Proceedings of Bridge Engineering 2 Conference 2010

April 2010, University of Bath, Bath, UK

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE VICARIA ARCH BRIDGE YESTE,

ALBACETE, SPAIN.
D. M. Quirke1
1
Undergraduate Student – University of Bath

Abstract: This paper examines the deceptive structural function, aesthetics and interesting construction
technique of the Vicaria Arch Bridge, Yeste, Albacete, Spain. British standards are used for the analysis of the
loads acting on the bridge and Fritz Leonhardt‟s ten rules, from his renowned work „Bridges‟ are used to
consider the aesthetic qualities of the bridge.

Keywords: Vicaria Bridge, Weathering Steel, Self compacting concrete, Arch.

1 Introduction

La Vicaria Arch Bridge (See Fig. 1) spans the Rio

Segura (River Segura) roughly 20km southwest of
where it meets Embalse de la Fuensanta (Reservoir of
Fuensanta), near Yeste in the province of Albacete,
Spain. The bridge was designed by Ferrovial-Agromán,
who claim to be “one of the world‟s leading private
developers of transport infrastructure”, to enable a new
route between Yeste, Letur and the neighbouring area
to the east, to offer an alternative to heading north and
around the reservoir and over the dam at the reservoir
(see Fig. 2), saving roughly 50 minutes. The design
was led by Santiago Perez-Fadón, José Emilio Herroro
and Luis Martín-Tereso as Technical Director, Head of
Civil Engineering and Project Manager respectively for Figure 2: Previous route across reservoir/river.
Ferrovial. It was actually the dam owner who decided
to commission a symbolic bridge that required La Vicaria Bridge is a tied through arch, where the
minimum maintenance possible, to address the arches are hollow weathering steel sections filled with
separation and extended route to local inhabitants self-compacting concrete spanning 168 metres with a
caused by the building of the dam back in 1932 and the 48 metre rise. The bridge‟s total length is 258 metres,
bridge now retraces a road present before the dam and consisting of two approach spans of 20 and 25 metres
reservoir were present. either side of the main 168 metre span (see Fig. 3)

Figure 3: Elevation overall dimensions.

The construction of the bridge began in August

2005 and was built and ready to be load tested by
Figure 1: Vicaria Arch Bridge. September 2007. The bridges 11 metre wide deck
consists of two lanes for traffic, one in each direction
1 and two pedestrian walkways either side of the bridge.
Mr. Daniel Michael Quirke – dmq20@bath.ac.uk
2 Aesthetics
The design and aesthetic appeal of this bridge are
not revolutionary, as arches are one of the oldest
structural forms used to enable greater spans and
according to Jean M. Muller “Instinctively one would
say that an arch bridge is one in which form follows
function” [1] this is due to the fact that the arch that
experiences no bending under a constant uniformly
distributed load (udl), is a parabolic one, which is the
shape a chain will find naturally if hung from its two
ends, therefore an arch is used due to its function rather
than elegant form, which can be seen as a bonus.
The aesthetical analysis of the bridge shall be done
so in accordance with Fritz Leonhardt‟s ten rules, from
his renowned work „Bridges‟.
Looking at the bridge it is not immediately
obvious that the arches are tied, due to the fact that the
arches carry on past the deck to the ground, rather than
having a vertical support at either end of the arch.
Unlike the Apollo Bridge, Bratislava, Slovakia, where
it is quite obvious that the deck is tied due to the fact
that the supports at either end of the arch are vertical
(see Fig. 4). Therefore the Vicaria Bridge could be
deemed to be not structurally honest; however this also
gives the structure a flowing continuity not present in
most tied arch bridges with vertical supports. The
advantages of doing this are that there are no large
horizontal forces in the ground that the foundations
must carry if the arch was not tied and the improved
aesthetics, however the curved supports beneath the
deck must carry the vertical load to the foundation,
which induces a moment in the foundation, as the
points where the bridge is being supported is not
directly above the foundation.
Figure 4: Apollo tied arch bridge.
2.1 Leonhardt Fritz Analysis
2.1.1 Fulfilment of function
The bridge clearly serves its function, due to the
fact that it is still standing, however just not as one
would intitially imagine looking at it. The bridge also
has a slender, but safe look about.
2.1.2 Proportions
Leonhardt stated that the arch should be the
dominant feature on an arch bridge, by ensuring that it
is of greater thickness than the deck, which it is as the
deck has a constant depth of 1m and the arches‟ depths
vary from 1.2m to 2.4m, and therefore always have a
greater depth than the arch. This does not however take
into account the visual affect of the parapets. Despite
this looking at Fig. 1, the arch definitely comes across
as the dominant feature.
2.1.3 Order
Order in the structure is created by the hangers and
cross-braces particularly noticeable when crossing the
bridge, rather than looking at it from far.
2.1.4 Refinement and colour
Detailing was taken very seriously on the bridge,
such that he finer details, like the hanger connections
were hidden in both the deck and arch.
2.1.5 Integration with the environment
The key reason weathering steel was used as a
finish on this structure, was due to the requirement for
minimal maintenance, however its natural earthy tones
also happen to compliment its surroundings along with
its flowing nature which also suits the environment.
The flowing nature of the bridge comes about due to
the fact that the bridge is an arch, which is a natural
shape itself.
2.1.6 Character
Character is a very subjective value to quantify,
however the Vicaria Arch Bridge, seems to have a
certain understated yet refined character about it.
2.1.7 Complexity and surface texture
From looking at the bridge it seems very simple to
understand how the bridge is working, however as we
know the bridges function is not as first meets the eye,
however as the aesthetics are being considered, then it
must be said that the bridge does have a certain
simplicity about it.
2.1.9 Summary of aesthetics
The form of the bridge is not revolutionary,
however it is effective and works well in the
environment in which it is located, it is also highly
efficient and elegant in doing so, hence why it is so
slender.
3 Foundations and Geotechnics
After an extensive geotechnical survey it was
found that the rock base was limestone, however the
rocky base of the west bank required consolidation
around the abutment, which is closed to prevent land
sliding in from the front side, alternatively the
abutment on the east bank is almost completely
underground and open. The concrete bases in which
the arches are anchored are reinforced by 28 high
strength steel bars that run from the concrete in the
arches to that of the foundations ( see Fig. 9) , and the
smallest of the concrete bases is 6m×7m×5m.
4 Structural Design

