See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276089627

Concrete hinges in bridge engineering

Article · April 2015

DOI: 10.1680/ehah.14.00020

CITATIONS READS

13 13,427

2 authors:

Gregor Schacht Steffen Marx

Marx Krontal Partner Technische Universität Dresden
58 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS    214 PUBLICATIONS   913 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Concrete Hinges in Bridge Engineering History and Heritage, Proceedings of the Insitution of Civil Engineers View project

ProBeton, Förderkennzeichen BMBF 0325670 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregor Schacht on 11 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Engineering History and Heritage Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Engineering History and Heritage 168 May 2015 Issue EH2
Volume 168 Issue EH2 Pages 64–74 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ehah.14.00020
Concrete hinges in bridge engineering Paper 1400020
Received 25/08/2014 Accepted 14/01/2015
Schacht and Marx Published online 25/02/2015
Keywords: bridges/design methods & aids/history

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Concrete hinges in bridge

engineering
&
1 Gregor Schacht Dr-Ing &
2 Steffen Marx Dr-Ing
Research Assistant, Institut für Massivbau, Leibniz Universität Professor, Institut für Massivbau, Leibniz Universität Hannover,
Hannover, Hannover, Germany Hannover, Germany

Concrete hinges were developed over 120 years ago and have since been used successfully in many bridges. Despite
this long tradition, many engineers do not know about these sustainable and cheap hinge constructions. The different
types of concrete hinges can be distinguished according to their appearance or their way of transferring stresses. This
paper presents a classification of existing concrete hinge connections and describes the principles of their load-
bearing behaviour. A significant amount of experimental and theoretical research work was carried out in the 1960s
to understand how these hinges functioned. Different models for hinge design and construction were developed in
different countries. Experimental investigations confirmed the high structural capacity of concrete hinges and their
great potential for use in bridge construction. To this day, all correctly executed existing concrete hinges are in good
condition, and no damage has been observed. Many existing bridges were built with concrete hinges, which were
designed according to existing design rules. To demonstrate the range of possible applications of concrete hinges,
existing bridges and the details of the hinges used are presented. Recommendations are given for the design and
construction of concrete hinges.

1. Introduction Various other improvements were made in the early twentieth

Concrete hinges have successfully been used in civil engineering century, such as using lead sheets to allow plastic deforma-
construction for over 120 years. They are characterised by a tions in the hinge (von Leibbrand, 1897) or using steel plates
high load-bearing capacity and a moderate rotational capacity. to improve the contact surfaces (Burkhardt, 1933). Detailed
Concrete hinges are almost maintenance-free and very durable information on these types of hinges is given in Marx and
if designed and built properly. They are perfectly suited to Schacht (2010a).
control the flow of force and to efficiently reduce constraints.
Figure 1 shows the classification of the different types of The breakthrough in the development of concrete hinges
concrete hinges that have been used successfully in bridge was achieved in France by Augustin Mesnager and Eugene
engineering. Freyssinet. Inspired by his own research on confined concrete
columns, Mesnager developed a spring hinge (semi-articulation),
The first ‘solid’ hinges were developed by Claus Köpcke in which followed the concept of connections of structural steel
1880 and successfully used in several construction projects members: adjacent concrete members are connected by inter-
(Köpcke, 1888). These saddle bearings were made of stone, secting reinforcement bars, which transmit the forces between
and their fabrication was difficult, as the contact surfaces had them (Mesnager, 1907), see Section 2.2 below. In 1910,
to be extremely flat and smooth to allow unrestrained Freyssinet was able to prove that it is not necessary to place
rotation. With the development of reinforced concrete, these reinforcement bars in the hinge throat and that all forces can be
saddle bearings could be made of concrete, and steel transmitted by the concrete alone, provided that the hinge throat
reinforcement was used to absorb the tensile splitting forces is adequately confined (Freyssinet, 1954). These two types of
caused by the concentrated loading (von Emperger, 1911). hinges will be described in more detail in Section 2.

