Analysis of a flexible concrete arch

John Bourke, Su Taylor, D Robinson and Ae Long

School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queens University, Belfast, UK

ABSTRACT:Arch bridges have been in existence for thousands of years and many of them are testament to the durability of such structures. There are approximately 70,000 masonry arches in the UK, many of them forming an important part of the UK road and rail network, equating to approximately 40% of the total used within the UK. FlexiArch is a pre-cast concrete arch system which was developed in Queens University, Belfast. Individual concrete voussoirs precast to the correct taper for a given span and rise, are connected by a polymeric membrane, which allows them to form an arch when lifted. Modern durability issues of rebar corrosion are avoided as the arch system requires no internal reinforcement. This paper investigates the construction and testing of three third-scale FlexiArch models that have been built in the laboratory under a number of variables. Geotechnical tests alongside non-linear finite element analyses have also been done to determine the influence of the granular backfill. 1 INTRODUCTION

Bennett (1999) stated that Without doubt, the arch is one of the greatest discoveries. Arch bridges have been around for thousands of years and many of them are still in existence today. However, due to construction costs and the time and skills involved in their construction, simple flat decks or box sections are more often chosen in their place. There are currently 70,000 masonry arches in the UK, many suffering deterioration. Rather than taking the age of such bridges as a disadvantage, in a society where sustainability has become highly desirable, the arch bridge has many attractive features. With increased awareness of sustainability, aesthetical considerations, and whole life costs of bridge construction, this form of structure becomes an attractive alternative to reinforced concrete box culverts. Buildings are generally designed for a service life of 50 years, whereas bridges are designed for 100 years service life. In recent years the repair and maintenance of bridge structures has become a major concern (Mulheron M.J. and Nwaubani S.O. 1999). The UK Highways Agency recommends the use of the arch form where ground conditions permit and also states that consideration shall be given to all means of reducing or eliminating the use of corrodible reinforcement. Experience has shown that unreinforced arch bridges are very durable structures in comparison to other bridge forms. An unreinforced bridge design with no steel is attractive and provides added benefits of speedy construction and quality manufacture. Queens University Belfast in collaboration with Macrete Ltd (under a Knowledge Transfer Partnership) has developed a flat-pack FlexiArch bridge made of unreinforced precast concrete voussoirs connected by a polymeric geotextile and top screed as shown in Fig.1 (Taylor S. et al. 2007) With no steel reinforcement the problem of corrosion is eliminated, thus improving the durability and long-term strength of the bridge. Failure through loss of mortar is also eliminated as no mortar is used in the construction. Build quality is assured as commercial FlexiArches are built under factory conditions and several bridges have now been built in the UK using this system. The system is easily transported by lorry as a flat-pack to site where it is then craned into position on precast abutment seatings, forming an arch shape as it is lifted. Current research is furthering this design concept by investigating the effect of different variables in the arch ring, such as span/rise ratio, arch ring thickness, voussoir construction (hollow or solid) and the type and influence of the backfill. Structural analysis of the arch is ongoing and non-linear finite element analysis is being used to numerically model the behaviour of the arch and to allow further investigation of variables numerically.

134

ARCH10 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges

Figure 1: Components of FlexiArch system

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLEXI-ARCH SYSTEM

Third-scale 5m x 2m (span x rise) arches were constructed in the laboratory. The geometry of the voussoir blocks was calculated from the overall span and circular profile of the arch. Eight moulds were then designed and made for these using Lexan plastic, with the addition of solid tubes to create the hollowcore design (Fig.2). These tubes were removed when casting solid voussoirs in the same moulds. 23 hollowcore blocks of depth 66mm and length 333mm were used to construct each arch with a design span of 1.67m and rise of 0.67m. A third-scale concrete mix was used with a 28-day strength in excess of 30N/mm2. Hooks were made using rebar and cast into 3 of the blocks for each arch made.

Figure 2 : Hollowcore Voussoir Moulds (left); Voussoirs after demoulding (right)

After curing, the top of the blocks were roughened with an angle grinder in order to improve the bond with the screed. The voussoir blocks were then laid on a flat construction bed, and the polymeric reinforcement was cut and bonded to the top of the blocks. ERS strain gauges were then attached to the polymeric reinforcement using an epoxy glue. The strain gauges were attached at the midspan, lifting hooks and the end voussoir blocks to enable strain measurement to be recorded at critical locations for both the construction phase and under load testing. Adhesive was then applied to the surface of the voussoirs to provide a sound bond between them and the 13mm top screed thus connecting each voussoir. The top screed caps the geotextile which connects each block together. Vibration was not possible for a screed of this depth, so the top surface was floated and after one hour crack inducers were then scored into the screed (above the edges of each block below) to ensure controlled cracking at the joints during lifting into the arch form. After the screed had cured for a minimum of seven days, the arch was lifted three times and the strain measured in the polymeric reinforcement (due to carrying the self-weight of the arch) during lifting and lowering. The maximum strain in the polymer was found to be 1200, well below the capacity of the material. 3 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE

The arch was then placed on correctly sloped anchor blocks under a hydraulic load actuator. The formwork was designed and placed with steel on one side and a strong clear Lexan plastic on the other side so that deformation and hinge development could be observed during testing.

John Bourke, SE Taylor, D Robinson, etc.

135

Deflection transducers and vibrating wire strain gauges were then installed under the arch on the intrados at the midspan, third points and near the abutments. The arch was then subjected (without backfill) to a proof load with a guideline deflection of 5mm. The arch was then backfilled with granular material in equal 100mm layers on both sides of the arch ring to avoid eccentricity and each layer was compacted using a vibrating hammer with a flat attachment. Deflections under the intrados of the arch were recorded during backfilling operations, but were found to be minimal. The complete third-scale arch bridge was then tested, with the load applied across a 150mm wide plate. In total, three arch rings were constructed and tested. Each model was built with the same span to rise but different backfill was used in test arches 2 & 3. The first arch was constructed with a 44mm diameter core in the voussoirs (as shown in Fig.3), the second was constructed with solid voussoirs, and the third arch was constructed also with hollowcore design like the first (Fig.3). 4 RESULTS

In each test, it was found that the initial failure was found in the backfill, as the steel loading plate compressed the material causing a punching shear failure. Subsequently, as more load was applied, deformation in the arch ring became evident in the area under the loading, as well as at the opposite third-point. A summary of each test is found below, with the results summarized in Table 1. A graph of the vectored deflections has been compared in Fig.5.

Figure 3: Third-scale hollowcore FlexiArch

4.1

Arch #1

The bridge consisted of hollowcore voussoirs, and was backfilled with 6mm gravel, and this material failed considerably during the test due to it not being a well-grade material. A large amount of punching shear was evident before the arch deformed. As the load increased, hinge formation was evident in the arch ring as an opening between voussoir blocks became larger and this area of the arch deflected downwards. At the left third-point, the arch deflected upwards and this was evident as the top line of the backfill became raised in this area. It is worth noting that the bridge had not failed at this stage, but rather it was the maximum load that could be kept constant, as subsequent load could not be maintained, due to further deformation of the bridge. 4.2 Arch #2

This bridge was backfilled with a well-graded granular backfill (see section 5.0) and consisted of solid voussoirs. The well-graded material used was stronger when compacted, and this was evident in the initial deflections, as there was less penetration of the load plate into the fill, which gave better load distribution onto the arch. Deflections were noticeably less than in the previous arch, and even responses to load could be seen at each third-span point, with the area under the load deflecting downwards (Fig.4). Three hinges were clearly visible in this test. It

136

ARCH10 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges

was impossible to break the bridge, as the internal geotextile kept the blocks connected, even as deflection approached the steel floor base. 4.3 Arch #3

The original voussoir blocks from the first arch were used in this bridge, with a new geotextile and top screed applied. This was then tested with the well-graded backfill in order to compare results and determine the effect of the backfill. This backfill performed better as expected, and test observations were similar to previous bridges with hinge formation evident, causing openings between voussoirs at upward deflection at the opposite third-point.
Table 1: Summary of experimental results Arch # 1 2 1 Voussoir Type Hollow Solid Hollow Backfill 6mm gravel Type 3 GSB Type 3 GSB Deflection (mm) 28 22 16 Load (kN) 22.6 34.1 25.4

Figure 4 : Hinge formation and backfill compression in Arch 2

115kN wheel load at full-scale

Figure 5 : Comparison of critical deflections found in each arch bridge test

NFLUENCE OF BACKFILL

As stated previously, the backfill type was changed to a fully-graded backfill as it was found that the 6mm aggregate backfill was unsatisfactory in the first test. A backfill was then designed and mix based on a scaled version of the Type 3 GSB fill used in practice. This material is a well-graded fill and provides a higher bearing capacity. The mix consisted of 20mm, 10mm, and 6mm aggregates mixed together with sand and grit in proportions to replicate a third-scale mix of the Type 3 fill. It was found that this material did have an effect on the load capacity of the

John Bourke, SE Taylor, D Robinson, etc.

137

arch model, and the well-graded fill resulted in lower deflections compared to a similar arch model with 6mm aggregate backfill and at the same level of applied load. In order to determine the shear strength of this new fill material, shear box tests were carried out. The main test equipment consists of a steel box with two halves which are slowly moved horizontally against each other until the material contained in the box shears. Proctor compaction tests were done on the material to find the optimum moisture content, which was found at 6% (Fig.6).

Figure 6 : Optimum Moisture Content for Type 3 Fill

Using this moisture content, the material was compacted in the shear box in three layers, and three shear tests done at loads of 59, 117 and 217kPa. The horizontal load was applied using a proving ring.

Figure 7 : Shear Box Test Equipment

The load values from the proving ring were translated into a shear stress by dividing them by the area of the shear box. These were then plotted against horizontal movement for each test. The peak stresses were then plotted against normal stress to determine peak and ultimate failure angles of 44 and 39 respectively. The lower value of 39 was chosen as the backfill is subjected to a high bearing pressure (as much as 700kN/m2) in the bridge test. This value will be used as the strength of the fill for further analyses.

Figure 8 : Shear Box Test Results

138 6 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

ARCH10 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges

In recent years a considerable effort has been made to better understand the behaviour of arch bridge up to collapse and to correctly predict the load carrying capacity of masonry arch bridges (Kumar P. and Bhandari N.M. 2004). Non-linear finite element models were constructed to compare different arch bridge tests done in the laboratory and to compare different variables. In non-linear behaviour the stiffness of the structure changes with increasing load as the stresses and strains are modified due to deformation or cracking. The models discussed here compare a third-scale bridge model with varying strength of backfill. The phi friction angle () is a measure of the strength of granular material. In initial FE models, a nominal value of 30 was used to approximate failure loads, however it was found that the strength of the backfill was greater than this. To determine the effect of this parameter on bridge strength, five arch bridge FE models were constructed and compared, each model representing a third-scale 5m x 2m arch bridge with concrete arch ring and granular backfill. Firstly a friction angle of =30 was chosen and analysed. As with all analyses for this particular model the backfill failed first under punching shear before arch deformation led to failure of the bridge. This related well to physical observations during laboratory testing. An average failure load of 29.79kN was found.

Figure 9 : Failure of backfill in finite element bridge model 1

Figure 10 : Global bridge failure in Model 2

In the second model, the friction angle was modified to =40 (representing a stronger fill) and another analysis run. This proved to make the bridge stronger with an average failure load of 32.73kN. It could be seen in the contoured deformation output that the backfill had deformed downwards by 547mm at this stage of failure (Fig.10). Subsequently a further three analyses were done with friction angles of 20, 25, and 35 in order to produce a range of failure loads (Fig.11). From this, it was possible to determine an estimated failure load of 31.88kN for the friction angle of 39 that had been determined in the geotechnical tests. This value was found to be very close to the value of 34.1kN sustained in Arch Test #2. 7 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

Each of the three bridges performed well under load testing. The well-graded backfill used in arches 2 and 3 sustained higher loads and produced lower deflections. When compared to a 115kN wheel load at full-scale, each bridge deflected not more than 2.8mm at this load equivalent (Fig.5). It should be noted that these test loads were in excess of the equivalent scale

John Bourke, SE Taylor, D Robinson, etc.

139

axle loading and was in part, due to the absence of road sub-base and surfacing, which would provide better load dispersal, minimizing compaction under vehicular loading, thus reducing deflections. However, these results still show the strength of the FlexiArch and that it is a viable structural solution. No crushing of the voussoirs under compression was observed in the tests, however it was found that the hollowcore arch produced higher deflection under load. This may be due to irregularity of compression in the backfill, as the voussoirs in both bridges behaved similarly. Finite element models (currently in progress) will assist in comparing these. The finite element analyses (incorporating results from geotechnical tests) gave a predicted failure load that was close to the experimental value. Further finite element analyses will include the modelling of the geotextile contained within the arch to determine its effect (if any) on the behaviour of the arch when loaded. REFERENCES
Bennet and David, 1999. The Creation of Bridges, p.9-17. CEN. 2002. EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. Brussels. European Committee for Standardization. Kumar P. and Bhandari N.M., 2004. Non-linear finite element analysis of masonry arches for prediction of collapse load, Structural Engineering International, March 2005 Issue, p.166. Mulheron M.J. and Nwaubani S.O., 1999. Corrosion inhibitors for high performance reinforced concrete structures, RILEM TC-AHC:158, The role of admixtures in high performance concrete, Monterey, Mexico. Taylor S., Long A. and Robinson D., 2007. Development of a flexible concrete arch, October 2007 issue of CONCRETE, p33-37. UK Highways Agency, 1995. BD57/95, Design for Durability, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 1, Section 3, Department of Transport, Highway and Traffic, UK.