The Aesthetic Refurbishment of BRIDGES 1995

thursday
June 95
organised by The Institution of Civil Engineers in
conjunction with the County Surveyors Society
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
.J o o -
I n s t i t u t i o n of CiviL Engineers, London
Downloaded by [ UNIV OF ILLINOIS] on [11/07/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Published by ICE Publishing, 40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP.
Distributors for ICE Publishing books are

USA: Publishers Storage and Shipping Corp., 46 Development Road,
Fitchburg, MA 01420
www.icevirtuallibrary.com
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-7277-4331-2
© Thomas Telford Limited 2011
ICE Publishing is a division of Thomas Telford Ltd, a wholly-

owned subsidiary of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).
All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as

permitted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the Publisher, ICE
Publishing, 40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP.
This book is published on the understanding that the author is

solely responsible for the statements made and opinions
expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily
imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the
views or opinions of the publishers. Whilst every effort has
been made to ensure that the statements made and the
opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and
accurate guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted in
this respect by the author or publishers.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
EXHIBITION DETAILS
SPEAKERS' BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
SEMINAR PAPERS
Refurbishment, aesthetics and the bridge engineer

Peter Head, G Maunsell & Partners \j
The Aesthetic Conundrum r ^

Andrew Leadbeater, Oxfordshire County Council ^
The performance of materials for visual enhancement

Ray Cox, Building Research Establishment
Practical problems and comparative costs - a contractor's view

Brian Dargan, Makers Civil Engineering
Factors influencing the selection of maintenance strategies for bridges

Perry Vassie, Transport Research Laboratory
State of the art report: coatings and renders

Richard Barton, Sika Limited
Overcladding and rainscreens

Simon Hay, Eternit UK Limited
Encounters with excellence

Jon Wallsgrove
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
THE AESTHETIC REFURBISHMENT OF BRIDGES
LIST OF DELEGATES Page 1
This list is a record of the delegates registered up to and including Tuesday 30 May 1995, and should not
be taken as a complete list of those attending this event.
Arnold, Mr Chris Senior Engineer, Symonds Travers Morgan Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Barclay, Mr Ian Eternit UK Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Barton, Mr B G Principal Bridge Engineer, SECPD, Department of Transport, UNITED

KINGDOM
Barton, Mr Richard Divisional Manager, SIKA Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Ben aim, Mr R Director, Robert Benaim & Associates Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Bennett, Mr David Director, David Bennett Associates, UNITED KINGDOM
Bourne, Mr Simon Director, Robert Benaim & Associates Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Brown, Mr David Works Engineer, Midlands and S W Region, British Waterways Board,
UNITED KINGDOM
Chubb, Mr Mike WS Atkins Consultants, UNITED KINGDOM
Churton, Mr Peter Senior Engineer, Mott MacDonald, UNITED KINGDOM
Cole, Mr Graham Section Engineer, Surrey County Council, UNITED KINGDOM
Counsell, M r J H W Senior Engineer, Symonds Travers Morgan Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Cox, Mr Ray Building Research Establishment, UNITED KINGDOM
Coxon, Mr Steve Senior Engineer, Surrey County Council, UNITED KINGDOM
Dargan, Mr Brian Makers, UNITED KINGDOM
Davies, Mr Steve Senior Civil/Structural Eng, Ove Arup & Partners, UNITED
KINGDOM
Dewhurst, Mr Laurence Dewhurst MacFarlane & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM
Dodman-Edwards, Mr B Senior Group Engineer, W S Atkins, UNITED KINGDOM
Duckett, Mr William Graduate Engineer, G Maunsell & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM
Duffin, Mr J P Senior Engineer, Stirling House, Stirling Maynard & Partners, UNITED
KINGDOM
Dykes, Mr Ken CERD Marketing Manager, Makers Industrial Ltd, UNITED

KINGDOM
Easey, Mr D Senior Engineer - Bridges, WS Atkins - Cambridge, UNITED

KINGDOM
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Faherty, Mr P J Director, McCarthy & Partners, IRISH REPUBLIC
Feast, Mr Dick Principal Engineer, DHV (UK) Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Fernie, Mr Jim Project Engineer, Thorburn Colquhoun, Transportation, UNITED

KINGDOM
Firth, Mr Ian Partner, Flint & Neill Partnership, UNITED KINGDOM
Gough, Mr Piers CZWG Architects, UNITED KINGDOM
Green, Mr David Senior Vice-President, Institution of Civil Engineers, UNITED

KINGDOM
Greenhalgh, Mr M J Project Manager, Room 809, Highways Agency, UNITED KINGDOM
Hadley, Mr M A Associate, Harris & Sutherland, UNITED KINGDOM
Hall, Mr J Planning & Highways, Wiltshire County Council, UNITED KINGDOM
Hardon, Dr R G Marketing Manager, Harris Speciality Chemicals, UNITED KINGDOM
Hawes, Mr Frank Architect, UNITED KINGDOM
Hay, Mr Simon Company Architect, Eternit UK Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Head, Mr Peter Director, G Maunsell & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM
Hill, Mr P V Senior Engineer, Bridges Eng. Div. Room 3/55E, Highways Agency,
UNITED KINGDOM
Hobbs, Mr Raymond Principal Engineer, L G Mouchel & Partners Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Hollett, Mr Graham Project Engineer, Planning & Highways, Derbyshire County Council,
UNITED KINGDOM
Hussain, Mr N Director, Ove Arup & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM
lies, Mr D C Manager - Bridges, The Steel Construction, Institute, UNITED

KINGDOM
Irvine, Mr Richard Managing Director, Design Composites Technology, Limited, UNITED

KINGDOM
Johnstone, Mr Raymond Principal Engineer, National Roads Directorate, The Scottish Office,
UNITED KINGDOM
Jones, Mr Graham Professional Engineer, Highways Department, Staffordshire County

Council, UNITED KINGDOM
Kennedy-Reid, Mr Iain Senior Engineer, WS Atkins Consultants Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Kirkpatrick, Dr James Principal Prof. Tech. Officer, Dept. of the Environment, UNITED
KINGDOM
Lane, Mr John Business Manager, L G Mouchel & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM
Leach, Mr I Senior Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM
Leadbeater, Mr Andrew Deputy County Engineer, Oxfordshire County Council, UNITED

KINGDOM
Leeming, Mr M B Principal Engineer, L G Mouchel & Partners Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Liddell, Mr I Buro Happold, UNITED KINGDOM
Liefschutz, Mr Alex Liefschutz Davidson, UNITED KINGDOM
Lyons, Mr Bruce Managing Director, Harris Speciality Chemicals, UNITED KINGDOM
Mangham, Mr M W Director, Aspen Associates Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Martin, Mr Peter Structural Engineering Manager, East Sussex County Council, UNITED
KINGDOM
Matthews, Mr Geoff Team Leader, Construction & Design, Nottinghamshire County Council,
UNITED KINGDOM
Morris, Dr David Lecturer, Civil and Structural Eng., The University of Sheffield,
UNITED KINGDOM
Newham, Mr Roger Warwickshire County Council, UNITED KINGDOM
Pritchard, Mr B P Consultant, Consultant to WS Atkins & Colebrand Ltd, UNITED

KINGDOM
Robery, Mr Peter Technical Director, The Maunsell Group, UNITED KINGDOM
Robson, Mr Andy Engineer, Surrey County Council, UNITED KINGDOM
Sandham, Mr Frank Principal Engineer, Department of Roads, Grampian Regional Council,

UNITED KINGDOM
Sewell, Mr Steve Project Engineer, The Shire Consultancy, UNITED KINGDOM
Slocombe, Mr Nick Technical Director, Rust Consulting Limited, UNITED KINGDOM
Smith, Mr J F Senior Engineer, Sir William Halcrow & Partners, UNITED

KINGDOM
Spackman, Mr R A Partner, Tony Gee and Partners, UNITED KINGDOM
Summerfleld, Mr Mike Section Engineer, Mainline, UNITED KINGDOM
Taylor, Mr Eric Sales and Marketing Manager, Baco Contracts, UNITED KINGDOM
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Taylor, Mr Graham Associate, JMP Consultants Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Thoday, Mr N J Associate, Parkman Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Thompson, Mr Peter Engineering Director, Baco Contracts, UNITED KINGDOM
Vassie, Mr Perry Transport Research Laboratory, UNITED KINGDOM
Wallsgrove, Mr Jon Principal Architect Planner, Room 4/17, Highways Agency, UNITED
KINGDOM
Whitaker, Mr John Senior Group Engineer, Highways & Transportation, Leeds City
Council, UNITED KINGDOM
Williams, Mr Dave Project Manager, Highways & Transportation, Kent County Council,
UNITED KINGDOM
Winstanley, Mr P G Sections Head, Highways & Transportation, Clwyd County Council,

UNITED KINGDOM
Woodward, Mr Roy Aluminium Federation Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM
Yee, Mr Ronald Yee Associates, UNITED KINGDOM
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
STAND 1 MAKERS INDUSTRIAL LTD
Contact: Mr K Dykes
Address: Makers Industrial Ltd

Midas House
1 Tanning Court
Howley, Warrington
Cheshire WA1 2HF
Tel No: 01925 630300 Fax No: 01925 658628
Makers Civil Engineering Repair Division brings together Makers' established areas of
civil engineering expertise into a unified operation, offering clients the benefits of a
division dedicated to civil and structural engineering repair works.
Our staff have many years' experience in this specialist civil engineering repair field.
Their expertise, coupled with Makers' innovative and technological approach, enables
us to provide a total service; one which is tailored to meet the current and future needs
of markets throughout the United Kingdom.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
STAND 2 THE MAUNSELL GROUP
Contact: Peter Robery
Address The Maunsell Group

Maunsell House
160 Croydon Road
Beckenham
Kent BR3 4DE
Tel No: 0181 663 6565 Fax No: 0181 663 6723
The Maunsell Group is one of the world's largest consultancies with offices in 18
different countries. Maunsell provides consultancy services in all aspects of civil and
structural engineering and in related fields, such as environmental management. There
are 12 offices in the UK each staffed by engineers and technicians with local knowledge
to ensure that clients receive a rapid and effective service.
Maunsell's approach to refurbishment is two-pronged covering both repair and

strengthening.
The Group has been extensively involved in the repair of structures and is acknowledged
for its work in the development of innovative investigation, repair and maintenance
techniques. Major commissions include the maintenance and repair of the Midlands
Motorway Viaducts and the refurbishment of the A19 Tees Viaduct.
Refurbishment often has to include strengthening of apparently weak structures and it

is Maunsell's experience that if the highest levels of skill and a value engineering
approach are applied in these cases only selective strengthening measures may be
required with considerable savings as a result.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
STAND 3 ALUMINIUM FEDERATION LTD
Contact: Roy Woodward
Address: Aluminium Federation Ltd

27 Hallfields
Edwaston
Nottingham NG12 4AA
Tel No: 0115 9235713 Fax No: 0115 9452299
TALAT (Training in Aluminium Application Technologies)
Since 1989, the Aluminium Federation together with the Associations representing the
Aluminium industries in Germany, Scandinavia, Holland and Belgium, has worked in a
Comett II project (TALAT) funded partly by EEC and by these aluminium industries.
In comparision with some 23 universities including three from UK - Birmingham,

Nottingham and UMIST - they have produced 150 hours of lecture material relating to
those issues of importance to anyone using, or proposing to use, aluminium and to
Ministry Departments particulary Mechanical, Civil and Structural Engineering. Many
of the lectures deal with matters specifically of interest to designers, fabricators and
maintainers of bridges including choice of alloy, availability of the materials in various
forms, static and dynamic design, joining, forming, meeting and protective and decorative
systems. All of the lectures will soon be available on CD-Row but hard copy with
coloured overheads can be supplied.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
STAND 4 S I K A LTD
Contact: Richard Barton
Address: Sika Ltd

