applied

sciences
Article
Article
Load-Carrying
Load‐CarryingCapacity
Capacity of
of Bailey Bridge in
in Civil
Civil Applications
Applications
Jozef 1, 1 , Matúš Farbák 1 and Vladimír Novotný 2
JozefProkop
Prokop 1,**, Jaroslav
, JaroslavOdrobiňák
Odrobiňák
1, Matúš Farbák 1 and Vladimír Novotný 2

11 Department
Department of of Structures
Structures and
andBridges,
Bridges,Faculty
FacultyofofCivil
CivilEngineering,
Engineering,University
UniversityofofŽilina,
Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1,
Univerzitná 8215/1,
010 26 Žilina, 010 26
Slovakia; Žilina, Slovakia; jaroslav.odrobinak@uniza.sk
jaroslav.odrobinak@uniza.sk (J.O.);
(J.O.); matus.farbak@uniza.sk (M.F.)
2 matus.farbak@uniza.sk (M.F.) 8, 010 01 Žilina, Slovakia; tebrico@tebrico.sk
Tebrico Ltd., P.O. Hviezdoslava
* Tebrico Ltd., P.O. Hviezdoslava 8, 010 01 Žilina, Slovakia; tebrico@tebrico.sk
2
Correspondence: jozef.prokop@uniza.sk
* Correspondence: jozef.prokop@uniza.sk

Abstract: The paper presents an extensive study aimed to determine the applicability of the de-
Abstract: The paper presents an extensive study aimed to determine the applicability of the de‐
mountable Bailey bridge (BB) system on construction sites or in other temporary conditions while
mountable Bailey bridge (BB) system on construction sites or in other temporary conditions while
meeting the regulations for the design and assessment of steel bridges. The analysis is focused on
meeting the regulations for the design and assessment of steel bridges. The analysis is focused on
whether and to what extent the BB system with spans between 12 and 36 m is usable for on-site
whether and to what extent the BB system with spans between 12 and 36 m is usable for on‐site
freight
freighttransport
transport with
with conventional lorries with
conventional lorries withaatotal
totalweight
weightofofupuptoto22–28
22–28tons.
tons.AtAt
thethe same
same time,
time,
the
the BB system within these spans should be utilized for construction vehicles with a total weight of of
BB system within these spans should be utilized for construction vehicles with a total weight
up
uptoto32–40
32–40tons.
tons. To
To calculate
calculate the
the load-carrying capacity,spatial
load‐carrying capacity, spatialnumerical
numericalmodels
modelswerewere analysed
analysed
using
using FEM
FEM and and procedures
procedures ofof actual
actual design
design codes
codeswere
wereutilized.
utilized.InInthe
thecase
caseofof the
the main
main girders,
girders,
analysis
analysisisis focused
focused onon the
the out-of-plane stabilityof
out‐of‐plane stability oftheir
theircompressed
compressedchords.
chords.Recommendations
Recommendations forfor
the use of this bridge system in different arrangements of the main girder and bridge
the use of this bridge system in different arrangements of the main girder and bridge deck are then deck are then
summarized and discussed.
summarized and discussed.

Keywords: Bailey
Keywords: Bailey bridge; load‐carrying
load-carrying capacity;
capacity;stability;
stability;steel
steelbridge;
bridge;temporary
temporarybridge
bridge






Citation: Prokop, J.; Odrobiňák, J.;
Farbák,Prokop,
Citation: M.; Novotný, V. ňák, J.;
J.; Odrobi 1.1.Introduction
Introduction
Load‐Carrying Capacity of Bailey
Farbák, M.; Novotný, V. Temporary
Temporarybridge
bridgestructures
structureswere
weremainly
mainly developed
developed forfor
military purposes
military purposesin the past.
in the
Bridge in Civil Applications.
Load-Carrying Capacity of Bailey Very
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788.
past.often, they also
Very often, theyserved to ensure
also served rapidrapid
to ensure access through
access ruralrural
through unexplored areas
unexplored [1,2].
areas
Bridge in Civil Applications. Appl. Increasingly, originally militarymilitary
emergency ones areones
alsoare
used forused
civil for
purposes (Figure 1),
https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083788 [1,2]. Increasingly, originally emergency also civil purposes
Sci. 2022, 12, 3788. https://doi.org/
where
(Figure 1), where their adaptability, low weight, but especially extremely fast erectionalmost
their adaptability, low weight, but especially extremely fast erection and and
10.3390/app12083788
Academic Editors: immediate usabilityusability
almost immediate for traffic
forare utilized.
traffic are utilized.
Algirdas Juozapaitis
Academic Editors: Algirdas
and Alfonsas Daniūnas
Juozapaitis and Alfonsas Daniūnas
Received: 1 March 2022
Received: 1 March 2022
Accepted: 5 April 2022
Accepted: 5 April 2022
Published: 8 April 2022
Published: 8 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu‐
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
tral with regard to jurisdictional
with regard
claims to jurisdictional
in published maps andclaims in
institu‐
published maps and institutional affil-
tional affiliations.
iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li‐

Copyright: © 2022
censee MDPI, by the
Basel, authors.
Switzerland.
Licensee MDPI,
This article Basel,
is an open Switzerland.
access article
This article isunder
distributed an open accessand
the terms article
con‐
distributed under
ditions of the the Commons
Creative terms and
At‐
Figure 1. Bailey bridge (TS‐12 + TD‐33) over Vah river during construction (Slovakia).
tribution of
conditions (CC BY)
the license (https://cre‐
Creative Commons Figure 1. Bailey bridge (TS-12 + TD-33) over Vah river during construction (Slovakia).
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Currently, a significant number of these structures are used when natural disasters
4.0/).
destroy a part of transport infrastructure. Their application as temporary bridges on

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083788 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12083788 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 2 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 2 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 2 of 19

Currently, a significant number of these structures are used when natural disasters
destroyCurrently,
a part of atransport
significant number of these
infrastructure. Theirstructures
applicationare
as used when bridges
temporary natural on
disasters
larger
destroy
larger a part
construction
construction of transport
sites issites infrastructure.
alsoisgrowing
also growing Their
(Figure(Figure application as temporary
2). In addition,
2). In addition, they arethey bridges
areasused
used on
aslarger
‘short-
‘short‐term’
construction
term’ temporary
temporary sites is also growing
(semi-permanent)
(semi‐permanent) bridges (Figure
bridges
on local 2). and
on In addition,
local and or
rural ruralthey
or are
unpaved used as
unpaved
roads ‘short‐term’
roads
when when
the the
con‐
temporary
construction
struction of (semi‐permanent)
aofpermanent
a permanent bridgebridges
is stillison
bridge local
still andinefficient
ruralinefficient
financially
financially or unpaved
or not orroads when
not possible
possible due tothe con‐to
due
traffic
struction
traffic
issues of (Figure
issues
(Figure a permanent
3). 3). bridge is still financially inefficient or not possible due to traffic
issues (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Bailey bridge (TD‐36 + 36) placed on construction site road over Orava river (Slovakia).
Figure2.2.Bailey
Figure Baileybridge
bridge(TD-36
(TD‐36++ 36)
36) placed
placed on
on construction site road
construction site road over
overOrava
Oravariver
river(Slovakia).
(Slovakia).

Figure 3. ‘Long‐term’ temporary bridge Bailey bridge (DS‐15 + 21 + 27 + 21) over Lužnice river
Figure3.Republic).
(Czech
Figure 3.‘Long-term’
‘Long‐term’ temporary
temporary bridge
bridge Bailey
Bailey bridge
bridge (DS‐15
(DS-15 ++ 21
21 ++ 27
27 ++21)
21)over
overLužnice
Lužniceriver
river
(Czech Republic).
(Czech Republic).
One of the more popular systems of this category is the Bailey bridge system [3]. The
Bailey One
One ofofthe
bridge the
(BB)more
more was popular
popular
invented systems
systems
by Donaldof this
of this category
as a is
category
Bailey is the
the Bailey
military Bailey
bridge bridge
bridge
about system
system
80 years[3]. The
[3].ago
The
Bailey
Bailey
[4]. After bridge
bridge
the(BB) (BB)
first was was invented
invented
decade, it wasby by Donald
Donald
proven Bailey
to Bailey as a military
as a military
be an innovative and bridge
bridge about
about bridge
successful 80 years
80 years ago
ago
system [4].
[4]. After
After
that can bethe
the first firstefficiently
decade,
built decade,
it was itand
wasquickly
proven proven
to be toanbe
[5]. an innovative
innovative
Additionally, thisand
and successful
successful
temporary bridge
bridge
bridge systemsystem
system that
is
thatbecan
can
currently be
built built
used inefficiently
efficientlymanyand and quickly
quickly
countries for[5]. [5].
civil Additionally,
Additionally,
purposes thistemporary
this
as mentioned temporary above. bridge
bridge system
However,system the isis
currently
currently
maximum used
used in many countries
in many countries
load‐carrying capacity for for civil
forsuch purposes
civilapurposes
use is notas as mentioned
mentioned
commonly above.
above. For
available. However,
However,
instance,the
the
maximum
maximum load‐carrying
load-carrying capacity
capacity for
for such
such a
a use
use is
is not
not
static verification is usually demanded for every application in civil conditions in Slo‐commonly
commonly available.
available. For
For instance,
instance,
staticverification
static
vakia. verification
In the caseisofis usually
usually
longer demanded
demanded
term use, and forfor every
every
in situ application
application
load in
in civil
test is also civil conditions
conditions
required in Slo‐
[6]. in Slovakia.
vakia. In
In theNowadays,the case
case of longer of
loads longer
term term use,
use, andtoin[7]
according and
situ are in
loadsitu load
test isfor
applied test
also is also
required
military required
[6].
purposes. [6].
However, the
ofNowadays,
aimNowadays,
the presented loads
loads according
according
study is to point to [7]
to [7] are
outare applied
theapplied for military
for militaryofpurposes.
actual possibilities purposes.
this very old However,
However,
structuralthe
the
aim
aim of the presented
of the presented
temporary bridge system study is
studyinissome to point
to point out
civilout the actual possibilities
the actual Therefore,
applications. possibilities theof this
ofpaper very
this very old structural
old structural
presents a study
temporary
on whether
temporary bridge
and tosystem
bridge system insome
what extent
in some civil
thecivil applications.
BB applications.
system Therefore,
with spans
Therefore,between the
thepaper
12 andpresents
paper 36 m is ausable
presents astudy
study
on whether
forwhether
on transport and
and to
consideringwhat
to what extentextent
conventionalthe BB system
lorries with
the BB system with spans
withaspans between
total weight
between 12
up 12 and
to 22–28 36 m
and 36tons. is
m isAt usable
the
usable
fortransport
for transportconsidering
consideringconventional
conventional lorries lorries with
with aa total
total weight
weight up up toto22–28
22–28tons.
tons.At Atthe
the
same time, isolated construction vehicles with a total weight up to 32–40 tons can also be
allowed to pass the bridge.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 3 of 19

