Wheel Load Distribution in Simply Supported Concrete Slab

Bridges
M. Mabsout1; K. Tarhini2; R. Jabakhanji3; and E. Awwad4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents the results of a parametric study related to the wheel load distribution in one-span, simply supported,
multilane, reinforced concrete slab bridges. The finite-element method was used to investigate the effect of span length, slab width with
and without shoulders, and wheel load conditions on typical bridges. A total of 112 highway bridge case studies were analyzed. It was
assumed that the bridges were stand-alone structures carrying one-way traffic. The finite-element analysis 共FEA兲 results of one-, two-,
three-, and four-lane bridges are presented in combination with four typical span lengths. Bridges were loaded with highway design truck
HS20 placed at critical locations in the longitudinal direction of each lane. Two possible transverse truck positions were considered: 共1兲
Centered loading condition where design trucks are assumed to be traveling in the center of each lane; and 共2兲 edge loading condition
where the design trucks are placed close to one edge of the slab with the absolute minimum spacing between adjacent trucks. FEA results
for bridges subjected to edge loading showed that the AASHTO standard specifications procedure overestimates the bending moment by
30% for one lane and a span length less than 7.5 m 共25 ft兲 but agrees with FEA bending moments for longer spans. The AASHTO bending
moment gave results similar to those of the FEA when considering two or more lanes and a span length less than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲. However,
as the span length increases, AASHTO underestimates the FEA bending moment by 15 to 30%. It was shown that the presence of
shoulders on both sides of the bridge increases the load-carrying capacity of the bridge due to the increase in slab width. An extreme
loading scenario was created by introducing a disabled truck near the edge in addition to design trucks in other lanes placed as close as
possible to the disabled truck. For this extreme loading condition, AASHTO procedure gave similar results to the FEA longitudinal
bending moments for spans up to 7.5 m 共25 ft兲 and underestimated the FEA 共20 to 40%兲 for spans between 9 and 16.5 m 共30 and 55 ft兲,
regardless of the number of lanes. The new AASHTO load and resistance factor design 共LRFD兲 bridge design specifications overestimate
the bending moments for normal traffic on bridges. However, LRFD procedure gives results similar to those of the FEA edge⫹truck
loading condition. Furthermore, the FEA results showed that edge beams must be considered in multilane slab bridges with a span length
ranging between 6 and 16.5 m 共20 and 55 ft兲. This paper will assist bridge engineers in performing realistic designs of simply supported,
multilane, reinforced concrete slab bridges as well as evaluating the load-carrying capacity of existing highway bridges.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2004兲9:2共147兲
CE Database subject headings: Load distribution; Bridges, highway; Concrete slabs; Finite element method; Vehicles.

Introduction The high number of deficient bridges means that a considerable

According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration’s 2001
National Bridge Inventory data, about 27% of the nation’s
590,984 bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete
as reported in Better Roads magazine 共November 2001兲. Single-
span concrete bridges represent about 163,000 of these, of which
23% are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The ma-
jority are short spans, averaging less than 15 m 共50 ft兲 in length.
1
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American Univ. of
Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. E-mail: mounir@aub.edu.lb
2
Formerly, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Valparaiso Univ., Valparaiso,
Indiana 46383. STV Inc. 80 Ferry Blvd, Stratford, CT 06615. E-mail:
tarhink@stvinc.com
3
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American Univ. of
Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
4
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, American Univ. of
Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on January 15, 2002; approved on January 2, 2003. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 2, March
1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2004/2-147–155/$18.00.
number of bridges are being recommended for weight-limiting
posting, rehabilitation, or decommissioning and replacement.
Reinforced concrete slab bridges may offer economic alterna-
tives for short-span bridges. The main advantage of cast-in-place
concrete slab bridges is the ability to provide a smooth finishing
surface by field adjustment of the roadway profile during con-
struction. Typically, the design of highway bridges in the United
States must conform to AASHTO standard specifications for
highway bridges 共AASHTO 1996兲 or AASHTO load and resis-
tance factor design 共LRFD兲 design specifications 共AASHTO
1998兲. Each method gives different results due to the live-loading
conditions.
The analysis and design of any highway bridge must consider
truck and lane loading. However, truck-loading provisions govern
for short-span structures when considering AASHTO standard
specifications. AASHTO specifies a distribution width for high-
way loading or an empirical formula to reduce the two-way bend-
ing problem into a beam 共one-way兲 bending problem. Therefore,
reinforced concrete slab bridges are typically designed as a series
of beam strips. This method does not consider other load-carrying
mechanisms, the effect of geometry, and boundary conditions.
Frederick 共1997兲 presented the results of an experimental and
finite-element analysis 共FEA兲 investigation of load distribution in