Watchmead
Welwyn Garden City
Herts AL7 1BQ
Tel No: 01707 394444 Fax No: 01707 375593
Sika Limited's business is the manufacture and marketing of a wide range of "state of
the art" construction chemicals backed by sophisticated technical advisory service.
Sika's quality and reliability is well established and their comprehensive range of
products are used for a wide diversity of applications ranging from light rapid transit to
underground construction, structural repairs and deck waterproofing membranes.
Sika concrete additives have been used in the UK as far back as 1928. From these early
beginnings, Sika has built a widely recognised repitation as the leading specialists in
construction materials technology.
Sika's involvement in projects provides today's Consultants, Architects and Engineers

with a unique level of assurance and support.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
BRIAN PRITCHARD
Consultant to W S Atkins and Colebrand Ltd, formerly partner in charge of W S
Atkins Transportation, now specialising in bridge construction, repair, strengthening
and visual appearance matters. An executive member of IABSE, a member of the
ICE Structural and Building Group Board and past member of BS 54000 and 6779
committees.
ANDREW LEADBEATER
Deputy County Engineer of Oxfordshire County Council, Chairman of the National
Steering Committee for Bridge Testing, Director of the UK Certification Authority of
Reinforcing Steels, Vice-Chairman of the County Surveyors' Society Bridge Group
and a member of the DoT Bridge Bashing Group.
Trained with London Transport Board working on Victoria Line and Barbican
Scheme. Then worked in Hampshire and Luton before becoming Assistant County
Surveyor (Bridges and Laboratory) for Derbyshire County Council. Joined
Oxfordshire County Council in 1989 and is now responsible for highway and bridge
design, development control, waste regulation, personnel, IT and administration as
well as corporate responsibilities. Is an Associate Member of the County Surveyors'
Society and Chairman of their Human Resources Group.
PETER HEAD
Director of G Maunsell & Partners, responsible as Government's Agent for the
design and construction of the Second Severn Crossing and other major bridge
projects worldwide. Also a founding Director od Maunsell Structural Plastics Limited
responsible for the conception and detailed design of the Caretaker Bridge Enclosure
System and footbridges, sign gantries and road bridges made from fibre reinforced
polymer materials.
RAY COX
Head of the Metals Section of the Building Research Establishment, responsible for
research programmes which cover the durability and performance of metal products
used in the building industry and includes profiled metal sheeting, repairs and
coatings for rebar protection in concrete. He has investigated the aesthetic repair of
concrete, the use of paints and coating products and overcladding panels.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
BRIAN DARGAN
Director of Makers Civil Engineering Repair Division, who has spent the last 18
years of his career in the specialist repair industry, including realkalysation, cathodic
protection and desalination techniques, and experience of the repair market in the
USA. Current projects include the repair to Wapping River and Dock Walls and the
Redbridge Viaduct in Hampshire.
PERRY VASSIE
Project Manager at the Transport Research Laboratories and a Visiting Professor at
South Bank University; he specialises in corrosion problems in bridge structures, the
optimisation and prioritisation of bridge maintenance expenditure and whole life
costings.
RICHARD BARTON
Divisional Manager of Civil Engineering for Sika Ltd, responsible for repair and
protection projects on bridges, tunnels, water retaining, effluent treatment and marine
structures. Current work includes the supply of special bonding resin for gluing
segmental sections for the Second Severn Crossing.
SIMON HAY
Company Architect for Eternit UK, manufacturers of fibre cement roofing and
cladding products, responsible for design of cladding installations on the rainscreen
principle, for a variety of high rise structures.
FRANK HAWES
An architect with a practice in Norfolk, who continues to take an interest in the
weathering of structures and the architectural use of concrete, which he developed
during 13 years at the C&CA.
JON WALLSGROVE
Principal Architect Planner in the Bridges Engineering Division of the Highways
Agency, responsible for raising the profile of bridge design in England. Before
joining the Highways Agency he designed a variety of building structures, specialising
in the restoration and refurbishment of older buildings.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
PIERS GOUGH
Founding partner of high profile practice CZWG Architects, an articulate and
cultured team of modernists, whose work has been widely acclaimed and received
numerous architectural awards. He is an outspoken critic of mundane design, Vice-
President of the Council of the Architectural Association and a member of the Urban
Design Group of the London Docklands Development Association.
RONALD YEE
Partner of Yee Associates, a practice working mainly on civil engineering projects,
assisting engineers on the aesthetic and architectural enhancement of structures.
Recent bridge projects include the Tsing Ma suspension bridge, Hong Kong and the
winning design for the Second Tagus Crossing, Portugal.
LAURENCE DEWHURST
Founding partner of Dewhurst McFarlane, with design experience of new and listed
buildings, high rise construction, analysis of complex foundation problems, structures
for the North Sea oil industry, and motorways and bridges. The practice were recent
winners of the RIBA Regional Award for East Anglia's University's New Buildings
and the RIBA National Award for an all glass extension for a private house.
IAN LIDDELL
Partner of Buro Happold, responsible for the design of special structures including
mosques, stadia, temporary and transportable buildings. He is one of the world's
leading designers of lightweight tension and fabric structures, with considerable
experience in the assessment of historic engineering structures involving brick arches,
vaults and cast iron.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Peter R. Head
REFURBISHMENT, AESTHETICS AND

THE BRIDGE ENGINEER
PETER R. HEAD
Director, G. Maunsell & Partners, Beckenham, Kent
1. INTRODUCTION
I welcome this seminar because it gives the opportunity for everyone to approach the issue
of bridge refurbishment and strengthening from a very different perspective. We are now
in a period where there is a fundamental shift away from construction of new infrastructure
towards getting the most out of our existing transport systems, whether they be road or rail.
At the same time road bridges are having to be strengthened to cope with greater loadings
and higher specifications for vehicle impact and road safety. Bridges carrying railways are
being critically examined in the run up to privatisation. In this paper I will be examining the
ways in which bridge aesthetics are being addressed in this process and asking whether more
could be done.
2. BRIDGE REFURBISHMENT AND STRENGTHENING
We are now about half way through the Highway Agency's 15 year bridge rehabilitation
programme due for completion (in theory) for the introduction of 40 tonne vehicles in 1999.
Bridge rehabilitation was recognised to need to include :-
• strengthening for extra density of traffic and increased axle weight

• maintenance for wear and tear and deterioration caused by de-icing salts
• upgrading of substandard foundations, piers, columns, waterproofing, parapets.
There are 100,000 bridges altogether, about 65% under local government control, 20%
central government and the rest under control of British Rail, London Underground, British
Waterways and other transport operators. About half the bridges are masonry, a quarter are
reinforced concrete and the rest prestressed concrete, steel, cast-iron, timber etc. It is
interesting to note that over half these bridges are over 75 years old.
It was estimated that the total cost of carrying out the full programme of assessment and
strengthening would be £1.3 billion, about £13,000 per bridge. Perhaps not surprisingly now
we are half way through, this estimate is looking to be very low and it does not of course
take into account the costs to the public of traffic disruption which in the London area are
particularly severe. Budgets are under increasing pressure and we know many of you are
facing very difficult decisions on which way to turn. The public is beginning to question
why bridges that have been carrying traffic satisfactorily with no signs of distress suddenly
need weight restrictions. 1999 suddenly seems to be just around the corner.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Peter R. Head
3. FACTORS FOR DESIGN
3.1 General
It is my experience that engineers often have more respect for the maintenance of the
appearance of an existing bridge they are examining, than they have for the appearance of
new structures. I suppose one could say it is easier to maintain the status-quo than to be
creative in achieving excellence in new design. However this seminar is raising the issue
whether maintaining the status-quo is enough. If there is a mundane bridge, could the
programme of refurbishment enhance it? Can the bridge equivalent of an ugly duckling be
turned into an elegant swan?
Before turning to this central theme of the seminar, I believe it is important to set out clearly
all the different factors that the engineer (and architect) must address when looking at options
for bridge refurbishment and strengthening. Aesthetics is only one of a number of complex
interactive matters that need to be addressed, often in very short time scales with design fees
limited by fee competition bidding.
3.2 Capital Cost
Bearing in mind the funding constraints set out above, capital cost will always be a primary
consideration in deciding on the preferred scheme. However it must be recognised that work
on site is often complex and difficult to price accurately at the tender stage. More money
spent on design with longer lead times for pricing by contractors could lead to significant
overall savings in project cost, allowing more money to be allocated to aesthetic issues.
3.3 Whole Life Cost
Most clients now consider not just capital cost, but whole life cost. Will the refurbished
bridge be easier or more difficult to maintain? Have details been introduced that will be
more of a maintenance burden? Will this give rise to greater traffic disruption in the future?
I have seen many cases where corrosion traps and inaccessible structural details have been
proposed in bridge strengthening projects. It is no good sweeping these problems under the
carpet to get the job done. In five years time another round of work may be needed if this
happens.
3.4 Traffic Related Issues
Bridge refurbishment can cause huge traffic disruption. Methods of carrying out the work,
and therefore the details themselves, have to be chosen to minimise traffic disruption as much
as possible. If strengthening is involved, there may already be traffic restrictions and the
client will be pressing the designer and contractor to complete the work quickly to enable full
traffic capacity to be restored. This is often a political matter because of the effects on local
businesses.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Peter R. Head
3.5 Aesthetics
The final appearance of the bridge will be an important design issue, and the subject of much
debate with the client and other interested parties. It will be a primary issue if the bridge
is a listed structure. This is examined in more detail in Section 4.
3.6 Environmental Impact
The chosen solutions will need to take account of environmental matters such as noise during
construction, pollution of water courses and effects of traffic diversion on other communities,
particularly in built up or urban areas.
3.7 Safety
Safety audits are now needed on all refurbishment and strengthening projects. This is raising
the issue as to whether the strengthening work itself, through traffic constriction, can give
rise to greater risks to the public than the long term risk of a structure being understrength.
It is certainly and quite rightly making engineers question whether strengthening is really
necessary and whether if more sophisticated analysis was done, it would be found not to be
necessary after all.
3.8 Summary
You can see this is all very complex and we should be sure in all our discussions today that
we remember that each project will have a unique set of features driving the design solution.
It is dangerous to generalise in this subject area!
4. IMPORTANCE OF BRIDGE AESTHETICS
In my experience engineers are often extremely concerned about aesthetics when it comes
to bridge refurbishment. Maybe we worry about offending the original designer. Taking
the step of changing the way a bridge looks as part of this process is unusual and needs care
and not a little courage. However, in many cases the public may be very pleased to have
ugly bridges improved.
The first step in the process will be to examine the historical importance of the bridge and
to find out whether it is listed. The quality of the original design and its relationship with
the landscape and history of the area will need to be established, but opinions here may be
divided. It will be important to consider how visible the bridge is and whether the public
see it regularly. A bridge over a railway cutting for example may only ever be seen over
a few garden walls, whereas a bridge over a river in a town may be a local landmark.
5. BRIDGE REFURBISHMENT AN STRENGTHENING TECHNIQUES
5.1 General
It may be useful to review the methods of repair and strengthening which are being used on
our bridge stock and comment on the success or otherwise they may have in relation to
bridge aesthetics. I will do this through particular project examples.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Peter R. Head
5.2 Beam and Deck Replacement
Concrete deck replacement is common because of chloride ingress and reinforcement

corrosion. Deck replacement has little effect on appearance, but if a lighter deck can be used
then the need to strengthen or even replace main beams can be avoided, thus maintaining the
existing appearance of listed bridges more readily.
An example of this approach is Highbridge in Staffordshire which is being refurbished with

