TYPICALLY' TORSION has an effect
on beams which are weak on their minor
axis. Torsional buckling generally occurs
at support points or concentrated load
locations and is a function of both torsion
and flexure. It is because of these torsional
forces that secondary members such as
chan nel diaphragms or cross frames are
installed between girders in order to brace
the primary members. Torsion can be
introduced through wheel loads off the
beam centerline or through wind loads.
The effects of torsion are severe, box
girder structures are used because of their
ability to resist torsional forces. Torsional
forces are caused by eccentric loads .
Axial Force
An axial force is one which acts along the
longitudinal axis of a member. If the load
is acting toward the member, it will be in
compression, and if it acts away from the
member, the member will be in tension. A
tensile axial force would result in a cable,
for example, of a suspension bridge.
LOAD DISTRIBUTION
So far, we have learned that bridge loads
are transmitted from the deck to the
superstructure and then to the supporting
substructure elements. Exactly how are
these loads transmitted though? If a truck
is traveling over the top of a primary
member, it is logical to say that this
particular beam is resisting the truck load.
In addition to this, the bridge deck itself
acts as a connection between longitudinal
girders. This connectivity allows different
members to work together in resisting
loads.
As a result of being connected with the
girder in question, adjacent members assist
in carrying part of the load. Exactly how
much load they carry is a function of how
the load is transmitted or distributed to
them .
How Loads Are Distributed
The highway bridge, as mentioned
previously, is not a collection of individual
elements, each performing a specific
function, but rather an integrated unit. The
modeling of how a load is actually
dispersed from the deck down through the
substructure is not a trivial undertaking.
Where defining a precise mathematical
model of what happens to bridge loads in a
structure is complicated, it is possible to
examine the variables which influence the
distribution. In essence, the influencing
parameters are a function of the bridge
superstructure cross-sectional properties. It
should be kept in mind, however, that this
is a general list and that other variables
could potentially affect the distribution of
loads.With this in mind, the influencing
parameters are
● Type and depth of deck
● Span length
● Spacing between stringers
● Spacing of secondary members
● Stiffness of primary members
● Stiffness of secondary members
● Type of bracing employed
● Size and position of loads
As we have seen before with issues like
the idealization of the dynamic effects of
vehicle impact, in order to simplify the
computation of load distribution,
AASHTO Standard Specifications choose
to utilize a distribution factor based on
only two of the above referenced criteria:
type of floor and stringer spacing. To
account for the effects of load distribution,
a load distribution factor is computed and
applied to live load bending moments and
shear forces.
Table 3.6 shows the AASHTO Standard
Specifications wheel load distribution
factors for various floor type and spacing
configurations. Distribution will also vary
depending on whether longitudinal or
transverse members are being analyzed. It
is important to note that these factors are
applied to wheel loads.

Figure 3.21 illustrates a typical scenario
where an H20-44 truck is loading an
interior stringer of a slab-on-stringer
superstructure. When computing the
bending moment due to live load, for
example, a fraction of both the front and
rear wheel loads is taken to act on a given
interior stringer. Consulting Table 3.6, for
a concrete deck with two or more lanes
and a stringer spacing of less than 14 ft,
the resultant distribution factor for an
interior stringer will be:
AASHTO Load Distribution: Is it too
Conservative?
Within the past few years some designers
have sought to address the conservatism of
AASHTO's approach and offer alternative
methods themselves. Bogdan Kuzmanovic
and ManuelSanchez of Beiswenger, Hoch
and Associates were faced with the need to
economize the design of the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge in Tampa, Florida. The
AASHTO Standard Specifications method
yielded a lane load fraction of 1.70 for a
two-girder approach structure whose
stringers were spaced at 23 ft . The
designers felt this value to be high for a
structure equipped with vertical cross
bracing as well as lateral bracing located at
the bottom flanges.
Realizing that theAASHTO Standard
Specifications approach only takes into
account stringer spacing and bridge floor
configuration, Kuzmanovic and Sanchez
investigated alternative methods that
would take into account torsional
properties of the structure in addition to
the stiffness and spacing of secondary
members. They also wanted a method that
would facilitate the initial design process
by not requiring definition of the entire
bridge geometry . Four alternative
methods were investigated, each of which
took into account the enhanced torsional
properties of the girder-cross-frame
superstructure. The resulting lane load
fractions ranged from 1.42 to 1.60 with an
average of 1.493 .
AISC committee on the Sunshine Skyway
Bridge computed a lane load fraction of
1.49 Studies such as this have long since
demonstrated that the AASHTO Standard
Specifications approach represents a
conservative simplification of the load
distribution problem.
DID YOU KNOW? The Sunshine
Skyway Bridge crossing Tampa Bay in
Florida was constructed after a freighter
struck a pier on the previous bridge,
causing its collapse? The new structure has
a main navigation span of 1200 ft and a
vertical clearance of 175 ft . The new
structure is designed to withstand ship
impacts of 6000 tons and hurricanes with
winds up to 240 mph. For a discussion of
how load distribution was refined for this
structure's design, see the accompanying
Design Perspective.amount or 20,000 lb or
20 kips. \v'hen computing bending
moments, the distributed load used would
be
This means that 25.4 kips of the 40 kip
H20-44 design truck acts on any given
interior stringer and the remaining 14.6
kips are distributed amongst the other
stringers. If the spacing between stringers
had been greater than 14 ft, the concrete
deck between the two adjacent interior
stringers would be assumed to act as a
simple beam. The wheel loads would then
act 011 this simple beam and the resulting
reactions taken as the load on any
individual stringer. If the axle load is not at
the support, the live load distribution
factor for an interior stringer shear is the
same as that for an interior stringer
moment. If the axle load is at support, we
should calculate the distribution factor for
shear assuming the deck is simply
supported by the stringers, similar to
calculating live load distribution factor
when stringer spacing is over 14 feet . This
procedure is called «Level Rule». The
normal live load distribution factor shall
be applied to the rest axle loads.
AASHTO LRFD provides a more accurate
and sophisticated formula to calculate the
live load distribution factors . It is very
important to remember that AASHTO
LRFD uses axle load and lane load,
instead of wheel load. In other words, the
live load distribution factors in LRFD
method is approximately half of these in
the standard specifications, which uses
wheel load or half of lane load.
For concrete deck on stringer type bridges,
the distribution factor for moment in
interior stringers are:
One design lane loaded:
Two or more design lanes loaded:
The live load distribution factor for shear
in interior stringers are: One design lane
loaded:
Two or more design lanes loaded:

