Comparative Dynamic Load Effects of Tracked and Wheeled Military Vehicles on Bridges
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 28, Issue 11
Abstract
The perceived and observed differences in the dynamic behavior between wheeled and tracked military vehicles should be considered when applying appropriate dynamic load effect values for bridge design and assessment. Based on available test data, tracked military vehicles appear to impose less severe dynamic load effects when compared with wheeled vehicles under similar crossing conditions. In exploring a range of crossing conditions, a review of test data was used to make a general comparison of the dynamic loading amplification between tracked and wheeled military vehicles. To expand the range of crossing conditions tested for an instrumented bridge, additional data were collected for an artificially induced roughness of the bridge surface. By combining the test results from previous studies with the results from this testing program, the relative dynamic loading amplification between tracked and wheeled military vehicles can be quantified for situations with similar crossing conditions. Given this comparison, it may be appropriate to use a dynamic load allowance (DLA) of as low as 70% of the code-specified DLA for wheeled vehicles when evaluating the capacity of bridges subjected to military tracked traffic. This is especially relevant when considering maneuver options for main battle tanks during military combat operations.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Strain gauge data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
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. 2018. The manual for bridge evaluation. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2020. LRFD bridge design specifications. 9th ed. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Bakht, B., and S. G. Pinjarkar. 1989. Dynamic testing of highway bridges - A review, 93–100. Transportation Research Record 1223. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
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.
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.
CSA (Canadian Standard Association). 2019. Canadian highway bridge design code. CSA S6-19. 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.
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. New York: IEEE.
Everitt, A. M. J., M. A. Dagenais, and R. G. Wight. 2020. “Dynamic load effects of wheeled and tracked military vehicles on a steel girder composite bridge.” J. Bridge Eng. 26: 04020132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001672.
Huang, P., J. Wang, W. Han, and Y. Yuan. 2022. “Study on impact factors of small- and medium-span bridges under the special-purpose vehicle load.” Structures 43: 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.06.077.
Kosmatka, J. B. 2011. “Dynamic behaviour of the composite army bridge (CAB): Field testing.” In Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011, edited by G, Roeck, 1559–1565. Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Law, S. S., and X. Q. Zhu. 2005. “Bridge dynamic responses due to road surface roughness and braking of vehicle.” J. Sound Vib. 282 (3–5): 805–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2004.03.032.
MacDonald, A. J., F. M. Bartlett, and R. G. Wight. 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.
MacDonald, A. J., F. M. Bartlett, and R. G. Wight. 2021. “Live load factors for military traffic in bridge evaluation.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 48: 1552–1561. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2020-0479.
Mohammed, O., A. González, and D. Cantero. 2018. “Dynamic impact of heavy long vehicles with equally spaced axles on short-span highway bridges.” Balt. J. Road Bridge Eng. 13 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3846/bjrbe.2018.382.
Mufti, A., B. Bakht, and L. Jaeger. 2008. Recent advances in bridge engineering. Scarborough, ON, Canada: JMBT Structures Research Inc.
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. Brussels, Belgium: NATO.
Natrella, M. G. 1966. Experimental statistics, handbook 91, reissued in 1966 with corrections. Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
Paeglite, I., and A. Paeglitis. 2013. “The dynamic amplification factor of the bridges in Latvia.” Procedia Eng. 57: 851–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.108.
Page, J. 1976. Dynamic wheel load measurements on motorway bridges. TRRL Rep. LR 722. Crowthorne, UK: Dept. of Environment, Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
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/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:2(362).
Pinkney, B., M. A. Dagenais, and R. G. Wight. 2020. “Dynamic loading effect testing of a modular truss bridge: Procedures and resultant data set.” J. Bridge Eng. 26: 04720001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001656.
Pinkney, B., M. A. Dagenais, and R. G. Wight. 2022. “Dynamic load testing of a modular truss bridge using military vehicles.” Eng. Struct. 254: 113822. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113822.
Robinson, M. J., and P. E. Kosmatka. 2011. “Experimental dynamic response of a short-span composite bridge to military vehicles.” J. Bridge Eng. 16: 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000134.
Shepherd, R., and R. J. Aves. 1973. “Impact factors for simple concrete bridges.” Ice Proc. 55: 191–210. https://10.1680/iicep.1973.4955.
USDA (US Department of the Army). 2003. The tank and mechanized infantry battalion task force. FM 3-90.2. Washington, DC: USDA.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 28 • Issue 11 • November 2023
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 29, 2023
Accepted: Aug 1, 2023
Published online: Sep 12, 2023
Published in print: Nov 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Feb 12, 2024
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.