Hungarian Bridges An Idiot’s Guide U

U

Page 1 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

1 Introduction This document aims to provide background information for KBR engineers working on Hungarian bridge design/construction projects. It was conceived to offer an introduction to UK engineers who may have been involved with bridge design or construction on prospective work being bid in 2004 (M6 extension). Although the M6 bid was unsuccessful, KBR has continued with activities in Hungary, and it is possible that future bids may be undertaken for work in that area. It is also possible that an understanding of Hungarian practice may assist in work in other Central European countries with similar background and history. The content of this document is based on the author’s two years’ experience in-country, working with Howard Humphreys and Partners (HHP), part of the KBR group. This period was undertaken working full-time on site as Independent Engineer’s bridge engineer on the first privately financed highway in Hungary, the M1/M15 project in the North West of the country. The M1 part of the project was constructed in 1994-1996, shortly after Hungary’s transition out of Socialist era. Observations made during work in 1994-1996 have been reaffirmed and refreshed during short visits to the country in 2004, viewing the M5 DBFO road project and as part of the M6 bid work. These visits confirmed that identical or very similar construction details and standard designs remain in use.

2 History Hungary has a number of landmark bridges crossing large rivers such as the Danube and the Tisza. There are also innumerable smaller structures associated with highway and railway crossings, as well as crossing less significant watercourses.

Figure 1 - Szabadság-híd (Liberty Bridge) over the Danube, Budapest

Page 2 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Figure 2 - Széchényi Lanchíd (Chain Bridge) over the Danube, Budapest Although bridges have been built in Hungary for many years, it appears that technological development in parallel with that in (for example) UK or France has been suppressed by last 40 years’ experience, when political forces hindered cross-fertilisation. Typically, existing bridges have been built with poor attention to construction quality, and subsequent low maintenance expenditure. Consequently much of the existing stock is in poor condition and in need of heavy maintenance. During the centralised, socialist era, bridge and highway Clients, designers and constructors were all departments of the single state body. Many of these Departments have since been privatised, to form companies such as “Hídépítő RT” (Bridge construction Ltd.), “Betonútépítő RT” (Concrete Road Construction Ltd.) etc., which are generally now subsidiaries or sister companies of Western European Contractors. Likewise, the principal state design house became “Uvaterv” (Road and Railway Design Company). A range of newer design houses and construction companies have also been formed in the private sector.

2.1

Steel bridges vs. concrete bridges – maintenance

There is no discussion on this point, as far as most Hungarian engineers are concerned. Steel and steel-concrete composite bridges require maintenance, and concrete structures do not. Consequently steel structures are reserved for long-span crossings such as over the Danube, or for railway structures where higher loadings are applied. The UK practice of using steel/concrete composite construction for motorway structures is frequently viewed as eccentric.

3 Highway Bridges – current designs Firstly a question of terminology – structures referred to in UK as “overbridges” are termed “underbridges” (aluljaro), and what would be a UK “underbridge” is called an “overbridge” (feluljaro) in Hungary. The rest of this document follows UK terminology, i.e. an overbridge carries something over the road in question, and an underbridge carries the road over the obstacle.

Page 3 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Hungarian Standards (Magyar Szabvany – MSz) rigidly govern most aspects of Hungarian life, including bridge design and construction. These Standards were formerly based on the Soviet standards, but are now becoming increasingly aligned with western European standards, predominantly DIN or BS. As Hungary has recently joined the EU, adoption of European Standards can be expected in the future. This will, however, result in some interesting conflicts with existing practice.

3.1

Precast concrete beam highway overbridges (Standard Bridge)

Selected details of this type of bridge are shown in Figure 3 to Figure 10 below. X

X

X

X

The vast majority of routine highway overbridges and multiple-span underbridges are of a single form. This comprises an in-situ deck slab, poured onto precast, pre-tensioned concrete beams and permanent formwork. The deck is integral with end- and intermediate supports. . Piers comprise a reinforced concrete cross-head, supported on a series of columns, the number of columns depending on the width and skew of the structure. End-supports are typically skeleton abutments, with the high-level wall retaining only the uppermost 1-1.5m of fill. Embankments below the abutment wall are typically concrete paved beneath the superstructure, and grassed elsewhere. Superstructure drainage is generally provided by causing the road alignment to fall to one or both ends of the bridge, where runoff is conveyed down the embankment slope in precast concrete chutes, although bridges with larger deck surfaces may collect runoff in gulleys piped to the ends of the deck.

