computers & Srructures Vol. 54. No. 2. pp. 351-354.

I995
Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon
0045-7949(94)E023GU Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0045-794919s $9.50 + 0.00

TECHNICAL NOTE

LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN I-GIRDER BRIDGES

K. M. TarhiS@ and G. R. Frederickt

TDepartment of Civil Engineering, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, IN 46383, U.S.A.
fDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4015, U.S.A.

(Received 22 August 1993)

Abstract-The results of a new lateral load distribution formula to be applied in the analysis or design
of steel girders are compared with recently published field test data as well as the current AASHTO
load distribution factor method. The developed formula was the result of a study of lateral load
distribution in a bridge superstructure employing the finite element analysis techniques. The finite element
models were developed to represent the actual geometry of the bridge deck and analyzed to obtain a better
understanding of the elastic behavior of the concrete slab-on-steel girder highway bridges. The developed
load distribution formula compares well with field data in predicting the behavior of bridge superstructures
under highway loadings. Therefore, this paper will assist bridge engineers and researchers in predicting
the actual load distribution and bending moments in I-girder highway bridges.

INTRODUCTION action is commonly neglected. The spacing of longitudinal

beams in a bridge deck varies and a common practice is to
Many types of bridges, ranging from suspension structures select a beam spacing ranging between 6 and 12 ft, which
to short-span girder bridges, are in use today. The most yields an economical design. The spacing of the beams is
common component of all bridges is the roadway deck. ordinarily the same throughout the span length of the bridge
While the bridge deck may be constructed in different ways, (unless the width of the bridge deck varies). This research
the most common one is a reinforced concrete slab placed considered short and medium span bridges (span lengths
over steel beams. Since the bridge deck is in direct contact between 30 and 120 ft).
with wheel loads, the applied loading greatly affects the A typical cross-section of a two-lane bridge superstruc-
behavior of the deck as well as the bridge substructure. ture is shown in Fig. 1. The longitudinal beams are usually
Therefore, an understanding of the lateral load distribution connected by cross-bracing at their ends and at intervals of
from the slab to the beam is required to develop realistic up to 25 ft between supports. The thickness of the concrete
analyses and design methodologies. The bridge specifica- slab commonly varies between 6 and 12 in (depending upon
tions of the AASHTO [I] are generally simple to use and the girder spacing and the desired cover for slab reinforcing
have led to the design of safe bridges. However, it has steel). The concrete is usually reinforced in both directions
frequently been criticized as being conservative, particularly near both faces of the slab with primary reinforcing perpen-
with respect to the methods used for lateral distribution of dicular to traffic.
wheel loads to girders. The specifications are based primar-
ily on the general type of supporting beams and the beam
spacing. The method of analysis presented in this paper will BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW
assist bridge engineers in predicting the actual behavior of
the bridge deck and lead to the calculation of realistic live Extensive research using analytical, numerical and exper-
load distribution factors. Realistic live load distribution imental methods has been conducted to improve the
factors are essential for the structural engineer to economi- techniques used in the analysis and design of slab-on-beam
cally design new bridges and to evaluate existing bridges for highway bridges. Available theoretical methods are varied in
their load capacities. their approaches as well as in their accuracy and assump-
The bridge geometry considered in this research is typical tions. Stress distributions at critical cross-sections can be
of interstate overpass or grade separation structure where found after introducing simplifying assumptions to create
the shoulders are not carried across the bridge. In practice, the idealized analytical model and reduce the problem to
the longitudinal beams may be simply supported at their one that can be solved with a reasonable amount of
ends or continuous over several supports. In addition, they calculations. Bridge superstructures can be idealized for
can be bonded to the concrete slab using shear lugs produc- theoretical analysis in many different ways. The various
ing a composite section in which the concrete acts as part assumptions and simplifications used in formulating and
of the beam in the positive moment region. For non- idealizing the bridge superstructure can have a significant
composite bridges, even where no shear lugs are present, effect on how closely the calculated results match the actual
some limited bonding action usually takes place between the behavior. The major analytical and numerical approaches
beam and slab. However, during analysis, this bonding reported in the literature are:

1. Orthotropic plate theory; where the actual bridge super-

$Author to whom all correspondence should be structure is replaced with an equivalent plate having
addressed. different elastic properties in two orthogonal directions.

