Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

CIRIA C764

London, 2017

Hidden defects in bridges


Guidance on detection and
management
J Collins, D Ashurst Arup
J Webb, P Sparkes AECOM
A Ghose Waterman (formerly AECOM)

Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, EC1A 9PN


Tel: 020 7549 3300 Fax: 020 7549 3349
Email: enquiries@ciria.org Website: www.ciria.org
Summary

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.

Hidden defects in bridges. Guidance on detection and management

Collins, J, Ashurst, D, Webb, J, Ghose, A, Sparkes, P

CIRIA

C764 © CIRIA 2017 RP1013 ISBN: 978-0-86017-779-1

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record is available for this publication from the British Library

Keywords
Asset and facilities management, environmental management, health and safety

Reader interest Classification


Ground engineering, ground Availability Unrestricted
investigation and characterisation, Content Advice/guidance
embedded retaining wall, ground
Status Committee-guided
movements, piling, retaining wall,
soil-structure interaction User Design, specification, construction, managers, clients and
supervising engineers involved in civil and geotechnical works

Published by CIRIA, Griffin Court, 15 Long Lane, London, UK EC1A 9PN

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.

Front cover images


Main cover photo: Forth Road Bridge inspecting and installing monitoring equipment
at the failed north-east main span truss end link (courtesy Chris Waite)
Bottom left: Hammersmith Flyover Bridge
Bottom right: Plank Lane Lift Bridge (courtesy Rod Howe)

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).

David Ashurst BSc CEng MICE


David has worked for Arup since 1985 and is an associate director. His main focus is in structural
investigation – determining the causes of structural problems and in the appropriate rehabilitation. He
was a member of the PSG for CIRIA’s guidance on iron and steel bridges (Tilly et al, 2007).

John Webb BEng CEng MICE


John has worked on a wide range of construction, repair and maintenance projects over many years – the
last 30 with AECOM (formerly Maunsell). He was a co-author on Guidance on the design, assessment and
strengthening of masonry parapets on highway structures (DfT, 2012).

Amrit Ghose BA BAI MSc CEng CEnv FICE


Amrit is a framework director at Waterman (formerly regional director at AECOM) responsible for
bridge management, maintenance and design services. He is a member of a number of national bridge
and structures committees setting policy and standards for the industry.

Peter Sparkes BSc Hons Civ Eng MICE MIStructE


Peter is an associate director at AECOM with over 40 years’ experience in bridge design, assessment
and construction. His area of expertise lie in the condition and behaviour of bridges, particularly
masonry structures.

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management iii


Project steering group
The PSG consisted of industry leading experts, many of whose organisations contributed to funding of
the project and report content. The authors are grateful to all members for their extensive and detailed
contributions to the guide. They provided comments, ideas, content and case studies:
Matthew Anderson Strainstall
Chris Brock Atkins
Graham Cole Graham Cole Consultancy Ltd
Barry Colford* AECOM (formerly Forth Estuary Transport Authority)
James Collins Ramboll
Matthew Dronfield Freyssinet
Ken Duguid (retired) Formerly of Transport for London
Richard Fuller* Environment Agency
David Gibson* Mott MacDonald
Jamie Harrison* Osborne
Rod Howe Canal & River Trust
John Iliff Transport Infrastructure Ireland
Paul Jackson* Ramboll
Lee Kelly CIRIA
Dr Donald Pearson-Kirk Mouchel (now part of WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff)
(chairman)
Liz Kirkham* Gloucestershire County Council
John Lane* Rail Safety and Standards Board
Neil Loudon Highways England
Dr Hazel McDonald Transport Scotland
John McRobert* Transport NI
Cam Middleton* University of Cambridge
Rabinder Phull* Institution of Civil Engineers
Colin Richardson* Environment Agency
Chris Sheppard Balfour Beatty
John St Leger* Strainstall
Julian Staden Network Rail
Andrew Stevenson* Scottish Canals
Kevin Stoakes Tube Lines (London Underground Limited)
Guy Szomi Environment Agency
Derek Thornbill* Osbourne
Alan Tovey* Concrete Bridge Development Group
Kieran Tully CIRIA
Ben Wilkinson* Network Rail
Elfyn Williams Welsh Government
Saeed Ziaie* WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff
*corresponding members

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.

CIRIA project team


The initial project director for the guide was Chris Chiverrell, and project manager Victor Zasadzki.
Lee Kelly Project manager
Kieran Tully Project director
Clare Drake Publishing manager

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management v


Foreword

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.

