Dynamic response of bridges under travelling loads

J. L. HUMARAND A. M. KASHIF
Department of Civil Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ont., Canada KIS 5B6
Received October 22, 1991
Revised manuscript accepted June 19, 1992

In spite of a number of analytical and experimental investigations on the dynamic response of bridges to moving
vehicle loads, the controlling parameters that govern the response have not been clearly identified. This has, in turn,
inhibited the development of rational design procedures. Based on an analytical investigation of the response of a simplified
beam model traversed by a moving mass, the present study identifies the governing parameters. The results clearly
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13

show why attempts to correlate the response t o a single parameter, either the span length or the fundamental frequency,
are unsuccessful. Simple design procedures are developed based on relationships between the speed ratio, the weight
ratio, and the dynamic amplification factors; and a set of design curves are provided.
Key words: dynamic response of bridges, vehicle-bridge interaction, moving force model, moving sprung mass model,
dynamic amplification factor.

Malgre un certain nombre d'Ctudes experimentales et analytiques de la rCponse dynamique des ponts soumis a des
charges mobiles, les parametres de contrBle qui rCgissent cette reponse n'ont pas encore Cte clairement Ctablis. Cette
situation a eu pour effet d'entraver le dCveloppement de mCthodes de calcul rationnelles. FondCe sur une analyse de
la rCponse d'un modele simplifii traversC par une masse mobile, la prisente Ctude a pour but d'identifier ces parametres.
Les rCsultats indiquent clairement pourquoi toutes tentatives d'associer la rCponse a un seul parametre comme la longueur
de portCe ou la frCquence fondamentale se sont rCvClCes infructueuses. Des mCthodes de calcul simples ont CtC ClaborCes
en tenant compte des relations entre le rapport de vitesse, le rapport de poids et les coefficients d'amplification dynamique.
Enfin, un ensemble de courbes de calcul est presentC.
Mots cl6s : rkponse dynamique des ponts, interaction vChicule-pont, modele de force mobile, modele de masse mobile
suspendue sur ressorts, coefficient d'amplification dynamique.
[Traduit par la rkdaction]
For personal use only.

Can. I. Civ. Eng. 20, 287-298 (1993)

