University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

ENGM029: Bridge Management

Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

by

Jess Rodrguez Rodrguez

UN: 6235031

May 2015

Table of Contents
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 2
1.1 PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................. 2
1.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ................................................................................ 3
1.3 EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY AND COSTS.......................................................................... 4

2. INSTALLATION, CONTROL, ACCEPTANCE AND INSPECTION................... 6

3. CASE STUDIES.......................................................................................... 7
3.1 A19 TEES VIADUCT ............................................................................................................ 7
3.2 SECOND SEVERN BRIDGE APPROACHES .......................................................................... 10

REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 13

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

1. General Introduction
Appendix I of the Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures
summarises a set of available techniques for maintenance options for transport
infrastructures. In this document I will give a general overview of the Protective
Enclosure system used mainly for the maintenance of steel structures, which is
described in the codes BD67/96 and BA67/96 Enclosure of Bridges.
1.1 Principles and Purpose
The enclosure of steel bridges comprises a protective system around the main
supporting elements under the bridge deck. This enclosure will indeed shield the
steelwork against the corrosive environment, hence improving the durability and
reducing maintenance. Figure 1.1 shows the main elements of a bridge enclosure
using GRP panels.

Figure 1.1. Components of Enclosure System (Ryall, 2001)

The corrosion mechanism of steel is highly dependent upon the presence of a) water
and b) pollutants such as chlorides and sulphates. Therefore by sheltering the steel
girders and other steel components from these elements, a micro-climate is developed
inside the enclosure with a much reduced corrosion rate, and hence reducing
maintenance requirements over the structure life-cycle.
Additionally, and not less important, the suspended floor formed by the enclosure will
provide a permanent working platform for safe access and inspection of the bridge
elements.

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages

Bridge enclosures can be employed both as a retrofit measure for existing bridges and
as an additional feature of new bridges. Traditionally, durability of steel bridges was
ensured by designing and maintaining a protective coating for the steelwork. This
coating would generally be carried out by repeated application of a paint system.
Other alternatives would be the use of a metallic coating (e.g. hot-dip galvanising) or
weathering steel. The enclosure system presents a number of advantages and
disadvantages over these alternative maintenance options, some of which are outlined
below.
Advantages

Increased corrosion protection, which will lead to reduced future

maintenance costs and also allow lower specifications for the initial paint
system.

Reduced traffic disruption. The presence of the permanent access platform

will avoid or reduce traffic delays during maintenance and inspection
operations. This will also allow workers to inspect and access the bridge at
any time, avoiding the need to do it at otherwise less convenient hours due to
traffic restrictions.

Ease of accessibility. In complicated terrains or busy highways, it may prove

to be very expensive the use of scaffolding or gantries for bridge access. In
these circumstances, the enclosure will also prove to be more economical
compared to painting, especially considering that painting operations are
likely to be repeated frequently over the life of the structure.

Enhanced safety. Again, the permanent platform provided by the enclosure

will improve workers security compared to temporary scaffolding, reducing
the risk of falls and also road traffic accidents at roadworks.

Aesthetics. Although a subjective concept, the selection of appropriate shape,

colours and patterns could greatly improve the bridge appearance compared
to a standard steel multi-girder bridge.

Other advantages that could be mentioned are: enhanced aerodynamics,

environmental protection, concrete slab protection, fire resistance, etc.
3

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

Disadvantages

Added initial cost. The materials, erection and installation of the enclosure
panels will incur in substantial costs, which will be required to be assessed.

Advanced materials. The many requirements for the enclosure system are met
by the use of expensive and state-of-the-art materials which, in general, will be
more difficult to be supplied. These specialised components will need to be
low weight and maintenance-free themselves.

Additional weight. Although the current technologies offer very light-weight

options for the enclosure, the superimposed load will still be required to be
accounted for.

Air control. Provisions for proper ventilation and control of draughts should be
considered. The presence of the enclosure will inevitably alter the behaviour
under wind conditions and therefore careful assessment should be carried out.

Flexibility. The enclosure system, which is fixed to the main supporting

girders, will need to cater for flexural movements under live loading. That is,
the presence of the enclosure shall not affect the flexural behaviour of the
structure.

Headroom. The installation of the enclosure will reduce the vertical clearance
available under the bridge, and hence, in situations where restrictions exist, it
may not be even possible to opt for this maintenance option.

Vandalism. The enclosure panels will prevent unauthorised access to the main
girders but will be subjected to vandals attacks themselves. That is, it must be
considered that the enclosure system may be prone to damage from impact or
vandalism incurring in additional cost due to repair or replacement.

Despite all the advantages mentioned above, the use of this maintenance option will
be largely governed by a cost-benefit analysis, as it will be explained below.
1.3 Effectiveness, Efficiency and Costs
According to tests conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), the
corrosion rates measured for the enclosed steel panels tested were about 2% to 11%
(Irvine, 2001) of those of the same non enclosed specimens, proving its effectiveness.
4

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

Moreover, upon the inspection in 2001 of one of the Second Severn approach road
bridges, the engineer noted that: the interior was found very dry and clean. The
system appeared to be working excellently with no sign of water ingress, damp, build
up of debris or corrosion occurring (Halliwell, 2004).
It is clear however that the efficiency of the system is subject to a cost-benefit
analysis, with future expenditures to be discounted to net present values. In this
regard, the enclosure solution may prove to be efficient only for very specific types of
structures (e.g. multi-girder composite bridge), of relatively large importance, with a
long time until obsolescence and with difficult accessibility.
This cost-effectiveness appraisal will generally be conducted over a 40-year time
period, considering all initial and subsequent direct and indirect costs. For the
situations described above, bridge enclosures have proved to be a long-term costeffective solution even for large discount rates (around 8%) that would diminish the
importance of the life-cycle analysis.
As shown when describing the advantages of the enclosure system, the reduction in
costs stems from: a) direct costs savings due to less time until first and subsequent
maintenance and inspection, b) indirect costs savings due to elimination or reduction
of road user delays and traffic accidents. The increasing importance of the indirect
costs from traffic delays and accidents shows that these savings could indeed be very
large.
As an example of a cost comparison analysis carried out, the table below shows the
savings justification for the retrofit of the Nevilles Cross Bridge in Durham. As a
reference, in (Ryall, 2001) an average cost of 150/m2 is proposed for the enclosure.

Figure 1.2. Cost Comparison for Nevilles Bridge (Irvine, 2001)

5

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

2. Installation, Control, Acceptance and Inspection

The installation process of the enclosure is dependent on the materials used for the
shell. In general, these will include a series of prefabricated panels and connectors to
be transported and assembled on site. The quality of the enclosure relies on a) the
manufacturing process of the units, which is to be controlled under factory conditions;
and b) the proper joining of the modules, following the manufacturer specifications.
Usually this will involve some tongue-and-groove panels to be linked by mechanical
means and/or additional gluing material. Typically, the components will be of low
weight usually GRP-, what will allow easy transport, handling and positioning,
without need of highly specialised equipment.
An important aspect to be considered during the installation is the avoidance of
composite action with the main structure. That is, fixing of modules shall be such that
they not interfere with the normal steel girders behaviour. Also, fixings and fasteners
shall be of such type that they allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate temperature
and other length changes. Moreover, the dimensions of the enclosure shall allow for
bridge tolerances, in order to avoid lack of fit upon assembly. Other aspects to be
considered are the prevention of substantial air flow as it may lead to condensationand the installation of adequate draining in the event of water ingress.
As mentioned before, acceptability of materials shall be demonstrated by specific tests
programmes. Examples of these are (Head & Churchman, 1989) and (Head &
Templeman, 1986). Alternatively, previous data or experience, or certain agreement
certificates may be used.
Another important aspect of acceptability of the enclosure is its classification as a
Category II or Category III structure on its own. This recognition will require
agreeing with the Technical Approval Authority (TAA) the requirements and scope
for submittal of the Approval In Principle (AIP). Although each AIP for the enclosure
will be agreed for the specific case, in general, information will be required regarding
the structural design of the enclosure and fasteners, with deflections and strength to be
determined by calculations or testing.
Inspection for the enclosure shall be carried out with the same frequency as for the
bridge. Nevertheless, the enclosure will be expected to require low or no maintenance
at all. For access to the interior of the enclosure, some of the panels may be removed
6

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

or hinged somehow, so that minimum traffic disruption occurs. During inspection, it

shall be required to provide permanent or temporary lighting inside and also proper
ventilation depending on the works to be carried out.

3. Case Studies
Two case studies will be presented: A19 Tess Viaduct and the Second Severn Bridge
Approach. The former included the enclosure as a retrofit measure while the latter
acknowledged the importance of the enclosure from the design phase.
3.1 A19 Tees Viaduct
Location and Description of the Bridge
The A19 Tees Viaduct in Middlesbrough refers to the 1.95km stretch of the A19
major trunk road as it spans over the River Tees, a series of railway lines, the
Marshalling Yards and other slip roads. The main section over the river comprises 9
spans of steel plate girders supporting a composite concrete deck slab. At the main
span of 117m, the superstructure depth varies from 3 to 5m.

Figure 3.1. A19 Bridge Main Span over River Tees

The bridge was designed by Dobbie Standford Fawcett & Partners and built by
Cementation Construction, first opening in 1975. It cost around 10M to build, while
repairs allegedly amounted to 25M (The Happy Pontist, 2013).
The problem
From the very beginning of the bridge existence, numerous issues were found, leading
to the necessity of major refurbishment and strengthening works only 12 years after
opening, between 1987 and 1990.
7

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

The main problems included (Lee & Johnson, 1994):

Faulty deck waterproofing.

De-icing salts penetration.

Increase in traffic loads.

Leaking buried expansion joints.

Inefficient gullies.

Generally speaking, corrosion and cracking of both concrete and steelwork was taking
place due to an insufficient drainage and the large presence of chlorides. Also, the
need to upgrade to the new live loads imposed in the structure and comply with
BS5400 would require substantial strengthening.
All the repair, maintenance and strengthening works were to be carried out, but a
major concern remained regarding the access to the main girders, which were very
large and spanned over a wide river. The cost of scaffolding or the use of auxiliary
gantries was deemed exorbitant, and investigation of a cost-effective solution was
required.

Figure 3.2. Main Girders of A19 Viaduct (Irvine, 2001)

The solution
In a separate contract, G. Maunsell and Partners was appointed to come up with a plan
for maintenance access to the superstructure. A study was conducted in which 9
different options were presented, being the enclosure system the one finally proposed
due to the potential savings in the overall cost.

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

The enclosure would need to cover a total surface of around 16,000m2, so a

standardised system was to be developed so that savings and speed of construction
could be achieved.
The system developed by Maunsell has become to be commonly known as the
Caretaker system, which uses what is termed the Advanced Composite Construction
System (ACCS). Figure 3.3 shows the main components of the ACCS developed by
Maunsell, which today are distributed in Europe by Strongwell. The material used for
the multicell panels is Glass-fibre reinforced polymers (GRP), which are connected
together by mechanical and adhesive bonding, and then hanged from the main girders.

Figure 3.3. GRP Enclosure Components (Lee & Johnson, 1994)

The GRP was selected as it exhibits most of the characteristics required to overcome
the potential disadvantages outlined in Section 1.2 : light-weight, high durability, easy
handling, and fire resistance, among others. These properties made the ACCS system
ideal for the A19 Tees Viaduct problem, as it would provide safe maintenance access
without requiring costly possessions or traffic disruption.
The GRP panels and connectors are manufactured using a continuous technique
known as pultrusion, which was considered the best method to achieve constant cross
section with consistent properties for all elements used in the design.

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

Figure 3.4. Underside View of Enclosure for A19 viaduct

The conclusion
The A19 Tees Viaduct was one of the first bridge applications of advanced composite
materials. It successfully introduced an innovative design, without previous
knowledge or standards/codes of any kind, and set the base for a new technology
development that in the following years have proved to have many bridge
applications.
Moreover, the A19 Bridge case showed the importance of careful consideration of a
maintenance and inspection plan during the design phase and also how a cost-benefit
analysis can be a useful decision-making tool during selection of maintenance
options.
3.2 Second Severn Bridge Approach
Location and Description of the Bridge
The Second Severn Crossing between England and Wales was opened in 1996, and as
part of the M4 motorway connection to the M5 it includes an approach road of around
15km, located in Avon, UK. During the design of this approach road, a series of steel
plate girder bridges were considered, with a dual two-lane carriageway.