351
352 Technical Note

Concrete. slab

Steel girder 1 Cross-bracing A

+s+s+--t---s--cl
Girder spacing
Fig. 1. Typical cross-section of I-girder bridge.

Grid analysis; where the actual bridge superstructure is as space frame members, and the girder web as plate
replaced with an equivalent grid system. The resulting elements [2].
structure is a framework of intersecting bars whose Even though the concrete slab exhibits a ‘plate bending’
stiffnesses are adjusted to approximate those of the slab phenomenon, the actual behavior of the bridge superstruc-
and girders. ture can be obtained by modeling the concrete slab using
Combination of plate and grid analysis; this is rep- three-dimensional eight-node brick solid elements with three
resented by two theories-harmonic analysis and degrees of freedom at each node, and the girder components
numerical moment distribution. (flanges and web) are modeled using rectangular plate
Special methods: elements (or shallow shell elements) with five degrees of
(a) approximate grid work solution, freedom at each node [7]. The nodes at the interface between
(b) beam on elastic foundation analogy, the concrete slab and steel girder upper flange were either
(c) finite strip method, modeled as rigid connection to simulate composite bridge
(d) finite element method. action or three linear springs were imposed at each interface
(e) others. node to simulate non-composite bridge action. The latter
permitted the concrete slab to slide with respect to the upper
The finite element method can be used to predict the flanges of the girders in the longitudinal direction. The
actual behavior of complex structures [3]. Bridge super- spring elements were assigned different stiffnesses in three
structures can be modeled using finite element analysis orthogonal directions at each interface node to allow load
(FEA) in many different ways. It is in the idealization phase transfer and relative movements at interface nodes. Cross-
of the analysis, the selection of the finite element models, bracing frames were modeled using space truss members.
that the greatest differences in approaches are encountered. The reported finite element idealization provided a very
The idealizations, which have been used by various good approximation of the bridge superstructure; its use
researchers, include mixing three-dimensional plate elements predicted the actual stress distribution and permitted the
and plane or space frame members with the centerline of the calculation of the actual bending moment at critical cross-
girders coinciding with the center of the concrete slab [4]. sections. Typical elements of a concrete slab on I-girder
Others have imposed rigid links between the concrete slab bridge deck with rigid connections at the interface nodes,
and beams to accommodate the eccentricity of the beams which were used to model composite bridge action, are
and slab [5]. Still others have attempted to model the shown in Fig. 2. The results of this finite element analysis
concrete slab using plate elements, the girder flanges technique are represented in this paper and compared with

Fig. 2. Typical section through part of the finite element model

 Technical Note 353

field test data. A rigorous analysis revealed that the entire the current AASHTO formula (S/5.5). Simply supported
bridge superstructure acts as a unit rather than a collection bridges could be single or multi-span with composite or
of individual structural elements, as is commonly assumed non-composite decks. This formula provides a simple and
in the current AASHTO design procedures. This paper more realistic prediction of the behavior of concrete slab-on-
correlates the distribution factor results obtained from steel girder highway bridges than the current available
published field testing data with the developed formula as methods.
well as the AASHTO method.

