SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS

CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-8A

3.3.2—Load and Load Designation

Add the following notations:

DCSub = dead load of structural

components and nonstructural
attachments of substructure
DCSup = dead load of structural
components and nonstructural
attachments of superstructure
ESH = earth surcharge horizontal load
ESV = earth surcharge vertical load

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-8B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-9A

3.4.1—Load Factors and Load C3.4.1

Combinations

Replace the following notation in the 1st

paragraph:

γi = load factors specified in Tables

3.4.1-1, 3.4.1-2, 3.4.1-3, 3.4.1-4,
3.4.5.1-1 and 3.4.5.1-2.

Replace the 2nd bullet in the 2nd paragraph Replace the 2nd paragraph with the
with the following: following:

• Strength II—Load combination The vehicular braking force is not

relating to the use of the bridge by included in this load combination.
Owner specified special design
vehicles, evaluation permit vehicles,
or both without wind. The Caltrans
specified special design vehicle and
evaluation permit vehicle shall be
the Permit Vehicle as specified in
Article 3.6.1.8.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-9B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-10A

Replace the 6th bullet of the 2nd paragraph Replace the 9th paragraph of the
of the article with the following: commentary with the following:

• Extreme Event I – Load combination Vehicular live loads have not been
including earthquake. The load factor observed to be in-phase with the bridge
for live load, γEQ, shall be determined structure during seismic events. Thus, the
on a project-specific basis for inertial effect of actual live loads on typical
operationally important structures. bridges is assumed to be negligible.
For standard bridges γEQ = 0.0 Bridges that were seismically retrofitted
without consideration of vehicular loads
performed well during the 1994 Northridge
earthquake.

Replace the 4th bullet of the 10th paragraph

of the commentary with the following:

• Although these limit states include

water loads, WA, the effects due to
WA are considerably less significant
than the effects on the structure
stability due to scour. Therefore,
unless specific site conditions
dictate otherwise, local pier scour
depths should not be combined with
BL, EQ, CT, CV, or, IC in the
structural or geotechnical design.
However, the effects due to
degradation and contraction scour
of the channel should be
considered.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-10B

Replace the 5th bullet of the 10th paragraph

of the commentary with the following:

• The joint probability of these events

is extremely low, and, therefore, the
events are specified to be applied
separately. Under these extreme
conditions, the structure may
undergo considerable inelastic
deformation by which locked-in-
force effects due to TU, TG, CR, SH
and SE are expected to be relieved.
The effects due to degradation and
contraction scour should be
considered for both structural and
geotechnical design.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-12A

Replace the 13th bullet of the 2nd Replace the 23rd paragraph of the
paragraph of the article with the following: commentary with the following:

• Fatigue II—Fatigue and fracture Finite fatigue life is the design concept used
load combination related to finite for lower traffic volume bridges. The
load-induced fatigue life due to one effective fatigue stress range is kept lower
permit truck (P9) specified in Article than the fatigue resistance, which is a
3.6.1.4.1. function of load cycles and details, to
provide a finite fatigue life. The load factor
for the Fatigue II load combination, applied
to a single design truck, reflects a load level
found to be representative of the permit
truck population with respect to a small
number of stress range cycles and to their
cumulative effects in steel elements,
components, and connections for finite
fatigue life design.

Add the following after the 2nd paragraph of

the article:

Load combinations applicable to

abutment construction conditions have
been added as cases I and II:

• Construction I - Load combination

related to the construction condition
where the abutment has been built
but the superstructure has not been
constructed. For post-tensioned
superstructures, when considering
Construction I load combination,
lateral soil pressure shall be
calculated using the height of the
abutment below the backwall.
• Construction II- Load combination
related to construction condition,
where soil surrounding the abutment
has been removed for repair,
widening, or other reasons after the
superstructure has been
constructed.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-12B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-15A

Replace the 10th paragraph of the article

with the following:

The load factor for settlement, γSE, shall

be taken as:

1. For predefined settlements used for

geotechnical design of foundations,
that is 1.0 in. for continuous spans
and simple spans with diaphragm
abutments and 2.0 in. for simple
spans with seat abutments:
• When geotechnical
information indicates that
actual differential settlement
is not expected to exceed 0.5
in., settlement does not need
to be considered in the
design of the superstructure.
• When geotechnical
information indicates that
differential settlement is likely
to exceed 0.5 in., force
effects due to predefined
settlements shall be included
in the design of the
superstructure, and the load
factor γSE shall be taken as
0.5 and 0.0.
2. For refined analysis using nonlinear
soil springs, the force effects due to
settlement are directly included in
the structural analysis. In that case
settlement load factor γSE shall be
taken as 1.0 and 0.0.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-15B

