Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3 The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge,

Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Bridge Engineering 166 September 2013 Issue BE3 Pages 217228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/bren.11.00018 Paper 1100018 Received 25/03/2011 Accepted 08/12/2011 Published online 08/04/2013 Keywords: concrete structures/demolition/temporary works ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

ice | proceedings

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland
Kieran Ruane BE, MSc(Eng), CEng, MIStructE, MIEI, MICE Technical Director, RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cork, Ireland Murt Coleman BE, CEng, FIEI Managing Director, Carillion Irishenco Ltd, Kildare, Ireland Enda Collery BA, BAI, CEng, MIEI Contracts Manager, Carillion Irishenco Ltd, Kildare, Ireland Eoghan Lehane Eur Ing, BE, CEng, MIEI, MCIWEM Civil Engineering and Property Manager, Commissioners of Irish Lights, Dublin, Ireland Brendan Minihane Eur Ing, BE, CEng, MIEI Project Resident Engineer, Cork County Council, Cork, Ireland Ross ODonovan Dip Eng, BEng, CEng, MIEI Senior Resident Engineer, RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cork, Ireland Noel OKeeffe Eur Ing, BE, CEng, FIEI, MICE County Engineer, Cork County Council, Cork, Ireland Kevin Power BE, CEng, FIEI, MICE, MCIWEM Director, RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cork, Ireland

Mizen Head Footbridge in County Cork, Ireland, is a reinforced concrete through-arch structure spanning 50 m. The original structure was completed in 1909. After 100 years of service the bridge was demolished and reconstructed in 2009/10. This paper describes the design and construction challenges of safely demolishing and reconstructing the bridge in a difficult site location. The bridge provided access to a lighthouse on a tiny island, Clogha n, at the tip of Mizen Head in southwest Cork. The original structure was commissioned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights (CIL). The structural form was chosen from a design competition held in the early 1900s. The entries to this competition are held in the CIL archives and are on display in the Visitors Centre at Mizen Head.

1.

Introduction

The winning entry was a design by Mr Noel Ridley of Westminster, London, UK. It consisted of a pair of parabolic arch ribs spanning 50 m, which supported a pedestrian deck, the deck being suspended by vertical hangers from the ribs in the central section. In the quarter spans the deck was supported by the ribs by means of a series of trestles. The ribs were 1?6 m apart in the central section where the deck was suspended. Where the ribs intersected the deck they flared out so that the ribs were 3?7 m apart at the springing points. The ribs were cross-braced below deck level to provide an inherently stable structure. Mizen Head Footbridge is shown in Figure 1. On 18 October 1907, sanction was given for the erection of a reinforced concrete bridge to give access to the island. Construction of the bridge began in 1908 and was completed in 1909. The contractor was Alfred Thorne and Sons of Westminster, London, and the contract cost was 1272. The original bridge comprised both precast and in situ reinforced concrete elements and it was considered an early example of precast concrete construction (Sutherland et al., 2001). The arch ribs were constructed in stages both onshore and in situ (Anon., 1910; Stephens, 1974). The initial rib crosssection was an open precast concrete trough to allow launching of the ribs. The open cross-section allowed precast concrete trestles and deck edge beams to be added before the ribs were

completed with in situ concrete. The bridge deck and the hangers were cast in situ. The reinforcement in the structure was in the form of round bars, rectangular bars and sheets of steel folded in a corrugated manner. The bridge was constructed in the era of proprietary reinforced concrete systems and the system used was the RidleyCammell system. Figure 2 shows the structural elements of the bridge. Figure 3 shows an image of the original bridge under construction with the use of an overhead wire ropeway.

2.

