See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282151603

Critical Traffic Loading for the Design of Prestressed Concrete Bridge

Article · January 2009

CITATION READS
1 153

3 authors, including:

Muhammad Irfan-ul-Hassan Zahid Ahmad Siddiqi

University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore
13 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Experimental and Multiscale Computational Investigation of Properties of Concrete View project

Pre Engineered Building Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Irfan-ul-Hassan on 23 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

To cite this paper use “ M. Irfan-ul-Hassan, Z.A. Siddiqi, & M. Ashraf, “ Critical Traffic
Loading for the Design of Prestressed Concrete Bridge”, Mehran University Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology (ISSN:0254-7821), Vol. 28, No.3, Jul-2009, 303-311

CRITICAL TRAFFIC LOADING FOR THE DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED

CONCRETE BRIDGE

M. Irfan-ul-Hassan*, Z.A. Siddiqi* & M. Ashraf

*Department of Civil Engineering
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore-Pakistan.

Abstract

A study has been carried out to determine critical traffic loadings for the design of bridge superstructures.
The prestressed concrete girder bridge already constructed in Lahore is selected for the analysis as an
example. Standard traffic loadings according to AASHTO and Pakistan Highway Standards are used for
this purpose. These include 1) HL-93 truck, 2) lane and 4)Tandem Loadings in addition to 4)military tank
loading, 5)Class-A, 6)Class-B and 7)Class-AA loading ,8)NLC and 9)Volvo truck loadings. Bridge
superstructure including transom beam is analyzed using ASD and LRFD provisions of AASHTO
specifications. For the analysis, two longer and shorter spans are selected. This includes the analysis of
bridge deck; interior and exterior girder; a typical transom beam and a pier. Dead and live loading
determination is carried out using both computer aided and manual calculations. Evaluation of traffic
loadings is done for all the bridge components to find out the critical loading. HL-93 loading comes out to
be the most critical loading and where this loading is not critical in case of bridge decks; a factor of 1.15
is introduced to make it equivalent with HL-93 loading. SAP-2000 and MS-Excel is employed for analysis
of bridge superstructure subjected to this loading. Internal forces are obtained for the structural elements
of the bridge for all traffic loadings mentioned. It is concluded that HL-93 loading can be used for the
design of prestressed concrete girder bridge.

Bridge design authorities like National Highway authority and different cities development authorities are
using different standard traffic loadings. A number of suggestions are made from the results of the research
work related to traffic loadings and method of design. These recommendations may be proposed for
different government agencies for the use of bridge designers.

Keywords: Bridge; traffic loadings; analysis; critical loading

1. Introduction
Transportation system in Pakistan is playing an important role in development of national economy
and has direct impact on growth of country economy in a number of ways. An economical and
reliable transportation system will ensure smooth functioning of existing infrastructure and will
open avenues for its expansion to all parts of the country for the masses.
Bridges are vital part of the transportation system and play a significant role in development of the
country. There is a need of time to construct bridges due to their enormous benefits in providing
continuous passage over all types of obstacles. Bridges commonly carry highways, railways and
pathways over obstacles such as water ways, deep valleys, railway routes and other highways

A lot of work is being done for the design of different types of new and upgradation of existing
bridges.[1-3,8] Traffic loadings for bridges are of prime importance due to significant affects on
the bridge design. Standard traffic loadings such as AASHTO [4] HL-93 Truck, Tandem and Lane
Loadings, Class A, Class B and Class AA loadings of Pakistan Highway code of practice [5], NLC
and Volvo trucks are used by bridge designers in Pakistan.[5]
Analysis is done both by ASD [Allowable Stress Design] and LRFD [Load and Resistance Factors
Design] AASHTO specifications. [6]

2-Review of Literature

2.1 Analysis of Bridge Deck

The reinforced concrete slab is continuously supported by three prestressed girders and over
hanged on both ends. Side railings are also provided of reinforced concrete is shown in Fig. 1.

