Bridge Design Loads in East Africa

PREPARATION OF THE EAST AFRICAN TRANSPORT FACILITATION STRATEGY
BUREAU FOR INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION THEMATIC AREA 1 CHAPTER 4

Thematic Area 1
Standards and Specifications

CHAPTER 4

HARMONISATION OF BRIDGE DESIGN STANDARDS

BUREAU FOR INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION THEMATIC AREA 1 CHAPTER 4 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................. 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 5
4.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 6
4.1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 6
4.1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6
4.1.3 Terms of Reference and Scope of Work.......................................................................... 7
4.1.4 Approach and Methodology............................................................................................. 7
4.2. OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE DESIGN STANDARDS .................................................................. 8
4.3. REVIEW OF BRIDGE DESIGN STANDARDS ....................................................................... 9
4.3.1 Bridge Design Standards and Practices in East Africa .................................................... 9
4.3.2 Comparison of the Standards .......................................................................................... 9
4.4. POTENTIAL AREAS FOR HARMONISATION AND IMPROVEMENTS ............................... 11
4.4.1 Design Service Life ....................................................................................................... 11
4.4.2 Loads ............................................................................................................................ 11
4.4.2.1 Loading on Carriageway ............................................................................................ 13
4.4.2.2 Uniformly Distributed Load......................................................................................... 13
4.4.2.3 Live Load for Slab Design .......................................................................................... 13
4.4.2.4 Impact Load ............................................................................................................... 13
4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 14


LIST OF TABLES
Table 4. 1: Code of Practices Used in EA ......................................................................................... 9
Table 4. 2: Comparison of Code of Practices for Bridge Design ...................................................... 10
Table 4. 3: Classes of special vehicles ........................................................................................... 12
Table 4. 4 - Description of special vehicles ..................................................................................... 12


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transport Officials
BICO Bureau for Industrial Cooperation
BS British Standard
EAC East African Community
EATTFP East African Trade and Transport Facilitation Project
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
MOT British Ministry of Transport
NA Normal Traffic Loading
NB Abnormal Traffic Loading
NB24 24 Units of NB Loading
NB36 36 Units of NB Loading
NC Super Traffic Loading
SADC Southern African Development Cooperation
SATCC Southern African Transport and Communications Commission
TOR Terms of Reference
UDL Uniform Distribution Load


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The principle objective of this study is to make it possible to have a reliable, efficient and safe road
transport services in EAC region. This chapter addresses this objective by making
recommendations about the selection of design code standard for the EAC region.
In order to adequately address the scope of work, the approach and methodology adopted by the
study involved initial visits to EAC Partner States for the purpose of collecting bridge design
standards and other documents and information related to bridge design practice in each partner
state, preparation and submission of an Inception Report, detailed review of design standards and
preparation of draft working papers for experts views and comments through experts meetings in
each EAC Partner State.
The study found that bridge design standards and practices East Africa are: Burundi is using both
German and French design standards, Rwanda is using the two standards as well as British and
American standards while Kenya, Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar as well as Uganda are using
British design standard. Another design standard that is available for EA region is the code of
practice for the Design of Road Bridges and culverts design standard of the Southern African
Transport and Communications Commission (SATCC), which was also derived largely from the
American and English practice, and AASHTO design guide. Each design standard was reviewed in
terms of the most important design features for proper bridge design; design controls and criteria,
types of loading
A comparative assessment of the bridge design standards practised in the EAC region and
elsewhere revealed a number of design features which are common and unique to particular
countries.
On the basis of the results of comparative assessment of the various standards, the study outlined
recommendation concerning potential areas for harmonisation and improvements. The study also
discussed about the suitability of various design standards in the EAC region and makes
recommendation on the most suitable design standard for our region.


4.1. INTRODUCTION
4.1.1 Background
As part of the on going EAC efforts to enhance trade among the Partner States and with outside
world thereby improving the regions economy and competitiveness, BICO was contracted to work
on transport facilitation component of the East African Trade and Transport Facilitation Project
(EATTFP). The component aims at making it possible to have reliable, efficient and safe road
transport services in the region. As part of the contract, therefore BICO was required to review and
harmonise the following thematic areas:
i. Standards and specifications
ii. Vehicle registration and licensing
iii. Environmental standards and regulations
iv. Road safety laws and regulations
v. Weighbridge print out certificates, training curriculum, interconnection within the EAC region
and development of legal instrument for overload control
vi. Legal and institutional frameworks

This chapter is part of the outputs of the harmonisation process of the above thematic areas, and
more particularly Thematic Area 1: Harmonisation of Standards and Specifications. Several
subcomponents were identified to fall under this thematic area as follows:
i. Harmonisation of road geometric design standards
ii. Harmonisation of road pavement and materials design standards
iii. Harmonisation of bridge design standards
iv. Harmonisation of specifications for road and bridge works
v. Harmonisation of road and bridge maintenance standards
vi. Harmonisation of road signs, traffic signals and marking
vii. Harmonisation of vehicle safety and fitness
viii. Harmonisation of vehicle dimensions and combinations
ix. Harmonisation of transportation of abnormal, awkward and hazardous loads

Therefore this chapter addresses the third subcomponent of thematic area one (1).

4.1.2 Study Objectives
The overall objective of the assignment is to make it possible to have a reliable, efficient and safe
road transport services.
One of the principal objectives of this chapter is to make recommendations about harmonisation of
bridge design standards for the EAC region such that the following can be achieved:
Provision of safe and comfortable riding conditions to all road users
Provision of low cost of ownership (i.e. minimum whole of life cost)
The chapter therefore discusses about practised bridge design standards within the EAC member
countries as well as applicable SADC and other international standards, and makes
recommendations for the EAC.

4.1.3 Terms of Reference and Scope of Work
The Terms of Reference (TOR) have clearly outlined the background of the project, its description
and key objectives. The scope of services to be provided by the consultant is detailed for each of
the six thematic areas outlined in Section 1.1.
As outlined in the TOR, the scope of work under thematic area one (1) included:
(i) Review existing documents/ statutes and propose improvements to the same
(ii) Identify areas of commonality which lend themselves to harmonization
(iii) Propose and implement the incorporation of areas unique to particular countries into
the harmonized regimes
(iv) Give an indication of the impact of harmonization
(v) Conduct stakeholder workshops to gain consensus on the harmonization of different
regulations and standards
4.1.4 Approach and Methodology
In order to adequately address the scope of work, the methodology adopted for the project and
therefore preparation of this working paper entailed the following activities:
Visit EAC Partner States for the purpose of collecting documents from each partner state
and to make initial contacts with the responsible officials. The visits involved one member of
the consultants team visiting the contact person in the respective partner state to identify
and collect documents relevant to all thematic areas.
Preparation of an Inception Report and submission of the same to the EAC Secretariat.
Detailed documents review, situational analysis and preparation of draft working papers.
Collection of experts views and comments on the draft working papers through experts
meetings in each EAC Partner State. Meetings were held as follows:
o Nairobi, Kenya 4
th
J uly, 2011
o Bujumbura, Burundi 6
th
J uly, 2011
o Kigali, Rwanda 8
th
J uly, 2011
o Kampala, Uganda 11
th
to 12
th
J uly, 2011
o Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 15
th
J uly, 2011
o Zanzibar, Tanzania 25
th
J uly, 2011
The process of collection of experts views was concluded by revising the draft working papers so
as to prepare Working Papers for submission to the EAC Secretariat for comments by the Technical
Committee. This step will be followed by the revision of the papers to account for the committees
comments and preparation of Draft Final Report.


