Reinforcing of Existing Bailey Bridge to Increase Its Loading Capacity & Durability

Composite Structures Laboratory, Tshewang Rinzin

1. INTRODUCTION
Bailey bridges were considered as temporary or semi-permanent
bridges due to its low loading capacity and less life span.
Overloading were often reasons for collapse of existing Bailey
bridges. In Bhutan Bailey bridge constitute 45% of the total
bridges with loading capacity ranging from 18R to 40R. In this
study, the numerical analysis was performed to reinforce the
existing Bailey bridges by addition of partial stories and
supplementary chords based on the Field Manual 5-277 [1]. A
non-linear FEM analysis was performed in determining stresses
and displacements. Axial and bending/longitudinal stresses
obtained were compared with material yield stress to check its
capacity for structural strength. The displacement obtained from
analysis were verified against allowable span/800 as per AASHTO.
The maximum loading capacity of bailey bridges in Bhutan is up
to 40R however, it can be improved computationally through FEM
analysis. As per the IRC-6-2016 a bridge adopted for highways as
permanent bridges were Class A loading or 70R loading. However,
due to width limitation the standard Bailey bridge cannot be
upgraded to 70R loading, but it can be increased to 60R loading as
the total load is more than Class A loading. Thus, the aim of this
study is to increase the loading capacity of existing Bailey bridges
to 50R & 60R loading.
2. FEM ANALYSIS
a) Reinforcement by partial stories and Supplementary chords.
Double-Single, Triple-Single, Double-Double &Triple-Double
bridges not limited by end shear can be strengthen by converting
the center portion to spans Double-Double, Triple-Double,
Double-Triple & Triple-Triple respectively [1] similarly, all types
of bridges can be reinforced with supplementary chords cut from
damaged panels. The critical design factor in most fixed panel
bridge is bending moment which varies from maximum at center
span to zero at supports, therefore only center bays of most spans
are fully stressed where the greater part of the capacity of end bays
are not used.
Figure 1. 1-d Beam Model
Loads were placed over the deck as point load in each node in case
of dead load and as per loading configuration in case of live load.
Displacements and stresses were obtained from each wheel axle
placing at mid span and also, by placing center between resultant
load and nearest axle load (left & right) at mid span. Two train of
vehicle were allowed after crossing minimal nose to tail distance.
2.3 Outcomes
The existing Bailey bridge has loading capacity till 40R & class A
loading as per the technical manual of GRSE [2] based on that
combination, the reinforced bridge was modeled in FEM software.
The displacements and stresses were computed for both standard
as well as reinforced bridges to fully verify the safety of bridge.
a) Displacement in z-direction
The displacement value for 40ft Class A loading, 60ft, 70ft and
80ft for both Class A & 40R loading and dead load displacement
for 180ft & 190ft exceed allowable value in existing Bailey bridge.
The displacement values for reinforced Bailey bridges are found
to be under allowable limit except for 30ft 60R loading.
Element Force-Displacement Relatioship
140
Dead Load for Bottom chord
120 Live Load for Bottom chord
Dead Load for Top chord
Element Force (KN)

100 Live Load for Top chord

b) Dead Load & Live Load Displacement
Kamruzzaman. M & Haque. M (2020) carried out dead load 80
deflection assessment and found out that bailey bridge deflects 60
more than the safe limit, as high as more than four times deflection 40
to span ratio. Besides, their study revealed ten out of thirteen 20
bridges were unsafe due to dead load deflection. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Parivallal. S, et. al, (2005) conducted a load test for 24R double Displacement in Z-direction (mm)
lane Bailey bridge (24.38m/80ft) and they found out that bridge Figure 2. Element force-Displacement graph for 180ft DTR Bailey bridge
can be safely used up to 40R loading and be safe in event of The element force-displacement plot shows that the force exerted
uncontrolled loading condition, such as the bridge fully loaded on element due to dead load is more in bottom chord compared to
with IRC 24R loading at nose to tail distance of 1.5m. that of on top chord however, force due to live load has not much
difference. The displacement in bottom chord seems to be little
2.2 Model Preparation higher than that of top chord.
The model was prepared based on the Field Manual-5-277 [1]
technical manual of GRSE [2] & Bailey bridge drawing [4]. The b) Axial & Longitudinal Stresses
material properties used in this model confirms to IS-2062:2011 The total longitudinal stress for 170ft, 180ft and 190ft are found
with grade of steel Fe410 for main parts and Fe250 for other quite high exceeding the value of material yield stress in existing
miscellaneous components. Following figure shows the detail standard Bailey bridges. In reinforced Bailey bridge the total
sections for modelling. longitudinal stress for 190ft & 200ft are found exceeding the
Material yield values. The total axial stresses obtained are much Axial Stress-Strain Relation for Vertical Member
lower than yield stress. Various graphs were plotted for main, 100
80
vertical, and diagonal members as follows in terms of

