Com~ukrs & Swucrures Vol. 55. No. I. up. 17-32.

1995
Copyright 0 1995 Else&r Science Ltd
> Pergamon 0045-794!2@4wo530-3
. , Printed in Great Britain. All tinhts reserved
Go45-7949/95-$9.50 + 0.00

REFINED AND SIMPLIFIED METHODS OF LATERAL

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FOR BRIDGES WITH
UNEQUALLY SPACED GIRDERS: II. APPLICATIONS

Y. Chen
Department of Civil Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, Middletown, PA 17057-4898, U.S.A.

(Received 31 December 1993)

Abstract-Comprehensive parametric studies consisting of a number of real bridges are conducted using
the refined approach described in part I of the paper. Important system parameters including span length,
girder spacing, material strength, bridge skew, diaphragm, number of traffic lanes, bridge model, and
analysis type are considered. Live-load distribution factors considering maximum moment condition and
maximum shear condition are derived using various methods. The simplified methods of estimating the
distribution factors are carefully examined with the refined method. Advantages of the proposed refined
approach are demonstrated.

NOTATION compare the simplified methods of estimating the

distribution factors with the refined method. In
A cross-sectional area
DF live-load distribution factor performing the parametric studies, the following
4 initial tangent Young’s modulus important system parameters were taken into account:
F, orthotropy factor span length, girder spacing and pattern, material
F, yielding stress of steel strength, bridge skew, diaphragm, number of traffic
G-G, girder number
lanes, bridge modeling, loading condition, and analysis
4 moment of inertia of girder about x (strong) axis
moment of inertia of girder about y (weak) axis type. Detailed discussion of the parametric studies
4
JS Saint-Venant torsional constant follows.
L bridge span length
M computed bending moment at c.g. of girder
number of girders 2. BRIDGE EXAMPLES
N8
ND number of design traffic lanes
NL number of loaded traffic lanes As shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1, 13 realistic and
P computed axial load at c.g. of girder representative steel bridges made of I girders were
s center-to-center girder spacing investigated by using both the beam model and the
S’ maximum spacing between the exterior and
interior girders
plate model described in part I of the paper. These
S,-S, spacing number bridges can be divided into two main groups. In the
S, maximum average spacing of three consecutive first group (cases l-7), Nn (number of design traffic
girders lanes) = 2, Ng (number of girders) = 4, and W(overal1
Sb.c composite section modulus at the bottom of
roadway width) = 32 ft. In the second group (cases
girder
Sb.nc noncomposite section modulus at the bottom of 7-13), No = 3, N8 = 5, and W = 40 ft. All bridges
girder were assumed to be simply supported (i.e. hinge at the
W overall roadway width one end, and roller at the other end) since simple
be effective slab width bridges, being least redundant, represent the most
depth of girder
slab thickness
critical case. They were also assumed to have no skews
Poisson’s ratio (i.e. straight bridges meaning that the longitudinal
maximum compressive stress of concrete centerline of bridge is perpendicular to the transverse
centerlines of supports) initially. The thickness of
bridge deck (t,) dictated by the girder spacing was set
1. INTRODUCTION at 8 in, typically. Bridge span (L) is 100 ft for cases
l-3 and cases 7-13, and 50 ft for cases 4-6.
Part II of the paper implements the methodology In the first wave of the parametric studies, no
described in Part I with a number of real bridge diaphragm (transverse beam) was considered in the
applications. The objective was to derive the live-load bridge systems. Diaphragms made of structural steel
distribution factors utilizing the results obtained channels, Cl5 x 33.9 (A = 9.96 in2, d = 15 in, [, =
from the finite-element based refined method, and to 315 in4, 1, = 8.13 in4, and J, = 0.91 in4) were added

17
18 Y. Chen

rp40'-0' (Cases 7-13)-l

Fig. 1. Overall cross sections of the bridge systems. (a) Four-girder bridges. (b) Five-girder bridges.

later between the bridge girders at the bridge supports discussed in part I of the paper were considered.
and quarter points for studying their effects on the As also discussed in part I, for bridges with L under
lateral distribution of live loads. The diaphragms 150 ft, truck loads control bridge designs instead of
were placed such that the centers of gravity at their the lane loading. To maximize the bending and shear
ends matched with those of the connected girders, effects, all studied bridges were loaded with maximum
Fig. 1. possible number of trucks or traffic lanes. Namely,
For vehicular live loads, both the maximum cases l-7 (ND = 2), were loaded with two trucks
moment condition and maximum shear condition (i.e. N,_ = 2, NL being the number of loaded traffic

Table 1. Summary of numerical studies

Bridge
case Gl G2 G3 G4 G5

1 8 8 8 - W36 x 300 W36 x 300 W36 x 300 W36 x 300

2 4 10 10 - W36 x 393 W36 x 393 W36 x 393 W36 x 393
3 10 4 10 - W36 x 300 W36 x 300 W36 x 300 W36 x 300
4 8 8 8 - W36 x 150 W36 x 150 W36 x 150 W36 x 150
5 4 10 10 - W36 x 170 W36 x 170 W36 x 170 W36 x 170
6 10 4 10 - W36 x 150 W36 x 150 W36 x 150 W36 x 150
7 8 8 8 8 W36 x 300 W36 x 300 W36 x 300 W36 x 300 W36 x 300
8 5 5 11 11 W36 x 439 W36 x 439 W36 x 439 W36 x 439 W36 x 439
9 11 5 5 I1 W36 x 328 W36 x 328 W36 x 328 W36 x 328 W36 x 328
10 5 11 5 11 W36 x 328 W36 x 328 W36 x 328 W36 x 328 W36 x 328
11 5 11 11 5 W36 x 439 W36 x 439 W36 x 439 W36 x 439 W36 x 439
12 5 5 11 11 W36 x 232 W36 x 232 W36 x 328 W36 x 439 W36 x 439
13 5 5 II 11 W36 x 439 W36 x 328 W36 x 232 W36 x 328 W36 x 439

Note: refer to Fig. I for girder spacing and numbering.

