The Consolidation
Of An 18th Century Masonry Arch Bridge On The Old Military
Road At Corgarff, Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK.
John D. Addison, Peter Stephen & Partners, 15 Annandale
Street, Edinburgh and Daniela Dobrescu-Parr, The Morrison Partnership,
242 Queensferry Road, Edinburgh
ABSTRACT
Conservation Engineering embraces knowledge of materials
and engineering sciences, philosophy, art and archaeology. In projects
involving the care of ancient and historic structures thinking about
all these things must progress in parallel, producing a very demanding
brief, which must be responded to with determination, courage, experience
and sensitivity.
Many old structures, on initial inspection, appear to
be beyond rescue and are subsequently demolished as the result of a
lack of awareness about what can be done to seek to achieve stability
so ensuring their survival.
An unusual conservation project to consolidate three ruinous
military bridges dating from 1753 has illustrated how conservation engineering
works and shows how even the most impossible looking tasks can be made
to succeed.
The project involved jacking and correcting the alignment
of a seriously distorted masonry arch before carrying out repairs to
it in such a way as to leave the long-abandoned structure more or less
as it would have been before its watercourse carried away most of one
abutment.
Along the path of this project some interesting structural
characteristics such as exceptional torsional strength and an unexpected
degree of elastic behaviour during recovery were encountered. These
should be of interest to all those involved in repairing and restoring
masonry structures of all kinds and are worthy of further investigation
and research. The most important message, however, is that old distorted
masonry can often be pushed back into a stable geometry.

INTRODUCTION
Delavine, Tornahaish and Allt Damh are small masonry arch
bridges built by General George Wade’s successor in Scotland, Major
General Edward Caulfield in 1753 after ‘Bonnie’ Prince Charlie’s military
campaign against the Hanoverian Crown halted at Derby and finally ended
in defeat and massacre of his troops in a battle at Culloden Moor, near
Inverness, in 1746. The bridges are three of the many masonry structures
which were built along the vast network of military roads covering the
Scottish Highlands in order to make it accessible for military control
and trade purposes.
These three bridges are situated along part of the
military road (Braemar to Grantown upon Spey) now an Estate track, which
was not absorbed into the public roads system and lay neglected for
many years. One had collapsed over three quarters
of its width, another had lost three quarters
of one abutment
and had partially collapsed, and another remained in good condition
but in need of consolidation.
Each bridge was researched, surveyed and assessed in terms
of structural conservation (they are Scheduled Monuments) and proposals
for their preservation, as consolidated and stable ruins, were approved
by Historic Scotland’s Ancient Monuments Branch.
This paper covers the engineering challenges presented
by the condition of the structure of Delavine Bridge.
Work commenced in 1997 after a worryingly prolonged period
of shoring and emergency works to prevent collapse of the most seriously
threatened structure at Delavine.
The work to all three bridges was completed in October
2000 after three summers of working in Highland terrain and weather
conditions. It was funded by: Historic Scotland, The Heritage Lottery
Fund, Historic Scotland, European Regional Development Fund, Leader
II, Aberdeenshire Council, Gordon Enterprise Trust and Landfill Funds
donated by a local company, McIntosh (Aberdeen) Ltd. The project cost
was £250,000.00, which was initiated and organised by the Client, Gordon
Enterprise Trust, Inverurie, Aberdeenshire. The Trust has the three
bridges in care, having leased them from Candacraig Estate for 99 years.
DELAVINE BRIDGE – APPROACH TO ITS CONSERVATION
A fundamental principle in conservation is to ‘conserve
as found’. This leads to a careful approach to ancient monuments. ’Minimal
intervention’ attempts to retain authenticity, use sympathetic materials,
preserve important original fabric and apply least visual intrusion.
Whether the structure is a ruinous medieval castle, monastery, or bridge
such an approach will freeze it in time provided that there is not such
a threat to overall stability that it demands new structural works alongside
it.
| The above stated principle had, in this case an environmental
relevance. The environmental impact assessment on the bridge sites
- indicated. for example, that the lime rich mortar in these structures,
in a large area of mainly acid soils, acquired lime loving plants.
Additionally where mortar had leached out between the slab like
stones of the bridge, especially underneath it, deep cracks had
developed, and these had become a bat roost that had to be protected
during the work. (insert Drennan Watson) |
The bridge at Delavine seemed at first to be beyond any
hope of recovery with three quarters of an abutment washed away due
to the meanderings of a watercourse. It was distorted and twisted to
a frightening degree. At the same time, however, it displayed a dignified
and stubborn resistance to the large overturning moments growing about
its ever-changing thrust line brought about by progressive decay and
collapse.
Initially, therefore, it seemed that the conservation-led
policy of minimal intervention could not be applied to this structure.