2. Outline of the Study

For the purposes of the analysis, the load-carrying capacity of individual bridge
members was selected as a decisive criterion for the applicability of the BB system. Based
on experience, double-truss and triple-truss main girders were taken into account as single-
story and double-story alternatives:
• Double-truss, single-story (DS) for a span with length of 12.196 m;
• Triple-truss, single-story (TS) for spans: 12.192 m, 15.240 m, 18.288 m and 21.336 m;
• Double-truss, double-story (DD) for spans: 21.336 m, 24.384 m and 27.432 m;
• Triple-truss, double-story (TD) for spans: 27.432 m, 30.480 m, 33.528 m, and 36.576 m.
In Table 1, the seven chosen variants are presented, which were identified as most
suitable and applicable after evaluating several alternatives.

Table 1. Spans and BB arrangement of the chosen alternatives.

Span Truss Story Abbreviation

40 ft/12.192 m triple single TS-12
60 ft/18.288 m triple single TS-18
70 ft/21.336 m triple single TS-21
80 ft/24.384 m double double DD-24
90 ft/27.432 m double double DD-27
110 ft/33.528 m triple double TD-33
120 ft/36.576 m triple double TD-36

All bridges are supposed to act as simply supported, while the end verticals of BB are
present on both ends of main girders. It is further assumed that standardized bearings of
the BB system are used to transfer reactions from the superstructures to substructures.
With respect to the structural arrangement of the BB system [3], the load-carrying
capacities were derived from the resistance of following members or their cross-sections
(the terminology of Bailey bridge from [3] is given in single quotation marks, if differ from
the common bridge engineering terminology):
• Stringers (Figure 4)
- Old stringers made of the original cross-section.
- New stringers made of the cross-section IPN100.
- Alternative new stringers made of the cross-section IPN120.
• Cross beams—‘transoms’.
• Panel of truss girders.
- Upper chord.
- Bottom chord.
- Diagonals with U-shaped cross-section.
- Alternative diagonals with I-shaped cross-section.
- Verticals with U-shaped cross-section.
- Alternative verticals with I-shaped cross-section.
• End verticals—‘end posts’.
• Inclined struts—‘rakers’.
• Panel pin (hinged connection between panels).
• Bottom bracings—‘sway brace’.
• Floor bolts (in double-storeys arrangement)—‘chord bolts’.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 4 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 4 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 4 of 20

Figure 4.
4. Scheme of three‐stringer panel.
Figure 4.Scheme
Figure Scheme of
of three-stringer panel.
three‐stringer panel.

The load‐carrying
load‐carryingcapacity
Theload-carrying capacityof
capacity ofthe
of thebridge
the bridgedeck
bridge deckwas
deck wasdetermined
was determinedfor
determined two
for
for two
two variants of
variants
variants the
ofof the
the
construction
construction arrangement
arrangement of
of cross
cross beams
beams according
according to
to
construction arrangement of cross beams according to Figure 5: Figure
Figure 5:
5:
a)
a) Three
a) Three cross beams
crossbeams within
beamswithin each
withineach panel
panelofof
eachpanel the
ofthe
the bridge—the
bridge—the
bridge—the spans
spans ofof
spans thethe
of stringers
stringers
the areare
stringers then
are
then
1440 1440
+ +
1290 1290
+ 318+ 318
mm. mm.
then 1440 + 1290 + 318 mm.
b)
b) Twocross
b) Two crossbeams
beamswithin
beams withineach
within eachpanel
each panelof
panel ofthe
of thebridge—the
the bridge—thespans
bridge—the spansof
spans the
ofof the
the stringers
stringers
stringers are then
are
are then
then
1608 ++ 1440
1440 mm
mm (this
(thisalternative
alternative was
wasapplicable
applicable only for
only single‐story
for single-story
1608 + 1440 mm (this alternative was applicable only for single‐story systems). systems).
systems).

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 5. Two alternatives of construction arrangement of cross beams: (a) 3 cross beams within
Figure 5. Two alternatives of construction arrangement of cross beams: (a) 3 cross beams within
each panel; and
5. Two (b) 2 cross of
alternatives beams within each
construction panel.
arrangement
Figure
each panel; and (b) 2 cross beams within each panel. of cross beams: (a) 3 cross beams within each
panel; and (b) 2 cross beams within each panel.
The
Thevariant
variantwithwithfour
fourcross
crossbeams
beamswithin
withineach eachpanel
panelwas
wasnot notconsidered
consideredin inthe
thestudy.
study.
The
In variant with four cross beams within each panel was not
In addition, two alternatives to the timber roadway deck cover solution givenin
addition, two alternatives to the timber roadway deck cover considered
solution given in inthe study.
Figure
Figure
In
66were addition,
considered:
were considered: two alternatives to the timber roadway deck cover solution given in
Figure
a) 6 were considered:
a) Standard
Standard solution
solution ofof two
twolayers
layers ofof 22×× 5050 mm
mmthick
thicktimber
timber boards,
boards,where
where the the bottom
bottom
a) boards
Standard are placed
solution perpendicular
of two layers to
of the
2 × stringers,
50 mm while
thick the
timber top layer
boards,
boards are placed perpendicular to the stringers, while the top layer is oriented is oriented
where thein 45°
bottom
in 45°
degrees
boards
degrees to
are the bridge
placed axis;
perpendicular
to the bridge axis; to the stringers, while the top layer is oriented in
b) 45 ◦ degrees
Stiffer roadway,to where
the bottom
bridge axis; supporting layer of the bridge deck is made of timber
b) Stiffer roadway, where bottom supporting layer of the bridge deck is made of timber
b) beams
Stiffer of
of 100
beamsroadway,100 mmmm section
where height
bottom
section height placed
placed side
supporting by
by side
layer
side of the
side perpendicular
bridge deck to
perpendicular is the
the stringers,
to made of timber
stringers,
while
beams the
of top
100 layer
mm stays
sectionthe same
height as in
placed the alternative
side
while the top layer stays the same as in the alternative a). by side a).
perpendicular to the stringers,
while the top layer stays the same as in the alternative a).
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 5 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 5 of 19

(a) (b)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Two
Two alternatives
alternatives of
oftimber
timberroadway
roadwaydeck:
deck:(a)
(a)standard
standardsolution
solution
ofof timber
timber deck;
deck; andand
(b)(b)
more
more stiff timber deck.
stiff timber deck.

