Anda di halaman 1dari 17

Truck Loading on Bridges

Transportation Engineering 2

Truck Loading on Bridges

1 30/11/2001

Purpose of discussion is to gain an understanding of truck loading considerations on bridge design and operations.

Truck Loading on Bridges

2 30/11/2001

Purpose is to gain an understanding of truck loading consideration on bridge design and operations. We will consider the effect of legal load increases on bridges.

Bridge Design Design Loads vs. Real Loads Effects of Load Increases Considerations for Increasing Load Limits Prioritization of Bridge Projects Provencher Bridge

Truck Loading on Bridges

3 30/11/2001

Ill give a brief overview of bridge design codes and how design loads are applied to bridges. Then well discuss theoretical design loads vs. real trucks. Well look at the effects of load increases on existing bridge infrastructure. Bridge infrastructure has to be considered when Legal load increases are considered on networks or routes. Well briefly discuss how bridge rehabilitation projects are prioritized. Then well discuss some unusual live load considerations related to the new Provencher Bridge.

North American Bridge Codes

AASHTO Standard Specifications AASHTO LRFD CSA-S6 OHBDC (Ontario) CHBDC (New CSA-S6)

Truck Loading on Bridges

4 30/11/2001

AASHTO Standard Specifications is the American bridge code that has been historically used for bridge design and construction. The AASHTO LRFD code was released in 1994 and is now in its second edition. It is based on Load and Resistance Factor limit states and was inspired by the Ontario Code. Both of these codes are still considered valid in the States. Some of the poorer states are not in a position to retire the Standard Specifications. The CSA code was originally based on the AASHTO Standard Specs. In the early 80s, Ontario decided to write there own code because they felt AASHTO/CSA were not incorporating new research fast enough and as a result the codes were patch-worked together without consistent approaches. The OHBDC was based on Limit States Design. The 1988 CSA-S6 version was basically a truncated version of the Ontario Code. By the early 90s, the Ontario government decided it could not support as much research and looked to other jurisdictions to support the Bridge Code. The result was the CHBDC which was just released last year. It took years because it was put together with volunteer time. CSA published the code as the new S6. The Province of Manitoba and The City of Winnipeg use the AASHTO codes for design and are the only jurisdictions in Canada to do so. The main reason is there is technical support and software available. It remains to be seen when software will be available for the Canadian Code.

Bridge Design Loads

Based on theoretical trucks:
AASHTO HS-20 Truck and Lane HSS-25 (Manitoba) HS-30 Lane Load AASHTO LRFD HL-93 CHBDC CL-625 Truck and Lane

Truck Loading on Bridges

5 30/11/2001

The HS-20 Truck and corresponding lane load are the historic live loadings from the AASHTO Standard Specs. Over the years many agencies have proportionally upgraded it to HS-25 and HS-30 although these trucks have never been published. HSS-25 is home grown truck only used in Manitoba. Its an HS-25 truck with an additional heavy axle. HS-30 lane load is also used in Manitoba. Usually this lane loading will govern over HSS-25 on bridge spans somewhere over 40 m in length. The HL-93 loading is the new loading in the AASHTO LRFD code. It combines an HS-20 truck with a simultaneous lane load. The code designers had come up with more appropriate models but the Americans couldnt let go of the HS-20 truck. The CL-625 is the new truck loading from the Canadian Code.

Truck Loading on Bridges

6 30/11/2001

Briefly discuss truck loads and lane loads. Point out that single axles are above legal tandems and tridems in some cases.

Truck Loading on Bridges

6 30/11/2001

Design Load Considerations

Theoretical trucks simplify calculations. Truck models based on statistical probability of overloads. Calibrated for each code. In most cases analysis for one truck on bridge. Empirical distribution factors account for all lanes being loaded.
Truck Loading on Bridges 7 30/11/2001

Theoretical trucks simplify calculations. This was especially important before computers and sophisticated software that generate live load envelopes. In addition, in the new codes, the truck models are based on statistical probability that the bridge structures will be overloaded. This way you dont have to consider every possible combination. The live load models are calibrated to each code and it is not recommended that they be interchanged without great care. For instance, Manitoba now considers HSS-25 in addition to the HL-93 series with the LRFD code. This OK because they consider the worst effect. Theoretical truck analysis is simplified because you only consider one truck on the bridge. Discuss HL-93 for negative moment. Empirical distribution factors simulate all lanes being loaded across the bridge.

Legal TAC Trucks

Real Highway Trucks. Current Limit 62 500 kg. Restrictions on axle group loads as well as overall dimensions. GVWs increased 70 % in last 25 years. Load increases come in small increments. 36 500 kg, 50 000 kg, 56 600 kg.
8 30/11/2001

Truck Loading on Bridges

These are real trucks that use the Highway system but may be restricted from some roads & bridges. Current loading 62 500 kg. Legal trucks not only have restrictions on overall weight but also on axle group loads and the overall dimensions including axle spacing. Legal truck loads have increased 70% in the last 25 years due to lobbying of the trucking industry. Load increases have come in small increments to make them palatable. Each time jurisdictions have to look at the effect on the highway infrastructure.

Truck Loading on Bridges

9 30/11/2001

Discuss the overall dimensions and axle group loads.

Truck Loading on Bridges

9 30/11/2001

Theoretical vs. Real

HS-20 generally deficient for 62 500 kg TAC loading. HS-20 deficient for 56 500 kg on simple spans > 20 m. HSS-25, HL-93, & CL-625 will provide reserve capacity on short spans. Long span bridges need to be analyzed on case by case basis.
Truck Loading on Bridges 10 30/11/2001

Here are some effects that increases in legal loading have had on bridge design loads and by extension existing bridge infrastructure. Bridge designed for HS-20 are generally deficient for 62 500 kg trucks. HS-20 design for spans greater that 20 m were also deficient for 56 500 kg which was the previous legal load. The new theoretical design models provide significant reserve capacity for short and medium span bridges. Long span bridge and continuous bridge need to be looked at on a case by case basis. I always like to consider legal loads and overloads as a check.

Effects of Load Increases

Increased loading corresponds to increased maintenance and shorter service life. Increased truck traffic volume will also increase maintenance.

Truck Loading on Bridges

11 30/11/2001

Increased legal loads leads to increased maintenance and shorter service life for the structures. This concept is generally accepted by professionals but is hard to relate to others because there isnt enough quantitative data. Most jurisdictions are adopting asset management principles and software to help document deterioration quantitatively; although the main reason is to justify cost effective management of the assets. Increased truck volumes will also increase maintenance. As an example the Province constructs short span Class 2 structures on secondary highways called Provincial Roads. These structures are designed for the same live load models as the first class structures. However, their details are not nearly as durable in order to make them more economical. Consequently on heavily traveled secondary highways new bridges are built with first class structures.

Load Increase Considerations

Condition of structure
Deterioration may prohibit increases and may reduce current load levels.

Truck traffic (ADTT) Inventory vs. Operating Rating

Inventory rating defined as trucks that cross the bridge without restriction. Operating rating allows bridges to be stressed to a higher level for permits & overloads.
Truck Loading on Bridges 12 30/11/2001

When live load increases are proposed, there are many considerations for existing bridge infrastructure. Conditions of the structures on the identified route or whole network must be considered. Bridges designed for a specific loading may be deficient for that level if the structure is not in good condition. It may be because of deterioration from corrosion or other environmental effects or it could be because of excessive substructure movements related to unstable slopes or scour. Truck volume is also important especially for the second class structures mentioned before. Stressing bridges to higher levels on an infrequent basis can be done. This is more applicable to permit loads. Discuss inventory and operating rating; old way of doing things. Note that this method is no longer shown in the newer bridge codes. For evaluation newer codes assess upper stress levels by considering many variables including structure condition, wearing surface condition and ADTT.

Increasing Load Limits

Many agencies adopt polices allowing bridge to be stressed to some point between inventory and operating on a regular basis. Bridges in this category are inspected more frequently and will require rehabilitation or replacement sooner.

Truck Loading on Bridges

13 30/11/2001

Sometimes agencies adopt polices to allow over-stresses on some bridges on a route if the route is of strategic importance. As an example, when legal loading was increased to 62 500 kg, the Province had identified timber bridges on TAC routes as deficient. The decision was to allow the higher loading on these structures and put them on a replacement program. Unfortunately, the replacement program never really materialized. Bridges in this category should be inspected more frequently to identify rehabilitation and replacement requirements.

Prioritization of Bridge Projects

Based on structure condition and not load carrying capacity. Rehabilitations will accommodate strengthening to current standards wherever possible. If initiated by trucking industry:
Administration would request report. Report back on capacity and impacts/costs associated with various option.
Truck Loading on Bridges 14 30/11/2001

Well briefly discuss how the City prioritizes bridge rehabilitation projects. In general, projects are prioritized based mainly on structure condition. Carrying capacity is secondary unless the structure is of strategic importance. Bridge rehabilitations will accommodate strengthening structures to current standards wherever possible. This may be based on economics or whether strengthening is practical. In general strengthening in rehabs can add significant cost. By comparison, upgrading to a higher design loading for new structures may only add 2 to 4 % to the total structure cost. If the trucking industry requested and upgrade to a route in the city, Administration within the City would request a report from technical staff. The report would identify the capacity of the structures on the route and the impacts and costs associated with various option.

Provencher Bridge
Special interest groups wanted no trucks on bridge above 36 500 kg. City had to defend designing to code.
Code calibrated to design load. Would have to design for actual truck trains. May be as severe in the end.

Truck Loading on Bridges

15 30/11/2001

The Provencher Bridge Project required us to look at unusual live load considerations. Special interest group during public consultation wanted to limit or eliminate trucking on Provencher Blvd. They wanted the new bridge to be designed for the post load limit on the existing bridge. Upon review, it became apparent that it wasnt rational not to use the live load models to which to code is calibrated. We would have had to look at various pattern loading of the 36 500 kg trucks on the bridge to develop a rational design. Designing this way may have been more severe than using the theoretical design models.