01 July 2010

Scottish Bridges: 10. Tradeston Bridge


I visited the Tradeston Bridge just over a year ago, very shortly after it opened in May 2009, and had a good look around in the day time. More recently, I returned at night.

The design, by Halcrow with Dissing + Weitling, is brutally minimalist, with an extremely slender S-curved deck achieved at the cost of heavy support pylons. There are very few bridges quite like it, although the Valencia Port Swing Bridge perhaps comes closest.

Seen previously on an overcast day, the bridge's battleship grey looked flat and leaden. At night, it looks bright white, and far more attractive.

The handrail lighting is the Rail Light system, and it seems a little overdone, judging by the amount of light spilling into the river. On the night I visited, part of one handrail light was dark, but you'll have difficulty telling where from these photographs.

There's enough light from the handrail that there's no need for feature lighting on the pylons, and these can be seen looming up into the darkness.

Since my previous visit, when climbing the pylons seemed to be all the rage, I've heard no further reports of the bridge attracting unauthorised climbers. Presumably the local CCTV is well monitored. The bridge is still seemingly well used, with quite a few people passing over while I photographed it, close to midnight.

I still very much admire its simplicity, and its starkness, which is especially the case at night. It has a great sense of presence for a bridge on a relatively small scale, and the contrasts between its angular sufaces and curved lines is surprisingly successful. Its iceberg aesthetic is at odds with the rest of Glasgow's bridges, but I like it.

Further information:
Related posts:

30 June 2010

Scottish Bridges: 9. Glasgow Bridge



Moving eastwards from the South Portland Street Bridge, the next crossing of the River Clyde in Glasgow is Glasgow Bridge.

The present structure was built in 1899 by Blyth and Westland engineers, as a wider replacement of Thomas Telford's 1836 bridge (itself a replacement for a bridge of 1772).

As masonry arch bridges go, it's not a brilliant design. The segmental arch ring seems to me to come too close to the parapet, touching the stringcourse and breaking up the spandrel wall. The result is that the arch looks flattened at its crown. It doesn't look quite right, but historic photos do seem to make clear that it's identical to Telford's original design.

The bridge piers each incorporate three secondary transverse arches, presumably to reduce loads on the foundations.

The night-time lighting is much better than at the South Portland Street Bridge. The blue intrados to the arches contrasts well with the white bridge piers and balustrades. It's a shame that one arch is unlit along with several of the piers, but that's just a lack of maintenance.

Behind this bridge, you can see the 2nd Caledonian Railway Bridge, which wasn't illuminated, so I didn't take any photos of it, nor the George the Fifth Bridge, another arched highway bridge immediately to the east (this time in concrete with faux masonry facades).

Further information:

29 June 2010

Scottish Bridges: 8. South Portland Street Suspension Bridge


It's always interesting to contrast bridges by day and by night, so I was pleased recently to make a return trip in the hours of darkness to the Tradeston Bridge, which I'd only previously seen by day. I also took the chance to have a quick look at a few other bridges along Glasgow's River Clyde.

I'll cover the bridges I looked at in order from east to west, starting with the South Portland Street Suspension Bridge.

This footbridge incorporates the oldest surviving elements of any of Glasgow's bridges across the river Clyde, with its stone towers dating from 1853. It replaced a timber bridge on the same site, which had lasted from 1833-1846. Designed by engineer George Martin with architect Alexander Kirkland, the new bridge required substantial reconstruction in 1871, leaving it essentially in its present form, although the hangers have been replaced twice more since then.

The bridge has been illuminated at night since 2005, with well over 2,000 LED lights involved. I first saw the bridge at night, and was surprised at quite how malevolently crimson it is lit, as if the bridge had not long emerged from Vulcan's furnace. You can see the twin sets of bridge chains, one above the other, and the hangers and parapets are reasonably well delineated, but the towers just look somewhat morose.

In the day time, it became clear how awkward the lighting is, totally obliterating the contrast between the stonework, the red steelwork, and the white steelwork lattice panels. It's odd, because the press release issued when the lighting was installed said that the towers would be lit in white, and more use of white light would definitely have looked much better.

