36 The performance of masonry arch bridges

J Page, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK

This paper describes the full scale load tests being

done by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory as
part of work to revise the assessment of the traffic
load carrying capacity of masonry arch bridges.
Techniques for strengthening bridges with insufficient
capacity are described. The remaining life of the
structure is taken into account in deciding whether to
strengthen or replace; quantified guidelines would be
desirable but may be difficult to develop.

1. INTRODUCTION

Forty per cent of the UK bridge stock, or about forty thousand bridges,
are brick or stone masonry arches. They therefore represent a vital part
of the nation's transport system. They come in a vast range of shapes
and sizes; the longest span in the UK is 61 m (Grosvenor Bridge, Chester
Many were built in mediaeval times, but the great era of building began
with the construction of the canals in the second half of the eighteenth
century and ended when the railway network was substantially complete at
the beginning of the twentieth century.

From time to time the structural adequacy of arch bridges must be assessec
An assessment may show that:

1) the bridge simply needs routine maintenance.

2) the bridge needs to be widened because traffic flows have increased.

3) the bridge needs to be strengthened because traffic loads have

increased or because of structural deterioration (alternatively a
traffic weight limit may be a p p l i e d ) .

4) the bridge needs to be replaced because it cannot be upgraded.

An important part of the assessment procedure is to assess traffic load

carrying capacity and this paper briefly describes the presently used
method and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) programme of
analysis and full scale load testing to revise this method.

Cost will be an important factor in the decision whether to retain or

replace a bridge; in general it is cheaper to repair or strengthen an
arch bridge than to replace it. The main repair and strengthening

318
techniques are described here. The bridge may be a listed structure in
which case the options are more limited. The remaining life of the
structure will be taken into account in an assessment, relying on the
experience and training of the engineer responsible.

2. THE MEXE METHOD

The present method of assessing the traffic load capacity of arch bridges -
the "MEXE" method (1, 2) - was devised during the second world war to
provide a quick way of assessing whether a bridge could carry military
loads. It was adapted for civil use after the war. The method is based
on an elastic analysis.

First, a "provisional axle load" is calculated from measurements of arch

span and thickness and of the fill thickness at the arch crown. This is
then adjusted by factors which take into account the rise and shape of the
arch barrel, the arch barrel and fill materials, the state of the mortar
joints, and the general condition. This adjusted value, the "modified
axle load" represents the permissible axle load1
for a two axle bogie; a
further calculation gives the allowable a x l e l o a d for a single axle. A
typical assessment is given in Table 1.

Table 1. MEXE Assessment

Span L (m) 4.902

r
Rise at mid-span c (m) 1.154
Rise at quarter-span F (m) 0.904
q
Thickness of arch barrel d (m) 0.343
Depth of fill at crown h (m) 0.246

Provisional axle load PAL = 740(d+h; = 32.5 tonnes

Modifying factors:
F
Span/rise sr 1.0
F
Profile P 0.92
Material Fm 0.87
F 0.73
Joint J
Condition Fc 0.7

Modified axle load = 1.0x0.. 92X0.87X0.73X0.7x32.5 = 13.3 tonnes

Allowable axle load for single axle - 14.9 tonnes

The calculated axle loads exceed those allowed in the UK and so the
assessment suggests that no weight restriction or strengthening is
necessary. However the bridge was replaced because its spandrel walls
had moved outwards and were becoming unsafe; the MEXE assessment does
not directly take any structural contribution of the spandrel walls into
account. Three of the modifying factors - material, joint and condition,
take into account the deterioration of the structure; the condition
factor F c relies considerably on "engineering judgement".

319
3. THE TRRL RESEARCH PROGRAMME

The MEXE method is very quick and easy to use but many simplifying
assumptions were made in its derivation, it is thought to be conservative,
it cannot deal with distorted arches and it is limited to spans of less
than 18 m. For these reasons the TRRL is doing research with the aim of
providing a new or revised assessment method which will resolve the w e a k -
nesses of the existing method. The research involves the development of
analytical models, and full and model scale load tests to calibrate them.

3.1 Analysis

Two methods of analysis have been developed. The simpler is a "mechanism"

method (3) which assumes that the arch collapses as a four hinged
mechanism, in which state it is statically determinate and the load
required for collapse can readily be computed from the equations of
equilibrium. The analysis is simple enough to be performed on a personal
computer and at the time of writing is expected to be used as the basis
of a revised assessment technique. An example of a mechanism analysis is
given in Figure 1. The other analysis uses finite elements ( 4 ) . Both
analyses are essentially two dimensional so that for instance they cannot
take into account the stiffening effect of spandrel walls (it can be
argued that this should not be taken into account in an assessment in
case the joint between arch and wall is weak, as it often i s ) .

3.2 Full scale load tests

A series of full scale tests is being carried out on redundant arch

bridges with a range of spans, arch shapes and construction materials to
provide data to calibrate analytical models. So far six tests have been
completed (5-8) and two more are planned in the near future. Suitable
bridges have become more difficult to find as the test programme has
progressed and the alternative of building full scale models is being used
for two bridges ; one test was completed recently and another is due to
take place in the near future.

