Uic 1

Catalogue of Damages
in masonry arch bridges
January 2020
CATALOGUE OF DAMAGES IN MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES
Published by UIC
Editors: Harald Sattler, Senior Advisor Infrastructure (UIC), Keith Ross (Network Rail)
Authors: Rafael Ozaeta García-Catalán (ADIF), José Antonio Martín-Caro Álamo (INES)
Design: Ludovic Wattignies, ETF
ISBN: 978-2-7461-2868-2
Legal deposit: January 2020
Warning
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed by any means whatsoever, including electronic, except
for private and individual use, without the express permission of the International Union of Railways (UIC). The same
applies for translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any method or procedure whatsoever.
The sole exceptions - noting the author’s name and the source - are “analyses and brief quotations justified by the critical,
argumentative, educational, scientific or informative nature of the publication into which they are incorporated” (Articles L
122-4 and L122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code).
© International Union of Railways (UIC) - Paris, 2020

Contents
1. Objective and scope............................................................................................................. 5
1.1. Necessity for a Catalogue of Damages................................................................................... 5
1.2. Objectives of the Catalogue of Damages................................................................................ 5
1.3. Structure of the Catalogue of Damages.................................................................................. 6
2. General approach.................................................................................................................. 9
2.1. General study of the subject: Available information................................................................ 9
2.2. Specific study: Data collected ................................................................................................ 9

2.2.1. Participant countries..................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2. Total number of bridges in database and distribution by country................................. 9
2.2.3. Objectives and conclusions........................................................................................ 10
3. Description and origin of common damages in masonry arch bridges........................ 11
3.1. Foundation damages............................................................................................................. 12

3.1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.2. Damages due to degradation of the structural element............................................. 14
3.1.3. Damages due to loss of foundation stability............................................................... 18
3.1.4. Synopsis of foundation damages............................................................................... 22
3.2. Superstructure damages....................................................................................................... 23

3.2.1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.2. Damages that affect load carrying capacity................................................................ 24
3.2.3. Damages that affect durability.................................................................................... 53
4. Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 77
4.1. Mechanisms of deterioration................................................................................................. 77
4.2. List and classification of damages......................................................................................... 79
References...................................................................................................................................... 82
Annex 1........................................................................................................................................... 83
Annex 2......................................................................................................................................... 120

Catalogue of Damages in masonry arch bridges
Foreword
In 2003 the UIC set up the working group “Masonry Arch Bridges” which managed the projects
I/03/U/285 ”Improving assessment, optimisation of maintenance and development of database for
masonry arch bridges” (2004 – 2007) and “Assessment of masonry arch bridges” (2011 – 2015). The
results of the complete work during the project was introduced in the IRS 70778-3 “Recommendations
for the inspection, assessment and maintenance of masonry arch bridges”, published in 2018. The
background documents providing further information and guidance are available in UIC Extranet to
registered users. In 2019 the PoSE (Panel of Structural Experts) decided to make openly available
selected background documents, one of which is the Catalogue of Damages for masonry arch
bridges.
The development of the Catalogue of Damages began in 2004. The works were coordinated by Rafael
Ozaeta (ADIF) and elaborated by José Antonio Martín Caro (INES INGENIERÍA ESTRUCTURAL
external consultant). The railway companies that contributed to this catalogue were CD, DB, IR, JBV,
MAV, Network Rail, ÖBB, PKP, ADIF, REFER, RFI, RTRI, SBB and SNCF.
The development of the catalogue took two years (2004 and 2005). During the first year (2004) a
collection of defects on masonry arch bridges belonging to the railway administrations partaking in
the project was made. After completion of this collection, the analysis and study of the data led to
some preliminary conclusions as to the main characteristics of the types of defects found according
to the type of bridges studied. During 2005 the most probable causes of defects and mechanisms
of deterioration were analysed. Finally, the Catalogue of Damages was drafted and finalised in June
2006.
4
Objective and scope
1. Objective and scope

1.1. Necessity for a Catalogue of Damages
Masonry arch bridges constitute approximately 60 % of the total number of railway bridges in Europe.1
The construction of this type of structure was overtaken by other forms of construction about 75
years ago. Masonry arch railway bridges are therefore generally between 75 and 170 years old.
The members of UIC working group I/03/U/285 from the fourteen railway administrations agreed
that it was necessary to maintain these structures as opposed to replacing them. In addition, all
the members of the working group, agreed that these bridges were also part of the heritage of the
railway.
The IRS 70778-3 defines the phases in the maintenance process for arch bridges. A visual examination
is the first vital step in an effective maintenance regime. An incorrect diagnosis may lead to other
mistakes, like the implementation of unnecessary repairs. Sometimes, a lack of understanding of the
behaviour of “masonry” materials makes diagnosis of causes of damage in arches difficult. In other
cases, if insufficient information is obtained in the inspection additional inspections will need to be
carried out, thus increasing the inspection costs. Lastly, this lack of understanding can lead to an
overestimate of the risk of collapse when the risk is negligible.
Damages observed by the different railway administrations included in the working group were
analogous; there were however many differences in the subsequent diagnosis, with the effects
on the structural behaviour and the necessity for repair being judged differently depending on the
railway administration. These differences lead to a proposal for the development of a document
that could provide common criteria for the identification of damages, description of the deterioration
processes (including the study of the most common causes) and their effects on the bridge behaviour.
Accordingly, the working group agreed that a Catalogue of Damages for masonry arch bridges should
be developed.
1.2. Objectives of the Catalogue of Damages

Once the necessity for the Catalogue of Damages was accepted, its scope was defined. The
Catalogue of Damages was limited to damages that could be detected by visual inspection of
masonry arch bridges.
The Catalogue of Damages was considered by the working group to be a tool to provide assistance
with the inspection of masonry arch bridges. The main objectives of the catalogue are:
identification of damages with recommendations for work required during and after the examination
to enable the type and cause of damages to be identified;
identification of the most common mechanisms of deterioration of masonry;
identification of the most common causes of deterioration of masonry;
1. Data obtained from the previous work carried out in 2003 by UIC
5
effects of damage on the structural behaviour of the masonry arch bridge.
The reason for including the identification of deterioration mechanisms and the causes of the damage
is because the authors consider that in order to satisfactorily evaluate the results of the visual
inspection it is necessary to know what is happening to the bridge structure and why the damage is
occurring. The understanding (or not) of these phenomena is essential to enable a decision to be
made as to whether it is necessary to carry out repair work, or to carry out a further inspection and
more studies.
Those objectives are difficult to achieve, because there is not a unique relation between each damage
and its cause, and the catalogue does not endeavour to create this relationship.
This catalogue was developed using the experience of 14 railway administrations, and examples of
other damages or processes of deterioration that have not been included will always be welcome for
consideration for inclusion in future revisions.
1.3. Structure of the Catalogue of Damages

The structure of the document has firstly, been designed to achieve the objectives described above. To
aid the identification of damages, some leaflets (one for each type of damage) have been developed
to be used on site during the examination (ANNEX 3). Secondly, to improve the understanding of the
causes and processes of deterioration of masonry, an explanatory document has been developed
to provide information to aid the understanding of the various damages that may be found during a
visual examination.
No differences have been assumed between various types of masonry arch bridges during the
analysis, and they all have been considered as one type. This decision has been based on a general
approach, the same damages were found on differing types of bridges and in different materials,
only their frequency and evolution changed according to the type of material or country (weather
conditions also had an effect).
The first part of the document describes the GENERAL APPROACH whereby all the data and
information provided by the railway administrations is given. Studying the development of the
Catalogue of Damages, it was very important to ascertain the actual state of masonry arch bridges in
the administrations of the UIC working group members. Different materials and types of bridge were
chosen to cover the maximum possible of number of bridges and types of damage. By analysing the
data provided by each railway administration it was possible to identify the most common damages.
The second part (the main part of the document) is the DESCRIPTION AND ORIGIN OF THE
MOST COMMON DAMAGES IN MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES. In this chapter each damage is
described and explanations for the causes and processes of deterioration are provided. To facilitate
the analysis of the damages and processes of deterioration a classification system has been used.
The first level is based on the location of the damage:
foundation damage;
structure damage.
6
Objective and scope
The second level for the foundation damages is:
damages due to the degradation of the foundation;
damages due to loss of foundation support.
This division has been chosen because they are very different processes and it is easier to study
them separately.
For structure damages, the second level is:
damages affecting structural resistance;
damages affecting durability.
This division has been selected because they are very different processes with different factors
(actions, material properties, etc.). Despite the structural importance of damages that affect the
resistance or strength of an arch, the effect of durability damage has also been included. Almost
every bridge has damage that affects its durability, and in many cases, Engineers are not familiar
with the deterioration processes and their consequences.
Superstructure damages and durability damages are classified in the 3rd level as follows:
causes and processes of deterioration in which the actions, materials, mechanisms of deterioration
are explained;
damages that may occur: description of damages, how to identify them together with
recommendations as to the actions to be taken during and after the inspection, and other damages
normally associated with each type of damage is included in this part of the document.
Firstly, actions and materials properties are described in order that the main factors that affect the
service life of an arch may be understood. This information should assist the understanding of the
mechanism of deterioration.
Secondly, the mechanisms of deterioration are described from the origin of the damage to the finial
consequences and, in each case, the different potential effects are described.
Finally, each of damage is explained in detail, and the most common causes of the damage
provided. There may be more than one cause, and this information has to be considered first in an
inspection. Each bridge is different and its surrounding conditions are also unique, but the Catalogue
of Damages should guide the Engineer in the right direction. After the examination, the possible
causes of damage may be confirmed by carrying out further studies. It is however very important to
make a complete inspection to collect all the information necessary for the correct detection of the
causes of the damage (actions to be taken during the inspection).
In the third part of the document CONCLUSIONS are presented.
7
Three annexes have been developed of which two are publicly available. The classification and
analysis of all the data provided by the railway administration only prepared a base for the damage
catalogue. Thus, it is considered of no significant interest for other networks and furthermore contains
confidential data. The relevant useful part consists of a glossary of damages and finally the catalogue
leaflets designed to be used on site during the inspection. On each sheet photographic examples
of the damage is provided, a brief explanation of possible causes, suggestions for other associated
damages and guidance as to what to do during and after the examination to determine the cause of
damage.
8
General approach
2. General approach
2.1. General study of the subject: Available information
There are a large number of masonry arch bridges still in service in railway administrations all around
the world.
In general, the current condition of masonry bridges is variable from good to poor, but the survey
undertaken by the UIC working group indicated that there is a relatively large number of bridges in a
medium or poor condition with the deterioration likely to accelerate.
It is very difficult to establish general statistics for the categories of damage. Similar damages are
often named differently by each administration, the available information is not always the same, and
even the classification of damages is not the same.
There is, however, general agreement that damages are very similar in all the administrations
because similar problems occur in each railway network. It should also not be forgotten that these
bridges were constructed with similar materials, designed for similar loads, and have been utilised
in a similar manner. Naturally there are some differences between administrations, some of the
damages that occur are due to very particular climatic conditions in certain regions, some of them
are related to specific construction details, etc.
As part of the development of the Catalogue of Damages, a specific study of damages from the
participant administrations was carried out. The aim of the study was to determine which are the
most common type of structure (materials and geometry) and the most important damages that occur
in arches of the railway administrations involved in the project, and to identify the most important
peculiarities related to the frequency, location, area, environment and conditions of use, etc.
2.2. Specific study: Data collected
2.3. The information analysed was data provided by 8 railway

administrations on 291 masonry bridges with damages.
2.3.1. Participant countries
A total of 8 countries provided data for the project, and information on masonry bridges from 7 of
them was collected and saved in a database.
2.3.2. Total number of bridges in database and distribution by country
Information from a total of 265 masonry arches was collected in a database, the distribution by
country is shown in table 2.1 and figure 2.1. In addition, Switzerland provided information on a study
of 150 arch bridges, 26 of which had damage. This data was also studied but no information on these
arches has been included in the database.
9
Table 2.1: Distribution of the bridges studied by country

Number of % of
Country bridges total
Czech Republic 60 23
France 6 2
Hungary 40 15
Poland 13 5
Portugal 35 13
Spain 43 16
Great Britain 68 26
TOTAL* 265 100
* Does not include Switzerland
France
Poland
2.26%
4.91%
Portugal 13.2%
United Kingdom
25.7%
Hungary
15.1%
22.6%
16.2% Czech Republic
Spain
Figure 2.1: Distribution of bridges by country
2.3.3. Objectives and conclusions
The data was classified into 5 categories:
General Construction Geometry Mechanical Damages
The chosen sample is not considered to be representative of the all arch bridges, neither of those
aches found in the railway networks of those who provided the information, nor of all railway
masonry bridges in general. Thus, the bridges chosen for the analysis are only examples of types of
construction and damage. The number of bridges used was sufficient to determine the most frequent
type of damage and identify their possible causes.
10
Description and origin of common damages in masonry arch bridges
3. Description and origin of common damages in

masonry arch bridges
The appearance of damage in structures, whatever their structural form or materials used in their
construction, is as inevitable and relentless as is the passage of time and with it, the erosion and
ageing of the masonry materials. Even though they may be more durable than other structural
materials, they are not so “eternal” as it may seem for the layman or professional impressed by the
robustness and rigidity of piers, abutments, arch barrels, etc.
Erosion caused by use of the structure, over – exploitation, weathering due to a hostile environment
or climate, as well as the implacable action of water – inoffensive daily but very harmful when angry,
vegetation, paradoxically parasitic and romantic at the same time, which make the structure covered
in lichen, grass, shrubs and trees as home and finally, human actions which may not always be
correct, all contribute to the overall erosion of the structure. All the above causes result in service
problems (movement, open joints, loss of material and surface degradation) leading to a reduction
in the safety level in these bridges.
By acknowledging the actual damage and their processes of deterioration, the various stages of the
degradation processes can be understood, the Administration responsible for these fine structures,
should be able to implement a maintenance system to manage these particular bridges that together
with the railway can be taken as an example to society.
As with the structures constructed with other materials (concrete, steel, etc) is essential to understand
the various degradation mechanisms that act on arch bridges to establish an accurate diagnosis and
so that effective repairs can be implemented. This very obvious methodology has not been always
been followed, possibility due to a general ignorance of the structural behaviour of arch structures.
Thus, it is not strange for cracks, appearing due to normal structural behaviour to be considered to
be serious defects whilst other defects that are signs of possible collapse are ignored. This situation
has its origin in the modern engineering neglect with regard to masonry structures. Masonry railway
bridges were built in Europe a long time ago and masonry structural behaviour as an academic
subject was forgotten decades ago.
From a mechanical and structural points of view, a masonry arch bridge, with the arch barrel as the
basic structural component and the stone or brick material working almost exclusively in compression,
has great resistance and rigidity as well as durability, and is totally “competitive” with other materials
and structural forms. That is demonstrated by the large number of these structures in excellent
condition that are still serviceable after over one hundred and fifty years of use.
These bridges, however, have weak points. For example, their foundations are their Achille’s heel
being the most frequent cause of collapse. In the past the lack of a technical means to analyse
soil behaviour and the difficulties in constructing deep stable foundations made the achievement of
appropriate foundations difficult. Accordingly there are problems that cause foundation movements
from scour or undermining, which can result in serious damage to piers or abutments and
subsequently, to the arch barrel and spandrels leading to the collapse of the structure. Many of the
serious damages in structural elements of masonry bridges can be traced to defective foundations.
11
Other structural damages arise from different situations: earth pressure, joint weaknesses caused
by water penetration, mortar loss and erosion, loss of rigidity caused by dynamic response to loads,
etc. All these can contribute to a general weakening of elements as well affecting their durability. It
should be noted that some defects may not affect the structural carrying capacity immediately, but
can cause deterioration and damage to the structure in medium or long term thereby affecting the
safety and durability of an arch.
In addition, the constituent bridge components are subjected to external mechanical actions as
well as erosive, meteorological and physical - chemical actions that degrade the material with time
and affects its durability. External mechanical actions (loads and imposed strains) have increased
with time. Axle loads and above all, train speeds are clearly faster than when these bridges were
designed and constructed.
Conversely, the speed and the significance of the deterioration of material depends mainly on the
quality and compatibility of the materials employed as well as on the external environment. Generally,
degradation processes are progressive and slow, but deterioration and degradation processes can
be accelerated when certain deterioration thresholds are exceeded.
Certainly, damages from the mechanisms already mentioned govern the degradation of masonry.
Masonry durability and its deterioration process is behind of many problems of these bridges.
Therefore, the complex mechanisms of deterioration and weathering of masonry (brick, stone, mortar,
etc) and the long term period over which they act make it difficult to understand the real phenomena
and to detect the ultimate causes of damage.
It is essential to broaden this analysis since the correct measures can only be determined when the
ultimate causes of the damage are known.
It is also necessary to take into account the historical importance of masonry arch bridges. This
heritage is itself a very valuable damage and defect catalogue which can be used advantageously
as a learning tool. The inspection, monitoring and study of these structures will help to improve the
knowledge and diagnosis. In addition, repairs and interventions performed are an important testing
ground of diagnostic methods.
A summary of damages, classified and organised according to their structural incidence, structural
element appearance and origin is given below. This summary attempts to provide a consistent
description of damages found on masonry arches.
3.1. Foundation damages
3.1.1. Introduction
The main problem of damage foundations – not only in bridges - is the difficulty to inspect them.
Foundations elements are often hidden to visual inspection, and, besides, their real dimensions are,
in many cases, unknown. These two factors make very difficult to inspect and verify the real state
of foundation elements. Frequently, special survey techniques are necessary to obtain sufficient
information on the bridge structure foundations to solve this lack of information.
12
Bridges spanning rivers have generally deep foundations and often below the water level or hidden
by sediments, it is well understood that the underwater inspection even using underwater equipment
is a hard task to perform. If this inspection is made in summer, it may be easier to detect degradation
problems of the footing, abutment or pile head, even problems related to soil-foundation degradation.
Therefore, in practice, the first stage in detecting foundation problems is to observe and analyse
symptoms that appear on the superstructure as a consequence of rotation, or differential movement
of the foundations. In addition, there can be unstable foundations with reduced levels of safety
which show no signs of problems either in the riverbed or in the super – structure. This can lead to
unexpected instability situations, large movements and even total or partial collapse. These situations
may only be detected by means of special listening devices which are outside the scope of this study.
FOUNDATION DAMAGES
DAMAGES
DAMAGESCAUSED
CAUSEDBYBY DAMAGES
DAMAGESCAUSED
CAUSEDBY
BY
DEGRADATION OF THE
STRUCTURAL ELEMENT LOSS
SOILOF FOUNDATION
-FOUNDATION
STRUCTURAL ELEMENT
DEGRADATION STABILITY
DEFICIENT BEHAVIOR
LOCAL PILE
LOCAL UNDERMINING OF PIER
UNDERMINNING
LOCAL UNDERMINING
LOCAL ABUTMENTOF
ABUTMENT
UNDERMINNING
GENERAL UNDERMINING
UNDERMINNING
PILE CAP PILES FOOTINGS CAISSONS PROTECTIONS

