Highwaybridgeloadings

Charles F. G a l a m b o s
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, USA

The paper presents a comparison of the A A S H T O design live Ioadings for

bridges with various other loading situations. Comparisons are made with
some European design live loads, with native and foreign legal loads, normal
permit overloads, and abnormal permit loads. The results of a bridge load
rating exercise are presented. Some actual bridge load histograms are given,
as well as a comprehensive histogram based on the national Ioadometer survey
for 1970. Fatigue Ioadings and damage are discussed in the light of actual
and design Ioadings.
It is concluded that it may be timely to increase the A A S H T 0 HS design
Ioadings. To improve the bridge load rating process, it is suggested that some
standard load rating vehicle and test method be employed. Further refinemenl
of the fatigue design provisions for steel bridges do not seem warranted in
light of the great variation of actual Ioadings on bridges.

Introduction The design live loads prescribed in the above specificationa

In the 1978 annual meetings of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Bridge Subcommittee (there are four regional meetings),
there was considerable discussion again about the adequacy
of the present design loadings, especially in view of con-
tinued pressure by the trucking industry to ask for higher
allowable loads, and also because of the recent increased
awareness of the state of deterioration of many of the
bridges. It is estimated that over I00 000 of the 600 000
highway bridges on all US road systems are structurally
inadequate or obsolete for various reasons, and should be
replaced. Some of these bridges are already being replaced
through a special bridge replacement program and many
more will be replaced as a result of the funds made available
by the recently passed 1978 Surface Transportation Act.
This act, for the next four years, makes available to the
States 0.9, 1.1, 1.3 and 0.9 billion dollars expressly for
bridge replacement. It is therefore a most appropriate time
to examine bridge load design practice and philosophies to
point out where changes for the better may be in order.
The views expressed here are, of necessity, those of a
researcher and not of a bridge design engineer, and they
express private opinions and not official Federal Highway
Administration policy. External loads from traffic only are
considered.
are of two forms: (i), a uniform load per linear foot of load
lane; and (ii), variations of axle loads in two standard trucks.
The uniform load is supplemented by one concentrated
load (or two for continuous spans), which varies for moment
or shear. Some of the axle spacings of the design truck can
be varied (within limits) to produce maximum stress effects.
The heaviest loadings are illustrated in Figure 1, For inter-
state highway bridges, there is an alternate loading of two
axles four feet apart, with each axle weighing 24 000 pounds.
Whichever loading, lane load, truck load, or alternate loading
produces the maximum effect is the condition which should
be used in any specific case.
These loadings, presently designated HS 20-44, have not
been substantially changed since 1944.
It is of interest to compare the AASHTO design live
loads with those used in several other countries. This is
shown graphically in Figure 2 for West Germany, the United
Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands and the HS 20 AASHTO
loadings. The method of comparison is by means of bending

Design live loads

HS20-44 E~ 32k 32k
} 14' l 14' to 30' [
The great majority of highway bridges in the United States Stonderd truck toGding
have been, and still are designed according to the prevailing . d8k for moment
provisions of the 'Standard Specifications for Highway Concentroted toga- 26k for sheor
Bridges', l as adopted by the American Association of State l/Uniform LoQd64Oibper tineorfoot of toed tone
Highway and Transportation Officials. The latest published
full edition is the twelfth edition (1977). Selected interim
sections are issued as needed. Generally, the specifications Uniform loading
are republished every four years. Figure I AASHTObridge designloads

0141-0296/79/050230-06/$02.00
230 Eng. Struct., 1979, Vol. 1, October @ 1979 IPC Business Press

