Home Letters Design, construction of Hope Canal Bridge saw no input from Allsop, Carter
Dear Editor,
I have always felt that a newspaper is not the most appropriate medium for criticising the design of an engineering structure for it is usually difficult to cover adequately the salient features of engineering design without a clear explanation of the qualities relevant to the proper functioning of an engineering structure.
This is certainly the case with your article on the Hope Canal Bridge as covered in your column of Sunday, August 7, 2016. Nevertheless, I take exception to the statement in the article that ‘the review of the designs for the project include Philip Allsopp and Bert Carter’.
I wish to emphasise that neither of the two engineers mentioned had any direct connect with the bridge project. We were invited to consider the direct drainage and hydraulic conditions of the project but our terms of reference made no mention of the bridge project which was undertaken by consultants whose names were listed on a plaque attached to the bridge.
Failure of the approach span, as depicted in the photographs indicated that failure was due to ‘geotechnical properties’ of the soft clay beneath the approach span which evidently was not adequately catered for in the design of the approach slab.
This has become a regular feature of soft clay in bridge approaches and needs to be adequately addressed, but neither Philip Allsop nor Bert Carter was involved at any stage of the design or construction.
Yours truly,
Philip Allsopp