Bridge Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Bridge Engineering 166 September 2013 Issue BE3

Volume 166 Issue BE3 Pages 217–228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/bren.11.00018
The design and construction of the new Paper 1100018
Received 25/03/2011 Accepted 08/12/2011
Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland Published online 08/04/2013
Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al. Keywords: concrete structures/demolition/temporary
works

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

The design and construction of the

new Mizen Head Footbridge, Ireland
Kieran Ruane BE, MSc(Eng), CEng, MIStructE, MIEI, MICE Brendan Minihane Eur Ing, BE, CEng, MIEI
Technical Director, RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cork, Ireland Project Resident Engineer, Cork County Council, Cork, Ireland
Murt Coleman BE, CEng, FIEI Ross O’Donovan Dip Eng, BEng, CEng, MIEI
Managing Director, Carillion Irishenco Ltd, Kildare, Ireland Senior Resident Engineer, RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cork, Ireland
Enda Collery BA, BAI, CEng, MIEI Noel O’Keeffe Eur Ing, BE, CEng, FIEI, MICE
Contracts Manager, Carillion Irishenco Ltd, Kildare, Ireland County Engineer, Cork County Council, Cork, Ireland
Eoghan Lehane Eur Ing, BE, CEng, MIEI, MCIWEM Kevin Power BE, CEng, FIEI, MICE, MCIWEM
Civil Engineering and Property Manager, Commissioners of Irish Lights, Director, RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd, Cork, Ireland
Dublin, 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, Cloghán, 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 completed with in situ concrete. The bridge deck and the
The winning entry was a design by Mr Noel Ridley of hangers were cast in situ. The reinforcement in the structure
Westminster, London, UK. It consisted of a pair of parabolic was in the form of round bars, rectangular bars and sheets
arch ribs spanning 50 m, which supported a pedestrian deck, of steel folded in a corrugated manner. The bridge was
the deck being suspended by vertical hangers from the ribs in constructed in the era of proprietary reinforced concrete
the central section. In the quarter spans the deck was systems and the system used was the Ridley–Cammell system.
supported by the ribs by means of a series of trestles. The Figure 2 shows the structural elements of the bridge. Figure 3
ribs were 1?6 m apart in the central section where the deck was shows an image of the original bridge under construction with
suspended. Where the ribs intersected the deck they flared out the use of an overhead wire ropeway.
so that the ribs were 3?7 m apart at the springing points. The
ribs were cross-braced below deck level to provide an 2. The bridge site
inherently stable structure. Mizen Head Footbridge is shown The bridge spans a sea gorge between the mainland at Mizen
in Figure 1. Head and the tiny island of Cloghán. The soffit of the bridge is
some 45 m above the bottom of the gorge. Access to the bridge
On 18 October 1907, sanction was given for the erection of a site is very difficult. Vehicle access is possible to within 300 m
reinforced concrete bridge to give access to the island. of the mainland abutment. Thereafter, access is only available
Construction of the bridge began in 1908 and was completed along a steeply inclined footway, which is less than 1 m wide
in 1909. The contractor was Alfred Thorne and Sons of along a substantial part of its length (Figure 4).
Westminster, London, and the contract cost was £1272.
The local geology of the site has always attracted interest.
The original bridge comprised both precast and in situ Purple-coloured horizons flank the footbridge. These horizons
reinforced concrete elements and it was considered an early comprise thinly bedded sandstone units with interbedded
example of precast concrete construction (Sutherland et al., mudstone giving the rocks a purplish hue. The rocks strike
2001). The arch ribs were constructed in stages both onshore to the northeast, with well-developed cleavage and quartz
and in situ (Anon., 1910; Stephens, 1974). The initial rib cross- veining, parallel to bedding planes. Bedding is noted to be both
section was an open precast concrete trough to allow launching horizontal and steeply dipping (almost vertical) at different
of the ribs. The open cross-section allowed precast concrete locations. The dramatic U-shaped limbs of the Crookhaven
trestles and deck edge beams to be added before the ribs were Syncline are clearly identifiable from the footbridge.

