Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LECTURE 4 - LOADS II
4.2.1 General
Lecture - 4-1
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-2
printed on June 24, 2003
F
Ft '
2 tan (β / 2 % θf )
(4.2.2-1)
Lecture - 4-3
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Lecture - 4-4
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Snow loads vary from year to year and depend on the depth
and density of snow pack. The depth used for design should be
based on a mean recurrence interval or the maximum recorded
depth. Density is based on the degree of compaction. The lightest
accumulation is produced by fresh snow falling at cold
temperatures. Density increases when the snow pack is subjected
Lecture - 4-5
printed on June 24, 2003
CONDITION OF PROBABLE
SNOW PACK DENSITY (kg/m3)
Freshly Fallen 96
Accumulated 300
Compacted 500
4.3.1 General
Lecture - 4-6
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-7
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-8
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Lecture - 4-9
printed on June 24, 2003
Values of ∆/H
Lecture - 4-10
printed on June 24, 2003
Estimated Stem
Deflection
Deflection
Required to
Under Under At- Mobilize
Average Active Rest Active Earth
Wall Wall Stem Earth Earth Pressure
Height Thickness Pressure Pressure ∆/H
H t ∆/H ∆/H (dim)
(mm) (mm) (dim) (dim)
Lecture - 4-11
printed on June 24, 2003
4.3.2 Compaction
Lecture - 4-12
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-13
printed on June 24, 2003
p = kh γ g z 10-9 (4.3.3-1)
where:
Lecture - 4-14
printed on June 24, 2003
ko = 1 - sin φf (4.3.3.1-1)
where:
where:
Lecture - 4-15
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-16
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-17
printed on June 24, 2003
the friction angle between the wall and backfill, are presented in
Table 4.3.3.2-1.
Lecture - 4-18
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-19
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-20
printed on June 24, 2003
φ (DEG)
δ i β
(DEG) (DEG) (DEG) 20 25 30 35 40 45
Studies have shown that the failure surface defining the soil
wedge loading the wall is approximated more closely by a log spiral
curve than a straight line. The values of ka, provided in Figure
4.3.3.2-1 and Table 4.3.3.2-2, were, therefore, obtained from
analyses using log spiral surfaces (Caquot and Kerisel, 1948).
Lecture - 4-21
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
γeq = equivalent fluid unit density of soil, not less than 480 (kg/m3)
Lecture - 4-22
printed on June 24, 2003
P = kh γ g z 10-9 (4.3.4-1)
The presence of the water table behind the wall has two additional
effects, as indicated below and in Figure 4.3.4-1.
γ s = γs-γw (4.3.4-2)
Pw = γw g zw 10-9 (4.3.4-4)
where:
Lecture - 4-23
printed on June 24, 2003
4.3.5 Surcharge
∆p = ks qs (4.3.5-1)
where:
Lecture - 4-24
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
heq = equivalent height of soil for the design live load (mm)
# 1500 1700
3000 1200
6000 760
9000 610
Lecture - 4-25
printed on June 24, 2003
2p
∆p ' (α & sin α cos (α % 2 δ)) (4.3.5-3)
π
where:
Lecture - 4-26
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-27
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
kh = 0.5α (4.3.6-3)
kh = 1.5 (4.3.6-4)
where:
α = A/100
Lecture - 4-28
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-29
printed on June 24, 2003
4.3.8 Downdrag
Lecture - 4-30
printed on June 24, 2003
Solution:
Lecture - 4-31
printed on June 24, 2003
Weight of Soil
Lecture - 4-32
printed on June 24, 2003
# 1500 01700
3000 1200
6000 760
heq = 907 mm
Lecture - 4-33
printed on June 24, 2003
k = ka = 0.29
Lecture - 4-34
printed on June 24, 2003
∆p = 0.0050 MPa
p = k(γ'1)gz(10-9)
p = (0.29)(1,920)(9.81)(5000)(10-9)
p = 0.0273 MPa
V Moment about 0
Item N/m Arm about 0 m N-m/m
Lecture - 4-35
printed on June 24, 2003
H Moment about
Item N/m Arm about 0 m 0 N-m/m
EH
Group DC EV LSv PLSH (active) Probable Use
Lecture - 4-36
printed on June 24, 2003
Group/
Item W1 W2 W3 PEV PLSV Total
Units N/m N/m N/m N/m N/m N/m
Group/
Item W1 W2 W3 PEV PLSV Total
Units N-m/m N-m/m N-m/m N-m/m N-m/m N-m/m
Mv (Unf.)
27,017 6,710 52,974 339,034 68,334 494,068
Lecture - 4-37
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 4-38
printed on June 24, 2003
REFERENCES
Barker, R.M., J.M. Duncan, K.B. Rojiani, P.S.K. Ooi, C.K. Tan and
S.G. Kim, 1991, "Manuals for the Design of Bridge Foundations,"
NCHRP Report 343, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.
Lecture - 4-39
printed on June 24, 2003
STEEL OR
CLIMATE ALUMINUM CONCRETE WOOD
Lecture - 5-1
printed on June 24, 2003
• for concrete sections shallower than 400 mm, "A" shall be 100
mm less than the actual depth
Lecture - 5-2
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 5-3
printed on June 24, 2003
Zone T1 ( C) T2 ( C)
1 30 7.8
2 25 6.7
3 23 6
4 21 5
Lecture - 5-4
printed on June 24, 2003
N = EAcεu (5.2.2-4)
M = EIcφ (5.2.2-5)
where:
TG = temperature gradient (∆ C)
Lecture - 5-5
printed on June 24, 2003
3
Mc ' E Ic φ (5.2.2-7)
2
Lecture - 5-6
printed on June 24, 2003
∆1 ' TG L α
But, the layers are not really disconnected, so apply a force to each
layer to make the displacement equal to zero, with compression taken
as positive.
∆1 A1 E
P1 ' ' TG1 A1 E α
L
σ ' TG α E
Now apply P ' &ΣPi & M ' &ΣPiYiCG as notional external loads to
result in a net external axial load and moment is zero. The total effect
is then:
Since these are notional force effects, they appear to exist even at the
free edge of the beam.
