LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3

Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

material yield stress. The effects of fatigue are based on the following
considerations:

• The type and quality of the structural detail

• The magnitude of the stress range
• The number of applications (or cycles) of this stress range

3.4.4.1 Magnitude and Configuration

Since most trucks have a weight less than the design vehicular load, it would be
excessively conservative to use the HL-93 loading previously described for fatigue
load. Therefore for fatigue load, AASHTO uses the design truck with the following
adjustments:

• The axle spacing between the two 32-kip axles is a constant 30 feet.
• The fatigue truck is placed in only one lane.

The fatigue load is illustrated in Figure 3.4.4.1-1.

8 Kips 32 Kips 32 Kips

14'-0" 30'-0"

Figure 3.4.4.1-1 Fatigue Load

3.4.4.2 Frequency

In addition to the actual loading, the number of cycles also influences the fatigue
design of a bridge. In the absence of more accurate traffic data, the average daily
truck traffic (ADTT) for a single lane may be computed as follows:

3.19
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

ADTTSL = p(ADTT ) Equation 3.4.4.2-1

AASHTO LRFD Equation 3.6.1.4.2-1

where:
ADTTSL = number of trucks per day in a single lane averaged over the design
life
p = fraction of traffic in a single lane (see Table 3.4.4.2-1)
ADTT = number of trucks per day in one direction averaged over the design
life

Table 3.4.4.2-1 Fraction of Truck Traffic in a Single Lane, p

(Based on AASHTO LRFD Table 3.6.1.4.2-1)
Number of Lanes Available to Trucks P
1 1.00
2 0.85
3 or more 0.80

In the above equation, the ADTT can usually be obtained from the Owner. However,
if ADTT data is not available, then the ADTT can be estimated based on the average
daily traffic (ADT) and the fraction of truck traffic to total traffic. This fraction can vary
widely, depending on the type of roadway crossing the bridge and the location of the
bridge. If more accurate data is not available, the fractions presented in Table
3.4.4.2-2 can be used. The ADTT can be estimated by multiplying the ADT by the
fraction presented in Table 3.4.4.2-2. It should be noted that the number of stress
cycles does not affect the fatigue load but rather the fatigue resistance.

Table 3.4.4.2-2 Fraction of Trucks in Traffic

(Based on AASHTO LRFD Table C3.6.1.4.2-1)
Class of Highway Fraction of Trucks in Traffic
Rural Interstate 0.20
Urban Interstate 0.15
Other Rural 0.15
Other Urban 0.10

3.4.4.3 Load Distribution for Fatigue

For bridges analyzed by any refined method, a single fatigue truck is placed on the
bridge deck, both longitudinally and transversely, without regard to the location of the
striped lanes or design lanes on the deck, such that the maximum fatigue stress
range or deflection is obtained.

3.20
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

For bridges analyzed by approximate methods, the distribution factor for one traffic
lane should be used.

3.4.4.4 Refined Design Truck for Fatigue Design of Orthotropic Decks

For orthotropic decks and wearing surfaces on orthotropic decks, the 16-kip wheel
loads are modeled as two 8-kip loads spaced 4 feet apart. This more accurately
models a modern tractor-trailer with tandem rear axles. In addition, the wheel loads
are distributed over a specified contact area of 20 inches wide by 10 inches long for
the rear wheels and 10 inches wide by 10 inches long for the front wheels. This
model better approximates the actual pressures applied from a dual tire unit. This
loading is positioned on the bridge to create the worst effect, ignoring the striped
lanes on the bridge. The design load for orthotropic decks and wearing surfaces on
orthotropic decks is presented in Figure 3.4.4.4-1.

CL 2nd Rear Axle CL 1st Rear Axle

2'-0" 2'-0" Group (32 kips) Group (32 kips) 2'-0" 2'-0"
CL Steering
Axle (8 kips)
CL Wheel Patch
3'-0"

CL Truck
6'-0"

20" x 10" 10" x 10"

3'-0"

Patch (Typ.) Front Axle

Patch (Typ.)

30'-0" 14'-0"

Figure 3.4.4.4-1 Refined Design Truck Footprint for Fatigue Design of

Orthotropic Decks

3.4.5 Design Permit Loads

In addition to the HL-93 design vehicular live load described in Section 3.4.2.1, some
bridges are also designed for permit loads. Permit loads are generally based on
oversize or overweight vehicular loads which may be applied to the bridge at some
time during the design life of the bridge. Permit loads generally result in greater
force effects than the HL-93 live load.

The federal government does not issue permits for oversize or overweight vehicles.
Instead, issuing permits is a state option. Most states require load ratings based on
permit loads to ensure that the bridge can resist the permit loads. In addition, some
states require that permit loads be considered during the design of the bridge to
ensure that the load ratings for permit loads will be sufficient.

3.21
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Each state generally has its own permit loads and permit policies. More detailed
information can be found at each state’s permitting web site or by contacting the
state permitting office by telephone.

3.4.6 Rail Transit Loads

For bridges carrying rail transit loads, or which may carry rail transit loads at some
time during its design life, the Owner must specify the characteristics of the transit
load, as well as the anticipated interaction between highway traffic and rail transit
traffic. Transit load characteristics that must be specified include the following:

• Loads
• Load distribution
• Load frequency
• Dynamic allowance
• Dimensional requirements

Regardless of the rail transit characteristics, the bridge should also be designed as a
highway bridge of the same bridge width, anticipating the potential for the exclusive
presence of highway traffic on the bridge at some time during its design life.

Railroad bridges are designed to meet the requirements of the Manual for Railway
Engineering, published by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-
Way Association (AREMA). Similarly, light rail systems are designed per other
specifications.

3.4.7 Pedestrian Loads, PL

For bridges designed for both vehicular and pedestrian load and with a sidewalk
width exceeding 2 feet, a pedestrian load, PL, of 75 pounds per square foot should
be applied to the sidewalk during design. If vehicles can mount the sidewalk, or if
the sidewalk may be removed during the design life of the bridge, then vehicular live
load should be considered on that portion of the bridge. However, vehicular live load
should not be considered concurrently with pedestrian loads on that portion of the
bridge.

If a sidewalk may be removed during the design life of the bridge, then the vehicular
live load should be applied at 1 foot from the edge of the deck for the design of the
overhang and at 2 feet from the edge of the deck for the design of all other bridge
elements, as described in Section 3.4.3.2. For such vehicular live load, dynamic
load allowance need not be considered.

3.22
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Bridges intended exclusively for pedestrian, equestrian, light maintenance vehicle,

and/or bicycle traffic should be designed in accordance with AASHTO’s LRFD Guide
Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges (AASHTO, 2009). A pedestrian
loading, PL, of 90 pounds per square foot is specified. However, pedestrian loading
is not applied to portions of the bridge that do not contribute to the force effect being
considered. In addition, dynamic load allowance should not be considered with
pedestrian loading.

3.4.8 Dynamic Load Allowance, IM

The HL-93 loading is based on a static live load applied to the bridge. However, in
reality, the live load is not static but is moving across the bridge. Since the roadway
surface on a bridge is usually not perfectly smooth and the suspension systems of
most trucks react to roadway roughness with oscillations, a dynamic load is applied
to the bridge and must also be considered with the live load. AASHTO refers to this
dynamic effect as dynamic load allowance (although it was previously referred to as
impact).

Dynamic load allowance is defined in AASHTO LRFD Article 3.2 as “an increase in
the applied static force effects to account for the dynamic interaction between the
bridge and moving vehicles.” This additional dynamic force effect is illustrated in the
generic live load response curve presented in Figure 3.4.8-1.

3.23
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Legend:
Static
Dynamic

Pdynamic
Force Effect

Pstatic

Time

Pstatic = Maximum static force effect

Pdynamic = Maximum additional dynamic force effect

Figure 3.4.8-1 Static and Dynamic Live Load Response

Referring to Figure 3.4.8-1, the dynamic load allowance is equal to:

Pdynamic
IM = Equation 3.4.8-1
Pstatic

To compute the total live load effect, including both static and dynamic effects, the
following equation is used:

PLL +I = PLL (1 + IM) Equation 3.4.8-2

where:
PLL+I = force effect due to both live load and dynamic load allowance
PLL = force effect due to live load only (without dynamic load allowance)
IM = dynamic load allowance (previously referred to as impact)

3.24
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

In previous specifications, AASHTO defined impact such that its value increased to a
maximum value of 30% as the span length decreased. However, in the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, dynamic load allowance is not a function of
span length, and its value depends only on the component and the limit state.
AASHTO currently assigns values to dynamic load allowance as presented in Table
3.4.8-1.

Table 3.4.8-1 Dynamic Load Allowance, IM

(Based on AASHTO LRFD Table 3.6.2.1-1)
Dynamic Load
Limit State
Allowance, IM
Deck Joints: All Limit States 75%
All Other Components: Fatigue and
15%
Fracture Limit State
All Other Components: All Other Limit
33%
States

Deck joints have a greater dynamic load allowance because the hammering effect of
the passing vehicles is more significant for deck joints than for other components,
such as girders, beams, bearings, and columns.