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004 / 147

J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155

 a concrete slab bridge. A typical 8.5 m 共28 ft兲 span, simply sup-
ported slab bridge with a three-lane 10.4 m 共34 ft兲 width was
considered. The design live-load bending moments were calcu-
lated using AASHTO standard specifications provisions. The FEA
was performed using rectangular plate bending element
共0.85⫻0.6 m or 2.8⫻2 ft兲. A one-fifteenth size scale concrete
model was constructed and tested in the laboratory. Design trucks
were positioned one at a time along the center of each of the three
lanes. The FEA results correlated well with the test data and were
less than AASHTO empirical equation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The results for multiple-lane loading indicated that the slab
behaved essentially as a wide beam with minor variations in the
longitudinal bending moment across the width. It was also shown
that there is no need for edge beam provisions in the specifica-
tions. Shekar et al. 共1993兲 performed extensive experimental and
analytical investigation to evaluate the load-carrying capacity of
existing reinforced concrete slab bridges. The experimental phase
of the investigation consisted of field testing of six slab bridges.
Test results were used to develop 3D FEA models to be applied
by practicing engineers. The test data compared favorably with
FEA results and verified that concrete slab bridges have the
strength necessary to resist highway loading.
The shell element sizes were approximately 0.53⫻0.53 m
共1.75⫻1.75 ft兲 based on the constant 780 elements generated for
each bridge. Significant differences between maximum bending
moments were also obtained for 2D and 3D analyses because of
the participation of nonstructural members such as curbs. There-
fore, 3D FEA was recommended in analyzing slab bridges. Mab-
sout et al. 共2000兲 reported preliminary FEA results for concrete
slab bridges compared with the AASHTO empirical formula. The
study correlated well with the AASHTO design procedure in de-
signing slab bridges. This paper builds on the results reported in
the literature and explores in more detail a parametric study of
wheel-load distribution in simply supported, one-span, straight
reinforced concrete slab bridges. The finite-element method is
used to investigate the effect of span length, slab width, and vari-
ous wheel-loading condition on bridges with and without shoul-
ders.
AASHTO Standard Specifications
A concrete slab bridge is designed according to the provisions for
main reinforcement parallel to traffic. The AASHTO design pro-
cedure was originally developed in the 1940s, based on the re-
search work of Westergaard 共1926, 1930兲 and Jensen 共1938,
1939兲. For simply supported slab bridges, AASHTO standard
specifications suggest three approaches to determine the live-load
bending moment for HS20 loading:
1. AASHTO 共section 3.24.3.2兲 provides empirical equations
M⫽900S for S⭐50 ft (1a)
or
M⫽1,000共 1.30S⫺20兲 for S⬎50 ft (1a)
which, in SI units, are equivalent to
M⫽13,500S for S⭐15 m (2a)
or
M⫽1,000共 19.5S⫺90兲 for S⬎15 m (2b)
where S⫽span length 关ft in Eqs. 共1a兲 and 共1b兲 or m in Eqs.
共2a兲 and 共2b兲兴 and M⫽longitudinal bending moment per unit
width 关lb-ft/ft in Eqs. 共1a兲 and 共1b兲 or N•m/m in Eqs. 共2a兲
and 共2b兲兴.
2. AASHTO Appendix A gives the live-load bending moment
per lane for a span length up to 90 m 共300 ft兲. The live-load
148 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004
J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155
bending moment per foot of width is obtained by dividing
this value by twice the distribution width E:
E⫽4⫹0.06S⬍7.0 ft (3a)
which in SI units is equivalent to
E⫽1.2⫹0.06S⬍2.1 m (3b)
3. Analysis and design of a unitwide strip using the appropriate
wheel loads. For HS20 loading, the wheel loads are 18 kN 共4
kips兲, 72 kN 共16 kips兲, and 72 kN 共16 kips兲 with axle spac-
ing of 4.2 m 共14 ft兲. The appropriate wheel loads are then
divided by the distribution width E 关Eqs. 共3a兲 or 共3b兲兴. This
approach is generally used for continuous spans and is cur-
rently adopted in the AASHTO LRFD design specifications.
This paper considered only the AASHTO empirical formula
given in Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 when compared with the finite-element
results. AASHTO requires edge beams along the free edges of
these slabs. The live-load bending moment in an edge beam is
specified by the expression 0.1PS 共where P⫽72 kN, or 16 kips
for an HS20 truck兲. AASHTO does not specify a width for the
edge beam. However, some departments of transportation use an
edge beam width of 450 mm 共18 in.兲. Finally, the maximum FEA
live-load deflection was compared with the AASHTO deflection
criterion (S/800). The slab thickness was calculated to control the
live-load deflection according to AASHTO section 8.9.2; the
minimum thickness in feet for a slab with main reinforcement
parallel to traffic is 1.2(S⫹10)/30, which is equivalent to 1.2(S
⫹3000)/30 in SI units 共mm兲.
AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design
Specifications
AASHTO LRFD section 4.6.2.3 provides an equivalent strip
width to design slab bridges similar to the previous bridge speci-
fications. This simplistic approach is to divide the total statical
moment by the bridge width to achieve a moment per unit width
