See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265597837

Concrete Hinges – Historical development and

contemporary Use

Conference Paper · May 2010

CITATIONS READS

2 1,760

2 authors:

Gregor Schacht Steffen Marx

Leibniz Universität Hannover Leibniz Universität Hannover
42 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS 134 PUBLICATIONS 199 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

HyConCast - Hybrid substructure of high strength concrete and ductile iron castings for offshore wind
turbines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steffen Marx on 26 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

CONCRETE HINGES – HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND

CONTEMPORARY USE

Steffen Marx, Prof. Dr.-Ing., Inst. of Concrete Structures, Techn. Univ. Dresden, Germany
Gregor Schacht, Dipl.-Ing., Inst. of Concrete Structures, Techn. Univ. Dresden, Germany

ABSTRACT

Articulated connections consisting of concrete have existed since 1880, when

Claus Köpcke first used saddle bearings in a natural stone-arched bridge.
Further developments were made in France at the beginning of the 20th
century. While Mesnager used reinforcement to carry the loads of his
Mesnager hinges, Freyssinet developed an unreinforced hinge that transmits
loads only through the concrete. All hinges work on the same principle – the
centering of compression stresses in a very small zone (the throat of the hinge).
Concrete hinges have also been used in Germany, in the USA and,
particularly, in Switzerland. In the 1960’s, the work of Fritz Leonhardt
(Germany), E.O. Fessler (Switzerland) and G.D. Base (Great-Britain), which
define the international state-of-the-art until today, led to a renaissance of
concrete hinges.
The existing design rules are half-empirical and disallow the proper
construction of concrete hinges up to the state-of-the-art. Investigations of the
existing experiences and design rules were carried out. The design rules given
by Leonhardt have been assigned to allow an appropriate design of
unreinforced Freyssinet hinges which conform to current code.

Keywords: concrete hinge, Freyssinet hinge, tri-axial compression stress state,

Mesnager hinge, saddle bearing,

1
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

INTRODUCTION

Concrete hinges are characterized by an enormous load-bearing capacity and deformability.

They are nearly maintenance-free and have a high durability if designed and constructed
properly. Concrete hinges are perfectly suited to control the flow of forces and to efficiently
reduce constraints.

The first massive hinges were developed by Claus Köpcke (Dresden) in 18801 and
successfully used in several construction projects. The fabrication of these hinges was
difficult since the contact-surfaces had to be extremely level. In an effort to correct this
problem, von Leibbrand (Stuttgart) developed an alternative type of hinge by arranging thin
plumb-plates between the adjacent concrete blocks2.

The break-through in the development of durable and easily casted hinges was first
accomplished by Augustin Mesnager in 19083. Inspired by his research on confined concrete
columns, he developed a “spring-hinge” (semi-articulation), which was similarly used in steel
construction. Adjacent concrete blocks are connected by intersecting steel bars. These steel
bars transmit the entire force of the hinge-bodies. The concrete only serves to provide
corrosion protection and – together with the confining reinforcement – to avoid the buckling
of the steel bars.

In 1910, Freyssinet was able to prove that reinforcement through the throat is unnecessary,
and axial forces are only transmitted by the partially loaded area and an adequate confinement
of the hinge4. The rotation of the hinge is secured by the elastic and plastic deformability of
the concrete and with larger rotations a crack through the throat of the hinge occurs. In
Germany these unreinforced concrete hinges are closely associated with Fritz Leonhardt who
developed the commonly used design rules for this type of concrete hinge5. In the course of
recent research, various existing design-models for unreinforced concrete hinges were
analyzed and compared6.

Figure 1 shows a classification of the different types of hinges.

2
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Fig. 1: Classification of concrete hinges

SADDLE BEARINGS

SADDLE BEARINGS, HINGE-BODIES AND THEIR LOAD BEARING BEHAVIOUR

Saddle bearings are two adjacent cubes of stone, comprised of either concrete or reinforced
concrete with cylindrical surfaces that allow a rolling motion. In 1880, Köpcke first used
these hinges for an arched stonebridge for the Pirna-Berggießhübler Eisenbahn near
Langenhennersdorf (Germany) to avoid cracking during settling while stripping away the
structure’s formwork1. The hinges were filled with concrete after removal of the formwork.
The positive results from the use of these simple hinges led to a large number of saddle
bearing hinges in practice.

