SECTION 3

A REVIEW OF
INTERNATIONAL CODES
ON BRIDGES: LOADS AND
LOAD DISTRIBUTION

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 3. A review of international codes on
bridges: loads and load distribution

3.1 Introduction
In this section a brief review and data are included for well-known codes on
bridges. An emphasis is placed on loadings and their distribution techniques
which vary from one code to another. Examples are included from some codes
of the load distribution and its ultimate effects.
The evaluation of the load-carrying capacity of existing and future bridges is
an art in itself. Different countries have different bridge codes. The loadings and
their distribution do vary. Prior to estimation of the loading, it is necessary to
review these codes. In the following section, a brief review of these codes is given.

3.2 A review of international codes and specifications

on bridges
A comparative analysis of national bridge codes and standards on external load­
ing and environmental factors is needed. The evaluation of the load-carrying
capacity is a vital process in the decision making on the choice of materials,
types, analysis, design, maintenance, repair and strengthening or even replacing
of bridges.
The evaluation of the safe load and of the load characteristics of bridges is still
a matter of engineering judgement. Loads and stress limitations are impor­
tant subjects that have been discussed for many years by various international
organizations and bodies, but so far no satisfactory resolutions have been
found. In this section an effort is made to introduce some rational thought to
the problem. Against this background, four major conditions are adopted in
the review:
(1) As an introduction, present a review of current definitions and classifica­
tions of bridge-load characteristics in various countries.
(2) Compare the experience in various countries from the engineering point
of view, and review the methods used to assess the structural capacity of
existing road bridges.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 252 BANGASH

(3) Use this experience and the research results available in order to describe
the problems and the possible ways to solving them.
(4) Define the research studies to be undertaken to determine acceptable
methods contributing towards the standardization of bridge-load char­
acteristics and limitations.

National economies require the free flow of traffic and efficient freight
movements. In all countries, diversity and individuality have assumed essential
characteristics for bridges. This situation has been brought about by several
factors such as those enumerated by European countries:

(a) considerable differences in design codes used over the years

(b) changes in motor vehicle regulations
(c) changing design and structural analysis concepts
(d) evolution of the performance of bridge materials
(e) varying maintenance conditions.

In light of this diversity of existing road bridges, two major problems regarding
their load-carrying capacity can be identified. These are:

(/) the ability of existing bridges to carry road traffic complying with the
prevailing motor vehicle regulations on a long-term basis; and
(H) the ability of existing bridges, at least of those bridges located along
major roads or trunk routes, to carry an acceptable volume of abnormal
heavy vehicles at any given time.

Generally bridges suffer from decreasing reliability with time. Such a decrease is
expressed in an exponential function of general form e~A/' where

t = number of years the bridge is in service;

A/ = function for the failure mode and maintenance which is influenced
by load intensity and frequency, fatigue, defects, damage and
other structural changes.

Reference is made to Fig. 3.1 which was prepared by the European Union on the
basis of a number of bridges in service. Four cases were randomly chosen. The
starting point is R(i) w 1 where any bridge is reliable. The load-carrying capacity
changes are:

(i) decrease of 17% after 15 years of service due to defective rivets or bolts;
(//) decrease of 27% after 23 years of service due to defective rivets or bolts;
(Hi) 'erratic' decrease of 14% after 40 years of service due to heavy vehicle
load (overload);
(iv) decrease of 30% due to a seven-year period without maintenance after
35 years of service.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 253

Decrease of the reliability in time due to wear and tear and other factors —
Erratic decrease due to overloading ••••
Decrease due to complete ommision of maintenance - -

Reliability according to design calculations

-100% (95-98%) -17.3% -26.7%

\ Loss of load-carrying capacity

in 100 years: 45%

10 15 2023 30 90 100 t (years)

X function of failure modes and maintenance intensity

® loss of 17.3% and 26.7% after 15 and 23 years of service, respectively, due to defective rivets

Figure 3.1. Decrease in bridge reliability over the years with regard to load-
carrying capacity (reference Highways Agency, UK, and OECD)

The load-carrying capacity is affected and consequently information is needed

on bridge rating along the following lines:
(a) the actual behaviour of existing bridges under traffic loads (research,
investigations, tests)
(b) data concerning the magnitude, intensity, distribution and frequency of
actual commercial traffic loads
(c) the various techniques for assessing the condition of a bridge
(d) the effects of commercial traffic on existing bridges
(e) applied rating systems.

3.3 Freight vehicle characteristics: O E C D requirements

The term freight vehicle is normally applied to a vehicle made for transport­
ing goods. Heavy freight vehicles are variously defined. The distribution of the
various freight vehicles as percentages of total freight-vehicle traffic varies from
country to country. Freight vehicles may be roughly categorized as follows: (see
Table 3.1)
(a) vehicles with two axles
(b) vehicles with three or more axles
(c) articulated vehicles with single rear axle
(d) articulated vehicles with tandem or triple rear axles
(e) road trains comprising a vehicle with trailer having single or tandem
axles.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Table 3.1. Maximum permissible dimensions and weights of freight vehicles (in metres and metric tonnes)

Parameters Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden Switzerland UK USA*

Maximum permissible dimensions (m)

Height 4 4.15 4 4 4 4 3.8 4 4 4 4.5 4.1
Width 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6
Length:
2-axle vehicle 11 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 11 12.4 11 10 11 12.2
3-axle vehicle 13 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 11 12.4 12 - 12 11 12.2
articulated 15 21 15.5 16 15 15 15.5 16.5 15.5 15.5 16.5 - 16 15 16.8
vehicle
road train 18 21 18 22 18 18 18 25 18 18 18 24 18 18 19.8
Maximum permissible weights or loads (t)
Single axle 13 10 10 10 13 10 12 10 10 10 13 10 10 10.2 9.1
Tandem axle 20 19.8 16 16 21 16 19 - 16 16 21 16 18 20.3 15.4
2-axle vehicle 19 19 18 16 19 16 18 20 20 20 20 16 16.3 12.7
3-axle vehicle 26 28.1 24 22 26 22 24 20 26 24 26 25 24.4 19.1
Articulated vehicle 38 30 28 26 38 30 - - 30 28 38 25 24.4 21.8
with 3 axles
Articulated vehicle 38 40 38 32 38 36 40 43 36 38 38 28 32.5 28.1
with 4 axles
Articulated vehicle 38 50 44 36 38 38 44 43 44 39 38 28 32.5 34.5
with 5 axles
Trailer with 2 axles 20 20 20 20 19 20 24 - 20 20 20 12 14.2 -
Trailer with 3 axles 26 30 26 22 26 26 36 - 26 26 26 12 24.4 -
Bus with 2 axles 19 20 18 16 19 16 18 20 20 20 20 16 16.3 -
Bus with 3 axles 26 25 24 22 26 22 24 20 26 24 26 25 16.3 -
Road train 40 63.5 44 42 38 38 44 - 50 42 - 51.4 - 32.5 39.2

Reproduced courtesy of NATO, Brussels.

♦Dimensions: AASHTO policy 1974; weights AASHTO.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 255

In the framework of this section the following freight-vehicle characteristics are

of special interest:

(a) dimensions (maximum and average) by vehicle category

(b) number of axles and their configuration
(c) gross vehicle weight (GVW)
(d) axle load
(e) parameters characterizing the load transfer to the surfacing.

3.3.1 Dimensions of freight vehicles

A distinction is to be made between maximum permissible dimensions imposed
by national motor vehicle regulations and mean values as obtained from traffic
surveys based on representative samples of freight vehicles. Data on the maximum
dimensions in 14 countries are included in Table 3.1 whereas Table 3.2 presents
'average' dimensions for freight vehicles as obtained through an enquiry made
by OECD. The data concern vehicle width and length as well as axle and wheel
spacing.

Table 3.2. Average dimensions of freight vehicles.

Category Width Length Axle spacing (m) Wheel spacing

(m) (m) between (m)

lst+ 2nd + 3rd + 4th + Single Twin

2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Vehicle 2 axles Light 2.2 6.1 3.3 — — — 1.70 1.60

with Medium 2.3 6.8 3.8 - - - 1.80 1.74
Heavy 2.5 7.2 4.1 - - - 1.80 1.76
3 axles 2.5 7.3 3.8 1.3 - - 2.00 1.84
4 axles 2.5 9.1 1.4 3.9 1.3 - 1.84 1.90

Tractor:: Articulated
vehicle:
Articulated 2 axles single 2.4 10.7 3.9 5.6 - - 1.85 1.80
vehicle 3 axles rear axle 2.5 11.1 3.4 1.3 6.8 - 2.00 1.84
with 2 axles tandem 2.5 14.0 3.3 3.9 1.7 - 1.85 1.80
2 axles rear axles 2.5 13.8 3.2 5.3 1.3 1.3 2.00 1.84
3 axles 2.5 14.3 3.4 1.3 6.1 1.7 1.85 1.80

Trailer 2 axles 2.5 8.5 3.8 _ _ _ J.78 1.80

(without tractor) 3 axles 2.5 8.9 4.7 1.3 - - 2.05 1.82
4 axies 2.5 9.8 3.7 1.1 1.1 - 2.05 1.97

Reproduced courtesy of NATO, Brussels.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 256 BANGASH

The total weight of a freight vehicle and the actual load carried by an axle
depend on a number of factors, including the load transported by the vehicle
(i.e. fully loaded or empty). In the case of loaded vehicles the front axle load is
roughly half that of the rear axle. The weight of an unloaded vehicle is often
assumed to be half of the weight of a fully loaded vehicle.
In every case, gross vehicle weights and axle loads must not exceed the
national statutory limits (see Table 3.1).

33.2 Characterization and classification

A comparative study of the main parameters defining exceptional live loads
shows that the limit values above which heavy vehicles are considered excep­
tional (abnormal) are relatively similar (Tables 3.3 and 3.4). This holds true
both for load and dimensional characteristics. Nevertheless such overall tables
cannot present all the detailed regulations in force in the different countries.
Further work in this area is desirable, taking into account the requirement of
international harmonization.
Only a few countries prefer to set an upper limit. The survey conducted by the
OECD showed that in Belgium and France a total gross vehicle weight limit of
360 and 4001, respectively, has been indicated as the maximum upper limit for an
exceptional live load.

3.4 Bridge codes and standards

A summary of bridge codes and standards as adopted in various countries is
given in Table 3.5. Reduction in loadings, impact factor and comparison of
the design calculations and results are the areas that need to be examined. Sec­
tions 3.6.1 to 3.6.14 give the bridge codes and standards of various countries.
Table 3.6 shows a comparative study of the applied impact factors for various
countries assuming spans in metres from 0 to 100 m. Norway, Sweden and the
United Kingdom have already included the impact factor in the axle loads.
The codes summarized in Table 3.5 have been compared using a simple
span of different dimensions and vehicular loadings in kN/m2 in Figs 3.2 and 3.3.
They indicate a great deal of variation which needs further research and co-ordi­
nation to give a future unified code for the international scene.

3.5 Eurocode I on bridges

This is a new code that all European countries have agreed covering com­
mon loading, stresses and other design criteria. The code is briefly described in
Section 3.5.1.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Table 3.3. Parameters defining exceptional live loads -values above which a heavy freight vehicle is considered 'exceptional'

BelgiumCanada Denmark Finland France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden Switzerland U.K. U.S.A.
(7)

Total load (kN) 400 500 to 440 420 380 380 440(2) 200 500 420 380 515 280 325 363
613(6)
Load per axle 130 82 to 100 100 130 100(1) 120 100 100 100 130 100 100 102 91
(kN) 91(6)
Load for a group 200 145 to 160 160 210 160(1) 190 - 200 160 147 to 200 180 203 154
of tandem axles 182(6) 210(9)
Load per wheel 50 - 50 __ 65 - - 50 50 50 50 50 - 45
(kN)
Load per group 65 - - _ 65 - _ 50 65 50 160 50 - -
of twin wheels
(kN)
Contact pressure _ - 0.9 - - - 0.8 _ - 0.9 0.9 - - - _
of tyres (N/mm 2 )
Width (m) 2.5 2.59 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.44
Length (m) 18 19.8 to 18 22 18(2) 18 12 18 18 18(2) 24 18 11(4) (8)
21.3 15.5(3) (2) 15(5)

(1) Respectively, 130 and 210 kN for Sarre traffic.

(2) Depending on the vehicle.
(3) Semi-trailers.
(4) Non-articulated vehicles.
(5) Articulated vehicles.
(6) According to province.
(7) Interstate highway system.
(8) Varies with bridge formula.
(9) Depending on axle spacings.
Reproduced courtesy of NATO, Brussels.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 to
00

Table 3.4. Classification of exceptional live loads

Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden U.K. U.S.A.

1. Classification of x No x (1) x (2) x x No x No x x No x x

'exceptional vehicle'
2. Classification criteria for
'exceptional' heavy
vehicles
total load x x x x x x x x
axle loads x x x x x x
overall dimensions x x x x x x x
types (tractors and x x x x
semi-trailers, trailers,
worksite vehicles, etc.)
reference to standard x x x x
heavy vehicles
possibility of crossing x x x x x x
bridges without prior
evaluation of stability
(3)

(1) Modified NATO military classification.

(2) Unofficial.
(3) Up to the limit of original design limit.
Reproduced courtesy of NATO, Brussels. Iw
>
O
>
CO

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Table 3.5 (pages 259—262). Overview of various national codes on bridges — summary

Belgium Finland France Germany United Kingdom

CM. No. 71-155-1971 DIN 1072-1967 BS5400: Part 2: 1978

Classification of bridges — _ 3 types: lst/2nd/3rd 3 types: 60/30/12 —

Uniform distributed load 4 3 * = / ( £ ; C;a)(2) 1st lane: 5/5/4; HA loading (4)
(kN/m 2 ) remaining surface Up to 30 m: 30 kN/m
3/3/3 of lane
Over 30m: 151(1//.)
0.475 kN/m of lane
but not less than 9
Loading of convoy type (kN) 320/600 scheme 1: 630 system 600/300/120 HB(4) loading: from
H.S.L. I: 1200(1) Be: 2 x (300 x Q)(3) 1000 up to 1800
H.S.L. II: 800 Bt: 320
Br: 100
Number of axles 5/3 scheme 1: 3 Be: 3 3/3/2 HB:4
H.S.L. I: 4 Br:2
H.S.L. II: 4
Axle distance (m) 4 x 4/1.50-6.00 scheme 1: 2.5-6.0 Be: -4.50-1.50- -1.50-1.50/ HB: 1.8: 6-26: 1.8
H.S.L. I: 1.2-8.0 Bt: - 1 . 3 5 - -1.50-1.50/ (for basic HB axles
15.0-1.2 -3.00 arrangement)
H.S.L. II: 1.0-6.0
15.0-1.0
Axle load (kN) 120-60-40/200 scheme 1: 210 Bc:60xC!- 200/100/40-80 HB: 250 to 450
scheme 2: 260 120 x d - 120 x Ci
H.S.L. I: 300 Bt: 160
H.S.L. II: 200
Wheel load (kN) 60-30-20/50 scheme 1: 105 Bc:30x Cx- 100/50/20-40 HA: 100 (nominal for
scheme 2: 130 60 x Ci - 60 x Ci design)
Bt:80 HB: 112.5 (Maxm.)
Br: 100
Contract area wheel 0.25 x 0.30 scheme 1: 0.20 x 0.60 Be: 0.25 x 0.25 0.20 x 0.60/ HA: nominal 0.34 m
1 xb(m2) 0.10x0.30 scheme 2: 0.20 x 0.60 Be: 0.25 x 0.60 0.20 x 0.40/ diam. for lOOkN
Be: 0.30 x 0.60 0.20 x 0.30 wheel
(Continued)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Table 3.5. (Continued)
Belgium Finland France Germany United Kingdom
CM. No. 71-155-1971 DIN 1072-1967 BS5400: Part 2: 1978

Max. wheel pressure on surface 1.0 1.08 1.15 0.833 —

(N/mm 2 )
0.4
Impact factor 11 1 °'4 - 1 i 1 A _ 0 008 T > 1 Included in HA and
' 1 + 0 . 2L 1 + 0.2L
HB loading
0.6 0.6
+ - +
1+4(G/S) 1+4(P/S)
All stresses:
oE = 240 tens 150 144 160
compr. 150 144 140
(N/mm 2 ) - -
oE = 360 tens 240 216 240
compr. 240 216 210

Japan Italy The Netherlands Norway and Sweden Spain USA

Norme 384 du VOSB 1963 code 1972 Design standards
14.02.1962 of 1977

Classification of bridges 2 types: 1st/ 2 categories 3 types: 60/45/30 - 5 types

2nd H10H15H20
HS15 HS20
Uniform distribution load L loading (5) 4 q =f(L; C) L < 200 m. 4 (8)
(kN/m 2 ) (on footways) 3
Loading of convoy type T loading differential 600/450/30 type 1: 630 600 90.7-136.1-181.4-
(kN) -200/140 combinations of type 2: 260 = 1 axle 245.0-326.5
120/180/320/
615/745
Number of axles T loading 2/2/6/6/6 3/3/3 type 1:3 3 H type 2
=2 type 2: 1 HS type 3
(Continued)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 262 BANGASH

Table 3.5. Footnotes

(1) Heavy special load.

(2) C = class; n = number of traffic lanes.
(3) C\ depending on class and number of traffic lanes.
(4) HA: normal traffic; HB: abnormal vehicle.
(5)

Class of Loading Main loads (up to 5.5 metres in width) Subloads

bridge 50% of main
Line load Uniform load, p (kN/m2) loads
P (kN/m) L<80 L>80

1 L-20 50 3.5 4.3-L/100

but not less than 3
2 L-14 70% of those of L-20

(6)

T loading 20/(50 + L)

L loading Steel bridge 20/(50 + L)

Reinforced concrete bridge 7/(20 + L)
Prestressed concrete bridge 10/(20 + L)

(7) The contact area is considered to be proportional to the impact factor.

(8)

Vehicle type Uniform load Concentrated load

Mom. Shear

H20, HS20 9.4 kN/m 80 kN 116kN

H15, HS15 7.1 kN/m 60kN 87kN
H10 4.7 kN/m 40 kN 58 kN

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Table 3.6. Applied impact factors for various countries

L Germany France - Belgium Italy Netherlands U.S.A. Switzerland Japan

Steel
(100-L)2 L+100 20
(m) 1.4-0.008 L 1 +1 1x 1 5 ° 1 + 0.05 + 1+
Steel Concrete
0 0
(250- L
)^/
Concrete
' L+125 L+10 5ÔTI
(L in feet)
0.80 0.64 40 3
1+ 1+ 1+ 1+ When L is in metres
1 + 0.2L 1 + 0.2L 100+ L 10 + L
15.24
1+
LT38
0 1.40 1.80 1.64 1.40 1.40 1.30 1.30* 1.50 1.40
10 1.32 1.27 1.21 1.34 1.36 1.15 1.30 1.28 1.33
20 1.24 1.16 1.13 1.28 1.33 1.10 1.26 1.20 1.29
30 1.16 1.11 1.09 1.22 1.31 1.08 1.22 1.16 1.25
40 1.08 1.09 1.07 1.17 1.29 1.06 1.20 1.14 1.22
50 1.00 1.07 1.06 1.13 1.27 1.05 1.17 1.13 1.20
60 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.09 1.25 1.04 1.16 1.12 1.18
70 1.00 1.05 1.04 1.05 1.24 1.04 1.14 1.11 1.17
80 1.00 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.22 1.03 1.13 1.10 1.15
90 1.00 1.04 1.03 1.01 1.21 1.03 1.12 1.10 1.14
100 1.00 1.04 1.03 1.00 1.20 1.03 1.11 1.09 1.13

* Maximum value 1.30.

Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom: impact factor included in the axle loads.
Reproduced courtesy of NATO, Brussels.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 mm
■ • Germany
• • Belgium
Sweden + Norway + Finland 5000
♦ ♦ Netherlands ■ • Germany
-o—o- Italy -•—•- Belgium
Spain 4500 Sweden + Norway + Finland
-*—i-USA (HS 20) ♦ ♦ Netherlands
Switzerland -o—o Italy
United Kingdom 4000 Spain
France -*—■*- USA (HS 20)
• Japan Switzerland
3500 h H>—i> United Kingdom
France
* * Japan
3000

2500

2000

1500

1000, J I I I L
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Span (m)

J I I I L J L q equivalent: 4 lanes
"0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P : 2 lanes
Span (m)

Figure 3.2. Comparison of National Design Calculations - I (reproduced courtesy of OECD and NATO, Brussels)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 mm

MIL 8000
- • — • - Germany
7500 - • — • - Belgium
Sweden + Norway + Finland
♦ ♦ Netherlands
7000 - o - o - Italy
Spain
*—►- USA (HS 20)
6500 \- Switzerland
s—> United Kingdom
France
6000 t-*k- Japan

P- 4 lanes
5500

e 5000

°- 3500 h- 4500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Span (m) Span (m)

Figure 3.3. Comparison of National Design Calculations - II (reproduced courtesy ofOECD and NATO, Brussels)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 266 BANGASH

3.S.I Eurocode I ENV 1991-3 (1995): design technique

The basic idea of the Eurocode 1 is to present a unified approach to bridge design
in Europe and the draft design document was issued as Volume 3. Before the
loading specifications are discussed, the ENV 1991-3 specifies certain notations
given as follows:

A =- area of rail cross-section

Fr == interaction force due to temperature
^w -= wind force compatible with railway traffic
* b == interaction force transferred to the bearings (general)

*ia == interaction force due to traction (acceleration)

*ib == interaction force due to braking
Fs == interaction force due to deflection
G == self-weight (general)
L = = length (general)
LT = = expansion length

L{ = = influence length
L$ -= 'determinant' length (length associated with $)

e == rail traffic action (general)

& == horizontal force (general)
Nx == number of notional lanes

Gla == traction (acceleration) force

Glb == braking force
Qr == resulting action (general)

Q* (i = 1,2...) = magnitude of characteristic axle load on notional lane

number /
g k = characteristic value of an axle load
Qs = nosing force
Qt — centrifugal force
Qv = vertical axle load
g vi = wheel load

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 267

V = speed (km/h)
VR = resistance of the rail to longitudinal displacement
W = carriageway width including hard shoulder, hard strip, and
marking strips
W\ = width of a notional lane
a = distance between rail supports, length of distributed loads
(load models SW)
a% = horizontal distance to the track centre
b = length of the longitudinal distribution of a load by sleeper and
ballast
c = space between distributed loads (load models SW)
cp = aerodynamic coefficient
d = regular spacing of axles
e = eccentricity of vertical loads, eccentricity of resulting action
(on reference plane)
/ = reduction factor;
force;
centrifugal force
g = acceleration due to gravity
h = height (general)
/jg = vertical distance from rail level to the underside of a structure
k\ = train shape coefficient
k2 = specific factor for slipstream effects on vertical surfaces parallel
to the tracks
k3 = reduction factor for slipstream effects on simple horizontal
surfaces adjacent to the track
k4 = increasing factor of slipstream effects on surfaces enclosing the
tracks (horizontal actions)
k5 = increasing factor of slipstream effects on surfaces enclosing the
tracks (vertical actions)
n0 = natural frequency of the unloaded bridge
#Ai — accidental line load

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 268 BANGASH

#f = footpath loading
qt = equivalent distributed loads from slipstream effects
qx — characteristic value of a vertical UDL
qn = magnitude of characteristic UDL on notional lane number i
qv = vertical distributed load
s = gauge
t = twist (changing of cant over 3 m)
u — cant
v = speed in m/s

Greek upper case letters

A</?fat = additional dynamic amplification factor for fatigue near

expansion joints
6 = end rotation of structure (general)
$(<I>2> $3) = dynamic factor for railway loads

Greek lower case letters

a — load classification factor;

coefficient for speed
a
QU aqi — adjustment factors of some load models on lanes
I(I = 1,2...)

aqr — adjustment factor of load models on the remaining area

(3Q = adjustment factor of load model 2
6 = deformation (general); vertical deflection
<5h = horizontal displacement
(p, <p , if" = dynamic impact components for actual trains
¥>fat = dynamic amplification factor for fatigue
p = density
a = stress
n\ = number of notional lanes for a road bridge

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 269

qeq = equivalent uniformly distributed load for axle loads on

embankments
qfr = characteristic vertical uniformly distributed load on footways
or footbridges
qfc = magnitude of the characteristic vertical distributed load (load
model 1) on notional lane number / (/ = 1,2...) of a road bridge
qTk = magnitude of the characteristic vertical distributed load on the
remaining area of the carriageway (load model 1)
w = carriageway width for a road bridge, including hard shoulders,
hard strips and marker strips
wx = width of a notional lane for a road bridge

Common notation

ATef = reference area for the determination of wind effects

F w = wind force
F w k = characteristic wind force
F Wn = nominal wind force
Ls = in general, length of a span
LSJ = length of span number j
r — horizontal radius of a carriageway or track centre-line;
distance between wheel loads
gflk = characteristic horizontal force on a footbridge
8fwk = characteristic value of the concentrated load (wheel load)
on a footbridge
g,* = magnitude of characteristic axle load (load model 1) on
notional lane number i (i — 1,2...) of a road bridge
g lk = magnitude of the characteristic longitudinal forces (braking
and acceleration forces) on a road bridge
g tk = magnitude of the characteristic transverse or centrifugal
forces on road bridges
Sn (or S) = snow load
T — thermal climatic action

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 270 BANGASH

r k = a group of thermal components, which for many bridges is

limited to uniform and gradient components (characteristic
value). In other cases more complex groups have to be
distinguished (e.g. for railway bridges with continuous
welded rails and for bridges with stays)
TS = tandem system for load model 1
UDL = uniformly distributed load for load model 1
gri = group of loads, i is number (i = 1 to n)
7G — partial factor for permanent actions
7Q = partial factor for variable actions
Î/J0 = reduction factor for combination values of loads
V>i = reduction factor for infrequent loads
if>\ — reduction factor for frequent loads
tp2 — reduction factor for quasi-permanent loads
F%i = wind force compatible with road traffic
Ôak = characteristic value of a single axis load (load model 2) for a
road bridge.

3.5.2 Loading classes

(1) The actual loads on road bridges result from various categories of
vehicles and from pedestrians.
(2) Vehicle traffic may differ between bridges depending on its composition
(e.g. percentages of lorries), its density (e.g. average number of vehicles
per year), its conditions (e.g. jam frequency), the extreme likely weights
of vehicles and their axle loads, and, if relevant, the influence of road
signs restricting carrying capacity.
(3) Loads due to the road traffic, consisting of cars, lorries and special
vehicles (e.g. for industrial transport), give rise to vertical and horizontal,
static and dynamic forces.

3.5.3 Divisions of the carriageway into notional lanes

The widths w\ of notional lanes on a carriageway and the greatest possible
whole (integer) numbering 'n{ of such lanes on this carriageway are shown
in Table 3.7.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 271

Table 3.7. Division of the carriageway into notional lanes

Carriageway width Number of Width of a Width of the

notional lanes notional lane remaining area

w < 5.4m «l 3m w — 3 (m)

5.4 < w < 6 «i = 2 w/2 0
w>6 «i = int(w/3) 3m w - 3 x int(w/3)

Figure 3.4. Example of lane numbering

Example of calculation
w
carriageway width = 11 m; nx = int — = 3
width of the remaining area =11.0 — 3 x 3 = 2m
The location and numbering of a notional lane on a carriageway is chosen
on the basis of the loading intensity not the proximity of lanes. The most
heavily laden lane is assigned lane number one and the second most intensely
loaded, lane number two and so on. The lane giving the most unfavourable
effect is the notional lane number 1. The second most unfavourable is lane
two. Figure 3.4 shows an example of the lane numbering.

3.5.4 Vertical loads - characteristic values

The load models for vertical loads represent the following traffic effects:
Load model 1. Concentrated and uniformly distributed loads, which
cover most of the effects of the traffic of lorries and cars. This model is
intended for general and local verifications.
(1) The main loading system consists of two partial systems:
(a) Double-axle concentrated loads (tandem system: TS), each
axle having a weight:
«QÔk (3-1)
where:
atq are adjustment factors

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 272 BANGASH

Each axle of the tandem model has two identical wheels, the
load per wheel being therefore equal to 0.5a Q g k . The contact
surface of each wheel is to be taken as square and of side
0.40 m (see Fig. 3.5).
(b) Uniformly distributed loads (UDL system), having a weight
density per square metre:
aqqk (3.2)
where:
aq are adjustment factors
These loads should be applied only in the unfavourable parts of the influ­
ence surface, longitudinally and transversally.
(2) Load model 1 should be applied on each notional lane and on the
remaining areas. On notional lane number i, the load magnitudes
are referred to as aQj<2ik and a^q-^. On the remaining areas, the
load magnitude is referred to as a qr # rk .
(3) Unless otherwise specified, the dynamic amplification is included in
the values for g ik and qik.
(4) For the assessment of general effects, the tandem systems may be
assumed to travel along the axes of the notional lanes.
(5) The values of g ik and #ik are given in Table 3.8.

The details of load model 1 are illustrated in Fig. 3.5.

E 3 — : -,<■
2.00

>0.50

2.00
rH w■ /
\V\ mI A
T f"
1.20

0.40

F=Tt
0.40
IBB» t.
*for Wj = 3.00 m

Figure 3.5. Load model 1

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 273

Table 3.8. Basic values

Location Tandem system UDL system

Axle loads Qik (kN) q* (or qrk) (kN/m 2 )

Lane number 1 300 9

Lane number 2 200 2.5
Lane number 3 100 2.5
Other lanes 0 2.5
Remaining area (qrk) 0 2.5

For general and local effects, the second and third tandem systems are replaced
by a tandem system with axial weight (200Q;Q2 + 100aQ3) kN or for span lengths
greater than 10 m, each tandem system is replaced by a one-axle concentrated
load of weight equal to the total weight of the two axles. There is a restriction
placed on the axle weight:
Lane 1 -> 600Q Q1 kN aQ1 > 0.8
Lane 2 -» 400aQ2 kN
Lane 3 -+ 200aQ3 kN

3.5.5 Single axle model (load model 2)

( 1 ) This model consists of a single axle load /3Q g ak with Qak equal to 400 kN,
dynamic amplification included, which should be applied at any location
on the carriageway. However, when relevant, only one wheel of 200/3Q
(kN) may be considered. Unless otherwise specified, /3Q is equal to agj
(2) Unless it is specified to adopt for the wheels the same contact surface as
for load model 1, the contact surface of each wheel is a rectangle of sides
0.35 m and 0.60 m as shown in Fig. 3.6.

Bai

Bridge longitudinal
2.00
Axis direction

n
:
■ ! !

0.60

0.35

Figure 3.6. Load model 2

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 274 BANGASH

I Lane l [ l j L a n e 2j Lane 3
llliMI IHi'H Lane 3

25mJ 25 m

25ml
±±+- n 25 m

Axle lines of 150 or 200 kN

Axle lines of 240 kN
| Standardized vehicle (LM3)

area located by the frequent model of LM1

Figure 3.7. Simultaneity of load models 1 and 3

3.5.6 Set of models of special vehicles (load model 3)

When one or more of the standardized models of this set is required by the client
to be taken into account, the load values and dimensions should be as described
in Annex A of Eurocode 1.
Note 1: For «g; and aqi factors all equal to one, the effects of the 600/150
standardized model are covered by the effects of the main loading system and do
not need to be considered.
Note 2: The chent may also specify particular models, especially to cover the
effects of exceptional loads with a gross weight exceeding 3600 kN.
Load models 1 and 3 can be combined as shown in Fig. 3.7.

3.5.7 Crowd loading (load model 4)

Crowd loading if relevant, is represented by a nominal load (which includes
dynamic amplification). Unless otherwise specified, it should be applied on the
relevant parts of the length and width of the road bridge deck, the central reser­
vation being included where relevant. This loading system, intended for general
verifications, is associated solely with a transient situation.

3.5.8 Dispersal of concentrated loads

(1) The various concentrated loads to be considered for local verifications,
associated with load models 1, 2 and 3, are assumed to be uniformly dis­
tributed on their whole contact area.
(2) The dispersal through the pavement and concrete slabs is taken at a
spread-to-depth ratio of 1 horizontally to 1 vertically down to the level
of the centroid of the structural flange below (Fig. 3.8). The notation
and dimensions specifically for railway bridges are given in Fig. 3.9.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 275

Figure 3.8. Dispersal of concentrated loads

Figure 3.9. Notation and dimensions specifically for railways

3.5.9 Other forces and their components

Along with vertical loads, other loads and forces are acting in combinations as
specified by various codes. It was decided to use the symbols of Eurocode 1
as the main symbols and where variations in symbols exist, they should be
identified.
The other forces are braking and accelerating forces, centrifugal forces, acci­
dental and collision forces, wind, water and earthquake forces, forces due to
temperature effects, earth pressure and forces due to erection. Tables in the
code give brief descriptions of these loads. For seismic effects see Section A3 for
load computations.

3.6 Design specifications for other countries

Sections 3.6.1 to 3.6.14 below give bridge design specifications for a number of
countries. The reader can compare specifications when designing a bridge for
a specific country.

3.6.1 Belgium
Classification
Only one type of loading is considered. Bridges are therefore not divided up into
classes as a function of their importance or the density of traffic.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 276 BANGASH

Division of the carriageway

On indication of the appropriate authority, the carriageway shall be divided into
an integer number of lanes. The lane width shall not be below 2.5 m, although
today a width of 4.0 m can be attained.

Loading systems
The loading scheme takes into account, for all lanes, the simultaneous action of:
(a) a uniformly distributed loading of 4 kN/m 2 (q);
(b) a normal vehicle of 320 kN (Q) weight, with one axle load of 120 kN, two
of 60 kN and two of 40 kN.
The axle loads are interchangeable. The uniformly distributed load shall not be
interrupted at the location of the vehicle.
Special heavy vehicle. As an alternative loading, two schemes are given.
Heavy vehicle type 1 : two groups of 4 axles, each axle load 300 kN, axles
spaced 1.7 m from centre to centre (c-t-c), groups spaced 16.1m c-t-c, and
total load 2400 kN.
Heavy vehicle type 2: Two groups of two axles, each axle load 450 kN, axles
spaced 1.8 m (c-t-c), groups spaced 7.8 m (c-t-c), total load 1800 kN.
The appropriate authority decides whether a bridge shall be designed for the
normal loading and also for the special heavy vehicle. The type 1 or type 2
heavy vehicle loading shall be considered as being alone on the bridge.

Impact factor
In order to take into account the dynamic effects on bridge members, the live
loadings shall be multiplied by a coefficient K > 1.

tf =1+0.377- 7 =L=. J l + ^
where:
v = maximum allowed speed of vehicles, in km/h (vmin = 60);
L = length of span of the considered bridge member, in metres;
a = L/fs where fs is the static deflection of the member as a result of
the dead load, in metres;
S = the live load acting on the member;
P = permanent load acting on the member.

For the purpose of preliminary designs etc., it is allowed to use the formula:
0.4 0.6
+ +
1 + 0.2L 1 + 4(P/S)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 277

3.6.2 Belgium: new Code

Classification
In the new draft of the Code, a division of bridges into three classes will be made:
Class A: bridges for normal traffic. Current loadings shall be taken into
account when calculating these bridges.
Class B: bridges for heavy traffic. As above; additionally a check shall be
made for an exceptional loading (heavy vehicle or dense traffic).
Class C: bridges for light traffic. Calculations shall be made taking into
account a lower type of loading.
Division of the carriageway
The carriageway shall be divided into an integer number of traffic lanes, the
width of which can vary from 2.5 m to 4.0 m.

Loading systems
For Class A the result of the simultaneous action of the following loads is to be
taken into account:
(a) on the whole surface of the bridge: a uniformly distributed loading of
3.5kN/m horizontal surface;
(b) for every traffic lane: a concentrated unit loading, composed of a pair of
axles (tandem), each with an axle load of 150 kN, total weight 300 kN (Q)
with an axle spacing of 1.5 m.
Note that the responsible authority is allowed:
to reduce the uniformly distributed lane loading for important bridges (four
traffic lanes and a span of more than 100 m);
to request a check of the structure under a uniformly distributed loading of
10kN/m 2 , while reduced safety factors are admitted (Class B).

Impact factor
The impact coefficient has the value:

0.4 0.6
+ +
l+0.2L l+4(P/S)
with
P = the permanent load;
S = the live load;
L = the span of the considered member. In the case of continuous
girders, L shall be chosen as the average of all the different spans.

(See also remarks under impact factor of the code for France.)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 278 BANGASH

3.6.3 Finland: Code I97B

Classification
There is a distinction between public and private roads. For the public roads
there is no classification.

Division of the carriageway

In any case the number and location of the 3 m wide loaded lanes are chosen so
that the determining effect is achieved. The number of loaded lanes is at the most
the same as the number of traffic lanes of the road. In special cases (e.g. traffic
ramps in the vicinity of road crossings, wide bridges along one-lane roads),
the number of loaded lanes is determined separately.

Loading systems
There are three normal load schemes and two special heavy loadings:
load scheme 1 (Fig. 3.10(a)): a three-axle vehicle of 630 kN and a uniformly
distributed loading of 3 kN/m2;
load scheme 2 (Fig. 3.10(b)): one-axle load of 260 kN which consists of two
130kN wheel loads;
load scheme 3: one 130kN wheel load;
heavy special load I (Fig. 3.10(c)): a four-axle vehicle of 1200 kN which is com­
posed of two bogies;
heavy special load II (Fig. 3.10(d)): a four-axle vehicle of 800 kN which is com­
posed of two bogies.
Load schemes 1, 2 and 3.* Each part of the structure is dimensioned accord­
ing to the scheme which is the most critical. Schemes 1 and 2 are supposed to
load the bridge surface lengthwise, i.e. along the 3 m wide loaded lane. The
wheel loads are located in the centre of the loaded lane and at the most two
loaded lanes are calculated for the axle groups. The loaded lanes are placed
in a determining position in the cross-section of the carriageway (including
shoulders and other surfaces on the level of carriageway).
Special heavy loads. The bridge structures have furthermore to be dimen­
sioned for a special heavy load I or II which, together with the permanent
and long lasting loads, are of rare occurrence. The heavy vehicle is presumed
to travel in the centre of the carriageway. In this case the largest deviation
from the centre-line of the carriageway to the centre-line of the road is to
be supposed as:
b (m) 5 5 8 8 10 >10
e (m) 0 0.5x^-2.5 1.5 0.5x6-3.5
where the road width b is the summed-up width of the carriageway and other
lanes and shoulders on the same level (see Fig. 3.11).
* According to 'Preliminary Internordic loading directions for road bridges of 9th December,
1971'.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS A N D LOAD DISTRIBUTION 279

(a) load scheme 1

210kN. 210kN 210kN. 105kN. 105kN.
2.5m 0.5m | 2.0m 0.5m
I 0.6m

mm mw

/9kN./m
lilllil!
3.0m
1
longitudinal
-^transversal
»>

(b) load scheme 2

260 kN. 130kN. 130kN.
0.5m 2.0m 0.5m
0.2m 0.6m
lli
EUL OTÏÏ1

longitudinal 3.0m
transversal

(c) special heavy load I

300kN.300kN. 300kN.300kN.