5000
4500
4000 I, L ,I
3500
Z greater in Europe, an average of 88 vs 76 kips, or about a
3000
No,h,.oo0,
25OO
2OOO
15OO
IOO0o l
,o 3'0 40
' sb
I
70
I
80 q~O 100
L,(m)
Figure 2 Comparison of design loads
moment calculations, taking account of impact factors and
the respective allowable stress used in each country. A simply
supported bridge was used, and the design vehicles were
approximated by a conversion to a uniform distributed
load spread out over a distance of 10 metres. The calculated
values are only of theoretical interest; they cannot be con-
sidered as practical allowable values for the spans considered,
but they are a good indication of the relative ultimate
capacity of the structure. No lateral load reduction for more
than one loaded lane was allowed for the comparison.
What is immediately obvious from Figure 2 is that there
is considerable variation between countries, and that by far
the lowest design loading is the AASHTO loading. Another
way of saying this is that these other countries build more
conservatism into their bridges, since the design loads are
very heavy compared with the AASHTO loads. In Europe,
the design philosophies differ somewhat from those in the
USA, in that the Europeans tend to design for longer life
(120 years in the UK), and they worry more about being
able to transfer heavy military loads. They also wish to be
able to occasionally transfer extremely heavy peace-time
loads (power plant generators, etc.) without unduly
endangering the structural integrity of their bridges.
Legal l o a d s
Closely related to the above discussion on design loads are
the legally allowed loads. These vary somewhat from State
to State in the United States, and also differ a great deal in
the European countries. A tabulation of axle loads (single
and tandem), and gross loads for a 5-axle tractor-trailer
Highway bridge Ioadings: C. F. Galambos
combination is shown in Table 1. The values shown do not
include the slight increase in loads allowed in some jurisdic-
tions due to statutory enforcement tolerances.
The table shows that except for a few countries (Belgium,
France, Italy and Spain), the allowable single axle and
tandem axle loads are not too much different from the
AASHTO allowables: 22 kips vs 20 kips, 35 kips vs 34 kips.
The 5-axle vehicle allowable gross loads are somewhat
15% increase over the AASHTO allowable values.
If Table I is now compared with Figure 2, it is clear that
in the USA bridges are designed to carry a slightly smaller
load than they are allowed to carry: 72 kips vs 76 kips,
whereas in most European countries the design loads are
much higher than the allowable loads. Although the above
statement is true, it is of course quite a simple statement.
Further discussion follows.
A l l o w a b l e o v e r l o a d s or p e r m i t loads
Occasionally, it happens that it is desirable, or necessary in
the case of emergencies, to move a load that is heavier than
the legal loads discussed above. The question then arises as
to how heavy such a load can be and still not damage a
specific bridge. This then brings us to the whole complicated
question of the actual load rating of bridges. At this point,
it is interesting to note that bridge engineers all over the
world like to distinguish between 'normal overloads' and
'exceptional overloads'. In the USA there is the variation of
the above in terms of stresses that translate into 'inventory'
rating, and 'operating' rating. The reasoning behind the two
ratings is the same - because of a certain conservatism in
design, construction, material properties, and the fact that
it is highly unlikely that two or more heavy vehicles should
precisely meet at a critical section of a specific bridge, it is
said that a certain amount of overloading will not harm the
bridges. (We are for the moment leaving out the possibility
of increased fatigue damage from the discussion.) In the US,
this is based on a stress below 0.55 o yield. In several of the
European countries, a specific weight has been assigned as
the upper limit of such 'normal', unrestricted overloads.
Some of these weights are tabulated in Table 2. Total loads,
or gross vehicle loads are shown, but most of the countries
also have axle load limitations, and one must have a permit
to operate such vehicles; some of the permits are for single
passages only, but many of them (such as for construction
equipment) are for a season or a year at a time. Usually there
is no restriction placed on speeds of travel and the vehicles
mix in with the usual traffic stream, and no damage is
thought to accrue from an unlimited number of such
passages. Note that several of the values shown in Table 2
are also the legal lihaits for a 5-axle vehicle.
The 'exceptional' overloads are only allowed occasionally,
and are more carefully controlled. Usually, they have to have

Table 1 Maximum legal weight of freight vehicles (in kips)

>=
r-

E ~ ~ i,. - := = -c I- ~
" -- ¢ (3 *-, t~tJ3 ~"

-- ~ E)<C I --J

Single axle 29 22 22 22 29 22 26 22 22 29 22 22 22 20 24 18
Tandem axle 44 44 35 35 46 35 42 35 35 46 35 31 45 34 40 29
Gross 5-axle 84 110 97 79 84 84 97 97 86 84 - - 72 76 80 71

