Cjce 2020 0573

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Evolution of Bridge Live Load Models and Truck Weight

Limits:The Case of Manitoba, Canada
Journal: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Manuscript ID cjce-2020-0573.R2
Manuscript Type: Technical Note
Date Submitted by the

11-Aug-2021
Author:
Complete List of Authors: Pushka, Amanda; University of Manitoba

Regehr, Jonathan; University of Manitoba
Mufti, Aftab; Structural Innovation and Monitoring Technologies Resource
Centre
Algohi, Basheer; Structural Innovation and Monitoring Technologies
Dr
Resource Centre
Fiorillo, Graziano; University of Manitoba, Civil Engineering
truck, bridge, live load model, truck load, truck size and weight
Keyword:
aft
regulations
Is the invited manuscript for

consideration in a Special Not applicable (regular submission)
Issue? :
© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

Page 1 of 27 Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
1 Evolution of Bridge Live Load Models and Truck Weight Limits:
2 The Case of Manitoba, Canada
4 Amanda Pushkaa, Jonathan D. Regehrb, Aftab Muftic, Basheer Algohid, Graziano Fiorilloe
5 a University of Manitoba
6 E1-327 EITC, 15 Gillson St, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V6 Canada
7 pushkaa@myumanitoba.ca
8 bUniversity of Manitoba
10 jonathan.regehr@umanitoba.ca
11 c Structural Innovation and Monitoring Technologies Resource Centre (SIMTReC)
12 96 Dafoe Rd, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 Canada

Dr
13 aftab.mufti@umanitoba.ca
14 d Structural Innovation and Monitoring Technologies Resource Centre (SIMTReC)

aft
15 96 Dafoe Rd, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 Canada
16 basheer.algohi@umanitoba.ca
17 e University of Manitoba
19 graziano.fiorillo@umanitoba.ca
20
21
22 Corresponding Author: Jonathan D. Regehr
24 Tel: 204-474-8779
25 jonathan.regehr@umanitoba.ca
26
27
1
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering Page 2 of 27
29 Abstract:
30
31 Truck size and weight regulations have been a key instrument used to improve trucking
32 productivity, safety, and operational performance in Canada. In response to these changes,
33 bridge design codes undergo modifications to envelop the potential range of trucks in operation.
34 A five-decade timeline is presented: (1) to document how bridge codes and their live load
35 models have evolved, with a focus on the Manitoba-specific HSS-25 truck, and (2) to discuss
36 how responsive bridge design codes have historically been to changes in truck size and weight
37 regulations. While at times bridge codes are released in conjunction with expected regulation
38 changes, there is often delay in the issuance of revised bridge design and evaluation codes.
39 Assessments of the current truck fleet, which now includes long combination vehicles (LCVs),
40 may be a consideration for future bridge design live load models.