A considerable basis for the use of these hinges was increased knowledge in the material
strength of partially loaded areas. By 1869, 12 years before Hertz published his Hertzian
stress equations, Köpcke presented an initial theoretical solution to describe the contact
between two cylinders7. The first experimental investigations on these saddle bearings were
done by Krüger in 1894 for the construction of the Marien Bridge in Dresden (Germany)8.
Krüger detected that the biggest tensile strains and stresses appeared in the middle of the
hinge-bodies. These tensile stresses were distributed parabolically and the transverse tensile
force was about 28% of the surcharge. The experiments of Bach with sandstone- and granite-
hinges showed that the failure of the hinges was always caused by tensile stresses rectangular
to the pressure. All hinge specimens failed with a big crack in the middle of the hinge-bodies.
The detection of the actual cause of failure led to the use of reinforced concrete saddle
3
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

bearings (Friedrich-August-Bridge in Dresden, bridge in Rothenburg, Emsbridge Rheda – all

Germany) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Reinforced saddle bearings9

In 1924, Mörsch developed the first theoretical solution for hinge-bodies10. He used the
conditions of distortion as a simple mechanical model to deduce the orthogonal tensile
stresses and simplified the representation of these stress fields into a strut-and-tie-model that
allowed the determination of the size of the tensile force depending on the surcharge (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Strut-and-tie-model of Mörsch10

Almost half a century after Köpcke first successfully used his saddle bearings, Bortsch
published his solution to calculating the stresses in hinge-bodies11. For a cut out slice of a
hinge-body Bortsch used an approximation of a cosine function for the load and applied it to a
4
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

cross-section of a hinge-body before breaking down the cosine function into three separate
components and solving the “Airy stress function”. He subsequently superposed the three
resulting ratios and provided a solution for different geometric variations of the hinge-bodies.
These theoretical solutions provided a means by which to calculate the stresses within these
hinge-bodies.

SPECIAL SADDLE BEARINGS

The primary problem with using saddle bearings was the difficulty of creating accurate
convex and concave surfaces. The smallest amount of unevenness from processing led to
large stress-concentrations.
Hence von Leibbrand (Stuttgart) developed a different type of hinged connection by placing
small plumb-plates between the cubes allowing rotation from plumb deformation2. These
plates also provided an equalizing layer between the cube surfaces. Plumb hinges have been
used successfully for a long time. Even so, in the 1960’s, engineers stopped using them since
they had discovered that the plumb plates were worn down after numerous rotations even if
the angles of rotation were small12.
In 1933, Burkhardt presented a new development, concrete saddle bearings armored with steel
plates13. It was thought that these would abolish the disadvantage of the uneven concrete
surfaces. The first bridge with these hinges was built over the shipping channel near
Obereßlingen (Germany). Experimental investigations at the MPA Stuttgart (Testing
Laboratories Stuttgart) proved the enhanced bearing capacity of the armored saddle bearings.

DEFORMATION HINGES

SPRING HINGES ACCORDING TO MESNAGER AND CONSIDÈRE

At the beginning of the 20th century, French engineers intensively researched the new
material, reinforced concrete. At the ‘École des Ponts et Chaussées’ Augustin Mesnager and
Armand Considère carried out investigations on confined concrete columns. Based on these
experiments, Mesnager developed a “semi-articulation” for reinforced concrete similar to the
spring hinges used in steel construction. In 1908, Mesnager described experimental
investigations he had made that proved his theoretical ideas3 (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Specimen of Mesnager’s experimental investigations3

The concrete in the throat of the hinge was only used for corrosion protection of the
intersecting steel bars. In experiments, the failure of the hinges always occurred through
concrete spalling at the hinge blocks near the throat followed by buckling or slipping of the
steel bars. The intersecting bars must be rigidly confined, as close as possible to the throat of
the hinge, to avoid this failure. Mesnager’s hinges have been used successfully in many
projects such as the arching of the channel Saint-Martin in Paris, the Amélie-les-Bains Bridge
5
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

(Fig. 5), the Carnon Bridge over the Canal du Midi in Montpellier, a suspended deck arch
bridge in Mestre (Italy), the Pont sur la Noce and several airship hangars that were
constructed as three-hinged arches.

