Comparison of BD 37/01 and

AASHTO LRFD 2007 Loadings

Prepared By:
Winfred G. Liwanag II
Graduate Bridge Design Engineer HYDER CONSULTING
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

OBJECTIVE

 Compare and contrast BD 37/01 and AASHTO LRFD 2007 using the
calculation of worked example of simply supported Prestressed
concrete beam by Nicholson.

 Determine which code gives higher design loads and it effects.

 Determine which code is onerous.

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

 To simplify calculations, only the following loads will be considered:

-Dead Load, Superimposed Dead Load and Primary Live Loads.

 Ultimate Limit State will be used in two given Codes.

 Use of Structural Bridge Design 2014 for the analysis.

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

LOAD TO CONSIDER:
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

LOADS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

3.3.2 Load and Load Designation
4.1 Loads and factors specified The following loads and forces shall be
considered:
4.2 Loads to considered
Table 1: Combination of Loads

4.3 Classification of loads

The loads applied to a structure are regarded as

either permanent or transient.

4.3.1 Permanent loads

-dead loads,
-superimposed dead loads and
-loads due to filling material

4.3.2 Transient loads

-all loads other than permanent loads shall
be considered to be transient.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

COMBINATION OF LOADS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

4.4 COMBINATION OF LOADS 3.4 LOAD FACTORS AND COMBINATIONS

Three principal and two secondary  STRENGTH I-V

 EXTREME EVENT I-II
combinations of loads are specified;

 SERVICE I-VI

COMBINATION DESCRIPTION
STRENGTH I—Basic load combination relating to
the normal vehicular use of the bridge without wind.

Table 3.4.1-1 Load Combinations and Load Factors.

Table 3.4.1-2 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp.

An important note about γp: The purpose of γp is to

account for the fact that sometimes certain loads work
opposite to other loads. ‰
-If the load being considered works in a direction to
increase the critical response, the maximum γp is used.
-If the load being considered would decrease the maximum
response, the minimum γp is used.
„ -The minimum value of γp is used when the permanent
load would increase stability or load carrying capacity
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE
LIMIT STATES:
BD 37/01 VS.
SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE represents the
limit of acceptable performance in service.
Serviceability limit state calculations are made with
loads factored to represent the worst loads that the
bridge is expected to experience during its design
life.
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE represents conditions
of total collapse which endanger the safety of people
and/or require major or total reconstruction.
Ultimate limit state calculations are made with
significantly greater factored loads representing
extremely improbable occurrences.
AASHTO LRFD 2007
 SERVICE:
Deals with restrictions on stress, deformation,
and crack width under regular service conditions.
Intended to ensure that the bridge performs
acceptably during its design life.
 STRENGTH:
Intended to ensure that strength and stability
are provided to resist statistically significant load
combinations that a bridge will experience during its
design life.
Extensive distress and structural damage may occur
at strength limit state conditions, but overall
structural integrity is expected to be maintained.
 EXTREME EVENT:
Intended to ensure structural survival of a
bridge during an earthquake, vehicle collision, ice
flow, or foundation scour.
 FATIGUE:
Deals with restrictions on stress range under
regular service conditions reflecting the number of
expected cycles.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

SAMPLE PROBLEM:
The example bridge has the following design The following materials will be used:
requirements:
Precast concrete fcu = 50 N/mm2
Span Length = 26.61m single span
fci = 40 N/mm2
Span Width = 7.3m carriageway + 1m hard
strip each side + 1.5m footpath each side In-situ concrete fcu = 40 N/mm2

Loading HA + 37.5 units HB Prestressing strand 15.2 mm dia Dyform

fpu = 1820 N/mm2
Surfacing 100mm thk (minimum) + 20mm
Area = 165 mm2 per strand
waterproofing

Nicholson: Simple Bridge Design Using Prestressed Beams

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

SECTION PROPERTIES:

Nicholson: Simple Bridge Design Using Prestressed Beams

 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

CALCULATION OF LOADS:
BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

Code for Deck Overhang Load

 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

PRIMARY LIVE LOADS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

3.2.9 Highway Carriageway and Lanes 3.6.1.1 Number of Design Lanes
The clear roadway width between barriers
is 9.3m.
= 9.3m / 3.6m
= 2.58 = 2 design lanes

3.6.1.2 Design Vehicular Live Loads

b = 3.1m > the minimum 2.5m and less than the
maximum 3.65m . Okey! Vehicular live loading on the roadways of
bridges or incidental structures, designated HL-93,
6.2 a.) HA LOADING shall consist of a combination of the:
Consist of: 1.) UDL,
2.) KEL and  DESIGN TRUCK or DESIGN TANDEM, and
3.) Wheel Load  DESIGN LANE LOAD.

Computation:
3.6.1.2.4 a.) DESIGN LANE LOAD

Design Lane Load = 9.3kN/m uniformly

distributed in the longitudinal direction. This shall
be multiplied by 1.5 AIP factor.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

PRIMARY LIVE LOADS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

6.3.1 b.) HB LOADING 3.6.1.2.2 b.) DESIGN TRUCK

Computation:
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

PRIMARY LIVE LOADS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

3.6.1.2.3 c. ) DESIGN TANDEM

Design Tandem = 110kN

Two additional classes of loading are used by

some agencies:

1.) Alternative Military Loading

2.) P Load class (Permit Vehicle)

Example: Caltrans Permit Truck

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

PRIMARY LIVE LOADS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

3.6.2 DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE: IM
An increment to be applied to the static wheel
load to account for wheel load impact from moving
vehicles.

