"

<~' (; ..~ ~;,.'

Wheel LoadDistribution inSimply SYPPC?rte~Concret~ Slab

. "Bridges .' .

M. Mabsout1; K. Tarhini2;.R. Jabakhanji3;and e.'Awwad4

Abstraet: Tbis.paper presents the resutts .of aparametric: study reated to the wbeelload distribution in one-span, simply supported, mukilane. reiaforced concrete slab bridgcs..Thefinite-eIement,~was used toinvestlgatethe effect of spanlengtb. slab widtb wilb andwithoutshoulders, and wheeH~ conditions'ou typicalbridges.Atotalof U2bighway bridge,~aststudies wen: analyzed.It was assumed Iba. thebridges were stand-alone ~ ~iftJ<me~wyuaffic.Thefinit~..elementanysis (FEA) results of oi1e-.two-, three-, and four-1ane bridgesare presentedill~~fOl1uypiCalspante~~'Briclgeswen: Ioaded with highwaydesign IrUck 1WQ. ~tnms~ ItUck~itions ~ coosidered:(1) HS20 placed atcrlticallocations in tbe loa~naI~.~~I~. Cente.-edlo8dingoondition wbere desip truckstri,IaUrr~t;t(J'be,~~gin~~te(Of-b~; aitd(2) edge loading condition

moment PVCl~,simatt9~Af~~.\~~~.~.~more"'~"span ,~thless tban 10.' m (3S ft). However, :- as ...,1o.1I"~n"'.;4.ASJlTO~,.FEA,bfmdiRlinomcnt by'l"to'~.'ltwas showl1tbat the presence of sboDIdersoabotb ofthe bridso~. 1~ ~ty o die bricle'" lo mISinaeasein slabwiddL A11 extreQ1e loadns scenario was c~by 'introducioga.disabted trUCk. nearthe, edge in additiOnlo design trucks in 0- lana placed as close as

w. the-p trucoareplaced closcto~...~.~. ".~tb~ -,-~Iutc!;~im~~cspacirt8between adjacent truco.FEA results fOlbridgesub~.toedp l~"':~i,,~t.::.h:: s )~:speci~oAA~ov~lhebending momentby 3()Cjf,o. IIiDC a span~~~~tI;~, fOl ando , ,..ftJ.", ,.' ...,.."~~t11FBA beadiD81110111edt$ 1011ger~. fOl Tbe AASHI"O ben4ing

.-

possible lo the disabled truek.

f~' tbisextreme

Ioading condition. AASHTO procedure gave similar results lo the FEA ,longitudinal

~rnoments,lotspaDs'upt01,'n{25t\) and ulldetestimated~ FEA(20to40%}fQrspai'tsbetween9 and 16.' m (30 aod SSft)~. re~ of die number of lanes. The new AASm'O 10ad~dresistance factor desip (LRfD)bride design specifteationsoveresiimate thebeadiq,momeatsfor nonnal traffic on bridges. How~,ver, RFDproc::eduregiYes,~@ts sin1arto th~of the FEA edp+truck L loadin, cridition,Furthennore, Ibe FEA results sbowed that edge beams mUstbe coi1siderCd irnulUJaneSlabbridges witb a spanlength raUiP. betWea.'6and16.5 m (20 and"ft).11s paper will assist-bridgeengineersin peonriingi'ea1isticdcsigns of simply supported, multi1aa;matorcedconcrete $l~ bridges as el Databa..

as evaluatinJthe load-carrym.,capacit)' ofexistingbigbway bridges.

.

001: IO:I0611(ASCB)1()84..()702(2004)9:2(147)

8Ubject headlngs: Load distribution;Bt'idges, hiSi1way;Concrete,slaba;, inite element metb9<f; ehicles~ F V . ,

.

1be hih num.bcrof de&ient bridges means ..

a considerable

~DJ lo the U.S. Federal Highway Administratioo's 2001 Nfioaat ,Bridge Inventor)' data. abput 27% of the .nation's _914 bridaes are struct\U'ally deficientor 'fuftctiooaIIy, obsoIete asrepocted in ',It,r Roads magazine (November 2OOl).Sing1espao ~ bridge$repre$eDtabout 163.QOQ of,tbese, ()f whi:h ~ el" structuraIlydeficient or,functioa8lly obsolete.,1'he roajoftty aresbort spans, averapng less tban lS m (SOft) in length. IDept ofCiYilIlld Erav~Bngineering., American Univ.. l e
.

nutt\berof bridgesare beinl ~ded postiDa. I1abiIi... or ~ R

R.eiAfo.rc:ed' eoacrete slabbridJes

rOl'weisht-liiRiting .
8Dd

may oft'er cw:onomicalterna-

thtesfor~.spU concret4. stab~

brid8a. Thc mainadv...of c:at-s-pJacc I.tbeabi1itylo providea smoorh finCllpS

f bibway .bridPs' iD .,United

$~.,by,~,~,.~,q(.Q{.,I08d.lf,rofi1culudlJ'

stnlCtion. 'JYpiCaU.y. the desip

.

..

. Beitut, Belut.LeII8no8.lHDaiI:~aub.eduJb. 2formerIy,Dept o Civ1JEnalneering, Valparaiio Univ.. Vatparaiso, Indiaaa4638).STV Inc. 80 fMy.' Blvd, Stratfotd. CT 06615. E-mail:

States must''coaform,lo AASHTOst8ndIfttsptc:itQ1iol, tOr.. ~gbway<~ JM$HTO 1996)or MSIttOIoIdIDd...' ~ce factOf"dfip-(tftP)'deSign'speNtrcacioas'(AASHTO
1998).1!ad1 mcdIod Jves diffeoeotasultsdue t tbe Uve-loadUtg
. .