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
1.2m 8.0 —15.0m 1.2m

0.75
en'2.5
traffic
direction 0.75
i E 4.0m

0.15m O.lôm^

(d) special heavy load II

200kN. 200kN. 200kN.200kN.

X.X
1.0m | | 6.0 —15.0m
JL
I
éI 1.0m

0.75
V\ v\ 4
traffic M 2.5 4.0m
direction \2 0.75
Tr
0.15m 0.15m

Figure 3.10. (a) Load scheme 1; (b) load scheme 2; (c) special heavy load I; and
(d) special heavy load II

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 280 BANGASH

b/2 , b/2
-* *J-^

■ ! i
1 mu in

Figure 3.11. Carriageway dimensioning for special heavy loads

Impact factor
The increase caused by impacts is included in the load schemes 1,2 and 3 and for
special heavy loads I and II the impact factor is assumed to be 1.4 (for timber
bridges: 1.2).

3.6.4 France: (Circulaire Ministérielle No. 71-155 du

29 Décembre / 9 7 / . Fascicule No. 61 - Titre II du Cahier des
Prescriptions Communes) (Modified 1989)
Classification
The code distinguishes three bridge classes depending on the width of the car­
riageway:
Class I: bridges having a carriageway with a width equal to or greater than
7 m.
Class II: bridges with a width of carriageway between 5.50 m and 7 m.
Class III: bridges with a width of carriageway equal to or less than 5.50 m.

Division of the carriageway

The width of the carriageway that can be loaded shall be divided into an integer
number of traffic lanes. The width of these lanes shall not be less than 3 m.
Carriageways having a width of 5-6 m shall be considered as having two lanes.

Loading systems
Two different and independent types of loading are to be placed on the carriage­
way:
A: a uniformly distributed load;
B: vehicle or axle loads.
Certain classified routes must allow for the passage of heavy military loads (M80
and M120) or exceptional heavy transports (type D and type E).

Loading system A

A(L) = 2.30 + z ^ (kNM2)

where L = loaded length in metres.

Depending on the bridge class and the number of loaded lanes, the value of A
is to be multiplied by the coefficient ax (see Table 3.9).

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS A N D LOAD D I S T R I B U T I O N 281

Table 3.9

Number of loaded lanes 1 2 3 4 >5

first 1 1 0.9 0.75 0.7

Bridge class second 1 0.9
third 0.9 0.8

The resulting load A\ = a\A is to be multiplied by a coefficient a2 = (V0/V),

where V— width of lane and V0 = 3.5 m for bridges of the first class, 3.0 m for
bridges of the second class, and 2.75 m for bridges of the third class.
The load A2 = ax • a2 • A obtained in this way is to be placed uniformly over
the total width of the considered traffic lanes.

Loading system B
There are three different and independent loading systems that are to be consid­
ered for each bridge member.
System Be (Fig. 3.12(a)) consisting of two vehicles of 300 kN on each lane.
Depending on the bridge class and the number of loaded lanes, the value of
the vehicle loads is to be multiplied by the coefficient given in Table 3.10.

(a) Longitudinal Transversal

(pair of trucks)

2.50 2.50

^ 4?M^ ffr
\\\\\W>H\\\\\\\\\<
O-O—-j
4.50 1.50 4.50 1.50 0.25 112.00 I 12.0011 0.25
—M-M—M l ^ — H H
0.50

60 kN 120kN120kN 60 kN 120kN120kN

(b) Longitudinal Transversal Contact area

WVwWVs
I
100kN 100kN 0.30

(c) Longitudinal Transversal

(for a single tandem)
3.00 3.00

"^WvMv
1.35 0.50 I I 2.001 I 2.001
M—r* H r*—H
1.00
160kN 160kN

Figure 3.12. The three loading systems for vehicle or axle loads

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 282 BANGASH

Table 3.10
Number of loaded lanes 1 2 3 4 >5

first 1.20 1.10 0.95 0.8 0.7

Bridge class second 1.00 1.00
third 1.00 0.8

Table 3.11
Loading system M80 M120

A track-type vehicle with a total load of 720 kN HOOkN

Length of a track 4.90 m 6.10m
Width of a track 0.85 m 1.00 m
Distance between the tracks c.t.c. 2.80 m 3.30m

Alternative:
Two axles, each with a load of 220 kN 330 kN
Length of an axle 3.5m 4.0 m
Distance between the axles c.t.c. 1.5m 1.80 m

System Br (Fig. B. 12(b)) consisting of an isolated wheel load of 100 kN.

System Bt (Fig. 3.12(c)) consisting of a pair of two axles, each 160kN, on
each lane. The distance between axles is 1.35 m and the distance between
wheels is 2.0 m. For the second bridge class, the system Bt is to be multiplied
by a coefficient 0.9. For the third class the system Bt is not to be considered.
Military loads. See Table 3.11.
Exceptional heavy transports. See Table 3.12.

Impact factor
The impact factor is included in the values of the loading system A. For the load­
ing system B, the value of the impact factor AT is given by the following formula:

K=l+ +
YT^ TTWJsj; [1 + a + /3]

Table 3.12

Types Type D Type E

Two carriers, each with a total load of HOOkN 2000 kN

Length of carrier 11.0m 15m
Width of carrier 3.3m 3.3m
Centre to centre distance of carriers 19m 33 m

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 283

with
P = the permanent load;
S = the live load B;
L = the length of the bridge member in metres.

With sufficient accuracy one can assume that the coefficient /3 has a value of 0.6 a
for concrete structures and a value of a for steel and composite structures. Thus,
for concrete structures:
0.64
K= 1
1 + 0.2L
and for steel and composite structures:
0.80
K=\ + 1 + 0.2L

3.6.5 Germany (DIN /072-/987)

Classification
The code DIN 1072 distinguishes three bridge classes:
Class 60: is applied for bridges on motorways, federal and State (Lander)
roads.
Class 30: is applied for bridges on county roads, community roads, city
roads, and service roads in rural areas for heavy traffic. One axle
load of 130kN is to be applied for cross-beams with a centre to
centre distance of < 2 m and for longitudinal girders as well as
for slabs with a span of <7m.
Class 12: is applied for bridges on roads for light traffic (rural areas mostly).

Division of the carriageway

The carriageway shall be divided into a principal traffic lane of 3 m width, and
normal lanes for the rest. The principal lane must be chosen at the most critical
position for the considered element of the structure.

Loading systems
For the principal lane:
a heavy vehicle (Q); and
a uniformly distributed loading (qx) in front and behind this vehicle.
For the other lanes:
a uniformly distributed loading q2.
The values of g, qx and q2 are given in Table 3.13.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 284 BANGASH

Table 3.13

Class Heavy vehicle type Distributed load

lit
Total Axle Distance
load load between (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
Q (kN) (kN) axles (m)

60 600 200 100 -1.50-1.50- 5 3

30 300 100 50 -1.50-1.50- 5 3
12 120 40/80 20/40 -3.0- 4 3

Impact factor
The traffic loadings on the principal lane have to be multiplied by an impact
factor k, the value of which varies between 1.4 and 1:

k= 1 . 4 - 0 . 0 0 8 L > 1 where
L = length of span of bridge member (stringer, cross-girder, main
girder) in metres.

3.6.6 Italy (Code 384 of 14.2.1982)

Classification
The code distinguishes two bridge classes: Class I routes subjected to both civil
and military traffic; Class II country roads destined for civil vehicles only.

Division of the carriageway

The carriageway is divided into an integer number of traffic lanes the width of
which varies between 3 and 3.5 m, in accordance with the design load schemes
as indicated below. In the transverse direction, the design loads are placed at
locations that are the most unfavourable.

Loading systems
Different loading systems are to be considered (see Fig. 3.13).
Scheme 1: an unrestricted train of vehicles, each with a load of 120 kN.
Scheme 2: a single rolling machine of 180kN.
Scheme 3: pedestrians densely crowded - 4 kN/m 2 .
Scheme 4: an unrestricted train of military loads of 615kN.
Scheme 5: an unrestricted train of military loads of 320 kN.
Scheme 6: a single military load of 745 kN.
The width of the surface covered by the schemes is 3.0 m for Schemes 1 and 2 and
3.5 m for Schemes 4, 5 and 6.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS A N D LOAD D I S T R I B U T I O N 285

Civil loads

Scheme 1 : unrestricted train of trucks of 120kN

3.00
•
3.00
A
3.00
i m 2.00
| ^
40kN 80kN

Scheme 2: single rolling machine of 180kN

1.2b

t
i k
■ ■ ■ — — ^o
o To
I"*
o
3.00
1.00 -3.00J 2.0 0
60 kN 120kN 6.00
-+ ►

Military loads

Scheme 4: unrestricted train of military loads of 615kN Trailer

i

13.74 Tractor
o
Tractor Trailer
« <k* * * * i i ■■■ ■ 1
3.50 | 3.87 1.34 3.31 4.20 1.02 3.50 ,|1.88| a *»
I 2.635
r
''
V
55
1' '' '
140140 (in kN)
2.54
«* ► -^
2.89
►

Scheme 5: unrestricted train of military loads of 320kN

3.80
o
r^ ^
• • • • • •
4.00 .86 .61 .86 .61.86 4.00 4.2 |l.685| I 4.2
'' ' '' \ \ \' 2.525
6x53.3kN

Scheme 6: single military load of 745 kN Trailer

13.74 Tractor .
o
Tractor Trailer 1
1> 41 mr m • <r J I ■ ■■■ '
3.87 1.34 3.31 4.20 1.02 Jl.88| I 2.635
1
'' ' ' T '* 2.54 2.89
55 70 70 190 180180 (in kN)

Figure 3.13. The different loading systems of Schemes 1,2,4,5 and 6

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 286 BANGASH

Schemes to be adopted for the calculation of the bridges:

Class I: The most unfavourable of the Schemes 4, 5 and 6 together with one
or more vehicle trains (Scheme 1) and a load of 4kN/m 2 on the
side-walks (Scheme 3).
Class II: The most unfavourable of the following conditions: one or more
vehicle trains (Scheme 1) and a load of 4kN/m 2 on the side­
walks (Scheme 3);
one or more rolling machines (Scheme 2) together with the load of
4 kN/m 2 (Scheme 3) on the side-walks.

Impact factor
For spans with a length L < 100 m:

100 x (250 - L)

For the spans with a length L > 100 m, K = 1.

L represents for the main bridge members the distance between bearings and
for the other members the length of the span concerned.

3.6.7 United Kingdom (British Standard No. 5400: Part 2: 1978

'Steel, concrete and composite bridges9 - specification for
loads)
Classification
The loading representing normal traffic is not varied. The axle loads in the
nominal four-axle abnormal vehicle unit (used for design) may vary between
250kNand450kN.
Division of the carriageway
For design purposes, the carriageway shall be divided into notional traffic lanes,
the width of which shall be not less than 2.3 m nor more than 3.8 m.
Loading systems
There are two types of loadings:
(a) Type HA loading (normal traffic)
Formula design loading for bridges. It consists of a uniformly distributed
lane loading, together with one knife-edge load.
(b) Type HB loading (abnormal vehicle)
Exceptional design loading for bridges. A bridge is calculated for the
type HA loading and checked for HB loading, which represents abnor­
mally heavy vehicles. When considering the effects of this loading a
reduced partial load factor is applied to the HB load and the coexistent
HA loading.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 287

Type HA loading
- Two carriageway lanes shall always be considered as occupied by full HA
loading (100 per cent).
- All other lanes shall be considered as occupied by one-third of the full lane
loading (33 1/3%).
Type HB loading
- The HB load may be in any position, occupying one lane or straddling two.
No other loading shall be considered in the 25 m length at each end of the
vehicle.
- HA loading shall be applied to two lanes - either the remainder of the lane
occupied by the HB vehicle plus an adjacent lane, or the remainder of the
two lanes straddled by the HB vehicle, or the remainder of one straddled
lane plus an adjacent lane.
- All other lanes shall be loaded to 1/3 HA load.
Load values
The type HA loading consists of (a) and (6), or (c) namely:
(a) A uniformly distributed lane loading. For loaded lengths up to 30 m, the
value shall be 30 kN/m of notional lane. For greater length (L) it shall be
151 x (1/L) 0 4 7 5 , but not less than 9 kN/m of notional lane (see Fig.
3.14).
(b) One knife-edge load (axle load) of 120kN, uniformly distributed across
the width of the notional traffic lane (see Table 3.14).
(c) A single nominal wheel load, as an alternative to (a) + (b). The load shall
be 100 kN and distributed over an area of 0.34 m 2 or a square of 0.30 m
sides. The HA wheel load is applied to members supporting small areas
of roadway, where the proportion of the distributed load and knife-edge
load which would otherwise be allocated to it is small.

W = 336(1/L)°-67kN
48.8 W = 36(1/L)°-1kN

D
W = 151 (1/L)° kN

9kN 17.2kN

380 1600
Loaded length L (m)

Figure 3.14. Loading curve for HA uniformly distributed lane loading. Assuming a
concrete deck, note that the notional lane width is 3.65 m and that HA loading for a
loaded length of 20 m is 45.14 kN/m of lane without the use of HB loading

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 288 BANGASH

Table 3.14. Uniformly distributed lane loading applied in conjunction with knife-
edge load of 120 kN

Load Load Load Load Load Load

length kN/m length kN/m length kN/m
m m m

U p to 30 30.0 73 19.7 160 13.6

32 29.1 76 19.3 170 13.2
34 28.3 79 18.9 180 12.8
36 27.5 82 18.6 190 12.5
38 26.8 85 18.3 200 12.2
40 26.2 90 17.8 210 11.9
42 25.6 95 17.4 220 11.7
44 25.0 100 16.9 230 11.4
46 24.5 105 16.6 240 11.2
49 23.8 110 16.2 255 10.9
52 23.1 115 15.9 270 10.6
55 22.5 120 15.5 285 10.3
58 21.9 125 15.2 300 10.1
61 21.4 130 15.0 320 9.8
64 20.9 135 14.7 340 9.5
67 20.5 140 14.4 360 9.2
70 20.1 145 14.2 380 and 9.0
150 14.0 above

The type HB loading is a unit loading representing a single abnormally heavy

vehicle (Fig. 3.15). The loading is composed of four-axle loads, each with a
weight expressed in units (1 unit = 1 0 kN). The number of units of HB loading
normally required is 45 units (450 kN per axle). Detailed illustrations are given
in Fig. 3.16.

axle axle axle axle

Units 1 ' 11
I
i3-
r I
-É- -É

1.8m 6, 11, 16,21 or 26m 1.8m

Figure 3.15. HB unit loading. Note that the loading is composed of four-axle loads
and that 37.5 units of HB is equivalent to an axle load of 375 kN. Therefore, the
loading per wheel is 93.75 kN. The other HB units are calculated similarly

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 4 . 8 0 0 m , 23.927 m(78'-6") bolster centres can be increased by , 4 . 8 0 0 rn
LeoonKS'-s") . (i5'-9") - ' 914mm(3'-0") and/or 1.930m(6'-4") ' " (l5'-9")' , l.eOOm^-S")
4.381m
IL 4.724m | 9 . 6 0 1 m(31'-6")^, „ 14.326m(4T-0") fc|^ 9.601 m(31'-6") 4.800 m 4.381 m | _ 4.572 m 4.381 m

9T ^-3.632m(11 , -11") 9T 15.5T15.5T 9T 15.5T15.5T

2.260 m(7'-5")—»
L - 3.073m(10'-1") - Direction of travel 40 T tractor 40 T tractor
40 T tractor
Exceptional heavy vehicle

1.600m(5'-3") Trailer capacity:

1.600m(5'-3") Pay load = 344T
4.381m, \ ^4.572rg 4.381 m 4.724m 33.528 m(110'-0") [35.458 m( 116'-4")] 4.726 m 5.486 m
Tare weight =118T
(14'-4 1/2") (15'-0") (14'-4 1/2") (15'-6") 7 axles on 1.600m(5'-3") crs (15'-7 1/2") (18'-0") Total = 462T
14.326 m(47'-0") Add for A.C.E. = 4T
-r-p[16.256 m(53'-4")] Total gross = 466T

9T 15.5T15.5T
40 T tractor
9T 15.5T15.5T 4
40 T tractor
- 3.073 m(10'-1")
Air cushion area ^
Max load 125 T
///////////////
-T-, 1.829m(6'-0")
5T
'a
1 0 T t _ r
727m(5'-8")
4.267 m(14'-0") J 9.754 m(32'-0") Blower vehicle
L2.286m(7'-6")
[4.521 m(14'-10")] [11.278m(37 , -0")]
[2.489m(8'-2")]
Exceptional heavy vehicle with air cushion

900 mm Each axle represents

1 unit of HB load
900 mm
(10kN)
900 mm
Wheel contact area
375 x 75 (75mm in
6.100m
direction of travel)
1.800 m 1.800 m
I—(6m to 25m for B116)
HB vehicle

Figure 3,16. HB unit loading repesenting a single abnormally heavy vehicle. The abnormal loading stipulated in BS153 is
applied to most public highway bridges in the UK: 45 units on motorway under-bridges, 37\ units on bridges for principal
roads and 30 units on bridges for other roads.
Some bridges are checkedfor special heavy vehicles which can range up to 466 tonnes gross weight. Where this is needed the
gross weight and trailer dimensions are stated by the authority requiring this special facility on a given route.
The vehicles illustrated are by way of example only

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Table 3.15. Minimum effective bridge temperature (reference
BS 5400 and BD 37 188)
Minimum shade Minimum effective bridge temperature
air temperature
Type of superstructure

Groups 1 and 2 Group 3 Group 4

°C °C °C °C
-24 -28 -19 -14
-23 -27 -18 -13
-22 -26 -18 -13
-21 -25 -17 -12
-20 -23 -17 -12
-19 -22 -16 -11
-18 -21 -15 -11
-17 -20 -15 -10
-16 -19 -14 -10
-15 -18 -13 -9
-14 -17 -12 -9
-13 -16 -11 -8
-12 -15 -10 -7
-11 -14 -10 -6
-10 -12 -9 -6
-9 -11 -8 -5
-8 -10 -7 -4
-7 -9 -6 -3
-6 -8 -5 -3
-5 -7 -4 -2

Jîflô/e 3.16. Maximum effective bridge temperature (reference

BS5400 and BD 37188)
Maximum shade Maximum effective bridge temperature
air temperature
Type of superstructure

Groups 1 and 2 Group 3 Group 4

°C °C °C °C
24 40 31 27
25 41 32 28
26 41 33 29
27 42 34 29
28 42 34 30
29 43 35 31
30 44 36 32
31 44 36 32
32 44 37 33
33 45 37 33
34 45 38 34
35 46 39 35
36 46 39 36
37 46 40 36
38 47 40 37

Note: See Fig. 3.17 for different types of superstructure.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 291

Group Type of constuction Temperature difference °C

Positive temperature difference Reverse temperature
1. Steel deck on steel difference
box girders
40 mm surfacing h? ^ T2

k
T
/ 3
T
' 4

_! '0 T , = 24°C
h1 =0.1 m T 2 =14°C T1 = 6°C h1 =0.5m
h2 = 0.2m T3 = 8°C
h3 = 0.3m T4 = 4°C
2. Steel deck on steel truss Use differences as for group 1
or plate girders
3. Concrete deck on steel box,
truss or plate girders
40 mm surfacing
3
hhl /0

y^HB
h2j h1 =0.6h
h2 = 0.4m
VULJLJ/

100 mm surfacing
g
A h T, h T1
k
^SHh * - j , ~
^
^ '- ^
'1

T
m °C m °C
0.2 13 0.2 3.5
0.3 16 0.3 5.0

4. Concrete slab or concrete

deck on concrete beams
or box girders
isM
100 mm surfacing

= 0.3h < 0.15m

= 0.3h > 0.10m
M
h1 = h4 = 0.2h< 0.25m
< 0.25 m h 2 =h 3 = 0.25h<0.2m
= 0.3h < (0.1 m + surfacing
100 mm surfacing depth in metres) h T
1 T
2 T
3 T
4
(for thin slabs, h« is limited by h - h ^ h J m °C °C °C °C
h T T T
<0.2 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.5
1 2 3
0.4 4.5 1.4 1.0 3.5
m °C °C °C 0.6 6.5 1.8 1.5 5.0
<0.2 8.5 3.5 0.5
0.4 12.0 3.0 1.5 0.8 7.6 1.7 1.5 6.0
0.6 12.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.5 1.5 6.3
>0.8 13.5 3.0 2.5 >1.5 8.4 0.5 1.0 6.5

Figure 3.17. Temperature variation for different types of construction (reference

BS5400 and BD 37188)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 292 BANGASH

Impact factor
An impact factor of 1.25 is taken into account in the HA loading. No impact
factor is used with the HB loading.

Classification of loads
The loads applied to a structure are regarded as either permanent or transient.
{a) Permanent loads. For the purposes of this standard, dead loads, super­
imposed dead loads and loads due tofillingmaterial shall be regarded as
permanent loads.
(i) Loading effects not due to external action. Loads deriving from
the nature of the structural material, its manufacture or the circum­
stances of its fabrication are dealt with in the appropriate parts of
this standard. Where they occur they shall be regarded as perma­
nent loads.
(iï) Settlement. The effect of differential settlement of supports shall
be regarded as a permanent load where there is reason to believe
that this will take place, and no special provision has been made
to remedy the effect.
(b) Transient loads. For the purposes of this standard all loads other than
permanent ones shall be considered transient.
The maximum effects of certain transient loads do not coexist with the
maximum effects of certain others. The reduced effects that can coexist
are specified in the relevant clauses.

Combinations of loads
Three principal and two secondary combinations of loads are specified: values of
7fL for each load for each combination in which it is considered are given in the
relevant clauses and also summarized in Table 3.17.
(a) Combination 1. For highway and foot/cycle track bridges, the loads to
be considered are the permanent loads, together with the appropriate
primary live loads, and, for railway bridges, the permanent loads,
together with the appropriate primary and secondary live loads.
(b) Combination 2. For all bridges, the loads to be considered are the loads
in combination 1, together with those due to wind and, where erection is
being considered, temporary erection loads.
(c) Combination 3. For all bridges, the loads to be considered are the loads
in combination 1, together with those arising from restraint due to the
effects of temperature range and difference, and, where erection is
being considered, temporary erection loads.
(d) Combination 4. Combination 4 does not apply to railway bridges
except for vehicle collision loading on bridge supports. For highway

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 293

Table 3.17 (pages 293-295). Loads to be taken in each combination with appro-
priate 7 ^ (ULS: ultimate limit state; SLS: serviceability limit state)

Clause Load Limit jfL to be considered in combination

number state
1 2 3 4 5

5.1 Dead
steel ULS* 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
concrete ULS* 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
5.2 Superimposed dead
deck surfacing ULS f 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
SLSf 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
other loads ULS 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
5.1.2.2 Reduced load factor for dead and ULS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
and superimposed dead load where
5.2.2.2 this has a more severe total effect
5.3 Wind
during erection ULS 1.10
SLS 1.00
with dead plus superimposed dead ULS 1.40
load only, and for members SLS 1.00
primarily resisting wind loads
with dead plus superimposed ULS 1.10
dead plus other appropriate SLS 1.00
combination 2 loads
relieving effect of wind ULS 1.00
SLS 1.00
5.4 Temperature
restraint to movement, except ULS 1.30
frictional SLS 1.00
frictional bearing restraint ULS 1.30
SLS 1.00
effect of temperature difference ULS 1.00
SLS 0.80
5.6 Differential settlement ULS 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
5.7 Exceptional loads to be assessed and agreed between the
engineer and the appropriate authority
5.8 Earth pressure retained fill and/or
live load
vertical loads ULS 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
non-vertical loads ULS 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
relieving effect ULS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

(Continued)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 294 BANGASH

Table 3.17. (Continued)

Clause Load Limit 7yi to be considered in combination
number state
1 2 3 4 5

5.9 Erection
temporary loads ULS 1.15 1.15
SLS 1.00 1.00
6.2 Highway bridges live loading
HA alone ULS 1.50 1.25 1.25
SLS 1.20 1.00 1.00
6.3 HA with HB or HB alone ULS 1.30 1.10 1.10
SLS 1.10 1.00 1.00
6.5 footway and cycle track loading ULS 1.50 1.25 1.25
SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00
6.6 accidental wheel loading* ULS 1.50
SLS 1.20
6.7.1 Loads due to vehicle collision with
parapets and associated primary
live load
Local effects
parapet load low and normal ULS1 1.50
containment SLSf 1.20
high containment ULSf 1.40
SLS1 1.15
Associated primary live load
low, normal and high ULSf 1.30
containment SLSif 1.10
6.7.2 Global effects
parapet load
Massive structures
bridge superstructures and ULSf 1.25
non-elastomeric bearings
bridge substructures and wing ULS1 1.00
and retaining walls
elastomeric bearings SLS1 1.00
Light structures
bridge superstructures and ULS1 1.40
non-elastomeric bearings
bridge substructures and wing ULS1 1.40
and retaining walls
elastomeric bearings SLS1 1.00
Associated primary live load:
massive and light structures
bridge superstructures, ULS1
non-elastomeric bearings, 1.25
bridge substructures and wing
and retaining walls
elastomeric bearings SLS1
1.00
(Continued)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS A N D LOAD D I S T R I B U T I O N 295

Table 3.17. ( Con tinned)

Clause Load Limit jfL to be considered in combination

number
state
1 2 3 4 5

6.8 Vehicle collision loads on bridge

supports and superstructures
Effects on all elements excepting ULS^I 1.50
non-elastomeric
Effects on non-elastomeric bearings SLS^ 1.00
6.9 Centrifugal load and associated ULS^ 1.50
primary live load SLS1f 1.00
6.10 Longitudinal load
HA and associated primary ULS^[ 1.25
live load SLS1 1.00
HB and associated primary ULS^ 1.10
live load SLS1f 1.00
6.11 Accidental skidding load and ULSf 1.25
associated primary live load SLSf 1.00
7 Foot/cycle track bridges
live load and effects due to ULS 1.50 1.25 1.25
parapet load SLS 1.00 1.00 1.00
vehicle collision loads on ULS 1.50
supports and superstructures§
8 Railway bridges
type RU and RL primary and ULS 1.40 1.20 1.20
secondary live loading SLS 1.10 1.00 1.00

*7fL shall be increased to at least 1.10 and 1.20 for steel and concrete, respectively, to compensate
for inaccuracies when dead loads are not accurately assessed.
* 7fL may be reduced to 1.2 and 1.0 for the ULS and SLS, respectively, subject to approval of the
appropriate authority.
* Accidental wheel loading shall not be considered as acting with any other primary live loads.
§ This is the only secondary live load to be considered for foot/cycle track bridges.
% Each secondary live load shall be considered separately together with the other combination 4
loads as appropriate.
NOTE: For loads arising from creep and shrinkage, or from welding and lack of fit, see Parts 3,4
and 5 of the standard, as appropriate

bridges, the loads to be considered are the permanent loads and the
secondary live loads, together with the appropriate primary live
loads associated with them. Secondary live loads shall be considered
separately and are not required to be combined. Each shall be taken
with its appropriate associated primary live load.
For foot/cycle track bridges, the only secondary live loads to be
considered are the vehicle collision loads on bridge supports and
superstructures.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 296 BANGASH

ULS longitudinal sagging

0.45 0.45

1.5 0.45
♦ ?
♦Position of
Mid
-
I I T*
Max | Mid
max moment span span

For long spans For short spans

Figure 3.18. Ultimate limit state behaviour

(e) Combination 5. For all bridges, the loads to be considered are the per­
manent loads, together with the loads due to friction at bearings.*
* Where a member is required to resist the loads due to temperature restraint within the structure and
to frictional restraint of temperature-induced movement at bearings, the sum of these effects shall be
considered. An example is the abutment anchorage of a continuous structure where temperature
movement is accommodated byflexureof piers in some spans and by roller bearings in others.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 297

Application of loads
Each element and structure shall be examined under the effects of loads that can
coexist in each combination.
(a) Selection to cause most adverse effect.* Design loads shall be selected
and applied in such a way that the most adverse total effect is caused
in the element or structure under consideration.
(b) Removal of superimposed dead load. Consideration shall be given to
the possibility that the removal of superimposed dead load from part
of the structure may diminish its relieving effect. In so doing the adverse
effects of live load on the elements of the structure being examined may
be modified to the extent that the removal of the superimposed dead
load justifies this.
(c) Live load. Live load shall not be considered to act on relieving areas
except in the case of wind on live load when the presence of light traffic
is necessary to generate the wind load.
(d) Wind on relieving areas. Design loads due to wind on relieving areas
shall be modified (see Table 3.17).

Overturning
The stability of the superstructure and its parts against overturning shall be
considered for the ultimate limit state (ULS).
(a) Restoring moment. The least restoring moment due to the unfactored
nominal loads shall be greater than the greatest overturning moment
due to the design loads (i.e. 7 ^ for the ultimate limit state x the effects
of the nominal loads).
(b) Removal of loads. The requirements relating to the possible removal of
superimposed dead load shall also be taken into account in considering
overturning.

Foundation pressures, sliding on foundations, loads on piles, etc.

In the design of foundations, the dead load, the superimposed dead load and
loads due to filling material shall be regarded as permanent loads and all live
loads, temperature effects and wind loads shall be regarded as transient loads,
except in certain circumstances such as a mainline railway bridge outside a
busy terminal where it may be necessary to assess a proportion of live load as
being permanent.
The design of foundations including consideration of overturning shall be
based on the principles set out in BS 8004 using load combinations as given in
this Part.

* It is expected that experience in the use of this standard will enable users to identify those load cases
and combinations (as in the case of BS 153) which govern design provisions, and it is only those load
cases and combinations which need to be established for use in practice (see also Fig. 3.18).

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 298 BANGASH

2x100kN 2x100kN 2x100kN

1.5 m 1.5m
Longitudinal
4 kN/m2

3x100kN 3x100kN
2m 0.5m
Transversal
4 kN/m2

i i i
Contact area of
heavy vehicles

ii 1.5 m
i
i 1.5 m
i
^ 1 *4

Figure 3.19. Loading system for the Spanish code

3.6.8 Spain
General
The code adopted the standard of the 600 kN heavy vehicle together with a
uniform loading of 4 kN/m2. The impact factor is included in these loads.
The code is applicable to bridges of span less than 125 m.
Loading system
A heavy vehicle of 600 kN together with a uniform loading of 4 kN/m2 is consid­
ered (see Fig. 3.19). Load factors and safety factors to be used in the design are
fixed factors.

3.6.9 The Netherlands (Norm NEN 1008 - VOSB 1983 for steel bridges)
Classification
Bridges can be divided into three classes as a function of the type of traffic:
Class 60: a bridge on a principal route where an exceptionally heavy vehicle
cannot be diverted.
Class 45: a bridge on a principal route; there is the possibility to divert
exceptionally heavy vehicles to a route with bridges of class 60.
Class 30: a bridge not suited for carrying heavy vehicles.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 299

Table 3.18. Summary of loadings

Uniformly distributed loading Vehicle loading*

Class (q) per m2 max load per lane (m2) (Q) total Load per axle Load per wheel

60 4kN 12 kN 600 kN 200 kN 50 kN

45 3kN 9kN 450 kN 150kN 37.5 kN
30 2kN 6kN 300 kN lOOkN 25 kN

*The vehicle has three axles spaced, respectively, 1 m and 4 m. The width of the vehicle is 2.5 m.

Division of the carriageway

The number of traffic lanes on the bridge has to match with that on the adjacent
road section (e.g. in towns). The carriageway on the bridge shall be divided into
an integer number of traffic lanes of 3.0 m width.

Loading systems
The simultaneous action of the following loadings shall be taken into account:

(a) a uniformly distributed loading q over the whole surface of the bridge
(kN/m 2 );
(b) a vehicle load Q (kN) moving on a traffic lane.

The number of vehicles in the transverse direction is limited to two. In the case
where two vehicles are taken into account, all the live loads shall be reduced by
20%. The vehicles are situated in the centre of the traffic lanes concerned. The
uniformly distributed loading (Table 3.18) shall not be interrupted on the spot
where the vehicles are situated and its value per traffic lane is limited to 3q
(kN/m 2 ). The value of the live loads shall be multiplied by a reduction coefficient
k2, which is a function of the span.
Impact factor kj and reduction coefficient k2
Loadings are multiplied by two coefficients, kx and k2, which make allowance for
the dynamic effect and a reduction of the loadings in relation to the span L (in
metres):
40 40
/
k] = 1 H kj = 0.6 H
1 2
100 + L 100 + L
For concrete bridges an impact factor of:

shall be applied.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 300 BANGASH

3.6.10 Norway and Sweden (According to 'Preliminary Internordic

loading directions for road bridges* of 9.12.1971)
Classification
The loading prescriptions do not vary as a function of the importance of the
road, hence there is only one type of loading.
Division of the carriageway
The carriageway shall be divided into a whole number of lanes, the width of
which is constant and equal to 3.0m.

Loading systems (see also Finland)

One or two lanes
Equivalent load, type 1. A uniformly distributed lane load /j = 9kN/m
(=3kN/m 2 ) together with an axle group of 3 x 210 kN (spaced >2.5m and
>6.0m).
Equivalent load, type 2. Axle load of 260 kN placed symmetrically in the
loaded lanes of the bridge. (Maximum: two fully loaded lanes.)
Equivalent load, type 3. A wheel load of 130 kN placed anywhere in the free
area of the carriageway, the centre of the wheel having a minimum distance to
the guardrail or other obstacles of 0.5 m.
Sidewalks and bicycle lanes, separated from the carriageway, are loaded by
p = 4kN/m 2 or alternatively byp = 2kN/m, when the equivalent loadings of
the carriageway are simultaneously applied.
Three or more lanes
Only two lanes, i.e. those lanes where loads act in the most unfavourable way,
are loaded according to types 1, 2 and 3. Additional lanes are loaded by a/? of
9kN/m.
The above-mentioned loadings are valid for bridges up to a span of 200 m.
For bridges of greater span and ferry bridges, special regulations are adopted.

Impact factor
An impact factor also taking care of uneven weight distribution and varying
from 1.4 (in the case of the equivalent load of type 1) to 1.75 for the equivalent
load, type 2, is included in the axle loads.

3.6.11 Australia (NAASRA, 1989)

The association of state, territory and federal road and traffic authorities in Aus­
tralia was established in 1989 to replace NAASRA (National Association of
Australian State Road). The Australian bridge design specifications are outlined
in the '92 Austroads' standard. According to this document, 'AH road bridges
shall be designed for the effects of the T44 truck loading, the L44 lane loading,
and the appropriate fatigue loading.'
T44 truck loading represents a hypothetical truck with five axles. The front
axle exerts a load of 48 kN, and the other four axles exert a load of 96 kN each.
The arrangement of such a truck is shown in Fig. 3.20.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 301

2.7m 1.2m 2-8m 1.2m

96 96 96 96 (kN)

T44 truck loading

600mm 1
a
H k - 200mm
BO- a
-Bh-200mm
-H
1.8m SI
□ B B- 600mm -B B
4-
Figure 3.20. Arrangement of T44 truck loading

Ik Special analysis
required fpr loaded
length > 150m

12.5

CL

■D
O
150
i »»

Loaded length (m)

Figure 3.21. Uniformly distributed L44 lane loading

The L44 lane loading consists of a uniformly distributed load, of 12.5 kN/m of
the loaded length, together with a concentrated load of 150 kN (Fig. 3.21).
The concentrated load is not intended to represent a heavy axle, but is merely
an analytical device to simulate bending and shearing effects caused by an actual
vehicle loading.

The L44 lane loading arrangement

The HLP is a modular platform that comprises sixteen rows of axles with 8 tyres
per axle spaced at 1.8 m centres.
There are two types of HLP, HLP 400, and HLP 320. The total load per axle
of HLP 400 is 250 kN and the total load per axle of HLP 320 is 200 kN, distrib­
uted equally among all wheels (Fig. 3.22).

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 302 BANGASH

16 axles spaced at 1.8 m centres

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n -.
- □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ J
^ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ n n n n n T J
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
6 to 15 m

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
HLP 320 HLP 400
Gross tonnes
326 408
Single platform 80 100
Separated platform 120 150

Figure 3.22. Load distribution per axle for HLP 400 and HLP 320

Load application
T44 truck and L44 lane load, are considered to occupy one standard design lane
of 3 m width.
The number of standard design lanes, n, is given by:
n = b/3.l (rounded down to nearest integer)
where b = carriageway width in metres between kerbs.
When a number of standard design lanes is loaded, the load factors shown in
Table 3.19 must be applied to all T44 truck or L44 lane loadings, but not applied
to HLP loadings.

Impact loading

/ = 50/(L+125)
where
/ = impact fraction (maximum 30%);
L = length in feet of the portion of the span that is loaded.

Table 3.19. Load factors

No. of standard design lanes

Modification factor 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.55

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 303

3.6.12. Indian IRC loading, 1989

Class 70 R loading
IRC Class 70 R loading consists of a tracked vehicle of 700 kN or a wheeled
vehicle of total load 1000 kN (Fig. 3.23).
The track is 4.87 m, the nose to tail length of the vehicle is 7.92 m and the spe­
cified minimum spacing between successive vehicles is 30 m. The wheeled vehicle
is 15.22 m long and has seven axles with the loads totalling 1000 kN. A bogie
loading of 400 kN is also specified with wheel loads of 100 kN each. The details
of Class 70 R loading are shown in Fig. 3.24.

