Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different

Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to

Moving Vehicular Loads

Qingfei Gao1,2,*, Zonglin Wang1, Chan Ghee Koh2 and Chuang Chen1
1School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, No. 73 Huanghe Road, Harbin 150090, China
2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, 1 Engineering Drive 2, 117576, Singapore

(Received: 8 July 2014; Received revised form: 14 March 2015; Accepted: 29 March 2015)

Abstract: Dynamic load allowance (DLA) is an important index used in design and
evaluation of dynamic performance of highway bridges to moving vehicular loads. In
many codes, DLAs of different responses in various sections are not distinguished. To
facilitate a rational design and objective evaluation, the quantitative relationships of
DLAs corresponding to different responses in various sections are systematically
studied using both theoretical derivation and numerical simulation. According to
results of theoretical derivation, for simply supported girder bridges, DLA of
deflection is almost 20% higher than that of bending moment in the mid-span section.
According to results of numerical simulation, for continuous girder bridges, DLA of
negative (upward) deflection is 20% higher than that of positive deflection, and DLA
of negative bending moment is 40% higher than that of positive bending moment in
critical cases. These significant differences cannot be ignored. Finally, the
contributions of high modes to different dynamic responses in various sections are
investigated. Based on the recommended approach to considering these differences,
the dynamic performance of bridge can be designed and evaluated in a simple yet
rotational way.

Key words: highway bridges, moving vehicular loads, vehicle-bridge interaction, dynamic load allowance,
deflection, bending moment.

1. INTRODUCTION those due to static-load application; and (2) the vibration

With the development of lighter materials, longer
spans, and heavier traffic, the complex dynamic
phenomenon known as vehicle-bridge interaction is
more significant than ever (McLean et al. 1998). When
crossing a bridge, the vehicle vibrates vertically and
pitches, leading to the introduction of dynamic loading
on the bridge. In turn, the vibrations of the bridge
influence the dynamics of the vehicle (Kim et al. 2011).
The determination of dynamic response of highway
bridges due to moving vehicular loads is a problem of
great interest for bridge engineers, for two reasons: (1)
the resulting peak dynamic stresses are greater than
of the bridge, if excessive, can cause fatigue effects to
the bridge and discomfort to users (Gao et al. 2014a;
Inbanathan et al. 1987).
In practice, to allow for the effect of dynamic effects,
it is common to increase static live load by a dynamic
load allowance (DLA) given in the bridge design codes
(Schwarz et al. 2001). Many other different terms are
used to express the dynamic action due to moving
vehicles, such as impact factor (IF) (O’Conner et al.
2000), dynamic increment (DI) (Cantieni 1992),
dynamic amplification factor (DAF) (Paultre et al.
1995), dynamic load factor (DLF) (Nassif et al. 1995),

*Corresponding author. E-mail address: gaoqingfei_1986@163.com; Tel: +86-13703616436.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015 1685

 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads
etc. For avoidance of doubt, two terms are used in this
study: (a) DLA (η) is defined as the ratio of dynamic
response divided by static response, and (b) IF (µ) is
defined as the ratio of additional response (dynamic
minus static) divided by static response. There is a
simple relationship between them as follows.
η=1+µ
For bridge planners and engineers, the dynamic field
test is often an essential way to understand the behavior
and the dynamic characteristics of newly constructed
bridges before operation in many countries, such as
China (Tian et al. 2008), Sweden (Karoumi 2006),
Switzerland (Cantieni 1983), Slovakia (Fry′ba et al.
2001 et al. 2001), Portugal (Cunha 2007), Italy
(Brencich et al. 2007), and Latvia (Paeglite et al. 2013).
Usually, the DLAs of deflection and stress are measured
during the field test. And the tested values are compared
with the design value. However, the DLAs of different
responses are not necessarily the same (Huang and
Veletos 1960; Cheung and Cheng 2001).
It is not always possible to install deflection sensors
under the bridge superstructure. Even if the sensors can
be installed, the reliability and accuracy of measured
values cannot usually be assured when the bridge is high
(Park et al. 2005). In this case, the DLA of bending
moment is commonly measured using strain sensors for
all selected sections. Additionally, for continuous girder
bridges, because the vertical deflection of the pier-top
section is zero, only the DLA of bending moment can be
obtained in the pier-top section, while DLAs of both
deflection and bending moment can be measured in the
mid-span section. As a result, there may be many
different values of DLA corresponding to different
responses in various sections, but they are directly
compared with the design value, which is only one value
without distinguishing different responses in various
sections.
Obviously, if DLAs of different responses are not
differentiated, it may lead to either unsafe design or
overly conservative design of highway bridges to
moving vehicular loads. Therefore, it is necessary to
take in account the differences of DLAs corresponding
to various responses in highway bridges, which are
currently considered in design codes. In addition, to
evaluate dynamic performances of bridges objectively
and conveniently, accurate quantification is urgently
needed beyond an over-simplistic approach that uses
only one value of DLA.
Hence, two related issues will be discussed in this
paper. One is the difference between DLAs for different
responses (deflection and bending moment) at the same
1686
section, and the other one is the difference between
DLAs for various sections, especially in continuous
girder bridges (negative effects in pier-top section and
positive effects in mid-span section). To our knowledge,
these issues have not been systematically studied before.
2. DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE
(1) There are different definitions of dynamic load
allowance, which may lead to confusion. Bakht and
Pinjarkar (1989) have summarized eight different
mathematical definitions that have been used for
calculating dynamic effects from analytical or test data.
Three of the more commonly used definitions are
discussed in this section.
To see the differences among these three definitions,
a numerical example is presented here. When a three-
axle loaded truck goes across a simply supported girder
bridge at the speed of 20 m/s, the dynamic response of
bridge is obtained by a computer program called
VBCVA (Vehicle-Bridge Coupled Vibration Analysis)
(Gao et al. 2014b), which is written based on
commercial software ANSYS (Moaveni 2003) and
MATLAB (Mathews and Fink 1999). The bridge span is
30m, and the distance between the front axle and the rear
axle is 6m (1.4 m + 4.6 m). Thus the total length from the
first axle entering the bridge to the rear axle leaving the
bridge is 36 m. The static and dynamic deflections of the
mid-span section are shown in Figure 1.
It can be seen from Figure 1 that the maximum static
and dynamic responses do not take place under the same
load position. The positions of the first axle generating
the maximum dynamic deflection (yd,max) and the
maximum static deflection (ys,max) are marked as x1 and
x2, respectively. Three different definitions of DLA in
the mid-span section are listed as follows.
yd ,max yd ( x1 )
η1 = = (2)
ys ,max ys ( x 2 )
yd yd ( x2 )
η2 = = (3)
ys ,max ys ( x2 )
yd ,max yd ( x1 )
η3 = = (4)
ys ys ( x1 )
In Eqn 2, the DLA is defined as the ratio between the
maximum dynamic response and the maximum static
response. The second definition in Eqn 3 is to divide the
dynamic response that occurs at the same location as the
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015
Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen

1.0 Static response

Dynamic response

yd−
ys−
x1 x2
0.0

yd+
ys+
Deflection (mm)

−1.0
Figure 2. Dynamic load allowance for continuous girder
−2.0 bridges

−3.0 Static
Dynamic yd −
−4.0 η− = (6)
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 ys −
Location of the first axle (m)

Figure 1. Deflections of mid-span section of the simply supported where the symbol “+” denotes the downward
girder bridge due to a moving vehicle deflection and other corresponding responses, and the
symbol “−” denotes the upward deflection and other
corresponding responses.
maximum static response by the maximum static value.
Furthermore, according to field studies of highway
The third definition in Eqn 4 is to divide the maximum
bridges, the observed values of DLA for positive effects
dynamic response by the static response that occurs
range from 0.1 to 0.5, while the observed values of DLA
simultaneously with the maximum dynamic response.
for negative effects range from 0.5 to 1.0 (Ontario
The results of this example based on these three
Ministry of Transportation and Communications 1979).
different definitions are shown in Table 1.
This demonstrates that DLAs for different responses in
It is noted that the second definition is not rational as
various sections have to be differentiated.
its value is smaller than 1.0, and the DLA calculated
based on the first definition is slightly smaller than that
3. THEORETICAL DERIVATION
obtained from the third definition. In the view of Bakht
Based on the simplified model of vehicle-bridge
and Pinjarkar (1989), the third definition is perhaps the
interaction system, the relationship between DLA of
most precise of the three definitions given here and was
deflection and that of bending moment (and the
apparently used to interpret many of the Ontario tests.
corresponding strain) is quantitatively studied by
For the purpose of design, however, it is our opinion that
theoretical deviation. Three cases are investigated, and
the first definition is the most rational and is selected in
the schematic plot can be seen in Figure 3. The first case
this study. This is because the maximum static effect is
is only one constant load, which is the basis of other
scaled to give the maximum dynamic effect regardless
cases. The second and third cases represent two-axle
of when the two responses occur, which is precisely
vehicle and three-axle vehicle, respectively. In all these
what the first definition produces.
cases, the loads move on a simply supported girder
Furthermore, in continuous girder bridges, DAL for
bridge from left to right at a constant speed v.
negative effects is different from that for positive effects.
They are defined in a popular design code, Ontario
3.1. Single Moving Load
Highway Bridge Design Code (Ontario Ministry of
Consider a simply supported girder bridge, traversed by
Transportation and Communications 1979). For
a constant load moving at a uniform speed (Fry′ba
example, for the dynamic response and static response
1999). When the single load is located at the mid-span
shown in Figure 2, the DLAs of positive effects and
section, the static deflection and bending moment reach
negative effects can be defined respectively as
their maximum values as follows.
yd +
η+ = (5)
ys + L PL3
ys,max ( ) = (7)
2 48 EI
Table 1. Results of the mid-span section calculated
by different definitions
L PL
Static (mm) Dynamic (mm) D LA M s,max ( ) = (8)
2 4
ys(x1) ys(x2) yd(x1) yd(x2) η1 η2 η3
–2.52 –2.81 –3.48 –2.55 1.24 0.91 1.38 Based on the theory of structural dynamics (Chopra
1995), the governing equation of the bridge is given by

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015 1687

 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads

Y
P2 P1 P P3 P2 P1
v
s s2 s1

m, EI, L
O
2nd Case 1st Case 3rd Case X

Figure 3. Schematic plot of the simply supported girder bridge under different types of loads

For the mid-span section, x = L/2, the response factor

∂ 2 y( x , t ) ∂ 4 y( x , t )
m + EI = Pδ ( x − vt ) (9) is obtained by substituting Eqns 7 and 8 into Eqn 14, as
∂t 2 ∂x 4 follows.
where m, E, I, x, t, y, v and P denote, respectively, the
L L
L ηM ( 2 ) π 2 EI ys ,max ( 2 ) π 2
mass per unit length, elastic modulus, moment of
inertia, location, time, deflection, speed, and single λ( ) = = 2 = = 0.822 (15)
moving load, and δ is the Dirac-delta function. Damping 2 L L L 12
ηD ( ) Ms ,max ( )
of the bridge is neglected in this study. 2 2
The vibration mode shapes of the simply supported
girder are sinusoidal functions. Based on the mode 3.2. Two-Axle Vehicle
superposition method, the dynamic responses of bridge Generally, the design of vehicles should meet the
are given as follows. requirement of the partial natural frequencies law
N N
nπ x (Griffin et al. 2004). It means that the vibration of one
y( x , t ) = ∑ qn (t )ϕ n ( x ) = ∑ qn (t )sin (10) axle will not be significantly affected by the vibration of
n =1 n =1 L
other axles. Thus the two-axle vehicle can be simplified
as a group of two constant loads.
Typically the load due to the front axle (P1) is not
∂ 2 y( x , t ) π N nπ x larger than that of rear axle (P2). The static response of
M ( x , t ) = − EI = EI ( ) 2 ∑ n 2 qn (t )sin (11)
∂x 2 L n =1 L the mid-span section is therefore the largest when P2 is
located at the mid-span section, leading to.
The mid-span section is most important for the
simply supported girder bridge, and it is the critical L P P
section in design and evaluation. If only the first mode ys,max ( ) = 1 ( L3 − 6 Ls 2 + 4 s3 ) + 2 L3 (16)
2 48 EI 48 EI
shape is used, dynamic responses of the mid-span
section are given by

