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

2 3,291

2 authors:

Gregor Schacht Steffen Marx

Leibniz Universität Hannover Leibniz Universität Hannover
45 PUBLICATIONS   89 CITATIONS    138 PUBLICATIONS   216 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 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
construction for over 120 years. They are characterised by a
high load-bearing capacity and a moderate rotational capacity.
Concrete hinges are almost maintenance-free and very durable
if designed and built properly. They are perfectly suited to
control the flow of force and to efficiently reduce constraints.
Figure 1 shows the classification of the different types of
concrete hinges that have been used successfully in bridge
engineering.
The first ‘solid’ hinges were developed by Claus Köpcke in
1880 and successfully used in several construction projects
(Köpcke, 1888). These saddle bearings were made of stone,
and their fabrication was difficult, as the contact surfaces had
to be extremely flat and smooth to allow unrestrained
rotation. With the development of reinforced concrete, these
saddle bearings could be made of concrete, and steel
reinforcement was used to absorb the tensile splitting forces
caused by the concentrated loading (von Emperger, 1911).
century, such as using lead sheets to allow plastic deforma-
tions in the hinge (von Leibbrand, 1897) or using steel plates
to improve the contact surfaces (Burkhardt, 1933). Detailed
information on these types of hinges is given in Marx and
Schacht (2010a).
The breakthrough in the development of concrete hinges
was achieved in France by Augustin Mesnager and Eugene
Freyssinet. Inspired by his own research on confined concrete
columns, Mesnager developed a spring hinge (semi-articulation),
which followed the concept of connections of structural steel
members: adjacent concrete members are connected by inter-
secting reinforcement bars, which transmit the forces between
them (Mesnager, 1907), see Section 2.2 below. In 1910,
Freyssinet was able to prove that it is not necessary to place
reinforcement bars in the hinge throat and that all forces can be
transmitted by the concrete alone, provided that the hinge throat
is adequately confined (Freyssinet, 1954). These two types of
hinges will be described in more detail in Section 2.

64
Engineering History and Heritage
Volume 168 Issue EH2
Saddle Lead Freyssinet Mesnager Considère
bearing sheets hinge hinge hinge
Figure 1. Classification of concrete hinges
Another type of hinge was developed by A. Considère. He
invented a spirally reinforced hinge, in which a spiral was used
to confine the concrete in the hinge throat. He used his hinge
for several bridges in the USA (Marx and Schacht, 2010b).
2. Principal types of concrete hinges
2.1 Freyssinet concrete hinges
In his early designs of three-hinged arch bridges, Freyssinet
used iron bearings to reduce constraints, even though this was
contrary to his striving for material efficiency and perfect
aesthetics. He thought that saddle bearings were not the optimal
solution, because they were hard to adjust and the small gaps at
the saddle could easily fill up with dirt, thereby restricting the
rotation of the joint. Therefore, Freyssinet developed a new
hinge concept based on Köpcke’s idea of transmitting the normal
forces through a restricted area. Through intensive studies of
saddle bearings, Freyssinet recognised that the area a–b of the
concrete saddle (see Figure 2) is subjected to high, constant
pressure. During rotation of the joint, this area expands to c–d.
To avoid accumulation of dirt and the need to accurately match
saddle surfaces, Freyssinet placed a cement-rich mortar strip b–
c–f–g between the adjacent concrete members (see Figure 2). In
experimental investigations he verified the high strength required
for the mortar layer. Freyssinet thought that rotation in this type
of hinge would induce cracking in the mortar layer, resulting in
very high stresses at the central point of contact, and that the
crack would propagate through the entire length of the mortar
strip. In his opinion, this would present ideal conditions for
bearing and rolling, similar to saddle bearings. The main
advantage of this hinge would be the bigger gap, which would
prevent dirt from accumulating and the hinge from getting
blocked (Freyssinet, 1954).
Following these theoretical considerations, Freyssinet under-
took experimental investigations to verify his idea. However, in
the experiments the mortar layer remained uncracked even
for joint rotations of 1/300 rad and under different loadings.