2.2 Dead Load analysis

2.2.1 ASD
Dead load of the structure is calculated using the density of concrete as 2400 kg/m3 for concrete
and 2250 kg/m3 for asphalt wearing surface. Slab is analyzed for unit length considering it as
continuously supported on girders and maximum positive and negative moments are determined
by elastic analysis.[6]
2.2.2 LRFD
Factored dead load is used for LRFD analysis of the bridge. Overload factor applied for wearing
surface is 1.5 and for concrete is 1.25. Load modifier “η“is also used for ductility, redundancy and
importance of bridge. The value of this load modifier considered is equal to 1.15.[4]

2.3 Live Load Analysis

Live load analysis of slab is done by the following three methods;
▪ Approximate Method of Analysis [12,13]
▪ Strip Method of Analysis [17]
▪ Detailed analysis
▪
3. Analysis of Girders
The deck on each side of pier for traffic in one direction is supported on three girders, one interior
and two exterior prestressed girders. The girders are simply supported in the longitudinal direction
on transom beam. The longer span is 24.6 m and the shorter span is 18.45 m for the selected bridge
.

3.1 Dead Load Analysis

The dead load is transferred from slab to girders in addition to the self weight of girders. The
superimposed load is different for interior and exterior girders. The interior girder takes load from
both sides whereas the load coming over the exterior girder is calculated by applying the lever
rule. The Fig.2. illustrates the effective sections of the girders involved in dead loadings.[14]

After calculating the dead lead acting on the girders these are analyzed by considering them as
simply supported over the transom beam and the maximum shear and moment is determined for
the girders both for ASD and LRFD methods of design. Dead load analysis for girders was carried
out in SAP-2000.

3.2 Live Load Analysis

2
Live load analysis for girders requires the fraction of wheel loads coming on the interior and
exterior girders. First the girders are analyzed for unit load analysis by placing the unit load in a
way that maximizes the slab reactions over the girders. For the exterior girder, four unit loads are
placed at extreme right or left side of the slab (1st unit load is 0.3 m from the curb). For interior
girders unit loads are symmetrically placed on the slab. The fraction of live load calculated is used
in the analysis. Mainly Live load analysis was carried out manually by developing MS-Excel work
sheets for all calculations involved including design shear and moment. The fraction of wheel
loads “k” used is obtained from the exact unit load analysis in SAP [15] as shown in Fig.3.

4. Analysis of Transom Beam

The girders are supported by transom beam that is projecting as cantilever from the central pier
towards both ends and only a single pier is provided in the middle to support loads of the girders
on either side of dual carriage way. The four transom beams are selected for analysis for different
dead and live load coming on it. One is between two longer spans of girders, second is between
two shorter spans of girders, third is between longer and shorter span of girder and fourth one is
between shorter and longer span of girder. Loading acting on transom beam is shown in Fig.4.

5. Analysis of Piers
A single pier is provided to support the transom beams in this case. The net moment and vertical
force acting on the pier is calculated simply by transferring the reactions developed in the transom.
The critical situation of the pier will be under that loading case when a life loading is acting on
one side of the transom beam only. Analysis of transom beam and pier was carried out in SAP-
2000.[15], Fig.5 illustrates the loadings considered for pier analysis.

6. Bridge Details Considered for Analysis

The detailed drawings are collected from TEPA. The analysis data used for this research is given
here.

No. of lanes = 4
No. of piers = 25
Larger span length=24.6m c/c
Smaller span length= 18.45 m c/c
Road width = 6.7 m for 2 lanes
Longitudinal expansion joint is provided in middle.

The x-sectional view of bridge considered for analysis is shown in Fig.6. [19]

7. Traffic Loadings

The traffic loadings considered in this research work are given here and shown in Fig.7 to
Fig.12.[Ref.4-6]

7.1 AASHTO Highway Loadings

AASHTO Highway loadings are given in AASHTO code and now prevailing in bridge design all
over the world. These include the following traffic loadings.

7.1.1. Design Truck (HL-93 and HS-20)

3
 This loading consists of three point loads; previously used HS-20 is modified to HL-93. The detail
of this loading is shown in Fig.7.

7.1.2. Design Tandem

The design Tandem consists of pair of 110 kN being 1.2 m center to center in longitudinal and 1.8
m in transverse direction as shown in Fig.8.

7.1.3. Design Lane Load (HL-93)

The design lane load is 9.3kN/m along the length over a width of 3m. The load intensity becomes
3100 N/m2.

The HS-20 loadings for the Design Truck and Design Tandem are same as that for HL-93. The
Lane loading used in HS-20 is different, in this case a point load of 80 kN for moment and 116 kN
for shear is also used.

