Comparative Analysis On Major Provisions Of The Code For Design Of Highway Concrete Bridge In China, U.S And Europe

Since the reform and opening up, China’s economy has achieved rapid development.Civil engineering projects overseas is increasing year by year and the Chinese engineers isplaying an increasingly important role in international cooperation projects. For many ofthose places in which these overseas projects lies are European or American colonial inhistory, bridge design codes of Europe or America are often used in these projects. Therefore,as a engineer involved in design, it is necessary for an understanding of the European andAmerican bridge design specifications. In order to understand the status of the development ofinternational concrete bridge design specifications, and find out the similarities anddifferences with those in national, Chinese Bridge Design Specifications (JTG D62-2004andJTG D60-2004), American Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO LRFD Bridge Designspecification2012) and the European Bridge Design Specifications (EN1991Part2-bridgetraffic load, EN1992Part2-concrete bridges) are based on to carry out a comparative studyof some provisions of the following major elements:1. A brief description of the development process and the situation of ridge design codesin China, the U.S., and Europe.2. As for the basic requirements for bridge design, the comparison of the bridge designspecifications of structural materials (including concrete, steel), classification and calculationmethods of limit state design, the relevant regulations of loads and load combinations(including vehicle load, temperature load) between United States and Europe are mainlyanalyzed. The study shows that there is a big difference in classification of concrete strengthcriteria with the United States and Europe specification; In European specification, the designvalues of material strength is quotient of standard values and subentry coefficient of concretematerials, while in Chinese specification, the design value of the concrete compressivestrength is slightly higher than that of the European specification. In Chinese specification,ultimate limit state is divided into two categories, which is similar to the European norms, butin the specification of United States it was divided into four categories; Vehicle load and laneload mode are adopted both in the specification of the United States and China, while in theEuropean specification vehicle load is divided into four modes; as for partial factor of loadvalue, it is at a low level in Chinese specification.3. It is analyzed comparatively between the U.S. and Europe bridge design specificationsthat the Flexural members, axial compression members, eccentric compression members,shear capacity member of oblique section without web reinforcement, shear bearing capacityof oblique section web reinforcement in highway reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete.Meanwhile, as for the computing method for pre-tensioned prestressed concrete flexural members in the bridge design specifications of Chinese, the United States and Europe, aninstance is used for a comparative analysis.4. From the U.S. and European codes contrast, there are a big difference of car loadeffect values among Chinese the United States and Europe, and some reached the maximumof1.5times the Chinese norms. For China, the U.S. and European norms, the value of thecombined effects of load trends are the same as the span increases, and most of them arestabilized. Combined effect of vehicle load and bridge dead load in Chinese bridgespecification overall is low than that in Europe.