back   back to menu
NEWSLETTER 03 - 30.09.02

English english language


Architectural description


The Old Bridge of Mostar, (Stari Most), was a stone bridge of very slender and elegant shapes: its profile and its skyline were so thin and so high over the river waters that it was hardly to believe that such a structure could be worked out of huge stone blocks. Built in tenelija stone, it was of a light tone colour, bright and changing during daytime depending on sun colours.

01.jpg (12886 bytes)

Photogrametricly rectified picture of the bridge


The bridge was mainly conceived as a functional structure, aimed mostly at connecting the two banks of the river: it may hadn't, originally, any additional ceremonial and monumental meaning, and its design has been quite influenced by the morphology of the site which is totally matched by its abutment walls.

The whole monumental complex, including the adjacent fortification towers, is totally part of the site, castled on the rocks and winding the banks, it is not the result of a single design work, but of a development during time, that has followed the historical happenings and the need for protecting and keeping the bridge, that has marked the town even in the name of "Mostar".

The bridge had few esthetical devices and no ornamental element; its architectural beauty and value were to be found in the simplicity and in the essentiality of the structure: the shapes of the bridge were not linked to any time, to any style and to any fashion, in a way that the bridge of Mostar has always been admired as symbol.

Two cornices, only, with angled section profile, ran on each elevation and met at the keystone with a refine balance among tangency and jutting out: both of them had a protective function to rain waters, and both of them marked different structural elements of the monument, being part of it and not pasted. One more bigger cornice, per side, determined the bridge arch springer level, prosecuting along the abutment walls upstream and downstream.

The stone surfaces were nor polished neither regular: they were perfectly cut and hand worked, but characterised by frequent ordinary constructive inaccuracies from which it was possible to perceive their materiality and that they were made of stone. Out of more than one thousand stone blocks, there were not two elements of identical dimensions, and even the arch voussoirs, were all different and with remarkable variations, as a consequence of the random, natural-determined, availability of the stones in the quarry. Undoubtedly most of the architectural beauty of this monument was in the refined tuning among a globally compact appearance of the structure, caused by the thin joints of the masonry, and an unforeseeable and fragmentary close-view appearance due to the small assembling imperfections of stone blocks of different shapes and sizes.

The one-span bridge had an intrados curvature which was close to a circle having the center lowered of approximately cm 296 compared to the east springer level; but the circle shape may be not enough to describe the curvature wholly, that slightly changed at the imposts level to better match with the straight profile of the abutment wall, and was slightly raising at the key stone level. The curvature exact original shape was anyhow perturbed by irregularities that may have been caused by settlements and by ordinary construction imperfections, (for a detailed analysis of the curvature refer to following paragraphs).

The bridge main dimensions were the following: span was of cm 2871 by the north side and of cm 2862 by the south side and the arch raise was approximately of cm 1206. Generally speaking measures were obviously often variable and moreover the bridge impost level by the west bank was approximately 12-13 cm higher than the east level.

The load bearing arch had a depth of about cm 395 and an height of cm 80, and was composed of 111 rows (a number which was probably planned and not randomly obtained), and rows counted from 2 to 5 voussoirs, (more frequently 3-4). Voussoirs, (arch stones), were of variable shapes and sizes but the average stone block had the following dimensions: cm 40 80 100.

The bridge arch and elevations were made of tenelija stone, (local lime stone), and connections were performed with the use of mortar and of metal reinforcing cramps and dowels. The use of forged iron devices to strengthen the structure was one of the peculiarities of the monument and was applied almost to every element of the bridge following different assembling methodologies.

02.jpg (12132 bytes)

Photogrametricly rectified picture of the remnants of the bridge after it's destruction (1996)


Being the bridge arch, at the top, considerably higher than the adjacent street levels (about cm 270), the footpath over the bridge was steep and tilt in a way that all the architectural elements, like spandrels, parapets and upper cornices, were following these directions until the top. Spandrel walls of the bridge were divided from the arch by a stone cornice, (lower cornice), that followed the arch curvature, and were limited on top by another cornice, (upper cornice), of straight but tilt profile.

Lower cornice stones were jutting out from the load bearing arch and determined the base from which started the
spandrel walls; at the same time upper cornice was jutting out from the spandrel walls and finally parapets were almost aligned with the below spandrel walls, but slightly leaning outwards while getting to the bridge top, as to give an optical effect of a wider footpath.

The pavement was made in krecnjak stone, (limestone hard and resistive marble-like), and was characterised by transversal rib-steps to avoid slipping; flooring was assembled on a mortar layer which had, most probably, also a waterproofing function together with the below layer made of “terra rossa”, (heated aggregates of red colours given by the presence of bauxite).



Structural description


On the structural side, the bridge was quite interesting, and from the analysis of the inner elements, it is possible to appreciate fully the engineering level of the time and the wise devices adopted for the long lasting of the structure.

Main structural element of the bridge was the load bearing arch, which was undoubtedly the portion of the monument that required the maximum care and resources. The arch, thank to its shape, and to the configuration of the above dead loads, was subjected to compressive strengths and the stone blocks would have been enough and perfectly suitable for the purpose, but additional devices were provided to strengthen the vault: forged iron dowels were inserted between adjacent voussoirs, and forged iron cramps were put over the extrados and across the side joints. This way each connection joint was guaranteed either by the mortar, either by the metal reinforcements.

