Structural Paper No. 53: Masonry Arch Bridges: A Study.

Chettoe, Cs; Henderson, W

doi:10.1680/iicep.1957.2623

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering distribution of live load through the backfill (see Figure 1(a)), the field load tests conducted many years ago by Davey (1953) and Chettoe and Henderson (1957) appear to indicate that certain types of masonry arch bridge backfills might distribute the live load better than others. Application of geotechnical engineering principles also indicate that this should be the case (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of backfill on the capacity of masonry arch bridges

Callaway

Gilbert

Smith

2012

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge Engi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 3The influence of the presence of backfill on the load-carrying capacity of a masonry arch bridge can be considerable. The backfill is responsible for transmitting and distributing live loads from the road or rail surface through to the arch barrel and also for laterally stabilising the arch barrel as it sways under load. However, it can be difficult to separate these two distinct effects, and hence also difficult to ascertain whether existing assessment code recommendations are realistic. To address this, a series of experiments designed to separate these two effects have been performed. A total of 27 smallscale bridge tests were undertaken and the experimentally obtained peak loads then compared with results from limit analysis software of varying complexity. It was confirmed that passive restraint and live load distribution both contribute significantly to bridge-carrying capacity, and that, when failure involves a four-hinge failure mechanism, even comparatively simple limit analysis software can model the various effects remarkably well.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%