Lecture 3

Lecture #3
CE-5154
Introduction to Bridge Engineering
Dr. Muhammad Waseem

Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Engineering and Technology, Peshawar
Pakistan
Contents
1. Design Lanes; Multiple Presence Factors; Braking
and Fatigue Loads
2. Live Loads Distribution Factors
a. Lever’s Rule
b. Special Analysis
c. Courbon’s Analysis
Reference Books
Application of Influence Lines
Discussion!
Class participation marks
Live Loads (NBR)
Discussion!
Class participation marks
Live Loads (NBR)
Note it!
What is Notional?
Number of Design Lanes
Please study LRFD Specifications, the slides are merely

only to
Help you understand the document
Number of Design Lanes
3.6.1.1.1
Unless specified otherwise, the design lanes’ width should be 12.0 ft.
The number of design lanes should be determined by taking the integer
part of the ratio w/12.0, where w is the clear roadway width in feet
between curbs, barriers, or both. Possible future changes in the physical
or functional clear roadway width of the bridge should be considered.
Please study LRFD Specifications, the slides are merely

only to
Help you understand the document
Multiple Presence of Live Loads
3.6.1.1.1
The provisions of this Article shall not be applied to the fatigue limit
state for which one design truck is used, regardless of the number of
design lanes. Where the single-lane approximate distribution factors in
Articles 4.6.2.2 and 4.6.2.3 are used, other than the lever rule and
statical method, the force effects shall be divided by 1.20.
Unless specified otherwise herein, the extreme live load force effect
shall be determined by considering each possible combination of
number of loaded lanes multiplied by a corresponding multiple
presence factor to account for the probability of simultaneous lane
occupation by the full HL93 design live load. In lieu of site-specific
data, the values in Table 3.6.1.1.2-1
The entry greater than 1.0 in Table 3.6.1.1.2-1 results from statistical calibration of
these Specifications on the basis of pairs of vehicles instead of a single vehicle.
Design Lane and Tire Contact Area
3.6.1.2.4
The design lane load shall consist of a load of 0.64 klf uniformly distributed in
the longitudinal direction. Transversely, the design lane load shall be assumed
to be uniformly distributed over a 10.0-ft width. The force effects from the
design lane load shall not be subject to a dynamic load allowance.
3.6.1.2.5
The tire contact area of a wheel consisting of one or two tires shall be
assumed to be a single rectangle, whose width is 20.0 in. and whose length is
10.0 in.
Design Lane
Tire Contact Area
3.6.1.2.5
The tire contact area of a wheel consisting of one or two tires
shall be assumed to be a single rectangle, whose width is 20.0 in.
and whose length is 10.0 in.
The area load applies only to the design truck and tandem. For
other design vehicles, the tire contact area should be
determined by the Engineer.
As a guideline for other truck loads, the tire area in in.2 may be
calculated from the following dimensions:
Tire width = P/0.8
Tire length = 6.4γ(1 + IM/100) where:
γ = load factor
IM = dynamic load allowance percent, P = design wheel load
(kip)
Deck Overhang Load
3.6.1.3.4
For the design of deck overhangs with a cantilever, not exceeding 6.0
ft from the centerline of the exterior girder to the face of a
structurally continuous concrete railing, the outside row of wheel
loads may be replaced with a uniformly distributed line load of 1.0
klf intensity, located 1.0 ft from the face of the railing.
Horizontal loads on the overhang resulting from vehicle collision

with barriers shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 13
Fatigue Loads
The fatigue limit state shall be taken as restrictions
on stress range as a result of a single design truck
occurring at the number of expected stress range
cycles.
The fatigue limit state is intended to limit crack
growth under repetitive loads to prevent
fracture during the design life of the bridge
Fatigue Loads
3.6.1.4.1
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.
The dynamic load allowance specified in Article 3.6.2 shall
be applied to the fatigue load
Fatigue Loads
Live Loads
Dynamic Load Allowance
3.6.2
Unless otherwise permitted in Articles 3.6.2.2 and
3.6.2.3, the static effects of the design truck or tandem, other than
centrifugal and braking forces, shall be increased by the
percentage specified in Table 3.6.2.1-1 for dynamic load allowance.
The factor to be applied to the static load shall be taken as: (1 +
IM/100).
The dynamic load allowance shall not be applied to pedestrian loads
or to the design lane load
Braking Loads
3.6.4
The braking force shall be taken as greater of:
a. 25 percent of the axle weights of the design truck or

design tandem, or
b. Five percent of the design truck plus lane load or five percent of
the design tandem plus lane load
Braking Loads
This braking force shall be placed in all design lanes which are
considered to be loaded in accordance with Article 3.6.1.1.1 and which
are carrying traffic headed in the same direction. These forces shall be
assumed to act horizontally at a distance of 6.0 ft above the roadway
surface in either longitudinal direction to cause extreme force effects.
All design lanes shall be simultaneously loaded for bridges likely to
become one-directional in the future.
The multiple presence factors specified in Article 3.6.1.1.2 shall apply.

Pedestrian Loads
3.6.1.6
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. The dynamic load allowance need not be considered for
vehicles.
Bridges intended for only pedestrian, equestrian, light maintenance
vehicle, and/or bicycle traffic should be designed in accordance with
AASHTO’s LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian
Bridges.
Effective Span Length/ Empirical Design
Method
9.7.2.3
For the purpose of the empirical design method, the effective length of
slab shall be taken as:
• For slabs monolithic with walls or beams: the face-to-face
distance, and
• For slabs supported on steel or concrete girders: the distance between
flange tips, plus the flange overhang, taken as the distance from the
extreme flange tip to the face of the web, disregarding any fillets.
Minimum Depth as AASTHO-LRFD
Effective Flange Width as per AASTHO-
LRFD
Longitudinal stresses are distributed across the deck of composite and monolithic flexural
members by in- plane shear stresses. Due to the corresponding shear deformations, plane
sections do not remain plane and the longitudinal stresses across the deck are not uniform.
This phenomenon is referred to as shear lag. The effective flange width is the width of the
deck over which the assumed uniformly distributed longitudinal stresses result in
approximately the same deck force and member moments calculated from elementary beam
theory assuming plane sections remain plane, as are produced by the nonuniform stress
distribution.
For Interior Beams: It is equal to centre to centre distance between the beams
For Exterior Beams: It is equal to the overhang portion plus one half of the centre to centre
distance between the beams centre-to-centre
Superstructure Analysis
Flat Girder Model

Slab Girder Bridge
3D Model
Beam Line Model
Beam Line Model
AASTHO Method for Superstructure Analysis
• These distributions factors may be used for bridges

with fairly regular geometry. It is limited to system
with:
a) Constant cross-section
b) Number of beams are four or more girders
c) Girders with same stiffness
d) Roadway cantilever portion not exceeding 3.0 ft
e) Plan curvature is small
f) Cross-section is consistent with section shown in the
Table on the next slide
AASTHO Method for Superstructure
Analysis
To the Book Page 179
Example 11.1 and 11.2

Lecture 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture #3

Dr. Muhammad Waseem

2. Live Loads Distribution Factors

Please study LRFD Specifications, the slides are merely

Please study LRFD Specifications, the slides are merely

Horizontal loads on the overhang resulting from vehicle collision

a. 25 percent of the axle weights of the design truck or

The multiple presence factors specified in Article 3.6.1.1.2 shall apply.

Flat Girder Model

• These distributions factors may be used for bridges

You might also like