See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237190784

Load model for bridge design code

ARTICLE in CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2011
Impact Factor: 0.56 DOI: 10.1139/l94-004

CITATIONS

READS

41

52

1 AUTHOR:
Andrzej S Nowak
University of Michigan
47 PUBLICATIONS 442 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Andrzej S Nowak

Retrieved on: 23 October 2015

Load model for bridge design code

ANDRZEJ
S. NOWAK
Departnletlt of Civil and E ~ ~ v i r o r ~ n ~ eEngineering,
r~tal
University of Michigan, At111 A r b o ~ MI
, 48109-2125, U.S.A.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

Received January 8, 1993

Revised manuscript accepted May 26, 1993
The paper deals with the development of load model for the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code. Three components of dead load are considered: weight of factory-made elements, weight of cast-in-place concrete, and bituminous surface (asphalt). The live load model is based on the truck survey data. The maximum live load moments
and shears are calculated for one-lane and two-lane bridges. For spans up to about 40 m, one truck per lane governs;
for longer spans, two trucks following behind the other provide the largest live load effect. For two lanes, two
fully correlated trucks govern. The dynamic load is modeled on the basis of simulations. The results of calculations indicate that dynamic load depends not only on the span but also on road surface roughness and vehicle
dynamics. Load combination including dead load, live load, dynamic load, wind, and earthquake is modeled using
Turkstra's rule. The maximum effect is determined as a sum of the extreme value of one load component plus the
average values of other simultaneous load components. The developed load models can be used in the calculation
of load and resistance factors for the design and evaluation code.
Key words: bridge, dead load, live load, dynamic load, load combinations.
Cet article traite du dCveloppement d'un modble de charge pour le Code de conception des ponts routiers de
I'Ontario (CCPRO). Trois caractkristiques de la charge permanente ont CtC CtudiCes : le poids des ClCments fabriquCs
a I'usine, le poids du bCton coulC sur place ainsi que celui du revstement bitumineux (asphalte). Le modble de
charge mobile a CtC ClaborC en tenant compte de certaines mesures et de donnCes d'enquste sur les camions. Les
moments et les cisaillements maximums dus h la surcharge ont CtC calculCs pour des ponts a une et deux voies.
Pour les portCes d'une longueur de 40 m et moins, l'effet maximal est causC par un camion par voie; pour les
portCes plus longues, deux camions qui se suivent crCent l'effet le plus important en termes de charge mobile. La
modClisation de la charge dynamique a CtC effectuie en tenant compte de simulations. Les rCsultats des calculs
indiquent que la charge dynamique depend non seulement de la portCe, mais aussi de la rugositC de la surface de roulement et de la dynamique des vChicules. Une combinaison de charges comprenant la charge permanente, la charge mobile,
la charge dynamique, le vent et les secousses sismiques a fait I'objet d'une modClisation l'aide de la rbgle de
Turkstra. L'effet maximal est obtenu en additionnant la valeur extrgme d'une caractkristique de charge et les valeurs
moyennes des autres. Les modbles de charge ClaborCs peuvent servir au calcul des coefficients de rksistance et de charge
pour le code de conception et dlCvaluation.
Mots cle's : pont, charge permanente, charge mobile, charge dynamique, combinaisons de charge.
[Traduit par la rCdaction]
Can. I. Civ. Eng. 21. 3 6 4 9 (1994)

Introduction
Bridge loads play an increasingly important role in the
development of design and evaluation criteria. The fundamental load combination includes dead load, live load, and
dynamic load. This paper deals with the derivation of statistical model for these load components. T h e presented
research provided statistical models for the development of
load and resistance factors in the Ontario Highway Bridge
Design Code (OHBDC) 1991 edition.
he analysis of bridge loads was performed in conjunction
with the development of two previous editions of the OHBDC
(Nowak and Lind 1979; Grouni and Nowak 1984). Load
models were developed on the basis of the available truck
surveys and other measurements. T h e maximum 50-year
live load was determined by exponential extrapolation of
the extreme values obtained in the survey. AASHTO (1989)
girder distribution factors were used in the analysis. Dynamic
load was modeled using the available test data.
The new developments affect dead load, live load, and
dynamic load. Dead load is based on the latest available
data. The live load model is developed for one-lane and
NOTE:Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until June 30, 1994 (address inside front
cover).
Printed in Canada / Innprime nu C:ln;~d;l

two-lane bridges. An important part of this study is the

dynamic load analysis. The model is developed on the basis
of an analytical simulation of the actual bridge behavior.
The major load components of highway bridges are dead
load, live load, (static and dynamic), environmental loads
(temperature, wind, earthquake), and other loads (collision,
emergency braking). The load models are developed using the
available statistical data, surveys, and other observations.
Load components are treated as random variables. Their
variation is described by the cumulative distribution function,
the mean value, and the coefficient of variation. The relationship between load parameters is described by a coefficient
of correlation.
T h e basic load combination for highway bridges is a
simultaneous occurrence of dead load, live load, and dynamic
load. T h e combinations involving other load components
(wind, earthquake, collision forces) require a special approach
which takes into account a reduced probability of a simultaneous occurrence of extreme values of several independent loads.