Fig. 5: Three-hinged arch-bridge Amélie-les-Bains6

The Swiss engineer, Robert Maillart, is particularly known for his use of Mesnager hinges.
For instance, he used these hinges in: his famous bridge over the Salginatobel (Fig. 6), the
Rossgraben Bridge, the Thur Bridge near Felsegg and the Arve-Bridge in Vessy-Geneve. The
Mesnager hinges were also used in Germany for such structures as the arching of Huckarder
Street in Dortmund. Emil Mörsch provided several examples of halls that were constructed
with these hinges in14.

6
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Fig. 6: Salginatobel Bridge of Robert Maillart

The first report on the experimental investigations of Mesnager’s hinges was published in
Germany in 1930. Jesinghaus and Bieligk discovered that the load-bearing behavior of these
spring-hinges is similar to that of saddle bearings and that the concrete in the throat is tri-
axially compressed and, therefore, able to withstand much higher levels of stress15. Jesinghaus
experimented with various forms of reinforcement and assessed the necessity to use rigid,
confining, stirrup reinforcement.
In the USA Moreell16 designed a ship-model testing plant for the U.S. Navy in which the
three-hinged arch roof was built with Mesnager hinges. Experimental testing was conducted
to insure the adequate performance of these hinges. Parson and Stang implemented
investigations with 7 hinge specimens and developed a calculation model to design Mesnager-
hinges. They were extremely concerned with confinement of the longitudinal bars and tested
the shear force bearing capacity of the hinges. The Universities of Maryland and Illinois set
about confirming the calculation model of Parson and Stang and to expand these findings to
add information about dynamic loading and the influence of concrete creep.
In the early 1950’s, Jeske and Kammüller rediscovered the Mesnager-hinges and published
their findings in 1957 in17. They searched for the ultimate shape for the notch using analytical
and experimental techniques, as well as providing theoretical solutions for the distribution of
the elastic stresses in the hinge.
In Switzerland, Mesnager hinges were used for highway bridges in Encublens and for the
Hardturm-Viaduct, accompanied by extensive experimental investigations, by the EMPA
Zürich (Swiss National Laboratories Zürich)18. These hinges successfully carried millions of
alternating rotations and withstood even extreme angles of rotation without any sign of failure
(Fig. 7).

7
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Fig. 7: Mesnager hinges at the EMPA-test for Hardturm Viaduct18

At the same time Mesnager developed his spring-hinge, the French engineer, Armand
Considère, invented a hinge with a spiral confining reinforcement in the throat of the hinge.
By 1902, he had already received a patent on spirally confined concrete. The first arched
bridge that used the Considère hinge is the 1930 built Caveman Bridge near Grants Pass in
Oregon (USA). Many more bridges in the USA have been built using the Considère hinges
(Rogue River Bridge, Coos Bay Bridge / McCullough Memorial Bridge, Oregon) (Fig. 8).
The use of this type of hinge in the USA is primarily associated with the engineer, Conde B.
McCullough19.

Fig. 8: Spiral reinforced hinge – Considère19

8
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

UNREINFORCED CONCRETE HINGES ACCORDING TO FREYSSINET

A few years after Mesnager presented his Mesnager hinge, the French engineer, Eugène
Freyssinet, used a similar shaped hinge for his bridge, ‘Pont du Veurdre’ and its two sister-
bridges, Boutiron and Châtel de Neuvre4. Freyssinet recognized that the tri-axial state of stress
prevented the concrete from collapse and that the resulting compression strength of the
concrete in the throat was significantly higher. Knowing this, he abandoned any
reinforcement of the throat and assigned the entire load-bearing function only to the concrete
in the throat.

