irc 6 2000 code book pdf download

We find various loading standards for bridges in different countries based on their own contexts. In the context of Nepal, the road bridges have been designed adopting the various codes. Many of the bridges have been designed based on IRC and AASHTO standards. Nepal Road Standard (NRS 2027), has adopted the IRC and AASHTO loadings. The NRS covers loadings for the highway and feeder roads. The standard does not cover the loading standards for rural roads in Nepal. Now we have more than 20,000 km rural roads. This paper tries to review the live load standards which are being adopted in design of bridges in Nepal and recommend the live loads suitable for the bridges in rural roads specifically for district roads and village roads. For rural bridges, individual truck loading may be relevant rather than the train of loading. The 24R IRC loading may be an appropriate loading for rural bridges in Nepal. This represents a heavy vehicle plying in rural roads in Nepal. Key words: Live loads; Pem fuel cell; Self-organising maps; Journal of the Institute of Engineering , Vol. 7, No. 1, July, 2009 pp. 111-115 doi: 10.3126/jie.v7i1.2068

Figures - uploaded by Jagat Shrestha

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Jagat Shrestha

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

Journal of the Institute of Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-5

Fax: 977-1-5525830

LIVE LOADS FOR RURAL BRIDGES

Er. Jagat Kumar Shrestha

Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University

Abstracts: We find various loading standards for bridges in different countries based on their

own contexts. In the context of Nepal, the road bridges have been designed adopting the various

codes. Many of the bridges have been designed based on IRC and AASHTO standards. Nepal

Road Standard (NRS 2027), has adopted the IRC and AASHTO loadings. The NRS covers

loadings for the highway and feeder roads. The standard does not cover the loading standards for

rural roads in Nepal. Now we have more than 20,000 km rural roads.

This paper tries to review the live load standards which are being adopted in design of bridges in

Nepal and recommend the live loads suitable for the bridges in rural roads specifically for district

roads and village roads.

For rural bridges, individual truck loading may be relevant rather than the train of loading. The

24R IRC loading may be an appropriate loading for rural bridges in Nepal. This represents a

heavy vehicle plying in rural roads in Nepal.

1. INTRODUCTION

In practice a highway bridge is loaded in a

very complex way by vehicles of varying

sizes and groupings. In order to simplify the

design process this real loading is typically

simulated by two basic imposed loads - a

uniformly distributed load and a knife-edge

load - representing an extreme condition of

normal usage. The design is then checked for

a further load arrangement representing the

passage of an abnormal load. The

magnitudes of all these loads are generally

related to the road classification, the bridge

standard requirements and the loaded length

of the bridge.

In the context of Nepal, various loadings are

being adopted in design of bridges. There are

no demarcation in design standards for

highway roads and rural roads. Mostly, the

standards are being practiced are AASHTO

and IRC design standards and the

corresponding loadings. Hence review of

these documents would be relevant in the

context of rural roads in Nepal.

2. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

2.1 AASHTO (1996)

The highway live loadings on the bridges

shall consist of standard trucks or lane loads

that are equivalent to truck trains.

Standard H Trucks

The HS loadings consist of a tractor truck

with semi trailer. The HS loadings are

designated by the letters HS followed by a

number indicating the gross weight in tons of

the tractor truck. The variable axle spacing

has been introduced in order that the spacing

of axles may approximate more closely the

tractor-trailers now in use. AASHTO defines

two types of loadings. The loadings HS20-44

are being practiced in Nepal.

Journal of the Institute of Engineering

Figure 1: AASHTO Loading

Lane Loading

The lane loading is assumed to occupy a

width of 10 feet. These loads shall be placed

in 12-foot wide design traffic lanes, spaced

across the entire bridge roadway width

measured between curbs. Fractional parts of

design lanes should not be used but roadway

widths from 20 to 24 feet shall have two

design lanes each equal to one half the

roadway width.

Each lane load shall consist of a uniform load

per linear foot of traffic lane combined with a

single concentrated load so placed on the

span as to produce maximum stress. The

concentrated load and uniform load shall be

considered as uniformly distributed over a

10-foot width on a line normal to the

centerline of the lane.

This loading consists of uniform load 640-

lbs./linear foot of load lane. Concentrated

loads of 18,000 lbs for moment and 26,000

lbs for shear calculations are considered.

2.2 IRC

IRC specifies different live loads for

footpath, kerb and deck.

For Footpath:

For designing footpath live load considered

is 5 kN/m2. (IRC: 6-

For Kerbs:

For kerbs of 0.60m or more in width, shall be

designed for 5 kN/m2, and for a local lateral

force of 750 kg. per metre. (IRC: 6-2000)

For vehicles:

The bridges classified by IRC, the designed

live load shall consist of standard wheeled or

tracked vehicles or trains of vehicles. Three

classes of loads are normally in practice in

Nepal.

IRC class A

IRC class A is normally adopted on all roads

on which permanent bridges and culverts are

constructed. (IRC: 6-2000).

The designed live load shall consist of

standard trains of vehicles. Nose to tail

distance between successive trains shall not

be less than 18.4m. It consists of a wheel

load train of a truck with trailers of specified

axle spacing and loads. The axle loads are

2.7 Tons, 11.4 Tons, 6.8 Tons and

respectively.

IRC Class AA

This load represents a tracked vehicle

(simulating an army tank) of 700 kN or a

wheeled vehicle (heavy duty truck) of 400

kN.

Class 70 R loading

This loading consists of a tracked vehicle of

700 kN or a wheeled vehicle of total load of

1000 kN. The track has contact length of

4.87m, nose to tail length of the vehicle is

7.92 m and specified minimum spacing of

successive vehicle is 30 m.

Wheeled vehicle is 15.22 m long and has

seven axles with the load totaling 1000 kN.

Live Loads for Rural Bridges

A bogie loading of 400 kN is also specified

with wheel loads of each 100 kN.

Other Classes

Beside these classes of loadings, there are 10

other classes of loadings representing track

and wheeled vehicles.

Among the other loads, Class 24R consists of

20 ton loading with four wheels 8 tons in

front axle and 12 tons in rear axle in 4.27 m

distance. In the same class of loading, 21.2

ton loading consists of six wheels 4.2 tons in

front axle, 8.5 tons in intermediate and rear

axles. The distance between the front and

intermediate axle is 3.96 m and the

intermediate to the rear axle is 1.22 m. The

spacing between successive vehicles is 30 m.

2.3 Nepal Road Standard (2027)

Nepal Road Standard adopts AASHTO and

IRC loadings. The standard is being revised

incorporating earthquake, wind and

temperature effects. The summary of the

loadings is presented in the following Table

Table 1: Nepal Road Standard (2027)

S.N.

(1)

Particulars

(2)

NRS-2027 (Existing)

(3)

NRS-2027 (Revision)

(4)

Remarks

(5)

1 Loadings:

For special and major bridges:

One lane of class A is considered to occupy

2.3m. The remaining width of carriageway

shall be loaded with 5 kN/m2 or one lane of

class 70R or, two lane of class A or,

AASHTO HS: 20-44

N.A. Proposed

For other bridges:

IRC class A for single lane and IRC class AA

or IRC class A (two lane) for two-lane traffic.

HS: 20-44 or IRC class

AA or any other

equivalent loading

No change

c) Footpath load of 5 KN/m2 N.A. Proposed Superstructure

having footpaths

d) Wearing coat 2 KN/m2 N.A. Proposed For Asphalt

wearing course

2 Seismic Forces:

According to Indian Standard criteria for

earthquake resistance design of structure IRC-

6; 2000 Fses = αβγg

Or, Horizontal load = 0.15g

Vertical load = 0.075g

N.A. Adopt horizontal load

= 0.15g

Vertical = 0.075g

Proposed as per

AASHTO

3 Wind Load:

Wind load according to AASHTO 1977

corresponding to a service load of about

2.40KN/m2 (for girders) and 3.60KN/m2 (for

trusses)

N.A. Proposed and adopt

wind load of 240 Kg/m2

for girder bridge and

360 Kg/m2 for trusse

bridges.

4 Temperature Variation for expansion joints

etc. 6 258 C

N.A. Proposed AASHTO 1977

Journal of the Institute of Engineering

3. LOADINGS FOR RURAL BRIDGES

Nepal Road Standard incorporates the both

AASHTO and IRC loadings. We have a

separate standard for the rural roads, the

Nepal Rural Roads Standard (NRSS 2055).

The Nepal Rural Road Standard (NRSS) is

not equivalent to the Nepal Road Standard.

The NRSS covers the low volume and light

vehicle standard rural roads more than

20,000 km in lengths. Hence, adaptation of

NRS for bridge loadings may not be justified

economically for rural roads and the rural

bridges as the NRS loads are higher and this

is suitable for highways and feeder roads.

Mostly the rural bridges have the short span

decks. Individual truck loading may be

relevant rather than the train of loading.

Thus, the 24R IRC loading may be an

appropriate loading for rural bridges. This

represents a heavy vehicle plying in Nepalese

roads.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

The 24R IRC loading seems to be an

appropriate loading for rural bridges in rural

roads of Nepal. Hence the loading is

recommended for consideration in design of

rural bridges. This load represents a heavy

vehicle (truck).

The recommended load consists of 20 tons

loading with four wheels 8 tons in front axle

and 12 tons in rear axle in 4.27 m distance in

the first type of loading. In the second type

of loading, in the same class of loading has

21.2 tons loading consisting of six wheels 4.2

tons in front axle, 8.5 tons in intermediate

and rear axles. The distance between the

front and intermediate axle is 3.96 m and the

intermediate to the rear axle is 1.22 m as

shown in the Figure 2. The spacing between

successive vehicles can be assumed to be 30

Figure 2: Proposed live loads for rural bridges

Live Loads for Rural Bridges

REFERENCES

[1] AASHTO, standard specification for

design of highway bridges,

Washington D.C., USA, 1992

[2] D. J. Victor, Essentials of Bridge

Engineering, fifth edition, Oxford and

IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New

Delhi, 2006

[3] IRC:6-2000, standard specification and

code for practice for road bridges,

Section II- loads and stresses, Indian

Road Congress, 2000

[4] Nepal Road Standard 2027,

Department of Roads, Ministry of

Physical planning and Works, 2054.

[5] Nepal Rural Road Standard, 2055, DoLIDAR,

Ministry of Local Development, 2055.

Pavel Salamahin
Ilya Reshetnikov

The article critically assessed temporary vertical standard combined loads on road bridges in Western European countries, the USA and Russia. They are set with constant values of the parameters of their uniformly distributed loads and loads on the axles of trucks without regard to the composition of road traffic and out of communication with the length and shape of the lines of influence of force and deformation factors in the elements of bridge structures and are used in these and in many other countries in road bridge structures engineering and design. It is shown that the bridges constructed with different spans on the same road are designed to have different and unknown for designers, engineers and facility managers load capacity, which decreases when the length of the spans increases more than twice, but that is unacceptable for operational and economic reasons. The author found that the use of regulatory documents of other countries as a model for the modernization of domestic standards is unacceptable due to economic considerations. The article assesses the carrying capacity of such bridges as: the Crimean bridge and the Bugrinsky bridge in Novosibirsk. It is shown that these structures, in case of compliance with the requirements of modern regulatory documents of the Russian Federation, do not allow for the passage of columns of vehicles weighing more than 25–27 tons in a state of congestion. The ways of eliminating the identified deficiencies of these combined regulatory loads are indicated. The results of calculations are presented, indicating that a further increase in the parameter K of the AK load to large values is not an effective way of ensuring the required carrying capacity of bridge structures.

Oxford and IBH publishing Co