Volume 3 Section 4
Part 4 BA 16/97 Annex C
Widening of Masonry Arches
C3.7 There is often a need to widen old arch bridges to accommodate growth in traffic volumes. To produce the
most pleasing appearance an arch bridge should be widened using similar materials and to the same profile as the
existing structure. However, as reinforced concrete is much cheaper than masonry it is common practice to widen the
barrel in concrete and to reserve the use of masonry for the spandrels and outer ring of voussoirs. A vertical joint
between the extension and old bridge should be provided to accommodate relative settlements of foundations unless
they are founded on rock or piles. This gives rise to a problem (particularly with narrow extensions), as the thrust
through the fill will try to push the extension away from the original structure and open up the joint. It may therefore
be necessary to tie the two together in a manner which will still permit vertical settlement to occur. An alternative
solution is to use weak concrete as the filling material.
Less pleasing in appearance are extensions consisting of steel or concrete beams with spans equal to those of the
existing bridge. The support for the beams may consist of either cantilevers at the piers or abutments, an independent
extension of the pier or abutment, or, in the case of piers, an extension of the cutwaters, Figure C/7b. A more
sympathetic method of widening often used is that shown in Figure C/8. This consists of a concrete slab laid across
the top of the bridge with cantilevers on both sides. However, due to the possibility of overloading the edges of the
arch, the cantilevers should not have excessive length and should preferably carry only footways.
It is often necessary to add splayed approaches to bridges situated near road junctions, and this may be achieved by
the method shown in Figure C/9. Experience has shown that steel beams are very difficult to maintain in this
situation and concrete beams are preferred.
Reinforced Concrete
Beam
Concrete
Beams
Weak Concrete Fill
at Abutment or Pier
Figure C/7a Widening
Fig C/7a. Wideningwith
withCantilever
Cantilever Beams
Beams at at Supports
Supports
Pivot
Extended Counter balanced
Cut Water Cantilever
Beam
Fig C/7b. Widening with Extension of Cutwater
Figure C/7b Widening with Extension of Cutwater
May 1997 C/5
Volume 3 Section 4
Annex C Part 4 BA 16/97
Weak Concrete Fill
Figure C/8 Cantilever Slab
Fig C/8. Cantilever Slab
Concrete Slab
Concrete beam
preferably
supported at
abutment or pier
Figure C/9 Splayed Approach
Fig C/9. Splayed Approach
In all cases, care must be taken to avoid overloading the edge of the arch barrel either directly or through the
spandrel wall as this may be avoided by one of the solutions shown in Figure C/10.
Concrete Bridging Slab
New Old
Vertical
Joint
New
Old
Figure C/10FigDetails Avoiding
C/10. Details Overload
Avoiding OverloadatatEdge of Old Arch
Edge of
Old Arch
Beam and Slab Bridges
Masonry Slab
C3.8 Decks formed from stone slabs resting on cast iron or wrought iron beams exist in some parts of the country.
In the majority of cases the treatment of these consists of completely renewing the deck using modern materials.
Beam and Slab
C3.9 Reinforced concrete beam and slab bridges are a fairly modern innovation and few were constructed prior to
1922. An inherent problem with many early reinforced concrete bridges is the variable and often low quality of the
C/6 May 1997
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 4 BA 16/97 Annex C
concrete used and the lack of cover to the reinforcement. Deterioration is often caused by corrosion of the
reinforcement and the only remedy is to cut back the concrete behind the reinforcement and repair in accordance with
BD 27 (DMRB 3.3).
Steel Structures
C3.10 Many of the early steel structures are reaching the end of their economic lives. Although fatigue is unlikely to
be a significant problem, corrosion may be extensive. If the deck has not been waterproofed, serious consideration
should be given to providing a waterproofing system, particularly if a susceptible area of corrosion is immediately
beneath or behind saturated surfacing materials. The need for the installation of an effective drainage system should
also be determined.
Steel structures should be painted at regular intervals with a good paint system (see BD 35 (DMRB 2.4.1) and
BA 27 (DMRB 2.4.2)) to protect against corrosion. Care should be taken to ensure that painting systems are not
hiding areas of corrosion, slack or corroded rivets. Where corrosion is found it should be removed and if necessary
new parent material added. The causes of corrosion should be removed whenever possible.
In many old steel structures, additional structural elements can be added without detracting from the appearance of
the structure and, in exceptional cases, the complete deck structure may be renewed using modern materials whilst
retaining the original parapet and side details. Prestressing cables and bars can be considered for strengthening
provided that they are adequately protected against corrosion.
Accident Repair
General
C3.11 The increased incidents of impact by high loads is a serious problem. Few footbridges survive such an impact
and the damage to larger bridges is often severe. Where a bridge has been damaged, assessment of its condition will
be necessary.
1 2 End Block
Elevation of Damaged Beam Damaged area
1 2
Prestressing Cables
and Anchorages
Facia Panel Facia Panel
Prestressing Prestressing
Cables Cables
Section 1 - 1 Section 2 - 2
Through End Block
Fig C/11. Prestressed Edge Beam Repair
Figure C/11 Prestressed Edge Beam Repair
May 1997 C/7
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 3 Section 4
Annex C Part 4 BA 16/97
Treatment of bridges damaged by vehicular impact may differ from the repair needs and techniques associated with
older deteriorating structures. Low bridges of light construction are particularly vulnerable to displacement. Steel
members can usually be repaired and local damage to concrete can usually be made good. But major damage to a
concrete bridge, especially if prestressed, often requires replacement of at least the edge beam.
Repair of Prestressed Beams
C3.12 Pieces of concrete are often broken off the bottom flange of prestressed edge beams from vehicular impact and
some of the prestressing cables or prestressing strands can be severed.
If the damage is contained within the immediate area of the impact, repairs may be practical. A typical solution for
the repair of severed prestressing wires is shown in Figure C/11. Integrity of the repair may be ensured by cutting
slots through the deck slab, care being taken to conserve the reinforcement passing through the slots. End blocks to
supplementary prestressing cables may be cast behind the existing transverse diaphragms and it is good practice to
ensure good bonding between the new and existing concrete.
When the damage resulting from vehicular impact is not contained over a small area, and where damage to the edge
beam web has occurred, the most economical method of repair may prove to be the replacement of the complete edge
beam. Alternatively, consideration may be given to the bonding of steel plates to the deck soffit.
Repair of Supports
C3.13 Vehicular impact may also result in severe damage to the support structure, including the formation of plastic
hinges. One method of repair which has proved successful is illustrated in Figure C/12.
Cored Holes to Receive
25mm McCalloy Bars Stirrup reinforcement
Ground Level
A Deck
Military Trestle Section 1 - 1
25mm
McCalloy bars
Pier stem cut
from base
25mm McCalloy
bars ground anchors
Section A - A
Section 2 - 2
2
1 1
PLAN
Fig C/12. Repair to Damaged Column
Figure C/12 Repair to Damaged Pier at base
C/8 May 1997
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 3 Section 4
Part 4 BA 16/97 Annex C
Ground Movements and Mining Subsidence
General
C3.14 Mining of coal and other minerals propagates earth movements in the vicinity of the excavated area. These
movements, known collectively as subsidence, are three dimensional in nature, any affected point having
components of displacement along all three axes of a general Cartesian co-ordinate system. The displacements are
imposed on any structure or bridge in the affected zone and may result in damage or even collapse unless adequate
safeguards have been made in the original design, or unless the necessary precautions have been subsequently taken.
In the past, these effects could usually be tolerated because of the small size of buildings and structures;
alternatively, the flexibility of the old mining methods enabled extraction operations to be excluded from the
appropriate areas. Today, the demand for energy and the modern mining methods that have been developed to
enhance output make restrictions on the extraction of coal under a particular bridge prohibitively expensive. In
addition, modern mining methods can cause settlements up to 1m and ground strains of 1 per cent; these ground
disturbances can cause serious damage to any structure not initially designed to withstand them.
The majority of bridges were built before the introduction of modern mining techniques and no structural
precautions were taken during their construction to cater for large imposed differential ground movements. Once the
problem was recognised in the late 1950s, two main approaches were developed to provide safeguards against the
effects of mining subsidence.
One solution is to design the structure to be sufficiently strong to sustain the stresses caused by the imposed
displacements so that it can ride the subsidence movement. Alternatively, the bridge can be made flexible by being
built up in a series of articulated parts. Mining movement and its effects can be assessed using BD 10 (DMRB 1.3).
Bridges Not Catering for Mining Subsidence
C3.15 Bridges are intimately connected to the ground through their sub-structure and in some cases their overall
stability is dependent upon the thrust from supporting abutments. The inevitable consequence of this high degree of
soil/structure interaction is that any ground strains are imparted directly to the foundation and sub-structure of the
bridge. In turn, these strains are passed on to the deck to a greater or lesser degree, dependent upon the method of
articulation.
With some bridge forms such as an arch there is no realistic division between the sub-structure and the super-
structure and these types are particularly vulnerable to mining movements. This is because, although arches can
withstand some differential settlement and spread of foundations, the strains associated with mining are often greatly
in excess of the tolerance that the structure will accommodate. Subsidence damage to arch bridges is therefore often
severe, requiring complete reconstruction.
Two major forms of damage to girder bridges or beam and slab bridges are that the abutments could move apart
sufficiently to cause the deck to collapse between the abutments, or that the abutments could move together, causing
the deck to jam against the curtain walls. The former mode of failure is unlikely to occur, unless the articulation
system or bearing plinth has been designed to unusually close tolerances. On the other hand, compression damage is
to be expected. Depending upon the relative strength of the deck and the abutment, one or both of these elements may
be severely damaged.
In areas of weak subsoil, piled foundations are common. This type of foundation is particularly susceptible to mining
subsidence because differential vertical movement can withdraw end support, disrupt material within the pile group
block, and cause shear failure of certain pile types.
Damage to the bridge drainage usually occurs during the compression phase of mining subsidence. In addition,
bearings are often strained beyond their design capacity.
May 1997 C/9
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 3 Section 4
Annex C Part 4 BA 16/97
The major causes of concern with this form of damage, and particularly the compression phase, can be summarised
as follows:
(i) can the deck sustain the tensile and compressive forces imposed or will the deck collapse?
(ii) even if the deck can sustain the compressive forces, will some elements of the deck ride up out of the
road surface creating a hazard to the bridge user?
(iii) will the movements cause localised overstress and failure in the deck or sub-structure?
(iv) if the bridge is supported on piles will the mining movements cause them to fracture?
(v) can the super-structure or sub-structure sustain the torsion caused during the mining?
If there is some doubt concerning the ability of the structure to withstand the mining without collapse, then
precautionary action must be taken. In the case of arch bridges this could lead to a decision to demolish the structure
prior to mining and to reconstruct a new bridge designed to cater for the subsidence. Alternatively, some assistance to
the arch in the form of colliery arches supporting the intrados can be constructed.
The construction of temporary compression trenches immediately behind the abutments can prevent beam and slab or
girder decks being crushed as the sides of the cutting close up. These trenches are covered in steel plate to retain
traffic flow.
The ability of prestressed decks to sustain the additional forces caused by mining movements without serious damage
is doubtful and preventive action prior to mining is necessary. In the case of footbridges, damage may be avoided by
lifting the deck off its bearings and supporting it above the ground during the passage of the mining. In the case of
larger bridges, this is not possible. The cost of dismantling a bridge can be high and disruption to traffic
considerable. In some instances the nature of the bridge is such that temporary dismantling is impossible. In these
circumstances it is possible, and sometimes prudent, to construct a separate temporary bridge adjacent to or over the
affected structure prior to the mining in order to retain the traffic route should the original bridge sustain severe
damage. The cost of a compromise of this magnitude is very high, but may be justified because of the immense costs
and disruption to industry which would be incurred if the bridge were to fail.
Bridges Designed to Cater for Mining Subsidence
C3.16 Even when a bridge has been specifically designed for mining subsidence, maintenance is required. In some
instances the bridge may sustain secondary damage such as crushing of some part of the drainage system or the
buckling of metal parapets. Alternatively, it may be that the final orientation of the bridge, once the mining has
passed, will need adjustment by means of jacking to return it to an optimum configuration. If the bridge has been
designed to accommodate the movements and the design has proved successful, then maintenance of this nature will
be minor. Maintenance would be limited to changing the bearings, replacing drainage pipes and repairing movement
joints. Damage to the road pavement adjacent to the bridge should be repaired to reduce the effect of vehicular
impact loading.
C/10 May 1997
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
