Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
London, 2017
The UK and Ireland’s bridges are central to the countries’ economies and societies. When a bridge has
a weight restriction or an emergency closure imposed, the consequences can be severe. The body of case
studies in the guide provides evidence that these events are often caused by hidden defects. The existing
methods of managing risks associated with hidden defects in bridges are reviewed and critiqued. A
proposal for a proactive approach is made. With a focus on superstructure, detailed practical guidance
on commonly encountered hidden defects categorised by structural element is given. The guidance is
extensively cross-referenced to other sources of good practice and includes input from a broad spectrum
of the bridge engineering industry. It will prompt all those involved with the UK and Ireland’s bridge
stock whether owner, operator, maintainer, designer, inspector or contractor to assist in reducing risks
associated with hidden defects.
CIRIA
A catalogue record is available for this publication from the British Library
Keywords
Asset and facilities management, environmental management, health and safety
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold and/or
distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal or any
other professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the publication, no warranty
or fitness is provided or implied, and the authors and publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity
with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying
and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such
written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
If you would like to reproduce any of the figures, text or technical information from this or any other CIRIA publication for use
in other documents or publications, please contact the CIRIA publishing for more details on copyright terms and charges at:
publishing@ciria.org or tel: 020 7549 3300.
ii CIRIA, C764
Acknowledgements
CIRIA was approached by the Bridge Owner’s Forum (BOF) whose members identified the need for this
guide, which is the result of CIRIA Research Project (RP) 1013. Many members of BOF subsequently co-
funded part of the project and kindly provided input and review of the guide as members of the project
steering group.
Authors
John Collins MEng(Hons) CEng MICE
John is a senior engineer at Arup. He works predominantly with existing bridges undertaking
assessments, inspections, investigative works, strengthening and refurbishment. In 2016 he was named as
a RAEng Engineers Trust Young Engineer of the year, predominantly in recognition of his work on the
Humber Bridge (Case study A1.13) and Forth Road Bridge (Case study A1.37).
Other contributors
The following provided additional contributions to the guide:
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, Amey plc at the Forth Road Bridge, David Millar.
Arup: Hunisha Patel, Khurram Nazir, Richard Fletcher, Nicola Talbot, Oliver Riches, Ann Jones
AECOM: Fiona Pick, Jack Rose, Sayf Bakr.
iv CIRIA, C764
Specialist technical guidance was provided by Arup’s materials specialists: Graham Gedge (corrosion and
protection systems), Simon Cardwell (fracture mechanics), Bryan Marsh (concrete). Dave Ward and Keith
Harwood assisted with review. Details for some of the case studies and photographs were provided by
Chris Armstrong, Dave Ward, Sonam Norbu, Steve Kite, Pat Moore, Dara McDonnell and Paul Baralos.
Detailed technical input was provided by AECOM’s experts: George Lawlor (steel bridges), Mark Bulmer
(cable-stayed and suspension bridges), Charles Cocksedge (cable-stayed and suspension bridges), Beverley
Urbans (timber bridges), David Dunne (concrete technology), Christian Christodoulou (repair methods,
corrosion), Simon Caswell and Ryan Cobbs (inspection methods).
Funders
Environment Agency
Freyssinet Structural Repairs and CCSL Ltd
Highways England
Institution of Civil Engineers Research Enabling Fund
Mouchel (now part of WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff)
Network Rail
Ramboll
Strainstall
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII)
Transport NI
Transport Scotland
Welsh Government
The authors’ employers AECOM and Arup fully supported the project. In addition to the funds
provided directly to CIRIA by industry organisations and suppliers, AECOM and Arup provided
substantial funding from internal research and development sources.
The need for this guidance became clear to bridge engineers following a number of specific incidents
where significant deterioration of hidden components of bridges led to closures, emergency works or
major disruption, despite established inspection and maintenance regimes being in place.
