0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views15 pages

17a1a0b CIS888614800099723

Uploaded by

Sophie Thompson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
13 views15 pages

17a1a0b CIS888614800099723

Uploaded by

Sophie Thompson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 15

A single copy of this document is licensed to

Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

On

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the


most current version of the document by searching
the Construction Information Service.
CI/SfB
182 F

May 1996

Brickwork Arch Bridges


Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

David Cox CEng, MICE, MIHT Richard Halsall CEng, MIStructE


Brickwork Arch Bridges

Contents
Introduction 4

Selection, form and suitability 5

General durability considerations 6

Foundations and abutments 6

Arch ring 7

Spandrel walls, wing walls and fill 8

Parapets 9
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Brickwork design 10
General 10
Engineering performance 10
Durability 11
Mortars 11
Detailing 11
Movement accommodation 12

Competitiveness 13

Conclusions 13

References 14

Authors
David Cox CEng, MICE, MIHT. Head of Bridges, WS Atkins Consultants Ltd, Cambridge.
David Cox's career in highways and bridges with Cambridgeshire County Council included the
award winning Foxcovcrt Road and Railway Bridges and the cable stayed Cambridge Station
Cycleway Bridge. Reorganisation of the County's Transportation Department saw the formation
of the Engineering Consultancy Division which in 1995 was transferred to WS Atkins
Consultants Ltd where he became Head of Bridges.

Richard Halsall CEng, MIStructE. County Bridge Engineer, Transportation Department,


Cambridgeshire County Council.
Richard Halsall has spent more than twenty years in bridge design and maintenance and has
been actively involved in the development and innovative use of brickwork in bridges, including
the BDA award winning Foxcovert Road and Railway Bridges. He became Cambridgeshire
County Bridge Engineer, managing a stock of 2500 bridges, when the Transportation Department
was created.

Technical editor: John Page BSc.


John Page worked at the Transport Research Laboratory until 1995, with responsibilities
including its programme of research on masonry arch bridges. This included a load test on
Kimbolton Butts Bridge shortly after it was completed. He is the author of about sixty papers,
Front and rear covers: including the TRL State of the Art Review Masonry Arch Bridges. He is now an independent 3
Kimbolton Butts Bridge, Cambridgeshire. consultant.
Introduction

There are about one hundred thousand highway carrying be built in the UK since before the second world war.
bridges in the United Kingdom and about forty percent The bridge replaced one of steel and concrete which
of them are brick or stone masonry arch bridges. Most was assessed to have inadequate load capacity and was
of these masonry arches were built in the eighteenth and uneconomic to strengthen. It is located in a conservation
nineteenth centuries during the construction of the canals area and it was felt that the setting warranted an
and railways. Very few have been built since the first attractive bridge which would blend well with the local
world war when steel and concrete took over as the environment. The local residents were strongly in favour
principal bridge construction materials. of a brick arch bridge. The construction cost was little
A major programme of assessing the traffic load capacity more than that of a steel or concrete structure, and
of the UK highway bridge stock is currently underway in because of the low maintenance cost of masonry
preparation for the introduction of heavier commercial arch bridges, its estimated whole life cost was less.
vehicles. This programme has shown that arch bridges The Department of Transport (DoT) supported
require less maintenance than steel and concrete bridges Cambridgeshire County Council and is encouraging
which suffer from corrosion of steel (including steel the construction of new arch bridges. To further this
reinforcement), and wear and tear to bearings and objective, DoT is preparing a Design Standard and
expansion joints. Arch bridges do not contain these Advice Note. The purpose of this BDA Special
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

items. Despite being older and often carrying loads Publication is to give practical advice on brick arch
much in excess of those envisaged when they were built, bridge design and is intended to be complementary to
maintenance costs of masonry arch bridges are about the DoT documents. They will be referred to in this
two thirds of those for comparable steel and concrete Publication as the Design Standard and Advice Note.
bridges. They also make an attractive contribution to The aim is to encourage the construction of new brick
the environment. arch bridges which retain the longevity and low
These factors, coupled with the need to provide a maintenance costs of traditional arch bridges, but which
120 year design life, have led to a renewed interest in may incorporate modern techniques to help achieve this
building traditional unreinforced masonry arch bridges. and to meet the requirements of modern highway design.
Cambridgeshire County Council led the way in 1992 This Publication draws on other BDA publications,
by building Kimbolton Butts Bridge, illustrated on the BSI Standards and DoT Standards and they should be
covers, which is thought to be the first completely new referred to for more detailed information; they are listed
brick arch highway bridge of traditional construction to in the References, on page 14.

