UDC 624.21.012.46(411.

4)

ORDINARY MEETING
A paper to be presented and discussed at a meeting
of the Institution of Structural Engineers, I1 Upper Belgrave
Street, London SWlX %BH, on Thursday I1 April 1985, at 6 p m.

The design of Kylesku Bridge

J. Nissen, MSc, CEng, FIStructE, MICE,FIHT
Ove Arup & Partners
K. Falbe-Hansen, MSc, MIngF
Ove Amp 81 Partners
H. S. Stears,,CEng, FICE,FIPHE,FIHT
Ove Arup & Partners, Scotland

Jorgen Nissen graduated from the Technical Univer- Synopsis

sity in Copenhagen in 1961. He was with Ove Arup The paperdescribes the development of the design of KyleskuBridge as a
& Partnersfrom 1962 to 1965. mainly working on
shell structures. He returnedto Copenhagen in 1965 sequence of design studies anddecisions, f ro m studies of the location of
to work as a consultant and rejoinedOAP in 1968. the new bridge and of different types of structure todesign.final The new
He has been involved in bridge projects since 1967
and is at present a Director ofArupOve & Partners. bridge is a framewith V-shaped supports. It is built in concrete and the
deck is a boxgirder that isprestressed. The bridge was designed to be built
instages and withinconstraintsthat were specifiedinthecontract
documents.
The construction method thatwas used to achieve this is illustrated.
Klaus Falbe-Hansen graduatedfrom the Technical
University in Copenhagen in 1967. He was with Ove
Amp & Partnersfrom 1968 to 1970, working in the Introduction
bridges group. He returned to Denmark in 1970 to The west coast road between Ullapool and Scourie, almost at the north
become a partner in a consultancy specialising in
bridge design. He rejoined OAP in1978andhas western tip of Scotland, is interrupted at Kylesku by a deep sealoch, the
sincebeenresponsible for thebridgedesign on Locha'ChairnBhain(Figs 1 and 2). The roads on both sides of this
several large road schemes in UK and overseas.
crossinghavebeenimproved to modem two-lane roads. but the only
alternative to crossing the loch by boat has been a detour of 110 miles.
The road improvements were financed under the Crofter County Grant
Scheme which was introduced in the 1930s to, iner alia, help improve
Hamish Stears has worked with Ove Arup & Part- communication :facilities\bXtween' remote cbmmunities in the Scottish
ners in Scotland since 1960, having served his initial
trainingwithanotherconsultantand a period in Highlands.
local government. He was appointed a Director of
the Scottish company on its formation
in 1977and is
generallyresponsible for its civilengineeringac-
tivitiesin that country.Otherprojectswith which he
hasbeeninvolvedincludetheoriginalroadworks
and the subsequent extensionsto aircraft apron and
taxiways at Glasgow Airport and various infrastruc-
lureprojects for boththeScottishDevelopment
Department and the Scottish Development Authori-
tY.

.I

Kinlochbarvia

Lochinver- 3

Kyle of Lochalsh

Fig l . The locationof Kylesku Bridge Fig 2. Routes considered in initialstudy

The S~ructural.BngineerNolume
6 3 m o .3hlarch..1985. 69
Paper: NissedFalbe-HansenlStears

