EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

8, 83-96 (1980)

BRIDGE DYNAMIC LOADING D U E TO ROAD SURFACE

IRREGULARITIES AND BRAKING OF VEHICLE
R. K. GUPTA* AND R. w. TRAILL-NASH~
School of Civil Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Australia

SUMMARY
Single span highway bridges of composite construction are idealized as beams as well as orthotropic plates. A standard
HS-20-44 highway vehicle is represented by a planar, two-axle, sprung mass system with frictional device. The response
equations are derived in terms of the natural modal co-ordinates of the bridge and of displacement co-ordinates of the
vehicle. The road surface irregularities, generally found at the junctions of the approach road and bridge ends, are idealized
as a 45”ramp. The maximum impact factors for bending moment and deflection are obtained due to the ramp and in
combination with the braking of vehicle for symmetric as well as essentric loading of the vehicle.

INTRODUCTION
The dynamic response of simple span highway bridges to vehicular loads has been studied in considerable
depth in the past. Some of the early researches into the dynamic response of highway bridges were carried out
by Biggs6. ’,
Veletsos et ~ l . ’ . lo*
~’ l’, Huang”. l 6 and others.
” 9

Highway bridges are generally idealized as a beam with either distributed mass and flexibility or lumped
masses and distributed flexibility. In some investigations, bridge decks are idealized as orthotropic plates for
the calculation of free vibration characteristics, and their response under moving forces and loads. An
extensive survey of recent work has been presented by Huang.”
In most of the published work the vehicle is assumed to be moving with a uniform speed and very little work
has been done on the dynamic response with non-uniform speed. In cases where the vehicle motion is not
uniform but is subjected to acceleration or braking, a redistribution of axle loads takes place due to the
horizontal inertia force. A significant study considering braking has been reported by Kishan and Traill-Nash5
on two selected bridges idealized as beams; it was concluded that braking affects the response considerably.
Initial bounce of a vehicle on its suspension is recognized as a major source of bridge dynamic
loading.’, 1 1 * l a The initial bounce of a vehicle is caused by roughness on the approach. Besides the road
surface irregularity, an abrupt irregularity generally occurs at the junction of the bridge-approach and the ends
of the bridge. This difference in level between the bridge-approach and the bridge-deck may affect the bridge
response when traversed by the vehicle. In this paper, such effects are investigated with uniform and non-
uniform speeds of vehicle.
The bridges considered are of composite construction with a series of longitudinal steel girders, cross beams
and reinforced concrete slabs. The vehicle loading used here is the standard H S - 2 U vehicle.

SYSTEM IDEALIZATION AND EQUATIONS OF MOTION

The single span, multigirder highway bridges with composite construction are represented by three
mathematical models, viz (i)beam representation (model A), (ii)beam with torsional freedom (model B) and (iii)

* Teaching Fellow; presently Lecturer in Civil Engineering, The Papua New Guinea University of Technology,Lae, Papua New Guinea.
t Associate Professor.
OO98-8847/8O/O208-O08 3$0 1.OO Received 12 April 1979
01980 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 15 August 1979
83
84 R. K. GUPTA AND R. W. TRAILL-NASH

orthotropic plate (model C). The example bridge and its idealized models are shown in Figures 1 and 2,
respectively.
The vehicle is represented by a planar, two-axle, sprung mass system with frictional device as considered by
Veletsos and Huangls2and Gupta.I3 The idealized vehicle model is shown in Figure 3(a).
The motion of the bridge-vehicle system is expressed in terms of the natural modal co-ordinates of the
bridge and of displacement co-ordinates of the vehicle. The equations of motion are derived using Lagrange's
method. The complete derivation of equations is presented in Reference 13.