The bridge site

The bridge spans a sea gorge between the mainland at Mizen Head and the tiny island of Clogha n. The soffit of the bridge is some 45 m above the bottom of the gorge. Access to the bridge site is very difficult. Vehicle access is possible to within 300 m of the mainland abutment. Thereafter, access is only available along a steeply inclined footway, which is less than 1 m wide along a substantial part of its length (Figure 4). The local geology of the site has always attracted interest. Purple-coloured horizons flank the footbridge. These horizons comprise thinly bedded sandstone units with interbedded mudstone giving the rocks a purplish hue. The rocks strike to the northeast, with well-developed cleavage and quartz veining, parallel to bedding planes. Bedding is noted to be both horizontal and steeply dipping (almost vertical) at different locations. The dramatic U-shaped limbs of the Crookhaven Syncline are clearly identifiable from the footbridge.
217

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 3. The original bridge under construction (1909)

Figure 1. Mizen Head Footbridge (2004)

of the structure and provide material and geometric parameters for analytical models and for maintenance, repair or strengthening scheme development. The defects noted during the inspection may be summarised as rust staining, areas of hollow-sounding concrete, cracking and localised areas of

3.

Origins of the scheme

For over 100 years, the Commissioners of Irish Lights (CIL) have carried out maintenance activities on the bridge. A maintenance contract was undertaken in 2000 for repainting the bridge and carrying out concrete repairs. An inspection by CIL engineers at this time revealed areas of spalled concrete and severe reinforcement corrosion, particularly at a joint between a deck hanger and the northern edge beam. In 2002, CIL appointed RPS (then M.C. OSullivan and Company Ltd.) to conduct an inspection and structural assessment of the footbridge. Specific information on the structure was collected by material tests, observations and geometrical surveys (Figure 5). This information helped to establish the condition

Crown brace Deck Edge beam Trestles Cross-bracing Arch rib Springing point Hangers

Figure 2. Structural elements of the bridge

Figure 4. Access to the footbridge

218

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

who have regularly maintained and repainted the bridge over its lifetime. Material tests were used to determine the integrity and strength of the concrete and to investigate reinforcement corrosion mechanisms. Both non-destructive and destructive tests were used ranging in complexity from hammer tap surveys to petrographic examination. BA 35/90 (Highways Agency, 1990) presents information on these and other tests with useful references. Table 1 summarises the test results. Concrete was broken out locally in two hangers to examine the condition of the reinforcement. The reinforcement in the first breakout was found to be in very good condition. The reinforcement in the second breakout was found to have disintegrated into a fine black dust without the formation of expansive product (Figure 6). This is an unusual form of steel anaerobic corrosion and it is the subject of ongoing research. Two 105 mm diameter cores were taken from the deck of the bridge. One of these cores was compression tested and found to have an equivalent cube strength of 27?5 N/mm2. Three cores removed from the arch ribs in 1990 (MacCraith, 1990) were

Figure 5. Inspection by roped access in 2002

missing concrete. All the defects noted were related to corroding reinforcement. No defects caused by structural actions were observed. In general, the visual inspection of the bridge found it to be in reasonable condition given its age and its location in an exposed site (Ruane and Healy, 2004). This was due to the quality of the original construction and to CIL

Test Cover meter survey

Summary Varied from minimum of 31 mm to maximum of 85 mm with an average of 49?1 mm Typically measured at 1 mm Typically 2 mm Varied from minimum of 1?92% to maximum of 4?06% with an average of 2?73% Varied from minimum of 26 N/mm2 to maximum of 51 N/mm2 with an average of 34?6 N/mm2 Three cores removed and tested. Strengths recorded: 70?3 N/mm2, 46?4 N/mm2 and 72?9 N/mm2 One core removed and found to have a strength of 27?5 N/mm2 One core removed for petrographic testing and remains of other core also tested petrographically after compression test

Comment Good cover meter readings throughout, readings corresponded to steel locations indicated on construction drawings Low carbonation depth expected due to bridge location Refers to bituminous coating and paint layers previously applied to the concrete members Very high levels of chloride recorded throughout the structure Consistent readings throughout the structure. Good correlation between readings and core strengths Cores removed and tested by UCD in 1990. Cores were obtained from the arch ribs Core removed during 2002 inspection. Cores were obtained from the bridge deck Petrographic examination indicated that the concrete was made to a specification, it was well compacted during construction, it was made with suitable materials and it was generally found to be a high quality concrete