3. Global
Global Analyses
Analyses
3.1. Numerical
NumericalModels
Models
Several
Several studies
studies have
havebeen beenexecuted
executedtotoverify
verifythe thestatic
staticand
anddynamic
dynamic behaviour
behaviour of of
Bailey bridge
bridge structures
structuresby byininsitu
situloading
loadingtests
testsand
andnumerical
numericalanalysesanalyses [8–10].
[8–10].
The
The global
global analyses
analysesof ofall
allalternatives
alternativesofofthetheBBBBinin thethepresent
present study
study were
werecarried
carriedoutout
using
using spatial
spatial computational
computationalFEM FEMmodels
modelsproperly
properlyderived
derived ininthethecommercial
commercial software
software
SCIA Engineer
Engineer [11].
[11].This
Thissoftware
softwarewas wasselected
selectedasasit itisiscommonly
commonly used
used in in
design
design practice
practice
for bridge
bridge structures.
structures. The Theapplication
applicationofofa amoremorecomplex
complexapproach approach waswas notnot
considered
considered
since it is
is believed
believed thatthatititwould
wouldincrease
increasethe thecomputational
computational effort
effortwithout
without significantly
significantly
improving
improving the the quality
qualityof ofthe
theresults
results[12,13].
[12,13].
Beam‐type
Beam-typeelements,
elements,with withsixsixdegrees
degreesofoffreedom
freedom atateach
each node
node were
were applied
appliedforforthethe
steel members of the BB superstructure, Figure 7. The one‐dimensional
members of the BB superstructure, Figure 7. The one-dimensional elements are elements are con‐
firmed to be
confirmed to suitable
be suitable for for
approximation
approximation of such
of suchtype
type of structure
of structure [14,15]. TheThe
[14,15]. geometry
geometry
and individual dimensions
individual dimensions of steel elements fully respect the BB bridge layoutIt[4,5].
of steel elements fully respect the BB bridge layout [4,5]. was It
assumed
was that each
assumed thatalternative of the bridge
each alternative of theisbridge
completely assembled.
is completely All relevantAll
assembled. geomet‐
relevant
rical and cross‐sectional
geometrical characteristics
and cross-sectional were taken
characteristics wereintotakenaccount. Each connection
into account. of cross of
Each connection
beamsbeams
cross to the to
bottom chordschords
the bottom of panels was performed
of panels was performed considering a semi‐rigid
considering joint con‐
a semi-rigid joint
nection with
connection a stiffness
with a stiffnessof 150 MN/m
of 150 MN/m in compression
in compression andand withwithstiffness of of
stiffness 60 60
MN/m
MN/m in in
tension, but
tension, but with
with zero
zerorotational
rotationalstiffness
stiffnessininallalldirections,
directions,soso that
thatapproximates
approximates thetherealreal
behaviour of perfectly tightened ‘transom clamp’. The eccentric
behaviour of perfectly tightened ‘transom clamp’. The eccentric junctions of continuous junctions of continuous
stringers and
stringers andcross
crossbeams
beams can
canbe be
modelled
modelledas hinged
as hingedwhilewhileallowing for their
allowing forcertain lon‐
their certain
gitudinal displacement over the cross beams. The sway brace
longitudinal displacement over the cross beams. The sway brace elements were modelledelements were modelled as
rods capable of bearing tension forces only. Based on non‐destructive
as rods capable of bearing tension forces only. Based on non-destructive hardness tests on hardness tests on
actual bridges
actual bridges of of this
thistype,
type,steel
steelwith
withyield strengthfy f=y =
yieldstrength 360360MPa
MPa was wasconsidered
considered forforthethe
needs of
needs of the
the presented
presentedstudy. study.Modulus
Modulusofofelasticity
elasticityE E= =210,000
210,000 MPa
MPa waswasutilized in in
utilized thethe
analysis as
analysis as well.
well.
The timber deck does not interact with other bearing components due to negligible
stiffness of its connection to the stringers. The only function of the timber deck is to provide
the carrying surface for passing vehicles. Therefore, the timber deck of the bridge was
introduced into the model by shell elements with reduced modulus of elasticity to a very
small value [Edeck = 10 MPa]. This almost completely prevented the interaction of the
deck with the steel elements of the bridge deck, but it made it possible to place a traffic
load anywhere on the surface of the bridge deck. The second advantage of this modelling
approach is that it allows the redistribution of a modelled traffic load to the corresponding
stringers. Figures 8 and 9 present the finished models for the shortest and the longest span
analysed in the study.
 top bracing frame

connection of cross beams

to the bottom chords
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 6 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 6 of 20
sway brace end post
3 supports for 3 panels
stringers uz + uz/uy + uz
BB panels
stringer to top bracing frame (side where longitu‐
cross beam joint cross beam dinal movement ux is
connection of cross beams
permitted)
to the bottom chords
Figure 7. Some notes on spatial FEM models of steel superstructure of Bailey bridge.

sway brace end post

The timber deck does not interact with other bearing components due to negligible stiff‐
ness of its connection to the stringers. The only function of the timber 3 supports
deck is tofor 3 panels
provide the
stringers
carrying surface for passing vehicles. Therefore, the timber deck of the + uz/uywas
uzbridge + uintroduced
z

stringer to into the model by shell elements with reduced modulus of elasticity to(side a very smalllongitu‐
where value [Edeck
= 10 MPa]. This almost completely prevented the interaction of the deck with the steel ele‐
cross beam joint dinal movement ux is
ments of the bridge deck, but it made it possiblecross beam
to place a traffic load anywhere on the surface
of the bridge deck. The second advantage of this modelling approach permitted)
is that it allows the re‐
distribution of a modelled traffic load to the corresponding stringers. Figures 8 and 9 present
Figure 7. Some notes on spatial FEM models of steel superstructure of Bailey bridge.
the finished
Figure 7. Somemodels forspatial
notes on the shortest and theof
FEM models longest span analysedof
steel superstructure inBailey
the study.
bridge.
The timber deck does not interact with other bearing components due to negligible stiff‐
ness of its connection to the stringers. The only function of the timber deck is to provide the
carrying surface for passing vehicles. Therefore, the timber deck of the bridge was introduced
into the model by shell elements with reduced modulus of elasticity to a very small value [Edeck
= 10 MPa]. This almost completely prevented the interaction of the deck with the steel ele‐
ments of the bridge deck, but it made it possible to place a traffic load anywhere on the surface
of the bridge deck. The second advantage of this modelling approach is that it allows the re‐
distribution of a modelled traffic load to the corresponding stringers. Figures 8 and 9 present
the finished models for the shortest and the longest span analysed in the study.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Geometry of complete spatial FEM model in the case of the shortest analysed span TS‐12
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 Figure 8. Geometry of complete spatial FEM model in the case of the shortest analysed span TS-12
7 of 20
(40 ft): (a) model from beam and shell elements; and (b) front view visualization.
(40 ft): (a) model from beam and shell elements; and (b) front view visualization.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Geometry of complete spatial FEM model in the case of the shortest analysed span TS‐12
(40 ft): (a) model from beam and shell elements; and (b) front view visualization.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Geometry of compete spatial FEM model in the case of the longest analysed span TD‐36
Figure 9. Geometry of compete spatial FEM model in the case of the longest analysed span TD-36
(120 ft): (a) model from beam and shell elements; and (b) front view visualization.
(120 ft): (a) model from beam and shell elements; and (b) front view visualization.
Linear elastic static analysis was performed to obtain the results. Due to the type of
Linear elastic static analysis was performed to obtain the results. Due to the type of the
the structure, both 2nd order effects and imperfections were implemented into the evalu‐
structure, both 2nd order effects and imperfections were implemented into the evaluation
ation process indirectly by so‐called ‘equivalent column method’, where individual sta‐
process indirectly
bility checks using byappropriate
so-called ‘equivalent column
buckling lengths method’, where
corresponding to theindividual stability
global buckling
checks using appropriate buckling lengths
mode of the structure were utilized [16]. corresponding to the global buckling mode of
the structure were utilized [16].
3.2. Loads in Global Analysis
In addition to the respective dead load corresponding to the layout of the superstruc‐
ture and bridge deck, traffic loads and wind effects were taken into account.
Within the scope of this study, wind loads were considered as Fw* according to Euro‐
code 1 [17] and were properly combined with the traffic loads. Accordingly, the wind pres‐
 Figure 9. Geometry of compete spatial FEM model in the case of the longest analysed span TD‐36
(120 ft): (a) model from beam and shell elements; and (b) front view visualization.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788
Linear elastic static analysis was performed to obtain the results. Due to the type of
the structure, both 2nd order effects and imperfections were implemented into the evalu‐
ation process indirectly by so‐called ‘equivalent column method’, where individual sta‐ 7 of 19
bility checks using appropriate buckling lengths corresponding to the global buckling
mode of the structure were utilized [16].

3.2.
3.2.Loads
LoadsininGlobal
GlobalAnalysis
Analysis
InInaddition
additionto tothe
the respective deadload
respective dead loadcorresponding
corresponding to to
thethe layout
layout of the
of the superstruc-
superstruc‐
ture
tureand
andbridge
bridgedeck,deck,traffic
traffic loads and wind
loads and windeffects
effectswere
weretaken
takenintointo account.
account.
Within
Withinthethescope
scope of this
thisstudy,
study,wind
windloads loads were
were considered
considered as Fas Fw * according
w* according to Euro‐to Eu-
code 11[17]
rocode [17]and
and were
wereproperly
properlycombined
combined with with
the traffic loads. Accordingly,
the traffic the windthe
loads. Accordingly, pres‐wind
sure value
pressure of qof
value p,z = 0.50
qp,z = kPa
0.50was
kPaconsidered
was consideredactingacting
uniformly for all analysed
uniformly BB models.
for all analysed The
BB models.
effect
The of wind
effect of wind pressure
pressureacting on bridge
acting on bridgedeck combined
deck combined with pressure on traffic
with pressure onload wasload
traffic
transformed
was transformed intointo
the edge horizontal
the edge load, load,
horizontal surface horizontal
surface load and
horizontal vertical
load surface load
and vertical surface
producing torsion of the deck around its longitudinal axis, as shown
load producing torsion of the deck around its longitudinal axis, as shown in Figure 10a. in Figure 10a. The val‐
uesvalues
The presented in Figure
presented 10a were
in Figure 10aderived by utilizing
were derived the reference
by utilizing height ofheight
the reference trafficof
load
traffic
2.0 m consistent with [17]. Accordingly, the wind load on structural
load 2.0 m consistent with [17]. Accordingly, the wind load on structural members of BB members of BB panels
was calculated
panels as uniformly
was calculated distributed
as uniformly load using
distributed loadtheusing
force the
coefficient cf given inc[17]
force coefficient f given
with dependence on the shape of each cross‐section, as shown
in [17] with dependence on the shape of each cross-section, as shown in Figure 10b. in Figure 10b.