4
Figure 1. Brunel's Maidenhead Railway Bridge.
Selection, form
and suitability
The ready availability of bricks in
a wide variety of types means that Figure 2a. Semi-circular arch. Figure 2b. Segmental arch.

the local environment can be


complemented. At Kimbolton, for
example, most village buildings are
of a local red stock brick with a
small number built with a buff
Cambridge stock. Bricks of both
types were used in the new bridge.

Brick has the advantage over stone Figure 2c. Semi-elliptical arch. Figure 2d. Gothic arch.
for an arch bridge in that stone has
to be cut to shape, and the shapes
required can be complicated,
whereas in a brick arch the shape
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

is achieved by varying the mortar


jointing thickness. This means that
the construction cost of a brick arch
is lower than that of a stone arch.

Long span arch bridges and


viaducts have been built; Brunei's
Maidenhead Railway Bridge
(figure 1) has the longest span brick
arches in the UK, at 39m, but today
single span brick arch bridges
should be competitive with steel or Figure 3. Skew bridge.
concrete bridges up to about 15m span. segment of a circle; figures 2a and 2b show a semi-
Span to rise ratios of 2 to 10 are feasible. This will be circular and segmental arch respectively.
determined by the requirements of the site, principally Semi-elliptical arches (figure 2c) give more headroom
the span required, the height of the roadway above the towards the springings and so are commonly found on
road, river, canal or railway which it is required to cross, canals to provide adequate headroom for the towpath.
and the clearance needed beneath the bridge. A deep arch The pointed or Gothic arch (figure 2d) is not a good
(ie with a small span to rise ratio) has very variable structural form and is likely to be used only when it is
headroom. This is acceptable, for example, for river required to match an existing structure.
crossings where the main criteria are the width of the
Skew arch bridges are likely to be required to cross
river and the area of opening required at times of flood.
obstacles at an angle. The standard method of achieving
Such arches may, however, have the disadvantage of
this for brick arches is to skew the brickwork as
providing a severe hump in the road profile which would
illustrated in figure 3. It means that the brick courses
be unacceptable for a modern bridge. Where similar
meet the springing at an angle, which will require some
headroom is required across the full span of a bridge,
brick cutting. It also means that a dogtooth effect will be
very flat arches are required and they also provide a
obtained on the end faces of the arch ring. The bricks
better road profile. Flat arches, however, generate large
can be ground to achieve a flat surface or special shaped
horizontal forces on the abutments, which need to be
bricks could be used, but as each brick would have a
resisted by the foundations supporting the arch.
unique shape this would be a slightly more costly and
5
The easiest shape of arch to build is segmental, that is, a inconvenient alternative.
General durability considerations • Parapets should preferably have an adequate coping,
with associated damp-proof course system, to throw
Arch bridges are exposed structures and so many of the rainwater clear of the outside faces of the bridge.
potential durability concerns are due to the effects of If a flush capping is used (which will not protect
water - either rainwater, floodwater, groundwater, or brickwork from saturation), the brickwork must be
water from burst pipes within the structure. Water will of suitable frost resistant construction.
wash out fines from the fill, chemicals dissolved in the
• If steel reinforcement is used in the structure, it should
water may react with the mortar, or damage to
be of a suitable type to resist corrosion or be
brickwork may occur due to cycles of freezing and
adequately protected. Where post-tensioning is used,
thawing. Bricks with improved and more consistent
the steel should be designed to be replaceable during
properties are now available than when most existing
the working life of the structure.
arch bridges were built. Nevertheless, it is important for
the longevity of the bridge to protect the brickwork from Some of these aspects are discussed in more
water as far as possible. This can be achieved in the detail later.
following ways:
• The bridge deck should be well drained and made as Foundations and abutments
waterproof as possible so that little surface water gets
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Many existing arch bridges have foundations that would


