See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274409902

Vibration Versus Deflection Control for Bridges with High-Performance Steel

Girders

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · December 2011
DOI: 10.3141/2251-03

CITATIONS READS
4 669

4 authors, including:

Hani H Nassif Mayrai Gindy

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey University of Rhode Island
75 PUBLICATIONS   685 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fiber-Reinforced Self-Consolidating Concrete for Repair of Bridge Sub-Structures and Fiber-Reinforced Super-Workable Concrete for Infrastructure Construction View
project

Impact of Overweight Trucks on Infarstructrue in New Jersey View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hani H Nassif on 27 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vibration Versus Deflection Control
for Bridges with High-Performance
Steel Girders
Hani Nassif, Ming Liu, Dan Su, and Mayrai Gindy
The use of high-performance steel (HPS) in highway bridges has proved
successful in structural performance and in the cost-efficiency of the
constructed bridges. However, the use of optional deflection criteria as
specified in a subsection of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
may impede the use of HPS in highway bridges. Besides the deflection
criteria, the current AASHTO specifications provide a depth-to-span
limitation table for steel superstructure designs. The values in that
table are based primarily on the use of Grade 36 steel and were initially
a carryover from railroad bridge construction. Therefore, both the
deflection criteria and the depth-to-span limitation need to be evaluated
for bridges constructed with HPS. This paper presents an investigation
of the vibration control (e.g., acceleration and velocity) of HPS bridges
using a three-dimensional (3-D) dynamic computer model. The 3-D
dynamic model was validated with the use of field test data on various
bridges, including a three-span continuous steel girder bridge. A suite
of typical bridges designed with various slab thicknesses and span-to-
depth ratios was selected for this study. In particular, the effects of the
steel girder depth and concrete slab thickness on bridge vibration were
identified. The analysis results indicated that bridge vibrations were
better controlled with the choice of optimal concrete slab thicknesses
(i.e., by adding to the mass and moment of inertia of a composite girder)
rather than with specifications of the span-to-depth ratio limits, deflection
limits, or first natural frequency.
High-performance steel (HPS) was developed in the early 1990s to
provide an enhanced structural steel material of Grade 70 yield strength
with improved welding capabilities and weathering durability.
The use of HPS-485W (70W) steel in highway bridges has proven
to be successful in structural performance and in the cost efficiency
of the constructed bridges. However, it has been realized that the
use of the optional design criteria for deformation (or deflection)
H. Nassif, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Kyung Hee
University; Center for Advanced Information Processing, Rutgers Infrastructure
Monitoring and Evaluation Group, Rutgers University, 96 Frelinghuysen Road,
Piscataway, NJ 08854. M. Liu, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver Federal Center, Building 67 (86-68110),
P.O. Box 250007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. D. Su, Center for Advanced Infor-
mation Processing, Rutgers Infrastructure Monitoring and Evaluation Group,
Rutgers University, 96 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854. M. Gindy,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Rhode Island,
1 Lippitt Road, 201 Bliss Hall, Kingston, RI 02881. Corresponding author: D. Su,
sulevey@eden.rutgers.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2251, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 24–33.
DOI: 10.3141/2251-03
24
control, as specified in the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factors
Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (1), Subsection 2.5.2.6,
and Table 2.5.2.6.3-1, Traditional Minimum Depths for Constant
Depth Superstructures, may impede the use of HPS in bridge con-
struction. If the deflection requirements become the controlling design
issue, the most economical bridge designs, on the basis of ultimate
strength criteria, cannot be achieved. As a result, the rationality of
using deflection requirements must be carefully studied for current
bridge design practices. One of the important questions that need to
be addressed is whether the vibration can be effectively controlled
by applying the deflection limit specifications to the design. The
use of a deflection design parameter is an option that many states
(e.g., New Jersey) impose to control vibration indirectly. Vibration
control of a constructed bridge is desired because the service life of
a bridge that is too flexible becomes questionable. Furthermore, a
motorist’s perception that he or she is using a safe bridge is important
to state highway agencies.
In this paper, a correlation between live load–induced vibration
and various HPS bridge parameters is established. An analysis model,
based on the dynamic interaction between the bridge, the vehicle, and
the road roughness system, was validated by using experimental data
from various types of bridges. A suite of HPS bridges were designed
and then analyzed to identify the most sensitive parameters that
would affect bridge vibration and deflection response. Various types
of truck loading patterns (e.g., single, side by side) and typical road
roughness profiles were considered. The resulting bridge responses
(i.e., acceleration and deflection) were compared to human perception
of vibration. The deflection criteria and depth-to-span (D:L) ratio
specified in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, as
well as Canadian and Australian code specifications, were also
evaluated. The effects of the steel girder depth and concrete slab
thickness on bridge vibration were identified. Results showed that
bridge vibration could be effectively controlled by increasing the
thickness of the concrete deck slab (i.e., adding mass and moment
of inertia) while maintaining shallow depths for the HPS girders.
Moreover, increasing slab thickness improved the durability of the
bridge deck.
BACKGROUND
Use of deflection limits in the design of highway bridges, particularly
when HPS is desired, is an important consideration in the design
process. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications establish
the use of a deflection design as an optional criterion (1). A number
of state highway agencies specify their own deflection limits as a
Nassif, Liu, Su, and Gindy 25