Many of the most critical defects in bridges are often hidden from sight, either inaccessible or not
obvious on first observation. Examples of failures include Plank Lane Bridge, a bascule bridge where
the counterweight weighing several tonnes fell onto the carriageway below whilst unrelated maintenance
to the mechanical components was being carried out (2006). Fortunately there were no injuries in this
instance, although the counterweight narrowly missed causing serious injury to the maintenance crew.
The significance of hidden defects and their ability to cause significant loss of life is illustrated by high
profile failures including the de la Concorde collapse (2006) and the Forth Road Bridge truss end link
failure (2015) which resulted in closure until emergency works were carried out. The guide aims to share
such knowledge to avoid these issues in future through the illustration of hidden defects and how to
detect or design them out.
The production of the guidance has been steered by a governance group comprising bridge consultants,
contractors and suppliers, academics and UK and Ireland bridge owners. The guide provides methods to
identify, investigate and manage many known hidden defects, illustrated by a significant number of well
documented case studies and comprehensive reference list.
This guide fills in some important gaps in knowledge and is complementary to existing bridge inspection
guidance. It is essential reading and reference material for the Bridge Inspector Certification Scheme,
graduates under training and all professionals involved in bridge engineering and management.
Dana Skelley
Chair of UK Bridges Board
vi CIRIA, C764
Executive summary
The UK and Ireland’s bridges play a critical role in support of their countries’ economies and societies.
As evidenced by the rarity of bridge failure or closure, they are generally well managed and fulfil their
operational requirements.
This guide collates a group of case studies demonstrating that hidden defects do exist in critical bridge
components. In some cases they have threatened safety to the travelling public. In extreme cases they
have resulted in the collapse of bridges without warning. If the risk posed by hidden defects is not
managed appropriately then the likelihood of encountering such failures will increase.
Chapter 2 of this publication records general existing practice. Following collapse of a bridge at Stewarton in
2009, Network Rail has successfully implemented a national programme of inspection and remedial works of
hidden critical elements. This method is described and developed in Chapter 3 with recommendations on use
of structural risk assessments and failure mode effect analyses to form guidelines for bridge managers.
The remainder of the guide presents the technical details of various hidden bridge components and
their potential defects. It provides a brief description for their inspection, identification and maintenance
and offers some suggestions for how to limit risk through design.
Common themes identified for management of hidden defects in bridge components include:
Inspection: before visiting the site, a thorough desk study is vital. By identifying uninspected or uninspectable
areas, the desk study should ask ‘what is not recorded?’. Similarly, once on site the inspector should not
only record what can be seen, but ask the question ‘what cannot be seen?’. There is generally no method
as informative and reliable as visual inspection from within touching distance by direct line of sight. It is
appreciated that this may often involve destructive works and be expensive and time-consuming. However,
without such inspection by a knowledgeable, suitably qualified inspector then unknown levels of risk over the
hidden component will remain. Non-destructive testing (NDT), endoscopic, drone and remote monitoring
methods of inspection may provide some useful information, but are not necessarily an appropriate substitute.
Identification: good quality interpretation of the inspector’s findings is required to determine if a defect
to a hidden component threatens the bridges’ function and safety. The inspection findings can inform a
numerical assessment if needed.
Maintenance: given the extensive efforts that may have been made to gain access for inspection, the
opportunity may also exist to remediate the defect. Not only should the defect be repaired if required, but
the cause should be confidently identified and addressed. In some cases the primary cause of a hidden defect
may be inadequate maintenance. For example, routine maintenance or timely replacement of waterproofing,
expansion joints, drainage, paintwork etc may obviate hidden degradation. Such issues are often used in
considering whole life cost at design stage, but the principles are not always adhered to during service life.
Design: the Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) may oblige the
designer to manage the risk associated with hidden defects. Specific requirements should be included in
contract terms and/or design basis documents. Where a hidden component cannot be avoided, bespoke
specification and often specialist material/protective systems advice may be required to minimise the
likelihood of defect development. As with all bridge details, a preference towards simple, robust details
should be adopted. Low or zero maintenance choices are preferred to mitigate risks of maintenance not
being undertaken during service life. Means of access for inspection, maintenance and, where relevant,
replacement should be considered at the design stage.