Depth of carbonated concrete Depth of coating applied Chloride content

Schmidt hammer test for concrete consistency Concrete core removal and compression testing Concrete core removal and compression testing Concrete core removal and petrographic testing

UCD 5 University College Dublin

219

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 7. Petrographic analysis of the original concrete showing presence of sea shells

given the close proximity of the beach to the bridge it is likely that Barley Cove was the source of fine aggregate used in the deck. No evidence of damage due to alkaliaggregate action was found in the petrographic examination, although traces of gel were present in voids in the paste. Examination of a thin section taken from a portion of the core sample showed fine cracks running through aggregate particles into the cement paste. These were found to contain alkali silicate gel and indicated that an expansive reaction had taken place between the greywacke aggregate and alkalies in the paste, causing very localised damage to the concrete in the area where the core had been taken. This is considered to be the only reported example of alkaliaggregate reaction in Ireland to date. In summary, chloride content levels were very high throughout the structure. This did not affect the integrity of concrete directly but it provided a mechanism for reinforcement corrosion to occur. Evidence of damage to concrete caused by the expansive product of reinforcement corrosion was clear in the inspection. Defects ranged from areas of hollow concrete where corrosion had caused delamination of the cover zone to areas of spalled concrete. Carbonation levels were very low. This was attributed to the exposed location of the bridge. Based on the petrographic examination, low levels of alkali aggregate reaction, low carbonation levels, high chloride levels (both cast-in and ingressed) and strength estimates from cores and Schmidt hammer tests, it was concluded that the concrete, excluding the concrete in the cover zone, was of a sound nature. Based on the original construction drawings and the information gathered during the principal inspection, RPS carried out a finite element assessment of the structure. Structural member

Figure 6. Breakout of a hanger in 2002 showing anaerobic corrosion

compression tested and found to have equivalent cube strengths of 70?3, 46?4 and 72?9 N/mm2. The variation in recorded cube strengths between the arch ribs and the bridge deck was attributed to the predominantly compressive action in the arch ribs compared with the flexural action in the bridge deck. Petrographic examination was carried out on two core samples taken from the structure. The coarse aggregate used in the deck construction was dominated by crushed greywacke and sandstone particles having a nominal maximum size of 14 mm. The aggregate in the coarse fraction was probably locally derived. The fine aggregate contained abundant shell fragments, which were derived from a marine source, probably a beach sand (Figure 7). Samples of sand were taken from nearby Barley Cove during a visit to the site and examined in the laboratory using a petrological microscope. This material closely resembled the shell fragments found in the deck concrete and
220

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

stiffnesses were calculated neglecting the cover layer concrete. Structural member resistances were calculated using half the reinforcement indicated in the construction drawings. The results indicated that the structure was adequate for continued use due to good reserves of structural resistance to applied dead and live loading effects. However, given that the central suspended span of the deck was relying on reinforced concrete hangers in direct tension and given the high chloride-induced steel corrosion throughout the structure, it was recommended that the hangers be strengthened and that measures be taken to halt the corrosion of reinforcement in the structure. A monitoring regime was placed on the structure to allow regular inspections at 6monthly intervals. In 2004, RPS produced a preliminary report for strengthening and repair of the Mizen Head Footbridge. It was recommended that the hangers be reinforced with near surface mounted (NSM) fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, that concrete repairs be undertaken to repair defects on the structure and that a cathodic protection system be installed on the structure to stall the rate of reinforcement corrosion. The use of NSM FRP bars is described in BD 85/08 (Highways Agency, 2008). However, it was noted that the suitability of the structure to receive a cathodic protection system would need to be confirmed by specialist testing before a definite recommendation could be made. In February 2005, electrical continuity testing of reinforcement in the structure was undertaken to assess the feasibility of providing a cathodic protection system for the structure. The specialist testers concluded that there was a limited amount of reinforcement continuity within the arch ribs and within some hangers but that there was no general continuity of reinforcement steel within the structure, either between structural elements or within individual elements. Following the issue of the electrical continuity testing report to CIL, the Mizen Footbridge was closed to pedestrian traffic. In June 2005, RPS under the direction of CIL procured an access scaffold for the bridge. The scaffold was supported directly from the arch ribs only and provided an independent bridge deck for the structure. The scaffold allowed access to be maintained at Mizen Head until a permanent solution was reached (Figure 8). It was expected that the scaffold would have a lifespan in the region of 35 years.
Figure 8. Temporary access scaffold (2005)

