JointChCro 2008 Historyofconcrete PDF

HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION
IN DEVELOPMENT OF
CONCRETE AND HYBRID ARCH BRIDGES
Jure RADIĆ*, Alex KINDIJ** & Ana MANDIĆ***
*Ph.D., Professor, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering
**M.Sc., University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering
***Ph.D., 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.
Figure 1: Clapper bridge, Cetina River, Croatia
- 10 -
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.
Figure 2: Part of the floor in the prehistoric habitat at Lepenski Vir
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 -
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.
Length approx. 188 m

Height approx. 50 m
Width approx.
156 m
appro oundation
Travertine
m
x. 52
Tuff
of f
Width
Roman concrete
Depth of foundation
approx. 12 m
Figure 3: Colosseum, Rome, construction finished 80 AD
- 12 -
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
Roman concrete with lightweight

tuff fragments and pumice
(density 1350 kg/m')
Roman concrete with tuff
fragments and c lay chippings

fragments and clay chippings
43.30 m

and clay fragments
approx. 6 m
Clay outer shell
Roman concrete with traver tine and tuff

fragments (density 1750 kg/m')
Clay outer shell
4.50 m Roman concrete with traver tine

fragments
7.30 m
Figure 4: Pantheon, Rome, begining of construction 27 BC

Probably due to the lack of availability of similar pozzuolans throughout the world, this
type of concrete was not used elsewhere and stone and brick masonry continued to be the
dominant construction materials for most of the world's significant buildings for many
centuries.
- 13 -
Figure 5: Pont du Gard, France

284-305 Some of Croatian bridges date from antique times, such as aqueduct built for the
Roman Emperor Diocletian for his palace near the town of Split constructed
during years 284 to 305 to carry freshwater from the source of Jadro River over a
distance of 9 km.
The largest, the most preserved and the most imposing bridge is Mostine
aqueduct (fig.6) with total length of 234 m and maximal height of 19 m above
the site level. Spans of regular semicircle vaults are chosen to create harmonic
structural form with piers thickness and height above the site level. Two largest
spans are 8.9 m and piers between them and alongside them are 2.9 m wide.
These two main spans have a typical Roman pier-to-span ratio of 1:3. Other 16
openings have the same span of 4.7 m with piers 2.1 m wide. In the abutment
wall one separated span is 4.75 m long. This aqueduct is still in use which is the
proof of its functional structure and its vaults are impressively incorporated in
the landscape.
Figure 6: Mostine aqueduct for Diocletian palace, Split

605-617 In the far East aslo some very valuable bridges were built. The oldest arch
bridges in China date from the 2nd and 3rd Century. An-Chi Bridge over the
Chiao river in the Hopei province, China (fig.7) is one of the important preserved
bridges. An-Chi Bridge is the oldest segmental arch bridge in the world and with
37.5 m span far exceeds the Roman bridge at Alcántara. This arch bridge has
open spandrels for both, flood relief and structural reasons, designed and built by
Li Chun. In the period during the Sui (581-618) and Tang (618-907) dynasties
advanced building technologies were developing in China.
- 14 -
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.
Figure 8: Bridge at the Pile Gate, Dubrovnik

th
17 Century: Claude Perrault used reinforcement of embedded iron for long span
architraves in his colonnade in the Louvre.
1676 One of the earliest attempts to derive a theory of arch design was put forward by
the English scientist Robert Hooke. At the end of a printed lecture on
˝Helioscopes and some other instruments˝ he inserted the following problem ˝to
fill up the vacancy˝:
- 15 -
˝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 -
Figure 9: Pontypridd Bridge, Pontypridd, Wales, Great Britain, 1756

1759-1769: In 1759 the City of London invited designs for a new bridge across the Thames
at Blackfriars. The resulting public controversy over the relative merits of the
competing designs throws interesting light on the state of knowledge at the time.
The bridge committee received over fifty submissions, which were reduced to
eleven. Eight of these were ˝elliptical in shape˝, including one by Robert Mylne,
fig.10, which appears to have been favoured by the Committee until one or more
members objected that the elliptical arches were ˝deficient in strength and
stability˝. It was concluded that the matter would be decided by a panel of eight
˝gentlemen of the most approved knowledge in building geometry and
mechanics˝.
Figure 10: Blackfriars Bridge under construction engraved by Piranesi, London, 1764
- 17 -
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 -
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.
Figure 11: Souillac bridge on Dordogne river, Midi-Pyrénées, France, 1816

1824 Joseph Aspdin, an English mason, invented, patented and improved Portland
cement by burning finely ground chalk with finely divided clay in lime kiln until
carbon dioxide was driven off. The sintered product was then ground and he
called it Portland cement named after the high quality building stones quarried at
Portland, England. It is generally believed that Aspdin was the first to use high
temperatures to heat alumina and silica materials to the point of vitrification,
which resulted in fusion. Cement is still made this way today.
During the nineteenth century concrete was used for many buildings in Europe, often of an
industrial nature, as this ˝new˝ material did not have the social acceptability of stone or
brick.
1828 I.K. Brunel is credited with the first engineering application of Portland cement,
which was used to fill a breach in the Thames Tunnel between Rotherhithe and
Wapping south of London.
1836 The first systematic tests of tensile and compressive strength took place in
Germany.
1848 J.L. Lambot, a gentleman farmer, built in Southern France, Miraval, a boat made
of hydraulic lime concrete reinforced with a skeleton of iron rods, fig.12. The
Lambot’s boat was almost 3.66 m long and over 1.22 m wide with sides around
3.8 cm thick. He had some plans for using this material in building construction
because he applied for a patent in France and Belgium in 1856, describing
concrete as follows:
˝An Improved Building Material to be used as a Substitute for Wood in Naval
and Architectural Constructions and also for Domestic Purposes where
Dampness is to be avoided.˝
- 19 -
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.
Figure 13: Great Exhibition, London, 1851

1854 W.B. Wilkinson, a plasterer from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England patented his
concrete floor with network of flat iron bars or wire rope sagging near centre of
span, fig.14, which was not significantly commercialised. The patent derived
- 20 -
from a small two-story servant’s cottage which he erected and where he

reinforced the concrete floor and roof with iron bars and wire rope. He built
several such structures and is properly credited with constructing the first
reinforced concrete building.
It is subsequently shown that Monier never understood, as Wilkinson had, the
need for the reinforcing to be near the tensile side of a beam.
Figure 14: Wilkinsons concrete floor, England, 1854

1854-1880: The first widespread use of Portland cement concrete in buildings occurred
under the direction of the French builder, Francois Coignet. He built several
large houses of concrete in England and France, at first using iron rods in the
floors to keep the walls from spreading, but later using the rods as flexural
elements
1865 The first use of concrete as a major bridge construction material was in 1865. It
was used to form a multiple-arch structure on the Grand Maître Aqueduct
conveying water from the River Vanne 94 miles (151km) to Paris, France. The
concrete was cast in its crudest form, a huge mass without reinforcement.
1867 J. Monier of France patented reinforced concrete portable containers. In the next
several years patents were issued to Monier for reinforced concrete pipes and
bridges.
1871-1876: W.E. Ward built a first landmark building on his estate in Port Chester, New
York in iron reinforced concrete, fig.15. It is well-known because of the
diligence with which Mr. Ward conducted all of his business, researching and
documenting everything. He desired a concrete house because his wife was
terribly afraid of fire and commissioned architect Robert Mook for the design in
1870. Like Coignet's buildings, it was made to resemble masonry to be socially
acceptable. Mr. Ward handled all technical and construction issues himself,
conducting long-term load tests and other experiments. He used the French word
for concrete, beton, and in 1883 delivered a paper on the house to the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers entitled ˝Beton in Combination with Iron As a
Building Material˝. His audience, by definition, was far more interested in the
unique water supply and heating systems, which he had designed, than in
reinforced concrete.
- 21 -
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.
Figure 16: Monier's water tank at Bougival, Seine-et-Oise, France, 1872

1874 T. Hayatt patented in US his iron reinforced piers (26 years before A. Considére).
1875 J. Monier built a small arch footbridge, fig.17, in the garden of the castle of
Marquis de Tiliére at Chazelet, Touraine, with span L = 16.50 m, rise f = 1.10 m
and width B = 4.00 m. This was the first built concrete bridge.
- 22 -
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.
Figure 18: Main features of a typical single-span Monier arch bridge

In the case of many stone bridges and early concrete bridges, the carriageway was placed
- 23 -
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 -
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.
Figure 20: Reinforcement scheme from the Hennebique patent, 1892

1894 S. de Mollins who was the holder of Hennebique patent in Switzerland built the
first railway bridge in iron reinforced concrete. The 25 cm thick plate with free
span of 2,0 m was reinforced with iron ∅26 mm at the distance of 22 cm. The
bridge was built in Wiggen, Kanton Luzern, and is still functional even after 114
years.
In the same year the first reinforced concrete arch bridge in Denmark was built.
This was a pedestrian bridge built as a skew (73°), fixed arch with span of 20 m
and a span to rise ratio of 11.5. The skewbacks are unreinforced concrete walls
on wooden piling. The width of the bridge is 6.3 m and the depth of the arch at
crown and springings are 20 cm and 45 cm, respectively.
1895 F. Hennebique built the first grain silos from iron reinforced concrete in Braila,
Romania.
1897 C. Rabut held the first lecture about iron reinforced concrete (ciment armé) at the
École des Ponts et Chaussées in Paris. F. Hennebique published the first number
of his monthly publicaton ˝Le Béton Armé˝, and in Southampton, England the
first ramed iron reinforced piles were constructed.
- 25 -
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
Figure 22: Water tower, Toulon, France, 1898

1899 F. Hennebique built a three span arch bridge (40,0 + 50,0 + 40,0 m) at
Châtellerault (Vienne), Fig. 23.
- 26 -
Figure 23: Arch bridge at Châtellerault (Vienne), France, 1899