7.2 Pakistan Code of Practice for Highway Bridges [10]

The Pakistan Code of Highway practice was developed in 1967 and following loadings are given
in it. There is a need of time that this code should be reviewed.

7.2.1. Class-A & B Loadings

This traffic loading is introduced in 1967 according to Pakistan Highway code and is shown in
Fig.9.

7.3 National Logistic Cell (NLC) Truck Loading

National Logistic Cell [NLC] Pakistan developed its own loading for the design of bridges. It is
further divided in two types of truck loading.

7.3.1. Axle Loads for Mercedes Benz Truck

The weight of this truck is equal to 250 kN and this weight is divided in four axle loads shown in
Fig.10.

7.3.2. Axle Loads for Volvo Truck

The weight of this truck is different for NHA and manufacturers which is 172 and 210 respectively
and further divided in five axle loads shown in Fig.11.

7.4 Military Tank Loadings

The tank loading given in Pakistan Highway code seems more critical than other truck loadings in
some cases. This loading is shown in Fig.12.

8. Load Cases Considered For Analysis

The following load cases were considered according to the relevant standards and were combined
together according to the prescribed method.

8.1 AASHTO Standards;

1- HL-93 Truck Loading
2- Tandem Loading/Military Loading

4
 3- HL-93 Lane Loading
4- HS-20 Lane Loading
5- HS-20-I (Greater of 1 and 4)
6- HS-20-II (Greater of 2 and 4)
7- HL-93-I (1+ 3)
8- HL-93-II (2+3)

8.2 Pakistan Code of Practice for Highway Bridges;

6- Class-A
7- Class-B
8- Military Tank AA
8.3 National Highway Authority N.L.C Truck Loading;
9- Mercedes Benz truck
10- Volvo Truck (NHA)
11- Volvo Truck (Manufacturer)

9. Results and Discussions

The analysis results obtained for bridge analysis using SAP 2000 and other methods regarding
bridge deck, girders, transom beam and piers for different traffic loadings are presented here in
tabular and graphical form to compare the different traffic loadings and to determine the critical
traffic loadings for the design of bridge superstructure. The results of analysis are given in Table.
1 to Table.7 and clearly interpreted in Fig.13 to 22 for all loading cases.

Table.1 Dead Load analysis of Girder in SAP 2000 [14]

J O I N T R E A C T I O N S FOR DEAD LOAD(kN)
JOINT LOAD F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3
1 LOAD1 0 0 323.1571 0 0 0
2 LOAD1 0 0 323.1571 0 0 0
F R A M E EL E M E N T F O R C E S (kN-m)
FRAME LOAD LOC P V2 V3 T M2 M3
1 LOAD1 0 0 -323.157 0 0 0 6.48E-14
1 LOAD1 6.15 0 -161.579 0 0 0 1490.562
1 LOAD1 12.3 0 -5.73E-14 0 0 0 1987.416
1 LOAD1 18.45 0 161.5785 0 0 0 1490.562
1 LOAD1 24.6 0 323.1571 0 0 0 1.80E-12

TABLE 2. Joint Reactions by Unit load analysis of Girders in SAP 2000 [Value of K]

JOINT LOAD F1 F2 F3 M1 M2 M3

1 UNITLOAD -3.31E-23 0 1.024981 0 0 0

2 UNITLOAD 0 0 1.950039 0 0 0
3 UNITLOAD 0 0 1.024981 0 0 0
Table .3. F r a m e e l e m e n t f o r c es due to unit load kN-m