. conditions.
.

~stVUte.eom
.

~lID81ysis aaddesiIDf anjlhigh~bridse mustcoasider

tnick 8Ddlaae 1o8din.u.ever."'~,
for short-sP-n~ :'~',

Beirut. Beirut. ,~

3Dept.otOvit ud ~ BeiM. Beinlt, LebaaoD. 4Dept.9f Civil ud Ea~taI.,'~

...

&ioeering.AIDerica
'. .

tJt1iv.of

Ameiic8Dl1niv. of
. .

pIOViaioasOvetD I MSJm) standard specific8tioi1S.' AASHTO$ptclfies ,- diStribUtioa 'widlh forbigh-

NOto.Di8CUSIionopcawatiI AU8ust l,Z004.~ discussioas must be submitted rOl'individual ~. To CJ(tend clsinsdafeby the onc month, a writteo request must be fUedvdtb~ ASCEJot...na
Editor. The lDIIIUSCript or tbis'peper WIs submitted ter leviwc:and,. f

.wayloadingoranempiricatfonnQla ti)~ tbe~ay bendin, prob_intoa beIm(o&e-way) beGdiDI pub- 11&nf~

ofbeam,sanps. This~docanotcOQSider.l~
..

roinforced~

sIab~dges" typicaIIy ~.a

seriCs
Ud,

1I"ble ubIicaf:ion n Juuary U, ~; p o paper is put of tbe /0fII'IIfIlt/ ..".

appcovcct.on Januuy2.; 2003;Tbis", BJlginHrr6, Vol.9; No: 2, M8rch

'

mecbanisms!tbe etfect ofgeonctty, and bouDdary Frederict(l991) poeseated'tbe~ of 8ft

l. 2004.'-'ASCE,lSSN

lQ84.0702l2OO412.147-1SSI$I8.00.

firte-ele~aualysia:(FE.A)invesqltOQ Ioaddisttibution of in

JOURNALOFBRIDGEeNGlNEERlNGOASCE1~L:2Q04/14t

'....

a concrete slab bridge. A typical 8.5 m (28 ft) span, simply supported slab bridge with a three-Iane lOA m (34 ft) widtb was considered. The design live-Ioad bending moments \\Iete calculated using AASHTO standard specifications provisions. The FEA was performed using rectangular platebending element (O.85xO.6 m or 2.8X2 ft). A one-fifteenth size scale concrete model was constructed and tested in the laboratory. Design trucks were positioned one at a time along the center of each of the three lanes. The FEA results correlated well with the test data and were less than AASHTO empirical equation. The results for multiple-Iane loading indicated that the slab behaved essentially as a wide beam with minor variations in the longitudinal bending moment across the width. It was also shown that there isno need foredge beam provisionsinthe specificatioos. Shekar et al. (1993) performed clttensive experimental and analytical investigation to evaluate the load~carrying capacity of existing reinforced concrete slab bridges. The experimental phase of the investigation consisted of field testing' of~i)( stab bridges. Test results were used to develop' 3D FE~ ~ls to be ~lied by practicing engineers. The test data comp~ favotably with FEA results and verified that concrete slab 'bridges have !he

strength necessaryto resist highway loading.

\:'

'

ThesheU element sizes were approximately O.53xO.53 m (1.75 X 1.75 ft) based on the coostant 780 elements generated for each bridge. Signiflcant differences between maximum bending moments were also obtained for 2D and 3D anaIyses bec~.of .the participation of noostructural members such as,curbs. Therefore, 3D FEA was recommended in analyzing slab bridges. Mab$Out et al. (2000) reported preliminary FEA results for concrete slab bridges compared with the AASHTO emprical foqnula. !he study correlated well with the AASHTO design proeedure in designing slab bridges. This paper builds on the results repotted in the 'literature and explores in more detail a parametrl<; sfudy of wheel-load distribution in simply supported, one-spaR,straigbt reinforced concrete slab bridges. Thefinite-element method is used to investigate' the effect of span length, slab width, and various wheel-Ioading condition on bridges with and without shoulders.

bending moment per foot of width is obtained by dividing this value by twice the distribution width E: E=4+0.06S<7.0 ft (3a) which in SI units is equivalent to E=1.2+0.06S<2.1 m (3b) 3. Analysisand design of a unitwide strip using the appropriate wheelloads. For HS20 loading, fue wheelloads are 18kN (4 kips), 72 kN (16 kips), and 72 kN (16 kips) with axle spacing of 4.2 m (14 ft). The appropriate wheel loads are then divided by the distributionwidth E [Eqs. (3a) or (3b).This approach isgenerally used for continuous spans and is currently adopt~din the AASHTOLRFD design specifications. This paper considered',only the AASHTO empirical formula given in Eqs. (1) and (2) when compared withthe linite-element results. AASHTO requirCsedge beams along the free edges'of theae slabs. The live-load bending moment in an edge beam is specifiec y the expression O.IPS (where P=72 kN, or 16 kips b for an HS20 trUCk). ASHTO does not specify a width for the A edge beam. However, some departmen~ of transportationuse an edge beam width of 450 rnm (18 in.). Finally,'the maximumFEA live-load deflection was compared with the AASHTO deftection criterion(SI8OO).The slab thicknesswas calculatedto controlthe live-Ioad deftection according to AASHTO section 8.9.2; fue minimum thickness in feet for a slab with main reinforcement parallel tp traffic is 1.2(S+ 10)130,which is equiva1entto 1.2(S + 30(0)/30 in SI units (rnm).
,

