Dynamic and Impact Behavior of Half-Through Arch Bridges

Dongzhou Huang, P.E., M.ASCE1

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to present the results of an investigation of the dynamic and impact characteristics of half-
through arch bridges with rough decks caused by vehicles moving across them. Seven arch bridges modeled as three-dimensional
structures with overall span lengths ranging from 20 to 200 m 共65.5 to 656.2 ft兲 are analyzed. The American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials Specifications HS20-44 truck is the applied vehicle loading used in the analysis and is simulated as a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

three-dimensional, nonlinear vehicle model with 11 degrees of freedom. Truck components include the body, suspension, and tires. The
bridge deck surface is assumed to have a “good” surface roughness and is simulated using a stochastic process 共power spectral density
function兲. The effect on impact factors of span length, rise-to-span ratio, and vehicle speed is discussed. The results of the analyses show
that the impact factors of bending moment and axial force will not exceed 0.4 and 0.25, respectively. The proposed impact equations are
simple and conservative and can be used in the design of half-through arch bridges.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2005兲10:2共133兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, arch; Bridges, steel; Bridges, concrete; Vehicles; Frequency analysis; Dynamic analysis;
Impact forces; Methodology.

Introduction
The half-through arch bridge may be considered one of the most
attractive bridge structure types. Many half-through arch bridges
use steel box girders or concrete-filled steel tubes as their arch
ribs 共Xanthakos 1994; Chen 1999; Cassity et al. 1999兲. Generally,
since the ratio of live load to dead load for this type of bridge is
relatively large compared with that of beam or concrete bridges, it
is important to determine the response to dynamic loading during
the bridge design. Although numerous arch bridges have been
built throughout the world, their dynamic behavior due to moving
vehicles remains largely uncertain because of the inherent com-
plexity of arch bridges. Most previous bridge research work on
dynamic response to moving vehicles is concentrated on beam/
girder bridges 共Hwang and Nowak 1991; Huang et al. 1992a,b,
1993, 1995; Huang 2001兲. Some investigators have used very
simple bridge and vehicle models to study the dynamic loading of
arch bridges without considering such effects as damping, road
surface roughness, and vehicle suspension 共Li 1983; Roeder et al.
2000兲. Currently, engineers use The American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials 共AASHTO兲 impact
formula to calculate the dynamic loading of arch bridges
共AASHTO 1996兲, i.e.,
1
Senior Research Scientist, Structural Research Center, Florida Dept.
of Transportation, 2007 E. Paul Dirac Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32310;
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Fuzhou Univ.,
350002, Fuzhou, China.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on February 20, 2003; approved on December 9, 2003.
This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2,
March 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2005/2-133–141/$25.00.
15.24
I= 共1兲
共L + 38.1兲
in which I is not greater than 0.3; and L, 共m兲, is the portion of the
span that is loaded to produce the maximum stress in the member.
However, Eq. 共1兲 is an empirical derivation that is based on lim-
ited data from simply supported beam bridges 共Huang et al. 1993;
McLean and Marsh 1998兲 and may be inaccurate for other struc-
tural configurations.
The purpose of the study presented here is to investigate the
dynamic behavior and impact factors of half-through arch bridges
with different span lengths due to side-by-side multivehicle load-
ings moving over a rough deck at various speeds. This study
considers, most of the important factors that affect the dynamic
response of bridges and that are caused by moving vehicles. The
results can be used for bridge design and further theoretical and
field study of impact upon arch bridges.
Idealization of Vehicle and Road Profile
The vehicle used in this analysis of half-through arch bridges is
the AASHTO HS20-44 design truck. This vehicle is simulated as
a three-dimensional nonlinear model 共Huang et al. 1993; Huang
2001兲. The model consists of five sprung masses representing a
tractor, its trailer, and three wheel/axle sets 共see Fig. 1兲. The trac-
tor and trailer are individually assigned three degrees of freedom
共DOF兲, corresponding to the vertical displacement 共y ti兲, rotation
about the longitudinal axis 共roll or ␾ti兲, and rotation about the
transverse axis 共pitch or ␪ti兲. Each wheel-axle set is provided with
one vertical displacement 共y ai兲 and one rotation angle 共␾ai兲. The
tractor and trailer are interconnected at the pivot point. The total
number of independent DOF is eleven. Details of derivation can
be found in Wang and Huang 共1992兲 and Huang 共2001兲.
The bridge deck profile is assumed to be a realization of
a stationary Gaussian random process that can be described by
a power spectral density 共PSD兲 function and can be written as
follows:

