Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 3

Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2 Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified

MEXE Method

3. ASSESSMENT OF MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES BY

THE MODIFIED MEXE METHOD
Scope which allow for the way in which the actual arch differs
from the ideal.
3.1 This chapter deals with the assessment of the
strength of the ARCH BARREL ONLY. The strength of Survey of Arch
the bridge may be affected by the strength of the
spandrel walls, wing walls, foundations, etc. These 3.5 The arch should be inspected in accordance with
items are dealt with under Chapter 8 of BD 21 (DMRB Chapter 2 of BD 21 (DMRB 3.4.3) and the following
3.4.3) and Chapters 5 and 6 of this Advice Note. The dimensions measured as shown in Figure 3/2:
modified MEXE may be used to estimate the carrying
capacity of arches spanning up to 18m, but for spans (i) The span ......................................................L (m)
over 12m it becomes increasingly conservative (in the case of skew spans, measure L parallel to
compared to other methods. The method should not be the axis of the arch)
used where the arch is flat or appreciably deformed.
(ii) The rise of the arch barrel at the crown
Method of Assessment ...................................................................rc (m)
3.2 The assessment of the arch barrel has been
(iii) The rise of the arch barrel at the
adapted from the method set out in “Military Load
quarter points .............................................rq (m)
Classification (of Civil Bridges) by the Reconnaissance
and Correlation Methods”, MEXE May 1963 (10.2.1).
(iv) The thickness of the arch barrel adjacent
This method is based on the results of past experience,
to the keystone (see 3.7) ..............................d (m)
and it has been found to give satisfactory results to date
for the range of vehicles conforming to the Road
(v) The average depth of fill, at the quarter points
Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations (see BD 21
of the transverse road profile, between the road
(DMRB 3.4.3)); but its extrapolated use for heavier
surface and the arch barrel at the crown,
vehicles, or for spans greater than 18m should be
including road surfacing .............................h (m)
treated with caution. It is intended to be applied
primarily to single span arches.
3.6 The following information will also be required
to derive the various modifying factors:
3.3 The initial assessment is in terms of a maximum
allowable axle load on an axle forming part of a double
Type of material used for the arch barrel
axled bogie; factors are given in 3.25 for converting this
Type of construction of the barrel, ie are the
result to other axle configurations and for situations
voussoirs in courses or laid at random?
where axle ‘lift-off’ may occur on the axle of a multiple
Condition of materials in the barrel, ie is there a
axle bogie.
lot of spalling and are the voussoirs sound or are
Theory they deteriorating due to weathering?
Deformation of the arch barrel from its original
3.4 The long term strength of a brick or masonry arch shape:
is almost impossible to calculate accurately and Positions of dropped voussoirs and the
recourse has, therefore, been made to an empirical amount of drop
formula based on the arch dimensions. The arch is first Width, length, number and positions of
assumed to be parabolic in shape with span/rise ratio of cracks
4, soundly built in good quality brickwork/stonework, Type of filling above the arch and its
with well pointed joints, to be free from cracks, and to condition
have adequate abutments. For such an idealised arch, a Position and size of services
provisional assessment is obtained from a nomogram Width of mortar joints
(Figure 3/1) or from the formula given in 3.10. This Depth of mortar missing from joints
provisional assessment is then modified by factors Condition of joint mortar

November 2001 3/1

Chapter 3 Volume 3 Section 4
Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2
MEXE Method

A
ARCH SPAN
(L) B
m
18
TOTAL CROWN C
THICKNESS PROVISIONAL AXLE
17
16 (h + d) LOADING
15 m (P.A.L.)
1.8
14 TONNE
13 1.6 70
12
1.4 60
11

10 1.2
50

9 1.0 42

8 0.9
36
0.8
7
0.7 30
27
6 0.6
24
0.55
0.5 21
5
0.45
4.5 18
0.4
4
0.35 15

3.5 0.3
12
3 0.25

9
2.5

2
6

1.5

Fig 3/1 Nomogram for Determining the Provisional Axle Loading of Masonry Arch Bridges before
Factoring

Figure 3/1 Nomogram for Determining the Provisional Axle Loading of Masonry
Arch Bridges before Factoring

3/2 November 2001

Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 3
Part 4 BA 16/97 Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified MEXE Method

