DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES BD 21/01 THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES CYNULLIAD CENEDLAETHOL CYMRU THE DEPARTMENT FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT* The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Structures * A Government Department in Norther Ireland e Summary: This Standard gives criteria for the assessment of highway bridges and structures. It supersedes BD 21/97.DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES VOLUME3 HIGHWAY STRUCTURE! INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE SECTION4 ASSESSMENT PART 3 BD 21/01 THE ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES SUMMARY This Standard gives criteria for the assessment of highway bridges and structures. It supersedes BD 21/97. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE This is a revised document to be incorporated into the Manual 1. Remove BD 21/97, which is superseded by BD 21/01 and archive as appropriate. 2. Insert BD 21/01 into Volume 3, Section 4. Archive this sheet as appropriate. Note: A quarterly index with a full set of Volume Contents Pages is available separately from The Stationery Office Ltd. May 2001DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROAD AND BRIDGES. Volume 3 Highway Structures: Inspection and Maintenance Section 4 Assessment CORRECTION Replace the existing pages with the pages enclosed Highways Agency August 2001 London: The Stationery OfficePublished with the permission of the Highways Agency on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright 2001 All rights reserved. Copyright in the Typographical arrangement and design is vested in the Crown, Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Cotegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ First published 2001 ISBN 0.11 5 2371 Standing Order Service Are you making fl use of The Stationery Ofce's Standing Order Service? e ‘The Standing Order Service is a free monitoring of the publications of your choice from over 4,000 classifications in 30 major subject areas. We send you your books as they are published along with an invoice. With a standing order for class 05.03.041 you can be supplied automatically with future titles specific to Volume 3 oF 05.03,052 for all Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volumes as they are published The benefits to you are: ‘© automatic supply of your choice of classification on publication ‘© no need for time-consuming and costly research, telephone calls and scanning of daily publication lists ‘© saving on the need and the costs of placing individual orders ‘We can supply a wide range of publications on standing order, from individual annual publications to all publications on a selected subject. Ifyou do not already use this free service, or think you are not using i (ois full capacity, why not contact us and discuss your requirements? e@ ‘You can contact us at The Stationery Office Standing Order Department PO Box 29 St Crispins Duke Street Norwich NR3 1GN Tel 0870 600 5522; fax 0870 600 5533 ‘mail’ books standing.orders@ theso.co.uk We look forward to hearing from you. Printed in the United Kingdom for The Stationery Office TH C15 08/01 10170Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS Registration of Amendments Amend | Page No No Signature & Date of incorporation of amendments Amend No Page No Signature & Date of incorporation of amendments Correction] S| -5)1 August 2001 ayaz SSouT to \o4 May 2001Registration of Amendments REGISTRATION OF AMENDMENTS Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Signature & Date of incorporation of amendments Amend No Page No Signature & Date of incorporation of amendments May 2001DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES VOLUME 3 HIGHWAY STRUCTURES: INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE SECTION 4 ASSESSMENT PART 3 BD 21/01 THE ASSESSMENT OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES Contents Chapter Introduction Inspection for Assessment Objectives and Procedures Properties of Materials Loading Analysis of Structure Strengths of Members Sub-structures, Foundations and Walls Assessment for Restricted Traffic References AW Vehicle and Axle Weights Increase in Loading Due to Centrifugal Action Properties of Materials Loading from Vehicles Fire Engines Axles Weights for Restricted Assessment Live Loadings Background to Type HA Loading and Assessment Live Loading Background to the Requirements for Masonry Arch Bridges Assessment of Bridge Deck Cantilevers for Accidental Wheel Loading May 2001Volume3 Section 4 Chapter 1 Part3 BD 21/01 Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION General or lane restrictions, calculated in accordance with 1.1 This Standard, for the assessment of highway bridges and structures, was prepared in its original form under the auspices of the Bridges Engineering Division of the Department of Transport, by a working party consisting of representatives from the following organisations at that time: Department of Transport Scottish Development Department Department of the Environment for Northen Ireland Association of County Councils Association of Metropolitan Authorities British Railways Board London Transport British Waterways Board. 1.2. This Standard updates and replaces the 1997 version and is to be used in conjunction with the complementary Advice Note BA 16 (DMRB 3.4.4). Although the latter is advisory in nature, the principles and methods given in it may be deemed to satisfy the relevant criteria in the Standard. Throughout the Standard reference has been made to appropriate British Standards. Where trunk road structures are to be assessed this Standard should be used in conjunction with the other documents contained in Volume 3, Section 4 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. For non-trunk road structures the following implementation documents may be considered as being particularly relevant: @ BD34(DMRB 3.4) (i) BA34(DMRB 3.4) ii) @) (v) BA79 (DMRB 3.4.18) BD 46 (DMRB 3.4.1) BD 50 (DMRB 3.4.2) 1.3. Ifthe assessment of any bridge or structure shows it to be inadequate, then the following actions shall be taken: (Consider the Interim Measures described in BA 79 (DMRB 3.4.18). If the structure is not deemed monitoring-appropriate, then vehicle weight and/ Chapter 9 of this Standard, shall be applied on the bridge or the bridge shall be propped; (i) Ifit is considered that further deterioration of the structure may occur in spite of vehicle weight and/or lane restrictions, the condition of the bridge shall be monitored by Special Inspections at intervals not exceeding six months, in accordance with the documents contained in Volume 3, Section 1 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 3.1); (ii) Replacement or strengthening of the structure to carry full design loading, should be undertaken without undue delay (for trunk road bridges and structures in accordance with the documents contained in Volume 3, Section 4 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 3.4). If, in the course of an assessment, a structure is found to be so inadequate that there is an immediate risk to public safety, the procedure described in BA 79 (DMRB 3.4.18) regarding action for “Immediate Risk Structures” shall be followed. 1.4 The timing of the replacement or strengthening of a weak structure will depend on the volume and weight of traffic normally carried by it, and the effect of the traffic restriction on the general transport network in the neighbourhood. If alternative unrestricted crossings are available without involving undue delays or detours, then the replacement/strengthening may be postponed. There may indeed be cases where the cost of, replacement/strengthening would represent poor value, ‘and where it would be better to leave the traffic restrictions in force until such time as replacement! strengthening is justified from a value-for-money assessment. However, imposition of any traffic restriction on a particular crossing will increase the volume of traffic on, and hence accelerate the deterioration of, the alternative routes and crossings. This should be taken into account in programming for replacement/strengthening of the weak structures. 1.5. Many of the bridges to be assessed by this Standard are of considerable age and represent important features of our cultural heritage. Their survival to this day owes a great deal to the care of past ‘generations. Where remedial or strengthening works are found to be necessary, the proposals should reflect the May 2001 WwChapter 1 Introduction Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 duty to retain the character of these structures for the benefit of future generations. Early remedial measures, which restore the carrying capacity and extend the life of these structures, are preferable to urgent reconstruction, as the former not only prove generally to be more cost-effective, but also retain the existing character of these structures. Scope 1.6 This Standard is intended to be used for the assessment of highway bridges and structures built prior to 1922*, in addition to bridges and structures built after 1922 which were not designed for the equivalent of 30 units of HB loading. It can also be applied to any post-1922 bridge which is thought either to have a reduced loading capacity as a result of deterioration or damage, or to have been designed to sub-standard criteria, “Note: The first govemment loading for highway bridges was introduced in 1922 and the first British Standard on loading was published in 1929. This was followed in 1931 by a revised British Standard containing the familiar equivalent uniformly distributed loading curve. HB type loading (or its equivalent) was introduced in the post-war years. 1.7 The Standard covers the assessment of bridges constructed of steel, concrete, wrought iron and cast iron, as well as the assessment of brick and stone masonry arches. It does not cover timber structures or stone slab bridge decks. It also covers the assessment of spandrel walls, sub-structures, foundations, wing walls, retaining walls, dry-stone walls, and buried concrete box structures. 1.8 The Standard adopts the limit state format with partial safety factors, although there are exceptions in the cases of cast iron construction, and brick and stone masonry arches. 1.9 The Type HA (design) loading given in this Standard allows for the effects of 40 tonne vehicles and includes a contingency margin for unforeseeable changes in traffic patterns. For assessment, reduction factors are applied to the Type HA loading to give the various Assessment Live Loading levels with no contingency provision. The 40 tonnes Assessment Live Loading covers the effects of vehicles of up to 40 tonnes gross vehicle weight (including 41 tonnes 6 axles lorries, 44 tonnes 6 axles bimodal articulated lorries and draw bar trailer combinations and, 44 tonnes 6 axle general haulage lorries, see Annex A) and 115 tonnes axle weight. For cases where structures are found to be incapable of carrying the full 40 tonnes Assessment Live Loading, loading criteria are given which correspond to specified limits on gross vehicle weights. Special loading criteria are also given for fire engines. 