
i 8 3
#$8
6 3
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 3 #$ \no4 86
k
67

7 "7 #2 \no4 #$ #2 #$ #2
]8
k8 f7!e o5'! u '8()
%8 6%8
v h86
uw 8# 0 # # # # #
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB uv 21 #
'8()
%8 6%8 0& #
# # # #
) h86 ]f8 h]f8 # # # #
'8() 7* '8() 7* yz
{|}~xy 8# 0 # # # # #
o # 86*8] 21 3 uv wx y~xy 3 # # # # #
!%8# 86*8] 0& 1 v k8 86 7
*
%8
6%8 1 # # # # #
h]f8
6 88] 0 2 0 2 v "i86
%8 ]87 8# 2 # # # # #
9TQqrGFNTWWsGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG Ð¯Ñ¬Ò¯¬ÓÔÔÓÓÕÖÔ×ØÙÓ²¯ ÚÚ¡£¢¦¤Û¡¨ ª¤¢
o
]8i *7 o
]8i
*7*7
g86 8p
8] +, °
- ./,0+1"82 374 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
2f
2 - #2 " - ./.056,0,77 8
878 ¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁ»ÂÃ¿ÂÃÀÄÅÀÆÇÀÈÃÉÀÁ»ÂÁ¼¿Ã¿Ê £¥¦ ¥§¨
f
8 37 # 9:;<=
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
" - ./.0..+5060 8
878
ZEBQqF9TDt
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
5 - >5/>77>5.6 ? ²°
5 - 0/>>.165+@> 3(3 ?
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF :YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ²
4 #3$4 0 #3$4 ±°
4 2 #321 3$#$ #321
2 24 #32 2#$ #32 ±
24 $ #3 0#$ #3
$1 2 #30 [ && \?! °
\?! \?!
\?! \?!
\?! \?!
± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
\?! \?!
\?! \?! Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
427
YWi:jW:kMEZMkklEmMnAokpEZDPQ;RL=EDQP=E5
h
e8 48 012c86
"
7+7
31435678
87
386 78 a
+fb8
bb
q
8 + 7 6
ZDPQ;RL=EDQP=E5EPQOGCRQKEL=CGRPF ZQ;;QFRQKEODPQ;RL=EOQKC=KCECD;=FDQPLF Y=;XRO=EPRU=EB;=LROCRQKF
767
86
ae8!g*r!*h "h4 h5 "7 3 *
8
ba a87 *
76b h86 e
6 9 q7
3 "
&8 8a7
8a
b
8
b 8 3
#$9
6 3
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 3 #$ \s`t 86
g
67

7 "7 #2 0 #$ #2 #$ #2
a8 21 # 2% # 2% #
g8 e7!h `5(! v (8)*
&8 6&8 00 # 0% # 0% #
w f86
vx 8# 0 # 2% # 2% #
ZQX=;EL=BCDFERKECDRFEUGO=
* f86 ae8
vw
(8)*
&8 6&8
21
0'
#
#
2%
0%
#
#
2% #
0% #
fae8
` # 86+8a
(8)*
21
7+
'
(8)*
21
7+
3
vw xyz{z|}~yzyz

8#

0
3
#
#
2%
$24
#
#
2% #
$1 #
!&8# 86+8a 00 4 0' 1 w g8 86 7+
&8 6&8 1 # % # 3% #
fae8
6 88a 0 2 0 2 w "b86
&8 a87 8# 2 # % # % #
]RO^_FELRUU<FRQKEIQL=PEBG;GI=C=;F Ñ°ÒÓ°ÔÕÕÔÔÖ×ÕØÙÚÔ³Ú¡ÛÛ¢¤ÜÔ°ÕªØÙÑÝ°Ü
`
a8b +7 `
a8b
+7+7
c86 8d
8a ,- ±
. /0111127 34 ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
%e
% . #2 " . 10155,67168 9
878 ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§

e
8 37 # :;<= " . 101/>7-86/7 9
]RCEul 5 . 507,>1/7//, ?
5 . 10/1>@1/8/7 3)3 ?
A=BCDE A=BCDE MGNEODPQ;RL=E TERUELGCGE WX=EL=BCDEUQ;E ZDPQ;RL=E
³±
³
FCG;CE =KLE OQKO=KC;GCRQKE BQRKCE YQPX=; OQKO0EUQ;E
HIIJ HIIJ HSEOQKO;=C=J RVKQ;=L YQPX=;
3 #1 ' ) ²±
3 4 #4 #4
4 04 #34' 24 #34' ²
04 $1 #34$ $2#$ #34$
' '0 # [ '2 \?! ±
\?! \?!
\?! \?!
\?! \?!
² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
\?! \?!
\?! \?! ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
428
VTfghTgiKDWKiijDkKl@minDWC9NEOJ;DCN9;D=
e
`8 38 012a86
"
7)7
31435678
87
386 78 ]
)_^8
^^
o
8 ) 7 6
WC9NEOJ;DCN9;D=D9NM8BONIDJ;B8O9: WNEEN:ONIDMC9NEOJ;DMNIB;IBDBCE;:CN9J: V;EUOM;D9OR;DAE;JOMBONI:
767
86
]`8!d(p!(e "e3 e5q "7 3 (
8
^] ]87 (
76^ e86 `
6 6 o7
3 "
%8 8]7
8]
^
8
^ 8 3
#$6
6 3
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 3 #$ Xr\s 86
d
67

7 "7 #2 Xr\s #$ #2 #$ #2
]8 00 # # # # #
d8 `7!e \5 !
u 8'(
%8 6%8 0 # # # # #
v _86
uw 8# 0 # # # # #
WNU;EDJ;ABC:DOIDBCO:DR8M; uv 21 # # # # #
( _86 ]`8 8'(
%8 6%8 0& # # # # #
_]`8
\ # 86)8]
8'(
00
7)

8'(
21
7)
3 uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy

8# 0
3
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
7)
%8 6%8 1
!%8# 86)8] 0 & 0& 1 v d8 86 _]`8 # # # # #
6 88] 0 2 0 2 v "^86
%8 ]87 8# 2 # # # # #
7OMYZ:DJORR[:ONIDGNJ;9DA8E8G;B;E: Ð¯Ñ¬Ò¯¬ÓÔÔÓÓÕÖÔ×ØÙÓ²Ú ÛÛ¡£ÜÓ¯Ô©×ØÐÚ¯Ü
\
]8^ )7 \
]8^
)7)7
a86 8b
8] *+ °
, -.+/0- 17 23 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
c`
c , #2 " , -.-4/5/44-5 6
878 £¥¦ ¥§¨
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
`
8 37 # 789:; " , -.--+<5--/* 6
878
7OBDtj 5 , =.=0>40/-5> ?
5 , -.4=4<-</=> 3'3 ?
@;ABCD @;ABCD K8LDMC9NEOJ;D QDORDJ8B8D TU;DJ;ABCDRNED WC9NEOJ;D
²°
²
:B8EBD ;IJD MNIM;IBE8BONID ANOIBD VN9U;E MNIM.DRNED
FGGH FGGH FPDMNIME;B;H OSINE;J VN9U;E
3 #3&$ $ #3&$ ±°
3 $ #331 3#$ #331
$ 02 #11 20 #11 ±
02 & #44 $#$ #44
& 4 #14 #14 °
X?! X?!
X?! X?!
X?! X?!
± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
X?! X?!
X?! X?! Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
429
0123457895

v 4515
!
=2657895
['Gwx3487p:#1589012345A/69
+(i,Ci+,&+
"7#1$%#53
&'(&)7*5%#53
+,&, -581./*53
+' 012 &,i,î+,&+
0589#*5
34589 058941$*
354589 Oe1KUQTdU`0HcOJ`cOUHISKQN1UKOhz
"8#8632#87%5
+7,9 88/29$9*25195249#
,9 . /* $1 5 % 6
8 2
@2
%8#27 {18 *9 15@5157%56275
onoyo \Li?#%7%M
:;
&: <873%8*5
=8196873>25?@*57$1@
5 )7%A?273 0+ "96123535#5%#276292#
onooy \Li?#%7%M
0:B
&,C+ "1274#*5
:#1589 DE5186275?8#51?8
5 ./%A?273 0+ )72#28#27#915963&
ono!o \Li?#%7%M
"8#F5%12*#27
:$1@058%9DE5186275?8E5
B5E51 "F4873&,&9#G,,9 )72#28#27#915963+
onoyo \Li?#%7%M
s0OtT`NO0 QH00KS OSQdè uO10hQ` `khQ uO 10hQ`
0HcPOT`NO0 HLIH JKJNO01PO012
99M L99M
QRSHT1U
VJJW ghgH THIe1TOè T`NO0HI TdU`0HcO 1NO01PO uO1h0Qh01QIc 1NO01PO
0123458E51845
L\%7%15#5M L\%7%15#5M L99+i1M jO1J e1TOQd0OhdÙc hQH00KS T`00`hHÌ hQ01Ic
:@@2# :X#121515$*
Y ZZ G, [, L99M L99M L99M T`00`hHÌ T`00`hHÌ
+G 77 7, 927 8E5 927 ,A,G\ ,A,7\ ,A,G\ ,A,7\ ,A,G\ ,A,7\ ,A,G\ ,A,7\
235i X155Y Z] C& [, 8E51845 ,A,&G, ,A,,,+ &^+A(7CC [7 [^ 7& 5''
?54 :#211$* 7, :#35E ,A,,[( ,A,,,+ +7(A7&'& 7 ^ + ,
0##9 X155Y [, 927 ,A,,'7 ,A,,,& 7A(7,( [, [, 7, , , , , , ,
4$64 :#211$* 7, 98/ ,A,+&, ,A,,,G G,'A(^,7 [C C& 77 5'' , , , , , ,
OhQb`T1QHÌh gdU`0HcOJ`cOUS101JOQO0h O1JT`NO0h hQHJ1QOc0OJ1HIHIPUHeOVfokoW
QH00KS OSQdè uO10hQ`1NOnuO10hQ`khQuO10hQ`1NOn
_ÙOa O1J b`T1QHÌ HcO bOIPQd `cOUeHQ gh

0f
gH

T

s0

Ot
T`NO0

TO0HI TdU`0HcO hQH00KS hQ01Ic hQ01Ic
`N
L\%7%15#5M L\%7%15#5M L99+i1M L99M j0HcPOQd0 OhdÙc
L99M L99M T`00`hHÌ T`00`hHÌ T`00`hHÌ
927 8E5 8E5 ,A,G\ ,A,7\ ,A,G\ ,A,7\ ,A,G\ ,A,7\ ,A,G\ ,A,7\
& k :@@2# 7581923*87 7*1@265l O00`0 [G G& 77
+ k 235 .m:Y 7581923*87 =2#D knoooo ,A,&[C ,A,,,& 7A(7,( [G C& 7, 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A
7 k :D==)Y 7581923*87 "95%p=2#q onr2 2 ,A,+&, ,A,,,G G,'A(^,7 [C [^ 77 5'' 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A
[ k_ :D==)Y 7581923*87 =2#D knoooo ,A,,'7 ,A,,,, [A(,(' [[ G& 77 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A
G 7*1@265l O00`0 [, [, 7,
C 7*1@265l O00`0 [, [, 7,
^ 7*1@265l O00`0 [, [, 7,
430
hii8jMkl<=mDAMn<jDo8pAq<F;5/.GC-<;/5-<_
Y
\8 P8 012`86
!
7(7
31435678
87
386 78 T U86 6
F;5/.GC-<;/5-<_<5/H4:G/B<C-:4G56 F/../6G/B<H;5/.GC-<H/B:-B:<:;.-6;/5C6 =-.NGH-<5GK-<9.-CGH:G/B6
767
86
[\8WXX5 P 'Y Z Y5Q !7 3 '
8
0[ [87 '
760 Y86 \
6 3 2 a7
3 !
$8 8[
8678[
08 0 8 3
"22
6 3
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 3 "2 S] VT^ 86
V
67

7 !7 "# S] VT^ "2 "# "2 "#
[8 02
V8 \7 86 [6 Ô Ö %8&'
$8 6$8 23
Ó¸ ÒÕÂÃÄ×ÅÆÇÈ
Ø
·É
·Ñ¹
U86
8" 0
F/N-.<C-9:;6<GB<:;G6<K4H-
' U86 [\8 ÂÃÄÅÆÇÈ·É¸ÊËÌÍÎÏÊÐ ÒÒ
%8&'
$8 6$8
00
2
U[\8
Z " 86(8[
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( ·¸ ¹º»¼»½¾À¿º»
Àº»Á
Á
8" 0
02 2 00 2 2
$8" 86(8[ 23 2 ## ÓÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ¸ V8 86 7(
$8 6$8 ##
ÔÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙ¸ !086
$8 [87 U[\8
6 88[ 0 # 0 # 8" #
3GHef6<CGKKg6G/B<?/C-5<94.4?-:-.6 ) ª««¬®¯v°±²v±³¬´²vvvzxµµ{}v|~yv¶{z~|
Z
[80 (7 Z
[80
(7(7
`86 8c
8[ *+ , -../.

081 rsrtr
d\
d , "# ! , 2
878 rsrtuvwxyyxz{x|v{|{}{~}{x|v
rsrtrr }yzx
¡¢£¤
\
8 37 " 3456- ! , 2
878
B/<9./KG5-b
{|vyvxy
vyvxy
5 , 7
5 , 3&3 7 rsrr
8-9:;< 8-9:;< D4E<F;5/.GC-< J<GK<C4:4< MN-<8-9:;<K/.< F;5/.GC-< rsrrr
=:4.:< ABC< H/BH-B:.4:G/B< 9/GB:< =/5N-. H/BHO<K/.<
>??@ >??@ >I<H/BH.-:-@ GLB/.-C =/5N-.
3 PQ R S7 rsrr
3 4 PQ S7 S7
4 0# PQ S7 S7 rsrrr
0# 24 S7 S7
24 2 S7 S7 rsrrr
S7 S7
S7 S7
S7 S7 rsrrrr
S7 S7 r r r tr r r r r r r rr
S7 S7 ¥¦§¨©©¤
431
^__A`8abF:cO;8dFÒeAf;gFZERSITNBFESRBF*
h
i8 28 012j86
!
7)7
31435678
87
386 78 k l86 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF*FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG :BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
767
86
]i8m115 2 (h n h5[ !7 3 (
8
p] ]87 (
76p h86 i
6 3 6 o7
3 !
$8 8]7
8]
p
8
p 8 3
"26
6 3
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 3 "2 \knq 86
r
67
]8@ o8l !7 "# \knq "2 "# "2 "#
]8 ( 02 " " " " "
r8 i7 86 ]6 x &8'(
$8 6$8 %3 " " " " "
y l86
xz 8" 0 " " " " "
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB xy 02
&8'(
$8 6$8 %3
" " " " "
( l86 ]i8 l]i8 " " " " "
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) |}
~{| 8" 0 " " " " "
n " 86)8] 02 02 xy z{ |{|
$8" 86)8] %3 %3 y r8 86 7
)
$8
6$8
l]i8
6 88] 0 # 0 # y !p86
$8 ]87 8" # " " " " "
7TQuvGFNTWWwGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÓÔÔÕÖ²×ØÙ¯ÚÛ²¬ÖÚÜÕÝÛ´²£¡ÞÞ¤¦¥©§¢ß¤«£§¥
n
]8p )7 n
]8p
)7)7
j86 8s
8] *+ ³
, -.//// 07 12 ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
ti
t , "# ! , /./-345+--3 6
878 »¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄ¾ÅÆÂÅÆÃÇÈÃÉÊÃËÆÌÃÄ¾ÅÄ¿ÂÆÂÍ ¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
i
8 37 " 789:;
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
! , <.--/=-;>/4 6
878
7TDF_b
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
5 , ?.=?/=--<55 @ µ³
5 , /.-*-353*3- 3'3 @
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF 8YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF µ
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF :SRYBI QSMQ.FWSIF
33 "30 2"2 "30 ´³
33 2[ 31 "#
0# 2[ \@ \@ ´
0# 24 \@ \@
24 2 \@ \@ ³
\@ \@
\@ \@
\@ \@
´ µ ¶ ³ · ¸ ¹ º ´
\@ \@
\@ \@ ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
432
fgg?h7ijD9kM:7lDhMm?n:oDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D<
p
c8 q8 012a86
!
7)7
31435678
87
386 78 r d86 6
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D<DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE 9@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
767
86
_c8stt5 q (p ^ p5u !7 3 (
8
`_ _87 (
76` p86 c
6 3 5 v7
3 !
%8 8_7
8_
`
8
` 8 3
"25
6 3
78
7 86
865 6 8687 78
67 !7 3 "2 Zr^3 86
e
67

7 !7 "# '11 "2 "# "2 "#
_8 0$ " " " " "
e8 c7 86 _6 x &8'(
%8 6%8 0 " " " " "
y d86
xz 8" 0 " " " " "
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@
( d86 _c8
xy
&8'(
%8 6%8
00
2
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
d_c8
^ " 86)8_
&8'(
0$
7)
#2
&8'(
00
7)
2
xy z{|}|~{|{|

8"

0
2
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
%8" 86)8_ 0 03 2 ## y e8 86 7)
%8 6%8 ## " " " " "
d_c8
6 88_ 0 # 0 # y !8̀6
%8 _87 8" # " " " " "
6RO[\EDLRUU]ERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE ÓÔÔÕÖ²×ØÙ¯ÚÛ²¬ÖÚÜÕÝÛ´Õ£¡ÞÞ¤¦¥©§¢ß¤«£§¥
^
_8` )7 ^
_8`
)7)7
a86 8b
8_ *+ ³
, -./0+0 !81 273 ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
1c
1 , "# ! , -.-*4-*/0-4 5
878 ¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢

c
8 37 " 6789: ! , -.---;-</-/ 5
878 »¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄ¾ÅÆÂÅÆÃÇÈÃÉÊÃËÆÌÃÄ¾ÅÄ¿ÂÆÂÍ
XC@O[D6RBw 5 , ;-+./0-*;* =
5 , 4>.4>0/0+>< 3'3 =
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 7W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D
µ³
µ
EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD 9QPW@G OQKO.DUQGD
3 "31 2 "31 ´³
3 $ "31$ 34 "31$
$ 0 "31 #0 "31 ´
0 $ "2 Y 23 Z=
$ $ "303 $4 "303 ³
Z= Z=
Z= Z=
Z= Z=
´ µ ¶ ³ · ¸ ¹ º ´
Z= Z=
Z= Z= ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
433
eff>gRhiBTjIkRlBgIm>nkoBUA8LCMH:BAL8:B4
p
`8 28 012a86
"
7)7
31435678
87
386 78 q _86 6
UA8LCMH:BAL8:B4B8LK7@MLGBH:@7M89 ULCCL9MLGBKA8LCMH:BKLG@:G@B@AC:9AL8H9 T:CSMK:B8MP:B?C:HMK@MLG9
767
86
]`8r115!2 (p!\ p5V "7 3 (
8
^] ]87 (
76^ p86 `
6 3 5 s7
3 "
%8 8]7
8]
^
8
^ 8 3
#25
6 3
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 3 #2 Xq\t 86
d
67

7 "7 #$ Xq\t #2 #$ #2 #$
]8 00 # # # # #
d8 `7 86 ]6
u &8'(
%8 6%8 23 # # # # #
v _86
uw 8# 0 # # # # #
ULS:CBH:?@A9BMGB@AM9BP7K: uv 00 # # # # #
( _86 ]`8 &8'(
%8 6%8 2 # # # # #
_]`8
\ # 86)8]
&8'(
00
7)
$
&8'(
00
7)
2 uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy

8# 0
2
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
7)
%8 6%8 $$
!%8# 86)8] 23 $$ 2 $$ v d8 86 _]`8 # # # # #
6 88] 0 $ 0 $ v "^86
%8 ]87 8# $ # # # # #
6MKYZ9BHMPP[9MLGBELH:8B?7C7E:@:C9 ÐÑÑÒÓ¯ÔÕÖ¬×Ø¯©Ó×ÙÒÚØ±Û ÜÜ¡£¢¦¤Ý¡¨ ª¤¢
\
]8^ )7 \
]8^
)7)7
a86 8b
8] *+ °
, -.//// 07 12 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
c`
c , #$ " , /.//+*3434 5
878 £¥¦ ¥§¨
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
`
8 37 # 6789: " , / 5
878
6M@Bfi 5 , 4.3/333;3+ <
5 , /.-;*433==- 3'3 <
>:?@AB >:?@AB I7JBKA8LCMH:B OBMPBH7@7B RS:BH:?@ABPLCB UA8LCMH:B
²°
²
9@7C@B :GHB KLGK:G@C7@MLGB ?LMG@B TL8S:C KLGK.BPLCB
DEEF DEEF DNBKLGKC:@:F MQGLC:H TL8S:C
3 #3 2 #3 ±°
3 $ 2V 3W#2 #$
$ $ 2V X<! X<! ±
$ 2 X<! X<!
2 W4 X<! X<! °
X<! X<!
X<! X<!
X<! X<!
± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
X<! X<!
X<! X<! Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
434
0123457895

wxy 4515

k2357895
5('z82&8182B519+39
'$h(4h'("'
71!53
"#$"%7&5!53
'("" )581*+&53
,( -./ "(h(Ah'("'
0589&5
01589 058941 &
021589 Ne.JTPSdT_-GcNI_cNTGHRJPM.TJNg|
8833287!5
4'5(9 68+29 9&25175247
8949 * +& 15 ! 3
8 2
?2
!827 }18 &7 15?5157!53275
l{ [Kh>!7!L
:;
"4 <873!8&5
183=25>?&57 1?
7 %7!9>273 0" 731235355!273292
l{ [Kh>!7!L
0:@
8A( 1274&5
2B51CB5183275>851>8
5 *+!9>273 0" %722827715733"
l [Kh>!7!L
8D5!12&27
;811 1CB5183275>8B5
@5B51 D18735E9"(E9 %722827715733'
l{ [Kh>!7!L
-NtuS_MN- bPG--JR NRPd_e vN.-gP_ _ngP vN .-gP_
-GcONS_MN- FGKHG IJIMN-.ON-./
99L K99L
PQRGS.T
UIIV fgfGSGHe.SN_e S_MN-GH SdT_-GcN .MN-.ON vN.g-Pg-.PHc .MN-.ON
0123458B51845
K[!7!155L K[!7!155L K99'h1L iN.I e.SNPd-Ngd_Tc gPG--JR S_--_gG_H gP-.Hc
:??2 :W121512X& YZ 8( 8( K99L K99L K99L S_--_gG_H S_--_gG_H
,, ,8 ,( 927 8B5 927 (9(5[ (9(,[ (9(5[ (9(,[ (9(5[ (9(,[ (9(5[ (9(,[
235h W152X \] 84 8( 8B51845 (9(4"5 (9("$4 A9"$$, 8" 8" ,4 $ # ,E 8$8 ,E 4(A 8E 4A5
>51 :211& ,A 8, ,( :35B (9('## (9(("" 59#'"A , ' 5 8 "# 8E $8# 5E "E 4E "E
09 W152X 8( 927 (9('5, (9("A4 '9"8'A ,$ ,# ,( ' 5 ',, ,( ,A5 8, ,A$ 85
1 31 :211& ,( 98+ (9""A' (9('(A '(9("5, 8$ 84 8, "' '8 "(E 'E "'E ,E ",E ,E
uNgPa_S.PG_Hg fdT_-GcNI_cNTR.-.INPN-g N.IS_MN-g gPGI.PNc-NI.GHGHOTGeNUnnV
bPG--JR NRPd_e vN.-gP_.MNlvN.-gP_ngPvN.-gP_.MNl
^_TN` N.I a_S.PG_H bGcN aNHOPd F_cNTeGP fg