There has been a ferry service at Kylesku for a long time. It is known
that rowing boats were regularly carrying passengers across the waters in
the early 1800s, and later horses and carts were also carried. A car-ferry
servicewas introduced between the wars, using a varietyof turntable
boats, and in 1975 a roll-on roll-off ferry was bought as part of the route
improvements. This ferry, theMaid of Glencoul, was capable of carrying
up to 12 cars at a time. It operated from dawnto dusk. After dark, which
comes early during the winter, travellers had to make the long detour if
they wanted to cross the loch.
A bridge was clearly a better long-term proposition than maintaining a
ferry boat at Kylesku. A bridgewouldhelp to unify the communities
along the road by making their travel easier and available around the
clock. This in turn should lead to greater opportunities for providing
services on a wider basis and with a greater choice of service centres. It
would,for example,bepractical to considerproviding secondary
education in the area. A bridge would also encourage tourism and thus
act as a much-needed stimulus to the local economy.
The Highland Regional Council made an initial feasibility study for a
bridge early in 1978 and, in June of that year, appointed Ove Arup &
Partners to design the bridge and the approach roads.
Route studies
The Council hadidentified four possible routes in the initial study (Fig 2).
It was clear from rough estimates that the cost of the approach roads
would be relatively low compared to the bridging costs, and the most
economic bridge location was chosen therefore in order to achieve the
most economic scheme overall. For this reason one of the routes (route B
which was the most direct route but which required a longer bridge) was
abandoned.
The remaining three routes were now considered in more detail. They
all used the same site for the crossing to give the shortest possible bridge.
One of the routes followed the existing road as closely as possible and
would require a second short bridge. The other two crossed the island,
Garbh Eilean, and returned to themainland on a low causeway. Route A
passed through the peak on the island and would require a very deep cut
at this point. Route C followed the contours closely and would avoid
substantial rock excavation and preserve the character of the landscape.
The road was designed to the standards set by the client with a design
speedof 60 km/h and a 5 5m-widecarriageway. The standards were
generallysimilar to those setby ‘Layout of roads in rural areas’ but
allowed some local relaxations in sight distance and gradient. A digital
ground modelwas prepared from a1 : 2500 topographical survey, and the
routes were studied using the MOSS computer program. All the routes
involved rock cuts and steep and curving alignments, and great care was
exercised to ensure that the integrity of the landscape was not broken.
Thestudiesconfirmedthe client’soriginalpreference forroute C,
although it was found that this alignment required a curved bridge to
meet the road standards. Itgave an economical scheme and was the route
most sympathetic to the general ground form. This routewas selected for
further detailed study. A new digital ground model was prepared from a
detailed survey at 1 : 500 scale, and the road design was completed, again
using the MOSS program.Interrain such asthis,comparison of
alternativesanddetail designby handmethods wouldhavebeen
extremely laborious.
would be 8.4 m; the total length would be about 262 m.
The bridge would be setin an exceptionally beautiful landscape and in a
remoteand veryexposed marineenvironment.The designshould be
suited to the character of the site and aim at low maintenance. The client
had said that he would prefer a concrete bridge.
Foundations would not be difficult. Bedrock is at shallow depth and is
generally strong gneiss which is freshor slightly weathered. Several sets of
widely-spaced joints are present, and the massive, blocky structure would
give good bearing capacity.
Designs were prepared for a number of possible schemes in order to
find the most suitable structural form for the bridge. Rough estimates
were made for both concrete and steel bridges.
A bridge on vertical supports would have a main span of about 130 m.
The cost of a bridge is controlled to some extent by the length of its main
span, and severalwaysofreducing the span wereexaminedwith the
purpose of lowering the cost of the bridge.
A cable-stayed structure would allow savings to be made in the deck
structure, but would require costly towers given the height of the bridge.
It would not cope easily with the curved deck and would generally be
more expensive than a bridge with a substantial structurebelow the deck.
It seemed natural to use the heightof the bridge to advantage by
introducing structural elements below the deck in such a way that the
main span of the deck was reduced. There are anumber of ways in which
this can be done, and three of these were considered. They are shown in
Fig 3, together with a bridge on vertical supports.
The first of these structures is a deck-stiffened arch. The construction
of the arch would involve major temporary works, and the curvature of
the deck would need to be dealt with. The centre of gravity of the whole
bridge would lieoutside aline between the natural centres of the supports
and, to resist overturning, it would be necessary to widen the arch on the
outside of the curve towards the supports. The line of the road would
need to be raised to provide the required navigation clearance.
Theothertwostructuresare frames; one is acentralframe with
inclined legsand side spans onslender columns or walls, the otherhas two
inclined legs at each support to form a V-shape.
a
b.