While currently only an emergent technology in the bridge industry, structural health monitoring
systems offer great potential in assisting management of hidden defects.
This has been an illuminating and enjoyable guide to write. There is much interest in the subject.
Altruistic professionals from across the civil engineering sector have been keen to provide opinions, ask
challenging questions and share knowledge. CIRIA embodies much of the construction industry’s spirit
of openness for general betterment of all, and this guide offers an outstanding example.
By definition, experience-based guidance requires input from more experienced practitioners. However,
this guide has had a high level of input from enthused younger engineers whose own experiences and
viewpoints have been valuable.
While there has been concerted effort to ensure the most commonly encountered hidden defects and
bridge types are included, this guide is not all encompassing. It is not definitive guidance and some
aspects such as substructure and design of new bridges to reduce risks posed by hidden defects would
be worthy of more information. However, this guide encourages the reader to consider hidden bridge
components that are hidden where visual inspection alone may not be enough.
Some of the photographs and defects in this guide are striking. However, in the authors’ experience,
severe deterioration shown in parts of this guidance is not commonplace on the UK and Ireland’s bridge
stock. There has been substantial improvement in design details, construction quality and products
over the last few decades. Combined with risk-based management techniques such as that outlined
in this guide, it is hoped that engineers in the future will be less likely to uncover or manage adverse
consequences of hidden defects in bridges.
John Collins, Dave Ashurst, John Webb, Amrit Ghose, Peter Sparkes
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
How to use this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
x CIRIA, C764
9.2.4 Elastomeric deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
9.2.5 Bearing installation errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9.2.6 Other bearing defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
9.2.7 Expansion joint hidden defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
10 Durability components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
10.1 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
10.2 Waterproofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
10.3 Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
10.4 Galvanising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
10.5 Sealants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
10.6 Cladding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
11 Safety components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
11.1 Parapets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
11.2 Surfacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
11.3 Access/walkways/gantries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
12 Other bridge components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
12.1 Moveable bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
13 Ancillary components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
13.1 Services, bays and ducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
14 Substructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
14.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
14.2 Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
14.3 Identification and maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
14.4 Design guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Boxes
Box A1.1 Extract from Queensferry Crossing’s design requirements highlighting the importance of design
approach for access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Case studies
Note that Case studies A1.27 and A1.28 are not bridges, but are of interest to infrastructure managers. These studies both
form clear examples of the importance in understanding condition of hidden areas on assets with very little redundancy.
Tables
Table 1.1 Selected bridge collapses in the UK and Ireland since 1800 where a hidden defect may have played a key role . . . 2
Table 1.2 The six principal sources of defects in bridges and examples, with further suggested defect sources . . . . . 4
Table 2.1 Suggested sections of design basis documents in which to record aspects relating to hidden components . . . 13
Table 3.1 Structure risk assessment example for a selection of illustrative items, consequences, control methods
and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 3.2 Failure mode effect analysis examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 3.3 Summary of advantages and disadvantages of SHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 4.1 Components and typical defects. Blue references are sections in this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 5.1 Bolt identification marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 6.1 Summary of concrete testing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 9.1 Hidden defects encountered within common expansion joint types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Table 9.2 Hidden defects in expansion joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Table 10.1 Drainage components and their hidden defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Table 11.1 Typical hidden components in parapets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Table 15.1 Suggestions for further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Table A1.1 List of case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Table A1.2 The 42 types of HCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Table A1.3 Specified frequency of inspection of a wrought iron HCE – a risk-based approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Table A1.4 Summary of findings associated with the various investigation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Table A1.5 Summary of a desk study identifying the number of hidden defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Table A2.1 Classification of details: non-welded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Table A2.2 Classification of details: welded details other than at end connections of a member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Table A2.3 Classification of details: welded details at end connections of member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Acoustic monitoring system A monitoring system that detects and records acoustic emissions
in real-time, caused by materials deterioration, often at the
microstructure level.
