HGV goes off M62 into canal

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Achmelvic
Member
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 21:50
Location: Castleford, Yorkshire

HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Achmelvic »

Not sure if this is being discussed already but last night a HGV heading westbound went through the barriers on the M62 bridge over the Aire & Calder navigation and end up in the canal, thankfully no serious injuries:

M62 closed after lorry crashes through barrier into river near Normanton - as it happened

The hard shoulder is now barriered off and all three lanes are open, not sure if the canal is shut though.

I assume it'll need some lane or carriageway closures to repair the bridge. And maybe some more closures to crane lift the remains out of the canal unless it can be done down at the canal level, the cab is at the south side and the trailer at the north side of the bridge somehow.

Will HE now be questioning the strength of these bridge barriers? Believe they're the same type on all the bridges on that section of the M62.
User avatar
Norfolktolancashire
Member
Posts: 1185
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
Location: Cornwall

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Norfolktolancashire »

How strong do these barriers have to be to prevent a 40 ton HGV at 56 mph coming off the carriageway?

I'm guessing that it would be near impossible to prevent this sort of incident due to the strength required of the barrier.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Conekicker »

That's the third one I'm aware of. One many years ago on the A1(M) Don Viaduct (fatal), the recent one down south (M25-ish?) and now this one. That type of barrier isn't capable of withstanding an HGV. The driver is lucky the fall wasn't from a greater height.

The gap in the barrier is likely to be there for a few weeks, that barrier isn't held in stock locally. The damage will need to be assessed, concrete repairs sorted out if needs be and the requisite parts ordered.

To upgrade the barrier to something more robust on all bridges would cost a fortune. Harsh economics means there aren't enough bodies to justify it. Although upgrading them when they come to the end of their useful life could, perhaps, be considered.

It would be an interesting FOI to ask how many parapets of this sort have been breached over the years, how many casualties and how long it takes to fix the damage.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Bryn666 »

A vehicle breached the parapets on the M61 to A580 link roads about 2 years ago and the barrier is still unrepaired, it's had concrete blocks in front of it ever since. Granted if you go through them there you end up on the roof of the "tunnels" but it's still pretty sloppy.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Conekicker »

Bryn666 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 19:19 A vehicle breached the parapets on the M61 to A580 link roads about 2 years ago and the barrier is still unrepaired, it's had concrete blocks in front of it ever since. Granted if you go through them there you end up on the roof of the "tunnels" but it's still pretty sloppy.
Yeah, there's no such animal as a quick bridge repair. Waaaay to many procedural hoops to jump through.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by KeithW »

They installed improved barriers on the A1(M) Don Bridge a few years ago after a car went through as easily as if it were wet string.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.50871 ... 8192?hl=en
DB617
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 00:51
Location: Bristol

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by DB617 »

KeithW wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 19:42 They installed improved barriers on the A1(M) Don Bridge a few years ago after a car went through as easily as if it were wet string.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.50871 ... 8192?hl=en
As an aside, that is a fantastic time of day to take Google Streetview photos in that particular location.
Nwallace
Member
Posts: 4239
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:42
Location: Dundee

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Nwallace »

Someone put a hole in the barriers on the tay road bridge one night a good few years back.
IIRC the damaged section was replaced within the week.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Micro The Maniac »

There are lots of bridges with concrete blocks, and extra lengths of armco, as a result of the Heck crash years back... and many lengths of hard shoulder hatched off accordingly.

I also expect to hear the usual suspects gnashing their teeth pointing out that this motorway has a hard-shoulder (blah, blah, blah) as if that made the slightest difference...
drm567
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 13:13
Location: Watford, Herts

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by drm567 »

12/05/2021 08:44
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/ ... dnook-lock
UPDATE 08:30am Wednesday 12th May 2021

The navigation remains closed to all boat traffic between Kings Road and Woodnook Locks.

Divers will be on site today preparing the truck body for removal from the waterway this evening. They will also be checking for and removing any debris embedded in the bed of the navigation that may cause a danger to craft navigating the waterway.

As a precaution oil pollution booms remain in the waterway and will be removed only after the truck body has been recovered.

If the truck body and debris is successfully removed it is envisaged that navigation will reopen tomorrow Thursday 13th May 2021.

Thank you for your continued patience while the recovery process continues today and tonight.
2 Sheds
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 19:32

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by 2 Sheds »

A few points about bridge parapets. The strength of bridge parapets to restrain errant vehicles is referred to as containment. There are different classes of containment for different classes of bridge depending on the route’s speed limit and what is being protected. Bridges over railways have the highest ratings. The containment requirements have been raised over the decades. They are devised to stop a certain weight of vehicle travelling at a certain speed and impacting the parapet at a specified angle (often 15 degrees). Clearly some impact scenarios cause these parameters to be exceeded. Bridges over railways are higher and have non-see through parapets so that vehicle lights don’t confuse train drivers. Parapets on footbridges, cycleway bridges and bridleway bridges all have different minimum height stipulations. Usually they have mesh on to prevent climbing.
Over time metal parapets corrode and maintenance is very difficult. You can paint them all you like but where they are anchored to the deck or at connections they remain vulnerable. I have seen hollow steel parapet rails with no apparent cracks or holes in them completely full of water. So they weaken with age, even with maintenance. Aluminium has been popular at times but is very vulnerable to theft, particularly when the scrap value is high. Gangs turn up in the night (looking like real roadworks gangs ) with Stihl saws and the next morning the highway authority has an expensive problem. Anti -theft holding down bolts are no defense against a Stihl saw. (They are though a right headache to drill out when the remaining stumps of posts have to be removed and replaced).
I have designed parapet strengthening schemes. This is more complex than it might appear. It’s not just the parapets which need beefing up but the holding down arrangements and the ability of the bridge deck to carry the (sideways) bending moments exerted by a snapping or folding post. You can make the rails out of kryptonite but unless the anchorages to the bridge deck are strong enough to hold them no increase in containment capacity would be achieved. Also an impact could do extensive damage to the deck structure if the posts and holding down fixings were stronger than the deck. So installing stronger parapets to a bridge can necessitate adding transverse strength to the deck in the form of additional reinforcement in the concrete or additional steel members. Complete replacement of the edge beams can be required, and these need sufficient anchorage into the main body of the deck. Demolition of part of a bridge deck like this is a ‘delicate’ job, if vibration damage to the remainder is to be avoided. Jack hammers not recommended. The best way can be to use hydro-demolition (ie concrete cutting by very high water pressure – up to 20000 psi), which leaves the steel reinforcement intact .
Last edited by 2 Sheds on Wed May 12, 2021 15:53, edited 1 time in total.
XC70
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 23:22

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by XC70 »

That is very interesting thanks.

Out of interest if we pick something like the M18 crossing the ECML at Doncaster. Would the containment spec of the bridge contain a 44 tonne truck at 56mph at 15 degrees?
2 Sheds
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 19:32

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by 2 Sheds »

XC70 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 14:22 That is very interesting thanks.

Out of interest if we pick something like the M18 crossing the ECML at Doncaster. Would the containment spec of the bridge contain a 44 tonne truck at 56mph at 15 degrees?
I had to look it up as it’s changed since I retired from bridge design. The current highest containment ( snappily known as H4a ) is a 30 tonne lorry at 65 kph but at 20 degrees. These are often concrete construction. You could compare kinetic energies of the 2 scenarios using 0.5mv**2 and cosines of the angles if you like. I don’t know what would have been the parameters when the M18 was designed.
ais523
Member
Posts: 1139
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 19:52
Location: Birmingham

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by ais523 »

2 Sheds wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 16:03
XC70 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 14:22 That is very interesting thanks.

