The Millennium Bridge - Case Study

On the 10th of June 2000 a brand new iconic bridge across the Thames
river in London was opened to celebrate and mark out the millennium
year. The bridge called The Millennium Bridge and was the result of world
class architects Norman Fosters and Partners, civil engineering
consultancy Ove Arup and sculptor Sir Anthony Caro winning a
competition run by the Financial Times and London Borough of Southwark
to design a new foot bridge. The now twelve years old Millennium Bridge
serves as a functional link over the Thames as well as an iconic structure
in the heart of London (Fitzpatrick, 2001).
The bridge is a shallow suspension bridge supported by two piers with two
sets of four 120mm diameter locked coil cables spanning from end to end
supporting a 133m long deck. Steel box sections span between the two
sets of coiled cables supporting the deck structure which comprises of two
steel edge tubes and extruded aluminium box sections. The pier body is a
tapering ellipse cast in C60 reinforced concrete and on top of these rests a
steel v bracket. The foundations for the north and south abutments consist
of a series of cast in situ concrete piles made of C40 concrete and 44 x
T50 steel bars. The pier foundations are designed 6m diameter caissons
within a sheet pile cofferdam. The probable design life for the structure is
120 years as although there is not any specific information released it
meets the 120 year category as marked by the BS 7543, The Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges volume 2 BD 29/04 The design manual for
footbridges as well as the Design standards for urban infrastructure
volume 7 Bridges and related Structures (Fitzpatrick, 2001).
The structure is situated on the Thames river in the United Kingdom and
thus exposed to some harsh conditions. The exposure conditions for
reinforced concrete in the design would be XD3, XC2 and XF4 in
accordance with table A.5 (British Standards Institute, 2006). The form of
exposure this structure is subject to encompasses long-term water contact
and parts permanently submerged in water, an array of chemicals
including chlorides which have ability to induce corrosion on concrete and
steel, de-icing agents and cyclic wet and dry conditions.

Figure 1. Satellite view of the Millennium Bridge, London

of the Millennium bridge (UK Grid Reference Finder (2012).

Figure 2. Street map view

The exact location of the Millennium Bridge in UK is TQ 32049 80677 (UK

grid reference finder).

Structural Components
Reinforced concrete piles were used for the foundations of the north and
south abutments. The foundations are subject to a 30MN combined live
and dead load acting horizontally due to the bridge cables producing a
large overturning moment. (Fitzpatrick, 2001) The use of reinforced
concrete is a common selection for foundations as its composition of
concrete and ribbed steel bars allows it to be both good in compression
and tension. For this structure it is essential as it must withstand both
horizontal and vertical loading. Reinforced concrete has very good
durability qualities and will have been designed to the correct specification
according to the Eurocode 2:Design of Concrete Structures meaning that
an appropriate cover and finish will have been selected to ensure the
structure withstands the corrosive environment and meets the required
design life. Failures may occur in the reinforced concrete through poor
design or bad construction. The design may have underestimated the
effects of sulphate attack or reactive aggregates and thus weaken the
concrete and expose the steel bars or be constructed poorly so as not to
meet the specification and thus negatively affect the material properties
(Mulheron, 2012).
The manufacture of the piles should be done in accordance with the
regulation laid out by FPS (Federation of Piling Specialists) in association
with HSE (Health and Safety Executive). The documentation highlights all
the possible health hazards from materials and manufacture of piles (HSE,
2010).
Concrete is highly alkaline and it can cause serious burns if it comes in
contact with skin and eyes. There is also the possibility of impaling oneself
on the steel rebar on site. Appropriate clothing and PPE should be worn.
An alternative material that could be used instead of reinforced concrete is
steel piles either hollow or H sections. Steel piles are robust, light to
handle, capable of carrying high compressive loads and create a high
frictional resistance in the ground (Tomlinson, Woodward, 2008). Although
there are metallic coatings such as paints and organic polymer films, steel
is still subject to chemical corrosion and direct oxidation which limits its
long-term function and increases costs in maintenance (Mulheron, 2012).
The piers for the bridge are manufactured from C60 reinforced concrete
and a mild steel V bracket. The piers are subject to being submerged in
water and must be capable of withstanding ship impacts. They are also
subject to high compressive and axial loads (Fitzpatrick, 2001). Reinforced
concrete with its good compressive and tensile character as well as its
mass make it a suitable material. Reinforced concrete is also durable
having good resistance against chemical corrosion and if designed
according to correct standards will protect the steel reinforcement. The
mild steel used in the V bracket has a strong yet malleable form that