64
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

Concept of Freyssinet hinges: 2.5

centring of normal force by a constriction
in the hinge throat
c
a
b f

c g
b 0
Saddle Lead Freyssinet Mesnager Considère
bearing sheets hinge hinge hinge
d

Figure 1. Classification of concrete hinges

Another type of hinge was developed by A. Considère. He –2.5

invented a spirally reinforced hinge, in which a spiral was used

to confine the concrete in the hinge throat. He used his hinge
Figure 2. Concept of Freyssinet hinges and paths of the trajectories
for several bridges in the USA (Marx and Schacht, 2010b).
in a Freyssinet hinge

2. Principal types of concrete hinges

It seemed that the whole area b–c–f–g behaved like a liquid mass in
2.1 Freyssinet concrete hinges an inextensible tube, without showing disruption or disorder.
In his early designs of three-hinged arch bridges, Freyssinet (Toute la zone autour de b–c–f–g paraı̂t se comporter comme une
used iron bearings to reduce constraints, even though this was masse liquide contenue dans une envelope inextensible sans
contrary to his striving for material efficiency and perfect présenter jamais ni solution de continuité ni désordre quelconque.
aesthetics. He thought that saddle bearings were not the optimal (Freyssinet, 1923)).
solution, because they were hard to adjust and the small gaps at
the saddle could easily fill up with dirt, thereby restricting the In his design, Freyssinet restricted the rotation indirectly by
rotation of the joint. Therefore, Freyssinet developed a new limiting the eccentricity of the normal force to 1/6, which ensures
hinge concept based on Köpcke’s idea of transmitting the normal that the hinge throat remains uncracked for a linear-elastic stress
forces through a restricted area. Through intensive studies of distribution. Freyssinet designed concrete hinges with maximum
saddle bearings, Freyssinet recognised that the area a–b of the average hinge throat stresses of up to 25 N/mm2, knowing that
concrete saddle (see Figure 2) is subjected to high, constant they could easily withstand stresses of up to 100 N/mm2 with
pressure. During rotation of the joint, this area expands to c–d. sufficiently dimensioned transverse reinforcement. Freyssinet
To avoid accumulation of dirt and the need to accurately match used this mean value as a standard value without giving
saddle surfaces, Freyssinet placed a cement-rich mortar strip b– information about the necessary concrete quality. To ensure the
c–f–g between the adjacent concrete members (see Figure 2). In multiaxial state of stress in the hinge throat, Freyssinet restricted
experimental investigations he verified the high strength required the height of the hinge throat to 1 to 2 cm. Under these
for the mortar layer. Freyssinet thought that rotation in this type conditions there is no need for any reinforcement to cross the
of hinge would induce cracking in the mortar layer, resulting in hinge throat (Freyssinet, 1923).
very high stresses at the central point of contact, and that the
crack would propagate through the entire length of the mortar Guyon gave the following general design recommendations for
strip. In his opinion, this would present ideal conditions for Freyssinet hinges based on his practical experiences. The throat
bearing and rolling, similar to saddle bearings. The main width should be one-third to one-quarter of the width of the
advantage of this hinge would be the bigger gap, which would adjacent member and the throat height should be less than
prevent dirt from accumulating and the hinge from getting 2 cm. Even though not strictly necessary, the hinge throat
blocked (Freyssinet, 1954). should be reinforced vertically with 12 mm dia. bars at a
distance of 30 cm from each other. According to Guyon, the
Following these theoretical considerations, Freyssinet under- hinges are capable of enormous rotations of up to 1/100 rad.
took experimental investigations to verify his idea. However, in The average stress in the hinge throat should be limited to
the experiments the mortar layer remained uncracked even 35 MPa and the adjacent members should be carefully re-
for joint rotations of 1/300 rad and under different loadings. inforced to resist the tensile splitting forces. Guyon concludes
Freyssinet was surprised and described his experimental that it is not necessary ‘to determine what really happens’ in the
findings as follows hinge throat, because ‘the stress distribution is so completely

