x - 001 SM _m030_Lecture_1 Study Guide and Introduction

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
ENGM030: Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis
Unit 1: Introduction
Dr Stergios A Mitoulis
University of Surrey, Guildford, 5 October 2015

Dr Stergios A Mitoulis
Lecturer of Bridge Engineering
Room: 21AA02 – office hours
Surrey learn: https://surreylearn.surrey.ac.uk
pers. webpage: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/cee/people/stergios_mitoulis/index.htm
Research Interests:
• resilient and damage-free infrastructures
• smart designs and use of smart materials in the structural sector
• R&D/prototyping and application of reused materials in infrastructures to deliver a resource-
efficient environment
• advanced modelling, design and testing of elastomeric materials and end-user products
including
• bridge bearings, dampers, lock-up and unseating prevention devices, reinforced/prestressed
• concrete structural components
Teaching experience: bridge design; prestress concrete; reinforced concrete; structural analysis;
statics; strength of materials; dynamics; geotechnical engineering;
experimental projects
2
Contact me:
Communication and questions ONLY through Surreylearn.
T: 01483 68 6654
email: s.mitoulis@surrey.ac.uk
skype: stergiosmitoulis
office: 21AA02
office hours: Wednesday 2-5 pm
3
Akashi Kaikyō Bridge, Japan
Since its completion, in 1998 the bridge
has the longest central span of any
suspension bridge in the world,
Akashi Kaikyō Bridge, Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuxM4fdcekU
New Hoover Dam Bridge (2010)
An arch bridge in the United

States that spans the Colorado
River between the states of
Arizona and Nevada.
Definitions and key components
Bridge is a structure built to span physical obstacles such as a
body of water, valley, or road to provide passage over the
obstacle.
The main components of a bridge are:
Superstructure: part of the structure supported by the piers
and abutments (Generally the structure above bearings
level).
Substructure: The structural elements below bearing level,
but above the ground level, e.g. wing walls, piers, towers and
abutments, etc
Foundation: That part of the structure that is in direct
contact with, and transmitting load to, the ground.
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Definitions 8

Definitions and key components
deck
bearing
abutment Superstructure (deck above the bearings/piers)
Substructure
Foundation Foundation
Foundation
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Definitions 9

Introduction
Categories of bridges
Three categories of bridges based on the use,

loading and analysis requirements:
- Highway Bridges
- Railway Bridges
- Foot / Cycle Track bridges
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 10

Highway Bridges
http://members.cox.net
www.clasohm.com/

Bridge categories
www.corrosioncost.com
www.fairfieldmabey.co.uk
Highway bridges

Highway bridges

Highway bridges

70-foot-long concrete bridge survives series of simulated earthquakes at University of
Nevada, Reno
Highway bridges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xox9BVSu7Ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec
Suspension bridges
or suspenders
(tension)
(tension)
www.brantacan.co.uk (compression)

Highway bridges
Railway bridges
www.irtc.org
www.ckrumlov.cz
www.carboline.com

Combined road and rail bridge
www.theguardian.com
Øresund bridge, Sweden/Denmark

Foot / Cycle Track Bridges
tripadvisor.com

www.tapirback.com

Manitoba, Canada's Esplanade Riel (2003)


Overview
• Introduction to bridge deck loading and analysis
• Module Organisation & Study Guide
• Self and Peer Assessment
• SurreyLearn
• Bridge Loads
• Brief History of Loading Specifications

27
Introduction
Steps in selection and structural design of a bridge:
• Available construction methods-span length(s)
• Time and cost limitations
• Select the type of structural form and materials
(Conceptual Design-Optimisation-Experience)
• Aesthetics
• Determine imposed actions (case dependent actions)
• Check global stability and calculate action effects on
elements; stresses and deformations
• Determine the size of individual members so that the
stresses and deformations do not exceed allowable
values for the given material
preliminary vs final design
safety vs cost effectiveness (conceptual design)
Introduction
Preliminary Design
General Considerations
Theoretical Basic Method of
Choice of Final Alternative
Final Design
Basic Trends in the Design of Bridges • Creative
Trends • Practical Trends • Basic Assumptions of
Design • Basic Requirement of the Bridge under
Design • Aesthetic Requirements • Requirement for
Scientific Research • Basic Parameters of the Bridge •
Bridge System • Size of Separate System • Type of
Span Construction • Type of Supports