into the structure. Water which does penetrate should
be deemed inadequate using modern design standards;
be able to flow readily down through the structure
they survive because the arch ring is an inherently
to adequate and easily maintained drains which
flexible structure and can endure some movement
remove it.
without undue distress. However, foundation design for a
• Faces in contact with fill, that is, the extrados of the new arch bridge should be based on the same principles
arch ring and the back face of the spandrel and wing as for any other new bridge. The aim is to support the
walls, should be waterproofed. dead loads applied by the bridge superstructure,
• Selection of brickwork should be appropriate to the including the thrust of the arch ring, and the loads
position in the structure, exposure situation and generated by traffic etc, such that movements are small
constructional detailing used. enough not to cause serviceability or ultimate limit state

(see figure 10 for cross sections)


A B
Movement joint Arch barrel
Drainage blanket over sprayed waterproofing
membrane over arch barrel
Pavement and sub-base

Granular backfill

Rise = 2000

A B Filter drain

Mass concrete foundation

Span = 8000
Elevation Longitudinal section on bridge
6
Figure 4. Elevation and longitudinal section of Kimbolton Butts Bridge.
Where mortar pointing is used as the method of joint
finishing, the pointing depth should not be relied upon to
carry dead load stresses. For structural design purposes
it is advisable to reduce the chosen arch ring thickness
by about 25mm and this will take account of mortar
pointing and also the likely need to repoint mortar
joints during the working life of the bridge.

Brick arch bridges were commonly built with multiple


rings of brick, with the rings bonded only by mortar.
Ring separation is a common feature of these bridges,
with the mortar in between rings having deteriorated due
Figure 5. either to the applied loading or to chemical attack on the
Foundation /springing.
mortar, or a combination of these factors. It is possible
to design against this occurring by bonding the arch
failures of the arch ring. Conventional reinforced brickwork through the depth of the ring. Bonding of
concrete mass foundations should be used if possible; each row of bricks transversely is also necessary.
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

the alternative use of piled foundations will increase the Possible bonds may be as follows:
construction cost of the bridge by about 20%. Figures 4
• A ring 215mm thick can be obtained by laying all the
and 5 show the mass concrete foundation and abutment
bricks as headers (figure 6a). Alternatively an English
design used for Kimbolton Butts Bridge. For continuity
bond could be used so that half the bricks are headers
of appearance, the abutment wall should be of brick.
and half stretchers, to give better transverse bonding
It can be a non-loadbearing skin but it is preferable to
(figure 6b). This ring thickness could be used up to a
make it part of the loadbearing structure, tied in to
maximum span of about 4m.
concrete backing.

The DoT Advice Note will give guidance on


abutment sizes.

If the bridge crosses a river, the design should also take


into consideration hydraulic effects; DoT document
BA 59 gives advice on this aspect.

Arch ring
Initial sizing of the arch ring may be done using Figure 6a. Extrados
empirical methods: advice will be found in the DoT
Advice Note. For Kimbolton Butts Bridge the MEXE
Intrados
method (DoT et ah BD 21 and BA 16) was used.
The design may then be refined using a variety of
analytical methods which can be categorised as:
• elastic methods.
• plastic (or mechanism) methods.
• numerical methods (eg, finite elements).
Figure 6b. Extrados
All these methods are available as commercial computer
software packages. Most methods permit the fill to
behave structurally, that is, it will disperse wheel loads Intrados
from the road surface onto the arch ring, and it will
resist movement of the arch ring by the development of
7
passive pressures. Figure 6. Arch ring bonds.
• A ring 328mm thick can be achieved as shown in
figure 6c. This ring thickness could be used up to a
maximum span of about 8m.
• A ring 440mm thick can be achieved as shown in
figure 6d. The English bond used at Kimbolton is
illustrated in figure 7. This ring thickness could be used
up to a maximum span of about 15m.