65
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

altered by plasticity under the very high pressures reached in the rotation, Leonhardt developed a simple model assuming a linear
compressed side’, and that general design recommendations are stress distribution in the hinge throat, which showed good
sufficient for adequate design of the hinges (Guyon, 1957). Since agreement with the experimental results. Leonhardt finally
1964 the design of Freyssinet hinges has been regulated by a formulated rules for the design and construction of Freyssinet
French standard, which states that for the ultimate limit state hinges. These rules were simplified by Mönnig and Netzel (1969)
the average stress in the hinge throat should be restricted to three and transferred to current Eurocode standards by Marx and
times the characteristic compressive strength of the concrete, Schacht (2010a). These rules are currently used for the design
and rotations should be limited to 1/20 for the serviceability limit of Freyssinet concrete hinges in Germany as well as other
state (Règles BAEL, 2000). countries.

The first experimental investigations of unreinforced concrete 2.2 Mesnager concrete hinges
hinges were carried out by Riessauw and Passelecq at the
The spring hinge designed by Mesnager is a typical example
University of Gent in the 1940s. They confirmed the multiaxial
of the transfer of common construction principles to a new
state of stress in the hinge throat and concluded that it is almost
construction method. In 1907, Augustin Mesnager applied his
impossible for failure to occur in the throat. In their experiments
hinge concept, which he had originally developed for steel
failure always occurred in the adjacent members, because the
structures, to reinforced concrete. In 1896 he published a report
tensile reinforcement was not strong enough to resist the tensile
about his new construction method for the member connections
splitting forces (Riessauw and Passelecq, 1948).
of riveted frameworks. The forces from the connecting members
all intersect at one point, and the connection also allows a certain
Extensive research on the topic was carried out by G. D. Base
degree of rotation (Figure 3(a)). Mesnager suggested using this
in the 1950s and 1960s. He investigated the load-bearing
principle in reinforced concrete construction, but it was 10 years
behaviour of Freyssinet hinges without any or with little
later when he finally put his idea into practice (Mesnager, 1896).
reinforcement in the throat under various loading combina-
Because of their rotational restraint, Mesnager’s spring hinges
tions of normal force, rotation and shear force. The experi-
are also called imperfect hinges or semi-articulation (Schacht
mental results showed that the safety margins for the design
et al., 2013).
load and the design rotation were sufficiently large and that
even fatigue loading did not cause any deterioration in the
At the beginning of the twentieth century it became necessary
hinges. The shear capacities of the hinges were large even for
very large rotations. The presence of throat reinforcement did to span the Canal Saint Martin in Paris. Mesnager and the
not increase the shear resistance but resulted in slightly more engineer Simon Boussiron designed an arched bridge construc-
ductile failure. Excessive reinforcement in the throat caused tion with a span length of 28 m. Because of the poor quality of
shrinkage cracks in the hinge throat before testing and should the existing subsoil and the need to keep the channel navigable,
therefore be avoided. Base also proved that a multiaxial state a statically determined three-hinged arch with Mesnager hinges
of pressure stresses exists in the hinge throat (see Figure 2) at the crown and the base of the arch was chosen. Prototypes
(Base, 1959, 1962, 1965). He investigated the influence of
concrete creep on the deformation behaviour of the hinge and
found that sustained loads lead to an increase in rotation and Concept of Mesnager hinges: Failure of Mesnager hinges:
Using the flexibility of the reinforcing Concrete spalling and buckling of
a reduction of the stresses of up to 50%. Based on these bars to create a spring hinge the bars crossing the hinge throat
experimental results, Sims and Bridle developed empirical rules
for the design of Freyssinet hinges, which were used for the C
design of the bridges in the Aston–Sheffield–Leeds section of
the M1 motorway (Sims and Bridle, 1964). In the 1970s, the
Highways Agency published a technical memorandum for the 0 B
design and use of Freyssinet hinges in bridge engineering that is A
still in use today (BE 5/75, see Highways Agency (1975)). B′

In Germany, Dix (1962) and Leonhardt and Reimann (1965) D′

D
experimentally investigated the load-bearing behaviour of
Freyssinet hinges. Their experiments aimed to determine the (a) (b)
design stress in the hinge throat and the maximum allowable
rotation. They found that the hinges were capable of resisting Figure 3. Concept of Mesnager hinges (Mesnager, 1896) and
high stresses in the hinge throats if the tensile splitting failure of the hinges (Kluge, 1940)
reinforcement was designed correctly. To determine the allowable