Freyssinet was surprised and described his experimental
findings as follows
Concrete hinges in bridge
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
d
–2.5
Figure 2. Concept of Freyssinet hinges and paths of the trajectories
in a Freyssinet hinge
It seemed that the whole area b–c–f–g behaved like a liquid mass in
an inextensible tube, without showing disruption or disorder.
(Toute la zone autour de b–c–f–g paraı̂t se comporter comme une
masse liquide contenue dans une envelope inextensible sans
présenter jamais ni solution de continuité ni désordre quelconque.
(Freyssinet, 1923)).
In his design, Freyssinet restricted the rotation indirectly by
limiting the eccentricity of the normal force to 1/6, which ensures
that the hinge throat remains uncracked for a linear-elastic stress
distribution. Freyssinet designed concrete hinges with maximum
average hinge throat stresses of up to 25 N/mm2, knowing that
they could easily withstand stresses of up to 100 N/mm2 with
sufficiently dimensioned transverse reinforcement. Freyssinet
used this mean value as a standard value without giving
information about the necessary concrete quality. To ensure the
multiaxial state of stress in the hinge throat, Freyssinet restricted
the height of the hinge throat to 1 to 2 cm. Under these
conditions there is no need for any reinforcement to cross the
hinge throat (Freyssinet, 1923).
Guyon gave the following general design recommendations for
Freyssinet hinges based on his practical experiences. The throat
width should be one-third to one-quarter of the width of the
adjacent member and the throat height should be less than
2 cm. Even though not strictly necessary, the hinge throat
should be reinforced vertically with 12 mm dia. bars at a
distance of 30 cm from each other. According to Guyon, the
hinges are capable of enormous rotations of up to 1/100 rad.
The average stress in the hinge throat should be limited to
35 MPa and the adjacent members should be carefully re-
inforced to resist the tensile splitting forces. Guyon concludes
that it is not necessary ‘to determine what really happens’ in the
hinge throat, because ‘the stress distribution is so completely
65
Engineering History and Heritage
Volume 168 Issue EH2
altered by plasticity under the very high pressures reached in the
compressed side’, and that general design recommendations are
sufficient for adequate design of the hinges (Guyon, 1957). Since
1964 the design of Freyssinet hinges has been regulated by a
French standard, which states that for the ultimate limit state
the average stress in the hinge throat should be restricted to three
times the characteristic compressive strength of the concrete,
and rotations should be limited to 1/20 for the serviceability limit
state (Règles BAEL, 2000).
The first experimental investigations of unreinforced concrete
hinges were carried out by Riessauw and Passelecq at the
University of Gent in the 1940s. They confirmed the multiaxial
state of stress in the hinge throat and concluded that it is almost
impossible for failure to occur in the throat. In their experiments
failure always occurred in the adjacent members, because the
tensile reinforcement was not strong enough to resist the tensile
splitting forces (Riessauw and Passelecq, 1948).
Extensive research on the topic was carried out by G. D. Base
in the 1950s and 1960s. He investigated the load-bearing
behaviour of Freyssinet hinges without any or with little
reinforcement in the throat under various loading combina-
tions of normal force, rotation and shear force. The experi-
mental results showed that the safety margins for the design
load and the design rotation were sufficiently large and that
even fatigue loading did not cause any deterioration in the
hinges. The shear capacities of the hinges were large even for
very large rotations. The presence of throat reinforcement did
not increase the shear resistance but resulted in slightly more
ductile failure. Excessive reinforcement in the throat caused
shrinkage cracks in the hinge throat before testing and should
therefore be avoided. Base also proved that a multiaxial state
of pressure stresses exists in the hinge throat (see Figure 2)
(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
a reduction of the stresses of up to 50%. Based on these
experimental results, Sims and Bridle developed empirical rules
for the design of Freyssinet hinges, which were used for the
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
design and use of Freyssinet hinges in bridge engineering that is
still in use today (BE 5/75, see Highways Agency (1975)).