a lightweight advanced composite deck to enable the existing cast-iron arches to remain
unchanged.
Another wonderful example is the Bridge of Newe, built in 1859, which has been recently
reconstructed by Grampian Regional Council. The understrength cast-iron arch bridge and
masonry arch were rebuilt to provide a wider safer alignment with greater strength. This
Category B listed bridge was imaginatively rebuilt in steel and concrete with cast-iron girders
retained on the outside of the structure, but not carrying any load. The original cast-iron
parapets were retained and the coat of arms of the 3rd Baronet of Newe painted in full
heraldic colours.
Another interesting example is the Cleveland Bridge, Bath, built in 1827 to carry 5 tonne
vehicles. This bridge was strengthened and reconstructed in 1928 by Bath City Engineers
Department to carry full traffic load by incorporation of deep reinforced concrete trusses,
leaving the cast=iron arches in place. Refurbishment and strengthening of the footways was
needed in 1993 and this time Thorburn Colquhoun Limited and the County of Avon devised
a scheme to put in new steel support beams, again maintaining the cast-iron parapets and arch
ribs at the request of English Heritage.
In all these cases no architects were used in the design teams but client's architects were
consulted.
5.3 In-Situ Strengthening and Repair
5.3.1 Patch Repair of Concrete
Other speakers will deal with this subject in more detail. Suffice to say that most bridges
require patch repair of concrete at some stage in their life and it shows! The only successful
way to hide it is to change the bridge appearance with a coating. Coatings are also used in
conjunction with cathodic protection systems to enclose the electrical systems attached to the
concrete.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Peter R. Head
5.3.2 Adding Steel Components
Steel bridges are strengthened by bolting or welding additional steel members to them. This
does not generally change the appearance dramatically unless stiffeners are added to what
otherwise was a flat featureless facia. Repainting usually hides signs of additions being made
and often bridges are repainted to pick out features in different colours.
5.3.3 Plate Bonding and Prestressing
Bonding steel plates to concrete bridges has been a common method of strengthening
understrength concrete bridges for a number of years. It can be a little obtrusive on very
public bridges and tends to shout 'strengthening'. Steel plates have also been bonded onto
cast-iron bridges such as Bures Bridge, Suffolk, to strengthen it without changing the
appearance too much. New methods using carbon fibre reinforced epoxy plates have been
developed in Switzerland by Urs Meier at EMPA and are more durable, cheaper to install
and less obtrusive. They have been used in some magnificent strengthening projects for
heritage timber bridges, in which the strengthening is invisible below thin wood veneers.
Where serious problems of strength are found, external prestress is being added to many
bridges. This poses significant aesthetic challenges. Most of us would refuse to follow
methods used in Taipei where a forest of tendons are added where there has been an apparent
design error! Sometimes cables can be incorporated within box girders or behind girders.
Sometimes they look alright on the outside.
5.3.4 Strengthening within an Enclosure
So far I have been talking largely about maintaining existing appearance. What if we decide
that a fresh modern look is needed for a tired looking bridge? This approach is often taken
in building refurbishment, why not bridges? This is where the aesthetic issues and engineer/
architect interfaces really matter. How can this approach be justified on cost grounds?
An important potential solution to all these questions is the installation of bridge enclosure.
A highly durable skin that encloses the structure, changes its appearance and protects the
structure from corrosion. The enclosure can enable work to proceed inside whilst traffic
passes underneath and over the top. Colour and shape can be used imaginatively to create
attractive bridge aesthetics. Enclosure can pay for itself by savings in long term maintenance
cost and traffic disruption. The most durable and flexible materials for enclosures are
advanced composites, and their first application was on a major strengthening and
refurbishment project, A19 Tees Viaduct. In this case the enclosure covers the soffit only
but more recent examples use carefully shaped side panels as well to give full enclosure.
5.3.5 Coatings and Colour
I have already mentioned the use of colour on metal bridges to highlight details and create
a more attractive appearance. The extra cost is increasingly considered worthwhile and there
are good examples in most major cities, particularly the stunning bridges over the Seine in
Paris. Coatings are used less on concrete because of commitment to long term maintenance.
However the effects can be good, and can lift drab structures considerably.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Peter R. Head
5.3.6 Protection to Parapets Against Impact
Many older bridges have parapets that cannot withstand impact from modern traffic, since
parapets are a key factor in bridge aesthetics, this is a matter which needs to concern us
greatly today. I have three examples to show how this problem has been overcome. In each
case the solution enabled an attractive existing parapet to remain.
The first and most impressive is the Cleveland Bridge, Bath, mentioned earlier. In this case
it was decided that a high cast-iron safety kerb be introduced which would enable the existing
cast-iron parapet to be retained. The road had a 30mph speed limit. The kerbs were
beautifully detailed and together with pennant sandstone paving stones enhance the
appearance greatly. Roadside features are as important as the bridge structure!
The second example takes me back to the Bridge of Newe on the A944. This high speed
road was a bigger problem. Here a box beam crash barrier was used which is intrusive from
the road but surprisingly unobtrusive from the side. There is a lesson here also from French
engineers who often add good looking non-load carrying parapets and facias to their bridges
with crash barriers inside. They use aluminium and advanced composite materials for these.
Another approach is this brick parapet on a bridge which was also understrength. Here the
client decided that elegant posts behind a kerb would be acceptable to stop a vehicle going
off the edge.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, I hope I have helped to set the scene for today's seminar from both the
engineering and architectural perspectives. It may be useful to set out some
recommendations for successful implementation of good aesthetic solutions for bridge
refurbishment: -
• Use an experienced design team which includes an aesthetic advisor.
• Look at whole project costs, not just design fees when appointing a designer.
• Look at whole life costs, not just capital costs, and think about effects on traffic
during construction and future maintenance.
• Allow adequate time to develop well detailed solutions and time for contractors to
understand the project properly before tendering.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Mr. Taberner, assistant director structures at Grampian Regional Council, Mr. N.
Dodds, Thorburn Colquhoun, Dr. Urs Meier, EMPA and my colleagues at Maunsell for their
help.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Peter R. Head
8. REFERENCES
Useful references on bridge enclosure are:-
1. Head, P.R., "Design Methods and Bridge Forms for the Cost Effective Use of
Advanced Composites in Bridges", Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
Structures Conference, Sherbrooke, Canada, 1992.
2. Head, P.R., "The Future of FRP in Structures from an Engineer/Designer's

Viewpoint", British Plastics Federation Congress, 1990.
3. Head, P.R. and Churchman, A.E., "Design, Specification and Manufacture of a

Pultruded Composite Flooring System", Mass Production of Composites Symposium,
Imperial College of Science and Technology, 19th and 20th September 1989.
4. Head, P.R., "Cost Effective Advanced Composite Structures Designed for Life in the
Infrastructure", British Plastics Federation Congress, 1994.
5. Head, P.R., "GRP Walkway Membranes for Bridge Access and Protection", British
Plastics Federation Congress, 1982.
6. Head, P.R., "The Performance of Bridge 'Systems' : The Next Frontier for Design
and Assessment" The Structural Engineer, Volume 69, No. 17/3, September 1991,
pp310..316, Journal of the Institution of Structural Engineers
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Andrew Leadbeater
THE AESTHETIC CONUNDRUM

ANDREW LEADBEATER
Deputy County Engineer, Oxfordshire County Council
INTRODUCTION
1.0 This paper considers the problems of refurbishing, strengthening or rebuilding bridges
- a task which will always be necessary and a task which is particularly of great
importance to Local Authority Bridge Engineers who are responsible for the
management, maintenance and safety of 90% of the Country's bridge stock and
additionally look after many of the Government owned bridges on motorways and
trunk roads as Agents.
1.1 Questions which are relevant include the following:
• Who pays? How will it be funded? When will it be funded?

• Is the Assessment and Strengthening programme on target?
• Are changes and reconstruction necessary?
• Listed buildings, ancient monuments, conservation areas?
• What do local people want? Is that reasonable?
• Do guidelines exist for refurbishment? If not should they?
1.2 This paper will attempt to pick out the important elements in an effort to give some
guidance to the very real problems outlined above. The whole paper is devoted to the
perspective of Local Authority bridges because, generally, trunk roads and motorways
are modem roads with modem bridges and so the problems are different.
THE ASSESSMENT AND STRENGTHENING PROGRAMME
2.0 The first major assessment and strengthening programme was Bridgeguard (1968 -
1973) and used as its base assessment vehicles - 2 axle 18 tonne vehicles, and 4 axle
24 tonne vehicles with allowable overstress and impact factors. In this programme
the major private bridge owners (British Waterways Board, British Rail and London
Underground) were responsible for assessment and strengthening of their own bridges
which carried highways.
2.1 The present 15 year strengthening programme arose out of the fact that firstly,
vehicles up to 38 tonnes GVW became commonplace, and secondly, the European
Union agreed that some standardisation of construction and use vehicles should come
into force (for the UK after negotiation) on 1 January 1999. The new vehicles will
weigh up to 40 tonnes GVW with an increase in axle weight from 10.50 tonnes to
11.50 tonnes. On selected routes 44 GVW vehicles will be permitted.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Andrew Leadbeater
2.2 These increases are very significant for all bridges but particularly shorter span
bridges and all bridges more than 25 years old. A further problem is that the
Department of Transport (DoT) have agreed that Railtrack liability for their bridges is
limited to the Bridgeguard levels specified in para 2.0 above. In both the short term
and long term, therefore, Local Authorities will have to fund Railtrack bridges as well
as their own.
WHO PAYS?
3.0 Approximately between 80% and 85% of local government funding is provided by the
Department of the Environment (DoE) and only 15% - 20% is collected via the charge
tax system. Furthermore the DoE fixed the amount of money a Local Authority may
spend on a year by year basis and restricts borrowing by the Local Authority to DoE
(or other government department) approved schemes. There is clearly, therefore, little
or no flexibility in Local Authority budgets for the essential cost of assessment and
strengthening of well over 100,000 bridges.
3.1 The DoE therefore controls the amount of available funding for this work by
Transport Supplementary Grant (TSG) in England only, whilst in Scotland and Wales
control is via the Capital Account System.
1
3.2 A sample survey carried out by the County Surveyors Society (as at 1 April 1994)
showed the following results:
• Approximately £2 billion is required to complete the work

• The work (at the present level of support) will not be completed in every Authority
until the year 2007 (ie. 8 years late)
• Work has not really commenced on railway owned bridges (except London
Underground) because agreement or funding has not yet been reached (with the LAAs).
• Changes in Local Government (whole of Scotland and Wales, parts of England) will
split up the present, very important bridge management teams very seriously. CCT will
not help.
3.3 It might be thought that with this background, Local Authority bridge managers will
find considerations of aesthetics for the work they do in refurbishment as an add on
extra that cannot be afforded (or even considered). Nothing is further from the truth!
It is my, very strongly held view, that good looking bridges need not be anymore
expensive and that the record of Local Authority Engineers in their work demonstrates
that factor. What is required is considerable thought, careful detailing and sound
construction (hopefully in partnership with the contractor and not adversarial).
Guidelines are suggested later on in this paper which indicate the Author's view of the
aesthetics issue.
WHY CHANGE? WHY RECONSTRUCT?
4.0 Hardly any bridges fail in service due to 'structural' failure. Those failures which do
occur are generally associated with scour of foundations due to flood (or more often
drawdown as floods recede); due to mining (or other) subsistence or due to vehicular
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Andrew Leadbeater
impact. That is an excellent record which results from the work of Local Authority
bridge management and maintenance engineers. The road user has come to anticipate
such a system and therefore the further erosion into (in many cases) unknown factors
of safety caused by increased gross vehicles and axle weights, increased impact values
and the well known problem of overloading had to be catered for.
4.1 The following steps can be taken in this work:
• Prove the bridge is adequate for new loadings mathematically and using engineering
judgement (assessment).
• If that proves unsatisfactory one can carry out controlled measurement of performance
under load (load testing).
• One can weight restrict the bridge (however dependence on this to protect bridges is
doubtful due to lack of enforcement).
• One can change the road layout over the bridge if traffic conditions permit (width
reduction, lane reduction, traffic signals)
• One can monitor the performance of the bridge in service.
If doubt still exists, then only three options exist:
• Closure of bridge to traffic (rarely, if ever possible)

• Strengthening of bridge
• Reconstructing bridge
4.2 Such steps as strengthening and reconstruction have already occurred and will
continue to occur as a result of the programme.
PROTECTED BRIDGES
5.0 The bridge engineer must be aware of the requirements for working on bridges in
conservation areas, those which are listed or those which are ancient monuments.
Many old bridges (and some not so old!) are protected. It is good advice to work with
the bodies responsible for protection (rather than against them). However, problems
do arise which are difficult and expensive to overcome. These problems are likely to
get worse as post-1900 bridges are protected. Parapet replacement and deck
strengthening of protected bridges may cause severe difficulties which are not easily
overcome.
WHAT DO LOCAL PEOPLE WANT? IS THAT REASONABLE?
6.0 Maintenance, refurbishment and reconstruction of bridges and structures is an

important element in maintaining the appearance of the street scene. Furthermore,
1
local people are often thought to be against change, however, if they are 'consulted
rather than 'told' what is to happen, what changes are to be made and why then I
believe they can be supportive to what the bridge manager believes is right.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Andrew Leadbeater
6.1 Some two years ago, I carried out a very simple sample survey (102 people - no
engineers) with the following results:
• If a bridge was to be built near you would you prefer it to be:
First Preference Second Preference