Figure 3 - Side elevation, "Typical Bridge"

Figure 4 - Side Elevation of "Typical Bridge" Span limitations on the precast beams (maximum available circa 30m) result in a typical overbridge with each span crossing 2 lanes and a hard shoulder plus verge. Foundations are Page 4 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

reinforced concrete pads or pilecaps. If piles are required, these would typically be 300mm square precast concrete units, although bored piles may be used if conditions dictate.

Figure 5 - Long Section/ Elevation - "typical" bridge The construction sequence is conventional. If required, piles are constructed, with the RC base/pilecaps constructed over them. Pier reinforcement is built in place or fabricated into cages at the worksite and lifted into place. System formwork and falsework (DOKA, PERI, etc.) were widely used for columns and crossheads.

Figure 6 - View of typical pier and abutment Precast beams, with steel shoes protecting the soffits of the beam-ends, are landed onto thin rubber sheets placed on the support. Light starter bars project from the substructure, these are built into a reinforced concrete stitch to provide continuity of the deck under live load across the support. No significant moment continuity into the supports is provided by the reinforcement configurations employed. Permanent formwork resting on the top flanges of the beams is provided using a proprietary wood fibre/cement panel product. A full-width deck slab is cast, with protruding starter bars to accept the subsequent parapet beam construction. It is not common practice to provide a crown in the cross-section of the deck, but rather to provide a uniform cross-fall across almost the entire width of the deck,

Page 5 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

even on bridges with no superelevation. At a distance approximately 300mm inboard of the edge of the future parapet beam/ kerb on the lower side of the deck, the deck concrete is laid to rise again, creating a valley running the length of the deck in front of the future parapet beam. The valley is provided to restrict the potential for water to flow beneath the parapet beam. In accordance with Hungarian Standards, waterproofing must be applied to the entire plan area of the deck, including the area beneath the future parapet beam. It is not admissible to terminate the waterproofing in an upstand at the parapet beam face. By providing a valley line inboard of the parapet, any water penetrating the surfacing will accumulate on top of the waterproofing in this valley, whence it can be disposed of. In order to remove this water, a strip of drainage medium is constructed along the valley line, within the layer of mastic asphalt laid to protect the waterproofing membrane. The drain is created by forming a recess in the mastic asphalt and filling it with clean pea-gravel bound with a small amount of epoxy resin, and connects to the main drainage chutes via perforated pipes laid in the ends of the drainage strip and running behind the bridge abutments. Transition slabs are provided beneath the approaches to the bridge deck In-situ concrete parapet beams are then reinforced and cast, incorporating cast-in plates as fixing points for the parapet. Surfacing and road markings can then be laid. THORMA-type joints are provided in the surfacing at the deck-transition slab interface, and saw-cuts sealed with bitumen are provided at the back of the transition slab. Parapets are fabricated from an assemblage of steel sections and corrugated safety fencing, and are governed/ dictated by Hungarian Standards. The parapet post base is welded to the steel plates previously cast into the parapet beam.

Figure 7 – Standard highway bridge parapet, valley line visible in front of parapet (surfacing incomplete) A variant on this form of construction has been used in circumstances when the maximum length of precast beams available was insufficient for the span requirement (e.g. Rabca Bridge, M1). This structure was formed using much heavier substructures than the conventional bridge, with the pier “cross-heads” cantilevering several metres either side of the column line along the axis of the bridge. Falsework was used to support the formwork/reinforcement of these cross-heads, and precast beams were then landed on the falsework. The deck and wide crosshead stitch were then concreted in-situ, with the beams

Page 6 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

embedded in the ends of the cross-head. This original solution allowed precast beams with a length of just over 30m to achieve a span of over 40m, and meant that steel construction was avoided.

