ENGINEERS FILE NOTE NO . 12 .

september 1991
POST TENSIONED
AT GLINTON BY PASS
BRICKWORK ABUTMENTS
the bridge abutments at Glinton bypass pro-
vide a useful reminder of brick's cost effective
role in heavier civilengineering projects.
The project was judged a great success by
all concerned with it.
By Richard Halsall MI Struct EMIHT
Group Engineer Structures, Cambridgeshire County Council
Although widely used for canals and railways .
structural brickwork has not been as much
used in modem dvil engineering as in light
building structures.
Post-tensioned brick diaphragm walls for

BRICK
DEVE1DPMENT
ASSOCIATION
----.......
::::;;;,t;..- \ \ -. ~ :
- - _.-.
----
Ma_eur
-- ------
D r ~ " " , "
~
Bridge
z
Chielcenng ~
... ...
Cu_
z
:c
2
z
ii
......3
INTRODUCTION
DESIGNER 'S BR IEF
Cambridge County Council were pre-
paring a 6m by-pass scheme to run
7.2 km through an area already
designated for Peterborough's future
expansion. Asignificant amount of
residential property had already been
built in what is regarded as an environ-
mentally sensitive area. The client
wanted the bridge structures to be
aesthetically pleasing not only when
first constructed but in future years too.
Minimal maintenance was also a require-
ment. The concrete option was
considered but rejected on aesthetic
grounds and additional maintainance
costs as experienced on the recently
constructed concrete bridges in the
locality. Abrick clad, reinforced concrete
solution was next considered but this
was also rejected because it did not
properly address the long-term
maintenance issue.
The design and construction of two
bridges on a by-pass for the adjacent
villages of Glinton and Northborough,
near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire,
has been widely acclaimed as marking a
rediscovery by civil engineers of brick-
work as a modern structural medium.
The abutments of the two otherwise
modest structures embody the first large
scale use in heavy civil engineering of
post-tensioned brickwork, this century,
exploiting the structural potential of the
material in addition to its many other
attributes. This project proves the
commercial potential of the technique
and was judged, by the clients, a success
both froma technical engineering stand-
point and in commercial terms too.
Sin lOCAnON PlAN

THE SOLUTION

Consideration of the brick clad solution,

although rejected, proved useful. It led
the designers within the structures
section of Cambridgeshire County
Council's Department ofTransportation
to explore a full structural masonry
solution. They were aware of recent
major advances in the use of post-
tensioned brickwork in building
structures and the combination of the
structural and aesthetic qualities
combined with low, long term mainten-
ance costs led them to explore this
alternative more fully. Permission had
first to be obtained from the Department
of Transport. When granted, it was the
first such approval given.
Avoiding the erection and dismantling
of shuttering meant that track posses-
sions from British Rail were not required
for constructing the railway bridge
abutments. Had this been required, it
may have proved problematic since, at
the planned time for construction, the
line was also to be used by trains diverted
from the main east coast route because
of a programme of electrification.
The two main structures are the 18m
span Foxcovert rail bridge and the 6 m
span Foxcovert road bridge. The abut-
ments in both cases are 6 m high and
1.5 m from front to rear. The rail bridge
abut ments are 14.6 m long while those
for the road bridge measure 13.2 m.
While piled foundations were provided
for the rail bridge, normal reinforced
concrete foundations sufficed for the
road bridge.
J.
1

PFA lntill
50 mm dia
gatvonlsed
prestressing bar
with ground

and stond
prestressin
fittingsIn sill bee

Pem10nenI
tormwork
Porouspipe wit!"
granular bed or
surround
M"""ment joint
Couplers
CROSS SICTION "'ROUGH AIlUlMENT
25 mmdia
gotvonised
prestressing bars
Drainage blanket
.': .. sill beam
"... 1' 0. o. ',-: 11::, and bollostwoll
11;>. '"'