Stone 88% 9%
Brick 7% 57%
Concrete 1% 17%
Steel 4% 17%
• When crossing a bridge do you prefer the appearance of:
First Preference Second Preference

Stone parapets 87% 14%
Brick parapets 6% 54%
Concrete parapets 2% 11%
Steel parapets 5% 11%
Aluminium parapets 0% 10%
• 77% of the sample preferred curved bridges

5% of the sample preferred straight bridges
12% of the sample preferred complex bridges
6% of the sample preferred steel bridges
• Have you a favourite bridge?
37% said a local bridge

28% said a UK bridge
8% said an overseas bridge
27% had no favourite
6.2 Although I have no doubt a proper pollster could discredit these results, I believe them
to be significant and important and in reconstruction and remedial work they should
not be discounted. I do not believe that these results imply that all motorway bridges
should have stone parapets, however, what they do imply is that local people have
strong preferences for what will affect them and must be consulted.
6.3 One area of significance, particularly with respect to the street scene, is the awareness
of parapets. European standards and British Standards have been drawn up for
parapet assessment. The assessment of all types of masonry parapets is not covered
1
by any design method. The County Surveyors Society therefore commissioned a
study on the Assessment and Design of Unreinforced Masonry Vehicle Parapets
(supported by four Government Department and AMA members). This study is now
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Andrew Leadbeater
complete and, it is clear, that as a result of several tests on various types of masonry
(brick and stone) parapets, in accordance with the proposed new standards, that in
most cases unreinforced masonry parapets are adequate. The environmental and
aesthetic benefits of this report are excellent (as in the likely cost saving - round about
65% of UK bridges have masonry parapets - their replacement cost is estimated to be
in the order of £2 billion).
DO GUIDELINES EXIST FOR AESTHETIC REFURBISHMENT?
7.0 National guidelines for aesthetics do not exist but I list below a series of comments,
questions and considerations which should be made. However, the question of
aesthetics is often personal and therefore I believe the check list approach is the right
way to consider this matter.
7.1 Check list for refurbishment:
• Stone and brick selection should be sympathetic to surroundings

• The standard, style, colour and pointing of mortar is critical
• Steel should be painted a colour to suit surroundings (scorched earth, dark green)
• Buttresses should be well proportioned
• Pattress plates must be correct shape and size and logically patterned
• Methods of finishing crack injection and concrete repair vital
• Do no be afraid of using modern materials, gabions, reinforced earth etc.
7.2 Check list for road over rail rebuild or redeck:
• Bridge Engineers have not formal training in appearance

• Bridge drawing two dimensional - bridges 3-D!
• What looks good on paper may not on site! (and vice versa)
• Perspective preparation vital (remember to include, signs, street lights, barriers, safety
fence)
• Is the bridge to stand out or fit into the local street scene?
• If to stand out then extensive consultation with local people and users
• If to fit in make simple, open, airy, light - tell local people
• Do not mix materials, generally
- stone, brick parapets do not fit concrete structures
aluminium, steel parapets for not fit brick/stone structure
• Any facing in any material must be carefully thought out
7.3 Check list for road over river rebuild or redeck:
• If no adjacent public access consider long views only:
a) No fussy parapets
b) No extra slim piers
c) Consistent materials
(To match other visible building) Exercise is to make it fit
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Andrew Leadbeater
• If public access - make it interesting to those under - the river scene would be easier to
fit
• Do not allow river to be artificially straightened or widened
• Gabions or stone revetments if possible (rather than sheet piles and concrete)
• See through bridge - curved if possible interesting or simple shaped
7.4 Check list for pedestrian/equestrian/cycle subways
• Subway fail if potential users are unwilling to use them!

• Reasons - dark, intimidating, mugging threat
graffiti
Fear of meeting cyclists, motor cycles, cars
• Must be - see through, open side, no 'nooks'
• Must be - attractive, high standards of lighting/finishes
• Ownership by local community - encourage painting on walls by locals
encourage local 'Adopt a Subway'
work with, not again local community
THE APPEARANCE OF PRIPQES
8.0 The appearance of new, repaired, refurbished bridges should be one of the following:
• DOMINANT in the landscape or street scene, should be unusual form, should be

visually exciting and explosive;
or,
• UNOBTRUSIVE in the landscape, should 'fit in', should be visually calm - the three S's
are vital:
Synthesis - undertaking the parts which make the whole

Simplicity - make it simple
Sympathy - with surroundings
CONCLUSION
9.0 Aesthetics is an extremely difficult concept to isolate. For engineers used to black
and white solutions it is particularly difficult. However, I believe that the majority of
refurbishments and reconstructions have been sensitively handled by Local Authority
bridge engineers. There is no doubt in my mind that long term shortage funds will
have an adverse effect on bridge appearance and that in Whole Life Costing terms,
proper consideration of aesthetics along with everything else will be beneficial.
Design and build or design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) or design competition
(CCT) is also not conducive to careful consideration of aesthetics. These are all
issues which will need careful attention throughout the design, construction and
maintenance phases.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Andrew Leadbeater
9.1 Perhaps the most important message of the paper is that communication, talking and
proper communication is absolutely vital by all involved hut particularly the
technically competent client. What is specified in a client brief will decide the level
of aesthetic consideration in the design.
The technically competent client must decide:
• The level of aesthetic consideration

• Amount of consultation with - local people
users of the bridge
local politicians
'protection authorities', if any
• What premium (if any) he is prepared to pay for aesthetics

• Whole Life Costing and value engineering considerations
A D Leadbeater
Bibliography: Papers from Testing Times Conference 'The Surveyor', 2 March 1995
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
RNCox
THE PERFORMANCE OF MATERIALS FOR VISUAL

ENHANCEMENT
R N COX B. Sc., C.Eng., M.I.M..
Building Research Establishment
Watford U.K.
Over 15 years ago it became apparent to the BRE that the patch repair of concrete following
spalling of the concrete as a result of corrosion of the reinforcement would reduce the aesthetic
appeal of concrete structures. This suggested that repaired structures would require painting to
mask unsighdy patches. If structures were to be painted for aesthetic reasons, we considered if
there could be any added benefit by painting.
The most common cause of cracking and spalling of concrete was the corrosion of the steel
reinforcement in the concrete. Therefore could we use paint coatings to reduce the risk of
corrosion. Concrete provides a chemical environment in which steel does not corrode ie a very
alkaline environment in which a thin passive layer is created on the surface of the steel and as long
as this layer is maintained no significant corrosion of the steel takes place. This situation is
retained as long as the concrete remains alkaline. Unfortunately concrete can react with the acid
gases in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide and lose its alkalinity. This process is know
as carbonation. Carbonation spreads in afrontfrom the surface of the concrete. When this front
reaches the steel, the steel is at risk to corrosion. Carbonation does not cause corrosion but
allows corrosion to take place if sufficient moisture and oxygen is available.
Corrosion of steel in concrete can occur in uncarbonated concrete in the presence of a deleterious
material eg chloride. In buildings, chlorides could be in concrete as a result of using calcium
chloride as a set accelerator, but there was litde evidence of buildings suffering corrosion of
reinforcing steel due to the ingress of chloride during service which is the case with road bridges.
It was therefore considered that painting would not reduce the risk of corrosion of steel in
concrete in buildings.
Corrosion of steel following carbonation of the concrete cover was becoming a common
occurance and it appeared the logical step to investigate coatings to determine if they could be
used to slow down the rate of carbonation. If it could be shown that they did then they could be
used as an integral part of the repair system and reduce the risk of having to carry out further
repairs.
An extensive study was carried out looking at a range of types of coating to determine which,
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
RNCox
if any, would slow down the rate of carbonation using the BRE mortar block test. This test is
capable of showing which coatings slow down the rate of carbonation was not able to provide us
with an accurate measure of the rate of diffusion of carbon dioxide through the coating materials.
In addition we were able to come to some general recommendations such as paints should be
pigmented, that the coating system was applied in two or more coatings and that the total mean
thickness was at least 200pms.
Having identified the types of coating which will slow down the rate of carbonation we are
currently looking at the long term performance of such coatings Comparing the durability of
paints using the traditional methods of assessment and the ability of paints to retain their ability
of slowing down the diffusion of carbon dioxide. The measurement of the rate of defusion of
carbon dioxide in this study is carried out on coatings applied to unglazed ceramic tiles in a
partition cell attached to a gas chromagraph. The measurements are carried out before and after
weathering. The effected of both natural and artificial weathering being studied.
Another area of interest is the ability of paints to resist the ingress of chlorides. Unfortunately this
is not an area in which the BRE has Carried out any work. Paints which, when applied to
concrete, can prevent the ingress of chloride would be highly desirable for applying to parts of
bridges which are likely to come into contact with deking salts. At present there is no universally
accepted method of measuring the rate of diffusion of chloride through a coating.
Although the BRE has not looked at coatingsfromthe aesthetic point of view but from the added
benefit point of view, the information gathered can be used to get the best out of coatings for
concrete
The BRE has looked at problems associated with large panel precast reinforced concrete
dwellings and whilst there was some deterioration of the concrete due to corrosion of the
reinforcement there were no structural problems associated with this deterioration, the main
problems were associated with habitability. There were problems of rain penetration, low thermal
efficiency and condensation and the simplest way of overcoming these problems was by over
cladding. It should be noted that over cladding can not be guaranteed to prevent further
deterioration of the hidden concrete and therefore when over cladding is being considered one
also needs to consider the need for regular inspection of the fabric of the structure. Whilst other
materials have been used, the commonest cladding material used has been organically coated
profiled metal sheeting. The considerations given to cladding these structures can be applied to
bridges.
The cladding is not normally applied directly to the concrete but to aframefixed to the concrete
and thefirstconsideration must be given to what are the corrosion risks to the fixings into or onto
the concrete. Is the concrete contaminated with chloride? What materials need to be specified to
withstand the conditions? How big will be the void behind the cladding? What will be the micro
climate behind the cladding? Will it be damp?, Will there be condensation? Will chloride laden
spay penetrate to the back of the cladding? Factors such as these must be considered before the
material of the frame can be determined similarly the type and thickness of the coating on the
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
RNCox
reverse of the cladding sheet. The coating on the internal surface of "run of the mill"cladding
is different to that on the weather face. The coating on the internal surface is not intended to
withstand conditions other than nominally dry internal conditions and may not be suitable for the
conditions met when over cladding bridges and may have to be upgraded. More appropriate
internal coatings can be ordered. Even then the coating on the inside will not be to the same
specification as that on the outside.
The BRE carried out a postal survey on the performance of organically coated profiled metal
sheeting on roofs. This survey showed that the most commonly used material was plastisol coated
galvanised steel sheet and that the more durable materials were plastosol coated galvanised steel
and PVDF coated galvanised steel. There was insufficient data returned on organically coated
aluminium sheeting to form any conclusions on this type of material.
The information returned suggested that for the most durable materials more than 35% of roofs
were suffering corrosion at cut edges and 18% were suffering corrosion at random spots. The
BRE's experiencefromexamining metal buildings is that walls perform better than roofs although
in area where sheeting is shelteredfromthe rain ie under overhangs a white bloom forms on the
sheet particularly on bends. It is considered that this bloom is due to the corrosion of the zinc
coating beneath the organic coating. Defects such as cracks in the coating exposing the
galvanised steel to the weather.
All these factors need to be taken into account when cladding a bridge particularly where a bridge
was going over a road. The underside of the bridge is analogous with wall cladding under an
overhang with the added complication that the underside of the bridge may be subject to road
spay which at best will be dirty water and worst chloride laden spray and therefore the conditions
on the underside of a bridge will be much more severe. Bridge abutments will face similar
problems as they also will not be washed by rain and subject to similar and possibly more severe
conditions
Care will have to be taken with the design of over cladding to ensure that cut ends are properly
protected and that sheets with damaged coatings are not used or the coatings are suitably
repaired.
Maintenance
When considering the suitability of cladding materials the question of maintenance needs to be
addressed. As with most paint work both painted concrete and organically coated metals would
benefit from regular washing. The life to repainting will vary with type of coating, colour,
abrasion and exposure. Light coloured plastosol coatings on galvanised steel can last up to 30
years. If concrete is only painted for aesthetic reasons damage to the coating is not likely to lead
to degradation of the concrete. However damage to the organic coating of coated metal can lead
to degradation of the underlying metal below. The integrity of the coating is very important as
it provides corrosion protection. Greater care will need to be taken to ensure that any mechanical
damage to the coating is repaired before significant deterioration of the substrate has occurred.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
RNCox
It should be noted that these materials are susceptible to mechanical damage from debris falling
from vehicles and from a abrasion from dust, grit and stones and could require regular attention
for stone chipped paintwork
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Brian Dargan
Practical Problems and Comparative Costs - A Contractors View
BRIAN DARGAN
1
Director of Makers Civil Engineering Repair Division, Warrington, Cheshire
Ask a specialist bridge repair contractor what his company would specify for a bridge
refurbishment and maintenance scheme and we might get closer to the practical solutions to
minimising long term maintenance problems and improving the long term visual quality of
bridges.
For the purposes of this paper, bridges are categorised in three broad bands:
1. Masonry
2. Steel
3. Reinforced concrete (RC)
The number, scope and complexity of repair and refurbishment of bridges have changed
considerably over the last 20 years.
Twenty years ago very little repair work was undertaken to concrete bridges, some repair to
masonry arches (mainly the older structures) and, generally, repainting only to steel bridges.
f
In the period from the late 70's through to early 90 s little change took place in the repair and
refurbishment of masonry and steel bridges.
In this period, however, major changes took place in reinforced concrete bridges mainly due
to the numbers of bridges built in the 50's, 60's and 70's and subsequent deterioration of the
concrete.
In general the majority of problems to the three categories of bridges were related to the
performance of the waterpoofing of the structure, and poor detailing and inadequate
workmanship.
During this period a variety of methods were used for repair and refurbishment of bridges.
The refurbishment of steel bridges generally involved painting with very limited areas of the
structure requiring repair.
Masonry bridges were generally repaired using the original construction materials whether by
cutting out, indenting or stitching and grouting.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Brian I
Reinforced concrete bridges were repaired by:
(1) Breaking out and replacing with:
a)flowableconcretes
b) standard concrete mixes
c) gunite
d) pre-bagged mortars, epoxy and polyester mortars
(2) Plate bonding, crack injection, grouting, surface impregnation, joint repair and
re-waterproofing.
(3) Coating systems
(4) Overcladding systems
In the UK we have recognised for some considerable time, the requirement to waterproof a
bridge during construction, unfortunately our specification for waterproofing has not always
been adequate.
Current repair practices recognise the absolute requirement for waterproofing bridge decks
and providing good quality joint systems that prevent the ingress of water and chloride borne
salts to the concrete structure.
Even in today's enlightened times, where high quality liquid membranes are available which
will follow the contours of structures and produce a seamless waterproofing, seamed systems
are still permitted on bridge decks.
The repair systems noted do not always produce an aesthetically acceptable appearance.
In the last 3-4 years there has been a major change in the way repairs is undertaken to
reinforced concrete structures.
The emergence of these new techniques has been partly driven by the requirement to provide
repair and refurbishment options which will not adversely effect the appearance of the bridge.
The new repair options that are currently available include:
(1) Sprayed concrete which allows an F3 finish instead of standard "as shot" finish
of traditional repairs using gunite ie together with improved repairs using:.
Plate bonding to structurally upgrade a bridge.