Introduction motivated a large number of analytical and experimental

Vibration of bridge structure under the passage of vehicles
is an important consideration in the design of bridges.
Dynamic response of bridges has assumed added significance
with the advent of faster and heavier vehicles and the use
of structural forms and materials that permits the bridge
to be more slender. Interaction between the vehicle and the
bridge is a complex dynamic phenomenon. This complexity
results from the large number of different parameters that
may affect the dynamic response. The following is a list of
the important parameters.
1. Characteristics of the vehicle, which include the
number of axles, the axle spacing, axle loads, the natural
frequencies of the vehicle along its degrees of freedom, and
the damping provided by the shock absorbers and interleaf
friction in the springs.
2. Characteristics of the bridge structure, that is, its
dimensions, support conditions, and mass and stiffness
distribution. Often, these characteristics can be represented
by the mode shapes and frequencies of the structure.
3 . Vehicle speed.
4. Profile of the bridge deck, and the vibrations intro-
duced by surface irregularities and surface misalignments
at the abutments and expansion joints.
5. The travel paths of vehicles on the bridge deck.
6. The number of vehicles and their relative positions on
the deck.
7. Forces caused by braking and acceleration.
The complexity of the dynamic response of bridges has
NOTE: Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until August 31, 1993 (address inside
front cover).
Printed in Canada / lmprinle au Canada
investigations on the behaviour of bridge decks traversed
by moving vehicles. A list of references describing the early
work in this area has been provided by the Committee on
Deformation Limitations of Bridges (1958), Jacobsen and
Ayre (1958), and Veletsos and Huang (1970). A more recent
bibliography has been provided by IRC Highway Research
Board (1984).
In the analytical studies, the bridge deck is commonly
modelled either as a uniform prismatic beam or as an
isotropic or orthotropic two-dimensional plate. Notable
among the studies based on the beam model are those by
Biggs et al. (1959), Fleming and Romualdi (1961), Veletsos
and Huang (1970), and Yoshida and Weaver (1971).
Studies based on a plate model have been carried out by
Yoshida and Weaver (1971) and by Sundara Raja Iyenger
and Jagadish (1968, 1970). In other studies, a combination
of beam elements, to represent the girders, and plate
elements, to represent the slab, has been employed (Yamada
and Veletsos 1958; Oran and Veletsos 1961).
More sophisticated methods based on finite element or
finite strip representation have been used by some
researchers to study the dynamic behaviour of bridges.
Cheung and Cheung (1972) studied the free vibration behav-
iour of curved and straight beam-slab or box-girder bridges
using the finite strip method. Rabizadeh and Shore (1975)
used the finite element method for analytical studies of
curved box-girder bridges. Mirza et al. (1985) also used the
finite element method to study the behaviour of composite
concrete deck-steel bridges.
As a result of the large volume of research, some of which
has been cited above, analytical models and methods have
now been developed that will permit rational study of the
 CAN. J. CIV. EN1S. VOL. 20, 1993
: z sin ILL
L vehicle and the bridge deck.
T UNSPRUNG MASS
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13
BEAM WITH MASS
FIG. 1. Modelling of bridge-vehicle system.
dynamic response of a bridge structure of given geometry
and other physical characteristics under the passage of a
vehicle modelled in an adequate manner. In most cases, the
sophisticated analytical techniques still fail to identify the
major parameters that govern bridge response. In fact, the
use of simplified models may be more effective in identify-
ing the characteristics that govern response and in developing
rational procedures for design.
Recognizing the limitation of analytical techniques in
providing a clear understanding of the complex dynamic
behaviour of bridges and t o validate such techniques by
For personal use only.
correlation with test data, a number of experimental studies
on the dynamic behaviour of bridges have been undertaken.
Notable among these are the studies carried out for the
American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHTO) (Fenves et al. 1962; AASHTO 1962) and those
undertaken under the auspices of Ontario Highway Research
Program (Wright and Green 1964; Csagoly et al. 1972;
Billing 1982).
The experimental investigations cited above have provided
important information on the dynamic behaviour of bridges,
yet it has not been possible to develop clear correlations
between the nature of response and the parameters that are
known t o affect such response. For example, attempts have
been made to obtain relationships between dynamic ampli-
fication of deflections and the bridge frequency, bridge
weight, irregularity of the riding surface and the approaches,
vehicle weight, and, somethat indirectly, the vehicle fre-
quency by plotting the amplification data against one of
these parameters. In each case, the data show a large amount
of scatter; and the interpretations are often speculative and
subjective.
In spite of the limitations of various analytical and exper-
imental studies, certain broad conclusions have been drawn.
Among the conclusions most often cited, the following are
of particular interest.
1. Since the response of a bridge structure under a moving
load is a complex dynamic phenomenon, simple geometrical
and statical parameters such as depth-span ratio and static
deflection under live load do not provide a n adequate basis
for predicting or estimating the response. The use of such
parameters by certain codes t o define design requirements
is not therefore entirely rational.
2. The first flexural mode of the bridge usually dominates
the response.
3. A phenomenon of quasi-resonance appears to exist
when the vehicle bounce or pitch frequency is close t o the
fundamental natural frequency of the bridge.
4. The dynamic amplification of response predicted by
a two-dimensional plate model is generally lower than that
predicted by a beam model even when both models are
traversed by an identical vehicle.
5. Irregularity in the riding surface or in the approach
affects the response very significantly and may be more
critical than the normal interaction between the moving
Many of the conclusions cited above are well substan-
tiated; others, although widely accepted, may need further
verification. In any case, there still remains a need for clearly
identifying the important parameters that govern response.
The lack of understanding of such parameters has inhibited
the development of more rational code requirements; and
even where code revisions have been made, the revised
provisions are not necessarily more rational.
Recent studies on the response of bridges under static
loads (Bakht and Jaeger 1985) have gone a long way toward
identifying the parameters that govern the response under
such loads and in rationalizing the design procedures; how-
ever, additional study is needed in the area of dynamic
response. The work reported here attempts t o contribute
towards the understanding of parameters that affect the
dynamic response of bridges through analytical studies of
simplified bridge models. The models studied have been kept
simple so as not to obscure the important concepts and
effects. It must be noted that the present study deals only
with the induced stresses and deflections; the important
question of human perception of vibrations is not covered.
Modelling of the bridge and the vehicle
In order to clearly identify the important parameters, the
bridge and the vehicle are both represented by highly
idealized models that are still believed to capture the essential
dynamic characteristics. Referring to Fig. 1, the bridge deck
is modelled by a uniform prismatic beam. In the present
study, the beam is assumed t o be simply supported. The
vibration shapes of such a model are sinusoidal or harmonic,
and the first harmonic dominates the response. If desired,
the effect of some higher modes can be easily included. As
an alternative, the beam can be modelled by a series of inter-
connected prismatic beam elements and the standard finite
element method is used t o analyze such a model. The vehicle
is modelled by a single unsprung mass and a sprung mass
supported by a spring and a dash pot, the latter representing
a viscous damping mechanism. The vehicle is assumed to
remain in contact with the surface of the deck as it rolls along
the deck.
Various levels of simplification are introduced in the basic
model described above. Such simplifications will be
described as they are used.
Response under a moving force
In the simplest model of the bridge and the vehicle, the
bridge is represented by a simply supported beam and the
vehicle by a load moving along the bridge at a constant
speed. The surface of the deck is assumed t o be even and
regular. The behaviour of the model has been described in
the standard literature (FrLba 1972; Humar 1990). The
model fails to account for the important effect of interaction
between the bridge and the vehicle and is therefore of little
practical value. Nevertheless, it does help in visualizing the
 HUMAR AND KASHIF 289

effect of interaction and is useful in that context. 1.8

It may be assumed that as the load moves across the
bridge, the bridge vibrates in its fundamental mode given by
9 1.6
[I] #(x) = sin - 7rx
L
The dynamic deflection under the moving load is €hen .E
obtained from !
-
5
PI u(x, t ) 4
r 1.2

- 27rat - ----
sin - a
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13

Tb 1 - a Tb 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.O
where P is the moving load, L is the length of the bridge, a = VTb
2L
EI is the flexural rigidity of the beam model, Tb is the 1.5
fundamental period of the bridge, v is the speed of the vehi-
cle, and a = vTb/2L is the speed parameter. Noting that
T = L/v is the time it takes for the vehicle to cross the bridge,
,
6
a can be viewed as half the ratio of the fundamental period
2
of the bridge to the traversing time, T. = 13
The maximum deflection of the beam occurs at mid-span.
If the deflected shape under a static load, P, acting at the
%5-
mid-span is also assumed to be proportionate to sin (7rx/L),
the maximum static mid-span deflection becomes
r
4
1.1
~ P L ~ / T ~This
E I .value is very close to the exact value of
P L ~ / ~ ~signifying
EI, that the function sin (7rx/L) closely
1.o
approximates the static deflected shape. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
It can easily be proved that maximum dynamic deflection
For personal use only.

