COMPARISON OF BRIDGE DESIGN IN MALAYSIA BETWEEN AMERICAN
CODES AND BRITISH CODES
WAN IKRAM WAJDEE B. WAN AHMAD KAMAL
A thesis submitted as a fulfillment of requirements
for the award of the degree of Master of Engineering (Structure)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
MAC , 2005
iii
For Abah ,Ma ,Adik-adikku,Saudara-mara,Kawan-kawan,Awek2ku,
May God Bless You All…
iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my greatest supervisor, Associate Prof. Dr. Haji
Azlan Adnan for his advice and moral support for this research. Also to Structural
Earthquake Engineering Research (SEER) group members for giving their support.
I would like to thank Mr. Azizul from Nik Jai Assc. for his cooperation and
contribution in my research. Also not forget Hendriawan, Hafifi, Miji, Mat Nan, X-
sel,Lobey, and others.
Finally, my thanks are also due to my parent (Abah & Ma), my girlfriend Syikin,
and all my friends for understanding and encouragement while doing this research.May
god bless you all.
I LOVE U ALL
v
ABSTRACT
The design of a highway bridge, like most any other civil engineering
project, is dependant on certain standards and criteria. Naturally, the critical
importance of highway bridges in a modern transportation system would imply a
set of rigorous design specifications to ensure the safety and overall quality of the
constructed project.
By general specifications, we imply an overall design code covering the
majority of structures in a given transportation system.In the United States bridge
engineers use AASHTO’s standard Specification for Highway Bridges and, in
similar fashion or trends, German bridge engineer utilize the DIN standard and
British and Malaysia designers the BS 5400 code. In general, countries like
German and United Kingdom which have developed and maintained major
highway systems for a great many years possess their own national bridge
standards. The AASHTO Standard Specification, however, have been accepted by
many countries as the general code by which bridges should be designed.
In this research study, investigation and comparisons using codes of
practices for bridge design in Malaysia is done . American codes has been
choosen as an alternative to British codes in design of bridge, followed by
comparison in term of structure component performance due to seismic loading.
The purpose is to investigate the performance of existing bridge in Malaysia due
to seismic resistant.Thus, the bridge performance over the safety condition and
structure integrity while using both codes of practices, American and British
Codes is identified.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DEDCLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xvii
LIST OF APPENDIXES xix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 General Specification 2
1.3 Problem Statement 2
1.4 Objectives 4
1.5 Scope of Study 4
1.6 Organization of Thesis 5
1.7 Unit Conversion 5
vii
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 History of Bridge Construction 7
2.2.1 Ancient Structure 7
2.2.1.1 Ancient Structural Principles 8
2.2.1.2 Trial and Error 9
2.2.1.3 The Earliest Beginnings 9
2.2.1.4 Timber Bridges 12
2.2.1.5 Stone Bridges 13
2.2.1.6 Aqueducts and Viaducts 14
2.2.1.7 Religious Symbolism 17
2.2.1.8 Vitruvius’ De Architectura 18
2.2.1.9 Contributions of Ancient Bridge 19
Building
2.3 The Middle Ages 20
2.3.1 Preservation of Roman Knowledge 20
2.3.2 Bridges in the Middle East and Asia 21
2.3.3 Revival of European Bridge Building 21
2.3.4 Construction and History of Old 22
London Bridge
2.3.5 The Era of Concrete Bridges and Beyond 25
2.3.6 Concrete Characteristics 25
2.3.6.1 Early Concrete Structures 26
2.3.6.2 Concrete Arch Bridges 27
2.3.6.3 Prestressed Concrete Bridges 28
viii
2.4 Concrete Bridges after the Second 29