1.10 Weight limits are currently contained in two sets of Regulations i.e. The Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/3111) as amended and The Construction and Use (C&U) Regulations 1996 as amended. The AW Regulations will be expanded in due course to cover all motor vehicles and trailers and replace the weight limits in the C&U Regulations. But, until the changeover takes place, the two sets of Regulations will run side by side. For convenience this Standard mainly refers to only AW Regulations. If there are further amendments affecting the allowable weights and dimensions of vehicles and axles, this Standard will be amended as necessary. In ‘Northern Ireland the corresponding sets of Regulations are The Motor Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations (Northen Ireland) 1999 and The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (NI) 1999, 1.11 For arch assessment this Standard is intended to be used in conjunction with Advice Note BA 16 (DMRB 3.4.4), which contains a description of an acceptable method of arch assessment based on the MEXE method. The Advice Note also contains simplified methods of load distribution for certain types of bridge construction, advice on the assessment of dry stone walls, retaining walls, sub-structures and foundations, and some general guidance on maintenance and repair of older types of highway structures, Implementation 1.12 This Standard shall be used forthwith for assessments of load carrying capacity of trunk road bridges and other structures, including those structures currently being assessed, provided that, in the opinion of the Overseeing Organisation, this would not result in significant additional expense or delay progress. Its application to particular assessment should be confirmed with the Overseeing Organisation 12 May 2001Volume3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Chapter 1 Introduction Definitions 1.13 For the purpose of this Standard the following definitions apply: @ ) ii) wy ” i) (vii) (viii) @&) @ (xi) (xii) Assessment. Inspections and determination of Joad carrying capacity of a structure in terms of either full AW loading or specified gross vehicle weights. Assessment Live Loading. Loads from AW or other specified vehicles as described in 5.12 - 5.17. Assessment Loads. Loads determined for ‘assessment of the structure by applying the partial factors for load, 7, to the nominal loads. Assessment Load Effects. Load effects determined by applying the partial factor for load effect, y,, to the effects of the assessment loads. Assessment Resistance. The resistance determined by application of a Condition Factor to the calculated resistance. Arch Barrel. The single structural arch element formed by one or more arch rings. Arch Ring. A single ring of bricks or stones of approximately even size formed to an arch profile. Authorised Weight (AW) Regulations. Regulations governing weights for the use of normal vehicles on the highway - see 1.10. Bearing. The structural component used to transmit loading ftom the superstructure to the substructure. Bedding. Mortar and other material under the baseplate of a bearing. Bogie. Two or three ‘closely spaced” or ‘adjacent’ axles. Calculated Resistance, The capacity of the structure or element determined from material strengths and sections properties by applications of partial factor for material strength, 7%, (ait) (xiv) xv) (vi) (avi) (xviii) (xix) x) (xxi) (xxii) (xxiii) (xxiv) (ay) (xxvi) Centrifugal Effects. Radial forces and changes to vertical live loading due to vehicles travelling in a horizontally curved path. Condition Factor. Factor which accounts for deficiency in the integrity of the structure as. described in 3.18. Construction and Use (C&U) Regulations. Regulations governing weights for the use of normal vehicles on the highway - see 1.10. Dead Load. Loading due to the weight of the materials forming the structure or structural elements but excluding superimposed dead load materials. Leaching. The removal of material, usually lime, from concrete or masonry by the percolation of water, Limit State Principle. The design concept adopted in BS 5400 and outlined in ISO 2394 ‘General Principles for the Verification of the Safety of Structures’ Live Loads. Loading due to vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Loaded Length. The base length of that area under the live load influence line which produces the most adverse effect at the section being considered. Masonry Arch. An arch built of brick or stone ‘masonry. Modified MEXE Method, An empirical ‘method for the assessment of masonry arch bridges as described in BA 16 (DMRB 3.4). ‘Notional Lane. A notional part of the carriageway assumed solely for the purpose of applying specified live loads. ‘Nominal Loads. Nominal loads for assessment are derived from design nominal loads (defined in BD 37 (DMRB 1.3)), using reduction factors where applicable. Permissible Stress. The stress which itis safe to allow under specified assessment loading (for cast iron bridges only). Seating. The even and correct meeting of contact surfaces. May 2001 13Chapter 1 Introduction Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 (xxvii) Spandrel Wall. Wall which is founded on the ‘edge rib of an arch barrel to restrain the bridge infilling, (xxviii) Spalling. The detachment of fragments, usually flaky, from a larger mass by a blow or by the action of weather or internal pressure (Guch as that exerted by rusting reinforcement), (xxix) Superimposed Dead Load. The weight of all ‘materials forming loads on the structure but which are not structural elements, such as surfacing, parapets, spandrel walls, service mains, ducts, miscellaneous street furniture, etc, (xxx) Ultimate Limit State. Loss of equilibrium or collapse (see BS 5400 : Part | for a more comprehensive definition), Gexxi) Voussoir. Wedge-shaped masonry unit in an arch. Note: Reference may also be made to other definitions given in the appropriate parts of BS 5400. Symbols The following symbols are used in this Standard: A Cross-sectional area @ Strut material factor 4, 3.65m or notional lane width bg Effective flange width 3, Notional lane width D Overall depth of deck d Depth of girder at midspan E Modulus of elasticity F End fixity factor F, Centrifugal effect factor F, Overall condition factor Fy, Condition factor f, Compressive yield stress fy Permanent load stress for cast iron J, Characteristic (or nominal) strength ROR Rw Live load stress for cast iron Permissible stress of cast iron Acceleration due to gravity Reduction factor for pedestrian live load. Reduction factor Least radius of gyration Loaded length Strut length Dispersion length for troughing Shear resistance ratio Safe load Assessment loads ‘Nominal loads ‘Permanent load shear stress for cast iron Live load shear stress for cast iron Assessment resistance Calculated resistance Radius of curvature of carriageway Assessment load effects Flange plate thickness Speed of vehicle Unit load per metre of lane Longitudinal line load or point load ‘roughing load Plastic modulus Partial factor for load Partial factor for load effect Partial factor for material strength v4 May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 2. INSPECTION FOR ASSESSMEN' General 2.1 The assessment of a structure for its load carrying capacity involves not only analysis and calculations but also the inspection of the structure concemed. Such inspection is necessary to verify the form of construction, the dimensions of the structure and the nature and condition of the structural ‘components. Inspection should cover not only the condition of individual components but also the condition of the structure as an entity and especially noting any signs of distress and its cause. 2.2. Requirements for inspection to determine loads and resistances are given in 2.4 and 2.5 respectively, and further criteria for the inspection of arch barrels are given in 2.10. The requirements given in 2.4 and 2.5, cannot be applied to the inspection of spandrel and dry- stone walls because the assessment of these structures hhas to be based on qualitative judgements of the information obtained from their inspection (see 3.1 to 3.3), and specific requirements are given in 2.14 and 2.19. The general requirements need also not be applied to other types of retaining walls, wing walls, sub- structures and foundations when it is judged that the adequacy of these structures can be assessed without analysis and calculation. Specific requirements for their inspection are given in 2.16, However, when there is some doubt conceming the adequacy of these latter structures, particularly with regard to sub-soil conditions or backfill pressures, and/or if signs of distress are apparent, the inspection procedures given in 2.4 and 2.5 shall be followed, where possible, in order that an analytical approach can also be adopted. Advice on inspection procedures is given in the documents contained in Volume 3, Section 1 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 3.1). It should also be noted that General Inspections are unlikely to be adequate for assessment purposes. 2.3 Prior to undertaking the inspection of a structure, all existing information pertaining to the structure should be collected including as-built drawings, soils data and past inspection reports. This may be of use in determining what further information should be obtained from the inspection and which items require special attention. Chapter 2 Inspection for Assessment Inspection for Loading 2.4 — The structure shall be inspected to determine the density and dimensions needed to calculate the nominal loads Q, (see ‘Chapters 3 and 5). Care shall be taken to obtain an accurate estimate of dead and superimposed dead loading by undertaking a detailed geometric survey of the structure, reference being made to as-built drawings when available. Loads due to excessive fill, previous strengthening operations and installation of services shall be included. Trial holes or borcholes may be required. ‘The live loading depends on the number of traffic lanes that can be accommodated (see 5.6). The clear width of carriageway and position of lane markings shall be recorded, Similarly, the horizontal road alignment, when curved on the structure, shall be determined to permit the calculation of centrifugal loads (see 5.38 to 5.40). Inspection for Resistance 2.5 The structure shall be inspected to record all the parameters needed to determine the strength of ‘members and elements, including possible deficiencies, eg cracks, corrosion, settlement, defective materials, damage, etc. The inspection should provide confirmation of the information obtained from documents, particularly: (@ dimensions of intemal sections that may not be related to external features; (ii) previous strengthening; Gii) reduction in strength due to services laid through, or near the structure. 2.6 All constituent parts of the superstructure shall be inspected to determine their respective strengths. ‘Members susceptible to fatigue shall be closely ‘examined for cracks. Samples may be required for testing to determine yield stresses of metal members and reinforcement or strengths of concrete, brickwork, stone masonry and mortar. Chapter 7 gives details of the requirements for the determination of strength of members. May 2001 21Chapter 2 Volume 3 Section 4 Inspection for Assessment Part 3 BD 21/01 2.7 With regard to buried members, where there is (j)_The thickness of the arch ring under the parapet doubt on the above parameters, excavation of trial holes should be considered, 2.8 Reference shall be made to as-built drawings when available. However, care shall be taken when using a limited number of drawings that exist for old structures, because such documentation is often neither accurate nor reliable. Masonry Arch Bridges General 2.9 The external fabric should always be inspected, Probing into the construction will be necessary where the strength of the bridge is in doubt or if internal scour and leaching of the fill is suspected. The road surface and footway structure shall also be examined for signs of rupture or other damage. Arch Barrel 2.10 The arch barrel shall be inspected to record all the information needed to determine the loading and resistance in accordance with 2.4 and 2.5. In particular the following information shall be obtained: (Nature and condition of the brickwork or stonework including the location and extent of any crushin; Gi) Thickness of the joints and depth of mortar missing; ii) Condition of the mortar; (iv) Presence of cracks - their width, length, position and number; (¥) Location of any displaced voussoir; (vi) Deformation of the arch barrel from its original shape; (vii) Any additional strengthening rings, or saddling. 2.11 _ The above information is also required for the use of the modified MEXE method. See BA 16 (DMRB 3.4.4). 2.12. The inspection should provide further confirmation of any information already obtained. For example: ‘can be measured, but it does not follow that the thickness is the same under the roadway; (ii) Some old bridges have been strengthened by removing the fill and replacing it with concrete; (ii) Services which are laid over or through the arch rings may affect the strength. The position and size of these should be determined. 