IMPACT FACTORS FOR SIMPLE-SPAN HIGHWAY

GIRDER BRIDGES
By Dongil Chang, 1 Member, ASCE, and Heehyun Lee2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACr: Vibrational behavior of simple-spanhighway girder bridges with rough

surfaces due to heavy trucks is discussed. The causes of vibration and dynamic
characteristics of bridge structures are investigated in the time and frequency do-
mains. An appropriate vehicle model for vibrational analysis of bridges is found
by comparing dynamic responses from four different vehicle models, and impact
factors are calculated using the suggested vehicle model with different speeds, deck
roughnesses, and span lengths. The results are compared with the values specified
by several standard codes, and it is found that the current design codes tend to
underestimate impact factors especially in long-span bridges with rough decks.
Finally, empirical formulas for impact factors represented in terms of span length,
vehicle speed, and surface roughness of a bridge deck are suggested from the
multiple linear regressional using the data obtained from this study.

INTRODUCTION

Bridge structures that have long service years or long spans, or that are
frequently subjected to heavier loadings than their design loads, are greatly
affected by heavy traffic-induced vibrations. M a n y bridge engineers treat
such vibration problems by considering only impact factors specified in their
current design codes, even though the vibrations may d e p e n d on such factors
as vehicle and bridge dynamic characteristics, vehicle speeds, and deck
conditions. In recent years, several questions have been proposed on whether
the current specification on impact factors is a d e q u a t e under the present
traffic and road situations, because the specification was m a d e u n d e r the
conditions of several decades ago when vibration problems were not of
importance.
The main objectives of this p a p e r are to investigate vibrational behavior
of highway girder bridges induced by heavy trucks and to show a way to
estimate impact factors appropriately.

VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Response in Time Domain
The equations of motion of a bridge discretized by finite elements can
be written in the form:
i~ + Ca + Ku : P(0 ...................................... (1)

in which M, C, and K = the mass, damping and stiffness matrices, respec-

tively, and are symmetric; and u and P(t) = the vectors of nodal displace-
ments and loads, respectively. A dot represents a derivative with respect
to time. The load vector is constructed by transforming an arbitrary point

1prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Hanyang Univ., Seoul, 133-791, South Korea.
2Mgr. of Dyn., KHRC, Seoul, 100-714, South Korea; formerly, Lect., Dept. of
Civ. Engrg., Hanyang Univ., Seoul, South Korea.
Note. Discussion open until August l, 1994. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on February 27,
1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3,
March, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0003-0704/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper
No. 3561.
704

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 load at arbitrary positions into joint loads by using the cubic Hermitian
interpolation functions. Then, (1) can be solved in the time domain by the
mode superposition method (Bathe and Wilson 1976; Biggs 1964).

Response in Frequency Domain

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The frequency response function S(f) of the time signal x(t) is defined as

S(f) = ~ x(t) exp(-j2"rrft) dt; j = V'--Z1 " .................... (2)

in which T = measured time of response signal; and t and f = variables

representing time and frequency, respectively. The fast-Fourier-transform
(FFT) algorithm is used to solve (2). Then, the main causes inducing vi-
bration of the bridge are observed from the frequency response function
(Bendat and Piersol 1971, 1980).

Pavement Roughness
A vehicle traveling over a highway containing surface irregularities ex-
periences vertical and horizontal motions. Associated with the vertical mo-
tion are forces between the highway and the vehicle that are developed in
addition to the dead load of the vehicle. These forces are frequently referred
to as the dynamic reactions or the dynamic forces. They depend on the
suspension characteristics, the condition of the pavement, and velocity of
the vehicle. Based on these characteristics, the load imposed on a pavement
can be double the static loads of vehicles (Quinn and Thompson 1962).
Road roughness usually refers to an uneven, impaired, or bumpy road-
way. According to Balmer (1973), ASTM defines roughness as "the devia-
tions of a pavement surface from a true planar surface with characteristic
dimensions greater than 16 mm" to distinguish roughness from pavement
texture. Highway elevation profiles are either periodic or nonperiodic. In
case of highway profiles exhibiting well-defined periodicity, they can be
directly analyzed using a Fourier series. However, other highway profiles
do not display a well-defined period and therefore do not lend themselves
to this type of analysis. In this case, it is convenient to assume that the
highway elevations are random and to apply a statistical analysis commonly
used in dealing with random phenomena. One method of characterizing a
random function is by use of the power spectrum (Quinn and De Vries
1960).
Ten sets of spectrum-compatible pavement profiles are generated by using
the power spectrum of road-surface roughness (Honda et al. 1982). One
example of the simulated profiles is shown in Fig. 1. Table 1 shows maximum
magnitudes of the generated profiles multiplied by 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
with different span lengths. The vibrational-analysis method of bridge struc-
tures considering surface roughness is explained in Lee (1985, 1989), Honda
et al. (1986), Inbanathan and Wieland (1987), and Kim (1986).

RESULTS

Vehicle and Bridge Models

The simple-span girder bridges can be idealized as simple beams; how-
ever, it is known that the suspension system and inertia forces of the vehicle
should be incorporated when modeling the vehicle for bridge vibration
analysis (Biggs 1964; Honda et al. 1986).
705

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 0.02 ~ (unit:m) [
~' o.oo " ~'~ ~,f ~v~ "
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

'~
o') -0.02 / I I i I i I i I i i I i I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance
FIG. 1. Example of Artificially Generated Spectrum--Compatible Pavement Pro-
file

(a) (b)

k•c (c)
kz~

(d)
cL

FIG. 2. Four Vehicle Models: (a) Moving Force; (b) Moving Mass; (c) Single DOF;
and (d) Two DOFs

TABLE 1. Maximum Magnitudes of Generated Pavement Profiles with Different

Span Lengths
Span Length (m)
Multiplier 25 50 75 100
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
0.5 0.00367 0.00423 0.00464 0.00464
1.0 0.00733 0.00845 0,00928 0.00928
2.0 0.01466 0.01690 0.01856 0.01856
3.0 0.02199 0.02535 0.02784 0.02784

To confirm this, vibration responses obtained from the four different

vehicle models in Fig. 2 are c o m p a r e d in Fig. 3.
When modeling the vehicle, total weight is 210 kN, and first and second
natural frequencies are 3.1 and 13.0 Hz, and their respective damping ratios
are 3% and 9%. Deflection time histories illustrated in Fig. 3 are calculated
at midspan when the vehicle is moving at a speed of 19.4 m/s over a bridge
of 50-m span length (Table 2).
Fig. 3 and Tables 3 and 4 show that vibration responses are very different
depending on the vehicle m o d e l when the effect of p a v e m e n t condition is
included, but they are not different when the p a v e m e n t condition is ignored.
706

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20 | 20 4
~ :~~: :~* neglecting surface roughness effect ***** neglecting surface r~ughness effect
i ~ - - - considering surface roughness effect 10 ~ ~ h n ~ effect

- 1 0 I i ~ i i i i I i i i i i i I b i I i i ~ i i i i i [ -10 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i n i i l i ~ i n i l i i u n

o 1 2 o 1 3
Time(see) Time(see)
(a) (b)

0 2O 2O
***** neglecting surface roughness effect *** ** neglecting surface roughness effect
- - considering surface roughness effect -- considering surface roughness effect
10- 10

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

0- O
m

-10 i i i i i i i i i I I i i i f i i i i I I i i i i i I i i -10 ~il ill i l ii iIi i ii l , l ~ l l i ~ i ~ i i

0 1 2 3 1 2
Time(see) Time(see)
(c) c~

FIG. 3. Midspan Deflection Time Histories Corresponding to Four Vehicle Models: (a) Moving Force; (b) Moving Mass; (c) Single DOF;
and (d) Two DOFs
 TABLE 2. Sectional Properties of Bridges of Various Span Lengths
Span Length (m)
Section property 25 50 75 100
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Beam depth (m) 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00

Cross-sectional area (m2) 4.46 5.96 7.46 8.96
Moment of inertia (m4) 0.86 4.94 13.58 28.01
Mass per unit length (kg/m) 11,150 14,900 18,650 22,400
Flexural eigenfrequency(rad/s) 24.58 12.74 8.39 6.18

TABLE 3. Impact Factors of Bridges with Different Vehicle Speeds and Models
Including Surface-Roughness Effects [Korean Code Value of 0.13 (Standard 1982)]
Speed (km/h)
Model Statistical value 60 1 7 0 1 8 0 ) 9 0 100
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(a) Deflection
Moving force Mean 0.16 0.38 0.36 0.30 0.30
Moving force Mean plus standard 0.21 0.50 0.56 0.41 0.36
deviation
Moving mass Mean 1.32 1.51 0.66 0.66 0.99
Moving mass Mean plus standard 2.19 2.28 0.95 1.05 1.35
deviation
Single DOF Mean 0.17 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.29
Single DOF Mean plus standard 0.25 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.41
deviation
Two DOFs Mean 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.13
Two DOFs Mean plus standard 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.13
deviation
(b) Moment
Moving force Mean 1.49
Moving force Mean plus standard 1.07 3.06 2.56 2.35 1.99
deviation
Moving mass Mean 2 . 8 0 1 2 . 3 8 ] 1.38 I 1 . 4 6 1 1 . 8 3
Moving mass Mean plus standard 4.52 3.33 1.84 2.12 2.46
deviation
Single DOF Mean 0.11 I 0.28 [ 0.19 I 0.18 I 0.25
Single DOF Mean plus standard 0.17 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.35
deviation
Two DOFs Mean 0.03 [ 0.13 I 0.06 I 0.06 I 0.14
Two DOFs Mean plus standard
deviation

Table 3 shows the values of m e a n and m e a n plus standard deviation for

impact factors obtained at midspan when including the effects of 10 sets of
simulated profiles. Table 4 is for impact factors with different vehicle speeds
when neglecting the pavement effect.
Fig. 3 and Tables 3 and 4 also show that vibration responses are greatly
overestimated if a moving force or moving mass model that includes the

708

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 TABLE 4. Impact Factors of Bridges with Different Vehicle Speeds and Models
Neglecting Surface-Roughness Effects [Korean Code Value of 0.13 (Standard1982)]
Speed (kin/h)
Model 60 70 80 I 90 1O0
(1) (2) (3) (4) I (5) (6)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Deflection
Moving force 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.15
Moving mass 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.16
Single DOF 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.15
Two DOFs 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.15
(b) Moment
Moving force 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11
Moving mass 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.13
Single DOF 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11
Two DOFs 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11

1.00
.~ 0.80 0.70Hz,

2.09Hz
0.80

0.40
~ 0.20
0.00
0 I0 20 30 40
Frequency(Hz)

FIG. 4. Fourier Amplitude Spectrum of Fig. 3(d)

effect of surface condition is used. On the other hand, if the surface condition
is neglected, the responses are almost the same regardless of the vehicle
model used, So, in subsequent parts of this paper, the vehicle is modeled
as a two-degree-of-freedom (DOF) vibrating system to analyze bridge vi-
bration incorporating surface roughness.
The amplitude spectrum of Fig. 3 ( d ) i s shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the
vibration components corresponding to 0.7, 2.09, and 17.67 Hz are related
to vehicle speed, first-mode flexural eigenfrequency of bridge, and surface
roughness, respectively. Therefore, it can be said that the main causes of
bridge vibrations are these three parameters. Table 2 shows the sectional
properties of simple two-lane bridges of various span lengths.

Impact Factors due to Three Parameters

Impact factors are calculated by changing three parameters, i.e., surface
roughness condition, vehicle speed, and span length. Impact factor is defined
as maximum dynamic response divided by maximum static response minus
1 at the midspan of bridge. The current Korean code (Standard 1982) spec-
ifies impact factor in terms of span length only, i.e., i = 20/(50 + L), where
L is span length in meters.
Tables 5 - 8 show impact factors of deflection and bending moment at
709

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 TABLE 5. Impact Factors for Bridge of 25-m Span Length
Speed (kin/h)
Multiplier 60 70 80 90 100
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Deflection
0.5 0.05670 0.07216 0.05516 0.10522 0.13629
1.0 0.05175 0.07602 0.05782 0.10526 0.13823
2.0 0.04732 0.08434 0.06319 0.10530 0.14246
3.0 0.05306 0.09318 0.06857 0.10536 0.14706
(b) Moment
0.5 0.01493 0.05597 0.01302 0.04478 0.13433
1.0 0.01119 0.07090 0.01256 0.06343 0.17910
2.0 0.02985 0.09701 0.02239 0.11194 0.26493
3.0 0.05224 0.12687 0.06343 0.17164 0.35448

TABLE 6. Impact Factors for Bridge of 50-m Span Length

Speed (km/h)
Multiplier 6O 70 80 90 1O0
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(a) Deflection
0.5 0.05258 0.08161 0.04359 0.09454 0.12938
1.0 0.05426 0.09229 0.05005 0.09887 0.13354
2.0 0.05858 0.11353 0.06250 0.10791 0.14193
3.0 0.06470 0.13489 0.07512 0.11684 0.15029
(b) Moment
0.5 0.00000 0.14259 0.00188 0.06004 0.14259
1.0 0.01689 0.19325 0.01876 0.12008 0.18386
2.0 0.06567 0.38086 0.14447 0.26079 0.28705
3.0 0.11069 0.53846 0.27490 0.39587 0.38274

midspan with different three parameters. From these tables, impact factors
increase with surface roughness and vehicle speed, but do not decrease with
span length as specified in the current code (Standard 1982). In addition,
comparing impact factors for deflection and bending moment of various
span lengths, impact factors for deflections are higher than those for mo-
ments when deck pavement is smooth and lower for rough pavement. There-
fore, it can be imagined that pavement roughness would make the bridge
damaged by fatigue because the fatigue phenomenon of the bridge is closely
related to the bending movement. Furthermore, the current Korean code
underestimates impact factors in particular for long rough bridges. Based
on the results mentioned here, a way to estimate the impact factor appro-
priately is discussed next.

Reasonable Estimation of Impact Factor

The multiple linear regressional analysis (Ang and Tang 1975) is con-
ducted using the data obtained before to derive empirical formulas for
impact factors. The regressional equations for deflection and bending mo-
710

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 TABLE 7. Impact Factors for Bridge of 75-m Span Length
Speed (kin/h)

O) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Deflection
0.5 0.05628 0.07282 0.04105 0.09916 0.13097
1.0 0.05718 0.07339 0.04294 0.10304 0.13244
2.0 0.05898 0.07454 0.04739 0.11117 0.14044
3.0 0.06087 0.07568 0.05183 0.11945 0.14943
(b) Moment
0.5 0.01197 0.05540 0.09753 0.02222 0.11456
1.0 0.02476 0.06687 0.02002 0.03627 0.12701
2.0 0.05033 0.08983 0.04375 0.06497 0.15232
3.0 0.07592 0.11278 0.06976 0.09389 0.17763

TABLE 8. Impact Factors for Bridge of 100-m Span Length

Speed (kin/h)
Multiplier 60 70 80 90 100
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(a) Deflection
0.5 0.06073 0.07310 0.04886 0.10351 0.13492
1.0 0.06153 0.07609 0.04836 0.10560 0.13672
2.0 0.06342 0.08217 0.04846 0.10969 0.14051
3.0 0.06532 0.08825 0.04986 0.11408 0.14659
(b) Moment
0.5 0.01999 0.04280 0.01642 0.07048 0.19578
1.0 0.02581 0.04927 0.02196 0.11947 0.28212
2.0 0.03857 0.06241 0.03105 0.21933 0.47198
3.0 0.05153 0.07555 0.04871 0.33731 0.66466

TABLE 9. Coefficients Resulting from Multiple Linear Regressional Analysis

Conditional
Conditional standard Correlation
Response Variance variance deviation coefficient
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Deflection 0.00113 0.00042 0.02059 0.79267
Moment 0.01844 0.01043 0.10211 0.65908

m e n t are as follows, a n d T a b l e 9 s h o w s t h e r e s u l t i n g v a r i a n c e s a n d s t a n d a r d
deviations.

9 Displacement:

644 637 185 648

i _ -- L + -~- V + ~-R ............... (3a)
104 107

711

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 9 Bending moment:
i - 327 898 441 748
103 + ] - ~ L +-~V + ~R ............... (3b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in which i, L, V and R = impact factor, span length (meters), vehicle speed

(kilometers per hour), and maximum magnitude of surface roughness (me-
ters), respectively. From Table 9, impact factor has high correlation with
vehicle speed, span length and surface roughness. In this paper, the following
is suggested for the conservative estimate, which is three times the condi-

0.80
ccccc Korean Standard Code
~e~-~Suggested Eq. considering surface roughness
0.60 ~,~-~aSuggssted Eq, neglecting surface roughness
~ a ~ Ontario Bridge Code
::::: British Standards

-~ 0.40

0 .
0.20

i
0.00 i i i i I i i i ~ I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i
25 50 75 100 125
Span l e n g t h ( m )

FIG. 5. Impact Factors for Deflection of Bridges with Different Span Lengths

0.30"
===== S u g g e s t e d e q u a t i o n

0.20
S

~o.io 9
I
I
, i
0.00 J i t i i q i i i i t i i i i i t i i i i i i i i I d I I
50 60 70 80 90 I00 110
Veloeity(km//h)

FIG. 6, Impact Factors for Deflection of Bridges with Different Vehicle Speeds

0.30
oooo= S u g g e s t e d e q u a t i o n

o.2o

* ~
~ 0.i0

0.00 i j i i i ii ] J t l ) ii i i i i i ] i1.1 i l l i i i
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
M a g n i t u d e of s u r f a c e r o u g h n e s s ( m )

FIG. 7. Impact Factors for Deflection of Bridges with Different Surface Bough-
nesses
712

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 1.00
c c c c c K o r e a n S t a n d a r d Code
Suggested Eq. considering surface roughness
S u g g e s t e d Eq. n e g l e c t i n g s u r f a c e r o u g h n e s s
o~ 0 . 7 5 ~ O n t a r i o B r i d g e Code
c:::: British Standards

,~ 0 . 5 0 *
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

,
0.25 t

0.00
0
,,,,
25
i ,

50 75 100
,, , ,
125
Span length(m)

FIG. 8. ImpactFactors for Bending Moment of Bridges with Different Span Lengths

1.00
c = = = = Suggested equation
0.75

J
o.50
g~

0.25

000 .... i, . . . .
i .... , ....
i I
. . . . . . . .

50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Velocity(km/h)

FIG. 9. Impact Factors for Bending Moment of Bridges with Different Vehicle
Speeds

1.00
o [][][] S u g g e s t e d equation
o~ 0 . 7 5

0.50

0.25

0.00
9';! ,:,,,I
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Magnitude of surface roughness(m)

FIG. 10. Impact Factors for Bending Moment of Bridges with Different Surface
Roughnesses

tional standard deviations in (3) and is obtained by adding the normal

distribution of impact factors.

Displacement:
i - 265 637 185 648
10 5 ~10L + ~V + ~R ............... (4a)

9 Bending moment:
713

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 202 898 441 748
i = - 10----~ + -]-0-7 L +-~V+-~R . .............. (4b)

Figs. 5-7 show calculated impact factor of displacement with different

span lengths, vehicle speeds, and maximum magnitudes of surface rough-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

nesses, respectively; Figs. 8-10 are for bending moment.