Fig. 9: Luzancy Bridge of Eugène Freyssinet4

Initial experimental investigations of unreinforced concrete hinges were done by Riessauw

and Passelecq at the University of Gent (Belgium)20. The specimens were able to bear
rotations up to 0.02 rad without any signs of failure. The positive results from the use of these
unreinforced concrete hinges led to the proliferation of their use in construction. The water-
reservoir in Orleans, the Coudette Bridge and the six prefabricated, pre-stressed bridges over
the Marne21 (France) are only a few examples of the widespread use of this type of hinge (Fig.
9, Fig. 10).

Fig. 10: Concrete hinges used at the base of six Marne Bridges, Photo: J.Mossot,
www.structurae.de
9
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

In Great-Britain, an alternative to using steel bearings was sought after to reduce the cost of
the expansion of the highway network system. G.D. Base22 carried out several experiments
with Mesnager and Freyssinet hinges. His investigations on the shear force bearing-capacity
of the hinges are worth noting. He proved that unreinforced concrete hinges are capable of
transmitting enormous shear forces if the surcharge is sufficient enough. The results of these
experimental investigations were transformed into a model for calculation by Sims and Bridle
which has been used for the design of Freyssinet hinges since 197523.

Freyssinet hinges were first been used in Germany in 1953 for a pre-stressed bridge over the
Nidda. Fritz Leonhardt then used concrete hinges for the hinged columns of a motorway in
Mannheim to allow small rotations and to avoid expansive steel bearings.
Next, Dix24 in Karlsruhe and Leonhardt5 in Stuttgart carried out experimental investigations to
study and describe the load-bearing behavior of the Freyssinet hinges. In 1965, Leonhardt
produced the first design- and construction rules for the practical use of unreinforced concrete
hinges in Heft 175 DAfStb. In 1969, Mönnig and Netzel reworked these rules to provide for
greater ease of use in practice. Finally, the rules for the design and construction of Freyssinet
hinges were published in Vorlesungen über Massivbau25. Since then, these rules have been the
basis for the design of many hinges in bridge constructions such as the Mainbrücke in
Gemünden, the Valley Bridge Korntal-Münchingen, the Lockwitztal Bridge and the Elbe-
Bridge in Mühlberg. The experimental investigations of Franz26 showed that unreinforced
concrete hinges are able to withstand 3 million alternating rotations without experiencing any
problems.

CALCULATION MODELS

GERMAN MODEL ACCORDING TO FRITZ LEONHARDT

While Freyssinet designed and constructed his hinge only by sense and experience, Fritz
Leonhardt was able to develop a model from his experimental investigations.
In the 1960’s it wasn’t yet possible to describe the results of the tests with proper mechanical
models so he used empirical terms to describe the load-bearing behavior. Additionally,
Leonhardt’s model is based on the safety concept of allowable stresses.
These design rules, according to Leonhardt, were assigned to actual code based on a research
project. This assignment assures proper design and construction of unreinforced concrete
hinges. In 25 Fritz Leonhardt defined the nomenclature for concrete hinges which remains
unchanged to date (Fig.11).

10
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Fig. 11: Nomenclature of concrete hinges from Fritz Leonhardt

For plane systems and loading conditions at the ultimate limit state, hinges are subjected to
axial loads N d and rotation around the axis of rotation α d . An overstraining of the concrete in
the throat of the hinge, due to axial loads or rotation, is theoretically possible but has never
been detectable in any experimental investigation. Failure occurred in all tests in members
adjacent to the hinges due to the yielding of reinforcement.

The transmission of the axial forces through the throat of the hinge into the adjacent members
can be considered to be like a partially loaded area. Under this type of situation, EC 227
permits the use of a higher compressive strength of the concrete

FRdu = Ac0 ⋅ f cd ⋅ Ac1 / Ac0 ≤ 3.0 ⋅ f cd ⋅ Ac0 (1)

The varying dimensions of the proportional basic area Ac1 are limited to 3 times the size of
the partially loaded area Ac0 . This requirement of a proportional basic area should insure the
restraint of the lateral strains in both directions. For concrete hinges, this requirement is met
by the constriction of the throat ( br ≥ 0.7 ⋅ a ≥ 5cm ) orthogonal to the axis of rotation. Based
on Leonhardt’s recommendation for the geometry ( a ≤ 0.3 ⋅ d ) and neglecting the front side
constriction, the load capacity for a linear concrete hinge can be determined by:

FRdu = Ac0 ⋅ f cd ⋅ 3 (2)

11
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Using the empirical description Leonhardt developed in 25 - that a stronger contraction leads
to a higher compressive strength of the concrete in the throat- the minimum area of the throat
can be calculated to be:

N d,max
AG,min = (3)
⎡ ⎛ Ec0m ⎞⎤
3 ⋅ f cd ⋅ ⎢1 + λ ⋅ ⎜ 1 − α d ⋅ ⎟⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ 12800 ⋅ 3 ⋅ f cd ⎠ ⎦⎥

In 5 Leonhardt developed a simple mechanical model to describe the behavior of the hinges
under rotation. During his experimental investigations, he measured strains and stresses in the
throat of the hinges and transposed these into the model shown in figure 12.

Fig. 12: Mechanical model for the rotation of the hinge5

Leonhardt assumed a linear strain distribution in the throat. Tensile stresses cannot be
transmitted due to cracking of the throat. With the assumption of an effective height s=a and a
limiting condition of a maximum crack length to the middle of the throat, he determined the
maximum allowable rotation. For the actual common unit-system and nomenclature, this
maximum value of rotation is defined as:

12800 ⋅ N d
α Rd = (4)
a ⋅ b ⋅ Ec0m

[‰, MN, m, MN/m²]

Only 50% of the value of the long-term rotation must be considered due to the positive
influence of concrete creep:
α d = 0.5 ⋅ α G + α Q (5)

N d = N G,d + N Q,d (6)

In 1969, Mönnig and Netzel28 specified an equation for the determination of the maximum
area of the throat. This limitation insures the ability of the hinge to rotate and is derived from
the direct transposition of (7). It should be noted, that N d and α d belong to the same load
situation.
12800 ⋅ N d
α d ≤ α Rd = (7)
a ⋅ b ⋅ Ec0m

12
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

12800 ⋅ N d
a ⋅ b ≤ AG,max = (8)
α d ⋅ Ec0m

The characteristic moment-rotation can be expressed separately for condition I (uncracked

concrete) and condition II (cracked concrete):

⎧ 1
⎪⎪ mI 0 ≤ m ≤ 0 ≤ Ψ ⋅ vorh α ≤ 9 ‰
6
m=⎨ (9)
⎪m 1 ≤ m ≤ 1 9 ‰ ≤ Ψ ⋅ vorh α ≤ 36 ‰
⎪⎩ II 6 3
Ψ ⋅ vorh α
mI ( Ψ ⋅ vorh α ) = (10)
54
1 1
mII ( Ψ ⋅ vorh α ) = − (11)
2 Ψ ⋅ vorh α

9 ⋅ Ec0m ⋅ AG
Ψ= (12)
20000 ⋅ N d

To prove his assumption concerning the behavior of the hinge under rotation, Leonhardt
developed a term to express the bending moment that is necessary to produce the hinge-
rotation. This theoretical solution, developed based on data from several experiments, verifies
his model (Fig.13).

Fig. 13: Theoretical moment-rotation characteristic and test data28

Leonhardt did not carry out any investigations of the shear force bearing capacity of the
hinges, however, he was familiar with the results from tests conducted by Base in which
13
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

shear-force-to-axial-force-ratios of 1.0 resulted without any sign of failure. Leonhardt,

therefore, recommended a limitation of the shear force to be Qy,d ≤ 0, 25 ⋅ N d . For ratios higher
than Qy,d ≥ 0.125 ⋅ N d , the hinge needs to be doweled. He also provided recommendations for
tensile axial forces and bending moments orthogonal to the axis of rotation25.
Leonhardt recommended a low allowable design stress for steel reinforcing to provide a
transverse tensile force failure. The transverse tensile force should then be calculated with the
following equations:
Z1,d = 0.3 ⋅ N d,max (13)
⎛ b⎞
Z 2,d = 0.3 ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⋅ N d,max (14)
⎝ c⎠
a
Z 3,d = 0.03 ⋅ ⋅ N d,max (15)
b

The constructive recommendations and the rules for the design of the transverse tensile forces
given by Leonhardt remain the same. Only the design stress for the transverse tensile
reinforcement is increased to 250 N/mm² when the additional safety factor of 1.4 is
considered which equates to Leonhardt’s proposal ( σ s = 180 N/mm² at service load). Such a
rigid confinement secures the tri-axial compressive stress state in the throat of the hinge.