-

fG

S

-

Ntu
S_MN-

SN-GH SdT_-GcN gPG--JR gP-.Hc gP-.Hc
_M
K[!7!155L K[!7!155L K99'h1L K99L i-GcONPd- Ngd_Tc
K99L K99L S_--_gG_H S_--_gG_H S_--_gG_H
927 8B5 8B5 (9(5[ (9(,[ (9(5[ (9(,[ (9(5[ (9(,[ (9(5[ (9(,[
" j :??2 k2C lmm/ (9""A' (9('(A '9"8'A 8, 8, ,8 "' "# ',, A" ,A$ "'4 ,A$ "'4
' n :??2 k2C lmmop (9(A(8 (9("AA 49#5$5 ,$ ,# ,8 "( '8 ,(, ,( ,A5 8, ,$5 85
, nq :??2 k2C nl (9(4#, (9("$( 89A5$" ,$ 8( ,8 $ '( 8#( 5$ 4(' AA 4A4 #(
8 nq 235 r*:X k2C lm/np (9('5, (9("A4 '(9("5, 8( 84 8, 2,( 27?9 27?9 27?9 27?9 27?9 27?9
5 j 235 58 k2C lmpm/ (9(,8( (9("$4 ,9$""8 8$ 8( 8, 5 27?9 'E 27?9 ,E 27?9 ,E
4 n :Ckk%X k2C nl (9(5'$ (9("#' 5988,# ,$ 8( ,8 ' "$ "(E $" "'E "(5 ",E ""5
A 7&1?235s N--_- 8( 8( ,(
435
hWnoWLWCLnpILCqLn?rIsCNBOP9QK;CBPO;C4
]a9
39 012d97

!8)8 34536789

98 213397
89 Z
[97 7
NBOP9QK;CBPO;C4COPREAQPJCK;AEQOc NP99PcQPJCRBOP9QK;CRPJA;JACAB9;cBPOKc D;9XQR;COQU;C@9;KQRAQPJc
878
97
à93 & ]
] ^]
] 6_ !8
3
(

9b̀
`98

(87b
]97a
7 7
e8
2133
!%9
9`
9789`
b9
b

9
2133
1"107
7
3

898
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 1"101 32 97
\788 !8
2 1"1#1 34 1"10 1"1# 1"10 1"1#
`9 # 15 30$ #5 32$ 2#54
\9a8 Ó Õ &9'(
%9

7%9 # 15 30$ #5 32$ 2#54
×
¶È
¶Ð¸
[97
9" 1 #0# 3#0 #2# 310 2##
NPX;9CK;@ABcCQJCABQcCUER;
(
[97
à9
ÁÂÃÄÅÆÇ¶È·ÉÊËÌÍÎÉÏ ÑÑ
&9'(
%9

7%9
#5
1
#34
#0$
322
3#$
254
#2$
42
31$
2#11
2##
[à9
k"
97)9`
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) ¶· ¸¹º»º¼½¿¾¹º
¿¹ºÀ
À
9" 1 #0# 3#0 #2# 310 2##
# #0 #5 ## ## 21 42 231 $2 2223
%9"
97)9` # #$ 1 # ÒØØØØØØØØØØ· \9
97 8)
%9

7%9 # 2$# 313 2## 3 22
ÓØØØØØØØØØ· !b97
%9
`98
[à9
7
99` 1 #1 1 #1 9" #1 344 $ 3$4 $ 2351
fQRlmcCKQUU:cQPJCGPK;OC@E9EG;A;9c * ¬®¯x̄°±¯x²¯³´±xxx|zµµ}
k`9b
)8 k`9b
)8)8
d97
9i9` +*
2
, *-../018
23 tutt
ja

j
, 1"11# !
, *-44/40564/ 7
989
tutt
¡¢£¤¥¦
a9
38
" 89:; !
, *-*6*5/<<44 7
989
fQACgh
}~x{xz{
x{xz{
6
, 6-4=650.*4. 2>
6
, *-*5/.=+6/6 31'32
2> tuttt
?;@ABC ?;@ABC LEMCNBOP9QK;C TCQUCKEAEC WX;C?;@ABCUP9C NBOP9QK;C tuttt
DAE9AC IJKC RPJR;JA9EAQPJC @PQJAC DPOX;9 RPJR-CUP9C
FGGH FGGH FSCRPJR9;A;H QVJP9;K DPOX;9
1 30 1"12440 "0 ' tuttt
30 20 1"12535 21 1"12535
20 #5 1"12323 #3"0 1"12323 tuttt tutvwxyz{{z|}z~x}~}}}z~x
#5 0 1"1210 $ 1"1210 {|z
0 $$"0 1"12100 $1"20 1"12100 tuttt
$$"0 53"0 1"12140 1"12140
Y> Y>
Y> Y> tutttt
Y> Y> t t t vt t t t t t t tt
Y> Y> §¨©ª ««¦
436
\U]ÛKUCK]_`KCaK]?b`cCXBNO8PJ:CBON:C>
de9
39 012f97

8)8 34536789

98 213397
89 g
h97 7
XBNO8PJ:CBON:C>CNOMEAPOICJ:AEPND XO88ODPOICMBNO8PJ:CMOIA:IACAB8:DBONJD W:8VPM:CNPS:C@8:JPMAPOID
878
97
[e93 &d
d id
d 6j 8
(

9l[
[98

(87l
d97e
73 6
k8
2133
%9
9[8
9[
l
9

l

9
2133
1!106
7
3

898 97
976 7

9798
89
78 8
3 1!101 31 97
m788 8
2 1! 1"1 2# 1!10 1!1" 1!10 1!1"

[9 "5 #10 " "0 #" 2"5$
m9e8 u &9'(
%9

7%9 "4 #30 0 "50 #0 2"4$
v h97
uw 9! #1 ##5 53 #35 03 2#24
XOV:8CJ:@ABDCPICABPDCSEM: uv
&9'(
%9

7%9
"5 #10 " "0 #" 2"5$
(
h97
[e9
h[e9 #1 #02 52 #22 02 2#""
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) yz
{|}~xy 9! #1 ##5 53 #35 03 2#24
p!
97)9[ "5 "# "5 "" uv wx y~xy "" "10 00 20 20 225$
%9!
97)9[ "4 "# #1 "# v m9
97 8
)
%9

7%9 "# """ $1 "1" "1 2"3#
h[e9
7
99[ #1 "1 #1 "1 v l97
%9
[98
9! "1 202 #$ 222 3$ 22""
qPMrsDCJPSS9DPOICGOJ:NC@E8EG:A:8D 1 Ð¯ÑÒ¯Ó¯ÓÑÔÕÓÖÓÑ×ØÕ²¯ ÙÙ¡£
p[9l
)8 p[9l
)8)8
f97
9n9[ *+ ¶

2
, +-../018
23
oe

o
, 1!11"
, +-+4+555+05 6
989 ¸¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁ»ÂÃ¿ÂÃÀÄÅÀÆÇÀÈÃÉÀÁ»ÂÁ¼¿Ã¿Ê µ
e9
38
! 789:
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦

, +-+;4045+.; 6
989
qPACt\
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
6
, 0-.</5/.5/* 2= ´

6
, +->>+0<>><5 31'32
2= ³
DAE8AC :IJC MOIM:IA8EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV:8 MOIM-CSO8C ²
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM8:A:H PTIO8:J WONV:8 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
1 31 1!13"35 0 ' £¥¦ ¥§¨
31 23 1!122 Y 30!0 Z=
23 "1 1!1255$ 20!0 1!1255$
"1 #1 1!12220 "0 1!12220 ±
#1 03 1!13432 #0!0 1!13432
03 $0 1!13$# 05 1!13$# °
$0 0 1!1343 1 1!1343
Z= Z=
° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · °
Z= Z=
437
hVijVLVDLiklLDmLi@nloDYCOP:QK<DCPO<D+
pe9
29 012b97

!8*8 34536789

98 213397
89 q
f97 7
YCOP:QK<DCPO<D+DOPNFBQPJDK<BFQOE YP::PEQPJDNCOP:QK<DNPJB<JBDBC:<ECPOKE X<:WQN<DOQT<DA:<KQNBQPJE
878
97
è92 ' p
p rp
p 6s !8
3
)

9à
`98

)87a
p97e
73 8
t8
2133
!$9
9`8
9`
a
9

a

9
2133
1"108
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 1"101 5 97
g788 !8
2 1"1#1 21 1"10 1"1# 1"10 1"1#
`9
g9e8 v '9()
$9

7$9
w f97
vx 9" %1 11 334 &1 54 2&53
YPW<:DK<ABCEDQJDBCQEDTFN<
)
f97
è9

vw
'9()
$9

7$9
#5
%1
&#2
1&
31
321
&12
&&

41
2&3#
2&5
fè9
_"
97*9`
'9() 8* '9()
#5
8*
##
vw xyz{z|}~yzyz

9"

%1
##
11
%&
334
53
&1
%%&
54
03
2&53
2%0
$9"
97*9` %1 #% w g9
97 8*
$9

7$9 #% 021 55 %41 05 2013
fè9
7
99` %1 #1 %1 #1 w !a97
$9
`98
9" #1 #4% & #&% # 2#0
\QN]ÊDKQTT;EQPJDHPK<ODAF:FH<B<:E 1 Ñ°ÒÓ°Ô°ÔÒÕÖÔ×ÔÒØÙÖ±Ú¡ÛÛ¢¤
_`9a
*8 _`9a
*8*8
b97
9c9` +, ·

2
- ./,,,,08
12
de

d
- 1"11# !
- ,/,34536,76 8
989 ¶
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§
e9
38
" 9:;< !
- ,/,.6,.6=47 8
\QBDuh 6
- =/7>6,7466= 2?
6
- ,/.>,67775+ 31(32
2?
µ
´
EBF:BD <JKD NPJN<JB:FBQPJD APQJBD XPOW<: NPJN/DTP:D ³
GHHI GHHI GRDNPJN:<B<I QUJP:<K XPOW<: ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
1 4"0 1"1233 %"0 ( ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
4"0 3 1"1243 Z 3#"20 [?
3 #1 1"12&%% 2#"0 1"12&%%
#1 %4 1"13413 #4"0 1"13413 ²
%4 0 1"13533 0# 1"13533
0 2 1"13545 Z &%"0 [? ±
[? [?
[? [?
± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ±
[? [?
[? [? ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
438
iVjkVLVDLjlmLDnLj@ompDYCOP:QK<DCPO<D?
qd9
59 012e97

!8*8 34536789

98 213397
89 r
c97 7
YCOP:QK<DCPO<D?DOPNFBQPJDK<BFQOE YP::PEQPJDNCOP:QK<DNPJB<JBDBC:<ECPOKE X<:WQN<DOQT<DA:<KQNBQPJE
878
97
`d95 ' q
q sq
q 6t !8
3
)

9à
`98

)87a
q97d
73 8
u8
2133
!$9
9`8
9`
a
9

a

9
2133
1"108
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 1"101 [r_v 97
h78`9>
u9c !8
2 1"1#1 (#1 1"10 1"1# 1"10 1"1#
`9b)
h9d8
x '9()
$9

7$9
y c97
xz 9" %1 " " " " "
YPW<:DK<ABCEDQJDBCQEDTFN< xy %1 " " " " "
)
c97
`d9
'9()
$9

7$9 %& " " " " "
c`d9
_"
97*9`
'9() 8* '9()
%1
8*
# xy z{|}|~{|
{|

9" %1
#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
8*
$9

7$9 %#
$9"
97*9` %& %# y h9
97 c`d9 " " " " "
7
99` %1 #1 %1 #1 y !a97
$9
`98
9" #1 " " " " "
\QN]ÊDKQTT;EQPJDHPK<ODAF:FH<B<:E 1 Ó²ÔÕ²Ö²ÖÔ×ØÖÙÖÔÚÛØ´Ü£¤«©ÝÞ©ßàØá¯
_`9a
*8 _`9a
*8*8
e97
9f9` +, ³

2
- ,./01238
45 ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
gd

g
- 1"11# !
- ,.,6760,01+ 8
989 ¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
d9
38
" 9:;< !
- ,.,1077/71= 8
989
\QBDwi 6
- 6,.,17++22/ 2>
6
- ,.2+?2=612+ 31(32
2>
µ³
µ
EBF:BD <JKD NPJN<JB:FBQPJD APQJBD XPOW<: NPJN.DTP:D
GHHI GHHI GRDNPJN:<B<I QUJP:<K XPOW<:
1 "0 1"12%%# #"0 ( ´³
"0 30 1"12#0 33"20 1"12#0
30 23"0 1"123&4 35"20 1"123&4 ´
23"0 #3 1"12235 Z 2&"20 [>
#3 %1 1"121% #0"0 1"121% ³
%1 01 1"1355 %0 1"1355
01 04"0 1"13&&& Z 0%"0 [>

04"0 0 1"1355# Z &"20 [> ´ µ ¶ ³ · ¸ ¹ º ´
0 43"0 1"13 5#"20 1"13
[> [> ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
439
m8no8O8FOnp;OFqOnAr;sFZERSITNBFESRBF>
g^9
49 012d97

!8*8 34536789

98 213397
89 k
\97 7
ZERSITNBFESRBF>FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG :BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
878
97
]^94 ' g
g hg
g 6i !8
3
)

9c]
]98

)87c
g97^
7 6
j8
2133
!%9
9]8
9]
c
9

c

9
2133
1"106
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 1"101 [kbl 97
f78]9@
j9\ !8
2 1"1#1 0 1"10 1"1# 1"10 1"1#
]9978 5 " #$ " #$ "
f9^8 u '9()
%9

7%9 03 " #$ " #$ "
v \97
uw 9" 1 " 2$ " 2$ "
)
\97
]^9

uv
'9()
%9

7%9
1
&
"
"
2$
#$
"
"
2$ "
#$ "
\]^9
uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy
'9() 8* '9() 8* 9" 1 " 2$ " 2$ "
b"
97*9] 5 0 1 # # " 2$ " 2$ "
%9"
97*9] 03 & & # 8*
%9

7%9 # " 2$ " 2$ "
v f9
97 \]^9
7
99] 1 #1 1 #1 v !c97
%9
]98
9" #1 " 3$ " 3$ "
7TQ_G̀FNTWWaGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 1 Ð¯ÑÒ¯Ó¯ÓÑÔÕÓÖÓÑ×ØÕ³¯ ¡¨¦ÙÚ¦Û¦¤ £
b]9c
*8 b]9c
*8*8
d97
9e9] +, ³

2
- ,./0/128
34
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
$^

$
- 1"11# !
- ,.,+5,5++/+ 6
989 °
^9
38
" 789:; !
- ,.,<=>1+1=> 6
989 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
7TDFtm £¥¦ ¥§¨

6
- +.=<<55?? 2@
6
- ,.<?,=0,,+/ 31(32
2@ ²°
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF :SRYBI QSMQ.FWSIF ²
1 3# 1"1255 &"0 1"1255
3# 22 1"12202 3"0 1"12202 ±°
22 #0"0 1"1342 25"0 1"1342
#0"0 & 1"135 1"0 1"135 ±
& 00 1"13540 01"0 1"13540
00 &0 1"132# &1 1"132# °
&0 4 1"135&5 2 1"135&5
4 43 1"13402 50 1"13402
± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
[@ [@
[@ [@ Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
440
kVlmVLVDLlnoLDpLl@qorDYCOP9QK;DCPO;D?
g_9
29 012a97

8*8 34536789

98 213397
89 s
^97 7
YCOP9QK;DCPO;D?DOPNFBQPJDK;BFQOE YP99PEQPJDNCOP9QK;DNPJB;JBDBC9;ECPOKE X;9WQN;DOQT;DA9;KQNBQPJE
878
97
]_92 'g
g hg
g 6i 8
)

9`]
]98

)87`
g97_
73 7
j8
2133
%9
9]8
9]
`
9

`

9
2133
1!107
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 8
3 1!101 2 97
f788 8
2 1! 1"1 35 1!10 1!1" 1!10 1!1"

]9 "5 32# 3"0 32# 310 3$#
f9_8 u '9()
%9

7%9 "4 3"# 3$0 3"# 330 30#
v ^97
uw 9! $1 3$# 301 3$# 321 3&#
YPW;9DK;ABCEDQJDBCQEDTFN; uv
'9()
%9

7%9
"5 32# 3"0 32# 310 3$#
)
^97
]_9
^]_9 $1 3$# 303 3$# 323 3&#
'9() 8* '9() 8* yz
{|
uv wx y~xy }~xy 9! $1 3$# 301 3$# 321 3&#
\!
97*9] "5 "" "5 "" "" 4# 312 4# 2 33#
%9!
97*9] "4 "$ $1 "$ 8*
%9

7%9 "$ 31# 333 31# 53 32#
v f9
97 ^]_9
7
99] $1 "1 $1 "1 v 9̀7
%9
]98
9! "1 5# 5$ 5# 0$ 405
cQNdeEDKQTT:EQPJDHPK;ODAF9FH;B;9E 1 Ð¯ÑÒ¯Ó¯ÓÑÔÕÓÖÓÑ×ØÕ°¯ ÙÙ¡£
\]9`
*8 \]9`
*8*8
a97
9b9] +,
2
- ./,,,,08
12 ´
#_

#
- 1!11"
- ,/,34536+,5 7
989
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
_9
38
! 89:;
- ,/,.<4..+=5 7
989 ³
cQBDtk 6
- 3/66+==.== 2>
6
- ,/.54?46+?4 31(32
2>
@;ABCD @;ABCD LFMDNCOP9QK;D SDQTDKFBFD VW;DK;ABCDTP9D YCOP9QK;D
²
¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
EBF9BD ;JKD NPJN;JB9FBQPJD APQJBD NPJN/DTP9D £¥¦ ¥§¨
GHHI GHHI GRDNPJN9;B;I QUJP9;K XPOW;9 XPOW;9
1 5 1!13 $ (
5 21 1!1224" Z 3$ [> ±
21 24 1!12014 2$!0 1!12014
24 $3!0 1!1354" Z "0!20 [>
$3!0 &2 1!134"0 03!0 1!134"0 °
&2 $ 1!13422 &5 1!13422
[> [>
[> [>
[> [>
° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · °
[> [> Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
441
0123457895

p 4515
!
i2557895
:,:q?894012345B/59
+(f,<f+,&+
"7#1$%#53
&'(&)7*5%#53
+,&& -581./*53
0, 123 0,f,<f+,&+
0589#*5
3$4556557%15$72# 058941$*
8$4559557"154589 Lc2HRNQbR_1EaLG_aLREFPHNK2RHLer
"8#8532#87%5
&:,9 ;8/29$9*25165246#
<9 ./*$15%582A2%8#27 s18*615A5157%55275
!j!m! [If7#%7%J
=9
&> ?873%8 *5
$185@2 5 7 A
*57
$1A
7 )7%B
72 73 0& "651 235
35 #5%#
2752
92 #

!j!!m [If7#%7%J
0=>
<'+ "1274#*5
=#1589 CD518527578#5178
5 ./%B7273 0+ )72#28#27#615653&
!j! ! [If7#%7%J
"8#85%12*#27
.#$81CD518527578D5
>5D51 "84873&,&9#:,,9 )72#28#27#615653+
!j!m! [If7#%7%J
u1 L vt
Q_K L1 N
E11HP L PNb_c oL21e
N_ _eN oL 21eN_
1EaMLQ_KL1 EIFE GHGKL12ML1
99J I99J
23
NOPEQ2R
SGGT dedEQEFc2QL_c Q_KL1EF QbR_1EaL 2KL12ML oL2e1Ne12NFa 2KL12ML
0123458D51845
I[%7%15#5JI[%7%15#5J I99+f1J gL2G c2QL Nb1Leb_Ra eNE11HP Q_11_eE_F eN12Fa
=AA2# U15VW XY Z0 Z, I99J I99J I99J Q_11_eE_F Q_11_eE_F
=#211$* &Z +( 0, 927 8D5 927 ,B,:[ ,B,0[ ,B,:[ ,B,0[ ,B,:[ ,B,0[ ,B,:[ ,B,0[
235f U15VW Z, 8D51845 ,B,&:: ,B,,0: (ZB,',0 0< Z0 +( V:' V: Z&\ ']\ &,(\
754 =#211$* 0, =#35D ,B,,(: ,B,,+] &]]B(&+( ] + , ZZ < , , ,
0##9 U15 V
W Z, 927 ,B,,<0 ,B,,,, ,B
<+(Z &' Z, +( & , Z&\ , ']\ , &,(\
4$54 =#211$* 0, 98/ ,B,0&+ ,B,,<0 :&(B(0+: Z0 Z: +( V&: & , Z&\ , ']\ , &,(\
tLeN_Q2NE_Fe dbR_1EaLG_aLRP212GLNL1e L2GQ_KL1e eNEG2NLa1LG2EFEFMREcLS!T
NE11HP LPNb_c oL21eN_2KLjoL21eN_eNoL21eN_2KLj
^_RL` L2G _Q2NE_F EaL LFMNb _aLRcEN dedEQu1
1 I[%7% LvtQ_KL1Q_K
L1EF QbR_1EaL eNE11HP eN12Fa eN12Fa
15#5JI[%7%15#5J I99+f1J I99J g1EaMLNb1 Leb_Ra
I99J I99J Q_11_eE_F Q_11_eE_F Q_11_eE_F
927 8D5 8D5 ,B,:[ ,B,0[ ,B,:[ ,B,0[ ,B,:[ ,B,0[ ,B,:[ ,B,0[
& h AA2# &9A19573 i2#C !j3 ,B,,'Z ,B,,&: &,B,,,, 0( ZZ +( 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
655&
+ h AA2# &9A19573 i2#C !jkkl ,B,,<0 ,B,,,, :&(B(0+: 0( ZZ +( 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
655+
0 AA2# &9A19573 i2#C !jlmm ,B,&Z] ,B,,:& ,B<+(Z Z& Z: +( 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
Z h AA2# &9A19573 i2#C !jknl ,B,0&+ ,B,,<0 +B]]+0 Z0 Z: +( V&: & 27AB Z&\ 27AB ']\ 27AB &,(\
: AA2# &9A19573 i2#C j!!!! ,B,&&+ ,B,,<, &,B,,,, 0] Z, +( 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
655&
< AA2# &9A19573 i2#C j!!!! ,B,&,Z ,B,,:( &,B,,,, 0] Z, +( 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
655+
] AA2# &9A19573 i2#C !jl ,B,+:Z ,B,,,& 0<B0'(' &' Z, +( V&,+ V&& 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB 27AB
442
fVghDChLi?jICkZC<.0lCNB9OEPK;CBO9;C<
o
_8 38 010\86
!
7)7
23425678
87
12286 78 ^
)qb8
bb
r
8 ) 7 6
NB9OEPK;CBO9;C<C9OQ8APOJCK;A8P9: NOEEO:POJCQB9OEPK;CQOJA;JACABE;:BO9K: D;EWPQ;C9PT;C@E;KPQAPOJ:
^_8p a o5s 2 23
767
86
!7 2 (
8
b^ ^87 (
76b o86 _
!
$8 8^
6 6 r7
122 8678^ b8 b 8 122
1"106
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 1"101 Yman 86
p
67