Dynamic load allowance should not be applied to the following loads:

• Centrifugal force
• Braking force
• Pedestrian load
• Design lane load (dynamic load allowance is applied to the design truck and
design tandem but not to the design lane load)

In addition, there are several bridge components for which dynamic load allowance
should not be applied, including the following:

• Retaining walls not subject to vertical reactions from the superstructure

• Foundation components that are entirely below ground level
• Wood components
• Any other components identified by the specific agency governing the bridge
design

3.25
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.4.9 Centrifugal Force, CE

3.4.9.1 General

Vehicular centrifugal force is defined as a lateral force resulting from a change in the
direction of a vehicle’s movement (AASHTO LRFD Article 3.6.3). Centrifugal forces
are to be applied horizontally at a distance 6.0 feet above the roadway surface. A
load path to carry the radial forces to the substructure must be provided.

Centrifugal force is applied to the design truck or tandem and to the fatigue live load.
However, centrifugal force is not required to be applied to the design lane load, since
the spacing of the vehicles in the design lane load at high speed is assumed to be
large, resulting in a low density of vehicles preceding and/or following the design
truck or tandem. At the strength and service limit states, the design lane load is still
considered even though centrifugal force effects are not applied. Permit loads may
also not be expected to reach design speeds, so centrifugal force effects may not
need to be considered for these loads, at the Owner’s discretion.

Force effects with centrifugal force included should be compared to force effects
without centrifugal force included, and the worst case should be selected.

Vehicular centrifugal force is computed using the following equation:

v2
C=f Equation 3.4.9.1-1
gR
AASHTO LRFD Equation 3.6.3-1

where:
f = 4/3 for load combinations other than fatigue, and 1.0 for fatigue
v = highway design speed in ft/sec (1.0 ft/sec = 0.682 mph)
g = gravitational acceleration (= 32.2 ft/sec2)
R = radius of curvature of traffic lane in feet

The factor, C, is multiplied by the total of the axle weights of the design truck, design
tandem, or fatigue live load, as applicable.

The HL-93 design vehicular live load specified as a combination of the design truck
and design lane load represents a group of exclusion vehicles that produce force
effects of at least 4/3 of those caused by the design truck alone on short-span or
medium-span bridges. Therefore, this ratio is introduced in AASHTO LRFD at the
strength and service limit states through the use of the factor, f, in the equation for C.

3.26
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

The factor, f, is set to 1.0 at the fatigue limit state, consistent with cumulative
damage analysis.

The highway design speed, v, is to be taken not less than the value specified in the
most current edition of the AASHTO publication, A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 2011).

Centrifugal force causes an overturning effect on the wheel loads because the radial
force is applied 6.0 feet above the top of the deck. Therefore, the centrifugal force
tends to increase the vertical wheel loads toward the outside of the bridge and
decrease the wheel loads toward the inside of the bridge. The net result is that the
outermost girder will receive slightly greater load and the innermost girder will
receive slightly less load. This effect is illustrated in Figure 3.4.9.1-1.

C*W

s h cos
h

Pt. A

s cos
RCL RCR
Superelevation = 5%

Figure 3.4.9.1-1 Vehicular Centrifugal Force Wheel-Load Reactions

The wheel-load reactions, RCL and RCR, due to centrifugal force are computed by
summing moments about Point A, as follows:

h cos θ
RCL = −RCR = (C * W ) Equation 3.4.9.1-2
s 
2 cos θ
2 

3.27
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

where W is equal to the axle weight. Whenever the wheel spacing, s, is equal to the
height at which the radial force is applied above the deck, h (which is typically the
case), the equal and opposite wheel-load reactions, RCL and –RCR, are simply equal
to C multiplied by W. That is, the superelevation has no effect.

However, superelevation helps to balance the effects of the overturning moment due
to the centrifugal force. AASHTO LRFD Article 3.6.3 permits this beneficial effect to
be considered in the computation of the wheel-load reactions due to centrifugal
force, as shown in Figure 3.4.9.1-2.

W
s
h
h sin

RSL s cos
RSR
Superelevation = 5%

Figure 3.4.9.1-2 Effects of Superelevation on Wheel-Load Reactions

The wheel-load reactions, RSL and RSR, due to superelevation are computed by
summing moments about the left wheel, as follows:

s 
 2 cos θ + h sin θ * W
RSR =  Equation 3.4.9.1-3
s cos θ

RSL = 1.0W − RSR Equation 3.4.9.1-4

If the superelevation is significant, the design engineer may wish to consider its
effect for the case with no centrifugal force effects included (that is, a stationary

3.28
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

vehicle), since the superelevation will cause an increase in the vertical wheel loads
toward the inside of the bridge and an unloading of the vertical wheel loads toward
the outside of the bridge, which may potentially be a more critical case for the interior
girders. However, since the vehicle is assumed to be stationary, the dynamic load
allowance should not be included in this case.

3.4.9.2 Unit Wheel-Load Factors

For refined analyses, unit wheel-load factors can be computed based on the sum of
the wheel-load reactions due to the centrifugal force and superelevation effects, as
shown in Figure 3.4.9.2-1.

Unit Wheel
Load Factors: FL FR

Figure 3.4.9.2-1 Unit Wheel-Load Factors due to the Combined Effects of

Centrifugal Force and Superelevation

The left and right unit wheel-load factors, FL and FR, are computed as follows:

RCL + RSL
FL = 2.0 Equation 3.4.9.2-1
W

RCR + RSR
FR = 2.0 Equation 3.4.9.2-2
W

The sum of FL and FR must equal 2.0. The factors can be used to increase and
decrease accordingly the wheel loads that are applied in the analysis.

3.29
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

For approximate analyses in which a line girder methodology is used, it is

recommended that a “pile-group analogy” be used to determine the vertical loads
acting on each girder resulting from the overturning moment due to centrifugal force
effects. The moment that can be balanced by any superelevation may be
considered in this approach. This methodology is illustrated in Section 3.4.9.4.

The entire horizontal centrifugal force, C*W, is assumed to be carried to the bridge
bearings though transverse bending of the deck slab and transverse shear in the
support cross-frames. No particular account need be taken of the horizontal effect of
centrifugal force on the bridge superstructure, except that the support cross-frame
diagonals should be adequately proportioned to deliver the load to the bearings.

Dynamic load allowance is not to be applied to the force effects due to vehicular
centrifugal force. The load factor to be applied to the force effects due to centrifugal
force in the various strength, service, and fatigue load combinations is the same as
for the design vehicular live load.

3.4.9.3 Centrifugal Force Design Example

A curved I-girder bridge has a horizontal curve with a radius of 700 feet along the
centerline of the bridge. The highway design speed, v, is 35 mph, and the deck
cross slope (superelevation) is 5%. Compute the unit wheel-load factors for the
combined effects of centrifugal force and superelevation to apply in a refined
analysis to determine the vehicular live load force effects at the strength and service
limit states.

The first step in this design example is to compute the value of C, as follows:

v 2  4  (35 0.682)
2
C=f =  = 0.156
gR  3  (32.2)(700)

Note that to compute the unit wheel-load factors for the fatigue limit state, the 4/3
factor should be changed to 1.0 in the preceding equation. This results in a C value
of 0.117.

The next step is to compute the wheel-load reactions, RCL and RCR, due to
centrifugal force effects. Since the wheel spacing, s, and the height at which the
radial force is applied above the deck, h, are both equal to 6.0 feet, the equal and
opposite wheel-load reactions, RCL and –RCR, are simply equal to C multiplied by W,
as illustrated below.

3.30
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

h cos θ
RCL = −RCR = (C * W ) = C * W = 0.156W
s 
2 cos θ
2 

This is an upward reaction for the left wheel and an equal and opposite downward
reaction for the right wheel.

Next, the effect of superelevation on the individual wheel-load reactions is computed

as follows:

θ = tan−1(0.05) = 2.86°

s   6 ft  
 2 cos θ + h sin θ * W  2  cos(2.86°) + (6 ft ) sin(2.86°) * W
RSR =  =    = 0.550 W
s cos θ (6 ft ) cos(2.86°)
RSL = 1.0 W − RSR = 1.0 W − 0.550 W = 0.450 W

Unit wheel-load factors due to the combined effects of centrifugal force and
superelevation are then computed as follows:

RCL + RSL 0.156 W + 0.450 W

FL = 2.0 = 2.0 = 1.212
W W

RCR + RSR − 0.156 W + 0.550 W

FR = 2.0 = 2.0 = 0.788
W W

FL and FR represent the factors that must be multiplied by the left wheel load and the
right wheel load, respectively, in the analysis to take into account the combined
effects of both centrifugal force and superelevation. FL and FR are unitless, and their
sum is always equal to 2.0.

If no centrifugal force and no superelevation are present, then both FL and FR equal
1.0. That is, both the left wheel load and the right wheel load are simply 1.0 times
the weight of the wheel. The sum of FL and FR is again 2.0.