2.13. Where there is doubt about any of the above conditions, a site investigation shall be made, including the digging of trial holes when necessary. Parapets and Spandrel Walls 2.14 Parapets and spandrel walls shall be inspected to obtain evidence of any defects and their extent recorded, eg: () Tilting, bulging or sagging; (i) Lateral movement of parapet or spandrel wall relative to the face of the arch barrel; Lateral movement of parapet or spandrel wall accompanied by longitudinal cracking of arch. barrel; (iv) ™ wi) ‘Weathering and lack of pointing; Evidence of vehicular impact; Cracking, splitting and spalling; (vii) Loosening of any coping stones. Abutments, Piers, Foundations and Wing Walls 2.15 _ Inspection of arch bridge abutments, foundations ‘and wing walls shall be in accordance with 2.16. ‘Sub-structures, Foundations, Retaining Walls and ‘Wing Walls General 2.16 Sub-structures and foundations are taken to represent all elements of the bridge beneath the soffit of the deck, including bearings, piers, bank seats, abutments, wing walls, piles and foundations rafts. In the case of arches the sub-structure and foundations include the springings and all elements beneath the ground. All accessible parts of the sub-structures, May 2001‘Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 foundations and wing walls shall be examined and any defects noted. Retaining walls and their foundations shall be similarly examined except for dry-stone walls where the specific requirements of 2.19 apply. For sub-structures founded in water, underwater inspection of the submerged sub-structure and foundations are required to determine their condition, Bearings 2.17 The presence or otherwise of bearings shall be noted, and if present, they shall be inspected to obtain information on the following: (@ General condition of bearings; (ii) Any binding or jamming, looseness or reaching the limit of movement; ii) Condition of seating, bedding and plinth; (iv) Whether correct operation of the bearings is prevented or impaired, eg by structural members built into abutment or pier. Piers, Bank Seats, Abutments, Retaining Walls and Wing Walls 2.18 The inspection shall obtain information on whether the following defects are present and, if so, their extent: (Tilting and rotation, in any direction; (ii) Rocking; (iil) Cracking, splitting and spalling; (iv) Erosion beneath water level; (v) Weathering and other material deterioration, including lack of pointing for masonry and brickwork; (vi) Growth of vegetation; (vii) Lack of effective drainage; (viii) Intemal scour, and leaching of fill; (ix) Settlement of fill. Chapter 2 Inspection for Assessment Dry-stone Walls 2.19 Dry-stone walls shall be inspected for evidence of defects, and their extent recorded, eg: (Partial collapse; Gi) Bulging or distortion in isolated areas or widespread cracking of masonry; Gil) Loss of masonry; (iv) Weathering and leaching of the fabric of the wall both on the face and internally; () Harmful vegetation and its nature. May 2001 whChapter 2 Volume 3 Section 4 Inspection for Assessment Part3 BD 21/01 4 May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Chapter 3 Objectives and Procedures 3. OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES General 3.1 The objectives of assessment shall be to determine, in terms of vehicle loading, the load that a given structure will carry with a reasonable probability that it will not suffer serious damage so as to endanger any persons or property on or near the structure. 3.2 The carrying capacity shall normally be assessed relative to the loading possible from any convoy of, vehicles of up to 40/44 tonnes gross vehicle weight. ‘Where this loading cannot be carried an assessment should be undertaken for the loading that is representative of the full range of vehicles up to 26 tonnes gross vehicle weight permitted under the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations. If the structure is still considered inadequate to carry this lesser load, a reduction in the number of lanes and/or in the level of loading should be determined. Overall structural behaviour must be considered since weakness in any part such as the foundation, sub-structure or superstructure can affect the load carrying capacity of the structure. 3.3. _ The procedures given in this section shall not be used for the assessment of spandrel and dry-stone walls and they may also not be appropriate for the assessment of other types of retaining walls, wing walls, sub- structures and foundations when their assessments are to be based on qualitative judgement of the information obtained from their inspections. For those assessments the requirements of Chapter 8 shall apply. However, the procedures in this section shall be employed when an analytical approach is considered to be needed and applicable to the structure in question. Further advice is given in BA 55 (DMRB 3.4.9). Limit States 3.4 Ingeneral, structures shall be assessed by the application of limit state principles. The limit state to be adopted for this Standard shall be the ultimate limit state, using appropriate partial factors. However, for masonry arch bridges and cast iron bridges altemative assessment methods may be adopted in accordance with 3.5 or 3.6. In general, older structures do not need to be assessed for the serviceability limit state. However structures built after 1965 should normally be checked for the serviceability limit state as well as the ultimate limit state, but the need for this additional requirement shall be agreed by the Technical Approval Authority. ‘Masonry Arch Bridges 3.5 Limit state requirements are applicable to the assessment of masonry arch bridges. However, unless a suitable rigorous method of analysis is used conforming to the principles of Chapter 6, arches shall be assessed by the modified MEXE method in accordance with BA 16 (DMRB 3.4.4). The modified MEXE method determines allowable axle and bogie loads directly and is not in limit state terms. Therefore calculation of assessment load effects and assessment resistance in accordance with 3.7 to 3.19 is not required. Cast Iron Bridges 3.6 _ Cast iron bridges shall be assessed on a permissible stress basis in accordance with 3.7 to 3.19, using special partial factors, and restricting stress levels to values which would exclude the risk of fatigue failure Assessment Load Values Assessment Loads 3.7 The assessment loads, Q,*, are determined from the nominal loads, Q,, according to the equation: 2 where 7, is a partial factor for each type of loading as given in Table 3.1. =I Ox Nominal dead, superimposed dead and live loads are given in Chapter 5. 3,8 The Type HA loading given in Chapter 5 is, factored to give the 40 tonnes Assessment Live Loading. Assessment calculations may need to be repeated with other levels of Assessment Live Loading (see 3.1 to 3.3, 3.20 to 3.25, Chapter 5 and Chapter 9). May 2001 aLChapter 3 Objectives and Procedures Volume 3 Section 4 Part 3 BD 21/01 Table 3.1 Values of 7, - Partial Factor for Loads Notes: For masonry arch bridges, with respect to permissible single axle loads 1, shall be 3.4. For individual vehicles of precisely known configurations, a reduced y, of 2.0 may be considered appropriate. ‘When the application of y, for dead and superimposed dead load causes a less severe total effect than would be the case if'y,, applied to all parts of the dead and superimposed dead loads, had been taken as 1.0, values of 1.0 shall be adopted # The top 100mm of road construction shall be considered as surfacing material, + For cast iron bridges the value of 1.5 may be reduced to 1.0 and for other structures the value of 1.75 may be reduced to 1.20, if the highway authority can ensure that the thickness of road surfacing is not increased during the remaining life of the bridge. Chapter 5 also includes live load requirements for a single wheel load, a single axle load and footway loading. For bridges carrying a horizontally curved carriageway, requirements are given for determining the enhancement in vertical live loading caused by centrifugal effects. Other loads not specified in this document shall only be considered when deemed necessary for assessment purposes. Assessment for these other loads shall be in accordance with the requirements of BD 37 (DMRB 1.3) Load Combinations 3.9. Dead and superimposed dead loads shall be combined with live loads using the factors given in 3.7. When other loads (not specified in this document or mentioned in Table 3.1) are considered to be significant for assessment purposes, reference shall be made to BD 37 (DMRB 1.3) for the details of these loads, appropriate load combinations and respective 7% values (except that for cast iron bridges the value of 7, shall be taken as 1.0). Assessment Load Effects 3.10 The assessment load effects, S,*, are obtained from the assessment loads by the relation: St = tp effects of 0,*) = Yp (effeots of yy . Q,) where 7, is a factor that takes account of inaccurate assessment of the effects of loading such as unforeseen stress distribution in the structure, inherent inaccuracies in the calculation model, and variations in the dimensional accuracy from measured values. The effects of the assessment loads are to be obtained by the use of the appropriate form of analysis in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 6. For the purpose of 32 May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Chapter 3 Objectives and Procedures this Standard the value of 7, shall be taken as 1.1, except that for cast iron bridges jy Sal be taken as 1.0. Assessment of Resistance Assessment Resistance 3.11 The assessment resistance, R,*, shall be determined from the calculated resistance, R’, multiplied when required, by the overall condition factor, F,, as follows: Rta FR R’ and F, should be determined in accordance with 3.12 103.17 and 3.18 and 3.19 respectively. Calculated Resistance 3.12 The calculated resistance, R* determined from material strengths and measured section properties shall be calculated from the following expression: R*= function (f/y,) where fis the characteristic (or nominal) strength of the material as given in Chapter 4 and 7, is a partial factor for material strength as given in Table 3.2. 3.13 BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) and BA 44 (DMRB 3.4) shall be used for the assessment of concrete structures. BD 56 (DMRB 3.4) and BA 56 (DMRB 3.4) shall be used for the assessment of stee! structures. BD 61 (DMRB 3.4) and BA 61 (DMRB 3.4) shall be used for the assessment of composite structures. 3.14 Forssteel and wrought iron construction the expression may be modified as: 1 7, Finetion Table 3.2 Values of y,, - Partial Factor for Material Strength * See Table 2 of BD 56 (DMRB 3.4 ) for the value to be taken for different components. # To be determined for the structure being assessed (see Chapter 4). 3.15 For cast iron the calculated resistance shall be determined on a permissible stress basis from the following expression: R'= function (f) where f, is the permissible stress of cast iron as given in Ip Chapter 4. 3.16 The strength of the sections shall be determined in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 7. 3.17 Wherever possible, the existing sound thickness (€g allowing for corrosion and cracking of the eritical components) shall be measured, and used in determining 2’. Condition Factor 3.18 If the measurement of sound thickness is not possible, or if there are other uncertainties in the determination of resistance, a condition factor F., shall be estimated to account for any deficiencies that are May 2001 3/3Chapter 3 Objectives and Procedures Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 noted in the inspection (see Chapter 2), but cannot be allowed for in the determination of calculated resistance R’. The value of F.,, shall represent, on the basis of gineering judgement, an estimate of any deficiency in the integrity of the structure. This may relate to a member, a part of the structure or the structure as a whole. The value taken for F, shall not be greater than 10. 3.19 Advice on determining suitable condition factors for use with the modified MEXE method for masonry arches is given in BA 16 (DMRB 3.4). These condition factors shall also be used with other arch analysis methods unless other similar rationally-derived factors are available. Verification of Structural Adequacy 3.20 Structures shall be deemed to be capable of carrying the assessment load when the following relationship is satisfied: Equation 1 ie E.. function & 2 yp (effects of rn - O) Equation 2a Note: Superscript * refers to factored values. 3.21 For steel and wrought iron construction the relationship may be rearranged as follows: <=. function (f,) > (effects of ¥n..2,) Alm Equation 2b 3.22 For cast iron the following relationship shall be satisfied: E... function (f,) = (effects of ¥ ,-O,) Equation 2c 3.23 _In this Standard reference is made to the use of Parts 3, 4 and 5 of BS $400 as implemented by BD 56 (DMRB 3.4 ), BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) and BD 61 (DMRB 3.4 ) respectively. When using these documents care shall be taken to ensure that the partial factors of safety are correctly applied, **Note: Except for the additional factor F., the format of equation 2a is used in BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) whereas, the format given in equation 2b is used in BD 56 (DMRB 3.4). Therefore when using BD 61 (DMRB 3.4) in conjunction with either BD 56 (DMRB 3.4) or BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) care must be taken to ensure that q's applied correctly. 3.24 If equation 2a, 2b or 2c is not satisfied, consideration shall be given to weight and/or lane restrictions and repair, strengthening or reconstruction of the structure as appropriate (see Chapter 1), ‘Assessment for various levels of Assessment Live Loading, (see 5.12 to 5.17) shall be determined by deriving appropriate reductions to the value of Q,. in accordance with Chapter 5 and substituting the values in equations 2a, 2b or 2c. 3.25 The modified MEXE method for the assessment of masonry arches determines the values for allowable axle or bogie loads which can be compared to the live loading given in Annex A, thereby enabling the structural adequacy to be verified directly for 40 tonne vehicles and full AW loading. Alternatively, the axle or bogie loads allowable for the arch enable gross vehicle weight restrictions to be determined. Fatigue Assessment 3.26 Requirements for fatigue endurance are not included in this Standard because any such assessment would be profoundly influenced by the past stress history of each structure, which cannot generally be determined to the accuracy required for assessment purposes. Reference shall be made to the appropriate provisions of Part 10 of BS 5400 as implemented by BD 9 (DMRB 1.3), when fatigue endurance calculations are considered necessary for the assessment of a structure. Fatigue endurance calculations are not required for cast iron structures, because the level of stress permitted in this Standard provides a reasonable assurance against fatigue failure. 3.27 BA38 (DMRB 3.4) deals specifically with the fatigue of corroded reinforcement. 3/4 May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Chapter 3 Objectives and Procedures Load Testing 3.28 Load testing is not generally warranted for the assessment of structures because of the high costs involved, the possibility of causing structural damage while undertaking the tests and the difficulty in interpreting any test results. Consideration for testing shall only be given to those structures whose structural ‘behaviour is uncertain or where the material strength at critical sections needs to be considered. It should be noted that load testing on its own is not sufficient to assess directly the capacity of a structure to resist with adequate margins of safety the various loading conditions to which it may be subjected during its life. Load tests should therefore be complementary to the analytical process and are not to be considered as a replacement for the usual assessment procedures. Further guidance is given in BA 54 (DMRB 3.4). 3.29 The object of load testing shall be to check structural behaviour under load and/or verify the ‘method of analysis being used, ie to prove the accuracy and suitability of the assessment model of the structure. This will require the structure to be adequately instrumented for any test and for sufficient number of ‘measurements to be taken to allow the assessment model to be properly verified. The assessment model shall be adjusted if necessary in the light of the test results and the refined model used to determine the load capacity of the structure in accordance with the requirements of this Standard. May 2001 35Chapter 3 Objectives and Procedures Volume 3 Section 4 Part 3 BD 21/01 May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Chapter 4 Properties of Materials 4. PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS Unit Weights, Elastic Moduli and Coefficients of Expansion 4.1 Itis recommended that, for initial assessment, the appropriate values of the material properties given in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 should be used. However, in ccases where the initial assessment shows inadequacies or there is doubt about the particular material, the ‘material properties should be verified by testing. Table 4.1 gives the unit weights of materials, Table 4.2 gives elastic moduli and Table 4.3 gives coefficients of linear thermal expansion. Strengths of Materials General 4.2. For initial assessment the characteristic strengths of materials should be taken as specified in 4.3 to 4.10. Testing should normally only be carried out if the initial assessment is considered inadequate or if there is some doubt about the nature and quality of the materials. The strength values obtained from a limited number of tests shall be considered as only an indication of whether the characteristic strength values in 4.3 to 4.10 are applicable to the material present in the structure, For any particular structure the determination of appropriate characteristic strength values that are statistically valid will usually require extensive testing. Special requirements for the testing of wrought iron are given in 4.9. The strength of materials in a particular structure may be known from records. In the cases of stone and wrought iron itis often useful to know their source. Steel 4.3. In general, the nominal yield stress for steel shall be determined as described in BD 56 (DMRB 3.4 ). In the absence of definite information a characteristic yield strength of 230 N/mm? may be assumed for steel produced before 1955. Some of the pre-1922 steels were of poor quality and should be closely inspected for laminations, inclusions and deformities. Since about 1955, steel has been available in various grades, ie with different levels of yield stresses. Hence, itis essential to identify the particular grade and specification of the steel on the structure from available documents. From this information, and reference to the specification, it should be possible to determine the yield stress that can be used for assessment. A table of minimum yield stresses specified in various post-1955 British Standard Specifications is given in Annex C, When information from documents is not available, hardness ‘measurements and/or sample testing shall be undertaken. The method given in BS 427 may be used for the hardness test. Reinforcement 44. Pre-1961 reinforcement may be assumed to have a characteristic strength not greater than 230 Nim: For reinforcement after this date, the strength shall be taken as specified in the appropriate design codes of the period for high yield and mild steel bars. 45 Corrosion or damage can reduce the strength and ductility of reinforcement. For tensile reinforcement, where the loss of cross sectional area is less than. approximately 50%, the design characteristic strength and an adequate ductility can be assumed in assessing, the strength of a member. Where the loss exceeds approximately 50%, an appropriate value of the strength and the degree of ductility of the reinforcement shall be based on test evidence. Prestressing Tendons 4.6 The characteristic strength of prestressing tendons was first specified by the British Standards Institution in 1955. Values for tendons used before this date may be taken from documents of the period (Ref 8). Concrete 4.7 Pre-1939 concrete may be assumed to have a characteristic strength not greater than 15 N/mm?. The strength of modem concrete shall be taken as specified in BD 44 (DMRB 3.4). Where concrete strength has been defined in terms of a 28 day minimum cube strength, this should be considered as being equal to the characteristic cube strength. 48 — Guidance on the assessment of concrete strength in existing structures from tests on samples is given in BS 6089 : 1981. May 2001 aitChapter 4 Volume 3 Section 4 Properties of Materials Part3 BD 21/01 Unit Weights ke/m? 480 10 720 720 10 960 560 640 to 720 640 to 880 960 1040 to 1200 ‘Table 4.1 Unit Weights of Materials # Reference may be made to BS 648 (Schedule of Weights of Building Materials) for the unit, weights of materials not listed. * Wide range of unit weights because of the variability of timber. May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 4 Part 3 BD 21/01 Properties of Materials 90,000 to 138,000 200,000 Steel (including pre-1992 steel) 205,000 Concrete: Long Term Loading (generally accepted 14,000 value # for 1918-1939 concrete) See BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) 200,000 See BD 44 (DMRB 3.4) Table 4.2 Elastic Moduli * For modem materials see the relevant Standards for implementation of BS 5400 or, where available, the relevant assessment versions. # Value of E depends upon age, cement content and other factors. 9m 14x 10% 13.5 x 10 12.0 x 104 11.5 x 104 11.0 x 10* 10.0 x 10* 9.0 x 10¢ ‘Table 4.3 Coefficients of Linear Thermal Expansion For the purpose of calculating temperature effects, the coefficient of linear thermal expansion for structural steel and for concrete may generally be taken as 12 x 104/°C. Ifthe type of aggregate is known, the calculated temperature effocts may be calculated using the coefficients of linear thermal expansion as given e in Table 4.3 above. The values given contain an allowance for the presence of reinforcement. May 2001 43Chapter 4 Properties of Materials Volume 3 Section 4 Part 3 BD 21/01 Wrought Iron 4.9. The quality of wrought iron may depend upon where and when it was made and its strength can vary considerably. It should always be carefully examined for laminations, inclusions and deformities. As a general guide the characteristic yield stress may be taken as 220 Nimm? for wrought iron of satisfactory quality; however testing is required when defects are present. If tests are carried out, the characteristic yield stress should be determined as described in Annex C. Cast Iron - Compressive and Tensile Stresses 4.10 The compressive stress in cast iron due either to the permanent load or to the combined permanent and live load shall not exceed 154 Némm®. The tensile stress due either to the permanent load or to the combined permanent and live load shall not exceed 46 N/mm?. In addition, for a given value of permanent load stress, the live load stress shall not exceed the permissible tensile or compressive live load stresses obtained from Figure 4.1. * Note: The values of the permissible live load stress given in Figure 4.1 are based on the 154N/mm? compressive stress and the 46N/mm: tensile stress limitations and the additional restriction that the live load stress, f,, shall not exceed the values given by the following: ( _ Fortensile values of f, the greater of the values given by either f,=24.6 -0.44/, Nimm? or f,=196-0.76f, Nimm Gi) For compressive values of f, the greater of the values given by -43.9+0.79 f, Nim? -81343.15 fj Nim Where f, is the permanent load stress and tensile stresses are positive. Cast Iron - Shear Stresses 4.11 The shear stress in cast iron due either to the permanent load or to the combined permanent and live load shall not exceed 46 N/mm. In addition the following limitations shall apply: (where the live load shear stress q, acts in the same sense as the dead load shear stress q, 4, $24.6 -0.44 g, Nitam? (ii) where the live load shear stress g, acts in an opposite sense to the dead load shear stress 4, @ 4, 543.9- 0.79 g, N/mm? when g, <2, () 4g, $24.6 + 0.44 q, Nimm? when q, < 24, In the above inequalities, the signs of the shears have been taken into account and only numerical values of q, and q, should be substituted. Masonry 4.12. Graphs for brick and stone in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 respectively give an indication of the order of strength to be expected for various types of masonry according, to the units and mortar. These values may be used for an initial assessment with rigorous forms of analysis. Where strength tests are carried out it is preferable to do them on masonry built with the same units and ‘mortar rather than on the units and mortar separately. ‘TRRL Contractor Report 244 ‘Masonry Properties for ‘Assessing Arch Bridges’ (Ref 9) and BS 5628 ‘Structural Use of Masonry’ give information on suitable tests and strengths, May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Chapter 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Properties of Materials o s Pa ‘Stress due (0 live load (N/mm? “ue 10 6 ” 2 » o Stress due to permanent toads (N/mm) 3 Stress due to live load (N/mm?) 480 =100 40 9 50 Stress due to permanent loods ( Mémmt) Figure 4.1 Permissible Stresses in Cast Iron May 2001 4sChapter 4 Properties of Materials Volume 3 Section 4 Part 3 BD 21/01 8 {guuyy) su0soy p uréuans 211829) 201009 Figure 4.2 Characteristic Strength of Normal Brick Masonry Compressive Strength of Unit (N/mewt) 416 May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 Compressive Strength of Unit (Mime? } Lata) Lavoro So hanng mie 201049 e Figure 4.3 Characteristic Strength of Normal Stone Masonry Chapter 4 Properties of Materials May 2001 47Chapter 4 Properties of Materials Volume 3 Section 4 Part 3 BD 21/01 May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 EEE... Chapter 5 Loading 5. LOADING General 5.1 Structures shall be assessed to the loading requirements given in this Chapter. Assessment loading will generally be limited to the application of dead and superimposed dead loads and type HA live loads, the latter consisting of a uniformly distributed load (UDL) together with a knife edge load (KEL), as specified in 5.8 10 5.27. Type HA loading is given in Table 5.2 and Figure 5.1. For assessment purposes this is factored to give the Assessment Live Loading. Type HB loading for assessment purposes is not covered by this Standard, However advice for the requirement for HB assessment should be sought from the Overseeing Organisation. Live load requirements are also included for a single wheel load, single axle load, accidental wheel and vehicle loading, and footway loading. All loads specified in this Section are nominal loads and shall be multiplied by the appropriate partial factors given in Chapter 3. 