Eng. Struct., 1979, Vol. 1, October 231

Highway, bridge Ioadings: C. F. Galambos

Table 2 Allowable 'normal' overloads (in kips)
Total load 88 110 97 92 84 84 110 92 113
an escort, travel very slowly along prescribed paths across a
bridge, and be the only vehicle on the span. Again, in the
US, the load allowed is derived from the allowable stress not
beyond 0.75 a yield. This is called the operating stress. In
other countries, careful stress calculations for 'exceptional'
overloads are also made, although in Belgium and France, an
actual upper gross load limit of 792 kips and 880 kips,
respectively, exist, along with certain axle load limitations.
It is recognized that monstrous loads of 800 kips take very
special vehicles for safe transport across a structure.
L o a d rating
It is desirable for a number of reasons to have a good
inventory and the best estimate ef the present live load
capacity of our highway bridges, whether we are talking
about a smaller local jurisdiction or even the entire
combined highway system of a nation. Rules and regulations 2
for compiling an inventory and for the procedure to be used
for the load rating of bridges have been issued in the United
States by the Federal Highway Administration for the
Federal Aid Highway Systems, and it is not the purpose
here to dwell on details, except to point out that much of
the load rating process still comes down to something called
'engineering judgment'. Substantial differences in load-
carrying capacity can result for the same structure depending
on who looks at it, which calculation methods he uses, how
he treats items like lateral load distribution, impact, effect
of corrosion, settlement, scour, material strengths, and any
number of engineering and non-engineering parameters.
To illustrate what variations in load ratings are possible,
an interesting experiment was performed recently by one of
the committees of the Office of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) a headquarters in Paris, France. The
assignment was as follows: having been given the design
is seen that the Canadian Standards Association is willing to
use almost 100% of the fully plastic moment of the bridge,
provided that the vehicle load path and speed are strictly
controlled, and that the vehicle is the only one on the span,
and that such a load happens very infrequently, and that
supposedly the bridge was built according to plan, that the
material properties are equal or stronger than was assumed
72
in the design, and that the bridge has been maintained to
stay brand new. Other jurisdictions proceed with somewhat
more conservatism.
Because as was just shown above, there can be such a
variation in even as simple and common a structure as a
70 ft beam and slab bridge, many engineers feel that the
only way to really rate a bridge is to actually test it with a
moving test load. Properly conducted load tests with realistic
vehicles can be of great help in assessing the load carrying
capacity of a structure. However, such tests must be well
planned and executed, with strain and deflection gauges
placed at major points of interest. If this is done, the tests
help to determine the actual lateral load distribution, the
effect of bracing members, deck behaviour, joint behaviour
(pinned, frozen, or intermittently free), the degree of
composite action, the amount of help received from curbs,
sidewalks, and railings, the impact factors, and the actual
vibration characteristics and other actual bridge behaviour.
A word of caution must be inserted here to say that as
useful as such load tests are, they do not tell everything
about a structure. The extent of fatigue cracking, for
example, and the material properties such as crack growth
rates and notch toughness, cannot be determined by load
testing. Nor can the usual load tests tell what the ultimate
carrying capacity of the structure might be.
I- 1;, -22,
Figure 3 3S2 rating example vehicle. Axle weights: 1,8 kips;
2, 16 kips; 3, 16 kips; 4, 16 kips; 5, 16 kips
Table 3 Rating results for 70-ft span

drawings of a specific bridge with the material properties Canada

(yield strength, ultimate strength, etc.) and a specific CSA S6 Ontario UK Norway USA
vehicle, a 5-axle tractor-trailer combination shown in
Figure 3, each of the cooperating agencies was to assess the Unsupervised and
mixing 166 . . . .
live load that this vehicle could carry. Canada, Norway, the
Supervised and
province of Ontario, the United Kingdom, and the United only vehicle 350 . . . .
States, all submitted answers as to what they thought Readily available
prudent and reasonable. The bridge was a 70-foot simple permit - 198 - - -
Controlled special
span, non-composite steel beam and concrete slab structure,
permit - 304 - -- -
taken from 'Standard Plans for Highway Bridges - Steel Inventory working
Superstructures'. 4 The answers are presented in Table 3, stress -- -- 95 - 103
and they vary from a low gross load for the vehicle of Inventory load
95 kips to a high of 350 kips. factor . . . . 111
Operating working
Differences come about because of four general areas of stress -- -- 136 -- 168
variations: inventory ratings vs operating ratings, and working Operating load
stress vs load factor calculations. Other differences arise factor . . . . 184
from philosophical differences about impact factors, load W o r k i n g stress -- - - 270 --
Load factor - - - 306 -
distribution, live load-dead load ratios, and what fraction
G r o s s l o a d in
of the yield or fully plastic moment it seems reasonable to kips
use. All these variations are tabulated in Table 4. There it

