1 Vauxhall Bridge Non-Technical Condition Report 1

Vauxhall Railway Bridge -
Great Yarmouth
Non-Technical Condition Report
November 2010
Norfolk County Council
Vauxhall Railway Bridge -
233897CB01 BNI BSE/NOR 02 A
Great Yarmouth
C:\DOCUME~1\ell48389\OTLocal\Livelink\Workbin\57499AE5.0\Vauxhall
Bridge Non-Technical Condition Report doc
19 October 2010
November 2010
Norfolk County Council
Mott MacDonald, 2nd Floor, East Wing, 69-75 Thorpe Road, Norwich NR1 1UA, United Kingdom
T +44 (0)1603 226 780 F +44 (0) 1603 619 365, www.mottmac.com
Vauxhall Railway Bridge Great Yarmouth
-
Non-Technical Condition Report Mott MacDonald
Issue and revision record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description
A O1/11/200 John Pa inson Gerry Kelly Final
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this
and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used
project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which
used for any other purpose. is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other
parties
This document contains confidential information and proprietary

intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties
without consent from us and from the party which
commissioned it.
Mott MacDonald, 2nd Floor, East Wing, 69-75 Thorpe Road, Norwich NR1 1 UA, United Kingdom
T +44 (0)1603 226 780 F +44 (0) 1603 619 365, www.mottmac.com
Vauxhall Railway Bridge - Great Yarmouth
Content
Chapter Title Page
Executive Summary ix
1. Introduction 1
1.1 General ___________________________________________________________________________ 1
1.2 Access and Inspection Procedure _______________________________________________________ 1
1.3 Topographical and 3D Laser Survey _____________________________________________________ 2
1.4 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) _________________________________________________________ 3
2. Observations 6
2.1 Foundations ________________________________________________________________________ 6
2.2 Lattice arches_______________________________________________________________________ 6
2.3 Western Deck, Transverse Beams _____________________________________________________ 11
2.4 Eastern transverse beams ____________________________________________________________ 13
2.5 West Box Girder____________________________________________________________________ 15
2.6 Central Box Girder __________________________________________________________________ 18
2.7 East Box Girder ____________________________________________________________________ 20
2.8 Footbridge ________________________________________________________________________ 22
3. Conclusions 25
Figures
Figure 1.1: ‘Uncleaned’ 3D laser image of Vauxhall Railway Bridge ______________________________________ 2
Figure 1.2: ‘Uncleaned’ 3D laser image of Vauxhall Railway Bridge ______________________________________ 3
Figure 1.3: Annotated Sectional Elevation on Western Box Girder _______________________________________ 4
Figure 1.4: Plan View on Vauxhall Railway Bridge ___________________________________________________ 5
Figure 2.1: South abutment below footway _________________________________________________________ 6
Figure 2.2: Plan view on lattice arches and bracing___________________________________________________ 7
Figure 2.3: Typical section loss and corrosion of arch lattice gusset plate _________________________________ 7
Figure 2.4: Typical outward movement of the flanges on arch lattices ____________________________________ 8
Figure 2.5: Typical localised total section loss and corrosion at angle sections _____________________________ 9
Figure 2.6: Typical significant section loss to tie rods in west box girder__________________________________ 10
Figure 2.7: Typical total section loss and material delamination at transverse beam WT15 , west span _________ 11
Figure 2.8: Major section loss to western transverse beams ___________________________________________ 12
Figure 2.9: Typical total section loss on web of beam no.WT8 _________________________________________ 12
Figure 2.10: Typical view on transverse beams at east span ___________________________________________ 13
Figure 2.11: Typical section loss on bottom flanges __________________________________________________ 14
Figure 2.12: Typical section loss at end of girder_____________________________________________________ 15
Figure 2.13: Typical section loss to east face of western girder (arrows show position of total section loss) _______ 16
Figure 2.14: Service duct and accumulation of debris along bottom of west box girder (East elevation) __________ 17
Figure 2.15: Total section loss to east elevation of west box girder ______________________________________ 17
Figure 2.16: Typical corrosion to central box girder ___________________________________________________ 18
Figure 2.17: North end of the east elevation of the central girder ________________________________________ 19
Figure 2.18: Typical total section loss and corrosion to plates of central box girder __________________________ 19
Figure 2.19: West elevation of east box girder at north end ____________________________________________ 20
233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 2.20: East elevation of east box girder at north end _____________________________________________ 20
Figure 2.21: Total section loss in bottom of eastern girder, west elevation _________________________________ 21
Figure 2.22: West elevation of east girder at south end________________________________________________ 21
Figure 2.23: Historic impact damage to vertical section on footway span __________________________________ 22
Figure 2.24: Typical section loss at top and bottom flanges of western footway beams _______________________ 23
Figure 2.25: Material loss to web sections adjacent to connection _______________________________________ 23