Dynamic Load Allowance, IM = 1.33

 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

PRIMARY LIVE LOADS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

6.4.1.1 HA LANE FACTORS 3.6.1.1.2 MULTIPLE PRESENCE FACTORS, m

The HA UDL and KEL shall be multiplied by
the appropriate factors from table 14 before being
applied to the notional lanes indicated.
The extreme live load force effect shall be
determined by considering each possible
combination of number of loaded lanes multiplied by
a corresponding multiple presence factor to account
for the probability of simultaneous lane occupation
by the full HL93 design live load which are intended
to account for the worst case scenario.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

APPLICATION OF LOADS:

BD 37/01
6.4 Application of types HA and HB loading

6.4.1 TYPE HA LOADING

6.4.2 TYPE HA and HB LOADING

1. ) HB vehicle within one notional lane

 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

APPLICATION OF LOADS:

BD 37/01
2.) a. HD vehicle straddling two notional lane.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

APPLICATION OF LOADS:

BD 37/01
2.) b. HD vehicle straddling two notional lane.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

APPLICATION OF LOADS:

BD 37/01
Load Pattern Example:
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

APPLICATION OF LOADS:

AASHTO LRFD 2007

3.6.1.3 Application of Design Vehicular Live Loads

3.6.1.3.1 General
Unless otherwise specified, the extreme force effect shall be taken as the larger of the
following:
 The effect of the design tandem combined with the effect of the design lane load, or
 The effect of one design truck with the variable axle spacing specified in Article 3.6.1.2.2,
combined with the effect of the design lane load.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

APPLICATION OF LOADS:

AASHTO LRFD 2007

3.6.1.3 Application of Design Vehicular Live Loads

a.) The lane load is applied, without impact, to any span, or part of a span, as
needed to maximize the critical response.

b.) A single truck, with impact, is applied as needed to maximize the critical
response (except for the case of negative moment between inflection points).

b.1.) The Specification calls for a single truck to be applied, regardless of the
number of spans.

b.2.) The exception is for the case of negative moment between inflection points
where 2 trucks are used.

c.) If an axle or axles do not contribute to the critical response, they are
ignored.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

GRILLAGE MODELLING

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

GRILLAGE MODELLING

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE LINE PRINCIPLES FOR MOMENT

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR MOMENT

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR MOMENT

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR MOMENT

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR MOMENT

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR MOMENT

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR MOMENT

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE LINE PRINCIPLES FOR SHEAR

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR SHEAR

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR SHEAR

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR SHEAR

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR SHEAR

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR SHEAR

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

INFLUENCE SURFACE FOR SHEAR

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

ANALYSIS

BD 37/01

Combination 1
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

ANALYSIS

BD 37/01

Combination 2
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

COMBINATION FOR MAXIMUM MOMENT

BD 37/01

Combination 9
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

MAXIMUM MOMENT

BD 37/01

Maximum Moment
@
Combination 9
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

MOMENT DIAGRAM

BD 37/01
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

COMBINATION FOR MAXIMUM SHEAR

BD 37/01

Combination 11
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

COMBINATION FOR MAXIMUM SHEAR

BD 37/01

Combination 17
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

MAXIMUM SHEAR

BD 37/01

Maximum Shear
@
Combination 11 and 17
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

SHEAR DIAGRAM

BD 37/01
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

ANALYSIS

AASHTO LRFD 2007

Combination 1
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

ANALYSIS

AASHTO LRFD 2007

Combination 2
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

COMBINATION FOR MAXIMUM MOMENT

AASHTO LRFD 2007

Combination 5
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

MAXIMUM MOMENT

AASHTO LRFD 2007

Maximum Moment
@
Combination 5
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

MAXIMUM DIAGRAM

AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

COMBINATION FOR MAXIMUM SHEAR

AASHTO LRFD 2007

Combination 14
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

MAXIMUM SHEAR

AASHTO LRFD 2007

Maximum Shear
@
Combination 14
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

SHEAR DIAGRAM

AASHTO LRFD 2007

HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

COMPARISON OF RESULTS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

Moment (KN.m) Shear (KN)

3000

2753.14
2500

2000

1816.06
1500

1000

500
441.41
346.66
0
BD 37/01 AASHTO LRFD
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

CONCLUSIONS and FINDINGS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

1) DESIGN LOAD INTENSITY: British Code has higher bridge loads, because
they are designed to carry heavier loads than the AASHTO, primarily military
loads. The British code produces bending moment and shear effects that are 35
percent greater than the AASHTO levels.

2) USER SAFETY, DURABILITY AND SERVICEABILITY: Compare to the

United States, the British host agencies put a tremendous value on bridge
programs not only to ensure highway user safety, but also to ensure that
durability and serviceability expectations are met and to enhance capital
investment decisions on the existing bridge inventory. They place major
emphasis on ensuring that there is no service interruption because of a bridge
failure or major repair, and that appropriate sophisticated methods are used to
evaluate structural safety.

3) In AASHTO LRFD the value of static load was increased by a certain IMPACT
FACTOR to compensate the dynamic effects.
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

CONCLUSIONS and FINDINGS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

4) Difference between Permit Vehicles
 HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

CONCLUSIONS and FINDINGS:

BD 37/01 VS. AASHTO LRFD 2007

5) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS: The multiple presence factor (United States) is

included in the codes to account for the probability of more than one lane being
loaded at a time (Table 1). The British Code uses a different approach to
multiple-lane loading, whereby truck axle loads and uniform distributed loads
are reduced in the second and third lanes using HA Lane Factors. For the U.S.
code, the multiple presence factors are integrated into the approximate
equations for distribution factors for bending and shear.

6) COMBINATION OF LOADS: AASHTO has seven ULS load combinations,

which it refers to as Strengths I through V and Extremes I and II. It has six SLS
load combinations Service 1 through VI. On the other hand, BD 37 considered
ULS and SLS under five different combination.
HYDER MANILA BRIDGE

END

THANK YOU!
