Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN DEVELOPMENT OF
CONCRETE AND HYBRID ARCH BRIDGES
Jure RADIĆ*, Alex KINDIJ** & Ana MANDIĆ***
*Ph.D., Professor, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Zagreb, Croatia
Key words: Concrete, history, bridge design, arch bridges, Bridge Chair
Abstract: Young engineers live in a permanent state of now and today without any
connection to the past, which is missing even in their lifetime. This makes the historians
and their task to remember what others have forgotten even more important.
In this overview development of concrete as a material and contribution of the concrete
application history in development of bridges, with the emphasis on arch bridges is shown.
Some examples of concrete and steel combinations in order to employ the best properties of
each material show the possibilities for new types of arch bridges.
Biographies of famous engineers, designers and builders with their most important
achievements are shortly presented.
Accomplishments of Bridge Chair of the Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering in the
development of concrete application and concrete bridge structures design procedures
trough the educational, scientific and professional work are elaborated.
-9-
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1. INTRODUCTION
In our quick living time, with its strong profit orientation, the history is left quite
disregarded. As the history provides a much needed basis for better understanding of the
contemporary practice, ignoring her is not justified. Especially for the young colleges such
deeper insight in the history of structural practice is necessary. This insight is not only
intended for the young but can also be of interest for the older and experienced colleges.
The history of engineering is as old as mankind itself, and it is without doubt that technical
progress and the rise of human society are deeply interwoven. Bridges have often played an
essential role in technical advancement within Civil Engineering. This article aims to
introduce the reader to the past, present and future in development of concrete and concrete
arch bridges.
The examples and important events in development of concrete and concrete arch bridges
were chosen from a vast amount of literally thousands of possibilities. The principle aim
was to show the main developments. The timeline in the next chapter demonstrates the long
path from the earliest uses of cementitious materials to the application of steel and concrete
for the construction of bridges. Two things were required to enable this development: first
strong cements and second the means to carry tensile forces. Some examples show
developments first introduced to other structures but they were later introduced to arch
bridge structures. Some structures are shown to stress the variety of structures these
engineers dealt with, they formed them and thus enabled them to come up with new
inventions and redefining implementations. In the 3rd chapter the biographies of some of
the most important inventors and designers are given.
Arches are important functional structural elements which have decisively influenced the
genesis of construction technology and architecture in general. In all structures where
arches are used they all gain outstanding characteristics needed to be deemed architectural
masterpieces, although not very modern but more traditional.
It will never be known who built the first actual bridge structure or used what we today
refer to as concrete. Our knowledge of past days fades the further we look back into time.
We can but assume that man, in his search for food and shelter from the elements and with
his given curiosity, began exploring his natural environment. Crossing creeks and crevices
with technical means thus was a matter of survival and progress, and bridges belong to the
oldest structures ever built. The earliest bridges will have consisted of the natural materials
available, namely wood and stone, and simple handmade ropes. In fact, there is only a
handful of surviving structures that might even be considered prehistoric, e.g. the so-called
Clapper bridges in the southern part of England or a clapper bridge constructed in medieval
times over the Cetina River in Croatia shown on fig.1.
- 10 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
2. TIMELINE
The following timeline summarises the history of the material now referred to as reinforced
concrete, prestressing, bridges in general and arch bridges in some more detail. In this
chapter different types of structures are mentioned. All this structures were important and
relevant in some or other way in the development of concrete and concrete arch bridges
whether as a new invention or some other type of breaktrough.
10.000.000 BC: Reactions between limestone and oil shale during spontaneous combustion
occurred in Israel to form a natural deposit of cement compounds. The deposits
were characterized by Israeli geologists in the 1960’s and 70’s.
9.000 BC Oldest confirmed evidence of burning gypsum was found at Catal Huyuk, Asia.
7.500 BC Oldest confirmed evidence of lime as part of the floor was found in one
prehistoric habitat, Lepenski Vir, fig.2. It is supposed that this lime was created
by accident because the hart was built with limestone and during extinguishing
the fire with water lime was created which mixed with ash and similar aggregate
created a material similar to concrete.
3000 BC The oldest findings of iron in Egypt, probably from meteorite. Egyptians used
mud mixed with straw to bind dried bricks. They also used gypsum mortars and
mortars of lime in the pyramids.
800 BC Greeks, Cretans & Cypriots used lime mortars which were much harder than
later Roman mortars.
700 to 200 BC: Chinese used cementitious materials to hold bamboo together in their boats
and in the Great Wall.
300 BC Babylonians & Assyrians used bitumen to bind stones and bricks.
300 BC to 476 AD: Romans used pozzolana cement from Pozzuoli, Italy near Mt.
Vesuvius to build the Appian Way, Roman baths, the Colosseum (fig.3) and
Pantheon (fig.4) in Rome, and the Pont du Gard (fig.5) aqueduct in south France
and many more structures. They used lime as a cementitious material. Pliny
reported a mortar mixture of one part lime to four parts sand. Marcus Vitruvius
Polio mentioned in his book ˝De architectura˝ the use of volcanic ash –
pozzolana as two parts pozzolana to one part lime. Animal fat, milk, eggs and
blood were used as admixtures added to cement to improve its properties. Many
structures still exist.
- 11 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Much has been written about the numerous significant buildings in the Roman Empire
constructed using ˝concrete˝ as the primary structural material. It is believed that the first
use of a truly cementitious binding agent, as opposed to the ordinary lime commonly used
in ancient mortars, occurred in southern Italy in about the second century B.C. It is certain
that to build the Porticus Aemelia, a large warehouse constructed in 193 B.C., pozzuolana
was used to bind stones together to make ˝concrete˝. This unusual sand reacts chemically
with lime and water to solidify into a rocklike mass, even when fully submerged. The
Romans used it for bridges, docks, storm drains, and aqueducts as well as for buildings.
Roman concrete bears little resemblance to modern Portland cement concrete. It was never
in a plastic state that could flow into a mold or a formwork.
Indeed, there is no clear boundary between what could be called the first concrete and what
might be more correctly termed as cemented rubble. Roman concrete was constructed in
layers by packing mortar by hand in and around stones of various sizes. This assembly was
faced with clay bricks on both sides, unless it was below grade, and in the case of walls the
wythes of bricks served as forms for the ˝concrete˝. It is known that the bricks had little
structural value and were used to facilitate construction and as surface decoration. There is
little doubt that the pozzuolanic material made this type of construction possible.
Width approx.
156 m
appro oundation
Travertine
m
x. 52
Tuff
of f
Width
Roman concrete
Depth of foundation
approx. 12 m
- 12 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Most public buildings, including the Pantheon, and fashionable residences in Rome used
brick faced concrete construction for walls and vaults. The domed Pantheon, constructed in
the second century A.D., is certainly one of the structural masterpieces of all time. It is a
highly sophisticated structure with many weight-reducing voids, niches, and small vaulted
spaces.
The builders of the Pantheon knew enough to use very heavy aggregates at the ground level
and ones of decreasing density higher up in the walls and in the dome itself in order to
reduce the weight to be carried.
The Pantheon's clear span of 43.3 m dwarfed previous spans and created nothing less than
an architectural revolution in terms of the way interior space was perceived.
approx. 9 m
1.6 m
- 13 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 14 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 7: An-Chi Bridge over the Chiao River, Hopei province, China, 605-617
1200 – 1500 The Middle Ages: The quality of cementing materials deteriorated. The use of
burning lime and pozzolan was lost, but again reintroduced in the 1300’s. Gothic
builders in Northern France used iron ties and cramps. Damage due to rust
spaling led to the abandonment of the method.
In Croatia we have some medieval achievements such as Dubrovnik city bridges.
The bridge at the Pile Gate, fig.8, is one of the stone arch bridges constructed to
form the fortifications of the city of Dubrovnik. They have endured until today in
their original shape and are still in every-day use.
- 15 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
˝The true mathematical and mechanical form of all amnner of arches for
building, with the true butment necessary to each of them. A problem which no
architectonick writer hath ever yet attemted, much less performed.˝
The solution to this problem was given in the form of a Latin anagram, which
when solved and translated read: ˝As hangs the flexible line, so but inverted will
stand the rigid arch.˝ The equation for the curve of a hanging flexible line or
catenary was derived twenty years later by David Gregory, who expanded
Hooke's assertion:
˝When an arch of any other figure is supported, it is because in its thickness
some catenaria is included.˝
The shape of a stretched string under a given set of loads is known as a funicular curve,
from the Latin for string. The same term (or sometimes anti-funicular) is applied to arch
profiles designed to resist the applied loads in pure compression.
1678 Joseph Maxon wrote about a hidden fire in heated lime that appears upon the
addition of water.
1695 In this year funicular curve theory was developed by Philippe de la Hire in Paris
to account for the weight of fill and spandrel walls over the arch. This approach
was further developed in England by William Emerson who first derived the
shape of spandrel required to maintain a semi-circular arch in equilibrium, and
later derived arch shapes that would be maintained in equilibrium by spandrels
with a horizontal top surface.
A type of concrete was first seen again in eighteenth-century in France, where stuccoed
rubble made to emulate true masonry became fashionable. Francois Cointeraux, a mason in
Lyon, searched for an economical means of making fireproof walls by using cementitious
mortar in combination with the very ancient pise or ˝rammed earth˝ construction technique.
Pise calls for the use of timber formwork to contain the clay or mud while it is being
compacted, but the use of new and stronger cements made the compacting process
unnecessary.
1729 The word ˝béton˝ is mentioned for the first time in ˝La Science des Ingénieurs˝
by B.F. de Bélidor, published by Jombert, Paris.
1746-1756: W. Emerson's ideas were partially validated by the collapse and subsequent
successful completion of a very slender single span arch bridge at Pontypridd in
Wales, fig.9. William Edwards, a self taught mason, had contracted to build a
bridge over the Taff for £500 in 1746. This massive stone bridge in Pontypridd
was the source of much construction frustration, it took four attempts to get it
right.
His first attempt, a wooden bridge, was demolished by a flood after two years.
Being liable for maintenance for seven years he decided to construct a single
span stone bridge, which failed when the centring collapsed shortly before
completion. His next design was extremely light and thin, and collapsed by
breaking upwards at the crown. The final structure, which still stands today,
reduced the weight of fill near the abutments by the inclusion of cylindrical voids
through the spandrels. The completed structure at L = 42.7 m span was the
longest arch in Britain, and remained so for forty years.
- 16 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 10: Blackfriars Bridge under construction engraved by Piranesi, London, 1764
- 17 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
While the panel was deliberating, the designs became a matter of public debate
with contributions from Dr Samuel Johnson and an apparently well-informed
writer who signed himself ˝Publicus˝ and is believed to have been Robert Mylne
himself.
Mylne's original design was ultimately accepted by this panel of ˝experts˝ (who
included a clergyman, the Astronomer Royal, a teacher of medicine, a lawyer,
and two professors). The only mathematical appraisal of the designs appears to
have been carried out by a Thomas Simpson, a professor of mathematics, whose
early career included being tutored by a pedlar and achieving some fame as a
village fortune-teller. Simpson's calculations showed that Mylne's arch was
thicker than necessary, and that the size of pier needed to resist the horizontal
thrust was virtually identical for both elliptical and semi-circular designs.
1775-1779: First level of Tounj Bridge with three spans of 5.6 m was build as a part of
Jozefina road by the baron Vinko Struppi, fig.97.
1779 Bry Higgis was issued a patent for hydraulic cement (stucco) for exterior
plastering use.
1780 Bry Higgins published his ˝Experiments and Observations made with the view of
improving the art of composing and applying calcareous cements and of
preparing quicklime˝.
1785 Jozefina road was reconstructed due to the traffic increase. Builder J.K. Knežić
solved the problem of large ascent and descent of road level reference line of
Tounj Bridge by building second level with three identical vaults.
1793 John Smeaton found that the calcination of limestone containing clay gave a lime
which hardened under water (hydraulic lime). He used hydraulic lime to rebuild
Eddystone Lighthouse in Cornwall, England which he had been commissioned to
build in 1756, but had to first invent a material that would not be affected by
water.
1796 James Parker of England patented his natural hydraulic cement by calcining
nodules of impure limestone containing clay, called Parker’s Cement or Roman
Cement.