a = VTb
will occur when 2L
FIG. 2. Dynamic response of a beam under moving force.

where n is an integer. In selecting n it should be ensured
that t does not exceed the traversing time, L/v. In other
words, t/Tb should not exceed 1/(2a). On substituting [3]
in [2]and dividing by the maximum static deflection, the
dynamic amplification factor, D , is obtained as
1 2ma
[4] D = -sin -
1 - a 1 + a
The parameter D has been plotted as a function of a in
Fig. 2. It will be observed that the maximum value of D is
about 1.77 at a = 0.6. Since a rarely exceeds 0.3 in practice,
the portion of the curve for 0 < a 5 0.3 has been redrawn
in Fig. 2b, which more clearly shows the secondary peaks.
Moving sprung mass model
In the beam and vehicle model of Fig. 1 , the displacement
of the sprung mass relative to its position of equilibrium
under self weight is represented by u, and the deflection of
the beam is represented by ub = ~ ( tsin ) (7rx/L), where
sin(7rx/L)is the first mode shape of the beam. If the vehicle
is moving with a constant speed of v, it can be shown that
the equations of motion governing the vibrations of the
vehicle and the bridge are given by (Biggs 1964; Frjrba 1972;
Humar 1990)

C -c sin - 7rvt
L
-c sin "Vt
L ( )+
c sin2 "Vt 2mttT V sin -
T V ~cos -
L L

k 7rvt - c-7rv cos -

- k sin - 7rvt
L L L
7rvt 2 7rvt 7rv 7rvt 7rvt
-k sin - k sin - + c- sin - cos - - m,
L L L L L @)2 sin2 +
 290 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 20. 1993

where mb is the mass of the bridge, E I is the flexural rigidity of the beam model, k is the stiffness of vehicle spring, c
is the damping constant in the vehicle model, m, is the unsprung mass of the vehicle, and m, is the sprung mass of the
vehicle. In order to simplify the problem, m, is taken to be negligible and damping in the vehicle is ignored. The damping
in the bridge was already assumed as negligible. With these assumptions, [5] reduces to
k nvt
- k sin - 0

L L
+-2 ~ 3
m, sin -

We now define x = mv/mb = mass ratio, m* = mb/2, k* = n4E1/2L3, w, = bounce frequency of the vehicle,
wb = = frequency of the bridge model, +
= wv/wb = frequency ratio, A,, = m,g/k* = maximum static
mid-span deflection of the bridge under vehicle load, and 6 = m,g/k = static deflection of vehicle spring. In addition,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13

we define the following set of coordinates:

[7b] 2 = =
zw 6
-
Ast 2xg
Note that z" is equal to the dynamic amplification factor.
On transformation to coordinates t?, and z", [6] reduces to

181 [?
1
[:I
$+,I(dv
+ [ - 2
1
~ sin4 %,t~
+ 4x2cp4 sin2 %,t
+
+
- 2xrp2 sin Cw,t
+2 ~
] ['t]
4 ~
= -
0

[2x+2 sin i.vt]

For personal use only.

Equation [8] represents a set of nonlinear differential
equations that can be solved only by a process of numerical
integration. In the present study, the Newmark's average
acceleration method (Humar 1990) is used. Integration is
carried out with a time step that is a reasonably small frac-
tion of the transversing time, T . A value of At = r/400 is
used in the present study. In order to obtain the dynamic
amplification factor, the entire displacement history is
obtained and the maximum value of D = Z is selected.
Equation [8] indicates that the bridge response is con-
trolled by four parameters, w,, x, +, and a. In fact, intro-
ducing a new time variable F = w,t and noting that a2t7,/at2
= ~ $ 3 ~ z . 7 ~and
/ a F a2z"/at2
~ = ~$3~z"/aF the
~ , response is
found to be independent of w,.
The foregoing discussion leads to the important conclu-
sion that, with the idealizations made, the dynamic
amplification factor is dependent only on the value of x,
+, and a. In other words, two different bridges vibrating
under the passage of a moving vehicle but having identical
values of x, +, and a will have the same dynamic
amplification.
It should be pointed out that for a bridge modelled by
a beam, if the beam is considered to vibrate only in its first
mode of vibration, the dynamic amplification of moment
or shear is exactly equal to that of the deflection. The validity
of this statement follows from the following argument. If
the dynamic displacement of the bridge is represented by
u(x, t) = z sin (nx/L), the same spatial function should be
used to calculate the static displacement. The maximum mid-
span static deflection under the moving mass will then work
out to A,, = 2mVgL3/(n4El)compared to the exact value
of mvgL3/48EI. Since the moment is given by M =
EIa2u/ax2, the dynamic value of the mid-span moment is
n2EIz/L2. In a similar manner, when the static displace-
ment shape is assumed to be a sine function, the maximum
mid-span moment is given by M,, = n 2 E I ~ , , / L 2 =
2m,gL/n2 compared t o the exact value of mvgL/4.
Obviously, M/M,, = z/A,,, signifying that the moment
amplification is identical to the deflection amplification.
If more than one mode shape is included in the modelling
of the deflected shape of the beam, the relationship between
deflection and moment amplification factors depends on the
relative contributions of the higher modes. These contribu-
tions depend on the values of the parameters, a , +, and x.
A simple analysis will show that no systematic trend for the
relationship between the deflection and moment amplifica-
tion factors can be observed. In general, however, the two
are fairly close.
Practical range of the control parameters
Before examining the relationship between the dynamic
amplification factor and the three controlling parameters,
a , +, and x, it is useful to know the practical range of values
that these parameters can take. This can be achieved by
examining the data collected during several experimental
investigations of bridges carried out by other researchers.
A list of 39 bridges each having one or more simply
supported spans has been provided by Wright and Green
(1964) along with a comprehensive set of data relating to
these bridges. The reported data were obtained in the context
of field investigations and tests carried out during 1956-1957
as part of the Ontario Joint Highway Research Program.
The first four columns of Table 1, which contain bridge
classification, dead weight, span, and fundamental fre-
quency, are taken directly from this study; the remaining
columns in that table display the values of the three con-
trolling parameters, calculated on the basis of following
assumed values for velocity, v, vehicle weight, W,, and
vehicle frequency, f,.
 HUMAR AND KASHIF 29 1

