Feature: Harvey

Feature

Demolition of arch bridges

W. J. Harvey, BSc, PhD, CEng, MICE
Department of Civil Engineering, Universityof Dundee

Introduction other must call on its hidden reservesof passive

On Saturday13 June 1992 twoof three spansof resistance to provide the supportneeded. This
a masonry viaduct at St Johns Vale Station, balancing effect is not just a 2-dimensional
Deptford, collapsed during a pause in demoli- effect. The centre of thrust must pass through
(a) Elevation
tion work. Two men were killed, buried under the centre of the pier in plan if rotational effects
the fallen spans, and several others were injured are to be avoided (Fig 2(c)).Thisis important in
as they descended on top of the debris. The col- considering the behaviour of skew bridges, but
lapse wasof thedominotypeand was becomes even more so if the arch is progres-
described inNew Civil Engineer as unexpected. sively cut away. (b) Plan
Both the BBC and Grampian Television report- Arches respond best to distributed loads.
ed an apparently similar collapsein Aberfoyle, Adding fill to an arch bridge increases the thrust
near Balmoral, in 1989. In bothcases the struc- over the whole span, which increases the sta-
ture collapsed when the crown of one span had bility with only a small increase in stress2. On m (c) First cut
.-
been partlycutaway.Thisfeature,while the other hand,a concentrated load tendsto dis- V

prompted by these two failures, is not intended turb the loadpath, thus reducingstability, with-
to present a detailedexplanation of them.In the out a corresponding increase in the valueof the 3
case of the Deptford failure particularly, only thrust to helpto resist displacement. (dl Second cut
very limited information is available. The inverseof this argument is important in
Theapproachtaken to demolitionoften considering the best way to destroy an arch.
reveals a severelack of understanding of arch Any force that reduces the general thrust will
behaviour. Morecare in planning would leadto correspondingly reduce stability of the struc-
(e) Balanced cuts
a safer, faster and cheaper process.This feature ture.
is an attempt to set the problemsof demolition Fig 2. Balanced demolition of arches in a viaduct
in the context of arch behaviour. It is my hope Masonry performance
that, in this way, it will be possible to reduceMasonrythe has a very strange strength character-
chance of a similar incident in another few istic. In general, strength is nota matter of con- force at the crown. This will have the effectof
years. cern since stresses are very lowa stable in struc- reducing the clamping actionof the arch, while
ture. Creep of the masonry will eventually lead inducing a large shearingforce each side of the
Arch behaviour to instability of a structure, but this is not usu- loaded section. The force required to remove
Many children, and all engineers, understand ally perceived as a material failure problem. material in this wayisverymuch less than
that an arch stands as a result of the clamping Studies undertaken following the fall of the wouldbe required if pushingdownward.
action of a curved structure built from separate tower in Pavia in 198g3 show that masonry is Indeed, it is often necessary to break out an arch
parts. The clamping force gets bigger as the subject to brittle fracture due to complementary using a heavy hydraulic hammer when pushing
loadfromaboveincreases, so it is almost tension when placed under compressive stres- downwards.
impossible to push stones downwards out of an ses substantially below the crushing strength If the overburden is first removed from the
arch. This rule does not apply so comprehen- obtained in normal tests. The mechanism is pro-arch, as would be normal, it should then be pos-
sively if the archis made from small units such gressive. The higher the compressive stress, the sible to lift out small sections from the crown
as brick or small or random shaped stones. In faster the growth of the tension cracks. Below without sending shock waves through the of rest
such structures, the clamping actionmay not be a certain stress, growth rates are negligible. the structure. In a brick arch it would be possi-
able to increase locally becausethere arestiffer Once the threshold is passed, cracks grow at ble to reduce the forces still furtherby lifting the
load paths through surrounding, better fitting increasing rates with increasing stress. As with top layer of the ring first and working progres-
masonry.(Fig 1). most brittle types of fracture, once the crack is sively downwards(Fig 3). Removal of the cen-
When two arches meet on a pier, the hori- started therate of energy input requiredto keep tre section could then be followed by peeling
zontal thrusts balance,so the pier stands firm. If extending it is progressively reduced. back a slice of arch right to the pier. Once this
one span is bigger or more heavily loaded, the In Pavia the diagnosis was that, after 600 is complete, the arch is restored to its original
years of satisfactory performance, cracks were state of stress, anda new bite may betaken from
induced in the masonry by stress peaks pro- the crown.
duced by a very strong wind. Once started, these
cracks continued to grow very slowly under theViaduct demolition
very low dead weight stress. The crack length Demolishing a viaduct progressively induces
became such that the energy available in the stress patterns whichwould otherwise be
mass of the tower was sufficient to complete its impossible. Thisis particularly evident in plan.
destruction.In the laboratoryafterwards,it was If part of the width of an arch is removed, the
found that a stress of only 1.2 MPa was suffi- thrustfrom it is forcedsidewaysinto the
cient to destroy the material over a period of 20 remaining section. If the adjacent span remains
min. On initial application of that stress, only complete it will generate uniform thrust over its
the creep measured on dial gauges gave any full width. The effect of this combination is to
indication of an impending problem. induce a twisting moment on the pier and an
eccentric stress pattern in the arch ring (Fig
W
Arch demolition 2(c)). If enough of the arch crown is removed,
stone The easiest way to disturb the stability of an the peak stress may be sufficient to initiate the
Fig 1. Clamping in small unit masonry arches arch fatally isto provide a concentrated upward type of material failure described earlier. This

The Structural EngineedVolume 72/No 5/1 March 1994 a7

Feature: Harvey Library additions

each side, leaving the arch once more parallel,

but narrower than before (Fig 2(c)). Moving Library additions
into another span,the same process can be The items listed below have recently been added to
repeated, restoring the plan stability of theinter- the Library. Most are available to members (of
vening pier (Fig 2(d)). Once the whole bridge any grude) onloan, and can be sent by post. A tele-
has been reduced to the same width, the condi-phone call is all that is necessary to arrange a
tion is restored to that in the original structure, loan.
and another slice may be begun.
The balance achieved can be improved still A buried thin-wall steel pipe with single mitre
bend, by McKay, C. London: CIRIA, 1991. (CIRIA
further by using two machines to remove mate- SP 75)
Fig 3(a). Lifting thetop layer of a multiring arch rial from both sides of the structure in parallel A checklist for the structural survey ofperiod tim-
(Fig 2(e)). This willrelievetheproblemof ber framed buildings, by Swindells, DavidJ. and
twisting of the pier and dramatically reduce the Hutchings, Malcolm. London: Surveyors Holdings
stress peaks in the newly-cut span. Ltd, 1993.
Since stability of the piers is enhanced by A guide to the Offshore Installations (Safety Case)
applied vertical load, it is desirable to leave as Regulations 1992: guidance on regulations, by
much material as possible directly overpier, the HSE. London: HMSO, 1992.
while removing as much as possible from the A review of Italian concreting practice. Watford:
BRE, 1992. (Occasional Paper OP48).
span. In a typical railway bridge there will be A review of Swedish concreting practice. Watford:
substantial masonrybacking over the piers. BRE, 1992. (Occasional Paper OP47).
Cutting this back, as in Fig 4, will give optimum A vision of technological researchfor visually dis-
conditions. abled people, by Gill, John. London: Engineering
Council, 1993.
Fig 3(b).Maintaining balanceand peeling the second Conclusions AC1201.IR-92: guide for making a condition sur-
layer (1 A scientific amroach to arch demolition will vey of concrete in service. Detroit: ACI, 1992.

willresultin loss of resistance locally, and

hence progressively increasing stress or reduc-
ing stability. a1 is properly
understood. bridges. Detroit:ACI, 1$92.
The question, then, is how can such failures (3) Breaking an arch upwards requires less mer- AC142I . I R-92: shear reinforcement f o r slabs.
be avoided? Progressive demolition of a viaduct gy andis therefore cheaper and easier to control. Detroit: ACI, 1992.
is often desirable, as it may avoid damage to (4) By controlling the effect of breaking through, Advances in autoclaved aerated concrete: pro-
whatever passes under the bridge. Clearly,it is it is possible to remove the arch inslices. ceedings of the 3rd RILEM International Sym-
important to minimise the change in the stres- ( 5 ) By removing matching slices from all spans posium on Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Zurich,
ses and in the overall stability of the structure progressively, balance can be maintained in theOctober 1992; edited by Wittmann, Folker H.
during demolition. An extension of the process whole structure. Rotterdam: Balkema, 1992.
Airport engineering, by Ashford,Normanand
described previously offers the possibility of Wright, Paul H. 3rd edition. New York: Wiley,
such security. References 1992.
By starting at the crown inone span, it should 1 . Harvey, W. J., Smith, F. W.: The behav- Analysis and design of steelframes with semi-rigid
be possible to remove l or 2 m width without iour and assessment of multispan arches, joints, by ECCS. Brussels: ECCS, 1992. (ECCS
significant change in the stresses or stability. The Structural Engineer, 69, No. 24, 17 Pubn 67).
This gap can then be peeled back to the pierat December 1991 Architectural Cladding Association guidelines for
2.Harvey, W. J., Smith, F. W.: The flexi- procurement, by Saunders, Roy.?: The Association,
bility method andits application to ancient 1993?
Avoiding disasters, by Hazards Forum. London?:
structures, inStructural repair and main- Hazards Forum, 1993?
tenance of historic buildings, ed. C. A. Bar and steel mesh fabric reinforcement, by
Brebbia,
Computational
Mechanics Sprayed Concrete Association. Aldershot: Sprayed
Publications, 1989, pp 559-568 Concrete Assn, 1993? (Technical Data Sheet 2).
3. Binda, L., et al: La Torre Civica di Pavia: Briefingguide for timber-framedhousing, by
Indagine suimaterialiesulla strutture BRE. Garston: BRE, 1993. (BR233)
(The Civic Tower in Pavia: investigation Build better with lime mortar, by Mortar Producers
of materials & structure), LEdilizla, 4, AssociationLtd.LeamingtonSpa:TheAssoc-
No 1 l, November 1990 iation, 1993?
Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Belfast: HMSO, 1990. (Statutory
Rules of
Northern Ireland 1990: 59)
Building onfill: geotechnical aspects, by Charles,
J. A. Watford: BRE, 1993. (BR230)
Fig 4(a). Typical pier head detail Building quantities: worked examples, by Wheeler,
R. J. and Clark, A. V. Oxford: Newnes, 1992.
Building: I50 years 1843-1993: anniversary issue.
London: Building, 1993.
CONIAC strategic plan, by HSC. ?: HSE, 1991.
Cement and concrete research in British universi-
ties, by Pomeroy, C. D. Slough: BCA, 1992.
Compressive strength of silica fume concrete at
highertemperatures, by Kanda,Tetsushiand
Sakuramoto,Fumitoshi and Suzuki,Kiyotaka,
Tokyo: Kajima Technical Research Institute, 1992.
(KaTRI Report92). Reprint from ACI SP132.
Concretefiw theworld: Norwegian concrete engi-
neering, by Norwegian Concrete Association. Oslo:
Norwegian Concrete Association, 1990.
Contribution of the Israel Prestressed Concrete
Group to I I th FIP Congress, Hamburg 1990, by
Fig 4(b). Pier head masonry cut backto leave maxi- Association of Engineers & Architects in Israel.
mum stabilising weight 1990.
Continued on page92

88 The Structural EngineedVolume 72/No 5/1 March 1994