3.7 The appropriate measurements should be taken so Modifying Factors

that the arch barrel thickness may be adjusted to allow
for missing mortar (see Table 3/5) and to allow for any 3.11 Span/Rise Factor (Fsr ). Flat arches are not so
services laid through the arch barrel. strong under a given loading as those of steeper profile,
and the provisional assessment must, therefore, be
3.8 Radial displacement of individual stones or adjusted. A span/rise ratio of 4 and less is assumed to
bricks, especially near the crown when there is little give optimum strength and has a factor of 1. When the
cover, should be particularly noted (see Annex D plate span/rise ratio is greater than 4, reference should be
8). Displacement may be due to uneven masonry made to the graph in Figure 3/3 which gives the
projecting above the barrel and being subjected to appropriate span/rise factor Fsr for the different ratios.
concentrated loads or a hard spot such as a pipe flange
bearing directly on the arch. The damage is usually 3.12 Profile Factor (Fp ). There is evidence that
localised and not serious if dealt with before it has elliptical arches are not so strong as segmental and
progressed too far. If, however, there are a number of parabolic arches of similar span/rise ratio and barrel
voussoirs displaced, then this should be taken into thickness. The ideal profile has been taken to be
account and the thickness of the arch barrel adjusted parabolic and for this shape the rise at the quarter
accordingly. points, rq = 0.75rc , where rc is the rise at the crown.

3.9 Note should be taken of any evidence of The profile factor Fp for ratios of rq /rc less than or equal
separation of the arch rings, particularly with regard to to 0.75 should be taken to be unity, and for ratios greater
any additional rings which have been constructed in later than 0.75 should be calculated from the expression:
years, and due account should be taken in the value
assumed for the arch barrel thickness. 0.6
r - r 
Fp = 2.3  c q 
Provisional Assessment  rc 

3.10 The provisional axle loading PAL is obtained by For convenience this has been plotted in Figure 3/4.
reference to the nomogram in Figure 3/1. Mark the arch
span L on Col A and the total crown thickness (d + h)
1.0
(barrel and fill) on Col B. Line through these points to
Col C, and read off the provisional axle loading
assessment in tonnes. Alternatively, the provisional axle
loading may be obtained by substituting the values of
Profile Factor Fp

(d + h) and L in the following expression:

0.5

PAL = 740 (d+h)² or 70, whichever is less

L1.3

This expression has been derived from the nomogram 0

and should only be used within the limits given in 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.0
Figure 3/1. rq
rc
The provisional axle load obtained is then modified by
the modifying factors in 3.11 to 3.16 and the condition
Fig 3/4 Profile Factor
factor in 3.17 to 3.24.
Figure 3/4 Profile Factor

November 1997 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 3/3
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Chapter 3 Volume 3 Section 4
Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified MEXE Method Part 4 BA 16/97

Road Surface

▲
Road Surfacing

d
rel
h Ba r
A rc rq rc

L/4 L/4

Fig 3/2 Arch Dimensions

Figure 3/2 Arch Dimensions

1.0

0.9
Span/Rise Factor Fsr

0.8

0.7

0.6
4 5 6 7 8
Span/Rise Ratio L/r c

Fig 3/3 Span/Rise Factor

Figure 3/3 Span/Rise Factor

3/4 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. November 1997
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 3
Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2 Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified
MEXE Method