Lecture - 5-7
printed on June 24, 2003
5.2.4 Creep
Lecture - 5-8
printed on June 24, 2003
5.2.5 Settlement
5.3.1 General
Lecture - 5-9
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 5-10
printed on June 24, 2003
V10 Z
VDZ ' 2.5 V0 ln
VB Zo
(5.5.1-1)
Lecture - 5-11
printed on June 24, 2003
PB PB
STRUCTURAL WINDWARD LOAD, LEEWARD LOAD,
COMPONENT MPa MPa
0.004
0.003 country PD
PD - MPa
0.002 Suburban
0.001 City
0
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
8000
Z(mm)
Figure 5.5.1-1 Design Wind Pressure, PD, Vs. Height for PB = 0.0024
MPa
• Assume Z = 19 000 mm
V10 Z
VDZ ' 2.5 Vo n
VB Zo
160 19 000
VDZ ' 2.5 (15.2) n
160 300
Lecture - 5-12
printed on June 24, 2003
km
VDZ ' 158
hr
(158)2
PD ' 0.0024 ' 0.002 34 MPa
(160)2
0 0.0036 0 0.0024 0
15 0.0034 0.0006 0.0021 0.0003
30 0.0031 0.0013 0.0020 0.0006
45 0.0023 0.0020 0.0016 0.0008
60 0.0011 0.0024 0.0008 0.0009
Lecture - 5-13
printed on June 24, 2003
Normal Parallel
Skew Angle Componen Component
t
Degrees N/mm N/mm
0 1.46 0
15 1.28 0.18
30 1.20 0.35
45 0.96 0.47
Lecture - 5-14
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 5-15
printed on June 24, 2003
VS
f' (5.5.3-1)
D
where:
D = a characteristic dimension, in mm
0.137
0.144
b/d
0.145 2.5 0.060
2.0 0.080
1.5 0.103
1.0 0.133
0.7 0.136
0.5 0.138
0.147
Lecture - 5-16
printed on June 24, 2003
2 1
a kn l Kl
2
2
fn ' 1 % εp (5.5.3-2)
2π l π
in which:
Lecture - 5-17
printed on June 24, 2003
For bending:
1
EIg 2 (5.5.3-3)
ab '
γA
P
epb ' (5.5.3-4)
EI
For torsion:
1
ECw g 2
at ' (5.5.3-5)
γ Ip
GJ % PIp A &1
ept ' (5.5.3-6)
ECw
in which:
E = Young's modulus
G = shear modulus
γ = weight density of member
g = gravitational acceleration
P = axial force (tension is positive)
I = moment of inertia about relevant axis
A = area of member cross-section
Cw = warping constant
J = torsion constant
Ip = polar moment of inertia
Lecture - 5-18
printed on June 24, 2003
REFERENCES
Lecture - 5-19
printed on June 24, 2003
LECTURE 6 - ANALYSIS I
The use of grid and finite element types of analysis for multi-
beam bridges is also recommended in the LRFD Specification. These
methods require considerable care in structural modeling, and several
examples of the large effects of seemingly small errors in structural
models will be presented.
Lecture - 6-1
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-2
printed on June 24, 2003
for achieving this are presented in the sections for steel and concrete
design.
6.3.2 Geometry
6.3.2.1 GENERAL
Lecture - 6-3
printed on June 24, 2003
for which:
Cm
δb ' 1.0
Pu (6.3.2.2-3)
1&
φPe
1
δs '
ΣPu (6.3.2.2-4)
1&
φΣPe
where:
Lecture - 6-4
printed on June 24, 2003
It may appear that the moment magnification factor contains the Euler
buckling load, Pe. However, Pe is only a convenient substitution for a
group of terms related to the displacement of the beam column.
Lecture - 6-5
printed on June 24, 2003
2 2 3
3 or 4 3 4
5 or more 4 5
Lecture - 6-6
printed on June 24, 2003
Once the wheel loads have been assigned to the strips, for
either case identified above, then the force effects are calculated
based on a continuous beam. For the purpose of analyzing the
continuous beam, the span length of each span is taken as a center-
to-center of supporting components. For the purpose of calculating
moment and shear at a design section, some offset from the
theoretical center of support is permitted as given in the Specification.
In the case of fully filled and partially filled grids, the results of
recent research are incorporated in LRFD Article S4.6.2.1.8 to given
bending moments per unit length of grid.
6.4.2.2.1 General
Lecture - 6-7
printed on June 24, 2003
SUPPORTING TYPICAL
COMPONENTS TYPE OF DECK CROSS-
SECTION
Lecture - 6-8
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-9
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-10
printed on June 24, 2003
a
Number of wheel lines per girder
b
Wheel line distribution width, in mm
Lecture - 6-11
printed on June 24, 2003
*
S = 2200 mm
L = 20 000 mm
ts = 185 mm
Kg = 2.33 x 1011 mm4
Lecture - 6-12
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-13
printed on June 24, 2003
Table 6.4.2.2.3a-1 - Distribution of Live Loads Per Lane for Moment in Interior Beams
Lecture - 6-14
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Lecture - 6-15
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-16
printed on June 24, 2003
0.1
S
0.6
S
0.2 Kg
g ' 0.075 % (6.4.2.2.3a-1)
2900 L 3
Lts
where:
Lecture - 6-17
printed on June 24, 2003
de
e ' 0.77 % (6.4.2.2.3a-2)
2800
where:
The literature search performed in this study did not reveal any
simplified formula for single-lane loading of beam-and-slab bridges.
The formula developed as part of the study is as follows:
0.1
S
0.4
S
0.3 Kg
g ' 0.06 % (6.4.2.2.3a-3)
4300 L 3
Lts
where the parameters are the same as those given for Equation
6.4.2.2.3a-1.
Lecture - 6-18
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Shear Distribution
Lecture - 6-19
printed on June 24, 2003
2
S S
g ' 0.2 % & (6.4.2.2.3a-5)
3600 10 700
S
g ' 0.36 % (6.4.2.2.3a-7)
7600
Lecture - 6-20
printed on June 24, 2003
0.25
Kg S
0.5
c1 ' 0.25 (6.4.2.2.3a-9)
3
Lts L
3 0.3
L ts
r ' 1 % 0.2 tan θ (6.4.2.2.3a-10)
kg
Lecture - 6-21
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-22
printed on June 24, 2003
0.35 0.45
S 300 1
g ' 1.75 % (6.4.2.2.3b-1)
1100 L Nc
0.3 0.25
13 S 1
g' (6.4.2.2.3b-2)
Nc 430 L
where:
S = girder spacing, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Nc = number of cells
Shear Distribution
where:
S = girder spacing, in mm
d = girder depth, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Lecture - 6-23
printed on June 24, 2003
0.6 0.1
S d
g' (6.4.2.2.3b-4)
2900 L
de
e ' 0.64 % (6.4.2.2.3b-5)
3800
where:
where:
c1 = 0.25 + L/(70d)
d = bridge depth, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Lecture - 6-24
printed on June 24, 2003
The literature search did not reveal any simplified formulas for
wheel load distribution in slab bridges other than those recommended
by AASHTO. Therefore, the following are formulas that were
developed as part of NCHRP 12-26.