Figure 6c.
Figure 8.
Kimbolton Centring.
Inset: Brick arch
barrel closing.

Extrados
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

This range of thicknesses should be sufficient for


Intrados bridges which might be considered viable at present
Figure 6d. (the maximum spans above have been estimated using
the MEXE assessment method applied to a semi-circular
arch). It is easy to construct centring to the required
shape of the arch using modern proprietary support
systems. Curved steel sections supporting timber bearers
Extrados for plywood centring were used at Kimbolton Butts as
shown in figure 8.

The top surface of the arch ring should be waterproofed


on completion, continuously with the inner faces of
Intrados
the spandrel and wing walls, using a spray applied
proprietary system. Figure 9 shows the waterproofing
of Kimbolton Butts Bridge.

Spandrel walls, wing walls and fill


Spandrel walls may be designed as mass brickwork
retaining walls to resist the dead loads from the fill
and the superimposed loads applied by traffic.
Outward movement of spandrel walls is a common
feature, due to outward forces applied to them by and
through the fill. The risk of the spandrel wall sliding on
top of the arch ring may be reduced by tying the wall
into the ring using suitable austenitic stainless steel ties.
Wing walls may be designed in the same way as spandrel
walls. The wing walls for Kimbolton Butts Bridge were
designed as post-tensioned brick diaphragm walls in
Figure 7. Kimbolton 440mm
8 arch ring bond. accordance with BS 5628: Part 2. This method was
chosen to deal with the effects of possible impact on the
parapets (see Parapets). The walls were approximately
2.4m high and 665mm wide, and were separated from
the spandrel walls by vertically positioned movement
joints. Cambridgeshire County Council had previously
used post-tensioned brick abutments on the A15
Foxcovert Bridges, as described in BDA File Note 12.

Traditionally the spandrel fill was an unbound material.


It may simply have been the material dug out to create
the foundations of the bridge, or anything else locally
available. The options now are greater and include:
• A well drained granular fill. Figure 9. Kimbolton waterproofing.

• A reinforced earth structure designed to relieve Austenitic stainless steel reinforcement and wall ties were
pressures on the spandrel walls. used. The parapet wall was structurally secured to a
reinforced concrete torsion beam which spans between
• Foamed concrete.
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

the brick diaphragm abutment walls. The beam was


A granular fill provides a more flexible structure than anchored to the abutment walls by post-tensioning bars
concrete, allowing the bridge to tolerate some degree of which were stressed down to the concrete foundations
movement. (figure 12). The post-tensioning bars were designed to be
readily removed and replaced during the working life of
the bridge. This arrangement made it possible to install
Parapets services close to the parapets.
The Design Standard specifies that parapets shall be
Research has recently been carried out on the ability
in accordance with BD 52 (DoT et al) and BD 37
of unreinforced parapets to contain vehicles (County
(DoT et al). The requirements are onerous.
Surveyors' Society, 1995). The research showed that
A reinforced brickwork grouted-cavity wall was adopted unreinforced parapets have a greater containment
for Kimbolton Butts Bridge as shown in figures 10 and 11. capacity than had previously been thought.

1500 6200 1500

Post-tensioning bar
maintenance duct
Reinforced and
Anchorage pocket
grouted cavity wall
End parapet wall
Reinforced concrete
torsion beam

Brick diaphragm
Mass brickwork
construction
spandrel over arch
post-tensioned
wing walls