Axial Stress (N/mm2)

60
displacements, forces, and stresses for 54.88m Bailey bridge. 40
Bending Stress-Strain Relation due to Dead Load 20
240
0
180
Bending Stress (N/mm2)

-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0-20 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
120
-40 ←Axial Strain (μ)→
60 -60
0 -80
-12.0 -9.0 -6.0 -3.0 -60 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 Dead Load Live Load
←Bending Strain (μ)→ Figure 8. Axial Stress-Strain Relation for Vertical Member
-120
Axial Stress-Strain Relation for Diagonal Member
-180 30
-240 20
Bottom chord Top chord

Axial Stress (N/mm2)

10
Figure 3. Bending Stress-Strain Relation due to Dead Load
0
Bending Stress-Strain Relation due to Live Load -2.8 -2.4 -2.0 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4-10 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
200 ←Axial Strain (μ)→
Bending Stress (N/mm2)

160 -20
120 -30
80
40 -40
0 -50
-10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0-40 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Dead Load Live Load
-80 Figure 9. Axial Stress-Strain Relation for Diagonal Member
-120 ←Bending Strain (μ)→
-160 Bending Stress-Strain Relation for Diagonal Member
-200 80
Bottom chord Top chord Bending Stress (N/mm2)
60
Figure 4. Bending Stress-Strain Relation due to Live Load 40
Axial Stress-Strain Relation due to Dead Load 20
100 0
80 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0-20 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
60 -40 ←Bending Strain (μ)→
Axial Stress (N/mm2)

40 -60
20 -80
0
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0-20 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -100
-40 ←Axial Strain (μ)→ -120
-60 Dead Load Live Load
-80 Figure 10. Bending Stress-Strain Relation for Diagonal Member
-100 2.4 Conclusion
-120
Bottom chord Top chord The FEM analysis results obtained are found within allowable
Figure 5. Axial Stress-Strain Relation due to Daed Load limit of span/800 & 410N/mm2 for displacement & stresses
Axial Stress-Strain Relation due to Live Load
respectively. Linear relationship for element force-displacement
80 & stress-strain within yield stress were computed. FEM analysis
60 concludes with safe result for reinforcement of bailey bridge by
Axial Stress (N/mm2)

40
20 partial stories and supplementary chords in increasing load
0 capacity to IRC-50R & 60R up to a maximum span of 180ft (55m).
-6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0-20 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 The FEM analysis shows that the Reinforced Bailey bridge
-40 ←Axial Strain (μ)→
-60 adopted in this research can increased load capacity in the range
-80 from 19.1% to 35%
-100
-120
Bottom chord Top chord 3. (Future Work)
Figure 6. Axial Stress-Strain Relation due to Live Load Conduct lab experiments and obtain forces, displacements, Stress,
Bending Stress-Strain Relation for Vertical Member and strain values to compare with FEM values. Corrosion and
140 Fatigue assessment for durability of Bailey Bridges.
Bending Stress (N/mm2)

100
60 References
20 [1] Department of the Army (1986) Field Manual No. 5-277
[2] Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineering (GRSE, n.d) Technical Manual
-20
-8.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 [3] Kamruzzaman. M & Haque. M, (2020) Assessment of dead load deflection of
-60 ←Bending Strain (μ)→ bailey bridges in Bangladesh, IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on
-100 Advances in Bridge Engineering-IV, ISBN: 978-984-34-8313-3
-140 www.iabse-bd.org
-180 [4] Department of Public Works & Highway, Bureau of Design, Bridge Division,
Dead Load Live Load Manila (2020) Standard Plan for Bailey Bridge (For pre-positioning @
Figure 7. Bending Stress-Strain Relation for Vertical Member DPWH Regional Office)
[5] Parivallal. S, Narayan. T, Ravisankar. K, Kesavan. K, and Maji. S. (2005),
Instrumentation and response measurement of a double-lane bridge
during load test, Blackwell publishing ltd. Strain 41, pp-25-30