The structural precedent of this bridge obviously

comes from many arch bridges that have come before,
despite this the bridge is fairly unique in it‟s structural
function, as looking at it one would immediately think
that it is an untied through arch where the foundations
take all of the horizontal and vertical force, whereas it
is actually a tied arch cantilevered off the banks at
either end. Fig. 5 shows how a conventional tied and
untied through arch bridge look and work, and how the
Vicaria actually acts despite looking like a
conventional untied through arch. The arch of a
conventional untied arch bridge continues all the way
to the foundations such that the foundations must
restrain the arches thrust in both the horizontal and
vertical directions, this is often avoided as foundations
Figure 6: Arch Section.
capable of dealing with horizontal forces can be
expensive especially if poor geotechnical conditions
The bridge piers are “Y” shaped reinforced
are present. The arch of a conventional tied arch bridge
concrete (see Fig. 7) and were cast in situ. There are
stops at the deck with vertical supports at either end,
two piers at either end of the bridge located 20m from
the arches only require vertical restraint and no
the abutment where the deck starts and a further 25m
horizontal restraint as the horizontal component of the
along at the beginning of the arches (see Fig. 3), they
arches thrust is restrained by the deck, therefore
vary in height due to the sloping nature of the valley in
meaning the deck is acting in tension. Finally the
which the bridge sits, however the supports at the
Vicaria arch bridge looks like an untied arch bridge,
beggining of the arch are 24.3m in height. The deck is
due to the fact that the arches continue all the way to
connected to the piers, through the transverse beams
the ground, however the arch is tied into the deck and
which are box sections at the piers, rather than
there is therefore only a vertical force at either end of
“I”sections elsewhere along the deck.
the arch, which must be carried to the foundations by
the inclined members that appear to be a continuation
of the arches, however these are not directly above the
foundations and therefore induce a moment as well as a
vertical force in the foundations. This unconventioanl
function was largely driven by choices made in order
to construct the bridge which shall be explained in the
next section.
The Bridge‟s main structure is two, two pinned
arches inclined 10° from the vertical into the centre of
the Bridge, where they are horizontally braced to each
other by 6 beams of a similiar outer section as the main
arches. The arches are actually polygons consisting of
63 hollow weathering steel box sections each roughly
3m long, welded together and filled with HM-35 self-
compacting concrete, meaning it has a characteristic
strength of 35 Mpa. The hollow sections are formed of
four folded metal sheets welded at their edges, have a Figure 7: “Y” shaped reinforced concrete piers.
constant width of 1.2m and depth that varies from 1.2m
in the central 100m to 2.4m at the arches ends, as All in all the bridge is an efficient one, with a span
shown in Fig. 6. The arches are anchored at their ends to deck depth ratio of 134, however the deck depth
into the reinforced concrete bases. does not include the parapets as they serve no
The deck, which is a reinforced concrete slab with structural purpose unlike in a through truss for
two 1m deep steel U-section beams longitudinally at instance. The efficiency of the bridge shall be
it‟s edges, connected transversely every 3m by I considered in greater depth in the structural analysis
beams, is suspended from the deck by 85mm mild steel section of this report.
cables wrapped in mortar filled polyethylene sheet in
plane with the arch roughly every 9m.
 i. ii.
Figure 5: Arch Force Distributions, Conventional untied arch (i), Conventional tied arch (ii), Vicaria arch (iii).
5 Construction
Traditionally speaking the efficiency of arches, has
been countered by the difficulty of constructing them,
due to the fact that an arch cannot support itself until
the crown at its centre is in place, therefore requiring
significant formwork to support the arches until this
point, this however has changed in modern times, with
the development of building methods, such as
cantilevering and rotating. Despite this these are both
quite complex with slender, inclined arches and
falseworks and cranes were deemed to be troublesome,
due to the remoteness of the site and 60m working
height over the reservoir bed respectively, as it was
also decided that the reservoir would have to be empty
for the construction process. Therefore it was decided
that the bridge would be constructed as 3 independent
structures in tandem. These being a cantilever structure
