1

Page

Introduction
According to Encyclopedia of Britannica, Bridge is a structure that spans
horizontally between supports, whose function is to carry vertical loads1. The
earliest bridges, apart from nature made bridges, have been made by humans
from the simple wooden or stone slab over a span. This process has been
developed up to the ancient romans which started to design bridges which can
withstand in more severe conditions, in compare to the earlier ones. Later on,
the bridge development has been carried out within the different countries,
functioning both as military and as commercial bridges, made out of timber,
stone, and etc. In 19th century the possibility of larger bridge constructions has
been provided, with the introduction of the truss system of the wrought iron, but
with the lack of the tensile strength for supporting the loads. So with the arrival
of steel, much larger bridges have been constructed, many using the idea of
Gustave Eiffel. In 1927 , first welded road bridge in the world has been built, and
up to now, many developments and establishments has been presented in the
bridge design, by introducing newer materials, technologies and design
innovations.
So in order to ensure a consistence approach and a good practice for the
design and construction of bridge structures, since 20th Century, various codes
and standards have been issued2. AASHTO (American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials), DIN 1072 (Germany Road and foot
bridges), BS 5400 Bridges (British code for bridges), AS 5100 - bridges
(Australian code for bridges), CAN/CSA-S6-00 (R2005) (Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code), are among the todays famous bridge standards.
Among these codes, AASHTO has a well-established probability based
design methodology and load factors, which makes bridges resistance against
almost all of the applied static and dynamics loads, mainly imposed by the
vehicles (graph 1)[APPENDIX 1, AASHTO Load And Load Designation]. But it has

Page

no specific guidelines to design the highway bridges for the imposed loads by
Crawlers or similar heavyweight tracked wheeler vehicles such as army tanks.

AASHTO's LOAD PROVISIONS:

PERMANENT LOADS
LIVE LOADS
WIND LOAD
ICE LOADS
EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS
EARTH PRESSURE
FORCE EFFECTS DUE TO
SUPERIMPOSED DEFORMATIONS
FRICTION FORCES
VESSEL COLLISION
BLAST LOADING

Graph 1- AASHTOs Load Provisions

Crawlers are vehicles fixed on an undercarriage with a set of tracked

wheels which also called crawlers, which their main function is to deliver the
necessary stability and mobility at the site. Their usage is to perform lifting or
load carrying on site with little setup operation, however they are extremely
heavy vehicles, and usually need to disassemble and moved by trucks, from one
project to another , which is an extremely expensive operation.
Moreover, the rapid growth of technology, and the necessity of building
strong bridges with longer service life, brings this question that weather bridges
designed by AASHTO can cope with the futures demands or not? Amphibious
Tracked Transport Vehicle, weighing four tons, and having massive tracks,
which is designed for managing disaster both in water and land, may perhaps
provide a better illustration of the problem (Figure 1).

3
Page
Figure 1- Amphibious Tracked Transport Vehicle3

Besides, the importance of the clear bridge design method for tracked or
wheeler vehicles, made some of the countries to provide specific guideline in
their national codes for this purpose; Iranian Bridge design standard 4, which
has been taken from the DIN (German Code), is a good example.

Figure 2- Crawler Crane

Furthermore, the major role of crawlers in installation and maintenance of

the bridges, makes it is not always easy and economical to carry them by trucks
rather than letting the crawler to be transported by their own tracked wheels,

Page

especially when it requires dissembling massive crawlers for their transportation

purposes.

All of the mentioned demands make it substantial to design some of the

bridges in a way that they can withstand crawlers (or any similar tracked
vehicles) imposed load.

Background
As the result of the joint effort of the Highway Bridge engineers and
Railroad designers, basis of the bridge design codification together with its
provisions relevant to the live-load has been accomplished. The outcome was
presented as a Final Report on Specifications for Design and Construction of
Steel Highway Bridge Superstructure at the spring meeting of ASCE on April 9,
1924, and is published in the 1924 transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers5.