The state of knowledge of arch design was clearly still in a confused state by the middle of
the 18th Century. Refinements of methods of arch design and analysis continued to be
developed throughout the 19th and 20th Century. Leliavesky quotes methods by Melan,
Kogler, and Cochrane. More recently Ridley-Ellis has published computer programs for
design of optimum arch profiles based on the equation:
⎧⎪ ⎛⎛ x⎞ ⎛ d' + r' ⎞ ⎞⎫⎪
y = r' + d' ⎨1 - cosh ⎜⎜ ⎜1 - 2 ⎟ cosh -1 ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟⎬.
⎪⎩ ⎝⎝ s ⎠ ⎝ d' ⎠ ⎠⎪⎭
These various methods of design and analysis give results broadly in agreement, with
varying degrees of precision, but give rise to arch profiles quite different to the semi-
circular and circular arc profiles used in historical structures. This apparent paradox has a
simple explanation, all of the methods discussed above neglect the horizontal pressure from
the arch fill! When horizontal loads are considered it can be shown that the funicular curve
shape is intermediate between a circular arc and a parabola for very high fills, and lies
- 18 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
outside the circular curve for shallow fills. Comparisons of field measurements and finite
element analysis of arches designed using funicular curve theory are given by Jenkins.
1802 In France, a similar Roman Cement process was used.
1812-1813: Louis Vacat of France prepared artificial hydraulic lime by calcining synthetic
mixtures of limestone and clay.
1812-1816: The world’s first unreinforced arch bridge was built by L.J.Vicat (fig.11) seven
arches with 22 m span over the river Dordogne near Souillac, Midi-Pyrénées,
France. When Louis Vicat received an order to construct a bridge over the
Dordogne River in 1812, he began searching for an alternative method for
producing cement.
- 19 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 12: J.L.Lambot small reinforced concrete boat, Miraval, Provence, 1848
1849 J. Monier, a French gardener, developed a flowerpot with reinforced concrete –
concrete tubs, for orange trees using wire reinforcing. In the same year
Pettenkofer & Fuches performed the first accurate chemical analysis of Portland
cement.
1851 A beam consisting of brickwork reinforced with hoop iron was displayed at the
Great Exhibition, fig.13, in London.
- 20 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 21 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 15: W.E. Ward house, Port Chester, New York, 1876
1872 J. Monier built the first cylinder water tank with a thin shell roof at Bougival,
Seine-et-Oise, France, fig.16.
- 22 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 17: Monier's first iron concrete bridge in Chazelet, Touraine, 1875
For structural engineers the process of ˝design˝ covers more than the initial
conception of structural form. Engineers do not claim to have ˝designed˝ a
structure until they have demonstrated that it can satisfactorily perform its main
task of bearing load. In almost all cases proof is by calculation, carried out before
construction commences. The profile of a Monier arch was determined entirely
by technical considerations. It was carefully chosen to ensure that the "dead"
weight, comprised of the arch itself plus the spandrel walls and earth fill, would
cause no bending in the arch ring, thus ensuring that stresses would be
compressive and uniform over its full thickness, fig.18.
- 23 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
on fill material of lesser quality than the material used in the arch itself but capable of
transferring loads onto it. In certain cases, barrel vaults on transverse spandrel walls were
inserted between the carriageway and the arch. After the introduction of concrete, the same
principle was applied, as earthfilled arches were often used. Along each side, the arch
structure was completed by a face wall fixed in the arch. The volume, thus delimited, was
filled with earth.
1877 E.L. Ransome was managing a successful stone company, producing concrete
blocks as artificial stone in San Francisco. He first used reinforcing in 1877, and
in 1884 he patented a system using twisted square rods to help the development
of bond between the concrete and reinforcing. His largest work of the time was
the Leland Stanford, Jr. Museum at Stanford University, the first building to use
exposed aggregate. He was also responsible for several industrial buildings in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
1880 F. Hennebique, a successful mason turned contractor in Paris, started to build
reinforced concrete houses. He took out patents in France and Belgium for the
Hennebique system of construction and proceeded to establish an empire of
franchises in major cities. He promoted the material by holding conferences and
developing standards within his own company network. Most of his buildings,
like Ransome’s were industrial. When the far-flung company was at its peak,
Hennebique was fulfilling more than 1500 contracts annually. More than any
other individual he was responsible for the rapid growth of reinforced concrete
construction in Europe.
1887 Wayss published ˝Das System Monier˝, incorporating theory developed by K.
Koenen.
1887-1891: 320 road bridges where built in Germany, Austria, Hungary and Swiss based on
patent rights by Wayss & Freitag with spans up to 40 m, and in 1890 even a 45°
angle Monier arch bridge, fig.19. The opening of this bridge was 41.62 m, rise of
3.60 m, and 20 cm thickness at the top. This bridge was in function for a small
road at Wildegg, Kanton Aargau, Switzerland.
Figure 19: Arch bridge for a small road at Wildegg, Kanton Aargau, Switzerland, 1890
1888 C.F.W. Döhring applied for German patent in Berlin for construction of concrete
plates and small girders with prestressed strands in order to reduce cracks in
concrete.
1890-1892: The committee for vaults at the Austrian engineering and architect society
ordered two experiments with 10 m free span vaults both concrete and reinforced
- 24 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
concrete, and four experiments with 23 m free span vaults with stone masonry,
brick masonry, concrete and reinforced concrete. These experiments where
needed to persuade the Austrian and Hungarian authorities to accept the new
construction method.
1892 J. Melan was issued an Austrian patent for rigid truss arch scaffolding made of
steel profiles which partly remain as reinforcement inside the arch. This
construction procedure was implemented for the first time in USA in 1994. In
the same year F. Hennebique was issued a French patent for monolithic iron
reinforced concrete structures, fig.20, also E. Coignet was issued a French patent
for prefabrication of deck girders which he was producing in his factory in
Biarritz, Basses-Pyrénées.
- 25 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1898 G.A.Wayss & Co. – Wien built the largest Monier Arch bridge for a road over
the river Ybbs at Waidhofen, Austria with 44 m free span, fig 21. In the same
year E. Coignet built the first cylindrical water tower in iron reinforced concrete
for the Marine arsenal in Toulon, France, fig 22.
Figure 21: Monier Arch bridge over the river Ybbs at Waidhofen, Austria, 1898
- 26 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 27 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 28 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1903 The firms Wayss & Freytag and Heilmann & Littmann built a bridge over the
river Isar at Grünwald, Bayern, Germany based on the design of E. Mörsch. The
bridge comprises two three hinged arches of 70 m span and 12.8 m rise, fig.28.
In the same year A. Perret built the delicately facaded apartment building at Rue
Franklin 25, fig.29. The concrete frame is not hidden so the difference between
the structure and the decorated infill is clearly seen. And F. Visintini built in
Vienna the first truss girder in iron reinforced concrete. This construction
procedure resulted in the up to now unsurpassed 600 m long bridge over the
Desna river in Tchernigov, Russia.
Figure 28: Bridge over the Isar, Grünwald, Bayern, Germany, 1903
- 29 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
to the strong piers placed over the arch foundations; it is delivered to the piers
through transverse walls, 12 m high and 25 cm thick, arranged in the sides of the
piers, and at their lower ends fixed to the piers, at their upper ends to the deck, in
order to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate longitudinal length variations of
the deck. This bridge has inspired a large number of arch bridges built during the
first half of the 20th Century.
In the same year C.A.P. Turner built the first plate with mushroom cup columns
in USA. As he did not have any approved calculation method the bearing
capacity needed to be proven with experimental loading.
Figure 30: Gmündertobelbridge over the river Sitter, Teufen, kanton Appenzell,
Switzerland, 1906
1907 E. Freyssinet raised and connected the arch in Rairéals-sur-Besbre (Allier) for
the first time with hidraulic jacks at the crown of the arches. In the same year for
the first time Calcium chloride was recommended for protection against frost,
where the recommended amount was 2 % of the cement weight. Cognition of the
attack on the reinforcement in concrete was not known until twelve years later.
1909-1911: Eugene Freyssinet built a three span arch bridge 68 + 72.5 + 68 m, all arches
with three hinges and span to rise ratio L/15 over the river Allier at Le Veurdre,
near Vichy, fig. 31. At the time the 72.5 m span was the longest so far
constructed. After removing the scaffolding the occurrence of creep and
shrinkage was noted for the first time. One of the main reasons for the creep and
shrinkage was the low quantity of reinforcement 35 kg/m2 due to savings.
Regarding this bridge, Freyssinet wrote: ˝I have always loved it more than any
other of my bridges, and of all that the War has destroyed, it is the only one
whose ruin has caused me real grief˝.
- 30 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 31: Bridge over the river Allier, Le Veurdre, France, 1911
In order to comply with codes and design regulations of that time the arches
were built three hinges each, although Fresinnet, would have preferred to have
only two. The arches were decentered by activation of hydraulic jacks at the top
hinge.
Prior to building this bridge Freyssinet had studied its expected behavior on a
scale model with a span of 50 m, and rise of 2 m, and a prestressed tie between
the arch foundations.
In the same year architects A. and G. Perret built the Théâtre des Champs-
Elysées in Paris completely from concrete reinforced with iron.
The idea of prestressing is a product of the twentieth century and it announced the single
most significant new direction in structural engineering of any period in history. It put into
the hands of the designer an ability to control structural behavior at the same time as it
enabled, or forced him, to think more deeply about construction. Moreover, the idea of
prestressing opened up new possibilities for form and aesthetics. Prestressing has had broad
application to all kinds of buildings and other structures but the idea of prestressing arose
out of bridge design. The most impressive forms of prestressing, from a purely engineering
viewpoint, appear in bridges.
1910 A. Siegwart from Swiss wraped concrete pipes with 625 N/mm2 prestressed steel
strands and proved that the pipes are hermetic up to an inner pressure of
5.5 MN/m2.
1910-1911: The firm G.A. Porcheddu from Turin built the Risorgimento bridge in Rome
over the Tiber, fig.32. The 100 m span arch is with no hinges. The rise is
f = 10 m, the thickness at the abutment B = 20 m, and the thickness at the top is
b = 20 cm. The arch cross section is multiple cell box with abutments on piles in
very bad ground conditions. The bridge was designed by F. Hennebique. For 84
years the load bearing capacity was an enigma.
- 31 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1912-1914: The firm E. Züblin from Zurich built the Langwieser viaduct for the Chur –
Arosa train with a two rib arch with no hinges, with L = 100 m span and f = 42 m
rise according to the design by H. Schürch, fig.33. This is not only the most
elegant viaduct in the entire railway network, but also a milestone in the history
of bridge-building. It was the first large bridge made of reinforced concrete.
Figure 33: Langwieser viaduct for the Chur – Arosa train, Switzerland, 1914
1916 H. Itersen built in Heerlen, Holland the first 35 m hyperbolic cooling tower made
from iron reinforced concrete. The firm Limousin from Paris built aircraft
hangars at Bourges with 40 m arch span and only 10 cm thickness of the shell.
1917 E. Freyssinet invented a way for mechanically compacting the concrete.
1918 D.A. Abrams published in Chicago his research about the influence of water-
cement ratio on the compressive strength of the concrete. This research was a
special form of the reference given by R. Feret in 1897.
1919 The influence of CaCl2 on reinforcement embedded in concrete was identified.
1922 A. Perret designed the church Notre Dame du Raincy, fig.34, which represented
a significant departure from anything, built in concrete before and is generally
regarded as a masterpiece of architectural design. The lofty arched ceilings and
the slender columns were very convincing statements as to the prowess of this
newly accepted building material.
In the same year the firm Dyckerhoff & Widmann built the half sphere with
16 m diameter and only 3 cm thickness of the shell for the Zeiss Planetarium in
Jenna. The world's first lightweight steel structural framework was built for this
roof. When covered with ferro cement the structure became the first thin-shell
concrete structure in history. What is even more remarkable about the dome is
that it was almost incidental to a spectacular scientific and technical
accomplishment: invention of the planetarium projector. Bauersfeld, Franz
- 32 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 33 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 36: Aqueduct over the Rio Guadalete, Tempúl, Andalusia, Spain, 1926
1927 H. Lossier built a 92 m span truss arch bridge with underlying deck over the
Oued Mellègue in Tunis, fig. 37. In the same year R. Fäber was issued a German
patent for embedding sliding reinforcement coated in paraffin, cardboard or
sheet-tin tubes to enable prestressing after the concrete hardening.