on either side of the bridge, which were constructed in
their final position and consisted of the ground works,
arch below the deck and deck up to the point that the
arch and deck crossed. The third of these independent
structures being the tied arch itself, which was
constructed on the reservoir bed and encompassed the
section of the arch above the deck and the section of
deck that fell inside the arch. Once the construction of
all three structures was complete the tied arch was then
hydraulically jacked up into position and welded to the
two cantilever structures, Fig. 8 shows the arch being
jacked into position. This approach limited the
cantilevering, amount of falsework required and both
the number and size of cranes required.
Figure 8: Tied arch being jacked up into posistion.
5.1 Tied Arch Construction
As previously mentioned the reservoir had to be
empty to enable the construction of the bridge, this was
iii.
done by diverting the water, using drains, passing both
the reservoir and dam, as the Segura water board also
used this opportunity to carry out works on the dam
itself. Once the reservoir was empty a temporary work
platform was built on the reservoir bed.
Firstly the longitudinal and transverse beams
of the deck that lie between the arches were welded
together on the temporary work platform and restrained
every 9m by supports on the temporary works
platform. The wethering steel box sections of the arch
were then welded together into sets of six to form
roughly 18m sections and falsework tower were
assembled every 18m at the location of every other
hanger. Once the 18m sections were ready and towers
assembled, the assembly begun from the outside into
the centre, by welding the outer most sections of the
arch to the deck with structural braces whilst the
section were leant against the first towers. Working
inwards the next sections were then provisionally
bolted to the previous sections and placed on the
following towers, until the whole arch was formed at
which point all joints were welded. Finally the six
cross braces were welded into place at the location of
all the formwork towers, allowing the formwork towers
to be removed.
The hangers were then put into place and
tightened until the catenary of the deck induced by it‟s
own deadweight was no more.
5.2 Approach span and arch cantilever construction
Firstly the approach spans were constructed by
craning the longitudinal and transverse steel of the
deck, which had already been welded together, into
place, with the road level abutments at one end and
piers at the other. Then the transverse box sections
positioned above the piers were filled with concrete,
the precast slabs of the deck were laid, allowing the
decks reinforcement to be placed and the rest of the
slab to be cast in situ. The guy lines at the abutment
were then tightened, therefore securing the deck.
The box sections for the cantilevered section of the
arch were assembled on the reservoir bed, before being
craned onto the arch foundation, where they were then
fixed to the 28 bars in the foundation (see Fig. 9). Once
this had all been done a brace was posistioned and
welded into place inbetween the two cantilevered
sections of arch at either end of the bridge.
 Once the approach span and cantilevered sections
were constrcuted the longitudinal and transvers steel of
the section of deck between the approach span and the
tied arch could be craned into posistion, by firstly
lowering and joining the rear end to the approach span
and then resting the other end on the brace between the
two cantilevers (see Fig. 10).
Figure 9: Arch foundations and fixing steel (left).
Figure 10: Posistioning section of deck (right).
5.3 Jacking
Once all the previous parts were constructed, four
hydraulic jacks could be set up, two on both of the
cantilevered structures at either end of the tied arch.
The tied arch was then connected to the jacks by
hoisting cables and the tied arch was then jacked up
into place. The whole jacking process was
computerised to ensure the process ran smootly (see
Fig. 11 and Fig. 12).
5.4 Joining the whole structure together
At this point the three independent structures had
to be welded together, whilst still being held in place
by the hoisting cables and guy-lines. The welding at
each bank could not be done in tandem and each banks
welding took a week. During which time the bridge
was moving a lot, due to thermal effects, which was
not an issue until it came to welding the final joints; as
all joints up to this point were relatively free to move
to the required position. This problem was overcome
by positioning steel stops, as seen in Fig. 13, in the
joint that was due to be the last welded at the time of
hoisting. Therefore allowing the guy-lines to be
severed at the opposite end and abutment to be released