Dead load
Dead load, D, is the gravity load due to the self weight of
the structural and nonstructural elements permanently connected to the bridge. Because of different degrees of varia-

NOWAK

TABLE1. Statistical parameters of dead load

Component

Mean-to-nominal

Factory-made members
Cast-in-place members
Asphalt
Miscellaneous

1.03
1.05
90 mm*
1.03- 1.05

Coefficient of vibration

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

"Mean thickness.

tion, it is convenient to consider the following components

of D: ( i ) D , , the weight of factory-made elements (steel,
precast concrete members); (ii) Dz, the weight of cast-inplace concrete members; (iii) D,, the weight of the wearing
surface (asphalt); and (iv) D,, miscellaneous weight (e.g.,
railing, luminaries). All components of D are treated as
normal random variables. T h e statistical parameters used
in the calibration are listed in Table 1. T h e bias factors
(mean-to-nominal ratios) are taken as in the previous calibration work (Nowak and Lind 1979). However, the coefficients of variation are increased to include human errors,
as recommended by Ellingwood et al. (1980).
The thickness of asphalt was first modeled on the basis
of statistical data available from the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation (MTO). Measurements were done in various
regions of the Province. The distributions of D, (thickness of
asphalt) are plotted on normal probability paper in Fig. 1. The
average thickness of asphalt is 75 mm. The coefficient of
variation, calculated from the slope of the distributions in
Fig. 1, is 0.25. However, further information provided by
the MTO indicates that the mean thickness of asphalt has
increased to 90 mm and the coefficient of variation is reduced
to 0.15 (Agarwal, yet unpublished).
For miscellaneous items (weight or railings, curbs, luminaries, signs, conduits, pipes, cables, etc.), the statistical
parameters (means and coefficients of variation) are similar
to those of D,, if the considered item is factory-made with
the high quality control measures, and D2, if the item is
cast-in-place, with less strict quality control.

Live load data base

Live load, L, covers a range of forces produced by vehicles
moving on the bridge. Traditionally, the static and dynamic
effects are considered separately. Therefore, in this study,
L covers only the static component. The dynamic component is denoted by I.
T h e effect of live load depends o n many parameters,
including the span length, truck weight, axle loads, axle
configuration, position of the vehicle on the bridge (transverse
and longitudinal), number of vehicles on the bridge (multiple
presence), girder spacing, and stiffness of structural members
(slab and girders).
The live load model is based on the truck survey in Ontario
performed by the MTO in 1975. The study covered about
10 000 selected trucks (only trucks that appeared t o be
heavily loaded were measured and included in the data
base). The results of the 1988 truck survey including over
2000 trucks (Agarwal, yet unpublished) are also considered
to study the changes in live load over the years.
T h e uncertainties involved in the analysis are d u e t o
limitations and biases in the survey data. Even though
10 000 trucks is a large number, it is very small compared
with the actual number of heavy vehicles in a 50-year life-

Actual Asphalt Thickness / 75 mm

FIG. 1. Cumulative distribution functions of asphalt thickness by MTO re,'oions.

time. It is also reasonable to expect that some extremely
heavy trucks purposefully avoided the weighing stations. A
considerable degree of uncertainty is caused by unpredictability of the future trends with regard to the configuration
of axles and weights.
The 1975 Ontario survey included a total of 9250 heavy
trucks (Agarwal and Wolkowicz 1976). For each truck,
bending moments and shear forces were calculated for a wide
range of simple spans. The cumulative distribution functions
are plotted on normal probability paper in Fig. 2 for moments
and Fig. 3 for shears, for spans from 9 to 60 m. The construction and use of the normal probability paper is explained
in the fundamental textbooks o n probability theory (eg.,
Benjamin and Cornell 1970). The horizontal scale is in terms
of the OHBDC (1983) live load (truck or lane load, whichever
governs), as shown in Fig. 4. The vertical scale, z, is
[l]
z = a-'[F,(x)]
where F,(x) is the cumulative distribution function of X, X

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

38

CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 21. 1991

Moment / OHBDC-1983Moment
FIG. 2. Cumulative distribution functions of truck moments
from 1975 survey in terms of the OHBDC-1983 moment.