W
E ' 2100 % 0.12 L1 W1 0.5 # (6.4.2.2.3c-1)
NL
where:
L1 = L # 18 000 mm
W1 = W # 18 000 mm
L = span length, in mm
Lecture - 6-25
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
0.2
k = 2.5(Nb) 1.5
b = beam width, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Nb = number of beams
Lecture - 6-26
printed on June 24, 2003
0.5 0.25
b I
g'k (6.4.2.2.3d-2)
2.8L J
de
g ' 1.04 % (6.4.2.2.3d-3)
7600
where:
de = distance from edge of the lane to the center of the exterior web
of the exterior girder, in mm
Lecture - 6-27
printed on June 24, 2003
Shear Distribution
0.15 0.05
b I
g ' 0.70 (6.4.2.2.3d-5)
L J
de
e ' 1.02 % (6.4.2.2.3d-6)
15 000
where:
Lecture - 6-28
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
L
c1 ' (6.4.2.2.3d-8)
90d
S
g'
300D
for which:
C = K (W/L)
(1 % µ)I
K=
J
Lecture - 6-29
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
µ = Poisson ratio
NL = number of lanes
0.6 0.125
S Sd
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-1)
1900 L2
where
Lecture - 6-30
printed on June 24, 2003
0.35 0.25
S Sd
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-2)
910 L2
de
e ' 0.97 % (6.4.2.2.3f-3)
8700
where:
Shear Distribution
0.8 0.1
S d
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-4)
2250 L
0.6 0.1
S d
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-5)
3050 L
Lecture - 6-31
printed on June 24, 2003
de
e ' 0.8 % (6.4.2.2.3f-6)
3050
where:
The wheel load distribution factor for shear in the edge girder
due to single-lane loading may be obtained by simple-beam
distribution in the same manner as was described for beam-and-slab
bridges, i.e., the lever rule.
(Ld )0.5
c1 ' (6.4.2.2.3f-7)
6S
Lecture - 6-32
printed on June 24, 2003
Beam-and-Slab Bridges
6.4.2.3.1 General
Lecture - 6-33
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-34
printed on June 24, 2003
The grillage analogy may be used to model any one of the five
bridge types studied in this research. Each bridge type requires
special modeling techniques. A major advantage of plane grid
analysis is that shear and moment values for girders are directly
obtained and integration of stresses is not needed. Loads normally
need to be applied at nodal points, and it is recommended that simple-
beam distribution be used to distribute wheel loads to individual
nodes. If the loads are placed in their correct locations, the results will
be close to those of detailed finite element analysis.
Lecture - 6-35
printed on June 24, 2003
In order to verify that the order of pouring the deck slab units
would not contribute to an uplift situation, the pouring sequence was
replicated in a three-dimensional SAPIV analysis. The results of the
analysis of the three stages of the pouring sequence are also shown
in Figure 6.5.3-2, as well as the total accumulated load at the end of
the pour. Comparison of the sequential loading with the application of
a single loading of non-composite dead load also showed relatively
good agreement in this case.
Lecture - 6-36
printed on June 24, 2003
It was found that the live load processor was not responding
properly to the unequal number of nodes per girder, that nodes should
be essentially "radial", and that it was not certain that nodes to which
diaphragms were not connected were legitimate. The revised model,
shown in Figure 6.5.3-4, produced clearly better results, as shown in
the indicated moment envelopes.
Lecture - 6-37
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-38
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-39
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-40
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-41
printed on June 24, 2003
REFERENCES
Lecture - 6-42
printed on June 24, 2003
APPENDIX A
Older editions of the AASHTO Specifications allow for simplified analysis of bridge
superstructures using the concept of a load distribution factor for bending moment in interior girders
of most types of bridges, i.e., beam-and-slab, box girder, slab, multi-box beam and spread-box
beam. This distribution factor is given by:
S
g' (A-1)
300 D
where:
g = a factor used to multiply the total longitudinal response of the bridge due to a single
longitudinal line of wheel loads in order to determine the maximum response of a
single girder
A major shortcoming of the previous specifications is that the piecemeal changes that have
taken place over the last 55 years have led to inconsistencies in the load distribution criteria
including: inconsistent consideration of a reduction in load intensity for multiple lane loading;
inconsistent changes in distribution factors to reflect the changes in design lane width; and,
inconsistent approaches for verification of live load distribution factors for various bridge types.
The past AASHTO simplified procedures were developed for non-skewed, simply-supported
bridges. Although it was stated that these procedures apply to the design of normal (i.e., supports
oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal girders) highway bridges, there are no other guidelines
for determining when the procedures are applicable. Because modern highway and bridge design
practice requires a large number of bridges to be constructed with skewed supports, on curved
alignments, or continuous over interior supports, it is increasingly important that the limitations of
load distribution criteria be fully understood by designers.
Advanced computer technology has become available in recent years which allows detailed
finite element analysis of bridge decks. However, many computer programs exist which employ
different formulations and techniques. It is important that the computer methodology and
formulation that produces the most accurate results be used to predict the behavior of bridge decks.
In order to identify the most accurate computer programs, data from full-scale and prototype bridge
load tests were compiled. The bridge tests were then modeled by different computer programs and
the experimental and computer results were compared. The programs that produced the most
accurate results were then considered as the basis for evaluation of the other method levels, i.e.,
Levels 2 and 1 methods.
Lecture - 6-A1
printed on June 24, 2003
the "average bridge" was created for each of the beam-and-slab, box girder, slab, multi-box beam
and spread-box beam bridge types. For the study of moment responses in box girder bridges,
separate reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete box girder average bridges were also
prepared.
g1 = (a)(S1b1)(Lb2)(tb3)(...) (A-2)
g2 = (a)(S2b1)(Lb2)(tb3)(...) (A-3)
therefore:
b1
g1 S1
' (A-4)
g2 S2
or:
g1
ln
g2
b1 ' (A-5)
S1
ln
S2
If n different values of S are examined and successive pairs are used to determine the value
of b1, n 1 different values for b1 can be obtained. If these b1 values are close to each other, an
exponential curve may be used to accurately model the variation of the distribution factor with S.
