Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lecture 1 - Background and Philosophy: Printed On June 24, 2003
Lecture 1 - Background and Philosophy: Printed On June 24, 2003
1.2.1 Background
Lecture - 1-1
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-2
printed on June 24, 2003
• The Current LFD Provisions in the • Foundation Design for Lateral Loads
AASHTO Specifications
• Compression Plate Design
• Curved Girder Bridges
• Anchorage Zone Stresses
Lecture - 1-3
printed on June 24, 2003
Sealing Requirements
• Deflection Criteria
• Connection Design
Lecture - 1-4
printed on June 24, 2003
the dead load and the full design live load. For example, in the
13th Edition and others, the former load combination was
permitted to produce a stress equal to four-thirds of the latter.
Lecture - 1-5
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-6
printed on June 24, 2003
TASK GROUPS
General Design Features Loads and Load Factors Analysis and Evaluation
Lecture - 1-7
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-8
printed on June 24, 2003
The original plan called for three drafts, which were released
and reviewed as follows:
• The first draft was released in April of 1990 and was totally
uncalibrated. The primary intent was to show coverage and
organization. This draft was released to the AASHTO Bridge
Engineers, the FHWA, all members of the NCHRP Panel and
Task Group Members, and several private authorities. All told,
it was reviewed by about 250 engineers, because many of the
Department of Transportations circulated it to in-house
experts. Approximately 4,000 comments were received
concerning the first draft, all were read and reviewed, and
many were discussed with Task Group Chairmen or sent
directly to them. Many of the comments were included in the
second draft, but there was no written response to the
questions.
Lecture - 1-9
printed on June 24, 2003
• Further refine and verify the proposed strip width method for
calculating moments and deck slabs,
Lecture - 1-10
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-11
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-12
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-13
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-14
printed on June 24, 2003
z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.0 0.0000 0.0040 0.0080 0.0120 0.0160 0.0199 0.0239 0.0279 0.0319 0.0359
0.1 0.0398 0.0438 0.0478 0.0517 0.0557 0.0596 0.0636 0.0675 0.0714 0.0754
0.2 0.0793 0.0832 0.0871 0.0910 0.0948 0.0987 0.1026 0.1064 0.1103 0.1141
0.3 0.1179 0.1217 0.1255 0.1293 0.1331 0.1368 0.1406 0.1443 0.1480 0.1517
0.4 0.1554 0.1591 0.1628 0.1664 0.1700 0.1736 0.1772 0.1808 0.1844 0.1879
0.5 0.1915 0.1950 0.1985 0.2019 0.2054 0.2088 0.2123 0.2157 0.2190 0.2224
0.6 0.2258 0.2291 0.2324 0.2357 0.2389 0.2422 0.2454 0.2486 0.2518 0.2549
0.7 0.2580 0.2612 0.2642 0.2673 0.2704 0.2734 0.2764 0.2794 0.2823 0.2852
0.8 0.2881 0.2910 0.2939 0.2967 0.2996 0.3023 0.3051 0.3078 0.3106 0.3133
0.9 0.3159 0.3186 0.3212 0.3238 0.3264 0.3289 0.3315 0.3340 0.3365 0.3389
1.0 0.3413 0.3438 0.3461 0.3485 0.3508 0.3531 0.3554 0.3577 0.3599 0.3621
1.1 0.3643 0.3665 0.3686 0.3708 0.3729 0.3749 0.3770 0.3790 0.3810 0.3830
1.2 0.3849 0.3869 0.3888 0.3907 0.3925 0.3944 0.3962 0.3980 0.3997 0.4015
1.3 0.4032 0.4049 0.4066 0.4082 0.4099 0.4115 0.4131 0.4147 0.4162 0.4177
1.4 0.4192 0.4207 0.4222 0.4236 0.4251 0.4265 0.4279 0.4292 0.4306 0.4319
1.5 0.4332 0.4345 0.4357 0.4370 0.4382 0.4394 0.4406 0.4418 0.4429 0.4441
1.6 0.4452 0.4463 0.4474 0.4484 0.4495 0.4505 0.4515 0.4525 0.4535 0.4545
1.7 0.4554 0.4564 0.4573 0.4582 0.4591 0.4599 0.4608 0.4616 0.4625 0.4633
1.8 0.4641 0.4649 0.4656 0.4664 0.4671 0.4678 0.4686 0.4693 0.4699 0.4706
1.9 0.4713 0.4719 0.4726 0.4732 0.4738 0.4744 0.4750 0.4756 0.4761 0.4767
2.0 0.4772 0.4778 0.4783 0.4788 0.4793 0.4798 0.4803 0.4808 0.4812 0.4817
2.1 0.4821 0.4826 0.4830 0.4834 0.4838 0.4842 0.4846 0.4850 0.4854 0.4857
2.2 0.4861 0.4864 0.4868 0.4871 0.4875 0.4878 0.4881 0.4884 0.4887 0.4890
2.3 0.4893 0.4896 0.4898 0.4901 0.4904 0.4906 0.4909 0.4911 0.4913 0.4916
2.4 0.4918 0.4920 0.4922 0.4925 0.4927 0.4929 0.4931 0.4932 0.4934 0.4936
2.5 0.4938 0.4940 0.4941 0.4943 0.4945 0.4946 0.4948 0.4949 0.4951 0.4952
2.6 0.4953 0.4955 0.4956 0.4957 0.4959 0.4960 0.4961 0.4962 0.4963 0.4964
2.7 0.4965 0.4966 0.4967 0.4968 0.4969 0.4970 0.4971 0.4972 0.4973 0.4971
2.8 0.4974 0.4975 0.4976 0.4977 0.4977 0.4978 0.4979 0.4979 0.4980 0.4981
2.9 0.4981 0.4982 0.4982 0.4983 0.4984 0.4984 0.4985 0.4985 0.4986 0.4986
3.0 0.4987 0.4987 0.4987 0.4988 0.4988 0.4989 0.4989 0.4989 0.4990 0.4990
3.1 0.4990 0.4991 0.4991 0.4991 0.4992 0.4992 0.4992 0.4992 0.4993 0.4993
3.2 0.4993 0.4993 0.4994 0.4994 0.4994 0.4994 0.4994 0.4995 0.4995 0.4995
3.3 0.4995 0.4995 0.4995 0.4996 0.4996 0.4996 0.4996 0.4996 0.4996 0.4997
3.4 0.4997 0.4997 0.4997 0.4997 0.4997 0.4997 0.4997 0.4997 0.4997 0.4998
3.5 0.4998 0.4998 0.4998 0.4998 0.4998 0.4998 0.4998 0.4998 0.4998 0.4999
3.6 0.4998 0.4998 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4993 0.4999
3.7 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999
3.8 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999 0.4999
3.9 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
Lecture - 1-15
printed on June 24, 2003
If we now accept the notion that both load and resistance are
normal random variables, we can plot the bell-shaped curve
corresponding to each of them in a combined presentation dealing
with distribution as the vertical axis against the value of load, Q, or
resistance, R, as shown in Figure 1.3.1-3. The mean value of load
and the mean value of resistance is also shown, as is a second value
somewhat offset from the mean value, which is the "nominal" value,
or the number that designers calculate the load or the resistance to
be. The ratio of the mean value divided by the nominal value is called
the "bias". The objective of a design philosophy based on reliability
theory, or probability theory, is to separate the distribution of
resistance from the distribution of load, such that the area of overlap,
i.e., the area where load is greater than resistance, is tolerably small,
say one in 10,000. The objective of a LRFD approach to a design
specification is to be able to define load factors, shown as γQn in
Figure 1.3.1-3, and resistance factors, shown as φRn in Figure 1.3.1-3,
in a way that forces the relationship between the resistance and load
to be such that the area of overlap is less than or equal to the value
that a code-writing body accepts. Note in Figure 1.3.1-3 that it is the
nominal load and the nominal resistance, not the mean values, which
are factored.
Lecture - 1-16
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-17
printed on June 24, 2003
2 2
σ(R&Q) ' σR % σQ (1.3.1-1)
R&Q
β' (1.3.1-2)
2
σR % σ2 Q
Lecture - 1-18
printed on June 24, 2003
2 2 1
R ' Q % β σR % σQ ' λ R ' λ Σ γi x i (1.3.1-4)
φ
λ Σ γi x i
φ' (1.3.1-5)
2 2
Q % β σR % σQ
Lecture - 1-19
printed on June 24, 2003
γi ' λ 1 % n V i (1.3.1-7)
• Using Equation 1.3.1-5, for a given set of load factors and trial
resistance factors, the value of the reliability index can be
calculated for various types of structural members and for
various load components, e.g., shear, moment, etc. on the
various structural components. Computer simulations of a
representative body of structural members can be done,
yielding a large number of values for the resistance factor.
Lecture - 1-20
printed on June 24, 2003
• If close clustering does not result, a new trial set of load and/or
resistance factors can be used and the process repeated until
the reliability indices do cluster around the target.
Lecture - 1-21
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-22
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-23
printed on June 24, 2003
The outline above assumes that suitable load factors are assumed.
If the process of varying the resistance factors and calculating the
reliability indices does not converge to a suitable narrowly grouped set
of reliability indices, then the load factor assumptions must be revised.
In fact, several sets of proposed load factors were investigated to
determine their effect on the clustering of reliability indices.
Lecture - 1-24
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-25
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-26
printed on June 24, 2003
Slab 6 to 12 9.1 - OK
T-beam 12 to 24 12.2 - IL
12.2 - OK
13.1 - IL
15.2-15.2 - OK
18.3 - IL
Arch-barrel 12 None
Arch-rib 18 None
Arch None
Slab 9 to 12 None
Double T 12 to 18 11.9 - CO
Bulb 18 to 36 None
Lecture - 1-27
printed on June 24, 2003
Bulb None
Box 19.8-19.8 - CA
26.5-25.9 - CA
28.3-26.2 - CA
31.4-31.1 - CA
32.6-31.1 - CA
33.5-48.8 - CA
36.0-30.8 - CA
61.0-61.0 - CA
18.3-24.4-18.3 - CA
21.0-25.0-18.0 - CA
22.9-27.4-22.9 - CA
21.0-28.0-21.0 - CA
23.2-27.4-23.2 - CA
21.6-25.9-21.6 - CA
20.1-25.9-15.8 - CA
Wood
Truss 15.2-30.5-30.5-14.9 - MN
Arch None
Lecture - 1-28
printed on June 24, 2003
Full tabulations for all these loads for the full-set of bridges in the
database are presented in Nowak, 1993.
Lecture - 1-29
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-30
printed on June 24, 2003
COEFFICIENT
BIAS OF
LOAD COMPONENT FACTOR VARIATION
LOAD
COMPONENT n = 1.5 n = 2.0 n = 2.5
Lecture - 1-31
printed on June 24, 2003
1.25. For D3, weight of asphalt, γ = 1.50. For live load and impact, the
value of load factor corresponding to n = 2 is γ = 1.60. However, a
more conservative value of γ = 1.75 is utilized in the LRFD code.
where D is dead load, except of DA, which is the weight of the asphalt
surface. The load factors are equal to the recommended values from
Section 1.4.6.1.
RLRFD
r' (1.4.6.2-2)
RHS20
Lecture - 1-32
printed on June 24, 2003
LOWER UPPER
Non-Composite Steel Moment 0.95 1.00
Shear 0.95 1.00
Moment 0.95 1.00
Composite Steel
Shear 0.95 1.00
Moment 0.85 0.90
Reinforced Concrete
Shear 0.90 0.90
Moment 0.95 1.00
Prestressed Concrete
Shear 0.90 0.95
Lecture - 1-33
printed on June 24, 2003
LIMIT RESISTANCE
MATERIAL STATE FACTOR, φ
Moment 1.00
Non-Composite Steel
Shear 1.00
Moment 1.00
Composite Steel
Shear 1.00
Moment 0.90
Reinforced Concrete
Shear 0.90
Moment 1.00
Prestressed Concrete
Shear 0.90
Lecture - 1-34
printed on June 24, 2003
At any future time, AASHTO may decide that more or less safety
(reliability) is desired. Should such a decision be made, a consistent
means is now available to adjust load factors and resistance factors
to achieve any increment in reliability.
Lecture - 1-35
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 1-36
printed on June 24, 2003
REFERENCES
Gellert, W., Kustner, H., Hellwich, M., and Kastner, H. - Editors, The
VNR Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Van Nostrand Reinhold
(1977) pp. 591-600
Lecture - 1-37
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 2-1
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 2-2
printed on June 24, 2003
2.4.1 Safety
Lecture - 2-3
printed on June 24, 2003
Σηi γi Qi # φ Rn = Rr (2.4.1.1-1)
where:
value of γi is appropriate
γi = Load Factor: A statistically based multiplier on force
effects
φ = Resistance Factor: A statistically based multiplier
applied to nominal resistance
ηi = Load Modifier
ηD = A factor relating to ductility
ηR = A factor relating to redundancy
ηI = A factor relating to operational importance
Qi = Nominal Force Effect: A deformation, stress or stress
resultant
Rn = Nominal Resistance: Based on the dimensions as
shown on the plans and on permissible stresses,
deformations or specified strength of materials
Rr = Factored Resistance: φRn
Ductility
Lecture - 2-4
printed on June 24, 2003
• joints and connections which are also ductile and can provide
energy dissipation without loss of capacity; or,
∆u
µ' (2.4.1.1-2)
∆y
where:
∆u - Deformation at ultimate
∆y - Deformation at the elastic limit
Lecture - 2-5
printed on June 24, 2003
ηD = 1.00
Redundancy
ηR = 1.00
Lecture - 2-6
printed on June 24, 2003
Operational Importance
• Permanent Loads
DD = Downdrag
DC = Dead load of structural components
attachments
DW = Dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
EF = Dead load of earth fill
EH = Horizontal earth pressure
ES = Earth surcharge load
EV = Vertical earth pressure
• Transient Loads
BR = Vehicular braking force
CE = Vehicular centrifugal force
CR = Creep
CT = Vehicular collision force
CV = Vessel collision force
EQ = Earthquake
FR = Friction
IC = Ice load
IM = Vehicular dynamic load allowance
LL = Vehicular live load
LS = Live load surcharge
PL = Pedestrian live load
SE = Settlement
SH = Shrinkage
TG = Temperature gradient
TU = Uniform temperature
WA = Water load and stream pressure
WL = Wind on live load
WS = Wind load on structure
Lecture - 2-7
printed on June 24, 2003
when calculating all other force effects. For each load combination,
every load that is indicated, including all significant effects due to
distortion, should be multiplied by the appropriate load factor. All
relevant subsets of the load combinations in Table 2.4.1.2-1 should be
investigated.
Lecture - 2-8
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 2-9
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 2-10
printed on June 24, 2003
STRENGTH-IV - -
EH, EV, ES, DW γp - 1.00 - - 1.00 0.50/1.20 - - - -
DC ONLY 1.5
STRENGTH-V γp 1.35 1.00 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE - - - -
EXTREME EVENT-I γp γEQ 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - 1.00 - - -
EXTREME EVENT-II γp 0.50 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
SERVICE-I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE - - - -
SERVICE-II 1.00 1.30 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00/1.20 - - - - - -
SERVICE-III 1.00 0.80 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE - - - -
FATIGUE-LL, IM &
CE ONLY - 0.75 - - - - - - - - - - -
Table 2.4.1.2-2 - Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp
Load Factor
Type of Load Maximum Minimum
2.4.2 Serviceability
Lecture - 2-11
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 2-12
printed on June 24, 2003
2.4.3 Constructibility
• Two floods are identified for bridge scour. The first is the
design flood for scour based on the more severe of the 100-
year flood or an overtopping flood, in which case the structure
must be shown to be adequate for all applicable strength and
Lecture - 2-13
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 2-14
printed on June 24, 2003
LECTURE 3 - LOADS - I
• the development of the LRFD live load model through the dual
approach of modeling the force effects generated by a group
of vehicles permitted on the roads and highways of various
states without special permits or other controls, herein referred
to as exclusion loads, and the use of statistical procedures to
project a 75-year occurrence live load;
3.2.1 Background
Lecture - 3-1
printed on June 24, 2003
semi-trailer could vary from 4.3 m to 9.0 m, and it was assumed that
there was 4.3 m between the steering axle and the adjacent axle that
formed part of the tractor. These loads are shown in Figure 3.2.1-1.
The HS20 truck was an idealization and did not represent one
particular truck, although it was clearly indicative of the group of
vehicles commonly known as 3-S2's, e.g., the common "18-wheeler".
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, some states raised
their design load to HS25, or 125% of some or all of the loads shown
in Figure 3.2.1-1. During the construction of the interstate system, an
additional design load, known as the "Interstate Load", was also
introduced, and this consisted of two 110 kN axles separated by 1.2
m. Some of the states which raised the design load to HS25 also
increased the weight of the design tandem to 133 kN.
Over the years, many states have written exclusions into their
regulatory policies, which permitted some vehicles in excess of legal
loads to operate in an unrestricted manner. These loads are
sometimes referred to as "grandfather provision" loads.
Lecture - 3-2
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-3
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-4
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-5
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-6
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-7
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-8
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-9
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-10
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-11
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-12
printed on June 24, 2003
• Each force effect would have to have its own equation for
uniform load
Lecture - 3-13
printed on June 24, 2003
in Figures 3.2.3-5 through 3.2.3-11 are given for each of the force
effects indicated for each of the models under consideration. This
summary also indicates that the model consisting of either the tandem
plus the uniform load, or the HS20 plus the uniform load, produce the
best results.
Lecture - 3-14
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-15
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-16
printed on June 24, 2003
Thus, the combination of the tandem with the uniform load and
the HS20 with the uniform load, were shown to be an adequate basis
for a notional design load in the LRFD Specification.
Lecture - 3-17
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-18
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-19
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-20
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-21
printed on June 24, 2003
3.2.4.1 INTRODUCTION
Lecture - 3-22
printed on June 24, 2003
where:
Lecture - 3-23
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-24
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-25
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-26
printed on June 24, 2003
Table 3.2.4.3-2 - Mean Maximum Moments for Simple Spans Due to a Single Truck (Divided by
Corresponding HS20 Moment)
75 Years
Span (m) Average 1 Day 2 Weeks 1 Month 2 Months 6 Months 1 Year 5 Years 50 Years
3 0.62 0.97 1.12 1.18 1.23 1.30 1.37 1.46 1.63 1.65
6 0.80 1.30 1.42 1.48 1.53 1.59 1.65 1.76 1.87 1.89
9 0.82 1.33 1.46 1.52 1.57 1.62 1.68 1.78 1.88 1.90
12 0.75 1.31 1.42 1.46 1.50 1.55 1.58 1.64 1.72 1.74
15 0.72 1.32 1.43 1.47 1.52 1.56 1.60 1.65 1.73 1.75
18 0.71 1.37 1.47 1.52 1.56 1.60 1.64 1.69 1.77 1.79
21 0.74 1.42 1.51 1.56 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.74 1.81 1.83
24 0.77 1.47 1.55 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.73 1.79 1.86 1.89
27 0.79 1.51 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.78 1.84 1.92 1.94
30 0.81 1.55 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.82 1.89 1.98 2.00
33 0.83 1.60 1.68 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.86 1.94 2.03 2.05
36 0.85 1.63 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.97 2.06 2.08
39 0.85 1.66 1.75 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.92 1.99 2.08 2.10
42 0.86 1.67 1.75 1.80 1.83 1.87 1.92 1.99 2.08 2.10
45 0.85 1.64 1.73 1.78 1.81 1.84 1.88 1.96 2.05 2.07
48 0.83 1.60 1.68 1.73 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.91 2.01 2.03
51 0.81 1.55 1.63 1.69 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.87 1.96 1.98
54 0.78 1.50 1.58 1.64 1.67 1.71 1.75 1.82 1.91 1.94
57 0.75 1.45 1.53 1.58 1.62 1.66 1.70 1.77 1.86 1.88
60 0.70 1.38 1.48 1.54 1.57 1.60 1.64 1.71 1.80 1.82
Lecture - 3-27
printed on June 24, 2003
Table 3.2.4.3-3 - Mean Maximum Shears for Simple Spans Due to a Single Truck (Divided by Corresponding
HS20 Shear)
75 Years
Span Average 1 Day 2 Weeks 1 Month 2 Months 6 Months 1 Year 5 Years 50 Years
3 0.78 1.20 1.31 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.52 1.61 1.62
6 0.72 1.13 1.25 1.29 1.31 1.36 1.38 1.43 1.51 1.52
9 0.68 1.13 1.24 1.29 1.30 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.48 1.49
12 0.66 1.18 1.27 1.32 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.50 1.51
15 0.69 1.24 1.33 1.37 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.55 1.56
18 0.73 1.30 1.40 1.44 1.46 1.49 1.51 1.56 1.61 1.62
21 0.74 1.37 1.47 1.50 1.52 1.55 1.58 1.62 1.69 1.70
24 0.77 1.42 1.52 1.57 1.59 1.62 1.65 1.70 1.76 1.77
27 0.80 1.48 1.58 1.62 1.64 1.69 1.72 1.76 1.84 1.85
30 0.81 1.53 1.62 1.66 1.70 1.73 1.76 1.82 1.89 1.90
33 0.82 1.58 1.66 1.70 1.72 1.76 1.80 1.85 1.92 1.93
36 0.83 1.58 1.67 1.71 1.73 1.76 1.80 1.86 1.92 1.93
39 0.83 1.57 1.66 1.70 1.72 1.75 1.77 1.83 1.89 1.90
42 0.81 1.53 1.63 1.66 1.68 1.72 1.74 1.78 1.86 1.87
45 0.79 1.48 1.58 1.62 1.64 1.67 1.70 1.74 1.82 1.83
48 0.76 1.44 1.53 1.57 1.59 1.62 1.65 1.70 1.78 1.79
51 0.74 1.40 1.48 1.52 1.54 1.57 1.60 1.66 1.74 1.75
54 0.71 1.35 1.44 1.47 1.49 1.52 1.56 1.62 1.69 1.70
57 0.69 1.30 1.40 1.43 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.57 1.64 1.65
60 0.68 1.27 1.36 1.39 1.41 1.43 1.47 1.52 1.59 1.60
Lecture - 3-28
printed on June 24, 2003
Table 3.2.4.3-4 - Mean Maximum Negative Moments for Continuous Spans Due to a Single Truck (Divided
by Corresponding HS20 Shear)
75 Years
Span Average 1 Day 2 Weeks 1 Month 2 Months 6 Months 1 Year 5 Years 50 Years
3 0.63 1.12 1.25 1.30 1.33 1.37 1.40 1.46 1.54 1.55
6 0.67 1.30 1.40 1.43 1.44 1.47 1.50 1.53 1.59 1.60
9 0.88 1.50 1.59 1.62 1.64 1.66 1.67 1.72 1.75 1.76
12 0.93 1.63 1.73 1.75 1.77 1.80 1.83 1.86 1.91 1.92
15 0.82 1.50 1.62 1.66 1.67 1.72 1.74 1.78 1.84 1.85
18 0.73 1.34 1.44 1.49 1.51 1.54 1.56 1.61 1.66 1.67
21 0.63 1.24 1.33 1.37 1.39 1.41 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.52
24 0.58 1.16 1.24 1.26 1.29 1.31 1.33 1.35 1.39 1.40
27 0.55 1.11 1.18 1.21 1.22 1.25 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.33
30 0.53 1.07 1.13 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.26 1.27
33 0.50 1.03 1.09 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.22 1.22
36 0.48 1.00 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.17
39 0.46 0.96 1.01 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.10 1.13 1.14
42 0.44 0.94 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.10
45 0.42 0.90 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.07
48 0.40 0.86 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.03
51 0.38 0.84 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00
54 0.37 0.81 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.97
57 0.35 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.94
60 0.33 0.78 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.92
Lecture - 3-29
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-30
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-31
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-32
printed on June 24, 2003
One/Two N z T
Trucks
Lecture - 3-33
printed on June 24, 2003
Table 3.2.4.4-2 - Mean Maximum Moments for Simple Spans Due to Multiple Trucks in One Lane (Divided by Corresponding HS20
Moment)
Span (m) 1 Day 2 Weeks 1 Month 2 Months 6 Months 1 Year 5 Years 50 Years 75 Years
Lecture - 3-34
printed on June 24, 2003
Span (m) 1 Day 2 Weeks 1 Month 2 Months 6 Months 1 Year 5 Years 50 Years 75 Years
Lecture - 3-35
printed on June 24, 2003
Span (m) 1 Day 2 Weeks 1 Month 2 Months 6 Months 1 Year 5 Years 50 Years 75 Years
Lecture - 3-36
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-37
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-38
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-39
printed on June 24, 2003
0.6 0.2
s s
GDF ' 0.15 % (3.2.4.5-2)
910 L
2
s s
GDF ' 0.4 % & (3.2.4.5-3)
1830 7620
Lecture - 3-40
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-41
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-42
printed on June 24, 2003
• For the design of the deck overhang - 300 mm from the face
of the curb or railing
In all other cases, the center of a wheel need not be placed closer
than 600 mm from the edge of a design lane.
Lecture - 3-43
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-44
printed on June 24, 2003
lanes and multiple presence factor which produce the maximum load
effect on the component under design. This traditional process, where
applicable, would apply using the LRFD Specification, except that the
multiple presence factors themselves are somewhat different, as
indicated in Table 3.3.2-1.
1 1.20
2 1.00
3 0.85
>3 0.65
Note that the assumed tire contact area is assumed to increase with
the load factor and the impact. This is because the tire pressure has
been assumed to be a constant 0.862 MPa, a value which is
consistent with on-the-road tires.
Lecture - 3-46
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-47
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-48
printed on June 24, 2003
The effect of vehicle weight for a five-axle truck and a three-axle truck
on the steel girder cross-section for various span lengths is shown in
Figures 3.3.7-3 and 3.3.7-4, respectively.
Figure 3.3.7-3 - Dynamic Load Effect vs. Gross Vehicle Weight for a
Five-Axle Truck on Steel Girder Bridge
Lecture - 3-49
printed on June 24, 2003
Figure 3.3.7-4 - Dynamic Load Effect vs. Gross Vehicle Weight for a
Three-Axle Truck on Steel Girder Bridge
Figure 3.3.7-5 - Dynamic Load vs. Gross Vehicle Weight for a Five-
Axle Truck on Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges
Lecture - 3-50
printed on June 24, 2003
Figure 3.3.7-6 - Dynamic Load Effect vs. Truck Speed for Five-Axle
Trucks on Steel Girder Bridges
Lecture - 3-51
printed on June 24, 2003
Lecture - 3-52
printed on June 24, 2003
Component IM
33%
where:
Lecture - 3-54
QUIZ
Solution
Q1-1
9.3 x 30 000
UDL ' ' 1.395 x 105 N
2
Q1-2
printed on June 24, 2003
Note: In case of two trucks, the distance between the rear axle of the
leading truck and the front axle of the trailing truck required
to produce maximum effect is 15.0 m.
Work Period #1 - 1
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 2
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 3
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 4
printed on June 24, 2003
Note: In case of two trucks, the distance between the rear axle
of the leading truck and the front axle of the trailing
truck required to produce maximum effect is 30.1 m.
Work Period #1 - 5
printed on June 24, 2003
Note: In case of two trucks, the distance between the rear axle of the
leading truck and the front axle of the trailing truck required
to produce maximum effect is 15.0 m.
Work Period #1 - 6
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 7
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 8
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 9
printed on June 24, 2003
DIST EI
0.00 1.00
43.00 1.00
DIST EI
0.00 1.00
43.00 1.00
Work Period #1 - 10
printed on June 24, 2003
-79
2 17.20 2292 4390 -869 -1692 209 383 -73
-127
2 21.50 2524 4924 -724 -1410 168 311 -107
-183
2 25.80 2591 5010 -579 -1128 125 240 -143
-247
2 30.10 2430 4600 -435 -846 80 172 -183
-318
2 34.40 1941 3670 -290 -564 46 107 -226
-397
2 38.70 1160 2147 -145 -282 34 68 -270
-482
2 43.00 0 0 0 0 34 66 -315
-573
Work Period #1 - 11
printed on June 24, 2003
DIST EI
0.00 1.00
43.00 1.00
DIST EI
0.00 1.00
43.00 1.00
M O M E N T - kN-m S H E A R -
kN
SPAN X-IL +T +L -T -L +T +L -T
-L
1 0.00 0 0 0 0 294 292 -30
-36
1 4.30 1094 972 -130 -140 254 240 -30
-42
1 8.60 1853 1687 -260 -279 215 193 -53
-64
1 12.90 2302 2146 -389 -420 178 151 -93
-90
1 17.20 2495 2356 -519 -560 142 114 -130
-120
1 21.50 2446 2324 -649 -700 109 83 -167
-155
1 25.80 2192 2059 -780 -839 78 57 -201
-192
1 30.10 1733 1574 -908 -980 50 36 -233
-233
1 34.40 1118 880 -1039 -1120 27 20 -262
-276
1 38.70 426 287 -1169 -1677 11 8 -286
-321
1 43.00 0 0 -1299 -2798 0 0 -308
-366
Work Period #1 - 12
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 13
printed on June 24, 2003
DIST EI
0.00 1.00
43.00 1.00
DIST EI
0.00 1.00
43.00 1.00
Work Period #1 - 14
printed on June 24, 2003
Work Period #1 - 15
printed on June 24, 2003
MOMENT SHEAR
SPAN X-IL +STREN -STREN +STREN -STREN
1 0.00 1.609 1.528
1 4.30 1.624 1.700 1.559 1.381
1 8.60 1.643 1.706 1.507 1.391
1 12.90 1.660 1.699 1.449 1.566
1 17.20 1.671 1.702 1.401 1.633
1 21.50 1.675 1.702 1.349 1.645
1 25.80 1.665 1.703 1.295 1.640
1 30.10 1.627 1.701 1.260 1.617
1 34.40 1.485 1.818 1.185 1.593
1 38.70 1.289 1.566 1.091 1.563
1 43.00 1.528 1.534
Work Period #1 - 16