.;,

AASH1'O Load and Reslstance Factor Deslgn

Speciflca"ons

"

AASHTOLRFD section 4.6.2.3 provides an equivalent strip width to'design slab bridges similar to theprevious bridge spcifications. Tbis simplistic approach is to divide the total statical moment by-fue bridge widfu, to chi~vea moment per unit width for designo The' ,IhOtnentSare determincd byestablishing, the structural width per design lane,The equivaJent width E of longitudinal strips per lane for both shear and mOment is determined using the foUowing formulas: The width for one lane loaded is

AASHTO Standard Speclflcatlons A concreteslab bridge is designed accordingto the provisionsfor main reinforcementparallel to traffic.The AASHTO design procedure was originally developed in the 1940s, based on the research work of Westergaard (1926. 1930) and Jensen (1938, 1939). For simply supported slab bridges, AASHrO standard speeificationssuggest thtee approachesto determine the live-Ioad bending moment for HS20 loading: 1. AASHTO (section 3.24.3.2) provides empfrical equations M=900S for S~SO ft (la) or M==1.000(1.3OS~20) for S>50 .ft (la) which, in SI units. are equivalent to (Za) M=13,500s for S~15 m
,

E= 250+ 0.42(LI x W,)'12 (SI units) or E= 10+ S(L1 X,W,)'12 (English units) The width for multilanes loaded is t=2,IOO+O.l2(L,XW,)112 or (SI units)

(4a)

(4b)

(5a) (Sb)

" E=84+ 1.44(LrX WI)112 (Engli$h units)

or

M=I.OOO(19.5S-9O) for S>lSm (2b) where S=span length [ft in Eqs. (la) and (lb) or m in Eqs.
'

(la) and (2b)] and M=longitudinal bending moment per unit

width [Ib-ftIft in Eqs. (la)and (lb) or N.mlm in Eqs. (Za) and (2b)]. 2. AASHTOAppendix A gives fue live-Ioad bending moment per lane for a span length up to 90 m (300 ft). The live-Ioad
148/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING e ASCE / MARCHlAPRIL 2004

where E is in millimeters in Eqs. (4a)'and (Sa) [inches in Eqs. (4b) and (Sb);L =span length in miIlimeters(feei) taken to be the lesser of the actual span or 18.000 mm (60 ft); and W1=c:dge-to-ectge widfu in millimeters (feet) of bridge taken to be the lesser o the actual width or IS.ooo.mm (60 ft) formultilane loading, or 9,000 mm (30 ft) for single-Ianeloading. AASHTOLRFP (3.6.1.2)live load HL93 requiresthe consideration of lane loading plus design truCk(HS20) or lane loading plus tandem. The bending momeot is determined for the design lane divided by fue width (E) to determine the moment per unit length for designoAASHTO LRFD tableA2.S.2.6;3-1 provides the minimum slab thickness h to be l.2(S + 3000)/30. where h and S are in millimeters, which is similarto the AASHTO stan,

dardspecifications eqation 1.2(S+ 10)/30ft). (

- ..,

':'

;(

! 0.9 !
)j<

1.1

!
>!<

1.8.!
. ..

1.8

!O.9m!
)j<>i : . . :

I 2.1 !E ,.

I >;<

1.8

I );<

1.11

I ><

1.11 1 )i<.

2.1m , ~

cF
3.6

!72

i72

r;
3.6m

j72
. '~...,.

}72

.,.

",

'.".

i72 .
'

!72KN
. .

.'.

1 1.2
i< 0.3, I ~ lE

! )1<
I.S

3.6

*
1.1

.
3.6

..

'-1

;<

);<
(a)

! ).I

(1)

~
4.5111

'u.

!
I ~.1

I 1.2. 1

,,

~(

'~

0.3!! j<

1 ..

i.1! )1<

1 >r<

2.lm

l
. I

.Lf:
3.6

*
(b)

s
3.6m
.

~
1

i.nKN
3.6
I 3.6

U!

j('

)I(

(b)

,u., );< >i

U 1 U.. I )1( .,,' 1 1

-~

031 1 lE 11

1.8

Ag. 1. Typical cross se<:tionsof two-Iane bridge without shoulders

t9
. '"
,

'1.11.1.8

>:<

"121

under(a)centcred load; (b)cdge loacIEl

! 1.2 ,,~ 1 ..

3.6

:-";;.,fJn:;r; ., 3.6
,.',' . '

~I

11.1.1 )i< >i

(c)

Descrlptlon 01Bridge.Cases
A toJal of 112oae.span, simply SQppOrted.nonskew,one-,two-, three-. aod four-Iane~orced ~ slab bridge.C8Nstdies were considcred in tbis investigation, Bridges witb and witbout . sbouldorJ(1.2JDor 4 ftper shoulder)at bod free ed$es were also . investiptcd. Tbe overa1lslab widtb$ for bridges witbout shouldas were selccted 10be tbe worst caes tbat iDa)'be .encounte.red in practice:4.2 m (14 ft) lor one lane, 7.2 m (24 ft)fot two lanes. 10.8 m (36 ft) for tbree lanes. and 14.4 m (48 ft)for foUrlanes. The various span IenJtbs considered lor' this panunctric sludy
,.