TABLE1. List of bridges included in Ontario test program TABLE2. List of bridges included in the New Zealand test
program
Bridge Weight Span fb
type (kips) (ft) (Hz) 4 x ~1 Span Fb
Type (ft) (Hz) 4
TSD 322 96.0 4.42 0.62 0.372 0.107
2500 136.0 3.06 0.90 0.048 0.109 17 span, prestressed beam, 80.0 6.0 0.46 0.10
236 96.0 3.36 0.82 0.508 0.141 concrete deck
150 105.0 4.20 0.65 0.300 0.103 13 span, prestressed beam, 61.0 8.0 0.34 0.10
concrete deck
TST 540 180.0 3.30 0.83 0.222 0.077
4 span, prestressed 36.5, 8.0 0.34 0.15
1296 198.0 2.42 1.14 0.093 0.095
precast deck unit 37.25
1160 174.0 2.58 1.06 0.104 0.102
3 span, prestressed 35.75 10.2 0.27 0.12
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13

2480 320.0 1.70 1.61 0.048 0.084

precast deck unit
1450 200.0 2.27 1.21 0.083 0.100
3 span, skew pier 31.00 10.1 0.27 0.15
258 129.0 3.41 0.81 0.465 0.104
prestressed precast deck
359 146.0 3.28 0.83 0.334 0.095
695 136.0 2.80 0.98 0.172 0.120 NOTES:1 kip = 4.448 kN; I ft = 0.3048 m.
234 101.5 4.50 0.61 0.513 0.100
620 129.0 3.23 0.85 0.194 0.109
105 133.5 3.66 0.75 1.143 0.093
63 105.0 6.13 0.45 1.905 0.071
105 133.5 3.66 0.75 1.143 0.093
131 157.0 4.46 0.61 0.915 0.065
148 138.0 5.00 0.55 0.811 0.066
111 144.0 4.91 0.56 1.081 0.064
226 101.0 3.82 0.70 0.531 0.118
403 138.0 3.56 0.77 0.297 0.093
242 152.0 3.45 0.50 0.496 0.097
91 114.0 4.30 0.64 1.318 0.093
For personal use only.

TST 490 117.0 4.15 0.66 0.245 0.094

86 134.0 5.50 0.50 1.395 0.062
74 94.0 6.90 0.39 1.622 0.070
53 95.0 5.52 0.50 2.265 0.087
TSP 97 70.5 3.88 0.71 1.237 0.167 FIG. 3. Dynamic response of a beam under moving sprung
184 52.5 6.08 0.45 0.652 0.143 mass.
518 89.0 3.18 0.86 0.237 0.167
129 59.0 5.28 0.52 0.930 0.146
232 80.0 3.95 0.70 0.517 0.144 Since the weights of the bridges are not available, parameter
345 79.0 4.95 0.55 0.348 0.117 H cannot be calculated.
450 98.0 3.40 0.81 0.267 0.137 Based on the data provided in Tables 1 and 2, the follow-
BSD 687 78.0 5.23 0.53 0.175 0.112 ing can be considered as the practical limits for the three
1265 83.3 4.87 0.57 0.095 0.148 parameters. In a large majority of cases, the parameter
66 66.0 8.70 0.31 1.818 0.079 values fall within these limits.
179 50.0 10.00 0.28 0.670 0.091
NOTES:The three letters used in the classification stand for the
following: B = beam or plate girder; T = truss; S = simple span;
D = deck structure; P = pony or half-through truss; T = through
truss. 1 kip = 4.448 kN; 1 ft = 0.3048 m. The limit on the value of 4 is based on fv = 2.75 Hz. If
the vehicle frequency is taken as 5 Hz, the practical upper
limit on 4 works out to 2.5.
v = 100 km/h (62 miledhour)
W v = 534 kN (120 kips) Effect of controlling parameters on response
fv = 2.75 Hz
It is well recognized that interaction of the vehicle with
The bridges referred to in the table were generally designed the bridge significantly affects the response of the bridge.
for H20-S16 loading, representing a truck with a weight of Thus a moving force model is quite inadequate in predicting
320 kN (72 kips), although larger loads up to 534 kN the response. This will be evident from Fig. 3 which shows
(120 kips) were permitted on the bridges with special license. the relationship between the dynamic amplification factor,
This value of 534 kN (120 kips) has been used in the calcula- D, and the speed parameter, a , for one value of the weight
tions presented in Table 1. ratio, H, and three values of frequency ratio, 4. It will be
Table 2 presents the data related to five bridges with observed that the envelope of response including interaction
simply supported spans. The bridges which were designed is higher than that for a moving force; the difference between
according to the New Zealand Standards were tested in 1973 the two increases with or. It is also of interest to note that
(Shephered and Aves 1973). Parameters 4 and CY have been the highest dynamic amplification does not always occur at
calculated on the basis of v = 100 km/h and fv = 2.75 Hz. 4 = 1.0.
 292 CAN. J. CIV. EN13. VOL. 20, 1993
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13
For personal use only.
FIG. 4. Response of a beam under moving sprung mass (D
versus 6).
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the dynamic
amplification factor, D,and the frequency ratio for different
values of a and x. In general, the peak value of D increases
with both x and a , although the peaks do not occur at
Approach to the Bridge
Structure
H
P cl
FIG. 5. A bump in the approach to the bridge.
FIG. 6. Response of a sprung mass riding over a bump.
similar values of 4. In fact, contrary to the general belief,
the peaks do not occur at 4 = 1. For a = 0.1, the peaks
are around 4 = 0.4; for a = 0.15, they occur when 4 is
approximately equal to 0.6; for a = 0.2, the peaks are
spread between 4 = 0.6 and 0.9; and for a = 0.3, the spread
is from d = 0.6 to 1.2.
Effect of initial conditions
A number of experimental and analytical investigations
in the past have indicated that the irregularity of the riding
surface of the deck and approaches to the bridge can sig-
nificantly increase the dynamic response of the bridge. While
the increase due to the irregularity of the riding surface may
not be very large, the condition of approaches may lead to
a drastic increase in the dynamic amplification factor.
A small bump or depression in the approaches may be
sufficient to cause such an increase (Shephered and Aves
1973).
The presence of a bump or a depression causes the vehicle
to enter the bridge with initial conditions. This, in turn,
affects the response of the bridge. To get an appreciation
of the magnitude of such initial conditions, consider a
sprung mass riding over a bump in the form of a half sine
wave, the height of the bump being h and the width H
(Fig. 5). It will be assumed that the vehicle does not loose
contact with the riding surface as it passes over the bump.
The equation of motion of the mass is then given by
7rvt
[9] mu, + ku, = kh sin -
H
It can be shown that on exiting from the bump, the vehicle
undergoes free vibrations about the position of equilibrium
under gravity load. The amplitude of such vibrations is given
by
 HUMAR AND KASHIF 293