For this lonely marker of history to remain it seemed that it would
have to be completely re-constructed. From economic and philosophical
points of view, however, such re-construction would be completely out
of the question. Alternatively, any re-building of the missing parts
would only produce a bizarre looking bridge, albeit stable.
After much deliberation, therefore, it was decided that
first of all the distortion should be almost fully eliminated by jacking
the surviving structure back to the position it occupied in 1753. New
stone foundations would then be built to replace those eroded away and
the missing part of the arch would be built-up in natural stone sympathetic
to the original. This became the ‘Design Brief’ after agreeing the approach,
technically and philosophically, with Historic Scotland and the Client.
Minimal intervention policy could, therefore, still be
respected by avoiding taking down any part of the arch to correct its
misalignment. Once the jacking was completed, normal conservation processes
could be applied in the usual way, carefully matching all new stones
and mortars, retaining as much as possible of the original, yet not
confusing old and new from the perspective of future archaeology.
DELAVINE BRIDGE – CONSTRUCTION
The Delavine Bridge spans some 10 metres over a small
watercourse. It is roughly 4.6 metres wide with a rise to the crown
of the arch of approximately 3 metres. It had small parapets and a cobbled
roadway.
The voussoirs are of large flat fragments of schist, which
has a slate-like bedding; the thickness of the arch is about 800 mm.
Lime mortar was used throughout the construction leaving
an imprint of the original timber formwork beneath most of the arch
except where it had been leaching out as stalactites.
The spandrel walls and parapets were constructed using
‘field gatherings’, i.e. stones found locally.
The foundation strata is compact glacial gravels and sands.
DELAVINE BRIDGE – STRUCTURAL CONDITION
A first inspection was made in 1996. The structure appeared
to be on the point of collapse. It seemed almost ready to overturn although
there was no way that its factor of safety could be calculated or even
guessed at. About three quarters of the west abutment had been washed
away over the north side of the bridge. Half of the north side of the
arch had collapsed leaving it supported almost on a ‘chisel’ point on
the west abutment. This is illustrated on the section and plan below.

The structure was twisted in a grotesque manner and rotating
towards the missing part of the arch due to the large overhanging mass
of masonry left on the north side of the ‘new’ arch centreline. There
were significant cracks in the soffit and in the voissours due to the
torsional moments being induced.
Altogether, about 200 tonnes of monument were about to
collapse into the streambed. It was therefore decided to mount an initial
rescue operation. This involved the installation of some underpinning
using bagged lime concrete and several 300 mm diameter timber struts
orientated to give lateral stability and to create an additional line
of thrust through the bridge into temporary foundations.
Apart from the gross distortions and the ‘bite’ taken
out of the arch, the condition of the rest of the masonry was surprisingly
good given its long exposure to extreme weather conditions. There was
slight bulging of the spandrel walls and parapets, and in some areas
a leaching out of original mortars.
click on thumb for larger image
The compressive stress in the masonry at the narrowest
part of the arch was calculated to be around 0.6 – 0.8 N/ mm². Viewed
from the south, the structure looked whole, elegant and robust with
only some cracking visible but from the north-west the impression was
of a structure disastrously beyond recovery!
DELAVINE BRIDGE – IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROACH
To ensure that the structure did not break into large
pieces during the lifting procedure, a strong steel and fully timbered
soffit formwork support was built. This also included a layer, or ‘cushion’,
of dense fine sand and a soft membrane to minimise cracking and loss
of the original board mark finish by reducing frictional ‘drag’ effects
as the masonry moved across the formwork. The soffit support comprised
200 mm x 200 mm baulks of timber supported by a pair of steel trusses
designed by the Engineer. The trusses were braced together and seated
on spreader beams placed on timber mats on consolidated hardcore placed
under each end of the bridge.
click on thumb for larger image
As it was necessary to rotate the bridge and its failed
west abutment at the same time, the arch steelwork was extended with
a nosing under the narrowest part of the arch. This was strengthened
by the addition of steel ropes to take any outward spread of the stones
as the weight was transferred to the formwork.
Finally, a hydraulic jack was positioned under the north
side of the west line of support together with a series of steel props
for lateral restraint to the sound parts of the arch.
Under the direction of the Engineer one end of the arch
was lifted and rotated in a carefully monitored operation, which lasted
one whole day. Lines and levels were recorded at regular intervals.
Once the leveling was completed the missing part of the
arch was built on the formwork using techniques very similar to those
used in the original work. The new mortars were matched after laboratory
analysis of samples of the original.
Repairs were after carried out to the parapets and cobbled
surface of the roadway. The watercourse was re-aligned to prevent scour
of the foundations; drainage around the bridge was also introduced.