The method of loading adopted for these tests is to apply a transverse

"line" load above the arch at the road surface. The load required for
collapse depends on the longitudinal position of the line and it is
positioned where the minimum load is calculated to be required; usually
it is between quarter and third span. The "line" is made sufficiently
wide to prevent a premature failure of the fill (usually 750 mm) and is
the full width of the bridge between parapets. Load is applied by
hydraulic jacks via the load distribution frame shown in Plate 1. The
jacks, of the prestressing type to provide as much stroke as may be
required, react against ground anchors which pass through holes drilled
through the bridge deck. The load being applied to the bridge is measured
by load cells incorporated in the distribution frame.

Surveying has been adopted as the standard technique for measuring

structural displacements because the targets which are attached to the
bridge (about twenty are used) and which will be lost when the bridge
collapses, are cheap.

Other measurement techniques may be used in appropriate circumstances,

for instance displacement transducers have been used to measure the
change in width of cracks in the arch barrel, and strain gauges to measure

320
strain in tie rods.

Photography (still, cine and video) is used to provide a detailed visual

record of damage to the structure as the test progresses.

The test procedure is to apply an increment of load (chosen so that about

twenty increments will be required for collapse) and, when the required
load level has been reached, to cut off the oil supply to the jacks until
the various measurements are completed. The applied load usually
decreases during this period due to relaxation of the structure and so
the load at the end is also recorded, just before the next increment is
applied.

Table 2 describes the six tests completed so far. There is not space in
this paper to discuss the results in detail, but it will be seen from the
table that quite good agreement is being achieved between the mechanism
analysis and the experimental results. The table also provides a measure
of the factor of safety of the MEXE assessment by comparing the collapse
load with two MEXE single axles side by side. Plates 2 and 3 show two of
the bridges tested and Plates 4-6 show three of the bridges shortly before
or at the moment of collapse.

4. REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING TECHNIQUES

If an assessment shows that an arch bridge is inadequate to carry the

loads required of it then a decision has to be made as to whether to
strengthen or replace it. There are a number of techniques available
which will increase its life and its load carrying capacity and which
will cost less than replacement; they are briefly listed here.

4.1 Abutment, piers and foundations

4.1.1 Underpinning. The material beneath a pier or abutment is dug out

a short length at a time and replaced with concrete.

4.1.2 Curtain w a l l s . A curtain wall is built to about 300 mm below the

footing and 300-500 mm thick, and is tied to the existing masonry with
tie rods. The pier is then pressure grouted.

4.1.3 Piles. Small diameter bored piles will limit settlement or provide
additional load capacity; to provide continuity they are bored through
and cast into the existing pier or abutment.

4.1.4 Invert slabs. Invert .slabs are used to prevent scouring; they may
also be used to tie the two abutments together to prevent movement.

4.2 Arch barrels

4.2.1 Pressure grouting. Pressure grouting is quick and easy to apply

and it can increase the capacity of the barrel by improving the joints in
the ring. If the fill can be grouted its strength will be increased and
pressure on spandrel walls will be relieved.

4.2.2 Saddling. A reinforced concrete ring is cast on top of the

existing arch barrel. It will relieve the existing barrel of all but its
self weight.
321
 Table 2 . D e t a i l s o f l o a d t e s t s t o c o l l a p s e on s i x bridges

Bridgemill Bargower Preston Prestwood Torksey Shinafoot

Span ( s q u a r e ) mm 18300 10000 4950 6550 4900 6160

Span (skew) (mm) - 10360 5180 - - ' -
Angle o f skew ( d e g r e e s ) 0 16 17 0 0 0
R i s e a t midspan (mm) 2850 5180 1636 1428 1155 1185
Arch t h i c k n e s s a t crown (mm) 711 558 360 220 343 540
Arch shape parabolic segmental elliptical originally segmental segmental
segmental
Arch m a t e r i a l sandstone sandstone sandstone brick brick stone
Arch d e n s i t y (kN/m 3 ) 2.1 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.5
F i l l d e n s i t y (kN/m 3 ) 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0
S p a n d r e l w a l l t h i c k n e s s (mm) - 1400 610 380 380 365
P a r a p e t t h i c k n e s s (mm) 400 370 - 380 365
Spandrel/parapet material
-
sandstone sandstone brick brick brick stone
T o t a l w i d t h (mm) 8300 8680 5700 3800 7805 7030

322
F i l l d e p t h a t crown (mm) 203 1200 380 165 246 215

Width o f l i n e l o a d (mm) 750 750 750 300 750 750

Maximum a p p l i e d l o a d (kN) (L) 3100 5600 2100 228 1080 2500

C o l l a p s e mode - crushing crushing 4 hinge 3 hinge 4 hinge
of arch of arch mechanism "snap- mechanism
material material through"

MEXE s i n g l e a x l e l o a d (kN) ( L _ _ v_ ) 181 642 298 18 146 376

MEXE
L / 2 8.6 4.4 3.5 12.7 (1) 3.7 3.3
* LM E X E

Mechanism b e s t e s t i m a t e (kN) (L- Λ )

τ τ 2550 5750 1760 177 1415 2330
MECH
L/L
1 1.22 0.97 1.19 1.29 0.76 1.07
MECH
(1) t h i s b r i d g e i s n o t wide enough f o r two a x l e s s i d e by s i d e
4.2.3 Lining with gunite. A layer of concrete about 100-150 mm thick
and usually reinforced with fine mesh reinforcement is sprayed onto the
soffit of the arch from a gun.

4.2.4 Prefabricated liners. A liner usually of corrugated steel is

tightly fitted beneath the arch and the gap between it and the arch filled
with sand/cement grout. Lining with gunite or corrugated steel is
unlikely to improve the appearance of the structure.

4.3 Spandrel and wing walls

The traditional means of restraining walls which are moving outwards is

to tie both walls together with rods and spreader plates. Another
solution is to expose the walls and to backfill them with concrete; if
the barrel is being saddled at the same time this is the most appropriate
method.

5. DISCUSSION

Arch bridges are capable of remaining in service for a very long time
(there are Roman bridges still in u s e ) . There are many techniques
available to repair or strengthen them and they are usually cheaper than
replacement. Arch bridges are usually only replaced if they have been
allowed to deteriorate beyond economic repair or if they are not capable
of being strengthened or widened to meet traffic needs. As an example,
replacement would take place if the arch barrel or spandrel walls had
become grossly distorted. Judgement of remaining life of the structure
both before and after repair and strengthening rests with the experience
and training of the engineer responsible for the assessment. Guidelines
to help him would be desirable and could be developed by pooling the
experience of practitioners. Such guidelines would be qualitative;
making them quantitative may be difficult and not cost effective.

6. REFERENCES

1. Department of Transport. The assessment of highway bridges and

structures. Departmental Standard BD 21/84, DTp, London (1984).

2. Department of Transport. The assessment of highway bridges and

structures. Advice Note BA 16/84, DTp, London (1984).

3.. Crisfield, M.A. and Packham, A.J. A mechanism program for computing
the strength of masonry arch bridges. TRRL Report RR 124,Transport
and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne (1987).

4. Crisfield, M.A. F i n i t e element and mechanism methods for the analysis

of masonry and brickwork arches. TRRL Report RR 19, Transport and
Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne (1985).

5. Hendry, A.W. et a l . Test on stone masonry arch at Bridgemill -

Girvan. TRRL Report CR 7, Transport and Road Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne (1985).

323
6. Hendry, A.W. e t a l . Load t e s t t o c o l l a p s e on a masonry a r c h b r i d g e
a t Bargower, S t r a t h c l y d e , TRRL Report CR 2 6 , T r a n s p o r t and Road
R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y , Crowthorne ( 1 9 8 6 ) .

7. Page, J . Load t e s t s t o c o l l a p s e on two arch b r i d g e s a t P r e s t o n ,

S h r o p s h i r e and P r e s t w o o d , S t a f f o r d s h i r e . TRRL Report RR 110, T r a n s p o r t
and Road R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y , Crowthorne ( 1 9 8 7 ) .

8. Page, J . Load t e s t s t o c o l l a p s e on two arch b r i d g e s a t Torksey and

Shinafoot. TRRL Report RR 159, T r a n s p o r t and Road R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y ,
Crowthorne ( 1 9 8 8 ) .

The work d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s paper forms p a r t o f t h e programme o f t h e

B r i d g e s D i v i s i o n o f t h e S t r u c t u r e s Group o f TRRL and t h e paper i s
p u b l i s h e d by p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e D i r e c t o r .

Crown C o p y r i g h t . The v i e w s e x p r e s s e d i n t h i s paper a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

t h o s e o f t h e Department o f T r a n s p o r t . E x t r a c t s from t h e t e x t may be
r e p r o d u c e d , e x c e p t f o r commercial p u r p o s e s , p r o v i d e d t h e s o u r c e i s
acknowledged.

Collapse load = 375.34 (N/mm width)

Hinge 1
29.44%
Fig. 1 Example of a mechanism analysis

324
 Neg. no. CR 911/86/7 Neg. no. CR 584/86/1
Plate 1 Loading system Plate 2 Torksey: North face

Neg. no. R 325/87/1 Neg. no. CR 26/86/10

Plate 3 Shinafoot: West face Plate 4 Prestwood shortly before collapse

Neg. no. CR 915/86/10 Neg. no. CR 354/87/12

Plate 5 Torksey at moment of collapse Plate 6 Shinafoot shortly before collapse

325
DISCUSSION PAPER 36

R lavender. Tower Hamlets Borough Engineers Service. UK

Has any research been carried out on masonry brick arches that have
arch rings angled across the width of a bridge? I ask this question
because many brick arch bridges currently in service are œnstructed
in this manner.

Author's reply

I know of no published research on the behaviour of skewed brick

arches. As far as I know the brick courses are skewed relative to the
springings only when the bridge itself is skewed. The TRRL research
has deliberately concentrated on bridges with little or no skew. They
may suffer from ring separation which is common with multi-ring brick
arches whether square or skewed, and which is referred to in paper 37.
They may all suffer from problems because of their skew but at the
present state of our research I can offer no comments.

326