Further information:

28 June 2010

Boy Scout Bridge competition winner


Another bridge design contest, another winner, and this time it's the turn of Schlaich Bergermann und Partner, and Hatch Mott MacDonald.

The contest was to design a pedestrian bridge at the Bechtel Family National Scouting Reserve in West Virginia. The two firms' winning design is a 250m suspension bridge, with "walkable" cables running over fanned-out columns, some 60m above the ground.

The bridge is to be built in time for the National Scout Jamboree Event in 2014. Consol Energy are donating US$15m towards its construction.


23 June 2010

"Failed Bridges: Case Studies, Causes and Consequences"

If the news is any guide, bridges around the world seem to be falling down at an alarmingly frequency. In early June alone, there were collapses reported in Idaho, USA, Ohio, USA, Connecticut, USA (1 injury), India and Indonesia (12 dead). The casual onlooker might conclude that the bridge engineering industry was rife with incompetence.

That impression wouldn't be dispelled by reading "Failed Bridges: Case Studies, Causes and Consequences" by Joachim Scheer (Ernst and Sohn / Wiley, 2010, 307pp) [Amazon.co.uk]. This features an impressively long (but still far from comprehensive e.g. no Ynys-y-Gwas) list of bridge collapses guaranteed to strike alarm into the hearts of wary gephyrophobes. Of course, as the author emphasises, these statistically remain a tiny minority of structures. Nonetheless, it's hard to avoid the impression that there is a widespread problem.

"Failed Bridges" is the second edition, in English, of a book which first saw print in German. The decision to publish this expanded version in English recognised that engineers around the world often seem to fail to learn from the mistakes in their predecessors, and it was desirable to expand the book's audience much more widely. The literature of bridge failure is lengthy, but not always accessible to practicing engineers. The aim of this book is to bring as much data into one volume as possible and thus provide a single point of reference documenting the reasons for past failures, and the lessons which might be learned.

It contrasts with Björn Åkesson's book "Understanding Bridge Collapses", which I reviewed previously. Åkesson offered 20 case studies, with detailed technical explanations including calculations where appropriate. As such, it's of interest both to design engineers and to students. Scheer widens the net to capture at least 440 failures, with the inevitable consequence that much less detail is provided for each one. Indeed, for the better known failures, little if any detail on the cause of collapse is given, with the author assuming readers can access the information elsewhere.

Much of "Failed Bridges" comprises data on individual bridge collapses presented in the form of tables, indeed 115 pages are taken up with these tables, which are for reference rather than for reading. Some similar information is available online (e.g. at Wikipedia or BridgeForum), and neither the book nor the online efforts are comprehensive, with numerous bridge failures absent in each case. "Failed Bridges" seems particularly short on failures due to floods (probably the single biggest cause of collapse throughout history) and seismic activity, with the latter category being a new inclusion in this second edition.

Failures are categorised by physical situation or cause: during construction; during service under "normal" load including wind; ship collision; vehicular collision; flooding and ice floes; fire or explosion; seismic activity; and falsework failures.

The broader view of a system like SCOSS's "3 Ps" (people, process, product) only comes out in the book's final chapter, which summarises the lessons learned. Nor is the explanation of failure as thorough as the approach used by the RAIB, which identifies the immediate cause (often physical), causal factors, contributory factors and underlying factors, in an attempt to lay bare the complex web of human error which underlies most bridge failures. None of this is to criticise the author, as for most historic bridge failures, detailed information of this sort is simply not available.

Scheer makes a number of interesting points in his introduction. Recounting his own experiences of bridge failures (he has acted on several occasions as investigator and expert witness), he notes the high proportion which occur during construction: "My own experience reflects what everyone 'on site' knows: building work is often linked with failure; this has always been the case and always will be". However, I suspect very few of the people with the greatest responsibilities for construction of bridges (i.e. contractors) will ever read this book. The challenge for its main audience (academics and designers) is therefore how to bring its lessons to the attention of contractors, and clients (the other group who could benefit but won't read it), without appearing alarmist.