SCOUR
ELEMENTS
PROTECTION
Lime dissolution
Loss of scour protection
Gravel and sandstone dragging
Mechanical degradation of foundation
Sulphate
Local erosion of foundations
Alkali reaction
Chemical degradation, corrosion of steel
Wood piles abrasion
foundation elements
Wood putrefaction
Abraded and rotten wooden piles
Corrosion of steal elements
Irregular fissures on foundation elements
Figure 3.1: Summary of possible damage in masonry arch bridges foundations
13
Degradation of the structural foundation is not well known but it also frequently occurs. Figure 3.2
shows a bridge with its footing clearly damaged.
Essentially damages in foundations can be due to two reasons: degradation of the foundation
material or lack of foundation stability. Causes for first are scour, lime or cement decomposition,
chemical alteration by aggressive water, abrasion of wooden piles, rotting of wooden piles, corrosion
of metallic elements such as sheet pilling. Causes for the second reason are scour under foundations
(undermining), scour of the river bed, a change in the course or cross section, a change in the
longitudinal profile of the river or collapse of ancient mineworking. The following paragraphs describe
these issues in more detail.
Figure 3.2: Damaged masonry arch bridge footing
3.1.2. Damages due to degradation of the structural element
The above mentioned “element” represents not only the footing or pile cap, but also the elements
placed for scour protection which will disappear before the element it is protecting. The failure of
scour protection which acts as a sacrificed element may be considered to be a fuse that triggers
action to resolve the problem. On many structures is difficult to differentiate the structural foundation
element from a pier, since a cutwater, and other new elements resulting from human interventions,
etc, can cover it.
These above-mentioned damages have been classified according to the following list in the damage
catalogue. Furthermore, some of the damages are not exclusive to foundation elements, as they
may also appear on other structural components of an arch (arch barrel, piers, spandrels, etc).
The loss and deterioration of scour protection, cutwater or similar is one of the most usual
methods by which foundations suffer damage resulting from the direct action of water.
14
Experience shows that the geometry of a breakwater set up as protection around foundations,
changes with time irrespective of its size, even though the mass may be sufficient to withstand the
flow of the water. Additionally, it is very important that the correct size, weight and depth of element
is provided to make these elements an efficient means of protection.
Loss of scour protection is not a damage that puts the structure at imminent risk, but it is recommended
that measures are put in place promptly to correct this damage.
Local erosion of foundation
This damage can be caused by:
Loss of gravel and sandstone as a consequence of the mechanical scouring action of water in a
river on the foundation elements, together with their erosion and degradation. This results from an
increase of in speed due a constriction in the river or by a change in the longitudinal profile of the
river. The final result is loss of material, affecting the strength of the foundation, and if present, the
exposure of wooden pile caps and piles which in turn rot, etc. Figure 3.3 shows a case where the
foundation pile cap is exposed as a consequence of the above-mentioned effect.
Decomposition of calcium carbonate. Lime decomposition leads to the disintegration of mortar and
lime concrete elements, usually in pile caps and foundation to piers. River water tends to dissolve
calcium carbonate in mortar and concrete, restoring it to the loose sand condition. The result is
the formation of fissures and cavities or even the complete disintegration of the foundation. The
speed of decomposition depends on the density of the concrete or mortar which also is dependent
on the cement content and construction.
Figure 3.3: Exposed foundation piles consequential to the loss of the scour protection and the
subsequent erosion of the material
15
Even though loss of scour protection may affect the integrity of structural elements, it is not a risk for
the general stability of the structure, but nevertheless actions to repair the damage should be taken.
Figure 3.4: Damage resulting from decomposition of calcium carbonate
Irregular fissures on concrete foundation elements (pier protection, footings, arches and
piers constructed in concrete).
There are two main processes which can cause this damage that affects the chemical properties of
concrete elements to foundations: sulphate attack and alkali silica reaction.
Sulphate attack: This form of corrosion has been very well-known for a long time. It is characterised
by a sulphate ion chemical, as the aggressive substance, reacting with an aluminium component,
sulphate ions, calcium and OH ions, resulting in delayed ettringite formation and secondly plaster
when Portland cement or Portland clinker is present. The reaction between these substances,
together with large quantities of water, causes concrete to expand and thus, an irregular crack to
appear.
This damage is not exclusive to concrete elements. It has been also found in mortar. It does not
however endanger the stability of the structure in the short-term, but it is necessary to intervene in
order to contain the cause and repair the damage.
Alkali silica reaction: This form of chemical attack is similar to above. The difference is that, for
sulphate attacks the reactive substance is cement for an alkali attack the reactive substance is
sand. The alkaline solution in concrete is generally saturated lime, but it may contain alkali (sodium
and potassium ions, Na+ and K+). Both solutions can attack silica in sand causing silica- alkali
gel formation. If there is enough water, the reaction can culminate in a destructive expansion.
Degradation is indicated by an irregular cracking, followed by complete disintegration. Other typical
signs are local swelling and exudation of crystalline products of variable composition.
16
As for a sulphate attack, this damage although serious without any intervention does not represent
an imminent risk to the structure.
Abrasion of wooden piles by the mechanical action of suspended materials occurs when pile heads
are exposed. The weakest and generally thinnest elements are the first to be damaged. Pile heads
can be totally destroyed by abrasion. This phenomenon is included because it affects scour protection
elements as well as the foundation material (pile caps to piers). (Figure 3.5)
Figure 3.5: Abraded and rotten wooden elements
When the origin of the attack is not mechanical, but biological, the final result is that timber degrades
and rots away. Experience shows that, generally, wooden piles in river works can last for a long
time. If piles are permanently submerged, they are protected from fungi as they cannot grow without
air, and thus, rotting cannot occur. In a marine environment, the submerged wood can be attacked
by different types of molluscs resulting in a very poor durability. Timber foundations in tidal areas
are especially vulnerable as the wood is alternatively exposed and submerged. Something similar
happens with piled foundations in riverbeds when a river changes its course and causes scour that
exposes the pile heads. This phenomenon may be due to the loss of the scour protection elements
as well as the loss of foundation material.
Corrosion of steel elements used in foundation elements
During the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century metallic caissons were
often used to construct piled foundations in riverbeds, especially if the river was deep. On other
occasions, temporary works of sheet piling, which was double skinned for working in dry conditions,
has been installed with metallic walings now provides protection against the watercourse. This
would have been the case with semi-deep foundations. Therefore, with time, and especially in areas
with changeable exposure to water and air, corrosion damage with associated material loss has
occurred. The importance of this fact is that the foundation material which was previously protected
has become exposed to the erosive action of water and wind. Nevertheless, before this damage is
observed, the loss of the protection will have occurred.
17
Figure 3.6: Corrosion of metallic elements used in sheet piling and auxiliary elements, etc.
The tradition of linking masonry blocks (ashlars) by means of staples fixed with lead comes from
Ancient Greece. This technique was used in the latter half of the 19th century and early decades
of the 20th century, but not only in bridge erection. Constructors attempted to secure the masonry
blocks by methods other than using mortar. The intention was good, but with time the metallic staples
(iron or bronze) have caused damage to the masonry such as cracks due to the expansive nature of
rust and formation of copper sulphates.
In other instances, damage occurs on foundation elements, sheet piling, etc. This damage may,
generally, not be very important, even though it should be taken into account that the progression of
this type of damage can lead to more serious damage. Thus, a special inspection to determine the
extent of the damage should not be delayed.
3.1.3. Damages due to loss of foundation stability
As mentioned earlier, scour under foundations is the most common cause of failure of masonry arch
bridges spanning rivers. Scour can occur along the length of a river, or locally, across a transverse
section of the structure, but more usually in the vicinity of a pier or abutment. This causes serious
instability situations as a consequence of the voids formed which undermine the support.
Water action on the riverbed can occur naturally as well as a consequence of human actions. The
resultant effects are included in the following three groups: change in the course or cross section,
change in longitudinal profile and undermining from flooding.
18
Figure 3.7: Examples of different interventions in a riverbed to adjust the longitudinal profile (left)
and to maintain the riverbed with slabs
A change in the course or cross section of a meandering river and formation of sandbanks and islands
can occur when it is searching for a balanced position after flooding or after human intervention in the
riverbed. This can lead to silt being deposited or a river bank being eroded adjacent to the structure,
and piers becoming closer to the river’s course than anticipated in the original design, as well as the
flow of water being skew to the abutments and piers sited in the river. Another consequence can be
changes to the longitudinal profile of the river, either lowering or increasing the level of the riverbed.
Erosion of river beds can be accelerated as a consequence of the extraction of sand from the
riverbanks – a practice that is now generally prohibited - when this extraction clearly exceeded the
rate of natural deposits from the river. When these deposits are insufficient, the riverbed is lowered
resulting in a new equilibrium position according to the volume of solids transported by the river.
Longitudinal profile evolution may also be a consequence of the works performed in watercourses
(navigable channels, removal of meanders), or the erection of dams.
Figure 3.8: General and local riverbed scour
19
The erosion of the riverbed originates from an increase in the river velocity under the bridge. The
effect of the bridge on the river is a reduction of the cross section, which causes a local increasing
of velocity of water. More velocity means more capacity of the river to take materials from riverbed,
which finally causes its modification.
These changes in the riverbed may cause the undermining of foundations.
When the river is swollen, scour is caused by the erosive power of water, as a consequence of
an increase in the velocity of the river current which can destabilise the riverbed (Figure 3.8). This
natural phenomenon may decrease foundation stability when a river is in flood, and occasionally
afterwards as well, since the deposited material is usually lighter and a subsequent inspection may
incorrectly suggest that there is a firm base without any loss of support to the foundation.
This type of damage must be considered as very dangerous, due to its potentially fatal consequences
and due to the difficulties in its detection. Accordingly, when an examination of a bridge spanning
a river detects scour near the bridge, a more detailed study of foundations should be carried out to
detect any possible undermining of the foundation.
Figure 3.9: Local scour at a pier foundation
20
Local undermining of the supports – piers and abutments – is basically an erosion of the bottom
of the riverbed as a consequence of the formation of horizontal eddies that develop around these
elements. Bed material is removed from the river by the vertical flow component and lifted and
propelled away from the foundation by the current. Thus, a cone shaped hole is formed with the
deepest point upstream of a pier (see Figures 3.9 and 3.10).
The narrowing of a river passing between piers and abutments can cause the erosion of the riverbed
under the arch and the formation of hollows. This phenomenon is caused by the local increase of
speed due to the constriction to the flow. When the spans are large, separate hollows may form
downstream of each pier. If the supports are close (short spans) adjacent depressions in the riverbed
may join together to form larger depressions, in some cases, they can form eventually a continuous
depression across the width of the river.
On other occasions, a constriction to the flow at an arch can cause, in times of flood, water to
pass behind the abutment. This is a very dangerous phenomenon for the structure’s stability, as the
backfill behind the abutment, once undermined, cannot balance the arch horizontal pressure causing
the collapse of the bridge. Besides, the removal of fill behind abutments can lead to a loss of the
embankment, being dangerous to train’s circulation.
Further, the erosive action of water can increase when the flow of the river is obstructed by floating
debris or ice accumulated against the structure.
Finally, some damages can occur sequentially, as for example, the loss of scour protection elements
that defended the structure from undermining will be followed by a direct attack against the footing
and pier.
It should be noted that wooden piles may not always be founded on bed rock. The maximum length
of the wooden piles will be about 10 metres, and this length may not ensure support in a competent
stratum. In addition, a wooden grid prepared to distribute loads may have been simply placed
or hammered over the pile head. Consequently, pile group relied on the soil around the piles for
horizontal stability. If the soil is removed, the foundation may be damaged.
Figure 3.10: Local scour at an abutment foundation
21
It is not unknown for an abutment and the adjacent embankment to be undermined by the same
erosive process of the river. Scour may be detected adjacent to walls of adjoining structures,
usually constructed for scour protection and to stabilise the river, the results of which may be gabion
movements, failures of cutwaters around the piers and abutments, etc.
Even though the natural action of water is responsible for most foundation problems, there are other
causes of degradation, for example, human interventions which modify the geometry of the structure
or surroundings can modify the local hydraulic regime as well the bridge equilibrium conditions.
Poor maintenance, or superstructure interventions, badly designed and executed repairs are other
causes as is subsidence of ancient mine workings.
3.1.4. Synopsis of foundation damages
It is convenient to summarise foundation damages as to how they may be classified to facilitate

understanding. Damages due to the deterioration of the structural element and damages due to
instability can be analysed by studying the actions in foundations, the constituent materials and,
finally, damage that results from degradation processes.
The actions on foundations include the following:
The action of running water which can have different consequences for foundations – dynamic
pressure, turbulence that causes scour, erosion and undermining of scour protection and the
foundation (footing, piles and pile head) and leaching, etc. Further, a variation in the conditions
of the riverbank, the position of the river as well as the angle of incidence of the river to the
foundations has caused many problems for railway bridges.
Biological action causing wooden elements (piles and pile caps) to rot.
22
Environmental conditions that cause corrosion of metallic elements, alkali reactions, sulphate
attacks, etc.
Human action, voluntarily (war or sabotage) or involuntarily, as a result of the ignorance or lack
of knowledge. The latter has led to an uncontrolled extraction of sand, as well as construction
of scour protection using incorrect criteria. Damages due to accidents related to foundations are
infrequent.
Materials often used are:
Timber, in piles and pile heads which may be at risk of rotting or becoming the victims of wood borers.
The limitations of past construction also restricted the length and diameter of the piles. The lack of
geotechnical knowledge as a science led to the application of empirical rules that were not always
the most appropriate. The result is that, nowadays, the capability of wooden piles is unknown as
well as their interaction with the surrounding ground. Their interaction with the structure is easier
to understand as the piles transfer the load to the pile head through the wooden pile cap.
Masonry, whose behaviour is better understood, but when considering foundation elements still
presents uncertainty. For example, characteristics and state of pieces and mortar, etc accordingly
modern criteria for mechanical properties of the masonry should be used with caution.
Finally, damage caused by problems associated with the structural elements of the foundation are,
in general, the following:
Scour, which leads to a progressive accelerated degradation of the resistance of the footing or
pile head.
Local erosion of foundation elements.
Abrasion and rotting of wooden piles which causes foundation rotation and settlements, with
associated structural damage on piers, abutments and arch barrel as described below.
Corrosion of metallic elements.
Irregular fissures on foundation concrete elements from alkali silica reaction or sulphate attack.
Undermining that may cause settlement and rotation of the piers. All of the above can cause
significant structural problems because they can occur suddenly and without warning.
3.2. Superstructure damages
3.2.1. Introduction.
There are many documents and publications showing examples of damages that may affect masonry
railway bridges. In most cases, the treatment of damages is descriptive. In this document an attempt
has been made to analyse and classify the damages in accordance with their origin and structural
incidence.
23
That is why, as indicated in the introduction, structural damages are classified in relation to the
potential effect on load capability as well as durability problems which often reduces the resistance
of the main structural elements. The presentation of the structural damages follows this concept:
Damages affecting load carrying capacity and Damages affecting durability.
3.2.2. Damages that affect load carrying capacity.
There are ways to present damages on masonry arch bridges that affect load carrying capacity. On
the one hand, it is possible to identify the most common processes of deterioration and the associate
damages in the bridge generally, or, alternatively it is also possible to study the various damages
in each of the constituent elements of an arch bridge. This document is focused on the former
method but taking care to ensure that the problems are not so excessively described so the reader
loses sight of the general phenomena. Figure 3.11 shows a general synopsis of the most common
damages. For example, differential settlement of pier foundations can cause damage to piers as
well as to arch barrels, cutwaters and spandrels, etc. Thus, it might be deduced that when there are
damages in arch barrels, there is a possibility that other elements may have problems that should
also be considered.
To describe damages of structural elements however with improved clarity, the actions that may affect
masonry bridges, the mechanical parameters of the materials used and finally, after the description
of the prime resistant mechanisms, the list of the most common damages are briefly described.
Thus, information on the actions as well as the behaviour of the materials and the structure is an
essential part of this study of the damages of arch bridges.
Structure damages
Damages affecting load carrying capacity
Longitudinal cracking in arch (centre))

Abutments Vertical crack in abutment
Vaults Longitudinal crack in arch barrel under sprandel
Horizontal crack in abutment
Diagonal crack in arch barrel
Transverse crack in arch barrel. Three hinges Spandrel Bulging of spandrels
Transverse crack in arch barrel. Mono-arch mechanism

– Sliding of spandrels
Transverse crack in arch barrel. Shear mechanism Spandrels rotation
Transverse crack in arch barrel. Multi arch mechanism Stepped crack in sprandel
Mechanical failure of masonry :

Wingwalls
Rotation and bulging of wing or side walls
Loss or displacement of arch material Vertical crack between the abutment and
wing or side walls
Piers Vertical crack in pier