305
I I 305
8534
Symmetrical obout roadway centre-line
ODI

CROSS- SECTION A-A

I I I I

T
-
I Cross beam # 1 Cross beam # 2

3 1

9144

ll

t- 69066096
- - ++ -
&A
6096 1-
PLAN
Figure 1. Single span bridge

BEAM REPRESENTATION (MODELS A AND B)

The idealized bridge-vehicle system for a general case of eccentric vehicle loading is shown in Figure 3(b).
The kinetic and potential energy functions of the system are :
+
T = +YTM,Y f@Ib4+ +M,jit + +M,it + !dv& (1)

I/=+YTK,Y + + ~ K , $ - M , g { ( y ~ + d ,+ ~ e ) u , + ( y ~ + d , + ~ ~ e ) u , } (2)
The nth equation of motion of the bridge in bending and torsion in terms of the modal co-ordinates A, and B,,
 BRIDGE DYNAMIC LOADING 85

I I
I
I
I Mb= 1.2267 x lo4kg I
I
I I
I 1,= 8.4206x lo4 kgm' I
I
L -- - -__-____----------------------- --.I
I

( bl Model B - Beom representation with

torsional freedom

( c ) Model C - Plate representation

Figure 2. Idealizations of highway bridge
86 R. K. GUPTA AND R. W. TRAILL-NASH

Rigid body

Centroid
+

bs Frictional damping
device
I
-Tyre spring spring
B, Axle 1
//

+ Lumped mass and pitching inertia

Figure 3(a). Idealized vehicle model

[Vehicle at datum line Ox

L r r r Horizontal datum lines

Actual bridge profile

Instantoneous bridge

Figure 3(b). Idealized bridge vehicle system

and

where F, in equation (7) represents the net driving force on the vehicle at any instant acting in the x-directiot
and is assumed to be acting at the road level.
The load-deformation relationship of each axle is non-linear and is represented by a bilinear diagram of the
hysteretic type as shown in Figure 4(a). The corresponding relationship between frictional-force and axle-
deformation is shown in Figure qb). The axle loads (P, and F2)are determined on the basis of the
load-deformation characteristics shown in Figure qa).
Equations (3H7)are the response equations corresponding to beam model B which considers the torsion as
well as bending of the bridge centre-line. If torsional effects of the bridge are assumed to be negligible, the
structure may be represented by bridge model A which considers only the bending action. To obtain the
response equations corresponding to bridge model A the value of eccentricity e is substituted as zero in the
response equations corresponding to bridge model B, and equation (4) omitted.
 BRIDGE DYNAMIC LOADING 87

A
kL -
aJ o e b f

*
( b ) Frictional force - deformation relationship

d C

Figure 4. Axle force and frictional force us axle deformation

ORTHOTROPIC PLATE REPRESENTATION (MODEL C)

The equations of motion of the bridge in terms of the modal co-ordinates A,, may be written as follows :

A n n + 2 ~ m nwm n A m n + d m Am, = ( l / G m n ) [{zrnn(zl) sin(mn xl/@i>>

( ~ v +
+ Czrnn(z2)sin{mn(xl - s ) / ~ } I( ~ v +P,)I
gal (8)
The equations of motion corresponding to the vehicle co-ordinates y, and y 2 turn out to be the same as
given in equations ( 5 ) and (6). The equation corresponding to the x1 co-ordinates may be written as follows :

i(
Mv{f1} + MV({jl}-{jZ})b = Fv+ '(mnTa)A,,{Z,,(zl)cos(mnxl/a)} +-dl
dx1
d ,
(Mvga2+Pi)

+ ( cos{mn(x1 - S)/Z)I
(mz/ii) Amfl[Zmfl(Z2)

Equations (8), (5), (6) and (9) are the required equations of motion of the bridge-vehicle system
+-
dx1 " gai + Pz)
2 2 (M,
I (9)

corresponding to model C.
88 R. K. GUPTA AND R. W. TRAILL-NASH

RESPONSE COMPUTATION
The solutions of equations of motions are obtained using Newmark's fl method. For the results presented, a
relative time interval of h/T,, = 0 1 is selected, where Tminrefers to the period of the highest order bridge
natural mode included in the analysis and h is the selected time interval. The convergence criterion adopted
here is that for the final iteration each co-ordinate acceleration should be within kO.1 per cent of its value in
the preceding cycle.
The dynamic response of the bridge is computed by the method of modal analysis. In the present work, three
bending modes for model A, three bending and three torsional modes for model B and five modes for model C
are included to achieve satisfactory accuracy in results. Maximum bending moments and deflections are
obtained by the method of force summation.20 The results are presented in terms of the maximum impact
factors for bending moment and deflection, defined as the ratio of the maximum dynamic value to the maxi-
mum static value at a particular point. Absolute maximum impact factor is the highest value of the maximum
impact factor throughout the span.