FIg. 2. Jypicalcross sc:ctionsof two-Ianebridge with sbou~ under(a) centeredload; (b)edSeIOld El. ,.00 (e) edge+trucklORd ditions ate $bown in Pigs. 1and 2 fOl two-_. bridge cross sec. tioO$widlot, od with shouldm. ~vely. a PIaciabe wheel load at 0.3 m (1'ft) &oro.tbefree edp could be COIISidenid ' aitica1 Qt'ov~tima.l1e 1bftitu4inal bending momentoHowever, MSJirQ~ftes a ri1inimum distance of 0.6 m (2 ft) from tbe curb or raillngto be morereaiistic ud practical. t'bIx8(C)te.brldgeswim edge load \Vetemmalyzcd by placing tbe ,"""lo.tdof t)1eIetttJUCk m (2 ft) from the parapet (0.3 ~.6 m or 1 ft), wbichtotals 0.9 m (3ft) instead of 0.3 m (1 ft) from the edge. The tesults of two edge.loading conditions El (\Vhecl load is 1 ft fromthe free edp) ud E3 (wheelload is 3 ft from the free edge) Wete later compared. The Elloadins condition may appe&(to.bclBQte4riticaLand ~ hiper bending moments for. edgebcams. The finiko:-eIelnent results fOl die El and E3 loedinlCOltditioas $boweda difference of 5% due to beedge~~oQ.' . . Th'e'~~,,~~ in ntodIing the hipway bridges \Vere normaI~ reinfon:ed concrete. 'Ihe compressivc sIRDth oftbe ~ WII 21,,00 kPa (4,OOO tbe modulus ~i), ofcla$ticity was 2$x l~ kPa(3.6X l~psi), aad Poisson's ratio wa. 0.2. Grado 60 reinforeiaa steel could be usumed in the desip o{slai>..-eiaf0rten1ent. ut the FEA modeII did not incJude b SUh'~,iD.tJ1e alysis.
.

were7.2, 10.8,13.8,and 16.2m (24. 36, 46, and 54 ft) witba .

corraponding slab thickness of 450.530,610, and69Q mm (18.

21,24, ud 27 in~). espectively. r

Desigratrucks were assumed 10be traveling in me same direction. AASHTO standald specificationssCction3.6 (traffic lanes)
,

assumestbat IaoeloadiDa a standarddesigtttruckoccupiesa ol

width of 3 m (10 ft). 1"henfore, a CQDSt8Dt. center-to-centerspacin for placementof 8d,jaccnttrucks:was set tobe 3m (10 ft)in. tbis investiption. 1\vo pOssibletransverse'loadiDs .Positionsof the desip trucks as.slawin Fag. I were considered:(a) centered coadition where e8CbUUCk eentered in its ownJane~ and (b) is edac condition .heRt tito desip. txucksate' pIaced close 10 Ofte edge (left) of tbe alab. such tbat the c:enterof tbe left whecl of.tbe leftmost truck is positined at one loot from me left edieof the slab. The distance between tbe adjacent truca'. selected to ~ 1.2 m (4 ft) ol 3 m (10 ft) conter-to-centerspacing in order to produce me worst loading condition on tbe bridge. The two loadinl conditioQSwere, referred 10 as "centered 1oad" ud "edge load." Bridges witb shoulders w_loaded Cutther by inttoduciDI a disablcd truck near ooe edge inadditioil 10 the design trucks in each lane. This loading condition was refened to as "eqe+truck" load. Thecentered and cde load con-

fi

flnlte..Element Analys88
ncrpneral FEA program SAP2000 (Computers 1998) was used to generate 3D FEA models. Tbis study considered all clements 10 ,be lineady oJastic, and.tM -)'lis assumed sma1I deformations
ENGINEERING O ASeE 1 MARCHlAPRIL 20041 1.49

JOURNAL OFBRIOOE

,al Eqsc(I)...d (2);!heFEA u" wcre-

oomwedwilh!he
,

AASHTO LRFD procedureusing Eqs.(4)and{S).

Maximum Longitudinal Bending Moment

'
.

'

Critical Cross-Seetion

Flg. 3. Typical tinite-element analysis model for 36 ft span. two-Iane bridge witb no shoulders under ~ge loadEI

"~

and deftections. The computerprogram was used to generate nades. elements. and 3D meshes for all slab bridges inv~stigated. The concretc slabs were modeledusing quadrilateral shell elements (SHELL) with six degrees of t'reedom at each node. Hines were assined at one bearing location and rollcrs at the other to simulate simple support conditions. AASHTO HS20 wheell()ads were applied at isolated nodes to producemaximum longitudinal bending moments. Qiven the element sizes reported in tbe literatore. a mesh sensitivity analysis was conducted usiI:lg tbree element sizes: O.6xO.6 m (2X2 ft}.O.3xO.3m (IXl ft). and O.ISXO.l5 m (O.SXO.S ft). The tIu:ee element s~gave similar results and compared well witb the global equilibrium. Therefore the element size O.3XO.3 m (IXlft) was adopted fOl convenience in locating the wheel IQ/Ids.A discruzation of a typical slab is shown in Fig. 3.