4 N° post-tensioning
bars

Section A-A Section B-B

9
Figure 10. Cross sections of Kimbolton Butts Bridge.
The principal reference for clay brick
specification is BS 3921. For engineering
design BS 5628:Parts 1 and 2 provide
recommendations for the structural design
of brickwork masonry while BS 5400
provides design guidance specific to
bridge structures. BS 5628:Part 3 gives
guidance on components, materials and
workmanship aspects which includes
design of brickwork for durability.
Guidance on design for durability of
brickwork is also given in BDA Design
Note 7.
Figure 11. Reinforced brickwork grouted-cavity parapet wall under construction.
Engineering performance
The principal form of loading in brickwork for bridge
structures will be compressive forces which can be direct
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

compression in unreinforced brickwork elements such as


the arch ring, or bending compression in laterally loaded
brick elements such as reinforced brickwork parapet
walling and reinforced brickwork earth retaining walls.
Shear strength may be a limiting factor in highly laterally
loaded members such as reinforced walls. Brickwork
flexural strength is unlikely to be used for the design
of bridges.
Design stresses will determine the required compressive
strength of brickwork. The engineer has the choice of
designing an element with high strength brickwork
and a relatively thin section, or alternatively with less
strong brickwork and a thicker section. High strength
Figure 12. brickwork is not essential for bridge design except
Post-tensioned
walls. perhaps for very flat arch rings where thrusts and hence

TABLE 1
This suggests that simpler solutions to the provision of
Classification of clay bricks by compressive
an adequate parapet may be possible. Designers are
strength and water absorption
advised to consider what may be permitted relevant to
the classification of the structure. Class Compressive strength Water absorption
(N/mm2) (% by mass)

Engineering A $ 70 #4.5
Engineering B $50 #7.0
Brickwork design
Damp-proof course 1 $5 #4.5
General Damp-proof course 2 $5 #7.0
Brick and mortar specifications should be selected on the
basis of performance, usually compressive strength and All others $5 No limits

durability. Brickwork appearance will usually also be an


Note 1: There is no direct relationship between compressive strength
important factor. The brick type and mortar may need to and water absorption as given in this table, and durability.
Note 2: Damp-proof course 2 bricks are recommended for use in
10 vary in different parts of the bridge.
external works.
compressive stresses are high, and in post-tensioned incorporate damp proof courses. The use of a coping
brickwork elements. The load tests for Kimbolton Butts with an associated damp-proof course system also
Bridge undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory reduces the risk of brickwork staining.
showed that under a 30-tonne single axle load the
Mortars
estimated compressive stress in the arch ring was about
Mortars need to be selected on the basis of both strength
one sixth of the chatacteristic compressive strength of
and durability. Portland cement based mortars will be
the brickwork used.
stronger and more durable, but less accommodating of
The classification of clay bricks, summarised from movement than the hydraulic lime:sand mortars used in
BS 3921, is given in table 1. many old structures. Mortars should be strong enough
for engineering requirements and of suitable composition
Durability
for durability. Table 2 provides guidance on minimum
Most arch bridges will be subjected to severe or very
mortar quality for use in brick bridges.
severe exposure conditions including saturation and
freeze/thaw cycling of much of the brickwork. Detailing
To achieve a 120 year minimum design life to meet Brickwork should be detailed in accordance with
current Department of Transport standards for highway BS 5628:Part 3. For bridges it will usually not be
bridges and structures clay bricks should be specified practicable to use separate sheet damp-proof course
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

as FL or FN to BS 3921. Where normal soluble salts systems at the bases of walls because structural continuity
content bricks (FN) are used, particularly where wetting and integrity would be reduced. Damp-proof course
and saturation are prevalent, then mortars made with bricks (see table 1) laid as a minimum of two bonded
Sulfate-resisting Portland cement should be considered courses in a designation (i) mortar should be used.
to avoid the risk of mortar sulfation. Recessed mortar joint profiles should be avoided as they
Very exposed brickwork elements such as parapets and increase the risk of water penetration and also reduce the
particularly those with flush detailing such as cappings
will need special design attention. Clay brickwork T A B L E 2

cappings should be laid in a designation (i) mortar Recommended mortars


(l:0-''4:3 cement:lime:sand). A protective coping
incorporating generous overhangs and drip throatings to Mortar designation
Location/element
throw rainwater clear of brickwork faces is a preferable
solution (figure 13). If practically achievable, a damp- Work below or within 150mm (i) or (ii)
of finished ground level
proof course system should be placed within the wall
head zone. Some proprietary interlocking copings Work 150mm or more above
finished ground level:
• Abutments, spandrel/wing walls, (i) or (ii)
piers and parapets
• Unreinforced arch ring (iii)
• Reinforced/prestressed (i) or (ii)
brickwork