 Rational and simplified methods of lateral load distribution: II 19

Table 2. Summary of orthotropy factors (F,)

Bridge
case Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
r 40’-0” (Bridge Cases 7-13)

1 1.46 1.46 1.46

2 2.37 1.35 1.35
3 1.348 2.345 1.348
4 1.305 1.305 1.305 -
5 1.78 1.235 1.235
6 1.234 1.775 1.234
7 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46
8 1.39 1.39 1.15 1.15
9 1.14 1.38 1.38 1.14
IO 1.38 1.14 1.38 1.14
11 1.39 1.15 1.15 1.39
12 1.39 1.39 1.15 1.15
13 1.45 1.315 1.315 1.45
Note: refer to Figs 2 and 3 for zone numbering.

32’-0” (Bridge Cases l-6)

Fig. 3. The zone numbers defining the orthotropy factors

for the five-girder bridges.

summarized in Table 2 in which the zone numbers

are defined in Figs 2 and 3. At the beginning, the
following typical elastic material properties were used:
for concrete, Et (initial tangent Young’s modulus)
= 3,122 ksi which corresponds to gc,max (maximum
compressive stress) of 3 ksi, and v (Poisson’s ratio)
= 0.2; and for steel, FV (yielding stress) = 50 ksi, and
v = 0.3.
Table 3 summarizes the sectional properties of
the steel girders and the noncomposite section
moduli (S,,,) at the bottom of the girder. Table 4
summarizes the effective concrete slab widths (b,,
Fig. 2. The zone numbers defining the orthotropy factors eqns 17 and 18 of part I) and the composite section
for the four-girder bridges. moduli (S,,) at the bottom of girder. Typical finite
element meshes are shown in Figs 4 and 5 (beam
model), and Figs 6 and 7 (plate model), while typical
lanes), while cases 7-13 (ND = 3) were loaded with loading conditions are shown in Figs 8 and 9
three trucks (NL = 3), and hence a multilane reduction (maximum moment condition), and Figs 10 and 11
factor of 0.9 should be applied to the distribution (maximum shear condition).
factors according to the current bridge design All numerical computations were carried out on an
code [I]. IBM3090 mainframe machine. The total computation
In the linear analysis, bridge deck was modeled time for a typical bridge analyzed by the plate model
as elastic plate and orthotropic plate for comparison was approx. 10 s for a linear analysis, and 2 min for
purposes. The orthotropy factors (F,), determined a nonlinear analysis. Less computation time was
from eqn (6) of part I, for the orthotropic decks are required by the beam model.

Table 3. Noncomposite sectional properties of I-shaped steel girders

Steel girder W36 x 300 W36 x 393 W36 x 150 W36 x 170 W36 x 439 W36 x 328 W36 x 232
A (in’) 88.3 115 44.2 50 128 96.4 68.1
I (in4) 20300 27500 9040 10500 31000 22500 15000
d (in) 36.74 37.8 35.85 36.17 38.26 37.09 37.12
S,.,, (in’) 1105.1 1455.0 504.3 580.6 1620.5 1213.3 808.2
20 Y. Chen

Table 4. Summary of effective widths and section moduli for the composite sections
Bridge Gl G2 G3 G4 GS
case 6. (in) &c (in’) b, (in) & (in31 b, (in) S,, (in31 b, (in) .L (in’ 1 6, (in) % (in’)
1 48 1361.1 96 1446.4 96 1446.4 48 1361.1 -
2 24 1647.9 96 1872.1 96 1872.1 48 1755.1 -
3 48 1361.1 84 1430.6 84 1430.6 48 1361.1
4 48 686.7 96 725.8 96 725.8 48 686.7
5 24 725.3 96 822.6 96 822.6 48 777.1
6 48 686.7 84 718.8 84 718.8 48 686.7 - -
7 48 1361.1 96 1446.4 96 1446.4 96 1446.4 48 1361.1
8 30 1857.8 60 1983.0 96 2073.4 96 2073.4 48 1940.7
9 48 1483.0 96 1577.8 60 1514.1 96 1577.8 48 1483.0
10 30 1419.5 96 1577.8 96 1577.8 96 1577.8 48 1483.0
11 30 1857.8 96 2073.4 96 2073.4 96 2073.4 30 1857.8
12 30 999.5 60 1071.6 96 1577.8 96 2073.4 48 1940.7
13 48 1940.7 96 1577.8 60 1071.6 96 1577.8 48 1940.7
Note: refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering.

3. RESULTS beam model are summarized in Tables 5-7 (without

diaphragms), and Tables 8-10 (with diaphragms),
Representative axial forces and bending moments while representative P and M results obtained from
of girders computed at midspan (P and M) using the the plate model are contained in Tables 1 I-13.

,-c.g. Slab
,- Shell Element

Typical Diaphram Element

Fig. 4. Typical finite element mesh (beam model, case 3).

 c.g. Slab ,--c.g. Slab r Shell Element
FShell Element
I t I t I t I f I t I

L Beam
rTypica1 Diaphram Element rTypical Diaphram Element

Fig. 5. Typical finite element mesh (beam model, case 9). Fig. 6. Typical finite element mesh (plate model, case 6).
 L Beam Girder
,-Typical Diaphram Element

I 1 Wheels

-- --‘-~r_____-,~~~~~-~-=___,,_-~_Mid’$le
I I Wheels
1 I
I I
I I
___~_~____t)_____~-____.)____._Flont
I Wheels
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
! !
I ( I
I I
I ! /
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
Fig. 7. Typical finite element mesh (plate model, case 9). Fig. 8. The maximum moment condltlon for bridge cast 1 (0: 4 kips; 0: 16 kips).
 I 1
I
I
I
I
x
B
I I ‘0
m
w
i;
f ._
I B
I
2
-r

,b___.__i_-_--&------~____---_-------_---____c
I I I B
I I 5
I I 0
I I 1
0
I I 2
0 *
v
I I 2
I
I1 I
8
‘3

!j
1 I

&_---.--i.---_-~-.-------~__-----.----------.-___
I I -2
I
I
I
I
sE
I I ‘2
I

,I
I
I I
I I
I I 1 )
I I
L
I
l+,o-.+I
I I I 2
J--,,0-~Pt---)
-__ ,,o-,001 = 1 ___ -I
 Y. Chen

T w T w tT---_+----- Rear
I I I Wheels
I I I
I ! I
I I I
______i_---,___-i-.--~~---i_.---o-----Middle
I I I Wheels
I I I
I I I
, I

I
I

I
---I- i__-_.__-L__q
,
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
Fig. Il. The maximum shear condition for bridge case 7 (0: 4 kips; 0: 16 kips).