braces followed by a sequential removal and replacement of the remaining elements of the deck superstructure. The mass concrete foundations at the arch springing points and deck ends would be retained. & Option 2: A scheme that initially involved the construction of new arch ribs (parallel to and outside the existing ribs) using the existing ribs (strengthened if required) as falsework, followed by the sequential demolition of the existing bridge, followed by the construction of trestle edge beams, hangers and the deck slab. This scheme produced a replica of the existing bridge although the deck would be 700 mm wider. The mass concrete foundations at the arch springing points and deck ends would be retained. & Option 3: A scheme that involved replacing lost steel throughout the structure with small diameter FRP bars using the NSM method followed by a large concrete repair scheme. Various factors fed into the selection of the preferred option. These included heritage considerations, cost, environmental issues, ease of construction, health and safety and durability. Option 2 was recommended as the preferred option as it maintained the current appearance and form of the bridge, it gave the best long-term solution and provided an economic solution that could be built safely with minimal impact on the environment. Figure 9 outlines the solution. Detailed design of this scheme was progressed by RPS under the direction of CIL in 2006. Specific measures to address durability were incorporated into the design. These included:
& Use of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)

4.

Detailed scheme development

A revised preliminary report was issued by RPS to CIL in September 2005. The following solutions were considered:
& Option 1: A strengthening and repair scheme that involved

an initial strengthening and repair of the arch ribs and rib

cement. The cement to be ordinary Portland cement with

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

&

&

&

Figure 9. The solution to use the original arch ribs as falsework for the construction of the new arch ribs
& & &

a GGBS replacement level of 50%. The use of GGBS cements in concrete bridges is normal practice in Ireland. The concrete to be grade C40/50 to IS EN 206. All exposed formed concrete surfaces to receive an F3 finish as described in the National Roads Authority specification for road works (National Roads Authority, 2000). This is a high quality finish and it precludes the use of internal formwork ties and embedded metal formwork supports. All reinforcement used during construction to be stainless steel ribbed grade 500 conforming to BS 6744:2001. The stainless steel grade to be type 1.4301 to IS EN 10088. Any other exposed or non-exposed metallic elements provided as part of the works, such as parapet mesh panels, to be manufactured from stainless steel type 1.4301 to IS EN 10088. The bridge deck to receive a combined anti-skid surfacing and waterproofing coat. Careful detailing of all elements to shed water from the structure. Use of trial panels to allow the contractor to develop his construction proposals for the complex bridge geometry in advance of construction proper (Figures 10 and 11).

The replacement structure was designed as a two-pinned arch. Analysis was undertaken using the LUSAS finite element system and design was undertaken to British Standard BS 5400. The live loading consisted of 5 kN/m2 nominal pedestrian loading and a maintenance vehicle load case.

5.