FRAME LOAD LOCATION P V2 V3 T M2 M3

1 UNITLOAD 0 -9.92E-23 -1.02498 0 0 0 1.07E-16

5
1 UNITLOAD 0.625 -9.92E-23 -0.02498 0 0 0 0.115613
1 UNITLOAD 1.25 -9.92E-23 -0.02498 0 0 0 0.131226
1 UNITLOAD 1.875 -9.92E-23 -0.02498 0 0 0 0.146839
1 UNITLOAD 2.5 -9.92E-23 0.975019 0 0 0 -0.43755
2 UNITLOAD 0 -9.92E-23 -0.97502 0 0 0 -0.43755
2 UNITLOAD 0.625 -9.92E-23 0.024981 0 0 0 0.146839
2 UNITLOAD 1.25 -9.92E-23 0.024981 0 0 0 0.131226
2 UNITLOAD 1.875 -9.92E-23 0.024981 0 0 0 0.115613
2 UNITLOAD 2.5 -9.92E-23 1.024981 0 0 0 7.77E-16
-1.52E-
3 UNITLOAD 0 -1.95E-22 16 0 0 0 2.13E-17
-1.52E-
3 UNITLOAD 0.302327 -1.95E-22 16 0 0 0 6.74E-17
-1.52E-
3 UNITLOAD 0.604654 -1.95E-22 16 0 0 0 1.14E-16
-1.52E-
3 UNITLOAD 0.906981 -1.95E-22 16 0 0 0 1.60E-16
-1.52E-
3 UNITLOAD 1.209308 -1.95E-22 16 0 0 0 2.06E-16
4 UNITLOAD 0 -1.33E-22 1.20E-16 0 0 0 1.88E-16
4 UNITLOAD 0.305712 -1.33E-22 1.20E-16 0 0 0 1.52E-16
4 UNITLOAD 0.917135 -1.33E-22 1.20E-16 0 0 0 7.85E-17
4 UNITLOAD 1.222847 -1.33E-22 1.20E-16 0 0 0 4.20E-17

DESIGN COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TRAFFIC LOADINGS

Table .4. Slab Analysis (Approximate Method)Using Different Loadings
Dead load moment Live Load Moment kN- Design Moment kN-m
Traffic Loadings kN-m m
Loading Type ASD LRFD ASD LRFD ASD LRFD
HL-93 truck 5.61 8.438 31.27 63.3 36.88 71.738
HL-93 Tandem 5.61 8.438 23.89 48.37 29.5 56.808
CLASS- A 5.61 8.438 23.98 48.55 29.59 56.988
CLASS- B 5.61 8.438 14.42 29.2 20.03 37.638
AA 5.61 8.438 40.97 82.97 46.58 91.408
NLC Truck 5.61 8.438 36.2 73.29 41.81 81.728
Volvo(NHA) 5.61 8.438 25.77 52.191 31.38 60.629
Volvo 5.61 8.438 8.92 18.067 31.475118 63.729246

Table .5 . Design Moments for Interior Girder(Span 24.6 m)

Traffic Dead load Live Load Moment Design Moment
Loadings moment kN-m kN-m kN-m
Loading Type ASD LRFD ASD LRFD ASD LRFD
HL-93 truck 1987.42 2989.28 2098.69 4249.33 4086.11 7238.61
HL-93
Tandem 1987.42 2989.28 1669.96 3381.253 3657.38 6370.533
HL-93 Lane 1987.42 2989.28 1505 3048 3492.42 6037.28
HS-20 Lane 1987.42 2989.28 2558 5180 4545.42 8169.28
HS-20-I 1987.42 2989.28 2558 5180 4545.42 8169.28
HS-20-II 1987.42 2989.28 2558 5180 4545.42 8169.28
HL-93-I 1987.42 2989.28 3603.69 7297.33 5591.11 10286.61
HL-93-II 1987.42 2989.28 3174.96 6429.253 5162.38 9418.533

6
 CLASS- A 1987.42 2989.28 2205.6 4465.8 4193.02 7455.08
CLASS- B 1987.42 2989.28 1326.56 2685.95 3313.98 5675.23
AA - Tank 1987.42 2989.28 3603 7295 5590.42 10284.28
NLC Truck 1987.42 2989.28 2411.18 4882.05 4398.6 7871.33
Volvo(NHA) 1987.42 2989.28 2968.35 6010.178 4955.77 8999.458
Volvo 1987.42 2989.28 3624.1 7338 5611.52 10327.28

