Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Engineering and Computational
Mechanics 163
September 2010 Issue EM3
Pages 187–202
doi: 10.1680/eacm.2010.163.3.187

Paper 1000001
Received 04/01/2010
Accepted 28/05/2010
Keywords: brickwork & masonry/
bridges/stress analysis
Jinyan Wang Clive Melbourne
Research Fellow, University Professor of Structural
of the West of England, Engineering, University of
Bristol, UK Salford, UK

Mechanics of MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment

J. Wang MEng, PhD and C. Melbourne BEng(Hons), PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE

The assessment of the load-carrying capacity of a MD bending moment at the crown due to the dead load of a
masonry arch bridge has traditionally been undertaken unit width bridge
using the Military Engineering Experimental M para
D bending moment at the crown due to the dead load of a
Establishment (MEXE) method (or a modified version of unit width bridge with a depth of (h + d ) when
this), which has its roots in idealised elastic structural including the axial thrust term
modelling. This method has been supplemented by M rect
D bending moment at the crown due to a parabolically
alternative techniques which have emerged over the last varying dead load of a unit width bridge when
25 years. These techniques have highlighted some including the axial thrust term
apparent shortcomings of the MEXE method. The M TD bending moment at the crown due to the dead load of a
present paper presents a full derivation of the unit width bridge when including the axial thrust term
fundamental equations published by Pippard, which were ML bending moment at the crown due to a unit live load at
used to underpin the MEXE method. These equations the crown
are studied in the light of the perceived shortcomings of M TL bending moment at the crown due to a unit live load at
the method and extended to present new equations that the crown when including the axial thrust term
might be used for more general application. Conclusions MS statically determinate bending moment at any point x
are presented that will be useful to the assessing Pa available live load stress
engineer. T axial thrust at any point x
U strain energy of an arch rib
W a point load at the crown
NOTATION WA safe axle load
A cross-section area at any point x WT point load at the crown when including the axial thrust
a arch central rise term
b effective width of the arch W TA safe axle load when including the axial thrust term
d ring thickness at the crown x coordinate
dk increment of length along unit span y coordinate
ds increment of length along the arch ring Æ angle of inclination of the arch intrados
dx increment of length along span L º constant dependent on the span/rise ratio
E modulus of elasticity r density of the fill and masonry (assumed to be the
eD the eccentricity of the dead load thrust at the crown same)
eL the eccentricity of the live load thrust at the crown
D-extrados
fc limiting compressive stress
D-intrados
ft limiting tensile stress
HD stress at the crown due to HD
H horizontal reaction at the abutment
HL stress at the crown due to HL
HD horizontal thrust at the crown due to the dead load of a
H TL stress at the crown due to H TL
unit width bridge
L stress at the crown extrados due to HL and ML
H TD horizontal thrust at the crown due to the dead load of a
TL stress at the crown extrados due to H TL and M TL
unit width bridge when including the axial thrust term
M D stress at the crown due to MD
HL horizontal thrust at the crown due to a unit live load at
M L stress at the crown due to ML
the crown
M TL stress at the crown due to M TL
H TL horizontal thrust at the crown due to a unit live load at
the crown when including the axial thrust term
h depth of fill at the crown Sign convention
I second moment of area at any point x Bending moment: positive when the bending moment causes
I0 second moment of area at the crown tension in the intrados (sagging moment)
L arch span Axial thrust: positive when in compression
M bending moment at any point x Stress: compressive stress is positive, tensile stress is negative.

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 187
 1. INTRODUCTION 1
The assessment of the load-carrying capacity of a masonry arch 4a (Lx ⫺ x2)
y⫽
bridge has traditionally been undertaken using the Military C L2
Engineering Experimental Establishment (MEXE) method (or a α
modified version of this) which has its roots in idealised elastic a
y
structural modelling. This method has been supplemented by A B
x
alternative techniques which have emerged over the last 25 H H
L
years (Melbourne et al., 2007; Sustainable Bridges, 2010).
VA VB
The MEXE method has its roots in the work undertaken by
Pippard and colleagues in the 1930s (Pippard et al., 1936). Figure 2. Pippard’s two-pinned parabolic arch (I ¼ I0 sec Æ)
They demonstrated by experiment that elastic theory was with a unit load at the crown
applicable to voussoir arch rib structures if the centre of
pressure between the voussoirs lies within the middle third of
the arch rib. They further demonstrated that even when the derivative of the strain energy, U, with respect to a force, is
middle-third rule is violated and ‘hinges’ form successively as equal to the displacement in the direction of the force. He also
the load increases beyond the formation of the first hinge that ignored the axial thrust and shearing force terms in the strain
until a mechanism is formed the arch rib behaves elastically, energy equation. This gave him the usual equation for flexural
albeit with a reduced stiffness. strain energy for the case where there is no movement of the
abutments
The work undertaken by Pippard et al. was used, in conjunction
with the results of full-scale field tests undertaken by the ðB
@U @ M ds
Building Research Station, as the basis of the MEXE method. It 1 ¼ M ¼0
@H A @ H EI
seems likely that the empirical decisions that were made at the
time of the development of the original MEXE method (perhaps
relating to practical relationships between geometrical Thus the value of H (the horizontal reaction at the abutment) is
parameters and material properties) will be impossible to given by
reconstruct from available published data. For example, the
nomogram (Highways Agency, 2001) uses ring thickness and ðB
ds
crown fill cover, namely (h + d ) as a single parameter with no MS y
EI
A
2 H ¼ ðB
limit set on the relative proportions of h and d. ds
y2
A EI
In recent years, the method has been the subject of some
criticism, in particular with respect to determining the load-
carrying capacity of short-span bridges (Harvey, 2007; Equation 2 was used by Pippard to derive the stress levels in
McKibbins et al., 2006). This paper considers the original the arch barrel due to load effects (including live and dead
assumptions made by Pippard (1948) and attempts to identify loads) and permitted estimation of the safe value of the live
some of the theoretical limitations of the method. load for arch bridges (see Appendix A for details of the
derivation).
2. PIPPARD’S ELASTIC METHOD
The bridge treated by Pippard (1948) is shown in Figure 1. The 2.1. Assumptions
surface of the fill is horizontal and, for the purposes of In order to simplify the analyses Pippard (1948) made the
analysis, the arch ring is treated as a two-pinned parabolic rib, following assumptions.
with a secant variation in second moment of area, as shown in
Figure 2. (a) The arch is assumed to be parabolic, with a span-to-rise
ratio of 4 and with a secant variation in second moment of
Pippard used Castigliano’s theorem which states that the partial area, namely I ¼ I0 secÆ.
(b) The arch is assumed to be pinned at the abutments.
(c) The dispersal of loading applied at the surface of the fill
h
was assumed to occur only in the transverse direction with
Parabolic
a 458 load spread angle. Because this is least at the crown,
d Pippard considered the case of a single point load applied
at the mid-span, with strength assessments being made at
the crown.
a (d ) Because of (c) the width of the arch barrel affected by a
loading (i.e. the effective width of the arch) was taken as
twice the fill thickness at the crown, namely b ¼ 2h.
(e) The fill was assumed to have no structural strength and to
L only impose vertical loads on the arch. The fill was
assumed to be of the same density as the arch ring, which
Figure 1. Bridge analysed by Pippard was r ¼ 2.24 Mg/m3 (0.0625 t/ft3 ).
( f ) The limiting compressive stress was taken to be