BRAKING FUNCTION
The braking function considered in the analysis is shown in Figure 5(b). This is based on the test results on
highway vehicles conducted by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, England, during 1975. The
braking force increases linearly to a maximum of 0.6 times the vehicle weight and then stays constant until the
vehicle either comes to a stop or crosses the bridge span.

+
- Vehicle motion (V, :15.240 m/s)
0.0

I
Y Y " Y

0.G7 0 ~ ~ 3 0 . $ 0 0 & 6 0 . 6 2
Y

f
Y

,. -
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.41.5 1.6
Y Y Y
2.0

Bridge opproach Bridge Bridge

entry exit
Figure 5(a). Vehicle front-axle positions (Cb) on the bridge and bridge approach at start of braking

Note ' C,= t , /(Bridge fundamental period)

*
-I tb-i Time

Figure 5(b). Braking characteristics of the vehicle

ABRUPT ROAD SURFACE IRREGULARITY A T BRIDGE ENTRY

The presence of an irregularity at bridge entry affects the initial dynamic conditions of the vehicle. The
magnitude of the effect depends upon the size of the irregularity and vehicle characteristics. The step is
idealized as a 45" ramp of height leading to the bridge, as shown in Figure qa).
 BRIDGE DYNAMIC LOADING 89

+
- Vehicle motion

-1 450 (Bridge entry)

( a ) Description of ramp function

1 7

1.3
c
u
0
w-
c
V
g 1.2 '

E
.-
x

1.1 .
A W o 6.22.86 mn

I "

2 4 6
- 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Vehicle speed h / s )
( b) Bending moment

b 1.3 -
c
0
0
u-
c
V
8 1.2-
E
.-
u0
= 1.1 -
t e & 22.86mm

2 4
-
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Z
Vehicle speed (m/s)
( c Deflect ion
0 4=27.43mm

Figure 6. Maximum impact factors for bending moment and deflection at mid-span with change in vehicle speed and maximum ramp
height (g? (model A)

PARAMETERS CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS

The following parameters are considered while investigating the cumulative effect due to ramp and braking of
vehicle :

(i) Initial vehicle speed

The bridge response is obtained for a wide range of vehicle speeds (V, = 6.096 to 27-432m/s) and is varied by
changing the ramp height (g'). The ramp height is limited to a value which gives a maximum impact factor
corresponding to the code value within a realistic range of vehicle speeds (6.096 to 15.240 m/s).
90 R. K. GUPTA AND R. W. TRAILL-NASH

(ii) Size of the irregularity

The maximum height g*ofthe irregularity, projected above the level of the bridge-approach, is considered as
one of the variables. A parametric study is made with various ramp heights and vehicle speeds. In the present
investigations the maximum ramp heights g* = 7.62, 15.24, 22.86 and 27-43 mm are considered.

(iii) Vehicle position at start of braking

Vehicle position at start of braking is considered on the bridge-approach as well as on the bridge itself. The
braking positions (cb = 0.167,0.333,0.666,0.833, l.OO0, 1.100, 1.200, 1.250, 1-300,1.400, 1.500 and 1~600)are
studied for various bridge models and shown in Figure 5(a).

(iv) Symmetric and eccentric vehicle loading

The influence of eccentric loading is studied for models B and C by taking eccentricity E = 0.167 and
comparing results with the symmetric case e = 0.0.