In Germany, Dix (1962) and Leonhardt and Reimann (1965)
experimentally investigated the load-bearing behaviour of
Freyssinet hinges. Their experiments aimed to determine the
design stress in the hinge throat and the maximum allowable
rotation. They found that the hinges were capable of resisting
high stresses in the hinge throats if the tensile splitting
reinforcement was designed correctly. To determine the allowable
66
Concrete hinges in bridge
engineering
Schacht and Marx
rotation, Leonhardt developed a simple model assuming a linear
stress distribution in the hinge throat, which showed good
agreement with the experimental results. Leonhardt finally
formulated rules for the design and construction of Freyssinet
hinges. These rules were simplified by Mönnig and Netzel (1969)
and transferred to current Eurocode standards by Marx and
Schacht (2010a). These rules are currently used for the design
of Freyssinet concrete hinges in Germany as well as other
countries.
2.2 Mesnager concrete hinges
The spring hinge designed by Mesnager is a typical example
of the transfer of common construction principles to a new
construction method. In 1907, Augustin Mesnager applied his
hinge concept, which he had originally developed for steel
structures, to reinforced concrete. In 1896 he published a report
about his new construction method for the member connections
of riveted frameworks. The forces from the connecting members
all intersect at one point, and the connection also allows a certain
degree of rotation (Figure 3(a)). Mesnager suggested using this
principle in reinforced concrete construction, but it was 10 years
later when he finally put his idea into practice (Mesnager, 1896).
Because of their rotational restraint, Mesnager’s spring hinges
are also called imperfect hinges or semi-articulation (Schacht
et al., 2013).
At the beginning of the twentieth century it became necessary
to span the Canal Saint Martin in Paris. Mesnager and the
engineer Simon Boussiron designed an arched bridge construc-
tion with a span length of 28 m. Because of the poor quality of
the existing subsoil and the need to keep the channel navigable,
a statically determined three-hinged arch with Mesnager hinges
at the crown and the base of the arch was chosen. Prototypes
Concept of Mesnager hinges: Failure of Mesnager hinges:
Using the flexibility of the reinforcing Concrete spalling and buckling of
bars to create a spring hinge the bars crossing the hinge throat
C
0 B
A
B′
D′
D
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Concept of Mesnager hinges (Mesnager, 1896) and
failure of the hinges (Kluge, 1940)
Engineering History and Heritage
Volume 168 Issue EH2
were built and tested to investigate their load-bearing and
deformation behaviours. In the design, Mesnager considered
only the reinforcement bars to contribute to the load transfer;
the concrete was merely used as corrosion protection and to
protect the bars from buckling (Mesnager, 1910). As a result,
the throat height of Mesnager hinges is quite large. From the
results of his experiments Mesnager concluded that strong
confinement of the adjacent members is essential and that the
anchorage length of the crossing reinforcement bars should be
at least 45 times the bar diameter.
First experimental investigations of Mesnager hinges were
carried out in 1935 by Parsons and Stang in the USA. Their
investigation focused on the influence of the concrete in the
hinge throat on the load-bearing behaviour. In the hinges
without concrete in the throat, failure occurred by buckling of
the crossing reinforcing bars, whereas failure in the hinges with
concrete in the throat occurred by tensile splitting in the
adjacent members. The concrete in the hinge throat increased
the bending stiffness of the hinges significantly. Based on their
experimental results, Parsons and Stang (1935) derived simple
design rules only for Mesnager hinges without concrete in the
hinge throat. Moreell developed diagrams for the optimum
crossing angle of the bars for different loading conditions
(Moreell, 1935).
Ernst verified the results of the previous experimental investiga-
tions by performing 62 additional experiments (Ernst, 1937). His
results showed good agreement with those given by Parsons and
Stang (1935). Ernst also showed that the hinges have sufficient
capacity for high shear-to-normal force ratios up to V/N 5 1
(a)
Figure 4. (a) Tensile splitting failure (Sallenbach, 1967); (b) large
rotations without failure (Fessler, 1967)
Concrete hinges in bridge
engineering
Schacht and Marx
and that the optimum crossing angle is between 30˚ and 45 ˚.
Kluge investigated Mesnager hinges for use in girder bridges.