Post tensioned duct grouting
Overcladding
Silane treatment
Electro chemical treatment using:
(2) Cathodic protection

@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Brian Oargan
(3) Realkalisation
(4) Desalination
(5) Hydro demolition techniques to remove defective and contaminated concrete.

Anti carbonation coatings and paints
Depending on which of these methods is chosen will determine the technique used to give a
visibly acceptable and pleasing appearance to a bridge.
Typically, for instance, if a bridge is in a highly visible location, plate bonding would need to
be disguised by an overclad system as opposed to a paint system.
A full hydro demolition breaks out and replacement with one of the modern sprayed concrete
materials would require no further treatment as you would achieve the same visual
appearance of the concrete as when it was originally cast.
In the electro chemical field the type of cathodic protection system being used may
incorporate an aesthetically acceptable coating or overlay system but the buried anode type
will require a coating or overlay to produce an acceptable appearance.
The desalination process will require little or no treatment other than washing or grit blasting
to return the concrete to its original appearance.
In remedial duct grouting where access to the ducts is carried out from unobtrusive parts of
the bridge and where entry is made by breaking hydro demolition little or no evidence of the
grouting will be apparent.
Along with looking at materials and systems for repair and refurbishment the following aspects
need careful consideration:
Access and access equipment

Possession times and night working
Environmental aspects
Workmanship/skills
Access and Access Equipment
Access to a bridge is required to the deck in order to undertake waterproofing and jointing
repairs which will involve lane closures, carriageway closures etc.
The larger the area given to a contractor will minimise the number of areas that require laps,
overlaps and improve productivity.
The equipment used to gain access to the soffits and sides of the bridge is also crucial, for
instance on a large bridge spanning a river, railway, canal etc the probability is that the access
equipment would have to slung from the underside of the bridge and will either be a fixed or
movable system.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Brian Da
Possession Times and Night Working
Possession times in order to undertake the works will have a major effect on the costs. On
many railway bridges the maximum possession that is available during the week would 3-4
hours, resulting in a considerable proportion of setting up and dismantling in relation to the
time actually worked.
Although night work appears to create problems in resourcing men, plant and materials many
of the specialist contractors would prefer to have a Ml 10 hour night shift than disruptive
short possessions during the day.
Environmental Aspects
The environmental considerations create a number of practical problems which must be

overcome ie:
Noise
Contamination of water courses
Minimising the use of acid washes etc.
All these must be overcome and will add cost to the basic repair.
Workmanship/skills
Generally the more modern repair and refurbishment skills require a greater level of technical
training than previous repair systems has required. For instance, in the electro chemical field
much of the work is controlled by computers operated by the site operatives. The
requirement to train the younger generation of site operatives has now been recognised by the
specialist contractors and efforts are being made in this direction.
Finally, some mention should be made of specialist repair and refurbishment contractors.
Over the last 10-15 years a number of contractors have specialised in the repair and
refurbishment of bridges and civil engineering structures. These contractors have played a
major part in developing the current techniques which are used to produce aesthetically
acceptable repairs to bridges. These combined with some of the forward thinking material
manufacturers have had a major effect on thefieldof civil engineering repair and
refurbishment and combined with progressive thinking Civil Engineers further techniques to
ensure our bridges are maintained effectively and with minimum alteration to their original
design and construction appearance will be developed.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
PAPER FOR THE SEMINAR ' THE AESTHETIC REFURBISHMENT OF BRIDGES'
INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, LONDON 1ST JUNE 1995
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SELECTION OF MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES

FOR BRIDGES.
1. CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF DETERIORATION
The parts of a bridge most commonly requiring maintenance work are
• concrete elements exposed to salt water
• painted steel beams
For bridges the primary source of salt is the rock salt deicer used for winter maintenance of
roads. The vertical faces of piers and abutments are exposed directly to salt water by traffic
spray in winter months. Transverse concrete beams, bearings and other elements in close
proximity to leaking expansion joints are exposed to salt water for a high proportion of the
time and these areas normally show the highest rates of deterioration. Depending on the
depth of cover and concrete quality it can take between 10 and 30 years for the chloride ions
to reach the reinforcement in sufficient quantities to initiate corrosion. Corrosion of the
reinforcing steel can quickly produce spalling and cracking of the concrete and/or a loss in
section of the steel bars. Reinforcement corrosion can also be caused by carbonation of the
concrete by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however, for bridges this cause is much less
common than chlorides because the rate of penetration of carbonation is less than for
chlorides and bridges are generally built with good quality concrete and relatively high cover
depths. Occasionally, bridge concrete can suffer from other defects that lead to cracking e.g.
alkali silica reaction.
Paint films on steel beams deteriorate due to exposure to natural UV radiation and
weathering. Deterioration rates are higher on parts of the beam under leaking expansion
joints. When paint films deteriorate the steel becomes exposed to chlorides and will quickly
corrode.
2. MAINTENANCE METHODS
2.1 Preventative Maintenance
The purpose of this type of maintenance is to prevent or delay the onset of reinforcement
corrosion. Consequently it is limited to bridges where the reinforcing steel is not yet
corroding. Preventative maintenance on concrete bridges is important because traditional
concrete repairs to corroding reinforcement have sometimes shown poor durability and
modern methods such as cathodic protection and desalination have only short track records.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
The main method of preventative maintenance for concrete bridges is silane impregnation.
All new and existing trunk road and motorway bridges that are not already showing evidence
of reinforcement corrosion are treated with silane. Results from trials on bridges undertaken
by TRL have shown that silane substantially reduces the ingress of chlorides into concrete
exposed to traffic spray. It's effectiveness for preventing the ingress of chlorides on concrete
under leaking expansion joints is less well established. The durability of silane treatments
is not yet known but an effective life of about 15 years is expected. Silane does not affect
the appearance of the concrete and there is no visual indication of deterioration of the silane
treatment. For concrete under expansion joints the use of sprayed waterproofing membranes
similar to those used on bridge decks has been suggested. These waterproofing membranes
are expected to have a life of about 25 years and can look reasonable, furthermore the
location of their application is not easily observed.
For steel beams paint systems have been used for many years as a method for preventing
corrosion. Unlike silane treatment of concrete any deterioration to the paint film on a steel
beam will rapidly lead to corrosion, rust staining and a generally poor appearance. Typically
these paint films have a life of 12 to 15 years. An alternative to maintenance painting of
deep steel beams is to erect an enclosure. Bridge enclosures prevent corrosion of the beam,
allow good access for inspection and improve the appearance of the bridge. They are usually
constructed from plastic materials which should last the life of the bridge with little
maintenance.
Coatings for preventative or aesthetic purposes have been used occasionally on concrete
bridges. In general the effective life of coatings is less than 15 years. Other important
points to be considered about concrete coatings are:
• more surface preparation of the substrate is needed than for silane
• when coatings deteriorate their visual appearance is often poor
• to replace a deteriorated coating requires complete removal of the original

coating
• the coated surface should be non reflective under wet and dry conditions
• coatings can become non uniformly dirty and do not weather in the same
natural way as concrete
• coatings can conceal defects in the substrate
• coatings generally cost more than silane
2.2 Repair Methods
The main purpose of repair methods is to stop the corrosion and repair the damage it has
caused.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
2.2.1 Concrete Repairs
This traditional method of repair can be effective when care is taken to remove all concrete
with a chloride concentration above the threshold level. Owing to the non uniform
distribution of chloride in concrete it is difficult to satisfactorily identify all the concrete
which needs to be removed, furthermore if the corrosion is widespread the amount of
concrete that needs to be replaced can be extensive. In the past many concrete repairs have
involved only replacing the damaged concrete or concrete in the vicinity of corroding
reinforcement. This has resulted in continuation or initiation of corrosion of the steel in the
original concrete around the repair zone and failure of the repair within a few years. Early
failure has been particularly prevalent where corrosion is by the macrocell mechanism.
It is not easy to disguise the appearance of concrete repairs. If is difficult to make the repair
concrete the same colour as the original concrete or to conceal the boundary of the repair.
When concrete repairs fail the rust staining that results accentuates the poor appearance.
2.2.2 Cathodic Protection (CP)
Areas of damaged concrete must be repaired before CP is applied. CP is usually applied to

complete elements of the bridge so the patchwork effect obtained with concrete repairs is
avoided. CP has been used in the UK for about 10 years and in North America for about
20 years and to date there is good evidence that it is effective at stopping ongoing corrosion
and preventing its reoccurrence.
There are two main types of CP system:
• conductive paint anodes
• titanium mesh + sprayed concrete anodes
Both systems are effective but the conductive paint anodes only have a life of about 10 years
and have similar limitations to other concrete coatings. Titanium mesh + sprayed concrete
anodes are expected to have a life of about 30 years and the use of sprayed concrete means
that the appearance of the bridge if not significantly affected. The conductive paint anode
system has a much lower cost.
2.2.3 Desalination
Desalination is a process that takes about 2 months, unlike cathodic protection which is
continuous. Desalination has only been in use for about 5 years and its long term
effectiveness is not known. The process consists of moving the negatively charged chloride
ions away from the reinforcement and ultimately out of the concrete by imposing an
appropriate electric field. Doubts exist about possible damage to the concrete-steel bond and
how the residual chloride left after desalination will redistribute. Desalination should not
effect the appearance of the bridge although it is often supplemented with a concrete coating.
This may be due to the black staining of the concrete that has been observed when mild steel
anodes are used.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
3. SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE MAINTENANCE TREATMENT
3.1 The Cost and Life of Maintenance Treatments
If the life of a maintenance treatment exceeds 30 years then, at the current Treasury discount
rate of 8%, the life cycle cost converges towards the original cost of the maintenance
treatment. In other words the life cycle cost for the maintenance treatment is only slightly
more than the original cost of the maintenance applied in year 0. Thus in terms of cost and
life the objective is to select the cheapest maintenance method with an effective life of at least
30 years. If no method meets this criterion comparison should be based on the Net Present
Value (NPV) which is calculated using the formula below over a period of 30 years.
NPV= 2-
(I+i)
where C is the maintenance cost in year 0