5.2 The type HA, UDL and KEL is generally suitable only for modelling of longitudinal load effects, and does not satisfactorily model the effect of vehicles on trough decks, short span masonry arches, decks with ‘main members that span transversely, including skew slabs with significant transverse action, and buried concrete box structures with cover greater than 0.6m. ‘These types of structure shall be assessed using the loads given in 6.9 to 6.14 for troughing, 6.15 to 6.29 for ‘masonry arches and Annexes D and E for girders and slabs that span transversely and buried concrete box structures with cover greater than 0.6m. For structures ‘composed of longitudinal members at centres of 2.5m or less with low transverse distirbution, a check shall be ‘made using the vehicles in Annexes D and E. 5.3 When loading or principal combinations of loads other than those specified in this Standard are considered necessary for assessment purposes, these loadings shall comply with the requirements given in BD 37 (DMRB 1.3). Further advice on the application of such loads is given in BA 34 (DMRB 3.4), 5.4 Requirements are given for Assessment Live Loading to enable bridges to be assessed for their capacity to carry either 40/44 tonne vehicles or the full range of vehicles possible under the AW Regulations or for restricted traffic (see Chapter 9), 5.5 When the carriageway on the bridge is horizontally curved, the structure shall be assessed for the live loading requirements given in 5.8 to 5.27 and, in addition, a separate assessment for centrifugal effects ‘may be required in accordance with the requirements of 5.38 10 5.45, Notional Lane and Live Loading Application Notional Lane Widths (b,) 5.6 _ Forthe purposes of applying the Assessment Live Loadings, the carriageway* shall be divided into a number of notional lanes. The lane widths shall be neither less than 2.5m nor greater than 3.65m where the number of notional lanes exceed 2. The number of notional lanes shall be based on the actual lane markings. If the marked lanes are greater than 3.65m wide then the criteria given in Table 5.1 shall be used to determine the number of notional lanes. A hard shoulder shall be considered as a traffic lane. If there are no lane markings, the carriageway shall be divided into the integral number of notional lanes having equal widths as given in Table 5.1. Each notional lane shall be loaded with the appropriate UDL and KEL. "Note: The carriageway width shall be considered as the width of running surface between kerbs, raised paving, barriers, etc. Where the running surface is divided by a physical obstruction (eg, a dual carriageway with central reserve) two separate carriageway widths shall be considered. Carviageway Width (m) Number of Notional Lanes below 5.0 1 from 5.0 up to and including 7.5 2 above 7.5 up to and including 10.95 3 above 10.95 up to and inchuding 14.6 4 above 14.6 up to and including 18.25 5 above 18.25 up to and including 21.9 6 ‘Table 5.1 Number of Notional Lanes May 2001 SutChapter 5 Loading Nominal Dead Load 5.7 The nominal dead load and nominal superimposed dead load shall be derived having regard to4l. Nominal Assessment Live Loads General 5.8 The Assessment Live Loading levels of loading cover the ranges of vehicles specified in 5.12 to 5.17. For loaded lengths of 2m to 50m the following loads shall be applied: (A UDL (which varies with loaded length) together with a KEL; (ii) Assingle axle load; (iii) A single wheel load. All members of the structure shall be capable of sustaining the worst effects resulting from the separate application of these loads. 5.9 For loaded lengths less than 2m the single axle load and the single wheel load shall be used. For loaded lengths in excess of 50m, the UDL and KEL to be used. shall be as described in BD 50 (DMRB 3.4.2) 5.10 _ Values are given for single axle and single whee! loads in Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 that are applicable to the Assessment Live Loading levels of loading. However, values for the UDL and KEL are only given for the type HA loading case because the Reduction Factors given in 5.21 to 5.28 make it possible to determine Assessment Live Loading effects directly from the previously calculated effects of type HA loading. 5.11 Requirements for accidental wheel and vehicle loading, footway loading and for the assessment of centrifugal effects are given in 5.34, 5.35 and 5.38 to 5.45 respectively. Assessment Live Loadings 5.12 40 tonnes Assessment Live Loading. This covers the full range of vehicles up to 40/44 tonnes gross ‘weight (see Annex A). It does not cover the passage of the following: Special Types General Order Vehicles as regulated by Statutory Instrument 1979 No 1198 as amended, Special Order Vehicles, and in Norther Ireland by Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) Order (Norther Ireland) 1997 [1997 No. 109}. However it also covers Special Types General Order (STGO) Article 18 Category 1 vehicles which can have ‘gross vehicle weights (GVWs) of up to 46 tonnes. It should be noted that STGO Category 2 vehicles can also have GVWs lower than 46 tonnes but are not covered by this loading. It also does not cover Engineering Plant as defined in Statutory Instrument No. 1198 (1979). 1968 No. 277, even if the total weight is 40 tonnes or less except when such plant is being transported on a STGO Category 1 vehicle. In Northem Ireland the corresponding legislation is the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) Order (Northern Ireland) 1997. 5.13 26 tonnes Assessment Live Loading. This loading corresponds to the loading imposed by all types of two or three axle AW vehicles (restricted to 26 tonnes gross weight) 5.14 18 tonnes Assessment Live Loading. This Toading corresponds to the loading imposed by all types of two axle AW vehicles (restricted to 18 tonnes gross, weight). 5.15. 7.5 tonnes Assessment Live Loading. This loading corresponds to the loading imposed by two axle light goods vehicles and public service vehicles (restricted to 7.5 tonnes gross weight). 5.16 Fire Engine Loading. These loadings correspond to two groups of fire engines (FE). Details of the vehicles included in each group are listed in Annex E. This loading allows for up to three permitted vehicles in. convoy. 5.17 3 tonnes Assessment Live Loading. This loading corresponds to the loading that is imposed by cars and vans (restricted to 3 tonnes gross weight). ‘Type HA Loading UDL and KEL 5.18 For loaded lengths between 2m and 50m the type HA loading is represented by the UDL derived from the Toading curve W = 336 (1/L)°", where W is the UDL_ in kN per metre length of lane of width 3.65m (but for application see 5.19) and L is the loaded length in ‘metres, applied in conjunction with a KEL of 120 kN uniformly distributed across the lane width. This loading curve is illustrated in Figure 5.1 and tabulated in Table 5.2. For loaded lengths greater than 50m refer to BD 50 (DMRB 3.4.2). The longitudinal disposition of the KEL is to be such as to cause the most severe 52 May 2001Volume3 Section 4 Chapter 5 Part3 BD 21/01 Loading 200 = 180 @ 3 2 10 2 & 2 6 4 ° ° 10 20 30 40 50 Loaded Length L (m) Figure 5.1 UDL Curve for Type HA Load Loaded length m Load kNim Loaded length m Load KNim 2 22 28 36.0 4 1327 30 344 6 101.2 32 33.0 8 83.4 34 316 10 18 36 305 12 63.6 38 294 4 573 40 28.4 16 524 2 278 18 48.5 4 26.6 20 45.1 46 258 2 424 4&8 25.1 4 40.0 50 244 26 37.9 Note: for the definition of loaded length see Standard BD 37 (DMRB 1.3) ‘Table 5.2 Type HA loading UDL for Loaded Lengths 2m to 50m May 2001 5/3Chapter 5 Loading Volume 3 Section 4 Part3 BD 21/01 effect on the structural element under consideration. ‘The derivation of the short span type HA loading is given in Annex G. 5.19 The UDL determined for the appropriate loaded length (see Note under Table 5.2) and the KEL loads shall be applied to each notional lane in the appropriate parts of the influence line for the element or member under consideration. The lane loadings specified in 5.26 are interchangeable between the notional lanes and the notional lane or lanes may be left unloaded if this causes the most severe effect on the member or element under consideration. The KEL shall be applied at one point only in the loaded length of each notional lane. Reduction Factors for UDL and KEL 5.20 The Reduction Factor K is defined as the ratio: ‘Assessment Live Loading / Type HA Loading, Ifa linear elastic method of analysis is used to determine the effects of loading, K will also be the ratio of Assessment Live Loading effects/Type HA loading effects. Both the UDL and the KEL parts of the type HA loading are reduced by an identical Reduction Factor for each of the Assessment Live Loadings, and hence the effects of Assessment Live Loading may be obtained directly from the type HA loading effects for ‘UDL and KEL for loaded lengths in excess of 2m. 5.21 Type HA loading was derived by deterministic means, ie by estimating the worst credible values of relevant loading parameters from statistics available at the time. Recent data and probabilistic analyses indicate that the basic requirements can be relaxed for bridge situations less onerous than the above worst case scenario, while maintaining a consistent reliability level for the whole network. Relaxations have been produced by making the worst category of loading equivalent to the current assessment loading, and then determining the successive relaxation levels on the basis of constant reliability for bridges in all situations. 5.22 The research work referred to above justifies that there should be six separate loading requirements corresponding to six categories of bridge situations in terms of road surface characteristics and daily traffic flow (both directions). The categories are as follows: ‘Traffic Flow* Annual Average Hourly HGV Flow High (H) AAHHGVF > 70 Medium (M) 70 > AAHHGVF > 7 Low (L) 71> AAHHGVF Road Surface Categories Road surfaces shall be classified as: a) “Good”: In terms of ride quality, roads that are in sound condition, showing no visible deterioration, or roads that are showing some visible deterioration that is deemed to be lower level of concem ic. the deterioration is not serious and generally needs no action. b) “Poor”: In terms of ride quality, roads that show extensive or severe deterioration. These are considered to indicate a warning or intervention level of concern, and include roads with poor vertical alignment. ‘The ride quality shall be determined based on the methods of non-destructive pavement assessment, which are approved by the Overseeing Organisation e.g, High-speed Road Monitor (HRM), Traffic Speed Condition Survey (TRACS). Where HRM is used, the requirements given in HD29 (DMRB 7.3.2) shall be complied with. The variances of moving average deviations of road surface shall be taken over a length of road including the bridge and extending 20.0m beyond each end Alternatively, Motorways and trunk roads may generally be considered as “good” surface category if they are maintained and repaired before they deteriorate to “poor” surface. Where the methods of non-destructive pavement assessment are not available or practicable, the road surface category may be based on the following assessment by driving a vehicle over the bridge in free flowing traffic conditions:- a) Subsidence or dip in the road or poor profile run- on slab, If the bridge is in a dip, or where the vehicle bounces in such a manner that