His experiments showed that hinges with concrete in the hinge
throat were able to carry twice as much load as hinges without
concrete in the hinge throat (Kluge, 1940).
In the 1930s, Jesinghaus presented a first overview of the
different options for arranging the hinge throat reinforcement
(Jesinghaus and Bieligk, 1930). In his experiments he reduced
the height of the hinge throat significantly and demonstrated
the importance of strong confinement of the adjacent
members. In the 1950s Jeske and Kammüller investigated the
cyclic behaviour of these hinges. The hinges were shown to be
capable of carrying extreme loads and rotations. Kammüller
and Jeske (1957) developed a simple design equation for the
hinges, which includes a factor of safety of 3?29 with respect to
the experimental failure loads. They recommend an inclination
of the reinforcement bars of 2:1 to prevent buckling of the bars.
In the course of the construction of the Hardturm viaduct in
Zurich, Switzerland, scale Mesnager hinges were investigated
at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and
Technology (EMPA) with respect to their dynamic behaviour.
The first two hinges were subjected to 24 and 37 million load
cycles, respectively, with rotations of ¡10% and ¡24%,
respectively, and subjected to the maximum possible rotation
without causing failure (see Figure 4). The third hinge failed at
a load 3?5 times the design load by tensile splitting in the
adjacent members. The dynamic loading had no influence on
the condition or the bearing behaviour of the hinges (Fessler,
1967).
(b)
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)
The first prestressed concrete bridge with concrete hinges, the
Pont de Luzancy, was designed by Freyssinet. During World
War II Freyssinet revised his previous design and developed a
slim bridge construction with a height of 1?22 m and a span
length of 54 m. The I-beams were prefabricated as segments
to reduce the amount of on-site manufacturing, and subse-
quently prestressed. The concrete hinges were placed at the
abutments (see Figure 5). Some years later, the successful
concept of the Luzancy Bridge was slightly revised and used
In the early 1950s Freyssinet designed three identical double-
hinged arch bridges in Venezuela (see Figure 6). The first of the
three arches spans over 152 m and is positioned 70 m above
the bottom of the valley it crosses. Because of the poor subsoil
conditions, the arches were constructed using prefabricated
unreinforced concrete hinges (Prade, 1990).
3.1.3 Tancarville (France)
The use of a concrete hinge for the 1420 m long suspension
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
Volume 168 Issue EH2
Freyssinet
Concrete
(a)
Figure 7. Pont de Tancarville (photograph: P. Giraud,
www.wikimedia.de)
block on the left-hand side of the river Seine is supported
by a concrete hinge to absorb the tensile forces in the cables
(Figure 7). To ensure permanent compression of the hinge
throat, the concrete hinge was prestressed (Tourasse, 1961).
3.1.4 Pont du Bonhomme (France)
The struts of the 283 m long frame bridge are supported by
Freyssinet concrete hinges. To centre the resulting force of the
struts and to minimise the ratio of shear force to normal force
the hinges are prestressed using six prestressing tendons and a
prestressing force of 2800 t. The total normal force in the
hinge is 3200 t and the shear force is 400 t, so that the ratio of
shear force to normal force is only 0?13 (Prade, 1990) (see
Figure 8).
(a)
Figure 8. (a) Pont du Bonhomme and (b) detail of the hinge
(photographs: J. Mossot, www.structurae.fr)
Concrete hinges in bridge
engineering
Schacht and Marx
Hinge
44.23 m
(b)
3.1.5 Maintal Bridge (Germany)
The Maintal Bridge (Figure 9) was the first German railway
bridge built with Freyssinet concrete hinges. The hinges are
designed without any reinforcement crossing the hinge throat
at the feet of the triangle piers. The high normal forces of
121 MN result in an average stress in the hinge throat of
47 MN/m2. To reduce the impact of the shear force the hinges
were installed at an angle (Leonhardt, 1986).
3.1.6 Wentbridge viaduct (Great Britain)
Freyssinet concrete hinges were first used in Great Britain for
the Wentbridge viaduct (Figure 10) as part of the Aston–
Sheffield–Leeds section of M1 motorway. The hinges were
placed at the bottom end of the raking legs and carry loads of
(b)
69
Engineering History and Heritage
Volume 168 Issue EH2
Figure 9. Maintal Bridge Gemünden (www.wikipedia.de)
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
capacity of the hinges, several more bridges on this section of
the motorway were constructed using concrete hinges (Sims
and Bridle, 1964).
3.2 Mesnager concrete hinges
3.2.1 Pont Neuf du Montauban (France)
In 1912, a new arch bridge with three arches was to be built
over the river Tarn in Montauban designed by Simone
Boussiron (see Figure 11). Because the flood runoff from the
river Tarn was required to be able to continue unobstructed,
the arches could not be backfilled. The abutment hinges were
placed closer to the centre of the arch to reduce the arch span
length. All hinges were constructed as Mesnager hinges with
crossed steel bars in the hinge throat, which were designed to
carry the entire load. The concrete in the hinge throat was used
for corrosion protection only (Rabut, 1916).
3.2.2 Salginatobel Bridge (Switzerland)
In the late 1920s Robert Maillart discovered that using
concrete hinges could save material in the construction of
arched bridges and used them for several of his bridges.
Maillart used concrete hinges for the first time in 1929 in the
construction of the Salginatobel Bridge (see Figure 12). In his
design Maillart initially took into account the contribution of
the concrete in the hinge throat to the load transfer. However,
because of the recommendations by Roš, he decided to neglect
the contribution of the concrete and to increase the amount of
steel reinforcement in the hinge throat. His static calculations
show that Maillart knew about the contribution of the concrete
to the load transfer and that high stresses can be carried in the
hinge throat due to the multiaxial state of stress (Kessler,
1996). This was probably the first time that the concepts of
70
Concrete hinges in bridge
engineering
Schacht and Marx
Figure 10. Wentbridge viaduct (photograph: The Happy Pontist)
both Freyssinet hinges and Mesnager hinges were mixed.
Owing to positive experiences with this kind of hinge, Maillart
used it in many of his later bridges. To this day, none of the
hinges shows any signs of distress.
4. Recommendations for the design and
construction of concrete hinges
4.1 Freyssinet concrete hinges
Freyssinet concrete hinges have been used in many different
bridge types with different loading combinations and boundary
conditions. The aim of one research project was therefore to
analyse the range of applications of this type of hinge (Marx
and Schacht, 2010b). Most of these hinges in bridges are
designed as line supports, but point supports have also been
used. Figure 13 gives an overview of the different static systems
and the associated span lengths that have been realised.
Freyssinet concrete hinges were first used in arched bridges,
where they minimise the eccentricity of the normal forces and
thus lead to a reduction in bending stress. This principle could
easily be transferred to flat frames or strut frame bridges,
where Freyssinet hinges are also often used. Other typical
applications are single-span bridges, where the superstructure
is supported by concrete hinges. The main advantages of the
hinges are that they are easy to construct and maintain.
Concrete hinges are often used for the connections of long
piers of continuous girder bridges to reduce bending stresses.
The constriction of the cross-section over a small distance
results in a multiaxial state of compressive stress in the hinge
throat, which enables the Freyssinet concrete hinge to carry
very large normal forces. The rotation of the hinge can cause a
crack to develop in the hinge throat. The remaining uncracked
Engineering History and Heritage
Volume 168 Issue EH2
(a)
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
crack reaches the middle of the throat (Leonhardt and Reimann,
1965). The design rules in different countries prescribe different
allowable normal forces and rotations in dependency of the
throat width or the constriction ratio (Marx and Schacht,
2010a). The load-bearing capacity strongly depends on the
tensile splitting reinforcement. Reinforcement in the throat is
generally not necessary. Even for impact loading, it is sufficient
to provide small-diameter reinforcement bars at a distance of
30 cm from each other, as suggested by Guyon (1957). Excessive
amounts of reinforcement disturb the state of stress in the hinge
and can lead to shrinkage cracks, as shown by Base (1962).