Table .6 . Design Shear for Interior Girder(Span 24.6 m)using Different

Traffic Loadings
Traffic Dead load Shear Live Load Shear Design Shear kN
Loadings
Loading Type ASD LRFD ASD LRFD ASD LRFD
HL-93 truck 323.16 486.065 343.19 694.87 666.35 1180.935
HL-93
Tandem 323.16 486.065 278.32 563.54 601.48 1049.605
HL-93 Lane 323.16 486.065 245 495 568.16 981.065
HS-20 Lane 323.16 486.065 493 998 816.16 1484.065
HS-20-I 323.16 486.065 493 998 816.16 1484.065
HS-20-II 323.16 486.065 493 998 816.16 1484.065
HL-93-I 323.16 486.065 588.19 1189.87 911.35 1675.935
HL-93-II 323.16 486.065 523.32 1058.54 846.48 1544.605
CLASS- A 323.16 486.065 424 858 747.16 1344.065
CLASS- B 323.16 486.065 254.88 516.08 578.04 1002.145
AA - Tank 323.16 486.065 586 1186 909.16 1672.065
NLC Truck 323.16 486.065 402.21 814.37 725.37 1300.435
Volvo(NHA) 323.16 486.065 455.726 922.731 778.886 1408.796
Volvo 323.16 486.065 556.4 1126.59 879.56 1612.655

Table .7. Design Moment for Transom Beam - 1( b/w two Longer Span )using
Different Traffic Loadings
Traffic Dead load moment Live Load Moment Design Moment kN-m
Loadings
Loading Type ASD LRFD ASD LRFD ASD LRFD

HL-93 truck 7676.51 11546.24 2625.37 5315.7179 10301.88 16861.95791

HL-93 Tandem 7676.51 11546.24 1919.67 3886.8518 9596.18 15433.09183

HL-93 Lane 7676.51 11546.24 3733 7560 11409.51 19106.24
HS-20 Lane 7676.51 11546.24 5039 10203 12715.51 21749.24
HS-20-I 7676.51 11546.24 5039 10203 12715.51 21749.24
HS-20-II 7676.51 11546.24 5039 10203 12715.51 21749.24
HL-93-I 7676.51 11546.24 6358.37 12875.718 14034.88 24421.95791
HL-93-II 7676.51 11546.24 5652.67 11446.852 13329.18 22993.09183
CLASS- A 7676.51 11546.24 3369.85 6823.1038 11046.36 18369.34379
CLASS- B 7676.51 11546.24 2026.8 4103.7633 9703.31 15650.0033
AA - Tank 7676.51 11546.24 4632 9380 12308.51 20926.24
NLC Truck 7676.51 11546.24 3370 6823.4075 11046.51 18369.6475
Volvo(NHA) 7676.51 11546.24 3754.78 7602.4908 11431.29 19148.73081
Volvo 7676.51 11546.24 4584.33 9282.1222 12260.84 20828.36217

7
 6.7 m

Fig. 1. Cross section of bridge deck

(Taken from drawings TEPA)

8
 2500

112.5

1700 1400
all dimensions in mm

250

560
Fig.2. Dead load acting on interior girder from the slab (Ref. from Book by V.K. Raina)

1.6m 1 1.8m 1 1.2 m 1 1.8m 1 0.3 m

0.59 1.79 1.62

Fig.
3. Unit traffic loading in transverse direction for calculating fraction of wheel load (k) on an exterior
girder in SAP (FBD of model built in SAP)
Pe Pi Pe Pe Pi Pe

140kN/m 66.87 kN/m

9
Fig.4. Loadings acting on the transom for dead load analysis

Fig.5. Axial Force and Moment in Pier

10
Electric Pole 6.7m 0.37m

Vehilcles
0.9m
0.25m
Slab + WS

1.22 2.5 2.5 1.22 2.1m

Girders
0.15

Transom Beam 2.375m

6.5m

Pier (All dimensions in meters) 5.1m

7.5m

Fig.6. The cross section of bridge considered for analysis

East
Abutment

E11

E10
E9 11
E8
E7
 35kN 4.3m 145kN 4.3-9.0m 145kN Axle Load

Fig.7. HL-93 Truck

Loading (AASHTO Code)
1.8.m

3.6m

Fig.8. HL-93 Tandem

Loading (AASHTO Code)

110kN 1.2m 110kN

0.1W 0.4W 0.25W 0.25W

1m 3.2m 1.2m 4.3m 3m 3m 3m

For class-A W=276 kN

For class-B W=166 kN

Fig. 9 Class-A and Class-B Loading (Pakistan Highway code)

12
 W/3 2/3W 0.43W 0.43W
5.62m 4.85m 4.14m
W= 250 kN

Fig. 10. NLC Mercedes Benz Truck Loading

(Pakistan Highway Code)