for design. The moments are determined by establishing the struc-
tural width per design lane. The equivalent width E of longitudi-
nal strips per lane for both shear and moment is determined using
the following formulas:
The width for one lane loaded is
E⫽250⫹0.42共 L 1 ⫻W 1 兲 1/2 共 SI units兲 (4a)
or
E⫽10⫹5 共 L 1 ⫻W 1 兲 1/2 共 English units兲 (4b)
The width for multilanes loaded is
E⫽2,100⫹0.12共 L 1 ⫻W 1 兲 1/2 共 SI units兲 (5a)
or
E⫽84⫹1.44共 L 1 ⫻W 1 兲 1/2 共 English units兲 (5b)
where E is in millimeters in Eqs. 共4a兲 and 共5a兲 关inches in Eqs.
共4b兲 and 共5b兲兴; L 1 ⫽span length in millimeters 共feet兲 taken to be
the lesser of the actual span or 18,000 mm 共60 ft兲; and
W 1 ⫽edge-to-edge width in millimeters 共feet兲 of bridge taken to
be the lesser of the actual width or 18,000 mm 共60 ft兲 for multi-
lane loading, or 9,000 mm 共30 ft兲 for single-lane loading.
AASHTO LRFD 共3.6.1.2兲 live load HL93 requires the consid-
eration of lane loading plus design truck 共HS20兲 or lane loading
plus tandem. The bending moment is determined for the design
lane divided by the width 共E兲 to determine the moment per unit
length for design. AASHTO LRFD table A2.5.2.6.3-1 provides
the minimum slab thickness h to be 1.2(S⫹3000)/30, where h
and S are in millimeters, which is similar to the AASHTO stan-
dard specifications equation 1.2(S⫹10)/30 (ft).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Typical cross sections of two-lane bridge without shoulders
under 共a兲 centered load; 共b兲 edge load E1
Description of Bridge Cases
A total of 112 one-span, simply supported, nonskew, one-, two-,
three-, and four-lane reinforced concrete slab bridge case studies
were considered in this investigation. Bridges with and without
shoulders 共1.2 m or 4 ft per shoulder兲 at both free edges were also
investigated. The overall slab widths for bridges without shoul-
ders were selected to be the worst cases that may be encountered
in practice: 4.2 m 共14 ft兲 for one lane, 7.2 m 共24 ft兲 for two lanes,
10.8 m 共36 ft兲 for three lanes, and 14.4 m 共48 ft兲 for four lanes.
The various span lengths considered for this parametric study
were 7.2, 10.8, 13.8, and 16.2 m 共24, 36, 46, and 54 ft兲 with a
corresponding slab thickness of 450, 530, 610, and 690 mm 共18,
21, 24, and 27 in.兲, respectively.
Design trucks were assumed to be traveling in the same direc-
tion. AASHTO standard specifications section 3.6 共traffic lanes兲
assumes that lane loading or a standard design truck occupies a
width of 3 m 共10 ft兲. Therefore, a constant center-to-center spac-
ing for placement of adjacent trucks was set to be 3 m 共10 ft兲 in
this investigation. Two possible transverse loading positions of
the design trucks as shown in Fig. 1 were considered: 共a兲 centered
condition where each truck is centered in its own lane, and 共b兲
edge condition where the design trucks are placed close to one
edge 共left兲 of the slab, such that the center of the left wheel of the
leftmost truck is positioned at one foot from the left edge of the
slab. The distance between the adjacent trucks was selected to be
1.2 m 共4 ft兲 or 3 m 共10 ft兲 center-to-center spacing in order to
produce the worst loading condition on the bridge.
The two loading conditions were referred to as ‘‘centered
load’’ and ‘‘edge load.’’ Bridges with shoulders were loaded fur-
ther by introducing a disabled truck near one edge in addition to
the design trucks in each lane. This loading condition was re-
ferred to as ‘‘edge⫹truck’’ load. The centered and edge load con-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004 / 149
J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155
Fig. 2. Typical cross sections of two-lane bridge with shoulders
under 共a兲 centered load; 共b兲 edge load E1, and 共c兲 edge⫹truck load
ditions are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 for two-lane bridge cross sec-
tions without and with shoulders, respectively. Placing the wheel
load at 0.3 m 共1 ft兲 from the free edge could be considered critical
or overestimating the longitudinal bending moment. However,
AASHTO specifies a minimum distance of 0.6 m 共2 ft兲 from the
curb or railing to be more realistic and practical.
Therefore, bridges with edge load were reanalyzed by placing
the wheel load of the left truck 0.6 m 共2 ft兲 from the parapet 共0.3
m or 1 ft兲, which totals 0.9 m 共3 ft兲 instead of 0.3 m 共1 ft兲 from
the edge. The results of two edge-loading conditions E1 共wheel
load is 1 ft from the free edge兲 and E3 共wheel load is 3 ft from the
free edge兲 were later compared. The E1 loading condition may
appear to be more critical and produce higher bending moments
for edge beams. The finite-element results for the E1 and E3
loading conditions showed a difference of 5% due to the edge-
load position.
The material properties used in modeling the highway bridges
were normal-strength reinforced concrete. The compressive
strength of the concrete was 27,500 kPa 共4,000 psi兲, the modulus
of elasticity was 25⫻106 kPa (3.6⫻106 psi), and Poisson’s ratio
was 0.2. Grade 60 reinforcing steel could be assumed in the de-
sign of slab reinforcement, but the FEA models did not include
such property in the analysis.
Finite-Element Analysis
The general FEA program SAP2000 共Computers 1998兲 was used
to generate 3D FEA models. This study considered all elements to
be linearly elastic, and the analysis assumed small deformations

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Typical finite-element analysis model for 36 ft span, two-lane
bridge with no shoulders under edge load E1
and deflections. The computer program was used to generate
nodes, elements, and 3D meshes for all slab bridges investigated.
The concrete slabs were modeled using quadrilateral shell ele-
ments 共SHELL兲 with six degrees of freedom at each node. Hinges
were assigned at one bearing location and rollers at the other to
simulate simple support conditions. AASHTO HS20 wheel loads
were applied at isolated nodes to produce maximum longitudinal
bending moments. Given the element sizes reported in the litera-
ture, a mesh sensitivity analysis was conducted using three ele-
ment sizes: 0.6⫻0.6 m 共2⫻2 ft兲, 0.3⫻0.3 m 共1⫻1 ft兲, and
0.15⫻0.15 m 共0.5⫻0.5 ft兲. The three element sizes gave similar
results and compared well with the global equilibrium. Therefore
the element size 0.3⫻0.3 m 共1⫻1 ft兲 was adopted for conve-
nience in locating the wheel loads. A discretization of a typical
slab is shown in Fig. 3.
Finite-Element Analysis Results
The FEA results were obtained and reported in terms of the maxi-
mum longitudinal bending moment, the maximum edge beam
moment, and the maximum live-load deflection calculated in the
slab. These results are primarily compared with AASHTO empiri-
Fig. 4. Longitudinal bending moments at critical cross sections due to centered 共C兲 and edge 共E1兲 loads
150 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004
J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155
cal Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲; the FEA results were later compared with the
AASHTO LRFD procedure using Eqs. 共4兲 and 共5兲.
Maximum Longitudinal Bending Moment
The maximum longitudinal bending moments were obtained at
the critical cross section of each slab, typically located at/or near
midspan, for the various cases considered. Fig. 4 shows the maxi-
mum longitudinal moment distribution across the critical width of
two-lane bridges with no shoulders for the various span lengths
analyzed, and considering centered and edge loads 共E1兲. The
AASHTO empirical moments are also shown in Fig. 4 for com-
parison. Similarly, Fig. 5 shows the maximum longitudinal mo-
ment distribution of the two-lane bridges with shoulders. Further-
more, the moment distribution for the edge loading plus disabled
truck 共edge⫹truck or ET1兲 loading condition is shown in Fig. 6.
The maximum FEA longitudinal bending moments in all the slabs
are summarized in Table 1 along with the corresponding
AASHTO empirical moments Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 and LRFD proce-
dure.
It is worth noting that under edge load condition El or
edge⫹truck ET1, the maximum FEA design bending moment in
the slab was defined as the first maximum peak value after the
edge moment value. This maximum design moment near the edge
is assumed to be resisted by the edge beam provision. Figs. 7 and
8 compare the results of the maximum FEA longitudinal moments
distributions due to edge loading E1 and E3, placed 0.3 m 共1 ft兲
and 0.9 m 共3 ft兲 from the free edge. The average bending moment
in the middle strip is essentially the same regardless to the posi-
tion of wheel loads from the edge E1 or E3.
Slab bridges subject to centered load and the maximum FEA
bending moments are summarized in Table 1. For slabs without
shoulders, AASHTO empirical Eq. 共1兲 or 共2兲 overestimates the
maximum FEA longitudinal bending moment for slabs with span
lengths less than 7.5 m 共25 ft兲 by about 30% for one-lane bridges
and by about 20% for bridges with more than one lane. As the
span length increases for the one-lane bridges, the AASHTO
equation overestimates the FEA moments by about 15% for span
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Longitudinal bending moments at critical cross sections due to centered 共C兲 and edge loads 共E1兲

lengths less than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲 and gives similar results to the
FEA moments for longer spans. However, for slabs with more
than one lane and a span length greater than 25 ft, the AASHTO
moment is either the same as for the FEA for span length up to
10.5 m 共35 ft兲, or underestimates the FEA moment by 15 and 20%
for span lengths up to 13.5 and 16.5 m 共45 and 55 ft兲, respec-
tively.
This leads to the suggestion of introducing a range of 15 to
20% reduction factor for slab bridges longer than 12 m 共40 ft兲 in
combination with two or more lanes. The presence of shoulders
on both edges of the slab tends to stiffen the bridge and increase
its load-carrying capacity. The AASHTO equation overestimates
the FEA moment by more than 25% for slabs with one lane and
various span lengths. Also, AASHTO overestimates the FEA mo-
ments by about 25 and 15% for span lengths of 7.5 and 10.5 m
共25 and 35 ft兲, respectively, in combination with slabs containing
more than one lane. However, as the span length increases 共12 to
16.5 m or 40 to 55 ft兲 for bridges with at least two lanes, the
AASHTO equation gives results similar to those of the FEA mo-
ments. Applying the AASHTO reduction factors for the FEA mo-
ments with three 共10%兲 and four lanes 共25%兲 overestimates the
design bending moment slab bridges.
Slab bridges subject to edge load and the FEA maximum
bending moments are summarized in Table 1. For one-lane
bridges without shoulders, the AASHTO empirical equation ap-
pears to overestimate the FEA maximum longitudinal bending
moment by about 30 and 15% for span lengths up to 7.5 and 10.5
m 共25 and 35 ft兲, respectively, and tends to give similar results to
the FEA moments for longer spans. Also, the AASHTO equation
gives results similar to those of the FEA moments for span
lengths less than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲 in combination with two-lane
bridges. However, and as the span length increases 共from 13.5 to
16.5 m or 45 to 55 ft兲, the AASHTO equation underestimates the
FEA moments by 20% for two-lane bridges. The AASHTO equa-
tion for three- and four-lane bridges gives results similar to those
of the FEA moments for span lengths less than 7.5 m 共25 ft兲 and

Fig. 6. Longitudinal bending moments at critical cross sections due to edge load and disabled truck 共ET1兲

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004 / 151

J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155

 Table 1. Comparison of Finite-Element Analysis 共FEA兲 Maximum Longitudinal Bending Moment with AASHTO Moment
FEA maximum moment 共kN-m/m兲 AASHTO moment 共kN-m/m兲
Without shoulders With shoulders 共1.2 m left and 1.2 m right兲 Load and resistance factor design
Lanes Span 共S兲 Standard
共n兲 共m兲 Centered Edge E1 Edge E3 Centered Edge E1 Edge E3 Ed⫹Tr ET1 specifications Without shoulders With shoulders
1 7.2 69.0 69.4 71.8 54.6 59.9 63.3 92.7 97.2 126.5 109.8
10.8 125.5 125.9 128.5 93.8 100.0 104.0 171.8 145.8 212.4 208.4
13.8 183.3 183.7 186.4 134.1 140.6 144.7 252.8 186.3 283.1 298.8
16.2 229.6 230.0 232.7 166.4 173.0 177.2 317.5 225.9 338.9 378.5
2 7.2 78.9 86.5 81.8 66.4 82.5 78.0 93.3 97.2 108.5 104.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10.8 145.5 153.5 149.1 114.9 137.0 133.6 169.8 145.8 205.2 194.9
13.8 213.2 221.1 217.1 164.8 189.2 186.4 246.5 186.3 293.9 278.6
16.2 267.3 275.1 271.2 205.0 230.0 227.6 307.5 225.9 367.7 347.0
3 7.2 79.3 91.9 85.5 71.9 91.0 84.2 94.6 97.2 101.7 98.1
10.8 146.6 163.2 155.0 125.1 156.8 149.0 172.7 145.8 190.4 183.2
13.8 215.0 232.7 224.8 179.2 217.6 210.3 249.5 186.3 271.8 260.6
16.2 269.5 287.3 279.7 222.7 263.7 256.9 309.6 225.9 347.0 324.0
4 7.2 79.4 94.3 87.8 74.8 94.1 87.3 95.3 97.2 96.8 94.1
10.8 147.3 170.2 159.5 131.5 167.9 157.3 175.5 145.8 180.0 174.6
13.8 216.4 243.1 232.1 188.2 236.1 225.4 253.9 186.3 269.1 246.6
16.2 271.2 299.3 288.5 233.5 286.9 276.5 314.7 225.9 347.0 306.0

underestimates the FEA moments by 15 to 30% for span lengths
between 10.5 and 16.5 m 共35 and 55 ft兲. Therefore, a suggested
20% reduction factor applied to the FEA moments for span
lengths greater than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲, in combination with at least
two lanes, will tend to give results similar to those of the
AASHTO equation.
Again, the presence of shoulders on both edges of the slab will
increase the load-carrying capacity of the bridge. The AASHTO
equation overestimates the FEA moments by more than 20% for
one-lane bridges in combination with any span length. The
AASHTO equation for two-lane bridges overestimates the FEA
moments by 15% for span lengths less than 7.5 m 共25 ft兲 and
agrees with the FEA moments for longer spans. The AASHTO
equation for three- and four-lane bridges gives results similar to
those of the FEA moments for span lengths less than 7.5 m 共25 ft兲
and underestimates the FEA moments by 15 to 25% for span
lengths between 10.5 and 16.5 m 共35 and 55 ft兲. Therefore a
suggested 20% reduction factor applied to the FEA moments for
span lengths greater than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲, in combination with at
least three lanes, will tend to give results similar to those of the
AASHTO equation.
The edge⫹truck load 共edge plus disabled truck兲 condition ap-
pears to show that the AASHTO equation gives results similar to
those of the maximum FEA moments for any slab bridges with a
span length less than 7.5 m 共25 ft兲, regardless of the number of
lanes. However, as the span length increases, the AASHTO equa-
tion tends to underestimate the maximum FEA moments by about
20% for spans up to 10.5 m 共35 ft兲 and 35 to 40% for span lengths
between 13.5 and 16.5 m 共45 and 55 ft兲. Therefore, introducing a
20% reduction factor to the FEA moments for slabs with two

Fig. 7. Longitudinal bending moments at critical cross sections due to edge loads 共E1 versus E3兲

152 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004

J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Longitudinal bending moments at critical cross sections due to edge loads 共E1 versus E3兲

lanes and 30% for slabs with three or four lanes will give results
similar to those of the AASHTO bending moment equation for
bridges with shoulders, and with span lengths greater than 10.5 m
共35 ft兲, when subjected to the worst loading condition. The maxi-
mum design bending moment calculated using the AASHTO
LRFD approach appears to be similar to or higher than the FEA
results due to edge⫹truck loading conditions.
Edge Beam Moment
Table 2 summarizes the maximum longitudinal edge beam mo-
ment obtained from the FEA subject to the critical edge load
condition and compared with the AASHTO 共1996兲 edge moment
equation. The edge beam width was assumed to be 450 mm 共18
in.兲. The FEA edge beam moment is defined as the first maximum
moment near the edge node at the leftmost node along the critical
cross section, as shown in Figs. 4 to 6. It is worth noting that, for
bridges subjected to a centered load, the edge beam moment is
lower than the maximum FEA design bending moment in the
slab; therefore no special edge beam is required.
First, when investigating slabs without shoulders, the
AASHTO edge beam moment for one-lane bridges overestimates
the FEA edge moments by 20% for span lengths less than 10.5 m
共35 ft兲 and agrees with the FEA moments for longer spans. For
two-, three-, and four-lane bridges with span lengths less than
10.5 m 共35 ft兲, the AASHTO edge moments were similar to the
FEA moments; however, as the span length increases from 10.5 to
16.5 m 共35 to 55 ft兲, the AASHTO equation underestimates the
FEA moments by about 15% for two- and three-lane bridges and
20% for four-lane bridges.