3.13 Material Factor (Fm). The material factor is recommended that if the depth of missing mortar can be
obtained from the following formula: estimated with reasonable accuracy, the thickness of the
arch barrel should be reduced by this amount and Fd
taken as 1.0 . When this is not appropriate, the depth
( Fb . d ) + ( Ff . h ) factor Fd may be taken from Table 3/5.
Fm =
d +h
Condition Factor (FcM)
Appropriate values of the barrel factor Fb and the fill
General
factor Ff can be obtained from Tables 3/1 and 3/2
respectively.
3.17 The estimation of the preceding factors is based
on quantitative information obtainable from a close
3.14 Apart from frost action, an arch which is
inspection of the structure, but the factor for the
constantly wet, or shows signs that damp often
condition of the bridge depends much more on an
penetrates, is unlikely to have suffered deterioration
objective assessment of the importance of the various
from this cause alone unless the seepage contains
cracks and deformations which may be present and how
reactive chemicals which may have affected the
far they may be counter-balanced by indications of
materials of construction; in this case allowance should
good material and workmanship. A quantitative
be made in the value taken for the barrel factor. Some
estimate of the arch barrel condition factor FcM should
local damage may be offset by evidence that the
be made by the engineer, the value selected being
structure was built with good materials and
between 0 and 1.0. A low factor should be taken for a
workmanship. Such evidence would be:
bridge in poor condition while 1.0 may be taken for an
arch barrel in good condition with no defects. It is
(i) Durable masonry set in its correct bed
important that the engineer dissociates the “condition
factor” from the “material factor” and the “joint factor”
(ii) Well shaped durable bricks
as these are dealt with separately, as indicated in 3.13 to
3.16. Guidance on the choice of condition factor is
(iii) Correct bonding of brickwork or masonry with
given in 3.19 to 3.23 and by reference to the
regular and narrow joints
photographs in Annex D. Lower values than those in
the suggested ranges may be taken for an arch in a
(iv) Original documents showing liberal haunching at
particularly poor state. When an unsound arch barrel
the abutments and a good specification.
supports a large depth of fill, a lower value of the
condition factor should be taken than that based solely
3.15 Note should be taken of any leaching from fill
on the other arch deficiencies.
material above the arch due to the presence of water.
This should be allowed for in the fill factor.
3.18 The condition factor of the arch, and hence its
carrying capacity, can often be improved by carrying
3.16 Joint Factor (Fj). The strength and stability of the
out fairly minor repairs. These repairs are distinct from
arch barrel depend, to a large extent, on the size and
the more elaborate strengthening methods described in
condition of the joints. Lime mortar was commonly
3.1 to 3.7 of Annex C.
used in bridge construction. Although it is softer than
cement mortar, and has a lower strength, this is
Cracks or Deformations
compensated for by better joint-filling properties, good
load distribution and flexibility for bridge movements
3.19 Cracks or deformations which may have occurred
and settlement. The joint factor Fj is obtained from the
soon after the bridge was built are not usually as serious
following formula:
as those which are recent, and show clean faces,
possibly with loose fragments of masonry. A further
Fj = Fw.Fd.Fmo
important point is whether the deterioration is
progressive. Where this is suspected, frequent careful
Appropriate values for Fw and Fmo can be obtained from
observations may be necessary before arriving at a final
Tables 3/3 and 3/4 respectively. The depth Factor Fd
assessment. Cracks may on occasion be formed in the
may be taken as 1.0 for pointed joints in good
mortar only and it is important that cracking and joint
condition. In the case of insufficiently filled joints, it is
deficiencies should not be confused with each other.

November 2001 3/5

Chapter 3 Volume 3 Section 4
Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2
MEXE Method

Arch Barrel Barrel Factor

( Fb )

Granite and Whinstone whether random or coursed and all built-in-course masonry
except limestone, all with large shapes voussoirs 1.5

Ashlar quality siliceous sandstone 1.4

Concrete# or engineering bricks and similar sized masonry (not limestone). 1.2

Limestone, whether random or coursed, ashlar quality calcareous sandstone, good

random masonry and building bricks, all in good condition. 1.0

Masonry of any kind in poor condition (many voussoirs flaking or badly spalling,
shearing etc). Some discretion is permitted if the dilapidation is only moderate. 0.7

# Concrete arches will normally be of relatively recent construction and their assessment should be based on
the design calculations if these are available.

Table 3/1 Barrel Factor

Filling Fill Factor

( Ff )

Concrete # 1.0

Grouted materials (other than those with a clay content) 0.9

Well compacted materials* 0.7

Weak materials evidenced by tracking of the carriageway surface 0.5

# The fill factor for concrete is less than the barrel factor to allow for possible lack of bond to the arch.

* When assessing an arch for Authorised Weight Vehicles, unless details of the fill are known or there is
evidence of weakness from the condition of the road surface, it is recommended that this factor be adopted.
If the arch then requires a restriction, further investigation should be made to see if the strength may be
increased.