232 Eng. Struct., 1979, Vol. 1, October

 Highway bridge Ioadings: C. F. Galambos
Tab/e 4 Variations in load rating parameters

Working stress Load factor

Load multiple
Fraction of lane Capacity of Capacity of
per stringer Impact structure Live Dead structure

USA Inventory 0.712 0.256 0.55 fyS 5/3 1 0.8 fyS

Operating 0.712 0.256 0.75 fyS 1 1 0.8 fyS

Norway 0.560 0.400 0.636 fyS 1.3 1.2 0.870 fyS

Canada CSA S6 Design situation 0.586 0.256 - 2.35 1.400 0.703 fyZ
Unsupervised and
mixing 0.586 0.256 - 1.933 1.286 0.831 fyZ
Supervised and
only vehicle 0.686 0.256/3 -- 1.192 1.166 0.972 fyZ
Ontario Readily available
permit 0.630 0.45 - - 1.35 1.169 0.92 fyZ
Controlled special
permit 0.607 0.15 - 1.15 1.169 0.92 fyZ

fy, yield strength of steel; Z, plastic section modulus of stringer; S, elastic section modulus of stringer; CSA, Canadian Standards Association

On older bridges, where no design or construction plans the figures. The double peak of the gross weight histograms
exist, load tests can serve the most useful purpose in deter- seems to be typical of many American tests, showing in
mining whether the normal truck traffic can continue to use general empty tractor-trailer freight vehicles (25-30 000
the bridge, or whether some load restriction has to be pounds) and loaded ones (67-75 000 pounds). A composite
imposed. The bridge rating crew of the Province of Ontario, loading histogram made up of a number of studies nation-
Canada, does a great deal of load testing of the kind just wide for the year 1970 is shown in Figure 10. Note again
mentioned and they generally find that most bridges are the double peak.
stronger than one thinks they are. s A very legitimate observation is often made in connec-
tion with bridge loading history studies. And that is that the
Actual loads 9'0
In recent years, a great deal of actual weighing of vehicles
has taken place in the USA, much of it for route planning 72
purposes or for legal load enforcement, yet for the most
part, such truck weighing is not directly applicable to bridge
Oo
loading problems. We have therefore encouraged and partici-
pated in specific bridge loading history studies in which care x 5"4 r ~ ~
is taken to weigh every vehicle (above a certain relatively ag 3"6
minimum weight) crossing the structure in some representa-
tive time period. Usually, such studies also include the 18
collection of strains (stress ranges) in selected members of n
the structure at the same time. fl . . . . ITI'~ ~'{] 17
Several typical samples of bridge loading histograms are O 10 20 30 40 50 6'0 70 80
shown in Figures 4-9. Both axle load distributions and gross Gross vehicle weight, (kips)
vehicle weights are shown. The mean load, standard devia- Figure 5 Histogram for gross vehicle weight, all trucks, Shaffer
tion and number of cases weighed is also shown on some of Creek Bridge, 1968. N = 249; # = 40.5; a = 20.6; c.o.v. = 0.51

15 140
,2 rl
O
112
n
o ,I I
II 84
)
Z"
5t-
6 56
C)
£3

3f f
0 25 50 75 1(iO 12.5
Axle weight s (kips)
15O 17'-5 2 0 0
2.8

0 2:5 5 ) 7:5
rl
Axte weight, (kips)
•O 12'5 15-O 17'5 20-0

Figure 4 Histogram for axle weight, all axles, all trucks, Shaffer Figure 6 Histogram for axle weight, all axles, all trucks, C.B. & Q.
Creek Bridge, 1969. N = 3540; # = 8.4; o = 4.1 ; c.o.v. = 0.49 Bridge, 1969. N = 6751 ; # = 10.1 ; a = 3.9; c.o.v. = 0.39