0
NPV is the discounted cost in year n
i is the discount rate (8%)
For example if a maintenance treatment has a life of 20 years then the life cycle cost for
20
maintenance over a period of 30 years would be C (1 + 1.08' ). This includes the cost of
0
the original maintenance treatment in year 0 and a reapplication in year 20.
3.2 The Impact of Maintenance Work on Bridge Users
In section 3.1, only engineering and material costs were considered. In practise many
maintenance operations require lane or carriageway closures which can produce traffic
disruption and delays. An estimate of the cost to users of such delays can be found using
the QUADRO programme or the QUADRO Tables in the Trunk Road Maintenance Manual
(1). Delay costs are very sensitive to the traffic flow rate, measured in vehicles per day;
below a critical flow rate, which depends on the type of road, delay costs are small but above
this critical level delay costs increase rapidly and can easily be more than ten times greater
than the engineering cost. Thus where maintenance work impacts on the user account should
be taken of the delay cost when deciding which is the most appropriate option. For example
it may be possible to carry out some types of work at night when traffic flows are low or it
may be possible to do the maintenance as part of a road maintenance scheme when lane
closures are already in force, or it may be possible to reduce the duration of lane closures
by incentives.
Some of the factors to be considered to assess the effect of a maintenance option on traffic
delays are shown in the flow chart, Figure 1.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Does the option require No Delay Cost = 0
lane closures
Yes
Can the work be co-ordinated Yes Additional Delay Cost = 0

with a road maintenance scheme
No
Can the work be done Yes Delay Cost ~ 0

at night
No
Calculate the delay cost

based on duration of lane
closures (days)
number lanes closed
type of road
vehicle flow rate
% HGV
works length (km)
Include delay cost in life

cycle costing, taking account
future traffic growth and
discounting
Figure 1. Assessing the impact of maintenance options on the traffic delay cost
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
4. THE IMPACT OF MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS ON BRIDGE
AESTHETICS
The primary objective of bridge maintenance is to ensure that the bridge is kept in a safe
condition throughout its life at a minimum cost. Aesthetics are not considered in a formal
way probably because it is not quantifiable. However aesthetics are important because if a
bridge looks as if it is in a poor condition the public may loose confidence in its safety. For
particular bridges that form part of the National Heritage or are situated in environmentally
sensitive areas there is clearly a case for committing extra funding specifically to maintain
their appearance.
Some interesting work by Campbell-Allen (2) relating the size of aesthetically acceptable
crack widths to the viewing distance and the prestige scale of the structure (Figure 2) may
be applicable to assessing the effect that maintenance treatments have an aesthetics. For a
typical highway bridge generally viewed from a vehicle travelling at about 50 mph at a
distance in excess of 2m the perception of bridge aesthetics will depend on the general
architecture of the bridge and to a much lesser extent on the effects of maintenance work.
For a high prestige bridge often viewed by pedestrians moving at less than 3 mph and at very
close quarters the perceived impact of maintenance treatments will be much more important.
As a personal view I consider that where possible maintenance work should not alter the
original appearance of the bridge, but where the original appearance has deteriorated
unacceptably the objective should be to return the bridge as far as is possible to its original
appearance. With these guidelines the use of silane as a preventative maintenance treatment
and the use of CP with a titanium mesh anode and concrete overlay as a method for repairing
corroding reinforced concrete appear to have advantages in terms of aesthetics. However,
aesthetics forms but one piece of the bridge maintenance jigsaw puzzle.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
5. REFERENCES
1. Department of Transport. Trunk Road Maintenance Manual (1993)
2. Campbell-Allen, D. The reduction of cracking in concrete. The University of

Sydney and the Concrete Association of Australia (1979).
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Crack width - mm
F I G . £ An aesthetically acceptable crack witdth [29]
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Richard Barton
STATE OF THE ART REPORT:

COATINGS AND RENDERS
RICHARD BARTON BSc (Hons), C Eng, MICE, MIHT
Sales Manager - Civils Division
Sika Limited, Welwyn Garden City, UK
1. INTRODUCTION
Only a few decades ago reinforced concrete bridges were

thought to be virtually maintenance free. However, the
ravages caused by road salt have seriously affected concrete
durability. Repairs today are commonplace but these can look
unsightly if only patch repairs are undertaken. Renders or
coatings can be utilised to make the structure either look as
new or even improve its overall appearance. Moreover, such
aesthetic treatments provide additional protection.
2. UNITED KINGDOM
In the UK the Department of Transport has not favoured the

use of coatings unless they form part of a repair system
applied to a fire damaged structure. They have, however,
introduced the use of silanes of a particular hydrophobic
impregnation which gives a water repellent finish. This
water repellent property can be achieved with impregnations
that are either silane or siloxane based. They produce a
non-tacky finish and achieve penetration by means of their
small molecular size. A reaction takes place with the
hardened cementitious binder to produce the water repellent
properties. They give a significant improvement in the
resistance to the penetration of water-borne de-icing salt
solutions.
Hydrophobic impregnations allow the transmission of water

vapour, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Acrylic resin
based coatings are available which will also waterproof the
concrete whilst allowing the transmission of water vapour but
will prevent the ingress of carbon dioxide (thus inhibiting
carbonation) and sulphur dioxide. Acrylic coatings dry to a
matt finish and can be used for either coloured or colourless
applications. They are not crack bridging. If these coatings
are used in conjunction with a hydrophobe, then even cracks
opening subsequently to approximately 0.15mm can be shown to
still repel water. They provide effective carbonation and
chloride ion resistance and they also improve the appearance
of the repaired structure.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Richard Barton
Crack bridging coatings are also available, for example, as a

water based ethylene copolymer. These flexible, elastic
coloured coatings will also allow the transmission of water
vapour but prevent ingress of liquid water, de-icing salts
solutions and acidic gases.
To ensure that the coatings provide a continuous film,

measures should be taken to avoid pores and pinholes.
Preparation of the surface should be undertaken by
appropriate means. A specification should be written to
ensure that the required texture of the surface substrate is
achieved. Surface imperfections are filled using
cementitious render coats with fine fillers. These can be
supplied as either pore filling scrape mortars, principally
for filling defects revealed by the surface preparation of
new concrete, or 2mm thick brush or float applied render
coats for the more irregular surfaces of patch repaired
concrete. A specialist contractor who is suitably
experienced with this type of operation should always be
employed to undertake the work.
Cementitious renders have been used for both aesthetic and

protective purposes on UK bridges. They are required to be
at least 2mm thick as a brush, float or spray applied polymer
modified cementitious flexible slurry seal coat or as a 15mm
to 20mm thick spray applied microconcrete modified with
polymers, superplasticisers and silica fume. Properties of
the proprietary formulations will vary, but in principle they
are designed to increase the concrete cover by providing a
greatly enhanced value to that of the equivalent concrete.
They cannot have the same crack bridging ability as an
ethylene copolymer.
Resin coatings have been used successfully in the United

Kingdom. One example is that of a fire damaged bridge that
was coated with the crack bridging ethylene copolymer in
1985. It is called Littlebrook Bridge and is situated just
to the south of the Dartford Crossing of the River Thames.
There are no signs of deterioration of the coating.
3. GERMANY
In Berlin all newly constructed bridges have been totally
encapsulated with coatings for over ten years. In 1985 a
group of UK and Scandinavian engineers visited the city and
were told of the philosophy by Peter Weyer, Head of the
Department responsible for the bridges.
He claimed that he coated all surfaces of his bridges and

that amounted to an additional 5% of the overall cost of
construction. He believed that this investment would prove
to be a tiny fraction of any cost of repair or replacement.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Richard Barton
Because of the climate in Berlin, ten times as much road salt

is used as in the UK, per kilometre of highway.
He had been experimenting with coating systems since 1967 and

has used a combination of systems depending upon the
differing exposure of each of the structural elements of the
bridge.
In Berlin, all new bridges are completely encapsulated at

construction stage, but there is a continuing maintenance
programme to encapsulate all existing bridges as well. In a
new bridge, Weyer is convinced his specification will prevent
deterioration but it is a different problem when trying to
control deterioration from chloride ions that have already
entered the concrete. His belief is that the protection will
be sufficient provided the reinforcement has not already
started to corrode. He measured average moisture contents of
the bridges and claims that these reduced from 6% down to 3%.
This will certainly reduce the mobility if not, as he
believes, effectively immobilise the chloride ions, thereby
halting the corrosion process. He admits this is a
compromise method and it would be better to remove all the
affected concrete, but that is expensive and not always
possible because of the structural considerations and cost.
However, the removal of the cover concrete to the reinforcing
steel is necessary if the corrosion process has started.
He also justifies the use of anti-carbonation coatings in

areas not directly affected by de-icing salt spray, arguing
that it extends the design life of the structure and is worth
the small extra cost.
The German Draft Standard 3/90 on Surface Protection Systems

is included in Appendix A.
4. OTHER EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
Most European countries use coatings for both protection and

aesthetics to a greater or lesser extent. The presentation
will show actual case histories from the rest of Germany as
well as Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Austria and Italy.
In Arhus, Denmark, similar coating systems already described

were used to coat one or two identical motorway interchange
bridges and similar moisture content measurements were taken.
Because of the higher relative humidity (similar to the UK
perhaps) in Denmark, the initial measurements showed 10%
moisture content, but two years after the treatment this had
reduced to 5%.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Richard Barton
In Norway hydrophobic impregnations were also introduced.

Sika Norway introduced the German specification on coatings
in 1990 and these systems have been used where financial
constraints have permitted.
Belgium has a federal system. On a National level there are

standards for the repair system. In the Flemish Federal
Region a coating is used following the repair of a bridge but
in the Brussels and Walon Federal Regions, budgetary
restrictions allow for repairs only.
In Austria new structures are protected with a hydrophobic

impregnation but coatings are used after repairs have been
undertaken.
In Italy there is a specification for crack bridging coatings

on repaired structures.
In conclusion, coatings are recognised throughout Europe to

provide additional aesthetic and protective qualities. What
must be remembered is the key to their success:
a) thorough survey and understanding of the cause of the

problem
b) a detailed specification for the application
c) the use of a suitably experienced specialist

contractor to undertake the work.
5. CONCLUSION
Throughout industry, coatings are accepted as the principle

of enhancing and extending service life. They are at the
interface of the environment and the object that requires
protection. It appears to be basic thinking that materials
such as wood and steel require protection but not concrete.
It is a fact that coatings have now been accepted into
concrete buildings, certainly because of the protective
properties, but also perhaps because of the more readily
accepted necessity to improve the aesthetics. There is a
range of high performance coatings available for civil
engineering structures and yet there appears to be a lack of
acceptance and a reluctance to use them.
It is important to recognise the necessity for a coating as

soon as possible in the life of a structure. Preferably it
should be applied from new. With proper maintenance, say
inspection after 10 years and maintenance coating after 15
years, they can extend the life of a structure indefinitely.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Richard Barton
Coatings to bridge structures are recognised throughout

