See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259286906

RING: A 2D rigid-block analysis program for masonry arch bridges

Conference Paper · January 2001

CITATIONS READS

44 1,375

1 author:

Matthew Gilbert
The University of Sheffield
156 PUBLICATIONS 3,280 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew Gilbert on 15 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RING: UN LOGICIEL DE ‘RIGID BLOCK ANALYSIS’ EN 2 DIMENSIONS, POUR LES
PONTS À ARCHE EN MAÇONNERIE.

RING: A 2D RIGID-BLOCK ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES

1
M. Gilbert
1
University of Sheffield, UK.

RESUME : Une formulation de ‘rigid block analysis’ pour les arches en maçonnerie a été
proposée pour la première fois par Livesley il y a plus de vingt ans. Pourtant, en dépit de les
avantages de la méthode, peu de chercheurs ou d’utilisateurs ont pu accéder à des logiciels
fondés sur la base de la formulation de ‘rigid block analysis’. Afin de remédier à cette situation,
l’auteur a récemment mis à jour un logiciel qu’il avait crée pour ses besoins de recherche
personnelle. Il a fallu effectuer des changements superficiels pour améliorer l’interface logiciel-
utilisateur, mais aussi effectuer des modifications plus profondes, afin de rendre l’outil plus
solide et plus facile à utiliser. Par exemple, on a trouvé que le fait de rajouter des éléments de
sol uni-axial obviait à le besoin de intervenir par l'
utilisateur en cas de problème de pression de
sol horizontal, et que le rajout de ces éléments ne changeait en rien la nature linéaire du
problème. Le logiciel qui résulte de ces modifications et de ces additions s’appelle ‘RING’, et on
peut y accéder librement sur Internet.

ABSTRACT : A rigid block analysis formulation for masonry arches was first put forward by
Livesley more than two decades ago. However, despite the advantages of the method, few
researchers or practitioners have had access to software based on the rigid block analysis
formulation. With a view to remedying this, rigid block analysis software developed by the author
for personal research use has recently been re-assessed. It was found that in addition to
cosmetic changes (required to improve the user-interface), several more significant
developments were required in order to make the tool more robust and easy to use, and also to
ensure that the software had reasonably wide applicability. For example, it was found that the
addition of uniaxial fill elements in the analysis obviated the need for user intervention when
dealing with certain problems involving horizontal backfill pressures, and also that these
elements did not change the linear nature of the problem. The resulting software has been
named RING, and is now freely available via the web.

1. INTRODUCTION

A rigid block analysis formulation for masonry arches was first put forward by Livesley (1978).
The general formulation of the method, and the fact that readily available, rigorous, linear
programming algorithms can be used to calculate the factor of safety against collapse, means
that the method offers many advantages over traditional ' mechanism'analysis formulations (e.g.
Heyman, 1982; Crisfield & Packham, 1987).
An alternative rigid block analysis formulation was developed by the author in 1992/93 (the
author was initially unaware of the work previously conducted by Livesley). The objective at the
time was to develop a tool which would help interpret results from the full-scale model bridge
tests being carried out at the time at Bolton (Melbourne & Gilbert, 1995). It had been found that
the behaviour of bridges containing multiple brickwork rings could not be modelled adequately
using currently available software. Once development was underway it was realised that
because of the general formulation of the rigid block method of analysis, the method could also
be successfully applied to multi-span masonry arch bridges (Melbourne, Gilbert & Wagstaff,
1997).
However, to the author' s knowledge, the rigid block analysis method has until now only been
used as a research tool. None of the proprietary mechanism analysis programs available in the
UK (e.g. ARCHIE-M, ASSARC, ARCH etc) make use of the method. This fact is regrettable, and
has prompted the author to re-assess the rigid block analysis software developed for personal
research use, with a view to modifying and enhancing it and then making it publicly available.
After briefly describing the key elements of the rigid block analysis formulation, some of the
practical requirements a bridge analysis program has to fulfil in order to be of use to a
practitioner are discussed in the paper. Problems associated with fulfilling these practical
requirements are identified. One particular problem (associated with the inclusion of horizontal
fill pressures) is focussed on and a way of overcoming this problem is described in the paper.