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 133

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. HS20-44 Vehicle model: 共a兲 side view, 共b兲 front view
N
wsr共x兲 = 兺 冑4S共␻i兲⌬␻ cos共␻ix + ␪i兲
i=1
where wsr共x兲 = simulated road vertical profile; x = longitudinal lo-
cation of generated point; S共␻i兲 = PSD function 共Huang 2001兲;
␻i = circular frequency; ␪i = random number uniformly distributed
from 0 to 2␲; and N = 200 in this study. Theory detail can be
found in Wang and Huang 共1992兲 and Liu et al. 共2001兲.
Bridge Model
The arch bridge is modeled as a space bar system 共Fig. 2兲 and is
divided into a series of three-dimensional beam elements with six
degrees of freedom at each end 共Fig. 3兲. The nodal-displacement
parameters of the element are
再冎
␦i
兵␦其e =
␦j
in which 兵␦i其 = 关ui vi wi ␪xi ␪yi ␪zi兴T; 兵␦ j其 = 关u j v j w j ␪xj ␪yj ␪zj兴T; u,
v, and w⫽transverse displacements in x-, y-, and z-directions,
respectively; and ␪x , ␪y , ␪z⫽rotational displacements in the x-, y-,
and z-directions. The element stiffness matrix can be written in
the form
k = kl + kg
in which, kl and kg are the standard linear stiffness matrix and the
geometric stiffness that represents the effect of initial axial force
P on the bending stiffness of the element 共Wang and Huang
1992兲. The element consistent mass matrix is used in the study
and can be found in Wang and Huang 共1992兲. The equations of
motion of the bridge are
Fig. 2. Mechanical model of bridge
134 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.
关M B兴兵␦¨ 其 + 关DB兴兵␦˙ 其 + 关KB兴兵␦其 = 兵FBT其 共5兲
共2兲
in which 关M B兴 = global mass matrix; 关KB兴 = global stiffness matrix;
关DB兴 = global damping matrix; 兵␦其, 兵␦˙ 其, and 兵␦¨ 其⫽global nodal dis-
placement, velocity, and acceleration vectors; and 兵FBT其 is the
global nodal loading vector that is caused by the interaction be-
tween the bridge and the vehicle.
The vehicle and the bridge are two separate systems. The
equations of interaction forces between vehicle and bridge are
used to connect them. The interaction force of the ith tire between
the bridge and vehicle is given as
i
FTB = KtyiUtyi + DtyiUtyi 共6兲
in which Ktyi = stiffness of the ith tire; Dtyi = damping coefficient
of the ith tire; and Utyi = relative vertical displacement between the
ith tire and the bridge. Also, Utyi = y ai − 共−wsri兲 − wi, where y ai
= vertical displacement of the ith tire; wsri = road vertical profile
共3兲
under the ith tire 共positive upward兲; and wi = bridge vertical dis-
placement under the ith tire 共positive downward兲. A dot super-
script denotes a differential with respect to time.
Description of Bridges Analyzed
共4兲 To obtain the general dynamic and impact behaviors of half-
through arch bridges, seven existing single-span concrete-filled
steel tube arch bridges 共Cassity et al. 1999; Chen 1999兲 are modi-
fied based on the AASHTO Standard Specifications 共1996兲 to
represent as many practical bridges as possible. The span lengths
range from 20 m 共65.6 ft兲 to 200 m 共656.2 ft兲, with a rise-to-span
ratio of 0.2. The bridge width is 11 m 共36 ft兲. The hangers are
made of high-strength steel cables, and their spacing ranges from
Fig. 3. Space beam element
 Fig. 5. Typical cross section and loading cases
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