Based upon the obtained refined analysis results,
live-load distribution factors (DFs) for bridge girders
were derived using eqn (21) in part I of the paper.
Representative DFs derived from the beam model
results are summarized in Tables 14-16. Comparisons
of the maximum DFs between the beam model and
plate model are shown in Table 17 (linear analysis),
and Table 18 (nonlinear analysis). The effects of
diaphragms on the maximum DFs of the linear
analysis using the beam model are demonstrated in
Table 19 (interior girders), and Table 20 (exterior
girders). The diaphragm effects arising from the
other analyses or models were similar. Comparisons
of the absolute maximum DFs for bridges without
diaphragms are shown in Table 21 (interior girders),
and Table 22 (exterior girders). Similar trends of
the DFs for bridges with diaphragms were observed.
The DFs determined from the three simplified
methods shown in Tables 2 1 and 22 are based on eqns
(22)-(24) (current AASHTO) [I], eqns (25) and (27)
(NCHRP 12-26) [2] and eqns (29) and (27) (NCHRP
12-33) [3], as contained in part I of the paper.
It should be noted here that the shear DFs listed
in the tables were essentially the moment shares
corresponding to the maximum shear load condition.
The shear DFs would be generally higher if they were
derived from reactions or shears instead. This issue,
however, will be addressed in detail in a separate
paper.
4. DISCUSSION
Based on the above results, some interesting find-
ings on live-load distribution factor (DF) are noticed
as follows.
 Rational and simplified methods of lateral load distribution: II 25

Table 5. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum moment condition (no diaphragms;
beam model; linear analysis, P: kip, M: in-kip)

Bridge Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5

case P M P M P M P M P M

1 a 132.1 2698 190.5 4100 221.5 5030 234.7 5670

b 126.6 2643 199.0 4147 225.7 5075 232.5 5635
2 a 85.1 1787 163.5 4031 222.1 5925 239.5 7105
b 77.2 1717 166.3 4565 228.4 5995 239.0 7075
3 a 138.0 2787 184.4 4009 215.7 4943 242.0 5760
b 132.9 2735 187.9 4556 219.6 4986 288.8 5725
4 a 46.1 701 101.6 1463 120.9 1791 113.9 1196
b 43.5 674 103.5 1988 122.7 1814 112.8 1779
5 a 22.7 308 89.7 1372 132.6 2073 126.6 2164
b 19.6 328 90.3 1382 135.3 2106 126.4 2158
6 a 52.9 780 94.7 1383 114.2 1713 120.9 1776
b 50.3 153 96.8 1410 116.0 1735 119.6 1858
I a 203.7 4543 230.5 5010 297.4 5460 251.7 5650 244.7 5650
b 198.9 4491 232.3 5035 251.6 5510 254.1 5680 241.2 5605
8 a 113.3 3931 159.2 4867 213.4 5780 287.5 7090 260.4 7140
b 109.4 3893 158.4 4864 215.2 5805 291.5 7140 259.4 7115
9 a 213.3 4784 218.3 5280 209.7 5305 231.1 5625 259.9 6015
b 213.3 4786 218.5 5285 208.5 5290 231.2 5630 260.6 6010
10 a 163.9 4134 206.0 4883 244.6 255.4 5935 266.9 6215
b 161.0 4106 206.2 4892 246.2 5700 207.0 5955 266.1 6200
11 a 154.7 4998 215.6 5940 280.9 6845 222.9 6305 177.6 5715
b 150.0 4954 216.8 5955 285.8 6910 223.5 6310 174.8 5740
12 a 140.8 3153 152.3 3417 230.9 5400 328.9 7730 271.8 7100
b 138.7 3130 152.5 3419 232.7 5425 331.6 7765 269.4 7070
13 a 229.8 5935 217.8 5205 156.1 3553 221.7 5495 276.0 7225
b 226.4 5795 220.2 5235 157.8 3572 230.0 5525 273.2 7190

Notes: (1) refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering. (2) a = orthotropic deck, b = elastic deck.

Table 6. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum shear condition (no diaphragms;
beam model; linear analysis, P: kip, M: in-kip)

Bridge Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5

case P M P M P M P M P M

1 a 34.2 686 37.7 859 44.7 1071 52.4 1298

b 33.1 674 38.3 862 45.8 1084 51.9 1290
2 a 22.8 488 33.6 868 43.0 1228 55.1 1636
b 20.3 468 34.4 883 44.3 1242 55.4 1629 -
3 a 34.2 686 37.7 854 44.1 1071 52.5 1299 -
b 33.2 675 38.2 862 45.1 1083 52.0 1290 -
4 a 24.3 374 50.0 738 60.4 917 57.6 927
b 22.9 359 51.0 752 61.4 929 57.0 918 -
5 a 10.7 188 44.4 698 65.9 1052 65.8 1132
b 9.0 171 49.8 705 67.9 1070 65.7 1125 -
6 a 27.5 411 46.1 701 57.2 881 60.9 964
b 26.1 395 47.9 716 55.8 894 60.2 954
7 a 47.2 1061 48.2 1106 51.7 1186 52.8 1234 53.5 1280
b 46.0 1047 48.6 1111 53.1 1204 53.0 1239 52.5 1267
8 a 26.2 935 35.7 1114 44.7 1260 57.3 1491 60.5 1658
b 24.9 924 35.5 1113 45.3 1268 58.4 1504 60.3 1651
9 a 46.9 1089 45.5 1138 49.0 1237 48.8 1226 55.9 1345
b 46.8 1089 45.3 1135 49.3 1242 48.7 1225 56.1 1346
10 a 38.8 997 40.3 1036 52.3 1246 55.2 1303 60.7 1419
b 37.5 990 39.8 1033 53.0 1255 55.8 1310 60.7 1415
11 a 37.1 1130 43.1 1223 54.4 1398 47.0 1401 40.6 1364
b 36.3 1118 43.4 1276 55.8 1415 47.2 1404 39.6 1358
12 a 32.1 745 32.8 767 48.0 1171 68.5 1665 63.1 1648
b 31.4 738 32.7 166 48.5 1177 69.3 1174 62.6 1640
13 a 53.0 1366 44.2 1105 34.1 799 46.7 1179 62.2 1165
b 52.0 1354 44.7 1111 34.9 810 47.2 1186 61.4 1654
Notes: (1) refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering. (2) a = orthotropic deck, b = elastic deck.
26 Y. Chen