2. THE RIGID BLOCK ANALYSIS METHOD

2.1 Basic method

Consider a loaded arch rib comprising n voussoirs [Figure 1], which are rigid, infinitely strong
and have surfaces which are rough enough to prevent sliding failure occurring. Assume that
constituent blocks within the arch may be subject to both dead loading p and live loading q. At
the ultimate limit state the problem to be solved is: what load factor λ applied to the live loading
will lead to global collapse of the arch?

2
1 n
n +1

Figure 1 : loaded arch rib containing n voussoirs

Using an upper bound (’mechanism’) approach based on virtual work, the problem becomes:

Minimise λ q = p Td (1)

Where the whole structure live load, dead load and displacement vectors are denoted
respectively qT={q1, q2.. qn+1}, pT={p1, p2.. pn+1} and dT = {d1, d2.. d n+1}. And where the block live
load, dead load and displacement vectors are denoted respectively q Tj = q x , q y , m q j , { }
p Tj = {p x , p y , m p }j and d Tj = {u , v, φ } j ; individual block displacement and force components are
shown on Figure 2.
Subject to constraints which:

(i) stipulate that the right hand abutment (notional block n+1) is fixed in space. i.e:

d nT+1 = [0 0 0] (2)

(ii) displace the structure according to the magnitude of the live load. Thus in general the
required constraint is:
n
1
q
∑q
j =1
T
j d j =1 (3)
 displaced position
uj
mp+mq
vj py+qy
px +qx

φj
initial position
block j block j
block j -1
(a) (b)
Figure 2 : block displacement components [a], and force components [b]

Alternatively displacements of block j, dj, can be expressed as a function of the relative

rotations between adjacent units. i.e:

dj = Ajr (4)

Where Aj is a suitable transformation matrix derived from the geometry of the structure,
assuming small displacements (see Melbourne & Gilbert, 2001 for derivation],
rT={ θ 1int , θ 1ext ,θ 2int ,θ 2ext ,........θ nint+1 ,θ next+1 }, and where θ int
j ,θ j
ext
represent rotations about the intrados
and extrados respectively (e.g as shown on Figure 3).

int
θj

block j -1 block j

Figure 3 : rotation of adjacent blocks (about intrados)

In fact it is convenient to express the displacement terms in equations (1) to (3) in terms of
the relative rotations between blocks, θ int
j ,θ j , and to select these as the problem variables.
ext

This is because the necessary stipulation that these variables must take on only non-negative
values is a standard feature of linear programming solution algorithms (note that θ int
j ,θ j
ext
are
not restricted from simultaneously taking on positive values; this represents separation).
Any standard linear programming technique, such as the Simplex method (Dantzig, 1953),
can then be used to obtain a solution for λ. There are, however, two important reasons why it
may not be possible to obtain a value for λ: (a) there might be no feasible solution to the
problem, i.e. there may be no combination of values for the problem variables ( θ ’s) that satisfy
all constraining equations. If this is the case then it follows that the arch is geometrically locked
- the arch will not fail in a hinged mechanism. For example, this outcome might arise in the case
of a very thick or flat arch; (b) the solution for λ may be unbounded. This will occur if the arch is
already unstable under its own dead weight. For example, this outcome might arise in the case
of a very thin semicircular arch.

