Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering

and Construction Ghafoori (ed.)

2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-56809-8

Applicability of AASHTO LRFD live load distribution factors

for nonstandard truck load

Y.J. Kim
Department of Civil Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA

R. Tanovic & R.G. Wight

Department of Civil Engineering, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the applicability of live load distribution factors provided by the American
Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor Design (AASHTO
LRFD) Specifications for the evaluation of capacities of civilian bridges when standard military vehicles are
applied. The standard military vehicles are prescribed by the NATO Standardization Agreement 2021 (STANAG
2021). Three-dimensional finite element analysis models are developed to examine the AASHTO LRFD distri-
bution factors for the wheeled Military Load Classification (MLC) truck loads. A total of 27 different loading
scenarios are considered to evaluate the LRFD formulas for a typical steel I-girder bridge having a loading span
of 36 m with three traffic lanes. The AASHTO LRFD formulas for lateral load distributions are conservative up
to approximately 30% for this particular bridge.

1 INTRODUCTION reviewed when a bridge is subjected to nonstandard

An adequate evaluation of the load-carrying capacity
of a bridge is an important issue to determine the
allowable traffic loads on a bridge. The design and
construction of modern highway bridges are based on
the load effect of standard design trucks. However,
constructed bridges may be subject to nonstandard
truck loads such as military trucks or logging-industry
trucks. The flexural response of a bridge under such
nonstandard loads may be different from that under
the standard truck load. Inadequate predictions of the
load effect may cause serious damage in the bridge.
Because the traffic loads in bridges are not uniformly
distributed to the individual components of the super-
structure, one of the first steps to evaluate the capacity
of the bridge superstructure to carry nonstandard vehi-
cles is to make a realistic assessment of the lateral load
distribution to the structural components such as main
girders. Numerous research efforts have been made
to predict the load distributions on a bridge (Zokaie
2000; Song et al. 2003; Kim et al. 2008). Zokaie et al.
(1991) conducted an intensive survey of over 800
bridges across the United States and developed design
formulas to predict the lateral load distributions. The
American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO) adopted the developed
formulas for a new version of the bridge code called
the Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge
Design Specifications (AASHTO 1994, 2007). The
applicability of the design provisions should be
truck loads, given that the formulas have been devel-
oped based on the standard trucks. This paper exam-
ines the applicability of the live load distribution
factors of the AASHTO LRFD to nonstandard military
truck loads.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Live load distribution
Distribution of axle loads in slab-on-girder bridges
is significantly influenced by the configuration of
truck axles and wheels as well as the structural char-
acteristics of the main structural components such as
the span length, girder spacing, girder stiffness, etc.
Three methods are typically used in North America
to predict the lateral load distributions, including the
AASHTO Standard, the AASHTO LRFD, and the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC).
The AASHTO Standard (AASHTO 1996) uses a sim-
ple formula called the S/D method. According to the
S/D formula, the load distribution is simply based
on the girder spacing (S) and the characteristic con-
stant (D) that depends on the type of superstructure
(e.g., D = 5.5 for concrete slab on steel girders, S is
in feet). No other parameters are considered. Zokaie
(2000) reported that the S/D formulas were acceptable
for bridges having girder spacing near 6 ft. and span
length close to 60 ft., whereas the predictability of the

371
formulas was not accurate when the properties of a
bridge were varied. Kocsis (2004) also reported the
inaccuracy of the S/D method, based on an analysis
program using the semicontinuum method.
The AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO 1994, 2007) spe-
cifications provide more advanced format of distribu-
tion formulas, as typically shown in Eq. 1.
     