Deck types
slab
Typical reinforced
concrete sections in T-beam
bridge superstructures
controlling factors?
box girder
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Deck types 30
Box grider cast in-situ bridge (as-built)
Mitoulis S.A., Tegos I.A., K.-C. Stylianidis (2010) “Cost-effectiveness related to

the earthquake resisting system of multi-span bridges”, Engineering
Structures, Volume 32, Issue 9, September 2010, Pages 2658-2671.
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Example 1 31

Balanced cantilever bridge (as built)
349.0
94.5 160.0 94.5m
A1 A2
58.0 55.0
18.0 18.0
well t=0.65m
P2
P1
0.80 13.60
5.60
7.20
4.40 0.50 2.90 3.50
7.50 1.20 6.90 9.00
6.00 mid-span
10.00 box-girders
7.50
pier and foundations support
Mitoulis S.A., Tegos I.A. (2010) Journal of Earthquake Engineering
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Example 2 32

Slab bridges (solid or with voids)
Longitudinally reinforced slab bridges have the

simplest superstructure configuration
They require more reinforcing steel and structural
concrete than girder-type bridges
The design details and formworks are easier and
less expensive. It has been found economical for
simply supported spans up to 9m and for continuous
spans up to 12m.
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Slab bridges 33

T-Beam Bridges
Consists of a transversely reinforced slab deck which spans
across to the longitudinal support girders.
They are more economical for spans of 12m to 18m. The
girder stem thickness usually varies from 350mm to 550mm.
Optimum lateral spacing of longitudinal girders is typically
between 1.8m and 3.0 m for a minimum cost of formwork
and structural materials.
Where vertical supports for the formwork are difficult and
expensive, girder spacing can be increased accordingly.
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis T-Beam 34

Box-Girder Bridges
Contain top deck, vertical web, and bottom slab and are
often used for spans of 15m to 36m with girders spaced at
1.5 times the structure depth. Beyond this range, it is
probably more economical to consider a different type of
bridge, such as post-tensioned box girder or steel girder
superstructure. This is because of the massive increase in
volume and materials.
They can be viewed as T-beam structures for both positive
and negative moments. The high torsional strength of the
box girder makes it particularly suitable for sharp curve
alignment, skewed piers and abutments, superelevation,
and transitions such as ramp structures.
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Box-Girder 35
Why do we need Design Codes?
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Codes 36

Why Design Codes?
• Over 150000 highway and railway bridges
in the UK
• Over 600000 Bridges in various states of
the US
• Overseen by different managing authorities
• Regulations for loading - consistent design
and assessment throughout EU
• Standardised analysis - consistent safety
levels
Why Design Codes?
Constant Safety Level
Level of safety (SF) what is the safety factor?
Boroughs and Transportation Highways/Railway Agencies
Importance of bridges! How is the importance reflected in the codes?

Emergency mobility and accessibility even after severe
natural and manmade disasters
-natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fire,

progressive collapse)
-manmade (car/ship collissions, terrorism etc)

Prestressed concrete bridges
Precast voided slab section Precast Box section
Cast-in-place box section
AASHTO LRFD Beam types
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Prestressed 39

Minimum depths for decks
Where S (mm) is the slab span length and L (mm) is the span length (From AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.) When variable-depth members are used, values may be adjusted to
account for change in relative stiffness of positive and negative moment sections.
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Depths for decks 40

Limit states of deformation (Eurocode 2-2 §4.4.3)
Eurocode 2-2 does not provide values of maximum allowable deflections
Eurocode 2-1 §7.4 Deflection control

“(4) The appearance and general utility of the structure may be impaired when the
calculated sag of a beam, slab or cantilever subjected to quasi-permanent loads
exceeds span/250”…
“(6) The limit state of deformation may be checked by either:
- by limiting the span/depth ratio, according to 7.4.2 or
- by comparing a calculated deflection, according to 7.4.3, with a limit value
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AASHTO §2.5.2.6.2 Criteria for Deflection
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Deformation 41

Prerequisites – Background knowledge
• must be able to carryout element-level analysis

• simple beams, using static analysis
• multiple spans using ILD, or MDM etc
• behaviour of structural members under different

loadings
• beam, column, wall, slab, deep and shallow
foundations, etc
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Prerequisites 42

• Element Level Analysis
single beam
(1-span)
continuous beam
(2-span)
• Member behaviour under different loadings
beams: deflection, bending moment, shear
UDL
slabs: longitudinal and lateral bending and deflections
pier: bending, compression, buckling

Learning Outcomes
On completion you should be able to:
• able to preliminary select appropriate deck sections
• able to demonstrate a sound knowledge and understanding of bridge loads and the
development of their models for current design codes
• able to identify and select suitable actions and governing design combinations of
different bridge types
• able to quantify, validate and appropriately apply the actions on bridges to obtain
most unfavourable action effects using guidance from the current codes and
standards
• able to demonstrate understanding of various hand and computer based
modelling, loading and analytical methods of bridge structures
• able to utilise understanding of bridge response and overall behaviour to assess
global performance
• able to validate the models through simple checks, engineering judgement and
verify the results through simple hand based calculation methods
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Outcomes 45

Your expectation?
46
Organisation of the Module
Units (9 sections):
Unit 1: Introduction
Unit 2: Loads on highway bridges
Unit 3: Loads on other bridges
Unit 4: Wind and water loads
Unit 5: Creep, shrinkage and thermal effects
Unit 6: Global Analysis (1)
Unit 7: Global Analysis (2)
Unit 8: Local Effects
Unit 9: Skew / Integral Bridges
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Organisation 47

Time Table
Week Date Lecturer Unit Description
1 06-Oct-15 Stergios Introduction
2 13-Oct-15 Stergios Loads on highway bridges - Part 1
3 20-Oct-15 Stergios Loads on highway bridges - Part 2
4 27-Oct-15 Stergios Traffic loads for other bridges
5 03-Nov-15 Andrew Global analysis (1)
6 10-Nov-15 Andrew Global analysis (2)
7 17-Nov-15 Prashant Wind and water
Creep, shrinkage and thermal
8 24-Nov-15 Helder effects
9 01-Dec-15 Andrew Local effects
10 08-Dec-15 Stergios Skew & integral bridges
11 15-Dec-15 Stergios Feedback on the assignment
12 12-Jan-16 Stergios Revision lecture
What are the differences in the analysis
and design of buildings and bridges?
What are the differences in the analysis
and design of buildings and bridges?
• Magnitude and complexity of Loads

• Codes for loading and analysis
• Analytical sophisticated methods
• Live Loads vs Dead Loads (permanent
loads) in bridges dead>live
• Temperature loads
• Creep and shrinlage
• Dynamics (period and shapes)
• Wind response etc
Overview
UDL on SLAB
1 2
Analysis using per m strip is sufficient
1 2
Unsymmetrical Load on SLAB

1 2
Strip method is too conservative.

Lateral distribution is required.
1 2
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Overview 51

Load and Analysis Requirement
Loading requirements are different for each bridge category:
Importance (design, assessment, factors of safety)
Bridge category (defines magnitude/type of loads)
Structural type (defines loaded length/ load paths and distribution)
Construction method (defines construction loading)
Analysis requirement are different for different categories:

Bridge category (defines critical limit states)
Structural type (complexity of modelling)
Construction method (construction stages)
Type of loading (static, dynamic, accidental)
Purpose of analysis (preliminary vs detailed)
Supports / foundation type and soil conditions (boundary conditions)
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction to loads 52

Essential reading
Essential Reading
Hambly, E. C. (1992), “Bridge Deck Behaviour”, Second Edition E & F N Spon.
BS EN 1991, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures, British Standards Institution, London .
BS EN 1990, Eurocode: Basis of structural Design, British Standards institution, London .
All Highways Agency standards are available to be downloaded from website:

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/ha/dmrb/index.htm
Downloadable from:
Library web / online library/ online databases / engineering/ CSI / athens
Calgaro,JA; Tschumi, M; Gulvanessian, H. (2010). Designers guide to Eurocode 1:

Actions on bridges, Thomas Telfords Ltd.
Gulvanessian, H.; Calgaro, JA; Holicky, M. (2002). Designers’ guide to Eurocode: Basis
of structural design. Thomas Telfords Ltd.
Hambly, E.C. (1992). Bridge deck behaviour. 2nd Edition, E&FN SPON.
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Reading 53

Organisation of Module
• Peer Assessments (No marks) indirect effect on final mark

• An analysis assignment (25% of module)
• Examination (2 hrs) (75% of module)
Past papers from library, ‘University web pages’ or Surreylearn

Self Assessment
Self assessment exercises:
• Self assessment tasks given at the end of each unit.