I'd suggest that the risk management processes now common throughout engineering design and construction offer one way forward: do designers completing their obligations under the CDM regulations always make clear the more extreme risks of failure? "Failed Bridges" offers countless examples of what can go wrong, and plenty of advice on mitigating the risks. Perhaps if more risk assessments clearly identified key mitigation actions such as the involvement of the designer in construction supervision, the situation would be improved.

Scheer also notes that: "when analyzing the causes of structural failures today, I find that there is hardly any case which could have been prevented by more detailed calculation". Instead, failures occur because certain possibilities were never even considered in calculation, or they are the result of what with hindsight can be seen as gross rashness. A similar point was made by D.W. Smith in a major survey of bridge failures (ICE Proceedings, 1976), who also warned of the dangers of reliance on complicated and sometimes ambiguous design standards. Reading this, it is tempting to wonder whether the introduction of Eurocodes offers any improvement at all on structural safety, especially where their implicit reliance on probability theory can hide the very real uncertainties that go beyond the boundaries assumed.

There are a number of minor issues I noted while reading the book. Chief amongst these is that while its translation is generally excellent, the opportunity has been missed to introduce references to material available in English. So for example, the failure of the Tay, Dee and Cleddau bridges is discussed with reference to papers in German, rather than the widely available and often informative material in English. For example, for the Tay Bridge (pictured), Peter Lewis's very thorough book "Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silvery Tay" isn't mentioned, nor the essential technical papers by Lewis, Martin and MacLeod. Given that the author assumes readers will seek more details elsewhere, it's unfortunate that the bibliography remains largely aimed at German-speakers.

The level of detail given for individual failures is often uneven, with some, such as the 1940 collapse of the Frankenthal Rhine Bridge accompanied by levels of detail which seem excessive in comparison to others. However, this is as much a strength as a failing, as often the bridges covered in detail are German and little known to the wider world. Scheer also offers more detail where he sees it as necessary to provide a view other than that which has been widely reported. For example, the 1907 collapse of the Lawrence River bridge in Quebec (pictured) was widely stated to have been due to the underestimation of dead loads in calculation. Scheer draws attention instead to the non-compactness of the critical steel section, and hence its inability to redistribute internal constraint stresses in a plastic manner.

For some of the causes of collapse listed in the book, the technical lessons seem to be straightforward, and are largely now a routine feature of design standards. This is the case for failure due to ship and vehicular collision, where events like the Eschede railway disaster (pictured) have led to considerable conservatism in the design codes. The hazards from flooding and earthquakes are also to a certain extent predictable. The chapters devoted to these effects are correspondingly shorter. However, one lesson from history is that new hazards continue to become apparent as technology advances. One example not covered in this book is the phenomenon of ballast instability due to bridge resonance, observed when high-speed trains were introduced to the Paris/Lyon rail line, causing damage to bridges and increased risk of derailment.

Amongst the myriad of other case studies, one that stood out for me was the 1990 collapse of arch falsework for the Lake Street - Marshall Avenue Bridge at St Paul, Minnesota. This was a case where different elements of the falsework were designed by different firms, although the overall strength of the system was highly dependent on the stiffness relationships of each element, including the stiffness of parts of the bridge arch already cast. The result was that scaffolding props carried greater loads than assumed by their designer, and their support beams lacked sufficiently strong stiffeners. When the scaffold collapsed, one person was killed.

This case stood out because it's an example of something I've seen several times in my own work, especially beyond the field of bridge engineering. In building structures, it's entirely normal for responsibility for "details" to be divorced from the main designer (e.g. pile design, or bolted steelwork connections), and there's an accident waiting to happen wherever those details prove more significant to the global design than is commonly assumed (e.g. where the stiffness of a bolted connection is important, or a pile's stiffness against lateral loading).

The final chapter of the bridge seeks to summarise advice on how to avoid bridge failures, both from the author's own perspective and by surveying others who have attempted the same. These are mostly aimed at engineers, although they do touch on lessons for those involved in procurement, such as the need to incentivise the appointment of professionals who are competent (while seemingly obvious, this also seems to be frequently ignored in the delusion that "low cost" is the same thing as "high value").