- 34 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 37: Truss arch bridge over the Oued Mellègue, Tunis, 1927
1927-1928: E. Caquot built the 24 m wide bridge for the Rue Lafayette over the East
Railway station in Paris, fig.38, with two spans L = 72 + 77 m. He also built the
L = 137.5 m span and f = 28.3 m rise railroad fixed arch bridge without
longitudinal reinforcement on the La Caille road over the Usses canyon (Haute-
Savoie, France). The cross section of the arch is a box type built on wooden
centering, fig.39, made as a timber truss with a span of 132 m, and with depths
of 3.7 m and 5.4 m at crown and springings, respectively. The arch was poured
in three layers: lower flange, webs, top flange, respectively, each layer
contributing to carry the following one.
Figure 38: Rue Lafayett bridge over the East Railway Station, Paris, 1928
- 35 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 39: Centering for the La Caille bridge, Usses canyon, Haute-Savoie, France, 1928
1928 F. Dischinger prestressed the tension cord of the Saale bridge, Alsleben,
Germany, fig.40. The single span of the bridge is L = 68 m and the stressing was
applied to nullify the deformations due to permanent weight.
R.H. Dill applied for a German patent and E. Freyssinet and J.C. Séailles applied
for a French patent in the same year independently. Both patents dealt with
minimal prestreessing of steel to 400 N/mm2 which was needed to ensure
permanent prestressing force in concrete.
Figure 40: Prestressing of the tension cord of the Saale bridge, Alsleben, Germany, 1928
1929 H. Lossier applied for the first time span by span construction method. He built a
five span girder bridge at Mechra ed Dack in Marokko. Each span was erected
with the help of a purpose-made movable erection truss from above, fig.41. In
- 36 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
the same year H. Spangenberg built the L = 130 m span arch bridge with rise
f = 31.8 m in Echelsbach, Bavaria, Germany. The arch was constructed using
Melan procedure where the steel formwork was concreted, fig.42, and became
part of the arch. For the construction of the steel formwork free cantilevering
method was applied.
Figure 42: Erection of the steel formwork of the arch over Amer near Echelsbach, Bavaria,
Germany, 1929
- 37 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1930 The firm Lumousin, Paris, built the two deck arch bridge over the Elorn river at
Plougastel, Bretagne, France, fig.43. The upper deck was for the roadway and
the lower was foreseen for the railway which was newer used. Three arches with
no hinges and L = 172 m free span were constructed based on the design of E.
Freyssinet. The scafolding for the whole arch span was used three times and was
transported on water barges, fig.44.
Figure 43: Arch bridge over the river Elorn at Plougastel, Bretagne, France, 1926-30
- 38 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1932 The bridge over the Lika River in Kosinj, fig.45, was built in 1932 and is one of
the aesthetically most successful bridges in Croatia and influenced all the later
great Croatian arch bridge designers. Designer of this bridge is M. Frković. It
bridges the river with three harmonious arches 18 m in span with circular
openings over the pillars. Together with the stone edging and protrusions of
distinctive bridge lines they are superbly proportioned, producing a unique
image. The bridge was damaged during the II World war, but was rebuilt in its
original form.
Figure 46: Arch bridge over the Lot, Castelmoron, Lot-et-Garonne, France, 1933
- 39 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1934 The bridge over the Kupa River in Sisak, fig.47, was constructed from 1927 to
1934 based on the M. Frković design. Bridge comprises three elegant arches
over the river and three more over the riverbanks. It presents almost unattainable
harmony achieved by a combination of brick and natural stone and a number of
superior designed and constructed details of cornices, railing, arch vaults,
spandrel walls, pillars, etc. The bridge survived all the wars, successfully carried
all loading and is still today in everyday use as one of the most valuable bridges
of its style.
In the same year F. Dischinger applied for the patent for external prestressing in
France and Germany, fig.48. For the reconcilement of the creep and shrinkage
deformation he proposed supplemental prestressing.
- 40 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1935 One of the most admired shell structure, the grandstand at the Zarzuela, Madrid,
was built based upon the design of the architects C. Arniches and M. Dominguez
and engineers E. Torroja, fig.49. The shell roof of the racecourse cantilevers out
12.6 m and the thickness varies from 5 cm to 15 cm.
- 41 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1937-1941: The Swiss railway authority built a four trail railway arch bridge with
L = 150 m span and f = 34.8 m rise over the river Aare in Bern, fig.51, under the
supervision of A. Bühler.
Figure 51: Four trail arch bridge over the Aare river in Bern, Switzerland, 1941
1938 The overpass over the Dortmund – Hannover Highway was built near Rheda-
Wiedenbrück according to the U. Finsterwalder patent. The structure is 34.5 m
single span. In the same year the firm Wayss & Freytag built a 33 m span
overpass with four 1.6 m high girders, fig.52, based on the patent by E.
Freyssinet and J. Séailles.
Figure 52: Overpass over the Highway in Oelde, Westfalen, Germany, 1938
- 42 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1938-1939: H. Lossier built a bridge over the river Seine at Villeneuve-St-Georges. The
structure is a rib slab with variable height over 78 m long span, fig.53.
Approximately at the same tame in Kongo, at that time Belgian colony, 498 m
long railway bridge over the Lualaba river near Kongola was built, fig.54. The
bridge was built using free cantilevering method. The spans are 34.3 + 70.0 +
34.3 m. In 1938 the construction of the arch bridge over the Ångermanälv near
Sandö in southern Sweden started, fig.55. In 1939 the free standing scaffolding
for the 30 cm thick lower plate of the box type cross section of the arch
collapsed. The bridge was opened for traffic in 1943.
Figure 53: Bridge over the Seine river at Villneuve-St-Georges, France, 1939
Figure 54: Bridge over the Lualaba river near Kongola, Belgian Kongo, 1939
Figure 55: Arch bridge over the Ångermanälv near Sandö, Sweden, 1939
- 43 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1939 The bridge across the river Sava is one of the first composite bridge in the world
so it became the forerunner of contemporary bridge construction based on two
different materials – steel and concrete in interaction, fig.56.
- 44 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1941 French firm Campenon-Bernard built a bridge in Djedeida, Tunis, fig.59. This is
a gerber bridge with spans 20 + 50 + 20 m. The 30 m long girders were made
with prefabricated elements connected with prestressed cables. In the same year
in France the construction of 55 m span Marne Bridge near Luzancy started
according to the design by E. Freyssinet, fig.60. Because of the World War II the
construction ceased and continued in 1945 when the box type elements of the
frame girder were concreted. In 1946 the elements were placed and prestressed.
- 45 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1947 The firm Blaton-Aubert built the first prestressed railway bridge with grout
bonded tendons (L/d = 20.07/1.15 = 17.5) over the Rue du Miroir in Brüssel,
Belgium. The design was made by G. Magnel. At the same time in Rapid City,
South Dakota, USA, fig.61, aircraft hangars with L = 103.6 m arch span and
f = 27.4 m rise were built. The design by A. Tedesko stipulated a shell structure
with outside ribs and shell thickness which varies from 12.7 to 17.8 cm. The
horizontal force was accepted with steel tension elements ∅63.5 mm. The total
length of the hangar is 95.8 m.
Figure 61: Aircraft hangar in Rapid City, South Dakota, USA, 1947
1948 In France the elegant 74 m span Mairne bridge Esbly was built along with some
similar bridges with same span in the Méaux region, fig.62.
- 46 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1948-1949: The Galion bridge in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, was built from prefabricated
elements, fig.63. The precast prestressed beams of the superstructure were
connected with an in situ concrete slab. One section of this bridge with 33.5 m
span is movable in vertical direction on steel towers to allow the passage of large
ships. At the same time W. Baur and F. Leonhardt built a very light bridge over
the Neckar canal with spans 19 + 96 + 19 m, fig.64. Box type cross section was
prestressed with concentrated tendons of 1216 strands each 7∅3.0 mm, in
1600/1800 grade steel.
Figure 63: Construction of the Galion bridge, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 1949
- 47 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1949 At Emmendinge, Baden a very slender (L/d = 30.0/0.64 = 47) and skew, 65°,
bridge was built over the river Elz, fig.65. The superstructure is a continuous
prestressed plate over three spans and variable thickness. The bridge was
designed upon a proposal given by F. Leonhardt. In the same year M.
Birkenmaier, A. Brandestini, M.R. Koš and K. Vogt developed the BBRV
prestressing method.
- 48 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Concurrently, with the development of prestressed concrete, arch bridges have become
rarer, and today they are mostly applied for spans of more than 100 m. Using modern
construction technology, arch structures will often rank as realistic alternatives to girder or
cable-stayed bridges.
1950 The firm Dyckerhoff & Widmann built a 82.4 m span Gänstor bridge in Ulm,
fig.67. The bridge was designed by U. Finsterwalder, and the structure was a two
hinge frame.
Figure 67: Gänstor bridge over the Danube, Ulm, Germany, 1950
1950-1951: U. Finsterwalder built the Lahn bridge at Balduinstein with 3.0 m long
segments and free cantilever method. The prestressed bars ∅26 in steel grade
600/900 were connected with tendon splices in steel grade 360/520. The
construction method was the same one which E.H. Baumgart and R. Schjødt
applied 20 years before for the construction of the 86 m span iron concrete
bridge over the Rio do Paixe in Brazil. At the same time in Heilbronn, a 58°
skew railway bridge continuous over five spans was built, fig.68. The cross
section is a 2 ⋅ 17.5 m wide voided slab with constant height (L/d = 21.57/1.20 =
18). The tendons were concentrated 396 ∅7.5 mm strands 1600/1800 steel grade.
The tendons were installed in sheet-tin boxes, prestressed and grouted the same
way as in the Magnel-Blaton prestressing method. The design was made by the
firm Wolfer & Goebel, and F. Leonhardt was adviser for the design.
Figure 68: Construction of the railway bridge over the Neckar chanel, Heilbronn, Germany,
1951
- 49 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 50 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Bridge over Korana River in Selište at the entrance of the National Park Plitvice
lakes, fig.70, has an arch span of 60 m with a rise of 16.1 m. The arch consists of
two vaults with a gradual increase of depth form the 90 cm at the crown to
147 cm at the abutments. At the crown Tonković joined the arch to the
superstructure to mollify the difference between the thin superstructure and
considerably massive arch.
Figure 70: Bridge over Korana River near Plitvice lakes, Croatia
K. Tonković achieved harmony with the extremely demanding area with an arch
bridge over Slunjčica River in Slunj, fig.71. The arch opening is 72.61 m with a
rise to span ratio of 1:7.3. A light slab superstructure is set on two piers in
transversal direction. Piers indent increases from 120 cm at the abutments to
180 cm at the crown, which is functional advantage due to loading transfer but
also enlarges the space impression of bridge.
- 51 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Bridge over Korana River in Karlovac, fig.72, was the last one constructed
according to Tonković design. Although the plane area with a weak soil
characteristics is no predestinate for thrust arch systems, after a detailed analyses
Tonković choose main concrete arch bridge structure with a span of 56 m and
rise to span ratio 1:9.7 together with beam approaches with spans of 12.5 m. He
stipulated the use of hydraulic jacks at the bridge crown in order to eliminate
adverse movements of foundations.
Unfortunately this bridge was not constructed completely according to the design
which led to certain difficulties. They were eliminated at the time but with
serious grip on foundations.
- 52 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1954-1955: F. Leonhardt built the first 211 m high television tower in Stuttgart of which
159 m is concrete cross section and 52 m is steel antenna, fig.74.
- 53 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
section was made in the prestresing formwork. The bridges are supported by
over 9,000 concrete pilings. The two bridges feature bascule spans over the
navigation channel 13 km south of the north shore.
Figure 75: Positioning of the superstructure precast element of the Lake Pontchartrain near
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 1956
1956 R. Morandi built the 100 m span Storms river arch bridge, fig.76. Each arch half
was constructed vertically and then rotated into the final position and connected
with the other half (bascule construction of the arch).
vertical construction
of arch ribs
auxiliary pylon
auxiliary pier
L ~ 100 m
- 54 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 55 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
superstructure was launched from side into the final position as replacement for
the 37 m span and 45° skew old iron superstructures.
