Would you like to sign out?

Select Country

  • Afghanistan English
  • Albania English
  • Algeria English
  • American Samoa English
  • Andorra English
  • Angola English
  • Anguilla English
  • Antarctica English
  • Antigua and Barbuda English
  • Argentina Español
  • Armenia English
  • Aruba English
  • Australia English
  • Austria English
  • Azerbaijan English
  • Bahamas English
  • Bahrain English
  • Bangladesh English
  • Barbados English
  • Belarus English
  • Belgium English
  • Belize English
  • Benin English
  • Bermuda English
  • Bhutan English
  • Bolivia Español
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina English
  • Botswana English
  • Bouvet Island English
  • Brazil English
  • British Indian Ocean Territory English
  • British Virgin Islands English
  • Brunei English
  • Bulgaria English
  • Burkina Faso English
  • Burundi English
  • Cambodia English
  • Cameroon English
  • Canada English
  • Cape Verde English
  • Caribbean Netherlands English
  • Cayman Islands English
  • Central African Republic English
  • Chad English
  • Chile Español
  • Christmas Island English
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands English
  • Colombia Español
  • Comoros English
  • Congo English
  • Cook Islands English
  • Costa Rica Español
  • Côte d’Ivoire English
  • Croatia English
  • Cuba Español
  • Curaçao English
  • Cyprus English
  • Czech Republic English
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo English
  • Denmark English
  • Djibouti English
  • Dominica English
  • Dominican Republic Español
  • Ecuador Español
  • Egypt English
  • El Salvador Español
  • Equatorial Guinea English
  • Eritrea English
  • Estonia English
  • Ethiopia English
  • Falkland Islands English
  • Faroe Islands English
  • Fiji English
  • Finland English
  • France English
  • French Guiana Español
  • French Polynesia English
  • French Southern Territories English
  • Gabon English
  • Gambia English
  • Georgia English
  • Germany English
  • Ghana English
  • Gibraltar English
  • Greece English
  • Greenland English
  • Grenada English
  • Guadeloupe Español
  • Guam English
  • Guatemala Español
  • Guernsey English
  • Guinea English
  • Guinea-Bissau English
  • Guyana English
  • Haiti Español
  • Heard Island and McDonald Islands English
  • Honduras Español
  • Hong Kong English
  • Hungary English
  • Iceland English
  • India English
  • Indonesia English
  • Iran English
  • Iraq English
  • Ireland English
  • Isle of Man English
  • Israel English
  • Italy English
  • Jamaica English
  • Japan 日本語
  • Jersey English
  • Jordan English
  • Kazakhstan English
  • Kenya English
  • Kiribati English
  • South Korea 한국어
  • Kuwait English
  • Kyrgyzstan English
  • Laos English
  • Latvia English
  • Lebanon English
  • Lesotho English
  • Liberia English
  • Libya English
  • Liechtenstein English
  • Lithuania English
  • Luxembourg English
  • Macau English
  • Madagascar English
  • Malawi English
  • Malaysia English
  • Maldives English
  • Mali English
  • Malta English
  • Marshall Islands English
  • Martinique English
  • Mauritania English
  • Mauritius English
  • Mayotte English
  • Mexico Español
  • Micronesia English
  • Moldova English
  • Monaco English
  • Mongolia English
  • Montenegro English
  • Montserrat English
  • Morocco English
  • Mozambique English
  • Myanmar English
  • Namibia English
  • Nauru English
  • Nepal English
  • Netherlands English
  • New Caledonia English
  • New Zealand English
  • Nicaragua Español
  • Niger English
  • Nigeria English
  • Niue English
  • Norfolk Island English
  • Northern Mariana Islands English
  • Norway English
  • Oman English
  • Pakistan English
  • Palau English
  • Palestine English
  • Panama Español
  • Papua New Guinea English
  • Paraguay Español
  • Peru Español
  • Philippines English
  • Pitcairn Islands English
  • Poland English
  • Portugal Español
  • Puerto Rico Español
  • Qatar English
  • Réunion English
  • Romania English
  • Russia English
  • Rwanda English
  • Saint Barthélemy Español
  • Saint Helena English
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis English
  • Saint Lucia English
  • Saint Martin Español
  • Saint Pierre and Miquelon English
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines English
  • Samoa English
  • San Marino English
  • São Tomé and Príncipe English
  • Saudi Arabia English
  • Senegal English
  • Serbia English
  • Seychelles English
  • Sierra Leone English
  • Singapore English
  • Sint Maarten English
  • Slovakia English
  • Slovenia English
  • Solomon Islands English
  • Somalia English
  • South Africa English
  • South Georgia English
  • South Sudan English
  • Spain English
  • Sri Lanka English
  • Sudan English
  • Suriname English
  • Svalbard and Jan Mayen English
  • Eswatini English
  • Sweden English
  • Switzerland English
  • Syria English
  • Taiwan English
  • Tajikistan English
  • Tanzania English
  • Thailand English
  • Togo English
  • Tokelau English
  • Tonga English
  • Trinidad and Tobago English
  • Tunisia English
  • Turkey English
  • Turkmenistan English
  • Turks and Caicos Islands English
  • Tuvalu English
  • U.S. Virgin Islands English
  • Uganda English
  • Ukraine English
  • United Arab Emirates English
  • United Kingdom English
  • United States English
  • U.S. Minor Outlying Islands English
  • Uruguay Español
  • Uzbekistan English
  • Vanuatu English
  • Vatican City English
  • Venezuela Español
  • Vietnam English
  • Wallis and Futuna English
  • Western Sahara English
  • Yemen English
  • Zambia English
  • Zimbabwe English
  • Åland Islands English
  • East Timor English
  • Netherlands Antilles English
  • Serbia and Montenegro English
  • North Macedonia English
  • Timor-Leste English