In that case, the average of n 1 values of b1 is used to achieve the best match. Once all the power
factors, i.e., b1, b2, and so on, are determined, the value of "a" can be obtained from the average
bridge, i.e.,
Lecture - 6-A2
printed on June 24, 2003
go
a' (A-6)
b1 b2 b3
So Lo to (...)
This procedure was followed during the entire course of the NCHRP 12-26 study to develop
new formulas as needed. In certain cases where an exponential function was not suitable to model
the effect of a parameter, slight variation from this procedure was used to achieve the required
accuracy. However, this procedure worked quite well in most cases and the developed formulas
demonstrate high accuracy.
Because certain assumptions were made in the derivation of simplified formulas and some
bridge parameters were ignored altogether, it is important to verify the accuracy of these formulas
when applied to real bridges. The database of actual bridges was used for this purpose. Bridges
to which the formula can be applied were identified and analyzed by an accurate method. The
distribution factors obtained from the accurate analysis were compared to the results of the
simplified methods. The ratio of the approximate to accurate distribution factors was calculated and
examined to assess the accuracy of the approximate method. Average, standard deviation, and
minimum and maximum ratio values were obtained for each formula or simplified method. The
method or formula that has the smallest standard deviation is considered to be the most accurate.
However, it is important that the average be slightly greater than unity to assure slightly
conservative results. The minimum and maximum values show the extreme predictions that each
method or formula produced when a specific database was used. Although these values may
change slightly if a different set of bridges is used for evaluation, the minimum and maximum values
allow identification of where shortcomings in the formula may exist that are not readily identified by
the average or standard deviation values.
It was previously mentioned that different subsets of the database of bridges were used to
evaluate different formulas. When a subset included a large number of bridges (100 or more), a
Level 2 method was used as the basis of comparison. When it included a smaller number of
bridges (less than 100), a Level 3 method was used. As a result, LANELL (an influence surface
method) was used for verification of formulas for moment distribution in box girder bridges, and a
Multi-dimensional Space Interpolation (MSI) method was used for verification of formulas for
straight beam-and-slab and slab bridges.
Findings
Recent advances in computer technology and numerical analysis have led to the
development of a number of computer programs for structural analysis. Programs that can be
applicable to bridge deck analysis can be divided into two categories. One includes general
purpose structural analysis programs such as SAP, STRUDL and FINITE. The other category is
specialized programs for analysis of specific bridge types, such as GENDEK, CURVBRG and
MUPDI.
In the search for the best available computer program for analysis of each bridge type, all
suitable computer programs (general and specific) that were available at the time of the 12-26
research were evaluated. In order to achieve meaningful comparisons and assess the level of
accuracy of the programs, a number of field and laboratory tests were modeled by each program.
The results were then compared in three ways:
Lecture - 6-A3
printed on June 24, 2003
For analysis of beam-and-slab bridges, the following computer programs and models were
evaluated: GENDEK-PLATE, GENDEK-3, GENDEK-5, CURVBRG, SAP and MUPDI. It was found
that, in general, GENDEK-5 analysis using plate elements for the deck slab and eccentric beam
elements for the girders is very accurate. This program is also general enough to cover all typical
cases, i.e., straight, skew, moment and shear. However, for analysis of curved open girder steel
bridges, CURVBRG was the most accurate program. MUPDI was also found to be a very accurate
and fast program; however, skewed bridges cannot be analyzed with this program and shear values
near the point of application of load, or near supports, lack accuracy. GENDEK-5 was, therefore,
selected to evaluate Level 2 and Level 1 methods.
For analysis of box girder bridges, computer programs MUPDI, CELL-4 and FINITE were
evaluated. MUPDI was the fastest and most practical program for analysis of straight bridges for
moment, but FINITE was found to be the most practical program for skewed bridges and for
obtaining accurate shear results. Therefore, MUPDI was selected for the evaluation of LANELL (a
Level 2 method for moment in straight bridges which was, in turn, used for evaluation of Level 1
methods) and FINITE was selected for other cases.
For the analysis of slab bridges, computer programs MUPDI, FINITE, SAP and GENDEK
were evaluated. Shear results cannot be obtained accurately in slab bridges and, therefore, were
not considered. The GENDEK-5 program, without beam elements, proved to be very accurate.
However, MUPDI was found to be the most accurate and practical method for non-skewed
prismatic bridges and was selected to evaluate Level 2 and Level 1 methods.
For the analysis of multi-beam bridges, the following computer programs were evaluated:
SAP, FINITE and a specialized program developed by Professor Powell at the University of
California, Berkeley, for analysis of multi-beam bridges (referred to as the POWELL program
herein). Various modeling techniques were studied using different grillage models and different
plate elements. The program that is capable of producing the most accurate results in all cases,
i.e., straight and skewed for shear and moment, was the FINITE program. This program was later
used in evaluation of more simplified methods. POWELL is also very accurate in reporting
moments in straight bridges, but it uses a finite strip formulation, similar to MUPDI, and, therefore,
is incapable of modeling skewed supports, and shear results near supports and load locations can-
not be accurately obtained. This program was used to evaluate simplified methods for straight
bridges.
For analysis of spread-box beam bridges, computer programs SAP, MUPDI, FINITE and
NIKE-3D were evaluated. FINITE produced the most accurate results, especially when shear was
considered. MUPDI was selected to evaluate simplified methods for calculation of moments in
straight bridges, and FINITE was selected for all other cases.
Nomographs and influence surface methods have traditionally been used when computer
methods have been unavailable. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code uses one such method
based on orthotropic plate theory. Other graphical methods have also been developed and
reported. A good example of the influence surface method is the computer program SALOD
Lecture - 6-A4
printed on June 24, 2003
developed by the University of Florida for the Florida Department of Transportation. This program
uses influence surfaces, obtained by detailed finite element analysis, which are stored in a
database accessed by SALOD. One advantage of influence surface methods is that the response
of the bridge deck to different truck types can be readily computed.