Also in Figs. 5 and 8, various bridge-code values are plotted together
with (4a) and (4b). From these figures, almost all of the calculated values
are under the empirical values, and current codes underestimate impact
factors especially for vehicles running with high speeds over a long rough
bridge. Impact factors neglecting surface-roughness terms in (4a) and (4b)
are also given in Figs. 5 and 8 for comparison. Among the codes, the Ontario
bridge code (OBC) (Csagoly and Dorton 1977) gives a reasonably high and
constant values for impact factors regardless of span length like the British
standard ("Specification" 1966). Unlike the other codes, the OBC impact
factors were not formulated considering span length only but on the basis
that impact effects due to roughness and frequency ratio between bridge
and vehicle may amplify the dynamic response. The results of this paper
coincide comparatively with the OBC specification.

CONCLUSIONS
Because impact effects due to running heavy vehicles are caused mainly
by bridge and vehicle characteristics and by surface roughness, impact fac-
tors should be represented in terms of these three parameters.
Impact factors increase with vehicle speed and surface roughness, how-
ever, are almost constant with span length. So it may be reasonable to use
constant impact factor regardless of span length as in the Ontario and British
codes. In addition, impact factor of moment is higher than that of deflection
when the bridge deck is deteriorated.
If the effect of surface condition could be neglected as in the construction
stage, any vehicle models among the four used in this paper can be adopted
to estimate vibration response of the bridge. However, if surface condition
could not be neglected, the single- or two-DoF vehicle model has to be
used.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Ahn, Y. (1987). "An experimental study on dynamic behavior of highway bridges,"
MS thesis, Hanyang/University, Seoul, South Korea (in Korean).
Ang, A. H-S., and Tang, W. H. (1975). Probability concepts in engineering planning
and design. John Wiley & Sons; New York, N.Y.
Balmer, G. G. (1973). "Road roughness technology, state of the art." Report FI-1WA-
RD-73-54, Nat. Tech. Information Service, Washington, D.C.
Bathe, K. J,, and Wilson, E. L. (1976). Numerical methods infinite element analysis.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Bendat, J. S., and Piersol, A. G. (1971). Random data: Analysis and measurement
procedures. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
Bendat, J. S., and Piersol, A. G. (1980). Engineering applications of correlation and
spectral analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
Biggs, J. M. (1964). Introduction to structural dynamics. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York, N.Y.
Chang, D., Lee, H., and Gwak, J. (1988). "An experimental study on vibrational
characteristics of highway bridges by a running vehicle." KSCE J., Seoul, South
Korea, 8, 41-50 (in Korean).
714

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.

 Chang, D., Choi, K., and Lee, H. (1989). "A study on vibration behavior of steel
highway bridges." KSSC J., Seoul, South Korea, 1(1), 131-139 (in Korean).
Csagoly, P. E., and Dorton, R. A. (1977). The development of the Ontario bridge
code. Ontario Ministry of Transp. and Communications, Ontario.
Honda, H., Kajikawa, Y., and Kobori, T. (1982). "Spectra of road surface roughness
on bridges." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 108(9), 1956-1966.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 12/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Honda, H., Kobori, T., and Yamada, Y. (1986). "Dynamic factor of highway steel
girder bridges." Proc., International Association of Bridge and Structural Engi-
neers, P-98/86, 57-75.
Inbanathan, M. J., and Wieland, M. (1987). "Bridge vibrations due to vehicle moving
over a rough surface." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 1t3(9), 1994-2008.
Kim, G. (1986). "Effect of vehicle braking on dynamic response of girder bridge,"
MS thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.
Lee, H. (1985). "Impact factor of moving load due to surface roughness of girder
bridge of variable span," MS thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.
Lee, H. (1989). "A study on dynamic behavior of highway girder bridges," PhD
thesis, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea (in Korean).
Quinn, B. E., and De Vries, T. W. (1960). "Highway characteristics as related to
vehicle performance." Highway Research Board Bulletin, 250, 20-39.
Quinn, B. E., and Thompson, R. (1962). "Effect of pavement condition in dynamic
vehicle reactions." Highway Research Board Bulletin, 328, 24-32.
"Specifications for steel bridge." (1966). British Standard 153, Part3A, Load, Great
Britain.
Standard specifications on highway bridges. (1982). Korean Ministry of Construction,
Seoul, South Korea (in Korean).

715

J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:704-715.