RECENT MAJOR ARCH BRIDGES

Holger S. Svensson, Dipl.-Ing., P.E., PEng, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, MHKIE,

Executive Director, Leonhardt, Andr und Partner Consulting Engineers, Germany
Summary
This report deals with recent major arch bridges. Seven road bridges, one railway bridge and four
pedestrian bridges are being presented and provide an impression of the current state of the art with
respect to materials, spans, carrying of the arch thrust and arrangement of the arches in the
longitudinal direction and of the hanger planes in the transverse direction.
1.

Introduction

Over the past few years there have been ample opportunities to build arch bridges. Some of these
are located in eastern Germany where a major overhaul of the transport infrastructure was necessary
after reunification.
Arch bridges are a suitable system if the task is to cross one single, fairly wide span with a lowdepth roadway. In flat land where the soil with load-bearing capacity is located deep down, a tied
arch above the roadway is often the most suitable system. Here a steel arch with a composite beam
has proved to be an economical solution. Concrete arches or alternatively but less frequently
steel arches below the roadway can also be advisable, however. Another possibility is to use tied
arches with three spans. In a transverse direction the arch planes can be inclined towards each other
and stiffened with transverse bracing, vertical arches can stand alongside each other without being
connected. Three adjacent arches can be an economical solution for a bridge spanning a wide
breadth. In a steep rocky valley it is possible to design a true arch. Today they are only constructed
without hinges. Table 1 shows a selection of recent arch road bridges in Germany.
The construction method of arch bridges plays an important part when designing and building them.
Conventional scaffolding is generally too expensive nowadays because it is so labour-intensive.
Concrete arches can be erected by free cantilevering. Steel arches can be pre-assembled together
with their tie and launched or floated in as a whole unit.
Arch bridges can be elegantly designed due to the clearly evident flow of forces and the slender line
of their supporting elements. To this end computer visualisations are now prepared in the planning
stage. Comparisons between the visualisation and the actual finished bridge demonstrate how
reliable such visualisations are.

In this article we will present eight fairly large arch bridges in detail, starting with concrete and
proceeding to steel bridges, from arches below the roadway to arches above the roadway and from
tied arches to a true arch. We will conclude with four pedestrian bridges.
Table 1

A selection of recent arch road bridges in Germany

Structure

Completed
in

Total
length

Main span

Regular
width

in metres

in metres

in metres

Supporting
system

Danube Bridge
Fischerdorf

1991

661.5

102.5

23.50

arch bridge

Elbe Bridge Dmitz

1992

969.7

178.0

15.35

arch bridge

Spreetal Bridge Bautzen

1997

159.0

70.0

29.50

true arch

Bridge across the

Elbeabstiegskanal

1997

95.0

95.0

2 x 21.20

arch

Teufelstal Bridge

1997

253.0

138.0

18.00

true arch

Oder Bridge
Frankfurt/Oder

1998

558.2

30.00

series of
arches

Kylltal Bridge

1999

645.0

222.8

29.50

true arch

Harbour Bridge in Riesa

1999

96.7

77.2

13.50

arch

Bridge across the Ache

in Tyrol

1999

107.1

84.0

32.37

arch

Elbe Bridge Pirna

1999

1071.5

134.0

32.50

self-anchored
arch bridge

Saale Bridge Besedau

2000

805.0

180.0

29.50

true arch with

inclined struts

Elbe Bridge Wittenberg

2000

452.2

148.2

24.50

arch

Elbe Bridge
Tangermnde

2001

1435.0

185.0

15.10

arch

Inn Bridge Neubeuern

2001

184.0

110.0

11.50

arch

Valley Arch Bridge

Wilde Gera

under construction

552.0

252.0

27.00

true arch

Bridge across the

Britzer Zweigkanal

under construction

112.1

112.1

30.50

arch

Valley Arch Bridge

Wirrbach

under construction

235.0

100.0

11.50

true arch

2.

