d

ve
Steel Bridge Design Handbook
i U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
ch
Loads and Load Combinations
Publication No. FHWA-IF-12-052 - Vol. 7
Ar

November 2012
 d
i ve
ch
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in
the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for use of the
Ar

information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification,
or regulation.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government,

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies
are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information.
FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure
continuous quality improvement.
Steel Bridge Design Handbook:
Loads and Load Combinations
Publication No. FHWA-IF-12-052 - Vol. 7

November 2012

d
i ve
ch
Ar
Ar
ch
ive
d
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.
FHWA-IF-12-052 - Vol. 7
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Steel Bridge Design Handbook: Loads and Load Combinations November 2012
6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Dennis Mertz, Ph.D., PE (University of Delaware)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
11 Stanwix Street 11. Contract or Grant No.
Suite 800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

d
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Office of Bridge Technology Technical Report
Federal Highway Administration March 2011 November 2012
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20590

15. Supplementary Notes

ve
Specifications, 5th Edition with 2010 Interims.

16. Abstract
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

This module was edited in 2011 by HDR Engineering, Inc., to be current with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design

Sections 1 and 3 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition discuss various aspects of loads. The load
i
factors are tabulated in Table 3.4.1-1 of the AASHTO LRFD and are associated with various limit states and further various load
combinations within the limit states. This module discusses the various components of load and provides information beyond
ch
that contained in the AASHTO LRFD that will be useful to the designer. It also discusses and reviews the various limit-state
load combinations to assist the designer in avoiding non-governing load combinations.
Ar

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Loads, Load Combinations, Steel Bridge Design, Load No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
Factors, Limit States the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
22161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized

Ar
ch
ive
d
 Steel Bridge Design Handbook:
Loads and Load Combinations

Table of Contents
FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 LOADS .................................................................................................................................. 4

d
2.1 Permanent Loads .............................................................................................................. 4
2.1.1 General .................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2
2.1.3

ve
Gravitational Dead Loads ....................................................................................... 4
Earth Pressures (see Article 3.11) ........................................................................... 5
2.2 Transient Loads ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.1 General .................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2
2.2.3
i Live Loads (see Article 3.6).................................................................................... 6
Water Loads (see Article 3.7) ................................................................................. 9
ch
2.2.4 Wind Loads (see Article 3.8) .................................................................................. 9
2.2.5 Extreme-Event Loads.............................................................................................. 9
2.2.6 Superimposed Deformations (see Article 3.12) ...................................................... 9
2.2.7 Friction Forces (see Article 3.13) ........................................................................... 9
2.2.8 Other Loads (see Articles 3.4.2 and 3.4.3.1) ........................................................ 10
Ar

3.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS ................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Reliability-based Design ................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Limit States .................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Basic LRFD Equation ........................................................................................... 11
3.2.2 Load Modifiers...................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3 Load Factors.......................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3.1 Development of Load Factors ............................................................. 12
3.2.3.2 Maximum/Minimum Permanent Load Factors ................................... 12
3.2.3.3 Load Factors for Superimposed Deformations ................................... 13

i
 3.2.4 Strength Limit State Load Combinations ............................................................. 14
3.2.4.1 General ................................................................................................ 14
3.2.4.2 Strength I Load Combination.............................................................. 14
3.2.4.3 Strength II Load Combination ............................................................ 14
3.2.4.4 Strength III Load Combination. .......................................................... 14
3.2.4.5 Strength IV Load Combination ........................................................... 14
3.2.4.6 Strength V Load Combination ............................................................ 14
3.2.4.7 Typical Strength Design Practice........................................................ 15
3.2.5 Service Limit State Load Combinations ............................................................... 15

d
3.2.5.1 General ................................................................................................ 15
3.2.5.2 Service I Load Combination ............................................................... 15
3.2.5.3 Service II Load Combination .............................................................. 15

3.2.6
i 3.2.5.4
3.2.5.5
ve
Service III Load Combination ............................................................ 15
Service IV Load Combination ............................................................ 15
Extreme-event Limit State Load Combinations ................................................... 15
3.2.6.1
3.2.6.2
Extreme Event I Load Combination ................................................... 15
Extreme Event II Load Combination .................................................. 16
ch
3.2.7 Fatigue & Fracture Limit State Load Combinations............................................. 16
4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 17
Ar

ii
 List of Figures

Figure 1 Influence line for a two-span continuous bridge ............................................................. 8

d
i ve
ch
Ar

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1 Load factors during construction .................................................................................... 10

d
i ve
ch
Ar

iv
FOREWORD

It took an act of Congress to provide funding for the development of this comprehensive
handbook in steel bridge design. This handbook covers a full range of topics and design
examples to provide bridge engineers with the information needed to make knowledgeable
decisions regarding the selection, design, fabrication, and construction of steel bridges. The
handbook is based on the Fifth Edition, including the 2010 Interims, of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. The hard work of the National Steel Bridge Alliance (NSBA) and
prime consultant, HDR Engineering and their sub-consultants in producing this handbook is
gratefully acknowledged. This is the culmination of seven years of effort beginning in 2005.

The new Steel Bridge Design Handbook is divided into several topics and design examples as
follows:

d
Bridge Steels and Their Properties
Bridge Fabrication
Steel Bridge Shop Drawings








Structural Behavior

Stringer Bridges
Loads and Combinations
Structural Analysis
Redundancy
i
Limit States
ve
Selecting the Right Bridge Type

Design for Constructibility

ch
Design for Fatigue
Bracing System Design
Splice Design
Bearings
Substructure Design
Deck Design
Ar

Load Rating
Corrosion Protection of Bridges
Design Example: Three-span Continuous Straight I-Girder Bridge
Design Example: Two-span Continuous Straight I-Girder Bridge
Design Example: Two-span Continuous Straight Wide-Flange Beam Bridge
Design Example: Three-span Continuous Straight Tub-Girder Bridge
Design Example: Three-span Continuous Curved I-Girder Beam Bridge
Design Example: Three-span Continuous Curved Tub-Girder Bridge

These topics and design examples are published separately for ease of use, and available for free
download at the NSBA and FHWA websites: http://www.steelbridges.org, and
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge, respectively.

1
The contributions and constructive review comments during the preparation of the handbook
from many engineering processionals are very much appreciated. The readers are encouraged to
submit ideas and suggestions for enhancements of future edition of the handbook to Myint Lwin
at the following address: Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.,
Washington, DC 20590.

M. Myint Lwin, Director

Office of Bridge Technology

d
i ve
ch
Ar

2
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Sections 1 and 3 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition, (referred to
herein as AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010)) (1) discuss various aspects of loads. The load
factors are tabulated in Table 3.4.1-1 of the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010), and are
associated with various limit states and further various load combinations within the limit states.
This module discusses the various components of load and provides information beyond that
contained in the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) that will be useful to the designer. It also
discusses and reviews the various limit-state load combinations to assist the designer in avoiding
non-governing load combinations.

d
i ve
ch
Ar

3
2.0 LOADS

Loads within the context of the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) are categorized as
permanent or transient loads. This categorization is necessary due to the probabilistic nature of
the specifications. Due to uncertainty, loads can be larger than the nominal value (the value of
load calculated as specified in the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010)) or less than the nominal
value. In the case of transient loads, lower values are of no consequence since not placing the
transient load on the structure at all will govern. Permanent loads are always there however, so
lesser values may be important (for example, when considering retaining wall sliding or
overturning). For permanent loads, minimum load factors are specified as well as maximum
load factors. Thus, the categorization of loads as permanent or transient is significant within the
context of a probability-based specification.

d
2.1 Permanent Loads

2.1.1 General

ve
Permanent loads are loads that are always present in or on the structure and do not change in
magnitude during its life. The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) specifies seven components
of permanent loads, which are either direct gravity loads or caused by gravity loads. Prestressing
is considered, in general, to be part of the resistance of a component and has been omitted from
the list of permanent loads in Section 3. However, when designing anchorages for prestressing
tendons, the prestressing force is the only load effect, and it should appear on the load side of the
AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) Equation.
i
ch
2.1.2 Gravitational Dead Loads

DC is the dead load of all of the components of the superstructure and substructure, both
structural and non-structural.

Component dead loads associated with composite girder-slab bridges consist of composite and
non-composite components, typically termed DC1 and DC2, respectively. Dead loads applied to
the non-composite cross section (i.e., the girder alone) include the self-weight of the girder and
Ar

the weight of the wet concrete, forms and other construction loads typically required to place the
deck. The concrete dead load should include allowances for haunches over the girders. Where
steel stay-in-place formwork is used, the designer shall account for the steel form weight and any
additional concrete in the flues of the formwork.

For the distribution of the weight of plastic concrete to the girders, including that of an integral
sacrificial wearing surface, assume that the formwork is simply supported between interior
beams and cantilevered over the exterior beams.

Component dead loads applied to the composite cross section (i.e., the girder with the composite
slab) include the weight of any curb, rail, sidewalk or barrier placed after the deck concrete has
hardened.

4
DW is the dead load of additional non-integral wearing surfaces, future overlays and any utilities
supported by the bridge.

An allowance for a future wearing surface over the entire deck area between the gutter lines may
be included as a composite dead load.

The dead loads applied after the deck has cured, DC2 and DW, are sometimes termed
superimposed dead loads. These superimposed dead loads may be distributed equally to all
girders as traditionally specified by the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010). In some cases, such
as wider bridges, staged construction or heavier utilities, the bridge designer should conduct a
more representative analysis to determine a more accurate distribution of superimposed dead
loads. For a typical bridge, the barriers could more realistically be assumed to be supported by
the exterior girders alone.

d
EL is the accumulated lock-in, or residual, force effects resulting from the construction process,
including the secondary forces from post-tensioning (which are not gravitational dead loads).

ve
EV is the vertical earth pressure from the dead load of earth fill.

2.1.3 Earth Pressures (see Article 3.11)

EH is the horizontal earth pressure.

ES is the earth pressure from a permanent earth surcharge (e.g., an embankment).

i
DD are the loads developed along the vertical sides of a deep-foundation element tending to drag
ch
it downward typically due to consolidation of soft soils underneath embankments reducing its
resistance.

Deep foundations (i.e., driven piles and drilled shafts) through unconsolidated soil layers may be
subject to downdrag, DD. Calculate this additional load as a skin-friction effect. If possible, the
bridge designer should detail the deep foundation to mitigate the effects of downdrag; otherwise,
it is necessary to design considering downdrag.
Ar

As discussed later in this document, the permanent force effects in superstructure design are
factored by the maximum permanent-load load factors almost exclusively. The most common
exception is the check for uplift of a bearing. In substructure design, the permanent force effects
are routinely factored by the maximum or minimum permanent-load load factors from Table
3.4.1-2 as appropriate.

2.2 Transient Loads

2.2.1 General

Transient loads are loads that are not always present in or on the bridge or change in magnitude
during the life of the bridge. The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) recognizes 19 transient

5
loads. Static water pressure, stream pressure, buoyancy and wave action are designated as water
load, WA. Creep, settlement, shrinkage and temperature (CR, SE, SH, TU and TG) are elevated
in importance to loads, being superimposed deformations which, if restrained, will result in
force effects. For example, restraint strains due to uniform-temperature increase induce
compression forces. The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) has considerably increased the
vehicular braking force (BR) to reflect the improvements in the mechanical capability of modern
trucks in comparison with the traditional values of the AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges (referred to herein as the Standard Specifications) (2).

2.2.2 Live Loads (see Article 3.6)

LL is the vertical gravity loads due to vehicular traffic on the roadway, treated as static loads.

d
For short and medium span bridges, which are predominant, vehicular live load is the most
significant component of load.

The HL-93 live-load model is a notional load in that it is not a true representation of actual truck

ve
weights. Instead, the force effects (i.e., the moments and shears) due to the superposition of
vehicular and lane load within a single design lane are a more accurate representation of the
force effects due to actual trucks.

The components of the HL-93 notional load are:

a vehicle, either a 72-kip three-axle design truck (to those familiar with the Standard
i
Specifications, the HS20-44 truck) or a 50-kip design tandem, similar to the Alternate
Loading, both of the Standard Specifications and the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition,
ch
2010); and

a 0.64 k/ft uniformly distributed lane load (similar to the lane load of the Standard
Specifications, but acting concurrently with the vehicle without any of the previous
associated concentrated loads).

The force effects of the traditional HS-20 truck alone are less than that of the legal loads. Thus,
Ar

a heavier vehicle is appropriate for design. Originally, a longer 57-ton vehicle (termed the HTL-
57) was developed to model the force effects of trucks on our nations highways at the time of
the development of the 1st Edition of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. Ultimately, however,
it was deemed objectionable to specify a super-legal truck in the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition,
2010). Instead, the concept of superimposing the design vehicle force effects and the design lane
force effects to produce moments and shears representative of real trucks on the highways was
developed. The moments and shears produced by the HL-93 notional load model are essentially
equivalent to those of the more realistic 57-ton truck.

The multiple presence factor of 1.0 for two loaded lanes, as given in Table 3.6.1.1.2 1, is the
result of the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) calibration for the notional load, which has
been normalized relative to the occurrence of two side-by-side, fully correlated, or identical,
vehicles. The multiple presence factor of 1.2 for one loaded lane should be used where a single

6
design tandem or single design truck governs, such as in overhangs, decks, etc. The multiple-
presence factors should never be applied to fatigue loads nor any other vehicle of relatively
known weight such as a legal or permit load.

The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) retains the traditional design lane width of 12 ft and the
traditional spacing of the axles and wheels of the HS-20 truck. Both vehicles (the design truck
and design tandem) and the lane load occupy a 10-ft width placed transversely within the design
lane for maximum effect, as specified in Article 3.6.1.3.

The combination of the lane load and a single vehicle (either a design truck or a design tandem)
does not always adequately represent the real-life loading effect in negative-moment regions for
a variety of span lengths. Thus, a special load case has been specified in the AASHTO LRFD (5th
Edition, 2010) to calculate these effects. Two design trucks, with a fixed rear axle spacing of 14

d
ft and a clear distance not less than 50 ft between them, superimposed upon the lane load, all
within a single design lane and adjusted by a factor of 0.90 approximates a statistically valid
representation of negative moment and interior reactions due to heavy trucks. This sequence of
highway loading is specified for negative moment and interior reactions only. This sequence is

ve
not extended to other structures or portions of structures.

In positioning the two trucks to calculate negative moment or the interior reaction over an
internal support of a continuous girder, spans should be at least approximately 90 ft in length to
be able to position a truck in each spans governing position (over the peak of the influence line).
If the spans are larger than 90 ft in length, the trucks remain in the governing positions but, if
they are smaller than 90 ft, the maximum force effect can only be attained by trial-and-error with
i
either one or both trucks in off-positions (i.e., non-governing positions for each individual span
away from the peak of the influence line). This is not to say that the special two-truck load case
ch
does not govern, just that the trucks will not be positioned over the maximum influence-line
ordinate. See Figure 1 below. The truck in the first span of the two-span continuous bridge (in
the figure) is in the governing position for the span; the truck in the second span falls to the right
of the spans governing position based upon the influence line for negative moment over the pier.

The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) defines the notional live load for fatigue for a particular
bridge component by specifying both a magnitude and a frequency. The magnitude of the
Ar

fatigue load consists of a single design truck per bridge with a load factor of 0.75 (i.e., the
factored force effects are equivalent to those of an HS-15 truck). This single-factored design
truck produces a considerable reduction in the stress range in comparison with the stress ranges
of the Standard Specifications. However, fatigue designs using the Specifications are virtually
identical to those of the Standard Specifications. This equivalence is accomplished through an
increase in the frequency from values on the order of two million cycles in the Standard
Specifications, which represented design cycles, to frequencies on the order of tens and
hundreds of millions of cycles, which represent actual cycles in the Specifications. The increase
in number of cycles compensates for the reduction in stress range, yet both cases fall on the
resistance curve producing a similar fatigue design.

7
 d
ve
Figure 1 Influence line for a two-span continuous bridge

PL represents the vertical gravity loads due to pedestrian traffic on sidewalks, taken as 75 psf for
i
sidewalks wider than 2.0 feet.
ch
IM represents the dynamic load allowance to amplify the force effects of statically applied
vehicles to represent moving vehicles, traditionally called impact. Note that the dynamic load
allowance (IM) of 0.33 is applicable only to the design trucks and the design tandems, but not to
the uniformly distributed lane load.

LS is the horizontal earth pressure from vehicular traffic on the ground surface above an
abutment or wall.
Ar

Where reinforced-concrete approach slabs are provided at bridge ends, live-load surcharge need
not be considered on the abutment; however, the bridge designer shall consider the reactions on
the abutment due to the axle loads on the approach slabs. The abutments must be able to resist
the reactions due to axle loads on an approach slab.

Where approach slabs are not provided, the abutments must be able to resist the lateral pressure
due to the live-load surcharge just as a retaining wall.

BR is the horizontal vehicular braking force.

CE is the horizontal centrifugal force from vehicles on a curved roadway.

8
2.2.3 Water Loads (see Article 3.7)

WA is the pressure due to differential water levels, stream flow or buoyancy.

2.2.4 Wind Loads (see Article 3.8)

WS is the horizontal and vertical pressure on superstructure or substructure due to wind.

WL is the horizontal pressure on vehicles due to wind.

2.2.5 Extreme-Event Loads

EQ represents loads due to earthquake ground motions (see Article 3.10).

d
CT represents horizontal impact loads on abutments or piers due to vehicles or trains (see Article
3.6.5).

ve
CV represents horizontal impact loads due to aberrant ships or barges (see Article 3.14).

IC is the horizontal static and dynamic forces due to ice action (see Article 3.9).

2.2.6 Superimposed Deformations (see Article 3.12)

TU is the uniform temperature change due to seasonal variation.

i
TG is the temperature gradient due to exposure of the bridge to solar radiation.
ch
SH is the differential shrinkage between different concretes or concrete and non-shrinking
materials, such as metals and wood.

CR is the creep of concrete or wood.

SE is the effects of settlement of substructure units on the superstructure.

Ar

Typically, superimposed deformations are not considered in the design of typical steel girder
bridges other than the use of TU to size joints and bearings.

2.2.7 Friction Forces (see Article 3.13)

FR represents the frictional forces on sliding surfaces from structure movements.

The bridge designer should adjust the frictional forces from sliding bearings to account for
unintended additional friction forces due to the future degradation of the coefficient of friction of
the sliding surfaces. Consider the horizontal force due to friction conservatively. Include
friction forces where design loads would increase, but neglect friction forces where design loads
would decrease.

9
Typically, friction forces enter only into the design of bearings for typical steel girder bridges.

2.2.8 Other Loads (see Articles 3.4.2 and 3.4.3.1)

Two other load components are discussed in the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) but are not
explicitly included in the table of load combinations. As such, these loads are not included in
any load combinations but should be applied at the discretion of the designer.

Construction loads are not specified, as their magnitude and placement can be very contractor
and project specific. Nonetheless, the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) suggests load factors
for the various load components during construction as shown below in Table 1. The
commentary to the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) states that these load factors should not

d
relieve the contractor of responsibility for safety and damage control during construction.

Jacking forces during bearing replacement also fall into this category of loads discussed but not
included formally in the load combinations. The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010)

i ve
recommends that the factored design force be equal to 1.3 times the permanent-load reaction at
the bearing. If the jacking occurs under traffic, the live-load reaction times the load factor of
1.75 should also be included in the factored design force.

Table 1 Load factors during construction

LOAD
COMPONENT
LOAD FACTOR
ch
Dead Load 1.25
Construction Loads 1.5
Equipment
Dynamic Effects
Wind 1.25
All Other Loads 1.0
Ar

10
3.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS

3.1 Reliability-based Design

The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) are based upon the theory of structural reliability in that
the strength load combinations are developed to achieve uniform reliability of all structural
components of all types of materials. When the load factors and the resistance factors of the
AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) are applied in design, a uniform level of reliability or safety
is achieved. The magnitudes of the factors derived to achieve this uniform safety are the major
difference between load and resistance factor design and load factor design.

3.2 Limit States

d
3.2.1 Basic LRFD Equation

Components and connections of a bridge must be designed to satisfy the basic LRFD equation
for all limit states:

where:

i = load factor
i
Qi = load or force effect
ve
i i Q i R n R r (Equation 1.3.2.1-1)
i
ch
= resistance factor

Rn = nominal resistance

i = load modifier as defined in Equations 1.3.2.1-2 and 1.3.2.1-3

Ar

R r = factored resistance: Rn

The left-hand side of Equation 1.3.2.1-1 in the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) is the sum of
the factored load (force) effects acting on a component or connection; the right-hand side is the
factored nominal resistance of the component or connection for those effects. The Equation
must be considered for all applicable limit state load combinations. Similarly, the Equation is
applicable to both superstructures and substructures.

For the strength limit states, the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) is basically a hybrid design
code in that, for the most part, the force effect on the left-hand side of the LRFD Equation is
based upon elastic structural response, while resistance on the right-hand side of the LRFD
Equation is determined predominantly by applying inelastic response principles. The AASHTO
LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) has adopted the hybrid nature of strength design on the assumption that
the inelastic component of structural performance will always remain relatively small because of

11
non-critical redistribution of force effects. This non-criticality is assured by providing adequate
redundancy and ductility of the structures.

3.2.2 Load Modifiers

The load modifier i relates the factors D, R and i to ductility, redundancy and operational
importance. The location of i on the load side of the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010)
Equation may appear counterintuitive because it appears to be more related to resistance than to
load. i is on the load side for a logistical reason. When i modifies a maximum load factor, it
is the product of the factors as indicated in Equation 1.3.2.1-2; when i modifies a minimum load
factor, it is the reciprocal of the product as indicated in Equation 1.3.2.1-3. The AASHTO
LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) factors, D, R and I are based on a 5% stepwise positive or negative
adjustment, reflecting unfavorable or favorable conditions. These factors are somewhat

d
arbitrary; their significance is in their presence in the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) and
not necessarily in the accuracy of their magnitude. The AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010)
factors reflect the desire to promote redundant and ductile bridges.

ve
In practice, i values of 1.00 are used for all limit states, because bridges designed in accordance
with the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) demonstrate traditional levels of redundancy and
ductility. Rather than penalize less redundant or less ductile bridges, such bridges are typically
not acceptable. On a case-by-case basis, the Owner can designate a bridge to be of operational
importance and specify an appropriate value of i.

The load modifier accounting for importance of Article 1.3.5, I, should not be confused with the
i
importance categories for vessel collision of Article 3.14 nor the bridge category classifications
ch
for seismic design of Article 3.10.

3.2.3 Load Factors

3.2.3.1 Development of Load Factors

The load factors were defined using the load statistics (mean and coefficient of variation) so that
Ar

each factored component of load has an equal probability of being exceeded. The magnitudes of
the individual load factors by themselves have no significance. Their relative magnitude in
comparison with one another indicates the relative uncertainty of the load component. For
example, in the Strength I load combination, the live-load load factor of 1.75 indicates that live
load has more uncertainty than dead load which is assigned a maximum load factor of only 1.25.

3.2.3.2 Maximum/Minimum Permanent Load Factors

In Table 3.4.1-1, the variable P represents load factors for all of the permanent loads, shown in
the first column of load factors. This variable P reflects that the Strength and Extreme-Event
limit state load factors for the various permanent loads are not single constants, but they can have
two extreme values. Table 3.4.1-2 provides these two extreme values for the various permanent
load factors, maximum and minimum. Permanent loads are always present on the bridge, but the

12
nature of uncertainty is that the actual loads may be more or less than the nominal specified
design values. Therefore, maximum and minimum load factors reflect this uncertainty.

The designer should select the appropriate maximum or minimum permanent-load load factors
(p) to produce the more critical load effect. For example, in continuous superstructures with
relatively short-end spans, transient live load in the end span causes the bearing to be more
compressed, while transient live load in the second span causes the bearing to be less compressed
and perhaps lift up. To check the maximum compression force in the bearing, place the live load
in the end span and use the maximum DC load factor of 1.25 for all spans. To check possible
uplift of the bearing, place the live load in the second span and use the minimum DC load factor
of 0.90 for all spans.

Superstructure design uses the maximum permanent-load load factors almost exclusively, with

d
the most common exception being uplift of a bearing as discussed above. The Standard
Specifications treated uplift as a separate load combination. With the introduction of maximum
and minimum load factors, the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) has generalized load
situations such as uplift where a permanent load (in this case a dead load) reduces the overall

ve
force effect (in this case a reaction). Permanent load factors, either maximum or minimum, must
be selected for each load combination to produce extreme force effects.

Substructure design routinely uses the maximum and minimum permanent-load load factors
from Table 3.4.1-2. An illustrative yet simple example is a spread footing supporting a
cantilever retaining wall. When checking bearing, the weight of the soil (EV) over the heel is
factored up by the maximum load factor, 1.35, because greater EV increases the bearing pressure
i
making the limit state more critical. When checking sliding, EV is factored by the minimum
load factor, 1.00, because lesser EV decreases the resistance to sliding again making the limit
ch
state more critical. The application of these maximum and minimum load factors is required for
substructure and foundation design.

3.2.3.3 Load Factors for Superimposed Deformations

The load factors for the superimposed deformations for the Strength limit states also have two
specified values -- a load factor of 0.5 for the calculation of stress, and a load factor of 1.2 for the
Ar

calculation of deformation. The greater value of 1.2 is used to calculate unrestrained

deformations (e.g., a simple span expanding freely with rising temperature). The lower value of
0.5 for the elastic calculation of stress reflects the inelastic response of the structure due to
restrained deformations. For example, one-half of the temperature rise would be used to
elastically calculate the stresses in a constrained structure. Using 1.2 times the temperature rise
in an elastic calculation would overestimate the stresses in the structure. The structure resists the
temperature inelastically through redistribution of the elastic stresses.

13
3.2.4 Strength Limit State Load Combinations

3.2.4.1 General

The load factors for the Strength load combinations are calibrated based upon structural
reliability theory, and represent the uncertainty of their associated loads. Larger load factors
indicate more uncertainty; smaller load factors less uncertainty. The significance of the Strength
limit state load combinations can be simplified as discussed in the following articles.