OHBD Truck

Shear / OHBDC-1983Shear
FIG. 3. Cumulative distribution functions of truck shears from
1975 survey in terms of the OHBDC-1983 shear.

200 kN

160 kN

i40m i40m
60 kN

OHBD Lane Load

FIG. 4. OHBDC-1983

being the moment or the shear; and a-' is the inverse of

the standard normal distribution function.
The moments and shears were also calculated for the 1988
truck survey data. T h e resulting cumulative distribution

live load.

functions of moments and shears are plotted in Fig. 5 and

Fig. 6, respectively. T h e results do not indicate any considerable change in the maximum moments and shears in
the two surveys.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

-4

-4

0.5

1.5

Moment / OHBDC-1983 Moment

FIG.5. Cumulative distribution functions of truck moments
from 1988 survey in terms of the OHBDC-1983 moment.

Maximum truck moments and shears

The maximum moments and shears for various time ~ e r i o d s
are determined by extrapolation of the distributions as shown
in Figs. 7 and 8. Let N be the total number of trucks in time
period T. It is assumed that the surveyed trucks represent
about 2-week traffic on a class A highway. Therefore, in T =
50 years, the number of trucks, N, will be about 1000 times
larger than in the survey. This will result in N = 10 million
trucks. The probability level corresponding to N is 1/N; for
N = 10 million, the probability is 1/10 000 000 = lo-', which
corresponds to z = 5.19 on the vertical scale, as shown in
Figs. 7 and 8. The number of trucks (N), the probability
(l/N), and the inverse normal distribution value (z) corresponding to various time periods (T), from 1 day to 75 years,
are shown in Table 2. The lines corresponding to the con. 8.
sidered probability levels are also shoin in ~ i ~7 sand
The mean maximum moments and shears corresponding to
various periods of time can be read directly from the graph.
For example, for 15 m span and T = 5 0 years, the mean
maximum moment is 1.2 times the design moment. It is
equal to the horizontal coordinate of intersection of the
extrapolated distribution and z = 5.19 on the vertical scale.
For comparison, the number of trucks passing through the
bridge in 75 years is 1500 times larger than in the survey.
This corresponds to z = 5.26 on the vertical scale (Figs. 7 and
8). Similar calculations can be performed for other periods
of time.
The mean moments and shears calculated for time periods
from 1 day to 7 5 years are presented in Figs. 9 and 10,

0.5

1.5

Shear / OHBDC-1983 Shear

FIG.6. Cumulative distribution functions of truck shears from
1988 survey in terms of the OHBDC-1983 shear.

75 Years
50 Years
5 Years
1Year

6 Months
2 Months
1Month
2weeks
1 Day

-4

0.5

1.5

Moment / OHBDC1983 Moment

FIG.7. Extrapolated cumulative distribution functions of truck

moments.

40

C A N . I. CIV. ENG. VOL. 21, 1994

TABLE2. Number of trucks vs. time period and probability

75 Years
50 Years
5 Years
1 Year

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

6 Months
2 Months
1 Month
2 Weeks
1 Day

Time period
T

Number of trucks

Probability

Inverse normal

1IN

75 years
50 years
5 years
1 year
6 months
2 months
1 month
2 weeks
1 day
TABLE
3. Bias factors - ratio of the maximum
50-year live load and OHBDC-1983 design
live load (per lane)
Single truck
Span
(m)

0.0

0.5
1.O
Shear / OHBDG1983 Shear

Moment

Shear

One or two
trucks
Moment

Shear

1.5

FIG. 8. Extrapolated cumulative distribution functions of truck

shears.
respectively. For comparison, the means are also plotted for
an average truck. The coefficients of variation for the maximum truck moments and shears can be calculated by transformation of the distribution functions in Figs. 7 and 8.
Each function can be raised to a certain power, so that the
calculated earlier mean maximum moment (or shear) becomes
the mean value after the transformation. The slope of the
transformed cumulative distribution function determines the
coefficient of variation. The results are plotted in Figs. 11 and
12 for moments and shears, respectively. For 50 years, the
bias factors are also given in Table 3.