S 0.6 S 0.2 Kg 0.1
LDF MI
= 0.075 + (1)
2900 L Lts3
where LDF MI is the load distribution factor for exte-
rior girders subject to two or more (multiple) design
lanes, S is the girder spacing (mm), L is the span length
(mm), ts is the slab thickness (mm), and Kg is the stiff-
ness term consisting of a modula ratio between the
girder and the deck, moment of inertia and area of
the girder, and girder eccentricities. The distribution
for exterior girders is based on the Lever Rule and the
Rigid Method. The Lever Rule means the statical sum-
mation of moments about one point to calculate the
reaction at a second point (AASHTO 1994). The load
distribution factor is the reaction divided by the applied
load. This simple method based on mechanics does not
account for the properties of a bridge (i.e., only girder
spacing and truck locations are taken into account).
The AASHTO Standard specifications also use the
Lever Rule for exterior girders. The Rigid Method is
shown in Eq. 2.
 limited information is available. Heavy truck loads
NL Xext NL e
R= + N (2)
Nb b 2
x may affect the performance of existing bridges in
where R is the reaction on an exterior beam in terms
of lanes, NL is the number of loaded lanes under con-
sideration, e is the eccentricity of a design truck or
a design lane load from the center of gravity of the
pattern of girders (mm), x is the horizontal distance
from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders
to each girder (mm), xext is the horizontal distance
from the center of gravity of the pattern of girders
to the exterior girder (mm), and Nb is the number of
girders. The Rigid Method may overestimate the live
load effect because the method does not include the
transverse and torsional stiffness of a superstructure
(Tobias et al. 2004).
The CHBDC (CSA 2006) assumes a uniform dis-
tribution of the applied load effect and applies ampli-
fication factors to allocate the live load effect to the
exterior and interior girders, as shown in Eq. 3.
Mg = Fm Mgaverage (3)
where Mg is the maximum bending moment per girder
due to live load, Fm is the amplification factor to
account for the transverse variation of the moment,
and Mgaverage is the average bending moment per
372
girder determined by sharing equally the total moment
on the bridge cross section among all girders in the
cross section. Further details are available elsewhere
(CSA 2006).
The live load distribution from a refined analysis
can be calculated using Eq. 4.
Mrefined
LDF = (4)
Mbeamline
where Mrefined is the maximum bending moment that a
girder may experience and Mbeamline is the largest bend-
ing moment obtained from a simple beamline analysis
with a single lane of traffic. The live load distributions
can also be obtained by the measured values from load
testing using Eq. 5 (Klaiber et al. 2001).
i
LFi = n (5)
j j
where LF i is the load fraction factor for ith girder,
is the number of wheels, i is the deflection of ith
girder, j is the deflection of jth girder, and n is the
total number of girders.
2.2 Effect of nonstandard truck load
Although the flexural response of a bridge subject
to nonstandard trucks is an important issue, very
that have not been considered in a bridge design
terms of load-carrying capacity (Du & Han 2008).
Papavizas & Kostem (1985) reported that deflections
and midspan bending moments of the bridges subject
to nonstandard vehicles increased up to 208% and
199%, respectively, in comparison to those under the
standard truck. Wide wheel-line spacing of nonstan-
dard trucks may result in different load distributions in
comparison to those under standard trucks. According
to a field test combined with a refined model (Bridge
Diagnostics 1999), the lateral load distributions of
tested bridges using a Heavy Equipment Transporter
System (HETS) truck were significantly different from
those under the HS20 truck. Keating et al. (1995) pro-
posed a reduction factor to adjust the different load
effects induced by nonstandard trucks.
3 NONSTANDARD MILITARY TRUCK LOAD
3.1 Military load classification
STANAG 2021 (STANAG 2002) provides standard
classifications of military trucks, namely, the Mili-
tary Load Classification (MLC) series that consist of
tracked and wheeled design vehicles. For this study,
 62.3 kN 115.65 kN 115.65 kN 124.6 kN