Table 2. Comparison of Finite-Element Analysis 共FEA兲 Edge Beam Moment with AASHTO Edge Beam Moment
FEA edge moment 共kN-m/m兲

Span 共S兲 Without shoulders With shoulders 共1.2 m left and 1.2 m right兲
Lanes AASHTO moment
共n兲 共m兲 Edge E1 Edge E1 Edge⫹truck 共kN-m/m兲
1 7.2 87.2 79.8 105.4 115.2
10.8 144.2 121.2 185.8 172.8
13.8 202.1 162.0 267.2 220.8
16.2 248.4 194.5 332.0 259.2
2 7.2 101.0 98.1 106.2 115.2
10.8 170.4 156.4 185.4 172.8
13.8 238.9 210.2 263.5 220.8
16.2 293.1 251.6 325.0 259.2
3 7.2 105.3 104.7 107.3 115.2
10.8 179.9 174.7 188.3 172.8
13.8 251.4 238.1 267.1 220.8
16.2 306.8 285.4 328.2 259.2
4 7.2 107.1 106.9 107.8 115.2
10.8 186.3 184.4 190.7 172.8
13.8 261.6 255.5 271.4 220.8
16.2 319.1 308.0 333.5 259.2

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004 / 153

J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155

 Table 3. Comparison of Finite-Element Analysis 共FEA兲 Maximum Deflection with AASHTO Deflection
FEA maximum deflection 共mm兲
AASHTO
Span 共S兲 Without shoulders With shoulders 共1.2 m left and 1.2 m right兲
Lanes deflection
共n兲 共m兲 Centered Edge E1 Edge E3 Centered Edge E1 Edge E3 Edge⫹truck 共mm兲
1 7.2 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.2 2.0 9.0
10.8 4.0 4.5 4.2 2.8 3.5 3.3 6.0 13.5
13.8 6.8 7.3 7.0 4.8 5.8 5.3 10.0 17.3
16.2 8.5 8.5 8.5 5.8 6.8 6.4 12.0 20.3
2 7.2 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.6 2.3 9.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10.8 4.8 5.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 4.4 6.0 13.5

13.8 8.0 8.8 8.3 6.0 7.5 7.1 9.8 17.3
16.2 10.0 10.5 10.1 7.3 9.0 8.4 11.8 20.3
3 7.2 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.3 2.0 1.7 2.3 9.0
10.8 5.0 5.8 5.2 3.8 5.8 5.0 6.3 13.5
13.8 8.3 9.3 8.6 6.5 8.8 8.0 10.0 17.3
16.2 10.0 11.0 10.4 8.0 10.3 9.6 12.0 20.3
4 7.2 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.5 2.3 1.8 2.3 9.0
10.8 5.0 6.0 5.4 4.0 6.0 5.3 6.3 13.5
13.8 8.3 9.5 8.9 6.8 9.5 8.7 10.3 17.3
16.2 10.0 11.5 10.8 8.3 11.3 10.4 12.3 20.3