Dr
41
aft
42 Key Words: truck, bridge, live load model, truck load, truck size and weight regulations
2
43 1. Introduction
44 The trucking industry in Canada has evolved over the past several decades, responding to
45 growth and changes in industry demands and societal needs for improved productivity, better
46 safety and operational performance, and more stringent emissions control. Since the 1970s,
47 changes in truck size and weight (mass) limits have been a principal regulatory instrument used
48 in Canada (and elsewhere) to achieve these objectives. In Canada, three primary regulatory
49 changes have resulted in increases to the allowable size and weight of trucks over the past five
50 decades: (1) federally-sponsored highway strengthening programs initiated in the 1970s, (2) the
51 1988 Roads and Transportation Association of Canada Memorandum of Understanding on
52 Interprovincial Weights and Dimensions (RTAC MoU), and (3) regional policies regarding
53 special permitting of longer combination vehicles (LCVs) (Regehr et al. 2009; Pushka and
54 Regehr 2021). These regulatory limits not only control the types and operating weights of truck
Dr
55 configurations on highways, but also influence live load design parameters for current and future
aft
56 bridge infrastructure.
57
58 North American highway bridge design codes have evolved in recognition of the need to
59 develop live load models that envelop the range of trucks operating on the highway network,
60 several of which are depicted in Table 1. While this relationship appears self-evident, it has
61 historically been challenging for jurisdictions to establish, especially because bridge code
62 authors are typically not directly involved in administering truck size and weight limits (Csagoly
63 and Dorton 1978). From the 1970s to 1990s, research into highway bridge design code
64 development and calibration was ongoing in North America, as historic codes such as the
65 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges looked to implement load and resistance
66 factor design (LRFD) methods. The Province of Ontario led these efforts through their
67 development of load and resistance parameter statistical databases and subsequent publication
68 of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC) in 1979. Leveraging this work and other
3
69 research conducted during this time, AASHTO also developed and calibrated a LRFD bridge
70 code, with the first edition released in 1994. Shortly after this in 2000, the first edition of the
71 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) was published, merging OHBDC with the
72 previous Canadian CSA-S6 Code.
73
74 The province of Manitoba, like its western provincial and territorial counterparts, has
75 experienced three primary truck size and weight policy changes: (1) the 1974 Western
76 Canadian Highway Strengthening Program (WCHSP) and its derivatives, (2) the 1988 RTAC
77 MoU, (3) and the initiation and subsequent expansion of LCV permitting (Regehr et al. 2009;
78 Wood and Regehr 2017; Pushka and Regehr 2021). In addition to these primary changes, the
79 province has implemented modifications to the allowable gross vehicle weight (GVW) on
80 specified portions of its highway network. From a bridge perspective, the province of Manitoba
Dr
81 is unique in the sense that it is influenced by both the AASHTO design code and CHBDC, as
aft
82 Manitoba Infrastructure (MI) requires new provincial highway bridge designs to be completed in
83 accordance with AASHTO (with modifications), and the City of Winnipeg, like most other
84 Canadian jurisdictions, designs and evaluates existing bridges using CHBDC. MI has also
85 introduced their own design vehicle, the HSS-25, which is a configuration that must be
86 considered alongside AASHTO live loadings for the design of Manitoba provincial highway
87 bridges.
88
89 This technical note describes the evolution of highway bridge design live load models over the
90 past five decades, focusing specifically on the case of Manitoba, Canada. The note presents
91 this evolution within the context of major truck size and weight policy changes over the same
92 period. In doing so, this note addresses the following two questions: How have design trucks
93 and lane loads evolved over the past five decades in Canada—specifically in Manitoba? How
94 responsive have bridge design codes been to changes in truck size and weight policy?
4
95 2. Truck Size and Weight Limits and the Evolution of Bridge Live Load Models: 1974 –
96 Current
97 This section presents a timeline of the evolution of highway bridge live load models within the
98 context of truck size and weight regulatory changes, as depicted in Figure 1. Four bridge design
99 codes are integral to this discussion: The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC), the
100 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard
101 Specifications for Highway Bridges and LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, the Canadian
102 Standard Association Design of Highway Bridges (CSA S6) and the Canadian Highway Bridge
103 Design Code (CHBDC). Editions of these codes from 1970 to current will be introduced in this
104 section.
105
106 In general, this section serves as an introduction to the development of the live load models by
Dr
107 presenting the design trucks and lane loads, and is not considered a comprehensive summary
aft
108 of the codes themselves. The development of the AASHTO design specifications and live load
109 models over the past century has already been previously documented (Kulicki and Mertz 2006;
110 Kulicki and Stuffle 2006); therefore, the following summary of the evolution of the highway
111 bridge design live load models primarily focuses on the development of the Canadian codes.
112 Moreover, this section does not address the evolution of the resistance side of the design
113 model, nor does it address load and resistance factors, dynamic load allowance (or impact)
114 effects, the number of design lanes, the impact of multiple loads both longitudinally and
115 transversely (i.e. multiple presence factors), or the distribution of the load to an individual
116 element (i.e. the girder distribution factor), all of which are important considerations for bridge
117 design, code comparison and safety/reliability assessments.
118
5
119 2.1. 1974: S6-1974 Design of Highway Bridges
120 Early editions of the CSA Standard Design of Highway Bridges, including the 1974 edition,
121 specified the AASHTO Standard Specifications design vehicle systems: H loadings and HS
122 loadings. The H loadings consist of a two-axle truck or the corresponding lane load and are
123 designated as HXX, where XX denotes the gross weight of the standard truck in US tons. H
124 loadings were specified in the first edition of the AASHTO (previously AASHO) specification in
125 1931 and the H20 truck is representative of commercial vehicles around the year 1915 (Kulicki
126 and Stuffle 2006).
127
128 The HS loadings consist of a three-axle tractor semi-trailer truck or the corresponding lane load
129 and were introduced in the 1944 AASHTO Standard Specifications. This loading did not
130 represent any particular truck, although its configuration was representative of a commonly used
Dr
131 group of vehicles, five-axle semitrailers (3-S2s) (Kulicki and Mertz, 2006). Again, the HSXX
aft
132 designation is used, where XX indicates the gross weight in tons of the tractor. The limits of the
133 axles appear to have been based on the 1956 U.S Congress limits, which allowed maximum
134 axle weights of 18,000 lbs (80 kN) and 32,000 lbs (142 kN) for single and tandem axles
135 respectively, unless larger loads were previously grandfathered in (Kulicki and Mertz 2006).
136
137 The variable trailer axle on the HS loading was introduced to better approximate truck trailers in
138 use and allowed for flexibility in placement of the axle loadings to produce the maximum
139 negative moment on a continuous span. Lane loads, expressed as a uniformly distributed load
140 (UDL), were also included in the design code to account for multiple truck loading on the
141 structure at a given time. The bridge was to be designed to the worst case loading between the
142 truck and lane loading. Although the S6-1974 code was open to engineering judgement,
143 highway bridge designs typically accommodated the H20 and HS20 trucks, as shown in Figure
144 S1 (CSA 1974).
6
145
146 2.2. 1974: Western Canada Highway Strengthening Program and Subsequent Derivatives
147 The 1974 WCHSP enabled the Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) to use
148 federal funds to strengthen pavements and bridges provided that those provinces increased
149 size and weight limits on a primary road network. This, in part, responded to industry and
150 societal demands to make trucking more competitive with rail by reducing the cost of long hauls
151 (Regehr et al. 2009). As a result of the program, the Prairie Provinces replaced the
152 single/tandem/gross vehicle weights of 8,200/14,600/33,600 kg (80/143/330 kN) with
153 9,100/16,000/50,000 kg (89/157/490 kN) on primary highways. These changes impacted the 3-
154 S2 configuration and facilitated operation of six- or seven-axle double trailers (Regehr et al.
155 2009; Pushka and Regehr 2021). The new allowable tandem weight limit now exceeded the
156 unfactored HS20 design tandem axle weight.

Dr
157
aft
158 In 1982, further weight increases occurred on both primary and secondary highways. These
159 increases affected seven-axle double trailers and eight-axle A and C-doubles by allowing them
160 to operate at a GVW up to 56,500 kg (554 kN) in Manitoba (Regehr et al. 2009).
161
162 2.3. 1978: CAN3-S6-M78 Design of Highway Bridges
163 In 1978, a revised Design of Highway Bridges code was released by CSA, which provided the
164 design loads in metric and introduced a slightly modified design truck and lane loading. The
165 release of the metric code was likely influenced by the Canadian construction industry’s target
166 year of 1978 for conversion to metric (Csagoly and Dorton 1978). The code specified that the
167 highway live loading shall consist of an appropriate design vehicle, axle configuration and
168 loading based on an analysis of actual vehicles and expected traffic situations (CSA 1978). But
169 as an alternative to this, the metric conversion from US ton to tonne (MS loading), was
7
170 introduced. The MS loading consists of a truck and lane load and could be used for the design
171 of ordinary bridges. The axle spacings of this truck were similar to those of the previous HS20
172 model, but the axle weights and lane load UDL were increased for the MS200 and MS250,
173 which were the loadings typically used, partially due to rounding after the metric conversion, as
174 shown in Figure S2. It is unclear whether the increased axle weights of the new design truck
175 were related to the allowable truck weight increases in 1974; however, the new unfactored
176 bridge design tandem axle weights for the MS200 and MS250 were now comparable to or
177 greater than the loads specified in the WCHSP.
178
179 2.4. 1979 - 1983: Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code 1st and 2nd Editions
180 Prior to 1979, the Province of Ontario used the standard HS live load model (Figure S1)
181 provided in AASHTO for the design of bridges, despite truck weight limit increases in 1971 that
Dr
182 permitted trucks to operate at a maximum weight of 623 kN following the Ontario Bridge
aft
183 Formula (Harman and Davenport 1979). Research in the 1970s focused on the development of
184 a new LRFD code that used a live load model based on vehicle observations gathered from an
185 extensive truck weight survey conducted in Ontario from 1967 to 1975 (Agarwal and Cheung
186 1987).
187
188 Using the survey results and a uniformly distributed load on an "equivalent base length" as a
189 model for spans less than 25 m, the initial OHBD Truck configuration was developed, producing
190 design loadings unlike the previous AASHTO model (Csagoly and Dorton 1978). This new live
191 load model represented the maximum observed truck loads, including overloaded vehicles that
192 exceeded the legal weight limits (Agarwal and Cheung 1987; Harman and Davenport 1979).
193 The calibration was completed by selecting load and resistance factors and conducting a
194 reliability analysis to achieve a target reliability index of  = 3.5, followed by design checks to
8
195 compare bridges designed according to the previous AASHTO loadings (using working stress
196 design) to those designed using the new OHBDC and live load model (Csagoly and Dorton
197 1987). The target reliability index of 3.5 was originally selected based on typical structural safety
198 values considered acceptable for building design. This target value was confirmed by
199 conducting a reliability analysis of 11 representative existing structures in Ontario designed to
200 the current AASHTO code, which had an average reliability index value of around 3.5. The
201 OHBD Truck developed for the first edition of OHBDC idealized axle weights and spacings so
202 did not represent any particular truck, although its configuration resembled a simplified version
203 of double-trailer configurations (Csagoly and Dorton 1978).
204
205 During the initial development of OHBDC it was acknowledged that a complete set of statistical
206 data was unavailable and modifications to the code and calibration would be required in future
Dr
207 editions (Csagoly and Dorton 1978). The first edition of OHBDC was issued in 1979, was written
aft
208 in SI units, and was the state-of-the-art for LRFD bridge codes in North America.
209
210 After four years of experience in applying the code, it underwent revisions, clarifications and
211 simplifications, leveraging additional research findings for the second edition in 1983. This work
212 included dynamic testing programs to modify provisions in the code, studies to develop design
213 provisions for wood bridges, and simplification of the methods of analysis and required number
214 of load combinations (Dorton 1984). A limited vehicle survey conducted in 1979 indicated that
215 the design vehicle, the OHBD Truck and lane load, still represented the truck population and
216 consequently, the live load model did not change between the editions (Dorton and Bakht
217 1974), but the load and resistance factors were recalibrated during this time (Nowak and
218 Agarwal 1981). The live load models are included in Figure S3 (MTO 1979; MTO 1983).
219
9
220 2.5. 1988: CAN/CSA S6-88 Design of Highway Bridges
221 In 1980, the CSA-S6 Code committee commenced a review of the 1978 live load model, taking
222 into consideration the changes in legal weight limits and configuration of trucks that were
223 currently operating on the Canadian interprovincial highway network. Following this review, it
224 was identified that neither the CSA S6-78 MS200 loading model nor the AASHTO HS20 loading
225 reflected the loads imposed by current-day trucks (Agarwal and Cheung 1987).
226
227 At this time, there was a proposal by the Council of Ministers to further increase the legal load
228 limit across Canada and create uniformity in truck regulatory limits, understanding that previous
229 studies had established that bridge capacity could allow for legal weight increases (Agarwal and
230 Cheung 1987; Roads and Transportation Association of Canada 1980). In accordance with the
231 expected increases, the unfactored CS-loading model was developed to be slightly heavier than
Dr
232 the recommended weight limits and the model was then calibrated to meet the expected
aft
233 reliability index of  = 3.5 using truck weight and configuration data that was collected across
234 the country. The target reliability index of 3.5 was adopted because it reflected a widely
235 accepted structural safety value that was used to develop OHBDC and other structural design
236 codes (Agarwal and Cheung 1987). Although the OHBD live load model was found to perform
237 well compared to the observed truck load effects, this model was not considered for the CSA
238 code because it was based on maximum observed loads, including operational overloads,
239 which were instead desired by the code committee to be accounted for with a live load factor
240 (Agarwal and Cheung 1987). Additional details on the development of this live load model are
241 outlined by Agarwal and Cheung (1987). The CS-600 live load model, as shown in Figure S4,
242 was specified as the new standard design live load, resulting in a live load model significantly
243 different than the previous CSA design codes (CSA 1988).
244
10
245 2.6. 1988: Roads and Transportation Association of Canada Memorandum of Understanding
246 on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions and Subsequent Derivatives
247 As an extension of the previously proposed Council of Ministers’ loading, a Vehicle Weights and
248 Dimensions Study was conducted to develop preferred vehicle weights, dimensions, and
249 configurations that could be used on major highways across Canada (Roads and Transportation
250 Association of Canada 1986). The technical study analyzed and ultimately recommended
251 implementation of a tridem axle group, which was previously not recognized in the Prairie
252 Provinces (Woodrooffe et al. 2010). Based on this study, a memorandum of understanding (i.e.,
253 the RTAC MoU) was signed nationally in 1988 for the purposes of creating national uniformity
254 and facilitating interprovincial movement of freight in Canada—purposes driven in part by
255 industry calls to use regulatory harmonization as a means to improve regional and national truck
256 productivity.
Dr
257
aft
258 A significant outcome of the MoU was the widespread implementation of the eight-axle B-double
259 (3-S3-S2 configuration), which due to its superior dynamic performance characteristics was
260 given a weight advantage over other double-trailer configurations making it suitable for hauling
261 high density, weigh-out commodities (Regehr et al. 2009; Pushka and Regehr 2021). Since the
262 original signing, the RTAC MoU has undergone nine amendments with modifications to the
263 allowable axle weight and dimension limits, one example being the increase of semitrailer
264 lengths from 14.65 m (48 ft) to 16.2 m (53 ft) in 1994 (Council of Ministers of Transportation and
265 Highway Safety 2019). Figure S5 illustrates the critical vehicle configurations that resulted from
266 the RTAC MoU: 5-axle tractor semitrailers (3-S2s), 6-axle tractor semitrailers (3-S3s), and 8-
267 axle B-doubles (3-S3-S2).
268
269 In Manitoba, as of June 2011, regulations under the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act were
270 amended to allow a 1,000 kg (9.8 kN) increase to the allowable GVW on specified RTAC routes,
11
271 including the entire Trans-Canada Highway in Manitoba. Prior to 2011, Manitoba was the only
272 province in Canada that had not increased the B-double GVW limit from 62,500 kg (613 kN) (as
273 originally specified in the RTAC MoU) to 63,500 kg (623 kN) (Pushka and Regehr 2021).
274
275 2.7. 1991: Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code 3rd Edition
276 The RTAC MoU truck weight regulations developed a minimum standard for highways carrying
277 inter-provincial traffic but understood that individual provinces may implement modifications to
278 exceed these limits. This was the case in Ontario, which unlike Manitoba and many other
279 provinces, had implemented its own truck size and weight regulations allowing trucks to operate
280 up to a maximum GVW of 623 kN (63,500 kg) as early as the 1970s (Harman and Davenport
281 1979). As a result, Ontario truck operating loads were not meaningfully influenced by the
282 regulation change and the third edition of the OHBDC, and the corresponding live load model,
Dr
283 did not undergo modifications in direct response to the RTAC MoU.
aft
284 In preparation for the third edition of OHBDC, a study was done to verify the load and resistance
285 factors that were specified in the previous edition following further research in the material
286 resistance models and dynamic loading. Additional structure types, including reinforced
287 concrete T-beams, were also considered in this study. Similar to the previous editions, the live
288 load model still referenced the 1975 truck survey dataset with the maximum 50-year load
289 determined from extrapolation.
290 Following the reliability analysis of representative bridge types, including reinforced concrete T
291 beams, designed to OHBDC 1983, shorter bridge spans less than 40 m were found to have a
292 reduced reliability index (Nowak and Grouni 1994). To compensate for this, the design truck
293 tandem axle was recommended to be increased from 140 kN to 160 kN in the 1991 edition, as
294 shown in the Figure S6 live load models (Nowak and Grouni 1994; MTO 1991). Calibration was
12
295 performed for the new load model and dynamic loading provisions and the material resistance
296 factors were revised in order to meet the design reliability index of  = 3.5.
297
298 2.8. 1994: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 1st Edition
299 As AASHTO transitioned from working stress design and load factor design (LFD) to load and
300 resistance factor design (LRFD) for the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, a new live
301 load model was developed, beginning with consideration of regulatory and operational issues
302 throughout the United States Interstate Highway System (Kulicki and Stuffle 2006). The
303 regulatory environment was complex, allowing a variety of state legal loads, unanalyzed permit
304 loads, and grandfather provisions with weight limits governed by the federal bridge formula
305 (Kulicki and Mertz 2006). Grandfather rights allowed vehicles with heavier weights and modified
306 axle spacings to operate beyond the legal limits, provided such operation was legal in the state
Dr
307 prior to 1956 (Kulicki and Stuffle 2006). Over time, it became increasingly apparent that the
aft
308 HS20 live load model from 1944 did not represent the vehicles currently in operation.
309
310 A preliminary analysis was conducted to compare the moment and shear load effects of several
311 existing truck configurations and new legal load proposals presented in the 1990 Transportation
312 Research Board Special Report 225 to the current HS20 design load for various span lengths
313 (Kulicki and Mertz 2006; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 1990). Of
314 the proposed families of configurations, analysis showed that the exclusion vehicles that
315 represented grandfathered loads currently used in several states produced the most severe
316 load effects and were therefore selected as the basis for developing the new national design
317 load (Kulicki and Mertz 2006).
318
13
319 Following the preliminary assessment, additional candidate live loads were proposed and
320 compared to the family of exclusion vehicles and throughout this process, the HL-93 design
321 loading, which includes the HS20 truck or a tandem load combined with a uniform distributed
322 lane load (UDL), was developed, analyzed and calibrated based on an extrapolated version of
323 the 1975 Ontario truck survey database. The tandem (military) loading was developed to
324 account for more severe loading due to overweight single axles or axle groups on short spans.
325 Figure S7 presents the HL-93 load models. Similar to previous codes, a target reliability index
326 value of 3.5 was selected because it was an average reliability index value observed on
327 approximately 200 representative bridges in the United States built before the adoption of
328 reliability-based standards, determined by performing a reliability analysis on the main structural
329 members (Nowak 1999).
330
Dr
331 Other papers have documented the evolution of AASHTO Standard Specifications and the
aft
332 development of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and may be referenced for
333 additional detail (Kulicki and Mertz 2006; Kulicki and Stuffle 2006). Despite the release of the
334 LRFD code in 1994, the LFD code was still updated, and the latest edition of the Standard
335 Specifications was issued in 2002 (AASHTO 2002).
336
337 2.9. 2000: CAN/CSA-S6-00 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code 1st Edition
338 In the 1990s, two Canadian-developed design codes were used for the design of highway
339 bridges, OHBDC and CSA-S6. Both codes followed LRFD philosophy but had some differences
340 in their approach to reliability analysis and calibration and were based on different truck size and
341 weight regulatory environments. The development of the first edition of CHBDC started in 1992,
342 expanding and adapting these two previous codes.
343
14
344 Considering the nationwide truck size and weight limits of the RTAC MoU, the new CL-W Truck
345 live load configuration was created based on the B-double configuration, with the CL-625 model
346 specified as the minimum standard for bridges across the nation. Figure S8 shows the CL-625
347 and the associated lane load. Although the unfactored GVW of the CL-625 is representative of
348 the maximum legal limit used for B-doubles on a specified highway network (i.e., 63,500 kg), the
349 axle distributions are different, and the model includes an overweight truck drive tandem axle
350 heavier than the allowable limit and a heavy single axle instead of the tridem axle. These
351 modifications were made to help reduce structural analysis computational effort, while providing
352 a uniform reliability for all ranges of span lengths (especially short spans) and accounting for the
353 fact that individual axles can be overloaded by as much as 100% of the allowable limit (CSA
354 2019).
355
Dr
356 To confirm consistency within the code and meet the accepted level of safety for the 75-year
aft
357 design life, the code was calibrated by performing a series of design checks and completing a
358 reliability analysis using truck weight data collected in five Canadian provinces prior to the
359 publication of the first edition of CHBDC in 2000. The lifetime target value of the reliability index
360 was maintained as 3.5, consistent with OHBDC and previous structural codes (CSA 2019).
361
362 2.10. 2011: Manitoba Infrastructure Water Control & Structures Design Manual
363 Unlike most other Canadian provinces and the territories, Manitoba Infrastructure (MI) does not
364 design its provincial highway bridges in accordance with CHBDC and instead follows the
365 AASHTO LRFD code with an amended Structures Design Manual that was formally issued in
366 2011 (Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation 2011). This manual provides guidance for the
367 design and construction of bridges throughout the provincial network and specifies the use of
368 the following three live load models for design: Modified AASHTO MSS 22.5 (HSS-25) Truck,
369 AASHTO MS 27 (HS 30) Lane Load, and the AASHTO LRFD HL-93 model. As before, note that
15
370 the MS loading nomenclature is simply the metric conversion from US ton to tonne. The HSS-25
371 truck is shown in Figure S9.
372
373 Based on correspondence with MI department engineers, the Modified HSS-25 loading model
374 was originally developed in the mid-1980s by adapting the AASHTO HS20 model, increasing it
375 by 1.25 times (i.e., 25/20) and adding an additional trailer with the same inter-axle spacing (A
376 Pankratz, personal communication, 2020). This model is not used in conjunction with a lane
377 load. Use of this model for design has been found by MI to be beneficial when evaluating
378 existing structures for permit and overload vehicles (A Pankratz, personal communication,
379 2020). Despite this practical value, there may be a need to formally evaluate the
380 representativeness of this live loading model to Manitoba traffic, to verify the calibration of the
381 new load model with the provided load and resistance factors specified in AASHTO, and to
Dr
382 compare the HSS-25 model with previously established CHBDC or AASHTO models with
aft
383 design checks. A study previously conducted in Manitoba used a rational method and observed
384 truck traffic to determine a Manitoba-specific CL-W (CL-555) design live load in accordance with
385 CHBDC (Algohi et al. 2019).
386
387 2.11. Ongoing Permitting of Longer Combination Vehicles
388 LCVs are truck configurations consisting of a tractor and two or three trailers or semi-trailers that
389 exceed basic vehicle length limits but remain in compliance with the GVW limits identified in the
390 RTAC MoU for vehicles with eight or more axles (Wood and Regehr 2017). Provinces issue
391 special permits to carriers to utilize these vehicles primarily because of the productivity
392 increases they offer when hauling low-density commodities. In the Prairie Provinces, LCV
393 operations occur on the divided highway network and specified portions of the undivided
394 highway network. In 2008, the completion of the divided highway network in those provinces
395 allowed for uninterrupted operation of LCVs between major urban centers, resulting in more
16
396 effective use of these vehicles (Wood and Regehr 2017). A 2012 agreement between the
397 governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba established standards
398 to support a consistent regulatory framework for regional LCV operations. Specifically, this
399 agreement enabled A-, B-, and C-coupled turnpike double (3-S2-4) configurations to operate at
400 a 63,500 kg (623 kN) GVW limit on a specified road network (Wood and Regehr 2017).
401 Coincident with these policy changes, LCV use increased and represented 10% of the
402 articulated truck fleet in Manitoba in 2013 (Wood and Regehr 2017).
403
404 Although LCVs are not operating at heavier weights than B-Doubles, the configurations are
405 longer, which potentially introduces different loading conditions to bridges for negative moment
406 ultimate limit states and fatigue serviceability limit states than the typical RTAC truck fleet does.
407 Considering the unique loading conditions and the fact that the level of use of LCVs has
Dr
408 increased substantively over the past 15 years (Wood and Regehr 2017), bridge live load
aft
409 models in Canada may require assessment in response to modifications in LCV truck size and
410 weight policies over the past decade.
411
412 2.12. Current Bridge Design Codes
413 The current bridge design codes in North America are the 2020 AASHTO LRFD 9th Edition and
414 2019 CHBDC 4th Edition (AASHTO 2020; CSA 2019). The live load models have not been
415 changed from the models that were calibrated for the initial releases in 1994 and 2000 (i.e., the
416 HL-93 and the CL-625). In 2007, a study was completed following a request by AASHTO to
417 document and review the assumptions required for the first AASHTO LRFD edition calibration,
418 confirm adequacy of the calibration, and conduct a sensitivity analysis for the load and
419 resistance factors for an expanded suite of bridges nearly 15 years later (Kulicki et al. 2007).
420 Following this study, the parameters used for code calibration were documented and although
421 Monte Carlo simulation was found to be the most robust method for future calibration work, the
17
422 sensitivity analysis returned values in close agreement to the previous calibration results for the
423 revised bridge database. No changes to the AASHTO LRFD design code resulted from this
424 project.
425 3. Concluding Remarks
426 Truck size and weight regulation modifications in Canada have influenced the interprovincial
427 freight operating environment over the last five decades, in part as a response to evolving
428 industry and societal demands. In turn, these modifications have impacted the truck fleet mix,
429 trucking costs and rates, shipment sizes and truck gross vehicle weights (Clayton and Lai 1986;
430 Clayton and Nix 1986; Regehr et al. 2009; Pushka and Regehr 2021). As presented in this
431 article, these policy changes have also influenced modifications to bridge design codes and live
432 load specifications. The evolution of load and resistance factor design live load models in North
Dr
433 America was presented to document how the design truck and lane loads have changed since
434 the 1970s and explain the path that led to the development of the first edition of CHBDC and the
aft
435 CL-625 load model. Manitoba-specific commentary was presented because of the province’s
436 interesting historical regulatory environment, its unique decision to consider both AASHTO and
437 CHBDC design codes, and its specification of a different design vehicle, the HSS-25.
438
439 The relationship between truck size and weight regulations and bridge design codes has
440 historically been complex. Key observations, which collectively address the two research
441 questions raised at the outset of this note, follow:
442  Despite truck size and weight increases in 1974 in the Prairie Provinces, it is unclear
443 whether the subsequent 1978 CSA-S6 design code increased the live load model in
444 response to these changes. However, it was documented in studies in the early 1980s
445 that the MS-200 model did not reflect current-day heavy trucks in Canada, prompting
446 research into a new live load model.
18
447  The Province of Ontario also increased legal truck weight limits in the early 1970s and
448 the OHBDC was published afterwards in 1979, following a detailed truck weight survey
449 and study of observed vehicle load effects in 1975.
450  The weight increases articulated in the 1988 RTAC MoU appeared to have affected
451 provinces and design codes differently depending on the previously allowed weights.
452 Ontario trucks were already operating near this limit and no changes directly related to
453 the RTAC MoU were warranted in the 1991 OHBDC. In contrast, Manitoba truck weight
454 limits were increased significantly following the RTAC MoU; however, the 1988 CSA S6
455 code and similar studies pre-emptively evaluated the effects of the proposed Council of
456 Minister loadings and adjusted the bridge design live load model. The next bridge code
457 was not issued in Canada until CHBDC in 2000 and it presented a new live load model,
458 the CL-625, that was directly related to the RTAC MoU legal loads.
Dr
459  Although the United States truck size and weight regulations have undergone relatively
aft
460 little change over the past five decades, influences of heavy grandfathered vehicles
461 operating on the federal highway network prompted an assessment and revision of the
462 live load model for the release of the AASHTO LRFD code in 1994.
463  Following several policy changes involving LCV operations and the expansion of an
464 effective highway network to enable their widespread use, these unique truck
465 configurations may require future assessments to determine if the current design live
466 load models appropriately envelop the observed load effects.
467  The uncalibrated design load in Manitoba, the HSS-25, uniquely evolved as a way to
468 represent truck loads in the province while enabling the use of AASHTO LRFD code.
469 Despite general satisfaction with this approach, there appears to be a need to formally
470 assess the level of safety of this live load model.
19
471 The historical review of truck size and weight policy and bridge design code modifications
472 reveals instances in which bridge codes clearly and responsively accounted for truck weight
473 policy changes, as well as situations when code modifications lagged regulatory change by
474 several years. While eventual evaluations of these situations have not necessitated major code
475 revisions, the review nevertheless highlights the importance of a collaborative relationship
476 between policy makers and bridge code authors to ensure a consistent level of safety for trucks
477 operating on bridges in North America.
478
479 4. Acknowledgements
480 The financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
481 (NSERC) is gratefully acknowledged.

Dr
aft
20
482 5. References
483 AASHTO. 1994. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. In 1st edition. Washington DC.
484 AASHTO. 2020. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. In 9th edition. Washington DC.
485 AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. In 17th edition. Washington DC.
486 Agarwal, A.C., and Cheung, M.S. 1987. Development of loading-truck model and live-load factor
487 for the Canadian Standards Association CSA-S6 code. Canadian Journal of Civil
488 Engineering, 14(1): 58–67. doi:10.1139/l87-008.
489 Algohi, B., Bakht, B., Khalid, H., Mufti, A., and Regehr, J.D. 2019. Some observations on BWIM
490 data collected in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 47(1): 88–95.
491 doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0389.
492 Clayton, A., and Lai, M. 1986. Characteristics of large truck–trailer combinations operating on
493 Manitoba’s primary highways: 1974–1984. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 13(6):
Dr
494 752–760. doi:10.1139/l86-110.

aft
495 Clayton, A., and Nix, F.P. 1986. Effects of weight and dimension regulations: evidence from
496 Canada. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
497 1061: 42–29.
498 Council of Ministers of Transportation and Highway Safety. 2019. Heavy truck weight and
499 dimension limits for interprovincial operations in Canada. Available from
500 https://www.comt.ca/english/programs/trucking/MOU%202019.pdf [accessed 15 February
501 2020].
502 CSA. 1974. Design of Highway Bridges: CSA S6-1974. CSA Group, Mississauga, Ontario.
503 CSA. 1978. Design of Highway Bridges: CAN3-S6-M78. CSA Group, Mississauga, Ontario.
504 CSA. 1988. Design of Highway Bridges: CAN/CSA-S6-88. CSA Group, Mississauga, Ontario.
505 CSA. 2000. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. In 1st edition. CSA Group, Mississauga,
506 Ontario.
21
507 CSA. 2019. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. In 4th edition. CSA Group, Mississauga,
508 Ontario.
509 Csagoly, P.F., and Dorton, R.A. 1978. The development of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design
510 Code. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Reserch Board 665: 1-
511 12.
512 Dorton, R.A. 1984. The Ontario bridge code—development and implementation. Canadian
513 Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(4): 824–832. doi:10.1139/l84-100.
514 Dorton, R., and Bakht, B. 1984. The Ontario bridge code: second edition. Transportation
515 Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 950: 88-93.
516 Harman, D.J., and Davenport, A.G. 1979. A statistical approach to traffic loading on highway
517 bridges. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 6(4): 494–513. doi:10.1139/l79-063.
518 Kulicki, J., and Mertz, D. 2006. E-C104: Evolution of vehicular live load models during the
Dr
519 interstate design era and beyond. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
aft
520 Kulicki, J., and Stuffle, T. 2006. Final report: Development of AASHTO vehicular live loads.
521 Federal Highway Administration.
522 Kulicki, J., Prucz, Z., Clancy, C., Mertz, D., and Nowak, A. 2007. NCHRP 20-7: Updating the
523 calibration report for AASHTO LRFD code. National Cooperative Highway Research
524 Program. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
525 Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation. 2011. Water control & structures design manual.
526 Available from
527 https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/wms/structures/pdf/manuals/structures_design_manual_version1.
528 pdf [accessed 15 July 2020].
529 Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO). 1979. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code
530 (OHBDC). In 1st edition. Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Downsview,
531 Ontario.
22
532 MTO. 1983. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC). In 2nd edition. Ministry of
533 Transportation and Communications, Downsview, Ontario.
534 MTO. 1991. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC). In 3rd edition. Ontario Ministry of
535 Transportation, Downsview, Ontario.
536 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 1990. Truck weight limits: issues
537 and options - Special Report 225. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
538 doi:10.17226/11349.
539 Nowak, A., and Agarwal, A. 1981. Calibration of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code.
540 Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Downsview, Ontario.
541 Nowak, A., and Grouni, H.N. 1994. Calibration of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code 1991
542 edition. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 21(1): 25–35. doi:10.1139/l94-003.
543 Pushka, A., and Regehr, J.D. 2021. Retrospective longitudinal study of the impact of truck weight
Dr
544 regulatory changes on operating gross vehicle weights. Transportation Research Record:
aft
545 Journal of the Transportation Research Board. doi: 10.1177/0361198121995502.
546 Regehr, J.D., Montufar, J., and Clayton, A. 2009. Lessons learned about the impacts of size and
547 weight regulations on the articulated truck fleet in the Canadian prairie region. Canadian
548 Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(4): 607–616. doi:10.1139/L09-011.
549 Roads and Transportation Association of Canada. 1980. Vehicle Weights and Dimensions –
550 Bridge Capacity Study. Ottawa, Ontario.
551 Roads and Transportation Association of Canada. 1986. Vehicle Weights and Dimension Study
552 Technical Steering Committee Report. Ottawa, Ontario. Available from
553 https://comt.ca/english/programs/trucking/Reports.htm [accessed April 15 2020].
554 Wood, S., and Regehr, J.D. 2017. Regulations governing the operation of longer combination
555 vehicles in Canada. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 44(10): 838–849.
556 doi:10.1139/cjce-2017-0050.
23
557 Woodrooffe, J.H.F., et al. 2010. NCHRP 671: Review of Canadian experience with the regulation
558 of large commercial motor vehicles. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
559 doi:10.17226/14458.
Dr
aft
24
560 6. Tables
561 Table 1: Major articulated truck configuration groups.
Representative truck
Configuration group Axle configurations
configuration
Three-, four-, and five-axle
2-S1, 2-S2, 3-S1, 3-S2 (shown)
tractor semitrailers
Six-axle tractor semitrailers 3-S3
Eight-axle B-double 3-S3-S2
3-S2-4 turnpike double (shown),