Bridge across the river Oder on motorway BAB 12 near Frankfurt/Oder

The motorway bridge across the river Oder on the BAB 12 connects Berlin and Warsaw [1]. The
bridge is 560 m long and consists of 6 concrete arches below the roadway with spans between 65
and 82 m (Fig. 1). The costs of rebuilding the border bridge were split 60:40 between Germany and
Poland.
The first structure was the South Bridge, built between 1954 and 1957 with two-way traffic on one
superstructure. The foundations and abutments for a second bridge were built at the same time, Fig.
2. The old bridge was rehabilitated by reinforcing the arches with shotcrete, by installing new piers
and with a new and wider superstructure.

The possibility of demolishing the old arch bridge and building a new bridge with two concrete or
composite continuous girders was investigated. The result was that the girder bridges would not
have been significantly more economical than restoring the old and building a new bridge. For
historical and aesthetic reasons an unusual choice was made: to erect a new bridge with a series of
concrete arches, Fig. 4.

The arches were built on self-supporting scaffolding with a ratio of span to rise of 82.2 : 15 = 5.5,
Fig. 5. Each arch scaffolding consists of five trusses with a beam depth of 1.8 m, Fig. 6. The
standard truss sections were mounted using mobile cranes.

The arches were concreted symmetrically from outside to inside using closed formwork in the steep
parts, Fig. 7. At the beginning of the concreting the workers were inside the forms which made
extra safety precautions necessary. It took 24 hours to cast the 1200 m per arch.
The new bridge shown in Fig. 8 constitutes a historically valuable and aesthetically predominant
construction in the flat landscape of the Oder valley. The entire bridge complex was rehabilitated
and newly built for approx 45 million Euro between 1993 and 1997.

3.

Bridge across the Humboldt Harbour in Berlin

The bridge across the Humboldt harbour carries six local and long-distance East-West railway lines
to the new Lehrter station [2]. The unusual combination of steel arches and concrete superstructures
designed by Schlaich, Bergermann und Partner make it possible to have a structure which appears
light and with a low depth of beam is as transparent as possible. For this slender steel pipe piers and
arches with 60 m spans were chosen for the substructure, Figs. 9 and 10.

The four slender concrete superstructures (consistent depth of beam of 1.7 m) are strongly
interspersed with tendons, Fig. 11. The low depth of beam made it necessary to use concrete B 55
and apply limited prestress. The station roof is supported eccentrically on the cantilevers of the two
external superstructures, leading to unusual interaction between the roof loads and the bridge,
Fig. 12.
The geometry of the bridge which is curved in plan as well as the increase from four to six railway
lines imposed special demands on detailed design and construction.

The bridge was assembled from the outside working inwards, Fig. 13.
The steel arches were delivered to the construction site in large sections. The seamless rolled pipes
with a diameter of up to 600 mm and up to 100 mm wall thickness produced arch elements
weighing as much as 86 tonnes which were hoisted in using mobile cranes.
The concrete beams were cast on scaffolding. After the concreting of the two external arch sections
was complete, an erection truss 63 m in length was placed across the central opening; the
scaffolding for the crown area of concrete hung from this truss and was cast in three stages, Fig. 14.
This procedure was repeated for all four adjacent bridges.

The cast steel nodes in the arch supports, Fig. 15, are certainly the heart of the whole bridge. A node
of this type weighs up to 24 tonnes and measures up to 2.60 m. Due to the extremely tight quality
specifications, the production of these cast nodes reached the bounds of what is feasible. Headaches
6

were caused in particular by the requirement that all of the bearings had to be exchangeable
therefore also including the arch bearings with a max. load-bearing capacity of 3,700 tonnes. A
solution was found whereby, during a three-hour closure and relieving of the bearings structure with
jacks, the worn-out parts can be pushed out transversely to the axis of the bridge and then
exchanged.
This was the first time such a steel-cast arch structure had been used for a railway bridge worldwide and required an innovative approach both in sizing and also in construction and testing. The
result is an unusually delicate railway bridge.
4.

Elbe River Bridge at Pirna

A new bridge with a total length of 1072 m has been built across the river Elbe for the western bypass around Pirna. A cellulose factory close to the river bank meant that an overhead clearance of
20 m was required above the Elbe instead of the 7 m usually required for navigation [3a, b, c]. In
1995 a design competition was held between 5 invited consultants. Of the 10 designs submitted our
proposal for a self-anchored, 3 span arch with a main span of 134 m was selected. The flow of
forces is like that of an inverted self-anchored suspension bridge.

The approaches of pre-stressed concrete were built using the incremental launching method. The
main piers on the shores of the Elbe shown in Fig. 19, are stronger than the other piers to
demonstrate their function as the supporting elements of the main span.
The composite beam of the arch has a depth of 2.80 m. The side spans were assembled in sections
on auxiliary piers, the concrete arches on the shore side were built using scaffolding, Fig. 20.

The halves of the arch over the Elbe were erected in free-cantilevering with auxiliary ties, Fig. 21.
The tensile forces opposing the compression forces in the arch were conducted from the auxiliary
ties into the superstructure after connecting the concrete arch, the steel trough and the concrete
roadway slab.
The free cantilevering took place symmetrically from both shores.
The central sections of the superstructures were hoisted in using a floating crane, Fig. 22.

A comparison of Figures 23 and 24 shows that the visualisation comes very close to the appearance
of the real bridge.
It was only possible to select an arch below the roadway because the superstructure is so high above
water. The reason for this, the cellulose factory, had already been demolished by the time the bridge
was opened.
The structure used appropriate materials, concrete for the arch in compression, steel for the
superstructure in tension and bending and concrete for the roadway slab for local load distribution.
A conscious decision was made not to use sandstone cladding for the main piers in order to avoid
using a third material.
The bridge with costs of 34 million Euro was opened in May 1999 after a construction period of
only 2 years.
5.

Harbour Bridge in Riesa

The harbour bridge in Riesa brings us to steel arches above the roadway with the composite beam
as tie, which are frequently used today [4]. The road gradient meant that due to an intersection
immediately after the bridge only a low depth of beam was possible above the required clearance.
For the 77 m span the ratio of 7 was chosen for span to rise, Fig. 25. The arch thrust from
permanent loads is absorbed directly by the external longitudinal steel main girders. The
superimposed loads, traffic and other loads act on the composite cross section.
The following considerations apply to arranging the arches at the outermost location:
Disadvantage:

- wider transverse span

Advantage:

- hangers require no protection against vehicle impact

- hangers do not penetrate the roadway slab

An arch distance of 18.3 m with a rise of only 10.5 m above the roadway produces the visual
impression of a lying rectangle, Fig. 26. Upper bracing would not look good here. Apart from that,
given an overhead clearance of 4.70 m above the roadway there would be a very large area without
any bracing anyway. The arches themselves were therefore made sufficiently rigid against lateral
buckling, Fig. 27.

Fig. 27 Longitudinal view

Fig. 28 Arch pier

In order to keep the abutments slender, the outer arches are supported by their own piers. This
reduces the tunnel effect on the shore area and achieves maximum transparency, Fig. 28.

10

Fig. 29 Hanger connection

Fig. 30 Hanger connection

The beam is supported by 2 x 10 solid hangers made of round bar steel with a max. diameter of 120
mm., Figs. 29 and 30. The connection is made using gusset plates which protrude through the upper
flange as an extension of the web. The shape of the connection plates and the welds were developed
in tests to ensure high fatigue strength. On long arch bridges, for instance on the Tangermnde
bridge which is to follow, the hangers are prepared so that dampers can be subsequently installed in
case hanger oscillations should occur at a later time. Galloping vibrations occurred in some early
arch bridges due to the combination of wind with rain induced rivulets along the hangers. The
standard solution in Germany today is to use fluidity dampers which do not look attractive,
however.

Fig. 32 Finished bridge

Fig. 31 Visualisation

A comparison between the visualisation and the finished bridge again shows a high degree of
similarity, Figs. 31 and 32. A calm, uniform shade of blue was chosen for the paintwork. The
pictures show a fundamental aesthetic principle for arches: the depths of the arch and beam must
differ considerably. Here the bending stiffness lies in the beam with a depth of h = 1.53 m. The

11

slender arch receives almost only compression and scarcely any bending, this means that a low
depth of only 0.6 m in the crown is adequate.
The bridge which cost approx 4.3 million Euro was opened in November 1999 after an 8 month
construction period.
6.

Bridge across the Elbe at Tangermnde

Fig. 33 Layout

Fig. 34 Cross-sectional detail

The Elbe bridge at Tangermnde is 1435 m long between the dikes, [5]. The arch with a main span
of 185 m has a typical composite beam as a tie, Fig. 33. It consists of a girder grid of open plate
girders with external main girders and transverse girders each 3.9 m apart, Fig. 34. The hangers are
connected directly to the main girders. The concrete road slab is 300 mm thick and rigidly
connected only with the transverse girders. The arch and the hangers do not penetrate the roadway
thus avoiding vertical joints which are sensitive to corrosion. The composite slab absorbs approx.
40 % of the superimposed and traffic loads, the crack width is limited to 0.2 mm.

Fig. 35 Longitudinal section

Fig. 36 Longitudinal view

12

The width of the arch is constant at 1.20 m, Figs. 35 and 36. For aesthetic reasons the arches are
inclined at an angle of 10. The erect quadrangle requires transverse bracing. A Vierendeel frame
was chosen which appears more elegant than regular bracing.

Fig. 38 Front support

Fig. 37 Rear support

With the exception of the roadway slab, the arch was completely pre-assembled behind the eastern
abutment and then launched. The shore side end was carried on heavy-duty rollers, Fig. 37, whilst
the river side end was supported by a floating pontoon measuring 62 x 23 m, Fig. 38. The launch
was delayed, first of all because the water level was too low then because it was too high. The
process itself then only took 3 days including lowering onto the final bearings.

Fig. 39 Visualisation

Fig. 40 Finished bridge

The comparison between visualisation and reality again shows a high degree of similarity, Figs. 39
and 40. The piers were shaped as they are for technical reasons on account of the oblique angle at
the intersection (60) of the river Elbe. At the top they are at a right angle to the axis of the bridge,
at the bottom they are round in the direction of the current of the river. It is the shape of the piers in
particular that gives the arch bridge at Tangermnde its significant and unique appearance.

13

In the two Figures 39 and 40 it is possible to see the visual intersections of the hangers which are
vertical. This is because the arches are inclined towards each other. These intersections constitute a
certain aesthetic disadvantage of inclined arches as compared with vertical arches.
The bridge cost approx. 26 million Euro and was completed at the end of the year 2000 after a
construction period of 3 years.
7.

The Inn Bridge at Neubeuern

Fig. 42 New and old bridge

Fig. 41 Finished bridge

The new arch bridge over the river Inn at Neubeuern in the district of Rosenheim, in the German
State of Bavaria, replaces an existing pre-stressed, continuous girder concrete bridge dating from
the year 1950, [6], Fig. 41. Because the two river piers of the existing bridge were subjected to
scouring by the sometimes torrential river Inn, the new arch bridge with a span of 110 m avoids
river piers altogether, Fig. 42.
The structure as a tied arch is comparable to that of the Tangermnde bridge. The assembly
procedure was different, however.

Fig. 43 Before casting at the roadway

Fig. 44 Finished roadway

The steel structure with a total weight of 500 tonnes was pre-assembled on shore and then launched.

14

Since the traffic had to continue to use the old bridge as a temporary measure, the new arch was
initially placed on temporary abutments 20.1 m upstream. The roadway slab was completed in this
position, Figs. 43 and 44.