Over the load bearing arch there was a masonry rib with an important structural function that allowed, together with the spandrel walls, a stiffening action of the whole bridge. Among spandrel walls and stiffening rib there were two lightening voids that contributed in reducing the loads over the arch, while fill was wisely provided only next to the arch springers to stabilise the structure and the vault.

The lightening voids were covered by stone krecnjak slabs and above them only thin layers of aggregates were settled until the pavement.

Undoubtedly the structure of the bridge shows an high and impressive level of knowledge of all the requisites that were necessary for the stone bridge and shows, as well, a refine constructive technique; moreover, it has to be noted, that all the structural choices were purposely performed and the elements were carefully optimised and dimensioned to guarantee the resistance and long lasting of the monument.

The bridge architectural appearance and its structure were strictly related, in a way that it was possible to gather partially the inner structure even trough the observation of the outer elevations, where cornices marked the most important structural sections of the bridge.

 


Visit of Mr Hannah from the World Bank


On September the 18. and 19. 2002, Mr.Lawrence Hannah visited Mostar.
He made several meetings with the PCU ( Project Coordinating Unit), Supervisor (Omega Engineering), and the Contractor (ER – BU).

Mr. Hannah was informed about necessity to change the type of the centering proposed in the Technical Specifications.

03.jpg (12591 bytes)

 


The crane


As it was stated in the last Newsletter, some investigation drillings were made to determine if the position chosen for the crane is stable and strong enough to carry the weight of the crane and it’s loads.

After the examination works, which lasted for several days, every single of the four chosen points for placing of the crane footings showed up to be satisfying and completely acceptable.

According to the technical specifications, the crane stands on four concrete footings, on approximately 5x5m wide foundations.

One of them was on the cantilever cave and it was necessary to support it from the firm ground. The fourth had to be raised up by the reinforced concrete column , to achieve the same elevation as the other three footings.

04.jpg (9752 bytes) 05.jpg (12100 bytes)
crane foundations, view to the columns the crane is lifted to its position
06.jpg (11563 bytes)
concrete ballast weights production


For two foots closest to the bridge, ordinary foundations were made, but remaining two had to have a special construction. The foots were connected with concrete beams. When the bedding was released, very elegant but safe structure appeared. On 21.09.2201 the Leibherr mobile crane was brought to site, and the crane erection started. In two hours, the crane was removed from the temporary location, and lifted to it’s planned location. Crane needed some ballast weights, so 10 of them 4.3 tons each, were made on harem site.

The main idea of placing the crane on that particular spot was it’s safety. Recent height water levels proved that the chosen position of the crane was the best possible solution for this particular task and site.

This positioning also secures the uninterrupted progress of the works even in the rainy winter period when the access road is flooded, because the connection between the crane and the platform is secured


Stone blocks removal


On 21.09.2001, before the erection of the crane, one big stone block that was laying for the long time in the waters of Neretva, north east from the existing platform, was finally taken out. The operation had to be executed wit maximum care because the block shouldn’t be damaged on harmed in any way.

This part of the bridge weighted approximately 20 tons, and it is a beautiful example of the bridge constructional elements. It contains the parts of the arch, spandrel walls and the cornice.

07.jpg (7983 bytes)

The Libherr crane is taking the block out of the water


It was pulled out with the same mobile Leibherr crane as the Potain site crane. Operation lasted approximately one hour.

The block is now placed on the access road under the platform, but as all the other remainig bridge blocks it will be dislocated to the Harem site and stored in covered shed on the wooden tannin-free pallets.


Dismantling of the pavement


One of the main tasks for the Contractor in these days is to start with the dismantling of the existing pavement.

Due to its irregular surface and its particularly visible position, the pavement is one of the most delicate parts as regards dismantling and rebuilding. It is therefore essential to prepare very precise stone-by-stone records and to mark each of the stones in all three dimensions. In addition to that, the position in the row and in the band of the pavement needs to be individually identified for each stone.

08.jpg (10280 bytes)

Marked pavment on the right river bank


The remnants of the pavement on both sides of the bridge have now been numbered, marked with different colours, and preliminarily measured.

It is very important that all of these works are done with maximum care, because, almost all of these stones will be reassembled to its original place, when the bridge is finished.

09.jpg (18259 bytes)

Remaining pavment on right and left side


CREDITS:

This NEWSLETTER was made in accordance with prevailing articles of the Contract No 002/2002 about the Rehabilitation of the Old Bridge, by ER-BU CONSTRUCTION / TURKEY

Paragraphs concerning architectural and structural description are extracted from final architectural report - General Engineering

Intellectual property of final architectural report and of design drawings is owned by General Engineering s.r.l.
author of the text: arch. Manfredo Romeo – other contributes have been mentioned in related paragraphs
- General Engineering Workgroup -

SOURCE:

Final Design Report  - General Engineering

ER-BU CONSTRUCTION / TURKEY

back   back to menu
ani.gif (16635 bytes)
GENERAL ENGINEERING - P.zzale Donatello 4 - 50132 Firenze - Italy - ph. +39 055 2345256 - fax. +39 055 2476074