4.2. OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE DESIGN STANDARDS
Designing bridges according to a standard specification became the norm in the 20th century. This
will continue in the next century. However, the process of designing will be much different in the
future because of changes in specifications, loads, testing, and computerization.
Most of the current design standards allow the selection of the numerical values for partial safety
factors and other allowables. In this way, the designers are allowed, within limits, to choose the level
of safety, considering local conditions, applicable to bridges in their countries. J ustifications for
these choices include the following:
Differences in geographical or climatic conditions
Differences in traffic loads
Different levels of safety provided or desired in the jurisdiction
The determination of safety levels, including aspects of durability and economy, has always been
considered to be within the competence and authority of individual design units. Possible
differences in geographical or climatic conditions, as well as different levels of protection that may
exist at national, regional, and local levels, can be taken into consideration through specific design
parameters, which are provided for in each most design standards. Therefore, EAC Partner States
have choices in the current design codes and the design parameters provided in the standard
guides may be used unless divergence is essential.
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications categorize analysis methods as approximate or
refined. The approximate methods of analysis, specified in LRFD are those for which a live-load
distribution factor is quantified through tabularized equations and used in the analysis of single
beams (sometimes termed one-dimensional analysis). These lateral live-load distribution factors
and the tributary dead-load areas are applied to a one-dimensional model. Refined methods of
analysis, discussed in LRFD, are all other methods in which distribution factors are not used and the
bridge is represented as a 2-D or 3-D model. In the United States, their application is limited to
unique or complex bridges, bridges deemed substandard using approximate analysis, analysis of
nonstandard permit loads, and other special cases. While developing the lateral live-load distribution
factors of the LRFD Specifications, some designers have found little benefit in the application of 3-D
models beyond simpler 2-D models.


4.3. REVIEW OF BRIDGE DESIGN STANDARDS

4.3.1 Bridge Design Standards and Practices in East Africa
The EAC Partner States are basically using developed countries bridge design standards. Table 4.1
presents a summary of codes of practices for the design of bridges as used in the EAC region. It
can be noted that Burundi is using both German and French design standards. Rwanda is using the
two standards as well as British and American standards. On the other hand, Kenya, Tanzania and
Uganda are using British design standard.
Table 4. 1: Code of Practices Used in EA
Country Code of Practice
Burundi
DIN 1072 +1055
AFNOR
Kenya BS 5400
Rwanda
DIN 1072 +1055,
BS 5400
AFNOR
AASHTO
Tanzania BS 5400
Uganda Own Code but derived from BS 5400

Additionally, it should also be noted that the SADC region has its own bridge design standard,
SATCC code of practice for bridge design.
4.3.2 Comparison of the Standards
A comparison of the BS 5400, AASHTO and French standards was presented by PADECO (2011).
This section uses the same design parameters to compare the BS 5400, SATCC, and European
standards. The comparison revealed a number of areas of divergences and commonality as
summarised in Table 4.2.


Table 4. 2: Comparison of Code of Practices for Bridge Design
Items United Kingdom SADC Region European standard
Design Standard BD37/01:Loads for Highways Bridges
(BS5400 Part)
SATCC Draft Code of Practice for the Design of
Road Bridges and Culverts sept 1998
Euro code 1, Part 2 final draft prEN 1991-
2.Actions on structures-Part 2: Traffic
loading on bridges.
Design Method Partial Factor Design Method Partial Factor Design Method Partial Factor Design Method
Design period 120 years 100 years 100 years
Live Load Type HA Loading
(Type HB Loading: Special load)
Type NA normal Loading
Type NB abnormal Loading
Type NC Super Loading (loading represent
multi-wheeled trailer combination)

Loading on
Carriageway: B(m)
2.5m <B<3.65m
The number of lanes are determined by the
width of the carriageway (W)
2 carriageways :5m<W<7.5m
3 carriageways :7.5m<W<10.95m
2.4m <B<3.7m

1 carriageways W<5.4m
2 carriageways :5.4m<W<9m
3 carriageways :9m<W<12m

Uniformly
Distributed Load
(UDL)
L <50m
W =336 x(1/L)(0.6) (kN)
50m<L<1600m
W =36 x(1/L)(0.1) (kN)
L=Loading length
q
r1
=(180/ ) +6 for L<18m
qr1={(180/ ) +6}x1/2 for L>36m
q
r1
={(180/ ) +6}x 2/3
for 18m<L<36
L=Loading length
qr1 =average load per meter of notional lane KN.
Lane 1 ,UDL =9 kN/m
2
Lane 2 ,UDL =2.5 kN/m
2
Lane 3 ,UDL =2.5 kN/m
2
Other Lanes ,UDL =2.5 KN/m
2