66
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

were built and tested to investigate their load-bearing and and that the optimum crossing angle is between 30˚ and 45 ˚.
deformation behaviours. In the design, Mesnager considered Kluge investigated Mesnager hinges for use in girder bridges.
only the reinforcement bars to contribute to the load transfer; His experiments showed that hinges with concrete in the hinge
the concrete was merely used as corrosion protection and to throat were able to carry twice as much load as hinges without
protect the bars from buckling (Mesnager, 1910). As a result, concrete in the hinge throat (Kluge, 1940).
the throat height of Mesnager hinges is quite large. From the
results of his experiments Mesnager concluded that strong In the 1930s, Jesinghaus presented a first overview of the
confinement of the adjacent members is essential and that the different options for arranging the hinge throat reinforcement
anchorage length of the crossing reinforcement bars should be (Jesinghaus and Bieligk, 1930). In his experiments he reduced
at least 45 times the bar diameter. the height of the hinge throat significantly and demonstrated
the importance of strong confinement of the adjacent
First experimental investigations of Mesnager hinges were members. In the 1950s Jeske and Kammüller investigated the
carried out in 1935 by Parsons and Stang in the USA. Their cyclic behaviour of these hinges. The hinges were shown to be
investigation focused on the influence of the concrete in the capable of carrying extreme loads and rotations. Kammüller
hinge throat on the load-bearing behaviour. In the hinges and Jeske (1957) developed a simple design equation for the
without concrete in the throat, failure occurred by buckling of hinges, which includes a factor of safety of 3?29 with respect to
the crossing reinforcing bars, whereas failure in the hinges with the experimental failure loads. They recommend an inclination
concrete in the throat occurred by tensile splitting in the of the reinforcement bars of 2:1 to prevent buckling of the bars.
adjacent members. The concrete in the hinge throat increased
the bending stiffness of the hinges significantly. Based on their In the course of the construction of the Hardturm viaduct in
experimental results, Parsons and Stang (1935) derived simple Zurich, Switzerland, scale Mesnager hinges were investigated
design rules only for Mesnager hinges without concrete in the at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and
hinge throat. Moreell developed diagrams for the optimum Technology (EMPA) with respect to their dynamic behaviour.
crossing angle of the bars for different loading conditions The first two hinges were subjected to 24 and 37 million load
(Moreell, 1935). cycles, respectively, with rotations of ¡10% and ¡24%,
respectively, and subjected to the maximum possible rotation
Ernst verified the results of the previous experimental investiga- without causing failure (see Figure 4). The third hinge failed at
tions by performing 62 additional experiments (Ernst, 1937). His a load 3?5 times the design load by tensile splitting in the
results showed good agreement with those given by Parsons and adjacent members. The dynamic loading had no influence on
Stang (1935). Ernst also showed that the hinges have sufficient the condition or the bearing behaviour of the hinges (Fessler,
capacity for high shear-to-normal force ratios up to V/N 5 1 1967).

(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) Tensile splitting failure (Sallenbach, 1967); (b) large

rotations without failure (Fessler, 1967)

67
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

16

40

50 . 2
35

Concrete hinge
(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Bridge over the Marne in Luzancy; (b) detail of the
Freyssinet concrete hinge at the abutment (measurements in cm)

3. Application of concrete hinges in bridge again to build five more bridges over the Marne (Schacht and
engineering Marx, 2010).