Note 1: Mortar designations correspond to proportions by volume of


Portland cement:hydrated lime:sand as follows
(reference BS 5628:Part 3):
(i) 1:0-¼:3.
(ii) 1:½:4-4½
(iii) 1:1:5-6
Note 2: Alternative mortar mixes such as cementisand with plasticizer
may be suitable for some uses (see BS 5628:Parts 1 and 2).
Note 3: Where FN classification bricks are used or where sulfates are
naturally present in soil or groundwater in sufficient
quantities to be damaging then Sulfate-resisting Portland
cement based mortars should be used. 11
Figure 13. Copings to parapet walls.
The provision of movement or control joints in spandrel
walls, parapets and at junctions of spandrel and wing
walls needs careful design consideration. In unreinforced
Bucket handle
clay brickwork walling, vertical joints to control
horizontal movement will normally be required at
15m maximum horizontal centres, but are more
typically provided at 9 to 12m horizontal centres to
reduce the width of the joint. Figures 15a and 15b
Struck or weathered show a movement joint at Kimbolton Butts Bridge.
For unreinforced parapets where exposure and the
potential for saturation of brickwork is high, vertical
joints for movement control will need to be spaced more
closely, probably at horizontal centres not exceeding 6m.
Flush Movement joints need to be taken through cappings and
copings. They should be filled with a suitable
compressible filler with a sealant applied over.
Pointing
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

For brickwork walls an alternative to the provision


Figure 14. Suitable mortar joint profiles for walling.
of frequent vertical joints is to provide continuous
effective structural brickwork section. Flush type and horizontal bed joint reinforcement at frequent vertical
tooled mortar joint profiles are preferable. Figure 14 centres in the height of the wall. Movement joint
shows suitable joint profiles. The bucket handle and spacings of 18-24m are then possible, depending on
struck or weathered profiles will be more waterproof the frequency and size of the reinforcement. It is advised
than the flush profile because of the tooling used. that movement joint widths are sized on an assessment
Special measures may be required if a good finish of the potential movement occurring along the actual
is needed to the mortar on the soffit of the arch. horizontal length of brickwork between joints.
The method used at Kimbolton was to insert a strip of Grade 316 austenitic stainless steel is suitable for bridges
neoprene rubber material into the bottom of the joint where deicing salts are applied to the road in winter.
during brickwork construction. This was removed after
In continuously reinforced walls such as reinforced
the centring was dismantled and the joints then mortar
brickwork grouted-cavity construction, vertical joints for
pointed. Gun pointing was used successfully; the pointing
the control of movement can typically be spaced at 15m
mortar should be of similar composition to that used in
the rest of the construction so as to avoid hard nibs.
In some cases it might be appropriate to use this method
but to leave the joints unpointed, recessed slightly.
Where the appearance of the soffit is unimportant, no
special measures are required.

Movement accommodation
Movement in the brickwork of a bridge may be due to
several factors:
• long term irreversible expansion of clay brickwork due
to moisture.
• seasonal moisture movements (usually relatively small).
• seasonal thermal movements.
• creep of highly stressed elements such as prestressed
brickwork.
12 • movement of foundations. Figure 15a. Movement joint under construction.
Conclusions
Brick arch bridges fulfil a functional role and make an
attractive and worthy contribution to the environment,
but they have not been built for most of this century.
The problems associated with the steel and concrete
bridges which succeeded them have recently focused
attention on the advantages of brick masonry arch
bridges. The innovative work of Cambridgeshire County
Council in building Kimbolton Butts Bridge has shown
that brick arch bridges are a viable alternative to steel
or concrete bridges, at least for spans up to about 15m.

200

Steel or
Concrete
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

180

160 Brick
Masonry-
Arch
Cost (£,000's)

l40

120 35 years
1ife

Figure 15b. Elevation on movement joint.