C = 1200mm
for two-lane
carriageway
of 7.5 m
//AVM
—^ //AV/As //A¥/A>-
350 kN 350 kN
850 1200 850
•+• ■+" ■+-
(a) tracked vehicle

T^ m rp ■ T1 ~
37.5 62.5 62.5 37.5 kN

." -
1150
1
T
1- -150
— — -r - .; :: 1

300 ,300 700 300 300

T
« » « » « » « — — - H - -„ ►I--I
300 300
(b) wheeled vehicle
Figure 3.23. Class 70R loading arrangement (detailed)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 304 BANGASH

it

100 100
350 kN
kN kN

,E
CM

1d

a
100 100
kN kN
350 kN

4.87m 0.563 m 0.657 m 0.563 m

Figure 3.24. Class 70R loading arrangement (Tracked vehicle and bogie axle
types)

b
G£__Q cy—V 3 M 22 3£
1100 3200 1200 4300 3000 3000 3000
axle load
»27 T114 114» 114* 68* 68» »68 68 » c | a s s A
16 16 68 68 41 41 41 kN class B

clear roadway
L
w
Axle load Ground contact area
M CD kN B(mm) W(mm)
T 114 250 500
68 200 380
41 150 300
27 150 200 for two lane carriageway of 7.5m,
,1100 3200 .1200 . 16 125 175 g = 1.2m, f = 150mm
-M-—H
Figure 3.25. IRC Class A and B loadings

IRC Class A loading

IRC Class A loading consists of a wheel load train comprising a truck with trailers
of specified axle spacing and loads as detailed in Fig. 3.24. This type of loading
is adopted on all roads on which permanent bridges and culverts are constructed.

IRC Class B loading

Class B loading comprises a truck and trailers similar to that of class A loading
but with lesser intensity of wheel loads. The axle loads of class B loading is also
shown in Fig. 3.25. This type of loading is adopted for temporary structures and
timber bridges.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 305

54.5% for L< 3m

50% for L< 3m

3 6 9 12 15 18 2124 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 5154 57
Span L, metres

Figure 3.26. Impact percentages for highway bridges

Impact factors
The impact factors can be directly obtained from the curves given in Fig. 3.26.

IRC Class AA or 70 R loading

For spans less than 9 m:
(a) For tracked vehicle - 25% for spans up to 5 m linearly reduced to 10%
for span of 9 m.
(b) For wheeled vehicle - 25%
For spans of 9 m or more:
(a) For tracked vehicle - for RC bridges, 10% up to a span of 40 m and in
accordance with Fig. 3.26 for spans exceeding 40m. For steel bridges,
10% for all spans.
(b) For wheeled vehicle - For RC bridges, 25% for spans up to 12 m and in
accordance with Fig. 3.26 for spans exceeding 12m. For steel bridges,
25% for spans up to 23 m and as per Fig. 3.26 for spans exceeding 23 m.

Table 3.20. Loadings

Class of Loading Main loads (up to .5.5 Sub-loads

bridge metres in width)

Line load Uniform load, p (kN/m2)

P(kNjm)
L<80 L>80

1st L-20 50 3.5 4.3 -L 50% of main

but not less than 3.0 loads
2nd L-14 70% of those of L-20

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 306 BANGASH

3.6.13 Japan (Specifications for Highway Bridges Part I. Common

specifications, 1972) (Revised 1985)
Classification
The code distinguishes two bridge classes according to its design live load:
Class 1 : a bridge designed by a design vehicle load of 200 kN.
Class 2: a bridge designed by a design live load of 140 kN.

Division of the carriageway

See Table 3.20.

Loading system
The design live loads, assuming vehicle loads are divided into the following two
loadings:
(a) L loadings (combined load of a uniformly distributed load and a linear
load);
(b) T loadings (truck wheel loads).

Line load, P
Uniform load, P . ® © . ® .
P
P/2 P/2

Linear load
®
■D
p/2 p/2

Uniform load

Longitudinal direction Transverse direction

Figure 3.27. L Loadings (maximum stress)

700cm clearance 275cm clearance
►
-*«

m il \
^t=^ 20
,100, 400
20
200
w^ft
175

-A -+
fH—c\i - O . I W - O . 4 W F H — §
T j ^ Tj *
ffl—c\i -o.iw-o.4W0]—
- ^ - ^
8r
Figure 3.28. T loadings

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 307

L loadings are used for designing main girders or main structures, and T
loadings for slabs and floor systems.
(a) L loadings
On the roadway, the L loadings consisting of a linear load P and the uni­
form loadp defined as 'main loads' in Table 3.20, are placed on the area up
to 5.5 m in width of the roadway, and P/2 and/?/2, defined as "sub-loads"
in this Table are placed on the remaining area of the roadway, as illu­
strated in Fig. 3.27, so as to produce the maximum stress.
(b) T loadings
The T loadings shown, in Fig. 3.28 and Table 3.21, are placed on the
roadway. In the longitudinal direction of a bridge, generally only one
T loading is placed, and in the transverse direction, an arbitrary
number of T loadings is placed so as to produce the maximum stress.
Impact factor
The impact factor is given as functions of the loadings and spans of members as
shown in Table 3.22.
Table 3.21. T loading

Class of Loading Gross Weight of Weight of Width of Width of Length of

bridge weight a front a rear a front a rear contact area
W (ton) wheel wheel wheel wheel of a wheel
0.1 W (kg) 0.4 W (kg) bj(cm) b2 (cm) on the road
surface
a (cm)

1st T-20 20 2000 8000 12.5 50 20

2nd T-14 14 1400 5600 12.5 50 20

Table 3.22. Impact factor

Kind of bridge Impact fraction i Type of loadings to be applied

20
Steel bridge T loadings and L loadings
50+ L

20
Reinforced concrete bridge T loadings
50+ L
7
L loadings
20+ L

20
Prestressed concrete bridge T loadings
5ÔTZ
10
1 Ç I T
L loadings

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 308 BANGASH

3.6.14 Canada (OHBDC)

The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC), known as the Ontario
design loading, specifies that highway live load should model the following:
1. heavy wheel load
2. heavy axle load in a design lane
3. one heavy vehicle in a design lane
4. multiple presence of vehicles in a design lane
5. simultaneous presence of vehicles in more than one lane.
In the light of the above criteria the highway live load system has two compo­
nents, the truck and the lane load.

Truck loading
The truck loading is an idealized load in the form of a truck with five axles of two
wheels each. The two lines of axles are spaced at 1.8 m centres, and there are
many possible different axle weights and spacing.

OHBEL level 1 1 2 3 Axle No.

truck load 60 160 160 Axle load, kN
30 80 80 Wheel load, kN
| | j Gross load, 380kN
I 3.6 m 11.2ml

4.8m
(£axle (typical)
Elevation

-m- 44
0.25 mi _ E
r Travel
(typ.) i
<D 00
r0.6m 0)
E
_
i (typ-!
-i (
SZ T
o
T
L-0.6m
0.25m 0.25m (typ.)
(typ.) (typ.)
Plan
OHBEL level 1 42 112112 - Axle load kN
lane load

13.6m 11.2ml
4.8m
K
Uniformly distributed load, q-J
Highway class A B C1orC2
q, (kN/m) 7.5 6.75 6.0

For definition of highway class, see text.

Figure 3.29. Ontario highway bridge evaluation loads, level 1

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 309

The front row of wheels has a contact area equal to that of a square of 0.25 m
sides, where as the other four rows have a contact area of 0.6 x 0.25 m 2 .

Evaluation level 1
Evaluation level 1 consists of the OHBD truck without the 4th and the 5th
axles, in combination with OHBD lane load reduced to 75% (see Fig. 3.29).

Evaluation level 2
The OHBD truck and lane load is applied with the 5th axle of the truck
omitted, and the lane load reduced to 90% (see Fig. 3.30).

Evaluation level 3
Evaluation level 3 is the OHBD design load which is the usual Ontario bridge
design load (see Fig. 3.31).

OHBEL level 2 1 2 3 4 Axle No.

truck load 60 160 160 200 Axle load, kN
30 80 80 100 Wheel load, kN
\ \ \ | Gross load, 580kN
13.6m|1.2m| 6.0m
10.8m
(£axle (typical)
Elevation
<D
| 0)

4a-—È-<*
0.25 m _ E
(typ.) Travel 0 .6m <B 00

E
L o
* _ CO

0.25m -U
t-0.6m
0.25 m (tyP)
Plan (typ.)
(typ.)

OHBEL level 2 42 112 112 140 r-Axle load kN

lane load ,

I 3.6m 11.2mI
|^ H « H-«
6.0m
T
, 10.8m

Uniformly distributed load, q—'

Highway class A B C1 orC2 |
q, (kN/m) 9.0 8.1 7.2 I
For definition of highway class, see text. 1

Figure 3.30. Ontario highway bridge evaluation loads, level 2

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 310 BANGASH

OHBELIevel3 1 2 3 4 5 Axle No.

60 160 160 200 160 Axle load, kN
30 80 80 100 80 Wheel load, kN
| Gross load, 740kN
13.6m|1.2m| 6.0m 7.2m

18m

Elevation (£axle (typical)

-ID- -È-É 4 B-£-"T

0.25mi i ' 0.6m _ E o
-Travel
(typ-) ! ! , " (typ.)

t- —Vi-t t ^
E
o

0.25m i J U-
L0.6m
0.25m (typ.)
Plan (typ.)
(typ.)

42 112112 140 112 Axle load kN

lane road f
j i i t13.6m
l l l l11.2ml
^ ^ l ! 6.0m
:V''IMflMMUr MMtl.j q
I 7.2m I
f
18.0m
r H
Uniformly distributed load, q

Highway class A B C1 or C2
q, (kN/m) 10.0 9.0 8.0

For definition of highway class, see text.

Figure 3.31. Ontario highway bridge evaluation loads, level 3

Controlled vehicle loads

Evaluation for controlled vehicles shall be carried out using wheel loads, axle
spacing and other appropriate dimensions available from actual measurements
or from available drawings of the loaded vehicle. The requirements of Clause
2-4.3.1.3 of the code shall not apply in determining the total live load effect.
The assumed position and direction of the vehicle and the simultaneous applica­
tion of other live loads shall be in accordance with the controls imposed.

Classification of highways
Class A highways are roads with an average daily traffic (ADT) of:
truck traffic > 1000 or traffic > 4000.
Class B highways are roads with an ADT of:
250 < truck traffic < 1000 or
1000 < traffic < 4000.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 311

Class Cl highways are roads with an ADT of:

50 < truck traffic < 250 or
100 < traffic < 1000.
Class C2 highways are roads with an ADT of:
truck traffic < 50 or
traffic < 100.
Design lanes
The specified number of design lanes according to the OHBD is given in
Table 3.23.
Normal traffic
The number of loaded lanes shall be determined according to the current or
intended use of the bridge. Where the traffic lanes are clearly designated on
the bridge, these lanes shall be used as design lanes.
The modification factor for multiple lane loading shall be as given in
Table 3.24. The modification factor shall not apply where the simplified
method of analysis as given in Clause 3-7 of the code is used.
Controlled vehicle with normal traffic
The modification factors for multiple lanes loaded given in Table 3.24 shall
not apply to the load due to the controlled vehicle itself, but shall apply to
the normal traffic loads in the other loaded lanes. The lane containing the con­
trolled vehicle shall be included in determining the number of loaded lanes.

Table 3.23. OHBD design lanes

Width <6 6-10 10-13.5 13.5-17.5 17.5-20.5 20.5-24 24-27.5 over 27.5
(m)

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8

Table B3.24. Modification factor for multiple lane loading

Number of lanes loaded Highway class

A B Cl and C2

1 1.00 1.00 1.00

2 0.90 0.90 0.85
3 0.80 0.80 0.70
4 0.70 0.70
5 0.60
6 or more 0.55 - -

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 312 BANGASH

Table 3.25. Dynamic load allowance (DLA) modification factor for evaluation
levels 1, 2 and 3

Scale-down factor F Evaluation level

1 2 3

DLA for F > 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00

1 or 2 axles 0.6 < F < 0.95 1.10 1.10 1.10
F<0.6 1.25 1.25 1.25
DLA for F > 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
3 or more axles 0.6 < F < 0.95 1.25 1.10 1.10
F<0.6 1.60 1.25 1.25

Other loads
Where the evaluation is to be carried out for other loads, these loads shall be as
specified in Section 2 of the code.
Half-through trusses shall also be evaluated for the loads specified in Clause
B6.13.3.5ofthecode.
Dynamic load allowance
Subject to the provisions of Clauses B6.2.6.1 and B6.2.6.2 of the code, the
dynamic load allowance shall be applied as specified in Section 2 of the code
unless otherwise approved (see Table 3.25).

3.6.15 United States (Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges

'American Association of State Highway Officials9) 1996 16th
edition
Classification
Two systems of loadings are provided: H and HS.
Division of the carriageway
The lane loading or standard truck shall be assumed to occupy a width of 10 feet
(3.048 m). These loads shall be placed in 12-ft (3.658 m) wide design traffic lanes
spaced across the entire bridge roadway width in numbers and positions required
to produce the maximum stress in the member under consideration. Roadway
width shall be the distance between kerbs. Fractional parts of design lanes
shall not be used. Roadway widths from 20 to 24 feet (6.096 to 7.815 m) shall
have two design lanes each equal to one-half the roadway width. The lane load­
ing or standard trucks having a 10-ft (3.048 m) width shall be assumed to occupy
any position within their individual design traffic lane, which will produce the
maximum stress.
Loading systems
H loadings [Fig. 3.32(a)] consist of a two-axle truck or the corresponding lane
loading. (Three classes H20, HI5 and H10.) HS loadings [Fig. 3.32(b)] consist

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 313

(a) Longitudinal Transversal

0.2W 0.8W

_i L_
I 14ft I 6 ft
4.25m 1.83m '
clearance
10 ft = 3.05m
H 10- -*- W = 20000 lbs = 88.9kN 50%
H 15- -+> w = 30000 lbs = 133.4kN 75%
H20- -+- W : 40000 lbs :177.9kN 100%
(b)
0.2W 0.8W 0.8W

14ft 6 ft
4.27m 1.83 m
clearance
10 ft = 3.05m
V e = variable spacing - 14 feet to 30 feet incl. (4.27m to 9.14m)
Spacing to be used is that which produces maximum stresses.
H 10 ^ W = 30000 lbs = 133.4kN 75%
H 15 ► W = 40000 lbs = 177.9kN 100%

Figure 3.32. Loading systems: (a) H loadings; (b) HS loadings

of a semi-trailer combination or of the corresponding lane loading. (Two classes

HS20andHS15.)
Bridges supporting Interstate highways shall be designed for HS20 loading or
an alternate military loading [two axles of 4 feet (1.219 m) apart with each axle
weighing 24000 pounds (108 kN)], whichever produces the greatest stress.
Corresponding lane loading for H20 and HS20 is a uniform load 640 lb per
linear foot of load lane, i.e. 9.4 kN per linear metre together with a concentrated
load of:
18 0001b = 80 kN for the moment;
26 000 lb = 116kN for shear.
For H15 and HS15, 75% of this loading is taken and for H10 50% of this
loading is used.
As regards the reduction in load intensity, i.e. where maximum stresses are pro­
duced in any member by loading any number of traffic lanes simultaneously, the
following percentages of the resultant live load stresses shall be used in view of
improbable coincident maximum loading:

Per cent

One or two lanes 100

Three lanes 90
Four lanes or more 75

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 314 BANGASH

The reduction in intensity of floor beam loads shall be determined as in the

case of main trusses or girders, using the width of roadway which must be
loaded to produce maximum stresses in the floor beam.
Referring to the standard HS and H trucks (Fig. 3.33), the lane loading is
the same for both the H20-44, loading and the HS20-44 loading (Fig. 3.34).

clearance and
load lane width
10'-0"

HS20-44 8000 LBS. 32000 LBS. 32000 LBS.

HS15-44 6000 LBS. 24000 LBS. 24000 LBS.

o 14'-0"
U«-
0.4W 0.4W

HBO M^-
I
curb
I
I
0.4W 0.4W
i "T"
2'-0" 6'-0" 2'-0"
W = combined weight on the first two axles which is the same
as for the corresponding H truck.
V = variable spacing - 14 feet to 30 feet inclusive. Spacing to
be used is that which produces maximum stresses.

clearance and
load lane width
H20-44 8000 LBS.
H15-44 6000 LBS. 10'-0"

, 14'-0"
^ I H5*
g I W = total weight of j §
i truck and load j
J n 4 \Al L
0.4W

1 0.1 w r H 0.4W
HE
2'-0" 6'-0" 2'-0"
curb

M^-
I

Figure 3.33. Standard HS and H trucks (AASHTO highway bridge design 3.10.1)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 315

Concentrated load 82 kN for moment

118kN for shear
Uniformly distributed load of 9.5kN/m

H20-44 loading
HS20-44 loading

Concentrated load 61.2 kN for moment

88.5 kN for shear

H15-44 loading
HS15-44 loading

Figure 3.34. AASHTO lane loading

The HS20-44, and HS 15-44 comprise of a truck and trailer with a total load
of 326 kN, and 245 kN, respectively. The load per axle of these trucks is shown
in Table 3.26.

Impact factor
For superstructures the live load stresses produced by H or HS loadings shall be
increased with an impact factor, allowing for dynamic, vibratory and impact
effects. The amount of this allowance is expressed as a fraction of live load stres­
ses, and shall be determined by the formula:
50 , r . . , 15.24
I = -——-
L+125'; when L is in metres L + 38
in which
/ = impact fraction (maximum 30%);
L = length in feet of the portion of the span which is loaded to
produce maximum stress.

Combinations of loads
The following groups represent various combinations of loads and forces to
which a structure may be subjected. Each component of the structure, or the
foundation on which it rests, shall be proportioned to withstand safely all

Table 3.26. Load per axle

Loading Front axle Mid. axle Rear axle Total

HS20-44 36 kN 145 kN 145 kN 326 kN

HS15-44 27 kN 109 kN 109 kN 245 kN

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 x*<<<<<Bs 3 >"£ ?
CL «»«*
o'
a> §
o cT
p
H- O O O O O O O O O O O
>-»^
O O Ui Ui ££.
b b b b b b b b b b b b
OQ Hi

s-

o O o o o o >— O O O K> O o O o O o O o o O O K > o

<^ to bv
-J o <i +
*

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
+

O O o O o O ^ o O o O ^ O O o O o O o o O o O o
b b Q

w w w w w w w w w w w ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl W t*a

to

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
3
o > - o © p o o p o o o © O o O O O o O p o O O O

o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O o O O o O O O O
3
o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O t^
^

0 0 0 © o o o O © 0 0 © O O O O O K - K - O O O O O >3
+
Co
+

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
to

o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o O O O O O O O O O
g
O O O U i O O ^ < - f i L H O O
o
<r

HSVONVH 9I£
 (L + I)n - live load plus impact for AASHTO Highway H or HS loading.
(L + I)p - live load plus impact consistent with the overload criteria of the operation agency.

* 1.25 may be used for design of outside roadway beam when combination of sidewalk live load as well as traffic live load plus impact governs the design but the capacity
of the section should not be less than required for highway traffic live load only using a beta factor of 1.67. 1.00 may be used for design of deck slab with combination of
loads as described in Article 3.24.2.2 of the code.

+ maximum unit stress v(operating rating)

Percentage = L1 _ . . - - x 100
allowable basic unit stress

For service load design

% (Column 14) percentage of basic unit stress

No increase in allowable unit stresses shall be permitted for members or connections carrying wind loads only.

/3E = 1.00 for vertical and lateral loads on all other structures

For culvert loading specifications.

(3E =1.0 and 0.5 for lateral loads on rigid frames (check both loadings to see which one governs).

For load factor design

(3E = 1.3 for lateral earth pressure for retaining walls and rigid frames excluding rigid culverts. For lateral at-rest earth pressures, (3E = 1.15

/3E =0.5 for lateral earth pressure when checking positive moments in rigid frames.

/3E =1.0 for vertical earth pressure.

(3D =0.75 when checking member for minimum axial load and maximum moment or maximum eccentricity (for column design).

/?D = 1.0 when checking member for maximum axial load and minimum moment (for column design).

/3D =1.0 for flexural and tension members.

/3E = 1.0 for rigid culverts.

/3E = 1.5 for flexible culverts.

For Group X loading (culverts) the (3E factor shall be applied to vertical and horizontal loads.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 318 BANGASH

group combinations of these forces that are applicable to the particular site or
type. Group loading combinations for service load design and load factor
design are given by:
Group (N) = 7 [/3 D • D + (3L(L + / ) + /3CCF + (3EE + (3BB

+ (3sSF + pwW + (3WLWL + (3L-LF + pR(R + S+T)

+ PEQEQ + PICEICE] (3.3)

where,
N = group number
7 = load factor, see Table 3.27
P = coefficient, see Table 3.27
D — dead load
L = live load
/ = live load impact
E = earth pressure
B = buoyancy
W = wind load on structure
WL = wind load on live load- 100 pounds per linear foot
LF = longitudinal force from live load
CF = centrifugal force
R = rib shortening
S — shrinkage
T = temperature
EQ = earthquake
SF — stream flow pressure
ICE = ice pressure.
For service load design, the percentage of the basic unit stress for the various
groups is given in Table 3.27.
The loads and forces in each group shall be taken as appropriate from Articles
3.3 to 3.21 of the code. The maximum section required shall be used.
For load factor design, the gamma and beta factors given in Table 3.27 shall
be used for designing structural members and foundations by the load factor
concept.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 319

Distribution of loads for bending moment in spread box girders

Interior beams
The live load bending moment for each interior beam in a spread box beam
superstructure shall be determined by applying to the beam the fraction {DF)
of the wheel load (both front and rear) determined by the following equation:

DF
=i£+kL (3 4)
-
where:
NL = number of design traffic lanes
NB = number of beams (4 < NB < 10);
S = beam spacing in feet (6.57 < S < 11.00);
L = span length in feet;
k = Q.Q1W - 7VL(0.107VL - 0.26) - 0.207VB - 012; (3.5)
W = numeric value of the roadway width between curbs
expressed in feet (32 < W < 66).

Exterior beams
The live load bending moment in the exterior beams shall be determined by
applying to the beams the reaction of the wheel loads obtained by assuming
the flooring to act as a simple span (of length S) between beams, but shall not
be less than 2NL/NB.
The live load bending moment for each section shall be determined by apply­
ing to the beam the fraction of a wheel load (both front and rear) determined by
the following equation

load fraction = — (3.6)

where:
S = width of precast member;
D = (5.75 - 0.5NL) + 0.77VL(1 - 0.2C)2 when C > 5; (3.7)
D = (5.75 - 0.5NL) when C > 5; (3.8)
NL = number of traffic lanes;
C = K(W/L); (3.9)
where:
W — overall width of bridge measured perpendicular to the
longitudinal girders in feet;

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 320 BANGASH

L =span length measured parallel to longitudinal wind girders

in feet; for girders with cast-in-place end diaphragms, use
the length between end diaphragms;
K= {{\+„)I/J}X'2;
I = moment of inertia;
/ = Saint-Venant torsion constant; and
/x =Poisson's ratio for girders.
In lieu of more exact methods, V may be estimated using the following
equation:
/ = ]T{(1/3)^ 3 (1 - 0.630t/b)}
where:
b = the length of each rectangular component within the section;
t = the thickness of each rectangular component within the section.

Table 3.28. Distribution of wheel loads in transverse beams

Kind of floor Fraction of wheel load to
each floor beam

S
Plank a ' b
4
Nail laminated0 or glued laminated6, 4 inches in thickness, _S_
or multiple layerd floors more than 5 inches thick 43
s_ f
Nail laminated0 or glued laminated6, 6 inches or more in thickness 5
s_ f
Concrete 6

Steel grid (less than 4 inches thick)

Steel grid (4 inches or more) 6

_S_
Steel bridge corrugated plank (2 inches minimum depth)
J3

S = spacing of floor beams in feet.

a
^ F o r footnotes a through e, see Table 3.29.
f
If S exceeds denominator, the load on the beam shall be the reaction of the wheels loads assuming
the flooring between beams to act as a simple beam

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 321

If the value of y/l/J exceeds 5.0, the live load distribution should be determined
using a more precise method, such as the Articulated Plate Theory or Grillage
Analysis.
For a detailed analysis of wheel loading, refer to Tables 3.28 and 3.29.

Truck loads
Under the following formulas for distribution of loads on cantilever slabs, the
slab is designed to support the load independently of the effects of any edge
support along the end of the cantilever. The distribution given includes the effect
of wheels on parallel elements.

Case A - reinforcement perpendicular to traffic

Each wheel on the element perpendicular to traffic shall be distributed over a
width according to the following formula:
E = 0.SX + 3J5 (3.10)
The moment per foot of slab shall be (P/E) X foot-pounds, in which X is the
distance in feet from load to point of support.

Case B - reinforcement parallel to traffic

The distribution width for each wheel load on the element parallel to traffic shall
be as follows:
E = 0.35X + 3.2, but shall not exceed 7.0ft (3.11)
The moment per foot of slab shall be (P/E) X foot-pounds.

Railing loads
Railing loads shall be applied in accordance with Article 2.7 of the code. The effec­
tive length of slab resisting post loadings shall be equal to E = O.SX + 3.75 feet
where no parapet is used and equal to E = 0.8^ + 5.0 feet where a parapet is
used, where X is the distance in feet from the centre of the post to the point
under investigation. Railing and wheel loads shall not be applied simultaneously.

Forces from superstructure

The transverse and longitudinal forces transmitted by the superstructure to
the substructure for various angles of wind direction shall be as set forth in
Table 3.30. The skew angle is measured from the perpendicular to the longi­
tudinal axis and the assumed wind direction shall be that which produces the
maximum stress in the substructure. The transverse and longitudinal forces
shall be applied simultaneously at the elevation of the centre of gravity of the
exposed area of the superstructure.
The loads listed above shall be used in Group II and Group V loadings as
given in Article 3.22 of the code.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 322 BANGASH

Table 3.29. Distribution of wheel loads in longitudinal beams

Kind of floor Bridge designed for one Bridge designed for two or
traffic lane more traffic lanes

Timber: a
Plank b 5/4.0 5/3.75
Nail laminated0
4" thick or multiple layerd
floors over 5" thick 5/4.5 5/4.0
Nail laminated0
6" or more thick 5/50 5/4.25
If 5 exceeds 5' If 5 exceeds 6.5'
use footnote f use footnote f
Glued laminated6
Panels on glued laminated stringers
4" thick 5/4.5 5/4.0
6" or more thick 5/6.0 5/5.0
If 5 exceeds 6' If 5 exceeds 1'
use footnote f use footnote f
On steel stringers
4" thick 5/4.5 5/4.0
6" or more thick 5/5.25 5/4.5
If 5 exceeds 5.5' If 5 exceeds T
use footnote f use footnote f
Concrete:
On steel I-Beam stringers8 and
prestressed concrete girders 5/7.0 5/5.5
If 5 exceeds 10' If 5 exceeds 14'
use footnote f use footnote f
On concrete T-beams 5/6.5 5/6.0
If 5 exceeds 6' If 5 exceeds 10'
use footnote f use footnote f
On timber stringers 5/6.0 5/5.0
If 5 exceeds 6' If 5 exceeds 10'
use footnote f use footnote f
Concrete box girders11 5/8.0 5/7.0
If 5 exceeds 12' If 5 exceeds 16'
use footnote f use footnote f
On steel box girders See Article 10.39.2
On prestressed concrete spread
box beams See Article 3.28
Steel grid:
(less than 4" thick) 5/4.5 5/4.0
(A" or more) 5/6.0 5/5.0
If 5 exceeds 6' If 5 exceeds 10.5'
use footnote f use footnote f
Steel bridge
Corrugated plank1
(2" minimum depth) 5/5.5 5/4.5

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS A N D LOAD DISTRIBUTION 323

Table 3.30
Trusses Girders

Skew angle Lateral Longitudinal Lateral Longitudinal

of wind load load load load

Degrees PSF PSF PSF PSF

0 75 0 50 0
15 70 12 44 6
30 65 28 41 12
45 47 41 33 16
60 24 50 17 19

For Group III and Group VI loadings, these loads may be reduced by 70%
and a load per linear foot added as a wind load on a moving live load, as
given in Table 3.31.
This load shall be applied at a point 6 ft above the deck.
For the usual girder and slab bridges having maximum span lengths of 125 ft,
the following wind loading may be used in lieu of the more precise loading spe­
cified above

W (wind load on structure)

50 pounds per square foot, transverse
12 pounds per square foot, longitudinal
Both forces shall be applied simultaneously

WL (wind load on live load)

100 pounds per linear foot, transverse
40 pounds per linear foot, longitudinal
Both forces shall be applied simultaneously.

Table 3.31
Skew angle of wind Lateral load Longitudinal load

Degrees lb/ft ib/ft

0 100 0
15 88 12
30 82 24
45 66 32
60 34 38

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 324 BANGASH

3.7 Examples on load distribution - vehicular and

environmental
3.7.1 Example (3.1) British practice
The local effects for the wheel load on deck slabs are determined by Westergaard's
equations. Stating briefly the method and giving relevant equations concerning
HA single wheel loads and for multiple HB loading, the results must give moments
in the x and y -directions as shown in Fig. 3.35.

Moments due to a point load P\ at mid-span

When v — 0, Pi is at mid-span of the slab; the principal moments are given in
simplified form by
Pi s
Mn (3.12)
2.325 + 8c
Moy = Mox - 0.0676P!
where Pi = applied wheel load in kN and c = effective diameter of loaded area;
for the abnormal wheel load, c = 190 mm + 2t, t being the thickness (mm) of the
non-structural surfacing on the slab.

Increase in moment under P\ due to load P3

The increase in M n due to P 3 is given by
100
increase in Mox = % (3.13)
1 + I0(y/s)2
it being assumed that P3 — Px. Hence, for the abnormal load, with axles at
1800 mm centres, since y = 1800, the increases are dependent on the spacing
of the main beams. Westergaard showed that, for y/s > 0.5, the increase in
Mox due to P 3 becomes negative; since y/s will always be greater than 0.5

Figure 3.35. Local effects of wheel loads

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 325

when the standard beams are being used, there is no need for an equation giving
the increase in Moy due to P 3 .

Moments due to P\ and P2 distance a apart

The maximum moments, which occur under PÏ9 are given by

M I = M0X + 0.21072/. l o g ( ^ 2 ^ ) (3.14)

M, = Moy = 0 . 2 1 0 7 2 i M o g ( 5 ^ / ^ ) (3.15)

To achieve these moments, v — a/4 and, if a > 0.59035, the second term in the
above equations becomes negative. Hence, the maximum moments are produced
when Px acts alone at the centre of the span.

Moments due to four equal loads PatP\, P 2 , P3 and P4

The moments at point P\(—a/4, 0) due to the loads at P 3 and P4 show
x
\ =0.10536Plog——±0.10625 — sinh — — + - (3.16)
v J
My) B3B4 s s \B3 B4 A)
. na
Ph s i n —
Mxy = -0.10625 —£- (3.17)
where
t 7rZ? ira
A = cosh h cos —
5 2^

B3 — cosh 1
s
^ irb na
B4 = cosh cos —
s s

Effect of encastré supports

The effect of encastring the supports can be shown to be given by
Kx = MOX(0.83783 - 0.5592c/5)
where Mfox is the moment under Px when the supports are fully encastré.
It should be noted that the support conditions do not significantly affect the
moments in the j-direction since the analysis is for an infinitely wide slab.

Design moments due to wheel loads

Depending on the spacing of the beams, either two or four wheel loads will create
the maximum values of Mox and Moy; the equations above enable both loading
conditions to be considered.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 326 BANGASH

Application to HA and HB loadings

Pl,P2,P3,P4 =P HA
(i) the slab is simply supported;
(ii) the Poisson's ratio is 0.15.

Equations given for HA loading will be

Mx = 0.21072P (log — + 0.4825 J (3.18)

where
q = 2(y/0Ac2 + h2 - 0.675/*) (3.19)
My = Mx 0.676P (3.20)
For HB loading when s < 1.7, i.e. s < 1.7 m for HB wheels on a transverse
spanning slab, the worst-case situation is where one wheel is at mid-span,
i.e., v = 0. P 3 is to increase the value of Mx by

— =• (%); b > 1.8 m for HB

provided b > 0.5s for HB.

P3 will, however, reduce My. It is safe to use My Mx - 0.676P. If
s > 1.7a, the worst case is v = a/4.
The maximum moments occur under Px
Jcot TO!
Mx = 0.2107P( l o g - + 0.4825 )+0.2107/>log
\YTs)
Simple (3.21)
span
My = Mx - 0.0676P + 0.2107/» log {~YTs]
cot ira 1

(3.22)
If s > 3 m for HB loading consider the third wheel
(3.23)
Encastré Mx = 0.2107P (log — + 0.4825 1 -0.07P
span
My = 0.2107P (log — + 0.4825 J-0.1065P (3.24)

3.7.2 Example (3.2) British practice

A slab bridge has a span of 18.33 m and a carriageway of 11.0 m, calculate the
HA and KEL (knife-edge load) effects. If the same bridge is of a slab/beam

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 327

deck and the beams are at 1.29 m centres, calculate the HA and KEL effects and
find the variations.
(a) Lane loading = 9.786 kN. For 11 m carriageway, the number of lanes is
three each of 3.66 m width.
HA loading/m2 - 9.786 x 0.1 = 0.9786 kN
KEL = 39.4 kN/m
(b) Lane loading = 9.786 kN
lane width = 3.66 m
HA loading = 9.786/3.66 = 2.674kN/m2
Loading due to KEL = 39.4/3.66 = 10.765 kN
Loading on beams (half lane width)

2.674 x ^— = 4.9 kN as a UDL

2
10.765 x -— = 19.7 kN as a knife-edge load
Variations:
UDL HA type = 1.6954 kN/m2 more in case (b)
KEL - 28.635 kN/m in case (a).

3.7.3 Example (3.3) British practice

Calculate the contact circle diameter for the HA, HB 45 units and HB 25 units
for a simple span of a slab bridge of fully loaded length 15 m. The diameter at the
neutral axis must have a spread/depth of 1:2 and through concrete at 1:1 down
to the neutral axis. Consider HA and HB loads to have square contact areas.
span = 15 m
HA loading = 30 kN/m
notional single lane = 3.725 m wide
intensity = 30/3.725 = 8.05 kN/m2
KEL = 120kN/notional lane
intensity = 120/3.725 = 32.2 kN/m2
wheel load = lOOkN with a circular area of 0.34 m
HB loading = 45 units
axle spacing = 6m (shortest).

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 328 BANGASH

Circular contact area with an effective pressure = 1.1 N/mm 2 .

HB 45 units:
load per axle = 450 kN

contact circle diameter = \ —— x 1000 x 4 x —— = 360 mm

V 4 1.17T
HB 25 units:
load per axle = 125 kN
load per wheel = 62.5
62.5 x 1000 x 4
contact circle diameter = 1000 - 0 . 2 7 m
I.ITT

Diameter of the contact circle at the neutral axis

= 360 + 10.0 + 90 x 10"3 = 1.36 —> HB 45
270 + 10.0 + 90 x 10"3 = 1.27—► HB 25
340 + 10.0 + 90 x 103 = 1.34—► HA.

3.7.4 Example (3.4) British practice

Calculate loads and load distribution for 30 units HB in nearside lane plus
one-third of HA loading in the farside lane. The girder bridge span is 27 m in
steel. Combine these loads with DL + services + walkway liveloads. Calculate
the worst possible bending moment. Using the following data and see Fig. 3.36:
DL + sévices 4- walkway = 1039.5 kN

Girder A 1625 Girder B

./200 625|
3660
800 900 900 760 1/3 HAload
t f t t

6115 H*A 2455

2175 ■ load W 6395

T
k Q 8570 crs

Note all dimensions are in mm

Figure 3.36. Load distribution: one-third HA and HB

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 329

Girder 'A* is the design criterion

HB loading:

axle loads-30 units = 300 kN

6395
effective axle loads to girder A = 300 x
8570
= 224kN
Total loads
^ HA loading:
lane load UDL = \ [27 x 30] = 270 kN
lane load KEL - \ [120] = 40 kN
2455
.*. EFF UDL to girder A = 270 x —— - 77.3 kN
8570
'2455
EFF KEL to girder A = 40 x = 11.5kN Total
8570

Maximum bending moment

From the design criterion above, and referring to Fig. 3.37,5 HA KEL [11.5 kN]
and HB axles [4 @ 224 kN]:

RL = ^= [224(7.125 + 8.925 + 15.025 + 16.825) + 11.5(15.025)]

= 403.8 kN
M xx = 403.8 x 11.975 - 224 x 1.8 = 4432.2 kN/m

M xx due to \ HA (WDL) - — - - — = 260.9 kN/m

8
1039.5 x 27
M xx due to DL/services/walkway LL ~ '— = 3508.3 kN/m
8
Total BM at x-x = 8201.4 kN/m
8201.4 „ „ „ „ „ , ^T
.". maximum axial force — — - — = +2733.8 kN

400 x 200 □ 12.5 GL: 50C

2733.8 x 10 2
Ac = Î43 = 191 N/mm
p&c = 175 + 25% = 219 N/mm 2

Fatigue life satisfactory. Adopt 400 x 200 □ 12.5; GR: 50C RHS top chord.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 330 BANGASH

o
6100 i l

é <k mé
♦8»
10175 4575 00 7125 Note: AH dimensions
are in mm
13500 13500

RL RR

Figure 3.37. Maximum bending moment

12k
- - - 12k_
k=kips

112k -I—- "l

4ft Oin

Figure 3.38. Illustration of US military loading

3.7.5 Example (3.5) American practice

The United States military loading is shown in Fig. 3.38 and governs for certain
smaller spans over H20-S16 loading. Compute moments, end shears/reactions
and centre-line shears for the following spans:
spans l i f t to 44ft (3.35m to 13.5m)
Mark the spans where H20-S16 governs over the military loading (Table 3.32)
and note:
1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 ft kip = 1.356 kN/m.

