Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Brief History of DPWH-BSDS
Kazunori Miura, Director General of Economic Infrastructure Department
Of Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), stated in his foreword found at the Final
Report of the Proposed DPWH Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (DPWH-BSDS) the
association of JICA and DPWH in undertaking the project Study on Improvement of Bridges
through Disaster Mitigating Measures for Large-Scale Earthquakes. This project is created in
accordance with the request of the Philippine Government to the Government of Japan to
improve the countrys bridges in terms of safety and durability in preparation to large-scale
earthquakes in the country. In line with this, the Japanese government dispatched a Study Team
headed by Dr. Shingo Gose of CTI Engineering International Co., Ltd., under JICA. The study
team collaborates with DPWH to execute the project. Further in his Foreword, Miura stated one
of the major tasks of the project; that is the improvement of guidelines for Bridge Seismic
Design, which has been found to be outdated due to the increase in magnitude of large scale
earthquakes and different technological advancements in the field of earthquake design and
construction. Thus, the new DPWH LRFD Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) is
developed under the project. (DPWH-BSDS, 2013)
Looking at the preface of the Final Report of the Proposed DPWH-BSDS, Rogelio
Singson narrates the history of the occurrence of large-scale earthquakes such as the 2012
Magnitude 6.9 earthquake in Negros Oriental and the 2013 Magnitude 7.2 earthquake in Bohol.
These occurrences justifies the necessity of the project of DPWH in collaboration with JICA to
address the effects of large-scale earthquakes. Singson stated a problem encountered in the

project: DPWH Department Order No. 75, which was issued on July 17, 1992, was the current
design seismic design policy and practice of bridges in the country. This was due to the largescale effects of the 1990 Magnitude 7.9 North Luzon Earthquake such as failures of various
roads and bridges. After the issuance of D.O. No. 75, AASHTO Standard Specifications became
the basis of Philippine seismic design for bridges. But then, DPWH recognizes the necessity of
the improvement of outdated design guidelines, criteria and standards due to the growing modern
technologies. (DPWH-BSDS, 2013)
A Brief History of Highway Loading
The primary design parameter for highways are truck loadings. The American
Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), founded in 1914 as
AASHTO, developed the concept of a train of trucks in the 1935 that imitated the railroad
industrys standards. However, as the weight of the trucks grew, the bridges were overstressed. In
1944, AASHTO developed a new concept: hypothetical trucks, called the H (with two axles) and
the HS (with three-axles) classes of trucks. These were fictitious trucks, used only for design and
they did not resemble any real truck on the road. In 1975, the federal DOT upgraded the
allowable gross weight for trucks from 73,280 lb to 80,000 lb (although some states increased
them to 90,000 lb). (AASHTO, 2012)
Bridge Management System (BMS) and Road and Bridges Information Application
(RBIA)
Bridge Management System (BMS) is an organized approached to handle the various
need and requirements of bridges. It usually involves softwares to deal with large amount of data
involve. (Stratt; 2010). A Department Order by DPWH aims to To implement procedures and
applications to improve the efficiency and performance of DPWH, the Bridge Management

System (BMS) has been adopted to monitor the condition of bridges on National Road and
provide maintenance, upgrading and replacement of bridges by which all data for operation for
BMS will be stored in the Road and Bridges Information Application (RBIA). (DPWH D.O. No.
43, 2008).
Highway Bridge Design Loads
A bridge is designed to resist design loadings in a safe and economical manner. These
loads may be concentrated or distributed depending on its application to the structure.
One of these design loads is the Highway bridge design loads that was established by the
American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). During the
1990's AASHTO developed and approved a new bridge design code, AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications, which is based upon the principles of Load Resistance and Factor Design
(LRDF).
Bridge design loading are divided into two principal categories:
*Permanent loads- which are consists of weights of materials of the structural members
and other permanent external loads.
*Transient loads - temporary loads that changes over time, mostly vehicular and
pedestrian loads.
Standard AASHTO Vehicle live loads do not represent actual vehicles but it provide good
approximation for bridge designs and rating. There are two basic types of truck loading described
in the AASHTO Specification. The first type is a "H" Truck or Highway Truck. it is single unit
vehicle with two axle speed spaced at 14ft, the front axle weighing the 20% of the gross vehicle
weight and rear axle weighing the 80% of the gross vehicle weight. And the second type is the
"HS" Truck or Highway Semi Trailer Truck. It is a two unit and three axle vehicle spaced at 14ft