1896-1900: A. Considére conducted a series of experiments for the French government
committee. He analysed plates, girders and piers in great detail. The result was
that the best way to improve the carrying capacity of these structural elements
was the round hook for anchoring the plane bar and confinement for the piers as
given in the US patent issued to T. Hayatt in 1874.
1900 In Croatia the first concrete bridge was constructed over the Lomost creek in
Ogulin, fig.24. The 10 m span and 7 m wide ribbed plate was made as true
Hennebique system.
Figure 24: Bridge over Lomost creek, Ogulin, Croatia, 1900

1901 E. Züblin built the first arch bridge with an underlying deck with 17 m span over
the river Larg at Brünighof, Elsass. At the same year R. Maillart built the 30 m
span bridge Innbrücke at Zuoz, Engadin, Swiss, an arch with three hinges and
box type cross section, fig.25. In the same year a reinforced concrete bridge with
single span 19.3 m was built near Krapina in Croatia, fig.26.
- 27 -
Figure 25: Innbrücke, Zuoz, Engafin, Switzerland, 1901
Figure 26: Reinforced bridge near Krapina, Croatia, 1901
Figure 27: Concrete factory, early 19th century

If Hennebique was responsible for the acceptability of reinforced concrete as a building
material, then it was Auguste Perret who made it acceptable as an architectural material.
The works of Perret include not only factories and apartment buildings, but also museums,
churches and theaters.
- 28 -
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
Figure 29: Apartment building at Rue Franklin 25, 1903

1905 C. Bach reported in Stuttgart about the carrying capacity of iron reinforced
concrete piers with different types of shear reinforcement. E.L. Ransome applied
precast facade elements to avoid acquiring scaffolding on site.
1906 The Froté, Westermann & Co., Zürich built the Gmündertobel Bridge, fig.30,
over the river Sitter at Teufen, kanton Appenzell, Switzerland. This is an fixed
solid arch of 79 m span and 26.5 m rise with the deck on top. The design was by
E. Mörsch. The arch was profiled as thrust line to the dead load; its depth varies
from 1.2 m at the crown to 2.13 m at the springings, and its width varies from 6.5
to 7.5 m. The bridge deck is a reinforced concrete grid with four longitudinal ribs
carried by as many lines of columns. Transverse wind load is carried by the deck
- 29 -
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 -
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.
Figure 32: Risorgimento bridge over the Tiber, Rome, 1911
- 31 -
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 -
Dischinger and Dr. Ulrich Finsterwalder of Dyckerhoff and Widmann based

their design on the thickness ratio of an egg shell to its diameter. Although the
firm did not again use the icosahedral dome geometry, the invention was
perfected in later structures and made possible clear spans of lighter weight than
was previously possible.
Figure 34: Church Notre Dame du Raincy near Paris, 1922

1924 R. Maillart built his first 38.7 m span polygonal arch bridge over the Fliengli
creek at Innerthal, Kanton Schwyz, Switzerland.
1925 Immediately after the 38.7 m span Maillart built the elegant 40 m span Val-
Tschiel Bridge at Domat, Kanton Graubünden, Switzerland, fig.35.
- 33 -
Figure 35: Van-Tschiel bridge, Domat, Kanton Graubünden, Switzerland, 1925

1926 E.Torroja from Madrid, designed an aqueduct over the Rio Guadalete by Tempúl
in Andalusia, Spain, fig.36. The structure is a cable stayed girder with 58 m span
made of concrete reinforced with iron.
Reinforced concrete permitted the development of an entirely new building form
– the thin shell. Eduardo Torroja, the brilliant Spanish engineer designed a low-
rise dome of 9 cm thickness and 46 m span for the market at Algeciras, using
steel cables for a tension ring.
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 41: Bridge at Mechra ed Dack, Marokko, 1929
Figure 42: Erection of the steel formwork of the arch over Amer near Echelsbach, Bavaria,
Germany, 1929
- 37 -
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
Figure 44: Transportation of the wooden scaffolding
- 38 -
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 45: Lika Bridge in Kosinj, Croatia, 1932

1933 The firm Christiani & Nielsen constructed a very slender and light arch bridge
with underlying deck and L = 143 m span over the Lot at Castelmoron, Lot-et-
Garonne, France, fig.46, based on the design by O.F. Nielsen.
Figure 46: Arch bridge over the Lot, Castelmoron, Lot-et-Garonne, France, 1933
- 39 -
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.
Figure 47: Kupa Bridge in Sisak, Croatia, 1934
Figure 48: External prestressing, patent by F. Dischinger, 1934
- 40 -
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.
Figure 49: Racecourse grandstand La Zarzuela, Madrid, 1935

1936-1937: The 308 m long bridge over the railway station Aue in Sachsen, Germany was
built according to the design by F. Dischinger, fig.50. The spans are 25 + 69 + 25
m. For the center span a 31.5 m long and 1.9 m high girder was inserted. These
three spans of the bridge were externally prestressed with steel bars ∅70 mm
quality 360/520.
Figure 50: Aue railway station bridge, Sachsen, Germany, 1937
- 41 -
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 -
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 -
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.
Figure 56: Sava Bridge, Croatia, 1939

1939-1940: E. Freyssinet received his French, Swiss and Austrian patent for a tendon with
strands and wedge anchorages, fig.57. This prestressing method was used most
commonly throughout the world. At the same time P.L. Nervi built in Ortobello,
Italia six aircraft hangars 40 ⋅ 100 m on just six piers, fig.58. The structure
comprises prefabricated reinforced concrete truss elements.
Figure 57: E. Freyssinet patent for prestressed strand tendons, 1939
Figure 58: Aircraft hangars 40 ⋅ 100 m, Ortobello, Italia, 1940
- 44 -
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.
Figure 59: Bridge in Djedeida, Tunis, 1941
Figure 60: Construction of the Marne bridge, Luzancy, France, 1941-46

1942-1944: During the shortages of steel the concrete ships were reinvented. After the J.L.
Lambot’s ship in 1848 ships from Ferrocement were built from 1887 in Holland.
U. Finsterwalder invented ships built in formwork from lightweight concrete
which enabled 67 % reduction of steel and no coating. During this period in
Germany ships were built up to 630 tons for coastline ships, 1160 tons for
riverline ships and up to 6600 ton for open sea ships.
- 45 -
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.
Figure 62: Marne bridge, Esbly, France, 1948
- 46 -
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
Figure 64: Neckar bridge, Obere Badstrasse, Heilbronn, Germany, 1949
- 47 -
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.
Figure 65: Elz bridge, Emmendingen, Baden, Germany, 1949

1948-1952: P.W. Abeles built for the British Railways a series of road overpasses made
from small precast girders partially prestressed with a combination of stressed
and not stressed strands.
1949-1950: A. Birguer and G. Magnel designed a continuous girder bridge externally
prestressed over the Maas at Sclayn, Belgium, fig.66.
Figure 66: Maas Bridge at Sclayn, Belgium, 1950

Until the breaktrough of prestressed concrete around 1950, concrete girder bridges were
limited to spans of less than 80 m, longer spans in concrete bridges were designed either as
arches or, in exceptional cases, as lattice-girder bridges. In practice, arch bridges were
predominant for spans exceeding 30 to 40 m.
- 48 -
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 -
1952 Formation of fip: The Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte was officially

inaugurated at a meeting held at the University Engineering Department,
Cambridge, England.
This meeting represented the culmination of the efforts of several eminent
international engineers and research workers who had held meetings and
discussions over a two-year period, and in which E. Freyssinet and G. Magnel
played prominent roles. Most fittingly, the first president of fip was Freyssinet
and the first deputy-general vice-president was Magnel.
During its lifetime, fip had Member Groups in 50 countries and fip observers in
25 other nations.
Two of fip’s principal activities have been to produce technical reports and to
organize international congresses every four years as well as special symposia
throughout the world. fip has held congresses in London (1953), Amsterdam
(1955), Berlin (1958), Rome and Naples (1962), Paris (1966), Prague (1970),
New York (1974), London (1978), Stockholm (1982), New Delhi (1986),
Hamburg (1990), Washington (1994) and Amsterdam (1998).
In 1998 fip merged with the CEB (Comité Européen du Béton to form fib
(Fédération Internationale du Béton). fib held its first world congress in Osaka
(2002) then in Naples (2006), and the next congress will be held in Washington
in 2010.
1953 – 1956: One of the most interesting projects of prof. K. Tonković was the
reconstruction of a bridge across Krka River near Skradin, fig.69. The old bridge
with steel arch trusses above the roadway was demolished in the II World war.
All usable parts were incorporated into new structure which resulted in
efficiency and economy. They were used in two ways; first, as framework for
two parallel concrete arch girders of 90 m span, and later, after the removal of
scaffolding, as a rigid reinforcement of concrete arches. This bridge is much
more economic than the old one, it has a higher navigation channel, wider
roadway and is more logical and beautiful.
Figure 69: Bridge over Krka River in Skradin, Croatia, 1955
- 50 -
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.
Figure 71: Bridge over Slunjčica River in Slunj, Croatia
- 51 -
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.
Figure 72: Bridge over Korana River in Karlovac, Croatia

1954 At Ebensee, Austria the elegant Traun bridge was constructed based on the
design by H. Machatti (H. Rella & Co., Wien), fig.73.
Figure 73: Traun bridge, Ebensee, Austria, 1954
- 52 -
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.
Figure 74: Television tower, Stuttgart, Germany, 1955

1955-1956: Firm Palmer & Baker from Alabama designed the 38.6 km long bridge over the
Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, fig.75. Louisiana Bridge
Company built this bridge in only 19 months, which was 4 less than expected.
For the superstructure precast elements were used. For one field 17.1 m long,
10 m wide and 186 tons heavy elements were implemented. The whole cross
- 53 -
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
Figure 76: Storms river bridge, South Africa, 1956

1957 In Örebro, Sweden a 9000 m3 prestressed shell water tower was built, fig.77. In
the same year P.L. Nervi built the Palazetto dello Sport for the 1960 Olympics in
Rome, fig.78. The dome is ∅58.6 m comprising 1620 thin ferocement elements
connected with on site concrete.
- 54 -
Figure 77: Örebro water tower, Sweden, 1957
Figure 78: Palazetto dello Sport, Rome, 1957