NUMERICAL DATA FOR EXAMPLE BRIDGE AND VEHICLE

(i) Vehicle
A three-axle vehicle HS-20-44 idealized as a two-axle system is shown in Figure 3. The numerical data of the
vehicle are summarized in the following :
Mass of the vehicle (M,) : 2.903 x lo4 kg
Parameters a , = a, : 0.5
Static load on each axle (PSI): 1.42336 x 10’ N
Pitching inertia (I,) : 5.22000 x lo4 kg m2
Axle spacing (s) : 4267 mm
Normal height of centre of mass above pavement level (bs) : 1829 mm
Tyre stiffness at each axle (K,) : 7.003 x lo6 N/m
Vehicle suspension stiffness at each axle (K,) : 3.939 x lo6 N/m
Limiting friction at each axle (F;) : 2.1350 x lo4 N

(ii) Example bridge

A simply supported single-span, multigirder bridge of composite construction (steel girders and concrete
deck acting monolithically) is selected from the Standard Plans for Highway Bridges’ shown in Figure 1. The
span length of the bridge is 18.288 m with a uniform cross-section throughout. The numerical data for the
properties of three models are given below.

(a) Properties of example bridge idealized as beams (models A and B)

Mass of the beam (m): 6.0370 x lo3 kg/m
Flexural rigidity (EI) : 1.9420 x lo9 Nm2
Roll-inertia of the beam (I,) : 4.1440 x lo4 kg m2/m
Equivalent torsional rigidity ( G J ) : 1.3530 x lo9 Nm2/m
Radius of gyration (rJ : 2620 mm
Natural frequency of the bridge obi : 266 Hz
mbz : 10.65 HZ
o b 3 : 23.94 HZ
Natural torsional frequency of the bridge wll : 4.94 Hz
o,,: 9.90 HZ
o13 : 14.80 Hz
 BRIDGE DYNAMIC LOADING 91

(b) Properties of example bridge idealized as an orthotropic plate (model C)

Width of plate (6): 9144 mm
Thickness of plate (h): 178 mm
Mass of plate (S): 66021 x lo2 kg/m2
Flexural rigidity (D,) : 2.2095 x 10' N m2/m
Flexural rigidity (0,) : 1.242x lo7 N m2/m
Torsional rigidity (D,) : 2.6193 x lo7 N m2/m
Natural frequency of the plate a l l: 2.71 Hz
w I 2 : 5.00Hz
w I J : 1082 Hz
w21 : 10.86 HZ
w z 2 : 1360Hz

Two per cent of critical damping is used for bending as well as for torsional modes in beam models and also
for plate models. It is assumed that the vehicle remains in contact with the road surface.
These studies exclude the effects of sudden stopping of the vehicle on the bridge. This situation is avoided by
checking the vehicle speed after every interval of time and response calculations stop when the vehicle moves
with a speed equal to or less than 0.015 m/s.

RESULTS
(i) Maximum impact factors for bending moment and dejection
(a) Ramp with zero braking. The maximum impact factors for bending moment and deflection at mid-span
for model A are obtained for various ramp heights (6 = 7.62, 15.29, 22.86 and 27.43 mm). A wide range of
vehicle speeds (V, = 6096-27.432 m/s) is considered for the response calculations.
Figures qb) and (c) show the maximum impact factors for bending moment and deflection at mid-span for
various ramp heights 8 and vehicle speeds V,. It is observed that within a realistic range of vehicle speeds
( 6 1 5 m/s) response increases as the height of the ramp is increased for a certain vehicle speed. The ramp height
6is restricted to 27.43 mm which produces the impact factor of 1.26which is about the same as provided by the
design code.14 This factor of 1.26 also occurs for the vehicle speed within the practical range for commercial
vehicles. Thus the ramp height (6 = 27-43 mm) is established for the further study of the effects of a vehicle
braking at a range of initial speeds.
Figure 7 shows the variation of maximum impact factors for bending moment and deflection for model A
with the ramp (6 = 27.43 mm) and various vehicle speeds between 6096 and 15.240 m/s. It is found that the
response at mid-span increases with the increase in speed from 6.096 m/s to 12.192 m/s. It then starts
decreasing if the speed is increased further to 15.240 m/s. For lower vehicle speeds the higher impact factor is
obtained within the first quarter of span length.
(b) Ramp with braking. The maximum impact factors for bending moment and deflection at reference
stations are obtained for the various vehicle speeds and braking (C, = 0.6)on the bridge-approach as well as on
the bridge. The response results at mid-span for model A are shown in Figure 8. The corresponding values with
zero braking are also shown for comparison.
It is noted that braking of the vehicle further increases the response appreciably over the response with ramp
without braking. Higher response is obtained for the vehicle braking on the bridge than on the approach. The
vehicle speed of 9.144 m/s produces larger impact factors.