Arch ring Load bearing curved part of an arched structure made of voussoirs.
Bridge failure Collapse of all or part of a bridge such that it can no longer carry load.
(Cementious) binder The total content of cementitious material in the concrete, including
Portland cement and any additions such as fly ash, ground granulated
blast-furnace slag, limestone powder, silica fume or metakaolin.
Delayed ettringite formation Denotes the formation of ettringite in a concrete, mortar or cement
paste that has been subjected to a temperature high enough to
destroy any that was earlier present. The effect can cause expansion
or cracking. It could also occur in concrete that has been heated
adventitiously through the heat evolved on hydration, or from an
external source during service.
Detailed examination Term used by Network Rail for an inspection within touching distance
to all exposed components. Used in this guide only when directly
referencing Network Rail procedures. See also Principal inspection.
DMRB Design manual for roads and bridges. This manual provides current
standards, advice notes and other documents relating to the design,
assessment and operation of trunk roads, including motorways. This
is a UK-based publication, but it is also adopted in Ireland.
General inspection An inspection made without any special access arrangements, ie areas
readily accessible on foot only. This term is used throughout the
guide with direct equivalence to Network Rail’s routine examination.
Glued laminated timber A type of structural engineered wood product comprising a number
of layers of dimensioned lumber bonded together with durable,
moisture-resistant structural adhesives.
Grade 10.9 bolts The higher of two grades (the other being 8.8) of bolting material
typically encountered in bridges. Historically referred to high
strength friction grip (HSFG) ‘higher grade’ (as opposed to ‘general
grade’ for 8.8).
Half through bridge A bridge in which the lower truss chord/girder flange carries the
vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
High strength friction grip This term for preloaded bolts is outmoded, but remains in common
(HSFG) use in UK.
LIDAR A detection system that works on the principle of radar, but uses light
from a laser.
Mechanically laminated timber Laminated timber where the laminations are joined with mechanical
fasteners.
Routine examination Term used by Network Rail for an annual inspection made without
any special access arrangements (ie from ground level/trackside
only). Used in this guide only when directly referencing Network Rail
procedures. See also General inspection.
Stress corrosion cracking Crack growth in a corrosive environment under tensile loads in
ductile metals.
Thaumasite sulfate attack (TSA) A form of sulfate attack in which there is significant damage to the
matrix of a concrete or mortar as a consequence of replacement of
cement hydrates by thaumasite.
Ultrasonic Testing (UT) A NDT technique based on the propagation of ultrasound in the
object or material tested.
xx CIRIA, C764
Abbreviations and acronyms
The processes in Chapter 3 are central to the guide. These processes form recommended practice for
managing bridges that may contain hidden defects. The reader is aided through the navigation of this guide
by distinct formatting presented in the key. A summary table is also provided to help direct the reader to
relevant content. Each section is extensively referenced to help the reader find further information.
5 Iron and steel bridges Details of hidden components and defects based on the
primary construction material of the bridge. Where over
6 Concrete bridges two pages, left hand page is a summary, right hand page
further detail. Details provided are by:
7 Masonry arch bridges
description
8 Timber bridges inspection and investigation techniques Inspectors,
Bearings and identification and maintenance maintenance
9 engineers and
expansion joints design guidance.
designers
10 Durability components
2 Technical guidance
11 Safety components
Other bridge Discussion of hidden defects in typical bridge
12
components components.
13 Ancillary components
14 Substructure
16 Conclusion All
4 Case studies
Inspectors and
B BS 5400-10:1980 Tables including useful fatigue diagrams included.
designers
i
that section’s bridge type.
Hidden defects (dark red) describe those that may be
encountered in that section’s bridges.
Part 3: Summary of information including detailed references.
Part 4: Appendices containing 39 case studies and further
guidance for the reader. Take note Further information
Cross references are highlighted in bold blue throughout
the guide.
Technical guidance
Summary
Appendices
Introduction
Loss of life resulting from failure of a component is the worst-case scenario that can occur on a bridge.