allows it to be easily machined, shaped and welded. It can also be tailored

for its use by using different finishes which enhance certain characteristics
such as cold rolling which produces internal stresses in the material
increasing its strength (Mulheron, 2012).
The health and safety issues involving the steel bracket encompass
unguarded machinery, exposure to controlled and uncontrolled energy
sources, skin contact with chemicals and hot metal and extreme
temperatures (International Labour Organisation 2005).
A suitable alternative to steel in the bracket would be titanium. Titanium is
lighter and stiffer than steel and also has a high level of corrosion
resistance without requiring any expensive finishes. Titanium is however
still extremely expensive and difficult to shape (Mulheron 2012).
The Millennium Bridge deck is manufactured from two steel edged tubes
which support extruded aluminium box sections. The deck is designed to
withstand an imposed pedestrian load in accordance with BD 37/88
(Fitzpatrick, 2001) and wind load and the environmental exposure
including rain water runoff and de-icing agents. Steel is a appropriate
material for the edged tubes because of its strength, ease of manufacture
and its ability to act well under both compressive and tensile forces
(Mulheron 2012). It does however require finishes to protect it against
oxidisation and chemical corrosion. Polymer paints can be used to protect
the steel but require maintenance throughout its service.
Aluminium has a reasonable strength and stiffness so it is able to carry the
imposed pedestrian load. It is highly reactive and forms a colourless oxide
layer on its surface which gives it a high resistance to corrosion without
damaging its aesthetic appearance. Aluminium is also quite a light
material lowering the overall weight of the structure (Mulheron 2012).
Austenitic stainless steel also possesses a high corrosion resistance
allowing it to withstand harsh wet conditions. This kind of stainless steel
can also be hardened by cold working which can increase its load carrying
capacity. In comparison stainless steel is more expensive than aluminium
and does not deliver the same aesthetical appeal (Mulheron 2012).
Hazards and risks should be highlighted during design and appropriate
information provided to workers. Checks on CSCS and CPCS tests of
workers should be carried out and appropriate welfare facilities provided
throughout the construction period. Any obvious risks should be
immediately reported. The contractors responsible for the work should
carry out risk assessments and abide by the Health and Safety Executive
regulations HSE (2007).

Life Cycle
The life cycle of the Millennium Bridge was initiated in September 1996
when the Financial Times and the London Borough of Southwark organised
a competition to design a new pedestrian foot bridge in London. The

winning teams design was taken forward and given financial backing
(Fitzpatrick, 2001).
Following this the preliminary design stage begins with research, sculpting
and redesigning. Then detailed design takes over and a series of
professional drawings clearly showing every aspect of the bridge are
produced and sent to the client, architect and project manager. If no
amendments were required the project moves to the tender stage. Balfour
Beatty won the contract for the enabling works and joint venture Monberg
Thorsen and Sir Robert McAlpine the main contract (Fitzpatrick, 2001).
Because of the sensitivity of the area an archaeological excavation started
In late 1998 and the first pile went into the ground in April 1999. The main
superstructure was underway in the beginning of 2000 and the bridge
officially opened to the public on the 10th June 2000 (Fitzpatrick, 2001).
Once opened the bridge experienced a large lateral loading and began
oscillating at concerning levels. A research program was undertaken to
find a solution at Imperial College London and Ove Arup over saw the
design work. Cleveland Bridge UK won the contract for the amendments
and the bridge was opened again at the end of 2001 (Fitzpatrick, 2001).
The Millennium Bridge enters service for its designed life time which is
likely to be 120 years . However during this period it will require
maintenance checks and repair works. The bridge will need to be
repainted frequently throughout its life time and the vicious dampers
replaced several times (Fitzpatrick, 2001).
Finally the bridge will be taken apart much of it recycled with a small
amount demolished and disposed of in landfill.