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management vii


Preface

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

viii CIRIA, C764


Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
How to use this guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Part 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi


1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1 Who is the reader? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2 What is a defect? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.1.3 What is a bridge? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.4 What is a hidden component? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Management of hidden defects in bridges, existing practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Existing UK and Ireland highway bridge management practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 General – UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.2 General – Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3 Condition performance indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.4 DMRB standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.5 Highway bridge management – other guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.6 Existing highway bridge practice: discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Existing UK and Ireland railway bridge management practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Planning and undertaking an inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Legislative, contractual and code of practice considerations during the design phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.1 Legislative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.2 Contractual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.3 Codes of practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5 Discussion of existing practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 Management of hidden defects in bridges, recommended practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Approach to management of hidden defects in bridge components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 A risk-based approach to managing hidden defects in bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.1 Risk review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.2 Risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.3 Risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Starting a hidden defects programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.1 Portfolio overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.2 Hidden defects investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4 Bridge inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.5 Inspection tools – role of technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6 Structural health monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 Components and defects in bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Part 2 Technical guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43


5 Iron and steel bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1 Hidden components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.1.1 Steel components under ballast/surfacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.1.2 Protected steel surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management ix


5.1.3 Insides of boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.4 Members behind non-structural components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.1.5 Abutting structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.1.6 Deck/buckle plates, jack arches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.1.7 Suspension bridge main cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.1.8 Suspension bridge hangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.1.9 Cable stays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.1.10 Components deemed too difficult to inspect/missed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.1.11 Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.2 Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.2.1 Metallurgical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.2.2 Section loss from corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.2.3 Latent weld defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2.4 Fatigue cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.2.5 Brittle fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.2.6 Bolting and rivets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6 Concrete bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.1 Hidden components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.1.1 Within the concrete body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.1.2 Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.1.3 Prestressing wires/strands and anchorages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.1.4 Voided and cellular structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.1.5 Half-joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.1.6 Obscured surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.1.7 Concrete hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.1.8 Temporary works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2 Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.2.1 Alkali–silica reaction (ASR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.2.2 Sulfate attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.2.3 Chlorides in concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.2.4 Carbonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.2.5 Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.2.6 Reinforcement/prestressing corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.2.7 Missing/inadequately fixed reinforcement/prestressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7 Masonry arch bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.1 Hidden components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.1.1 Arch barrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.1.2 Spandrels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7.1.3 Masonry piers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.2 Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.2.1 Hollowness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.2.2 Mortar loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.2.3 Masonry deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.2.4 Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8 Timber bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8.1 Hidden components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.1.1 Timber interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
8.1.2 Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
8.2 Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.2.1 Biological attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8.2.2 Splitting, checks and shakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
9 Bearings and expansion joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
9.1 Hidden components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
9.1.1 Poor access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.1.2 Uninspectable details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
9.1.3 Inspection at the ‘wrong’ time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
9.2.1 Metallurgical and corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
9.2 Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
9.2.2 Bearing seizure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.2.3 Sliding interface deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

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

Part 3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191


15 Further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
16 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
16.1 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
16.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
16.3 Further learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
16.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Part 4 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
A1 Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
A2 Extract from BS 5400-10:1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

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.

A1.1 Hidden critical elements programme, Network Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215


A1.1.1 Defining the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
A1.1.2 Desk-based study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
A1.1.3 Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
A1.1.4 Ongoing management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
A1.1.5 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
A1.2 Bridge collapse, corrosion of buried girder web, Stewarton, Ayrshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
A1.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
A1.2.2 Bridge design/articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
A1.2.3 Factors leading to the collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
A1.2.4 Inspection history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
A1.2.5 Network Rail’s response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
A1.3 Box girder section loss due to corrosion, components behind masonry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
A1.4 Steel box girder bracing detail, Midland Links viaducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
A1.5 Bolt failure and dropping of counterweight, Plank Lane bridge, Lancashire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xi


A1.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
A1.5.2 Factors leading to the collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
A1.5.3 Subsequent actions and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
A1.6 Weld cracking, Boston Manor Viaduct, west London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
A1.7 Strengthening and refurbishment, High Level Bridge, Newcastle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
A1.8 Hidden section corrosion loss and replacement, Southend High Street bridge, Essex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
A1.9 Cracks to bearings, Thelwall Viaduct, Warrington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
A1.10 Approach viaduct bearing replacement, Forth Road Bridge, Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
A1.11 Post-tensioning deterioration, Hammersmith Flyover, west London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
A1.11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
A1.11.2 Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
A1.11.3 Description of the structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
A1.11.4 Works before strengthening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
A1.11.5 Strengthening part I – interim measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
A1.11.6 Strengthening part 2 – phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
A1.11.7 Strengthening part 2 – phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
A1.12 Rail underbridge bearing condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
A1.13 Main span bearing replacement, Humber Bridge, East Yorkshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
A1.14 Half-joint failure, Pont de la Concorde, Laval, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
A1.15 Deck hinge joints – investigation techniques, M4, South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A1.15.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A1.15.2 Nature of the challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A1.15.3 Investigation programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
A1.15.4 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
A1.15.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
A1.16 Concrete components, Midland Links motorway viaducts, Birmingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
A1.17 Thaumasite sulfate attack, M5 Bridges, Gloucestershire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
A1.18 Hidden defects programme, Transport Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
A1.19 Hidden defect identification, D46 bridge, Middlesex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
A1.20 Roller-shutter joints, Forth Road Bridge, Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
A1.21 Failure of a stainless steel tie bar, southern England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
A1.22 Corrosion to girders supporting jack arch at bridge D3, Harrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
A1.23 Main cable internal inspection and dehumidification, Humber Bridge, East Yorkshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
A1.24 Design approach to hidden components, Queensferry Crossing, Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
A1.25 Scour of abutment causing partial collapse, Bridge RDG1 48, west London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
A1.26 Expansion joint replacement, St George’s Bridge, Doncaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
A1.27 Cladding collapse, Sasago Tunnel, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
A1.28 Overhead line equipment supporting post failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
A1.29 Hidden arch defects, Belcoo Bridge, Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
A1.30 Hidden spandrel defects, Crystal Palace Subway, south London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
A1.31 Hollow pier, Releagh Bridge, Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
A1.32 Rail masonry arch bridge hidden brickwork detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
A1.33 Defects in metallic parapet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
A1.34 Fatigue assessment of deck hinge joints, M4 motorway Usk River Bridge, South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
A1.34.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
A1.34.2 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
A1.34.3 Findings of fatigue assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
A1.34.4 Approach limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
A1.34.5 Laboratory testing at Cardiff University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
A1.34.6 Lessons learnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
A1.35 Investigation of timber bearing pads, Royal Albert Bridge, Cornwall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
A1.36 Cladding failure, Denmark Hill, south London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
A1.37 Truss end link failure, Forth Road Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
A1.37.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
A1.37.2 Series of events, December 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
A1.37.3 Failure analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
A1.37.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
A1.38 Parapet defects, Gallows Corner, Romford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
A1.39 Fatigue cracking to track girders, North Bridge, Hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