One-lane moments and shears

For one-lane bridges, the maximum effect (moment or
shear) is caused by a single truck or two (or more) trucks
following behind each other. For a multiple truck occurrence, the important parameters are the headway distance
and the degree of correlation between truck weights. The
maximum one-lane effect is derived as the largest of the
following cases:
(a) Single truck effect equal to the maximum 50-year
moment (or shear) with the parameters (mean and coefficient of variation) given in Figs. 9 and 11 for the moment and
in Figs. 10 and 12 for the shear;
(b) Two trucks, each with the weight smaller than that
of a single truck in case (a). Three degrees of correlation
between truck weights are considered: none (p = 0), partial
(p = 0.5), and full (p = l ) , where p is the coefficient of
correlation.
It is assumed that, on average, about every 50th truck is
followed by another truck with the headway distance less
than 30 m, about every 250th truck is followed by a partially correlated truck, and about every 500th truck is fol-

lowed by a fully correlated truck. The two trucks are denoted

by T I and T,. Three cases are considered:
( i ) No correlation between T I and T? The parameters of T,
are taken for every 50th truck, or the maximum of 200 000
(1-year truck in Table 2). This corresponds to z = 4.42 on the
vertical scale in Figs 7 and 8. T h e parameters of T, are
taken for an average truck.
(ii) Partial correlation between T I and T7. The parameters of T I are taken for every 250th truck, or the maximum
of 40 000 (2-month truck in Table 2). This corresponds to z =
4.05 on the vertical scale in Figs. 7 and 8. The parameters of
TZ are taken for every 1000th truck, or the maximum of
1 0 0 0 ( I - d a y truck in Table 2 ) , which c o r r e s p o n d s t o
z = 3.09.
(iii) Full correlation between T I and Tz. The parameters of
T I and T, are taken for every 500th truck, or the maximum
of 20 000 (I-month truck in Table 2), which corresponds
to z = 3.89 on the vertical scale in Figs. 7 and 8.
The truck effects are determined by simulation for various
time periods, for a headway distance equal to 5 m (bumperto-bumper traffic). The results are presented in Figs. 13 and
14. For the 50-year period, the bias factors are also listed in
Table 3. A comparison with Figs. 9 and 10 indicates that
one truck governs for spans less than 30-40 m. For longer
spans, two fully correlated trucks govern. The headway distance of 5 m is associated with non-moving vehicles or

NOWAK

75 Years
50 Years
5 Years
1 Year
6 Months
2 Months
1 Month
2 Weeks
1 Day

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

Average Truck

Span (m)

FIG.9. Bias factors for various time periods: moment for a single truck.

75 Years
50 Years
5 Years
1 Year
6 Months
2 Months
1 Month
2 Weeks
1 Day

Average Truck

Span (m)

FIG. 10. Bias factors for various time periods: shear for a single truck.
trucks moving at reduced speeds. This is important in consideration of dynamic loads. In further calculations, it is
assumed, conservatively, that the headway distance is 5 m
even for normal speeds.

Two-lane moments and shears

The analysis involves the determination of the load in
each lane and the load distribution to girders. The effect of
multiple trucks is calculated by superposition. The maximum moments are calculated as the largest of the following
cases:
(a) One lane fully loaded and the other lane unloaded;
(b) Both lanes loaded. Three degrees of correlation between
the lane loads are considered: no correlation (p = 0), partial
correlation (p = 0.5), and full correlation (p = 1).
It has been observed that, on average, about every 10th
truck is on the bridge simultaneously with another truck

(side-by-side). For each such a simultaneous occurrence, it

is assumed that every 10th time the trucks are partially correlated and every 50th time they are fully correlated (with
regard to weight). It is also conservatively assumed that the
transverse distance between two side-by-side trucks is 1.2 m
(wheel center-to-center).
In case (a) (only one lane loaded), the parameters (mean
and coefficient of variation) of the maximum effects are as
given in Table 3. In case (b) (two lanes loaded), the parameters of moments and shears in each lane depend on the
degree of correlation:
(i) No correlation (p = 0). The maximum 50-year moment
is caused by a simultaneous occurrence of the maximum
5-year moment (2 = 4.75) in lane 1 and the average moment
in lane 2.
(ii) Partial correlation (p = 0.5). The maximum 50-year
moment is caused by a simultaneous occurrence of the max-

42

CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 21. 1994

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

Average
Truck

1 Day
2 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
5 Years
50 & 75 Years

Span (m)
FIG. 11. Coefficient of variation of the maximum moment for a single truck.
Average
Truck

1 Day
2 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
5 Years
50 & 7 5 Years

span (m)
FIG. 12. Coefficient of variation of the maximum shear for a single truck.
imum 6-month moment (z = 4.26) in lane 1 and the maximum daily moment (z = 3.09) in lane 2.
(iii) Full correlation (p = 0). T h e maximum 50-year
moment is caused by a simultaneous occurrence of the maximum 1-month moment (z = 3.89) in both lanes.
The structural analysis was performed using the finite element method. The model is based on a linear behavior of
girders and slabs. The maximum girder moments and shears
were calculated by superposition of truck loads in both lanes.
The results indicate that for interior girders, the case with
two fully correlated side-by-side trucks governs, with each
truck equal to the maximum 1-month truck. However, for
some cases of exterior girders, one truck may govern.
The bias factors are calculated as the ratios of the mean
maximum 50-year moments (shears) and nominal moments
(shears) specified by OHBDC ( 1983). The calculations are

performed for a single lane and two lanes. The results are
plotted vs. span in Figs. 15 and 16. For two lanes, the multilane reduction factor (0.9) is included.