188 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne
 fc ¼ 1400 kN/m2 (13 t/ft2 ) and the limiting tensile stress
was taken to be ft ¼ 700 kN/m2 (100 lb/in2 ).
(g) It was assumed, for arches of standard width with standard
fill depth, that two wheel loads could exist side by side
corresponding to an axle loading.
2.2. Live load effects
For a unit point load applied at the crown of the arch barrel, as
shown in Figure 2, the solution based on Equation 2 gives a
value of the horizontal thrust at the crown
25 L
3 HL ¼
128 a


42 a
10
L ¼
HL þ
M L ¼ 1þ
HL
25 d
It can be seen from Equation 9 that the compressive stress
corresponding to the bending moment is generally much larger
than the compressive stress corresponding to the horizontal
thrust. For a typical small bridge with d ¼ a/4, the compressive
stress corresponding to the bending moment can be nearly
seven times that corresponding to the horizontal thrust,
suggesting the live load stress at the crown is dominated by
stresses due to the bending moment at the crown.

2.3. Dead load effects

The corresponding value of the bending moment at the crown
of the arch due to a unit live load is
7 Figure 3; that is, a uniformly distributed load (UDL) with a
4 ML ¼ L
128
Pippard assumed that the fill had no structural strength and
only imposed vertical loads on the arch, and that the fill had
the same density as the arch ring. This allows the dead load to
be considered as the addition of two components, as shown in
depth of (h + d ) plus a parabolically varying load (the shaded
area in Figure 3).

where the positive sign indicates that live load produces a The solution based on Equation 2 for the two components of
sagging bending moment at the crown. the self-weight of a bridge of unit width gives the horizontal
reaction force at the abutment as
The eccentricity of the live load thrust at the crown, namely
the distance of the horizontal thrust above the arch centre line

rL2 hþd a
is given by 11 HD ¼ þ
2a 4 21

ML 7
5 eL ¼ ¼ a Correspondingly, the bending moment at the crown of the unit
HL 25
width bridge is

For the effective width b ¼ 2h, as assumed by Pippard, the rL2 a

12 MD ¼

stress at the crown due to HL and ML , respectively, are given by 336

HL 25 L
6
HL ¼ ¼ where the negative sign indicates that the self-weight produces
2hd 256hd a
a hogging bending moment at the crown, and that the

6M L 21L
7
M L ¼ ¼ h⫹d
2hd2 128hd2
C

Therefore, the compressive stress at the crown extrados due to a

a unit live load at midspan is given by the sum of Equations 6
1 rL
2
A B
and 7 (h ⫹ d)
8 a
L

 1
L 25 42 r(h ⫹ d)L
8
HL þ
M L ¼ þ 2
256hd a d
C

The ratio of the stress at the crown extrados due to the bending a

moment and the horizontal thrust is A B r L2

42
L

M L 42 a
9 ¼ 1

HL 25 d raL
6

Figure 3. Dead load effects

So the stress at the crown extrados due to a unit live load is

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 189
 corresponding thrust line at the crown lies below the arch dominated by the horizontal thrust in the case of relatively
centre line with an eccentricity of small bridges.

MD a2 2.4. Available live load stress

13 eD ¼ ¼
HD 42(h þ d) þ 8a The limiting compressive stress at the crown is assumed to be
fc , therefore, the available live load stress Pa is given by

The eccentricity of the thrust line at the crown due to the dead Pa ¼ f c
ð
HD þ
M D Þ
load is much smaller than that due to the live load as shown in 18

Figure 4, suggesting that the dead load thrust line lies much rL2 1 hþd a
¼ fc
þ

closer to the arch centre line. 2d 21 4a 28d

The stresses at the crown extrados due to HD and MD ,

respectively, are Based on the assumptions made by Pippard, that the limiting
compressive stress at the crown fc ¼ 1400 kN/m2 , and the


H D rL2 1 hþd density of the fill and masonry r ¼ 2.24 Mg/m3 , for a parabolic
14
HD ¼ ¼ þ arch with a span/rise ratio L/a ¼ 4:1, Equation 16 gives
d 2d 21 4a


2:24 3 9:8 L2 1 hþd a

HD þ
M D ¼ þ

6M D rL2 a 2 d 21 4a 28d
15
M D ¼ 2 ¼
19
d 56d2 11L2 11L(h þ d) 11L3
¼ þ

21d d 112d2

So the stress at the crown extrados due to the dead load alone is
Substituting Equation 19 into Equation 18 gives
2


rL 1 hþd a
16
HD þ
M D ¼ þ
11L2 11Lð h þ dÞ 11L3
2d 21 4a 28d 20 Pa ¼ 1400

þ (kN=m2 )
21d d 112d2

The absolute ratio of the stress at the crown extrados due to

the bending moment and the horizontal thrust is This is the MEXE equation adopted by the current Network Rail
Guidance Note (Network Rail, 2006).