Bridge design studies

There were some important factors toconsider in the design of the bridge
itself.
The bridge would be a major bridge. The waterway connects the sea
loch with two inner lochs, each of which is over 2 miles long and half-a-
mile wide. The width of the waterway is 120 m at the bridge site, and tidal c

currents are strong. The water is deep, and the sides of the channel are
steep. The bridge should therefore be founded clear of the water and
would have to be built without temporary supports in the water.
The bridge would be at high level in an area of high winds. Winds in
excess of 100 mile/h were recorded during construction, and prolonged
periods of gale force winds are not uncommon. The Department of Trade
had indicated that a headroom of 30 m would be ideal but they would
accept a 24m-high and 80m-wide clearance. The alignment studies had 05.0 132.0
v -*
shown that a headroombetween 20m and 24 m could be provided with an
economic line that would fit the ground form on the approaches. d
The bridge deck would be narrow in width compared with its length
and it would be curved in plan. In addition to the carriageway, the client Fig 3 . (a) structure on vertical supports; (b) arch structure;
wanted to provide one l 5 m footway on the bridge and the overall width (c) frame with inclined legs; (d) frame with V-supports

70 The StructuralEngineerlVolume 63A/No. 3/March 1985


Structural calculationswere made to give the maindimensions and
quantities, and roughmodels were made to study the appearance.Models
are always useful tools, and in this case they were very valuable, as the
bridgeiscurvedinplan and its appearance could therefore notbe
adequately represented on drawings.
Construction methodswere alsostudied. The frameswould be unstable
in the intermediate construction stages, and only when the structure on
one side of the water was connected to the structure on the other side
would the bridge be able tostand on its own without temporary supports
or ties.
Thecentralframe couldbeheldbackby ties, and in order to get
sufficient inclination on these ties a tower of about 50 m height would be
required on both sides of the water. The ties would have to be anchored
into the groundby means ofground or rock anchors. The V-pier solution
couldbe supported by20m-hightowers at the junctions between the
landward leg and the deck. It is almost symmetrical, and the out-of-
balanceforceswould therefore bemuchsmaller. , included in the programme for 1979/84.
The comparisonsbetween the schemes showedthat aconcrete structure
withV-shaped supports gave an economical approach.Thesupports
would have to carry substantial horizontalwind loads to the foundations
and this would give rise to very large bending moments at the base. The
maximum eccentricity of the resultant force would be about 6 m at the
The Structural EngineerlVolume 63Amo. 3lMarch 1985
Paper: NissenlFalbe-HansenlStears
of the supports
Fig 5. The chosen design:plan and elevation
base, and tocarry this on asingle V-support would leadto costly supports
and costly foundations. The supports were therefore changed to consist
of two Vs 16m apart at ground level and leaning against each other to
embracethe deck at thetop.Theloads wouldnowbe
carried
predominantly by direct forces in the legs.
Severallarge-scalemodelswerebuiltin order to determinethe
geometry of the supports. Therewas a danger that themany inclined legs
could result in a confused appearance when seen at odd angles or at close
range, and it became clear that the geometry should be such that the
support would appear as one form rather thancluster
a of four individual
legs. The chosen form of the support is shown in Fig 4.
The chosen scheme was developed in more detail and presented to the
client in March 1979. The design was presented to the Royal Fine Art
Commission for Scotlandin July 1979who thought it ‘aesthetically
exciting and elegant’ and were‘pleased to givetheirwholehearted
approval’. The proposal was accepted bythe Council, and the project was
Chosen scheme
The chosen design is shown in Figs 5 to 8. The deck is a box girder of
constant depth in prestressed concrete. It is supported at the ends and by
the legs, giving the following approximate spans: 46.5 m, 52.5 m, 79.0
71
Paper: NissenlFalbe-HansenlStears

Fig 6. Reflected pianand longitudinal section

MRES 8.4-9.28
k
0.5, * 1.5

h T

Fig 7. Cross-sections

-.-
,

Fig 8. Model of the chosen design

m, 52-5 m, and 46.5 m. The legs are cast into the base and are rigidly
connected to the deck without joints. Thedeck is continuous throughout
its length, and bearings and expansion joints, which are the most likely
items to lead to maintenance problems, are used only at the abutments
where they are relatively easy to inspect and renew if necessary.
As the bridge is curved in plan, it is necessaryto vary the superelevation
and the width of the carriageway. The way in which the deck structure is
modified to accommodate these variations is shown in Fig 7.
The deck and the legs are built in 52.5 N/mmz concrete. Ordinary
Portland cement is used in the deck and sulphate-resisting cement is used
in the legs which are exposed to salt and water spray. A smooth finish is
used for all visible concrete.
The parapets are aluminium with three rails. The black top surfacingis
100 mm thick and laid on top of awaterproofingmembrane.The