Table 7. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum moment condition (no diaphragms;
beam model; nonlinear analysis, P: kip, M: in-kip)
Bridge Girder I Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5
case P M P M P M P M P M
1 100.8 2058 145.4 3129 169.0 3838 179.1 4326 -
2 64.9 1364 125.1 3076 169.5 4521 182.8 5421 - -
3 100.8 2127 140.7 3059 164.5 377 1 183.9 4395 - -
4 35.2 535 77.5 1117 92.2 1367 86.9 1370 - -
5 17.3 273 68.4 1046 101.2 1582 96.7 1655 -
6 40.4 595 72.2 1055 87.1 1307 92.2 1426 -
7 155.4 3466 175.9 3823 188.8 4166 192.1 4311 186.7 4311
8 86.5 2999 121.5 3714 162.8 4410 219.3 5410 198.7 5448
9 162.8 3650 165.0 4028 160.0 4048 176.3 4292 198.3 4582
10 125.0 3154 157.2 3726 186.7 4334 194.9 4528 203.6 4742
11 118.0 3814 164.5 4532 214.3 5223 170.1 4811 135.5 4407
12 107.4 2406 116.2 2607 176.7 4120 251.0 5898 207.4 5418
13 175.4 4452 166.2 3972 119.1 2711 173.3 4198 210.6 5513
Notes: (1) refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering. (2) E, = 3,122 kips in’ for bridge deck.

Table 8. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum moment condition (diaphragms;
beam model; linear analysis, P: kips, M: in-kip)

Bridge Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5

case P M P M P M P M P M
1 143.6 2830 185.8 3998 214.0 4925 236.9 5745 - -
2 139.2 3186 117.8 3560 193.2 5255 246.2 6495
3 169.8 3279 149.1 4432 193.2 466 1 243.7 5605
4 61.9 852 93.7 1362 110.3 1673 117.9 1872 _
5 68.9 935 41.3 1288 95.5 1918 139.9 2248 -
6 77.9 1032 68.3 1562 84.5 1689 128.8 1953 - -
7 214.4 4668 227.9 4958 240. I 5355 246.6 5580 250.5 5755
8 138.8 4208 165.5 4926 201.5 5570 262.3 6765 268.5 7345
9 218.7 4835 216.0 5215 212.6 5415 227.2 5565 258.4 6015
10 181.4 4355 205.9 4810 234.6 5545 245.8 5830 270.8 6345
11 180.1 5385 208.8 5790 248.9 6405 217.1 6205 199.1 6125
12 151.7 3304 153.6 3435 222.5 5275 312.5 7495 286.7 7300
13 248.6 207.1 150.1 3488 215.2 5330 287.7 7415

Table 9. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum shear condition (diaphragms; beam model;
linear analysis, P: kips, M: in-kip)
Bridge Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5
case P M P M P M P M P M
1 36.0 706 37.5 843 43.5 1052 52.3 1307
2 36.3 807 28.1 559 41.1 955 52.1 1486
3 40.3 799 33.6 968 44.3 917 51.0 1236
4 32.5 454 45.7 683 54.7 858 59.9 970
5 37.6 500 20.9 528 48.7 892 71.3 1189
6 40.5 546 35.1 757 43.9 813 65.1 1007 - -
7 49.2 1088 47.7 1046 49.6 1160 52.0 1223 55.2 1304
8 33.7 1012 37.5 1126 41.5 1201 51.1 1413 61.3 1703
9 48.0 1094 46.2 1145 47.8 1219 48.9 1248 55.2 1341
10 43.3 1040 42.7 1045 49.3 1201 52.3 1275 59.7 1435
11 42.5 1220 41.7 1196 45.2 1276 46.0 1376 47.0 1457
12 35.2 782 33.6 775 46.0 1138 64.4 1609 65.7 1689
13 57.7 1421 32.4 1078 30.9 744 44.4 1149 65.0 1710
 Rational and simplified methods of lateral load distribution: II 27

Table 10. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum moment condition (diaphragms;
beam model; nonlinear analysis, P: kips, M: in-kip)
Bridge Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5
case P M P M P M P M P M
1 109.6 2659 141.8 355 1 163.3 3758 180.7 4384 -
2 106.2 243 1 89.9 2716 147.4 4010 187.9 4956 -
3 129.5 2502 113.8 3881 147.4 3557 185.9 4277
4 47.2 650 71.5 1039 84.2 1276 89.9 1428 -
5 52.4 714 31.5 983 72.9 1464 106.7 1715 -
6 59.4 788 52.1 1197 64.5 1289 98.3 1490 - -
7 163.6 3562 173.9 3783 183.2 4086 188.1 4258 191.2 4391
8 105.9 3211 126.3 3759 158.8 4250 200.2 5162 204.9 5604
9 166.9 3689 164.8 3979 162.2 4132 173.3 4246 197.2 4580
10 138.4 3323 157.1 3670 179.0 4231 187.6 4449 206.6 4826
11 137.4 4109 159.3 4418 189.9 4887 165.6 4735 151.9 4674
12 115.7 2521 117.2 2621 169.8 4025 238.4 5719 218.8 5570
13 189.7 4624 158.0 3846 114.5 2662 164.2 4067 219.5 5658
Note: concrete E, = 3122 ksi.