COMPARISON WITH FIELD TESTS

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
In order to test the validity of the adopted discretization
Wheel loads are distributed laterally (as well as longitudi- techniques and the developed load distribution factor for-
nally) to the girders in highway bridges. The current mula, the final report presented by Moses ef al. [6] on field
AASHTO bridge specifications for determining the maxi- tests of five bridges was used to compare results. The bridges
mum live loads supported by beams use greatly simplified selected for the field tests were fairly typical representations
procedures, where longitudinal distribution is neglected and of bridges in Ohio in terms of design and truck traffic
lateral distribution is accomplished by using wheel load composition. The five sites were all parallel steel stringer
distribution factors. For interior girders, the magnitude of (I-girder) bridges, with only one bridge being of composite
these live loads are specified as (S/5.5) times the standard construction, that were instrumented and studied. The
truck wheel load when two or more lanes are supported bridges were tested using weigh-in-motion (WIM) tech-
(where S is the beam spacing in feet). niques to produce field measurements which are capable of
Using refined finite element models to describe the actual providing all pertinent data on the loading and response of
geometry, the behavior of the bridge superstructure was highway bridges. The data collected include measured
predicted [7,8]. A study of the various parameters affecting stresses and girder distribution factors in addition to truck
the load distribution on two-lane highway bridges was weights and volumes. The goal of the study [6] was to
performed using finite element analysis. Critical parameters provide examples of the use of WIM measurements to assist
were identified and employed in developing a new load in bridge evaluation and rating.
distribution factor formula which is simple to use in the The WIM system utilizes existing bridges to serve as
analysis and/or design process of I-girder bridges [8]. equivalent static scales to obtain unbiased truck gross and
The effect of connection at the interface (composite or axle weights, classifications, dimensions and speed. The
non-composite), single or multi-span, and the effect of WIM utilizes traffic sensors to obtain axle and speed data,
cross-bracing on the wheel load distribution factor was and strain sensors attached to bridge girders to provide
found to be negligible. It was also demonstrated that a weight information. The system operates in a undetectable
relatively large change in the moment of inertia of the bridge manner and has been researched and tested at more than
deck produced a relatively small change in the load distri- 200 sites worldwide [6].
bution factor. The various practical girder spacings (S-12 ft) All five sites were typically two-lane and three-span
and span lengths (35-120 ft) were shown to have significant continuous bridges with various girder spacings and span
effects on lateral load distribution. The finite element results lengths. Typically, one span of a bridge site was instru-
indicated that calculated load distribution factors can be mented and tested at the maximum positive bending
considerably less than the conservative AASHTO factors. moment. A typical layout of a bridge is shown in Fig. 3.
The span length effect is completely ignored in the Field strains were measured continuously in each girder and
AASHTO empirical load distribution formula. Therefore, a used to determine the girder distribution factors. The maxi-
flexural formula for wheel load distribution factor (DF) for mum distribution factors for side-by-side occurrences were
bending moment related to span length (L in feet) and girder found by summing the average distributions (plus one
spacing (S in feet) was developed using the results of the standard deviation) from each girder for both lanes. The
finite element analysis [8] standard deviation was added to the average distribution of
each lane to account for possible situations in which the
girder under consideration supports a higher than average
DF = 0.00013L2 - 0.02lL + 1.2@ - y (1) percentage of the total load. It was found that interior
girders were the most heavily loaded. The results of the five
sites are summarized along with a comparison with the
This formula can be used in the design process of new current AASHTO and the developed distribution factor
bridges as well as the evaluation of existing ones instead of formulas in Table 1 as follows.

Gage location

I I
I I
36W150 36Wl82 36Wl50
I I
/ I
I I

Fig. 3. Site 1 layout I-90 near Ashtabula (six girders at 7.92 ft spacing [6]).
354 Technical Note

Table 1. Comparison of distribution factors

Distribution factors

Span Girder spacing S AASHTO,

Site (ft) (ft) Field test Equation (1) s/5.5
I 48.6 1.92 1.32 1.312 1.44
2 40 5.15 I .28 1.04 1.09
3 56 1.33 1.12 1.18 1.33
4 51.5 7.92 I .08 1.29 1.44
5 68 8.54 1.12 1.21 1.55