wy,chords = 0.099 kN/m

wz,deck = ± 0.90 kN/m2

wy,deck, edge = 0.31 kN/m
wy,deck = 0.50 kN/m2

wy,truss = 0.039 kN/m

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Example view from approximation of wind load: (a) left wind action on deck with traffic
Figure 10. Example view from approximation of wind load: (a) left wind action on deck with traffic
load on it; and (b) wind load assumed on main girders BB panels.
load on it; and (b) wind load assumed on main girders BB panels.
Due to its variable nature, modelling of traffic loads presents the key input in the
Due to its variable nature, modelling of traffic loads presents the key input in the
assessment of both the new bridges and, of course, existing ones. Load models defined in
assessment of both the new bridges and, of course, existing ones. Load models defined in
the current design, codes are often described as conservative, due to the limited traffic
the current design, codes are often described as conservative, due to the limited traffic data
used for their calibration and their integrated safety levels [18]. In addition, despite the
harmonized design codes for almost all European countries, the structural safety levels
and consequent capacities of similar bridges vary across Europe, as different national
adjustment factors are defined in most of countries. Code load schemes are primarily
developed for new-designed bridges expecting to be in service next hundred years, at least.
Nowadays, extensive research is aiming to find out the ‘actual tonnage’ which can occur
on the bridge without any traffic restrictions. Thus, for the load schemes representing
the traffic load in the present study, it was decided not to use the load schemes given
in Eurocode 1 [19]. The main reasons for avoiding the Eurocode statements for ‘normal’
traffic in the case of the Bailey bridges arose from the fact that it is still difficult to define
which part of the LM1 scheme according to [19] can be considered as a representative
vehicle. This problem is also evident from the experiences from recalculations of old
bridges, supported by the extensive theoretical study presented in [20,21]. Specifically,
in [20], some results from the extensive study are published, based on several thousands
of calculated bending moments and shear forces for bridges with different concepts of
cross-sections and spans. In the follow-up research presented in [21], over 2800 load-
carrying capacities for those bridges were quantified and compared, considering different
load schemes, including possible alternatives from the Eurocode models [19]. In addition,
different calculations of the current load capacity of the bridges were taken into account in
those calculations, thus considering their possible poor condition. The final value of load-
carrying capacity produced by representative loads depend also on mutual combinations
of classification factors αQi and αqi [19]. Moreover, in the case of short spans, LM1 causes
disproportionately high effects because the dominant ‘uniformly distributed load’ (UDL)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 8 of 19

as well as the dominant ‘tandem system’ (TS) are concentrated together in the same lane on
the relatively small length section. The abovementioned phenomenon is even more visible
in narrow bridges. Findings that the load schemes given in the Eurocode [19] are not very
suitable for load-carrying capacity calculations of existing bridges are also supported by
the conclusions in [22], which provides an extensive state of the art presentation of the
traffic load models.
Thus, the schemes shown in Figures 11 and 12 were taken into account. These schemes
come from the former Slovak national code and were slightly modified for the purpose
of narrow bridges. These load schemes, utilized for several decades, reflect more to the
traffic situations in narrow bridges [21], especially, when the load-carrying capacity of the
bridge will be probably limited by the elements of member steel deck. Another advantage
is that the required vehicle weight, which represents the instantaneous permissible weight
of vehicle passing the bridge, is relatively clearly defined therein [20,21].
Thus, the load scheme in Figure 11 is a better approximation for the possible traffic
situation on such a narrow temporary bridge, with one of the lorries being considered as
the normal load-carrying capacity Vn . The ‘normal load-carrying capacity’ represents the
maximum permissible weight of any vehicle on the bridge without any restrictions or
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 9 of 20
addition regulations in traffic within the road section on the bridge. Geometric parameters
of the load scheme are presented in Figure 11.

Figure11.
Figure 11.Load
Loadscheme
scheme used
used for
for normal load-carrying
load‐carrying capacity.
capacity.

Theexclusive
The exclusive load-carrying
load‐carrying capacity
capacity VVe erepresents
representsmaximummaximum permissible
permissible weight
weightof aof
asingle
singlelorry
lorryonon thethe
bridge,
bridge,while no other
while vehicles
no other on the
vehicles onbridge are allowed
the bridge at the same
are allowed at the
time,time,
same e.g., by other
e.g., traffic traffic
by other signs. In the case
signs. In theof analysed Bailey bridges,
case of analysed Bailey which
bridges,arewhich
the nar‐are
row
the one‐lane
narrow bridges,bridges,
one-lane this can this
be easily specified
can be by the traffic
easily specified by thesigntraffic
of minimum
sign offollowing
minimum
distance between
following distance vehicles.
between Alternatively, in some countries,
vehicles. Alternatively, the additional
in some countries, text table text
the additional to
normal load carrying capacities sign can be installed where the text
table to normal load carrying capacities sign can be installed where the text concerning the concerning the maxi‐
mum weight
maximum of the
weight ofonly vehicle
the only on the
vehicle onbridge is specified.
the bridge is specified.
InInthe
the present study,
study,forforthe
the‘exclusive’
‘exclusive’ loadloadscheme,
scheme,it was decided
it was for practical
decided rea‐
for practical
sons to to
reasons use thethe
use heavy
heavy truck scheme
truck scheme shown
shown in Figure
in Figure12 instead
12 instead of the schemes
of the schemesgiven in
given
in[19], which
[19], which again
again differ among
differ amongcountries. To cover
countries. all theall
To cover alternatives in that in
the alternatives table,
thatfour‐
table,
teen different
fourteen trucks
different should
trucks be evaluated.
should be evaluated.Thus, the the
Thus, adopted
adopted scheme
schemefromfrom
Figure 12 is12
Figure
isable
abletotoproduce
producemore moreefficient
efficientload
loadeffect
effectwith
withthe thesimpler
simplerload‐modelling,
load-modelling,asasonly onlythethe
distanceof
distance of middle axes axesddhashasbeen
been changing
changing fromfrom4.0 4.0
m tomthe to most severe
the most alternative
severe 1.20
alternative
m. That
1.20 m. That meansmeans
that thethatvehicle should be
the vehicle the only
should traffic
be the load
only on the
traffic bridge
load as discussed
on the bridge as
previously.
discussed previously.
 sons to use the heavy truck scheme shown in Figure 12 instead of the schemes given in
[19], which again differ among countries. To cover all the alternatives in that table, four‐
teen different trucks should be evaluated. Thus, the adopted scheme from Figure 12 is
able to produce more efficient load effect with the simpler load‐modelling, as only the
distance of middle axes d has been changing from 4.0 m to the most severe alternative 1.20
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 9 of 19
m. That means that the vehicle should be the only traffic load on the bridge as discussed
previously.

Figure12.
Figure 12. Scheme
Scheme of
of vehicle
vehicle used
used for
for exclusive
exclusiveload‐carrying
load-carryingcapacity.
capacity.

Heavy vehicles
Heavy vehicles from
from the
the schemes
schemesgiven
givenininFigures
Figures1111and
and1212could
couldbebeplaced
placedinin
anyany
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 10 of 20
positionwithin
position within the
the cross-section
cross‐section of free
free width
width3.30
3.30mmbetween
betweentimber
timbercurbs,
curbs,asascan bebe
can seen
seen
inFigure
in Figure 13.
13.

Figure13.
Figure 13.Positions
Positionsof
ofheavy
heavy vehicles
vehicles within
within cross-section:
cross‐section: VVnnon
onthe
theleft,
left,and
andVeVon the right.
e on the right.