-30ft and its semi-trailer axle weight is equal to the weight of the rear tractor axle.
In addition to these loading, a system of equivalent lane loadings, AASHTO lane loadings
was developed to provide simple calculations for bridge response to series of trains of trucks.
Combining the truck loadings and this lane loading produce the most critical situation for it
produces stress for each structural member. (Ryan, Mann, Cill; BIRM 2012)
Structural Health Monitroring
In a case study by Necati Catbas and others (2012), Structural Health Monitoring (SHM)
is defined as the measurement of the operating and loading environment, as well as the critical
responses of a structure to track and evaluate the symptoms of incidents, anomalies, damage, or
deterioration that may affect operation, serviceability, or safety and reliability. SHM is designed
to give objective information for safety and serviceability. This information can be further
implemented and used to monitor the different types of aerospace, mechanical, and civil
structures using the information extracted from the sensor data. To understand the root causes of
problems, SHM uses advanced technology for the researches to know the critical inputs and
responses of a structure and to predict future behavior by tracking responses. For a SHM design
to be complete, several information such as performance indices, sensor networks, data analysis
methods, and finally actionable information for decision making are need to be established. SHM
is a very objective approach for the inspection and assessment of bridges. (Catbas et al, 2012)

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2012

The American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications of 2012 is the new

provision to be used as a design basis for bridges in the Philippines. Specifically for this study,
the chapter involved in the scope is Chapter 3 which provides provisions for Loads and Load
Factors. Under Chapter 3, Section 3.6.1.1, the only load type considered by the scope of the
study is vehicular live loads. Since this thesis paper focuses on live loads, the following are the
changed articles in Section 3: Loads and Load Factors, as enumerated by the AASHTO LRFD
Bidge Design Specifications 2012: Articles 3.3.2, 3.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.6.1.2.5, 3.6.1.4.1, 3.6.5.1,
3.8.1.1, 3.8.1.2.1, 3.10.2.1, 3.10.9.2, 3.11.5.10, 3.15, 3.16. For Live loads, the Articles under
scope of study are 3.6.1.2.5, which is about tire contact area, 3.6.1.4.1 for magnitude and
configuration of fatigue loads, and 3.6.5.1 for protection of structures against vehicular collision
force. No deletions were done in Section 3. (AASHTO, 2012)
Traffic Loads
One of the variables that affect the bridge is the traffic. The traffic loads for a bridge may
vary depending on time, location and development of the automobile industry. In the past years
traffic flow has increased continuously. (Chen, Zhong Xu Lu,2014) From 2007-2011, trailer, cars
and trucks have increased annually by 8.36%,2.19 and 3.65% respectively. This amount in 2011
72,121 trucks, 446,106 cars and 16,911trailers in metro manila alone. This increases lead to
traffic congestion in key areas like highways and bridges. (JICA, NEDA 2012).

Vehicular Live Loads

A live load is any load that is in motion along a bridge. In 1935, AASHTO specified different
truck train loadings as shown in the figure below:

Fig. 2.1 AASHTO 1935 Truck Train Loadings. Adapted from the Standard Specifications
for Highway Bridges, 15th Ed., Appendix B, Ref. 3.3
Fig. 2.1 shows the different types of trucks and their loadings which include information
such as weight, loading on each axle, and the distance between adjacent vehicles. According to
Section 3.6.1.2.1 of the AASHTO LRFD 2012, a combination of design truck, tandem, and lane
loads are considered for vehicular live loads. The HL-93 Design Load is used for the design.
(AASHTO, 2012)
Truck Loads
The heaviest loads are those produced by large transport trucks. The American
Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has a series of
specifications for truck loadings.
Live Loads for Bridges For two-axial trucks AASHTO designates these vehicles as H
series trucks. For example, a H15-44 is a 15-ton truck as reported in the 1944 specifications.
Trucks that pull trailers are designated as HS, for example HS 20-44 (a 20-ton semi-trailer truck).
In general, a truck loading depends on the type of bridge, its location, and the type of traffic

anticipated. (AASHTO, 2012)

HL-93 Design Load
The AASHTO HL-93 (Highway Loading adopted in 1993) load includes variations and
combinations of truck, tandem, and lane loading. The design truck is a 3-axle truck with variable
rear axle spacing and a total weight of 72 kips (Figure 2.2). The design lane load is 640 plf
(Figure 2.3). The design tandem is a two-axle vehicle, 25 kips per axle, spaced 4 ft apart (Figure
2.3). (Bridge Design Practice, 2015)

Fig. 2.2- HL-93 Design Truck Loads

Fig. 2.3 Four Load Cases for HL-93

Vehicular Live Load Characteristics

Article 3.6.1.2.2 to 3.6.1.2.4 of AASHTO 2012 states the characteristics of design truck,
design tandem load and design lane load. 20-ton tractor or simply HS-20 was the designated
specification of design truck load. It has an axle force of 800 kips for first wheel and 3200 kip for
second and third wheel, with a distance of 14ft first to second and 14 to 30ft for second to third
wheel. For tandems load, it consists of two axial load 25kips, spaced at 4ft apart. The design lane
was specified to be uniformly distributed of .64kip/ft. for 10ft transversely. (AASHTO, 2012)

Dynamic Load
The dynamic load is an important parameter in bridge design and evaluation.
Traditionally, the dynamic load is considered as an equivalent static load. Many codes, including
AASHTO, specify the dynamic load as the function of span length only. (Hwang, Nowak; 1991)