Critical Live Load Pattern for Skewed Bridges

May 5, 2021
BLOG BRIDGE INSIGHT

 

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Traffic Load Application to Produce Adverse Effects

3. Bridge Deck Geometry & Definition of Normal Traffic Loads

4. Loading Patterns

5. Recommendations


Introduction

Bridge structures are mostly subjected to dead loads and live loads. The permanent actions are of the dead loads such as self-weight, super-imposed loads. Live loads, which are traffic loads, acts on various possible positions on the bridge deck. The determination of traffic load position causing the adverse effects is not apparent and often needs specialized software or influence lines/surfaces.

Furthermore, in skewed bridges, the abutments are not perpendicular to the bridge center-line. The acute angle between the abutment and the line perpendicular to the bridge deck's center-line is defined as the skew angle (θ), as shown in Fig.1. Extreme force effects due to live loads are generally reduced because of the skew; however, it produces the negative moments at the deck corners and torsional moments within the end zones and redistributes reaction forces at the supports. In a numerical model, accurate positioning of the design trucks in the bridge's transverse and longitudinal directions is vital to evaluate maximum live load effects.

Skew Angle for a Bridge Figure 1: Skew Angle for a Bridge
 

Hence, we would require the Moving Load Analysis, typically a Static Load Analysis, to find the worst load effects of various possible positions along the bridge based on the Influence Line analysis or influence surface analysis.


Traffic Load Application to Produce Adverse Effects

 

Fully Loaded Bridge Decks do not necessarily cause the most adverse effects. At times, the relieving part of the deck could cause a critical effect as well. Codes specify only the magnitude of the load, leave us blindsided, and do not specify application patterns that cause the adverse effect for the live loading due to traffic loadings.

 

So the question arises, How the traffic loads should be applied to produce the most adverse effects?

 

For this, let us investigate the following:

  • Can the set of standard application load patterns be used to approximate the most adverse effects of Live Loading? 
  • On using the standard patterns, how much will their results differ from the adverse load effects?
  • Applicability of the standard loads when the skew angle of the bridge deck increases.  

 

For this purpose, moving load as per The South African specification TMH7 is used. Only the Bridge Deck is modeled & analyzed for the critical normal traffic loading. Comparative finite element analysis to be performed with numerical modeling and analysis of single-span bridge deck under consideration, using midas Civil.


Bridge Deck Geometry & Definition of Normal (NA) Traffic Loads

Bridge Deck Geometry

The terminologies for carriageway, supports, and notional lanes are as follows:

 

Carriageway: 

  • The carriageway includes all the traffic lanes where actual traffic loads must be applied. Carriageway length = 15m Effective width= 10m
  • Supports: Longitudinal supports below the carriageway restricting the vertical displacements.
  • Notional lane: The longitudinal strips along the carriageway used to apply normal traffic loadings

 

Definition of Notional Lanes, Carriageways, and Supports
Figure 2: Definition of Notional Lanes, Carriageways, and Supports
 
 

 

Definition of NA Loading


NA Loading as prescribed by TMH7 consists of a distributed part & concentrated part acting in conjunction with each other.