Force effects from the analysis due to cases with centrifugal force effects included
(i.e., utilizing unit wheel-load factors FL equal to 1.212 and FR equal to 0.788) are
compared to force effects due to cases with no centrifugal force included (i.e.,
utilizing unit wheel-load factors FL and FR equal to 1.0), and the worst case is
selected.

3.31
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

From separate computations similar to the above, the unit wheel-load factors, FL and
FR, for the example bridge at the fatigue limit state are 1.134 and 0.866, respectively.

3.4.9.4 Pile-group Analogy Design Example

For the same example I-girder bridge, compute the vertical loads on the girders due
to the overturning moment caused by centrifugal force and superelevation utilizing a
pile-group analogy. The computation will be done for the determination of the live
load force effects at the strength and service limit states. The bridge cross section is
shown in Figure 3.4.9.4-1.

Figure 3.4.9.4-1 Example I-Girder Bridge Cross Section

As previously computed, the value of C at the strength and service limit states is
15.6% (0.156*100). However, the value of C is balanced by the superelevation, as
illustrated in Figure 3.4.9.4-2. If K is defined as the fraction of W that is balanced by
superelevation (that is, producing equal wheel reactions), then K can be computed
by summing moments about Point A, as follows. (By inspection, the moments at
Point A due to the reactions at the two wheels cancel one another.)

W (h sin θ) − K * W (h cos θ) = Moment Po int A =0

W (h sin θ) = K * W (h cos θ)

W h sin θ sin θ
K= = = tan θ = Superelevation
W h cos θ cos θ

3.32
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Therefore, it can be seen that the fraction of W that can be balanced by

superelevation is equal numerically to the superelevation rate.

K*W

W
h cos

h
h sin

KW/2 Pt. A
KW/2
W/2
W/2
Superelevation = 5%

Figure 3.4.9.4-2 Centrifugal Force Balanced by Superelevation

Therefore, for this design example, the value of centrifugal force (15.6%) is balanced
by the superelevation (5.0%), as follows:

C = Ccentrifugal force − Csuperelevation = 15.6% − 5.0% = 10.6%

Thus, 10.6 percent of the centrifugal force remains to produce an overturning

moment about the mid-depth of the slab. With three design lanes of live load
permissible on the bridge, the centrifugal force in terms of lanes is computed as:

CF = (0.106)(3 lanes) = 0.318 lanes

A “pile-group analogy” can then be used to determine the vertical loads acting on
each girder resulting from the overturning moment due to centrifugal force and
superelevation effects. The “moment of inertia” of the four girders treated as piles is
computed as follows:

Ipile group = 2 {[(0.5)(11.0 feet )]

2 2
}
+ [(1.5 )(11.0 feet )] = 605 feet 2

3.33
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

The moment arm for the centrifugal force is computed from the location of the
centrifugal force, 6.0 feet above the top of the deck, to the deck mid-depth, as
follows:

6.0 feet 0.75 feet

Moment arm = + = 6.38 feet
cos (2.86°) 2

The computation of the moment arm is illustrated in Figure 3.4.9.4-3.

C*W

h / cos

Moment arm
h

tdeck / 2

Superelevation = 5%

Figure 3.4.9.4-3 Computation of Moment Arm

The vertical load on the left exterior girder, G4, is then computed as follows, similar
to the computation of a pile load in a pile group:

CFLoad on G 4 =
(0.318 lanes)(6.38 feet )(1.5)(11.0 feet ) = 0.055 lanes
605 feet 2

Similarly, the vertical load on the left interior girder, G3, is computed as follows:

CFLoad on G3 =
(0.318 lanes)(6.38 feet )(0.5)(11.0 feet ) = 0.018 lanes
605 feet 2

The CF vertical loads on the two right girders, G1 and G2, can conservatively be
assumed to be zero since the CF vertical loads would be upward and would be
subtracted from all other vertical loads. This is equivalent to the case in which live
load is present on the bridge but is not moving.

3.34
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.4.10 Braking Force, BR

When a truck decelerates or stops on a bridge, a longitudinal force is transmitted to

the bridge deck, which is also transmitted to the substructure units with fixed
bearings. This longitudinal force is known as the braking force.

The braking force is specified by AASHTO as the greater of either:

• 25 percent of the axle weights of the design truck or design tandem

• 5 percent of the design truck plus lane load, or 5 percent of the design
tandem plus lane load

The 25% factor is derived using the following kinetic energy formula:

 v2 
FB =  W = bW Equation 3.4.10-1
 2ga 

where:
FB = braking force
v = initial truck velocity (assumed to be 55 mph)
g = gravitational acceleration (= 32.2 ft/sec2)
a = length of uniform deceleration (assumed to be 400 feet)
W = truck weight
b = braking value

Substituting the assumed values into the above equation leads to a value for b of
approximately 25%.

AASHTO specifies that the braking force is to be based on all lanes which are
considered to be loaded and which are carrying traffic in the same direction. For
bridges which may become one-directional in the future, all lanes should be loaded.
In addition, the appropriate multiple presence factor should be applied in the braking
force computations.

The braking force is applied 6.0 feet above the roadway surface, and it acts
longitudinally in whichever direction causes the maximum force effects.

3.4.11 Vehicular Collision Force, CT

In the design of decks and overhangs, a vehicular collision force must be

considered. Vehicular collision force is described in AASHTO LRFD Article 3.6.5,
and deck and overhang design is described in Chapter 7 of this Reference Manual.

3.35
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

For crash tests on barriers, AASHTO specifies six different test levels. These six
test levels are based on NCHRP Report 350, “Recommended Procedures for the
Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features” (Ross, 1993). They are
summarized in Table 3.4.11-1.

Table 3.4.11-1 Bridge Railing Test Levels

(Adapted from AASHTO LRFD Article 13.7.2)
Name Abbreviation Description
Test Level One TL-1 Generally acceptable for work zones with low
posted speeds and very low volume, low speed
local streets
Test Level Two TL-2 Generally acceptable for work zones and most
local and collector roads with favorable site
conditions as well as where a small number of
heavy vehicles is expected and posted speeds are
reduced
Test Level Three TL-3 Generally acceptable for a wide range of high-
speed arterial highways with very low mixtures of
heavy vehicles and with favorable site conditions
Test Level Four TL-4 Generally acceptable for the majority of
applications on high speed highways, freeways,
expressways, and interstate highways with a
mixture of trucks and heavy vehicles
Test Level Five TL-5 Generally acceptable for the same applications as
TL-4 and where large trucks make up a significant
portion of the average daily traffic or when
unfavorable site conditions justify a higher level of
rail resistance
Test Level Six TL-6 Generally acceptable for applications where
tanker-type trucks or similar high center-of-gravity
vehicles are anticipated, particularly along with
unfavorable site conditions

For each test level, barriers are available that have been tested to verify their
conformance with specific performance requirements. Additional information about
vehicular collision forces and bridge railings is presented in AASHTO LRFD Section
13. The crash test criteria for the various bridge railing test levels are presented in
AASHTO LRFD Article 13.7.2.

The user agency is responsible to determine which of the above test levels is most
appropriate for the bridge site. For most interstates, TL-4 generally satisfies the
design requirements. For each test level, AASHTO specifies vehicular collision force

3.36
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

requirements that the bridge railing must satisfy. These vehicular collision force
requirements include the following:

• Weight of vehicle, W
• Out-to-out wheel spacing on an axle, B
• Height of vehicle center of gravity above the bridge deck, G
• Angle of vehicular impact (as measured from the face of the railing), θ

The first three variables are illustrated in Figure 3.4.11-1.

B/2 Center of
Gravity

Figure 3.4.11-1 Vehicular Collision Force

The AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) is the new state of the
practice for the crash testing of safety hardware devices for use on the National
Highway System (NHS). MASH updates and replaces NCHRP Report 350. All new
testing will be done following MASH evaluation techniques. However, hardware
accepted under NCHRP Report 350 is appropriate for replacement and new
installation, and retesting is not required. Effective January 1, 2011, all new
products must be tested using MASH crash test criteria for use on the NHS. The
need for updated crash test criteria was based primarily on changes in the vehicle
fleet. Vehicles have increased in size and light truck bumper heights have risen
since the NCHRP Report 350 criteria were adopted in 1993.

Section 3.5 Wind Loads

Wind loads represent the typical wind conditions of the local area where the bridge is
being constructed. Only exposed surfaces are subject to direct application of wind
loads, and different wind load cases exist for wind on structure, wind on live load,

3.37
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

wind on construction equipment, and wind in the vertical direction. Load

combinations vary in their load factors for application of wind loads, the desired wind
speed, and its effects on live load. In general, smaller structures are not controlled
by wind effects, but larger structures with more exposed surfaces can be controlled
by wind load.

3.5.1 Horizontal Wind Pressure

3.5.1.1 General

The base design wind velocity, VB, as specified by AASHTO is 100 miles per hour.
This represents a conservative estimate of the highest wind speeds that a structure
will experience over the design life of the structure. The wind pressure load from this
horizontal wind is applied to all exposed surfaces when the structure is viewed in
elevation, perpendicular to the direction of the wind. All girders, decks, attachments,
and other structural components which are exposed in elevation are subject to the
same uniform wind pressure. Any analysis of wind loads should include multiple
attack angles to determine from which direction wind causes the greatest force
effect.

For bridges or parts of bridges more than 30.0 feet above low ground or water level,
the base wind velocity is modified using the following equation from AASHTO LRFD
Article 3.8.1.1.

V   Z 
VDZ = 2.5V0  30 ln  Equation 3.5.1.1-1
 VB   Z 0 
AASHTO LRFD Equation 3.8.1.1-1

where:
VDZ = design wind velocity at design elevation, Z (mph)
V0 = friction velocity, see Table 3.5.1.1-1
V30 = wind velocity at 30.0 feet above low ground or design water level (mph)
VB = base wind velocity, 100 mph
Z = height of structure above low ground or water level at which wind loads
are being calculated, > 30.0 (feet)
Z0 = friction length, see Table 3.5.1.1-1

The values of V0 and Z0 are determined based on meteorological effects

corresponding with the surrounding land conditions of the bridge. The descriptions
of these land features are paraphrased from ASCE 7-93 in AASHTO LRFD and are
as follows:

3.38
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

• Open country – Open terrain with scattered obstructions with heights

generally less than 30.0 feet. This category includes flat, open plains and
grasslands.
• Suburban – Urban and suburban areas, wooded areas, or other terrain with
many closely spaced obstructions with the size of a single-family dwelling or
larger dwellings. The suburban category is used only if the terrain type
extends for 1,500 feet or greater in the prevailing upwind direction from the
bridge structure.
• City – Large city centers with at least half the buildings having a height in
excess of 70.0 feet. The city category is used only if the terrain type extends
for one-half mile or greater in the prevailing upwind direction from the bridge
structure. In addition to typical wind loads, possible channeling effects and
increased wind velocities due to the bridge being located in the wake of larger
structures should be considered in the analysis of wind loads.

Once the terrain type is determined, V0 and Z0 are selected from AASHTO LRFD
Table 3.8.1.1-1, shown here as Table 3.5.1.1-1.

Table 3.5.1.1-1 Values of V0 and Z0 for Various Upstream Surface Conditions

Open
Condition Suburban City
Country
V0 (mph) 8.20 10.90 12.00

Z0 (feet) 0.23 3.28 8.20

The value of V30 may be established by the following criteria, as presented in

AASHTO LRFD Article 3.8.1.1:

• Fastest-mile-of-wind charts available in ASCE 7-88 (ASCE, 1988) for various

recurrence intervals
• Site-specific wind surveys
• In the absence of better criterion, the assumption that V30 = VB = 100 mph

3.5.1.1.1 Calculation of Design Wind Velocity Design Example

For this example, assume a bridge structure 40.0 feet in height above the design
water level. The structure is located in an area where wooded terrain prevails for at
least two miles in all directions. From ASCE 7-88 (ASCE, 1988), the fastest-mile-of-
wind is 115 mph for the area in which the bridge is located.

3.39
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Based on the definitions and principles presented in Section 3.5.1.1, the bridge is
located in a suburban environment, and the design wind velocity is computed as
follows:

 115   40.0 
VDZ = 2.5(10.90) ln  = 78.4 mph
 100   3.28 

3.5.1.2 Wind Pressure on Structures, WS

The load case for horizontal wind on structures, WS, is based on the design wind
speed and given base wind pressures, in the absence of more precise local
information. The information shown in Table 3.5.1.2-1 is taken from AASHTO LRFD
Table 3.8.1.2.1-1 and is used to determine the horizontal wind pressure force.

Table 3.5.1.2-1 Base Pressures, PB, Corresponding to VB = 100 mph

Superstructure Windward Leeward
Component Load, ksf Load, ksf
Trusses, Columns, 0.050 0.025
and Arches
Beams 0.050 N/A

Large Flat Surfaces 0.040 N/A

The wind pressure can then be calculated using the following equation:

2 2
V  V
PD = PB  DZ  = PB DZ Equation 3.5.1.2-1
 VB  10,000
AASHTO LRFD Equation 3.8.1.2.1-1

As a limit, the total wind load on windward chords of trusses and arches, and on
beams and girders, cannot be less than 0.30 klf. The total wind load on leeward
chords of trusses and arches cannot be less than 0.15 klf.

Various angles of attack for wind direction should be investigated to determine which
produces the worst case response in the bridge structure. The angle of attack
should be determined as the skew angle from a perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
of the member in question. For various standard angles of attack, the value of base
pressure, PB, will vary as shown in Table 3.5.1.2-2, taken from AASHTO LRFD Table
3.8.1.2.2-1.

3.40
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Table 3.5.1.2-2 Base Wind Pressures, PB, for Various Angles of Attack and VB
= 100 mph
Trusses, Columns, and
Girders
Arches
Skew Angle Lateral Longitudinal Lateral Longitudinal
of Wind Load Load Load Load
(Degrees) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf) (ksf)
0 0.075 0.000 0.050 0.000
15 0.070 0.012 0.044 0.006
30 0.065 0.028 0.041 0.012
45 0.047 0.041 0.033 0.016
60 0.024 0.050 0.017 0.019

For both lateral loads and longitudinal loads, the wind pressure should be applied to
the centroid of a single plane of exposed area (generally based on the elevation view
of the bridge). As shown in Table 3.5.1.2-2, the lateral load has a maximum value
and the longitudinal load is zero for a skew angle of 0 degrees (perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the bridge). As the skew angle increases, the longitudinal load
increases and the lateral load decreases. The pressures for lateral loads and
longitudinal loads are to be applied simultaneously.

For girder and slab bridges with an individual span length of 125 feet or less and a
maximum height of 30.0 feet above low ground or water level, a wind loading of
0.050 ksf in the transverse direction and 0.012 ksf in the longitudinal direction can be
applied simultaneously.

3.5.1.3 Wind Pressure on Vehicles, WL

In addition to the wind loads that are applied to all exposed surfaces of bridge
superstructures, wind also affects the exposed surfaces of live load traffic passing
over the bridge. Wind pressure on vehicles is designated as WL. The pressure
exerted on a superstructure due to the wind on live load is consistent with the
assumptions made in the determination of limit states and load combinations.
Specifically, at wind speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour, the amount of traffic that
would be present on the structure at one time is significantly reduced.

The WL load consists of an uninterruptible, moving force of 0.10 klf acting normal to
the roadway, located 6.0 feet above the roadway. For any situation in which an
attack angle other than normal to the lane has been found to be the controlling wind
direction, WL should be taken as shown in Table 3.5.1.3-1, which is taken from
AASHTO LRFD Table 3.8.1.3-1.

3.41
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Table 3.5.1.3-1 Wind Components on Live Load

Skew Normal Parallel
Angle Component Component
(Degrees) (klf) (klf)
0 0.100 0.000
15 0.088 0.012
30 0.082 0.024
45 0.066 0.032
60 0.034 0.038

For girder and slab bridges with an individual span length of 125 feet or less and a
maximum height of 30.0 feet above low ground or water level, a wind on live load of
0.10 klf in the transverse direction and 0.04 klf in the longitudinal direction can be
applied simultaneously.

3.5.2 Vertical Wind Pressure

For load combinations in which wind on live load is not considered, and uplift of the
structure is potentially a problem, vertical wind pressure may generate loads that
need to be considered. This load type is considered to be a 0.020 ksf upward force
for all wind speeds, but only when the wind direction is taken to be perpendicular to
the bridge structure. The area of effect for vertical wind pressure includes the width
of all deck surfaces, parapets, and sidewalks. Vertical wind pressure is considered
to be a longitudinal line load, and it is applied at the windward quarterpoint of the
deck width in conjunction with the horizontal wind loads specified in Section 3.5.1.

Section 3.6 Seismic Loads

Bridges are designed for seismic loads such that they have a low probability of
collapse or total failure due to a seismic event. However, they may suffer significant
damage or disruption due to earthquake ground motions. Partial or complete
replacement may be required following a seismic event.

AASHTO LRFD Article 3.10 specifies the design requirements for seismic loads.
The design earthquake motions and forces are based on a low probability of being
exceeded during the normal design life of a bridge. The AASHTO LRFD
requirements for seismic design specify seismic resistance within the elastic range of
the structural components without significant damage from small to moderate
earthquakes. In addition, large earthquakes should not cause collapse of all or part
of the bridge, and damage should be easily detectable and accessible for inspection
and repair.

3.42
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

The general procedure for seismic design uses the peak ground acceleration
coefficient (PGA) and the short-period and long-period spectral acceleration
coefficients (Ss and S1, respectively). These values can be obtained using a series
of maps with contour lines presented in AASHTO LRFD Figures 3.10.2.1-1 through
3.10.2.1-21.