xii CIRIA, C764


Figures
Figure 3.1 Risk-based approach to management of hidden defects in bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 3.2 Two key questions to ask when reviewing historic information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 3.3 Two key questions to ask on site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 3.4 Structure risk assessment and failure mode effect analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 3.5 Starting afresh on a hidden defects programme for an entire stock of bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 3.6 Drones may be a useful tool in assisting inspections, but are no replacement for full inspection to within
touching distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3.7 SHM on Stonecutters Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 3.8 The main considerations when examining whether or not to employ SHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 4.1 Hidden components of a concrete bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 4.2 Hidden components of a steel bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 5.1 Girder on Manchester Metrolink, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 5.2 Highway bridge in East London, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 5.3 Buried girders (circled in red) of a half-through rail underbridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 5.4 A standard haunch detail to a reinforced concrete slab providing further moment capacity and protecting
the web from ballast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 5.5 Timber boarding against steelwork of web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 5.6 Ballast plates, here with removable lids to aid inspection as part of a new FRP arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 5.7 The top surface of a cross girder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 5.8 Main components as boxes, a girder (a), and truss chords (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 5.9 Closed stiffener components, troughs (a), and bearing stiffener (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 5.10 Inspection by endoscope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 5.11 Endoscopic inspection output: can be difficult to interpret. Detailed accompanying commentary is important . 53
Figure 5.12 Failed bolt heads inside a box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 5.13 Cabling obscuring a steelwork parapet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 5.14 Girder end at abutment hidden by screening brickwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 5.15 Severe corrosion to steelwork uncovered during a Network Rail HCE inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 5.16 Viaduct composed of simply supported girders – standing over an intermediate pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 5.17 An example of adjacent bridge decks to the side, Leeds, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 5.18 Z-type bridge used on UK rails includes asymmetric girders that help limited inspection to one side of
girders between tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 5.19 Sagging buckle plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 5.20 Jack arches, here spanning transversely between longitudinal beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 5.21 Compilation of the suspension cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 5.22 Cable access platform on suspension cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 5.23 Wedge location in cable and encapsulated cable exposed for inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 5.24 Cable dehumidification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 5.25 Suspension bridge hangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 5.26 Vibration dampers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 5.27 Comparison of parallel strand, parallel wire and locked coil stays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 5.28 Parallel strand anchorage details at deck (a) and tower (b) illustrating the difficult of inspecting hidden
elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 5.29 Generic stay termination socket for parallel wire stays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 5.30 A rail bridge in West Yorkshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 5.31 Spandrel wall tie bars exposed during removal of fill to masonry arch bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 5.32 The back of a pattress plate exhibiting corrosion suggesting water ingress to tie (a), the location of the
pattress plate before its detachment from tie strand failure due to corrosion (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 5.33 Tie bars to be buried as part of an abutment construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 5.34 Location of failure of anchor bars to shear keys forming part of the bearing arrangement of the San
Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 5.35 Cause of damage to 128 bridges in East Germany since 1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 5.36 Microstructure of wrought iron showing dark slag inclusions linear from the rolling process . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 5.37 Details susceptible to lamellar tearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 5.38 Corrosion to hidden area, Brunel swivel bridge, Bristol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 5.39 Design features inhibiting the development of corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 5.40 Crack within ground back weld material, MPI to improve crack visibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 5.41 Crack started as fatigue growth from weld toe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Figure 5.42 Consequence of brittle fracture, Diefenbaker bridge, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xiii