L L L P P
y( , t ) = q1 (t )ϕ1 ( ) = q1 (t ) (12) M s,max ( ) = 1 ( L − 2s) + 2 L (17)
2 2 2 4 4
By substituting Eqns 16 and 17 into Eqn 14, and
L π L π defining the load ratio between P1 and P2 as r (i.e. P1=
M ( , t ) = EI ( )2 q1 (t )ϕ1 ( ) = EI ( ) 2 q1 (t ) (13) rP2, 0 ≤ r ≤ 1.0), the response factor at the mid-span
2 L 2 L
section (x = L/2) is obtained as
To compare DLA of positive deflection (ηD) and where β = s/L (0 ≤ β ≤ 0.5) is called the distance ratio.
DLA of the corresponding bending moment (ηM) at the
same section, a response factor λ is introduced. L
L π 2 EI ys ,max ( 2 ) π 2 r (1 − 6β 2 + 4 β 3 ) + 1
λ( ) = 2 = (18)
M max ( x , t ) 2 L M L 12 r (1 − 2β ) + 1
s ,max ( )
η ( x ) M s ,max ( x ) π 2 EI ys ,max ( x ) 2
λ (x) = M = = 2 (14)
ηD ( x ) ymax ( x , t ) L M s ,max ( x ) Figure 4 shows that the response factor λ (i.e. ratio of
ys ,max ( x ) DLA of bending moment to that of deflection) increases

1688 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015

Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen

with increasing load ratio r. However, λ increases at

 P3 + P2 ≥ P1
first and then decreases when the distance ratio β  (20)
changes from 0 to 0.5, and the maximum value occurs  P3 ≤ P2 + P1
when the distance of two axles is equal to a quarter of
the span length, for all values of r. In addition, because Accordingly, the static deflection and bending
β is normally smaller than 0.25, λ is larger for longer moment of the bridge reach the following maximum
values when P2 is located at the mid-span section.
distance. For further illustration, the following three
special cases are discussed.
(1) For load ratio r = 0 which means there is only one L P
ys,max ( ) = 1 ( L3 − 6 Ls12 + 4 s13 )
axle load, the response factor λ is 0.822, which is 2 48 EI
P (21)
the same as the result obtained in the previous P2 3
+ L + 3 ( L3 − 6 Ls22 + 4 s23 )
section for the case of a single moving load. 48 EI 48 EI
(2) The load ratio r = 0.5 is usually used for loaded
trucks, which means that the front axle load is
half of the rear axle load. The maximum value of L P P P
M s,max ( ) = 1 ( L − 2s1 ) + 2 L + 3 ( L − 2s2 ) (22)
λ is 0.884. 2 4 4 4
(3) The load ratio r = 1.0 is usually used for buses
and coaches which means the two axle loads are where s1 and s2 denote, respectively, the distance
the same. The maximum value of λ is 0.925. between the first two axles, and the distance between the
In short, the response factor between DLA of bending last two axles.
moment and DLA of deflection is ranged from 0.822 to Substituting Eqns 21 and 22 into Eqn 14 gives the
0.925 for the mid-span section of simply supported response factor λ at mid-span as follows.
bridges traversed by a two-axle vehicle.
L
L L π 2 EI ys ,max ( 2 )
0.822 ≤ λ ( ) ≤ 0.925 (19) λ( ) = 2
2 2 L M L (23)
s ,max ( )
2
π 2 r1 (1 − 6β12 + 4 β13 ) + r2 (1 − 6β22 + 4 β23 ) + 1
3.3. Three-Axle Vehicle =
Similar to the section above, a three-axle vehicle can be 12 r1 (1 − 2β1 ) + r2 (1 − 2β2 ) + 1
simplified as a group of three independent loads.
where β1 = s1/L, β2= s2/L, r1= P1/P2 and r2 = P3/P2. As
Typically for three-axle vehicles, the middle axle load
for different distributions of weight of the vehicle, five
(P2) is about the same as the rear axle load (P3), whereas
cases are discussed (Table 2). And the axle spaces of the
the front axle load (P1) is smaller. In addition, for most
vehicle are selected based on all possible values in
three-axle vehicles, the following relations hold.
practical. The results are shown in Figure 5.
According to Figure 5 combined with Table 2, some
conclusions are obtained.
0.95 r = 0.0 (1) The response factor λ is only affected by the
r = 0.2 distance ratio β1 other than β2 in case 1. In
r = 0.5
0.92 r = 0.8 contrast, for case 5, it is only affected by the
Relationship factor λ

r = 1.0
distance ratio β2 other than β1. In nature, one of
0.89 the three loads is neglected in both case 1 and
case 5. And the result in Figure 5(a) is totally the
0.86 same as that in Figure 4, which stands for the
case of a two-axle vehicle.
0.83

Table 2. Five cases of different distributions

0.80
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 of weight
Radio β = s/L
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
r1 = 0.0 r1 = 0.5 r2 = 1.0 r2 = 1.0 r1 = 1.0
Figure 4. Relationship between DLA of bending moment and that
r2 = 1.0 r1 = 1.0 r2 = 1.0 r1 = 0.5 r2 = 0.0
of deflection for bridges traversed by a two-axle vehicle

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015 1689

 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads

(2) When the distance ratio β1 = 0.5 [Figure 5(e)], simply supported bridge, the relationship
the results of the first three cases are the same. between the DLA of bending moment and that
Because the maximum static responses are of deflection is determined by the spaces of
obtained when the middle load P2 is located at axles. Similar to the conclusion from the case of
the mid-span section, the front load P1 has no a two-axle vehicle, it increases at first and then
contribution on the static responses as it is decreases when the distance ratio changes from 0.0 to
located at the support section at this time 0.5. And it may reach the maximum value when the
(s1 = 0.5L). corresponding distance ratio is equal to 0.25.
(3) When the weight ratios r1 0, and r2 0 (Case 2, (4) When the distance ratios β1 0, and β2 0, it can
Case 3, and Case 4), the response factor λ is be seen from the Figure 5(b) to (e) that, the
influenced by both the factors β1 and β2. In other result of the three equal loads (Case 3) are
words, when a three-axle vehicle goes over a almost the envelop curves for different weight

Case 1
1.00 Case 1 1.00 Case 2
Case 2 Case 3

Relationship factor λ
Relationship factor λ

Case 3 0.96 Case 4

0.96 Case 5
Case 4
0.92 Case 5 0.92

0.88 0.88

0.84 0.84

0.80 0.80
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Radio β2 = s2/L Radio β2 = s2/L

(a) β1 = 0.0 (b) β1 = 0.1

Case 1
Case 2
1.00 1.00 Case 3
Case 4
Relationship factor λ
Relationship factor λ

0.96 0.96 Case 5

0.92 0.92
Case 1
0.88 Case 2 0.88
Case 3
0.84 Case 4 0.84
Case 5
0.80 0.80
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Radio β2 = s2/L Radio β2 = s2/L