In the same year Dyckerhoff & Widmann built the Mangfall Bridge on the
München – Salzburg Highway, fig.79. The bridge was designed by U.
Finsterwalder. With this bridge, as in other projects, Finsterwalder sought to
show that prestressed concrete could compete directly with structural steel, not
only in cost, but also in reducing the structure depth. The Mangfall Bridge was
built by his cantilever method but made with open truss-like walls. His idea was
to duplicate the girder depth of the steel bridge built in the late 1930s and
destroyed in World War II. Not only did he succeed technically, but in designing
a two-level bridge, he provided the pedestrian with one of the most spectacular
crossings, fig.80, since Brooklyn Bridge in New York.
- 56 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1959-1962: German-Venezuela joint venture firm built a 8.7 km long prestressed bridge
over the Lake Maracaibo in 40 months based on the design by R. Morandi with
five main spans each of 235 m, fig.81. This static system was reproduced by
Morandi with a unique main span for two bridges in Italy and for the Wadi Kuf
Bridge in Libya, which has once been the world record; and also by French
engineers for the Chaco Corrientes Bridge. However, it is well adapted to a
succession of cable-stayed spans, since longitudinal length variations can
develop freely at the joints between cantilevers and simple spans, and since the
very rigid pylons can easily balance the effects of traffic loads when distributed
on one complete span on one side and later on the other.
Figure 82: Arrábida Arch Bridge over the Douro River,Portugal, 1963
- 57 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 83: Choisy-le-Roi bridge over the Siene, Paris, France, 1962
1963-1964: W. Kirijenko built a cable stayed bridge in Kiev, Ukraine, over the river Dnjepr
with spans 66 + 144 + 66 m with precast reinforced concrete elements. At the
same time V. Osipov built a suspended Hudson-Hope bridge, fig.84, with 207 m
span and total length of 328 m over the Peace river in British Columbia, Canada
where the superstructure was made from prestressed precast elements. This two-
lane bridge has slender concrete towers and a concrete deck with no stiffening
truss.
Figure 84: Hudson Hope suspended bridge over the Peace River, British Columbia, Canada,
1964
1964 The firm Züblin & Co., Zürich constructed the first concrete stressed ribbon
bridge in Holderbank near Wildegg, Kanton Aargau, Swiss with 216 m span,
14.75 m deflection and 26 cm structural height, fig.85.
Figure 85: Concrete stressed ribbon bridge, Holderbank, Wildegg, Kanton Aargau, Swiss,
1964
- 58 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Gladesville Bridge in Sydney, fig.86, Australia, built in the same year, with the
span of 304.8 m kept a world record until the erection of Krk Bridge. The arch is
made of four box type cross sections, 6.1 m wide and 4.27 to 6.9 m high. During
the construction of each arch cross-section on the same scaffolding the arches
were at the distance of 30 cm. In addition they are connected longitudinally with
concrete, without longitudinal reinforcement.
Figure 87: Bendorf bridge over the Rhine, Koblenz, Germany, 1965
- 59 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1963-1965: For the first time precast elements from 190 to 600 tons were used for the 5 km
long prestressed Zeeland bridge over the Oosterschelde in Holland, fig.88. The
bridge consists of 48 spans each 95 m long, two spans of 72.5 m and a bascule
bridge part with 40 m span.
190 t 225 t 275 t 600 t
pier 410 t
30 - 50
piles 300 t - 500 t
22,
50
- 60 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1965-1970: The joint venture of firms Polensky & Zöllner, Strabag and Siemens built the
1050 m long Siegtal bridge for the Sauerland Highway, Germany, fig.91, with
105 m long spans, and 100 m high piers based on the design by H. Wittfoht. The
construction procedure included the use of movable erection truss above the deck
with the formwork 10 m long for both sides of the pier simultaneously.
Figure 92: Šibenik Bridge, 1966 and Pag Bridge 1968, Croatia
- 61 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1967 The Nösslach Bridge spanning 180 m with a rise of 45 m, fig.93, is made of two
twin arches with a three-cell box-type cross section of variable depth 4.0 to
2.5 m and constant width 9.0 m. The bridge was constructed on the Cruciani-
type scaffolding with three floors. The scaffolding is made in few steps: first two
floors in the springing area are made with fan shaped stays going from the top of
the arch abutment pier, then one floor in the middle of the span is hold on with
two hinges and temporary hangers, afterwards the second floor is made to make
the truss self-bearing, and finally after closure of hinges third floor is added.
- 62 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1970 Professor Piguet of Lausanne, Switzerland designed the Chillon Viaduct along
the northeast shore of Lake Geneva, fig.95. For this bridge the design was
chosen after a competition in which the criterion of aesthetics played a mayor
role. The double cantilever method used precast concrete components post-
tensioned together.
- 63 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 98: Prestressed cable stayed bridge over the Danube channel in Wiena, Austria,
1972
- 64 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1974 The Rip Bridge spanning 183 m was build across Brisbane River in New South
Wales, fig.99, using cantilevering method with tensile diagonals as a part of the
final structure. The bridge can be considered as arch bridge but also as arch-
shaped prestressed concrete cantilever truss bridge.
- 65 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 100: Krk I and Krk II arches, Krk island, Croatia, 1980
- 66 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1986 The Argentobel Bridge, fig.103, has an arch span of 145 m with a rise of 52 m. It
was constructed using bascule method – both arch halfs were concreted in
vertical position using segmental formwork and rotated around massive
temporary hinge in the arch abutments using temporary back-stay and hydraulic
jack.
- 67 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1990 For the 220 m high rise building Two Union Square in Seattle, Washington,
USA, high performance concrete B140 was implemented for the first time for
filing the pier steel tubes.
1991 The Grosse Mühle Bridge, fig.105, with an arch span of 170 m and a rise of
49.5 m was constructed using cantilevering method with temporary stays and
auxiliary pylon above the arch abutment piers. The arch cross section is a three-
cell box 9.0 m wide and 2.5 to 3.0 m high.
- 68 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 69 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1994 Chateaubriand arch Bridge, fig.108, spanning 261 m and Morbihan arch Bridge,
fig.109, spanning 201 m both have composite superstructure: the first one is a
concrete deck on steel I-shaped girders 12 m wide, and the second is a concrete
deck on a steel box 20.8 m wide. The Bridges are constructed similarly. The arch
springing area is made by cantilevering method using temporary support piers at
the distance 0.22L from the arch abutment. Remaining middle parts of the arch
are constructed by cantilevering method using auxiliary pylon and stays with in
situ concrete. The box-type cross section of Chateaubriand Bridge is of constant
depth 4.2 m, and 7.5 m wide, and the box-type section of Morbihan Bridge is of
variable depth 3.5 m at the springing, 2.9 m in the crown and 8.25 m wide.
In the same year Nano silica was produced for the first time, a synthetic material
and formless Silicium-dioxide which is more finer, 15 nm and more reactive than
Silica fume.
- 70 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
One of the most revolutionary arch bridges built in recent year’s was the Natchez
Trace Bridge in Franklin, Tennessee, fig.110. It was opened to traffic in 1994.
It's the first American arch bridge to be constructed from segments of pre-cast
concrete. Two graceful arches support the roadway above. Usually arch bridges
employ vertical supports called "spandrels" to distribute the weight of the
roadway to the arch below, but the Natchez Trace Bridge was designed without
spandrels to create a more open and aesthetically pleasing appearance. As a
result, most of the live load is resting on the crowns of the two arches, which
have been slightly flattened to better carry it. Already the winner of many
awards, the bridge is expected to influence bridge design for years to come.
The Bridge is L = 479 m long. The main span is L = 177.4 m long is symmetrical
while the L = 140.8 m long second arch is not, due to the slope of the valley at
the southern end of the bridge.
The segmentally constructed concrete arches comprise 122 hollow precast box
segments, each of which was about 3 m long and weighed between 26 and 41
metric tons. The deck consists of 196 precast post-tensioned trapezoidal box
girder segments, each typically 2.6 m long. The sections atop the crown of the
arch are 3.9 m deep. The foundations and piers of the bridge were cast in place.
- 71 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Figure 112: Cross sections of portlancement concrete and reactive powder concrete
1997-2000: The Wilde Gera Bridge, fig.113, with 252 m span is the largest concrete arch
span in Germany. The total length of the bridge is 552 m and is 110 m above the
valley. The 14 spans are 30 + 36 + 10 ⋅ 42 + 36 + 30 m. The fixed bearing in the
longitudinal direction is in the arch crown. The composite superstructure was
constructed using incremental launching method. The deck was concreted in situ.
- 72 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 73 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
cantilevered segmentally from both sides towards the crown the stiffening girder
and the arch in a joint operation, using travelers placed at deck level and
diagonal stay-cables from deck to foundations or to the arch in order to form a
temporary truss; the foundations were secured by rock anchors and connecting
struts. Also, the bridge-halves were supported by temporary columns at 35 m
from the arch foundations. The system used was highly flexible and required
tight monitoring during the cantilever operation.
- 74 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
The arch was constructed by balanced cantilever technique. Sections 5.25 m long
were concreted on traveling formwork, working simultaneously from both
springing points. The steel bridge superstructure was launched into its final
position. The concrete deck was constructed using 25 cm thick 6.4x3.5 m precast
plates, while the longitudinal and transverse joints above the shear connectors
were concreted at site. Steel corrosion protection has been adopted according to
the latest standards for the most severe maritime environment.
Skradin bridge won the Cemex building award as a second best structure among
infrastructural objects for the year 2005.
The bridges described in this chapter are examples of their kind. A vast amount of literally
thousands of bridges built requires choosing a few exemplary ones to show the main
developments in bridge construction throughout the centuries. The same goes for concrete
and concrete structures which were mentioned here. Any book examining these issues and
putting them in a historical context will make its own choice.
Studying this work can be of great value for understanding the legacy of concrete and
concrete bridge engineering. The timeline provides a framework for the reader’s orientation
in the continuous process of history as it unfolds. In this way the story reveals a fascinating
picture of the particular and cultural background.
The main aim of this chapter was to introduce the reader to the past, present and indicate
the future in concrete arch bridge engineering. In this chapter the main developments in
concrete technology relevant for concrete bridges, and concrete arches in some more detail
were traced throughout history.
It is shown that arch structures are one of the oldest forms of engineering construction and
that they continue to find new applications in many different fields. In the 20th Century
developments in high tensile strength materials threatened to displace the arch from a
significant place in bridge construction. However in spite of these developments arch
bridges retain their traditional benefits of aesthetic appeal, durability and economy.
Two things are certain. First, that the durability of arch structures has been proved by a
history of over 2000 years. And, secondly, that the history of arch bridges is far from
reaching an end, and it seems it has only just begun.
In our time large arch bridges are built almost exclusively as reinforced concrete structures
and for smaller crossings (L < 100 m) usually they are assembled from steel. A long series
of sizable arch bridges erected at fairly regular intervals throughout the last eightyfive years
bear witness to the potential of arch structures and their competitiveness, provided modern
techniques are used. Hybrid corrugated web arches and hybrid polygonal arch bridges are
the future of arch bridge construction because these structures represent communion of
design, economy and construction for the modern arch.
For all arch structures, beside developing new materials, modern analysis and erection
techniques will improve the economy. Hitherto, the construction of arch bridges has been
influenced by the need for a scaffold (centering), which has significantly inflated the
construction cost. Therefore, the competitiveness of an arch structure for a given site
depends greatly on whether a cost-effective but technically valid solution can be found to
the centering problem.
- 75 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Today, a number of different methods are available to contractors in the form of standard
scaffold elements, centering erected in free cantilevering, or construction of the arch by free
cantilevering without centering, with or without temporary stays, which possibly may be
combined with prefabrication. In recent years such solutions seem to have breathed new life
into arch structures for major spans.
Arch structures may further prove to be advantageous for smaller spans in countries less
industrialized but which possess a highly skilled labor force.
expected 2012: In Dubai the world tallest arch bridge will be built, fig.117. The bridge will
be L = 1.6 km long and f = 204 m high (rise). It will have 12 lines for traffic and
a metro line will run across in the middle.
Figure 117: The world tallest arch bridge, Dubai, expected 2012
- 76 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
3. BIOGRAPHIES
In this chapter short biographies of the most important inventors and designers of concrete
structures are given. Some of their work is not, strictly speaking, directly connected to
concrete or concrete structures but shows the broadness of their thoughts and how
interesting were the lives they led.