Recommended changes in design live load

On the basis of the performed load analysis, it is recommended to increase the design load for spans less than 40 m.
Therefore, the tandem axle load has been increased from
the current OHBDC (1983) 140 kN to 160 kN (see Fig. 4).
The bias factors, calculated using the new live load (160 kN
per axle in a tandem), are shown in Figs. 17 and 18 for
moments and shears, respectively.
Dynamic load
Dynamic load effect, I, is considered as an equivalent
static load effect added to the live load, L. The objective

NOWAK

1.3

1.2

s
90

1.1

7 5 Years
50 Years
5 Years
1 Year
6 Months
2 Months
1 Month
2 Weeks
1 Day

1.0

E0
\

11

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

$ 6
- 0

1'g
@

.2

0.9
0.8

0.7

0.6
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Span (m)

FIG. 13. Bias factors for various time periods: moment for one-lane bridges.

7 5 Years
50 Years
5 Years
1 Year
6 Months
2 Months
1 Month
2 Weeks
1 Day

Span (m)
FIG. 14. Bias factors for various time periods: shears for one-lane bridges

of this analysis is to determine the parameters (mean and

coefficient of variation) of I.
The dynamic bridge tests were carried out by Billing
(1984). The results are available for 22 bridges and 30 spans,
including prestressed concrete girders and slabs, steel girders
(hot-rolled sections, plate girders, box girders), steel trusses,
and rigid frames. The measurements were taken for test
vehicles and a normal traffic. The means and standard deviations, as a fraction of the static live load, are given in
Table 4. Considerable differences between the distribution
functions for very similar structures point to the importance
of other factors (e.g., surface condition). Results collected
from the weigh-in-motion studies (Ghosn and Moses 1984)
indicate an average dynamic load factor of 0.11. This value
falls in the middle range of the data obtained from the MTO
tests (Table 4). However, interpretation of these results is
difficult because the dynamic loads are separated from the
static live loads. It has been observed that the dynamic load,
as a fraction of live load, decreases for heavier trucks. It

is expected that the largest dynamic load fractions in the

survey correspond to light-weight trucks.
To verify these observations, a computer procedure was
developed for simulation of the dynamic bridge behavior
(Hwang and Nowak 1991). The dynamic load is a function
of three major parameters: road surface roughness, bridge
dynamics (frequency of vibration), and vehicle dynamics
(suspension system). The developed model includes the
effect of these three parameters. Simulation of the dynamic
load requires the generation of a road profile, which is done
by using a Fourier transform of the power spectral density
function. The bridge is modeled as a prismatic beam. Modal
equations of motion are formulated. In the analysis, each
truck is composed of a body, a suspension system, and tires.
The body is subjected to a rigid-body motion including the
vertical displacement and pitching rotation. Suspensions are
assumed to be of multi-leaf type springs.
The dynamic load allowance (DLA) is defined as the maximum dynamic deflection, D,,,,divided by the maximum

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

CAN. 1. CIV. ENG. VOL. 21, 1994

Span (m)
FIG. 15. Bias factors for various time periods: moments for one-lane bridges in terms of OHBDC-1983 model.

Span (m)
FIG. 16. Bias factors for various time periods: shears for one-lane bridges in terms of OHBDC-1983 model.
static deflection, D,,,, as shown in Fig. 19. Static and dynamic
deflections are calculated for typical girder bridges. It has
been observed that the absolute value of the dynamic deflection is almost a constant. Therefore, as the gross vehicle
weight is increased, the dynamic load allowance is decreased.
The decrease of DLA is mainly due to the increase of static
deflection.
In most cases, the maximum live load is governed by two
trucks side-by-side. The corresponding DLAs are calculated for
two trucks by superposition of one truck effects as shown in
Fig. 20. The obtained average DLAs for one truck and two
trucks are presented in Fig. 21. Therefore, the resulting mean
dynamic load is 0.10 of the mean live load for two trucks
and 0.15 for one truck. The coefficient of variation is 0.80.