Year

AASHTO's Development

1931

First
printed
Specifications
for
Structures

1970

AASHO becomes AASHTO

Early 1970

AASHTO adopts LFD

Late 1970s

OMTC
OHBDC

1986

AASHTO explores need to change

1990

AASHTO Load and Resistance

Specifications (LRFD Code)

1996

starts

version
Highway

work

of
AASHO
Bridges
and

on

Standard
Incidental

limit-states

Factor

based

Bridge

Design

Segmental

Guide

foundation data reinserted

1990s

More commentary added

2002

Upgraded
Specs.

major update
in 2002

MCF shear
times

2004

Major

to
in

change

ASBI

concrete
in

LFRD

simplified
steel

and
girder

clarified
design

several
in

5
Page

anticipation of
2005

seamless
integration
ending three decade quest

of

curved

2005

P/C loses updated

2006

complete
replacement
Foundation Design

2006

more concrete shear options

2007

Streamline MCF for concrete shear design

of

steel

Section

bridges

10

1,000 year EQ maps and collateral changes

Seismic Guide Spec - displacement based
Pile construction update
2008

Coastal bridge Guide Spec

2010

AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS , Fifth Edition,

AASHTOSs Development6

AASHTO 1996, is using S/D formula for limit state design of bridge, where S
is the girder spacing, and D refers to the type of the bridge Structure. In line
with these developments, an ultimate strength or limit states design, called as
Load Factor Design (LFD), was emerged in the 1960s. Subsequently, after
several publications of the AASHTO, in the 1990s, AASHTO Load and Resistance
Factor Bridge Design Specifications (LRFD Code) as an ultimate replacement for
the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, was presented. This
newly introduced code has restructured bridge design practice in a more
straightforward manner, by providing more accurate procedure for the
distribution of the vehicles weight to its individual girders. LRFD code covers
various limit states, comprising Service Limit State, Fatigue and Fracture
Limit State, Strength Limit State (or Constructability), and Extreme Event
limit State.
As the AASHTO developed over time, several papers and articles have been
written, especially after the introduction of LRFD method. These papers with
their brief description can be seen in the following table (Table 2).
N
O

Title

Dat
e

Coun
try

Aim of Paper

Verification of AASHTO LRFD

Specifications
Live
Load
Distribution Formulas for HPS
Bridges7

200
4

China

Simplified Shear Provisions of the

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications8

200
8

USA

Simplified Shear Design of Structural

Concrete Members.

NCHRP, Simplified Live Load

Distribution Factor Equations9

200
7

USA

To determine a simpler and more

accurate method to estimate live
load effect on bridges.

PCI Bridge Design Manual10

--

USA

--

Live Load Distribution Factors in

Prestressed
Concrete
Girder
Bridges11

200
1

USA

Evaluation
of flexural
live-load
distribution factors for a series of
three span prestressed concrete
girder bridges

A refined Method for live load

distribution prediction of bridges
and comparative studies 12

200
1

USA

Predicting the vehicle Load On the

bridge Girder

Construction Loads Produced

During Heavy Lifting, Rigging and
Handling Operations13

200
1

USA

Detailed
description
of
the
construction loads to be considered
in the analysis and design of
handling
systems
for
heavy
component erection.

Live Load Distribution Factors for

a Three Span Continuous Precast
Girder Bridge14

199
8

USA

Illustrating the latest technique of

computing LDF for the approximate
procedure for calculating live load
distribution factors.

Live load distribution factors for

glued-laminated timber bridges15

200
8

USA

Study sponsored by the Forest

Products
Laboratory,
with
the
objective
of determining how truckloads are
distributed
to
the
structural
members of glued-laminated timber
bridges.

10

Live Load Distribution Factors for

Grid Reinforced Concrete Decks16

199
8

USA

A better understanding of grid

reinforced concrete bridge deck
behavior and its interaction with
supporting members,

11

Live Load Distribution Factors for

Girder Bridges17

200
2

USA

Determining
a
new
simplified
formula
that
eliminates
the
iterations, creating an easier to use,
yet accurate equation.