Weight and wheel-line spacing 145 kN 145 kN 35 kN

MLC-40
3660 1220 4880
Weight Wheel-line Standard
Truck 4300 4300
(kN) (mm)
71.2 kN 133.53 kN 133.53 kN 177.94 kN
HS-20 325 1800 Standard
35.6 kN 75.6 kN 75.6 kN 26.8 kN
MLC-50
MLC-20 214 2150 3660 1220 4880
MLC-20
MLC-24 249 2150 3050 1220 3660
71.2 kN 160.2 kN 160.2 kN 115.65 kN 115.65 kN
MLC-30 303 2100
44.5 kN 88.95 kN 88.95 kN 26.8 kN
MLC-40 418 2100 MLC-60
3660 1520 4570 122
MLC-50 516 2050 MLC-24
3050 1220 3660
93.4 kN 186.88 kN 186.88 kN 124.57 kN 124.57 kN
MLC-60 623 2380
53.4 kN 97.85 kN 97.85 kN 53.4 kN
MLC-70 716 2320 MLC-70
3660 1520 4570 122
MLC-80 819 2260 MLC-30
3050 1220 3660
106.8 kN 213.56 kN 213.56 kN 142.34 kN 142.34 kN

MLC-80
3660 1520 5490 1520

Figure 1. Details of the MLC wheeled trucks.

the wheeled vehicles are considered. Typical informa- 380 13420 380
tion of the MLC wheeled trucks is shown in Figure 1,
including the weight and the wheel-line and axle spac-
(a)
ing. The weight of the MLC wheeled trucks varies
205

from 66% to 252% when compared to that of the stan-

dard truck (HS20 weighing 325 kN). The number of
axles is more than that of standard truck and the wheel-
line spacing varies from 14% to 32% greater than the (b)
1.8 m spacing of HS20. The military trucks are well
controlled during the operation, thus spacing between
the trucks is assumed to be 0.5 m (STANAG 2002).

3.2 Load combination
The MLC wheeled trucks may be positioned to
generate the maximum bending moment in a bridge.
Multilanes of the MLC trucks may be operated if
necessary (e.g., emergency situation during war).
Typical load combinations for this study are shown
in Figure 2. To provide an adequate evaluation of
the AASHTO LRFD provisions on the live load dis-
tribution (AASHTO 1994, 2007), two cases of load
combinations are considered herein such as single-lane
and two-or-more-lane loaded. The effect of dynamic
load allowance was not taken into account. The focus
of this paper is on the interior girders subject to various
types of MLC trucks, as shown in Figure 2. In partic-
ular, the trucks were loaded to induce the maximum
stress of girder 3 (Fig. 2).
The identification code to represent the loading
cases (Table 1) includes the truck type (IS = standard
truck and INS = nonstandard truck), class of the MLC
truck, and number of the loaded lanes. For instance,
a load case of IS-2 means 2 lanes loaded with two
standard trucks (e.g., Fig. 2b), whereas INS-40-3
indicates three lanes of MLC40 trucks (e.g., Fig. 2c).
(c)
1 2 3 4 5 6
5@2440 = 12200
990 990
14180
Figure 2. Load combination of MLC trucks (unit: mm):
(a) one-lane loaded; (b) two-lane loaded; (c) three-lane
loaded.
4 BRIDGE DETAILS
A steel plate girder bridge was designed to simulate the
MLC load effect, based on Barker and Puckett (1997).
The designed bridge was simply supported and was
36 m long and 14.2 m wide (3 traffic lanes). The
bridge consisted of six I-girders with a height of
1,540 mm (i.e., top flange = 400 mm 15 mm, web =
1500 mm 10 mm, and bottom flange = 400 mm
25 mm) and a deck thickness of 205 mm with a hunch
depth of 25 mm, as shown in Figure 2. Full composite
action was assumed between the girders and the deck.
The concrete strength was 30 MPa with a modulus of