Figure 5.43 An example of a bolted connection between cross girder (left) and main longitudinal girder (right) with a
shear connection detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Figure 6.1 Concrete bridge with difficult access to many components, Hammersmith Flyover, west London . . . . . . . . 88
Figure 6.2 Concrete from a demolished structure showing the matrix comprising aggregate, fines and cementitious
binder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 6.3 Strain gauge to be cast in a concrete member for SHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 6.4 Congested reinforcement at lap joint positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 6.5 Congested reinforcement at a concrete protrusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 6.6 Stainless steel used for reinforcement in combination with carbon steel in the region up to the top of the
estuary splash zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 6.7 External post-tensioning on Hammersmith Flyover, west London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 6.8 Grout and tendons exposed after opening of a duct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 6.9 Recessed, but exposed and unprotected, post-tensioning anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 6.10 Interior of a box beam bridge deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 6.11 Bridge deck soffit showing access portals into the interior of Figure 6.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 6.12 A typical half-joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 6.13 Significant structural degradation of a Type A half-joint due to chloride-induced corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 6.14 Types of half-joints in accordance with their access onto the bearing shelf (a), and typical detail of a bridge
half-joint (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 6.15 Close-up inspection showing the condition of the hidden bearings of a half-joint using an endoscope for
metal (a) and elastomeric (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 6.16 Typical example of an inverted ‘T’ crosshead forming a half-joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 6.17 Beams on thin elastomeric bearings on an abutment bearing sill with blocked sill drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 6.18 Freyssinet hinge at the base of a bridge pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 6.19 Mesnager hinge, showing detail of the ‘scissor’ reinforcement crossing the throat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 6.20 Exposed mesh reinforcement in the cell soffit. Note evidence of corrosion on the far left . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 6.21 Broken and unstable formwork left inside the cell after construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 6.22 Typical ‘map’ style cracking pattern in unrestrained concrete resulting from ASR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 6.23 ASR gel leaching from crack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 6.24 ASR crack in pre-tensioned concrete beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 6.25 Sulfate attack in concrete showing a tank that had held materials containing sulfates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 6.26 Thaumasite attack displays layers of deposits around the aggregates in concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 6.27 DEF is characterised by visible displacement and cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 6.28 Mechanism by which attack reduces the integrity of concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 6.29 Extreme chloride attack damage to a motorway support cross-beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Figure 6.30 Chloride attack damage, showing localised severe pitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Figure 6.31 A half-cell test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 6.32 Reinforcement corrosion due to carbonation in reinforced concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 6.33 Typical phenolphthalein staining test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 6.34 Cracking in concrete, highlighted here with leachate staining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 6.35 Longitudinal cracking and rust staining in a reinforced concrete beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Figure 6.36 Close-up view of exposed reinforcement in the soffit of a beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Figure 6.37 Inadequately fixed reinforcement in a post-tensioning blister component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 7.1 Bridge with arch barrel incorporating rib arches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 7.2 Stability of an arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 7.3 A ‘flat’ masonry arch bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 7.4 Spandrel wall [...] above the arch barrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 7.5 Spandrel and arch barrel ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 7.6 Open spandrels at Pontypridd Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 7.7 Masonry pier with loose rubble filling. Note the absence of mortar between stone units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Figure 7.8 Mortar (and masonry) loss from the arch barrel extrados . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 7.9 The centre span [...] of a railway masonry arch bridge strengthened by partially replacing the arch barrel
intrados with a concrete lining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 7.10 Masonry deterioration due to a change in structural behaviour because of initial deterioration . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 7.11 Classic case for longitudinal crack formation under back face of spandrel wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 8.1 Timber decking spanning longitudinally over cross girders to the High Level Bridge, Newcastle . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 8.2 Wood cross-section. Bark (a), sapwood (b), heartwood (c), growth ring (d), knot (e), and examples of
extraction patterns that could govern timber properties (f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Figure 8.3 Mechanically-laminated timber (using rectangular shear key blocks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 8.4 Good quality core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