during the joining process, which released the tensile
forces holding the structure in place, which in turn
compressed the steel stops where they came to lie ( see
Fig. 13), enabling the final welds to be completed.
Figure 12: Two jack jacking one end of the arch (left).
Figure 13: Steel stop being compressed between tied
arch and deck on cantilevered structure (right).
5.5 Concrete casting in the arches and deck
The final stage of construction was to cast all the
concrete in the structure. Due to the slenderness of the
arches it was decided that they could not be vibrated
and that self-compacting concrete would have to be
used. It was not possible to cast an arch in one day, due
to local limitations in concrete production. The arches
were therefore cast in two non consecutive day long
periods, to ensure the first days casting was set before
the second begun, to minimise the pressure acting on
the arch box section. This also meant that the concrete
supply could be dealt with by two local production
plants, located one hour from the site. Once the arches
had been cast the precast slab could then be positioned
on the deck, allowing the reinforcement to be placed
and the rest of the slab to be cast in situ from the centre
outwards.
6 Loading
All bridges must bear the same combinations of
dead, superimposed dead, and live loads along with
wind, creep and temperature effects and therefore must
be considered for the Vicaria Arch Bridge. BS5400-
2:2006 [2] shall be used to calculate the loads
experienced by the Vicaria Arch Bridge. Table 1 shows
the load combination specified in clause 4.4 [2] that are
applicable for highway bridges and therefore this
bridge. This report shall not be considering Bearing
Friction or Secondary Live Loads, therefore only Load
combination 1, 2 and 3 shall be considered.
Load Combinations
1 2 3 4 5
Permanent Dead Load     
Primary Live Load    
Load Types
Secondary Live Load 
Wind Load 
Erection  
Temperature 
Bearing Friction 
Table 1: Clause 4.4 [2] load combination.
 Figure 11: Schematic of the whole jacking process and forces present during the jacking process.
6.1 Permanent Dead Loads
6.1.1 Structural Dead Load
The permanent dead load of the structure is its
self-weight. Section 2 of [3] tells us the following
information featured in table 2.
Material Volume or Mass
3
Weathering Steel 890 × 10 kg
Mild Steel 480 × 103 kg
Regular Concrete 6150 m3
Self-compacting Concrete 600 m3
Table 2: Structural materials of bridge.
Unfortunately there seems to be no source stating
the thickness of the hollow weathering steel box
sections or longitudinal beams that run along the edge
of the deck, which are the only weathering steel in the
structure. It is however possible to calculate the total
length of weathering steel box sections in each arch,
which is roughly 200m. From knowing this and the
amount of self compacting concrete in each arch it is
possible to calculate that there is an average of 1.5m 3
of concrete in every metre of arch. This in turn gives a
depth of 1580mm and total steel perimeter of 6140mm
for the average hollow weathering steel section. Finally
if it is assumed that all of the weathering steel in the
structure has a constant thickness of 30mm, then the
weathering steel of the arches weighs 630 × 103 kg of
the total 890 × 103 kg of weathering steel in the
structure, and the longitudinal beams of the deck weigh
260× 103 kg, with a section as detailed in Fig. 14.
Figure 14: Longitudinal U-beam section (mm).
Once all of this had been established, it was then
possible to calculate that 2838m3 of the regular
concrete in the structure was in the deck, which is quite
simply 1m×11m×258m. On the assumption that the
distribution of mild steel is the same as of that of the
concrete throughout the structure, then there would be
roughly 220 × 103 kg in the deck, however there is also
the transverse beams every 3m to account for and it
shall therefore be assumed that 300 × 10 3 kg of the
steel in the structure is in the deck. All of which plus
the assumptions that all of the load is distributed
evenly around the whole of the deck and that concrete
has a density of 2400 kg/m3, leads to a values of 24
kN/m2 of deck for concrete and 2 kN/m2 of deck for
steel.
6.1.2 Superimposed Dead Load
The superimposed dead load consists of all the
other permanent loads that do not serve a structural
function on the bridge. For this bridge that will just be
the bridge surfacing and street furniture accounting for
the hand rails and so forth. We shall assume the bridge
surface is 100mm thick asphalt all over which account
for the road and pedestrian walkway surfacing, with
the same 2400 kg/m3 density as concrete and
conservatively that the street furnishing contribute
0.5kN/m2 to the whole surface of the bridge.
Bridge Surfacing
2400 kg/m3 × 0.1m × 1m × 1m = 240kg/m2
= 2.4kN/m2