Second, when considering slabs with shoulders on both sides
subject to edge load, the AASHTO equation overestimates the
FEA moments by more than 25% for one-lane bridges in combi-
nation with any span length. However, the AASHTO equation for
two-lane bridges overestimates the FEA moments by 15% for
span lengths less than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲 and agrees with the FEA
moments for longer spans. For three- and four-lane bridges with
span lengths less than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲, the AASHTO equation gives
results similar to those of the FEA moments; however, as the span
length increases from 10.5 to 16.5 m 共35 to 55 ft兲, the AASHTO
equation underestimates the FEA moments by 10 and 20% for
three- and four-lane bridges, respectively.
Third, when considering slabs with shoulders on both sides
subject to edge⫹truck load, where a disabled truck is added on
the left shoulder, the AASHTO equation gives results similar to
those of the FEA moments for span lengths less than 10.5 m 共35
ft兲 and underestimates the FEA moments by about 20 to 30% with
increasing span length, regardless of the number of lanes.
Maximum Live-Load Deflection
Table 3 summarizes the maximum live-load deflections obtained
from the FEA as compared with the AASHTO criterion (S/800).
The FEA results yielded live-load deflections that varied between
1/6 and 1/2 of the AASHTO values. Note that the FEA is an
elastic analysis and not the actual cracked-section analysis, which
would yield deflections around 1/3 to 1 of the AASHTO values.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper presented the results of an investigation of reinforced
concrete slab bridges using finite-element analysis. Simply sup-
ported one-span bridges were considered with various span
lengths, numbers of lanes, and loading conditions for cases with
and without shoulders. A total of 112 case study bridges were
analyzed. The maximum longitudinal bending moments, edge
beam moments, and maximum deflections were compared with
AASHTO design procedures.
Based on the results of this investigation, the following con-
clusions can be made regarding the maximum longitudinal
bending moments: For slabs without shoulders, where the edge
load condition is critical, and for one-lane bridges, AASHTO mo-
ment Eq. 共1兲 关or Eq. 共2兲兴 overestimates the FEA moments 共30%兲
for short spans 共up to 7.5 m or 25 ft兲 and agrees with the FEA for
longer spans. For more than one lane, AASHTO agrees with the
FEA for short spans 共less than 10.5 m or 35 ft兲 and underestimates
FEA 共15 to 30%兲 for longer spans. Reinforced concrete slab
bridges with shoulders on both edges tend to increase in load-
carrying capacity. Therefore, the edge⫹truck load condition was
found to be critical for bridges with shoulders on both free edges
where AASHTO agrees with the FEA for short spans 共up to 7.5 m
or 25 ft兲 and underestimates the FEA by 25% for longer spans,
regardless of the number of lanes. Therefore, a suggested 20%
reduction factor applied to the FEA moments for span lengths
greater than 10.5 m 共35 ft兲, in combination with at least two lanes,
will tend to give results similar to those of AASHTO Eq. 共1兲
关or 共2兲兴. The AASHTO LRFD procedure gives higher bending
moments than AASHTO standard specifications as well as the
FEA results. The AASHTO LRFD procedure gives design bend-
ing moments closer to the FEA results subject to edge⫹truck load
conditions.
Regarding edge beam moments, and considering slabs without
shoulders and short spans 共up to 10.5 m or 35 ft兲, AASHTO
overestimates the FEA by 20% for one-lane bridges and
agrees with the FEA for more than one lane. For longer
spans, AASHTO agrees with the FEA for one-lane bridges
and underestimates the FEA 共15 to 20%兲 for more than one
lane. When considering slabs with shoulders and any number
of lanes, the AASHTO empirical equation agrees with the
FEA for short-span bridges 共up to 10.5 m or 35 ft兲 and underes-
timates the maximum FEA moment by 20 to 30% for longer
spans. Finally, the cracked-section estimated deflection, as ob-
tained from the FEA elastic deflection, would be approximately
between 1/3 and 1 of the AASHTO limitation for live-load de-
flection.

154 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004

J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155

 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共1996兲. Standard specifications for highway bridges,
16th Ed., Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共1998兲. LRFD design specifications, 2nd Ed., Washing-
ton, D.C.
Computers and Structures Inc. 共1998兲. ‘‘Integrated structural analysis and
design software.’’ SAP2000, Berkeley, Calif.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology on 02/18/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Frederick, G. R. 共1997兲. ‘‘Experimental and analytical investigation of
load distribution in concrete slab bridges.’’ Spring Conf., Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Bellevue, Wash.
Jensen, V. P. 共1938兲. ‘‘A distribution procedure for the analysis of slabs
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2004 / 155
J. Bridge Eng., 2004, 9(2): 147-155
continuous over flexible beams.’’ Bulletin No. 304, Univ. of Illinois,
Urbana, Ill.
Jensen, V. P. 共1939兲. ‘‘Moments in simple span bridge slabs with stiffened
edges.’’ Bulletin No. 315, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Mabsout, M., Jabakhanji, R., Tarhini, K., and Frederick, G. R. 共2000兲.
‘‘Finite element analysis of concrete slab bridges.’’ Proc., 8th Int.
Conf. on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford
Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1045–1050.
Shekar, Y., Azizinamini, A., Barnhill, G., and Boothby T. 共1993兲. ‘‘Per-
formance of concrete slab bridges.’’ Final Rep., NDOR Project No.
RESI99, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Westergaard, H. M. 共1926兲. ‘‘Stresses in concrete pavements computed
by theoretical analysis.’’ Public Roads, 7共2兲, 25–35.
Westergaard, H. M. 共1930兲. ‘‘Computation of stresses in slabs due to
wheel loads.’’ Public Roads, 11共1兲, 1–23.