IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-IV, August 26-27, 2020, Dhaka, Bangladesh ISBN: 978-984-34-8313-3

Amin, Okui, Bhuiyan, Rahman (eds.) www.iabse-bd.org

Assessment of dead load deflection of bailey bridges in Bangladesh

M. Kamruzzaman
Rajshahi University of Engineering and Technology, Rajshahi 6204, Bangladesh
M.R. Haque
Pabna University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh

ABSTRACT: In Bangladesh, collapse of bailey bridges is frequent. In this study, remote observation of dead
load deflection of bailey bridges is introduced by Refractor less Total Station. A total of 13 bailey bridges
within Rajshahi Division of Northern Bangladesh were studied. The monitored dead load deflection ranges
from 12 mm to 93 mm for all studied bridges. The results revealed that bailey bridges deflect more than the
safe limit even due to self weight. Addition to vehicular loads makes the bridges more vulnerable to use.
These unhealthy bailey bridges are in operation in our road networks and often cause frequent failure.

1 INTRODUCTION

Bridges are very important structures on any highway system. It plays vital role in connecting people, good
and transports. Since bridges are important link, it is essential to assess the structural health of bridges in order
to ensure safe and durable connectivity. The Bailey bridge system, originally invented for military usages, has
been used to meet the emergency or temporary bridge needs. It has also been widely used as a permanent so-
lution for pedestrian and road bridge needs in remote location (Yi et al, 2014).
According Roads and Highways Department (RHD) of Bangladesh, there are 4,507 bridges under the de-
partment, of which 996 are Bailey bridges. Of them, 973 have steel decks while the rest have wooden decks
(The Daily Star, 2020). Most of these bailey bridges are in unsafe condition; the bridges have already become
deteriorated and damaged to great extent. Collapse of highway bridges is seldom while failure of bailey
bridge is quite frequent (Figure 1, Fig 2 and Bangladesh Protidin, 2017).

Figure 1. Bailey bridge collapse in Munshiganj (UNB, 2020). Figure 2. Bailey bridge collapse in Bandarban
(The Independent, 2016)

Deflection is an important index for safety evaluation of bridges (Tian, L. & Pan, B., 2016). Bridge deflection
measurement can predict the structural health status of bridges and can provide the important reference for
structural performance and operational status of bridges (Shan, B. et al., 2016). A high rate of deflection indi-
cates the materials are significantly displaced which may bend, warp or shift in response to the superimposed
load. Lower rate of deflection indicates higher structural stiffness. Bridges whose deflections overpass the
specified limit of design may increase damage accumulation and even collapse at any time, which pose a se-
rious threat to people‟s lives and bring about a great loss of property.

306
 Conventional bridge deflection measurement techniques and equipments in Bangladesh are contact-based
system, inaccurate and not simple to conduct. To address this challenge; remote and accurate deflection mea-
surement of bridges is introduced in this study using Refractorless Total Station (RTS). Despite the diversity
of remote deflection measurement techniques, use of RTS have received increasing attention due to their out-
standing advantages such as real-time measurement, easy-to-use setup, low-cost, require less manpower and
applicability. This study aims to assess structural health status of bailey bridges by introducing remote or non-
contact observation technique.

2 METHOD OF STUDY

Deflection is the degree to which a structural element deforms under loading. For a weightless truss, the im-
aginary horizontal plane (as line ACB in Figure 3) will be a straight line passes through the supports. Alter-
nately, considering the self-weight of truss, the edge view of the deflected bridge will appear like the dotted
line in Figure 4. For a weightless truss bridge having span „L‟ as in Figure 3, the co-ordinates of point A, B
and C will be (0, 0), (L, 0) and (L/2, 0). Assuming, „-2‟ unit dead load deflection at the mid-span for the truss
bridge as in Figure 4, the co-ordinate of „D‟ will be (L/2, -2). The coordinates of point A, B, C & D are the
desired measurements using RTS.

Figure 3. Horizontal plane of a weightless truss. Figure 4. Elastic curve of the deflected truss.

The edge view of the mid-point of bottom chord of the bailey bridge becomes visible on RTS as „point D‟ of
Figure 4. It is most likely that „point D‟ appears below „point C‟. The vertical difference between points C &
D (in Figure 4) on the RTS i.e. vertical difference between mid-point of the imaginary horizontal plane within
supports and mid-point of the bottom edge of bridge girder is the dead load deflection of studied bridge. Un-
der this concept, mid-span deflection of bailey bridges (for only self-weight) were measured. RTS can also
count the vertical difference between point C and D from remote location using “Missing Line Measurement
(MLM)” function.
RTS was calibrated before using it at the bridge sites. The least count for the RTS was 3mm. Vertical dis-
tance between any two distant points within a testing ground were measured by RTS and steel tape simulta-
neously to check the accuracy of RTS. Targets were kept at various distant places and measurements were
taken. RTS produced same measurements as steel tape up to 122m (400 ft). Thus accuracy of RTS was
checked before deploying it in deflection measurement of bailey bridges.

3 STRUCTURAL MODELING OF BAILEY BRIDGES

Before starting the field survey, five bailey bridges were modeled using Structural Analysis Program (SAP
2000). At the beginning, line diagram of the bailey bridges were prepared. Geometric design, members‟ con-
nectivity, sectional properties, support conditions, material properties were collected from every bridge sites.
Using these data, computer models were developed and analysis was done for self-weight only. Three railway
bridges namely: Hardinge Bridge (span 105m), Gorai Bridge (span 57m), Atari Bridge (span 47.5m) were al-
so modeled for the study.
Five bailey bridges in Rajshahi Division were selected for SAP analysis. Those are Mohadebpur Bailey
Bridge, Naogaon district (span 41.76m), Pontarjan Bailey Bridge, Bogura district (span 39.63m), Bahuli Bai-
ley Bridge, Sirajgonj district (span 33.53m), Baiguni Bailey Bridge, Bogura district (span 30.48m), Kholisha-
gura Bailey Bridge, Bogura district (span 24.39m). Among the five bridges Mohadebpur Bridge has the larg-
307
est span and mid-span deflection were found to be 28.25 mm by SAP analysis and the results are presented in
Figures 5 & 6. Deflection results of all other bridges by SAP is presented in Table 1.

-30

Deflection (mm)ii
-20

-10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Span (m)

Figure 5. SAP model of Mohadebpur Bailey bridge. Figure 6. Span vs. deflection curve of Mohadebpur Bailey bridge by SAP.

4 DEFLECTION RESULTS

During the field survey, thirteen bailey bridges have been selected for study. Name of bridge, location, span
and deflection values by RTS and SAP for those studied bridges are presented in Table 1. All the studied
bridges are listed according to span length in descending order.

Table 1. Deflection results of bailey bridges.

No. Name of Bridges Location Span (m) Deflection by RTS Deflection by SAP
1. Katakhali Bridge Sirajganj 43.29 93 (Maxm) ---
2. Buruj Bridge Rajshahi 42.07 36
3. Mohadebpur Bridge Naogaon 41.15 42 28.25
4. Pontarjan Bridge Bogura 39.63 54 22.01
5. Hasildoho Bridge Sirajganj 36.59 54 ---
6. Hajibari Bridge Sirajganj 36.59 84
7. Boikunthopur Bridge Sirajganj 33.54 51
8. Bahuli Bridge Sirajganj 33.53 51 15.75
9. Baiguni Bridge Bogura 30.48 78 16.00
10. Chondidas Bridge Sirajganj 29.27 60 ---
11. Kurir Chor Bridge Sirajganj 24.39 81
12. Kholishagura Bridge Bogura 24.39 36 4.57
13. Sonai Bridge Sirajganj 18.29 12 (Minm) ---

5 ANALYSIS
5.1 Differences in SAP and RTS Results
Span of the studied bailey bridges ranges from 18.29m to 43.29m. Dead load deflections were found from
12mm to 93mm in RTS survey and 4.57mm to 28.19mm in SAP analysis (Table 1). In SAP analysis, deflec-
tion increases with the increase of span and vice-versa. For example, dead load deflection of Mohadebpur
bridge, having typical girder of 41.15m, was 28.25 mm (maximum). Again, dead load deflection of Kholisha-
gura Bridge, having a span of 24.39m, was 4.57mm (minimum). Thus, deflection is likely to be proportional
to span of the bridge in SAP analysis.
On the other hand, RTS survey found non-consistent deflection in different span bridges. For example,
dead load deflection of Katakhali bridge, having typical girder of 43.29m, was 93mm (maximum). Again,
dead load deflection of Kholishagura Bridge, having a span of 18.29m, was 4.57mm (minimum). In addition,
dead load deflection of Hajibari Bridge, having a span of 36.59m, was 84mm (2nd maximum). Thus, RTS sur-
vey found non-consistent relation between deflection and span length.
As the geometric design, cross sectional area and material properties are similar in long or short span bai-
ley bridges, the theoretical deflection follows a relation between span and deflection in SAP analysis. Same
bridges produce more deflection in RTS survey comparing the SAP analysis (Table 1). This is due to aging of
the bridges and lack of periodic maintenance and repair. For example, dead load deflection of Buruj bridge,
having large span of 42.07m, was 36mm only. Again, dead load deflection of Kurir Chor Bridge, having a
small span of 24.39m only, was 81mm (3rd maximum). RTS survey gives an idea that bridges having critical
health deflect more and vice versa. Deflection is related to structural health rather than the span. Deflection
values from SAP analysis is always less than the deflections measured by RTS. It means that the physical def-
lection due to dead load has exceeds the theoretical deflection.
308
5.2 Deflection vs. Span Ratio
Deflection to span ratio is an indicator to bridge health. For comparison, three railway bridges are considered
here. Those Railway bridges were Hardinge bridge (span 105.18m), Gorai bridge (span 57m), Atari bridge
(span 47.56m). The deflection vs. span, (ƠL) ratio from SAP analysis is shown in Figure 7 and & Figure 8
represents the same from RTS survey. Deflection of railway bridges due to dead load is less than the bailey
bridges. It is evident from the Figure 7 & 8 that (ƠL) ratio is lower in case of railway bridges despite railway
bridges have longer span. On the other hand, bailey bridges have higher (ƠL) ratio despite bailey bridges
have shorter span. It comes out from the analysis that bailey bridges are less stiff than the railway bridges.

30 30

Deflection Vs. Span Ratio ( 10-4 ) oii

Deflection Vs. Span Ratio ( 10- 4 ) oii

30m
25 25

20 20

40m 34m 24m

15 15
105m 41m
10 10
41m 40m 57m
105m 34m 30m 48m
5 48m 5
57m 24m
0 0

Kholishagura
Mohadebpur

Baiguni
Kholishagura

Hardinge
Baiguni
Mohadebpur

Bridge
Hardinge

Bahuli
Atrai Rail
Bridge

Gorai Rail
Bahuli
Atrai Rail
Gorai Rail

Bridge
Pontarjan
Bridge
Pontarjan

Bridge

Bridge

Bridge
Bridge

Bridge

Bridge

Bridge
Bridge

Bridge
Bridge

Bridge
Bridge

Figure 7. Comparison of deflection vs. span ratio for railway Figure 8. Comparison of deflection vs. span ratio for railway
and bailey bridges by SAP results. and bailey bridges by RTS results.

Figure 9. Observed deflection by RTS and AASHTO limit of Figure 10. Observed deflection by RTS and AASHTO limit of
deflection for railway and bailey bridges. deflection for bailey bridges

5.3 Safe Deflection Limit

The maximum 1/800 of the span length for general vehicular bridges and 1/1000 of the span length for vehi-
cular bridges with pedestrian traffic are universally accepted criteria for the live load deflection limit. The
RTS measurement of bridge deflection due to dead load showed the deflection of railway bridges are within
the allowable deflection limit (Figure 9).
Most of the bailey bridges exceed the maximum permissible deflection limit for dead load only. Addition
of live load will put extra stress and make bridges more vulnerable. Observed maximum deflection for Katak-
hali Bridge (span 43.29m) was 93mm where as the AASHTO maximum deflection is of 54.12 mm only. Out
of 13 bailey bridges, 10 bridges exceeds safe deflection limit and are unsafe for vehicular use (Figure 10).

5.4 Unsafe Bridges

Table 2 provides a list of studied bailey bridges according to „deflection to span ratio‟ in descending order.
Short span bridges have higher „deflection to span ratio‟ and more vulnerable. Based on the AASHTO limit of
maximum deflection, Table 2 also provides a list of safe and unsafe bridges considering dead load only. Addi-
tion of live load will make all the bridges more susceptible to fail. Only three bridges, out of thirteen bailey
bridges are found to be within the permissible deflection limit and it might not be safe if live loads are added.

309
Table 2. Safe and unsafe bridges according to deflection results by RTS (Due to dead load only).
No. Bridge Name Span, L (m) Deflection AASHTO Δ†L Remarks
∆DL, (mm) Limit (mm)
1. Kurir Chor Bridge 24.39 81 30.49 0.0033 Unsafe
2. Baiguni Bridge 30.48 78 38.11 0.0026 Unsafe
3. Hajibari Bridge 36.59 84 45.73 0.0023 Unsafe
4. Katakhali Bridge 43.29 93 54.12 0.0021 Unsafe
5. Chondidas Bridge 29.27 60 36.59 0.0020 Unsafe
6. Bahuli Bridge 33.53 51 41.92 0.0016 Unsafe
7. Boikunthopur Bridge 33.54 51 41.92 0.0015 Unsafe
8. Kholishagura Bridge 24.39 36 30.49 0.0014 Unsafe
9. Hasildoho Bridge 36.59 54 45.73 0.0014 Unsafe
10. Pontarjan Bridge 39.63 54 49.54 0.0013 Unsafe
11. Mohadebpur Bridge 41.15 42 51.07 0.0011 Safe
12. Buruj Bridge 42.07 36 52.59 0.0009 Safe
13. Sonai Bridge 18.29 12 22.87 0.0006 Safe

6 CONCLUSIONS

In this study, dead load was used to understand self-weight only. Live load analysis was skipped during the
study as the bridges already become unsafe in dead load. The application of RTS and method used in this
study is simple enough to conduct field survey for deflection study. RTS was used effectively to measure
bridge deflection. RTS results for bridge deflection can be attained accurately, quickly and easily. It is useful
for structural health monitoring of bridges, predict bridge health, reduce bridge failure and eventually lower
the loss of lives and assets.
Results obtained from RTS and SAP analysis conversed and indicates that most of the studied bridges ex-
ceeds the permissible deflection limit and hence unsafe to use. The maximum dead load deflection was 93mm
for a span of 43.29m for Katakhali bridge. It forms the „deflection to span‟ ratio as 0.0021. So, the „deflection
to span‟ ratio becomes 0.0021. Thus the bailey bridges have more than four times „deflection to span‟ ratio
than the other type bridges. Deflections are more related to bridge health rather than other parameters like
span length. Aged and faulty bridges have more deflections even with short span and healthy bridges have
less deflection even with long span.
Failure of bailey bridges in Bangladesh is quite frequent. Overloading is the main reason for collapse of
bailey bridges. Apart from the case of overloading, one unseen reason is uncovered in this paper. Due to lack
of repair, maintenance and supervision, most of the bailey bridges suffer from high rate of deflection. A
bridge failure causes huge loss of life, assets and interrupts mobility. Inspection of bridges and regular data
observations are essential for safe, durable and smooth bridge operation.

REFERENCES

Bangladesh Protidin (2017), “Thakurgaone Bridge Bhenge jaoai Chorom Durvog”, Mr. Jahan, Thakuraon Correspondent, 09-12-
2017, updated on 9-12-2017, 23:21 http://www.bd-pratidin.com/home/printnews/ 287600/ 2017-12-09 (Accessed 10-12-2017) .
Pan, B.; Tian, L.; Song, X. L. (2016) “Real-time, non-contact and target less measurement of vertical deflection of bridges using
off-axis digital image correlation. NDT E Int., 79, 73–80.
P., Yi, Gunvant Vaghela and Andrew Buckland (2014), Condition assessment and load rating of arched bailey bridge, 9 th Austroad
bridge conference, Sydney, New South Wales.
RHD, (2015) “Preparatory Survey on Western Bangladesh Bridges Improvement Project”, Final Report, Roads and Highways De-
partment, Ministry of Road Transportation and Bridges, Government of the People‟s Republic of Bangladesh, April 2015.
The Daily Star (2020), Available at – https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/bailey-bridges-in-bangladesh-waiting-come-apart-
1754263Shan, B. et al., (2016). “A Bridge Deflection Monitoring System Based on CCD” Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Ad-
vances in Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 2016, Article ID 4857373, 11 pages.
The independent, (2016), http://www.theindependentbd.com/arcprint/details/34791/2016-02-22
Tian, L.; Pan, B. (2016). “Remote Bridge Deflection Measurement Using an Advanced Video Deflectometer and Actively Illumi-
nated LED”, Sensors, 16, 1344.
UNB (2020), https://unb.com.bd/category/Bangladesh/bailey-bridge-collapse-snaps-road-link-in-munshiganj/52410

310