Truck Load 120 kN (1 axle) =(144/ ) kN per notional lane
n =no of notional lane, for 1=144kn/lane
80KN +2 axles@140
Impact Load The impact load is included in uniform
distribution load (UDL) and Truck load
The impact load is included in uniform
distribution load (UDL) and Truck load
Impact of 1000 kN in direction of vehicles
travel or 500 kN perpendiculars to that
direction is included.
Live Load for Slab
Design
1@100 kN
(Diameter =34 cm circle)
2@100 kN
Circular or square contact area of 0.1m2 each
not less than one meter apart.
2@120 kN
contact area (40 cm x 40 cm)


4.4. POTENTIAL AREAS FOR HARMONISATION AND IMPROVEMENTS
4.4.1 Design Service Life
A life is distinguished by service life and design life. Service life is correspondent to what is termed
as design service life. Design life is a period as a base for calculating fluctuating loads. In the BS
5400 the design service life is 120 years and 100 in the European standard as well as the SATCC
guide. On the other hand, in the AASHTO, the service life is has been not specified but generally it
has been understood with 100 years. Still, design life has been specified as 75 years.
4.4.2 Loads
The classification of loads is different by each code of practice. The SATCC guide specifies three
types of Loading (NA,NB and NC) while BS5400 has two loading type (NA and NB). Nominal NB
loading is a unit loading representing a single abnormal heavy vehicle. The magnitude of NB
loading is as follows:
For Type NB36 Loading referred to in Standard Traffic loading, 36 units of type NB loading
shall be applied, which equals an axle loading of 360 kN, i.e. 90 kN per wheel. The
effective contact area is accordingly defined by a circle of 340 mm diameter or a square
having a 300 mm side.
For Type NB24 Loading referred to Abnormal Loading, 24 units of type NB Loading shall be
applied which equals an axle loading of 240 kN, i.e. 50 kN per wheel. The effective contact
area is accordingly defined by a circle of 276 mm diameter or a Square having a 245 mm
side.
On the other hand, BS 5400 specifies the minimum number of units of type HB loading that should
normally be considered as 25, but this number may be increased up to 45 if so directed by the
appropriate authority. One unit is taken as equal to 10 kN per axle (i.e. 2.5 kN per wheel).The
overall length of the HB vehicle is taken as 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 m for inner axle spacings of 6, 11,
16, 21 or 26 m respectively, and the effects of the most severe of these cases is usually adopted. In
Tanzania, the minimum number of HB loading units that are usually considered for bridge design is
37.5.

Eurocode 1 Part 2-prEN 1991-2-2002 considers the loading of 600 kN per 4-axle line with a notation
of 600/150 to 3600 kN per 9 axle-lines of 200 kN (spacing 12 m)+9 axle-lines of 200 kN with a
notation of 3600/200/200. The code provides basic models of special vehicles that are defined in
Tables 4.3 and 4.4. It should be noted that the basic models of special vehicles correspond to
various levels of abnormal loads that can be authorised to travel on particular routes of the
European highway network while vehicle widths of 3.00 m for the 150 and 200 kN axle-lines, and of
4.50 m for the 240 kN axle-lines are assumed.

Table 4. 3: Classes of special vehicles
Total wei ght Composi ti on Notati on
600 kN 4 axle-lines of 150 kN 600/150
900 kN 6 axle-lines of 150 kN 900/150
1200 kN 8 axle-lines of 150 kN
or 6 axle-lines of 200 kN
1200/150
1200/200
or 7 axle-lines of 200 kN +1 axle line
of 100 kN
1500/150
1500/200
1800/150
1800/200
or 6 axle-lines of 200 kN (spacing 12m)
+6 axle-lines of 200 kN
2400/200
2400/240
2400/200/200
3000 kN

15 axle-lines of 200 kN
or 12 axle-lines of 240 kN +1 axle-line
of 120 kN
or 8 axle-lines of 200 kN (spacing 12 m)
3000/200
3000/240
3000/200/200
or 9 axle-lines of 200 kN (spacing 12 m)
3600/200
3600/240
3600/200/200

Table 4. 4 - Description of special vehicles
Axl e-l ines of 150 kN Axl e-l ines of 200 kN Axl e-l ines of 240 kN
600 kN n =4150
e =1,50 m

900 kN n =6150
e =1,50 m

1200 kN n =8150
e =1,50 m
n =6200
e =1,50 m

1500 kN n =10150
e =1,50 m
n =1100 +7200
e =1,50 m

1800 kN n =12150
e =1,50 m
n =9200
e =1,50 m

2400 kN n =12200
e =1,50 m

n =6200 +6200
e =51,5+12+51,5
N =10240
e =1,50 m
3000 kN n =15200
e =1,50 m

n =8200 +7200
e =71,5+12+61,5
N =1120 +12240
e =1,50 m
3600 kN n =18200
e =1,50 m
N =15240
e =1,50 m

n =8240 +7240
e =71,5+12+61,5
NOTE
n number of axles multiplied by the weight (kN) of each axle in each group
e axle spacing (m) within and between each group.

4.4.2.1 Loading on Carriageway
BS5400 has less length of Loading on Carriageway (B) m of 1.15m and its width of carriage (W) is
2.5m as compared to SATCC Standard of 1.3 m (B) while it width of carriage (W) is 2.6m, during design
SATCC Standard is good to use because have More less the same carriage width and more loading
length on carriageway .
4.4.2.2 Uniformly Distributed Load
European standard, the first lane (Lane 1) are more loaded 9 kN/m
2
as compared to other lanes 2.5
kN/m
2
, SATCC Standard has less loaded length (18m<L<36m) of Uniformly Distributed Load as
compared to BS5400 that has highest loaded length (50m<L<1600m) of Uniformly Distributed Load
4.4.2.3 Live Load for Slab Design
In BS5400, traffic loading has been reviewed to accommodate the recommendations from British
Ministry of Transport (MOT) which specified the following: a uniformly distributed load =10.9 kN/m
2
and
a knife edge load (KEL)=39.5 kN/m.
The above loads are similar to the NA loading used today for the design of bridge decks, as
recommended by both the SATCC Code of Practice for the Design of Road Bridges and Culverts and
TM7: Code of Practice for the Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts in Southern Africa. BS5400:
Specifications for Loads also specifies a similar load referred to as the HA Loading. However, today on
top of the loading referred to above, two additional loads are recommended specifically to take into
account the effects of abnormal loads (NB Loading) and superloads (NC Loading).

4.4.2.4 Impact Load
The impact load is included in uniform distribution load (UDL) and Truck load in both BS5400 standards
and SATCC Standard while European standard, Impact of 1000 kN in direction of vehicles travel or 500
kN perpendiculars to that direction is included.

4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing assessments were carried out to determine the most suitable set of codes for
designing the bridge. The three options available were:
The British bridge design code BS 5400
The SATCC Code
The recently released Eurocodes
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications
BS 5400 is recommended for use in the EAC region as it provides the highway loading criteria
that most closely correspond to the situation expected in East Africa. Trucks are often heavily
loaded, matching the load patterns predicted within the British standard. For instance, live load
conditions of 37.5 BS HB loading units, which translates to 150 tons, results into much higher
live load than the prevailing truck loading conditions and hence higher safety margins.

On the other hand, some of the principles contained in the Eurocodes (which have been
calibrated to give similar results to BS 5400) as well as the AASHTO LRFD bridge design
specifications have not been studied in detail for major bridge projects in our region and
consequently their application in EA region should be subject to a detailed study on their
appropriateness to East Africa.

Bridge Design Loads in East Africa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Design Loads in East Africa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bridge Design Loads in East Africa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the potential areas for harmonization and improvements in bridge design standards?

What are the recommendations made regarding choice of bridge design code for the EAC region?

PREPARATION OF THE EAST AFRICAN TRANSPORT FACILITATION STRATEGY

BUREAU FOR INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION THEMATIC AREA 1 CHAPTER 4

You might also like