The maximLimIongitudinal bending mOmentswere obtained at (be criti<:aI coss&ectionof each slab. typicaUylocated at/or near e midspan,forthe variouscas:esconsidered.Fig. 4 showsthe maximum longitudinalmomentdistributionacross tbe critical widtbof tWo-lanebridges with no shoulders for the various span tengtbs analyzed. and considering centered and edge loads (El). The AASHTOempirical rriomentsare also shown in Fig. 4 for cpmparison. Similarly. Fig. S shows (be maximum longitudinalmoment distributiono the tWo-lanebridges with shoulders.Furtbermore.the mOrneQt istributionfor tbe edge toading plus disabled d truck (edge+trUck Ot ttI) loading condition is shown in Fig. 6. The maximumFEA I~gitudinal bending momentsin all the slabs are sUmmarized,in Table lalong, with tbe corresponding AASHTOempirical mments Eqs; (1) and (2) and LRFD procedure. It is worthl)Otin~ ~t under edge load condition El or edge+truckETI. the maximum FEA design bending momentin tbe ,slab was defined as (be fitst.maximum peak value after the edge I110IDent value.This lbaXimumdesign mornentnear the edge is assu~to be resistedby the edge beam provision. Figs.7 and 8 compare the resultsof the maximumFEA tongitudinalmoments distribuuonsdue ,to:edge loadingBI and EJ. ptaced 0.3 m (l ft) and O.9Jm(3 ft) froJnthcJreo edge. 1be average bending noment in the middle strip is essenti.uy the sari1eregardless tb (be postion of wheelloads from (be edge El or E3.
'

'

'

Slab bridg.essubject to ce~

load and the maximum

FEA

Flnite-Elemerit Analysis Results

1be FEAresults wereobtained and ~ in tetms ofthe maximum longitudinal hending mogJCl1t.hemaximum edge,beam t momentoand the maximlimlive-load (jeftectiOn alcutated in tbe slab.These results are primarilycompared withAASHTOcmpiri-

~lDOmen~are Sununarizedin Table 1. For stabs without shOU~.M$HTQ,mpirical Eq. (1) or (2) overestimatesthe ~rn'~J\lp~gitudinal bending moment for slabs witb span ~'.'t4:#'_}l.s 111(25 by aboUt3O%10'~1ane btidgs' ft) o..by,~ 20%,for bridges with more tbanone lane: ABthe 5panIen~ "inc~ases for tbe one-tane bridges, the' AASHTO equatio~()verestimatesthe FEA momentsby about 15%fOlspan

300

SIngle Spaft R.C.S18b,Bridge. Two L8M8. No Should8r8

"

,...
~ ~200

~.~~~
~.~.,
' " " " ,

--_838OC
~...
--MoC
' ,

I ,. .
50 J

;;;:.+.~
'

~ '
,

-~.

''''''''''''''''''''''''',

Oo.".

~"

o..

~
,

~.~.-:-~
" '

''''

_8I4OC -814-11 ~8IMI 84Mt _IMOII _-.,._MIHIOJ MIHIO";

MIHIQ

1.. :>~~.~ .
o o
0.8

"

AA8H1t4I

.'~':'~'~7':'~'~
' ,

a ::.
...8 5.4 (ni)
,8

,
u

.
1.21.8
: ,Tra_v ,2.4 3 L~ 3.8 4.2 1.2 atCrtllcal

Flg.4.

Longitudinal bending mou;tents Iltcritical crpss seWons 4ue to (:cntered (C) nd edge (El) loads

IMARcwPRll'2004 150 I JOURNALOF BRIDGEENGINeeRINGO AsCE

:/ ~.

8penR.c.. 8I8b""""
310

T.."""

WIIhSIIouId8na

_.1
210"

0.....

..~=

-~
-'" -IIMI

1:

'. ..... _8IMI

-.... -AAIIftQ. MIHIa
-AAIIftQ.-

f10
0.1 .. ".' . '..~~-~

LaC8tIcNt atC

..

Fig. S. Longitudinal bendin momettut eritica(eross sections due tO'ccoteRd (C) and edge loads (El)

lengths less tban 10.S m (35 ft) and givessimilar resulti 10 tbe FEA moments ror tonger spanfoHowever. for $l. wilhmore thaRORe l8neanda spanlecgtb... cbaD "ft.tbo4A$IiTO 2S momeat is eitbcr the same asfor_J.3&A.for..lc8JtlM.~,

lO.'m(35ft).otuodemsdmates1bePlA

,.U.,.,

for spanlengthsup 10 13.Sand16.' m (45 and 5Sft).~ tively.' .

1bis 1eadslOthe suggestion ofintrodudng'.- ranpof15to 2&IJmiuction factor for sIab bridges looaertban'l~ m (4Ct4>. CQmbioaon witb twoor more bmes.The~of~ 011 bodI edges of the Iiab tends 10stiffentb brid&e&OlJ ~ its 1oad<arryingcapacit)'. Tbe AASHTO tqUIOIJ~"
me FEA moment

variouspanlengths. AASHTO.OV~-FB4. s Also, mcatI,.byabout 2SancIIS9& rorapa of1.S_J4'lit (258Dd ft).respcctively. 3:5 incoiDbi8ation silba~.. 'with.
more tbaa one lane. However, as the span lengtb incteases'(12 to 16.5 m or 40 tO SS ft) for bridges witb at least tWOI8JMI5. die R.e
310

bymore 2S~'for tban

,..-

AASHTO equation gives results similar lOthse of the FEA moments. AppIyingthe AASHTOredtJctionfactor:sfor the FEA momentswith ~ (10%) and four lanes(2S%) overestimatesthe -an bendia8rnomeot stabbridgea. SIab, bridp ,snbjecr ,to edp 10ad and the F6A maximuni bendit'JgtQOll1eQtslle sum.mlrized in Table l. ForC)ne-lane . bri48es witbout shoulders..die AASHTO empiricalequation appelU'Slo O'YeIeSUmate 'theFEA maximum longitUdinalbending .1DOIDI:IIt byabOut30 and ISfIIfoupaR 1engthsup tO7.5 and 10.5 . 111Uan43S ft). respectivety.and teftds,togive similar resultato ( tlleP&\~ foe loopr spana.Also, thef\ASHTOequacion i-., ~to .dto8eof the FEA momeat'Sfor span

.,..'
. ~.HoWever.aad
",~
,

lG.SID(3S.ft)in CGmbDAtion'witb~1ane
utbe span 1et1gtb increases (fom 13.5 to

,:~to.x~ . ' ,,'.,' UJ, ", :~~~~~,'the . .' , " equadon (ofthree. andfour-1anebridps gives results similar to tbose o the FEA 1I1Oments span lenatbs leas than 7.S m (2S ft) and for wtIhSh.......