72 The StructuralEngineerNolume 63Amo. 3IMarch 1985

 Paper: NissedFalbe-HansedStears

NORTH SOUTH

STAGE 0

TEMPORARY RESTRAINT

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

STAGE 3
Fig 9. Stages of construction as assumed in the design

carriageway is drained to gullies at the inside kerb and from there to
catchpits behind the abutments via pipes inside the box. Electricity and
telephone cables are also carried inside the box.
The abutments aresimple wing wallsfounded on the rock at high level.
Small embankments are required at both ends.
Stages of construction
The deck was designed to be built in four principal stages (Fig g), and it
was assumed that all concrete would be cast in situ. The detailing of the
reinforcement and the prestressing was compatible with this sequence. A
number of experienced contractors in Scotland were consulted before the
construction sequence was finally decided.
The construction stages were:
Stage 0: north and south:
constructsupport legs to soffit ofdeck and
construct
abutments.
Stage l : north and south:
construct endspan and small cantilever of the following span.
Stress two-thirds of the cables in stage 1.
Stage 2: north and south:
complete span between legsand construct 18 m cantilever of the
central span over the water. Stress the remaining cables in stage
1 and stress all thecables in stage2 apart from continuity cables
for stage 3.
Stage 3: construct the 43m-long central part of the deck between stage 2
north and stage 2 south. Stress continuity cables.
Two restraints had to be specified in order to achieve an efficient design:
- Thelandward crosshead should be supported until thecentral
sectionof the deck(stage 3) was cast. This restraint shouldbe
removed before the continuity cables for stage 3 were stressed.
- The maximum deflection
of the seaward crosshead during
construction should not exceed 50 mm.
The first restraint would fix the position of the landwardcrosshead and
thusensurethattheframe would
be stable in the intermediate
construction stages.Thisrestraintcould be providedby atemporary
vertical support which would be in compression during the construction
of stages 0, l , and 2, and in tension during the construction of stage 3.
The second restraint was introduced to control the bending moments in
the pier legs and couldbe provided bya temporary horizontaltie between
the two crossheads.
Structural analysis
Thestructure wasdesigned to the Technical Memorandafor Bridges
issuedby the ScottishDevelopment Departmentand, in particular
SB6/74 ‘Standard highwayloading’,SB4/74‘Prestressedconcrete for
highway structures’. The structure was designed for full HA loading and
checked for 37.5 units of HB loading.
The structural analysis was carried out on the consultant’s computer.
The idealised structure used in the analysis wasa space frame. Thecurved
deckwasrepresentedby a single string of straight membersbetween
nodes positioned on the curved centreline of the deck. The supports were
represented by members along the centreline of each inclined leg. Deck
and support members were connected by horizontal cross-members. The
structure was pinned at the bases under the supports and free to rotate
and move longitudinally at the abutments. A plane frame representation
of the structure was also used in the design and as a useful check on the
more complicatedspace frame model. The consultant’splane frame
computer program could automatically generate equivalent loads from
cable profiles which the space frame program could not, and the basic
prestressingdesignwas therefore carried out using the plane frame
program.
The following procedure was used:
(1) Design the prestress for bending in the vertical plane:
Analyse the plane frame model by the equivalentload method.
Allow for extra frictionlosses due tothe horizontal curvatureof the
deck.
Find the secondary moments at the frame corners using the plane
frame analysis. Transfer thesemoments to the space frameas
restraint forces at the pier crosshead nodes and release the space
frame.
(2) Design the prestress for bending in the horizontal plane:
- Analyse the space frame using the equivalent load method.
The structureis a highly redundant frame, so special consideration had to
begiven to creep,shrinkage, andtemperature effects. The Technical
Memoranda didnotcoverthesefully and the design for these strain-
inducedforces wasbased on BS5400’: Part 2 and Part 4 and ACI
Publication SP272.
The analysisofcreepisof some interest. Thestructure progresses
duringconstructionthrough various statical systemsofincreasing
redundancy. This change in statical system will generate a redistribution
of forces due to the creep of the concrete. This redistribution has to be