1958 For the four trail Stockport – Manchester railway in England, four single cell box
type superstructures were used, each prestressed and made of 16 precast
elements and 500 tons weight (B = 4.0 m, H = 2.6 m and d = 40 cm). The
- 55 -
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.
Figure 79: Mangfall Bridge at Darching, Germany, 1958
Figure 80: Mangfall Bridge, lower level – pedestrian crossing
- 56 -
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 81: Lake Maracaibo Bridge, Venezuela, 1962

1960-1963: E. Cardoso designed and constructed the Arrábida Arch Bridge, fig.82, over the
Douro River, in Portugal. At the time of its construction in 1963, the bridge had
the largest concrete span in the world. The bridge carries a roadway 25 m wide,
supported 52 m above the river; its overall length of 493 m includes a reinforced-
concrete arch 270 m long.
Figure 82: Arrábida Arch Bridge over the Douro River,Portugal, 1963
- 57 -
1962 A first industrial application of the precast segmental construction technique

with match-cast joints was achieved with the Choisy-le-Roi Bridge over the
Siene, fig.83. The contractor was the firm Campenon-Bernard and the design
was made by J. Muller. Precast elements of up to 25 t were moved with a mobile
crane. The total bridge length is 131 m, spans are 38 + 55 + 38 m, and the deck
width is 28.4 m.
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 -
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 86: Gladesville Bridge, Sydney, Australia, 1964

1962-1965: The firm Dyckerhoff & Widmann built the 208 m span Bendorf Bridge over
the Rhine near Koblenz, Germany, fig.87. The construction method is free
cantilevering with stressed bars ∅32 mm in steel 800/1050 based on the design
by U. Finsterwalder and H. Schambeck. Total length of the bridge is 1029 m,
with spans 43 + 44.35 + 71 + 208 + 71 + 44.35 + 43 m, deck depth 4.4 – 10.45 m,
and deck width 30.86 m. This bridge served as a textbook example for later
structures of this kind. For a short time this was a world record span. This bridge
is an example of how prestressed concrete allowed for shallower girders so the
resulting girder has the appearance of a very shallow arch, elegant in profile.
Figure 87: Bendorf bridge over the Rhine, Koblenz, Germany, 1965
- 59 -
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
pile cap 400 t
30 - 50
piles 300 t - 500 t
22,
50
Figure 88: Zeeland bridge, Oosterschelde, Holland, 1965

1964-1965: The firm Dyckerhoff & Widmann built the 380 m long Elz viaduct near
Kehring, Germany, fig.89. The slab and girder superstructure is prestressed and
the piers are made of reinforced concrete. The main span is 37.5 m, and the
maximum pier height is 95 m.
Figure 89: Elz viaduct, Kehring, Germany, 1965

1964-1966: The firm Campenon-Bernard built the 2.6 km long bridge from the mainland to
the island Oléron on the French Atlantic coast, fig.90. The 79 m spans were
made with precast elements 42 to 73 tons, glued together and prestressed. This
was the first large maritime structure to be built using prefabricated deck
sections and movable erection truss.
Figure 90: Oléron bridge, Atlantic, France, 1966
- 60 -
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 91: Siegtal bridge, Sauerland, Germany, 1970

1966-1968: The Šibenik Bridge spanning 246 m, fig.92 left, built in 1966 was the first in
the world to be constructed entirely by the free cantilevering method. The Pag
Bridge, fig.92 right, completed in 1968 with a span of 193 m is very similar in
appearance and design. Three-cell box arches gradually increase depth from the
springing towards the crown. They were constructed by suspended cantilever
method with temporary stay cables and tie-backs anchored into the abutments of
the superstructure at Šibenik Bridge and directly into the rock at Pag Bridge. The
superstructure of both bridges is designed as a series of simply supported
grillages consisting of four precast prestressed concrete girders joined by cast-in-
place cross beams at supports and the thirds of span. Šibenik and Pag Bridge
design was dominated by solving the construction methodology (very small
concrete cover), which subsequently led to durability problems.
Repair works on the Pag Bridge started already after a decade of its service, but
did not prove efficient in terms of stopping the corrosion process.
Figure 92: Šibenik Bridge, 1966 and Pag Bridge 1968, Croatia
- 61 -
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.
Figure 93: Nösslach Bridge, Austria, 1967

1968 The Semorile viaduct curved in the plan view on the Genoa – Sestri Levante
Highway near Zoagli, Italia was built using incremental launching construction
method, fig.94. The spans are 41 + 3 ⋅ 49 + 41 m with 80 m high piers. The
superstructure was launched using a short steel nose and temporary cable stays
without the benefit of temporary piers according to the design by T. Koncz from
Zürich. This construction method enabled the contractor to build 9.6 m of the
structure daily.
Figure 94: Semorile viaduct near Zoagli, Genova, Italia, 1968
- 62 -
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.
Figure 95: Chillon Viaduct, Switzerland, 1970

1970-1971: T.Y. Lin and F. Kulka built a highway bridge over the Rio Colorado in Costa
Rica, fig.96. The bridge span is L = 145 m between supports over a 91 m deep
valley. This new form shows its structural logic clearly in the almost polygonal
lower chord, its delicate verticals and its straight light horizontal roadway.
Figure 96: Rio Colorado Bridge, Costa Rica, 1971

1972 During the II World War the large part of the upper level of the Tounj bridge was
ruined and after the war provisional wood bridge was built to reconstitute the
traffic. In the year 1972 the bridge was restored in detail according to design
developed by professor K. Tonković. Stones from original bridge were taken
from the river and together with stones from the nearby quarry were used in
reconstruction, fig.97.
- 63 -
Figure 97: Tounj Bridge with two levels

In the same year A. Pauser built a cable stayed bridge over the Danube channel
in Wiena with 119 m span, fig.98. The superstructure was built along the
embankments and rotated into the final position.
Figure 98: Prestressed cable stayed bridge over the Danube channel in Wiena, Austria,
1972
- 64 -
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.
Figure 99: Rip Bridge, Australia, 1974

1976 In Austria a new kind of quick hardening Portland cement PSZ 400 was
available on the market. This cement was able to achieve following compressive
strengths with maximum aggregate ∅32 mm and water-cement ratio w/c = 0,48:
age 2 hours 12 hours 1 day 7 days 28 days 1 year
N/mm2 12 23 35 43 55 66
This cement was particularly advantageous for construction of precast elements
and reparations. In the same year silica fume was incorporated into Norwegian
building code and was used for oil platforms, bridge decks and tunnels.
1976-1980: The islands St.Marco and Krk were connected with mainland with two large
reinforced concrete arches, of 390 m and 244 m span, fig.100. Krk I bridge, the
reinforced-concrete arch with the span of 390 m between the mainland and the
Krk Island, still holds the world-record among conventional reinforced concrete
arches.
To achieve exceptionally large spans it was necessary to reduce the dead load as
much as possible. The structural members of minimum statically admissible
dimensions were utilised.
Construction of Krk Bridges used an innovative cantilever erection scheme in
which concrete spandrel columns, temporary steel tension tie top chords and
diagonals were combined to form a truss, fig.101. Three-cell box arch was
constructed in two stages. First, the centre cell was constructed of precast plates
(5,0 m long) and after the hydraulic jacks in the crown of the single-cell arch rib
were activated, temporary steel ties were removed and two outside arch cells
were constructed of precast plates, using centre portion for support. Cross section
of the larger arch is 13.0 m wide and 6.5 m high, and the cross section of 240 m
arch is 8.0 m wide and 4.0 m high. The superstructure comprising longitudinal
girders and 11 m wide deck was also constructed using precast elements.
- 65 -
Figure 100: Krk I and Krk II arches, Krk island, Croatia, 1980
Figure 101: Construction of the Krk I bridge

1980 Ganter bridge near Brig in Kanton Wallis, Switzerland was built based on the
design by C. Menn and H. Rigendinger, fig.102. The bridge was constructed
using free cantilever method. The spans are L = 35 + 50 + 127 + 174 + 127 + 80
+ 50 + 35 = 678 m, and the width of the single cell box type cross section is
10 m. Hight of the box girder is changing from 2.6 to 5.0 m. The prestressed
cables are covered with concrete.
Figure 102: Ganter bridge, Kanton Wallis, Switzerland, 1980
- 66 -
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.
Figure 103 Argentobel, Bavaria, Germany, 1986

1989 The largest concrete arch, spanning 235, m in Japan belongs to Beppu-Myouban
Bridge, fig.104, constructed using cantilever erection scheme in which arch in
the springing area, columns, temporary steel beams and diagonals were
combined to form a truss and inserting the middle steel truss, later wrapped with
concrete (Melan’s procedure). This cantilevering method forming temporary
truss is suitable for spans up to 150 m, but using it in the combination with
Melan’s procedure it becomes applicable for spans larger then 200 m.
Figure 104: Beppu-Myouban Bridge, Japan, 1989
- 67 -
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.
Figure 105: Grosse Mühle Bridge, Germany, 1991

1991-1999: The construction of the Maslenica highway bridge - a concrete arch of 200
meters span, started during war and was completed in 1997, fig.106. It symbolizes
the continuation of the tradition of building large concrete arches in Croatia, such
as famous Krk arches. Its appearance is characterized by the simplicity of its
ancient, yet logical form, and a lack of any decorations or visual details.
The bridge design was strongly influenced by the severity of the marine
environment and the seismicity of the site. All structural dimensions were
increased, compared to previously built concrete arch bridges in the Adriatic
coast area, but in the context of its surroundings, the bridge appears rather
slender and elegant.
By its form or construction procedure, the bridge cannot be regarded as very
innovative, but it became the landmark and the symbol of victory for
independence.
- 68 -
Figure 106: Reinforced concrete arch Maslenica Bridge, Croatia, 1997

Major reconstruction of Pag bridge started in 1991 with the repair of the arch and
was finally finished in 1999 when the original concrete superstructure was
dismantled and replaced by a completely new structure in steel, fig.107.
Columns were repaired by encasing in steel and concrete. Since the arch axis is
designed as a thrust line for certain permanent load, due to a change of
superstructure dead weight distribution the numerical analysis showed high
sensitivity of the relatively elastic arch. This is to be considered in rehabilitation
designs of other large arch bridges, especially Krk Bridge.
Figure 107: Reconstructed Pag Bridge, Croatia, 1999
- 69 -
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.
Figure 108: Chateaubriand Bridge, France, 1994
Figure 109: Morbihan Bridge, La Roche-Bernard, France, 1994
- 70 -
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.
Figure 110: Natchez Trace Bridge, Franklin, Tennessee, 1994

