Medium Span Flat Arch Bridges: Efficient or not?

  • Riccardo StroscioEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Structural Integrity book series (STIN, volume 11)


Historically, medium span bridges were generally composed of arch structures made of stones, masonry, and concrete or of metal construction. Despites the inherent efficiency of the form, modern traffic development in combination with the evolution of materials, arches were gradually replaced by frames and girder structures. Now in the UK, the most commonly road and rail bridge solution for medium spans (range between 30 m to 80 m) is the steel-concrete composite deck type with conventional plate girders connected to reinforced concrete deck slabs. This form of construction has dominated the UK construction market for the past 25 years. However, tomorrow construction challenges for our modern societies depends on delivering sustainable designs with consideration for resources efficiency. Arches and shells are “form-active” providing higher degrees of structural efficiency than the girder system. Could this be a new opportunity for arch bridges to become more competitive? This study compares the efficiency of a recently constructed 50 m span flat arch road bridge with a selection of alternatives in forms and in materials. Each option is presented considering the quantities of material, the estimated construction costs, the estimated duration of site works, the whole life cost aspects and consideration for the risk assessment factor. The efficiency ratio of each option is then compared to the flat arch bridge solution.


Arch Bridge Efficiency 


  1. 1.
    Stroscio, R.: Steel-concrete composite flat arch bridge. In: Proceedings of International fib Symposium 2017 “High Tech Concrete: Where Technology and Engineering Meet!”, Maastricht, The Netherlands, fib (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CBDG Technical Guide No 14: Best Construction Methods for Concrete Bridge Decks - Cost Data, State of the art report, The Concrete Society, Camberley, Surrey (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Environment Agency, Carbon Calculator tool, version 3.2, UK Government.
  4. 4.
    Design Manual for Road and Bridges BD 36/92: Evaluation of Maintenance Costs in Comparing Alternative Designs for Highway Structures, Highways England (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sheer, J.: Failed Bridges. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Radić, J., Kindij, A., Mandić, A.: History of concrete application in development of arch bridges. In: Chinese-Croatian Joint Colloquium Long Arch Bridges, Brijuni Islands, 10–14 July 2008Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lewerer, J.-P., Peçon, Y.: La Souplesse d’un ressort tendu: le pont de Robert Maillart à Vessy. Faces-Genève, No 30, pp. 50–55 (1993/94)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tveit, P.: The design of Network arches. The Structural Engineer, vol. 44, no. 7, London, July 1966Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Virlogeux, M., Bouchon, E., Resplendino, J., Berthellemy, J.: Projet d’arc métallique tubulaire au-dessus de l’autoroute A75 à l’échangeur d’Antrenas. Bulletin Ponts Métalliques no 16, OTUA (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CBDG Technical Guide No 11: Modular precast concrete bridges, State of the art report, The Concrete Society, Camberley, Surrey (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stroscio, R.: Medium span steel-concrete composite bridges: plate girders or box girders. In: EUROSTEEL 2017, September 2017. Ernst & Sohn, Copenhagen (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gee, A.F.: Bridge winners and losers (rapid evaluation of bridge designs and construction methods). The Structural Engineers, Ordinary meeting, vol. 65A, no. 4, April 1987Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tony Gee and PartnersEsherUK

Personalised recommendations