M D 1 a 1
¼

17
HD 28 d 1 hþd 2.5. Safe axle load
þ In accordance with Pippard, for a point load W at the crown
21 4a
the compressive stress under the combined dead and live load
together should not exceed the maximum permitted value of
The stress ratio for the dead load is dependent not only on the the compressive stress fc , namely
ratio of ring thickness to the rise of the arch at midspan,


namely the ratio d/a, but also on the ratio (h + d )/a. For a small HL 3M L HD 6M D
21 W þ þ þ 2 < fc
bridge with h ¼ d ¼ 1/4a, the ratio
M D =
HD ¼ 24=29. 2hd hd2 d d
Compared with the corresponding ratio for the live load
(Equation 9), the stress due to the dead load at the crown is
Substitution of Equations 8 and 16 gives the limiting value of
the point load W at the crown as
1600

256 f c hd 1 hþd a
1400
128rLh þ

eL L
21  4a 28d
22 W ¼
1200 25 42
þ
Eccentricity: mm

1000
a d

800

600 Considering that a typical vehicle axle will comprise two wheel
loads side by side, the safe axle load obtained by Pippard was
400
eD
200 23 W A ¼ 2W
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Span: m
3. SHORT-SPAN ARCH BRIDGES
There is a growing consensus that the current version of MEXE
Figure 4. Eccentricities of the thrust lines due to live and dead
load overestimates the load-carrying capacity of short-span bridges
(McKibbins et al., 2006). The following demonstrates one of the

190 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne
possible reasons why the MEXE method might overestimate the d
load-carrying capacity of short-span bridges. 300
0·6
For a short-span arch with a relatively thicker arch ring, the
0·5
axial thrust term in the strain energy U should not be ignored,
that is 0·4 L/a ⫽ 2
L/a ⫽ 4
0·3

λ
L/a ⫽ 6
ðB M @M ð B T @T 0·2 L/a ⫽ 8
24 @U @ H @ H ds ¼ 0
¼ ds þ
@H A EI A EA 0·1

0·0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Span: m
Therefore, instead of using Equation 2, which was used by
400
Pippard to work out the load effects, the horizontal reaction at
0·6
the abutment when including the axial thrust term should be
taken as 0·5

0·4 L/a ⫽ 2
ðB L/a ⫽ 4
ds 0·3

λ
MS y L/a ⫽ 6
A EI
25 H ¼ ðB ðB 0·2 L/a ⫽ 8
ds ds
y 2 þ cos2 Æ 0·1
A EI A EA
0·0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Span: m
Detailed derivation of the following equations is presented in
500
Appendix B.
0·6

0·5
3.1. Live load effects
Suppose that HL , ML represent the horizontal thrust and 0·4 L/a ⫽ 2

bending moment at the crown when the axial thrust term is L/a ⫽ 4
0·3
λ

L/a ⫽ 6
neglected, namely using Equation 2, while H TL , M TL represent
0·2 L/a ⫽ 8
the horizontal thrust and bending moment, respectively, at the
crown when including the axial thrust term – that is, using 0·1
Equation 25. The following relationship can be obtained 0·0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
1 Span: m
26 H TL ¼ HL
1þº
Figure 5. Value of º for different span/rise ratio and ring
thickness
32
1þ º
27 M TL ¼ 7 M
L
1þº
included in the strain energy equation or not (i.e. Equations 2
and 25 produce the same horizontal reaction at the abutment).
where With the increase in the ring thickness, the value of º increases
correspondingly, indicating that the influence of including the
ðL axial thrust term becomes more significant for thicker arch
I0
2 ð 1
cos Æ dx rings.
A 5 d
28 º¼ 0
ðL ¼ (cos Æ)4=3 dk
2 32 a 0
y dx It can also be seen that ignoring the axial thrust term in the
0
strain energy equation results in relatively larger horizontal
thrusts and much smaller bending moments at the crown. The
From Equation 28 it can be seen that when the span/rise ratio influence depends on the span/rise ratio and the ratio of ring
is fixed, the integral of (cosÆ)4=3 is a constant, so º is in direct thickness to the rise at the crown – that is, the ratio d/a.
proportion to (d/a)2 .
Clearly for the same span/rise ratio, the influence becomes
Figure 5 shows the changes of º for different ring thicknesses more significant as the ring thickness increases. The
and different span/rise ratios. influence is particularly significant for relatively small-span
bridges.
It can be seen that for bridges with the same ring thickness, the
influence of including the axial thrust term becomes significant As previously defined,
HL and
M L represent the stress at the
for relatively small-span bridges. As the span increases, º crown due to HL and ML respectively; let
H TL
M TL represent the
gradually drops to zero, which means that there is then no stress at the crown due to H TL and M TL . Therefore, when
difference between the results when the axial thrust term is including the axial thrust term in the strain energy equation

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 191
 (i.e. using Equation 25), the corresponding stresses at the crown d: mm
due to H TL and M TL are given by 300
1·00
1
29
H TL ¼
H 0·95
1þº L

Stress ratio σL/σTL

0·90 L/a ⫽ 2
L/a ⫽ 4
0·85
0 1 L/a ⫽ 6
32 L/a ⫽ 8
@1 þ 7 ºA
0·80
30
M TL ¼
M L 0·75
1þº
0·70
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Span: m
So the stress at the crown extrados due to a unit live load at
400
the crown when including the axial thrust term becomes 1·00

0·95

TL ¼
H T þ
M TL

Stress ratio σL/σTL

L 0·90 L/a ⫽ 2
31 
 L/a ⫽ 4
1 42 a 32 0·85
L/a ⫽ 6
¼ 1þ 1 þ º
HL
1þº 25 d 7 0·80 L/a ⫽ 8

0·75

0·70
The ratio of Equation 10 to Equation 31 gives 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Span: m