Figure 8 - Cross-section and abutment elevation, "typical" bridge

Figure 9 - Deck cross-section, "typical" bridge

Page 7 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Figure 10 - Plan - "typical" bridge.

3.2

In-situ concrete highway overbridges (Game Pass)

A further class of overbridge is in common use, often providing landscaped crossings for mammalian wildlife. These structures have a wider deck, which is frequently not rectilinear in plan, (i.e. with curved approach ramps and a waisted deck to encourage animals to use it). This configuration is not suited to the precast beam construction, and voided slab in-situ reinforced concrete decks are adopted. The deck is waterproofed, and the waterproofing has a protective layer applied, after which earth fill is placed to permit vegetation growth and make the crossing appear more natural. Lateral bunds, planting, and screens combined to mask the passage from the motorway passing below. As previously, the deck is rendered continuous with the substructures, piers being formed of a series of columns, and the end-supports typically being skeleton abutments. Foundations may be spread or piled depending on local ground conditions, although the deck and earth fill are significantly heavier than the precast beam construction of the typical bridge. This form of structure requires extensive falsework for long periods during the construction.

3.3

Others (galleries, underpasses, culverts, canal crossings…)

There is naturally a greater range of structural forms in use than are presented above, although these generally share the common characteristic of being entirely or predominantly concrete construction. These forms include in-situ portals and box culverts/ galleries for shorter spans. Water crossings in high embankments are commonly made using corrugated steel (TUBOSIDER) culverts, these often incorporate ledges for animals to cross beneath the highway. A relatively common method of crossing small channels where the road is approximately atgrade and there are no significant navigational or flood relief headroom constraints is to drive a row of steel sheet piles in the canal bed adjacent to the bank, to backfill behind the

Page 8 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

sheetpiles with granular material, and to construct a reinforced concrete capping beam. Onto this capping beam, and integral with it, is a deck formed using precast RC or prestressed beams of a shallow “U” shape, with an in-situ concrete topping. An alternative method is shown in Figure 15, using a row of driven concrete piles and a low abutment wall with shallow U-beams to form the deck. X

X

Figure 11 - Cross section, RC box with central row of columns, carries water channel and earth road

Figure 12 - Cross section - RC trough made into box with addition of integral PC beam deck

Page 9 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Figure 13 - TUBOSIDER culvert carrying earth road beneath motorway

Figure 14 - TUBOISDER culvert carrying watercourse beneath motorway

Page 10 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Figure 15 – Long section, watercourse crossing: piles and integral deck

Figure 16 – Deck Cross-section - watercourse crossing

4 Construction – Lessons/ observations 4.1

Concrete

4.1.1 Concrete grades Concrete strength grades are specified based on cylinder strengths rather than the UK practice of cube strengths. An equivalent concrete would therefore be represented by a higher strength grade in UK than in Hungary (e.g. C37 UK is equivalent to C30 in Hungary). Concrete strengths are stated in the format of either C30 (i.e. cylinder strength only) or C30/37 (cylinder strength/ cube strength). Concrete strengths used in Hungary are typically not as high as those in use on UK highway schemes. The highest grade encountered in bridge construction on the M1 was C30/37. Air entrainment is not commonly used, on the M1 it was only used for the toll plaza pavement concrete, and required special trial mixes, bringing in testing equipment from Budapest etc.

Page 11 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Concrete workability is specified according to a series of workability classes (stiff, semi-stiff, plastic, flowing). The classification is determined using a workability table, which has a hinged top plate and fixed lower plate. A cone of concrete similar to that used for a slump test is formed on the upper hinged plate. The upper plate is raised through a predetermined distance and released a number of times to fall onto the lower plate. The diameter of the resulting puddle of concrete is measured and compared against the Standard ranges. This provides a much more direct measure of the actual performance of the concrete when it is pumped and vibrated than the slump test used in UK does. Workability grades are stated as “K” or “KK” for normal concretes. Concrete in Hungary is subject to a far greater range of climatic exposure than in UK. Frost resistance is therefore a significant property, which is tested physically for each mix design and sampled through the production. In this test a sample will be saturated, and then subjected to a number of freeze-thaw cycles, and any loss of material is measured. This results in an “f” rating. Resistance to water penetration is also tested and specified for Hungarian concrete. This parameter is expressed as a “vz” value. Thus, a concrete for use in a parapet beam or deck construction might be C30/37 KK f100 vz4. This indicates 30MPa cylinder strength, “normal” level of workability, and high frost and water resistance. The particular concrete mixes used on the M1 frequently exhibited bleeding of batch-water, believed due to the granulometry of the fine aggregates. This is understood to be a relatively common occurrence, despite the normal water/cement ratios used. This loss of water resulted in occasional plastic settlement cracking of top surfaces or in bleed marks up vertical formed faces.