12

Precast
Balanced
Cantilever
Bridge Design Using AASHTO
LRFD
Bridge
Design
Specifications18

200
4

USA

Providing
design
Example
for
Segmental & Precast Cantilever
Bridge, using AASHTO LRFD

Page

Comparing true load distribution

factor from the real tests on bridges
and comparing them with the
AASHTO LRFD Formulas.

Optimized Design and Testing of

a
Prototype
Military
Bridge
System for Rapid In-Theater
Construction19

200
5

USA

14

Design and analysis of bridge

foundation with different codes20

201
1

China

Discussed the design and analysis of

bridge foundation subjected to load
of train with four codes, namely
AASHTO, BS, The Chinese National
Standard and Chinese code.

15

LRFD
Bridge
Specifications21

201
2

USA

2012 AASHTO Revision

16

Introduction to LRFD, Loads and

Loads Distribution22

--

17

CSiBridge Bridge Superstructure

Design23

201
0

USA

Bridge Software Guide

18

Bridge
LRFD24

199
7

USA

Comparative Explanations

19

TRB &AASHTO25

--

USA

Provide an overview of the mission,

roles, and responsibilities AASHTO
and TRB as they relate to the bridge
community

20

Special Issue on AASHTO-LRFD

Bridge
Design
and
Guide
Specifications: Recent, Ongoing,
and Future Refinements26

201
1

USA

Providing highlights of some of

AASHTO's revisions over a broad
range of bridge engineering topics.

21

Evaluation of FRP Posttensioned

Slab Bridge Strips Using AASHTOLRFD
Bridge
Design
Specifications27

201
1

Cana
da

Comparing the flexural performance

of five FRP slabs and one steelreinforced control slab to the design
provisions of the AASHTO Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Bridge Design Specifications.

22

Determination of AASHTO Bridge

Design Parameters through Field
Evaluation of the Rt. 601 Bridge:
A Bridge Utilizing Strong well 36
in.
Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer
Double Web Beams as the Main
Load Carrying Members28

200
2

USA

details the field evaluation of the Rt.

601 Bridge in order to determine the
following AASHTO bridge design
parameters: wheel load distribution
factor , dynamic load allowance IM,
and maximum deflection & etc.

23

AASHTO
Connected
Vehicle
Infrastructure
Deployment
Analysis29

201
1

USA

Describing a deployment scenario

for Connected Vehicle infrastructure
by state and local transportation
agencies, together with a series of
strategies
and
actions
to
be
performed by AASHTO to support
application
development
and
deployment.

24

UPDATE OF THE AASHTO GUIDE

201

USA

__

Crossings

Design

LFD

vs.

Page

13

Designing a bridge with reduction in

deployment requirements because
of the use of in-theater materials.

Comprehensive Explanations

25

Live-Load Distribution Factors for

Prestressed
Concrete,
Spread
Box-Girder Bridge31

200
6

USA

Presenting an evaluation of shear

and moment live-load distribution
factors for a new, prestressed
concrete, spread box-girder bridge.
Comparing
the
results
with
calculation
to
AASHTO.

26

Evolution of Vehicular Live Load

Models During the Interstate
Design Era and Beyond32

200
6

USA

Reviewing the evolution of live load

design models for bridges and
associated
design
specification
provisions
before,
during and after the Interstate era,
taken as the last 80 years.

27

Proposed Revisions to AASHTOLRFD Bridge Design Specifications

for
Orthotropic
Steel
Deck
Bridges33

201
0

USA

Summarizing proposed changes to

the fifth edition of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications related
to orthotropic deck bridges

28

Live Load for Bridges Lateral

Load
Distribution
and
Deck
Design Recommendations for the
Sandwich Plate System (SPS) in
Bridge Applications34

200
7

USA

Investigating
some
of
the key design issues considered to
be limiting factors in implementation
of SPS.

29

Method to Compute Live-Load

Distribution in Bridge Girders35

201
0

USA

Introducing a new framework (elastic

springs)
to
compute
live-load
distribution for bridge girders.