 

Distributed Load

Load intensity of NA loading is given as,

for Le ≤ 36 m Qa = 36 kN/m

for Le > 36 m Qa = 180/√Le + 6 kN/m

where,

Le = effective loaded length (m)

Qa = intensity of the loading (kN/m)

NA loading is applied as two uniformly distributed line loads at 1.9m apart.

 

Concentrated Load

The associated Nominal Axle load is

144/√n kN

where

n = loading sequence number

Thus, if the loading in lane 1, 144/√1 = 144.00 kN

             the loading in lane 2, 144/√2 = 101.82 kN, etc..

This loading is applied as two-point loads 1.9m apart.


Loading Patterns

Two loading patterns are compared, namely 'standard load pattern' and 'critical load pattern.'

 

Standard Load Pattern

 

Standard patterns are based on engineering judgment as to how an engineer could consider applying type NA loading to yield the most adverse effects in the absence of the influence-based software. As in figure 3, four cases presumed to cause the worst loading is considered. The concentrated axle is applied at left, center, right & one for torsional as well.

 

Standard Loading Pattern-1
Standard Loading Pattern-2
Figure 3: Standard Loading Patterns
 
 

Critical Load Pattern

 

The loading pattern, as discussed above, loads the entire notional lane. This loading pattern ignores those regions, which may provide relieving effect when loaded. So for critical load patterns, those that generate critical positive or negative loading patterns are considered and are based on the influence value, at a chosen location, of a load increment as it moves over the notional lanes.

 
Influence Surface Bending at Center of SpanFigure 4(a): Influence Surface Bending at Center of Span
 
Application of the Critical Loadings Patterns in midas CivilFigure 4(b): Application of the Critical Loading Patterns in midas Civil
 
 

The concentrated axle loads would be placed at the highest influence value in each moving load direction. 

Vehicle Positioning in longitudinal direction alone is not sufficient. The transverse position also comes into the picture to determine particular critical positioning. 

 

1. Regular optimization: 

 

  • There are three positions for vehicle placements (at the center, extreme left, and extreme right of the lane). However, for NA and NC type vehicles, the transverse placement does not have much significant effect.

  • As per carriageway width, these three positions are sufficient to cause the worst effect.


  • Vehicle Placement over Lane WidthFigure 5: Vehicle Placement over Lane Width

2. Multi-point Optimization  


  • Tie settlement should be reviewed from the location where the extended nodal zone and the center of the ties meet.
  • The extended nodal zone refers to the area where each effective width overlaps at the location where the struts and ties meet.

Multi-Point or Moving Load Optimization in midas CivilFigure 6: Multi-Point or Moving Load Optimization in midas Civil


Recommendations

 

Comparative Analysis

 

The results, such as the moment resultant by the standard load pattern & the critical load patterns, can be compared by varying the skew angle.


Critical NA loading patterns and resulting contours of the longitudinal bending moment at mid-span at the center of the carriageway

 

For Skew = 0o

Critical NA Loading Patterns and Resulting Contours for Skew = 0

For Skew= 10o

Skew 10For Skew=20o

Skew 20

For Skew= 40o

Skew 40

 

The Critical live load patterns do not follow any typical behavior for the longitudinal bending. As the skew angle increases, it is difficult to determine the regions of the bridge deck to be loaded for the adverse effects. For the twisting and transverse bending moment, the vehicle needs to be placed at all the critical locations to determine the adverse effects, which can be effectively captured using the moving load optimization function of midas Civil.

 

The interpretation stands valid for other codes or standards as well.


 

Reference: http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/jsaice/v55n3/10.pdf

 

Susbcribe
MIDAS Newsletter

Thank you, See you soon!
Share
About the Author
Akshay Magar | Structural/Bridge Engineer | MIDAS IT India

Akshay is currently working with MIDAS IT  as a Structural/Bridge engineer. He has pursued his Masters in Structural Engineering from Vellore Institute of Technology and has 4+ years of experience in the design of bridges and building projects. He has helped various clients with their projects with modeling and analysis of various structures (RCC, PSC, Steel), and complex bridges (Cable-Stayed, Supension, and Extradosed). Akshay has handled a vast number of national and international clients resolving technical issues and providing one-to-one solutions. 

 

 

Comments
DOWNLOAD Download the
Project Application

Fill out the below form to
download 80 Masterworks of Civil Engineering

All