3.2.4.2 Strength I Load Combination

This load combination represents random traffic and the heaviest truck to cross the bridge in its
75-year design life. During this live-load event, a significant wind is not considered probable.

d
3.2.4.3 Strength II Load Combination

This load combination represents an owner-specified permit load model. This live-load event

ve
will have less uncertainty than random traffic and, thus, a lower live-load load factor. If the
Owner does not specify a permit load for design purposes, this load combination need not be
considered.

3.2.4.4 Strength III Load Combination.

This load combination represents the most severe wind during the bridges 75-year design life.
i
During this severe wind event, no significant live load would cross the bridge.
ch
3.2.4.5 Strength IV Load Combination

This load combination represents an extra safeguard for bridge superstructures where the
unfactored dead load exceeds seven times the unfactored live load. Thus, the only significant
load factor would be the 1.25 dead-load maximum load factor. For additional safety, and based
solely on engineering judgment, the AASHTO LRFD (5th Edition, 2010) has arbitrarily increased
the load factor for DC to 1.5. This load combination need not be considered for any component
Ar

except a superstructure component, and never where the unfactored dead-load force effect is less
than seven times the unfactored live-load force effect. This load combination typically governs
only for longer spans, approximately greater than approximately 200 feet in length. Thus, this
load combination will be necessary only in relatively rare cases.

3.2.4.6 Strength V Load Combination

This load combination represents the simultaneous occurrence of a normal live-load event and
a 55-mph wind event with load factors of 1.35 and 0.4, respectively.

14
3.2.4.7 Typical Strength Design Practice

For components not traditionally governed by wind force effects, the Strengths III and V Load
Combinations should not govern. Unless Strengths II and IV as indicated above are needed, for
a typical multi-girder highway overpass the Strength I Load Combination will generally be the
only combination requiring design calculations.

3.2.5 Service Limit State Load Combinations

3.2.5.1 General

Unlike the Strength limit state load combinations, the Service limit state load combinations are,
for the most part, material specific.

d
3.2.5.2 Service I Load Combination

This load combination, akin to the overload check of the Standard Specifications is applied for

ve
controlling cracking in reinforced concrete components and compressive stresses in prestressed
concrete components. This load combination is also used to calculate deflections and settlements
of superstructure and substructure components.

3.2.5.3 Service II Load Combination

This load combination is applied for controlling permanent deformations of compact steel
i
sections and the slip of slip-critical (i.e., friction-type) bolted steel connections.
ch
3.2.5.4 Service III Load Combination

This load combination is applied for controlling tensile stresses in prestressed concrete
superstructure components under vehicular traffic loads.

3.2.5.5 Service IV Load Combination

Ar

This load combination is applied for controlling tensile stresses in prestressed concrete
substructure components under wind loads. For components not traditionally governed by wind
effects, this load combination should not govern.

3.2.6 Extreme-event Limit State Load Combinations

The Extreme-Event limit states differ from the Strength limit states, because the event for which
the bridge and its components are designed has a greater return period than the 75-year design
life of the bridge (or much lower frequency of occurrence than the loads of the strength limit
state load combinations). The following applies:

3.2.6.1 Extreme Event I Load Combination

15
This load combination is applied to earthquakes.

3.2.6.2 Extreme Event II Load Combination

This load combination is applied to various types of collisions (e.g., vessel, vehicular, or ice)
applied individually. These collisions are typically from a vessel, vehicle or ice impacting the
bridges substructure.

3.2.7 Fatigue & Fracture Limit State Load Combinations

The Fatigue-and-Fracture limit state load combination, although strictly applicable to all types of
superstructures, only governs the design of the steel elements, components, and connections of a
limited number of steel superstructures.

d
i ve
ch
Ar

16
4.0 REFERENCES

1. AASHTO, (2010). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications; 5th Edition,

AASHTO, Washington D.C.

2. AASHTO, (2002). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition,

AASHTO, Washington D.C.

d
i ve
ch
Ar

17