xiv CIRIA, C764


Figure 8.5 Collapsed core from poor quality timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 8.6 Connection with hidden metal components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 8.7 Connections in a stress laminated timber bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 8.8 Typical decay resulting from fungal attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 8.9 Surface marks from insect activity that indicate interior decay has occurred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 8.10 Riverine environment at Dutton Horse bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 8.11 Checks, shakes and splits in timber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Figure 9.1 A weathering steel girder end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 9.2 Expansion joint showing corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 9.3 Mechanical component pot bearing (a) that contains many components of various materials (b) . . . . . . . 150
Figure 9.4 Modular expansion joints consist of multiple parts, forming a formidable piece of mechanical
engineering in their own right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Figure 9.5 Precast concrete beams sitting on elastomeric bearings that are obscured by lighting units and sealant . . . . 151
Figure 9.6 Cast iron piers housing bearings within a decorative shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 9.7 Endoscopic bearing inspection inside a half-joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 9.8 Removal of a grease box (a) encasing a bearing which identified a misaligned roller (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Figure 9.9 A PTFE disc removed from a bearing (a) compared to its new replacement (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 9.10 A carefully detailed contemporary nosing joint with incorporated drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 9.11 Monitoring data of the longitudinal position of the Humber Bridge main span recorded over 24 hours –
extensometers measuring the gap between tower and deck box to an arbitrary datum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 9.12 Extensive corrosion focused at bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Figure 9.13 Longitudinal translational freedom should be questioned for this heavily corroded roller bearing . . . . . . . 157
Figure 9.14 Extreme wear of a sliding interface on a bridge support bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Figure 9.15 Stainless steel sliding surface deterioration with a ‘tide mark’ of debris at the extreme range of the
sliding surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 9.16 Powdered PTFE working its way out of a bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 9.17 A PTFE plate extruded out from a bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 9.18 A sliding bearing that was notably misaligned against the bearing stiffener compared to other bearings
on the bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 9.19 A temporary concrete block used to take precast beam load while epoxy mortar cures to the elastomeric
bearing behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 9.20 An example of a grouting trial to a bearing base plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Figure 9.21 Bearings of a Type 6 multi-element modular joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure 10.1 Subsurface drainage is inherently hidden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Figure 10.2 A new dual carriageway viaduct being waterproofed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 10.3 Residual red lead paint left after paint removal for weld inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 10.4 Around 20 layers of paint in a sample from the Royal Albert Bridge, London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Figure 10.5 Galvanised ‘Armco’-type corrugated steel buried culvert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Figure 10.6 Newly galvanised surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure 10.7 Weathered galvanised surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure 10.8 A joint between an integral bridge span (left) and wingwall (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
Figure 10.9 Cladding to arch soffit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Figure 10.10 Rust staining and corrosion to fixings that should be investigated further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Figure 10.11 Example of cladding panel (circled) that (subjectively) provides little aesthetic purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Figure 11.1 Parapet exhibiting evidence of vehicle impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Figure 11.2 Parapet cast-in anchorage on Hogarth Flyover deck replacement using appropriately-graded stainless
steel components for fixings prone to corrosion (a), embedded threaded bars had been used to secure
a base plate (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Figure 11.3 High containment parapets (H4a) on a Manchester Metrolink underpass showing the difference between
what is externally visible (a) and the hidden critical components (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Figure 11.4 Replacement parapets on Hogarth Flyover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Figure 11.5 Precast concrete parapet with [...] bolted anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Figure 11.6 Poor fixing to an access ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Figure 11.7 Clear access to whole cross section without specialist techniques required, Queensferry Crossing
central tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Figure 13.1 A manhole cover without a seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Figure 13.2 A groove had been cut in the arch extrados to facilitate a gas main . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Figure 13.3 Ducts to be cast into a deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Figure 13.4 Pipes are accessible and visible, but protected between the bridge’s girders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xv


Figure 14.1 At first glance, the back of platforms may be identified as the overhead bridge’s abutment (a).
Platform wall is built in front of structural abutment (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Figure 14.2 A familiar form of bridge on a UK motorway with overhanging abutments (a), consulting as-built drawings
reveals the presence of a hidden void (shown in red) found to the back of the abutment (b) . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Figure 16.1 Two key questions in preparation for inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Figure 16.2 Two key questions while inspecting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Figure 16.3 As-built record of arch widening from 1904 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Figure 16.4 Intrusive investigation may be disruptive and time consuming, but is usually the most reliable method
to determine condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Figure 16.5 Mechanical removal of concrete required to positively identify reinforcement arrangement for
confirmation of a NDT survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Figure 16.6 Aging bridge, demanding loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Figure A1.1 Extract from internal guidance on inspection of HCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Figure A1.2 Intrusive works specified for HCE inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Figure A1.3 East elevation of bridge (a), and west elevation (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Figure A1.4 Cross section of the ballasted deck with waterproofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Figure A1.5 The heavy band of corrosion at mid-height of the web on the centre girder after collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Figure A1.6 Detailed survey of the eastern girder after collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Figure A1.7 Cross section through bridge. Note the back-to-back universal beams (UBs) forming the outer girders . . 223
Figure A1.8 Elevation onto bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Figure A1.9 View inside a box beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Figure A1.10 Schematic of bracing detail showing poor fatigue detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Figure A1.11 Strain gauges installed to remotely monitor hidden component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Figure A1.12 Before collapse, Plank Lane bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Figure A1.13 Counterweight at Plank Lane Bridge taken on 22 March 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Figure A1.14 End of counterweight showing sheared off bolt ends that were in threaded holes in the counterweight
end plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Figure A1.15 Bolts from the bridge’s counterweight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Figure A1.16 The central truss spans of Boston Manor Viaduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Figure A1.17 A crack discovered in an electro-slag weld to the edge of a plate girder flange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Figure A1.18 The High Level Bridge, Newcastle-upon-Tyne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Figure A1.19 A cast iron beam spanning between columns (a), and a new steel over-beam installed above the cast
iron beam (b) to create a new load path if the cast iron beam fails from fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Figure A1.20 The carriageway deck is hung from the arch by wrought iron hangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Figure A1.21 A section through a cast iron component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Figure A1.22 A crack in a fascia plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Figure A1.23 Before removal of ballast plate lids, Southend High Street bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Figure A1.24 Heavy corrosion visible to web once ballast lids [...] are removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Figure A1.25 Northbound carriageway elevation of Thelwall Viaduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Figure A1.26 North view of the Forth Road Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Figure A1.27 Viaduct bearings, seized (a) and damage (b) to supporting concrete, Forth Road Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Figure A1.28 Elevation on the Hammersmith Flyover, west London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Figure A1.29 Segmental deck construction and post-tensioning layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Figure A1.30 Voids through deck formwork (a) and hessian wadding (b) following construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Figure A1.31 Graphic model showing locations of wire breaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Figure A1.32 Radiographic image of strands in ducts leading from the upper anchorages and density analysis of
area of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Figure A1.33 Temporary span propping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Figure A1.34 Discovery of complete severance of a strand that led to bridge closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Figure A1.35 Replacement permanent post-tensioning solution (top flange at pier locations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Figure A1.36 Layout of new post-tensioning in the deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Figure A1.37 New internal tendons in wax filled ducts, at mid-span deviator (a) and pier deviator (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Figure A1.38 Bearing at principal inspection, bottom part obscured by ballast/leaf litter (a), and bearing arrangement (b) . . . . 240
Figure A1.39 Bearing once clear of debris (a) and detail on racking frame pins (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Figure A1.40 A pin bearing at an A-frame apex (a), and detail showing a closed gap [...] (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Figure A1.41 Moiré tell-tales installed to A-frame bearings to monitor movement (a), interference patterns generated
by movement across the measured interface, here indicating the A-frame was safely accommodating
displacement from thermal effects by rocking (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Figure A1.42 Diagram of a spherical bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

