Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of

stone arch bridges
Paul J. Fanning a,1, Thomas E. Boothby b,*
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University College Dublin, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, 104 Engineering Unit A, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-1417,
USA
Received 10 November 2000; accepted 27 June 2001

Abstract
Existing test results of full-scale in-service masonry arch bridges are analysed to determine appropriate material
properties for the modelling of this structural type. Three-dimensional nonlinear ®nite element models of three masonry
arch bridges are generated using a commercially available ®nite element package. The behaviour of the masonry is
replicated by use of a solid element that can have its sti€ness modi®ed by the development of cracks and crushing. The
®ll is modelled as a Drucker±Prager material, and the interface between the masonry and the ®ll is characterised as a
frictional contact surface. The bridges are modelled under service loads, and the model results are compared to the
results of a program of ®eld testing of the structures. It is found that the assumption of a reasonable set of material
properties, based on visual observations of the material and construction of the structure, implemented through a
program of three-dimensional nonlinear ®nite element analysis enable good predictions of the actual behaviour of a
masonry arch bridge. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fill; Cracking; Bridge; Arch; Masonry

1. Introduction concrete bridges, such statements are surprising when

The predictability of masonry arch bridges and
their behaviour is widely considered doubtful. The most
widespread and authoritative document on the assess-
ment of masonry arch bridges, the UK Department of
Transport's Advice Note BA 16, says ``The long term
strength of a brick or masonry arch bridge is almost
impossible to calculate accurately and recourse has,
therefore, been made to an empirical formula based on
the arch dimensions'' [1]. In view of the con®dence with
which bridge engineers enter assessments of steel or
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-814-863-2082; fax: +1-814-
863-4789.
E-mail addresses: paul.fanning@ucd.ie (P.J. Fanning),
tebarc@engr.psu.edu (T.E. Boothby).
1
Tel.: +353-1-7067373; fax: +353-1-7067399.
made with respect to bridge form that has persisted for
over 2000 years and has been the subject of scienti®c
analysis for over 300 years. This outlook on masonry
bridge assessment arises from two primary reasons: the
lack of knowledge about the conditions of a given ma-
sonry arch bridge, and the lack of an accepted procedure
for the analysis of masonry arch bridges. The ®rst of
these obstacles can never be fully overcome, but it will
be shown that most of the really uncertain issues con-
cerning individual structures have less e€ect than the
observable issues: stone quality, quality of construction,
and general geometric con®guration. Although a general
analysis procedure for masonry arch bridges will not be
proposed, it is the intention of this paper, by the com-
parison of the results of full-scale ®eld tests on stone
arch bridges to the predictions of three-dimensional
nonlinear ®nite element analysis, to understand that the
structural behaviour of masonry arch bridges is pre-
dictable.

