International Journal of Steel Structures Online ISSN 2093-6311

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-020-00426-1 Print ISSN 1598-2351

A Study on Live Load Deflection Criteria of Long‑Span Steel Bridges

Ki‑Jung Park1 · Do‑Young Kim2 · Eui‑Seung Hwang2

Received: 29 January 2020 / Accepted: 15 October 2020

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2020

Abstract
Under-clearance of bridges is one of the major considerations when planning and designing bridges. Especially for sea-
crossing bridges, under-clearance is more important for safe passage of ships. Long span cable bridges with steel orthotropic
deck usually show relatively large deflections and excessive deflections may be not only disadvantageous to the clearance
plan, but also a problem in bridge serviceability. The clearance of sea-crossing bridge is designed with air draft from the
waterline to top of mast, ship’s trim, psychological free space, sea level, height of wave and bridge deflection by live loads.
At design stage, bridge engineers need a live load deflection limit to ensure adequate clearance. The limitation of live load
deflection is also considered for ensuring the serviceability of vibration of bridges. For vibrational serviceability, the live
load deflection limit is expressed as a ratio to the span or the formula by natural frequency. On the other hand, some stand-
ards specify vibration serviceability limit by peak or root-mean-square (RMS) acceleration. The purpose of this study is to
propose new deflection limit criteria for long span steel cable bridges based on analysis and long-term measurement data.
Structural analysis was performed on two steel suspension and three steel cable-stayed bridges with more than 200 m of main
span under design live load model of DL24 and new live load model KL510 in limit state design code. Also, the deflection
limit criterion was evaluated by probabilistic method using the deflection data measured for 1 year. The results of this study
are expected to be useful data for bridge engineers designing long span steel cable bridges.

Keywords Deflection criteria · Live load · Steel long-span bridges · Clearance · Serviceability · Vibration

1 Introduction to the clearance plan, but also a problem in bridge vibration

Under-clearance of bridges is one of the major considera-
tions when planning and designing bridges. Especially for
sea-crossing bridges, under-clearance is more important for
safe passage of ships. Long span cable bridges with steel
orthotropic deck usually show relatively large deflections
and excessive deflections may be not only disadvantageous
* Eui‑Seung Hwang
eshwang@khu.ac.kr
Ki‑Jung Park
kjpark@yooshin.com
Do‑Young Kim
ddang0127@khu.ac.kr
1
Department of Structural Engineering, Yooshin Engineering
Corporation, 8, Yeoksam‑ro 4gil, Gangnam‑gu, Seoul,
Republic of Korea
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Kyung Hee University,
1732, Deogyeong‑daero, Giheung‑gu, Yongin‑si,
Gyeonggi‑do 17104, Republic of Korea
serviceability.
Clearance of sea-crossing bridges are determined con-
sidering the height of the ship master from the surface of
the water, the trim of the ship, the psychological free space,
the tide height, and live load deflection, as shown in Fig. 1.
In case of deflection limits for securing under-clearance,
several criteria have been applied and they are summa-
rized in Table 1. Harbor and Fishing Port Design Crite-
ria (MOF 2014) specified that the deflection of the bridge
should be included when considering the required under-
clearance height. Road Construction Design Manual at
Iksan Regional Construction and Management Adminis-
tration (2013) requires the application of deflection limits
in Korean Bridge Design Code (MLTM 2010), but only
for short-to-medium span bridges. In case of Yi Sun-Shin
Grand Bridge design, 50% of design live load deflection was
considered, same as the case of Great Belt East Bridge in
Denmark. In the Commentary of Korean Highway Bridge
Design Code (Limit State Design)—Cable Bridges (2015),
it is recommended that 40% of design live load deflection