Live Load Test and Rating

In a study by Hodson and his co-researchers, prior to performing the live-load test on the
Lambert Road Bridge, 53 instruments were installed on the bridge. As part of the Live Load
Analysis of the bridge different instruments were installed in the bridge which included 42
uniaxial strain transducers, 10 vertical deflection sensors, and 1 uniaxial rotation sensor. These
wireless sensors were part of a Bridge Diagnostic, Inc., data acquisition system. These
instrumentation are one of the many ways to get actual data for live loads in bridges. (Hodson et
al, 2012)
In a case study by Necati Catbas and others, load rating is defined as an analysis which is
commonly used for the evaluation of the live load carrying capacity of bridges. A methodology
for structural health monitoring of bridges was constructed by Necati Catbas and his team of
researchers in their study entitled Sensor Networks, Computer Imaging, and Unit Influence
Lines for Structural Health Monitoring: Case Study for Bridge Load Rating. The group used
sensor and video imaging data from operating traffic for bridge load rating. (Catbas et al, 2012)

Weight-in-Motion
The development process of LRFD specification in 1980s and 1990s was thorough at the
time of the research. Since then, more reliable truck weight data has been systematically

collected through weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems. Furthermore, the bridge data of the entire
nation has been organized in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) from which a typical bridge
configuration of a specific state can be statistically identified. Thus, the load factors in the LRFD
specifications (AASHTO 2007) can be refined for each state based on state-specific truck
weights, traffic volumes, and bridge configurations. (Kwon, Kim, Orton; 2011)
A research work in China shows how weigh-in-motion data for more than 7.3 million
trucks that were gathered from highways in three provinces of China became a very important
information in modeling a live-load spectrum over 3-year and 100-year periods, respectively,
This data gathering was done continuously over 116 months in 2006 and 2007. The results are
used to evaluate the structural reliability of typical Chinese highway bridges. (Fu and You, 2009)

Theoretical Vehicular Load Model

The design vehicular live load model for bridges are comprised of either design truck or
design tandem and design land load. It is developed to illustrate theoretical shear and moment
caused by vehicles commonly allowed on highways. The load model was considered theoretical
because it does not depict any type of specific truck. (Cohen, 1990)

Applicability of Code
The development of the load model at the beginning was in accurate because trailers,
vehicle overload or special vehicles was not considered. It is because there was no way of
providing a scaled factor for this type of vehicle. However, with the growth of truck weight
studies, weight in motion data and Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code of 1991, significant
comparison was made shear and moment effect. The comparison, allowed the special type of

vehicular load to be scaled in appropriate load factors. (Csagoly and Knobel 1981; Nowak 1992)
In the study entitled Impacts of Implements of Husbandry on Bridges, Szerszen and
Nowak states a problem regarding the applicability of AASHTO 2012 specifications on county
Bridges in Nebraska. Most of the bridges carry limited loads, the heaviest of which is
agricultural equipment or seasonal loads that occurs only during a short period of the year. These
loads are of significant variance compared to the highest observed truck traffic at selected US
locations. Thus it is necessary to conduct further study before directly and strictly applying the
provision in designing such bridges. The authors emphasized how live load is site-specific.
Meaning their argument is that live load factors, which are different than that listed in the code
can be chosen on a particular location of the bridge considering actual loadings acting on that
particular bridge structure. The authors found proof from the field tests they made such as WIM
that actual Girder Distribution Factors (GDF) are lower than specified by the code. Also, actual
Dynamic Load Factor is often considerably lower than specified by the code. (Szerszen, Nowak,
2013)
Kim and his colleagues conducted a research to verify the applicability of AASHTO
LRFD live load distribution factors for nonstandard truck loads that are not specified in the
provisions. Nonstandard truck loads include military loads which may be higher than the design
loads. (Kim et al, 2010)
In a thesis conducted by Maddah, the use of new codes for verification of structural
safety and for maintenance of structures are being questioned since their strict application causes
high maintenance cost. (Maddah, 2013)

Live Load Model Evaluation in AASTHO LRFD

On Chapter 1.3 of a technical report by Eric Hernandez entitled, Statistical Analysis of

Weigh-in-Motion Data for Bridge Design in Vermont, it is clearly stated how Vermont Agency
of Transportation (VTrans) provided Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) data in comparison with
AASHTO loadings. (Hernandez, 2014)
This issue becomes critical when actual truck loads are noticeably higher than the design
load. The bridges experiencing these higher loads are subjected to a higher risk of distress,
damage, and possibly failure. This situation is typical for sites in metropolitan areas where a
large volume of heavier trucks is observed. (Van de Lindt, Fu, Zhou, Pablo Jr; 2005)

Site-specific Traffic Data Analysis

Site-specific data can be gathered to determine actual detail of built bridge, instead of
relying in universalized information. One of the field this is applicable to diminish inconsistency
is vehicular live load. It is done by gathering and analyzing site-specific traffic data.
(pelphrey,Higgins,Suakumar,Groff,Hartman Charbo nneau Rooper &Johnson, 2008)