Tender process

Tender documents were issued to four prequalified contractors in November 2006. Three tenders were returned in December 2006. Tenders ranged from J2?02 m to J4?01 m (excluding

Figure 10. Trial panel comprising arch rib section at trestle support

Figure 11. Trial panel (laid flat)

222

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

VAT). All tenders were in excess of the budget provision. Tenders were submitted at the peak of the recent construction boom in Ireland and there was uncertainty whether a contract agreement based on the tender would deliver value for money. The tender process was closed at this point. Alternative procurements strategies were examined in early 2007. These included early contractor involvement and the competitive dialogue procurement process. The competitive dialogue procurement procedure is prescribed in SI 329/2006 European Communities (Award of Public Authorities Contracts) Regulations, 2006 (Irish Statute Book, 2006a). The procedure involves a contracting authority engaging in a dialogue with candidates, the aim of which is to identify and define the means best fitted to satisfy its needs. The dialogue may be conducted in a number of different stages, which allows a contracting authority to reduce the number of solutions and/ or eliminate tenderers during the dialogue phase. The dialogue continues until the contracting authority can identify the solution(s) meeting its needs. At the end of the dialogue, a contracting authority formally concludes the dialogue and invites candidates to submit final and complete tenders on the basis of the solution(s) presented and specified during the dialogue. Following a prequalification process, four contractors were selected to proceed to the competitive dialogue process. Letters were issued to the candidates in December 2007. The letter invited candidates to identify and define the appropriate solution for the existing bridge replacement in accordance with previous documentation issued for the prequalification process and the following guidelines:
& The preferred replacement solution is a replica of the

The competitive dialogue process was closed when each candidate was informed whether his alternative proposal was deemed acceptable or otherwise to the employer based on the criteria outlined in the tender documentation. Candidates were then asked to submit their financial tenders for the preferred solution (the reinforced concrete replica structure) and/or their alternative proposal when appropriate. Four tenders were received in total, with sums ranging from J1?5 m to J2?4 m (excluding VAT). These comprised three tenders for the preferred solution and one for an acceptable alternative solution. On completion of the tender assessment process, a recommendation was made that the contract be awarded to Irishenco for J1?5 m (excluding VAT) for the construction of a replica structure in reinforced concrete. Funding for the project was provided by Fa ilte Ireland, Cork County Council and CIL. Under an agreement between Cork County Council and CIL, Cork County Council undertook the role of employer and entered into agreement with Irishenco in September 2009 for the demolition and reconstruction of the bridge under the Department of Finance public works contract form for civil engineering works designed by the employer (Department of Finance, 2007).

6.

Construction stage

Works began in October 2009 with measures to improve access to the bridge. There was limited scope to widen the lower reaches of the footway to the mainland abutment. However, the upper reaches of the footway were locally widened to allow limited access for delivery vehicles and construction plant. The maximum plant size that could access the bridge site is shown in Figure 12.

current structure with a slightly wider deck constructed in high durability concrete either reinforced, precast or post/ pretensioned or a combination of some or all of the options for a design life of 120 years. & Taking into account possible restrictions on funding and value for money requirements, consideration will also be given to the following replacement solutions:
&

&

A 120-year design life structure of any structural form and material capable of providing a safe and stable access to the island in weather conditions up to gale force. Similar to immediately above but with a 50-year design life.

The candidates developed proposals that were discussed at individual competitive dialogue meetings. Proposals included stressed ribbon bridges, FRP bridges, carbon steel bridges and high quality stainless steel bridges. Detailed construction proposals were discussed including a proposal from Irishenco to build a bridge to build a bridge.

Figure 12. This articulated mini-dumper was the largest plant size that could access the site. It was driven down and reversed up the steep access paths for the duration of the works

223

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 13. The original arch ribs supporting access scaffold in the back-spans and supports to the existing deck

Figure 14. Erection of the temporary works truss

& Use of the new arch ribs to support the demolition of the

Construction of the trial panel was an early activity in the construction programme. It allowed the engineers, carpenters and reinforcement fixers to develop their detailed construction plans before undertaking the permanent works. The geometry of the bridge was difficult to form. The ribs vary in depth and they are flared out in the back-spans. Where members such as braces and trestles intersect the ribs, the member ends are locally widened with tapering faces. Each of these details was faithfully reproduced from the original bridge and detailed into the new works. The carpenters likened the formwork required to construct the new bridge to cabinet making such was the complexity involved. The trial panel is shown in Figure 11. During the competitive dialogue process, Irishenco proposed the concept of building a bridge, to a build a bridge that is, to construct a temporary bridge before the start of full-scale construction and demolition works. The purpose of this temporary bridge was primarily to act as a fail-safe for the duration of the works. This concept was advanced after the contract was awarded and it fed into the detailed development of Irishencos temporary works design. The temporary works design included:
& Use of the existing arch ribs to support the construction of