Executive Summary
In October 2010, Mott MacDonald Ltd. was commissioned by Norfolk County Council to undertake an
inspection of Vauxhall Railway Bridge in Great Yarmouth, in order to assess the current condition of the
structure and also to provide as-built information of the bridge, in order to comment on and assess the
viability or otherwise of its potential restoration and future usage.
The inspection of the structure was undertaken during week commencing 11th October 2010. This report
aims to describe the inspection and briefly summarise the findings of the inspection in a non-technical
manner.
The bridge was found to be in poor condition with surface corrosion, material delamination and section loss
noted throughout the bridge. Significant section loss is evident to the lattice arches, transverse beams and
box girders. The transverse beams to the west span of the deck are considered to be particularly critical,
exhibiting advanced section loss and delamination.
The condition of the timber deck elements to the eastern span is such that decaying timber could become a
hazard to river craft in the short to medium term.
ix
1. Introduction
1.1 General
The inspection of Vauxhall Bridge was undertaken during week commencing 11th October 2010 and was
carried out by Peter Elliott, Zeng Li and Steve Lowe of Mott MacDonald Ltd.
The bridge is a Grade II Listed structure, constructed circa 1850, and is currently owned by Railway Paths
Limited/Sustrans. The original elements of the bridge were constructed from wrought iron and historically
the bridge carried a combination of railways, trams, motor vehicles and pedestrians. However, the bridge
has been closed to traffic for a long period and is in a state of severe disrepair. The bridge is a single span
structure comprising a pair of original half-through decks that utilise a common central plated main box
girder. Subsequently three lattice arches with tie rods have been added to the bridge to provide improved
live load carrying capacity. More recently a cantilevered footbridge has been added to the west side of the
bridge.
The survey works comprised the following activities:
 Close visual inspection using hand tools, camera & camcorder
 2D Topographical and 3D Laser Scanning Survey
 Non-Destructive Testing to establish material thicknesses and section loss
It is thought that a number of as-built drawings are in existence as anecdotal evidence suggests that they
have been seen by a number of people. However, at time of inspection and of writing this report, no
drawings have been obtained or mad available despite searches of the Norfolk Archive Centre and the files
of Railway Paths Limited. An annotated drawing, showing terms used throughout this report, is presented
in Figure 1.3 together with an annotated photograph of a plan view of the bridge in Figure 1.4.
1.2 Access and Inspection Procedure

The lattice arches and longitudinal box plate girders were inspected from a Mobile Elevation Working
Platform (MEWP) from both ends of the bridge. The transverse beams of the bridge deck were inspected
from the River Bure using a pontoon under suitable tide conditions.
The internal areas of the western box girder were inspected from the footway by removal of the access
hatches on the west elevation of the girder. The access hatches were fixed to the girder by bolts. However
the bolts had corroded to such an extent that they had to be ground off using an angle grinder on site. The
internal spaces of the east and central girders were not inspected as it was considered too dangerous to
remove the heavy access hatches from either the pontoon on the river or from the MEWP.
1
Each individual member of the deck was referenced with a unique number and identified on sketches and
used by the inspection team, surveyors and NDT testing team, in order to ensure consistency and
uniformity in recording information. Where access permitted, the vast majority of the structural elements
were inspected to within touching distance. Records, including photographs, video footage and sketch
drawings of corrosion and section loss of each member were made. A number of physical measurements
were undertaken by use of callipers/measuring tapes in order to calibrate the NDT ultrasonic test readings.
Before taking any thickness readings, any loose paint and de-laminated material was removed by hammer
and steel wire brush.
A small number of elements were not able to be reached by either the MEWP or the pontoon due to the
configuration of the arches/bracing and the strong tides which limited inspection time below deck, but it is
considered that the data collected for the elements that were accessible can be extrapolated to give an
indication of the condition of these members.
Since no existing as-built drawings have been located for the bridge, the inspection was also targeted to
provide as-built information for any future structural assessment. General dimensions of the structural
elements were recorded during the inspection. Details of connections, where different sections were riveted
together, were dimensioned and recorded by sketches and photographs.
1.3 Topographical and 3D Laser Survey