Bernard Forest de Bélidor (1697 – 1761)
He used for the first time the word ˝béton˝ in his book ˝La Science des Ingénieurs˝,
published by Jombert in Paris, 1729.
Joseph Aspdin (1779 – 1855)
He was a British cement manufacturer who obtained the patent for Portland cement in
1824. He entered his father's trade of bricklaying. By 1817 he had set up in business on his
own in central Leeds. He must have experimented with cement manufacture during the next
few years, because on 21 October 1824 he was granted the British Patent entitled An
Improvement in the Mode of Producing an Artificial Stone, in which he coined the term
˝Portland cement˝ by analogy with the Portland stone.
Almost immediately after this, in 1825, in partnership with a Leeds neighbour, William
Beverley, he set up a production plant for this product. He also obtained a second patent,
for a method of making lime, in 1825.
Louis Vicat (1786 – 1861)
French engineer, inventor of artificial cement. He graduated from École
Polytechnique 1804 and École des Ponts et Chaussées 1806. Vicat
studied setting of mortars and invented new artificial cements (white
gold) in 1817. The material was popular but was superseded by
Portland cement. He also invented the Vicat needle that is still in use
for determination of setting time of concretes and cements. His son,
Joseph, founded Vicat Cement, which is today a large international
cement manufacturing company. He was a member of the Académie
des Sciences of Paris. His findings and systematic research with cement
and concrete were published in ˝Recherches expérimentales sur les mortiers, ciments et
bétons˝ by Goujon, Paris, 1918.
Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806 – 1859)
He helped his father (Sir Marc Isambard Brunel) build the first
tunnel under the river Thames. He began his career as a designer
and builder of bridges, subsequently becoming chief engineer of
the Great Western Railway, for which he constructed a series of
innovative bridges, tunnels and viaducts. Throughout his career
Brunel made an effort to seek out new technologies and anticipate
developing markets. He used fundamental logic and analysis to
reshape the mechanical and structural engineering of his time. In
doing so, he helped reshape the art and technology of architecture.
His three masterpieces are however his steamships. Brunel built
gigantic steam ships capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean. These were The P.s. Great
Western (the quickest of its time), The S.s. Great Britain (the first propeller driven ship)
and The P.s.s. Great Eastern (the largest ship of its time).
- 77 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 78 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 79 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 80 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 81 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 82 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 83 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 84 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 85 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 86 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
His suspicions of complex calculations were balanced by his confidence in tests and full-
scale observations: ˝It is therefore proposed to use known experimental results to produce a
reasonable formula, avoiding the temptations to confuse the problem with pseudo-scientific
frills.˝
It was this drive for simple, practical formulas and explanations which combined with long
experience, lent credibility to Magnel’s enthusiasm for prestressing. Thus, when the
opportunity arose in 1948 to explore the possibility of building a major public structure of
prestressed concrete, it was not surprising that the American engineers in Philadelphia
involved would turn to the Belgian professor, Gustave Magnel, to design their bridge the
Walnut Lane Bridge.
Freyssinet and Magnel in contrast:
• Magnel’s books and writings (English editions) clearly explain the idea of prestressing
in terms of structural mechanics, whereas Freyssinet in his 1949 article gives a more
descriptive, but less practical, discussion.
• Freyssinet’s writing is more stumulating to an experienced engineer, Magnel’s more
useful to one unacquainted with prestressing. Whereas Freyssinet saw prestressed
concrete as a completely new material, essentially different from reinforced concrete,
Magnel emphasized rather the simplicity of prestressed concrete design as it related to
the, by then accepted, ideas about reinforced concrete.
• Freyssinet exhorts the designer to rethink concrete structures from a totally new
perspective while Magnel demonstrates how procedures already known by a practicing
engineer in 1948 can be used to design members of prestressed concrete.
- 87 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
eliminate the need for columns. He succeeded in turning engineering into an art by taking
simple geometry and using sophisticated prefabrication to find direct design solutions in his
buildings.
Pier Luigi Nervi was educated and practiced as a ingegnere edile (translated as ˝building
engineer˝) - in Italy, at the time (and to a lesser degree also today), a building engineer
might also be considered an architect. After 1932, his aesthetically pleasing designs were
used for major projects. This was due to the booming number of construction projects at the
time which used concrete and steel in Europe and the architecture aspect took a step back to
the potential of engineering. Nervi successfully made reinforced concrete the main
structural material of the day.
- 88 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
level bridge, he provided the pedestrian with one of the most spectacular crossings since
Broollyn Bridge in New York.
Finsterwalder had the idea of providing a prestressed concrete alternative to every steel
bridge design including those with very long spans which had previously been the sole
province of suspension bridges. His stress ribbon bridge, for example, conceived at about
the same time as the Mangfall design, carried prestressed concrete far beyond its previous
limits. Later, in 1960, he made a design for the Bosporus Bridge which would have had a
free span of 454 m.
Eduardo Torroja (1899 – 1961)
He was a Spanish structural engineer and architect, pioneer in the
design of concrete-shell structures. His first large project was the
Tempul cable-stayed aqueduct in 1926, Guadalete, Jerez de la
Frontera, in which he used prestressed girders, and he made his
name with the concrete shell-roof at the Algeciras Market Hall
(1933). Eduardo Torroja designed thin-shell water tower in
Fedala and the roof of hippodrome "Zarzuela" in the form of
hyperboloid of revolution.
He also used steel with great élan, as at the roof of the Football
Stadium, Barcelona (1943). He designed innovative structures in
numerous parts of the world, including Morocco and Latin America. His books include
Philosophy of Structures (1958) and The Structures of Eduardo Torroja (1958).
In his day, Torroja was regarded to be a creator and innovator in the field of structural
engineering. The key to understanding his oeuvre is to be found in the prologue to his book
˝Razón y ser de tipos estructurales˝, where the author writes: ˝Every material has a specific
and distinct personality and every shape imposes its own tensional law. The natural, the
optimum solution to a problem – art without artifice, viewed against the suite of
preconditions from which it springs, conveys an impressive message, satisfying the
demands of the engineer and the artist both. The birth of a structural whole, the result of a
creative process – the convergence of engineering and art, ingenuity and concentration,
imagination and sensitivity – escapes the confines of sheer logic to cross into the secret
realm of inspiration. Prior to and more than any manner of engineering, it is the idea that
moulds material into its resistant shape to fulfil its purpose. To that idea I dedicate this
book.¨ Translated from “Razón y Ser de los Tipos Estructurales". Latest edition: CSIC,
1991.
Jure Erega (1902-1981)
He was a student in the first generation of High technical school in
Zagreb. From the year 1951 to 1955 he was a professor at the Faculty of
Civil Engineering in Skopje, and from 1955 to 1972 at the Faculty of
Civil Engineering in Zagreb lecturing Steel bridges.
During the II World war he build few provisional bridges across Drava
and Dunav River, he won the first prize for the railway bridge in Zagreb
and he participated in the construction of The Savska Road bridge in
Zagreb designed by Frković where he elaborated the system of welding
thick plates which made him well-known in the world.
- 89 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 90 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 91 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Throughout his distinguished academic career, Bruno Thürlimann has been repeatedly
called in to consult on projects of significant size and/or complexity around the world.
Three prominent ones on a long list are the CN Tower in Toronto, the Hancock Tower in
Boston and the forensic study of the Sleipner A oil platform accident off the coast of
Norway.
Bruno Thürlimann's professional honours are numerous. A member of many international
civil engineering societies, he is a past President of IABSE, an Honorary Member of ASCE
and ACI, and a member of the Swiss Academy of Technical Sciences, to name just a few.
Honorary doctorates from the universities of Stuttgart and Glasgow also indicate the esteem
in which he is held by his peers.
Prof. Bruno Thürlimann was awarded the 1997 International Award of Merit in Structural
Engineering in recognition of his "contributions to the advancement of structural
engineering theory and practice, and his lifelong commitment to the engineering
profession."
- 92 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
testimony of that era still is the Tampa cable-stayed concrete bridge (Sunshine Skyway
Bridge), which was an extrapolation of the "Pont de Brotonne" in France.
- 93 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
ETH Zurich. Since his graduation from the Institute he has owned his own engineering
company, was a professor of structural engineering at the Institute, and he has been a
private consulting engineer. In 1996 he received an honorary doctorate from the University
of Stuttgart. Dr. Menn used his education to expand and explore new areas of civil
engineering. His extensive research and use of pre-stressed concrete and reinforced
concrete has changed the way bridges are built to day.
In this chapter only some of the many deserving engineers dealing with concrete, concrete
structures, bridges and arches were mentioned. The selection was based purely on the
availability of information.
- 94 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
With Technical Code for concrete structures that came into force in the year 2006, from the
July of the year 2008 it is mandatory to use rules defined in new Croatian standards for the
design of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures. The existing Croatian standards
(HRN ENV) have implemented European pre-standards (ENV) with national specifications
(specific climate and environment circumstances) incorporated in National Application
Documents.
- 95 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Europe has found certain insufficiencies and errors in these pre-standards (ENV) and has
introduced changes and improvements in European standards (EN). In the near future
Croatia shall have to implement European standards (EN), already accepted in some
European countries. The work on new Croatian standards (HRN EN), which will
implement European standards (EN) with National Defined Parameters incorporated in
National Annex, is in progress through technical committees under the Croatian Standards
Institute. This institute is an autonomous non-profit public institution established as the
National Standards body. Scientists, scientific recruits and assistants from the Bridge Chair
are the members of these technical committees dealing with actions on structures, concrete
structures, seismic design.
SECON (Structural Engineering Conferences), the organization established under the
auspices of Croatian Society of Structural Engineers (CSSE) continuously organizes
conferences, courses and workshops. Since the year 2005 SECON follows and encourages
the Eurocode national implementation by organizing at least one main conference and a few
courses around Croatia dealing with topics of interest for structural engineers. These events
encourage discussions about issues, challenges and ways of applications of new norms.
Lectures by scientists, faculty teachers, civil engineers and architects and government
officials are based on textbooks. As members of CSSE and SECON, people employed at
the Bridge Chair write specific chapters and edit these textbooks.
So far, three books on concrete structures have been published, the first one – Concrete
Structures ● Handbook – presenting the theory and the background of Technical Code for
Concrete Structures and relevant Croatian standards, the second – Concrete Structures ●
Examples – comprising practical examples of their application and the third book Concrete
Structures ● Construction – dealing with concrete performance, quality management and
construction of concrete structures.
The first book on 1000 pages is divided into seven main topics: materials, up-to-date
approach to structural design, actions, basis of structural design, design and detailing,
interaction of the structure and building technology and durability.
Figure 119: Three books on concrete structures published as a part of educational and
training programme of the Eurocode national implementation
- 96 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
The second book on 984 pages comprises examples of actions on various structures in
different environments, design of isolated structural elements, a family house design, an
industrial installation design, a bridge design, the seismic design of buildings and bridges,
designs for accidental situations and resumption of material and structural durability.
The third book on 792 pages covers following topics: designer demands on concrete
quality, concrete quality management in production, concrete quality management in
construction, special concrete mixtures and innovative materials, bridge construction
methods, design and construction of garages, industrial buildings, building supervision,
examples of executed structures.
The fourth book – Concrete Structures ● Repair – is in writing and it will cover
maintenance, strengthening, repair and reconstruction of concrete structures.
2005
November/ Cavtat 1st Main conference on theory and background of Technical
Code for Concrete Structures – TCCS and relevant Croatian
standards
2006
February / Osijek, Rijeka, Courses on theory and background of TCCS and relevant
Zagreb; March / Split, Zg Croatian standards
November/ Opatija 2nd Central conference on application of TCCS and relevant
Croatian standards – Design examples
2007
February / Osijek, Rijeka, Courses on application of TCCS and relevant Croatian
Zagreb; March / Split, Zg standards - Design examples
July / Brijuni Courses on theory, background and application of TCCS
and relevant Croatian standards
December/ Opatija 3rd Central conference on concrete performance, quality
management and construction of concrete structures
2008
February / Osijek, Rijeka, Courses on concrete performance quality management and
Zagreb; March / Split construction of concrete structures
June/ Zagreb Courses on theory and application of TCCS and Croatian
standards concrete performance, quality management and
construction
November 4th Central conference on maintenance, strengthening,
repair and reconstruction of concrete structures
2009 / 2010 / 2011
5th Central conference on maintenance, strengthening, repair and reconstruction of
concrete structures and following courses
Figure 120: Education and training programme for the design of concrete structures
- 97 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
The technology of composing the bridge of precast segments prestressed with external
cables can be completely industrialized, so it is to expect this method to be one of the
leading bridge design methods for the new century. The improvement of this technology
will probably lead to the reduction of the weight of segments using high performance
concrete. Bouygues’ laboratory in France has developed a Portland cement-based material
with compressive strengths ranging from 200 to 800 MPa and of high ductility. It consists
of a special concrete where its microstructure is optimized by precise gradation of all
particles (finer than 0.8 mm) in the mix to yield maximum density so it is named Reactive
Powder Concrete.
The development of Reactive Powder Concrete is also a big step in the growth of concrete
durability. This concrete, compared with normal high performance concrete, gives 4 to 5
times less porosity, 10 to 30 times less microporosity, 50 times less air penetration and
water absorption and 25 times less chloride-ion diffusion, which is of great significance for
the bridges on the sea cost. Beyond all doubt these concretes, will fundamentally change
the opinion of cross-sections of precast segments, the thickness of the webs and flanges,
and the way of connecting the segments. The flanges of cell box cross-sections of these
structures shouldn’t be thicker then 12 cm, because, such ticknesses of structures have
already been applied in the small arch and roadway slab at the Krk Bridge.
The concrete arch bridge, 432 m in span, which is to cross the Bakar Straits on the fast road
between Rijeka and Senj, is presented in this work. The authors describe and analyze the
original structural, technological and aesthetic solution of the bridge which will be
completely composed of precast segments made of the Reactive Powder Concrete 200
MPa, (RPC 200). To make the structural analysis of the preliminary Bakar Bridge design,
the assumptions were as follows: the compressive strength of RPC is 200 MPa, the flexural
strength is 40 MPa, the elasticity modulus is 50 GPa, there is no shrinkage of concrete and
creep is 5% of normal concrete creep.
Construction of the arch is planed by free cantilevering method with fan shaped stays and
harp shaped backstays going from two levels of the arch abutment pier and from tops of
auxiliary staying pylon. The superstructure is to be made by free cantilevering with
supporting the segments by stays radiating from the steel pylon to reduce negative bending
moments due to one-way progress of the superstructure from abutment to pier and from
pier to pier. Another possibility of making the superstructure is from both sides of the
bridge by incremental lounching where the steel nose would be replaced with stays and the
auxiliary pylon.
High performance concretes will, for sure, fundamentally change the opinion of cross-
sections of the precast segments, thickness of the webs and flanges, and way of connecting
the segments. The Bakar Bridge design shows the possibilities. But, to realise this kind of
bridge, numerous researches of the new structure elements should be done, particularly
researches on the roadway slab and cross-girders.
- 98 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
RIJEKA SENJ
f=72m
NAVIGATION ROUTE 260x50m
L=432m
1992
46 1900 46
46 100 750 200 750 100 46
375
asphalt concrete AB-8 3 cm windshield
hidroizolation 1 cm
2,5%
48 12
2,5%
12
276
300
190
38
12
110 50
12
MID-SPAN SUPPORT
20
630
1960 12
38
225
550
200
650
225
38
12
- 99 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Future developments in design and construction of large span arch bridges have been
analysed in more detail as a part of the doctoral theses New contribution to concrete arch
bridges construction. All presented scientific contributions are based on the critical
evaluation of already built arch bridge structures. Conditions for new developments, the
importance of the theoretical background and the influence of great builders are explained
in the historical review. The recent construction of many new arch bridges has been made
possible through the development of new construction methods, the application of high
strength concrete and better quality steels and by the introduction of innovative structural
solutions.
Extensive numerical investigations of true arches where carried out to determine crucial
problems of long span arch bridges' design, based on theoretical deliberations, experience
and recommendations from available sources and own ideas and conclusions. All
performed analysis were iterative, certain arch dimensions were assumed and calculations
repeated with changed dimensions, until all stress and stability requirements were met.
Two terms were introduced – the theoretical ultimate span, defined as the span for which
the chosen dimensions of the arch fulfil all stress and stability requirements and the
theoretical feasible span, defined as the span for which the conditions for the theoretical
ultimate span are met and also the weight of the arch does not exceed the combined weight
of the superstructure and spandrel columns. The definition of theoretical feasible span is
admittedly arbitrary but it is justified from the economical point of view.
The results clearly show the well-known fact that maximum ultimate spans can be attained
for favourable rise to span ratio of 0.3. Par example, for the four-lane motorway bridge in
concrete grade C100/115, with constant cross section of arch but with stregthened near
springings, theoretical ultimate span for the rise to span ratio 0.15 is 700 m, for the rise to
span ratio 0.2 the theoretical ultimate span is 1100 m, and for the rise to span ratio 0.3 the
theoretical ultimate span is 1200 m.
The large difference between theoretical ultimate spans and theoretical feasible spans is
also clearly visible. For the above mentioned bridge theoretical feasible spans are 300 m,
400 m and 400 m respectively. It is emphasized that theoretical feasible spans would be
largely increased if the superstructure weight were reduced, as was done in the design of
the Skradin Bridge (fig.116 ).
Innovative arch structures and cross-sections are possible based on the means at our
disposal nowadays, comprising theoretical background, new materials and new construction
technologies. The basic idea in new arch bridges is to efficiently combine the two basic
materials of today, steel and concrete, to make them work jointly in composite action. Some
new possibilities to attain this goal have been investigated.
A new proposal for the composite arch cross-section was analyzed. The cross section
consisted of three steel trusses with their top and bottom chords interconnected by concrete
plates (25 cm thick) in composite action. The structural system was a two-hinged truss-type
arch, with the rise-to-span ratio 0.15, the depth to span ratio 1/55 and the depth to width
ratio of 0.5. Steel of S 460 quality and concrete of C60/75 grade were utilized in the
numerical calculations. A parametric study was performed in the span range of 300 to 1000
m, and the results seemed promising for the span range of 300 to 600 m in comparison with
- 100 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
the steel arch. The steel arch was designed as three parallel trusses interconnected by
bracing of S 460 grade steel. Therefore the composite arch rib was tested on a new Croatian
Skradin arch bridge with a 204 m span and rise to span ratio 0.25.
The comparison of material quantities for the three solutions – concrete, steel and
composite arch, shows an average concrete consumption of 43 % for the composite arch
compared to the concrete arch. The composite arch requires additional 546 t of steel S 460.
The composite arch compared to the steel arch shows 73 % smaller amount of steel, but
1290 m3 of concrete C60/75 are additionally required.
Concrete arch
C45/55, S500
220
300
- 2885 856
40
50 435 30 435 50
1000
30
20
200
Steel arch
S460
295
245
2050 - -
20
500 500
1000
Composite arch
S460, C 60/75
Figure 122: Comparison of material quantities for three alternative arch solutions
It was concluded that for this particular arch structure the composite solution is not
unfeasible, especially if it is taken into account that 60% of the total costs for the
construction of the concrete arch was needed for temporary structural elements, stays, steel
pylons and ground anchors. The erection of steel trusses of the composite arch with the
weight of 546 tons in the first construction phase would require much less temporary
material than utilized for the 7213 tones heavy concrete arch. Further research is needed for
adequate detailing of connections between steel and concrete, construction of concrete
chords, particularly bottom chord and the utilization of precast concrete plates for which the
large influence of creep and shrinkage on the steel dimensions would have been
substantially reduced.
- 101 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Besides exploring possibilities of large arch bridge span realization, scientific work at the
Bridge Chair is also dedicated to improving methods for bridge maintenance and
management.
There are six major reinforced concrete arch bridges in Croatia located on Adriatic
coastline, with spans ranging from 200 m to almost 400 m. Four arch bridges, the Šibenik
Bridge, the Pag Bridge and the Krk Bridges (two arches) were built during the sixties and
the seventies of the 20th century. They are usually referred to as the first generation of
Croatian Adriatic arches. Two major bridge structures Maslenica and Skradin Bridges were
constructed on Croatian motorways more recently, Maslenica Bridge in 1997, and Skradin
Bridge in 2005.
Over the years many deficiencies and rapid degradation were identified on older Adriatic
bridges. The combination of aggressive exposure conditions, poor detailing, neglecting
durability problems and construction errors resulted in serious deterioration of structural
members, with reinforcement corrosion being a major issue. In addition to these, the
importance of adequate and regular maintenance activities was completely underestimated.
As a result, huge, complex and expensive repair works were needed.
To eliminate the errors of the past and ensure smooth service and efficient management of
large Adriatic Bridges in the future, an extensive project to develop an appropriate
maintenance strategy was started recently. The strategy is based on assertion that major
structures should be hand-picked from the entire bridge stock and treated separately. Of
course, adequate provisions to connect the management of major bridges with bridge
management system for “standard” bridges are necessary to support total budget decisions.
Management of large and significant bridges is often governed by technical feasibility of
improving structural performance and extending the service life. Therefore bridge-specific
maintenance programme is needed and more effort should be put in efficient and effective
preventive maintenance work.
Due to ageing of structures, increase in loading and changes in requirements of new
standards an important issue in developing proper maintenance strategy is to asses the
bridge reliability and to know how quickly it will deteriorate. Reliability analysis of
existing bridges will determine their safety margin, capacity to sustain present loads and
ability to fulfill new requirements.
Modern Bridge Management System contain some kind of prediction model for the future
bridge performance expressed in terms of condition ratings. Condition rating is an objective
numerical indicator of the condition of a population of structures of similar type (network
level BMS) or the condition of the bridge elements (project level BMS).
In the doctoral theses Durability Analysis of Reinforced concrete Arch Bridges a new
deterioration prediction model, using homogenous Markov process is developed. While
Markov chains operate with discrete parameter – time intervals of par example 5 years,
homogenous Markov process has a continuous parameter – time. Basic set of r formulas of
the homogenous Markov process with r possible condition states is:
p j (t ) = ∑ pi (0 ) pij (t ), j = 1,2,..., r
r
i =1
- 102 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
where:
pj(t) is probability of process being in the state j in the moment t
pi = pi (0) probability that process with t=0 starts from the state i
pij (t) (i≠j) probabilities of transition of process from the state i into the state j during
the time period t
pii (t) probability that process remains in state i during the time period t
In order to obtain values for pj(t) one has to know initial states, the numerical values of pi(0)
and transitions probabilities pij (t) (t>0), which are functions. Values of initial states are
usually known from Bridge Management System. According to Markov theory, functions
pij (t) satisfy certain differential equations (Kolmogorov differential equations) with
coefficients λi, which can be calculated if we know the expected time zi (i=1,…r) that
process remains in the state i. The Markov theory considers the time zi as a random variable
with exponential distribution, having parameter λi. Thus, mathematical expectation of the zi
becomes:
E [zi ] =
1
, i = 1,...r
λi
Assuming the time that process shall spend in certain condition state, we can obtain the
functions pij (t), by solving appropriate set of differential equations, and then we can
calculate the values of pj(t). Value of zi can be obtained using physical models, as described
earlier.
In example, we can observe an element of a concrete bridge close to the sea, which is
initially protected with some kind of coating. The process of deterioration can be modeled
with four condition states –stages of deterioration. Time period z1 to z3 should be estimated
or calculated. Process theoretically remains in the final stage indefinitely, so that E[z4]=∞.
Now we can draw trajectory of the deterioration process (fig.123). Trajectory shows the
expected time process spends in the certain condition state. Assuming that concrete element
is covered with protective coating, which is expected to last for 10 years, this period is
assigned the state “protected”. After that chlorides penetrate the concrete cover until their
concentration reaches the threshold value at the level of the reinforcement. The length of
the propagation period, denoted with state “vulnerable” can be calculated using one of the
existing models. For this example it is set to be 30 years. The next state is “attacked”,
which means that reinforcement corrosion advances until some extent, which is considered
to be the limit state (par example 10% reduction of the cross section). According to another
physical model, duration of that period should be 15 years. At last, process enters final state
“damaged” in which, theoretically, it remains indefinitely.