Table 3/2 Fill Factor

3/6 November 2001

Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 3
Part 4 BA 16/97 Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified MEXE Method

Width of Joint Width Factor

( Fw )

Joints with widths up to 6mm 1.0

Joints with widths between 6mm and 12.5mm 0.9

Joints with widths over 12.5mm 0.8

Table 3/3 Width Factor

Condition of Joint Mortar Factor

( Fmo )

Mortar in good condition 1.0

Loose or friable mortar 0.9

Table 3/4 Mortar Factor

Construction of Joint Depth Factor

( Fd )

Unpointed joints, pointing in poor condition and 0.9#

joints with up to 12.5mm from the edge
insufficiently filled

Joints with from 12.5mm to one tenth of the

thickness of the barrel insufficiently filled 0.8#

Joints insufficiently filled for more than one tenth At the +

the thickness of the barrel engineer’s
discretion

Table 3/5 Depth Factor

# Interpolation between these values is permitted, depending upon the extent and position of the joint deficiency.
Instead of using this depth factor, it is preferable to reduce the barrel thickness by the amount of missing
mortar (see 3.16).

+ See Annex G.

November 1997 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 3/7
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Chapter 3 Volume 3 Section 4
Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified MEXE Method Part 4 BA 16/97

2.0

Single axle 1.75

1.5
Axle Factor (A f )

2 axle bogie

1.0

0.75

3 axle bogie
0.5
2.6m spread

0
0 5 10 15 20
Arch span (m)
Fig 3/5a No Axle Lift-Off
Figure 3/5a No Axle Lift-Off

1.5

1.0
Axle Factor (Af )

0.95

0.66 2 axle bogie

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20
Arch span (m)
Fig 3/5b With Axle Lift-Off

Figure 3/5b With Axle Lift-Off

Figure 3/5 Conversion of Modified Axle Loads to Single, Double and Triple Axles

3/8 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. November 1997
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 3
Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2 Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified
MEXE Method

Allowable Axle Load (tonnes) per axle Max Gross Weight Type of
Vehicle Weight Restriction Vehicle
Single Double Triple (gvw) (tonnes) (tonnes)

11.5 10 8* 40/44 N/A HGV-5 or 6 axles

11.5 9.5 - 32 33 HGV-4 axles

11.5 9.5 - 26 26 HGV-3 axles

11.5 - - 18 18 HGV-2 axles

9 - - 12.5 13

7 - - 10 10

5.5 - - 7.5 7.5 LGV

2 - - 3 3 Car/Van

Table 3/6 Load Capacity and Gross Vehicle Weight Restrictions for Masonry Arches

* Note: An assessment for the 24 tonne 3 axle bogie (8 tonne axle) is only necessary
for arches where ‘no axle lift-off’ conditions prevail.

November 2001 3/9

Chapter 3 Volume 3 Section 4
Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modi- Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2
fied MEXE Method

Defects covers effects of skew and strength of saddled

repaired arches.
3.20 It is also important to differentiate between those
defects which affect the load carrying capacity of the Unfavourable Defects Not Affecting the Stability of the
arch barrel and other defects which do not affect the Arch Barrel
load carrying capacity of the barrel but can affect the
stability of the road surface. These are elaborated in 3.22 The unfavourable defects which do not affect the
3.21 and 3.22 respectively. stability of the arch barrel but may affect the stability of
the road surface are indicated below, with a description
Defects Affecting the Stability and Load Carrying of their significance:
Capacity of the Arch Barrel
(i) Longitudinal cracks near the edge of the arch
3.21 Ranges of condition factors are given below for barrel are signs of movement between the arch
crack patterns resulting from specific causes. The and spandrel or bulging of the spandrel, caused
choice of factor is made from a critical examination of by the lateral spread of the fill exerting an
the size, shape and importance of the various defects. outward force on the spandrels. This is a frequent
The overall figure representing several defects should source of weakness in old arch bridges and the
be based on the relative importance of the worst type of proximity of the carriageway to the parapet
defect present. It will not necessarily be derived by should be taken into account when assessing its
multiplying the factors for several separate defects importance (see Annex D plate 10);
together:
(ii) Movement or cracking of the wing walls is
(i) Longitudinal cracks due to differential settlement another common source of weakness in old
in the abutments. These are dangerous if large, ie bridges and occurs for similar reasons to (i)
> 3mm, because they indicate that the barrel has above (see Annex D plates 9 & 10);
broken up into independent sections. If the
indications are that the barrel is breaking up into (iii) Where the bridge consists of multi-span arches
1m sections or less then a factor of 0.4 (or less) and the strength of intermediate piers is in doubt,
should be used. A higher factor should be used the structure should be examined for cracks and
for crack spacings greater than 1m. Range of deformation arising from any weakness in the
condition factors, 0.4-0.6; piers.