The calculation of seismic design forces is dependent on the seismic zone in which
the bridge is located. Seismic Zone 1 represents the zone with the least potential for
significant seismic loads, and seismic analysis for bridges in Zone 1 is generally not
required. Default values for minimum design forces are specified in AASHTO LRFD
Article 3.10.9 in lieu of rigorous analysis. At the other extreme, Seismic Zone 4
represents the zone with the greatest potential for significant seismic loads. Bridges
located in Zone 4 require seismic analysis.

More detailed information about seismic loads is presented in AASHTO LRFD Article
3.10.

In addition to AASHTO LRFD, AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic

Bridge Design covers seismic design for typical bridge types. It applies to non-
critical and non-essential bridges. It is approved as an alternate to the seismic
provisions in AASHTO LRFD, and it differs from the current procedures in AASHTO
LRFD in the use of displacement-based design procedures instead of the traditional
force-based R-Factor method. It includes detailed guidance and commentary on
earthquake-resisting elements and systems, global design strategies, demand
modeling, resistance calculation, and liquefaction effects. It also includes
prescriptive detailing for plastic hinging regions and design requirements for
protection of those elements that should not experience damage.

Section 3.7 Force Effects Due to Superimposed Deformations

3.7.1 General

In addition to forces caused by applied loads, bridges must also be designed to

resist forces due to superimposed deformations. The following force effects must be
considered during bridge design where appropriate:

• Uniform temperature, TU
• Temperature gradient, TG
• Creep, CR
• Differential shrinkage, SH
• Settlement, SE
• Secondary forces from post-tensioning, PS

3.43
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.7.2 Uniform Temperature, TU

The first force effect due to superimposed deformations that must be considered in
bridge design is uniform temperature change, in which the entire superstructure
changes temperature by a constant amount. Uniform temperature change causes
the entire superstructure to lengthen due to temperature rise or shorten due to
temperature fall. In addition, if the supports are constrained, uniform temperature
change induces reactions at the bearings and forces in the corresponding
substructure units. Uniform temperature change is illustrated in Figure 3.7.2-1.

ΔT L

Figure 3.7.2-1 Uniform Temperature Change

As depicted in Figure 3.7.2-1, the entire superstructure changes in length when

subjected to a uniform temperature change. The magnitude of the change in length,
∆T, is a function of:

• Material properties
• Temperature change
• Expansion length

This relationship is expressed mathematically as follows:

Δ T = α L (TMaxDesign − TMinDesign ) Equation 3.7.2-1

AASHTO LRFD Equation 3.12.2.3-1

where:
∆Τ = design thermal movement range
α = coefficient of thermal expansion
L = expansion length
TMaxDesign = maximum design temperature
TMinDesign = minimum design temperature

It is important to note that the expansion length is measured to a point of fixity. The
coefficient of thermal expansion is approximately 0.0000065/˚F for steel,
0.0000060/˚F for normal weight concrete, and 0.0000050/˚F for lightweight concrete.

3.44
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

AASHTO provides two methods for determining the minimum and maximum design
temperatures. These two methods are called Procedure A and Procedure B. Either
Procedure A or Procedure B may be used for concrete deck bridges having concrete
or steel girders. Procedure A must be used for all other bridge types.

Procedure A, which has traditionally been used by AASHTO, is based on the

temperature ranges presented in Table 3.7.2-1.

Table 3.7.2-1 Temperature Ranges

(Based on AASHTO LRFD Table 3.12.2.1-1)
Climate Steel or Aluminum Concrete Wood
Moderate 0˚F to 120˚F 10˚F to 80˚F 10˚F to 75˚F
Cold -30˚F to 120˚F 0˚F to 80˚F 0˚F to 75˚F

As used in Table 3.7.2-1, moderate climate is defined as climate in which less than
14 days have an average temperature of less than 32˚F, and cold climate is defined
as climate in which 14 or more days have an average temperature of less than 32˚F.
The temperature range for concrete is less than that for steel or aluminum, because
concrete generally has more thermal inertia than does steel or aluminum, which
makes concrete more resistant to changes in temperature.

To illustrate the application of the above table, for a steel girder in cold climate which
was constructed at 68˚F, the total design temperature range is 120˚F – (-30˚F) =
150˚F, the design temperature rise is 120˚F – 68˚F = 52˚F, and the design
temperature fall is 68˚F – (-30˚F) = 98˚F.

Procedure B was developed in 2002 and is based on contour maps which present
contour lines for the maximum and minimum design temperatures for both concrete
girder bridges and steel girder bridges. The bridge engineer can locate the bridge
site on the contour maps and determine the maximum and minimum design
temperatures to within about 10˚F, either by interpolating between contour lines or
by using the most conservative adjacent contour line.

Uniform temperature change must be considered in the design of many bridge

components, including the following:

• Deck joints
• Bearings
• Piers at which the bearings are constrained against thermal movement

For curved or skewed bridges, the bridge engineer must carefully consider the
orientation of the bearing guides and the freedom of bearing movement. Sharp

3.45
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

curvature and sharply skewed supports can cause significant lateral thermal forces
at supports if only tangential movement is permitted. In addition, for wide bridges,
lateral thermal forces must be considered in addition to longitudinal thermal forces.

3.7.3 Temperature Gradient, TG

Another type of thermal load that may need to be considered in bridge design is
temperature gradient. Past experience, Owner input, and bridge type are all factors
that should be used in determining whether temperature gradient should be
considered. When subjected to heat from the sun, the bridge deck usually heats
more than the underlying girders. Since heat causes expansion, this causes the
deck to expand more than the girders, which results in upward bending.
Temperature gradient is illustrated in Figure 3.7.3-1.

Figure 3.7.3-1 Temperature Gradient

Bridge location plays a more significant role in temperature gradient than in uniform
temperature change. Bridges located in western states are generally more sensitive
to temperature gradient than bridges located in eastern states. To assist the bridge
engineer in computing temperature gradient, AASHTO has divided the nation into
four solar radiation zones, identified as Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4. Zone 1 has the highest
gradient temperatures.

The variation in temperature throughout the depth of the superstructure is illustrated

in Figure 3.7.3-2.

3.46
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

T1

Concrete
4"

Deck
t
T2

Depth of Superstructure
Steel Girder
Structures Only

8"

T3

Figure 3.7.3-2 Positive Vertical Temperature Gradient

The value for A, as shown in Figure 3.7.3-2, depends on the superstructure material
and depth. The values for the temperatures (T1, T2, and T3) are a function of the
solar radiation zone in which the bridge is located.

When analyzing a bridge for temperature gradient, internal stresses and structure
deformations due to both positive and negative temperature gradients must be
considered.

3.7.4 Creep, CR, and Differential Shrinkage, SH

The force effects due to superimposed deformations are creep and shrinkage.
Creep is a material property in which the member continues to deform with time
under sustained loads at unit stresses within the elastic range. Shrinkage is a
material property in which the volume changes independently of the loads it

3.47
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

sustains. Both creep and shrinkage are time-dependent deformations. They may
occur concurrently, and they generally cannot be separated from each other.

Creep is generally considered only for concrete, but it can also apply to prestressed
wood decks. For shrinkage, the Engineer may specify construction requirements to
minimize stresses due to differential shrinkage between components. For both
creep and shrinkage, the load factor may be reduced to 1.0 if physical testing is
performed to establish material properties and if upper bound values are used in the
analysis.

For concrete bridges, some of the parameters that most significantly influence creep
and shrinkage are the following:

• Water-cement ratio
• Curing method
• Ambient humidity
• Aggregates
• Air content
• Age at load application

Creep and shrinkage influences both the internal stresses and the deformations of a
bridge.

3.7.4.1 Stresses

In segmental bridges, the creep and shrinkage effects on the internal stresses can
be significant, and their contribution to the final stresses must be included in the
design process. As an illustration, consider a three-span segmental bridge
constructed by the cantilever method. Moment diagrams for various conditions are
presented in Figure 3.7.4.1-1.

3.48
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Span 1 Span 2 Span 3

Moment Diagram

Legend:

Moment diagram as constructed by the cantilever method (without creep and shrinkage effects)

Moment diagram at time infinity (with creep and shrinkage effects)

Moment diagram as constructed on falsework (without creep and shrinkage effects)

Approximate representation of creep and shrinkage effects

Figure 3.7.4.1-1 Moment Diagrams for Three-span Segmental Bridge

It can be seen from Figure 3.7.4.1-1 that the forces induced by applied loads are
affected not only by the construction method but also by creep and shrinkage. The
moment diagram with forces at time infinity (with creep and shrinkage effects) is
somewhere between the moment diagrams as constructed by the cantilever method
(without creep and shrinkage effects) and as constructed on falsework (also without
creep and shrinkage effects). In other words, the final forces in the structure are
somewhere between the “cantilever-method” constructed forces and the “falsework”
constructed forces.

3.7.4.2 Deflections

In segmental bridges, the creep and shrinkage effects on the deflections can also be
significant. Their contribution to deformations must be considered when computing:

• Deformations
• Casting curves
• Camber data
• Internal stresses due to deformations

3.49
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Creep and shrinkage effects induce both stresses and deformations that affect the
internal forces on the structural system. For prestressed concrete bridges, cable-
stayed bridges, composite structures, and many other indeterminate structures,
creep and shrinkage effects can govern the design of the structural members.

3.7.5 Settlement, SE

Another force effect due to superimposed deformations is settlement. Extreme

values of differential settlements among substructure units throughout the bridge, as
well as within individual substructure units, must be considered where appropriate.

Force effects due to settlement may be reduced by considering creep. The Engineer
should consider various combinations of differential settlement, and the bridge
should be designed for the combination creating the critical force effects in the
structure.

3.7.6 Secondary Forces from Post-Tensioning, PS

Secondary forces from post-tensioning must also be considered during the design of
continuous post-tensioned bridges. For such bridges, post-tensioned forces produce
reactions at the supports and internal forces that are collectively called secondary
forces. In frame analysis software, the secondary forces are often computed by
subtracting the primary prestress forces from the total prestressing.

Section 3.8 Friction Forces, FR

Another load that must be considered in bridge design is friction forces. Friction
forces result when two elements move in relation to one another. Friction forces are
most significant in the design of bearings.

Friction forces are included in all strength, service, and extreme event load
combinations, and they are assigned a load factor of 1.00 for all load combinations.

The value of friction forces, FR, is directly related to the coefficient of friction
between the sliding surfaces and the applied force normal to the sliding surface. In
computing FR, extreme values of the coefficient of friction should be used. High and
low values of the coefficient of friction can generally be obtained from standard
textbooks. In addition, values can be determined by physical tests, especially if the
surfaces are expected to be roughened during the service life of the bridge.

The effect of moisture, possible degradation of sliding or rotating surfaces, or

possible contamination of sliding or rotating surfaces upon the coefficient of friction
should be considered where appropriate.

3.50
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Section 3.9 Blast Loading, BL

Although most bridges are not designed for blast loading, some bridges may be
vulnerable to either intentional or unintentional blast force and must be designed to
resist such a force. The value of the blast force, BL, is a function of the following
considerations:

• Size of explosive charge

• Shape of explosive charge
• Type of explosive charge
• Location of explosive charge
• Stand-off distance
• Capacities of potential modes of delivery
• Fragmentation associated with explosives delivered by vehicle

The first four considerations listed above determine the intensity of the blast force
produced by the explosive charge. Explosive charges are generally expressed in
units of equivalent TNT charge weights.

The stand-off distance is the distance from the center of the explosive charge to the
bridge element being considered. The peak pressure on the bridge element due to
an explosive charge is inversely proportional to the cube of the stand-off distance.
For example, if Location A has half the stand-off distance of Location B, then the
peak pressure at Location A from a given explosive charge will be 8 times greater
than the peak pressure at Location B.

The specific location of the explosive charge determines the amplifying effects of the
blast wave. For example, a blast wave reflecting from the ground surface may have
a different effect than a blast wave reflecting from the surfaces of surrounding
structural elements. In addition, the specific location of the charge also determines
the severity of damage caused by fragments from other components near the blast
traveling away from the blast center.

For bridges which must be designed for blast loading, the specific design
requirements are generally defined by the Owner or the contracting agency.

Section 3.10 Load Factors and Load Combinations

Load and Resistance Factor Design utilizes limit states which represent the various
loading conditions which structural elements must be able to resist. The following
four limit states are considered in LRFD bridge design:

3.51
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

• Strength – design to ensure that strength and stability are provided to resist
increased load combinations that a bridge may experience during its design
life
• Service – design to restrict stresses, deformations, and cracks under regular
service conditions
• Extreme event – design to ensure structural survival of a bridge during events
of large loading which have a recurrence period longer than the design life of
the bridge
• Fatigue and fracture – design to limit crack growth under repetitive loads to
prevent fracture during the design life of the bridge

These limit states involve a number of load factors and resistance factors which are
applied to the basic LRFD equation:

∑ η γ Q ≤ φR
i i i n = Rr Equation 3.10-1
AASHTO LRFD Equation 1.3.2.1-1

where:
ηi = load modifier, relating to ductility, redundancy, and operational
importance
γi = load factor; a statistically based multiplier applied to force effects
Qi = force effect
φ = resistance factor; a statistically based multiplier applied to nominal
resistance
Rn = nominal resistance
Rr = factored resistance

For the case in which only dead loads and live loads are applied, the basic LRFD
equation takes the following form:

η(∑ γ DLDL + ∑ γ LLLL) ≤ φRn = Rr Equation 3.10-2

where:
DL = dead load force effects applied to the element under consideration
LL = live load force effects applied to the element under consideration
η = load modifier applied to all loads
γDL = load factor for dead loads
γLL = load factor for live loads

Each limit state contains several load combinations, numbered with Roman
numerals. Some load combinations reflect instances of normal operating conditions.
Some reflect instances of high wind, in which live load would not typically be present
on a bridge but wind loads are very high. Still others represent earthquake

3.52
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

conditions or vehicular collisions with bridge structures. Resistance factors affecting

the resistance of structural materials also vary based on the limit state being
investigated.

Not all limit states or load combinations need to be checked for all structures, and
the design engineer should determine which are applicable for a specific bridge.
When all applicable limit states and load combinations are satisfied, a structure is
deemed acceptable under the LRFD design philosophy.

3.10.1 Base Load Factors and Combinations

3.10.1.1 General

AASHTO LRFD Article 3.4.1 defines the base load factors and load combinations
used in LRFD bridge design. For each of the four limit states introduced in Section
3.10, there are several load combinations. In addition, for each load combination, a
unique set of load factors is assigned based on the intended loading condition, the
probability of simultaneous loadings, the uncertainty of the value of the associated
loads, and the purpose of the limit state.

Load factors for each load combination are defined in AASHTO LRFD Tables 3.4.1-
1, 3.4.1-2, and 3.4.1-3. For reference, the load factors table presented in AASHTO
LRFD Table 3.4.1-1 is presented below in Table 3.10.1.1-1.

3.53
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Table 3.10.1.1-1 AASHTO LRFD Load Combinations and Load Factors

Load DC LL WA WS WL FR TU TG SE EQ* BL* IC* CT* CV*
Combination DD IM
DW CE
EH BR
EV PL
ES LS
EL
PS
CR
Limit State SH
Strength I γp 1.75 1.00 -- -- 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE -- -- -- -- --
(unless noted)
Strength II γp 1.35 1.00 -- -- 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE -- -- -- -- --
Strength III γp -- 1.00 1.40 -- 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE -- -- -- -- --
Strength IV γp -- 1.00 -- -- 1.00 0.50/1.20 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Strength V γp 1.35 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE -- -- -- -- --
Extreme Event γp
γEQ 1.00 -- -- 1.00 -- -- -- 1.00 -- -- -- --
I
Extreme Event γ
p
0.50 1.00 -- -- 1.00 -- -- -- -- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
II
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE -- -- -- -- --
Service II 1.00 1.30 1.00 -- -- 1.00 1.00/1.20 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Service III 1.00 0.80 1.00 -- -- 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE -- -- -- -- --
Service IV 1.00 -- 1.00 0.70 -- 1.00 1.00/1.20 -- 1.00 -- -- -- -- --
Fatigue I -- 1.50 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LL, IM, CE only
Fatigue II -- 0.75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LL, IM, CE only
Legend:
* Use one of these at a time

As presented in Table 3.10.1.1-1, for strength and extreme event limit states,
permanent loads are factored individually as presented in AASHTO LRFD Table
3.4.1-2, and as shown in Table 3.10.1.1-2.

3.54
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Table 3.10.1.1-2 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp

Maximum Minimum
Type of Load, Foundation Type, and
Load Load
Method Used to Calculate Downdrag
Factor Factor
DC: Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90
DC: Strength IV only 1.50 0.90
DD: Downdrag, Piles, α Tomlinson Method 1.40 0.25
DD: Downdrag, Piles, λ Method 1.05 0.30
DD: Downdrag, Drilled shafts, O’Neill and Reese
1.25 0.35
(1999) Method
DW: Wearing Surfaces and Utilities 1.50 0.65
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure, Active 1.50 0.90
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure, At-Rest 1.35 0.90
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure, AEP for 1.35 N/A
anchored walls
EL: Locked-in Construction Stresses 1.00 1.00
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure, Overall Stability 1.00 N/A
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure, Retaining Walls
1.35 1.00
and Abutments
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure, Rigid Buried 1.30 0.90
Structure
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure, Rigid Frames 1.35 0.90
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure, Flexible Buried
Structures, Metal Box Culverts and Structural 1.50 0.90
Plate Culverts with Deep Corrugations
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure, Flexible Buried
1.30 0.90
Structures, Thermoplastic culverts
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure, Flexible Buried
1.95 0.90
Structures, All others
ES: Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75

As shown in Table 3.10.1.1-2, several loads have a minimum value and a maximum
value for the strength and extreme event limit states. The maximum value is used in
most cases. However, the minimum value is used when a minimum value of that
particular loading is being computed. For example, the minimum load factor for DC
and DW dead loads would be used for computations of uplift at a support.

