Load-carrying capacity of masonry
Engrs Structs &
arch bridges estimated from
multi-span model tests
D. A. Ponniah, BSc, MEng, PhD, MBA, CEng, MICE, and D. J. Prentice, BEng, PhD
j As a result of recent European Community
directives, it is necessary to reassess a large
number of arch bridges in the UK to ascertain
their load-carrying capacity. Current methods
of assessment can be conservative, and
improvements to these are urgently required.
The effect of the overlying fill on the load-
carrying capabilities of an arch bridge is an
important aspect that is still not yet fully
understood. This paper addresses some of
these issues through the presentation of the
results from a series of load tests on a double-
span model arch bridge. The model arch was
constructed in timber with a dry granular fill,
and approximately 90 tests were carried out to
investigate the effects of load position and fill
depth. A limited number of tests were also
undertaken to quantify parameters such as the
density of fill, the presence of structural
backing and the effect of the secondary arch. A
regression analysis of the results was carried
out and an expression for the failure load of
arch bridges has been derived. This is
validated against full-scale-test data from a
number of previous arch-bridge tests.
Keywords: brickwork & masonry; bridges;
models (physical)
Introduction
In recent years, a considerable amount of effort
has gone into research concerning the load-
carrying capacity of arch bridges.1¹3 The reason
for this upsurge in interest can be largely
attributed to recent European Community
directives which state that bridges must be
capable of taking an increased vehicle weight of
40 tonne by the year 1999. However, the majority
of arch bridges in the UK were constructed
between the 17th and 19th centuries,4 and were
‘designed’ to carry loads much less than those
on current road networks. As a result, these
bridges are required to be reassessed to
ascertain their present-day load-carrying
capacity. The common methods of assessment,
such as the MEXE5 and the mechanism
method,1 have been demonstrated to be
unreliable when compared to load tests on full-
scale bridges,4 and this has been largely
attributed to the lack of understanding of the
contribution made by the fill material
surrounding the arch.
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Proc. Instn Civ.
Bldgs, 1998, 128,
Feb., 81–90
Paper 11478
Written discussion
closes 29 May
1998
2. Recent studies6-8 have attempted to
evaluate the significance of the interaction
between the arch and the fill. It has been shown
through both experimental and theoretical work
that the fill significantly affects the capacity of
the arch. These studies conclude that when the
effect of the fill is taken into account the capacity
of the arch is significantly greater than that
predicted by the methods mentioned above.
Depending on the soil type, depth of fill and the
configuration of the arch, the load-carrying
capacity can be enhanced by up to 40%.9
However, only a relatively small proportion of
this work has been specifically concerned with
multi-span bridges,10,11 particularly when
compared to the percentage in existence. In
view of the limited research on these structures,
this investigation was initiated to provide a
greater understanding of the interaction
between the arch barrels and the surrounding
fill.
3. The research can be carried out by a
number of means, such as theoretical methods,
field tests and model tests. While theoretical
methods can be used to investigate many
variables quickly and cheaply, such analyses are
limited in use because of the idealizations
required. Alternatively, field tests are real and
provide realistic data, but are enormously D. A. Ponniah,
expensive and relevant only to a limited number Senior Lecturer,
of parameters. Model tests incorporating much Department of
Civil &
of the real structure can be used to investigate a
Environmental
wide range of parameters within a reasonable
Engineering,
cost and time-scale. While this paper describes a University of
programme of small-scale testing, it is only Edinburgh
through a combination of these techniques that
the full picture can emerge.
4. The aims of the investigation were:
(a) to examine the effects of various para-
meters, such as the fill depth and load
position, on the failure load of a double-span
arch
(b) to compile a databank of relevant informa-
tion to allow a regression analysis to be
undertaken on the failure-load results.
D. J. Prentice,
Research Fellow,
Experimental methods Department of
Civil &
Description of the model Environmental
5. A semi-circular double span arch was Engineering,
constructed to the dimensions shown in Fig. 1. University of
The proportions were initially selected to Edinburgh
81
 PONNIAH AND PRENTICE

investigate the effect of the fill, as this is more

significant in arches with low span/rise ratios.
However, the investigation is being extended to
incorporate other span/rise ratios. The model
was contained within a rigid box constructed in
timber with the front and back walls made of
glass to allow a clear view of the model as it was
being loaded.
6. The arch barrels were constructed using
45 timber voussoirs in each span to establish a
ring thickness of 15 mm. The springings for
each arch were situated directly on the 19 mm
plywood base. Two timber formers were used to
place the voussoirs in position in each arch and
to provide lateral stability to the arch rings while
the fill was being placed. The fill was placed by
hand in layers of 50 mm to the relevant height
above the crown and compacted to the required Fig. 1. Model set-up (all
density. The sand was then levelled off and the dimensions mm)
formers removed in readiness for testing.
out to investigate a number of alternative
7. Load was applied via a counterbalanced
parameters and the details are provided in
loading arm as shown in Fig. 2, which provided a
Table 1, and are summarized below:
possible ten different load positions. The load
was added slowly and in stages using (a) a comparison in behaviour with a similarly
increments of lead weights to allow accurate proportioned single-span arch
recording of the position and time of formation (b) the variations in the fill characteristics
of the hinges, and the subsequent failure load of using an alternative grading of sand
the model. (c) the effect of the addition of structural
backing between the arches up to half the
Programme of testing height to the crown.
8. As shown in Fig. 3, all load positions on
the lever arm from holes 1 to 9 are 40 mm apart, Fill properties
with hole 1 situated directly over the left 10. The fill used for the majority of tests was
springing. There is a distance of 70 mm between a medium, uniformly graded dry silica sand with
holes 9 and 10 since the latter position was rounded particles. It was placed by hand in 50-
designed to be situated at approximately mm layers and compacted at a rate of 20 blows
quarter-span on the right-hand arch. per 200 mm longitudinally, which produced an
9. A total of six different depths of fill were average in situ density of 1515 kg/m 3 . Previous
tested at each load position: 5, 10, 22·5, 35, 50 tests on the same sand 12 yielded an internal
and 75 mm. Additional tests were also carried angle of friction of 408.

Lever arm Main frame Fig. 2. Test apparatus

Ten possible load positions

Load Counterbalance
platen

Weights
added in Solid timber
increments abutment

Container to collect sand at collapse

82

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOAD-CARRYING
CAPACITY OF MASONRY
ARCH BRIDGES

11. As detailed in the previous section, an Table 1. Details of the test programme
alternative fill was also used for a series of six
Parameter investigated Fill depth (corresponding load positions): mm
tests to quantify the effect of sand grading on the
overall failure load and collapse mechanism. Main study 5, 10, 22·5, 35, 50, 75 (1–10)
This sand was a mixture of equal quantities of Single-span arch 5 (3); 10 (2); 22·5, 35 (6); 50, 75 (4)
the sand described above and a finer dry silica Stiff ‘wedge’ backing 5 (3); 10 (2); 22·5, 35 (6); 50, 75 (4)
sand. A comparison of the particle-size Loose ‘rubble’ backing 5 (3); 10 (2); 22·5, 35 (6); 50, 75 (4)
distributions is shown in Fig. 4 with the Alternative fill 5 (3); 10 (2); 22·5, 35 (6); 50, 75 (4)
alternative fill (type B) more widely graded than
the original fill used in majority of the tests
(type A). The uniformity coefficient for sand
type A is considerably smaller than that for the
alternative sand type B, with values of 1·59 and
8·2, respectively.
12. The alternative fill was placed and
compacted using the same method as that
described above. The average in situ density
using this material was measured at 1693 kg/m3
with a variation of 61%. This represents an
increase of 12% from the density of the original
sand, which is as expected due to the wider
grading of the material. A series of shear box
tests was carried out on samples of varying
densities in order to establish the relationship
with the angle of shearing resistance f. The Fig. 3. Load positions
corresponding value of f was 418, which is coefficient,14 which is used to establish the and system of reference
appropriate for a dense, rounded and well- correlation between two variables x and y, and is
graded sand13 as in this case, but is not signifi- given by
cantly higher than the original sand type A. P
ðx ¹ x̄Þð y ¹ ȳÞ
r¼ P P ð1Þ
Regression analysis Î ðx ¹ x̄Þ2 ð y ¹ ȳÞ2
13. For large sets of experimental data, Its value lies between ¹1 and þ1 and gives an
establishing relationships between the indication of the linearity of the relationship.
dependent and independent variables is often The closer the data are to a linear relationship,
desirable or even necessary, but can be the nearer the correlation coefficient is to ¹1 or
reasonably difficult. Regression analysis is a þ1. If there is almost no association between x
means of ascertaining whether such a and y, the coefficient will be close to zero.
relationship exists between a determinant and 14. Whilst correlation demonstrates how
its associated independent parameters. A much association there is between two
common method used in scientific work is the variables, linear regression analysis is used to
Pearson product moment correlation find the best equation which describes the

Fig. 4. Particle size

distributions for sand
types A and B
83

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PONNIAH AND PRENTICE

relationship between two or more variables. The

equation of the line can be determined and a
coefficient of determination R2 can be calculated
using the relationship
P
ð y ¹ fitted yÞ2
R2 ¼ 1 ¹ P ð2Þ
ð y ¹ȳÞ2
R2 is a measure of the accuracy of the equation;
the higher the value the better the equation is at
predicting an output.
15. With the numerous parameters in this
study it was necessary to establish those that
were statistically significant, and thus eliminate
the non-significant variables from the final
equation. The test of significance was carried Fig. 5. Typical hinge
out by testing each parameter against a null formation close to failure
hypothesis (i.e. where the coefficient is zero). with slender middle pier
This calculated t value is derived from the
expression
hinge formations or mechanisms of failure, as
t¼ these were found to be similar to single-span
behaviour and have been well documented in
Coefficient ða; b; etc:Þ ¹ Hypothesized value ð¼ 0Þ
the paper by Fairfield and Ponniah.7 However,
Estimated SD coefficient
Fig. 5 shows the initial results from an
ð3Þ
investigation which is currently underway on
where SD is the standard deviation. The the same double-span model with a slender
value obtained from this calculation can then middle pier, and the failure mechanism can be
be compared with the relevant value taken seen to be different to the original model with
from standard Student t-test tables.14 If the stocky middle pier.
the calculated value is higher than the t-test
value, the parameter can be said to be Effect of load position on the failure load
statistically significant as a predictor for 17. A total of 60 tests were carried out at the
the output. The larger the value, the more ten load positions with the six fill depths, as
influence the parameter has on the predicted described previously. The results are
value. All regression analyses were carried summarized in Fig. 6 with the load position
out using a software program called expressed as a ratio x/r, where x is the distance
MINITAB,15 which is a general statistical from the crown to the load point and r is the
analysis package. radius of the arch. The results have been
developed further into a three-dimensional
Results and discussion representation of the relationship between the
16. This section describes the effect of a load position, failure load and depth of fill
number of variables on the ultimate carrying (Fig. 7). At the relatively greater depths of fill,
capacity of the double-span arch bridge model. the lowest failure loads occur around the
It does not incorporate a detailed analysis of midspan of the loaded arch. This is consistent

Fig. 6. Variation in
failure load with load
position and depth of fill
84

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOAD-CARRYING
CAPACITY OF MASONRY
ARCH BRIDGES

with the findings of Melbourne et al.10 from their

tests on three-span brick-arch models. However,
it is in contrast to single-span arch behaviour,
where the lowest failure load occurs when the
load is positioned between the quarter- and
third-span points.1 In addition, the position of
the lowest failure load is not as clearly defined in
multi-span as in single-span arches.
18. At the shallower depths of fill the load
shed to the secondary arch will be reduced,
causing the directly loaded arch to exhibit
behaviour more akin to that of single-span
arches. This results in the position of minimum
failure shifting back to between the third- and
quarter-points as mentioned above. It can
therefore be concluded that in multi-span
bridges where the fill depth is significant the
lowest failure load occurs with the load
positioned in the vicinity of the crown of the
arch. This represents a significant change in
position from a single- to a double-span arch and
one which may have important consequences in
the practical design or assessment of arches.

Effect of fill depth on the failure load

19. There is a marked increase in failure
load with an increase in the depth of fill, as
shown in Fig. 7. This is attributed to a
combination of an increased load dispersal as
the height of fill is increased, and a greater
overburden providing a higher passive
resistance to an applied load. However, the
increase between the failure load and the depth
of fill is not linear. There was an average
increase in failure load of 64% when the fill
height was doubled from 5 to 10 mm, in
comparison with an increase of 90% for an
increase in fill depth of 50% from 50 to 75 mm.
The non-linearity is due to the relative
contributions made by the aforementioned
effects of stress dispersal through the fill, and
the overburden resisting movement of the arch.
This is consistent with research into single-span
arches carried out by Fairfield and Ponniah,7
Fig. 7. Three-
dimensional
where it was observed that as the depth of fill representation of the
was increased the load dispersal also increased variation in failure load
by a power greater than 1. This results in a with depth of fill and load
greater contribution to the failure load than position
from the overburden, as this increases linearly
with the fill depth.
Effect of the second arch
20. A series of six experiments was repeated
on a corresponding single-span model to
compare this and the double-span model and
thus to quantify the effect of the second arch. As
can be seen in Fig. 8, the failure load for the

Fig. 8. Comparison of
single to double span
failure loads
85

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PONNIAH AND PRENTICE
single-span arch is consistently greater than
that of the double-span one by an average of 20%.
At the lower fill depths of 5 and 10 mm, there is
not such a significant difference in the failure
loads for the two models. This verifies the point
made above; that is, due to the reduced depth of
the overlying fill, the double-span tends to
behave as a single arch. However, it can be
concluded that at depths of fill greater than
approximately 3% of the span, the failure load of
a single span is significantly greater than that of
a similarly proportioned double span. This is
due to the increase in the overall flexibility of a
double span, which is clearly much greater than
a single span and which may develop a failure
hinge mechanism earlier.
21. The Department of Transport give
recommendations on multi-span arch bridge
assessment in clause 6.26(i) of BD21/93 Part
3,16 and state that:
Any individual span of the bridge may be assessed as a
single span arch provided the adjacent intermediate
supports and spans are structurally adequate.
This is qualified by stipulating in the next part of
the clause that structural adequacy is achieved if
no tension occurs at ultimate limit state (ULS) in
the adjacent span or supports to the span being
loaded. However, clause 6.29 allows the
assessing engineer the freedom to disregard the
above recommendations if they are considered
unnecessary, when assessing a structure with
short, stocky intermediate piers. In this case, it
is permissible to assess each span of the bridge
as a series of single-span arches.
22. This is not consistent with the results
observed in the tests presented in this paper
which highlight the importance of the flexibility
of the arch–fill–pier system on the estimated
failure load. If the arch system is sufficiently
rigid then it would be appropriate to assess the
multi-span bridge as a series of single spans.
Alternatively, if the interaction extends to more
than one arch then there would be a reduction in
the failure load, which could be as much as 20%.
The assumption that a stock pier can simulate an
abutment is perhaps an oversimplification,
because the interaction may occur through the
fill and not only through the pier and arch
barrels.
Effect of ‘backing’ on the failure load
23. Many multi-span arch bridges were
constructed with the addition of structural
backing between adjacent arches to increase the
strength of the overall structure.11 Additional
tests were therefore undertaken in an attempt to
quantify the effect this has on the failure load
and hinge mechanism of the model.
24. Haunching of this nature was
traditionally formed by either placing loose
rubble masonry blocks between the arches or
using mortar or concrete to construct a more
86
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
substantial structural bond between the spans.
Two types of backing were used to model these
two situations. The first was formed using a
solid timber wedge up to half the height of the
crown and cut to the precise dimensions of the
model so that it was situated in direct contact
with the extrados of the two arches. The second
was modelled using timber arch voussoirs,
which were again placed up to half the height of
the crown. The height of backing chosen was
not specific as there is some variation in the
extent of haunching used in old bridges.11
25. Figure 9 shows the comparison of the
original failure loads with those from the
addition of both the stiff and loose backing,
which resulted in an increase in the failure load
at all depths of fill. The stiff wedge produces a
greater increase, with an average value of 20%
being recorded, whereas the loose voussoirs
result in an increase of 13%. Once again the
effect is more pronounced at greater depths of
fill. It can thus be concluded that increasing the
overall lateral stability or stiffness of the arch
system through the inclusion of structural
backing results in an enhanced failure load.
26. This effect is described in clause 6.28 of
BD21/93 Part 3,16 where it is stated that:
Such construction details [backing] have the effect of
raising the line of the horizontal thrust on the adjacent
arch thereby reducing the likelihood of any tension
occurring at the top of that arch.
This is a recognition by the Department of
Transport that the addition of backing between
the arches can have an advantageous effect on
the strength of the arch. The results presented
in this paper are thus consistent with this
statement.
27. The existence of backing or haunching
in a multi-span system of arches is an important
parameter that must be considered in any
assessment. Unfortunately, it is often very
difficult to ascertain the existence of this as
arches are mostly assessed without the luxury
of the removal of the fill to determine such
details. However, it is clear that consideration
should be given to the additional benefit in
terms of the increased strength that haunching
of this nature could provide. The addition of
structural backing between arches may also
prove to be a viable repair option to
understrength arches and could result in
reasonable cost savings when compared with
the cost of replacing the structure.
Effect of fill density on the failure load
28. The fill material has been shown to be an
important element of the arch system. When
considering the properties of the material the
two most influential parameters are the friction
angle, which is a strength-related parameter,
and the density, which is related to the stiffness.
As part of this investigation it was decided to

identify the effect density has on the failure load,
without significantly altering the friction angle.
This was achieved by using a wider grading of
sand which increased the density from 1515 to
1693 kg/m3 . A number of tests were repeated
with the alternative sand, and the corresponding
failure loads were considerably greater than for
the original material (Fig. 10). As described in
the previous sections, the effect is again more
pronounced at greater depths of fill. The higher
failure loads are therefore attributed to the
increase in density of the fill, where an increase
of 12% produces an average increase in failure
load of 40%.
29. The effect of the fill is already
incorporated in some methods of assessment,
but the density of the fill is only considered as an
additional dead weight on the structure. The
possible effects on the load-carrying capacity
from the fill density are not catered for.
However, further quantification of this
relationship would be required before
amendments could be recommended to current
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
LOAD-CARRYING
CAPACITY OF MASONRY
ARCH BRIDGES
Fig. 9. Comparison of the
effect of different backing
between the arches
methods of assessment. In addition, the
replacement of the fill with a more dense
material could also be viewed as a viable option
for repair of an understrength arch.17
Derivation of regression equations
30. Regression analysis was undertaken on
the test results to derive a relationship between
the failure load W and the parameters
investigated within this investigation. The
effects of varying the arch span, the ring
thickness and the span/rise ratio were
ascertained from the results of a previous
similar experimental test programme by
Fairfield.12 In this programme a total of 120 tests
were carried out on a single-span semi-circular
arch and a span/rise ratio of 4, with a span of
700 mm and a barrel thickness of 35 mm. The
combined set of results covered the majority of
the range of parameters likely to be experienced
in arch-bridge assessment.
31. From regression analysis the following
relationship was obtained:
Fig. 10. Comparison of
failure loads for both
sand fills used
87
 PONNIAH AND PRENTICE

Fig. 11. Plot of failure

load versus the predicted
output values

W ¼ 2·45h ¹ 65·7ðxs Þ0·1 67·0na þ 45·6sr þ 6·71st
ð4Þ
where W is the failure load (N), h is the depth of
fill at the crown (mm), xs is the distance from the
left springing to the load point (mm), na is the
number of arches, sr is the span/rise ratio and st
is the span/thickness ratio.
32. The values estimated from equation (4)
versus the actual failure load are plotted in
Fig. 11, with the best-fit line drawn at 458. The
coefficient of determination R2 for this
relationship was 79%, indicating a good
correlation. The values of t indicating the
significance of any particular parameter were
estimated for h, xs , na , sr and st as 18·25, 10·3,
5·31, 10·69 and 4·65, respectively. The signifi-
cance of the parameter is evaluated by compari-
son with the critical value calculated as 2·13 for
95% confidence limits and four degrees of free-
dom. The depth of fill h is clearly the most signi-
ficant parameter, with a value of 18·25, but all
the parameters have t-values greater than the
critical value and are therefore also statistically
significant.
Application of regression equation to full scale
field tests
33. Over the last 10 years the Transport
Road Laboratory has undertaken a number of
tests to failure on redundant arch bridges.4 In

Table 2. Results from the regression analysis of the full-scale field tests
Bridge Span: Rise: Ring h: xs na sr st Width Actual Estimated Difference:
location m m thickness: mm of bridge: failure: failure: %
m m kN kN

Bridgemill 18·3 2·85 0·711 203 2·32 1 6·4 25·7 8·3 3100 1195 61·4
Bargower 10 5·18 0·558 1200 2·25 1 1·9 17·9 8·7 5600 4936 11·8
Preston 4·95 1·64 0·36 380 2·1 1 3 13·8 5·7 2110 1057 49·9
Prestwood 6·55 1·43 0·22 165 2·1 1 4·6 29·8 3·8 228 179 21·4
Torksey 4·9 1·15 0·343 246 2·04 1 4·3 14·3 7·8 1080 1047 3·1
Shinafoot 6·16 1·18 0·39 215 2·08 1 5·2 15·8 7 2524 909 64
Strathmashie 9·42 2·99 0·6 410 2·17 1 3·2 15·7 5·8 1325 1176 11·3
Barlae 8·53 1·69 0·45 295 2·15 1 5 19 9·8 2900 1656 42·9
Rothm road 8·9 2·3 0·50 710 2·2 3 3·9 18·4 6·5 3500 2140 38·8

88

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

this section the results obtained from the load
tests are compared with the estimates obtained
using the regression equation derived from the
series of small-scale tests. The bridges and their
characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Also
included in this table is the measured failure
load, the estimated failure load from the
regression equation and the percentage
difference between the two loads. The estimated
loads have been amended to allow for both the
length of the applied surface load and the width
of the arch under investigation, since the
solution to the equation is based on the
dimensions of the timber model.
34. As can be seen from Table 2, some
reasonable correlation has been obtained.
Although all the estimated failure loads are less
than the actual values, no clear trends are appar-
ent in the comparisons. It must be noted that the
regression equation was derived from model
arch tests, of which the majority had a span/rise
ratio of 2, without spandrel walls and without
surfacing. When it is considered that the field
tests were carried out on masonry arches with
span/rise ratios between 1·9 and 6·4, which
encompassed a variety of spandrel walls and
black-tops, and containing undocumented fill
types, the comparisons are quite favourable.
35. In conclusion, in this section we have
presented the practical application of a
regression equation derived from the results of
the small-scale timber tests. If it were possible to
incorporate the more specific details of an arch
bridge as described above, the estimates made
using the regression equation could be
enhanced. Further improvement of the
regression equation is also planned with a series
of tests to identify the effects of the span/rise
ratio and the fill density. Nevertheless, the
authors believe that this method provides the
basis for a technique that will ultimately provide
the practising engineer with a straightforward
means of obtaining an initial estimate of the
failure load for both single- and multi-span
arches.
Conclusions
36. The conclusions drawn from this study
are as follows:
(a) The lowest failure loads for a multi-span
arch occur around the region of midspan of
the loaded arch.
(b) On average, a 20% increase in failure load
was recorded for the similarly proportioned
single-span arch than for the double-span
arch.
(c) The addition of a solid wedge simulating the
backing between the arches increased the
failure load by, on average, 20%. A similar
loose backing produced an average
increase of 13%.
(d) An increase in the density of the overlying
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
LOAD-CARRYING
CAPACITY OF MASONRY
ARCH BRIDGES
fill of 12% produced an average increase in
failure load of 40%. Both this and/or the
addition of backing may be viable repair
options to understrength arches.
(e) Regression analysis was carried out to
obtain an expression for the failure load of
arch bridges, which can be used to obtain
initial approximate estimates.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the EPSRC
and the Highways Agency for funding this
research. In addition, the technical staff of the
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Edinburgh and
Messrs Scott Baker, Brian McCall, George
McKinlay and Eric Hutchinson are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
1. HEYMAN J. The Masonry Arch. Horwood,
Chichester, 1982.
2. CHOO B. S., COUTIE M. G. and GONG N. G. Finite
element analysis of masonry arch bridges using
tapered elements. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, 1991, 91, 755–770.
3. SMITH F. W., HARVEY W. J. and VARDY A. E. Three-
hinge analysis of masonry arches. The Structural
Engineer, 1990, 68, No. 11, 203–207.
4. PAGE J. Masonry Arch Bridges – State of the Art
Review. HMSO, London, 1993.
5. MEXE. Military Load Classification of Civil Bridges
by Reconnaissance and Correlation Methods. Mili-
tary Engineering Experimental Establishment,
Christchurch, 1963 (SOLOG study B38).
6. PRENTICE D. J. and PONNIAH D. A. New techniques
in the elastic analysis of arch bridges using image
processing. Journal of the British Society for Strain
Measurement, 1996, 139–144.
7. FAIRFIELD C. A. and PONNIAH D. A. Model tests to
determine the effect of fill on buried arches.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Structures and Buildings, 1994, 104.
8. PONNIAH D. A., FAIRFIELD C. A. and PRENTICE D. J.
Fill stresses in a new brick arch bridge subject to
heavy axle-load tests. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings, 1997,
122, 173–185.
9. PRENTICE D.J. An Appraisal of the Geotechnical
Aspects of Multi-span Masonry Arch Bridges. PhD
Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1996.
10. MELBOURNE C., GILBERT M. and WAGSTAFF M. The
behaviour of multi-span masonry arch bridges.
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Arch Bridges, Bolton, 1995.
11. HARVEY W. J. and SMITH F. W. The behaviour and
assessment of multispan arches. The Structural
Engineer, 1991, 69, No. 24, 411–417.
12. FAIRFIELD C. A. Soil–Structure Interaction in Arch
Bridges. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh,
1994.
13. LAMBE T. W. and WHITMAN R. V. Soil Mechanics.
Wiley, New York, 1969.
14. OWEN F. and JONES, R. Statistics. Pitman, London,
1990.
15. RYAN B. F. and JOINER B. L. MINITAB Handbook.
Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA, 1994, 3rd edn.
89
 PONNIAH AND PRENTICE

16. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT. The Assessment of 17. FAIRFIELD C. A. and PONNIAH D. A. A method of
Highway Bridges and Structures. Department of increasing arch bridge capacity economically.
Transport, London, 1993, Departmental Standard Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
BD 21/93. Structures and Buildings, 1996, 116, 109–115.

90

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [11/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.