We can assume that the application of the protective coating was completely successful, so
that 10% of exposed surface of elements remained unprotected. In that case initial
probabilities are p1(0)=0,9, p2(0)=0,1, p3(0)= p4(0)=0. The results of the model based on
homogenous Markov process with continuous parameter are shown in fig.124.
As we can see, the probability of state 1 “protected” prevails in first 5 years, and after that
state 2 “vulnerable” dominates until 37 years from the start of the process, when state 4
- 103 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
“damaged” becomes the most probable. Probability of state 3 “attacked” is lower than 20%
through whole service life.
In case of repair, another model should be derived, with new parameters and perhaps with
different number of possible states. Such prediction presents valuable aid in creating the
optimal maintenance programme, which states which elements of which bridges should be
maintained by specified methods each year such that the lifetime maintenance cost of each
bridge is minimized.
- 104 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
A great number of existing bridges have been designed according to old codes, so changes
in requirements of new standards and time-variability of loading result with the fact that
bridges have different reliability levels. The research for the doctoral theses Limit state of
existing bridges was performed in order to develop limit states evaluation procedures of
existing bridges trough their application on major Adriatic arch bridges. These bridges are
exposed to the significant traffic load during summer, they are located in regions of high
seismicity, and they are exposed to the effects of sea salt and bora wind. In this research,
limit state evaluation procedure of the superstructure of arch bridges under traffic load and
limit states evaluation procedures of arches exposed to wind load (fig.125) and arches in
seismic design situation are developed.
The limit state evaluation procedure developed for superstructures of arch bridges may be
applied for bridge superstructures under traffic load in general. The limit states evaluation
procedure of arches developed trough application on Adriatic arch bridges may be applied
for arches in general, but also for piers of arch and beam bridges exposed to wind load or
seismic action. The limit states evaluation procedure developed in this thesis, through steps
that become more complex and therefore more accurate, is suitable for existing bridge
assessment in general. Namely, if limit states of the bridge are satisfied in the first step the
following more complex steps are not necessary. If this is not the case the next step of the
evaluation - which will produce more accurate results is to be performed. Procedures are
developed both for ultimate limit state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS).
With this research probabilistic model of traffic load effect and of wind load are developed
while the probabilistic model of seismic action is proposed as the consecutive step of the
procedure development. For superstructures of arch bridges with spans from 20 to 50 m it is
possible to use Gumbel distribution for traffic load effects. Appropriate coefficients of
variation are adopted on the basis of previous analysis for different spans and different
effects (bending moment in the span, bending moment at the bearing, shear force of simple
supported beam and shear force for continuous beam). It is proposed to use probabilistic
model of wind load according to Joint Committee of Structural Safety Probabilistic Model
Code, utilizing the Gumbel distribution. The reference year wind velocity has a Gumbel
distribution with the coefficient of variation 0,1. This coefficient of variation is transformed
for the 50 year reference period and enlarged due to influence of wind shape factor (ca),
roughness factor (cr) and gust factor (cg). It is proposed to use inversed first-order reliability
method (FORM) with standardized sensitivity factors to estimate reliability index for the
appropriate probability distribution on the basis of calculated partial factors.
Results of limit state evaluation procedure applied on Adriatic arch bridges exposed to wind
load are shown in figure 126. YES stays for satisfied limit state, NO stays for not satisfied
limit state. When the previous step is satisfied the following step is not necessary. However,
to compare arches of six Adriatic arch bridges all steps are performed (additional red
values).
As a part of bridge management system, it is possible to establish the target reliability of all
existing bridges on a certain traffic route in order to realize the same reliability level.
Therein the reliability evaluation procedure is to be used for priority determination – the
bridge with the least reliability level is the first one on the maintenance program.
- 105 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
1
BRIDGE INSPECTION AND
PROJECT OVERSIGHT
arch axis, cross section
integrity, concrete quality,
quantity and quality of reinf.
2
LINEAR ANALYSIS
model based on inspection POSSIBLE STRESSES
results, installed REDISTRIBUTION
reinforcement
3
As,effective NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
=1,0
A s,necessary limitation of embeded RELIABILITY
NO reinforcement, incremental OF EXISTING
σc,limit increasing of load STRUCTURE
1,0
σc until reaching of limit state
YES
ESTIMATION OF
γw,ULS γw,EC = 1,5 RELIABILITY INDEX
NO
γw,SLS (σc=σc,limit ) 1,0 FOR ULS AND SLS
probabilistic model of
wind load effect
YES
β(γw,ULS ) βtarget,ULS NO
β(γw,SLS ) βtarget,SLS
YES
ADEQUATE
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE AND SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE ARE
COUNTER-MEASURES
ACCEPTABLE
NECESSARY
Figure 125: Example of limit state evaluation procedure developed for arches exposed to
wind load
EVALUATION Šibenik Pag Krk 244 Krk 390 Maslenica Skradin
EV. STEP 1
ULS NO NO NO NO YES YES
SLS YES YES YES YES YES YES
Overall evaluation NO NO NO NO YES YES
EV. STEP 2
ULS (partial factor γw) YES (2.50) YES (1.75) YES (1.60) YES (1.60) YES (3.35) YES (5.44)
SLS (partial factor γw) YES (1.22) YES (1.40) NO (0.95) NO (0.70) YES (2.05) YES (3.00)
Overall evaluation YES YES NO NO YES YES
EV. STEP 3
ULS(reliability index β) YES (4.70) YES (3.05) YES (2.63) YES (2.63) YES (6.12) YES (8.72)
SLS(reliability index β) YES (1.28) YES (1.98) YES(0.00) NO (-1.8) YES (3.78) YES (5.57)
Overall evaluation YES YES YES NO YES YES
- 106 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 107 -
2005 2005 2003 2002 2001 1997 Year
Reconstruction of Mirna viaduct Sava River Dubrovnik
Kamačnik girder Maslenica arch
Jasenovac at with composite pedestrian cable-stayed
cantilever Bridge, Bridge, Bridge
Jasenovac, superstructure, suspended Bridge,
L=125 m L=200 m
L=120 m L=66,5 m Bridge, L=145 m L=304 m Photo
- 108 -
Trogir steel Rječina rigid
Jarun cable stayed Pelješac cable Krka River arch
Bundek Bridge girder Bridge strut frame
Bridge design, stayed Bridge Bridge, Bridge
design, L=124 m design, movable Bridge design,
L=150 m design, L=568 m L=204 m
span L=43 m L=108,5 m
The design concrete quality for the arch, piers and the deck slab was C-30, for precast
prestressed girders C-40 and for foundations C-20 with water-cement ratio w/c less than
0.40. The minimum concrete cover for all the bridge structural elements was set at 5.0 cm
and for the arch foundations nearest to the sea at 10.0 cm. The number of structural joints
has been reduced to a minimum, with most of the piers fixed to the superstructure and the
expansion joints placed at the abutments only.
The construction of the arch by free cantilevering was the most demanding (Fig.130 top).
The arch was constructed on traveling formwork carriages with the weight of 55 tons each,
in 5.26 m long segments, starting symmetrically from the arch abutments. Piers at the arch
abutments were extended by auxiliary steel staying pylons 23 m high to facilitate
successive cantilevering. The arch was supported during construction by stays radiating
from two levels of the arch abutment piers and from tops of auxiliary staying pylons, where
they were equilibrated by anchor stays, connected to rock anchors. The arch construction
was speeded-up by the omission of the crown diaphragm and subsequent stress regulation
via hydraulic jacks, which was performed on some other Croatian arch bridges. The arch
axis was designed and constructed in elevated position (13.7 cm maximal raise in the
crown) so that the designed arch shape shall form after long-term creep and shrinkage
deformations. With careful planning, based on 24 hours working days, the arch construction
was finished in eleven months. The actual duration of the arch construction was only nine
months, because high winds forced work stoppages for the two months period. All erection
phases, as actually executed, were numerically calculated on the site by the Designer.
Precast prestressed girders were cast near the bridge during the construction of the arch.
Spandrel piers and the superstructure above the arch were constructed after both halves of
the arch have been closed at the crown in a strictly prescribed order. The climbing
formwork was used for the construction of piers. Piers were cast in segments, 5.0 m long.
Lower parts of pier hammerheads were cast on scaffolding and the upper, partially
prestressed parts were cast together with the deck slab after the placing of all precast girders
by the launching truss. Just prior to the arch closure there occurred a relatively strong
earthquake with the epicentre very close to the bridge site with no consequences for the
bridge structure. The construction of the Maslenica highway bridge started during war and
was completed in 1997. The bridge became the landmark and the symbol of victory for
independence.
The new Adriatic highway crosses the Krka River canyon in the proximity of the entrance
to the environmentally very valuable and protected area of the Krka River national park.
The Skradin bridge site is near the estuary, where sea and river waters blend together, in a
moderately aggressive maritime environment. The designer tried to enrich the beautiful
environment with the new bridge and the arch type structure seemed like a logical choice
for the canyon.
A concrete arch of 204.0 m span and 52.0 m rise was selected with the rise to span ratio of
0.25 (Fig.128 bottom). The arch is fixed of double cell box type cross section with constant
outer dimensions b/h=10.0x3.0 m (Fig.129). The arch cross-section is uniform along the
length. Only near arch abutments, on the length of 10.0 m measured horizontally, chord
thicknesses are enlarged to maximum of 60.0 cm. The arch is connected to arch abutments
by a 3.0 m long diaphragm. Diaphragms are placed inside the arch under spandrel columns.
- 109 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
Their width is equal to the width of spandrel columns that they support. The arch and
double columns at arch abutments are founded on joint foundations. Abutments are
standard of closed-end type with parallel wings and all columns are of box-type cross
section. Cross sections of particular columns were determined on the basis of stability
calculations.
Instead of the usual prestressed concrete superstructure a composite superstructure was
chosen to save weight thus reducing seismic forces and also to blend more harmonically
into the beautiful environment. An outstanding aesthetical impression was achieved,
because cross beams connecting column tops could had been avoided. The superstructure is
continuous with spans L = 3x32.0 + 3x28.0 + 3x32.0 + 28.0 + 24.0 = 360.0 m and the
overall bridge length amounts to L = 391.16 m (Fig.128 bottom). The composite cross
section comprises a steel grillage and a concrete deck plate (Fig.129). The superstructure
steel grillage consists of two main longitudinal beams spaced at 7.6 m, strong cross beams
spaced at 4.0 m and edge girders. Box type main longitudinal beams have the inclined
upper chord following the 2.5 % transverse slope of the roadway, so that the total depth at
the outer web is 1,700.0 mm and at the inner web 1,730.0 mm. The deck slab 22.56 m wide,
has uniform 25.0 cm depth. Its main load-bearing direction is longitudinal.
MASLENICA
26 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 24
65
200
SKRADIN
32 32 32 32 28 28 28 32 32 32 28 24
52,00
204,00
- 110 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
MASLENICA
1020 1020
25
175
250
h = L/50
b = L/22,2
400
900
SKRADIN
1050 1050
25
170
h = L/68
300
b = L/20,4
1000
- 111 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
MASLENICA
SKRADIN
- 112 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
During the construction of first twelve arch segments, the steel superstructure grillage was
assembled behind the abutments. Elements of the steel structure were transported to the site
by truck and connected by welding to erection segments, comprising the total grillage cross
section. Before the construction of the remaining arch segments the erection of the
superstructure from both abutments to columns at arch springings had to be executed to
facilitate the local transport required to service stressing activities of temporary stays
anchored on steel pylons. This erection was done by the longitudinal launching (Fig.131)
procedure over special sliding devices placed on column tops with the help of special light
steel nose to reduce stresses during construction. After the launching procedure, the steel
grillage superstructure was lowered on permanent structural bearings. In the next
construction stage, 25.0 cm thick precast reinforced concrete slab elements were placed,
the middle one measuring 6.44x3.44 meters in plan between the main girders and the two
side ones measuring 6.4x3.7 m in plan on cross beam outstands. Precast slabs were
interconnected by on site concreting of longitudinal and transversal joints above shear
connectors, thus completing the composite superstructure between both abutments and
columns at arch springings.