6.2 Primary Live Loads
6.2.1 Primary Vehicular Live Loads
The vehicular live loads that the Vicaria arch
bridge shall be checked for are those due to HA and
HB loading, specified in clauses 6.2 and 6.3 [2]
respectively. Where clause 6.1 [2] states HA represents
normal traffic and HB represents abnormal vehicle unit
loading.
The UDL per notional lane due to HA Loading is
calculated below in Eq. (1).
(1)
As the carriageway width is 7m and therefore less
than 7.6m the maximum number of notional lanes is 2
page 172 [4], meaning the total load for the
carriageway is 41.32kN/m and that the knife edge load
(KEL) should be taken as 120kN per notional lane in
accordance with clause 6.2.2 [2].
It could well be that this bridge has been designed
to deal with the kind of loading that can be expected
due to HB vehicles, however it is highly unlikely due
to the fact that the bridge was designed and built to
improve local economy where abnormal vehicles
requiring police escort would not be expected, is
relatively small in terms of carriageway width and
there are alternate routes available, therefore HB
loading will not be considered in this paper.
6.2.2 Pedestrian and Cyclist Loads
As the loaded length is in excess of 36m, Eq. 3
must be used to calculate the nominal pedestrian live
load; however Eq. 2 must be used first to calculate k,
clause 6.5.1.1 [2].
(2)
(3)
There are two 1.75m pedestrian walkways on
either side of the bridge, which therefore contribute
6.83kN/m to the total live load of the bridge.
6.3 Wind Loading
The method and Eq. (4) used for calculating the
maximum wind gust speed, Vd, are set out in clause
5.3.2 [2]. For this method the site hourly mean wind
speed Vb is required and having looked at the National
Meteorological Institute‟s forecast for Yeste [5] it has
conservatively been taken to be 25m/s. Before being
able to calculate Vd the gust factor, Sg, and site hourly
mean wind speed, Vs, must be calculated using Eq. (5)
and Eq. (6) respectively, which can both be found in
clause 5.3.2 [2], alongside all the other values needed
for the equations.
(5)
(6)
(4)
Using the maximum wind gust speed, Vd, it was
then possible to calculate the dynamic pressure head, q,
which can be found using Eq. (7) as the wind load
offers no relief and only an additional load, clause
5.3.3 [2]. Calculating q enables the nominal transverse
wind load, Pt, and the nominal vertical wind load, Pv, to
be calculated with Eqs. (8 and 9) respectively. Both
can also be found under clause 5.3 [2].
(7)
(8)
(9)
Finally the nominal longitudinal wind load, PL, can
be calculated using Eq. (12) by firstly calculating the
nominal longitudinal wind load on the superstructure,
PLS, and the nominal longitudinal wind load on the live
load, PLL, using Eqs. (10 and 11) respectively. Eqs. (10,
11 and 12) can all be found under clause 5.3.4 [2].
(10)
(11)
(12)
Any unstated values can either be found or
calculated from equations stated within clause 5.3 [2].
Now that all wind loads have been calculated they can
now be combined in accordance with clause 5.3.6 [2],
table 3 below shows these combinations.
Load Loads and Worst Case
Combination Factors Result (kN)
a Pt 1216.38
b Pt ± Pv 2680.91
c PL 393.1
d 0.5Pt + PL ± 0.5Pv 1733.56
Table 3: Wind Load Combinations.
6.4 Temperature Effects
When the temperature any bridge experiences
increases or decrease, it expands or contracts
respectively, however the surrounding area in which it
is located does not do the same. This generally
speaking results in an increase in compression or
decrease in tension within the structure, depending how
the structure is working, if expansion occurs.
Alternately if the structure contracts compression
decreases or tension increases, once again depending
how the structure is working. Fortunately pot bearings
and an expansion joint were fitted at one end of the
bridge, which allow for these temperature changes, by
allowing one end of the bridge to move rather than
imparting a smaller or larger load at the abutments and
in turn back into the structure itself. Despite this
bearings and expansion joints require maintenance to
ensure they do not get stuck and prevent the bridge
moving and variations due to temperature still must be
checked to ensure they are within a respectable
amount.
 The method set out in clause 5.4 [2], requires Load ULS SLS
effective bridge temperatures for design purposes to be Dead (kN/m) 326.7 286
derived from figures also featured in the clause, Superimposed Dead (kN/m) 51.6 36.2
however these are unfortunately not available for Vehicular HA UDL (kN/m) 62.0 49.6
Spain, so conservative values have been taken [6]. As Vehicular HA KEL (kN) 180 144
shown in Table 4, alongside the effective temperatures Pedestrian and Cyclist (kN/m) 10.2 6.8
derived from Tables 10 and 11[2]. Table 6: Design loads for load combination 1.