(ii) Lateral cracks or permanent deformation of the Condition Factor Less Than 0.4
arch which may be caused by partial failure of
the arch or movement at the abutments. These 3.23 Where the condition factor is less than 0.4
faults can be accompanied by a dip in the parapet immediate consideration should be given to the
which may be more easily observed. Range of repair or reconstruction of the bridge.
condition factors, 0.6-0.8;
Should, for any reason, there be disagreement between
(iii) Diagonal cracks. These normally start near the the Bridge Owner and the Highway Authority over the
sides of the arch at the springings and spread up value of the condition factor to be taken for an arch
towards the centre of the barrel at the crown. bridge, an impartial opinion may be obtained from the
They are probably due to subsidence at the sides Overseeing Organisation.
of the abutment. Extensive diagonal cracks
indicate that the barrel is in a dangerous state. Application
Range of condition factors, 0.3-0.7;
3.24 The span/rise profile, material, joint and
condition factors should be applied together with the
(iv) Cracks in the spandrel walls near the quarter
provisional axle loading obtained as in 3.10 in order to
points. These frequently indicate flexibility of the
determine the modified axle load which represents the
arch barrel over the centre half of the span.
allowable loading (per axle) on the arch from a double
Condition factor 0.8. Further information on
axled bogie configuration with no ‘lift-off’ from any
condition factors is given in Annex G, which also
axle.

3/10 November 2001

Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 3
Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2 Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges by the Modified
MEXE Method

MODIFIED AXLE LOAD = Derivation of Axle Factors

Fsr . Fp . Fm . Fj . FcM . PAL
3.28 The derivation of the Axle Factors is given in
3.25 The unrounded value of this modified axle load Annex B.
should be multiplied by the appropriate axle factors Af
Curved Carriageways
from Figure 3/5a to give the allowable axle loads for
single and multiple axles with no ‘lift off’. 3.29 Where the carriageway on an arch is horizontally
curved, an allowance for the effects of any increase in
Figure 3/5/b gives the axle factors Af for the ‘lift-off’ vertical loading caused by centrifugal effects should be
case (see 3.27-3.28). The 2 axle bogie case is the most made by dividing the allowable axle weight by the
onerous (see Annex B). factor FA derived in accordance with BD 21 (DMRB
3.4.3). Centrifugal effects may be ignored when the
The capacity of an arch should be determined in terms radius of curvature of the carriageway exceeds 600m.
of gross vehicle weights from Table 3/6 in accordance
with 3.30 and 3.31. Load Capacity and Weight Restrictions

3.26 It should be noted that these allowable axle loads 3.30 To find the load capacity of an arch, the
may not represent the strength of the bridge as a whole. allowable axle loads determined in accordance with
This may be affected by the strength of the spandrel 3.24 - 3.29 should first be rounded off to the nearest 0.5
walls, wing walls, foundations, etc (see 3.1). Should the tonnes. The maximum gross weight of the AW vehicles
strength of any of these items be assessed as being which the arch can carry is then found from Table 3/6.
lower than the barrel strength, then the lowest value It is the maximum weight for which both the single and,
should be taken as the strength of the bridge as a whole. where applicable, the double axle load calculated for
the arch are satisfied. It should be noted that when an
Axle Lift-off arch has allowable axle loads which are equal to or
greater than 11.5 tonnes for a single axle and 10 tonnes
3.27 The axle factors Af given in Figure 3/5 cover two for a double axle (ie 20 tonne bogie) no weight
situations. The first, the ‘no lift-off’ case, is the more restrictions are necessary for AW vehicles.
usual when all the wheels of the vehicle are assumed to
be in full contact with the road surface at all times. The 3.31 However, the AW Regulations permit heavier
‘lift-off’ case relates to circumstances when the wheels triaxles of up to 24 tonnes provided that they are fitted
of a double or triple axled bogie can partially lose with air or fluid suspensions. A check should also be
contact with the road surface and transfer some of their made to determine whether weight restrictions are
load to other axles in the bogie. Examples of the needed for these heavier triaxles. Requirements are also
circumstances which may bring about this phenomenon given in Table 3/6 to enable arches to be checked for
are given below. The road condition should be 40/44 tonne vehicles. When weight restrictions are
inspected to determine whether or not ‘lift-off’ should found necessary the restriction signs will apply to gross
be taken into account. The presence of any of the weights of vehicles and should be signed for one of the
following conditions could lead to the adoption of a weight restrictions given in Table 3/6.
‘lift-off’ case:

(i) A vertical road alignment with significant

changes from positive to negative gradient over a
short distance, eg a humped back bridge;

(ii) Arch located at the bottom of a hill or on a

straight length of road where approach speeds are
likely to be high;

(iii) Irregularities in road surface on the arch.