Eng. Struct., 1979, V o l . 1, O c t o b e r 233

Highway bridge Ioadings: C. F. Galambos

frame into stiffer members. Fatigue cracks therefore grow

that are deflection related. The latter case seems to be a
design related problem.
~3 The fatigue damage caused on bridges, in a global sense,
is a function of the number of live load stress ranges applied
2 to the bridge. The stress ranges vary more or less linearly
Or"
with vehicle gross load for the main bending members of
bridges. For deck elements and floor beams, the wheel and
u_ 1 axle loads produce the stresses. Enough crack growth
information is available from laboratory fatigue tests and
from actual bridge damage observations on various cracked
0 10 30 20 40 50 60 7o 80
details, for a relationship between loading and damage
Gross vehicte weight, (kips)
usable for design purposes to be developed.
Figure 7 Histogram for gross vehicle weight, all trucks, C.B. & Q. One such relationship is shown in Figure 11. The
Bridge, 1969. N = 1482; ;~ = 46.0; a = 18.7; c.o.v. = 0.41
'damage factor' incorporates several relationships between
average daily truck traffic, desired design life, ratio of actual
22.~ vehicle to design vehicle weights, and Miner's hypothesis of
damage. A fuller description of the reasoning used is given
¢- 20 elsewhere, l° but the above was the basis for the latest
O TM fatigue provisions for the steel design portion of the
AASHTO Specifications.
15 In Figure 11, it is seen that by far the greatest amount of
E damage is done by the heavily loaded, but still legal vehicles
~ ~o of 60 to 80 kips gross loading. Figure 11 is based on the
composite truck weight histogram shown in Figure 10.
"6 5 It is not the purpose of this paper to dwell on fatigue
problems, except by way of coming around to the question
of what is the proper fatigue loading spectrum to be used
0 510 20 30 40 50 6 0 7 0 BO 90 100
Truck weights, (kips)
16
Figure 8 Truck-weight histogram constructed from east-bound
weighing data obtained from Westport (solid line) and adjusted values
for Bridgeport test site (broken line)
Y
weights obtained are not really representative of day-in,
day-out traffic, because the illegally overloaded truck
drivers soon learn about the tests and then take an alternate F --m
route to go around the test site. The only way to avoid this cr
is to monitor weights all the time, and some States are doing u_
this with built-in weighing stations. There is also considerable
research and testing going on worldwide on equipment and
schemes for weighing trucks in motion, most of them with
pavement platforms of one kind or another, but some of
them are also using the bridge as the weighing mechanism. 6-9 i
Many of the schemes are workable and in the next few 10 20 3O 40 50 60 70 80 90 1OO
years, much more attention will be paid to the monitoring Gross toed, (kips)
and enforcement of loads. Figure 9 Tractor-trailer gross weight distribution from locations in
Ohio. All MR locations 2328 semi-trailers

Fatigue
The interest in the actual loads on the highways is by no 50
means just academic. Loads produce stresses and stresses,
even small ones when repeated enough times, will cause a 4C
flaw to grow and possibly even cause the rupture of a
member, but at the least, will make it necessary to spend
=z 3.0
money for crack repairs. There is increasing evidence of
fatigue crack growth in American steel highway bridges.
Often, the problem originates in secondary members in
which a relatively large initial flaw exists, possibly due to
poor fabrication practice and careless shop inspection.
Several instances of the complete fracture of a major load
2.0

10
G
carrying welded plate girder have been experienced in
recent years, caused by initial flaws in gusset plates and
% 3'0 S'0
4 '0 60 70 80 90 100
horizontal and vertical stiffeners. An even greater number Gross vehicte weight (kips)
of fatigue problems come about when flexible members Figure 10 Composite gross vehicle weights, 1970