0045-7949/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 9 - 2
2646 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
2. Construction of masonry arch bridges
A typical masonry arch bridge, the Grith Bridge in
Dublin, Ireland, is shown in Fig. 1. Although much of
the structure is visible, a signi®cant part of the structure
is concealed. The main support at the abutment of the
bridge is only rarely available for inspection. The depth
of the arch barrel visible on the face of the structure is
not necessarily the same as the depth within the struc-
ture. The properties of the ®ll are generally unknown,
and the ®ll has been shown in testing to have a sub-
stantial in¯uence on the ultimate strength of the struc-
ture [2]. Nearly all stone arch bridges have stone backing
behind the abutments in some form, either loose cob-
blestones, or dressed, coursed unbonded masonry to some
unknown depth within the ®ll. The structural properties
of the backing are substantially di€erent from the re-
mainder of the ®ll, and the depth or extent of the back-
ing is rarely known in the course of the assessment of a
stone bridge.
3. Assessment of masonry arch bridges
Although analysis procedures for steel and concrete
bridges, such as determination of e€ective widths of
concrete slab bridges or determination of girder distri-
bution factors for steel or prestressed concrete girders,
are ®rmly established, no such accepted procedure for
the rational analysis of masonry arch bridges exists. The
Fig. 1. Grith Bridge, Dublin, Ireland.
most widely distributed and cited method for the analy-
sis of masonry arch bridges, the mechanism method,
proposed by Heyman [3] is universally accepted by ac-
ademic researchers and has almost no proponents
among bridge owners. However, an adaptation of the
mechanism method has gained some currency among
bridge owners in the British Isles for the capacity analy-
sis of arch bridges.
Two wide-spread methods for the assessment of
masonry arch bridges are currently available. The ®rst,
known as the MEXE method, is a semi-empirical
method, including multiple reduction factors based on
conditions noted in a visual inspection.
The MEXE method is incorporated into the UK
standard for the assessment of bridges [1]. The method
is crude at best, and the rational basis of the reduction
factors has never been well established. Other limita-
tions of the method are well known. It is extremely
conservative, and because the basic formula for allow-
able axle load is based on a parabolic arch, the
method becomes grossly over-conservative for shapes
of arch other than parabolic, especially segmental or
elliptical arches. The method is widely used because
it is extraordinarily simple to apply, but it is gener-
ally unsuitable to the management of an important
population of bridges because it will result in unwar-
ranted bridge postings, unwarranted rejections of heavy
vehicle permits, and unwarranted strengthening of
bridges.
The other commonly occurring method for ma-
sonry bridges is a computer program known as A R C H I E
 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
[4]. This program is an application of the mechanism
method, in which the mechanism associated with the
lowest load is considered as the collapse mechanism for
the structure. Loads are increased by safety factors and
distributed through the bridge ®ll by a set procedure.
The program determines the thinnest arch ring required
to resist the loads to which the structure is subjected,
and this arch ring thickness may be compared to the
actual arch ring thickness.
All of the existing assessment methods examine the
capacity of a bridge along the span length only. How-
ever, it is known that a signi®cant number of arch bridge
failures are due to transverse e€ects: soil pressures on the
spandrel walls or wingwalls of the structure, and the
development of longitudinal cracks in the arch barrel.
No method to date has been advanced for the assess-
ment of these e€ects.
4. Modelling masonry arch bridges
Masonry arch bridges are complex structures in-
volving interaction between the masonry material, the
overlying ®ll material, the road surface, and the sur-
rounding soil medium, each of which has the potential
to behave in a nonlinear manner under loading. Fur-
thermore, the structural form of the bridge, which in-
cludes the shape and pro®le of both the arch barrel and
the spandrel walls, results in signi®cant three-dimen-
sional structural responses. The contribution of these
three-dimensional e€ects to the response of masonry
arch bridges has been noted, but is rarely discussed in as
an important element of bridge assessment. Royles and
Hendry [2] used a series of model tests to demonstrate
the substantial contribution of the ®ll material, the
spandrel walls and the wing-walls to the ultimate
strength of a masonry arch bridge. Page et al. [5] found
that 23 bridges in a survey of 98 structures had a
spandrel wall defect of some kind. Begimgil [6] found a
signi®cant spandrel wall restraint on a 1.25 m span half-
scale brick masonry bridge. During loading, de¯ections
measured across the width of the barrel were generally
larger at mid-barrel. Boothby et al. [7] made similar
observations in testing of full-scale bridges under service
load. Summaries of load tests to collapse by Page [8±11]
include the description of eleven di€erent bridge failures
during testing. Of these, nine had pre-existing longitu-
dinal cracks or developed them during testing, while
only two of the bridges failed by development of a
hinging mechanism. Ponniah et al. [12], in reporting
the results of in situ testing on a full-scale bridge, did
not consider the use of three-dimensional ®nite ele-
ment analysis feasible, but Roberts [13] had improved
the accuracy of their predictions by the use of three-
dimensional modelling.
2647
5. Three-dimensional modelling
Three-dimensional ®nite element models allow the
analyst to account accurately for the extent and geo-
metry of each of these constituents in constructing a rep-
resentative numerical model of a masonry arch bridge.
The ®nite element mesh used for the arch barrel and
spandrel walls of Grith Bridge in Dublin is shown in
Fig. 2. In this instance, the structure and loading had a
single plane of symmetry, hence, only a half model of
the full bridge was constructed. The A N S Y S V 5 . 5 ®nite
element software was used to construct the model and
three-dimensional eight noded isoparametric elements,
Solid65, were employed for the masonry material. This
element uses a smeared crack model to allow the for-
mations of cracks perpendicular to the direction of
principal stresses that exceed the tensile strength of
the masonry material. Overlaid on the arch barrel and
contained within the spandrel walls, three-dimensional
solid elements are also used to model the ®ll material
and any masonry or rubble backing to the arch barrel,
as shown in Fig. 3. To facilitate sliding or movement
of the ®ll material relative to the arch barrel and the
spandrel walls without generating signi®cant tensile
stresses at the interface between these materials, three-
dimensional frictional contact surfaces are included.
Linear elastic material parameters and speci®c non-
linear material laws de®ne the material properties for the
masonry and the ®ll material. A smeared crack model
is employed for the masonry material to cater for the
brittle formation of cracks in zones of tensile stresses,
while a Drucker±Prager material law is used for the ®ll
material. The contact surface between the ®ll and the
masonry superstructure may be de®ned as a friction
Fig. 2. Grith Bridge ± ®nite element model (arch barrel and
spandrel walls).
2648 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
Fig. 3. Grith Bridge ± ®nite element model including ®ll ele-
ments.
surface by specifying a coecient of friction between
normal, and tangential surface pressures.
The performance of structural masonry is charac-
terised by high compressive strengths with little or no
tensile strength. Tensile stresses induced in a masonry
arch bridge result in the formation of cracks, typically
running along the mortar lines, in the bridge and the
formation of these cracks is typically of a brittle na-
ture. A N S Y S [14] provides a dedicated three-dimensional
eight-noded solid isoparametric element, Solid65, to
model the nonlinear response of brittle materials based
on a constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of
concrete after Williams and Warnke [15]. The element
includes a smeared crack analogy for cracking in ten-
sion zones and a plasticity algorithm to account for
the possibility of crushing in compression zones. The
masonry units and mortar joints are modelled as a