(a)
a=0.15

without initial
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13

/ /' with initial

displncement
A", = 0.15

'--,. \

iwithout initial
\ displacement

-.-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
For personal use only.

$=%lab
FIG. 8. Comparison of responses with and without initial
FIG. 7. Effect of initial displacement of sprung mass on the displacement of the sprung mass.
bridge response.
can be determined only on the basis of extensive statistical
studies. However, some field investigations have indicated
a range of 0.1 t o 0.4 (Biggs et al. 1959; Shephered and Aves
1973).
If interaction with the bridge structure were negligible,
where 0 = av/(wvH) = v/(2fvH). the effect of the passage of vehicle with initial displacement
The relationship between p/h and 0 is shown in Fig. 6. given by [ l l ] would be exactly the same as that of a moving
The curve shows a peak of magnitude 1.72 at 0 = 0.73. The oscillating force of magnitude Q, where
amplitude of vibration is quite small for larger values of
which correspond to small values of H. Thus for v = [12] Q = - mvg(l + A, cos wvt)
100 km/h, fv = 3 Hz, and H = 0.3 m, 0 is equal to 15.4;
the corresponding value of p/h being 0.13. Evidently, A closed-form solution for the dynamic response under
irregularities of short width in the riding surface or uneven the moving oscillating force can be obtained by assuming
expansion joints do not affect the response as much as that the bridge vibrates in a combination of several of its
bumps and depressions in the approaches. modes. Taking only the first mode into account, the
For simplicity, we will assume that the vehicle enters the response becomes (Humar 1990)
bridge with an initial relative displacement of p and no
velocity. The initial displacement can be expressed in terms
of the transformed coordinates ([7a]) as
1131 D =
[
A , D~ sin cos @
Tb
Tv
+ D 2 cos - 2nt - aD3 sin
2nat sin - -
Tb Tv

+ [J-
1-a,
sin -
2 n d - --
Tb
a - sin
l - a Tb
, x]
where A , = pw:/g is the dimensionless amplitude of vibra-
where
tion of the vehicle on entry. It is easily verified that two
bridges with identical values of a , x , 4, and A , will have
identical responses. A negative sign for A , produces the
most critical response because the static deflection of the
bridge under gravity load is also negative.
As stated earlier, initial oscillations, measured by p or
A,, strongly influence the vibrations of the bridge. The
magnitude of A , is subject to considerable uncertainty and
 294 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 20, 1993
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13
For personal use only.
FIG. 9. Effect of vehicle damping on bridge response - FIG. 10. Effect of vehicle damping on bridge response -
p = 0.0 m.
Tv is the period of the vehicle vibration, and Tb is the fun-
damental period of the bridge.
Equation [13] is composed of two parts; the first part,
which is a function of A,, a , and 4, represents the effect
of oscillating components of the moving force, the second
part, which is similar to [ 2 ] , represents the effect of the
constant component of the force.
Some researchers have used the oscillating force model
to obtain estimates of dynamic amplification. This is not
a correct approach because interaction between the bridge
and the vehicle alters the response. This will be evident from
Fig. 7 which show the relationship between D and 4 for two
different values of a and three different values of x. The
results obtained from [13] are also shown. It will be noted
that in some cases interaction reduces the response, while
in others it increases the response, and the changes can be
very significant. A single value of A, = 0.15 has been used
in both Figs. 7 a and 7 b . For fv = 3 Hz, this value of A,
corresponds t o p = 0.00414 m. It is of interest to note that
for x = 0 the amplification factor obtained from [8]is iden-
tical to that obtained from [13].This serves as one verifica-
tion of the formulations.
In the previous paragraph we compared the dynamic
amplifications caused by initial conditions with and without
interaction between the bridge and the vehicle. We found
that interaction significantly affects the response, except in
the case of vehicles with very low weight ratio. It would be
of interest to study the effect of initial conditions on the
dynamic amplifiations caused by interaction between the
bridge and the vehicle. This can be done by referring to
Fig. 8 which shows the interactive responses with and
p = 0.03727 m.
without initial conditions for two different values of a and
x. The initial conditions significantly increase the peak
response in each case; but the difference between the two
sets of responses becomes less pronounced as a increases.
The curves in Figs. 7 and 8 have been plotted for A, =
0.15. The response will be higher for larger values of A,.
Large values of A, can result under critical combinations
of v, fv, and H. For example, with v = 100 km/h, f v =
5 Hz, and H = 3.8 m, P is 0.73, p/h = 1.72 and a 25 mm
depression will give A, = 4.33. It should be noted that A,
> 1 implies loss of contact between the vehicle and the riding
surface, in which case [ 9 ] - [ l l ]are not valid. However, it
is apparent that a high value of A, will lead to very high
values of dynamic amplification. Fortunately, critical com-
binations that produce very high values of A, are expected
to be rare. Nevertheless, experimental measurements have
highlighted excessive amplification factors resulting from
rough uneven approaches (Wright and Green 1964).
The need to keep the approach surfaces even has long been
recognized and has been considered an important part of
bridge maintenance and rehabilitation. However, with some
exceptions, design specifications do not contain an explicit
provision for the likelihood of the bridge being served by
uneven approaches.
Effect of vehicle damping on response
The damping mechanism in the suspension system of a
vehicle is difficult to model exactly. The suspension system
may be modelled as a parallel combination of a spring, a
viscous damper, and a friction device (Veletsos and Haung
1970). In the present paper, a simple viscous damping model
 HUMAR AND KASHIF
el mvf I"
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13
FIG. 11. Two-axle vehicle model.
is used. This model is considerd adequate for considering
the nature of effect damping has on the response of the
bridge.
The equation of motion including damping is given by
[5]. The level of damping can be expressed in terms of the
For personal use only.
r
damping ratio, = c/2mvwv.Field investigations indicate
that the vehicle damping ratio is fairly low. For example,
field tests carried out by Biggs et al. (1959) using a 10-t dump
r
truck showed an average value of = 2.2%.
Figures 9 and 10 display the effect of vehicle damping on
bridge response. The figures are drawn for different values
r
of a, K , and and include two sets of results; the first set
is based on the assumption that the vehicle is free of vibra-
tions on entry and the second set assumes a n initial displace-
ment given by p = 0.0373 m.
Referring t o Fig. 9, it is observed that vehicle damping
reduces the response but the reduction is not too large. Also,
the inclusion of vehicle damping does not change the nature
of the variation of response with variation of $I.
The results presented in Fig. 10 reveal the presence of darnp-
ing has greater effect on the response when initial condi-
tions exist, reducing the response considerably, especially for
where I, is the mass moment of inertia of the vehicle body,
S is axle spacing, k f = k, = k / 2 is the suspension spring
m
combinations of small vehicle weights and low values of a.
Response of the bridge under a two-axle vehicle
The vehicle idealization used so far consisted of a single
sprung mass. In practice, the weight of the vehicle is
distributed on two or more axles. If bridge span is large in
comparison t o the axle spacing, the single sprung mass
model, where the entire mass of the vehicle is lumped over
one axle, will provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the
bridge response, provided the frequency of the single mass
model is equal to the bounce frequency of the vehicle. For
larger values of the ratio of axle spacing to bridge span, the
response produced by a multi-axle model is likely to be sig-
nificantly smaller than that produced by an equivalent single
mass model.
In this section we investigate the response of a bridge
under the passage of a vehicle that can be represented by
a two-axle sprung mass model. As shown in Fig. 11, the two-
axle idealization has two degrees of freedom, ql represent-
ing the bounce of the vehicle and q2 representing the pitch.
On neglecting the unsprung mass and damping and assuming
that the bridge vibrates in its first mode, the equations of
motion of the vehicle bridge system are given by
stiffnesses, dl = q l , d2 = Sq2, alS is the distance of the
rear axle from the mass centre of body, a2S is the distance