Specially permitted LCVs
others
562
Dr
aft
25
563 7. List of Figure Captions
564 Figure 1: Timeline of critical bridge design code changes and regulatory changes 1970 – 2020.
565 Figure S1: Live load models for: (a) standard H20 design truck, (b) standard HS20 design truck,
566 and (c) H and HS lane loadings (CSA 1974).
567 Figure S2: Live load models for: (a) standard MS200 and MS250 design trucks, and (b) lane
568 loadings (CSA 1978).
569 Figure S3: Live load models for: (a) OHBD Truck, and (b) lane loading (MTO 1979; MTO 1983).
570 Figure S4: Live load models for: (a) CS-600 design truck, and (b) lane loading (CSA 1988).
571 Figure S5: Critical vehicle configurations specified in the RTAC MoU.
572 Figure S6: Live load models for: (a) OHBD Truck, and (b) lane loading (MTO 1991).
573 Figure S7: Live load models for: (a) HL-93 standard design truck and lane loading, and (b)
574 design tandem and lane loading (AASHTO 1994).

Dr
575 Figure S8: Live load models for: (a) CL-625 design truck, and (b) lane loading (CSA 2000).
aft
576 Figure S9: Live load model for Modified AASHTO HSS-25 Truck (Manitoba Infrastructure and
577 Transportation 2011).
26
Western Canada Highway Ontario Highway Bridge Design RTAC Memorandum of AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Strengthening Program Code 1st Edition Understanding Design Specifications
1974 1979 1988 1st Edition
Ontario Highway Ontario Highway 1994
S6-1974 Design of CAN3-S6-M78 Design Bridge Design Code CAN/CSA S6-88 Design Bridge Design Code
Highway Bridges of Highway Bridges 2nd Edition of Highway Bridges 3rd Edition
1974 1978 1983 1988 1991
Dr
aft
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
CAN/CSA-S6-00 Canadian Manitoba Infrastructure AASHTO LRFD Bridge