November 2001 3/11

Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 4
Part 4 BA 16/97 Alternative Methods to the Modified MEXE Method

4. ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO THE MODIFIED

MEXE METHOD
General compressive fibre stress at any section reaches the
characteristic compressive strength of the masonry
4.1 A number of computer-based methods have concerned. In order to obtain the allowable live load,
recently been developed to assess masonry arch the ultimate capacity is then reduced by a condition
bridges. In a recent exercise, the results from two of factor which is equal to the product of Fj and Fc of the
these methods, a Castigliano - type elastic method modified MEXE method and the partial safety factor
(10.2.5) and a mechanism method (10.2.6) were for load γfL, given in BD 21 (DMRB 3.4). The method
compared with the results from 10 full-scale tests has given uniformly acceptable correlation with full-
(10.2.8) carried out through a TRL research scale test results and allows Pippard’s basic theoretical
programme. A computerised version of the Pippard/ method to be carried out in full without the need for the
MEXE method was also used in the exercise. The details various approximations which were incorporated into
of these comparisons are given in Annex E. However, it the MEXE method. However, it should be used only
should be remembered that, with only a limited number when there is well-compacted fill between spandrels
of test results available, such an exercise cannot be and must not be used for open spandrel bridges. When
regarded as a fully comprehensive evaluation of the there is evidence of heave or cracks at the road surface,
methods concerned. The Pippard/MEXE method is reduction factors such as the Fill Factor of the modified
described in the rest of this clause; details of the other MEXE method should be applied.
methods can be found in the references given.
Arch Ring Idealisation
An Elastic Computer-based Method of Assessment
for Masonry Arch Bridges 4.4 The arch ring should be represented along its
centreline by a number of line elements (which may be
4.2 The following describes a computer-based, two- straight) in the spanwise direction and with pinned
dimensional elastic method of analysis which is basically supports assumed at the springings. The number of
a computerised version of the Pippard/MEXE method. elements should be chosen so that the critical nodal
It is as simple to use once the parameters for a bridge bending moments become convergent with respect to
have been obtained, as for the normal MEXE increase of elements. Twelve elements may be
assessment. This computer approach offers greater sufficient in most cases. It has been found that the 1/3
flexibility than the MEXE method with respect to span section is usually the most critical section for
geometrical, material and loading parameters. The determining axle load capacity and therefore a node
background work was carried out using the computer should be located at the 1/3 span position of the arch
program MINIPONT (10.2.7) but for such analysis any ring. Figure 4/1 shows a typical example of idealisation.
other suitable frame-analysis or finite element program In the transverse direction, a unit width should be
could also be employed. An example of the post-analysis assumed.
calculations is given in Annex F. Of the modifying
factors of MEXE, only the Joint and Condition Factors Application of Loads
are required for this analysis. It is recommended that
this method should be used as an additional tool when a 4.5 The analysis should be carried out in two steps:
greater accuracy of results is required following a one with dead load and another with applied unit live
MEXE assessment. In particular, it should be used for load. The dead load from the fill and masonry may be
marginal cases. applied as joint loads. The live load may be applied as
either joint loads or, preferably, as member uniformly
4.3 The method involves separate elastic analyses of distributed loads. The load applied to the road surface
the arch as a two-pinned structure separately under dead should be dispersed through the fill and arch material at
and live loads. Although only a unit width is analysed, slopes of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal. This load may be
the results are to be converted to make allowance for the assumed to be a uniformly distributed vertical load on
effective arch width due to the transverse spread of the horizontal projection of each segment of the arch
wheel loads. The ultimate live load capacity is centreline which falls within the dispersal lines.
calculated to be the load at which the maximum

November 1997 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 4\1
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Chapter 4 Volume 3 Section 4
Alternative Methods to the Modified MEXE Method Part 4 BA 16/97
Fig 4/1. Arch Ring Idealisation
Support
Pinned
Elements

