BOF4: November 2001

Present

Contents

1. Minutes of Last meeting
2. Matters Arising
   1. HA Research Programme
   2. FRP Bridge Research
   3. Acoustic Emission Testing - USK Footbridges
   4. Strengthening Techniques
   5. Shear Research
   6. Abnormal Indivisible Loads
   7. Railtrack NVQ Scheme
   8. Arches
3. Roads Liaison Group Bridges Board
4. Rivet Shear
5. Masonry Arch Bridges
6. Research Update
   1. Management of Abnormal Loads
   2. Condition/Performance Indicators
   3. J. Collins Projects
   4. Railtrack Research Portfolio
   5. Highway Agency Research Portfolio
7. Bridge Consultants Forum
8. National Bridge Inspectors Qualifications
9. Any Other Business
10. Date for next Meeting

1. Minutes of Last meeting

Agreed.

2. Matters Arising

2.1 HA Research Programme

CM requested BOF members to review HA research programme and feedback comments. Action: ALL

2.2 FRP Bridge Research

Following GH paper all research on the use of FRP bridge decks, BOF members to consider suitable sites for trial application in collaboration with HA. Action: ALL

BB commented Railtrack have spoken to Maunsell exploring the use of FRP on footbridges.

JP confirmed BW have not been able to locate a suitable site to date.

2.3 Acoustic Emission Testing - USK Footbridges

BB confirmed main concern was loss of section due to internal corrosion of the tube main members. Investigations still on-going with AET experts. The current proposal is to select a trial bridge and test load whilst undertaking AET. These results would then be used to compare with future readings. The test was expected to cost £5k to &163;10k.

BOF members to consider collaboration with Railtrack. Action: ALL

LUL expressed an interest in participating. Action: WL

VH reported HA currently looking at the use of AET with the possibility of issuing a standard.

BB reported Railtrack also looking at AET to see if it could solve possible fatigue problems on welded girder bridges. Approx 20 No standard bridges built with suspect cross girder connections. BB was asked to provide a single page feedback overview for BOF members with a copy of a drawing if possible. Action: BB

2.4 Strengthening Techniques

CM reported HA reviewing scope for determining strength reserves in deteriorating structures and asked if BOF members could report on any developments in this area. Action: ALL

2.5 Shear Research

CM asked if BOF members considered a need for research into Shear. BB commented a lot of pre-stressed concrete girder bridges are failing in Shear. Action: ALL

An ESPRC research programme is currently being put together and Railtrack have sent a letter of support.

2.6 Abnormal Indivisible Loads

AC reported on progress to date, legal issues still to resolve also loading standards, are bridge owners maintaining their bridges to 45 units of HB?

Bridge owners broadly support DTLR initiative is computerised 'One Stop Shop'.

AC asked bridge owners to drop him an e-mail giving support as this would be most helpful when seeking funding. Action: ALL

2.7 Railtrack NVQ Scheme

BB confirmed Railtrack report on an accredited NVQ scheme for bridge examiners amounted to 200 No. pages. A copy would be given to LUL and HA as Railtrack had a mutual exchange arrangement with both these organisations. However, he will take advice to see if he is able to release information to other BOF members. Action: BB

2.8 Arches

CM is to draft agenda and contact Bill Harvey regarding arches. Agreed to leave for now as we have a full agenda. Action: CM

3. Roads Liaison Group Bridges Board

IH gave a resume of key issues being addressed by DTLR at a national level including:

• Spending Review
• Maintenance of 10 year plan
• Local transport plans
• Resources
• Monitoring systems

At a recent RLG meeting held to address these issues it was agreed resources could not be developed without understanding the following:

• What assets do we have?
• What condition are they in?
• Be able to measure progress and thereby identify problems.

IH reported the Bridges Board had only been recently formed, and its second meeting was being held tomorrow.

In total the UK had 3 No boards as follows:

1. Roads BoardKey issues
   • RMS
   • condition indicator
   • resources
2. Lighting BoardKey Issues
   • Resources
   • inventory
   • management
   • best value plan

   IH commented the inventory had not yet been developed but roll out to local government in October 2002 asking for details of their inventory on street lighting.

3. Bridges BoardKey Issues
   • develop a code of practice on BM
   • inventory on needs at national level
   • BMS to be developed
   • develop performance indicators

IH confirmed technical sub-groups currently reporting/advising RLG on Best Value Performance Indicators.

The Bridges Board will also look at bridge technical matters as well as a programme of research and prioritise the workload accordingly.

In conclusion IH put forward a proposal for the BOF group to be formally linked to the RLG Bridge Board. He envisaged the primary role of the BOF to advise the Bridge Board on R&D matters but also to take a wider approach in all bridge technical matters.

This brought about a long and detailed discussion by BOF members. Initial concern focussed on Railtrack/LUL issues being swamped by the much larger road lobby. Also if one all-encompassing Bridge Group was formed, could it end up with EPSRC having to seek the RLG Bridge Board approval on all R&D bridge matters.

In addition to these concerns, IH confirmed sufficient safeguards would be introduced into the formal agreement between RLG and BOF.