xvi CIRIA, C764


Figure A1.43 Aerial view of the de la Concorde overpass partial collapse (a), and a hole and crack during a visual
inspection an hour before the collapse occurred (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Figure A1.44 Chair bearing support reinforcement, as designed (a) and as-built (b). The difference is small, but
demonstrates the lack of robustness of this detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Figure A1.45 Standard thrust-hinge in solid slab bridges (Type A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Figure A1.46 Beam and slab deck (Type B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Figure A1.47 Semi-intrusive methods used to inspect reinforcement at throat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Figure A1.48 Pitting corrosion to Type A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Figure A1.49 Pitting corrosion to Type B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Figure A1.50 Example record of observed pitting corrosion and radial position of defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Figure A1.51 Typical arrangement of MLMV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Figure A1.52 Typical chloride attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Figure A1.53 Cathodic protection system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Figure A1.54 Exposed foundation column showing white mush of attacked concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Figure A1.55 Concrete testing underway on affected structures as part of the remediation work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Figure A1.56 Hidden critical components of bridge D46 prone to defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Figure A1.57 Installation of Forth Road Bridge’s carriageway expansion joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Figure A1.58 Evidence of and views during inspections of worn components at moving interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Figure A1.59 Cross section through bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Figure A1.60 Failed tie bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Figure A1.61 View onto soffit of bridge D3 (a) and corrosion to bottom flange of a girder with temporary restraining
bracket (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Figure A1.62 Brickwork removal uncovering hidden steelwork in good condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Figure A1.63 Humber Bridge, East Yorkshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Figure A1.64 The main cable inspection gantry (close to mid-span) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Figure A1.65 Rusting on the cable surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Figure A1.66 Cable wrapping system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Figure A1.67 Unwrapped cable, with inspection wedges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Figure A1.68 A proprietary elastomeric wrapping material used as an air-tight covering for the Humber Bridge main
cable dehumidification system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Figure A1.69 Stainless steel manifolds with location of injection and exhaust sleeve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Figure A1.70 Injection sleeve after installation, together with the associated housing for the continuous monitoring
equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Figure A1.71 Typical results from three of the monitoring points, with long-term control of the relative humidity (RH%) . . 259
Figure A1.72 Typical output from acoustic monitoring report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Figure A1.73 Illustrated acoustic output of a typical wire break . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Figure A1.74 Queensferry Crossing under construction in October 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Figure A1.75 Inside the tower at stay cable anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Figure A1.76 Damage caused by scour to the east abutment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Figure A1.77 A rubber mat reinforced elastomer joint (a), and, finger joint (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Figure A1.78 Removal of original joints (a), and new finger joint being installed (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Figure A1.79 The Sasago Tunnel before collapse with ceiling panels visible (a) and visualisation of the collapsed panels (b) . . 264
Figure A1.80 The failed post (a), and heavy corrosion on the post length embedded in foundation concrete (b) . . . . . . 265
Figure A1.81 Elevation showing the three semi-elliptical arch spans on the Belcoo Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Figure A1.82 Clearly visible sag in the string course and parapet coping on the eastern elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Figure A1.83 ‘Dropped’ stones in masonry arch barrel intrados on the east side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Figure A1.84 Extraction of core samples from arch barrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Figure A1.85 Internal vaulted arches of the subway supporting the carriageway above (a), and detail of the arches
and fan vault under the road footway (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Figure A1.86 Trial pit excavations revealing cohesive (a) and granular (with visible standing water) spandrel fill (b) . . . . 268
Figure A1.87 Releagh bridge (a) and its pier with internal rubble fill exposed (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Figure A1.88 The viaduct elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Figure A1.89 The bridge with fill removed, exposing hidden brickwork detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Figure A1.90 BACO parapets with evidence of minor vandalism to facing mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Figure A1.91 Hairline cracks were observed around the base weld (a) and the parapet identification marking (b) . . . . . 271
Figure A1.92 M4 Usk River Bridge, South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Figure A1.93 Deck hinge detail showing ‘C’ bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Figure A1.94 External face of the deck hinge, centred on a construction joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Figure A1.95 Free body equilibrium conditions implicit in the shear strength analysis of reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Figure A1.96 Elevation showing the locations of timber bearings under the truss tubes at the piers, Royal Albert Bridge . . . 277