The Structural EngineerlVolume 63AINo.3lMarch 1985 73

Paper: NissenlFalbe-HansenlStears
taken into account in the design.
A method was developed that allowed for the variations in the statical
system and the differences in age of the concrete in each construction
stage. It was based on the following set of simplifying assumptions:
- a 2 months' timelag between successive stages
- cables in aparticular stage would be stressed 15 days afterthe
concrete had been cast
- a linear relation between therate of creep and the rate of
redistribution
The following time-dependent creep function was used2:
t 0.60
4 (t,to) = 1.25t0-('.1'* 0 (a,7)-
10+t0.60
where
to is the age at time of loading
t is time after loading
4 (m,7) is the ultimate creep coefficient for loading at 7 days
The ultimate creep coefficient depends on the concrete properties, the
dimensions of the member, and the climatic conditions. To allow for the
uncertainty in estimating 4 (m,7) and the effects of the simplifying
assumptions, two extreme values which were f 25 9'0 of the best estimate
were used in the design.
Fig 10 shows the effect of creep on the vertical and horizontal bending
moments in the deck due to its own weight.
At the design report stage it was assumed that the bottom slab of the
box would be left out in theendspans. This reduced their bending
stiffness and therefore the shrinkage and temperature stresses. Detailed
analysis showed, however, that the endspans were now too flexible in
torsion and the full box section was used for the full length of the bridge.
To compensate for their increased stiffness, the endspanswere lengthened
by about 7 m. This also reduced the size of the abutments and the amount
of earthworks and improved the appearance of the bridge.
Works design and tender
The works design of the approach roads was carried out first, and the
roads were constructed between July 1981 and August 1982.
The works design of the bridge started in June 1981, and itwas
proposed that tenders would be called in January 1982. The client wished
thatan independent check should be carried out. Given the tight
programme, it was not possible to design and check the design in detail
M O M N T S AT TRANSFER
- 50
- 10
10
50 ENTS AFTER CREEP
a.
b.
Fig 10. Bending moments in deck due to own weight
(a) Vertical bending moments
(b) Horizontal bending moments
74
and to prepare the working drawings before the independent check was
carried out. G. Maunsell & Partners were appointed to make the
independent check in November 1981, working in parallel with, but
independently of, the consultants.
This arrangement worked well, and has some advantages when unusual
structures have to be designed. The design engineer can have a second,
independent opinion when it matters, and differences in interpretation
can be discussed and a solution agreed when it is still relatively easy to
make modifications.
Six contractors were invited to tender on 29 January 1982, and tenders
were receivedon 30 March 1982. The tenders were reasonably close, three
being within 10 9'0 of the lowest tender. Two tenderers proposed
alternative construction methods, one proposing to build the legs using
precast units and the deck in cantilevering, the other proposing to precast
the centre section of the deck.
The successful tender was submitted by Morrison Construction Ltd. in
conjunction with Lehane, McKenzie & Shand, with a contract price of
E2.75M. They started work on site on 9 August 1982. The time for
completion was 2 years.
Construction
In his tender, thecontractor offered to construct the bridge in the
sequence proposed in the tender documents. Two changes were, however,
made later:
- Anadditionalconstructionjoint and prestressing stage was
introduced over the crosshead of the seaward legs, thus dividing
stage 2 into two stages, 2A and 2B. The prestress was modified to
accommodate the extra stage.
- The centre section of the deck was precast and lifted into place.
Some redesign of the continuity cables was made.
The actual construction stages are shown in Figs 1 1 to 14.
Fig 1 1 shows the construction of the supports. The landward legs were
constructed first on a framework of steel beams which was supported by
military trestling towers. The steel framework was also used to construct
the seaward legs, this time held by horizontal ties which were anchored
back into the landward legs. The ties were made from heavy H-sections
designed to be left in place to provide the required restraint of the seaward
crosshead.
Fig 12 shows stage 1 completed and stage 2A in progress. Stage l was
built in Bailey bridging and stage 2A on Mabey universal bridging beams.
Alm diameter steel tube has been installed to provide the vertical restraint
of the landward crosshead. It had to carry acompression force (max.9000
The Structural EngineerNolume63Amo. 3/March 1985
 Paper: NissenlFalbe-HansenlStears