217
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 the new Mizen Head
Footbridge, Ireland
Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 3. The original bridge under construction (1909)

of the structure and provide material and geometric parameters

for analytical models and for maintenance, repair or strength-
ening scheme development. The defects noted during the
inspection may be summarised as rust staining, areas of
Figure 1. Mizen Head Footbridge (2004)
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. O’Sullivan 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 Hangers
Edge beam
Trestles
Cross-bracing
Arch rib
Springing point

Figure 2. Structural elements of the bridge Figure 4. Access to the footbridge

218
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 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
Figure 5. Inspection by roped access in 2002 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
missing concrete. All the defects noted were related to anaerobic corrosion and it is the subject of ongoing research.
corroding reinforcement. No defects caused by structural
actions were observed. In general, the visual inspection of the Two 105 mm diameter cores were taken from the deck of the
bridge found it to be in reasonable condition given its age and bridge. One of these cores was compression tested and found to
its location in an exposed site (Ruane and Healy, 2004). This have an equivalent cube strength of 27?5 N/mm2. Three cores
was due to the quality of the original construction and to CIL removed from the arch ribs in 1990 (MacCraith, 1990) were

Test Summary Comment

Cover meter survey Varied from minimum of 31 mm to Good cover meter readings throughout, readings
maximum of 85 mm with an average corresponded to steel locations indicated on
of 49?1 mm construction drawings
Depth of carbonated Typically measured at 1 mm Low carbonation depth expected due to bridge location
concrete
Depth of coating applied Typically 2 mm Refers to bituminous coating and paint layers previously
applied to the concrete members
Chloride content Varied from minimum of 1?92% to Very high levels of chloride recorded throughout the
maximum of 4?06% with an structure
average of 2?73%
Schmidt hammer test for Varied from minimum of 26 N/mm2 Consistent readings throughout the structure. Good
concrete consistency to maximum of 51 N/mm2 with an correlation between readings and core strengths
average of 34?6 N/mm2
Concrete core removal Three cores removed and tested. Cores removed and tested by UCD in 1990. Cores were
and compression testing Strengths recorded: 70?3 N/mm2, obtained from the arch ribs
46?4 N/mm2 and 72?9 N/mm2
Concrete core removal One core removed and found to Core removed during 2002 inspection. Cores were
and compression testing have a strength of 27?5 N/mm2 obtained from the bridge deck
Concrete core removal One core removed for petrographic testing Petrographic examination indicated that the concrete
and petrographic testing and remains of other core also tested was made to a specification, it was well compacted
petrographically after compression test during construction, it was made with suitable materials
and it was generally found to be a high quality concrete

UCD 5 University College Dublin

Table 1. Materials test results 2002

219
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 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 alkali–aggregate 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
Figure 6. Breakout of a hanger in 2002 showing anaerobic been taken. This is considered to be the only reported example
corrosion of alkali–aggregate reaction in Ireland to date.

In summary, chloride content levels were very high throughout

compression tested and found to have equivalent cube strengths the structure. This did not affect the integrity of concrete
of 70?3, 46?4 and 72?9 N/mm2. The variation in recorded cube directly but it provided a mechanism for reinforcement
strengths between the arch ribs and the bridge deck was corrosion to occur. Evidence of damage to concrete caused
attributed to the predominantly compressive action in the arch by the expansive product of reinforcement corrosion was clear
ribs compared with the flexural action in the bridge deck. in the inspection. Defects ranged from areas of hollow concrete
where corrosion had caused delamination of the cover zone to
Petrographic examination was carried out on two core samples areas of spalled concrete. Carbonation levels were very low.
taken from the structure. The coarse aggregate used in the deck This was attributed to the exposed location of the bridge.
construction was dominated by crushed greywacke and sandstone Based on the petrographic examination, low levels of alkali–
particles having a nominal maximum size of 14 mm. The aggregate reaction, low carbonation levels, high chloride levels
aggregate in the coarse fraction was probably locally derived. (both cast-in and ingressed) and strength estimates from cores
and Schmidt hammer tests, it was concluded that the concrete,
The fine aggregate contained abundant shell fragments, which excluding the concrete in the cover zone, was of a sound
were derived from a marine source, probably a beach sand nature.
(Figure 7). Samples of sand were taken from nearby Barley
Cove during a visit to the site and examined in the laboratory Based on the original construction drawings and the informa-
using a petrological microscope. This material closely tion gathered during the principal inspection, RPS carried out
resembled the shell fragments found in the deck concrete and a finite element assessment of the structure. Structural member

220
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 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 6-
monthly intervals.