Thelongitudinal
The longitudinal placement
placement of the load patterns
patterns was
wasapplied
appliedon onthethebasis
basisofofmoving
moving
loadmodule
load moduleconsidering
considering their
their possible
possible relief effects
effects along
alongthe
thebridge.
bridge.Hence,
Hence,up uptotomore
more
thanaahundred
than hundredpositions
positions were
were analysed
analysed for each
each Bailey
Bailey bridge
bridgemodel,
model,depending
dependingon onthe
the
BBsystem
BB systemconfiguration.
configuration.
Theload
The loadfactors
factors were
were taken
taken according
according to
to Eurocode
Eurocode11forfortraffic
trafficloads
loadsononbridges
bridges[19].
[19].
Asthis
As thisstandard
standard does
does not
not define
define separate
separate dynamic
dynamic loadload effects
effects for for
road road traffic
traffic load,
load, dy‐
dynamic
namic φfactors
factors ϕ calculated
calculated according
according to Equation
to Equation (1) were(1)considered
were considered in the analyses.
in the analyses.
1
φ𝜙= 0.95 1.50
1 (1)
1.4𝐿 −0.6 . ≤ 1.50 (1)
0.95 − (1.4Ld )
In Equation (1), the abbreviation Ld represents the effective length in meters for each type
In Equation
of member. In the(1),
casethe abbreviation
of main Ld represents
girders and the effective
their components, length in
the theoretical meters
span can befor each
taken
type of member. In the case of main girders and their components, the theoretical
into account. Thus, the dynamic factor applied to main girders internal forces varied from the span can
be taken into account. Thus, the dynamic factor applied to main girders internal
value ϕ = 1.17 in the case of longest analysed span with the length of 36.576 m, up to ϕ = 1.30 forces
varied
in the from
case ofthe
spanvalue φ =m1.17
12.196 long.inSimilarly,
the case the
of longest
dynamicanalysed
factors ϕ =span
1.48 with the length
for inclined strutsof
36.576
(rakers)m,and
up ϕto=φ1.50
= 1.30 in other
for all the case of span
members 12.196
of BB m long. Similarly,
superstructure the dynamic factors
were considered.
φ = 1.48 for inclined struts (rakers) and φ = 1.50 for all other members of BB superstructure
were considered.
3.3. Stability Analysis
For the estimation of the resistance of top chord of the main girders, the out‐of‐plane
3.3. Stability Analysis
buckling phenomena had to be carefully estimated. Except for the influences connected to
Forand
traffic thecorrosion
estimation of the resistance
damages [23], casesofoftop chord ofBailey
collapsed the main girders,
bridges the out-of-plane
confirmed buckling
buckling phenomena had to be carefully estimated. Except for the influences
instability as one of the most important failure modes of the structure [24]. Thus, connected
attentionto
traffic
was paidand to
corrosion damages
the correct stability[23], cases ofofcollapsed
estimation compressionBailey bridges
chords confirmed
of the buckling
truss panels. The
instability as one of the most important failure modes of the structure [24].
elastic analysis is suitable for the main girder behaviour, as failure mode of elastic buck‐Thus, attention
was
lingpaid to the correct
is occurring [25]. stability estimation of compression chords of the truss panels. The
elasticIn analysis is suitable fordeformation
order to identify the the main girder
abilitybehaviour,
of the pinas failure
joint in anmode
out ofofplane
elastic buckling
direction,
isanoccurring [25].
in situ verification was executed (Figure 14). It was found that the tolerances in the pin
joint permit horizontal displacement of the joint from the straight direction up to 55–60
mm in the case of two adjacent panels. Of course, such values are unrealistic on the con‐
struction site, but they indicate that the pin joint of the panels can be considered hinged
even for horizontal moments. Therefore, the pin joints of panels were modelled as hinged
joints in both horizontal and vertical directions.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 10 of 19

In order to identify the deformation ability of the pin joint in an out of plane direction,
an in situ verification was executed (Figure 14). It was found that the tolerances in the pin
joint permit horizontal displacement of the joint from the straight direction up to 55–60 mm
in the case of two adjacent panels. Of course, such values are unrealistic on the construction
site, but they indicate that the pin joint of the panels can be considered hinged even for
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 11 of
horizontal moments. Therefore, the pin joints of panels were modelled as hinged joints in
both horizontal and vertical directions.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 11 of 20

(a) (b)
Figure
In situ 14. In situof
verification verification
pin jointofdimensions
pin joint dimensions
and and its deformation capacity in horizontal directi
Figure 14. (a) (b) its deformation
(a) measurement of horizontal deformation capacity
capacity in horizontal
of the joint; and (b) stored Bailey bridge panels.
direction: (a) measurement of horizontal deformation capacity of the joint; and (b) stored Bailey
Figure 14. In situ verification of pin joint dimensions and its deformation capacity in horizontal direction:
bridge panels.
The results
(a) measurement of horizontal of the capacity
deformation elastic buckling
of the joint; analysis are Bailey
and (b) stored usually expressed
bridge panels. by the shapes
buckling
The results of the modes
elastic (Figure
buckling15), which are
analysis are quantified by the critical
usually expressed by the buckling
shapes load
of factor
The results of
applied the elastic
in order buckling
to reach analysis are usually expressed by the shapes of
buckling modes (Figure 15), which arethe elastic global
quantified instability.
by the critical buckling load factor α
buckling modes (Figure 15), which are quantified by the critical buckling load factor αcr cr
applied in order to reach the elastic global instability.
applied in order to reach the elastic global instability.

Figure 15. Examples of buckling modes of top chords in the case of BB composed as TS‐12 (top rig
Figure 15. Examples of buckling
and DD‐24 modes
(bottom left).of top chords in the case of BB composed as TS‐12 (top right)
Figure 15. Examples of buckling modes of top chords in the case of BB composed as TS-12 (top right)
and DD‐24 (bottom left).
and DD-24 (bottom left).
Thus, the critical buckling load factor αcr represents an amplifier by which the desi
Thus, theloadcritical buckling
would have load
to befactor αcr represents
increased to cause an amplifier
elastic by which
instability the design
loadThus,
would thehave
critical
to bebuckling
increased load
to factor
cause αcr represents
elastic instabilityan amplifier
[16]. Table 2 by[16].
which
summarizes
Table 2design
thecrit‐summarizes c
load ical buckling load factors α cr,z for all alternatives of Bailey bridges analysed in the study
icalwould
buckling have
loadtofactors
obtained
be increased
forαcr,z
design
to cause
for all elasticofinstability
alternatives
load combinations. BaileyBased[16]. analysed
bridges Table 2 summarizes
on the in the
Euler’s
critical
studyforce,
critical as the buckli
buckling
obtained for design load combinations. Based on the Euler’s critical force, the buckling as
load factors α cr,z for all alternatives of Bailey bridges analysed in the study
length Lcr,z for out‐of‐plane buckling can be calculated according to the following equati
length Lcr,z for out‐of‐plane buckling can be calculated according to the following equation:
𝐸𝐼
𝐸𝐼
𝐿 , 𝜋
𝐿 , 𝜋 𝛼 , 𝑁 (2)
𝛼 , 𝑁
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 11 of 19

obtained for design load combinations. Based on the Euler’s critical force, the buckling
length Lcr,z for out-of-plane buckling can be calculated according to the following equation:
s
EIz
Lcr,z = π (2)
αcr,z NEd

where E is modulus of elasticity of steel, Iz represents quadratic moment of the cross-

sectional area of top chord (about the vertical axis), αcr,z is the critical buckling load factor
to reach the out-of-plane elastic global instability of top chords, and NEd is the design value
of compressive force in a top chord member.

Table 2. Buckling parameters of out-of-plane buckling of the top chords.

Traffic Load in
Vn Ve
Combinations
αcr,z Ncr,z Lcr,z αcr,z Ncr,z Lcr,z
BB Arrangement
[−] [kN] [m] [−] [kN] [m]
TS-12 7.53 4021 2.05 6.62 3743 2.12
TS-18 5.73 3182 2.30 5.65 3128 2.32
TS-21 4.79 2741 2.48 5.27 2967 2.38
DD-24 4.93 2925 2.40 5.22 3149 2.32
DD-27 4.83 2936 2.40 5.13 3088 2.34
TD-33 4.47 2695 2.50 4.90 2952 2.39
TD-36 4.38 2661 2.52 4.84 2928 2.40

Based on presented results it can be concluded that the main girders are not prone to
out-of-plane instability. As the value of critical buckling load factor αcr is between 3.0 and
10.0 in all cases, second order effects can be included into verification process indirectly,
for example by the ‘equivalent column method’, [16]. Usually, if the value of αcr is smaller
than 3.0, a geometrical nonlinear analysis with imperfections included is required. Such
an analysis is very time consuming in the case of a numerical model with large number of
elements [13].
Moreover, from the values of derived critical buckling lengths Lcr,z , it is clear that
the buckling lengths seem to be smaller than panel length, as they reach values from
2.05 to 2.50 m in the presented numerical analyses. Therefore, provided that all bracings
(both bracing frames and sway bracings), rakers and all mutual connections are feasible in
accordance with BB documentation, there will be probably no problems with stability of
top chords, and a well-known equivalent column method can be utilized.
The statements concerning critical buckling load factor αcr are also valid for the traffic
loads smaller than load-carrying capacities of chords under compression, presented in the
following sections, since data in Table 2 were obtained iteratively for ultimate value of
compressive buckling resistance in the critical element of top chord, individually for each
variant of BB structure.

4. Load-Carrying Capacity
As the probabilistic approach would be quite inefficient, [26], the semi-probabilistic
engineering approach covered by Eurocode 3 was applied in this research [16,27]. All
relevant verifications of cross-sections and members were performed. The possibility of
local yielding was allowed only in cross-sections of class 1 and 2. In accordance to tests
performed in [28], the cross-sections of BB members are able to resist such local yielding
stresses in the case of ultimate loading.
The normal or exclusive load-carrying capacity Vn or Ve (Vn(e) ) can be calculated
according to the Equation (3), which is equivalent to equations according to regulations
used in other countries [22,29]:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 12 of 19

" ! #
n −1
Vn(e) = Rd − ∑ Ers,d,i /EVn(e),d,REP ·Vn(e),REP (3)
i =1

where: Rd is the design value of the resistance of the cross-section or bridge member;
EVn(e),d,REP is the value of static quantity due to effects of variable load model defined in
Figure 11 or Figure 12, respectively, but only those parts of them, which depend on value of
Vn,REP or Ve,REP (i.e., without uniformly distributed load 2.5 kN/m2 in the case on normal
load-carrying capacity); ∑in=−11 Ers,d,i are the design, combination or group values of the
effects of other (the rest) loads acting, including those parts of the variable road load model
independent of value of Vn,REP or Ve,REP , respectively; finally designation Vn(e),REP express
representative values of weight of vehicles implemented into global analysis by which
static entities EVn(e),d,REP were produced.
In order to apply the principle of proportionality and to simplify the calculation
process, the relative values for load-carrying capacities were considered in a linear global
analysis. Thus, load schemes were modelled in FEM analysis with its specified so-called
‘representative’ values and relative load-carrying capacity Z were calculated according to
Equation (4). Namely, the representative weight of the modelled ‘normal’ vehicle was set to
Vn,REP = 32 tons and implemented into all particular load cases, while for the representative
weight of ‘exclusive’ vehicle, the value of Ve,REP = 40 tons was used. Thus, those values
correspond to relative load-carrying capacity Z = 1.0. The basic formulae for obtaining
relative load-carrying capacity Z can by then written as:
!
n −1
Zn(e) = Rd − ∑ Ers,d,i /EVn(e),d,REP (4)
i =1

where all symbols were defined under Equation (3).

