Dynamic Load Effects of Wheeled and Tracked Military Vehicles on a Steel Girder Composite Bridge
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 26, Issue 3
Abstract
The perceived and observed differences in the dynamic behavior between wheeled and tracked military vehicles should be accounted for in the application of appropriate dynamic load effect values for bridge design and assessment. No current North American bridge design or assessment code provides guidance on methods to differentiate between the dynamic loading effects of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Civilian codes and the Military Load Classification (MLC) system used by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) typically use the same dynamic loading effects values for both wheeled and tracked vehicles that can significantly impact and limit the mobility of tracked vehicles. Bridge load testing was carried out to compare the dynamic loading effects between three wheeled military vehicles and a main battle tank, Leopard 2. Results indicate that it may be appropriate to reduce the dynamic load allowance (DLA) used for military tracked vehicles by one-third of that used for military wheeled vehicle analysis. A review of several nations' DLA values was carried out, and application of a reduced DLA for tracked vehicles could result in an increase to the predicted bridge capacity of 5%–13% for tracked vehicles.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Department of National Defence and would not have been possible without the support and cooperation of several Canadian Armed Forces directorates and units, specifically 2 Combat Engineer Regiment, Director Combat Support Equipment Management, and Director Armament Sustainment Program Management.
References
AASHTO. 1992. Standard specifications for highway bridges. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 1996. Standard specifications for highway bridges. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 1998. LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2002. Standard specifications for highway bridges. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2012. LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Bakht, B., and S. G. Pinjarkar. 1989. “Dynamic testing of highway bridges—A review.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1223: 93–100.
Billing, J. R. 1984. “Dynamic loading and testing of bridges in Ontario.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 11 (4): 833–843. https://doi.org/10.1139/l84-101.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 2006. Steel, concrete and composite bridges. Part 2: Specification for loads. London: BSI.
Cantieni, R. 1983. Dynamic load tests on highway bridges in Switzerland: 60 years experience of EMPA. Dubendorf, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials and Testing Research.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2003. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures—Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2014a. Canadian highway bridge design code. CSA S6-14. Mississauga, ON, Canada: CSA.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2014b. Commentary on CSA S6-14, Canadian highway bridge design code. Mississauga, ON, Canada: CSA.
Deng, L., Y. Yu, Q. Zou, and C. S. Cai. 2015. “State-of-the-art review of dynamic impact factors of highway bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 20 (5): 04014080. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000672.
Department of the Army. 2002. Military nonstandard fixed bridging. FM 3-43.343. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.
DND (Department of National Defence). 2008. Manual for military nonstandard fixed bridges (draft). B-GL-361-014FP-001. Ottawa: DND.
Everitt, A., G. Wight, and M. A. Dagenais. 2019. “Dynamic load allowance for military tracked and wheeled vehicles: Experimental results.” In 2019 Int. Conf. on Military Technologies, 1–6. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Gao, Q., Z. Wang, C. G. Koh, and C. Chen. 2015. “Dynamic load allowances corresponding to different responses in various sections of highway bridges to moving vehicular loads.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 18 (10): 1685–1701. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.18.10.1685.
GDRC (German Department of Road Construction). 2012. Anlage 3 zum ARS 22/2012. Hinweise zur Anwendung des Eurocode 1, Teil 2: “Verkehrslasten auf Brücken” sowie zu den Teilen 1-1 und 1-3 bis 1-7. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Traffic, Construction, and City Development.
JRA (Japan Road Association). 1996. Specifications for highway bridges. Part 1: Common specifications. Tokyo: JRA.
Lenner, R. 2014. Safety concept and partial factors for military assessment of existing concrete bridges. Munich, Germany: Universität Der Bundeswehr München.
Lenner, R., M. Keuser, and M. Sykora. 2013. “Assessment of existing reinforced concrete bridges exposed to military loads.” In Novák and Vořechovský: Proc., 11th Int. Probabilistic Workshop, edited by D. Novák and M. Vořechovský, 235–246. Brno, Czech Republic: Ing. Vladislav Pokorný – LITERA.
MacDonald, A. J. 2014. “Applying probabilistic methods to the NATO military load classification system for bridges.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western Univ.
MacDonald, A. J., R. G. Wight, and F. M. Bartlett. 2016. “Acceptable risk in military bridge evaluation.” Adv. Mil. Technol. 11 (2): 197–209.
MacDonald, A. J., R. G. Wight, and F. M. Bartlett. 2017. “Probabilistic gross vehicle weights and associated axle loads for military vehicles in bridge evaluation and code calibration.” Adv. Mil. Technol. 12 (1): 129–145. https://doi.org/10.3849/aimt.01178.
MTPRC (Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China). 1989. General code for design of highway bridges and culverts. Beijing: MTPRC.
MTPRC (Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China). 2004. General code for design of highway bridges and culverts. Beijing: MTPRC.
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). 2017.Military load classification of bridges, ferries, rafts and vehicles (formerly NATO standardization agreement 2021, edition 8). AEP-3.12.1.5. Washington, DC: NATO.
NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency). 2013. Bridge manual. Wellington, New Zealand: NZTA.
Paultre, P., J. Proulx, and M. Talbot. 1995. “Dynamic testing procedures for highway bridges using traffic loads.” J. Struct. Eng. 121 (2): 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.18.10.1685.
Samanipour, K., and H. Vafai. 2016. “Effect of boundary conditions on dynamic behaviour of bridges.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.—Struct. Build. 169 (2): 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.14.00118.
Shepherd, R., and R. J. Aves. 1973. “Impact factors for simple concrete bridges.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 55 (1): 191–210.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 26 • Issue 3 • March 2021
Copyright
Crown Copyright © 2020 Published by American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 19, 2020
Accepted: Sep 18, 2020
Published online: Dec 21, 2020
Published in print: Mar 1, 2021
Discussion open until: May 21, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.