The topographical survey and three-dimensional laser scanning survey of the bridge were undertaken by
BB Surveys Ltd. Topographical survey drawings and rendered images were produced after the survey.
Figure 1.1: ‘Uncleaned’ 3D laser image of Vauxhall Railway Bridge
2
Figure 1.2: ‘Uncleaned’ 3D laser image of Vauxhall Railway Bridge
The 3D laser scanning survey was undertaken to capture additional dimensional information to better
supplement the topographical survey. This is primarily to assist in the creation of a computer model of the
bridge to be used for the purposes of analysis and assessment as well as design, should future funds be
made available to develop the scheme.
1.4 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)

NDT was undertaken by Bluelimit Surveys Limited, sub-contracted to BB Surveys Ltd. Material thickness
was determined for members at the three main box girders, the east and central lattice arches and
transverse beams at west and footway spans.
For each plate section of the box girders, approximately three readings were taken, two located at corners
and one at the intermediate area. Three readings were taken for the transverse beams, one at each end of
connections and one at mid span.
3
Figure 1.3: Annotated Sectional Elevation on Western Box Girder
Lattice Arch
Tie Rods
Top Chord Gusset Plate
Bracing
Bottom Chord
Box Girder Access Hatch

Footway Deck
Abutment Transverse Beams
River Bure
4
Figure 1.4: Plan View on Vauxhall Railway Bridge
Eastern Span
Transverse Beams
To
Railway
Station
Western Span
Footway/Cycleway
5
2. Observations
2.1 Foundations
The foundations of the structure are not visible. There is little sign of movement on both abutments of the
main structure with only minor cracking apparent. However, there is diagonal cracking and settlement
visible at the abutments beneath the footway (Figure 2.1), which could indicate differential settlement of the
foundation beneath the footway. According to existing records of the bridge, and the different colour of the
abutment faces below the footway compared with the main bridge, it is assumed that the footway
abutments were constructed at a later date. The level of movement present under the footways is not
considered to be significant at this time.
Figure 2.1: South abutment below footway
2.2 Lattice arches

The lattice arches are in generally fair condition although approximately 85% of the paint system has failed,
resulting in surface corrosion and section loss to all the structural elements (Figure 2.2). Significant section
loss and material delamination are noted in localised areas of the arches. The most significant defects
recorded are as follows:
1. Most of the gusset plates, connecting the angle section bracings, have significant material delamination
and section loss, particularly at the triangular areas adjacent to the top and bottom chords at the ends of
the bridge. In general, approximately 30% - 50% of the thickness has been lost in these areas (Figure
6
2.3). The original thickness of the gusset plates is considered to have been around 12mm (1/2”), since
the maximum thickness measured on site is 11.1mm. However, over 50% of the readings on site are
between 5mm to 7mm with a smallest reading of 3.4mm thick.
Figure 2.2: Plan view on lattice arches and bracing
Typical section
loss to gusset
plates
Figure 2.3: Typical section loss and corrosion of arch lattice gusset plate
2. The top and bottom chords of the lattice arches are made up of four angle sections riveted back to back.
It was noted that a number of the outer flanges of the top and bottom angle sections are opening
7
outward, resulting in a curved profile of the chord at localised areas (Figure). Generally the movement of
these flanges was measured at approximately 10mm outward, compared with the dimension at the
rivets. The precise mechanism of this apparent rotation has not yet been determined.
3. Serious localised material delamination and section loss is noted throughout (Figure 2.5). This may be
due to accumulation of water at the riveted connections of the members.
Typical localised movement to