30

Quantification of intermediate
diaphragm
effects
on
load
distributions
of
Prestressed
concrete girder bridges36

200
9

USA

Aims to quantify the intermediate

diaphragm
influence
on
load
distributions
and
presents
an
approach to develop correction
factors for load distributions.

31

Evaluation of load distribution

factor by series solution for
orthotropic bridge decks37

201
0

USA

Considering important parameters

that
represent
the
response
characteristics of the structure that
are often omitted or limited in the
AASHTO
Specifications
Providing
explicit
formulas
using
series
solutions for LDF of orthotropic
bridge decks, applicable to various
materials but intended for fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) decks.

32

Behavior of Segmental Precast

Post-Tensioned Bridge Piers Under
Lateral Loads38

201
1

USA

Presenting
a
detailed
threedimensional
finite-element
(FE)
model that was developed using the
ABAQUS platform.

33

AASHTO-LRFD
Live
Load
Distribution Specifications39

200
0

USA

Presenting the background on the

development of the formulas and
compare their accuracy with the S/D
method.

Page

FOR SNOW AND ICE CONTROL30

Live Load Distribution in Girder

Bridges Subject to Oversized
Trucks40

200
1

UAE

35

Performance of AASHTO Girder

Bridges Under Blast Loading41

200
8

USA

The purpose of this research is to

assess the performance of (AASHTO)
girder
bridge
under blast loading.

36

The Development of AASHTO

LRFD Bridge Design Specification
as an Example of ProbabilisticBased Specifications42

201
1

USA

Overview
of
History
development on AASHTO

Page

34

LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION IN GIRDER

BRIDGES SUBJECT TO OVERSIZED
TRUCKS

and

Table 1 - Papers written about AASHTOs LRFD

As it can be detected from the above table, large number of these papers
focused on the reliability of LRFD and comparison of LRFD with the experimental
data. Also, some of these papers provided the simplified formulae, which has
been derived from LRFD formula, with less numbers of iteration.
Furthermore, the obtained results from the relevant studies related to LRFD
code has been presented as a brief summary in the following table (Table3).
NO.

Title
Verification of AASHTO-LRFD Specifications Live Load
Distribution Formulas for HPS Bridges

Date

Results

2004

Comparing the DF obtained

Formula, shows AASHTO fo
and conservative for High
(HSP).

2008

The simplified provisions pr

concept to AASHTOs St
Highway Bridges, contain
web-shear cracking capacity
truss model to evaluate
reinforcement.

2007

The project objectives have

simple,
reasonably
accu
computation of live load dist

Simplified Shear Provisions of the AASHTO LRFD

Bridge Design Specifications
2

NCHRP, Simplified
Equations

Live

PCI Bridge Design Manual

Load

Distribution

Factor

___

Live Load Distribution Factors in Prestressed Concrete

Girder Bridges
5

2001

A refined Method for live load distribution prediction of

bridges and comparative studies

2001

Bridge Design procedure

If the distribution factors fro

of the bridge had been us
instead of the conservativ
Specifications, the required
been reduced from 51 MP
(6,400 psi). Alternatively, th
designed for a 39% higher li

Comparing the refined meth

shows that the refined
information as well as more

10
Page

I girder

Construction Loads Produced During Heavy Lifting,

Rigging and Handling Operations
7

2001

Live Load Distribution Factors for a Three Span

Continuous Precast Girder Bridge

1998

Live load distribution factors for glued-laminated

timber bridges
9

10

2008

Live Load Distribution Factors for Grid Reinforced

Concrete Decks

12

Precast Balanced Cantilever Bridge Design

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

13

Optimized Design and Testing of a Prototype Military

Bridge System for Rapid In-Theater Construction

14

Using

Design and analysis of bridge foundation with different

codes

Design examples.

Simplified live load dist

developed following meth
bridge types where needed
determining how trucklo
structural members of glued

1998

Result allows for the use m

regarding live load distributi

2002

The new simplified equation

only composite and non-co
bridges.