• Must attempt the exercises
• Discuss the methods and outcome on Surreylearn
within each unit.

Peer Assessment (optional)
Peer Assessment
Assessment of your work by your colleagues
Why Peer assessment?
Get more feedback
Helps in your own concepts
Keep you in touch with your class members

How to carry peer assessment
• A number of groups will be created in Surreylearn
• Random assignment of students into these groups
• Students do the tasks and submit within your group before

defined deadline

How to carry peer assessment
Your role as assessor
• You access two other students work in your group
• You (a) mark positive comments for good points, (b) highlight
errors and (c) comment on how things can be improved
• Grading forms are available to assist for the assignment
• Reading the comments on your work will highlight your
strengths and weaknesses
• Can compare your work with others to assess your
understanding before formal assessment
Advantages of peer assessment
• Active involvement of students
• Confidence in the subject matter
• Quick and plenty of feedback
• Student can see his mistakes and rectify it
• Total two peer assessments will be carried out

Surreylearn
• Log into Surreylearn https://surreylearn.surrey.ac.uk
• Check and/or configure your web browser
• Access your modules
• Understand the structure of your modules
• Use the discussion forums
• Having trouble? contact : surreylearnhelp@surrey.ac.uk
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Surreylearn 60

Surreylearn - Login https://surreylearn.surrey.ac.uk/

Surreylearn

Loads on bridges- Eurocodes
Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures –
Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges.
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-5: General actions -

Thermal actions
Eurocode 1: Basis of design and actions on structures -Part 1:

Actions on structures - Densities, self-weight and imposed
loads for buildings
Eurocode 1 Basis of design and actions on structures –

Part 1-6: Actions on structures – Actions during execution
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Eurocodes 63

Design of bridges- Eurocodes
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 2. Concrete bridges
Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures- Part 2: Concrete bridges.

Design and detailing rules
Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures - Part 2: Steel bridges
Eurocode 4. Design of composite steel and concrete structures –Part 2:

General rules and rules for bridges
Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures-

Part 2: Bridges

Definitions
Actions are the forces and imposed deformations
applied to the bridge
Ultimate limit state (ULS) = states associated with extended damage or
similar structural failure.
EQU Loss of equilibrium of the structure.
STR Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural
member.
GEO Failure due to excessive deformation of the ground.
FAT Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members.
Serviceability Limit state(SLS) = state such that the structure remains

functional for its intended use subject to routine loading
durability, overall stability, fire resistance, deflection, cracking and excessive
vibration

Bridge actions – EC1-3
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Loads Eurocodes 66

Bridge actions – Eurocodes
These documents shall be used in conjunction with the relevant UK NAD when published:
ENV 1991-1-1:1994, Basis of design and actions on structures- Basis of design.
ENV 1991-2-1:1995, Actions on structures- Densities, self-weight and imposed loads.
ENV 1991-2-2:1995, Actions on structures exposed to fire.
ENV 1991-2-3:1995, Actions on structures- Snow loads.
ENV 1991-2-4:1995, Actions on structures- Wind actions.
ENV 1991-2-5:1997, Actions on structures - Thermal actions.
ENV 1991-2-6:1997, Actions on structures- Loads and deformations imposed during erection.
ENV 1991-2-7:1998, Actions on structures- Accidental actions due to impact and explosions.
ENV 1997-1:1994, Geotechnical design- General rules.