angle sections on top chord of
lattice arch
Figure 2.4: Typical outward movement of the flanges on arch lattices
Some historic impact damage is evident on the bracing to the lattice arches, presumably by high loads
being transported across the bridge. This damage is not considered to be structurally significant.
8
Typical localised total

section loss to bottom
chord of lattice arch
Figure 2.5: Typical localised total section loss and corrosion at angle sections
4. Nine tie rods connect each lattice arch to the box girders. Below the anchor points, immediately above
the box girders, the single tie rods are replaced with slightly smaller dual tie rods that extend into the
box girders. The tie rods to the two outer arches have a diameter of approximately 47mm while the
centre arch tie rods measure approximately 60mm in diameter. The exposed tie rods above the box
girders are solid with only minor surface corrosion and paint loss. It was not considered safe to enter
fully into the confined space of the box girder without the benefit of specialist equipment thus the tie
rods could not be physically reached/measured. However, the lower sections of tie rods within the
western box girder can be seen to be in poor condition, particularly just above the bottom plates where,
in general, approximately 30-40% of the section diameter has been lost (Figure 2.6). It is considered
highly likely that the eastern and central tie rods, unavailable for inspection, will be similarly affected.
The fixity of the tie rods to the box girders cannot be observed. From internal inspection and
measurement of the western box girder, it is assumed that a false bottom exists within the box girders,
below which the tie rods fix. There is no visible fixing for the tie rods protruding below the outer skin of
the box girders.
9
Original tie
rod diameter
Severely
corroded tie
rod diameter
Figure 2.6: Typical significant section loss to tie rods in west box girder
10
2.3 Western Deck, Transverse Beams

The 22 No. western 150mm wide x 350mm deep transverse beams between the central and west box
girders are generally in very poor condition with all beams exhibiting paint loss and severe corrosion. These
defects are evident over the entire area of the beam surfaces (Figure 2.8), including the top and bottom
flanges as well as the web sections. Significant section loss and material delamination is noted along most
of the beams (Figure 2.7 & Figure 2.9). In localised areas, mainly toward the ends of the beams, the webs
of approximately 50% of the beams have corroded away, resulting in complete section loss/holes through
the web sections. This corrosion will significantly, and adversely, affect the bending and shear capacity of
the beams and deck.
NDT ultrasonic testing was carried on the transverse beams on the west span. The highest value recorded
for the flanges of the beams is 21.2mm at mid-span of the bottom flange of Beam No.WT20, while the
minimum value is only 3.5mm at bottom flange of Beam No.WT2, near the east connection. The thickness
of the web sections is variable with readings between zero (total section loss) and a maximum of 15.4mm
at Beam No. WT7.
Total section
loss to beam
WT15
Figure 2.7: Typical total section loss and material delamination at transverse beam WT15 , west span
11
Figure 2.8: Major section loss to western transverse beams
Total section
loss to web
of beam
WT8
Figure 2.9: Typical total section loss on web of beam no.WT8
12
2.4 Eastern transverse beams

There are 28 No. transverse beams making up the east span of the bridge. Their condition is generally
better than the west span beams, being partially covered with timber decking (thus less exposed). No NDT
was carried out on this span due to time constraints and limited availability of suitable tides; thus the
inspection was mainly concentrated on the dimensional and construction information as well as general
defects.
The east span deck consists of two different beam sizes: the smaller beams are approximately 310mm in
depth and 150mm in width with 18mm thick flanges and 10mm thick webs. The larger beams are
approximately 310mm in depth, 310mm in width with 15mm thick flanges and 20mm thick webs.
The webs of the transverse beams are in fair condition. Paint loss and surface corrosion are evident along
most web sections with material delamination and section loss noted in localised areas of the webs (Figure
2.10). The top and bottom flanges of the transverse beams are generally in poor condition with material
delamination and serious localised section loss evident along most of the top and bottom flanges (Figure
2.11).
The sections at both ends of the beams, where the transverse beams connect to the longitudinal box
girders have paint loss and corrosion at their surfaces. The plates and riveted connections are considered
to be generally sound with few significant defects.
Figure 2.10: Typical view on transverse beams at east span
13
Figure 2.11: Typical section loss on bottom flanges
There is a possibility that continuing decay of the timber decking to the eastern span could lead to the
bridge becoming hazardous to river craft in the short to medium term. A number of loose elements of the
timber deck were removed by the inspection team during the inspection in order to maintain safety in the
immediate future. Regular inspections of parts of the structure that could comprise an ongoing safety
hazard should be carried out at regular intervals.
14
2.5 West Box Girder