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 1  Clearance of sea-crossing bridge
is used when considering under-clearance of cable bridges.
Bae (2016) calculated the clearance height by dividing the
average sea level and the approximately highest high-water
level (AHHW) for each ship with maintaining the deflection
limit of steel bridges under the Korean Bridge Design Code
(MLTM 2010).
Although design standards for cable-supported bridges
need to provide reasonable limits for deflection limits or
vibration serviceability criteria, current design standards
do not provide adequate limits. In case of short-to-medium
span and conventional type bridges, live load deflection
limits are usually specified as the function of span length
in the codes such as AASHTO LRFD (2014) and Korean
Highway Bridge Design Code (Limit State Design) (MLIT
2015). OHBDC (1983) first introduced the deflection limit
by natural frequency of the bridge. For cable-supported
bridges, Korean Highway Bridge Design Code (MLTM
2010) specifies deflection limits L/400 and L/350 for cable-
stayed bridges and suspension bridges, respectively.
The purpose of this study is to propose new deflec-
tion limit criteria for long span steel cable bridges based
on analysis and long-term measurement data. Structural
analysis was performed on two steel suspension and three
steel cable-stayed bridges with more than 200 m of main
Table 1  Deflection limit criteria for securing under-clearance of bridges
Applications
Harbor and Fishing Port Design Criteria (MOF 2014)
Road Construction Design manual at Iksan Regional Construction and
Management Administration (2013)
Korean Highway Bridge Design Code (Limit State Design)
(MLIT 2015)
Clearance height for the Yi Sun-Shin Grand Bridge
Commentary of Korean Highway Bridge Design Code (Limit State
Design)-Cable Bridge (MLIT 2015)
Bae (2016)
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
span under design live load model of DL24 and new live
load model KL510 in limit state design code (MLIT 2015).
Also, the deflection limit criterion was evaluated by prob-
abilistic method using the deflection data measured for
1 year. The results of this study are expected to be useful
data for bridge engineers designing long span steel cable
bridges.
2 Example Bridges
As shown in Table 2, five cable-supported bridges are
selected for this study. Since deflection criterion is an
alternative way to consider the vibration serviceability
and steel bridges are more vulnerable to vibration than
concrete bridges, cable bridges with steel girder and
orthotropic deck are considered in this study. Exam-
ple bridges are bridge A (suspension type, main span
length = 1545 m), bridge B (suspension type, main span
length = 1150 m), bridge C (cable-stayed type, main span
length = 800 m), bridge D (cable-stayed type, main span
length = 344 m) and bridge E (cable-stayed type, main
span length = 240 m), respectively.
3 Structural Modeling and Analysis
3.1 Structural Modeling of Example Bridges
Structural analysis was carried out to examine deflec-
tion limits for cable stayed bridge and suspension bridge.
Bridge A, B and D are modeled by RM Bridge V8i (Bent-
ley Systems 2010), as shown in Fig. 2a, b, d, respectively.
Bridge C and E are modeled by MIDAS CIVIL 2012 LSD
V300 (2016), as shown in Fig. 2c, e. Structural modeling
information are also in Table 2.
Deflection limits
Consider deflection of the bridge
Ratio of span length
For short-to-medium span bridges
Deflection considering temperature load and vehicle live load (KL-510)
Deflection considering temperature load and 50% of vehicle live load
(DL-24)
Deflection considering temperature load and 40% of vehicle live load
Ratio of span length
Standards: A.H.H.W, average sea level
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 2  Specification and structural modeling of example bridges

Bridge A B C D E

Bridge specification
Type Suspension Suspension Cable stayed Cable stayed Cable stayed
Girder Steel Box, 3-spans Steel Box, 1-span Steel Box, 5-spans Steel Box, 3-spans Steel Box, 3-spans
Main -span (Total) 1545 (2260) 1150 (1150) 800 (1480) 344(484) 240(460)
length (m)
No. of total traffic lanes 4 4 6 2 2
Structural modeling information
No. of nodes 1004 575 1324 145 272
No. of elements 1262 724 1522 220 248
Element types Elastic catenary Elastic catenary Truss element, spring Truss element, spring Truss element, spring
element, spring element, spring element element element
element element

Code (MLTM 2010) and KL-510 model in Korea Bridge

Design Code (Limit State Design) (MLIT 2015). They are
shown in Fig. 3a, b, respectively. In DB24/DL24 model,
design deflections are selected as the larger deflection of
DB24 and DL24. In KL-510 model, design deflections are
selected as the larger deflection of KL-510 standard truck
load only and standard lane load combined with 25% of
standard truck load.

4 Analysis Results and Comparison

From the structural modeling, the maximum deflection at

mid-point of main-span by KL-510 model and natural fre-
quencies of each bridge are calculated. In the case of suspen-
sion bridges, the maximum deflection by live loads usually
occurs near the quarter point. The maximum and mid-point
deflections of the center span for Bridge A and B are shown
in Table 3 and the differences are about 17%. However, the
position requiring the maximum clearance corresponds to
mid-point at the center span since main navigational route
is under the mid-point of the center span. Therefore, deflec-
tions at mid-point of the center span are used in this study.
Calculated deflections and 1st vertical natural frequencies
are summarized in Table 3 and 1st vertical mode shapes are
in Fig. 4. The 1st vertical mode shapes are all symmetric.
Figure 5 shows the relationship between the first natu-
ral frequency of the bridge in the vertical direction and
the main-span length of the example bridges. The relation
between the vertical direction natural frequency and the
Fig. 2  Analysis modeling of example bridges main-span length of the example bridges is shown in Eq. (1)
and the coefficient of determination is 0.971.
3.2 Live Load Model L = 98.167f −1.28 (1)

Live load model for the calculation of deflection of the where L is Main-span length (m), f is 1st vertical natural
bridges includes DB24/DL24 model in Korea Bridge Design frequency (Hz).

