Arch bridges – Parameter study

(Bogenbrücken – Parameterstudie)

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 1
 Arch bridges

Structural response

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 2
 Design

General considerations

Arch rib geometry

Bending
Bending moments ininarch bridges
Bending moments in archbridges
moments arch bridges

Design aspects specific to

Bending moments
different
Bending ininarch
archbridges
arch typologies
moments bridges

Structural response
Bending Arch – deck girder interaction
Bendingmoments
momentsininarch
archbridges
bridges

Parameter study (online)

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 3
 Arch bridges
Structural response – Parameter study
Arch support conditions / hinges

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 4
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
𝐺𝐺𝑖𝑖
Basic assumptions g(x)

This and the next slides compare the structural behaviour

of arches with three common (in the past) support / hinge f / l = 1 / 6.67
conditions: 15
• three-hinged arch (hinges at springing line and crown)
three-hinged arch
• two-hinged arch (hinges at springing line)
• clamped arch (“zero-hinge” arch) 100

The response is compared numerically for a concrete

arch with 100 m span and 15 m rise
→ rise-span ratio f / l = 1/6.67
→ solid concrete cross-section = constant over span two-hinged arch
→ geometry of arch: anti-funicular curve of the average
permanent loads (simplified method, see “Design”
section):
g

clamped arch
cross-section:
(Ec = 33.6 GPa 1.2
𝑥𝑥 g ⋅l 2 8f EA = 80.64 GN)
𝑧𝑧 H (g ) ≅ z ( x) = M 0 ( x)
8f g ⋅l 2 2.0
15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 5
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent loads / linear analysis (1st order)
Considering a uniform permanent load of 200 kN/m, initial geometry
c
a linear analysis yields the following results for: (anti-funicular of
the dead loads)
• three-hinged arch 39
H (g ) three-hinged arch H (g )
• two-hinged arch
• clamped arch 10000 kN
x
10000 kN

Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]

The arch compression causes vertical deflections → N
these depend only (three-hinged arch) on the axial
stiffness EA.
However, as the arch is isostatic, the internal actions - 16667
- 19436
and the reactions are independent of the stiffnesses Normal force [kN]
(EA, EI,…)
→ constant arch thrust H = 16’667 kN
→ bending moment along the arch M(x) = 0
0
→ displacement compatibility is not needed to obtain
the internal forces
M

Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 6
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent loads / linear analysis (1st order)
Considering a uniform permanent load of 200 kN/m, initial geometry
c
31
a linear analysis yields the following results for: (anti-funicular of
two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• three-hinged arch 39
H (g ) three-hinged arch H (g )
• two-hinged arch
• clamped arch 10000 kN
x
10000 kN

Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]

The arch compression causes vertical deflections → N
these depend on the axial stiffness EA and (slightly) on
the bending stiffness EI (M(x) ≠ 0).
- 16649
- 19422
The arch is hyperstatic → internal actions and reactions - 16667
depend on the stiffnesses (EA, EI) Normal force [kN]
- 19436

→ constant arch thrust H ≅ 16’667 kN

→ positive moments in the arch M(x) ≠ 0
→ displacement compatibility is required to obtain the
0
internal forces
258
M

Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 7
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent loads / linear analysis (1st order)
Considering a uniform permanent load of 200 kN/m, initial geometry
c
31
a linear analysis yields the following results for: (anti-funicular of 37 two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• three-hinged arch 39
H (g ) clamped arch three-hinged arch H (g )
• two-hinged arch
• clamped arch 10000 kN
x
10000 kN

Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]

The arch compression causes vertical deflections → N
these depend on the axial stiffness EA and (slightly) on
the bending stiffness EI (M(x) ≠ 0).
-19354 - 16649
- 19422
The arch is hyperstatic → internal actions and reactions -16570 - 16667
depend on the stiffnesses (EA, EI) Normal force [kN]
- 19436