mandatory requirement. New Jersey defaults to AASHTO’s deflection
criteria of L/800 for vehicular bridges and L/1,000 for pedestrian
bridges (2). It is perceived that these deflection limits are usually
based on a rather arbitrary and sometimes conservative approach
in designing bridges (3). This perception raises questions about
the rationality of these deflection limits in that pursuing a conser-
vative design approach does not take advantage of today’s bridge
construction technologies. In principle, deflection limits were estab-
lished to eliminate damage to any structural and nonstructural
components due to excessive deformation as well as to avoid loss
of aesthetic appearance and interruption of its functionality. For
highway bridges, vehicle rideability and human responses to bridge
vibration under normal traffic conditions play important roles in
determining deflection limits. Moreover, if deflection limits should
be specified as a design parameter, a rational approach is needed
to establish a design philosophy for limit states that all designers
can justifiably use (4).
A detailed literature search by Gindy (4) indicated that the origin
of the deformation requirements in bridge designs might be traced
to 1871 with a set of specifications established by the Phoenix Bridge
Company. An ASCE report on deflection limits of bridges has been
widely cited for the evolution of these requirements (5). The following
conclusions may be drawn from the ASCE report:
1. The deflection limits were established before the span-to-depth
ratio limits; that is, the span-to-depth ratio limits were used as indirect
measures of the deflection limits.
2. Both deflection and span-to-depth ratio limits were empiri-
cally derived, mainly for early bridge structures, such as wood
plank decks, pony trusses, simple rolled beams, and pin-connected
through-trusses (6).
3. The specified span-to-depth ratio limits for highway bridges
(by AASHO) followed what was established for railroad bridges
(by the American Railway Engineering Association).
4. The deflection limit of L/800 was established in the 1930s,
primarily for vibration control of steel highway bridges.
5. No major changes have been made for steel highway bridges
since 1936.
It is generally agreed that deformation requirements are intended to
play an important role in bridge vibration controls. Therefore, Wright
and Walker (7) proposed a vibration-related static deflection limit,
a computed transient peak acceleration of a bridge, α, which should
not exceed 100 in./s2 (2.54 m/s2), where the static deflection, δs, is
linked to α as follows:
α
δs = 0.05 × L × (1)
(speed + 0.3 × fs × L ) × fs
where
L = span length,
speed = vehicle speed, and
fs = natural frequency of a simple span bridge, which may be
estimated as
π Eb I b
fs = (2)
2 L2 m
where EbIb is the flexural rigidity of a girder section, and m is the unit
mass of a girder section. The value for δs needs to be calculated for
a live load with a girder distribution factor of 0.7. Nowak and
Grouni (8) also stated that the deflection and vibration criteria
should be derived by considering human reactions rather than struc-
tural performance. In addition, similar efforts that relate static
deflection limits to the natural frequency of a bridge are shown in
Canadian and Australian bridge design specifications (9–12). The
red solid lines in Figure 1 show the relationship between the first

220
CSA-w/o sidewalk
200

180 CSA-with sidewalk, little pedestrian use

160 CSA-with sidewalk, significant pedestrian use

Static Deflection (mm)