indicate the vibration mode shapes controlled by lateral, torsion,

and vertical vibration, individually. As Table 2 indicates, the first
vibration modes for bridges with span length equal to or less than
80 m are dominated by vertical vibration. For other bridges, the
first vibration modes are controlled by lateral vibration. Fig. 6
shows the first six vibration modes for a bridge with a span length
Fig. 4. Typical analytical bridges: 共a兲 Elevation; 共b兲 deck plan; and of 140 m. It can be observed that the first vertical vibration is
共c兲 arch plan asymmetrical, while the first lateral vibration mode is symmetri-
cal.
The rise-to-span ratio is the most important geometric param-
3.3 m 共10.9 ft兲 to 11.11 m 共36.5 ft兲. Nine longitudinal concrete
eter of arch bridges. It generally ranges from 0.143 to 0.333 共Xan-
beams supported by transverse girders are suspended from the
thakos 1994; Chen 1999兲. The effect of the rise-to-span ratio on
hangers 共Figs. 4 and 5兲. The shape of all arch ribs is represented
free vibration can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, which show that
as a second-order parabola. Each bridge consists of two arch ribs
the natural frequency increases inversely to the rise-to-span ratio.
fixed at both ends. For bridges with span lengths less than or
equal to 80 m, no lateral bracing is provided between the ribs. For
other analyzed bridges, four K-type and three I-type bracings—
Fig. 4共c兲—are provided under and over the bridge deck, respec-
Dynamic Response
tively. Note that the transverse girders are rigidly connected to the
arch ribs. The primary data of the analyzed bridges are given in Assumptions and Numerical Method
Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Table 1, in which the sectional properties of The damping behavior of the bridges is assumed to be viscous.
concrete-filled steel arch ribs are transformed to concrete. In The damping matrix is proportional to mass and stiffness and is
Table 1, the notations of Ix and Iy denote the moments of inertia composed of a combination of those parameters 共Clough and Pen-
about bridge transverse and vertical axes respectively. zien 1993兲. Field tests show that the critical damping ratio of
half-through concrete-filled steel tube arch bridges is normally
equal to or greater than 3% 共Chen 1999兲. Conservatively, 2%
Free Vibration critical damping is taken for the first and second modes. The
Newmark method 共Bathe 1982兲 is employed to solve Eq. 共5兲. A
It is assumed that the bridges are subjected to initial axial forces time step of 0.001 s gives good accuracy for all types of dynamic
caused by dead load without initial deformation. The bridge ei- responses. The bridge decks are assumed to have “good” rough-
genvalue equations are solved by a subspace iteration method ness 共Huang 2001; Hwang and Nowak 1991; Dodds and Robson
共Huang and Wang 1992兲. The first six frequencies of each bridge 1973兲. The road profiles are hypothesized to be the same trans-
are presented in Table 2. In this table, the notations L, T, and V versely 共Huang 2001兲. It is also assumed that the roadway ap-
proaches have the same road surface as the bridge. For each case,
a total of 20 road profiles are generated by Eq. 共2兲. The upper
Table 1. Primary Bridge Data limit of these realizations under the 95% confidence level is taken
Arch rib Longitudinal beam Spacing as the mean dynamic response.
of
Span Area Ix Iy Area Ix Iy hangers
共m兲 共m2兲 共m4兲 共m4兲 共m2兲 共m4兲 共m4兲 共m兲 Representative History Curves
20 0.396 0.0114 0.0114 0.206 0.0045 0.0022 3.33 Fig. 7 shows some typical time histories for a bridge with a span
40 0.566 0.0231 0.0231 0.219 0.0109 0.0023 4.44 length of 80 m. The histories are obtained under the conditions of
60 0.736 0.0380 0.0380 0.232 0.0045 0.0022 3.33 a two-truck side-by-side asymmetric loading 共see Fig. 5, Loading
80 1.578 0.1809 0.1809 0.239 0.0109 0.0023 4.44
Case 2兲. The abscissa in the figure is the distance measured from
the left end of the bridge to the front axle of the vehicle. The time
110 1.641 0.9677 0.1178 0.252 0.0287 0.0024 6.11
histories of axial force at the left end of the heavily loaded arch
140 1.751 2.5665 0.4286 0.271 0.0562 0.0026 7.78
rib are given in Figs. 7共a–c兲, while the histories of bending mo-
200 2.234 10.6181 1.0889 0.310 0.1723 0.0028 11.11
ment are illustrated in Figs. 7共d–f兲. Dashed lines in each figure

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 135

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.