Stepped crack in wing or side walls
Stepped crack in pier
Vertical crack between cutwater and pier.
Figure 3.11: Synopsis of the most common damages on the superstructure
24
3.2.2.1. Actions
Railways bridges have suffered from very different types of actions. The characteristics of these actions
are not the same as the nominal actions that Engineers use to design new bridges. Consequentially,
the examiner and the Engineer who evaluates the damages might have conceptual doubts: if the
“actual regulated” actions are nominal, a question may arise as to which actions should be taken into
account when explaining the damages so that corrective measures may be designed. The answer is
not simple, but in many cases, it is sufficient to consider actions, including the accidental actions in
the actual codes as conservative. It is necessary, however, to analyse the evolution of the live actions
in the design codes and the history of the construction and the different repairs on the structure.
Permanent (direct) actions
These actions are due to the self weight of the structure (piers, abutments, arch barrel, spandrels,
parapets,) and due to the imposed dead loads (ballast, track, backfill, etc). To evaluate loads it is
usual to start with the available dimensional data and the various specific densities of the materials.
In some cases, if there are drainage problems or the spandrel is bulging, it will be necessary to take
into account water pressure between the arch extrados and the backfill. It is common for there to be
solid backfill between the springing and the haunch, and thus the weight of these elements could be
similar to mass concrete.
Permanent loads are, generally, beneficial for bridge behaviour, especially for short and medium
spans, because they help to ensure that the thrust is in the centre of the arch barrel. This effect is not
however favourable to foundations.
Rail traffic actions - variable vertical actions
Accordingly, the live loads in actual codes can be used with care. In some cases, it is compulsory to
check special load trains which are not included in design codes, and normal traffic loads to explain
service and fatigue problems. Thus, it is important to verify whether special load trains which have
crossed the bridge are the cause of some of the damages.
A large number of the structural damages found on arch barrels are related to the position of the rail
in the bridge cross section. Many bridges were designed and built with sufficient width for double
track although sometimes only one was laid, or has been subsequently lifted. This track is generally
asymmetrical to the bridge so that this would not restrict the possibility to lay double tracks in the
future (figure 3.12). The other criterion to be considered is the type of sleeper employed, because it
can have a major effect on the load distribution.
Damages caused by asymmetric loading together with excessive use have been found, especially
in the arch barrel near to the crown. On skew bridges these effects are magnified, particularly if the
masonry bonds are not appropriate for the type of construction.
The above assumes longitudinal and transverse distribution of dead loads and live loads through the
fill and also transverse bending of the arch barrel. Another matter that should be taken into account
is whether there are devices on the track that can cause accentuated impact loads.
25
Figure 3.12: Asymmetric layout of tracks across the width of the bridge (curved on the picture
above) and with change of the track over the arch (not shown on this picture) which may cause
additional impacts
Poorly draining fill can cause an increase in the vertical load and also horizontal thrust on the spandrel
leading to separation of the arch barrel and spandrel.
On bridges wide enough for double track, horizontal thrusts can cause horizontal pressure against
the spandrels as well as transverse tensile axial tension forces in the arch barrel.
Rail traffic actions - horizontal actions due to braking, traction and centrifugal loads
Horizontal actions due to braking, act on the structure platform and, due to the absence of joints, the
interaction between track and structure and the horizontal rigidity of the elements, do not affect piers
or the arch barrel but the abutments. Experience shows however that for the majority of occasions,
problems in the abutments are generally related to other causes (undermining, loss of material etc.).
There are particular forms of arch bridges with mass concrete arch barrels or with a slender deck
and intermediate piers (open spandrel arch bridges), that are sensitive to this problem due to the
shear on the piers.
As for the transverse actions, it should be noted that there are not many curved masonry bridges in
railway networks. There are exceptions such as large viaducts. The centrifugal forces can increase
the horizontal forces acting against the spandrel on the outside of the curve and decrease the forces
acting on the inner spandrel.
Natural actions - wind
Wind action is not usually a cause of structural damages. Wind can however affect durability, but this
is considered later.
Natural actions: thermal and rheological
The effect of thermal actions on an arch bridge is negligible when compared with rail traffic actions.
Firstly, this type of structure has a non- linear mechanical behaviour and accordingly is very ductile.
26
This is because the combined effect of changes in temperature and rheological action becomes
negligible as soon as the flexibility of the structure changes when hinges develop.
Secondly, the large number of micro cracks within in the mortar joints can absorb expansion and
contraction movements due to the thermal and rheological actions.
Similar arguments apply with regard to shrinkage and creep, which due to the relative slowness of
the building process of these structures and their age have already occurred.
Imposed thermal and rheological strains in bridges constructed in plain concrete can develop cracks
and other damages. This is the case for plain concrete arch bridges with open spandrels. The
presence of expansion joints in the deck and the lack of expansion joints on arch barrels results
in large thrusts in the piers between the arch and the deck. Moreover, the large mass of the arch
together with virtually no reinforcement, can produce wide un-controlled cracks.
Imposed movements
Imposed movements are the result of movements of abutments or piers as a consequence, for
example, of undermining. This action is responsible for most structural damage.
Non - uniform settlement of the ground underneath the piers and abutments cause differential
movement of the foundation element which can result in internal forces on the piers and arch barrels
leading to cracks in the respective masonry element. Depending on the location and magnitude of the
differential movement of the foundation and on the type of masonry supported by it, the cracking will
have a vertical or inclined pattern (figure 3.13). The structural importance of this defect will depend
on its extent, whether or not it is stabilised and on the structural characteristics of the elements.
Figure 3.13: Settlement of pier and induced damages
It should be noted, however, that there is a large number of different types of damage caused by
imposed movements as described later in the text. Damage caused by pier or abutment settlement or
rotation, (transverse as well as longitudinal), which affect piers, abutments, arch barrels, spandrels,
etc are often found.
27
Dynamic actions
Dynamic actions, which might be felt by someone under one of these structures when a train is
crossing the arch, are very difficult to quantify due to the large number of variables involved. The
interaction between backfill and arch barrel, damping, etc is involved. From the point of view of the
effect of damage, dynamic actions play an important role. The impact of the train axle when passing
by imposes a dynamic force on the ballast which is transferred causing a pressure wave (figure
3.14) and which affects the backfill in two ways: one beneficial because it compacts the backfill and,
conversely, it increases the speed of propagation, and therefore the dynamic effect on arch barrels
and spandrels. The first effect will already have occurred as the bridge will have been in service for
many years, so the damping effect of the transmitted energy is not less attenuated.
Moreover, when the backfill is waterlogged, the effect of the dynamic action is amplified as the pore
pressure is increased.
As is illustrated in figure 3.14, the dynamic action on arch barrels and spandrels can increase the
pressure locally by several times the static value, even though the action is for a very short period.
The value of the pressure depends, on the arch barrel, the height of the fill at crown, the spandrels,
and on the distance from the track to the extrados or spandrel.
Figure 3.14: Effect of the pressure wave on the extrados structure of the arch barrels and
spandrels. Effect of an impact load (a) and repetitive loading action (b).
As with any other structural material, masonry subjected to load cycles will eventually exhibit signs of
failure. Even if the stress variations are not excessively large, the number of repeated accumulated
cycles makes these structures sensitive to this problem, that also has an effect on the durability of
the structure. Therefore, it is no coincidence that many bridges on lines carrying heavy and intense
traffic have such damage, irrespective of whether the arch is square or skew, the arch barrel is
shallow or deep, or the arch is a single or multi - span arch.
28
3.2.2.2. Materials
To understand structural damages visible on bridges, it is necessary to understand the mechanical

behaviour of masonry as a structural material. A brief summary follows so that it may be possible to
understand the mechanical behaviour of these materials.
Masonry structures exhibit several peculiarities that make them different from other structural
forms which affect their mechanical behaviour directly or indirectly. These peculiarities have been
identified in several studies, in which the large variety of masonry types, and their heterogeneous
and anisotropic properties have been described. Below is a methodology to obtain the values of
the variables required to determine the mechanical characteristics of the masonry used in the
construction of different structural elements of the bridge.
Failure criteria t-s
The failure of masonry elements is caused by the interaction of tangential and normal stresses acting
on the section. In masonry however, the presence of shear forces on the section has an influence
not only on the distribution and value of the tangential stress but also on the distribution and value of
the normal stress. This is unique to masonry. Moreover, the relation between t-s at failure is defined
by three modes of failure (see figure 3.15) that may occur in masonry, either in the joint, at the joint
interface, or in the stone or brick (see Table 3.3).
Figure 3.15: Definition of the three modes of failure t-s for masonry
Mode I: failure by friction in the joint

Mode II: failure movement of the stone or brick
Mode III: failure by compression of the masonry
At present, there is general agreement among researchers about the definition of these modes of
failures and their causes. The only point where there may be no agreement is the stress field in
masonry used for the final formulation criteria. Most research has confirmed that the starting state
is the macroscopic stress between a stone or brick and joint as defined by Mann and Müller [1].
Thereafter, the final failure criteria are defined as the development of the three stages corresponding
to the final failure types.
29
Subsequently, once the failure criteria have been formulated, and accepting a hypothetic stress
distribution across the masonry section, it is possible to integrate stresses on the section for the
different failure situations and thus, to obtain Axial-Bending-Shear (N-M-V) interaction diagrams for
general masonry failure.
Table 3.3: Modes of failure due to t-s interaction
Geometric and
Main forces Failure condition Failure mode
material parameters
Horizontal or stepped,
Shear Sliding at the joint c, m on the interface without breaking the
stone or brick
Failure due to tension Stepped with mixed
Shear and axial stresses in the stone ƒtb x of pieces failure of mortar joints
or brick and stone and bricks
Compression failure Splitting of stones or
ƒ of masonry
of masonry due to the bricks, perpendicular
Normal and bending
tension in the stone or cracking to the mortar
(ƒb, ƒtb, a)
brick joints.
3.2.2.3. Description of mechanisms of deterioration
Superstructure problems caused by foundation problems
As it has been already mentioned, the majority of structural damage is normally related to problems
or failures of the foundations. Therefore, this is the first cause of “mortality” of these structures. In
Section 3.1 “Foundations Damages” the different causes for movements of foundation elements
have been already described. From the study of the relative and absolute movement of piers and
abutments it is possible to explain a large number of different types of damage, as below:
Differential vertical settlement of springings on arch barrel (pier or abutments).
As shown in figure 3.13, the effect of vertical settlement of a support relative to another support
when there is no rotation, results in a failure caused by the voússoirs sliding in the masonry arch
rings or shear failure (I or II criteria) local to the crown or at the arch barrel shoulders when the
arch is constructed with multiple brick ring across an area appropriate to the relative movements.
This type of failure may be accompanied by the formation of a hinge on the arch barrel springing
or on the abutment, which may lead to a significant localised increase in the compressive stress
within the masonry.
This damage will be close to structural collapse as the number of hinges formed will be sufficient
(included “shear mechanisms) to turn the structure into an unsafe one. This failure is very serious
since it reduces the strength capacity of the structure.
Longitudinal rotation of pier or abutment
In multi-span bridges, longitudinal rotation of piers will have a devastating effect on the structure.
30
This rotation can occur when applied forces on adjacent arch barrels cause the overturning
moment of the pier to be exceeded or when foundation rotation and settlement occurs.
Therefore, bridges that apparently have an acceptable factor of safety have collapsed when loss
of foundation support due to scour has permitted a rotation of the base of the pier. It should be
noted (see figure 3.18) that a small rotation of the pier means a significant settlement in one span
with a crack open at the intrados at the crown and a significant rise at the crown in the other
span with the crack in the arch barrel at the crown closed at the intrados. These changes in the
geometry of the arch barrel lead to the formation of three hinges in each barrel, and another one
at the pier.
Figure 3.19 represents a three hinged arch barrel and a pier with another hinge in its base.
Conversely the structure is in equilibrium with three rigid articulated elements. Finally, the
movement of the equivalent structure is due to a clockwise rotation at the base of the pier. In order
to estimate the movements on the rest of the structure kinematic equations have to be applied.
Figure 3.18: Sketch of the damage (mechanism of collapse) as a consequence of a rotation of

the base of a pier
Figure 3.19: Sketch of the movement of the arch barrel and the pier as independent rigid
bodies
31
Analysis shows that in the structure:
for every value of L (span), ƒ (rise) and hp (height of pier), there is a value for the rotation (a) that
causes a mechanism.
the larger the span, the smaller the angle necessary to cause a mechanism assuming all other
parameters are equal.
the shallower the arch, the smaller the angle necessary to cause a mechanism assuming all other
parameters are equal.
the greater the height of the pier, the smaller the angle necessary to cause a mechanism, assuming
all other parameters are equal.
As a simple example, in an arch of 10 metre span, with a ratio ƒ(rise)/L(span) = 1/6 and a pier height
of hp = 5.00m, the angle necessary to cause a mechanism is only 6º.
In figure 3.20 the relationship between the angle of rotation (measured in radians) and the vertical
movement at the crown for shallow arches (ƒ(rise)/L(span) = 1/6; L = 5.00m) is shown. The last
point on each line (on the right side of the figure) is the point of collapse of the structure. A very
small rotation is needed to cause a mechanism so if any rotation is detected, the condition of the
foundation should be checked immediately and, whether or not, the adjacent arch barrels have
transverse cracking at the springing and crown that might indicate formation of hinges. Conversely,
this small rotation implies a significant movement at the crown of the adjacent spans, which an
examiner should be able to clearly observe.
Figure 3.20: Relation between the vertical movement at the crown (δ in ordinates [m]) and a
angle of rotation on the base of the pier. L(span) = 5.00m and f/l = 1/6. The collapse mechanism is
achieved for a vertical movement of 0.70m.
32
These upward or downward movements of the crown frequently cause displacement of stones or
bricks at the crown.
This failure is serious as it reduces the load carrying capacity of the structure.
Moreover, in stone arch barrels, when hinges are formed, a significant concentration of compressive
stress occurs and this may cause, although rare, the failure of the masonry before a mechanism is
formed. The level of stress can cause delamination of the intrados at the crown and shoulder areas
where the compression is high.
There are other damages associated with this type of failure which are particularly to bridges with
piers in a riverbed. These damages are related to the durability of the structure as water flowing
through transverse cracks (hinges) can lead to, as for example, stains, efflorescence and crusts.
Another possible cause of a mechanism - especially in cases of multi-span masonry arch bridges
with shallow arch barrels and slender piers - is an inability of the abutments to resist the horizontal
forces transmitted by the structure. If this is not possible the abutment rotates, therefore developing
a multi-span mechanism. The unbalanced horizontal forces are transmitted through the arch barrel
to the abutment, which is ultimately resisted by the passive pressure of the ground supported by
the abutment. Therefore, a check should be carried out to establish whether the backfill behind
the abutment is able to provide the necessary passive pressure, or whether it has been eroded by
floods, etc in which case the abutment may rotate.
Figure 3.21: Maximum pressure developed on the abutment with the resultant applied at the
springing
Figure 3.21 shows the maximum pressure developed by ground behind the abutment taking into
account that the centroid of the force is located at the springing to the arch barrel. If the abutment
cannot provide such horizontal reaction, it will tend to rotate, and three hinges will be formed in the
arch.
33
Figure 3.22: Damage caused to an arch barrel and spandrels as a consequence of abutment
rotation against the backfill and formation of three hinges. This is due to the impossibility of the
abutment and the back fill to support the horizontal reaction of the vault.
Figure 3.23 shows the effect on the arch barrel of an inward rotation of the abutment as a consequence
of excessive earth pressure from the backfill.
Figure 3.23: Damages caused on arch barrel and abutments as a consequence of the inward
rotation of the abutment
Longitudinal settlement and rotation.
In this situation, the damage normally detected is of the result of vertical settlement and longitudinal
rotation.
It should be noted, it is not always possible or easy to determine a priori which type of damage
will develop in this situation, as it depends on various parameters such as material (masonry, type
of bond, etc.), geometric ratios, existing conditions (it should be considered that, though hardly
perceptible, many masonry bridge arch barrels were tri- articulated from the very moment the
centring was removed and backfill placed, etc).
34
Relative sliding of voússoirs, should not be ruled out especially if differences in the rigidity of the
infill on each side of the voússoirsare important, creating a “hard point” effect.
Transverse rotation of a pier or abutment on the longitudinal axis of the bridge
Figure 3.24 shows an example of transverse rotation of a pier on the longitudinal axis of the
bridge that has caused visible damage on the pier as an inclined crack. These cracks are usually
stepped, but can also pass through stones or bricks diagonally to the ‘fixed point’ of the foundation.
Therefore, the crack indicates the line of the compression strut, corresponding to the direction of
transmission of the loads to the foundation.
The rotation of the pier also causes torsion in the arch barrel. This distortion is shown by oblique
cracks in plan that, as for the pier, can be stepped without breaking the stones or bricks or
diagonally through them, depending on the type of bond, the angle of the crack and the material
parameters of the masonry.
Figure 3.24: Differential settlement or transverse rotation of a pier or abutment on the