Two~

-... .....--

.
"

.'. ' ..M8IIIL4I ~...~:

'
'

~ ~", ,,.

,.

"

10
o o ...
.

t.2 U a.4 .1 Sol,4.2 ".

l..

.. U

1.1 1.4 .

...
~

T"""'''''''''8IQ~

'.nhuM
~ ~l~au4Jlisa~
(BTl)

FJg.6. LongitUdinalbending moments t tritieai,CI'$$ a ~..

.

JOUANALOFRIOGEeNGINEERlNGASee I MAACHf~ S o

20041151

I ~

Table 1. Comparisonof Finite-Element nalysis(FEA)MaximumLongitudinal endingMomentwithAASHTOMoment A B

FEA maximum moment (kN-mlm) Without shou1ders With shoulders (1.2 m 1eftand 1.2 m right) Lanes Span (5) Centered Edge El Edge E3 Centered Edge El Edge E3 Ed+Tr ETl (n) (m) 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2 69.0 125.5 183.3 229.6 78.9 145.5 213.2 267.3 79.3 146.6 215.0 269.5 79.4 147.3 216.4 271.2 69.4 125.9 183.7 230.0 86.5 153.5 221.1 275.1 91.9. 163.2 232.7 287.3 94.3 170.2 243.1 299.3 71.8 128.5 186.4 232.7 81.8 149.1 217.1 271.2 85.5 155.0 224.8 279.7 87.8 159.5 232.1 288.5 54.6 93.8 134.1 166.4 66.4 114.9 164.8 205.0 71.9 125.1 179.2 222.7 74.8 131.5 188.2 233.5 59.9 100.0 140.6 173.0 82.5 137.0 189.2 230.0 91.0 156.8
' 217.6

AASHTO moment(kN-mlm) Load and resistancefactor design Standard Withoutshoulders With shoulders specifications 97.2 145.8 186.3 225.9 97.2 145.8 186.3 225.9 97.2 145.8 186.3 225.9 97.2 145.8 186.3 225.9 126.5 212.4 283.1 338.9 108.5 205.2 293.9 367.7 101.7 190.4 271.8 347.0 96.8 180.0 269.1 347.0 109.8 208.4 298.8 378.5 104.0 194.9 278.6 347.0 98.1 183.2 26G.6 324.0 94.1 174.6 246.6 306.0

263.7 94.1 167.9 236.1 286.9

63.3 104.0 144.7 177.2 78.0 133.6 186.4 227.6 84.2 149.0 210.3 256.9 87.3 157.3 225.4 276.5

92.7 171.8 252.8 317.5 93.3 169.8 246.5 307.5 94.6 172.7 249.5 309.6 95.3 175.5 253.9 314.7

>.'.

underestimates the FEA moments by 15 to 30% forspan lengths between 10.5 and 16.5 m (35 and55 ft). Therefore, a suggested 20% reduction factor applied to !he FEA moments for span lengths greater than 10.5 m (35 ft), in combination wim at least two lanes, wiU tend to give results similar to those of the AASHTO equation.
.

Again,the presence of shoulderson both edges of the slab will

inc~ase the load-carrying capacity of the bridge. The AASHTO equation overestimates the FEA moments by more man 20% for QIle-Iane bridges in combinatiQnwitb any span length. The AASHTO equation for two-lane bridges overesnmates the FEA moments by 15% for span lengths less than 7.5 m (25 ft) and agrees with the FEA moments for longer spans. The AASHTO equation for three- and four-Iane bridges gives results similar to those of the FEA moments for span Icngtbs less than 7.5 m (25 ft)

and underestimates the FEA monents by 15 to 25% for span lengths between 10.5 and 16.5 m (35 and 55 ft). Therefore a suggested 20% reduction factor appiied lo the FEA moments for span lengths greater than 10.5 m (35 ft), in combinationwith al least threelanes,'will tend lo give results similar to those of the AASHTOequation. The edge+iruck load (edge plus disabled truck) condition ap.pears to sbow that the AASHTO'equationgives results similar to those of the maximum'FEA mornentsfor any slab bridges with a span lcngtb leas than 7.5 m (25 ft), regardless'of the number of lanes. Howevei, as the span length increase5.the AASHTOequation tends to underestimatethe maximumFEAmomcntsby about 20% for spans up lo 10.5m (35 ft} and 35 lo 40% for span lengths between 13.5 and 16.5m (45 and 55 ft). Therefore,introducinga 20% reduction factor lo the FEA moments for slabs with two

1 ~

S
:ISO

Span R.C. Slab Bridge, Two L8nM. No ShouId8ra

--..... _148081
-

-..... --8I4oiI

-.... _Me

-...
o o
0.8
1.2 1.' 2.4 3 3.1 4.2 4.' U Transvene Flg. 7. Longitudinal Loc8f1on at CriIIc8ISeotIon

7.2

~
(El versUS E3)

bending moments ,at critical cross sectiDs duo lo edgeloads

152/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING e ASCE / MARCHlAPRIL2004

"

SInt""'''
350

R.e.Slab8r1doe. wo..."...WMhShoukMr8 T

300

I~ 1:
1
1~

-- , ----1141-11
8IMI

--1IfoD ---8*D --814013

so o

~::::.~:::
O U U U ~ J U U U ~ IU U U T~."""'" at.C:""..8ectIon Cm)