the driver or passengers are aware of significant alterations in their seat pressure whilst on any part of the bridge or run-on slab. May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 ‘Chapter 5 Part 3 BD 21/01 Loading b) Sub base deterioration. The vehicle pitches For0 130 18.00 2Driving = 130 19,00 2.Non-driving < 1.00 11.00 2.Non-driving 1.00 but < 1.30 16.00 2.Non-driving 1.30 but < 1.80 18.00 2.Non-driving = 180 20.00 3 Non-driving S 2.60 21.00 3 Non-driving > 2.60 24.00 May 2001 AllAnnex A Volume 3 Section 4 AW Vehicle and Axle Weights Part3 BD 21/01 €. Weight by reference to axle spacing ~ rigid vehicles ‘The maximum authorised weight in kilogrammes in the table below is the distance between the centres of outer axles of the vehicles (in metres) multiplied by the factor in the third column and rounded up to the nearest 10 kg, if that number is less than the maximum authorised weight. Description of vebicle Number of Factor to determine Maximum axles. maximum authorised authorised weight weight (kg) Rigid motor vehicle 2 6,000 18,000 ‘Tractor unit 2 6,000 18,000 ‘Trailer which is not a semi- 2 6,000 18,000 trailer or centre-axle trailer al Rigid motor vehicle 3 5,500 25,000, 26,000* Tractor unit 3 or more 6,000 25,000, 26,000" ‘Trailer which is not a semi- 3 or more 5,000 24,000 trailer or centre-axle trailer Rigid motor vehicle | 4ormore 5,000 30,000, 32,000* Articulated bus ‘Any number 5,000 28,000 £. Weight by reference to axle spacing — articulated vehicles ‘The maximum authorised weight in kilogrammes for an articulated vehicle in the table below is the distance between the kingpin and the centre of the rearmost axle of the scmi-trailer (in metres) multiplied by the factor in the third column and rounded up to the nearest 10 kg, if that number is less than the maximum authorised weight. Description of vehicle combination Number of Factor to determine axles maximum authorised weight Articulated vehicle 3 or more 5,500 Notes 1 The references for the Statutory Instruments promulgating the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations are given in 1.10. 2 105tonne axle. 3 Intemational intermodal transport journeys only (permitted under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 as amended). 4 The driving axle if it is not a steering axle is fitted with twin tyres and road-friendly suspension, or each driving axle has twin tyres and no axle has an axle weight exceeding 9,500 kg. ‘May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Annex B Part3 BD 21/01 Increase in Loading Due to Centrifugal Action ANNEX B. INCREASE IN LOADING DUE TO CENTRIFUGAL ACTION Derivation of Factor F4: By taking moments about points 2 or 1 One obtains Ry = (- 2s 22) Ww Fewiy? Ro =e (t+ 2ven 42 ere (an a7 let Fy 1+ 2ven ore x then Rye $2 = Fy) and Ro EP, Figure B1 Where the loading is to be applied as an equivalent static live load in accordance with 5.41 to 5.43, "/, may be considered as one of the longitudinal line loads or one of the point loads. The equivalent static live loads adjusted for centrifugal effects are given by R, and R,. Assuming conservatively, h = 1.75 m and d= 1.8 m the following value for factor F, is obtained: +0202 Maximum value of r (above which centrifugal effect may be ignored): Centrifugal effects will only need to be considered when the adjustment of the static live loads is equal to or greater than 25%. 2 j= + 2 > 125 ore < Sh ed ed Testing at the Transport Research Laboratory established the following relationship between v and r: Substituting for v in the above inequality gives r < 800 4-150 d Substituting h = .75 and d= 1.8m gives r<628m which means that for a radius greater than 600m (rounded value), centrifugal effects may be ignored. May 2001 BIAnnex B Volume 3 Section 4 Increase in Loading Due to Centrifugal Action Part3 BD 21/01 BR May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Annex C Part3 BD 21/01 Properties of Materials ANNEX C. PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS C1. Wrought Iron Determination of Characteristic Yield Stress. A value for the characteristic yield stress may be obtained by testing samples of material taken from the structure to be assessed. ‘Where such test results are to be used, the characteristic yield stress shall be inferred from these results by one of the following two methods: @ The mean and standard deviation of the test results shall be calculated and the 95% one-sided tolerance interval determined with 95% confidence for the number of results available from Table 7 in annex B to BS 2846 : Part 3 : 1975 (use the column for (1 - o) = 0.95, P = 0.95), (ii) The mean of the test results shall be calculated and an amount of 1645.6 ( + +) subtracted from it where © is the known standard deviation, to be taken as 26 Nimm?: is the number of test results. Note: It must be appreciated that the yield stress of wrought iron determined from samples varies over a wide range, typically from 180 to 340 N/mm, and this range is not necessarily much narrower when samples are taken from the same structure. It is, therefore, unlikely that a few test results will provide any more reliable information about the yield stress of the material inthe structure as a whole than the value given in 4.9, which is based on a large number of tests. ‘The methods of inferring the characteristic yield stress given above make allowance for this variation in results The first method implies the determination of the standard deviation from the test results only and will give lower results for the characteristic yield stress, since it must allow for the wide possible variation in standard deviation. It is only likely to be suitable if more than ten test results are available. ‘The second method is based on the reasonable assumption that the standard deviation of results is the same for the samples taken from the particular structure as that determined from the larger number of results on which the value in 4.9 is based. This method is suitable for small numbers of results though, again, the allowance for uncertainty necessarily increases as the number of results is reduced. May 2001 cHAnnex C Volume 3 Section 4 Properties of Materials Part3 BD 21/01 British Standard BS 15: 1948 Amendment No 1 April 1959 Up to 20mm thickness 21mm to Simm thickness # BS 2762: 1956 Notch ductile IA Up to 51mm thickness Notch ductile IB Up to Simm thickness Notch ductile ILA Up to Simm thickness Notch ductile ITB Up to Simm thickness High Yield Stee} BS 968: 1962 ‘Up to 16mm thickness ‘17mm to 32mm thickness 33mm to Simm thickness * The above table is only valid for plates, flats and sections up to $1mm thickness. # BS 15 revision September 1961. Universal beams and universal columns with flange thicknesses less than 38mm have minimum yield stresses of 247N/mm’. ‘Table C2 Structural Steel: Minimum Yield Stresses to Post 1955 British Standards May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Annex D Part3 BD 21/01 Loading from Vehicles ANNEX D. LOADING FROM VEHICLES DI. Introduction ‘The effect of vehicular traffic on cross-girders and slabs spanning transversely including skew slabs with significant transverse action, and buried concrete box structures with cover greater than 0.6m, can be determined directly by considering individual vehicles and using a suitable method of analysis such as a grillage computer program. As a first step, transverse spanning members should initially be assessed using the simple methods given in BA 16 (DMRB 3.4) where these are appropriate. If this initial assessment shows that the members are inadequate, then further analysis using the loading and methods given in this Annex shall be undertaken. D2. Critical Vehicles The details of critical vehicles for full assessment live loading are given in Table D1. It is necessary to consider all these vehicles to determine the most onerous effects. Table D2 gives details of the critical AW vehicles to be considered for restricted assessment live loading, D3. Vehicle Application and Lane Widths The following loads shall be applied: a. Single vehicle (with single axle impact) b. Convoy of vehicles (jam situation with no axle impact) All members shall be capable of sustaining the worst effects resulting from the separate application of these loads. The carriageway shall be divided into 2.5m wide lanes which shall be located at the positions causing the most adverse loading effects. The vehicle(s) shall be positioned within the lane to cause the most onerous loading effect but there should be at least 0.7m lateral spacing between wheel centres of adjacent vehicles*. The wheel loads should be applied at 1.8m transverse spacing on the axle over a 0.3 x 0.3m square contact area. In addition there will be a UDL of SkN/m? where the carriageway width is such that it accommodates an integral number and a fractional part of a 2.5m lane. This load is applied over the fractional part of lane. The full effects of loading from vehicles in two adjacent lanes only shall be considered. For vehicles in lanes 3 and in lanes 4 and other lanes factors of 0.5 and 0.4 respectively shall be applied to the loading effects. Where convoys of vehicles are considered the minimum distance between vehicles shall be 1.0m. The wheel loads of vehicles used for the assessment of buried concrete box structures (cover greater than 0.6m), shall be dispersed from the carriageway to the top of the buried structure in accordance with BA 55 (DMRB 3.4.9), *Note: For the assessment of buried concrete box structures, there should be at least 1.5m lateral spacing between wheel centres of adjacent vehicles. The impact factor shall be applied to a single axle of a single vehicle in one lane only. The adjacent vehicle shall have no axle impact. May 2001 DilAnnex D Volume 3 Section 4 Loading from Vehicles Part3 BD 21/01 Vekicte] No.of] "AXLE WEIGHTS AND SPACING Gross | Axles ‘Weight ones} o ] wi far] we | az] ws [as] wa] as] ws [as] wo | 0 =) | onnes) | Gm) | (omnes) | (a) | ctomnes) | (=) | Connesy] (m) | (tonnes) | (=) | (tonnes) | (m) st] 4 | io | 650 | 120] 650 | 390] uso | 130| 750 10 3@ | 4 [10 | 650 | 300] 150 | sso] v0.00 | 180] 1000 10. 4 | s | 10 | 600 | s00[ uso | 420] 750 | 1as[ 750 [ 13s[_ 750 10) 4 [5 | 10 | 600 | 280[ nso | 130] sso [s2e[ soo | oz] 800 10 a | s | 10 | soo | 20[ 1050 [130] 450 [480] 10.00] 1.80] 10.00 10 av [6 [10 | soo [280] 1050 [130] soo [sie] sas | iss] 6s | ras] 683 | 10 | «6 [10 | «oo [2ao[ iso [130] soo [47] 750 | 13s] 750 [13s] 750 | 10 a | s | to [ 200 [280] uso [130] 750 | 700] 9.00 | 135] 9.00 10 Notes 1 daxlerigid 2 242artie 3 BiB anic 4 342 artic, W2 and W3 can be reversed for worst effect 3 3+2artie, with 10.5 tonne drive axle, W2 and W3 can be reversed for worst effect 6 343 artic, maximum axle weight 10.5 tonnes, W2 and W3 can be reversed for worst effect 7 343 artic, maximum axle weight 10.5 tonnes, W2 and W3 can be reversed for worst effect 8 —_342artic, 40 ISO container, international intermodal journeys only, W2 and W3 can be reversed for worst effect Key: 01 and 02 - overhang (m) WI, W2 etc - axle weights (tonnes) Al, A2, ete - axle spacings (m) or] atl a2] a3| a4 | as | 02 Wl W2 W3 W4 WS Wo ‘Table D1 Critical Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight Regulations) May 2001‘Volume 3 Section 4 Annex D Part3 BD 21/01 Loading from Vehicles D4. Vehicle Nominal Loading ‘The nominal loading in each lane shall be as follows: a. Single vehicle - An impact factor of 1.8 shall be applied to the most critical axle of the vehicle positioned at the most onerous part of the influence line diagram. See Chapter 14 of reference 4. The factored axle and remaining unfactored axles shall be taken as the nominal loads. b. Convoy of vehicles - The unfactored axle weights shall be taken as the nominal loads. ‘The partial factors for loads given in this Standard shall be applied for deriving assessment load effects. ‘Assessment | Vehicle | Vehicle | No, "AXLE WEIGHTS AND SPACING Live Ret | Gross of, Loading Weight | Axles Level ones) on wi Al wo | a2 ws 02 (a) |} Gonnes) | Gm) | Gonnes) | Gm) | Connes) | (a) 6 ra | 2032 3 | 10 | 432 | 267 | soo } 102 | soo | 1.00 26 RB | 26.00 3 | 10 | 700 | s42 | 950 | 130 | 930 | 1.00 26 Rc | 26.00 3 | 10 | 700 }| 342 | uso+] 130 | 750+ | 1.00 %6 Rp | 2600 3 | 10 | 650 | 300 | sor | 530 | 800+} 100 18 Re | 1800 2 | 10 | 650 | 300 | 1150 1.00 18 re | 750 2 | 10 | 600 | 200 1.30 1.00 3 ro_| 3.00 2 | 07 | 210 | 200 | 090 1.00 RA Short wheelbase, minimum bogey axle spacing, vehicle RB ‘Maximum equal bogey axle weight vehicle RC Maximum axle weight RD 3-axle articulated, king-pin assumed 0.2m in front of centre-line of rear axle + Note: W2 and W3 are interchangeable