4.1.2 Winter and summer concreting Climatic conditions in Hungary are significantly more extreme than those encountered in UK, and are much less benign for concreting. Summers are hot and dry (in excess of 40 degrees Centigrade is not uncommon during the high summer), often with constant drying winds. Winter temperatures can drop below minus 20 degrees at night, and there are frequently periods of several weeks when the maximum daytime temperature does not exceed zero. The harshest winter conditions are not frequently encountered during concreting works, as the construction industry generally ceases outdoor activities between the end of December and mid-March. However, cold-weather concreting is an inescapable fact of Hungarian construction. Contractors are generally well-equipped to deal with this eventuality, with large stocks of insulating material for freshly-laid concrete, and heating equipment and enclosures. As much of Hungary is rich in naturally occurring hot water, concrete can be cheaply batched with warm water and warmed aggregates. Heat and drying conditions in summer did not appear to be considered significant by the M1 contractors. Gaining acceptance that the curing regimes specified in the contract were actually there for valid technical reasons was a long battle, but one which was won in the end. Internal heat gain in thick sections and the significance of anti-crack steel did not seem to be fully appreciated by designers or constructors. This was especially evident at one bridge which had very lightly reinforced but massive abutment walls, and in which substantial cracking occurred. As this element functioned essentially as a mass-concrete wall, and as the cracks were subsequently grouted, the structure was not prejudiced. On the positive side, the occurrence of cracks pretty much exactly as I had predicted them did mean that KBR’s technical opinions were listened to rather more by the contractor’s site staff than previously. It also meant that I won a few bottles of wine from those who had denied the existence of early thermal cracking.

Page 12 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

4.1.3 Chloride protection and Waterproofing Exposed concrete surfaces are required by Hungarian Standards to be coated against the effects of chloride attack. Unlike UK practice, which is to use an impregnating treatment such as silane, the treatment used in Hungary is a paint. Two types of coating are specified, the first (rigid) is applied to elements such as pier columns, crossheads and abutment faces. The second is a flexible masonry paint, incorporating sand and applied in thick coats, designed to bridge cracks and permit movement of the substrate. This is applied to parapet beams, and often includes a primer coat. Systems used include SIKA products (SIKAGARD range). Manufacturer’s literature for these coatings often describes them as anti-carbonation coatings, but they have achieved Hungarian Standards qualification as anti-chloride coatings. As with any paint coating, these systems have a finite life, and are sensitive to substrate preparation. They can be subject to abrasion and impact damage, and it is not uncommon to find areas scabbing or peeling, even soon after application. They are particularly subject to damage by scuffing on parapet beam vertical surfaces, where any damage will result in slatladen water being trapped against the concrete surface. Deck waterproofing generally uses sprayed systems, often Western European systems applied under licence by local specialist contractors. In order to comply with Hungarian Standards, this must be protected with a layer of hand-applied mastic asphalt. Buried concrete is typically protected with bituminous emulsion or hot-applied bitumen paint.

4.2

Reinforcement

High-yield reinforcement is commonly used. It is not uncommon to find high-yield and mild steel reinforcement combined within a given section, although this is more prevalent in the building sector than in bridgeworks. Reinforcement is delivered cut and bent. Hungarian reinforcement drawings and scheduling follow the French model, with each bar mark being drawn and dimensioned on the drawing. Hungarian engineers tended to be disparaging about the quality of reinforcement from countries further east (especially Ukrainian steel). Some high-yield reinforcement grades (but not all) are declared to be weldable. Although the conditions of such welding are quite tightly defined in the Hungarian Standards, it seemed to be common practice to weld bars as and when convenient, particularly to provide rigidity to reinforcement cages or to permit the lifting of prefabricated cages.