140
AUSTRALIAN
120

100

80
U
60 U

40
A
20
A
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
First Flexural Frequency (Hz)

FIGURE 1 Static deflection versus first flexural frequency (A ⴝ acceptable, U ⴝ unacceptable, CSA = Canadian
Standards Association) (9–12).
26
flexural frequency (in Hertz) and static deflections limits (in milli-
meters) at the sidewalk or edge of a bridge for various structure
types from the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code. This relation-
ship was developed from extensive field data and analytical models
(13). The green solid line in Figure 1 presents a similar relationship
that is adopted in the Australian Bridge Design Code. The static
deflection limits are usually absent in European bridge design spec-
ifications whereas the New Zealand Bridge Manual in 1994 limits
the maximum vertical velocity to 2.2 in./s (0.056 m/s) instead of
using the maximum acceleration.
Debates on the necessity of deformation requirements in current
bridge design specifications focus on two aspects: (a) whether
excessive deflections cause structural damage and (b) whether
deflection limits provide effective control of bridge vibrations under
normal truck traffic. The limited survey in the ASCE report (5)
revealed no evidence of serious structural damage due to excessive
vertical deflections. However, unfavorable psychological reactions
to bridge vibrations caused greater concerns about bridge safety.
Burke (14) argued that, if deflection limits were not mandated, the
effective service life of reinforced concrete deck slabs could become
considerably less than their normal replacement interval of 30 years.
Moreover, the report on NCHRP Project 20-7 (15) found that
bridges clearly suffered severe structural damage caused by exces-
sive deformation but provided little support for the idea that deflec-
tion limits should be used as a method of controlling these structural
damages. In addition, deflection limits were not considered as the
good method of controlling bridge vibrations (16).
Factors related to human perceptions of vibrations are based on
research work from many sources (13, 17–23). In addition, compre-
hensive research on human responses to bridge vibrations was
conducted by Wright and Walker (7 ). They concluded that peak
accelerations were preferable to peak velocities when human per-
ceptions of bridge vibrations that typically ranged from 1 to 10 Hz
were being evaluated. Thus, peak acceleration and frequency of
bridge vertical vibrations were considered the most important param-
eters in this research.
The dynamic characterization of a heavy truck—such as its mass,
speed, traveling lane, suspension properties, and tire stiffness—
significantly affects the dynamic response of a bridge. In other words,
the predicted dynamic behavior of a bridge under normal moving
loads (i.e., without consideration of the dynamic characterization of
FIGURE 2 Cross section of instrumented span of the Doremus Avenue Bridge
(SHLDR ⴝ shoulder; SB ⴝ southbound; NB ⴝ northbound; LVDT ⴝ linear variable
differential transformer; LDV ⴝ laser Doppler vibrometer; G ⴝ girder;
Acc ⴝ accelerometer; Geo ⴝ geophone).
Transportation Research Record 2251
a heavy truck) may not be sufficient to represent anticipated bridge
vibrations. This is why some bridges that were designed to satisfy a
deflection limit may still have objectionable vibrations or unaccept-
able structural performances while other bridges that fail to meet the
existing deflection limits perform satisfactorily.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The Doremus Avenue Bridge, near the port area of Newark, New
Jersey, was selected for the field study. The data collected from this
bridge were used to validate a dynamic model developed by Nassif
et al. (24). The dynamic model was used thereafter to analyze various
bridges designed with HPS. The field data collection was performed
as part of an extensive long-term monitoring program (25). The three
equal spans [45 m (148 ft)] of this bridge were selected for the
experimental study because Span 3 provided clear access to the under-
side of the bridge. Details of the bridge cross section are presented
in Figure 2.
The bridge was instrumented with several types of sensors,
including a weigh-in-motion system, accelerometers, strain gauges,
and two types of displacement-measuring systems [a permanent
linear variable differential transformer cable system and a portable
laser Doppler vibrometer system]. Strain transducers were installed
across all 10 girders for all three spans at locations of maximum
positive moments while the linear variable differential transformer
and laser Doppler vibrometer systems measured the response of
Girder 8 of Span 3 at the same location. The weigh-in-motion system,
installed at the bridge entrance, continuously recorded truck traffic
information such as axle weights and spacing, vehicle speed, vehicle
class, and lane position. The linear variable differential transformer
system measured the deflection of the girder at the location of the
maximum positive moment. The noncontact laser Doppler vibrometer
provided readings for the velocity and displacement of the girder.
During data collection, when the weight of a truck was greater than
the weight of an HS-20 truck (i.e., 72 kips), this truck was identified
as a heavy truck, and then the data collection system was triggered
to record the bridge response for that loading event. The output files
were all linked by a time stamp and truck identification number.
Periodically, the network was accessed remotely and the files were
downloaded and analyzed.
Nassif, Liu, Su, and Gindy 27

BRIDGE DYNAMIC MODEL 3

2.5 Field Data
Deformation requirements are intended to play a significant role in 2
3-D Model

Stress (ksi)
controlling bridge vibrations. Therefore, it is important to understand 1.5
the dynamic–vibration behavior of a bridge subjected to normal truck 1
traffic loading conditions. In this study, a three-dimensional (3-D) 0.5
dynamic computer model developed by Nassif et al. (24) was used 0
to predict the responses of girder bridges. The model consisted of -0.5
three submodels—bridge model, vehicle model, and road roughness -1
100 200 300 400 500 600
model—to represent the interaction between the truck, the bridge,
Front Axial Distance from Bridge Entrance (ft)
and the road roughness. The bridge model was based on efficient
grillage analysis. The five-axle tractor–semitrailer vehicle model is FIGURE 3 Validation of 3-D bridge dynamic model by means
a 3-D representation of the most common truck on the highways, of measured stresses at Span 2, Girder 9.
as observed by Nassif (26). The bridge response was computed from
the 3-D computer model by using the Newmark-β method. Nassif
et al. (24) presented the experimental validation of this 3-D model by stresses with the calculated ones from the 3-D model, as shown in
comparing the computed dynamic load factor with the experimental Figure 3. The possible reasons for the variation in the measurements
results on the basis of field tests done by Nassif and Nowak (27). included the road roughness, variation in truck dynamics (e.g., suspen-
As described earlier, the experimental data collected from the sion and axle configuration), and variation of truck-loading location.
Doremus Avenue Bridge were used to validate the model. The 3-D Next, the mass matrix of the bridge model was calibrated by matching
dynamic model was also calibrated by using data from dynamic tests the first natural frequency to the free-vibration testing (i.e., 1.59 Hz,
performed on more than four bridges in the state of Michigan. The as shown in Figure 4) with those calculated from the 3-D model.
Doremus Avenue Bridge grillage model was assembled by using As a result, the calibrated dynamic models were applied to a suite
480 longitudinal and 441 transverse elements. The stiffness matrix of designed HPS bridges with various D:L ratios and slab thicknesses.
of the bridge model was calibrated by matching the measured static A parametric study was performed to identify the effects of the

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 4 Measured acceleration records on Span 3, Girder 8 (interior), middle span (4).
28 Transportation Research Record 2251

14’-8” 4’-7” 23’-4” 4’-6” Truck A

10.76 kips 15.74 15.74 17.05 17.05

kips kips kips kips

13’-4” 4’-5” 23’-6” 4’-7” Truck B

10.34 kips 13.87 13.87 19.26 19.26

kips kips kips kips

FIGURE 5 Configurations of Trucks A and B.

superstructure, truck traffic, and road roughness profiles on bridge
vibration levels, with particular emphasis on the effects of the steel
girder depth and concrete slab thickness. Two five-axle trucks with
typical truck properties obtained from the field testing of Doremus
Avenue Bridge were used in this study. The configurations of these
two trucks are shown in Figure 5. Both multiple-truck configurations
(i.e., two trucks side by side) and one single-truck configuration
were also considered in this study.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
As stated earlier, the deflection limits and the D:L ratio specifications
from AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications needed to be
evaluated. Figure 6 shows a plot of the maximum static deflections
versus the D:L ratios for different concrete slab thicknesses. The D:L
limitation used was 0.027 for these designed bridges. Figure 6
shows that the deflection limits can still be met even if the minimum
D:L ratios are not satisfied. For concrete slab thicknesses ranging
from 8.66 to 12 in. (0.220 to 0.305 m), when the steel girder depth
decreases, the maximum static deflections slightly increase. In contrast,
Table 1 shows that the maximum vertical accelerations depend on both
bridge and truck properties. For example, Truck A generally induces
higher vibrations than Truck B for the same bridge. The presence of
multiple trucks (i.e., side by side) often does not increase bridge
vibrations, although presence of multiple trucks always generates
more static deflection. Figure 7 shows that bridge vibration can be well
controlled under the “perceptible” level by changing the concrete slab
thickness, even if the D:L limit is not satisfied. This result indicates that
a shallower HPS girder can be used if the D:L ratio limit is ignored.
In contrast, if the D:L ratio limit is considered, a larger girder depth
needs to be used, and therefore the cost of the section will increase.
Moreover, Figure 8 shows the acceleration records for two bridges
designed with the same concrete slab thickness of 8.66 in. (0.220 m)
but D:L ratios of 0.016 and 0.032, respectively. In Figure 8, the peak
acceleration decreases by only 16% [from 24.5 in./s2 (0.62 m/s2) to
20.49 in./s2 (0.52 m/s2)], even when the D:L ratio is doubled. This result
indicates that the change in the steel girder depth has little effect on

1.2 0.030
t = 8.66"
1.1 t = 10"
D/L < 0.027
t = 12"
Maximum Static Deflection (in.)

Maximum Static Deflection (m)

1.0 0.025
>L / 1000
0.9

0.8 0.020
< L / 1000
0.7

0.6 0.015

0.5
D/L > 0.027
0.4 0.010
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Depth-to-Span Ratio (D/L)

FIGURE 6 Maximum static deflection versus D:L ratio (t ⴝ concrete slab thickness).
Nassif, Liu, Su, and Gindy 29

TABLE 1 Maximum Vertical Acceleration for Different Depth-to-Span Ratios

and Slab Thickness Under Various Truck Loading Conditions

Maximum Acceleration, m/s2 (in./s2)

Truck I II III IV

Concrete Slab Thickness: 8.66 in. (0.220 m)

A 1.39 (54.79) 1.49 (58.64) 1.37 (53.82) 1.42 (55.75)
B 0.91 (35.79) 1.05 (41.23) 0.94 (37.02) 1.46 (57.42)
A and B (side by side) 1.51 (59.60) 1.52 (59.91) 1.40 (55.21) 1.41 (55.53)
Concrete Slab Thickness: 10 in. (0.254 m)
A 1.00 (39.30) 1.01 (39.91) 1.02 (40.29) 1.16 (45.80)
B 0.77 (30.13) 1.05 (41.46) 0.89 (34.99) 0.84 (33.26)
A and B (side by side) 1.14 (45.05) 1.15 (45.08) 1.18 (46.47) 1.18 (46.36)
Concrete Slab Thickness: 12 in. (0.305 m)
A 0.71 (28.09) 0.73 (28.84) 0.80 (31.47) 0.86 (33.74)
B 0.73 (28.86) 0.69 (27.23) 0.76 (29.89) 0.63 (24.80)
A and B (side by side) 0.71 (28.14) 0.73 (28.55) 0.73 (28.89) 0.77 (30.24)

NOTE: I: steel girder depth, m (in.) = 1.44 (56.69); D:L = 0.032; satisfies minimum D:L of 0.027.
II: steel girder depth, m (in.) = 1.20 (47.24); D:L = 0.027; satisfies minimum D:L of 0.027.
III: steel girder depth, m (in.) = 0.96 (37.79); D:L = 0.021; does not satisfy minimum D:L of 0.027.
IV: steel girder depth, m (in.) = 0.72 (28.34); D:L = 0.016; does not satisfy minimum D:L of 0.027.