to determine the most adverse effect. ‘Table D2 Critical Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight Regulations) to be Considered When Assessing for Restricted Assessment Live Loading Levels May 2001 DBAnnex D Volume 3 Section 4 Loading from Vehicles Part 3 BD 21/01 Da May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Annex E Part 3 BD 21/01 Fire Engines e ANNEX E. FIRE ENGINES Make of Gross Axle ‘Weight Distribution Fire Engine Weight Spacing (m) (tonnes) (tonnes) Front Rear Dennis DF 16.26 3.60 610 = 10.16 Leyland MS 1600 16.26 3.68 661 - 10.17 Leyland MS 1600 16.26 4.062 661-1017 Leyland MS 1600 16.26 5.26 661-1017 Dodge 16.26 58 661 = 10.17 Dodge 16.26 52 661 = 10.17 e Dodge 16.26 45 661-1017 Dodge 13.21 4.04 33am eee 15 Dodge 13.21 38 483 - 9.15 | Group Ford 13.00 33 483 = 9S Ford 13.00 4.04 483 - 91S Bedford SLR 1255 3.84 437 8.89 Bedford SLRA 12585 351 437 = 8.89 Dodge 1220 3.50 458-864 Dennis RS & SS 11.70 3.60 480 - 720 Dennis Rapier 11.00 3.60 448-682 Dennis Sabre 13.00 3.80 550-750 Dennis Sabre 1450 4.20 550 = 9.00 @ | Mercedes-Benz ATEGO 13.50 3.86 410 - 9.30 DAF FF55.230 14.00 3.90 450 = 980 Dodge 750 3.50 326 - 508 | Group2 Dodge 6.60 3.60 230 - ~~ 4.90 ‘Table El: Fire Engines El. Loading The above table contains the critical fire engines for Group 1 and 2 assessment levels, although this list is not exhaustive. For fire engine vehicles other than those listed above (such as three-axle fire engines with turntable adders), it will be necessary to obtain axle loads and spacings from the vehicle manufacturer. The maximum gross vehicle weights for use of these other fire engines in the UK are generally given as either 18 tonnes or 26 tonnes as @ _—_WHTEprIate. The vehicle loading is to be applied as described in Annex D, excepting that a maximum of 3 fire engines, together with any other vehicles of the appropriate type (3 tonnes cars and vans), shall be applied to the structure at any one time. May 2001Annex E Volume 3 Section 4 Fire Engines Part 3 BD 21/01 ED May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Annex F Part3 BD 21/01 Axle Weights for Restricted Assessment Live Loadings ANNEX F. AXLE WEIGHTS FOR RESTRICTED ASSESSMENT LIVE LOADINGS Restricted Assessment | Maximum Gross Vehicle ‘Maximum Axle Weight Live Loading (tonnes) | Weight (GVW) (tonnes) (tonnes) Single Axle Double Axle (per Axle) 3 32 1s 95 26 26 us 95 18 18 15 - 1B 125 9 - e 10 10 7 - 15 75 55 - 3 3 2 - Fire Engines Group 1 10 - Group 2 3 - ‘Table F1 Axle Weights for Restricted Assessment Live Loadings May 2001 FAAnnex F Volume 3 Section 4 Axle Weights for Restricted Assessment Live Loadings Part 3 BD 21/01 2 May 2001‘Volume 3 Section 4 Annex G Part3 BD 21/01 Background to Type HA Loading and Assessment Live Loading ANNEX G. BACKGROUND TO TYPE HA LOADING AND ASSESSMENT LIVE LOADING G1. Introduction The type HA loading Assessment Live loading for short spans (2-50m length) has been derived from first principles using the latest available data, The method used to derive the loading has been compared with some findings from the work to determine the partial material factors in BS 5400 : Part 3, which uses probability theory. ‘These findings indicated that the 95% characteristic load (ie 5% chance of occurring in 120 years) was approximately the same as the current serviceability loading, ie 1.2 x HA. Using the same statistical load model it ‘was shown that the ultimate load (ie 1.5 x HA) occurred with a return period of 200,000 years or 0.06% chance in 120 years. This latter concept has been adopted for deriving the new loading by assuming that the worst credible load that can reasonably be expected to occur in the lifetime of the bridge will be equivalent to 1.5 x HA. Hence the value of the nominal HA can be found directly by dividing by 1.5. Four elements have been used to generate the extreme loads, namely: (Loading from AW vehicles; Gi) Impact; Git) Overioading; (iv) Lateral bunching. Each of these elements is discussed in more detail later. The loading has been derived for a single lane only. It has been assumed that if two adjacent lanes are loaded there is a reasonable chance that they will both be equally loaded. G2. Vehicle Loading and Impact It has been assumed that spans can be fully occupied by convoys of particular vehicles which are fully laden to the limits prescribed by the AW Regulations. The bending moment and shear force effects on a simply supported span due to specified numbers of these vehicles have been derived using a computer program which automatically selects the most onerous load case. By running a comprehensive range of all the possible vehicles it was possible to produce an envelope of moments and shears for all current legal AW vehicles. It was assumed that there was a I metre gap between each vehicle Impact was included only in those computer runs which were for a single vehicle and was applied only to the heaviest axle. Based on TRRL report LR 722 the value of 1.8 was adopted as the extreme impact factor, whose effect was thus included in the bending moment and shearing force envelopes. The results of the computer runs indicated that the loading could be broadly divided into three span regions, namely: (i) 0-10m, where axle or bogie loading is dominant, (ii) 25-SOm, where multiple vehicle loading is dominant, and (ii) a transition region 10-25m where the loading changes from axle or bogie to vehicle dominant. ‘The transition region also includes cases where single vehicles dominate the loading effects. Table GI illustrates the dominant loading for the various spans. August 2001 GiAnnex G Volume 3 Section 4 Background to Type HA Loading and Assessment Live Loading Part 3 BD 21/01 Legend: Si Single Do. Double Te = Triple Mu. = — Multiple (> 3) Ax, = Axle Ve. = Vehicle ‘Table G1 Dominant Loading for Various Spans August 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Annex G Part3 BD 21/01 Background to Type HA Loading and Assessment Live Loading G3. Overloading ‘The amount of overloading was determined from the results of roadside surveys of the then C&U vehicles carried out by TRL at three main road sites. Axle and vehicle weights were determined using static weighbridges and the results presented for various vehicle types. From a knowledge of the legal limits for particular vehicles and axle configurations, it was possible to derive an extreme overload factor. This was taken as 1.4, from 2 to 10m spans, reducing linearly from 10m span to unity at 60m span, where, with a seven vehicle convoy, it could reasonably be expected that any overloaded vehicles would be balanced by partially laden ones. G4. Lateral Bunching An allowance was made for the case where more than one line of vehicles can squeeze into a traffic lane. The factor was based on the ratio of the standard lane width, 3.65, to the maximum vehicle width under the then C&U Regulations, 2.5m. The factor has been assumed to be constant up to 20m, where there is a good chance of having adjacent lines of two lorries in each line, reducing to unity at 40m where the chances of getting two lines of five lorries side by side are remote. It should be noted that corresponding compensating factors have been provided in 5.23 to allow for the cases where the actual lane widths are less than the standard lane width. In these cases the derived assessment loading should be reduced by the appropriate factor. However comparison of the effects of alternative traffic speed and bunching situations have led to the conclusion that high speed impact effect with no lateral bunching is the most onerous criterion for bridge loading. The HA UDL and KEL are therefore adjusted by Adjustment Factors in accordance with 5.23, G5. Calculation of Type HA Design Loading For both shear and moments and for each span, the AW envelope values, which include any impact effect, have been multiplied by the appropriate value of the span-dependent overloading and lateral bunching factors, The resulting moments and shears have then been divided by 1.5 to give the nominal values but increased by 10% to allow for any unforeseen changes in traffic patterns. The effect of the 120 kN knife edge has then been removed from the moments and shears and an equivalent, uniformly distributed loading derived. The worst UDL from the ‘moment and shear calculations was always the shear value and this has been taken at each particular span. The ‘equation given in 5.18 was found to give a very good fit with the calculated values. G6. Calculation of Assessment Live Loadings ‘The values of the Assessment Live Loadings (see 5.8 to 5.33) have been determined in a similar way to the Type HA Loading but using an envelope containing those vehicles whose gross weight is equal to or less than the maximum weight specified for the particular loading. However no 10% contingency allowance has been included in the calculations and there are some other differences which are described in the following paragraph. In the case of fire engines the maximum convoy has been limited to three vehicles, with any remaining space being filled with car loading (3 tonnes Assessment Live Loading). For fire engines no overload factor has been taken since it was assumed that there is a definite limit to the amount of water that they can carry. Use of the overload factor for cars has been modified to take account of their shorter length and the lateral bunching factor has also been increased to take account of their narrower width. May 2001 G3Annex G Volume 3 Section 4 Background to Type HA Loading and Assessment Live Loading Part3 BD 21/01 G7. Comments on Loading It should be noted that the various factors which have been used in determining the loading are span dependent and that they are used to derive an ultimate or extreme load rather than a working load. For serviceability itis difficult to ascribe values to the individual factors, but their combined effect will be reduced in the ratio 1.2:1.5. It should also be noted that there has been a considerable growth in commercial traffic over the years and that convoys of eight or more HGVs are quite common on some routes. However, allowing for this situation means that the derived loading will be conservative for medium length spans on lightly trafficked routes, where the probability of ever having a bridge completely filled with heavy vehicles is small. For the shorter spans which can only accommodate a small number of HGVs, the loading should not be considered conservative given the likelihood that the bridge will suffer full loading conditions even on little used roads. ‘The impact factor has been derived from measurements taken on motorway overbridges which are of modem construction and where the road surface and bridge joints were likely to have been in good condition. The road surfaces at older bridges are unlikely to be in such good state and therefore the impact effects are unlikely to be less than those measured, except in cases where the traffic is forced to move at a slow speed. The overload factors have been derived from a sample survey of about 3500 vehicles and may thus be assumed to be typical of what may ‘occur at any time, or in any place in the county. From the discussion above it will be seen that the factors which have been used in deriving the loadings can be said to be fairly universal in application and reflect situations which may occur at any bridge site. However the AW envelopes may be conservative for the longer bridge short spans, where the loading is dominated by several vehicles in convoy, if the traffic is light, or there is a low proportion of heavy goods vehicles. However, even in these cases there is always the possibility that the full envelope loading may be attained as a result of an accident causing a jam of vehicles or other interruption to the normal traffic patter. Gia May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 ‘Annex H Part3 BD 21/01 Background to the Requirements for Masonry Arch Bridges ANNEX H. BACKGROUND TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY ARCH BRIDGES Hl. Partial Safety Factor (y,) for Live Loads The ultimate limit state load for AW vehicles, in terms of a single axle load, is the maximum permitted axle load ‘multiplied by an impact factor, 1.8, and an overloading factor, 1.4, giving a total Yq of 2.52. From the serviceability point of view, pending any detailed statistical examination, it will be reasonable to assume that only a loading equivalent to the nominal HA loading will be applied to the structure on any regular basis. The nominal HA load equivalent is approximately the ultimate limit state load divided by 1.5 (see Annex G), ie 2.52 divided by 1.5 or, say, 1.7 times the maximum permitted axle load. Examination of typical load deformation curves from the ten TRL tests (Ref 10), a few examples of which are given in Figure HI, shows that deformations increase rapidly as the applied load exceeds approximately half the ultimate failure load. In order to avoid causing any permanent structural damage, therefore, it will be prudent to limit regularly applied loading, pending a detailed investigation regarding serviceability, to half the ultimate failure load. This can also be inferred from reports of first damage observed in various full-scale tests, This implies ay, of 3.4. Taking the greater of the two values, therefore, a live load Yq of 3.4 for a single axle is recommended for masonry arches. When multiple-axle AW vehicles are used in the analysis, a Yq of 3.4 should be used for the critical axle. However, as the impact factor of 1.8 is not considered to be applicable to the other axles, a pro-rata reduction can be made giving yp, of 1.9 for these axles. When the configuration and speed of a vehicle at the time of crossing is known with some precision, as in the case of some abnormal indivisible loads, the possiblity of overloading and impact may be ignored and a Yq, of 2.0 may be considered adequate. 