(r
II
II
))
))
(r
II
II
))
))
(r
II
II
))
--- --- --- --- --- -,
I
I

I
Post-tensioning was achieved against
a pre-cast reinforced concrete capping
beam set on top of the abutment walls.
The steel bars, firmly anchored in the
foundations. passed through the capping
beam and were then tensioned using
hydraulic jacks. Each bar carried 1000kN
at transfer. The bricks, ranging in strength
from 56N/mm
2
to 100N/mm
2
were
supplied by Armitage BrickLimited.
Front facing brickwork is 102 mm thick
while the rear, earth retaining, face
comprises 215 mm thick brickwork.
The diaphragms are bonded to the front
and rear masonry and are positioned at
770 mm centres.
Class BEngineering bricks were used
for all underground and backing brick-
work, including the cross ribs of the
diaphragm wall. Wharfedale Mult i Rustic
and Moorland Brown Dragwire facing
bricks were used for the face work with
the Moorland Brown Dragwire bricks
acting as a DPC against rising damp by
virtue of their water absorption being
less than 4.5%.
CONSTRUCTION
The abutments were constructed using
cellular diaphragm walls which were
then post-tensioned using galvanised
steel Macalloy stressing bars contained
internally in the voids. To further protect
the bars they were wrapped in Denso
tape. The use of galvanised steel unfor-
tunately proved controversial as several
of the bars failed shortly after post-
tensioning. The cause for these failures
was established as hydrogen embrittle-
ment. It was purely a function of the steel
stressing system and in no way reflected
on t he basic soundness of using post-
tensioned structural masonry. For futu re
use, non-galvanised steel may be
preferred.
lONGITUDINAL SEC110N
Resident
Engineer: Ian Alexander BSc MICE MIHI
Contractor; May Gurney& Co Ltd
COSTS
Project
Engineer: RichardHalsall CEng MI5ructE
Client: Cambridgeshire Countycoundl ,
Peterborough Development
Corporation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Engineer: Brian Oldridge FJCE MIHT,
DirectorofTransportation
Cambridgeshire CountyCouncil
The initial costs of both projects were
broadly in line with those associated
with the reinforced concrete option with
brick cladding, This was the first major
brickwork pro ject with which the design
team had been involved: the experience
gained is expected to lead to substantial
savings on future projects. When costing
in use is considered, however, the
technique used wins considerable ground
because of the much lower expected
maintenance costs. The maintenance
schedule comprises only the need for a
repoint every 50 years,
The use of structural brickwork in this
pioneering civil engineering project was
judged a success by all concerned -
designers, client and the local community.
Indeed, Cambridgeshire County Council
has since used this technique in cons-
tructing a further road bridge in the
county. Future designs are expected to
be even more cost competitive, Involving,
perhaps as much as a 25% reduction in
the amount of brickwork used.
Perhaps because concentration had
been centred on this aspect of workman-
ship, less care was given to shuffling the
bricks on the scaffold by the normal
procedure of using two or three packs at
a time. As a result one or two ' patchy'
areas we re observed in the finished walls
when the scaffold was removed.
Weathering is expected to further
reduce this small amount of colour
banding over the next few years: it is
already markedly less pronounced than
when first constructed.
WORKMANSHIP
Ahigh level of supervision was
purposely maintained throughout the
project. For example, in addition to the
above workmanship checks, cubes were
made of each mix of mortar and all
mortar was discarded after it had been
on the spot board 1 hour. Where
coloured mortar was used for fair-faced
work, t his was made using a colouring
agent. Tilcon coloured mortar containing
styrene butadene was used for the full
bed width on all facing work.
The walls were constructed during the
winter period. Toensure good produc-
tivity temporary waterproof structures
were erected over the footings and the
brickwork was constructed with this
protection. There was, therefore, no risk
of frost damage and the brickwork was
protected against heavy rain. Further-
more, bricklaying could continue regard-
less of the vagaries of the British climate.
Special attention was given to workman-
ship, particularly supervision. For example
it was essential that all mortar bed joints
were fully fill ed and not left deeply
furrowed. This aspect of t he bricklayers'
skills which few had apparently been
called upon to exercise in recent years,
drew praise from the client.
Service ducts
Precast beams
with lnslfu end
diaphragms
':I.: .: .