4.3

Formwork/Falsework

System formwork and falsework (PERI, DOKA, etc.) were widely used and well-maintained. Permanent formwork used for the deck construction consisted of pressed wood fibre/ cement panels (BETONYP). These panels appear to function well and to be durable, despite the apparent open texture of the cut surfaces and concerns over the durability of the wood fibres. Pre-pour cleanliness has historically not been the subject of scrupulous attention. During the M1 construction, it became apparent that compressors were in very short supply throughout the industry (vibrators and power tools being generally electric powered). The inability to blow-out formwork efficiently was offset by the relatively low cost of labour. Removal of tiewire debris was carried out by men with magnets on sticks. Removal of other debris was undertaken using heavy-domestic/light-industrial vacuum cleaners or by hand, and frequently occupied whole days for gangs of up to 6 men. On the occasions when we were able to obtain compressors and were able to persuade the constructors to try blowing-out formwork with them, the constructors were very impressed with the speed and quality of results, but soon reverted to manual methods as the compressor was soon called away to other sites. Page 13 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Kickers were a new concept at the start of the M1. Rather than creating a solid, accurately placed starter for subsequent pours, the approach used was to construct (e.g.) the base and to push a series of dowels into the concrete around the future location of (e.g.) the pier column springing from the base. Once the base had set, a surveyor would set out the column axes on it, steelfixing and shuttering would then be carried out. The shuttering would be chocked off the dowels left protruding from the top of the base in order to provide positional fixity. Once the formwork had been struck, the dowels would be cut back to the top of the base. This approach creates a construction joint at the level of the top of the base, as well as leaving steel dowels apparent at the surface of the concrete of the base, with associated corrosion risks. We were able to develop the idea of using kickers in order to avoid these problems. Construction joint preparation was another learning curve for the M1 project. Hungarian Standards dictate that the construction joint surface must be “appropriately roughened”, and that “loose material and surfaces must be removed”. This appeared to be widely accepted as meaning that, when the concrete was still fresh, the area of the joint would be scored with a trowel, similar to the preparation of plaster to receive subsequent coats. Removal of loose material was understood to be satisfied by brushing the hardened concrete with a broom to remove any unadhered gravel. At our insistence, construction joint preparation was subsequently improved to the level of scabbling the hardened surface with a light breaking tool. As with the use of compressors, water-jetting of green concrete was far easier and quicker than scabbling hardened concrete, but it was more economical to use men than jet washers.

4.4

Parapets

4.4.1 Restraint and design principle The design and construction of highway bridge parapets is fundamentally different to the British approach. The logic upon which the Hungarian standard bridge parapet is designed is stated to originate in Germany and Austria. However, the examples of similar parapets from these countries which I was able to find were configured somewhat differently. In the German/Austrian examples, the corrugated beam/post arrangement was used to separate the traffic lanes from a widened verge/ footway, which in turn had a pedestrian parapet to provide edge restraint to the structure as a whole. Thus, there would be sufficient working width behind the corrugated beam (i.e. the width of the verge/footway) to restrain errant vehicles fro the traffic lanes before they reached the edge of the structure. The Hungarian Standard parapet places the corrugated beam right on the edge of the structure, and so if an errant vehicle is to mobilise the strength of the corrugated beam, it is likely that at least a part of the vehicle would leave the bridge structure. The upstand to the Hungarian Standard parapet beam is, however, significantly higher at 250mm than the corresponding upstand in the Austrian/German equivalent, and this may contribute to the restraint which can be achieved. During the M1 construction period of 2 years, there were a number of reports of vehicles penetrating parapets and falling from structures.