Figure 14 summarizes these design rules.

14
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Fig. 14 Part 1: Summary of design rules for Freyssinet hinges

15
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

Fig. 14 Part 2: Summary of design rules for Freyssinet hinges

16
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

BRITISH MODEL

In Great-Britain, the design and construction of unreinforced concrete hinges is regulated by

the “Technical Memorandum (Bridges) – Rules for the Design and Use of Freyssinet
Concrete Hinges in Highway Structures”23. These design rules are similar to those developed
by Leonhardt in25. Both sets of design rules use only 50% of the value of the modulus of
elasticity for long-term rotation due to shrinkage, creep, elastic shortening or permanent loads.
To ensure the existence of a tri-axial state of stress in the throat of the hinge, both rules
require the notching of the front faces.
The axial forces are described as linear loads occurring along the hinge length, P=N/b, to
determine the minimum width of the throat, a1. The ratio of constriction is not taken into
account in contrast to the design rules of Leonhardt; only the absolute width is applicable. The
width of the throat is determined by the following four equations. The maximum allowable
compressive stress in the throat is, thereby, limited to 2 times the compressive strength, uw, or
105 N/mm², exhibited by the concrete cube-bodies. In order to permit a particular angle of
rotation, the width of the throat is restricted by equation (19).

a1 ≥ 50 mm (16)

a1 ≥ P / uw (17)

a1 ≥ P /105 N / mm²                               (18) 

380 ⋅ P
a1 ≤                               (19)
E ⋅ ( φS + φ L / 2 )
with
[mm, N/mm, rad]

Equation (19) limits the stress at the extreme fiber of the throat to zero (no tensile stress is
allowed in the throat). The capability of shear forces is restricted to V ≤ 1/ 3 ⋅ N .
The confinement of the concrete is secured by an adequately sized reinforcement that must be
built-in based on the given arrangements (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15: Possible arrangements for transverse reinforcement23

FRENCH MODEL

In France, the design and construction of unreinforced concrete hinges is regulated by the
French Code BAEL 91 modifiées 9929. Concrete hinges are, therefore, mainly subjected to
axial forces. Shear forces are limited to 1/ 4 ⋅ N .
17
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

The hinges must be constricted to be no more than 1/3 of the width of the adjacent members.
The height of the throat should not exceed 2 cm.
The minimum area of the throat can be determined with a limited allowable average stress in
the throat for design at the ultimate limit state (ULS).

               σ m ≤ 3 ⋅ f ck                                             (20)

N d,max
               AG ≤ AG,min =               (21) 
3 ⋅ f ck

The maximum rotation at the serviceability limit state is restricted to 1/20 due to the lack of
experimental data.
   α max = 0.05 rad = 5 ‰                                   (22)

The members adjacent to the hinges need to be reinforced with transverse slope-
reinforcement. The volumetric ratio of confining steel should be at least 1.0% orthogonal and
0.8% parallel to the axis of rotation.
The French design rules permit maximum axial loads and rotations for all known calculation
models (Fig. 16 and Fig. 18).