Load
Assumed shade Effective Bridge Limit
Load Combinations
air Temperature Temperature State
1 2 3
Minimum -6.2 °C -8 °C Ultimate 1.05 1.05 1.05
Maximum 35.6 °C 50 °C Steel
Service 1.00 1.00 1.00
Table 4: Assumed and Effective Bridge Temperatures. Dead
Ultimate 1.15 1.15 1.15
Concrete
Service 1.00 1.00 1.00
The coefficient of thermal expansion for steel and Ultimate 1.75 1.75 1.75
concrete, αS and αC, shall both be taken to be 12×10-6 Super Surfacing
Service 1.20 1.20 1.20
from page 190 [4]. So if the outside temperature where -imposed
Ultimate 1.20 1.20 1.20
the bridge is located is assumed to be 20°C, then Dead Other
Service 1.00 1.00 1.00
maximum variations the bridge will experience are
30°C and -28°C. Eq. 13 below is used for calculating Ultimate - 1.10 -
Wind
the strains due to temperature effects. Service - 1.00 -
Ultimate - - 1.30
Temperature
(13) Service - - 1.00
Vehicular Ultimate 1.50 1.25 1.25
All of which result in strains of 360μ and -336μ in HA Service 1.20 1.00 1.00
both the steel and concrete, the extensions these Ultimate 1.50 1.25 1.25
Pedestrian and Cyclist
induced in the main structural elements can be seen in Service 1.00 1.00 1.00
Table 5, where positive values represent an increase Table 7: Relevant γfL values for load combinations.
and negative represent a reduction in length.
7 Structural Analysis
Assumed shade air
Temperature It would be possible to check every aspect of this
-6.2 °C 35.6 °C bridge with every load case, however for the sake of
Deck, 258m -86.7 mm 92.88 mm this paper the key aspects shall be considered with the
Arch, 200m -67.2 mm 72 mm ULS load case of load combination.
Longest Hanger, 24m -8.1 mm 8.6 mm
Table 5: Expansion and contraction due to temperature. 7.1 Tied Arch Analysis