7 !7 1"1#1 Yman 1"10 1"1# 1"10 1"1#
^8 #4 " " " " "
p8 _7 2
8 ^
b8 2 Ö Ø &8'(
$8 6$8 %% " " " " "
Ú
¹Ë
¹Ó»
q86
8" %1 " " " " "
NOW;ECK;@AB:CPJCABP:CT8Q; ÄÅÆÇÈÉÊ¹ËºÌÍÎÏÐÑÌÒ Ô Ô 23
&8'(
$8 6$8 %#
" " " " "
( q86 ^_8 q^_8 " " " " "
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) ½¾
¿À
¹º »¼ ½Â¼½Ã ÁÂ¼½Ã 8" %1 " " " " "
a " 86)8^ #4 #2 23 2% 2% " " " " "
$8" 86)8^ %% #4 %# 4 ÕÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº p8 86 7)
$8 6$8 4 " " " " "
ÖÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº !b86
$8 ^87 q^_8
6 88^ %1 #1 %1 #1 8" #1 " " " " "
7PQcd:CKPTTe:POJCGOK;9C@8E8G;A;E: * ¬®x¯°±²³x́µxxx¶x|z··}x¸x·{z¸x~xzx
a
^8b )7 a
^8b
)7)7
\86 8]
8^ +* , *-../0 17 23 tutvt
`_
` , 1"11# ! ,*-**.+4/.45 6
878 tutvwxyz{{z|}z~x}~}}}z~x
_
8 27 " 789:; {|z
¡¢£¤¥¦
! ,*-**<40./.< 6
878 tutvtt
7PACZ[
}~x{xz{
5 ,.-.....4*4+ =
x{xz{
5 ,*-+</*.//>+ 21'2 = tutt
?;@ABC ?;@ABC L8MCNB9OEPK;C SCPTCK8A8C VW;C?;@ABCTOEC NB9OEPK;C tuttt
DA8EAC IJKC QOJQ;JAE8APOJC @OPJAC DO9W;E QOJQ-CTOEC
FGGH FGGH FRCQOJQE;A;H PUJOE;K DO9W;E
1 2"0 1"114 X"0 1"114 tutt
2"0 #"0 1"1101# 24 1"1101#
#"0 1"11#34 0"0 1"11#34 tuttt
Y= Y=
Y= Y= tuttt
Y= Y=
Y= Y= tutttt
Y= Y= t t t vt t t t t t t tt
Y= Y= §¨©ª ««¦
Y= Y=
443
:9no;FoOpAq<Fr`F5.4sFZERSITNBFESRBF4
t
]8 38 010h86
!
7)7
23425678
87
12286 78 b
)\d8
dd
u
8 ) 7 6
b]8c f t5v 2 23
767
86
!7 2 (
8
db b87 (
76d
!
$8 t86 ]
6 7 u7
122 886b78b d8 d 8 122
1"107
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 1"101 _efg 86
c
67

7 !7 1"1#1 _efg 1"10 1"1# 1"10 1"1#
b8 #4 " " " " "
c8 ]72
8 b
d8 w &8'(
$8 6$8 %% " " " " "
x \86
wy 8" %1 " " " " "
( \86 b]8
wx
&8'(
$8 6$8
23
%#
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
\b]8
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) 8" %1 " " " " "
f " 86)8b #4 #2 23 2% wx yz{|{}~z{
z{
2% " " " " "
$8" 86)8b %% #4 %# 4 x c8 86 7)
$8 6$8 4 " " " " "
\b]8
6 88b %1 #1 %1 #1 x !d86
$8 b87 8" #1 " " " " "
8TQklGFNTWWmGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 1 Ò±«ÓÔÓÕÖ×ØÙÚÛ³¹´´Ü¢ ÝÝ£¥³ÞÝ¡ Þ¨¤ª§ ©¨³
f
b8d )7 f
b8d
)7)7
h86 8i
8b *+ , +-.//0 17 23 ²
j]
j , 1"11# ! ,+-++0405/66 7
878 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
]
8 27 " 89:;<
! ,=-00=/4<>+6 7
878
8TDFà
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
5 ,=5/-/*4?/?. @
5 ,50-?=4+6+56 21'2 @ ´²
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF 9YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ´

GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF ;SRYBI QSMQ-FWSIF
³²
1 21 1"11[1 0 1"11[1
21 2 1"11043 20"0 1"11043 ³
2 #"0 \] ^ 3"0 _@
#"0 01 1"1101 %#"0 1"1101
01 [# 1"1104 ^ 0["0 _@ ²
[# # 1"110%# ^ [4 _@
_@ _@
_@ _@ ³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
_@ _@ ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
_@ _@
444
87hi9DiMj?k:Dl[D2-<mDXCPQGRL@DCQP@D)
b
_8 18 010n86

7(7
23425678
87
12286 78 ^
(]e8
ee
d
8 ( 7 6
XCPQGRL@DCQP@D)DPQOFBRQKDL@BFRPE XQGGQERQKDOCPQGRL@DOQKB@KBDBCG@ECQPLE 9@GWRO@DPRU@DAG@LROBRQKE
^_8à b5c 0 23
767
86
7
2 '
8
e^ ^87 '
76e b86 _
6 2 5 d7
122
$8 8^7
8^
e
8
e 8 122
1!105
6 2
78
7 86
865 6 8687 78
67 7 2 1!101 Zfag 86
`
67

7 7 1! 1"1 Zfag 1!10 1!1" 1!10 1!1"
^8 #2 ! ! ! ! !
`8 _72
8 ^ t %8&'
$8 6$8 #0 ! ! ! ! !
u ]86
tv 8! #1 ! ! ! ! !
XQW@GDL@ABCEDRKDBCREDUFO@ tu 23
%8&'
$8 6$8 #"
! ! ! ! !
' ]86 ^_8 ]^_8 ! ! ! ! !
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( x
tu vw x}wx~yz{|}wx~ 8! #1 ! ! ! ! !
a ! 86(8^ #2 20 23 2# 2# ! ! ! ! !
$8! 86(8^ #0 2 #" 4 u `8 86 7
(
$ 8
6$8 4 ! ! ! ! !
]^_8
6 88^ #1 "1 #1 "1 u e86
$8 ^87 8! "1 ! ! ! ! !
6ROopEDLRUUqERQKDIQL@PDAFGFI@B@GE 1 Ï®¨ÐÑÐÒÓÔÕÖ×Ø°¶±°ÔÙÙ ¢°ÚÙÚ¥¡§
a
^8e (7 a
^8e
(7(7
n86 8r
8^ )* + *,-.)) /7 01 ¯
s_
s + 1!11" ¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
+*,*234*4-23 5
878 ¢¤¥¤¦§

¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
_
8 27 ! 6789: +*,**;2<-.<4 5
878
6RBD[\ 5 +*,.<=)-.;=3
5 +*,*2--<.)<;
>
21&2 > ±¯
?@ABCD ?@ABCD MFNDOCPQGRL@D TDRUDLFBFD 7W@DL@ABCDUQGD XCPQGRL@D ±

EBFGBD @KLD OQKO@KBGFBRQKD AQRKBD 9QPW@G OQKO,DUQGD
°¯
1 3 1!1130 #!0 1!1130
3 1!110# 20!0 1!110# °
" 1!110# 3!0 1!110#
" 0# 1!110"2 #0!0 1!110"2
0# Y4 1!110"Y Y2 1!110"Y ¯
Y4 0!0 1!11##0 2!0 1!11##0
Z> Z>
Z> Z> ° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
Z> Z> Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
Z> Z>
445
aVbcXFcMdBefFg[F70?hFYE<PGQL>FEP<>F2
i
_8 68 010j86
!
7+7
23425678
87
12286 78 `
+^k8
kk
l
8 + 7 6
YE<PGQL>FEP<>F2F<PO;DQPKFL>D;Q<= YPGGP=QPKFOE<PGQL>FOPKD>KDFDEG>=EP<L= X>GWQO>F<QT>FCG>LQODQPK=
`_8] m i5n 5 23
767
86
!7 2 *
8
k̀ `87 *
76k
!
&8 i86 _
6 2 9 l7
122 886`78` k8 k 8 122
1"109
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 1"101 )20 86
]
67

7 !7 1"1#1 2 1"10 1"1# 1"10 1"1#
`8 $# " 3% " 3% "
]8 _72
8 ` ~ s (8)*
&8 6&8 $0 " 214% " 214% "
t ^86
su 8" $1 " 4$% " 4$% "
YPW>GFL>CDE=FQKFDEQ=FT;O>
* ^86 `_8
~st
(8)*
&8 6&8
23
$#
"
"
23%
3'%
"
"
23% "
3'% "
^`_8
m " 86+8`
(8)*
$#
7+
2$
(8)*
23
7+
2$ st uvwxwyz|{vw
|vw}
}
8"

$1
2$
"
"
4$%
21%
"
"
4$% "
21% "
7+
&8 6&8
&8" 86+8` $0 # $# 4 t ]8 86 ^`_8 4 " $2% " $2% "
6 88` $1 #1 $1 #1 t !k86
&8 `87 8" #1 " $% " $% "
:QOpq=FLQTTr=QPKFIPL><FC;G;I>D>G= 1 Î§ÏÐÏÑÒÓÔÕÖ×¯µ°¯ØÙÙ¡¯ÚÙÚ¤ ¦
m
`8k +7 m
`8k
+7+7
j86 8o
8` ,- . -/0123 47 56 ®
¡¢¡
%_
% . 1"11# ! .-/-,778032 9
878 ¡£¤£¥¦

§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
_
8 27 " :;<=> ! .-/--3,,--03 9
878
:QDF[\ 5 .?/@@?,,23-,
5 .-/-1@07-782
A
21)2 A °®
B>CDEF B>CDEF M;NFOE<PGQL>F SFQTFL;D;F VW>FL>CDEFTPGF YE<PGQL>F °

=D;GDF >KLF OPKO>KDG;DQPKF CPQKDF XP<W>G OPKO/FTPGF
HIIJ HIIJ HRFOPKOG>D>J QUKPG>L XP<W>G
¯®
1 21"0 1"1#2 0"0 1"1#2
21"0 23"0 1"12#1' 20 1"12#1' ¯
23"0 #1 1"11'0# $"0 1"11'0#
#1 $2 1"11'44 #0"0 1"11'44
$2 0 1"11004 $3 1"11004 ®
0 1"0 1"11#$ '#"0 1"11#$
ZA ZA
ZA ZA ¯ ° ± ® ² ³ ´ µ ¯
ZA ZA É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
ZA ZA
446
]T^_VB_J`>abBc[B-:3dBWAMN6OI8BANM8B9
e
f8 18 010g86

7(7
23425678
87
12286 78 h
(ij8
jj
k
8 ( 7 6
WAMN6OI8BANM8B9BMNLD@ONHBI8@DOMC WN66NCONHBLAMN6OI8BLNH@8H@B@A68CANMIC V86UOL8BMOR8B?68IOL@ONHC
hf8om e5p 0 23
767
86
7
2 '
8
jh h87
6 4 k7
122
#8 '
7
8
6j
h7
8h
j
8

e86 f
j 8 122
1!104
6 2
78
7 86
865 6 8687 78
67 7 2 1!101 Ylmn 86
o
67

7 7 1! 1"1 Ylmn 1!10 1!1" 1!10 1!1"
h8 " ! ! ! ! !
o8 f72
8 h
j8 2
u %8&'
#8 6#8 $ ! ! ! ! !
v i86
uw 8! $1 ! ! ! ! !
WNU86BI8?@ACBOHB@AOCBRDL8 uv 23 ! ! ! ! !
' i86 hf8 %8&'
#8 6#8 $" ! ! ! ! !
ihf8
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( y xy
uv wx zy{|~}xy
~ 8! $1 ! ! ! ! !
m ! 86(8h " ") 23 2$ 2$ ! ! ! ! !
#8! 86(8h $ $2 $" 4 7(
#8 6#8 4 ! ! ! ! !
v o8 86 ihf8
6 88h $1 "1 $1 "1 v j86
#8 h87 8! "1 ! ! ! ! !
ZOLqrCBIORR7CONHBFNI8MB?D6DF8@86C 1 Ð¯©ÑÒÑÓÔÕÖ×ØÙ±·²²Õ ÚÚ¡£±ÛÚÛ¦¢¨¥§¦±
m
h8j (7 m
h8j
(7(7
g86 8s
8h *+ , -.++++ /7 01 °
tf
t , 1!11" ,+.+---2-+3- 4
878 ¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
£¥¦ ¥§¨
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
f
8 27 ! 5678
,+.++9:;:< 4
878
ZO@B[\ 5 ,:.::::::<:2 =
5 ,+.*-;+:;:+< 21&2 = ²°
>8?@AB >8?@AB JDKBLAMN6OI8B QBORBID@DB TU8BI8?@ABRN6B WAMN6OI8B ²

C@D6@B 8HIB LNHL8H@6D@ONHB ?NOH@B VNMU86 LNHL.BRN6B
EFFG EFFG EPBLNHL68@8G OSHN68I VNMU86
±°
1 3 1!11$$ $!0 &
3 1!114 20!0 1!114 ±
"" 1!11"$ !0 1!11"$
"" "3 1!114 X ") Y=
Y= Y= °
Y= Y=
Y= Y=
Y= Y= ± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
Y= Y= Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
Y= Y=
447
]T^_VB_J`>abBc[B-4<dBWAMN7OI9BANM9Be
f
g8 18 010h86

7(7
23425678
87
12286 78 i
(jk8
kk
l
8 ( 7 6
WAMN7OI9BANM9BeBMNLD@ONHBI9@DOMC WN77NCONHBLAMN7OI9BLNH@9H@B@A79CANMIC V97UOL9BMOR9B?79IOL@ONHC
ig8mn f5o 0 23
767
86
7
2 '
8
ki i87
6 5 l7
122
#8 '
76k f86 g
8i78i k8 k 8 122
1!105
6 2
78
7
865 6 8687 78
67 7
2 1!101 Ypnq 86 86
m
67

7 7
1!1"1 Ypnq 1!10 1!1" 1!10 1!1"
i8 " ! ! ! ! !
m8 g72
8 i
k8 v %8&'
#8 6#8 $ ! ! ! ! !
w j86
vx 8! $1 ! ! ! ! !
WNU97BI9?@ACBOHB@AOCBRDL9
' j86 ig8 vw 23 ! ! ! ! !
%8&'
#8 6#8 $" ! ! ! ! !
jig8
n ! 86(8i
%8&'
"
7(
")
%8&'
23
7(
2$ vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz

8! $1 ! ! ! ! !
2$ ! ! ! ! !
#8! 86(8i $ $2 $" 4 7(
#8 6#8 4 ! ! ! ! !
w m8 86 jig8
6 88i $1 "1 $1 "1 w k86
#8 i87 8! "1 ! ! ! ! !
ZOLtuCBIORR8CONHBFNI9MB?D7DF9@97C 1 Ñ°ªÒÓÒÔÕÖ×ØÙÚ²¸³³Ö¡ÛÛ¢¤²ÜÛ Ü§£©¦¨§³
n
i8k (7 n
i8k
(7(7
h86 8r
8i *+ , -.++++ /7 01 ±
¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
sg
s , 1!11" ,+.+-+2-2-34 5
878 ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
°¯§« §¬®¯§
g
8 27 ! 6789 ,+.++:;::3-4 5
878
ZO@B[\ 5 ,4.44444;<;:
5 ,+.*-;+4;3**
=
21&2 = ³±
>9?@AB >9?@AB JDKBLAMN7OI9B QBORBID@DB TU9BI9?@ABRN7B WAMN7OI9B ³

C@D7@B 9HIB LNHL9H@7D@ONHB ?NOH@B VNMU97 LNHL.BRN7B
EFFG EFFG EPBLNHL79@9G OSHN79I VNMU97
²±
1 21!0 1!114$ 0!0 &
21!0 0!0 1!1132 24 1!1132
0!0 $1 1!11)) "!0 1!11)) ²
$1 )1!0 1!11)44 X 01!0 Y=
)1!0 42 1!1222 X 1!0 Y= ±
Y= Y=
Y= Y=
Y= Y= ² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
Y= Y= ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
Y= Y=
448
98_`:FÒaAb;Fc]F@.3dFZERSITNBFESRBF<
e
f8 28 010g86

7(7
23425678
87
12286 78 h
(ij8
jj
k
8 ( 7 6
ZERSITNBFESRBF<FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG :BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
hf8lm e5n 1 23
767
86
7
2 '
8
jh h87
6 6 k7
122
#8 '
7
8
6j
h7
8h
j
8

e86 f
j 8 122
1!106
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7 2 1!101 &21 86
l
67

7 7 1! 1"1 &22 1!10 1!1" 1!10 1!1"
h8 23 ! ! ! ! !
l8 f72
8 h t %8&'
#8 6#8 "0 ! ! ! ! !
u i86
tv 8! $1 ! ! ! ! !
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB tu 23 ! ! ! ! !
' i86 hf8 %8&'
#8 6#8 $" ! ! ! ! !
ihf8
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( xy
z{
tu vw x}wx~ |}wx ~ 8! $1 ! ! ! ! !
m ! 86(8h 23 2) 23 2$ 2$ ! ! ! ! !
#8! 86(8h "0 $" 4 7(
#8 6#8 4 ! ! ! ! !
u l8 86 ihf8
6 88h $1 "1 $1 "1 u j86
#8 h87 8! "1 ! ! ! ! !
7TQopGFNTWWqGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 1 Ï®¨ÐÑÐÒÓÔÕÖ×Ø°¶±±®ÙÙ ¢°ÚÙÚ¥¡§
m
h8j (7 m
h8j
(7(7
g86 8r
8h *+ , +-.../ 07 12 ¯
¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
sf
s , 1!11" ,+-+34*.//5. 6
878 ¢¤¥¤¦§
f
8 27 ! 789:;
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
,<-*4=*.;>+4 6
878
7TDF]^ 5 ,*/-*.5.35/=
5 ,@-@4=3+3=4/
?
21&2 ? ±¯
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF 8YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ±

GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF :SRYBI QSMQ-FWSIF
°¯
1 22 1!13 0!0 1!13
22 2 1!12"$$ [ 2) \?
°
2 "0!0 1!12$2" 4!0 1!12$2"
"0!0 0$ 1!1140) $$!0 1!1140)
0$ 1 1!11$)3 ) 1!11$)3 ¯
1 41 1!114" [ 0 \?
\? \?
\? \? ° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
\? \? Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
\? \?
449
0123457895

o 4515

k2357895
\&)s>2370123457,39
&%h)[h&)#&
71!"53
#$%&'7(5"53
&)## *581+,(53
&$ -./ 6)h)[h&)#&
0589(5
01589 058941!(
021589 Ne.ITPSdTa-FcNHacNTFGRIPM.TINgu
8833287"5
)9 48,29!9(25155245
67%9 +,(!15"382=2"827 v18(515=5157"53275
lt ]Jh< "7"K
89
#) :873"8(5
!1 83;2 5 < =
(57
!1=
7 '7"7
<2 73 53123535 5" 2
7 3292
lt ]Jh< "7"K
08>
?#) 1274(5
@235238312A51BA5183275<851<8
5 +,"7<273 '722827515533#
l ]Jh< "7"K
8C5"12(27
@235D23832A51BA5183275<8A5
54!3813 C1873 )9 '722827515533&
lt ]Jh< "7"K
x- N yw
SaM N- P
F--IR N RP d
ae rN.-gPa ajgP rN .-gPa
-FcONSaMN- EFJGF HIHLMN-.ON-
99K J99K
./
PQRFS.T
UHHV fgfFSFGe.SNae SaMN-FG SdTa-FcN .MN-.ON rN.g-Pg-.PGc .MN-.ON
0123458A51845
J]"7"155KJ]"7"155K J99&h1K iN.H e.SN Pd-NgdaTc gPF--IR Sa--agFaG gP-.Gc
8==2 W152D XY Z? Z) J99K J99K J99K Sa--agFaG Sa--agFaG
8211!( &Z 6[ 6) 927 8A5 927 )7)\] )7)6] )7)\] )7)6] )7)\] )7)6] )7)\] )7)6]
235h W152D ^Y [6 Z) 8A51845 )7)6#? )7)#Z6 $7[[Z# Z6 Z6 6\ 2Z 26 &)4 Z_ &?4 \_ &%4 \_
<51 8211!( \6 [# 6) 835A )7))$6 )7))Z& #?7[)%6 ? Z & Z ? ) 6[? ) Z$\ ) \#[
0 9 W1
5 2
D Z) 927 )7)&&Z )7)#)Z )7
6??Z 6? 6$ 6) ) 6 &)4 6_ &?4 \_ &%4 \_
1!31 8211!( 6) 98, )7)\)6 )7)&6# Z$7))?? \? \& 6[ ) 6 &)4 Z_ &?4 [_ &%4 [_
wNgP aS.PFaGg fdTa-FcNHacNTR.-.HNPN-g N.HSaMN-g gPFH.PNc-NH.FGFGOTFeNUjjV
PF--IR NRPdae rN.-gPa.MNlrN.-gPajgPrN.-gPa.MNl
àTNb N.H aS.PFaG FcN NGOPd EacNTeFP fgfFSx-
- J]"7" NywSaMN-SaM
N-FG SdTa-FcN gPF--IR gP-.Gc gP-.Gc
155KJ]"7"155K J99&h1K J99K i-FcONPd- NgdaTc
J99K J99K Sa--agFaG Sa--agFaG Sa--agFaG
927 8A5 8A5 )7)\] )7)6] )7)\] )7)6] )7)\] )7)6] )7)\] )7)6]
# j ==2 k2B lmn )7)&[& )7)&6# Z$7))?? 6? 6$ 6[ 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7
& o ==2 k2B lmm )7)6\% )7)#)Z #7%ZZ[ Z& Z6 6[ 2% 6 27=7 Z_ 27=7 [_ 27=7 [_
6 jL ==2 k2B lmpn )7)&$[ )7)#6[ #7$[%[ Z% \& 6[ 2) 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7
Z L ==2 k2B lmm/p )7)&&Z )7)#&\ &7\Z\& 6? Z? 6[ 2#\ 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7
\ o ==2 52211!( k2B lmmm )7)\)6 )7)### )76??Z Z& Z) 6[ ) 6 &)4 6_ &?4 \_ &%4 \_
[ j` ==2 k2B lm/ )7)&\$ )7)#Z? &7&Z#\ \? Z) 6[ 2\ 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7 27=7
? 7(1=235q N--a- Z) Z) 6)
450
hijDD\hDCkLi?lICh\C+=*mCNBOP9QK;CBPO;C5
pa9
39 012^97