At the conclusion of the discussion it was agreed that BOF was in favour of being formally linked to the RLG Bridge Board.

CM then reviewed the strategic objectives and terms of reference of the BOF and proposed Draft Terms of Reference for being formally linked to the RLG Bridge Board. The Group agreed to the suggestions put forward and asked CM to liaise with IH in taking the matter forward.

BOF Strategy Presentation

53.00 KB

Login is required to access this page

Login

CM raised concern with regard to the future funding of the BOF. The present system of ‘grace and favour’ was not satisfactory and the BOF Group should formally address this issue. Action: ALL

VH proposed not only do we need to agree the funding mechanisms but we also need to have agreed strategic objectives. The Highway Agency are giving this matter some thought:

• national strategy needed to link progress to achieving goals
• provision for local issues including rail/canal
• prioritising on user issues, environmental issues etc – how do we define it is not sufficient to simply say road/rail/canal?

It was agreed formal discussions should now take place between BOF and RLG Bridge Board and the first task will be to develop procedures and draft terms of reference. Action: CM/IH

4. Rivet Shear

GC put forward a new proposal for a research project to look at rivet shear. CSS concerned at assessment failures on riveted steel bridges due to shear failure, very often with no physical signs of distress being apparent.

BB confirmed research into rivet shear has been done by Railtrack at Derby, which resulted in amending rules.

Following an approach by other bridge owners to repeat this research but from a highway bridge perspective, an EPSRC submission failed the funding application. Railtrack unable to justify funding this research (£100k) alone, but would be happy to provide financial support in conjunction with other bridge owners.

Following a discussion it was clear the problem was not clearly quantified and a properly researched case needs to be submitted to the BOF.

It was agreed to form a sub-group comprising BB/GC/JM to quantify the problem and put forward a case for research funding to the BOF. Action: BB/GC/JM

5. Masonry Arch Bridges

GC made a presentation on the assessment and strengthening systems for masonry arch bridges.

In 1996 CSS commissioned TRL to produce a best practise guide on the assessment and strengthening of masonry arch bridges. They recently asked TRL to produce a short update report to cover recent developments in arch strengthening methods.

The TRL update report details are as follows:

GC identified several key issues which needed to be addressed:

TRL have undertaken research into strengthening masonry arch bridges using steel reinforcement for several proprietary systems (Mars, Helifix, Cintec etc).

In respect of masonry arch bridge assessment several systems are on the market (Pippard Mexe, Mechanism, Discrete Elements etc). Some of which are 'black box' in that the software is not commercially available and therefore not subject to peer review, you therefore, rely on a guarantee given by the contractor.

Has sufficient research been undertaken to justify the use of the above assessment and/or strengthening systems?

Following a detailed discussion in which concerns were generally held by all the group members in using these systems it was agreed we need to formulate a sub group to take arch research forward.

BB and GC were asked to determine the research proposal assisted by JP/JC/JM forming the sub group members. Action: BB/GC

On a point of information, GH confirmed a study on un-reinforced arches was being undertaken by Highway Agency and it was anticipated a report would be produced by the end of 2001. Action: GH

6. Research Update

6.1 Management of Abnormal Loads

AC gave an update on the proposals to have a 'one stop shop' for dealing with abnormal loads nationally covering:

• Website
• special order
• email port for hauliers
• assessment of bridges

Full details of the proposal have been submitted to the Treasury for comment. Funding will cover:

• capital
• software
• data capture

IH confirmed no conflict with the work of the RLG Bridge Board. GH considered key issue will relate to having a common set of data:

• how will we reference bridges?
• how will we update the data?
• how will we solve interface problems?

AC in response confirmed funding arrangements would not pay for updating but he envisaged the system could be easily extended to include culverts, and lighting, new housing schemes etc, consequently lots of other attributes once the scheme gets off the ground.

BB expressed concern that no action had been taken to date in that bridge authorities still had no statutory rights to stop abnormal load movements. He was, therefore, reluctant to move forward without assurances that this legal aspect would be considered.

IH confirmed that in all probability primary legislation would be required to achieve this.

It was concluded that CM would speak to Barry Mawson and obtain a view on the legal issues. Action: CM

6.2 Condition/Performance Indicators

GP confirmed CSS would put forward four main points to the Bridge Board at tomorrows meeting as follows:

1. Less than bridge capacity against required bridge capacity.
2. Percentage spend on bridges
3. Percentage spend on retaining walls
4. Bridge Condition Indicator

In respect of the Bridge Condition Indicator, WS Atkins final report is due to be submitted to CSS on 30^th January 2002 with a view of a final launch at the Surveyor Conference in March 2002.

In discussion GP agreed to provide VH with details of the key attributes of the condition indicator. IH pointed out the LTP submissions are due next year and this gives a good opportunity to feed in details of condition indicators.

GH then gave an update report on the work of the Highway Agency in this regard.

The main aim was to develop a simple system without recourse to complicated algorithms. VH confirmed she was developing a position paper looking at:

• Safety
• Availability
• Condition

This information will be presented to IH who will need to compare with the CSS system and marry them together.