The use of relative values of load-carrying capacity Z is common for railway bridges,
where it represents a relative ratio to the effects produced by railway traffic load models [30].
Anyway, for the public roads, the values of maximum permissible weight of a vehicle
passing the bridge in tons are commonly utilised, as they can be controlled and defined
by traffic signs. As relative value Z is a function of specified value of the modelled
representative vehicles Vn,REP or Ve,REP , respectively, the load carrying capacity can be then
calculated according to Equations (5) and (6), as follows:

Vn = Zn ·Vn,REP = Zn ·32 t (5)

Ve = Ze ·Ve,REP = Ze ·40 t (6)

Combinations of internal forces in a critical cross-section have been taken into account.
Therefore, the iteration process had to be utilized to obtain ultimate values of unknown
relative values Zn and Ze , or final load-carrying capacities of verified elements Vn and
Ve , respectively. As calculations of load-carrying capacity have to be done for many of
verification procedures according to Eurocode 1 [16,19], the whole procedure was pro-
grammed. If stability was the issue, the verification of buckling resistances of members
under compression and/or lateral-torsional buckling of members under bending moment
were executed repeatedly as well.
More information concerning the relative load-carrying capacity estimation, including
techniques for how the relative load-carrying capacity can be analytically derived for several
verification formulas in accordance with Eurocode 1 [16,19], can be found in [30–33].
When determining the load-carrying capacity of individual Bailey bridge elements, it
was assumed that the welded connections of the members are designed for the overall axial
capacity of corresponding element. Thus, the load-carrying capacity in the study is not
limited by the load-carrying capacity of the connections, but always by a specific member
resistance given in tables in the following section. Serviceability limit states (especially
deflection) were not assessed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 13 of 19

5. Results and Discussion

The following tables bring an overview of the load-carrying capacities of the main
parts of the Bailey bridge system. The values are presented in all cases in tons.

5.1. Main Girders

Load-carrying capacities of the main girders are given in Tables 3 and 4. Grey high-
lighted are the values which are less than 28 tons in the case of normal load-carrying
capacity Vn and 40 tons in the case of exclusive load-carrying capacity Ve , respectively. In
addition, the values of Vn smaller than 22 tons and of Ve smaller than 32 tons are under-
lined to point out that they represent values very far from the required level defined at the
beginning of the study. Thus, the applicability of main girders is clear from both tables.
Table 3 presents the normal load-carrying capacities of members of Bailey bridge
system. It can be seen that for the most cases the bottom chords and compressed truss
elements of the BB panels (diagonals and verticals) do not meet the requirements for the
assumed normal load-carrying capacity (Vn = 28 tons). Despite of that, these results do not
lead to the conclusion that the BB system cannot be utilized for such variants and spans at
all. These BB system configurations can still be utilized; however, the weight of the vehicles
allowed to cross the bridge has to be limited to given levels. The similar conclusions can be
derived for exclusive load-carrying capacity according to Table 4.
In addition, the tables show the elements of the main girders that would need to be
strengthened and thus ensure the use of the individual BB truss panels to the required or
even higher level of load-carrying capacity.
As a real example, the solution to satisfy demands on exclusive load-carrying capacity
up to 40 tons for Bailey bridge TS-12 is shown in Figure 16. As a result of static analysis
came the necessity to avoid the BB panels with diagonals and verticals made of I-profiles
due to their insufficient capacity in comparison with the panels where U-profiles were used
for diagonals and verticals. Anyway, this requirement is inevitable only for the panels
near supports (first and last panels within span), and moreover only for the inner and
the middle main girders’ panels. Such a requirement arises from smaller compression
capacity of I-sections used for diagonals and verticals due to its lower buckling resistance
in comparison with common U-profiles. Thus, for the remaining 16 out of a total 24 panels,
any panels can be applied.

Table 3. Normal load-carrying capacities of main girders parts.

Normal Configuration TS-12 TS-18 TS-21 DD-24 DD-27 TD-33 TD-36

Load-Carrying
Span Length [m] 12.192 18.288 21.336 24.384 27.432 33.528 36.576
Capacity
[tons] Predominant Stress Vn Vn Vn Vn Vn Vn Vn
T + B (bottom) 21.1 22.9 18.4 22.1 16.3 17.7 15.6
Chords
C (top) 54.8 38.0 30.0 41.2 30.9 27.5 20.4
C 22.6 19.8 18.6 23.0 21.5 22.3 21.3
Diagonals U
T 39.1 42.1 40.1 44.0 42.4 43.5 42.7
C 18.9 16.5 15.4 19.0 17.7 18.4 17.7
Diagonals I
T 45.8 45.0 43.0 47.1 45.2 46.7 45.6
C 30.1 26.8 25.9 27.7 25.0 24.8 25.0
Verticals U
T 40.0 40.3 38.6 40.0 40.4 41.0 41.2
C 25.4 22.4 21.7 22.7 20.1 20.6 19.9
Verticals I
T 42.3 42.5 42.2 43.6 44.1 44.6 44.9
C 31.3 34.3 31.3 37.2 37.2 40.7 43.5
Rakers
T 92.6 91.4 67.3 95.2 79.4 83.6 80.0
End posts C 65.3 62.4 62.4 46.5 44.5 53.5 52.2
Sway braces T 66.1 58.1 54.0 61.0 55.5 51.7 47.0
Pin joint S+B 92.4 64.1 51.4 58.7 47.6 44.5 35.2
Chord bolts S+T 66.7 61.8 63.7 60.9
Nomenclature for as yet undefined predominant stress: T—tension; C—compression; B—bending; S—shear.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 15 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 14 of 19

Table 3 presents the normal load‐carrying capacities of members of Bailey bridge sys‐
Table Exclusive
4. can
tem. It load-carrying
be seen capacities
that for the of main
most cases the girders
bottomparts.
chords and compressed truss ele‐
ments of the BB panels (diagonals and verticals) do not meet the requirements for the
Exclusive Configuration TS-12 TS-18 TS-21 DD-24 DD-27 TD-33 TD-36
Load-Carrying assumed normal load‐carrying capacity (Vn = 28 tons). Despite of that, these results do not
Span Length
lead to[m] 12.192 that the
the conclusion 18.288 21.336
BB system cannot 24.384
be utilized 27.432 33.528 and 36.576
for such variants spans
Capacity
[tons] at all.Stress
Predominant These BB system
Ve configurations
Ve can
Ve still be Vutilized;
e however,
Ve theVeweight ofVthe e
T + B vehicles
(bottom) allowed to cross the47.7
53.1 bridge has37.0
to be limited45.7to given40.0
levels. The46.9
similar conclu‐
40.0
Chords
C sions
(top) can be derived76.2for exclusive
50.6 load‐carrying
42.0 59.8 according
capacity 51.4 to Table55.24. 47.8
C In addition, the 33.2tables show
34.1 the elements
33.4 46.5
of the 45.9 that would
main girders 47.4 need 47.0to be
Diagonals U
T
strengthened and56.9
thus ensure64.0
the use of60.8 78.5
the individual 78.2
BB truss panels to81.2
the required 80.9
or
C 28.9 29.9 29.3 40.5 39.8 41.1 40.6
Diagonals I even higher level of load‐carrying capacity.
T 64.6 66.7 65.3 82.4 82.2 85.2 85.0
C As a real example,
46.2 the solution
44.7 to satisfy
45.1 demands 49.2 on exclusive
48.8 load‐carrying
51.8 capac‐
52.1
Verticals U ity
T up to 40 tons for Bailey bridge
62.5 64.2 TS‐12 is shown in91.0
61.0 Figure 16. As
92.0a result of static analysis
93.2 93.8
came
C the necessity40.6
to avoid the
39.0BB panels with diagonals
38.9 41.9 and 41.5
verticals made
45.2 of I‐profiles
44.6
Verticals I
T to their insufficient
due 73.2 75.3 in comparison
capacity 71.3 98.1 the panels
with 99.1 where100.4
U‐profiles 101.1
were
C for diagonals42.1
used 30.7 Anyway,
and verticals. 30.7this requirement
51.2 is 51.3 51.8 for the56.2
inevitable only pan‐
Rakers
T near supports106.2
els 99.0panels within
(first and last 87.7 span), 129.5 125.6 only for
and moreover 152.8
the inner 148.0
and
End posts C 75.8 76.3 74.6 68.9 70.1 77.0 76.5
the middle main girders’ panels. Such a requirement arises from smaller compression ca‐
Sway braces T 80.3 71.2 67.2 87.6 80.9 79.6 76.7
Pin joint Spacity
+ B of I‐sections used for diagonals
68.8 72.3 and
73.4verticals74.4
due to its lower
75.1 buckling76.2 resistance
76.7in
Chord bolts comparison
S+T with common U‐profiles. Thus, for the remaining
113.2 16
109.8 out of a total
115.4 24 panels,
114.1
any panels can be applied.
Nomenclature for as yet undefined predominant stress: T—tension; C—compression; B—bending; S—shear.