8(8 34516789

98 123397
89 n
r97 7
NBOP9QK;CBPO;C5COPREAQPJCK;AEQOg NP99PgQPJCRBOP9QK;CRPJA;JACAB9;gBPOKg D;9XQR;COQU;C@9;KQRAQPJg
à9 q2
p 6t
2
152
878
97
8
'

9d̀
`98

'87d
p97a
73 7
s8
1233
#9
9`
9789`
d9
d

9
1233
2!207
7
3

898
976 7

9798
89
78 8
3 2!202 Znco 97
q788 8
1 2! 2"2 Znco 2!20 2!2" 2!20 2!2"
`9 " ! ! ! ! !
q9a8 Õ × %9&'
#9

7#9 "4 ! ! ! ! !
Ô¹ ÓÖÃÄÅØÆÇÈÉ
Ù
¸Ê
¸Òº
r97
9! $2 ! ! ! ! !
NPX;9CK;@ABgCQJCABQgCUER; ÃÄÅÆÇÈÉ¸Ê¹ËÌÍÎÏÐËÑ Ó Ó "
%9&'
#9

7#9 $
! ! ! ! !
'
r97
à9
rà9 ! ! ! ! !
%9&' 8( %9&' 8( ¼½
¾¿
¸¹ º» ¼Á»¼Â ÀÁ»¼Â 9! $2 ! ! ! ! !
c!
97(9` " 1) " 1$ 1$ ! ! ! ! !
#9!
97(9` "4 15 $ ") ÔÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ¹ q9
97 8(
#9

7#9 ") ! ! ! ! !
ÕÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ¹ d97
#9
`98
rà9
7
99` $2 "2 $2 "2 9! "2 ! ! ! ! !
[QRefgCKQUU:gQPJCGPK;OC@E9EG;A;9g * ®¯°°±°y²³®´µ¶y±yuyýy}{··~
c`9d
(8 c`9d
(8(8
^97
9_9` +,
1
- *.,/0+ 18
23 uvuwu
ba

b
- 2!22"
-*.*+456*+0+ 7
989 uvuwxyz{||{}~{y~~~~{y
a9
38
! 89:; |}{
¡¢£¤¥ ¦ §

-*.*+<5*5=<, 7
989 uvuwuu
[QAC\]
~y|y{|
6
-0,.**66+=*, 1>
y|y{|
6
-5.//0*+0=4< 32&31
1> uvuu
?;@ABC ?;@ABC LEMCNBOP9QK;C TCQUCKEAEC WX;C?;@ABCUP9C NBOP9QK;C uvuuu
DAE9AC IJKC RPJR;JA9EAQPJC @PQJAC DPOX;9 RPJR.CUP9C
FGGH FGGH FSCRPJR9;A;H QVJP9;K DPOX;9
2 30 2!2101 !0 & uvuu
30 10!0 2!210"3 12!10 2!210"3
10!0 $1 2!21$0) ""!0 2!21$0) uvuuu
$1 )2 2!21$"5 03 2!21$"5
)2 $ 2!21"05 ) 2!21"05 uvuuu
$ 5$!0 2!21"51 Y 4!10 Z>
5$!0 321!0 2!21""5 4"!0 2!21""5 uvuuuu
Z> Z> u u u wu u u u u u u uu
Z> Z> ¨ © ª« ¡¬¬§
Z> Z>
451
ij;<<\i<FkOjAl=Fi\F,7/mFZERSITNBFESRBF,
na9
39 012b97

!8+8 34516789

98 123397
89 o
_97 7
ZERSITNBFESRBF,FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG <BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
â9 `2
n 6p
2
152
878
97
!8
3
*

9h^
^98

*87h
!'9
n97a
71 8
q8
1233
997^89^
h9
h

9
1233
2"208
7
3

898
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 2"202 )5 97
`788 !8
1 2"2#2 # 2"20 2"2# 2"20 2"2#
^9 $1 " %& " %& "
`9a8 } ~r (9)*
'9

7'9 $# " %& " %& "
s _97
rt 9" $2 " 0& " 0& "
*
_97
â9

}~rs
(9)*
'9

7'9
#
$
"
"
$&
&
"
"
$& "
& "
_â9
(9)* 8+ (9)* 8+ 9" $2 " 0& " 0& "
d"
97+9^ $1 15 # 1$ rs tuvwvxy{zuv
{uv|
| 1$ " 1& " 1& "
'9"
97+9^ $# #2 $ #% s `9
97 8+
'9

7'9 #% " $& " $& "
_â9
7
99^ $2 #2 $2 #2 s !h97
'9
^98
9" #2 " #& " #& "
9TQefGFNTWWgGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 2 ÍÎÏÐÐÑÍÐÒÓÎÔÕÖÍÑ¯³®Ô××
d^9h
+8 d^9h
+8+8
b97
9c9^ ,-
1
. /0--,1 8
23 °
&a

&
. 2"22# !
./0/41565,75 8
989
a9
38
" 9:;<= !
./0/>/?4->7- 8
989 µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç ¡
9TDF\]
¦§£¨©ª«£
¢£¢¤¥
¬«£§£¨©ª«£
6
.>07??1616>, 1@

6
./0/17?-/5-, 32)31
1@
¯
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF <SRYBI QSMQ0FWSIF ¯
2 32 2"21%#% 0 2"21%#% ®
32 1$ 2"23#2# 3 2"23#2#
1$ $2"0 2"224%5 #1"10 2"224%5 ®
$2"0 0 2"232$% $5"0 2"232$%
0 0 2"2321% %% 2"2321%
0 41 2"233#% 5#"0 2"233#%
[@ [@
[@ [@ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ ®
[@ [@ È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
[@ [@
452
hi9::[h:EjNi@k;Eh[E*/-lEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE<
a_9
49 012m97

8(8 34516789

98 123397
89 e
]97 7
YDQRHSMAEDRQAE<EQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF :AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
^_9 `3
a 6b
3
152
878
97
8
'

9d^
^98

'87d
a97_
73 6
c8
1233
$9
9^8
9^
d
9

d

9
1233
2!206
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 8
3 2!202 Zefg 97
`788 8
1 2! 2"2 2 2!20 2!2" 2!20 2!2"
^9 #5 ! ! ! ! !
`9_8 ~ s %9&'
$9

7$9 01 ! ! ! ! !
t ]97
su 9! #2 ! ! ! ! !
YRXAHEMABCDFESLECDSFEVGPA ~st "
%9&'
$9

7$9 #
! ! ! ! !
'
]97
^_9
]^_9 ! ! ! ! !
%9&' 8( %9&' 8( w
st uv w|vw}xyz{|vw} 9! #2 ! ! ! ! !
f!
97(9^ #5 #3 " 1# 1# ! ! ! ! !
$9!
97(9^ 01 ## # ") t `9
97 8
(
$ 9

7$9 ") ! ! ! ! !
]^_9
7
99^ #2 "2 #2 "2 t d97
$9
^98
9! "2 ! ! ! ! !
7SPnoFEMSVVpFSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF 2 ÎÏÐÑÑÒÎÑÓÔÏÕÖ×ÎÒ°´¯ØØ¡
f^9d
(8 f^9d
(8(8
m97
9q9^ *+
1
, -.+/01 28
34 ®
r_

r
, 2!22" ¡¢¡

,-.-*+0*0+55 6
989 ¡£¤£¥¦

§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
_9
38
! 789:;
,-.-5<=>->*< 6
989
7SCE[\ 6
,5.+0/=0-<1>
6
,-.-0*1**0<+
1?
32&31
1? °®
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE 8XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE °

FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE :RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE
¯®
2 32!0 2!21"05 0!10 2!21"05
32!0 1" 2!230#" 3)!0 2!230#" ¯
1" "# 2!23"51 15!0 2!23"51
"# #0 2!23"3" "4!0 2!23"3"
#0 0)!0 2!23"35 02!0 2!23"35 ®
0)!0 )4 2!23"3) )1!0 2!23"3)
)4 52 2!23#3" #!0 2!23#3"
52 42 2!23#30 50 2!23#30 ¯ ° ± ® ² ³ ´ µ ¯
Z? Z? É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
Z? Z?
453
cdeVVZcVDfKd@ghDcZD*?-iDWC:NEOJ<DCN:<D4
ja9
39 012k97

8(8 34516789

98 123397
89 \
`97 7
WC:NEOJ<DCN:<D4D:NM9BONIDJ<B9O:; WNEEN;ONIDMC:NEOJ<DMNIB<IBDBCE<;CN:J; V<EUOM<D:OR<DAE<JOMBONI;
ba9 _2
j 6l
2
152
878
97
8
'

9nb
b98

71 7
m8
1233
#9
'87n
j97a
9b89b
n9
n

9
1233
2!207
7
3

898
97 7

9798
89
78 8
3 2!202 Y\]^ 97 97

_788 8
1 2!2"2 &30 2!20 2!2" 2!20 2!2"

b9
_9a8 t %9&'
#9

7#9
u `97
tv 9! $2 ! ! ! ! !
WNU<EDJ<ABC;DOIDBCO;DR9M< tu " ! ! ! ! !
'
`97
ba9
%9&'
#9

7#9 $ ! ! ! ! !
`ba9
%9&' 8( %9&' 8( xy
z{
tu vw x}wx~ |}wx~ 9! $2 ! ! ! ! !
]!
97(9b " 1$ 1$ ! ! ! ! !
8(
#9

7#9 ")
#9!
97(9b $ ") u _9
97 `ba9 ! ! ! ! !
7
99b $2 "2 $2 "2 u n97
#9
b98
9! "2 ! ! ! ! !
8OMqr;DJORRs;ONIDGNJ<:DA9E9G<B<E; 2 ÏÐÑÒÒÓÏÒÔÕÐÖ×ØÏÓ±µ±®ÙÙ ¢
]b9n
(8 ]b9n
(8(8
k97
9o9b *+
1
, -.++/0 18
23 ¯
¡ ¡ ¢ £¢ ¡
pa

p
, 2!22"
,-.-**456*05 7
989 ¢¤¥¤¦§

¨ ¡©¥ª«¬¥
®¥©¥ª«¬¥
a9
38
! 89:;<
,-.-5*=4/*54 7
989
8OBDZ[ 6
,*.=4=50-==0
6
,-.-?-/-0=5*
1>
32&31
1> ±¯
@<ABCD @<ABCD K9LDMC:NEOJ<D QDORDJ9B9D TU<DJ<ABCDRNED WC:NEOJ<D ±

;B9EBD <IJD MNIM<IBE9BONID ANOIBD VN:U<E MNIM.DRNED
FGGH FGGH FPDMNIME<B<H OSINE<J VN:U<E
°¯
2 2!21230 "!0 2!21230
35!0 2!23000 31!0 2!23000 °
35!0 "2!0 2!2310 1$!0 2!2310
"2!0 $3!0 2!231" ") 2!231"
$3!0 $4!0 2!23)"0 X $0!0 Y> ¯
Y> Y>
Y> Y>
Y> Y> ° ± ² ¯ ³ ´ µ ¶ °
Y> Y> Ê¾Á¾Â»ËÂ¼ºÁ¿Ì¾ÍÂ¸¿ÃÎÎÉ
Y> Y>
454
_`:;;]_;GaP`Bb<G_]G-20cG[FSTJUOCGFTSCG5
de9
49 012f97

!8,8 34516789

98 123397
89 g
h97 7
[FSTJUOCGFTSCG5GSTRIEUTNGOCEIUSH [TJJTHUTNGRFSTJUOCGRTNECNEGEFJCHFTSOH ;CJZURCGSUXCGDJCOUREUTNH
je9 k3
d 6l
3
152
878
97
!8
3
+

9ij
j98

!'9
+87i
d97e
71 7
m8
1233
9j8
9j
i
9

i

9
1233
2"207
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 2"202 2 97
k788 !8
1 2"2#2 # 2"20 2"2# 2"20 2"2#
j9 $1 1% 0& 1% 0& 1%
k9e88
8, } ~
r )9*+
'9

7'9 $# 15% 0& 15% 0& 15%
s h97
rt 9" $2 1$% $& 1$% $& 1$%
[TZCJGOCDEFHGUNGEFUHGXIRC }~rs # 13% $& 13% $& 13%
+
h97
je9
)9*+
'9

7'9 $ #$% (& #$% (& #$%
hje9
)9*+ 8, )9*+ 8, v uv
rs tu wvxy{zuv
{ | 9" $2 1$% $& 1$% $& 1$%
%"
97,9j $1 15 # 1$ | 1$ 4% 1& 4% 1& 4%
'9"
97,9j $# #2 $ #( 8,
'9

7'9 #( 12% #& 12% #& 12%
s k9
97 hje9
7
99j $2 #2 $2 #2 s !i97
'9
j98
9" #2 3$% 1& 3$% 1& 3$%
8URnoHGOUXXpHUTNGLTOCSGDIJILCECJH 2 ÍÎÏÐÐÑÍÐÒÓÎÔÕÖÍÑ®³®×ØØ ¢ Ù§
%j9i
,8 %j9i
,8,8
f97
9q9j -.
1
/ 01...2 8
34 ±
&e

&
/ 2"22# !
/01050-.6-.6 7
989
¬«£§£¨©ª«£
¦§£¨©ª«£
µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç
e9
38
" 89:;< !
/010666=>.5> 7
989 °
8UEG]^ 6
/01>??>2.@5=
6
/01066.@@.=?
1A
32*31
1A ¯
BCDEFG BCDEFG PIQGRFSTJUOCG WGUXGOIEIG 9ZCGOCDEFGXTJG [FSTJUOCG ¡
HEIJEG CNOG RTNRCNEJIEUTNG DTUNEG ;TSZCJ RTNR1GXTJG ¢£¢¤¥
KLLM KLLM KVGRTNRJCECM UYNTJCO ;TSZCJ
2 33 2"2120# 0"0 2"2120#
33 1 2"2332 34 2"2332 ®
1 #1 2"23311 14"0 2"23311
\A \A
\A \A
\A \A
\A \A
\A \A ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´
\A \A È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
\A \A
455
_`:;;]_;FaOÀb<F_]F+5.cFZERSITNBFESRBF?
de9
49 012f97

!8)8 34516789

98 123397
89 g
h97 7
ZERSITNBFESRBF?FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG ;BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
ie9 j3
d 6k
3
152
878
97
!8
3
(

9mi
i98

(87m
!$9
d97e
73 7
l8
1233
997i89i
m9
m

9
1233
2"207
7
3

898
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 2"202 \gno 97
j788 !8
1 2"2#2 '0 2"20 2"2# 2"20 2"2#
i9 0 " " " " "
j9e8 u &9'(
$9

7$9 05 " " " " "
v h97
uw 9" %2 " " " " "
(
h97
ie9
uv
&9'(
$9

7$9
#
%
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
hie9
n"
97)9i
&9'(
0
8)
%4
&9'(
#
8)
1% uv wxyzy{|~}xy
~xy

9"

%2
1%
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
$9"
97)9i 05 02 % #* 8)
$9

7$9 #* " " " " "
v j9
97 hie9
7
99i %2 #2 %2 #2 v !m97
$9
i98
9" #2 " " " " "
8TQrsGFNTWWtGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 2 ÐÑÒÓÓÔÐÓÕÖÑ×ØÙÐÔ²¶±Ú ÛÛ¡£
ni9m
)8 ni9m
)8)8
f97
9p9i +,
1
- ./,01+ 28
34 °
¡¢¡¢¡£¡¤£¡¢
qe

q
- 2"22# !
-./.+1556,5, 7
989 £¥¦ ¥§¨
©¡¢ª¦«¬®¦
¯®¦ª¦«¬®¦
e9
38
" 89:;< !
-./.=60>1?=0 7
989
8TDF]^ 6
-+/+6=61,=5+
6
-./.0=.0?+.6
1@
32'31
1@ ²°

±°
2 32 2"2113 0 2"2113
32 12 2"23*5* 30 2"23*5*
12 #2"0 2"23#% [ 10"10 \@ ±
#2"0 %0 2"23#43 #"0 2"23#43
%0 *3 2"23*25 [ 0# \@ °
*3 2 2"23154 [ *0"0 \@
2 5% 2"23031 2"23031
5% 322 2"2303 41 2"2303 ± ² ³ ° ´ µ ¶ · ±
\@ \@ Ë¿Â¿Ã¼ÌÃ½»ÂÀÍ¿ÎÃ¹ÀÄÏÏÊ
\@ \@
456
0123457895

4515
!"
>2657895
]C)v>%1$557;265#155_012345A169
-)i.*i-.'-
#7$1%&$53
'()*+7,5&$53
-.'. /58101,53
-2 34! '.i.Ci-.'-
0589$,5
3%5657668&15%72$ 058941%,
9%565:668#155589 Of4LUQTeUa3IdOKadOUIJSLQN4ULOhx
#8$8632$87&5
2.9 ;8129%9,25175247$
.9 0 1, %1 5 & 6
8 2
@2
&8$27 y18 ,7 15@5157&56275
mlmwm ^Di8$&7&E
<:
* =873&8,5
>15$?258@,57%1@
5 +7&A8273 0- #76123535$5&$276292$
mlmmw ^Di8$&7&E
0<B
2.CC #1274$,5
<$15899%$7D<%1@058&7EFG518627588$5188
7 01&A8273 0- +72$28$27$715763'
mlm m ^Di8$&7&E
#8$95&12,$27
<%1@058&7FG518627588G5
B5G51 #95873H'9$'..9 +72$28$27$715763-
mlmwm ^Di8$&7&E
z3O{TaNO3 cQI33LS OSQeaf uO43hQa akhQ uO 43hQa
3IdPOTaNO3 IDJI KLKMNO34PO34!
99E D99E
QRSIT4U
VKKW hITIJf4TOaf TaNO3IJ TeUa3IdO 4NO34PO uO4h3Qh34QJd 4NO34PO
0123458G51845
D^&7&15$5E D^&7&15$5E D99-i1E jO4K f4TOQe3OheaUd hQI33LS Ta33ahIaJ hQ34Jd
<@@2$ <X$12151Y%,
Z [\ 2( 2. D99E D99E D99E Ta33ahIaJ Ta33ahIaJ
H2 2) H. 927 8G5 927 .A.]^ .A.H^ .A.]^ .A.H^ .A.]^ .A.H^ .A.]^ .A.H^
235i X15YZ 2. 8G51845 .A.-(- .A..-) -)A'-*- 2H 22 2. Y) 2 )_ --2 '2_ 2'* '2_ 2'*
855 <$211%, H. <$35G .A.-.' .A..-' H]AC2.2 ) ) ( ( ] . . . . . .
0$$9 X15YZ 2. 927 .A..]C .A...- 'AC-.* 2. 2. H. - ( )_ --2 '2_ 2'* '2_ 2'*
5%65 <$211%, H. 981 .A.]2C .A..]- C)A*]H] *H *] 2) - ( )_ --2 '2_ 2'* '2_ 2'*
OhQaT4QIaJh eUa3IdOKadOUS434KOQO3h O4KTaNO3h hQIK4QOd3OK4IJIJPUIfOVgmkmW
cQI33LS OSQeaf uO43hQa4NOluO43hQakhQuO43hQa4NOl
àUOb O4K aT4QIaJ cIdO OJPQe adOUfIQ h

I

3g

T

z3

O{
TaNO3

TO3IJ TeUa3IdO hQI33LS hQ34Jd hQ34Jd
aN
D^&7&15$5E D^&7&15$5E D99-i1E D99E j3IdPOQe3 OheaUd
D99E D99E Ta33ahIaJ Ta33ahIaJ Ta33ahIaJ
927 8G5 8G5 .A.]^ .A.H^ .A.]^ .A.H^ .A.]^ .A.H^ .A.]^ .A.H^
' kM @@2$ 7581923,87 >2$F klmmmm .A.-C- .A..H. 'AC-.* *H *] 2) Y'C Y' 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A
- kM 235 n0<Z 7581923,87 >2$F mlo"p .A.]2C .A..]- 2A..22 2. 2. H. - ( )_ --2 '2_ 2'* '2_ 2'*
H k <F>>+Z 7581923,87 7,1@265q O33a3 2. 2- 2)
2 k <F>>+Z BFZ:0B9 7,1@265q O33a3 2. 2- 2)
] kr <F>>+Z 7581923,87 #75&_>2$s mlp "t .A..]C .A...- C)A*]H] 2' 2. 2) 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A 27@A
* 7,1@265q O33a3 2. 2. H.
C 7,1@265q O33a3 2. 2. H.
457
7]gMhJJiDjklJDOMJJ^DmMk@nJoDOC9PFQL;DCP9;D.
p[9
29 012_97

!8)8 34256789

98 397
89 a)Yc9
ccr
9
)8 7 1
OC9PFQL;DCP9;D.D9PR8BQPKDL;B8Q9: OPFFP:QPKDRC9PFQL;DRPKB;KBDBCF;:CP9L: E;FXQR;D9QU;DAF;LQRBQPK:
878
97
a[901sp(
b q
!p2
p 6t !8
3
(

9ca
a98

(87c
p97[
73 6
r8
3
!$9
9a
9789a
c9
c

9
3
"06
7
3

898
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 "0 '31 97
q788 !8
"# '3 "0 "# "0 "#
a9 5# " " " " "
q9[8 97
a7 Ø Ú &9'(
$9

7$9 50 " " " " "
Ü
»Í
»Õ½
Y97
9" % " " " " "
OPX;FDL;ABC:DQKDBCQ:DU8R;
(
Y97
a[9
ÆÇÈÉÊËÌ»Í¼ÎÏÐÑÒÓÎÔ ÖÖ
&9'(
$9

7$9
%
%4
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
Ya[9
b"
97)9a
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) »¼ ½¾¿À¿ÁÂÄÃ¾¿
Ä¾¿Å
Å
9" % " " " " "
5# 02 % #% #% " " " " "
$9"
97)9a 50 5 %4 %2 ×ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ q9
97 8)
$9

7$9 %2 " " " " "
ØÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ !c97
$9
a98
Ya[9
7
99a % # % # 9" # " " " " "
7QRde:DLQUUf:QPKDHPL;9DA8F8H;B;F: * ®¯°±±²y³́±yz°±±µy¶°³·¸±yyy}{¹¹~y|yº~}
ba9c
)8 ba9c
)8)8
_97
9`9a +,