(c) β1 = 0.25 (d) β1 = 0.4

1.00 Case 1
Case 2
Relationship factor λ

Case 3
0.96 Case 4
Case 5
0.92

0.88

0.84

0.80
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Radio β2 = s2/L

(e) β1 = 0.5

Figure 5. Relationship between DLA of bending moment and that of deflection for bridges traversed by a three-axle vehicle

1690 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015

Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen
distributions and various axle spaces. Moreover,
when these three loads are the same and both the
distances from the middle axle to the front axle
and the rear axle are both equal to a quarter of
the span length (P1 = P2 = P3, s1 = s2 = 0.25L),
the relationship between the DLA of bending
moment and that of deflection is largest, 0.977.
Also, the lower limit is 0.822, which is the same
as the case of a single moving load
L
0.822 ≤ λ ( ) ≤ 0.977 (24)
2 DLA( D) − DLA( M )
In the end, it can be seen from Eqns15, 19, and 24
that, the difference between the DLA of bending
moment and that of deflection is less when there are
more axles or vehicles. Furthermore, its minimum value
is 0.822, while its maximum value is 0.977. In all,
according to the results of simplified theoretical
derivation, DLA of bending moment is usually smaller
than that of deflection, and the maximum difference
between them may reach as large as almost 20% in some
critical cases, which cannot be ignored in design and
evaluation.
4. NUMERICAL SIMULATION
Obviously, the theoretical derivations above are based
on the simply supported girder bridge, and only the first
mode shape is adopted. To obtain a more general and
accurate conclusion, based on practical cases, simply
supported girder bridges and continuous girder bridges
traversed by one single load, two loads, and three loads
are numerical simulated using the commercial software
ANSYS (Moaveni 2003), respectively.
4.1. Simply Supported Girder Bridges
A virtual simply supported girder bridge is selected and
its parameters are listed in Table 3. It is worth noting
that the fundamental frequency of bridge is 2.50 Hz,
which is closely to that of actual bridges. Based on
normal used vehicles in field test, a single load, a two-
axle vehicle and a three-axle vehicle are adopted in this
study, and the total weight of every type of load or
vehicle is assumed as 300 kN. Parameters of loads or
vehicles are given in Table 4.
Similarly, the damping of the bridge is neglected. The
speed of vehicles is ranged from 5m/s to 30m/s, and the
interval step is 5 m/s. The results are shown in Figure 6.
In all of these three figures, DLA(D) and DLA(M) are
the dynamic load allowance of deflection and that of
bending moment, respectively. Furthermore, λ(1st
mode) and λ(ANSYS) denote the response factor λ
obtained by simplified theoretical derivation
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015
Table 3. Parameters of the simply supported bridge
L (m) I (m4) A (m2) r (kg/m3) E (MPa) f (Hz)
40 0.2356 0.50 2500 3.45 × 104 2.50
(approximate value) and numerical simulation
(numerical solution), respectively.
To estimate the difference between the DLA for
different responses, the error can be expressed as
ε ( DLA) = × 100% (25)
DLA( D)
Similarly, the error of the response factor λ from the
numerical simulation and that from the simplified
theoretical derivation is given by
λ ( ANSYS ) − λ (1st mode)
ε (λ ) = × 100% (26)
λ ( ANSYS )
The error results are shown in Figures 7 and 8.
According to Figures 6 to 8, some conclusions are
obtained.
(1) The results of numerical simulations show that,
the DLA of bending moment is smaller than that
of deflection. However, the largest difference is
less than 10%. What is more, the result of the
bridge traversed by a two-axle vehicle and that
by a three-axle vehicle are similar. However,
they are largely different from the result of the
bridge traversed by a single load. Of course, the
cases of a two-axle vehicle and a three-axle
vehicle are more similar to the actual conditions,
and the difference of them may be much smaller
than 10%. So it can be ignored in the
engineering application.
(2) As for the response factor between the DLA of
bending moment and that of deflection, the
result of simplified theoretical derivation is
much smaller than that of numerical simulation.
That is because the higher mode shapes of the
bridge contribute more to the DLA of bending
moment than that of deflection. In addition, the
response factor obtained from the simplified
theoretical derivation is not influenced by the
speed due to only considering the first mode
shape. However, in the numerical simulation, it
fluctuates slightly when the speed increases.
That is because the sensitive mode shapes
contributing to the dynamic responses of bridges
are different when the speed changes.
1691
 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads

Table 4. Parameters of different loads or vehicles

A single load A two-axle vehicle A three-axle vehicle

P (kN) P2 (kN) P1 (kN) s (m) P3 (kN) P2 (kN) P1 (kN) s2 (m) s1 (m)
300 180 120 5.0 120 120 60 1.4 4.6

1.20 DLA (D)

In short, for simply supported girder bridges, the
λ (ANSYS) simplified theoretical derivation only can be used to
DLA (M) study the rough influence of some parameters. As for
1.10 λ (1st mode)
engineering application, the DLA of bending moment
DLA and λ

can be looked just the same as that of deflection or 5%

1.00
less. If the quantitative relationship is needed, the
method of numerical simulation is more popular and the
0.90
influence of the speed of vehicles should also be noted.
0.80
5 10 15 20 25 30 4.2. Continuous Girder Bridges
Speed v (m/s) A three-span continuous girder bridge is selected to
(a) A single load investigate DLAs of different responses in various
sections, especially the distinguish of DLAs for positive
1.20 DLA (D) effects and negative effects. The span arrangement of
λ (ANSYS)
DLA (M)
the bridge is 40 m + 40 m + 40 m (Figure 9), and the
1.10 λ (1st mode) other parameters can be seen in Table 3. Similarly, three
types of vehicles are adopted (Table 4).
DLA and λ

1.00

10%
0.90 Single
8%
2-axle
Error ε (DLA)

0.80 6%
5 10 15 20 25 30 3-axle
Speed v (m/s) 4%
(b) A two-axle vehicle 2%

0%
1.20 DLA (D)
λ (ANSYS) −2%
DLA (M) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1.10 λ (1st mode) Speed v (m/s)
DLA and λ

1.00 Figure 7. Error result of the DLA for different responses

0.90

20%
0.80
5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s) 15%
Error ε (λ)

(c) A three-axle vehicle

10%
Figure 6. The simply supported girder bridge traversed by different
Single
types of loads or vehicles
5% 2-axle
(3) In Figure 8, the error of the response factor λ 3-axle
from the numerical simulation and the 0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
simplified theoretical derivation may be closely Speed v (m/s)
larger as 20%. Therefore, the higher mode
shapes cannot be eliminated, especially for the Figure 8. Error result of the relationship λ from numerical
case of a single load moving across the bridge. simulation and simplified theoretical derivation

1692 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015

Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen

An assumption has been made that the direction of 1.15 LM-D

moving loads or vehicles is from left to right. Then, for LM-M
clear and convenient description, some selected sections MM-D
1.10 MM-M
are abbreviated in Figure 9. The LM, MM, and RM RM-D
denote the left mid-span, middle mid-span, and right 1.05 RM-M

DLAη
mid-span sections, respectively. Also, the LP and RP
denote the left pier-top and right pier-top sections. 1.00

Similarly, the damping of the bridge is also neglected.

0.95
The speed of vehicles is ranged from 5 m/s to 30 m/s,
and the interval step is 5 m/s. 0.90
5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s)
4.2.1. DLA of different responses in mid-span
sections (a) A singlr load
For simply supported girder bridges, the response factor
between DLAs of different responses can be roughly LM-D
obtained according to the simplified theoretical 1.10
LM-M
derivation, in which only the first modal has been 1.08 MM-D
MM-M
adopted. However, for continuous girder bridges, this 1.06 RM-D
method will not be rational enough. Therefore, it has RM-M
1.04

DLAη
been done by appealing to the numerical simulation. The
results of the DLAs of different responses in the three- 1.02
span continuous girder bridge are shown in Figure 10. 1.00
According to the Figure 10, some conclusions can be
0.98
obtained as follows.
(1) When the moving vehicle is simplified as a 0.96
5 10 15 20 25 30
single moving load, the effect of the speed on Speed v (m/s)
the DLA of abutment span is larger than that of (b) A two-axle vehicle
middle span. The former one goes up steadily
with the increasing speed, while the latter one 1.10 LM-D
fluctuated increases [Figure 10(a)].
1.08 LM-M
(2) Compared Figure 10(b) to (c), the influence of MM-D
the speed on the DLA are almost the same in 1.06 MM-M
RM-D
these two cases, a two-axle vehicle and a three- 1.04
DLAη

RM-M
axle vehicle going across the bridge,
1.02
respectively. There is no significant difference
between the DLA corresponding to the same 1.00

response in the various spans. In other words, 0.98

maybe the critical speeds of the different spans 0.96
are not the same, but the largest DLA under the 5 10 15 20 25 30
common speed range is much more similar. Speed v (m/s)

(3) The DLA of the deflection is almost larger than
that of the bending moment for all of these cases.
To quantitatively study the difference between DLAs
of different responses in continuous girder bridges, Eqn
25 is used again. And the result can be seen in Figure 11.
Figure 11 shows that, for the case of a single load, the
error is a little bigger, but it is still less than 10%. And for
LM LP MM RP RM
Figure 9. The three-span continuous girder bridge
(c) A three-axle vehile
Figure 10. The continuous girder bridge traversed by different
types of loads or vehicles
other two cases, the error is less than 5%. Of course, the
first case is just one simplified method, and the other two
are much more similar with the actual condition. So for
engineering application, the DLA of bending moment
can be looked just the same as that of deflection or 5%
less. It also should be noted that this quantitative
conclusion is valid and suitable for both the simply
supported girder bridge and the continuous girder bridge.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015 1693

 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads

16%
Single_LM Single_MM Single_RM 1.40
14% 2-axle_LM 2-axle_MM 2-axle_RM LM-D (+) MM-D (+)
12% 3-axle_LM 3-axle_LM 3-axle_RM RM-D (+) LM-D (+)
1.30
MM-D (-) RM-D (-)
10%
Error e (DLA)

8% 1.20

6%
1.10
4%
2% 1.00

0%
0.90
−2% 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Speed v (m/s)
Speed v (m/s)
(a) A single load

Figure 11. Error result of the DLA for different responses

1.40
LM-D (+) MM-D (+)
1.30 RM-D (+) LM-D (+)
MM-D (-) RM-D (-)
4.2.2. DLA of positive deflection and negative
1.20
deflection in mid-span sections
For mid-span sections of continuous girder bridges, the
1.10
DLA of positive effects has been mainly focused on in
existing studies and codes. However, when the loads or 1.00
vehicles locate on different positions, there may be
negative effects in the mid-span sections. So they are 0.90
5 10 15 20 25 30
analyzed in this study. The results can be seen in Figure 12.
Speed v (m/s)
It can be seen from Figure 12 that, DLA of negative
(b) A two-axle vehicle
deflection is mostly larger than that of positive
deflection. Especially for the case of a single load, the
DLA of the negative deflection is significantly larger. In 1.40
LM-D (+) MM-D (+)
addition, the DLAs of two abutment spans are almost
1.30 RM-D (+) LM-D (+)
the same when the speed is lower, but they are different MM-D (-) RM-D (-)
when the speed is higher, which is needed to be noticed
1.20
in the dynamic field test.
To study differences between the DLA of positive
1.10
deflection and negative deflection in the mid-span
section, this response factor κ(D) is introduced. 1.00

0.90
DLA( D − ) 5 10 15 20 25 30
κ ( D) = (27) Speed v (m/s)
DLA( D + )
(c) A three-axle vehicle
in which the DLA(D+) and DLA(D-)denote,
respectively, DLA of the positive deflection Figure 12. DLA of positive deflection and negative deflection in
(downward) and DLA of negative deflection (upward). mid-span sections
It should be emphasized that these two values appear at
the same section. The results can be seen in Figure 13.
And the Mean-D denotes mean value of DLAs of these Usually, for design, the envelop value may be used,
three mid-span sections. while the mean value is used for evaluation. Then the
It can be seen from Figure 13 that, the response factor rough response factors can be obtained in Table 5.
κ(D) is almost rising up with the increasing speed. Also, It can be seen from Table 5 that, in the mid-span
the influence of the speed on the κ(D) in the abutment section, the DLA of negative deflection is 20% higher
span is more significant than that in the middle span. than that of positive deflection in critical cases, which
That is because of the higher mode shapes. should not be ignored in design and evaluation.