Classification of actions
Permanent actions (self weight/dead load and additional
permanent loads)
Variable actions (live loads)
Accidental actions (collisions, earthquakes etc)
Required design life: 120 years for highway bridges and 100
years for railway bridges (subject to the owner’s decision)

Classification of actions
Permanent Action (G):
acting throughout a given reference period
variation in magnitude with time is negligible
Or variation is monotonic until limiting value
Variable Action (Q):

Variation in magnitude is considerable
Accidental Action (A):

Actions of a short duration, but of significant
magnitude
Design situations and requirements
a) Shrinkage, creep, residual stresses

b) Differential settlement
c) Considerations of seismic actions are not required, unless NAD
d) Considerations of snow loads are not required, unless NAD
e) Overturning and stability of the structure shall be considered.
f) Earth pressures and loads relating to the design of bridge foundations,
abutments, retaining walls, and piers
Where NAD: National Application Document

Categories of loads based on their nature
Two categories on the basis of their position:
Fixed: Distribution & position is fixed (e.g. dead loads)
Free: Varies spatially and or in time

Categories of loads based on their nature
Three categories on the basis of their nature:
Static: does not cause significant acceleration of the

structure or structural members
Quasi-static dynamic action that can be described by static

models in which the dynamic effects are included
Dynamic cause significant acceleration of the structure or

structural members

actions
permanent variable accidental
seismic actions, floods, vehicles

self-weight
collision with structures
additional
permanent loads
environment traffic actions construction
creep wind, water plant, equipment and
shrinkage snow and ice erection method
(materials) temperature, etc.
settlements and differential vertical loads horizontal forces

settlement of supports due to traffic mass due to change in speed or
(settlements) direction
geotechnical actions
earth pressure
normal traffic abnormal loads exceptional loads
ground water pressure
LM 1 special vehicles special order vehicles
LM 2 LM 3 LM3

Brief history of loading specifications
• Early Loads
• Standard Train Loading
• Standard Loading Curve
• Normal Loading
• Abnormal Loading
• Exceptional Loading
• Developments of Traffic Loading Rules
• Modern Trends
ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis History of loads 74

We need the history of bridge loading to assess the remainder capacity of
existing bridges (fatigue reduces the capacity of bridges) and to provide
adequate strengthening during retrofitting
• Early Loads
• Normal Loading
• Development of Traffic Loading Rules
• Modern Trends
Early Loads
• No hard loading requirements (early - mid 19th century)
– Live loads were insignificant compared to the dead loads
– Limited understanding of structural behaviour
• Traction engine in late 19th century - Petrol driven vehicles at the
end of the century
• The bridges were more than adequate for these loads
• Earliest act of parliament regarding weight of vehicles were more
concerned with preventing damage to road surface rather than
ensuring safety of bridges (Dowe, 2003)
• In 1875, first live loading by Prof Fleming Jenkins
– 1 cwt (hundredweight) per sq. foot (approx. 5 kN/m2)
[conversion: 1t=19.684cwt]
[112 pounds is also known as a long hundredweight - cwt]
– wheel loading : 10t per wheel in one line on the bridge

Early Loads
• Early 20th century, Prof Unwin suggested
– 120 lb/ft2 (approx. 5.4 kN/m2) [conv.: 1lb=0.453kgr)
– weight of a loaded wagon,10t or 20t on 4 wheels.
– In manufacturing districts, 30t on four wheels
• Automobiles and heavy lorry
• Number of vehicles increased, as did their speed
and weight
• In 1904, Government in the UK introduced ‘Heavy
motor car order’.
– Included a rigid axle vehicle with a gross weight of 12t to
be used for the design of all new bridges

Standard loading train
• First world war in 1914 to 1918; large
increase in vehicle loads
• Goods were transported to longer
distances; national approach to the
problem was prominent (Dowe, 2003).
• In 1919, the Ministry of Transport (MoT)
was founded
• In June 1922, the
‘Standard Loading Train’ was introduced

11T
Actual loads 4T 5T 5T 5T 5T 5T 5T
plus 50%
5' 6'
9'
4T 5T 5T 5T 5T 5T 5T
11T
10' 12' 8' 10' 8' 10' 8'

Actual loads
Engine Trailer Trailer Trailer
20T 13T 13T 13T
• It consists of a 20t tractor pulling 3t to 13t trailers

(similar to loads actually on the roads at that time)
• Wheels were made of steel with no suspensions
• A flat rate allowance of 50% was included on each axle
to account for the effects of dynamic impact
• The train was to occupy each lane width of 10ft [3.05m]