4.4.2 Parapet beam detail The Hungarian Standard requires the entire plan area of the deck to be waterproofed. Observation and discussions with Hungarian Engineers proved that this rule is inflexibly applied, and there is no room for interpretation of the term “deck”. Thus, there must be a continuous waterproofing membrane applied from one edge of the deck slab to the other. The deck design is such that the waterproofing membrane thus passes beneath the parapet beam. It is not admissible to terminate the waterproofing in an upstand at the kerbline, as is normal in UK practice. This makes it impossible to fully replace the waterproofing without demolishing the parapet beam to access the waterproofing laid beneath it. It also means that the anchorages/ starter bars holding the parapet beam to the deck must pass through the waterproofing layer. Although the deck is cast to provide nominal falls away from the deck edges towards a low point just inboard of one or both parapet beam faces, there is very little Page 14 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

head difference to prevent capillary or other actions driving water up the interface between the waterproofing top surface and the underside of the parapet beam. This water is likely to be salt-laden, and thus corrosive to the steel bars in this area. Despite the practical measures taken of applying waterproofing to the lower 25mm or so of these anchor bars, it is quite common to see rust streaking from behind the parapet beam indicating corrosion of these bars. Despite the attention paid to this work, within 10 years of the construction of the M1 bridges, at least two structures were reported to require repairs in this area. Web searches for Hungarian construction companies frequently return contract references to the replacement of parapet beams, confirming that this is an endemic problem. Replacement of these beams is carried out by demolishing the concrete and leaving the starter bars in place.

Figure 17 - Parapet beam replacement, note original U-bars connecting to deck destroyed by demolition, new drilled anchors installed Although hydro-demolition exists (it was introduced partly through KBR influence during the M1 construction), the majority of these works appear to be carried out using pneumatic breakers, with associated damage to the starter bars.

Page 15 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

Figure 18 - Application of sprayed waterproofing to deck and transition slabs (note starter bars for parapet beam at edge of deck)

4.4.3 Parapet post base detail The parapet post comprises an I-section steel post, to the top of which is welded an inwardscurving tubular extension which carries a longitudinal “handrail” tube. The tubular elements may be extended to provide support to anti-glare mesh, snow fences, etc. The base of the post is welded on site to steel plates cast into the parapet beam.

Figure 19 - Completed parapet with anti-glare mesh on extended posts (left), starter bars for replacement of parapet beam on second deck (right) This welded connection at the base is partial only in extent, and is applied to the front 2/3 of the post width only. This leaves the rear 1/3 not connected to the cast-in plate, and with a small gap between the post and the plate. The reason for this weld being partial only was stated as a design feature to prevent the post offering excessive resistance to a vehicle impact, with one of two objectives. Either the weakening of the post is stated to be to prevent the occurrence of hard points supporting the corrugated beam and thus to allow the safety fencing to deflect and function normally, or it is stated to be deliberately weakened to protect Page 16 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

the parapet beam and steel plate insert from damage during vehicle impacts. In either case, it appears that the un-welded area should be at the front of the post and not at the rear, but no explanation was available for the configuration adopted. In addition to the logical and functional questions above, the partial absence of weld at this connection leaves a small gap between the post and the plate insert, which cannot be adequately protected against water ingress and corrosion. Although the protective coating applied to the parapet beam concrete is extended some way up the parapet posts, within a short time of construction, the majority of parapet posts show rusting at this area.

4.5

Precast concrete elements

Precast bridge beams and other precast components are produced at a small number of plants. For all practical purposes, there is only one major manufacturer of precast prestressed bridge beams. Quality of the finished bridge beams was adequate, without being excellent. Precast piles are widely used in the building and bridgeworks industries. Whilst many of these items are not pretty to look at, they appear to work well. Other precast elements include drainage chutes and steps. Quality of these is adequate. Weight of the drainage chute elements could be reduced by using a thinner pressed concrete construction, or by using a completely different solution such as plastic piped drainage.

4.6

Design and documentation

4.6.1 Design Despite the obvious opportunities for economies of scale in the preparation of design data for “standard bridges”, each structure had its own complete set of unique analysis and calculations, including printouts from computer programs such as LUSAS. With the standardisation of these bridges and the limited range of application, it may have been feasible to produce a range of solutions for superstructures covering bands of skew angles and span lengths.