longitudinal axis of the bridge
The lower part of Figure 3.24 shows a view of the intrados of the arch barrel. With this type of
cracking it is also possible to find joints opening on the arch barrel, or even relative movement
between stones or bricks, particularly on a ring course on the same side as the settlement of the
pier. It is also possible to detect damage on the spandrel, but the type and extent depends on their
rigidity, and on the bond between spandrel and arch barrel.
The incidence of damage from rotation of a pier on the longitudinal axis depends on magnitude of
the rotation. Structurally the bridge adopts a three-dimensional mechanism which is complicated
to analyse. It can however be considered using a simplified analysis as a plain mechanism that
results in mechanisms for the arch barrel.
35
Differential settlement of pier or abutment
Figure 3.25 shows an example of this settlement which is generally occurs in conjunction with
the collapse of the longitudinal elevations of the bridge. It is another structural defect due to
foundation failure that is apparent from the damage on piers and abutments, as well as on the
arch barrel. These damages are present as a consequence of the transverse bending induced
by the differential settlement and are accompanied by shear distortion that usually causes the
appearance of associated durability damages. This type of damage affects the strength capacity
of the structure (partial collapse of the elevation, reduction of the transverse capacity) and also
the durability of the structure.
Figure 3.25: Differential settlement on the transverse elevation of the bridge
Relative settlement between ends and centre of pier.
Occasionally, particularly when the arch is wide – or it has been widened- and the piers are also
wide, the central part of the pier may settle relative to the ends of the pier due to higher load at
the centre and due to the behaviour of long foundation elements. This differential settlement
causes bending in the pier and therefore, vertical cracks, along joints or even through the stones
or bricks, which can continue into the arch barrel.
36
Normally, the width of the crack is greatest at the bottom of the pier, as the opening tends to
reduce when it reaches the “shoulder” or “crown” as in normal bending.
If however the edges of the pier settle more than the centre of the pier, the damage is the converse
with the width of the crack very small or non-existent at the base of the pier and wider on the arch
barrel. The incidence of this type of damage depends on the load distribution in the arch barrel
and whether or not it is stabilised.
Figure 3.26: Vertical crack in a pier due to differential settlement between the edges and the
central part of the pier
Other structural damage arising from foundation problems.
It should also be noted that there are minor damages, such as loss of stones or bricks of piers,
abutments, etc as a consequence of the local failure of foundation elements or, because of
problems associated with rotation and separation of cutwaters.
Problems caused associated with skew bridges
Although our knowledge of the structural behaviour , and thus, the design and construction of skew
bridges in modern forms such as reinforced or prestressed concrete is a relatively recent innovation
(in the last 40 years), there were a large number of skewed masonry railway bridges constructed
150 years ago.
The bond used on the arch barrel and the type of pier should be directly related to the skew of a
masonry bridge. The tendency for an arch to span square causes the main compression forces to
flow in the direction as indicated Figure 3.27. This is only true when the pier is able to resist the
thrusts without moving.
Considering the angle formed by the direction of the main thrust with the direction normal to the
mortar joints, bonds should have joints orthogonal to the direction of the main thrust. In some cases,
such as when a straight bond has been used, it may cause local failure in the masonry, especially in
very slender structures or heavily used structures.
37
Another common problem with skew bridges is the defect illustrated in Figure 3.27. The tendency
to span on the square causes torsion around the vertical axis of the pier since the resultants of the
horizontal reactions in each arch barrel can have different values (train passing over one of them)
and have different points of application.
If the pier is not very stiff, it can rotate or crack releasing the thrusts acting on it, if this occurs the
bridge becomes a bridge with a span equal to the skew span.
Figure 3.27: Sketch of forces applied in a skew masonry bridge causing pier distortion
Problems caused by dynamic behaviour
The mobile nature of the loads can cause different phenomena on masonry arch bridges.
Firstly, large changes in use of these structures (loads and speeds) can amplify the static loads
according to the maximum speed of traffic over these structures, and the natural frequencies of
these structures. The estimation of the principal frequencies of these structures is subject to many
variables: the value of the dynamic material parameters of the arch, the internal configuration of
the bridge (pinned, encástre, etc), the interaction between the backfill and the arch barrel, etc.
Therefore, a true estimate of the dynamic factor is difficult to achieve. It is very clear, however
that as backfill acts as a shock absorber, together with the configuration of the arch barrel the
coefficient of impact should be small in comparison with concrete and steel structures.
Secondly, rail imperfections, together with the existence of points and crossings, can cause a
significant increase in load locally, which when continuously repeated eventually causes local
fatigue failure in the masonry.
Finally, and as mentioned previously, the dynamic action compacts backfill which can increase or
reduce the horizontal thrust on the spandrels.
38
Problems caused use of the structure
Despite these structures potentially having a large spare capacity changes in the conditions of use
(load, speed, directions, change of the longitudinal and transverse profile of the tracks, etc.) may
cause problems or accelerate the degradation of elements due to fatigue, stress concentration and
excessive cracking of elements.
Problems associated with abutment and wing wall rotation due to excessive earth pressure
These problems can be frequent and often are a precursor of collapse. Increased use of these
structures (loads and speeds), the progressive deterioration of embankment and backfill drainage
systems, among other factors, contribute to an increase in the pressure on the abutments and walls.
This causes a reduction in the level of safety against abutment stability even though these abutments
are supported by the arch barrel. Figure 3.23 illustrates the damage which occurs more often in
structures with short deep spans and high abutments.
Figure 3.28: Example of the increase in the horizontal thrust generated by ground and water
pressure can be found in a large number of cases where the walls and the wing walls can have
clear symptoms of failure, as, for example, fracture cracks.
Problems caused by earth pressure on spandrel walls
This is a very well known and common problem. As previously described, the structural role of
spandrel walls is mainly to contain the backfill confined in the spandrel void above the arch barrel
extrados. In addition they carry the horizontal component of the live load, and similar to abutments,
water pressure due to lack of a functioning drainage system, and are extended vertically to retrain
the ballast.
Given the above horizontal actions on the spandrel walls, structural damages to the spandrel walls
should not be unexpected: inclined or bulging spandrels, or, separation of the spandrel and arch
barrel which is often found when the bond between the voússiors and arch barrel is inappropriate.
It is not unknown for the spandrel wall, separated from arch barrel and subjected to the backfill
pressure to become unstable and to fall. The combined effects from all these various damages may
also be found.
39
Figure 3.29
Problems caused by the differences in stiffness of spandrel wall and arch barrel
The greater stiffness of spandrel walls in comparison with the arch barrel can generate a crack
between these elements under vertical loading.
This cracking can lead to an independent response of the arch barrel against service loads.
Problems arising from the construction process
This type of damage is inherited since it goes back to when the structure was built. Experience
shows that the different processes and the different stages used to construct these bridges have a
significant effect on their structural and durability behaviour, for example, the levels of the interface
of rigid backfill with granular backfill. This damages should be stabilized in comparison with other
damages coming from foundation and settlement problems
Figure 3.30: Levels of rigid backfill: presence of water stains
40
Problems caused by previous interventions
Unfortunately, previous repairs have not always been adequate. When these repairs were made
without consideration to their effect, although implemented with good intentions, the final result of
the repairs was not always effective and occasionally counterproductive to the structure’s durability
and load capacity. Those damages can also affect the durability of materials, generally due to the
employment of incompatible materials such as cement mortar instead of lime mortar, and can also
affect the aesthetic of the existing bridge. To respect the heritage of arch bridges unwarranted
or even harmful interventions as inner concrete rings should have been avoided when durability
problems only are present. Measures to reinforce structural capacity such as metallic reinforcement
in the intrados can cause differential movements because of their differential thermal behaviour.
Constructions of extensions to foundations, without regard to the hydraulic regime of the river, have
caused an increase of the water speed and undermining subsequently . Insertion of horizontal tie
bars through the arch barrel to resist the horizontal forces transmitted by the spandrel walls can
destroy the arch locally when drilling, affecting also the line of thrust locally.
Other problems have arisen from the attachment of metallic electrification masts anchored to the
masonry.
3.2.2.4. Appearance of resulting damages
The most common damages associated with each structural elements (arch barrel, piers, abutments,
spandrel walls, wing and side walls) are listed and described below taking into account the general
behaviour of the structure. Each damage is a common damage for the various structural elements.
41
Arch barrel
Longitudinal crack in arch barrel (centre)
This type of damage can have several origins. It may be due to the relative settlement of the
centre of the pier compared to its ends, due to a hard foundation at the centre of the pier. It
may also come from the transverse bending and axial tension forces present in the arch barrel.
A particular case is when the track position is non-symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal
axis of the bridge. Asymmetrical load on the arch from traffic on the bridge can also cause this
damage. Figure 3.31 shows a sketch and an example of this damage.
Sometimes, bi-block sleepers can lead to concentrated loads on longitudinal lines on the arch,
especially if load dispersion through the fill does not assist with the load distribution, and this may
cause a pattern of cracking with 3 or 4 lines of longitudinal cracks especially in the crown.
Figure 3.31: Longitudinal cracking of the arch barrel
Longitudinal cracking arch barrel under spandrel wall
This type of damage has previously been described. Figure 3.32 shows an example of this type of
damage.
Figure 3.32: Longitudinal crack between voussoirs and the arch barrel
Diagonal cracking of the arch barrel
42
This type of damage can have several origins. It may come from the normal behaviour of skewed
arch barrels with an inappropriate bond.
It can also be a symptom of settlement and pier rotation which causes a distortion of the arch
barrel, as is shown on Figure 3.33. In this case, the diagonal cracking is due to the rotation along
the longitudinal axis of one support with respect to the other. This differential rotation causes
torsional forces on the arch barrel, causing a crack at an oblique direction or diagonally from
the right edge of one springing to the left edge of the opposite springing. Thus, in addition to the
massive reduction of capacity that is caused by this cracking in the arch barrel, the thrusts and
resulting increase in stresses will be concentrated in the narrower springing.
Figure 3.33: Diagonal cracking on the arch barrel due to a differential rotation of the piers
Transverse cracks in arch barrel
The presence of transverse cracks that turn an arch into a three pinned structure, although it may
seem dangerous at first, it is not necessarily an uncontrolled symptom of insufficient load carrying
capacity, but the expected final and normal structural response of these structures to particular
actions. The existence of such a crack should be recorded in the examination report in order that
the effect on the load carrying capacity may be assessed and in order to study its evolution (if
necessary, monitoring systems can be put in place).
When the centring was removed during construction, an arch barrel was required to carry its
own weight, causing moments at the voússoir, elastic deformations under compression and
also, horizontal pressure was transmitted to the base of the abutments which could have caused
horizontal movements. All these phenomena tend to turn the arch barrel into a three pinned
structure with hinges both at the springing and at the crown of the arch, resulting in transverse
cracks that can be visible on the intrados at the crown.
43
Transverse crack in arch barrel. Mono–arch mechanism.
It is generally accepted that in masonry arch bridges, the compression strength of stone - or brick,
although to a lesser extent – is greater than the general level of stress in an arch barrel. So, it can
be accepted that, generally, the collapse of a single masonry arch barrel will occur because of the
formation of a mechanism. Thus, generally although not always four hinges may form for collapse
to occur under the application of live load. Figure 3.34 illustrates a collapse configuration.
Figure 3.34: Configuration of collapse by formation of hinges. (4 in a one-arch mechanism)
Transverse crack in arch barrel. Shear mechanism
The formation of a shear mechanism is a very infrequent occurrence which is usually caused by
foundation settlement. (See Figures 3.13 and 3.35).
Figure 3.35: Configuration of collapse by the formation of hinges and shear (3 + 1)
Transverse crack in arch barrel. Multi arch mechanism
A multi-arch mechanism will result in seven hinges, as shown in Figure 3.36.
44
Figure 3.36: Configuration of collapse by the formation of seven hinges in a n multi arch
mechanism
Loss or displacement of arch material
The origin of this type of damage (Figure 3.37) can be either due to load actions or to durability,
or both). If the origin of the damage is due to insufficient load carrying capacity, it is usually a
symptom of movements of the supports at the springing of the arch barrel, causing loss of axial
force in the arch barrel, or due to heavy local impact loading near the crown of the arch barrel
when the depth of fill over the crown is small (less than 0.40 m).
Figure 3.37: Dropped stones in a stone arch barrel
Mechanical failure of masonry in arch barrel (masonry micro cracking failure: shear, axial and
shear-axial criteria)
It has been already described how collapse usually happens by the formation of mechanisms
in masonry arch bridges. In some particular cases collapse may occur however due to material
failure. This is the case, for example, for very slender and short span shallow arch barrels where
the level of compression stresses is high and it has increased greatly due to changes in the
conditions of use (in these bridges the proportion of thrust due to live loads is greater than that
from the dead load). Therefore, in such cases the critical limit is the strength capacity of the
masonry material.
45
As for piers, the verification of this type of failure must take into account the possible existence of
bending and shear thrusts. This is not usual on long spans with shallow arch barrels, since the centre
of the pressure line will be in the centre of the arch section and bending moments and shear forces
are negligible.
Figure 3.38 shows an example of mechanical failure of masonry where the predominant force
is compression and the bond is orthogonal to the direction of thrust. The generalised failure is
characterised by cracks that are parallel to the direction of compression.
Figure 3.38: Mechanical failure of masonry. Criteria I
The interaction however between axial bending and shear forces could become determinant, even
if not very frequent. Accordingly, brick masonry is the most likely to have this type of damage (poor
material properties).
Figure 3.39: Mechanical failure of masonry. Criteria II
46
When the compression force orthogonal to the joint is small, sliding between the stones or bricks can
occur without failure of the material. Figure 3.40 is a good example of this situation.
Figure 3.40: Mechanical failure of masonry. Criteria III
Piers
Vertical cracking on pier
This type damage requires immediate attention. It is a warning of an impending and catastrophic
collapse due to material failure.
In this case, the damage is fatal due to the collapse mode. Fortunately, it is unusual, since piers
are normally subjected to stresses that are much lower than the compression strength of the
material of construction. However, an increase in loads, coupled with the deterioration of exterior
masonry as well as the interior fill, can lead these essential elements to collapse. This normally
applies to tall slender piers.
Although failure may be imminent, some warning symptoms can be usually detected that will
enable adequate steps to be taken. The warning signs are usually vertical cracks with bits of
masonry breaking off and falling, damaged pier edges due to the concentration of the compression
thrust, or whether it is detected after an endoscope test, leaching and loss of cement infill from
the interior of the pier.
When confirmed, the strength capacity of piers is determined by the interaction among axial,
shear and bending thrusts. Bending forces can play a dominant role in case of transverse actions,
wind or a very strong hydraulic pressure.
In other cases, it is common for bridges with undermined foundations to also have differential
settlement of the pier and therefore vertical cracks in the pier. (Figure 3.41)
47
Figure 3.41: Vertical cracking on pier
Stepped (stair) cracks
This damage is associated with rotation of a foundation on the horizontal and longitudinal axis of
the pier.
It usually occurs when there is a local failure of the foundation of the pier due to rotation in plane
of the pier or due to differential settlement of the ends and the centre of the pier.
It is also caused by torsion in the vertical axis induced on the pier in skew bridges.
Figure 3.42: Stepped crack on a pier
Vertical cracks between cutwater and pier
This failure is revealed when, due to foundation problems, cutwaters that are not constructed
homogenously with the pier are separated when the pile rotates or settles.
48
Figure 3.43: Vertical cracking between pier and cutwater
Abutments
Vertical crack in abutment
This damage has similar causes and symptoms to vertical cracks in piers. It is normally localised
to the centre of the abutment.
Figure 3.44: Vertical crack in an abutment
Horizontal cracks
Horizontal cracks are common in the centre of the abutments of very shallow bridges (rise-span
ratio < 1/6) when the abutments are not able to withstand the horizontal thrust transmitted by the
arch barrel.
49
Figure 3.45: Horizontal cracking in an abutment
Spandrel walls
Bulging of spandrel walls
This problem is due to excessive earth pressure from the fill and water retained by the spandrel
wall, and also the horizontal component of ballast and live loads. This damage is characteristic
of bridges with deep but not very wide arch barrels with a large depth fill over the crown. (Figure
3.46)
Figure 3.46: Bulging of spandrel walls
Sliding of spandrel walls
This damage typically occurs when the pressure from the fill, coupled with the horizontal
force due to retained water, ballast and external actions is greater than the stabilising
action of the dead load of the spandrel wall multiplied by the friction coefficient of the joint.
50
It is very important to know the bond employed to connect the spandrel wall to the arch barrel
and the actual width of the spandrel at the extrados of the arch. This damage is characteristic of
bridges with deep but not very wide arch barrels and a large depth of fill over the crown.
Figure 3.47: Sliding of spandrel wall
Spandrel wall rotation
Spandrel wall rotation is due to the applied overturning moment due to the backfill, water, live
loads, etc., is greater than the stabilising moment. It is characteristic of narrow bridges with
shallow and deep arch barrels and with a large depth of fill.
Figure 3.48: Spandrel wall rotation
Stepped cracks in spandrel walls
This type of damage is a result of the tendency of an arch barrel to become a three or four
pinned arch, sometimes because of arch sagging following premature removal of supports after
construction of the arch or the movement of the arch barrel.
51
Figure 3.49: Stepped crack in a spandrel wall
Wing and side walls
Rotation and bulging
The considerations for spandrel walls are also valid for wing and side walls. The origin of this type
of damage can be inefficient or no drainage in the backfill, such as may be caused by obstructed
weep-holes, increases the horizontal pressure on the walls which results in rotation or bulging of
the wall. (Figure 3.50)
Figure 3.50: Rotation and bulging of wing and side walls
Vertical crack in the joint between the abutment and wing and side walls.
This type of damage is due to differential movement of the wall elements. The abutment is joined
to the spandrel wall and the arch barrel, whilst the wing and side walls have free horizontal
movement, particularly at the top. Most vertical cracks have an with increasing width with
increasing height of the joint between the abutment and the walls. (Figure 3.51)
52
Figure 3.51: Vertical crack at the joint between the abutment and the wing or side walls
Stepped cracks
This type of failure is due to differential settlement in the plane of the wing or side wall. (Figure 3.52)
Figure 3.52: Stepped cracks on wing or side walls
3.2.3. Damages that affect durability
3.2.3.1. Introduction
There is a wide range and a large number of damages on masonry

arch bridges that affect the durability of the materials used in their
construction, and thus, these damages are caused by different
processes of deterioration and progressive changes to the materials
employed in the arch construction.
It is important to point out that masonry structures, particularly

well bonded stone masonry, has excellent durability, better than
structures built with other materials, such as reinforced concrete or
steel. This is because masonry is normally chemically inert. These
aged structures, in some cases more than 150 years old, may,
however reveal serious deterioration with time that can affect the
safety of these structures if it is not controlled and stabilised.
53
Therefore, the study, description and classification of these types of damage is justified by the
following:
Nowadays, it is generally agreed by Engineers that the durability of structures should be considered
during all stages of their life (design, construction and maintenance).
It is logical, therefore, to analyse durability in arch structures built more than a century ago.
Conversely, deterioration due to weathering or changes in material chemicals that have no