4.1. Common trends vs Table 17). However, one should note that the
forces and moments of girders (P and M) computed
(a) For the linear analysis using the beam model, from the nonlinear analysis were decreased at
the modeling of deck (elastic plate or orthotropic significantly higher rates (e.g. about 25.4% for E,
plate) had negligible effects on the maximum DFs, of 3,122 ksi and F, of 36 ksi). These reduced girder
Table 15. Therefore, for practical reasons, the bridge force and moment will ultimately result in a more
deck can be modeled as an elastic plate, which is economical bridge design.
simpler. (d) Of the three simplified methods, the NCHRP
(b) The plate model resulted in slightly higher 12-33 formulas, eqns (27) and (29) of part I being
maximum DFs than the beam model (Tables 17 and adopted in the proposed new code [3], gave the best
18)-on average4.2% for the interior girders, and estimation of the maximum DFs, Tables 21 and 22.
3.6% for the exterior girders. However, they do not always lead to conservative
(c) The nonlinear analysis results led to slightly designs (e.g. case 12 in Table 21 and case 13 in
lower ( + 8%) DF values than the linear ones (Table 18 Table 22). This also confirms that NCHRP 12-33

Table 11. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum moment condition (no diaphragms;
plate model; linear analysis, P: kip, M: in-kip)

Bridge Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5

case P M P M P M P M P M

1 a 137.1 2800 198.6 4273 230.8 5243 234.7 5670 - -

b 131.4 2743 202.2 4322 235.3 5290 232.5 5635 -
2 a 88.3 1855 170.9 4201 231.5 6176 239.5 7105 - -
b 80.1 1782 173.3 4237 238.0 6249 239.0 7075 -
3 a 143.3 2893 192.2 4179 224.8 5152 241.0 5760 -
b 137.9 2839 195.9 4227 228.9 5196 238.8 5725 -
4 a 47.8 727 105.9 1525 126.0 1867 113.9 1796 -
b 45.2 699 107.9 1551 127.9 1890 112.8 1779 - -
5 a 23.6 371 93.5 1428 138.2 2160 126.6 2169 -
b 20.4 340 94.1 1441 141.0 2200 126.4 2158 -
6 a 54.9 809 98.7 1442 119.0 1786 120.9 1876 -
b 52.2 781 100.9 1469 120.9 1809 119.7 1856 - -
7 a 211.4 4715 240.2 5222 257.9 5691 262.4 5889 254.0 5865
b 206.4 4662 242.1 5248 262.2 5743 264.9 5920 250.4 5818
8 a 117.6 4080 116.0 5073 222.4 6024 299.6 7390 270.3 7411
b 113.5 404 1 165.1 SO69 224.3 605 1 303.8 7442 269.3 7385
9 a 221.4 4965 228.0 5503 218.5 5529 240.8 5863 269.8 6233
b 221.4 4968 227.8 5509 217.3 5514 241.0 5868 270.5 6238
10 a 170.1 4291 214.7 5089 255.0 5920 266.2 6186 277.0 645 1
b 167.1 4262 214.9 SO98 256.6 5941 267.9 6206 276.2 6936
11 a 160.5 5168 224.7 6191 292.7 7134 232.3 6572 184.3 5995
b 156.7 5142 226.0 6207 297.8 7202 233.0 6577 181.4 5958
12 a 146.1 3273 158.8 3561 240.6 5628 342.9 8057 282.1 7370
b 143.9 3249 159.0 3564 242.5 5654 345.6 8057 279.6 7339
13 a 238.6 6557 227.0 5425 162.7 3703 236.8 8093 286.5 7500
b 235.0 6015 229.5 5456 164.4 3723 239.2 5759 283.6 7463
Notes: (1) refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering. (2) a = orthotropic deck, b = elastic deck.
28 Y. Chen

Table 12. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum moment condition (no diaphragms;
plate model; nonlinear analysis, P: kip, M: in-kip)
Bridge Girder I Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5
case P M P M P M P M P M

104.6 2137 151.5 3261 176.1 4000 185.9 4491

2 67.4 1416 130.4 3205 176.6 4712 189.7 5627
3 109.3 2207 146.7 3188 171.5 393 I 190.9 4562
4 36.5 666 80.8 1164 96.1 1425 90.2 1422
5 18.0 283 71.3 1090 105.5 1648 100.3 1718
6 41.9 618 75.3 1100 90.8 1362 90.7 1486
7 161.3 3598 183.3 3984 196.8 4242 200.2 4493 193.8 4415
8 89.8 3113 126.6 3871 169.7 4591 228.6 5638 206.3 5655
9 169.0 3517 173.6 4199 166.1 4219 183.8 4473 205.9 4756
10 129.8 3789 163.8 3883 194.5 4517 203.1 4720 211.4 4922
11 122.5 3959 171.5 4724 223.4 5444 177.2 5014 140.6 4574
12 111.5 2497 121.1 2717 183.6 4295 261.6 6147 215.2 5623
13 182.0 4621 173.2 4139 124.2 2826 180.7 4370 218.6 5722
No&: (1) refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering. (2) E, = 3,122 kips in-’ for bridge deck.

Table 13. Girder axial forces and bending moments at midspans under maximum moment condition (diaphragms;
plate model; linear analysis, P: kips, M: in-kip)

Bridge Girder 1 Girder 2 Girder 3 Girder 4 Girder 5

case P M P M P M P M P M

1 150.5 2965 195.5 4207 250.2 5182 248.2 602 I

2 145.9 3339 124.0 3746 203.3 5530 208.0 6807
3 177.9 3437 156.9 4613 203.3 4655 255.4 5874
4 64.8 893 98.6 1433 116.1 1760 128.5 1962
5 72.0 980 43.4 1355 100.5 2018 146.6 2356
6 81.6 1082 71.8 1643 88.9 I778 135.0 2047
I 224.7 4892 239.8 5217 257.7 5135 259.5 5872 267.5 603 1
8 145.4 4410 174.1 5184 212.1 586 1 276.0 7114 282.0 7698
9 229.2 5016 227.3 5488 223.7 5698 239.0 5856 271.0 6304
10 190.1 4564 216.7 5062 246.9 5835 258.7 6035 283.8 6679
11 188.7 5644 219.7 6093 261.9 6739 228.4 6529 208.7 6419
12 159.0 3463 161.7 3614 234.2 5551 328.8 7887 300.5 7650
13 250.5 6351 217.9 5304 157.9 367 I 226.5 5658 301.5 777 1

Table 14. The distribution factors derived from the linear analysis results (no diaphragms; beam model; orthotropic deck)
Bridge Flexure Shear
case Gl G2 G3 G4 G5 Gl G2 G3 G4 G5
I 0.31 0.49 0.59 0.61 0.36 0.45 0.56 0.63 -
2 0.30 0.40 0.60 0.69 0.37 0.31 0.55 0.78 -
3 0.37 0.48 0.54 0.61 0.41 0.47 0.50 0.62 -
4 0.23 0.53 0.64 0.59 0.25 0.52 0.64 0.60 -
5 0.22 0.39 0.68 0.72 0.21 0.33 0.67 0.79 -
6 0.31 0.49 0.55 0.64 0.33 0.48 0.53 0.66 -
7 0.50 0.59 0.64 0.66 0.61 0.53 0.58 0.62 0.64 0.62
8 0.36 0.49 0.63 0.80 0.73 0.38 0.50 0.61 0.74 0.76
9 0.53 0.60 0.57 0.64 0.66 0.54 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.65
10 0.42 0.56 0.66 0.69 0.68 0.45 0.52 0.65 0.68 0.70
11 0.45 0.62 0.75 0.66 0.52 0.48 0.59 0.70 0.67 0.56
12 0.35 0.40 0.63 0.89 0.73 0.37 0.40 0.61 0.85 0.77
13 0.61 0.60 0.42 0.63 0.75 0.64 0.57 0.42 0.60 0.77

Notes: (1) refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering. (2) Bold-face numbers indicate the maximum distribution factors for
interior girders.
 Rational and simplified methods of lateral load distribution: II 29

Table 15. Maximum distribution factors derived from the Table 17. Comparisons of maximum distribution factors
linear analysis results (no diaphragms; beam model) between the beam model and plate model (no diaphragms;
orthotropic deck; linear analysis)
Interior girder Exterior girder
Bridge Flexure Shear Flexure Shear Flexure DFt-interior Shear DF--exterior
case DFt DF DF DF girder girder
Bridge Beam Plate Beam Plate
1 a 0.59 0.56 0.61 0.63
case model model model model
b 0.60 0.57 0.61 0.62
2 a 0.60 0.55 0.69 0.78 1 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65
b 0.61 0.56 0.69 0.80 2 0.60 0.63 0.78 0.81
3 a 0.54 0.50 0.61 0.62 3 0.54 0.56 0.62 0.64
b 0.54 0.51 0.61 0.61 4 0.64 0.67 0.60 0.62
4 a 0.64 0.64 0.59 0.60 5 0.68 0.71 0.79 0.82
b 0.65 0.65 0.59 0.59 6 0.55 0.57 0.66 0.69
5 a 0.68 0.67 0.72 0.79 7 0.66 0.69 0.62 0.64
b 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.79 8 0.80 0.83 0.76 0.79
6 a 0.55 0.53 0.64 0.66 9 0.64 0.67 0.65 0.67
b 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.66 10 0.69 0.72 0.70 0.73
7 a 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.62 11 0.75 0.78 0.56 0.58
b 0.66 0.65 0.61 0.62 12 0.89 0.93 0.77 0.80
8 a 0.80 0.74 0.73 0.76 13 0.63 0.66 0.77 0.80
b 0.80 0.75 0.72 0.76
t Distribution factor.
9 a 0.64 0.63 0.66 0.65
b 0.64 0.62 0.66 0.65
10 a 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.70
b 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.70
11 a 0.75 0.70 0.52 0.56
b 0.76 0.71 0.51 0.56 Table 18. Comparisons of maximum distribution factors
12 a 0.89 0.85 0.73 0.77
between the beam model and plate model (no diaphragms;
b 0.89 0.86 0.73 0.77 orthotropic deck; nonlinear analysis)
13 a 0.63 0.63 0.75 0.77
b 0.63 0.64 0.74 0.76 Flexure DFt-interior Shear DF-exterior
girder girder
Notes: (1) a = orthotropic bridge deck, b = elastic bridge Bridge Beam Plate Beam Plate
deck. (2) t Distribution factor. case model model model model
1 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.58
2 0.55 0.58 0.69 0.72
3 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.57
method [3] is not a refined method. It is also noted 4 0.59 0.62 0.53 0.55
that the estimated DFs from NCHRP 12-26 method 5 0.63 0.65 0.70 0.73
[2] and NCHRP 12-33 method [3] differ only slightly 6 0.51 0.52 0.59 0.61
(Tables 21 and 22). 7 0.61 0.63 0.55 0.57
8 0.74 0.76 0.68 0.70
4.2. Interior girders 9 0.59 0.62 0.58 0.60
10 0.63 0.66 0.62 0.65
(a) The maximum DFs occurred at the girder 11 0.69 0.72 0.50 0.52
where the average girder spacing of three consecutive 12 0.82 0.86 0.69 0.71
girders, S,, is the largest, Tables 14 and 16. For I3 0.58 0.61 0.69 0.71
example, for case 11 the maximum DF occurred at t Distribution factor.

Table 16. The distribution factors derived from the linear analysis results (diaphragms; beam model; orthotropic deck)
Bridge Flexure Shear
case Gl G2 G3 G4 G5 Gl G2 G3 G4 G5
1 0.33 0.48 0.57 0.62 - 0.37 0.45 0.55 0.63 -
2 0.33 0.39 0.59 0.65 - 0.40 0.33 0.53 0.73
3 0.38 0.47 0.53 0.62 - 0.42 0.47 0.50 0.61
4 0.30 0.49 0.59 0.62 - 0.31 0.48 0.59 0.62 -
5 0.31 0.35 0.61 0.73 - 0.33 0.31 0.59 0.77
6 0.36 0.46 0.53 0.65 - 0.38 0.45 0.51 0.65 -
7 0.52 0.58 0.63 0.65 0.63 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.64 0.64
8 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.75 0.43 0.51 0.58 0.69 0.78
9 0.54 0.60 0.58 0.63 0.65 0.54 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.65
10 0.45 0.56 0.64 0.67 0.69 0.49 0.54 0.62 0.66 0.70
11 0.50 0.61 0.69 0.65 0.56 0.53 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.62
12 0.37 0.41 0.61 0.85 0.76 0.39 0.41 0.59 0.82 0.80
13 0.64 0.58 0.41 0.61 0.77 0.68 0.55 0.39 0.58 0.80
Notes: (1) refer to Fig. 1 for girder numbering. (2) Bold-face numbers indicate the maximum distribution factors for
interior girders.
30 Y. Chen

Table 19. Diaphragm effects on maximum distribution factors of interior girders (beam model;
linear analysis; orthotropic deck)
Flexure DFt Shear DF
With Without Ratio With Without Ratio
Bridge diaphragms diaphragms (2)/(l) diaphragms diaphragms (4)/(3)
case (1) (2) (3) (4)
1 0.57 0.59 1.04 0.55 0.56 1.02
2 0.59 0.60 1.02 0.53 0.55 1.04
3 0.53 0.54 1.02 0.50 0.50 1.00
4 0.59 0.64 1.08 0.59 0.64 1.08
5 0.61 0.68 1.11 0.59 0.67 1.14
6 0.53 0.55 1.04 0.51 0.53 1.04
7 0.65 0.66 1.02 0.64 0.64 1.00
8 0.75 0.80 1.07 0.69 0.74 1.07
9 0.63 0.64 1.02 0.63 0.63 1.oo
10 0.67 0.69 1.03 0.66 0.68 1.03
11 0.69 0.75 1.09 0.66 0.70 1.06
12 0.85 0.89 1.05 0.82 0.85 1.04
13 0.61 0.63 I .03 0.58 0.63 1.09

t Distribution factor.

Table 20. Diaphragm effects on maximum distribution factors of exterior girders (beam model;
linear analysis; orthotropic deck)
Flexure DFt Shear DF
With Without Ratio With Without
Bridge diaphragms diaphragms (2)/(l) diaphragms diaphragms Ratio
case (1) (2) (3) (4) (4)/(3)
1 0.62 0.61 0.98 0.63 0.63 1.00
2 0.65 0.69 1.06 0.73 0.78 1.07
3 0.62 0.61 0.98 0.61 0.62 1.02
4 0.62 0.59 0.95 0.62 0.60 0.97
5 0.73 0.72 0.99 0.77 0.79 1.03
6 0.65 0.64 0.98 0.65 0.66 1.02
7 0.63 0.61 0.97 0.64 0.62 0.97
8 0.75 0.73 0.97 0.78 0.76 0.97
9 0.65 0.66 1.02 0.65 0.65 1.00
10 0.69 0.68 0.99 0.70 0.70 1.00
11 0.56 0.52 0.93 0.62 0.56 0.90
12 0.76 0.73 0.96 0.80 0.77 0.96
13 0.77 0.75 0.97 0.80 0.77 0.96
t Distribution factor

Table 21. Comparisons of absolute maximum distribution factors for the interior girders of the bridges without diaphragms
More Current NCHRP NCHRP 12-33
Bridge rational methodt AASHTO 12-26 (new AASHTO) RF x (1)f Ratio
case (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (U(2)
1 0.60 0.73 0.60 0.62 0.60 0.82
2 0.61 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.61 0.84
3 0.54 0.73 0.54 0.56 0.54 0.74
4 0.65 0.73 0.67 0.70 0.65 0.89
5 0.69 0.73 0.80 0.82 0.69 0.95
6 0.56 0.73 0.61 0.64 0.56 0.77
7 0.66 0.73 0.60 0.62 0.59 0.81
8 0.80 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.99
9 0.64 0.73 0.60 0.62 0.58 0.79
10 0.69 0.73 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.85
11 0.76 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.93
12 0.89 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.80 1.10
13 0.64 0.73 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.79
t Linear analysis using the beam model. $ RF = 1.0 (cases 14) 0.90 (cases 7-13).
 Rational and simplified methods of lateral load distribution: II 31

Table 22. Comparisons of absolute maximum distribution factors for the exterior girders of the bridges without diaphragms
More Current NCHRP NCHRP 12-33
Bridge rational method? AASHTO 12-26 (new AASHTO) RF x (1)1: Ratio
case (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (W(2)
1 0.63 0.67 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.94
2 0.80 0.77 0.72 0.72 0.80 1.04
3 0.62 0.77 0.54 0.56 0.62 0.81
4 0.60 0.67 0.67 0.70 0.60 0.90
5 0.79 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.79 1.03
6 0.66 0.77 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.86
7 0.62 0.67 0.60 0.62 0.56 0.84
8 0.76 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.84
9 0.66 0.81 0.60 0.62 0.59 0.73
10 0.70 0.81 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.78
11 0.56 0.45 0.62 0.62 0.50 1.11
12 0.77 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.85
13 0.77 0.81 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.85
t Linear analysis using the beam model. $ RF = 1.0 (cases l-6), 0.90 (cases 7-13).

the middle girder (i.e. G3), which has the largest S,
value (= 11 ft, Fig. 1).
(b) The DFs derived from the results of maximum
moment condition (flexure DFs) were slightly higher
than those of maximum shear condition (shear DFs),
Table 15. Similarly to bridges with uniform girder
spacing [4, 51, the shear DFs were less affected by
span length than the flexure DFs.
(c) Diaphragms tended to decrease the maximum
DFs by 2-l 1% (flexure DF) and O-14% (shear OF),
Table 19. Short-span bridges with girders unequally
spaced with larger S, values, such as case 5 (L = 50 ft,
S, = 10 ft, Fig. 1), were mostly affected by the dia-
phragms. This finding is opposite to bridges with uni-
form girder spacing in which the diaphragm effects
were found negligible [6].
(d) The refined analysis method generally produced
smaller DFs than the simplified methods except cases
8 and 12, Table 21. For long-span bridges with large
S, values and unsymmetrical transverse girder-stiffness
distribution, such as case 12 (L = 100 ft, S, = 11 ft,
Fig. 1), the simplified methods, especially the current
AASHTO method [1], underestimated the DFs.
(e) As compared to the current code [ 11,the saving
of DFs or costs from the refined method was 16-26%
(cases l-3), 5-23% (cases 4-6) and l-21% (cases
7-13 excluding case 12), Table 21. Bridges with
nonuniform girder spacing and smaller S, values,
such as cases 3 and 6 (No = 2, S, = 7 ft) and cases 9
and 13 (Nn = 3, S, = 8 ft, Fig. 1) displayed more
saving.
4.3. Exterior girders
(a) Contrary to the interior girders, the maximum
flexure DFs were slightly lower than the maximum
shear DFs, Table 15.
(b) Also contrary to the interior girders, dia-
phragms seemed to increase the maximum DFs for
bridges with S ’ values (S ’ being the girder spacing
between the exterior and interior girders) less than
10 ft, Table 20. The percentage increase was l-7%
(flexure DF), and O-10% (shear DF), Table 20.
Longer span bridges with smaller S’ values for both
exterior girders, such as case 11 (L = 100 ft, S ’ = 5 ft,
Fig. I), were mostly affected by the diaphragms.
(c) Similarly to the interior girders, the DFs
derived from the refined method were generally less
than those determined from the simplified methods,
Table 22. For bridges with smaller S ’ values for both
exterior girders, such as case 11 (S’ = 5 ft, Fig. 1) the
AASHTO simplified method, eqn (23) in part I [1],
severely underestimated the DFs.
(d) As compared to the current code [1], wider
bridges having larger S ’ values for both exterior
girders, such as case 9 ( W = 40 ft, S ’ = 11 ft, Fig. 1),
showed more saving in DFs (costs) resulting from the
refined method, Table 22. Stiffer bridges seemed to
have less saving (case 13 vs case 9, Table 22).
4.4. Material strength and bridge skew effects-
sensitivity studies
To study the effect of material strength on the
lateral distribution of live loads, the concrete strength
(g,,,,,) of the deck was varied between 3 and 5 ksi
(common range of concrete strength), and two most
frequently used steel grades, F, (yielding stress) = 36
and FY = 50 ksi, were considered. It was found that
the percentage of the share of girder moments
(i.e. DF) deduced from the refined analysis results
(the beam model, or the plate model) was virtually
unaffected by the material strengths as long as they
fall within the specified practical ranges. However, as
compared to the linear analysis, the girder moments
computed from the nonlinear analysis were further
reduced with the increase of concrete strength. The
reduction rate of moments actually depends on the
strain level and material strength. In this study,
the maximum calculated strain was 0.0014 for the
concrete, and 0.0012 for the steel. Therefore, the
moment reduction rate was: 25.4% (oc,max= 3 ksi);
20.9% (oc,max= 4 ksi); and 8.2% (G~,~._= 5 ksi) when
steel’s F, was 36 ksi. Because the maximum measured
steel stain was generally low in this study, the DFs
were not sensitive to the FV values (36 and 50 ksi).
32 Y. Chen

Bridge skew (being the angle defined by the support, to Mr L. Meckley for drafting the figures, to MS
longitudinal centerline of bridge and the transverse S. Hipple for typing the manuscripts, and to Drs A. Aswad
and S. Tabsh for providing the bridge information for the
centerline of a bridge support) was varied from 0 to study.
70” for studying
_ - its effects on the live-load distribu-
tion. Similarly to Ref. [7], increase of bridge skew
decreased the DFs for interior girders and increased REFERENCES
the DFs for exterior girders, but in a more dramatic
I. AASHTO, Standard SpeciJications for Highway
fashion for unequally-spaced bridge girders.
Bridges. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC (1991).
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2. T. Zokaie, T. A. Osterkamp and R. A. Imbsen,
Distribution of wheel loads on highway bridges. Report
NCHRP 12-26, Transport Research Board (1991).
Based on this study, it is clear that the simplified
NCHRP, Development of comprehensive bridge
methods for estimating live-load distribution factors specifications and commentary. Report NCHRP 12-33,
are generally not suitable for bridges with unequal Transport Research Board, Majeski-Masters, PA
girder spacing, and are too conservative for bridges (1993).
with uniform girder spacing. Those simplified formulas C. 0. Hayes, L. M. Sessions and A. J. Berry, Further
studies on lateral load distribution using a finite element
need to be revised by incorporating the results from
method. Transport Research Board, N1072, pp. 6614
the refined analysis proposed in the study. (1986).
For accurate prediction of the lateral distribution 5. Y. Chen, On static and dynamic refined analysis of
of vehicular live loads on girders using a refined reinforced concrete bridges. Comput. Struct. 9(4/Q
601-613 (1993).
method, the following influencing parameters should 6,
C. N. Kostem and E. S. decastro, Effects of diaphragms
be taken into account (in ascending order): dia- on lateral load distribution in beam-slab bridges.
phragms, material strength, span length, transverse Transport Research Board N645, pp. 6-9 (1979).
distribution of girder stiffness, girder spacing and 7. E. S. decastro, C. N. Kostem, D. R. Mertz and D. A.
pattern, bridge skew, and analysis type. The proposed VanHorn. Live load distribution in skewed orestressed
concrete I-beam and spread box-beam bridges.
refined approach (beam model, or plate model) for
Report FHWA-PA-RD-72-4-3, Federal Highway
predicting the live-load distribution is more rational, Administration (1979).
very effective and efficient, and capable of handling
a general bridge system. Further parametric studies
including box girder, curved and long span bridges
APPENDIX 1. CONVERSION OF UNITS
can be pursued by using the same approach.
1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in = 25.4 mm; 1 in2 = 645 mm’;
Acknowledgements-The author expresses his gratitude to 1 in3 = 16,387 mm’; 1 in4 = 416,231 mm4; 1 kip = 4.45 kN;
the Pennsylvania State University for providing the financial 1 in-kip = 113J; 1 psi = 6900 Pa; 1 ksi = 6.9 MPa.