Live Load Distribution Factors for Girder Bridges

11

The character and magnitud

heavy lifting, rigging, and h
significantly different from t
particular installation has
differences mandate the ne
their effects

2004

Providing draft design Exam

2005

The results showed a pote

compared to the US Army Ra

2011

The results showed the Chi

the number of reinforcemen
piles is more than those w
code with the same dimensi

15

LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

2012

AASHTO 2012 Revision

16

Introduction to LRFD, Loads and Loads Distribution

__

Comprehensive Explanation

17

CSiBridge Bridge Superstructure Design

2010

Bridge Software Guide

18

Bridge Crossings LFD vs. LRFD

1997

Comparative Explanations

__

Provide an overview of
responsibilities AASHTO and
bridge community

19

20

TRB & AASHTO

Special Issue on AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design and

Guide Specifications: Recent, Ongoing, and Future
Refinements

2011

Providing highlights of som

over a broad range of bridge

11

Evaluation of FRP Posttensioned Slab Bridge Strips

Using AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications

2011

Page

21

22

23

24

25

Determination of AASHTO Bridge Design Parameters

through Field Evaluation of the Rt. 601 Bridge: A Bridge
Utilizing Strong well 36 in. Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Double Web Beams as the Main Load Carrying
Members
AASHTO Connected Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment
Analysis
Update of the AASHTO Guide for Snow and ICE
control
Live-Load
Distribution
Factors
for
Concrete, Spread Box-Girder Bridge

Determination of the
according to AASHTO.

2011

Development of a plan for a

RSEs under the direction o
Vehicle Working Group.

2011

Updating of the AASHTO

control.

2006

The LRFD specifications

distribution factors were acc
compared to the finite ele
distribution factors.

2006

In post Interstate design era

new design provisions, de
realistic evaluation of struct
than was available at the
era.

2010

Designs made according to

be expected to perform ver
service life as per AASHTO-L

2007

Developing a lateral Load D

Recommendations for the Sa
in Bridge Applications

2010

The Introduced framework

live-load distribution withou
as girder space, span length

2009

Providing a useful tool for

may choose to account fo
effects in the rating of existi
bridges.

2010

The results correlate well w

illustrated that the series
predict LDF for FRP deck-o
favorable comparisons amo
testing results for a one-thir

2011

The
FE
models
confir
observations and showed th
able to withstand large later
damage. Sensitivity analy
showed that the model is
behavior of the concrete ma

Evolution of Vehicular Live Load Models During the

Interstate Design Era and Beyond

27

28

29

30

Proposed Revisions to AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design

Specifications for Orthotropic Steel Deck Bridges
Live Load for Bridges Lateral Load Distribution and
Deck Design Recommendations for the Sandwich Plate
System (SPS) in Bridge Applications
Method to Compute Live-Load Distribution in Bridge
Girders
Quantification of intermediate diaphragm effects on
load distributions of Prestressed concrete girder
bridges
Evaluation of load distribution factor by series solution
for orthotropic bridge decks

31

Behavior of Segmental Precast Post-Tensioned Bridge

Piers Under Lateral Loads
32

Br

2002

Prestressed

26

Slabs containing prestresse

much lower deflections for
those which did not.

12

AASHTO-LRFD Live Load Distribution Specifications

2000

A grillage or finite-elemen
for cases in which the sim
applicable.

2001

The results of the analysis

proposed modification fact
based GDFs can help incre
slab-on-girder bridges.

Page

33

34

Live Load Distribution in Girder Bridges Subject to

Oversized Trucks

Table 2- Obtained Results from the Researched Articles

Carefully observing the papers related to the AASHTO 2010s LRFD Code,
as well as their results, there is no indication of a suggestion for the specific
guideline related to crawlers (or to any similar heavy tracked wheeled vehicles)
live load distribution factor on bridge deck.

Methodologies
The methodologies that have been used in relation to LRFD design method
are mostly Numerical or Experimental; also, some of these papers are only
discussing AASHTO provisions through applying further researches.
Grouping above papers methodologies, it can be observed that both of the
Numerical and Experimental approaches have been widely used toward the
Evaluation of the AASHTOs LRFD Code, (graph 2).

Methodlogies

Numerical Approach
31%
44%

25%

Comparison Experimental
Test Results with the
Numerical Analysis
Theorotical and Reasearch
Based Approach

Graph 2- Research Methodologies used in relation to AASHTOs Provisions

13

Among the papers using either numerical methods or methods used to verify
Page

the experimental data, the distribution of the calculation methods used in the
55% of the selected articles, has represented in the following graph (graph 3).

Only AASHTO Formula

FEA with AASHTO

38%
62%

Graph 3- Calculation Methods used in the numerical approaches

As it can be observed in graph 3, 60% of the calculations have been

performed using FEA, along with AASHTO LRFD formulae, and the rest 40% have
only performed the analysis using AASHTO LRFD.
Furthermore, considering the various studies that have been conducted on
the distribution of wheel loads on the bridge deck, according to sanders (1984),
the majority of analytical approaches can be classified into four numerical
methods:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Orthotropic plate theory

Harmony analysis and grillage analogies
Folder-plate methods
Finite element and finite strip methods43

The most commonly used advanced method within the mentioned

methods, is finite element Analysis, (FEA). FEA divides the structure into a series
of discrete elements, each possessing the same property as the actual
structure, while performing analytical computer programs such as CSI SAP, or
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional in order to predict stress and
strain in the structure.

14

When evaluating the papers, it is found that in most of the experiments and
Page

calculations, the structural system of the evaluated bridge, was mostly a steel
or concrete deck on the girder, which is presented in the graph 4.

Structural System

Others; 19%

Slab on I or T Beam Girder; 52%

Slab on Box Girder; 30%

Graph 4- diversity of the Bridges Structural System

Slab on multi girder, Slab on the double web beam, and sandwich plate
system are among the other, less common types of the bridges structural
system.
Similarly, the evaluation of the materials used for girders in the researched
papers indicates that mostly composite, pre-stressed or reinforced concrete
girders have been used. In addition, high performance and composite steels is
considered as a popular material for graders structural body (Graph 5).

15
Page

Girder's Materials
4%4%
11%
37%

(high Performance/
composite) Steel

(Prestressed/
Precast/renforced)
Concrete

Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (FRP)

GluedLaminatedTimber

brass
44%

Graph 5- materials used as graders structural body

Targets/aim
So in response to the vital need of having a live load distribution factor for
crawlers loading in AASHTO, this reports objective is to produce a Finite
Element model of the crawler loads on the bridge deck, and subsequently
compare the derived results from the analysis with the LRFD Code, in order to
modify the LRFD factor in relation to Crawlers Live load distribution on the
bridge deck. Also the scope of this report, due to the time constraints, only
considers steel girder bridges, and covering information only contains data
on box-girders. This report does not cover any other type of bridge other than
concrete slab on steel box girders.

Appendix 1
AASHTO Load and Load Designation
STRENGTH I: without wind.
STRENGTH II: owner design / permit vehicles without wind.
STRENGTH III: wind exceeding 55 mph.
STRENGTH IV: very high dead-to-live load ratios.
STRENGTH V: vehicular use with 55 mph wind.
SERVICE I: normal operational use of the bridge with a 55 mph wind and
nominal loads.
Also control cracking of reinforced concrete structures.
SERVICE II: control yielding of steel structures and slip of connections
SERVICE III: control cracking of prestressed concrete superstructures.
SERVICE IV: control cracking of prestressed concrete substructures.
FATIGUE: repetitive vehicular live load and dynamic responses under a
single truck.44