4.6.2 Construction Records Significant importance is given to construction records. These documents must be completed and signed off before a licence to open the road is granted. As a temporary measure pending their completion and agreement, the road may be opened and operated under a temporary traffic order. Throughout the construction of a bridge, a Site Diary is maintained, in which the Contractor is required to record significant events, operations, progress, weather conditions, test results etc. The supervising engineer is also expected to make daily entries to record approvals/ consents and concerns. This document is viewed as an important part of the lifetime record for the bridge, along with as-built drawings and test certificates. Method statements and test plans are required for all significant items of work, and are generally prepared, although they were often submitted late during the M1/M15 project. Approved method statements and proposals are also required to be included in the record documents for a structure. Our threat not to review and therefore not to approve late documentation was not well received by either the Contractor, the Ministry or our JV partners, as failure to approve a method statement would result in the licence being withheld.

4.7

Culture

Hungary is heavily marked by its recent history of soviet influence. This has left a culture where the first priority is to have paperwork (preferably stamped by an Authority) to prove that you have done nothing wrong, rather than actually doing something right. We often found it Page 17 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

difficult to engage open discussion of subjects where there might be a better way of doing things, because the person with whom we were discussing felt threatened. When problems occurred, the instant reaction was to produce an “expert” from a “competent authority”, who would prepare a report, apply an official stamp to it, and thereby make everything alright. There was distinct unease whenever an issue arose which required remedial action, as carrying out remedials meant that it had been done wrongly in the first place, which was naturally not possible… Identifying faults would expose the individuals who had participated in them. Historically, criticism might have had dire consequences for the person concerned, and therefore was not recommended practice. This was particularly frustrating, as it was impossible to obtain agreement that a problem existed in the first place, in order to get it addressed. On occasion, “you had a good try” seemed to be more relevant than compliance with specifications when determining the acceptability of an element. A positive aspect of this behaviour, possibly linked to the recent past when all the various participants worked for a single state body, is the degree of cooperation and collaboration (or collusion?) between the various parties. After a long period of building trust with staff from both our own JV partners and some contractors, we did find it possible to have discussions of alternative methods of working, and some of the alternatives were tried and adopted. Others were not implemented, either because it was cheaper to use large numbers of men and fewer machines, or because more senior members of Contractor’s staff would not accept the possibility of change.

5 Safety, Health & Environment Environmental legislation is applied relatively rigorously, with a raft of permitting bodies and regulations covering noise, water pollution, etc. Importance is given to flora and fauna issues, particularly where national parks, wildlife reserves or hunting reserves are crossed. Regulations relating to personnel protection and the use of hazardous chemicals exist, but are often not as onerous as would be expected in the UK. Abrasive blasting with dry quartz sand as the abrasive medium is used to prepare steelwork for painting and concrete structures for waterproofing/ chloride protective coating. This brings the health risks associated with silicosis, although the operators are provided with positive pressure protective equipment. Chromate-based primers were in common use, bringing heavy-metal toxicity concerns. There is a very prescriptive and strict law regarding the wearing of PPE, but hard hats were rarely worn except in rainy weather or when we were spotted approaching the workplace. High-visibility clothing is only required to be worn when working in live traffic or adjacent to the railway. At a local level, the workforce display remarkable resourcefulness in achieving the construction tasks. This can compromise safety. ***photos to be scanned – man riding on crane hook to attach curing to columns, tower scaffold being towed behind car with men riding on it to ballast against overturning***

6 Finally - 6 Good things we might benefit from • • • •

The drainage material formed by mixing pea-gravel and a small amount of epoxy resin – this ought to be useful in all sorts of places… Concrete testing by workability and not slump – gives a more realistic impression of how concrete will behave when pumped and placed Collaboration and cohesion between the various parties, reluctance to go contractual A single record (Site Diary) for each structure, containing contemporaneous records and supervisor’s observations Page 18 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005

• •

Allowing us to observe their ways of doing things, and teaching us that the UK way is not the only way The first official “vehicle” to cross a new road bridge is traditionally a barrel of beer, which is then distributed for consumption by those involved.

Page 19 of 19 Keith Jones, 2004-2005