Unreinforced concrete hinges are able to withstand smaller
shear forces, depending on the ratio of normal-to-shear force.
Experiments conducted by Base showed that even with ratios of
(a)
Figure 12. Salginatobel Bridge (photographs: Claudia Schlenger,
Kai Scheider)
Concrete hinges in bridge
engineering
Schacht and Marx
(b)
shear force (V) to normal force (N) of 1, failure of the hinge
did not occur; however, it is suggested that for the design of
hinges the ratio should be limited to a maximum of V/N 5
0?25. In cases of larger shear forces, additional pre-
tensioning across the hinge throat to increase the normal
force or a change in the inclination of the hinge can reduce
the V/N ratio. If pre-tensioning or changing the inclination
of the hinge is not possible and the shear forces are larger
than 0?125N, the hinges can be reinforced vertically with
small-diameter bars across the hinge throat.
Figure 14 shows a summary of tested and constructed
Freyssinet concrete hinges. The load and rotation at failure
are given for all tested hinges, and the design normal force and
maximum rotation are shown for constructed hinges.
(b)
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
Traditional Mesnager concrete hinges are characterised by a
relatively large throat height. Mesnager did not consider the
concrete in the throat to contribute to the load transfer and
dimensioned the reinforcement bars to carry the entire load. A
modification of this kind of hinge was developed by Robert
Maillart, who combined the principle of the Freyssinet hinges,
the multiaxial state of compressive stresses in the hinge throat,
with Mesnager’s idea of crossed bars. His hinges in the
Salginatobel Bridge have small throat heights, causing the
331 MN – Tancarville
120
concrete to contribute to the load transfer, while the crossed
bars are mainly used to carry the large shear force. This kind of
hinge could therefore be used in situations with V/N ratios
larger than 0?25 to ensure adequate shear capacity even under
severe impact loading. A concrete hinge should be reinforced
with crossed reinforcement bars under the following conditions
& at high shear loads (design of the reinforcement bars to
carry the full shear load and neglecting the concrete,
inclination of the crossed bars ,30 ˚)
& in case of danger of impact shear loading, catastrophic
accidental situations and sudden system failure
& for extreme rotations.

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
Volume 168 Issue EH2
Existing concrete hinges can be assessed by applying the rules
used for the design of new hinges, as given in BE 5/1975
(Highways Agency, 1975), Règles BAEL (2000) or Schacht and
Marx (2010). The hinge throat and the adjacent members should
be checked for cracks or other signs of distress. In most existing
bridges the hinges are uncracked and in good condition.
REFERENCES
Base GD (1959) Some Tests on a Particular Design of Reinforced
Concrete Structural Hinge. Cement and Concrete
Association, Slough, UK, Technical Report TRA 325.
Base GD (1962) Tests on Reinforced Concrete Hinge with a
Large Design Rotation. Cement and Concrete Association,
Slough, UK, Technical Report TRA 359.
Base GD (1965) Tests on Four Prototype Reinforced Concrete
Hinges. Cement and Concrete Association, Slough, UK,
Research Report No. 17.
Burkhardt E (1933) Betongelenke mit gepanzerter Walzfläche.
Bautechnik 11(48): 651–658. (in German)
Dix J (1962) Betongelenke unter oftmals wiederholter Druck- und
Biegebeanspruchung. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin,
Germany, Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Ausschuss für
Stahlbeton Heft 150. (in German)
Ernst GC (1937) Tests of reinforced concrete hinges of the
Mesnager type. Highway Research Board Proceedings 17:
187–201.
Fessler EO (1967) Die EMPA-Versuche an armierten
Betongelenken für den Hardturm-Viadukt. Schweizerische
Bauzeitung 85(34): 623–630. (in German)
Freyssinet E (1923) Le pont de Candelier. Annales des Ponts et
Chaussées 1. Sem., p. 165f. (in French)
Freyssinet E (1954) Naissance du béton précontraint et vues
d’avenir. Travaux, June: 463–474. (in French)
Guyon Y (1957) Long-span prestressed concrete bridges
constructed by the Freyssinet system. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers 7(1): 110–168.