Highway Bridge Design Code Water Control and Design Specifications
1st Edition Structures Design Manual Current (9th) Edition
2000 2011 2020
AAHSTO Standard Specifications LCVs become effective after Western Canada LCV CSA S6:19 Canadian
for Highway Bridges completion of divided Memorandum of Highway Bridge Design Code
Latest (17th) Edition highway network Understanding Current (4th) Edition
2002 2008 2012 2019
Note: For clarity, not all editions of AASHTO and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code are included on the timeline.

Cjce 2020 0573

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cjce 2020 0573

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering

Evolution of Bridge Live Load Models and Truck Weight

Journal: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering

Manuscript Type: Technical Note

Date Submitted by the

Complete List of Authors: Pushka, Amanda; University of Manitoba

Is the invited manuscript for

© The Author(s) or their Institution(s)

1 Evolution of Bridge Live Load Models and Truck Weight Limits:

2 The Case of Manitoba, Canada

6 E1-327 EITC, 15 Gillson St, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V6 Canada

9 E1-310 EITC, 15 Gillson St, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V6 Canada

11 c Structural Innovation and Monitoring Technologies Resource Centre (SIMTReC)

12 96 Dafoe Rd, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 Canada

14 d Structural Innovation and Monitoring Technologies Resource Centre (SIMTReC)

15 96 Dafoe Rd, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2 Canada

18 E1-430 EITC, 15 Gillson St, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V6 Canada

23 E1-310 EITC, 15 Gillson St, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V6 Canada

32 productivity, safety, and operational performance in Canada. In response to these changes,

40 may be a consideration for future bridge design live load models.

51 1988 Roads and Transportation Association of Canada Memorandum of Understanding on

72 previous Canadian CSA-S6 Code.

117 design, code comparison and safety/reliability assessments.

119 2.1. 1974: S6-1974 Design of Highway Bridges

126 and Stuffle 2006).

144 S1 (CSA 1974).

152 single/tandem/gross vehicle weights of 8,200/14,600/33,600 kg (80/143/330 kN) with

156 unfactored HS20 design tandem axle weight.

162 2.3. 1978: CAN3-S6-M78 Design of Highway Bridges

177 greater than the loads specified in the WCHSP.

199 conducting a reliability analysis of 11 representative existing structures in Ontario designed to

203 of double-trailer configurations (Csagoly and Dorton 1978).

220 2.5. 1988: CAN/CSA S6-88 Design of Highway Bridges

246 on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions and Subsequent Derivatives

254 and facilitating interprovincial movement of freight in Canada—purposes driven in part by

267 axle B-doubles (3-S3-S2).

289 determined from extrapolation.

317 load (Kulicki and Mertz 2006).

329 members (Nowak 1999).

335 Specifications was issued in 2002 (AASHTO 2002).

342 expanding and adapting these two previous codes.

371 truck is shown in Figure S9.

385 CHBDC (Algohi et al. 2019).

387 2.11. Ongoing Permitting of Longer Combination Vehicles

410 weight policies over the past decade.

412 2.12. Current Bridge Design Codes

425 3. Concluding Remarks

441 questions raised at the outset of this note, follow:

446 research into a new live load model.

449 and study of observed vehicle load effects in 1975.

466 load models appropriately envelop the observed load effects.

470 assess the level of safety of this live load model.

477 operating on bridges in North America.

481 (NSERC) is gratefully acknowledged.

488 Engineering, 14(1): 58–67. doi:10.1139/l87-008.

494 752–760. doi:10.1139/l86-110.

497 1061: 42–29.

499 dimension limits for interprovincial operations in Canada. Available from

500 https://www.comt.ca/english/programs/trucking/MOU%202019.pdf [accessed 15 February

513 Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(4): 824–832. doi:10.1139/l84-100.

517 bridges. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 6(4): 494–513. doi:10.1139/l79-063.

521 Federal Highway Administration.

524 Program. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.