Proceedings of Bridge Engineering 2 Conference 2010

April 2010, University of Bath, Bath, UK

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BRITANNIA BRIDGE, WALES

S. M. Collingwood1
1
Undergraduate Student - University of Bath

Abstract: An overview of the re-design and construction of The Britannia Bridge following the deterioration of the
original structure due fire damage. Emphasis is placed upon the difficulties in constructing a new bridge around an
existing one, whilst trying to keep the bridge open for use. The aesthetic properties of the bridge are analysed by
Leonhardt’s 10 rules. The loading on the main steel arch spans are considered in respect to BS 5400 during various
stages of the reconstruction.

Keywords: Britannia, arch , truss, railway

a continuously supported beam. The railway lines ran

1 Introduction through the inside of the tubes, one direction in the up
tube, one direction in the down tube. These tubes
In 1838 George Stephenson proposed the
consist of malleable iron plates that are riveted to L and
extension of the London-Chester railway line to
T sections of iron to form a rectangular section with
Holyhead. In order to reach Holyhead the railway line
celled top and bottom flanges (Ref. [2]). These
had navigate the Menai Straits in North Wales. The
wrought iron tubes sat upon five abutments and towers
route surveyed by Stephenson suggested the most
constructed out of Anglesea marble, shown in Fig 2.
suitable bridging point across the Menai Straits would
be where Britannia Rock lay in the middle of the
channel to provide a location for a central pier, shown
in Fig. 1.

Figure 2: Artistic impression of original Britannia

Bridge (Ref. [1])
Figure 1: Map of Location of Britannia Rock
Until the construction of the Britannia Bridge the
(Ref. [1])
longest spanning cast iron beam bridge was the rail
bridge over the River Arno on the Florence and
The main design criteria influencing early design
Longhorn line, which was also designed by Robert
was that the admiralty required the channel beneath the
Stephenson, at 18.3m long, although this was later
proposed bridge to be navigable both during and after
increased to 31.7m by Edwin Clark through the use of
construction. The design chosen in 1845 to do this was
wrought iron rods to form a truss beam (Ref. [1]).
that of Robert Stephenson’s, a 4 span wrought iron box
Therefore it can be seen that the development of the
girder bridge (Ref. [1]).
box girder beam for the Britannia Bridge is of
The bridge consisted of two central spans of 460ft
significant historical importance, assisting in the
(140m) and two approach spans of 230ft (70m). The
advancement of possible bridge spans at the time (Ref.
bridge was constructed out of eight separate wrought
[3]).
iron tubes that were joined together in fours, to make
Between the 23th -25th May 1970 there was a fire
two parallel tubes each 1,513ft ( 461m) long, that act as
caused by the accidental ignition of a highly flammable
1
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
timber joint, that was covered in hessian tar, that joins
the wrought iron tubes with the stone entrance. The fire
spread vertically and set alight the roof canopy
designed to protect the tubing (Ref. [4]). Severe
damage took place with structural continuity of both
the up and down tubes broken over the central 3 towers
and severe sagging was observed. There were also
signs of vertical corrugations of the plates on the side
of the bridge.
The bridge was considered unsafe and all rail
traffic was suspended. (Ref. [5]).

2 Design Considerations
One of the main problems with the Britannia
Bridge was the breaking of the cast iron races guiding
the roller and ball bearings carrying the tubes. There
were grave concerns that the tubes would slip off its
bearings and into the channel. The engineers involved
with the redesign had the objectives of restoring the Figure 3: Photograph of the New Steel arch truss
rail traffic at the earliest opportunity and the safe design (Ref. [6])
removal of the damaged wrought iron tubes, but
without generating unnecessary construction costs 3 Design
(Ref. [5]).
The removal of the damaged tubes was a key It was decided that the bridge would consist of a
consideration. In order to remove the tubes in their two spandrel arch. The arch would be constructed out
entirety at least two of the largest floating cranes of steel box sections and the truss elements out of H-
available at the time would have been required and the sections. For ease of construction all the arches would
operation would have to be conducted in an area of be constructed out of 22 inch flange lengths and 42
water with greatly fluctuating tides. It was decided that inch web lengths, the thickness out of the steel would
this method posed too many risks and costs. The option vary between 1.25-1.75 inches thick. The railway
of reverse jacking the tubes back down the slots in the would run a single track on one side of the lower deck
tower used to raise them was considered. But it was where the original tubes once were, with a concrete
calculated that the tubes in their present condition upper road way for the road traffic, see Fig. 4.
would be unable to withstand the process (Ref. [5]).
It was concluded that the new structure must be
able to fully support the existing tubes, so that they
may be dismantled and removed in sections.
The Welsh Office for the Department of the
environment had shown interest in the redesign
incorporating an upper road deck carrying a relief road
for the over congested Menai Bridge, shown on Fig.1.)
The selected method for achieving the above
considerations would be to build arches underneath the
main spans, making use of the undamaged piers and
towers. The approach spans would be replaced with
new box girder spans, shown in Fig. 3.
The main design consideration left was to be the
construction material of the arch, be it steel or
concrete. Steel was preferred on the basis that it could
be prefabricated off-site and floated in for quick
construction. Steel would provide a lighter design that
would allow more economical abutments to be
designed. At the time British Steel also promised to
heavily prioritize steel construction for the bridge (Ref.
[5]).