Fig. 46 Transverse launching

Fig. 45 Lifting

After the traffic was re-routed onto the new bridge, it was possible to demolish the old bridge and
construct the final new abutments on the location of the old bridge.
Finally the finished arch which now weighed 2300 tonnes was hoisted up 2.9 m high (Fig. 45) and
launched transversely about 20.1 m upstream. After the installation of the movement joints had
been completed the traffic was finally rerouted onto the new bridge.

Fig. 48 Finished bridge

Fig. 47 Visualisation

The visualisation bears a close resemblance to reality. In this arch bridge too the bending stiffness
lies in the beam with a depth of beam of 1.8 m. The uniform light shade of green was selected to
blend in with the surrounding countryside and the lower alps in the background.
The bridge was opened in June 2001 after a construction period of 1 years at a cost of 4.3 million
Euro.

15

8.

Bridge across the Britz Canal

Fig. 49 Visualisation of the side view

Fig. 50 Visualisation of the longitudinal view

A tied arch with a main span of 113 m was the most suitable system for crossing the Britz canal by
the Berlin city motorway BAB 113 [7].
Due to the large width necessary for 2 x 3 lanes, the quantity of steel required for the transverse
girders was considerably reduced by using a central support. For aesthetic reasons only one central
arch was selected with the same external dimensions as the outer arches. The roadway slab of each
directional lane can be repaired whilst traffic continues to use the other lane.

Fig. 52 Longitudinal view under construction

Fig. 51 Side view under construction

The bridge beams were assembled using auxiliary piers and the arches were hoisted in section by
section using a mobile crane and temporarily supported on the beams. Figs. 51 and 52 show the
situation on the construction site at the end of 2001.

16

9.

Svinesund Bridge

Fig. 54 Model picture

Fig. 53 Visualisation of the side view

At the beginning of the year 2000 the Swedish ministry of transport held a competition for a group
of consultants for a new bridge across the Svinesund forming the border between Sweden and
Norway.
Our design consists of a 286 m long approach bridge and an arch bridge with a main span of 273 m.
A speciality is that the hangers are not vertical but inclined at a right angle to the arch. Due to the
large main span of the arch which is fixed to the cliff, here the bending stiffness lies in the arch with
a depth of 3.50 m to 5.75 m. The beam is slender with a depth of approx. 2 m, Fig. 53.
The approaches are curved in plan, only the arch section is straight. A model also had to be built in
addition to the visualisations, Fig. 54.

Fig. 55 Visualisation of the longitudinal view

Fig. 56 Visualisation of the lighting

The arch planes are strongly inclined towards each other at an angle of 18. The arches are tapered
in each direction. They are again connected using a Vierendeel system, this time it consists of box
profiles, Fig. 55.
The lighting consists of two components:
The roadway is lit by lamps which are integrated in the central barriers;

17

 The underside of the arches is floodlit by lamps on the edge of the roadway.
Both arches are fully visible for the traveller at night too, Fig. 56.
The bridge was awarded the third prize in the competition.
10.

Pedestrian Bridges

Fig. 57 Degerloch bridge

Fig. 58 Ehingen bridge

The steel arch bridge in Stuttgart-Degerloch (Fig. 57) has a length of 31.50 m. The arch supports
have been strengthened in accordance with the flow of forces and, like the slab which serves as a
tie, made of reinforced concrete. The stairs and elevators which are transparent thanks to the use
of steel and glass guarantee easy access.
The heart of the bicycle and pedestrian bridge with a total length of 94 m across the railway lines of
the German state railway system in Ehingen (Fig. 58) is the 32.90 m long steel arch bridge with a
suspended reinforced concrete slab. The steel pipes have been filled with concrete to provide better
protection against corrosion. Access from the bridge to the railway platform is planned at a later
date.