\Vhole

1O0

maximum horizontal centres due to the crack control


influence of the continuous secondary reinforcement. 80
60
Further guidance on design for movement is given in
BDA Design Note 10. 40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Competitiveness Time : Years after Construction

Current evidence suggests that brick arches can be


competitive in cost with steel/concrete designs.
The estimated construction cost of a steel or concrete Figure 16. Whole life cost comparison for Kimbolton Butts Bridge.

bridge at Kimbolton Butts was £95,000 and the actual


Construction costs may be slightly greater but
cost of the brick arch bridge was £104,000.
maintenance costs are lower and so whole life costs are
With experience, some parts of the structure such as the likely to be competitive. The durability of brickwork is
parapets could have been built more economically. well known; modern bricks and construction methods
The cost of maintenance of the various options has to should ensure that new bridges will last as long, if not
be taken into consideration. Records of Cambridgeshire's longer, than older bridges. The purpose of this Special
bridges show that the annual cost of maintaining a Publication is to encourage the design and construction
masonry bridge is two thirds that of a steel or concrete of new brickwork arch bridges which will be assets for
bridge. For the 120 year design life, the estimated whole many years to come.
life cost for Kimbolton Butts Bridge was £185,000 for a
steel or concrete structure compared with £163,000 for
a brick arch bridge (figure 16). 13
References
BDA Publications
• Building Note 1. Brickwork: good site practice.
Knight, TL. 1991.
• Design Note 7. Brickwork durability.
Harding, J R and Smith, R A. 1986.
• Design Note 10. Designing for movement in
brickwork. Morton, J. 1988.
• Design Guide 2. The design of brickwork retaining
walls. Haseltine, B A and Tutt, J N. 1991.
• Engineers File Note 12. Post-tensioned brickwork
abutments at Glinton Bypass. Halsall, R. 1991.

BSI Standards
• BS 3921:1985 (1995). Clay bricks.
• BS 4729:1990. Dimensions of bricks of special
shapes and sizes.
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

• BS 5400:Parts 1-10. Steel, concrete and composite


bridges.
• BS 5628. Use of masonry. Part 1:1992: Structural
use of unreinforced masonry.
• BS 5628. Use of masonry. Part 2:1995: Structural
use of reinforced and prestressed masonry.
• BS 5628. Use of masonry. Part 3:1985: Materials
and components, design and workmanship.
• BS 5642:Part 2:1983. Copings of precast concrete,
cast stone, clayware, slate and natural stone.
Photography:
Department of Transport et al Design Manual for Roads Frank Walter, cover photographs
and Bridges British Waterways, Figs 2a, 2b, 2c, 3
• BA 16. The assessment of highway bridges and John Page, Fig 2d
structures. BDA, Figs 1, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15a, 15b
• BD 21. The assessment of highway bridges and David Cox, Figs 8, 9
structures. BDA would like to thank British Waterways Technical Services
• BD 37. Loads for highway bridges. for their assistance with photographs.
• BD 41. Reinforced clay brickwork retaining walls of The contents of this publication are intended for guidance only
pocket-type and grouted-cavity type construction. and any person intending to use these contents for the purpose
• BD 52. The design of highway bridge parapets. of design, construction or repair of brickwork or any related
• BD 59. Design of highway bridges for hydraulic project should first consult a Professional Advisor.
action. The Brick Development Association, its servants, and any
(The Design Standard, BD, and Advice Note, BA, on the persons who contributed or to or who were in any way
construction of masonry arch bridges are in the course of connected with this publication accept no liability arising from
preparation). negligence or other reason howsoever caused for any injury or
damage to any person or property as a result of any use or
Other: reliance on any method, product, instruction, idea, or other
• The assessment and design of unreinforced masonry contents of this publication.
vehicle parapets. County Surveyors' Society. 1995.
• TRL State of the Art Review: Masonry arch bridges.
Page, J. 1993. HMSO, London. April 1996 © Brick Development Association
14
Licensed copy from CIS: salforduni, , 01/02/2015, Uncontrolled Copy.

Woodside House, Winkfield, Windsor, Berkshire SL4 2DX Tel: 01344 885651 Fax: 01344 890129

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy