WHEEL LOAD DISTRIBUTION ON SIMPLY SUPPORTED

SKEW I-BEAM COMPOSITE BRIDCES

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

By Alfred G. Bishara, 1 Member, ASCE, Maria Chuan Liu, 2 and

Nasser D. El.AlP

AaSTRACT: This paper presents distribution factor expressions for wheel-load dis-
tribution to interior and exterior girders of concrete on multisteel beam composite
bridges of medium span length. These expressions were derived from finite element
analysis of 36 bridges: with 9 ft spacing of girders, different spans (75, 100, and
125 fl), different widths (39, 57, and 66 ft), different skew angles (0~ 20~ 40~ and
60~ and different spacing and size of intermediate cross frames. The analysis
recognizes the three-dimensional interaction of all bridge members, places the
bearings at their actual location, and considers the effect of the restraining forces
at the bolster and rocker bearings. To test the validity of the adopted discretization
scheme, its results were validated by testing an actual 137 ft. span four-lane, 59.5~
skew bridge. The derived distribution factor expressions give values that are gen-
erally much lower than the current American Association of State Highway Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO) values, particularly for skew bridges. In addition
to the girder spacing, these distribution factors recognize the effect of skew, span
length, deck slab width, number of girders, and number of loaded traffic lanes, as
well as the probability that positioning all the standard AASHTO trucks in locations
to produce maximum flexure effects is reduced as the number of loaded lanes
exceeds two.

INTRODUCTION

" A A S H T O S t a n d a r d Specifications for Highway Bridges" (1989) provide

simple distribution factors of wheel loads for the design of concrete on steel
I - b e a m stringers, which are only a function of center-to-center spacing of
stringers. N u m e r o u s studies (Chen et al. 1959; Marx et al. 1936; Nutt et al.
1988) r e l a t e d to the distribution of wheel loads on highway bridges have
b e e n p e r f o r m e d , however, these studies have b e e n limited in scope. T h e
objective of this p a p e r is to suggest for simply s u p p o r t e d composite m e d i u m
span multistringer steel bridges, wheel-load distribution factors that consider
the effects of the following factors: bridge skew angle, span length, bridge
total width, n u m b e r of l o a d e d traffic lanes, spacing and stiffness of inter-
mediate cross frames, as well as the restraining forces at the bearings. To
accomplish this objective, a p a r a m e t r i c study was conducted on 36 multi-
stringer bridges. T h e three m a j o r p a r a m e t e r s in the study were the skew
angle (0), the span length (L), and the total deck slab width (w). The skew
angles were 00 ~ 20 ~ 40 ~ and 60~ the span lengths were 75, 100, and 125
ft; and the r o a d w a y widths, toe to toe of p a r a p e t s were 36 ft for two-lane
bridges, 54 ft. for three-lane bridges, and 63 ft. for four-lane bridges. Fig.
1 shows a typical cross section of the two-lane bridges in the group.
In addition, the bridges investigated had the following features:

1. The bridge decks are composite, simply supported.

1Prof. of Engrg., The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210.
ZAsst. Engr., Manna Consultants Inc., San Francisco, CA.
3Grad. Res. Assoc., The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 1993. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on January 10, 1992.
This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 2, February,
1993. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/93/0002-0399/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper No.
1524.
399

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I'-T't ['~ 3/16" per foot slope

10.s'~ " 9 ~r~ cr~ 8. "

, 1.5'
.- -r 9'-0" + 9'-0" q" 9'-0" + 9'-0" 'l 3'~'

FIG. 1. Cross Section of Two-Lane Bridge

2. For the 100 ft. and 125 ft. span bridges, the stringers are welded plate
girders, and for the 75 ft. span bridges they are wide-flange I-beams.
3. The deck slab has a constant thickness of 8.5 in., and concrete is class
S normal weight with f'c = 4,500 psi.
4. The stringers are equally spaced at 9 ft., center-to-center. This spacing
was chosen because it represents the average of most spacings used in this
type of bridges.
5. X-type intermediate cross frames made of L3 • 3 • 5/16 in. members
are used. Their center-to-center spacing was either 12 ft 6 in. or 25 ft 0 in.
6. The girders are supported on cast-steel bolster and rocker bearings.
7. The roadway is bound by 1.5 ft wide New Jersey reflector-type par-
apets. (The bridges are supposed to be on major highways and as such did
not have the curb-type sidewalks.)
8. All members of the steel framing are from high-strength low-aUoy
steel, M270, grade 50.

BACKGROUND

Very little research has been conducted on wheel-load distribution factors

for simply supported multistringer steel I-beam bridges. The studies of New-
mark (1948) led to the AASHTO specifications (1989) on wheel-load dis-
tribution factor S/5.5 for interior girders of slab on girder bridges (S = the
girder spacing in feet). These studies were limited in scope and did not
cover the behavior of composite and skew bridges. Chen (1953) used the
finite difference method to analyze simply supported skew slab on noncom-
posite multisteel girder bridges. Different dimensions such as spacing be-
tween girders and span length and skew angle were included in computing
midspan bending moments of girders. Sanders and Elleby (1970) proposed
several major revisions to the distribution of wheel loads in highway bridges.
However, in their research program, skew bridges were not included in a
systematic way. Marx, Khachaturiian and Gamble (1986) developed design
criteria for wheel-load distribution in simply supported skew slab-and-pre-
stressed-girder bridges. In that study, slab-and-precast-prestressed I-girder
bridges were analyzed by a three-dimensional finite element method in
which the slab was modeled by "nine-noded Lagrangian-type isoparametric
thin shell elements" called QLSHELL, and girders were modeled using an
"eccentric isoparametric beam element" called QLBEAM. The shell and
beam elements were joined together by rigid links connecting their cen-
400

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 troids. Nutt et al. (1988) analyzed multigirder composite steel bridges using
the "equivalent orthotropic plate and ribbed plate model."
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In the previous studies, bridge bearings were not assumed to be at their

actual locations; they were assumed to be either at the centroid of the girders
or at the centroids of the plate's stiffening ribs. These studies did not include
the interaction between cross frames and girders in the spatial behavior of
the bridge deck system, nor did they consider the stiffening effect caused
by the restraining forces at the bearings.
El-All (1986) used the SAP-IV finite element program ("SAP-IV" 1974)
to analyze the distribution of wheel loads in skew multistringer steel com-
posite bridges. In his study, following Bishara's (1986) discretization scheme,
an I-beam girder was divided into two T-shaped beam elements, and the
elastic properties of these elements lumped at the centroids of the flanges.
The two beam elements were further connected by a truss system composed
of beam elements, and the top beam elements were also connected by
another truss system to the deck slab plate elements. In El-Ali's study,
internal forces were computed at the centroid of each I-beam's composite
section to compare the resulting bending moments with the AASHTO val-
ues. This procedure is very lengthy, especially in skew bridges. Only four
four-lane bridges, consisting of a 137 ft. span with skew angles of 0~ 20 ~
40~ 60 ~ were analyzed in this study. E1-Ali concluded that live-load bending
moments decrease when the skew angle increases, and the live-load shear
forces do not seem to vary with the skew angle. In general, El-Ali's bending
moment values are lower than those obtained using current AASHTO pro-
cedures, and because of the limited scope of his investigation, no expressions
to formulate his findings were developed.

DISCRETIZATIONSCHEME
In this study, using the ADINA finite element program ( " A D I N A " 1984),
a more generalized discretization scheme that treats the bridge deck as a
three-dimensional system, with the bearings placed at their actual locations
is adopted. In this scheme, all elements are considered as linear elastic.
Each steel I-beam is divided into three parts: the two flanges and the web.
Each flange is modeled by an isobeam beam element with its properties
lumped at the centroid of the flange. The web is modeled by shell elements
with four midsurface nodes. Each midsurface node has six degrees of free-
dom. The web transverse stiffeners are modeled by truss elements. The slab
is modeled by three node thin plate triangular elements with six degrees of
freedom per node. The stiffness matrix of a plate element is constructed by
superimposing the bending and membrane parts in the current local coor-
dinate system. To satisfy the compatibility of composite behavior, the con-
straint command specifying a highly rigid element is assumed between the
centroids of all top beam elements and the centroids of the deck slab plate
elements above them.
Fig. 2 shows typical elements used in discretizing composite I-beam string-
ers. The intermediate cross frames and end cross frames are modeled by
beam elements. Unlike the intermediate cross frames, which are placed
perpendicular to the girders, end cross frames are situated at the end of the
girder, parallel to the back walls of the abutments.
Similar to El-Ali's discretization scheme, each bearing was assumed to
be located at the centroid of the beam element, representing the bottom
flange of the girder. Boundary conditions specifying the six degrees of free-
dom, either fixed or free, are assigned at each bearing location. The bolster
401

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 Rigid Deck slab plate dements
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Element~ ]Transverse stiffenem I I

node \ i deme- ---- --I" I I
\ I _ She. I I
~ ements
Beam /
~r /
Shell
[ 1
elements
~,11 ~l~'r.,~ ~,,
element
Cross Section Elevation
FIG. 2. Finite Element Model of Composite I-Beam

FIG. 3. Isometric View of 75-ft. Span, Two-Lane Right Bridge

bearing is free to rotate only about the global Y-axis perpendicular to the
beam longitudinal axis, and the rocker bearing is free to rotate about the
Y-axis move in the direction parallel to the beam longitudinal axis. Fig. 3
shows an isometric view of a discretized two-lane 75 ft.-span right bridge.
Under linear elastic conditions, stresses are proportional to the bending
moments in the girders. Hence, instead of computing the moments of the
girders from individual contiguous elements, maximum stresses at the ex-
treme fiber of the bottom flanges obtained from finite element results were
chosen to compute the wheel-load distribution factors to the girders, and
to compare them with those of current A A S H T O (1989) specifications. The
extreme tensile fiber stresses in the bottom flanges of girders of simply
supported bridges can be easily obtained from the internal forces F f ~ , F,,
M,MsM, in the bottom flanges' beam elements, in which F, = axial force
along the axis of bottom plane; F, = shear force acting in the vertical
direction; F, = shear force acting in the transverse (horizontal) direction;
M, = torque on a plane whose normal coincides with the axis of a beam;
M~ = moment about the vertical axis; and M, = moment about the trans-
402

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 verse horizontal axis. Neglecting the effects of shear and torsion, the normal
stress fb at the bottom surface of the bottom flange can be evaluated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fr M,y
fb = ~ + I .............................................. (1)

in which y = distance from the bottom surface of the flange to the centroid
of bottom flange; A = area of the bottom flange and I = moment of inertia
about its centroidal axis. However, for the 36 bridges investigated, including
the moment M, did not affect the resulting stress by more than 3%. Fig. 4
shows the variation of extreme fiber stresses along the span of an interior
girder of a 75 ft. two-lane right bridge loaded by two AASHTO HS 20-44
trucks. Of interest in this figure is the clear effect of horizontal restraining
forces at the fixed (bolster) bearing.

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF ADOPTED DISCRETIZATIONSCHEME

To test the validity of the adopted discretization scheme, it was used in

the analysis of a 137 ft simply supported multiplate girder, 59.5 ~ skew bridge
(Parsons Avenue Bridge, FRA 70-0591, in Columbus, Ohio), which was
tested using six dump trucks with premeasured axle loads. Fig. 5 shows the
midspan cross section of the tested bridge. Fig. 6 shows the dimensions of
the test trucks, and Fig. 7 shows the positions of the trucks on the bridge
during the test, with the driver's seat on each truck marked by the letter
O. Table 1 lists the axle loads of the six test trucks. Table 2 shows the
stresses measured in the field using electrical resistance strain gages affixed
to the soffits of the bridge's five girders at the points marked by the letter
X in Fig. 7. The average ratio between finite element results and measured
results is 1.08. The analysis gave about 8% higher stresses than the measured
values, which may be attributed to the fact that wheel loads were treated
as concentrated loads in the analysis, and that the actual concrete strength
at testing time may have been higher than the 4,000 psi assumed design
strength.

[] Normal stress in each element

- Average normal stress in each element
~6~

51
f
4~
31

1;

/ Beam elements in bottom flanges

75'-0" bI
Rocker End

Boster end
FIG. 4. Variation of Extreme Fiber Stresses along Interior Girder of 75 ft, Two-
Lane Right Bridge under HS 20-44 Trucks Loading
403

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 C.L. Parsons Ave.
2"_ 1,1'15'-2" ,~., 24'-0" J~r 24'-0"
-I'{ 2'J!b2.5" Asphalflo Cone. Wearing Surf./ ;I-7,J,'
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~ F "2"
't IA-75 ( S75m / Type C Water Proofing | .
'q "1-1'-8" ; .~ " '~ .. " 9 3/16 inl./ft. -~ . ^, t0.75T"l

I 4 Spa. @ 12'-9" c/c Girders ~..~-0" '

Girder # 5 Girder # 4 Girder # 3 Girder # 2 Girder # 1

FIG. 5. Cross-Section of Parsons Avenue Bridge (FRA 70,6,-0591) (Looking North-
ward)

TRUCKS 1,2, AND 3 TRUCKS 4,5, AND 6

R C F R F

I I- 14'-10"
I_

I- 19'-3"
-I
FIG. 6. Dimensions of Test Trucks

,s,-o- ~ .............. 3 ...... -X. . . . . . . . . . . .

FIG. 7. Trucks Layout of Positions during Testing of FRA 70A-0591 Bridge

LOADING SCHEME
Several trials w e r e m a d e to o b t a i n the m a x i m u m stresses in the girders
using the H S 20'44 s t a n d a r d trucks (one p e r lane), as s h o w n in T a b l e 3.
Since this study recognizes that a c o m p o s i t e b r i d g e d e c k acts as o n e t h r e e -

404

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 TABLE 1. Axle Loads of Test Trucks
Axle Load (lb.)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Truck number Front Center Rear

(1) (2) (3) (4)
Truck 1 12,720 14,878 16,562
Truck 2 12,850 16,800 17,450
Truck 3 12,850 16,650 17,280
Truck 4 7,700 0 19,950
Truck 5 7,650 0 18,800
Truck 6 6,950 0 19,800

TABLE 2. Comparison between Measured Stresses in Girders and Finite-Element

Analysis Results (Parsons Avenue Bridge, FRA 70A-0591)
Girder Number
1 I 2 3 4 5
(1) (2) I (3) (4) (5) (6)
Distance of measured stress loca-
tion from fixed bearing (ft) 49.54 49.56 50.25 52.92 43.46
Measured stress (ksi) 0.8813 0.7827 1.006 1.564 1.534
Finite-element stress (ksi) 0.64 0.87 0.788 1.537 1.7
Finite-element, measured 1.337 0.8996 1.2766 1.0175 0,9023

dimensional structure, the probability of more than two lanes being loaded
simultaneously in such a way to produce the maximum moment in one girder
is reduced as the number of lanes exceeds two. Current design procedure,
however, do not allow such reductions when computing girder moments.
In this study, following A A S H T O article 3.12.1 ("Standard" 1989), results
obtained with three loaded simultaneously are multiplied by 0.9, and those
from four lanes loaded simultaneously are multiplied by 0.75. Following
this principle, results from three truck loadings, with 10% load intensity
reduction, governed the maximum stresses in three- and four-lane bridges.
Each bridge in this study was loaded differently for interior and exterior
girders. The least distance of the nearest wheel of a truck to the toe of the
parapet was equal to 2 ft. In addition, trucks were considered to be traveling
in the same or opposite directions in adjacent lanes. As previously stated,
the governing loading case is the one that produces the maximum stress at
the extreme bottom fiber of the girders.

SENSITIVITY STUDIES
The parameters chosen for the sensitivity studies were those that could
be directly and easily retrieved from a review of bridge plans. These pa-
rameters were span length, number of girders, number of loaded lanes,
skew angle, and deck-slab width. No attempt was made to introduce bridge
stiffness parameters such as the bending stiffness of a beam or its torsional
moment of inertia or the relative stiffness of deck slab to steel girders. The
span length varied from 75 to 125 ft, deck slab total width varied from 39-
66 ft, skew angle varied from 00~ to 60~ girder numbers varied from 5 to
8, loaded traffic lanes were either two or three. Girder spacing and slab
405

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 thickness were kept constant and equal to 9 ft and 8.5 in., respectively. The
results of these sensitivity studies are summarized herein.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Span Length
For interior girders, the bridge span length had a slight effect on the
distribution of wheel loads. As shown in Fig. 8 and Table 4, for the range
of span lengths investigated (75,100, and 125 ft), the load-distribution factor
increased almost linearly with span length. The variation is more pronounced
with smaller deck widths and skew angles larger than 40 ~. For skew angles
less than 40 ~, the variation did not exceed 3%. For skew angles larger than
40 ~, the increase in the distribution factor does not exceed 8%.
For exterior girders, the distribution factor increases with span length,
especially for highly skewed bridges (Fig. 9 and Table 5). The increase

, l , I , I , I i i
0.97" 0.60
o o o
.9o
r
0.91-
- o.55 ~
o
0.85-
~ o
0.79.
.o.5o.
0.73- 90.45
~

0.67-
----~-- 2 Lanes 0 Degree .o.4o
0.61 ---O-- 3 Lanes 0 Degree
0.55
0.35
4 Lanes 0 De~'ee

0.49 i 0.30
7O 60 ;o 11o 120 130
Span Length (ft)
(a)
i I i i
0.97 ' 0.60
0 -~Q-- 2 Lanes 601)egree
"~ 0.91 - 0.55
---O-- 3 Lanes 60 Degree
0.85
0 4 Lanes60 Degree
o 0.50
~ 0.79
.~ 0.73 J - 0.45
Q 0j ~

~ 0.67
" 0.40
M 0.61 o (2"
0.35
0.55 z3.-"

0.49 , 9 , 0.30
70 8'0 90 100 110 120 130

Span L e n g t h (ft)
(b)
FIG. 8. Sensitivity of Distribution Factor to S p a n Length for interior Girder: (a)
Right Bridge; (b) 60 ~ S k e w Bridge

406

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 0.8
1.09.
~ o.991 -o.7 ~1~,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

, = ~
=: 0.89.
0 -0.6 '~ =
"~ o.79: , J3
.r

. ~r
o.89~ . I
0.59-
2 Lanes 0 Degree
I.~ 0.49-
----O'--" 3 Lane,~0 Degree
o.391 4 Lanes 0 Degree
0.29 0.2
70 ;0 ;o ,oo ~;o ,;o !30

Span L e n g t h fit)
(a)
, I i I = I , I i I ,
0.80
1.09

~ 0.99 "0.70 "~ ~

~0.89
9
- 0.60
0.79.
~ 0.69 -o.so ~ I.~
(2. 0.59
to. o ~
0.49
u.; 0.30 <
0.39 ----Zk---- 4 Lanes 60 Degree
0.29 / 0.20
7O 80 0 100 110 1 0 130
S p a n L e n g t h fit)
(b)
FIG. 9. Sensitivity of Distribution Factor to Span Length for Exterior Girders: (a)
Right Bridge; (b) 60 ~ Skew Bridge

attains 12% for skew angles not exceeding 20 ~ 20% for 40 ~ skew angle and
almost 100% for 60~ skew angle.

Skew Angle
The skew angle of the bridges is the most critical parameter that affects
the wheel-load distribution factor, and is the focus of this study. Results
from the 36 bridges investigated show that tangent skew bridges always have
smaller design live-load moments than right bridges with the same span and
width. This result corroborates similar conclusions by EI-Ali (1986), and
holds true for interior as well as exterior girders. Fig. 10 shows that for
bridges with skew angle not exceeding 30 ~ the reduction in the distribution
factor to interior girders attains 5%. For skew angles between 30~ and 60 ~
the reduction attains 28%. For exterior girders, the skew effect behaves
407

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 I-i I.~
0.97- i i i i l i
, o.6o ~1~
0.91 o55~ ~'=
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

g 0.85 o o
.== 0.79
0.73
0.67 m 0.40
0.61.
u.i 0.55. ---a--- 125 ft 2 Lanes 90.35 M m
0.49 00.30
o ~o 40 6o
Skew Angle (Degree)
(a) f,~ 1,4
o .,9
'~ 0.97- o.6o ~ m
o.91'
0.85.
o.55 g .~
0.79:
0.50 ~ ~
~ 0.73~ 0.45
0.67~ 75 ft 3 Lanes
0.61 --o-- 100ft 3 Lanes 0.40 ~ I i
0.55 125ft 3 Lanes 0.35 ~"
0.49 ~8.ao
~0 40 60
Skew Angle (Degree)
Co)
0.97- ' o.6o ~
. . . . .

~ ~
o.55 .o I..o
O
0.85
0.91 ~--- 7 ~
0.79~
0.73:
0.67-" ---o-.--
0.61 ---o-- 100ft 4Lanes ~'N~
040 :~ ~
035 ~
0.55 ~ 125 ft 4 Lanes ",~ ~1~
0.49 0,30
o ~o 40 6o 8O
Skew Angle (Degree)
(c)

FIG. 10. Sensitivity of Distribution Factor to Skew Angle for Interior Girders: (a)
Two-Lane Bridges; (b) Three-Lane Bridges; (c) Four-Lane Bridges

differently. As can be seen in Fig. 10, the load distribution factor for a 20~
skew bridge is 10% higher than that for a right bridge. For a 40 ~ skew
bridge, the increase in the distribution factor is only 5%. For a 60~ skew
bridge, however, the distribution factor is reduced by 25%. The slight in-
crease in the maximum live-load bending stresses of exterior girders was
also observed in Chen's (1954) study, particularly with short-span bridges
and wide decks.
408

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 1.09.
i i i i i i
.o.6o ~,,~
0.99. ~o.7o~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.89.
= 0.79.
io.oo:I ~
,.~
~ 0.69.
0.59. ---o-- 75 ft 2 Lanes - 0.40 . 0
0.49- ----o-- 100ft 2Lanes
0.39- 125 ft 2 Lanes ~-0.30

0.29 0.20 [~ <~

0 1'o ~o ~o 40 5o 60 70

(a)
Skew An~e (Deg:ree)

0.80 ~ I-~
o.,9 :070 I= r
?
-o.6o
-
=~O . I'~
~
o

o.79f \ \
-o.5o ~ I ~
~ \
o.~9t ~- 756t 3 ~ \

-o3o ~[~
~ 0.29 I . . . . . . ?0.20 ~ I ~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Skew Angle (Degree)
Co)
o.6o ~
"~ 1 091 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . . .
r2, " 4
9 r,z.4

.0.70 g g
" ~l=
9..~ 0.89
0.60

N " 1 --a-- 753t 4Lanes N -o.4o :~ o

-0.30 r-d. Ic~=
0.291 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.20 ~ i~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
S k e w A n g l e (Degree)
(c)
FIG. 11. Sensitivity of Distribution Factor to Skew Angle for Exterior Girders: (a)
Two-Lane Bridges; (b) Three-Lane Bridges; (c) Four-Lane Bridges

It can be concluded that large skew angles always reduce the distribution
factor. This might be due to the fact that some of the wheels of trucks on
skew bridges are closer to the supports than on right bridges. Another reason
may be that in short spans with large skew angle bridges, the slab tends to
bend along a direction perpendicular to the abutments. This action can
409

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 transfer part of the load from deck slabs directly to the supports, rather
than through the girders as in right bridges (Fig. 11).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Number of Loaded Lanes

The number of loaded lanes chosen was two in two-lane bridges, three
for three- and four-lane bridges. The number of loaded lanes chosen in this
paper was determined by comparing the results of two-lane loadings, three-
lane loadings with 10% reduction, and four-lane loadings with 25% reduc-
tion as per A A S H T O specifications articles 3.12.1 ("Standard" 1989).

Deck Slab Width and Number of Girders

The effect of the number of girders and the deck-slab width has a similar
nonlinear effect on wheel-load distribution factors to interior girders. Within
the range of the investigated bridge total widths (39, 57, and 66 ft) the
bending stresses in interior girders of the 57 ft. wide bridges were the highest.
For exterior griders, the maximum live-load stresses decrease linearly with
an increase in deck-slab width. This decrease attains 8% for bridges with
skew angles less than 40 ~, and attains 20% when the skew angle is as large
as 60~

Spacing and Size of Cross Frames

The size and spacing of intermediate cross frames affect the overall in-
teraction of the bridge-deck girders and therefore the distribution factor.
Analysis results show that the stiffer the cross frames, the lower the distri-
bution factor.
Comparative studies were performed on nine right bridges using 12'-6"
spacing and 25' spacing, with the Ohio Department of Transportation stan-
dard cross frame member size of L3 x 3 x 5/16 in. Table 3 shows that 25
ft spacing of cross frames for the interior girders gives distribution factors
5% higher than those of the 12.5 ft spacing. On the other hand, if the size
of cross frames' members for the 12.5 ft spacing changes from 3 • 3 x
5/16 in. to 4 • 4 x 1/2 in. i.e., doubling the cross sectional area of the
cross frames' members, a 6% reduction in the distribution factor to the

TABLE 3. Maximum Bending Stresses in Interior Girders of Right Bridges

CROSS FRAMES TYPE AND SPACING
Heavier Cross
Standard Cross Frames
Frames
Number of Span length
traffic lanes (ft) At 12.5 ft At 25aft At 12.5 ft
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
75 5.307 5.723 4.953
100 4.255 4.47 3.984
125 4.042 4.215 3.811
75 5.759 6.01 5.466
100 4.598 4.801 4.346
125 4.382 4.478 4.063
75 5.57 5.881 5.246
1(30 4.398 4.646 4.1_6
125 4.12 4.326 3.874
"Maximum spacing allowed in AASHTO specifications.

410

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 interior beams is observed, indicating a better interaction between the gir-
ders.
These results prove that using stiffer and more closely spaced intermediate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cross frames reduces the distribution factor of wheel loads to interior string-
ers. However, the overall reduction did not exceed 10%.

Expressions for Wheel-Load Distribution

As mentioned earlier, this study adopted a finite-element discretization
scheme that treats the bridge deck as a three-dimensional structural system
and keeps the bearings at their actual locations. The scheme also considers
the interaction between cross frames and girders, and considers the stiffening
caused by the web transverse stiffeners and restraint forces developed at
the bearings.
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, comparison between finite-element results
and AASHTO values show that AASHTO's wheel load distribution factor
provides a very conservative live-load design moment, even for right bridges.
For interior girders of all fight bridges, AASHTO values are 45% larger
than the values of the analysis, irrespective of span length and width. For
exterior girders, AASHTO values are 40%, 35%, and 30% larger for the
75, 100, 125 ft span bridges, respectively.
The purpose of this study is to introduce more realistic and easy-to-use
expressions of wheel-load distribution factors in computing girder live-load
moments. Formulas were developed using regression analysis of finite ele-
ment results with proper consideration of the results of the sensitivity studies.
Separate formulas were developed for wheel-load distribution to interior
and exterior girders.
Realizing that increasing the number of elements in finite-element analysis
brings the results closer to the actual ones, the number of elements in a 75
ft two-lane right bridge were doubled. Fig. 12 shows an isometric view of
this bridge's discretization with double the number of elements. Table 6
gives a comparison between the maximum midspan deflections and girders'
extreme fiber stresses, obtained with the original mesh (El) and the finer
mesh (E2). If the effect of the moment M, in the bottom flange is neglected
when computing extreme fiber stresses, the resulting stresses and midspan
deflections increase by an average of about 7%. The finite element stress
values in Tables 4 and 5 included the effect of moments M, in the bottom
flanges. If the effect of this moment is included in the maximum percentage
increase in stress when doubling the number of elements, it would not exceed
5% (in Table 6). In developing the distribution factor expressions that
follow, allowance for a 5% increase in stress was included.

Distribution Factors for Interior Girders

Analysis results of interior girders show that for skew angles not exceeding
30~, the skew effect in the interior girder is around 5%. Therefore, for
bridges with skew angles not exceeding 30 ~, the skew effect may be ne-
glected. Eq. (la) represents the wheel load distribution factor for right
bridges and skew bridges with skew angle not exceeding 30 ~.
N1.25
D = 0.77-S. WO.------g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (la)

in which D = wheel-load distribution factor; S = girder spacing, ft; N =

number of loaded lanes; and W = total width of bridge deck slab, ft.
For skew angles larger than 30~ the results from (la) should be reduced
411

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 TABLE 4. Comparison between Finite Element and AASHTO Distribution Factors
for Interior Girders
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Maximum Finite- Finite-

Skew Span finite-element element AASHTO element
Number angle length stress distance distance method
of lanes (degree) (~) (ksi) factor factor AASHTO
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
2 0 75 5.307 0.874 1.636 0.534
2 0 100 4.255 0.885 1.636 0.541
2 0 125 4.087 0.889 1.636 0.543
2 20 75 5.131 0.846 1.636 0.517
2 20 100 4.162 0.866 1.636 0.529
2 20 125 3.878 0.843 1.636 0.515
2 40 75 4.625 0.759 1.636 0.470
2 40 100 3.828 0.795 1.636 0:486
2 40 125 3.690 0.802 1.636 0.490
2 60 75 3.597 0.592 1.636 0.362
2 60 100 2.885 0.599 1.636 0.366
2 60 125 2.885 0.627 1.636 0.383
3 0 75 5.759 0.949 1.636 0.580
3 0 100 4.589 0.954 1.636 0.583
3 0 125 4.382 0.952 1.636 0.582
3 20 75 5.832 0.961 1.636 0.587
3 20 100 4.694 0.967 1.636 0.591
3 20 125 4.322 0.939 1.636 0.574
3 40 75 4.933 0.818 1.636 0.500
3 40 lO0 4.135 0.861 1.636 0.526
3 40 125 3.950 0.859 1.636 0.525
3 60 75 4.373 0.720 1.636 0.440
3 60 100 3.815 0.794 1.636 0.485
3 60 125 3.690 0.802 1.636 0.490
4 0 75 5.570 0.918 1.636 0.561
4 0 100 4.398 0.915 1.636 0.559
4 0 125 4.120 0.893 1.636 0.546
4 20 75 5.650 0.929 1.636 0.568
4 20 100 4.442 0.926 1.636 0.566
4 20 125 4.098 0.890 1.636 0.544
4 40 75 4.822 0.795 1.636 0.486
4 40 100 4.016 0.834 1.636 0.510
4 40 125 3.655 0.794 1.636 0.485
4 60 75 3.251 0.535 1.636 0.327
4 60 100 2.758 0.574 1.636 0.351
4 60 125 2.661 0.578 1.636 0.353

by a t e r m R, w h i c h d e p e n d s o n span length, s k e w angle, n u m b e r of l o a d e d

lanes, n u m b e r of girders, and girder spacing.

R = 11,700LO.41 (O - 30 ~ ............................ (lb)

in which L = span length, ft; O = s k e w angle, d e g r e e ; and G = n u m b e r

of girders.

412

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 TABLE 5. Comparison between Finite Element and AASHTO Distribution Factors
for Exterior Girders
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Maximum Finite- Finite-

finite-element element AASHTO element
Number stress distance distance method
of lanes (ksi) factor factor AASHTO
(1) (4) (5) (6) (7)
2 5,326 0.877 1.440 0.609
2 4.705 0.979 1.440 0.680
2 4,671 1.017 1.440 0.780
2 6.163 1.011 1.440 0.702
2 4.897 1.019 1.440 0.708
2 4.836 1.053 1.440 0.731
2 6.208 1.021 1,440 0.709
2 4.818 0,999 1,440 0.694
2 4.789 1.041 1.440 0.723
2 3.857 0.635 1,440 0.441
2 3.815 0,792 1.440 0,550
2 4.394 0.956 1,440 0,664
3 5.014 0.827 1,440 0,574
3 4,464 0.929 1.440 0.645
3 4.507 0.981 1,440 0.681
3 5,672 0.935 1.440 0,649
3 4.893 1.018 1.440 0.707
3 4.856 1.057 1.440 0.734
3 5.285 0.871 1.440 0,605
3 5.425 0,986 1.440 0.685
3 4.677 1.018 1.440 0.707
3 2,499 0.412 1.440 0.286
3 3.000 0.625 1.440 0.434
3 4.068 0.886 1.440 0.615
4 4,872 0.803 1.440 0,557
4 4,331 0,906 1.440 0.629
4 4,367 0,949 1.440 0.659
4 5.828 0.960 1.440 0.667
4 4.803 0.999 1.440 0,694
4 4.660 1.014 1.440 0,704
4 5.266 0.868 1.440 0.603
4 4.573 0,953 1.440 0.662
4 4.607 1.002 1.440 0.696
4 2.615 0.432 1.440 0,300
4 3.076 0.641 1.440 0.445
4 4.068 0.886 1.440 0.615