A grillage analysis using plane grid models can also be used with minimal computer
resources to calculate the response of bridge decks in most bridge types. However, the properties
for grid members must be calculated with care to assure accuracy. Level 2 methods used to
analyze the five bridge types (beam-and-slab, box girder, slab, multi-beam and spread-box beam
bridges) are discussed below.
The following methods were evaluated for analysis of beam-and-slab bridges: plane grid
analysis, the nomograph-based method included in the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code
(OHBDC), SALOD and Multi-dimensional Space Interpolation (MSI). All of these methods are
applicable for single- and multi-lane loading for moment. The OHBDC curves were developed for
a truck other than HS-20, and using the HS-20 truck in the evaluation process may have introduced
some discrepancies. The method presented in OHBDC was also found to be time consuming, and
inaccurate interpolation between curves was probably a common source of error. SALOD can be
used with any truck and, therefore, the "HS" truck was used in its evaluation. The MSI method was
developed based on HS-20 truck loading for single- and multiple-lane loading. MSI was found to
be the fastest and most accurate method and was, therefore, selected for the evaluation of Level
1 methods. This method produces results that are generally within 5% of the finite element
(GENDEK) results.
In the analysis of box girder bridges, OHBDC curves and the LANELL program were
evaluated. The comments made about OHBDC for beam-and-slab bridges are valid for box girder
bridges as well. As LANELL produced results that were very close to those produced by MUPDI,
it was selected for evaluation of Level 1 methods for moment.
OHBDC, SALOD and MSI were evaluated for the analysis of slab bridges. MSI was found
to be the most accurate method and, thus, was used in the evaluation of Level 1 methods. SALOD
also produced results that were in very good agreement with the finite element (MUPDI) analysis.
Results of OHBDC were based on a different truck and, therefore, do not present an accurate
evaluation.
In the analysis of multi-beam bridges, a method presented in Jones, 1976, was evaluated.
The method is capable of calculating distribution factors due to a single concentrated load and was
modified for this study to allow wheel line loadings. The results were found to be in very good
agreement with POWELL. However, because this method was only applicable for moment
distribution in straight single-span bridges, it was not used for verification of Level 1 methods.
In the analysis of spread-box beam bridges, only plane grid analysis was considered as a
Level 2 method.
In general, Level 2 graphical and influence surface methods generated accurate and
dependable results. While these methods are sometimes difficult to apply, a major advantage of
some of them is that different trucks, lane widths, and multiple presence live load reduction factors
may be considered. Therefore, if a Level 2 procedure does not provide needed flexibility, its use
is not warranted because the accuracy of it is on the same order as a simplified formula. MSI is an
example of such a method for calculation of load distribution factors in beam-and-slab bridges.
A plane grid analysis would require computer resources similar to those needed for some
of the methods mentioned above. In addition, a general purpose plane grid analysis program is
Lecture - 6-A5
printed on June 24, 2003
available to most bridge designers. Therefore, this method of analysis is considered a Level 2
method. However, the user has the burden of producing a grid model that will produce sufficiently
accurate results. As part of NCHRP Project 12-26, various modeling techniques were evaluated,
and it was found that a proper plane grid model may be used to accurately produce load distribution
factors for each of the bridge types studied.
The current AASHTO Specifications recommend use of simplified formulas for determining
load distribution factors. Many of these formulas have not been updated in years and do not
provide optimum accuracy. A number of other formulas have been developed by researchers in
recent years. Most of these formulas are for moment distribution for beam-and-slab bridges
subjected to multi-lane truck loading. While some have considered correction factors for edge
girders and skewed supports, very little has been reported on shear distribution factors or
distribution factors for bridges other than beam-and-slab.
The sensitivity of load distribution factors to various bridge parameters was also determined
as part of the study. In general, beam spacing is the most significant parameter. However, span
length, longitudinal stiffness and transverse stiffness also affect the load distribution factors.
Figures 6.4.2.2.3-2 through 6.4.2.2.3-6 show the variation of load distribution factors with various
bridge parameters for each bridge type. Ignoring the effect of bridge parameters, other than beam
spacing, can result in highly inaccurate (either conservative or unconservative) solutions.
A major objective of the research in Project 12-26 was to evaluate older AASHTO
Specifications and other researchers' published work to assess their accuracy and develop
alternate formulas whenever a more accurate method could be obtained. The formulas that were
evaluated and developed are briefly described below, according to bridge type; i.e., beam-and-slab,
box girder, slab, multi-beam and spread-box beam.
Lecture - 6-A6
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-A7
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-A8
printed on June 24, 2003
LECTURE 6 - ANALYSIS I
The use of grid and finite element types of analysis for multi-
beam bridges is also recommended in the LRFD Specification. These
methods require considerable care in structural modeling, and several
examples of the large effects of seemingly small errors in structural
models will be presented.
Lecture - 6-1
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-2
printed on June 24, 2003
for achieving this are presented in the sections for steel and concrete
design.
6.3.2 Geometry
6.3.2.1 GENERAL
Lecture - 6-3
printed on June 24, 2003
for which:
Cm
δb ' 1.0
Pu (6.3.2.2-3)
1&
φPe
1
δs '
ΣPu (6.3.2.2-4)
1&
φΣPe
where:
Lecture - 6-4
printed on June 24, 2003
It may appear that the moment magnification factor contains the Euler
buckling load, Pe. However, Pe is only a convenient substitution for a
group of terms related to the displacement of the beam column.
Lecture - 6-5
printed on June 24, 2003
2 2 3
3 or 4 3 4
5 or more 4 5
Lecture - 6-6
printed on June 24, 2003
Once the wheel loads have been assigned to the strips, for
either case identified above, then the force effects are calculated
based on a continuous beam. For the purpose of analyzing the
continuous beam, the span length of each span is taken as a center-
to-center of supporting components. For the purpose of calculating
moment and shear at a design section, some offset from the
theoretical center of support is permitted as given in the Specification.
In the case of fully filled and partially filled grids, the results of
recent research are incorporated in LRFD Article S4.6.2.1.8 to given
bending moments per unit length of grid.