After the completion of the arch, temporary stays and backstays were removed. Casting of
spandrel columns on the arch in a strictly prescribed order followed. In the next
construction phase the steel superstructure grillage was erected by longitudinal launching
from the west bank and lowered down on permanent structural bearings. The composite
superstructure above the arch was completed by placing precast concrete slabs and
concreting wet joints, using the same procedure as before. In the final step bridge
furnishings, including waterproofing, roadway pavement comprising two layers of hot
asphalt, concrete median strip with installation pipes an safety barriers were installed to
complete the bridge construction. Decorative lighting was also installed, rendering beautiful
view of the bridge in the night. The bridge was open for traffic in 2005.
- 113 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
- 114 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
event Networks for sustainable environment and high quality of life was held in May of the
year 2008. Five main lines of activity for future research are identified: Management of
assets, including life cycle management; Impact on the environment; Safety and security;
Answer to increasing demand – mobility; Inter-modality and inter-operability. Proceedings
book contains 49 papers on 443 pages.
Figure 132: Proceedings of the International Conferences held by the Bridge Chair
6. CONCLUSIONS
Looking back on the 160 years long history of developing of the concrete structures one
thing is certain - the development of concrete structures is far from finished and we are sure
that in the near future there will be some interesting breakthroughs and surprises.
Concrete is still the principal construction material. For example in Croatia more than 80 %
of the weight of delivered constructions is in concrete or reinforced concrete – and weight
is a very subtle indicator of the state of the art.
At the Chair for Bridges at the Faculty of Civil Engineering Zagreb there is a tradition in
designing and some complex analysis of arch bridges. Trough this experience in
combination with the historical proved knowledge of the art of vaulting and taking into
account modern construction and production principles the conclusion becomes self evident
that hybrid structural systems and procedures will open up new possibilities for arch
construction. Where the term hybrid is also synonym for innovative bridge construction.
All this research and whole life-cycle analysis is needed to enable arch structures to again
became more competitive with other types of structures. The main aim of this research by
the Chair for Bridges is to formulate new design and construction principles for arch
bridges.
REFERENCES
[1] Radić, J. 2003. Pontifex Maximus. Zagreb: Dom i svijet, Građevinski fakultet, Jadring
(in Croatian).
[2] Cowan, H.: The Master Builders: A History of Structural and Environmental design
from Ancient Egypt to the Nineteenth Century. New York, John Wiley, 1977
- 115 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
[3] Vicat, L.J.: Recherches expérimentales sur les mortiers, ciments et bétons, Paris,
Gonjon, 1818
[4] Hyatt, T.: An account of some experiments with portland cement concrete combined
with iron as a building material, London: Chiswick, 1877
[5] Radić, J. et al.: Concrete Structures: Construction (in Croatian), SECON, Zagreb, 2007.,
pp.25-102
[6] Pannell, J.P.M.: An Illustrated History of Civil Engineering. Thames & Hudson, 1964
[7] Ruddock, T.: Arch Bridges and their Builders 1735-1835, Cambridge University Press,
1979
[8] Fisher Cassie, W.: Early reinforced concrete in Newcastle upon Tyne. Magazine of
Concrete Research 7 (1955), March, pp.25-30
[9] Radić, J.: The first reinforced concrete bridge in Croatia (in Croatian). Roads and
Bridges (in Croatian), CIM Vol.28, No.12, Zagreb, 1982, pp.383-384
[10] Freyssinet, E.: Souvenirs. Cents ans de béton armé, Special Edition of the magazine
˝Travaux˝, 1949, pp.51-61
[11] Herzog, M.: Die Tragwirkung der Risorgimentobrücke in Rom, Beton- &
Stahlbetonbau 90 (1995), pp. 320-323
[12] Schjødt, R.: Long rigid-frame bridge erected by cantilever method (Herval Bridge),
Eng. News-Record, August 1931, pp.429-438
[13] Nielen, O.F.: Bogenträger mit schräg gestellten Hängestrangen, IVBH Abhandl. 1
(1932), pp.355-364 and 4 (1935) pp.447-450
[14] Torroja, E.: Réalisations de voûtes minces en Espagne, Annales de l'ITBTP 2 (1950)
No.164
[15] Freyssinet, E.: Exposé d'ensemble de l'idée de précontrainte, Annales de l'ITBTP 2
(1949) No.13, pp.1-52
[16] Billington, D.P.: Historical Perspective on Prestressed Concrete, 50th Anniversary,
Historical-technical series, PCI Journal, pp.14-30
[17] Magnele, G.: Prestressed Concrete, 3rd Edition, London, 1954
[18] Newlon, H. jun.: A selection of historic American papers on concrete 1876 – 1926,
Publication SP-52. Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1976
[19] Chambre syndicale des constructeurs en ciment armé: Cent ans de béton armé 1849-
1949, Supplement Travaux, 1949
[20] Matschoss, C.: Berühmte Ingenieure, München, Lehmann, 1954
[21] Pauser, A.: Eisenbeton 1850 – 1950, Wien, Manz, 1994
[22] Specht, M.: Spannweit der Gedanken (F. Dischinger 100 Jahre), Berlin, Springer,
1987
[23] Günschel, G.: Grosse Konstrukteure – Freyssinet, Maillart, Dischinger,
Finsterwalder. Berlin, Ullstein, 1966
[24] Hart, K.: Kunst und Technik der Wölbung. München, Callwey, 1965
[25] Peters, T.F.: Time is money – Die Entwicklung des modernen Bauwesens. Stuttgart,
Hoffmann, 1981
[26] Haegermann, G. et al.: Vom Caementum zum Spannbeton, Wiesbaden, Bauverlag
1964-65
[27] Picon, A.: L’art de l’ingénieur. Paris, Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1997
[28] Kupfer, H.: Urlich Finsterwalder (1897 – 1988). Bautechnik 74(1997), pp.857-864
[29] Torroja, E.: Logik der Form. München, Callwey, 1961
- 116 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
[30] Knittel, G. und Kupfer, H.: Stahlbetonbau (Hubert-Rüsch Festschrift). Berlin, Ernst &
Sohn, 1969
[31] Brown D.J.: ˝Bridges˝, Mitchell Beazley, London, 1998
[32] Candela, F.: Structural applications of hyperbolic paraboloidical shells, ACI Journal
26(1955), pp.397-415
[33] Herzog, M.: Schadensfälle im Stahlbeton- und Spannbetonbau – Ursachen und
Sanierung. Düsseldorf, Werner, 2000
[34] Finsterwalder, U.: Prestressed Concrete Bridge Construction. ACI Journal,
Proceedings V.62, No.9, September 1965, pp.1037-1046
[35] Historical Overview of Bridge Types in NSW: Extract from the Study of Heritage
Significance of Heritage Study of Pre-1948 Slab and Concrete Arch Road Bridges,
RTA, 2005, pp.101-124
[36] Bill, M.: Robert Maillart: Bridges and Constructions. London, Pall Mall Press, 1969
[37] Čandrlić, V., Radić, J. & Šavor, Z. 1999. Design and Construction of the Maslenica
Highway Bridge, Proceedings of fib Symposium 1999, 2: 551-556. Prague, Czech
Republic.
[38] Čandrlić, V., Radić, J. & Šavor, Z. 1999. Design and Construction of the Maslenica
[39] Highway Bridge, Proceedings of fib Symposium 1999, 2: 551-556. Prague, Czech
Republic.
[40] Radić, J. 2002. Bridges. Zagreb: Dom i svijet. (in Croatian)
[41] Radić, J. (ed. P.B. Lourenço, D.V. Oliveira & A. Portela) 2007: Arch Bridges made by
Croatian Builder Kruno Tonković, Arch’07, 5th International Conference on Arch
Bridges, Madeira, Portugal, 12-14 September, 2007, pp.217-224
[42] Radić, J., Mandić, A., Kindij, A. (ed. P.B. Lourenço, D.V. Oliveira & A. Portela)
2007: Eurocode requirements on Adriatic Arch Bridges, Arch’07, 5th International
Conference on Arch Bridges, Madeira, Portugal, pp.297-304
[43] Radić, J., Mandić, A., Puž, G. 2005. Design of Bridges. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna
naklada, Građevinski fakultet, Jadring (in Croatian).
[44] Radić, J. 2007. Massive Bridges. Zagreb: Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada, Građevinski
fakultet, Andris (in Croatian).
[45] Radić, J., Šavor, Z. & Puž, G. 2003. Sixth Large Reinforced Concrete Arch on the
Adriatic Coast (ed. R.K. Dhir, M.D. Newland & M.J. McCarthy, Proceedings of the
International Symposium “Role of Concrete Bridges in Sustainable Development”: 257-
266. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.
[46] Radić, J. (ed. P. Roca & C. Molins) 2004. Arch Bridges made by Croatian Builder
Milivoj Frković, Arch Bridges IV Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and
Construction: 97-104, Barcelona: International Center for Numerical Methods in
Engineering
[47] Radić, J., Žderić, Ž., & Goran, P. (ed. B.Katalinić) 2004. Construction methods for
reinforced concrete arch bridges. DAAM International Scientific Book 2004: 519-536,
Vienna: DAAM International.
[48] Radić, J. (ed. J. Radić) 2006. Croatian Achievements in Bridge Engineering,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridges: 13-26, Dubrovnik, Croatia:
SECON HDGK d.o.o.
- 117 -
Radić, Kindij & Mandić: HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF ARCH BRIDGES
[49] Chen, B.C., Huang, W.J (ed. J. Radić) 2006. Long-span and large scale bridges in
China, Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridges: 37-56, Dubrovnik,
Croatia: SECON HDGK d.o.o.
[50] Šavor, Z., Mujkanović, N., Hrelja, G. & Kindij, A. (ed. J. Radić) 2005. Krka River
Arch Bridge near Skradin, Proceedings of the 1st Congress of Croatian bridge-
builders: 55-52, Brijuni, Croatia: SECON HDGK d.o.o.
[51] Šavor, Z., Hrelja, G., Mujkanović, N. (ed. J. Radić) 2006. Design and Construction of
Krka Bridge near Skradin, Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridges: 85-
96, Dubrovnik, Croatia: SECON HDGK d.o.o.
[52] Šavor, Z., Mujkanović, N., Hrelja, G. (ed. J. Radić) 2006. Design and Construction of
Jasenovac, Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridges: 96-106,
Dubrovnik, Croatia: SECON HDGK d.o.o.
[53] Šavor, Z., Hrelja, G., Mujkanović, N. (ed. J. Radić) 2006. Design and Construction of
Mirna Viaduct, Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridges: 107-118,
Dubrovnik, Croatia: SECON HDGK d.o.o.
[54] Čandrlić, V., Bleiziffer, J., Mandić, A. 2001. Bakar Bridge Designed in Reactive
Powder Concrete, Proceedings of the Third International Arch Bridges Conference
ARCH'01, September 19-21, Paris, France, 695 – 700
[55] Čandrlic V., Bleiziffer J., Mandic A. 2001. The Largest Concrete Arch Bridge
Designed of RPC 200, The Fourth Symposium on Strait Crossings, Bergen, Norway, 2-
5 September, pages 145 – 151
[56] Herzog, M.: 150 Jahre Stahlbeton (1848-1998). Bautechnick Spezial, Ernst & Sohn,
1999
[57] Leliavesky, S.; Arches and Short Span Bridges. Chapman & Hall, London, 1982
[58] Šavor, Z. 2005. New contribution to concrete arch bridges construction, Dissertation,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb (in Croatian)
[59] Puž, G. 2005. Durability Analysis of Reinforced concrete Arch Bridges, Dissertation,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb (in Croatian)
[60] Mandić, A. 2008. Limit States of Existing Bridges, Dissertation, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, University of Zagreb (in Croatian)
[61] Radić, J., Bleiziffer, J., Žderić, Ž., Šavor, Z., Tkalčić, D. 2006. Concrete Structures in
Croatia 2002-2006, Croatian National Report, The Second fib Congress Naples, Italy,
5-8 June, published by fib Croatian Member Group & Croatian Society of Structural
Engineers
[62] Mondorf, P.E.: Concrete Bridges, Taylor & Francis, London and New York, 2006
[63] Radić, J., Šavor, Z., Mandić, A., Kindij, A.: Implementation of structural eurocodes in
Croatian practice. Networks for sustainable environment and high quality of life,
Proceedings of the International Conference and EurekaBuilt Event organized by
Croatian Construction Technology Platform, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts &
Structural Engineering Conferences, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 23-25, 2008, pp.231-238
- 118 -