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xvii


Figure A1.97 Cross-section of the bearings at each pier (a) and showing arrangement of the bearings (b) . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Figure A1.98 Deteriorated timber bearing (a) and with worm infestation (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Figure A1.99 Extracted cores showing a solid, but damp sample (a) and a fragmented sample (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Figure A1.100 Resistance micro drilling – drill detail (a) and general use (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Figure A1.101 Cladding failure at Denmark Hill, cladding installation (a) and failure mode (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Figure A1.102 Cross section of cross girder of main span illustrating the location of the truss end links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Figure A1.103 Truss end link detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Figure A1.104 North-east main span outer truss end link crack-like indication revealed by MPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Figure A1.105 The fractured northeast main span inner truss end link (a), and showing the fracture surface to the
1’’ plate with possible chevron shaped tide marks (b and c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Figure A1.106 Splash panel fixings to parapets (a) and breakdown of corrosion protection system on parapet (b) . . . . . . 284
Figure A1.107 Severe loss of area to a heavily rusted bottom rail of the parapet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Figure A1.108 North Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

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

xviii CIRIA, C764


Glossary

Abutments End support structure of a bridge.

Acoustic monitoring system A monitoring system that detects and records acoustic emissions
in real-time, caused by materials deterioration, often at the
microstructure level.

Admixtures Additional chemical components other than Portland cement, water


and aggregate, which are added to the mix immediately before or
during mixing.

Arch ring Load bearing curved part of an arched structure made of voussoirs.

Bascule bridge A bascule bridge (sometimes referred to as a drawbridge) is a


moveable bridge with a counterweight that continuously balances a
span, or ‘leaf ’, throughout its upward swing to provide clearance for
boat traffic. It may be single or double leafed.

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.

Construction (Design and These Regulations apply to construction work undertaken in


Management) Regulations England, Scotland and Wales. They place duties upon defined parties
(CDM) 2015 with designated roles within the design and construction process and
management of a facility. For the purposes of this guide, Northern
Ireland CDM 2016 and the Republic of Ireland’s Safety, Health and
Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2013 are taken as being
analogous.

Component In this guide, a distinct part of a bridge. Used in preference to


‘element’, which is only used where it has a specific meaning, eg
Network Rail’s hidden critical elements programme.

Degradation Loss of function or safety to a component, brought on by deterioration.

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.

Deterioration Physical, chemical and/or biological mechanism(s) that lead to a


reduction in desirable material characteristics and/or volume over a
period of time.

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.

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xix


Environmental hydrogen See Stress corrosion cracking.

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.

Hidden A component that would not usually be visually inspected as part of a


principal inspection (see Section 1.1.4).

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.

Principal inspection A detailed inspection to within touching distance of all visible


components. This term is used throughout the guide with direct
equivalence to Network Rail’s detailed examination.

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.

Scour Removal of soil, fill or other material to a bridge substructure by


hydraulic action.

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.

Voussoir A wedge-shaped or tapered stone used to construct an arch.

Walkover inspection/survey Visual inspection (on foot) of a bridge. Usually conducted as a


preliminary inspection to understand a bridge’s general arrangement.

Weathering steel Structural steel that, in certain environmental conditions, forms


a stable rust patina that adheres to the steel surface. The patina
protects the steel from further corrosion, which may negate the need
for painting. Also known as Corten.