immediate effect on the load carrying behaviour, can be the cause of other serious damages
or lead to damage that puts the strength capacity of the structure into doubt. The age of these
structures and how the damage may spread should be borne in mind.
Generally, it is not easy to understand the load carrying behaviour of these structures, and there
is a marked ignorance of effect of the deterioration and weathering phenomena that occurs in
masonry. On occasions, damage due to insufficient load carrying capacity or affecting structural
resistance have been mistaken for damage affecting durability and vice versa.
Many studies have analysed the effect of mechanical behaviour of masonry and the petrological
properties on the deterioration processes. Thus, there is no classification system that clearly
differentiates the nature and origin of the most common damages on these structures and
which identifies and explains the different processes that occur. On one hand, damages are
caused by material degradation and chemical changes in the material, whilst on the other hand,
damages affect structural resistance. This document tries to mitigate, as far as possible, this
gap by explaining material deterioration and alteration mechanisms and processes for the most
commonly used masonry as well as describing their causes and appearance.
The approach for the analysis of damages on these structures that affecting durability is similar to
the approach used for the analysis of the damages affecting structural resistance and load carrying
capacity.
Firstly, the effect of external actions on the masonry was studied and classified:
1. Environmental actions: effect of climate and pollution.
2. Biological actions (moss, lichen, vegetation, etc)
3. Human actions: vandalism as well as previous inadequate interventions and accidents.
Secondly, a material study was carried out, paying special attention to the mineral and chemical
composition of materials rather than the mechanical properties of masonry.
Thirdly, the deterioration mechanisms which cause the damage are described.
Finally, the appearance of damage caused by material alteration and deterioration has been
analysed and studied and analogous to damages affecting structural resistance, they correspond to
the resulting appearance of damage that affects load carrying capacity (cracks, etc)
54
This approach for the analysis of deterioration and damages associated with loss of durability, maybe
not be similar to the usual approach in fields like chemistry or geology, but is directly related to the
way of thinking and working of the Engineer maintaining these structures.
Actions
Manifestations or
Appearance
damages of Resulting
damages
Materials
Mechanisms
Deterioration
Of
phenomena
deterioration
• Description
• Intervening Variables
• Development and evolution
• Correction
Figure 3.53: Sketch of the methodology used for the study of damages affecting durability
In Figure 3.53 a sketch of the method followed in this study is shown.
3.2.3.2. Actions
Masonry arch bridges, as well as the majority of masonry structures have shown their value through the years. In
addition to displaying a great capacity of blending into the landscape, they have a great capacity for adapting to
changes in the environment and use. These structures have exhibited good durability in spite of poor maintenance.
They have lasted in good condition for many years, even though they have been subjected to accidental actions,
as well as actions which only have a small effect on the bridge, but which have to be taken into account since
they are applied constantly throughout the years, and may affect their stability.
Actions belonging to the second group have been studied and classified in Figure 3.54 according to their nature.
Figure 3.54: Classification of the actions
55
Environmental actions
Environmental actions have a continuous interaction with the structure. It is possible to make a
distinction between those actions that are due to the climate (climatic actions) and those that are the
result of pollutants in the environment (actions due to pollution).
Generally for masonry arch bridges, taking into account their usual environment, actions due to
pollution are not very important when compared to climatic actions, except for those cases where the
bridge is located in an urban or aggressive (factory surroundings, polluted river, etc) environment.
Climatic actions
In general, UIC countries have a large range of climates. Therefore, there are different types of
climatic actions that can cause significant deterioration according to the masonry used and the local
conditions. With regard to climatic actions, the main actions are:
Thermal: temperature variations are the direct or indirect cause of significant phenomena such as
mechanical and chemical weathering.
Water: water action and humidity changes are the main cause of deterioration of masonry. The
effects include washing out of joint material, dissolution of the internal cement, hydration of salts,
transportation of harmful agents, mineral carbonation of stone, etc.
Water can go upwards by capillary action and start the deterioration processes on the lower
parts of piers and arch barrels. Water is present in most chemical and mechanical deterioration
phenomena in masonry. Rain is another source of water that can cause serious deterioration.
Wind: the action of the wind and the particles carried on it cause degradation of the surface, the
significance of which depends on the nature of both materials (the materials in the wind and the
structure) and the type of exposure of the structure.
Ice: Action caused by the freeze- thaw cycles causes a significant mechanical deterioration of materials with
small open pores. This mechanism of deterioration is described in more detail later in this document.
Figure 3.55: Example of frost action in a existing crack. Actions due to pollution.
56
Firstly, it is important to emphasise, that the majority of pollution agents are normal components of
the atmosphere. The pollution is due to an alteration in the concentration, only NO2 has a human
origin.
There are several pollution agents present on the atmosphere, such as, CO2, SO2, NO2, NO, O3,
hydrocarbons (HC) and particles carried in the wind.
Sulphur compounds come from fossil fuels, coal, and combustible oil (engine combustion, central
heating and thermal power stations) and from the chemical industry. This is the case of sulphur
dioxide SO2, that can be transformed firstly to SO3 with the presence of catalyst and oxidants (light,
humidity, etc), and then to sulphuric acid in presence of water.
Nitrogen compounds come from vehicles exhaust and the electric discharge from thunder, and in
general, from processes that occur at high temperature in the atmosphere.
Hydrocarbons come from operations connected to fuel, burning of fields, fires, evaporation of organic
solvents and natural digestion processes in animals.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that has appeared due to improvements in the combustion processes
which has introduced more nitrogen oxide in to the atmosphere, which together with hydrocarbons
and in presence of sun light, causes the formation of a photo-chemical oxidant, of which ozone is
the most common.
Finally, particles carried in the wind come from forest and other fires, etc. Their chemical nature
depends on their origin.
It is very difficult to quantify the actual damage that these agents cause on masonry structures
and to know at what level of concentration deterioration of masonry occurs as well as the speed
of deterioration. Studies about pollution focus on discovering which pollution levels are harmful for
human health. There are also some specific studies of masonry behaviour in presence of these
harmful agents.
Qualitatively, the main pollution actions on masonry arch bridges are:
Sedimentation of particles on the surface
Chemical attack
Sulphur and nitrogen oxides can form strong acids (sulphuric and nitric acid) when they are combined
with water (water acidification). Water may chemically transform some types of masonry (such as,
stone with silicate or clay). These chemical alterations can cause soluble salt in water (sulphate
and carbonate) to precipitate on to the surface, generating efflorescence or, in the pores or internal
cracks producing crypto efflorescence. This salt crystallization, derived from the precipitation of salt,
is a mechanical action on masonry that may generate further significant damage.
57
Biological actions
This classification includes the actions of organisms such as bacteria, fungi, lichen, moss and
vegetation in general.
These actions usually are more harmful in other forms of masonry, for example, monumental façades
where the views of elevations are important.
The superficial results these actions generate are not very important with regard to masonry arch
bridges.
Associated damages are generally related to superficial degradation due to chemical changes on
the rock or brick surface.
There are however other indirect damages that should be taken into account since these degradations
can cause large damage, as for example, mechanical actions as pressure exerted by roots can
cause local failure of structural elements.
Bacteria and fungi
The life cycle of some bacteria leads to the formation of acids such as, in the case of bacilli that
generate sulphuric acid from the natural sulphurs present on the stone or from pollutants. Levels of
bacteria exceeding ten thousand per gram can be considered aggressive. The damage associated
to this action usually is the formation of sulphates and black crusts.
In the case of nitrification bacteria, nitric acid erodes the stone without formation sulphur or black
crusts. In this case, the associated damage is surface deterioration, although the degradation
mechanism still has a chemical nature.
In general, other types of bacteria and fungi generate organic acids which have harmful effects for
stone material and bricks over time in a developing chemical deterioration process.
It is important to take into account the interaction of products applied during different treatments with
an existing biological colony. These products frequently have an organic base and can be the food
for bacterial or fungal colonies which reduces the effectiveness of the planned protection.
Lichen
The presence of lichen is common on exposed stone surfaces, provided that the atmosphere is not
polluted. They generally cause decomposition of the outer layer of the stone to a depth of several
millimetres. This decomposition is caused by oxalic acid generated by the lichen and which can
cause calcium oxalate and thus the formation of stains.
Normally, lichen is slow growing, but additionally, there is no clear agreement whether it is advisable
or not to eliminate lichen, since, although the external layer of the stone decomposes, the lichen
becomes a protective element because it forms a constant humidity and water resistant layer.
58
Moss
The reason these organisms are considered together is that they have a common denominator,
humid conditions to grow.
Unlike waterweed, that hardly causes any degradation as it only spoils the external appearance of
masonry, moss in alkaline conditions (on lime mortar or concrete) can deteriorate the surface to a
depth of one millimetre.
Vegetation
The roots of vegetation exert pressure on masonry by opening cracks and splitting the stones or
bricks. Further, this damage which is associated with mechanical phenomena can also result in
chemical deterioration processes.
Human actions
In this classification, the actions caused by humans are included. There are three groups:
Acts of vandalism
Vandalism includes graffiti or arson that generally affects the surface of masonry. Graffiti only spoils
the appearance of the structure.
Fire
The damage depends on its duration and intensity and the type of masonry. It normally affects the
outer layer of the masonry.
Accidents
Unfortunately, it is common to find damage caused by vehicle impact (bridge strikes) with the
structure. Normally, these collisions are due to insufficient clearance, and the result is that it causes
local deterioration of the main structural element of the bridge, the arch barrel.
Previous interventions
Occasionally, previous interventions may cause significant deterioration. These interventions may
be due to works to modernise the route (railway electrification) or to repair degradation. An ignorance
of the ultimate cause of the damage to be repaired, together with the ignorance of the compatibility
between new and existing materials, can cause further damage or speed up the rate of deterioration
causing the existing damage.
59
3.2.3.3. Materials
Masonry is a composite material and its behaviour is governed by the properties of its components
and their interrelationship. It is significant that masonry is intrinsically a strong anisotropic material,
but the existence of vertical and horizontal joints which affects not only the mechanical behaviour
but also the durability is much more significant. Moreover, its properties are very sensitive to the
constructive conditions.
The constituent parts are: pieces (bricks or stone), mortar, or in some instances no mortar, and the
adherence between surfaces.
Pieces
Generally, pieces are classified as stone or brick. The usual dimensions for these elements are
different. Stones are larger, and are normally sized with equal dimensions or in relation 1/1/3 as
maximum. On the contrary, bricks are smaller and they have dimensions in the approximate ratio
2/4/8.
This difference in shape and size influences the mechanical behaviour of both elements as
demonstrated in many studies but it also influences the durability of masonry.
The presence of a larger number of joints in brick masonry represents a great number of weak
points, but it also provides a quick and easier path for removal of water.
In addition, generally, stones have (except for some exceptional cases such as porous sandstone or
limestone) better durability than bricks.
Some data related to the stones are presented in table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Values of specific densities of pieces in kN/m³ according to different references. [2]
Type of Ira Baker Camuñas Hütte Arredondo PIET UIC2
stone Min-med-max Medium Min-max Min-max Min-max
Granite 25-26-28 28 23-27 26-27 26-30 26-28
Limestone 23-25-27 23 19-28 24-28 20 26-28
Sandstone 19-22-24 23 19-27 23-29 - 20-26
Marble 25-27-28 27 19-28 27-28 - -
Type / Quality
UIC Ponts en maçonnerie [3]
of the brick
1 Smooth brick 17-19 Inferior quality 14
2 Medium brick 19-21 Medium quality 14-18
3 Tough brick 20-22 Good quality 14-18
4 Clinker brick 21-23 Excellent quality 18-22
2. Values from UIC leaflet 778-3 Ed. 1995, Annex 2
60
Stone
Settings can be classified in accordance with the criteria referring to its origin: sedimentary, igneous
or metamorphic. Included in the group of sedimentary rocks are sandstone and limestone. Included
within the group of the igneous rocks are basalt and acidic rocks such as granite. Finally, metamorphic
stones include quartzite, gneiss and marble.
Although all these types of stone have been used for the construction of arch bridges, the most
common stones used on masonry arch bridges due to their mechanical properties, availability, and
performance are granite, sandstone and limestone.
Granite
Granite is a coarse grained granular plutonic rock. Granites are composed of light minerals (quartz,
alkali-feldspars, biotite, muscovite and plagioclase) and to a lesser extent by dark minerals (black
mica and amphibole).
Granite is granular in texture with grains that are joined one to each other without any voids
between them. Generally, crystalline granite is used in masonry arches and these rocks have
low porosity, except if they have micro fissure or are altered as a result of igneous activity or rock
weathering. Within the granular structure, some grains, such as the plagioclase feldspar and
micas, keep their crystalline shape, whilst others usually fit together without any particular shape,
filling the gaps between the grains of quartz and potassium feldspar. The size of the grain can
vary between less than one millimetre in thin varieties, to several millimetres. They are normally
homogeneous from a granular point of view except for those of porphyry in which the white
feldspar crystal is larger than those in the general matrix of the rock.
The high mechanical performance (maximum compression strength, modulus of elasticity, etc.)
together with the relative ease of obtaining stone with a plain morphology, and its durability due
to the lack of porosity and its mineral nature, makes granite an ideal stone to be employed in
construction of arches. The high quality of this construction material enables its use and influence
to extend to areas far from its geological outcrop.
Normally, rock weathering starts with physical aggression caused by salt crystallisation or the
freeze - thaw cycle. This changes the porosity of the rock and promotes chemical changes. The
former is faster and more intense in polluted acid atmospheres in which feldspar can undergo
hydrolysis.
The most characteristic damage to this rock type is spalling of the external layer by a few millimetres
due to salt attack which can result in the rock being converted to sand when the mineral grains are
divided by the caolinisation of feldspar.
Sandstone
Sandstone is a sedimentary rock in which dominantly clastic rocks are bonded together with a
compacted matrix or a chemical cement or, dominantly crystalline rocks constituted of crystalline
aggregates. Sandstone is a lithified arenaceous rock composed dominantly of quartz and feldspar
fragments with cemented by silica minerals, iron minerals or calcite.
61
In the case of sandstone, rocks are composed by minute

fragments of quartz, with or without feldspar, depending
on the variety with arkose, calcite, calcarenite, fossils
and other minerals in lesser proportions. The cement
can be siliceous, carbonated, or even ferruginous. In
addition to the grains and cement, clay can be found
in the matrix of some rocks, and the grains can contain
not only minerals but fragments of conglomerate
(Graywacke). When the grains are larger, and
fragments of other stones occur more frequently, these
rocks are known as conglomerates. Their shades and
tones usually are brownish, yellowish or reddish.
The properties and porosity of sandstone depends mainly on the type of cement, since the grains
are inert. Generally, these rocks have a variable but high porosity. In addition, their sensitivity to
salt attack or freezing depends on the size and shape of the pores. The presence of clay has an
influence on the potential changes, as for example, a cause of some deterioration processes is
when it is ground to a powder in the presence of water.
Limestone
Limestone is another sedimentary rock, which may be formed chemically, biologically or

mechanically. This rock is likely to be the most commonly used in masonry arch bridges
construction, as it is very easy to work due to the lack of hardness of its minerals and, because
of its good mechanical performance. Limestone contains a high percentage of calcium carbonate
as either calcite or aragonite.
Constituent parts can be clasts of limestone, coral reef, fossil, ooliths or pellets. The material
between grains can be a matrix of very small grains of limestone mud or thick grain of calcite
cement. In some compacted varieties the grains are bonded in a micrite (lime mud) matrix, a dull
looking sediment of clay sized crystalline calcite which forms cement.
Mechanical features (both strength and durability) vary widely from one variety to another depending to the
variation in porosity. Granular limestone is easier to work but is weaker than compact limestone.
Limestone masonry usually deteriorates by changes in the chemical composition due to acids
since calcium carbonate (the main component of limestone) is dissolved by sulphur dioxide,
which forms sulphur acid and which leaves gypsum (CaSO4 + H2O) and releases carbon
dioxide. Additionally, the resulting gypsum is compatible with several hydration stages, and can
be mechanical aggressive to the rock. The CO2 also attacks and dissolves limestone when the
carbonate is transformed from insoluble calcium into bicarbonate which is soluble.
Brick
Brick is used for construction in many countries, Spain, United Kingdom, etc. The use
of brick does not depend very much on the locality of the clay but its manufacture.
62
The manufacturing process has been subjected to important changes from the initial steps of
civilisation to the present day but the basic principles remain the same: the correct combination
of clay, fire and water. Basically, brick is fired clay, and thus, the material properties (strength as
well as durability) will depend on the drying and firing cycle.
Due to porosity, brick can be particularly sensitive to the freeze - thaw cycle and to crystallisation
of soluble salts (for example, sulphate attacks from cement mortar).
The characteristic deterioration of this material is the spalling of the surface and the subsequent
spalling and arenization of the interior. It is very frequent the formation of hollows and honeycombs
in poorly fired bricks. This effect can be explained by the strength of the exterior of the brick
developed during the firing and the weakness of the interior. As soon as the exterior surface
disappears erosion affecting the interior of the brick can progress very quickly.
Mortar
Mortar is a perfectly plastic material when placed. It hardens within a few hours of being placed
and becomes rigid in time. Mortar has two main functions in masonry:
Regularises the seating of the blocks and a uniform distribution of loads.
Collaborate to lead the horizontal thrusts to the foundation if necessary.
Mortar is composed of sand, a hydraulic (or non hydraulic) cement and water. De Vekey [4] states
that the optimum level of plasticity is obtained with a 1:3 proportion of cement/sand. The mortar
used in early railway arch construction usually contained a reactive component lime (CaO) together
with other impurities that are present in the limestone used to obtain, by heating, caustic lime.
Impurities come from clay, silica and aluminium give lime hydraulic properties when compounds
such as silicate or calcium aluminium are formed. These compounds are also in Portland cement.
When limestone used to make lime did not have any impurities, and clay or pozzolanas have not
been added, the lime will be non hydraulic. In this case, the hardness is derived entirely from the
carbonation process in which the lime turns into calcium carbonate with time. In some regions rich
in gypsum, this material was used to form mortar instead of, or mixed with, the lime.
Mortar is generally the “weakest” element of masonry and the least rigid. It is the cause of large
instantaneous deformation of masonry arches and their overall deformation. The mortar is
responsible for the shrinkage caused by the dryness of the masonry, but also it is responsible for
the loss of water from the masonry.
According to research between 60 and 80% of the total settlement of a masonry wall (including
the instantaneous and differential settlement) occurs in the bed of mortar. If one considers that
in brick masonry the thickness of the mortar is 15% of the total and for stone masonry between
2 – 5%, it can be concluded that deformation of the mortar is much greater than that of bricks or
stones. These figures show the importance of the behaviour of mortar in the masonry.
63
3.2.3.4. Description of mechanisms of deterioration
The different actions above can cause deterioration and degradation in materials.
These processes of deterioration and degradation can be divided in two groups depending on whether
or not they are chemical changes in the material. The process of chemical transformation originates
on the surface as well as in the interior whilst processes without any chemical transformation only
originate on the masonry surface.
Processes of deterioration which do not alter the chemical composition of masonry
Mechanical weathering by the action of the wind
Particles carried by the wind impact on the masonry causing erosion by abrasion. The abrasion is
dependent upon, on one hand, the kinetic energy of the particle which is also dependent on its mass
and velocity and, conversely, on the nature of the material with which it comes into contact. The size
of the particle depends on the velocity of the wind, which is a climatic variable and the locality of the
bridge.
The most common effect is surface deterioration as well as generation and development of
honeycombs. It is important to point out that together with salt crystallisation, wind has a great
capacity for destruction.
Mechanical weathering by the action of ice
Water is absorbed into the pores and cracks of masonry. When this freezes, it can be a very significant
destructive force because, the water volume increases by up to 9%, with a corresponding pressure
increase to 100 MPa. This increase in volume can cause cracking that when advanced can lead to
the disintegration of the stone. This effect is greater if the temperature falls below freezing abruptly.
When freezing occurs depends on the size and shape of the pores of the stone. If the pores are small
the heat reduction needed will be less, since greater heat loss is necessary to cause freezing with
increasing volume of water. There are other theories however related to thermo dynamic conditions
that justify this decrease of the temperature necessary for freezing.
In addition to consideration of freezing of the water inside the stone, the density of the stone material
also has an effect on when freezing occurs.
Mechanical weathering caused by weather changes
Sudden temperature changes can cause damage with the detachment and loss of surface layers
from the stones. This phenomenon can be explained by two simultaneous mechanisms. Firstly, the
low thermal conductivity of the material makes the outer surface layers of the stones subject to a
higher temperature than the inner part. This causes differential expansion in the stone that generates
tangential stresses. When this exceeds the maximum tangential stress of the material, spalling may
occur.
64
Conversely, the different coefficients of expansion of the minerals, including the water within the
pores, causes internal stresses that can also lead to similar damage as described above. Further,
there are very anisotropic minerals such as carbonates, an essential component of limestone, which
have different expansion coefficients according to the direction of the stone.
Mechanical weathering caused by hydration (water expansion)
This phenomenon results from changes in the level of the saturation of a stone. Water enters the
stone through pores and cracks by capillary action with a meniscus whose ratio increases according
to the quantity of water absorbed causing an increase in the density of the stone. If the pores or
cracks contain clay, or the stone is made from materials with clay, the size of the cracks will be
increased by the forces generated between the two adjacent sheets of clay.
Weathering caused by salt crystallization
Soluble salts have a double effect on masonry. On the one hand they cause chemical degradation
when their components react, and, on the other hand, and more significantly, the crystallisation of
soluble salts causes mechanical weathering due to the expansion processes that occur inside the
pores.
65
Soluble salts in the porous system of a stone can have different origins, and can come from:
1. Attacks on the stone by acid pollutants in the atmosphere. This is so for calcium carbonates which
revert to gypsum from carbonated stones, and for hydrolysed feldspar in which alkali and calcium
are released that together with the sulphate ions result in soluble salts.
2. The stone originally as components.
3. Materials used in previous interventions, such as Portland cement mortar that contains soluble
salts. There are other cases where inadequate treatments have been carried out such as for
example alkaline or acidic cleaning or use of other products for masonry consolidation or water
resistance that can contain compounds which eventually form soluble salts.
4. Capillary action of water that carries soluble salts from road salts, vegetation treatments, etc.
The phenomenon occurs when soluble salts in solution in the pores of the stone crystallise as the
water evaporates. If evaporation occurs slowly, as when the level of humidity external to the stone is
not very low, it generates efflorescence and crusts or stains (superficial deterioration) on the surface,
according to the nature of the salts. If evaporation occurs quickly the crystallization takes part in the
interior of the pores, and crypto-efflorescence and hard crusts are formed.
In this second case, it is possible, for the crypto-efflorescence to cause significant mechanical
deterioration, since large changes in pressure occurs when the humidity increases. These pressure
changes on the walls of the pores cause fatigue failure of the stone. If this process is repetitive, it
can cause the formation of a very weak material (almost sand) under a hard crust that eventually
peels off.
Figure 3.56
The formation of crypto-efflorescence is common on surfaces exposed to the wind, where evaporation
is quick.
The formation of honeycombs is a usual mechanism of deterioration associated with salt crystallisation
combined with the action of wind. In exposed areas of bridges, the point of evaporation occurs
immediately under the surface of the masonry due to the action of the wind.
66
Moreover, if the drainage system of the bridge is not working properly, which it is not uncommon, the
water from the fill may flow from the extrados to the intrados using masonry joints as the normal flow
path. Somewhere along the internal water flow towards the point of evaporation, deterioration of the
material starts and a honeycomb may occur. Once the process has been started, wind circulates in
the gap to speed up the process. The most dangerous salts are sodium and magnesium sulphates.
MgSO4 • 6H2O
Na2SO4 • 10H2O
The main variables in this phenomenon of deterioration are the size and shape of the pores, similar
to deterioration from the freeze- thaw process. Very large pores allow crystallisation to occur, and the
pores allow several states of hydration since the meniscus moves to the interior at same time as the
point of evaporation. The walls of the pores are like sieves but are not filled with crystals and thus
they do not generate stresses. Only the thinnest pores are seriously affected.
Damage caused by vegetation
The mechanical action of roots can be very harmful for structural elements of masonry arch bridges,
which can be covered by all types of trees and bushes. Vegetation roots can cause cracks and
displacement of stones, or even their loss from the bridge.
Figure 3.57: Examples of vegetation on masonry arch bridges
67
Processes of deterioration that can alter the chemical composition of masonry
These processes are characterised by the reaction that governs the chemical change, which depends
on the composition of the minerals and on the flow of water as well as on the particles in solution.
Water is the most important element related to chemical deterioration of masonry due to its high
dipolar moment when water is a solvent and due to the capacity of its molecules to form links of
hydrogen between elements.
Weathering due to dissolving elements
This is the most important chemical phenomenon as it affects almost all types of masonry (solution
of carbonate, sandstone cement, gypsum, etc).
An example that shows the great importance of this phenomenon, is the dissolving of sandstone
cement. Rain water can dissolve CO2 in the atmosphere forming carbonic acid. This increases the
acid level of the atmosphere and the ability of the water to dissolve calcium carbonate (normally used
as the sandstone cement) and transforms it into soluble calcium bicarbonate.
Weathering caused by carbonation
Phenomena associated with carbonation are not usually dangerous but can be an indication of the
presence of other more harmful phenomena.
The main component of limestone and sandstone with calcareous cement is calcium carbonate
(calcite) and thus, they are the most likely to develop this phenomenon. In this process, it is essential
to analyse the three chemical reactions that occur. These reactions must be in equilibrium.
1. Dissolving of carbonate in the stone is governed by the following reaction:
CO2 + H2O = H+ + HCO-3
This reaction occurs when the temperature decreases and pressure increases.
2. The presence of calcium leads to:
CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O = Ca2+ + 2HCO3- = Ca(HCO3)2
This reaction occurs when the pressure of CO2 in water increases and when the temperature
decreases.
3. Finally, the acidity of the water determines the effect of SO4 on the stone
SO42- + 2H+ + CaCO3 = CaSO4 + CO2 + H2O
Therefore, acidic waters with CO2 and cold water are the most likely to chemically attack carbonate
stones.
68
Weathering by levigation of the clay
The blending (levigation) of clay in a matrix of sandstone is due to the polar properties of the clay
and the water. The molecules of water have the ability to find their way between the layers of the clay
causing its separation. This action contributes to the collapse of the mineral structure of the stone
providing that a clay matrix is a significant proportion of the stone.
3.2.3.5. Appearance of resulting damages
Finally, damage found on masonry arch bridges is described, once the actions as well as the materials
and processes of degradation in masonry have been described.
They have been classified in three main groups depending on the depth and significance of the
damage.
Damages coming from a bad durability
Superficial changes Stains
Moss, lichen an other fungal growths
Efflorescence
Crust and superficial deposits
Differential surface weathering
Honeycombing or blistering
Loss of material Loss of material from joints and masonry
Failures or disjunction Damages from Vegetation growth
Solar weathering
Damages due to human action Vandalism: graffiti, fire , etc.
Previous works
Vehicle Impacts (bridge strikes)
Surface changes
Some superficial damage affects the external appearance of masonry. Generally, these damages do
not cause significant changes in the masonry structure or indicate that harmful processes are taking
part. Their origin can be chemical or mechanical, and they are classified as follows:
Stains: Stains are thin surface layers or films that are develop over the masonry, and are due to the
natural ageing of the masonry and atmospheric pollution, water, etc.
69
The most common stain is the black stain, which is due to a combination of micro organisms,
precipitated substances and particles from different gas or solid pollutants in the atmosphere. This
damage occurs most frequently in those areas of a bridge where, for several reasons, there is a
concentration of humidity. This is the case, for example, for areas of the arch barrel where water has
accumulated due to an inefficient drainage system, or under a drainage outlet on an arch barrel or
spandrel wall.
Other stains with other colours, such as, orange (oxalate) are due to previous protective treatments
(plaster, mortar, etc,).
Figure 3.58: Examples of stains
Moss, lichen and other fungal growths: These growths are generally of not significant and not
very deep and are related to biological actions. (Figure 3.59)
This damage usually occurs on favourable areas (south facing walls) for the growth of micro
organisms.
Figure 3.59: Examples of moss, lichen and fungal growth
70
Efflorescence and crypto efflorescence: These are the results of salt crystallisation. This
phenomenon occurs when soluble salts, present in solution in the porous system of the masonry,
crystallise. If evaporation occurs on the surface, efflorescence is generated, but if the evaporation
occurs before the salt reaches the surface, crypto efflorescence is formed.
The origin of the soluble salts is various, and can be because of the materials employed in previous
interventions, or due to the constituents of the stone, capillary action, etc.
The presence of efflorescence and crypto efflorescence is a sign that a chemical degradation process
is happening, which is generally not very dangerous, or that significant internal mechanical stresses
can be generated due to salt crystallisation which can seriously damage the stone.
Figure 3.60: Examples of efflorescence
Crusts: These are normally associated with the precipitation of carbonate. Carbonate crusts are
formed from, principally, the calcium carbonate coming out of solution either from mortar, from
cement backfill or from previous interventions.
Figure 3.61: Examples of crusts
Differential surface weathering: Differential deterioration can cause different levels of surface
degradation on masonry as a consequence of the heterogeneousness and anisotropy of this
composite material as well as a consequence of the differential incidence of weathering on the
material. Figure 3.62 shows examples of these types of damages.
71
Figure 3.62: Examples of damages by superficial deterioration
Formation of honeycombs and blisters: As already stated, a usual mechanism of deterioration