13
Nodes

2
12
11
10
9

1
8

Rise

Span
7

0
6
0.3m

-1
Axle Load

4
3

-2
1

Support
Pinned
Figure 4/1 Arch Ring Idealisation
4\2 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. November 1997
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 4
Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2 Alternative Methods to the Modified MEXE Method
Transversely, the effective width w of the arch barrel stress at any section, calculated using the full depth of
carrying a wheel load applied at any position along the section, equals the ultimate compressive strength of the
span can be derived (as shown in Figure 6.4 of BD 21 masonry. The combined dead and live load axial and
(DMRB 3.4.3)) from the approximate formula: bending compressive stresses at the critical section are
equated to the characteristic compressive strength of the
w = h + 1.5 masonry to obtain the theoretical maximum load at
failure.
Where h is the fill depth at the point under
consideration and both w and h are in metres. The Allowable Load
combined effective width for a number of wheel loads
4.10 Work carried out by the Department of Transport
located transversely on the carriageway can be derived
as well as by British Rail has indicated that the MEXE
as shown in Figure 6.4 of BD 21 (DMRB 3.4).
provisional axle loads (PAL) are based on Pippard’s
allowable axle loads which were calculated to be those
4.6 The method is applicable for the assessment of
producing the permissible masonry compressive stress
any axle configuration. Figure 4/2 shows an influence
in the arch barrel. The MEXE PALs, which correspond
line for the critical load effect at the 1/3 span section of
to the ideal bridge, are multiplied by the Modification
the structure with respect to a moving axle load. As a
Factors in order to make them pertinent to a particular
first approximation the worst position of an axle
structure. Similarly, the theoretical maximum failure
configuration can be determined using this influence
load, which is basically the Pippard load at the ultimate
line.
masonry compressive stress, needs to be converted to a
theoretical failure load pertinent to the actual structure
4.7 When an assessment for AW vehicles is carried
by using deterioration factors such as the Joint Factor,
out, the allowable load may be determined in terms of a
Fj and Condition Factor FcM of the MEXE method. The
single axle by using the elastic method and then the
other Modification Factors of MEXE are directly taken
allowable multiple axle loads are derived from the
care of within the computer analysis.
single axle case by using Figure 3/5. The capacity in
terms of gross vehicle weights should be determined
4.11 It is recommended that, for a single axle, the
from Table 3/6 in accordance with 3.30 and 3.31.
allowable axle load should be obtained using the
Compressive Strength of Masonry following formula:

4.8 The ultimate compressive strength of the Allowable single axle load x γfL = Theoretical
composite masonry, as opposed to that of the voussoir maximum single axle failure load x Fj x FcM
units, is to be used in the analysis. Requirements
concerning masonry strengths and testing procedures where γfL = 3.4
are given in BD 21 (DMRB 3.4.3). The compressive
strength of the masonry should be determined as 4.12 When multiple-axle AW vehicles are used for
accurately as possible. For critical cases, in the absence more precise calculations, the check for adequacy
of any other reliable information, core samples should should be carried out at the ultimate limit state (ULS).
be taken in order to determine the compressive strength A γfL value for the most critical axle should be taken as
of the voussoir units. When using BS 5628 to obtain 3.4 and for the other axles as 1.9. When the
compressive strength the tables for concrete block configuration of a vehicle at the time of crossing is
masonry may be considered to apply for stone masonry. known with some precision, as in the case of some
Where stone units are thinner than those allowed for in abnormal loads, γfL for all axles may be taken as 2.
BS 5628: Part 1, Figure 4/3 of BD 21 (DMRB 3.4.3)
should be used.

Ultimate Load Capacity of the Arch

4.9 The assumption implicit in the method of 4.2

and 4.3 is that the live load capacity of an arch bridge
can be obtained by analysing it as a two-pinned arch
and using the criterion that the ultimate load capacity is
reached when the total dead and live load compressive

November 2001 4\3

Chapter 4 Volume 3 Section 4
Alternative Methods to the Modified MEXE Method Part 4 BA 16/97 Amendment No 2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Fig 4/2. Influence Line for Determining

Figure 4/2 Influence Line for Determining Critical Load Position
Critical Load Position

4\4 November 2001

Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 5
Part 4 BA 16/97 Spandrel Walls and Dry-stone Walls