World War
2.4.1 Cable-Stayed Bridges 30
2.5 Recent Bridge Projects 37
2.6 Contributions of Modern 38
Concrete Bridge Construction
CHAPTER III THEORITICAL BACKGROUND
3.1 Choice of Abutment 40
3.1.1 Design Consideration 41
3.2 Choice Of Bearing 42
3.2.1 Preliminary Design 44
3.2.2 Constraint 45
3.3 Selection of Bridge Type 46
3.3.1 Preliminary Design Consideration 47
3.3.2 Design Standard for preliminary design 48
3.4 Reinforced Concrete Deck 49
3.4.1 Analysis of Deck 49
3.4.2 Design Standard for Concrete 50
3.4.3 Prestressed Concrete Deck 51
3.4.4 Pre-Tension Bridge Deck 52
3.5 Composite Deck 54
ix
3.5.1 Construction Method 54
3.6 Steel Box Girder 55
3.6.1 Steel Deck Truss 56
3.6.2 Choice of Truss 57
3.7 Cable Stay Deck 58
3.8 Suspension Bridges 59
3.8.1 Design Consideration 61
3.9 Choice of Pier 62
3.9.1 Design Consideration 63
3.10 Choice Of Wingwalls 64
3.10.1 Design Consideration 65
CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction 66
4.2 Design Flowchart 67
4.2.1 BS 5400 and AASHTO-Seismic 67
Design Flowchart
4.3 Result and Analysis 80
4.3 Discussion and Conclusion 93
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.0 Introduction 94
5.1 Future Research 95
x
5.1.1 Future Challenges in 95
Bridge Engineering
5.2 Improvements in Design, Construction, 96
Maintenance, and Rehabilitation
5.2.1 Improvements in Design 96
5.2.2 Improvements in Construction 97
5.2.3 Improvements in Maintenance 98
and Rehabilitation
5.3 Conclusion 100
REFERENCES 101
APPENDIXES 104
xi
LIST OF TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Stay Cable Arrangements 32
2.2 Recent Major Bridge Projects 37
3.1 Selection of bridge type for various span length 46
3.2 The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 60
BD 52/93 Specifies a Group Designation
4.1 Steel area for different code of practices.Consider 80
for seismic reading 0.15 g
4.2 Cost of steel area for different code.Consider 80
for seismic reading 0.15 g
4.3 Steel Area for different code of practice.Consider 81
for seismic reading 0.075 g
4.4 Cost of steel area for different code.Consider 81 for seismic reading 0.075g
4.5 Time History Analysis due to End Member of Force 84 by using British code analysis (Staad-Pro)
4.6 Time History Analysis due to End Member of Force 84 by using American code analysis (Staad-Pro)
4.7 Time History Analysis due to joint displacement 85 by using American code analysis (Staad-Pro)
xii
4.8 Time History Analysis due to joint displacement 86 by using British code analysis (Staad-Pro)
4.9 Time History Analysis due to support reaction 87 by using American code analysis (Staad-Pro)
4.10 Time History Analysis due to support reaction 88 by using British code analysis (Staad-Pro)
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Corbelled Arch and Voussoir Arch 14
2.2 The Pont du Gard, Nîmes, France 15
(taken from Brown 1993, p18)
2.3 The Puente de Alcántara, Caceres, Spain 16
(taken from Brown 1993, p25)
2.4 The Ponte Sant’Angelo, Rome, Italy 17
(taken from Leonhardt 1984, p69)
2.5 Old London Bridge, London, Great Britain 23
(taken from Steinman and Watson 1941, p69)
2.6 The Plougastel Bridge under Construction 28
(taken from Brown 1993, p122)
2.7 Stay Cable Arrangements 31
2.8 The Oberkassel Rhine Bridge, Düsseldorf, 33
Germany (taken from Leonhardt 1984, p260)
2.9 The Lake Maracaibo Bridge, Venezuela 33
(taken from Leonhardt 1984, p271)
2.10 The Pont de Brotonne, France 34
(taken from Leonhardt 1984, p270)
2.11 The Akashi Kaikyo Bridge, Japan 38
(taken from Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Authority 1998, p1)
xiv
3.1 Open Side Span 40
3.2 Solid Side Span 41
3.3: Elastomeric Bearing 43
3.4 Plane Sliding Bearing 43
3.5 Multiple Roller Bearing 43
3.6 Typical Bearing Layout 44
3.7 Various of Deck Slab 49
3.8 Aspect Ratio vs Skew angle graf 50
3.9 Type of Girder 52
3.10 Types of Beam-Slab 53
3.11 Typical Composite Deck 54
3.12 Cross section of Steel Box Girder 55
3.13 Type of truss 56
3.14 Bridge Truss 57
3.15 Simple Cable Stay Bridge 58
3.16 Suspension Bridge 59
3.17 Types of Parapet 60
3.18 Different Pier Shape 63
3.19 Load acting on Retaining Wall 64
3.20 Distribution Surcharge Load 64
4.1 AASHTO–LRFD seismic design flowchart 69
4.2 BS 5400 design flowchart 71
4.3 Design Flowchart of I Girder Bridge 73 according to AASHTO
4.4 Design flowchart of I-Girder Bridge 75 according to BS 5400
4.5 Design Flowchart of Column Bent Pier 76 according to AASHTO
4.6 Design Flowchart of Column Bent Pier 77 according to BS 5400
4.7 Design Flowchart of Stub Abutment 78 according to AASHTO
xv
4.8 Design Flowchart of Column Bent Pier 79
according to BS 5400
4.9 Steel Area for different code of practice.Consider 82
for seismic reading 0.15 g
4.10 Steel Area for different code of practice.Consider 82
for seismic reading 0.075 g
4.11 Cost of steel area for different code.Consider 83
seismic reading 0.15 g
4.12 Cost of steel area for different code.Consider 83
seismic reading 0.075g
4.13 a Mode Shape of bridge structure during 89
earthquake event for American code design
4.13 b Mode Shape of bridge structure during 90
earthquake event for American code design
4.13.c Natural Frequency vs Participation graph 90
4.13.d Time History Analysis graph for 91
American code design
4.14. a Mode Shape of bridge structure during 91
earthquake event for British code design by
using Lusas Software
4.14. b Mode Shape of bridge structure during 92
earthquake event for British code design by
using Lusas Software
xvi
4.14.c. Natural Frequency vs Participation graph 92
4.14.d. Time History Analysis graph for British 93
code design
xvii
LIST OF SIMBOLS
S - Distance Between Flanges
MDL - Dead Load Moment
MLL - Moment Due to Live Load
MLL + I - Moment Due to Live Load + Impact
MB - Total Bending Moment
MSDL - Moment Super Imposed Dead Load
Es - Modulus of Elasticity for Steel
Ec - Modulus of Elasticity for Concrete
n - modular ratio
r - stress ratio
k & j - coefficient
b - Unit width of slab
d - minimum depth required
As - Required Area Steel Bar
D - Distribution Steel
Beff - Effective Width
DF - Distribution Factor
I - Impact Moment
MMax - Maximun Moment
R - Reaction of Support
V - Shear Force
PAE - Active Earth Pressure
KAE - Seismic Active Earth Pressure Coefficient
- Angle of Friction Soil
A - Acceleration Coefficient
- Angle of Friction Between Soil and Abutment
xviii
- Slope of Soil face
Kh - Horizontal Acceleration Coefficient
Kv - Vertical Acceleration Coefficient
F’T - Equivalent Pressure
W - Abutment Load
- Single Mode Factors
S - Site coefficient
VY - Force Acting on Abutment
Pe - Equivalent Static Earthquake Loading
FA - Axial Force
r - Radius of Gyration
fC - Concrete Strength
fS - Grade Reinforcement
MU - Ultimate Moment
k - Stiffness
vS - Static Displacement
xix
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX TITLE
A Design Sheet Calculation
B Bridge Structure Drawing
C El – Centro Data
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Currently, in Malaysia we have not practice in design of bridge for
earthquake situation is not practices. Currently in our code of practice BS 5400, it
did not have allocation or rules in earthquake design consideration for bridge
structure.Eventhough our country does not have earthquake event occurred very
frequently, we must aware that our neighbouring countries such as Indonesia and
Philippines is an active earthquake region. Therefore we must take into attention
and consideration when we start to design bridge so that the effect of earthquake
damage from earthquake event in our neighbouring countries can be minimized to
our structures especially bridge.
Eventhough our bridge structure might just get small vibration due to
earthquake from our near region country, it may also contribute to some side
effect in long term period if it happened for many times. This situation might
cause cracking and collapse to our bridge. So ,in solving this problem we need a
code of practice that considered earthquake loading in design process. In this
research , we try to compare two codes of practice AASHTO-ACI and BS 5400
for bridge design resist of seismic loading. The design of a highway bridge, like
most other civil engineering project, is dependent on certain standards and
criteria. Naturally, the critical importance of highway bridges in a modern
2
transportation system would imply a set of rigorous design specification to ensure
the safety and overall quality of the constructed project.
1.2 General Specifications
In general specifications, we imply an overall design code covering the
majority of structures in a given transportation system. In the United States bridge
engineers use Ashton’s standard Specification for Highway Bridges and, in
similar fashion or trends, German bridge engineer utilize the DIN standard and
British and Malaysia designers the BS 5400 code. In general, countries like
German and United Kingdom which have developed and maintained major
highway systems for a great many years possess their own national bridge
standards. The AASHTO Standard Specification, however, have been accepted by
many countries as the general code by which bridges should be designed.
This does not mean that the AASHTO code is accepted in its entirety by
all transportation agencies. Indeed, even within the United States itself, state
transportation departments regularly issue amendments to the AASHTO code.
These amendments can offer additional requirements to certain design criteria or
even outright exceptions.
1.3 Problem Statement
According to the latest information we get, most bridge engineers in
Malaysia are using BS 5400 code for guideline in design bridge project. This is
because our bridge engineer got their basic knowledge or tertiary education from
European countries like United Kingdom , New Zealand , and others countries
that practices BS 5400 as a code of practice. That is they use BS 5400 code as a
common practice in our country.Eventhough they already knew that BS 5400
does not have seismic consideration in their practice calculation design, they just
ignored this case because in their opinion our country is outside seismic activity
3
area.They forgot our country is near to our country neighbour such as Sumatera
(Indonesia) and Philiphinnes that still have an active earthquake location
center.However, we received vibration due to earthquake measuring 4.3 Richter
scale in Penang Island , Kelantan , Perak and Kedah.This event was occurred
caused by earthquake in Acheh (Indonesia).Some of our building structure like
column , wall and slab are cracking due to this vibration from Acheh
earthquake.Based on Malaysia Meteorological Services statement and other
source, a reading value of earthquake for peninsular Malaysia as 0.075 g (75 gal)
and for Sabah is 0.15 g (150 gal).These value is considered low vibration by some
engineer and is not concern for a safety of bridge structure but for others person
that concern of it this value can caused collapsed to our building or bridge if it
happened frequently.
Therefore , a need to review our practice design code and also our
construction method especially in design of bridge is much needed so as to protect
bridge structure from the undesired damaging effect due to this natural
disaster.The aim of this research is to compare our currently code of practice (BS
5400) with AASHTO-Seismic Design Code in term of efficiency in design a
bridge in Malaysia.It also investigate which two code much applicable is to be
applied in our country.The way to compare these two codes are by trying to
redesign our existing bridge structure by using the different code of practices.In
our case , we use American code of practice in redesigning our bridge
structure.After that, we analyze and determine which code is much better for our
country in design.
4
1.4 Objectives
The aims of this research are as follow :
a) To investigate codes of practices suitable for our bridge structure
design.
b) To determine whether current codes of practice in Malaysia ( BS
5400) is still practical for now or instead.
c) To determine the existing capacity of bridges in resisting low
intensity seismic loading due to near earthquake source.
d) To compute the cost of using the different codes of practices.
e) To determine the Time History Analysis Response(Time-
acceleration) due to earthquake event using both codes of
practices.
1.5 Scope of study
The scope of the research are limited to certain things as follow :
a) Bridge component of structure ; Deck , Girder , Pier and
Abutment.
b) In Malaysia high risk seismic location.( e.g : Sabah and Penang
Island)
c) Compare in term of size of components and cost .(e.g : Volume of
concrete and amount of steel that will be required)
5
1.6 Organization of Thesis
Extensive literature reviews are available in Chapter 2.Background theory
and Principal of bridge engineering are described in Chapter 3.
1.7 Unit Conversion
Both SI Metric and Imperial Units are use throughout this thesis.
100
can determine the high performance of a material. In the area of materials
for repair and rehabilitation development of coatings, epoxy grouts, fiber
reinforcement, and other materials enables the repairs to be very specific
adapting to the problem.
5.3 Conclusion
With the prospects and possibilities presented above one can say
that the future of bridges has just begun. The three main areas of future
development that were pointed out in the previous sections show that the
range of ideas to be explored is very wide. Some of these ideas may prove
impractical within the technical environment, while others will become
feasible once the existing technologies have been developed further. The
approaches mentioned will contribute to the development of amazing new
structures. Only the fascination that is characteristic for bridge engineering
field will remain the same that it has always been, during the many
centuries that have passed since the first bridges were erected.
REFERENCES
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 15th ed, American Association
of State highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C, 1993.
Standard Plans for Highway Bridges, vol. I,Concrete Superstructures, U.S
department of Transportation ,Federal Highway Administration,Washington,
D.C,1990.
Winter,George and Nolson,Arthur H., Design of Concrete Structures, 9th
ed.,McGraw-Hill,New York,1979.
Gutkowski,Richard M. and Williamson,Thomas G., “Timber Bridges:State of
Art,” Journal of Structural Engineering,American Society of Civil
Engineers,pp.2175-2191,vol.109,No.9,September,1983.
Standard details for Highway Bridges,New york State Deparment of
Transportation,Albany,1989.
Elliot,Arthur L.,”Steel and Concrete Bridges,”Structural Engineering
Handbook,Edited by Gaylord,Edwin H., Jr., and Gaylord,Charles N.,
McGraw-Hill,New York,1990.
AASHTO Manual for Bridge Maintenance,American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials,pp.77-104,Washington,D.C.,1987.
Bridge Design Practice Manual,CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation,p.1-
11,Sacramento,1983.
102
Robert A.et al., Goals,Opportunities, and Priorities for the USGSEartquake
Hazard Reduction Program,U.S. geological Survey,p.366,Wahington,
D.C.,1992.Bridge Design Practice Manual, 3rd ed., California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento.,1971.
Steinman ,D.B., and Watson , S.R., Bridges and Their Builders,2nd ed., Dover
Publications Inc., New York,1957.
Starzewski,K., “Earth Reatining Structures and Culverts.”The Design and
Construction of Engineering Foundation,Edited by Hendry, F.D.C.,
Chapman and Hall, New York, 1986.
Bowles,Joseph E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 2 nd ed., McGraw-
Hill,New York,1977.
Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 15th ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, p. 646,
Washington, D.C., 1993.
Walley,W.J., and Purkiss, J.A., “Bridge Abutment and Piers,” pp. 821 –
884,The Design and Construction of Engineering Foundations,Edited by
Henry, F.D.C., Chapman and Hall, New York, 1986.
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 15th ed, American
Association of State highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
D.C, 1993.
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 15th ed, American
Association of State highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington,pp. 646 D.C, 1993.
103
Winter , George, and Nilson, Arthur H., Design of Concrete Structures,9th
ed.,McGraw-Hill,New York,1979.