Out of interest if we pick something like the M18 crossing the ECML at Doncaster. Would the containment spec of the bridge contain a 44 tonne truck at 56mph at 15 degrees?
I had to look it up as it’s changed since I retired from bridge design. The current highest containment ( snappily known as H4a ) is a 30 tonne lorry at 65 kph but at 20 degrees. These are often concrete construction. You could compare kinetic energies of the 2 scenarios using 0.5mv**2 and cosines of the angles if you like. I don’t know what would have been the parameters when the M18 was designed.
Converting everything to km, h, tons (56mph is 90kph), as it doesn't matter what the units are as long as they're consistent (we're just looking for the ratio of the two containment levels):

½ × 44 × 90² × sin(15°) = 46122 km²ton/h²
½ × 30 × 65² × sin(20°) = 21676 km²ton/h²

The parapet would need to be able to absorb over twice as much energy to be able to handle XC70's hypothetical collision, so we don't currently have any parapet designs capable of handling anything like that. (Note that we're taking sin here, not cos, because we're presumably measuring how far the lorry is from being parallel with the parapet, rather than how far it is from being perpendicular to the parapet.)
2 Sheds
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 19:32

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by 2 Sheds »

ais523 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 18:14
2 Sheds wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 16:03
XC70 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 14:22 That is very interesting thanks.

Out of interest if we pick something like the M18 crossing the ECML at Doncaster. Would the containment spec of the bridge contain a 44 tonne truck at 56mph at 15 degrees?
I had to look it up as it’s changed since I retired from bridge design. The current highest containment ( snappily known as H4a ) is a 30 tonne lorry at 65 kph but at 20 degrees. These are often concrete construction. You could compare kinetic energies of the 2 scenarios using 0.5mv**2 and cosines of the angles if you like. I don’t know what would have been the parameters when the M18 was designed.
Converting everything to km, h, tons (56mph is 90kph), as it doesn't matter what the units are as long as they're consistent (we're just looking for the ratio of the two containment levels):

½ × 44 × 90² × sin(15°) = 46122 km²ton/h²
½ × 30 × 65² × sin(20°) = 21676 km²ton/h²

The parapet would need to be able to absorb over twice as much energy to be able to handle XC70's hypothetical collision, so we don't currently have any parapet designs capable of handling anything like that. (Note that we're taking sin here, not cos, because we're presumably measuring how far the lorry is from being parallel with the parapet, rather than how far it is from being perpendicular to the parapet.)
Spot on. A good example of the massive effect of squaring the speed. And yes, to get the kinetic energy perpendicular to the parapet (which is of course what matters) you need sine of 15 degrees or cosine of 75 degrees. Similarly for the 20/70 case.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by RichardA35 »

Building on what has been said above, imv it really depends upon how much concrete you want broken when a collision occurs. The current standard balances between angle of incidence, speed and mass of vehicle to allow a parapet design that "should" handle most glancing impacts likely to occur and not break the concrete. This is what has been deemed "acceptable" and reduces the risk to as low as reasonably practicable by the various structure owners and operators (HE, DfT Network Rail, Bridge boards, highway authorities etc). Anything else - larger mass, faster speed, more perpendicular impact - will lead to rather larger and stronger structures to resist the impact forces and fully contain a vehicle (apparently something to do with Newton's 3rd law) or more concrete broken.
Going back a few years, a certain airport operator decided to put a bus/coach drop-off on the top floor of a car park where straight ahead was a wall and a 90 degree turn right was needed to reach the exit ramp. The impact of an errant bus (black swan event of a driver suffering heart attack and slumped forward uncontrollably onto the accelerator reaching about 20mph) would be perpendicular to the parapet. The drop after an impact would be down onto an energy centre where the consequence of an impact would be catastrophic and likely close the terminal for a period of time.
No amount of analysis from the structures boys could make it work to contain the vehicle (Newton's 3rd law again apparently) without breaking the structure or it becoming the predominant load case and needing unacceptable (to the architect) strengthening and thickening of the structure to resist and transmit the energy into the foundation.
The eventual solution was to provide a sacrificial structure to change the angle of any impact so that it became a glancing blow by placing (unsightly) conrete barriers to deflect the errant vehicles and lessen the energy. These can be seen in the maps link below:
https://goo.gl/maps/ix1C1PNi7XHko8ZF9
2 Sheds
Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 19:32

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by 2 Sheds »

RichardA35 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 19:36 Building on what has been said above, imv it really depends upon how much concrete you want broken when a collision occurs. The current standard balances between angle of incidence, speed and mass of vehicle to allow a parapet design that "should" handle most glancing impacts likely to occur and not break the concrete. This is what has been deemed "acceptable" and reduces the risk to as low as reasonably practicable by the various structure owners and operators (HE, DfT Network Rail, Bridge boards, highway authorities etc). Anything else - larger mass, faster speed, more perpendicular impact - will lead to rather larger and stronger structures to resist the impact forces and fully contain a vehicle (apparently something to do with Newton's 3rd law) or more concrete broken.
Going back a few years, a certain airport operator decided to put a bus/coach drop-off on the top floor of a car park where straight ahead was a wall and a 90 degree turn right was needed to reach the exit ramp. The impact of an errant bus (black swan event of a driver suffering heart attack and slumped forward uncontrollably onto the accelerator reaching about 20mph) would be perpendicular to the parapet. The drop after an impact would be down onto an energy centre where the consequence of an impact would be catastrophic and likely close the terminal for a period of time.
No amount of analysis from the structures boys could make it work to contain the vehicle (Newton's 3rd law again apparently) without breaking the structure or it becoming the predominant load case and needing unacceptable (to the architect) strengthening and thickening of the structure to resist and transmit the energy into the foundation.
The eventual solution was to provide a sacrificial structure to change the angle of any impact so that it became a glancing blow by placing (unsightly) conrete barriers to deflect the errant vehicles and lessen the energy. These can be seen in the maps link below:
https://goo.gl/maps/ix1C1PNi7XHko8ZF9
In the normal new bridge situation, a good design technique is to apply the material safety factor ‘in reverse’ to the plastic moment capacity of the bottom of the post. This is the max bending moment the post can transmit, so then design the (reinforced) concrete edge beam to carry that without cracking or deformation (using all appropriate safety factors as usual). You can then be pretty confident that whatever impact the post receives (other than impact right at its base which would cause massive shear) it will deform and break at its base and the concrete shouldn’t suffer damage. This could knock months off repair times and dramatically reduce costs. I can’t say all designers would think this way though.
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5705
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by RichardA35 »

2 Sheds wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 20:48 In the normal new bridge situation, a good design technique is to apply the material safety factor ‘in reverse’ to the plastic moment capacity of the bottom of the post. This is the max bending moment the post can transmit, so then design the (reinforced) concrete edge beam to carry that without cracking or deformation (using all appropriate safety factors as usual). You can then be pretty confident that whatever impact the post receives (other than impact right at its base which would cause massive shear) it will deform and break at its base and the concrete shouldn’t suffer damage. This could knock months off repair times and dramatically reduce costs. I can’t say all designers would think this way though.
Indeed, it's the background to the standard that brings up the question like the one I raised of the containment on a car park deck.
The scenario, as you describe, for most highway bridges is to allow the vehicle to penetrate through the parapet if the energy is above a certain level.
For the public, the question is, "why is a vehicle allowed to penetrate the parapet and fall into the river?"
In broad terms, on highways the answer is "because that is what the standard says and what the owner is willing to provide". However, for structure owners who are not in highways related business as their primary role, explaining what you are going to do to stop a 17t bus going through the barrier is what they want to hear and how the risk to their business is going to be mitigated. They do not really care about highways standards but only their business continuity.
User avatar
Achmelvic
Member
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 21:50
Location: Castleford, Yorkshire

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by Achmelvic »

Following up my original post the barrier on the canal bridge was repaired like for like within a few weeks however you can still clearly tell where as the new barrier sections are as they clean white unlike the rest which are mucky grey.

In the last few weeks work has started a bit further east at J31 which has the same bridge barrier type as the bridge over the canal.

The HS is closed and they appear to be fitting additional amco barrier in front of the existing barrier. Not sure if this is a quick reaction to the canal accident or was already planned and it’s just a coincidence?
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9706
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: HGV goes off M62 into canal

Post by WHBM »

Often concerned at amateur proposals to shoehorn in railway routes along the central reservation of handy motorways. Some done in the USA seem to have very little containment. Bridge crossings are one thing, running the length of the road is different.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.800134, ... 384!8i8192
Post Reply