1994-1997: The Wanxian Yangtze River Bridge, fig.111, completed in 1997 has a clear
span of 420 m and deck width of 24 m. The arch cross-section is a three-cell
rectangular box 7.0 m high and 16.0 m wide.
Steel tubular skeleton is both filled with concrete and wrapped with concrete.
First the cantilevering method with auxiliary stays is used to construct steel
tubular skeleton of the arch. Steel tubes of the self supporting arch are filled with
C 60 concrete. Scaffolding is hanged on the filled skeleton for the arch
concreting. The cross section of the arch is divided into seven parts, concreted
successively. Each part is concreted in the stripe from one arch abutment to
another.
- 71 -
Figure 111: Wanxian Bridge, China, 1997

1995 S. Nagataki gave his report on the development of self-compacting highly
flowable concrete in Japan.
1996 First report was issued on the reactive powder concrete of the French firm
Bouygues. This new material could achieve compressive strengths from 200 to
800 N/mm2. The main characteristic of this concrete are the scantiness of gravel,
fig.112, higher tensile stresses from 30 to 80 N/mm2, lower brittleness because of
very small porosity which also leads to higher durability. The workability of the
reactive powder concrete is ensured with super plasticizers, silica fume and
water/cement ratio of 0.3. For the brittleness high strength steel fibers ∅0.2 mm
and 13 mm in length are added. For now the price of the reactive powder
concrete is much higher than the price of normal portland cement concrete.
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 -
Figure 113: Wilde Gera Bridge, Germany, 2000

1999 The fixed arch of the Kyll Bridge built in Germany, fig.114, spanning 223 m
with a rise 55.6 m is unique because of the solid cross section. The cross section
is of variable depth 3.5 m at the springing and 1.5 m in the crown and 8.25 m
wide. Solid piers and prestressed superstructure slab participate in arch stability.
The bridge is constructed using cantilevering method with temporary stays and
back-stays and auxiliary pylons. The arch springing areas were additionally
supported with auxiliary piers.
Figure 114: Kyll Bridge, Germany, 1999

1999-2002: A.A.de Fonseca & F.M. Mato designed the Infante D. Henrique Bridge,
fig.115, in Oporto, Portugal. This is a deck-stiffened arch bridge with a span of
280 m built by cantilever construction. The very shallow slab-arch is made up of
straight elements only; it is merged with the stiffening girder to a 6 m deep box
section over a length of 35 m at either side of the crown. The Bridge was
- 73 -
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.
Figure 115: Infante D. Henrique Bridge, Oporto, Portugal, 2002

2005 A concrete arch Skradin Bridge, fig.116, was constructed for a new Croatian
highway across the Krka River canyon. Bridge spans 204 m with a rise of 52 m.
It holds a unique position in the family of existing Croatian reinforced arch
bridges because the bridge superstructure has been designed as a composite
structure, which resulted in substantial reduction of permanent actions and also
helped realize an aesthetically outstanding appearance in the exquisite
environment of the Krka canyon.
Figure 116: Skradin Bridge, Croatia, 2005
- 74 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Joseph Louis Lambot (1814 – 1887)

He was the inventor of ferro-cement, which led to the
development of what is now known as reinforced concrete. He
studied in Paris, where his uncle Baron Lambot was aide-de-
camp to the Duke of Bourbon.
In 1841 he moved to his family's estate of Miraval in the
Department of the Var (Southern France), where he applied
himself to agriculture. It is at that time that he started
constructing tanks using cement and iron reinforcement. In 1848
he constructed his first boat using the same system, which he
tested on ponds on the estate. This boat was patented on January 30, 1855 and presented
with great success at the 1855 World's Fair in Paris (Exposition Universelle - 1855). The
original prototype is preserved at the Museum of Brignoles.
François Coignet (1814 – 1888)
He was a French pioneer of experimental concrete construction,
who, with his brothers, took over the family's chemical works in
Lyon in 1846. He patented a concrete with a clinker aggregate
in 1854, and opened a new factory at St-Denis, itself built of
pre-cast clinker-blocks, to manufacture it. In order to advertise
his products he built a house entirely of artificial stone. He is
also responsible for the first use of iron-reinforced concrete in
the 1950s. Coignet’s own all-concrete house in Paris (1862),
where the roofs and floors were reinforced with small wrought-iron beams, still stands.
He concentrated his energies to the study of concrete and artificial stone. One of his largest
projects was the construction of the aqueduct of the Vanne (1867–74), nearly 140 km long,
and with some arches as high as 40 metres, and he built the sea wall at Saint-Jean-de-Luz
(1857–93). He provided the concrete elements for L.-C. Boileau's Church of Ste-
Marguerite, Le Vésinet (Seine-et-Oise), in the years 1862–1865, but Boileau complained of
poor adhesion and water-penetration.
Thaddeus Hyatt (1816 – 1901)
He vas an inventor in New York and London. In 1877 he
published his book ˝An account of some experiments with
portland cement concrete combined with iron as a building
material˝, Chiswick Press, London. In his book he formulated the
basic principles of the iron reinforced concrete for the first time
and also addressed the issues of fire resistance and cost-
effectiveness.
William B. Wilkinson (1819 – 1902)

He was plasterer and manufacturer of artificial stones in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In 1854 he
was issued his patent for construction of concrete decks which were reinforced in the
tension cord with strands. To reduce the dead weight he used gypsum plates.
- 78 -
Joseph Monier (1823-1906)

He is credited with being the first to understand the principles of
reinforced concrete. He embedded an iron-wire mesh into concrete.
However he was a gardener, not a licensed engineer, and sold his
patents to contractors who built the first generation of reinforced
concrete bridges in Europe. He also perfected the technique of pre-
stressing concrete, which leaves permanent compressive stresses in
concrete arches.
As a gardener, Monier was not satisfied with the materials
available for making flowerpots. Clay was easily broken and wood
weathered badly and could be broken by the plant roots. Monier began making cement pots
and tubs, but these were not stable enough. In order to strengthen the cement containers, he
experimented with embedded iron mesh. He was not the first to experiment with reinforced
concrete, but he saw some of the possibilities in the technique, and promoted it extensively.
Monier exhibited his invention at the Paris Exposition of 1867 and he obtained his first
patent in the same year on iron-reinforced troughs for horticulture. He continued to find
new uses for the material, and obtained more patents — iron-reinforced cement pipes and
basins (1868); iron-reinforced cement panels for building façades (1869); bridges made of
iron-reinforced cement (1873); reinforced concrete beams (1878). In 1875 the first iron-
reinforced cement bridge ever built was constructed at the Castle of Chazelet by his design.
The important point of Monier's idea was that it combined steel and concrete in such a way
that the best qualities of each material were brought into play. Concrete is easily procured
and shaped. It has considerable compressive or crushing strength, but is somewhat deficient
in shearing strength, and distinctly weak in tensile or pulling strength. Steel, on the other
hand, is easily procurable in simple forms such as long bars, and is extremely strong. But it
is difficult and expensive to work up into customized forms. Concrete had been avoided for
making beams, slabs and thin walls because its lack of tensile strength doomed it to fail in
such circumstances. But if a concrete slab is reinforced with a network of small steel rods
on its undersurface where the tensile stresses occur, its strength will be enormously
increased.
François Hennébique saw Monier's reinforced concrete tubs and tanks at the Paris
Exposition and began experimenting with ways to apply this new material to building
construction. He set up his own firm the same year and in 1892 he patented a complete
building system using the material.
Kamilo Bedeković (1839 – 1915)

He was the first and long-standing president of the Club of Engineers and Architects
established in the year 1878 in Zagreb. Under his management in Zagreb City authorities a
great number of roads and bridges and also railway Karlovac – Rijeka were built. He was
particularly undertaken with a renovation and evolution of Zagreb after the earthquake in
1880.
- 79 -
Armand Considère (1841 – 1914)

He was responsible for the official government experiments with
iron reinforced concrete. He was the general inspector of the
French Bridge and road building. He recognized independently
from T. Hyatt the importance of wrapping piers with reinforcement.
François Hennebique (1843 – 1921)

He was a French engineer and self-educated builder who patented
his pioneering reinforced-concrete construction system in 1892.
Before his work, the greatest problem in reinforced concrete
construction was the monolithic joint, meaning the integration of
separate members of construction, such as the column and the
beam, into a single monolithic element. The Hennebique system
was one of the first appearances of the modern reinforced-
concrete method of construction.
Hennebique had first worked as a stonemason, later becoming a
builder, with a particular interest in restoration of old churches. Hennebique's Béton Armé
system started out by using concrete as a fireproof protection for wrought iron beams, on a
house project in Belgium in 1879. He realised however, that the floor system would be
more economic if the iron were used only where the slab was in tension, relying on the
concrete in the compression areas. His solution was reinforced concrete - a concrete slab
with steel bars in its bottom face.
His business developed rapidly, expanding from five employees in Brussels in 1896, to
twenty-five two years later when he moved to Paris. In addition, he had a rapidly expanding
network of firms acting as agents for his system. These included L.G. Mouchel in Britain,
and Eduard Zublin in Germany.
Between 1892 and 1902, over 7000 structures were built using the Hennebique system,
including buildings, water towers and bridges. Most of these were by other firms licensing
the technology, although Hennebique designed some structures himself, including the 1899
bridge at Châtellerault.
Gustav Adolf Wayss (1851 – 1917)

German engineer who, with Matthias Koenen (1849–1924),
pioneered scientific calculations in reinforced-concrete construction,
thus establishing a theoretical basis for it. At the Düsseldorf Exibition
in 1879 he showed a house made completely from concrete. In 1887
he published his book ˝Das System Monier in seiner Anwendung auf
das gesamte Bauwesen˝. From 1887 to 1891 in Germany and Austria
he built over 320 bridges with spans up to 40 m. In 1898 he built the
largest Monier bridge with 44 m span which is today still open for
trafic.
- 80 -
Edmond Coignet (1856 – 1915)

