Proc. Insrn Cio.

Engrs, Part 2, 1981, 71, June, 597-600

8364

DISCUSSION

The estimation of the strength

of masonry arches
J. HEYMAN

Dr C. Melbourne, Greater Manchester Council of The Paper gives some interesting background to the MEXE/MOT method assessment and raises some doubts in my mind. Does the Author know how the .provisional axle load given in BE 3/736 was derived from the Pippard analysis which assumed a single axle at the crown of a two-pinned arch, bearing in mind that the resulting allowable axle relates to a standard train of vehicles and not the single axle used in the analysis? 69. The plastic method of analysis presented bears many similarities with the method proposed by Pippard and Baker." In fact, for any particular arch the ultimate single knife-edge loading determined by the Pippard and Baker method compares fairlyclosely withvalues of P determinedfromTable 1. Although these methods, as presented the in literature, be can used todetermine a permissible axle for construction and use vehicles they do notseem to have been extended to give guidance on theassessmentof,masonryarchesrequired to carry abnormal heavy loads. 70. At present 7500 abnormal load movements are notified each year to the of which 250 are inexcess of 100 tons. Greater Manchester County Council, Many of the heavy load routes through the county pass over masonry bridges, posing the important problem of how best to assess the load carrying capacityof thesebridgeswithrespect totheabnormal heavy loads passingoverthem. Although the MEXE/MOT method gives some guidance, BE 3/736 specifically states that for spans greater than 60 ft and heavier vehicles the method should be used with caution. 71. 1 am investigating a method of assessmentbased onthePippardand Bakermethod.Twofundamentalcriteriahave to be established. First, the geometrical factor of safety, which I have taken to be 2. Second, the idealization of the axle loading for which Chettoe and Henderson' concluded that a dispersal angle of 45" was reasonable if the fill over the arch was sound. (A dispersal reasonable if the fill is suspect.) This is contraryto angle of 30" appears BE1/77,*' which indicates a dispersal angle of 30" for wheel loads on buried structures.Using these criteria in conjunction with thePippardandBaker of thearch,anestimate of the methodandmakingallowance forthewidth a givenaxleconfigurationcan be determined.The provisionalaxleloadfor

Paper published: Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs, Part 2, 1980, 69, Dec., 921-937.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 160.9.42.60 On: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:39:28 597

DISCUSSION

engineer must then apply a condition factor in a similar manner to the BE 3/736 method to arrive at an allowable axle load. 72. Does the Author intend to extend his work to cover this problem?
M r J. W. Mann, M

The Author has produced a commendably simple approximate solution to the problem,buthow far is itapplicable in practice?Mostassessmentwork is concernedspecificallywiththepassage of real vehicles overthebridge.How would the Author deal with multiple axle as opposed to single point loading, particularly on long spans? In the case of elliptical or semicircular arch rings, how would the hinge points near the springings be determined? 74. Mostolderarchstructuresneedingassessmentarenot in goodcondition. It therefore seems unwise to place too much confidence in the capacity of the joints in the arch ring to transmit tensile forces when. that capacity can be destroyed by a hairline crack. Such cracks occurring, say, as a result of settlement, would reduce the'effective thickness of the arch ring if tension is theoretically permitted. Could the Author's method deal with a deformed arch? 75. A s the Author rightly says ($4 61-62) the elastic method of analysis does notnecessarilyfurnishanaccuratereflection of thestate of thearch when loaded. It is equally true to say that the calculated collapse load will not necessarily be that load which will actually cause the arch to collapse, owing to such factors as damage, cracking, distortion and abutment movement. In assessing a permissible load, a factor of safety must be applied to the calculated collapse 66), is open to question. The load-whichfactor, as the Author points out($ practical difficulty lies in determining a'factor which guarantees that there will be no damage to the arch ring under the maximum permitted load. I do not see how any such factor can be arrived at other than empirically. The only alternative is testing to destruction. 76. The geometrical factor of safety propounded by the Author in reference 1 is a guide, but only a guide, to the fitness and economy of design of the arch in relation to the loads it carries. For assessmentpurposes it does not say with what factor of safety a real load can be carried within permitted limits. Using a geometrical factor of safety of 3 instead of 2 would ensure that there couldbe no miscalculation due to the fact that some parts of the arch ring might not be able to bear tensile forces. Would the Author modify his calculated load still further by empirical factors reflecting the actual condition of the arch, e.g. as specified in BE 3/73?6 77. A simplemethodwasdeveloped in the early 1970s on BritishRailways (Western Region) for the assessment of arched bridges. It was evolved because , existing methods of analysis were found to be either inadequate or inordinately protracted for threeparticularstructures.Thesewere:a very flat arch with span :rise ratio of 11 : 1 which fell outside the scope of BE 3/73; a pointed arch the shape of which required special treatment; an arch with asymmetrical dead loading due to a sloping road surface, which was required to carry an extremely heavy abnormal load. 78. The WR method can be applied to any shape of arch and any position and type of loading. It proceeds along the same line of approach as the Paper but uses Eddy's theorem to construct the equations from which the profile of the line of thrust is determined.Themethodcan be used eithertopredictthe
598
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 160.9.42.60 On: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:39:28