234 Eng. Struct., 1979, V o l . 1, O c t o b e r


t.8
1.6
1.4
i alized western world. However, such an upgrading of the
12
"t.
o study of the long-range consequences.
u (2) Although not treated in great detail in this paper, it is
o 1.O
O
~ 0"8
0 reference should again be made to the fatigue damage curve
06
o4f
O2
0-
2O 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10(D
Gross vchicNt weight, (kips)
Figure 11 Probable damage caused by various truck weights
for the design of highway bridges. The AASHTO Bridge
Specifications have a definite difference in fatigue design
philosophy between concrete and steel bridges.
In concrete structures, the specification writers seem not
to want to tolerate any hint of fatigue problems in the
reinforcement in that the allowable live load design stress
range has been set high above (near 21 ksi, depending
somewhat on minimum stress and reinforcement deforma-
tions) and damaging fatigue loading likely to be experienced
in the expected life of the structure. (This lbhilosophy seems
to work, in that to the best of the author's knowledge, there
have been no instances of fatigue ruptured reinforcing bars
on highway bridges.)
In the steel design portion of the specifications, the
elaborate table presented relates geometric details to
allowable stresses and to the repetitive number of these
allowable stresses, which were derived as shown above.
It is clearly evident that the steel fatigue design specifi-
cations concerning allowable stresses are much closer to
what actual bridge members experience daily, when com-
pared to the reinforcement in concrete structures. For
instance, the allowable fatigue stresses in concrete reinforce-
ment, when compared to those for steel members, would say
that for over 2 000 000 cycles of loading, one should not
allow any detail lower than type B. It appears that some
re-thinking of the AASHTO fatigue specifications may be in
order.
Summary and conclusions
For the most part, this paper presents a comparison of the
AASHTO design live loadings with various other loading
situations. Comparisons are made with some European
design live loads with native and foreign legal loads, normal
permit overloads, and abnormal permit loads. The results of
a bridge load rating exercise are presented. Some actual
bridge load histograms are given, as well as a more compre-
hensive composite histogram from 1970. Fatigue loadings
and damage are discussed in the light of actual and design
loadings.
Highway bridge Ioadings: C. F. Galambos
Based on these thoughts on highway loadings, the
following conclusions and recommendations are offered:
(I) It would seem that it is time to increase the AASHTO
HS design loadings. There is something disquieting about
having the lowest comparative design load in the industri-
loading should not be done without a thorough economic
believed that considerable benefits in terms of longer
pavement and bridge life would result from a universal and
strict enforcement of legal allowable loads. In this respect,
o f Figure 11. This curve does not show the influence of
illegal loads.
(3) Considerable improvements are yet to be made in the
process of the load rating of bridges. It is believed that some
standard load testing vehicle and scheme can be a very good
tool in the rating process, especially when used in con-
junction with bridge replacement priority settings.
(4) In light of the considerable variation in actual live loads
and the lack of enforcement of legal loads in some jurisdic-
tions, it would seem counter-productive to further refine the
fatigue live load design provisions for steel bridges. It may,
in fact, be more prudent in the long run to avoid fatigue
problems as much as possible and imitate the concrete
provisions of the specifications.
A final note is added to the policy makers charged with
the establishment of highway bridge design and allowable
loads. The time is past when each mode of transportation
such as highways, railways and canals can independently set
its own limits on sizes and weights. Transportation of goods
and people has become highly interchangeable between modes
and any changes in weight limits must be made with the
coordination and cooperation of all the affected sectors of
transportation.
References
1 'Standard Specification for Highway Bridges' (Twelfth edn),
1977, American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials, Washington, D.C.20004
2 Manualfor Maintenance Inspection of Bridges (Second edn),
June 1974, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
3 'Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of Existing Road
Bridges, Report of Committee CM-2', OECD, Paris, France.
(To be published in 1979)
4 'Standard Plans for Highway Bridges Volume II, Structural
Steel Superstructures', Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C.20590, April 1968
5 Bakht, B. and Csagoly, P. F. 'Testing of Perley Bridge, Ontario',
Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Research and
Development Division, Rep. RR 207, January 1977
6 'Weighin Motion Instrumentation', Rep. No. FHWA-RD-78-81,
Moses, F. and Kriss, M., Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C. 20590, June 1978
7 FothergiU, J. W. et al. 'Feasibility of Utilizing Highway Bridges
to Weigh Vehicles in Motion', Volume I, Rep. No. FHWA-RD-
75-33, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
November 1974
8 Moses,F. and Goble, G. 'Feasibility of Utilizing Highway
Bridges to Weigh Vehicles in Motion', Volume lI, Report No.
FHWA RD 75-34, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., October 1974
9 Siegel,H. J. 'Feasibility of Utilizing Highway Bridges to Weigh
Vehicles in Motion', Volume III, Rep. No. FHWA RD 75-35,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., November
1974
10 Fisher,J. W. 'Bridge Fatigue Guide - Design Details', American
Institute of Steel Construction, New York, N.Y. 10020
Eng. Struct., 1979, Vol. 1, October 235