 Table 2. Natural Frequencies of Bridges 共RSR= 0.2兲
Span Frequencies 共Hz兲
length
共m兲 1 2 3 4 5 6
20 7.47 共V兲 10.05 共V兲 16.22 共L兲 16.7 共V兲 18.33 共V兲 19.94共L,T兲
40 3.17 共V兲 6.34 共V兲 6.44 共L兲 7.56 共T兲 7.62 共L兲 8.23共L,T兲
60 1.48 共V兲 2.80 共L兲 3.26 共L兲 3.55共L,T兲 3.66 共V兲 3.95 共V兲
80 1.29 共V兲 1.39共L,T兲 1.58 共L兲 2.56共L,T兲 2.81共L,T兲 3.33共L,T兲
110 0.72 共L兲 1.35共L,T兲 1.38共V兲 2.06 共L兲 2.57 共L兲 3.15 共V兲
140 0.56 共L兲 1.31 共L兲 1.33共V兲 1.47 共L兲 2.55共L,T兲 2.87 共V兲
200 0.41 共L兲 0.92 共L兲 0.99 共L兲 1.23 共V兲 1.93 共L兲 2.11 共V兲
Note: RSR⫽rise-to-span ratio.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

show the static response. The solid lines represent the dynamic son, it can be expected that the impact factors of moment at the
responses. The dashed lines actually represent the influence lines end will tend to increase with the increase in vehicle speed 关Figs.
of axial force and moment corresponding to related sections, pro- 7共d and f兲兴. The dynamic bending moment at midspan is com-
vided that the two-truck loading is treated as a unit load. This paratively small.
figure indicates that the dynamic axial force is mainly caused by
the vibration of the vehicle itself with a first vertical natural fre-
Parameter Analysis
quency 共approximately 2.05 Hz兲 close to the fourth frequency and
twice the first frequency of the bridge. The time histories of axial
Effect of Number of Loading Lanes
force and bending moment at the end are quite different from
Two loading cases 共Fig. 5兲 are investigated to demonstrate the
each other. The dynamic response of bending moment is mainly
effect of loading positions and the number of loading lanes. Load-
induced by the approximate half-sine impulsive moment 关see the
ing Cases 1 and 2, respectively, denote one-lane and two-lane
dashed lines in Figs. 7共d and f兲兴 due to the moving vehicles. The
asymmetric loading. Both loading cases produce the maximum
ratios of the first vibration period of the bridge to the time re-
static responses for the left rib 共Fig. 5兲. Table 4 gives the impact
quired for the truck to travel one-half the length of the bridge for
factors at the end and midspan for the bridge with span length of
vehicle speeds of 88.5 and 104.5 km/ h are 2.10 and 1.78, respec-
80 m. The impact factor, also often called the dynamic amplifi-
tively. These ratios will not induce a significant dynamic loading
cation factor 共DAF兲, is defined as
if the effect of damping is considered 共Clough and Penzien 1993兲.
Figs. 7共d and f兲 indicate that the dynamic responses are distinctly
increased and offset from the static ones after vehicles cross the
first span quarter point. The cause of this response may be iden-
tified by reference to Fig. 8, in which the dashed line denotes the
I共%兲 = 冉 冊
Rd
Rs
− 1 ⫻ 100% 共7兲

static deflection shape of the bridge when the vehicles move over
the quarter point. As the vehicles cross that point, they are forced
to suddenly change direction from travel downhill to uphill. This
change causes a sudden increase in the rate of vehicle spring
deformation and thus an increase in the amplitude of the interac-
tion force and the response level of the bridge. Since the shape of
the deflection shown in Fig. 8 is similar to that of the influence
line of moment at the rib end shown in Fig. 7共d兲, the most per-
ceptible response to the changing of the spring deformation rate is
the bending moment at the end, while the effect on other re-
sponses of the rate changing is comparatively small. For this rea-
in which Rd and Rs, respectively, are the absolute maximum dy-
namic and static responses.
The results in Table 4 are calculated based on a vehicle speed
of 72.4 km/ h 共45 mi/ h兲. The table indicates that the impact fac-
tors of the left arch rib 共heavily loaded兲 are much smaller than
those of the right rib 共lightly loaded兲. The smaller the load distri-
bution is, the larger the impact factor. Normally, two trucks mov-
ing side by side in step induce a slightly larger dynamic loading in
the heavily loaded rib than one truck. To adopt a design point of
view, Loading Case 2 is used in the following analysis.

Fig. 6. Vibration mode shapes 共span= 140 m兲

136 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.