Fig. 60 Arch bridge in Weil am Rhein

Fig. 59 Lohtor bridge

The Lohtor bridge in Heilbronn (Fig. 59) carries pedestrians over a delicate arch-cable structure
with a main span of 55 m across the river Neckar at Heilbronn. The asymmetrical circular beam is
18

supported only by arch hangers at the inside edge. The design was awarded the second prize in a
competition.
The sickle-shaped arch across the Rhine at Weil am Rhein (Fig. 60) with one vertical and one
inclined arch has an impressive supported span of 230 m. It provides a direct link for both cyclists
and pedestrians between the two town centres of Weil am Rhein in Germany and Heinigen in
France. This design was awarded the first prize in a design competition with Feichtinger Architects,
Paris.
11.

Conclusion

The large number of various possible arch bridge systems makes this type of bridge particularly
adaptable to local conditions. The possible variations include:
concrete, steel or composite material in various combinations
spans of up to around 300 m without any particular problems
true arches or tied arches
single arches or series of arches
arches with two or three cable planes
Arches must always be taken into consideration if only one single span has to be bridged.
Arch bridges are particularly long-lasting structures because on the one hand they are generally
made of robust components and, on the other hand, the number and size of the sliding bearings and
movement joints subject to wear and tear are minimised. For this reason they are sustainable
structures which are easy to maintain.
Bibliography
[1]

Bartsch, Gerd: Autobahnbrcken ber die Oder bei Frankfurt

Vortrge Betontag 1997 [Motorway bridges across the river Oder near Frankfurt an der
Oder, lectures held at the German concrete conference in 1997] pages 127 141

[2]

Seifried, G., Angelmaier, V., Wilhelm, G and Beschorner, K.: Eisenbahnbrcke ber den
Humboldthafen in Berlin [Railway bridge across the Humboldt harbour in Berlin] Stahlbau
1999, pages 511 519

19

[3a]

Eilzer, W., Kobsch, S., Arloth, R. and Jung, R.: Entwurf, Ausschreibung und Vergabe der
neue Elbebrcke Pirna [Design, tendering and award of the new Elbe bridge in Pirna]
Stahlbau 1997, pages 396 411

[3b]

Eilzer, W., Jung, R. and Kobsch, S.: Neubau der Elbebrcke Pirna [Rebuilding the Elbe
bridge at Pirna] Scientific periodical of the Technical University of Dresden, 47 (1998),
issue 5/6

[3c]

Eilzer, W., Wange, G., Kobsch, S. and Jung, R.: Die neue Elbebrcke Pirna [The new Elbe
bridge at Pirna] Stahlbau 1998, pages 552 562

[4]

Eilzer, W., Richter, F., Grosser, P. and Jung, R.: Ersatzneubau der Hafenbrcke Riesa
Entwurf, Ausschreibung und Vergabe [New bridge to replace the harbour bridge at Riesa
Design, tendering and award] Stahlbau 1998, pages 708 717

[5]

Svensson, H., Eilzer, W., Mller, B. and Jung, R.: Entwurf, Ausschreibung und Vergabe der
Elbebrcke Tangermnde [Design, tendering and award of the Elbe bridge at Tangermnde]
Stahlbau 1998, pages 15 27

[6a]

Landratsamt Rosenheim: Innbrcke Neubeuern, eine Technische Umstellung [The Inn

bridge at Neubeuern, a change in technology] Stephanskirchen, 7/2001-12-12

[6b]

Eilzer W. et al.: Neubau der Innbrcke Neubeuern [Construction of the new Inn bridge at
Neubeuern] in preparation

[7]

Svensson, H., Foth, E., Burkhardt, H.-G. and Fischer, M.: Entwurf, Ausschreibung und
Vergabe des Neukllner Autobahndreiecks und der Bogenbrcke ber den Britzer
Verbindungskanal [Design, tendering and award of the motorway intersection at Neuklln
and the arch bridge over the Britz canal] Stahlbau 2000, pages 823 - 832

20