AASHTO LRFD Table 3.4.1-3 provides load factors for permanent loads due to
superimposed deflections, γp. Load factors are provided for secondary forces from
post-tensioning, as well as for force effects due to creep and shrinkage.

3.55
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.10.1.2 Strength Limit State Load Combinations

3.10.1.2.1 General

Strength limit state combinations are intended to create conditions of maximum

loading on a bridge structure. These combinations bring the structure under
considerable loading which may cause overstresses and structural deformations, but
the structural integrity of the bridge must be maintained.

The strength limit state ensures that strength and stability requirements, both local
and global, are satisfied to resist the load combinations that a bridge is expected to
experience during its design life. These load combinations would not generally
occur during normal operation of the structure, but they could occur during the
design life of the structure. Overall structural integrity is ensured for the strength
load combinations. Not all strength load combinations apply to all bridge structures,
and the designer must use engineering judgment to decide which load combinations
must be included for their specific design.

3.10.1.2.2 Strength I

The Strength I load combination is the primary load combination for evaluating the
resistance of structural members under full live load conditions without wind effects.
A load factor of 1.75 is applied to live load for this load combination, and neither wind
load on the structure nor wind on live load is applied. Most checks against failure
will occur with this load combination. The Strength I load combination applies to
almost all bridge designs.

3.10.1.2.3 Strength II

This load combination can be tailored to each specific bridge project to allow Owners
to specify special design vehicles, evaluation permit vehicles, or both. Permit
vehicles are oversize or overweight vehicles that are allowed on the bridge only
under specific circumstances. Wind loads are not included in this load combination,
similar to the Strength I load combination.

3.10.1.2.4 Strength III

This load combination reflects a high wind condition, with a wind velocity exceeding
55 miles per hour. This would normally prevent the presence of significant live load
on the bridge. While some live load may be present, it would be considered
statistically insignificant, and therefore the load factor for live load is zero for this load
combination. The wind loads on the structure are increased through higher load
factors to account for the focus of this load combination.

3.56
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.10.1.2.5 Strength IV

The Strength IV load combination emphasizes dead load force effects in bridge
superstructures. It also produces a more uniform reliability across the full range of
spans and dead load to live load ratios. The level of reliability produced by this load
combination is similar to that produced by other strength load combinations. The
maximum load factor for DC dead load for Strength IV is greater than the maximum
load factor for DC dead load for the other strength load combinations.

3.10.1.2.6 Strength V

The Strength V load combination is a blending of the Strength I and Strength III
conditions, in which high winds and significant live load both affect the bridge. Live
loads are reduced somewhat from the Strength I load combination to reflect the fact
that high winds will discourage some live load, and wind loads are not increased as
much as in the Strength III load combination. For the strength limit state, wind on
live load is applied only to this load combination.

3.10.1.2.7 Design Applications

The specific design applications of the various strength load combinations are
summarized in Table 3.10.1.2.7-1.

3.57
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Table 3.10.1.2.7-1 Design Applications of Strength Load Combinations

Strength Load
Design Applications
Combination
Strength I • Basic load combination
• Normal vehicular use of the bridge
• No wind load
Strength II • Related to Owner-specified special design vehicles, permit
vehicles, or both
• No wind load
Strength III • Bridge is exposed to wind velocity exceeding 55 mph
• No live load or wind on live load
Strength IV • Emphasizes dead load force effects in bridge
superstructures
• Increased maximum load factor for DC dead loads
• No wind load
• Generally applies to long span bridges
• Not applicable to the investigation of construction stages
Strength V • Normal vehicular use of bridge
• Includes wind load
• Only strength load combination with wind on live load

For a typical multi-girder highway overpass, the Strength I load combination will
usually control the design of the superstructure.

3.10.1.3 Service Limit State Load Combinations

3.10.1.3.1 General

The service limit state contains load combinations which reflect loadings intended to
control stresses, deformations, and crack widths in structural elements. Loads in
service limit states are taken at regular service conditions, and most of the service
load factors are equal to or close to 1.00.

Within the service limit state, there are four load combinations that are designed to
test various aspects of the structure being analyzed. Unlike the strength load
combinations, the service load combinations are generally material specific. They
are intended to control deflections in superstructures and cracks in prestressed
concrete structures, and they represent nominal loading conditions which could
easily be expected during normal operation of the structure. The basic function of
each service load combination is described in the following sections.

3.58
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.10.1.3.2 Service I

This load combination includes loads that could be expected under normal operating
conditions with a 55 mile-per-hour wind. Most loads are assigned a load factor of
1.00, although some wind loads and temperature loads are factored by other values.
The results of this load combination can be used to control deflections in a
superstructure and to control crack widths in reinforced concrete members. For
prestressed concrete, the Service I load combination should be used to investigate
compression, while tension should be investigated with the Service III load
combination.

3.10.1.3.3 Service II

The Service II load combination applies only to steel structures, and it contains load
factors combined to produce maximum effects for yielding of steel structures, as well
as slip of slip-critical connections within the structure. Vehicular live load is the focus
of this service load combination, as the load factor for live load is 1.30 rather than
1.00. The Service II load combination corresponds to the overload provisions for
steel structures that appeared in past AASHTO specifications for ASD and LFD
designs.

3.10.1.3.4 Service III

Within the Service III load combination, loads are factored and combined to produce
the greatest effect on prestressed concrete superstructure elements. Investigating
tensile stresses and crack control are primary objectives of this load combination,
and it uses a load factor for live load of 0.80 rather than 1.00. This load combination
also applies to principal tension in the webs of segmental concrete girders.

3.10.1.3.5 Service IV

The Service IV load combination is intended to control cracking due to tension in

prestressed concrete columns. For this load combination, a load factor of 0.70 is
applied to wind load, and no live load is applied. This load combination is based on
a wind speed of 84 miles per hour. This load combination is generally applicable for
substructures only.

3.10.1.3.6 Design Applications

The specific design applications of the various service load combinations are
summarized in Table 3.10.1.3.6-1.

3.59
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Table 3.10.1.3.6-1 Design Applications of Service Load Combinations

Service Load
Design Applications
Combination
Service I • Control deflections in a superstructure
• Control crack widths in reinforced concrete members
• Investigate compression in prestressed concrete
Service II • Applies only to steel structures
• Control yielding of steel structures
• Control slip of slip-critical connections
Service III • Investigate tension and crack control in prestressed
concrete
• Investigate principal tension in webs of segmental
concrete girders
Service IV • Does not apply to superstructures

3.10.1.4 Extreme Event Limit State Load Combinations

3.10.1.4.1 General

The extreme event limit state analyzes the ability of the bridge to withstand an event
of extreme loading with a recurrence period that is greater than the design life of the
structure. Such events include earthquakes, blast loading, ice flow impact, vehicular
collisions, or vessel collisions. Not all extreme event load combinations apply to all
areas of the country or to all types of bridge construction. Therefore, it is the design
engineer’s responsibility to choose which extreme event load combinations apply to
a specific bridge. All five load types that are included as extreme events are
analyzed separately.

The effects of an extreme event load combination are allowed to cause damage to a
structure. Stresses and deformations well into the inelastic range are permitted and,
in some cases, expected. However, full loss of structural integrity or collapse must
be prevented for the extreme event limit state.

Two extreme event load combinations are presented in AASHTO LRFD. These load
combinations differentiate between the live loads that would most likely be present
during the different extreme events, as well as the extreme event which is being
considered in each load combination.

3.10.1.4.2 Extreme Event I

The Extreme Event I load combination is used to analyze a bridge for earthquake
loading. For this load combination, the load factor value for live load is not yet fully

3.60
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

resolved. Previous AASHTO specifications have set this value, γEQ, equal to zero.
However, according to AASHTO LRFD Article C3.4.1, current research shows that
setting this value to γEQ < 1.0, or more specifically to 0.50, may be applicable for
most average daily truck traffic (ADTT) conditions.

3.10.1.4.3 Extreme Event II

This load combination includes the effects of blast loading, ice flow impact, vehicular
collisions, and vessel collisions. The effects of these four loadings are not to be
combined such that they are assumed to act simultaneously. Instead, each of the
applicable loadings is to be checked individually without the presence of the other
extreme event loads. The load factor for live load for this load combination is 0.50,
reflecting the fact that if one of the extreme events occurs, the likelihood of full live
load being present on the bridge is small.

3.10.1.4.4 Design Applications

The specific design applications of the two extreme event load combinations are
summarized in Table 3.10.1.4.4-1.

Table 3.10.1.4.4-1 Design Applications of Extreme Event Load Combinations

Extreme Event Load
Design Applications
Combination
Extreme Event I • Earthquake
Extreme Event II • Blast loading
• Ice flow impact
• Vehicular collisions
• Vessel collisions

3.10.1.5 Fatigue and Fracture Limit State Load Combinations

3.10.1.5.1 General

The fatigue and fracture limit state is intended to control the stress range of a
structural element to limit the possibility of cracking. The loading conditions
represent a single fatigue truck, occurring over a specific number of cycles. The
material toughness requirements are based on the AASHTO Material Specifications.
This limit state is not applicable to all bridge design checks, such as concrete decks
and wood decks, and the design engineer must determine whether the effects of
fatigue and fracture could be a problem for each specific bridge. The basic function
of each fatigue load combination is described in the following sections.