bridge vibrations for the same concrete slab thickness. In contrast,
Figure 9 shows the acceleration records for two bridges having the
same D:L ratio but slab thicknesses of 8.66 in. (0.220 m) and 12 in.
(0.305 m). When the slab thickness increases by 38.5% [from 8.66 in.
(0.220 m) to 12 in. (0.305 m)], the peak acceleration decreases by 54%
[from 35.72 in./s2 (0.91 m/s2) to 16.56 in./s2 (0.42 m/s2)]. This result
suggested that the increase in slab thickness had a significant effect
on the vibration control of HPS bridges.
As mentioned earlier, vehicle rideability (or road roughness) and
human responses to bridge vibration play important roles in deter-
mining deflection limits. That is why the Australian and Canadian
bridge design codes relate the static deflection limits to the first natural
frequency of the bridge, as shown earlier in Figure 1. Figure 10 shows
the static deflections calculated in accordance with the New Jersey
bridge design specifications and those specified in the Australian
and Canadian bridge design codes. Although all 12 of these bridges
met the maximum static-deflection limits for the Australian bridge
design codes, all but two bridges [those having a concrete slab thick-
ness of 8.66 in. (0.220 m) and D:L ratios equal to 0.027 and 0.032,
respectively] meet the maximum static deflection limits in the
Canadian bridge design code. Moreover, although two bridges
[those having concrete slab thickness of 8.66 in. (0.220 m) and D:L
ratios of 0.016 and 0.022, respectively] do not meet the New Jersey
bridge design specifications (i.e., deflection limit of L/1,000), both
are within the maximum static deflection limits of the Canadian and
Australian bridge design specifications. Figures 11a through 11c

70
t = 8.66" 1.7
Maximum Vertical Acceleration (in./sec.2)

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (m/sec.2)

D/L < 0.027 t = 10"

60 t = 12"
1.5
Unpleasant

1.3
50

1.1
Perceptible
40
0.9

30
0.7
D/L > 0.027

20 0.5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Depth-to-Span Ratio (D/L)

FIGURE 7 Maximum vertical acceleration versus D:L ratio.

30 Transportation Research Record 2251

30 0.8
t = 8.66", D/L=0.016
0.6
20
t = 8.66", D/L=0.032
0.4

Acceleration (in./sec.2)

Acceleration (m/sec.2)
10
0.2

0 0

-0.2
-10
-0.4
-20
-0.6

-30 -0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (sec)

FIGURE 8 Acceleration records with identical slab thickness.

30
t = 8.66" 0.6
20 t = 12" 0.4
Acceleration (in./sec.2)

Acceleration (m/sec.2)
10 0.2

0 0.0

-0.2
-10
-0.4
-20
-0.6

-30 -0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (sec)

FIGURE 9 Acceleration records with different slab thickness.

1.2 0.030
t = 8.66"
t = 10" Australian
1.1
bridge design
Maximum Static Deflection (in.)

Maximum Static Deflection (m)

t = 12" code
1.0 0.025
> L/1000
New Jersey bridge
0.9
design specifications
0.8 0.020
< L/1000
0.7
Canadian
0.6 bridge design 0.015
code
0.5

0.4 0.010
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
First Natural Frequency (Hz)

FIGURE 10 Maximum static deflection versus first natural frequency.

Nassif, Liu, Su, and Gindy 31

70
Truck A 1.7

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (in./sec.2)

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (m/sec.2)

Truck B
60 1.5
Trucks A & B Unpleasant
(Side by Side) 1.3
50

1.1
40
0.9
Perceptible*
30
0.7

20 0.5
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
First Natural Frequency (Hz)
(a)

70
Truck A 1.7

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (m/sec.2)

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (in./sec.2)

Truck B
60 1.5
Trucks A & B (Side Unpleasant
by Side) 1.3
50

1.1
40
0.9
Perceptible*
30
0.7

20 0.5
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
First Natural Frequency (Hz)
(b)

70
Truck A 1.7
Maximum Vertical Acceleration (in./sec.2)

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (m/sec.2)

Truck B
60 1.5
Trucks A & B Unpleasant
(Side by Side) 1.3
50

1.1
40
0.9
Perceptible*
30
0.7

20 0.5
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
First Natural Frequency (Hz)
(c)

FIGURE 11 Maximum vertical acceleration versus first natural frequency for concrete
slab thickness of (a) 8.66 in., (b) 10 in., and (c) 12 in. (perceptible vibration calculated
as 0.5 ⴛ frequency ).
32 Transportation Research Record 2251