Scheer also touches on difficulties with regulators, who by promoting particular procurement arrangements often hinder best practice (e.g. the lack of involvement of experienced designers in site supervision which has become increasingly widespread in recent years, resulting from a preference for design-build procurement). He notes that pressure to drive down costs and meet deadlines must have an adverse effect on time available to optimise design and coordinate work correctly. I particularly liked his statement that "designers are forced to commit themselves to a single concept at a much too early stage and to stick with it, at times, against their better judgment", a conclusion which should be read by anyone who is overly enamoured of the bridge design competition as a procurement route.

Scheer's advice extends to every phase of bridge design and construction. On conceptual design, the need for robustness and simplicity of structural form are discussed. In calculation, the key concern relates to unsafe extrapolation - the failure to realise when rules well-understood at one scale can become unsafe at larger scales, principally because effects which were once negligible become dominant. This includes buckling issues as well as the aerodynamic issues that were encountered on the Tacoma Narrows bridge. Scheer notes, quite correctly, that engineers in the modern age are seldom afforded the time, funding, or control required to undertake experiments which might render extrapolation safe, with the example of Stephenson and Fairbairn's experimental work on the Britannia Bridge box girders (pictured) being offered as an example of how extrapolation can be carried out sensibly.

Advice covers how the design process should be coordinated, as well as risks related to modelling and the misuse of computer analysis. Many of these issues have been well rehearsed elsewhere. Scheer records recommendations made by others: Sir Alfred Pugsley, W. Plagemann and D. Kaminetsky. The last of these includes one guideline which might act as a motto for this entire book: "The best way to generate a failure on your job is to disregard the lessons to be learned from someone else's failures".

Amongst Scheer's own advice I particularly like: "Always bear in mind that your model of a load-bearing structure is defective".

He concludes the book with suggestions for how the history of failure might hold lessons for the teaching of structural engineering, concluding that students learn too much about analysis, and too little about design, a view I very much agree with. As Scheer notes, too much maths and science can hinder a strong intuitive feeling for structural behaviour, rather than assist it.

Overall, "Failed Bridges" is an excellent contribution to the bridge engineering literature. It's singlemindedness doesn't make it an easy book to read right through, but the information it contains should be thought-provoking for younger engineers, and likely to cause many grimaces of recognition for their older colleagues.

I do wonder how the material can be more widely disseminated - the reality is that a very small minority of design engineers read books like this, and an even smaller proportion of the clients and contractors who can play an even larger role in preventing failure. So, if you're in any of these groups, please consider what you're missing!

It's a book that's certainly worth reading for those concerned with the education of engineers, and I'd particularly commend it to those involved in the development of standards and codes, procurement strategies, or with overseeing roles in the process of design management.

17 June 2010

Bridges news roundup

River closure planned when new footbridge is hoisted into position
Hull's "iconic" £7.5m swing footbridge to be installed in August.

Iconic Wear bridge plans on ice
Government spending review may kill ambitious bridge design.

Disappointment over Mersey Gateway bridge scheme delay
Government spending review may kill ambitious bridge design.

Is this the craziest bridge ever designed?
More twisty and turny than a twisty-turny thing.

Finalists announced for Prime Minister's Better Public Buildings Awards
Three bridge schemes amongst the finalists (A40 Western Avenue, Forth Bridge cables, Silver Jubilee Bridge) and it's great to see technical achievement recognised alongside architectural schemes.

16 June 2010

"Thomas Bouch: the Builder of the Tay Bridge"

I picked up a copy of John Rapley's biography "Thomas Bouch: the Builder of the Tay Bridge" (ISBN 978-0-7524-3695-1, Tempus Publishing, 2007, 192pp) [Amazon.co.uk] cheaply in a bargain book store earlier this year.

I had previously read Rapley's fascinating "The Britannia & Other Tubular Bridges" [Amazon.co.uk], which is a detailed and evenhanded account of the great joint achievement of Robert Stephenson and William Fairbairn (and some other, lesser-known structures). So his treatment of the life of the Victoria railway engineer Sir Thomas Bouch was bound to be of interest.