Highways Agency (1975) BE 5/75 Technical Memorandum
(Bridges) – Rules for the Design and Use of Freyssinet
Concrete Hinges in Highway Structures. The Highways
Agency, Birmingham, UK.
Jesinghaus A and Bieligk O (1930) Ausbildung
unvollkommener Betongelenke. Zement 19(36-37): 850–
855, 873–879. (in German)
Kammüller K and Jeske O (1957) Federgelenke. Wilhelm Ernst &
Sohn, Berlin, Germany, Schriftenreihe des Deutschen
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton Heft 125. (in German)
Kessler A (1996) Vom Holzsteg zum Weltmonument. AG
Buchdruckerei Schiers, Schiers, Switzerland.
Kluge RW (1940) An investigation of rigid frame bridges – Part
III: Tests of structural hinges of reinforced concrete.
University of Illinois Bulletin XXXVII(29): 36.
Köpcke C (1888) Über die Verwendung von drei Gelenken in
Concrete hinges in bridge
engineering
Schacht and Marx
Steingewölben. Zeitschrift des Architekten- und Ingenieur
Vereins zu Hannover S: 374–380. (in German)
Leonhardt F (1986) Maintalbrücke Gemünden –
Eisenbahnbrücke aus Spannbeton mit 135 m Spannweite.
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 81(6): 1–8. (in German)
Leonhardt F and Reimann H (1965) Betongelenke. Wilhelm Ernst
& Sohn, Berlin, Germany, Schriftenreihe des Deutschen
Ausschuss für Stahlbeton Heft 175. (in German)
Marx S and Schacht G (2010a) Gelenke im Massivbau.
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 105(1): 27–35. (in German)
Marx S and Schacht G (2010b) Concrete hinges – historical
development and contemporary use. Proceedings of
the 3rd International fib-Congress, Washington DC,
paper 89.
Mesnager A (1896) Disposition d’assemblage. Annales des
Ponts et Chaussées 750–783. (in French)
Mesnager A (1907) Experiences sur une semi-articulation pour
routes en Béton armé. Annales des Ponts et Chaussées II:
180–200.
Mesnager A (1910) Couverture d’une partie du canal St.
Martin, à Paris, par une voute en béton armé. Le Génie
Civil 30(July–August): 241–246, 259–264. (in French)
Mönnig E and Netzel D (1969) Zur Bemessung von
Betongelenken. Bauingenieur 44(12): 433–439. (in
German)
Moreell B (1935) Articulations for concrete structures – the
Mesnager hinge. Journal of the American Concrete Institute
– Proceedings 32(March–April): 368–381.
Parsons DE and Stang AH (1935) Test of Mesnager hinges.
Journal of the American Concrete Institute – Proceedings
32(January–February): 304–325.
Prade M (1990) Les Grands Ponts du Monde – Hors d’Europe.
Brissaud, Poitiers, France, pp.185–186. (in French)
Rabut C (1916) Les Ponts de Montauban. Le Génie Civil
36(January): 65–69. (in French)
Règles BAEL (2000) Règles BAEL 91, Modifiées 99 : Règles
Techniques de Conception et de Calcul des Ouvrages et
Constructions en Béton Armé Suivant la Méthode des Etats
Limites, 3rd edn. Eyrolles, Paris, France. (in French)
Riessauw FG and Passelecq DA (1948) Essais sur les articulations
en béton armé. Annales des Travaux Public de Belgique,
Bruxelles 54–79, 231–268. (in French)
Sallenbach HH (1967) Betongelenke beim Hardturm-Viadukt.
Schweizerische Bauzeitung 85(33): 615–619. (in German)
Schacht G and Marx S (2010) Unbewehrte Betongelenke – 100
Jahre Erfahrung im Brückenbau. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau
105: 599–607. (in German)
Schacht G, Hoffmann N and Marx S (2013) Federgelenke.
Stahlbau 82(12): 903–910. (in German)
Sims FA and Bridle RJ (1964) The design of concrete hinges.
Concrete and Constructional Engineering August:
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 journals@ice.org.uk. 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