3.61
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.10.1.5.2 Fatigue I

The Fatigue I load combination relates to infinite load-induced fatigue life. For this
load combination, a load factor of 1.50 is applied to live load effects, and no other
loads are applied. The load factor for this load combination reflects load levels that
represent the maximum stress range of trucks for infinite fatigue life design. The
load factor was selected assuming that the maximum stress range is twice the
effective stress range caused by the Fatigue II load combination.

It should be noted that for orthotropic decks, when evaluating fatigue at the welded
rib-to-floorbeam cut-out detail or at the rib-to-deck weld, the live load factor, γLL, for
the Fatigue I load combination should be increased from 1.5 to 2.25. This increase
is based on studies indicating that the ratio of maximum stress range to effective
stress range is greater in orthotropic decks by a factor of approximately 1.5 as
compared to standard bridge girders. This increase is due to several factors,
including the occasional presence of heavy wheels and a reduction in local load
distribution in orthotropic decks as compared with standard bridge decks.

3.10.1.5.3 Fatigue II

The Fatigue II load combination relates to finite load-induced fatigue life. For this
load combination, a load factor of 0.75 is applied to live load effects, and no other
loads are applied. The load factor for this load combination reflects load levels that
represent the effective stress range of trucks with respect to a small number of
stress range cycles and to their effects in steel elements, components, and
connections for finite fatigue life design.

3.10.1.5.4 Design Applications

The specific design applications of the two fatigue load combinations are
summarized in Table 3.10.1.5.4-1.

Table 3.10.1.5.4-1 Design Applications of Fatigue Load Combinations

Fatigue Load
Design Applications
Combination
Fatigue I • Related to infinite load-induced fatigue life
• Only controls the design of steel elements, components, and
connections for a limited number of steel superstructures
Fatigue II • Related to finite load-induced fatigue life
• Only controls the design of steel elements, components, and
connections for a limited number of steel superstructures

3.62
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.10.2 Load Factors for Construction Loads

3.10.2.1 General

In addition to the base load factors and combinations described in Section 3.10.1,
bridges should also be checked for construction loads to ensure that structural
damage will not occur throughout the entire construction process. Load factors for
construction loads are described in AASHTO LRFD Article 3.4.2.

3.10.2.2 Strength Limit State

Construction loads should be checked for the strength limit state using the same
load combinations as presented in AASHTO LRFD Table 3.4.1-1.

However, for Strength I and III load combinations, the weight of the structure and
appurtenances, including both DC and DW dead loads, should be assigned a load
factor of 1.25 or greater.

For the Strength I load combination, unless otherwise specified by the Owner, the
load factor for the construction loads and for any associated dynamic effects should
be 1.50 or greater. Since the actual construction loads can vary from contractor to
contractor, state to state, and even with the time of year and location of construction,
the estimation of the loads due to mounted equipment, mobile equipment, and
construction workers is less certain than the load due to the gravitational self-weight
of bridge structural components.

Wind forces can greatly affect a bridge under construction, as the surfaces on which
wind acts can be greater and more random than those for a completed bridge
structure. Therefore, for the Strength III load combination, a factor of 1.25 or greater
should be applied to all wind loads in combination with construction loads.

In addition to the strength load combinations described above, an additional strength

load combination should be considered when accounting for construction conditions,
unless otherwise specified by the Owner. This additional load combination should
include maximum force effects of primary steel superstructure components during
construction, including the applicable DC loads and any construction loads that are
applied to the fully erected steelwork. For this additional load combination, the load
factor for DC and construction loads, including dynamic effects (if applicable), should
not be less than 1.4.

3.10.2.3 Service Limit State

In the absence of other directives in the project special provisions, any deflection
requirements should be checked using the Service I load combination for the various

3.63
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

construction stages. Any deflection requirements during construction should be

defined in the contract documents. Construction dead loads should be included with
the permanent loads, and construction transient loads should be included with the
live loads.

3.10.3 Load Factors for Jacking and Post-Tensioning Forces

3.10.3.1 Jacking Forces

The design forces for jacking in the service limit state should be at least 1.3 times
the permanent load reaction at the bearings adjacent to the point of jacking, or as
directed by the Owner.

If the bridge will be open to traffic during the jacking operation, the jacking load
should also include a live load reaction based on the maintenance of traffic plan.
The load factor for live load should be applied to that jacking load.

3.10.3.2 Post-Tensioning Anchorage Zones

For post-tensioning anchorage zones, the design force should be 1.2 times the
maximum jacking force.

Section 3.11 References

AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, HB-17.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
DC.

AASHTO. 2009. LRFD Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges,

Second Edition, GSDPB-2. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, GDHS-6.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
DC.

ASCE. 1988. Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, ASCE 7-88.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Cohen, H. 1990. Truck Weight Limits: Issues and Options, Special Report 225.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Ross, H. E., D. L. Sicking, R. A. Zimmer, and J. D. Michie. 1993. NCHRP Report

350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway

3.64
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

Features. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,

DC.

3.65
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 3
Reference Manual Loads and Load Factors

3.66
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 4
Reference Manual Structural Analysis

Chapter 4
Structural Analysis
Section 4.1 Introduction

Structural theories that have evolved from statics and strength of materials have
been used in the analysis of girder bridges and have been taught in structural
analysis courses for decades. These concepts, melded with bridge design codes,
are used in the design of girder bridges today. Powerful digital computers and
modern software have enabled the Design Engineer to better apply these concepts
to anticipate the behavior of bridges during design. When properly employed, this
technology leads to bolder, better and more efficient bridges that are safe during
construction and will dependably serve the public for decades to come.

This chapter first describes general LRFD requirements for structural analysis, the
effective width of the concrete deck, uplift, requirements that allow for the neglect of
curvature effects in the determination of major-axis bending moments and shears,
the effective length factor for compression-member design, and moment
redistribution.

The chapter next discusses structural analysis for dead load and structural analysis
for live load, including the computation of approximate live load distribution factors.
The use of influence lines and influence surfaces for live load analysis is also
discussed.

The chapter concludes with a general discussion on the various methods of analysis,
including approximate 1D methods of analysis, and more refined 2D and 3D
methods of analysis.

Section 4.2 General

4.2.1 General LRFD Analysis Requirements

This section reviews some of the general AASHTO LRFD specification requirements
for structural analysis. Methods of structural analysis are discussed in Section 4.5.

As specified in AASHTO LRFD Article 4.5, mathematical models are to include

loads, geometry and material behavior of the structure, and where appropriate, the
response characteristics of the foundation. The choice of the model is to be based

4.1
LRFD for Highway Bridge Superstructures Chapter 4
Reference Manual Structural Analysis

on the limit states investigated, the force effect being quantified, the complexity of
the structure and the accuracy required of the analysis.

Linear elastic behavior of materials is assumed so specification of material

properties is rather straightforward. An elastic modulus (Young’s Modulus) and a
Poisson’s Ratio is specified for each material. From these properties the shear
modulus can be computed. The density of the material is required to address the
weight or mass of each element. This property may be specified as the mass
density with a gravitational constant or as a gravitational density with a gravitational
constant of 1.0 if no dynamic analyses are to be performed. If dynamic analyses are
employed, the mass density is appropriate. In these cases, a gravitational constant
other than unity is required. Specification of a weight density is generally preferred
since it is more common. In these cases, a gravitational constant of 1.0 is specified.
A fourth optional property is the thermal coefficient of expansion, which is necessary
if a thermal analysis is required.

A second basic assumption made is that deflections are small. This means that it is
assumed that the structure does not deflect enough to cause the point of application
of the loads to be displaced enough to affect the analysis results. For example, a
catenary cable changes shape under load and generally would not satisfy this
assumption.

By assuming first-order small deflection theory and elastic behavior, influence lines
and influence surfaces can be employed for live load analysis (Section 4.4.3).

Another requirement related to linear behavior is that changes in structure stiffness

during loading are not permitted. For example, lift-off at a bearing as load is applied
would change the structure stiffness and cause the model to behave in a non-linear
fashion. Such behavior is not considered in the analyses discussed in this manual.
Inelastic analysis is also not covered herein, although it can be used to better
evaluate moment redistribution and seismic behavior.

According to AASHTO LRFD Article 4.6.1.2.1, for structures curved in plan, the
moments, shears and other force effects required to proportion the superstructure
components are to be based on a rational analysis of the entire superstructure.
Equilibrium of curved girder bridges is developed by transfer of load between the
girders (more so in curved I-girder bridges than in curved box-girder bridges). Thus,
the analysis must recognize the integrated behavior of all the structural components.
Bracing members are considered to be primary members in these bridges since their
action is necessary to provide equilibrium. The concrete deck acts in transverse
flexure, longitudinal flexure, vertical and horizontal shear. Torsion increases the
horizontal deck shear in curved and/or skewed box-girder bridges.

4.2