42 a
ð1 þ ºÞ 1 þ 500

L
HL þ
M L 25 d
32 ¼ ¼
 1·00

TL
H T þ
M TL 42 a 32
L 1þ 1þ º 0·95
Stress ratio σL/σTL

25 d 7 L/a ⫽ 2
0·90
L/a ⫽ 4
0·85
L/a ⫽ 6
Figure 6 is produced according to Equation 32. Clearly when 0·80 L/a ⫽ 8
ignoring the axial thrust term in the strain energy equation, the 0·75
corresponding live load stress at the crown extrados in the case 0·70
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
of relatively small-span bridges is much smaller than that
Span: m
when the axial thrust term is included. This is because
although the horizontal thrust is overestimated when the axial Figure 6. Comparison of stress ratio at the crown extrados
thrust term in the strain energy equation is ignored, the due to the live load
resulting bending moment at the crown is underestimated. As
the compressive stress at the crown extrados is more controlled
by the stress due to the bending moment than due to the energy equation due to the effect of a non-zero value of º, as
horizontal thrust, as previously discussed, the resulting live discussed below.
load stress at the crown extrados is underestimated, especially
for short-span bridges. Again, the influence will depend on the The moment caused by the self-weight of a unit width bridge
span/rise ratio and the ratio (d/a). with a depth of (h + d ) – that is, a UDL – is

3.2. Dead load effects

rL2 ð h þ dÞ º
The horizontal thrust at the crown for a unit width bridge 34 M rect
D ¼
8 1þº
when including the axial thrust term becomes


rL2 hþd a 1
33 H TD ¼ þ  The positive sign indicates that the bending moment due to the
2a 4 21 1 þ º UDL produces a sagging moment, which is in the same sense as
the live load bending moment at the crown.

The corresponding bending moment at the crown due to the

For the dead weight below the crown, namely the shaded area
dead load is made up of two components, that due to a UDL
above the parabola of a unit width bridge, the moment is given
resulting from material of depth (h + d ) plus a parabolically
by
varying load, similar to those shown in Figure 3.

When using the equations in which the axial thrust term is rL2 a 1
7º
35 M para ¼

ignored, the bending moment at the crown due to the self- D
336 1 þ º
weight of material of depth (h + d ) is zero because it is a UDL.
However, a UDL does not produce a zero bending moment at
the crown when including the axial thrust term in the strain The negative sign means that the bending moment produces a

192 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne
hogging moment, which is in the opposite sense to the moment Compared to the safe axle load by Pippard, namely Equation
caused by the UDL. 23, the new safe axle load obtained from Equation 42 is
smaller for relatively short-span arch bridges and high span/
Thus the bending moment at the crown due to the dead load rise ratio. This is demonstrated in Figure 7. For bridges with
when including the axial thrust term becomes larger ring thickness and fill cover, the influence of including
the axial thrust term becomes more significant because much
  lower carrying capacities are predicted for relatively short-span
rL2 a 1
7º 42ð h þ dÞ º
36 M TD ¼

bridges.
336 1 þ º a 1þº

The corresponding stresses due to the horizontal thrust and the

L/a
bending moment, respectively, are 2
500


H T rL2 1 hþd 1
37
H T ¼ D¼ þ Equation 23

Safe axle loads: kN

400
D d 2d 21 4a 1þº (Pippard)
300 Equation 42
(present study)
6M TD 200

M T ¼
D d2 100
38  
rL a 1
7º 42ð h þ dÞ º
2
¼

0
56d2 1 þ º a 1þº 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Span: m
4
So the stress at the crown extrados due to the dead load when
500
including the axial thrust term becomes
400 Equation 23
Safe axle loads: kN


 (Pippard)
rL2 1 hþd 1

H T þ
M T ¼ þ
D D 2d 21 4a 1þº 300
Equation 42
39
 (present study)
a 1
7º hþd º 200


42
28d 1 þ º a 1þº
100

0
3.3. New safe axle load 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Using the same criteria as Pippard, namely that the Span: m

compressive stress at the crown under the combined dead and 6

500
live load together does not exceed the maximum permitted
value of the compressive stress fc , then Equation 23
Safe axle loads: kN

400
(Pippard)


 300 Equation 42
T H TL 3M TL H TD 6M TD (present study)
40 W þ þ þ 2 < fc
2hd hd2 d d 200

100

Therefore, the new allowed point load at the crown when 0

including the axial thrust term becomes 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Span: m

  8
256 f c hd 1 hþd 1

128rLh þ 500
L
21 4a þº
1
a 1
7º hþd º Equation 23
Safe axle loads: kN

42 400
41 28d 1 þ º
a 1þ º
(Pippard)
WT ¼
32 300
Equation 42
1þ º (present study)
25 1 42 7
þ 200
a 1þº d 1þº
100

0
Again, considering two wheel loads placed side by side, which 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
corresponds to an axle load for a vehicle of normal track Span: m

width, the new safe axle load is

Figure 7. Safe axle loads from Equation 23 (Pippard) and
Equation 42 (present study) (ring thickness 500 mm, fill cover
42 W TA ¼ 2W T 300 mm)

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 193
 4. ISSUES RELATED TO PIPPARD’S METHOD
4.1. Dead load stress
It should be pointed out that Pippard’s original formula,
namely Equation 22, was based on limiting the compressive
stress at the crown extrados under combined dead and live load.
There are circumstances where either or both of the stress criteria
assumed by Pippard – that is, fc ¼ 1400 kN/m2 and
ft ¼
700 kN/m2 (negative sign represents tensile stress) – could
be reached at the crown section under self-weight only, as
shown in Figure 8. It is important to note that Pippard did not
consider this case even when his own stress limits were exceeded
– this will be referred to elsewhere in the paper as ‘overstress’.
Because Pippard did not consider ‘overstress’ due to self-weight
only, the safe axle load predicted using his original formula,
namely Equation 22, would increase for higher spans (for the
particular example considered the curve flattens out at about
12 m; beyond about 13 m the curve develops an increasing
upturn), as shown in Figure 9.
If, however, Pippard’s original stress criteria are strictly applied
then it can be shown that the bridge will ‘fail’ the criteria
under self-weight only. In which case, the safe axle load will
drop to zero, as also shown in Figure 9.
4.2. Tensile stress limit
It should be pointed out that the safe axle loads presented in
Equations 23 and 42 are based on the compressive criteria at
the crown extrados, namely fc ¼ 1400 kN/m2 . For some
combination of ring thickness and crown cover, this
compressive stress limit can be less restrictive compared with
the tensile stress limit, namely ft ¼
700 kN/m2 and the
carrying capacity could be controlled by the tensile stress at
the crown intrados, as shown in Figure 10.
For the examples shown in Figure 10 it can be seen that the
safe axle loads can be controlled either by the compressive
stress at the crown extrados or the tensile stress at the crown
intrados under combined dead and live load. Therefore, the safe
axle loads from Equation 23 (Pippard) and Equation 42
(present study) should be checked against the tensile stress
limit before the final permissible axle load is determined.
Although the total thickness of the arch ring and fill cover in
2100 σD-intrados
1400
Dead load stress: N/mm2
700
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Span: m
⫺700
σD-extrados
⫺1400
⫺2100
Figure 8. Stress at the crown due to self-weight (ring
thickness 500 mm, fill cover 300 mm)
194 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne
450
400
350
300
Safe axle load: kN
250
200
WA
150
100
50
WA
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Span: m
Figure 9. Safe axle load predicted using Pippard’s original
formula (ring thickness 500 mm, fill cover 300 mm)
Figure 10 is the same – that is, (h + d ) ¼ 515 mm – the safe
axle loads are quite different for the two different ring
thicknesses and fill covers. Therefore, the use of ring thickness
and crown fill cover, namely (h + d ) as a single parameter can
cause anomalies, confirming the finding of Larnach (Crisfield
and Page, 1990).
4.3. Effective span
There is some uncertainty regarding the effective span to which
Pippard applied his equations and their subsequent
incorporation into the MEXE method. The method uses the
clear span and rise – that is, the geometry of the intrados
(Heyman, 1982) – while it might be more logical to use the
neutral axis of the barrel. This would result in a larger span
than the clear span between the face of the abutments (or
piers). For large spans this will represent a small percentage
error. However, in the case of small spans this will not be the
case and much larger errors will be introduced.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The study described has returned to the original problem
considered by Pippard, and the paper presents a full derivation
of Pippard’s original equations. This has highlighted the
sensitivity of the computed load-carrying capacities to various
parameters.
(a) Pippard’s original work was based on limiting the
compressive stress at the crown extrados under combined
dead and live load. It has been confirmed that the stress
criterion can be exceeded under dead load only for larger
fc spans (Crisfield and Page, 1990).
(b) Pippard neglected the effects of axial thrust in working out
the strain energy. The error introduced is very small in
most cases. However, it has been shown that for relatively
18 20 small-span thick arches (especially those with large span-
ft to-rise ratios), the error becomes significant.
(c) New equations for determining the load-carrying capacity
of an arch that incorporate the effects of axial strain
energy are presented, with which lower carrying capacities
have been predicted for relatively small-span bridges.
(d ) The tensile stress limit could be controlling in some
circumstances; therefore, the axle load obtained from
Equation 23 (Pippard) and Equation 42 (present study)
 WA (Pippard's original equations) WA (Equations from present study)
d ⫽ 215 mm
h ⫽ 300 mm
160 160
140
Limited by fc 120 Limited by fc
Side axle load: kN
110
Limited by ft 100 Limited by ft
80
60 60
40
10 20
0
2 4 6 8 10
2 4 6 8 10
⫺40 Span: m Span: m

d ⫽ 300 mm
h ⫽ 215 mm
160 160
Limited by fc 140 Limited by fc
120
Side axle load: kN

110 Limited by ft Limited by ft

100
80
60 60
40
20
10
0
2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
⫺40 Span: m Span: m

Figure 10. Safe axle loads based on different stress criteria

should be checked against the tensile stress limit before the

The strain energy due to bending
final safe axle load is determined. ðB
(e) While the MEXE method would give the same value for the ¼ UB ¼ (M 2 ds)=2EI
A
safe axle load for a given (h + d ), the original equations
give very different safe axle loads depending upon the
relative values of h and d.
The strain energy
ð B due to axial thrust
( f ) Uncertainty regarding the effective spans that were
assumed in the original arch analyses for the MEXE ¼ UT ¼ (T 2 ds)=2EA
A
method has been identified (i.e. between the clear span-to-
rise ratios of the intrados used in the MEXE method and
the ‘actual’ neutral axis span of the arch). This is the The strain energy due to shearing force
subject of current research. ðB
(g) Additionally, Pippard also assumed that I ¼ I0 sec Æ and ¼ US ¼ ˜ (Q2 ds)=2GA
A
that the arch profile was parabolic. There are many bridges
for which these assumptions appear inappropriate. Both
these assumptions therefore warrant further investigation where ˜ ¼ constant dependent on the shape of the cross-
to determine their relative significance. section. The strain energy for the arch is

U ¼ UB þ UT þ US
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support given by UIC, EU
and University of the West of England and University of For an arch rib where there is no movement of abutments, as
Salford. shown in Figure A1, then

APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF MEXE EQUATIONS @U

¼ H ¼ 0
@H
A.1. Two-hinged arch analysis
For a linear elastic structure the strain energy U and Hence
complementary energy C are equal. It follows from
Castigliano’s theorems that the partial derivative of the strain ðB M @M ð B T @T ð B Q @Q
energy, U, with respect to a force, is equal to the displacement @U @ H ds þ @ H ds þ ˜ @ H ds ¼ 0
¼
in the direction of the force. @H A EI A EA A GA

The strain energy of an arch rib is made up of three

components The axial thrust and shearing force terms are ignored by

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 195
 1 4a (Lx ⫺ x2)
y⫽
C L2
kL
α
a
y
y A x B
H H
A x B L
H H
δH
VA ⫽ (1 ⫺ k) VB ⫽ k
VA VB
Figure A2. Two-hinged parabolic arch (I ¼ I0 sec Æ)
Figure A1. Castigliano’s energy method

because

Pippard so that the above equation reduces to the following ðB ð L 2

4a
y dx ¼2 ð Lx
x 2Þ
dx
much simpler equation A 0 L
2

 L
ðB 16a2 2 x 3 x4 x5
@U @ M ds ¼ 4 L
2L þ
¼ M ¼0 L 3 4 5 0
@H A @ H EI
8a2 L
¼
15
The bending moment in a generic arch may be considered as
the sum of that arising from two loading cases, namely
and
(a) externally applied loading with the arch on a roller at one ðB ð kL
of the supports 4a
M S ydx ¼ (1
k)x ð Lx
x 2 Þdx
(b) the arch with a roller at the same support and an unknown A 0 L2
horizontal thrust applied to the roller. ðL
4a
þ ð Lx
x 2 Þdx
k(L
x)
kL L2
The total bending moment at x is given by   kL
4a Lx 3 x 4
¼ 2 (1
k)

M ¼ M S
Hy L 3 4 0
 L
4a L2 x 2 2Lx 3 x 4
þ 2k
þ
L 2 3 4 kL
where MS is the statically determinate bending moment,
therefore @@ M aL2
H ¼
y, and ¼ (k
2k3 þ k4 )
3
ðB
ds
(M S
Hy)(
y) ¼0
A EI Therefore, the horizontal thrust is

ðB
aL2
M S ydx
which leads to (k
2k3 þ k4 )
H ¼ ðA B ¼ 3
8a2 L
ðB y 2 dx
ds A 15
MS y
A EI 5 L
H ¼ ðB ¼ (k
2k3 þ k4 )
2 ds 8 a
y
A EI

The bending moment at the crown is

Consider a two-hinged parabolic arch with a secant variation
of I ¼ I0 sec Æ, as shown in Figure A2, where I0 is the second L
M ¼ VB
Ha
moment of area at the crown. The above equation then 2
becomes L 5 L
¼ k
(k
2k3 þ k4 ) a
2 8 a
ðB ðB ðB 1
ds dx sec Æ ¼
(k
10k3 þ 5k4 )L
MS y MS y M S ydx 8
EI EI 0 sec Æ
H ¼ ðA B ¼ ðA B ¼ ðA B
ds dx sec Æ
y2 y2 y 2 dx
A EI A EI 0 sec Æ A When k ¼ 1/2 (i.e. when the unit load is applied at midspan)
then

196 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne
 25 L 7 5L
HL ¼ , ML ¼ L d H1 ¼ (k
2k3 þ k4 )r(h þ d)dkL
128 a 128 8a
5 rL2
¼ (h þ d)(k
2k3 þ k4 )dk
8 a

A.2. Dead load effects

5L
A.2.1. Horizontal thrust due to dead load. The self-weight of a d H2 ¼ (k
2k3 þ k4 )r(a
y)dkL
8a
unit width bridge can be considered to be made up of two 5
components: the self-weight due to the depth of material ¼ rL2 (k
2k3 þ k4 )(1
4k þ 4k2 )dk
8
(h + d ), which is equivalent to a uniformly distributed load
(UDL), and the self-weight of material below the crown, namely
the shaded area above the parabola, as shown in Figure A3. Therefore

The horizontal thrust at the abutment corresponding to the ðL ð 0:5L

self-weight of the material of depth of (h + d ) is H1 , and H1 ¼ d H1 ¼ 2 d H1
thrust H2 corresponds to the self-weight of material below the 0 0
ð 0 :5
crown, namely the shaded area above the parabola, as shown 5 rL2
¼ (h þ d) (k
2k3 þ k4 )dk
in Figure A3. 4 a 0
 2 0:5
5 rL2 k k4 k5
The weight due to the shaded area below the crown but ¼ (h þ d)
2 þ
4 a 2 4 5 0
above the parabola varies according to the depth of (a
y).
1 rL2
¼ (h þ d)
8 a
Assuming x ¼ kL, then
and
4a
a
y ¼ a
(Lx
x 2 ) ð 1L ð 0:5L
L2
4a H2 ¼ d H2 ¼ 2 d H2
¼ a
2 (L 3 kL
k2 L2 ) 0 0
L ð 0 :5
5
¼ a(1
4k þ 4k2 ) ¼ rL2 (k
2k3 þ k4 )(1
4k þ 4k2 )dk
4 0
 2 0:5
5 k k3 k4 k5 k6 k7
¼ rL2
4 þ 2 þ 9
12 þ 4
4 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
Consider an element of length dx ¼ dkL, thrusts due to the
rL2
increase of length dkL are ¼
42

kL kL
dkL dkL

h⫹d h⫹d
C C

a a
y y
A B A B
x x
H H H1 H1
L L

VA VB V1 V1

dkL
kL
C

a
y
A B
x
H2 H2
L

V2 V2

Figure A3. Pippard’s dead load consideration

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 197
 Therefore, for unit width bridge the total horizontal thrust at
rL2 a
the crown due to dead load alone is MD ¼ M1 þ M2 ¼

336

1 rL2 rL2
HD ¼ H1 þ H2 ¼ (h þ d) þ The negative sign means that the bending moment due to the
8 a 42

 dead load causes tension in the extrados.
2
rL h þ d a
¼ þ
2a 4 21 For a width of 2h (i.e. Pippard’s chosen effective width) the
moment at the crown due the dead load becomes
For a width of 2h (i.e. Pippard’s chosen effective width), the
horizontal thrust becomes
rL2 a rL2 ah

2h ¼



 336 168
rL2 hþd a rL2 h h þ d a
2h þ ¼ þ
2a 4 21 a 4 21
A.3. Derivation of Pippard’s safe axle load WA
Pippard assumed the width of the arch barrel affected by a
point load was twice the depth of fill at the loaded point,
A.2.2. Bending moment at the crown due to dead load. The namely b ¼ 2h, and since it is least for a load at the crown, his
bending moment at the crown corresponding to the self-weight calculations of strength were based on the assumption of a
of the material of depth (h + d ) is M1 , and bending moment M2 concentrated load W at midspan.
corresponds to the self-weight of the material in the shaded
area, as shown in Figure A3. The corresponding thrust and bending moment at the crown
due to the dead load are
The bending moment caused by the UDL is


rL2 h h þ d a
L L L þ
M 1 ¼ V 1
r(h þ d)
H1 a a 4 21
2 24
rL2 ah
rL L rL2 1 rL2

¼ ð h þ dÞ
ð h þ dÞ
ð h þ dÞ a 168
2 2 8 8 a
¼0
and the thrust and bending moment at the crown due to the
unit live load placed at the crown are

The bending moment caused by the self-weight of the shaded

area, as shown in Figure A4, is given by 25 L
HL ¼ 1
128 a
rLa L rL2 rL2 a rL2 a rL2 a 7
M2 ¼
a¼
¼
ML ¼ L31
6 8 42 48 42 336 128

Therefore, for unit width bridge the bending moment at the Since the effective arch ring has a depth d and width 2h, the
crown due to dead load alone is cross-sectional area is 2hd, the section modulus is hd2 /3, and
the maximum compressive stress at the extrados is
L/8

H 3M c
fc ¼ þ
C 2hd hd2
M2

a
The extrados compressive stress at the crown due to the dead
load is given by
A
r L2
42

L/2
1 rL2 h h þ d a 3 rL2 ah
þ
2
2hd a 4 21 hd 168


rL2 1 hþd a
¼ þ

1
2d 21 4a 28d
raL
6

Figure A4. Bending moment at the crown due to dead load The extrados compressive stress at the crown due to the live
load is given by

198 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne

 For the parabolic arch with a secant variation of I ¼ I0 sec Æ
HL 3M L
þ W
2hd hd2 ðB

 dx sec Æ
MS y
0 sec Æ
1 25 L 3 7 EI
¼ þ 2 L W H ¼ ðB A
ðB
2hd 128 a hd 128 dx sec Æ dx sec Æ

 y2 þ cos2 Æ
L 25 42 A EI 0 sec Æ A EA
¼ þ W ðB
256hd a d
M S ydx
ðB ðA B
Therefore M S ydx y 2 dx
A A
¼ ðB ðB ¼

 I0 1þº
rL2 1 hþd a y 2 dx þ cos Æ dx
fc ¼ þ
A A A
2d 21 4a 28d


L 25 42
þ þ W where
256hd a d
ðB
I0
So cos Æ dx
A
º¼ A
ðB
2

 2
y dx
rL 1 hþd a
fc
þ
A
2d21
4a  28d
W ¼
L 25 42
þ
256hd a d assuming x ¼ kL; d is the arch barrel thickness at the crown;

 and d i is the arch barrel thickness at any point x.
256 f c hd 1 hþd a

128rLh þ

L
21  4a 28d
¼ Because
25 42
þ
a d
1 3 1 3
I ¼ I 0 sec Æ, i:e: bd ¼ bd sec Æ
12 i 12
The allowable axle loads by Pippard
which gives
W A ¼ 2W

d i ¼ d(sec Æ)1=3
APPENDIX B. DERIVATION OF EQUATION 41
(PRESENT STUDY)
and
When including the axial thrust term in the strain energy
equation the partial derivative of strain energy becomes
ðB ð1 1 3
I0 bd
cos Æ dx ¼ cos Æ 12 dkL
ðB M @M ð B T @T A A 0 bd i
@U @ H ds þ @ H ds ¼ 0 ð ð
¼ d2 L 1 cos Æ d2 L 1
@H A EI A EA ¼ dk ¼ (cos Æ)4=3 dk
12 0 (sec Æ)1=3 12 0

where the axial force at any point x is given by

Therefore

@T ðB ð1
T ¼ H cos Æ, and ¼ cos Æ I0 d2 L
@H cos Æ dx (cos Æ)4=3 dk
A 12
º ¼ A ðB ¼ 0

Thus 2 8a2 L
y dx
A 15
ðB ðB
2 ð 1
ds ds 5 d
(M S
Hy)(
y) þ ð H cos ÆÞ cos Æ ¼0 ¼ (cos Æ)4=3 dk
A EI A EA 32 a 0

Because
which leads to


ðB d y 4a 4a x
ds tan Æ ¼ ¼ 2 ð L
2x Þ ¼ 1
2
MS y dx L L L
A EI
H ¼ ðB ðB

ds ds 4a kL 4a
y 2 þ cos2 Æ ¼ 1
2 ¼ (1
2k)
A EI A EA L L L

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 199
 and
32
1þ º
7

M TL
M L
1 ¼ 1þº
cos Æ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H TL 1
HL
1 þ tan2 Æ 1þº




M 32 42 a 32
¼ L 1þ º ¼ 1þ º
It can be seen that when the span/rise ratio is fixed, the
HL 7 25 d 7
integration (cosÆ)4=3 is a constant, so º is in direct proportion
to (d/a)2 . The stress at the crown extrados due to a unit live load when
the axial thrust term is ignored in the strain energy equation is
Pippard’s standard bridge had a span/rise ratio of 4. For the given by
range of span/rise ratios of 2–8, the results of the integration of
Ð1
0 (cos Æ)
4=3
dk are listed in Table A1.