From looking at these values it is safe to say that
the expansion joint and bearings could deal with such
temperature effects. The other elements that must
withstand the temperature effects without bearings or
expansion joints, would only be subject to nominal
stresses of 72N/mm2 and -67.2N/mm2 in the steel and
10.8N/mm2 in the concrete, which can only bear
compression, meaning all tension would have to be
carried in the steel of the structure and would therefore
also be fine under the temperature effects.
6.5 Design Load
In reality all load combinations would be
considered, however for this paper only load
combination 1 has been. Table 6 below shows the
design loads for load combination 1, all of which were
calculated in accordance with the partial load factors,
γfL, found in Table 1 [2]; Table 7 includes the relevant
values from Table 1 [2] for load combination 2 and 3
also.
The main structural component of this bridge is the
tied arch central span. The worse case loading for an
arch is one half to be fully loaded and minimally
loaded in the other, which for this bridge is the total
ULS dead load (189.2 kN/m per arch) being applied to
the whole arch and the total ULS live load (36.1 kN/m
per arch) being applied just to one half, as shown in
Fig. 15, where the arch is being considered
independently. The load arrangement results in a
maximum moment occurring at a quarter way into the
span.
36.1 kN/m
Live Load, Wlive
189.2 kN/m
Dead Load, Wdead
Figure 15: Arch critical load diagram.
 As a constant UDL, such as the dead load shown
above, induces no moment in an arch it is reasonable to
model the arch as shown below in Fig. 16 and assume
the redistribution of the live load, also as shown in Fig.
16.
Wlive
Wlive/2
Wlive/2
Mmax
Figure 16: Arch loading, redistribution and bending.
The bending moment for a ½ load arch can then be
calculated using Eq. 14.
(14)
This value can then be multiplied by γf3, which for
ULS calculations is 1.1 and accounts for errors in
analysis, to give a maximum bending moment of
17512 kNm.
The arches second moment of area must now be
calculated, so that that the stresses in the arch induced
by the maximum moment can be calculated, to ensure
that it is within an acceptable limit. Assuming that the
steel section of the arch is perfectly rectangular with
plate thickness of 30mm, the average depth as
previously calculated to be 1580mm is applicable and
the breadth is 1200mm, then the second moment of
area for the steel section of the arch is 0.061m4. This
then enables the stress in the outer most fibres of the
steel to be calculated using Eq. 15.
(15)
Comparing this to a factored design strength of
238N/mm2 (characteristic yield strength of
275N/mm2), which is fairly conservative, the section
proves strong enough to bear the worse case loading.
Fig. 17 shows the actual load test of the bridge, where
one half is fully loaded with haulage lorries and the
other half is empty.
Figure 17: Load test to induced critical moment.
7.2 Moments in Foundations
Assuming that a maximum UDL, Wlive+dead, of 225
kN/m acts along each side of the deck then Eq. 16 can
be used to calculate the maximum load each cantilever
must experience.
(16)
If each cantilever experiences 21.7MN at the
bridge deck then the concrete base in which the arch
sits a perpendicular distance of 25m away, must
therefore experience 543 MNm. Fig. 18 shows the
reactions acting on a concrete base and the centre of
rotation.
Figure 18: Forces acting on concrete base.
As the smallest concrete base is 6m×7m×5m, the
minimum possible load that one of the concrete bases
can impart is 5MN at a distance of 3.5m from the
centre of rotation, therefore only offering 17.6 MNm of
moment resistance. Which therefore tells us that the
concrete bases rely on the weight of the soil plus the
embedment of high strength steel into the soil to resist
the moments induced, due to the force carried from the
top of the cantilever structures.
8 Serviceability
Seeing as the bridge is not of the highest profile it
is not continuously monitored, however in light of the
fact that it bears the ultimate limit state loading fairly
comprehensively, which in reality is almost definitely
not going to occur, then it should also fair even better
under the serviceability limit state. Despite this the
bridge is accessed annually by inspecting the key
connections for damage or corrosion and by also
checking the tension in the hangers to ensure that the
dead weight of the deck is being transferred to the arch,
as it should be to ensure a gradual failure of the
structure does not occur.
9 Natural Frequency
The natural frequency of a bridge is a very
important feature, as if it matches that of the wind, the
bridge will oscillate, with potentially fatal results and