Europe to provide additional aesthetic and protective
qualities. Should we be giving them more serious
consideration in the UK? Remember the key to their success:
a) a thorough understanding of the requirements
b) a detailed technical specification for the products

and their application
c) the use of a suitably experienced contractor to

undertake the work.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
co
o
E ©
lc o ° i CO
•— (0
o o
© J= o
AJZ ©
£ il c
o co o S
a>
CO >g g
I- II
u. c
CL CL CL ° >
CD
CD 0) 00 ^ O "O
< o
E
"co
~
O ) -==
O
V
o
>> c 2
CO O •2 .9. <o p c JS
a E 5 O
C 0
3 S .11 8 O *io 8 CL CO C 5 A O
© B .2 o (0 .<2
O O Q. .2 O E | q O CO ©
CO >» £ 5 . Q. Q.
O CO
o>
c
c
Q.
0
• »_ > CO
co cd -2: o
C
=
CL i > CO
w
O CO CD -S O g SI« w ^ _"£
CD ^
CD £
co I 2£ 2
a. 3
8 CL UL
la
h- O
o
>%
CL
CL £S I £ -
=
2 i
CD %
=
CD
2 g- S 0>
£5 ?e
< 1 18(122
h- — CM* CO
DC
UJ
@seismicisolation
0 0
a
@seismicisolation
CO o ©
C
p
co
CD
x
c
Q
to
CD
X
s§ b
O co
M 5 w
< c © .E to O (0
CD
O
CL c to CNi £
0
O CO c
s i s £ CL CL 0 CD c\j £ <o
CO « o to E CO Q)c 8l
>.
. X ^ CD ©
~2 E S o E l CD CD © c
UJ CD
C
"D
CD » 0 E E
It 8.
H o
3
CO
5 «
w»
CD CO
0 0
>» >»
o o © 0
0 CO >% x
CO C X
JS o o o o* *co o o 3 E O
> S > S "O
5 £ o
23 *E
CL CL 0
o £ co o o E
CL ^
> CO 0 0 D.OQ.
CL CL
> » > » "O
o o o
CO
z 2
cL
CL CL E
to c
o -D W
co
»- — 0 g 2 C
O to o a O
2
to
o to aS ^ ©
CO
to
to ©
CD O
00 © g -5
0
111 o o> E
I—
o
P CL C
© -— c © ©
lis. tO Q
o
tr CO o
: w
: © T>
© CO co -O
"7= © CO to c
i
CL
LU
o
<
A
A
§ o
f= to
<J o
0 Q.
©
> to
"O ©
3 .£
CO
C
S % .s
•e r
0 3 .£
> to CO
•o © c
0
8 + 8
IS 3 §
(0 to
§Ha
°i
to
< « ea 2 © 8w 3
u.
2
©
p to to
g o q>
8.
" O
c to 1^8 if 8 "8 -S I CO 0
X o c
o c
tz h- E © CL • = CL
UJ ^ . C
UJ
w E 2
3 s-g-g
CO LU O E
T3
to p g
cracktbridging ability i
crackt )ridging ability 1

non-tr afficked surfao
Coatir ig with increas(

Coatirig of inaeased
0 O
E CO ^8
traffic!ced surfaces
p g „
o
0
o
o CD
c C CD
III
09 E cr>"0
© o ° II = C © to
c?B 2
o o ° c o 11^ 8
< SI
CO
X o O .E c 5
(0
O
2g c
P O
t
3
©
X c to
o
o o
E
©
< CO o
GL CO
>» co co CO
a. CO o o o O
<
SIMON HAY
OVERCLADDING A N D RAINSCREENS
SIMON HAY
Eternit UK Ltd, Meldreth, Nr Royston, Herts, SG8 5RL. ENGLAND
Introduction to Eternit UK Ltd

Eternit UK Ltd is a manufacturing company supplying internal and external cladding, fire
protection materials and roofing products. We have a wide experience of Rainscreen
cladding and the use of cladding panels with insulation to increase both the aesthetic and
thermal aspects of existing buildings.
The Eternit Group is one of the largest privately owned companies in the World with an
annual worldwide turnover of around 1.3 billion US Dollars, and with 90 years of
manufacturing experience.
In the UK, we have been involved in both overcladding existing buildings and supplying
complete walling systems for new buildings for over 25 years.
Materials
The sheet materials used have been designed to have long term durability of both panel
integrity and colour fastness, making them maintenance free materials suitable for a wide
range of applications.
Panels can be both smooth or textured, with the textured panels having a surface of
coloured aggregates.
Glasal panels are composed of a flat rigid fibre cement base sheet which has been fully
compressed and autoclaved for added strength. The surface is then decorated with a
pigmented coating which is fused to the cement sheet. It is this fusing of the two surfaces
9
into one known as the 'Emaille process that makes Glasal unique to the Cladding Market.
Resoplan. another smooth flat finished board, is a solid high pressure thermoset laminate,
coloured on both sides and incorporating a unique UV resistant surface which guarantees an
excellent and stable colour performance.
Granitex has natural stone aggregates bonded to the same base sheet as Glasal, resulting in
a highly textured and very rigid panel.
Systems
Eternit can offer a range of fixing systems, all of which can be altered or adapted to suit
the building's requirements.
Timber Battens are very simple but effective - being economical and durable. They are
used for all applications from fascias and soffits to total cladding.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
SIMON HAY
Omega and Zed fixing offers a simple aluminium component system easily installed in a
similar fashion to timber battens. They have the added benefit of non-combustibility and
completely rot proof construction.
Ventisol is a highly engineered system of top quality components, specially developed for
fixing to new or existing structures. The adjustment within the components allows a true
plane to be easily achieved.
Ventispan provides a framework for the cladding of both concrete and steel framed
structures. It is designed to be anchored to the structure at each floor level with vertical
rails spanning up to three metres between anchor/bracket position.
New Structalu - is an edge retention system for use in conjunction with a wide range of
sub-structures including timber battens, Ventisol or Ventispan.
The Eternit Structural Bonding System - uses structural adhesives to fix panels for a secret
fix finish which can be used on any Eternit system.
The Hanging Rail System - is a secret fix system suitable for use with Resoplan panels. It
supports the cladding panel by means of an aluminium framework.
Upgrading Existing Buildings

The back drained and ventilated rainscreen overcladding system has benefits for
overcladding, both existing and new structures.
Sealed systems generally depend on good workmanship. Cladding is designed to fit
perfectly and so the system is weathertight.
Rainscreens do not rely on perfection and in fact are a fairly ancient form of cladding,
from vertical tile hanging in this Country to Norwegian barns. Protection for the internal
structure is provided by cladding with unsealed open joints shielding a ventilated void from
the driving rain.
The rainscreen system normally consists of four elements:

1. External cladding with baffled open joints.
2. The ventilated cavity.
3. Insulation.
4. Inner wall.
The advantages in terms of overcladding existing structures are:

• Lower maintenance costs through protection of the building structure.
• External application so there is normally no need to close the construction during
work.
• Problems of deterioration are halted with minimum additional load being applied to
the structure.
• Lower running costs through improved thermal insulation, if applied.
• Elimination of cold bridges and consequential reduction in the risk of condensation.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
SIMON HAY
• A through flow of air is achieved by exploiting the stack effect, in which a current
of air enters at the base of the cladding and leaves at the top; wind action creates
additional fortuitous air movement.
• A cavity of 30-40mm is recommended and is a pre-requisite of the system.
The principle of the rainscreen system is straight forward. The structure is protected by
panels supported off a timber, aluminium or stainless steel framework. Often, the panels
are rib stiffened to allow for a large span between visible supports.
The joints between the panels are left open but the ventilated void is sheltered from the
rainfall.
As the vulnerable outer face of the structure is on the inside of the ventilated cavity, it is
protected from moisture.
In Eternit's opinion, the rainscreen system is under used. In our often adverse and
corrosive climate, the system has coped with the worst of the UK's climatic conditions.
In addition to tunnels and a few bridges, overcladding on the rainscreen system has been
used on high rise multi-storey public housing in the far north of Scotland where climatic
conditions are extreme. There has been no failure that can be attributed to the rainscreen
system.
The system allows an existing or new build construction to be made weathertight. Its
appearance may be improved. The panels allow a wide spectrum of designs to be
considered. Resoplan panels may also have writing or bespoke designs as part of the
material.
The great advantage of rainscreen construction is that its installation is not dependent on
good workmanship.
The problem for advocates of rainscreen is that professionals have been taught as a first
principle to keep buildings watertight. We prefer to think of loose fit simple ventilated
cladding that is forgiving and practical.
The Benefits
In our experience, all constructions should be monitored although we know this can often
be neglected by the clients. One of the benefits of panel overcladding is that a panel may
be easily removed for periodic inspection.
There can often be problems going on which may not be apparent. Carbonation attack
might be continuing although water has been removed, higher temperatures could lead to
progressive corrosion spalling and possible failure of anchors. While this has not been our
experience even in heavily insulated situations, inspections of a structure which has
suffered from carbonation attack of concrete must be monitored, until the situation has
stabilised and the rate of deterioration monitored.
The ventilated rainscreen system accepts that small quantities of water will reach the back
of the facade panels, and makes provision for disposing of it by drainage or evaporation.
The system also allows the use of insulation within the ventilated cavity. The thickness of
insulation can be varied. Often, given cost restraints, a minimum is generally installed.
The cladding system can be installed over an existing totally saturated building
construction.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
SIMON HAY
The dew point is moved into the ventilated cavity mitigating the effects of interstitial
condensation allowing moisture to be taken away by the updraught of air within the cavity.
Rainscreens are often erected to overclad existing problematic buildings which have
degraded.
Typical concrete structure problems will include rain penetration, poor insulation, spalling
concrete and inadequately restrained panels.
A great many of the structural problems associated with tower blocks can be solved by
removing the water.
The concept of rainscreen is hard to convey although very simple. People also do not wish
for the problem to be covered up; the rainscreen screen simply stops the problem from
getting worse.
For instance, sulphate attack can be dramatically reduced by preventing water from
reaching the structure. The external sheets keep the sun, wind and rain off the building.
This has the very beneficial effect of evening out the thermal performance and extreme
ranges of temperature. The external cladding allows the structure protected by the
insulation layer to be spared from extremes of temperature variation and therefore the
normal freeze/thaw and expansion and contraction conditions.
The advantage of overcladding is that it stops rain penetration of masonry and concrete
walls.
Even partial wetting can lead to deterioration if the rain is frequent and in this climate it
normally is. Intermittent rain will contribute to alkali silica problems in concrete, and
sulphate deterioration in brickwork. Moisture will lead to corrosion and eventual failure of
anchors and reinforcement.
Another mode of failure is the freeze thaw cycle of wetted elements. This moisture can
come from condensation as well as rain.
The illustration shows two forms of wall construction. Both the temperature range and
gradients to which the main structural portion of a wall are subjected to are reduced if
insulation is placed to the outer face. This would not be appropriate for an open bridge of
course, but preserving the structural zone in a stable, thermal environment is extremely
desirable. As movements of the structure are eliminated, so the cracking and degradation
of the structure is lessened.
If walls are insulated on the inside, they will invariably experience increased thermal
expansion and contraction. Differential movements in the structure can cause cracking and
other serious damage.
We tend to use partly baffled joints which, while the kinetic energy of the wind driven rain
is taken away, does not effect the pressure equalisation which is an essential part of a
rainscreen system.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
SIMON HAY
Summary
Overcladding has the following advantages:
1. The use of thermal insulation allows the building to breathe.