 296 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13
For personal use only.
FIG. 12. Effect of dynamic index parameter o n the bridge
response.
of the front axle from the mass centre of body, N, =
s i n [ ~ ( v t- S)/L] = sin(awvt/4 - TS/L), and N2 = sin
~ v t / L= sin aw,t/$
Equation 1141 shows that the controlling parameters
affecting the response are a , 4, x, S/L, a ] , and I,. For the
purpose of this study, a, will be taken as 0.5 and I, will be
expressed in terms of the nondimensional parameter I^ =
W:/W; = 1,/(1/4m,~~), where we is the pitch frequency of
the vehicle. The dynamic index, 1,is assumed to fall in the
range 0.0-1 .O.
The effect of 1,referred to as the dynamic index, on the
response of the bridge is shown in Fig. 12. The maximum
dynamic deflections have been normalized with the maxi-
mum static mid-point deflection produced by a single-axle
model of same mass. It is observed from the results pre-
sented in Fig. 12 and other similar results not presented here
that for the range of parameters studied, pitching of the vehi-
cle has a small effect on the response. For the foregoing
reason, the effect of pitching motion will be neglected in
all subsequent analyses.
In order to compare the response of the bridge under a
two-axle vehicle with that under an equivalent single-axle
vehicle, dynamic amplification factors are obtained for a
number of different cases. The results are presented in
Fig. 13 which shows the dynamic amplification factor as a
function of 4. The figures are drawn for a = 0.15 and 0.30,
x = 0.50, a, = 0.50,f = 0.0, and two values of S/L (0.15
and 0.30). The deflections are normalized with respect to
the maximum static mid-point deflection of the bridge
produced by an equivalent single sprung mass vehicle model.
For the purpose of comparison, the dynamic amplifications
produced by the single sprung mass are also shown. The
20, 1993
two-axle vehicle
two-axle vehicle
two-axle vehicle
SIL=O.l5
FIG. 13. Effect of S / L parameter on the bridge response.
results show the strong effect of axle spacing on the dynamic
response of the bridge, especially for higher values of a. In
general, the two-axle vehicle produces significantly smaller
response than a single-axle vehicle of the same mass.
Design recommendations
The present codes generally relate the dynamic amplifica-
tion factor either to the bridge span or to the first natural
frequency of the bridge. Neither approach is completely
rational. In fact, relating the amplification factor to the
bridge frequency is not a significant improvement over the
older method of relating it to the bridge span. The correla-
tion between the measured data on amplification and the
bridge frequency is not strong (Wright and Green 1964;
Cantieni 1984), and there is considerable scatter in the data.
This is to be expected on the basis of the analytical results
presented in this paper. Two bridges with equal spans or
equal fundamental natural frequencies can have widely dif-
ferent values of a , 4, and x, and hence large differences
in the calculated amplification factors.
In developing a design methodology for dynamic loading,
we note that as soon as a preliminary design for the bridge
has been completed, the weight and the frequency of the
bridge are determined. Knowing the weight of the design
vehicle, the weight ratio, x, can thus be calculated. The speed
parameter can vary over a range depending on the speed of
the vehicle. However, because the response, in general,
increases with a , it is only the maximum value of a that is
of interest. Like the speed parameter, the frequency ratio,
4 , can also vary over a range of values depending on the
bounce frequency of the vehicle; however, unlike the case
of a , the dynamic amplification does not vary systematically
 HUMAR AND KASHIF
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13
FIG. 14. Generation of envelope curves relating D, a, and x for
two-axle vehicles.
-- two-axle
For personal use only.
FIG. 15. Comparison between design envelope curves of single-
axle vehicle and two-axle vehicle.
with 4. This will be clear from Fig. 4. Dynamic amplifica-
tions should therefore be determined for a range of possible
values of 4 and the maximum amplification used in design.
Consider now the results presented in Fig. 14, which shows
the variation of D with a for a number of different values
of 4 varying from 0 t o 1.35. The curves have been drawn
for single values of K and S / L . As usual, dynamic amplica-
tion is defined as the ratio of the maximum dynamic mid-
span deflection produced by the two-axle vehicle to the
maximum mid-span static deflection produced by the same
vehicle. The envelope t o these curves gives the largest value
of amplification factor for any given value of a . The
envelope value also increases with a. Obviously, curves such
as the one in Fig. 14 can be used t o select the design value
of D for a given K and S / L .
Following the methodology outlined above and assuming
that the design vehicle can be represented by a two-axle
model, envelope curves for dynamic amplifications have
been drawn for several different values of x and S / L . The
effect of initial conditions has not been included in these
curves. A similar procedure will apply if initial conditions
were t o be included, but a design value for A , must be
established first, and a reasonable value of vehicle damping
must be selected.
A few of the design envelop curves are shown in Fig. 15.
For S / L I 0.05, the two-axle vehicle produces approx-
imately the same response as a n equivalent single-axle
vehicle. In order to obtain the design amplification factor
for a given bridge, a preliminary design must be performed
297
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
a
FIG. 16. Design envelope curves relating D, a, and x. Note:
Range of $, 0 to 2.5.
first so as t o obtain the bridge weight and the fundamental
frequency. Knowing the weight of the two-axle design vehicle
and the maximum speed, the design weight ratio, speed
parameter, and S/L can be determined. The curves in Fig. 16
can now be entered with known values of K , a , and S / L
to determine the value of the amplification factor, D, to be
used in the final design.
Summary and conclusion
The dynamic response of bridge under the passage of a
vehicle is an important consideration in design. Tradi-
tionally, the codes have accounted for the stresses and
displacements induced by the vibration of a bridge by speci-
fying dynamic amplification factors or impact factors to be
applied t o the static loads. Such factors have been related
either t o the span length or to the fundamental frequency
of the bridge. In order to verify the validity of this approach,
a number of analytical and experimental investigations of
 298 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 20, 1993
the dynamic response have been carried out. In spite of these
studies, the controlling parameters that govern the response
have not been clearly identified.
The dynamic behaviour of a bridge structure is a complex
phenomenon which is affected by a number of different