0.31W 0.69W 0.59W Each

3.4m 3.5--7.3m 1.22m 1.22m

Volvo (NHA) = 172 kN

Volvo (Manufacturer weight limit) = 210 kN
Fig. 11. Volvo Truck Loading (Pakistan Highway code)

3700
7300

W = 698 kN Fig.12. Class AA Loading

W/2 divided to (Pakistan Highway code)
each axle

3658

838 1220 838 All dimensions in mm

13
 Com parison of Mom ents in Com parison of Shear in slab ,
Slab , Direct Method (LRFD) Direct Method , (LRFD)

160
300
140
120 250
Moment kN-m

100

Shear kN
200
80
150
60
40 100

20 50
0
0

Traffic Loadings
Traffic Loadings

Fig.13. Comparison of Moments in bridge deck Fig.14. Comparison of Shear in bridge deck
Com pariosn of Shear in Interior
Com parison of Mom ents for Girder(24.6m ) LRFD
Interior Girder(24.6m ) LRFD
12000
2000
10000
Moment kN-m

1500
Shear kN

8000

6000
1000
4000 500
2000
0
0
CLASS- A

CLASS- B

AA - Tank

NLC Truck

Volvo(NHA)
HL-93-I
HS-20-I

HS-20-II

HL-93-II

Volvo

Traffic Loadings Traffic Loadings

Fig.15. Comparison of Moments in Interior Girder Fig.16. Comparison of Shear in Interior Girder

Com parison of Mom ents for Com parison of Shear in Exterior

interior Girders(18.45 m ) LRFD Girder ( 18.45 m ) LRFD

8000 2000
7000
Moment kN-m

Shear kN

6000 1500
5000
4000 1000
3000
2000 500
1000 0
0

Traffic Loadings
Traffic Loadings

Fig.17. Comparison of Moments in Interior Girder Fig.18. Comparison of Shear in Interior Girder

14
 Com parison of Mom ents in Com parison of Shear in Exterior
Exterior Girder(24.6 m ) LRFD Girder (24.6 m ) LRFD

2000
12000
1500
Moment kN-m

Shear kN
10000
8000
1000
6000
4000 500
2000
0
0

Traffic Loadings Traffic Loadings

Fig.19. Comparison of Moments in Exterior Girder Fig.20. Comparison of Shear in Exterior Girder

Com parison of shear in Com parison of m om ents in

Transom Beam -1 (LRFD) Transom Beam -1 (LRFD)

10000 30000
25000
Moment kN-m

8000
Shear kN

20000
6000
15000
4000 10000
2000 5000
0 0

Traffic Loadings Traffic Loadings

Fig.21. Comparison of shear in Transom Fig.22. Comparison of Moments in Transom

10. Conclusions

The research work is helpful for designers as the bridge should be designed based on the traffic
loadings producing maximum stresses in its structural elements. This work can be used in selection
of appropriate loadings out of all possible types of traffic loading in Pakistan and many other
countries. It is also recommended that all consulting engineering companies working on the bridge
design should agree on one set of traffic loading which is safe for all permissible type of traffic.
Further the method of bridge design must be uniquely selected as LRFD has already prevailed in
USA. The following conclusions and recommendations are made:
▪ HL-93 loading may be considered as critical loading. This loading can be used with a local
condition factor of 1.15. This over factor designs all the structural components except the
slab by 8%. Appropriate local condition factor may be 1.08.
▪ In this case study it is concluded that, for longer spans HL-93 is definitely more critical
than any other loading.

15
▪ HL-93 Loading is always giving more critical results than HS-20, due to addition of force
affects for truck and lane loading.
▪ The traffic loadings having more number of axles are not critical compared with that having
smaller no. of axle loadings. It is due to the more intensity of each axle loading in the latter
case. Therefore, HL-93 may be critical because it is a relatively heavier loading adopted
in AASHTO LRFD to model exclusion vehicles. This may or may not be relevant for all
cases in Pakistan.

Recommendations

In USA, AASHTO allows LRFD specifications after 2005. It is better to shift to this method for
analysis and design of bridges in order to effectively use the latest standards. Nevertheless, the
check should be provided according to local conditions. Although this requires the state of
knowledge and state of practice of local design engineers and contractors.