→ constant arch thrust H ≅ 16’667 kN

→ positive and negative moments in the arch M(x) ≠ 0 -947

→ displacement compatibility is required to obtain the

0
internal forces
258
2 M 504
𝐻𝐻 𝑔𝑔̄ 1+3 𝑓𝑓⁄𝑙𝑙
NB. Approximation: 𝛿𝛿 𝑐𝑐 ≅ � 𝑙𝑙 � = 37 mm
𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑐𝑐 4𝑓𝑓⁄𝑙𝑙
Bending moment [kNm]
(Slide 55, EAA = EAA ,c = const.)
15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 8
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent loads / linear analysis (1st order)
Considering a uniform permanent load of 200 kN/m, initial geometry
c
31
a linear analysis yields the following results for: (anti-funicular of 37 two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• three-hinged arch 39
H (g ) clamped arch three-hinged arch H (g )
• two-hinged arch
• clamped arch 10000 kN
x
10000 kN

Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]

The axial force N is almost identical in the three cases. N
The vertical displacements of the crown δc, due to the
arch compression, are almost identical for the three - 16649
-19354 - 19422
arches (see notes), as they depend mainly on the axial -16570 - 16667
force N and the axial stiffness EA → ε = N / EA Normal force [kN]
- 19436

→ if EA → ∞, δc = 0 (rigid arch)
Note: Crown deflections are similar
→ if the f / l ratio decreases, N and δc will increase
-947
in all systems
Since the axial stiffness of the arch is much higher than
the bending stiffness, the vertical displacements due to 0
arch compression are essentially imposed to the arches.
258
M 504
The bending moments M in the stiffer clamped arch are
thus considerably higher than those in the other cases. Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 9
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent loads / nonlinear analysis (2nd order)
Considering a uniform permanent load of 200 kN/m, initial geometry
c
31
a nonlinear (2nd order) analysis yields the following (anti-funicular of 37 two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
results for:
53
• three-hinged arch H (g ) clamped arch three-hinged arch H (g )

• two-hinged arch 10000 kN 10000 kN

x
• clamped arch Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]
N
Geometric nonlinearity has a minor impact on the
clamped and two-hinged arches → reduced second
- 16686
order effects in these hyperstatic arches (for f / l = -19394
-16617
- 19453
- 16726
1/6.67). - 19488
Normal force [kN]
However, geometric nonlinearity strongly affects the
Note: three-hinged arch is much more
three-hinged arch:
-815
sensitive to second order effects
→ significant negative bending moments (rather than
-391
zero)
→ strong increase of the displacements: δc increased 261
M 556
by 36%
Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 10
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g
Opening the crown with jacks (to lift arch off falsework)
The bending moments and deflections due to arch initial geometry
c
compression can be reduced – at the time of closure, (anti-funicular of ∆Nc
the dead loads)
see next slide – by opening the crown with jacks (first f
done by E. Freyssinet, usual today in some countries). H (g ) clamped arch H (g )

g·l / 2 g·l / 2
x
Jacks align with the centre of gravity: no bending Deflections / crown displacement δc
moments are produced in the crown until it is closed crown
∆Nc
→ the two-hinged and clamped arches are composed for
two system:
→ hinged arch at the crown (dead loads + part of the
creep) 1. forces at the crown in the deformed
arch due to dead loads
→ closed arch at the crown (all other loads)
Nc final situation

Nc +∆Nc
2. additional force
in the jacks

∆Nc

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 11
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g
Opening the crown with jacks (to lift arch off falsework)
The bending moments and deflections due to arch initial geometry
c
compression can be reduced – at the time of closure, (anti-funicular of ∆Nc
the dead loads)
see next slide – by opening the crown with jacks (first f
done by E. Freyssinet, usual today in some countries). H (g ) clamped arch H (g )

The additional normal force ∆Nc is introduced at the g·l / 2 g·l / 2

crown (by means of a centric normal force ∆Nc, applied x
Deflections / crown displacement δc
by jacks) to reduce the total eccentricity e = M / N.
The optimum values of the jacking forces can be
determined by imposing the condition that the total
bending moments at the abutments (springing line)
vanish: f·∆Nc
∆M