• For carriageway exceeding a multiple of 10ft, the excess load
was assumed to be standard load multiplied by the excess
width/10.
• Effect of lateral bunching was introduced
• Load was uniform in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions
• Early Loads
• Normal Loading
• Modern Trends

Standard loading curve
• Standard loading train prevailed for some time
• It was widely accepted that the use of a model is
necessary to represent actual traffic loading
• Complexity of placement of actual traffic loading;
critical location of wheels were not known and
requires trial and error to evaluate maximum
internal forces
• A mix of traffic to calculate the critical (worst
credible) loads was also very difficult in this case
• The initially used standard loading train was very
inflexible with their axle position and spacing, etc

• In 1931, the MoT defined a new approach to
bridge loading
• The standard loading train was replaced by a
‘variable UDL’ together with a ‘single
invariable KEL (Knife Edge Load)’
• Although based on the standard loading train, it
was easier to use than a series of point wheel
loads.
• The KEL represented the excess loading on the
rear axle of the engine, (i.e. 2x11t-2x5t = 12t).

Standard Loading Curve
• The philosophy behind loading curve
was that for the varying spans of
application, it would yield the same total
loading on the structure as the relevant
axles of the train
• Do you think that this was a wise

decision?

• If total load is retained over the bridge span, this lead to
smaller values of BM and SF due to the spread of
loads over the span.
• It was later realized that the loading effects rather than
the total load is more important hence the philosophy
was revised.
• The curve was established for varying loading spans so
as to give the same loading effects (BM, SF and support
reactions, etc) as would be obtained through the
application of standard loading train.
• The form of the model was retained, i.e. a UDL and a
KEL.
• This concept is continued. In the Eurocode a tandem
axle (pair of axles) is used instead of KEL.

• In view of improved suspension systems and advent of

pneumatic tyres, total impact allowance was considered to
diminish as the loaded length increased
• A reduction in the intensity of loading with increase in span.
• The loading was constant from 10 to 75 ft and thereafter reducing to a

minimum at 2500ft.
• For loaded lengths less than 10ft, separate curve was produced to cater
for the probability of higher loads due to heavy lorries
• The UDL was applied to each lane in conjunction with a single 12t KEL
(per lane) to give worst credible effects
• Early Loads
• Normal Loading
• Modern Trends

Normal and Abnormal Loading
• After the 2nd World War, Hendersen (1954) observed
that in reality the actual vehicles on the roads differ from
the standard loading train and standard loading curve
• There were those that could be described as ‘legal’
(those that conform to C&U regulations), and those
carrying abnormal indivisible loads outside the
regulations where special permission was required for
transportation
• Weight limit at that time was 22t for former and 150t for
the latter
• It was possible for the hauler to obtain special order to
move to even greater loads

• Henderson observed that abnormal load carrying vehicles
were generally well-deck trailers, having one axle front
and rear for lighter loads
• and two axle bogies at each end for heavier loads.
• each axle had four wheels and was about 10 ft long
bogie

• It was concluded that the ordinary traffic and abnormal

vehicles are dissimilar in weight and arrangement of wheels to
those represented by former loading trains
• The concept of normal and abnormal vehicles was introduced

• Normal traffic consists of everyday traffic
consisting of a mix of cars, vans, and trucks
(defined by loading curve, UDL and KEL).
• Abnormal traffic consists of heavy vehicles
of 100t or more
• There are also those less frequent loads in
excess of 200t. These loads are treated as
special cases and would be confined to a
limited no. of roads. These were termed as
exceptional loads
Exceptional Loads
excess of 200t

HA Loading Curve (BS 5 400-2:1978)

HA Loading Curve
• A widely adopted MoT loading curve with a UDL plus a KEL
would constitute normal loading defined as HA loading
Loaded Length
• Experience showed B
extreme
Half HA Load
improbability of
more than two
Full HA Load
carriageway lanes A A
being filled with the

heaviest type of Full HA Load
loading B Plan
UDL
Section A-A
KEL
Section B-B

HA Loading Curve
• Following sequence of vehicles was used in developing
the HA loading curves
Loaded length Description
20ft (6m) to lines of 22t lorries in two adjacent lanes