In OHBDC (1983), the design values of DLA are specified

as a function of the natural frequency of vibration, as shown
in Fig. 22. T h e results of simulations indicate that DLA
values can be reduced and they are lower for two trucks
than for one truck. In general, dynamic load is reduced for
a larger number of axles. Furthermore, DLA is applied to
the maximum 50-year live load. The actual DLA is close
to the mean. Therefore, it is recommended to use a DLA
equal to 0.25 for spans larger than 6 m.

Load combinations
T h e total load, Q, is a combination of several components. The following combinations are considered in this
paper:

NOWAK

two lanes

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

\
FIG. 17. Bias factors for moments for one-lane and two-lane bridges in terms of OHBDC-1991 model.

FIG. 18. Bias factors for shears for one-lane and two-lane bridges in terms of OHBDC-1991 model.
(1) D
(2)D
(3) D

+ L + I;
+ L + I + W;
+ L + I + EQ;

where W is the wind load and EQ is the earthquake load.

The maximum 50-year combination of live load, L, and
dynamic load, I , is modeled using the statistical parameters
derived for L and I. It is assumed that live load is a product
of two parameters, L and P, where L is the static live load
and P is the live load analysis factor (influence factor). The
mean value of P is 1.0 and the coefficient of variation is
0.12. The coefficient of variation of LP can be calculated
using the following formula:
[2]

v,,

= (v;

+ vp2)'I2

where V, is the coefficient of variation of L and V, is the

coefficient of variation of P.
The mean maximum 50-year LP
I , nz,,,,, can be calculated by multiplying the mean L by the mean value of P
(equal to 1.0) a n d by (1
m,), w h e r e m, is the mean
dynamic load. T h e standard deviation of the maximum
50-year LP + I , u,,+,, is

in,, is the mean LP and is equal to

where a,, = V,,m,,;
mean L , because mean P = 1; and a, = V,m, is the standard
deviation of the dynamic load. The coefficient of variation
of LP + I , V,,,,,
is

CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 21, 1994

TABLE4. Dynamic load factors from test results

Mean

Standard deviation

Type of structure

Range

Average

Range

Average

Prestressed concrete AASHTO girders

Prestressed concrete box and slabs
Steel girders
Rigid frame, truss

0.05-0.10
0.10-0.15
0.08-0.20
0.10-0.25

0.09
0.14
0.14
0.17

0.03-0.07
0.08-0.40
0.05-0.20
0.12-0.30

0.05
0.30
0.10
0.26

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

..........

I
I
I

1st Truck - Dynamic

2nd Truck - Dynamic

........
.

Time (s)
FIG. 19. Time history for midspan deflection due to a single
truck on a bridge.

The statistical parameters of L and I depend on the span

length, and they are different for a single lane and two lanes.
For a single lane, VLp+,= 0.19 for most spans, and 0.205
for very short spans. For two-lane bridges, yp+,= 0.18 for
most spans, and 0.19 for very short spans.
T h e basic load combination for highway bridges is a
simultaneous occurrence of dead load, live load, and dynamic
load. T h e uncertainty involved in the load analysis is
expressed by the load analysis factor, E. The mean E is 1.0
and the coefficient of variation is 0.04 for simple spans and
0.06 for continuous spans.
The load, Q, is given in the following form:

The mean Q, in,, is equal to the sum of the means of the

components (D,, D,, D,, L, and I ) . The coefficient of variation of Q, V,, is

where

and

Time ( s )
FIG. 20. Time history for midspan deflection due to two trucks
on a bridge.
the model depends on the considered time interval. This
particularly applies to environmental loads, including wind,
earthquake, snow, ice, temperature, water pressure, etc.
These load models can be based on the report by Ellingwood
et al. (1980) or Nowak and Curtis (1980). The basic data
have been gathered for building structures, rather than
bridges. However, in most cases the same model can be
used. Some special bridge-related problems may occur
because of the unique design conditions, such as foundation conditions, extremely long spans, or wind exposure.
Load effect is a resultant of several components. It is
unlikely that all components take their maximum values
simulta~eouslv.There is a need for a formula to calculate the
parameters of Q (mean and coefficient of variation). In general, all load components are time-variant, except of dead
load. There are sophisticated load combination techniques
available to calculate the distribution of the total load, Q.
However, they involve a considerable numerical effort. Some
of these methods are summarized by Madsen et al. (1986).
The total load effect in highway bridge members is a joint
effect of dead load, D; live load, L + I (static and dynamic);
environmental loads, E (wind, snow, ice, earthquake, earth
pressure, and water pressure); and other loads, A (emergency braking, collision forces).
[9]

The total load effect, Q, is the result of dead load, live

load, dynamic load, and other effects (environmental, other).
There are several load combinations for consideration in
the reliability analysis of bridges. For time-varying loads,