2.2 Extensions to the basic method

Extensions to the basic rigid block method described previously permit the following to be
included in an analysis:
(i) Sliding between adjacent blocks (Gilbert & Melbourne, 1994)
(ii) Multiple spans and multiple arch rings (Gilbert & Melbourne, 1994)
(iii) Spandrel walls (Gilbert & Melbourne, 1994)
(iv) Finite masonry strength (Gilbert, 1998)

Extensions (i), (ii) and (iv) were included in RING version 1. Extension (iii) was not included in
this version because spandrel walls at the edge of a bridge will in practice frequently become
detached from the rest of the bridge. Hence most practitioners consider it prudent to ignore
them in analysis.

3. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Requirements
A key objective was that RING should include an integrated pre-processor that was both
user-friendly and capable of converting a wide variety of user-specified bridge and loading data
into standard mathematical programming form prior to the solution phase. Sample specific
requirements are listed below:

(i) Handling of arbitrary arch shapes and fill profiles

(ii) Realistic estimation of the pressures exerted on the arch extrados following dispersion of
the applied loading (which might include multiple axles) through the fill
(iii) Facility to include horizontal backfill pressures in the analysis
(iv) Facility to handle multiple load cases (e.g. to find critical loading position

Fulfilling requirements (i) and (ii) did not present any particular difficulties and will therefore
not be discussed here. For requirement (iv) two possible modelling approaches were
considered. The first approach was to set up a single mathematical programming problem in
which all load cases were included and where the objective was to find the minimum load factor
for all these load cases. Unfortunately such a problem can be shown to be non-linear. The
second approach was to solve a separate linear programming problem for each load case being
considered, each of these latter problems being identical except for constraint (3). The second
approach was adopted as: (a) each problem is linear, so linear programming only is involved; (b)
very often the user will want to be informed of the load factors associated with all loading cases,
rather than just the critical one.
Requirement (iii) might appear initially to only require that the user specified horizontal backfill
pressures are converted into forces, added to the dead load vector p and then included in the
work equation, (1). This is what was done in the original version of the rigid block analysis
method developed by the author. Unfortunately, with this approach the user has to specify in
advance in which zones horizontal fill pressures are likely to be mobilised. Additionally there is
no guarantee that the pressures specified will be mobilised in the correct sense (i.e. it is not
possible to stipulate that the pressures can only be mobilised when the arch moves into the fill).
In general (e.g. for deep arches or for problems with multiple load cases, etc) these problems
limit the usefulness of the rigid-block analysis method when horizontal fill pressures are
involved. It was therefore clear that an alternative method of including these pressures in the
analysis would be required. Fortunately an effective solution to the problem has now been
devised. This involves removing all horizontal forces from the dead load vector p, and then
introducing uniaxial fill elements into the analysis. The characteristics of these elements are
described in the next section.

3.2 Incorporating uniaxial fill elements in the analysis

The uniaxial fill elements are normally placed horizontally such that one end of each element
is constrained to be fixed in position whilst the other end is placed initially in contact with a block
in the arch extrados. It is normally specified that all extrados blocks will initially be in contact with
at least one fill element. The situation is slightly different in the case of multi-span arches where,
above the piers, both ends of an element will initially be in contact with extrados blocks (of
adjacent arches). The elements exhibit the following characteristics:

(i) The elements are constrained to either stay the same length or to compress - should this
be required to avoid inter-penetration between the end of an element and an arch block.
(ii) The elements exhibit a rigid-plastic response in compression (i.e. they compress at a
constant force. This force is equal in magnitude to the specified fill pressure multiplied by
the vertical height of the extrados face of an arch block)

In terms of the linear programming formulation: (a) an additional (non-negative) problem

variable is required for each fill element; (b) a constraint (inequality) is required to stipulate that
the additional variable represents the shortening of each fill element; (c) to account for the work
done by each element which is compressed, the multiple of the force required to compress each
element and the shortening of this element must be added to the work equation (1).

3.3 Sample problems and brief discussion

Initially fill elements were added to existing rigid-block models of laboratory bridges (e.g.
those presented in Melbourne & Gilbert, 1995). It was generally found that results from the new
models were identical to those obtained previously. The fill elements were then included in rigid
block models of deep arches. For example, a notional 10m span, 0.4m thick semi-circular arch
with a fill depth of 1m at the crown was considered. The unit weight of the arch and fill was
taken as 20kN/m3. Without horizontal backfill pressures such an arch may be found to be
unstable under self weight alone. When the coefficient of lateral earth pressure was taken as
1.0 and the bridge subjected to a knife edge load (with no dispersion) at the third point, the
computed failure load was 202kN per metre width. Had horizontal fill elements not been
employed, this result could only have been obtained using the rigid block method with the help
of user intervention (manual, ad-hoc, addition of constraints to ensure the fill pressures could
only be mobilised in the correct sense).
It has been pointed out (Highways Agency, 1997) that because horizontal ’passive’ pressures
are in practice only mobilised by relatively large structural movements, mechanism analysis
programs that are based on small displacement theory are liable to give rather arbitrary results
when backfill pressures are included. This is to some extent true; a possible solution to this
problem is to conduct a gross-displacement mechanism analysis (Gilbert, 1997). However, when
initially trying to identify the critical failure mechanism, from many numerous possibilities, the
approach described here is likely to prove to be much more computationally efficient. A more
refined analysis can be performed once the critical loading position(s) have been identified.
Many masonry arch bridges in the field include masonry backing material as well as backfill. It
has been found that this backing material may also effectively be modelled using uniaxial fill
elements, provided a suitably high fill pressure is specified (i.e. equal in magnitude to the
crushing strength of the masonry backing material).

4. CONCLUSIONS

(i) The rigid-block analysis method provides a conceptually simple, yet powerful and
efficient means of determining the critical collapse mechanism and associated load
factor of a masonry arch bridge, whether this contains single or multiple spans and/or
arch rings.
(ii) The inclusion of uniaxial fill elements in the problem formulation allows the method to
more readily be applied to problems where the mobilisation of horizontal backfill
pressures influences the critical collapse mechanism and associated load factor.
(iii) RING seems to be the first publicly available rigid-block analysis program for masonry
arch bridges. This Windows program (see Figure 4 for a sample screen display) also
includes uniaxial fill elements and other extensions to the basic method and is currently
available for free download from http://www.shef.ac.uk/ring.
 Figure 4 : sample RING screen display

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The development of the RING software was supported financially by Railtrack plc. Anthony J.
Sollis, formerly of the University of Sheffield and currently a graduate engineer at W.S.Atkins’
Birmingham office, assisted with the programming of RING.

6. REFERENCES

Crisfield M.A. & Packham A. (1987). A mechanism program for computing the strength of
masonry arch bridges. TRRL research report no.124, DoT. UK.
Dantzig G.B. (1953). Computational algorithm of the revised simplex method. Rand
Corporation reprint RM-1266.
Gilbert M. & Melbourne C. (1994). Rigid-block analysis of masonry structures. The Structural
Engineer 72(21), 356-361.
Gilbert M. (1997). Gross displacement mechanism analysis of masonry bridges and tunnels.
Proc.11th International Brick/Block masonry conference. Shanghai, 473-482.
Gilbert M. (1998). On the analysis of multi-ring brickwork arch bridges. 2nd International Arch
Bridges Conference. Venice, 109-118.
Highways Agency (1997), BA16/97: The assessment of highway bridges and structures, Part
of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, HMSO, London.
Heyman J. (1982). The masonry arch. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
Livesley R.K. (1978). Limit analysis of structures formed from rigid blocks. International
Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering 12, 1853-1871.
Melbourne C. and Gilbert M. (1995). The behaviour of multi-ring brickwork arch bridges. The
Structural Engineer 73(3), 39-47.
Melbourne C., Gilbert M. & Wagstaff M. (1997). The collapse behaviour of multi-span
brickwork arch bridges. The Structural Engineer 75(17), 297-305.

View publication stats