Replace Table 3.4.1-1 with the following:

Table 3.4.1-1―Load Combinations and Load Factors

DC
DD
Use One of These at a
DW
Time
EH
EV LLHL-93
ES IM
EL CE
Load PS BR LLPermit
Combination CR PL IM
Limit State SH LS CE WA WS WL FR TU TG SE EQ BL IC CT CV
STRENGTH γp 1.75 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 0.50/ γTG γSE 0 0 0 0 0
I 1.20
(unless noted)
STRENGTH γp 0 1.35 1.00 0 0 1.00 0.50/ γTG γSE 0 0 0 0 0
II 1.20
STRENGTH γp 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 0.50/ γTG γSE 0 0 0 0 0
III 1.20
STRENGTH γp 0 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 0.50/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IV 1.20
STRENGTH γp 1.35 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50/ γTG γSE 0 0 0 0 0
V 1.20
EXTREME 1.00 γEQ 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0
EVENT
I
EXTREME 1.00 0.50 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
EVENT
II
SERVICE 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00/ γTG γSE 0 0 0 0 0
I 1.20
SERVICE 1.00 1.30 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II 1.20
SERVICE 1.00 γLL 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00/ γTG γSE 0 0 0 0 0
III 1.20
SERVICE 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00/ 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 0
IV 1.20
FATIGUE 0 1.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
LLHL-93, IM &
CE only
FATIGUE 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II
LLPermit , IM &
CE only

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-18A

Add Article 3.4.5 as follows:

3.4.5—Load Factors for Abutments

Abutments shall be designed for the

Service, Strength, Extreme Event, and
Construction limit states specified in
Articles 3.4.5.1 and 3.4.5.2. The maximum
horizontal shear force transferred from the
superstructure to a non-integral abutment
may be assumed as 20% of the sum of the
DC and DW reactions, that is 0.2(DC+DW).
For this shear force, a load factor of 1.25
shall be used for both DC and DW for the
Strength Limit State combinations.

3.4.5.1—Service, Strength, and

Construction Load Combinations

Abutments shall be designed for the

Service-I load combination in Table 3.4.1-1
and the Strength, and Construction load
combinations specified in Table 3.4.5.1-1.
For γp values of abutments refer to Table
3.4.5.1-2. For dynamic load allowance (IM)
of abutments, refer to Article 3.6.2.1.

Table 3.4.5.1-1—Strength and Construction Load Factors for Abutments

LLHL93
IM
EH, CE
Combination
ESH BR LLPermit PS
EV PL IM CRS
DCSup DCSub DD DW ESV LS CE WA WS WL TU H
Strength I γp γp γp γp γp 1.75 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00
Strength II γp γp γp γp γp 0 1.35 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00
Strength III γp γp γp γp γp 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 1.00 1.00
Strength V γp γp γp γp γp 1.35 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Construction I 0 γp 0 0 γp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction II 1.25 1.25 0 1.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-18B

Table 3.4.5.1-2—Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp (for Abutments)

Load Factor
Type of Load and Method Used to Calculate Downdrag
Maximum Minimum
DCSub: Dead Load of Structure Components and Nonstructural
1.25 0.90
Attachments of Substructure
DCSup: Dead Load of Structure Components and Nonstructural
1.25 0.90
Attachments of Superstructure
Pile, α Tomlinson Method 1.40 0.25
DD: Downdrag Pile, λ Method 1.05 0.30
Drilled Shaft, O’Neill and Reese (2010) Method 1.25 0.35
DW: Dead load of Wearing Surface and Utilities 1.50 0.65
EH: Active Horizontal Earth Pressure 1.50 0.75
ESH: Earth Surcharge Horizontal Load 1.50 0.75
ESv: Earth Surcharge Vertical Load 1.35 1.00
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure 1.35 1.00

3.4.5.2—Extreme Event-I (Seismic)

Load Combination

If an abutment in Type S1 (as defined in

Article 6.1.2 of SDC version 2.0) soil meets
the following height limitations, seismic
forces shall be considered only in global
stability analysis of the abutment:
• The height measured from the
superstructure deck to the bottom of
the stem is not greater than 36 ft for
non-integral abutments.
• The height measured from the
superstructure soffit to the bottom of
the stem is not greater than 10 ft for
integral abutments.
Components of abutments such as shear
keys are checked for seismic effects per
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC).
Abutments that do not meet the above
limitations and/or are located in Type S2
(as defined in Article 6.1.3 of SDC
version 2.0) soil require special analysis.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-19A

3.5.1—Dead Loads: DC, DW, and EV

Add the following after the 2nd paragraph:

The dead load, DC, of cast-in-place

concrete decks between precast concrete
and steel girder flange edges shall be
increased by 10 percent.
A future wearing surface load of 35 psf
of roadway shall be included in the
superstructure dead load, DW. This load is
in addition to any surface or deck seal
provided in the structure.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-19B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-23A

3.6.1.2.6a—General

Replace the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs with

the following:

Live load shall be distributed to the top

slabs of flat top three-sided, box, or long-
span concrete arch culverts with less than
2.0 ft of fill as specified in Article 4.6.2.10.
For unique situations, such as existing
culverts or extensions, round culverts with
less than 1.0 ft of fill shall be analyzed with
more comprehensive methods such as
finite element method considering soil-
structure interaction.
Where the depth of fill over round
culverts is greater than 1.0 ft, or when the
depth of fill over flat top three-sided, box, or
long-span concrete arch culverts is 2.0 ft or
greater the live load shall be distributed to
the top surface of the structure as wheel
loads, uniformly distributed over a
rectangular area with sides equal to the
dimension of the tire contact area specified
in Article 3.6.1.2.5 increased by the live
load distribution factors (LLDF) specified in
Table 3.6.1.2.6a-1, and the provisions of
Articles 3.6.1.2.6b and 3.6.1.2.6c. More
precise methods of analysis may be used.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-24A

Replace Table 3.6.1.2.6a-1 with the

following:

Table 3.6.1.2.6a-1—Live Load

Distribution Factor (LLDF) for Buried
Structures

Structure Type LLDF Transverse or Parallel to

Span

Concrete Pipes 1.15 for diameters 2.0 ft or less

1.75 for diameters 8.0 ft or

greater

Linearly interpolate for LLDF

between these limits
All other culverts
and buried 1.15
structures

3.6.1.2.6b—Traffic Parallel to the

Culvert Span

Replace the equation 3.6.1.2.6b-1 with the

following:

wt 0.06Di
sw - -
Hint-t = 12 12
(3.6.1.2.6b-1)
LLDF

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-25A

Replace equation 3.6.1.2.6b-6 with the

following:

• where H ≥ Hint-p :
lt
lw = + sa + LLDF(H)
12
(3.6.1.2.6b-6)

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-26A

3.6.1.3.1—General C3.6.1.3.1

Add a 4th bullet to the 1st paragraph as Replace the 3rd paragraph with the
follows: following:

• For negative moment between The notional design loads were based
points of contraflexure under a on the information described in Article
uniform load on all spans, and C3.6.1.2.1, which contained data on “low
reaction at interior piers only, 100 boy” type vehicles weighing up to about
percent of the effect of two design 110 kip. In California, side-by-side
tandems spaced anywhere from occurrences of the “low boy” truck
26.0 ft to 40.0 ft from the rear axle of configuration are routinely found. This
the leading tandem to the lead axle amendment is consistent with Article
of the other, combined with 100 3.6.1.2.1, will control negative bending
percent of the design lane load serviceability in two-span continuous
specified in Article 3.6.1.2.4. The structures with 20-ft to 60-ft span lengths,
two design tandems shall be placed and should not be considered a
in adjacent spans to produce replacement for the Strength II Load
maximum force effects. Combination.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-27A

3.6.1.3.3—Design Loads for Decks, C3.6.1.3.3

Deck Systems, and the Top Slabs of
Box Culverts. Add a new 5th paragraph as follows:

The force effects due to one 32.0-kip

axle on the strip-widths specified in Table
4.6.2.1.3-1, were found to be similar to
Caltrans’ past practice and envelope two
24.0-kip axles spaced 4’-0” on center
(design tandem). Also, the 54.0-kip tandem
axle of the permit vehicle typically doesn’t
control deck designs when applying the
appropriate load factors or allowable
stresses.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-28A

3.6.1.4—Fatigue Load

3.6.1.4.1—Magnitude and C3.6.1.4.1

Configuration

Replace the 1st paragraph with the

following:

For the Fatigue I limit state, the fatigue

load shall be one design truck or axles
thereof specified in Article 3.6.1.2.2, but
with a constant spacing of 30.0 ft. between
the 32.0-kip axles.