Bouch's name is known to posterity pretty much for one thing, and one thing only: the collapse of his Tay railway bridge on 28 December 1879, approximately 18 months after it had been officially opened to traffic. Bouch's design was discredited, as were the construction and maintenance, and he died ten months later, his reputation ruined.

Before that, he had built up a considerable reputation as a railway engineer who could build new lines for far less money than his competitors. Bouch believed that his contemporaries were often far too conservative in their designs, and his quest for economy frequently led him to build railways using secondhand rails, timber bridges which never lasted long, and single-track rather than double-track solutions. While these allowed new railway lines to be built quickly for low capital outlay, they almost invariably led to higher upgrade costs later.

His antipathy to over-design can be seen in one of his most successful bridges, the Hownes Gill Viaduct, built in 1858 (pictured left in a 1906 postcard). In his book "British Railway Bridges", David Walters suggests that "its slender grace recalls Bouch's life-long contention that contemporary engineering work was hopelessly over-designed and uneconomical, through general conservatism and a chronic underestimation of the ultimate strength of materials". Bouch's design was reviewed by Robert Stephenson, who required both the addition of invert arches at foundation level to better spread the loads, and also that the tallest piers be widened to provide greater stability in high winds.

Bouch was unafraid to innovate when required, developing roll-on-roll-off ferries for railway wagons at the Firth of Forth, and his 1871 cable-stayed Redheugh Bridge at Newcastle foreshadowed modern designs such as those of Riccardo Morandi.

Most of the book focusses on Bouch's lengthy career as a railway engineer, working generally on minor regional lines. This offers a good understanding of Bouch's finely matched strengths and weaknesses. His ability to build for a penny what others could only build for a pound seems to have been unmatched. However, as well as frequently requiring expensive rebuilding, his schemes were often blighted by initial cost over-runs, the result of inadequate advance surveys.

For my taste, there's too little offered in the book to shed light on Bouch as a person (perhaps the source material simply isn't there), and I soon tired of the endless episodes of railway woe.

The Tay Bridge, understandably, is covered in greatest detail. The difficulties of construction included the collapse of two girders during erection, blown over by the wind, but in line with Bouch's general parsinomy, one was recovered from the estuary and re-used in the finished bridge. Once open, there were problems with scour and with slackening tie bars, with inadequate repairs made on site without reference back to Bouch himself. While the civil engineer was receiving a knighthood for his achievements, the bridge was beginning to wobble alarmingly, and (with hindsight) the collapse of the bridge became inevitable.

The Court of Inquiry which investigated the failure of the bridge led to Bouch being left in disgrace. This was despite the two engineers on the Court refusing to apportion blame, and indeed disassociating themselves from the far more critical conclusions of their colleague Henry Rothery (notably, a lawyer rather than an engineer).

While Bouch was certainly responsible for many of the defects in the bridge's design and construction, his responsibility for the ultimate cause of failure, the bridge's inadequate strength against wind load, is less clear. He had sought advice from the railway inspectorate (who noted that wind load need not normally be included in design for spans only a little shorter than those adopted). He was told by the Astronomer Royal (in connection with his aborted design for the Forth Rail Bridge) that a pressure of 10 pounds per square foot was reasonable. Bouch's assistant used a pressure of 20 psf for the Tay Bridge design, despite there being in general little understanding of wind load amongst civil engineers of the period. Bouch became the fall guy, but it seems many of his peers might have made similar decisions.

Overall, I was a little disappointed by this book, although I suspect much of that is simply because Bouch was more of a designer of railways than of bridges, and hence there were large parts of the tale which were of limited interest to me. It was certainly less immediately appealing than Rapley's book on the Britannia Bridge, but that offered a more straightforward story where extensive source material is available, and with historically significant disagreements between the main protagonists to recount. To its credit, "Thomas Bouch" is well illustrated with archive photographs and diagrams, and I'd think it's likely to remain the definitive work on its unfortunate subject for a long time to come.