- ./****08
12 uvuwu
Z[

Z
- "# !
- */*+3++43.5 6
989 uvuwxyz{||{}~{y~~~~{y
uvuwuu |}{
¡¢£¤¥ ¦ §
[9
38
" 789:; !
- */**+<53=*+ 6
989
7QBD]^
~y|y{|
y|y{|
6
- ./3+*43<,=, >
6
- */*4,44<+.? 3'3
> uvuu
@;ABCD @;ABCD M8NDOC9PFQL;D TDQUDL8B8D WX;D@;ABCDUPFD OC9PFQL;D uvuuu
EB8FBD JKLD RPKR;KBF8BQPKD APQKBD EP9X;F RPKR/DUPFD
GHHI GHHI GSDRPKRF;B;I QVKPF;L EP9X;F
3 "313 0 "313 uvuu
3 0 "%# 31"0 "%#
0 % YZ[ #"0 "# uvuuu
% 00 YZ[ \> \>
00 1 YZ[ \> \> uvuuu
\> \>
\> \>
\> \> uvuuuu
\> \> u u u wu u u u u u u uu
\> \> ¨ © ª« ¡¬¬§
458
;^kOl??mFno=?FZO??_FpOoAq?rFZERSITNBFESRBF+
s\9
69 012d97

!8*8 34256789

98 397
89 `*[j9
jjc
9
*8 7 1
ZERSITNBFESRBF+FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG >BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
878
97
`\945ts)
f b
!s6
s 6u !8
3
)

9j̀
`98

)87j
s97\
73 :
c8
3
!$9
9`8
9`
j
9

j

9
3
"0:
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 "0 97
b78`9@
c9[ !8
"# 4 "0 "# "0 "#
`9a)
b9\897
`7 v '9()
$9

7$9
w [97
vx 9" % 3%& %% 3%& %35 35&
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB vw
'9()
$9

7$9
)
[97
`\9
[`\9
'9() 8* '9() 8* z{
|}~yz 9" % 3%& %% 3%& %35 35&
f"
97*9` vw xy zyz
$9"
97*9` w b9
97 8
*
$9

7$9
[`\9
7
99` % # % # w !j97
$9
`98
9" # 2& %2 2& % 422
;TQghGFNTWWiGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÑÒÓÔÕÕÖª×ØÕÔÕÕÙÚÔ×ÛÜÕ±°¡ÝÝ¢¤£§¥ Þ¢©¡«¥£
f`9j
*8 f`9j
*8*8
d97
9e9` +, µ

- ./012348
56
&\

&
- "# !
- ./.3,7+8719 :
\9
38
" ;<=>? ´
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
!
- ./..3+9+.,1 :
989
;TDF^_
°¯§« §¬®¯§
6
- ,/..,808799 @
6
- ./9+2071,0+ 3(3
@ ³
ABCDEF ABCDEF OHPFQERSITNBF VFTWFNHDHF <YBFNBCDEFWSIF ZERSITNBF ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF >SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF ¤¦ §¡¦¨©
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN >SRYBI
33 "#40 0"0 "#40
33 5 "3% 32"0 "3% ²
5 0% "12 % "12
0% 13 [&\ 5"0 "#
13 43 [&\ ]@ ]@ ±
]@ ]@
]@ ]@
]@ ]@
± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ±
]@ ]@
]@ ]@ ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
459
3cdEe77f=gh57=OE77i=jEh9k7l=O<H/.ID-=</H-=W
[S9
^9 012m97

!8)8 34256789

98 397
89 V)Q09
00`
9
)8 7 1
O<H/.ID-=</H-=W=H/G?;I/C=D-;?IH> O/../>I/C=G<H/.ID-=G/C;-C;=;<.-></HD> 6-.NIG-=HIL-=:.-DIG;I/C>
878
97
VS9XYZ[(
\ ]
![^
[ 6_ !8
3
(

90V
V98

(870
[97S
73 2
`8
3
!%9
9V8
9V
0
9

0

9
3
"02
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 "0 Ta ]Zb 97
]788 !8
"# Ta ]Zb "0 "# "0 "#
V9 $
]9S897
V7 } ~r &9'(
%9

7%9 $
s Q97
rt 9" $
O/N-.=D-:;<>=IC=;<I>=L?G-
(
Q97
VS9

}~rs
&9'(
%9

7%9
$
$4
QVS9
\"
97)9V
&9'(
$
8) &9'(
$
8)
#$
rs tuvwvxy{zuv{uv|
|
9"

$
#$
%9"
97)9V $ $4 $2 s ]9
97 8)
%9

7%9 $2
QVS9
7
99V $ # $ # s !097
%9
V98
9" #
3IGno>=DILLp>I/C=A/D-H=:?.?A-;-.> ÍÎÏÐ©ÑÑÒ¦ÓÔÑÐÑÑÕÖÐÓ×ØÑ®ÑÙÙ £¡Ú¥§¡
\V90
)8 \V90
)8)8
m97
9q9V *+

, -../.
091 ¡
RS

R
, "# !
, 2
989 ¢£¢¤¥
¦§£¨©ª«£
¬«£§£¨©ª«£

S9
38
" 34567 !
, 2
989 µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç
C/=:./LIH-U 6
,
6
,
9-:;<= 9-:;<= E?F=G<H/.ID-= K=IL=D?;?=
8
3'3
8
¯
¯
>;?.;= -CD= G/CG-C;.?;I/C= :/IC;= 4N-=D-:;<=L/.= GO<H /.ID-=
/CGP=L/.=
@AAB @AAB @J=G/CG.-;-B IMC/.-D 6/HN-. 6/HN-.
3 QRS 5 T8 ®
3 # QRS T8 T8
# $0 QRS T8 T8 ®
$0 53 QRS T8 T8
53 14 QRS T8 T8
T8 T8
T8 T8
T8 T8
® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ ®
T8 T8
T8 T8 È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
460
3\]B^__`<abc_<MB__d<eBb8f_g<M;5/.EA-<;/5-<+
YQ9
h9 012i97

!8)8 34256789

98 397
89 [)O09
00j
9
)8 7 1
M;5/.EA-<;/5-<+<5/D4:E/@<A-:4E56 M/../6E/@<D;5/.EA-<D/@:-@:<:;.-6;/5A6 L-.KED-<5EH-<9.-AED:E/@6
878
97
[Q9kXVY(
l U
!Yh
Y 6m !8
3
(

90[
[98

(870
Y97Q
73 2
j8
3
!%9
9[8
9[
0
9

0

9
3
"02
7
3

898 97
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 "0 RT UVW 97
U788 !8
"# RT UVW "0 "# "0 "#
[9 $
U9Q8XY(Z
6 } ~
r &9'(
%9

7%9 $
s O97
rt 9" $
M/K-.<A-9:;6<E@<:;E6<H4D- }~rs $
(
O97
[Q9
&9'(
%9

7%9 $4
O[Q9
l"
97)9[
&9'(
$
8) &9'(
$
8)
#$ rs tuvwvxy{zuv
{uv|
|
9" $
#$
8)
%9

7%9 $2
%9"
97)9[ $ $4 $2 s U9
97 O[Q9
7
99[ $ # $ # s !097
%9
[98
9" #
3EDop6<AEHHq6E/@<>/A-5<94.4>-:-.6 ÍÎÏÐ©ÑÑÒ¦ÓÔÑÐÑÑÕÖÐÓ×ØÑ®ÑÙÙ ÒÎÐ©ÚÑÒ×
l[90
)8 l[90
)8)8
i97
9n9[ *+

, -../.
091 ¡
PQ

P
, "# !
, 2
989 ¢£¢¤¥
¬«£§£¨©ª«£
¦§£¨©ª«£
µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç
Q9
38
" 3456- !
, 2
989
@/<9./HE5-S 6
,
6
,
8-9:;< 8-9:;< B4C<D;5/.EA-< G<EH<A4:4<
7
3'3
7
¯
¯
6:4.:< -@A< D/@D-@:.4:E/@< 9/E@:< JK-<A-9:;<H/.< DM;5 /.EA-<
/@DN<H/.<
=>>? =>>? =F<D/@D.-:-? EI@/.-A L/5K-. L/5K-.
3# OPQ 5"0 R7 ®
3# 5 OPQ R7 R7
5 #4 OPQ R7 R7 ®
#4 0$ OPQ R7 R7
0$ 1 R7 R7
R7 R7
R7 R7
R7 R7
® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ ®
R7 R7
R7 R7 È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
461
8àOb<<cFde:<FZO<<fFgOeAh<iFZERSITNBFESRBF1
j\9
k9 012l97

"8*8 34256789

98 397
89 m*[n9
nno
9
*8 7 1
878
97
m\94spj)
q r
"jk
j 6t "8
3
)

9nm
m98

73 7
o8
3
"&9
)8
9
7n
m8
9m
n
9
j97\
n

9
3
#07
7
3

898 97
97 7
!

9798
89
78 "8
3 #0 ]pq5 97
r788 "8
#$ ]pq5 #0 #$ #0 #$
m9 %3 # # # # #
r9\897
m7 x '9()
&9

7&9 % # # # # #
y [97
xz 9# % # # # # #
)
[97
m\9

xy
'9()
&9

7&9
%
%4
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# #
[m\9
xy z{|}|~{|
{|
'9() 8* '9() 8* 9# % # # # # #
q#
97*9m %3 $% % $% $% # # # # #
!&9#
97*9m % $5 %4 %2 8*
&9

7&9 %2 # # # # #
y r9
97 [m\9
7
99m % $ % $ y "n97
&9
m98
9# $ # # # # #
8TQûGFNTWWvGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÓÔÕÖ¯××Ø¬ÙÚ× Ö××ÛÜÖÙÝÞ×´ß£¡àà¤¦¥©§¢á¤«£§¥
qm9n
*8 qm9n
*8*8
l97
9w9m +, ³

- ./012,"93
485 ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
3\

3
- #$ "
- ./..10001.6 7
989
\9
38
# 89:;< "
- ./...=>?.2= 7
989 »¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄ¾ÅÆÂÅÆÃÇÈÃÉÊÃËÆÌÃÄ¾ÅÄ¿ÂÆÂÍ
ZEBQ^F8TD_ 6
- >2/016,>>2? @
6
- +/,?,.21,+6 3(3
@
µ³
µ
3$ #%2 5#0 #%2 ´³
3$ 0 #03 34 #03
0 %$ [3\ $% #$ ´
%$ 00 [3\ ]@! ]@!
00 1 [3\ ]@! ]@! ³
1 14 [3\ ]@! ]@!
]@! ]@!
]@! ]@!
´ µ ¶ ³ · ¸ ¹ º ´
]@! ]@!
]@! ]@! ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
462
0123457895

^guv 4515

72.57895
1<w7(2>510123452(.9
$!h%1h$%$
7153
! "7#553
$%% &581'(#53
$ )*+ %h%3h$%$
0589#5
",589 058941#
"-,589 gJc*GPLObP\)DaJF\aJPDENGLI*PGJfy
88.32875
%9 /8(299#25105240
1239 ' (# 1 5 .
8 2
:28
27 z18 #0 15:51575.275
jkjj X?h97@
45
1 68738#5
7158259:#571:
5 "729273 0.123535527.292
jkjj X?h97@
04;
<3=% 1274#5
2>5190?41:0580@A>518.275985198
5 '(29273 "7228270150.3
jkjxj X?h97@
8B512#27
41:0580A>518.27598>5
54.81. B,873 %9 "7228270150.3$
jkjj X?h97@
q)JrsO\IJ) `LD))GN gJNLb\c tJ*)fL\ \fL tJ *)fL\
^)DaKJO\IJ) CD?ED FGFHIJ)*KJ)*+
99@ ?99@
LMNDO*P
QFFR efeDgODEc*OJ\c O\IJ)DE ObP\)DaJ *IJ)*KJ tJ*f)Lf)*LEa *IJ)*KJ
0123458>51845
?X7155@ ?X7155@ ?99$h1@ iJ*F c*OJLb)Jfb\Pa fLD))GN O\))\fD\E fL)*Ea
4::2 4S12151-#
T UV = =% ?99@ ?99@ ?99@ O\))\fD\E O\))\fD\E
$W $ <% 927 8>5 927 %2%WX %2%<X %2%WX %2%<X %2%WX %2%<X %2%WX %2%<X
235h S15-T =% 8>51845 %2<!W %2%%%1 2$1$% = =$ < < $$ $% $W $%1 W1 $$3 1$
95, 4211# <% 435> %2%31% %2%%% <2W$W1 $ < 3 $ $% =$ <% 1$ <= 3%
09 S15-T UY =1 =% 927 %2%$31 %2%%%% =2 !3 =% =% $ 3 = $ = < ! 1
,., 4211# <W <W <% 98( %2$31< %2%%$ =2113< =< =1 <W << =% W!1 ! ! W % Z $W
sJfL_\O*LD\Ef ebP\)DaJF\aJPN*)*FJLJ)f ^J*FO\IJ)f fLDF*LJa)JF*DEDEKPDcJQdjjR
`LD))GN gJNLb\c tJ*)fL\*IJktJ*)fL\fLtJ*)fL\*IJk
[\PJ] ^J*F _\O*LD\E `DaJ _JEKLb C\aJPcDL ef

eD

)d

gO

q)

Jrs
O\IJ)

OJ)DE ObP\)DaJ fLD))GN fL)*Ea fL)*Ea
\I
?X7155@ ?X7155@ ?99$h1@ ?99@ i)DaKJLb) Jfb\Pa
?99@ ?99@ O\))\fD\E O\))\fD\E O\))\fD\E
927 8>5 8>5 %2%WX %2%<X %2%WX %2%<X %2%WX %2%<X %2%WX %2%<X
H 4A77"T 7581923#87 72A jklllm %2%$31 %2%%$ =2 !3 =% = $ -$= -$ 27:2 27:2 27:2 27:2 27:2 27:2
$ H ,9,., n'4T 7581923#87 72A jklll %2%33 %2%%< 12=%1< =< =1 <W 3 = W!1 ! ! W % Z $W
>5128.
< ^ ,9,., n'4T 7581923#87 72A jkllol %2$31< %2%%%% =2113< =< =1 <W << =% $ -W = < ! 1
>5128.
= ^ 4A77"T ;'p/"B4Sp; 72A jklll %231 %2%%%% %2W$ = =% = $ 3 $= =$ % ! <! %W =
W ^ n'0 n'4T n'0 72A jkll+ %2<% %2%%%% <2!1=! =% =% <% $ $ $ WW WW
1 me 4A77"T ;'p/"B4Sp; 72A jklloj %2=$3 %2%%%% 32<%WW =% =% $ 1 $$ =W 1 %W = < W<
3 mg 4A77"T ;'p/"B4Sp; 72A jklomd %2$%$ %2%%%% 32%1$% = =% $ $% $W $= ! 1! <1 1! <1
463
8eSCLmnILoCNB:OEPK<CBO:<C+
^
a8 28 012c86

7(7
13435678
87
186 78 [86 6 4
NB:OEPK<CBO:<C+C:OQ9APOJCK<A9P:; NOEEO;POJCQB:OEPK<CQOJA<JACABE<;BO:K; D<EWPQ<C:PT<C@E<KPQAPOJ;
767
86
à801] ^_^ 7
1 '
8
b̀ `87 '
76b ^86 a
6 2 7 d7
1
#8 8`
8678`
b8 b 8 1
!"7
6 1
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !" &$ 86
\
67

7 7
!2 & !" !2 !" !2
`8
\8 a7 86 `6 Î Ð %8&'
#8 6#8
Í² ÌÏ¼½¾Ñ¿ÀÁÂ
Ò
±Ã
±Ë³
[86
8! $ ! ! ! ! !
NOW<ECK<@AB;CPJCABP;CT9Q<
' [86 à8 ¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ±Ã²ÄÅÆÇÈÉÄÊ ÌÌ
%8&'
#8 6#8
$
$1
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
[à8
i ! 86(8`
%8&' 7( %8&' 7( ±² ³´µ¶µ·¸º¹´µ
º´µ»
»
8! $ ! ! ! ! !
$ " " ! ! ! ! !
#8! 86(8` $1 3 ÍÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ² \8 86 7(
#8 6#8 3 ! ! ! ! !
ÎÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓÓ² b86
#8 `87 [à8
6 88` $ 2 $ 2 8! 2 ! ! ! ! !
8PQjk;CKPTTl;POJCGOK<:C@9E9G<A<E; ) ¨©ªt«¬®«trttxv¯ȳ{tz~|wt°yx|z
i
`8b (7 i
`8b
(7(7
c86 8g
8` *+ , )-.../ 07 12 pqprp
ha
h , !2 , )-)*34.56++ 7
878 pqprstuvwwvxyvztyzy{y|{yvzt
pqprpp {}w~x}v
¡¢
a
8 17 ! 89:;< , )-))*.*)+3. 7
878
8PACef
yztw~tv~w
~tw~tv~w
5 , /-..53+==3+ >
5 , )-+454)5+6+ 1&1 > pqpp
?<@ABC ?<@ABC L9MCNB:OEPK<C SCPTCK9A9C VW<C?<@ABCTOEC NB:OEPK<C pqppp
DA9EAC IJKC QOJQ<JAE9APOJC @OPJAC DO:W<E QOJQ-CTOEC
FGGH FGGH FRCQOJQE<A<H PUJOE<K DO:W<E
4 !2 $ !2 pqpp
4 1X !12 1!" !12
1X 21 !"0 $ !"0 pqppp
21 $" 2Y 24 !2
$" "4 2Y Z> Z> pqppp
"4 X1 2Y Z> Z>
X1 42 2Y Z> Z>
Z> Z> pqpppp
Z> Z> p p p rp p p p p p p pp
Z> Z> £¤¥¦§§¢
464
:_VFOà>ObFZERSITNBFESRBF+
\
c8 48 012d86

7*7
13435678
87
186 78 e86 6 4
ZERSITNBFESRBF+FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG =BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
767
86
^c823f \g\ 7
1 )
8
i^ ^87 )
76i \86 c
6 2 9 h7
1
#8 8^7
8^
i
8
i 8 1
!"9
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !" % 86
j
67
e
77
e*ie 7
! 2 1$ !" !2 !" !2
^8p)
j8 c7 86 ^6 } ~r '8()
#8 6#8
s e86
rt 8! $ %32 14 %% 101 %4
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB }~rs
'8()
#8 6#8
$2 310 11 43" 13 3"
) e86 ^c8 e^c8 $0 1& 20 1& 1" 21"
'8() 7* '8() 7* vw
xyz{uv| 8! $ %32 14 %% 101 %4
l ! 86*8^ $2 2" rs tu v{uv| 2" 0% 123 "40 114 "30
#8! 86*8^ $0 2" s j8 86 7
*
#8
6#8 2" 0% 123 "40 114 "30
e^c8
6 88^ $ 2 $ 2 s i86
#8 ^87 8! 2 $$0 1 $" 41 $2"
:TQmnGFNTWWoGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÐ¬ÔÔ £¡Õ¥§¡
l
^8i *7 l
^8i
*7*7
d86 8k
8^ +, ³
- ./0001 27 34
&c
& - !2 - ./.5,567568 9
878 µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç ²
c
8 17 ! :;<=>
¦§£¨©ª«£
- ./..,+7.07+ 9
878
:TDF_q
¬«£§£¨©ª«£
5 - 7/6.716567 ? ±
5 - ./+.1,6106@ 1(1 ? °
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF =SRYBI QSMQ/FWSIF ¯
JKKL JKKL JUFQSMQIBDBL TXMSIBN =SRYBI ¡
4 !"4 $ !"4 ¢£¢¤¥
4 1 !4$ 1$!" !4$
1 21 !4$ 0 !4$
21 $0 [\ 24!" !2 ®
$0 01 ]? ]?
01 %" ]? ]?
]? ]?
]? ]?
® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´
]? ]?
]? ]? È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
465
8kVFOlm<OnFZERSITNBFESRBF5
\
g8 38 012d86

7)7
13435678
87
186 78 h86 6 4
767
86
bg812o \p\ 7
1 (
8
cb b87 (
76c \86 g
6 2 7 q7
1
#8 8b7
8b
c
8
c 8 1
!"7
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !" 22 86
j
67
h
77
h)ch 7
!2 $ !" !2 !" !2
b8i(
j8 g7 86 b6 ~ s &8'(
#8 6#8
t h86
su $ 8! 2 1 3 13
ZSYBIFNBCDEGFTMFDETGFWHQB ~st $2
&8'(
#8 6#8
2" $ 1$ 2 $
( h86 bg8 $0
hbg8 23 % 14 0 4
a ! 86)8b
&8'( 7) &8'(
$2
7)
2"
st uvwxwyz|{vw|vw}
}
$
2"
8!

