The first meeting of the Bridge Consultants Forum took place in the Beves Room, King's College, Cambridge on the 16th July 2001.
Following the parallel Bridge Owners Forum held on the 17th July, Gerry Hayter asked that the following be distributed to members of both Forums:
We are approaching a new R & D bidding round and so this is an opportune time to circulate this information. Ideas don't have to be constrained to structures topics as the form is a general one for research. I would be grateful if all ideas could be sent to the R & D Co-ordinator contact which is given in the guidance.
|Tea & Coffee
|Chairperson Dr C.R. Middleton
|Lunch - The Saltmarsh Rooms, King's College
Minutes of First Bridge Consultants Forum meeting on 16th July 2001 at King’s College, Cambridge.
|Campbell Middleton (Chair)
|Flint & Neill
|Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick
|Simon de Neumann
|CUED/Flint & Neill
|Steve Denton (Tech. Secretary)
Campbell Middleton introduced the meeting, setting out the objectives as:
Opportunities for cooperation with CUED were described, including:
Members of Cambridge University staff working in relevant fields were briefly identified, including Chris Morley, Chris Burgoyne, Janet Lees and Allan McRobie.
Simon De Neumann gave a brief presentation discussing how civil engineering consultants can better attract graduate engineers. The need to make companies known to students, to effectively advertise posts and act proactively in recruitment were all highlighted. Specifically, the following issues were identified:
In advance of the meeting delegates were invited to prepare a brief presentation describing:
The meeting continued with each delegate making a presentations, followed by discussion of the presentation.
Campbell Middleton suggested that research reports should be submitted electronically to be held on BOF website. This was a popular suggestion, and received support.
It was suggested that bridge owners should think longer term (40-50 years) and cost in maintenance and reliability, in which case the spaces concept may be resurrected.
Ian Firth remarked that whole-life-costing needs to be accepted by Bridge Owners. Angus Low asked what the current way of evaluating this is and observed that it is dependent on the discount rate. Ian Firth added that PFI schemes place particular pressures on the lowest cost at day one.
Paul Jackson mentioned that Eurocodes have been criticised for requiring designers to address fundamentals.
Jolyon Gill commented that real life failures are often due to a combination of factors, and Campbell Middleton raised the question of whether we need a database of failures.
Jolyon Gill and Tony Small both felt that monitoring structures is beneficial. Steve Denton commented that the benfits of monitoring can be limited particularly if the primary interest is ULS.
It was noted that the organisation of the Highway Agency is changing and losing aspects of its expertise. This process leads to issues in relation to reviewing departures.
Godfrey Webster observed that client’s interest in failures tends to focused on financial implications, and technical aspects can become sub-judicy. Therefore the information is not disseminated.
Paul Jackson asked whether the checker should be charged with identifying potential savings.
Angus Low commented that design for impact is often based on load, but highlighted that mass is important and relevant. Masonry parapets have mass but limited strength.
Noted by Tony Small that work in the field has been done at Newcastle.
Paul Jackson remarked that it is difficult to show that whether parapet remains on bridge.
Ian Firth has proposed an IABSE study on bridge parapet strength (although Highways Agency have shown little interest).
Mike Chubb commented that during the Midland links project a deterioration model was developed, although monitoring was halted at a crucial time.
Campbell Middleton raised some concerns over the accuracy/validity of existing deterioration models.
Eurocodes – advice to HA on implementation.