Ms Bending moments due to ∆Nc

∑ M = 0 = −M + f ·∆N → ∆N = − f
s s c c
Ms

Bending moment due to dead and imposed deformations

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 12
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Opening the crown with jacks (to lift arch off falsework)
Using the parameters of the numerical example on the initial geometry
c Nc +∆Nc = 16667 kN
previous slides (including a hinge at the crown), the additional (anti-funicular of 3
the dead loads)
normal force ∆Nc at the crown in the clamped arch is: 48 (1st oder)
s H ( g ) + ∆N c H ( g ) + ∆N c
M 627 clamped arch
∆N c =
− = = 41.8 kN
f 15 10000 kN 10000 kN
x
Physically, the jacks have to apply the total normal force Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]
Nc +∆Nc = 16625+42 = 16667 kN, acting in the arch rib axis. N

Thereby, the total bending moment obviously vanishes at the Ns= -19401 (1st oder)
springing lines (higher normal force in the arch chosen Ns= -19437
Nc= -16625 (1st oder)
accordingly) → bending moments have been eliminated. Nc= -16667
Normal force [kN]
However, the beneficial effect will largely be lost due to creep Note: Small difference in N to lift the arch
unless the jacks are kept installed and are re-adjusted until (but jacks need capacity for full N)
Ms= -627 (1st oder)
creep has decayed (as e.g. done for 5 years in the Krk Beneficial effect partly lost due to creep
bridges, see Design section).
Ms=0
The clamped arch hinged at the crown, before it is closed,
M
has certain sensitivity to 2nd effects (similar to the three-
hinged arch) → 2nd order effects should to be considered. Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 13
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
Point load at crown / linear analysis (1st order) Q = 1000 kN
Considering a point load of 1000 kN at the crown, a initial geometry
c
linear analysis yields the following results: (anti-funicular of 38 54 two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• three-hinged arch 227 1296 kN
1540 kN clamped arch three-hinged arch 1667 kN
• two-hinged arch
• clamped arch 500 kN
x
500 kN

Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]

The differences between the axial forces in the three N
cases are moderate.
The bending moments and the deflections of the three- - 1296 - 1369
hinged arch are markedly higher than in the other two -1578 -1540 - 1667 - 1687
cases: The vertical displacement at the crown δc is ca. Normal force [kN]
4…6 times greater.
The bending moments and deflections of two-hinged -6250
and clamped arches are very similar, except at the
-1957 -2475
springing lines (obviously).
2901
M 4809 5564

Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 14
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
Point load at crown / nonlinear analysis (2nd order) Q = 1000 kN
Considering a point load of 1000 kN at the crown, a initial geometry
c
nonlinear (2nd order) analysis yields the following (anti-funicular of 39 56 two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
results:
251 1296 kN
• three-hinged arch 1542 kN clamped arch three-hinged arch 1695 kN

• two-hinged arch 500 kN 500 kN

x
• clamped arch Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]
N
Geometrical nonlinearity has a relevant effect (in this
example) only in the three-hinged arch: - 1296 - 1368
→ the maximum bending moment is increased by 7% -1580 -1542 - 1687 - 1708
→ the vertical displacement at the crown is increased Normal force [kN] Note: Three-hinged arch is much
by 10% softer under non-funicular load
-6691

-1988 -2523

2928
M 4855 5629

Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 15
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
Point load at quarter points / linear analysis (1st order) Q = 1000 kN
Considering a point load of 1000 kN at the quarter initial geometry
c -120
-129
point, a linear analysis yields the following results: (anti-funicular of 73 -57 two-hinged arch
833 kN the dead loads) 833 kN
• three-hinged arch 928 kN 151 928 kN
880 kN clamped arch 162 three-hinged arch 880 kN
• two-hinged arch
• clamped arch 750 kN
x
250 kN
750 kN 250 kN
841 kN Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm] 159 kN
The axial forces are similar for the three cases. N
The two-hinged and three-hinged arches have a similar
response (internal forces and deflections). - 1100 - 846
- 1182 - 928
The clamped arch is clearly superior under asymmetric - 1187 - 841

loads. For this example: Normal force [kN] (slightly curved in reality, for simplicity only one curve is drawn)
→ the maximum bending moment is approximately
30% smaller than in the other two cases.
→ the maximum vertical displacement is approximately -5107 -4230 -3125
6011
50% smaller than in the other two cases. -2478
3949
Note: the 2nd order effects have no significant influence M
8306 9375
in this example for this load case.
Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 16
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
Horizontal support displacements
To analyse the influence of imposed deformations, initial geometry
c
26
horizontal displacements of 10 mm are imposed to the (anti-funicular of 31 two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
supports. The following results are obtained: 10 mm
33
10 mm

• three-hinged arch clamped arch three-hinged arch

• two-hinged arch
x
• clamped arch Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]
N
The bending moments increase with the degree of 77 90
16 14
statical indeterminacy: 0
→ the internal actions in the three-hinged arch are zero
(isostatic system) Normal force [kN]
Note: Similar crown deflections in all
→ the bending moments are much higher for the systems, but much higher bending
clamped arch than the two-hinged arch moments in clamped arch
-877

0
NB1: The same conclusion applies for other imposed
deformations (temperature, creep,…). 467
239
M
𝐻𝐻 𝑔𝑔̄ 1+3 𝑓𝑓⁄𝑙𝑙 2
NB2: Approximation: 𝛿𝛿 𝑐𝑐 ≅ � 𝑙𝑙 � = 37 mm
𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑐𝑐 4𝑓𝑓⁄𝑙𝑙 Bending moment [kNm]
(Slide 55, horizontal displacement)
15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 17
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
Effect of rise-to-span ratio f / l on bending moments
Here, a uniform permanent load g and a linear analysis initial geometry
c
is used. The arches considered are: (anti-funicular of δc
two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• two-hinged arch
H (g ) clamped arch H (g )
• clamped arch
g·l / 2 g·l / 2
As outlined in the Design section and in the permanent x
loads analysis, the arch compression causes vertical
deflections δc. These deflections produce bending EA  N (A = const along the arch) simply supported beam
moments M(x), and the maximum and minimum H (g ) 5 gl 4 two-hinged arch
N (g ) = − δ midspan =
bending moments can be expressed in terms of the cosα 384 EI 48 EI c
vertical deflection. g ⋅l 2 Mc ≅ δ
gl 2 5 l2
H (g ) ≅ M midspan =
As the normal force N depends on the rise-to-span 8f 8
ratio f /l, the latter has a strong influence on the c H ( g ) l 1 + 3( f l )
2 clamped beam
vertical deflections and the bending moments. δ ≅ ⋅ ⋅
EA 4 f l gl 4 clamped arch
δ midspan =
384 EI 1 16 EI
gl 2 Mc = − Ms ≅ 2 δc
M midspan = 2 l
24
c : crown
s : springing line = arch abutments

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 18
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
Effect of rise-to-span ratio f / l on bending moments
Here, a uniform permanent load g and a linear analysis initial geometry
c
is used. The arches considered are: (anti-funicular of δc
two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• two-hinged arch
H (g ) clamped arch H (g )
• clamped arch
g·l / 2 g·l / 2
To isolate the effect of the rise-to-span ratio f / l, the x
following assumptions are made:
→ H/(EA) = const. ∀ f/l, i.e., similar axial deformation EA  N (A = const along the arch) simply supported beam
ε = N/(EA) due to arch compression for all f / l ratios H (g ) 5 gl 4 two-hinged arch
N (g ) = − δ midspan =
cosα 384 EI 48 EI c
→ radius of gyration i2 = I / A = const, i.e. 2 Mc ≅ δ
g ⋅l gl 2 5 l2
→ constant arch height h , arch width b(f/l) H (g ) ≅ M midspan =
8f 8
determined such that H/(E·h·b) = const. ∀ f/l clamped beam
H ( g ) l 1 + 3( f l )
2
c
→ variable self-weight as function of the arch width b δ ≅ ⋅ ⋅
EA 4 f l gl 4 clamped arch
δ midspan =
384 EI 1 16 EI
=g γ c ·h·b + DL (DL: permanent loads) const. gl 2 Mc = − Ms ≅ 2 δc
M midspan = 2 l
24
h=const.
c : crown
s : springing line = arch abutments
b

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 19
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g
Effect of rise-to-span ratio f / l on bending moments
Here, a uniform permanent load g and a linear analysis initial geometry
c
is used. The arches considered are: (anti-funicular of δc
two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• two-hinged arch
H (g ) clamped arch H (g )
• clamped arch
g·l / 2 g·l / 2
Using these assumptions and equations in the x
numerical example (l=100 m; h=1.20 m; DL = 140 kN/m),
f/l f/l
the following results are obtained (see graphs): 7500 0

• The rise-span ratio f / l is highly relevant, having a 5000

1/15

strong impact on structural behaviour, particularly for 2500

1/10 20
1/2

small values of f / l (low arches) 1/7 1/5

1/2
1/5
0 40 1/7
• Bending moments increase exponentially with M -2500 δc 1/10
smaller values of f / l, particularly pronounced for [kNm] [mm] 60
-5000
f / l < 1/10. For f / l =1/15, bending moments are up M ( f / l = 1/15) δ c ( f / l = 1/15)
≅ 19 1/15 ≅3
to 15 times higher than for f / l = 1/5. -7500 M ( f / l = 1/ 5) 80
δ c ( f / l = 1/ 5)
-10000
• The crown displacement also grows progressively as 100
f / l decreases, especially for f / l < 1/10 -12500

-15000 120
• Clamped and two-hinged arches show similar
tendencies.
15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 20
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g
Effect of rise-to-span ratio f / l on bending moments
Here, a uniform permanent load g and a linear analysis initial geometry
c
is used. The arches considered are: (anti-funicular of δc
two-hinged arch
the dead loads)
• two-hinged arch
H (g ) clamped arch H (g )
• clamped arch Note: Large deflections of the arch
g·l / 2 crown in flat arches g·l / 2
Note that similar results are obtained when the arches x (due to N, imposed deformation ε or
are subjected to horizontal displacements of the horizontal support displacements ∆l)
f/l f/l
supports. 7500 0

The resulting bending moments, for a low arch (rise- 5000

1/15

span ratio lower than 1/10), may exceed the moments 2500
1/10 20
1/2

produced by the gravity loads. 1/7 1/5

1/2
1/5
0 40 1/7
Conversely, the influence of imposed deformations are M -2500 δc 1/10
relatively small in arches which rise-span ratios > 1/7. [kNm] [mm] 60
-5000
M ( f / l = 1/15) δ c ( f / l = 1/15)
-7500
≅ 19 80
1/15 ≅3
M ( f / l = 1/ 5) δ c ( f / l = 1/ 5)
The numerical results correspond closely to the -10000
approximation (slide 55) for EA=const., i.e. -12500
100

𝑐𝑐 ̄
𝐻𝐻(𝑔𝑔) 1+3 𝑓𝑓⁄𝑙𝑙 2
𝛿𝛿 ≅ � 𝑙𝑙 � is a good approximation. -15000 120
𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑐𝑐 4𝑓𝑓⁄𝑙𝑙

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 21
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent load + imposed deformation
1st and 2nd order analysis
c
ε = −1000 µε
• three-hinged arch H (g ) 6.67 H (g )
initial geometry
• two-hinged arch f / l = 1 / 15
10000 kN 10000 kN
• clamped arch x
100
Imposed deformations never act alone. Rather, other
actions are present, e.g. permanent loads or traffic N ( g ) = − H ( g ) cosα
loads. Consequently, the deformations caused by g ⋅l 2
1.2
imposed deformations (change of geometry) produce H (g ) ≅ 16667 kN
=
8f
an increase of the internal actions (bending moments). 5.4

For this study, aa low arch (f / l =1/15) is chosen in

order to accentuate the nonlinearity effects.
Arch geometry and loads :
→ l = 100 m; f = 6.67 m; f / l =1/15
→ cross-section: h x b = 1.2 m x 5.4 m
→ uniform permanent load: g = 200 kN/m
→ imposed deformation: ε = -1000 µε (temp. + creep)

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 22
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent load + imposed deformation
1st and 2nd order analysis
c
ε = −1000 µε two-hinged arch
• three-hinged arch H (g ) H (g )
initial geometry three-hinged arch
• two-hinged arch clamped arch
10000 kN 10000 kN
• clamped arch x (1°): 407 (1°): 349 (1°): 447
(2°): 433 (2°): 364 (2°): 621

The figures compare the deflections and bending

moments of the arches. Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]
The three-hinged arch is the most flexible of all arches. g ⋅l 2 36206 kN (1°): H ( g ) =
37500 kN
H (g ) ≅ 16667 kN (1°): H ( g ) =
= 30031 kN (1°): H ( g ) =
The crown deflection (2nd order) is roughly 1.4 and 1.7 8f (2°): H ( g ) = 38207 kN (2°): H ( g ) =
32067 kN (2°): H ( g ) = 41356 kN
times larger than in the clamped and two-hinged
arches, respectively. It is more sensitive to geometrical
nonlinearity and, therefore, has a greater risk of
instability. (1°): -33042
(2°): -31410
The bending moments in the clamped arch are higher (1°): 8627
(1°): 0
(2°): -10702
than the other arches and, similar to the two-hinged (2°): 9331

arch, there is no significant difference between 1st

(1°): 16750
order and 2nd order results. M (2°): 18809

Bending moment [kNm]

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 23
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
g = 200 kN / m
Permanent load + imposed deformation
1st and 2nd order analysis
c
ε = −1000 µε two-hinged arch
• three-hinged arch H (g ) H (g )
initial geometry three-hinged arch
• two-hinged arch clamped arch
10000 kN 10000 kN
• clamped arch x (1°): 407 (1°): 349 (1°): 447
@ permanent load
(2°): 433 (2°): 364 (2°): 621
(2°cr): 967 (2°cr): 465 (2°cr): 1037 @ critical load
Instability and critical load gcr :
Instability is reached quickly in the three-hinged arch. Deflections / crown displacement δc [mm]
The critical load gcr is only 1.3 times higher than the g ⋅l 2
H (g ) ≅ 16667 kN (1°): H ( g ) =
= 30031 kN (1°): H ( g ) =
36206 kN (1°): H ( g ) =
37500 kN
permanent load g. 8f (2°): H ( g ) =
32067 kN (2°): H ( g ) =
38207 kN (2°): H ( g ) =
41356 kN
The clamped arch is the most stable → instability is (2°cr ):
g cr
≅5 (2°cr ):
g cr
≅ 2.5 (2°cr ):
g cr
≅ 1.3
reached at a critical load gcr 5 times higher than the g g g
permanent load g. (1°): 0
(2°): -10702
The two-hinged arch is in an intermediate position → (2°cr): -45650
(1°): 8627 (2°cr): 34471
instability is reached at a critical load gcr 2.5 times (2°): 9331
(1°): -33042 (2°cr): 13234
greater than the permanent load g. (2°): -31410
(2°cr): -2483
M
(1°): 16750
(2°): 18809
Bending moment [kNm] (2°cr): 70811

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 24
 Arch bridges – Structural response: Arch support conditions / hinges
Permanent load + imposed deformation
1st and 2nd order analysis

• reinforced concrete
• three-hinged arches → two-hinged arches
• central span: 72.5 m
• f / l = 1 / 15

Le Veurdre bridge, France, 1910. Eugène Freyssinet

15.04.2024 ETH Zürich | Chair of Concrete Structures and Bridge Design | Bridge Design Lectures 25