catasphropic failure of the bridge, most notably
Tacoma Narrows. The millennium bridge also had
problems with the natural frequency; however this was
induced by the users walking in rhythm, rather than the
wind. As well as fear of failure oscillating bridges are
also undesirable for the bridge users‟ comfort. Eq. 17
can be used to get a rough idea of the bridges natural
frequency, ωn.
(17)
For this bridge ωn came out to be roughly 7.4Hz,
which is acceptable, as if it is any less than 5Hz it
could be prone to oscillations in the wind.
10 Creep
Due the location of the bridge and potential for the
water level to rise fairly high up the arches, water
tightness was of paramount important during their
welding process, due to this the moisture loss and
therefore shrinkage of the concrete in the issues is not a
significant issue for the bridge. Creep is also of very
little concern for the same reason.
11 Durability and Vandalism
At the time of writing this paper the bridge had
been open for less than four years, and it is therefore
fairly difficult to judge the Durability of the bridge.
Despite this the bridge shows no signs of vandalism or
problems with its durability. The maintenance of the
bearings will be of key importance to the durability of
the bridge, due to the fact that the bridge is in Spain
and therefore can experience hot days and also fairly
mild nights, giving a fairly significant daily variation.
Despite all this one of the criteria for the bridge was
that a minimum amount of maintenance should be
required and for this reason, it should be expected that
durability should not be an issue even with very little
maintenance, where many decisions were influenced
by this such as the fact that the arch-deck connection
was designed to ensure bridge adaptability during
construction and throughout its service life and use of
weathering steel.
12 Suggested Improvements
Due to the fact that the luxury of draining the
water away from the reservoir was possible, the
bridges function could have been made far more simple
by constructing two vertical piers at either end of the
arch with very little difficulty, this would greatly
simplify the structural function of the bridge, and then
if need be the arch could be constructed on the
reservoirs banks before being floated into place if
craning it into place off the reservoir bank was not
desirable, like was done on the Apollo bridge (see Fig.
4). Despite this if this approach were to have been
taken then the visual aspect and flowing nature would
as appealing or striking.
13 Conclusion
Despite not being of significant size or profile, the
Vicaria Arch Bridge is a very interesting and an
effective one largely due to its unusual structural
function, driven by an interesting construction method
and aesthetic desires, due to it rare weathering steel
finish, which suits the earthy tones of its surrounding
supremely well and also due to the fact that it serves
the age old brief of reuniting two communities, that
have been divided since the construction of the dam
and reservoir in 1932, excellently. Finally most general
information discussed in this report was found in a
report produced by Ferrovial-Agromán [3].
References
[1] National Research Council (U.S.), Bridge
aesthetics around the world [online] available
from:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9nxWh68
ut3AC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Instinctiv
ely+one+would+say+that+an+arch+bridge+is
+one+in+which+form+follows+function”&so
urce=bl&ots=VjBWnsKiZd&sig=Oiar91wpx
KpeN53zcL8g5jCM5nc&hl=en&ei=gt-
uTd2XPMnDswb92s3hDA&sa=X&oi=book_
result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0C
BYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Instinctively%
20one%20would%20say%20that%20an%20ar
ch%20bridge%20is%20one%20in%20which
%20form%20follows%20function”&f=false
[Accessed 29th March 2011].
[2] BS5400-2: 2006. 2006. Steel, concrete and
composite bridges – Part 2: Specification for
loads. British Standards Institute.
[3] Ferrovial-Agromán, PUENTE ARCO MIXTO
DE LA VICARIA SOBRE EL EMBALSE
DE LA FUENSANTA [online] available
from:
http://e-
ache.com/modules/ache/ficheros/Realizacione
s/Obra91.pdf
[accessed 18th march 2011]
[4] Ibell, T. Bridge Engineering, Department of
Architecture and Civil Engineering,
University of Bath.
[5] Agencia Estatal de Meteorología [online]
available from:
 http://www.aemet.es/es/portada [accessed
10th April 2011]

[6] Agencia Estatal de Meteorología [online]

available from:
http://www.aemet.es/es/elclima/datosclimatol
ogicos/efemerides_extremos?o=1387&o=817
5&m=13&v=VMX&v=PND%2CPDV%2CP
DT%2CPMD%2CPMA%2CPMB%2CVMX
%2CTMX%2CTMMA%2CTMmB%2CTMA
%2CTMB%2CTmn [accessed 13th April
2011]