xx CIRIA, C764
Abbreviations and acronyms

ADEPT Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport


AEM Acoustic emission monitoring
AIP Approval in principle
ASR Alkali–silica reaction
BINDT British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing
BICS Bridge Inspector Certification Scheme
BMS Bridge management system
CDM 2015 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
CPI Condition performance indicator
CROSS Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety
CSS County Surveyors Society (now subsumed by ADEPT)
DEF Delayed ettringite formation
DMRB Design manual for roads and bridges
FE Finite element
FEA Finite element analysis
FoS Factor of safety
FRP Fibre-reinforced polymers
GGBS Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag
Glulam Glued laminated timber
GPR Ground penetrating radar
H&S Health and safety
HCE Hidden critical element (Network Rail)
HSFG High strength friction grip
LUL London Underground Limited
LVDT Linear variable differential transformer
Mechlam Mechanically laminated timber
MEWP Mobile elevated working platform
MPI Magnetic particle imaging
NA National Annex (Eurocode)
NCCI Non-contradictory complementary information (Eurocode)
NDE Non-destructive examination
NDP Nationally determined parameters (Eurocode)
NDT Non-destructive testing
NHSS National Highways Sector Scheme
NMM Network maintenance manual (UK Highways Authority)
NRA National Roads Authority (Republic of Ireland)
OLE Overhead line equipment
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
PTSI Post-tensioned concrete bridge special inspections
RAIB Rail Accident Investigation Branch
SCOSS Standing Committee on Structural Safety
SHM Structural health monitoring
TII Transport Infrastructure Ireland
TfL Transport for London
UB Universal beam
UHMWPE Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene
UKRLG UK Roads Liaison Group
ULS Ultimate limit state
UT Ultrasonic testing

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xxi


How to use this guide

This guide has four main parts:


Part 1 Introduction including recommendations on risk appraisal and management.
Part 2 Technical guidance.
Part 3 Summary and further areas of research including references.
Part 4 Appendices (containing detailed case studies).

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.

Part Chapter Title Purpose Principal audience

1 Introduction Background and purpose of the guide. All


Management of hidden
Existing practice for the appraisal and management of Bridge owners and
2 defects in bridges,
risks associated with hidden components and defects. managers
existing practice
Management of hidden Recommended practice for the appraisal and
1 Introduction

3 defects in bridges, management of risks associated with hidden components All


recommended practice and defects.

Components and For all commonly encountered bridge types, defines


4
defects in bridges components and where to find further guidance in Part 2.

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

Potential research opportunities to complement or further


3 Conclusions

15 Future research All


the goals of this guide.

16 Conclusion All
4 Case studies

A Case studies Summary of project aspects relevant to this guide. All

Inspectors and
B BS 5400-10:1980 Tables including useful fatigue diagrams included.
designers

xxii CIRIA, C764


Information for the reader Where works to or around a hidden defect or components
Part 1 Introduction and Part 2 Technical guidance include pose an unusual or higher risk health/safety hazard, this
short summary boxes at the start of each chapter to assist is highlighted using the ‘Take note’ symbol. These boxes
the casual reader. are not exhaustive and are to prompt the reader into
considering health and safety (H&S) risks. In addition,
The technical guidance in Part 2 is divided into two sections: guidance is provided in ‘Further information’ boxes.
„„ Hidden components (dark blue) are associated with

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.

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xxiii


xxiv CIRIA, C764
Introduction
Part 1
Introduction

Technical guidance
Summary
Appendices

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management xxv


xxvi CIRIA, C764
1 Introduction

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.

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management 1


Table 1.1 Selected bridge collapses in the UK and Ireland since 1800 where a hidden defect may have played a key role

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.

1.1.2 What is a defect?


Working largely from definitions by the UK Roads Liaison Group (UKRLG, 2016), the Association of
Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport’s (ADEPT) (now including the County
Surveyor Society) bridge inspection proforma method and the Highways Agency (2007a), this publication
defines a defective bridge component as one that:

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.

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management 3


Table 1.2 The six principal sources of defects in bridges and examples, with further suggested defect sources

Defect source Description Example

„„ 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.

Stewarton bridge collapse (Case study A1.2)


„„ steel corrosion
Deterioration of Hammersmith Flyover (Case study A1.11)
4 „„ concrete deterioration
structural materials Plank Lane Bridge (Case study A1.5)
„„ masonry cracking.
Ynys-y-Gwas (Woodward and Williams, 1988)

Functionality seizure of moving parts


„„ Humber Bridge bearing replacement (Case
5 of structural
„„ drainage provision/capacity. study A1.13)
components

Other potential „„ poor detailing in design


6 Dee Bridge (Lewis, 2007)
sources „„ missing historic records.

1.1.3 What is a bridge?


For brevity, this guide uses the term ‘bridge’ in its main title. This is an inadequate descriptor of all the
infrastructure of interest to bridge owners. Transport structures may be more accurate. In an attempt to
encompass the most commonly encountered UK definitions (Highways Agency, 2012a and Network Rail,
2011a) for this guide, a bridge is:
“A structure of one or more spans greater than or equal to 0.9 m. Its prime purpose is usually to carry traffic
or services over an obstruction or gap. This includes bridges, subways, underpasses and footbridges. Also
included is the bridge’s superstructure, substructure, foundations and bridge furniture.”

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.

Hidden defects in bridges – guidance for detection and management 5


The remainder of this guide provides practical guidance to defining, inspecting, investigating,
maintaining, and identifying design-related issues for defective hidden bridge components. It is intended
to provide an overview only and is not an all-encompassing, definitive text. However, together with the
extensive referencing, an understanding of good practice can be developed.

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

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi