Proceedings of Bridge Engineering 2 Conference 2011

April 2011, University of Bath, Bath, UK

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CLYDE ARC BRIDGE, GLASGOW,

UK
C. Apostolidis1
1
Undergraduate Student – University of Bath

Abstract: This paper is a study of the Clyde Arc Bridge in Glasgow and is focused on the aesthetics, structural
design, construction processes and maintenance requirements. Also, an assessment of the bridge and its major
constitutive elements is carried out, following the Loading Code BD21/01 and an indicative strength capacity is
provided.

Keywords: Glasgow, Clyde-arc, Finnieston, cable-stayed, single-tied

Figure 1: The Clyde Arc. Side view to the west [1]

1 Introduction1 In order to abide by the European Union directive

The Clyde Arc Bridge (Fig.1) is a steel, bowstring
asymmetrical tied arch bridge. It is located in the city
of Glasgow and crosses the Clyde River at a skew
angle connecting the historic center of the city in the
north side and the southern outskirts.
The significance of this bridge is that it enhances
the general redevelopment of the southern areas and
due to its pioneered design it provides an iconic
gateway to the city [2].
The Glasgow City Council (GCC) was the first
authority to think of the benefits that such a project
could accrue and it was estimated that about 3,500 new
jobs would be created [3]. The importance of this
project led the Scottish Enterprise Glasgow (SEG) to
participate by sponsoring £16.05 million while the
contribution of the GCC was £4.25 million [4].
1
Charalampos Apostolidis – ca263@bath.ac.uk
on fair competition, the joint clients published their
invitation for a tender in the Journal of the European
union (2002). After a long procurement period of the
tenders, the proposal of Edmund Nuttall Limited was
announced the winning tender [4]. The company
appointed to Gillespies and Halcrow Group the design
and to Watson Steel Structures the provision of steel
elements [3].
The construction of the Clyde Arc Bridge started
in May 2005 and it was given officially to public in
September 2006 [4]. In 2007, the bridge was awarded
the Civil Engineering Award in Construction Category
by the Saltire Society of Scotland [5].
2 Aesthetics
The definition of the aesthetics parameters of any
structure is primarily influenced by subjective criteria.
However, for the purpose of this study and in order to
comment upon as objectively as possible, Fritz
Leonhardt’s approach is adopted [6].
To begin with, the tubular elements along either
side of the deck, where the hanger bars are connected,
reveal clearly the functionality of the structure that of a
tied arch bridge.
The hanger bars are evenly spaced along the
suspended deck, which create a sense of a well divided
space between the arch and the deck. Furthermore, the
major piers and the arch are in a good proportionality
and create a sense of a secure crossing.
Moreover, the design of the major piers starts with
a circular shape at the bottom part, which tapers
inwards at the top part and ends to a rhombic shape at
the springing point of the arch (Fig. 2). This provides a Figure 3: Side view to the east, at night. [8]
visual smooth continuity between the arch and its
bases. However, the crossing at night becomes more
attractive, as the colour changing LED system
enhances the dramatic effect of the diamond shaped
arch (Fig. 1 & 3).

Figure 2: Southern end piers [7]
Additionally, the colour combination of the
several structural elements is in a good agreement with
the surrounding. Materials are not obscured by their
colour and present to match harmonically within the
environment. The white colour of both the steel arch
and the hanger bars is in accordance with the white
prevailing colour of the existing buildings. Although,
the unpainted apparent concrete of the piers fit with
both the deck and the springing arch, it is prone to the
high and low tide river conditions and thus stains on
the lower part of the piers undermine the appearance
when looking at from the embankment side (Fig. 2).
3 Structural design
The Clyde Arc Bridge consists of a main 96m
deck, which is suspended by bars hanging from the
single arch, and two approaching spans of 36.5m each.
The total width of the deck is 21.3m and the clear
carriageway width is 16.3m, which accommodates two
lanes for private traffic and two lanes for public and
cycle traffic [3]
The arch spans the deck at a skew angle and it is
supported by two main piers, while the approaching
spans are supported by the abutments, on one side, and
by the major and a minor pier, on the other side [4].
Judging from the available elevation in Fig.4, it is
estimated that the height of the arch is 30.3m and its
circumferential length is about 130m. Also, the
rhombic shape of the arch is assumed to have equal
sides of 2400mm length and wall thickness of 50mm.

Figure 4: Side elevation to the west. [4]

 Figure 5: Typical transverse cross section. [4]
Both the main and the minor piers are supported
on six and two steel driven piles respectively. These
have dimensions of 1067mm diameter, 28.6mm
thickness and their length reaches 33m depth. As it can
be seen in Fig.4, both abutments were constructed at
the banks, at the rear side of the existing quay walls
and their foundations consist of reinforced concrete
piles, of 276mm diameter [4].
The deck consists a conventional composite steel
girder ladder beam design, with two main longitudinal
plate girders and cross girders at 4m centres. The depth
of the plate girders of the central span varies from
1750mm to 1400mm, in order to facilitate the river
navigation. Most of the cross girders have a depth of
1250mm, apart from those at the bar connection points
and at the main piers, having depths of 1400mm and
2150mm respectively.
This steel deck frame supports pre-cast reinforced
concrete deck panels, which are connected together
through insitu concrete at stitching joints [2, 4]. On the
top of the reinforced concrete deck there is a surfacing
layer of 230mm thickness. Such a thickness was
necessary in order to provide future track installation
without damaging the structural concrete deck [4, 9].
Outriggers are installed along the length of the
longitudinal girders, at the central span at 12m centres,
in order to accommodate the connections of the hanger
bars. Furthermore, the outriggers are connected
together with longitudinal tubular members. These
tubular members, along with the steel deck itself, act as
tension members, taking the thrust from the arch. The
tubular members are assumed to be of grade S355,
600mm diameter, with wall thickness of 40mm.
The arch is a steel rhombic-shaped box arch with
doubly curved plates. Its shape is considered to be of a
pioneering design as it was the first bridge in the UK of
such a type [9]. The arch was manufactured in nine
certain pieces, which were welded together on site.
Due to the orientation of the arch relative to the
deck, the hangers are under inclination. There are 14
hanger bars in total, of 110mm diameter [4]. For the
purpose of this study, each cable is assumed to be of
grade St 110/225, with 7 bars of nominal diameter of
32mm and ultimate strength of 1230 N/mm2 [10]. The
lower hanger connections are attached to the outriggers
at different angles, and the upper connections are
located at the lower sides of the diamond-shaped arch.
4 Loadings
The Clyde Arc Bridge was constructed in 2005
and thus it is assumed that the design was based on BS
5400 standards.
During the design process, various combinations
of loading cases are examined in order to define the
worst one. Loads are classified as permanent and
variable.
However, the assessment of an existing bridge is
based on the Highways Agency Document BD 21/01
[11], which examines the permanent loads (i.e dead
and superimposed loads) and from the variable loads
only the HA and Knife Edge Load (KEL) traffic
loading [6].
4.1 Permanent loads
Permanent loads include the dead and
superimposed loads.
4.1.1 Dead load
Steel:
Total steel tonnage = 1470ts [12]
Steel arch tonnage = 60x9 = 540ts [4], thus the steel
tonnage onto the deck is 930ts, which is translated to
2.55kN/m2
(930*9.81) / (168.2*21.3) = 2.55kN/m2 (1)
Concrete:
Deck thickness = 300mm, thus the loading due to the
concrete deck is:
 (ρc * Vc ) / A = 7.20kN/m2 (2)
Thus the factored HA loading per notional lane
where, ρc = 24kN/m3, Vc = A*0.30 and A = 21.3*168.2 becomes:

Thus, the factored Dead load is: HA1 = HA2 = 7.62*1.0 = 7.62kN/m2
Fs*γfl,s*γf3 + Fc* γfl,c*γf3 = 2.55*1.05*1.15 +
7.20*1.15*1.15 = 12.60kN/m2 HA3 = 7.62*0.5 = 3.81kN/m2

HA4 = HA5 = 7.62*0.4 = 3.05kN/m2

4.1.2 Superimposed load
Handrails: 0.5kN/m, or [0.5*(168.2*2)] / A =
0.05kN/m2

Surfacing: According to BS5400 [13], for 100mm

thickness the loading is 2.2kN/m2.
For 230mm and by linear interpolation, the loading
here becomes 5.06kN/m2.

Thus, the factored Superimposed load =

FH*γfl,H*γf3 + FS* γfl,S*γf3 = 0.55*1.20*1.15 +
5.06*1.75*1.15 = 10.25kN/m2

Hence the total Permanent load is = 12.60 +10.25

=22.85kN/m.

4.2 Variable loads

Variable loads, for bridge assessment, include the
HA and KEL traffic loads only. A plan of this load
distribution is given in Fig.6.

4.2.1 HA Loading
Figure 6: Plan- arrangement of HA and KEL
The clear carriageway is 16.3m, which according to loading.
BS5400 it can be divided into 5 notional lanes of
3.26m each.
The unfactored HA UDL is given by Eq.3 below:

W=336*(1/L)0.67 (3) 4.2.2 KEL Loading

The unfactored KEL load is 120kN per notional lane
where L here is the length of the suspended deck [13]. Thus, the factored KEL load becomes:
(96m). Thus W=15.8kN/m which can be translated as
15.8 / 3.26 = 4.85 kN/m2 per notional lane.
120* γfl*γf3 = 207kN per notional lane.
The factored HA loading is =
Similarly with the followed approach for HA loading,
W*γfl*γf3 = 4.85*1.50*1.15 = 8.37kN/m2 KEL is applied only over 2.5m width of each notional
layer and it is multiplied by the same reduction factor
However, because the effective loaded length is greater
K = 0.91 [14].
than 50m, the approach of BD50/92 [14] is followed, The Lane Factor has also to be included and thus the
which dictates that the Factored HA load must by KEL load per notional lane becomes:
multiplied by a reduction Adjustment Factor K = 0.91
(for 40ts Assessment Live Loading) and thus it KEL1 = KEL2 = 207*0.91*1.0 = 188.37kN
becomes 7.62kN/m2.
KEL3 = 207*0.91*0.5 = 94.19kN
According to BD 21/01, this factored load applies only
over a 2.5m width of each notional lane (the rest width KEL4 = KEL5 = 207*0.91*0.4 = 75.35kN
carries only the permanent loads) and it is multiplied
with the Lane Factor (LF). Here, the LF is 1.0 for the
first two lanes, 0.5 for the third lane and 0.4 for the last
two lanes.
4.2.3 Footway Loading Vertical equilibrium:
According to the BD 21/01 [11], the pedestrian live
VA+VB = 2849.95kN
load should also be considered and the equation for
footways on a carriageway is given by Eq.4.
M@A = 323.13kNm,
2 thus VA = 1505.26kN and VB = 1344.69kN
0.8 x k x (5kN/m ) x 10 / ( L+270) (4)
and by taking moments about each of the points where
where k is the nominal HA UDL and for 96m length
KEL act, it is found that the max sagging bending
gives: k = 15.8kN/m
moment is 4001.98kNm at the mid span (Fig.8).
and (4)→0.8*15.8*5*10/(96+270) = 1.73kN/m2

The factored footway loading becomes:

FF*γfl*γf3 = 1.73*1.50*1.15 = 3.00 kN/m2

The bridge has two footways and it is examined against

the worst case combination of having only one footway
loaded and thus no reduction factors will be applied
[11]. Figure 8: Transverse bending moment diagram
As far as the longitudinal direction, the loading
5 Strength distribution considered is shown in Fig.9.
The above loadings along with the possible worst
case loading are taken into consideration for the
strength assessment of the Clyde Arc.
5.1 Bending Moments
To begin with the bending resistance in the
transverse direction, a possible worst case loading
is considered as shown in Fig.7. The loaded area
considered is the area that it is carried by a single cross Figure 9: Longitudinal loading section (units: mm)
girder at 4m centres. Thus, for the section in the Fig.7:

Permanent L. = 22.85 * 4 = 91.4 kN/m Total HA = 7.62*2+3.81+3.05*2 = 25.15 kN/m2 over

Footway L. = 3*4 = 12 kN/m. 2.5m lane width so HA = 25.15*2.5=62.88kN/m

HA1 = HA2 = 7.62*4=30.48 kN/m Footway loading = 3kN/m2 * 2.5m = 7.5kN/m

HA3= 3.81*4= 15.24 kN/m Permanent loading = 22.85kN/m2*21.3m =

HA4 = HA5 = 3.05*4= 12.20 kN/m
The values of the KELs are those mentioned in §4.2.2.
486.71kN/m
If it is assumed that the connections of the bars at the
deck are rigid, then the calculation of the hogging
moment can be done following the Eq.(5) of a
continuous beam.