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Fig. 3  Live load models

Table 3  Deflection and 1st Bridge Main -span Deflection at mid-point of center span (m) 1st Vertical Natu-
vertical natural frequency length (m) ral Frequency (Hz)
DL24 KL-510

A 1545 3.199 (max 3.877) 2.759 (max 3.310) 0.113

B 1150 2.678 (max 3.204) 2.299 (max 2.922) 0.139
C 800 1.863 1.137 0.221
D 344 0.596 0.426 0.407
E 240 0.302 0.242 0.435

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

5 Long Term Measurement Data Analysis

In this study, long-term deflection data are collected and

analyzed. For three example bridges (A, D, E), the GNSS
monitoring systems were installed as the part of structural
health monitoring system. The analytical results obtained
in the previous section and the deflection limit criteria are
compared with the measurement results.

5.1 Measured Live Load Deflections

The deflection data is extracted from the GNSS data meas-

ured for 10 min. Deflections are caused by the vehicles as
well as external factors such as wind and temperatures. To
minimize those effects, a base value must be determined.
If the GNSS vertical coordinates remain constant before
vehicle passage, this value shall be used as a base value.
However, if the flat area cannot be found before live load
deflection occurs, the arithmetic means of the 10-min data
(6000 values/10 min) can be used (Park and Hwang 2016).
Figure 6 shows typical measured data for 10 min. The arith-
metic mean of the 10-min data is set to zero then the maxi-
mum deflection for 10 min is determined.

5.2 Probability Distributions and Analysis

Figure 7 shows the histograms and probability distributions

of the 10-min maximum deflection values of Bridge A, D
Fig. 4  1st vertical mode shape of example bridges
and E. Eurocode (CEN 2001) specifies the probability dis-
tribution function for different reference periods as shown
1800 in Eq. (2). As shown in Table 4, target reliability indices
1600 of serviceability limit state are 2.9 for 1 year and 1.5 for
1545
y = 98.167x-1.28 50 years. In ISO 2394(ISO 1998), the target reliability indi-
1400 R² = 0.971
ces for serviceability limit state are 0 for the reversible case
Main-Sapn Length(m)

1200
1150 and 1.5 in the irreversible case and design working life is
1000 given as shown in Table 5. In this study, the target reliability
index and design working life is set to 1.5 and 100 years.
800 800

600

400
344
200 240

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1st Vertical Natural Frequency(Hz)

Fig. 5  Relationship between 1st natural frequency and main-span

length

Fig. 6  Typical 10-min deflection data (Park and Hwang 2016)

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 5  Design working life of ISO 2394(ISO 1998)

Design working Indicative design Examples
life category working life (years)

1 1–5 Temporary structures

2 25 Replaceable structural parts
3 50 Building structures and
other common structures
4 100 or more Monumental buildings,
important structures,
large bridges

6 Deflection Limit Criterion Proposal

6.1 Proposed Criterion

The analysis results are compared with approximated

Fig. 7  Histograms and probability distributions for deflection data
data distributions
Table 4  Reliability index of Eurocode (CEN 2001)
Division
Ultimate limit state
Fatigue limit state
Serviceability limit state
OHBDC deflection limit (Barker et al. 2011), Saadegh-
vaziri’s equation (Saadeghvaziri et al. 2012), KDBC (2010)
deflection limit, as shown Fig. 8. It is the fact that the deflec-
tions corresponding to the target reliability index (β = 1.5)
for irreversible serviceability limit state considering bridge
life-time (100 years) have similar values to the deflection
calculated from 40% of the KL-510 load model. Also, from
the study by Park et al. (2004), it was concluded that the live
load effects are only about 25% in vertical displacement and
12% in girder strain compared to design values, based on
long-term measurement data in a cable-stayed bridge with
the main span length of 470 m. Consequently, it is recom-
mended that cable-supported bridge deflection is calculated
from 40% of the KL-510 load model and deflection limit is
proposed as shown Fig. 9 and Eq. (3). The proposed crite-
rion is to use L/800 instead of L/350 or L/400. Equation (3)
is converted to the expression for the natural frequency
instead of the expression for span length. Other criteria are
too large to be applied to bridges in low frequency bands.
Target reliability index
L 98.167f −1.28
1 year 50 years 𝛿limit = = = 0.1227f −1.28 (3)
800 800
4.7 3.8 where 𝛿limit is the limit of live load deflection (m), f is 1st
– 1.5–3.8 vertical natural frequency (Hz).
2.9 1.5

( ) [ ( )]n 6.2 Application of the Deflection Limit Criterion

𝛷 𝛽n = 𝛷 𝛽1
where is 𝛽n is the reliability index for a reference period of n
years, and 𝛽1 is the reliability index for 1 year.
Statistical analysis is performed to estimate values corre-
sponding to the target reliability index and results are shown
in Table 6. For all example bridges, estimated deflections are
far less than design values, about 40% of design deflection
by DL24.
(2) Proposal
As shown in Fig. 9, Prototype suspension bridges is
selected for application of the deflection limit criterion
proposal. Main span length of prototype suspension
bridges is 2800 m. Structural analysis model is analyzed
and compared with proposed deflection limit criterion.