373
Table 1. Live load distribution factors (interior girder). A perfect connection between the structural members
was assumed to represent the full composite action
LRFD FEA Error (%) as was designed. Detailed material properties are
Loading case (a) (b) (ab)/a shown in the previous section. The solved FEA results
(stresses from the elements) were converted to equiva-
IS-1 0.348 0.275 21.0
IS-2 0.605 0.495 18.2 lent moments using structural analysis. To determine
IS-3 0.712 0.628 11.8 the live load distribution factors, Eq. 4 was used. The
INS-W20-1 0.348 0.283 18.7 AASHTO LRFD provisions were then compared to
INS-W20-2 0.605 0.478 21.0 the refined analysis results. It should be noted that the
INS-W20-3 0.712 0.610 14.3 effect of multiple presence factor was not included in
INS-W24-1 0.348 0.287 17.5 the comparison.
INS-W24-2 0.605 0.479 20.8
INS-W24-3 0.712 0.611 14.2
INS-W30-1 0.348 0.285 18.1 5.2 Model validation
INS-W30-2 0.605 0.476 21.3
INS-W30-3 0.712 0.610 14.3 The accuracy of the FEA model was validated using
INS-W40-1 0.348 0.279 19.8 a conventional structural analysis method. A three-
INS-W40-2 0.605 0.467 22.8 axle standard truck (325 kN) was loaded on the desig-
INS-W40-3 0.712 0.601 15.6 ned bridge where the maximum bending moment
INS-W50-1 0.348 0.271 22.1 occurred and the deflections were compared, as shown
INS-W50-2 0.605 0.489 19.2 in Figure 4. The agreement was satisfactory with a
INS-W50-3 0.712 0.624 12.4 maximum error of less than 3%.
INS-W60-1 0.348 0.271 22.1
INS-W60-2 0.605 0.497 17.9
INS-W60-3 0.712 0.603 15.3
INS-W70-1 0.348 0.271 22.1 6 APPLICABILITY OF THE AASHTO LRFD
INS-W70-2 0.605 0.426 29.6 PROVISION
INS-W70-3 0.712 0.541 24.0
INS-W80-1 0.348 0.272 21.8 A comparison between the AASHTO LRFD provision
INS-W80-2 0.605 0.458 24.3 and the refined analysis results is made in Table 1. It
INS-W80-3 0.712 0.576 19.1
should be noted that only governing load factors that
Average error of HS20 17.0%
Average error of MLC 19.5% represent the load factors of 6 girders are shown in
Table 1. The LRFD predictions for MLC trucks were

elasticity of 26 GPa. The yield strength of the steel

was 350 MPa with an elastic modulus of 200 GPa.
The Poissons ratios were assumed to be 0.25 and 0.3
for the deck and the girders, respectively.

5 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Figure 3. Developed FEA model.
5.1 Finite element analysis
A refined analysis using the finite element pack-
age ANSYS was conducted to examine the response
of the bridge (Fig. 2) under the standard and non-
standard truck loads, rather than a simple grillage
method. The 3-dimensional bridge model is shown in
Figure 3. An elastic analysis was performed, given that
the bridge may not experience any inelastic behavior
under the loading range provided by the trucks con-
sidered herein. Concrete cracking in the deck was
ignored. The bridge model included 4-node shell ele-
ments (SHELL 63), consisting of 6 degrees of freedom
per node, to represent the deck and the girders. The
cross bracings were represented by 3-dimensional spar
element (LINK 8) to provide stability of the girders. Figure 4. Validation of the FEA model.