:::::
~ 8 U moment near the edge node at the leftmost node along the critica! cross section, as shown in Figs. 4 10 6. It is worth noting that, foe bridges subjected 10.. centered load. the edge beam moment is a lOwer than the maximum FEA design bending moment in the . slab; titerefore no speciat edge beam is required. First. when in\'estigating slabs without. shoulders, the AASIffO~e beaJnmomc:nt forone~bU1e bridgeso\'erestimates theFEA edge moments by 20% for span lengths less than 10.5m (35 ft) and agrees witb the FEA moments for longer $pans.For

FIg. 8. Longitudna! bendni inOmentsat critical cross sections due to edge loads (El versus E3)

.Ianes and 30% for slabs with three or four llUtes wiU give results similar to those of the AASHTO bending moment ~on for bridges with shouldel'$. and withspalengti)s great~ tban 10.510 (35 ft), when subjected to the. worst 1oadin&condition. tbe mui-

O\UInde$ign bending rnoment calQtlJced.~in& .. LRFD approach appears to be simU...to or hiperresults que tOe<igo+ttuckladingconditions. Edge "..", ltIoment

.AASHTO tbe FEA

Table 2 summanzes the maximum longitudinJl.edgc beam 1M" ment obtained from tbe FEA subject to tbecritica1 edge .1Oad condition nd compared with fue AASHTO (I996).e<tgemoment equation.The edge beam widtb was ~u~tobe 4.so rnm (18 in.).tbe PEAedge beam ItlOtnent $dCfiDodastberst.l1JUimum

tWO-,.-. and fout:,lane bridges with span lengths 1- than 10.5 m.(35 t). tJJ.e AASHTO edge moments weee.similar to tbe FEA moments;however. M the span lengtb ineteaseStIoin.l0.5to 16.5 m (35 to 55ft), the AASHTO equation underestimatesthe FEA moments by about 15% for two-and three~lanebridgesand
20% COIfOW'~lanebridges.

,
Lanes (n)

2. CompWort o Finite-Slement nal)'sis(f"SA)EdgeBeamMOmeIuwith A AASHTO~.Beam FEA.~ moment(kN-rnlm)

Span (S) (m)

MOmeD1
AASHTO

Withoutsholalders ,l3dgeEl 87.2 144.2 202.1 248.4 101.0 170.4 238.9 293.1 105.3 179.9 251.4 306.8 107.1 186.3 261.6 319.1

Witb shouklers (1.2 m left ami 1.2 m right) Edgc El 79.8 121.2 162.0167.2 194.5 9~1 156.4 210.2 . 251.6 104.7 174.7 238.1 285.4 106.9 184.4 25~S 308.0 E48e+trUCk 105.4 18S.8 332.0 106.1 185.4 263.S 325.0 107.3 188.3 267.1 328.2 107.8 190.7 VIA 333.5

. (kN.rnlm)

7.1 10.8 13.8 16.2 7.2 10.8 lU 16.2 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2

lDOIDeIIC .'

115.2 172.8 220.8 2S9.1 115.2 172.8 no.8 259.1.. 11S.2 172.8 220.8 259.2 115.2 172.8 220.8 259.2

JOURNAL Of' BRIDGE ENGINEERING e ASeE / MARCHlAPRIL 2004/153

Table3. Comparison Finite-Element nalysis(FEA)Matimum of A DeflectionwithAASHTODeflection .

FEA maximum deftection (min) Lanes (n) Span (5) (m) 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2 7.2 10.8 13.8 16.2 7.2 10.8 13.8
16.2 7.2

Without shoulders Centered \.3 4.0 6.8 8.5 1.5 4.8 8.0 10.0 1.8 5.0 8.3
10.0 1.8

With shoulders (1.2 m left and 1.2 m right)

Edge El 1.8 4.5 7.3 8.5 2.0 . 5.5 8.8 10.5 2.0 5.8 9.3
11.0 2.3

EdgeE3 .
1.4 4.2 7.0 8.5 1.7 S.O 8.3 10.1 1.8 5.2 .6
10.4 1.8

Centered 1.0 2.8 4.8 5.8 \.3 3.5 6.0 7.3 1.3 3.8 6.5
8.0 1.5

Edge El L5 3.5 5.8 6.8 2.0 5.0 7.5 9.0 2.0 5.8 8.8
10.3 2.3

Edge E3 1.2 3.3 5.3 6.4 1.6 4.4 7.1 8.4 1.7 5.0 8.0
9.6 1.8

Edge+truck 2.0 6.0 10.0 12.0 2.3 6.0 9.8 11.8 2.3 6.3 10.0
12.0 2.3

AASHTO deftection (mm) 9.0 13.5 17.3 20.3 9.0 13.5 17.3 20.3 9.0 13.5 17.3
20.3 9.0

2.

tI
..

TI ;

1 ; ,

10.8 13.8 16.2

l':'

5.0 8.3 10.0

6.0 9.5 11.5

5.4 8.9 10.8

4.0 6.8 8.3

6.0 9.5 ll.

5.3 8.7 10.4

6.3 10.3 12.3

13.5 17.3 20.3

,
.

