Introduction. The increasing intensity and weight of both civilian and military traffic pose significant challenges to bridge engineering, requiring continuous updates and improvements in the assessment methods of load-bearing capacity and structural safety. Ukrainian infrastructure objects damaged during the Russo-Ukrainian war — particularly bridges — require urgent restoration and reliability assurance. This study conducts a comparative analysis of Ukrainian State Building Codes (DBN) and the NATO Tri-Partite Design and Test Code for Military Bridging and Gap-Crossing Equipment (TDTC). The findings help assess the compatibility of existing civilian bridges with modern military equipment and provide recommendations for designers regarding the implementation of foreign military standards. The publication contributes to the harmonization of Ukrainian building norms with international standards within the context of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration.
Problem Statement. The core issue addressed in this research is the lack of open data on bridge performance under military loads and the need for a systematic comparison between civil and military bridge engineering methodologies. The Russo-Ukrainian war has highlighted infrastructural vulnerabilities, generating an urgent demand for the comparative assessment of design standards. The civil sector emphasizes accuracy and lifecycle optimization via probabilistic models, while the military sector prioritizes speed and tactical mobility through simplified, deterministic systems such as the MLC (Military Load Classification). Previous studies have revealed critical knowledge gaps, including insufficient analysis of the dynamic interaction between military convoys, a lack of standardized cross-assessment protocols, and limited access to data on military vehicle movement. These challenges hinder comprehensive engineering assessments and the secure, uninterrupted functioning of Ukrainian infrastructure.
Results. The comparative analysis indicates that, in general, the concentrated wheel loads from NATO military vehicles up to MLC 70, as well as distributed contact pressures up to MLC 150, do not exceed the load values specified in Ukrainian DBN standards. However, a more accurate representation of compatibility is obtained by analyzing bending moments in the simply supported bridge superstructures. For bridges designed under load class A11, only MLC 30 vehicles and below are permissible. For load class A15, the threshold increases to MLC 40. Bridges designed for model NK-80 loads can accommodate vehicles up to MLC 100. Structures calculated for NK-100 loads are compatible with virtually all STANAG-class military vehicles.
Conclusions. Ukrainian civil design standards and NATO military standards (TDTC) are founded on fundamentally different philosophies: the civilian sector aims for precision and lifecycle optimization, while the military sector prioritizes tactical speed and mobility. Although a comparison of external load characteristics (concentrated and distributed pressure) shows that Ukrainian standards are generally robust, the analysis of internal forces offers more accurate insight. Ensuring full compatibility of bridges with military vehicles will require further detailed calculations accounting for dynamic effects and other specific factors. This study serves as an initial step toward future research aimed at harmonizing Ukrainian and international standards — a crucial element in strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities and infrastructure resilience.