42 a

L ¼
HL þ
M L ¼ 1þ
HL
25 d
B.1. Live load effects
Let HL , ML represent horizontal thrust and bending moment at
the crown when the axial thrust term is neglected, and H TL , M TL
However, when the axial thrust term is included in the strain
represent the horizontal thrust and bending moment at the
energy equation the stress at the crown extrados becomes
crown when including the axial thrust term, therefore

TL ¼
H T þ
M TL
L
1
H TL ¼ HL
1þº 1þ º
32
1 7

¼
H þ ML
1þº L 1þº


1 42 a 32
32 ¼ 1þ 1 þ º
HL
1 L 1 1 1þ º 1þº 25 d 7
M TL ¼ T

HLa ¼ L
HL a ¼ 7 M
L
22 4 1þº 1þº

Therefore, it follows that

The corresponding stresses at the crown due to H TL and M TL are

L
HL þ
M L
¼
H TL 1 HL 1
TL
H T þ
M TL

H TL ¼
H
L
¼ ¼

bd 1 þ º bd 1 þ º L 42 a
1þ
HL
25 d
¼ 

1 42 a 32
0 1 0 1 1þ 1 þ º
HL
32 32 1þº 25 d 7
6M TL @1 þ ºA 6M @1 þ º


M TL ¼ ¼ 7 L
¼ 7 A
42 a
bd2
1þº bd2 1þº
ML ð1 þ ºÞ 1 þ
25 d
¼

42 a 32
1þ 1þ º
25 d 7
Because

6M L 7
L 42 a B.2. Dead load effects

M L 2 6 M 6
¼ bd ¼ ¼ 128 ¼
L
When including the axial thrust term in the strain energy

HL HL d HL d 25 L 25 d
equation, for a unit width bridge, the total horizontal thrust
bd 128 a
due to the dead load alone is given by

and

rL2 hþd a 1
H TD ¼ þ
2a 4 21 1þº
Ð1
0 (cos Æ)
4=3
Span/rise ratio dk
As previously discussed, the bending moment at the crown due
2 0.66 to the dead weight of the material of depth (h + d ), namely a
4 0.85
UDL, is zero when using the equations corresponding to the
6 0.92
8 0.95 axial thrust term is ignored. However, the uniformly distributed
load does not produce a zero bending moment at the crown
Table A1. Integration of (cosÆ)4=3 when including the axial thrust term in the strain energy
equation due to the consideration of º.

200 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne
According to Figure B1, the bending moment caused by the
H TD 6M TD
UDL is
H TD þ
M TD ¼ þ 2
d d


rL2 ð h þ dÞ rL2 ð h þ dÞ 1 rL 2
1 hþd 1 rL2 a
M rect
D ¼
a ¼ þ

8 8a 1þº 2d 21 4a 1 þ º 56d2
 
rL2 ð h þ dÞ º 1
7º 42ð h þ dÞ º
¼ 3

8 1þº 1þº a 1þº


rL2 1 1 hþd
¼ þ
The positive sign indicates that the bending moment due to the 2d 1 þ º 21 4a
rectangular weight, namely the UDL, produces a sagging  
a 42ð h þ dÞ
moment.
ð1
7ºÞ
º
28d a
For the dead weight of the shaded area the bending moment is
given by
B.3. New safe axle load
rLa L rL2 1 The compressive stress at the crown under the combined dead
M para ¼
a
D
6 8 42 1 þ º and live load together should not exceed the maximum


rL2 a 8 permitted value of the compressive stress fc , that is
¼

7
336 1 þ º
 
rL2 a 1
7º W T
H TL þ
M TL þ
H TD þ
M TD < f c
¼

336 1 þ º

where

The negative sign means that the bending moment produces a 


hogging moment which produces tension in the extrados at the 1 42 a 32

H T þ
M TL ¼
HL 1þ 1þ º
crown. L 1þº 25 d 7


L 1 25 42 32
Therefore, the moment at the crown due the dead load when ¼ þ 1þ º
256hd 1 þ º a d 7
including the axial thrust term is

M TD ¼ M para þ M rect It follows that the new limiting value of the point load at the
D D
  crown becomes
rL2 a 1
7º 42ð h þ dÞ º
¼



336 1 þ º a 1þº rL2 1 1 hþd
fc
þ
2d 1 þ º 21 4a
 
a 42ð h þ dÞ
So the compressive stress at the crown extrados is given by
ð 1
7º
Þ º
WT ¼ 28d 
a 
L 1 25 42 32
þ 1þ º
256hd 1 þ º a d 7


256 f c hd 1 1 hþd

128rLh þ
h⫹d L 1þº 21 4a
C  
a 42ð h þ dÞ

ð1
7ºÞ
º
a
¼ 28d 
a 
A B r L2 1 25 42 32
1
(h ⫹ d)
1 þ 1þ º
8 a 1⫹λ 1þº a d 7
L

1
r(h ⫹ d)L
2 REFERENCES
C Crisfield MA and Page J (1990) Assessment of the load carrying
capacity of arch bridges. In The Maintenance of Brick and
a Stone Masonry Structures (Sowden AM (ed.)). E. & F.N. Spon,
A B r L2 1 London, pp. 81–113.
42 1 ⫹ λ Harvey WJ (2007) Review of the Military Engineering
L
Experimental Establishment (MEXE) Method. Report to the
1 International Union of Railways, Paris, UIC Project I/03/U/
raL
6
285.
Heyman J (1982) The Masonry Arch. Ellis Horwood, Chichester,
Figure B1. Dead load effects when including the axial thrust
term UK.
Highways Agency (2001) Highway Structures: Inspection and

Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne 201
 Maintenance. Assessment. Assessment of Highway Bridges
and Structures. Highways Agency, London, UK, DMRB
Volume 3 Section 4 Part 4 (BA 16/97).
McKibbins L, Melbourne C, Sawar N and Gaillard CS (2006)
Masonry Arch Bridges: Condition Appraisal and Remedial
Treatment. CIRIA, London, C656
Melbourne C, Wang J and Tomor AK (2007) A new masonry
arch bridge assessment method (SMART). Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Bridge Engineering, 160(2):
81–87.
Network Rail (2006) The Structural Assessment of
Underbridges. Network Rail, London, guidance note, NR/GN/
CIV/025.
Pippard AJS (1948) The approximate estimation of safe loads
on masonry bridges. In Civil Engineer in War, vol. 1. The
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK, pp.
365–372.
Pippard AJS, Tranter E and Chitty L (1936) The mechanics of
the voussoir arch. Journal of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, 4(2): 281–306.
Sustainable Bridges (2010) www.sustainablebridges.net
(accessed 22/03/2007).

What do you think?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the
journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be
2000–5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can
submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

202 Engineering and Computational Mechanics 163 Issue EM3 MEXE method for masonry arch bridge assessment Wang • Melbourne