2.5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HIGHWAY LOADING STANDARDS (a) Type of Loads A critical comparative analysis of highway bridge loadings prescribed in different countries has been presented by Thomas’. Many countries specify the same uniformly distributed load for flexure and shear except Italy which does not specify knife edge load with uniformly distributed load. Many countries specify uniformly distributed loads for the full width of the traffic lane while Sweden specifies it as a strip load in two strips of 0.6 m each running for the entire loaded length. Alternatively Sweden allows the uniformly distributed load to be applied uniformly over a width of 2.4 m. except the H.A type group, all countries which have an equivalent uniformly distributed load system, have at least an alternative truck loading which has to be considered in the design. Designs based on H.A type loading should generally be checked for H.B type loading. In Italy separate Civil and Military loadings are specified and prominent bridges are invariably designed for the heavier military loading. Many of the countries do not explicitly specify military loadings, however IRC Class 70 R of India, the caterpillar of Austria and the NK-80 loading of Russia are based on the loading of military vehicles. (b) Lane Width The lane width in most countries is in the range of 2.5 to 4.0 m with 3 mas the most common value. However Japan prescribes a wider lane width of 5.5 m. In countries like India, Pakistan and Russia, where there is nostandard lane loading; only the minimum widths of carriage way for different tiumber of lanes are specified. (c) Impact Allowance In most of the countries, impact is related to the loaded length (span length) although the exact relationship varies considerably from country to country. Some of the countries like India and Austria specify different impact factors for concrete and steel bridges. Higher impact factors specified for steel bridges are due to the lighter structures being subjected to a larger dynamic effect. In countries like Italy and West Germany, impact is ignored for span lengths exceeding 100 and 50 m respectively. In comparison, countries like India and Australia specify certain minimum values of impact. Belgium and France relate the impact factor to the dead load of the bridge. The impact formula of Belgium is further complicated by the inclusion of speed of the vehicle on the bridge deck. (d) Magnitude of Loads, Bending Moment and Shear Forces A comparative analysis of loadings specified in different countries has been reported by Thomas’. British loading of Type HB is the most severe followed by IRC loadings for both single and two lane simply supported spans. The loadings of different countries vary considerably both qualitatively and quantitatively. Raina® has prescribed a critical comparison of bending moments and shear forces developed in simply supported bridge decks due to the live loads prescribed in various countries for spans ranging from 5 to 100 m. Tables 2.2 to 2.5 show the variation of maximum bending moment and shear force (inclusive of impact) for salient values of simply supported predominant spans of 5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 m. Based on the comparative analysis, the following general observations are noteworthy. (1) The maximum bending moments for a single lane loading occurs due to the British loadings of HB type for the span range of 5 to 100 m. However the maximum shear force develops for HB type loading for spans from 5 to 75 m and IRC loadings yicld the highest shear force for 100 m span. (2) Fortwo lanes, the West German Class 60 loading results in the maximum bending moment and shear force for all the spans from 5 to 100 m.