with salt crystallisation and the action of wind is the formation of honeycombs. This damage is often
detected in masonry susceptible to salt attack and in the areas subjected to the wind.
Figure 3.63: Examples of formation of honeycombs and blisters
72
Loss of material
This group includes all types of damage in which there is loss of masonry as a consequence of
various chemical and mechanical processes.
These damages are more serious and usually a sign of a significant deterioration process. The
nature of the process may be chemical, as for example, dissolving of sandstone or limestone which
can lead to the degradation of, or mechanical, as for example the crystallisation of salt that can
lead to the partial disintegration and loss of material, or both, such as in the case of formation of
honeycombs, even, usually, the mechanical weathering is the most harmful phenomenon. They can
be classified as follows:
Loss of material: joints and pieces: It is possible to lose joint material when water flows through the
mortar and, also, to lose the stones or bricks due to the combined action of chemical and mechanical
processes which for a bridge in an advanced state of deterioration can totally destroy the stones or
bricks.
The causes may be chemical or mechanical as described above. Occasionally, however if the
damage is local to the crown of the arch barrel, the damage may be as a result of impact due to the
live loads acting on the arch. This damage can result in dropped stones. Figures 3.64 and 3.65 show
different examples of this type of damage.
Figure 3.64: Damage caused by loss of material in joints and bricks or stones
The stages of this process are described below. Sandstone is sand cemented by natural processes.
This cement can be of different natures: normally is calcium carbonate but less frequently it can be
silica material, iron oxide, or on rare occasions other substances such as phosphates. Moreover,
the sandstones with carbonate cement are particularly sensitive to water flowing within the masonry.
Rain water dissolves CO2 in the atmosphere, transforming it into carbonic acid. This increases
the likelihood of the calcium carbonate being dissolved in the water to form soluble bicarbonate.
This calcium bicarbonate stays in solution until the water reaches the surface of the stone. Then, it
releases the CO2 and precipitates the calcium carbonate producing calcium concretions or crusts.
In nature, this phenomenon is how stalactites and stalagmites originate in limestone caves. On
masonry bridges, this phenomenon causes calcium crust on the arch barrel and the hardening of
the outer part of the sandstone by a similar mechanism. This presence of calcium crusts or of the
hardened outer part of the stone indicates that more significant damage is occurring, the dissolving
of the sandstone cement in the interior of the stone.
73
This internal degradation is caused by the cement dissolving due to the continuous percolation of
water, resulting in a dramatic reduction of the mechanical properties of the sandstone to such an
extent that the sandstone turns into sand.
Figure 3.65: Examples of dropped stones
Discontinuities
In this group, discontinuities with a non-resistance origin are described.
They can be classified as follows:
Cracks: The origin of cracks can be due to the result of growth of vegetation as is shown in Figure
3.66.
Laminations: Discontinuity of the stone parallel to its face. This involves separation of parts of the
stone into different sizes and shapes. They are referred to as delamination and spalling. Delamination
involves the lifting and separation of thin layers of the same nature as the stone parallel to the face
of the stone due to different mechanisms (thermal changes, freeze-thaw cycle). Spalling involves
breaking small flakes or chips from the surface.
Figure 3.66: Presence of plants on a bridge and resulting damage
74
In general, cracks are due to differential movements of the surface resulting from solar radiation
which causes spalling, from alternate wetting and drying, the freeze-thaw cycle and, by the pressure
of crystallisation and hydration of salts accumulated under the surface of the stones.
Figure 3.67: Examples of cracks from differential movement
Damages due to human action
Damages directly caused by human action may be grouped in accordance with the following
classification:
Acts of vandalism: fires, graffiti and intentional damage. Normally such damage is not serious and
affects the surface of the bridge (Figure 3.68).
Figure 3.68: Example of damage

due to vandalism
75
Previous interventions: Damage caused by previous work which has not taken into account
the long-term effect of the work on the structure. Some of this type of damage is a result of the
modernisation of the route.
Figure 3.69: Examples of damages due to pointing with cement mortar instead of lime mortar
Impacts: This is the term used for scores, gouges and displacement of stones caused by the impact
of vehicles on masonry arch bridges, in which the height of the vehicle is greater than the height of
the arch, or the vehicle has not moved to the centre of the road to pass under the bridge safely.
Figure 3.70: Damage caused by impacts from vehicles
76
Conclusions
4. Conclusions
Most of the problems found in this study were already known from previous studies in which there
have been attempts to link the mechanisms of deterioration to the damages.
Firstly, the most common processes which can be considered to be the reason for the problems in
the majority of cases will be described.
This analysis may not have detected all the possible phenomena, only the most common. Secondly
all the damages are listed below, classified according to their possible cause.
4.1. Mechanisms of deterioration

Processes related to foundation and superstructure damages are listed below:
Foundation damages
1. Mechanical erosive action of water which leads to:
loss of scour protection;
mechanical degradation of foundation;
chemical degradation by water containing sulphates or other salts.
Superstructure damages
2. Superstructure problems arising from foundation problems:
Differential longitudinal settlement between springing and arch barrel.
Longitudinal rotation of pier or abutment on the axis perpendicular to the tracks
Longitudinal settlement and longitudinal rotation of piers or abutment on the axis perpendicular
to the tracks
Transverse rotation along the track axis of a pier or abutment
Differential transverse settlement of pier or abutment
Relative movement between ends and centre of piers
3. Damages associated with skew bridges
4. Damages caused by dynamic loads on the arch barrel
77
5. Damages caused by rotation of abutment and wing or side walls due to excessive earth pressure
It is important to recognise that these damages can result in relative movements and cracking on
intermediate elements of the bridge, abutments, spandrel walls, wing walls, etc.
6. Damages arising from the use of the structure.
7. Damages caused by earth pressure and applied load surcharge on spandrels.
8. Damages caused by differences in relative stiffness between elements.
9. Damages caused by the construction process. These problems cannot be called construction
faults, but many of these structure problems can be only understood by analysing the differences
between apparently similar bridges and their construction.
three - hinges due to the removal of centring following construction;
differential response to rigid backfilling;
waterproofing;
different bonds between structural elements;
change in the internal thickness of elements.
10. Damages arising from previous interventions. Every intervention than could result in damage
and affect the behaviour of the structure has been included:
use of incompatible materials;
extensions or repairs which modified the management of water (changing the waterproofing
and the drainage system of the bridge);
changes which affected the permeability of the arch barrel (sprayed concrete coating to
intrados).
11. Changes in the durability in which there is no change in the chemical composition of the material.
In this category there are more damages and problems:
12. mechanical weathering by wind abrasion;
mechanical weathering by water externally and internally including damages from surface
water and water circulation internally as well as externally, which is one of the most significant
problems for these structures, especially on exposed elements;
mechanical weathering arising from the freeze – thaw cycle;
mechanical weathering due to thermal variations;
78
Conclusions
mechanical weathering due to salt crystallisation;
mechanical weathering due to water expansion;
damages caused by vegetation.
13. Changes in durability due to changes to the chemical composition of the material:
14. erosion caused by salts;
erosion caused by decomposition of carbonates;
erosion caused by levigation of clay.
4.2. List and classification of damages

The damages in masonry arch bridges may be classified as follows.
Foundation damages
Damages due to the degradation of the structural element
1. Local erosion of foundations
2. Irregular fissures on foundation elements
3. Abraded and rotten wooden piles
4. Corrosion of steel foundation elements
5. Loss of scour protection
Damages due to loss of foundation stability
6. General undermining (Scour)
7. Local undermining of piers
8. Local undermining of abutments
Superstructure damages
Damages that affect load carrying capacity
General
9. Mechanical failure of masonry
79
Arch barrel
10. Longitudinal crack in arch (centre)
11. Longitudinal crack in arch barrel under spandrel
12. Diagonal crack in arch barrel.
13. Transverse crack in arch barrel - Three- hinges
14. Transverse crack in arch barrel - Mono-arch mechanism
15. Transverse crack in arch barrel - Shear mechanism
16. Transverse crack in arch barrel - Multi-Arch mechanism
17. Loss or displacement of arch material
Piers
18. Vertical crack in pier
19. Stepped crack in pier
20. Vertical crack between cutwater and pier
Abutments
21. Vertical crack in abutment
22. Horizontal crack in abutment
Spandrel
23. Bulging of spandrel
24. Sliding of spandrel
25. Spandrel rotation
26. Stepped crack in spandrel
80
Conclusions
Wing and side walls
27. Rotation and bulging of wing or side wall
28. Vertical crack between abutment and wing or side wall
29. Stepped crack in wing or side wall
Damages due to a bad durability behaviour
Superficial modifications
Stains
30. Moss, lichen and fungal growths
31. Efflorescence
32. Crusts and superficial deposits
33. Differential surface weathering
34. Honeycombs or blisters
Loss of material
35. Loss of material from joints and masonry
External causes
36. Damage from vegetation growth
37. Solar weathering
Damages due to human action
Vandalism: graffiti, fire, etc.
38. Previous work
39. Vehicle impacts (bridge strikes)
81
References
[1] Failure of Shear-Stressed Masonry. An Enlarged Theory, Tests and Application to Shear Walls.
W. Mann, H. Müller. Proceedings of the British ceramic society. 1982
[2] Análisis estructural de puentes arco de fábrica. Criterios de comprobación. PHd, J. A. Martín-
Caro, E.T.S.I. Caminos, Canales y Puertos, UPM, 2001.
[3] “Les Ponts en maçonnerie”. Ministère des Transports de France. Direction des Routes, 1982.
[4] “Mortars in old buildings and in masonry conservation: A historical and practical treatise”. Lauren-
Brook Sickels, University of Edinburgh, 1988
[5] Code UIC 778-3 “Recommandations pour l’évaluation de la capacité portante des ponts-voûtes
existants en maçonnerie et béton”. Union Internationale des Chemins de fer, 1995
82
Annex 1
Annex 1
1. Local erosion of foundations
Damage identification Determination of the cross section of the riverbed

up and downstream
Usual location
Quantification of the level of materials deposited
Located on pier protection, and foundations of
on the riverbed
both piers and abutments
After inspection: off site
Possible associated damages
Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
Abraded or rotten wooden piles
into the effect of economical use of the river
Local undermining of pier/Local undermining of (dam, sand and stone extractions)
abutment
Analysis
Actions to be taken
Cause
During inspection: on site
Increase of hydraulic speed due to decrease of
Detailed visual inspection of the foundation river cross section or changes in the longitudinal
Determination of the type and dimensions of the profile of the river or flow in flood conditions
foundation Loss of scour protection to the bridge
Determination of soil type Structural importance
Subsequent inspection: underwater inspection Damage that affects durability, and which does
Determination of the longitudinal profile of the not have an immediate effect on the structural
riverbed integrity of the bridge. It is a sign, however, of
foundation problems that may result in serious
damage or catastrophic collapse.
83
2. Irregular fissures on foundation elements
Damage identification Determination of the cross section of the riverbed

up and downstream
Usual location
Located on pier protection, footings, arches and
on the riverbed
piers constructed in concrete
Determination of concrete type and cement used
None
(dosage, water-cement ratio, material quality),
and permeability level
Actions to be taken
Research source of sulphate ion (soil, masonry,
During inspection: on site contaminants)
Detailed visual inspection of concrete surfaces, Determination of aggregate type used in the
and areas with cracks and identification of concrete
cracking pattern
Search for delayed ettringite formation and Analysis
gypsum products resulting from sulphate attack
Cause
Identification of areas of local deformation and
Chemical reaction of sulphate and aluminium in
seepage and deposit of crystalline salt products
Portland concrete or other elements with Portland
Subsequent inspection: Underwater inspection clinker to produce expansive compounds
Determination of the longitudinal profile of the Incompatibility of alkali within cement or mortar
riverbed and their aggregates in water
Existence of sulphate in concrete
Very permeable concrete
Presence of water
Structural importance
Damage that affects durability, and which does
not have an immediate effect on the structural
integrity of the bridge. It is a sign, however, of
concrete deterioration that may result in serious
damage.
84
Annex 1
3. Abraded and rotten wooden piles
Damage identification After inspection: off site

Usual location Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
into the economical use of the river (dam, sand
Wooden piles and elements forming the
and stone extractions)
foundation to piers and abutments
Possible associated damages Analysis
Local erosion of foundation Cause
Local undermining of pier Increase of hydraulic speed due to decrease of
Local undermining of abutment river cross section or changes on the longitudinal
profile of the river or flow in flood conditions
Actions to be taken Loss of scour protection to the bridge
During inspection: on site Variation in river depths adjacent to piers and
Detailed visual inspection of the foundation abutments. Wooden elements may therefore
be subjected to alternate wet and dry conditions
Determination of soil type according to the flow of the river.
Subsequent inspection: Underwater inspection Structural importance
Determination of the longitudinal profile of the riverbed Damage that affects durability, and which does not
Determination of the cross section of the riverbed have an immediate effect on the structural integrity of
up and downstream the bridge. It is a sign, however, of foundation problems
that may result in serious damage.
on the riverbed
85
4. Corrosion of steel foundation elements
Damage identification Subsequent inspection: Underwater inspection

Usual location Determination of the longitudinal profile of the
riverbed
Sheet pile walls surrounding piers and abutments
Determination of the cross section of the riverbed
Joints where abutments and piers have been
up and downstream
widened
on the riverbed
Loss of foundation scour protection
Local undermining of pier/Local undermining of
abutment
General undermining and stone extraction)
Actions to be taken Analysis

During inspection: on site Cause
Detailed visual inspection of the foundation Loss of scour protection to the bridge
Determination of soil type Variation in river depths adjacent to piers and
abutments. Steel elements may therefore be
subjected to alternate wet and dry conditions
according to the flow of the river.
river cross section or changes on the longitudinal
profile of the river or flow in flood conditions
not have an immediate effect on the structural
integrity of the bridge. It is a sign, however, of
deterioration of protection to the foundation and
foundation problems that may result in serious
damage.
86
Annex 1
5. Loss of scour protection
Damage identification
Usual location into the economical use of the river (dam, sand
and stone extraction)
Around piers located in the river. The extent
depends on the river regime. Review of the extent and height of scour
protection necessary
Local erosion of foundations Analysis
Abraded and rotten wooden piles Cause
Local undermining of pier/Local undermining of Increase of hydraulic speed due to decrease of
abutment river cross section or changes on the longitudinal
General undermining profile of the river or flow in flood conditions
Actions to be taken
During inspection: on site not have an immediate effect on the structural
Detailed visual inspection of the foundation integrity of the bridge. It is a sign, however, of
deterioration of protection to the foundation and
Determination of the type and dimensions of the foundation problems that may result in serious
foundation damage or catastrophic collapse.
Determination of soil type
Subsequent inspection: Underwater inspection
Determination of the longitudinal profile of the
riverbed
Determination of the cross section of the riverbed
up and downstream
on the riverbed
87
6. General undermining (scour)
Damage identification into the economical use of the river (dam, sand
Usual location
Determination of the extent and height of scour
Any cross section of the riverbed up or
protection necessary
downstream of the structure, but usually
upstream adjacent to piers
Analysis
Cause
Local erosion of foundations river cross section or changes on the longitudinal
Abraded and rotten wooden piles profile of the river or flow in flood conditions
Corrosion of steel foundation elements Decrease of sand and stone content on the
riverbed due to aggregate extraction
Local undermining of pier
Local undermining of abutment
Damage that affects the structural integrity of the
Actions to be taken bridge, and which may have an immediate effect
on the stability of the bridge unless stabilised. It
During inspection: on site is a sign of foundation problems that may result
Detailed visual inspection of the foundation in serious damage through the development of a
mechanism of collapse.
Determination of the type and dimensions of the
foundation
Subsequent inspection: Underwater inspection
Survey of the level of the riverbed
on the riverbed
88
Annex 1
7. Local undermining of piers
Damage identification Determination of soil type

Usual location Subsequent inspection: Underwater inspection
Adjacent to scour hollows immediately upstream Survey of the level of the riverbed
of piers Quantification of the level of materials deposited
Possible associated damages on the riverbed
Loss of scour protection After inspection: off site
Local erosion of foundations Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
Corrosion of steel foundation elements
General undermining/Local undermining of protection necessary
abutment
Longitudinal crack in arch Analysis
Diagonal crack in arch/Loss or displacement of Cause
arch material Development of eddy currents upstream of the
Transverse crack in arch. Three-hinges pier
Transverse crack in arch. Shear mechanism Increase of hydraulic speed due to decrease of
river cross section or changes on the longitudinal
Transverse crack in arch. Multi-arch mechanism profile of the river or flow in flood conditions
Mechanical failure of masonry (micro cracking Decrease of sand and stone content on the
failure) riverbed due to aggregate extraction
Vertical crack in pier/Stepped crack in pier Structural importance
Actions to be taken Damage that affects the structural integrity of

the bridge. If it occurs simultaneously with non-
During inspection: on site stabilised cracking on the superstructure or with
Detailed visual inspection of the foundation crushing of masonry in piers, the arch or an
abutment, there is high risk of collapse of the
Determination of the type and dimensions of the structure.
foundation
89
8. Local undermining of abutment
Damage identification Subsequent inspection: Underwater inspection

Usual location Survey of the level of the riverbed
Located in scour hollows immediately upstream Quantification of the level of materials deposited
of the abutment on the riverbed
Possible associated damages After inspection: off site
Loss of scour protection Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
Local erosion of foundations
Corrosion of steel foundation elements protection necessary
General undermining/Local undermining of pier
Analysis
Longitudinal crack in arch
Cause
Diagonal crack in arch/Loss or displacement of
arch material Development of eddy currents upstream of the
abutment
Transverse crack in arch - three-hinges
Mechanical failure of masonry (micro cracking river cross section or changes on the longitudinal
failure) profile of the river or flow in flood conditions
Vertical crack in abutment/Horizontal crack in Decrease of sand and stone content on the
abutment riverbed due to aggregate extraction
Vertical crack in wing or side wall Structural importance
Actions to be taken Damage that affects the structural stability of

the bridge. If it occurs simultaneously with non-
During inspection: on site stabilised cracking on the superstructure or with
Detailed visual inspection of the foundation crushing of masonry in piers, the arch or an
abutment, there is high risk of collapse of the
Determination of the type and dimensions of the structure.
foundation
90
Annex 1
9. Mechanical failure of masonry

Usual location Determination of applied traffic loads to the arch
and an assessment of load carrying capacity of
Localised near to the springing and haunches of
the arch
the arch where there is a good bond perpendicular
to the line of thrust. It may appear in any type of Estimation level of deterioration of the masonry
arch, when caused by a foundation problem, but
it is more usual in very slender (barrel thickness/ Analysis
Span < 1/20) and shallow arch barrels (rise/Span
Cause
< 1/6) with deteriorated masonry.
There are three collapse criteria:
I.- Collapse due to masonry compression failure.
Transverse crack in arch - three-hinges
The failure is due to excessive live loads or
Transverse crack in arch - mono-arch mechanism indirect actions arising from foundation problems
Transverse crack in arch - shear mechanism II.- Collapse due to masonry axial bending and
Transverse crack in arch - multi-arch mechanism shear failure. The failure is due to excessive live
loads or indirect actions arising from foundation
Local undermining of piers or abutments problems
Longitudinal crack in arch (centre) III.- Collapse due to masonry compression failure
Transverse crack in mono arch mechanism, perpendicular to the joints. The failure is due to
three hinges excessive live loads or indirect actions arising
from foundation problems
Actions to be taken Damage that will affect the structural stability of
During inspection: on site the bridge. It is a sign that there is a high risk of
collapse of the structure.
Estimation of
the mechanical
properties of the
masonry
Sketch or picture of
the bond used in the
arch
Estimation of
the degree of
deterioration of the
masonry
Detailed visual
inspection of the arch
barrel and foundation
Determination of the
type and dimensions
of the foundation
91
10. Longitudinal crack in arch (centre)
Damage identification Subsequent inspection: If damages due to

undermining are detected, an underwater
Usual location
inspection should be carried out
Located in the centre of the arch barrel, it may
occur in all types of arches. It is more usual,
however, on bridges built to carry two tracks Quantification of the level of materials deposited
where one track is more heavily loaded than the on the riverbed
other, and on bridges with piers in the bed of a Survey of track layout
river where undermining and other foundation
failures may occur. Measurement of the depth of fill at the crown
General undermining/Local undermining of pier Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
Local undermining of abutment and stone extraction) Determination of the
Diagonal crack in arch barrel/Loss or periodic traffic flows and volume of loading upon
displacement of arch material the arch in both track directions.
Mechanical failure of masonry (micro cracking
failure) Analysis
Vertical crack in pier Cause
Stepped crack in pier Differential settlement of centre of the pier or

abutment compare to their ends (due to a hard
Vertical crack in abutment foundation at the centre of the pier or abutment)
Horizontal crack in abutment Impact arising from repetitive loads near to the
crown of the arch
Actions to be taken
Asymmetrical load on the arch from traffic on the
During inspection: on site bridge
Detailed visual inspection of the arch barrel and Structural importance
foundation
Damage that will affect the structural stability of
Determination of the type and dimensions of the the bridge, and which may have an immediate
foundations effect on the stability of the bridge unless
Determination of soil type stabilised. High risk of collapse if other damages
due to mechanical failure of masonry occur.
92
Annex 1
11. Longitudinal crack in arch barrel under spandrel
Damage identification Analysis

Usual location Cause
Located in the arch barrel under the inner face Excessive horizontal pressure from the fill and
of the spandrel wall. It usually appears on deep surcharge from traffic loads on the spandrels
bridges with saturated backing. Furthermore, the
Pressure from water in the fill due to defective
track is close to the spandrel.
drainage
Damaged joint between stone edge voussoirs
Bulging of the spandrel and brick arch barrel
Sliding of the spandrel Longitudinal swaying movement of arch under
traffic loads against stiff spandrel
Rotation of the spandrel
Actions to be taken Damage that will affect the structural integrity
During inspection: on site of the bridge and which may have an effect on
spandrel stability unless stabilised
Survey of track layout
It may also affect the retention of the fill and thus
Determination of the condition and effectiveness track support, and could lead to a derailment
of the arch drainage unless stabilised
Sketch or photograph the crack and if applicable
the joint between stone edge voussoirs and arch
barrel
Determination of the depth of the fill at the crown
Assessment of the horizontal pressure on the
spandrel due to the fill and surcharge from
applied loads
Monitor the crack to determine if the length and
width of the crack is increasing, and the rate of
any increase
93
12. Diagonal crack in arch barrel

undermining were detected, an underwater
Usual location
inspection must be planned
Located across the central part of the arch barrel
between opposite corners, it may occur in all
types of arches. This damage is more usual Quantification of the level of materials deposited
however on skewed bridges with non-skewed on the riverbed
bond, and on bridges with piers in the bed of a After inspection: off site
river where undermining and foundation failures
may occur. Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
Possible associated damages and stone extraction)
General undermining/Local undermining of pier Determination of the periodic traffic flows and
Local undermining of abutment volume of loading upon the arch in both track
directions
Longitudinal crack in arch barrel
Mining survey
failure)
Analysis
Vertical crack in pier/stepped crack in pier
Cause
Foundation failure of piers or abutment with
Horizontal crack in abutment/Loss and transverse rotation due to undermining
displacement of arch material
Inappropriate bond for the skew
Actions to be taken Mining subsidence
During inspection: on site Asymmetrical load on the arch from traffic on the
bridge
Detailed visual inspection of the arch barrel and
foundation Structural importance
Determination of the type and dimensions of the Damage that will affect the structural integrity of
foundation the bridge, and which may have an immediate
effect on the stability of the bridge unless
stabilised. High risk of collapse if other damages
Survey of the track layout and sketch or due to mechanical failure of masonry occur.
photograph of the masonry
bond
Survey to establish the
angle of skew
94
Annex 1
13. Transverse crack in arch barrel - three-hinges
Usual location on the riverbed
Appearance of open joints and cracks to the After inspection: off site
intrados near to the springing, as well as open
cracks in the extrados near to the crown. It may
occur in any type of arch. In case of bridges with
slender piers (pier width/span < 1/5) and shallow
arch barrels (rise/span < 1/6) the cracks may be If an adjoining arch has a pattern of cracks
wide. which is a sign of the formation of a three-hinge-
mechanism, and the pier is founded in a river,
there is high risk of imminent collapse. In this
General undermining/Local undermining of pier case, an underwater inspection should be carried
out to check the condition of the pier foundation.
Local undermining of abutment/Loss or
displacement of arch material
Analysis
Transverse crack in arch barrel - three hinges
Cause
failure) Failure of the foundation to the piers due to
longitudinal rotation of piers or abutments due to
Stepped crack in spandrels undermining
Premature removal of the centring during
Actions to be taken
construction
Failure and overturning/sliding of abutment due
Detailed visual inspection of the arch barrel and to horizontal pressure of the arch barrel
foundation
Mining subsidence
foundations
Damage that will affect the structural integrity of
the bridge, and which may have an immediate
Survey of the level of the riverbed effect on the stability of the bridge unless
Quantification of the level of materials deposited stabilised
95
14. Transverse crack in arch - mono-arch mechanism
Damage identification Determination of mechanical properties of

masonry
Usual location
Estimation of level of deterioration of the masonry
Transverse cracking pattern characterised by
cracks that open alternatively in the intrados and After inspection: off site
extrados at four locations. It may appear in any Determination of applied traffic loads to the arch
type of arch, but it is more usual on very slender and an assessment of load carrying capacity of
(barrel thickness/Span < 1/20) and shallow the arch
arch barrels (rise/span < 1/6) with deteriorated
masonry.
Analysis
Cause
Failure due to insufficient load carrying capacity
failure)
of the arch to carry the applied loads
Stepped crack in spandrel
Stepped crack in abutment
Damage that will affect the strength behaviour of
the bridge. It is a sign that there is a high risk of
Actions to be taken imminent collapse of the structure.
Detailed visual inspection of the arch barrel
96
Annex 1
15. Transverse crack in arch barrel - multi-arch mechanism
Damage identification foundations

Usual location Determination of soil type
Cracking pattern that affects several arches and Survey of the level of the riverbed
piers. It is characterised by the development Quantification of the level of materials deposited
of transverse cracks, indicating a mechanism on the riverbed
failure in adjoining arches, and foundation failure
of the intermediate pier. It occurs in bridges with After inspection: off site
slender piers pier width/span < 1/5) founded in a Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
river with shallow arch barrels (rise/span < 1/6). into the economical use of the river (dam, sand
Possible associated damages and stone extraction)
General undermining/Local undermining of pier If an adjoining arch has a pattern of cracks
which is a sign of the formation of a three-hinge-
Local undermining of abutment/Loss or mechanism, and the pier is founded in a river,
displacement of arch material there is high risk of imminent collapse. In this
Transverse crack in arch barrel –three hinges. case, an underwater inspection should be carried
out to check the condition of the pier foundation.
failure)
Analysis
Stepped crack in spandrels
Cause
Actions to be taken Rotation of a pier, usually due to undermining
problems or mining subsidence
foundation Damage that will affect the structural stability of
the bridge. It is a sign that there is a high risk of
imminent collapse of the structure.
97
16. Loss or displacement of arch material

undermining are detected, an underwater
Usual location
inspection should be carried out.
It usually appears near the crown of arch barrels
where the depth of fill is shallow (height of fill
over crown < 0,40). It is more common on arches After inspection: off site
which are not very slender (barrel thickness/ Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
span > 1/20) and deep (rise/span = 1/2). It is into the economical use of the river (dam, sand
also common on skew bridges with non-skewed and stone extraction)
bond.
Determination of the periodic traffic flows and
Possible associated damages volume of loading upon the arch in both track
General undermining/Local undermining of pier directions
Local undermining of abutment Determination of applied traffic loads to the arch
and and an assessment of load carrying capacity
of the arch
Mining survey
Transverse crack in arch barrel - three hinges
Stepped crack in spandrel Analysis
Actions to be taken Cause
During inspection: on site Foundation failure (rotation and settlement of
pier or abutment)
Detailed visual inspection of the arch barrel
foundation Loss of mortar
Measurement of the depth of fill at the crown Impact arising from repetitive loads near to the
crown of the arch
foundation Asymmetrical load on the arch from traffic on the
bridge
Survey of the track layout
Damage that will affect s the structural stability
Estimation of the speed of trains crossing the of the bridge. It is a sign that there is a risk of
bridge and detection of any track devices or collapse of the structure.
joints located near the crown of the arch
98
Annex 1
17. Vertical crackin pier
Damage identification Determination of soil type

Usual location Subsequent inspection: Unless the damage is
stabilised, an underwater inspection should be
Located in the centre of the pier. It is common
carried out
on bridges when undermining causes differential
settlements of the pier. Survey of the level of the riverbed
General undermining/Local undermining of pier Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
Diagonal crack in arch barrel Analysis
Stepped crack in pier Cause
Vertical crack in abutment Local failure of the foundation due to differential
settlement between the centre of the pier and its
Horizontal crack in abutment extremes
Actions to be taken Structural importance
During inspection: on site Damage that will affect the structural stability of
Detailed visual inspection of the arch barrel and the bridge, and which may affect the stability of
foundation the bridge unless stabilised.
foundation
99
18. Stepped crack in pier
Damage identification Survey of the level of the riverbed

Usual location After inspection: off site
Located in the centre of the pier. It is common Estimation of the river flow pattern and research
on bridges when undermining causes differential into the economical use of the river (dam, sand
settlement of the pier. and stone extraction)
Analysis
Cause
Local failure of the foundation of the pier due
Longitudinal crack in arch barrel to transverse rotation of the pier or differential
Diagonal crack in arch barrel settlement between the centre of the pier and its
extremes
Vertical crack in pier
Damage that will affect the structural integrity of
Horizontal crack in abutment the bridge, and which may affect the stability of
Actions to be taken the bridge unless stabilised
Detailed visual inspection of the arch
barrel and foundation
Determination of the type and
dimensions of the foundation
Subsequent inspection: Unless the
damage is stabilised, an underwater
100
Annex 1
19. Vertical crack between cutwater and pier

Local to the vertical joint between the pier and Local failure of the cutwater foundation due to
the cutwater lack of or eroded foundation, its differential load
with respect to the pier and its exposure to river
currents
Damage that affects durability. Therefore, it does
not affect bridge integrity, but may be a sign of
Actions to be taken undermining problems that should be addressed,
During inspection: on site as they may be a sign of other problems or
impending failure of the pier foundation.
foundation
Estimation of the type and dimensions
of the foundation
Estimation of soil type
Subsequent inspection: Underwater
inspection
None
101
20. Vertical crack in abutment

Local to centre of abutments. It is common on Local failure of the foundation of the abutment
bridges when undermining cause differential due to differential settlement between the centre
settlement of the abutment. and the extremes
Possible associated damages Structural importance
General undermining/Local undermining of pier Damage that will affect the structural stability of
the bridge, and which may affect the stability of
the bridge unless stabilised
Longitudinal crack in arch
barrel
Vertical crack in pier
Actions to be taken
Detailed visual inspection of
the arch barrel and foundation
Determination of the type and
dimensions of the foundation
Subsequent inspection:
Unless the damage is
stabilised, an underwater
inspection should be carried
out
Survey of the level of the
riverbed
Estimation of the river flow
pattern and research into
the economical use of the
river (dam, sand and stone
extraction)
102
Annex 1
21. Horizontal crack in abutment

Usual location Assess the horizontal thrust from the arch to the
abutment for the worst load case
Local to centre of abutments. It is common
on shallow arches (rise/span < 1/6) when the
abutment is not able to resist the horizontal Analysis
thrust from the arch barrel. Cause
Possible associated damages Abutment inability to resist bending effects from
Transverse crack in arch barrel - three-hinges the horizontal thrust of the arch against the
abutment
Actions to be taken Possible failure of the embankment fill behind
the abutment
Determination of state of the embankment fill
behind the abutment Damage that will affect the structural stability of
the bridge, and which may affect the stability of
the bridge unless stabilised
103
22. Bulging of spandrel

Local to spandrels over the pier, where the Excessive horizontal pressure from the fill and
spandrel reaches its greatest height. It is surcharge from traffic loads on the spandrel
common on bridges with deep but not very wide
arch barrels.
drainage
Longitudinal crack in arch barrel under spandrel and brick arch barrel
Sliding of spandrel Structural importance
Rotation of spandrel Damage that will affect the structural integrity
of the bridge. and which may have an effect on
Actions to be taken spandrel stability unless stabilised
During inspection: on site It may also affect the retention of the fill and thus
track support, and could lead to a derailment
Survey of track layout unless stabilised
Determination of the condition and effectiveness
of the arch drainage Sketch or photograph
the bond used on the spandrel and its bond
with the arch barrel
Determination of the depth of fill at the crown
Assessment of the horizontal pressure on
the spandrel due to the fill and surcharge
from applied loads
104
Annex 1
23. Sliding of spandrel

Local to spandrels over the pier, where the Excessive horizontal pressure from the fill and
spandrel reaches its greatest height. It is surcharge from traffic loads on the spandrel
common on bridges with deep but not very wide
arch barrels.
drainage-
Longitudinal crack in arch barrel under spandrel and brick arch barrel
Bulging of spandrel Structural importance
Rotation of spandrel Damage that will affect the structural integrity
of the bridge and which may have an effect on
Actions to be taken spandrel stability unless stabilised
During inspection: on site It may also affect the retention of the fill and thus
track support and could lead to a derailment
Survey of track layout unless stabilised
of the arch drainage
Sketch or photograph the bond used on the
spandrel and its bond with the arch barrel
from applied loads
105
24. Spandrel rotation
Usual location Pressure from water in the fill due to defective
drainage
Local to spandrels over the pier, where the
spandrel reaches its greatest height. It is Damaged joint between stone edge voussoirs
common on bridges with deep but not very wide and brick arch barrel
arch barrels.
Damage that will affect the structural integrity
Longitudinal crack in arch barrel under spandrel of the bridge and which may have an effect on
spandrel stability unless stabilised
Bulging of spandrel
It may also affect the retention of the fill and thus
Sliding of spandrel
track support and could lead to a derailment
unless stabilised
Actions to be taken
Survey of track layout
of the arch drainage
Sketch or photograph the bond used on the
spandrel and its bond with the arch barrel
from applied loads
Analysis
Cause
Excessive horizontal pressure from the fill
from the fill and surcharge from traffic loads
on the spandrel
106
Annex 1
25. Stepped crack in spandrel
Damage identification Subsequent inspection: If associated damages

of transverse cracks occur or undermining is
Usual location
detected, an underwater inspection should be
In spandrels on a line at an angle of approximately carried out
45° from the springing of the arch barrel
Transverse crack in arch barrel - three-hinges
None
Transverse crack in arch barrel - mono-arch
mechanism Analysis
Transverse crack in arch barrel - shear Cause
mechanism
Sagging of arch barrel following removal of
Transverse crack in arch barrel - multi-arch centring during construction of the arch
mechanism
Settlement of the arch barrel following foundation
Loss or displacement of arch material failure of the abutment or pier
Bulging of spandrel This settlement may occur in conjunction with
Local or general undermining formation of hinges in the arch barrel
Actions to be taken
The seriousness of this damage is dependent
During inspection: on site upon the associated damage occurring in the
Detailed visual arch barrel
inspection of the
foundation
Determination of
the type and di-
mensions of the
foundation
Determination of
soil type
Determination of
the condition of
backfill behind
the abutment
107
26. Rotation and bulging of wing or side wall

