BCF1: July 2001

Minutes

Minutes of First Bridge Consultants Forum meeting
on 16th July 2001 at King’s College, Cambridge

[DOC] Printable version of these Minutes (134Kb)

Present:

Campbell Middleton (Chair) CUED
Nigel Beavor Babtie
Mike Chubb WS Atkins
Ian Firth Flint & Neill
Peter Fox Hyder
Jolyon Gill Maunsell
Richard Hornby Cleveland Bridge
Gareth Hughes WSP
Paul Jackson Gifford
Vardi Jones Highpoint Rendel
Darren Kimberley Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick
Angus Low Arup
Sam Luke Mouchel
Simon de Neumann CUED/Flint & Neill
Graham Nicholson TGP
Tony Small Pell Frischmann
Mungo Stacy CUED/RBA
Malcom Taylor Mouchel
Godfrey Webster Owen Williams
Stuart Withycombe Halcrow
Steve Denton (Tech. Secretary) Parsons Brinckerhoff

Introductory Presentation by Cambpell Middleton

Campbell Middleton introduced the meeting, setting out the objectives as:

Opportunities for cooperation with CUED were described, including:

Members of Cambridge University staff working in relevant fields were briefly identified, including Chris Morley, Chris Burgoyne, Janet Lees and Allan McRobie.

Presentation by Simon de Neumann

[PPT] Presentation - A Student's Perspective on Employment Opportunities

Simon De Neumann gave a brief presentation discussing how civil engineering consultants can better attract graduate engineers. The need to make companies known to students, to effectively advertise posts and act proactively in recruitment were all highlighted. Specifically, the following issues were identified:

In advance of the meeting delegates were invited to prepare a brief presentation describing:

  1. Any recent, current or soon to be undertaken research that they are involved in related to bridge engineering,
  2. Ideas for some potential projects that they would like to see taken forward (e.g. perhaps funded by HA, DETR, Railtrack, EPSRC etc.)

The meeting continued with each delegate making a presentations, followed by discussion of the presentation.

Presentation by Angus Low, Ove Arup & Partners

Recent and Current Research

Further comments:

Presentation by Ian Firth, Flint & Neill

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Others

Presentation by Vardi Jones, Highpoint Rendel

Recent Research and Future Research Needs

Campbell Middleton suggested that research reports should be submitted electronically to be held on BOF website.  This was a popular suggestion, and received support.

Presentation by Graham Nicholson, Tony Gee

[DOC] Handout

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs.

Presentation by Jolyon Gill, Maunsell

Recent and Current Research

It was suggested that bridge owners should think longer term (40-50 years) and cost in maintenance and reliability, in which case the spaces concept may be resurrected. 

Discussion

Ian Firth remarked that whole-life-costing needs to be accepted by Bridge Owners. Angus Low asked what the current way of evaluating this is and observed that it is dependent on the discount rate. Ian Firth added that PFI schemes place particular pressures on the lowest cost at day one.

Presenation by Richard Hornby, Cleveland Bridge

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Discussion

Paul Jackson mentioned that Eurocodes have been criticised for requiring designers to address fundamentals.

Jolyon Gill commented that real life failures are often due to a combination of factors, and Campbell Middleton raised the question of whether we need a database of failures.

Jolyon Gill and Tony Small both felt that monitoring structures is beneficial. Steve Denton commented that the benfits of monitoring can be limited particularly if the primary interest is ULS.

It was noted that the organisation of the Highway Agency is changing and losing aspects of its expertise.   This process leads to issues in relation to reviewing departures. 

Godfrey Webster observed that client’s interest in failures tends to focused on financial implications, and technical aspects can become sub-judicy.   Therefore the information is not disseminated.

Paul Jackson asked whether the checker should be charged with identifying potential savings.

Presentation by Malcolm Taylor, Mouchel

Recent and Current Research.

Proposed Research Needs.

Presenation by Stuart Withycombe, Halcrow

Recent and Current Research.

Proposed Research Needs.

Discussion

Angus Low commented that design for impact is often based on load, but highlighted that mass is important and relevant.  Masonry parapets have mass but limited strength.

Noted by Tony Small that work in the field has been done at Newcastle.

Paul Jackson remarked that it is difficult to show that whether parapet remains on bridge.

Ian Firth has proposed an IABSE study on bridge parapet strength (although Highways Agency have shown little interest).

Presentation by Gareth Hughs, WSP

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Discussion

Mike Chubb commented that during the Midland links project a deterioration model was developed, although monitoring was halted at a crucial time.

Campbell Middleton raised some concerns over the accuracy/validity of existing deterioration models.

Presenation by Nigel Beavor, Babtie

[DOC] Handout

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Presenation by Peter Fox, Hyder

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Presentation by Godfrey Webster, Owen Williams

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs:

Presentation by Tony Small, Pell Frischmann

[DOC] Handout
[PDF] Bridge Summary Table

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Presentation by Darren Kimberley, Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Presentation by Mike Chubb, WS Atkins

[PPT] Presentation

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs

Presentation by Paul Jackson, Gifford & Partners

Recent and Current Research

Presentation by Steve Denton, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Recent and Current Research

Proposed Research Needs