old arch ribs and the construction of other permanent works structural elements. The coordination of these temporary works required careful collaboration between the permanent works designer, the temporary works designers and the contractor. This process was facilitated by the project supervisor design process under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006 (Irish Statute Book, 2006b). Detailed AutoCAD drawings of all the systems and works were merged to eliminate any clashes and to ensure sufficient room was left for demolition and construction works. The temporary works systems are shown in Figures 13, 14 and 15.

the new ribs, an access scaffold in the back-spans and a temporary deck system. & Use of a 52 m long steel truss to span across, and above, the existing bridge deck to act as a fail-safe for the works, to provide support to the main access scaffold and to provide support to an overhead winch and gantry capable of lifting and transporting a safe working load of 1500 kg. & Use of a large-scale scaffold to allow full access to all parts of the central portion of the bridge.
224

Figure 15. The access scaffold supported from the temporary truss and the temporary deck supported from the arch ribs

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Finite element models used for the permanent design were transferred from the design office to the site to allow the resident engineer to model temporary loading situations on the new and old arch ribs. The finite element models were used in conjunction with fixed points established throughout the temporary and permanent works to give an effective method of monitoring the structural systems in place at different periods in the construction and demolition process. The initial construction activity in Irishencos programme was abutment works to facilitate the installation of stainless steel knuckle bearings for the new arch ribs. Irishenco proposed a value engineering alternative to the bearings. The proposal included the use of concrete Mesnager hinges in conjunction with stainless steel reinforcement. This proposal was accepted by the employer.
Figure 17. Demolition of the deck by vibrating wire saw

The detailed methodology for the demolition of the old bridge and the construction of the new bridge involved an integrated process of construction and demolition over several phases. The key stages are described below.

7.

Demolition of suspended deck and hangers and construction of new deck and hangers

The existing deck was propped off the temporary deck and the hangers were removed using circular saws. The existing deck was wire-cut into pieces, which were lowered on to the temporary works deck and removed with the overhead winch (Figures 16 and 17). Formwork was installed for the new deck and edge beams, reinforcement was fixed and the new elements were poured. New hangers were subsequently fixed and poured.

The original arch ribs were used to support falsework for the new ribs. This was an effective way of undertaking the initial setting out for the new ribs. Figure 18 shows the southern arch rib reinforcement in the formwork. Extensive use was made of stainless steel reinforcement couplers throughout the works as there was not enough space for starter bars and the new structural elements were often face to face with original structural elements before demolition activities. The correct setting out of these couplers was achieved through the use of plywood templates based on 1:1 drawings prepared by RPS and verified by Irishenco. This was an important consideration as the different structural elements of the bridge intersect at varying angles and a misplaced coupler would have been difficult to rectify.

8.

Demolition and reconstruction of backspans: trestles, edge beams and deck

The original deck and edge beams in the back-spans were demolished and removed from the bridge. A temporary deck was installed before demolition works. This was supported from the original arch ribs and it allowed the demolition of the deck and edge beams in the back-spans to be undertaken in the same manner as the suspended deck in the centre of the bridge. Trestles, edge beams and deck section were constructed (Figures 19 and 20).

9.