(3) For both single and double lanes, the AASHTO loading gives the least bending moment and shear force for all spans with magnitudes nearly half that given by the German loading. The British type HA and French loadings are almost similar in effect for spans up to about 50 m and beyond that, the latter yields slightly higher values of moments and shear forces for both single and double lanes. The New Zealand loading is marginally heavier than that of AASHTO loading for spans up to 50 m, beyond that, it gives the same values of bending moment, but in the case of shear force, it results in higher values for all spans. (4 (5 The comparative analysis indicates the wide qualitative and quantitative variation in the loadings of different countries. Analysis indicates that the equivalent uniformly distributed load system appears to be the most acceptable since it is simpler for application. Due to this factor many countries have adopted the HA and AASHTO loadings for the design of bridge decks. A critical survey of the impact factors specified by the various countries indicates the basic differences in their approach in assessing the dynamic effect of live loads on the bridge deck: Raina® has indicated that the impact formula prescribed by some countries is unnecessarily complicated since the effect of live load on the bridge deck is comparatively less than that of dead load for span lengths exceeding 25 m. However there is need for qualitative research in this field to investigate the behavior of the bridge structure under dynamic loads and the resulting data will be helpful in evolving rational design procedures. From considerations of simplicity of loading and ease of its application in design, type HA loading appears to be the most favorable among the various load systems. There is significant variation in the type of highway loads specified in the standards of various countries. Raina® has made a critical analysis of the bending moments and shear forces developed due to the standard loadings specified by the various countries for single and double lane traffic, covering spans in the range of 5 to 100 m as shown in Tables 2.2 to 2.5. For the range of spans covered, the extreme variations in the bending moment and shear forces developed due to AASHTO loadings is only half of that due to German loadings. The loadings of the various other countries generally lie in between the American and German loadings. In view of these wide variations, there isa need for a systematic survey of vehicular loads on bridges for rationalization of Highway Bridge loading standards.Table 2.2 Maximum Bending Moments for One Lane Simply Supported Spans of Bridge Decks due to Loads of Various Countries Maximum Bending Moment Inclusive of Impact (kN-m) Span] UK | UK | India | Germany | Japan | Sweden| France| North — | New (m) | Type | Type | LRC | Class-60 | L-20 Ameri- | Zea- H.A | H.B_ | Loads} Loads Loads land Loads | Loads s | 243 [756 | 687 | 672 551 | 450 | 390 231 25 | 3156 | 7862 | 5680 | 4952 | 4083 | 50S0 | 3290 2485 50 | 8656 | 19029 | 12496} 10830 11344} 11300 | 8870 5738 75 | 15117] 30251 | 19683 | 19877 21682) 17550 | 15848 9155 100 | 22875} 41487 | 33580| 31268 33494} 23800 | 24106 15184 Table 2.3 Maximum Shear Forces for One Lane Simply Supported Spans of Bridge Decks due to Loads of Various Countries Maximum Shear Force Inclusive of Impact (kN) Span} U.K | U.K | India | Germany | Japan | Sweden | France | North New (m) | Type | Type | LR.C | Class-60 | L-20 Ameri- | Zea- HA | H.B_ | Loads| Loads — | Loads caA- | land Loads | Loads ASHTO HS:20-44 Loads 5 | 199 | 738 | 549 | 571 441 | 420 359 212 212 25 | 505 1451 | 978 | 807 653 | 820 569 369 447 50 | 693 | 1625 | 1090 | 872 908 910 | 710 | 410 501 75 | 806 | 1684 | 1477 | 1064 1156 | 940 | 845 | 529 606 100 | 915__| 1713 | 1776 | 1254 1340 | 955 | 964 | 647 758 Table 2.4 Maximum Bending Moments for Two Lane Simply Supported Spans of Bridge Decks due to Loads of Various Countries Maximum Bending Moment Inclusive of Impact (kN'm) Span| UK | UK | India | Germany | Japan | Sweden | France | North | New (m) | Type | Type | LR.C | Class-60 | L-20 Ameri- | Zea- H.A | H.B | Loads | Loads Loads ca A- land Loads | Loads ASHTO HS:20-44 Loads 5 [488 | 838 | 687 |1224 | 827 |6so [780 | 462 462 25 | 6312 | 8914 | 5680 | 9904 6125 | 5819 | 6580 | 4044 4970 50 | 17132] 21914) 12496 | 21660 17016 | 15838 | 17740 | 9194 11476 75 | 30234] 35290] 23486] 39754 | 32523 | 26250 |31696 | 18310 | 18310 100 | 45750] 49112] 42880 | 62536 _| $0241 | 37300 _| 48212 | 30368 | 30368Table 2.5 Maximum Shear Forces for Two Lane Simply Supported Spans of Bridge Decks due to Loads of Various Countries Maximum Shear Force Inclusive of Impact (kN) Span] UK | UK | India | Germany| Japan | Sweden| France | North | New (m) | Type | Type | LR.C | Class-60 | L-20 Amori- | Zeo- H.A |H.B | Loads| Loads | Loads caA- | land Loads | Loads ASHTO HS:20-44 Loads 5 | 398 | 804 |594 | 1142 | 661 | 512 | 718 | 424 424 25 | 1010 | 1619 }978 | 1614 =| 980, 931 | 1138 | 738 394 50 | 1386 | 1856 | 1174 | 1744 | 1361 | 1267 | 1420 | 820 1002 75 |"1612 | 1952 | 1572 | 2128 . | 1735 | 1400 | 1690" | 1088 | 1212 100 | 1830 | 2018 | 1996 | 2508 | 2010 | 1492_| 1928 | 1294 | 1516 2.6 Indian Railway Bridge Loading Standards Railway bridge loadings* should conform to the specifications of the Indian Railway Standards (IRS) prescribed by tle Ministry of Railways, Government of India. The various loads to be used are specified in the IRS Bridge rules. Specific recommendations are available for the design of steel. R.C.C, P.S.C, masonry and plain concrete arch bridges in the relevant bridge codes. The railway tracks are classified according to the importance of traffic as main and branch lines. The three types of gauges used in the Indian Railways are. (1) Broad gauge (BG): 1676 mm (5’-6”) (2) Metre gauge (MG): 1000 mm (3’-3.375”) (3) Narrow gauge (NG): 762 mm (2'-6”) At present, the Indian Railways have adopted the unigauge policy with the broad gauge as the standard gauge throughout the country. Consequently many important old lines are being converted into broad gauge. The various loads and forces to be considered in the design of bridge members are: (1) Dead and live loads: (2) Dynamic effects (3) Cetrifugal force due to curvature of track (4) Temperature and frictional effects (5) Racking force (6) Wind and earthquake forces IRS Bridge Rules recommends the use of equivaenk uniformly distributed loads (EUDL) on each track and also the coefficient of dynamic augment (CDA) for spans varying from | to 130 m for both BG and MG as shown in Tables 2.6 and 2.7.The equivalent loads specified for the computation of bending moment and shear forces can directly be used in place of the various wheel loads of the rolling, stock. Hence except in the case of special bridges like the Rigid Frame, balanced cantilever and Suspension bridges, the designer can directly use the equivalent loads in place of the basic wheel loads. The Impact Factors (CDA) listed in the Tables are for single track spans of BG and MG based on the relation: CDA =0.15 + <1.0 where L=span (6+L) . For main girders of double track spans, the value specified above is multiplied by a reduction factor of 0.72. Bridges located in the seismic zones have to be designed to resist the stresses produced due to seismic effects conforming to the recommendations in the Indian Standard Code IS: 1893-1975'°. Table 2.6 E.U.D.L., C.D.A and Longitudinal Loads for Modified B.G. Loading Span Total UD.L Total UDL CDA ‘Tractive Braking for B.M for SF (LF) Effort Force (m) (kN) (KN) (KN) CKN) 1 490 490 1,000 81 62 2 490 519 1.000 164 123 3 490 662 1,000 245 184 4 596 178 0.950 245. 184 5 7A 888 0.877 245 184 6 838 985 0817 245 185 7 oI 1068 0,765 327 221 8 981 1154 0.721 409 276 9 1040 1265 0.683 409 216 10 1101 1377 0.650 490 331 2 1377 1589 0.594 490 331 1s 1631 1801 0.531 490 368 20 1964 2168 0.458 735 496 235 2356 2586 0.408 735 565 30 2127 2997 0372 981 662 40 3498 3815 0324 981 816 50 4253 4630, 0.293 981 978 60 5051 5442 0271 981 1140 72 5831 6254 0.255 981 1301 80 6603 7065 0.243 981 1463 90 7391 7876 0.233 981 1625 100 8201 8686 0.225 981 1787 110 9011 9496 0219 981 1949 120 9820 10306 0.213 981 2110 130 10630 1s 0.209 981 2272Bridges planned in the coastal areas have to be designed to withstand the effect of wind pressure. The basic wind pressure is to be obtained from the meteorological records or from the Indian Standard Code IS: 875-1987". Table 2.7 E.U.D.L., C.D.A and Longitudinal Loads for Modified -M.G. Loading Span TotalE.U.D.L Total E.U.D.L CDA Tractive Braking for BM forS.F (LF) Effort Force (m) (KN) (KN ) (KN) (KN) 1 314 314 1.000 89 7 2 314 365 1.000 18 B 3 326 452 1,000 118 us 4 429 536 0.950 157 18 5 501 616 0.877 157 124 6 581 685 0817 157 124 7 644 755 0.765 176 135 8 714 819 0.721 209 157 9 774 871 0.683 262 169 to 828 934 0.650 262 198 12 953 1061 0594 314 235 15 1138 1252 0.531 353 253 20 1421 1532 0.458 an 353 25 1677 1833 0.408 523 401 30 1991 2144 0.372 628 486 40 2589 2748 0.324 628 594 50 3099 3269 0.293 628 702 60 3625 3819 0271 08 810 70 4178 an 0.255 8 918 80 4721 4922 0243 28 1026 90 5274 5470 0233 8 1134 100 5822 6017 0.225 8 1242 110 6365 6562 0219 8 1349 120 6908 7106 0213 os 1487 8 1565 130 7451 1649 0.209