 Table 3. Effect of Rise-to-Span Ratio on Frequencies Effect of Rise-to-Span Ratio
Rise-to-span ratio To obtain the general characteristics of the effect of rise-to-span
Number of ratios on the dynamic response of arch bridges, three different
Span 共m兲 frequencies 0.333 0.25 0.167 0.143 rise-to-span ratios of 0.142, 0.2, and 0.333 were investigated. Fig.
40 1 2.28 共V兲 2.8 共V兲 3.44 共V兲 3.63 共V兲 10 illustrates the variations of the maximum impact factors for
2 3.57共L,T兲 5.14共L,T兲 5.41 共V兲 5.91 共V兲 moment and axial force at the arch end and midspan with the
80 1 0.89 共V兲 1.09 共V兲 1.26 共V兲 1.36 共V兲 rise-to-span ratio. The maximum impact factors are calculated by
2 0.90 共L兲 1.16 共L兲 1.63 共L兲 1.83 共L兲 changing vehicle speeds from 24.14 to 120.68 km/ h. This figure
110 1 0.50 共L兲 0.61 共L兲 0.83 共L兲 0.96 共L兲 indicates that the impact factors of moment at arch rib ends in-
crease with rise-to-span ratio increase, whereas those of axial
2 0.83 共V兲 1.12 共V兲 1.39 共V兲 1.44 共V兲
force change only slightly with the ratios. Also, the impact factors
for both moment and axial force at midspan decrease with an
increase in rise-to-span ratio, but the rate of change is compara-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Effect of Vehicle Speed tively small.

Vehicle speed is one of the most important parameters that affect
the impact of bridges. Fig. 9 demonstrates the variation of impact
factors of moment and axial force at the arch rib end with vehicle
speed for bridges with four different span lengths. This figure
reveals some important impact characteristics of arch bridges.
First, the impact factors of bending moment at the arch end in-
crease greatly with vehicle speed when the span length is less
than or equal to 110 m; and second, the variation of dynamic
axial force with vehicle speed is relatively small.
Effect of Span Length
Figs. 11共a and b兲 show the variations of the maximum impact
factors with span length at the arch ends and midspan individu-
ally. The results shown in this figure are determined using a rise-
to-span ratio of 0.2. This figure indicates that the variation of
impact factors of bending moment at arch end is different from
those of other responses. The maximum impact factors of moment
at arch end are less than 0.4 and not greater than 0.15 for the

Fig. 7. Typical histories: 共a兲 Axial force at left end; 共b兲 axial force at midspan; 共c兲 axial force at left end; 共d兲 moment at left end; 共e兲 moment at
midspan; and 共f兲 moment at left end

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 137

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.

 Table 4. Effect of Number of Loading Lanes
Impact factor 共%兲

Loading Loading
Member Section Response Case 1 Case 2
Left Arch Rib End Moment 14.9 15.3
Axial force 12.5 13.9
Midspan Moment 12.6 13.2
Axial Force 14.0 14.3
Right Arch Rib End Moment 16.2 16.5
Axial force 16.8 18.8
Fig. 8. Deck deflection characteristics Midspan Moment 31.7 14.8
Axial force 33.9 19.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bridges with span length equal to or greater than 140 m. The

maximum impact factors at midspan and those of axial force at
arch end are less than 0.25 and not greater than 0.15 for the
bridges with span lengths equal to or greater than 80 m.
Variation of Impact Factors with Longitudinal Location
The most important control sections of an arch bridge are the
ends, quarter points, and midspan. The variations of the maximum
impact factors along those control sections are provided in Fig.
12. The figure indicates that the maximum and minimum impact
factors of bending moment along the arch rib occur at the arch
end and midspan, respectively, and that the impact factor at the
span quarter points can be approximately taken as the average of
those at the end and midspan. Also, the impact factors of axial
force are nearly constant but vary slightly with a change in cross
section.
Impact Characteristics of Hangers
Figs. 13共a and b兲 illustrate the variations of maximum impact
factors of hangers with the rise-to-span ratio and span length,
respectively. The maximum impact factors are selected from
those of all hangers by changing the vehicle speed from
24.14 to 120.68 km/ h. From these figures, it can be observed that
the impact factors of hangers change slightly with rise-to-span
ratios and that the variation of the impact factors with span length
is similar to that of the axial force for arch ribs.
Practical Method for Predicting Impact Factors
For actual bridge design, accurately calculating the impact factors
may not be necessary. According to the foregoing analysis and
using the upper bound of the maximum impact factors shown in
Figs. 10–13, the impact factors of the arch bridges can be ap-
proximately determined by following formulas:
• Impact factor of axial force at all sections and moment at
midspan:
I = 0.15 L ⬎ 80 m 共8兲
I = 0.25 − 0.00166共L − 20兲 共艋0.25兲 L 艋 80 m 共9兲
• Impact factor of moment at arch rib ends:

Fig. 9. Variation of impact factors with vehicle speeds: 共a兲 Span= 40 m; 共b兲 span= 80 m; 共c兲 span= 110 m; and 共d兲 span= 140 m

138 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Influence of rise-to-span ratio: 共a兲 Moment at end; 共b兲 axial force at end; 共c兲 moment at midspan; and 共d兲 axial force at midspan

Fig. 11. Influence of span length: 共a兲 At end; and 共b兲 at midspan

Fig. 12. Variation of impact factors along longitudinal position: 共a兲 Moment; and 共b兲 axial force

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 139

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.

 Fig. 13. Impact characteristics of hangers: 共a兲 Effect of rise-to-span ratio; and 共b兲 effect of span length
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
I = 0.08 + 0.21f/L L 艌 140 m 共10兲
I = 0.33 + 0.21f/L 共艋0.40兲 L 艋 80 m 共11兲
I = 0.6636 − 0.00417L + 0.21f/L 140 m ⬍ L ⬍ 80 m
共12兲
where f is the rise 共m兲 and L is the span length 共m兲. The
impact factors of bending moment at the span quarter point
can be taken as the average of those at the arch end and at
midspan. Eqs. 共8兲–共12兲 have been checked against the results
determined by the accurate mechanical models developed in
this paper. They are suitable for estimating the impact factors
of half-through arch bridges with natural frequencies similar to
those shown in Tables 2 and 3 or with stiffness similar to those
of Table 1.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The free- and forced-vibration, as well as the impact factors of
half-through arch bridges, with different span lengths ranging
from 20 to 200 m and different rise-to-span ratios ranging from
0.143 to 0.333 have been evaluated. Both bridge and vehicle are
treated as three-dimensional models. The effects of damping, road
surface roughness, and the number of loading lanes are included
in the investigation. The following general conclusions can be
reached on the basis of the results of this study:
1. The natural frequencies of arch bridges vary inversely with
both rise-to-span ratio and span length increase. For half-
through concrete- filled steel tube arch bridges or similar
arch bridges, their natural frequencies can be estimated ac-
cording to Tables 2 and 3.
2. The impact factors of bending moment at arch ends increase
with vehicle speed increase, especially for bridges with span
lengths less than or equal to 110 m. No such tendency exists
for other responses.
3. The impact factors of moment at arch rib ends increase with
rise-to-span ratio increase, whereas those of axial force vary
slightly with the ratio. The impact factors for both moment
and axial force at midspan decrease with rise-to-span ratio
increase, but the rate of change is comparatively small.
4. The maximum impact factors of moment at arch ends are
less than 0.4 and not greater than 0.15 for the bridges with
span length equal to or greater than 140 m. The maximum
impact factors at midspan and those of axial force at arch
ends are less than 0.25 and not greater than 0.15 for the
bridges with span lengths equal to or greater than 80 m.
140 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005
J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.
5. The impact factors of moment at arch ends are much larger
than those at midspan for bridges with span lengths less than
or equal to 110 m. The impact factors of axial force vary
only slightly along arch longitudinal positions and approach
constancy.
6. The proposed practical Eqs. 共8兲–共12兲 are developed using the
assumption of good bridge deck surface. They are conserva-
tive and can be used to evaluate the dynamic loading for the
design of half-through concrete- filled steel tube arch bridges
or other types of arch bridges with similar free-vibration
characteristics. Further research is recommended, however,
to establish the suitability of these equations for other types
of half-through arch bridges.
Acknowledgments
The writer would like to express his sincere appreciation to John
Previte, P.E., for his assistance during this study.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
关DB兴 ⫽ global damping matrix of bridge;
Dty ⫽ damping coefficient of tire;
关FBT兴 ⫽ interaction forces between bridge and vehicles;
f ⫽ rise;
I ⫽ impact factor;
关KB兴 ⫽ global stiffness matrix of bridge;
Ksy ⫽ suspension stiffness of truck;
Kty ⫽ stiffness of tire;
关k兴 ⫽ stiffness matrix of element;
关kg兴 ⫽ geometric stiffness matrix;
关kl兴 ⫽ linear stiffness matrix of element;
L ⫽ span length;
关M B兴 ⫽ global mass matrix of bridge;
Rd ⫽ absolute maximum dynamic response;
Rs ⫽ absolute maximum static response;
S共␻兲 ⫽ PSD function;
Uty ⫽ relative displacement between bridge and tire;
u ⫽ transverse displacement in x-direction;
v ⫽ transverse displacement in y-direction;
w ⫽ transverse displacement in z-direction;
y a1 ⫽ vertical displacement of first axle of truck;
y a2 ⫽ vertical displacement of second axle of truck;
y a3 ⫽ vertical displacement of third axle of truck;
y t1 ⫽ vertical displacement of tractor;
 y t2 ⫽ vertical displacement of semitrailer; Dodds, C. J., and Robson, J. D. 共1973兲. “The description of road surface
兵␦其 ⫽ global displacement vector of bridge; roughness.” J. Sound Vib., 31共2兲, 175–183.
␪i ⫽ random number; Huang, D. Z. 共2001兲. “Dynamic analysis of steel curved box girder
␪t1 ⫽ rotational angle of tractor about longitudinal axis; bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 6共6兲, 506–513.
␪x ⫽ rotational angle of beam element about x-axis; Huang, D. Z., and Wang, T. L. 共1992兲. “Impact analysis of cable-stayed
bridges.” Int. J. Comput. Struct., 43共5兲, 897–908.
␪y ⫽ rotational angle of beam element about y-axis;
Huang, D. Z., Wang, T. L., and Shahawy, M. 共1992b兲. “Dynamic behav-
␪z ⫽ rotational angle of beam element about z-axis; ior of horizontally curved I-girder bridges.” Int. J. Comput. Struct.,
␻ ⫽ circular frequency; 57共4兲, 703–714.
␾a1 ⫽ rotational angle of first axle of truck about Huang, D. Z., Wang, T. L., and Shahawy, M. 共1992a兲. “Impact analysis of
longitudinal axis; continuous multigirder bridges due to moving vehicles.” J. Struct.
␾a2 ⫽ rotational angle of second axle of truck about Eng., 118共12兲, 3427–3443.
longitudinal axis; Huang, D. Z., Wang, T. L., and Shahawy, M. 共1993兲. “Impact studies of
␾a3 ⫽ rotational angle of third axle of truck about multigirder concrete bridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 119共8兲, 2387–2402.
longitudinal axis; Huang, D. Z., Wang, T. L., and Shahawy, M. 共1995兲. “Vibration of thin-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