3.1 Freyssinet concrete hinges 3.1.2 Caracas (Venezuela)

3.1.1 Bridges over the Marne (France) In the early 1950s Freyssinet designed three identical double-
The first prestressed concrete bridge with concrete hinges, the hinged arch bridges in Venezuela (see Figure 6). The first of the
Pont de Luzancy, was designed by Freyssinet. During World three arches spans over 152 m and is positioned 70 m above
War II Freyssinet revised his previous design and developed a the bottom of the valley it crosses. Because of the poor subsoil
slim bridge construction with a height of 1?22 m and a span conditions, the arches were constructed using prefabricated
length of 54 m. The I-beams were prefabricated as segments unreinforced concrete hinges (Prade, 1990).
to reduce the amount of on-site manufacturing, and subse-
quently prestressed. The concrete hinges were placed at the 3.1.3 Tancarville (France)
abutments (see Figure 5). Some years later, the successful The use of a concrete hinge for the 1420 m long suspension
concept of the Luzancy Bridge was slightly revised and used bridge in Tancarville is rather unconventional. The anchorage

(a) (b)

Figure 6. (a) Ponts de Caracas 2 and 3 in Venezuela and (b) detail

of the prefabricated hinge (Prade, 1990)

68
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

Freyssinet
Concrete
Hinge

44.23 m

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Pont de Tancarville (photograph: P. Giraud,

www.wikimedia.de)

block on the left-hand side of the river Seine is supported 3.1.5 Maintal Bridge (Germany)
by a concrete hinge to absorb the tensile forces in the cables The Maintal Bridge (Figure 9) was the first German railway
(Figure 7). To ensure permanent compression of the hinge bridge built with Freyssinet concrete hinges. The hinges are
throat, the concrete hinge was prestressed (Tourasse, 1961). designed without any reinforcement crossing the hinge throat
at the feet of the triangle piers. The high normal forces of
3.1.4 Pont du Bonhomme (France) 121 MN result in an average stress in the hinge throat of
The struts of the 283 m long frame bridge are supported by 47 MN/m2. To reduce the impact of the shear force the hinges
Freyssinet concrete hinges. To centre the resulting force of the were installed at an angle (Leonhardt, 1986).
struts and to minimise the ratio of shear force to normal force
the hinges are prestressed using six prestressing tendons and a 3.1.6 Wentbridge viaduct (Great Britain)
prestressing force of 2800 t. The total normal force in the Freyssinet concrete hinges were first used in Great Britain for
hinge is 3200 t and the shear force is 400 t, so that the ratio of the Wentbridge viaduct (Figure 10) as part of the Aston–
shear force to normal force is only 0?13 (Prade, 1990) (see Sheffield–Leeds section of M1 motorway. The hinges were
Figure 8). placed at the bottom end of the raking legs and carry loads of

(a) (b)

Figure 8. (a) Pont du Bonhomme and (b) detail of the hinge

(photographs: J. Mossot, www.structurae.fr)

69
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

Figure 9. Maintal Bridge Gemünden (www.wikipedia.de)

Figure 10. Wentbridge viaduct (photograph: The Happy Pontist)

2700 t. Experimental investigations for deriving empirical

design rules were carried out by G. D. Base (see Section 2.1).
Because of the positive test results and the high load-carrying both Freyssinet hinges and Mesnager hinges were mixed.
capacity of the hinges, several more bridges on this section of Owing to positive experiences with this kind of hinge, Maillart
the motorway were constructed using concrete hinges (Sims used it in many of his later bridges. To this day, none of the
and Bridle, 1964). hinges shows any signs of distress.