continuum with appropriate compressive and tensile
strengths assigned to account for the global response of
the resultant masonry-mortar material. Each element
has eight integration points at which cracking and
crushing checks are performed. The element behaves in a
linear elastic manner until either of the speci®ed tensile
or compressive strengths are exceeded. Cracking or
crushing of an element is initiated once one of the ele-
ment principal stresses, at an element integration point,
exceeds the tensile or compressive strength of the con-
tinuum. Cracked or crushed regions, as opposed to
discrete cracks, are then formed perpendicular to the
relevant principal stress direction with stresses being
redistributed locally. The element is thus nonlinear and
requires an iterative solver. In the numerical routines the
formation of a crack is achieved by the modi®cation of
the stress±strain relationships of the element to intro-
duce a plane of weakness in the requisite principal stress
direction. The amount of shear transfer across a crack
can be varied between full shear transfer and no shear
transfer at a cracked section. The crushing algorithm is
akin to a plasticity law in that the once a section has
crushed any further application of load in that direction
develops increasing strains at constant stress. Subse-
quent to the formation of an initial crack, stresses tan-
gential to the crack face may cause a second or third
crack to develop at an integration point.
The ®ll material has a signi®cant e€ect on the ulti-
mate strength of a masonry arch bridge. The ®ll material
locks compressive stresses into the arch ring under dead
load, distributes concentrated loads over greater lengths
and widths of the arch barrel, and provides longitudinal
restraint to the arch by its interaction with the sur-
rounding soil medium. The ®ll material is generally a soil
material or unbonded masonry or rubble and is often
very variable in its structural characteristics, although
it is not uncommon for masonry arch bridges to have
regularly arranged backing near the arch abutments. In
constructing the numerical models for the bridges dis-
cussed in this paper, no backing was considered and the
®ll material was modelled using a Drucker±Prager
material law. The Drucker±Prager yield criterion requires
three material parameters: the cohesion, c, the angle of
internal friction, /, and the angle of dilation. The yield
surface, plotted in Fig. 4, is de®ned by the equation:
p
f ˆ J2 aI1 k ˆ 0;
where I1 is the ®rst stress invariant and J2 is the second
deviatoric stress invariant. In A N S Y S , the values of k and
a are given by equations that ®t the smooth Drucker±
Prager yield surface around the irregular Mohr±Cou-
lomb surface:
6c cos / 2 sin /
k ˆ p and a ˆ p :
3 3 sin /† 3 3 sin /†
The yield envelope for the ®ll material thus takes
account of the in situ soil stresses and the magnitude of
tensile stresses induced is limited by the cohesion value
speci®ed. The lateral pressures generated on the spandrel
Fig. 4. Drucker±Prager ®ll material model (A N S Y S ).
 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
walls due to the self-weight of ®ll material are made
consistent with the coecient of lateral earth pressure at
rest, k ˆ 1 sin u, by setting the Poisson's ratio of the
®ll material such that:
1 sin u
mˆ :
2 sin u
The loading on a masonry arch bridge is a combi-
nation of self-weight loading and trac loading. The
proportion of loading due to the self-weight is signi®cant
and indeed much of the strength of these bridges is due
to the stresses induced in the masonry material due to
self-weight e€ects. In modelling this type of bridge an
initial gravity-loading step is applied to generate the
in situ stresses, both longitudinal and transverse, to
which the bridge is subjected. Subsequent loading events,
such as the passing of a truck over the bridge, use the
equilibrium solution from the gravitational load step as
a set of initial conditions. It is dicult to approximate
accurately the in situ stress state of a given bridge as the
structure may have been subjected to a complex stress
history, which may have resulted in cracks that would
alter its response. In these circumstances a visual in-
spection may be useful in identifying signi®cant struc-
tural cracking that can subsequently be included in an
initial load step simulation prior to modelling of any
trac event.
The boundary conditions for a masonry arch bridge
are a result of the bridge itself and the ®ll material
interacting with the surrounding soil medium. In ap-
plying boundary conditions to numerical models, it is
important that additional stresses are not induced due to
over-constraining the model. In general terms, the ®ll
material should be considered to provide longitudinal
restraint to the arch barrel, while the base of the arch
and the spandrel walls are supported vertically. The
speci®c boundary conditions for the three dimensional
models of the bridges under study are discussed in Sec-
tion 7 of this paper.
6. Investigation: testing
A series of similar stone arch bridges was tested
in Ohio, USA, by the second author. The results are
described in detail in Refs. [8,16]. In this study, three
bridges of similar geometry, time of construction, and
materials were tested within the space of one week. The
bridges were tested by construction of a reference frame
beneath the bridge structure, installing linear variable
di€erential transformers (LVDT) on the reference frame
to measure displacements of the structure, and loading
the structure with a vehicle of known weight. Other than
the basic geometry of the structures, the modelling pa-
rameters such as support conditions, ®ll, properties,
2649
masonry sti€ness, etc., were determined by adjustment
of the ®nite element model to match the testing results.
Once a set of properties was determined, however, the
same properties and support conditions were applied to
all three of the bridges. Modelling results, using the basic
properties and procedures outlined in Section 7, showed
reasonable predictions of crown and abutment de¯ec-
tion and the ability of the three-dimensional ®nite ele-
ment modelling to predict di€erences in the bridge
response due to di€erences in bridge geometry (width,
depth/span ratio, ring thickness, etc.). Some of the
modelling results are described by Fanning et al. [17].
An important conclusion was also reached directly from
the testing program in that these visibly similar bridges
were found to have similar responses to load. As a re-
sult of this program, the values of modulus of elasticity
and compressive strength were recommended for use
in modelling stone bridges [18] using an elastic frame
analysis representation of the mid-line of the arch barrel.
The strength values given in this reference are conser-
vative compared to the values recommended by Hendry
[19]. However the strength values were meant to be
conservative for rating by an approximate rational
procedure. The modulus of elasticity values are used in
the modelling described in this paper, and larger
strength values are used, similar to Hendry's recom-
mendations, as this paper describes a more accurate
analysis method.
A three-span stone arch bridge of rough random
stone construction, located in Adams County, Pennsyl-
vania, USA, was tested in August 1998. A photograph
of the bridge is shown in Fig. 5. Measurements taken
under static truck loading included crown de¯ections
in the main span, both at the roadway centreline and
one of the edges, and crown de¯ections in one of the
approach spans. Horizontal longitudinal displacements
of a pier and abutment were also measured, as was the
transverse lateral displacement of the crown of the arch
and of the spandrel walls over one of the piers. This set
of measurements was taken for two load levels: one from
an empty truck and one from a full truck. The results of
this testing program are presented in the following sec-
tion along with the modelling results.
Two very similar elliptical arch canal bridges in
Dublin, Ireland were subjected to truck loads to de-
termine measurable responses. Photographs of these
bridges are shown in Figs. 1 and 6 respectively. The
Killeen Road Bridge has a span of 9.23 m, a rise over the
abutments of 2.67 m, a width of 6.30 m, and an arch ring
thickness of 48 cm. The arch ring is constructed of
limestone on the face and in the barrel, with joints about
1 cm thick. The spandrel walls are also of ashlar lime-
stone construction, with joint thickness of approxi-
mately 1 cm. The bridge has su€ered extensive damage
in the form of large longitudinal cracks in the haunches,
which were repaired about ®ve years prior to the testing
2650 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662