1694 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015

Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen

4.2.3. DLA of positive bending moment and Table 5. Response factors κ (D) of the positive
negative bending moment in mid-span deflection and the negative deflection in mid-span
sections sections
In the similar way, the response factor between DLA of
Cases A single load Two-axle Three-axle
positive bending moment and that of negative bending
moment in mid-span sections are analyzed in this study. Design 1.20 1.10 1.15
The results can be seen in Figure 14. Evaluation 1.10 1.05 1.08
It can be seen from Figure 14 that, DLA of negative
bending moment is mostly larger than that of positive 1.60
bending moment. In addition, the DLAs of two LM-M (+) MM-M (+)
1.50
RM-M (+) LM-M (+)
1.40 MM-M (-) RM-M (-)
1.30
1.4
LM-D 1.20
Relationship factor κ (D)

1.3 MM-D 1.10

RM-D
1.2 Mean-D 1.00
0.90
1.1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s)
1.0 (a) A single load

0.9
5 10 15 20 25 30
1.40
Speed v (m/s) LM-M (+) MM-M (+)
(a) A single load 1.30 RM-M (+) LM-M (+)
MM-M (-) RM-M (-)
1.20
1.4
LM-D
1.10
Relationship factor κ (D)

1.3 MM-D
RM-D
1.00
1.2 Mean-D
0.90
1.1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s)
1.0 (b) A two-axle vehicle

0.9
5 10 15 20 25 30
1.40
Speed v (m/s) LM-M (+)
LM-D(+) MM-M (+)
MM-D(+)
(b) A two-axle vehicle 1.30 RM-M (+)
RM-D(+) LM-M (+)
LM-D(+)
MM-M (-)
MM-D(-) RM-M (-)
RM-D(-)
1.20
1.4
LM-D
1.10
Relationship factor κ (D)

1.3 MM-D
RM-D
1.00
1.2 Mean-D
0.90
1.1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s)
1.0 (c) A three-axle vehicle

0.9 Figure 14. DLA of positive bending moment and negative bending
5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s) moment in mid-span sections

(c) A three-axle vehicle

abutment spans are almost the same when the speed is
Figure 13. Relationship between the DLA of positive bending lower, but they are different when the speed is higher,
moment and that of negative bending moment in mid-span sections which is needed to be noticed in the dynamic loading test.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015 1695

 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads

To study differences between DLA of positive 1.6

bending moment and that of negative bending moment LM-M
1.5
in the mid-span section, the response factor κ(M) is MM-M

Relationship factor κ (M)

1.4 RM-M
introduced.
Mean-M
1.3
DLA( M − )
κ (M ) = (28) 1.2
DLA( M + ) 1.1

where the DLA(M+) and DLA(M–) denote, respectively, 1.0

DLA of positive bending moment (tension in the bottom 0.9
5 10 15 20 25 30
of the section) and negative bending moment
Speed v (m/s)
(compression in the bottom of the section). It should be
(a) A single load
emphasized that these two values appear at the same
section. The results can be seen in Figure 15. And the
Mean-M denotes mean value of the DLAs of these three 1.4
mid-span sections. LM-M
MM-M

Relationship factor κ (M)

It can be seen from Figure 15 that, the response factor 1.3
RM-M
κ (M) is almost rising up with the increasing speed. Mean-M
1.2
Also, the influence of the speed on the κ (M) in the
abutment span is more significant than that in the middle 1.1
span. That is because of the higher mode shapes.
Be similar to Table 5, the rough response factors can 1.0
be obtained in Table 6.
By comparing Table 6 to Table 5, it can be found that, 0.9
5 10 15 20 25 30
the response factor of bending moments κ (M) is larger Speed v (m/s)
than that of deflections κ (D). Also, it should be noted
(b) A two-axle vehicle
that, in the mid-span section, DLA of negative bending
moment is 40% higher than that of positive bending
moment in some critical cases. 1.4
LM-M
MM-M
Relationship factor κ (M)

4.2.4. DLA of positive bending moments and 1.3

RM-M
negative bending moments in different Mean-M
1.2
sections
As we know, the largest values of positive bending
1.1
moment and negative bending moment appear in the
mid-span section and the pier-top section of the 1.0
continuous girder bridge, respectively. Therefore, the
relationship between DLA of positive bending moment 0.9
5 10 15 20 25 30
in the mid-span section and DLA of negative bending Speed v (m/s)
moment in the pie-top section is necessary to be
(c) A three-axle vehicle
investigated. The results are shown in Figure 16.
It can be seen from Figure 16 that, DLA of negative Figure 15. Relationship between the DLA of positive moment and
bending moment in the pier-top section is larger than that of negative bending moment in mid-span sections
that of positive bending moment in the mid-span

Table 6. Response factors κ (M) of the positive section. It is the result of the contributions of different
bending moment and the negative bending moment mode shapes. As for continuous girder bridges, the first
in mid-span sections mode shape is most important for dynamic responses in
Cases A single load Two-axle Three-axle
mid-span sections, while the third mode shape is more
significant for dynamic responses in pier-top sections. It
Design 1.40 1.20 1.30
is worth stating that, this conclusion is similar with that
Evaluation 1.20 1.10 1.15
obtained by Huang et al. (1992).

1696 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015

Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen

1.15 sections and mean value of DLAs of two pier-top

LM-M MM-M
sections. And the results are shown in Figure 17.
RM-M LP-M
1.10 It can be seen from Figure 17 that, when a single load
RP-M
goes across the bridge, the response factor ξ is largest,
1.05
and the factors of the case of a two-axle vehicle and a
DLA h

three-axle vehicle are larger and smallest, respectively.

1.00
And the factor is almost going up with the increasing
0.95 speed in all these three cases. Of course, for engineering
application, the factor in the latter two cases is nearly
0.90 smaller than 5%, so it can be ignored. In other words,
5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s)
the DLA of negative bending moment in pier-top
section can be considered the same as that of positive
(a) A single load
bending moment in mid-span section or 5% larger.

1.15 4.2.5. Comparing with the current design code

LM-M MM-M
In the current design code JTG D60-2004 (MTPRC
RM-M LP-M
1.10 2004), the formula of estimating the impact factor has
RP-M
been given in Eqn 30, which is the function of the
1.05
natural frequency.
DLA h

1.00

0.95  0.05 f < 1.5 Hz


µ = 0.1767 ln f − 0.0157 1.5 Hz ≤ f ≤ 14 Hz (30)
0.90  0.45 f > 14 Hz
5 10 15 20 25 30 
Speed v (m/s)
(b) A two-axle vehicle
As for simply supported girder bridges, the f denotes
the fundamental frequency. But for continuous girder
1.15
LM-M MM-M bridges, DLAs for positive effects in mid-span sections
1.10 RM-M LP-M and negative effects in pier-top sections are calculated
RP-M based on different frequencies, which are given in Eqns
1.05 31 and 32, respectively.
DLA h