In 2004, RPS produced a preliminary report for strengthening Figure 8. Temporary access scaffold (2005)
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 braces followed by a sequential removal and replacement of
undertaken to repair defects on the structure and that a cathodic the remaining elements of the deck superstructure. The
protection system be installed on the structure to stall the rate of mass concrete foundations at the arch springing points and
reinforcement corrosion. The use of NSM FRP bars is described deck ends would be retained.
in BD 85/08 (Highways Agency, 2008). However, it was noted & Option 2: A scheme that initially involved the construction
that the suitability of the structure to receive a cathodic of new arch ribs (parallel to and outside the existing ribs)
protection system would need to be confirmed by specialist using the existing ribs (strengthened if required) as false-
testing before a definite recommendation could be made. work, followed by the sequential demolition of the existing
bridge, followed by the construction of trestle edge beams,
In February 2005, electrical continuity testing of reinforcement hangers and the deck slab. This scheme produced a replica
in the structure was undertaken to assess the feasibility of of the existing bridge although the deck would be 700 mm
providing a cathodic protection system for the structure. The wider. The mass concrete foundations at the arch springing
specialist testers concluded that there was a limited amount of points and deck ends would be retained.
reinforcement continuity within the arch ribs and within some & Option 3: A scheme that involved replacing lost steel
hangers but that there was no general continuity of reinforce- throughout the structure with small diameter FRP bars
ment steel within the structure, either between structural using the NSM method followed by a large concrete repair
elements or within individual elements. scheme.

Following the issue of the electrical continuity testing report to Various factors fed into the selection of the preferred option.
CIL, the Mizen Footbridge was closed to pedestrian traffic. In These included heritage considerations, cost, environmental
June 2005, RPS under the direction of CIL procured an access issues, ease of construction, health and safety and durability.
scaffold for the bridge. The scaffold was supported directly
from the arch ribs only and provided an independent bridge Option 2 was recommended as the preferred option as it
deck for the structure. The scaffold allowed access to be maintained the current appearance and form of the bridge, it
maintained at Mizen Head until a permanent solution was gave the best long-term solution and provided an economic
reached (Figure 8). It was expected that the scaffold would solution that could be built safely with minimal impact on the
have a lifespan in the region of 3–5 years. environment. Figure 9 outlines the solution.

4. Detailed scheme development Detailed design of this scheme was progressed by RPS under
A revised preliminary report was issued by RPS to CIL in the direction of CIL in 2006. Specific measures to address
September 2005. The following solutions were considered: durability were incorporated into the design. These included:

& Option 1: A strengthening and repair scheme that involved & Use of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)
an initial strengthening and repair of the arch ribs and rib cement. The cement to be ordinary Portland cement with

221
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 the new Mizen Head
Footbridge, Ireland
Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

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
Figure 9. The solution to use the original arch ribs as falsework for
panels, to be manufactured from stainless steel type 1.4301
the construction of the new arch ribs
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 pedes-
trian 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 The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 the new Mizen Head
Footbridge, Ireland
Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