Figure 16. Example of enhancement of load‐carrying capacity by arrangement of panels.

Figure 16. Example of enhancement of load-carrying capacity by arrangement of panels.
This example confirms that in the case of shorter spans of the three‐girder alternatives
This example confirms that in the case of shorter spans of the three-girder alternatives
of the Bailey bridge, the two inner main girders (i.e., the inner and the middle ones) are
of the Bailey bridge, the two inner main girders (i.e., the inner and the middle ones) are
much more loaded than the outer one. The analysis revealed an additional requirement
much more loaded than the outer one. The analysis revealed an additional requirement to
increase the buckling resistance of first two compressed diagonals of the inner girder. As
the load-carrying capacity based on resistance of the cross-section was sufficient enough, a
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 15 of 19

simple enhancement of stiffness of these diagonals for in-plane buckling could be suggested,
as shown in Figure 16.

5.2. Deck Members

The determined load-carrying capacities of stringers and cross beams are given in
Tables 5–8. The normal and exclusive load-carrying capacities are presented together with
the maximum permissible weight per axle. Similar to the above results reported for main
girders, data valid for deck members in the tables below are grey highlighted when the
values of normal and exclusive load-carrying capacities are Vn < 28 tons and Ve < 40 tons,
respectively. As in Section 5.1, the underlined values are those less than 22 tons for the
normal load-carrying capacity and less than 32 tons in the case of the exclusive load-
carrying capacity. Accordingly, the limit values for highlighting or underlining the values
applicable to the maximum permissible weight per axle were considered to be 12 tons, and
10 tons respectively.

Table 5. Stringer load-carrying capacity for panels with 2 cross beams.

Stringers with Spans of 1608 + 1440 mm (2 Cross Beams within Each Panel)

Load-Carrying Capacity Normal LCC Vn Exclusive LCC Ve Axle Weight

[tons] Standard Deck Stiffer Deck Standard Deck Stiffer Deck Standard Deck Stiffer Deck
mid-span 10.0 11.9 31.7 38.1 7.5 8.9
original
mid-support 12.8 15.0 38.3 42.7 9.6 10.7
mid-span 13.1 15.5 41.2 49.1 9.8 11.6
IPN100
mid-support 16.9 19.9 49.7 55.9 12.4 14.0
mid-span 20.8 24.4 64.3 76.2 15.6 18.3
IPN120
mid-support 26.2 31.2 76.3 86.2 19.1 21.5
Nomenclature: LCC—Load-carrying capacity.

Table 6. Stringer load-carrying capacity for panels with 3 cross beams.

Stringers with Spans of 1440 + 1290 + 318 mm (3 Cross Beams within Each Panel)

Load-Carrying Capacity Normal LCC Vn Exclusive LCC Ve Axle Weight

[tons] Standard Deck Stiffer Deck Standard Deck Stiffer Deck Standard Deck Stiffer Deck
mid-span 12.6 12.4 37.2 38.4 9.3 9.3
original
mid-support 18.1 17.6 51.0 53.8 12.8 13.2
mid-span 16.6 16.3 48.2 49.6 12.1 12.3
IPN100
mid-support 24.6 24.2 66.7 63.0 16.7 15.8
mid-span 26.5 26.2 75.3 77.6 18.8 19.4
IPN120
mid-support 39.7 39.7 99.4 90.5 24.9 22.6

Table 7. Cross beam load-carrying capacity when three cross beams are used per panel.

Three Cross Beams within Each Panel (Stringers with Spans of 1440 + 1290 + 318 mm)
Load-Carrying Capacity Normal LCC Exclusive LCC Axle
[tons] Vn Ve Weight
DS 28.3 57.1 14.3
TS 29.8 56.1 14.0
Cross beam
DD 28.2 56.7 14.2
TD 28.9 55.6 13.9

Table 8. Cross beam load-carrying capacity when two cross beams are used per panel.

Two Cross Beams within Each Panel (Stringers with Spans of 1608 and 1440 mm)
Load-Carrying Capacity Normal LCC Exclusive LCC Axle
[tons] Vn Ve Weight
DS 21.5 40.0 10.0
Cross beam
TS 24.5 47.3 11.8
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 16 of 19

5.2.1. Stringers
The load-carrying capacities of stringers for two alternatives of the timber deck cover
are presented. The tables also differentiate between locations of the most stressed cross-
section along the member, at mid-span and mid-support specifically.
It is understandable, that the load-carrying capacity of the stringers is basically not
dependent on the configuration of main girders.
Table 5 represents the structural configuration of the deck system with two cross
beams within each panel, which determines the spans of the stringers of 1608 + 1440 mm.
Load-carrying capacities for deck system with three cross beams for each panel with spans
of stringers of 1400 + 1290 + 318 mm are presented in Table 6.
It is clear that the resistance of the mid-span cross-section of stringers appears to
be crucial. It can also be seen that the stringers made of the original I-type cross-section
(currently RSJ 102/44/7) provide a very low load-carrying capacity, which does not even
reach the value of 10 tons for the maximum permissible weight per axle, even when the
stiffer timber deck is realized.
The utilization of hot-rolled IPN100 profiles enhances the exclusive load-carrying
capacity of the stringers to the desired numbers. Moreover, this configuration is able to
satisfy the required values of exclusive load-carrying capacities even with the usage of
a standard deck and provides also the values of maximum permissible weight per axle
sufficient for most lorries. However, to obtain an acceptable values of normal load-carrying
capacity four cross beams per panel would probably be needed.
The alternative with hot-rolled IPN120 profiles satisfy all requirements on load-
carrying capacity with sufficient reserves. It is obvious, that they are able to carry higher
loads than preceding alternatives. It is therefore appropriate to propose this solution
especially for temporary bridges with the expected longer-term use not only in terms of
load-carrying capacity, but also the durability of the bridge deck.

5.2.2. Cross Beams

The load-carrying capacity of cross beams presented in Table 7 relates to the configura-
tion of three cross beams per panel, with the mutual distances of 1400 + 1290 + 318 mm. The
typical 10-inch I-section (currently RSJ 254/114/37) with 102 mm openings in the web was
verified. The values are specified for both single and double-story systems with both double
and triple-truss arrangement. The configuration of the timber deck system has only a small
influence on the load-carrying capacity of cross beam. Additionally, the load-carrying
capacity of cross beams is only partially dependent on the span of the main girders. It is
due to the fact that the cross beams are additionally loaded by stresses resulting from their
function as part of the transverse half-frames ensuring the stability of the main girders.
However, the differences among the BB models are small, and are mostly influenced by
the rotational stiffness of the connection to the main girders. The differences, although
small, are therefore caused by the presence of two or three transom clamps, depending on
whether the analysed BB has double and triple-truss arrangement.
According to Table 7, it can be stated that if three original cross beams per panel
are used, they sufficiently satisfy the requirements for exclusive load-carrying capacity
introduced. Moreover, the cross beams are also able to meet requirements for acceptable
normal load-carrying capacity, i.e., the conventional lorries with weight up to 28 tons can
cross the bridge without any traffic restrictions.
Table 8 presents the reduction in load-carrying capacity of cross beams if only two
cross beams per panel of BB are used with the mutual distances of 1608 and 1440 mm. This
seems to be not very reasonable solution. The exclusive load-carrying capacity is around
the required limit, but the value of normal load-carrying capacity has decreased, especially
in case of double-truss BB is this reduction more severe.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 17 of 19

6. Conclusions
In this paper, the study on load-carrying capacity of Bailey bridges is presented. Except
for situations after natural disasters, the applications of BB as temporary construction arose
with expansion of building industry. In addition, there are a few examples of the Bailey
bridge used as a “semi-term” or even “long-term” bridge only in the region of Slovakia
and Czechia. As demands on utilisation of Bailey bridges for civil purposes are growing, a
brief overview of options of this bridge system is very helpful.
Values of the load carrying capacities given in Tables 3–8 provide a very good overview
of the applicability of the individual structural arrangements of the main girder or bridge
deck analysed. However, what is just as valuable, the tables show the possibility of
utilisation of each element or, on the other hand, the necessity of its strengthening to
enhance its load-carrying capacity to not be the limiting element within the structure.
The applied load schemes have been proven for decades and provide a realistic
picture of the possible permissible weight of vehicle passing the bridge both in normal or
exclusive traffic situation. The reasons why it was decided to use the schemes according to
Figures 11 and 12 are clarified in Section 3.2. It should be noted that a single-line narrow
bridge is the issue, most often used on a construction site or on a local road network.
Anyway, next study is planned, where results of the research given in [20,21] and therein
proposed scheme will be utilised. Some comparison can be then made to see the differences
in obtained permissible weight of vehicles.
On the basis of presented results in the previous chapter it is possible to decide on
deployment of specific configuration of main girder panels and deck members for BB
system for various spans. The proposed load-carrying capacities are on the safe side as
the same reliability levels that are prescribed by Eurocodes for newly designed structures
are assumed. Thus, actual load-carrying capacities could be increased for the temporary
bridges. Moreover, modern methodologies for the evaluation of bridge structures for their
expected remaining life-time can be used [22,29]. Then, modification of reliability indexes
for the evaluation of existing bridges would lead into reduction of the partial reliability
factors. The basic concept of how the reliability levels can be transformed into the design
values of the material properties and load effects could be found in the paper [34].
However, all abovementioned data, recommendations and conclusions assume a
faultless condition of the bridge structure. Such a condition is unrealistic, also due to the
underestimated maintenance, which supports the conditions for rapid degradation in any
existing bridge structure [35]. In real applications, it is therefore necessary to take into
account the possible damage of essential components [36]. In addition to frequent corrosion
attacks, especially of deck elements, imperfections caused by impacts or unprofessional
handling of bridge parts often occur. These, as well as any other failures, must be taken
into account when determining the resistance and consequent load-carrying capacity of
individual cross-sections and members [37]. However, in the cases where failures can also
have impact on the redistribution of internal forces, they need to be implemented into the
global design analysis as well.
Accordingly, the utilization of this study requires experience both with application
and maintenance of the Bailey bridge system, and also a broader perspective to account its
hidden reserves or possible defects.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.O. and V.N.; methodology, J.O.; software, J.P. and M.F.;
validation, J.O. and J.P.; formal analysis, J.P. and M.F.; investigation J.O. and J.P.; resources, J.O.
and V.N.; data curation, J.P and M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, J.O.; writing—review
and editing, J.P.; visualization, J.P.; supervision, J.O. and V.N.; project administration, J.P.; funding
acquisition, J.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Research Project No. 1/0630/21 of the Slovak Grant
Agency and by the project of Operational Programme Interreg V-A Slovak Republic–Czech Republic
No. 304011Y277 (the project is co-funding by European Regional Development Fund).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 18 of 19

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Benda, M.; Manas, P. Temporary Bridges Used in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Military
Technologies (ICMT), Brno, Czech Republic, 31 May–2 June 2017; pp. 252–256.
2. Ingham, B. Temporary bridging: Principles of design and construction. In Temporary Works, 2nd ed.; Pallett, P.F., Filip, R., Eds.; Ice
Publishing: London, UK, 2018; Chapter 19; pp. 251–262.
3. Field Manual: Bailey Bridge; FM 5-277; Headquarters Department of the Army: Washington, DC, USA, 1986. Available online:
http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/fm5-277%2886%29.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2022).
4. Jackson, G.B. The Bailey Bridge; New Zealand Engineering: Wellington, New Zealand, 1949; p. 1003.
5. Roberts, L.D. The Bailey: The Amazing, All-Purpose Bridge. In Builders and Fighters: U.S. Army Engineers in World War II, 1st ed.;
Fowle, B.W., Ed.; United States Army Corps of Engineers: Fort Belvoir, VA, USA, 1992; pp. 181–193.
6. Bujňák, J.; Vičan, J.; Odrobiňák, J. Proof Load Tests and FEM Model as a Tools for Verification of Real Bridge Behaviour. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Short & Medium Span Bridges, Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 3–6 August 2010;
p. 148/1-10.
7. STANAG 2021; Military Load Classification of Bridges, Ferries, Rafts and Vehicles. NATO: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
8. Yi, P.; Vaghela, G.; Buckland, A. Condition Assessment and Load Rating of Arced Bailey Bridge. In Proceedings of the 9th
Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 22–24 October 2014; ARRB: Port Melbourne, Australia, 2014.
9. Khounsida, T.; Nishikawa, T.; Nakamura, S.; Okumatsu, T.; Thepvongsa, K. Study on Static and Dynamic Behavior of Bailey
Bridge. In Proceedings of the 2019 World Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM19), Jeju Island,
Korea, 17–21 September 2019.
10. Lee, J.W.; Yoo, S.H.; Kim, I.S.; Kim, T.Y.; Choi, H.H.; Yoon, W.S.; Kim, Y.C. A study on the Analysis for the Strength of Bailey Panel
Bridge. J. Korea Inst. Mil. Sci. Technol. 2011, 14, 15–21. [CrossRef]
11. SCIA Engineer. Reference Guide; Nemetschek Group: Hasselt, Belgium, 2013.
12. Jindra, D.; Kala, Z.; Kala, J. A comparison of FE Analysis of Columns Utilizing Two Stress-strain Material Relations and Two
Different Solvers: ANSYS vs SCIA Engineer. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Plasticity,
Barcelona, Spain, 7–9 September 2021; 9 September 2021.
13. Odrobiňák, J.; Farbák, M.; Chromčák, J.; Kortiš, J.; Gocál, J. Real Geometrical Imperfection of Bow-String Arches—Measurement
and Global Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4530. [CrossRef]
14. Parivallal, S.; Narayanan, T.; Ravisankar, K.; Kesavan, K.; Maji, S. Instrumentation and Response Measurement of a Double-Lane
Bailey Bridge During Load Test. Strain 2005, 41, 25–30. [CrossRef]
15. Chen, W.Z.; Yan, B.C.; Liu, X.; Jiang, Y.D. Research on the Finite Element Simulation of and Updating Method for Old Riveted
Truss Bridges. Stahlbau 2012, 81, 419–425. [CrossRef]
16. EN 1993-1-1; Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. CEN: Brussels,
Belgium, 2005.
17. EN 1991-4; Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures—Part 1-4: General Actions—Wind Actions. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
18. Leahy, C.; OBrien, E.; O’Connor, A. The Effect of Traffic Growth on Characteristic Bridge Load Effects. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,
14, 3990–3999. [CrossRef]
19. EN 1991-2; Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures—Part 2: Traffic Loads on Bridges. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
20. Vičan, J.; Odrobiňák, J.; Gocál, J. Determination of Road Bridge Load-Carrying Capacity. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2021, 17, 286–297.
[CrossRef]
21. Gocál, J.; Odrobiňák, J.; Vičan, J. On the Load-Carrying Capacity Produced by Different Load Models for Road Bridges. IOP Conf.
Ser. MSE Civ. Eng. Conf. Košice 2022, 10, accepted, in press.
22. Skokandić, D.; Ivanković, A.M.; Znidarić, A.; Srbić, M. Modelling of traffic load effects in the assessment of existing road bridges.
Gradevinar 2019, 71, 1153–1165.
23. Kamruzzaman, M.; Haque, M.R. Assessment of Dead Load Deflection of Bailey Bridge. In Proceedings of the IABSE-JSCE Joint
Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-IV, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 26–27 August 2020; pp. 306–310.
24. Kaushik, H.B.; Talukdar, S. Structural Assasment of a Collapsed Bailey Bridge over Tuirini River on NH-150 in Aizawl, Miroram.
Report Submitted to Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, Mizoram. 2018. Available online: https://pwd.mizoram.gov.in/uploads/a
ttachments/0b3455e113ace8c59ea54cc252dbf032/posts-67-structural-assessment-of-collapsed-bailey-bridge-over-tuirini-river
1.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2022).
25. King, W.S.; Duan, L. Experimental Investigations of Bailey Bridges. J. Bridge Eng. 2003, 8, 334–339. [CrossRef]
26. Kala, Z.; Seitl, S.; Krejsa, M.; Omishore, A. Reliability Assessment of Steel Bridges Based on Experimental Research. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics (ICNAAM), Rhodes, Greece,
13–18 September2018. published 2019.
27. EN 1993-2; Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 2: Steel Bridges. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3788 19 of 19

28. King, W.S.; Wu, S.M.; Duan, L. Laboratory Load Tests and Analysis of Bailey Bridge Segments. J. Bridge Eng. 2013, 18, 957–968.
[CrossRef]
29. Paeglitis, A.; Paeglitis, A. Simple Classification Method for the Bridge Capacity Rating. Constr. Sci. Sci. J. Riga Tech. Univ. 2010,
11, 44–50.
30. Vičan, J.; Gocál, J.; Odrobiňák, J.; Koteš, P. Existing steel railway bridges evaluation. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2016, 12, 103–110.
[CrossRef]
31. UIC 70778-2; Recommendations for Determining the Carrying Capacity and Fatigue Risks of Existing Metallic Railway Bridges
Aft. International Union of Railway: Paris, France, 2021; 77p.
32. Railways of the Slovak Republic. General Technical Requirements: Determination of Load Carrying Capacity of Railway Bridges;
Railways of the Slovak Republic: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2015; 116p. (In Slovak)
33. Regulation SŽ S5/1; Diagnostics, Load-Carrying Capacity and Pass Ability of Railway Bridges. Czech Railway Administration:
Prague, Czech Republic, 2021; 156p. (In Czech)
34. Koteš, P.; Vičan, J. Recommended Reliability Levels for the Evaluation of Existing Bridges According to Eurocodes. Struct. Eng.
Int. 2013, 23, 411–417. [CrossRef]
35. Odrobiňák, J.; Hlinka, R. Degradation of Steel Footbridges with Neglected Inspection and Maintenance. Procedia Eng. 2016,
156, 304–311. [CrossRef]
36. Gocál, J.; Odrobiňák, J. On the Influence of Corrosion on the Load-Carrying Capacity of Old Riveted Bridges. Materials 2020,
13, 717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Macho, M.; Ryjacek, P.; Matos, J. Fatigue Life Analysis of Steel Riveted Rail Bridges Affected by Corrosion. Struct. Eng. Int. 2019,
29, 551–562. [CrossRef]