2
2
1 3
10 '"
13
1
#8! 86)8b $0 2" t j8 86 7)
#8 6#8
2" 2 10 '" 1
hbg8
6 88b $ 2 $ 2 t c86
#8 b87 2 8! 1% 1 '$ '3 0
8TQ^_GFNTWW`GTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG ÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÑÕÖ¡¡×ÖØ¥ÖÙÔÚª ¤¢×¦¨¢
a
b8c )7 a
b8c
)7)7
d86 8e
8b *+
, -.//0/ 17 23
fg
f , !2 , -.*04555465 7
878
§ ¨¤©ª«¬¤
¬¤¨¤©ª«¬¤
g
8 17 ! 89:;< , +.//45=<>-6 7
878 °®
8TDFkr 5 , +?.440*0=04 @

5 , -.?46-/456= 1'1 @
°
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF ;SRYBI QSMQ.FWSIF ¯®
1 !3$ " !3$
1 2 !11$ !11$ ¯
2 $0 !2%1 24 !2%1
$0 02 [\ "$!" !2
02 41 ]@ ]@ ® ¡¢¡
]@ ]@ ¡£¤£¥¦
]@ ]@
]@ ]@
¯ ° ± ® ² ³ ´ µ ¯
]@ ]@
]@ ]@ É½À½ÁºÊÁ»¹À¾Ë½ÌÁ·¾ÂÍÍÈ
466
8iSFMjk?MlFYE:PGQL<FEP:<F5
[
d8 38 012e86

7(7
13435678
87
186 78 c86 6 4
YE:PGQL<FEP:<F5F:PO9DQPKFL<D9Q:; YPGGP;QPKFOE:PGQL<FOPKD<KDFDEG<;EP:L; X<GWQO<F:QT<FCG<LQODQPK;
767
86
ad812m [n[ 7
1 '
8
ba a87 '
76b [86 d
6 2 7 o7
1
#8 8a7
8a
b
8
b 8 1
!"7
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !" 1) 86
h
67

7 7
! 2 $ !" !2 !" !2
a8
h8 d7[ `5% | }~
q %8&'
#8 6#8
r c86
qs 8! $ 113 "3 34 24 14
YPW<GFL<CDE;FQKFDEQ;FT9O< |}~qr $ 113 "3 34 24 14
' c86 ad8 %8&'
#8 6#8 $1 10 0 1" $1 11"
cad8
` ! 86(8a
%8&' 7( %8&'
$
7(
" qr stuvuwxzytu
ztu{
{
8! $
"
113
$)
"3
2
34
0
24

14
20
7(
#8 6#8 3
#8! 86(8a $1 3 r h8 86 cad8 02 21 $ 1 "
6 88a $ 2 $ 2 r b86
#8 a87 8! 2 0) 22 $0 1 "0
8QO]^;FLQTT_;QPKFIPL<:FC9G9I<D<G; ÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÏÓÔÔÕÒ«Ï¥ÐÖ×Ø«Õ
`
a8b (7 `
a8b
(7(7
e86 8f
8a *+ °
, -.//0/ 17 23
gd
g , !2 , -.++40*+560 7
878
«ª¢¦¢§¨©ª¢
¥¦¢§¨©ª¢
´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½·¾¿»¾¿¼ÀÁ¼ÂÃ¼Ä¿Å¼½·¾½¸»¿»Æ °¬
d
8 17 ! 89:;< , =.60>64?@-0 7
878
8QDFip 5 , +-.=*/5>=0> A
5 , -.>>>660*+5 1&1 A
B<CDEF B<CDEF M9NFOE:PGQL<F SFQTFL9D9F VW<FL<CDEFTPGF YE:PGQL<F
°
¯
;D9GDF <KLF OPKO<KDG9DQPKF CPQKDF XP:W<G OPKO.FTPGF
HIIJ HIIJ HRFOPKOG<D<J QUKPG<L XP:W<G
1 !323 " !323 ®
1 1 !"03 1"!" !"03
1 2) !4 3 !4
2) $4 Z[ $!" !2 ¡¢¡£¤
$4 01 \A \A ¬
01 )3 \A \A
\A \A
\A \A
° ¬ ± ® ² ¯ ³ °
\A \A
\A \A Ç»¾»¿¸È¿¹·¾¼É»Ê¿µ¼ÀËËÆ
467
8mUENno<NpEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE6
j
^8 48 012d86

7)7
13435678
87
186 78 \86 6 4
767
86
]^823i jkj 7
1 (
8
c] ]87 (
76c j86 ^
6 2 7 l7
1
#8 8]7
8]
c
8
c 8 1
!"7
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 7
1 !" 1 86
g
67
]8? l8\ 7
!2 3 !" !2 !" !2
]8h(
g8 ^7h } ~r &8'(
#8 6#8
s \86
rt 8! $ %0 $ "" 13 0"
( \86 ]^8
}~rs
&8'(
#8 6#8
\]^8
rs tuvwvxy{zuv
{uv|
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) 8! $ %0 $ "" 13 0"
b ! 86)8] |
#8! 86)8] 7)
#8 6#8
s g8 86 \]^8
6 88] $ 2 $ 2 s c86
#8 ]87 8! 2 $ 1 1 21
8SP_F̀EMSVVaFSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF ÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÐÔ¥£ÕÖ£×ØÓÙ©ØÓÔ
b
]8c )7 b
]8c
)7)7
d86 8e
8] *+ ±®
, -.//01 27 34
¬«£§£¨©ª«£
¦§£¨©ª«£
f^
f , !2 , -.+1-05-+66 7
878 ±
^
8 17 ! 89:;< , - 7
878 µ¶·¸¹º»¼½¾¸¿À¼¿À½ÁÂ½ÃÄ½ÅÀÆ½¾¸¿¾¹¼À¼Ç
8SCEmq 5 , +1.05=>560= ?
5 , -.=1/5=00=+ 1'1 ?
±
°
FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE ;RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE
1 !131 " !131 ¯
12 2 !$3$ 1!" !$3$
2 $1 !130 2"!" !130 ® ¡
$1 "" 4Z $4 !2 ¢£¢¤¥
"" %1 [? [?
%1 4" [? [?
[? [?
[? [?
± ® ² ¯ ³ ° ´ ±
[? [?
[? [? È¼¿¼À¹ÉÀº̧¿½Ê¼ËÀ¶½ÁÌÌÇ
468
7lUENmn;NoEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE5
h
_8 38 012a86

7)7
13435678
87
186 78 ^86 6 4
YDQRHSMAEDRQAE5EQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF :AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
767
86
]_812i hjh 7
1 (
8
`] ]87 (
76` h86 _
6 6 k7
1
%8 8]7
8]
`
8
` 8 1
"#6
6 1
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 7
1 "# 10 86
g
67

7 7
" 2 "# "2 "# "2
]8 10 $ 1# 3 11#
g8 _7!h \5&! | }~ q &8'(
%8 6%8 1 12 $ 112 #2 12
r ^86
qs 8" 10 $ 1# 3 11#
YRXAHEMABCDFESLECDSFEVGPA |}~qr
&8'(
%8 6%8
10 $ 1# 3 11#
( ^86 ]_8 ^]_8 1 122 $ 11 #2 1
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) uv
wx
qr st uztu{ yztu { 8" 10 $ 1# 3 11#
\ " 86)8] # # # 3 $ 4 0 24
!%8" 86)8] 1 3 1 3 7)
%8 6%8 3 00 2$ # 10 ##
r g8 86 ^]_8
6 88] 2 2 r 8̀6
%8 ]87 8" 2 $1 23 # 14 0
7SPdeFEMSVVfFSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF ÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÏÓÓÔÒ«Ï¥ÐÕÖ×«Ô
\
]8` )7 \
]8`
)7)7
a86 8b
8] *+ , -.//0- 17 23 °®
c_
c , "2 , -.+4*5/-*/4 6
878 °
¥¦¢§¨©ª¢
´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½·¾¿»¾¿¼ÀÁ¼ÂÃ¼Ä¿Å¼½·¾½¸»¿»Æ
«ª¢¦¢§¨©ª¢
_
8 17 " 789:; , - 6
878
7SCElp 5 , 0.<-=4045= >
5 , -.*<+5==-?+ 1'1 >
°¬
°
FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE :RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE ¯
0 "1 2 "1
0 "044 12 "044 ®
22 "1# 0"# "1#
22 4 3Z "# "2 ¡¢¡£¤
4 0 [>! [>!
0 $4 [>! [>! ¬
[>! [>!
[>! [>!
[>! [>!
° ¬ ± ® ² ¯ ³ °
[>! [>! Ç»¾»¿¸È¿¹·¾¼É»Ê¿µ¼ÀËËÆ
469
8lUENmn<NoEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE0
h
e8 48 012b86
!
7)7
13435678
87
186 78 f86 6 4
767
86
è823i hjh !7 1 (
8
à `87 (
76a h86 e
6 7 k7
1 !
%8 8`7
8`
a
8
a 8 1
"#7
6 1
78
7 86
865 6 8687 78
67 !7 1 "# 86
g
67

7 !7 "2 # "# "2 "# "2
`8 1 43 #$ 04 20 $4
g8 e7 h _5& |} ~q &8'(
%8 6%8 1 43 #$ 04 20 $4
r f86
qs 8" 4 # 02 22 $2
( f86 è8
|}~qr
&8'(
%8 6%8

1
4
43
#
#$
02
04
22
20
$2
$4
fè8
_ " 86)8`
&8'(
1
7)
4
&8'(

7)
# qr stuvuwxzytu
ztu{
{
8"

#
4
22
#
1
02
1
22

$2

%8" 86)8` 1 3 1 3 7)
%8 6%8 3 # 3 4 2
r g8 86 fè8
6 88` 2 2 r !a86
%8 `87 8" 2 $ 2 0 3 20
8SP\]FEMSVV^FSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF ÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÏ¯ÓÔÔÕÒ«Ï¥ÐÓÖ×«Õ
_
`8a )7 _
`8a
)7)7
b86 8c
8` *+ , -./01* 27 34 ®¬
de
d , "2 ! , -.*-*/156++ 7
878
´µ¶·¸¹º»¼½·¾¿»¾¿¼ÀÁ¼ÂÃ¼Ä¿Å¼½·¾½¸»¿»Æ
«ª¢¦¢§¨©ª¢
¥¦¢§¨©ª¢
e
8 17 " 89:;< ! , - 7
878 ®
8SCElp 5 , 0.-=+/=*6>= ?
5 , -.**>/>>>=> 1'1 ?
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE 9XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE ¬
FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE ;RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE
1 "1#4 # "1#4
1 "41 1$ "41
2 "0$ 4 "0$
1 "3 2"# "3 ¬
2 0 4Z 24 "2 ¡¢¡£¤
$ #3 [? [?
#3 $4 [? [?
[? [?
[? [? ® ¯ ¬ ° ± ² ³
[? [? Ç»¾»¿¸È¿¹·¾¼É»Ê¿µ¼ÀËËÆ
470
0123457895

xy 4515

l2357895
9ZZz?48]8=8!2A510123456+39
%,i(9i%(#%
71!"53
#$$%&7'5"53
%(#( )581*+'53
#, -./ @(i(9i%(#%
0589'5
01589 058941!'
021589 Le.JRNQdR_-GcLI_cLRGHPJNK.RJLh|
8833287"5
(9 48+29!9'25155245
,6#9 *+'!15"382>2"827 }18'515>5157"53275
mnm{m [Bi= "7"C
78
9: ;873"8'5
!183<2 5 = >
'57
!1>
5 &7"6
=2 73 53123535 5" 2
7 3292
mnmm{ [Bi= "7"C
07?
@,: 1274'5
2A519!5B7!1>058"5CDA5183275=851=8
5 *+"6=273 &722827515533#
mnmm [Bi= "7"C
8E5"12'27
7!1>058"5DA5183275=8A5
54!3813 E1873 (9 &722827515533%
mnm{m [Bi= "7"C
t- L uv
Q_K L- bN
G--JP L PN d
_e wL.-hN
_ _qhN wL .-hN_
-GcMLQ_KL- FGBHG IJI KL-.ML-
99C B99C
./
NOPGQ.R
SIIT ghgGQGHe.QL_e Q_KL-GH QdR_-GcL .KL-.ML wL.h-Nh-.NHc .KL-.ML
0123458A51845
B["7"155CB["7"155C B99%i1C jL.I e.QL Nd-Lhd_Rc hNG--JP Q_--_hG_H hN-.Hc
7>>2 U152V WX YY Y( B99C B99C B99C Q_--_hG_H Q_--_hG_H
7211!' @Y @: @( 927 8A5 927 (6(Z[ (6(@[ (6(Z[ (6(@[ (6(Z[ (6(@[ (6(Z[ (6(@[
235i U152V W\ Y: Y( 8A51845 (6#(Y9 (6((@% Z%6Z:99 Y% Y@ @9 %Y Y# @%( # YY9 : Y:: #(
=51 7211!' @9 @, @( 735A (6(Y9@ (6((Y% %$6:9,Z % @ @ #Z #Y Z:9 $ ,#@ #Y ,Y$ #Y
0 9 U1
5 2
V Y( 927 (6(Z@$ (6(((# #Z6
@(9( Y( Y( @( Y %9 : # #Y Y %( %
1!31 7211!' @( 98+ (6#,9% (6(($Y $$6$(@Z YZ Y: @, Z( :( %] #, %] @@ %] @Z
vLhNa_Q.NG_Hh gdR_-GcLI_cLRP.-.ILNL-h L.IQ_KL-h hNGI.NLc-LI.GHGHMRGeLSfmqmT
bNG--JP LPNd_e wL.-hN_.KLnwL.-hN_qhNwL.-hN_.KLn
^_RL` L.I a_Q.NG_H bGcL aLHMNd F_cLReGN ghgGQt-
-f B["7" LuvQ_KL-Q_K
L-GH QdR_-GcL hNG--JP hN-.Hc hN-.Hc
155CB["7"155C B99%i1C B99C j-GcMLNd- Lhd_Rc
B99C B99C Q_--_hG_H Q_--_hG_H Q_--_hG_H
927 8A5 8A5 (6(Z[ (6(@[ (6(Z[ (6(@[ (6(Z[ (6(@[ (6(Z[ (6(@[
# k 235 =5 75#i@'87 l2D mnoo (6#,9% (6(($Y #Z6@(9( Y@ Y: @, %, @: #Y # %Y : @# ##
% k 7Dll&V 75#i@'87 l2D mnop (6(Z:, (6(((: ,Z6@#:% Y( YY @: $ @9 %Z9 # @(# Y @99 ,
@ k 7Dll&V 75#i@'87 l2D mnomp (6(Z@$ (6((,$ @96@,:$ YY YZ @: Y %9 %] #, %] @@ %] @Z
Y k 7Dll&V 75#i@'87 l2D qnmmmm (6(:$9 (6(((( @$6@,:Y YZ Y9 @: #, @@ Z: Y $% #Z $Y #9
Z 235 r*7V &??DV*7 l2D mnookf (6#%:( (6(((# @$6#Z:Z Y@ Y( @, @% YZ : 2Z #Y 2# %( %
9 q 7Dll&V &??DV*7 l2D mno/ (6#%@# (6(((( $$6$(@Z Y( Y( @: Z( :( 2, 2#@ 29 2#% 29 2#%
: 7'1>235s L--_- Y( Y( @(
471
opWiWqWrCLstILCuLs?pIvCNBOP7QK9CBPO9C+
_
b8 48 011e86
!
7)7
23345678
87
4286 78 Z [86 6
NBOP7QK9CBPO9C+COPREAQPJCK9AEQOd NP77PdQPJCRBOP7QK9CRPJA9JACAB79dBPOKd D97XQR9COQU9C@79KQRAQPJd
ab8] 4 ^ Z _`_ _5]
767
86
!7 2 (
8
ca a87 (
76c _86 b
!
$8 8a
6 5 f7
42 8678a c8 c 8 42
"15
6 2
78
7
865 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "1 4 86
\
67
a8= f8[ !7 4 "# #% "1 "# "1 "#
a8f87
\8 b7 7 2=# 6 Û Ý &8'(
$8 6$8
Ú¿ ÙÜÉÊËÞÌÍÎÏ
ß
¾Ð
¾ØÀ
[86
8" #0 42 2 # 44
NPX97CK9@ABdCQJCABQdCUER9 ÉÊËÌÍÎÏ¾Ð¿ÑÒÓÔÕÖÑ× Ù Ù # 4
&8'(
$8 6$8 % 3
41 4 % 4#
( [86 ab8 [ab8 43 #2 22 42
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) ÂÃ
ÄÅ
¾¿ ÀÁ ÂÇÁÂÈ ÆÇÁÂÈ 8" #0 42 2 # 44
l " 86)8a # #0 #0 43 2% 22 '2 442
$8" 86)8a % # Úàààààààààà¿ \8 86 7)
$8 6$8 # #4 23 2 2 44
Ûààààààààà¿ !c86
$8 a87 [ab8
6 88a # # 8" # 4 24 4 '0 424
gQRmndCKQUU8dQPJCGPK9OC@E7EG9A97d * ¯°±²³{´µ¶·´{¸´µ¹°·{{¹{º{»¼{»{½{ºy{
l
a8c )7 l
a8c
)7)7
e86 8j
8a +, 4 - *.//01 27 34 wxwww
kb
k - "# ! -*.+,1+111+/ 5
878 wxww
b
8 27 " 6789
¡¢¡¢£¤¥¦§¢¨ ¡ ¢©
! -*.**/:;*;1 5
878
gQAChi wxww
{~{}~
5 -+0.;*0/<<+< 4=
{~{}~
5 -*.:,0;:/;0> 2'24 4= wxww
?9@ABC ?9@ABC LEMCNBOP7QK9C TCQUCKEAEC WX9C?9@ABCUP7C NBOP7QK9C wxww
DAE7AC IJKC RPJR9JA7EAQPJC @PQJAC DPOX97 RPJR.CUP7C
FGGH FGGH FSCRPJR79A9H QVJP79K DPOX97 wxwww
24 "1% 0 ' wxwww
24 41 "14 2"1 "14
41 2 "#32 ## "#32 wxwww
2 04 "22# 12"1 "22# wxwww wxwyz{|}~~}}{}{
04 "223 %2 "223 ~}
Y= Y= wxwww
Y= Y= wxwwww
Y= Y= w w w yw w w w w w w ww
Y= Y= ª¡¢«¢¡¬¢£®®©
Y= Y=
472
\]8^8_8ÈNab;NEcNa@];dEYDQRHSMAEDRQAE?
e
f8 58 011g86
!
7)7
23345678
87
4286 78 h i86 6
YDQRHSMAEDRQAE?EQRPGCSRLEMACGSQF YRHHRFSRLEPDQRHSMAEPRLCALCECDHAFDRQMF :AHXSPAEQSVAEBHAMSPCSRLF
[f8j 5 k h ele e5j
767
86
!7 2 (
8
n[ [87 (
76n
!
$8 e86 f
6 6 m7
42 886[78[ n8 n 8 42
"16
6 2
78
7
865 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "1 3 86
o
67

7 !7 4 "# #0 "1 "# "1 "#
[8
o8 f77 2># 6 w &8'(
$8 6$8
x i86
wy #23 8" 44 #2 4#22
YRXAHEMABCDFESLECDSFEVGPA wx #23
&8'(
$8 6$8
44 #2 4#22
( i86 [f8 # i[f8 40 #00 4#%0
&8'( 7) &8'( 7) #23 8" 44 #2 4#22
r " 86)8[ # wx yz{|{}~z{
z{
# 4#2 20 42# '4 444#
$8" 86)8[ #% x o8 86 #% 4% 7)
$8 6$8 23 410 2 4400
i[f8
6 88[ # # x !n86
$8 [87 # 2 8" 24 204 '0 42%4
7SPstFEMSVVuFSRLEJRMAQEBGHGJACAHF ÒÓ±Ô±Õ±Ö×ØÙÚ×Û×ØÜÓÚ´Ü¢£ª¨ÝÞ¨ßÞ¨¢¥à¥§²Ý¢¬¦¤
r
[8n )7 r
[8n
)7)7
g86 8p
8[ *+ 4 , -./012 37 45 ·
qf
q , "# ! ,-.-12201-0 6
878
f
8 27 " 789:; ¶
! ,-.---0/<11* 6
878
7SCEv^
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
5 ,+1.=*2*+=-+ 4>
5 ,?.2-1=/-*?+ 2'24 4> µ
@ABCDE @ABCDE NGOEPDQRHSMAE UESVEMGCGE 8XAEMABCDEVRHE YDQRHSMAE ´

FCGHCE ALME PRLPALCHGCSRLE BRSLCE :RQXAH PRLP.EVRHE ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
IJJK IJJK ITEPRLPHACAK SWLRHAM :RQXAH ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª

2 "14% 1 "14%
2 4# "## 20"1 "## ³
4# "## #2"1 "##
0 "2# 1 "2#
0 "24 % "24 ²
Z> Z>
Z> Z>
Z> Z> ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ ²
Z> Z> ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
Z> Z>
473
ghWiWjWkEMlmnMEoMlAhnpEZDPQ<RL>EDQP>E7
q
d8 68 011b86
"
7+7
23345678
87
4286 78 r e86 6
ZDPQ<RL>EDQP>E7EPQOGCRQKEL>CGRPF ZQ<<QFRQKEODPQ<RL>EOQKC>KCECD<>FDQPLF Y><XRO>EPRU>EB<>LROCRQKF
`d8 !6!s!r qtq q5
767
86
"7 2 *
8
à `87 *
76a
"
&8 q86 d
6 : u7
42 8`7
8`
a
8
a 8 42
#1:
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 ! 8687 78
67 "7 2 #1 86
f
67

7 "7 4 #$ 40 #1 #$ #1 #$
`8 4% 12 4% $$ 40
f8 d77 2@$ 6 w (8)*
&8 6&8 1 4% 1$ 4% $1 $0
x e86
wy 8# 4% 4 4% 4 $00
ZQX><EL>BCDFERKECDRFEUGO> wx
(8)*
&8 6&8
4% 4 4% 4 $00
* e86 `d8 e`d8 4% 1 4% $4 4'
(8)* 7+ (8)* 7+ {
wx yz {z{|}~z{ 8# 4% 4 4% 4 $00
_ # 86+8` $ $ $ 2% $ 2% 24 $$0
!&8# 86+8` 1 $1 $' x f8 86 7
+
& 8
6&8 $' 4% $0 4% 2 $0$
e`d8
6 88` $ $ x "a86
&8 `87 8# $ 2% 4 2% 0 $0
\RO]^FELRUU=FRQKEIQL>PEBG<GI>C><F ÒÓ±Ô±Õ±Ö×ØÙÚ×Û×ØÜÓÚ´Ó¢ ÝÝ£¥Þ¥§²ß¢¬¦¤
_
`8a +7 _
`8a
+7+7
b86 8c
8` ,- 4 . /012/3 47 56 ¶
%d
% . #$ " ./0/27-38983 :
878
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
d
8 27 # ;<=> " ./0//-1793?2 :
878 µ
\RCEvi 5 .7807-31,29-
5 .,0,27-2799?
4@
2)24 4@ ´
A>BCDE A>BCDE MGNEODPQ<RL>E TERUELGCGE WX>EL>BCDEUQ<E ZDPQ<RL>E ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
FCG<CE >KLE OQKO>KC<GCRQKE BQRKCE OQKO0EUQ<E ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
HIIJ HIIJ HSEOQKO<>C>J RVKQ<>L YQPX>< YQPX><
3 #$21 #1 )
3 40 #$01 2'#1 #$01 ³
40 ' #411 $0#1 #411
' 0' #20 1' #20
0' 0 #244 '0#1 #244 ²
[@! [@!
[@! [@!
[@! [@! ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ ²
[@! [@! ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
[@! [@!
474
fgUhUiUjCKklmKCnKk?gmoCXBNO:PJ<CBON<C7
p
a8 18 011b86
!
7)7
23345678
87
4286 78 q `86 6
â8r 1 s q ptp p5r
767
86
!7 2 (
8
_^ ^87 (
76_
!
$8 p86 a
6 8 u7
42 886^78^ _8 _ 8 42
"18
6 2
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "1 2 86
e
67

7 !7 4 "# ## "1 "# "1 "#
^8 1 22 ## 34 21 424
e8 a77 2=# 6 w &8'(
$8 6$8 0 224 # 3 20 42
x `86
wy 8" % 40 03 4%3
XOV<:CJ<@ABDCPICABPDCSEM<
( `86 â8
wx
&8'(
$8 6$8

%
2
40
#2
03
0

2#
4%3
430
`â8
] " 86)8^
&8'(
1
7)
#
&8'(

7)
# wx yz{|{}~z{
z{

8"