Figure 4: Section of arch at mid-span (in direction of

Britannia Tower) (Ref. [5])

2
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
 it is viewed from an angle it has a high order with lots
of edges and lines intersecting making it look untidy.
4 Aesthetics
4.4 Refinement of Design
One of the factors also affecting the design of the
new bridge was its aesthetic qualities. The engineers Subtle extra details can greatly improve the overall
working on the project felt that due to the fire damage, aesthetics of the structure. In this case the use of
they would be unable to restore the bridge to a similar tapering columns to stop the illogical impression that
outward appearance. One of the important aesthetic the top of a column is wider than the base. The
considerations of the original bridge was the increasing masonry towers taper from 62ft by 52ft 5 inches and
depth of the box girder sections from the sides towards the bottom to 55ft by 32ft underneath the level of the
the center (Ref. [5]). original tubes (Ref. [2]) in order to create this
The original bridge had been set in the landscape impression. There is also detailing at the top of the
for 100 years and it was important that the new towers, as shown by fig 5, designed to make the top of
Britannia Bridge was sympathetic towards the old, the towers look more refined. There are two limestone
maintaining the character it had developed. lions at both ends of the bridge, purely for decorative
In the 20th Century Fritz Leonhardt developed ten purposes, and an example of Victorian grandeur.
areas of aesthetics that need to be considered when
designing a bridge to ensure that it is not considered
objectionable (Ref. [7]).

4.1 Fulfillment of Function

Leonhardt proposed that the bridge should clearly

be shown to fulfill its function. The purpose of the new
Britannia Bridge was to re-establish the rail
connections across the Menai Straits and provide a new
road crossing. The bridge clearly has achieved this, it is
plain to see that the vertical loads are transmitted
through the bridge deck to the truss elements that
transfer the load to the steel arch. One misconception
could be that the horizontal thrust from the arches is Figure 4: Artists View of the abutment area (Ref. [1])
resisted by the masonry towers. This is not the case and
the load is transferred via reinforced concrete down The additional new structure contains little refinement
into the bedrock. as it focus was more upon speed and ease of
construction
4.2 Proportions of the Bridge
4.5 Texture
It was also put forward by Leonhardt that a bridge
required balance between its masses and voids, light The variety of textures created by material choices
and shadows, but also in its spans and depths. The can be beneficial to the appeal of a bridge. The
Britannia Bridge has open spandrels that are in stark weathered masonry piers have a rough and complex
contrast to the masonry towers. These masonry towers texture that makes them interesting. Similarly the truss
look heavy by modern standards as they are the contains a large number of bolts that upon inspection
original towers from the original bridge .The arch provide novel textures but when viewing from a
sections and the lower deck also looks heavy in distance it isn’t possible to see these subtleties. The
relation to the other elements in the structure. This may concrete elements appear smooth and uninteresting
be because they have the additional redundant capacity from a viewing distance.
to carry the excess loading of the original wrought iron
tubes. But as they are the main loading bearing 4.6 Colour
elements it doesn’t look incongruous. There is a good
balance between the shadow creating by the different Colour can be used to highlight or detract from
structural layers and the light that it allows through. elements of a bridge to make them appear thinner or
more noticeable. The arch and lower bridge deck, as
4.3 Order within the structure discussed earlier, appear heavy but this is somewhat
offset by the whiter appearance of them that makes
If a bridge has a lot of lines and edges it can them appear lighter.
become a mental disquiet to the beholder (Ref. [7]).
This is a drawback of the truss type construction. When

3
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
4.7 Character 4.10 Nature