To apply these equations, the bridge has
to meet the following conditions:
For bridges that do not meet the above
conditions, refined structural analysis such
as finite element analysis may be used.For
other types of superstructure, the load
distribution factors can be obtained in
accordance with AASHTO LRFD
Different Types of Load Distribution
In addition to floor type and stringer
spacing, the criteria governing load
distribution vary depending on the
orientation of the member being analyzed
longitudinal or transverse and its position .
The following offers a general overview of
some of the major types of floor systems
and the related AASHTO requirements for
distribution of loads.
1. Interior Longitudinal Members.
As we have already discussed in the
example in Section 3.8.1, the live load
distribution factor of an interior stringer is
determined from Table 3.6 , or AASHTO
LRFD Table 4.6.2.2.26-1. That accounts
for lateral distribution of loads only. No
longitudinal distribution of wheel loads is
allowed. Live load bending moments are
computed using one set of front and rear
wheels , or the whole truck , multiplied by
the distribution factor.
2.Exterior Longitudinal Members.
Depending on the girder arrangement,
outside girders are often subjected to
heavier loads than interior girders.
Superimposed dead loads such as curbs,
sidewalks, railings, barriers, etc., which
are placed on an exterior girder after the
deck has cured, can be distributed equally
among all primary members. For a slab-
on-stringer bridge with four or more
stringers, the following distribution factors
are used in AASHTO Standard
Specifications:
From Equation 3.24 we see that the
distribution factor will vary depending on
the spacing of stringers. As is the case with
many interior stringers, when the spacing
between an exterior and adjacent interior
stringer exceeds 14 ft, the flooring
between the two stringers is taken to act as
a simple beam with the load on each
stringer being the resulting wheel load
reaction.
In AASHTO LRFD Specifications, if only
one lane is loaded, the load distribution
factors for moment and shear can be
obtained by positioning the truck wheel
loads 2 feet from the parapet, and
calculating the reaction from the exterior
girder, assuming the deck is simply
supported by the girders in the transverse
direction . 3.21, and modified by a factor:
When two or more lanes are loaded, the
live load distribution factor for shear can
be obtained from Eq. 3.23, and modified
by a factor:

If an exterior girder is under a sidewalk,

the girder should be designed for truck
load on the sidewalk.It should be noted
that in no case should an exterior girder be
designed smaller than the interior girders,
so that the bridge can be easily widened in
the future.

3.Transverse Members. The AASHTO

specifications do not allow for any lateral
distribution of loads for transverse
members . For concrete deck bridges, the
distribution factors for both moment and
shear is S/6. If S exceeds 6 feet , the
distribution factor can be calculated by
positioning the live load to obtain the
maximum reaction at the floor beam,
assuming the deck is simply supported by
the floor beams.

4.Multibeam Concrete Decks

(Concrete Panels). A multi beam
concrete deck can be either conventionally
reinforced or prestressed. These types of
decks consist of concrete panels which run
longitudinally and are placed next to one
another. The panels are connected together
with a shear key and lateral post-tension
ing rods. A concrete overlay is usually
applied to the top of concrete panels.As
with other longitudinal members, no
longitudinal distribution of wheel loads is
allowed. The AASHTO Standard
Specifications takes into account the
stiffness of the deck panels through use
of a stiffness parameter C which is given
as
AASHTO LRFD uses slightly different
equations to calculate load distribution
factors for multibeam deck bridges. For
shear in interior and exterior beams,
Tables 4.6.2.2.3a-1 and 4.6.2.2.36-1 can be
used.
It can be seen that the value of the
distribution factor is greatly dependent on
the cross-sectional geometry of the precast
panel. Both the moment of inertia and
torsional constant are functions of the type
of panel/ beam used . AASHTO provides a
list of general constant values for use in
the preliminary design of a multibeam
bridge.

Conclusions
As can be seen from the Design
Perspective, in this section, the approach
which AASHTO Standard Specifications
takes for the distribution of loads has
fostered some debate as to whether or not
the method is too conservative. The
AASHTO code places the distribution of
loads for concrete slabs within the same
section as that which describes the general
design criteria for this element . For load
distribution criteria pertaining to other less
common flooring, such as timber flooring,
the reader is referred to the AASHTO
specifications directly for information .

CONCRETE DECK SLABS

With this section, we begin the portion of
the text which concerns the active design
of structural elements in a highway bridge.
If there is insufficient room for the
example to be completed on a single page,
it will be continued on the subsequent
right-hand facing page . For the most part,
the associated text on the left-hand facing
page and bottom of the right-hand page
will be germane to the design example,
although there is no guaranteed one-to-one
correspondence .
In that way, this book can be used as a
reference book no matter which method is
required in your state.