He was son of François and also an inventor. With the architect
Jacques Hermant he erected two of the first reinforced-concrete
buildings: Le Magasin des Classes Laborieuses de-partment-store
in the Rue St-Martin, and the Salle Gaveau concert-hall, Rue St-
Honoré (1906–7), both in Paris. Edmond Coignet patented his
system in 1892.
Arthur Newell Talbot (1857 – 1942)

He was an American civil engineer. He made many contributions to
several engineering fields including structures, sewage management,
and education. He was considered a foremost authority on reinforced
concrete construction.
After graduation, Talbot headed west and did railroad construction
and maintenance in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, and New Mexico. In
September 1885, he returned to the University of Illinois as an
assistant professor of engineering and mathematics. He was
instrumental in establishing an engineering experiment station in
1904 at the University of Illinois, the first of its kind. He taught a
wide range of subjects, which at different times included mathematics, surveying,
engineering drawing, contracts and specifications, roads and pavements, railroad
engineering, mechanics and materials, hydraulics, tunneling and explosives, and water
supply and sewerage.
In 1890, he was named Professor of Municipal and Sanitary Engineering in charge of
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. Around this time engineering schools began expanding
rapidly, and engineering materials and mechanics began to attract his attention even more
than sanitary engineering. Without ever changing title, the emphasis of his work continued
to be placed on mechanics and materials. Talbot’s extensive studies on stresses in railroad
tracks led to important findings for improvement of rails and roadbed.
In 1926, he retired and was named Professor of Municipal and Sanitary Engineering,
Emeritus.
Friedrich (Fritz) Ignaz Edler von Emperger (1862 – 1942)

He was the leading Austrian specialist in reinforced concrete
buildings. He worked as consulting engineer in New York and in
1899 he opened a firm in Vienna. In 1901 he published the first
issue of the magazine ˝Beton & Eisen˝ which later became
˝Beton- und Stahlbetonbau˝. In 1906 he published the first
˝Betonkalender˝ and in 1909 he started publishing his series of
books ˝Handbuch für Eisenbetonbau˝.
- 81 -
Robert Maillart (1872 – 1940)

He was a Swiss civil engineer who revolutionized reinforced concrete
with such designs as the three-hinged arch, the deck-stiffened arch,
and the mushroom slab.
Robert Maillart had an intuition and genius that could entirely exploit
the aesthetic of concrete. He designed three-hinged arches in which
the deck and the arch ribs were combined to produce closely
integrated structures that evolved into stiffened arches of very thin
reinforced concrete and concrete slabs. The Schwandbach Bridge
(1933) and the Salginatobel Bridge (1930) are classic examples of
Maillart’s deck stiffened arch bridges and three-hinged arch bridges. In 1991, the American
Society of Civil Engineers declared the Salginatobel Bridge a Historic Civil Engineering
Landmark. In 2001, the British Trade Journal, “Bridge – Design and Engineering,” voted
the Salginatobel Bridge the most beautiful bridge of the century.
These designs went beyond the common boundaries of concrete design in Maillart’s time.
Both of the bridges mentioned above are great examples of Maillart’s ability to simplify
design in order to allow for maximum use of materials and to incorporate the natural beauty
of the structure’s environment.
Robert Maillart learned the analytical methods of his era, but he was most influenced by the
principles developed by his mentor, Wilhelm Ritter. Maillart studied under Ritter, who had
three basic principles of design. The first of these was to value calculations based on simple
analysis, so that appropriate assumptions could be made based on common sense. The
second was to consider carefully the construction process of the structure, not just the final
product. The last principle was to test a structure always with full-scale load tests. All these
principles are an adaptation of the available techniques, but with an emphasis on the careful
study of previously built structures.
Emil Mörsch (1872 – 1950)

He was the founder of theory of reinforced concrete constructions. In
1902 he published his book ˝Das Betoneisenbau – seine Anwendung
und seine Theorie˝ on reinforced concrete structures. He had great
influence on the German DIN codes and he assisted in the
˝Betonkalender˝.
Henry Lossier (1878 – 1962)

After finishing the Eidgenössischen Polytechnikum in Zürich he
worked three years for A. Considère until he opened his own firm.
From 1916 to 1918 he built more than 100 reinforced concrete
ships. He also designed many famous bridges where he contributed
with some innovations. At the same time he developed expansion
cement with which he hoped to achieve an alternative to
prestressing with tendons. He collected his many decades of
experience with reinforced concrete and published them in, even
today readable, booklet ˝Pathologie et thérapeutique du béton armé˝.
- 82 -
Milan Čalogović (1878 – 1945)

He was one of the founders and first full-time professor at the High
technical school, and hereupon Technical Faculty. He lectured courses:
Introduction to bridge construction, Wooden bridges, Concrete and
masonry bridges, Steel bridges. He designed bridges, railway and harbor
repositories, water-towers, cupola, church tower. He wrote several
theoretical and practical papers, and it has to be emphasized he was the
author of the first Croatian Instructions for construction of reinforced
concrete structures.
Marie Eugène Léon Freyssinet (1879-1962)
He worked in the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées in Paris,
France where he designed several bridges until the First World War
intervened.
His most significant early bridge was the three span Pont le Veurdre
near Vichy, built in 1911. At the time, the 72.5 m span was the
longest so far constructed. Freyssinet's proposal was for three
reinforced concrete truss spans, and was significantly less expensive
than the standard masonry arch design. The design used jacks to
raise and connect the arches, effectively introducing an element of
prestress. The bridge also enabled Freyssinet to discover the phenomenon of creep in
concrete, whereby the concrete deforms with time when placed under stress.
He served as the director of Public Works in Moulins starting in 1905. He also served as a
road engineer in central France from 1907 till 1914. Working for Claude Limousin until
1929, he designed a number of structures including a 96.2 m arch bridge at Villeneuve-sur-
Lot, and several large thin-shell concrete roofs, including aircraft hangars at Orly.
His 1919 design at St Pierre du Vauvray again increased the record for a concrete arch
span, with 132 m hollow arches, completed in 1923.
His largest structure was the Plougastel Bridge with three identical spans of 180 m each,
completed in 1930. Here he studied creep in more detail, and developed his ideas of
prestressing, taking out a patent in 1928.
Although Freyssinet did much to develop prestressed concrete, he was not its inventor.
Other engineers such as Döhring had patented methods for prestressing as early as 1888,
and Freyssinet's mentor Rabut built prestressed concrete corbels. Freyssinet's key
contribution was to recognise that only high-strength prestressing wire could counteract the
effects of creep, and to develop anchorages and other technology which made the system
flexible enough to be applied to many different types of structures.
Having left Limousin, he set up his own firm to build prestressed concrete electricity
pylons, but the business failed.
In 1935, he used prestressing to consolidate the maritime station of Le Havre which was
threatening to settle beyond repair. Freyssinet introduced prestressed concrete beams, and
jacked up the shipyard buildings. Following this success, he joined the firm of Campenon-
Bernard and went on to design several prestressed bridges.
Many of Freyssinet's designs were new and elaborate for his time. According to Leonardo
Troyano, ˝his capacity for creation, invention and research and his non-conformity with
existing ideas and doctrines made him one of the most notable engineers in the history of
engineering˝.
- 83 -
Albert Caquot (1881 – 1976)

He was considered as the ˝best living French engineer˝ during
half a century. He finished the École des Ponts et Chausséss and
received the “Croix de guerre 1914-1918” (military honor) and
was Grand-croix of the Légion d’Honneur (1951). He was a
member of the French Academy of Sciences from 1934 to 1976.
From 1905 to 1912, he was a project manager in Troyes (Aube),
and was pointed out for major civil work improvements he
undertook with the city sewer system. This protected the city
from the centennial flood of the River Seine in 1910. In 1912, he
joined a leading structural engineering firm where he applied his unique talent of structure
designer.
Albert Caquot conducted outstanding research that was immediately applied in
construction. His major contributions include:
• reinforced concrete design, and structural engineering in a broader sense. In 1930, he
defined the intrinsic curve and explained why the elasticity theory was not sufficient
any more for modern structures design.
• geotechnics and foundation design. He stated the corresponding states theorem (CST).
In 1933, his publication on the stability of pulverulent and coherent material received an
admiring report from the French Academy of Sciences, where he was elected life
member in 1934. In 1948, with Jean Kérisel (1908-2005), his son-in-law and disciple,
he developed an advanced theory extremely important for passive earth pressure
(LINK) where there is soil-wall friction. This principle has been broadly applied ever
since for the design of ground engineering structures such as retaining walls, tunnels
and foundation piles.
• the revival of cable-stayed bridges with reinforced concrete (Donzère Mondragon
bridge, 1952), which he envisioned with long spans, even crossing the English Channel.
In 1967, he designed a conceptual double-deck bridge of this type with 810 m-wide
spans and two 25 m-wide decks stages accommodating 8 lanes for cars, 2 for rail and 2
for skytrain.
• the bridge of La Caille (France), 1928.
In the course of his life, Albert Caquot taught mechanical science for a long time in three of
the most prominent French engineering schools in Paris: Écoles nationales supérieures des
Mines, des Ponts et de l’Aéronautique.
In the course of his career, as both a highly creative designer and a tireless calculator, he
designed more than 300 bridges and facilities among which several were world records at
the time:
• the bridge of La Madeleine, in Nantes (1928), a concrete cantilever bridge over the
River Loire.
• the Lafayette Bridge crossing the tracks of the Gare de l’Est in Paris (1928). This is a
truss bridge in reinforced concrete, where concrete vibrators using compressed air were
used for the first time in history.
• the bridge of La Caille (1928), on the ravine of Usses, in the Alps, close to Annecy.
This is a 140-m-span concrete arch bridge.
- 84 -
• the great “Jean Bart” dry dock in Saint-Nazaire harbor (1935)

