Stone Arch Bridges: A Practical Manual For Local Governments
Stone Arch Bridges: A Practical Manual For Local Governments
This document has been produced in printed from, DVD, and as an online version
of BTC http://intranet.btcctb.org and Practical Action http://practicalaction.org
2013
1
1. Chapter One: Introduction to stone arch bridges
1.1 Background and justification.
Stone arch bridges are amongst the strongest in the world. The technology has stood the test of time.
The Romans built stone arch bridges and aqueducts with lime mortar more than twenty centuries
ago. Arches and vaults were also the determining structural design element of churches and castles
in the Middle Ages (fig 1&2). There are stone arch bridges which have survived for hundreds and even
thousands of years, and are still as strong today as when they were first constructed (see fig. 5).
th
Fig 1: Vaults built in churches 14 century Fig 2: Ancient stone arches street
Santiago de Compostela cathedral, Spain medieval town of San Gimignano, Italy
Picture: courtesy Wikipedia.
The main reason that western countries moved away from stone arch bridges is because of the high
labour costs involved in their construction. In industrialised countries, it is cheaper to use pre-stressed
concrete rather than employ a lot of masons and casual labourers. In the economic environment of
East Africa and the majority of developing countries, with low labour costs and high costs of industrial
building materials, stone arch bridges provide a more affordable and practical option.
Each financial year, districts and lower local governments are faced with funding constraints while
the challenges in the rural transport sector are overwhelming. The limited available road funds are
spent on costly public procurement of a few structures and road repair while most of the grassroots
requests remain without support. Rural roads are often designed with an insufficient number of
culverts due to the high cost of concrete culverts. It causes inadequate drainage and premature
erosion, leading to increased maintenance costs of the road network. On the other hand, due to
budget constraints, timber bridges are constructed with a limited lifespan of 4-10 years and the
need for constant repairs. The adoption of stone arch bridges enables districts and lower local
governments to improve the access to social services and markets of more village communities at
70% lower investment costs. Stone arch bridges offer a low-cost but strong technology that is
appropriate for rural areas in developing countries.
2
Fig 3: Eroded road due to insufficient Fig 4: Timber log bridges have limited span
drainage capacity of the culverts (10 to 12m) and lifespan (4 to 10 years).
While there is quite some variety in arch bridge construction, the basic structure does not change.
They can be architecturally different; but they are structurally the same. The simplest shape of an
arch bridge is a semicircular design with abutments on each end. Its structure distributes
compression through its entire form and diverts weight onto its two abutments. Tensional force in
arch bridges, on the other hand is virtually negligible. Arch bridges do not need additional supports
of reinforced steel. They are particularly suitable for building in stone because each of the elements
in the arch will be under compression (fig 6).
3
Fig 6: Load distribution in a semi-circular arch: the
weight on top of the arch is diverted to the abutments
through the arch. The arch is almost entirely under
compression without any tensile stresses.
Fig 7: New River Gorge Bridge, a steel arch bridge West Virginia, USA
Picture courtesy Wikipedia.
The construction of arch bridges all follow the same basic principle (fig 8), which is simple but
requires some experience and training to ensure strong and long lasting structures. Stone arches
are built over a temporary wooden formwork which holds the masonry in place during construction.
The temporary form is needed since the structure is not stable until the arch is closed. The
paragraph 3.2 gives more details about the different steps of the construction
Fig 8: Basic elements of arch bridge construction. The arch is constructed symmetrically over a temporary
formwork. Note that the arrangement of the stones differs entirely between the arch and the abutment. Stones of
the abutments are placed in a flat and horizontal position while the ones forming the arch follow the radius of the
circle. This arrangement is the key principle for the stability of the bridge.
4
1.3 Advantages & limitations.
When compared to concrete bridges, stone arch bridges offer several advantages.
As regards to the construction cost, concrete bridges require more capital and equipment (poker,
concrete mixers). The cost of additional man-days required for the construction of stone arch
bridges in rural areas is usually much lower than the higher cost of industrial materials and
equipment used in concrete bridges as the table below illustrates.