3.7.6 Example (3.6) American practice

A simple span of 21.34 m. The load distribution is given on the span identified by
P in Fig. 3.39. The value of P for the 3S2 vehicle wheel is 3.632 ton, 5 = the strin­
ger spacing and is 2.3876 ft. Determine the moment Mp for the bridge using the
following data for the dead load interior beam:
slab = 1.0923 ton/metre
haunch = 0.0744
distributed* = 0.3601

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS A N D LOAD D I S T R I B U T I O N 331

Table 3.32. Data for Example (3.5)

Span Moment End shear and end reactions *L shear

(ft) (ft kips) (kips)

1.1 88.36 39.27 15.27

12 97,75 40.00 16.00
13 111.69 40.62 16.62
14 123.43 41.14 17.14
15 135.20 41.60 17.60
16 147.00 42.00 18.00
17 158.82 42.35 18.35
18 170.67 42.67 18.67
19 182.53 42.95 18.95
20 194.40 43.20 19.20
21 206.29 43.43 19.43
22 218.18 43.64 19.64
23 230.09 19.83
24 242.00 | H20-S16-44 20.00
25 253.92 20.16
26 265.85 20.31
27 277.78 20.44
4-F k ^-T-
12k
28 289.71 20.57
29 301.66 20.69
30 313.60 k=kips 20.80
31 325.55 20.90
112k I ÎÎ2ki ±
32 337.50 21.00
33 349.45 21.09
34 361.41 4ft Oin 21.18
35 373.37 21.26
36 385.53 21.34
37 397.30 21.41
38 21.48
39 21.54
40 | H20-S16-44 21.60
42 21.71
44 21.82

i H20

*3S2 vehicle 4.5 P (centre of gravity)

P/2 P,1.22,
P P P
i nnc
3.35
\ \
10.67m 10.67m

Figure 3.39. Example (3.6): 3S2 vehicle loading for a steel beam bridge

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 332 BANGASH

beam = 0.4464
details = 0.0327
E = 2.0059 ton/metre
FWL = 1.424, i.e. fraction of wheel load

/ = impact - L+U5 (L in ft)

=
/perm "■ '-!/y

Calculate the rating for working stress, serviceability, inventory and operating
cases:
r » / • - , , , • N 45^(10.67-1.235)
value of RL (critical wheel point) = -— -

MP = RL( 10.67 - 1.235) - 1.22P - (3.35 + 1.22) ^ (3.25)

FWL (fraction of wheel load) to a stringer or beam =

1.676
2.3876
1.676
= 1.424
r . 15.24
/ = impact = L + 38
= 0.256
L = 21.34m
in Imperial units

/=
dl25 <ttaft>
P = 3.632tons (wheel)

^ = 80001b
2
Live load moment for the 3S2 vehicle:
= load x distribution factor x impact x distance to the load centre
= 3.632 x 1.424(1+0.256) x Eq. (3.25) terms
= 99.20tonm (1 American ton = 10001b)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 333

= 3281 ft lb
= 3.281 ft kip =
2
w A Ay A UJI2 2.0059(21.34)
M g = deadload moment = —— = ^ —
* 8 8
/perm = permissible stress (inventory) = 114.2 ton m
= 0.55/y = 20000psi (1406 kg/cm2) = 138MN/m 2
Sx (using 36 WF 300) = section modulus
= 1110m3 (18190cm 3 )
WF = wide flange
^ p e r m = fVcrmSx = 255.8 ton m

Working stress

- rating factor RF
M
255.8-114.2
= 1.427 inventory
99.2
Operating
/perm = 0.75/y; / y = 36000psi
= 0.75 x 36000 = 27000psi = 1898 kg/cm2
M perm = 1898 x 18 190 = 34 524 620 kg cm = 345.2 tonm
nT, 345.2-114.2 „„„„
= =
992 operating
Load factor method

Z x = 1260(2.54)3 = 20648 cm3

S x = 1110(2.54)3 = 18 190 cm3
fyZx = 522.6 ton m
/ y 5 x = 460.4tonm

RF = (/yZ-1.3Mg)/{l.30)(LL + /)}
522.6-1.3(114.2) t nA1 ,.
= —r^—<—L»» = 1.741 (inventory)
1.3 x f x 99.20

RF = (0.8/ y S - M g ) r- (LL + / ) = 1.537 (serviceability)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 334 BANGASH

Strength
RF = (fyZ - 1.3Mg)/{1.3(ZX + / ) } = 2.901 (operating)
RF = (0.8/ y S -Mg)/(LL + I)= 2.562 (serviceability).

3.7.7 Example (3.7) British practice

Figure 3.40 shows the prestressed-concrete box beam bridge deck. Determine
lanes, HA and HB loading distribution. Calculate respective moments and
shear forces according to BS 5400. Use the relevant data from the code (Table
3.33) and a simple span of 60m.

Bending moment
Referring to Fig. 3.41:
Ra + Rh = 866.8 kN
Taking moment about a:
216.7(1.8 + 7.8 + 9.6] - 60.Rb = 0
Therefore:
R& = 797.5 kN
iî b = 69.3kN
Therefore the most severe case is from HA + KEL:
= 1251kN
For HB maximum SF: 1251 kN
Maximum bending moment for HA + KEL:
= 8870 + 3260.5
= 12 130.4 kNm

Bridge deck

11600
350 HH

Proposed
gas pipe

Note: all dimensions are in mm

Figure 3.40. Prestressed-concrete box beam bridge deck cross-section

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 335

Table 3.33. BS 5400 data for Example (3.7)

Lanes
Width of carriageway = 7600 mm
No. of notional lanes = 2
Therefore width of one lane:
7600
= 3800 mm

Width of central reserve = 600 mm Lane 1:

3500 mm
Width of one lane - 3800 - — - Lane 2:
2 3500 mm
= 3500 mm

HA loading
For type HA uniformly distributed load:
up to 60 m loaded length = 21.4 kN/m
For a unit box beam, i.e. 2.60 m
HA = (21.4/2.917)x2.60 HA:
= 19.07 kN/m 19.07 kN/m
HB loading
Min units is 25
One unit = 10 kN per axle (2.5 kN per wheel)
Dimension of HB vehicles = 1.8m
between axles
For unit box beam, i.e. 2.60 m:

HB = i ^ x 2 . 6 0 : 216.7 kN HB:
216.7kN
KEL (knife-edge loading)
The KEL per notional lanes shall be
taken as 120kN

KEL=120l2;6°=106.9kN KEL:
2.917
106.9 kN

Dimension of H B vehicles:
1.8m, 6 m , 1.8m
HB loading (see Fig. 3.42)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 336 BANGASH

Bending moment
HA
A 19.07kN/m
■ ^ ^

t- 60 m
-i

KEL loading 106.9kN

60 m 3
HB loading
1.8 6.01.8

a
H-H
Figure 3.41. Example (3.7): bending moment

Hill
I I 6
,0m I I
1.8m 1.8m

Figure 3.42. Example (3.7): HB loading

Taking moment about a:

216.7[27.2 + 29 + 35 + 36.8] - 60.Rb = 0

Rh = 454.7 kN
Rd = 412.1 kN
M = 412.1(32) - 216.7(4.8) - 216.7(3.0)
= 11496.9 kNm

Therefore the most severe case is from HA + KEL loading:

where HA + KEL = 12 130.4 kNm.

Maximum BM: 12 130.4 kNm

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 337

19.07kN/m

Ra= 1144.2kN
106.9kN

Figure 3.43. Example (3.7): Shear force

Shear force
HA + KEL loading (Fig. 3.43):
Therefore maximum shear force at a:
= 1144.2+106.9 kN
= 1251kN
Maximum SF: 1251 kN.

3.7.8 Example (3.8) American practice

Determine the centre of gravity of load to create maximum bending moment.
Compute live load plus impact moment and range of shears HS 20-44 truck.
The span is 45ft (13.716m). Referring to Figs 3.44 and 3.45:

P (3.44) x(ft) Pxftkip

16K 0 0
16K 14 224
4K 28 112
E36K E 336 ft kips

336
Xi = 9.33 ft
36
JC = 14-JCI = 4.67ft (4ft 8in)

EM A = 0

4 x 6.167 + 16 x 20.167 + 16 x 34.167 - RB x 45 = 0

RB = 19.867 kips; RA = 36 - 19.867 = 16.133 kips

Maximum LL moment = M L L = M max = i?A(20.167) - 4(14)

= 269.35 ft kip

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 338 BANGASH

22.5ft

A {k 45tt -
R "* 4K 16K J ^ 3 f t
A

Moment

Shear 1

Shear 2 V positive

*-| V negative

Shear 3

V positive
V negative
V positive

V negative

Shear 4

x=22.5ft

Figure 3.44. HS20-44 locations

16 16

14ft I 14ft I

Figure 3.45. Example (3.8): values for P

Impact + wheel load distribution

/ = = 0 29 / = 1 29
e
L+125

^LL+I = 269.35 x 1.45 x 1.29 = 503.83 ft kip

Shear ® x = 0 + V

+ V=\.15(\6Kx%\+ l . 4 5 ( l 6 * x 4 * ^ + ^ = 46.17 kips

45, 45' 45'
50
/ impact = 0.29
125 + 45

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 339

+ VX=0 = 1.29 x 46.17 = 59.56 kips

— Vx=0 = 0 negative shear
atx = 0
Total shear = 59.56 + 0 = 59.56 kips

Shear (5): similar calculations are carried out x = 4.5 ft

+ V + impact = 46.99 kips

-V= -0.75 kips

*totai = 47.74 kips

S h e a r © : x = 9.0ft

+ V = 40.21 kips - V = -2.35 kips (impact included)

Ktotal = 42.56 kips

Shear 0 :
+ V + impact = 20.78 kips

— V (impact included) = —19.35 kips

^totai = 40.13kips

3.7.9 Example (3.9) British practice

A beam/slab bridge is subjected to HB 45 units loading. The spacings of the
beams (Fig. 3.46) are 1.53 m centres. Position the load on the deck in such a
way that it produces maximum longitudinal bending moment on the beam
marked (Î) in Fig. 3.46:
4P = 450 kN. Hence P = 112.5 kN

The load on beam 0 = 112.5 + 2 x ^ | x 112.5 = 190.44 kN.

The position of the load is shown in Fig. 3.47.

Dimensions are clarified in the diagram:
109.44(2.88 + 4.68 + 10.68 + 12.48) = Rx x 18.33
Rx =319.2kN
R2 = 130.8 kN

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 340 BANGASH

1.8m

1.53m 1.53m

Figure 3.46. Steelj concrete composite deck

5.82m1.8m 6m 1.8m 2.88m
<£beam
®, 9.15m 9.15m
U
ÇHB

Figure 3.47. Position of HB loading [Example (3.9)]

The moment at the centre of the beam (Î)

=^ beam (max) = 319.2 x 9.15 - 190.44(1.53 + 3.33)
= 1995 kNm
The longitudinal member sustains M = 1995 kNm.

3.7.10 Example (3.10) British practice

A concrete-slab deck bridge is shown in Fig. 3.48. On the 16 m side the slab is
supported by a concrete beam 750 mm wide and 700 mm deep. The slab spans
16 m and is simply supported along the 20 m edge. Distribute the load effectively

| Top is kerb width |

=750mm^\
Span A
E
o
CO

Beams 750mm wide

1 x 700mm deep I
'
20.0m

Figure 3.48. Slab j beam deck [Example (3.10)]

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 341

and calculate the maximum longitudinal bending moment. For HB loading, the
deck should be divided into eight sections with nine reference stations. Use the
following data:
HA loading = 0.98 kN/m 2
KEL = 39.4 kN/m
HB (45 units), wheel load = 112.5kN
axle spacing = 0.92 m
spaced = 1.8 : 6.0 : 1.8 m
load due to surfacing = 7fZ>L = 2 kN/m 2
p = density of concrete = 23.6 kN/m 3
For HB loading, data from the Guyon-Massonnet-Bares method is given in
Table 3.34 for the load distribution parameters:
a = slab torsional parameter = 1 . 0

b //\1/4
6 = flexural parameter = _ .

Determine stresses due to these loads. Compare the results. Ignore torsional
calculations.
(a) HA loading full width of the deck
M = moment/unit width
0.98 x 162 39.4x16 „ „
8 f 4 = 31.36 + 157.6
= 188.96kNm« 189 k N m

2X 16 2 SAIT.T
moment due to surfacing = — - — = 64kNm
8
slab weight = 23.6 x 0.7 = 16.52kNm

moment due to self weight = —-— = 528.64kNm

8
total bending moment = 797.89kNm
Stresses:
HA loading6 = ^ = ; - ^ = 2313kNm 2
Z 0.0817

z = (0^)_x j = o.0817m3
6

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
342 BANGASH
ON F-i oo rt ON in O N en Os Tf CN ON r- o o vo o in m oo r- t^ i n cN
m
(S
t>
ON
oo
^
co
>n
en
m
«-H
r-
Tf
CN ^t t^ e n
^ o o in o
*-;; > n C N | p
«n
^t
in
in r»* oo 1—H
en vo
ON
t^
in in C^
? CN rr en
O l^ ON en
vo CN en
1—H
ON
OO
OO
vo
rf
VO
vo
oo
in
in
m
O ON
vo oo
vo i-j
vo ON in en en
O O '-î CN en o O r—1 CN en o O Tf , — i
00 6 6 r-! M* Tf
4 4 4 4 4 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
oo r^ ^ H en rf ON m en ON Os ON O Tj- OO O in r^ vo vo m CN i n O N en i n
CO TT OO <N en ^f vo o l^ ^H 00 O N in 00 ^ vo *-■ Tt oo o r- ^H o
in CO O m O «n CN in V-) »-H en O vo *—i t> m f-H in en Tj- i-^ VO CN VO
^ r-
r- VO CN CN
i—•
CO CN ON O CN CN h - H (v (s m 1-H o o p en en vo i-^ r^ TT vo
o o 1—1 1—1 O o CN CO TT O —î ^ CN CN O O CN en rf O ^ ^ CN CN
ro 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
cN v o in i—i oo vo ON O en en ^H vo en TJ- r^ O m ON vo O o en vo ON r-
O CN O OO 00 en O OO O "3" en O N O N O N t*» 00 VO CN ^H T^ i-^ CN O N l > i n
oo TJ- en en in Tf en O N CN 00 VO O N Tf o VO O CN l> 1-H O N -^ i n vo vo i n
ON en vo vo in © r- ^ © in ON en t> i> in O oo en O cN ON rt oo r^ m
^ -H'CN C N *-H' O ^ T-H' r-H ^ ^H' ^ CN C N f-î
5" 4 4 + 4 4 4 4 4 4 + 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
i-« ^t ON in O N en Tl- vo O ON m cN m r- vo ON ^ en m r^
o r» cN Tf i> f- en O vo CN O en os oo m r- ON oo oo cN ON OO CN O vo
en en Tf m O N r- en en m i—i ON in ON en en r- r t cN i n r- TJ- o m ^^ vo
CN rr rn ^ H o^ r*^ —i t— ON ^H CN in en 1-H O N
OO M OO OO H
en vq Tf 1-H oo
T-Î CN —' © ©
^c? 4 4444 4 4 4 4 + 4 4 4 4 4 -H' CN ^ H ' O O
4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 1
^ OO CN 00 O N CN î—i vo os in 00 en î—i O N CN en in o m rf O ON O CN 0 0
^- o o en m ON r- en Tf î—i CN O en î—i m vo r- oo i-i rt- M OA ^ 00 00
vo en oo r- C N >n h ^- M ^ O O N VO *-H TJ- vo r*- o r- o en Tj- TJ- r t vo
en CN O N r» vo in C N O N r-; in en oo o î—« vo vo en o vo ^f
^ ^ © © © CN ^ *-<' © © ^H' ^ O OO H ^ ^ 6 d ^ ^ d c> d

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
4 4 4 4 4- 4 4- 4 4 I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4
oo en CN O N en ^H o O VO en en Tf ^ in in in oo ^r en ,-H ON m CN VO vo
© i-H 1-H oo CN r- t-* o Tf ON O 00 CN en in r^ in CN oo ON ON oo m i n o
en en OO O ON r- o r- vo Tf ON r-H CN en 1-H r- vo 00 1 - *
en n- ON vo oo «n
CN ON vo m en f» ^ Tj- O in CN ON vo ^t en oo o en 1—1 m en oo i n en CN
^ © © © © ^ *-H" © © o ,_iO o O O ^ H
^-< O o O ^ cS c^ c> S
I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 41 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4
CN CN O ON vo VO O CN ^ CN î—i "sf r - en Ti­ O ^ I " Tf rH O CN CN O en
O H ( N ^ O H en O O N m Tf
e n CN OO VO VO 00 CN OO t-» VO r-H ir> Tfr t^. vo
oo oo r- en in VO CN O N vo OO O 0 0 ^H l > ^H r f vo en o en
rr r^ r- oo o ON VO en CN ^ ON i n en cN 1-H
ON vo Tt en cN O en o i-H en
C> C^ C> C> CD
I
© © © © © o ^- o ^ Ti-
d d d d
^H"
d d d d d
4 4 4 4 4 r-H* o d o o 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 11
4 4 4 11
OO O N O N 0O in ON vo r-H oo ON ON in en CN vo m en ri- CN vo CN r^ O O ON
en oo ooin ON Tfr in CN en vo CN vo 00 t^ ON oo IO ^ i - oo
r—
r-
©
in
en
en
en
CN
vo
^-^
t^ 3
oo O ON
CN O î — " CN î — "
1-H
t^»
en vo r^
" * ■
CN 1—1 1 — t
r-
î—" r^ | OC^
1 — 1 î — • S" vo
en
o
cN
cN r-*
^ o
© © © © © d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d <5 G c> <zS c>
I + 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4
en vo i n r- in e n CN ON ON CN i n r t VO CN ^ ^ ^ v O O oo VO e n O N Tfr
CN *-H ON r«
^ ON ^ ^ ON in i n vo vo vo Tf ON OO O N VO 0 0 O vo 0 0 0 0
t^ ^- O O N CN Tt ' H oo ^ r- o e n î—i r- Tt vo i n en r- r f
O N i n VO ^ H rt m Tt ^H o in en î—i î—• o vo i n en o î—* Tf CN ^ O O
en CN î—i ^ ^ _ . O O O O O O O O O O - 0 0 0 0 0
i i 0 l
I <6 C^ S <6 o O O O O O
4 4 4 4 ^ 1 I I I 4 ^ 4 4 4 4 4 ^ 1 I I 1 4 ^ 4 4 4 4 4
o o
ON
o
Î ^ L ^ »o " ^U \ -Ci ■■ ^L ^L ^ " ^ L ^ L -es
su o -Ci »c en < i
^^en^^o^^en->c><^©'-C}'-C}en'^<^>©'^)'>C}cn>>c>
LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 343
r- oo o os vo O
<N OS ^f ^t- O m ,—1
en en OO CN cN r» i ^ oo
in CN CN r» OO 00 en VO r- r- en cN ^t TJ- m oo CN i—i v o
vo 1—1
00 TT r- OS s CN 00 o vo o vo o vo en ^H oo oo CN
VO Tf OS CO r - CO o
r- »n CN
r- Tf
vo vo vo vo en vo en r^ rf oo p
O O O Tf OS o o T—1 © © © rf © o o r-H* cN m*
1 1+ ++ +++++ i i + + q: U
+ +++ +
•s
O
oo
oo
q
in
r-
vo
h;
OS
oo
o
q
Os
en
in
i;
TT
r~-
Tt
ro
oo o in in en
oo r^ î—i v o oo
os 1-1 Tt r- os
a\>n H T J - f
en vo »-H -^- r^
en o O -H r^
CN en m ^ oo
inooo M »
I
uni p oo ini t ^ H M H ^ O
-c> O O CN en rf O ^ T-î CN CN
© ^ ^H CN CN p VO p m en
rn
+ +++ + + + + + + O o CN en rf + +++ +
+ +++ + T3
<u
*-H O t"- OS Tf CN en i n i n en <n r- vo -<t © Tf M vo Mh OD
en oo »-H oo cN ^- O ^H rj- vo o oo h rH r j en en in o CN
*n ^H t^ O oo ^H O OS ^ CN oo rj- î—( in o o
o^ o\ in o o\ os in os oo in oo os oo ^H vo oo in i-H oo Tf
ci H ri ri 6 oo os r- o oo O 1-H* CN *-H* i-î o
^CT + +++ + © *-H* CN CN © a
+ +++ + ++++ + ++++ + M
o
oo en o in ON m in en o r—<
o r- r- ,lO
-H 00 ^- 00 CN VO CN
^ Tt oo r- CN r^ oos o Tf osen lo r» oo en *—i vo en O oo
vo TJ- ri- en ^
1
IT) ^O H \0 H o oo o r- t-» o rr- OS
- os 00 O
Tf ir> o o vO VO ^t Os m p i>
os in os t> "* CN CN O
1 — 1 < — i r—< r—1
o 1-H
o
—<' CN *-î © ©
+ +++ I + ++++ + +++ 1 + +++ + O
u
& 57
^ oo î—i © CN rn m (N oo >n r-H o in os r-- TT Tf rj- en CN
CN t-H en oo m os r^ -sf ri- o o Tf m o os r»- CN i—i e n en in
vo in m oo vo vo o *—i oo o s in o o o r-i v o ^H vo oo CN en
»n os os o vo t^ Tf; os »n en r- o oo o vo Os "3- oo «n en
*-H* 1-H' O O O CN CN O O O ^ *-H* O O O "C?.2
(N ^ d d d