Site 1 outside girder it was not instrumented. The maximum

interior girder load distribution for side-by-side occurrence
The bridge on I-90 in Ashtabula, Ohio, is a three-span
was found to be 1.12. This value is compared with eqn (I)
continuous (48.6,81,48.6 ft) two-lane bridge with six girders
which gave a DF of 1.27 and with the conservative
(spaced at 7.92ft) and 18” skew. The maximum interior
AASHTO girder distribution of 1.55 (=8.54/5.5).
girder load distribution for side-by-side occurrence was
found using field data to be 1.32. This value can be
compared with the developed formula presented by eqn (1) CONCLUSIONS
to give a DF of 1.312 and with the conservative AASHTO
DF of 1.44 (=7.92/5.5). A formula is suggested relating the load distribution
factor to the span length and girder spacing. The developed
Site 2 formula was derived from the study of finite element results.
It can be applied in the design process using the same
The bridge on Richmond Road over Tinkers Creek is a
procedures as AASHTO formula to simply supported one-
three-span continuous (40, 50, 40 ft) two-lane bridge with
span or continuous span bridges with composite or non-
five girders (spaced at 5.75 ft) and 20” skew. The maximum
composite deck. The formula can be used to give values of
interior girder (center) load distribution for side-by-side
the maximum bending moment in interior girders. It was
occurrences was found to be 1.28. This value is higher than
found that the results of the developed formula are consist-
both the AASHTO DF of 1.09 (= 5.75/5.5) and eqn (1)
ent with field test data of typical highway bridges with no
which gave a DF of 1.04. The discrepancy in DF could be
special provision and less than the conservative AASHTO
attributed to the negligible truck traffic at the site which
distribution factor. However, more experimental studies on
could be the result of posting. This county-owned bridge
prototypes and/or scale model bridges are needed to support
had the shortest girder spacing (5.75 ft) considered in this
the application of the developed formula and improve the
testing program.
design process as well as evaluating the live load capacity of
slab-on-girder bridges.
Site 3
The bridge on Rt 88 over Grand River in Geauga County
is a three-span continuous (56, 70, 56 ft) two-lane bridge REFERENCES
with five girders (spaced at 7.33 ft) and 0” skew. This bridge
is located in a rural area. The maximum interior girder 1. AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Highway
(center) load distribution for side-by-side occurrence was Bridges, American Association of State Highway and
found to be I. 12. This value is compared with eqn (1) which Transportation Officials, 15th Edn (1992).
gave a DF of 1.183 and the conservative AASHTO girder 2. R. L. Brockenbrough, Distribution factors for curved
distribution of 1.334 (= 7.33/5.5). I-girder bridges. ASCE /. Struct. Engng 112, 22OC-2215
(1986).
Site 4 3. R. D. Cook, Concepfs and Applications ofFinite Element
Analysis, 2nd Edn. John Wiley, New York (1981).
The bridge on I-475 in Lucas County (Toledo, Ohio) is a 4. C. 0. Hays and A. J. Berry, Further analytical studies
three-span continuous (51.5, 73, 51.5 ft) two-lane bridge
on lateral distribution of wheel loads on highway
with six girders (spaced at 7.92 ft) and 2” skew. This bridge bridges, University of Florida, Structures and Materials
was chosen because of the large number of heavy special
Research Report No. 85-2 (1985).
vehicles that cross it. The bridge was over-designed accord- 5. R. A. Imbsen and R. V. Nutt. Load distribution study
ing to AASHTO specifications and was allowed high levels on highway bridges using STRUDL finite element
of permit trucks. The maximum interior girder load distri- analysis capabilities. Conference on Computing in Civil
bution for side-by-side occurrence was found to be 1.08.
Engineering. ASCE, Atlanta, GA (1978).
This value is compared with eqn (1) which gave a DF 6. F. Moses, M. Ghosn and J. Gobieski, Weigh-in-motion
of 1.289 and with the conservative AASHTO girder applied to bridge evaluation. Final report, FHWA/OH-
distribution of 1.44 (= 7.2/5.5). 85/012, Case Western Reserve University, Ohio Depart-
ment of Transportation (1985).
Site 5 7. K. M. Tarhini and G. R. Fredrick, Load distribution on
The bridge on Rt 2 in Lake County is a three-span highway bridges using ICES-STRUDL FEA. Comput.
continuous (68, 85, 68 ft) three-lane bridge with seven Struct. 32, 1419-1428 (1989).
girders (spaced at 8.54 ft) and 0” skew. The third lane was 8. K. M. Tarhini and G. R. Frederick, Wheel load distri-
treated as ‘part’ of the right lane since it had negligible bution in I-girder highway bridges. ASCE J. Strucr.
traffic, and since the seventh girder was the third lane’s Engng 118, 1285-1294 (1992).