#
%
0#
40
23
03
1

2
4%3
411
7)
$8 6$8
$8" 86)8^ 0 #3 #% x e8 86 `â8 #% %1 44 1% 40%
6 88^ # # x !_86
$8 ^87 8" # 3 21 #2 '# 42
ZPM[\DCJPSS;DPOICGOJ<NC@E:EG<A<:D ÒÓ±Ô±Õ±Ö×ØÙÚ×Û×ØÜÓÚ´±¢ ÝÝ£¥Þ¥§²ß¢¬¦¤
]
^8_ )7 ]
^8_
)7)7
b86 8c
8^ *+ 4 , *-.... /7 01 ¹
da
d , "# ! ,.-.23445567 8
878 ¸
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
a
8 27 " 9:;< ! ,. 8
878
ZPACvh 5 ,63-6+2644+6 4=
5 ,*->7+357+5 2'24 4=
·
¶
?<@ABC ?<@ABC KELCMBNO:PJ<C RCPSCJEAEC UV<CJ<@ABCSO:C XBNO:PJ<C µ
DAE:AC <IJC MOIM<IA:EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV<: MOIM-CSO:C
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM:<A<H PTIO:<J WONV<: ´ ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
3 "1# "1 ' ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
3 4% "1# 2 "1#
4% "411 #%"1 "411
%# "1 0"1 "1 ³
Y= Y= ²
Y= Y=
Y= Y=
Y= Y= ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ ²
Y= Y= ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
Y= Y=
475
noXpXqXrFNst>NFuNsBo>vF[EQR:SM<FERQ<F7
k
_8 58 011e86
!
7*7
23345678
87
4286 78 j ]86 6
[EQR:SM<FERQ<F7FQRPHDSRLFM<DHSQG [R::RGSRLFPEQR:SM<FPRLD<LDFDE:<GERQMG Z<:YSP<FQSV<FC:<MSPDSRLG
^_8 5 i j klk k5
767
86
!7 2 )
8
d^ ^87 )
76d
!
$8 k86 _
6 1 8 m7
42 8^7
8^
d
8
d 8 42
"18
6 2
78
7 86
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 2 "1 #4 86
h
67
^8A m8] !7 4 "# %1 "1 "# "1 "#
^8i)
h8 _7 4)
x (8&)
$8 6$8
y ]86
xz 8" % 4 21 2 &# 44
[RY<:FM<CDEGFSLFDESGFVHP< xy %# #4 2' 2% &2 44%
) ]86 ^_8 (8&)
$8 6$8 %' # 4 4 4 4#
]^_8
(8&) 7* (8&) 7* | {|
xy z{ }|~{|
8" % 4 21 2 &# 44
c " 86*8^ %# #0 #0 4# 24 1 &0 421
$8" 86*8^ %' # 7*
$8 6$8 # 41 2# ' &1 42'
y h8 86 ]^_8
6 88^ % # % # y !d86
$8 ^87 8" # 20 &4 &2 4
`SPabGFMSVV;GSRLFJRM<QFCH:HJ<D<:G ÓÔ²Õ²Ö²×ØÙÚÛØÜØÙÝÔÛ¸Ô£¤«©Þß©àÖÛá¯ÙÓÓâ¯Ûá
c
^8d *7 c
^8d
*7*7
e86 8f
8^ +, 4 - ./0012 37 45 ·´
g_
g - "# ! -./+26066117 8
878
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
_
8 27 " 9:;< ·³
! -,/1=0=2>?.7 8
878
`SDFwp 5 -=0/+7@1717,
5 -+/21+6@1@=0
4A
2&24 4A ·
B<CDEF B<CDEF NHOFPEQR:SM<F UFSVFMHDHF XY<FM<CDEFVR:F [EQR:SM<F ¶

GDH:DF <LMF PRLP<LD:HDSRLF CRSLDF ZRQY<: PRLP/FVR:F
IJJK IJJK ITFPRLP:<D<K SWLR:<M ZRQY<:
µ
2 "024 1 &
2 42 "%# 21"1 "%# ´ ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
42 #1 "03 4 "03 ¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
#1 %0 "#'1 %"1 "#'1
%0 1 "2 14 "2 ³
1 0' "21 04"1 "21
0' '# "3% ' "3%
\A \A · ³ ´ ¸ µ ¹ ¶ º ·
\A \A ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
\A \A
476
mnUoUpUqCKrstKCuKr?ntvCXBNO:PJ<CBON<C0
j
^8 48 011`86

7)7
23345678
87
4286 78 i ]86 6
\^8g4hi jkj j5g
767
86
7
2 (
8
_\ \87
6 2 8 l7
42
%8 (
76_ j86 ^
8\78\ _8 _ 8 42
!18
6 2
78
7
865 6 8687 78
67 7
2 !1 1 86 86
f
67

7 7
4 !" & !1 !" !1 !"
\8 # 24 0 $0 $24 4#
f8 ^7 3( x '8$(
%8 6%8 # 24 0 $0 $24 4#
y ]86
xz 8! # 24 0 $0 $24 4#
XOV<:CJ<@ABDCPICABPDCSEM<
( ]86 \^8 xy # 24 0 $0 $24 4#
'8$(
%8 6%8 ## 2# & $# $22 40
]\^8
[ ! 86)8\
'8$(
#
7)
"3
'8$(
#
7)
"# xy z{|}|~{|
{|

8! # 24 0 $0 $24 4#
"# # $2 $2# 4
%8! 86)8\ # "3 ## "& 7)
%8 6%8 "& 2 1 $ $2" 44
y f8 86 ]\^8
6 88\ # " # " y _86
%8 \87 8! " & " $22 $21 2333
cPMdeDCJPSS;DPOICGOJ<NC@E:EG<A<:D ÓÔ²Õ²Ö²×ØÙÚÛØÜØÙÝÔÛ·Ý£¡ÞÞ¤¦ÙÓÓß¯Ûà
[
\8_ )7 [
\8_
)7)7
`86 8a
8\ *+ 4 , -./01+ 27 34 ·´
b^
b , !" ,-.*56-77166 8
878
»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄ¾ÅÆÂÅÆÃÇÈÃÉÊÃËÆÌÃÄ¾ÅÄ¿ÂÆÂÍ ·³
¬¤¥¢©®¯°¡±©¢
²±©¢©®¯°¡±©¢
^
8 27 ! 9:;< ,- 8
878
cPACwo 5 ,//./-6=+60= 4>
5 ,6.*07/*+0+1 2$24 4> ·
?<@ABC ?<@ABC KELCMBNO:PJ<C RCPSCJEAEC UV<CJ<@ABCSO:C XBNO:PJ<C ¶

DAE:AC <IJC MOIM<IA:EAPOIC @OPIAC WONV<: MOIM.CSO:C
FGGH FGGH FQCMOIM:<A<H PTIO:<J WONV<:
µ
3 !001 #!1 $
3 4& !3" 2 !3" ¡¢¢¡£¤¡¥¤¥¤¦¤§¦¤¡¥
4& # !333 Y "&!1 Z> ´ ¦¨¢©£¨¡ª«
# 04 !1& 11 !1&
04 &1 !412 0!1 !412 ³
Z> Z>
Z> Z>
Z> Z> · ³ ´ ¸ µ ¹ ¶ º ·
Z> Z> ÎÂÅÂÆ¿ÏÆÀ¾ÅÃÐÂÑÆ¼ÃÇÒÒÍ
Z> Z>
477
0123457895

pk 4515

B2457895
[\+qE98652"2;"1589012345?.49
*/g+[g*+%*
!7"1#$"53
%&&'(7)5$"53
*+%% ,581-.)53
%/ 012 '+g+[g*+%*
0589")5
3#3455446$15#72" 058941#)
7#3458446!153589 Lc1JRNQbR^0GaLIâLRGHPJNK1RJLft
!8"8432"87$5
*99 :8.29#9)25155245"
+9 -.)#15$482>2$8"27 u18)515>5157$54275
jr ZAg6"$7$D
;8
*9 <873$8 )5
#1 84=2 5 6 >
)57
#1>
5 (7$?
62 73 ! !541 235
35 "5$"
274292"
j r ZAg6"$7$D
0;@
9/& !1274")5
;"15899#"5AB21"5>C5895DEF518427568"5168
5 -.$?6273 ! (72"28"27"515543%
js ZAg6"$7$D
!8"75$12)"27
B21"5E>C5895EF518427568F5
E$$827844 !73873 %9"'+9 (72"28"27"515543*
jr ZAg6"$7$D
v0 L w
Q^K L0 N
G00JP L PNb^c oL10fN
^ îfN oL 10fN^
0GaMLQ^KL0 GAHG IJI KL01ML0
99D A99D
12
NOPGQ1R
SIIT efeGQGHc1QL^c Q^KL0GH QbR^0GaL 1KL01ML oL1f0Nf01NHa 1KL01ML
0123458F51845
AZ$7$15"5DAZ$7$15"5D A99*g1D hL1I c1QL Nb0Lfb^Ra fNG00JP Q^00^fG^H fN01Ha
;>>2" U15VC WX Y* Y+ A99D A99D A99D Q^00^fG^H Q^00^fG^H
;"211#) '+ '' '+ 927 8F5 927 +?+9Z +?+'Z +?+9Z +?+'Z +?+9Z +?+'Z +?+9Z +?+'Z
235g U15VC Y+ 8F51845 +?%**+ +?++[\ *?+*9& Y+ Y% '% * [ [9[ %] %] *] %] *]
653 ;"211#) '+ ;"35F +?+&Y\ +?+++Y %?'*[% % % % 9 Y %Y\ %] %%& *] %\9 ']
0""9 U15 V
C Y+ 927 +?+'[9 +?++[Y +?
'9'& '& Y+ '+ 9 * 9+& %%9 &%& *%& &%& *%&
3#43 ;"211#) '+ 98. +?*9Y+ +?++\' '?9&\[ Y' YY '' [ %% /+' '] %] [] %] []
LfN`^Q1NG^Hf ebR^0GaLIâLRP101ILNL0f L1IQ^KL0f fNGI1NLa0LI1GHGHMRGcLSd iiT
NG00JP LPNb^c oL10fN^1KLjoL10fNîfNoL10fN^1KLj
^RL_ L1I `^Q1NG^H GaL `LHMNb âLRcGN efeGQv0
0d AZ$7$ LwQ^KL0Q^K
L0GH QbR^0GaL fNG00JP fN01Ha fN01Ha
15"5DAZ$7$15"5D A99*g1D A99D h0GaMLNb0 Lfb^Ra
A99D A99D Q^00^fG^H Q^00^fG^H Q^00^fG^H
927 8F5 8F5 +?+9Z +?+'Z +?+9Z +?+'Z +?+9Z +?+'Z +?+9Z +?+'Z
% i ;235 65" @"5%g/)87 B2"E ij +?+\99 +?++\' '?9&\[ Y+ Y+ '+ [ %% 9+& %%9 &%& *%& &%& *%&
* ik >>2" 7"5%g/)87 B2"E jll2 +?+'[9 +?++[[ *?%*[% Y' YY '' V9 * 27>? '] 27>? [] 27>? []
' im >>2" 7"5%g/)87 B2"E jlldi +?*9Y+ +?++[Y +?'9'& '& Y% '' 9 [ /+' 9** %] \99 %] /*&
Y 7)1>245n L00^0 Y+ Y+ '+
9 7)1>245n L00^0 Y+ Y+ '+
[ 7)1>245n L00^0 Y+ Y+ '+
\ 7)1>245n L00^0 Y+ Y+ '+
478
ZfWghijiDEjMJWfDkMi@lJmDOC;PFQL=DCP;=D+
n_9
19 012\97

!8)8 34456789

98 23397
89 ^)pb9
bbq
9
)8 7
OC;PFQL=DCP;=D+D;PR:BQPKDL=B:Q;< OPFFP<QPKDRC;PFQL=DRPKB=KBDBCF=<CP;L< E=FXQR=D;QU=DAF=LQRBQPK<
^_90a rs (
(n a
n 6t
878
97
!8
3
(

9b^
^98

(87b
n97_
!$9
9^
73 8
q8
233
9789^
b9
b

9
233
2"2#8
7
3

898
97 7

9798
89
78 !8
3 2"2#2 0 97
o78^9?
q9p !8
2"252 33 2"2# 2"25 2"2# 2"25
^9q98
o9_8 8
3?
7 Ø Ú &9'(
$9

7$9
Ü
»Í
»Õ½
p97
9" %2 451 51 434 34 452
OPX=FDL=ABC<DQKDBCQ<DU:R= ÆÇÈÉÊËÌ»Í¼ÎÏÐÑÒÓÎÔ Ö Ö
&9'(
$9

7$9
(
p97
^_9
p^_9
&9'( 8) &9'( 8) ¿À
ÁÂ
»¼ ½¾ ¿Ä¾¿Å ÃÄ¾¿Å 9" %2 451 51 434 34 452
a"
97)9^
$9"
97)9^ ×ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ o9
97 8)
$9

7$9
ØÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ¼ !b97
$9
^98
p^_9
7
99^ %2 52 %2 52 9" 52 #1 355 #24 33# #2
9QRcd<DLQUUe<QPKDHPL=;DA:F:H=B=F< * ®¯°°y±²³ý²°µ¶³yyy}~·y̧¹y̧}yºy·y}
a^9b
)8 a^9b
)8)8
\97
9]9^ +,

- +.**** /8
01 uvuuu
`_

`
- 2"225 !
-*.*2345,67+ 8
989
_9
38
" 9:;<= uvuuu
¡¢£¤¥ ¦ §
!
-*.**2>,4>>, 8
989
9QBDZ[
~y|y{|
6
-7.3526+22*+ ?
y|y{|
6
-*.++4*252*5 32'3
? uvuuu
@=ABCD @=ABCD M:NDOC;PFQL=D TDQUDL:B:D WX=D@=ABCDUPFD OC;PFQL=D

uvuuu
EB:FBD JKLD RPKR=KBF:BQPKD APQKBD EP;X=F RPKR.DUPFD
GHHI GHHI GSDRPKRF=B=I QVKPF=L EP;X=F uvuuu
uvuwxyz{||{}~{y~~~~{y
2 33 2"2#23 #"# 2"2#23 uvuwuu |}{
33 % 2"23#1 31"# 2"23#1
% 54 2"221%0 53"# 2"221%0 uvuuu
54 #2 2"22150 %%"# 2"22150
#2 #% 2"221% # 2"221% uvuuu
Y? Y?
Y? Y? uvuuuu
Y? Y? u u u wu u u u u u u uu
Y? Y? ¨ © ª« ¡¬¬§
Y? Y?
479
\i;jklmlF=mO>;iFnOlAo>pFZERSITNBFESRBF8
qa9
49 012b97

"8+8 34456789

98 23397
89 ^+_h9
hhr
9
+8 7
ZERSITNBFESRBF8FRSQHDTSMFNBDHTRG ZSIISGTSMFQERSITNBFQSMDBMDFDEIBGESRNG =BIYTQBFRTWBFCIBNTQDTSMG
â93d!st *
*q!d
q 6u
878
97
"8
3
*

9h^
^98

*87h
"'9
q97a
73 9
r8
233
997^89^
h9
h

9
233
2#2$9
7
3

898
97 7
!

9798
89
78 "8
3 2#2$2 )$ 97
`788 "8
2#252 2#2$ 2#25 2#2$ 2#25
^9 %5 # 0& # 0& #
`9a88
3@
7 v (9)*
'9

7'9 %% # 0& # 0& #
w _97
vx 9# %2 # $& # $& #
*
_97
â9

vw
(9)*
'9

7'9
54
%
#
#
$&
0&
#
#
$& #
0& #
_â9
(9)* 8+ (9)* 8+ 9# %2 # $& # $& #
d#
97+9^ %5 5 54 52 vw xyz{z|}~yz
yz
52 # 5& # 5& #
!'9#
97+9^ %% 5% % 55 w `9
97 8+
'9

7'9 55 # 5& # 5& #
_â9
7
99^ %2 52 %2 52 w "h97
'9
^98
9# 52 # 5& # 5& #
:TQefGFNTWWgGTSMFKSNBRFCHIHKBDBIG 2 Ñª°ÒÓÔÔÕÖ×°ªØÖÔÙÚ×²°¡¢©§ÛÜ§ÝÜ§¡¤Þ¤¦²Û·¡«¥£
d^9h
+8 d^9h
+8+8
b97
9c9^ ,-

. /0112- 8
34 ´
&a

&
. 2#225 "
./0/5672,8-5 9
989 ±
a9
38
# :;<=> "
./0//6?22-28 9
989 ¹º»¼½¾¿ÀÁÂ¼ÃÄÀÃÄÁÅÆÁÇÈÁÉÄÊÁÂ¼ÃÂ½ÀÄÀË ¡¢£¢£¢¤¢¥¤¢£
:TDF\]
ª¢£« §¬®¯§
¤¦ §¡¦¨©
°¯§« §¬®¯§
6
.80,86/2/275 @

6
./0/627,286, 32)3
@
³±
GDHIDF BMNF QSMQBMDIHDTSMF CSTMDF =SRYBI QSMQ0FWSIF ³
2 2#2$45 % 2#2$45 ²±
2 2#2244 3% 2#2244
2 5 2#220$ 0 2#220$ ²
5 %% 2#22011 5 2#22011
% $1 2#2203 %4#$ 2#2203 ±
$1 2 2#2213% 0#$ 2#2213%
[@! [@!
[@! [@! ² ³ ´ ± µ ¶ · ¸ ²
[@! [@! ÌÀÃÀÄ½ÍÄ¾¼ÃÁÎÀÏÄºÁÅÐÐË
[@! [@!
480
]j<klmnmG>nP?<jGoPmBp?qG[FSTJUOCGFTSCG7
ea9
59 012r97

"8+8 34456789

98 23397
89 `+_h9
hhg
9
+8 7
[FSTJUOCGFTSCG7GSTRIEUTNGOCEIUSH [TJJTHUTNGRFSTJUOCGRTNECNEGEFJCHFTSOH >CJZURCGSUXCGDJCOUREUTNH
à94b!cd *
*e!b
e 6f
878
97
"8
3
*

9h̀
`98

*87h
"&9
e97a
73 :
g8
233
9`8
9`
h
9

h

9
233
2#2$:
7
3

898 97
97 7
!

9798
89
78 "8
3 2#2$2 $ 97
i788 "8
2#252 0 2#2$ 2#25 2#2$ 2#25
`9 54 3% 115 3% 1$$ 5301
i9a88
3@
7 w (9)*
&9

7&9 '3 3% '1 3% 4 52
x _97
wy 9# '2 3% 35 3% 14$ 5
[TZCJGOCDEFHGUNGEFUHGXIRC wx 54
(9)*
&9

7&9 '
3% 115 3% 1$$ 5301
*
_97
à9
_à9 3% 42$ 3% 1 5504
(9)* 8+ (9)* 8+ {
wx yz {z{|}~z{ 9# '2 3% 35 3% 14$ 5
b#
97+9` 54 53 54 52 52 04$ '$1 011 '54 0
!&9#
97+9` '3 53 ' 55 x i9
97 8
+
& 9

7&9 55 3 $'2 25 $ 3'
_à9
7
99` '2 52 '2 52 x "h97
&9
`98
9# 52 04$ '$1 011 '54 0
;URstHGOUXXuHUTNGLTOCSGDIJILCECJH 2 Ò«±ÓÔÕ®ÕÖ®×Ø±«Ù×ÕÚÛØ³Ü¢ ÝÝ£¥¤¥§³Þ̧¢¬¦¤
b`9h
+8 b`9h
+8+8
r97
9v9` ,-

. /0112, 38
45
%a

%
. 2#225 "
./0267187/89 :
989
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
a9
38
# ;<=>? "
./0//87-9817 :
989 ´²
;UEG]^ 6
./076712,792
6
./0/,,222AA2
@
32)3
@ ´
BCDEFG BCDEFG PIQGRFSTJUOCG WGUXGOIEIG <ZCGOCDEFGXTJG [FSTJUOCG
HEIJEG CNOG RTNRCNEJIEUTNG DTUNEG >TSZCJ RTNR0GXTJG ³²
KLLM KLLM KVGRTNRJCECM UYNTJCO >TSZCJ
2 33 2#25045 $#$ 2#25045
33 5 2#22'$ 31 2#22'$ ³
5 50 2#22003 4#$ 2#22003
50 '4#$ 2#22005 '#0$ 2#22005 ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
$3 0' 2#221'5 $1#$ 2#221'5 ² ¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
0' 3 2#2212 1#$ 2#2212
\@! \@!
\@! \@! ³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
\@! \@! ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
\@! \@!
481
0123457895

qr 4515

=2157895
%9$sV!222A510123458,19
(9g)%g()#(
71!"53
#$$%&7'5"53
()## *581+,'53
#- ./ @)g)%g()#(
0589'5
3!0152113"15!72 058941!'
4!0155113150589 Mc/HSORbS].EaMG]aMSEFQHOL/SHMfu
8813287"5
(#6)9 78,29!9'25125242
%899 +,'!15"182?2"827 v18'215?5157"51275
klkik \Ig3 "7"J
:5
#; <873"8'5
=81918 73>2 5 3 ?
'57
!1?
7 &7"8
32 73 0# 21123535 5" 2
7 1292
klkki \Ig3 "7"J
0:;
@9)6 1274'5
2A51BA5181275385138
5 +,"83273 0# &722827215213#
klktk \Ig3 "7"J
845"12'27
+!81BA518127538A5
;5A51 40873 #C9-C9 &722827215213(
klkik \Ig3 "7"J
. M xw
R]L M. Ò
E..HQ M QO b
]c pM/ .f
O] ]nfO pM /.fO]
.EaNMR]LM. DEIFE GHGKLM./NM.
99J I99J
/
OPQER/S
TGGU efeEREFc/RM]c R]LM.EF RbS].EaM /LM./NM pM/f.Of./OFa /LM./NM
0123458A51845
I\"7"155JI\"7"155J I99(g1J hM/G c/RM Ob.Mfb]Sa fOE..HQ R]..]fE]F fO./Fa
:??2 V15WX YZ @6 [) I99J I99J I99J R]..]fE]F R]..]fE]F
:211!' ([ (9 @) 927 8A5 927 )8)-\ )8)@\ )8)-\ )8)@\ )8)-\ )8)@\ )8)-\ )8)@\
235g V15WX [) 8A51845 )8)[)@ )8)#%@ ()(8[[(9 @6 @9 ($ [ @ 6# $6C ##$ #%)C #@[ #6-C
350 :211!' @) :35A )8)#[% )8))$- @()8[[6[ ( ( # 9 @( ) #@9C ) ((%C ) ([6C
0 9 V1
5 W
X [) 927 )8)([( )8)#$- #)8
)))) @- @6 (9 #( ) 6# (- ##$ [6 #@[ -@
0!10 :211!' @) 98, )8)%#9 )8)((9 6-68@)6% [) [) @) #( [) 6# ($(C ##$ [6$C #@[ -([C
wMfO_]R/OE]Ff ebS].EaMG]aMSQ/./GMOM.f M/GR]LM.f fOEG/OMa.MG/EFEFNSEcMTdknnU
ÒE..HQ MQOb]c pM/.fO]/LMlpM/.fO]nfOpM/.fO]/LMl
]SM^ M/G _]R/OE]F ÈaM _MFNOb D]aMScEO efeER.
.d I\"7" MxwR]LM.R]L
M.EF RbS].EaM fOE..HQ fO./Fa fO./Fa
155JI\"7"155J I99(g1J I99J h.EaNMOb. Mfb]Sa
I99J I99J R]..]fE]F R]..]fE]F R]..]fE]F
927 8A5 8A5 )8)-\ )8)@\ )8)-\ )8)@\ )8)-\ )8)@\ )8)-\ )8)@\
# ij :??2 =2B klmmk )8)([( )8)))) 6-68@)6% @- @6 (9 W[% 27?8 27?8 27?8 27?8 27?8 27?8
( dK :??2 =2B kl )8)@)# )8)#$- #(8(@)[ @% @9 (9 ) 27?8 ($(C 27?8 [6$C 27?8 -([C
@ d :??2 =2B nlkkkk )8)[-( )8)((9 #)8)))) @- @6 (9 W- #6 27?8 (- 27?8 [6 27?8 -@
[ dj :??2 =2B kl )8)%#9 )8)((9 @)8(@@( @- @6 (9 #( [) 6# W9 ##$ W@ #@[ W(
- 7'1?215o M..]. [) [) @)
% 7'1?215o M..]. [) [) @)
6 7'1?215o M..]. [) [) @)
482
hij\kDMklJMDmMk@nJoDOCPQ<RL>DCQP>D,
r9a7 47 012^759
!9 6*69 322045679
769 337567 `9*td79dd9u97*6 5 2
OCPQ<RL>DCQP>D,DPQSFBRQKDL>BFRPg OQ<<QgRQKDSCPQ<RL>DSQKB>KBDBC<>gCQPLg E><YRS>DPRV>DA<>LRSBRQKg
à7'pv3rwrr4x
656975
!6 3)
7 9d̀`76 )965d r75a
!9$77`
5 :u69 33 7567`d
7d
733
"#:
53 9679 6
75 5 757 66795 6 !6 3 "# Zpcq 75
s9569 9
6 !6 " (%0 "# " "# "