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
+ +++ I + + + + + I+++ I ++++ + ^s
oo in cN m o in î—î e n in os o r^ in vo ,-H
Tf o rf en cT oo
^ CN ^ ^H r- i> r- o in vo in r- Tf oo m rN 00 en en o" vo
m ON oo in t-* o r- ^ H o os o os 00 VO en
oo vo m in in i—i
in v. OS
OS OS CN ^H ^f Tt oo in en t—( 1—1 ■ * ■
CN
^c? ^ © o o © O O O O O
o oo
CN o o o o
1—1
-^ oo
T-H
o o O o Ci ^
1 1 ■s «
I + ++ I I ++++ + +++ + ++ + +
^ CN en vo os CN en en en in «n »-H o Tt r - rf CN Tf r^ vo
en
in
Tj- O CN O
oo rf vo cN
"3" O OO OS OO
r-H r-H t^- in OS
o
oo
TT o cN ^
oo Os rf en
en oo o i—i O
oo in en CN r-
-3 ^
Os CN © —< CN os in» cN| i—i o oo ^ o —H ^
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
00 Tf M ^ H O
0,0000
6
I
+ + I I I ++++ + + + I I I + +++ +
I-
O m^û\0 h oo in en cN r- Os in rf rf o s m ^ h FH OO .«o o
oo »—i CN en os TT in os oo cN OS OO CN OS f- en en î—• CN ^ •a «s
oo m vo os O oo o in oo m ^ H v,o rf in CN CN m cN vo en
"Ci p —< —j o p in en#^^ O o O ^H ^H O O m cN ^H O O
^n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O s; T3
+ I I I I + 1 1 1 + ^ o
++++ + ++++ +
^3
g!
•S CN O OS r- os in os in r^ en r- vo OS OS CN en vo oo oo ■s H J
in r» O Os o oo VO oo CN O ro
- oo in r- en in en o TJ- oo
vo r^ CN O t— os Os Os in en CN Tf en in r^ en 1-H
vo TÎ CN O 1—1 en v O ^ en *-H o O O Xi
<r>O
o o o vo en
-Ci o O o o k- O O o o O oo O o o ' ^ o o o o o
I ^ 1 1 1 1
+^ + + + + + ^ 1 1
++^+++++ .22 >^
o 43
CN cz> ^
Î Xi
^ o < i < i m -Q O "C «Ci e n "Ci OH
 344 BANGASH

Due to surfacing and self-weight

_ 64.0 + 528.64 _
0.0817 7254 kN/m2
(b) HB loading (Fig. 3.49)
20 „ ,
section size = — = 2.5 m

e= i2Zl
2 x 16 =
0.625
4P = 4 x 112.5 = 450.0 kN at reference stations below:

b 3b/4
0 <—
b/2 b,'4 ()
-0
ii <* -b/4 -b/2 -36/4 -b
• section
© © © <3) ) © (!) © ® reference station
: [4P :
: acting position

K\ distribution factor

11 10 9 8 7 9 10 11
2.0 1.8 1.47 1.14 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.39 0.3 K,

^lmax a t b = 2.0
Mx = Mx (average) x Kx 1.1
4x112.5 A 6.5
:
16
= 0.325 x 112.5
- 36.5625 kN
M„ M,x average X ^ X 1.11
450
Mmax = Kï x 1.1 x (0.325 x 112.5 x 6 . 5 - — X 1.80

= (237.656-40.5) x 2 x 1.1
= 433.74 kNm/m width

112.5 = P(kN)
1.8 1.5 1.5 3.0 1.8

6.5
8m
8m ÇHB
<£ bridge

Figure 3.49. HB loading position [Example (B3.10)]

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 345

0.38
S .0.54
0.45| 0.92 0.92 1.04
Kerb I*- *4-'

i0.75m
2.5m 2.5m 2.5m

b 3b/4 b/2 b/4

Figure 3.50. Reactions at reference stations

Using Table 3.34 (Guyon-Massonnet-Bares), reactions at reference stations

(Fig. 3.50 and Table 3.35) can be considered

axle spacing = 0.92 m

Mi*-(^'—
3b 1.04 1.96 2.12 1.2\, , „.„..
4 2J + -2J + -2J + 2T5_}F = 2-529P
s
' v v
right-hand side left-hand side

13 0.38
P = 0.672P

Table 3.35. Reference station results for HB loading

Ref station Load a (

-b -36/4 -b/2 -6/4 0 6/4 6/2 36/4 6

0 0.78 0.87 0.98 1.13 1.2 1.13 0.98 0.87 0.78

6/4 0.57 0.65 0.79 0.95 1.12 1.25 1.22 1.14 1.08
b/2 0.41 0.50 0.62 0.79 0.99 1.22 1.42 1.47 1.48
36/4 0.32 0.40 0.51 0.67 0.87 1.14 1.48 1.78 2.0
b A 0.25 0.3 0.42 0.56 0.77 1.08 1.48 2.0 2.52
0 0 K.
b/4 0 0
b/2 0.8 0
A(6/2)(6/2) = 0.8 x 1.48 = 1.183
36/4 2.529 «5.06
b 0.672 0.672 x2.52 = 1.682

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 346 BANGASH

for P = 1

total = 0.8
+ 2.529
4- 0.672
4.001

= 4 QED, i.e. 4P

Y^ AÀ4 = 0 + 0 + 1.183 + 5.06 + 1.682 = 7.925

y x?± = l^-= 1.98125

Comparison: j ^ = 2.0 from approximate analysis. Detailed analysis

K\ = 1.98125. The above calculations are retained and HB<HA, i.e. HA
governs.

3J.I I Example (3.11) OHBDC Canadian practice

Determine load distribution, moments and shears and reactions at end and at
0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 span for a bridge span of 25m for a Class A highway.
The cross-section is shown in Fig. 3.51: shoulder width = 2.0m; lane
width —3.75 m.
The deck consists of five prestressed concrete beams, supporting a 225 mm
span, of the type CPCI1400.

2.0m 3.75m 3.75m 2.0m

0.475 m - * - 0.475m
140kN 140kN 200 kN ,160kN
1.20m 6.0m 7.2 m
-0.050m v__ -0.050m

_J
90 mm asphalt 225 mm slab
0.800m f 0.800m
0.340m 0.340m

-CPCI 1400
girders

75 mm at
Ç BRGS 90 mm
1.225m ' 2.50m ' 2.50m 2.50m 2.50m '1.225m
« M M M *

Figure 3.51. A cross-section of a roadway (courtesy Ontario Highway Depart­

ment)

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 347

Tabulate the factored shears at 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 L for vehicle load­
ing, CPCI girders, slab, barriers and asphalt. Partial factors for
f
live load =1.4
girder =1.1
factors^ slab =1.2
barriers =1.2
I asphalt =1.5
Typical vehicular loadings of OHBDC are shown in Fig. 3.51.

Moments and shears (Fig. 3.52)

End

RAx25 = 640 x 18.89

RA = 483.58 kN = max shear
Maximum moment at the load centre
483.58 x 6.11 - 140 x 7.2 - 140 x 6 = 1106.7kNm.

end 140140 200 160

C.G.
,1.2, 6 I 7.2
(i m
c
A 6.11 *
8.29
18.89

0.1 span
140140 200 160
i iCGI I

H 6 i r-2l 3
i25 6.11 16.39

0.2 span
60140140 200 :uu 160
1 DVJ
I3.6h.2l 6 i
1» 1
5 5.28 14.72

0.3 span (7.5 m) max shear

200 140140 160
I 16 I1.2I 3.6 I 6.7

1.92

Figure 3.52 (above and overleaf). Moments and shears for different spans and load
positions

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 348 BANGASH

(a) 0.1 span= 0.1 x 25 = 2.5 m

16.39
RA = 640 x = 419.58 kN
25
= shear

(b) 0.2 span = 5 m

max shear = 412.16 — 60
= 352.16kN
moment = 412.16 x 5 - 60 x 3.6
= 1845 kNm

maximum moment
60140140 200 160
I3.6l1.2l 6 . ' I 7.2 I

^ 7.5 4.081 13.42 ^

0.4 span (10m) max shear

200 140140 160

10 1308
i 1.92I i

0.4 span(10.0m)
Max. moment
C.G.
60 140 140 200 160
I3.6J1.2U |,2|
A i
10 'I 10.92
A 4.08 \ B
0.5 span(12.5m)
C G.
200 140 140 60
\ 6 Jl.2|3.e|
A A
12.5 * 10.58 |
1.921
A B

Figure 3.52. Continued

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 349

(c) 0.3 span = 7.5 m

For maximum effect 160kN axle neglected

RA = 278.16kN = max shear

= - ^ ^ x 700 = 375.76 kN
max shear at 7.5 m = 375.76 - 140 - 60
= 175.76 kN
max moment = 375.76 x 7.5 — 60 x 4.8
- 140 x 1.2
= 2362kNm
(d) 0.4L= 10.0 m span

RA = 224.16 = max shear

160kN axle neglected
10 92
RAA = — — x 700 = 305.76 kN
25
shear = 305.76 - 200
- 105.76 kN
max moment at 10.0m span
= 305.76 x 10 - 60 x 4.8 - 140 x 1.2
= 2601.6

(è) 0.5L = 12.5 m span

160kN axle neglected.

max shear = RA = 170.16kN

Shear consistent with maximum applied live load moment

RA = 292.88 kN
shear = 292.88 - 60 - 140
= 92.88 kN

For a summary of Example (3.11), refer to Table 3.36.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 350 BANGASH

Table 3.36. Factored shear for vehicle loading, girder, slab, barrier, and asphalt

Live Load Girder Slab Barrier

End 0.676 x 483.58 x 1.4 = 458 kN 1.1 x 126.49 1.2 x 181.3 1.2x28.58
= 139.139 = 217.56 = 34.296
0.1 L 0.676 x 419.58 x 1.4 = 397 kN 1.1 x 101.19 1.2 x 144.90 1.2x22.86
= 111.309 = 173.88 = 27.552
0.2 L 0.676 x 352.60 x 1.4 = 334 kN 1.1 x 75.89 1.2 x 108.68 1.2 x 17.15
= 83.479 = 130.416 = 20.58
0.3 L 0.676 x 278.16 x 1.4 = 263 kN 1.1 x 50.60 1.2x72.45 1.2 x 11.43
= 55.66 = 86.94 = 13.716
0.4 L 0.676 x 224.16 x 1.4 = 212 kN 1.1 x 25.30 1.2 x 36.20 1.2x5.72
= 27.83 = 43.44 = 6.864
0.5 L 0.676 x 170.16 x 1.4= 161 kN 0 0 0

Asphalt

End 0.1 L 0.2 L 0.3 L 0.4 L 0.5 L

1.5x60.81 1.5x48.65 1.5x36.49 1.5x24.33 1.5 x 12.16

= 91.215 =72.975 =54.735 = 36.495 = 18.24 0
£ 940.21 kN £ 682.713 kN X) 6 2 3 - 2 1 k N E 955.796 kN £ 308.374 kN £ 161 kN

3.7./2 Example (3.12) British practice

A slab bridge 1 m deep with 100 mm surfacing is reinforced with 40 mm diameter
bars at 150c/c (8378 mm2) at an effective depth of 940 mm.
Calculate the stresses in the section due to a positive temperature difference for
the following cases:
(i) uncracked section;
(ii) cracked section.
Use the following data:
(a) Adopt Department of Environment Standard BD 37/88.
(b) Divide the bridge depth from top: © 150 mm, (2) 400 mm, (3) 800 mm,
0 1000 mm on the lines suggested in the code. Assume 1 mm wide strip.
(c) The forces at these depths shall be computed as
Ft = AiEc/3LTi Ec = 30kN/mm2 At = gross area at i
where i (in this case) = 4. T = temperature: at top = 13.5°C; at bottom =
2.5°C. f3L = thermal expansion; /3L = 12 x 10"6/°C
(d) A — partial safety factor for T = 0.8 for combination 3 loading at servi­
ceability limit state (SLS).

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 351

1 mm
13.5°C
F
- 1

y=500 — F0
LO
rCVJ

O
o

o
'
-CM -** FA
2.5°C

Figure 3.53. Tempi lure distribution [Example (3.12) J

(e) Stresses are calculated according to the following expression

cj={-E(3hT + Y,F/A + Y,{y-y/I)*M
Take Es = 200 kN/mm2
Temperature distribution on the lines suggested is illustrated in Fig. 3.53:

Gross area for 1 mm wide strip

A = 1 mm x 1000 mm
_, . lxlOOO3 .._
/(gross) = — = 83.34
Tx = 0 . 8 x 13.5= 10.8°C
T2 = 0.8 x 3.0 = 2.4°C
T3 = 0.8 x 2.5 = 2.0°C

Forces

Fi = \ x 150 x 30 x 12 x 10"6(10.8 - 2.4) = 0.227kN

F2 = 1 x 150 x 30 x 12 x 10~~6 x 2.4 = 0.13kN
F3 = \ x 1 x 250 x 30 x 12 x 10"6 x 2.4 = 108 kN
F4 = i x 1 x 200 x 30 x 12 x 10"6 x 2.0 - 0.072 kN

The centroid of areas from the top = y = 500 mm.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 352 BANGASH

Moments (Table 3.37)

(ï) Uncracked section

0.537 x 103
ai = - 3 0 x 103(12 x 10~6)(10.8)
1000 x 1
-155 x 106 (0-500)
+
83 x 106 x 103
= -3.89 + 0.537 + 0.933

— — 2.42 N/mm <— compressive

Similarly
a2 = 0.86 + 0.537 + 0.654 = 0.331 N/mm 2 tensile -►
<73 = 0 + 0.537 + 0.187 = 0.724 N/mm 2 tensile -►
<74 = 0 + 0.537 - 0.560 = -0.023 N/mm 2 <- compressive
a5 = -0.72 + 0.537 - 0.933 = -1.116 N/mm 2 «- compressive
(ii) Cracked section
Concrete having a transformed section:

£c 30

ir=°
———- = o . j m m
mm width
As transformed = aA$ = 56.695 mm 2

Table 3.37
3
Area zone Ft (kN) y from top y —y M = Ft(y — y) kN x 10
(distance from N-A)

1 0.227 50 -450 -102.15

2 0.130 75 -425 -55.25
3 0.108 233.3 -266.7 -28.80
4 0.072 933.3 +433.3 +31.2

EF =■■ 0.537 £ M = - 1 5 5 x 10"

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 353

Using BS 8110 chart

y = 0.30

y = 0.30 x 940

= 282

From chart

I
= 0.0415

Therefore / = 0.0451 x 1 x (940)3 = 34.47 x 10 6 mm 4

^transf = 1 X 2 8 2 + 5 6 . 6 9 5

= 338.695 or 338 mm 2

In this case T4 is an added effect which is the temperature at the rein­

forcement level. The new temperature distribution is set out below (see
Fig. 3.54):

2 5°C
T4 = - ^ x 150= 1.875°C
200
2.4
Ty = (400 - 282) 1.33°C
250
Fx = 0.227 kN

F2 = 0.130 kN

1mm

o ik 10.8
2 1 ^ ^
400-
o-
CM
N I—I A
0 " T-
o

4
T —
U ^™

Figure 3.54. New temperature distribution

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 354 BANGASH

Table 3.38. Forces and moments [Example (3.12)]

Zone F,-(kN) y (mm) y-y M(kN)xlO~3

1 0.227 50 -451 -102.400

2 0.130 75 -216 -28.080
3 0.084 70 -221 -18.564
4 0.0383 940 649 +24.857

ZFi = 0.4793 kN £ M = 124.187 x 10"3kN

F 3 =£(282-150)(2.4+1.133) x 1 x 30 x 12 x 1(T6
= 0.084 kN
F4 = 56.695(J4 = 1.875) x 30 x 12 x 10~6
= 0.0383 kN

The forces and moments, assuming new values, are given in Table 3.38.
Calculations for new stresses for the cracked section are as follows:

0.4793 x 103 -124.187(0 - 282) x 106

ax = -3.89
338 x 1 34.47 x 106 x 103
= -3.89 + 1.418 + 1.016 = -1.456 N/mm2
-124.187(150-282) x 106
a2 = -0.86 +1.418
34.47 x 106 x 103
-0.86 + 1.418 + 0.0476 = 1.034 N/mm2

♦-Tensile
- Compression

2.42 1.456

0.331 1.034

0.724
1.01
N/mm2

10.85-
1.116

(i) Uncracked (ii) Cracked

Figure 3.55. Temperature distribution - a comparative study

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION 355

(73 =-0.36(1.133)+ 1.418-0

= -0.408 + 1.418 = 1.01 N/mm2

-124.187(940-282) x 106
<7 4 = -0.36 x 1.875 + 1.418 4 (ae = 6.67)
34.47 x 106 x 103
= (-0.675 + 1.418-2.37)6.67

= -10.85 N/mm2
Comparative results of the temperature distribution for the uncracked and
cracked situations are given in Fig. 3.55.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [26/01/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.