Moment of Inertia (m4)

0.17 0.27 0.37 0.47 0.57 0.67
70
t = 8.66" 1.7
Unpleasant

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (in./sec.2)

Maximum Vertical Acceleration (m/sec.2)

t = 10"
60 1.5
t = 12"

1.3
50

1.1
Perceptible
40

0.9

30
0.7

20 0.5
20 40 60 80
Moment of Inertia (ft4)

FIGURE 12 Variation of maximum vertical acceleration versus composite girder moment

of inertia.

show plots of the maximum vertical accelerations versus the first
natural frequency for different concrete slab thicknesses under
various loading conditions. The bridges with a concrete slab thick-
ness of 8.66 in. (0.220 m) experience the most unpleasant vibrations
(Figure 11a). Moreover, Figures 11a through 11c provide strong
evidence that the bridges with the same first natural frequency may
experience large variations in their maximum vertical accelerations
under different truck loads. In other words, the first natural frequency,
as used by the Canadian as well as Australian codes, does not effec-
tively control bridge vibrations. Figure 12 shows the variation in the
maximum acceleration versus the girder moment of inertia. A strong
correlation exists between maximum acceleration and girder moment
of inertia. Figure 12 shows the effect of slab thickness in reducing
maximum vertical acceleration, indicating that control of vibration
can also be achieved by increasing mass and stiffness of the com-
posite girder without the need to increase steel girder depth. The
moment of inertia of the composite girder increased by only 10%
(from 51.6 to 57.3 ft4) when the D:L increased by 52% (from 0.021
to 0.032) compared with an increase of 22% (from 51.6 to 66.5 ft4)
when the slab thickness increased by 20% (from 10 to 12 in.) with
a D:L equal to 0.021. These data confirm that the increase in slab
thickness can enhance the stiffness of the composite girder more
effectively and lead to a further reduction in the vibration of the
structure.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented results of a comprehensive evaluation of the
deflection criteria from various codes by using a 3-D dynamic model.
A parametric study was conducted to identify the most sensitive
parameters to control the vibration of steel girder bridges. From the
analysis results, the following conclusions can be made:
• Neither D:L limitations nor static deflection criteria could pro-
vide effective vibration control of a steel girder bridge under normal
truck traffic conditions.
• If the D:L ratio limit is not considered, the more economical
design can be achieved by choosing shallower HPS girder sections
while controlling the bridge vibration well under the perceptible level
by increasing concrete slab thickness.
• Bridges with the same first natural frequency may experience
large variations in their maximum vertical accelerations under
different truck loads. Therefore, the first natural frequency of the
bridge, as used by the Canadian and Australian codes, may not
effectively control bridge vibrations.
• The vertical acceleration of HPS girder bridges can be effectively
controlled by increasing the mass and stiffness of the composite
girder (i.e., by increasing concrete deck thickness) without the need
to increase HPS girder depth.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the New Jersey Department of
Transportation for sponsoring the research project related to instru-
mentation and monitoring of the Doremus Avenue Bridge. They
also acknowledge the financial support and the technical assistance
of Harry Capers, Jr. (retired), Nick Vittilo (retired), Jose Lopez
(retired), W. Lad Szalaj (retired), and Dick Dunne of the New Jersey
Department of Transportation and the help of Nakin Suksawang,
Joe Davis, and Talat Abu-Amra.
 Nassif, Liu, Su, and Gindy
REFERENCES
1. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. AASHTO, Washington,
D.C., 2008.
2. New Jersey Bridge Design Specifications. New Jersey Department of
Transportation, Trenton, 2006.
3. Demitz, J. R., D. R. Mertz, and J. W. Gillespie. Deflection Requirements
for Bridges Constructed with Advanced Composite Materials. Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2, March 2003, pp. 73–83.
4. Gindy, M. Development of a Reliability-Based Deflection Limit State
for Steel Girder Bridges. PhD dissertation. Rutgers, State University of
New Jersey, Piscataway, 2004.
5. Committee on Deflection Limitations of Bridges. Deflection Limitation
of a Bridge (Report ST3). Journal of the Structural Division of ASCE,
Vol. 84, May 1958, pp. 1633–1720.