References

1Bridge (engineering) -- Britannica Online Encyclopaedia, 2012- Bridge

(engineering) -- Britannica Online Encyclopaedia [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/79272/bridge [Accessed 28 October
2012]
2 STRUCTURE mag - Structural Engineering Magazine, Tradeshow: Structural
Engineering Codes and Standards in the United States, 2012- STRUCTURE mag Structural Engineering Magazine, Tradeshow: Structural Engineering Codes and
Standards in the United States [ONLINE] Available
at: http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=363 [Accessed 28 October
2012]
3 Amphibious Tracked Transport Vehicle | Pedal Dozer Project, 2012Amphibious Tracked Transport Vehicle | Pedal Dozer Project [ONLINE] Available
at: http://pedal-dozer.com/amphibious-tracked-transport-vehicle/ [Accessed 29
October 2012]
4
5 Seaman, H. R. Final Report on Specifications for Design and Construction
of Steel Highway Superstructures. In Transaction, ACSE, Reston, Va., 1924
6 Wassef, W.G., 2010. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN
SPECIFICATION AS N EXAMPLE OF PROBABILISTIC-BASED SPECIFICATIONS. Journal
of Bridge , (December), pp.759767. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000214 [Accessed
October 31, 2012].
7 Lin, M., 2004-Verification of AASHTO-LRFD Specifications Live Load
Distribution Factor Formulas for HPS Bridges. Available at:
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?ucin1108697828 [Accessed October 31, 2012].
8 Kuchma, D., Hawkins, N. & Kim, S., 2008. Simplified shear provisions of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. PCI journal, pp.5373. Available at:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20326115 [Accessed October 31,
2012].
9 NATIONAL et al., 2007. NCHRP, Simplified Live Load Distribution Factor
Equations

10 PCI, 2012. PCI Bridge Design Manual. Systematic biology, 61(6), p.i1.
Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23095404.
11 Barr, P., Eberhard, M. & Stanton, J., 2001. Live-load distribution factors in
prestressed concrete girder bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, (October),
pp.298306. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)10840702(2001)6%3A5(298) [Accessed October 31, 2012].
12 Chen, Y., 2001. A refined Method for live load distribution prediction of
bridges and comparative studies.
13 Dennis S. Fedock, B.& W., 2001. Construction Loads Produced During
Heavy Lifting, Rigging and Handling Operations. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
pp.17. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11158/ [Accessed October 28,
2012].
14 BridgeSight, S.-, 2008. Live Load Distribution Factors for a Three Span
Continuous Precast Girder Bridge.
15 May, J., 2008. Live load distribution factors for glued-laminated timber
bridges. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11158/ [Accessed October 31,
2012].
16 LBFoster, 1998. Live Load Distribution Factors for Grid Reinforced
Concrete Decks.
17 Nesvold, S., 2002. LIVE-LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS FOR GIRDER
BRIDGES. Available at: http://mail.ce.udel.edu/cibre/reu/02reports/Nesvold.doc
[Accessed October 31, 2012].
18 Institute, A.S.B., Precast Balanced Cantilever Bridge Design Using
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
19 Hanus, J. et al., 2006. Optimized Design and Testing of a Prototype
Military Bridge System for Rapid In-Theater Construction. Available at:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?
verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA481580 [Accessed October
31, 2012].
20 Aziz, H. & Ma, J., 2011. Design and analysis of bridge foundation with
different codes. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction , 2(May), pp.101
118. Available at: http://www.academicjournals.org/jcect/PDF/Pdf2011/May/Aziz

and Ma.pdf [Accessed October 31, 2012].