M = wL2 / 10 (5)

where w = 62.88+7.5+486.71 = 557.09kN/m (6)

and L is the distance between the bar connections =

12m
A B
(5) →M= (557.09*122)/10 = 8022.10kNm 
 
Thus, the bending moment resistance of the deck is
checked against the maximum moment of 8022.10kNm
The girder is assumed to be of grade S355 UKB and
have an average depth of 1400mm, 420mm and 50mm
Figure 7: Transverse loading section
flange breadth and thickness respectively and 30mm
web thickness. Thus Z=27.35*106 mm3.
σ=M/Z→
σ = (8022.10*106 ) / (27.35*106) = 293.31N/mm2 <
355 N/mm2, so it is safe.
5.2 Cable Forces
The area of the deck is divided into equal load
distribution areas and it is assumed that each cable
sustains one of these areas. Since the distance between
the cables is 12m and the deck width is 21.3m, it is
assumed that the load acting on the area of 12m x
10.65m =127.8m2 has to be supported by one cable.
However, each of these cables is connected to the
edges of the deck at different angles. These angles for
every set of cable are approximately:
Set1 = 55° and 74°, Set2 = 61° and 73°
Set3 = 65° and 71°, Set4 = 69° and 69° (at mid.of arch)
Set5 = 71° and 65°, Set6 = 73° and 61° and
Set7 = 74° and 55°
It was found that the maximum tensile force is
developed for the first set of cables (at either end) with
angles of β = 74° and θ = 55° (Fig.9).
Figure 10: Transverse section- First set of cables
Considering the loading case of Fig.7, the force that is
acting on either edge of the deck, at the cable
connections is:
2849.95kN (over 4m length) x 3 x0.5 = 4274.93kN at
either edge, over 12m length.
Thus, the forces in the cables are:
T1,y = 4274.93kN
T1*sin74° = 4274.93kN → T1 = 4447.21kN
and T1,x = T1 * cos74° = 1225.82kN
T’1, y = 4274.93kN
T’1 *sin55° = 4274.93kN → T’1 = 5218.73kN
and T’1, x = T’1 * cos55° = 2993.34kN
Thus the maximum tensile force in the cable is
5218.73kN
According to the initial assumptions about the cables in
§3, each cable consists of 7 bars of 32mm and thus:
Force in each bar = 5218.73/7 = 745.53kN and the
corresponding strength is:
σ = F / A = (745.53*103) / (π*162) (7) →
2 2
σ = 927 N/mm < 1230 N/mm [10], so it is safe.
5.3 Arch
The arch weighs 540ts, according to the available
literature [4], which can be translated as a UDL acting
along the projected length of the arch.
Self-weightarch =540ts →
Fs,arch = (540* 9.81) / 108.31 = 48.91kN/m
However, the total load acting onto the arch is the sum
of the arch self-weight (Fs,arch) and the sum of both the
Permanent and the Variable loads acting on the deck
(Eq.6). Thus:
Warch = 48.91+557.09* (96 / 108.31) = 542.68kN/m
Figure 11 shows the forces acting on the arch and the
reactions at either end.
Vertical equilibrium:
VA + VB = 542.68*108.31 = 58777.67kN
Figure 11: Arch - Forces diagram
Due to symmetry: VA = VB = 29388.84kN
If the arch is regarded as a three-pinned arch and by
taking moments about C:
HA = (WL2) / (8h) = (542.68*108.312) / (8*30.3) =
26263.24kN = HB
Part of this horizontal reaction is expected to act as a
tensile force through the steel elements of the deck
(longitudinal tubular elements and plate girders).
The thrust Carch = H*√ (1+16*(h/L)2) →
Carch = 26263.24*√ (1+16*(30.3/108.31)2 →
Carch = 39413.97kN
This load might cause buckling to the arch, as it is
drawn with a green line in Fig.11.
According to Verstappen [15], the critical buckling
load is calculated by the Eq.8:
Pcr = (π2EI) / Lcr
where Lcr is the half of the circumferential length of the
arch. Here Lcr = 65m.
The arch cross-sectional dimensions are estimated to be
as shown in Fig.12 and it is assumed to be of grade
S355, i.e. fy=355N/mm2 and E=200GPa.
According to Fig.12, I = 1.144125*1012mm.
Thus Eq.7 → Pcr = 534535kN > Carch, so it is safe.
Figure 12: Arch cross section
However, due to the almost semi-circular shape of the
arch (ratio of 1:1.8), bending moments are expected to
develop along the curve of the arch.
Equation 9 gives the bending moment at any point
along the half curve of the arch, according to the angle
of the trust force at the point of interest.
M = -H*(R*sinθ – h) + V*(L/2 – R*cosθ) - WL2/32 (9)
where R=63.55m is the radius of the arch,
L=108.31m is the projected length of the arch,
H =26263.24kN,
V = 29388.84kN,
W=542.68kN/m.
It was found that for θ=42° Eq.9 gives the maximum