• the Bildstock tunnel (1953-1955)
• the world’s largest tidal power plant on the River Rance, in Brittany (1961-1966). In his
eighties, Albert Caquot made a critical contribution to the construction of the dam,
designing an enclosure in order to protect the construction site from the 12-m-high
ocean tides and the strong streams.
Two prestigious achievements made him famous internationally: the internal structure of
the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) at the peak of Corcovado
Mountain (1931) and the, George V Bridge on the Clyde River in Glasgow (Scotland) for
which the Scottish engineers asked for his assistance.
In his late eighties, he developed a gigantic tidal power project to capture the tide energy in
Mont St Michel bay, in Normandy.
Franz Dischinger (1887 – 1953)
He was a pioneering German civil and structural engineer, responsible
for the development of the modern cable-stayed bridge. He was also a
pioneer of the use of prestressed concrete, patenting the technique of
external prestressing in 1934.
After completing high school in Karlsruhe, Germany, Dischinger went
to the Technical University in Karlsruhe where he studied and received
a degree in building engineering. After getting his degree in 1913, he
then started working for Dyckerhoff and Widmann A.G., an
engineering firm in Germany. In 1928 Dischinger went back to school
to receive his doctorate at the Technical School in Dresden, Germany.
In 1922, he designed the Zeiss Planetarium in Jena with Walther Bauersfeld, using a thin-
shell concrete roof in the shape of a hemisphere. Their system was subsequently patented,
and Dischinger published a paper on the relevant mathematics in 1928.
Since the previous stay and cable bridges in Dischinger's opinion were both flawed
technically and disturbing looking, he decided to publish his own cable stayed bridge. This
design has been used ever since. More than 100 of these cable stayed bridges have been
built.
For the 1938 design of a rail suspension bridge (not built), he had studied historical bridges
incorporating inclined stay elements, such as those by Ferdinand Arnodin and John
Roebling. He went on to design the 183 m span Strömsund Bridge in Sweden, completed in
1955 and generally considered the first of the modern tradition of cable-stayed bridges,
although there had been many isolated examples of the bridge form before then. This
employed a steel deck and cables, with large spacings between the stays typical of the early
designs. It appears in Strömsund's coat of arms.
Other key works include:
• Großmarkthalle, Basel, Switzerland, 1929 (dome roof)
• Koblenz bridge, Germany, 1935 (three arch concrete bridge)
• Aue bridge, Germany, 1936
• Cologne Rodenkirchen Bridge, Cologne, Germany, 1954 (with others, including Fritz
Leonhardt) .
- 85 -
Milivoj Frković (1887-1946)

He started his work in an era of a massive usage of a
truss steel bridges with roadway at the lower level,
influenced by the steel industry in the first half of 20th
Century. He opposed this plague of ugly bridges by
designing original structures made of natural and
artificial stone, concrete and masonry.
Frković was constantly overtaken with exploration of
the form and shape as well as the aspiration for
economical construction. Aesthetic values are an
essential part of his work and show that nothing is accidental and that author pays particular
attention to form and harmony of general lines of the bridge including every detail.
Rationality of structures is evident in adaptability to the usage of locally available
materials: he built stone bridges in Lika and littoral regions, masonry bridges in Slavonija,
steel bridges on location where traffic had to be established quickly, and combined different
building materials where reasons and conditions were present allowing for monumental
bridges.
His works are of exceptional aesthetic values, but at the same time provide for economical
and efficient construction.
Gustave Magnel (1889 – 1955)

After having graduated from the University of Ghent in Belgium,
Gustave Magnel spent the years of World War I in England where he
helped train British engineers in the art and practice of reinforced
concrete.
In 1922, Magnel was appointed a lecturer at Ghent to teach reinforced
concrete, in 1927 named docent, and in 1937 made professor and
director of laboratory for Reinforced Concrete.
In addition to teaching he was a prolific writer, an experienced
designer, and an able researcher by the time World War II isolated
him in Belgium. During those closeted years, he began to explore
Freyssinet’s ideas and to carry out some research on prestressed concrete on his own.
Thus, when the war ended and building Europe began again at an accelerating pace,
Magnel was one of the few engineers with long experience in reinforced concrete, who at
the same time had mastered the ideas of prestressing, and what is even more important, who
was ideally suited to communicate those ideas to the English-speaking world.
Magnel had already written at least nine books, some of which had gone trough three
editions when, in 1948, he wrote Le Béton Précontraint, which was immediately published
in English, went trough three British editions and was also later published in the United
States.
But the most single significant characteristic of Magnel was his ability to teach. His goals
in teaching, writing and research were to simplify complex problems. As he wrote in his
book on prestressed concrete: ˝In the writer’s opinion this problem (of computing the
ultimate strength of prestressed beams) should be solved with the least possible
calculations, as calculations are based on assumptions which may lead to wrong results.˝
- 86 -
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.
Pier Luigi Nervi (1891 – 1979)

He was an Italian engineer and architect. He studied at the University of
Bologna and qualified in 1913. Dr. Nervi taught as a professor of
engineering at Rome University from 1946-61. He is renowned for his
brilliance as a structural engineer and his novel use of reinforced
concrete.
Pier Luigi Nervi attended the Civil Engineering School of Bologna,
from which he graduated in 1913. After graduation, Nervi joined the
Society for Concrete Construction. Nervi spent several years in the
Italian army during World War I from 1915-1918, when he served in the Corps of
Engineering. His formal education was quite similar to that experienced by today's civil
engineering student in Italy.
Nervi began practicing civil engineering after 1923, and built several airplane hangars
amongst his contracts. During 1940s he developed ideas for a reinforced concrete which
helped in the rebuilding of many buildings and factories throughout Western Europe, and
even designed/created a boat hull that was comprised of reinforced concrete as a promotion
for the Italian government.
Nervi also stressed that intuition should be used as much as mathematics in design,
especially with thin shelled structures. He borrowed from both Roman and Renaissance
architecture to create aesthetically pleasing structures, yet applied structural aspects such as
ribbing and vaulting often based on nature. This was to improve the structural strength and
- 87 -
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.
Rajko Kušević (1894-1966)

He lectured courses Iron structures and Iron bridges at the Tehnical Faculty since the year
1935, and after the retirement of professor Čalogović he overtook some of his lectures until
professor Tonković came. As a long standing editor of Tehnical journal he contributed to
development of Civil Engineering profession.
Urlich Finsterwalder (1897 – 1988)

He was, like Freyssinet, a builder whose designs have frequently
been constructed only because they were bid below other
competing designs. His major bridge construction idea, developed
after World War II, is the double cantilever method, built entirely
without scaffolding.
Like Freyssinet and Magnel, he came to believe in prestressing
after having a long experience in reinforced concrete construction
and especially, like Freyssinet, in arch and thin shell structures.
Finsterwalder learned mathematics while in a French prison camp
during World War I.
After the war, he put that knowledge to good use in shell theory which served as the basis
for the many outstanding thin shell concrete structures designed and built by Dyckerhoff &
Widmann A.G:, starting in the mid-1920s.
In 1937, he began work in developing a prestressing system and designed and built his first
bridge. After World War II, his major prestressing work began, which he reported in
America in 1952 in ACU Journal, Proceedings V.49, No.3: ˝Free-Span Prestressed
Concrete Bridge˝.
His work since that time was so broad and varied that it defies simple characterization,
except to say that more than anyone else, perhaps, Finsterwalder showed that prestressed
concrete can be a safe, economical, and elegant solution to almost any major structural
problem that exists in the modern world.
In a 1970 interview, Finsterwakder mentioned that his favorite bridge was the Mangfall
Bridge, under design just at the time of the Berkeley Conference. With this bridge, as in
other projects, he sought to show that the prestressed concrete could compete directly with
structural steel, not only in cost, but also in reducing the structure’s depth.
In the Mangfall Bridge, 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-
- 88 -
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 -
Ricardo Morandi (1902 – 1989)

He graduated at he Scuala di Applicazioni per Ingegneri. From 1927 to 1930 he worked as
designer in reinforced concrete and in 1931 opened his own firm. First he designed
buildings. From 1945 he researches prestressed concrete and in 1949 applies for a patent for
his prestressing method.
In 1953 to 1954 he applied the bascule arch erection method for the first time for the
construction of the Storms Bridge arch. In 1954 constituted the ˝Centro per lo Studio e le
Applicaioni del Precompresso˝ (CESAP) and published his book ˝Strutture di calzestruzzo
armato e di calzestruzzo precompresso˝. During his long career he built many prestressed
bridges and from 1959 to 1969 he was professor at the Faculty of Architecture in Florence
and from 1969 to 1972 at the Engineering Faculty in Rom.
Hubert Rüsch (1903 - 1979)

After graduating at the TU München he worked from 1926 to 1948
at Dyckerhoff & Widmann A.G. where, from the beginning in 1927,
he participated in the design of the eight sided domes for the
Grossmarkt halls at Leipzig. Among many designed and built
structures he lectured at the TU München from 1948 to 1969.
Among his published books there are also the practical tables for
designing rectangular plates for road bridges. He was president of
the Comité Européen du Béton and greatly contributed to
equalization of the national codes in Europe.
Fritz Leonhardt (1909 – 1999)
He was a German structural engineer who made major contributions
to 20th Century bridge engineering, especially in the development of
cable-stayed bridges. His book ˝Bridges: Aesthetics and Design˝ is
well known throughout the bridge engineering community.
Leonhardt studied at Stuttgart University and Purdue University,
Indiana, USA. In 1934 he joined the German Highway
Administration. He was appointed at the remarkably young age of 28
as the Chief Engineer for the Cologne-Rodenkirchen Bridge.
In 1954 he formed the consulting firm Leonhardt und Andrä, and
from 1958 to 1974 taught the design of reinforced concrete and
prestressed concrete at Stuttgart University. He was President of the University from 1967
to 1969.
He received Honorary Doctorates from six universities, honorary membership of several
important engineering Universities, and won a number of prizes including the Werner-von-
Siemens-Ring, the Honorary Medal Emil Mörsch, the Freyssinet Medal of the FIP, and the
Gold Medal of the Institution of Structural Engineers.
Throughout his career, Leonhardt was as dedicated to research as to design, and his major
contributions to bridge engineering technology included:
• development of a launching system for prestressed concrete bridges, first used in his
1963 bridge over the Caroní River in Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela
• the 'Hi-Am' anchor for cable stays, in collaboration with the Swiss firm BBRV
- 90 -
• anchorages in prestressed concrete