8364

consequences of a particularloading or to arrive at a maximum permissible loading within set limits and criteria. of the quarter point as being 79. I would agree with the Author's selection critical for point loading.Infact, the successive trial of several points in that region which he used in analysing the Teston Bridge" is also invoked in the WR method. 80. The advantages of the WR method, apart from simplicity and speed, are that it makes no assumptions about the shape or thickness of the arch ring but deals directly with the actual profile; the use of Eddy's theorem means that a complete thrust line can be derived and itsacceptability verifiedby drawing. This method has been successfully used since 1972 for arched bridges which for variousreasonscould not be assessedbyeitherthe M O T or BRB standard methods. Professor Heyman The Paper was concerned with the derivationof a quick method for determining the maximum value of axleload that could be permitted to cross a masonry bridge. Thusthe results were intended to be directlycomparable withthose given by the Pippard analysis,' which in turn formed the basis of BE 3/73.6 of a standard train of ,vehicles, 82. Dr Melbourne remarks on the problem andontheproblem of theabnormalload,andMrMannalso refers to the of these problems passage of real vehicles withmultipleaxles.Thesolution requires the drawing of funicular polygons for the various loading cases to be considered, as was mentioned in 9 40. 83. Thus a quick assessment by the method of the Paper must be followed if necessary by an accurate analysis. For bridges of small span the single axle will in generalbethemostcriticalloadingcondition;amultiple-axle vehicle of reasonable length will produce a more balanced loading than the single axle at quarterspan.Thiswascertainlythecase in theextendedanalysisthatwas undertaken of Teston bridge," which admittedly had a main span of only 7.2 m. 84. It is indeed likely that up to a certain limit (perhaps the 60 ft specified by BE 3/73) the multiple-axle loading will not be critical, and the quick method will give a satisfactory analysis. However, there isno difficulty in drawing the funicular polygon for any given pattern of loading, and such a procedure is valid for arches of large span and of unusual shape. 85. I agree with Mr Mann that the final basis for the selection of the value of the geometrical factor of safety must be empirical. I believe, and so apparently does Mr Melbourne,that avalue of 2 is adequate.It is, however, wrongto assume that a value of 3 would ensure that tension is not developed in the arch ring. 86. It is certainlypossible to design anarchring so that,onthedrawing board, the line of thrust is contained within the middle third. In practice, however, the imperfections of the construction will inevitably compel the thrust line to depart from the middle third. It is at this point that the designer can invoke the powerful safe theorem of plasticity (M 29-23). Whatever the practical imperfections, the arch will retain, without diminution, its calculated margin of safety. 87. Thus the fact that an arch may be cracked is not relevant to the calculation of its safety. Deformations must not, of course, be so large that the overall geometry is seriously upset, but this is commonplace in any structural theory. 88. In general, the assumptionsmade in thePaperare conservative. For
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 160.9.42.60 On: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:39:28

599

DISCUSSION

example, loads were taken to be transmitted without dispersal through the fill. It is evident thatanydispersalwhichoccurs,whether 30" or 45", will be beneficial. In fact, the matter is not critical for arches with relatively small cover. 89. Themethod of thePaperwasnotintendedtoreplacethetraditional methods of analysis. It is anapproximatemethodandforcomplexloading systems a final check must be made using a graphical method.
References 21. PIPPARD J. S. and BAKER F. The analysis o engineering structures, 3rd edn. A. J. f Arnold, London, 1957. 22. MINISTRY TRANSPORT. OF Standard highway loadings. Ministry o Transport, London, f 1977, Tech. Memo. (Bridges) BE 1/77.

600

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to: IP: 160.9.42.60 On: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:39:28