75ft (22.5m) and 11t lorries in the remainder
75ft (22.5m) to five 22t lorries over 40ft (12m) followed
500ft (150m) and preceded by four 11t lorries over
35ft(10.5m) and 5t vehicles over
35ft (10.5m) to fill the span

HA Loading Curve
• For spans longer than 75ft, an equivalent UDL (plus
KEL) was derived by equating the moments and shear per
lane of vehicle with the corresponding effects under a
distributed load. A 25% increase was considered
appropriate for the impact of suspension systems
• These were found to correspond well to the MoT loading
curve
• For shorter spans, a more severe concentration of loads
was considered appropriate
• A heavy steam roller had a wheel loads of about 7.5t, and
adding 25% for impact gave 9t. Two such wheels at 3ft
distance was considered suitable for short spans
• Separate loading curve was developed based on the
above loading
HA Loading Curve
• These loading curves have been revised
several times since then to incorporate
latest information at the time of updating
• The last guidelines on this is available in
BD37/01 and BS5400: Part 2, which is
attached as an appendix to BD37/01.
• Can be downloaded from the HA web site
or BS website.
• Currently, EC1 is used for these purposes
Brief History of UK Traffic Loads
• Early Loads
• Normal Loading
• Modern Trends

Traffic loading development

102

Load Variation with Time

Overview
• Introduction of the Subject
• Module Organisation & Study Guide
• Self and Peer Assessment
• Surreylearn
• Brief History of Loading Specifications
• Introduction to Current Loading Codes
• Modern Trends

Modern Trends
• The modern trend towards traffic loading is to try and model
the movement, distribution and intensity of loading in a
probabilistic manner (Groce et al., 2001, Stochastic model for
multilane traffic effects on bridges)
• Traffic jam situation is considered consisting of semi-trailers,
tractor trailers, and trucks
• These are then related to response of bridges considering
loads in random manner
• These are used to determine mean and standard
deviations of the maximum bending moment in the bridge
• Different models are considered at both ULS and SLS.
• These are then used to establish loading curves

End of Unit 1
Please make sure, you complete the Self-Assessment
questions
Remember to bring a calculator in every class
Class handouts
If possible, design codes (Eurocode 1)

x - 001 SM _m030_Lecture_1 Study Guide and Introduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

x - 001 SM _m030_Lecture_1 Study Guide and Introduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

ENGM030: Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis

University of Surrey, Guildford, 5 October 2015

Communication and questions ONLY through Surreylearn.

office hours: Wednesday 2-5 pm

An arch bridge in the United

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Definitions 8

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Definitions 9

Three categories of bridges based on the use,

- Foot / Cycle Track bridges

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 10

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 11

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 13

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 14

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 15

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 17

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 19

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 21

Øresund bridge, Sweden/Denmark

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 22

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 23

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 24

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 25

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 26

• Module Organisation & Study Guide

• Self and Peer Assessment

• Brief History of Loading Specifications

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction 29

Mitoulis S.A., Tegos I.A., K.-C. Stylianidis (2010) “Cost-effectiveness related to

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Example 1 31

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Example 2 32

Longitudinally reinforced slab bridges have the

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Slab bridges 33

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis T-Beam 34

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Codes 36

Importance of bridges! How is the importance reflected in the codes?

-natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fire,

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Codes 38

Precast voided slab section Precast Box section

Cast-in-place box section

AASHTO LRFD Beam types

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Prestressed 39

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Depths for decks 40

Eurocode 2-1 §7.4 Deflection control

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Deformation 41

• must be able to carryout element-level analysis

• behaviour of structural members under different

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Prerequisites 42

beams: deflection, bending moment, shear

slabs: longitudinal and lateral bending and deflections

pier: bending, compression, buckling

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Prerequisites 44

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Outcomes 45

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Organisation 47

• Magnitude and complexity of Loads

Analysis using per m strip is sufficient

Unsymmetrical Load on SLAB

Strip method is too conservative.

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Overview 51

Analysis requirement are different for different categories:

ENGM030 Bridge Deck Loading and Analysis Introduction to loads 52

All Highways Agency standards are available to be downloaded from website:

Calgaro,JA; Tschumi, M; Gulvanessian, H. (2010). Designers guide to Eurocode 1: