MSPs have been told that the fault that led to the closure of the Forth Road Bridge could only have been detected if hi-tech structural monitoring had been in place.
An independent engineering consultant said yesterday a pin which had stopped working had caused the crack which led to the shutdown of the bridge for almost three weeks in December.
At the opening of the inquiry into the closure Richard Hornby, of engineering consulting firm Arup, said there were no displayed signs of distress and nothing in the inspection regime for the bridge which would have determined the fault. The pin could have been seized for a number of years and only lasted so long because of the quality of the steel, Hornby said. He agreed with John Russell, operations manager for bridge operator Amey, who said only structural health monitoring could have “perhaps picked it up sooner”.
Hornby said bridge operators would have had to have structural health monitoring to detect the problem.
Russell told the committee that, since 2001, the failed section was inspected 23 times and there was no fault found, adding: “My opinion would be if we have structural health monitoring on the bridge, that would be the way forward. If we had had that, it perhaps may have been picked up – perhaps.”
The committee heard the latest monitoring technology will be used on the new Queensferry Crossing and is in place on some sections of the Forth Road Bridge, but installing it on the entire structure would cost millions of pounds.
Several witnesses told MSPs a decision by previous operator Forth Estuary Transport Authority (Feta) not to proceed with a £15 million truss end link replacement project in 2010 had been “reasonable” and “proportionate”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here