3.2 Mesnager concrete hinges 4. Recommendations for the design and

construction of concrete hinges
3.2.1 Pont Neuf du Montauban (France)
In 1912, a new arch bridge with three arches was to be built 4.1 Freyssinet concrete hinges
over the river Tarn in Montauban designed by Simone Freyssinet concrete hinges have been used in many different
Boussiron (see Figure 11). Because the flood runoff from the bridge types with different loading combinations and boundary
river Tarn was required to be able to continue unobstructed, conditions. The aim of one research project was therefore to
the arches could not be backfilled. The abutment hinges were analyse the range of applications of this type of hinge (Marx
placed closer to the centre of the arch to reduce the arch span and Schacht, 2010b). Most of these hinges in bridges are
length. All hinges were constructed as Mesnager hinges with designed as line supports, but point supports have also been
crossed steel bars in the hinge throat, which were designed to used. Figure 13 gives an overview of the different static systems
carry the entire load. The concrete in the hinge throat was used and the associated span lengths that have been realised.
for corrosion protection only (Rabut, 1916).
Freyssinet concrete hinges were first used in arched bridges,
3.2.2 Salginatobel Bridge (Switzerland) where they minimise the eccentricity of the normal forces and
In the late 1920s Robert Maillart discovered that using thus lead to a reduction in bending stress. This principle could
concrete hinges could save material in the construction of easily be transferred to flat frames or strut frame bridges,
arched bridges and used them for several of his bridges. where Freyssinet hinges are also often used. Other typical
Maillart used concrete hinges for the first time in 1929 in the applications are single-span bridges, where the superstructure
construction of the Salginatobel Bridge (see Figure 12). In his is supported by concrete hinges. The main advantages of the
design Maillart initially took into account the contribution of hinges are that they are easy to construct and maintain.
the concrete in the hinge throat to the load transfer. However, Concrete hinges are often used for the connections of long
because of the recommendations by Roš, he decided to neglect piers of continuous girder bridges to reduce bending stresses.
the contribution of the concrete and to increase the amount of
steel reinforcement in the hinge throat. His static calculations The constriction of the cross-section over a small distance
show that Maillart knew about the contribution of the concrete results in a multiaxial state of compressive stress in the hinge
to the load transfer and that high stresses can be carried in the throat, which enables the Freyssinet concrete hinge to carry
hinge throat due to the multiaxial state of stress (Kessler, very large normal forces. The rotation of the hinge can cause a
1996). This was probably the first time that the concepts of crack to develop in the hinge throat. The remaining uncracked

70
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

(a) (b)

Figure 11. (a) Pont Neuf du Montauban and (b) detail of the hinge
(photographs: J. Mossot, www.wikimedia.fr)

throat section is generally able to resist the stresses until the shear force (V) to normal force (N) of 1, failure of the hinge
crack reaches the middle of the throat (Leonhardt and Reimann, did not occur; however, it is suggested that for the design of
1965). The design rules in different countries prescribe different hinges the ratio should be limited to a maximum of V/N 5
allowable normal forces and rotations in dependency of the 0?25. In cases of larger shear forces, additional pre-
throat width or the constriction ratio (Marx and Schacht, tensioning across the hinge throat to increase the normal
2010a). The load-bearing capacity strongly depends on the force or a change in the inclination of the hinge can reduce
tensile splitting reinforcement. Reinforcement in the throat is the V/N ratio. If pre-tensioning or changing the inclination
generally not necessary. Even for impact loading, it is sufficient of the hinge is not possible and the shear forces are larger
to provide small-diameter reinforcement bars at a distance of than 0?125N, the hinges can be reinforced vertically with
30 cm from each other, as suggested by Guyon (1957). Excessive small-diameter bars across the hinge throat.
amounts of reinforcement disturb the state of stress in the hinge
and can lead to shrinkage cracks, as shown by Base (1962). Figure 14 shows a summary of tested and constructed
Unreinforced concrete hinges are able to withstand smaller Freyssinet concrete hinges. The load and rotation at failure
shear forces, depending on the ratio of normal-to-shear force. are given for all tested hinges, and the design normal force and
Experiments conducted by Base showed that even with ratios of maximum rotation are shown for constructed hinges.

(a) (b)

Figure 12. Salginatobel Bridge (photographs: Claudia Schlenger,

Kai Scheider)

71
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

Arch
bridges

Strut frame
bridges

Continuous
bridges

Single span
bridges

Frame
bridges

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Total length of main span: m

Figure 13. Range of application of Freyssinet concrete hinges

(Schacht and Marx, 2010)

