Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
TO OVERSIZED TRUCKS
ABSTRACT: A significant challenge facing motor carriers and engineers in this nation is the limitation of vehicle
size and weight based on pavement and bridge capacity. However, the current demands of society and industry
occasionally require a truck to carry a load that exceeds the size and weight of the legal limit. In these cases,
engineering analysis is required before a permit is issued to ensure the safety of the structures and roadways on
the vehicle’s route. A truck with a wheel gauge larger than the standard 1.83 m (6 ft) gauge requires additional
engineering effort because the wheel load girder distribution factors (GDFs) established by AASHTO cannot be
used to accurately estimate the live load in the girders. In this study, the finite-element method is used to develop
modification factors for the AASHTO flexure and shear GDFs to account for oversized trucks. The results of
the analysis showed that the use of the proposed modification factors with the specification-based GDFs can
help increase the allowable loads on slab-on-girder bridges.
冉 冊
loads, which could result in higher allowable loads for some 2
bridges and more direct routes. S S
GDF = 0.4 ⫹ ⫺ (6)
Current structural evaluation methods for existing bridges 1.83 7.63
either ignore the influence of the gauge width of an oversized
truck on the live load distribution in bridges or estimate its The GDF expressions in (2)–(6) have been developed based
effect using simple formulas that may or may not provide rea- on an HS20-44 truck configuration that has a gauge width
sonable results. For example, the Texas DOT in its permitting equal to 1.83 m (6 ft). They also include multiple presence
procedure considers the effect of a gauge larger than the stan- factors based on the AASHTO standard bridge design speci-
dard 1.83 m (6 ft) by multiplying the live load effect by a fications (AASHTO 1996).
reduction factor R given by (Keating et al. 1995) For the case of an exterior girder subjected to one loaded
lane, the lever rule is used. For the corresponding case with
1.83 ⫹ G two or more loaded lanes, the following equation is used to
R= (1) determine the GDF for the exterior girders (GDF)Ext in terms
2G
of the GDF for the interior girder (GDF)Int :
where G = gauge width (m) (Tabatabai 1999). The resulting
(GDF)Ext = e *(GDF)Int (7)
reduction factor has been found to be unconservative for sev-
eral of the bridges considered in this study. More in-depth where e * = (2.14 ⫹ de )/2.78 for the case of flexure and (1.83
research into the effect of larger gauge widths is therefore ⫹ de )/3.05 for the case of shear, in which de is the edge dis-
required in order to ensure the safety of bridges evaluated for tance of traffic lanes (m), defined as the distance between the
permit vehicles. center of the outside roadway stringer web to the edge of the
The high percentage of substandard bridges in this country exterior lane.
and lack of financial resources for transportation infrastructure
repair and replacement require that more accurate approaches OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY
be utilized to check the serviceability and compute the load-
The objectives of this study are to (1) investigate the effects
carrying capacity of existing bridges. Taking into account the
of truck configuration on the live load distribution of slab-on-
actual gauge width when evaluating an existing bridge may
girder bridges; and (2) develop modification factors for the
help increase the allowable load on some bridges subjected to
specification-based GDFs for such bridges subjected to over-
oversized vehicles without endangering substandard structures.
sized vehicles with a gauge larger than 1.83 m (6 ft). The study
is limited to simple span bridges consisting of a concrete slab
LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS on several composite steel girders. Both moment at midspan
In bridge design and evaluation specifications, the distri- and shear at the support are considered in the study. Three
bution of truck loads on slab-on-girder bridges is usually ac- different span lengths (14.6, 29.3, and 43.9 m) and girder spac-
complished using a girder distribution factor (GDF) that de- ings (1.22, 3.05, and 3.66 m) are examined. The applied truck
fines the percentage of live load carried by one girder. This load includes four different overweight trucks with a range of
factor simplifies the girder design by providing an approximate wheelbases and gauge widths.
procedure for distributing the live load in bridges without a This study focuses on the distribution of live load to interior
detailed analysis. In the National Cooperative Highway Re- girders due to one loaded traffic lane. Exterior girders are not
search Program (NCHRP) 12-26 method (Zokai et al. 1991), treated because the lever rule and the pile loading expression
which was adopted by AASHTO (1994a,b), the wheel load are normally used to compute the GDF for such girders. Such
GDF for the case of flexure in an interior girder in a simply approaches can easily account for the effect of a wide truck
supported bridge subjected to one loaded lane is given by on the live load distribution of exterior girders. A simple
method is suggested for determining the live load effect for
冉 冊 冉冊 冉 冊
0.4 0.3 0.1
S S Kg the case of an oversized truck mixing with traffic (i.e., an
GDF = 0.1 ⫹ (2) oversized truck side by side with standard design trucks). All
1.22 L Lt 3s
bridges are analyzed in the linearly elastic range using the
The corresponding expression for bridges with two or more finite-element software ALGOR (ALGOR 1998). It should be
loaded lanes is noted that the analysis does not consider the dynamic effect
冉 冊 冉冊 冉 冊
0.6 0.2 0.1 of moving vehicles because oversized trucks often move at
S S Kg creep speeds. However, the results of the analysis would still
GDF = 0.15 ⫹ (3)
0.915 L Lt 3s be valid for trucks driving at normal speeds by using the dy-
namic amplification factors that are included in bridge design
where S = girder spacing (m); L = span length (m); and ts = specifications.
slab thickness (m). The longitudinal stiffness parameter Kg ac-
counts for the effect of the girder stiffness on the live load TRUCK MODELS
distribution characteristics of the bridge and is defined as
Four overweight, oversized truck models are considered in
Kg = n(I ⫹ Ae 2g ) (4) this study. They include the AASHTO HS20-44 design truck,
10 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001
Pennsylvania DOT’s (PennDOT’s) P-82 permit truck the beam elements are lumped at the centroid of the flanges.
(PennDOT 1993), Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code’s The steel web of the bridge stringers is modeled by four-node
(OHBDC’s) load level 3 truck (OHBDC 1992), and HTL-57 rectangular shell elements with six degrees of freedom per
notional truck (FHWA 1994). The four trucks differ from each node. The shell elements account for both membrane and
other in the number of axles, axle spacing, gross weight, and bending stiffnesses, and they consider in- and out-of-plane
axle weight. With the exception of the HS20-44 truck, these bending. The deck slab is also modeled using thin four-node
vehicles represent trucks that would normally require a permit rectangular shell elements. The diaphragms consist of angle
for routes including bridge crossings. The HS20-44 truck is cross frames and are modeled by 3D beam elements. Rigid
8.6 m long, weighs 320 kN (72 kips), and consists of three 3D beam elements are used to connect the centroids of the top
axles that are spaced at 4.27 m (14 ft). The P-82 permit truck flange steel beam elements to the centroids of the deck slab
has a wheelbase of 17 m and includes eight axles with a total elements directly above them. These elements are used in or-
weight equal to 907 kN (204 kips). The OHBDC truck has der to satisfy composite behavior and prevent relative defor-
five axles with a wheelbase equal to 18 m and a GVW of 740 mation between the top flange of the stringers and the concrete
kN (166 kips). Finally, the HTL-57 truck is 15.3 m long and slab. Fig. 3 shows a sketch of the finite-element model of a
includes six axles with a gross weight of 505 kN (114 kips). single girder. Fig. 4 shows discretization of a 29.3 m (96 ft)
The configurations of the considered trucks are shown in Fig. long bridge superstructure consisting of five girders that are
1. For the most critical truck, wheel gauges of 1.83, 2.44, 3.05, spaced at 2.44 m (8 ft) by finite elements.
and 3.66 m (6, 8, 10, and 12 ft) are considered in the live load The GDF for flexure in a simply supported bridge can be
analysis, as shown in Fig. 2. obtained by longitudinally positioning a truck on the bridge
so that the bending moment in the structure is maximized at
FINITE-ELEMENT MODELING midspan. This can be accomplished with the use of influence
lines. The transverse position of the truck can be obtained by
The finite-element method is used to investigate the consid- maximizing the flexural stress in the bottom flange of the crit-
ered slab-on-girder bridges under the application of oversized ical girder by varying the transverse truck position and using
trucks. All bridges are analyzed in this study in the linearly influence lines. Once the correct transverse truck position is
elastic range. Three elements are used to model the geometry determined, the GDF for flexure can be computed from (Bis-
of each steel girder. The top and bottom steel flanges are mod- hara et al. 1993)
eled using two-node beam elements with six degrees of free-
dom at each node. The geometric and stiffness properties of 2N␥ fj
冘
GDF = n (8)
fi
i=1
冘
GDF = n (9)
CRITICAL PARAMETERS
ri
i=1 In this section, the critical interior girder and critical truck
where rj = maximum reaction of the critical girder under con- configuration for live load distribution in simply supported,
sideration; and ri = larger reaction of girder i at the support. slab-on-girder bridges are determined. To compute the GDF
in the considered bridges subjected to one truck, the vehicle
is placed on each bridge such that the load effect in the girders
APPROACH
is maximized. The longitudinal truck position for maximum
The approach used in this study to determine the effect of flexure at midspan or maximum shear at the support can be
the gauge width G on the live load distribution in slab-on- easily determined using influence lines for simply supported
girder bridges consists of deriving a modification factor that beams. The critical transverse location of the truck can be
is applied to the GDFs in the bridge design specifications found by examining the stress in the bottom flange of each
steel girder for the case of flexure, or the support reaction of
(GDF)G = ␣(GDF) (10) each steel girder for the case of shear, for different transverse
where (GDF)G = GDF for a gauge wider than 1.83 m (6 ft); truck positions X, where X is defined in Fig. 6. Note that when
␣ = gauge modification factor that accounts for the effect of the left wheel of a truck is on the deck overhang, the dimen-
a wide gauge on live load distribution; and GDF = GDF in sion X is negative.
the design specification, which is based on a 1.83 m (6 ft)
gauge. In general, the expression of ␣ will be a function of Critical Interior Girder
the flexural or shear load effect, truck configuration, and In all cases considered, the first interior girder was found to
bridge geometry. be the most critical interior girder in both flexure and shear.
Fig. 7 shows the flexural GDF versus the transverse truck po-
BRIDGES CONSIDERED sition for the interior girders of the 29.3 m (96 ft) long bridge
Three different composite steel bridge superstructures are
TABLE 1. Parameters of Bridge Geometry
considered. One superstructure is composed of a 150 mm (6
in.) thick slab on seven steel beams spaced at 1.22 m (4 ft), Span Girder Slab Flange Flange Web Web
another consists of a 200 mm (8 in.) thick slab on five steel length spacing thickness thickness width thickness depth
beams spaced at 2.44 m (8 ft), and a third includes a 250 mm (m) (m) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(10 in.) thick slab on four steel beams spaced at 3.66 m (12 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
ft), as shown in Fig. 5. For each bridge layout, three different 14.6 1.22 150 22 292 15 497
simple span lengths are chosen, including 14.6, 29.3, and 43.9 14.6 2.44 200 22 292 15 797
14.6 3.66 250 22 292 15 1,097
29.3 1.22 150 43 423 24 548
29.3 2.44 200 43 423 24 848
29.3 3.66 250 43 423 24 1,148
43.9 1.22 150 45 405 26 728
43.9 2.44 200 45 405 26 1,028
43.9 3.66 250 45 405 26 1,328
冉 冊
3.05 1.202 0.837
1
M = ␣M (GDF)1-lane M0-T
2
冉 冊
the case of shear are presented in Fig. 13. The results indicate
that the proposed approximate equations of the gauge modi- 1
⫹ [(GDF)n-lanes ⫺ (GDF)1-lane] MS-T
fication factor yield values that are comparable in accuracy 2 (13)
with the finite-element method.
where ␣M = gauge modification factor for flexure, obtained
TREATMENT OF MULTIPLE LOADED LANES from (11); (GDF)1-lane = GDF for flexure due to one loaded
lane; MO-T = moment due to an oversized truck with gauge
The developed gauge modification factors are intended to larger than 1.83 m (6 ft); (GDF)n-lanes = GDF for flexure due
be used in conjunction with the GDF of bridges subjected to to multiple loaded lanes (n ⱖ 2); and MS-T = moment due to
one loaded lane. For the case of an oversized truck mixing a standard or design truck with gauge equal to 1.83 m (6 ft).
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2001 / 15
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions
are relevant for slab-on-girder bridges:
• The HS20-44 truck has the most critical GDF among the
four overweight trucks that were considered in the study.
• The first interior girder receives the largest percentage of
live load among the interior girders of the nine bridges
considered. The transverse truck position for maximum
load effect in the critical interior girder is usually different
for shear than for moment.
• GDFs for interior girders in slab-on-girder bridges are
lower for oversized trucks than for standard trucks with
1.83 m (6 ft) gauge width.
• The reduction in the GDF for interior girders due to a
vehicle with a large gauge is different for flexure than for
shear. Gauge width affects shear due to live load more
than it affects flexure.
• Significant interaction exists between gauge width and
girder spacing when considering the effect of an oversized
truck on the live load distribution in bridges. The span
length, on the other hand, has a minor effect on the re-
duction in live load due to an increase in gauge.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
ALGOR, reference manual. (1998). ALGOR Corp., Pittsburgh.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1994a). Guide specifications for distribution of loads for
highway bridges, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1994b). LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st Ed.,
Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). (1996). Standard specifications for highway bridges, 16th
Ed., Washington, D.C.
Bishara, A. G., Liu, M. C., and El-Ali, N. D. (1993). ‘‘Wheel load dis-
tribution on simply supported skew I-beam composite bridges.’’ J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 119(2), 399–419.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1994). LRFD design of high-
way bridges training course, Vol. 1, Prepared by Modjeski and Masters,
Inc., Washington, D.C., Aug.
Keating, P. B., Litchfield, S. C., and Zhou, M. (1995). ‘‘Overweight per-
mit rules.’’ Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Tex., June.
Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC). (1991). Bridge code,
3rd Ed., Ministry of Transportation, Quality and Standards Division,
Downsview, Ont., Canada.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). (1993). Design
FIG. 13. Accuracy of Developed Gauge Modification Factor manual, Part 4—Structures, Vol. 1, PDT-Publ. No. 15, August.
for Shear Tabatabai, M. (1999). ‘‘Effect of oversized and overweight trucks on live
load distribution in girder bridges.’’ MS thesis, Dept. of Civ. and Envir.
Engrg., University of Houston, Houston, May.
The moments used in (13) reflect the load effect of one line U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). (1997). Comprehensive
truck size and weight study—Issues and background, Vol. II, Federal
of wheels. The GDF values used should therefore correspond
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., June.
to one line of wheels instead of the entire truck load. An equa- Zokai, T., Osterkamp, T. A., and Imbsen, R. A. (1991). ‘‘Distribution of
tion similar to (13) can be derived for the case of shear in an wheel loads on highway bridges.’’ Final Rep., NCHRP 12-26, Trans-
interior girder subjected to multiple loaded lanes. portation Research Board, Washington, D.C.