bending moment, which is:
M = 316226.38kNm
This results in a stress of:
σ=(My)/I =(316226.38*106*1230) / (1.144125*1012)→ 
σ = 340N/mm2 < 355N/mm2, so it is safe.
5.4 Torsion
An asymmetrical loading could induce torsional
moments about the centroid of the deck, as it is shown
in Fig.13.
(8)
Figure 13: Transverse loading
The resultant torsion can then be calculated and
compared with the torsional resistance.
The torsional resistance of the deck, due to its
complexity, is calculated by determining the torsional
stiffness of each member of the deck [16] according to
the Eq.10.
Ti = [TEd*ki*(hmin3*hmax)*i] / Σ (Khmin3hmax) (10)
6 Temperature effects
Temperature is an important factor that could
influence the stability and behaviour of the structure.
The Clyde Arc is a three-span bridge with the
middle span being the suspended one. The connections
at either end of this span are operating as movement
joints in order to allow free expansion or contraction of
the deck with temperature changes.
According to the isotherm maps (Fig. 7 and 8 of
the BS5400 [13]) over a 120-year return period, the
maximum temperature that has ever been recorded in
Glasgow is +33°C and the minimum -15°C, and
according to the meteorological data, the average
annual temperature is +10°C. Thus, the maximum and
minimum effective values for this specific type of
deck, which is Group 3, are -17°C and +37°C
respectively.
Thus, the maximum elongation or contraction of
the middle span of 96m are given in Eq11 and 12
respectively:
δ1 = α*ΔΤ1*L (11)
 δ2 = α*ΔΤ2*L (12)
where α = 12*10-6/°C (thermal coefficient)
ΔT1 = -17-10 = -27°C,
ΔT2 = +37-10 = +27°C,
Thus, δ = +/- 0.031104m is the maximum
contraction or elongation that the movement joints
need to be able to sustain.
However, in the event that these movements are
restricted, then induced stresses must be withstood by
the structural elements of the deck. These stresses for
the steel and concrete elements respectively are:
σ = ε*Ε = (α*ΔΤ1)*Ε = (12*10-6*27) *200000 →
σ = 64.8N/mm2 (steel)
σ = ε*Ε = (α*ΔΤ1)*Ε = (12*10-6*27) *35000 →
σ = 11.4N/mm2 (concrete)
Moreover, this maximum temperature difference
would affect the tension forces within the cables. On
one hand, when the temperature decreases (ΔΤ1), the
cables contract and the resulting stresses increase the
prestressing forces within the cables, whereas when the
temperature increases (ΔΤ2), the cables expand
resulting in a lower prestressing force. In any case, the
effect of these temperature variations should be
incorporated to the structural design.
Furthermore, temperature variations during the
day could also influence the top and bottom surfaces of
the deck. Due to the temperature difference between
these surfaces, strains are not developing uniformly
across the section depth, which result in deck bending
and curvature formation. The positive (Fig.14a) and the
reverse (Fig.14b) temperature variations should also be
considered during the design process.
Figure 14: Temperature variations a) positive, b)
reverse (based on table C.2, annex C, BS5400)
7 Ground conditions
The results of the ground investigation, which was
carried out before the commence of the construction
works, dictate the foundation approach that had to be
followed.
More specifically, the area underneath the piers
was found to comprise a limestone and a sandstone
bedrock layer [4], which are considered to be of
medium soil strength.
As far as the abutments are concerned, the north
side was found to be composed of sands over a bedrock
layer and a layer of boulder clay was found at the south
side. However, running sands were seen during micro
piling works at the north side [4], which is an
indication that the drilling processes might have
disturbed the brittle equilibrium between the loose sand
layer and the water table [17].
8 Construction
The foundation construction process both for the
major and for the minor piers involved piling works.
Steel piles were driven into the ground by making use
of a hydraulic impact and vibrating hammer [4]. In
total, six and two piles were constructed per each major
and minor pier respectively, of 28.6mm thickness,
1067mm in diameter and 33m depth.
As far as the main piers are concerned, their