Bridges are managed to mitigate risks to avoid this tragic event and other adverse societal, economic or
environmental consequences. The risks can only be efficiently mitigated if they are known, and hidden
defects may increase the likelihood of this scenario occurring. Sadly, there is a history of bridge collapses
in the UK and Ireland resulting from hidden defects (Table 1.1).
Technical guidance
Bridge owners and operators, together with bridge engineers such as designers, assessors and
maintainers play key roles in bridge management. A core component of a bridge management
programme is a thorough review of records followed by on-site examinations by a competent bridge
inspector, which may include limited targeted testing. These inspections are central to determining
bridge condition and are used by bridge owners to ensure defects are identified and rectified within
reasonable timeframes as well as identifying larger maintenance works. When coupled with an
accurate numerical assessment of capacity, the risk posed by a bridge and/or individual components the
continuing safe use or operation is defined. Generally, this works well in the UK and Ireland. However,
the success of the process is, among other items, very sensitive to the quality of the inspections. These
inspections should see an increase in quality with the introduction of the Bridge Inspector Certification
Scheme in 2016 (Lantra, 2015). If an inspection does not include all components because, for example, they
are hidden and not easily examinable, the adverse effects can be significant or in the worst cases catastrophic.
Summary
Two high profile cases in recent years have emphasised the importance of defects in hidden bridge
components. Indeed, while writing this guide, a further prominent and very disruptive temporary bridge
closure occurred at the Forth Road Bridge in Scotland as a result of a hidden defect (see Case study A1.37).
In 2009, the Stewarton rail bridge, Ayrshire (Case study A1.2) collapsed during passage of a freight
train. Corrosion to half-through girder webs was so severe that complete loss of section had occurred
in areas of high shear load. The corroded areas were hidden under ballast and had not been inspected.
The A4 Hammersmith Flyover on one of London’s busiest roads (Case study A1.11), had been subject
to limited inspections of its post-tensioning tendons since the mid-1990s. During investigation
works in 2011, two of the eight tendons over one particular pier were found to be badly corroded
and the flyover was closed while further investigation of the remaining six tendons and assessment
was undertaken. The flyover was reopened with restricted traffic loading while emergency
strengthening works were undertaken before the implementation of a full strengthening scheme.
The full strengthening works, plus bearing and joint replacement, were completed in 2015 at a cost
in the order of £120m.
Appendices
Prompted by these and other cases, the Bridge Owner’s Forum (BOF) identified the need to define
good practice for inspecting, identifying and maintaining bridges with hidden components. This
guide undertakes this exercise, as well as providing guidance on how to avoid the potential for such
defects in design. Some information is presented to highlight aspects of defects in hidden components
before referring the reader to more definitive texts. Risk assessment techniques are proposed to be
incorporated into management.
In gathering the case studies for this guide, it has become apparent that they may have an important
secondary function. As a collation of interesting and often difficult works to existing bridges, the case
studies provide useful background reading for bridge professionals and those wishing to understand the
daily technical challenges faced by the industry.