1.00 13.616 EI
f1 = (31)
2π L2 m
0.95

0.90
5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s) 1.15
(c) A three-axle vehicle 1.13 Single
1.11 2-axle
Relationship factor z

Figure 16. DLA of positive bending moment and negative bending 3-axle
1.09
moment in different sections 1.07
1.05
To quantitatively study the difference, the response
1.03
factor ξ is given by 1.01
0.99
DLA( P _ M − ) 0.97
ξ= (29) 0.95
DLA( M _ M + ) 5 10 15 20 25 30
Speed v (m/s)

where the DLA(P_M-) and DLA(P_M+) denote, Figure 17. Relationship between the DLA of positive bending
respectively, mean value of DLAs of three mid-span moment and negative bending moment in different sections

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015 1697

 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads

Huang et al. (1992) have concluded that, the first,

23.651 EI
f2 = (32) second, third bending mode is main contribution to
2π L2 m dynamic responses of middle mid-span section,
abutment mid-span section and pier-top section,
where f1 is the estimated formula of the fundamental
respectively. As a result, the method of simplified
frequency of the continuous girder bridge. Of course, it
theoretical derivation based on the first mode shape is
can be obtained according to the finite element analysis.
not applicable for the continuous girder bridge,
In addition, the relationship between these two
especially for pier-top section.
frequencies is given by
For simply supported girder bridges, it can be seen
from simplified theoretical derivation and numerical
f2 = 1.737 f1 (33) simulation that, the effects of high mode shapes on
DALs of different responses are significant. Therefore,
In most of the time, for continuous girder bridges, the it is necessary to be discussed in detail in this section.
fundamental frequency f1 is less than 6Hz. Based on The first case in Figure 2 is used. The initial
Eqns 30 to 33, the results are shown in Figure 18. conditions of bridge, including initial displacement and
Figure 18 shows that, the DLA for negative effects in acceleration, have been assumed as zero. Then Eqn 10
the pier-top section is almost 10% larger than that for can be expressed as
positive effects in the mid-span section. As we know,
the specification of DLA in current codes is usually for
calculating positive bending moment of mid-span 2 PL3 N
1
sections in design phase. Therefore, combining with y( x , t ) =
π 4
EI
∑ n2 (n2 − α 2 ) [sin(nα 2 2π ft )
n =1
results from the section 4.2.4, it may be conservative for (34)
the bending moment analysis in pier-top sections. α nπ x
− sin(n 2 2π ft )]sin
However, the results in Table 5 and Table 6 demonstrate n L
that, for deflection and bending moment analysis in
mid-span sections, the negative effects in current codes
in which the n denotes the order of the mode shape. The
are underestimated.
f is the fundamental frequency of the bridge, and α is the
Furthermore, these relationships between different
speed parameter.
responses in various sections can be used for checking
the test results with each other. Also, the dynamic
ωd π v / L v
performance of the bridge can be much more rational α= = = (35)
evaluated and assessed during the dynamic field test by ωb 2π f 2 Lf
considering these differences.
where ωd and ωb denote the disturbance circular
frequency related with the speed and the fundamental
5. DISCUSSIONS circular frequency of the bridge.
As for the contribution of different mode shapes to The corresponding bending moment can be give by
dynamic responses in various sections of the continuous
girder bridge, it has been studied by many researchers. N
2 PL 1
M (x, t) =
π 2 EI
∑ n2 − α 2 [sin(nα 2π ft )
1.50 n =1
(36)
DLA η (+) α nπ x
1.40 DLA η (−) − sin(n 2 2π ft )]sin
n L
Factor κ
DLA and κ

1.30 For highway bridges, the speed of the vehicle is less

than 50 m/s (180 km/h). Also, the simplified formula to
1.20
estimate the fundamental frequency (f = 100/L) given by
1.10
Cantieni (1983) is used. Then

1.00 ωd v v
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 α= = = ≤ 0.25 (37)
Fundamental frequency f (Hz)
ωb 2 L f 200

Figure 18. DLA and response factor κ based on current Therefore, the α2 can be neglected in the Eqns 34 and
code in China 36 due to its small value which is compared to the value

1698 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015

Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen

of n2. To see more clearly, the parameter An(t) is 1.0

C1 C2 C3
introduced.
0.8

Combination factors C
α 0.6
An (t ) = sin(nα 2π ft ) − sin(n 2 2π ft ) (38)
n
0.4
Now, the Eqns 34 and 36 can be simplified expressed
0.2
as follows.
0.0
2 PL3 N
1 nπ x
y( x , t ) = 4 ∑ 4 An (t )sin (39) −0.2
π EI n =1 n L 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Position of the section χ/L

(a) Contributions to dynamic deflection

2 PL N
1 nπ x
M (x, t) =
π 2 EI
∑ n2 An (t )sin L (40) 1.0
n =1 C1 C2 C3
0.8
It can be seen clearly from Eqns 39 and 40 that, the

Combination factors C
contribution of the nth mode shape to dynamic 0.6
deflection is positive correlated to the value of 1/n4,
while that to dynamic bending moment is positive 0.4

correlated to the value of 1/n2. Therefore, the effects of 0.2

the high mode shapes on bending moment are larger
than that on deflection. 0.0
If the contributions of the fist mode shape (C1) to the
deflection and the bending moment in mid-span section −0.2
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(x/L=0.5) are both assumed as 1.0, the contributions of
Position of the section χ/L
the nth mode shape (Cn) to the dynamic responses in
various sections of the simply supported girder bridge (b) Contributiolns to dynamic bending moment

are shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19 shows that the contributions of high mode
shapes to deflection in the mid-span section are less.
And their contributions to bending moment of the bridge
are more. As for mid-span section, the contribution of
the second mode shape is zero. And the contribution of
the third mode shape to deflection is 1.2% of that
affected by the first mode shape, while that value is
11.1% for bending moment. That is the cause of
difference between simplified theoretical derivation and
numerical simulation. So more mode shapes should be
adopted for bending moment in theoretical derivation,
and then the relationship may be more complicated.
6. CONCLUSIONS
DLA is an important index for design and evaluation of
dynamic performance of highway bridges to moving
vehicular loads. Firstly, the definition of DLA is
introduced and selected, and that for different responses
are supplemented. Then the quantitative relationships
are obtained by the simplified theoretical derivation
based on the first mode shape and the numerical
simulation. At last, the contributions of the high mode
Figure 19. Contributions high mode shapes to the dynamic
responses of the bridge
shapes to different dynamic responses in various
sections are discussed.
It is showed that the DLA of deflection is almost 20%
higher than that of bending moment in critical cases,
which should not be neglected. In addition, these
relationships are accurately obtained by some numerical
simulations in simply supported girder bridges and
continuous girder bridges. For simply supported girder
bridges, it has been found that there are some
differences between the results of the numerical
simulation and the simplified theoretical derivation due
to the high mode shapes. For mid-span sections of
continuous girder bridges, the DLA of positive bending
moment can be looked just the same as that of positive
(downward) deflection or 5% less, which may be
ignored in engineering application. However, in mid-
span sections, the DLA of negative deflection is 20%
higher than that of positive deflection, and the DLA of
negative bending moment is 40% higher than that of