`7
s7a6 Û Ý '7()9$7 5$7
Ú¿ ÙÜÉÊËÞÌÍÎÏ
ß
¾Ð
¾ØÀ
t75
7" %
"
"
"
"
"
OQY><DL>ABCgDRKDBCRgDVFS> ÉÊËÌÍÎÏ¾Ð¿ÑÒÓÔÕÖÑ× Ù Ù
'7()9$7 5$7
#
"
"
"
"
"
) t75 à7 tà7 &
"
"
"
"
"
'7() 6* '7() 6* ÂÃ
ÄÅ
¾¿ ÀÁ ÂÇÁÂÈ ÆÇÁÂÈ 7" %
"
"
"
"
"
c"75 *7` # % %
"
"
"
"
"
$7"75 *7` & 1 Úàààààààààà¿ s
775 6*9$7 5$7 1
"
"
"
"
"
Ûààààààààà¿ !d759$7`76 tà7
5 7
7` % % 7"
"
"
"
"
"
[RSefgDLRVV=gRQKDHQL>PDAF<FH>B><g + ±²³´µ}¶µ·¸¶}¹¶µº»¸}{}¼}½½
c9`7d*6 c9`7d9*6*6
^75 7_9 7` ,- . +/011+ 2634 yzy{y
ba9b. " ! .+/+56,78895 :9767 yzy{|}~}}
a973 6" ;<=>
¡¢£¤ £¤¡¥¦¡§¨¡©¤ª¡¢£¢ ¤ «
!.+ :9767 yzy{yy
[RBD\]
}}
4.1-1/9+1-017 ?
}}
4.56/+,6+7790 3(3? yzyy
@>ABCD @>ABCD MFNDOCPQ<RL>D UDRVDLFBFD XY>D@>ABCDVQ<D OCPQ<RL>D yzyyy
EBF<BD JKLD SQKS>KB<FBRQKD AQRKBD EQPY>< SQKS/DVQ<D
GHHI GHHI GTDSQKS<>B>I RWKQ<>L EQPY><
1 "332 % ( yzyy
1 "& 3# "&
# "20 1"# "20 yzyyy
# %& "31& %3 "31&
%& #& "3&01 # "3&01 yzyyy
Z? Z?
Z? Z? yzyyyy
Z? Z? y y y {y y y y y y y yy
Z? Z? ¬ £ ¤¤£¡® ¯¤¡¥°°«
Z? Z?
483
klm]nDLnopLDqLn@rpsDYCOP8QK:DCPO:D<
t9b7 37 012f759
9 6*69 322045679
769 337567 _9*`j79jj9u97*6 5 2
YCOP8QK:DCPO:D<DOPNFBQPJDK:BFQOE YP88PEQPJDNCOP8QK:DNPJB:JBDBC8:ECPOKE X:8WQN:DOQT:DA8:KQNBQPJE
_b7'cv2twtt4x
656975
6 3)
7 9j__76 )965j
9&7 t75b
5 6u69 33 775_67_j
7j
733
!6
53 9679 6
75 5 757 66795 6 6 3 ! [cde 75
a9569 9
6 6 " ! " ! "

_7 "0
#$2%
#$2%
a7b6 y '7()9&7 5&7 "1

!#%
!#%
z `75
y{ 7 #
!23%
!23%
YPW:8DK:ABCEDQJDBCQEDTFN:
) `75 _b7
yz
'7()9&7 5&7
"!
"$

#!%
!0%

#!%
!0%
`_b7
'7() 6* '7() 6* 7 #
!23%
!23%
d75 *7_ "0 0 "! # yz {|}~}|}

|}
#
3"%
3"%
&775 *7_ "1 2 "$ 1 z a

775 6*9&7 5&7 1
2%
2%
`_b7
5 7
7_ # " # " z j759&7_76 7 "
""%
""%
\QNhiEDKQTT9EQPJDHPK:ODAF8FH:B:8E ÔÕÖ×Ø ÙØÚÛÙ ÜÙØÝÞÛ ß ¤¢àà¥§
d9_7j*6 d9_7j9*6*6
f75 7g9 7_ +, - ./0000 1623 ´
%b9%- " -./.4..5555+ 69767 ¡¢££¢¤¥¢¦ ¥¦¥§¥̈§¥¢¦
§©£ª¤©¢«¬
b973 6 789:
-./.+0,.+;;, 69767
\QBD]^
¥¦ ®£ª¯° ±¢²ª£
³²ª ®£ª¯° ±¢²ª£
4-+</<4.4=,0+ >
4-./45=5<<?=? 3(3> ¶´
@:ABCD @:ABCD LFMDNCOP8QK:D SDQTDKFBFD VW:DK:ABCDTP8D YCOP8QK:D ¶

EBF8BD :JKD NPJN:JB8FBQPJD APQJBD XPOW:8 NPJN/DTP8D
GHHI GHHI GRDNPJN8:B:I QUJP8:K XPOW:8
µ´
3 30! ! (
3 #2 3! #2 µ
"1 12 2 12
"1 # 321$ # 321$
# !$ 3 Z #2! [> ´
!$ $! 32! 0#$! 32!
$! 1# 1## Z $1! [>
[> [> µ ¶ · ´ ¸ ¹ º » µ
[> [> ÏÃÆÃÇÀÐÇÁ¿ÆÄÑÃÒÇ½ÄÈÓÓÎ
[> [>
484
hij[kBJklmJBnJk>ompBWAMN8OI:BANM:B4
b9_7 17 012q759
9 6)69 322045679
769 337567 ^9)]f79ff9e97)6 5 2
WAMN8OI:BANM:B4BMNLD@ONHBI:@DOMC WN88NCONHBLAMN8OI:BLNH@:H@B@A8:CANMIC V:8UOL:BMOR:B?8:IOL@ONHC
^_7&à0bcbb4d
656975
6 3(
7 9f^^76 (965f
9%7 b75_
5 6e69 33 7^6
7^
f

7
f
733
!6
53 9679 6 75
75 5 757 66795 6 6 3 ! '! 75
g9569 9
6 6 " 3$ ! " ! "

^7 "!
0
#$
g7_6 w &7'(9%7 5%7 "$

01
!"
x ]75
wy 7 #
1
0$
WNU:8BI:?@ACBOHB@AOCBRDL: wx
&7'(9%7 5%7
"!
0
#$
( ]75 ^_7 ]^_7 "$

$
!!
&7'( 6) &7'( 6) {

wx yz {z{|}~z{ 7 #
1
0$
r75 )7^ "! # "! # #

2
3#
%775 )7^ "$ 0 "$ 1 x g

775 6
)9% 7
5%7 1
#
!
]^_7
5 7
7^ # " # " x f759%7^76 7 "
#0
"3
ZOLstCBIORR9CONHBFNI:MB?D8DF:@:8C ÒÓÔÕÖ×ÖØÙ×Ú×ÖÛÜÙ´Ù¢ ÝÝ£¥
r9^7f)6 r9^7f9)6)6
q75 7u9 7^ *+ , *-.... /601 ²
v_9v, " ,.-.2+3452+4 69767 µ²
«£¤¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
±°¨¬¡¨®¯ °¨¡
_973 6 789: ,.-.33;543.4 69767
ZO@B[\
µ
4,*.-......44 <
4,.-4*;.=;=4 3'3< ² ¡¡ ¢£ ¤£¤£¥£¦¥£ ¤
¥§¡¨¢§ ©ª
>:?@AB >:?@AB JDKBLAMN8OI:B QBORBID@DB TU:BI:?@ABRN8B WAMN8OI:B

C@D8@B :HIB LNHL:H@8D@ONHB ?NOH@B VNMU:8 LNHL-BRN8B ´²
EFFG EFFG EPBLNHL8:@:G OSHN8:I VNMU:8
33 32! !! ' ´
33 $! 1$! 32! 1$! ³²
$! ## "0# "!$! "0#
## !$ #3" X !! Y< ³
Y< Y<
Y< Y< ²
Y< Y<
Y< Y< ³ ´ µ ² ¶ · ¸ ¹ ³
Y< Y< ÍÁÄÁÅ¾ÎÅ¿½ÄÂÏÁÐÅ»ÂÆÑÑÌ
Y< Y<
485
cde]fDLfghLDiLf@jhkDYCOP<QK>DCPO>D7
l9a7 37 012m759
9 6*69 322045679
769 337567 b9*`n79nn9o97*6 5 2
YCOP<QK>DCPO>D7DOPNFBQPJDK>BFQOE YP<<PEQPJDNCOP<QK>DNPJB>JBDBC<>ECPOKE X><WQN>DOQT>DA<>KQNBQPJE
ba7(pq2lrll4s
656975
6
3)
7 9nbb76
5 :o69 33 9&7)965n l75a
7b67bn
7n
733
!":
53 9679 6
75 5 757 66795 6 6
3 !" 3 75 75
_9569 9
6 6
!# $ !" !# !" !#
b7 #" 3#$ 3 332 %# 3#
_7a6 y (7%)9&7 5&7 #' 3$2 3# 3#$ % 3$"
z `75
y{ 7! $ 3'" 3" 30 3'3
YPW><DK>ABCEDQJDBCQEDTFN>
) `75 ba7
yz #" 3#$ 3 332 %# 3#
(7%)9&7 5&7 #' 3" 3# 3#" % 3$0
`ba7
x!75 *7b
(7%)
#"
6*
2
(7%)
#"
6*
$ yz {|}~}|}
|}

7! $ 3'" 3" 30 3'3
$ 0# " $1 %3 "2
6*9&7 5&7 1 10 ' '3 %1 1
&7!75 *7b #' # #' 1 z _
775 `ba7
5 7
7b $ # $ # z n759&7b76 7! # 21 1 1# %' 2$
\QNvwEDKQTT=EQPJDHPK>ODAF<FH>B><E ÔÕÖ×Ø ÙØÚÛÙ ÜÙØÝÞÛ µ ß ¤¢àà¥§
x9b7n*6 x9b7n9*6*6
m75 7t9 7b +, - ./0000 1623 ¹
ua9u- !# -./.4+567898 :9767
¸
¥¦ ®£ª¯° ±¢²ª£
³²ª ®£ª¯° ±¢²ª£
a973 6! ;<=> -./.6685.600 :9767
\QBD]^ 4-9./699+,48+
4-./0,5458++
?
3%3? ·
@>ABCD @>ABCD LFMDNCOP<QK>D SDQTDKFBFD VW>DK>ABCDTP<D YCOP<QK>D ¶

EBF<BD >JKD NPJN>JB<FBQPJD APQJBD XPOW>< NPJN/DTP<D ¡¢££¢¤¥¢¦ ¥¦¥§¥̈§¥¢¦
GHHI GHHI GRDNPJN<>B>I QUJP<>K XPOW>< §©£ª¤©¢«¬

3!" !3$2 "!" %
3!" # !#1 Z 30!'" [?
µ
# #0!" !#"$3 2!'" !#"$3
#0!" "$ !'2# $"!" !'2#
"$ '!" !$#' 0!" !$#' ´
'!" 1" !#3 ''!'" !#3
[? [?
[? [? ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ´
[? [? ÏÃÆÃÇÀÐÇÁ¿ÆÄÑÃÒÇ½ÄÈÓÓÎ
[? [?
486
0123457895

p 4515

j2057895
o6oq5775383@?51512345=+09
#,g$8g#$(#
71!"53
#$$%&7'5"53
#$(( )581*+'53
, -./ ($g$og#$(#
0589'5
274051002"15!72 058941!'
3274054002155589 Kc.GQMPbQ]-DaKF]aKQDEOGMJ.QGKfs
8803287"5
%6$$9 78+29!9'25115241
89 * +' !1 5 " 0
8 2
<2
"8 27 t18'115<5157"50275
mlmrm ZHg2 "7"I
34
6$ 9873"8'5
:1587;252<'57!1<
7 &7"=2273 0( 101235355"270292
mlmmr ZHg2 "7"I
03>
68 1274'5
7128?51183@?5180275285128
7 *+"=2273 0( &722827115103(
mlmm ZHg2 "7"I
8A5"12'27
3!1<058"1@?518027528?5
>5?51 A5873 (B96B9 &722827115103#
mlmrm ZHg2 "7"I
v-KwuP]JK- `MD--GO KOMb]c K.-fM] ]kfM K .-fM]
-DaLKP]JK- CDHED FGFJK-.LK-./
99I H99I
MNODP.Q
RFFS efeDPDEc.PK]c P]JK-DE PbQ]-DaK .JK-.LK K.f-Mf-.MEa .JK-.LK
0123458?51845
HZ"7"155I HZ"7"155I H99#g1I hK.F c.PKMb-Kfb]Qa fMD--GO P]--]fD]E fM-.Ea
3<<2 3T12151U!'
V WX 6% Y$ H99I H99I H99I P]--]fD]E P]--]fD]E
%% Y$ %$ 927 8?5 927 $=$6Z $=$%Z $=$6Z $=$%Z $=$6Z $=$%Z $=$6Z $=$%Z
235g T15UV Y$ 8?51845 $=$$8% $=$$#6 ($=$$$$ Y( Y# %(
255 3211!' %$ 335? $=$$$$ $=$$$$ $=$$$$ % Y %
0 9 T15UV Y$ 927 $=$$8% $=$$#6 ($=$$$$ Y$ Y$ %$ $ $ $ $ $ $
5!05 3211!' %$ 98+ $=$$8% $=$$#6 ($=$$$$ Y[ 6% Y$ $ $ $ $ $ $
uKfM_]P.MD]Ef ebQ]-DaKF]aKQO.-.FKMK-f K.FP]JK-f fMDF.MKa-KF.DEDELQDcKRdmkkS
`MD--GO KOMb]c K.-fM].JKlK.-fM]kfMK.-fM].JKl
\]QK^ K.F _]P.MD]E `DaK _KELMb C]aKQcDM ef

-d

eD

P

v-

Kwu
P]JK-

PK-DE PbQ]-DaK fMD--GO fM-.Ea fM-.Ea
]J
HZ"7"155I HZ"7"155I H99#g1I H99I h-DaLKMb- Kfb]Qa
H99I H99I P]--]fD]E P]--]fD]E P]--]fD]E
927 8?5 8?5 $=$6Z $=$%Z $=$6Z $=$%Z $=$6Z $=$%Z $=$6Z $=$%Z
( i 3<<2 j2@ klmmmm $=$$8% $=$$#6 ($=$$$$ Y[ 6% Y$ 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<= 27<=
# 7'1<205n K--]- Y$ Y$ %$
% 7'1<205n K--]- Y$ Y$ %$
Y 7'1<205n K--]- Y$ Y$ %$
6 7'1<205n K--]- Y$ Y$ %$
8 7'1<205n K--]- Y$ Y$ %$
o 7'1<205n K--]- Y$ Y$ %$
487
]HggH>hBK\U>B\iHKjKk>lHmBMA8NDOJ:BAN8:B+
p
Z8 /8 010^86
!
7'7
23345678
87
2386 78 Zc8
cc
r
8 ' 7 6
MA8NDOJ:BAN8:B+B8NP7@ONIBJ:@7O89 MNDDN9ONIBPA8NDOJ:BPNI@:I@B@AD:9AN8J9 C:DVOP:B8OS:B?D:JOP@ONI9
767
86
`Z8/5^ p. 5 .spp5t !7 &
8
c̀ `87 &
76c p86 Z
6 5 r7
23 !
#8 8`
8678`
c8 c 8 23
3"315
6
78
7
86 6 8687 78
67 !7 3"313 [nbo 86
q
67

7 !7 2 3"343 [nbo 3"31 3"34 3"31 3"34
`8
q8 Z7 Ö Ø $8%&
#8 6#8
Ú
¹Ë
¹Ó» 3
Y86
8" " " " " "
MNV:DBJ:?@A9BOIB@AO9BS7P: ÄÅÆÇÈÉÊ¹ËºÌÍÎÏÐÑÌÒ Ô Ô
$8%&
#8 6#8
" " " " "
& Y86 `Z8 14 Y`Z8 " " " " "
b " 86'8`
$8%& 7' $8%& 7' ¹º »¼½¾½¿ÀÂÁ¼½
Â¼½Ã
Ã
3 8" " " " " "
44 44 " " " " "
#8" 86'8` 14 3 ÕÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº q8 86 3 7'
#8 6#8 " " " " "
ÖÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛº !c86
#8 `87 Y`Z8
6 88` 3 43 3 43 43 8" " " " " "
6OPde9BJOSSf9ONIBFNJ:8B?7D7F:@:D9 ( ®¯¯®°±y²³°y³´®²µ²¶°·®yyy}{¸¸~
b
`8c '7 b
`8c
'7'7
^86 8_
8` ) 2 * +,(((( -7 ./ uvuwu
aZ
a * 3"334 ! * (,((01232(4 5
878 uvuwxyz{||{}~{y~~~~{y
uvuwuu |}{
¡¢£¤¥ ¦ §
Z
8 7 " 6789: ! * (,((2;+++(+ 5
878
6O@B\]
~y|y{|
y|y{|
5 * 3,33333(10) 2<
5 * (,1+4(340+= 3%2 2< uvuu
>:?@AB >:?@AB K7LBMA8NDOJ:B RBOSBJ7@7B UV:B>:?@ABSNDB MA8NDOJ:B uvuuu
C@7D@B HIJB PNIP:I@D7@ONIB ?NOI@B CN8V:D PNIP,BSNDB
3 4 3"33W4 X"1 3"33W4 uvuu
4 21"1 YZ "21 3"334
21"1 4 YZ [< [< uvuuu
4 12 YZ [< [<
12 X2 YZ [< [< uvuuu
X2 03 YZ [< [<
[< [<
[< [< uvuuuu
[< [< u u u wu u u u u u u uu
[< [< ¨ © ª« ¡¬¬§
488

Assessing Pre-Tensioned Reinforcement Corrosion Within The New Zealand Concrete PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Pre-Tensioned Reinforcement Corrosion Within The New Zealand Concrete PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing pre-tensioned reinforcement

corrosion within the New Zealand concrete

RA Rogers, M Al-Ani and JM Ingham

NZ Transport Agency research report 502

Keywords: Asset management, bridge, chloride, concrete, corrosion, deterioration, exposure

AWS automatic weather station

BDS Bridge Data System

LTNZ Land Transport New Zealand

MoW Ministry of Works

MWD Ministry of Works and Development

NRB National Roads Board

NZTA NZ Transport Agency

PWD Public Works Department

SCM supplementary cementitious materials

TNZ Transit New Zealand

Pre-tensioning is a common form of prestressing in precast concrete construction. Pre-tensioning is

1.2 Prevalent corrosion issues in pre-tensioned concrete

1.3 Examples of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion in

1.3.2 Tiwai Point Bridge

An extensive destructive and non-destructive research programme was performed on decommissioned

1.3.3 Boundary Creek Bridge

Figure 1.4 Evidence of pre-tensioned reinforcement corrosion on Boundary Creek Bridge

1.4 New Zealand pre-tensioned concrete bridge stock

1.5 Outline of this research

2 Construction eras: classification of pre-

2.1 Discussion of BDS data used for analysis

2.2 Design characteristics affecting resistance to

• the concrete cover depth, which is a design parameter

2.3 Identification of construction eras

2.3.1 Factors influencing structural design characteristics

2.3.2 Factors influencing concrete durability characteristics

2.4 Timeline of events influencing pre-tensioned concrete

Figure 2.2 Timeline of influences on pre-tensioned concrete bridge design

2.4.1 Governmental entities responsible for state highway bridges

2.4.2 Timeline of documents governing bridge design

2.5 Identification and description of construction eras

Table 2.1 Number of bridges constructed in each era

Average no. of new

2.5.1 Era 1: pre-1953 – before pre-tensioned concrete bridge construction

2.5.2 Era 2: 1953–1960

Figure 2.3 Beam types constructed in era 2 (1953–1960)

2.5.2.1 Design documents in effect during era 2 (1953–1960)

0.9” (23mm) ¾” (19mm) No Mostly 0.2” dia. h.t. wire, some

2.5.2.3 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 2 (1953–1960)

Table 2.3 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 2 (1953–1960)

Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement content Allowance of calcium Supplementary

2.5.3 Era 3: 1961–1965

Figure 2.4 Beam types constructed in era 3 (1961–1965)

2.5.3.1 Design documents in effect during era 3 (1961–1965)

1⅛” (29mm) 1” (25.4mm) No Mostly ⅜” strand, some 0.2”

2.5.3.3 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 3 (1961–1965)

Table 2.5 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 3 (1961–1965)

Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement content Allowance of Supplementary

5500psi (38MPa) 0.60, or 0.50 if 600lbs/yd3 (356kg/m3) to Yes. Max 2% of the No

2.5.4 Era 4: 1966–1970

Figure 2.5 Beam types constructed in era 4 (1966–1970)

2.5.4.1 Design documents in effect during era 4 (1966–1970)

29mm 21mm No Mostly ⅜” stress-relieved strand,

2.5.4.3 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 4 (1966–1970)

Table 2.7 Typical concrete mix requirements for era 4 (1966–1970)

Specified 28 day Maximum Typical cement content Allowance of Supplementary

5500psi (38MPa) 0.60 or 0.50 if 600lbs/yd3 (356kg/m3) to Yes No

2.5.5 Era 5: 1971–1977