Further
Bridge Date Arrangement Reason for collapse Casualties Section
reading
Broughton Dynamic effects of Taylor and
Suspension Bridge, 12 Apr 1831 Suspension bridge marching soldiers 20 injuries 5.2.6 Philips
Manchester resulted in bolt failure (1831)
Poor design
Cast iron beams
Dee Bridge, philosophy and
24 May 1847 prestressed by Five deaths 5.2.4 Lewis (2007)
Chester construction. Fatigue
wrought iron tie rods
failure
Crack growth (likely
fatigue) from a bolt
Wooton Bridge,
11 Jun 1860 Cast iron girders hole used to attach Two deaths 5.2.4 Tyler (1861)
Warwickshire
strengthening
component
Web and flange
Bull Bridge,
26 Sep 1860 Cast iron girders casting defect not None 5.2.1 Lewis (2007)
Derbyshire
previously observed
Poor design
including inadequate
Wrought iron truss on
Tay Bridge, Dundee 28 Dec 1879 consideration of wind 75 deaths 5.2.4 Lewis (2004)
cast iron piers
load. Fatigue growth
in cast iron pier detail
Inverythan Bridge, Hidden defect from Five killed, Marindin
27 Nov 1882 Cast iron girder 5.2.1
Aberdeenshire casting process 17 injured (1882)
Norwood Junction, Hidden defect from Hutchinson
1 May 1891 Cast iron girder One injury 5.2.1
London casting process (1891)
Timber Heavy corrosion,
Bury Knowsley 5.1.4,
superstructure, including of joints Two deaths, Langley
Street Station 19 Jan 1952 5.1.5,
wrought iron hidden under 173 injured (1952)
Footbridge, Bury 5.2.2
substructure superstructure
Hidden corrosion
Ynys-y-Gwas Segmental Woodward
of inadequately 6.1.3,
Bridge, West 4 Dec 1985 post-tensioned None and Williams
protected post- 6.2.6
Glamorgan construction (1988)
tensioning tendons
Steel half through on
Glanrhyd Bridge, Swept away in flood Cooksey
19 Oct 1987 masonry abutments Four deaths 14
Camarthenshire waters (1990)
and piers
Ness Viaduct, Masonry arch rail Upstream scour of
8 Feb 1989 None 14 Scott (1995)
Inverness viaduct foundations to pier
Stewarton Bridge, Wrought iron half Corrosion to web
27 Jan 2009 None 5.1.1 RAIB (2010a)
Ayrshire through rail bridge buried under ballast
Wrought iron lattice
Malahide Viaduct,
21 Aug 2009 girder on masonry Scour to pier None 14 RAIU (2010)
Co Fingal
piers
Cumbria bridge Masonry arch Foundation scour, Collins et al
21 Nov 2009 One death 14
collapses bridges scour of masonry units (2013)
Tadcaster Bridge,
29 Dec 2015 Masonry arch bridge To be determined None N/A N/A
North Yorkshire
2 CIRIA, C764
1.1 SCOPE
Introduction
1.1.1 Who is the reader?
This guide is intended for bridge owners and operators, together with bridge engineers such as
designers, maintainers and inspectors looking for guidance on hidden bridge components in the UK
and Ireland. As a subject area, defects in hidden bridge components influence many aspects of these
professionals’ activities, including:
specifying design requirements
developing inspection and management regimes
appraising defects
evaluating the most appropriate course of action for defect mitigation
writing contract documents
Technical guidance
producing operation and maintenance documentation including hazard registers
referring to precedent to justify remedial works.
The reader is assumed to have a basic technical understanding, familiarity with engineering materials,
and knowledge of structural behaviour. It is assumed the reader is aware of the arrangement and
terminology associated with most commonly encountered bridge types.
Summary
“…risks the ability of the bridge to be defined as meeting service level and safe for use criteria. The defect
can be defined in terms of severity and extent. The defect may have arisen because of:
1 Inadequate structural capacity or clearances.
2 Naturally occurring damage (environmental).
3 Accidental or deliberate damage.
4 Structural materials deterioration.
5 Structural elements functionality.
6 Other sources, including poor detailing in design or inaccurate historic records.”
The designer has the opportunity to affect the likelihood of defects occurring from any of these sources.
Table 1.2 provides further details and examples of these six defect sources and cross references to other
parts of this guide. Often, formation of bridge defects in the UK and Ireland have unwanted water
ingress as a key feature. Effective water management and associated maintenance can significantly
Appendices
increase bridge life and reduce the risk of defect formation and development. Further possible defect
sources identified while writing this guide are also suggested.