variables. It is because of this that the attempts to establish
correlation between a single parameter and the response of
the bridge have not been successful. On the other hand, it
is not practical to resort to complicated analytical studies
of dynamic response for the routine design of bridges. In
the present study, analytical investigations of simplified
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Renmin University of China on 06/03/13
models of the bridge and the vehicle have been used to iden-
tify the important parameters governing the response. These
parameters are 4 , the ratio of the vehicle frequency to the
bridge frequency; x, the ratio of the weight of the design
vehicle to the weight of the bridge; and a , the ratio of half
the bridge period to the traversing time. Contrary to the
general belief, resonance does not occur at 4 = 1, and the
maximum values of response may correspond to 4 values
ranging from 0.40 to more than 1. Also, the response
increases with both x and a. If the vehicle is represented
by a two-axle model, several other parameters in addition
to 4 , x, and a control the response. These parameters are
the axle spacing, the location of the mass centre of the
vehicle, and the pitch frequency; represented by S/L, a l ,
and f = w:/wz respectively. The value of al can be taken
as 1/2. Also, it is seen that the pitching motion does not
For personal use only.
affect the response too much so that f c a n be taken as zero.
Based on the results of the analytical investigations, a
series of design envelope curves are derived. These curves
relate the dynamic amplification factors to parameters x and
a and the axle spacing S/L. As in the case of bridges
designed according to the current Ontario Highway Bridge
Design code, a preliminary design must be carried out first
to obtain values of x and a. Using these values, the design
curves can be entered to obtain the dynamic amplification
factor.
The present study also shows that uneven approaches to
the bridge will cause the vehicle to enter the bridge with
initial displacement and velocity. Such initial conditions can
have significant effect on the dynamic response of the
bridge. Traditionally, the effect of uneven approaches has
not been explicitly accounted for in the design of bridges
except in a few design codes. However, various studies point
to the importance of this phenomenon and to the need for
keeping it in mind during bridge maintenance and
rehabilitation.
Acknowledgment
The research represented here was supported by a grant
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada.
American Association of State Highway Officials. 1962. Road test
report no. 4 - bridge research. Highway Research Board Special
Report 61D, Publication no. 953, National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Bakht, B., and Jaeger, L.G. 1985. Bridge analysis simplified.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
Biggs, J.M. 1964. Introduction to structural dynamics. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
Biggs, J.M., Asce, A.M., Suer, H.S., and Louw, J.M. 1959. Vibra-
tion of simple-span highway bridges. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Transactions, 124: 291-3 17.
Billing, J.R. 1982. Dynamic loading and testing of bridges in
Ontario. Proceedings of the International Conference on Short
and Medium Span Bridges, Toronto, Ont., pp. 125-133.
Cantieni, R. 1984. Dynamic load testing of highway bridges.
Transportation Research Record 950, Vol. 2, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Cheung, Y.K., and Cheung, M.S. 1972. Free vibration of curved
and straight beam-slab or box-girder bridges. International Asso-
ciation of Bridge and Structural engineering, 32(II): 41-52.
Committee on Deformation Limitations of Bridges. 1958. Deflec-
tion limitations of bridges. ASCE Journal of the Structural
Division, 84: 1-20.
Csagoly, P.F., Campbell, T.I., and Agarwal, A.C. 1972. Bridge
vibration study. Report No. RR 181, Ontario Ministry of
Transportation and Communication, Downsview, Ont.
Fenves, S.J., Veletsos, A.S., and Seiss, C.F. 1962. Dynamic studies
of bridges on the AASHTO test road. Civil Engineering Struc-
tural Research Series, No. 227, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Fleming, J.F., and Romualdi, J.P. 1961. Dynamic response of
highway bridges. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 87:
31-61.
Frjlba, L. 1972. Vibration of solids and structures under moving
loads. Noordhoff International Publishing, Groningen, The
Netherlands.
Humar, J.L. 1990. Dynamics of structures. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
IRC Highway Research Board. 1984. State of the art: dynamic
behaviour of highway bridges. Special Report 5, Highway
Research Board, New Delhi, India.
Jacobsen, L.S., and Ayre, R.S. 1958. Engineering vibrations.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y. pp. 534-536.
Mirza, S.M., Manatakos, C.K., Murali, R.D., Igwemezie, J.O.,
and Wyzykowski, J. 1985. An analytical-experimental study of
the behaviour of a composite concrete deck-steel box girder
bridge. McGill University, Montreal, Que. Final Report prepared
for Public Works Canada.
Oran, C., and Veletsos, A.S. 1961. Analysis of static and dynamic
response of simple span multi-girder highway bridges. Civil
Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 22 1, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Rabizadeh, R., and Shore, S. 1975. Dynamic analysis of curved
box girder bridges. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division,
101: 1898-1912.
Shephered, R., and Aves, R.S. 1973. Impact factors for simple
concrete bridges. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineering,
Research and Theory, Paper 7548, Vol. 55, Part 2.
Sundara Raja Iyenger, K.T., and Jagadish, K.S. 1968. The response
of beam and slab bridges to moving forces. International Asso-
ciation of Bridge and Structural Engineering, 28(II): 69-86.
Sundara Raja Iyenger, K.T., and Jagadish, K.S. 1970. Dynamic
response of highway bridges to moving loads. International
Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering, 30(II): 57-76.
Veletsos, A.S., and Huang, T. 1970. Analysis of dynamic response
of highway bridges. ASCE Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division, 96: 593-620.
Wright, D.T., and Green, R. 1959. Highway bridge vibrations,
Part I: Review of previous studies. Research Report NO. 4,
Ontario Joint Highway Research Programme, Queen's Univer-
sity, Kingston, Ont.
Wright, D.T., and Green, R. 1964. Highway bridge vibrations,
Part 11: Ontario test programme. Research Report No. 5, Ontario
Joint Highway Research Programme, Queen's University,
Kingston, Ont.
Yamada, Y., and Veletsos, A.S. 1958. Free vibration of simple
span I-beam bridges. Eighth Progress Report, Part B, Highway
Bridge Impact Investigations, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
Yoshida, D.M., and Weaver, W. 1971. Finite-element analysis of
beams and plates with moving loads. International Association
of Bridge and Structural Engineering, 31(I): 179-195.