Add the following after the 2nd paragraph: Add the following paragraph:

For the Fatigue II limit state, the fatigue The permit truck, P9, specified in
load, LLpermit, shall be one permit truck, Figure 3.6.1.4.1-2 represents the majority
P9, as specified in Figure 3.6.1.4.1-2. of permit trucks allowed in California.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.6.1.4.1-2 — Permit Truck, P9

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-29A

3.6.1.4.2—Frequency C 3.6.1.4.2

Add the following as the last 2 paragraphs: Add the following as the last paragraph:

All bridges shall be designed for load- An (ADTT)SL of 2500 for the design
induced infinite fatigue life as specified in fatigue truck as specified in Article 3.6.1.4.1
Fatigue I Limit State. If the Caltrans has been successfully used for designing
approved ADTTSL is less than the 75-year new structures and widenings in California.
(ADTT)SL as specified in Table 6.6.1.2.3-2, Since the number of stress cycles caused
then a live load factor of 0.8 and nominal by an ADTT of 2500 is greater than that
fatigue resistance as specified in Eq. caused by a 75-year (ADTT)SL satisfying
(6.6.1.2.5-2) shall apply. infinite life, all bridges are designed for
load-induced infinite fatigue life as
(ADTT)SL shall be taken as 20, for the specified in Fatigue I Limit State. Based on
Fatigue II limit state. variation of sizes, weights and volumes of
P5 through P13 Permit trucks operating in
California, along with a growth rate of 1%
for a 75-year design life, the volumes of P5
through P13 trucks are conservatively
converted to an equivalent fatigue permit
truck (P9) with a traffic volume of ADTT =
20.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-29B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-30A

3.6.1.6—Pedestrian Loads

Replace the article with the following:

A pedestrian load of 0.075 ksf shall be

applied to all sidewalks wider than 2.0 ft and
considered simultaneously with the vehicular
design live load in the vehicle lane. Where
vehicles can mount the sidewalk, sidewalk
pedestrian load shall not be considered
concurrently. If a sidewalk may be removed
in the future, the vehicular live loads shall be
applied at 1.0 ft from edge-of-deck for design
of the overhang, and 2.0 ft from edge-of-deck
for design of all other components.
Bridges intended for only pedestrian,
equestrian, light maintenance vehicle,
and/or bicycle traffic shall be designed in
accordance with AASHTO’s LRFD Guide
Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian
Bridges.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-30B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-31A

Add Article 3.6.1.8 as follows: Add the commentary as follows:

3.6.1.8—Permit Vehicle: LLpermit C3.6.1.8

Permit design live loads, or P-loads,

are special design vehicular loads.

3.6.1.8.1—General

The weights and spacings of axles and

wheels for the design permit truck, P15,
shall be as specified in Figure 3.6.1.8.1-1.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.6.1.8.1—1 Permit Truck, P15

3.6.1.8.2—Application

The permit design live load shall be

applied in combination with other loads as
specified in Article 3.4.1. Axles that do not
contribute to the extreme force effect under
consideration shall be neglected.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION- ERRATA 3-31B

a) Apply to superstructure design

with the load distribution factors
from tables in Article 4.6.2.2.
b) Apply to superstructure design
when the lever rule is called for by
the tables in Article 4.6.2.2, for
substructure design, and
whenever a whole number of
traffic lanes is to be used. Live
loads shall be placed in the
controlling of one or two separate
lanes chosen to create the most
severe conditions.

Dynamic load allowance shall be applied

as specified in Article 3.6.2.
Multiple presence factors shall be
applied as specified in Article 3.6.1.1.2.
Multiple presence is already considered
in the load distribution factor tables in
Articles 4.6.2.2. However, the multiple
presence factor for one loaded lane shall
be 1.0 for the lever rule, substructures,
and whenever a whole number of traffic
lanes is applied.
Centrifugal force shall be applied as
specified in Article 3.6.3.

October 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-31C

3.6.2—Dynamic Load Allowance: IM

3.6.2.1—General C3.6.2.1

Replace the 1st paragraph with the Replace the 4th paragraph with the
following: following:

Unless otherwise permitted in Articles Field tests indicate that in the majority
3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3, the static effects of the of highway bridges, the dynamic
design truck, design tandem, or permit component of the response does not
vehicle, other than centrifugal and braking exceed 25 percent of the static response to
forces, shall be increased by the vehicles. This is the basis for dynamic load
percentage specified in Table 3.6.2.1-1 for allowance with the exception of deck joints.
dynamic load allowance. However, the specified live load
combination of the design truck and lane
load, represents a group of exclusion
Replace Table 3.6.2.1-1 with the following: vehicles that are at least 4/3 of those
caused by the design truck alone on short-
Table 3.6.2.1-1—Dynamic Load and medium-span bridges. The specified
Allowance, IM value of 33 percent in Table 3.6.2.1-1 is the
product of 4/3 and the basic 25 percent.
Component IM California removed the 4/3 factor for
Strength II because lane load isn’t a part of
Deck Joints—All Limit States 75%
the design permit vehicle used.
All Other Components Furthermore, force effects due to shorter
• Fatigue and Fracture 15% permit vehicles approach those due to the
Limit State
• Strength II Limit State 25%
HL-93. The HL-93 tandem*1.33 + lane
• All Other Limit States 33% load generally has a greater force effect
than that due to the permit vehicle on short-
span bridges.
Add a new bullet to the 5th paragraph as
follows:

• Non-integral abutments with

elastomeric bearings between the
superstructure and abutment seat.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-31D

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-32A

Replace the 6th paragraph with the

following:

A study of dynamic effects presented in

a report by the Calibration Task Group
(Nowak 1992) contains details regarding
the relationship between dynamic load
allowance and vehicle configuration.

Replace the 7th paragraph with the

following:

This Article recognizes the damping

effect of soil when in contact with some
buried structural components, such as
footings. To qualify for relief from impact,
the entire component must be buried.
Integral abutments including strutted
abutments do not qualify for relief from
impact. For the purpose of this Article, a
retaining type component is considered to
be buried to the top of the fill.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-32B

3.6.3—Centrifugal Forces: CE

Replace the 1st paragraph with the

following:

For the purpose of computing the

radial force or the overturning effect on
wheel loads, the centrifugal effect on live
load shall be taken as the product of the
axle weights of the design truck, design
tandem, or permit vehicle and the
factor C, taken as:

(no change to equation)

Replace the 2nd paragraph with the

following:

Highway design speed shall not be

taken to be less than the value specified
in the current edition of the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual, or as otherwise
directed. The design speed for permit
vehicles shall be 25 mph, maximum.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-33A

Replace the 4th paragraph with the C3.6.3

following:
Replace the 4th paragraph with the
For single column bents, centrifugal following:
forces shall be applied horizontally at a
distance 6.0 ft above the roadway surface. Centrifugal force causes an overturning
Otherwise, they shall be applied at the effect on the wheel loads when the radial
roadway surface. A load path to carry the force is applied 6.0 ft above the top of the
radial force to the substructure shall be deck. Thus, centrifugal force tends to
provided. cause an increase in the vertical wheel
loads toward the outside of the bridge and
an unloading of the wheel loads toward the
inside of the bridge. The effect is more
significant on structures with single column
bents, but can be ignored for most
applications. Superelevation helps to
balance the overturning effect due to the
centrifugal force and this beneficial effect
may be considered. The effects due to
vehicle cases with centrifugal force effects
included should be compared to the effects
due to vehicle cases with no centrifugal
force, and the worst case selected.

3.6.4—Braking Force: BR C3.6.4

Replace the 2nd paragraph with the Replace 1st paragraph with the following:
following:
Based on energy principles, and
This braking force shall be placed in all assuming uniform deceleration, the braking
design lanes which are considered to be force determined as a fraction of vehicle
loaded in accordance with Article 3.6.1.1.1 weight is:
and which are carrying traffic headed in the
same direction. These forces shall be v2
assumed to act horizontally at the roadway b= (C3.6.4-1)
2ga
surface in either longitudinal direction to
cause extreme force effects. All design The overturning effect from braking is
lanes shall be simultaneously loaded for dependent on the number of axles and
bridges likely to become one-directional in location of the drive train. This load may be
the future. applied at deck level with negligible effect
on member sizes and quantities.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-33B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-35A

3.6.5—Vehicular Collision Force: CT

3.6.5.1—Protection of Structures C3.6.5.1

Replace the 2nd paragraph with the Add a new paragraph to the beginning of
following: the commentary:

Where the design choice is to provide In general, abutments do not need to be

structural resistance, the pier or abutment investigated for this loading condition. Bin
shall be designed for an equivalent static abutments should be investigated for
force of 600 kips, which is assumed to act vehicular collision force.
in any direction, in a horizontal plane, at a
distance of 5.0 ft above ground. The
flexural capacity may be based on the
idealized plastic moment of the loaded
component as defined in the Caltrans
Seismic Design Criteria. Shear shall also
be investigated.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-35B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
 SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION- ERRATA 3-40A

3.7.5—Change in Foundations Due to C3.7.5

Limit State for Scour

Replace the article with the following: Replace the 2nd paragraph with the
following:
The provisions of Article 2.6.4.4 shall
apply. The potential effects due to the Provisions concerning the effects of
percentages of channel degradation or scour are given in Section 2. Scour is not
aggradation, contraction scour, and local a force effect per se, but by changing the
scour shall be considered in the limit states conditions of the substructure it may
shown in Table 3.7.5-1. significantly alter the consequences of
force effects acting on structures. The
Table 3.7.5-1—Scour Conditions for design for fully-factored live loads in the
Limit State Load Combinations scour conditions described for the strength
limit state is in lieu of designing for an
Degradation/ Contraction Local extreme event for flood.
Limit State
Aggradation Scour Scour
minimum 0% 0% 0%
Strength
maximum 100% 100% 50%
minimum 0% 0% 0%
Service
maximum 100% 100% 100%
Extreme minimum 0% 0% 0%
Event I maximum 100% 100% 0%

The consequences of changes in

foundation conditions resulting from the
design flood for scour shall be considered
as specified in Section 2, and Articles 3.4.1
and 10.5 of the Specifications and
California Amendments.

September 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-40B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-51A

3.8.1.3—Wind Load on Live Load: C3.8.1.3

WL
Add a new 3rd paragraph as follows:
Replace the 1st paragraph with the
following: Force effects due to this overturning
couple of the vehicle are negligible in
Wind load on live load shall be structures on piers and multi-column bents,
represented by a continuous force of 0.10 and can be ignored for most applications.
klf acting transverse to the roadway and
shall be transmitted to the structure. For
single column bents WL shall be applied
horizontally at a distance 6.0 ft above the
roadway surface. Otherwise, it shall be
applied at the roadway surface.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-51B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-62A

3.10—EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS: EQ

Add a new paragraph as follows:

All provisions for seismic analysis,

design, and detailing of bridges contained
in Article 3.10 and elsewhere shall be
superseded by the Caltrans Seismic
Design Criteria or Caltrans Seismic Design
Specifications for Steel Bridges or both.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-62B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-145A

3.12.2—Uniform Temperature

Replace the article with the following:

The design thermal movement

associated with a uniform temperature
change shall be calculated using
Procedure A.

3.12.2.1—Temperature Range for

Procedure A

Replace the 1st paragraph with the

following:

The ranges of temperature shall be as

specified in Table 3.12.2.1-1. Half the
difference between the extended lower and
upper boundary shall be used to calculate
force effects due to thermal deformation.
Force effects calculated using gross
section properties shall use the lower value
for γTU.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-146A

Replace the 2nd paragraph with the

following:

The minimum and maximum

temperatures specified in Table 3.12.2.1-1
shall be taken as TMinDesign and TMaxDesign
respectively, in Eqs. 3.12.2.1-1 and
3.12.2.3-1.

Add a 3rd paragraph as follows:

The design thermal movement range,

∆T, for force effects in structural analysis
shall be investigated for the following:

αL�TMaxDesign - TMinDesign �
ΔT = ±
2
(3.12.2.1-1)

where:

L = expansion length, the distance from

the point of no thermal movement
to the point under consideration
(in.)

α = coefficient of thermal expansion

(in./in./°F)

3.12.2.2—Temperature Range for

Procedure B

Delete the entire article and commentary.

April 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION- ERRATA 3-148A

Add a new commentary as follows:

3.12.2.3—Design Thermal C3.12.2.3

Movements
The designer should make appropriate
Replace the article with the following: allowances for avoiding the possibility of
hard surface contact between major
The design thermal movement range, structural components. Such conditions
∆T, for joints and bearings, shall depend include the contact between slotted holes
upon the extreme bridge design and anchor bolts, and between girders and
temperatures defined in Article 3.12.2.1 or abutments. Expansion joint and bearing
site specific air temperature data and be design should account for differences
determined as: between the setting temperature and an
assumed design installation temperature.
ΔT = αL�TMaxDesign - TMinDesign � Refer to Section 14 for additional design
(3.12.2.3-1) requirements for joints and bearings.

where:

L = expansion length (in.)

α = coefficient of thermal expansion
(in./in./°F)

September 2019
SECTION 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS
CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – 8TH EDITION 3-148B

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2019