6. Wu, H. Influence of Live-Load Deflections on Superstructure Performance
of Slab on Steel Stringer Bridges. PhD dissertation. West Virginia
University, Parkersburg, 2003.
7. Wright, R. N., and W. H. Walker. Criteria for the Deflection of Steel
Bridges. Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Institute, No. 19,
Nov. 1971.
8. Nowak, A. S., and H. N. Grouni. Serviceability Considerations for
Guideways and Bridges. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15,
No. 4, 1988, pp. 534–537.
9. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code: Commentary, 3rd ed. Ministry
of Transportation, Quality, and Standards Division, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, 1991.
10. CAN/CSA: S6-00 and Commentary. Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code. Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
May 2000.
11. ’92 Austroads Bridge Design Code, Section Two: Code Design Loads
and Commentary. Austroads, Haymarket, New South Wales, Australia,
1992.
12. ’96 Australian Bridge Design Code, Section Six: Steel and Composite
Construction. Austroads, Haymarket, New South Wales, Australia, 1996.
13. Wright, D. T., and R. Green. Highway Bridge Vibration, Part II: Report
No. 5 on Ontario Test Programme. Ontario Department of Highways
and Queen’s University. Kingston, Ontario, Canada, May 1964.
14. Burke, M. P. Superstructure Flexibility and Disintegration of Reinforced
Concrete Deck Slabs: An LRFD Perspective. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1770, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 76–83.
15. Roeder, C. W., K. Barth, and A. Bergman. NCHRP Web Document 46:
Improved Live Load Deflection Criteria for Steel Bridges. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., May
View publication stats
33
2002. http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/Improved_Live_Load_Deflection_
Criteria_for_Steel_B_161461.aspx. Accessed Sept. 1, 2008.
16. Azizinamini, A., K. Barth, R. Dexter, and C. Rubeiz. High Performance
Steel: Research Front, Historical Account of Research Activities.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2004, pp. 212–217.
17. Reiher, H. and F. J. Meister. The Effect of Vibration on People
[Forschung auf dem Gebeite des Ingenieurwesens (in German)]. Report
F-TS-616-RE, Vol. 2, No. II, P381. Headquarters Air Material Command,
Wright Army Air Field, Ohio, 1946.
18. Goldman, D. E. A Review of Subjective Responses to Vibratory Motion
of the Human Body in the Frequency Range 1 to 70 Cycles per Second.
Naval Medical Research Institute, National Naval Medical Center,
Bethesda, Md., 1948.
19. Janeway, R. N. Vehicle Vibration Limits for Passenger Comfort: From
Ride and Vibration Data. SP-6. Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit,
Mich., 1950.
20. Oehler, L. T. Vibration Susceptibilities of Various Highway Bridge Types.
Project 55 F-40, No. 272. Michigan State Highway Department, Lansing,
1957.
21. Oehler, L. T. Highway Research Circular 107: Bridge Vibration:
Summary of Questionnaire to State Highway Departments. HRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., Feb. 1970.
22. Oriard, L. L. Blasting Operations in the Urban Environment. Bulletin of
the Association of Engineering Geologists, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1972, pp. 27–46.
23. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code: Commentary and March 1995
Update. Quality and Standards Division, Ontario Ministry of Trans-
portation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1995.
24. Nassif, H. H., M. Liu, and O. Ertekin. Model Validation for Bridge–Road–
Vehicle Dynamic Interaction System. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 8, No. 2, March 2003, pp. 112–120.
25. Nassif, H., N. Suksawang, J. Davis, M. Gindy, and T. Abu-Amra.
Instrumentation, Field Testing, and Monitoring of the Doremus Avenue
Bridge: Superstructure. FHWA-NJ-2005-13. New Jersey Department
of Transportation, Trenton, 2010.
26. Nassif, H. H. Live Load Spectra for Girder Bridges. PhD dissertation.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1993.
27. Nassif, H. H., and A. S. Nowak. Dynamic Load Spectra for Girder
Bridges. In Transportation Research Record 1476, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 69–83.
The findings reported in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the New Jersey DOT. The analytical work by M. Liu was done before
his employment at the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior.
The General Structures Committee peer-reviewed this paper.