4.2 Mesnager concrete hinges concrete to contribute to the load transfer, while the crossed
Traditional Mesnager concrete hinges are characterised by a bars are mainly used to carry the large shear force. This kind of
relatively large throat height. Mesnager did not consider the hinge could therefore be used in situations with V/N ratios
concrete in the throat to contribute to the load transfer and larger than 0?25 to ensure adequate shear capacity even under
dimensioned the reinforcement bars to carry the entire load. A severe impact loading. A concrete hinge should be reinforced
modification of this kind of hinge was developed by Robert with crossed reinforcement bars under the following conditions
Maillart, who combined the principle of the Freyssinet hinges,
the multiaxial state of compressive stresses in the hinge throat, & at high shear loads (design of the reinforcement bars to
with Mesnager’s idea of crossed bars. His hinges in the carry the full shear load and neglecting the concrete,
Salginatobel Bridge have small throat heights, causing the inclination of the crossed bars ,30 ˚)
& in case of danger of impact shear loading, catastrophic
accidental situations and sudden system failure
& for extreme rotations.
331 MN – Tancarville
120

100
5. Conclusions
Freyssinet and Mesnager concrete hinges have been used
70 successfully in bridge engineering for over 100 years and
Normal force, N : MN

have been shown to be almost maintenance-free, durable and

60
reliable construction elements.
50 N
Existing hinge
Tested hinge
α
The paper has described the historical development of concrete
40
hinges and the experimental investigations that have been
30 carried out over the past century. The main differences in
concepts and the load-bearing behaviours of Freyssinet and
20 Mesnager concrete hinges have been explained. From examples
10
of bridges with these types of hinges, it can be seen that
Freyssinet and Mesnager concrete hinges are suitable for many
different bridge types.
5 10 15
Rotation, α : ‰
Various design recommendations for Freyssinet concrete
Figure 14. Range of tested Freyssinet concrete hinges, and
hinges exist in Europe (Marx and Schacht, 2010b), and they
Freyssinet concrete hinges in existing bridges (Schacht and Marx, can safely be used for the design of this kind of hinge.
2010) Recommendations for an extension of these rules for higher
shear or impact loads have been given in this paper.