The weight of the stone arch culverts reduces the risk of floods washing them away. The
interconnecting arch and the heavy weight also prevent the tilting and sliding exerted by the
backfilled soil mass - typical technical challenges related to concrete bridge abutments. Moreover,
stone culverts cannot be stolen and resold, unlike galvanised or concrete pipe culverts.
Compared to bridges made from tree logs, the stone arch bridges are more durable. They do not
need to be re-built every 3 to 5 years. This makes the investment and community effort more
effective, while the safety standard and traffic load capacity increase drastically.
However, concrete bridges will be the right technology choice where labour costs are high and
where large spans are involved. The maximum single span of stone bridges is usually less than 20
meters. For larger single spans, the volume of stone masonry becomes too massive and reinforced
concrete is a better option.
5
SUSTAINABILITY STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
CRITERIA
• No need for expensive equipment • More expensive where labour and local
• Long lifetime stones are expensive.
ECONOMICAL
• Low cost
• Easy to maintain at local level
• Stronger • No traditional skills for arches, requiring
TECHNICAL
• Adjustable to local conditions prior training of masons
SOCIAL/ • Technology manageable at community • New technology requires a change of mind-
POLITICAL/ level. set and the sensitisation of the community
CULTURAL and local governments.
• Use of local materials, reduced use of
ENERGY • Higher energy cost than timber bridges due
industrial materials and dependence on
BALANCE to use of cement but lifespan also 30 times
long distance transportation
longer.
• Limited use of timber as forests are
• borrow pits for stone and sand might affect
under threat.
landscape and accelerate erosion but same
ECOLOGICAL • Maintains the beauty of the landscape as
applies to concrete bridges.
natural stone blends in well with the
environment.
There are some limitations to constructing stone arch bridges. It is important to assess the local
context to make sure a stone arch bridge is the right solution. Where the cost of labour is high or
where large quantities of stones cannot be found in the vicinity, the construction cost of a stone
arch bridge could exceed the one of a concrete bridge. Another challenge is the capacity building of
local craftsmen and contractors. Where no stone masonry tradition exists, masons need to be
trained to master this technology and adhere to technical specifications.
1. Wing wall
2. Head wall
3. Spring
4. Key stone
5. Ring stone
6. Abutment
7. Shoulder
6
1.4 Stone arch bridges: implications of labour-based technology.
Apart from the requirement of crossing a river, job creation is one of the objectives that this kind of
construction can meet perfectly. The beneficiary community can indeed be integrated in the
construction of stone arch bridges. Unemployment is usually high in rural areas of developing
countries. Due to the high labour input required for the construction of stone arch bridges, seasonal
employment can be increased. As the construction is simple, low-skilled labour can be used to
implement the work. Unskilled workers from the villages collect stones and sand, masons build the
bridges, and village carpenters make the simple scaffolding that is needed. It promotes
employment, focusing on people and their skills rather than machines and imported diesel.
Fig. 11: The community can be involved in the construction of a stone arch bridge.
This approach enables also the involvement of the rural communities and district councils during
the planning and execution of road works and results in a greater sense of ownership, self-reliance
and community cooperation. The execution of the works can be delegated to village road
committees. Villages can potentially access donor and government funding for road works through
the matching of local resources. This approach favours the adoption of stone arch bridge
technology by communities and also by local governments. The allocation of road funds based on
effective community contribution is a more just principle than electoral campaign considerations
based on patronage networks.
Involving the community in the construction process is usually also one of the main challenges of
the construction project. Successful bridge construction depends on a committed leadership and
whether the bridge was identified as a top community priority. Without these preconditions, it is
difficult to mobilise the community on a voluntary basis, especially where public procurement
demonstrated a wasteful use of resources in the past.
Next to the “force on account” approach, stone arch bridges can also be tendered through the
public procurement system and contracted to construction firms. Still cost advantages will be
important, as steel and concrete unit costs of conventional bridges are replaced by the much lower
unit costs for stone masonry.