• experiments during the 1930s on steel orthotropic decks.
His major structures include the Cologne-Rodenkirchen Bridge, Stuttgart Television Tower,
and various cable-stayed bridges in Düsseldorf. He worked on the design of several cable-
stayed bridges, including the Pasco-Kennewick bridge (1978) in the USA, and the
Helgeland Bridge (1981) in Norway.
Kruno Tonković (1911 – 1989)

He was the greatest Croatian bridge builder of all times. Since the
year 1963 he was a full-time professor at the Chair for bridges of
the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Zagreb, Croatia. He has marked
forty years of Croatian bridge building after the II World war.
He left an impressive list of dozens of bridges built all across
Croatia, which include many original solutions as well as careful
considerations of future requirements. Several of his numerous
bridges entered the textbooks on bridge design as the examples of
beautiful and structurally efficient structures, well harmonized with
surroundings. Some of his works are described in the chapter
Timeline.
He wrote many books on structural engineering and scientific papers and he educated many
generations of Croatian builders. In his specific way he initiated and envisioned many great
projects for the future, some of them were completed a few years or even a decade after he
designed them and some still wait to be completed.
Stanko Šram (1919 – 2005)

He was employed with the Engineering design bureau in Zagreb as a associate designer in
the year 1948. Following 30 years he spend at the building sites of different types of
bridges. He was building pedestrian, railway and road bridges, made of reinforced concrete,
prestressed concrete and steel. He was reconstructing ruined bridges and building new ones.
His most famous works are Šibenik, Pag and Krk bridges. In the year 1982 he was elected
as a full time professor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Zagreb.
Bruno Thürlimann ( 1923 – )

He is one of the structural engineering community's most
distinguished citizens. He received his civil engineering degree from
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich in 1946.
His Ph.D. studies took him to Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA,
USA, where he completed his doctorate in 1951.
Bruno Thürlimann stayed on as a professor at Lehigh from 1953 to
1960. In 1960, he returned to the ETH, where he served as a professor
until 1990.
As a researcher, Bruno Thürlimann has made significant contributions
to the study of both steel and concrete. At the Fritz Engineering Laboratory at Lehigh, he
did pathfinding work on concrete shell structures, and later on the plastic design of steel
structures. In Zurich, his research focused on prestressed concrete structural phenomena.
- 91 -
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."
Jean Muller (1925 – 2005)

He was married and a father of six children. After having achieved
brilliant results at secondary level, Jean Muller went on in higher
education at the "École Centrale des Arts et Manufactures"
(specializing in construction) from 1945 to 1947.
As he felt more attracted by physical sciences, he developed a
particular preference for strength of materials applied to mechanical
engineering and construction.
Jean Muller had the opportunity to work for Freyssinet the great
constructor, the genuine inventor of the post-tensioning technique
and its countless applications. At that time, Freyssinet started applying post-tensioning to
civil structures (Bridges across the French river Marne).
For his master, Jean Muller carried out the project of three bowstring bridges in Venezuela,
setting a record of the time in clear span length (150 m), daring design and elegance.
Jean Muller remained a faithful disciple of Freyssinet until the master departed in 1962.
At the time, the STUP company - now called Freyssinet International - aimed at entering
the American market, which was the major construction market worldwide. In those days,
the post-tensioning technique was totally unknown there, with steel being the dominant
material. The task which the Freyssinet Company in New-York (Jean Muller and his team)
was entrusted with, was a difficult but rewarding one. It was the right time to develop the
post-tensioning technique. He played a part in the construction of the large Pontchartrain
bridge in Louisiana (38 km in length).
The precast segmental technique was more and more simplified and, at the same time,
adapted to habits prevailing in the American construction world in terms of methods and
rationalization concepts. Sober shapes and simple construction methods were combined
with the use of external post-tensioning. That was the key to the extraordinary reception
which Jean Muller's innovative techniques were given by the American market.
More and more construction projects followed on at an ever faster pace: road or highway
bridges, railway structures, urban viaducts for private right-of-way transportation. The main
- 92 -
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.
Ilija Stojadinović (1926-1982)

He started his work in the Institute for materials in Beograd, designing bridges, factory
installations and other structures in prestressed concrete. Since the year 1962 he worked as
the leading bridge designer in the company Bridge construction, and since the year 1966 he
started to give lectures at the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Beograd. At the beginning of
the 1982 he was elected as the full time professor.
He designed numerous structures in reinforced and prestressed concrete but his most
significant projects were bridges – Šibenik, Pag and Krk bridges. He developed the
innovative bridge construction methods - free cantilevering method of Šibenik and Pag
bridges and later cantilever erection scheme forming a truss for Krk bridges.
Christian Menn (1927 – )

He is a respected bridge designer from Meiringen, Switzerland.
He owned his own Engineering Company in Chur, Switzerland
from 1957-1971. From 1971 until his retirement in 1992 he
became a professor of Structural Engineering at ETH Zurich
specializing in Bridge design. In his retirement years, he continues
to be a consulting engineer in private practice.
Menn’s bridges had to be designed for the times. "Structural
Analysis found itself at the time in the transition from descriptive
graphical analysis to abstract analytical statics" (Menn, 2002).
Menn worked very closely with Professor Pierre Lardy during the
beginning of his career. Together, Menn and Lardy emphasized the design of structures
based on aesthetics and economy. Menn believed that economy, serviceability and safety of
the bridge would revolve around aesthetics. Menn stated that an engineer achieves safety
and serviceability by understanding the underlying scientific principles. Also, that economy
and elegance are achieved through nonscientific ideas. Meaning the engineer depends
entirely on his creativity. Menn described his bridges with abstract designs. This allowed
Menn the ability to analyze the bridges and find stresses and distribution forces within the
bridge. This was the basis for his design work. By this method, Menn was able to put
schematic calculations on the bridges, which could eventually be used in computer
applications.
Christian Menn started his educational experiences at the Comprehensive secondary school
in Chur, Switzerland in 1939 and ended in 1946. He then attended the ETH Zurich,
Switzerland from 1946 to 1950 and received a diploma in engineering. After graduating he
worked in engineering offices in Chur, Switzerland and Bern, Switzerland from 1951 to
1953. In 1953 Dr. Menn worked as a research associate to Professor Pierre Lardy at ETH
Zurich. Menn knew Lardy though his father who was a civil engineer. While assisting
Professor Lardy Menn was able to learn the new theory of pre-stressing. Dr. Menn
participated in Lardy’s studies of pre-stressed bridges and for the first time he came in
contact with the practice of bridge structures. That was the greatest motivating experience
of Dr. Menn’s assistantship. In 1956 Dr Menn received his Dr. sc. Techn. Degree from the
- 93 -
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 -
4. CONTEMPORARY CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE BRIDGE CHAIR

OF THE ZAGREB FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
High Technical School in Zagreb was founded in 1918, and in 1926 it becomes Technical
Faculty. One of the founders and first full-time professor at the High technical school, and
hereupon Technical Faculty was professor M. Čalogović. He was the professor for the
courses on Bridges so the Bridge Chair was one of the first established from the very
beginning. Professor R. Kušević came at the Faculty in the year 1935, professor J. Erega in
the year 1955 and professor K. Tonković in 1946. Their short biographies are presented in
previous chapter.
From the year 1988 uptill now the Head of the Bridge Chair is professor Jure Radić. Here,
some recent achievements of Bridge Chair under his leadership are elaborated. Professors,
scientists, designers and assistants employed at the Bridge Chair of the Zagreb Faculty of
Civil Engineering participate in the development of concrete application and design
procedures of bridges with their educational, scientific and professional work.
4.1 Educational and training work

At the Bridge Chair lectures are improved constantly from semester to semester even with
the original books on bridges written in Croatian language. Four books published from the
year 2002 - Bridges, Design of Bridges, Pontifex Maximus and Concrete Bridges represent
the significant assistance for undergraduate students on courses Bridges, Concrete and
Masonry Bridges, Steel Bridges and for graduate students on courses Large Bridges,
Aesthetics of Bridges, Bridge Management Systems, Specific Topics of Bridge
Construction, Bridges under Extreme Events and Environments.
Figure 118: Four books on bridge structures published as a part of

educational Faculty programme
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 -
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 -
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
Following conferences and courses
Figure 120: Education and training programme for the design of concrete structures
- 97 -
4.2 Scientific work

The possibilities of large arch bridge span realisation using high performance concretes is
explored in the work The Largest Concrete Arch Bridge Designed of RPC200.
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 -
RIJEKA SENJ
f=72m
NAVIGATION ROUTE 260x50m
L=432m
View at the Bakar Bridge
1992
46 1900 46
46 100 750 200 750 100 46
asphalt concrete AB-11S 4 cm
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
20 625 20 630 20 625 20
1960 12
38
225
550
200
650
225
38
12
30 550 20 760 20 550 30

1960
Figure 121: Cross-sections of arch and superstructure
- 99 -
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 -
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.
Steel Concrete Reinforce-

Arch cross section
(t) (m3) ment (t)
200 30
40
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
546 1290 220
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 -
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 -
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 -
“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.
Figure 123: Trajectory of the process
Figure 124: Probabilities of the process being in state j in the moment t
- 104 -
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 -
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
Figure 126: Results of evaluation procedure of arches exposed to wind load
- 106 -
4.3 Professional work