IH confirmed he will expect BOF and the Bridge Board to jointly look at the 2 proposals and develop a single system. RLG

He expected the system to cover both bridges and retaining walls. The distribution of funding nationally will be based on this PI/CI system.

Finally JM reported all the work of LUL for several years LUL have reported to government on all condition using a scale A to E. LUL are currently refining and defining this scoring system which will identify concerns and period of remediation. Scoring system would be on a red/amber/green basis but using grey for structures with no known information. Unfortunately JM was not at liberty to make this information available to BOF members at the present time.

6.3 J. Collins Projects

GH responded on the 2 No research projects proposed by JC as follows:

1. Review of Design Code Loading ProvisionsGH was pleased to report this proposal had been put in the research programme 'A List'.
2. Review of Assessment ProgrammeGH reported it was considered this project was too big a subject to deal with in the short term. It was considered that pilot studies would be needed in the first instance, consequently this project had been put on the back burner for now.

In discussion, RW thought it was important that we should accept that past strengthening works had been needed and it would not be helpful to review this aspect at this stage. We should not be looking backwards but concentrating our efforts on those bridges which still needed to be strengthened.

VH suggested we should look at the BRIME BMS system which is on the TRL website, this should be examined as a start as it had identified the fundamental issues. The framework had been developed for us to learn from. CM asked if VH would make a presentation on BRIME at our next meeting. Action: VH

RJ was concerned we do not know, with certainty, the spare capacity on 'just pass' bridges consequently at the end of the day it will be a political decision rather than a structural decision to strengthen our bridges.

The discussion concluded, as JC not present here today, we will form a small sub-group comprising RW, RJ and JC to develop this project further for submission to GH. Action: RW/RJ/JC

6.4 Railtrack Research Portfolio

BB gave a quick overview by running through the report submitted at the last meeting, key points as follows:

• Masonry Arch Software TRL appointed to review all software currently available. From the preliminary report, it would appear Archie and Ring are the best.
• Composites Bridge strengthening works underway. BB to put details on the web. Action: BB
• Infra-Red Thermography PhD work nearly finished.
• Concrete Society - Advanced Composites Report available in the new year (2002)
• Masonry Parapet Impacts Now in third year, results looking good on all reinforced parapets.
• SAMCO - European Network for structures 5^th framework funding has been agreed.

6.5 Highway Agency Research Portfolio

1. Update on current projects
   
   

   HA Research Update Presentation

   94.00 KB

   Login is required to access this page

   Login
   
   VH gave a slide presentation covering the period April to June 2001 as follows:
   • 4 No projects completed in this period:
     • slope stability
     • embankments
     • capping
     • slope stabilisation
   • Project starts during this period included:
     • long life roads
     • safety fence standards
     • sustainable roads
     • origin and destination matrix initiative
2. Research vision for the futureGH made a slide presentation giving a quick overview identifying 25/26 new projects pointing out they are only proposals at this stage.BB was interested in the proposed work on crevice corrosion of pre-stressed cables, pointing out CIRIA currently working on composite bridges and their report will shortly be available.

7. Bridge Consultants Forum

CM reported a meeting had been held and BCF formed, see website for details. In the first instance BCF wished to have a joint forum with BOF. They suggest BCF meets in the morning, form 5 groups, and make a presentation to BOF in the afternoon one of the key issues to BCF was procurement methods.

BCF Feedback Presentation

61.00 KB

Login is required to access this page

Login

After a general discussion it was agreed, particularly if we are to comment to RLG Bridge Board, that we must have the views and comments of BCF and agreed we should have a joint meeting.

CM pointed out the next BOF meeting would be completely full with Masonry Arch papers. It was therefore agreed that CM should invite BCF to our July 2002 meeting. Action: CM

8. National Bridge Inspectors Qualifications

GH reported on the work of the Highway Agency and circulated a questionnaire asking for co-operation of BOF members in filling in and returning the questionnaire. Action: ALL

GH commented on the need to have a debate on how this was to be taken forward but we do need information in the first instance.

During discussion GH recommended we should read the 13^th SCOSS report which identified key issues for debate. JM pointed out LUL currently reviewing inspectors but this included tunnels not just bridges. GH said tunnels had not been mentioned as he was aware EU legislation on tunnels may be forthcoming.

The discussion concluded with the general view that all members supported the HA initiative and that this matter should be pursued.

9. Any Other Business

1. Administration of BOFCM referred to the earlier discussion on the Bridges Board and re-iterated that BOF needs to give attention to the administration of the forum particularly if DTLR resources are not forthcoming.Resistance to sharing the burden of taking the minutes, which can take 2 man days to write [these comprise 19 No A4 handwritten sheets - JP] is being experienced. It is important an agreed order is established. Also the cost of room hire is increasing from £35 to £50. We need to seriously address these issues and debate how to resolve. Action: ALL
2. RLG Bridge BoardAs a point of information IH confirmed the dates for the RLG BB in 2002 are:
   • 30^th January
   • 23^rd April
   • 3^rd July
   • 3^rd October Action: ALL

10. Date for next Meeting

To be held at Kings College on 12^th March 2002. Cam Middleton to continue chairmanship and secretary to be agreed (volunteers please). Action: ALL