construction involved installation of precast parts and
in-situ cast of a specially designed concrete mix (self-
compacting). Initially, a precast slab of circular shape
was installed, with holes in order to let the piles pass
through. Next, a precast hollow lower part (so-called
skirt) of cylindrical shape was placed on the top of the
slab (Fig.15) and facilitated the in-situ concrete casting
within the skirt. This part of the pier has 300mm
thickness and 2900mm depth and it was highly
reinforced in order to provide resistance in the extreme
event of ship impact. On the top of this part, a precast
upper skirt is placed, which is of smaller dimensions,
of 200mm thickness and almost 2m depth [4].
Figure 15: Installation of the lower skirt [4]
 The following concrete part, which is between the
connecting arch and the upper skirt of the pier, is
carefully tapered, starting with a square section and
ending up to an eccentrically rhombic section in order
to ensure a smooth transition from the circular shape of
the base of the piers to the diamond shape of the steel
arch [Fig.2]. This part is connected to the arch through
a system of prestressing bars that are anchored to the
concrete [4]
The abutments were constructed behind the
existing quay walls and they were supported on precast
reinforced concrete piles of 276mm in diameter. Due to
ground instabilities that arose in the north side (running
sands), a rotary drilling system was implemented in
order to avoid further deterioration during construction
[4].
In order to facilitate the construction of the deck,
temporary trestles were set up within the river [12]. Figure 17: Arch installation [4].
These were supported by similar steel piles as those in
piers, but were of smaller diameter and thickness 9 Serviceability and Maintenance
(Fig.16).
The bridge was designed following the Highway
Works (Department for Transport) specifications for 20
years maintenance-free as far as the anti-corrosion
coating of the deck steel elements is concerned [4].
Thus, these elements were factory painted according to
type II system, which is for exterior surfaces with
difficult access.
The same coating protection system applied to the
arch on site, once the welding works were completed.
The connections of the arch segments were carefully
sealed in order to ensure that the inner sides of the
section would not corrode and thus eliminate the need
for maintenance [4].
Furthermore, for the maintenance and potential
Figure 16: First steps of deck construction [18] replacement of the hanger bars to take place, the bridge
was designed to operate as normal even with one cable
Moreover, large floating barges were used as less. Nevertheless, in January 2008 a cable snapped
cranes in order to erect the steel and the precast unexpectedly, without fortunately causing any damage
elements of the deck at the appropriate positions [12]. to the road users (Fig.18).
After the completion of the deck, the installation
of the arch was followed. This process involved the
setting up of two temporary trestles onto the deck in
order to sustain the arch elements during its installation
(Fig.16).
The arch was constructed and transported in nine
segments. Every three of these segments were welded
together on the deck before they were erected in place
and formed three larger segments of 180ts each. Thus,
the first two segments were erected and installed at the
springing points of the piers and then the last segment
of the arch was erected and welded in place (Fig.17).
Once the arch was completed, the temporary Figure 18: The snapped connector [20]
towers that were supporting the arch were removed and
the installation of the bars was followed. This process People heard a loud snapping noise and witnessed
involved stressing of the hanging bars and releasing the whole structure shaking [19]. The bridge closed
from the temporary trestles that supported the deck at immediately to the traffic as a precautionary measure
the same time. and a first investigation showed stress fracture in a
connector unit of another cable. A further investigation
from both Halcrow and Nuttall revealed that the weight
distribution was not as it had been designed due to a
misalignment between the cast steel connectors and the
cables [20]. Thus, it was decided to replace each
connector with new ones made of milled steel. Since
then, no other structural damage has been reported.
10 Future changes
Following demands of the Glasgow City Council,
the bridge is specially designed to incorporate a Light
Rapid Transit system in future. This explains the high
steel tonnage of the whole structure (1470ts) due to
greater loads from the tram vehicles and the relatively
thick surfacing layer of the deck [4]. The latter has a
thickness of 230mm and allows to be removed in order
to accommodate the rail tracks without interfering with
the structural elements of the bridge.
11 Conclusion
The Clyde Arc Bridge, due to its pioneering
design and strategic location, plays undoubtedly a
crucial role to the general social and economic growth
of this area of Glasgow at either side of the river.
This paper attempted to perform a strength
assessment, according to the Highways Agency
Loading Code BD21/01, which was based on
assumptions about the dimensions and properties of the
structural elements, since the real data could not be
accessed. Findings showed that the bridge perform well
under the mentioned loading cases.
However, just after two years from its completion,
a structural damage on two connector units occurred. A
further investigation revealed that a combination of
mistakes, such as misalignment of the installed cables
and inappropriate material choice led to this incident.
The faulty parts were replaced and nothing else has
been reported ever since.
Nevertheless, this unfortunate event at the
beginning of bridge’s service life can be regarded as an
invaluable lesson towards understanding of structures
of such a type.
References
[1] Halcrow Group, http://www.halcrow.com/Our-
projects/Project-details/Clyde-Arc-Bridge-
Scotland/ [accessed 15/03/11]
[2] ICE-Scotland,
http://www.clydewaterfrontheritage.com/FileAcce
ss.aspx?id=2155 [accessed 15/03/11]
[3] Roadtraffic-technology, http://www.roadtraffic-
technology.com/projects/finnieston/ [accessed
15/03/11]
[4] Walker et al. (2009), Procurement, design and
construction of the Clyde Arc, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Bridge Engineering,
Issue BE I, Vol.1, pp.3-14.
[5] The Saltire Society, Scotland,
http://www.saltiresociety.org.uk/3831 [accessed
15/03/11]
[6] Ibell T., Bridge Engineering, Department of
Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of
Bath.
[7] Panoramio, Photo of the Clyde Arc Bridge,
http://v3.cache6.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.
panoramio.com/photos/original/3307192.jpg?redir
ect_counter=1 [accessed 05/04/11]
[8] Flickr, Photo of the Clyde Arc Bridge,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keep_your_bunnet_
oon/3988732166/#/photos/keep_your_bunnet_oon/
3988732166/lightbox [accessed 05/04/11]
[9] SteelConstruction,
http://www.steelconstruction.org/resources/design-
awards/2007/award/clyde-arc-bridge-glasgow-
.html [accessed 06/04/11]
[10] Walther et al. (1999), Cable Stayed Bridges,
Second Edition, Thomas Telford, London 1999
[11] BD 21/01, The assessment of Highway bridges and
structures, Vol.3, Section 4, Part 3, HA
[12] Severfield - Rowen Plc,
http://www.sfrplc.com/project_details_1.aspx?proj
ectID=357 [accessed 06/04/11]
[13] BS5400-2:2006, Steel concrete and composite
bridges, Part 2: Specifications for loads, BSi
[14] BD 50/92, Technical Requirements for the
assessment and strengthening programme for
Highway structures, Stage 3: Long span Bridges,
Vol.3, Section 4, Part 2, HA
[15] Dagowin la Poutre (2001), Stability of Steel
Arches,
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/bcoreports/BCO01-
02.pdf [accessed 07/04/11]
[16] Mosley et.al (2007), Reinforced Concrete Design
to Eurocode 2,Macmillan, London
[17] British Geological Survey,
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/products/geosure/running_sa
nd.html [accessed 08/04/11]
[18] Photo by McAteer, Clyde Waterfront,
http://www.clydewaterfront.com/about-clyde-
waterfront/image-galleries/building-of-the-clyde-
arc [accessed 08/04/11]
[19] BBC,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_
and_west/7188577.stm [accessed 08/04/11]
[20] BBC,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_
and_west/7208575.stm [accessed 09/04/11]