Q=D+L+I+E-kA

The effect of a sum of loads is not always equal to the

sum of the effects of single loads. In particular, this may
apply to the nonlinear behavior of the structure. Nevertheless,
it is further assumed that [9] represents the joint effect. The
distribution of the joint effect can be analyzed using the

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

NOWAK

FIG. 21. Average dynamic load allowance in terms of span for one truck and two trucks.

so-called Turkstra's rule. Turkstra (1970) observed that a

combination of several load components reaches its extreme
when one of the components takes an extreme value and
all other components are at their average (arbitrary-pointin-time) level. For example, the combination of live load
and earthquake produces a maximum effect for the lifetime
T, when either (i) the earthquake takes its maximum expected
value for T and the live load takes its maximum expected
value corresponding to the duration of earthquake (i.e., about
30 s), or (ii) the live load takes its maximum expected value
for T and the earthquake takes its maximum expected value
corresponding to the duration of this maximum live load
(time of truck passage on the bridge).
In practice, the expected value of an earthquake in any
short time interval is almost zero. The e x ~ e c t e dvalue of
truck load for a short time interval depends on the class of
the road. For a very busy highway, it is likely that there is
some traffic at any point in time. Therefore, the maximum
earthquake may occur simultaneously with an average truck
passing through the bridge.
In a general case, Turkstra's rule can be expressed as
follows:

where

In all cases, the average load value is calculated for the

period of time corresponding to the duration of the maximum
load. The formula can be extended to include various components of D, E, and A .
The joint distribution can be modeled using the central
limit theorem of the theory of probability (Benjamin and
Cornell 1970). A sum of several random variables is a normal random variable if the number of components is large,
and if the average values of the components are of the same

0.40 -

0.30-

0.20 .

'$

0.10-

~~~~~~~~~.,.,.,.,.r
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
First Flexural Frequency (Hz)

FIG. 22. Dynamic load allowance specified in OHBDC-1983.

order. If one variable dominates (its average value is much
larger than any other), then the joint distribution can be
close to that of the dominating variable.
For each sum Qi in [ l o ] , the mean and variance of the
sum are equal to the sum of means and the sum of variances of components, respectively. The distribution of Q is
that which minimizes the overall structural reliability. Usually
it is Qi with the largest mean value. The identification of
the governing load combination is important in the selection of the optimum load factors (including load combination
factors).
For each load component, the maximum and average
values are estimated. Dead load does not vary with time.
Therefore, the maximum and average values are the same.
For live load (including dynamic load), the maximum values
are calculated for 50 years and shorter periods. The statistical
parameters of wind and earthquake are given in Table 5.
The probability of an earthquake EQ, o r heavy wind W,
occurring in a short period of time is very small. Therefore,
simultaneous occurrence of EQ and W is not considered. In
the result, the number of load combinations considered in the
code can be reduced as follows:

48

C A N . J.

CIV. ENG. VOL. 21.

1994

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

TABLE5. Statistical parameters of wind and earthquake

Load
component

Maximum 50year value

bias factor

Coefficient
of variation,
COV

Basic
time
period

Wind
Earthquake

0.875
0.30

0.20
0.70

4h
30 s

where (L + I),,,, is the maximum 50-year L + I; (L + I),,

is the m a x i m u m 4 - h o u r L + I ; W,,,,, is t h e maximum
50-year wind; W,,,,, is the maximum daily wind; and EQ,,,
is the maximum 50-year earthquake. The mean maximum
4-hour live load moment, (L + I),.,, can be read directly
from Fig. 7, for z = 2.5 (maximum of 2 0 0 trucks). T h e
parameters of (L + I),., are also shown in Table 5.

Live load for evaluation of existing bridges

Existing bridges are evaluated to determine their actual
strength and predict the remaining life. The major difference between the load model for the design of new bridges
and the evaluation of existing structures is the reference
time period. New bridges are designed for 50-year lifetime
and existing bridges are checked for 5- to 10-year periods.
Load model depends on the reference time period. Maximum
moments and shears are smaller for 5- to 10-year periods
than for 50-year lifetime. However, the coefficient of variation is larger for shorter periods.
The load combination including dead load, live load, and
dynamic load is considered. The maximum 5- or 10-year
live loads, and the corresponding dynamic loads, are derived
using the tables and figures included earlier in this paper.
Dead load model is not time-dependent and the statistical parameters are as given in Table 1. From Figs. 7 and 8,
the maximum 5-year moment (or shear) is about 5% less
than the maximum 50-year moment (or shear). The difference
between the 10-year moment and the 50-year moment is
about 3%. For a posted structure, with a reduced truck
weight limit, the maximum live load values are lower than
for bridges that are not posted. However, the corresponding dynamic load allowance, DLA, is increased (as a fraction
of live load). Therefore, the DLAs specified for posted
bridges are also increased by 0.1 to 0.6, depending on the
value of the evaluation level and the number of axles.
Conclusions
The objective of the paper is to present the development
of load models for the bridge design code. The major bridge
load components include dead load, live load, and dynamic
load.
The statistical parameters of dead load are presented for
factory-made components, cast-in-place components, and
asphalt wearing surface.
Live load is based on the Ontario truck survey data. The
available statistical data base is summarized. The extreme
effects (moment and shear) are determined for various periods
of time by extrapolation of the truck survey data. Multiple

Live load corresponding

to basic time period
Bias factor

COV

0.80-0.90
0-0.50

0.25
0.50

presence of more than one truck is considered by simulation. For one-lane bridges, a single truck governs for spans
up to 30-40 m. For two-lane structures, two side-by-side
trucks produce the largest moment and shear. The analysis of
the design live load specified by OHBDC (1983) indicated
the need for an increase for shorter spans. Therefore, it is recommended to increase the design truck, by increasing the
axle loads in a tandem from the current 140 to 160 kN. The
modified design truck provides a more uniform mean-tonominal ratio for live load.
T h e derivation of dynamic load i s summarized. T h e
dynamic load allowance, expressed in terms of deflection,
practically does not depend on truck weight. Therefore,
dynamic load as a fraction of live load decreases for heavier
trucks. It is further reduced for two trucks side-by-side.
Therefore, the recommended design value of dynamic load
is 0.25, for all spans larger than 6 m.
The load combination procedure is formulated for design
formula including dead load, live load, dynamic load, wind,
and earthquake.
The developed load model can be used for the design of
new bridges and the evaluation of existing structures.

Acknowledgments
The presented research was carried out in conjunction
with the development of the third edition of the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code. T h e author acknowledges
many fruitful discussions, suggestions, and comments by
the MTO staff, in particular, Hid N. Grouni, Roger Dorton,
B a i d a r B a k h t , Akhilesh A g a r w a l , J o h n Billing, a n d
T. Tharmabala, as well as MTO consultants, Roger Green
(University of Waterloo), Fred M o s e s (University of
Pittsburgh), R o y S k e l t o n ( M c C o r m i c k , R a n k i n a n d
Associates), and David Harman (University of Western
Ontario). Thanks are also due to former and current research
assistants at the University of Michigan: Young-Kyun Hong,
Hani Nassif, Eui-Seung Hwang, and Tadeusz Alberski.
AASHTO. 1989. Standard specifications for highway bridges.
14th ed. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Agarwal, A.C., and Wolkowicz, M. 1976. Interim report on 1975
commercial vehicle survey. Research and Development Division,
Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Downsview,
Ont.
Benjamin, J.R., and Cornell, C.A. 1970. Probability, statistics, and
decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, p. 684.
Billing, J.R. 1984. Dynamic loading and testing of bridges in
Ontario. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, ll(4): 833-843.
Ellingwood, B., et al. 1980. Development of a probability based
load criterion for American National Standard A58. National
Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., NBS Special
Publication 577.

NOWAK

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 216.208.156.69 on 06/05/13

For personal use only.

Ghosn, M., and Moses, F. 1984. Bridge load modeling and reliability analysis. Department of Civil Engineering, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, Report No. R 84-1.
Grouni, H.N., and Nowak, A.S. 1984. Calibration of the Ontario
Highway Bridge Design Code 1983 edition. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, ll(4): 760-770.
Hwang, E-S., and Nowak, A.S. 1991. Simulation of dynamic
load for bridges. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
117(5): 1413-1434.
Madsen, H.O., Krenk, S., and Lind, N.C. 1986. Methods of structural safety. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 403.
Nowak, A.S., and Curtis, J.D. 1980. Risk analysis computer program. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., Report
UMEE 8OR2.

49

Nowak, A.S., and Hong, Y-K. 1991. Bridge load models. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(9): 2757-2767.
Nowak, A S . , and Lind, N.C. 1979. Practical bridge code calibration. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, lOS(ST12):
2497-25 10.
OHBDC. 1979. Ontario highway bridge design code. 1st ed.
Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ont.
OHBDC. 1983. Ontario highway bridge design code. 2nd ed.
Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ont.
OHBDC. 1991. Ontario highway bridge design code. 3rd ed.
Ministry of Transportation, Downsview, Ont.
Turkstra, C.J. 1970. Theory of structural design decisions. Solid
Mechanics Division, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.
Study No. 2, p. 124.