Fig. 5. John's Burnt Mill Bridge, Adams County, PA Bridge no. 56.

Fig. 6. Killeen Road Bridge, Dublin, Ireland.

of the structure. The Grith Bridge has a span of 9.49
m, a rise over the abutments of 2.67 m, a width of 7.85
m, and an arch ring thickness of 45 cm. The arch ring is
constructed of granite on the face, while the remainder
of the arch ring is limestone, with joints about 0.5 cm
thick. The spandrel walls are also of ashlar limestone
construction, with joint thickness of approximately
1 cm.
For the Killeen Road Bridge, DCLVDTs having a
linear range of 1:27 mm, mounted on a purpose-built
reference frame underneath the structure, were used to
measure displacements. A DCLVDT mounted in a
 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
Fig. 7. Typical instrument installation.
similar installation is depicted in Fig. 7. The resolution
of these analog instruments is practically in®nite, but
limited by the quantization of the data acquisition sys-
tem and electronic noise. A 16-bit analog/digital con-
version board was used in data acquisition resulting in a
resolution of 0:04 lm over the instrument range. The
root mean square of the electronic noise is estimated to
be about 2 lm, but the large number of samples taken
mitigates this error considerably. Absent a full statistical
analysis of the experimental data, 1 lm can be taken as
a practical limit on the resolution of the instruments in
this testing program. Displacement measurements were
taken at the centreline of the roadway at the crown, the
two abutments, designated north and south, and at one
of the haunches. The bridge was loaded with a two-axle
truck, full, half-loaded, and empty. The weights of the
truck and the peak abutment, crown and haunch dis-
placements are displayed in Table 1 (Panel a). A more
extensive instrumentation and testing program was
conducted at the Grith Bridge, with the instruments
mounted on a professionally assembled sca€olding sys-
tem. Truck weights and peak displacements at the
centreline of the bridge are shown in Table 1 (Panel b).
Additional displacements measured at abutment, haunch,
and crown on the edge of the bridge, which will be
discussed in the next section in connection with the
modelling of the structure, were also recorded.
7. Modelling results
Finite element models of the Adams County Bridge,
Killeen Road Bridge, and Grith Bridge, were con-
structed. Consistent modelling techniques were used for
each bridge with material properties for the masonry of
2651
the bridges being based on visual inspections and re-
commendations outlined by Boothby [18].
The choice of element to be used for the arch barrel
and the spandrel walls is limited in A N S Y S V 5 . 5 because
the smeared crack model is only available as an option
for the Solid65, eight noded isoparametric solid element.
Eight-noded isoparametric elements, with a Drucker±
Prager material model were used to de®ne the ®ll ma-
terial. The ®nite element mesh employed for Adams
County Bridge is shown in Fig. 8.
In each case, an elevation of the bridge geometry was
constructed by photogrammetry from digital photo-
graphs of the bridges and extruded in the transverse
direction to generate the solid model. In all three cases,
loading was symmetrical about the centreline of the
bridge; hence only a half model was generated. The ex-
tent of the ®ll model was limited to that amount of
material contained between the spandrel walls. In all
cases the thickness of the spandrel walls was measurable
at the road surface and was assumed constant over their
full heights. The depth of the arch barrel visible on the
face of the structure was assumed to be constant across
the width of the bridges. The ®ll material was assumed
to be uniform through its depth and no backing to the
arch ring or internal buttressing of the arch was con-
sidered.
The masonry and ®ll material properties used in each
of the models are documented in Table 2, and follow
the general guidelines given in Table 3, which are in
turn based on the recommendations of Boothby [18]. The
Adams County Bridge (Fig. 5) consists of random rub-
ble limestone masonry construction with wide joints. In
recognition of the coarseness of the construction, a value
of 1.5 GPa, was used for the modulus of elasticity of the
masonry material. The compressive and tensile strengths
2652 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662

Table 1
Peak displacements of Killeen Road and Grith Bridges (Panels a and b)
Truck weight (kg) Abutment peak displace- Haunch peak displacement Crown peak displacement
ment (lm) (lm) (lm)
Test FEM Test FEM Test FEM
Panel a
Killeen Road Bridge
10,700
F <10 <15 73/82 96 131/127 148
R <10 <15 71/87 89 124/145 155

14,800
F <20 <20 86/98 107 204/212 162
R <20 <20 125/134 143 259/342 228
23,600
F <10 <10 114/113 137 228/240 190
R 32 35 237/268 255 510/552 387

Panel b
Grith Bridge
Truck A 16 ± 117 ± 156 ±
13,500
Truck A 48 ± 374 ± 509 ±
30,000
Truck B 32 78 172 237 270 319
21,100
Truck B 36 ± 252 ± 351 ±
26,100
Truck B 41 48.3 331 387 429 544
31,200
F: Front axle, R: Rear axle.

Fig. 8. Adams County Bridge ± ®nite element model.

 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662 2653

Table 2
Material properties for ®nite element models
Young's modu- Poisson's ratio Density Tensile strength Compressive
lus (GPa) (kg/m3 ) (MPa) strength (MPa)
Masonry
Adams 1.5 0.3 2200 0.2 6
Killeen 10 0.3 2200 0.5 10
Grith 10 0.3 2200 0.5 10
Cohesion Angle of friction Angle of dilatancy
(MPa) (deg) (deg)
Fill
3
Adams 15 0.3 1700 1  10 35 20
3
Killeen 15 0.23 1700 1  10 44.43 44.43
3
Grith 15 0.23 1700 1  10 44.43 44.43