T h e distribution f a c t o r for s k e w bridges with s k e w angles b e t w e e n 30 ~

and 60 ~ b e c o m e s
SN1.25
D = 0.77 WO~ R ....................................... (lc)

Distribution Factor for Exterior Girders

A n a l y s i s results s h o w that the span l e n g t h has a m a j o r effect on w h e e l -
l o a d distribution to e x t e r i o r girders, while the deck-slab width has o n l y a

413

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 12. Isometric View of 75 1t Span, Two-Lane Right Bridge (with Double the
Number of Elements)

minor effect. In order to develop a simple formula for the wheel-load dis-
tribution factor to exterior girders, only the span length and the girder
spacing are used as parameters. Regression analysis of finite element results
led to (2a) to be used for deck slab with a skew angle not exceeding 40~
SL
D = 13 + 0.8S ............................................ (2a)
For bridges with skew angles lying between 40~ and 60~ results from (2a)
should be reduced by a term R, which depends on span length, deck slab
total width, and the number of laded lanes:
6.3SN 2.3
R = (1 + 0 . 0 6 2 5 S ) W L 1'3 ( 0 - 40~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2b)
This leads to the wheel-load distribution factor for exterior girders with
skew angles between 400-60 ~
S L 0.2
D = 13 + 0.8S R ........................................ (2c)
Eqs. (1) and (2) are valid for loaded lanes not exceeding three. For three-
lane loadings, the results already assume a 10% reduction in load intensity,
which is justified by the three-dimensional action of the bridge deck.

Evaluation of Developed Equations

To assess the accuracy of the developed formulas for wheel-load distri-
bution factor versus finite-element results, the ratio of the wheel-load dis-
tribution factor from (1) and (2) to those from finite element analysis was
calculated for all 36 bridges investigated. Histograms (Figs. 13a and 14a) of
this ratio indicate the variation for the 36 bridges investigated. Scattergrams
of the wheel-load distribution factors from (1) and (2) divided by AASHTO
values are presented in Figs. 13b and 14b. Fig. 13 shows that for interior
414

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 6, Effect of Doubling Number of Elements in 75 tt Span Two-Lane Right Bridge

EXTREME FIBER STRESS AT BOTTOM FLANGE
Maximum Deflection (ft) Excluding Moment M,
Girder Excluding Moment M, (ksi) Including Moment M, (ksi)
number Ela E2 b E2/E1 E1 E2 E2/E1 E1 E2 E2/E1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1 0.0260 0,0280 1.077 3.15 3.38 1.073 3.24 3.38 1.043
Ol 2 0.0355 0.0377 1.062 4.47 4.79 1.072 4.62 4.79 1.037
3 0.0405 0.0428 1.056 5,18 5.49 1.06 5.35 5.49 1.026
4 0.0355 0.0377 1.062 4.47 4.79 1.072 4.62 4.79 1.037
5 0.0260 0.0260 1.077 3.15 3.38 1.073 3.24 3.38 1.043
Average -- 1.087 1.070 1.037

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

"Original discretization scheme.
bDoubling the number of elements of the original discretization scheme.
 DataBaseof 36 Bridges
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2,

0.1

0.0
0.6 0.7
,,, hll,
0.80.g I I.I 1.2 1.3
II
1.4 1.5
Ratio of W h e e l Load D i s t r i b u t i o n Factors
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1

a)
i.O

0.9
0.8 "m~IQ

0.7 in
@
0.6 n"
0
0.5 .~ /
0.4
0.3 / ~ n
0.2
0.1
0"0 I I ' i ' I I I I ' I ' I I " I

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
F. E. Results/AASHTO
b)
FIG. 13. Statistical Comparison of (2) and AASHTO Wheel Load Distribution Fac-
tors for Interior Girders: (a) Histogram of Ratios of (1) and F.E, Results; (b) Scat-
tergram

girders, (1) gives slightly higher values than finite-element results for 33
bridges. Onlythree bridges gave slightlylower valuesthat the finite-element
analysis.
Fig. 14 shows that for exterior girders, (2) gives slightly higher wheel-
416
J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419
 Data Base of 36 Bridges
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

r
e',

C7"
I.

0.6 0.7 0.8

a)
0.9
,,I,Ifi,lf,
1 I.I 1.2
Ratio of Wheel Lead Distxlbufion
1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Factors
1.8

1.0

0.9
0
0.8
m
~ 0.7
0
~ 0.6

"~ 0.5

0.4
0.3

0.2

o.o I 9 I " I ' I ' I " I I ' I ' I ' I ' I

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2; 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
F. E. Results/A.ASHTO
b)
FIG. 14. Statistical Comparison of (2) and AASHTO Wheel Load Distribution Fac-
tor for Exterior Girders: (a) Histogram of the Ratios of (2) and F.E. Results; (b)
Scattergram

load distribution factors than finite-element analysis for 35 bridges, and

gives a slightly lower value for one bridge. The differences between the
results from (1) and (2) and finite-element results may be attributed to the
simplified form adopted for these equations, and to overlooking some pa-
rameters such as girder and deck-slab stiffnesses in their development.