5. SPANDREL WALLS AND DRY-STONE WALLS

General Dry-stone Walls

5.1 The adequacy of spandrel walls and dry-stone 5.6 Construction and Behaviour. Inspection of dry-
walls will generally be assessed qualitatively and be stone walls reveals that they are normally constructed
based on the results of visual inspection of the without recognisable foundations and out of marginal
structures, including the significance of any defects. The quality material. Only the front face contains dressed
particular details of the two types of wall and the masonry, the remainder usually being rubble. Dry-stone
seriousness of the various defects which can occur are walls were constructed as facing walls to vertical or near
described in 5.2 to 5.10. Various remedial measures for vertical cuts in unstable or friable material or as free-
the different faults are discussed in Annex C. standing burr and retaining walls. In the latter cases
construction and backfilling proceeded together.
Spandrel Walls
5.7 The behaviour of dry-stone walls is a function of
5.2 Spandrel walls are normally formed from dressed
their method of construction. The absence of mortar
material and suffer the normal problems associated with
results in stone to stone contact, and since the stones
exposed masonry: weather, loss of pointing, etc. In
used in the walls are usually irregular or roughly
addition, deterioration of bridge spandrels is frequently a
squared off, point contact between stones is common.
function of dead and live load lateral forces generated
Contact pressure may be high especially at the base of
through the bridge infilling or as a result of direct
tall stones and crushing is often evident. The open nature
vehicular impact. In both cases some outward movement
of a dry-stone wall permits weathering of the face and in
is caused. Lateral forces may cause the wall to rotate
the open joints, reducing the area of contact and
outward from the arch barrel, to slide on the arch barrel,
encouraging further crushing. In addition, percolation of
to be displaced bodily outwards whilst taking part of the
ground water and water-borne salts through the fabric of
arch ring with it, or to bulge (see Figure 5/1 and Annex
the wall results in weathering and the leaching of fines
D plates 9 and 10).
from within the structure. Salt spray resulting from de-
icing salts may cause deterioration in the fabric of the
5.3 Dry-stone spandrel walls are not common. Where
lower parts of the wall.
they occur there are difficulties which are similar to
those of retaining walls, but the effects of live loading
5.8 Weathering occurs more in some areas of wall
are more significant.
than in others due to the very variable quality of the
masonry used. Random weathering and unsatisfactory
5.4 Spandrel walls are more vulnerable to damage or
foundations results in differential settlements,
displacement if no footway exists to restrain vehicles
movements and bulging which induces acute stresses in
passing close to the side of the bridge. Without
some elements of the structure causing cracking whilst
footpaths, vehicular impact is more likely and the effects
elsewhere stones become loose and may be dislodged.
of the lateral loading generated by the vehicle through
the bridge fill may be more acute. Assessment of Dry-stone Walls

5.5 Poor bridge drainage may also be a feature 5.9 Assessment of dry-stone walls consists of regular
leading to deterioration of the spandrel, particularly if visual inspection and a comparison with adjacent
saturation of the bridge fill occurs. Work on Statutory structures. Qualitative judgements are difficult since
Undertakers’ and Private Utilities’ equipment passing conditions will vary greatly with the quality of stone
through the bridge may also lead to deterioration of the used, age, subsoil conditions, geometry, weathering
spandrels by permitting an increase of water percolation factors and local expectations. Due attention should be
into the fill, thereby reducing the shear strength of given to local engineering experience.
the fill.
5.10 Where past movement or the condition of the
structure raise doubts concerning stability, regular
monitoring should be introduced. Decisions relating to

November 1997 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. 5\1
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED
Chapter 5 Volume 3 Section 4
Spandrel Walls and Dry-stone Walls Part 4 BA 16/97

structural safety and conditions often depend upon

engineering instinct, although simple visual aids such as
tell-tales can be useful to determine if the structure is
moving or in a temporary equilibrium.

5.11 Additional guidance on the assessment of dry-

stone retaining wall is given in Annex H.

SPANDREL WALL

FILL
ARCH RING

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION
MASONRY ARCH BRIDGE

1. TILTING 2. BULGING

3. SLIDING 4. CRACKED ARCH

RING

Fig 5/1 Spandrel Wall Failures

Figure 5/1 Spandrel Wall Failures

5\2 ELECTRONIC COPY NOT FOR USE OUTSIDE THE AGENCY. November 1997
PAPER COPIES OF THIS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT ARE UNCONTROLLED