72
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

Existing concrete hinges can be assessed by applying the rules Steingewölben. Zeitschrift des Architekten- und Ingenieur
used for the design of new hinges, as given in BE 5/1975 Vereins zu Hannover S: 374–380. (in German)
(Highways Agency, 1975), Règles BAEL (2000) or Schacht and Leonhardt F (1986) Maintalbrücke Gemünden –
Marx (2010). The hinge throat and the adjacent members should Eisenbahnbrücke aus Spannbeton mit 135 m Spannweite.
be checked for cracks or other signs of distress. In most existing Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 81(6): 1–8. (in German)
bridges the hinges are uncracked and in good condition. Leonhardt F and Reimann H (1965) Betongelenke. Wilhelm Ernst
& Sohn, Berlin, Germany, Schriftenreihe des Deutschen
REFERENCES
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton Heft 175. (in German)
Base GD (1959) Some Tests on a Particular Design of Reinforced Marx S and Schacht G (2010a) Gelenke im Massivbau.
Concrete Structural Hinge. Cement and Concrete Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 105(1): 27–35. (in German)
Association, Slough, UK, Technical Report TRA 325. Marx S and Schacht G (2010b) Concrete hinges – historical
Base GD (1962) Tests on Reinforced Concrete Hinge with a development and contemporary use. Proceedings of
Large Design Rotation. Cement and Concrete Association, the 3rd International fib-Congress, Washington DC,
Slough, UK, Technical Report TRA 359. paper 89.
Base GD (1965) Tests on Four Prototype Reinforced Concrete Mesnager A (1896) Disposition d’assemblage. Annales des
Hinges. Cement and Concrete Association, Slough, UK, Ponts et Chaussées 750–783. (in French)
Research Report No. 17. Mesnager A (1907) Experiences sur une semi-articulation pour
Burkhardt E (1933) Betongelenke mit gepanzerter Walzfläche. routes en Béton armé. Annales des Ponts et Chaussées II:
Bautechnik 11(48): 651–658. (in German) 180–200.
Dix J (1962) Betongelenke unter oftmals wiederholter Druck- und Mesnager A (1910) Couverture d’une partie du canal St.
Biegebeanspruchung. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Martin, à Paris, par une voute en béton armé. Le Génie
Germany, Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Ausschuss für Civil 30(July–August): 241–246, 259–264. (in French)
Stahlbeton Heft 150. (in German) Mönnig E and Netzel D (1969) Zur Bemessung von
Ernst GC (1937) Tests of reinforced concrete hinges of the Betongelenken. Bauingenieur 44(12): 433–439. (in
Mesnager type. Highway Research Board Proceedings 17: German)
187–201. Moreell B (1935) Articulations for concrete structures – the
Fessler EO (1967) Die EMPA-Versuche an armierten Mesnager hinge. Journal of the American Concrete Institute
Betongelenken für den Hardturm-Viadukt. Schweizerische – Proceedings 32(March–April): 368–381.
Bauzeitung 85(34): 623–630. (in German) Parsons DE and Stang AH (1935) Test of Mesnager hinges.
Freyssinet E (1923) Le pont de Candelier. Annales des Ponts et Journal of the American Concrete Institute – Proceedings
Chaussées 1. Sem., p. 165f. (in French) 32(January–February): 304–325.
Freyssinet E (1954) Naissance du béton précontraint et vues Prade M (1990) Les Grands Ponts du Monde – Hors d’Europe.
d’avenir. Travaux, June: 463–474. (in French) Brissaud, Poitiers, France, pp.185–186. (in French)
Guyon Y (1957) Long-span prestressed concrete bridges Rabut C (1916) Les Ponts de Montauban. Le Génie Civil
constructed by the Freyssinet system. Proceedings of the 36(January): 65–69. (in French)
Institution of Civil Engineers 7(1): 110–168. Règles BAEL (2000) Règles BAEL 91, Modifiées 99 : Règles
Highways Agency (1975) BE 5/75 Technical Memorandum Techniques de Conception et de Calcul des Ouvrages et
(Bridges) – Rules for the Design and Use of Freyssinet Constructions en Béton Armé Suivant la Méthode des Etats
Concrete Hinges in Highway Structures. The Highways Limites, 3rd edn. Eyrolles, Paris, France. (in French)
Agency, Birmingham, UK. Riessauw FG and Passelecq DA (1948) Essais sur les articulations
Jesinghaus A and Bieligk O (1930) Ausbildung en béton armé. Annales des Travaux Public de Belgique,
unvollkommener Betongelenke. Zement 19(36-37): 850– Bruxelles 54–79, 231–268. (in French)
855, 873–879. (in German) Sallenbach HH (1967) Betongelenke beim Hardturm-Viadukt.
Kammüller K and Jeske O (1957) Federgelenke. Wilhelm Ernst & Schweizerische Bauzeitung 85(33): 615–619. (in German)
Sohn, Berlin, Germany, Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Schacht G and Marx S (2010) Unbewehrte Betongelenke – 100
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton Heft 125. (in German) Jahre Erfahrung im Brückenbau. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
Kessler A (1996) Vom Holzsteg zum Weltmonument. AG 105: 599–607. (in German)
Buchdruckerei Schiers, Schiers, Switzerland. Schacht G, Hoffmann N and Marx S (2013) Federgelenke.
Kluge RW (1940) An investigation of rigid frame bridges – Part Stahlbau 82(12): 903–910. (in German)
III: Tests of structural hinges of reinforced concrete. Sims FA and Bridle RJ (1964) The design of concrete hinges.
University of Illinois Bulletin XXXVII(29): 36. Concrete and Constructional Engineering August:
Köpcke C (1888) Über die Verwendung von drei Gelenken in 276–286.

73
Engineering History and Heritage Concrete hinges in bridge
Volume 168 Issue EH2 engineering
Schacht and Marx

Tourasse MM (1961) Essais sur articulation Freyssinet. Annales Brückenbau. Verlag von Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin,
de l’Institute Technique du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics Germany. (in German)
40(57): 62, 87–90. (in French) von Leibbrand K (1897) Gewölbte Brücken. Fortschritte der
von Emperger F (1911) Handbuch für Eisenbeton. Band 6 – Ingenieurwissenschaften, 2. Gruppe. Leipzig 7. (in German)

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

74

View publication stats