6.4.2.2.1 General
Lecture - 6-7
printed on June 24, 2003
SUPPORTING TYPICAL
COMPONENTS TYPE OF DECK CROSS-
SECTION
Lecture - 6-8
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-9
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-10
printed on June 24, 2003
a
Number of wheel lines per girder
b
Wheel line distribution width, in mm
Lecture - 6-11
printed on June 24, 2003
*
S = 2200 mm
L = 20 000 mm
ts = 185 mm
Kg = 2.33 x 1011 mm4
Lecture - 6-12
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-13
printed on June 24, 2003
Table 6.4.2.2.3a-1 - Distribution of Live Loads Per Lane for Moment in Interior Beams
Lecture - 6-14
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Lecture - 6-15
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-16
printed on June 24, 2003
0.1
S
0.6
S
0.2 Kg
g ' 0.075 % (6.4.2.2.3a-1)
2900 L 3
Lts
where:
Lecture - 6-17
printed on June 24, 2003
de
e ' 0.77 % (6.4.2.2.3a-2)
2800
where:
The literature search performed in this study did not reveal any
simplified formula for single-lane loading of beam-and-slab bridges.
The formula developed as part of the study is as follows:
0.1
S
0.4
S
0.3 Kg
g ' 0.06 % (6.4.2.2.3a-3)
4300 L 3
Lts
where the parameters are the same as those given for Equation
6.4.2.2.3a-1.
Lecture - 6-18
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Shear Distribution
Lecture - 6-19
printed on June 24, 2003
2
S S
g ' 0.2 % & (6.4.2.2.3a-5)
3600 10 700
S
g ' 0.36 % (6.4.2.2.3a-7)
7600
Lecture - 6-20
printed on June 24, 2003
0.25
Kg S
0.5
c1 ' 0.25 (6.4.2.2.3a-9)
3
Lts L
3 0.3
L ts
r ' 1 % 0.2 tan θ (6.4.2.2.3a-10)
kg
Lecture - 6-21
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-22
printed on June 24, 2003
0.35 0.45
S 300 1
g ' 1.75 % (6.4.2.2.3b-1)
1100 L Nc
0.3 0.25
13 S 1
g' (6.4.2.2.3b-2)
Nc 430 L
where:
S = girder spacing, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Nc = number of cells
Shear Distribution
where:
S = girder spacing, in mm
d = girder depth, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Lecture - 6-23
printed on June 24, 2003
0.6 0.1
S d
g' (6.4.2.2.3b-4)
2900 L
de
e ' 0.64 % (6.4.2.2.3b-5)
3800
where:
where:
c1 = 0.25 + L/(70d)
d = bridge depth, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Lecture - 6-24
printed on June 24, 2003
The literature search did not reveal any simplified formulas for
wheel load distribution in slab bridges other than those recommended
by AASHTO. Therefore, the following are formulas that were
developed as part of NCHRP 12-26.
W
E ' 2100 % 0.12 L1 W1 0.5 # (6.4.2.2.3c-1)
NL
where:
L1 = L # 18 000 mm
W1 = W # 18 000 mm
L = span length, in mm
Lecture - 6-25
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
0.2
k = 2.5(Nb) 1.5
b = beam width, in mm
L = span length, in mm
Nb = number of beams
Lecture - 6-26
printed on June 24, 2003
0.5 0.25
b I
g'k (6.4.2.2.3d-2)
2.8L J
de
g ' 1.04 % (6.4.2.2.3d-3)
7600
where:
de = distance from edge of the lane to the center of the exterior web
of the exterior girder, in mm
Lecture - 6-27
printed on June 24, 2003
Shear Distribution
0.15 0.05
b I
g ' 0.70 (6.4.2.2.3d-5)
L J
de
e ' 1.02 % (6.4.2.2.3d-6)
15 000
where:
Lecture - 6-28
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
L
c1 ' (6.4.2.2.3d-8)
90d
S
g'
300D
for which:
C = K (W/L)
(1 % µ)I
K=
J
Lecture - 6-29
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
µ = Poisson ratio
NL = number of lanes
0.6 0.125
S Sd
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-1)
1900 L2
where
Lecture - 6-30
printed on June 24, 2003
0.35 0.25
S Sd
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-2)
910 L2
de
e ' 0.97 % (6.4.2.2.3f-3)
8700
where:
Shear Distribution
0.8 0.1
S d
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-4)
2250 L
0.6 0.1
S d
g' (6.4.2.2.3f-5)
3050 L
Lecture - 6-31
printed on June 24, 2003
de
e ' 0.8 % (6.4.2.2.3f-6)
3050
where:
The wheel load distribution factor for shear in the edge girder
due to single-lane loading may be obtained by simple-beam
distribution in the same manner as was described for beam-and-slab
bridges, i.e., the lever rule.
(Ld )0.5
c1 ' (6.4.2.2.3f-7)
6S
Lecture - 6-32
printed on June 24, 2003
Beam-and-Slab Bridges
6.4.2.3.1 General
Lecture - 6-33
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-34
printed on June 24, 2003
The grillage analogy may be used to model any one of the five
bridge types studied in this research. Each bridge type requires
special modeling techniques. A major advantage of plane grid
analysis is that shear and moment values for girders are directly
obtained and integration of stresses is not needed. Loads normally
need to be applied at nodal points, and it is recommended that simple-
beam distribution be used to distribute wheel loads to individual
nodes. If the loads are placed in their correct locations, the results will
be close to those of detailed finite element analysis.
Lecture - 6-35
printed on June 24, 2003
In order to verify that the order of pouring the deck slab units
would not contribute to an uplift situation, the pouring sequence was
replicated in a three-dimensional SAPIV analysis. The results of the
analysis of the three stages of the pouring sequence are also shown
in Figure 6.5.3-2, as well as the total accumulated load at the end of
the pour. Comparison of the sequential loading with the application of
a single loading of non-composite dead load also showed relatively
good agreement in this case.
Lecture - 6-36
printed on June 24, 2003
It was found that the live load processor was not responding
properly to the unequal number of nodes per girder, that nodes should
be essentially "radial", and that it was not certain that nodes to which
diaphragms were not connected were legitimate. The revised model,
shown in Figure 6.5.3-4, produced clearly better results, as shown in
the indicated moment envelopes.
Lecture - 6-37
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-38
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-39
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-40
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-41
printed on June 24, 2003
REFERENCES
Lecture - 6-42
printed on June 24, 2003
APPENDIX A
Older editions of the AASHTO Specifications allow for simplified analysis of bridge
superstructures using the concept of a load distribution factor for bending moment in interior girders
of most types of bridges, i.e., beam-and-slab, box girder, slab, multi-box beam and spread-box
beam. This distribution factor is given by:
S
g' (A-1)
300 D
where:
g = a factor used to multiply the total longitudinal response of the bridge due to a single
longitudinal line of wheel loads in order to determine the maximum response of a
single girder
A major shortcoming of the previous specifications is that the piecemeal changes that have
taken place over the last 55 years have led to inconsistencies in the load distribution criteria
including: inconsistent consideration of a reduction in load intensity for multiple lane loading;
inconsistent changes in distribution factors to reflect the changes in design lane width; and,
inconsistent approaches for verification of live load distribution factors for various bridge types.
The past AASHTO simplified procedures were developed for non-skewed, simply-supported
bridges. Although it was stated that these procedures apply to the design of normal (i.e., supports
oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal girders) highway bridges, there are no other guidelines
for determining when the procedures are applicable. Because modern highway and bridge design
practice requires a large number of bridges to be constructed with skewed supports, on curved
alignments, or continuous over interior supports, it is increasingly important that the limitations of
load distribution criteria be fully understood by designers.
Advanced computer technology has become available in recent years which allows detailed
finite element analysis of bridge decks. However, many computer programs exist which employ
different formulations and techniques. It is important that the computer methodology and
formulation that produces the most accurate results be used to predict the behavior of bridge decks.
In order to identify the most accurate computer programs, data from full-scale and prototype bridge
load tests were compiled. The bridge tests were then modeled by different computer programs and
the experimental and computer results were compared. The programs that produced the most
accurate results were then considered as the basis for evaluation of the other method levels, i.e.,
Levels 2 and 1 methods.
Lecture - 6-A1
printed on June 24, 2003
the "average bridge" was created for each of the beam-and-slab, box girder, slab, multi-box beam
and spread-box beam bridge types. For the study of moment responses in box girder bridges,
separate reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete box girder average bridges were also
prepared.
g1 = (a)(S1b1)(Lb2)(tb3)(...) (A-2)
g2 = (a)(S2b1)(Lb2)(tb3)(...) (A-3)
therefore:
b1
g1 S1
' (A-4)
g2 S2
or:
g1
ln
g2
b1 ' (A-5)
S1
ln
S2
If n different values of S are examined and successive pairs are used to determine the value
of b1, n 1 different values for b1 can be obtained. If these b1 values are close to each other, an
exponential curve may be used to accurately model the variation of the distribution factor with S.
In that case, the average of n 1 values of b1 is used to achieve the best match. Once all the power
factors, i.e., b1, b2, and so on, are determined, the value of "a" can be obtained from the average
bridge, i.e.,
Lecture - 6-A2
printed on June 24, 2003
go
a' (A-6)
b1 b2 b3
So Lo to (...)
This procedure was followed during the entire course of the NCHRP 12-26 study to develop
new formulas as needed. In certain cases where an exponential function was not suitable to model
the effect of a parameter, slight variation from this procedure was used to achieve the required
accuracy. However, this procedure worked quite well in most cases and the developed formulas
demonstrate high accuracy.
Because certain assumptions were made in the derivation of simplified formulas and some
bridge parameters were ignored altogether, it is important to verify the accuracy of these formulas
when applied to real bridges. The database of actual bridges was used for this purpose. Bridges
to which the formula can be applied were identified and analyzed by an accurate method. The
distribution factors obtained from the accurate analysis were compared to the results of the
simplified methods. The ratio of the approximate to accurate distribution factors was calculated and
examined to assess the accuracy of the approximate method. Average, standard deviation, and
minimum and maximum ratio values were obtained for each formula or simplified method. The
method or formula that has the smallest standard deviation is considered to be the most accurate.
However, it is important that the average be slightly greater than unity to assure slightly
conservative results. The minimum and maximum values show the extreme predictions that each
method or formula produced when a specific database was used. Although these values may
change slightly if a different set of bridges is used for evaluation, the minimum and maximum values
allow identification of where shortcomings in the formula may exist that are not readily identified by
the average or standard deviation values.
It was previously mentioned that different subsets of the database of bridges were used to
evaluate different formulas. When a subset included a large number of bridges (100 or more), a
Level 2 method was used as the basis of comparison. When it included a smaller number of
bridges (less than 100), a Level 3 method was used. As a result, LANELL (an influence surface
method) was used for verification of formulas for moment distribution in box girder bridges, and a
Multi-dimensional Space Interpolation (MSI) method was used for verification of formulas for
straight beam-and-slab and slab bridges.
Findings
Recent advances in computer technology and numerical analysis have led to the
development of a number of computer programs for structural analysis. Programs that can be
applicable to bridge deck analysis can be divided into two categories. One includes general
purpose structural analysis programs such as SAP, STRUDL and FINITE. The other category is
specialized programs for analysis of specific bridge types, such as GENDEK, CURVBRG and
MUPDI.
In the search for the best available computer program for analysis of each bridge type, all
suitable computer programs (general and specific) that were available at the time of the 12-26
research were evaluated. In order to achieve meaningful comparisons and assess the level of
accuracy of the programs, a number of field and laboratory tests were modeled by each program.
The results were then compared in three ways:
Lecture - 6-A3
printed on June 24, 2003
For analysis of beam-and-slab bridges, the following computer programs and models were
evaluated: GENDEK-PLATE, GENDEK-3, GENDEK-5, CURVBRG, SAP and MUPDI. It was found
that, in general, GENDEK-5 analysis using plate elements for the deck slab and eccentric beam
elements for the girders is very accurate. This program is also general enough to cover all typical
cases, i.e., straight, skew, moment and shear. However, for analysis of curved open girder steel
bridges, CURVBRG was the most accurate program. MUPDI was also found to be a very accurate
and fast program; however, skewed bridges cannot be analyzed with this program and shear values
near the point of application of load, or near supports, lack accuracy. GENDEK-5 was, therefore,
selected to evaluate Level 2 and Level 1 methods.
For analysis of box girder bridges, computer programs MUPDI, CELL-4 and FINITE were
evaluated. MUPDI was the fastest and most practical program for analysis of straight bridges for
moment, but FINITE was found to be the most practical program for skewed bridges and for
obtaining accurate shear results. Therefore, MUPDI was selected for the evaluation of LANELL (a
Level 2 method for moment in straight bridges which was, in turn, used for evaluation of Level 1
methods) and FINITE was selected for other cases.
For the analysis of slab bridges, computer programs MUPDI, FINITE, SAP and GENDEK
were evaluated. Shear results cannot be obtained accurately in slab bridges and, therefore, were
not considered. The GENDEK-5 program, without beam elements, proved to be very accurate.
However, MUPDI was found to be the most accurate and practical method for non-skewed
prismatic bridges and was selected to evaluate Level 2 and Level 1 methods.
For the analysis of multi-beam bridges, the following computer programs were evaluated:
SAP, FINITE and a specialized program developed by Professor Powell at the University of
California, Berkeley, for analysis of multi-beam bridges (referred to as the POWELL program
herein). Various modeling techniques were studied using different grillage models and different
plate elements. The program that is capable of producing the most accurate results in all cases,
i.e., straight and skewed for shear and moment, was the FINITE program. This program was later
used in evaluation of more simplified methods. POWELL is also very accurate in reporting
moments in straight bridges, but it uses a finite strip formulation, similar to MUPDI, and, therefore,
is incapable of modeling skewed supports, and shear results near supports and load locations can-
not be accurately obtained. This program was used to evaluate simplified methods for straight
bridges.
For analysis of spread-box beam bridges, computer programs SAP, MUPDI, FINITE and
NIKE-3D were evaluated. FINITE produced the most accurate results, especially when shear was
considered. MUPDI was selected to evaluate simplified methods for calculation of moments in
straight bridges, and FINITE was selected for all other cases.
Nomographs and influence surface methods have traditionally been used when computer
methods have been unavailable. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code uses one such method
based on orthotropic plate theory. Other graphical methods have also been developed and
reported. A good example of the influence surface method is the computer program SALOD
Lecture - 6-A4
printed on June 24, 2003
developed by the University of Florida for the Florida Department of Transportation. This program
uses influence surfaces, obtained by detailed finite element analysis, which are stored in a
database accessed by SALOD. One advantage of influence surface methods is that the response
of the bridge deck to different truck types can be readily computed.
A grillage analysis using plane grid models can also be used with minimal computer
resources to calculate the response of bridge decks in most bridge types. However, the properties
for grid members must be calculated with care to assure accuracy. Level 2 methods used to
analyze the five bridge types (beam-and-slab, box girder, slab, multi-beam and spread-box beam
bridges) are discussed below.
The following methods were evaluated for analysis of beam-and-slab bridges: plane grid
analysis, the nomograph-based method included in the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code
(OHBDC), SALOD and Multi-dimensional Space Interpolation (MSI). All of these methods are
applicable for single- and multi-lane loading for moment. The OHBDC curves were developed for
a truck other than HS-20, and using the HS-20 truck in the evaluation process may have introduced
some discrepancies. The method presented in OHBDC was also found to be time consuming, and
inaccurate interpolation between curves was probably a common source of error. SALOD can be
used with any truck and, therefore, the "HS" truck was used in its evaluation. The MSI method was
developed based on HS-20 truck loading for single- and multiple-lane loading. MSI was found to
be the fastest and most accurate method and was, therefore, selected for the evaluation of Level
1 methods. This method produces results that are generally within 5% of the finite element
(GENDEK) results.
In the analysis of box girder bridges, OHBDC curves and the LANELL program were
evaluated. The comments made about OHBDC for beam-and-slab bridges are valid for box girder
bridges as well. As LANELL produced results that were very close to those produced by MUPDI,
it was selected for evaluation of Level 1 methods for moment.
OHBDC, SALOD and MSI were evaluated for the analysis of slab bridges. MSI was found
to be the most accurate method and, thus, was used in the evaluation of Level 1 methods. SALOD
also produced results that were in very good agreement with the finite element (MUPDI) analysis.
Results of OHBDC were based on a different truck and, therefore, do not present an accurate
evaluation.
In the analysis of multi-beam bridges, a method presented in Jones, 1976, was evaluated.
The method is capable of calculating distribution factors due to a single concentrated load and was
modified for this study to allow wheel line loadings. The results were found to be in very good
agreement with POWELL. However, because this method was only applicable for moment
distribution in straight single-span bridges, it was not used for verification of Level 1 methods.
In the analysis of spread-box beam bridges, only plane grid analysis was considered as a
Level 2 method.
In general, Level 2 graphical and influence surface methods generated accurate and
dependable results. While these methods are sometimes difficult to apply, a major advantage of
some of them is that different trucks, lane widths, and multiple presence live load reduction factors
may be considered. Therefore, if a Level 2 procedure does not provide needed flexibility, its use
is not warranted because the accuracy of it is on the same order as a simplified formula. MSI is an
example of such a method for calculation of load distribution factors in beam-and-slab bridges.
A plane grid analysis would require computer resources similar to those needed for some
of the methods mentioned above. In addition, a general purpose plane grid analysis program is
Lecture - 6-A5
printed on June 24, 2003
available to most bridge designers. Therefore, this method of analysis is considered a Level 2
method. However, the user has the burden of producing a grid model that will produce sufficiently
accurate results. As part of NCHRP Project 12-26, various modeling techniques were evaluated,
and it was found that a proper plane grid model may be used to accurately produce load distribution
factors for each of the bridge types studied.
The current AASHTO Specifications recommend use of simplified formulas for determining
load distribution factors. Many of these formulas have not been updated in years and do not
provide optimum accuracy. A number of other formulas have been developed by researchers in
recent years. Most of these formulas are for moment distribution for beam-and-slab bridges
subjected to multi-lane truck loading. While some have considered correction factors for edge
girders and skewed supports, very little has been reported on shear distribution factors or
distribution factors for bridges other than beam-and-slab.
The sensitivity of load distribution factors to various bridge parameters was also determined
as part of the study. In general, beam spacing is the most significant parameter. However, span
length, longitudinal stiffness and transverse stiffness also affect the load distribution factors.
Figures 6.4.2.2.3-2 through 6.4.2.2.3-6 show the variation of load distribution factors with various
bridge parameters for each bridge type. Ignoring the effect of bridge parameters, other than beam
spacing, can result in highly inaccurate (either conservative or unconservative) solutions.
A major objective of the research in Project 12-26 was to evaluate older AASHTO
Specifications and other researchers' published work to assess their accuracy and develop
alternate formulas whenever a more accurate method could be obtained. The formulas that were
evaluated and developed are briefly described below, according to bridge type; i.e., beam-and-slab,
box girder, slab, multi-beam and spread-box beam.
Lecture - 6-A6
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-A7
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 6-A8