End-of-Life Options
The structure as a whole at the end of its life is likely to be
decommissioned after a structural inspection finds it unsafe for service
and taken down. It could be taken down and rebuilt in a different location
and refitted. Another alternative could be modifying/expanding it for a
continual service in London.
There are specific components of this structure which could be reused in
other buildings. The cables used to support the deck could be taken apart
and employed on another suspension bridge. Suitable testing and checks
would need to be carried out beforehand but this is certainly a possibility.
The main deck could also be dismantled and installed on a new foot bridge
as could the hand rails. The foundations could be reused for a new
structures in the same location.
The particular materials also have different end of life options available.
The extruded aluminium deck could be recycled or reused on another
footbridge depending on its condition. Aluminium scrap is in high demand
with a good price for it as it melts at a much lower temperature than the
virgin material so it is more efficient and cost effective to recycle (BMRA).

The steel edged tubes, box sections and V bracket can be reused or
recycled. The reinforced concrete piles and caissons could also be
recycled. The steel must be removed from concrete which is achieved by
sawing and breaking the section. This releases the steel which can then be
processed as scrap metal and the concrete broken up further and recycled
as an aggregate base.

A Different Design Approach

The Millennium Bridge is a piece of architectural magnificence and
engineering achievement. This being so it is an extremely complex
structure which requires specialist components, materials and
construction. A far more simple structure could have been designed using
minimal amounts of new materials and feature a simple dismantling
process so recycling the structure could be made extremely efficient.
Approaching the concept design with an aim of dematerialisation, transmaterialisation and durability would limit the amount of materials needing
to be processed and ensure that the materials used were the most
sustainable without compromising on long term performance. This would
have a positive impact on end of life options as there is less material to
work and what there is can be done so in a sustainable manner.

References
1. Fitzpatrick, A.T. (2001) Linking London: The Millennium Bridge
Royal Academy of Engineering, pp. 4-28
2. Fitzpatrick, A.T.(2001) The London Millennium Footbridge 79/22 pp.
17-33 The Structural Engineer [online] Available at
http://www.londonmillenniumbridge.com/ (Accessed:10 December
2012)
3. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTE. (2006) BS85000-1 : 2006. Required
Cover related to Exposure Conditions. Milton Keynes: BSI
4. The Design Standards for Urban Infrastructure (2012) Bridges and
Related Structures Urban Services [online] Available at:
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/12576/ds07_
bridges.pdf (Accessed 10 December 2012)
5. DMRB (2004) Design Criteria for Foot Bridges Available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol2/section2/bd2904.pdf
(Accessed 10 December 2012)
6. UK grid reference finder (2012) Available at:
http://gridreferencefinder.com/# (Accessed 10 December 2012)
7. ARUP. (2001). General Arrangement and Damper Layout : Ove Arup
and Partners.
8. ARUP. (2001). North and South Piers General Arrangement : Ove
Arup and Partners.
9. Mulheron, M. (2012) Construction Materials, ENG2100 [Lecture
notes] Construction Materials, Metals and there Alloys, Concrete

Technology, Reinforced Concrete. Construction Materials. University

of Surrey, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Guildford.
10.
HSE (2007) Contractors Roles and Responsibilities Available
at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/contractors.htm
(Accessed 10 December 2012)
11.
Tomlinson. M, Woodward. J (2008) Pile Design and Construction
Practice. Ebrary [online] Available at:
http://www.irssg.com/civil/files/library/structure/pile.pdf (Accessed 10
December 2012)
12.
International Labour Organisation (2005) Code of Practice on
the Safety and Health in the Iron and Steel Industry [online]
Available at:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@sa
fework/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_112443.pdf
(Accessed on 10th December 2012)
13.
BMRA (2012) About Metal Recycling Available at:
http://www.recyclemetals.org/about_metal_recycling (Accessed 10
December 2012)
14.
The concrete Society (2012) Design Working Life Available
at: http://www.concrete.org.uk/fingertips_nuggets.asp?
cmd=display&id=750 (Accessed 10 December 2012)
15.
Keoleian, A, G. (2005) Life Cycle Modelling of Concrete Bridge
Design [online] Available at:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/84889/1/KeoleianJIn
fraSystems2005.pdf (Accessed 10 December 2012)
16. FPS (2012) Notes for Guidance on Puwer [online] Available at:
http://www.fps.org.uk/fps/safety/PUWER%20Guidance%20Ed2%20%20Mar%202010.pdf (Accessed on 10th December 2012)
By Benjamin J Chase
10th December 2012