Table 3 appeared to have a small amount of slack; moreover, the

Recommended material properties for ®nite element modelling
of masonry arch bridges
Condition Modulus of Strength
elasticity (Mpa)
(Gpa)
Cut stone masonry with narrow 5±15 10
(<1 cm) joints ®lled with mortar
Cut stone masonry with wide 3±5 8
joints, or substantial rubble
masonry
Rubble masonry, wide joints, or 1±3 5 along the centreline of the bridge. The ®ll was restrained
substantial loss of joint material
selected for the masonry material were 6 and 0.2 MPa.
Both Grith Bridge and Killeen Road Bridge were
constructed with regular ashlar limestone with mor-
tar joints typically less than 1 cm thick. A modulus of
elasticity of 10 GPa was used for these bridges.
The ®ll in Adams County Bridge consists primarily of
uncemented rubble and cohesionless silt. A relatively
compliant soil sti€ness was thus assigned and a small
cohesion value added to aid numerical stability. The ®ll
was given a modulus of elasticity of 1500 MPa, a Pois-
son's ratio of 0.3, a cohesion of 1000 N/m2 , and angle
of internal friction of 35°, and a dilatancy angle of 20°.
No speci®c information was available for the ®ll mate-
rial used in constructing Grith Bridge and Killeen
Road Bridge. Loose cohesionless material was, however,
regularly employed in the construction of masonry arch
bridges, and the same material properties as speci®ed for
Adams County Bridge were reasonably used for these
two bridges.
Iron lateral tie rods, visible in the photo of the
Adams County Bridge (Fig. 5) were not modelled due to
their very small in¯uence on the structure under service
loads. An attempt to use strain gages on one of the tie
rods was unsuccessful. However, the end anchorages
observed maximum absolute value of the lateral dis-
placement immediately adjacent to the anchorage of
60 lm is to be insucient to set the anchor, and would
produce a maximum strain of 20 le over the 3 m width
of the bridge. Similarly, Melbourne et al. [20] found no
increase in stress in a lateral steel tie bar in a 5 m span
experimental bridge subjected to a 250 kN knife-edge
loading.
The boundary conditions applied to the ®nite ele-
ment mesh were the same for each of the three bridge
models. Symmetry boundary conditions were applied
in the span direction at opposite ends of the bridge. The
underside of the ®ll material at the abutments was re-
strained vertically. The arch barrel and spandrel walls
were extended to a depth of 1.0 m below the arch
springing level in all models. The base of the arch barrel
was restrained vertically and in the span direction at this
depth. The base of the spandrel walls, which are gene-
rally embedded in the surrounding soil medium and are
not usually visible for inspection, were restrained in the
vertical and transverse directions. This set of boundary
conditions allows small horizontal displacements of the
abutments, as observed in the testing program, and
signi®cantly sti€ens the arch barrel, by restraining the
upward and horizontal movement of the arch barrel; the
phenomenon of the sti€ening provided by the ®ll and
spandrel walls has been observed in a number of tests of
masonry arch bridges [2,21].
The analyses undertaken included large de¯ection
and nonlinear e€ects with multiple successive loadsteps.
A full Newton±Raphson iterative solution algorithm
with force convergence was used. In general each load-
ing step was applied in at least ®ve load substeps with
up to 26 equilibrium iterations being used for each sub-
step. On completion of an equilibrium iteration the
sti€ness matrix was updated for changes in geometry
and stress sti€ening e€ects and the out-of balance force,
2654 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
the di€erence between the applied loading and the in-
ternal forces generated, was calculated. The solution was
deemed to have converged once the out of balance force
was less than 0.5% of the applied loading. The ANSYS
solution algorithm also includes automatic time stepping
which enables automatic reduction and expansion of the
substep size used in each load step dependent on the
severity of the nonlinear response. Converged solutions
using a maximum of 20 substeps per load step, 26 itera-
tions per substep and a 0.5% force convergence value
were obtained for all service load tests simulated. The
displacements of unconverged solutions were inspected
to determine whether the nonconvergence was due to
a global collapse of the structure, a local collapse, or
numerical instability.
Self-weight e€ects, used for the initial in situ stress
state, were accounted for by specifying acceleration
due to gravity to the model in an initial loadstep. No
e€orts were made to model the complex stress history, or
shakedown, that each of these bridges would have ex-
perienced prior to simulating the response of a truck
passing over the bridges. However, subsequent results
are reported for the ®rst passage and later crossings
of a vehicle, providing a simple way of accounting for
some of these e€ects.
The axle patterns and weight distributions for the
trucks used in the ®eld tests are described in Fig. 9(a)±
(c). Appropriately distributed nodal forces or element
surface pressures applied to the roadway surface were
used in the ®nite element models to represent the weight
distributions. In each case, simulation of the moving
vehicle, which travelled typically at less than 20 km/h,
was undertaken by a sequential series of static loadsteps
with the equilibrium solution at the end of one loadstep
resulting in a set of initial conditions for the subsequent
load step.
An important aspect of the numerical models is the
representation of the interfaces between the masonry
and the ®ll material. In constructing the models, con-
tact surfaces were included at these interfaces so that
movement of the ®ll material relative to the masonry
was possible. This proved particularly important in
generating the initial stress state. Under gravity load-
ing, both the masonry and the arch settle. The low
sti€ness of the ®ll relative to the arch results in greater
settlement of the ®ll material. Unless a contact inter-
face is provided, the ®ll material tends to hang from
the surrounding masonry, generating signi®cant tensile
stresses in the cohesionless ®ll and resulting in di-
culties in converging to an equilibrium solution. In the
absence of a coecient of friction, the contact surfaces
slide freely relative to each other. Although the service
load response was found to be insensitive to the level of
friction speci®ed, a value of 0.4 for the coecient of
friction between the masonry and the ®ll was speci®ed
in the analyses.
7.1. Adams County Bridge results
The axle load pattern for the empty and full truck
used in the testing program is illustrated in Fig. 9(a),
along with the approximation of these loads used in the
®nite element model. The loads were applied as pres-
sures to elements of the sizes shown in the ®gure. Dur-
ing the development of the model, some adjustments
were made for the full truck, static load only, in order
to match abutment and crown displacements recorded
during the testing program. These adjustments were
primarily the reduction of the masonry sti€ness from 3
GPa to the ®nal value used and the addition of exten-
sions of the piers and abutments below the springing
line. The empty truck results reported were obtained
without further modi®cations to the model. A summary
of the results for the full and empty truck loading is
provided in Table 4.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the comparison of displacement
results for the static loading of the bridge at midspan of
the main span. To obtain good matching results, it was
necessary to incorporate some e€ect of previous loading
by loading and unloading the bridge with a moving load
equivalent to the loaded truck. Fig. 10 shows the results
from the initial load pass for the main span at the crown,
both at the centreline of the bridge and at the two edges,
while Fig. 11 shows the results for the second passage
of the same loading. All other results shown are for the
second load pass. Fig. 12 shows the modelled and mea-
sured crown de¯ections of one of the approach spans;
Fig. 13 shows the response of the pier and the abutment.
Fig. 14 exhibits the measured lateral responses at the
crown of the arch barrel in the main span and at the ®rst
interior pier. The model predicts ± and experimental
results con®rm ± the presence of small lateral move-
ments at the pier and at the crown of the main span.
These movements are indicative of the transverse e€ects
in the bridge, which give rise to signi®cant transverse
tensile stress. The model predicts formation of cracks in
the arch barrel in line with the inside face of the spandrel
wall, which are also observable on the bridge structure.
7.2. Grith Bridge results
The de¯ected shape of the arch barrel and spandrel
walls when Truck B, fully loaded, has its rear axle at
mid-span is plotted in Fig. 15. The de¯ected shape of the
bridge demonstrates the important three-dimensional
e€ects that contribute to the strength and sti€ness of the
bridge. The maximum de¯ection occurs at the centreline
of the bridge with the spandrel walls sti€ening the outer
edges of the arch barrel. These transverse e€ects are
evident in the three bridges analysed and are considered
to be the source of longitudinal cracking that is evident
in many arch bridges. The formation of these longitu-
 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662 2655

dinal cracks and their location (either at the spandrel
walls or nearer the centreline of the bridge) is primarily
due to the relative sti€ness of the barrel in the transverse
direction and the spandrel walls and the tensile strength
of the masonry.
The numerical and experimental responses at mid-
span, at the centreline of the bridge, as the fully loaded
truck passes over the bridge are plotted in Fig. 16. The
maximum de¯ection measured in the test was 0.43 mm
compared to 0.54 mm predicted by the ®nite element

Fig. 9. Truck axle patterns: (a) Adams County Bridge, (b) Grith Bridge and (c) Killeen Road Bridge.
2656 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662

Fig. 9. (continued)

Table 4 two-dimensional analysis may be able to accurately

Peak displacements of Adams County Bridge predict stresses and strains in the span direction for
Location Full truck Empty truck arches with relatively large barrel widths, an examina-
(21,800 kg) (11,800 kg) tion of transverse e€ects is also clearly desirable. The
Model Test Model Test de¯ection responses for the full truck at the arch haunch
are compared in Fig. 18. The peak test response is 0.33
Main span crown 465 528 230 256
centreline peak
mm compared to 0.39 mm predicted in the numerical
displacement (lm) model. The forms of the displacement responses for the
Main span crown 145 200 70 80 empty truck were also consistent with the test data and
edge peak the peak de¯ections for both the empty and fully loaded
displacement (lm) trucks are summarised in Table 1.
Side span crown 353 295 174 133
centreline peak 7.3. Killeen Road Bridge results
displacement (lm)
Abutment peak 61 60 30 24
Contours of vertical de¯ections for Killeen Road
displacement (lm)
Pier peak 36 24 19 10
Bridge, with the rear axle of the fully loaded truck in
displacement (lm) Fig. 9(c), located at the crown are plotted in Fig. 19. The
bridge response demonstrates both longitudinal and
transverse e€ects. The test and numerical responses
model. The pro®le of the test and numerical data are for the full truck at both the haunch and midspan of the
also consistent, with the front- and rear-axle combina- bridge, measured along the centreline, are shown in Fig.
tions being evident in both responses. The correlation 20(a) and (b). The numerical model predicted signi®cant
between test and numerical data at midspan, at the edge longitudinal cracking of the arch barrel when the fully
of the bridge, is shown in Fig. 17. The test response at loaded truck transverses the bridge. The predicted crack
the crown on the centreline is 0.54 mm (Fig. 16) com- distribution is plotted in Fig. 21. Examination of the
pared to an edge test response of 0.15 mm. Three- underside of the bridge con®rmed that several repairs
dimensional e€ects are thus signi®cant, and although a of longitudinal cracks in this area had been undertaken.
 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662 2657

Fig. 10. Adams County Bridge ± main span results, ®rst load pass.

Fig. 11. Adams County Bridge ± main span results, second load pass.

A second pass of the same truck results in an increase in
the numerical response, shown in Fig. 20(a) and (b).
The numerical and test responses for empty and half
loaded truck are plotted in Figs. 22 and 23 respectively.
Two sets of numerical data are included. In both cases
``Pass 1'' represents the response of the model when not
subjected to prior loading. The results labelled as ``Pass
2'' are those predicted when both the empty and half-full
truck traverse the bridge after the fully loaded truck.
The fully loaded truck, which causes the longitudinal
cracks plotted in Fig. 21, reduces the strength and sti€-
ness of the bridge and the predicted de¯ections are
higher under ``Pass 2'' conditions as a result. The model
results, ``Pass 2'', are consistent with the test results and
the fact that the bridge had been repaired due to lon-
gitudinal cracking. The peak de¯ections measured dur-
ing testing and predicted by the numerical models are
summarised in Table 1.
The study of the test and numerical responses for
Killeen Road Bridge highlight the complexity of ma-
sonry arch bridges and also the importance of transverse
e€ects in determining their responses. A bridge that has
been in service for a signi®cant period of time may have
been subjected to loading that require that the presence
2658 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 12. Adams County Bridge ± side span results.

Fig. 13. Adams County Bridge ± pier and abutment results.

of longitudinal cracking be included in a predictive
model. However if longitudinal cracking can be detected
by in situ inspection, as was the case for Killeen Road
Bridge, the response of the bridge system remains pre-
dictable once this cracking is represented, either by a
discontinuity in the model or by an initial loading event.
8. Conclusions
Masonry arch bridges under truck loading exhibit a
complex three-dimensional response. The distribution of
tire pressures through the ®ll requires consideration of
three-dimensional e€ects. The interaction between the
®ll and the masonry requires consideration of contact
sti€ness, and the probability of sliding at vertical inter-
faces. The distribution of ®ll pressures to the arch barrel
produces signi®cant transverse bending within the arch
ring and complex bending of the spandrel walls, in ad-
dition to the characteristic response of the arch. The
transverse bending may induce cracking in the arch
barrel. Cracking due to transverse bending modi®es the
sti€ness of the arch and may alter its response to load-
ing.
Commercially available three-dimensional ®nite ele-
ment routines can be implemented to predict these ef-
fects. However, it is necessary to incorporate nonlinear
response of the ®ll material, cracking and crushing of the
 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662 2659

Fig. 14. Adams County Bridge ± lateral displacement results.

Fig. 17. Grith Bridge ± numerical and test crown displace-

ments (at edge) for fully loaded truck.

Fig. 15. Grith Bridge ± de¯ected shape with rear axle at

crown.

Fig. 16. Grith Bridge ± numerical and test crown displace- Fig. 18. Grith Bridge ± numerical and test haunch displace-
ments for fully loaded truck. ments for fully loaded truck.
2660 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662

Fig. 19. Killeen Road Bridge ± contours of vertical de¯ection

for rear axle of fully loaded truck at crown.
Fig. 21. Killeen Road Bridge ± crack distribution resulting
from fully-loaded rear axle crown.

Fig. 20. Killeen Road Bridge ± haunch and crown de¯ections Fig. 22. Killeen Road Bridge ± haunch and crown de¯ections
measured along centreline (full truck): (a) haunch de¯ections measured along centreline for empty truck: (a) haunch de¯ec-
and (b) crown de¯ections. tions and (b) crown de¯ections.

masonry, and contact and possible sliding at the ®ll- In spite of the complexity of some of the unknown
masonry interface to arrive at a model that reproduces factors in assessment of a masonry arch bridge, such as
the response of a bridge with reasonable ®delity. overall thickness of the arch barrel, nature of the ®ll
 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
Fig. 23. Killeen Road Bridge ± haunch and crown de¯ections
measured along centreline for half-full truck: (a) haunch de-
¯ections and (b) centreline de¯ections.
material, and extent of the backing, a reasonable set
of assumptions can be applied to the construction of
an accurate nonlinear three-dimensional model of a
masonry arch bridge. Good results have been obtained
using an arch ring thickness consistent with that ob-
served on the face of the arch, with the masonry strength
and sti€ness based on the observable construction
characteristics of the material, and with the assumption
of properties for the ®ll. It is likely that further testing
and exploration of the material of the structure will lead
to even more accurate results.
Acknowledgements
The research described herein has been funded by the
National Science Foundation (US), grant no. CMS
962614; The Institution of Civil Engineers Enabling
Fund; The Fulbright Senior Scholar Program; Dublin
Corporation; Pennoni Associates, Inc. and has been
materially assisted by South Dublin County Council.
Carmen Gerdes Patrick Gorman, and Amaryllis Aude-
naert gave substantial assistance to the testing program.
This work has also bene®tted substantially from the
2661
guidance of the late Thomas Mc Cormack of the Na-
tional Roads Authority, Ireland, and is dedicated to his
memory.
References
[1] Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, vol. 3. Section 4,
Part 4. The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Struc-
tures. London: 1997.
[2] Royles D, Hendry AW. Model tests of masonry arches.
Proc Inst Civil Engineers Part 2 1991;91(6):299±321.
[3] Heyman J. The Masonry Arch. Chichester, New York:
Halsted Press; 1982.
[4] Archie M 2.0.7. Obvis Ltd, Exeter, 2001.
[5] Page J, Ives DA, Ashhurst D. Deterioration and repair of
masonry arch bridges. Proc Ninth Intl Brick/Block ma-
sonry Confer Berlin: 1991.
[6] Begimgil M. Behaviour of restrained 1.25 m span model
masonry arch bridge. Arch Bridges London: Thomas
Telford; 1997.
[7] Boothby T, Domalik D, Dalal V. Service load response
of masonry arch bridges. J Struct Engng 1998;124(1):
17±23.
[8] Page J. Load tests to collapse on two arch bridges at
Preston, Shropshire and Prestwood, Sta€ordshire. De-
partment of Transport, Transport and Road Research
Laboratory Research Report 110. Transport Research
Laboratory, Crowthorne, England: 1987.
[9] Page J. Load tests to collapse on two arch bridges at
Torksey and Shinafoot. Department of Transport, Trans-
port and Road Research Laboratory Research Report 159.
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England:
1988.
[10] Page J. Load tests to collapse on two arch bridges at
Strathmashie and Barlae. Department of Transport,
Transport and Road Research Laboratory Research Re-
port 201. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,
England: 1989.
[11] Page J. Masonry Arch Bridges. Her Majesty's Stationery
Oce, London: 1993.
[12] Ponniah DA, Fair®eld CA, Prentice DJ. Fill stresses in
a new brick arch bridge subject to heavy axle-load tests.
Proc Inst Civil Engineers: Struct Buildings 1997;123:
173±85.
[13] Roberts BJ. Transverse Behavior of Masonry Arch
Bridges. MS Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University,
1999.
[14] ANSYS, ANSYS Manual Set, ANSYS Inc., Southpoint,
275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA,
1998.
[15] William KJ, Warnke ED. Constitutive model for the
triaxial behaviour of concrete. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering,
vol. 19. ISMES. Bergamo, Italy: 1975. p. 174.
[16] Boothby T, Domalik D, Elgin C. Load-rating of masonry
arch bridges and culverts. Ohio Department of Transpor-
tation Research Report no. FHWA/OH-96/016. (Also
available through National Technical Information service
no. PB-97-148555) 1997.
2662 P.J. Fanning, T.E. Boothby / Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 2645±2662
[17] Fanning PJ, Boothby TE, Roberts BJ. Longitudinal and
transverse e€ects in masonry arch bridge assessment.
Construct Building Mater 2001;15:51±60.
[18] Boothby TE. Load rating of masonry arch bridges.
J Bridge Engng 2001;6(2):79±86.
[19] Hendry AW. Masonry properties for assessing arch
bridges. Department of Transport, Transport and Road
Research Laboratory Contractor Report 244. Transport
Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England: 1990.
[20] Melbourne C, Begimgil M, Gilbert M. The load test to
collapse of a 5 m span brickwork arch with tied spandrel
walls. Arch Bridges. London: Thomas Telford; 1995.
p. 509±18.
[21] Melbourne C, Walker PJ. Load tests to collapse of
model brickwork masonry arches. Proceedings, 8th Inter-
national Brick and Block Masonry Conference, vol. 2.
New York: Elsevier Applied Science; 1988. p. 991±
1002.