374
in general conservative with an absolute average error
of 19.5% that is 14.7% higher than the error under
the standard truck of 17.0%. On the contrary to the
AASHTO LRFD classifications (i.e., one-lane and
multiple lane loaded), the refined analysis showed con-
stant increases in load distribution factors when more
trucks were loaded, as shown in Table 1. The greatest
error between the LRFD and the FEA was found in
the case of two-lane loaded and the smallest error was
under the three-lane loaded cases. This is attributed
to the fact that the AASHTO LRFD provision do
not distinguish the load effect from two-lane and
three-lane loaded cases, whereas the multiple presence
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5. Profile of load distribution factors across the
critical section: (a) one-lane loaded; (b) two-lane loaded;
(c) three lane loaded.
375
factors (1.0 for two-lane and 0.85 for three-lane) in the
formula that have been extracted influenced the com-
parison. Figure 5 shows typical profiles of the distribu-
tion factors across the critical section. For the single-
lane loading case, there was no notable difference in
the response under the trucks (Fig. 5a), whereas a trend
showing reduced distribution factors was observed
when more lanes were loaded. This is due to the fact
that more girders shared the applied load effect.
7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has presented the applicability of the
AASHTO LRFD provisions to predict the live load
distributions on a girder-type bridge, based on the
calibrated 3-dimensional FEA models. The AASHTO
LRFD approach provided conservative predictions of
the load distributions for the military trucks within
the error range of 14.2% to 29.6% for this particu-
lar I-girder bridge. The on-going research includes
an expansion of the current model to cover various
loading spans, different sizes of the girders, and more
loading combinations to examine the nonstandard load
effect for the interior and exterior girders. An improved
predictive design equation will be proposed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) to the first author.
REFERENCES
AASHTO. 1994. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifica-
tions, 1st ed. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 1996. AASHTO standard specifications for high-
way bridges, 16th ed. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. 2007. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifica-
tions, 4th ed. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Bridge Diagnostics Inc. 1999. Bridge response investiga-
tion: U.S. army heavy equipment transporter system
(HETS). Report, New Mexico State University, Engi-
neering Research Center.
Barker, R.M. and Puckett, J.A. 1997. Design of highway
bridges based on AASHTO LRFD bridge design speci-
fications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
CSA. 2006. Canadian highway bridge design code
(CHBDC): CAN/CSA S6-06. Canadian Standard Asso-
ciation, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Du, J. & Han, D.J. 2008. Bridge safety analysis considering
heavy truck loading, Intern. Conf. on Bridge Mainte-
nance, Safety, Health Monitoring and Information (IAB-
MAS08), Seoul, Korea: 24422449.
Keating, P.B., Litchfield, S.C., & Zhou, M. 1995. Overweight
permit rules. Texas Transportation Institute, College Sta-
tion, Texas.
Kim, Y.J., Green, M.F., & Wight, R.G. 2008. Live load dis-
tributions on impact-damaged prestressed concrete girder
bridge repaired using prestressed CFRP sheets. Journal
of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 13(2): 202210.
Klaiber, F.W., Wipf, T.J., Nahra, M.J., Ingersoll, J.S., Sardo,
A.G., & Qin, X. 2001. Field and laboratory evaluation
of precast concrete bridges. Iowa Department of Trans-
portation, Final Repost, Project No.TR-440, Ames, Iowa.
Kocsis, P. 2004. Evaluation of AASHTO live load and line
load distribution factors for I-girder bridge decks. Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE,
9(4): 211215.
Papavizas, P. & Kostem, C.N. 1985. Structural response of
simple span bridges to nonstandard vehicles. The 2nd
Annual Intern. Bridge Conf., Pittsburgh, PA: 184188.
376
Song, S.T., Chai, Y.H., & Hida, S. 2003. Live-load distri-
bution factors for concrete box-girder bridges. Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 8(5): 273280.
STANAG .2002. Standardization agreement (STANAG) 2021,
6th ed. NATO Standardization Agency.
Tobias, D.H., Anderson, R.E., Khayyat, S.Y., Uzman, Z.B., &
Riechers, K.L. 2004. Simplified AASHTO load and resis-
tance factor design girder live load distribution in Illinois.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 9(6): 606613.
Zokaie, T., Osterkamp, T.A., and Imbsen, R.A. 1991. Dis-
tribution of wheel loads on highway bridges. NCHRP
12-26/1 Final Report, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Washington, D.C.
Zokaie, T. 2000. AASHTO-LRFD live load distribution spec-
ifications. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 5(2):
131138.