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015 1699

 Dynamic Load Allowances Corresponding to Different Responses in Various Sections of Highway Bridges to Moving Vehicular Loads

positive bending moment in the worst condition, which Cunha, A. and Caetano, E. (2007). “Output-only dynamic testing of
must be paid attention to in design and evaluation. Also, bridges and special structures”, Structural Concrete, Vol. 8, No. 2,
the DLA of negative bending moment in pier-top pp. 67–85.
section is 5% higher than that of positive bending Fry′ba, L. (1999). Vibration of Solids and Structures under Moving
moment in mid-span section, which is defined as 10% in Loads, Thomas Telford, UK.
Chinese current code. In short, the specification of DLA Fry′ba, L. and Pirner, M. (2001). “Load tests and modal analysis of
in current codes may be conservative for the bending bridges”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 102–109.
moment analysis in pier-top sections. However, for Gao, Q.F., Wang, Z.L., Chen, C. and Guo, B.Q. (2014a). “Comfort
deflection and bending moment analysis in mid-span analysis of large-span continuous girder bridges to moving
vehicular loads”, Key Engineering Materials, Vol. 619, pp.
sections, the negative effects have been underestimated.
61–70.
Furthermore, these relationships between different
Gao, Q.F., Wang, Z.L., Guo, B.Q., Bu, H.R. and Xiong, W. (2014b).
responses in various sections can be used for checking
“Design on dynamic performance of highway bridges to moving
the test results with each other. Based on the
vehicular loads”, Key Engineering Materials, Vol. 574, pp. 43–51.
recommended approach to considering these
Griffin, M.D. and French, J.R. (2004). Space Vehicle Design,
differences, the dynamic performance of the bridge can
American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, USA.
be evaluated and assessed in a simple yet rotational way
Huang, D.Z., Wang, T.L. and Shahawy, M. (1992). “Impact analysis
for dynamic field test.
of continuous multi-girder bridges due to moving vehicles”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3427–3443.
The research reported herein was sponsored by the
Huang, T. and Veletsos, A.S. (1960). Dynamic Response of Three-
China Scholarship Council (CSC) (the 2013 China
Span Continuous Highway Bridges, University of Illinois
State-Sponsored Postgraduate Study Abroad Program),
Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering,
Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), and the National
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 50678051,
Inbanathan, M.J. and Wieland, M. (1987). “Bridge vibrations due to
No. 51108132). The writers would like to express their
vehicle moving over rough surface”, Journal of Structural
deep gratitude to all the sponsors for the financial aid.
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 9, pp. 1994–2008.
Besides, it is very grateful to National University of
Karoumi, R. and Andersson, A. (2006). Load Testing of the New
Singapore (NUS) for hosting the first author.
Svinesund Bridge, Kungl Tekniska Högskolan, Sweden.
Kim, J., Lynch, J.P., Lee, J.J. and Lee, C.G. (2011). “Truck-based
REFERENCES
mobile wireless sensor networks for the experimental observation
Bakht, B. and Pinjarkar, S.G. (1989). Review of Dynamic Testing of
of vehicle–bridge interaction”, Smart Materials and Structures,
Highway Bridges, Transportation Research Board, and Research and
Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 1–14.
Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Canada.
Mathews, J.H. and Fink, K.D. (1999). Numerical Methods Using
Brencich, A. and Sabia, D. (2007). “Tanaro bridge: dynamic tests on a
MATLAB, Prentice Hall, USA.
couple of spans”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 12,
McLean, D.I. and Marsh, M.L. (1998). Dynamic Impact Factors for
No. 5, pp. 662–665.
Bridges, Transportation Research Board, USA.
Cantieni, R. (1992). Dynamic Behavior of Highway Bridges under the
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications (1979).
Passage of Heavy Vehicles, Swiss Federal Laboratories for
Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, Ontario, Canada.
Materials Testing and Research, Switzerland.
Ministry of Transportation of the People’s Republic of China (2004).
Cantieni, R. (1983). Dynamic Load Tests on Highway Bridges in
General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts,
Switzerland-60 Years Experience of EMPA, Swiss Federal
China Communications Press, Beijing, China.
Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Switzerland.
Moaveni, S. (2003). Finite Element Analysis: Theory and
Cheung, Y.K., Cheng, Y.S. and Au, F.T.K. (2001). “Vibration
Application with ANSYS, Pearson Education, India.
analysis of bridges under moving vehicles and trains”, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Structural Engineering, Nassif, H.H. and Nowak, A.S. (1995). “Dynamic load spectra for
Mechanics, and Computation, A. Zingoni, ed., University of Cape girder bridges”, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1476,
Town, Cape Town, South Africa, April, pp. 299–304. pp. 69–83.
Chopra, A.K. (1995). Dynamics of Structures, Prentice Hall, New O’Conner, C. and Shaw, A.P. (2000). Bridge Loads, Spon
Jersey, USA. Press, UK.

1700 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015

Qingfei Gao, Zonglin Wang, Chan Ghee Koh and Chuang Chen
Paeglite, I. and Paeglitis, A. (2013). “The dynamic amplification
factor of the bridges in Latvia”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 57,
pp. 851–858.
Park, K.T., Kim, S.H., Park, H.S. and Lee, K.W. (2005). “The
determination of bridge displacement using measured
acceleration”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27, No. 3,
pp. 371–378.
Paultre, P., Proulx, J. and Talbot, M. (1995). “Dynamic testing
procedures for highway bridges using traffic loads”, Journal of
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 18 No. 10 2015
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 2,
pp. 362–376.
Schwarz, M. and Laman, J.A. (2001). “Response of prestressed
concrete I-girder bridges to live load”, Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1–8.
Tian, Z., Zhang, L. and Peng, T. (2008). “Load tests of
Dongping Bridge in Foshan, China”, 17th Congress of
IABSE Creating and Renewing Urban Structures,
Chicago, September, pp. 1–7.
1701