Unfortunately, the most common time a defect is found is once the component has failed. Defects can be
formed or become apparent at any time in the structure’s life:
construction including off-site manufacture or material production
operation
maintenance
repair, refurbishment, strengthening
only apparent on decommissioning.
inadequate design
inadequate construction including materials
Inadequate inadequate maintenance De la Concorde collapse (Case study A1.14)
1 structural capacity excessive loading or overstress A4 Hammersmith Flyover (Case study A1.11)
or clearances sub-standard layout where de-icing salt use not foreseen
change in use, increased loading
lack of protective measures.
unforeseen movement
water seepage
scour
Naturally freeze-thaw Bridge collapses in November 2009 Cumbria
2 occurring damage erosion flood event (Collins et al, 2013)
(environmental) vegetation Malahide Viaduct (RAIU, 2010)
debris, silt blockage
pollution
climate change.
fire
Accidental or Fire damage to Dean’s Brook Viaduct, M1,
3 impact
deliberate damage London (Wheatley et al, 2013)
vandalism.
The guide predominantly focuses on bridge superstructures. Substructures and foundations are only
briefly covered. Similarly, other transport structures such as culverts, pipe bridges, aqueducts, retaining
walls and gantries are not explicitly covered though aspects of this guide may be appropriate.
4 CIRIA, C764
1.1.4 What is a hidden component?
Introduction
i
This guide adopts a definition of ‘hidden’, which is wider ranging than a typical dictionary definition.
In a bridge, a hidden component is one that would not usually be visually inspected as part of a principal
inspection. A hidden component is not identified from normal principal inspection techniques such as:
visual inspection from within touching distance
using access techniques such as mobile elevated work platforms (MEWPs), roped access etc
hammer tapping.
Components are hidden if they are inaccessible for inspection without excavation or removal of material or
other structural components.
An element may be largely visible, but could have partially hidden components. For example:
Half-through girders may be largely visible except for sections of web buried under surfacing or ballast.
Reinforcement is a hidden component within a concrete element.
Technical guidance
1.2 PURPOSE
This is largely a technical document. The main chapters of the guide (Chapter 4 onwards) define
engineering aspects of individual defects in hidden components. Good practice in mitigating risk
associated with individual defined hidden defects is given with respect to:
inspection
identification and maintenance
design and detailing.
This technical guidance for individual components can be used by bridge operators in the broader
context of managing a bridge portfolio using a risk-based approach. Chapter 3 comments on the general
impact on risk management of defects in hidden components.
Summary
1.3 LIMITATIONS
This guide is primarily confined to bridge superstructure components although some are also applicable
to substructure. Defective substructures and other transport structures may also suffer from some of
the deterioration mechanisms described in this guide and benefit from being managed in the manner
described.
Efforts have been made to cover all commonly-encountered hidden components in UK and Irish bridge
stock. Regional differences in detailing, construction quality and environmental triggers for defects exist,
which will need to be carefully considered if this guide is used in other parts of the world. Also, in a
world of rapid social, economic, technical and environmental change, defect characteristics or perception
of risk may change with time.
Appendices
Examples of defects in hidden components are included, which may be critical to the safe use or
operation of a bridge. However, determination of whether the defect is critical should ultimately be
quantitatively assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Novel or unusual structures/components require careful consideration. While the guide offers general
principles and advice, specialist guidance from a suitably qualified and experienced engineer is
recommended. Structural materials that are not considered in detail include stainless steel, aluminium
and glass/fibre-reinforced polymers (GRP, FRP). The former two are not commonly encountered as
principal structural elements, while the latter materials are seeing increasing use, particularly abroad
and notably in the Netherlands (Smits, 2014). As GRP/FRP becomes more widely used, their susceptibility
or otherwise to hidden defects will become apparent. However, there is little evidence in the UK and
Ireland’s bridge stock to produce general guidance on these materials as structural components.
A key aspect where this guide does not go into great detail are methods for remedial works to a hidden
defect. Generally, this is because remediating the hidden defect is no different to a non-hidden defect,
and cross-reference to guidance by others should be followed. Also, in many cases there will not be a
single type of remedial work that will be appropriate for all instances. Employment of suitably qualified
and experienced designers and contractors working to a well thought-out scope is vital to ensure that the
most appropriate solution is implemented.
6 CIRIA, C764