The original Britannia Bridge had a lot of Over time nature has developed some of the most
character due to its historical value. The loss of the beautiful and brilliant structural designs. Leonhardt
original box section appearance and continuous beam proposed that by incorporating elements of nature into
function could therefore be described as diminishing the structural design you would arrive at an elegant
the bridge’s character. However, the final design solution. However, this is not the case for the Britannia
chosen for the rebuild bears a striking resemblance to Bridge, which lacks distinctly in a natural theme but
an initial design proposed by Thomas Telford and rather pays homage to the efficiency and functionality
Rennie, Fig. 5. The proposal anticipated spanning the necessary for continuing the second industrial
two main sections with cast iron arches, although this revolution occurring at the time.
was rejected on the basis that it impeded the navigation
criteria set out by the admiralty (Ref. [1])

Figure 5: Artistic Impression of Telford and Rennie

(Ref. [1])

The bridge as it stands now can be viewed as a 4.11 Aesthetics Summary

composite of many different ideas across 150 years and
this gives it a tremendous amount of character. The rules outlined by Leonhardt are not a
comprehensive set of absolute principles that will
4.8 Integration into the Environment produce a beautiful bridge every time aesthetics are
subjective to the critical beholder. The Britannia Bridge
The modern bridge upholds many of the original follows several of Leonhardts rules but is truer to
aspects of the bridge which has been part of the function and its original heritage which was created
environment for a long as there is living memory. The before these rules of aesthetics were derived and
bridge now serves the needs to the local and national documented.
communities to a higher level with the addition of the
road. It is sufficiently in keeping with its previous 4 Construction Method
incarnation to be considered integrated with its
environment. As mentioned previously the arch units were
constructed out of steel and prefabricated offsite. The
4.9 Complexity arches were prefabricated at the harbor of Port
Dinorwig, which lies 2 miles away. At the harbor 8
In order for a bridge to be visually stimulating it erection bays were constructed so that the arches could
needs a degree of complexity which may appear be constructed on heavy gauge bogies and transferred
contradictory to other principles such as having low onto purpose built pontoons that could be attached to
order. It is important that a balance is met so that a the dock wall at low tide.
bridge requires time to appreciated without appearing These pontoons were then transported to site by
chaotic. The Britannia Bridge has many different being pulled by 2 tugs. It was timed so that they arrived
elements and can be seen as complex with different onsite during slack water to try and mitigate the effects
structural mechanisms used on different spans. It is of the strong tide, which would make accurate
also a double decker bridge that makes it more construction difficult. Once onsite, the pontoons were
complicated. Though interesting as discussed in the moored into position and attached by mooring lies to
order sections it can be confusing with too much going the bridge itself and purposely positioned buoys.
on. On the next slack tide a lifting gantry raised the
arches into place. Construction of the arches used a
cantilever method of construction. The half arches
attached to Britannia Tower were tied back to together

4
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
with steel rods to each other so not to produce any flange, whereupon the weight transferred to the trestle
moments. The half arches on the landward towers were tower. The loose components were then transferred
tied to the approach spans. along the track to the ends where they could be safely
The arches were designed so they could both be removed.
closed into 3 pin arches at the same time. If one of the The up tube could then be replaced with a new rail
spans was completed first and its tying back force deck. The railway was then transferred to the newly
released it was calculated that the horizontal force completed track and the down tube was dismantled in a
generated would cause a high shear load at the mid similar fashion.
span and this would cause the failure the bottom Once the railway was complete and the old tubes
bracing cord bearings that were designed to only rotate removed, the upper road deck was constructed out of
sufficiently to allow both 3 pin arches to form 2 pin concrete (Ref. [8]).
arches as shown in Fig. 6 (Ref. [8]).

Figure 6: Construction sequence of the arches (Ref.

[5])

In order to produce suitable dry conditions within

which to build the concrete foundations for the arches,
sheet pile cofferdams were constructed around the
bases of the Britannia and Anglesey towers and the
water pumped away. Simpler trench sheeting was then
deemed suitable to have the same effect at Caernarvon
Tower due to different ground conditions.
Whilst the arches were being constructed the
openings in the towers were being increased to make
space for the upper road deck and conform to new
British rail clearances. The deck for the steel arch was
laid in prefabricated units.
Flat jacks where used to attempt to uniformly
transfer the load of the existing tubes on to the new Figure 7: Picture of the dismantling of wrought iron
structure. It was determined that once this was tubes (Ref. [5])
completed that the bottom section of the existing tubes
had sufficient bearing capacity as to be able to carry
the railway. The railway was temporarily resumed
through the down tube.
Meanwhile the up tube was being dismantled. A
railway line was also run through the up tube that
carried a heavy trestle tower driven by a locomotive,
see Fig.7. The tubes were cut into 15 ft long pieces and
attached to the locomotive trestle tower. The roof and
sides of the tubes were then cut free of the bottom