DISCOVERIES DURING THE JACKING OPERATIONS
It was anticipated that some large cracks might open up
the arch during the lifting process given that the structure had to
be twisted as well as lifted to gain an acceptable re-alignment.
Those experienced in dealing with many types of old stonemasonry
constructed in lime mortar have learned that it has a significant amount
of ‘forgiveness’ to all sorts of stimuli including settlements, and
lateral movement. Stability is often maintained through all sorts of
grotesque distortions albeit at the expense of open joints, consequent
loss of mortar and loosening of individual stones in the matrix. Notwithstanding
this, its inherent ability to absorb massive movements has allowed many
a ruin to survive. It was hoped, therefore, that some of this ability
of the masonry to flow back ‘ elastically’ would occur here thus minimising
the amount of work to repair the arch.
This in fact turned out to be the case. Little damage
actually occurred and the arch was reinstated without major follow-up
work.
Although the operation went relatively smoothly and generally
as predicted by the Engineer, it was punctuated by the sound of some
stones grinding and moving relative to their neighbours. After 250 years
of history it was on the move again! An occasional sound was heard reflecting
the re-aligning of steel and timber as it squared up the structure.
The jacking was carried out using standard hydraulic hand-pumped equipment
with the support being transferred on to steel packs after each lift
so the operation was not continuous.
Towards the end of the sequence, as the structure neared
its final planned position, there was a sudden, almost explosive release
of upward and lateral movement which bent the lateral restraint props
on the south side (the ‘good’ side) of the bridge and lifted the masonry
off the formwork by about 50 mm. After a cautious examination of the
structure, including a check for any settlement of the steelwork, it
was concluded that the original masonry had decided to restore itself
to its original alignment without further effort on the part of the
jacking team! The stored strain energy to achieve this must have been
considerable.
Removal of the off-centre loading on the intact part of
the bridge had thus rejuvenated the structure. It also demonstrated
the stiffness of the foundations at both ends.
click on thumb for larger image
COMMENT ON CONTRACTUAL ISSUES
The project, although complex and unpredictable in many
areas, was completed within the budget and to the approval of Historic
Scotland’s Ancient Monuments Branch.
The site was remote with difficult terrain and conditions
of access. This included the construction of a ‘bothy’, a ford and making
improvements to the existing track. Much of the budget was spent on
overcoming logistical problems relative to delivering labour, materials
and welfare facilities. A ‘time and materials’ approach was applied
to all the contracts the success of which relied on the dedication,
trust and goodwill of all involved in this small but challenging project.
CONCLUSIONS
Many masonry bridges from the military roads building
period in Scotland are imperilled. These still in regular public use
have a better chance of surviving but others are under threat even when
Scheduled and Listed as being of historical importance. Ownership problems,
lack of interest, inadequate funds, politics, ignorance, vandalism and
plain neglect, all conspire to deplete this important heritage resource.
The Corgarff project, with particular reference in this
paper to the operations to save the Delavine Bridge, illustrates that
there are practical ways of rescuing these important markers of history
even when the odds appear very slim.
Conservation Engineering involves many skills demanding
at a fundamental level the ability to see structures for real and not
solely through interpretation of often very crude mathematical models
to develop solutions. These need to be innovative, yet practical, buildable
and economically viable. The solutions need to connect the ancient and
the modern respecting the past and reflecting the needs of today. The
Conservation Engineer needs the inspiration of Brunel and sometimes
the brawn of a Bricklayer in order to communicate at all levels in this
special area of creativity.
Equally the Conservation Architect has to grapple with
the many difficult and often conflicting priorities involved in running
such complex work including an enthusiasm for helping the Engineers
to solve difficult structural problems by appreciating the issues and
sharing the pressures, constraints and unique demands of the project.
The project produced many ideas of interest and in concept,
also for further research including the resistance of masonry to torsional
effects and its capacity to be recovered from extreme distress and vulnerability
without destruction of significances.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors organised, designed, directed and ran the
project with the Clients, Gordon Enterprise Trust and Grampian Military
Roads Ltd. Both authors gratefully acknowledge the support and enthusiasm
of Mr Bill Marshall, Mr Ron Reid and Mr Michael Crossland of Gordon
Enterprise Trust, and of Mr Sean Norman of Aberdeenshire Council. Special
thanks are also given to Major General John A.J.P. Barr, Trustee, Grampian
Military Roads Ltd., for his advice and encouragement. The second author
also wishes to thank Mr George Morrison, her employer, for the time
given during normal office hours to prepare all the illustrations and
co-ordinate the text. Thanks are also given to Edwards Engineering (Perth)
Ltd. for the use of their drawings for the steel shoring, and to Dr.
M.C. Forde for asking the first author for a glimpse of his daily work!
PROJECT TEAM