Figure 3.5. Typical Structure for Approach Road (Irvine, 2001)

10

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

The bridge was designed by Maunsell Structural Plastics and built by Balfour Beatty
Civil Engineering, starting construction in 1993.
The objective
The future maintenance and inspection of the steel plate girders was to be considered
at the design stage. That is, it was intended to provide permanent access to the steel
girders without interfering with the traffic below.
The solution
For 7 of the 24 structures, it was decided to provide an enclosure system for the soffit
of the superstructure, as this would not only avoid traffic disruption during
maintenance operations but also it would significantly reduce the corrosion rates of
the steel girders.
The ACCS Caretaker system developed by Maunsell was to be used, with an
estimated cost of 282/m2 (Hooks, et al., 1997). The GRP enclosure components are
essentially the same as described for the A19 Tees viaduct, with the GRP panels
hanging from the girders as shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6. GRP Enclosure for Second Severn Approach (Ryall, 2001)
The enclosure system would also provide support for formwork and workers during
the deck construction, and the design considered a construction load of 1.9kN/m2
with maximum deflection of L/120, in order to provide a safe and comfortable
working environment.
An important aspect of this enclosure system is its additional function as a fairing
system, with the special lateral GRP flares providing an aerodynamic shape for the
cross section. These curved panels would reduce the wind drag and optimise the shape
11

University of Surrey

ENGM029 Coursework B: Enclosure of Bridges

without the need of a box girder deck, which would increase the cost compared to the
plate multi-girder.
Moreover, the fairing provides an aesthetically appealing bridge superstructure,
improving the design recognition and quality.

Figure 3.7. Fairing/Enclosure System of Second Severn Approach (Ryall, et al.,

2000)
Finally, testing was carried out to verify fire resistance and deflections under service
loads for the enclosure.
The conclusion
The enclosure system designed for the Second Severn Bridge Approach provides and
efficient and elegant solution for the maintenance access and corrosion protection.
Moreover, the ACCS system can be customised to improve aerodynamics and
aesthetics of the bridge.
Even though the initial investment for the enclosure system was quite large and it may
discourage its use, it is important to consider a whole-life cost approach in which it is
considered all the future savings associated with reduced maintenance and inspection
costs and more importantly all the indirect costs derived from traffic management and
road users delays.
As a final comment, it has been stated before that recent inspections on this bridge
have shown an excellent performance of the enclosure system to date, what should
give designers more confidence in the potential advantages of using these systems.

12

University of Surrey

References

References
Corus Construction & Industrial, 2005. Corrosion protection of steel bridges. [Online]
Available at:
http://resource.npl.co.uk/docs/science_technology/materials/life_management_of_mat
erials/publications/online_guides/pdf/protection_of_steel_bridges.pdf
[Accessed 2015].
Halliwell, S., 2004. In-Service Performance of FRP Structures. University of Surrey,
Guildford, Woodhead Publishing Limited, pp. 719-726.
Head, P. & Churchman, A., 1989. Design, Specification and Manufacture of a
Pultruded Composite Construction System. s.l., Imperial College of London, pp. 117162.
Head, P. & Templeman, R., 1986. The Application of Limit State Design Principles to
Fibre Reinforced Plastics. Nottingham, British Plastics Federation, pp. 69-77.
Hooks, J., Siebels, J. & Seible, F., 1997. Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe
and Japan, Washington: FHWA.
Irvine, R., 2001. Bridge Enclosure. [Online]
Available at:
http://projects.bre.co.uk/composites/bridgeenclosures/bridgeenclosures.pdf
[Accessed 2015].
Lee, D. J. & Johnson, P. F., 1994. A19 Tees Viaduct. Strengthening and
Refurbishment. Proceedings of the ICE - Structures and Buildings, 104(2), pp. 145166.
Ryall, M., 2001. Bridge Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ryall, M., Parke, G. & Harding, J., 2000. Manual of Bridge Engineering. London:
Thomas Telford Ltd.
T. H. P., 2013. A Blog from the UK about Bridges and Bridge Design. [Online]
Available at: http://happypontist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/teesside-bridges-3-a19-teesviaduct.html
[Accessed 2015].
UK Highways Agency, 1996. Enclosure of Bridges - BD67/96 and BA67/96,
Standard and Advice Notes. s.l.:s.n.

13