VAT). All tenders were in excess of the budget provision. The competitive dialogue process was closed when each
Tenders were submitted at the peak of the recent construction candidate was informed whether his alternative proposal was
boom in Ireland and there was uncertainty whether a contract deemed acceptable or otherwise to the employer based on the
agreement based on the tender would deliver value for money. criteria outlined in the tender documentation. Candidates were
The tender process was closed at this point. then asked to submit their financial tenders for the preferred
solution (the reinforced concrete replica structure) and/or their
Alternative procurements strategies were examined in early alternative proposal when appropriate. Four tenders were
2007. These included early contractor involvement and the received in total, with sums ranging from J1?5 m to J2?4 m
competitive dialogue procurement process. The competitive (excluding VAT). These comprised three tenders for the
dialogue procurement procedure is prescribed in SI 329/2006 preferred solution and one for an acceptable alternative
‘European Communities (Award of Public Authorities’ solution. On completion of the tender assessment process, a
Contracts) Regulations, 2006’ (Irish Statute Book, 2006a). recommendation was made that the contract be awarded to
The procedure involves a contracting authority engaging in a Irishenco for J1?5 m (excluding VAT) for the construction of
dialogue with candidates, the aim of which is to identify and a replica structure in reinforced concrete.
define the means best fitted to satisfy its needs. The dialogue
may be conducted in a number of different stages, which allows Funding for the project was provided by Fáilte Ireland, Cork
a contracting authority to reduce the number of solutions and/ County Council and CIL. Under an agreement between Cork
or eliminate tenderers during the dialogue phase. The dialogue County Council and CIL, Cork County Council undertook the
continues until the contracting authority can identify the role of employer and entered into agreement with Irishenco in
solution(s) meeting its needs. At the end of the dialogue, a September 2009 for the demolition and reconstruction of the
contracting authority formally concludes the dialogue and bridge under the Department of Finance public works contract
invites candidates to submit final and complete tenders on the form for civil engineering works designed by the employer
basis of the solution(s) presented and specified during the (Department of Finance, 2007).
dialogue.
6. Construction stage
Following a prequalification process, four contractors were Works began in October 2009 with measures to improve access
selected to proceed to the competitive dialogue process. Letters to the bridge. There was limited scope to widen the lower
were issued to the candidates in December 2007. The letter reaches of the footway to the mainland abutment. However,
invited candidates to identify and define the appropriate the upper reaches of the footway were locally widened to allow
solution for the existing bridge replacement in accordance limited access for delivery vehicles and construction plant. The
with previous documentation issued for the prequalification maximum plant size that could access the bridge site is shown
process and the following guidelines: in Figure 12.

& The preferred replacement solution is a replica of the

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 Figure 12. This articulated mini-dumper was the largest plant size
high quality stainless steel bridges. Detailed construction that could access the site. It was driven down and reversed up the
proposals were discussed including a proposal from Irishenco steep access paths for the duration of the works
to ‘build a bridge to build a bridge’.

223
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 the new Mizen Head
Footbridge, Ireland
Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 13. The original arch ribs supporting access scaffold in the Figure 14. Erection of the temporary works truss
back-spans and supports to the existing deck

& Use of the new arch ribs to support the demolition of the
Construction of the trial panel was an early activity in the old arch ribs and the construction of other permanent
construction programme. It allowed the engineers, carpenters works structural elements.
and reinforcement fixers to develop their detailed construction
plans before undertaking the permanent works. The geometry The coordination of these temporary works required careful
of the bridge was difficult to form. The ribs vary in depth and collaboration between the permanent works designer, the
they are flared out in the back-spans. Where members such as temporary works designers and the contractor. This process
braces and trestles intersect the ribs, the member ends are was facilitated by the project supervisor design process under
locally widened with tapering faces. Each of these details was the ‘Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction)
faithfully reproduced from the original bridge and detailed into Regulations 2006’ (Irish Statute Book, 2006b). Detailed
the new works. The carpenters likened the formwork required AutoCAD drawings of all the systems and works were merged
to construct the new bridge to cabinet making such was the to eliminate any clashes and to ensure sufficient room was left
complexity involved. The trial panel is shown in Figure 11. for demolition and construction works. The temporary works
systems are shown in Figures 13, 14 and 15.
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 Irishenco’s temporary works design. The temporary works
design included:

& Use of the existing arch ribs to support the construction of

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. Figure 15. The access scaffold supported from the temporary truss
& Use of a large-scale scaffold to allow full access to all parts and the temporary deck supported from the arch ribs
of the central portion of the bridge.