(ii) Absolute maximum impact factors for bending moment and dejection
(a) Bending moment: Symmetric vehicle loading-The absolute maximum impact factors for bending
moment at reference stations for models A, B and C are calculated for various speeds of the vehicle (V, = 6.096,
9.144, 12.192 and 15.240 m/s). The response variations for model A with braking (C, = 0.6) are shown in
Figure 9.
 Vehicle Motion 4 .c:
with
- '" I Description of ramD function -Romp
brokina ( G O6))
Romp with'
(Eridge entry) Vehicle motion zero broking
6 096 m/s
(a Description of ramp function 1.5 ,' 1 2 7 43 mm
0 9 144 m/s

1.3
1
4- Bridge entry 0 12 192 m/s

E 1.2
0
0
y.
c
0
0
1.1
.-
i
r" Vehicle speed (m/s)
6,096
0 9.144
d 12,192
"O 0 15,240 c
V ( a ) Bending moment
f ~
x
.E 1.0
I
Bridge-- Sponwise co-ordinate ( ( ) Bridge-
x
exit
entry
-
( b 1 Bending moment r"
1.4 1.4

1.3
1 1.2

l'l- 6.096 1.1

0
t 0
9.144
12.192
, , , , 15.240
~ , , , , I I I
1.0
0.0 0.2 0 . 4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Bridge approach Bridge-- Vehicle position Bridge-
entry at start of bra- exit
king (C,)

Figure 8. Maximum impact factors for bending moment and deflection at mid-span
with change in vehicle position at start of braking and change in vehicle speed
(ramr, at bridee entrv: model A)
 ( 01 Symmetric loading (@=O.O)
It

c
8 1.5 -
u-
c
x
1.4 0

c
z
0
x 1.4 -
.-E
0
-4-

t I.? 21
0
a E
aJ 1.3 -
.-
E c

I
-a
ul
0
2 1.2
aJ 3 1.2 -
c
-
51
Q 1.1 - -Vehicle motion (Vo= 9 144 m/s)
0 6 x vehicle w t
( b 1 Deflection
=fb/(Bridge fundomentol
Bridge entry period
1.5
6 16-
c Description of ramp function Braking history
0

,o ( b ) Eccentric looding (6=0.167)

c
1.4 0
0 1.5 .
i .-E"
x
0
1.3 1.4 -
Q
c
-
51
1.2 9 1.3 -
Vehicle speed
C,. = f,"/(Bridge fundomentol period)
u y !
Time * Braking history 096 m/s
1.1 +l*bt)' 0 9 144 m/s 1.2 - X Model A
Vehicle motion
8 12192 m/s
- Description of 15 2 4 0 m/s
1 0
A
Model B
Model C
Bridge entry ramp function 0 Zero Broklnc
I
1.0 1.1 I d ' 1 I I I
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
Bridge - Spanwise co-ordinate ( 5 1 Bridge -
entry exit
Figure 10. Absolute maximum impact factors for bending moment with change in
vehicle position at start of braking (ramp at bridge entry) due to (a) symmetric load-
ing (? = 0.0) and (b)eccentric loading (2 = 0.167) (initial vehicle speed V, = 9.144 m/s;
models A, B, C)
94 R. K. GUPTA AND R. W. TRAILL-NASH

“he highest impact factor is obtained at mid-span with a speed of 9.144 m/s. The ramp of ij = 27.43 mm is
used in these calculations.
Figure lqa) shows the response variations for models A, B and C. The absolute maximum impact factors are
obtained at mid-span. The beam models A and B produce higher values in comparison to the plate model C.
The vehicle speed is considered as 9144 m/s which produces relatively higher values at mid-span for model A.
Eccentric vehicle loading-The parallel response results for Z = 0.167 are obtained for models B and C. The
distributions of absolute maximum impact factors with braking (C, = 0-6) are shown in Figure lqb). The
results of model A are shown for comparison. It is observed that higher values are obtained at mid-span as for
the symmetric loading case. The beam models A and B produce higher values in comparison to the plate model
C. A relatively higher response is obtained for model A when compared to models B and C.
(b) Dejection. Figure 9(b) shows the distribution of absolute maximum factors for deflection for model A.
The distributions are shown for braking (C, = 0.6) as well as for zero braking cases. It is found that vehicle
braking increases the response considerably over zero braking.