The three box girders are made up from differing sizes of plates that are riveted together to form the boxes.
The dimensions of the plates are variable and would appear to have been dictated by the availability of
suitable material at time of construction.
The west box girder is in very poor condition. The west face of the box girder was inspected from the
footbridge while the east face was inspected from the MEWP. The western access hatch covers were cut
off and an internal visual inspection was carried out with photographs and video footage being taken.
At the west elevation of the girder, paint loss and general surface corrosion is noted across the entire
surface. Serious section loss is noted in localised areas, this has resulted in holes through the plates
(Figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12: Typical section loss at end of girder
15
Typical total
section loss to
box girder
Figure 2.13: Typical section loss to east face of western girder (arrows show position of total section loss)
The east elevation of the western girder is in far poorer condition than the west face. There is a service
pipe running along the bridge adjacent to the bottom of the east elevation, against which dirt and debris has
accumulated over many years with vegetation growth therein, holding moisture. The plates that have been
covered by the dirt and moisture-laden debris were found to be seriously corroded along the entire length
of the beam. While difficult to show adequately on a photograph, total section loss is clearly visible along
the full length of the box in these areas (Figure 2.14).
From internal inspection through the service hatches, it is evident that large areas of the plates making up
the girder have also corroded away beneath the original timber deck level (Figure 2.15).
16
Figure 2.14: Service duct and accumulation of debris along bottom of west box girder (East elevation)
Figure 2.15: Total section loss to east elevation of west box girder
17
2.6 Central Box Girder

The central box girder is in a similar condition to the west box girder. On the west elevation, there are two
large holes at the south end of the girder. A service pipe is running along the bottom at west elevation and
it is noted that large areas of corrosion and section loss have occurred to the beam at locations along the
length of the pipe (Figure 2.16).
Figure 2.16: Typical corrosion to central box girder
On the east elevation of the girder, the bottom part of the girder is under the existing timber deck. Localised
holes are detected along the top of the box girder, particularly at the north end (Figure 2.17). Significant
material loss is also noted below the timber deck level, at the bottom of the box web (Figure 2.18).
18
Figure 2.17: North end of the east elevation of the central girder
Figure 2.18: Typical total section loss and corrosion to plates of central box girder
19
2.7 East Box Girder

The east box girder is similarly affected by corrosion and section loss as well as loose material on the
surface of the girder. Large holes are noted at both elevations, particularly along the top and bottom webs
(Figure 2.19, Figure 2.20, Figure 2.21 and Figure 2.22).
Figure 2.19: West elevation of east box girder at north end
Figure 2.20: East elevation of east box girder at north end
20
Figure 2.21: Total section loss in bottom of eastern girder, west elevation
Figure 2.22: West elevation of east girder at south end
21
2.8 Footbridge
The footbridge is connected to the west elevation of the main bridge, and is supported both by the west box
girder and the bow-spring arch. Timber plank decking is placed on top of the transverse beams. Before
commencement of the inspection, a timber footway plank had collapsed and the footbridge had been
closed to pedestrians & cyclists in the interest of public safety. Minor impact damage is evident to the
vertical elements of the footway span (Figure 2.23).
Figure 2.23: Historic impact damage to vertical section on footway span
Generally the footbridge is in fair condition with the most significant defects noted on site recorded as
follows:
1. Paint loss and surface corrosion are evident over large areas of the arch.
2. The transverse beams beneath the timber deck are in fair condition although significant section loss and
delamination is evident over large areas of the top and bottom flanges (Figure 2.24). The webs are in
better condition although material corrosion and section loss are also detected, particularly adjacent to
the connections at both sides (Figure 2.25). NDT was carried out on the transverse beams of the
footway. The highest recorded thickness of the webs is 13.3mm with a minimum thickness of only
0.7mm where severe corrosion is present. The maximum thickness of the top flanges is 16mm while the
minimum thickness is 7.8mm, indicating loss of half of the material. At the bottom flanges, the maximum
thickness is 16.2mm with a minimum value of 9.3mm.
22
Figure 2.24: Typical section loss at top and bottom flanges of western footway beams
Figure 2.25: Material loss to web sections adjacent to connection
3. The timber decking to the footway span was inspected by a Railway Paths Limited Bridge Engineer on
the Friday preceding the main inspection. The engineer marked up a number of deck planks that were
considered to be rotten and in need of replacement. The timber planks that were considered to be rotten
were replaced during w/c 25 October 2010 after which, the footway/cycleway was reopened to
23
members of the public. While the majority of the timber planks are generally in serviceable condition, the
anti-slip surface coating is worn away over large areas of the deck.
24
3. Conclusions
The bridge is in poor condition and a lack of maintenance is clearly evident. There are consistent defects
(e.g. material corrosion, delamination and section loss) affecting almost all of the structural elements of the
bridge. Although surface corrosion is evident to most of the rivets, the riveted connections themselves are
still, generally, solid and found to be secure at the time of the inspection.
The condition of the lattice arches is considered to be slightly better than the deck elements. Impact
damage, presumably historic by high vehicles, is noted to some of the bracing members to the lattice
arches.
There is more significant section loss evident to the deck elements, particularly to the transverse beams of
the west span and the western box girder. It is considered likely that the level of corrosion affecting these
elements is such as to rule out any economically viable repair option.
The main eastern span, eastern box girder and central box girder are generally in better condition than the
western span – albeit that all are exhibiting localised severe corrosion and total section loss.
The footway structural elements are in fair condition – these being more recent and better protected than
the old transport-carrying spans.
Given the age and condition of the bridge it is likely that the structure, or elements thereof, could start to
become hazardous to river craft in the short to medium term (e.g. decaying eastern span deck timbers
could potentially fall into the river).
The data collected during the inspection for assessment is adequate to allow further assessment of the
structure to establish the viability of any proposed option, be it repair and refurbishment, partial demolition
or demolition and replacement.
25

1 Vauxhall Bridge Non-Technical Condition Report 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

1 Vauxhall Bridge Non-Technical Condition Report 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vauxhall Railway Bridge -

Non-Technical Condition Report

Norfolk County Council

Non-Technical Condition Report Mott MacDonald

Issue and revision record

A O1/11/200 John Pa inson Gerry Kelly Final

This document contains confidential information and proprietary

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

The survey works comprised the following activities:

 Close visual inspection using hand tools, camera & camcorder

 2D Topographical and 3D Laser Scanning Survey

 Non-Destructive Testing to establish material thicknesses and section loss

1.2 Access and Inspection Procedure

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

1.3 Topographical and 3D Laser Survey

Figure 1.1: ‘Uncleaned’ 3D laser image of Vauxhall Railway Bridge

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 1.2: ‘Uncleaned’ 3D laser image of Vauxhall Railway Bridge

1.4 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 1.3: Annotated Sectional Elevation on Western Box Girder

Box Girder Access Hatch

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 1.4: Plan View on Vauxhall Railway Bridge

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 2.1: South abutment below footway

2.2 Lattice arches

Figure 2.2: Plan view on lattice arches and bracing

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Typical localised movement to

Figure 2.4: Typical outward movement of the flanges on arch lattices

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Typical localised total

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

2.3 Western Deck, Transverse Beams

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 2.8: Major section loss to western transverse beams

Figure 2.9: Typical total section loss on web of beam no.WT8

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

2.4 Eastern transverse beams

Figure 2.10: Typical view on transverse beams at east span

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 2.11: Typical section loss on bottom flanges

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

2.5 West Box Girder

Figure 2.12: Typical section loss at end of girder

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

2.6 Central Box Girder

Figure 2.16: Typical corrosion to central box girder

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

2.7 East Box Girder

Figure 2.19: West elevation of east box girder at north end

Figure 2.20: East elevation of east box girder at north end

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010

Figure 2.22: West elevation of east girder at south end

233897CB01/BNI/BSE/NOR/02/A 19 October 2010