Experimental/load tests

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Load Tests to Collapse on Masonry Arch Bridges

JPAGE
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom

SUMMARY

This paper describes a series of load tests to failure or near failure on eleven masonry arch
bridges undertaken between 1984 and 1994. The series covered a wide variety of spans,
materials and conditions and a wide variety of maximum loads and failure modes were
achieved. The series provides valuable calibration data for arch bridge assessment methods
both now and in the future.

1 INTRODUCTION

Masonry arch bridges are an important part of the British road and rail network. There are
for instance about forty thousand road bridges, about forty percent of our total bridge
stock. The amount of traffic they are now called on to carry has increased enormously
since they were built, as also has the weight of some of that traffic. It is a testimony to
their builders who could not have envisaged today's traffic conditions that so many of them
are still in use. It is important that they continue to perform their function because it would
be neither practicable nor desirable to replace them. The cost would be enormous and
many make a positive contribution to the landscape.

It is necessary from time to time to assess their load capacity, perhaps because the bridge
has deteriorated with the passage of time, or because (as at present) increased axle and
vehicle loads are planned. There are a variety of assessment methods available for arch
bridges, and new ones are being developed. The Transport Research Laboratory embarked
in 1984 on a series of load tests to collapse of redundant masonry arch bridges and of full
scale models to provide calibration data for such assessment methods so that confidence in
their reliability could be improved. This series of eleven tests is now complete and this
paper is the first time that a summary of the results of the completed series has been
published.

2 TESTING PROCEDURE

As far as possible, a standard testing procedure was adopted. It was designed to explore
the load capacity of the whole structure, ie the arch ring, any haunching to the arch, the
spandrel walls and parapets, and the fill. It was not intended to be a test of the foundations
(except that any lack of stiffness of the foundations would enable the abutments of the arch

289
Arch bridges. Thomas Telford, London, 1995

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ARCH BRIDGES

ring plus fill; some may take account of foundations by allowing non-rigid abutments to be
considered.

Load was applied to a strip on the road surface the full width of the bridge between parapets (see
figure 1) at a point where the least load needed for failure was expected. This was based on
calculations of failure load against load position assuming that the arch would fail as a "four
hinged mechanism" (see Page, 1993) and was either at quarter or third span. The strip was
normally made 750mm wide to distribute the load enough to avoid a premature failure of the fill.
For Prestwood it was 300mm wide and for the Dundee model 610mm. The load effect is similar
to two (or more) axles side by side.

Load was applied by means of hydraulic jacks. In all cases but one, reaction for the load was
supplied by ground anchors which passed through holes drilled in the bridge deck. For
Prestwood Bridge where a very small collapse load was expected, reaction was provided by the
weight of concrete blocks on a steel frame above the bridge.

Load was applied in increments, and the response of the structure measured, up to the maximum
load which could be applied. Beyond this load, increments of displacement were used because
the applied load decreased as the displacement increased. Eventually, when the applied load had
become quite small, the jacks were pumped continuously until collapse occurred.

Instrumentation was generally kept simple because it would be lost when the bridge collapsed.
Displacement of the arch ring was measured by means of precision surveying. On some bridges,
strain and displacement gauges were also used. Moire photography and photogrammetry were
also used at Preston Bridge to measure displacements, and acoustic emission was used at several
bridges to detect the development of damage in the structure. Comprehensive video and still
photographic records were made.

3 THE BRIDGES

The main parameters of the bridges tested are listed in table 1. There is not space in this paper
to provide all the data needed to describe the bridges; the reader is referred to the reports
describing individual tests (see references).

4 THE LOAD TESTS

Bridgemill, Strathclyde Region (figure 2) was the longest span bridge tested. It crossed a river
and became redundant because of road realignment. It was in good condition. Load was applied
at quarter span and the maximum load applied was 3100kN but it was not taken to collapse.
Cracks had appeared in the arch ring at the likely sites of hinges if the bridge had been taken to
failure.

Bargower, Strathclyde Region (figure 3) was a semicircular arch across a river. It had a number
of defects, the main ones being that the parapets and the spandrel and wing walls leaned
outwards, and there was a longitudinal crack in the arch ring about 1 m from one edge which
extended almost from springing to springing. Load was applied at third span. The first visible
sign of damage, material falling out of the longitudinal crack, occurred at 3400kN. The
maximum load applied was 5600kN. Failure occurred by crushing of the arch ring beneath the
load line. Prior to that, longitudinal cracks appeared in the arch ring beneath the inside edge of

290

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 EXPERIMENTAL/LOAD TESTS

the spandrel walls indicating that the outer section of ring stiffened by the spandrel walls was
splitting from the more flexible middle section stiffened only by fill.

Table 1 The bridges tested

Bridge Arch ring Depth

of fill
at
Square Rise at Arch ring Skew Shape Material/ crown
span midspan thickness (deg) construction (mm)
(m) (m) (mm)

Bridgemill 18.30 2.85 711 0 Parabolic Ashlar 203

sandstone

Bargower 10.00 5.18 558 16 Segmental Ashlar 1200

sandstone

Preston 4.95 1.64 360 17 Elliptical Ashlar 380

sandstone

Prestwood 6.55 1.43 220 0 Segmental Brick 165

(distorted)

Torksey 4.90 1.15 343 0 Segmental Brick 246

Shinafoot 6.16 1.18 390-770 0 Segmental Random 215

rubble stone

Strathmashie 9.42 2.99 600 0 Segmental Random 410

rubble stone

Barlae 8.53 1.69 450 29 Segmental Ashlar 295

sandstone
Dundee 4.00 2.00 250 0 Segmental Precast 250
model concrete
voussoirs
Bolton 6.00 1.00 220 0 Segmental Concrete 300
model brick

Rotherham 8.89 2.27 483 0 Segmental Brick 710

Road*
* 3 span bridge

Preston-upon-the-Wealdmoors, Shropshire (figure 4) crossed a filled in branch of the Shropshire

Union Canal. It was in reasonably good condition. It was loaded at third span and the maximum
load applied was 2110kN. The first visible sign of damage occurred at 161 OkN. Failure
occurred by crushing of the arch ring although prior to this there was evidence of the
development of three hinges. Longitudinal cracks appeared in the ring beneath the inside edge
of the spandrel walls.

291

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ARCH BRIDGES

Prestwood, West Midlands (figure 5) was an accommodation bridge across the Staffordshire and
Worcestershire Canal. Its arch comprised a single ring of bricks laid as headers. The bridge was
in poor condition, with a severely distorted arch, missing spandrel walls and brickwork in poor
condition. It was loaded at quarter span. The first visible sign of damage occurred at 173kN and
the maximum load applied was 228kN. Failure occurred as a four hinged mechanism with
negligible material crushing.

Torksey Lincolnshire (figure 6) crossed a drainage channel. It was in poor condition principally
because both spandrel walls had moved outwards taking the outer sections of arch immediately
beneath with them; the cracks in the arch were up to 75mm wide. It was loaded at quarter span.
The first sign of damage occurred at 1080kN when some slight spalling was seen close to the
crown of the arch. This was also the maximum load applied. There was evidence of three
hinges having developed in the arch before collapse, and collapse appeared to occur due to a
"snap-through" of the three hinges. The spandrel walls remained standing.

Shinafoot, Tayside (figure 7) crossed a river and was redundant because of road realignment.
It was built of random rubble masonry. There was some minor outward movement of one
spandrel wall, with some longitudinal cracking of the arch ring beneath its inside edge.
Otherwise the bridge was in good condition. It was loaded at quarter span. The first visible sign
of damage occurred at 2524kN, when small amounts of material fell off. This was also the
maximum load applied. The arch eventually collapsed as a four hinged mechanism but not
before both spandrel walls and parts of the arch fell off.

Strathmashie, Highland Region (figure 8) crossed a river and had been redundant for many
years. It also was built of random rubble masonry. The state of the pointing was poor and there
was a serious longitudinal crack in the arch about one metre in from one face. It was loaded at
quarter span. The first visible sign of damage occurred at a load of 715kN, when small amounts
of material fell from the arch soffit. The maximum load applied was 1325kN. Collapse of one
spandrel wall and most of the arch occurred progressively; the other spandrel wall remained
standing.

Barlae, Dumfries <£ Galloway (figure 9) crossed a disused railway and was redundant because
of road realignment. It was built of ashlar masonry and was in reasonable condition, the main
damage being spalling of the masonry. It was the most heavily skewed bridge tested. It was
loaded at quarter span. The first visible sign of damage, a crack in the mortar between the arch
and the spandrel wall, appeared at 1470kN. The maximum applied load was 2900kN at which
point three hinges were visible. The hinges were parallel to the springings; because the
voussoirs were laid helicoidally the hinges could not follow a single joint between voussoirs;
rather they would follow a joint for a short distance and then jump to the next joint. Collapse
occurred as a snap-through of about half the arch followed by a general collapse of the
remainder.

Dundee Model (figure 10) was built in the laboratory at Dundee University. The arch was built
of precast concrete voussoirs and the spandrel walls and parapets of concrete bricks. A fill of
sandy gravel was added and a 50mm thick layer of dense bitumen macadam added to model the
roadway. Load was applied at third span. The first visible sign of damage, a crack between the
arch and the spandrel wall, occurred at 670kN. The maximum load applied was 1040kN.
Hinges developed but the test was not taken to failure.

292

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 EXPERIMENTAL/LOAD TESTS

Bolton Model (figure 11) was built in the laboratory at Bolton Institute. The arch and spandrel
walls were built of concrete bricks. A fill of graded limestone was added and a 100mm thick
layer of bituminous material added to model the roadway. Load was applied at quarter span.
The first visible sign of damage, a crack between the arch and the spandrel wall, occurred at
360kN. The maximum load applied was 1170kN. Failure was as a four hinged mechanism.

Rotherham Road (figure 12) was a three span approach to a steel main span railway bridge
which became redundant because of a road realignment. Multiple span bridges may have a
lower load capacity than equivalent single span arches if the intermediate piers are slender
enough to allow significant interaction between adjacent spans, and one object of the test was
to examine that interaction. The three spans were very similar and the intermediate piers were
1.26m wide and 2.82m high between arches 1 and 2, and 3.12m high between arches 2 and 3.
The pier between arch 3 and the steel main span was very substantial and was expected to
behave as if it were an abutment.

Load was applied to arch 3 at the quarter span nearest the main span (which had been removed
before the test). The first visible sign of damage occurred at 2600kN. The maximum load
applied was 3500kN. It failed as a three hinge snap-through of the arch, with ring separation
occurring between the top and bottom two rings. The other two arches remained standing and
no damage was visible.

5 DISCUSSION

As intended, a wide variety of spans, materials, condition, etc, was covered in the tests and a
wide variety of maximum loads and failure modes achieved. The purpose of the tests was to
provide calibration data for assessment methods. It is not the purpose of this paper to compare
the test results with calculations from assessment methods. However some points may be made
about the applicability of various methods.

5.1 Applicability of the MEXE method

In the UK, the modified MEXE method of assessment is recommended (see BD 21/93 and BA
16/93 - Department of Transport et al, 1993a, b) before more sophisticated methods of analysis
are attempted. It is based on an elastic analysis and a description of its derivation will be found
in Page, 1993. It calculates a value of allowable axle load for a single axle and a two and three
axle bogie and as such is not directly comparable with load tests to failure. It should be noted
that there are a variety of restrictions on the use of the MEXE method:

* It is not intended for use with heavily skewed bridges such as Barlae.

* Where the depth of fill is greater than the arch ring thickness, BD 21/93 states that the
results should be confirmed by a more rigorous method; this applies to Bargower,
Preston, Bolton model and Rotherham Road.

* Where the arch is appreciably deformed, BA 16/93 states that the method should not be
used; this applies to Prestwood.

* The method is not intended for use with multispan bridges such as Rotherham Road
unless the intermediate piers are short and stocky enough to treat each span as an
individual single arch span; the load test on Rotherham Road suggested this was

293

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ARCH BRIDGES

possible.

There are therefore caveats concerning its use with seven of the eleven bridges tested. This
problem may be reflected in the arch bridge stock generally.

5.2 Applicability of the mechanism method

Only two of the bridges - Prestwood and the Bolton model - failed purely as mechanisms
(Shinafoot had largely fallen apart before what was left failed as a mechanism). This is
significant because most of the assessment methods commercially available are based on a
mechanism failure analysis. This is not to say that such methods will provide wholly inaccurate
assessments of load capacity because most of the other bridges showed signs of the development
of hinges before other failure modes took over and it may be that the failure load of the other
modes would be not much different to a mechanism failure load, if that could have been
achieved. In addition, most mechanism analyses have been modified to permit local crushing
at the hinges, thereby taking a crushing failure into account. It may however be difficult to
estimate the crushing strength to use for what is a very variable material.

5.3 Two dimensional assessment methods

All the assessment methods available at present analyse a two-dimensional longitudinal slice of
the bridge. They cannot therefore take into account transverse bending of the arch ring under
a wheel load. They can however be compared with the tests described here because the load was
applied to almost the full width of the bridge. Secondly they cannot take into account the
stiffening effect of the spandrel walls. However in these tests,they showed signs of splitting
from the rest of the arch before failure occurred (in some cases they had cracked away before
the test began). It is likely therefore that in most cases the spandrel walls will contribute little
to the ultimate load capacity of the bridge.

Finally, the load at which the first sign of damage occurred was very variable. In two cases
(Torksey and Shinafoot) it was at the maximum load. If these loads could have been acheived
under traffic loading, a brittle failure would have occurred, that is the bridge would have
collapsed without visible signs that a failure was imminent. Displacements at the first damage
load could however be substantial; vertical displacements ranged from 8.2mm (Strathmashie)
to 65.8mm (Shinafoot). If therefore there is thought to be a risk to a bridge from traffic loads,
monitoring of displacements would be wise.

6 REFERENCES

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT et al. 1993a. The assessment of highway bridges and

structures. Department of Transport, Departmental Standard BD 21/93. London: DoT.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT et al. 1993b. The assessment of highway bridges and

structures. Department of Transport, Advice Note BA 16/93. London: DoT.

HARVEY, W J. 1989. load tests on a full scale four metre span masonry arch bridge.
Department of Transport. TRRL Contractor Report 155. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.

HENDRY, A W, DA VIES, S R AND ROYLES, R. 1985. Test on stone masonry arch at

Bridgemill-Girvan. Department of Transport. TRRL Contractor Report 7. Transport

294

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 EXPERIMENTAL/LOAD TESTS

Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

HENDRY, A W, et al. 1986. Load test to collapse on a masonry arch bridge at Bargower.
Department of Transport. TRRL Contractor Report 26. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.

MELBOURNE, C. 1989. Load test to collapse on a full scale six metre span brick arch
bridge. Department of Transport. TRRL Contractor Report 189. Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne.

PAGE, J. 1987. Load tests to collapse on two arch bridges at Preston, Shropshire and
Prestwood, Staffordshire. Department of Transport. TRRL Research Report 110. Transport
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

PAGE, J. 1988. Load tests to collapse on two arch bridges at Torksey and Shinafoot.
Department of Transport. TRRL Research Report 159. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.

PAGE, J. 1989. Load tests to collapse on two arch bridges at Strathmashie and Barlae.
Department of Transport. TRRL Research Report 201. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.

PAGE, J. 1993. Masonry arch bridges. TRL State of the Art Review. Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, London.

PAGE, J. 1994. Load test to collapse on the three span brick masonry arch Rotherham
Road Railway Bridge. Department of Transport. TRL Project Report PRCE 49 94
(unpublished). Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

Figure 1 Preston Bridge: plan

295

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ARCH BRIDGES

Figure 2 Bridgemill Figure 3 Bargower

Figure 4 Preston-upon-the-Wealdmoors Figure 5 Prestwood

296

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 EXPERIMENTAL/LOAD TESTS

Figure 6 Torksey at moment of collapse Figure 7 Shinafoot

Figure 8 Strathmashie Figure 9 Barlae showing three hinges

297

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 ARCH BRIDGES

Figure 10 Dundee model

Figure 11 Bolton model

Figure 12 Rotherham Road

298

Downloaded by [ Swinburne University] on [02/10/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.