Usual location Assessment of the horizontal forces and
overturning moments from the backfill and
Local to wing or side walls
applied load surcharge and stability of the wing
Possible associated damages or side walls
Analysis
Cause
Actions to be taken Insufficient capacity of wing or side walls to resist
During inspection: on site the horizontal forces and overturning moment
from the backfill and applied load surcharge
foundation to the wing or side wall Thrust due to water in the backfill resulting from
inefficient or no drainage
Determination of the constitution and condition
of the backfill to the abutment, wing or side walls Growth of trees on the wing or side walls.
Determination of the effectiveness of the Structural importance

drainage to the abutment Damage that will affect the structural stability of
Sketch or photograph of the masonry and bond the bridge and which may affect the stability of
used on the wing or side wall the bridge unless stabilised
Sketch or photograph of the masonry and bond It may also affect the retention of the fill and thus
used at the joint between abutment and wing or track support, and could lead to a derailment
side wall unless stabilised
It may affect services in the vicinity of the bridge
108
Annex 1
27. Vertical crack between abutment and wing or side wall
Usual location Assessment of the horizontal forces and
overturning moments from the backfill and
Local to the joint between a wing or side wall and
applied load surcharge and stability of the wing
the abutment
or side wall
Assessment of the loads on the abutment and
Local undermining of abutment the foundation
Analysis
Actions to be taken Cause
During inspection: on site Inability of the joint between wing wall and
Determination of the type and dimensions of the abutment to resist the horizontal forces from the
foundation to the wing or side wall backfill and applied load surcharge
Determination of soil type Instability of the slope where the wing or side
wall is located
Determination of the constitution and condition
of the backfill to the abutment, wing or side wall Insufficient bearing capacity of the wing or side
wall foundation
Determination of the effectiveness of the
drainage to the abutment Structural importance
Sketch or photograph of the masonry and bond Damage that will affect the structural stability of
used at the joint between abutment and wing or the bridge and which may affect the stability of
side wall the bridge unless stabilised
After inspection: off site It may affect services in the vicinity of the bridge
Estimation of the river flow pattern and research It may also affect the retention of the fill and thus
into the economical use of the river (dam, sand track support, and could lead to a derailment
and stone extraction) unless stabilised
109
28. Stepped crack in wing or side wall

Local to wing or side walls. It may appear on any Inability of the wing wall to resist the horizontal
type of arch bridge with wing walls. forces and overturning moment from the backfill
and applied load surcharge
Insufficient bearing capacity of the wing or side
wall foundation
Thrust due to water in the backfill resulting from
Local undermining in abutment inefficient or no drainage
Growth of vegetation on the wing or side walls
Actions to be taken
Damage that will affect the structural stability of
Determination of the type and dimensions of the the bridge and which may affect the stability of
foundation to the wing or side wall the bridge unless stabilised
Determination of soil type It may also affect the retention of the fill and thus
Determination of the constitution and condition track support, and could lead to a derailment
of the backfill to the abutment, wing or side wall unless stabilised
Determination of the effectiveness
of the drainage to the abutment
Sketch or photograph of the
masonry and bond on the wing
wall or side wall
Subsequent inspection: If
associated damages of stepped
cracks on wing wall or undermining
is detected, an underwater
Assessment of the horizontal
forces and overturning moments
from the backfill and applied load
surcharge and stability of the wing
or side wall
110
Annex 1
29. Stains
Damage identification Structural importance

Usual location Damage that affects durability and appearance
of masonry and does not affect the structural
On surface of masonry, local to drainage pipes
integrity of the bridge
or cracks in spandrels, intrados of arches or
abutment. Stains may appear in any type of
masonry and include those due to brake dust,
water and other means of contamination.
Efflorescence
Vertical crack in abutment, spandrel or pier
Loss of material from joints and masonry
Moss, lichen and fungal growth
Actions to be taken
Surroundings of the structure
Detection of possible sources of water (drain
pipes, drips, cracks etc.)
Detection of
possible sources of
contamination (local
industry, etc.)
After inspection: off
site
Climatic research
Analysis
Cause
Development of
mechanical and
chemical phenomena
including water and
salt crystallisation
from contaminants on
the masonry
111
30. Moss, lichen and fungal growths

Usual location None
Local to surface areas susceptible to growth
of plant organisms. It is likely to appear on Analysis
areas favourable for the accumulation of micro Cause
organisms such as wet or south facing walls.
These growths are plant organisms and are
Possible associated damages generally of little importance and localised.
Stains Structural importance
Damage that affects durability and appearance
Actions to be taken of masonry and does not affect the structural
During inspection: on site integrity of the bridge
Identification of lichen, moss, fungal growth and
bacteria
112
Annex 1
31. Efflorescence

Generally located on the intrados of the arch, Efflorescence is the result of salt crystallisation.
piers and on the front elevation of abutments This phenomenon occurs when soluble salts
or wind and side walls. The damage is usually within the masonry migrate to the surface and
found on faces exposed to humidity (near to crystallise on exposure to the air to cover the
drain pipes at spandrels and intrados of arches, surface with fine powder of salt particles. If
walls exposed to rain etc.). The damage may evaporation occurs on the surface, efflorescence
appear on any type of masonry. It often occurs occurs. If however, evaporation occurs before
on new masonry used in repairs. the salt reaches the surface, crypto efflorescence
is formed. The presence of efflorescence and
crypto efflorescence is a sign that a chemical
Stains degradation process is occurring (not very
Crusts and superficial sediments dangerous generally) but that important internal
mechanical stresses may be generated due to
Honeycombs or blisters salt crystallisation which may seriously damage
the masonry.
Actions to be taken
Damage that affects durability and appearance
Detection of possible sources of water (drains, of masonry and does not affect the structural
drips etc, etc.) integrity of the bridge. It may lead however, to
Detection of possible salt sources (within the other damages like honeycombing or even
masonry itself or from external agents, pollutants, surface sand formation (arenization) decay.
or materials used in previous interventions, etc.)
Climatic research
Determine the type of masonry
113
32. Crusts and superficial deposits
Usual location Structural importance
Located on surfaces in the vicinity of high levels Damage that affects durability and appearance
of humidity (near to drain pipes, on spandrels of masonry and does not affect the structural
and intrados of arch barrels, etc.). The damage is integrity of the bridge
found on masonry with lime mortar and masonry
with limestone facing blocks (ashlars), as well as
concrete.
Stains
Efflorescence
Actions to be taken
Detection of possible sources of water (drains,
drips etc.)
Detection of sources of carbonate minerals
within the structure
Climatic research
Determine the type
of masonry
Analysis
Cause
This group also
includes carbonation
crusts formed on
an arch barrel by
decomposition of
calcium carbonate.
This calcium
carbonate may be
from the mortar,
ashlars (limestone or
sandstone cement)
or from previous
repairs.
114
Annex 1
33. Differential surface weathering

Local to the most exposed parts of the structure Mechanical and chemical phenomena in which
with a high humidity (near drain pipes, spandrels water, the cycle of freeze/thaw, salt crystallisation
and intrados of arch barrel, etc.). The extent of and the abrasive action of particles carried in the
the damage depends on the type of masonry. wind erodes the surface
Soft brick, sandstone, and porous limestone
(in this order) are most likely to suffer from this
damage. Damage that affects durability, and does not
affect the structural integrity of the bridge
Stains
Efflorescence
Vertical crack in
abutment
Loss of material from
joints and masonry
Vegetation growth
Actions to be taken
During inspection: on
site
Identification of type
of masonry and the
mechanical and
petrological properties
of the masonry
Record the structure
orientation and describe
the type of exposure
Identification of
possible sources of
contamination (local
industry, etc.)
site
Climatic research
115
34. Loss of material from joints and masonry
Usual location Determination of the periodic traffic flows and
volume of
Generally located on the arch barrels or
spandrels of structures built in brick, sandstone loading upon the arch in both track directions.
and limestone with a continuous water flow from
Determination of applied traffic loads to the arch
the track bed through the fill and the arch barrel
and
to the intrados due to defective drainage
an assessment of load carrying capacity of the
arch
Loss or displacement of arch material
Efflorescence Analysis
Differential surface weathering Cause
Honeycombs and blisters The loss of material may be due to the erosion
of the mortar or due to the loss of pieces of
masonry, resulting from the combined action of
Actions to be taken
chemical and mechanical deterioration. If the
During inspection: on site damage is near to the crown of the arch, the
Research into paths of water thorough the cause may be due to the effect of the impact of
structure the applied loads on the arch barrel (vibrations,
impacts). This damage can result in masonry
Research into the hardness of the masonry pieces (dropped stones) falling from the arch.
surface both in wet and dry areas
Measurement of the depth of fill at the crown
Damage that affects the structural stability of the
Survey of the track layout bridge if the damage is located on an important
Estimation of the speed of trains crossing the structural element (arch barrel, piers, etc) and
bridge and if the extent is greater than 25% of the area, it
should be repaired
detection of any
track devices or
joints located near
the crown of the arch
After inspection:
off site
Research into
the mechanical
and petrological
properties of the
masonry and the
joint material
Climatic research
116
Annex 1
35. Damage from vegetation growth

Usual location Damage that initially affects durability and does
not affect the structural integrity of the bridge
Mechanical deterioration generally located on
immediately. If the vegetation growth is extensive
surfaces of the structure where seeds may be
and well established (the roots will cause the
deposited in mortar joints and other crevices
masonry to break and possible loss of masonry)
and there is moisture either natural or from a
the damage should be repaired.
drainage system. Usually vegetation occurs on
spandrels, wing and side walls, but may also In all cases the plants should be removed, or
appear in cornices and skewbacks. It can be growth arrested by use of weed killers, pesticides
found on all types of masonry. etc (assuming no additional detrimental affect
from sulphates or other salts on the masonry)
Loss of material from joints and masonry
Actions to be taken
Sketch and photograph location of trees and
other vegetation and any associated cracks
Removal of vegetation, where practicable
(prevents further damage to the arch)
None
Analysis
Cause
Due to expansion of roots in joints and other
crevices in the masonry
117
36. Solar weathering

Usual location Damage that affects durability and does not
affect the structural integrity of the bridge
Generally located on those areas of the bridge
immediately. If it is extensive and advanced the
exposed to sunlight. It may appear on masonry
damage should be repaired.
susceptible to damage due to frost or ice, or salt
crystallisation (small pores) and on masonry with
low thermal conductivity.
Efflorescence
Actions to be taken
Sketch and photograph of the damage locality
Climatic research
Analysis
Cause
In general, solar weathering is caused by the dif-
ferential movement of the exposed surface. So-
lar radiation causes stresses to be set up when
the masonry is
alternately heat-
ed and cooled
and these are
sufficient to
bring about sur-
face spalling
(splintering) be-
cause of the low
conductivity of
the masonry. It
may be acceler-
ated by frost.
118
Annex 1
37. Vandalism: graffiti, fire, etc.

Usual location Damage that generally affects durability and
does not usually affect the structural integrity of
Graffiti will generally be located on accessible
the bridge immediately. An investigation should
areas of the structure with a flat surface such as
however be undertaken if a fire affects an area
abutments or spandrels. Fire damage is normally
of the structure for a long time.
found on the arch barrel.
None
Actions to be taken
Sketch and photographs of
location and area of damage
Determine the depth of masonry
affected
Determine the mechanical
properties of the masonry
Analysis
Cause
Vandalism or may be accident in
case of fire
119
38. Previous work

This damage may be found in any type of arch Interventions may be made as part of the
where repairs or other work that affects the arch enhancement of the railway (electrification,
structure has been carried out. Such works could etc.) or due to repair or extension, where
include brick replacement, pointing particularly materials have been used that are incompatible
when cement based mortars have been used with or aggressive to the existing materials in
when the original arch was constructed with lime the structure. Occasionally the load carrying
mortar, transverse stressing of the arch barrel, behaviour of the bridge may have been changed
under ringing using sprayed concrete, masonry without the consequences being taken into
reinforcement. account.
Possible associated damages Structural importance
Any other damage detailed in the catalogue These damages may affect the durability or the
load carrying behaviour of the bridge depending
Actions to be taken on the importance of the affected element
During inspection: on
site
Sketch and photograph
of the location of the
damage
site
Investigation of
construction records
120
Annex 2
Annex 2
Proposal for definition of damages for masonry arch bridges to be
used in the classification of damages
Crack
A break without complete separation of the components of the material or across a section of the
structure
Example of crack
121
Fracture
Break in the continuity of the material with complete separation of the components through a
section of the structure
Example of fracture
Delamination
The process of separating material parallel to the surface causing losses in thin layers of part
of the element of the structural component, or the state of material parallel to the surface being
separated into thin layers...
Example of delamination
122
Annex 2
Losses
Material no longer forming part of the structure. The depth and area of the missing material will
vary
Example of losses
Dislocation
A disturbance to the normal connection at a joint in the structure due to movement of an element
of the structure relative to the adjacent elements
Example of dislocation
123
Deformation
A change from the original constructed shape of the arch barrel or other element of the structure.
Example of deformation
Displacement
Movement of an element of the structure or part of the structure relative to the adjacent element
or part of the structure from the original location within the structure. See also dislocation.
Example of displacement
124
Annex 2
Contamination
Any type of stain, blemish, mark or vegetation on the intrados or other exposed elements of the
structure
Efflorescence
A form of contamination on the external face of the structure consisting of crystallisation of an

alkaline leachate on exposure to the atmosphere
Example of efflorescence
Crusts
A form of contamination on external faces of an element or part of the structure consisting of a

leachate deposit with a hard outer layer
Example of crust
125
Moss, lichen and other fungal growths
A form of a localised mark or stain, generally round shape on the external face of the element
or part of the structure. Caused by biological actions (moss, lichen...)
Example of moss
Graffiti
A form of contamination consisting of unapproved painted drawings or writings or scratches

applied to the structure
Example of graffiti
126
Annex 2
Stain
A form of contamination consisting of discolouration, spot or mark on the structure by contact

with a foreign matter not easily removed
Example of stain
Surface weathering
Surface of elements of structure eroded due to rain, freeze and thaw, wind and other
meteorological phenomena
Example of surface weathering
127

Uic 1

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

Uic 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catalogue of Damages

in masonry arch bridges

© International Union of Railways (UIC) - Paris, 2020

1.1. Necessity for a Catalogue of Damages................................................................................... 5

1.2. Objectives of the Catalogue of Damages................................................................................ 5

1.3. Structure of the Catalogue of Damages.................................................................................. 6

2.1. General study of the subject: Available information................................................................ 9

2.2. Specific study: Data collected ................................................................................................ 9

3. Description and origin of common damages in masonry arch bridges........................ 11

3.1. Foundation damages............................................................................................................. 12

3.2. Superstructure damages....................................................................................................... 23

4.1. Mechanisms of deterioration................................................................................................. 77

4.2. List and classification of damages......................................................................................... 79

Annex 2......................................................................................................................................... 120

1. Objective and scope

1.2. Objectives of the Catalogue of Damages

 identification of the most common mechanisms of deterioration of masonry;

 identification of the most common causes of deterioration of masonry;

 effects of damage on the structural behaviour of the masonry arch bridge.

1.3. Structure of the Catalogue of Damages

The second level for the foundation damages is:

 damages due to the degradation of the foundation;

 damages due to loss of foundation support.

For structure damages, the second level is:

damages affecting structural resistance;

 damages affecting durability.

In the third part of the document CONCLUSIONS are presented.

2.2. Specific study: Data collected

2.3. The information analysed was data provided by 8 railway

2.3.1. Participant countries

2.3.2. Total number of bridges in database and distribution by country

Table 2.1: Distribution of the bridges studied by country

16.2% Czech Republic

Figure 2.1: Distribution of bridges by country

2.3.3. Objectives and conclusions

The data was classified into 5 categories:

 General  Construction  Geometry  Mechanical  Damages

3. Description and origin of common damages in

3.1. Foundation damages

PILE CAP PILES FOOTINGS CAISSONS PROTECTIONS

Figure 3.1: Summary of possible damage in masonry arch bridges foundations

Figure 3.2: Damaged masonry arch bridge footing

3.1.2. Damages due to degradation of the structural element

Loss of scour protection

Local erosion of foundation

This damage can be caused by:

Figure 3.4: Damage resulting from decomposition of calcium carbonate

Abraded and rotten wooden piles

Figure 3.5: Abraded and rotten wooden elements

Corrosion of steel elements used in foundation elements

3.1.3. Damages due to loss of foundation stability

Figure 3.8: General and local riverbed scour

These changes in the riverbed may cause the undermining of foundations.

Figure 3.9: Local scour at a pier foundation

Figure 3.10: Local scour at an abutment foundation

3.1.4. Synopsis of foundation damages

It is convenient to summarise foundation damages as to how they may be classified to facilitate

The actions on foundations include the following:

Materials often used are:

 Local erosion of foundation elements.

 Corrosion of metallic elements.

3.2. Superstructure damages

3.2.2. Damages that affect load carrying capacity.

identification of the most common mechanisms of deterioration of masonry;

identification of the most common causes of deterioration of masonry;

effects of damage on the structural behaviour of the masonry arch bridge.

damages due to the degradation of the foundation;

damages due to loss of foundation support.

damages affecting durability.

General Construction Geometry Mechanical Damages

Local erosion of foundation elements.

Corrosion of metallic elements.

Differential vertical settlement of springings on arch barrel (pier or abutments).

Longitudinal rotation of pier or abutment

Longitudinal settlement and rotation.

Transverse rotation of a pier or abutment on the longitudinal axis of the bridge

Differential settlement of pier or abutment

Relative settlement between ends and centre of pier.

Other structural damage arising from foundation problems.

Longitudinal crack in arch barrel (centre)

Longitudinal cracking arch barrel under spandrel wall

Transverse cracks in arch barrel

Transverse crack in arch barrel. Mono–arch mechanism.

Transverse crack in arch barrel. Shear mechanism

Transverse crack in arch barrel. Multi arch mechanism

A multi-arch mechanism will result in seven hinges, as shown in Figure 3.36.

Loss or displacement of arch material

Vertical cracking on pier

Stepped (stair) cracks

Vertical cracks between cutwater and pier

Vertical crack in abutment

Bulging of spandrel walls

Sliding of spandrel walls

Spandrel wall rotation