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn based on the results obtained in the preceding sections :
(i) The effect of braking together with irregularity is to amplify the response appreciably over the response
with only an abrupt irregularity in the road surface. For the plate model, a cumulative absolute maximum
impact factor of 1.36 (Z = 0.0) is obtained compared with the factor of 1.26 due to an abrupt irregularity
(6 = 27.43 mm) and 1.25 due to braking (C, = 0-6 and 6 = 00) separately.
(ii) Braking on the bridge or on the bridge approach affects the response considerably. It is found that
braking on the bridge is more severe than braking on the bridge-approach.
(iii) An eccentric vehicle loading on the bridge produces large impact factors when compared with the
symmetric loading case. The absolute maximum impact factor with ramp and braking (Z= 0.167) is 1.41 in
comparison with 1-36for the symmetric loading case.
(iv) The uni-dimensional bridge models A and B estimate higher impact factors than the two-dimensional
plate model C. Therefore, the consideration of bridge transverse flexibility in the analysis is an important
aspect for relatively flexible bridges.
For structures with comparable length of span and width, a two-dimensional orthotropic plate or superior
bridge model is necessary in the analysis. However, the beam model A is simpler in application and estimates
the loads on the conservativeside. Bridge model B is a more complex model and requires more computing time
without producing much superior results in comparison with model A.
REFERENCES
1. A. S. Veletsos and T. Huang, ‘Dynamic response of three span continuous highway bridges’, Civil Engng Studies, Structural Research
Series 190, University of Illinois, 1960.
2. A. S. Veletsos and T. Huang, ‘Analysis of dynamic response of highway bridges’, J. Engng Mech. Div., ASCE, 96,593620 (1970).
3. Bureau of Public Roads, Standard Plans for Highway Bridges, Vol. 11, US. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 1968.
4. C. Oran and A. S. Veletsos, ‘Analysis of static and dynamic response of simple span, multigirder highway bridges’, Engng Experiment
Station, Part of 21th Progress Rept., Highway Bridge Impact Investigation, University of Illinois, 1961.
5. H. Kishan and R. W. Traill-Nash, ‘A modal method for calculation of highway bridge response with vehicle braking’, fnst. Eng. Ausr.
Civ. Engng. Trans., CE19,44-50 (1977).
6. J. M. Biggs and H. S. Suer, ‘An experimental investigation of the vibration of single span highway bridges’, Progress Rept. I , MIT,
Dept. of Civil and Sanitary Engineering, September 1954.
7. J. M. Biggs and H. S. Suer, ‘Vibration measurements on single span bridges’, Highway Research Board Bull., No. 124, 1-15 (1956).
8. J. M. Biggs, H. S. Suer and J. M. Louw, ‘Vibration of single span highway bridges’, Trans. ASCE, 124, 291-318 (1959).
9. J. M. Biggs, Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.
10. J. A. Nieto-Ramirez and A. S. Veletsos, ‘Response of three span continuous highway bridges to moving vehicles’, Engng. Experiment
Station Bull. 489, University of Illinois, 1966.
11. R. K. L. Wen, ‘Dynamic response of beams traversed by two axle loads’, J . Engng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 86, No. EM5, 91-111
( 1960).
12. R. K. L. Wen and A. S. Veletsos, ‘Dynamic behaviour of simple span highway bridges’, Highway Research Board Bull. 315, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1962.
13. R. K. Gupta, ‘The effects of acceleration and braking of vehicles on the dynamic loading of highway bridges’, Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1978.
 BRIDGE DYNAMIC LOADING 95