21 AASHTO, L., 1998. LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, DC:
American Association of State , 41(Revision 1), pp.Section 13, Articles 13.8.2 &
13.8.3. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:LRFD+Bridge+Design+Specifications#1
[Accessed October 31, 2012].
22 Administration, F.H. & Chicago, I., Introduction to LRFD, Loads and Loads
Distribution. , 0, pp.126.
23 CSI, 2010. CSiBridge Bridge Superstructure Design.
24 Michael A. Grubb, P.E., 1997. Bridge Crossings LFD vs. LRFD. , (5).
25 Transportation, N.J.D. of, TRB &AASHTO.
26 Tobias, D.H., 2011. Special Issue on AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design and
Guide Specifications: Recent, Ongoing, and Future Refinements. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 16(6), pp.683683. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29BE.1943-5592.0000297
[Accessed October 28, 2012].
27 Nol, M. & Soudki, K., 2011. Evaluation of FRP Posttensioned Slab Bridge
Strips Using AASHTO-LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, (December), pp.839846. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000226 [Accessed
October 31, 2012].
28 Restrepo, E., 2002. AASHTO Bridge Design Parameters through Field
Evaluation of the Rt. 601 Bridge: A Bridge Utilizing Strongwell 36 in. FiberReinforced Polymer Double Web Beams. Available at:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12162002-113130/ [Accessed
October 31, 2012].
29 Hill, C. & Garrett, J., 2011. AASHTO Connected Vehicle Infrastructure
Deployment Analysis. Available at: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1131369
[Accessed October 31, 2012].
30 Dawood, H., ElGawady, M. & Hewes, J., 2011. UPDATE OF THE AASHTO
GUIDE FOR SNOW AND ICE CONTROL. Journal of Bridge Engineering, (October),
pp.735746. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-

5592.0000252 [Accessed October 31, 2012].

31 Hughs, E. & Idriss, R., 2006. Live-Load Distribution Factors for Prestressed
Concrete, Spread Box-Girder Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, (October),
pp.573581. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)10840702(2006)11%3A5(573) [Accessed October 31, 2012].
32 Kulicki, J. & Mertz, D., 2006. Evolution of vehicular live load models
during the interstate design era and beyond. Transportation Research Circular EC10, (3), pp.126. Available at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec104.pdf#page=7 [Accessed
October 31, 2012].
33 Kozy, B. & Connor, R., 2010. Proposed Revisions to AASHTO-LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications for Orthotropic Steel Deck Bridges. Journal of Bridge ,
(December), pp.759767. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000214 [Accessed October 31, 2012].
34 Harris, D.K., 2007. Live Load for Bridges Lateral Load Distribution and
Deck Design Recommendations for the Sandwich Plate System (SPS) in Bridge
Applications. .
35 Li, J. & Chen, G., 2010. Method to Compute Live-Load Distribution in
Bridge Girders. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and , (November),
pp.191198. Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.19435576.0000091 [Accessed October 31, 2012].
36 Cai, C., Chandolu, A. & Araujo, M., 2009. Quantification of intermediate
diaphragm effects on load distributions of premtremmed concrete girder bridges.
PCI journal, pp.4863. Available at: http://cat.inist.fr/?
aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21348894 [Accessed October 31, 2012].
37 Zou, B. et al., 2010. Evaluation of load distribution factor by series
solution for orthotropic bridge decks. Journal of Aerospace , (1988), pp.240248.
Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000007
[Accessed October 31, 2012].
38 Dawood, H., ElGawady, M. & Hewes, J., 2011. Behavior of Segmental
Precast Post-Tensioned Bridge Piers Under Lateral Loads. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, (October), pp.735746. Available at:

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000252 [Accessed
October 31, 2012].
39 Zokaie, T., 2000. AASHTO-LRFD LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION
SPECIFICATIONS. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 5(2), pp.131138. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE
%2910840702%282000%295%3A2%28131%29.
40 Tabsh, S. & Tabatabai, M., 2001. Live load distribution in girder bridges
subject to oversized trucks. Journal of Bridge Engineering, (February), pp.916.
Available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:1(9)
[Accessed October 31, 2012].
41 Islam, A.A. & Yazdani, N., 2008. Performance of AASHTO girder bridges
under blast loading. Engineering Structures. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029607004907 [Accessed
October 31, 2012].
42 Wassef, W.G., 2010. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE
DESIGN SPECIFICATION AS N EXAMPLE OF PROBABILISTIC-BASED SPECIFICATIONS.
Journal of Bridge , (December), pp.759767. Available at:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000214 [Accessed
October 31, 2012].
43 Lin, M., 2004. Verification of AASHTO-LRFD Specifications Live Load
Distribution Factor Formulas for HPS Bridges. Available
at:http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?ucin1108697828 [Accessed October 31, 2012].
44 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
2010. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.