2. The scale of deterioration of the fabric can be arrested or slowed; the inner leaf air
barrier is protected.
3. The building can be subsequently inspected by easily removing panels.
4. The cladding rails can be used to provide additional restraint to unstable panels.
5. The cladding does not rely on sealants or exact fit.
6. The expansion joints of the original structure do not need to be followed.
7. The outer leaf acts as a screen from the Sun, so expansion and contraction of the
structure is reduced.
8. Joint seals are protected from ultra violet degradation by the cladding and
insulation.
9. The risk of interstitial condensation is reduced by placing insulation in the ventilated

cavity.
10. Vapour passing through the insulation will be carried away by the back ventilated
updraft.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
Encounters with Excellence
JON WALLSGROVE
Principal Architect/Planner, Highways Agency, London, UK
1) Aims of Refurbishing bridges
When any designer decides to refurbish a bridge rather than

replace it, add a new bridge or do nothing to it, then they must
have one of four aims in mind. Not only must they have an aim to
justify the work, but of more importance, unless the designer
knows why the bridge is being refurbished, the wrong decisions
will be made about how to refurbish the bridge.
Excellence in refurbishment cannot be achieved if the designer

does not know why he is doing the work.
The aims can be classified as :-
1.1 Preserving a monument - where the bridge is of National or

International importance as an historical monument.
1.2 Keeping a familiar and well loved structure - where the

bridge is of local importance as an historical or charachterful
feature.
1.3 Keeping the bridge since it is more economicaly viable or

more environmentalv sound to do so - where the bridge is minor
or unimportant in itself, and has no historical significance, nor
inherent beauty.
1.4 To carry out minor works of maintenance or alteration -

where the work is minor to the cost or value of the structure.
These aims are in ranked order, and if a project falls into more
than one of the aims, then the higher ranking aim should take
precedence, e.g. if the works are minor but the bridge is a
national monument, then all decisions should be made based on the
aim of preserving a monument.
2) Basic Principles
There are a number of basic principles which apply to all

refurbishments, but the method of carrying them out will vary
with the specific aim of the project. If these principles are
ignored, again excellence will not be achieved.
2.1 As with a new bridge the designer should consider CONTEXT,

FORM and DETAIL in the appearance of the refurbished structure.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
CONTEXT - The alterations should not adversely affect the
setting, and should preferably enhance it, whether the immediate
environment is landscape or townscape. Avoid cutting down trees
and demolishing bridge head buildings. This is affected by the
construction process as well as the design.
FORM - Any change to proportions should be carefully considered.

New elements should be of the same scale as the existing
structure. The appearance of a bridge is visually either stable
or dynamic, expressing either it's mass or the flow of the
traffic. This should be appreciated and retained in any
refurbishment. A stable structure such as a masonry arch should
not have a parapet detail from a dynamic structure such as a
motorway overbridge.
DETAIL - The quantity and quality of expressed detail are

critical to the scale, proportion and perceived attention to
beauty of all bridges, but especcially so to refurbished bridges.
The purpose of good quality detailing is to express function,
both of the whole and of the individual element, e.g cladding
should be expressed as cladding, and should not pretend to be the
structure. The visual success of a refurbishment usually lies in
the details.
2.2 The refurbished bridge should be as good as or better than

the existing, aestheticaly, environmentaly and structuraly. - if
not, then do nothing.
2.3 If the refurbishment is being carried out to provide more

capacity, then if it is not better, an additional bridge should
preferably be provided instead.
2.4 Historic elements should be restored, and new elements

should be in harmony with the existing, though modern in
themselves. Crude pastiche should be avoided.
2.5 The refurbished, altered or extended bridge should read as

a single harmonious entity.
2.6 The bridge should be seen in three dimensions. It is not

just the elevation which matters, diagonal views through the
bridge are affected by increased breadth, walkers and boat users
pass beneath the bridge and see the soffit close up, additional
signs, barriers and other street furniture can block views as you
approach.
2.7 When widening a bridge, especcialy a visually stable one,

repeating the facade further over, with a similar construction
for the additional width, is usually the best solution, despite
being the most obvious. The revival in interest in traditional
skills such as masonry now means that we no longer have the
excuse that "you cannot get the craftsmen nowadays".
2.8 If the existing bridge has visual merit, this should be

enhanced, if it does not, then there is scope to radicaly alter
and improve the structure.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
2.9 As with all refurbishment work, avoid short term solutions
which cause ongoing liabilities.
3) Examples
The best way to explain the aims and principles is to look at

examples. I will show some examples here, but everyone involved
in refurbishment should make the effort to look at bridges, and
buildings, which have been refurbished and see why they are
succesful, or not. I will divide the examples into Alterations f
Visual Improvement and Common Problems.
3.1 Alterations
3.1.1 Signs on bridges should be avoided if possible especcially

large traffic signs, but if this is not possible they should be
coordinated and positioned to relate to the bridge geometry, e.g.
lining up with piers, lamp columns or parapet posts if they are
freestanding, or positioned on a single inconspicous surface if
surface mounted. Do not put surface mounted signs on open
parapets since they are very obtrusive in silhouette.
3.1.2 Graffitti coatings often look worse than the graffitti,

being shiny and darkening the surface of the wall, and usually
not even managing to fully remove the graffitti where the wall
is in any way rough. The hot water soluble wax based sacrificial
coatings are the only ones I have seen which actually work, but
you still need to remove the graffitti regularly.
3.1.3 Strengthening of bridges should either be completely

hidden, as at Avonmouth with post tensioning inside the boxes,
or should be expressed simply and clearly for what it is, as at
the old timber Russien bridge or the motorway bridge at Beaune
where columns were replaced with cable stays.
3.1.4 Architectural features on older bridges should not be

interfered with.Too many fine bridges of the 193 0's have been
horribly mutilated by removing obelisks, original lighting,
ornamental parapets and ceremonial gateways. Learn to appreciate
the wonderful art deco bridges as well as the Victorian and
medieaval bridges.
3.1.5 Do not change the colour of a bridge without a lot of

thought. In particular do not replace a series of tones of a
colour, or grey, with a single colour. The varying tones were
probably chosen to subtly change the proportions, or hide
something.
3.1.6 Cladding of existing bridges is visually very risky. The

structure usually looks much heavier and b u l k i e r , and i t tends
to destroy the proportions. The detailing has in the past been
about as subtle as a grocery box. On very large bridges the extra
dimensions can be insignificant when the deck is clad, but on all
small span bridges it is very obtrusive. In principal the
cladding should be designed as a one off by an architect, whether
it is cladding a bridge deck or an underpass. It is the shape and
the detailing which matter, and good architects are very familiar
with this.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation
3.2 Visual Improvement
3.2.1 Colour has great potential, especcialy since there is

nowadays much more scope for colour in new paint systems. The
ubiquitous greys of the past are no longer vital, though often
they are still the best colour to use. Colour can be used to make
obtrusive bridges less obtrusive, and to enhance the drama of
bold bridges.
3.2.2 The removal of clutter is one of the greatest improvements

that can be made during refurbishment. Remove unnecessary and
redundant posts and signs, and combine signs with each other and
with lighting columns or walls where possible.
3.2.3 Lighting has improved technically in recent years, and it

is now possible to light historic bridges from either beyond the
bridge, or by restoring historic lamp columns and fitting them
with new luminaires. Mutilated historic lighting fittings can be
restored.
3.3 Common problems and their solutions.
3.3.1 Edge Cantilevers - If there is a beam darker than the deck

edge so as to give a shadow effect, then keep the relative tonal
values.
3.3.2 Access Doors- Paint the doors and the frame the same colour
as the surrounding wall to make them disapear.
3.3.3 Bridge Parapets - paint them dark when seen against trees,
buildings or hillsides, paint them light if the sky is the
background. They will then tend to disapear and enhance the
slenderness of the bridge.
3.3.4 Cables, Brackets, Pipes, Boxes etc. - When adding these to

an existing structure, try to hide them, and paint them the same
colour as the background to camouflage them. The best colours for
camouflage are light blue, grey, beige and mauve.
3.3.5 Lighting - Do not move lamp column positions if possible.

Columns should align with piers and be symmetrical to the main
span and the whole bridge. Columns are best in the central
reservation if they have to be on bridges, since perspective and
parallax will then mask their height and position. Avoid pastiche
"heritage" lights on historic bridges, restore genuine originals,
cast historically correct new columns, or use well designed
modern one off designs.
3.3.6 Historic Bridges - The presumption should be to retain

anything old. Craftsmanship is everything, especcially items like
pointing and stone dressing. Never use artificial materials. If
it is slightly out of the ordinary, check to see if it has any
special history, or a famous designer.
3.3.7 Planting - Let it grow. It was often put there to enhance

the bridge by masking part of it.
@seismicisolation
@seismicisolation

The Aesthetic Refurbishment of BRIDGES 1995

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Aesthetic Refurbishment of BRIDGES 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

thursday

Distributors for ICE Publishing books are

ICE Publishing is a division of Thomas Telford Ltd, a wholly-

All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as

This book is published on the understanding that the author is

SPEAKERS' BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Refurbishment, aesthetics and the bridge engineer

The Aesthetic Conundrum r ^

The performance of materials for visual enhancement

Practical problems and comparative costs - a contractor's view

Factors influencing the selection of maintenance strategies for bridges

State of the art report: coatings and renders

Overcladding and rainscreens

Encounters with excellence

LIST OF DELEGATES Page 1

Barclay, Mr Ian Eternit UK Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

Barton, Mr B G Principal Bridge Engineer, SECPD, Department of Transport, UNITED

Barton, Mr Richard Divisional Manager, SIKA Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

Bennett, Mr David Director, David Bennett Associates, UNITED KINGDOM

Chubb, Mr Mike WS Atkins Consultants, UNITED KINGDOM

Churton, Mr Peter Senior Engineer, Mott MacDonald, UNITED KINGDOM

Cole, Mr Graham Section Engineer, Surrey County Council, UNITED KINGDOM

Counsell, M r J H W Senior Engineer, Symonds Travers Morgan Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

Cox, Mr Ray Building Research Establishment, UNITED KINGDOM

Coxon, Mr Steve Senior Engineer, Surrey County Council, UNITED KINGDOM

Dargan, Mr Brian Makers, UNITED KINGDOM

Dewhurst, Mr Laurence Dewhurst MacFarlane & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM

Dodman-Edwards, Mr B Senior Group Engineer, W S Atkins, UNITED KINGDOM

Duckett, Mr William Graduate Engineer, G Maunsell & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM

Dykes, Mr Ken CERD Marketing Manager, Makers Industrial Ltd, UNITED

Easey, Mr D Senior Engineer - Bridges, WS Atkins - Cambridge, UNITED

LIST OF DELEGATES Page 2

Faherty, Mr P J Director, McCarthy & Partners, IRISH REPUBLIC

Feast, Mr Dick Principal Engineer, DHV (UK) Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

Fernie, Mr Jim Project Engineer, Thorburn Colquhoun, Transportation, UNITED

Firth, Mr Ian Partner, Flint & Neill Partnership, UNITED KINGDOM

Gough, Mr Piers CZWG Architects, UNITED KINGDOM

Green, Mr David Senior Vice-President, Institution of Civil Engineers, UNITED

Greenhalgh, Mr M J Project Manager, Room 809, Highways Agency, UNITED KINGDOM

Hadley, Mr M A Associate, Harris & Sutherland, UNITED KINGDOM

Hall, Mr J Planning & Highways, Wiltshire County Council, UNITED KINGDOM

Hardon, Dr R G Marketing Manager, Harris Speciality Chemicals, UNITED KINGDOM

Hawes, Mr Frank Architect, UNITED KINGDOM

Hay, Mr Simon Company Architect, Eternit UK Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

Head, Mr Peter Director, G Maunsell & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM

Hussain, Mr N Director, Ove Arup & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM

lies, Mr D C Manager - Bridges, The Steel Construction, Institute, UNITED

Irvine, Mr Richard Managing Director, Design Composites Technology, Limited, UNITED

Jones, Mr Graham Professional Engineer, Highways Department, Staffordshire County

Kennedy-Reid, Mr Iain Senior Engineer, WS Atkins Consultants Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

LIST OF DELEGATES Page 3

Lane, Mr John Business Manager, L G Mouchel & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM

Leach, Mr I Senior Engineer, Ove Arup & Partners, UNITED KINGDOM

Leadbeater, Mr Andrew Deputy County Engineer, Oxfordshire County Council, UNITED

Leeming, Mr M B Principal Engineer, L G Mouchel & Partners Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

Liddell, Mr I Buro Happold, UNITED KINGDOM

Liefschutz, Mr Alex Liefschutz Davidson, UNITED KINGDOM

Lyons, Mr Bruce Managing Director, Harris Speciality Chemicals, UNITED KINGDOM

Mangham, Mr M W Director, Aspen Associates Ltd, UNITED KINGDOM

Newham, Mr Roger Warwickshire County Council, UNITED KINGDOM

Pritchard, Mr B P Consultant, Consultant to WS Atkins & Colebrand Ltd, UNITED

Robery, Mr Peter Technical Director, The Maunsell Group, UNITED KINGDOM

Robson, Mr Andy Engineer, Surrey County Council, UNITED KINGDOM

Sandham, Mr Frank Principal Engineer, Department of Roads, Grampian Regional Council,