Fig. 16: Constructive requirements of the French code29

DUTCH MODEL

The design of unreinforced concrete hinges in the Netherlands is carried out according to
NEN 6723: 1995 Chapter “9.2 Betonscharnieren”30 in the serviceability limit state.
The rules given are related to and comprised from the design rules from Great-Britain and
Leonhardt.
The largest, positive defined compressive stress can, thus, be calculated as:

N d' 3 ⋅ α − 2 0.6 ⋅ Eb' ⋅ Θ ⋅ a1

σ Rand
'
= ⋅ +                       (23)
a1 ⋅ b1 α 2 ⋅ he

The stress at the extreme fiber of the other side of the throat (at maximum tension) is then:

N d' 3 ⋅ α − 2 0.6 ⋅ Eb' ⋅ Θ ⋅ a1

     σ Rand
'
= ⋅ −                       (24)
a1 ⋅ b1 α 2 ⋅ he

with

σ Rand
'
concrete stress at the extreme fiber of the throat in N/mm²
18
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

N d' axial force at the SLS (serviceability limit state)

α ratio of a/a1
Eb' modulus of elasticity of the concrete
Θ angle of rotation in radiant

The size of the maximum stress of the extreme fiber of the throat is limited by equations (25)
and (26)
σ Rand
'
≤ 2.0 ⋅ f b (25)

σ Rand
'
≥ − fb (26)

For further information, please refer to the design rules of 23 and 25.

CALCULATION MODEL ACCORDING TO MAX HERZOG

For the construction of the Ruppoldingen Aare-Bridge, Herzog intensively researched known
experimental investigations of concrete hinges and developed his own empirical design
rules31.
As his own understanding of load-bearing behavior evolved, he defined a lower and upper
limit of bearing capacity dependent on the volumetric ratio of confining steel in the adjacent
members. The associated analysis showed a good correlation between his empirical
formulations and experimental results.

SWEDISH MODEL

The design of Freyssinet hinges in Scandinavia is primarily done under the rules provided for
by Fritz Leonhardt25. In Sweden, concrete hinges are regulated in the Swedish code BBK
Boverket Handbok Chapter 3.1132. Three variations of hinges can be distinguished. One of
these 3 designs provided must be chosen based upon bearing loads and environmental
conditions present (Fig. 17).

Fig. 17: Different variants of concrete hinges32

The compressive stress should not exceed 2 ⋅ f cc for the ULS (ultimate limit state) at the
bottom and f cc at the sides. Rotations of 15‰ are permitted.
The load of frequent load combinations should not exceed 0.2 MN/m, and rotations are
restricted to 10‰ for the serviceability limit state (SLS)

19
Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

CONCLUSIONS

Existing models in GB, France, Germany or other countries need empirical terms to describe
the compressive strength of concrete in the throat under tri-axial stress states. There are
currently numerous accepted mechanical models, grounded in extensive research, to describe
the tri-axial stress states in the hinge throat. Plans are in place to develop a proper model to
describe the load-bearing behavior of hinges and to use FE calculations to verify and support
relevant design rules.
For this new model the confinement of the concrete can be taken into account by applying the
model developed by Sigrist33 which has also been incorporated into the new CEB-FIB Model
Code 2010.
Figure 18 shows a comparison of the various international design rules for one specific
concrete hinge.

Fig. 18: Comparison of various design rules

REFERENCES

1. Köpcke, „Über die Verwendung von drei Gelenken in Steingewölben“, Zeitschrift des
Architekten- und Ingenieur Vereins zu Hannover, 1888, S. 374-380.
2. von Leibbrand, „Gewölbte Brücken“, Fortschritte der Ingenieurwissenschaften, 2.Gruppe,
7. Heft, Leipzig, 1897.
3. Mesnager, „Experiences sur une semi-articulation pour routes en Béton armé“, Annales de
Ponts de Chaussees, 1907.
4. Eugène Freyssinet, „Un amour sans limite“, Èditions du Linteau, Paris, 1993.
5. Leonhardt/Reimann, „Betongelenke“, Heft 175 DAfStb, Berlin, 1965.
6. Marx, S.; Schacht, G., „Betongelenke im Brückenbau“, Zwischenbericht,
Forschungsvorhaben DBV 279, Dresden, 2009.

