You are on page 1of 8

COLLISIONS OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES WITH BRIDGES

Chi Fung Tso, Patrick Donelan*


Ove Arup & Partners
13 Fitzroy St.,
London W1P 6BQ

*Currently seconded to
The Japan Research Institute Limited
Ichibancho 16
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 102-0082

ABSTRACT

The Highways Agency is responsible for specifying the design loading for bridges in the
United Kingdom. Recently design loading for a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) collision has
been specified [1,2]. Carrying out bridge support strengthening schemes is expensive, both in
terms of capital cost and the cost of disruption to traffic. To ensure that these new loads are
adequate and to gain a better understanding of the behaviour of bridges in impact situations the
Highways Agency commissioned Ove Arup & Partners to conduct a programme of research in
this area. The key tasks were to quantify the impact forces in terms of magnitude and
duration, and to estimate the
extent of bridge damage.

The work was carried out in two phases. In the first phase relatively simple finite element
computer models of HGVs colliding with bridge structures were built and analysed.
Following this work a programme of full scale physical testing was initiated, which consisted
of three collisions of typical HGVs into a representative prestressed concrete bridge structure.
Detailed finite element models of the bridge and HGVs were built, and the collision events
were analysed. The results of this work may be used in the future to make recommendations
for amendments to the specified collision loading.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this work were


a) To obtain a better understanding of the damage caused to bridges by HGV collisions
b) To obtain data upon which to base rules and guidance for designing or assessing
bridges for HGV collision loadings.

STUDIES USING SIMPLE COMPUTER MODELS

The early stages of the project consisted of a background literature review and the
development of simple finite element models to study a large range of HGV collision
situations. Among the variables examined were:
 Collision speeds
 Collision angle
 Bridge material (steel, reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete)
 Deck type (M3-beam, box girder, voided slab, composite)
 Support type (abutment, pier, circular column, foundation conditions)
 Collision location (support, deck)
 Vehicle type (tanker, raised tipper, excavator on low loader)

The computer code used was LS-DYNA3D [3]. Although the models were relatively simple
at this stage, care was taken to ensure that the overall predicted behaviour was reasonable, and
by careful selection of the material properties to ensure that the results would provide a
conservative estimate (i.e. over-predict) of the collision forces. Output from these models
consisted of peak and average impact forces, impact durations, and an estimate of damage.

FULL SCALE PHYSICAL TESTING

Based upon the results of the initial computer models, a programme of full scale physical
testing was prepared. One conclusion from the simple models was that confidence was
highest in modelling steel structures, and lowest in modelling prestressed concrete structures.
Hence a prestressed concrete bridge was chosen to be used in the tests. Figure 1 shows the
design adopted. The deck consisted of five precast prestressed M3-beams with an in-situ
reinforced concrete deck slab. The M3-beams were supported at each end on elastomeric
bearings resting on reinforced concrete abutments. A reinforced concrete column was
provided at 1/4 span, resting on a reinforced concrete pad foundation and providing nominal
support to the bridge deck through a cross beam and elastomeric bearings. The column was
780 mm diameter, as this is a common size in many existing motorway bridges in the UK.
The tests carried out were as follows:
a) Collision of a raised tipper truck with the bridge deck, at 30 mph (48 kph)
b) Collision of the raised jib of an excavator with the bridge deck, at 40 mph (64 kph)
c) Head-on collision of a tanker with the support column at 40 mph (64 kph).

These type of accidents occasionally happen on UK roads. The tests were carried out at the
Motor Industry Research Association. All tests were recorded using high speed photography.
In addition accelerometers and displacement transducers were mounted on the vehicles and
bridge to measure the significant events occurring during the impact. Table 1 summarises the
principal parameters of the tests. The following is a description of each test.

Collision of Tipper with Bridge Deck

The first part of the tipper to contact the deck was the hoist, which caused some local crushing
of the concrete of the bottom flange of the outermost M-beam. Otherwise the bridge was
undamaged. The truck itself suffered major damage. At about 72 milliseconds after the
start of the event the bolted joint connecting the tipper to the chassis failed, and the tipper and
chassis separated. The tipper was left wedged between the bridge deck and the ground at the
end of the event.

Collision of Excavator with Bridge Deck

The lower flange of the edge beam of the deck was struck by the stiff joint of the excavator
arm. Although the bucket of the excavator was chained down, it soon broke free, and the
excavator was rotated backwards by the force of the impact. Damage to the bridge beam was
greater than for the tipper impact, but still consisted of local crushing of the concrete. The
hoop reinforcement of the bottom flange was exposed at one location, but otherwise no
damage to the reinforcement was evident.

Collision of Tanker with Support Column

In the early part of the impact event the cab crushed, applying a relatively small force to the
column. When the force of the engine started to be applied to the column the force suddenly
increased. This caused the column to rotate away from the truck. At about 100 milliseconds
into the event there was another large increase in force due to the tanker itself, which caused
the column to collapse.

DETAILED FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT EVENTS

Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the finite element models of the three collision events. In all cases
the computer code was LS-DYNA3D [3]. The bridge concrete was modelled using solid
elements, and the reinforcement was modelled using beam elements. Figure 5 shows the
calculated force-time history. This was an upper bound estimate made using the assumption
of a ‘rigid’ tank. Table 2 summarises the estimated impact forces and durations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN RULES

Collisions with Bridge Decks

Currently the design rules for bridges [1] specify the static application of a horizontal force of
500 kN and a vertical force of 250 kN to the bridge. The requirement is that the overall
stability should be maintained, although local damage is acceptable. From Table 2 it can be
seen that the estimated average impact forces in the two deck impact tests were below the
specified static forces. However the excavator model was re-run at an impact speed of 62.5
mph (the National speed limit for HGVs) to estimate the forces at this speed. The average
forces were 1.2 MN horizontal and 0.44 MN vertical (the peaks were 2.87 and 0.58 MN
respectively). This indicated the potential for impact forces greatly in excess of those
currently specified, and hence there is a case for increasing the specified collision loads. On
the other hand the current specification states that the loads be applied statically to the
structure. This requirement is very onerous on parts of the structure remote from the impact
point. Hence there is also a strong case for specifying a maximum duration of the load.

Collisions with Bridge Supports

The current design rules [1] require bridge supports to be designed for a total of 1,500 kN force
to be applied parallel to the carriageway below, or 750 kN applied normal to the carriageway
below. These loads were obtained by considering an impact at 50 mph (this allows for some
speed reduction due to safety barriers, braking, soft verges, etc.). The maximum angle of
incidence of the vehicle is 30°to the carriageway below, and the vehicle is assumed to slew
through 90°upon impact (this reduces the impact considerably). When the basis of the
current rules was examined in the light of the information gained from this project, it was
found that the current design rules adequately estimate the average forces. However, the peak
forces are particularly significant in the collisions into the supports (due to HGV engines etc),
and comparing the natural period of vibration of typical bridge supports with the duration of
the collision, it can be shown that a dynamic amplification factor of about 2 should be applied
to the statically applied loads in order to correctly estimate the dynamic effect on the bridge
structure. For these reasons there would appear to be a case for increasing the specified
collision loads on the bridge supports also.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this work are currently being considered by the Highways Agency and they may
be used in the future to justify amendments to the specified collision loading.

REFERENCES

1. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 1, Section 3, Part 5, The Design of
Highway Bridges for Vehicle Collision Loads. BD 60/94, The Highways Agency,
April 1994.
2. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 3, Section 4, Part 7, The Assessment
and Strengthening of Highway Bridge Supports. BD 48/93, The Highway Agency,
June 1993.
3. LS-DYNA3D, Version 6.1, OASYS Ltd., 13 Fitzroy Street, London W1P 6BQ, UK.

Test No. Vehicle Type Vehicle Gross Impact Speed Part of Bridge
Weight (kg) (mph) Impacted
1 Leyland-Daf 11,000 30 Bottom flange of
Series 80 M3 beam at
8×4 centre span
2 4×2 Tractor 25,000 40 Bottom flange of
Unit & Hymac (incl.Low loader M3 beam at
580C and tractor) centre span
3 Leyland-Daf 32,000 40 Reinforced
Series 80 concrete support
8×4 column

Table 1 Summary of Test Programme


Test Test Peak Average Peak Average Impact
No. Description Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical Duration
Force (MN) Force (MN) Force Force (ms)
(MN) (MN)
1 Tipper collision with 0.9 0.36 0.78 0.14 78*
deck
2 Excavator collision 1.7 0.46 0.63 0.21 50
with deck
3 Tanker collision with 5.6 2.3 0 0 185
column
* = Impact duration to the point where the tipper and chassis separated.

Table 2 Summary of Calculated Impact Forces and Durations

Figure 1 Elevation and Section of Bridge


Figure 2 Finite Element Model of Tipper Truck

Figure 3 Finite Element Model of Excavator mounted on a Low Loader


Figure 4 Finite Element Model of Tanker Impact Test

Figure 5 Force Time History for Tanker Impact Test


(calculated from LS-DYNA3D)

You might also like