Transfer of loading to the new ribs: demolition of the original ribs and braces

Figure 16. Original deck and hangers removed from the bridge

Before the demolition of the original ribs, all of the temporary works that were relying on the original ribs for support were transferred to the new ribs. As both sets of ribs were located at the same level, the exercise involved a careful inspection of the myriad of support details to ensure that all loads would be transferred smoothly. It was essential that no temporary works
225

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 20. Fixing deck reinforcement

Figure 18. Southern arch rib reinforcement with the original rib visible on the right-hand side

element could snag on other elements on removal of the original ribs. Such a situation could give rise to a suddenly applied load and a crush injury hazard. Supports were also adjusted so that the original ribs would be supported from the new ribs. The new ribs were also braced against each other for stability. Hinges were cut into the original ribs at the springing points. Finally, hinges were cut into the crown of the original ribs. These were gradually reduced and eliminated so that the original ribs were directly supported by the new ribs. Demolition of the ribs now proceeded through the use of concrete circular saws, coring and mechanical expansion jaws (Figures 21 and 22).

Figure 19. Construction of the trestles in the back-spans

Figure 21. Use of circular saw for demolition

226

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 22. Section of demolished arch

Figure 24. Preparing the joint between the deck and the arch at the quarter span

10. Construction of braces and composite deck sections, grouting of Mesnager hinges
The final structural elements to be constructed were the braces between the ribs in the back-spans and the section of deck that is composite with the arch ribs at the quarter-span points (Figures 23 and 24). Following this, the main temporary works were sequentially dismantled and removed from the site. The Mesnager hinges were grouted and the remains of the original arch ribs were finished in concrete to provide a legacy of the original structure (Figure 25).

between client, contractor and engineer. The new structure is a fitting testimony to the original designer and contractor and to CIL who looked after the original structure for 100 years. The new structure (Figure 26) also preserves a landmark feature on the coast of Ireland for future generations to enjoy.

Project team
Funding authorities: Fa ilte Ireland, Cork County Council, Commissioners of Irish Lights. Client: Cork County Council. Consulting engineer and project supervisor for the design process: RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd.

11. Conclusion
The new Mizen Bridge was completed in December 2010. The project was delivered safely to programme and within the scheme budget. It was a project marked by a very successful collaboration

Figure 23. Fixing reinforcement for arch braces: the stainless steel couplers are visible

Figure 25. Completed Mesnager hinge detail with original rib springing points visible

227

Bridge Engineering Volume 166 Issue BE3

The design and construction of the new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

REFERENCES

Anon (1910) Footbridge at Mizen Head, Ireland. Concrete and

Constructional Engineering xxxiv(21): 847850.

Figure 26. The completed structure (2011)

Contractor and project supervisor for the construction stage: Carillion Irishenco Ltd. Contractors temporary works designers: Scott Wilson Benaim (truss, deck); SGB Harsco (access scaffold).

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the funding authorities throughout the project: Fa ilte Ireland, Cork County Council and CIL. The authors wish to thank Mr. Denis Cronin, senior technician, RPS Consulting Engineers for preparing the graphics for this paper. This paper was first presented to a joint meeting of Engineers Ireland, the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Irish Concrete Society in Cork, Ireland, on 8 March 2011.

Civil Engineering Works Designed by the Employer. Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Highways Agency (1990) BA 35/90 Inspection and Repair of Concrete Highway Structures. Highways Agency, London, UK. Highways Agency (2008) BD 85/08 Strengthening Highway Structures using Externally Bonded Fibre Reinforced Polymers. Highways Agency, London, UK. Irish Statute Book (2006a) SI 329/2006 European Communities (Award of Public Authorities Contracts) Regulations 2006. Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Irish Statute Book (2006b) SI 504/2006 Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006. Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. MacCraith S (1990) Performance of an 80 Year Reinforced Concrete Bridge in an Extreme Environment. Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete. Elsevier Applied Science, London. NRA (National Roads Authority) (2000) Specification for Road Works. NRA, Dublin, Ireland. Ruane KD and Healy A (2004) Assessment testing Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Bridge Engineering 157(BE3): 117122. Stephens LF (1974) The Bridge at Mizen Head. Irish Engineers 27(7): 1820. Sutherland J, Humm D and Chrimes M (Eds) (2001) Historic Concrete Background to Appraisal. Thomas Telford, London, UK.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the journal. Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
228