Compwrsd Srructwes

Vol.49,No. 5,pp.837-842,
1993
0 1994
Elwier ScienceLtd
Printed in Great Britain.

Pergamon

004s7949/93 s6.00+ 0.00

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES

SUBJECTED TO MOVING LOADS
M. A.

SAADEGIWAZIRI

Department of Civil Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 07102, U.S.A.
(Received I July 1992)

Abstract-A proper estimate of the dynamic effect of traffic load on the response of highway bridges is
becoming increasingly important. Reduction in the ratio of dead load to total load which makes the effect
of the live load more pronounced, and the adoption of ultimate-strength design method by many design
codes are among those factors that make an accurate evaluation of the live load very important. This paper
illustrates how a general purpose finite element package can be used to consider the dynamic effect of a
moving load traversing a highway bridge. This objective is achieved by employing the load arrival time
option in ADINA. It is shown that, if the problem is modelled properly, the results are as good as the
exact solution. Note that the exact solution is practically possible only for a simply supported bridge
considering only the effect of the fundamental mode. Thus, using finite element a practical research study
can be performed to develop graphical design aides for more accurate evaluation of the impact factor.
The versatility and power of tinite element technique will also make it possible to easily investigate the
spatial nature of response to traffic load.

INTRODUCTION

the behavior of highway bridges has been

the subject of numerous investigations in the past, the
dynamic effect of a moving load crossing a bridge is
still accounted for through a relationship adopted in
1927 [l]. Literature surveys of works on the dynamic
effect of a traffic load point to two factors as the
reasons for the lack of any change since late 1920s:
(i) need for a simple relationship to account for a
complex phenomenon,
and (ii) adequacy of the
adopted equation in light of the fact that few (if any)
failures of highway bridges can be attributed directly
to the dynamic effect of a moving load.
However, now the U.S.A. is faced with an essential
and urgent need to rehabilitate and maintain the
infrastructure to provide the required level of service
and to cope with growing demand on the highway
system. Resources available to address this issue are
limited and to optimize the allocation of these funding it is essential to implement new technologies.
Finite element technology can play a significant role
in management of highway bridges as it relates to
maintenance, rehabilitation as well as replacement
activities. The advancement in this area has resulted
in the ability to rationally analyze and evaluate the
load capacity of structural systems with great accuracy. Saving from accurate load ratings of highway
bridges can be hundreds of millions annually. For
example, FHWA estimates that the additional user
costs associated with commercial traffic detouring
around
load-restricted
bridges can cost from
$150,000 annually on the low side, to $200,000 a day
on high capacity bridges. Proper estimate of the
dynamic effect of a moving load on the response of
Although

837

highway bridges is an essential component to accurate evaluation of load capacity of existing bridges.
Furthermore, due to recent advancement in the development of high strength materials bridges are becoming more efficient, while the live load carried by these
bridges is increasing. Consequently, the ratio of the
dead load to total load is decreasing and the dynamic
effect of the live load is becoming more important,
especially as it relates to evaluation of the fatigue life
of the structure.
Previous analytical
studies on the dynamic
response of highway bridges subjected to moving
load have implemented special mathematical models
(analytical programs) developed for this purpose that
are not widely available to design engineers [2-4].
However, commercial finite element packages with
many capabilities are becoming increasingly available to even small firms. It is the purpose of this
paper to demonstrate the use of the load arrival time
option, available in programs such as ADINA [5],
in modeling a moving load on a bridge. The accuracy of the method along with possible pitfalls are
discussed.
BACKGROUND

The current design of highway bridges uses the

following equation to account for the dynamic effect
of a moving load (L in feet)
I = 5O/(L + 125) < 0.3.

(1)

This equation was adopted in 1927 by a joint committee of American Railway Engineering Association
and AASHTO.

838

M.A.

SAADEGHVAZIRI

Obviously, this simple equation can not account

for many parameters that influence the vehicle-bridge
dynamic interaction. Among those parameters which
influence the vehicle-bridge interaction the most
important ones are: dynamic characteristics of the
bridge (frequencies, damping, etc.) dynamic characteristics of the vehicle, initial condition of the vehicle
and the bridge, roughness of the bridge deck and
irregularities in the approach. Extensive analytical
as well as experimental work conducted at the University of Illinois [24] has addressed many of these
parameters in details. As a result of this work, it
was determined that for a smoothly rolling load
crossing a span the speed parameter, a, controls the
dynamic amplification. That is, the dynamic deflection is increased over the static value by an amount
that depends on a. The speed parameter is defined as
follows:
ci = V/ZLf,
where V is the speed of the load crossing the bridge
(ft/sec), L is the span length (ft), and f is the natural
frequency of the bridge (Hz).
Of course other parameters such as spacing of
axles relative to the span length were also identified
to be important. The response of three-span continuous bridges was also examined. Consequently,
an alternative impact factor was suggested as
follows:
I=O.i5+cc.
The constant term represents the effect of the initial
condition and the speed parameter accounts for the
dynamic interaction between the vehicle and the
bridge. However, this proposed formula which has a
much greater relation than eqn (1) to the observed
behavior of highway bridges under traffic load was
not adopted in any design code.
The need for change is essential for the fact that
bridges are becoming more slender and trucks are

getting heavier. Furthermore, most design codes are

adopting ultimate-strength
criteria and a more
realistic estimate of the dynamic effect of live load
is essential to the application
of this design
methodology. Indeed, the Ontario Highway Bridge
Design Code has taken the first step by relating the
Dynamic Load Allowance factor to the natural
frequency of the structure rather than the span
length [6]. In a report by the ASCE committee on
loads and forces on bridges [7] the need for research
in areas of bridge loading is examined. As it relates
to impact, it is stated that: there is as much need
to bring uniform practical application in a coherent
way to the large body of fundamental knowledge
that has already been acquired on the subject of
bridge impact, as there is to further expand the field
of knowledge in this area. One of the research
problems is identified as: Preparation of Design Aids
Based on Rational Methods of Analysis for Dynamic
Live Load Allowances due to Traffic Loading on
Highway Bridges. The finite element technique can
provide the means to convert the rational methodologies for calculating dynamic load increments to
usable charts and other graphical design aids.
FINITE ELEMENT

MODEL

Load arrival time option

The arrival time flag in ADINA allows for activation of the load at a time that may be different than
the solution time [5]. That is, with a nonzero arrival
time (ARTM)
the loading time function will be
shifted equal to the arrival time specified. Thus, the
load will be zero for those solution time t ,< ARTM,
and it is active for solution time t > ARTM. Note
that for t = ARTM the loading is not active. Therefore, for a solution time starting from zero and an
ARTM
equal to twice of the solution time step
(i.e. 2At) the corresponding time function and load
values are shown in Fig. I.

I,(?)

I;
1

7At

0.0

At = time step
No. of Steps = 8
'

SOLUTION PER100
Fig. 1. The arrival

time option:

associated

time function

and resulting

load values.

839

Finite element analysis of highway bridges

# of

elements

# of

nodes

= 24
= 25

T IS varyng

lo

give

different

0.06

0.96
Fig. 2. A typical mesh and corresponding ARTM corresponding to V = 1000 in/set

Thus, by defining time functions and concentrate

loads with appropriate duration, 7p, and arrival times
one can easily simulate the effect of smoothly moving
truck with multiple axles.

to system period, T, is low enough for accuracy as

discussed in the following section.

Finite element mesh

In the following examples effects of surface roughness as well as the initial conditions of the bridge
and the truck are not being considered. Furthermore,
it is assumed that the weight of the moving load is
negligible compared to the weight of the bridge, and
the magnitude of the moving load is constant.

Although one can use 3-D elements to model the

bridge and investigate the spatial effect of traffic load,
in this work the bridge is modelled using beam
elements. The number of elements is controlled by the
slowest velocity of the moving load to be simulated
and the period of the bridge.
The length of each element, AL, is equal to L/N,
where L is the span length and N is the number of
elements. Then, the time to traverse one element
(i.e. to go from node i to node i + l), TV, is equal to
AL/V, where V is the velocity of the moving load.
The ratio of 7c, to I, period of the highest mode with
significant contribution to the response of the system, must be as small as possible in order to avoid
unrealistic impact amplification. Furthermore, to
avoid causing a random type of loading the value of
7p must be always equal to 7,. That is, the load must
be always acting on the system, although it will be at
different locations at any given time. Other truck
speeds, faster than the speed used in evaluation of 7,)
can be modelled by applying the load to every several
other node depending on the desired speed to be
represented. These points are discussed further in a
following section under modeling considerations.
Therefore, the mesh to model a single axle vehicle
(say 40 kips weight) traversing a bridge with span
equal to 960 at a velocity of 1000 in/set (56.8 mph)
will be as shown in Fig. 2. Faster vehicular speed such
as 2000 in/set can be modelled by applying the load
to every other node (i.e. nodes 1, 3, 5, . ., 25 with
arrival times equal to 0, 0.04, 0.08, . . ., 0.48 set). For
slower velocity of the truck either finer mesh can be
used or the load duration can be elongated to accommodate lower velocity. The later option can be
employed as long as the ratio of the load duration, 7,,,

RESULTS

Simple-span

bridge

The mid-span deflection and moment of a simply

supported beam traversed by a constant force ignoring damping is determined using finite element and
the results are compared to the exact solution. The
exact solution for deflection, Y as given by Walker
and Veletsos [2], is as follows:

2PL3 m
Y= -1
714EL.=,

sin 2nm-

T,

n2(n2-cz)

t -,

sin 2an 2-Cl

Tb

n3(n2--cx2) 1

sin

nnt
L

where P is the magnitude of the moving load, EI is

the bridge Youngs modulus and moment of inertia,
L is the span length, c( is the speed parameter, Tb is
the fundamental period of the bridge, and n is the
mode number.
To simplify the exact solution only the fundamental mode is considered. Furthermore, the quantity
2PL3/n4EI which represents the first term series
approximation to the static mid-span deflection is
replaced by the exact value of mid-span static
deflection, y,, . Thus, the central deflection takes
the following form
sin 27caY, = .u2

YSI

Tb

l-u2

sin 2n L
T,
-a1_a2

M. A. SAADEGHVAZIRI

840

Table 1. Dynamic amplification factors for exact and FE solutions

DAD exact solution

DAD finite element
DAM/DAD FE

0.1

0.2

1.09
1.09
0.822

1.08

Speed parameter, a
0.3
0.4
1.41
1.40
0.822

1.07
0.822

1.62
1.60
0.822

0.5

0.6

1.73
1.70
0.822

1.76
1.74
0.822

DAD = Dynamic amplification factor for deflection; DAM = Dynamic amplification

factor for moment.

which is maximum

when

cos 27ru+ = cos 2n f

b

For different values of CI the exact solution is

compared to the finite element solution employing
modal superposition
method and considering
only

the fundamental mode (note that for typical highway bridges tl = 0.06 to 0.2). The values of dynamic
amplification factor (i.e. ~/JJ,,) for both methods are
given in Table 1. The finite element solution compares
very well to the exact solution. The ratio of moment
amplification factor to that for deflection for the finite
element solution is also given in this table which is

exactly the same as the exact value of rt r/l2 = 0.8224

[2] for all values of speed parameter.
An interesting point to consider is the contribution
of higher modes to the value of the reactions. As seen
from Figs 3 and 4, the mid-span deflection and
moment are not affected by consideration of higher
modes, however, the time history of the left reaction
(Fig. 5) does indicate significant contribution by the
higher modes. Note that considering single mode
response there is a sudden drop in the reaction as the
load passes the abutment and enters the span. This is
due to low contribution of the first mode (sinusoidal
shape) to reaction when the load is close to the
supported end. Considering only the first mode the

Fig. 3. Center span deflection.

4@JO
t

.4

/Multi modt

Time,

WC

Fig. 4. Center span moment.

841

Finite element analysis of highway bridges

Time,

set

Fig. 5. Reaction at entering abutment.

L
a = 0.8: cu =
f,

VC?Lf,

= first mode frequency

Fig. 6. A three-span bridge.

Table 2. Dynamic amplification factors for deflection (three-span bridge)
0.2

parameter, a
0.3
0.4
0.5

0.6

1.14

1.30

1.20

1.74

2.02

1.15

1.27

1.18

1.74

2.02

Speed

0.1
Exact solution [3]
Finite element solution

1.06
1.07

maximum reaction is equal to 41.4 kips. With this

value the ratio of shear amplification factor to that of
deflection is equal to 0.646 which is exactly equal to
the theoretical value of 7~/48 given by Walker and
Veletsos [2]. For a multi-mode solution the maximum
reaction is 46.35 kips which is 12% higher than the
value obtained by single mode solution. Note that a
similar observation has been made by Walker and
Veletsos 121.
The effect of higher modes is included simply by
considering more than one mode in the modal superposition analysis, or one can simply consider the
effect of all modes by performing direct time history
analysis rather than modal supe~osition. This ihustrates the power of the finite element method and the
contribution that it can make to improvement of
design guidelines.
Multiple-swan

bridge

The three-span bridge shown in Fig. 6 was also

analyzed for different values of CLThe results for
a = 0.8 are given in Table 2 along with the exact
solution evaluated by Nieto-Ramirez and Veletsos [3]
using a special-purpose program.

Similar to the simple-span bridge the finite

element results are in very good agreement with
the exact solution. Some points to be considered
for a good balance between accuracy and practicality
are discussed in the next section.

~OD~LLING CONSIDERATIONS

Through two examples it was demonstrated that

general purpose finite element packages can be used
to model the effect of moving loads traversing a
bridge. However, there are a couple of points that
need to be considered in developing the finite element
model.
The first point to consider is the duration of the
loading. This is determined by the velocity that is
being represented, which in turn is related to the size
of the elements used. For example, if a simply
supported bridge of length 960 is to be traversed by
a truck with lOOOin/sec velocity and the mesh consists of only four elements (i.e. five nodes), then the
duration of loading must be 0.24 sec. However, for
most cases this will not give accurate results due to
high ratio of Q. In this example, for a = 0.2 the

842

M. A.

SAADEGHVAZIRI

system period would be 0.384, which gives a 0.625

ratio for rp/T. The analysis of the bridge results in a
deflection amplification factor equal to 1.4, which is
significantly different than the exact value of 1.08 as
shown in Table 1. If the mesh is refined to eight
elements (i.e. 9 nodes) the load duration will decrease
to 0.12 sec. With this mesh the deflection amplification factor will be 1.089, which is a very good estimte
of the actual value. Further refinements of the mesh
changed the results slightly. The number given in
Table 1 is for a mesh with 24 elements. This is taken
as the finite element solution because further refinement of the mesh (up to 192 elements) did not make
any difference in the value of the dynamic amplification factor. So, the results indicate that a mesh
must be used such that the ratio of to/T is less than
0.1, however, this ratio does not have to be very
small.
Another point to consider is the fact that the load
must be always acting on the system. That is one can
not reduce the load duration rather than refinement
of the mesh. For example, for the problem discussed,
one may decide to use tP = 0.12 with a four elements
mesh. Therefore, in order to represent the same
velocity the arrival times are 0.0, 0.24, 0.48,
., 0.96
at the first, second, third, . ., and last node. This
gives a DAF equal to 0.57, which is grossly in error.
So, the load duration must be always equal to the
time required to traverse one element.
CONCLUSIONS

It is shown that general purpose finite element

packages can be used to model the dynamic effect

of moving loads traversing highway bridges. With

the power and versatility of finite element, an
analyst can easily investigate the dynamic effect of
multi-axles trucks coming from both directions at
different intervals. Furthermore, using 3-D elements,
the spatial nature of response can be also
investigated.

REFERENCES
I. AASHTO, Standard specifications for bridges. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington,
DC (1989).
2. W. H. Walker and A. S. Veletsos, Response of simplespan highway bridges to moving vehicle. SRS No. 272,
Department
of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois, Sept (1963).
3. Nieto-Ramirez
and A. S. Veletsos, Response of threespan continuous
highway bridges to moving vehicles.
Engflg Experi. Station Bull. 489, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL (1966).
4. A. S. Veletsos and T. Huang, Analysis of dynamic
response of highway bridges. J. Engng Mech. Diu.,
ASCE %, EM5 (1970).
5. ADINA
Engineering,
Automatic
dynamic incremental nonlinear
analysis.
Report
ARD 87-1, ADINA
Engineering,
December (1984).
6. Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, 2nd Edn.
Ontario
Ministry
of Transportation
and Communication, Downsview, Ontario, Canada (1983).
7. Bridge loading: research needed. Committee on Loads
and Forces on Bridges of the Committee on Bridges of
the Structural
Division. J. Strucf. Die., AXE
108,
ST5 (1982).