417

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the results presented in this paper leads to the following
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

conclusions, which are valid for medium-span concrete on multistringer steel

I-beam simply supported composite bridges of Grade 50 steel and class S
concrete, that are void of sidewalks, whose center-to-center spacing of gir-
ders is close to 9 ft, and whose skew angles do not exceed 60~
Eqs. (1) and (2) give wheel-load distribution factors to interior and ex-
terior girders, respectively. Their results are usually 5-25% higher than
those obtained from finite-element analysis. In the derivation of (1) and (2)
results obtained with three lanes loaded simultaneously were multiplied by
0.90, and results for four lanes loaded simultaneously were multiplied by
0.75 in recognition of the three-dimensional interaction of all bridge deck
members, per AASHTO article 3.12.1.
For interior girders, distribution factors from (1) are 30-85% of the
current AASHTO distribution factor (S/5.5). For exterior girders, distri-
bution factors from (2) are 30-70% of the current AASHTO distribution
factors, S/(4 + 0.25S). The higher the bridge skew angle, the smaller the
ratio between the distribution factors from (1) and (2) and those from current
AASHTO specifications.
Live-load maximum bending moments in girders of skew bridges are
generally lower than those in right bridges of the same span and deck width.
The larger the skew angle, the smaller the bending moments of the girders.
The maximum interior girder's bending moment reduction caused by skew
is around 5% for a skew angle of 30~ however, the reduction can become
as large as 28% for a skew angle of 60~ The moment reduction is relatively
smaller in exterior girders. The maximum exterior girders' bending moment
for a 20~ skew angle bridge is 10% higher than that of a right bridge, and
for a 40~ skew angle, the increase in live-load distribution factor over that
of a right bridge is 5%. For 60~ skew bridges, the behavior is reversed,
showing a decrease in the distribution factor of 25% from a right bridge.
The distribution factor to interior girders is practically insensitive to the
change in span length, and the distribution factor to exterior girders is
insensitive to the deck-slab total width.
The interaction between cross frames and girders helps in the distribution
of wheel loads to stringers. With the same size of cross frames, the smaller
the spacing of the cross frames, the smaller the load distribution factor, i.e.,
better distribution of wheel loads to stringers. A 5% larger distribution
factor was observed when the spacing between the cross frames is increased
from 12.5 to 25 ft. However, since (1) and (2) give distribution factors that
are on the average more than 10% higher than the finite-element results,
they may be used with 25 ft cross frames' spacing, which is the largest spacing
allowed in current AASHTO specifications. With the same 12.5 ft cross
frames' spacing by doubling the cross-sectional area of the cross frames'
members, only a 6% reduction in the load distribution factor is achieved.
Because exterior girders are affected less than interior girders by the skew
angle effect, exterior girders may become controlling in skew bridge design.
This tendency is more pronounced in bridges with large skew angles and
long spans. However, this tendency is only valid when the outer wheel of
the trucks can be placed at 2 ft from the center line of the exterior girder.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
"ADINA, theory and modeling guide." (1984). Report AE 84-6. ADINA Engi-
neering.
418

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419

 "ADINA-IN, Program for Generation of Input Data to ADINA." (1984). Report
AE 84-6, ADINA Engineering.
Bishara, A. G. (1986). "Analysis for design of bearings at skew bridge supports."
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Final Report, Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C.

Chen, T. Y., Siess, C. P., and Newmark, N. M. (1954). "Studies of slab and beam
highway bridges, part IV: Moments in simply supported skew I-beam bridges."
Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 439, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Ill.
E1-Ali, N. D. (1986). "Evaluation of internal forces in skew multi-stringer simply
supported steel bridges," PhD thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Marx, H. J., Khachaturian, N., and Gamble, W. L. (1986). "Development of design
crteria for simply supported skew slab-and-girder bridges." Structural Research
Series No. 522, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Newmark, N. M. (1948). "Design of I-Beam Bridges." J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 74(1),
305-330.
Nutt, R. V., Schamber, R. A., and Zokaie, T. (1988). "Distribution of wheel loads
in highway bridges." Final Report No. 83, IMBSEN & Associates, Inc., Sacra-
mento, Calif.
Sanders, W. W., and Elleby, H. A. (1970). "Distribution of wheel loads on highway
bridges." Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice III, Trans-
portation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
"SAP IV, a structural analysis program for static and dynamic response of linear
systems." (1974). EERC Report No. 73-11, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif.
Standard specifications for highway bridges. (1989). 14th Ed., American Association
of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D.C.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper."

A area of a bottom flange (in.e);

D distribution factor (number of wheel lines per girder);
axial force along bending plane of bottom flange beam element (kip);
shear force action on plane which is vertical to bending plane of
beam element (kip);
Ft shear force acting on transverse direction of beam element (kip);
A = normal stress at bottom surface of a bottom flange (ksi);
G = number of girders;
I = moment of inertia about centroidal axis of bottom flange beam ele-
ment (in.4);
span length (ft);
Mr= torque on plane whose normal coincides with axis of beam element
(kip-in);
M/ ~--- moment about transverse axis of beam element (kip-in);
N = number of truck loads;
R = skew effect reduction factor;
y = distance from bottom surface of flange to its centroid (in.);
W = total deck width of bridge (ft); and
O = skew angle (degree).

419

J. Struct. Eng., 1993, 119(2): 399-419