224
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 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 Irishenco’s 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
The original arch ribs were used to support falsework for the
process of construction and demolition over several phases.
new ribs. This was an effective way of undertaking the initial
The key stages are described below.
setting out for the new ribs. Figure 18 shows the southern arch
rib reinforcement in the formwork. Extensive use was made of
7. Demolition of suspended deck and stainless steel reinforcement couplers throughout the works as
hangers and construction of new deck there was not enough space for starter bars and the new
and hangers structural elements were often face to face with original
The existing deck was propped off the temporary deck and the structural elements before demolition activities. The correct
hangers were removed using circular saws. The existing deck setting out of these couplers was achieved through the use of
was wire-cut into pieces, which were lowered on to the plywood templates based on 1:1 drawings prepared by RPS
temporary works deck and removed with the overhead winch and verified by Irishenco. This was an important consideration
(Figures 16 and 17). Formwork was installed for the new deck as the different structural elements of the bridge intersect at
and edge beams, reinforcement was fixed and the new elements varying angles and a misplaced coupler would have been
were poured. New hangers were subsequently fixed and difficult to rectify.
poured.
8. Demolition and reconstruction of back-
spans: 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
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
Figure 16. Original deck and hangers removed from the bridge myriad of support details to ensure that all loads would be
transferred smoothly. It was essential that no temporary works

225
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 the new Mizen Head
Footbridge, Ireland
Ruane, Coleman, Collery et al.

Figure 20. Fixing deck reinforcement

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
Figure 18. Southern arch rib reinforcement with the original rib original ribs were directly supported by the new ribs.
visible on the right-hand side 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 The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 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 between client, contractor and engineer. The new structure is a
The final structural elements to be constructed were the braces fitting testimony to the original designer and contractor and to
between the ribs in the back-spans and the section of deck that CIL who looked after the original structure for 100 years. The
is composite with the arch ribs at the quarter-span points new structure (Figure 26) also preserves a landmark feature on
(Figures 23 and 24). Following this, the main temporary works the coast of Ireland for future generations to enjoy.
were sequentially dismantled and removed from the site. The
Mesnager hinges were grouted and the remains of the original Project team
arch ribs were finished in concrete to provide a legacy of the Funding authorities: Fáilte Ireland, Cork County Council,
original structure (Figure 25). Commissioners of Irish Lights.

11. Conclusion Client: Cork County Council.

The new Mizen Bridge was completed in December 2010. The
project was delivered safely to programme and within the scheme Consulting engineer and project supervisor for the design
budget. It was a project marked by a very successful collaboration process: RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Figure 23. Fixing reinforcement for arch braces: the stainless steel Figure 25. Completed Mesnager hinge detail with original rib
couplers are visible springing points visible

227
Bridge Engineering The design and construction of
Volume 166 Issue BE3 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): 847–850.
Department of Finance (2007) Public Works Contract Form for
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
Figure 26. The completed structure (2011) 2006. Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Irish Statute Book (2006b) SI 504/2006 Safety, Health and
Contractor and project supervisor for the construction stage: Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006.
Carillion Irishenco Ltd. Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
MacCraith S (1990) Performance of an 80 Year Reinforced
Contractor’s temporary works designers: Scott Wilson Benaim Concrete Bridge in an Extreme Environment. Corrosion of
(truss, deck); SGB Harsco (access scaffold). Reinforcement in Concrete. Elsevier Applied Science,
London.
Acknowledgements NRA (National Roads Authority) (2000) Specification for Road
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the funding Works. NRA, Dublin, Ireland.
authorities throughout the project: Fáilte Ireland, Cork Ruane KD and Healy A (2004) Assessment testing Mizen Head
County Council and CIL. Footbridge, Ireland. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
The authors wish to thank Mr. Denis Cronin, senior Engineers: Bridge Engineering 157(BE3): 117–122.
technician, RPS Consulting Engineers for preparing the Stephens LF (1974) The Bridge at Mizen Head. Irish Engineers
graphics for this paper. 27(7): 18–20.
This paper was first presented to a joint meeting of Engineers Sutherland J, Humm D and Chrimes M (Eds) (2001) Historic
Ireland, the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Irish Concrete – Background to Appraisal. Thomas Telford,
Concrete Society in Cork, Ireland, on 8 March 2011. London, UK.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. 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 stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 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
Copyright of Bridge Engineering is the property of Thomas Telford Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.