␾t1 ⫽ rotational angle of tractor about transverse axis; and
␾t2 ⫽ rotational angle of semitrailer about transverse axis.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 1996. Standard specifications for highway bridges. 16th
Ed., AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Bathe, K. J. 共1982兲. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Cassity, P., Price, K., and Kaderbek, S. 共1999兲. “Bridging substance with
style.” Civ. Eng. Mag., 69共2兲, 48–51.
Chen, B. S. 共1999兲. Design and construction of concrete filled steel tube
arch bridges, People’s Communication Publishing House, Beijing,
China.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. 共1993兲. Dynamics of structures, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
walled box-girder bridges excited by vehicles.” J. Struct. Eng.,
121共9兲, 1330–1337.
Hwang, E. S., and Nowak, A. S. 共1991兲. “Simulation of dynamic load for
bridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 117共5兲, 1413–1434.
Li, G. H. 共1983兲. Theory of bridges and structures, Shanghai Science and
Technology Publishing House, Shanghai, China.
Liu, C., Wang, T. L., and Huang, D. Z. 共2001兲. “Impact study of multi-
girder bridges based on correlated road roughness.” Int. J. Struct. Eng.
Mech., 11共3兲, 259–272.
McLean, D. L., and Marsh, M. L. 共1998兲. “Dynamic impact factors for
bridges.” NCHR Synthesis 266, Transportation Research Board, Na-
tional Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Roeder, C. W., MacRae, G., Crocker, P., Arima, K., and Wong, S. 共2000兲.
“Dynamic response and fatigue of steel tied-arch bridge.” J. Bridge
Eng., 5共1兲, 14–21.
Wang, T. L., and Huang, D. Z. 共1992兲. “Computer modeling analysis in
bridge evaluation, Phase II.” Research Rep. No. FL/DOT/RMC/
0542(2)-4108, Florida Dept. of Transportation, Tallahassee, Fla.
Xanthakos, P. P. 共1994兲. Theory and design of bridges, Wiley, New York.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 141

J. Bridge Eng. 2005.10:133-141.