5
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
5 Loading
During the construction of the new bridge the
arches would have to resist a variety of loads acting in Deadload Steel Reinforced Ballast Track
different combinations. The load cases considered to be Concrete
most adverse during both construction and completion Main 38.29 11.61 5.88 1.26
by the design team are shown in Fig.10 ( Ref. [5]). Arches
The new structure must be able to withstand its (including
self-weight, the load from the existing wrought iron parapets &
tubes, rail traffic and vehicle traffic loading, as well as inspection
the wind loading and secondary stresses caused by the walkways
variation in differential temperature. When initial Upper 11.66 39.07
designs of the new structure took place they were Road deck
working from loading under BS: 153 Part 3 (Ref. [5]). Lower 2.87 9.77
However as BS 5400 has superseded this now and shall Road
be the basis for the loading analysed on the structure access way
(Ref. [9]). Figure 8: Approximate Total Dead Loads for both
All the loads being applied to the structure must main spans Mega Newton’s (Ref. [5])
first be multiplied by two partial factors. ߛFL a partial
load factor and ߛf3 a factor to account for any
inaccuracies that may occur during analysis. For steel 5.2 Primary Live Loads
bridges ߛf3 = 1.00 for Serviceability limit state (SLS)
and 1.10 for Ultimate Limit state (ULS) (Ref. [9]). The bridge will experience a variety of primary
live loads during its construction. During the early
stages of construction the bridge will have to support
the weight of the wrought iron tubes with a loading of
17.2 MN each (Ref. [5]). Initially, both tubes will have
to be supported; following the removal of one tube, the
5.1 Loading Combinations remaining tube will act on the arch with an eccentric
load which may cause torsional problems.
British Standards requires that five load There will also be primary live loads due to the
combinations are verified for both SLS and ULS. The railway loading. The Britannia Bridge has been
combinations are (Ref. [7]): redesigned so that that the bridge will run with a single
1. All permanent loads, plus any primary track across it. BS 5400 typical load case for standard
live loads (also secondary live loads if a railway loading, RU, is shown in Fig.9. This loading is
rail bridge) applied to each of the two rails at the same time. Once
2. Combination 1, with the addition of wind again, as the position of the railway track varies during
loading and temporary erection loads construction, (shown in Fig. 10) there is a possibility
3. Combination 1, with the addition of the that large torsional forces will be developed in the arch
effect of temperature and temporary spans.
erection loads
4. All permanent loads, secondary live loads
and their associated primary live loads
5. All permanent loads plus loads due to
friction at the supports.

Figure 9: Standard RU loading to be applied per

5.1 Dead Load
rail according to BS 5400 (Ref. [9])
Under all load cases the bridge must resist its self-
The above loading represents the static load case based
weight. For the design of steel bridges ߛFL = 1.05 for
on the weight of the trains and the point loads produced
ULS and 1.00 for SLS which will be applied to the
by the wheel contact with the rail. However, a train
dead load.
load is not static it is a dynamic load, hence the load
The estimation of the dead load is shown in fig. 8.
case needs to be adjusted in order to account for

6
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
Figure 10: Loading cases considered on the main and under load combination 3= 1.2. For all SLS ߛFL
spans (Ref. [5]) =1.0
The bridge will also be required to resist the
impacts, oscillations and other dynamic effects the primary live loads of the road traffic. During the initial
loadings in design of the bridge the main traffic loading considered
was that of HA loading. The ratio of loading between
the road live loads and the dead load and the railway
Fig. 9 must be multiplied by a dynamic factor, BS 5400 live load combined was in the order of 1:7 and
Clause 8.2.3. The dynamic factor can be seen in Figure therefore it was considered suitable to apply just HA
11 . loading (Ref. [5]). The carriage way was considered to
have 3 notional lanes, as shown in Fig. 10.
Figure 11: Dynamic factors according to BS 5400
(Ref. [9])
HA Loading consists of a uniformly distributed
load (UDL) acting across the notional lanes as well as a
knife-edge load (KEL). For a HA UDL acting over the
arch span of 134m, the required magnitude is 20.9
kN/m per notional lane. The KEL per notional lane is
120kN placed in the most adverse conditions.