2. Effective Width for Wheel Loads H2.1 The analysis of an arch is generally carried out for a unit width of the barrel. In order to calculate the effects of wheel loads applied at the road surface, it is therefore necessary to determine the effective widths. H2.2_ The effective width for a wheel load has two components - the dispersal through the fill material and the transverse structural action of the barrel itself. Based on the examination of a number of experiments on full scale bridges reported by Davy (Ref 11) and Chettoe and Henderson (Ref 12), the following approximate formula for effective widths, for a wheel load applied at any position along the span, has been devised: weh+1s where both w and h are in metres. The above formula is intended to be somewhat conservative compared to the test results referred to in H2.3 since, approaching failure, loads may become more concentrated than was the case during the tests. When the effective widths for a number of wheels overlap transversely, the total effective width will be that between the outer points H2.3 It should be noted that the true effective width would depend upon a number of factors, including the aspect ratio. Therefore, the above formula should be used as @ conservative approximation until further work is cartied out to investigate the transverse distribution of load effects. Nevertheless, as shown in Table HI, this formula gives reasonable agreement with the effective widths for a 4-wheel axle determined experimentally by Chettoe and Henderson (Ref 12) for a number of arch bridges, and for a single wheel load determined by Davy (Ref 11) for Alcester bridge. May 2001 HIAnnex H Volume 3 Section 4 Background to the Requirements for Masonry Arch Bridges Part3 BD 21/01 * Limestone Fill ** Concrete Fill ‘Table H1 Transverse Effective Widths for a 4 Wheel (HB Type) Axle 10 Live Load Failure Load 1. Preston 2: Shinafoot 3. Prestwood Torksey Figure Hi Load Deformation Curves e May 2001Volume 3 Section 4 Annex J Part3 BD 21/01 Assessment of Bridge Deck Cantilevers for Accidental Wheel Loading ANNEX J. ASSESSMENT FOR BRIDGE DECK CANTILEVERS FOR ACCIDENTAL WHEEL LOADING J. Derivation of Accidental Wheel Loading (AWL) ‘The AWLs have been derived from their actions upon infinitely long cantilever slab elements up to 3 metres wide. The loading values of the four wheeled AWL configurations (Table 5.4) have been determined so that when multiplied by 1.5 they produce similar peak elastic cantilever root ultimate moments as would single real vehicles placed on the cantilever slab. Wheel loads are factored upwards to represent the worst credible loading case. The factors used for the real vehicles are 1.8 impact factor (one axle only) and a 1.4 overloading factor (all axles) Westergaard’s equation was used to determine the peak elastic moments and the calculations were carried out for the range of vehicles contained within each load assessment band. The most onerous values are then taken. The ‘method is not suitable for non-cantilevered members and an accidental vehicle from Annex D shall be used instead. 32. Assessment of Existing Structures (The Westergaard equation used to determine the requirements in this Standard is an elastic method, and produces a considerable peak value of moment in line with the heaviest axle, For new designs adequate reinforcement can be provided to prevent the initiation of local failure. However, an elastic method can be ‘onerous for the assessment of existing structures as an actual collapse cannot occur until a mechanism has been set up along a length of cantilever root together with failure planes within the deck area adjacent to the errant vehicle; (ii) For cantilevers where assessments of the local effects of the AWL using elastic methods of analysis indicate inadequacies, consideration should be given to the use of non-linear plastic analysis such as yield line methods. Vehicles as given in Annexes D and E rather than AWL, should be used for this analysis. Use of this method of analysis is referred to in BD44 (DMRB 3.4). Itis important to also ensure that local shear strength is adequate and that the reinforcement is sufficiently ductile to allow the rotations at any yield line to safely occur. Attention should also be given to the boundary conditions assumed for the cantilever connection to the adjacent section of deck, to ensure the overall structural action is being correctly modelled for the AWL loading case. Cantilevers are often modelled with a rigid support at the root although many decks do allow some flexural rotation to occur, which may allow the peak loading effects to be dispersed; (iil) ‘The use of such collapse analysis methods makes allowance for the mobilization of the full strength of the structure, therefore the assessed capacity may be greatly in excess of that derived from clastic considerations. However, in achieving this mobilization considerable local yield may occur along the lines of failure, leading to possible excessive cracking and subsequent loss of durability at that location. Hence, when a large gain in assessed capacity is achieved through the use of these methods, increased frequency of inspection of such locations may be considered necessary; (iv) For elements which are still found to be inadequate following the more detailed analysis mentioned in J2 (ii) above, consideration should be given to strengthening or replacement; (¥)__ Locations where cantilevers are terminated or discontinuous need to be considered as special cases. These locations have been frequently provided with additional local strength in the original design. If not, or if such locally enhanced strength is found to be insufficient, these locations may need additional strengthening; (vi) Where strengthening or replacement is not possible or practical, the provision of an ‘effective barrier’ (see Chapter 5) should be considered. May 2001 olAnnex J Volume 3 Section 4 Assessment of Bridge Deck Cantilevers for Accidental Wheel Loading Part3 BD 21/01 33. @ Gi) Effective Barriers ‘The only fully ‘effective barriers’ currently available to prevent vehicles of the types associated with AWLs travelling onto deck cantilevers are P6 parapets (BD 52 (DMRB 2.3) refers) and higher containment (1.2m high) concrete barriers. However, these barriers are unlikely to be suitable for use on many bridge decks for a number of reasons, including consideration of available space, fixity, environmental impact and the need to ‘use long safety fence transitions, as well as the large additional dead weight of conerete barriers. Where an ‘effective barrier’ is provided, AWL need not be considered on the cantilever arca, although it does still need to be considered on the traffic side of the barrier. Strength of local elements of the bridge, verge width, necessary setbacks, drainage, and visibility requirements also need to be considered; Where a fully ‘effective barrier’ is not appropriate or possible, the installation of a partially ‘effective barrier’ may be considered, provided that cantilevers are adequate to carry the nominal live loading which is represented by the most onerous vehicle for the appropriate assessment level given in Annexes D and E. (impact factor should not be applied). The ultimate live loads should be taken as the nominal live loads multiplied by a Yq factor of 1.5 ( Y~ should not be applied). The use of non-linear plastic methods of analysis may be considered. A partially ‘effective barrier’ is a physical obstruction such as a safety fence, which does not allow vehicles (other than errant vehicles) to enter or park on areas supported by inadequate cantilevers. May 2001Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 3 Highway Structures: Inspection and Maintenance Section 4 Assessment BD 21/01 - The Assessment of Highway Bridges and Suuctures ISBN 0 11 552296 4 For comprehensive desk top access to the information contained within the Design ‘Manual for Roads and Bridges, The Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works and the Trunk Road Maintenance Manual, watch out for the: o ULC r en. tN to) te) nD Available quarterly on subscription the Standards for Highway Works CD Rom offers you the opportunity to access all Volumes at your fingertips. Complete with user booklet, ‘this publication will enable you to access the information you need quickly. To order or find out more, telephone The Stationery Office customer DT Val UC (0870 6005522. For more information on the content of this publication please PSeeen ie Croke aU te ace LeS tere a Published by ‘The Stationery Office (oa, elephone and fax orders only) PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 IGN, General enguiies/Telephone orders 0870 600 5522 Fax onder 0870 600 $533 Stationery Office snd avilable from wor thestationeryfice.com “The Stationery Office Bookshops 3 Kingsway, London WC2B 6PQ 7242 6393 Fax 020 7282 6394 168-69 Bull Stet, Birmingham B4 6AD (0121 236 9696 Fox 0121-236 9699) 33 Wine Sueet, Bristol BSI 28Q 13117 926 430 Fax 0117 929 45153 9.21 Princess Set, Manchester M6O 8AS (161 834 9201 Fax O161 833 0634, 16 Amur Steet, Belfast BEY 4G (028 9003 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 ‘The Stationery Oi Oriel Bookshop 18-19 High Street, Carilt CPI 282. (029-2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347 7 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH 947 (0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588, The Stationery Office's Accredited Agents (see Yellow Paes) cand through tood booksellers £7.99 | ISBN 0-11-552296-4 mM '80115'522963)Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 3 Highway Structures: Inspection an Section 4 Assessment Maintenance Correction to May 2001 amendment ISBN 0 11 552371 5 For comprehensive desk top access to the information contained within the Design ‘Manual for Roads and Bridges, The Manual Nate) Lt) of Contract Documents for Highway Works and the Trunk Road Maintenance Manual, watch out for the: OCLs HIGHWAY WORKS e en Available quarterly on subscription the Standards for Highway Works CD Rom offers you the opportunity to acess ll Volumes at aa your fingertips. Complete with user booklet, this publication wil enable you to acess the information you need quickly To order or find out more, telephone The Stationery Office customer service on (0870 6005522. For more information on the content of this publication please Pee eee eh earn Sunt tea eS tel Published by The Stationery Office and avilable from: The Stationery Office {ani telephone and fax orders only) PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 IGN, General enquiries Telephone orders 0870 600 5522 Fan onders 0870 600 9533 wowiestationeryofice.com ‘The Stationery Office Rookshops way, London WC2B PQ. (020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6304 68.69 Bull Sweet, Birmingham B4 6AD 121 236.9696 Fax D121 236 9699 33 Wine Stet, Brisiol BSI 28Q 10117 926 4306 Fax 0117 929 4515 59-21 Princess Stet, Manchester M6O 8AS 61 834-7201 Fax DI6I 833 0634 16 Aatur Succ, Beast BTY 4GD. (008 9093 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 The Stationery Otfice Orie) Bookshop ISBN 0-11-552371-5 18-19 High Street, Cardiff CFI 287. (009-2039 5548 Fax 029 2058 4347 71 Lothian Road. Edinburgh EH3 9AZ_ e (0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588, The Stationery Office's Accredited Agents 1d through good booksellers 780115525717