Fig 11. Construction of supports Fig 13. Incremental cantileveringof stage 28

Fig 12. Stage I completed and stage 2A being cast Fig 14. The lift of the centre section

Fig IS. Aerialphotograph of completed

bridge:view towardsLoch
a’Chairn Bhain

The 1985 75
Paper: NissedFalbe-HansedStears Book reviews

kN) in stages 0, 1, and 2 and a tension force ( m a . 7500 kN) in stage3. It 1393 m3 in supports
was prestressed using six tendons coupled to rock anchors at the bottom 1894 m3 in deck
and anchored into the deck structureat the top. The prestress was applied Reinforcement: 675 t
in two stages in order to limit the deformation of the pier head. of
which 70in
abutments
t
Fig 13 shows stage2B being built in incremental cantilevering, using a 300 t in supports
gantry which was specially designed and built for use on this project. 305 t in deck
Fig 14 shows the600 t centresection being lifted into place. It was cast
on a platformwhich the contractor had prepared on the shoreof the loch Prestressing tendons: 85 t (5073 m) in deck.
adjacent to thesite, and was prestressed temporarily beforebeing moved 15-2mm Dyform strands. Number of strands in
onto a floating barge. The barge was then manoeuvred into position cables varies from 12 to 19. t
under the bridge and accurately held there using four mooring lines
anchoredtopointsalongthe shore. Thecentrespan was lifted into Acknowledgements
position using a strand jacking technique. The section was held on the Client: Highland Regional Council,
cables, while the continuitycables were installed and the twosmall gaps, G . K. M. MacFarlane,
each 1 5 wide, at each end of the precast centre section were concreted. Director of Roads& Transport
The vertical restraints at the landwardpier heads were then released and,
finally,thecontinuity cables were stressed andthetemporary cables Road & bridge design: Ove Arup & Partners
removed. G . K. S. Rotne was the consultant
architect
Completion
The bridge was completed in July1984 and was officially opened by Her Independent check: G . Maunsell & Partners
Majesty The Queen on8 August 1984.The completedbridge is shown in
Figs 15 and 16. Contractor:
Morrison
Construction
Ltd.
Main quantities References
Length of bridge: 277.8 m 1. BS 5400 Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 2: 1978
Width of bridge varies from 8.4 m to 9-28m Specification for loads;Part 4 1978 Code of practicefor the design
of concrete bridges,London, British Standards Institution
Concrete: 3844 m3 2. Designingfor effects of creep,shrinkage and temperaturein concrete
of
which 557 m3 in
abutments stuctures, American Concrete Institute, Special Publication 27

mass or cost is minimal’ and for structural

Book reviews systems accepts that the criterion for optimality
should be cost.
including backtrack programming.
The bulk of the book, Part 11, covers
applications of optimum design techniques for
Optimum design of metal The design process is described in the book a range of structures from struts through
as ‘structural synthesis’ having three main beams and frames to welded cellular plates.
structures phases: For statically indeterminate beams and frames,
- analytical (general preparation and both plastic and elastic optimum design are
J6zsef Farkas (translation edited from the analysis covering selection of materials, examined.
Hungarian by M. N. Pavlovic) (Chichester: structure type, production, design The target readership is said to be civil and
Ellis Horwood/New York: Wiley, Halsted constraints, and the cost function) . mechanical engineers, designers, and
Press, 1984) 222pp, f22.50. ISBN 0 853 12497 - mathematical (minimisation of the cost postgraduate students. However, this reviewer
3 (Ellis Horwood); 0 470 27482 4 (Halsted function within design constraints) believes that the average practising engineer
Press). - evaluation and refinement of the design like himself would think that, without
Computer aided structural analysis and, more The book is in two parts. A shorter PartI, considerable additional reading, the book’s
recently, significant advances in the direct dealing with the general problems of optimum immediate appeal would be limited to the
design of steelwork using computers lend design, covers the first two phases of the specialist in the field.
emphasis to the importance of optimum design. structural synthesis described above. It includes W.F. MORGAN
The author quotes the definition ‘the optimum a survey of mathematical methods and
structure satisfies the design constraints and its describes more fully a number of these, Continued on page 85

76 The Structural EngineerNolume63A/No. 3March 1985