. .. .. .=.:1r ,.. ..1.-;...: 16 , , . ..
" ;: ' ,,'.T I >:":',I'" '' '. ' 1:"
I.. .. ,'J ,e.t ....(I?'n,-.111 ....
I I I i I
;. - . l lt-.C) -'.1'" ...-"1' -'- ' 1
1
' . 0 -:J' r' '-111- -. . . ,-., - .
-: " ' 1>, ' .' I' , . " 1 . '1 '. ' : , I . ; I : -, ' : . ; ; 4:
. 0' ; ';111 , J",hl :.: : 111" /' .111. , ,111v , :111, 0. .. . .....
.. , . 'JII 0 ' II " . I . ' '111 III ' , .
. ... - " .' .. .. .. , i ' . 11'-; ' : ... ' . .' ..',
': '; " ," ": " " , , " 11 , ,1, :0.. ..11, <'111" ' ; '. ' ' ,.:- .
p.. .','. ... ,
....: f; '. . j:!'. ; . ...' ( . ' .
' .. _ , . - . o .. ._ . .. _. I
- ' . '-i...J" - - ,:..... ... IP-iin
:",',;,-J
.AT
- Q":"J::C'L:I,J 'I ....... ':::c .. ' __
I ---or- .-'"':"" - I .....,:;, ' .... r- ."- -:_ ' ... r _
t:i ,J - ..l- " (i=
I ..-: -:. ::-- ..,-.: -.:.. ;" 5..
.; ',:,urliI--" _.i..; c.,'--ac ...
-J :.:J' -,- '1 _ 11lI i,-, -.1I . ,. ..t..
_Qi.-" - ' J ' . ,_ _ _., __
CJ - e-, . ...=
L - - - C L _. _ ' !!! ._
f L :-:,--,-, J-r l . lIjJD ..
:-:J _,.::J=- . a-..-r:: lOIJ'::l.J_ _ ,-L CJQ.Oil , l, , 0,., .,. __
. .. . :: . =..i'.' ",.;,:.
_mJ J .l: ';I, 'ff " _.
'" ';"c;:,c"t _.=
.""'" 1 1 0 J. '" llil .1II '':iILJ:J. co;' ,_
'-''''''cJ __ --'.J ....... - fZiljlr:J OlJ_C';J-.....--:. -:'"J .""g, "" 'f.-
lJlir:JI J :..;JWl3l
f
-.J!....J..t..J -.JPlII. III ::l=:JI,1!l..... .. .."., _ _.!!I
r:-:..Jc=.J' =-W-....JU7J';) r;u ::.lJllZc- - - -_IZ::;_ au..OL:..: c "" .: ' _, .7i=I
'::1 IGilC ;aI[!IJLJO G E:1. IllJ IiIIl:1Il' .:JilIC)."lJfJ IJ__ '_OO'::O." a, __
.J_.. :::.. ::,.::;c':: "" . ' _
L r. ---.:.ll-----..:;u - .... 1 1" U:.Jl''.J-'-..h' J. , J i ll.. . .
...--:-j - r:<"' .. J- l r -, r ' C :l F<;':& 1 _.-,..... I.. , -.Jr;"d........ ' __ I .. ':;;;;!, ' -... ..... .-._,'-- ..,'_, .- _. _ ... '- '
.....0..1'-- ........ _ , ..,lt61.... - lIM - _ r-;';' , _ -:.J I ' -=. --=- ..l.A; - ......-I..-'" ,... _ '-
JI'JL... - D .. -",-j..",:, ..
,--I =.JL:_IlJJI__ .-=..i -=: . ::.I,." ,[;J OC&OD.JJLJ U1E" ,. _ ,
LJC . JOI_ I J
raiII ...JDI1l!3lLlli .
GiJ U
aiiilii. :'j ' ' s.k C:JU_ 1 ,, _
CI. gjlL ' :t J -=- ---' -, .=J rlW r- 1-" .J-=-: ". , ._
Brickwork parapet with
stainless steel reinforcement

SCHEME CALCULATIONS SCHEME CALCULATIONS

1. DESIGNlOADING (BS 54OO:Part 2)' SECTIONTHROUGH ABUTMENT
wan designed as a IIee standing cantilever

- -0.396 N/mm
2
- 1.695 N/mm'
- 1.500 N/mm'
- 2.799 N/mm'
486.1 x 10" x 0.778
251.964 x 10"
486.1 X 10' x 0.778
223125 x 10'
Front Back

1.299
- 1.299 - 1.695
NegaIiIve Bending
1094.3 x 10' x 0.778
654.95 x 10' - 1.299 N/mm'
Axial
Bending
(back)
Bending
(front)
Axial
Combined - 1.299 + 1.500 - 5.446 N/mm'
- -4.048 N/mm'
- 0.411 N/mm'
4.459
1444.2 X 10' x 0.778 _ 4.459 N/mm'
251.964 x 10'
1444.2 x 10" x 0.778 _ 5.035 N/mm'
223.125 x 10'
- 0.411 - 4.459
Front Bock
j II I ! I I I ! II I I
0.411
Positive Bending
346.3 x 10' x0.778
654.95 x 10'
Axial
Bending
(back)
Bending
(f ront)
Combined - 0.411 + 5.035
Axial
AI Base
SectIon Deslgn I
Consider ultirnote stress distribution, the most
severe case will occur under min. axial and max.
bending.
R/C Sill Beam
R/C Deck
Cellular
Brickwork

R/C Piled

1' 1 Post
Tensioning
to ...
. ' .
..
" "' ., I>
H
.,
.,.' . 1

tk
::L!= II
.'T. " I
., .
" to " ...
.
v;-
-
Shear
M

UlS SlS
!'
24B 206
98 76
748 680
318 212
92 74
51 41
960 640
312 250
174 139
Engineering
(Class B)
Facing
Moment (kNm/m):
Earth pressure
Tractive terce" *
Accidental skidding"
llertlcal (kN/m):
Dead load
Superimposed
Live load (H. + H,)
Shear (kN/m):
Earth pressure
Tractive force
Accidental skidding
Type
y,trom Table 1: as S400 Part 2.
"Negative bending only occurs with
live load on bridge
MATiRIAI.S DATA
1. BrIc:kwoIt<:
Partial 5afeIy Factors: Compressive
Strength
Water obsorpnon
Soluble sulphate
(by weight)
laadbearing
classification
56.0 N/mm'

< 0.5'1>
Class 8
70 N/mm'
< 7'1>
< 0.5'1>
Class 10
loading
Materials
Shear
Steel strength
y, - Table 1. BS5400 Part 2
Ymm - 2.00 (Table 6. BS5628:Pt 2)
= 2.0 (Table 7. BS5628:Pt 2)
Ym, 1.15
Bending Bending
1.695
1.500

-4.048
-0.396
Effective prestress for bending, allow tor a minimum
ot 1N/mm' compression over whole section even at
ultimate. This ensures whole secnon usable for
shear at ultimate.
2.799
-0.396
Combined
So the combined envelope to resist worst tensile
stresses is as shown below
EARTH
FACE
Bending
\ + ve I -ve
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
5.446
5.035
--4.048
wall Proftle
Combined
Front
Back: - 251.96 x 10'mm'
- 654 95 x 1O'mm'
215
1:4 1:t
102
1565
- 185194 x 1Q9mm'
Back
3
lnerno
section madulus: Frant = 223125 x 1O"mm'
Area
(section x - x)
SECTIONGEOMETRY
655628 part 1
Table 1
(i)
Mix proportions 1:0 - . :3
Characteristic
compressive
strength f, - 16.26 N/mm' 19.2 N/mm'
cnoroctensnc
shear strength t, - 0.35 + 0.6 go' N/mm'
Yield strength
of steel f
v
- 1030 N/mm'
go - deadload stress (ta a max. of 1.75 N/mm')
Desiqncfion
Masonry Facing Class B
Characterlsttc strengths
2. Mortar:
SCHEME CALCULATIONS

1.396 + 5.048
P - 2 X 654.95
= 2109 kN/m > p shear
Therefore: Design lor Ilexure
2109 x 10' 2109 x lO'e
5.048= 654.95 x 10' + 251.964 x 1()6
Check beoring stressdirectly below anchorage
Applied
axial stress - 1094.3 kN/m Ultimate
- 962.9 kN/m Serviceability
At serviceability:
- 3.220 + 0.008e
Therefore
e - 218mm
- (2109 + (962.9 x 0.778 x 10'
654.95 X 10'
- 4.36N/mm'

Toallow for reversal of moments steel is to be

placed in two groups at the front and back 01the
wall.
Assume e - 218 mm
therelore: p x 0.218 - 0.35p, - 0.4p,
Nowp P, + p,
therefore: p, - p - P, sUbstituting:
0.218p - 0.35p, - 0.4 (p - P,)
- 0.35p, - 0.4p + 0.4p,
therefore: 0.618p - 0.75p,
0.618 x 2109
therefare: P, - 0.75 - 1738kN
therefore: p, - 2109 - 1738 - 371kN
I
P, I+- 4 o-....jP,
0.4 I H!
0.218 p
;
Pennissible - 0.33I.
""" 5.36 N/mm
2
> fe
ma

At ultimate:
- (2109 + (1094.3 x 0.778) x 10'
654.95 X 10'
4.52N/mm'
Max
pe nnissible = 1.5 IJ Ym
_ 15 x 16.25
. 2
- 12.2 N/mm' >
Therefore section satlsfactory
DESIGN POST TENSIONING mEL
It is proposed to use Macalloy smooth prestressing
bars (reler to Macalloy Special Products Publication
No.2).
The ba rsore divided into two groups at the front and
rear of the section.
!
I
Post tensioning forces - 1738 kN (Back lace)
371 (Frontface)
- M95 0.998 IJ Ym- 8.125

Design Checks
Stress at
ultimate
Front Rear
wall wall
(N/mm')
Umn
(N/mm')
Assuming 20'1. losses
Strength of steel, 0.71,
Y""
0.7 x 1030
-
115
- 627 N/mm'
Front wall , A."
Therefore use 2 no 50 mm 0 bars
371 x 10' x 1

0.8 627
- XOmm
2
Therefore use 2 no 25 mm 0 bars
. 1738 X 10' 1
Consider the back wall, Ass - 0.8 x 627
- 3465mm'
459.0 x 10' x 0.778 ,
- 32Z5 x 1565 - 0.698 N/mm
Shear at ultimate
Applied
shear
Stress at
serviceability - 5.079 2.382 0.4 f. - 6.50
Check service
at transfer
(20'1. lor losses) - 1.449 6.306 I. > 2 x 6.306
limiting
1.75 /
permissible - 2 - 0.875 N mm' > Applied
Therelore section satisfactory

Permissible
shear
_ ( 0.35 + 0.6 (346.3 + 2109) x 10' )
654.95 x 10'
2
- 1.29 N/mm'
Therefore post tensioning becomes:
2 no 50mm 0 lor back face
Force/ bar - 1086 kN
2 No 25mm 0 lor front face
Force/bor = 231 kN
The Association would be interested to hear from Engineers or Architects of projects which they
consider worthy of inclusion in The BOA Engineers' FileNote Series. All initial submissions should
contain reference to the particular area of the design which. it is considered. would be of interest to
the design profession as a whole. All enquiries should be addressed to The Technical Editor
JMorton B5cPhDCEngMICE MICeram MCIM.
The views expressed in this FileNote are those of the Authors. Readers are expressly advised that they
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association
Todemonstrate the initial engineering decisions taken. scheme calculations have been included in the
Note. They are NOT intended to be full and detailed calculations and they should NOT be read as such.
THE ENGINEERS FILE NOTES SERIES BINDER
Aspecially designed binder has been produced to hold the FileNote Series and is available
on request from The Publication Sales Department.
The Brick Development Association. woodslde House. Winkfield. Windsor. Berkshire SL42DX.
Readers are exprnsly advised that. whilst the contents of this publicationere believedto beaccurate, correct and complete. norelianceshould beplacedupon Its
conte nts as bemg applicable to any particular c ncamstences. Anyadvice, oplni on or information ccntemed is published only on t he looting that the Brick
Developme nt ASSOdation, ll$ serveets Of "g'Pnts an d all contributors to thiS publication shall be under no liability whatsoever in respect of its conte nts
Desl8ned al1d Prod uced lor the Brick Development Association.
Woods ide House, Winkfield. Windsor. Berkshi re SL4 2DX. Telephone : Winkfield Row 10344 885651) by f rank Walter DeSign Umi ted.
C The Brick Development Association
Pnrued in Elllo:land hy Sll'\Oo kky Pn -....