Acknowledgement
All thanks are due to Almighty Allah who enable us always to think and to search. The authors
acknowledge the efforts of Malik Ahmad Nawaz, Director TEPA (Traffic Engineering and
Transport Planning Agency). We want to acknowledge the organizations and departments
involved in this research which include; Civil Engg. Dept. U.E.T. Lahore, NESPAK Lahore, TEPA
Lahore and NHA Pakistan.

REFERENCES
[1] Sara, A., and Tariq M., “Codes of Practice for Highway Bridges Design”, B.Sc. Thesis,
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, 1991.

[2] Farzin H., “Traffic Load Assessment on Short to Medium Span Bridges”, M.Sc. Thesis,
MIEI University College, Dublin, 2002.

[3] Trimble M., Cousins, D., Thomas, E., and Seda-Sanabria Y., “Field Study of Live Load
Distribution Factors and Dynamic Load Allowance on Reinforced Concrete T-Beam
Bridges”, Engineer Research and Development Centre Vicksurg Ms Geotechnical and
Structures Lab. 2002.

[4] AASHTO-LRFD, “Bridge Design Specification” Published by the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials, SI Units, First Edition, USA, 1994.

[5] PWD Pakistan, “Design and Construction of Bridges and Culverts” Public Works
Department, PWD Pakistan Code, Building and Road Branch, 1957.

[6] AASHTO, “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”, 16th Edition, National
Academy Press, Washington D.C., Sec.3, 8 &9, pp. 12-41,165-184,195-217, U.S.A., 1996.

[7] Jagdish, T.R., and Jayaram, M.A., “Design of Bridge Structures”, Edition 3rd, Chapter
4,10, pp. 79-85, Press and Published by Asoke K. Ghosh, Prentice Hall, New Delhi, India
Year 2003.

16
[8] Mark, G., “Research Thesis on Live Load Distribution on Bridges”, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Delaware, Newark, U.S.A., Year 2002.

[9] Nawy, E.G., “Prestressed Concrete”, 4th Edition, Chapter 1,4,6 &12, pp. 1-28,106-
218,324-401,726-804, ISBN 0130083917, Published by Prentice Hall PTR, U.S.A., July-
2002.

[10] Nilson, A.H. & Winter G., “Design of Concrete Structures”, 11th Edition, Published by
McGraw-Hill College, U.S.A., March 1991.

[11] PHA, “Pakistan Code of Practice for Highway Bridges”, Press and Published by PHA,
Pakistan, 1967.

[12] Ponnuswamy S., “Bridge Engineering Handbook”, 9th reprint, Ch.14, pp. 329-384
Published by Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, India, 2003.

[13] Pucket J. & Barker R., “Bridge Engineering”, Edition 1st, Press and Published by John
Wiley, Country U.S.A., 1994.

[14] Raina V.K., “Concrete Bridge Practice-Analysis, Design and Economics”, Second Edition,
Chapter 2,3,18,19,26 &37,pp. 6-8,9-25,206-228,229-260,531-547, Press and Published by
Tata McGraw-Hill, Country New York, U.S.A.Year 1994.

[15] SAP-2000, “Non Linear Version 7.21”, Computer and Structure Inc. University Ave,
Berkeley, CA, 1995.

[16] Tanveer, and Ahmed, S., “Design of 4-Lane H/Way Bridge”, B.Sc. Thesis, University of
Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, 1995.

[17] Victor, J.D., “Essentials of Bridge Engineering”. 5th Edition, Chapter 8, pp. 175-229
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 2001.

[18] Petros P. “Theory Design & Bridges”, 1st Edition, Ch 1-3, pp. 1-295, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, U.S.A., 1994.

[19] TEPA & NESPAK, “Working Drawings”, Provided by Client of the Project, Traffic
Engineering and Transport Planning Agency, Country Pakistan, Year 1994.

List of Abbreviations and Symbols:

ASD: Allowable Stress Design Method

LRFD: Load and Resistance Factor design
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway AND Transportation Officials
FBD: Free Body Diagram
NLC: National Logistic Cell
NHA: National Highway Authority
TEPA: Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning Agency
NESPAK; National Engineering Services of Pakistan

17
 SAP: Structural Analysis Program
k: Fraction of live load on interior or exterior girder
V1, 2,3 = Shear force on girders
M1, 2,3 = Bending Moment in girders
P = Axial forces
F1, 2,3= Joint reactions
T= Torsion
WS= Wearing Surface

18

View publication stats