Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract:
The scope of this paper is to compare and contrast the assessment method that the bridge engineers
currently use for the assessment of masonry arch bridges. The paper will help engineers and bridge
inspectors to choose an appropriate method for the analysis of masonry arch bridge structures. Features of
the considered methods are explained and possibilities and limitations for selected cases are discussed.
Some suggestions to choose the best solution are given taking into account desirable simplicity from one
side, and required complexity from the other. Detailed explanation for modelling of defects in finite element
method (FEM) is out of the scope of this paper.
Contents
THE EVOLUTION OF MASONRY BRIDGE ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES .......................................................................... 0
1.
2.
3.
Introduction: ...................................................................................... 3
The structure of masonry arch bridges:.............................................. 4
Methods for analysis of masonry arch bridges ................................... 5
3.1.
3.2.
4.
5.
Archie-M software........................................................... 12
CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 16
Bibliography and References........................................................... 17
1. Introduction:
Masonry arch bridges form an integral part of the canal, motorway and railway infrastructure in Europe and
throughout the world. It is estimated that there are over 50,000 masonry bridges in the UK [1] making this
type of bridge the most common one. For this reason, a safe, reliable and established methodology should
be used to assess these bridges.
th
Before the 19 century most of the bridges were built based on empirical and geometrical rules. Afterwards,
elastic analysis was developed by Pippard [2] and Military Engineering Experimental Establishment (MEXE)
[3] was then used to assess the existing masonry arch bridges. During the early and mid 60s, the plastic
analysis was proposed by Heyman [8, 9, 10] what led to a change in the way we understand the behaviour
of masonry bridges. Due to the computer revolution, several programs were developed based on the
Heymans theorem, and since the year 2000 3D finite element analysis has became popular [17, 18].
In this paper, the author will explain the basics on masonry arch assessment methodologies, and an
example based on his own experience will be commented [20].
The safety of the structure was based on past experience providing the
dimensions of several bridge components (span, rise and thickness of arch, width and height of piers, etc.).
Although empirical rules are hardly justified from a mechanical point of view, most of them are revealed to be
efficient.
Width of piers:
The minimum geometrical value of pier width for semi-circular arches is given by the sum of the thickness of
adjacent arches at springing. Furthermore, it is possible that aesthetical aspects and hydrodynamic effects
had also been empirically considered in the establishment of the width of piers.
Pippard considered the case of a single point load applied at the midspan.
5. The effective width of the arch was taken as twice the fill thickness at the crown, b = 2h
6. The fill was assumed to have no structural strength and to only impose vertical loads on the arch.
The fill was assumed to be of the same density as the arch ring, 22 kN/m3.
7. The limiting compressive stress was taken to be fc = 1.50 N/mm2 and the limiting tensile stress was
taken to be ft = 0.75 N/mm2.
256
+ 128
28
25 42
+
1 +
21
4
Therefore, he derived an expression relating the span, rise, thickness and fill depth over the crown. This was
a simple approach to assess arch bridges and was used during the wartime. The expression was then
modified by the Military Engineering Experimental Establishment (MEXE) [3] in the form of a nomograph and
is currently recommended by the Department of Transport in its Departmental standard (BD21/01) [6].
740
!.#
$%& $' $( $) $ (
Where,
d = thickness of arch barrel adjacent to the keystone, [m]
h = average depth of fill at the quarter points of the transverse road profile between the road surface
and the arch barrel at the crown, including road surfacing, [m]
L = span, [m]
Fsr : span/rise factor
Fp : profile factor
Fm : material factor
Fj : joint factor
Fcm : condition based, to be determined onsite
Details of the values of these modification factors may be found in the current departmental standard
(BD21/01) for the assessment of highway bridges and structures. As can be seen from the above
formulations, the MEXE calculation is very user friendly, but does not allow for many inputs to be changed.
Also, arbitrary assumptions must be made about the condition factors with little quantitative basis. Some
guidance is given in the Advice Note BA 16/97 (Department of Transport 1997) [7], but it is primarily left to
the interpretation of the user.
Advantages: [3]
Quick calculation of maximum allowable load.
No complex computer modeling required.
Disadvantages and geometric limitations:
Span L 20 m.
Rise at the crown rc 1/4 of the inside span L.
Depth of fill 30 cm h 105 cm between the upper surface of the arch crown and the underside of
the sleepers.
It is based on point load at crown. Mechanism may form with point load at 1/4 or 1/3 point prior to
overstress of masonry.
Allowable axle load is modified by factors to account for material condition and existing arch
cracking.
No clear guidance on how to handle conditions of support movement or slender piers.
User does not readily understand the background of the formulation.
Effects of support movement are only modeled with a single modification factor.
Changes in hinge location and points of maximum stress cannot be determined.
Assumes a relatively high allowable tensile strength of the arch.
The author [20] was involved in a project where a analysis of a 7 span masonry arch was analysed. The
bridge was curved on plan and 120m long. It carries a rail traffic live load. In a previous inspection, large
cracks were noted across the quarter point and the spandrel walls. (Photo6).
A initial investigation was carried out in order to know what caused the cracks. The author used most of the
analysis techniques mentioned above and concluded that the bridge was stable under dead and live load.
The cracks shown at the Figure 6 could not be explained according to the classical assessment
methodologies.
For these reason a 3D nonlinear finite element analysis was carried out. The author modelled the masonry
bridge under dead and rail live load using Abaqus [19] finite element software. However, the results of the
F.E. model were almost the same as the classical methods the bridge was stable.
After another on-site inspection the author noticed that the bridge had large differential settlement at the
middle piers. This large differential settlement was modeled as imposed vertical displacement on the finite
element model. The result obtained showed that the cracking were created due to the differential settlement
an not for and excesive load on the track.
Looking at the picture 7, cracking can be noted on the red and green areas. Both green areas and real
photos showed similar cracking pattern at the same places.
Finally, 3D nonlinear finite element analysis is very reccomendable to model complex bridge geometry. In
addition to this, new structural deffect can be considered that classical method are not able to analyse.
4. CONCLUSION
To sum up, numerous methods has been employed during the last decades to assess the capacity of the
masonry arch bridges. Starting from the easy-to-use geometrical rules to the most sophisticated finite
element software.
From the authors point of view [20] a summary in the table 2 can be found which suggested the best
method depending on the simplicity, the accuracy, the time and the cost of the analisys.
Pippards Elastic
method
MEXE method
Archie-M
software
Ring
2.0.
software
3D F.E. analysis
Simplicity
2
Accuracy
2
Time
1
Cost
1
Advantages
Quick analysis
Disadvantages
Conservative assumptions
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
3
Well know
Visual solution
Visual solution
Most accurate
solution
Conservative assumptions
No differential settlement
analysis
No differential settlement
analysis
High
cost
and
time
required