Croatia has a long-standing tradition of bridge construction. Over 1700 years long history
of bridge building in the region many great bridge designs were conceived and realized,
which are according to their structural, aesthetic or functional characteristics among the
world top achievements of their time. Because of numerous post-war reconstructions and,
above all, intensive development of road network, end of the 20th and the beginning of the
21st Century were marked by extreme growth of bridge construction in Croatia.
Through last ten years a significant number of bridges have been designed at the Bridge
Chair of the Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering. In the figure 127 the selection of twelve
bridge projects designed in the last decade are presented. Bridges are of various
constructional types, seven of them are completed or in the design phase or just before the
beginning of construction.
In this paper we give an emphasis on arch bridges Maslenica and Skradin bridges.
The major blow in the war was the destruction of the steel-arch bridge across the Maslenica
strait, which severed the most important road link between the North and the South of
Croatia. After detailed investigations, the Croatian Road authority decided to build a new
bridge, not far from the original location, to improve horizontal and vertical alignment. The
new Maslenica Bridge is the first major structure built on the planned new Adriatic
motorway.
The bridge lies horizontally in straight line and the grade line is in an upward curvature of
R=17500 m, approximately 90.0 m above the sea level. The overall width of the roadway is
20.4 m, with four traffic lanes.
The main structure is a concrete arch with span of 200 m, and rise of 65 m, with the rise to
span ratio f/L=1/3.08 (Fig.128 top). The arch is fixed of double cell box cross-section with
constant outer dimensions. The criteria for choosing the arch line has been the minimization
of bending moments due to permanent loads. The overall width of the arch is 9.0 m and the
overall depth is 4 m. Diaphragms under spandrel columns are vertical.
The superstructure is continuous over twelve spans L=26+10*30+24 m, with the overall
length of 350 m (Fig.128 top). It consists of eight simple-span precast prestressed girders
made continuous over intermediate supports and interconnected by concrete deck slab cast
in situ (Fig.129 top). This solution was adopted because cost estimates showed it to be the
most economical, compared to a continuous prestressed single cell box girder and a
continuous composite steel plate girder. Bridge piers, varying in height from 3.6 - 67.9 m,
consist of two individual columns connected at the top by a head-beam. All piers are of
box-type cross-section. The outer proportions of all piers are 2.0*2.5 m with only the piers
at the two arch abutments stronger with 2.5*2.5 m.
The bridge design was strongly influenced by the severity of the marine environment and
the seismicity of the site. In order to avoid reinforcement congestion and increase durability
all structural dimensions were increased compared to previously built concrete arch bridges
in the Adriatic coast area. The low permeability concrete has been designed using Portland
cement PC-30z-45s with 20 % slag addition which increased the bridge durability in marine
exposures.
- 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
2008 2007 2007 2007 2007 2005 Year
- 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 Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering

Figure 127: Bridges designed at the Bridge Chair of
Photo
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 -
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
Figure 128: Longitudinal layouts of Maslenica and Skradin bridge
- 110 -
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
Figure 129: Cross sections of the arches and the superstructures
- 111 -
MASLENICA
SKRADIN
Figure 130: Free cantilevering of bridge arches

Sesmic design resulted in large movements that would have had an adverse effect on all
piers with longitudinally fixed, structural bearings on top. For this reason viscous dampers
were introduced at both ends of the superstructure to dampen the structure and transmit
longitudinal horizontal seismic induced forces to massive abutments. Two dampers were
installed at both abutments of 2,000.0 kN capacity each.
In the first phase all foundations, including arch abutments, were executed. Columns on the
river banks were constructed next, utilizing climbing formwork in 5.0 m long segments,
followed by the construction of both bridge abutments.
Then the whole cross section of the arch was constructed by free cantilevering, on
travelling formwork carriages, in segments 5.25 meters long, starting symmetrically from
arch abutments (Fig.130 bottom). Piers at the arch abutments had to be extended by
auxiliary steel staying pylons to facilitate successive cantilevering. The arch was supported
during construction by stays equilibrated by anchor stays, connected to rock anchors.
- 112 -
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.
Figure 131: Longitudinal launching of steel part of Skradin bridge superstructure
- 113 -
4.4 International Conferences

Besides encouraging discussions between Croatian engineers it is of great importance to
exchange experience and knowledge with engineers from all European countries, but also
from all over the world. Therefore, few years ago, we at the Bridge Chair started to
organize international conferences. These events enables us to discuss important issues for
future prosperity, such are durability of structures, maintenance, heritage protection,
sustainable development and networks.
The International Symposium Durability and Maintenance of Concrete Structures was held
in October 2004 in Cavtat, Dubrovnik. The topics included all aspects of durability of
structures from conceptual stage to design, construction, operation and maintenance phases:
Planning and Concepts; Design and Analysis; Construction Methods and Materials;
Maintenance during Operation; Reconstruction Works and Cost Estimation. Proceedings
book contains 81 papers on 710 pages.
In the year 2006, in May, International Conference on Bridges was organized to present
main achievements in the area of Bridge Engineering, to provide guidance for future
developments, and learn about new and innovative technologies in the field. The main
topics were Bridge design – aesthetics, Conceptual and innovative design; Analysis –
loading and seismic design; Application of new and advanced materials; Construction
methods and technologies; Bridge management – monitoring, diagnostics, maintenance and
rehabilitation. Proceedings book contains 138 papers on 1206 pages.
In order to improve the quality of life of citizens and the attractiveness of Europe,
particularly its cities, buildings and landscapes, the Conference and Brokerage Event
Construction aspects for Heritage Protection – Research Needs was organized in the year
2006, in October. The main goal was to promote new sustainable and preventive strategies,
concepts, methodologies and techniques for conservation and restoration of the cultural
heritage trough six main themes: Assessment, monitoring and diagnosis; Materials for
heritage protection; Intervention techniques; Energy and environmental aspects;
Management, exploitation and maintenance; City and territorial aspects. Proceedings book
contains 79 papers on 630 pages.
The fib Symposium Concrete Structures – Stimulators of Development was held in May
2007. It covered five following topics. Concrete structures connecting mainland and islands
such as bridges, tunnels, harbors play a very important role in bringing undeveloped islands
to life. Concrete structures in energy production like dams, wind power plants and other
play a key role in modern life. An ongoing development of new materials in concrete
production and construction of concrete structures plays and important role in optimizing
construction, design and further use of the concrete structures, as well as improving
construction techniques and material characteristics. With a growing development of
computer software, new analysis of the behavior of concrete structures become increasingly
complex. In a lifecycle of concrete structures, durability, inspection and maintenance are
becoming more important in determining and prolonging their service life. Proceedings
As networks represent the largest part of our built environment including transport
infrastructures - roads, railways & waterways, and infrastructures of services - gas, water,
energy, telecommunications & postal services, International Conference and Eurekabuild
- 114 -
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
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 -
[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 -
[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 -
[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 -

JointChCro 2008 Historyofconcrete PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JointChCro 2008 Historyofconcrete PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HISTORY OF CONCRETE APPLICATION

**M.Sc., University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering

***Ph.D., University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering

Figure 1: Clapper bridge, Cetina River, Croatia

Figure 2: Part of the floor in the prehistoric habitat at Lepenski Vir

Length approx. 188 m

Figure 3: Colosseum, Rome, construction finished 80 AD

Roman concrete with lightweight

Roman concrete with tuff

Roman concrete with tuff

Roman concrete with traver tine and tuff

4.50 m Roman concrete with traver tine

Figure 4: Pantheon, Rome, begining of construction 27 BC

Figure 5: Pont du Gard, France

Figure 6: Mostine aqueduct for Diocletian palace, Split

Figure 8: Bridge at the Pile Gate, Dubrovnik

Figure 9: Pontypridd Bridge, Pontypridd, Wales, Great Britain, 1756

Figure 11: Souillac bridge on Dordogne river, Midi-Pyrénées, France, 1816

Figure 13: Great Exhibition, London, 1851

from a small two-story servant’s cottage which he erected and where he

Figure 14: Wilkinsons concrete floor, England, 1854

Figure 16: Monier's water tank at Bougival, Seine-et-Oise, France, 1872

Figure 18: Main features of a typical single-span Monier arch bridge

Figure 20: Reinforcement scheme from the Hennebique patent, 1892

Figure 22: Water tower, Toulon, France, 1898

Figure 23: Arch bridge at Châtellerault (Vienne), France, 1899

Figure 24: Bridge over Lomost creek, Ogulin, Croatia, 1900

Figure 25: Innbrücke, Zuoz, Engafin, Switzerland, 1901

Figure 26: Reinforced bridge near Krapina, Croatia, 1901

Figure 27: Concrete factory, early 19th century

Figure 29: Apartment building at Rue Franklin 25, 1903

Figure 32: Risorgimento bridge over the Tiber, Rome, 1911

Dischinger and Dr. Ulrich Finsterwalder of Dyckerhoff and Widmann based

Figure 34: Church Notre Dame du Raincy near Paris, 1922

Figure 35: Van-Tschiel bridge, Domat, Kanton Graubünden, Switzerland, 1925

Figure 41: Bridge at Mechra ed Dack, Marokko, 1929

Figure 44: Transportation of the wooden scaffolding

Figure 45: Lika Bridge in Kosinj, Croatia, 1932

Figure 47: Kupa Bridge in Sisak, Croatia, 1934

Figure 48: External prestressing, patent by F. Dischinger, 1934

Figure 49: Racecourse grandstand La Zarzuela, Madrid, 1935

Figure 50: Aue railway station bridge, Sachsen, Germany, 1937

Figure 56: Sava Bridge, Croatia, 1939

Figure 57: E. Freyssinet patent for prestressed strand tendons, 1939

Figure 58: Aircraft hangars 40 ⋅ 100 m, Ortobello, Italia, 1940

Figure 59: Bridge in Djedeida, Tunis, 1941

Figure 60: Construction of the Marne bridge, Luzancy, France, 1941-46

Figure 62: Marne bridge, Esbly, France, 1948

Figure 64: Neckar bridge, Obere Badstrasse, Heilbronn, Germany, 1949

Figure 65: Elz bridge, Emmendingen, Baden, Germany, 1949

Figure 66: Maas Bridge at Sclayn, Belgium, 1950

1952 Formation of fip: The Fédération Internationale de la Précontrainte was officially

Figure 69: Bridge over Krka River in Skradin, Croatia, 1955

Figure 71: Bridge over Slunjčica River in Slunj, Croatia

Figure 72: Bridge over Korana River in Karlovac, Croatia

Figure 73: Traun bridge, Ebensee, Austria, 1954

Figure 74: Television tower, Stuttgart, Germany, 1955

Figure 76: Storms river bridge, South Africa, 1956

Figure 77: Örebro water tower, Sweden, 1957

Figure 78: Palazetto dello Sport, Rome, 1957

Figure 79: Mangfall Bridge at Darching, Germany, 1958

Figure 80: Mangfall Bridge, lower level – pedestrian crossing

Figure 81: Lake Maracaibo Bridge, Venezuela, 1962