, Second. when considering slabs with shoulders on both sides subject to ,edge load, tbe AASHTO equation overestimates the . FEA moments by more .tban 25% for one-Iane bridges in cOl11bi-

nation witb any span length. However,the AASHTOeqUlition for two-Iane bridges overestimates the FEA momentsby 15% for span lengtbs less tban 10.5 m (35 ft) and agrecs witb tbe FEA 11\0mentsor longer spans..For tbree- and four-Iane bridges with f sPlUilengtbs than 10.5m (35 ft), tbe AASHTOequation gives less resultssimilarto those of tbe FEA moments;however., the. span ~ lengtb increasesfrom 10.5 to 16.5 m (35 to 55 ft), theAASHTO equation underestimate~the FEA moments by. 10 and 20% for . ttU-ee- nd four-Janebridges, respectively. a Third, when considering slabs witb shouldersonbothsides subject toedge+truck load, where a disabled trutk is added on the left shoulder,the AASHTO equation ives results similar to those of the FEA moments for ~panlengtbs less than 10.5 m (35 ft) and underestimatesthe FEAmomentsby about 20 to 30% with increasingspan lengtb, regardless of the number of lanes.
Maxlmum Llve-Load Deflectlon Table 3 summarlzes the maximum live-Ioad deftections obtained from the FEA as compared with the AASHTO criterion (S/800). The FEA results yielded live-Ioad deftections thatvaried between 1/6 and 112 of tbe AASHTO values. Note that the FEA is an elasticanalysis and not the actual cracked-section anaIysis, which would yield deftections around 1/3 to l,of the AASHTO values.

Based on me results of this .investigation, the following conclusions can be made regarding the maximum longitudinal bending moments: For slabs without shoulders, where tbe edg load condition is critical, and for one-lane bridges, AASHTO IDoment Eq. (1) [or Eq. (2)J overestimates the FEA moments (30%) for short spans (up to 7.5 mor 25 ft) and agrees with the FEA for longer spans. For more than one lane, AASHTO agrees with the FEA for short spans (less than 10.S mor 35 ft)and undeEestimates FEA (15 to 30%) for longer spans. Reinforced concrete slab bridges with shoulderson both edges tend to inc:reasein loadcarrying capacity. Therefore, the edge+truck.load condition was found to be critical for bricges with shoulders on both free edges where AASHTO agrees with the FEA for sbort spans (up to 7.S m or 25 ft) andunderestimates the FEA by 2S% for longer spans, regardless of the number of lanes. Therefore, a suggested 20% reduction factor applied to the FEA moments for span lengths sreater tban 10.5 m (35 ft), in combination witbat ~ two lanes, will tend to give results similar to those of AASHTO Eq. (1) [or (2)]. The AASHTO LRFD procedure gives higher bending moments than AASHTO standard specifications as well as the FEA results. The AASHTO LRFD procedure gives design bending moments closer to the FEA results subject to edge+truck load COnditioRS.
'

Summary and Concluslons

This paper presented the results of an investigationof reinforced concrete slab bridges using finite-elementanalysis. Simply supported one-span bridges were considered with various span lengtbs, numbers of lanes, and loading conditions for cases with and without shoulders. A total of 112 case study bridges were analyzed. The maximum longitudinal bending moments, edge beam moments, and maximum deflections were compared with AASHTOdesign procedures.

Regardingedge beam moments,and consideringslabs without sboulders and short spans (up to 10.5 m or 35 ft), AASHTO overestimates' the FEA by 20% for one-Iane bridges and agrees withthe FEA for more than one lane. For longer spans, AASHTO agrees with the FEA for one-Iane bridges and underestimates the FEA (15 to 20%) for more than one lane. Wben considering slabs with shoulders and any number of lanes, the .AASHTO emprical equation agrees with the FEA for short-span bridges (up to 10.5 mor 35 ft) and underestimates the maximum FEA moment by 20 to 30% for longer spans. Finally, the cracked-section estimated deftection, as obtained'frOm.the FEA elastic deftection, would be approximately between 1/3 and.l o tbe AASHTO limitation for live-loaddeftection.
.

154/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEEAING,C ASCE IMARCHlAPRIL 2004

. ""References
*'

continuous over flexible beams." Bullenn No. 304, Univ. of lIIinois.

Urbana. 111.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO). (1996). Standard specijications for highway bridges. 16th Ed., Washington. D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1998). LRFD design specifications, 2nd Ed.. Washington, D.C. Computers and Structures Inc. (1998). "Integrated structural analysis and design software." SAP2()()(). Berlceley. Calif. Frederick, O. R. (1997). "Experimental and analytical investig.ion of load distribution in concrete slab bridges." Spring Con/.. Society for Etperimental Mechanics. Bellevue. Wash. Jensen, V. P. (1938). "A distribution ptocedure for theanatysisof slab$

Jensen. V.P. (1939). "Moments in simple span bridge slabs with stiffened edges." Bulletin No. 3/5. Univ. of IlIinois.Urbana. 111.' Mabsout. M.. 1Ib~anji. R.. Tathini. K.oand Frederick, O. R. (2000). "Finite elcment analysis of concrete sllib bridges." Proc.. 8th /nI. Con.{.O" Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. Stanford Univ., Stanford. Calif., 1045-1050. Shekar. Y.. Azizinamini.A.. Bamhill. O., and BoothbyT. (1993). "Per. fonnance of concrete sllib bridges." Final Rep.. NDOR ProjectNo. RESI99. Univ. of NI'braska.Liocoln. Neb. Wescerpard, H. M. (1926). "Stresses in concrete pavementscomputed by tbeoretn:.! analysis." P/llIlicRoads. 7(2). 2S~3S. WestcI'Jaard..H. M. (1930). "Computation of stresses in slabs due to wheel Joads." Public Roads. 11(1). 1-23.

JOUANAlOF BRIDGE ENGINEERINGASeEI MARCHlAPRIL e 2004/155 ...