5.3 Secondary Live Loads

The length of the influence line for an arch The railway loading will also produce several
structure is half of its span (Ref. [9]). As the span of the secondary live loads such as lurching. Lurching is the
main arches in the Britannia Bridge is 134m, transfer of the live load from one rail to the other and is
evaluating fig. 8 produces a dynamic factor of 1.00. taken into account by the dynamic factor.
The partial load factor for the rail primary and Nosing is another secondary live load associated
with rail loadings. Nosing considers the lateral loading
secondary live loads, ߛFL, for the ULS under load
combination 1= 1.4, under load combination 2= 1,2 a train may impart on a rail. It is represented by a

7
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
single point load of 100kN acting perpendicular to the With
direction of the rail (Ref. [9]).
If there is curvature in the track the train may also q=0.613vc2 (4)
cause a loading due to centrifugal force, but this is not
the case as the track across the Britannia Bridge is
straight.
The tranverse wind load is 3.2 MN for each of the main
The longitudinal loading caused by braking and
spans.
traction forces can be evaluated from Table 18 in BS
5400 Part 2. The longitudinal load due to traction is
750kN applied in the direction of travel (Ref. [9]). The
braking forces can be evaluated from equation 1. 5.4.1 Longitudinal wind loading

The longitudinal wind loading can be given by

equation 5.

Braking Force = [20(L-7) + 250] (1) Pv = qA3CL. (5)

By obtaining the factors from BS 5400 for the

Britannia Bridge this can be evaluated at 59kN.
= 2960kN
5.5 Temperature Effects
Therefore the maximum longitudinal load applied is The variation in effective temperature will cause
3710kN. elements in the bridge to expand or contract. As the
There are also secondary live loads associated with members are held in place by one another this will
HA loading. The longitudinal loading associated with generate unwanted stresses and strains.
trucks is represented as a 8kN/m UDL across the width There are also stresses produced by a difference in
of the notional lanes and a single 200kN point load. temperatures between elements. During construction of
The skidding of a vehicle is considered as a single 250 the new bridge a variation of up to 20oc was measured
kN point load in any direction in one notional lane between elements in direct sunlight and shade. The
only. Once again, as with rail loading, centrifugal effect of temperature has been mitigated by the use of
loading will not be applicable. Impact loading expansion joints in both the rails and road deck above
considerations would also be investigated. the landside towers and Britannia tower (Ref. [5]).

5 Strength

5.4 Wind Loading The ULS and SLS for the above loadings were
considered for all stages of construction by the use of a
The wind pressures will cause additional loading Finite Element package, Electronic Calculus
on the structure that needs to be considered. The wind Incorporated (ECI) programs 201 and 631. Performing
pressures can cause transverse, longitudinal and uplift initial 2D and the 3D analysis (Ref. [5]).
loading. As shown by Fig. 9 the main concerns in this As mentioned previously the arches used in the
design were those of transverse and longitudinal main spans were designed to act as a 2 pin arch. As the
loading, as uplift is unlikely due to the high self-weight dead load of the structure combined with rail and road
of the bridge. live loads are higher than any other load, it is possible
to estimate the present bending moments in the arch by
using load combination 1. As shown in Fig. 9, this load
5.4.1 Transverse wind loading combination will be applied both to the full-span and
half-span to see which produces the more critical
The maximum wind gust can be calculated from bending moment.
equation 2. When the factored combination loading 1 was
considered on the arch structure loaded as a whole. The
Vc = vK1S1S2 (2) maximum sagging moment that the arch has to resist
was 34.4 MNm, with a higher hogging moment of
Based upon factors taken from BS5400 vc for 38.8MNm. The bending moment diagram for the
Britannia Bridge can be evaluated as 68.9 m/s. The structure is shown in Fig.12.
transverse wind load can then be evaluated by equation
3.
Pt=qA1CD (3)

8
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk
 7 Durability

The steel Britannia

ritannia Bridge was considered
con to be at
risk to attack by corrosion due d to the proximity of the
bridge to the sea and the high winds this likelihood is
further increased. The designers thought that there
might also be an issue that some of the steelwork
would be unable to be accessed
accesse once the bridge was
completed to perform any maintenance required.
All the steel work used in the bridge underwent
Figure 12: Bending Moment diagram with Load high quality
ality grit blasting to ensure all rust and dirt from
Combination 1applied across whole span the steel mill was removed. The steel was then also als
treated by being sprayed with aluminum.
There are a large number of bolted connections in
the Britannia Bridge. These bolted connections are
subject to fatigue. The repeated cyclic loading of the
bridge, due to its dynamic live loading, will constantly
It was interesting to see that the loading on the place
ace the connections under a varying amount of stress.
structure became more critical when the live loading This can cause the bolts to loosen and allow more
was only applied to half the structure. In this case the flexibility than has been allowed for. The result of this
sagging moment increased to 49.1 MNm and the is that the deflections at serviceability limit state can be
hogging moment to the most critical 67.4 MNm, as higher than predicted causing difficulties
dif with the rail
seen in Fig.11. track alignment.

8 Foundations

The foundations for the arch springings are

designed to transmit the thrust from the arch into the
bedrock. The foundations are heavily
heavi reinforced
concrete blocks that transfer the load down by a
mixture of shear and bending. The condition of the
bases of the masonry towers was also investigated.
This was done by exploratory drilling. Any cavities
discovered were filled by pressure grouting. The
bearing capacity of the bedrock was 1180kN/m2 (Ref.
[5]) .
Figure 13: Bending Moment diagram with Load
Combination 1applied with permanent loads across the
whole span and live loads across half the span 9 Cost

It is estimated that the reconstruction of the bridge

to make it safe for rail traffic was £5.5 million. The
6 Natural Frequency vast majority of that was spent on the contractor’s
building cost. It cost an addition £4.75 million to
The natural frequency of a bridge of this construct the upper road deck and build the new
magnitude is very important. If the dynamic loading of approach ways to divert the traffic
the bridge from the railway track is similar to that of
the natural frequency, unwanted oscillations can occur.
The same effect can occur from the variation
ariation in wind 10 Future Changes
forces acting on the structure. These oscillations
magnify the effects of a load and can cause During 2006 Atkins ltd was tasked by the Welsh
catastrophic failure. Assembly Government to determine different options
for increasing the road traffic carrying capacity of the
Britannia Bridge., which they undertook in November
2007.

9
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@batth.ac.uk
 Atkins reported that they had 3 main options, which References
were, firstly to try and widen the existing carriage way
to increase the capacity of the existing structure.
Alternatively, to construct a new multi-span structure
out of concrete alongside the existing bridge or [1] RYALL, M.J, 1999. Britannia Bridge: from
construct a new single span cable-stayed bridge next to concept to construction, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs,
Britannia Bridge. Civ. Engng 132, May/August 132-146, Paper
These options were than subject to a public 11736.
consultation exercise to investigate how the public felt
[2] DEMPSEY G. DRYDALE, 1864. Tubular and
about the matter. It was interesting to see the public’s
other Iron Girder Bridges, particulary describing
primary concern was that the reduction of current
the Britannia and Conway Tubular Bridges, Virtue
congestion and that safety was the next most important
Brothers and Co. London. Reprinted 1970,
factor. The history and heritage of the bridge was only
Redwood Press Limited, London.
the third most important factor to the public in design
considerations. 22% of people preferred the option to [3] INTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, 2008. ICE
widen the existing bridge. 70% of people preferred the manual of Bridge Engineering, Second Edition,
option of constructing a new bridge alongside the Thomas Telford Ltd, London.
existing one (Ref. [10]).
[4] CAERNARVONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
FIRE BRIGADE & ANGELESEY COUNTY
COUNCIL FIRE DEPARTMENT, 1970. A Joint
Report on A Fire in The Britannia Tubular
Recommendations Bridge, Menai Straits On Saturday – May 23rd
1970.

Given the already extensive history of the Britannia [5] H C HUSBAND, 1975. Reconstruction of the
Bridge it seems illogical to construct a new bridge Britannia Bridge Part 1: Design, Proc. Instn Civ.
alongside it to deal with the issues of congestion. If the Engrs, 58, Feb 25-66.
bridge can feasibly be widen as proposed by Atkins it
would add to the already extraordinary history of the [6] Britannia Bridge In: travel web shots [Online]
bridge rather than conflicting with it aesthetically. Available from URL:
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/23132172800862
15107EfXcIY [Accessed 5th March 2011]

[7] TIM IBELL. Bridge Engineering, Department of

Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of
Bath.

[8] R W HUSBAND, 1975. Reconstruction of the

Britannia Bridge Part 2: Construction, Proc. Instn
Civ. Engrs, 58, Feb 25-66.

[9] BS5400: 2006. Steel , Concrete and Composite

Bridges. BSI

[10] WELSH ASSEMBLEY GOVERNMENT, 2008.

A55 Britannia Bridge – Release of the results of
the recent public consultation exercise.

10
S. M. Collingwood – smc25@bath.ac.uk