14. The American Association of State Highway Officials, Standard Specijications for Highway Bridges, 1 lth edition, 1973.
15. T. Huang and W. H. Walker, ‘Free vibration of simple span I-beam bridges’, Part D, 9th Progress Rept., Highway Impact
Investigation, University of Illinois, 1959.
16. T. Huang, ‘Dynamic response of concrete highway bridges’, Int. Sym.Concrete Bridge Design I , ACI Publication, SP-23, 1967.
17. T. Huang, ‘Vibration of bridges’, Shock and Vibration Digest, 8, No. 3,61-76 (1976).
18. W. H. Walker and A. S. Veletsos, ‘Responseof simple span highway bridges to moving vehicles’, Engng Experiment Station Bull. 486,
University of Illinois, 1966.
19. Y. Yamada and A. S. Veletsos, ‘Freevibration of simple span I-beam bridges’, Part B, Eighth Progress Rept., Highway Bridge Impact
Investigation, University of Illinois, 1957.
20. H. Kishan and R. W. Traill-Nash, ‘Calculationof response and loading of highway bridges,’ IABSE Mkmoires, 33, No. 2, 113-130
(1973).

NOTATION
vehicle parameters
longitudinal dimension of an orthotropic plate
vector of natural modal co-ordinates for bridge deflection
natural modal co-ordinate of the bridge in ‘mode ma’
vehicle parameter
transverse dimension of an orthotropic plate
vector of natural co-ordinates for bridge rotations
brake rise-time coefficient
deviation of the actual longitudinal bridge profile from x-axis under ith axle along the bridge
centre-line
si deviation of the actual longitudinal bridge profile from x-axis under ith axle along the line of
vehicle loading
generalised damping matrix for the bridge in bending
generalised damping matrix for the bridge in torsion
flexural rigidities of an orthotropic plate
torsional rigidities of an orthotropic plate
lateral distance of vehicle path from the bridge centre-line
Young’s modulus
flexural rigidity of the bridge
limiting friction in the suspension of ith vehicle axle
net traction force on the vehicle acting in the x-direction
acceleration due to gravity
ramp height
torsional rigidity of the bridge
thickness of slab portion over beams
‘b roll-inertia inertia matrix of the bridge corresponding to the 3 co-ordinates
-
I b generalized roll-inertia inertia matrix of the bridge corresponding to the B co-ordinates
pitching inertia of the vehicle
bridge stiffness matrix in bending for reference station co-ordinates
bridge stiffness matrix in torsion for reference station co-ordinates
length of the bridge
mass per unit length of bridge
mass per unit area of an orthotropic plate
mass-inertia matrix of the bridge corresponding to y co-ordinates
generalized inertia matrix of the bridge corresponding to the A co-ordinates
vehicle mass
vector of axle loads
axle spacing of the vehicle
time taken by the vehicle to reach the maximum braking force
96 R. K. GUPTA AND R. W. TRAILL-NASH

T kinetic energy of the bridge-vehicle system

Tl fundamental period of the bridge
V potential energy of the bridge-vehicle system
VO initial uniform speed of the vehicle
X1 span-wise location of vehicle's front axle
XV span-wise location of vehicle's centroid
Yi deflection of ith axle of vehicle at point of attachment to the vehicle body.
Y-v vertical deflection of vehicle's centroid
Y vector of dynamic deflections at reference stations along the line of vehicle loading at an
eccentricity iZ
vector of dynamic deflections at reference stations along the centre-line of the bridge.
vector of bridge deflection at the ith axle position along the centre-line of the bridge
vector of bridge deflection at the ith axle position along the line of vehicle loading
shape function value at the ith axle position along the z-axis in 'mode mn'
longitudinal pitching of the vehicle body
vector of rotations at the bridge reference station
d matrix of natural mode-shapes of the bridge in bending
do matrix of mode deflections under the vehicle axles in bending
natural flexural frequency of the bridge in the nth mode
'"1, natural torsional frequency of the bridge in the nth mode
'"mn natural frequency of the plate in 'mode mn'
'"b diagonal matrix of bridge natural frequencies in bending
'"t diagonal matrix of bridge natural frequencies in torsion

4 4J0
position of the front axle at the start of braking
matrix of natural mode shapes of the bridge in torsion
matrix of mode rotations under the vehicle axle in torsion