20
 Steffen Marx, Gregor Schacht 3rd fib International Congress - 2010

7. Köpcke, „Über die Kompression von Körpern mit gekrümmten Oberflächen“, Deutsche
Bauzeitung, 1869, S. 120-121.
8. Colberg, „Die Illerbrücken bei Kempten im Allgäu“, Deutsche Bauzeitung, 1906, S. 218-
222, S. 232-237, S. 261-264, S. 318.
9. Emperger, „Handbuch für Eisenbeton: Band 6 – Brückenbau“, Berlin, 1911, S. 394.
10. Mörsch, „Über die Berechnung der Gelenkquader“, Beton und Eisen, 1924, Heft 12,
S. 156-161.
11. Bortsch, „Die Spannungen in Wälzgelenkquadern“, Beton und Eisen, 1935, Heft 4,
S. 61-66.
12. Misch, „Technische Gesichtspunkte beim Bau von Hochstraßen“, Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau, 56 (1961), Heft 7, S. 163-173.
13. Burkhardt, „Betongelenke mit gepanzerter Wälzfläche“, Die Bautechnik, 11. Jg., 10. Nov.
1933, Heft 48, S. 651-658.
14. Mörsch, „Der Eisenbeton – Seine Theorie und Anwendung“, 6. Auflage, 2 Bände, Konrad
Wittwer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1929.
15. Jesinghaus; Bieligk, „Ausbildung unvollkommener Betongelenke“, Zement, 19 (1930),
Heft 36 S. 850/855 und Heft 37 S. 873/879.
16. Moreell, B., “Articulations for concrete structures – the Mesnager hinge”, Journal
Proceedings, March 1935, S. 368-381.
17. Kammüller, K., Jeske,O., „Federgelenke“, Heft 125 DAfStb, Berlin, 1957.
18. Sallenbach, H. H., „Betongelenke beim Hardturm-Viadukt“, Schw. BZ, Vol. 85, 1967.
19. McCollough, “Modern design and construction practise for wide-span arches in U.S.A”,
IABSE Abhandlungen, Vol. 6, 1940-1941.
20. Riessauw,Passelecq, “Essais sur les articulations en béton armé”, Annales des Travaux
public de Belgique, Bruxelles, 1948.
21. S. Chaudesaigues, “La reconstruction en béton précontraint des ponts sur la Marne a
Annet; Trilbardou, Esbly, Ussy et Changis-Saint-Jean”, Annales de l’institut technique du
bâtiment et des travaux publics, No. 228, Paris, 1952.
22. Base, G.D., “Tests on Reinforced Concrete hinge with a large design rotation”, Cement
and Concrete Association, Techn. Report TRA/359, 1962.
23. BE 5/75 Technical Memorandum (Bridges) – Rules for the Design and Use of Freyssinet
Concrete Hinges in Highway Structures, 1975.
24. Dix, „Betongelenke“; Heft 150 DAfStb, Berlin, 1962.
25. Leonhardt, Mönnig, „Sonderfälle der Bemessung im Stahlbetonbau“, Vorlesungen über
Massivbau Teil 2, 3. Auflage, Springer-Verlag, 1986
26. Franz,G., Fein, H.-D., „Betongelenke unter wiederholten Gelenkverdrehungen“, Heft 200
DAfStb, Berlin, 1968.
27. EN 1992-1-1: 2004 – Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbeton- und
Spannbetontragwerken.
28. Mönnig,Netzel, „Zur Bemessung von Betongelenken“, Der Bauingenieur, 44 (1969),
Heft 12.
29. Règles BAEL 91 modifiées 99; Règles techniques de conception et de calcul des ouvrages
et constructions en béton armé suivant la méthode des états-limites; Editions Eyrolles, 1999.
30. NEN 6723: Vorschriften beton. Bruggen (VBB 1995) - Constructieve eisen en
rekenmethoden, 1995.
31.Herzog, M, „Wirtschaftliche Stahlbeton- und Spannbetonbemessung“, Band 5
Spezialprobleme, Bauwerk-Verlag, Berlin, 2005, Kapitel 31, S. 1-25.
32. BVVVTK Bro 08, VV Publ 2008, http://documents.vsect.chalmers.se/structural-
engineering/SorenLindgren/bro/Bro08.pdf.
33. Sigrist, V., „Zum Verformungsvermögen von Stahlbetonträgern“, Institut für Baustatik
und Konstruktion, ETH Zürich, IBK Bericht 210, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Juli 1995.
21

View publication stats