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 6  Deflections Bridge Deflection corresponding to the Ratio to design value, DL24 Ratio to design value, KL-510
corresponding to the target target reliability index (m)
reliability index (β = 1.5) and
life-time (100 years) A 1.054 32.9% (1.054/3.199) 38.2% (1.054/2.759)
D 0.285 47.8% (0.285/0.596) 66.9% (0.285/0.426)
E 0.131 43.4% (0.131/0.302) 54.1% (0.131/0.242)

Fig. 10  Modeling of prototype suspension bridge

Live load Deflection (mm) 1,00,000

10,000
Fig. 8  Comparison of analysis results and deflection limit criteria

1,000

100
KL510 * 0.4 (Prototype
suspension bridge)

10
0.01 0.1 1
Natural frequency (Hz)

Fig. 11  Application of proposed deflection limit criterion for proto-

type suspension bridge

7 Conclusion

Deflection of the sea-crossing bridges by live loads is very

Fig. 9  Proposed deflection limit criterion
From the structural modeling (Fig. 10), the maximum
deflection of main-span by KL-510 model and natural
frequencies of each bridge are calculated. Calculated
deflection is 6.180 m and 1st vertical natural frequency
is 0.074 Hz. The prototype suspension bridge’s deflection
with 40% of the KL-510 load model applied do not exceed
proposed limit criterion, as shown in Fig. 11.
important since it controls the clearance and the overall
elevation of the bridge. It also controls the passenger or
pedestrian’s comfort. In this study, the theoretical and
long-term measured data analysis of long span suspension
and cable stayed bridges are performed to propose the live
load deflection limit criterion. Following conclusions can
be made based on results of this study:
1. The deflection corresponding to the target reliability
index (β = 1.5) for irreversible serviceability limit state
considering bridge life-time (100 years) is estimated and

13

it shows similar values to about 40% of the KL-510 load
model.
2. The criterion for deflection limit is proposed as
δlimit = 0.1227 f −1.28 (frequency-based equation) or
L/800 (span length-based equation).
3. The proposed equation in 2) can be applicable to super
long span bridges up to main span length of 2800 m.
Further researches are required to find the optimum
deflection criteria for long span bridge and their effects on
bridge clearance and elevation. Also, many other long span
bridges should be considered in the analysis.
Funding Funding was provided by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
and Transport (Grand Number 20SCIP-B119964-05).
References
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Bae, Y.-G. (2016). Design and maintenance of the sea-crossing bridge
considering the ship collision problem. Doctoral dissertation,
Mokpo University.
Barker, M. G., Staebler, J., & Barth, K. E. (2011). Serviceability limits
and economical steel bridge design. FHWA-HIF-11-044.
Bentley Systems. (2010). Analysis user guide. RM Bridge V8i,
October.
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
CEN. (2001). EN 1990:2002 E, Eurocode—Basis of Structural Design.
ISO (1998). ISO 2394, General Principles on Reliability for Structures.
Midas Information Technology Co., Ltd. (2016). Midas User Support
System. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from http://kor.midas​user.
com/civil​/index​.asp
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (2015). Korean Bridge
Design Code, Limit State Design.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Iksan Regional Con-
struction and Management Administration. (2013). Road Con-
struction Design Manual.
Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. (2014). Harbor and Fishing Port
Design Criteria.
Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine Affairs. (2010). Korean Bridge
Design Code.
OHBDC. (1983). Design of highway bridges. Ontario: Ontario High-
way Bridge Department.
Park, K. J., & Hwang, E. S. (2016). Assessment of vibration service-
ability for steel cable-stayed bridges using GNSS data. Interna-
tional Journal of Steel Structures, 16(4), 1251–1262.
Park, J. C., Park, C. M., & Song, P. Y. (2004). Evaluation of structural
behaviors using full scale measurements on the Seo Hae Cable-
Stayed Bridge. Korea Society of Civil Engineers, 24, 249–257.
(in Korean).
Saadeghvaziri, A. M., Darjani, S., Saigal, S., & Khan, A. (2012).
Design for deflection control vs. use of specified span to depth
ratio limitations. FHWA-NJ-2012-009, Final Report.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.